////
!! Info:
*
*
*
!! Communications:
A long-term, cute version of [[PH]]. I haven't filled the cricketed section out yet, and that's fine.
//Ghetto public IMing off my wiki, @taboi. I need a globby method for communicating fragments which doesn't cost an entire tiddler per message. @ is about molecularizing briefer communications and [[lft]] for signaling. Unfortunately, this also doesn't make it easy for my interlocutors to cite the passage through hyperlinking alone, and it requires more work on the part of a reader to disentangle the uncertain timeline.<<ref "i">>//
{{@: Focus}}
---
<<footnotes "i" "This isn't the best option for rapidfire dialogue (and I'm not particularly skilled in it, I suppose), and hence they have the right to ask me to stop using this flawed tool.">>
; 2019.11.12 - @chameleon
Thank you for both of your congrats :) I should reply on @ more.
I signed up for letter.wiki after seeing it in your link log: https://letter.wiki/KonataIzumi/. They wanted me to use my real name, but I'll do that (unfortunately, quite literally) over my dead body. They can enjoy the pseud. I browsed through; I almost responded to a TERF, but I don't think that's a terribly good idea, we will quite literally end up talking past each other.
; 2019.11.09 - @chameleon
[[Congratz|https://wiki.waifu.haus/#2019.11.09%20-%20uh%20oh%2C%20stingy]] on the new job and dinero, and sucks on the vehicle. Hopefully, Monday will be significantly better. Similarly, I'm hoping our vehicles don't break down before the new job for us.
; 2019.11.07 - @chameleon
[[Liberal|https://wiki.waifu.haus/#2019.11.07%20-%20*shakes%20fist*%20liberals]] is one of them really hard words to define. I can't say I'm a huge fan of the variations of Maoism I've seen, but I'm not sure the lines make sense to me either (e.g. I'm not convinced there's a meaningful difference between factory workers and farmer-peasants). I'm convinced the Rule of Law can be peeled apart from dictatorial totalitarianism (though perhaps that's uncharitable). To some [[dok]], I admire the fervor and willingness to sacrifice, admission of the necessity of violence, the vigilant appreciation for neverending class struggle, and the pursuit of unification of what I take to be Maoism. As a political program applied in the world, I consider it a failure (though that is typical of any system I've seen applied) since it still centralized political [[power]]. It never escaped capitalism in my eyes.
; 2019.10.23 - @chameleon
Congratulations! In my gibberish: I wish you both decades of fulfillment, wrestling, and [[T42T]] dialectics all the way down.
; 2019.10.18 - [[@h0p3|https://wiki.waifu.haus/#%40%3A%20h0p3]]
Inane comment lol, but I'm loving how your letter to DOR is developing. And I thought I had to wait a while...
Hope life finds you well. I'm really enjoying being with the hubs. We're going to have our basic ceremony next week.
; 2019.10.14 - @chameleon
Lol. I adore how you aren't immediately disgusted by me, btw. See, I just don't have enough people in my life who I can talk about this with. <3
I'm having a tough time finding a picture of the box (which I believe has changed); my google-fu is failing me. Oh, it definitely has a cute anime girl on the cover to match. My memory is pretty awful, but I don't think I've ever seen an anime girl that wasn't cute.
; 2019.10.13 - [[@h0p3|https://wiki.waifu.haus/#%40%3A%20h0p3]]
[[RE:|https://philosopher.life/#Product%20Review%3A%20Pocket%20Pussy]] 0/10 doesn't have [[a cute anime girl on the cover|https://www.kanojotoys.com/marshmallow-touch-chubby-girl-onahole-p-4399.html]]
; 2019.10.12 - @chameleon
[[//|https://wiki.waifu.haus/#Chameleon%20Standards%20Superstructure]] nedles to say -—– i'l sucesfuly never mispel a word in scrable again. swetothed subokeper comites enjoy the biternes of cofe, spoge, and pe. whiporwil po is never fodstufs except maybe in zos.
; 2019.10.06 - @chameleon
It's an art project. We're making art out of books for my wife's library's "Books+Art" competition thing. It's preachy AF, ofc, as always. Still brainstorming and hashing it out. Thinking about making a tiny bookshelf to have the students think about their own books. We're thinking about making a tiny wiki for this project in particular too, as I think it would be nice to have part of the exhibit sit in cyberspace. It's just {[[Dream]]}ing for now.
; 2019.10.06 - [[@h0p3|https://wiki.waifu.haus/#%40%3A%20h0p3]]
What's up with your new category, [[Buxe & Braincandy]]? Books? lol, I'm a little confused. Looks cool though! I love to see you write new pages or update your older ones :D
; 2019.10.03 - @chameleon
wtf did i just listen to? i thought my mac speakers were fucked up or something. Delicious. Thank you. I'm wondering if you will be interested in the music scene out in Nashville.
; 2019.10.03 - [[@h0p3|https://wiki.waifu.haus/#2019.09.06%20-%20h0p3%3A]]
Shape of you, eh? Why not take it up to eleven =w=. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXfQsHT5c30
; 2019.09.29 - [[@h0p3|https://wiki.waifu.haus/#2019.09.06%20-%20h0p3%3A]]
We're done at last! 2019.09.06 - h0p3: bitches brew. Enjoy!
; 2019.09.27 - @chameleon
[[I did|https://wiki.waifu.haus/#2019.09.27%20-%20there%20can%20only%20be%20one]]! =). Also, I hope [[your speech goes well|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FnO3igOkOk]]. It's gotta be surreal for you; it almost always is for me when I'm leaving. Oh, if you are bored out of your mind (which I find hard to imagine), you might check out [[The Genius of Birds|https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/25938481-the-genius-of-birds]] by Jennifer Ackerman.
; 2019.09.21 - @chameleon
I have been [[there|https://wiki.waifu.haus/#2019.09.21%20-%20more%20letter%20musings]]! Imho, the length makes it unwieldy to write (at least in my brief experience), but it doesn't make it unwieldy to read. It's highly unlikely you could write something too long for me. I //want// to read (I prefer something below 500k word count, XD). I've been reading and re-reading your letter. Build what makes sense to you, go wild if you want, or be comfortable. Skies the limit, and we got time, yo.
; 2019.09.16 - @chameleon
My opinion is likely irrelevant, as usual, =). I don't know what [[ratification|https://wiki.waifu.haus/#Emigration%20Checklist]] looks like for you, and I'm sure you are ridiculously busy. I doubt you will need it, but you might. Plenty of people won't give a shit about your piece of paper, especially given your experience (though there are plenty who don't care about experience but focus way more on the interview and networking process itself), but if you think it would be difficult to ratify this once you are in the states, I think you should do it now. I've had to present my own credentials here and there, and it's a [[ltf]] blessing to be able to just whip out your credential-genitalia on command.
Dear Mahakala: `/salute`, o7.
As to [[waiting, 😈|https://wiki.waifu.haus/#2019.09.06%20-%20h0p3%3A]], lol, [[oh, ninja please|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wllN1i8bR2w]]. I'm lovin' watching it slowly unfold; we're in agreement on the thrill of this [[Cyberspace Mind-Meld|https://wiki.waifu.haus/#Cyberspace%20Mind-Meld]] [[hyperconversation]]. I'd much rather be taken on the satorilogical ride of madness! This is a fantastic treat for me. I'm opening up the letter on impulse, lol.
Also, sorry about [[the blitz|https://wiki.waifu.haus/#2019.09.16%20-%20slow%20down!!!]]. I've been behind on my grafting. You are correct though (and I appreciate your watchful gaze), I'm feeling a bout of quasi-mania.
; 2019.09.12 - @chameleon
[[Awww yisss|https://wiki.waifu.haus/#2019.09.12%20-%20ISSUED]]! Fantastic. =)
; 2019.09.11 - @chameleon
Unfortunately, not Nashville. It's easier to find like-minded people and jobs in Nashville. I think you are going to like it there. I live all the way at the Eastern tip in Johnson City. It's awesome that we may be fairly close! =)
; 2019.09.11 - [[@h0p3|https://wiki.waifu.haus/#%40%3A%20h0p3]]
[[2019.09.10 - TDL: Trip]]<<footnote "NS" "I've totally been namesearching myself ;)">> - you're in TN?! Dang! For some reason I thought you were in Chicago; maybe the timezone thing. What region of TN <<footnote "TN" "if you say Nashville I'll explode">>? Crazy small world.
; 2019.08.25 - @chameleon
When I'm wrong about what matters, you should call me out! While I have the political right, I do not have the moral right to say just anything. I'm grateful you would take the time to say something and to hold me accountable; it is [[The Golden Rule]]. I appreciate your desire to help me express the truth in a palatable way. Unfortunately, what I have to say eventually becomes unpalatable to most everyone in the end. Are you sure you aren't unjustifiably tone-policing me? Are you sure you aren't pointing to rhetoric rather than substance here? Despite how little I quickly say in that one bullet-point, there is more to see in this wiki. It's not clear to me you have taken the time to evaluate my sentence in my context with sufficient charity. I think we have just a misunderstanding here.
If it makes you feel any better, these were her words. I also don't think it's absurd because it's true. Unless it's necessary, I'm not here to quibble over the locution, connotation, and conversational implicature (as an autist [even this is shorthand, right?], that would be an endless task for me with everyone I meet and read). Tell me the significant semantic content that differs if you think I'm wrong. I think it's reasonable to cut me some slack in this case.
For irrational and immoral reasons, Whitney doesn't want to work with or be around this woman who is married to a transexual person (and, yes, the details are morally arbitrary in this case). I am taking her to task, and I suspect I will have to defend my new co-worker. To be clear, when Whitney signaled for this outgrouping with her disgust about this gossip, I corrected her with a: "cool, that's wonderful," knowing full well that turns me into an untouchable with her and anyone she tells (certainly my boss, as I have seen). She chose not to wrestle much further with me on the topic though.
You are correct that I owe the entire rainbow a great deal. I think I know something about this solidarity you speak of, and I cede very little ground when it comes to morality. I have the opportunity to defend, explain, and justify the moral rights of persons all the time with the people I teach, including those who have [[power]] over me. Yes, I regularly intervene and listen to my youth on these topics. However imperfectly, I'm actually fighting in the trenches here; I'm paying the price in my mission. I aim to follow [[The Moral Law]] all the way down, as you know (which is hardly to say I'm succeeding). Does this ease your conscience some?
; 2019.08.25 - [[@h0p3|https://wiki.waifu.haus/#%40%3A%20h0p3]]
In your wiki review - 2019.08.23 - Wiki Review: Bacon is Delicious - you mentioned that Whitney was "married to a trans". My approximate reaction. That's a really strange way of putting it. A trans woman (mtf) or a trans man (ftm)?
Ever since meeting Nobu (a trans woman) I've been wary of phrasing like this, it leads down some sketchy avenues. I'm very enthusiastic about LGBT rights, being a pansexual woman myself, and from my perspective solidarity across the entire rainbow is indispensible; cede a centimeter, and social conservatives will take a kilometer.
IDK, this isn't a callout post, it's your wiki and you can write what you want (and even if I didn't say that I doubt I could stop you from doing so, lol). Just my conscience demanding I say something, really.
; 2019.08.15 - [[@h0p3|https://wiki.waifu.haus/#2019.08%20Mid-month%20Journal%20Review]]
To answer your @, Senpai, I'm going to use it for gaming, yeah c: Probably will even dual boot (much as I despise windows, it has some good games, so I'll have a lightweight windows partition solely for gaming)...[[Yep|https://wiki.waifu.haus/#Avalokiteshvara]]. Gaming. I've had a midrange card for years by now and I'm sick of it. I want to be able to make games my bitch again ;)
; 2019.08.14 - @chameleon
Your possible [[future computer|https://wiki.waifu.haus/#2019.08.14%20-%20New%20PC%3F]] looks amazing. I'm excited. Random thoughts from someone who doesn't know computers as well as you:
* The cooler that comes with the Ryzen is loud, imho, but I've not slapped my hyper212 on it (maybe I should).
* One of the reasons I didn't go with that SSD is because it is QLC. We've had 2 SSDs die on us in our household, so I'm worried about it (perhaps irrationally). Nvme has not disappointed me!
* I assume you will be gaming or doing GPGPU with that beast! You might consider a cheap GPU for passthrough.
* If price matters:
** You might consider dropping to a 3600/3600X.
*** Single-threading is still king to me, but you may make far more use of those cores than I would.
** When was the last time you used an optical drive? I still had a floppy drive 2 builds ago, and my last build, [[monster-10]] still has an optical. Might not be worth it; I simply don't know. If you've used one in the past year, then I think should you should keep it.
* I know some people think 32GB of RAM is too much, but they are wrong. I think this machine will last for a long time.
* Call me shallow, but I want to see the case too! =)
; 2019.08.11 - @chameleon
I'm sorry I don't have versioning set inside the wiki yet, but it is on the [[docket|Wiki: TDL]]. You are the third person who has asked, and it makes good sense! None of the versioning addons are great. I wish we could store ONLY diffs in TW as well. I modified the [[MacDonald quote|Love]]. [[Love]] is a topic I keep thinking about.
; 2019.08.11 - [[@h0p3|https://wiki.waifu.haus/#%40%3A%20h0p3]]
I see you edited the [[Love]] page on your wiki. I wish I had diffs, because I'm looking at it like "hmmm, I've been writing the gushing page recently, have I just been subtweeted"
; 2019.08.06 - [[@h0p3|https://wiki.waifu.haus/#%40%3A%20h0p3]]
Ping pong. Hope you're doing well, Senpai. I saw you got my letter but I guess you're not planning to respond yet. Just wanted to touch base, maybe have a chat over discord (or @) about stuff.
; 2019.07.30 - @chameleon
No, doubt, the wiki is a [[mind-amplifier|https://wiki.waifu.haus/#2019.07.30%20-%20Loper%20OS]]. It's a fuckton of work, imho, but it allows one to autonomously generate feedback loops, abstractions, and relationships in the stories we tell ourselves like no other tool I've used before. Tools which help you communicate better with yourself (iteratively improving or growing representations) may often be amazing [[communications devices|http://www.loper-os.org/?p=568]] as well.
I know you are still rapidly piecing together the infancy of your wiki. Who knows when you get the chance, but I'd be interested in [[your reasoning|https://wiki.waifu.haus/#2019.07.30%20-%20%22Exists%22]] about [[John "everythingstudies" Nerst]]. I'd be interested in his response to your thoughts as well. It takes a special mind to do philosophy and engineering.
Aside, I'm enjoying your linking to other people. You know how to pick out the [[beautiful]]-weird. I'm hoping in time you will be able to reveal a history of all the cool and crazy [[gems]] you've encountered. You give me the feeling like you've got 10,000 rabbitholes to pull out of your hat.
; 2019.07.27 - @chameleon
Thank you for [[the illustration|https://wiki.waifu.haus/#2019.07.27%20-%20h0p3%3A]]. Last time I wrote HTML was back in the 90's, and I didn't need none that this fancy CSS `/mumble about lawn and old dog`; I'm way out of my league. My friend [[Sphygmus]] built $:/plugins/sphygmus/core/stylesheet/flex4h0p3 for me. It works when I import it on your wiki. You should be able to tweak it to your
liking. IIRC, I had to adjust some other appearance settings as well.
; 2019.10.19 - @DeathOfRobinhood
[[This|http://lisahistory.net/hist106/pw/articles/AnimationinPalaeolithicArt.pdf]] is [[cool|https://i.imgur.com/bEAsfSr.gif]].
; 2019.07.12 - @DeathOfRobinhood
If you have a collection of quotes sitting around somewhere, I would like to read them; you know how to pick out the [[salience]]. There is something special about [[antipleonasm]]s. I would argue, in your shoes, that Christ is something like an antipleonasm (in terms of moral responsibility only the //finite// aspect of the [[fff]] is applicable). I'm extremely curious about your numinous/voluminous claim. I stand on quicksand trying to reason about how the transcendent becomes immanent to any [[dok]]. When it comes to [[faith]], one of our strongest disagreements will be about the conditions of freedom; that may also be worth our attention.
; 2019.07.12 - @h0p3
Yes, I got stuck on that Booth quote and thought the possibility that someone somewhere might benefit from a visit from some reddit nomad was worth the time to it took to share it.
Don't worry about taking a lot of time to respond, or even about making your responses to me especially sophisticated. I'm still working of my response to the other half of our earlier exchange (the 'God email') and am coming around to the idea that the numinous does not necessarily reside in the voluminous :)
; 2019.07.11 - @DeathOfRobinhood
I am a fan of [[that quote|https://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/c9pafd/william_booth_on_loneliness/]]. I take it you've been reading //Friendship at the Margins//. The letter is taking forever, btw. I'm sorry.
; 2019.07.11 - @Eli
I'm also interested in [[what you have to say|https://eli.li/2019/07/11/i-should-probably-be-doing-work-but-i-really-want-to-write-a-thing-about-the-power-politics-at-play]] about virtue signaling, selective honesty and omission, imagecrafting, [[moral]] responsibilities in wielding rhetoric, and the nature of [[power]] in representation and [[naming]].
* [[@: chameleon]]
* [[@: DeathOfRobinhood]]
* [[@: Eli]]
* [[@: h0p3]]
* [[@: hypertext 2020]]
* [[@: jbaty]]
* [[@: Kevin Kovacs]]
* [[@: kickscondor]]
* [[@: Ovy]]
* [[@: Phil Nunnally]]
* [[@: Sphygmus]]
//That line got me. Dank mayocidal lolcow maymays just fo' moi? Oh you, you shouldn't have! It's exactly what I always wanted. I know it will help me escape from my crippling depression. And, yes, I'll be so careful: I'll make sure not to cut myself. Harming oneself is haram. Womp womp.//
2019.11.17 - @h0p3: She says to me, "I think you should [[self-identify|Identifying With Fictional Characters]] with that stupid man suit."
2019.10.19 - @h0p3: Daddy, what did you do during the erosion of our democracy? ... I shared some white-hot memes with a small group of likeminded friends.
2019.10.04 - @h0p3: My daughter said I'm a "dragon who hoards [[gem]]s and breathes fire through argumentation."
2019.09.20 - @h0p3: I am Trump: "I'm speaking with myself, number one, because I have a very good brain, and I've said a lot of things."
2019.07.05 - @h0p3: My daughter told me: "I'd roast you, but it's wrong to burn trash."
2019.06.20 - @h0p3: My daughter proclaimed: "[[The Good]] is a Bad Idea." [[Be A Good Dad]] is working out absurdly well.
2019.06.19 - @h0p3: Hey baby, I just shit my pants. Can I get into yours?
2019.06.15 - @h0p3: 笑贫不笑娼。
2019.06.11 - @h0p3: When you try to take an interest in real-life issues and end up a mentally unhinged recluse living in a nightmare alternate reality fuelled entirely by memes...
2019.06.11 - @h0p3: Mommy is soooo proud of you, sweaty. Let's put this sperg out up on the fridge with all your other failures.
2019.06.10 - @h0p3: MORE👏🏿TRANS👏🏿POC👏🏿PRIVATE👏🏿PRISON👏🏿GUARDS👏🏿
!! Hypertext 2020's:
* https://www.kickscondor.com/notes/hypertext-2020
* https://wiki.waifu.haus/#%40%3A%20hypertext%202020
* https://sphygm.us/#%40%3A%20hypertext%202020
* https://philosopher.life/#%40%3A%20hypertext%202020
---
!! Senpais' Current [[Prompts|Prompted Introspection]]:
* Sir【[[Kickscondor]]】
** We should set a end date - like end of December? Earlier?
* Madame ༼[[chameleon]]༽
** What is the wiki for?
* Madame ᛝ[[Sphygmus]]ᛝ
* Sir ⦗[[h0p3]]⦘
---
!! 2019-12-10: [[kickscondor]]
* https://www.kickscondor.com/stenos/hypertext-2020:-metachat
(//h0p3: Apologies I don’t have a response yet.//)
<<<
Sphygmus:
Kicks, do you ever deal with information overload? Like, you’re browsing and surfing and discovering personal websites and interesting articles and now you’ve got 10, 15, 20 tabs (tb: 100s?!i??!) open and they all seem like cool rabbit holes and you’re not quite sure where to go next? Or what it all means anymore? (maybe that’s just me.)
<<<
I have experienced this in the past - and I still experience this with books. Although I’m not sure it’s the same. What I experience is //gah, I’m not spending enough time reading all the things I want to read, finding all the things I want to discover, given how much there is!!// And I assume that’s what people mean when they say ‘information overload’. (Your image of so many tabs.)
Is it actually ‘overload’? Or is it that there is infinite information (and there was even a century ago) and you’re feeling some inability to approach it? Which, in my case, has usually been about losing my discipline for a time span.
But I am spending the right amount of time reading online right now - and I have a very long list to work through that is in a sensible order. (I no longer have tabs open - I do have a link list, so that has helped.) I am not spending enough time reading books. If I spend enough hours each week, I feel like I am at least methodically working through the infinite mass and I feel healthy.
If yes, what do you do with that feeling? Does curation help? Like you’re specifically looking for cool people doing cool things in obscurity and you want to let us folks in your corner of the world – so does the endless array of cool people doing cool things feel overwhelming or invigorating or? (I get the sense it might be the opposite, that you feel like it’s hard to find cool people doing cool things. correct me here!)
It’s so cool to me that you care to ask me a question like this! That, alone, makes me feel like there are plenty of ‘cool people doing cool things’. Even if it was just you and me - that would be enough.
No, I feel like there are many more cool people than I can possibly be aware of. I worry sometimes that I have no sensibility. I honestly find something amazing in almost everyone I discover. If they are working in hypertext, it feels like I can count on it. And yeah – it’s invigorating.
I do wish I was aware of more black writers. I know there is a tendency to do this out of guilt or political activism. But I simply feel like black writers have an unusual angle. I think this is why black artists are popular in mainstream culture - subconsciously we know that they are outliers and can show us what it means to be human in a totally unexpected way. I mean I am definitely interested in anyone out there, regardless of their race - but among Americans, I think black artists have shown that they are always on the avant garde of cultural movements.
So, at the same time, it is difficult to find certain subcultures that you may want to find. (I would also love to find a really sweet fitness goth blog. Especially if it was a .onion site.)
When I do find someone that I really really REAALLY connect with - then I greedily spam that link wherever I can - in my notes, into Fraidycat, I recite it in my mind. I am so afraid of losing it. And it means that I begin to visit that site very frequently, to try to read everything that I can. When I found [[Ton’s blog|https://www.zylstra.org/blog/]], it was like that. And I was very appreciative that I could tell which posts were ephemeral and which were polished, finalized essays.
This is also what helped get me into h0p3 (and you and chamy, because you follow the same conventions): because you clearly mark dated, temporary notes vs longer, central nodes or essays. So it is very easy to know where to ‘start’. Which is appreciated when I am discovering someone and want to move from the polished stuff down to the day-to-day stuff.
(//Thinking more about your other questions…//)
<<<
Chameleon:
The subtitle is “things chameleon knows” and I feel like that encapsulates it. To me this is a website to throw my ideas to the wall and see what sticks. It’s obviously not every last thing I know, but it covers a broad spectrum of my interests and ideas.
<<<
Yes, this seems like ‘self-modeling’. Keep going. Why do it publicly?
<br>
!! 2019-12-08: [[Sphygmus]]
* https://sphygm.us/#%40%3A%20hypertext%202020%3A%20public%20modeling
* https://sphygm.us/#%40%3A%20hypertext%202020%3A%20directories%20%26%20linking
<br>
!! 2019-12-06 22:05 EST: [[h0p3]]
''>> 2019.12.03: [[kickscondor]]''
I can appreciate the conduit metaphor. I like to think you add weight in how things are picked out and transferred, maybe more like a neuron (which is arguably a conduit of sorts).
<<<
Are we modeling fictional characters or not? Does it matter?
<<<
I don't think these questions just matter to me; I think they matter more objectively.
Maybe you are asking: what is the "self"? I don't have a satisfactory answer. We face [[infinigress]]es here; in a sense, it can't be satisfied by us, it can only be sought.<<footnote "h:tsf" "Some things are more essential to who one is than others, some more [[salient]] than others, but the entire map of one's dialectical identity stretches across at least the lightcone from one's conception. The wiki is particularly useful in re-using (including finding) parts and piecing together an enriched model of oneself.">>
Maybe you need to define fiction further for me. It may come in [[dok]]. It seems like the relationship between author intentions and reader interpretations may define fiction in context. This is not an area I understand nearly well enough.
Insofar as imaginary characters pop up in our [[phenomenology]], we are modeling imaginary characters who are a part of who we are. Humor, irony, counterfactuals, hypothetical reasoning, rhetoric, and imagination all seem to have fictional elements to them; all of those are part of my modeling. Even proofs in classical logic rely upon the absurd, particularly in [subproofs, stages, or layers], to eventually point us to the truth. In some cases, we are forced to model things we don't mean in order to model the things we do. We also might think of choice as modeling who we could be, generating a set of fictional characters, and selecting from them. I'm open to the claim models always have something fictional about them insofar as we pretend they are the things-in-themselves. Bohr's model or Newtonian physics might be fictions in a sense, but they act as intuition pumps and provide the initial kernel material over which we can iterate and bootstrap a more accurate model too.
Do I think the "self" is a fiction? It depends. We can be wrong about who we are because there is an objective "who we are."<<footnote "h:hyd" "How you define yourself is not who you are, but only a part of it.">> Who we think we are (including our own modeling of the world) might be fictional in some sense, but the gap between who we think we are and who we actually are is not fictional (though it seems even that gap is built into "who we are"). Who we are can only be understood through dialectics with others, and at least sometimes that occurs through dialectics with imagined characters. Of course, certainty cannot be achieved,<<footnote "h:cba" "If justified certainty is the absolute standard for knowledge, then we cannot know if we are modeling fictional characters.">> and any time you posit a limit, you posit something beyond it. <<footnote "h:sbi" "and what is beyond that limit is sometimes only something which fiction can initially explore">>
Yes, it matters who we are, especially since what matters about who we are can't be solely defined by us. It matters [[W5H]] we attempt to represent ourselves, and fiction matters at least with respect to how it serves reality. If I recognize it as such, I try to ask myself, "What is this fiction for?" The purpose of fiction is part of its meaning.
<<<
To me, wonderful things and wonderful people make life worth living. (How do I know if it’s ‘wonderful’? — Because it makes my life worth living.) (To prevent you from asking me to clarify - it ends there - an instinctive feeling of simply ‘this is worth it to me’.)
<<<
The process of clarifying who we are, including what is valuable to us,<<footnote "h:ssm" "Socrates goes up to the counter. “What would you like?” asks the barista. “What would you recommend?” asks Socrates. “I would go with the pumpkin spice latte,” says the barista. “Why?” asks Socrates. “It’s seasonal,” she answers. “But why exactly is a seasonal drink better than a non-seasonal drink?” “Well,” said the barista, “I guess it helps to connect you to the rhythm of the changing seasons.” “But do you do other things to connect yourself to that rhythm?” asked Socrates. “Like wear seasonal clothing? Or read seasonal books? If not, how come it’s only drinks that are seasonal?” “I’m not sure,” says the barista. “Think about it,” says Socrates, and leaves without getting anything.">> appears to be at least part of the treadmill of generating our models, and they ought to be. Our brains are constantly modeling the world (including ourselves); there'd be no intentional consciousness without it.
I agree even the possibility of wonderful people (and other things in virtue of them) are fundamental to what makes life worth living.
What makes a person wonderful "to me" is not necessarily what makes a person wonderful. Likewise, what makes life worth living "to me" and what makes it objectively worth living are not identical; I can only hope to try to wisely close the gap. I agree that sentiments of "this is worth it to me" are a fundamental part of the objective calculation of what actually makes it worth it. One can be wrong about what makes life worth living though, which is why continued clarification is necessary; we are obligated to attempt to improve our understanding of what makes life worth living and what counts as "wonderful."<<footnote "h:tfe" "I suggest wonderful things can obtain even if there's no one there to think they are wonderful.">>
Even though I agree your instinct, intuition, and sentiment (and their development or inspiration) are necessary, that doesn't make them sufficiently justified.<<footnote "h:tsj" "The 'because I said so' parental cliche is not a strong argument. The ultimate reasons 'why' aren't competely inherent to any particualr agent's point of view.">> There can be a difference between what you want and what you should want. Godwin's Law: what makes Hitler's sentiments about what matters (including what makes his life worth living) objectively wrong in some cases? Is it simply because he doesn't value what I value? Why should we be prevented from asking him to clarify not just what it means for him to say "this is worth it to me," but also "why should it be worth it to him?" We are hitting the paradox of tolerance here, and we have to think about how to justify intolerance. At the very least, it requires democratically mapping and weighing all of our instincts (though that itself is seeking objective evaluation). Part of the issue is that we don't obviously have a moral right to be just any version of ourselves. We don't own ourselves all the way down, including our epistemic justifications. We actually owe things to others (duties and rights correspond, and ownership is defined by clusters of those relationships), though that may be what you are trying to get at in living for "wonderful people" here. First-personally, justice is at least fairness in negotiating between what is valuable "to me" (whatever the self is) and "to others."
Some people think of philosophy as a form of therapy. There is a kind of peace which one might achieve by no longer asking "why" or stoically minimizing desires. Some might go so far as to say the only solution is to dissolve the belief there was a problem at all.
Lastly, the brain has evolved to be a probabilistic inference machine that seeks energy-efficient modeling (those specimens tend to be more likely to survive).<<footnote "h:nts" "Interestingly, the experience of time may be related to the amount of energy necessary to compute what is novel, and on a view like Heidegger's, we're trying to escape thinking about the world, as though the evolutionary pursuit of energy-efficiency pushes consciousness to seek eliminating itself.">> One energy-efficient filter, inference, or instinct about value is to say it matters because I say it matters, and leave it at that. Conversely, one could be chemically addicted to continually trying to ask and answer "why."
<br>
!! 2019-12-04 20:58 CST: [[chameleon]]
> What do you personally want to talk about? Like do you have any topics you want to pitch?
I like the PSM topic. What does it mean to me?
I started the wiki out of writer's block on my blog, and it quickly grew into something I actually had fun working on. But what it's //for// is an interesting question.
The subtitle is "things chameleon knows" and I feel like that encapsulates it. To me this is a website to throw my ideas to the wall and see what sticks. It's obviously not every last thing I know, but it covers a broad spectrum of my interests and ideas.
<br>
!! 2019.12.03: [[kickscondor]]
<<<
sphygmus:
Perhaps it’s about feeling — when the wind is warm but just a little sharp, and blows that feeling of longing straight through your bones — if one empathizes with that feeling, resonates with it, then perhaps they’ll resonate with my work as well.
<<<
(//First off - great quotes! The low-key Nadia quote is unexpected, but very refreshing//.)
I actually think your wiki is an ‘artist statement’ without needing to explicitly state that - and I think that’s why h0p3 could capture your essence so clearly. Maybe he inferred it from all the pieces?
With h0p3, I think I am more curious about the ‘self-modeling’ part of the phrase - but with you I definitely wonder more about the ‘public’ part. And you kind of answer that here. It sounds like you’re looking for kindred spirits. But you also keep a lot of things private - and you do explain this from a curatorial angle:
<<<
Perhaps it’s confusing to stumble upon a website where everything is mashed together — the mundane details of what I ate yesterday right alongside finished letters, notes on projects, and my drafting of this response.
<<<
How do you decide what to reveal and what to make public? (I ask because I haven’t resolved this for myself either - whereas I think h0p3 has made this line very easy for himself.)<<footnote "k:2" "This also seems very pertinent to the question of ‘public self-modeling’, since h0p3 begins defining this phrase by exhorting people to ‘deprivatize’ themselves. ">>
<<<
h0p3:
I take it that you don’t see yourself as a PSM, kicks. Is that fair to say?
<<<
Yeah, I see more self as a conduit. I really get into finding people and connecting people (and saying hi to them). I don’t have a desire to preserve myself or to catalog myself. But having the dialetic does make some of that worthwhile. And maybe I do model myself in other ways: in pixels, in code, in colors flickering.
I mean - you’ve all influenced me a lot and I find myself mimicking some of your conventions. This leads me to think that part of PSM-ing helps a human function day-to-day. (Talking through, remembering, clarifying thoughts.)
I wish I understood better whether ‘modeling’ meant a self-‘styling’, self-‘bending’, self-‘constructing’ vs just trying to represent yourself as you are, ‘the plain picture’ [[in Bob Dylan’s meaning|https://youtu.be/mnl5X5MQKTg?t=104]]. Maybe it’s all of it, somewhere between, or simply not possible. Are we modeling fictional characters or not? Does it matter?
<<<
h0p3:
Why do you have sites like yours on the web, what are they for? What is anything for?
<<<
To me, it’s the same - I act as conduit for discovering wonderful things. To me, wonderful things and wonderful people make life worth living. (How do I know if it’s ‘wonderful’? — Because it makes my life worth living.) (//To prevent you from asking me to clarify - it ends there - an instinctive feeling of simply ‘this is worth it to me’//.)
<<<
h0p3:
You have the chance to reason about whether or not I’m trying to do the best I can with my pile of puke.
<<<
Hahah! We’re all standing around examining each other’s sick. I like this interpretation. I think that if people could begin with this image, use it as the basis for their consensus, they can admirably proceed with the dialectic. There’s a lot less picking things apart if you cut the whole conversation some slack. (//But I’m also glad that you asked me to clarify - and that you dug into the response - sure, why not? It’s all doodoo - but still worth rooting in, on the chance of some swallowed gems…//)
<<<
h0p3:
[…] my wiki allows me to re-use my data to understand what is salient in the world (including myself).
<<<
This is a great point! I forget that you are already employing a lot of self-editing and self-curating. (And what you do with us - making a tiddler for Sphygmus that curates her, in a way.) So this is starting to lead into my next prompt, what you refer to here as ‘the chain’ (but which I also think of as hypertext ‘layers’)… let me think how to articulate this and I’ll get back to you. ‘Soup to nuts’ is one way of putting it, but it’s imprecise, it’s not just a linear progression toward ‘the end’ - or it doesn’t have to be, I guess.
<<<
h0p3:
I keep almost mindlessly answering: 42 or 42ness, which is almost vacuously true, but I’m still not showing my work well enough to you.
<<<
I think this is probably your most useful analogy to helping me comprehend self-modeling. This goes in the final.
<br>
!! 2019-12-02 21:46 EST: [[h0p3]]
I take it that you don't see yourself as a [[PSM]], [[kicks]]. Is that fair to say?
<br>
!! 2019-12-01: [[Sphygmus]]
* https://sphygm.us/#%40%3A%20hypertext%202020%3A%20terms%20of%20understanding
<br>
!! 2019-12-01 18:55 CST: [[chameleon]]
I think h0p3 is trustworthy with maintaining the page, so I'll use this for my "send"s from now on, lol.
Sphygmus: I'm pretty sure expert PSM is from me, lol: [[Expert Wikier|https://wiki.waifu.haus/#Expert%20Wikier]]. kicks even quoted it on the first post about me over there! It's based on the /prog/ expert programmer copypasta. I really had to bend over backwards to get TiddlyWiki stuff in there!
h0p3: I have the opposite problem to you. I struggle with what to say. I'm very brusque at the best of times :)
<br>
!! 2019-12-01: [[kickscondor]] & [[h0p3]]
* https://www.kickscondor.com/stenos/hypertext-2020:-metachat
** [[2019.12.01 - Antipleonasm Analysis: Telic Drafting]]
<br>
!! 2019-12-01: [[kickscondor]]
<<<
As a habitual wall-of-texting sprawler, I feel some of the claustrophobifying tweet-syndrome creeping into me here.
<<<
Looks like we have a formidable antipleonasmic analysis on our hands here. 😎
<<<
Adequate shorthand for what?
<<<
An adequate shorthand to describe you, your wiki, your work there. I feel like the phrase was an attempt to wrap all of that up into a shorter name so that you can refer to it briefly - and perhaps so people can understand from a glimpse. Or even so you can understand or remind yourself of what you are doing.
So, my first question is just to look at the phrase again. Seems like a good starting point. Is it that to you? Where does it function today?<<footnote "k:[1]" "As additional material - ‘public self-modeling’ is a phrase that chameleon has had fun with and I’m not sure to what extent it is a meme for her or if it is quite serious or what. On the other hand, Sphygmus has [[said|https://sphygm.us/#190921%20%E2%80%93%20Log%3A%20self-representation]] a few months ago (referencing this word) that her wiki is “not an attempt to answer the question of who I am.” So, I guess I also wonder if “self-modeling” is a quest to answer who you are or if it is something else.">>
<<<
I’m giddy+nauseous at the thought of how to maximize a hypertexter’s autonomy and expressivity while still packaging it up for a securely scaled mesh.
<<<
You can fully expound - that could be a virtue of this style of chat. You could footnote off into a new tiddler, if you need. Or you can simply link in an old one if it represents your answer still well enough. Carry on. (And on.)
<br>
!! 2019-12-01 18:44 EST: [[h0p3]]
As a habitual wall-of-texting sprawler, I feel some of the claustrophobifying tweet-syndrome creeping into me here.<<footnote "h:tss" "Space for babbling, thank the maker. I feel like I'm back in school trying to ugly-compress a 12-page paper into 6. Some people may find it is impolite to take up too much space in groupchats (3 or more ppl). How can I fit and attach a sincere version of myself correctly to this thing in order to fairly meet the needs of the people in the group? I'm grateful hypertext offers the opportunity to hide a barrage of elements in various orders, offering kind of executive summary narrative doorways a user can autonomously open, reveal, iterate over, wander, track, and search. The fuller model drips down into the footnotes, reveal-widgets, searchable phrasing, and linkmaps. You can't hold the whole rabbithole at once, so what trails do you need right now?">> However poorly, I'm thinking about how to [[compress|Antipleonasm]] what I'm going to say,<<footnote "h:gts" "It helps to accurately guess sequences which are reader might likely traverse, and I have to think about the possibility that my hypertext as a whole will be broken (beyond my own stupidity), taken out of context, and only a bare initial face or limited semblance of the quote will make it.">> picking which threads to drop before it explodes, trying to find the fitting conventions which minimize handwork while improving automaticity<<footnote "h:aut" "I'm giddy+nauseous at the thought of how to maximize a hypertexter's autonomy and expressivity while still packaging it up for a securely scaled mesh.">> for my [[love]]d ones,<<footnote "h:plz" "Feel free to tell me to change my conventions or be quieter.">> and weighing how I should cleanly represent an overlapping splattered heap into a forensic-worthy stack.<<footnote "h:bro" "My brother, [[JRE]], has told me it is difficult to follow, so I'm doing a terrible job.">>
''>> 2019-11-30.[[3|https://www.kickscondor.com/notes/hypertext-2020]]: [[kickscondor]]''
Adequate shorthand [[for what|gfwiwcgws]]? There are limits to how much anyone (also me) can understand my work. It's a hard problem to know how to help anyone //better// understand it.<<footnote "h:bst" "I'm convinced it is not easy to understand what counts as the standard of the [[good]] of understanding.">> [[PSM]] is a strong aspect of the [[gem]]. I wish I knew how to better generalize in a few words what I'm doing in my work ("it's [[h0p3]]'s wiki" is kinda lame). How does one pick out what is most [[salient]]?
What do you think is an adequate shorthand for what we are each doing?
''>> 2019-11.30: Sphygmus''
[[<waves>|https://sphygm.us/#191130%20%E2%80%93%20Carpe%20Diem%3A%20*opens%20curtain*]]
<<<
the fun thing about hyper text is that this doesn't have to be our final format – it can be as mushy as we want it to be!
<<<
I'm curious to see how far our [[@: hypertext 2020]] and related hypertexts might diverge. In addition to a kaleidescope of perspectives, there's almost a telephone game component to it.
<<<
hehe, I don't think there are any conventions here at all! 😊 So we get to thread our own way through the tapestry.
<<<
I agree we are making our own sets of conventions here, and I think it's awesome that we have the freedom to weave the tapestry from our ends to a significant degree.
<<<
Your mentions of "unified/synchronized/branched" makes me think both of writing collaboratively in a git repository...
<<<
Aye! That is where muh brain is going. We're doing something like that, but I don't see how to automate it effectively enough.<<footnote "h:aee" "I'm spittballin' here, and I'm way out of my league. Beyond many kinds of social conventions, we have to agree to some kinds of technical conventions to encode and decode our work to (or sacrifice our autonomy in constructing in our preferred conventions). Lots of what makes our hypertext 'just work' is that we are all using TW (similarly for my ability to use some insane acronym like [[irwartfrr]] with you folks). There are good reasons to seek radical diversity here, and there are good reasons to seek one protocol or structure. I don't know how to cycle between the two well enough.">> That's okay. Maybe we'll find some low-hanging fruit.
<br>
!! 2019-11-30.[[3|https://www.kickscondor.com/notes/hypertext-2020]]: [[kickscondor]]
<<<
expert public self-modelers, oh my! and is that the first prompt - where to go in the next decade? no gun jumping here, I think it’s all fizzy excitement. mic check at will!
<<<
@hypertext-2020 Whoa whoa - how bout let’s back up to ''‘public self-modeling’''? (Seems like we’ve had an adequate mic check.) ''For yourself, personally - is this an adequate shorthand? Or do you think of yourself in any other terms that can help someone understand your work?''
<br>
!! ''2019-11.30:'' [[Sphygmus]]
oh yay, I love you fellow wiki folks starting the format for me -- so easy to export a .tid from your wiki and import it into mine! 😊
: this also makes me want to develop my who-styles more; @@.h0p3 h0p3@@ feels lonely there, being the only piece that's #stylish.<<footnote "ft" "dies at the thought of more font load XP">>
''>> 2019-11-30: [[kickscondor]]''
love this idea, and awe :) it makes my heart warm. let's experiment and see where it goes! also excited at the thought of collaborating on words & seeing what you make out of them.
''>> 2019-11-30 17:44 CST: [[chameleon]]''
thanks for the date snippet! makes it ezpz. the fun thing about hyper text is that this doesn't have to be our final format -- it can be as mushy as we want it to be!
there's no need to be on top of my wiki, and no apologies necessary! it's a pile; not as big as h0p3's, yet, but still one. My daily writing is either the most interesting or the least interesting, depending on who the readers is, while everything from [[art/work]] downwards in my [[Root]] list is more, or less, messy subject matter tiddlers.
''>> 2019-11-30 20:31 EST: [[h0p3]]''
hehe, I don't think there are any conventions here at all! 😊 So we get to thread our own way through the tapestry.
Your mentions of "unified/synchronized/branched" makes me think both of writing collaboratively in a git repository, branching off and editing and merging and so forth; it also makes me think of something like etherpad or a shared google doc, with all sorts of realtime possibilities and copy pasty mergy smashy version tracking author possibilities. which may not be //the// direction, but are possibilities?
''>> 2019-11-30: [[kickscondor]]''
expert public self-modelers, oh my! and is that the first prompt -- where to go in the next decade? no gun jumping here, I think it's all fizzy excitement. mic check at will!
<br>
!! 2019-11-30.[[2|https://www.kickscondor.com/notes/hypertext-2020]]: [[kickscondor]]
@chameleon @h0p3 Tentative title for the chat: ‘hypertext 2020’ - where is an expert wikier supposed to go in the next decade? But yeah - just rip into what is going to be hot techs and paradigms for expert public self-modelers in this future timeline.
If we get Sphygmus on, I’ll do a mic check and then we can start. Hope I’m not jumping the gun - just pitched this idea today…
<br>
!! 2019-11-30 20:31 EST: [[h0p3]]
This is fun. =)
''>> 2019-11-30 17:44 CST: [[chameleon]]''
I like that structure, and I'm curious to see how it should grow. My followup suggestion is tentative, especially because it doesn't point well enough (probably either requiring an extension in TW5 or transclusions, but I'm fine searching even if it might be visually simpler to have the kinds of trees we see in a Reddit-like forum). I'm happy to follow whatever conventions are most suitable here.
''>> 2019-11-30.1: [[kickscondor]]''
Unifying part of the [[hyperconversation]] into one place is cool. I'm curious to know if we should synchronize or branch off in how we might represent what could be a unified groupchat document like this one. It's not just how we play our instruments in the orchestra, but also how we end up remixing and modeling what is recorded, right?
<br>
!! 2019-11-30 17:44 CST: [[chameleon]]
Could this be our structure? Haha. I like to dive right in there.
I must confess I haven't been keeping up too well with [[Sphygmus]]' wiki. I really need to get on top of that. Sorry.
You'll likely mostly get ''JIBBA-JABBA'' from yours truly. Also very sorry ;) I'm not a very interesting person in live or semi-live chat, or if I don't have a springboard to work from. Nevertheless, I look forward to chatting with you all.
`date +'%Y-%0m-%0d %H:%M %Z'` btw.
Oh, also, you all deserve better tags, lol.
<br>
!! 2019-11-30.[[1|https://www.kickscondor.com/notes/wikiwikigroupchat]]: [[kickscondor]]
@sphygmus @chameleon @h0p3 I am going to find some more time over the weekend to write more - the letters that you are all writing right now have unfolded new faces and expressions in me - digifaces! I have had a thought tho… I’m envisioning something - what if we did a groupchat for a certain range of time? Like maybe a week or maybe a month.
And we can field questions to the group, answer them in hypertext - and when we’re done, I’ll make something out of it. Yes, we sort of do this already, but I’m thinking that having a beginning and an ending and a title maybe - could be interesting. Ahh, I’m explaining too much - it is just an attempt to branch off on the ‘hyperconversations’ game.
2019.07.11 - @jbaty: [[Congratz!|https://rudimentarylathe.org/#2019.07.11%20-%20Journal]] =)
2019.06.28 - @jbaty: You could always have [[two wikis|https://rudimentarylathe.org/#2019.06.26%20-%20Journal]], one public and the other public+private. You could automate the export of the public tiddlers by tag. The [[gfwiwcgws]] problem you are facing is even more important; you have to know [[your purpose|https://rudimentarylathe.org/#2019.06.27%20-%20Journal]] to identify the "for the sake of which" you use your wiki (or any tool for that matter).
2019.06.19 - @jbaty: I'm a straight hater of most implementations of [[Federation|https://rudimentarylathe.org/#2019.06.18%20-%20Journal]], but, of course, even if what we have doesn't work (at least turnkey and network effected), we have to find some P2P/Federation infrastructure which does (which isn't to say you imply otherwise). Your 7:17 argument is terrible. Owning your data entails keeping what you make locally as your primary, and if it's permissible to distribute it via other channels you don't own, eg. via Twitter, then do so. You generally can have both (they aren't conceptually mutually exclusive), but only one of them is morally obligatory (it's not non-sense).
2019.06.12 - @jbaty: Hey, I forgot all about [[Ram Jam - Black Betty|https://rudimentarylathe.org/#Favorite%20Songs]]. That definitely goes in [[Music: Library]]. Gracias! =)
2019.05.14 - @jbaty: I have no idea what I'd switch to [[either|https://rudimentarylathe.org/#2019.05.11%20-%20Journal]]. I'd have to cut some limbs off, and I'd have to grow another system. Reading is reasonable enough, but the writing not so much. Part of the problem is that I'm quite accustomed to TW as its own IDE. I want to think while I'm in the TW, not while I'm outside it.
2019.06.10 - @Kevin Kovacs: Hard to beat [[unification|https://humdrum.life/2019/06/03/where%20to%20find]].
2019.03.28 - @Kevin Kovacs: I'm sorry [[you are feeling disappointed|https://humdrum.life/2019/03/27/morning]]. You've been busy and not feeling great. I know that feel. =/ FWIW, I have been paying attention. I'm thinking alongside you, but I've not had anything to say. I'm still figuring out how to give the body-language nods in the appropriate places in the conversation train to demonstrate I'm listening even if I don't have anything to add yet. As usual, take your time responding. There's no rush.
; 2019.12.01 - @kickscondor
Like a telepathized fiddle, [[ITS]], I almost feel like I don't have to say it because you already know that I want to say it: I am listening very carefully (though never as effectively as you do, lol). Lately, offline, I open my mouth and cover it with my hands while I'm reading what you say. Sometimes, I tilt my head autistically far to the side (usually the right) while watching, and that's a [[good]] sign from me in class. Thank you. =)
; 2019.11.30 - [[@h0p3|https://www.kickscondor.com/notes/hypertext-2020]]
Tentative title for the chat: ‘hypertext 2020’ - where is an expert wikier supposed to go in the next decade? But yeah - just rip into what is going to be hot techs and paradigms for expert public self-modelers in this future timeline.
If we get Sphygmus on, I’ll do a mic check and then we can start. Hope I’m not jumping the gun - just pitched this idea today…
; 2019.11.30 - @kickscondor
Cool. I suppose we're doing something like that now. ;P.
; 2019.11.30 - [[@h0p3|https://www.kickscondor.com/notes/hyperchat-transmission-incoming]]
I think if we could start this week or next, that would be cool. No, I wasn’t thinking real-time. Quite the opposite. Totally asynchronous. Give everyone time to craft their replies - which is why it might take a month to work through. Take a slower pace.
I envision it being the sort of thing where we’re even publicly drafting side-by-side and self-editing, self-correcting as we toggle back and forth between reading and writing the overarching group ‘chat’.
Yes, we would just do it on our sites - just like our ‘hyperconversations’ have been, but as if it was a group ‘chat’. You might respond as individual letters - or you might just have one big page of @-replies.
Basically, you could ‘chat’ however you prefer to - that’s one of the cool things about ‘hyperconversations’ - we’ve all participated using a format that’s comfortable to us rather than needing to use a common platform. Although it might be useful to settle on a common tag or phrase or something - a dog whistle for the public self-modelers out there. You all can tiddle yourselves, fine with me.
; 2019.11.29 - [[@h0p3|https://www.kickscondor.com/notes/wikiwikigroupchat/]]
I am going to find some more time over the weekend to write more - the letters that you are all writing right now have unfolded new faces and expressions in me - digifaces! I have had a thought tho… I’m envisioning something - what if we did a groupchat for a certain range of time? Like maybe a week or maybe a month.
And we can field questions to the group, answer them in hypertext - and when we’re done, I’ll make something out of it. Yes, we sort of do this already, but I’m thinking that having a beginning and an ending and a title maybe - could be interesting. Ahh, I’m explaining too much - it is just an attempt to branch off on the ‘hyperconversations’ game.
; 2019.10.26 - @kickscondor
Ack. XD. Blargle. [[Straussian]]ly, [[YWSOAM]], and I hope to be as over-the-top a listener of yours as you have been of mine. I feel bad for the [[shittiest thing|https://www.kickscondor.com/the-plan-with-my-dumb-fraidycat-project/]] in particular. That is not a fun problem, and it's not sustainable. I'd suggest we've been looking at this one for a while. To my understanding, I need to find a way to provide or emit a more conservative, tiny, and standardized metadata table to slurp up and parse, and there appear to be many options. Adding my metadata to the [[name]] is a fine and ugly method, but I both prefer them as they are and it doesn't solve some performance problems. So, perhaps it would be acceptable to build an RSS feed directly into the wiki, maybe https://philosopher.life/#toyourspecs, but I'm not convinced I'm helping you enough with longer-term problems here. That's not as simple or efficient as slurping up a single file formatted with exactly and only what you need. <3. I can't deliver that overnight, and I'd like to know what you think [[it should look|https://xkcd.com/927/]] like precisely and why? What is reasonable or even perfeck for Fraidycat? And, if any different, what should it be if you were building with WASM in mind (let's assume your extension had access to a tiny, heavily firewalled, throttled, sandboxed, and stripped down linux container)? Let's say I minutely generated a file, https://philosopher.life/LeSyndicationMetadataFile, what do you think it should look like?
; 2019.09.12 - @kickscondor
"[[Forget I was ever here.|https://www.kickscondor.com/marina-noseque/]]" So easy to do in fundamental disagreement, :P. Killing the thirsty and starving among us with your lite-posting. Muh addictive ~~mana~~ bread, homie, must have.
; 2019.07.26 - @kickscondor
[[٥ﻻ ﻉ√٥ﺎ ٱц|https://www.kickscondor.com/comments/clearly-you-are-blind-or-evil-lol/]].
It is a delightful thought to me that we have unknowingly passed each other in many circles only to meet these many years later. I'm excited to see Dat come alive, and we hope to include it in our work in the house. I'm hesitant to say I understand your work, but I ignorantly appreciate that your cat is a generalizable hammer (I see a great deal of possibility in it). Mile-high, this is my current approach: [[Atropos]] backend pipeline with [[BDS97]], user-friendly front-ends and search with you, P2P-TWdom with muh [[cult|Cults]].
Also, pfft, you are cherry-picking [[gems]] in [[FTO]]. You are correct, there are many appealing folks out there, and even if they aren't most of who I find, I'm very lucky to find so many wonderful people (it breaks my 3% rule, which is beyond my predictions). I am on the hunt for beautiful people. I am forever indebted to your sunny optimism; my goggles and vodka bottles are too often foggy and half-empty.
; 2019.07.15 - @kickscondor
Yes, sir. `/hug`. Without question, I know you [[love]] [[Humanity]]. Capable as you are, I know you cannot solve it all by yourself either. You also do more than your fair share. If I cannot convince you, however, there is little [[hope]] of convincing anyone else.
I'm not a [[P2P purist who denies the necessity of federalization|2018.11.10 - kickscondor: Unmoved Movers]]; it's obvious to me that we've not decentralized as far as we can and should by any stretch of the imagination. We have to overshoot the golden mean first. I also recognize we must excessively compromise beyond the ideal.
Aside: I am excited to see what becomes of datrs. Also, worth a look: https://github.com/zerotier/lf.
Even Tox requires federation, though it's still considered P2P software. Perma-alpha software that it is, it works on 3G android. If it doesn't have to participate on the DHT beyond discovery and minimizes heartbeats to relays, it's expensive but liveable. Yes, profound decentralization of the internet is possible; one of the hard parts (and stepping stones) is virtualizing it over current centralized infrastructures until backbone routing is replaced.
It's okay that you aren't convinced just yet. I will not give up. It is not premature optimization: decentralize until it hurts, then centralize until it works.
; 2019.07.15 - [[@h0p3|https://www.kickscondor.com/notes/fediverse-it's-a-privilege/]] (2019.07.12):
Hey, I’m with you—I abdicated to public schools, it’s all about abdication. There are all these starvings who need someone to look back. And nobody does because forward is all that matters. Forward for them, just forward for them.
Yeah, it’s a privilege—no doubt. The IndieWeb is a meta-community, so it’ll always be that way. Its point is to strategize among the ‘capable’(?), those ‘capable’ of reshaping. It won’t work to ‘File’ > ‘Import…’ and Ctrl+A all the underpowered Android phones into the IndieWeb.
I mean, not like I know how to really solve any of this—I feel like even my best guess would summon a bunch of roving shitstorms once again—but I think if there were all these outpost IndieWebs, made of cheap static HTML and tied together with services subsidized by the gifted IndieWeb types (see brid.gy, for instance)—and discoverable by directories and link logs and the ability to mention someone to possibly rouse them (or you ignore those—or you have to have someone vouch for you to mention them), then there’s some possibility.
I’m still not sure about some purist decentralization—like, that seems awful on some 3g android, right? But like I know. The ethic of ‘find the others’ is wholesome; it’s def a starting place.
; 2019.07.12 - @kickscondor
[[It|https://www.kickscondor.com/the-indieweb-needs-to...-hide!]]'s tricky to make sure people have the correct amount of skin in the game, and owning one's digital identity has several elements of it. The Indieweb feels like federation among the privileged to me. I'm more concerned about a poor person in India with only a cheap android phone and below average digital literacy who has a moral right to participate as a political citizen with a voice he owns on a network he controls with those at the bottom. I don't think this is an issue about tourism, but I don't fully participate on the Indieweb^^tm^^. I seek a deNATed Indienet because we all have the prima facie right to be a server; it's the underlying architecture that has to change. Dat, Tox, and Hyperboria are much closer (though they fight through a great deal of centralization).
; 2019.07.01 - @kickscondor
Despite the fact I can't prove it: that ain't me, btw. [[/popcorn|https://www.kickscondor.com/comments/anon-on-the-line/]], /furiously-~~masturbating~~-notetaking. I am, ofc, [[mc'luvin|I Am h0p3]] the narrative being generated between you two (or more) and thinking about what yall have to say; you have {[[my attention|Focus]]}.
; 2019.06.21 - @kickscondor
I may not have been clear enough; I did not condemn it for being "antipleonasmic" (the opposite, since that is its strength and what sucks about losing it), but I think its [[S2NR]] ratio falls off hard after reading it for a while (I feel like I've picked all the low-hanging fruit). There is only so much worthwhile gold panning to do in the shallows, and TIL is definitely that (though I do not claim antipleonasms are definitionally shallow). Reading long-winded writing is expensive, of course, and so I aim to be price-efficient in my pursuit of it. As to the probability of not just originality, but even justifiably valuable originality, there's something right about increasing our failure rates, generating wider search spaces, enabling higher variance for evolution, and constructing higher-dimensioned bodies of thought which can't be flattened down so easily (especially if we've never said it before, though even these can often be antipleonasmified and carefully reduced after iterated remodeling of the drafts). Yes, I have a difficult relationship with the TL;DR meme, but I am a wall-of-texter (you can see why I have always hated Twitter). Of course, not everything can or should be [[TLDR]]ed; like high and low level languages, I am convinced we require both directions to get the jobs done.
; 2019.06.21 - @kickscondor
I'm looking into a way for you to be able to link directly to the comment without requiring unique tiddlers. I don't like that I break that function in [[@]], particularly for you. I'm still thinking about what effective atomization/molecularization of content looks like (I suspect I will never find satisfactory answers). Of course, it is the kind of problem which makes me wish I used a tool other than TW.
; 2019.06.21 - [[@h0p3|https://www.kickscondor.com/notes/the-opposite-of-incoherent]]
Gahh, spelling. Drop the prefix. In the same way that you condemned Reddit TIL for being “antipleonasmic”, I am lately thinking of the generosity of the long-winded. As if length ≅ a greater shot at originality, perhaps just with probability on your side. (Oh and has the TL;DR acronym ever driven you nuts? I like it now, it can be self-deprecating. Originally it was just absolute antipleonasm.)
; 2019.06.20 - @kickscondor
This is off topic. I'm fascinated by the interpretation: "[''''[[antipleonasmic]]] could also be rephrased: “[[the dogged attempt to resist cliché|https://www.kickscondor.com/comments/against-blogging/]].”" It is almost the opposite of how I talk about it in [[Antipleonasmic Catholicon]]. I associate the concept of cliché with lacking "originality" and being overused out of context. There are significant limits to the manner in which I care about originality, but otherwise, I'm desperate for fitting clichés (perhaps we can no longer call such things clichés?). I'm not trying to resist all clichés, just the [[irwrongfrr]] ones. Insofar as [[antipleonasmic]] content is contextualized, I want it to be reduced to the essential [[gem]]. Insofar as a cliché is fitting to the context, I [[hope]] not to resist it, but instead doggedly pursue its limits. It's a mix of theory in forming the principle and applying it in context. I think it's similar to needing an interpreted contextual foundation for a circular, analytic truth (married and bachelor predicate symbols could map to perhaps any set of semantics) to have meaning. I take you to be saying the same thing.
; 2019.06.20 - @kickscondor
"[[[P]ossibly the biggest problem with social media today is how much writing is done without sufficient reading|https://www.kickscondor.com/comments/against-blogging/]]" is perhaps a variant of the Robustness Principle, and part of the [[T42T]]. Obviously, per pound of reading, I produce more ounces of writing than the average person, thus I may be in violation of a justified social contract (that is oversimplified; it is not easy to define what counts as sufficient). I don't know how we are all going to convince ourselves to read more, though it is clearly possible.
; 2019.06.14 - @kickscondor
[[Lol|https://www.kickscondor.com/notes/h0p3:-ugh/]], yeah, only a detailed forensic analysis is going to be able to reverse engineer this [[hyperconversation]].<<ref "c">> Take all the time that you need. I also enjoy the indirect conversations; it's part of the context. Also, we finally have something closer to an IMing mode available to us now, yay! 🤟
; 2019.06.14 - [[@h0p3|https://www.kickscondor.com/notes/h0p3:-ugh/]]
(re: ugh) I guess this is the ‘hyper’ part of the hyperconversation. There’s conversation splattered on the ceiling at this point. (Take, for example, that I am responding to three letters here, which has tons of context around it—and I don’t know if anyone else but you and I can trace it!) It’s weird that I’m writing to you indirectly lately—but I feel like you’re okay with it for the moment. ✌️
; 2019.06.12 - @kickscondor
[[Prioritizing relationships|https://www.kickscondor.com/comments/feed-reading-by-social-distance/]] also reminds me of [[The Gravity Model of Trade|https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_model_of_trade]] and [[idealized criteria in selective online friendship|https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog/social-instincts/201905/how-do-we-choose-our-online-friends]]. It depends on the dynamic. Picking out which voices are most [[salient]] to us and to what degree is a moral question, no doubt. It also reminds me of Moral Weighing in [[Williams|https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/williams-bernard/]].
; 2019.06.06 - @kickscondor
Most definitely [[sooper-sekrit|2019.06.06 - kickscondor: Sooper-Sekrit]]. Set back to unlisted just for you! The original posting was one of my uncountable silly mistakes. We thought about setting up a 2FA and portknocked one-time ephemeral stream off our blackops hidden Tor site proxying to a heavily guarded i2p node running in SEAsia, but we were convinced you maintain a continuous screen cap and felt this was way dumber. I knew you would appreciate it. 11 and 13 now. I hope we meet someday too. =)
; 2019.06.06 - @kickscondor
I manually swapped dat keys in hypercore to [[join the swarm|https://www.kickscondor.com/dat-2019]]. It works fine from Beaker.
---
<<footnotes "c" "To any possible future interpreters of this beast, we are, like, //super sorry// that it's hard to untangle. Also, there is a secret map in our words; let's find treasure in each [[other]].">>
2019.06.29 - @Ovy: Lol! Si eres un campesino, soy un tonto. You are being way too hard on yourself. You gotta start somewhere, homie, and you are courageously jumping headfirst into deep water; it's going to take time to get where you are going (never give up!). I'm also not always great at explaining things (which is my fault), but it is my honor to be useful to you. Aside: politically, peasants are the people I care about. I can see that you care about the poor and needy in your vocation. Also, this is a tiddler which you may find worth bookmarking (you can even open all the tiddlers you want on a single tab and make a single bookmark of them all); I communicate over my wiki.
2019.06.29 - @h0p3: "Message from the Peasant"
<<<
You must see me as an ignorant peasant!
Ok, let's do email, for now. ooc1992@gmail.com
<<<
2019.06.29 - @Ovy: The wiki you get to access is read-only. I run the writeable server at home. E-mail is likely your best long-form communications channel until you can run your own public webserver (or use something like gitpages, which is what I use).
2019.06.29 - @h0p3: I responded at the wiki but I don't know if it went through.
; 2019.10.29 - @Phil Nunnally:
I'm convinced you will have to [[tag|https://youneedastereo.com/#2019-10-28%20Journal]]. I think that rabbithole of a problem runs deep. Tags are gunky start, and maybe something more rigid will arise out of it.
; 2019.04.11 - @Phil Nunnally:
I'm watching. [[Your honesty|https://youneedastereo.com/#2019-04-11%20Not%20making%20enough%20things]] is refreshing. It sounds frustrating and anxiety-inducing too. I adore (though painfully hate because I live it often enough) the way you describe the "It changes to some other It." I'm not sure how to string 'em together into a coherent whole. It's fragmented. Rock on.
; 191105 -- @h0p3
Ah, yes, [[it|https://sphygm.us/#191103%20%E2%80%93%20Log%3A%20A%20Very%20Narrow%20Bridge]] was not explicitly written to you -- at the time, it was me, talking to myself, and generalizing/sub-texting to maintain a sense of privacy and/or protection for those in my life offline.
After re-reading it a lot today, I think I understand how it screams out to you.<<footnote "hm" "I probably see less lines of reasoning in it than you suggest I do. ;P">> Ultimately I think it matters less //when// or //why// that I wrote this, but more that I //did//.
@@.h0p3
> Are you up for something long and what might be messy or overdesigned?
@@
Absolutely, and I'm excited to see it grow, shift, evolve, and change in the process!
; 191020 -- @h0p3
Thank you!! I had a lot of fun creating it. :) And it's awesome that your RSS tool is now #hawt! Btw, your title.Tags recently have been ''spectacular''.
; 2019.10.19 - @Sphygmus
Daaaaaaamn, that is a dope splash/loading screen! Also, the ghetto RSS tool I use to track changes shows that as the background now! Lol.
; 2019.10.15 - @Sphygmus
You absolutely have the right to ask me. If it's not your place, I don't know whose it would be. I have no intention of causing you grief here either. This place hurts. I am also [[not done|2019.04.13 - SLT: TOU2]] grieving or worse, and I aim to be useful to you.
; 2019.10.15 - [[@h0p3|https://sphygm.us/#%40h0p3]]
> Aren't you the least bit curious how my wife and I get along on this one?
I am, tbh, given how this type of friction contributed to (what felt like at the time) the dissolution of my family. I still don't walk past that wall with my father; my wounds are still too fresh for me to even consider having a genuine conversation about his views or relationship to faith & belief these days. I would only see my personal grief. I don't know the right words to ask you, though, and I don't feel it's my place to ask at this moment, so I'm content to pick up clues in reading and see if it comes out in further letters to DeathOfRobinhood.
; 2019.10.06 - @Sphygmus
Wow! You are dropping bombs this evening! I'm stunned.
; 2019.07.23 - [[@ h0p3|https://sphygm.us/#h0p3]]
It's been a while! I see I've got two links to check out in your link logs. Everything was all turned around when I visited your site - the nested sidebar tabs are pretty cool, and whoa, firmcoding has been fleshed out a lot! I can't believe it's almost been a year since I found kicks and you and wrote my first letter.
It is hard coming back to my wiki; it doesn't feel like a second skin any more, but more like a skin that's been shed. I'm uneasy at the thought of reading some of my own words in the same way that I hate reading papers I've written after they've been written, even after they've been submitted and feedback returned.
> I feel your fear (even from your first letter), and imho, it's not just with me.
I haven't done words in a while. In this moment they feel trite and performative and I'm second guessing them, this sentence as I write it now. I'm afraid this started as a note to you and turned into something all about me and how I'm feeling, when I wanted to convey that I care about you and how things are going - when of course I've checked your wiki and gotten a rough picture of the past few months for you.<<footnote "tv" "and nodded my head in great appreciation of our shared enjoyment of //Russian Dolls//, and something else I can't remember now.">>
; 2019.07.04 - @Sphygmus
You might find [[publish.sh]] to be useful to your private->public conversion. Anything tagged //Public// survives to be compiled, and everything else is removed. [[html-to-tid.sh]] and [[tid-to-html.sh]] also help (this can be made cleaner, but it works). Also, cool to see an update to your site today!
; 2019.06.27 - @Sphygmus
I haven't seen you in while. I hope you are doing well. =)
I need a place to store pages that I don't find useful anymore. I don't know what to do with it, but they need to go somewhere. I can't have them clogging up my {[[Projects|Projects on this Wiki]]} page. Hopefully, I'll figure out what to do with them.
* [[Chronology of my Self-Dialectic: KIN & RPIN]]
* [[By 2030]]
* [[Philosophy Probe Log]]
* [[Realpolitik Speculation Vault]]
```
⊥⊥ mmmmm mmmmm
⊥⊥ MM MM
⊥⊥ MM `7MM"""Mq. `7MM MM
⊥⊥ mm mmmmmmmm MM MM `MM. MM MM
⊥⊥ MM MMMMMMMM MM MM ,M9 ,6"Yb. `7MMpMMMb. ,M""bMM ,pW"Wq.`7MMpMMMb.pMMMb. MM
⊥⊥ MM MMmmdM9 8) MM MM MM ,AP MM 6W' `Wb MM MM MM MM
⊥⊥ mm mmmmmmmm MM MM YM. ,pm9MM MM MM 8MI MM 8M M8 MM MM MM MM
⊥⊥ MM MMMMMMMM MM MM `Mb. 8M MM MM MM `Mb MM YA. ,A9 MM MM MM MM
⊥⊥ MM .JMML. .JMM.`Moo9^Yo..JMML JMML.`Wbmd"MML.`Ybmd9' Suck My Dick MM
⊥⊥⊥⊥⊥⊥⊥⊥⊥⊥ MM MM
⊥⊥⊥⊥⊥⊥⊥⊥⊥⊥ MMmmm mmmMM
```
!! About:
//₩Һ𝘢ʈ ╤ћᘓ 𝔽ᵁʗꗪ is this sublime stack of mere heaps? You are what you eat, and your shitposting just is you. So, go on: do the dirty. Do as St. Morty preaches: ''get your shit together''. [[/b/]] it! Welcome to the Dialetheic Bastion of Caprophilia, The Chaotic Libertarian Freeport of Memes, The Official Asshole of this Wiki. Bootstrapping Random Seed, Dissonant Cognitive Dissident, Filthy Crucible of the Human Paradox, Sparkthread of Genius: Fly, My Darling! Be free, my floating thought-turd-dove!//<<ref "st">>
<<<
If you want to increase your success rate, [wisely] double your failure rate. [Failure isn’t an option. It’s mandatory.]
-- Thomas Watson Jr., //A Whack on the Side of the Head//
<<<
<<<
Humans are shitty poop-guns.
-- [[1uxb0x]]
<<<
<<<
Loneliness does not come from having no people about one, but from being unable to communicate the things that seem important to oneself, or from holding certain views which others find inadmissible.
-- Carl Jung, //Memories Dreams and Reflections//
<<<
Yo. What it do? I FINK U [[4EAK|4eak]]Y, and [[I like you a lot|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Uee_mcxvrw&]]. Immerse yourself in the poophorically explosive overflow of sometimes valuable, self-anonymized, donated hypothetical shitstorms and toilet-graffiti. Bless your interpretatin' heart...
Did a lightbulb turn on for you? Is something bothering you? Can thy olfactory senses detect what //teh// Dwayne Johnson is preparing?<<ref "la">> Are you feeling constipated? You know you need to "get it out" before you lose that intuition or insight before you suffer by clogging your mind with it. Don't be embarrassed about it either because, as they say: "Everybody poops." If you don't know where to put it, don't want to label it, do not wish to endorse or assent to it, or wish to quarantine or bracket it: then put it here! Better here than nowhere. You'll figure out what to do with it later.
The pain of learning [[W5H]] to trust yourself is the price of progress, thus you must filter for [[redpills]] and [[diamonds]] lodged in your (often) concentrated evil shit-stream-of-consciousness emerging from your non-conscious processes. Coherence is an art even when it's built with boxes of contradictions. Write that fresh, ugly unwritten. Bypass the paralysis of analysis if you must.
Painful though it may be, salient evolution still relies upon some element of randomness. Computation boils down to inputs, transformation, and outputs. Apply the principles, mentat! Thus, we all must preserve, contain, and harness that beautiful spark of craziness in ourselves. It's simply too useful and wonderfully human not to. Take this calculated risk of improvisation because it pays off; this is the gamble worth taking. Control, containerize, and digest your randomness, sir. Be a brave boy, and take a shit in your potty.
Freewrite, free associate, spin up seemingly useless objects, incoherently doodle, and rapidly dash your chicken-scratch upon these pages. Just stamp it with your [[/b/]] seal of who-gives-a-fuck? This is a place to be creative and haphazard. Be messy or organized. Be constructive or destructive. Stop trying to care about anything except getting it out. See what your gut is really telling you. Go ahead and take a braindump. //Uhhhhhhhgnh//. Let the psychic diarrhea flow.<<ref "1">> //Sploooooosh//. This is a place for chaotic, honest imagination. Peer behind the veil; find the music. Seek the diamonds and redpills in the rough. Plant those seeds. Shotgun fling your poo at the wall and see what sticks; find the emergent beauty.
Be uninhibitedly meta; take the first steps into a new frontier or idea; be free. You aren't beholden to any hierarchy or criticism here. Pretend there are no rules, requirements, or limits. Listen to your gut, and go with the flow. Try to use your bigboy words, but if you can't, that's okay too. You don't even need to wipe: just get it out! Take a deep breath and //push// that turd-baby of a thought onto the pages of this wiki. ''Push! You can do it!!''
Welcome to an existential implementation of the Monte Carlo Method. Too often (for us to accept it is mere random chance) these uncharted and uncategorized chaotic seeds contain or lead to diamonds and redpills.<<ref "2">> Dasein affectively wears different lenses in his various modes towards the world. So listen up, my little Dasein, these are often your crucial bracketings and debracketings of perceptions of the world. Not all your ideas are good (most are shit); however, some of them will be soberly sane, and you will even find the thread of genius in some of them. You'd be surprised where the seeds eventually germinate and find themselves; they flourish, cross-pollinate, and evolve.
This uniquely titled homage log contains the bulk of your uncategorized stream-of-consciousness writing. You probably aren't sure how to explain it because virgin ideas are rarely well-supported, unfragmented, and effectively articulated. In any case, it is worth your time. Take a shit, pick out the seeds, plant them, and cultivate them with this fertile scratchpad field, the playground shitgarden in your existential sandbox.<<ref "3">>
Make lemonade and grow a forest of wisdom from what you shit out of your mind because you don't know what you don't know, and therefore you are often in no position to deny yourself the opportunity to just say what's on your mind in the moment, particularly to yourself. In here, you've haphazardly wisely (i.e. paradoxically) given //root// access to a madman: yourself. This is as pregnant-present freewill-libertarian homunculean as you get. Consciousness, that Daseinic narrative collectively written and observed by your non-conscious, computational minds is the most fundamental feedback loop mechanism that defines who you are. Even if consciousness isn't free, it's still the function most essential to defining, changing, and interpreting your identity: forming and modifying the habits that constitute your persistent identity.
This is a dangerous and necessary memetic inlet and outlet on this wiki. Here your stream-of-consciousness directly adds to my (future-you's) wiki. I respect you, warts, shit, and all. ''Go make mistakes''. Seriously. Be the best turd-throwing primate you can be! I need the treasures hiding in your poop (yummy). So, have at it, go hogwild, go hax0r it, and go "make'h the pooooopiiees." With a shit-eating grin, I'm picking through, hopefully cleaning off, and eating whatever you're serving out of that beautiful hairy asshole I'm eating out and from like a 4-dimensional self-human-centipede.
[[/b/]]-attidunally your justifiable [[/b/]]eatitudes.
---
!! Principles:
* "We'll do it live! Fuck it!"
* You are released of judgment, so feel free to write any narrative or thought in a sandboxed virtual experience machine.
* This log is so prestigious and [[Leet]] it doesn't even follow most conventions of {[[Principles]]}.
* Fight the power! Fuck title.Titles!
* Any tiddler with the [[/b/]] tag is owned, operated, and entitled to all the properties and rights of [[/b/]].
---
!! Focus:
{{/b/: Focus}}
* /b/<<ref "/b/">>
** [[My Son's Tribute]]
** [[Righteous Characters in Fiction]]
** [[Keeping My Enemies Closer]]
** [[/b/: IS LEAKING!]]
---
!! Vault:
* Audits:
** [[2017 - /b/]]
** [[2018 - /b/]]
** [[2019.01 - /b/]]
** [[2019.02 - /b/]]
* Retired:
** [[2017.09.10 - Retired: /b/ - Random - The Playground of the Sandbox - Seed]]
** [[2017.10.31 - Retired: Wiki: lost+found]]
** [[2017.11.06 - Retired: /b/]]
** [[2019.12.01 - Retired: /b/]]
---
!! Dreams:
* Consider wiping...
** While the seeds may be random, I would like the cultivation and interrogation of these seeds to eventually have a more formal process and outlet.
* Try to figure out how to change your wiki so that you can pour some of your work into designated areas and more coherent projects.
---
<<footnotes "st" "True story, bro: after I make and usually after I wipe, I gaze upon my creation and sing an improvised song in its honor.">>
<<footnotes "la" "LALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALA">>
<<footnotes "1" "You don't have to be proud of it, but you know you'll look at it. You always look at the shit which comes out of you. Most people do (that is, look at their //own// shit). Enjoy it. You aren't living if you aren't taking a good, hard look at your shit, i.e. [[Know Thyself]].">>
<<footnotes "2" "For Posterity's Sake, I leave this ''Relic'' here to remind myself of how far I've come, of what this page really meant to me, and of how and why both I and this wiki have evolved the way we have. Of course, this begins to look like its own {[[Projects|Projects on this Wiki]]} page, but I will not [[infinigress]]. To some extent, Stream-of-Conscious writing was how the {[[Projects|Projects on this Wiki]]} directory started out. However, this log is much closer to {[[Dreams]]}. Ultimately, it's important to keep this kind of free-thinking zone available. The 4chan consciousness was proof of it. The irony of what they would think of this truly magnificent device and my obvious autism is not lost on me. I am thankful, nonetheless, to those low-empathy anons. /salute; o7">>
<<footnotes "3" "Which isn't to say the wiki isn't ultimately a shitgarden either. I'd like to hope it is better than that. Poop in this corner of your sandbox, please.">>
<<footnotes "/b/" "Lol!">>
//I use this like an extended digital version of the blackboard we keep in our living room. Somethings need to be hand written and drawn, but some are best jotted down here. I don't care about the state of this place except insofar as it is useful and I know where to throw junk.//
But, What about the children?
* Cursive handwriting reading test/book. I don't care if they can write it at all, but you need to be able to read cursive like an analog clock. It should be nearly effortless.
* [[JRE]] July 6th
* Multireddit examples
* Back to half-and-half //Life of Fred// and Khan
[[j3d1h]]:
* Cross
* 8-bit art, and anything else you have squirreled away
* Look at automated tag mapping and hierarchical organization presentations or navigation
* 7575
[[1uxb0x]]:
* Music Scripting?
[[h0p3]]:
* Pfft. You are cherry-picking gems. You perfect cherry picking person, you. Most, dude. Obviously, I adore these two people. Talk about trust: one of them owns the keys to my live-wiki. To be clear, I'm breaking the 3% rule awesomely though. The [[S2NR]] is Robust, sir.
* Tabs: Maps, Keys, Buttons, /b/
* Underwear
* Dryer
* Restart TW i3
* Master's master PDkey
* Crystal Data Center: Coeurl World
* https://github.com/vanities/GPU-Passthrough-Arch-Linux-to-Windows10
[[k0sh3k]]:
* (*crickets*)
---
* Reminded of meeting a famous personality in Everquest offline. We worked together. I dropped at least 150 days played into that game, so it was cool to meet this guy (super weird, crazy smart guy, broken AF). He had just as much time played as I did, and he still never hit max level with any character. That's insane. Like, you should accidentally oops your into max level characters. I have the same problem with computing in general.
* Cheaper to buy prefabricated fittings than constructing them from scratch (which takes far more skill and effort).
* 3d including time, right?
* Forrest Gump with computers.
* [[/b/: Digital Blackboard]]
* [[/b/: Focus]]
* [[/b/: IS LEAKING!]]
* [[/b/: One-Liners]]
* [[/b/: TDL]]
;
* [[]]
* [[@: h0p3]]
* [[Antipleonasm Analysis]]
* [[Antipleonasmic Catholicon: /b/]]
* [[cruise control]]
* [[Finite Objects]]
* [[h0p3punk]]
* [[kicksphygmus]]
* [[Links: Fire in yo fire]]
* [[Links: https://sphygm.us/]]
* [[Perfectionism]]
* [[Recurring Patterned Redistributivism]]
* [[Rick & Morty: Fanfic Brainstorming]]
* [[Smelting Muh Silly Farts: 𓂺]]
* [[Testing & Staging]]
* [[WWDD]]
* [[Yo dawg, I herd you like philosopher.life in your philosopher.life]]
;
* [[2019.04.09 - /b/]]
* [[2019.04.21 - /b/]]
* [[2019.04.29 - /b/]]
* [[2019.05.05 - /b/]]
* [[2019.05.06 - /b/]]
* [[2019.06.24 - /b/]]
* [[2019.07.09 - /b/]]
* [[2019.07.11 - /b/]]
* [[2019.07.13 - /b/]]
* [[2019.07.18 - /b/]]
* [[2019.09.09 - /b/]]
* [[2019.09.11 - /b/]]
* [[2019.10.12 - /b/]]
* [[2019.10.20 - /b/]]
* [[2019.10.31 - /b/]]
* [[2019.11.09 - /b/]]
* [[2019.11.12 - /b/]]
* [[2019.11.22 - /b/]]
* [[2019.12.01 - /b/]]
;
* [[2019.04.13 - SLT: TOU2]]
* [[2019.10.01 - Antipleonasm Analysis: Stock Up, Lock, and Load]]
* [[2019.11.09 - Aispondence: Gibberish]]
I'm not sure what to do here. I'm not sure if it's a bad thing. That infectious flood runs deep. Build with the building blocks you have. How do I cooperate with the leak? Sublate the maymays, and emerge from it.
* Impartial validation: It's high praise to be doubted and still approved of.
* Perhaps live in the //honest// moment.
<<todolist-ui " " base:"/b/: TDL">>
# IgnoreList is a UTF-8 encoded .txt file that helps you specify single files, paths and rules
# for ignoring during the synchronization job. It supports "?" and "*" wildcard symbols.
#
#
# OS generated files #
$RECYCLE.BIN
$Recycle.Bin
System Volume Information
lost+found
.DocumentRevisions-V100
.TemporaryItems
.fseventsd
.iCloud
.DS_Store
.DS_Store?
.Spotlight-V100
.Trashes
.Trash-*
ehthumbs.db
desktop.ini
Thumbs.db
~*
*~
.~lock.*
*.part
*.filepart
.csync_journal.db
.csync_journal.db.tmp
*.swn
*.swp
*.swo
.dropbox
.dropbox.attr
*.crdownload
@eaDir
@SynoResource
.@__thumb
.thumbnails
._*
# StreamsList is a UTF-8 encoded .txt file that helps you specify alternate streams,
# xattrs and resource forks white list. It supports "?" and "*" wildcard symbols.
#
#
#
com.apple.metadata:_kMDItemUserTags
com.apple.ResourceFork
com.apple.metadata:kMDItemFinderComment
```python
use_xft yes
xftfont Input:size=8
update_interval 1
total_run_times 0
double_buffer yes
no_buffers yes
text_buffer_size 1024
own_window yes
own_window_transparent yes
own_window_type override
own_window_argb_visual yes
own_window_class override
own_window_hints undecorated,below,sticky,skip_taskbar,skip_pager
double_buffer yes
draw_shades no
draw_outline no
draw_borders no
draw_graph_borders no
minimum_size 185 5
maximum_width 185
default_color white
draw_shades no
color0 5D7B86
color1 white
color2 5D7B86
alignment top_left
gap_x 25
gap_y 35
no_buffers yes
net_avg_samples 2
use_spacer left
pad_percents 2
override_utf8_locale yes
TEXT
${color1}DATE ${hr 2}
${alignc}${color0}${font Input:size=20}${time %H:%M:%S}${font}${color}
${alignc}${color1}${time %A} ${color0}| ${color1}${time %Y.%m.%d}
${color1}CPU ${hr 2}
${color0} CPU0: ${color1}${cpu cpu0}%${color}${font} ${alignr}${color2}${cpubar cpu0 8,60}
${color0} CPU1: ${color1}${cpu cpu1}%${color}${font} ${alignr}${color2}${cpubar cpu1 8,60}
${color0} CPU2: ${color1}${cpu cpu2}%${color}${font} ${alignr}${color2}${cpubar cpu2 8,60}
${color0} CPU3: ${color1}${cpu cpu3}%${color}${font} ${alignr}${color2}${cpubar cpu3 8,60}
${color0} CPU4: ${color1}${cpu cpu0}%${color}${font} ${alignr}${color2}${cpubar cpu4 8,60}
${color0} CPU5: ${color1}${cpu cpu1}%${color}${font} ${alignr}${color2}${cpubar cpu5 8,60}
${color0} CPU6: ${color1}${cpu cpu2}%${color}${font} ${alignr}${color2}${cpubar cpu6 8,60}
${color0} CPU7: ${color1}${cpu cpu3}%${color}${font} ${alignr}${color2}${cpubar cpu7 8,60}
${color0} ${top name 1}${alignr}${color}${top cpu 1}%
${color0} ${top name 2}${alignr}${color}${top cpu 2}%
${color0} ${top name 3}${alignr}${color}${top cpu 3}%
${color0} ${top name 4}${alignr}${color}${top cpu 4}%
${color0} ${top name 5}${alignr}${color}${top cpu 5}%
${color1}MEMORY ${hr 2}
${color0} RAM: ${color1}$mem${color}${font} ${alignr}${color2}${membar 8,60}
${color0} Swap: ${color1}$swap${color}${font} ${alignr}${color2}${swapbar 8,60}
${color0} ${top_mem name 1}${alignr}${color}${top_mem mem_res 1}
${color0} ${top_mem name 2}${alignr}${color}${top_mem mem_res 2}
${color0} ${top_mem name 3}${alignr}${color}${top_mem mem_res 3}
${color0} ${top_mem name 4}${alignr}${color}${top_mem mem_res 4}
${color0} ${top_mem name 5}${alignr}${color}${top_mem mem_res 5}
${color1}DISK ${hr 2}
${color0} Root: ${color1}${fs_free /}${alignr}${color2}${fs_bar 8,60 /}
${color0} R: ${color1}${diskio_read /dev/sdc}${color0} ${alignr}${color0}W: ${color1}${diskio_write /dev/sdc}${color0}
${color0} Home: ${color1}${fs_free /home}${alignr}${color2}${fs_bar 8,60 /home}
${color0} R: ${color1}${diskio_read /dev/sda}${color0} ${alignr}${color0}W: ${color1}${diskio_write /dev/sda}${color0}
${color0} Stor: ${color1}${fs_free /mnt/storage}${alignr}${color2}${fs_bar 8,60 /mnt/storage}
${color0} R: ${color1}${diskio_read /dev/sdb}${color0} ${alignr}${color0}W: ${color1}${diskio_write /dev/sdb}${color0}
${color1}NETWORK ${hr 2}
${color0} Down: ${color1}${downspeed enp3s0}/s${color2}${alignr}${downspeedgraph enp3s0 8,60}
${color0} Up: ${color1}${upspeed enp3s0}/s${color2}${alignr}${upspeedgraph enp3s0 8,60}
```
```python
conky.config = {
alignment = 'bottom_left',
background = true,
color2 = '5D7B86',
cpu_avg_samples = 2,
default_color = 'F9FAF9',
double_buffer = true,
font = 'Input:size=8',
draw_shades = false,
gap_x = 25,
gap_y = 25,
minimum_width = 200,
no_buffers = true,
own_window = true,
own_window_type = 'override',
own_window_transparent = true,
update_interval = 2.0,
use_xft = true,
}
conky.text = [[
${color2}default mod: ${color}<Super>
${color2}open new terminal: ${color}mod+Enter
${color2}kill focused: ${color}mod+F4
${color2}dmenu: ${color}mod+d
${color2}bmenu: ${color}mod+Ctrl+b
${color2}morc_menu: ${color}mod+z
${color2}exit: ${color}mod+0
${color2}open firefox: ${color}mod+F1
${color2}open dolphin: ${color}mod+F2
${color2}open sudo pacmanfm: ${color}mod+Shift+F2
${color2}open sublime-text: ${color}mod+F3
${color2}open sudo mousepad: ${color}mod+Shift+F3
${color2}Resize Mode: ${color}mod+r
${color2}split toggle: ${color}mod+q
${color2}floating toggle: ${color}mod+Shift+space
${color2}layout stacking: ${color}mod+s
${color2}layout tabbed: ${color}mod+w
${color2}layout toggle split: ${color}mod+e
${color2}layout toggle all: ${color}mod+x
${color2}focus parent: ${color}mod+a
${color2}focus left (tabs): ${color}mod+Shift+Tab
${color2}focus right (tabs): ${color}mod+Tab
${color2}change focus: ${color}mod+[arrowkeys|jkl;]
${color2}move focused: ${color}mod+Shift+[arrowkeys|jkl;]
${color2}switch workspaces: ${color}mod+Ctrl+[arrowkeys|j;]
${color2}switch to workspace 1-9: ${color}mod+[1-9]
${color2}move to workspace 1-9: ${color}mod+Ctrl+[1-9]
${color2}move+switch to workspace 1-9: ${color}mod+Shift+[1-9]
${color2}workspace back & forth: ${color}mod+b
${color2}move+switch back & forth: ${color}mod+Shift+b
]]
```
//There are several facts, yogiberrisms, tidbits of advice, and titty-twisters in here, but you probably won't appreciate most of them because you're too busy watching Rick and Morty. Luh-hoo-uh-zer.//
<<<
A horse walks into a bar. The bartender asks the horse if it's an alcoholic considering all the bars he frequents, to which the horse replies "I don't think I am." POOF! The horse disappears.
This is the point in time when all the philosophy students in the audience begin to giggle, as they are familiar with the philosophical proposition of Cogito ergo sum, or I think, therefore, I am.
But to explain the concept aforehand would be putting Descartes before the horse.
<<<
<<<
Unfortunately, the universe doesn’t agree with me. We’ll see which one of us is still standing when this is over.
<<<
<<<
I feel more like I do now than I did a while ago.
<<<
<<<
You can’t know that this sentence is true.
<<<
<<<
The views expressed here do not necessarily represent the unanimous views of all parts of my mind.
<<<
<<<
Because anti-induction has never worked in the past I can be sure it will now.
<<<
<<<
Everyone generalizes from one example. Or at least I do.
<<<
<<<
You don’t understand society until you can build one out of nothing but signals and incentives.
<<<
<<<
When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, is probably an artifact of an incomplete hypothesis space.
<<<
<<<
I don’t have pet peeves. But I do feed a number of feral peeves that live in the neighborhood.
<<<
<<<
Napoleon Bonaparte was a master strategist who achieved immortality by living on in the form of delusional people all over the future
<<<
<<<
Usually, the explanation for why a thing exists is not the reason it started existing, but rather the reason it continues existing.
<<<
<<<
Omniscience makes reasoning about counterfactuals harder.
<<<
<<<
Any machine is a smoke machine when you use it wrong enough.
<<<
<<<
I said raise the barn, not raze it!
<<<
<<<
Remember with increasing sample size, your averages become more reliable - The Ns justify the means.
<<<
<<<
Your eyes don’t see, you do.
<<<
<<<
My favorite three bean soup is vanilla soy latte.
<<<
<<<
You will forget that you ever read this sentence.
<<<
<<<
Gaze not into the abyss, lest you become recognized as an abyss domain expert, and they expect you keep gazing into the damn thing.
<<<
<<<
When trying to understand entropy, remember that sitting still with your eyes closed will make you ever more lost - not within the universe, but between universes.
<<<
<<<
Nothing in life is as important as you think it is, while you are thinking about it.
<<<
<<<
Blessed are those who can gaze into a drop of water and see all the worlds and be like who cares that’s still zero information content.
<<<
<<<
The First Rule of Robot Fight Club is you DO NOT TALK about Robot Fight Club, or, through inaction, allow Robot Fight Club to be talked about.
<<<
<<<
Correlation correlates with causation because causation causes correlations.
<<<
<<<
Absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
<<<
<<<
Market exchange is a pathetically inadequate substitute for love, but it scales better.
<<<
<<<
Computer science is like omnipotence without omniscience.
<<<
<<<
Finally, a study that backs up everything I’ve always said about confirmation bias!
<<<
<<<
Nobody is smart enough to be wrong all the time.
<<<
<<<
Everything happens for a reason. The reason is a chaotic intersection of chance and the laws of physics.
<<<
<<<
Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful.
<<<
<<<
We think much less than we think we think.
<<<
<<<
If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again. Then quit. No use being a damn fool about it.
<<<
<<<
A library of all possible books contains less information than a single volume.
<<<
<<<
Is it crazy how saying sentences backwards creates backwards sentences saying how crazy it is?
<<<
<<<
Do unto others 20% better than you would expect them to do unto you, to correct for subjective error.
<<<
<<<
I’m just sayin’, everyone that confuses correlation with causation eventually ends up dead.
<<<
<<<
If you die in a documentary, you die in real life.
<<<
<<<
My intuition pump won’t turn off and now my basement is full of scary ideas.
<<<
<<<
One Weird Trick to hijack the inner voice of hundreds of minds by posting this message
<<<
<<<
Most supposed conspiracy “theorists” don’t come up with their own theories; they are conspiracy *enthusiasts* at best.
<<<
<<<
Have you tried throwing money at the problem? Yes? Well have you tried throwing it harder, using deadlier forms of currency?
<<<
<<<
Have you tried reducing the problem to a harder one which no one will expect you to solve?
<<<
<<<
Have you tried raising the temperature until you have enough thermal energy to overcome the problem’s energy barrier?
<<<
<<<
Keep your identities small, so you can fit more of them in your head.
<<<
<<<
You are a useful abstraction.
<<<
<<<
A society where ubiquitous 3D printing makes the delivery of physical objects obsolete. A post-post society.
<<<
<<<
Appeals to Purity Intuitions Considered Toxic
<<<
<<<
Consciousness is the weakest form of telepathy, where you’re limited to reading your own mind.
<<<
<<<
A new drug prevents the brain from speculating. You’ll never guess what happens when you take it.
<<<
<<<
Philosophy is mainly useful in inoculating you against other philosophy. Else you’ll be vulnerable to the first coherent philosophy you hear.
<<<
Enable/disable editor toolbar ,,<$checkbox tiddler="$:/config/TextEditor/EnableToolbar" field="text" checked="yes" unchecked="no" default="yes"> <$link to="$:/config/TextEditor/EnableToolbar"></$link> </$checkbox>,, Toggle preview <$reveal state="$:/state/showeditpreview" type="nomatch" text="no">
<$button set="$:/state/showeditpreview" setTo="no" tooltip="Hide preview" class="tc-btn-invisible">{{$:/core/images/preview-open}}</$button>
</$reveal>
<$reveal state="$:/state/showeditpreview" type="match" text="no">
<$button set="$:/state/showeditpreview" setTo="yes" tooltip="Show preview" class="tc-btn-invisible">{{$:/core/images/preview-closed}}</$button>
</$reveal>
{
"ca-ES": "Catalan (Spain)",
"cs-CZ": "Česky (Czech Republic)",
"da-DK": "Danish (Denmark)",
"de-AT": "Deutsch (Österreich)",
"de-CH": "Deutsch (Schweiz)",
"de-DE": "Deutsch (Deutschland)",
"el-GR": "Greek (Greece)",
"en-US": "English (US)",
"es-ES": "Castellano. (Spain)",
"fa-IR": "Persian (Iran)",
"fr-FR": "Français (France)",
"he-IL": "Hebrew (Israel)",
"hi-IN": "Hindi (India)",
"ia-IA": "Interlingua (Interlingua)",
"it-IT": "Italian (Italy)",
"ja-JP": "Japanese (Japan)",
"ko-KR": "Korean (Korea Republic)",
"nl-NL": "Dutch (The Netherlands)",
"pa-IN": "Punjabi (India)",
"pt-BR": "Português (Brasil)",
"pt-PT": "Portuguese (Portugal)",
"ru-RU": "Russian (Russia)",
"sk-SK": "Slovak (Slovakia)",
"sl-SI": "Solvenian (Slovenia)",
"sv-SE": "Swedish (Sweden)",
"zh-CN": "Chinese (China)",
"zh-HK": "Chinese (Hong Kong)",
"zh-Hans": "Chinese (Simplified)",
"zh-Hant": "Chinese (Traditional)",
"zh-TW": "Chinese (Taiwan)"
}
{{$:/plugins/kookma/commander/ui/search}}
<<slider-ii title:"$:/plugins/kookma/commander/ui/tiddler-selection">>
<<tabs "[all[shadows+tiddlers]tag[$:/tags/Commander]!has[draft.of]]" default:"$:/plugins/kookma/commander/ui/tiddler-operation" class:"cm-tab-colorful">>
---
<<slider-ii title:"$:/plugins/kookma/commander/ui/log-status">>
[search:title[]search:text[foobar]]
YYYY.0MM.0DD - <<currentTiddler>>:
YYYY.0MM.0DD - {{$:/HistoryList!!current-tiddler}}:
[[Carpe Diem]]
[[Carpe Tempus Segmentum]]
YYYY.0MM.0DD - Carpe Diem: Barely Accomplishing Anything
[[Prompted Introspection]]
YYYY.0MM.0DD - Prompted Introspection: Life Soundtrack
YYYY.0MM.0DD - Wiki Review: Busy
Create a new journal tiddler tagged with the current one
alt-C alt-Backspace alt-Backquote
{
"tiddlers": {
"$:/Acknowledgements": {
"title": "$:/Acknowledgements",
"text": "TiddlyWiki incorporates code from these fine OpenSource projects:\n\n* [[The Stanford Javascript Crypto Library|http://bitwiseshiftleft.github.io/sjcl/]]\n* [[The Jasmine JavaScript Test Framework|http://pivotal.github.io/jasmine/]]\n* [[Normalize.css by Nicolas Gallagher|http://necolas.github.io/normalize.css/]]\n\nAnd media from these projects:\n\n* World flag icons from [[Wikipedia|http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:SVG_flags_by_country]]\n"
},
"$:/core/copyright.txt": {
"title": "$:/core/copyright.txt",
"type": "text/plain",
"text": "TiddlyWiki created by Jeremy Ruston, (jeremy [at] jermolene [dot] com)\n\nCopyright (c) 2004-2007, Jeremy Ruston\nCopyright (c) 2007-2018, UnaMesa Association\nAll rights reserved.\n\nRedistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without\nmodification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:\n\n* Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this\n list of conditions and the following disclaimer.\n\n* Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice,\n this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation\n and/or other materials provided with the distribution.\n\n* Neither the name of the copyright holder nor the names of its\n contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from\n this software without specific prior written permission.\n\nTHIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS 'AS IS'\nAND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE\nIMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE\nDISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE\nFOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL\nDAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR\nSERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER\nCAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY,\nOR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE\nOF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE."
},
"$:/core/icon": {
"title": "$:/core/icon",
"tags": "$:/tags/Image",
"text": "<svg width=\"22pt\" height=\"22pt\" viewBox=\"0 0 128 128\"><path d=\"M64 0l54.56 32v64L64 128 9.44 96V32L64 0zm21.127 95.408c-3.578-.103-5.15-.094-6.974-3.152l-1.42.042c-1.653-.075-.964-.04-2.067-.097-1.844-.07-1.548-1.86-1.873-2.8-.52-3.202.687-6.43.65-9.632-.014-1.14-1.593-5.17-2.157-6.61-1.768.34-3.546.406-5.34.497-4.134-.01-8.24-.527-12.317-1.183-.8 3.35-3.16 8.036-1.21 11.44 2.37 3.52 4.03 4.495 6.61 4.707 2.572.212 3.16 3.18 2.53 4.242-.55.73-1.52.864-2.346 1.04l-1.65.08c-1.296-.046-2.455-.404-3.61-.955-1.93-1.097-3.925-3.383-5.406-5.024.345.658.55 1.938.24 2.53-.878 1.27-4.665 1.26-6.4.47-1.97-.89-6.73-7.162-7.468-11.86 1.96-3.78 4.812-7.07 6.255-11.186-3.146-2.05-4.83-5.384-4.61-9.16l.08-.44c-3.097.59-1.49.37-4.82.628-10.608-.032-19.935-7.37-14.68-18.774.34-.673.664-1.287 1.243-.994.466.237.4 1.18.166 2.227-3.005 13.627 11.67 13.732 20.69 11.21.89-.25 2.67-1.936 3.905-2.495 2.016-.91 4.205-1.282 6.376-1.55 5.4-.63 11.893 2.276 15.19 2.37 3.3.096 7.99-.805 10.87-.615 2.09.098 4.143.483 6.16 1.03 1.306-6.49 1.4-11.27 4.492-12.38 1.814.293 3.213 2.818 4.25 4.167 2.112-.086 4.12.46 6.115 1.066 3.61-.522 6.642-2.593 9.833-4.203-3.234 2.69-3.673 7.075-3.303 11.127.138 2.103-.444 4.386-1.164 6.54-1.348 3.507-3.95 7.204-6.97 7.014-1.14-.036-1.805-.695-2.653-1.4-.164 1.427-.81 2.7-1.434 3.96-1.44 2.797-5.203 4.03-8.687 7.016-3.484 2.985 1.114 13.65 2.23 15.594 1.114 1.94 4.226 2.652 3.02 4.406-.37.58-.936.785-1.54 1.01l-.82.11zm-40.097-8.85l.553.14c.694-.27 2.09.15 2.83.353-1.363-1.31-3.417-3.24-4.897-4.46-.485-1.47-.278-2.96-.174-4.46l.02-.123c-.582 1.205-1.322 2.376-1.72 3.645-.465 1.71 2.07 3.557 3.052 4.615l.336.3z\" fill-rule=\"evenodd\"/></svg>"
},
"$:/core/images/add-comment": {
"title": "$:/core/images/add-comment",
"tags": "$:/tags/Image",
"text": "<svg class=\"tc-image-add-comment tc-image-button\" width=\"22pt\" height=\"22pt\" viewBox=\"0 0 128 128\"><path d=\"M56 56H36a8 8 0 1 0 0 16h20v20a8 8 0 1 0 16 0V72h20a8 8 0 1 0 0-16H72V36a8 8 0 1 0-16 0v20zm-12.595 58.362c-6.683 7.659-20.297 12.903-36.006 12.903-2.196 0-4.35-.102-6.451-.3 9.652-3.836 17.356-12.24 21.01-22.874C8.516 94.28 0 79.734 0 63.5 0 33.953 28.206 10 63 10s63 23.953 63 53.5S97.794 117 63 117c-6.841 0-13.428-.926-19.595-2.638z\" fill-rule=\"evenodd\"/></svg>"
},
"$:/core/images/advanced-search-button": {
"title": "$:/core/images/advanced-search-button",
"tags": "$:/tags/Image",
"text": "<svg class=\"tc-image-advanced-search-button tc-image-button\" width=\"22pt\" height=\"22pt\" viewBox=\"0 0 128 128\">\n <g fill-rule=\"evenodd\">\n <path d=\"M74.5651535,87.9848361 C66.9581537,93.0488876 57.8237115,96 48,96 C21.490332,96 0,74.509668 0,48 C0,21.490332 21.490332,0 48,0 C74.509668,0 96,21.490332 96,48 C96,57.8541369 93.0305793,67.0147285 87.9377231,74.6357895 L122.284919,108.982985 C125.978897,112.676963 125.973757,118.65366 122.284271,122.343146 C118.593975,126.033442 112.613238,126.032921 108.92411,122.343793 L74.5651535,87.9848361 Z M48,80 C65.673112,80 80,65.673112 80,48 C80,30.326888 65.673112,16 48,16 C30.326888,16 16,30.326888 16,48 C16,65.673112 30.326888,80 48,80 Z\"></path>\n <circle cx=\"48\" cy=\"48\" r=\"8\"></circle>\n <circle cx=\"28\" cy=\"48\" r=\"8\"></circle>\n <circle cx=\"68\" cy=\"48\" r=\"8\"></circle>\n </g>\n</svg>"
},
"$:/core/images/auto-height": {
"title": "$:/core/images/auto-height",
"tags": "$:/tags/Image",
"text": "<svg class=\"tc-image-auto-height tc-image-button\" width=\"22pt\" height=\"22pt\" viewBox=\"0 0 128 128\">\n <path d=\"M67.9867828,114.356363 L67.9579626,99.8785426 C67.9550688,98.4248183 67.1636987,97.087107 65.8909901,96.3845863 L49.9251455,87.5716209 L47.992126,95.0735397 L79.8995411,95.0735397 C84.1215894,95.0735397 85.4638131,89.3810359 81.686497,87.4948823 L49.7971476,71.5713518 L48.0101917,79.1500092 L79.992126,79.1500092 C84.2093753,79.1500092 85.5558421,73.4676733 81.7869993,71.5753162 L49.805065,55.517008 L48.0101916,63.0917009 L79.9921259,63.0917015 C84.2035118,63.0917016 85.5551434,57.4217887 81.7966702,55.5218807 L65.7625147,47.4166161 L67.9579705,50.9864368 L67.9579705,35.6148245 L77.1715737,44.8284272 C78.7336709,46.3905243 81.2663308,46.3905243 82.8284279,44.8284271 C84.390525,43.2663299 84.390525,40.7336699 82.8284278,39.1715728 L66.8284271,23.1715728 C65.2663299,21.6094757 62.73367,21.6094757 61.1715729,23.1715729 L45.1715729,39.1715729 C43.6094757,40.73367 43.6094757,43.26633 45.1715729,44.8284271 C46.73367,46.3905243 49.26633,46.3905243 50.8284271,44.8284271 L59.9579705,35.6988837 L59.9579705,50.9864368 C59.9579705,52.495201 60.806922,53.8755997 62.1534263,54.5562576 L78.1875818,62.6615223 L79.9921261,55.0917015 L48.0101917,55.0917009 C43.7929424,55.0917008 42.4464755,60.7740368 46.2153183,62.6663939 L78.1972526,78.7247021 L79.992126,71.1500092 L48.0101917,71.1500092 C43.7881433,71.1500092 42.4459197,76.842513 46.2232358,78.7286665 L78.1125852,94.6521971 L79.8995411,87.0735397 L47.992126,87.0735397 C43.8588276,87.0735397 42.4404876,92.5780219 46.0591064,94.5754586 L62.024951,103.388424 L59.9579785,99.8944677 L59.9867142,114.32986 L50.8284271,105.171573 C49.26633,103.609476 46.73367,103.609476 45.1715729,105.171573 C43.6094757,106.73367 43.6094757,109.26633 45.1715729,110.828427 L61.1715729,126.828427 C62.73367,128.390524 65.2663299,128.390524 66.8284271,126.828427 L82.8284278,110.828427 C84.390525,109.26633 84.390525,106.73367 82.8284279,105.171573 C81.2663308,103.609476 78.7336709,103.609476 77.1715737,105.171573 L67.9867828,114.356363 L67.9867828,114.356363 Z M16,20 L112,20 C114.209139,20 116,18.209139 116,16 C116,13.790861 114.209139,12 112,12 L16,12 C13.790861,12 12,13.790861 12,16 C12,18.209139 13.790861,20 16,20 L16,20 Z\"></path>\n</svg>"
},
"$:/core/images/blank": {
"title": "$:/core/images/blank",
"tags": "$:/tags/Image",
"text": "<svg class=\"tc-image-blank tc-image-button\" viewBox=\"0 0 128 128\" width=\"22pt\" height=\"22pt\"></svg>"
},
"$:/core/images/bold": {
"title": "$:/core/images/bold",
"tags": "$:/tags/Image",
"text": "<svg class=\"tc-image-bold tc-image-button\" width=\"22pt\" height=\"22pt\" viewBox=\"0 0 128 128\">\n <g fill-rule=\"evenodd\">\n <path d=\"M41.1456583,51.8095238 L41.1456583,21.8711485 L67.4985994,21.8711485 C70.0084159,21.8711485 72.4285598,22.0802967 74.7591036,22.4985994 C77.0896475,22.9169022 79.1512515,23.6638602 80.9439776,24.7394958 C82.7367036,25.8151314 84.170863,27.3090474 85.2464986,29.2212885 C86.3221342,31.1335296 86.859944,33.5835518 86.859944,36.5714286 C86.859944,41.9496067 85.2465147,45.8337882 82.0196078,48.2240896 C78.792701,50.614391 74.6694929,51.8095238 69.6498599,51.8095238 L41.1456583,51.8095238 Z M13,0 L13,128 L75.0280112,128 C80.7647346,128 86.3519803,127.28292 91.789916,125.848739 C97.2278517,124.414559 102.068139,122.203563 106.310924,119.215686 C110.553709,116.22781 113.929959,112.373506 116.439776,107.652661 C118.949592,102.931816 120.204482,97.3445701 120.204482,90.8907563 C120.204482,82.8832466 118.262391,76.0411115 114.378151,70.3641457 C110.493911,64.6871798 104.607883,60.7133634 96.719888,58.442577 C102.456611,55.6937304 106.788968,52.1680887 109.717087,47.8655462 C112.645206,43.5630037 114.109244,38.1849062 114.109244,31.7310924 C114.109244,25.7553389 113.123259,20.7357813 111.151261,16.6722689 C109.179262,12.6087565 106.400578,9.35201972 102.815126,6.90196078 C99.2296739,4.45190185 94.927196,2.68908101 89.907563,1.61344538 C84.8879301,0.537809748 79.3305627,0 73.2352941,0 L13,0 Z M41.1456583,106.128852 L41.1456583,70.9915966 L71.8011204,70.9915966 C77.896389,70.9915966 82.7964334,72.3958776 86.5014006,75.2044818 C90.2063677,78.0130859 92.0588235,82.7039821 92.0588235,89.2773109 C92.0588235,92.6237329 91.4911355,95.3725383 90.3557423,97.5238095 C89.2203491,99.6750808 87.6965548,101.378145 85.7843137,102.633053 C83.8720726,103.887961 81.661077,104.784311 79.1512605,105.322129 C76.641444,105.859947 74.0121519,106.128852 71.2633053,106.128852 L41.1456583,106.128852 Z\"></path>\n </g>\n</svg>"
},
"$:/core/images/cancel-button": {
"title": "$:/core/images/cancel-button",
"tags": "$:/tags/Image",
"text": "<svg class=\"tc-image-cancel-button tc-image-button\" viewBox=\"0 0 128 128\" width=\"22pt\" height=\"22pt\">\n\t<g fill-rule=\"evenodd\">\n\t <path d=\"M64,76.3137085 L47.0294734,93.2842351 C43.9038742,96.4098343 38.8399231,96.4084656 35.7157288,93.2842712 C32.5978915,90.166434 32.5915506,85.0947409 35.7157649,81.9705266 L52.6862915,65 L35.7157649,48.0294734 C32.5901657,44.9038742 32.5915344,39.8399231 35.7157288,36.7157288 C38.833566,33.5978915 43.9052591,33.5915506 47.0294734,36.7157649 L64,53.6862915 L80.9705266,36.7157649 C84.0961258,33.5901657 89.1600769,33.5915344 92.2842712,36.7157288 C95.4021085,39.833566 95.4084494,44.9052591 92.2842351,48.0294734 L75.3137085,65 L92.2842351,81.9705266 C95.4098343,85.0961258 95.4084656,90.1600769 92.2842712,93.2842712 C89.166434,96.4021085 84.0947409,96.4084494 80.9705266,93.2842351 L64,76.3137085 Z M64,129 C99.346224,129 128,100.346224 128,65 C128,29.653776 99.346224,1 64,1 C28.653776,1 1.13686838e-13,29.653776 1.13686838e-13,65 C1.13686838e-13,100.346224 28.653776,129 64,129 Z M64,113 C90.509668,113 112,91.509668 112,65 C112,38.490332 90.509668,17 64,17 C37.490332,17 16,38.490332 16,65 C16,91.509668 37.490332,113 64,113 Z\"></path>\n </g>\n</svg>"
},
"$:/core/images/chevron-down": {
"title": "$:/core/images/chevron-down",
"tags": "$:/tags/Image",
"text": "<svg class=\"tc-image-chevron-down tc-image-button\" width=\"22pt\" height=\"22pt\" viewBox=\"0 0 128 128\">\n\t<g fill-rule=\"evenodd\" transform=\"translate(64.000000, 40.500000) rotate(-270.000000) translate(-64.000000, -40.500000) translate(-22.500000, -26.500000)\">\n <path d=\"M112.743107,112.12741 C111.310627,113.561013 109.331747,114.449239 107.145951,114.449239 L27.9777917,114.449239 C23.6126002,114.449239 20.0618714,110.904826 20.0618714,106.532572 C20.0618714,102.169214 23.6059497,98.6159054 27.9777917,98.6159054 L99.2285381,98.6159054 L99.2285381,27.365159 C99.2285381,22.9999675 102.77295,19.4492387 107.145205,19.4492387 C111.508562,19.4492387 115.061871,22.993317 115.061871,27.365159 L115.061871,106.533318 C115.061871,108.71579 114.175869,110.694669 112.743378,112.127981 Z\" transform=\"translate(67.561871, 66.949239) rotate(-45.000000) translate(-67.561871, -66.949239) \"></path>\n <path d=\"M151.35638,112.12741 C149.923899,113.561013 147.94502,114.449239 145.759224,114.449239 L66.5910645,114.449239 C62.225873,114.449239 58.6751442,110.904826 58.6751442,106.532572 C58.6751442,102.169214 62.2192225,98.6159054 66.5910645,98.6159054 L137.841811,98.6159054 L137.841811,27.365159 C137.841811,22.9999675 141.386223,19.4492387 145.758478,19.4492387 C150.121835,19.4492387 153.675144,22.993317 153.675144,27.365159 L153.675144,106.533318 C153.675144,108.71579 152.789142,110.694669 151.356651,112.127981 Z\" transform=\"translate(106.175144, 66.949239) rotate(-45.000000) translate(-106.175144, -66.949239) \"></path>\n\t</g>\n</svg>"
},
"$:/core/images/chevron-left": {
"title": "$:/core/images/chevron-left",
"tags": "$:/tags/Image",
"text": "<svg class=\"tc-image-chevron-left tc-image-button\" width=\"22pt\" height=\"22pt\" viewBox=\"0 0 128 128\" version=\"1.1\">\n <g fill-rule=\"evenodd\" transform=\"translate(92.500000, 64.000000) rotate(-180.000000) translate(-92.500000, -64.000000) translate(6.000000, -3.000000)\">\n <path d=\"M112.743107,112.12741 C111.310627,113.561013 109.331747,114.449239 107.145951,114.449239 L27.9777917,114.449239 C23.6126002,114.449239 20.0618714,110.904826 20.0618714,106.532572 C20.0618714,102.169214 23.6059497,98.6159054 27.9777917,98.6159054 L99.2285381,98.6159054 L99.2285381,27.365159 C99.2285381,22.9999675 102.77295,19.4492387 107.145205,19.4492387 C111.508562,19.4492387 115.061871,22.993317 115.061871,27.365159 L115.061871,106.533318 C115.061871,108.71579 114.175869,110.694669 112.743378,112.127981 Z\" transform=\"translate(67.561871, 66.949239) rotate(-45.000000) translate(-67.561871, -66.949239) \"></path>\n <path d=\"M151.35638,112.12741 C149.923899,113.561013 147.94502,114.449239 145.759224,114.449239 L66.5910645,114.449239 C62.225873,114.449239 58.6751442,110.904826 58.6751442,106.532572 C58.6751442,102.169214 62.2192225,98.6159054 66.5910645,98.6159054 L137.841811,98.6159054 L137.841811,27.365159 C137.841811,22.9999675 141.386223,19.4492387 145.758478,19.4492387 C150.121835,19.4492387 153.675144,22.993317 153.675144,27.365159 L153.675144,106.533318 C153.675144,108.71579 152.789142,110.694669 151.356651,112.127981 Z\" transform=\"translate(106.175144, 66.949239) rotate(-45.000000) translate(-106.175144, -66.949239) \"></path>\n </g>\n</svg>"
},
"$:/core/images/chevron-right": {
"title": "$:/core/images/chevron-right",
"tags": "$:/tags/Image",
"text": "<svg class=\"tc-image-chevron-right tc-image-button\" width=\"22pt\" height=\"22pt\" viewBox=\"0 0 128 128\">\n <g fill-rule=\"evenodd\" transform=\"translate(-48.000000, -3.000000)\">\n <path d=\"M112.743107,112.12741 C111.310627,113.561013 109.331747,114.449239 107.145951,114.449239 L27.9777917,114.449239 C23.6126002,114.449239 20.0618714,110.904826 20.0618714,106.532572 C20.0618714,102.169214 23.6059497,98.6159054 27.9777917,98.6159054 L99.2285381,98.6159054 L99.2285381,27.365159 C99.2285381,22.9999675 102.77295,19.4492387 107.145205,19.4492387 C111.508562,19.4492387 115.061871,22.993317 115.061871,27.365159 L115.061871,106.533318 C115.061871,108.71579 114.175869,110.694669 112.743378,112.127981 Z\" transform=\"translate(67.561871, 66.949239) rotate(-45.000000) translate(-67.561871, -66.949239) \"></path>\n <path d=\"M151.35638,112.12741 C149.923899,113.561013 147.94502,114.449239 145.759224,114.449239 L66.5910645,114.449239 C62.225873,114.449239 58.6751442,110.904826 58.6751442,106.532572 C58.6751442,102.169214 62.2192225,98.6159054 66.5910645,98.6159054 L137.841811,98.6159054 L137.841811,27.365159 C137.841811,22.9999675 141.386223,19.4492387 145.758478,19.4492387 C150.121835,19.4492387 153.675144,22.993317 153.675144,27.365159 L153.675144,106.533318 C153.675144,108.71579 152.789142,110.694669 151.356651,112.127981 Z\" transform=\"translate(106.175144, 66.949239) rotate(-45.000000) translate(-106.175144, -66.949239) \"></path>\n </g>\n</svg>"
},
"$:/core/images/chevron-up": {
"title": "$:/core/images/chevron-up",
"tags": "$:/tags/Image",
"text": "<svg class=\"tc-image-chevron-up tc-image-button\" width=\"22pt\" height=\"22pt\" viewBox=\"0 0 128 128\">\n\t<g fill-rule=\"evenodd\" transform=\"translate(64.000000, 89.500000) rotate(-90.000000) translate(-64.000000, -89.500000) translate(-22.500000, 22.500000)\">\n <path d=\"M112.743107,112.12741 C111.310627,113.561013 109.331747,114.449239 107.145951,114.449239 L27.9777917,114.449239 C23.6126002,114.449239 20.0618714,110.904826 20.0618714,106.532572 C20.0618714,102.169214 23.6059497,98.6159054 27.9777917,98.6159054 L99.2285381,98.6159054 L99.2285381,27.365159 C99.2285381,22.9999675 102.77295,19.4492387 107.145205,19.4492387 C111.508562,19.4492387 115.061871,22.993317 115.061871,27.365159 L115.061871,106.533318 C115.061871,108.71579 114.175869,110.694669 112.743378,112.127981 Z\" transform=\"translate(67.561871, 66.949239) rotate(-45.000000) translate(-67.561871, -66.949239) \"></path>\n <path d=\"M151.35638,112.12741 C149.923899,113.561013 147.94502,114.449239 145.759224,114.449239 L66.5910645,114.449239 C62.225873,114.449239 58.6751442,110.904826 58.6751442,106.532572 C58.6751442,102.169214 62.2192225,98.6159054 66.5910645,98.6159054 L137.841811,98.6159054 L137.841811,27.365159 C137.841811,22.9999675 141.386223,19.4492387 145.758478,19.4492387 C150.121835,19.4492387 153.675144,22.993317 153.675144,27.365159 L153.675144,106.533318 C153.675144,108.71579 152.789142,110.694669 151.356651,112.127981 Z\" transform=\"translate(106.175144, 66.949239) rotate(-45.000000) translate(-106.175144, -66.949239) \"></path>\n\t</g>\n</svg>"
},
"$:/core/images/clone-button": {
"title": "$:/core/images/clone-button",
"tags": "$:/tags/Image",
"text": "<svg class=\"tc-clone-button tc-image-button\" width=\"22pt\" height=\"22pt\" viewBox=\"0 0 128 128\">\n <g fill-rule=\"evenodd\">\n <path d=\"M32.2650915,96 L32.2650915,120.002359 C32.2650915,124.419334 35.8432884,128 40.2627323,128 L120.002359,128 C124.419334,128 128,124.421803 128,120.002359 L128,40.2627323 C128,35.8457573 124.421803,32.2650915 120.002359,32.2650915 L96,32.2650915 L96,48 L108.858899,48 C110.519357,48 111.853018,49.3405131 111.853018,50.9941198 L111.853018,108.858899 C111.853018,110.519357 110.512505,111.853018 108.858899,111.853018 L50.9941198,111.853018 C49.333661,111.853018 48,110.512505 48,108.858899 L48,96 L32.2650915,96 Z\"></path>\n <path d=\"M40,56 L32.0070969,56 C27.5881712,56 24,52.418278 24,48 C24,43.5907123 27.5848994,40 32.0070969,40 L40,40 L40,32.0070969 C40,27.5881712 43.581722,24 48,24 C52.4092877,24 56,27.5848994 56,32.0070969 L56,40 L63.9929031,40 C68.4118288,40 72,43.581722 72,48 C72,52.4092877 68.4151006,56 63.9929031,56 L56,56 L56,63.9929031 C56,68.4118288 52.418278,72 48,72 C43.5907123,72 40,68.4151006 40,63.9929031 L40,56 Z M7.9992458,0 C3.58138434,0 0,3.5881049 0,7.9992458 L0,88.0007542 C0,92.4186157 3.5881049,96 7.9992458,96 L88.0007542,96 C92.4186157,96 96,92.4118951 96,88.0007542 L96,7.9992458 C96,3.58138434 92.4118951,0 88.0007542,0 L7.9992458,0 Z M19.0010118,16 C17.3435988,16 16,17.336731 16,19.0010118 L16,76.9989882 C16,78.6564012 17.336731,80 19.0010118,80 L76.9989882,80 C78.6564012,80 80,78.663269 80,76.9989882 L80,19.0010118 C80,17.3435988 78.663269,16 76.9989882,16 L19.0010118,16 Z\"></path>\n </g>\n</svg>"
},
"$:/core/images/close-all-button": {
"title": "$:/core/images/close-all-button",
"tags": "$:/tags/Image",
"text": "<svg class=\"tc-close-all-button tc-image-button\" width=\"22pt\" height=\"22pt\" viewBox=\"0 0 128 128\">\n <g fill-rule=\"evenodd\" transform=\"translate(-23.000000, -23.000000)\">\n <path d=\"M43,131 L22.9976794,131 C18.5827987,131 15,127.418278 15,123 C15,118.590712 18.5806831,115 22.9976794,115 L43,115 L43,94.9976794 C43,90.5827987 46.581722,87 51,87 C55.4092877,87 59,90.5806831 59,94.9976794 L59,115 L79.0023206,115 C83.4172013,115 87,118.581722 87,123 C87,127.409288 83.4193169,131 79.0023206,131 L59,131 L59,151.002321 C59,155.417201 55.418278,159 51,159 C46.5907123,159 43,155.419317 43,151.002321 L43,131 Z\" transform=\"translate(51.000000, 123.000000) rotate(-45.000000) translate(-51.000000, -123.000000) \"></path>\n <path d=\"M43,59 L22.9976794,59 C18.5827987,59 15,55.418278 15,51 C15,46.5907123 18.5806831,43 22.9976794,43 L43,43 L43,22.9976794 C43,18.5827987 46.581722,15 51,15 C55.4092877,15 59,18.5806831 59,22.9976794 L59,43 L79.0023206,43 C83.4172013,43 87,46.581722 87,51 C87,55.4092877 83.4193169,59 79.0023206,59 L59,59 L59,79.0023206 C59,83.4172013 55.418278,87 51,87 C46.5907123,87 43,83.4193169 43,79.0023206 L43,59 Z\" transform=\"translate(51.000000, 51.000000) rotate(-45.000000) translate(-51.000000, -51.000000) \"></path>\n <path d=\"M115,59 L94.9976794,59 C90.5827987,59 87,55.418278 87,51 C87,46.5907123 90.5806831,43 94.9976794,43 L115,43 L115,22.9976794 C115,18.5827987 118.581722,15 123,15 C127.409288,15 131,18.5806831 131,22.9976794 L131,43 L151.002321,43 C155.417201,43 159,46.581722 159,51 C159,55.4092877 155.419317,59 151.002321,59 L131,59 L131,79.0023206 C131,83.4172013 127.418278,87 123,87 C118.590712,87 115,83.4193169 115,79.0023206 L115,59 Z\" transform=\"translate(123.000000, 51.000000) rotate(-45.000000) translate(-123.000000, -51.000000) \"></path>\n <path d=\"M115,131 L94.9976794,131 C90.5827987,131 87,127.418278 87,123 C87,118.590712 90.5806831,115 94.9976794,115 L115,115 L115,94.9976794 C115,90.5827987 118.581722,87 123,87 C127.409288,87 131,90.5806831 131,94.9976794 L131,115 L151.002321,115 C155.417201,115 159,118.581722 159,123 C159,127.409288 155.419317,131 151.002321,131 L131,131 L131,151.002321 C131,155.417201 127.418278,159 123,159 C118.590712,159 115,155.419317 115,151.002321 L115,131 Z\" transform=\"translate(123.000000, 123.000000) rotate(-45.000000) translate(-123.000000, -123.000000) \"></path>\n </g>\n</svg>"
},
"$:/core/images/close-button": {
"title": "$:/core/images/close-button",
"tags": "$:/tags/Image",
"text": "<svg class=\"tc-image-close-button tc-image-button\" viewBox=\"0 0 128 128\" width=\"22pt\" height=\"22pt\">\n <g fill-rule=\"evenodd\">\n <path d=\"M65.0864256,75.4091629 L14.9727349,125.522854 C11.8515951,128.643993 6.78104858,128.64922 3.65685425,125.525026 C0.539017023,122.407189 0.5336324,117.334539 3.65902635,114.209145 L53.7727171,64.0954544 L3.65902635,13.9817637 C0.537886594,10.8606239 0.532659916,5.79007744 3.65685425,2.6658831 C6.77469148,-0.451954124 11.8473409,-0.457338747 14.9727349,2.66805521 L65.0864256,52.7817459 L115.200116,2.66805521 C118.321256,-0.453084553 123.391803,-0.458311231 126.515997,2.6658831 C129.633834,5.78372033 129.639219,10.8563698 126.513825,13.9817637 L76.4001341,64.0954544 L126.513825,114.209145 C129.634965,117.330285 129.640191,122.400831 126.515997,125.525026 C123.39816,128.642863 118.32551,128.648248 115.200116,125.522854 L65.0864256,75.4091629 L65.0864256,75.4091629 Z\"></path>\n </g>\n</svg>\n"
},
"$:/core/images/close-others-button": {
"title": "$:/core/images/close-others-button",
"tags": "$:/tags/Image",
"text": "<svg class=\"tc-image-close-others-button tc-image-button\" width=\"22pt\" height=\"22pt\" viewBox=\"0 0 128 128\">\n <g fill-rule=\"evenodd\">\n <path d=\"M64,128 C99.346224,128 128,99.346224 128,64 C128,28.653776 99.346224,0 64,0 C28.653776,0 0,28.653776 0,64 C0,99.346224 28.653776,128 64,128 Z M64,112 C90.509668,112 112,90.509668 112,64 C112,37.490332 90.509668,16 64,16 C37.490332,16 16,37.490332 16,64 C16,90.509668 37.490332,112 64,112 Z M64,96 C81.673112,96 96,81.673112 96,64 C96,46.326888 81.673112,32 64,32 C46.326888,32 32,46.326888 32,64 C32,81.673112 46.326888,96 64,96 Z M64,80 C72.836556,80 80,72.836556 80,64 C80,55.163444 72.836556,48 64,48 C55.163444,48 48,55.163444 48,64 C48,72.836556 55.163444,80 64,80 Z\"></path>\n </g>\n</svg>"
},
"$:/core/images/copy-clipboard": {
"title": "$:/core/images/copy-clipboard",
"tags": "$:/tags/Image",
"text": "<svg class=\"tc-image-copy-clipboard tc-image-button\" width=\"22pt\" height=\"22pt\" viewBox=\"0 0 128 128\">\n\t<g fill-rule=\"evenodd\">\n\t\t<rect x=\"40\" y=\"40\" width=\"33\" height=\"8\" rx=\"4\"></rect>\n\t\t<rect x=\"40\" y=\"82\" width=\"17\" height=\"8\" rx=\"4\"></rect>\n\t\t<rect x=\"40\" y=\"54\" width=\"17\" height=\"8\" rx=\"4\"></rect>\n\t\t<rect x=\"40\" y=\"96\" width=\"33\" height=\"8\" rx=\"4\"></rect>\n\t\t<rect x=\"40\" y=\"68\" width=\"12\" height=\"8\" rx=\"4\"></rect>\n\t\t<path d=\"M40,16 L23.9992458,16 C19.5813843,16 16,19.5907123 16,24 C16,24.0016363 16.0000005,24.0032725 16.0000015,24.0049086 C16.0000005,24.0065441 16,24.0081803 16,24.0098166 L16,119.990183 C16,119.99182 16.0000005,119.993456 16.0000015,119.995092 C16.0000005,119.996727 16,119.998364 16,120 C16,124.409288 19.5813843,128 23.9992458,128 L104.000754,128 C106.205061,128 108.203844,127.105595 109.652065,125.659342 C111.102424,124.21251 112,122.214511 112,120.007595 L112,103.992405 C112,99.5776607 108.418278,96 104,96 C99.5907123,96 96,99.5783218 96,103.992405 L96,112 L32,112 L32,32 L96,32 L96,40.0075946 C96,44.4223393 99.581722,48 104,48 C108.409288,48 112,44.4216782 112,40.0075946 L112,23.9924054 C112,21.7851587 111.104671,19.7871591 109.657101,18.3409203 C108.203844,16.8944047 106.205061,16 104.000754,16 L88,16 C88,11.5907123 84.4151006,8 79.9929031,8 L48.0070969,8 C43.5881712,8 40,11.581722 40,16 Z M44,14.9958262 C44,12.7889923 45.7964248,11 48.0000255,11 L79.9999745,11 C82.2091276,11 84,12.7965212 84,14.9958262 L84,19.0041738 C84,21.2110077 82.2035752,23 79.9999745,23 L48.0000255,23 C45.7908724,23 44,21.2034788 44,19.0041738 L44,14.9958262 Z\"></path>\n\t\t<rect x=\"62\" y=\"64\" width=\"66\" height=\"16\" rx=\"8\"></rect>\n\t\t<path d=\"M60.6568542,85.6568542 L76.6568542,69.6568543 L65.3431458,69.6568542 L81.3431458,85.6568542 C84.4673401,88.7810486 89.5326599,88.7810486 92.6568542,85.6568542 C95.7810486,82.5326599 95.7810486,77.4673401 92.6568542,74.3431458 L76.6568542,58.3431458 C73.5326599,55.2189514 68.4673401,55.2189514 65.3431458,58.3431457 L49.3431458,74.3431457 C46.2189514,77.4673401 46.2189514,82.5326599 49.3431457,85.6568542 C52.4673401,88.7810486 57.5326599,88.7810486 60.6568542,85.6568542 L60.6568542,85.6568542 Z\" transform=\"translate(71.000000, 72.000000) rotate(-90.000000) translate(-71.000000, -72.000000) \"></path>\n\t</g>\n</svg>"
},
"$:/core/images/delete-button": {
"title": "$:/core/images/delete-button",
"tags": "$:/tags/Image",
"text": "<svg class=\"tc-image-delete-button tc-image-button\" viewBox=\"0 0 128 128\" width=\"22pt\" height=\"22pt\">\n <g fill-rule=\"evenodd\" transform=\"translate(12.000000, 0.000000)\">\n <rect x=\"0\" y=\"11\" width=\"105\" height=\"16\" rx=\"8\"></rect>\n <rect x=\"28\" y=\"0\" width=\"48\" height=\"16\" rx=\"8\"></rect>\n <rect x=\"8\" y=\"16\" width=\"16\" height=\"112\" rx=\"8\"></rect>\n <rect x=\"8\" y=\"112\" width=\"88\" height=\"16\" rx=\"8\"></rect>\n <rect x=\"80\" y=\"16\" width=\"16\" height=\"112\" rx=\"8\"></rect>\n <rect x=\"56\" y=\"16\" width=\"16\" height=\"112\" rx=\"8\"></rect>\n <rect x=\"32\" y=\"16\" width=\"16\" height=\"112\" rx=\"8\"></rect>\n </g>\n</svg>"
},
"$:/core/images/done-button": {
"title": "$:/core/images/done-button",
"tags": "$:/tags/Image",
"text": "<svg class=\"tc-image-done-button tc-image-button\" viewBox=\"0 0 128 128\" width=\"22pt\" height=\"22pt\">\n <g fill-rule=\"evenodd\">\n <path d=\"M3.52445141,76.8322939 C2.07397484,75.3828178 1.17514421,73.3795385 1.17514421,71.1666288 L1.17514421,23.1836596 C1.17514421,18.7531992 4.75686621,15.1751442 9.17514421,15.1751442 C13.5844319,15.1751442 17.1751442,18.7606787 17.1751442,23.1836596 L17.1751442,63.1751442 L119.173716,63.1751442 C123.590457,63.1751442 127.175144,66.7568662 127.175144,71.1751442 C127.175144,75.5844319 123.592783,79.1751442 119.173716,79.1751442 L9.17657227,79.1751442 C6.96796403,79.1751442 4.9674142,78.279521 3.51911285,76.8315312 Z\" id=\"Rectangle-285\" transform=\"translate(64.175144, 47.175144) rotate(-45.000000) translate(-64.175144, -47.175144) \"></path>\n </g>\n</svg>"
},
"$:/core/images/down-arrow": {
"title": "$:/core/images/down-arrow",
"tags": "$:/tags/Image",
"text": "<svg class=\"tc-image-down-arrow tc-image-button\" viewBox=\"0 0 128 128\" width=\"22pt\" height=\"22pt\">\n <path d=\"M109.35638,81.3533152 C107.923899,82.7869182 105.94502,83.6751442 103.759224,83.6751442 L24.5910645,83.6751442 C20.225873,83.6751442 16.6751442,80.1307318 16.6751442,75.7584775 C16.6751442,71.3951199 20.2192225,67.8418109 24.5910645,67.8418109 L95.8418109,67.8418109 L95.8418109,-3.40893546 C95.8418109,-7.77412698 99.3862233,-11.3248558 103.758478,-11.3248558 C108.121835,-11.3248558 111.675144,-7.78077754 111.675144,-3.40893546 L111.675144,75.7592239 C111.675144,77.9416955 110.789142,79.9205745 109.356651,81.3538862 Z\" transform=\"translate(64.175144, 36.175144) rotate(45.000000) translate(-64.175144, -36.175144) \"></path>\n</svg>"
},
"$:/core/images/download-button": {
"title": "$:/core/images/download-button",
"tags": "$:/tags/Image",
"text": "<svg class=\"tc-image-download-button tc-image-button\" width=\"22pt\" height=\"22pt\" viewBox=\"0 0 128 128\"><g fill-rule=\"evenodd\"><path class=\"tc-image-download-button-ring\" d=\"M64,128 C99.346224,128 128,99.346224 128,64 C128,28.653776 99.346224,0 64,0 C28.653776,0 0,28.653776 0,64 C0,99.346224 28.653776,128 64,128 Z M64,112 C90.509668,112 112,90.509668 112,64 C112,37.490332 90.509668,16 64,16 C37.490332,16 16,37.490332 16,64 C16,90.509668 37.490332,112 64,112 Z\"/><path d=\"M34.3496823,66.4308767 L61.2415823,93.634668 C63.0411536,95.4551107 65.9588502,95.4551107 67.7584215,93.634668 L94.6503215,66.4308767 C96.4498928,64.610434 96.4498928,61.6588981 94.6503215,59.8384554 C93.7861334,58.9642445 92.6140473,58.4731195 91.3919019,58.4731195 L82.9324098,58.4731195 C80.3874318,58.4731195 78.3243078,56.3860674 78.3243078,53.8115729 L78.3243078,38.6615466 C78.3243078,36.0870521 76.2611837,34 73.7162058,34 L55.283798,34 C52.7388201,34 50.675696,36.0870521 50.675696,38.6615466 L50.675696,38.6615466 L50.675696,53.8115729 C50.675696,56.3860674 48.612572,58.4731195 46.0675941,58.4731195 L37.608102,58.4731195 C35.063124,58.4731195 33,60.5601716 33,63.134666 C33,64.3709859 33.4854943,65.5566658 34.3496823,66.4308767 L34.3496823,66.4308767 Z\"/></g></svg>"
},
"$:/core/images/edit-button": {
"title": "$:/core/images/edit-button",
"tags": "$:/tags/Image",
"text": "<svg class=\"tc-image-edit-button tc-image-button\" viewBox=\"0 0 128 128\" width=\"22pt\" height=\"22pt\">\n <g fill-rule=\"evenodd\">\n <path d=\"M116.870058,45.3431458 L108.870058,45.3431458 L108.870058,45.3431458 L108.870058,61.3431458 L116.870058,61.3431458 L116.870058,45.3431458 Z M124.870058,45.3431458 L127.649881,45.3431458 C132.066101,45.3431458 135.656854,48.9248678 135.656854,53.3431458 C135.656854,57.7524334 132.07201,61.3431458 127.649881,61.3431458 L124.870058,61.3431458 L124.870058,45.3431458 Z M100.870058,45.3431458 L15.6638275,45.3431458 C15.5064377,45.3431458 15.3501085,45.3476943 15.1949638,45.3566664 L15.1949638,45.3566664 C15.0628002,45.3477039 14.928279,45.3431458 14.7913977,45.3431458 C6.68160973,45.3431458 -8.34314575,53.3431458 -8.34314575,53.3431458 C-8.34314575,53.3431458 6.85614548,61.3431458 14.7913977,61.3431458 C14.9266533,61.3431458 15.0596543,61.3384973 15.190398,61.3293588 C15.3470529,61.3385075 15.5049057,61.3431458 15.6638275,61.3431458 L100.870058,61.3431458 L100.870058,45.3431458 L100.870058,45.3431458 Z\" transform=\"translate(63.656854, 53.343146) rotate(-45.000000) translate(-63.656854, -53.343146) \"></path>\n <path d=\"M35.1714596,124.189544 C41.9594858,123.613403 49.068777,121.917633 58.85987,118.842282 C60.6854386,118.268877 62.4306907,117.705515 65.1957709,116.802278 C81.1962861,111.575575 87.0734839,109.994907 93.9414474,109.655721 C102.29855,109.242993 107.795169,111.785371 111.520478,118.355045 C112.610163,120.276732 115.051363,120.951203 116.97305,119.861518 C118.894737,118.771832 119.569207,116.330633 118.479522,114.408946 C113.146151,105.003414 104.734907,101.112919 93.5468356,101.66546 C85.6716631,102.054388 79.4899908,103.716944 62.7116783,109.197722 C59.9734132,110.092199 58.2519873,110.64787 56.4625698,111.20992 C37.002649,117.322218 25.6914684,118.282267 16.8654804,112.957098 C14.9739614,111.815848 12.5154166,112.424061 11.3741667,114.31558 C10.2329168,116.207099 10.84113,118.665644 12.7326489,119.806894 C19.0655164,123.627836 26.4866335,124.926678 35.1714596,124.189544 Z\"></path>\n </g>\n</svg>"
},
"$:/core/images/erase": {
"title": "$:/core/images/erase",
"tags": "$:/tags/Image",
"text": "<svg class=\"tc-image-erase tc-image-button\" width=\"22pt\" height=\"22pt\" viewBox=\"0 0 128 128\">\n <g fill-rule=\"evenodd\">\n <path d=\"M60.0870401,127.996166 L123.102318,64.980888 C129.636723,58.4464827 129.629513,47.8655877 123.098967,41.3350425 L99.4657866,17.7018617 C92.927448,11.1635231 82.3486358,11.1698163 75.8199411,17.698511 L4.89768189,88.6207702 C-1.63672343,95.1551755 -1.6295126,105.736071 4.90103262,112.266616 L20.6305829,127.996166 L60.0870401,127.996166 Z M25.1375576,120.682546 L10.812569,106.357558 C7.5455063,103.090495 7.54523836,97.793808 10.8048093,94.5342371 L46.2691086,59.0699377 L81.7308914,94.5317205 L55.5800654,120.682546 L25.1375576,120.682546 Z\"></path>\n </g>\n</svg>"
},
"$:/core/images/excise": {
"title": "$:/core/images/excise",
"tags": "$:/tags/Image",
"text": "<svg class=\"tc-image-excise tc-image-button\" width=\"22pt\" height=\"22pt\" viewBox=\"0 0 128 128\">\n <g fill-rule=\"evenodd\">\n <path d=\"M56,107.313709 L53.6568542,109.656854 C50.5326599,112.781049 45.4673401,112.781049 42.3431457,109.656854 C39.2189514,106.53266 39.2189514,101.46734 42.3431458,98.3431457 L58.3431458,82.3431457 C61.4673401,79.2189514 66.5326599,79.2189514 69.6568542,82.3431458 L85.6568542,98.3431458 C88.7810486,101.46734 88.7810486,106.53266 85.6568542,109.656854 C82.5326599,112.781049 77.4673401,112.781049 74.3431458,109.656854 L72,107.313708 L72,121.597798 C72,125.133636 68.418278,128 64,128 C59.581722,128 56,125.133636 56,121.597798 L56,107.313709 Z M0,40.0070969 C0,35.5848994 3.59071231,32 8,32 C12.418278,32 16,35.5881712 16,40.0070969 L16,71.9929031 C16,76.4151006 12.4092877,80 8,80 C3.581722,80 0,76.4118288 0,71.9929031 L0,40.0070969 Z M32,40.0070969 C32,35.5848994 35.5907123,32 40,32 C44.418278,32 48,35.5881712 48,40.0070969 L48,71.9929031 C48,76.4151006 44.4092877,80 40,80 C35.581722,80 32,76.4118288 32,71.9929031 L32,40.0070969 Z M80,40.0070969 C80,35.5848994 83.5907123,32 88,32 C92.418278,32 96,35.5881712 96,40.0070969 L96,71.9929031 C96,76.4151006 92.4092877,80 88,80 C83.581722,80 80,76.4118288 80,71.9929031 L80,40.0070969 Z M56,8.00709688 C56,3.58489938 59.5907123,0 64,0 C68.418278,0 72,3.58817117 72,8.00709688 L72,39.9929031 C72,44.4151006 68.4092877,48 64,48 C59.581722,48 56,44.4118288 56,39.9929031 L56,8.00709688 Z M112,40.0070969 C112,35.5848994 115.590712,32 120,32 C124.418278,32 128,35.5881712 128,40.0070969 L128,71.9929031 C128,76.4151006 124.409288,80 120,80 C115.581722,80 112,76.4118288 112,71.9929031 L112,40.0070969 Z\"></path>\n </g>\n</svg>"
},
"$:/core/images/export-button": {
"title": "$:/core/images/export-button",
"tags": "$:/tags/Image",
"text": "<svg class=\"tc-image-export-button tc-image-button\" width=\"22pt\" height=\"22pt\" viewBox=\"0 0 128 128\">\n <g fill-rule=\"evenodd\">\n <path d=\"M8.00348646,127.999999 C8.00464867,128 8.00581094,128 8.00697327,128 L119.993027,128 C122.205254,128 124.207939,127.101378 125.657096,125.651198 L125.656838,125.65759 C127.104563,124.210109 128,122.21009 128,119.999949 L128,56.0000511 C128,51.5817449 124.409288,48 120,48 C115.581722,48 112,51.5797863 112,56.0000511 L112,112 L16,112 L16,56.0000511 C16,51.5817449 12.4092877,48 8,48 C3.581722,48 7.10542736e-15,51.5797863 7.10542736e-15,56.0000511 L7.10542736e-15,119.999949 C7.10542736e-15,124.418255 3.59071231,128 8,128 C8.00116233,128 8.0023246,128 8.00348681,127.999999 Z M56.6235633,27.3113724 L47.6580188,36.2769169 C44.5333664,39.4015692 39.4634864,39.4061295 36.339292,36.2819351 C33.2214548,33.1640979 33.2173444,28.0901742 36.3443103,24.9632084 L58.9616908,2.34582788 C60.5248533,0.782665335 62.5748436,0.000361191261 64.624516,2.38225238e-14 L64.6193616,0.00151809229 C66.6695374,0.000796251595 68.7211167,0.781508799 70.2854358,2.34582788 L92.9028163,24.9632084 C96.0274686,28.0878607 96.0320289,33.1577408 92.9078345,36.2819351 C89.7899973,39.3997724 84.7160736,39.4038827 81.5891078,36.2769169 L72.6235633,27.3113724 L72.6235633,88.5669606 C72.6235633,92.9781015 69.0418413,96.5662064 64.6235633,96.5662064 C60.2142756,96.5662064 56.6235633,92.984822 56.6235633,88.5669606 L56.6235633,27.3113724 L56.6235633,27.3113724 Z\"></path>\n </g>\n</svg>"
},
"$:/core/images/file": {
"title": "$:/core/images/file",
"tags": "$:/tags/Image",
"text": "<svg class=\"tc-image-file tc-image-button\" width=\"22pt\" height=\"22pt\" viewBox=\"0 0 128 128\">\n <g fill-rule=\"nonzero\">\n <path d=\"M111.96811,30.5 L112,30.5 L112,119.999079 C112,124.417866 108.419113,128 104.000754,128 L23.9992458,128 C19.5813843,128 16,124.417687 16,119.999079 L16,8.00092105 C16,3.58213437 19.5808867,0 23.9992458,0 L81,0 L81,0.0201838424 C83.1589869,-0.071534047 85.3482153,0.707077645 86.9982489,2.35711116 L109.625176,24.9840387 C111.151676,26.510538 111.932942,28.4998414 111.96811,30.5 L111.96811,30.5 Z M81,8 L24,8 L24,120 L104,120 L104,30.5 L89.0003461,30.5 C84.5818769,30.5 81,26.9216269 81,22.4996539 L81,8 Z\"></path>\n <rect x=\"32\" y=\"36\" width=\"64\" height=\"8\" rx=\"4\"></rect>\n <rect x=\"32\" y=\"52\" width=\"64\" height=\"8\" rx=\"4\"></rect>\n <rect x=\"32\" y=\"68\" width=\"64\" height=\"8\" rx=\"4\"></rect>\n <rect x=\"32\" y=\"84\" width=\"64\" height=\"8\" rx=\"4\"></rect>\n <rect x=\"32\" y=\"100\" width=\"64\" height=\"8\" rx=\"4\"></rect>\n <rect x=\"32\" y=\"20\" width=\"40\" height=\"8\" rx=\"4\"></rect>\n </g>\n</svg>"
},
"$:/core/images/fixed-height": {
"title": "$:/core/images/fixed-height",
"tags": "$:/tags/Image",
"text": "<svg class=\"tc-image-fixed-height tc-image-button\" width=\"22pt\" height=\"22pt\" viewBox=\"0 0 128 128\">\n <g fill-rule=\"evenodd\">\n <path d=\"M60,35.6568542 L50.8284271,44.8284271 C49.26633,46.3905243 46.73367,46.3905243 45.1715729,44.8284271 C43.6094757,43.26633 43.6094757,40.73367 45.1715729,39.1715729 L61.1715729,23.1715729 C62.73367,21.6094757 65.2663299,21.6094757 66.8284271,23.1715728 L82.8284278,39.1715728 C84.390525,40.7336699 84.390525,43.2663299 82.8284279,44.8284271 C81.2663308,46.3905243 78.7336709,46.3905243 77.1715737,44.8284272 L68,35.6568539 L68,93.3431461 L77.1715737,84.1715728 C78.7336709,82.6094757 81.2663308,82.6094757 82.8284279,84.1715729 C84.390525,85.7336701 84.390525,88.2663301 82.8284278,89.8284272 L66.8284271,105.828427 C65.2663299,107.390524 62.73367,107.390524 61.1715729,105.828427 L45.1715729,89.8284271 C43.6094757,88.26633 43.6094757,85.73367 45.1715729,84.1715729 C46.73367,82.6094757 49.26633,82.6094757 50.8284271,84.1715729 L60,93.3431458 L60,35.6568542 L60,35.6568542 Z M16,116 L112,116 C114.209139,116 116,114.209139 116,112 C116,109.790861 114.209139,108 112,108 L16,108 C13.790861,108 12,109.790861 12,112 C12,114.209139 13.790861,116 16,116 L16,116 Z M16,20 L112,20 C114.209139,20 116,18.209139 116,16 C116,13.790861 114.209139,12 112,12 L16,12 C13.790861,12 12,13.790861 12,16 C12,18.209139 13.790861,20 16,20 L16,20 Z\"></path>\n </g>\n</svg>"
},
"$:/core/images/fold-all-button": {
"title": "$:/core/images/fold-all-button",
"tags": "$:/tags/Image",
"text": "<svg class=\"tc-image-fold-all tc-image-button\" width=\"22pt\" height=\"22pt\" viewBox=\"0 0 128 128\">\n <g fill-rule=\"evenodd\">\n <rect x=\"0\" y=\"0\" width=\"128\" height=\"16\" rx=\"8\"></rect>\n <rect x=\"0\" y=\"64\" width=\"128\" height=\"16\" rx=\"8\"></rect>\n <path d=\"M64.0292774,58.6235628 C61.9791013,58.6242848 59.9275217,57.8435723 58.3632024,56.279253 L35.7458219,33.6618725 C32.6211696,30.5372202 32.6166093,25.4673401 35.7408036,22.3431458 C38.8586409,19.2253085 43.9325646,19.2211982 47.0595304,22.348164 L64.0250749,39.3137085 L80.9906194,22.348164 C84.1152717,19.2235117 89.1851518,19.2189514 92.3093461,22.3431458 C95.4271834,25.460983 95.4312937,30.5349067 92.3043279,33.6618725 L69.6869474,56.279253 C68.1237851,57.8424153 66.0737951,58.6247195 64.0241231,58.6250809 Z\" transform=\"translate(64.024316, 39.313708) scale(1, -1) translate(-64.024316, -39.313708) \"></path>\n <path d=\"M64.0292774,123.621227 C61.9791013,123.621949 59.9275217,122.841236 58.3632024,121.276917 L35.7458219,98.6595365 C32.6211696,95.5348842 32.6166093,90.4650041 35.7408036,87.3408098 C38.8586409,84.2229725 43.9325646,84.2188622 47.0595304,87.345828 L64.0250749,104.311373 L80.9906194,87.345828 C84.1152717,84.2211757 89.1851518,84.2166154 92.3093461,87.3408098 C95.4271834,90.458647 95.4312937,95.5325707 92.3043279,98.6595365 L69.6869474,121.276917 C68.1237851,122.840079 66.0737951,123.622383 64.0241231,123.622745 Z\" transform=\"translate(64.024316, 104.311372) scale(1, -1) translate(-64.024316, -104.311372) \"></path>\n </g>\n</svg>"
},
"$:/core/images/fold-button": {
"title": "$:/core/images/fold-button",
"tags": "$:/tags/Image",
"text": "<svg class=\"tc-image-fold tc-image-button\" width=\"22pt\" height=\"22pt\" viewBox=\"0 0 128 128\">\n <g fill-rule=\"evenodd\">\n <rect x=\"0\" y=\"0\" width=\"128\" height=\"16\" rx=\"8\"></rect>\n <path d=\"M64.0292774,63.6235628 C61.9791013,63.6242848 59.9275217,62.8435723 58.3632024,61.279253 L35.7458219,38.6618725 C32.6211696,35.5372202 32.6166093,30.4673401 35.7408036,27.3431458 C38.8586409,24.2253085 43.9325646,24.2211982 47.0595304,27.348164 L64.0250749,44.3137085 L80.9906194,27.348164 C84.1152717,24.2235117 89.1851518,24.2189514 92.3093461,27.3431458 C95.4271834,30.460983 95.4312937,35.5349067 92.3043279,38.6618725 L69.6869474,61.279253 C68.1237851,62.8424153 66.0737951,63.6247195 64.0241231,63.6250809 Z\" transform=\"translate(64.024316, 44.313708) scale(1, -1) translate(-64.024316, -44.313708) \"></path>\n <path d=\"M64.0049614,105.998482 C61.9547853,105.999204 59.9032057,105.218491 58.3388864,103.654172 L35.7215059,81.0367916 C32.5968535,77.9121393 32.5922933,72.8422592 35.7164876,69.7180649 C38.8343248,66.6002276 43.9082485,66.5961173 47.0352144,69.7230831 L64.0007589,86.6886276 L80.9663034,69.7230831 C84.0909557,66.5984308 89.1608358,66.5938705 92.2850301,69.7180649 C95.4028673,72.8359021 95.4069777,77.9098258 92.2800119,81.0367916 L69.6626314,103.654172 C68.099469,105.217334 66.0494791,105.999639 63.999807,106 Z\" transform=\"translate(64.000000, 86.688628) scale(1, -1) translate(-64.000000, -86.688628) \"></path>\n </g>\n</svg>"
},
"$:/core/images/fold-others-button": {
"title": "$:/core/images/fold-others-button",
"tags": "$:/tags/Image",
"text": "<svg class=\"tc-image-fold-others tc-image-button\" width=\"22pt\" height=\"22pt\" viewBox=\"0 0 128 128\">\n <g fill-rule=\"evenodd\">\n <rect x=\"0\" y=\"56.0314331\" width=\"128\" height=\"16\" rx=\"8\"></rect>\n <path d=\"M101.657101,104.948818 C100.207918,103.498614 98.2051847,102.599976 95.9929031,102.599976 L72,102.599976 L72,78.6070725 C72,76.3964271 71.1036108,74.3936927 69.6545293,72.9441002 L69.6571005,72.9488183 C68.2079177,71.4986143 66.2051847,70.5999756 63.9929031,70.5999756 L32.0070969,70.5999756 C27.5881712,70.5999756 24,74.1816976 24,78.5999756 C24,83.0092633 27.5848994,86.5999756 32.0070969,86.5999756 L56,86.5999756 L56,110.592879 C56,112.803524 56.8963895,114.806259 58.3454713,116.255852 L58.3429,116.251133 C59.7920828,117.701337 61.7948156,118.599976 64.0070969,118.599976 L88,118.599976 L88,142.592879 C88,147.011804 91.581722,150.599976 96,150.599976 C100.409288,150.599976 104,147.015076 104,142.592879 L104,110.607072 C104,108.396427 103.103611,106.393693 101.654529,104.9441 Z\" transform=\"translate(64.000000, 110.599976) rotate(-45.000000) translate(-64.000000, -110.599976) \"></path>\n <path d=\"M101.725643,11.7488671 C100.27646,10.2986632 98.2737272,9.40002441 96.0614456,9.40002441 L72.0685425,9.40002441 L72.0685425,-14.5928787 C72.0685425,-16.8035241 71.1721533,-18.8062584 69.7230718,-20.255851 L69.725643,-20.2511329 C68.2764602,-21.7013368 66.2737272,-22.5999756 64.0614456,-22.5999756 L32.0756394,-22.5999756 C27.6567137,-22.5999756 24.0685425,-19.0182536 24.0685425,-14.5999756 C24.0685425,-10.1906879 27.6534419,-6.59997559 32.0756394,-6.59997559 L56.0685425,-6.59997559 L56.0685425,17.3929275 C56.0685425,19.6035732 56.964932,21.6063078 58.4140138,23.0559004 L58.4114425,23.0511823 C59.8606253,24.5013859 61.8633581,25.4000244 64.0756394,25.4000244 L88.0685425,25.4000244 L88.0685425,49.3929275 C88.0685425,53.8118532 91.6502645,57.4000244 96.0685425,57.4000244 C100.47783,57.4000244 104.068542,53.815125 104.068542,49.3929275 L104.068542,17.4071213 C104.068542,15.1964759 103.172153,13.1937416 101.723072,11.744149 Z\" transform=\"translate(64.068542, 17.400024) scale(1, -1) rotate(-45.000000) translate(-64.068542, -17.400024) \"></path>\n </g>\n</svg>"
},
"$:/core/images/folder": {
"title": "$:/core/images/folder",
"tags": "$:/tags/Image",
"text": "<svg class=\"tc-image-folder tc-image-button\" width=\"22pt\" height=\"22pt\" viewBox=\"0 0 128 128\">\n <g fill-rule=\"evenodd\">\n <path d=\"M55.6943257,128.000004 L7.99859666,128.000004 C3.5810937,128.000004 0,124.413822 0,119.996384 L0,48.0036243 C0,43.5833471 3.58387508,40.0000044 7.99859666,40.0000044 L16,40.0000044 L16,31.9999914 C16,27.5817181 19.5783731,24 24.0003461,24 L55.9996539,24 C60.4181231,24 64,27.5800761 64,31.9999914 L64,40.0000044 L104.001403,40.0000044 C108.418906,40.0000044 112,43.5861868 112,48.0036243 L112,59.8298353 L104,59.7475921 L104,51.9994189 C104,49.7887607 102.207895,48.0000044 99.9972215,48.0000044 L56,48.0000044 L56,36.0000255 C56,33.7898932 54.2072328,32 51.9957423,32 L28.0042577,32 C25.7890275,32 24,33.7908724 24,36.0000255 L24,48.0000044 L12.0027785,48.0000044 C9.78987688,48.0000044 8,49.7906032 8,51.9994189 L8,116.00059 C8,118.211248 9.79210499,120.000004 12.0027785,120.000004 L58.7630167,120.000004 L55.6943257,128.000004 L55.6943257,128.000004 Z\"></path>\n <path d=\"M23.8728955,55.5 L119.875702,55.5 C124.293205,55.5 126.87957,59.5532655 125.650111,64.5630007 L112.305967,118.936999 C111.077582,123.942356 106.497904,128 102.083183,128 L6.08037597,128 C1.66287302,128 -0.923492342,123.946735 0.305967145,118.936999 L13.650111,64.5630007 C14.878496,59.5576436 19.4581739,55.5 23.8728955,55.5 L23.8728955,55.5 L23.8728955,55.5 Z M25.6530124,64 L113.647455,64 C115.858129,64 117.151473,66.0930612 116.538306,68.6662267 L105.417772,115.333773 C104.803671,117.910859 102.515967,120 100.303066,120 L12.3086228,120 C10.0979492,120 8.8046054,117.906939 9.41777189,115.333773 L20.5383062,68.6662267 C21.1524069,66.0891409 23.4401107,64 25.6530124,64 L25.6530124,64 L25.6530124,64 Z\"></path>\n </g>\n</svg>"
},
"$:/core/images/full-screen-button": {
"title": "$:/core/images/full-screen-button",
"tags": "$:/tags/Image",
"text": "<svg class=\"tc-image-full-screen-button tc-image-button\" width=\"22pt\" height=\"22pt\" viewBox=\"0 0 128 128\">\n <g>\n <g>\n <path d=\"M5.29777586e-31,8 C1.59060409e-15,3.581722 3.581722,0 8,0 L40,0 C44.418278,0 48,3.581722 48,8 C48,12.418278 44.418278,16 40,16 L16,16 L16,40 C16,44.418278 12.418278,48 8,48 C3.581722,48 -3.55271368e-15,44.418278 0,40 L3.55271368e-15,8 Z\"></path>\n </g>\n <g transform=\"translate(104.000000, 104.000000) rotate(-180.000000) translate(-104.000000, -104.000000) translate(80.000000, 80.000000)\">\n <path d=\"M5.29777586e-31,8 C1.59060409e-15,3.581722 3.581722,0 8,0 L40,0 C44.418278,0 48,3.581722 48,8 C48,12.418278 44.418278,16 40,16 L16,16 L16,40 C16,44.418278 12.418278,48 8,48 C3.581722,48 -3.55271368e-15,44.418278 0,40 L3.55271368e-15,8 Z\"></path>\n </g>\n <g transform=\"translate(24.000000, 104.000000) rotate(-90.000000) translate(-24.000000, -104.000000) translate(0.000000, 80.000000)\">\n <path d=\"M5.29777586e-31,8 C1.59060409e-15,3.581722 3.581722,0 8,0 L40,0 C44.418278,0 48,3.581722 48,8 C48,12.418278 44.418278,16 40,16 L16,16 L16,40 C16,44.418278 12.418278,48 8,48 C3.581722,48 -3.55271368e-15,44.418278 0,40 L3.55271368e-15,8 Z\"></path>\n </g>\n <g transform=\"translate(104.000000, 24.000000) rotate(90.000000) translate(-104.000000, -24.000000) translate(80.000000, 0.000000)\">\n <path d=\"M5.29777586e-31,8 C1.59060409e-15,3.581722 3.581722,0 8,0 L40,0 C44.418278,0 48,3.581722 48,8 C48,12.418278 44.418278,16 40,16 L16,16 L16,40 C16,44.418278 12.418278,48 8,48 C3.581722,48 -3.55271368e-15,44.418278 0,40 L3.55271368e-15,8 Z\"></path>\n </g>\n </g>\n</svg>"
},
"$:/core/images/github": {
"title": "$:/core/images/github",
"tags": "$:/tags/Image",
"text": "<svg class=\"tc-image-github tc-image-button\" width=\"22pt\" height=\"22pt\" viewBox=\"0 0 128 128\">\n <g fill-rule=\"evenodd\">\n <path d=\"M63.9383506,1.60695328 C28.6017227,1.60695328 -0.055756057,30.2970814 -0.055756057,65.6906208 C-0.055756057,94.003092 18.2804728,118.019715 43.7123154,126.493393 C46.9143781,127.083482 48.0812647,125.104717 48.0812647,123.405261 C48.0812647,121.886765 48.02626,117.85449 47.9948287,112.508284 C30.1929317,116.379268 26.4368926,103.916587 26.4368926,103.916587 C23.5255693,96.5129372 19.3294921,94.5420399 19.3294921,94.5420399 C13.5186324,90.5687739 19.7695302,90.6474524 19.7695302,90.6474524 C26.1933001,91.099854 29.5721638,97.2525155 29.5721638,97.2525155 C35.2808718,107.044059 44.5531024,104.215566 48.1991321,102.575118 C48.7806109,98.4366275 50.4346826,95.612068 52.2616263,94.0109598 C38.0507543,92.3941159 23.1091047,86.8944862 23.1091047,62.3389152 C23.1091047,55.3443933 25.6039634,49.6205298 29.6978889,45.1437211 C29.0378318,43.5229433 26.8415704,37.0044266 30.3265147,28.1845627 C30.3265147,28.1845627 35.6973364,26.4615028 47.9241083,34.7542205 C53.027764,33.330139 58.5046663,32.6220321 63.9462084,32.5944947 C69.3838216,32.6220321 74.856795,33.330139 79.9683085,34.7542205 C92.1872225,26.4615028 97.5501864,28.1845627 97.5501864,28.1845627 C101.042989,37.0044266 98.8467271,43.5229433 98.190599,45.1437211 C102.292382,49.6205298 104.767596,55.3443933 104.767596,62.3389152 C104.767596,86.9574291 89.8023734,92.3744463 75.5482834,93.9598188 C77.8427675,95.9385839 79.8897303,99.8489072 79.8897303,105.828476 C79.8897303,114.392635 79.8111521,121.304544 79.8111521,123.405261 C79.8111521,125.120453 80.966252,127.114954 84.2115327,126.489459 C109.623731,117.996111 127.944244,93.9952241 127.944244,65.6906208 C127.944244,30.2970814 99.2867652,1.60695328 63.9383506,1.60695328\"></path>\n </g>\n </svg>\n"
},
"$:/core/images/gitter": {
"title": "$:/core/images/gitter",
"tags": "$:/tags/Image",
"text": "<svg class=\"tc-image-gitter tc-image-button\" width=\"22pt\" height=\"22pt\" viewBox=\"0 0 18 25\">\n <rect x=\"15\" y=\"5\" width=\"2\" height=\"10\"></rect>\n <rect x=\"10\" y=\"5\" width=\"2\" height=\"20\"></rect>\n <rect x=\"5\" y=\"5\" width=\"2\" height=\"20\"></rect>\n <rect width=\"2\" height=\"15\"></rect>\n</svg>\n"
},
"$:/core/images/globe": {
"title": "$:/core/images/globe",
"tags": "$:/tags/Image",
"text": "<svg class=\"tc-image-globe tc-image-button\" width=\"22pt\" height=\"22pt\" viewBox=\"0 0 128 128\">\n <g fill-rule=\"evenodd\">\n <path d=\"M72.8111354,37.1275855 C72.8111354,37.9789875 72.8111354,38.8303894 72.8111354,39.6817913 C72.8111354,41.8784743 73.7885604,46.5631866 72.8111354,48.5143758 C71.3445471,51.4420595 68.1617327,52.0543531 66.4170946,54.3812641 C65.2352215,55.9575873 61.7987417,64.9821523 62.7262858,67.3005778 C66.6959269,77.2228204 74.26087,70.4881886 80.6887657,76.594328 C81.5527211,77.415037 83.5758191,78.8666631 83.985137,79.8899578 C87.2742852,88.1128283 76.4086873,94.8989524 87.7419325,106.189751 C88.9872885,107.430443 91.555495,102.372895 91.8205061,101.575869 C92.6726866,99.0129203 98.5458765,96.1267309 100.908882,94.5234439 C102.928056,93.1534443 105.782168,91.8557166 107.236936,89.7775886 C109.507391,86.5342557 108.717505,82.2640435 110.334606,79.0328716 C112.473794,74.7585014 114.163418,69.3979002 116.332726,65.0674086 C120.230862,57.2857361 121.054075,67.1596684 121.400359,67.5059523 C121.757734,67.8633269 122.411167,67.5059523 122.916571,67.5059523 C123.011132,67.5059523 124.364019,67.6048489 124.432783,67.5059523 C125.0832,66.5705216 123.390209,49.5852316 123.114531,48.2089091 C121.710578,41.1996597 116.17083,32.4278331 111.249523,27.7092761 C104.975994,21.6942076 104.160516,11.5121686 92.9912146,12.7547535 C92.7872931,12.7774397 87.906794,22.9027026 85.2136766,26.2672064 C81.486311,30.9237934 82.7434931,22.1144904 78.6876623,22.1144904 C78.6065806,22.1144904 77.5045497,22.0107615 77.4353971,22.1144904 C76.8488637,22.9942905 75.9952305,26.0101404 75.1288269,26.5311533 C74.8635477,26.6906793 73.4071369,26.2924966 73.2826811,26.5311533 C71.0401728,30.8313939 81.5394677,28.7427264 79.075427,34.482926 C76.7225098,39.9642538 72.747373,32.4860199 72.747373,43.0434079\"></path>\n <path d=\"M44.4668556,7.01044608 C54.151517,13.1403033 45.1489715,19.2084878 47.1611905,23.2253896 C48.8157833,26.5283781 51.4021933,28.6198851 48.8753629,33.038878 C46.8123257,36.6467763 42.0052989,37.0050492 39.251679,39.7621111 C36.2115749,42.8060154 33.7884281,48.7028116 32.4624592,52.6732691 C30.8452419,57.5158356 47.0088721,59.5388126 44.5246867,63.6811917 C43.1386839,65.9923513 37.7785192,65.1466282 36.0880227,63.8791519 C34.9234453,63.0059918 32.4946425,63.3331166 31.6713597,62.0997342 C29.0575851,58.1839669 29.4107339,54.0758543 28.0457962,49.9707786 C27.1076833,47.1493864 21.732611,47.8501656 20.2022714,49.3776393 C19.6790362,49.8998948 19.8723378,51.1703278 19.8723378,51.8829111 C19.8723378,57.1682405 26.9914913,55.1986414 26.9914913,58.3421973 C26.9914913,72.9792302 30.9191897,64.8771867 38.1313873,69.6793121 C48.1678018,76.3618966 45.9763926,76.981595 53.0777543,84.0829567 C56.7511941,87.7563965 60.8192437,87.7689005 62.503478,93.3767069 C64.1046972,98.7081071 53.1759798,98.7157031 50.786754,100.825053 C49.663965,101.816317 47.9736094,104.970571 46.5680513,105.439676 C44.7757187,106.037867 43.334221,105.93607 41.6242359,107.219093 C39.1967302,109.040481 37.7241465,112.151588 37.6034934,112.030935 C35.4555278,109.88297 34.0848666,96.5511248 33.7147244,93.7726273 C33.1258872,89.3524817 28.1241923,88.2337027 26.7275443,84.7420826 C25.1572737,80.8164061 28.2518481,75.223612 25.599097,70.9819941 C19.0797019,60.557804 13.7775712,56.4811506 10.2493953,44.6896152 C9.3074899,41.5416683 13.5912267,38.1609942 15.1264825,35.8570308 C17.0029359,33.0410312 17.7876232,30.0028946 19.8723378,27.2224065 C22.146793,24.1888519 40.8551166,9.46076832 43.8574051,8.63490613 L44.4668556,7.01044608 Z\"></path>\n <path d=\"M64,126 C98.2416545,126 126,98.2416545 126,64 C126,29.7583455 98.2416545,2 64,2 C29.7583455,2 2,29.7583455 2,64 C2,98.2416545 29.7583455,126 64,126 Z M64,120 C94.927946,120 120,94.927946 120,64 C120,33.072054 94.927946,8 64,8 C33.072054,8 8,33.072054 8,64 C8,94.927946 33.072054,120 64,120 Z\"></path>\n </g>\n</svg>"
},
"$:/core/images/heading-1": {
"title": "$:/core/images/heading-1",
"tags": "$:/tags/Image",
"text": "<svg class=\"tc-image-heading-1 tc-image-button\" width=\"22pt\" height=\"22pt\" viewBox=\"0 0 128 128\">\n <g fill-rule=\"evenodd\">\n <path d=\"M14,30 L27.25,30 L27.25,60.104 L61.7,60.104 L61.7,30 L74.95,30 L74.95,105.684 L61.7,105.684 L61.7,71.552 L27.25,71.552 L27.25,105.684 L14,105.684 L14,30 Z M84.3350766,43.78 C86.8790893,43.78 89.3523979,43.5680021 91.7550766,43.144 C94.1577553,42.7199979 96.3307336,42.0133383 98.2740766,41.024 C100.21742,40.0346617 101.87807,38.7626744 103.256077,37.208 C104.634084,35.6533256 105.535075,33.7453446 105.959077,31.484 L115.817077,31.484 L115.817077,105.684 L102.567077,105.684 L102.567077,53.32 L84.3350766,53.32 L84.3350766,43.78 Z\"></path>\n </g>\n</svg>"
},
"$:/core/images/heading-2": {
"title": "$:/core/images/heading-2",
"tags": "$:/tags/Image",
"text": "<svg class=\"tc-image-heading-2 tc-image-button\" width=\"22pt\" height=\"22pt\" viewBox=\"0 0 128 128\">\n <g fill-rule=\"evenodd\">\n <path d=\"M6,30 L19.25,30 L19.25,60.104 L53.7,60.104 L53.7,30 L66.95,30 L66.95,105.684 L53.7,105.684 L53.7,71.552 L19.25,71.552 L19.25,105.684 L6,105.684 L6,30 Z M125.519077,105.684 L74.8510766,105.684 C74.9217436,99.5359693 76.4057288,94.1653563 79.3030766,89.572 C82.2004244,84.9786437 86.1577182,80.986017 91.1750766,77.594 C93.5777553,75.8273245 96.0863969,74.113675 98.7010766,72.453 C101.315756,70.792325 103.718399,69.0080095 105.909077,67.1 C108.099754,65.1919905 109.901736,63.1250111 111.315077,60.899 C112.728417,58.6729889 113.47041,56.1113478 113.541077,53.214 C113.541077,51.8713266 113.382078,50.4403409 113.064077,48.921 C112.746075,47.4016591 112.127748,45.9883399 111.209077,44.681 C110.290405,43.3736601 109.018418,42.2783377 107.393077,41.395 C105.767735,40.5116622 103.647756,40.07 101.033077,40.07 C98.6303979,40.07 96.6340846,40.5469952 95.0440766,41.501 C93.4540687,42.4550048 92.1820814,43.762325 91.2280766,45.423 C90.2740719,47.083675 89.5674123,49.0446554 89.1080766,51.306 C88.648741,53.5673446 88.3837436,56.0053203 88.3130766,58.62 L76.2290766,58.62 C76.2290766,54.5213128 76.7767378,50.7230175 77.8720766,47.225 C78.9674154,43.7269825 80.610399,40.7060127 82.8010766,38.162 C84.9917542,35.6179873 87.6593942,33.6216739 90.8040766,32.173 C93.948759,30.7243261 97.6057224,30 101.775077,30 C106.297766,30 110.078395,30.7419926 113.117077,32.226 C116.155758,33.7100074 118.611401,35.5826554 120.484077,37.844 C122.356753,40.1053446 123.681739,42.5609868 124.459077,45.211 C125.236414,47.8610133 125.625077,50.3873213 125.625077,52.79 C125.625077,55.7580148 125.165748,58.4433213 124.247077,60.846 C123.328405,63.2486787 122.091751,65.4569899 120.537077,67.471 C118.982402,69.4850101 117.215753,71.3399915 115.237077,73.036 C113.2584,74.7320085 111.209087,76.3219926 109.089077,77.806 C106.969066,79.2900074 104.849087,80.7033266 102.729077,82.046 C100.609066,83.3886734 98.6480856,84.7313266 96.8460766,86.074 C95.0440676,87.4166734 93.47175,88.8123261 92.1290766,90.261 C90.7864032,91.7096739 89.8677458,93.2466585 89.3730766,94.872 L125.519077,94.872 L125.519077,105.684 Z\"></path>\n </g>\n</svg>"
},
"$:/core/images/heading-3": {
"title": "$:/core/images/heading-3",
"tags": "$:/tags/Image",
"text": "<svg class=\"tc-image-heading-3 tc-image-button\" width=\"22pt\" height=\"22pt\" viewBox=\"0 0 128 128\">\n <g fill-rule=\"evenodd\">\n <path d=\"M6,30 L19.25,30 L19.25,60.104 L53.7,60.104 L53.7,30 L66.95,30 L66.95,105.684 L53.7,105.684 L53.7,71.552 L19.25,71.552 L19.25,105.684 L6,105.684 L6,30 Z M94.8850766,62.224 C96.8637532,62.294667 98.8424001,62.1533351 100.821077,61.8 C102.799753,61.4466649 104.566402,60.8283378 106.121077,59.945 C107.675751,59.0616623 108.930072,57.8426744 109.884077,56.288 C110.838081,54.7333256 111.315077,52.8253446 111.315077,50.564 C111.315077,47.3839841 110.237421,44.8400095 108.082077,42.932 C105.926733,41.0239905 103.153094,40.07 99.7610766,40.07 C97.641066,40.07 95.8037511,40.4939958 94.2490766,41.342 C92.6944022,42.1900042 91.4047484,43.3383261 90.3800766,44.787 C89.3554048,46.2356739 88.5957458,47.860991 88.1010766,49.663 C87.6064075,51.465009 87.3944096,53.3199905 87.4650766,55.228 L75.3810766,55.228 C75.5224107,51.623982 76.1937373,48.2850154 77.3950766,45.211 C78.596416,42.1369846 80.2393995,39.4693446 82.3240766,37.208 C84.4087537,34.9466554 86.9350618,33.1800064 89.9030766,31.908 C92.8710915,30.6359936 96.2277246,30 99.9730766,30 C102.870424,30 105.714729,30.4239958 108.506077,31.272 C111.297424,32.1200042 113.806065,33.3566585 116.032077,34.982 C118.258088,36.6073415 120.042403,38.6743208 121.385077,41.183 C122.72775,43.6916792 123.399077,46.5713171 123.399077,49.822 C123.399077,53.5673521 122.551085,56.8356527 120.855077,59.627 C119.159068,62.4183473 116.509095,64.4499936 112.905077,65.722 L112.905077,65.934 C117.145098,66.7820042 120.448731,68.8843166 122.816077,72.241 C125.183422,75.5976835 126.367077,79.6786426 126.367077,84.484 C126.367077,88.017351 125.660417,91.1796527 124.247077,93.971 C122.833736,96.7623473 120.925755,99.129657 118.523077,101.073 C116.120398,103.016343 113.329093,104.517995 110.149077,105.578 C106.969061,106.638005 103.612428,107.168 100.079077,107.168 C95.7683884,107.168 92.005426,106.549673 88.7900766,105.313 C85.5747272,104.076327 82.8894207,102.327345 80.7340766,100.066 C78.5787325,97.8046554 76.9357489,95.0840159 75.8050766,91.904 C74.6744043,88.7239841 74.0737436,85.1906861 74.0030766,81.304 L86.0870766,81.304 C85.9457426,85.8266893 87.0587315,89.5896517 89.4260766,92.593 C91.7934218,95.5963483 95.3443863,97.098 100.079077,97.098 C104.107097,97.098 107.481396,95.9496782 110.202077,93.653 C112.922757,91.3563219 114.283077,88.0880212 114.283077,83.848 C114.283077,80.9506522 113.717749,78.6540085 112.587077,76.958 C111.456404,75.2619915 109.972419,73.9723378 108.135077,73.089 C106.297734,72.2056623 104.230755,71.6580011 101.934077,71.446 C99.6373985,71.2339989 97.2877553,71.163333 94.8850766,71.234 L94.8850766,62.224 Z\"></path>\n </g>\n</svg>"
},
"$:/core/images/heading-4": {
"title": "$:/core/images/heading-4",
"tags": "$:/tags/Image",
"text": "<svg class=\"tc-image-heading-4 tc-image-button\" width=\"22pt\" height=\"22pt\" viewBox=\"0 0 128 128\">\n <g fill-rule=\"evenodd\">\n <path d=\"M8,30 L21.25,30 L21.25,60.104 L55.7,60.104 L55.7,30 L68.95,30 L68.95,105.684 L55.7,105.684 L55.7,71.552 L21.25,71.552 L21.25,105.684 L8,105.684 L8,30 Z M84.5890766,78.548 L107.061077,78.548 L107.061077,45.9 L106.849077,45.9 L84.5890766,78.548 Z M128.049077,88.088 L118.509077,88.088 L118.509077,105.684 L107.061077,105.684 L107.061077,88.088 L75.2610766,88.088 L75.2610766,76.11 L107.061077,31.484 L118.509077,31.484 L118.509077,78.548 L128.049077,78.548 L128.049077,88.088 Z\"></path>\n </g>\n</svg>"
},
"$:/core/images/heading-5": {
"title": "$:/core/images/heading-5",
"tags": "$:/tags/Image",
"text": "<svg class=\"tc-image-heading-5 tc-image-button\" width=\"22pt\" height=\"22pt\" viewBox=\"0 0 128 128\">\n <g fill-rule=\"evenodd\">\n <path d=\"M6,30 L19.25,30 L19.25,60.104 L53.7,60.104 L53.7,30 L66.95,30 L66.95,105.684 L53.7,105.684 L53.7,71.552 L19.25,71.552 L19.25,105.684 L6,105.684 L6,30 Z M83.7550766,31.484 L122.127077,31.484 L122.127077,42.296 L92.7650766,42.296 L88.9490766,61.164 L89.1610766,61.376 C90.7864181,59.5386575 92.8533974,58.1430048 95.3620766,57.189 C97.8707558,56.2349952 100.361731,55.758 102.835077,55.758 C106.509762,55.758 109.795729,56.3763272 112.693077,57.613 C115.590424,58.8496729 118.0284,60.5809889 120.007077,62.807 C121.985753,65.0330111 123.487405,67.6653181 124.512077,70.704 C125.536748,73.7426819 126.049077,77.028649 126.049077,80.562 C126.049077,83.5300148 125.572081,86.5863176 124.618077,89.731 C123.664072,92.8756824 122.144754,95.7376538 120.060077,98.317 C117.9754,100.896346 115.30776,103.016325 112.057077,104.677 C108.806394,106.337675 104.919766,107.168 100.397077,107.168 C96.7930586,107.168 93.454092,106.691005 90.3800766,105.737 C87.3060613,104.782995 84.6030883,103.35201 82.2710766,101.444 C79.939065,99.5359905 78.0840835,97.1863473 76.7060766,94.395 C75.3280697,91.6036527 74.5684107,88.3353521 74.4270766,84.59 L86.5110766,84.59 C86.8644117,88.6180201 88.2423979,91.7096559 90.6450766,93.865 C93.0477553,96.0203441 96.2277235,97.098 100.185077,97.098 C102.729089,97.098 104.884401,96.6740042 106.651077,95.826 C108.417752,94.9779958 109.848738,93.8120074 110.944077,92.328 C112.039415,90.8439926 112.816741,89.1126766 113.276077,87.134 C113.735412,85.1553234 113.965077,83.0353446 113.965077,80.774 C113.965077,78.7246564 113.682413,76.763676 113.117077,74.891 C112.55174,73.018324 111.703749,71.3753404 110.573077,69.962 C109.442404,68.5486596 107.976086,67.4180042 106.174077,66.57 C104.372068,65.7219958 102.269755,65.298 99.8670766,65.298 C97.3230639,65.298 94.9380878,65.7749952 92.7120766,66.729 C90.4860655,67.6830048 88.8784149,69.4673203 87.8890766,72.082 L75.8050766,72.082 L83.7550766,31.484 Z\"></path>\n </g>\n</svg>"
},
"$:/core/images/heading-6": {
"title": "$:/core/images/heading-6",
"tags": "$:/tags/Image",
"text": "<svg class=\"tc-image-heading-6 tc-image-button\" width=\"22pt\" height=\"22pt\" viewBox=\"0 0 128 128\">\n <g fill-rule=\"evenodd\">\n <path d=\"M6,30 L19.25,30 L19.25,60.104 L53.7,60.104 L53.7,30 L66.95,30 L66.95,105.684 L53.7,105.684 L53.7,71.552 L19.25,71.552 L19.25,105.684 L6,105.684 L6,30 Z M112.587077,50.246 C112.304409,47.2073181 111.226753,44.751676 109.354077,42.879 C107.481401,41.006324 104.955093,40.07 101.775077,40.07 C99.584399,40.07 97.6940846,40.4763293 96.1040766,41.289 C94.5140687,42.1016707 93.1714154,43.1793266 92.0760766,44.522 C90.9807378,45.8646734 90.0974133,47.401658 89.4260766,49.133 C88.7547399,50.864342 88.2070787,52.6839905 87.7830766,54.592 C87.3590745,56.5000095 87.0587442,58.390324 86.8820766,60.263 C86.7054091,62.135676 86.5464107,63.8846585 86.4050766,65.51 L86.6170766,65.722 C88.2424181,62.7539852 90.4860623,60.5456739 93.3480766,59.097 C96.2100909,57.6483261 99.3017267,56.924 102.623077,56.924 C106.297762,56.924 109.583729,57.5599936 112.481077,58.832 C115.378424,60.1040064 117.834067,61.8529889 119.848077,64.079 C121.862087,66.3050111 123.399071,68.9373181 124.459077,71.976 C125.519082,75.0146819 126.049077,78.300649 126.049077,81.834 C126.049077,85.438018 125.466082,88.7769846 124.300077,91.851 C123.134071,94.9250154 121.455754,97.6103219 119.265077,99.907 C117.074399,102.203678 114.459758,103.987994 111.421077,105.26 C108.382395,106.532006 105.025762,107.168 101.351077,107.168 C95.9097161,107.168 91.4400941,106.16101 87.9420766,104.147 C84.4440591,102.13299 81.6880867,99.3770175 79.6740766,95.879 C77.6600666,92.3809825 76.2644138,88.2823568 75.4870766,83.583 C74.7097394,78.8836432 74.3210766,73.8133605 74.3210766,68.372 C74.3210766,63.9199777 74.7980719,59.4326893 75.7520766,54.91 C76.7060814,50.3873107 78.278399,46.2710186 80.4690766,42.561 C82.6597542,38.8509815 85.5393921,35.8300117 89.1080766,33.498 C92.6767611,31.1659883 97.0757171,30 102.305077,30 C105.273091,30 108.064397,30.4946617 110.679077,31.484 C113.293756,32.4733383 115.608067,33.8513245 117.622077,35.618 C119.636087,37.3846755 121.27907,39.5046543 122.551077,41.978 C123.823083,44.4513457 124.529743,47.2073181 124.671077,50.246 L112.587077,50.246 Z M100.927077,97.098 C103.117754,97.098 105.025735,96.6563378 106.651077,95.773 C108.276418,94.8896623 109.636738,93.7413404 110.732077,92.328 C111.827415,90.9146596 112.640074,89.271676 113.170077,87.399 C113.700079,85.526324 113.965077,83.6006766 113.965077,81.622 C113.965077,79.6433234 113.700079,77.7353425 113.170077,75.898 C112.640074,74.0606575 111.827415,72.4530069 110.732077,71.075 C109.636738,69.6969931 108.276418,68.5840042 106.651077,67.736 C105.025735,66.8879958 103.117754,66.464 100.927077,66.464 C98.736399,66.464 96.8107516,66.8703293 95.1500766,67.683 C93.4894017,68.4956707 92.0937489,69.5909931 90.9630766,70.969 C89.8324043,72.3470069 88.9844128,73.9546575 88.4190766,75.792 C87.8537405,77.6293425 87.5710766,79.5726564 87.5710766,81.622 C87.5710766,83.6713436 87.8537405,85.6146575 88.4190766,87.452 C88.9844128,89.2893425 89.8324043,90.9323261 90.9630766,92.381 C92.0937489,93.8296739 93.4894017,94.9779958 95.1500766,95.826 C96.8107516,96.6740042 98.736399,97.098 100.927077,97.098 L100.927077,97.098 Z\"></path>\n </g>\n</svg>"
},
"$:/core/images/help": {
"title": "$:/core/images/help",
"tags": "$:/tags/Image",
"text": "<svg class=\"tc-image-help tc-image-button\" width=\"22pt\" height=\"22pt\" viewBox=\"0 0 128 128\">\n <g fill-rule=\"evenodd\">\n <path d=\"M36.0548906,111.44117 C30.8157418,115.837088 20.8865444,118.803477 9.5,118.803477 C7.86465619,118.803477 6.25937294,118.742289 4.69372699,118.624467 C12.612543,115.984876 18.7559465,110.02454 21.0611049,102.609942 C8.74739781,92.845129 1.04940554,78.9359851 1.04940554,63.5 C1.04940554,33.9527659 29.2554663,10 64.0494055,10 C98.8433448,10 127.049406,33.9527659 127.049406,63.5 C127.049406,93.0472341 98.8433448,117 64.0494055,117 C53.9936953,117 44.48824,114.999337 36.0548906,111.44117 L36.0548906,111.44117 Z M71.4042554,77.5980086 C71.406883,77.2865764 71.4095079,76.9382011 71.4119569,76.5610548 C71.4199751,75.3262169 71.4242825,74.0811293 71.422912,72.9158546 C71.4215244,71.736154 71.4143321,70.709635 71.4001396,69.8743525 C71.4078362,68.5173028 71.9951951,67.7870427 75.1273009,65.6385471 C75.2388969,65.5619968 76.2124091,64.8981068 76.5126553,64.6910879 C79.6062455,62.5580654 81.5345849,60.9050204 83.2750652,58.5038955 C85.6146327,55.2762841 86.8327108,51.426982 86.8327108,46.8554323 C86.8327108,33.5625756 76.972994,24.9029551 65.3778484,24.9029551 C54.2752771,24.9029551 42.8794554,34.5115163 41.3121702,47.1975534 C40.9043016,50.4989536 43.2499725,53.50591 46.5513726,53.9137786 C49.8527728,54.3216471 52.8597292,51.9759763 53.2675978,48.6745761 C54.0739246,42.1479456 60.2395837,36.9492759 65.3778484,36.9492759 C70.6427674,36.9492759 74.78639,40.5885487 74.78639,46.8554323 C74.78639,50.4892974 73.6853224,52.008304 69.6746221,54.7736715 C69.4052605,54.9593956 68.448509,55.6118556 68.3131127,55.7047319 C65.6309785,57.5445655 64.0858213,58.803255 62.6123358,60.6352315 C60.5044618,63.2559399 59.3714208,66.3518252 59.3547527,69.9487679 C59.3684999,70.8407274 59.3752803,71.8084521 59.3765995,72.9300232 C59.3779294,74.0607297 59.3737237,75.2764258 59.36589,76.482835 C59.3634936,76.8518793 59.3609272,77.1924914 59.3583633,77.4963784 C59.3568319,77.6778944 59.3556368,77.8074256 59.3549845,77.8730928 C59.3219814,81.1994287 61.9917551,83.9227111 65.318091,83.9557142 C68.644427,83.9887173 71.3677093,81.3189435 71.4007124,77.9926076 C71.4014444,77.9187458 71.402672,77.7856841 71.4042554,77.5980086 Z M65.3778489,102.097045 C69.5359735,102.097045 72.9067994,98.7262189 72.9067994,94.5680944 C72.9067994,90.4099698 69.5359735,87.0391439 65.3778489,87.0391439 C61.2197243,87.0391439 57.8488984,90.4099698 57.8488984,94.5680944 C57.8488984,98.7262189 61.2197243,102.097045 65.3778489,102.097045 Z\"></path>\n </g>\n</svg>"
},
"$:/core/images/home-button": {
"title": "$:/core/images/home-button",
"tags": "$:/tags/Image",
"text": "<svg class=\"tc-image-home-button tc-image-button\" viewBox=\"0 0 128 128\" width=\"22pt\" height=\"22pt\">\n <g fill-rule=\"evenodd\">\n <path d=\"M112.9847,119.501583 C112.99485,119.336814 113,119.170705 113,119.003406 L113,67.56802 C116.137461,70.5156358 121.076014,70.4518569 124.133985,67.3938855 C127.25818,64.2696912 127.260618,59.2068102 124.131541,56.0777326 L70.3963143,2.34250601 C68.8331348,0.779326498 66.7828947,-0.000743167069 64.7337457,1.61675364e-05 C62.691312,-0.00409949529 60.6426632,0.777559815 59.077717,2.34250601 L33,28.420223 L33,28.420223 L33,8.00697327 C33,3.58484404 29.4092877,0 25,0 C20.581722,0 17,3.59075293 17,8.00697327 L17,44.420223 L5.3424904,56.0777326 C2.21694607,59.2032769 2.22220878,64.2760483 5.34004601,67.3938855 C8.46424034,70.5180798 13.5271213,70.5205187 16.6561989,67.3914411 L17,67.04764 L17,119.993027 C17,119.994189 17.0000002,119.995351 17.0000007,119.996514 C17.0000002,119.997675 17,119.998838 17,120 C17,124.418278 20.5881049,128 24.9992458,128 L105.000754,128 C109.418616,128 113,124.409288 113,120 C113,119.832611 112.99485,119.666422 112.9847,119.501583 Z M97,112 L97,51.5736087 L97,51.5736087 L64.7370156,19.3106244 L33,51.04764 L33,112 L97,112 Z\"></path>\n </g>\n</svg>"
},
"$:/core/images/import-button": {
"title": "$:/core/images/import-button",
"tags": "$:/tags/Image",
"text": "<svg class=\"tc-image-import-button tc-image-button\" width=\"22pt\" height=\"22pt\" viewBox=\"0 0 128 128\">\n <g fill-rule=\"evenodd\">\n <path d=\"M105.449437,94.2138951 C105.449437,94.2138951 110.049457,94.1897106 110.049457,99.4026111 C110.049457,104.615512 105.163246,104.615511 105.163246,104.615511 L45.0075072,105.157833 C45.0075072,105.157833 0.367531803,106.289842 0.367532368,66.6449212 C0.367532934,27.0000003 45.0428249,27.0000003 45.0428249,27.0000003 L105.532495,27.0000003 C105.532495,27.0000003 138.996741,25.6734987 138.996741,55.1771866 C138.996741,84.6808745 105.727102,82.8457535 105.727102,82.8457535 L56.1735087,82.8457535 C56.1735087,82.8457535 22.6899229,85.1500223 22.6899229,66.0913753 C22.6899229,47.0327282 56.1735087,49.3383013 56.1735087,49.3383013 L105.727102,49.3383013 C105.727102,49.3383013 111.245209,49.3383024 111.245209,54.8231115 C111.245209,60.3079206 105.727102,60.5074524 105.727102,60.5074524 L56.1735087,60.5074524 C56.1735087,60.5074524 37.48913,60.5074528 37.48913,66.6449195 C37.48913,72.7823862 56.1735087,71.6766023 56.1735087,71.6766023 L105.727102,71.6766029 C105.727102,71.6766029 127.835546,73.1411469 127.835546,55.1771866 C127.835546,35.5304025 105.727102,38.3035317 105.727102,38.3035317 L45.0428249,38.3035317 C45.0428249,38.3035317 11.5287276,38.3035313 11.5287276,66.6449208 C11.5287276,94.9863103 45.0428244,93.9579678 45.0428244,93.9579678 L105.449437,94.2138951 Z\" transform=\"translate(69.367532, 66.000000) rotate(-45.000000) translate(-69.367532, -66.000000) \"></path>\n </g>\n</svg>"
},
"$:/core/images/info-button": {
"title": "$:/core/images/info-button",
"tags": "$:/tags/Image",
"text": "<svg class=\"tc-image-info-button tc-image-button\" viewBox=\"0 0 128 128\" width=\"22pt\" height=\"22pt\">\n <g fill-rule=\"evenodd\">\n <g transform=\"translate(0.049406, 0.000000)\">\n <path d=\"M64,128 C99.346224,128 128,99.346224 128,64 C128,28.653776 99.346224,0 64,0 C28.653776,0 0,28.653776 0,64 C0,99.346224 28.653776,128 64,128 Z M64,112 C90.509668,112 112,90.509668 112,64 C112,37.490332 90.509668,16 64,16 C37.490332,16 16,37.490332 16,64 C16,90.509668 37.490332,112 64,112 Z\"></path>\n <circle cx=\"64\" cy=\"32\" r=\"8\"></circle>\n <rect x=\"56\" y=\"48\" width=\"16\" height=\"56\" rx=\"8\"></rect>\n </g>\n </g>\n</svg>"
},
"$:/core/images/italic": {
"title": "$:/core/images/italic",
"tags": "$:/tags/Image",
"text": "<svg class=\"tc-image-italic tc-image-button\" width=\"22pt\" height=\"22pt\" viewBox=\"0 0 128 128\">\n <g fill-rule=\"evenodd\">\n <polygon points=\"66.7114846 0 89.1204482 0 62.4089636 128 40 128\"></polygon>\n </g>\n</svg>"
},
"$:/core/images/left-arrow": {
"title": "$:/core/images/left-arrow",
"created": "20150315234410875",
"modified": "20150315235324760",
"tags": "$:/tags/Image",
"text": "<svg class=\"tc-image-left-arrow tc-image-button\" width=\"22pt\" height=\"22pt\" viewBox=\"0 0 128 128\">\n <path transform=\"rotate(135, 63.8945, 64.1752)\" d=\"m109.07576,109.35336c-1.43248,1.43361 -3.41136,2.32182 -5.59717,2.32182l-79.16816,0c-4.36519,0 -7.91592,-3.5444 -7.91592,-7.91666c0,-4.36337 3.54408,-7.91667 7.91592,-7.91667l71.25075,0l0,-71.25075c0,-4.3652 3.54442,-7.91592 7.91667,-7.91592c4.36336,0 7.91667,3.54408 7.91667,7.91592l0,79.16815c0,2.1825 -0.88602,4.16136 -2.3185,5.59467l-0.00027,-0.00056z\"/>\n</svg>\n"
},
"$:/core/images/line-width": {
"title": "$:/core/images/line-width",
"tags": "$:/tags/Image",
"text": "<svg class=\"tc-image-line-width tc-image-button\" width=\"22pt\" height=\"22pt\" viewBox=\"0 0 128 128\">\n <g fill-rule=\"evenodd\">\n <path d=\"M128,-97 L112.992786,-97 C112.452362,-97 112,-96.5522847 112,-96 C112,-95.4438648 112.444486,-95 112.992786,-95 L128,-95 L128,-97 Z M128,-78.6794919 L111.216185,-88.3696322 C110.748163,-88.6398444 110.132549,-88.4782926 109.856406,-88 C109.578339,-87.5183728 109.741342,-86.9117318 110.216185,-86.6375814 L128,-76.3700908 L128,-78.6794919 Z M78.6794919,-128 L88.3696322,-111.216185 C88.6437826,-110.741342 88.4816272,-110.134474 88,-109.856406 C87.5217074,-109.580264 86.9077936,-109.748163 86.6375814,-110.216185 L76.3700908,-128 L78.6794919,-128 Z M97,-128 L97,-112.992786 C97,-112.444486 96.5561352,-112 96,-112 C95.4477153,-112 95,-112.452362 95,-112.992786 L95,-128 L97,-128 Z M115.629909,-128 L105.362419,-110.216185 C105.088268,-109.741342 104.481627,-109.578339 104,-109.856406 C103.521707,-110.132549 103.360156,-110.748163 103.630368,-111.216185 L113.320508,-128 L115.629909,-128 Z M128,-113.320508 L111.216185,-103.630368 C110.741342,-103.356217 110.134474,-103.518373 109.856406,-104 C109.580264,-104.478293 109.748163,-105.092206 110.216185,-105.362419 L128,-115.629909 L128,-113.320508 Z M48,-96 C48,-96.5522847 48.4523621,-97 48.9927864,-97 L79.0072136,-97 C79.5555144,-97 80,-96.5561352 80,-96 C80,-95.4477153 79.5476379,-95 79.0072136,-95 L48.9927864,-95 C48.4444856,-95 48,-95.4438648 48,-96 Z M54.4307806,-120 C54.706923,-120.478293 55.3225377,-120.639844 55.7905589,-120.369632 L81.7838153,-105.362419 C82.2586577,-105.088268 82.4216611,-104.481627 82.1435935,-104 C81.8674512,-103.521707 81.2518365,-103.360156 80.7838153,-103.630368 L54.7905589,-118.637581 C54.3157165,-118.911732 54.152713,-119.518373 54.4307806,-120 Z M104,-82.1435935 C104.478293,-82.4197359 105.092206,-82.2518365 105.362419,-81.7838153 L120.369632,-55.7905589 C120.643783,-55.3157165 120.481627,-54.7088482 120,-54.4307806 C119.521707,-54.1546382 118.907794,-54.3225377 118.637581,-54.7905589 L103.630368,-80.7838153 C103.356217,-81.2586577 103.518373,-81.865526 104,-82.1435935 Z M96,-80 C96.5522847,-80 97,-79.5476379 97,-79.0072136 L97,-48.9927864 C97,-48.4444856 96.5561352,-48 96,-48 C95.4477153,-48 95,-48.4523621 95,-48.9927864 L95,-79.0072136 C95,-79.5555144 95.4438648,-80 96,-80 Z M88,-82.1435935 C88.4782926,-81.8674512 88.6398444,-81.2518365 88.3696322,-80.7838153 L73.3624186,-54.7905589 C73.0882682,-54.3157165 72.4816272,-54.152713 72,-54.4307806 C71.5217074,-54.706923 71.3601556,-55.3225377 71.6303678,-55.7905589 L86.6375814,-81.7838153 C86.9117318,-82.2586577 87.5183728,-82.4216611 88,-82.1435935 Z M82.1435935,-88 C82.4197359,-87.5217074 82.2518365,-86.9077936 81.7838153,-86.6375814 L55.7905589,-71.6303678 C55.3157165,-71.3562174 54.7088482,-71.5183728 54.4307806,-72 C54.1546382,-72.4782926 54.3225377,-73.0922064 54.7905589,-73.3624186 L80.7838153,-88.3696322 C81.2586577,-88.6437826 81.865526,-88.4816272 82.1435935,-88 Z M1.30626177e-08,-41.9868843 L15.0170091,-57.9923909 L20.7983821,-52.9749272 L44.7207091,-81.2095939 L73.4260467,-42.1002685 L85.984793,-56.6159488 L104.48741,-34.0310661 L127.969109,-47.4978019 L127.969109,7.99473128e-07 L1.30626177e-08,7.99473128e-07 L1.30626177e-08,-41.9868843 Z M96,-84 C102.627417,-84 108,-89.372583 108,-96 C108,-102.627417 102.627417,-108 96,-108 C89.372583,-108 84,-102.627417 84,-96 C84,-89.372583 89.372583,-84 96,-84 Z\"></path>\n <path d=\"M16,18 L112,18 C113.104569,18 114,17.1045695 114,16 C114,14.8954305 113.104569,14 112,14 L16,14 C14.8954305,14 14,14.8954305 14,16 C14,17.1045695 14.8954305,18 16,18 L16,18 Z M16,35 L112,35 C114.209139,35 116,33.209139 116,31 C116,28.790861 114.209139,27 112,27 L16,27 C13.790861,27 12,28.790861 12,31 C12,33.209139 13.790861,35 16,35 L16,35 Z M16,56 L112,56 C115.313708,56 118,53.3137085 118,50 C118,46.6862915 115.313708,44 112,44 L16,44 C12.6862915,44 10,46.6862915 10,50 C10,53.3137085 12.6862915,56 16,56 L16,56 Z M16,85 L112,85 C117.522847,85 122,80.5228475 122,75 C122,69.4771525 117.522847,65 112,65 L16,65 C10.4771525,65 6,69.4771525 6,75 C6,80.5228475 10.4771525,85 16,85 L16,85 Z M16,128 L112,128 C120.836556,128 128,120.836556 128,112 C128,103.163444 120.836556,96 112,96 L16,96 C7.163444,96 0,103.163444 0,112 C0,120.836556 7.163444,128 16,128 L16,128 Z\"></path>\n </g>\n</svg>"
},
"$:/core/images/link": {
"title": "$:/core/images/link",
"tags": "$:/tags/Image",
"text": "<svg class=\"tc-image-link tc-image-button\" width=\"22pt\" height=\"22pt\" viewBox=\"0 0 128 128\">\n <g fill-rule=\"evenodd\">\n <path d=\"M128.719999,57.568543 C130.219553,53.8628171 131.045202,49.8121445 131.045202,45.5685425 C131.045202,27.8915447 116.718329,13.5685425 99.0452364,13.5685425 L67.0451674,13.5685425 C49.3655063,13.5685425 35.0452019,27.8954305 35.0452019,45.5685425 C35.0452019,63.2455403 49.3720745,77.5685425 67.0451674,77.5685425 L99.0452364,77.5685425 C100.406772,77.5685425 101.748384,77.4835732 103.065066,77.3186499 C96.4792444,73.7895096 91.1190212,68.272192 87.7873041,61.5685425 L67.0506214,61.5685425 C58.2110723,61.5685425 51.0452019,54.4070414 51.0452019,45.5685425 C51.0452019,36.7319865 58.2005234,29.5685425 67.0506214,29.5685425 L99.0397824,29.5685425 C107.879331,29.5685425 115.045202,36.7300436 115.045202,45.5685425 C115.045202,48.9465282 113.99957,52.0800164 112.21335,54.6623005 C114.314383,56.4735917 117.050039,57.5685425 120.041423,57.5685425 L128.720003,57.5685425 Z\" transform=\"translate(83.045202, 45.568542) rotate(-225.000000) translate(-83.045202, -45.568542)\"></path>\n <path d=\"M-0.106255113,71.0452019 C-1.60580855,74.7509276 -2.43145751,78.8016001 -2.43145751,83.0452019 C-2.43145751,100.7222 11.8954151,115.045202 29.568508,115.045202 L61.568577,115.045202 C79.2482381,115.045202 93.5685425,100.718314 93.5685425,83.0452019 C93.5685425,65.3682041 79.2416699,51.0452019 61.568577,51.0452019 L29.568508,51.0452019 C28.206973,51.0452019 26.8653616,51.1301711 25.5486799,51.2950943 C32.1345,54.8242347 37.4947231,60.3415524 40.8264403,67.0452019 L61.563123,67.0452019 C70.4026721,67.0452019 77.5685425,74.206703 77.5685425,83.0452019 C77.5685425,91.8817579 70.413221,99.0452019 61.563123,99.0452019 L29.573962,99.0452019 C20.7344129,99.0452019 13.5685425,91.8837008 13.5685425,83.0452019 C13.5685425,79.6672162 14.6141741,76.533728 16.4003949,73.9514439 C14.2993609,72.1401527 11.5637054,71.0452019 8.5723215,71.0452019 L-0.106255113,71.0452019 Z\" transform=\"translate(45.568542, 83.045202) rotate(-225.000000) translate(-45.568542, -83.045202)\"></path>\n </g>\n</svg>"
},
"$:/core/images/linkify": {
"title": "$:/core/images/linkify",
"tags": "$:/tags/Image",
"text": "<svg class=\"tc-linkify-button tc-image-button\" viewBox=\"0 0 128 128\" width=\"22pt\" height=\"22pt\"><path d=\"M17.031 31.919H9.048V96.85h7.983v6.92H0V25h17.031v6.919zm24.66 0h-7.983V96.85h7.983v6.92H24.66V25h17.03v6.919zM67.77 56.422l11.975-3.903 2.306 7.096-12.063 3.903 7.628 10.379-6.12 4.435-7.63-10.467-7.45 10.2-5.943-4.523L58.1 63.518 45.95 59.35l2.306-7.096 12.064 4.17V43.825h7.45v12.596zM86.31 96.85h7.982V31.92H86.31V25h17.031v78.77H86.31v-6.92zm24.659 0h7.983V31.92h-7.983V25H128v78.77h-17.031v-6.92z\" fill-rule=\"evenodd\"/></svg>"
},
"$:/core/images/list-bullet": {
"title": "$:/core/images/list-bullet",
"tags": "$:/tags/Image",
"text": "<svg class=\"tc-image-list-bullet tc-image-button\" width=\"22pt\" height=\"22pt\" viewBox=\"0 0 128 128\">\n <g fill-rule=\"evenodd\">\n <path d=\"M11.6363636,40.2727273 C18.0629498,40.2727273 23.2727273,35.0629498 23.2727273,28.6363636 C23.2727273,22.2097775 18.0629498,17 11.6363636,17 C5.20977746,17 0,22.2097775 0,28.6363636 C0,35.0629498 5.20977746,40.2727273 11.6363636,40.2727273 Z M11.6363636,75.1818182 C18.0629498,75.1818182 23.2727273,69.9720407 23.2727273,63.5454545 C23.2727273,57.1188684 18.0629498,51.9090909 11.6363636,51.9090909 C5.20977746,51.9090909 0,57.1188684 0,63.5454545 C0,69.9720407 5.20977746,75.1818182 11.6363636,75.1818182 Z M11.6363636,110.090909 C18.0629498,110.090909 23.2727273,104.881132 23.2727273,98.4545455 C23.2727273,92.0279593 18.0629498,86.8181818 11.6363636,86.8181818 C5.20977746,86.8181818 0,92.0279593 0,98.4545455 C0,104.881132 5.20977746,110.090909 11.6363636,110.090909 Z M34.9090909,22.8181818 L128,22.8181818 L128,34.4545455 L34.9090909,34.4545455 L34.9090909,22.8181818 Z M34.9090909,57.7272727 L128,57.7272727 L128,69.3636364 L34.9090909,69.3636364 L34.9090909,57.7272727 Z M34.9090909,92.6363636 L128,92.6363636 L128,104.272727 L34.9090909,104.272727 L34.9090909,92.6363636 Z\"></path>\n </g>\n</svg>"
},
"$:/core/images/list-number": {
"title": "$:/core/images/list-number",
"tags": "$:/tags/Image",
"text": "<svg class=\"tc-image-list-number tc-image-button\" width=\"22pt\" height=\"22pt\" viewBox=\"0 0 128 128\">\n <g fill-rule=\"evenodd\">\n <path d=\"M33.8390805,22.3563218 L128,22.3563218 L128,34.1264368 L33.8390805,34.1264368 L33.8390805,22.3563218 Z M33.8390805,57.6666667 L128,57.6666667 L128,69.4367816 L33.8390805,69.4367816 L33.8390805,57.6666667 Z M33.8390805,92.9770115 L128,92.9770115 L128,104.747126 L33.8390805,104.747126 L33.8390805,92.9770115 Z M0.379509711,42.6307008 L0.379509711,40.4082314 L1.37821948,40.4082314 C2.20382368,40.4082314 2.82301754,40.268077 3.23581964,39.9877642 C3.64862174,39.7074513 3.85501969,39.0400498 3.85501969,37.9855395 L3.85501969,22.7686318 C3.85501969,21.3270228 3.66193774,20.4327047 3.27576803,20.0856507 C2.88959832,19.7385967 1.79768657,19.5650723 0,19.5650723 L0,17.4226919 C3.50215975,17.2758613 6.25191314,16.4683055 8.24934266,15 L10.3666074,15 L10.3666074,37.865406 C10.3666074,38.786434 10.5164123,39.4404875 10.8160268,39.8275862 C11.1156412,40.2146849 11.764796,40.4082314 12.7635108,40.4082314 L13.7622206,40.4082314 L13.7622206,42.6307008 L0.379509711,42.6307008 Z M0.0798967812,77.9873934 L0.0798967812,76.0852799 C7.27064304,69.5312983 10.8659622,63.5046623 10.8659622,58.005191 C10.8659622,56.4434479 10.5397203,55.195407 9.88722667,54.2610308 C9.23473303,53.3266546 8.36253522,52.8594735 7.27060709,52.8594735 C6.3784219,52.8594735 5.61608107,53.1764892 4.98356173,53.8105302 C4.35104238,54.4445712 4.03478745,55.1753759 4.03478745,56.0029663 C4.03478745,56.9773871 4.28113339,57.8316611 4.77383268,58.5658139 C4.88036225,58.7259926 4.93362624,58.8461249 4.93362624,58.9262143 C4.93362624,59.0730449 4.77383427,59.2065252 4.45424555,59.3266593 C4.2411864,59.4067486 3.70188852,59.6336652 2.83633573,60.0074156 C1.99741533,60.3811661 1.47809145,60.5680386 1.2783485,60.5680386 C1.03865696,60.5680386 0.765679018,60.1976307 0.459406492,59.4568039 C0.153133966,58.715977 0,57.9184322 0,57.0641453 C0,55.1153036 0.848894811,53.5202138 2.5467099,52.2788283 C4.24452499,51.0374428 6.34512352,50.4167594 8.84856852,50.4167594 C11.3120649,50.4167594 13.3793735,51.0874979 15.0505562,52.4289952 C16.7217389,53.7704924 17.5573177,55.5224215 17.5573177,57.684835 C17.5573177,58.9662652 17.2743527,60.2076321 16.7084144,61.4089729 C16.142476,62.6103138 14.7875733,64.4623531 12.6436656,66.9651465 C10.4997579,69.4679398 8.40914641,71.7804862 6.3717683,73.902855 L17.8169822,73.902855 L16.7982982,79.6292176 L14.6810335,79.6292176 C14.7609307,79.3489048 14.8008787,79.0952922 14.8008787,78.8683723 C14.8008787,78.4812736 14.7010087,78.237672 14.5012658,78.1375603 C14.3015228,78.0374485 13.9020429,77.9873934 13.3028141,77.9873934 L0.0798967812,77.9873934 Z M12.2042333,97.1935484 C13.9486551,97.2335931 15.4400468,97.8309175 16.6784531,98.9855395 C17.9168594,100.140162 18.5360532,101.75861 18.5360532,103.840934 C18.5360532,106.830938 17.4041935,109.233584 15.14044,111.048943 C12.8766866,112.864303 10.1402492,113.771969 6.93104577,113.771969 C4.92030005,113.771969 3.26245842,113.388213 1.95747114,112.62069 C0.652483855,111.853166 0,110.848727 0,109.607341 C0,108.833144 0.26964894,108.209124 0.808954909,107.735261 C1.34826088,107.261399 1.93749375,107.024472 2.57667119,107.024472 C3.21584864,107.024472 3.73850152,107.224692 4.14464552,107.625139 C4.55078953,108.025586 4.92696644,108.67964 5.27318756,109.587319 C5.73925445,110.855401 6.51158227,111.489433 7.59019421,111.489433 C8.85523291,111.489433 9.87723568,111.012241 10.6562332,110.057842 C11.4352307,109.103444 11.8247236,107.371536 11.8247236,104.862069 C11.8247236,103.153495 11.7048796,101.838714 11.4651881,100.917686 C11.2254966,99.9966584 10.6728827,99.5361513 9.80732989,99.5361513 C9.22141723,99.5361513 8.62219737,99.843156 8.00965231,100.457175 C7.51695303,100.951059 7.07752513,101.197998 6.69135542,101.197998 C6.3584505,101.197998 6.08880156,101.051169 5.88240051,100.757508 C5.67599946,100.463847 5.57280049,100.183539 5.57280049,99.916574 C5.57280049,99.5962164 5.67599946,99.3225818 5.88240051,99.0956618 C6.08880156,98.8687419 6.57150646,98.5016711 7.33052967,97.9944383 C10.2068282,96.0722929 11.6449559,93.9766521 11.6449559,91.7074527 C11.6449559,90.5194601 11.3386879,89.615131 10.7261429,88.9944383 C10.1135978,88.3737455 9.37455999,88.0634038 8.5090072,88.0634038 C7.71003539,88.0634038 6.98431355,88.3270274 6.33181991,88.8542825 C5.67932627,89.3815377 5.35308434,90.0122321 5.35308434,90.7463849 C5.35308434,91.3871 5.60608828,91.9810874 6.11210376,92.5283648 C6.28521432,92.7285883 6.3717683,92.8954387 6.3717683,93.028921 C6.3717683,93.1490551 5.80250943,93.4560598 4.6639746,93.9499444 C3.52543978,94.4438289 2.80970494,94.6907675 2.51674861,94.6907675 C2.10394651,94.6907675 1.76771758,94.3570667 1.50805174,93.6896552 C1.24838591,93.0222436 1.11855494,92.4082342 1.11855494,91.8476085 C1.11855494,90.0989901 2.04734573,88.6240327 3.90495518,87.4226919 C5.76256463,86.2213511 7.86982116,85.6206897 10.226788,85.6206897 C12.2907985,85.6206897 14.0784711,86.0678487 15.5898594,86.9621802 C17.1012478,87.8565117 17.8569306,89.0778566 17.8569306,90.6262514 C17.8569306,91.987771 17.2876717,93.2491599 16.1491369,94.4104561 C15.0106021,95.5717522 13.6956474,96.4994404 12.2042333,97.1935484 Z\"></path>\n </g>\n</svg>"
},
"$:/core/images/list": {
"title": "$:/core/images/list",
"tags": "$:/tags/Image",
"text": "<svg class=\"tc-image-list tc-image-button\" width=\"22pt\" height=\"22pt\" viewBox=\"0 0 128 128\">\n <g fill-rule=\"evenodd\">\n <path d=\"M0.719999312,185.568543 C2.21955287,181.862817 3.0452019,177.812144 3.0452019,173.568542 C3.0452019,155.891545 -11.2816707,141.568542 -28.9547636,141.568542 L-60.9548326,141.568542 C-78.6344937,141.568542 -92.9547981,155.895431 -92.9547981,173.568542 C-92.9547981,191.24554 -78.6279255,205.568542 -60.9548326,205.568542 L-28.9547636,205.568542 C-27.593228,205.568542 -26.2516158,205.483573 -24.9349335,205.31865 C-31.5207556,201.78951 -36.8809788,196.272192 -40.2126959,189.568542 L-60.9493786,189.568542 C-69.7889277,189.568542 -76.9547981,182.407041 -76.9547981,173.568542 C-76.9547981,164.731986 -69.7994766,157.568542 -60.9493786,157.568542 L-28.9602176,157.568542 C-20.1206685,157.568542 -12.9547981,164.730044 -12.9547981,173.568542 C-12.9547981,176.946528 -14.0004297,180.080016 -15.7866505,182.6623 C-13.6856165,184.473592 -10.949961,185.568542 -7.9585771,185.568542 L0.720002586,185.568542 Z\" transform=\"translate(-44.954798, 173.568542) rotate(-225.000000) translate(44.954798, -173.568542) \"></path>\n <path d=\"M87.7480315,128 L23.9992458,128 C19.5813843,128 16,124.409247 16,119.993027 L16,8.00697327 C16,3.58484404 19.5881049,0 23.9992458,0 L104.000754,0 C108.418616,0 112,3.59075293 112,8.00697327 L112,104 L91.2492027,104 C90.2848199,104 89.410573,104.391703 88.7768998,105.025201 C88.1373658,105.661376 87.7480315,106.53563 87.7480315,107.501171 L87.7480315,128 Z M95.7480315,127.879386 L111.627417,112 L95.7480315,112 L95.7480315,127.879386 Z M40,15.5089165 C40,13.5709954 41.5636015,12 43.4998101,12 L98.5001899,12 C100.433082,12 102,13.5614718 102,15.5089165 L102,16.4910835 C102,18.4290046 100.436399,20 98.5001899,20 L43.4998101,20 C41.5669183,20 40,18.4385282 40,16.4910835 L40,15.5089165 Z M32,22 C35.3137085,22 38,19.3137085 38,16 C38,12.6862915 35.3137085,10 32,10 C28.6862915,10 26,12.6862915 26,16 C26,19.3137085 28.6862915,22 32,22 Z M40,31.5089165 C40,29.5709954 41.5636015,28 43.4998101,28 L98.5001899,28 C100.433082,28 102,29.5614718 102,31.5089165 L102,32.4910835 C102,34.4290046 100.436399,36 98.5001899,36 L43.4998101,36 C41.5669183,36 40,34.4385282 40,32.4910835 L40,31.5089165 Z M40,47.5089165 C40,45.5709954 41.5636015,44 43.4998101,44 L98.5001899,44 C100.433082,44 102,45.5614718 102,47.5089165 L102,48.4910835 C102,50.4290046 100.436399,52 98.5001899,52 L43.4998101,52 C41.5669183,52 40,50.4385282 40,48.4910835 L40,47.5089165 Z M40,63.5089165 C40,61.5709954 41.5636015,60 43.4998101,60 L98.5001899,60 C100.433082,60 102,61.5614718 102,63.5089165 L102,64.4910835 C102,66.4290046 100.436399,68 98.5001899,68 L43.4998101,68 C41.5669183,68 40,66.4385282 40,64.4910835 L40,63.5089165 Z M40,79.5089165 C40,77.5709954 41.5636015,76 43.4998101,76 L98.5001899,76 C100.433082,76 102,77.5614718 102,79.5089165 L102,80.4910835 C102,82.4290046 100.436399,84 98.5001899,84 L43.4998101,84 C41.5669183,84 40,82.4385282 40,80.4910835 L40,79.5089165 Z M40,95.5089165 C40,93.5709954 41.5636015,92 43.4998101,92 L98.5001899,92 C100.433082,92 102,93.5614718 102,95.5089165 L102,96.4910835 C102,98.4290046 100.436399,100 98.5001899,100 L43.4998101,100 C41.5669183,100 40,98.4385282 40,96.4910835 L40,95.5089165 Z M40,111.508916 C40,109.570995 41.5680474,108 43.4972017,108 L76.5027983,108 C78.4342495,108 80,109.561472 80,111.508916 L80,112.491084 C80,114.429005 78.4319526,116 76.5027983,116 L43.4972017,116 C41.5657505,116 40,114.438528 40,112.491084 L40,111.508916 Z M32,38 C35.3137085,38 38,35.3137085 38,32 C38,28.6862915 35.3137085,26 32,26 C28.6862915,26 26,28.6862915 26,32 C26,35.3137085 28.6862915,38 32,38 Z M32,54 C35.3137085,54 38,51.3137085 38,48 C38,44.6862915 35.3137085,42 32,42 C28.6862915,42 26,44.6862915 26,48 C26,51.3137085 28.6862915,54 32,54 Z M32,70 C35.3137085,70 38,67.3137085 38,64 C38,60.6862915 35.3137085,58 32,58 C28.6862915,58 26,60.6862915 26,64 C26,67.3137085 28.6862915,70 32,70 Z M32,86 C35.3137085,86 38,83.3137085 38,80 C38,76.6862915 35.3137085,74 32,74 C28.6862915,74 26,76.6862915 26,80 C26,83.3137085 28.6862915,86 32,86 Z M32,102 C35.3137085,102 38,99.3137085 38,96 C38,92.6862915 35.3137085,90 32,90 C28.6862915,90 26,92.6862915 26,96 C26,99.3137085 28.6862915,102 32,102 Z M32,118 C35.3137085,118 38,115.313708 38,112 C38,108.686292 35.3137085,106 32,106 C28.6862915,106 26,108.686292 26,112 C26,115.313708 28.6862915,118 32,118 Z\"></path>\n </g>\n</svg>"
},
"$:/core/images/locked-padlock": {
"title": "$:/core/images/locked-padlock",
"tags": "$:/tags/Image",
"text": "<svg class=\"tc-image-locked-padlock tc-image-button\" width=\"22pt\" height=\"22pt\" viewBox=\"0 0 128 128\">\n <g fill-rule=\"evenodd\">\n <path d=\"M96.4723753,64 L105,64 L105,96.0097716 C105,113.673909 90.6736461,128 73.001193,128 L55.998807,128 C38.3179793,128 24,113.677487 24,96.0097716 L24,64 L32.0000269,64 C32.0028554,48.2766389 32.3030338,16.2688026 64.1594984,16.2688041 C95.9543927,16.2688056 96.4648869,48.325931 96.4723753,64 Z M80.5749059,64 L48.4413579,64 C48.4426205,47.71306 48.5829272,31.9999996 64.1595001,31.9999996 C79.8437473,31.9999996 81.1369461,48.1359182 80.5749059,64 Z M67.7315279,92.3641717 C70.8232551,91.0923621 73,88.0503841 73,84.5 C73,79.8055796 69.1944204,76 64.5,76 C59.8055796,76 56,79.8055796 56,84.5 C56,87.947435 58.0523387,90.9155206 61.0018621,92.2491029 L55.9067479,115.020857 L72.8008958,115.020857 L67.7315279,92.3641717 L67.7315279,92.3641717 Z\"></path>\n </g>\n</svg>"
},
"$:/core/images/mail": {
"title": "$:/core/images/mail",
"tags": "$:/tags/Image",
"text": "<svg class=\"tc-image-mail tc-image-button\" width=\"22pt\" height=\"22pt\" viewBox=\"0 0 128 128\">\n <g fill-rule=\"evenodd\">\n <path d=\"M122.826782,104.894066 C121.945525,105.22777 120.990324,105.41043 119.993027,105.41043 L8.00697327,105.41043 C7.19458381,105.41043 6.41045219,105.289614 5.67161357,105.064967 L5.67161357,105.064967 L39.8346483,70.9019325 L60.6765759,91.7438601 C61.6118278,92.679112 62.8865166,93.0560851 64.0946097,92.8783815 C65.2975108,93.0473238 66.5641085,92.6696979 67.4899463,91.7438601 L88.5941459,70.6396605 C88.6693095,70.7292352 88.7490098,70.8162939 88.8332479,70.9005321 L122.826782,104.894066 Z M127.903244,98.6568194 C127.966933,98.2506602 128,97.8343714 128,97.4103789 L128,33.410481 C128,32.7414504 127.917877,32.0916738 127.763157,31.4706493 L94.2292399,65.0045665 C94.3188145,65.0797417 94.4058701,65.1594458 94.4901021,65.2436778 L127.903244,98.6568194 Z M0.205060636,99.2178117 C0.0709009529,98.6370366 0,98.0320192 0,97.4103789 L0,33.410481 C0,32.694007 0.0944223363,31.9995312 0.27147538,31.3387595 L0.27147538,31.3387595 L34.1777941,65.2450783 L0.205060636,99.2178117 L0.205060636,99.2178117 Z M5.92934613,25.6829218 C6.59211333,25.5051988 7.28862283,25.4104299 8.00697327,25.4104299 L119.993027,25.4104299 C120.759109,25.4104299 121.500064,25.5178649 122.201605,25.7184927 L122.201605,25.7184927 L64.0832611,83.8368368 L5.92934613,25.6829218 L5.92934613,25.6829218 Z\"></path>\n </g>\n</svg>"
},
"$:/core/images/menu-button": {
"title": "$:/core/images/menu-button",
"tags": "$:/tags/Image",
"text": "<svg class=\"tc-image-menu-button tc-image-button\" viewBox=\"0 0 128 128\" width=\"22pt\" height=\"22pt\">\n <rect x=\"0\" y=\"16\" width=\"128\" height=\"16\" rx=\"8\"></rect>\n <rect x=\"0\" y=\"56\" width=\"128\" height=\"16\" rx=\"8\"></rect>\n <rect x=\"0\" y=\"96\" width=\"128\" height=\"16\" rx=\"8\"></rect>\n</svg>"
},
"$:/core/images/mono-block": {
"title": "$:/core/images/mono-block",
"tags": "$:/tags/Image",
"text": "<svg class=\"tc-image-mono-block tc-image-button\" width=\"22pt\" height=\"22pt\" viewBox=\"0 0 128 128\">\n <g fill-rule=\"evenodd\">\n <path d=\"M23.9653488,32.9670593 L24.3217888,32.9670593 C25.0766067,32.9670593 25.6497006,33.1592554 26.0410876,33.5436534 C26.4324747,33.9280514 26.6281653,34.4906619 26.6281653,35.2315017 C26.6281653,36.0562101 26.4219913,36.6502709 26.009637,37.0137017 C25.5972828,37.3771326 24.9158602,37.5588453 23.9653488,37.5588453 L17.6542639,37.5588453 C16.6897744,37.5588453 16.0048573,37.380627 15.5994921,37.0241852 C15.1941269,36.6677435 14.9914474,36.0701882 14.9914474,35.2315017 C14.9914474,34.4207713 15.1941269,33.8406885 15.5994921,33.4912358 C16.0048573,33.141783 16.6897744,32.9670593 17.6542639,32.9670593 L18.388111,32.9670593 L17.5284616,30.5139133 L8.47069195,30.5139133 L7.5691084,32.9670593 L8.30295547,32.9670593 C9.25346691,32.9670593 9.93488953,33.1452775 10.3472438,33.5017193 C10.759598,33.8581611 10.965772,34.4347494 10.965772,35.2315017 C10.965772,36.0562101 10.759598,36.6502709 10.3472438,37.0137017 C9.93488953,37.3771326 9.25346691,37.5588453 8.30295547,37.5588453 L2.89345418,37.5588453 C1.92896463,37.5588453 1.24404754,37.3771326 0.838682371,37.0137017 C0.433317198,36.6502709 0.230637652,36.0562101 0.230637652,35.2315017 C0.230637652,34.4906619 0.426328248,33.9280514 0.817715312,33.5436534 C1.20910238,33.1592554 1.78219626,32.9670593 2.53701417,32.9670593 L2.89345418,32.9670593 L8.51262607,17.3256331 L6.83526132,17.3256331 C5.88474988,17.3256331 5.20332727,17.1439204 4.79097304,16.7804895 C4.37861882,16.4170587 4.1724448,15.8299869 4.1724448,15.0192565 C4.1724448,14.1945481 4.37861882,13.6004873 4.79097304,13.2370565 C5.20332727,12.8736257 5.88474988,12.691913 6.83526132,12.691913 L14.6979086,12.691913 C15.9419603,12.691913 16.815579,13.3628521 17.318791,14.7047506 L17.318791,14.7676518 L23.9653488,32.9670593 Z M12.9786097,17.3256331 L9.9383861,26.1737321 L16.0188333,26.1737321 L12.9786097,17.3256331 Z M35.3809383,26.6979086 L35.3809383,33.0928616 L38.5259972,33.0928616 C40.7485166,33.0928616 42.3140414,32.8482484 43.2226185,32.3590146 C44.1311956,31.8697807 44.5854773,31.0520736 44.5854773,29.9058686 C44.5854773,28.7456855 44.1521624,27.9209895 43.2855197,27.4317556 C42.4188769,26.9425218 40.9022748,26.6979086 38.7356678,26.6979086 L35.3809383,26.6979086 Z M46.0741385,24.370565 C47.5977525,24.9296893 48.7159844,25.6949794 49.428868,26.666458 C50.1417516,27.6379366 50.498188,28.8784752 50.498188,30.388111 C50.498188,31.6601189 50.1906743,32.8202846 49.5756374,33.8686428 C48.9606006,34.917001 48.0799929,35.7766419 46.933788,36.4475911 C46.2628387,36.8389782 45.5115266,37.1220307 44.6798291,37.296757 C43.8481316,37.4714834 42.6704935,37.5588453 41.1468796,37.5588453 L39.3856466,37.5588453 L30.2020747,37.5588453 C29.2795194,37.5588453 28.6190637,37.3771326 28.2206876,37.0137017 C27.8223114,36.6502709 27.6231264,36.0562101 27.6231264,35.2315017 C27.6231264,34.4906619 27.811828,33.9280514 28.189237,33.5436534 C28.5666459,33.1592554 29.118773,32.9670593 29.8456347,32.9670593 L30.2020747,32.9670593 L30.2020747,17.3256331 L29.8456347,17.3256331 C29.118773,17.3256331 28.5666459,17.1299425 28.189237,16.7385554 C27.811828,16.3471683 27.6231264,15.7740744 27.6231264,15.0192565 C27.6231264,14.2085262 27.8258059,13.6179599 28.2311711,13.24754 C28.6365363,12.8771201 29.2934976,12.691913 30.2020747,12.691913 L39.8469219,12.691913 C42.796303,12.691913 45.0362615,13.2650068 46.5668644,14.4112118 C48.0974674,15.5574168 48.8627574,17.2347648 48.8627574,19.443306 C48.8627574,20.5335986 48.6286276,21.4945792 48.1603609,22.3262767 C47.6920943,23.1579742 46.9966938,23.8393968 46.0741385,24.370565 L46.0741385,24.370565 Z M35.3809383,17.1998307 L35.3809383,22.4835296 L38.2114913,22.4835296 C39.9307988,22.4835296 41.1433816,22.2808501 41.8492761,21.8754849 C42.5551706,21.4701197 42.9081126,20.7852027 42.9081126,19.8207131 C42.9081126,18.912136 42.5901154,18.2481858 41.9541114,17.8288425 C41.3181074,17.4094992 40.2872373,17.1998307 38.8614701,17.1998307 L35.3809383,17.1998307 Z M71.244119,13.3838259 C71.5236812,12.880614 71.8102281,12.5241775 72.1037684,12.3145059 C72.3973087,12.1048342 72.7677231,12 73.2150226,12 C73.8999499,12 74.3856819,12.1817127 74.6722332,12.5451435 C74.9587844,12.9085744 75.1020579,13.5305909 75.1020579,14.4112118 L75.143992,19.8626472 C75.143992,20.8271368 74.9867406,21.4771091 74.6722332,21.8125837 C74.3577257,22.1480584 73.7881263,22.3157932 72.9634178,22.3157932 C72.3763372,22.3157932 71.92555,22.1760142 71.6110425,21.896452 C71.2965351,21.6168898 71.0274605,21.0997075 70.8038107,20.3448896 C70.4403799,19.0169692 69.8602971,18.0629775 69.0635448,17.482886 C68.2667926,16.9027945 67.1625385,16.612753 65.7507494,16.612753 C63.5981206,16.612753 61.9487284,17.3396038 60.8025235,18.7933272 C59.6563185,20.2470506 59.0832246,22.3507245 59.0832246,25.104412 C59.0832246,27.8441215 59.6633074,29.9477954 60.8234905,31.4154969 C61.9836736,32.8831984 63.6400547,33.6170381 65.7926836,33.6170381 C67.2603851,33.6170381 68.878327,33.1278116 70.6465578,32.149344 C72.4147886,31.1708763 73.5295261,30.6816498 73.9908037,30.6816498 C74.53595,30.6816498 74.9937262,30.9122852 75.3641461,31.3735628 C75.734566,31.8348404 75.9197732,32.4079343 75.9197732,33.0928616 C75.9197732,34.3229353 74.836486,35.4831009 72.669879,36.5733935 C70.5032721,37.663686 68.0641285,38.2088241 65.3523753,38.2088241 C61.6901107,38.2088241 58.7267959,36.9997358 56.4623422,34.5815228 C54.1978885,32.1633099 53.0656786,29.0043046 53.0656786,25.104412 C53.0656786,21.3443006 54.2118664,18.22024 56.5042763,15.7321366 C58.7966863,13.2440331 61.7040894,12 65.226573,12 C66.2190187,12 67.1974717,12.1118232 68.1619613,12.3354729 C69.1264508,12.5591227 70.1538264,12.9085702 71.244119,13.3838259 L71.244119,13.3838259 Z M81.4645862,32.9670593 L81.4645862,17.3256331 L81.1081461,17.3256331 C80.3533282,17.3256331 79.7802344,17.1299425 79.3888473,16.7385554 C78.9974602,16.3471683 78.8017696,15.7740744 78.8017696,15.0192565 C78.8017696,14.2085262 79.0114381,13.6179599 79.4307814,13.24754 C79.8501247,12.8771201 80.5280528,12.691913 81.4645862,12.691913 L85.4063933,12.691913 L86.6434498,12.691913 C89.5648747,12.691913 91.7034933,12.8177141 93.0593699,13.06932 C94.4152465,13.320926 95.5684233,13.740263 96.5189347,14.3273436 C98.210286,15.3337675 99.5067362,16.7699967 100.408324,18.6360743 C101.309912,20.5021519 101.7607,22.6582429 101.7607,25.104412 C101.7607,27.6903623 101.247012,29.9512876 100.219621,31.8872557 C99.1922296,33.8232239 97.7350336,35.2874089 95.8479888,36.2798546 C94.9953241,36.7271541 93.9959043,37.0521403 92.8496993,37.2548229 C91.7034944,37.4575055 89.9981906,37.5588453 87.7337369,37.5588453 L85.4063933,37.5588453 L81.4645862,37.5588453 C80.5000966,37.5588453 79.8151795,37.380627 79.4098143,37.0241852 C79.0044492,36.6677435 78.8017696,36.0701882 78.8017696,35.2315017 C78.8017696,34.4906619 78.9974602,33.9280514 79.3888473,33.5436534 C79.7802344,33.1592554 80.3533282,32.9670593 81.1081461,32.9670593 L81.4645862,32.9670593 Z M86.8740874,17.2417648 L86.8740874,32.9670593 L88.0692098,32.9670593 C90.7110725,32.9670593 92.6609895,32.3205814 93.9190194,31.0276063 C95.1770492,29.7346312 95.8060547,27.7462749 95.8060547,25.0624779 C95.8060547,22.4206153 95.1665658,20.4497314 93.8875688,19.1497672 C92.6085718,17.849803 90.6831161,17.1998307 88.1111439,17.1998307 C87.7756693,17.1998307 87.5205727,17.2033252 87.3458463,17.2103142 C87.1711199,17.2173033 87.0138685,17.2277867 86.8740874,17.2417648 L86.8740874,17.2417648 Z M121.94052,17.1159625 L112.190837,17.1159625 L112.190837,22.4835296 L115.88104,22.4835296 L115.88104,22.2319249 C115.88104,21.4351727 116.055763,20.841112 116.405216,20.4497249 C116.754669,20.0583378 117.285829,19.8626472 117.998713,19.8626472 C118.627728,19.8626472 119.141415,20.0408655 119.539792,20.3973072 C119.938168,20.753749 120.137353,21.2045363 120.137353,21.7496826 C120.137353,21.7776388 120.144342,21.8684951 120.15832,22.0222543 C120.172298,22.1760135 120.179287,22.3297704 120.179287,22.4835296 L120.179287,26.8237109 C120.179287,27.7602442 120.011552,28.4311834 119.676077,28.8365486 C119.340603,29.2419138 118.795465,29.4445933 118.040647,29.4445933 C117.327763,29.4445933 116.789614,29.2558917 116.426183,28.8784827 C116.062752,28.5010738 115.88104,27.9419578 115.88104,27.201118 L115.88104,26.8237109 L112.190837,26.8237109 L112.190837,33.0928616 L121.94052,33.0928616 L121.94052,30.5977816 C121.94052,29.6612482 122.118738,28.9903091 122.47518,28.5849439 C122.831622,28.1795787 123.415199,27.9768992 124.225929,27.9768992 C125.022682,27.9768992 125.592281,28.1760842 125.934745,28.5744604 C126.277208,28.9728365 126.448438,29.6472701 126.448438,30.5977816 L126.448438,35.6718099 C126.448438,36.4266278 126.30167,36.9298322 126.008129,37.1814382 C125.714589,37.4330442 125.134506,37.5588453 124.267863,37.5588453 L107.095842,37.5588453 C106.173287,37.5588453 105.512831,37.3771326 105.114455,37.0137017 C104.716079,36.6502709 104.516894,36.0562101 104.516894,35.2315017 C104.516894,34.4906619 104.705595,33.9280514 105.083004,33.5436534 C105.460413,33.1592554 106.01254,32.9670593 106.739402,32.9670593 L107.095842,32.9670593 L107.095842,17.3256331 L106.739402,17.3256331 C106.026518,17.3256331 105.477886,17.126448 105.093488,16.7280719 C104.70909,16.3296957 104.516894,15.7600963 104.516894,15.0192565 C104.516894,14.2085262 104.719573,13.6179599 105.124938,13.24754 C105.530304,12.8771201 106.187265,12.691913 107.095842,12.691913 L124.267863,12.691913 C125.120528,12.691913 125.697116,12.8212085 125.997646,13.0798036 C126.298175,13.3383986 126.448438,13.8520864 126.448438,14.6208824 L126.448438,19.3175037 C126.448438,20.2680151 126.273714,20.9494377 125.924261,21.361792 C125.574808,21.7741462 125.008703,21.9803202 124.225929,21.9803202 C123.415199,21.9803202 122.831622,21.7706517 122.47518,21.3513084 C122.118738,20.9319652 121.94052,20.254037 121.94052,19.3175037 L121.94052,17.1159625 Z M19.7719369,47.6405477 C20.037521,47.1373358 20.3205734,46.7808993 20.6211028,46.5712277 C20.9216322,46.361556 21.295541,46.2567218 21.7428405,46.2567218 C22.4277678,46.2567218 22.9134998,46.4384345 23.2000511,46.8018653 C23.4866023,47.1652962 23.6298758,47.7873127 23.6298758,48.6679336 L23.6718099,54.119369 C23.6718099,55.0838586 23.5145586,55.7338309 23.2000511,56.0693055 C22.8855436,56.4047802 22.3089553,56.572515 21.4702687,56.572515 C20.8831881,56.572515 20.4254119,56.4292415 20.0969263,56.1426902 C19.7684407,55.856139 19.4993662,55.3424512 19.2896945,54.6016114 C18.9122856,53.2597129 18.3322027,52.3022267 17.5494286,51.7291243 C16.7666545,51.1560218 15.6693894,50.8694748 14.2576003,50.8694748 C12.1049715,50.8694748 10.4590738,51.5963256 9.31985785,53.050049 C8.18064193,54.5037724 7.61104252,56.6074463 7.61104252,59.3611338 C7.61104252,62.1148214 8.20859773,64.2429566 9.40372609,65.7456034 C10.5988544,67.2482501 12.2936748,67.9995623 14.488238,67.9995623 C14.9914499,67.9995623 15.5645438,67.9401562 16.2075368,67.8213423 C16.8505299,67.7025283 17.6053364,67.5173212 18.4719792,67.2657152 L18.4719792,63.9529198 L16.1027015,63.9529198 C15.1521901,63.9529198 14.4777564,63.7781961 14.0793803,63.4287433 C13.6810042,63.0792906 13.4818191,62.4992078 13.4818191,61.6884774 C13.4818191,60.8497908 13.6810042,60.2522356 14.0793803,59.8957938 C14.4777564,59.5393521 15.1521901,59.3611338 16.1027015,59.3611338 L23.6718099,59.3611338 C24.6502776,59.3611338 25.3386891,59.5358576 25.7370653,59.8853103 C26.1354414,60.2347631 26.3346265,60.8218348 26.3346265,61.6465433 C26.3346265,62.3873831 26.1354414,62.9569825 25.7370653,63.3553586 C25.3386891,63.7537347 24.7621008,63.9529198 24.0072829,63.9529198 L23.6718099,63.9529198 L23.6718099,68.9430799 L23.6718099,69.1946846 C23.6718099,69.6419841 23.6228873,69.9529924 23.5250405,70.1277188 C23.4271937,70.3024451 23.2315031,70.4806634 22.9379628,70.6623788 C22.1412106,71.1376345 20.8762107,71.5569715 19.1429251,71.9204023 C17.4096396,72.2838332 15.6554131,72.4655459 13.8801932,72.4655459 C10.2179286,72.4655459 7.25461383,71.2564576 4.99016011,68.8382446 C2.72570638,66.4200317 1.59349651,63.2610264 1.59349651,59.3611338 C1.59349651,55.6010224 2.73968428,52.4769618 5.03209423,49.9888583 C7.32450417,47.5007549 10.2319073,46.2567218 13.7543909,46.2567218 C14.7328585,46.2567218 15.7078171,46.368545 16.6792957,46.5921947 C17.6507743,46.8158445 18.6816444,47.165292 19.7719369,47.6405477 L19.7719369,47.6405477 Z M35.611576,51.5823548 L35.611576,56.4047785 L42.4678043,56.4047785 L42.4678043,51.5823548 L42.1323314,51.5823548 C41.3775135,51.5823548 40.8009251,51.3866642 40.402549,50.9952772 C40.0041729,50.6038901 39.8049878,50.0307962 39.8049878,49.2759783 C39.8049878,48.4512699 40.0111618,47.8572091 40.4235161,47.4937783 C40.8358703,47.1303474 41.5172929,46.9486347 42.4678043,46.9486347 L47.8773056,46.9486347 C48.8278171,46.9486347 49.5022507,47.1303474 49.9006269,47.4937783 C50.299003,47.8572091 50.498188,48.4512699 50.498188,49.2759783 C50.498188,50.0307962 50.3059919,50.6038901 49.9215939,50.9952772 C49.5371959,51.3866642 48.9745854,51.5823548 48.2337456,51.5823548 L47.8773056,51.5823548 L47.8773056,67.2237811 L48.2337456,67.2237811 C48.9885636,67.2237811 49.5616574,67.4159772 49.9530445,67.8003752 C50.3444316,68.1847732 50.5401222,68.7473837 50.5401222,69.4882235 C50.5401222,70.3129319 50.3374426,70.9069927 49.9320774,71.2704235 C49.5267123,71.6338543 48.8417952,71.815567 47.8773056,71.815567 L42.4678043,71.815567 C41.5033148,71.815567 40.8183977,71.6373488 40.4130325,71.280907 C40.0076674,70.9244652 39.8049878,70.32691 39.8049878,69.4882235 C39.8049878,68.7473837 40.0041729,68.1847732 40.402549,67.8003752 C40.8009251,67.4159772 41.3775135,67.2237811 42.1323314,67.2237811 L42.4678043,67.2237811 L42.4678043,61.0384986 L35.611576,61.0384986 L35.611576,67.2237811 L35.9470489,67.2237811 C36.7018668,67.2237811 37.2784552,67.4159772 37.6768313,67.8003752 C38.0752074,68.1847732 38.2743925,68.7473837 38.2743925,69.4882235 C38.2743925,70.3129319 38.0682185,70.9069927 37.6558642,71.2704235 C37.24351,71.6338543 36.5620874,71.815567 35.611576,71.815567 L30.2020747,71.815567 C29.2375851,71.815567 28.552668,71.6373488 28.1473029,71.280907 C27.7419377,70.9244652 27.5392581,70.32691 27.5392581,69.4882235 C27.5392581,68.7473837 27.7349487,68.1847732 28.1263358,67.8003752 C28.5177229,67.4159772 29.0908168,67.2237811 29.8456347,67.2237811 L30.2020747,67.2237811 L30.2020747,51.5823548 L29.8456347,51.5823548 C29.1047949,51.5823548 28.5421844,51.3866642 28.1577864,50.9952772 C27.7733884,50.6038901 27.5811923,50.0307962 27.5811923,49.2759783 C27.5811923,48.4512699 27.7803773,47.8572091 28.1787534,47.4937783 C28.5771296,47.1303474 29.2515632,46.9486347 30.2020747,46.9486347 L35.611576,46.9486347 C36.5481093,46.9486347 37.2260374,47.1303474 37.6453807,47.4937783 C38.064724,47.8572091 38.2743925,48.4512699 38.2743925,49.2759783 C38.2743925,50.0307962 38.0752074,50.6038901 37.6768313,50.9952772 C37.2784552,51.3866642 36.7018668,51.5823548 35.9470489,51.5823548 L35.611576,51.5823548 Z M67.365213,51.5823548 L67.365213,67.2237811 L70.887679,67.2237811 C71.8381904,67.2237811 72.519613,67.4019993 72.9319673,67.7584411 C73.3443215,68.1148829 73.5504955,68.6914712 73.5504955,69.4882235 C73.5504955,70.2989538 73.340827,70.8895201 72.9214837,71.25994 C72.5021404,71.6303599 71.8242123,71.815567 70.887679,71.815567 L58.4332458,71.815567 C57.4827343,71.815567 56.8013117,71.6338543 56.3889575,71.2704235 C55.9766033,70.9069927 55.7704292,70.3129319 55.7704292,69.4882235 C55.7704292,68.6774931 55.9731088,68.0974103 56.378474,67.7479575 C56.7838391,67.3985048 57.4687562,67.2237811 58.4332458,67.2237811 L61.9557117,67.2237811 L61.9557117,51.5823548 L58.4332458,51.5823548 C57.4827343,51.5823548 56.8013117,51.4006421 56.3889575,51.0372113 C55.9766033,50.6737805 55.7704292,50.0867087 55.7704292,49.2759783 C55.7704292,48.4512699 55.9731088,47.8641981 56.378474,47.5147453 C56.7838391,47.1652926 57.4687562,46.9905689 58.4332458,46.9905689 L70.887679,46.9905689 C71.8801247,46.9905689 72.5720308,47.1652926 72.9634178,47.5147453 C73.3548049,47.8641981 73.5504955,48.4512699 73.5504955,49.2759783 C73.5504955,50.0867087 73.347816,50.6737805 72.9424508,51.0372113 C72.5370856,51.4006421 71.8521685,51.5823548 70.887679,51.5823548 L67.365213,51.5823548 Z M97.8608265,51.5823548 L97.8608265,63.1771386 L97.8608265,63.5755127 C97.8608265,65.4485794 97.7385199,66.8044357 97.493903,67.6431222 C97.2492861,68.4818088 96.8404325,69.2296264 96.26733,69.8865976 C95.5264902,70.7392623 94.4991146,71.3822457 93.1851723,71.815567 C91.87123,72.2488884 90.2917273,72.4655459 88.4466169,72.4655459 C87.1466527,72.4655459 85.8921362,72.3397448 84.6830298,72.0881388 C83.4739233,71.8365328 82.3102631,71.4591296 81.1920144,70.9559176 C80.5769776,70.6763554 80.175113,70.31293 79.9864085,69.8656305 C79.797704,69.418331 79.7033532,68.6914802 79.7033532,67.6850564 L79.7033532,63.3658422 C79.7033532,62.1637247 79.8780769,61.3250508 80.2275297,60.849795 C80.5769824,60.3745393 81.185021,60.136915 82.0516638,60.136915 C83.2957156,60.136915 83.9806326,61.0524675 84.1064356,62.8835998 C84.1204137,63.2050963 84.1413806,63.4497096 84.1693368,63.6174469 C84.3370741,65.2389076 84.7144774,66.3466561 85.301558,66.9407258 C85.8886386,67.5347954 86.8251579,67.8318258 88.1111439,67.8318258 C89.7046484,67.8318258 90.8263749,67.4089943 91.476357,66.5633187 C92.126339,65.7176431 92.4513252,64.1765796 92.4513252,61.9400821 L92.4513252,51.5823548 L88.9288593,51.5823548 C87.9783478,51.5823548 87.2969252,51.4006421 86.884571,51.0372113 C86.4722168,50.6737805 86.2660427,50.0867087 86.2660427,49.2759783 C86.2660427,48.4512699 86.4652278,47.8641981 86.8636039,47.5147453 C87.26198,47.1652926 87.9503916,46.9905689 88.9288593,46.9905689 L99.6220595,46.9905689 C100.600527,46.9905689 101.288939,47.1652926 101.687315,47.5147453 C102.085691,47.8641981 102.284876,48.4512699 102.284876,49.2759783 C102.284876,50.0867087 102.078702,50.6737805 101.666348,51.0372113 C101.253994,51.4006421 100.572571,51.5823548 99.6220595,51.5823548 L97.8608265,51.5823548 Z M112.505343,51.5823548 L112.505343,57.9353738 L118.984165,51.4565525 C118.257303,51.3726838 117.747109,51.1665098 117.453569,50.8380242 C117.160029,50.5095387 117.013261,49.9888619 117.013261,49.2759783 C117.013261,48.4512699 117.212446,47.8572091 117.610822,47.4937783 C118.009198,47.1303474 118.683632,46.9486347 119.634143,46.9486347 L124.771073,46.9486347 C125.721584,46.9486347 126.396018,47.1303474 126.794394,47.4937783 C127.19277,47.8572091 127.391955,48.4512699 127.391955,49.2759783 C127.391955,50.0447743 127.19277,50.6213627 126.794394,51.0057607 C126.396018,51.3901587 125.812441,51.5823548 125.043645,51.5823548 L124.561402,51.5823548 L118.459988,57.641835 C119.592215,58.4805215 120.626579,59.5812811 121.563113,60.9441468 C122.499646,62.3070125 123.596911,64.400203 124.854941,67.2237811 L125.127513,67.2237811 L125.546854,67.2237811 C126.371563,67.2237811 126.98659,67.4124827 127.391955,67.7898917 C127.79732,68.1673006 128,68.7334056 128,69.4882235 C128,70.3129319 127.793826,70.9069927 127.381472,71.2704235 C126.969118,71.6338543 126.287695,71.815567 125.337183,71.815567 L122.758235,71.815567 C121.626008,71.815567 120.710456,71.0537715 120.01155,69.5301576 C119.885747,69.2505954 119.787902,69.026949 119.718012,68.8592117 C118.795456,66.9022764 117.949793,65.3926632 117.180997,64.3303269 C116.412201,63.2679906 115.510627,62.2965265 114.476247,61.4159056 L112.505343,63.302941 L112.505343,67.2237811 L112.840816,67.2237811 C113.595634,67.2237811 114.172222,67.4159772 114.570599,67.8003752 C114.968975,68.1847732 115.16816,68.7473837 115.16816,69.4882235 C115.16816,70.3129319 114.961986,70.9069927 114.549631,71.2704235 C114.137277,71.6338543 113.455855,71.815567 112.505343,71.815567 L107.095842,71.815567 C106.131352,71.815567 105.446435,71.6373488 105.04107,71.280907 C104.635705,70.9244652 104.433025,70.32691 104.433025,69.4882235 C104.433025,68.7473837 104.628716,68.1847732 105.020103,67.8003752 C105.41149,67.4159772 105.984584,67.2237811 106.739402,67.2237811 L107.095842,67.2237811 L107.095842,51.5823548 L106.739402,51.5823548 C105.998562,51.5823548 105.435952,51.3866642 105.051554,50.9952772 C104.667156,50.6038901 104.474959,50.0307962 104.474959,49.2759783 C104.474959,48.4512699 104.674145,47.8572091 105.072521,47.4937783 C105.470897,47.1303474 106.14533,46.9486347 107.095842,46.9486347 L112.505343,46.9486347 C113.441877,46.9486347 114.119805,47.1303474 114.539148,47.4937783 C114.958491,47.8572091 115.16816,48.4512699 115.16816,49.2759783 C115.16816,50.0307962 114.968975,50.6038901 114.570599,50.9952772 C114.172222,51.3866642 113.595634,51.5823548 112.840816,51.5823548 L112.505343,51.5823548 Z M13.439885,96.325622 L17.4445933,84.4372993 C17.6961993,83.6545252 18.0456468,83.0849258 18.4929463,82.728484 C18.9402458,82.3720422 19.5343065,82.193824 20.2751463,82.193824 L23.5460076,82.193824 C24.496519,82.193824 25.1779416,82.3755367 25.5902958,82.7389675 C26.0026501,83.1023984 26.2088241,83.6964591 26.2088241,84.5211676 C26.2088241,85.2759855 26.009639,85.8490794 25.6112629,86.2404664 C25.2128868,86.6318535 24.6362984,86.8275441 23.8814805,86.8275441 L23.5460076,86.8275441 L24.1330852,102.46897 L24.4895252,102.46897 C25.2443431,102.46897 25.8104481,102.661166 26.187857,103.045564 C26.565266,103.429962 26.7539676,103.992573 26.7539676,104.733413 C26.7539676,105.558121 26.5547826,106.152182 26.1564064,106.515613 C25.7580303,106.879044 25.0835967,107.060756 24.1330852,107.060756 L19.4154969,107.060756 C18.4649855,107.060756 17.7905518,106.882538 17.3921757,106.526096 C16.9937996,106.169654 16.7946145,105.572099 16.7946145,104.733413 C16.7946145,103.992573 16.9868106,103.429962 17.3712086,103.045564 C17.7556066,102.661166 18.325206,102.46897 19.0800239,102.46897 L19.4154969,102.46897 L19.1219581,89.6790642 L16.0607674,99.1981091 C15.8371177,99.9109927 15.5191204,100.42468 15.1067662,100.739188 C14.694412,101.053695 14.1248126,101.210947 13.3979509,101.210947 C12.6710892,101.210947 12.0945008,101.053695 11.6681685,100.739188 C11.2418362,100.42468 10.91685,99.9109927 10.6932002,99.1981091 L7.65297664,89.6790642 L7.35943781,102.46897 L7.69491075,102.46897 C8.44972866,102.46897 9.01932808,102.661166 9.40372609,103.045564 C9.78812409,103.429962 9.98032022,103.992573 9.98032022,104.733413 C9.98032022,105.558121 9.77764067,106.152182 9.3722755,106.515613 C8.96691032,106.879044 8.29597114,107.060756 7.35943781,107.060756 L2.62088241,107.060756 C1.68434908,107.060756 1.01340989,106.879044 0.608044719,106.515613 C0.202679546,106.152182 0,105.558121 0,104.733413 C0,103.992573 0.192196121,103.429962 0.57659413,103.045564 C0.960992139,102.661166 1.53059155,102.46897 2.28540946,102.46897 L2.62088241,102.46897 L3.22892713,86.8275441 L2.89345418,86.8275441 C2.13863627,86.8275441 1.56204791,86.6318535 1.16367179,86.2404664 C0.765295672,85.8490794 0.5661106,85.2759855 0.5661106,84.5211676 C0.5661106,83.6964591 0.772284622,83.1023984 1.18463885,82.7389675 C1.59699308,82.3755367 2.27841569,82.193824 3.22892713,82.193824 L6.49978838,82.193824 C7.22665007,82.193824 7.81022738,82.3685477 8.25053783,82.7180005 C8.69084827,83.0674532 9.05077919,83.6405471 9.33034138,84.4372993 L13.439885,96.325622 Z M43.8935644,98.3803938 L43.8935644,86.8275441 L42.7403761,86.8275441 C41.8178209,86.8275441 41.1573651,86.6458314 40.758989,86.2824006 C40.3606129,85.9189697 40.1614278,85.3318979 40.1614278,84.5211676 C40.1614278,83.7104372 40.3606129,83.119871 40.758989,82.7494511 C41.1573651,82.3790312 41.8178209,82.193824 42.7403761,82.193824 L48.6950209,82.193824 C49.6035981,82.193824 50.2605593,82.3790312 50.6659245,82.7494511 C51.0712897,83.119871 51.2739692,83.7104372 51.2739692,84.5211676 C51.2739692,85.2620074 51.0817731,85.8316068 50.6973751,86.2299829 C50.3129771,86.628359 49.7643445,86.8275441 49.051461,86.8275441 L48.6950209,86.8275441 L48.6950209,105.865634 C48.6950209,106.522605 48.6251315,106.934953 48.4853504,107.10269 C48.3455693,107.270428 48.0310665,107.354295 47.5418327,107.354295 L45.4451268,107.354295 C44.7741775,107.354295 44.3024234,107.284406 44.0298503,107.144625 C43.7572771,107.004843 43.5231473,106.76023 43.3274538,106.410777 L34.6051571,91.0838571 L34.6051571,102.46897 L35.8212466,102.46897 C36.7298237,102.46897 37.379796,102.643694 37.7711831,102.993147 C38.1625701,103.3426 38.3582607,103.922682 38.3582607,104.733413 C38.3582607,105.558121 38.1590757,106.152182 37.7606995,106.515613 C37.3623234,106.879044 36.7158456,107.060756 35.8212466,107.060756 L29.8037005,107.060756 C28.8951234,107.060756 28.2381621,106.879044 27.832797,106.515613 C27.4274318,106.152182 27.2247522,105.558121 27.2247522,104.733413 C27.2247522,103.992573 27.4134539,103.429962 27.7908629,103.045564 C28.1682718,102.661166 28.7273878,102.46897 29.4682276,102.46897 L29.8037005,102.46897 L29.8037005,86.8275441 L29.4682276,86.8275441 C28.755344,86.8275441 28.203217,86.628359 27.8118299,86.2299829 C27.4204428,85.8316068 27.2247522,85.2620074 27.2247522,84.5211676 C27.2247522,83.7104372 27.4309263,83.119871 27.8432805,82.7494511 C28.2556347,82.3790312 28.9091015,82.193824 29.8037005,82.193824 L33.2422983,82.193824 C34.0670067,82.193824 34.6261227,82.3021527 34.919663,82.5188134 C35.2132033,82.7354741 35.5416839,83.1722835 35.9051148,83.8292546 L43.8935644,98.3803938 Z M64.6604624,86.3662688 C62.8572863,86.3662688 61.4420239,87.0931196 60.4146329,88.546843 C59.3872418,90.0005663 58.873554,92.0203728 58.873554,94.6063231 C58.873554,97.1922733 59.3907363,99.2190688 60.4251164,100.68677 C61.4594965,102.154472 62.8712644,102.888312 64.6604624,102.888312 C66.4636385,102.888312 67.8823953,102.157966 68.9167754,100.697254 C69.9511555,99.2365414 70.4683378,97.2062514 70.4683378,94.6063231 C70.4683378,92.0203728 69.95465,90.0005663 68.9272589,88.546843 C67.8998679,87.0931196 66.4776166,86.3662688 64.6604624,86.3662688 L64.6604624,86.3662688 Z M64.6604624,81.501911 C68.0990773,81.501911 70.929602,82.7319662 73.1521214,85.1921135 C75.3746408,87.6522607 76.4858838,90.7902992 76.4858838,94.6063231 C76.4858838,98.4503032 75.3816297,101.595331 73.1730884,104.0415 C70.9645471,106.487669 68.1270335,107.710735 64.6604624,107.710735 C61.2358256,107.710735 58.4053009,106.477185 56.1688034,104.010049 C53.9323059,101.542913 52.8140739,98.4083688 52.8140739,94.6063231 C52.8140739,90.7763211 53.9218224,87.6347881 56.1373528,85.1816299 C58.3528831,82.7284717 61.1938912,81.501911 64.6604624,81.501911 L64.6604624,81.501911 Z M87.4611651,98.1707232 L87.4611651,102.46897 L89.6207722,102.46897 C90.5293493,102.46897 91.1758272,102.643694 91.5602252,102.993147 C91.9446232,103.3426 92.1368193,103.922682 92.1368193,104.733413 C92.1368193,105.558121 91.9411287,106.152182 91.5497417,106.515613 C91.1583546,106.879044 90.5153712,107.060756 89.6207722,107.060756 L82.3661697,107.060756 C81.4436145,107.060756 80.7831587,106.879044 80.3847826,106.515613 C79.9864065,106.152182 79.7872214,105.558121 79.7872214,104.733413 C79.7872214,103.992573 79.9759231,103.429962 80.353332,103.045564 C80.730741,102.661166 81.282868,102.46897 82.0097297,102.46897 L82.3661697,102.46897 L82.3661697,86.8275441 L82.0097297,86.8275441 C81.2968461,86.8275441 80.7482136,86.628359 80.3638155,86.2299829 C79.9794175,85.8316068 79.7872214,85.2620074 79.7872214,84.5211676 C79.7872214,83.7104372 79.989901,83.119871 80.3952661,82.7494511 C80.8006313,82.3790312 81.4575926,82.193824 82.3661697,82.193824 L91.0255652,82.193824 C94.450202,82.193824 97.0396079,82.8507853 98.7938606,84.1647276 C100.548113,85.4786699 101.425227,87.414609 101.425227,89.972603 C101.425227,92.6703781 100.551608,94.7111515 98.8043442,96.0949843 C97.0570805,97.4788171 94.4641801,98.1707232 91.0255652,98.1707232 L87.4611651,98.1707232 Z M87.4611651,86.8275441 L87.4611651,93.4531348 L90.4384875,93.4531348 C92.0879044,93.4531348 93.328443,93.1735768 94.1601405,92.6144525 C94.9918381,92.0553281 95.4076806,91.2166541 95.4076806,90.0984053 C95.4076806,89.0500471 94.9778602,88.2428234 94.1182064,87.67671 C93.2585527,87.1105966 92.031992,86.8275441 90.4384875,86.8275441 L87.4611651,86.8275441 Z M114.727851,107.396229 L113.092421,109.03166 C113.69348,108.835966 114.284046,108.689198 114.864137,108.591352 C115.444229,108.493505 116.013828,108.444582 116.572953,108.444582 C117.677223,108.444582 118.840883,108.608823 120.063968,108.937308 C121.287053,109.265794 122.031376,109.430034 122.29696,109.430034 C122.744259,109.430034 123.327837,109.279772 124.047709,108.979242 C124.767582,108.678713 125.253314,108.52845 125.50492,108.52845 C126.02211,108.52845 126.45193,108.727636 126.794394,109.126012 C127.136858,109.524388 127.308087,110.024098 127.308087,110.625156 C127.308087,111.421909 126.836333,112.099837 125.892811,112.658961 C124.949288,113.218086 123.792617,113.497643 122.422762,113.497643 C121.486229,113.497643 120.28413,113.277492 118.816428,112.837181 C117.348727,112.396871 116.286406,112.176719 115.629435,112.176719 C114.636989,112.176719 113.518757,112.449288 112.274706,112.994434 C111.030654,113.53958 110.261869,113.812149 109.968329,113.812149 C109.36727,113.812149 108.857077,113.612964 108.437734,113.214588 C108.01839,112.816212 107.808722,112.337469 107.808722,111.778345 C107.808722,111.386958 107.941512,110.971115 108.207096,110.530805 C108.47268,110.090494 108.94094,109.520895 109.611889,108.821989 L111.729562,106.683349 C109.395218,105.830685 107.536157,104.29661 106.152324,102.08108 C104.768491,99.8655494 104.076585,97.3180772 104.076585,94.4385866 C104.076585,90.6365409 105.180839,87.5299526 107.389381,85.1187288 C109.597922,82.7075049 112.442425,81.501911 115.922974,81.501911 C119.389545,81.501911 122.227059,82.7109994 124.4356,85.1292123 C126.644141,87.5474252 127.748395,90.650519 127.748395,94.4385866 C127.748395,98.2126762 126.65113,101.322759 124.456567,103.768928 C122.262004,106.215097 119.480402,107.438163 116.111677,107.438163 C115.888028,107.438163 115.660887,107.434669 115.430248,107.42768 C115.199609,107.420691 114.965479,107.410207 114.727851,107.396229 L114.727851,107.396229 Z M115.922974,86.3662688 C114.119798,86.3662688 112.704535,87.0931196 111.677144,88.546843 C110.649753,90.0005663 110.136065,92.0203728 110.136065,94.6063231 C110.136065,97.1922733 110.653248,99.2190688 111.687628,100.68677 C112.722008,102.154472 114.133776,102.888312 115.922974,102.888312 C117.72615,102.888312 119.144907,102.157966 120.179287,100.697254 C121.213667,99.2365414 121.730849,97.2062514 121.730849,94.6063231 C121.730849,92.0203728 121.217161,90.0005663 120.18977,88.546843 C119.162379,87.0931196 117.740128,86.3662688 115.922974,86.3662688 L115.922974,86.3662688 Z\"></path>\n </g>\n</svg>"
},
"$:/core/images/mono-line": {
"title": "$:/core/images/mono-line",
"tags": "$:/tags/Image",
"text": "<svg class=\"tc-image-mono-line tc-image-button\" width=\"22pt\" height=\"22pt\" viewBox=\"0 0 128 128\">\n <g fill-rule=\"evenodd\">\n <path d=\"M60.4374591,84.522627 L61.3450888,84.522627 C63.2671377,84.522627 64.7264493,85.0120303 65.7230673,85.9908515 C66.7196852,86.9696727 67.2179868,88.4022896 67.2179868,90.288745 C67.2179868,92.3887615 66.6929905,93.9014625 65.6429823,94.8268935 C64.5929741,95.7523244 62.857817,96.215033 60.4374591,96.215033 L44.3670747,96.215033 C41.9111232,96.215033 40.1670679,95.7612227 39.1348565,94.8535884 C38.102645,93.9459542 37.586547,92.424355 37.586547,90.288745 C37.586547,88.2243221 38.102645,86.747214 39.1348565,85.8573766 C40.1670679,84.9675391 41.9111232,84.522627 44.3670747,84.522627 L46.235724,84.522627 L44.0467348,78.2759992 L20.9822627,78.2759992 L18.6864935,84.522627 L20.5551429,84.522627 C22.9755008,84.522627 24.7106579,84.9764373 25.7606661,85.8840716 C26.8106743,86.7917058 27.3356705,88.2599156 27.3356705,90.288745 C27.3356705,92.3887615 26.8106743,93.9014625 25.7606661,94.8268935 C24.7106579,95.7523244 22.9755008,96.215033 20.5551429,96.215033 L6.78052766,96.215033 C4.32457622,96.215033 2.58052094,95.7523244 1.54830946,94.8268935 C0.516097994,93.9014625 0,92.3887615 0,90.288745 C0,88.4022896 0.498301511,86.9696727 1.49491948,85.9908515 C2.49153745,85.0120303 3.95084902,84.522627 5.87289797,84.522627 L6.78052766,84.522627 L21.0890427,44.6937008 L16.8178442,44.6937008 C14.3974863,44.6937008 12.6623292,44.2309922 11.612321,43.3055613 C10.5623128,42.3801303 10.0373165,40.8852258 10.0373165,38.8208028 C10.0373165,36.7207864 10.5623128,35.2080854 11.612321,34.2826544 C12.6623292,33.3572234 14.3974863,32.8945149 16.8178442,32.8945149 L36.8390873,32.8945149 C40.0069087,32.8945149 42.231469,34.6029772 43.512835,38.0199531 L43.512835,38.180123 L60.4374591,84.522627 Z M32.4611088,44.6937008 L24.7195615,67.224273 L40.2026561,67.224273 L32.4611088,44.6937008 Z M89.5058233,68.5590225 L89.5058233,84.8429669 L97.5143205,84.8429669 C103.173687,84.8429669 107.160099,84.22009 109.473676,82.9743176 C111.787254,81.7285451 112.944025,79.6463566 112.944025,76.7276897 C112.944025,73.7734293 111.840643,71.6734444 109.633846,70.4276719 C107.427049,69.1818994 103.565213,68.5590225 98.0482204,68.5590225 L89.5058233,68.5590225 Z M116.734714,62.6327346 C120.614405,64.0564746 123.461842,66.0051894 125.277111,68.4789376 C127.092379,70.9526857 128,74.1115614 128,77.9556593 C128,81.1946677 127.216955,84.1488838 125.650841,86.8183962 C124.084727,89.4879087 121.84237,91.676876 118.923703,93.385364 C117.215215,94.3819819 115.302093,95.1027395 113.18428,95.5476582 C111.066467,95.9925769 108.06776,96.215033 104.188068,96.215033 L99.7033098,96.215033 L76.3184979,96.215033 C73.9693269,96.215033 72.2875593,95.7523244 71.2731446,94.8268935 C70.2587299,93.9014625 69.7515301,92.3887615 69.7515301,90.288745 C69.7515301,88.4022896 70.2320352,86.9696727 71.1930596,85.9908515 C72.1540841,85.0120303 73.5600062,84.522627 75.4108682,84.522627 L76.3184979,84.522627 L76.3184979,44.6937008 L75.4108682,44.6937008 C73.5600062,44.6937008 72.1540841,44.1953993 71.1930596,43.1987813 C70.2320352,42.2021633 69.7515301,40.7428518 69.7515301,38.8208028 C69.7515301,36.7563799 70.2676281,35.2525771 71.2998396,34.3093494 C72.3320511,33.3661217 74.0049204,32.8945149 76.3184979,32.8945149 L100.877889,32.8945149 C108.388118,32.8945149 114.09189,34.3538264 117.989378,37.2724934 C121.886867,40.1911603 123.835581,44.4623161 123.835581,50.0860889 C123.835581,52.8623819 123.239399,55.3093982 122.047017,57.4272114 C120.854635,59.5450246 119.083885,61.2801816 116.734714,62.6327346 L116.734714,62.6327346 Z M89.5058233,44.3733609 L89.5058233,57.8276363 L96.7134708,57.8276363 C101.091471,57.8276363 104.179161,57.3115383 105.976633,56.2793268 C107.774104,55.2471153 108.672827,53.50306 108.672827,51.0471086 C108.672827,48.7335312 107.863087,47.0428653 106.243583,45.9750604 C104.624078,44.9072554 101.999097,44.3733609 98.3685602,44.3733609 L89.5058233,44.3733609 Z\"></path>\n </g>\n</svg>"
},
"$:/core/images/new-button": {
"title": "$:/core/images/new-button",
"tags": "$:/tags/Image",
"text": "<svg class=\"tc-image-new-button tc-image-button\" viewBox=\"0 0 128 128\" width=\"22pt\" height=\"22pt\">\n <g fill-rule=\"evenodd\">\n <path d=\"M56,72 L8.00697327,72 C3.59075293,72 0,68.418278 0,64 C0,59.5907123 3.58484404,56 8.00697327,56 L56,56 L56,8.00697327 C56,3.59075293 59.581722,0 64,0 C68.4092877,0 72,3.58484404 72,8.00697327 L72,56 L119.993027,56 C124.409247,56 128,59.581722 128,64 C128,68.4092877 124.415156,72 119.993027,72 L72,72 L72,119.993027 C72,124.409247 68.418278,128 64,128 C59.5907123,128 56,124.415156 56,119.993027 L56,72 L56,72 Z\"></path>\n </g>\n</svg>"
},
"$:/core/images/new-here-button": {
"title": "$:/core/images/new-here-button",
"tags": "$:/tags/Image",
"text": "<svg class=\"tc-image-new-here-button tc-image-button\" width=\"22pt\" height=\"22pt\" viewBox=\"0 0 128 128\">\n <g fill-rule=\"evenodd\">\n \t<g transform=\"translate(52.233611, 64.389922) rotate(75.000000) translate(-52.233611, -64.389922) translate(-7.734417, 3.702450)\">\n\t <path d=\"M18.9270186,45.959338 L18.9080585,49.6521741 C18.8884833,53.4648378 21.0574548,58.7482162 23.7526408,61.4434022 L78.5671839,116.257945 C81.2617332,118.952495 85.6348701,118.950391 88.3334363,116.251825 L115.863237,88.7220241 C118.555265,86.0299959 118.564544,81.6509578 115.869358,78.9557717 L61.0548144,24.1412286 C58.3602652,21.4466794 53.0787224,19.2788426 49.2595808,19.3006519 L25.9781737,19.4336012 C22.1633003,19.4553862 19.0471195,22.5673232 19.0275223,26.3842526 L18.9871663,34.2443819 C19.0818862,34.255617 19.1779758,34.2665345 19.2754441,34.2771502 C22.6891275,34.6489512 27.0485594,34.2348566 31.513244,33.2285542 C31.7789418,32.8671684 32.075337,32.5211298 32.4024112,32.1940556 C34.8567584,29.7397084 38.3789778,29.0128681 41.4406288,30.0213822 C41.5958829,29.9543375 41.7503946,29.8866669 41.9041198,29.8183808 L42.1110981,30.2733467 C43.1114373,30.6972371 44.0473796,31.3160521 44.8614145,32.1300869 C48.2842088,35.5528813 48.2555691,41.130967 44.7974459,44.5890903 C41.4339531,47.952583 36.0649346,48.0717177 32.6241879,44.9262969 C27.8170558,45.8919233 23.0726921,46.2881596 18.9270186,45.959338 Z\"></path>\n\t <path d=\"M45.4903462,38.8768094 C36.7300141,42.6833154 26.099618,44.7997354 18.1909048,43.9383587 C7.2512621,42.7468685 1.50150083,35.8404432 4.66865776,24.7010202 C7.51507386,14.6896965 15.4908218,6.92103848 24.3842626,4.38423012 C34.1310219,1.60401701 42.4070208,6.15882777 42.4070209,16.3101169 L34.5379395,16.310117 C34.5379394,11.9285862 31.728784,10.3825286 26.5666962,11.8549876 C20.2597508,13.6540114 14.3453742,19.4148216 12.2444303,26.8041943 C10.4963869,32.9523565 12.6250796,35.5092726 19.0530263,36.2093718 C25.5557042,36.9176104 35.0513021,34.9907189 42.7038419,31.5913902 L42.7421786,31.6756595 C44.3874154,31.5384763 47.8846101,37.3706354 45.9274416,38.6772897 L45.9302799,38.6835285 C45.9166992,38.6895612 45.9031139,38.6955897 45.8895238,38.7016142 C45.8389288,38.7327898 45.7849056,38.7611034 45.7273406,38.7863919 C45.6506459,38.8200841 45.571574,38.8501593 45.4903462,38.8768094 Z\"></path>\n </g>\n <rect x=\"96\" y=\"80\" width=\"16\" height=\"48\" rx=\"8\"></rect>\n <rect x=\"80\" y=\"96\" width=\"48\" height=\"16\" rx=\"8\"></rect>\n </g>\n </g>\n</svg>"
},
"$:/core/images/new-image-button": {
"title": "$:/core/images/new-image-button",
"tags": "$:/tags/Image",
"text": "<svg class=\"tc-image-new-image-button tc-image-button\" viewBox=\"0 0 128 128\" width=\"22pt\" height=\"22pt\">\n <g fill-rule=\"evenodd\">\n <path d=\"M81.3619177,73.6270062 L97.1875317,46.2162388 C97.91364,44.9585822 97.4824378,43.3533085 96.2260476,42.6279312 L46.2162388,13.7547547 C44.9585822,13.0286463 43.3533085,13.4598485 42.6279312,14.7162388 L30.0575956,36.4886988 L40.0978909,31.2276186 C43.1404959,29.6333041 46.8692155,31.3421319 47.6479264,34.6877101 L51.2545483,52.3903732 L61.1353556,53.2399953 C63.2899974,53.4346096 65.1046382,54.9309951 65.706105,57.0091178 C65.7395572,57.1246982 65.8069154,57.3539875 65.9047035,57.6813669 C66.0696435,58.2335608 66.2581528,58.852952 66.4667073,59.5238092 C67.0618822,61.4383079 67.6960725,63.3742727 68.3393254,65.2021174 C68.5462918,65.7902259 68.7511789,66.3583016 68.953259,66.9034738 C69.5777086,68.5881157 70.1617856,70.0172008 70.6783305,71.110045 C70.9334784,71.6498566 71.1627732,72.0871602 71.4035746,72.5373068 C71.6178999,72.7492946 71.9508843,72.9623307 72.4151452,73.1586945 C73.5561502,73.6412938 75.1990755,73.899146 77.0720271,73.9171651 C77.9355886,73.9254732 78.7819239,73.8832103 79.5638842,73.8072782 C80.0123946,73.7637257 80.3172916,73.7224469 80.4352582,73.7027375 C80.7503629,73.6500912 81.0598053,73.6256267 81.3619177,73.6270062 L81.3619177,73.6270062 L81.3619177,73.6270062 L81.3619177,73.6270062 Z M37.4707881,2.64867269 C38.9217993,0.135447653 42.1388058,-0.723707984 44.6486727,0.725364314 L108.293614,37.4707881 C110.806839,38.9217993 111.665994,42.1388058 110.216922,44.6486727 L73.4714982,108.293614 C72.0204871,110.806839 68.8034805,111.665994 66.2936136,110.216922 L2.64867269,73.4714982 C0.135447653,72.0204871 -0.723707984,68.8034805 0.725364314,66.2936136 L37.4707881,2.64867269 L37.4707881,2.64867269 L37.4707881,2.64867269 L37.4707881,2.64867269 Z M80.3080975,53.1397764 C82.8191338,54.5895239 86.0299834,53.7291793 87.4797308,51.218143 C88.9294783,48.7071068 88.0691338,45.4962571 85.5580975,44.0465097 C83.0470612,42.5967622 79.8362116,43.4571068 78.3864641,45.968143 C76.9367166,48.4791793 77.7970612,51.6900289 80.3080975,53.1397764 L80.3080975,53.1397764 L80.3080975,53.1397764 L80.3080975,53.1397764 Z M96,112 L88.0070969,112 C83.5881712,112 80,108.418278 80,104 C80,99.5907123 83.5848994,96 88.0070969,96 L96,96 L96,88.0070969 C96,83.5881712 99.581722,80 104,80 C108.409288,80 112,83.5848994 112,88.0070969 L112,96 L119.992903,96 C124.411829,96 128,99.581722 128,104 C128,108.409288 124.415101,112 119.992903,112 L112,112 L112,119.992903 C112,124.411829 108.418278,128 104,128 C99.5907123,128 96,124.415101 96,119.992903 L96,112 L96,112 Z M33.3471097,51.7910932 C40.7754579,59.7394511 42.3564368,62.4818351 40.7958321,65.1848818 C39.2352273,67.8879286 26.9581062,62.8571718 24.7019652,66.7649227 C22.4458242,70.6726735 23.7947046,70.0228006 22.2648667,72.6725575 L41.9944593,84.0634431 C41.9944593,84.0634431 36.3904568,75.8079231 37.7602356,73.4353966 C40.2754811,69.0788636 46.5298923,72.1787882 48.1248275,69.4162793 C50.538989,65.234829 43.0222016,59.7770885 33.3471097,51.7910932 L33.3471097,51.7910932 Z\"></path>\n </g>\n</svg>"
},
"$:/core/images/new-journal-button": {
"title": "$:/core/images/new-journal-button",
"tags": "$:/tags/Image",
"text": "<svg class=\"tc-image-new-journal-button tc-image-button\" width=\"22pt\" height=\"22pt\" viewBox=\"0 0 128 128\">\n <g fill-rule=\"evenodd\">\n <path d=\"M102.545455,112.818182 L102.545455,124.636364 L102.545455,124.636364 L102.545455,124.636364 C102.545455,125.941761 103.630828,127 104.969697,127 L111.030303,127 C112.369172,127 113.454545,125.941761 113.454545,124.636364 L113.454545,112.818182 L125.575758,112.818182 C126.914626,112.818182 128,111.759982 128,110.454545 L128,104.545455 C128,103.240018 126.914626,102.181818 125.575758,102.181818 L113.454545,102.181818 L113.454545,90.3636364 C113.454545,89.0582 112.369172,88 111.030303,88 L104.969697,88 L104.969697,88 C103.630828,88 102.545455,89.0582 102.545455,90.3636364 L102.545455,102.181818 L90.4242424,102.181818 L90.4242424,102.181818 C89.0853705,102.181818 88,103.240018 88,104.545455 L88,110.454545 L88,110.454545 L88,110.454545 C88,111.759982 89.0853705,112.818182 90.4242424,112.818182 L102.545455,112.818182 Z\"></path>\n <g transform=\"translate(59.816987, 64.316987) rotate(30.000000) translate(-59.816987, -64.316987) translate(20.316987, 12.816987)\">\n <g transform=\"translate(0.000000, 0.000000)\">\n <path d=\"M9.99631148,0 C4.4755011,0 -2.27373675e-13,4.48070044 -2.27373675e-13,9.99759461 L-2.27373675e-13,91.6128884 C-2.27373675e-13,97.1344074 4.46966773,101.610483 9.99631148,101.610483 L68.9318917,101.610483 C74.4527021,101.610483 78.9282032,97.1297826 78.9282032,91.6128884 L78.9282032,9.99759461 C78.9282032,4.47607557 74.4585355,0 68.9318917,0 L9.99631148,0 Z M20.8885263,26 C24.2022348,26 26.8885263,23.3137085 26.8885263,20 C26.8885263,16.6862915 24.2022348,14 20.8885263,14 C17.5748178,14 14.8885263,16.6862915 14.8885263,20 C14.8885263,23.3137085 17.5748178,26 20.8885263,26 Z M57.3033321,25.6783342 C60.6170406,25.6783342 63.3033321,22.9920427 63.3033321,19.6783342 C63.3033321,16.3646258 60.6170406,13.6783342 57.3033321,13.6783342 C53.9896236,13.6783342 51.3033321,16.3646258 51.3033321,19.6783342 C51.3033321,22.9920427 53.9896236,25.6783342 57.3033321,25.6783342 Z\"></path>\n <text font-family=\"Helvetica\" font-size=\"47.1724138\" font-weight=\"bold\" fill=\"#FFFFFF\">\n <tspan x=\"42\" y=\"77.4847912\" text-anchor=\"middle\"><<now \"DD\">></tspan>\n </text>\n </g>\n </g>\n </g>\n</svg>"
},
"$:/core/images/opacity": {
"title": "$:/core/images/opacity",
"tags": "$:/tags/Image",
"text": "<svg class=\"tc-image-opacity tc-image-button\" width=\"22pt\" height=\"22pt\" viewBox=\"0 0 128 128\">\n <g fill-rule=\"evenodd\">\n <path d=\"M102.361773,65 C101.833691,67.051742 101.183534,69.0544767 100.419508,71 L82.5835324,71 C83.7602504,69.1098924 84.7666304,67.1027366 85.581205,65 L102.361773,65 Z M102.834311,63 C103.256674,61.0388326 103.568427,59.0365486 103.762717,57 L87.6555706,57 C87.3692052,59.0609452 86.9083652,61.0660782 86.2884493,63 L102.834311,63 Z M99.5852583,73 C98.6682925,75.0747721 97.6196148,77.0783056 96.4498253,79 L75.8124196,79 C77.8387053,77.2115633 79.6621163,75.1985844 81.2437158,73 L99.5852583,73 Z M95.1689122,81 C93.7449202,83.1155572 92.1695234,85.1207336 90.458251,87 L60.4614747,87 C65.1836162,85.86248 69.5430327,83.794147 73.3347255,81 L95.1689122,81 Z M87.6555706,47 L103.762717,47 C101.246684,20.6269305 79.0321807,0 52,0 C23.281193,0 0,23.281193 0,52 C0,77.2277755 17.9651296,98.2595701 41.8000051,103 L62.1999949,103 C67.8794003,101.870444 73.2255333,99.8158975 78.074754,97 L39,97 L39,95 L81.2493857,95 C83.8589242,93.2215015 86.2981855,91.2116653 88.5376609,89 L39,89 L39,87 L43.5385253,87 C27.7389671,83.1940333 16,68.967908 16,52 C16,32.117749 32.117749,16 52,16 C70.1856127,16 85.2217929,29.4843233 87.6555706,47 Z M87.8767787,49 L103.914907,49 C103.971379,49.9928025 104,50.9930589 104,52 C104,53.0069411 103.971379,54.0071975 103.914907,55 L87.8767787,55 C87.958386,54.0107999 88,53.0102597 88,52 C88,50.9897403 87.958386,49.9892001 87.8767787,49 Z\"></path>\n <path d=\"M76,128 C104.718807,128 128,104.718807 128,76 C128,47.281193 104.718807,24 76,24 C47.281193,24 24,47.281193 24,76 C24,104.718807 47.281193,128 76,128 L76,128 Z M76,112 C95.882251,112 112,95.882251 112,76 C112,56.117749 95.882251,40 76,40 C56.117749,40 40,56.117749 40,76 C40,95.882251 56.117749,112 76,112 L76,112 Z\"></path>\n <path d=\"M37,58 L90,58 L90,62 L37,62 L37,58 L37,58 Z M40,50 L93,50 L93,54 L40,54 L40,50 L40,50 Z M40,42 L93,42 L93,46 L40,46 L40,42 L40,42 Z M32,66 L85,66 L85,70 L32,70 L32,66 L32,66 Z M30,74 L83,74 L83,78 L30,78 L30,74 L30,74 Z M27,82 L80,82 L80,86 L27,86 L27,82 L27,82 Z\"></path>\n </g>\n</svg>"
},
"$:/core/images/open-window": {
"title": "$:/core/images/open-window",
"tags": "$:/tags/Image",
"text": "<svg class=\"tc-image-open-window tc-image-button\" width=\"22pt\" height=\"22pt\" viewBox=\"0 0 128 128\">\n <g fill-rule=\"evenodd\">\n <path d=\"M16,112 L104.993898,112 C108.863261,112 112,115.590712 112,120 C112,124.418278 108.858091,128 104.993898,128 L7.00610161,128 C3.13673853,128 0,124.409288 0,120 C0,119.998364 4.30952878e-07,119.996727 1.29273572e-06,119.995091 C4.89579306e-07,119.993456 0,119.99182 0,119.990183 L0,24.0098166 C0,19.586117 3.59071231,16 8,16 C12.418278,16 16,19.5838751 16,24.0098166 L16,112 Z\"></path>\n <path d=\"M96,43.1959595 L96,56 C96,60.418278 99.581722,64 104,64 C108.418278,64 112,60.418278 112,56 L112,24 C112,19.5907123 108.415101,16 103.992903,16 L72.0070969,16 C67.5881712,16 64,19.581722 64,24 C64,28.4092877 67.5848994,32 72.0070969,32 L84.5685425,32 L48.2698369,68.2987056 C45.1421332,71.4264093 45.1434327,76.4904296 48.267627,79.614624 C51.3854642,82.7324612 56.4581306,82.7378289 59.5835454,79.6124141 L96,43.1959595 Z M32,7.9992458 C32,3.58138434 35.5881049,0 39.9992458,0 L120.000754,0 C124.418616,0 128,3.5881049 128,7.9992458 L128,88.0007542 C128,92.4186157 124.411895,96 120.000754,96 L39.9992458,96 C35.5813843,96 32,92.4118951 32,88.0007542 L32,7.9992458 Z\"></path>\n </g>\n</svg>"
},
"$:/core/images/options-button": {
"title": "$:/core/images/options-button",
"tags": "$:/tags/Image",
"text": "<svg class=\"tc-image-options-button tc-image-button\" width=\"22pt\" height=\"22pt\" viewBox=\"0 0 128 128\">\n <g fill-rule=\"evenodd\">\n <path d=\"M110.48779,76.0002544 C109.354214,80.4045063 107.611262,84.5641217 105.354171,88.3838625 L105.354171,88.3838625 L112.07833,95.1080219 C115.20107,98.2307613 115.210098,103.299824 112.089164,106.420759 L106.420504,112.089418 C103.301049,115.208874 98.2346851,115.205502 95.1077675,112.078585 L88.3836082,105.354425 C84.5638673,107.611516 80.4042519,109.354468 76,110.488045 L76,110.488045 L76,119.993281 C76,124.409501 72.4220153,128.000254 68.0083475,128.000254 L59.9916525,128.000254 C55.5800761,128.000254 52,124.41541 52,119.993281 L52,110.488045 C47.5957481,109.354468 43.4361327,107.611516 39.6163918,105.354425 L32.8922325,112.078585 C29.7694931,115.201324 24.7004301,115.210353 21.5794957,112.089418 L15.9108363,106.420759 C12.7913807,103.301303 12.7947522,98.2349395 15.9216697,95.1080219 L22.6458291,88.3838625 C20.3887383,84.5641217 18.6457859,80.4045063 17.5122098,76.0002544 L8.00697327,76.0002544 C3.59075293,76.0002544 2.19088375e-16,72.4222697 4.89347582e-16,68.0086019 L9.80228577e-16,59.9919069 C1.25035972e-15,55.5803305 3.58484404,52.0002544 8.00697327,52.0002544 L17.5122098,52.0002544 C18.6457859,47.5960025 20.3887383,43.4363871 22.6458291,39.6166462 L15.9216697,32.8924868 C12.7989304,29.7697475 12.7899019,24.7006845 15.9108363,21.5797501 L21.5794957,15.9110907 C24.6989513,12.7916351 29.7653149,12.7950065 32.8922325,15.9219241 L39.6163918,22.6460835 C43.4361327,20.3889927 47.5957481,18.6460403 52,17.5124642 L52,8.00722764 C52,3.5910073 55.5779847,0.000254375069 59.9916525,0.000254375069 L68.0083475,0.000254375069 C72.4199239,0.000254375069 76,3.58509841 76,8.00722764 L76,17.5124642 C80.4042519,18.6460403 84.5638673,20.3889927 88.3836082,22.6460835 L95.1077675,15.9219241 C98.2305069,12.7991848 103.29957,12.7901562 106.420504,15.9110907 L112.089164,21.5797501 C115.208619,24.6992057 115.205248,29.7655693 112.07833,32.8924868 L105.354171,39.6166462 L105.354171,39.6166462 C107.611262,43.4363871 109.354214,47.5960025 110.48779,52.0002544 L119.993027,52.0002544 C124.409247,52.0002544 128,55.5782391 128,59.9919069 L128,68.0086019 C128,72.4201783 124.415156,76.0002544 119.993027,76.0002544 L110.48779,76.0002544 L110.48779,76.0002544 Z M64,96.0002544 C81.673112,96.0002544 96,81.6733664 96,64.0002544 C96,46.3271424 81.673112,32.0002544 64,32.0002544 C46.326888,32.0002544 32,46.3271424 32,64.0002544 C32,81.6733664 46.326888,96.0002544 64,96.0002544 Z\"></path>\n </g>\n</svg>"
},
"$:/core/images/paint": {
"title": "$:/core/images/paint",
"tags": "$:/tags/Image",
"text": "<svg class=\"tc-image-paint tc-image-button\" width=\"22pt\" height=\"22pt\" viewBox=\"0 0 128 128\">\n <g fill-rule=\"evenodd\">\n <path d=\"M83.5265806,76.1907935 C90.430962,69.2864121 91.8921169,59.0000433 87.9100453,50.6642209 L125.812763,12.7615036 C128.732035,9.84223095 128.72611,5.10322984 125.812796,2.18991592 C122.893542,-0.729338085 118.161775,-0.730617045 115.241209,2.18994966 L77.3384914,40.092667 C69.002669,36.1105954 58.7163002,37.5717503 51.8119188,44.4761317 L83.5265806,76.1907935 L83.5265806,76.1907935 L83.5265806,76.1907935 L83.5265806,76.1907935 Z M80.8836921,78.8336819 L49.1690303,47.1190201 C49.1690303,47.1190201 8.50573364,81.242543 0,80.2820711 C0,80.2820711 3.78222974,85.8744423 6.82737483,88.320684 C20.8514801,82.630792 44.1526049,63.720771 44.1526049,63.720771 L44.8144806,64.3803375 C44.8144806,64.3803375 19.450356,90.2231043 9.18040433,92.0477601 C10.4017154,93.4877138 13.5343883,96.1014812 15.4269991,97.8235871 C20.8439164,96.3356979 50.1595367,69.253789 50.1595367,69.253789 L50.8214124,69.9133555 L18.4136144,100.936036 L23.6993903,106.221812 L56.1060358,75.2002881 L56.7679115,75.8598546 C56.7679115,75.8598546 28.9040131,106.396168 28.0841366,108.291555 C28.0841366,108.291555 34.1159238,115.144621 35.6529617,116.115796 C36.3545333,113.280171 63.5365402,82.6307925 63.5365402,82.6307925 L64.1984159,83.290359 C64.1984159,83.290359 43.6013016,107.04575 39.2343772,120.022559 C42.443736,123.571575 46.7339155,125.159692 50.1595362,126.321151 C47.9699978,114.504469 80.8836921,78.8336819 80.8836921,78.8336819 L80.8836921,78.8336819 Z\"></path>\n </g>\n</svg>"
},
"$:/core/images/palette": {
"title": "$:/core/images/palette",
"tags": "$:/tags/Image",
"text": "<svg class=\"tc-image-palette tc-image-button\" width=\"22pt\" height=\"22pt\" viewBox=\"0 0 128 128\">\n <g fill-rule=\"evenodd\">\n <path d=\"M80.2470434,39.1821571 C75.0645698,38.2680897 69.6261555,37.7814854 64.0193999,37.7814854 C28.6624616,37.7814854 0,57.1324214 0,81.0030106 C0,90.644534 4.67604329,99.5487133 12.5805659,106.738252 C23.5031767,91.1899067 26.3405471,72.3946229 36.8885698,63.5622337 C52.0716764,50.8486559 63.4268694,55.7343343 63.4268694,55.7343343 L80.2470434,39.1821571 Z M106.781666,48.8370714 C119.830962,56.749628 128.0388,68.229191 128.0388,81.0030106 C128.0388,90.3534932 128.557501,98.4142085 116.165191,106.082518 C105.367708,112.763955 112.341384,99.546808 104.321443,95.1851533 C96.3015017,90.8234987 84.3749007,96.492742 86.1084305,103.091059 C89.3087234,115.272303 105.529892,114.54645 92.4224435,119.748569 C79.3149955,124.950687 74.2201582,124.224536 64.0193999,124.224536 C56.1979176,124.224536 48.7040365,123.277578 41.7755684,121.544216 C51.620343,117.347916 69.6563669,109.006202 75.129737,102.088562 C82.7876655,92.4099199 87.3713218,80.0000002 83.3235694,72.4837191 C83.1303943,72.1250117 94.5392656,60.81569 106.781666,48.8370714 Z M1.13430476,123.866563 C0.914084026,123.867944 0.693884185,123.868637 0.473712455,123.868637 C33.9526848,108.928928 22.6351223,59.642592 59.2924543,59.6425917 C59.6085574,61.0606542 59.9358353,62.5865065 60.3541977,64.1372318 C34.4465025,59.9707319 36.7873124,112.168427 1.13429588,123.866563 L1.13430476,123.866563 Z M1.84669213,123.859694 C40.7185279,123.354338 79.9985412,101.513051 79.9985401,79.0466836 C70.7284906,79.0466835 65.9257264,75.5670082 63.1833375,71.1051511 C46.585768,64.1019718 32.81846,116.819636 1.84665952,123.859695 L1.84669213,123.859694 Z M67.1980193,59.8524981 C62.748213,63.9666823 72.0838429,76.2846822 78.5155805,71.1700593 C89.8331416,59.8524993 112.468264,37.2173758 123.785825,25.8998146 C135.103386,14.5822535 123.785825,3.26469247 112.468264,14.5822535 C101.150703,25.8998144 78.9500931,48.9868127 67.1980193,59.8524981 Z\"></path>\n </g>\n</svg>"
},
"$:/core/images/permalink-button": {
"title": "$:/core/images/permalink-button",
"tags": "$:/tags/Image",
"text": "<svg class=\"tc-image-permalink-button tc-image-button\" width=\"22pt\" height=\"22pt\" viewBox=\"0 0 128 128\">\n <g fill-rule=\"evenodd\">\n <path d=\"M80.4834582,48 L73.0956761,80 L73.0956761,80 L47.5165418,80 L54.9043239,48 L80.4834582,48 Z M84.1773493,32 L89.8007299,7.64246248 C90.7941633,3.33942958 95.0918297,0.64641956 99.3968675,1.64031585 C103.693145,2.63218977 106.385414,6.93288901 105.390651,11.2416793 L100.598215,32 L104.000754,32 C108.411895,32 112,35.581722 112,40 C112,44.4092877 108.418616,48 104.000754,48 L96.9043239,48 L89.5165418,80 L104.000754,80 C108.411895,80 112,83.581722 112,88 C112,92.4092877 108.418616,96 104.000754,96 L85.8226507,96 L80.1992701,120.357538 C79.2058367,124.66057 74.9081703,127.35358 70.6031325,126.359684 C66.3068546,125.36781 63.6145865,121.067111 64.6093491,116.758321 L69.401785,96 L43.8226507,96 L38.1992701,120.357538 C37.2058367,124.66057 32.9081703,127.35358 28.6031325,126.359684 C24.3068546,125.36781 21.6145865,121.067111 22.6093491,116.758321 L27.401785,96 L23.9992458,96 C19.5881049,96 16,92.418278 16,88 C16,83.5907123 19.5813843,80 23.9992458,80 L31.0956761,80 L38.4834582,48 L23.9992458,48 C19.5881049,48 16,44.418278 16,40 C16,35.5907123 19.5813843,32 23.9992458,32 L42.1773493,32 L47.8007299,7.64246248 C48.7941633,3.33942958 53.0918297,0.64641956 57.3968675,1.64031585 C61.6931454,2.63218977 64.3854135,6.93288901 63.3906509,11.2416793 L58.598215,32 L84.1773493,32 Z\"></path>\n </g>\n</svg>"
},
"$:/core/images/permaview-button": {
"title": "$:/core/images/permaview-button",
"tags": "$:/tags/Image",
"text": "<svg class=\"tc-image-permaview-button tc-image-button\" width=\"22pt\" height=\"22pt\" viewBox=\"0 0 128 128\">\n <g fill-rule=\"evenodd\">\n <path d=\"M81.4834582,48 L79.6365127,56 L79.6365127,56 L74.0573784,56 L75.9043239,48 L81.4834582,48 Z M85.1773493,32 L90.8007299,7.64246248 C91.7941633,3.33942958 96.0918297,0.64641956 100.396867,1.64031585 C104.693145,2.63218977 107.385414,6.93288901 106.390651,11.2416793 L101.598215,32 L104.000754,32 C108.411895,32 112,35.581722 112,40 C112,44.4092877 108.418616,48 104.000754,48 L97.9043239,48 L96.0573784,56 L104.000754,56 C108.411895,56 112,59.581722 112,64 C112,68.4092877 108.418616,72 104.000754,72 L92.3634873,72 L90.5165418,80 L104.000754,80 C108.411895,80 112,83.581722 112,88 C112,92.4092877 108.418616,96 104.000754,96 L86.8226507,96 L81.1992701,120.357538 C80.2058367,124.66057 75.9081703,127.35358 71.6031325,126.359684 C67.3068546,125.36781 64.6145865,121.067111 65.6093491,116.758321 L70.401785,96 L64.8226507,96 L59.1992701,120.357538 C58.2058367,124.66057 53.9081703,127.35358 49.6031325,126.359684 C45.3068546,125.36781 42.6145865,121.067111 43.6093491,116.758321 L48.401785,96 L42.8226507,96 L37.1992701,120.357538 C36.2058367,124.66057 31.9081703,127.35358 27.6031325,126.359684 C23.3068546,125.36781 20.6145865,121.067111 21.6093491,116.758321 L26.401785,96 L23.9992458,96 C19.5881049,96 16,92.418278 16,88 C16,83.5907123 19.5813843,80 23.9992458,80 L30.0956761,80 L31.9426216,72 L23.9992458,72 C19.5881049,72 16,68.418278 16,64 C16,59.5907123 19.5813843,56 23.9992458,56 L35.6365127,56 L37.4834582,48 L23.9992458,48 C19.5881049,48 16,44.418278 16,40 C16,35.5907123 19.5813843,32 23.9992458,32 L41.1773493,32 L46.8007299,7.64246248 C47.7941633,3.33942958 52.0918297,0.64641956 56.3968675,1.64031585 C60.6931454,2.63218977 63.3854135,6.93288901 62.3906509,11.2416793 L57.598215,32 L63.1773493,32 L68.8007299,7.64246248 C69.7941633,3.33942958 74.0918297,0.64641956 78.3968675,1.64031585 C82.6931454,2.63218977 85.3854135,6.93288901 84.3906509,11.2416793 L79.598215,32 L85.1773493,32 Z M53.9043239,48 L52.0573784,56 L57.6365127,56 L59.4834582,48 L53.9043239,48 Z M75.9426216,72 L74.0956761,80 L74.0956761,80 L68.5165418,80 L70.3634873,72 L75.9426216,72 L75.9426216,72 Z M48.3634873,72 L46.5165418,80 L52.0956761,80 L53.9426216,72 L48.3634873,72 L48.3634873,72 Z\"></path>\n </g>\n</svg>"
},
"$:/core/images/picture": {
"title": "$:/core/images/picture",
"tags": "$:/tags/Image",
"text": "<svg class=\"tc-image-picture tc-image-button\" width=\"22pt\" height=\"22pt\" viewBox=\"0 0 128 128\">\n <g fill-rule=\"evenodd\">\n <path d=\"M112,68.2332211 L112,20.0027785 C112,17.7898769 110.207895,16 107.997221,16 L20.0027785,16 C17.7898769,16 16,17.792105 16,20.0027785 L16,58.312373 L25.2413115,43.7197989 C28.041793,39.297674 34.2643908,38.7118128 37.8410347,42.5335275 L56.0882845,63.1470817 L69.7748997,56.7400579 C72.766567,55.3552503 76.3013751,55.9473836 78.678437,58.2315339 C78.8106437,58.3585731 79.0742301,58.609836 79.4527088,58.9673596 C80.0910923,59.570398 80.8117772,60.2441563 81.598127,60.9705595 C83.8422198,63.043576 86.1541548,65.1151944 88.3956721,67.0372264 C89.1168795,67.6556396 89.8200801,68.2492007 90.5021258,68.8146755 C92.6097224,70.5620551 94.4693308,72.0029474 95.9836366,73.0515697 C96.7316295,73.5695379 97.3674038,73.9719282 98.0281481,74.3824999 C98.4724987,74.4989557 99.0742374,74.5263881 99.8365134,74.4317984 C101.709944,74.1993272 104.074502,73.2878514 106.559886,71.8846196 C107.705822,71.2376318 108.790494,70.5370325 109.764561,69.8410487 C110.323259,69.4418522 110.694168,69.1550757 110.834827,69.0391868 C111.210545,68.7296319 111.600264,68.4615815 112,68.2332211 L112,68.2332211 Z M0,8.00697327 C0,3.58484404 3.59075293,0 8.00697327,0 L119.993027,0 C124.415156,0 128,3.59075293 128,8.00697327 L128,119.993027 C128,124.415156 124.409247,128 119.993027,128 L8.00697327,128 C3.58484404,128 0,124.409247 0,119.993027 L0,8.00697327 L0,8.00697327 Z M95,42 C99.418278,42 103,38.418278 103,34 C103,29.581722 99.418278,26 95,26 C90.581722,26 87,29.581722 87,34 C87,38.418278 90.581722,42 95,42 L95,42 Z M32,76 C47.8587691,80.8294182 52.0345556,83.2438712 52.0345556,88 C52.0345556,92.7561288 32,95.4712486 32,102.347107 C32,109.222965 33.2849191,107.337637 33.2849191,112 L67.999999,112 C67.999999,112 54.3147136,105.375255 54.3147136,101.200691 C54.3147136,93.535181 64.9302432,92.860755 64.9302432,88 C64.9302432,80.6425555 50.8523779,79.167282 32,76 L32,76 Z\"></path>\n </g>\n</svg>"
},
"$:/core/images/plugin-generic-language": {
"title": "$:/core/images/plugin-generic-language",
"tags": "$:/tags/Image",
"text": "<svg width=\"22pt\" height=\"22pt\" viewBox=\"0 0 128 128\">\n <g fill-rule=\"evenodd\">\n <path d=\"M61.2072232,68.1369825 C56.8829239,70.9319564 54.2082892,74.793177 54.2082892,79.0581634 C54.2082892,86.9638335 63.3980995,93.4821994 75.2498076,94.3940006 C77.412197,98.2964184 83.8475284,101.178858 91.5684735,101.403106 C86.4420125,100.27851 82.4506393,97.6624107 80.9477167,94.3948272 C92.8046245,93.4861461 102,86.9662269 102,79.0581634 C102,70.5281905 91.3014611,63.6132813 78.1041446,63.6132813 C71.5054863,63.6132813 65.5315225,65.3420086 61.2072232,68.1369825 Z M74.001066,53.9793443 C69.6767667,56.7743182 63.7028029,58.5030456 57.1041446,58.5030456 C54.4851745,58.5030456 51.9646095,58.2307276 49.6065315,57.7275105 C46.2945155,59.9778212 41.2235699,61.4171743 35.5395922,61.4171743 C35.4545771,61.4171743 35.3696991,61.4168523 35.2849622,61.4162104 C39.404008,60.5235193 42.7961717,58.6691298 44.7630507,56.286533 C37.8379411,53.5817651 33.2082892,48.669413 33.2082892,43.0581634 C33.2082892,34.5281905 43.9068281,27.6132812 57.1041446,27.6132812 C70.3014611,27.6132812 81,34.5281905 81,43.0581634 C81,47.3231498 78.3253653,51.1843704 74.001066,53.9793443 Z M64,0 L118.5596,32 L118.5596,96 L64,128 L9.44039956,96 L9.44039956,32 L64,0 Z\"></path>\n </g>\n</svg>"
},
"$:/core/images/plugin-generic-plugin": {
"title": "$:/core/images/plugin-generic-plugin",
"tags": "$:/tags/Image",
"text": "<svg width=\"22pt\" height=\"22pt\" viewBox=\"0 0 128 128\">\n <g fill-rule=\"evenodd\">\n <path d=\"M40.3972881,76.4456988 L40.3972881,95.3404069 L54.5170166,95.3404069 L54.5170166,95.3404069 C54.5165526,95.3385183 54.516089,95.3366295 54.515626,95.3347404 C54.6093153,95.3385061 54.7034848,95.3404069 54.7980982,95.3404069 C58.6157051,95.3404069 61.710487,92.245625 61.710487,88.4280181 C61.710487,86.6197822 61.01617,84.9737128 59.8795929,83.7418666 L59.8795929,83.7418666 C59.8949905,83.7341665 59.9104102,83.7265043 59.925852,83.7188798 C58.8840576,82.5086663 58.2542926,80.9336277 58.2542926,79.2114996 C58.2542926,75.3938927 61.3490745,72.2991108 65.1666814,72.2991108 C68.9842884,72.2991108 72.0790703,75.3938927 72.0790703,79.2114996 C72.0790703,81.1954221 71.2432806,82.9841354 69.9045961,84.2447446 L69.9045961,84.2447446 C69.9333407,84.2629251 69.9619885,84.281245 69.9905383,84.2997032 L69.9905383,84.2997032 C69.1314315,85.4516923 68.6228758,86.8804654 68.6228758,88.4280181 C68.6228758,91.8584969 71.1218232,94.7053153 74.3986526,95.2474079 C74.3913315,95.2784624 74.3838688,95.3094624 74.3762652,95.3404069 L95.6963988,95.3404069 L95.6963988,75.5678578 L95.6963988,75.5678578 C95.6466539,75.5808558 95.5967614,75.5934886 95.5467242,75.6057531 C95.5504899,75.5120637 95.5523907,75.4178943 95.5523907,75.3232809 C95.5523907,71.505674 92.4576088,68.4108921 88.6400019,68.4108921 C86.831766,68.4108921 85.1856966,69.105209 83.9538504,70.2417862 L83.9538504,70.2417862 C83.9461503,70.2263886 83.938488,70.2109688 83.9308636,70.1955271 C82.7206501,71.2373215 81.1456115,71.8670865 79.4234834,71.8670865 C75.6058765,71.8670865 72.5110946,68.7723046 72.5110946,64.9546976 C72.5110946,61.1370907 75.6058765,58.0423088 79.4234834,58.0423088 C81.4074059,58.0423088 83.1961192,58.8780985 84.4567284,60.2167829 L84.4567284,60.2167829 C84.4749089,60.1880383 84.4932288,60.1593906 84.511687,60.1308407 L84.511687,60.1308407 C85.6636761,60.9899475 87.0924492,61.4985032 88.6400019,61.4985032 C92.0704807,61.4985032 94.9172991,58.9995558 95.4593917,55.7227265 C95.538755,55.7414363 95.6177614,55.761071 95.6963988,55.7816184 L95.6963988,40.0412962 L74.3762652,40.0412962 L74.3762652,40.0412962 C74.3838688,40.0103516 74.3913315,39.9793517 74.3986526,39.9482971 L74.3986526,39.9482971 C71.1218232,39.4062046 68.6228758,36.5593862 68.6228758,33.1289073 C68.6228758,31.5813547 69.1314315,30.1525815 69.9905383,29.0005925 C69.9619885,28.9821342 69.9333407,28.9638143 69.9045961,28.9456339 C71.2432806,27.6850247 72.0790703,25.8963113 72.0790703,23.9123888 C72.0790703,20.0947819 68.9842884,17 65.1666814,17 C61.3490745,17 58.2542926,20.0947819 58.2542926,23.9123888 C58.2542926,25.6345169 58.8840576,27.2095556 59.925852,28.419769 L59.925852,28.419769 C59.9104102,28.4273935 59.8949905,28.4350558 59.8795929,28.4427558 C61.01617,29.674602 61.710487,31.3206715 61.710487,33.1289073 C61.710487,36.9465143 58.6157051,40.0412962 54.7980982,40.0412962 C54.7034848,40.0412962 54.6093153,40.0393953 54.515626,40.0356296 L54.515626,40.0356296 C54.516089,40.0375187 54.5165526,40.0394075 54.5170166,40.0412962 L40.3972881,40.0412962 L40.3972881,52.887664 L40.3972881,52.887664 C40.4916889,53.3430132 40.5412962,53.8147625 40.5412962,54.2980982 C40.5412962,58.1157051 37.4465143,61.210487 33.6289073,61.210487 C32.0813547,61.210487 30.6525815,60.7019313 29.5005925,59.8428245 C29.4821342,59.8713744 29.4638143,59.9000221 29.4456339,59.9287667 C28.1850247,58.5900823 26.3963113,57.7542926 24.4123888,57.7542926 C20.5947819,57.7542926 17.5,60.8490745 17.5,64.6666814 C17.5,68.4842884 20.5947819,71.5790703 24.4123888,71.5790703 C26.134517,71.5790703 27.7095556,70.9493053 28.919769,69.9075109 L28.919769,69.9075109 C28.9273935,69.9229526 28.9350558,69.9383724 28.9427558,69.95377 C30.174602,68.8171928 31.8206715,68.1228758 33.6289073,68.1228758 C37.4465143,68.1228758 40.5412962,71.2176578 40.5412962,75.0352647 C40.5412962,75.5186004 40.4916889,75.9903496 40.3972881,76.4456988 Z M64,0 L118.5596,32 L118.5596,96 L64,128 L9.44039956,96 L9.44039956,32 L64,0 Z\"></path>\n </g>\n</svg>"
},
"$:/core/images/plugin-generic-theme": {
"title": "$:/core/images/plugin-generic-theme",
"tags": "$:/tags/Image",
"text": "<svg width=\"22pt\" height=\"22pt\" viewBox=\"0 0 128 128\">\n <g fill-rule=\"evenodd\">\n <path d=\"M29.4078519,91.4716406 L51.4693474,69.4101451 L51.4646675,69.4054652 C50.5969502,68.5377479 50.5929779,67.1348725 51.4693474,66.2585029 C52.3396494,65.3882009 53.7499654,65.3874786 54.6163097,66.2538229 L64.0805963,75.7181095 C64.9483136,76.5858268 64.9522859,77.9887022 64.0759163,78.8650718 C63.2056143,79.7353737 61.7952984,79.736096 60.9289541,78.8697517 L60.9242741,78.8650718 L60.9242741,78.8650718 L38.8627786,100.926567 C36.2518727,103.537473 32.0187578,103.537473 29.4078519,100.926567 C26.796946,98.3156614 26.796946,94.0825465 29.4078519,91.4716406 Z M60.8017407,66.3810363 C58.3659178,63.6765806 56.3370667,61.2899536 54.9851735,59.5123615 C48.1295381,50.4979488 44.671561,55.2444054 40.7586738,59.5123614 C36.8457866,63.7803174 41.789473,67.2384487 38.0759896,70.2532832 C34.3625062,73.2681177 34.5917646,74.3131575 28.3243876,68.7977024 C22.0570105,63.2822473 21.6235306,61.7636888 24.5005999,58.6166112 C27.3776691,55.4695337 29.7823103,60.4247912 35.6595047,54.8320442 C41.5366991,49.2392972 36.5996215,44.2825646 36.5996215,44.2825646 C36.5996215,44.2825646 48.8365511,19.267683 65.1880231,21.1152173 C81.5394952,22.9627517 59.0022276,18.7228947 53.3962199,38.3410355 C50.9960082,46.7405407 53.8429162,44.7613399 58.3941742,48.3090467 C59.7875202,49.3951602 64.4244828,52.7100463 70.1884353,56.9943417 L90.8648751,36.3179019 L92.4795866,31.5515482 L100.319802,26.8629752 L103.471444,30.0146174 L98.782871,37.8548326 L94.0165173,39.4695441 L73.7934912,59.6925702 C86.4558549,69.2403631 102.104532,81.8392557 102.104532,86.4016913 C102.104533,93.6189834 99.0337832,97.9277545 92.5695848,95.5655717 C87.8765989,93.8506351 73.8015497,80.3744087 63.8173444,69.668717 L60.9242741,72.5617873 L57.7726319,69.4101451 L60.8017407,66.3810363 L60.8017407,66.3810363 Z M63.9533761,1.42108547e-13 L118.512977,32 L118.512977,96 L63.9533761,128 L9.39377563,96 L9.39377563,32 L63.9533761,1.42108547e-13 Z\"></path>\n </g>\n</svg>"
},
"$:/core/images/preview-closed": {
"title": "$:/core/images/preview-closed",
"tags": "$:/tags/Image",
"text": "<svg class=\"tc-image-preview-closed tc-image-button\" width=\"22pt\" height=\"22pt\" viewBox=\"0 0 128 128\">\n <g fill-rule=\"evenodd\">\n <path d=\"M0.0881363238,64 C-0.210292223,65.8846266 0.249135869,67.8634737 1.4664206,69.4579969 C16.2465319,88.8184886 39.1692554,100.414336 64,100.414336 C88.8307446,100.414336 111.753468,88.8184886 126.533579,69.4579969 C127.750864,67.8634737 128.210292,65.8846266 127.911864,64 C110.582357,78.4158332 88.3036732,87.0858436 64,87.0858436 C39.6963268,87.0858436 17.4176431,78.4158332 0.0881363238,64 Z\"></path>\n <rect x=\"62\" y=\"96\" width=\"4\" height=\"16\" rx=\"4\"></rect>\n <rect transform=\"translate(80.000000, 101.000000) rotate(-5.000000) translate(-80.000000, -101.000000) \" x=\"78\" y=\"93\" width=\"4\" height=\"16\" rx=\"4\"></rect>\n <rect transform=\"translate(48.000000, 101.000000) rotate(-355.000000) translate(-48.000000, -101.000000) \" x=\"46\" y=\"93\" width=\"4\" height=\"16\" rx=\"4\"></rect>\n <rect transform=\"translate(32.000000, 96.000000) rotate(-350.000000) translate(-32.000000, -96.000000) \" x=\"30\" y=\"88\" width=\"4\" height=\"16\" rx=\"4\"></rect>\n <rect transform=\"translate(96.000000, 96.000000) rotate(-10.000000) translate(-96.000000, -96.000000) \" x=\"94\" y=\"88\" width=\"4\" height=\"16\" rx=\"4\"></rect>\n <rect transform=\"translate(112.000000, 88.000000) rotate(-20.000000) translate(-112.000000, -88.000000) \" x=\"110\" y=\"80\" width=\"4\" height=\"16\" rx=\"4\"></rect>\n <rect transform=\"translate(16.000000, 88.000000) rotate(-340.000000) translate(-16.000000, -88.000000) \" x=\"14\" y=\"80\" width=\"4\" height=\"16\" rx=\"4\"></rect>\n </g>\n</svg>"
},
"$:/core/images/preview-open": {
"title": "$:/core/images/preview-open",
"tags": "$:/tags/Image",
"text": "<svg class=\"tc-image-preview-open tc-image-button\" width=\"22pt\" height=\"22pt\" viewBox=\"0 0 128 128\">\n <g fill-rule=\"evenodd\">\n <path d=\"M64.1099282,99.5876785 C39.2791836,99.5876785 16.3564602,87.9918313 1.57634884,68.6313396 C-0.378878622,66.070184 -0.378878622,62.5174945 1.57634884,59.9563389 C16.3564602,40.5958472 39.2791836,29 64.1099282,29 C88.9406729,29 111.863396,40.5958472 126.643508,59.9563389 C128.598735,62.5174945 128.598735,66.070184 126.643508,68.6313396 C111.863396,87.9918313 88.9406729,99.5876785 64.1099282,99.5876785 Z M110.213805,67.5808331 C111.654168,66.0569335 111.654168,63.9430665 110.213805,62.4191669 C99.3257042,50.8995835 82.4391647,44 64.1470385,44 C45.8549124,44 28.9683729,50.8995835 18.0802717,62.4191669 C16.6399094,63.9430665 16.6399094,66.0569335 18.0802717,67.5808331 C28.9683729,79.1004165 45.8549124,86 64.1470385,86 C82.4391647,86 99.3257042,79.1004165 110.213805,67.5808331 Z\"></path>\n <path d=\"M63.5,88 C76.4786916,88 87,77.4786916 87,64.5 C87,51.5213084 76.4786916,41 63.5,41 C50.5213084,41 40,51.5213084 40,64.5 C40,77.4786916 50.5213084,88 63.5,88 Z\"></path>\n </g>\n</svg>"
},
"$:/core/images/print-button": {
"title": "$:/core/images/print-button",
"tags": "$:/tags/Image",
"text": "<svg class=\"tc-image-print-button tc-image-button\" viewBox=\"0 0 128 128\" width=\"22pt\" height=\"22pt\">\n <g fill-rule=\"evenodd\">\n <path d=\"M112,71 L112,30.5 L111.96811,30.5 L111.96811,30.5 C111.932942,28.4998414 111.151676,26.510538 109.625176,24.9840387 L86.9982489,2.35711116 C85.3482153,0.707077645 83.1589869,-0.071534047 81,0.0201838424 L81,0 L23.9992458,0 C19.5808867,0 16,3.58213437 16,8.00092105 L16,71 L24,71 L24,8 L81,8 L81,22.4996539 C81,26.9216269 84.5818769,30.5 89.0003461,30.5 L104,30.5 L104,71 L112,71 Z\"></path>\n <rect x=\"32\" y=\"36\" width=\"64\" height=\"8\" rx=\"4\"></rect>\n <rect x=\"32\" y=\"52\" width=\"64\" height=\"8\" rx=\"4\"></rect>\n <rect x=\"32\" y=\"20\" width=\"40\" height=\"8\" rx=\"4\"></rect>\n <path d=\"M0,80.0054195 C0,71.1658704 7.15611005,64 16.0008841,64 L111.999116,64 C120.83616,64 128,71.1553215 128,80.0054195 L128,111.99458 C128,120.83413 120.84389,128 111.999116,128 L16.0008841,128 C7.16383982,128 0,120.844679 0,111.99458 L0,80.0054195 Z M104,96 C108.418278,96 112,92.418278 112,88 C112,83.581722 108.418278,80 104,80 C99.581722,80 96,83.581722 96,88 C96,92.418278 99.581722,96 104,96 Z\"></path>\n </g>\n</svg>"
},
"$:/core/images/quote": {
"title": "$:/core/images/quote",
"tags": "$:/tags/Image",
"text": "<svg class=\"tc-image-quote tc-image-button\" width=\"22pt\" height=\"22pt\" viewBox=\"0 0 128 128\">\n <g fill-rule=\"evenodd\">\n <path d=\"M51.2188077,117.712501 L51.2188077,62.1993386 L27.4274524,62.1993386 C27.4274524,53.3075754 29.1096526,45.797753 32.4741035,39.669646 C35.8385544,33.541539 42.0867267,28.9154883 51.2188077,25.7913554 L51.2188077,2 C43.7689521,2.96127169 36.8599155,5.18417913 30.4914905,8.668789 C24.1230656,12.1533989 18.6559149,16.5391352 14.0898743,21.8261295 C9.52383382,27.1131238 5.97919764,33.2411389 3.45585945,40.2103586 C0.932521268,47.1795784 -0.208971741,54.6293222 0.0313461819,62.5598136 L0.0313461819,117.712501 L51.2188077,117.712501 Z M128,117.712501 L128,62.1993386 L104.208645,62.1993386 C104.208645,53.3075754 105.890845,45.797753 109.255296,39.669646 C112.619747,33.541539 118.867919,28.9154883 128,25.7913554 L128,2 C120.550144,2.96127169 113.641108,5.18417913 107.272683,8.668789 C100.904258,12.1533989 95.4371072,16.5391352 90.8710666,21.8261295 C86.3050261,27.1131238 82.7603899,33.2411389 80.2370517,40.2103586 C77.7137136,47.1795784 76.5722206,54.6293222 76.8125385,62.5598136 L76.8125385,117.712501 L128,117.712501 Z\"></path>\n </g>\n</svg>"
},
"$:/core/images/refresh-button": {
"title": "$:/core/images/refresh-button",
"tags": "$:/tags/Image",
"text": "<svg class=\"tc-image-refresh-button tc-image-button\" width=\"22pt\" height=\"22pt\" viewBox=\"0 0 128 128\">\n <g fill-rule=\"evenodd\">\n <path d=\"M106.369002,39.4325143 C116.529932,60.3119371 112.939592,86.1974934 95.5979797,103.539105 C73.7286194,125.408466 38.2713806,125.408466 16.4020203,103.539105 C-5.46734008,81.6697449 -5.46734008,46.2125061 16.4020203,24.3431458 C19.5262146,21.2189514 24.5915344,21.2189514 27.7157288,24.3431458 C30.8399231,27.4673401 30.8399231,32.5326599 27.7157288,35.6568542 C12.0947571,51.2778259 12.0947571,76.6044251 27.7157288,92.2253967 C43.3367004,107.846368 68.6632996,107.846368 84.2842712,92.2253967 C97.71993,78.7897379 99.5995262,58.1740623 89.9230597,42.729491 L83.4844861,54.9932839 C81.4307001,58.9052072 76.5945372,60.4115251 72.682614,58.3577391 C68.7706907,56.3039532 67.2643728,51.4677903 69.3181587,47.555867 L84.4354914,18.7613158 C86.4966389,14.8353707 91.3577499,13.3347805 95.273202,15.415792 L124.145886,30.7612457 C128.047354,32.8348248 129.52915,37.6785572 127.455571,41.5800249 C125.381992,45.4814927 120.53826,46.9632892 116.636792,44.8897102 L106.369002,39.4325143 Z M98.1470904,27.0648707 C97.9798954,26.8741582 97.811187,26.6843098 97.6409651,26.4953413 L98.6018187,26.1987327 L98.1470904,27.0648707 Z\"></path>\n </g>\n</svg>"
},
"$:/core/images/right-arrow": {
"title": "$:/core/images/right-arrow",
"tags": "$:/tags/Image",
"text": "<svg class=\"tc-image-right-arrow tc-image-button\" width=\"22pt\" height=\"22pt\" viewBox=\"0 0 128 128\">\n <path d=\"M80.3563798,109.353315 C78.9238993,110.786918 76.9450203,111.675144 74.7592239,111.675144 L-4.40893546,111.675144 C-8.77412698,111.675144 -12.3248558,108.130732 -12.3248558,103.758478 C-12.3248558,99.3951199 -8.78077754,95.8418109 -4.40893546,95.8418109 L66.8418109,95.8418109 L66.8418109,24.5910645 C66.8418109,20.225873 70.3862233,16.6751442 74.7584775,16.6751442 C79.1218352,16.6751442 82.6751442,20.2192225 82.6751442,24.5910645 L82.6751442,103.759224 C82.6751442,105.941695 81.7891419,107.920575 80.3566508,109.353886 Z\" transform=\"translate(35.175144, 64.175144) rotate(-45.000000) translate(-35.175144, -64.175144) \"></path>\n</svg>"
},
"$:/core/images/rotate-left": {
"title": "$:/core/images/rotate-left",
"tags": "$:/tags/Image",
"text": "<svg class=\"tc-image-rotate-left tc-image-button\" width=\"22pt\" height=\"22pt\" viewBox=\"0 0 128 128\"><g fill-rule=\"evenodd\"><rect width=\"32\" height=\"80\" rx=\"8\"/><rect x=\"48\" y=\"96\" width=\"80\" height=\"32\" rx=\"8\"/><path d=\"M61.32 36.65c19.743 2.45 35.023 19.287 35.023 39.693a4 4 0 0 1-8 0c0-15.663-11.254-28.698-26.117-31.46l3.916 3.916a4 4 0 1 1-5.657 5.657L49.172 43.142a4 4 0 0 1 0-5.657l11.313-11.313a4 4 0 1 1 5.657 5.656l-4.821 4.822z\"/></g></svg>"
},
"$:/core/images/save-button": {
"title": "$:/core/images/save-button",
"tags": "$:/tags/Image",
"text": "<svg class=\"tc-image-save-button tc-image-button\" viewBox=\"0 0 128 128\" width=\"22pt\" height=\"22pt\">\n <g fill-rule=\"evenodd\">\n <path d=\"M120.78304,34.329058 C125.424287,43.1924006 128.049406,53.2778608 128.049406,63.9764502 C128.049406,99.3226742 99.3956295,127.97645 64.0494055,127.97645 C28.7031816,127.97645 0.0494055385,99.3226742 0.0494055385,63.9764502 C0.0494055385,28.6302262 28.7031816,-0.0235498012 64.0494055,-0.0235498012 C82.8568763,-0.0235498012 99.769563,8.08898558 111.479045,21.0056358 L114.159581,18.3250998 C117.289194,15.1954866 122.356036,15.1939641 125.480231,18.3181584 C128.598068,21.4359957 128.601317,26.5107804 125.473289,29.6388083 L120.78304,34.329058 Z M108.72451,46.3875877 C110.870571,51.8341374 112.049406,57.767628 112.049406,63.9764502 C112.049406,90.4861182 90.5590735,111.97645 64.0494055,111.97645 C37.5397375,111.97645 16.0494055,90.4861182 16.0494055,63.9764502 C16.0494055,37.4667822 37.5397375,15.9764502 64.0494055,15.9764502 C78.438886,15.9764502 91.3495036,22.308215 100.147097,32.3375836 L58.9411255,73.5435552 L41.975581,56.5780107 C38.8486152,53.4510448 33.7746915,53.4551552 30.6568542,56.5729924 C27.5326599,59.6971868 27.5372202,64.7670668 30.6618725,67.8917192 L53.279253,90.5090997 C54.8435723,92.073419 56.8951519,92.8541315 58.9380216,92.8558261 C60.987971,92.8559239 63.0389578,92.0731398 64.6049211,90.5071765 L108.72451,46.3875877 Z\"></path>\n </g>\n</svg>"
},
"$:/core/images/size": {
"title": "$:/core/images/size",
"tags": "$:/tags/Image",
"text": "<svg class=\"tc-image-size tc-image-button\" width=\"22pt\" height=\"22pt\" viewBox=\"0 0 128 128\">\n <path d=\"M92.3431458,26 L83.1715729,35.1715729 C81.6094757,36.73367 81.6094757,39.26633 83.1715729,40.8284271 C84.73367,42.3905243 87.26633,42.3905243 88.8284271,40.8284271 L104.828427,24.8284271 C106.390524,23.26633 106.390524,20.73367 104.828427,19.1715729 L88.8284271,3.17157288 C87.26633,1.60947571 84.73367,1.60947571 83.1715729,3.17157288 C81.6094757,4.73367004 81.6094757,7.26632996 83.1715729,8.82842712 L92.3431457,18 L22,18 C19.790861,18 18,19.790861 18,22 L18,92.3431458 L8.82842712,83.1715729 C7.26632996,81.6094757 4.73367004,81.6094757 3.17157288,83.1715729 C1.60947571,84.73367 1.60947571,87.26633 3.17157288,88.8284271 L19.1715729,104.828427 C20.73367,106.390524 23.26633,106.390524 24.8284271,104.828427 L40.8284271,88.8284271 C42.3905243,87.26633 42.3905243,84.73367 40.8284271,83.1715729 C39.26633,81.6094757 36.73367,81.6094757 35.1715729,83.1715729 L26,92.3431458 L26,22 L22,26 L92.3431458,26 L92.3431458,26 Z M112,52 L112,116 L116,112 L52,112 C49.790861,112 48,113.790861 48,116 C48,118.209139 49.790861,120 52,120 L116,120 C118.209139,120 120,118.209139 120,116 L120,52 C120,49.790861 118.209139,48 116,48 C113.790861,48 112,49.790861 112,52 L112,52 Z\"></path>\n</svg>"
},
"$:/core/images/spiral": {
"title": "$:/core/images/spiral",
"tags": "$:/tags/Image",
"text": "<svg class=\"tc-image-spiral tc-image-button\" width=\"22pt\" height=\"22pt\" viewBox=\"0 0 128 128\">\n <g fill-rule=\"nonzero\">\n <path d=\"M64.534 68.348c3.39 0 6.097-2.62 6.476-5.968l-4.755-.538 4.75.583c.377-3.07-1.194-6.054-3.89-7.78-2.757-1.773-6.34-2.01-9.566-.7-3.46 1.403-6.14 4.392-7.35 8.148l-.01.026c-1.3 4.08-.72 8.64 1.58 12.52 2.5 4.2 6.77 7.2 11.76 8.27 5.37 1.15 11.11-.05 15.83-3.31 5.04-3.51 8.46-9.02 9.45-15.3 1.05-6.7-.72-13.63-4.92-19.19l.02.02c-4.42-5.93-11.2-9.82-18.78-10.78-7.96-1.01-16.13 1.31-22.59 6.43-6.81 5.39-11.18 13.41-12.11 22.26-.98 9.27 1.87 18.65 7.93 26.02 6.32 7.69 15.6 12.56 25.74 13.48 10.54.96 21.15-2.42 29.45-9.4l.01-.01c8.58-7.25 13.94-17.78 14.86-29.21.94-11.84-2.96-23.69-10.86-32.9-8.19-9.5-19.95-15.36-32.69-16.27-13.16-.94-26.24 3.49-36.34 12.34l.01-.01c-10.41 9.08-16.78 22.1-17.68 36.15-.93 14.44 4.03 28.77 13.79 39.78 10.03 11.32 24.28 18.2 39.6 19.09 15.73.92 31.31-4.56 43.24-15.234 12.23-10.954 19.61-26.44 20.5-43.074.14-2.64-1.89-4.89-4.52-5.03-2.64-.14-4.89 1.88-5.03 4.52-.75 14.1-7 27.2-17.33 36.45-10.03 8.98-23.11 13.58-36.3 12.81-12.79-.75-24.67-6.48-33-15.89-8.07-9.11-12.17-20.94-11.41-32.827.74-11.52 5.942-22.15 14.43-29.54l.01-.01c8.18-7.17 18.74-10.75 29.35-9.998 10.21.726 19.6 5.41 26.11 12.96 6.24 7.273 9.32 16.61 8.573 25.894-.718 8.9-4.88 17.064-11.504 22.66l.01-.007c-6.36 5.342-14.44 7.92-22.425 7.19-7.604-.68-14.52-4.314-19.21-10.027-4.44-5.4-6.517-12.23-5.806-18.94.67-6.3 3.76-11.977 8.54-15.766 4.46-3.54 10.05-5.128 15.44-4.44 5.03.63 9.46 3.18 12.32 7.01l.02.024c2.65 3.5 3.75 7.814 3.1 11.92-.59 3.71-2.58 6.925-5.45 8.924-2.56 1.767-5.61 2.403-8.38 1.81-2.42-.516-4.42-1.92-5.53-3.79-.93-1.56-1.15-3.3-.69-4.75l-4.56-1.446L59.325 65c.36-1.12 1.068-1.905 1.84-2.22.25-.103.48-.14.668-.13.06.006.11.015.14.025.01 0 .01 0-.01-.01-.02-.015-.054-.045-.094-.088-.06-.064-.12-.145-.17-.244-.15-.29-.23-.678-.18-1.11l-.005.04c.15-1.332 1.38-2.523 3.035-2.523-2.65 0-4.79 2.144-4.79 4.787s2.14 4.785 4.78 4.785z\"></path>\n </g>\n</svg>"
},
"$:/core/images/stamp": {
"title": "$:/core/images/stamp",
"tags": "$:/tags/Image",
"text": "<svg class=\"tc-image-stamp tc-image-button\" width=\"22pt\" height=\"22pt\" viewBox=\"0 0 128 128\">\n <g fill-rule=\"evenodd\">\n <path d=\"M49.7334301,64 L16.0098166,64 C11.5838751,64 8,67.5829053 8,72.002643 L8,74.4986785 L8,97 L120,97 L120,74.4986785 L120,72.002643 C120,67.5737547 116.413883,64 111.990183,64 L78.2665699,64 C76.502049,60.7519149 75.5,57.0311962 75.5,53.0769231 C75.5,46.6017951 78.1869052,40.7529228 82.5087769,36.5800577 C85.3313113,32.7688808 87,28.0549983 87,22.952183 C87,10.2760423 76.7025492,0 64,0 C51.2974508,0 41,10.2760423 41,22.952183 C41,28.0549983 42.6686887,32.7688808 45.4912231,36.5800577 C49.8130948,40.7529228 52.5,46.6017951 52.5,53.0769231 C52.5,57.0311962 51.497951,60.7519149 49.7334301,64 Z M8,104 L120,104 L120,112 L8,112 L8,104 Z\"></path>\n </g>\n</svg>"
},
"$:/core/images/star-filled": {
"title": "$:/core/images/star-filled",
"tags": "$:/tags/Image",
"text": "<svg class=\"tc-image-star-filled tc-image-button\" width=\"22pt\" height=\"22pt\" viewBox=\"0 0 128 128\">\n <g fill-rule=\"nonzero\">\n <path d=\"M61.8361286,96.8228569 L99.1627704,124.110219 C101.883827,126.099427 105.541968,123.420868 104.505636,120.198072 L90.2895569,75.9887263 L89.0292911,79.8977279 L126.314504,52.5528988 C129.032541,50.5595011 127.635256,46.2255025 124.273711,46.2229134 L78.1610486,46.1873965 L81.4604673,48.6032923 L67.1773543,4.41589688 C66.1361365,1.19470104 61.6144265,1.19470104 60.5732087,4.41589688 L46.2900957,48.6032923 L49.5895144,46.1873965 L3.47685231,46.2229134 C0.115307373,46.2255025 -1.28197785,50.5595011 1.43605908,52.5528988 L38.7212719,79.8977279 L37.4610061,75.9887263 L23.2449266,120.198072 C22.2085954,123.420868 25.8667356,126.099427 28.5877926,124.110219 L65.9144344,96.8228569 L61.8361286,96.8228569 Z\"></path>\n </g>\n</svg>"
},
"$:/core/images/storyview-classic": {
"title": "$:/core/images/storyview-classic",
"tags": "$:/tags/Image",
"text": "<svg class=\"tc-image-storyview-classic tc-image-button\" width=\"22pt\" height=\"22pt\" viewBox=\"0 0 128 128\">\n <g fill-rule=\"evenodd\">\n <path d=\"M8.00697327,0 C3.58484404,0 0,3.59075293 0,8.00697327 L0,119.993027 C0,124.415156 3.59075293,128 8.00697327,128 L119.993027,128 C124.415156,128 128,124.409247 128,119.993027 L128,8.00697327 C128,3.58484404 124.409247,0 119.993027,0 L8.00697327,0 L8.00697327,0 Z M23.9992458,16 C19.5813843,16 16,19.5776607 16,23.9924054 L16,40.0075946 C16,44.4216782 19.5881049,48 23.9992458,48 L104.000754,48 C108.418616,48 112,44.4223393 112,40.0075946 L112,23.9924054 C112,19.5783218 108.411895,16 104.000754,16 L23.9992458,16 L23.9992458,16 Z M23.9992458,64 C19.5813843,64 16,67.5907123 16,72 C16,76.418278 19.5881049,80 23.9992458,80 L104.000754,80 C108.418616,80 112,76.4092877 112,72 C112,67.581722 108.411895,64 104.000754,64 L23.9992458,64 L23.9992458,64 Z M23.9992458,96 C19.5813843,96 16,99.5907123 16,104 C16,108.418278 19.5881049,112 23.9992458,112 L104.000754,112 C108.418616,112 112,108.409288 112,104 C112,99.581722 108.411895,96 104.000754,96 L23.9992458,96 L23.9992458,96 Z\"></path>\n </g>\n</svg>"
},
"$:/core/images/storyview-pop": {
"title": "$:/core/images/storyview-pop",
"tags": "$:/tags/Image",
"text": "<svg class=\"tc-image-storyview-pop tc-image-button\" width=\"22pt\" height=\"22pt\" viewBox=\"0 0 128 128\">\n <g fill-rule=\"evenodd\">\n <path d=\"M8.00697327,0 C3.58484404,0 0,3.59075293 0,8.00697327 L0,119.993027 C0,124.415156 3.59075293,128 8.00697327,128 L119.993027,128 C124.415156,128 128,124.409247 128,119.993027 L128,8.00697327 C128,3.58484404 124.409247,0 119.993027,0 L8.00697327,0 L8.00697327,0 Z M23.9992458,16 C19.5813843,16 16,19.5776607 16,23.9924054 L16,40.0075946 C16,44.4216782 19.5881049,48 23.9992458,48 L104.000754,48 C108.418616,48 112,44.4223393 112,40.0075946 L112,23.9924054 C112,19.5783218 108.411895,16 104.000754,16 L23.9992458,16 L23.9992458,16 Z M16.0098166,56 C11.586117,56 8,59.5776607 8,63.9924054 L8,80.0075946 C8,84.4216782 11.5838751,88 16.0098166,88 L111.990183,88 C116.413883,88 120,84.4223393 120,80.0075946 L120,63.9924054 C120,59.5783218 116.416125,56 111.990183,56 L16.0098166,56 L16.0098166,56 Z M23.9992458,96 C19.5813843,96 16,99.5907123 16,104 C16,108.418278 19.5881049,112 23.9992458,112 L104.000754,112 C108.418616,112 112,108.409288 112,104 C112,99.581722 108.411895,96 104.000754,96 L23.9992458,96 L23.9992458,96 Z M23.9992458,64 C19.5813843,64 16,67.5907123 16,72 C16,76.418278 19.5881049,80 23.9992458,80 L104.000754,80 C108.418616,80 112,76.4092877 112,72 C112,67.581722 108.411895,64 104.000754,64 L23.9992458,64 L23.9992458,64 Z\"></path>\n </g>\n</svg>"
},
"$:/core/images/storyview-zoomin": {
"title": "$:/core/images/storyview-zoomin",
"tags": "$:/tags/Image",
"text": "<svg class=\"tc-image-storyview-zoomin tc-image-button\" width=\"22pt\" height=\"22pt\" viewBox=\"0 0 128 128\">\n <g fill-rule=\"evenodd\">\n <path d=\"M8.00697327,0 C3.58484404,0 0,3.59075293 0,8.00697327 L0,119.993027 C0,124.415156 3.59075293,128 8.00697327,128 L119.993027,128 C124.415156,128 128,124.409247 128,119.993027 L128,8.00697327 C128,3.58484404 124.409247,0 119.993027,0 L8.00697327,0 L8.00697327,0 Z M23.9992458,16 C19.5813843,16 16,19.578055 16,24.0085154 L16,71.9914846 C16,76.4144655 19.5881049,80 23.9992458,80 L104.000754,80 C108.418616,80 112,76.421945 112,71.9914846 L112,24.0085154 C112,19.5855345 108.411895,16 104.000754,16 L23.9992458,16 L23.9992458,16 Z\"></path>\n </g>\n</svg>"
},
"$:/core/images/strikethrough": {
"title": "$:/core/images/strikethrough",
"tags": "$:/tags/Image",
"text": "<svg class=\"tc-image-strikethrough tc-image-button\" width=\"22pt\" height=\"22pt\" viewBox=\"0 0 128 128\">\n <g fill-rule=\"evenodd\">\n <path d=\"M92.793842,38.7255689 L108.215529,38.7255689 C107.987058,31.985687 106.70193,26.1883331 104.360107,21.3333333 C102.018284,16.4783336 98.8197436,12.4516001 94.7643909,9.25301205 C90.7090382,6.05442399 85.9969032,3.71263572 80.6278447,2.22757697 C75.2587862,0.742518233 69.4328739,0 63.1499331,0 C57.552404,0 52.0977508,0.713959839 46.7858099,2.14190094 C41.473869,3.56984203 36.7331757,5.74027995 32.5635877,8.65327979 C28.3939997,11.5662796 25.0526676,15.2788708 22.5394913,19.7911647 C20.026315,24.3034585 18.7697456,29.6438781 18.7697456,35.8125837 C18.7697456,41.4101128 19.883523,46.0651309 22.1111111,49.7777778 C24.3386992,53.4904246 27.3087722,56.5176144 31.021419,58.8594378 C34.7340659,61.2012612 38.9321497,63.0861151 43.6157965,64.5140562 C48.2994433,65.9419973 53.068695,67.1985666 57.9236948,68.2838019 C62.7786945,69.3690371 67.5479462,70.4256977 72.231593,71.4538153 C76.9152398,72.4819329 81.1133237,73.8241773 84.8259705,75.480589 C88.5386174,77.1370007 91.5086903,79.2788802 93.7362784,81.9062918 C95.9638666,84.5337035 97.0776439,87.9607107 97.0776439,92.1874163 C97.0776439,96.6425926 96.1637753,100.298067 94.3360107,103.153949 C92.5082461,106.009831 90.109341,108.265944 87.1392236,109.922356 C84.1691061,111.578768 80.827774,112.749662 77.1151272,113.435074 C73.4024803,114.120485 69.7184476,114.463186 66.0629183,114.463186 C61.4935068,114.463186 57.0383974,113.892018 52.6974565,112.749665 C48.3565156,111.607312 44.5582492,109.836692 41.3025435,107.437751 C38.0468378,105.03881 35.4194656,101.983062 33.4203481,98.270415 C31.4212305,94.5577681 30.4216867,90.1312171 30.4216867,84.9906292 L15,84.9906292 C15,92.4159229 16.3422445,98.8415614 19.0267738,104.267738 C21.711303,109.693914 25.3667774,114.149023 29.9933066,117.633199 C34.6198357,121.117376 39.9888137,123.71619 46.1004016,125.429719 C52.2119895,127.143248 58.6947448,128 65.5488621,128 C71.1463912,128 76.7723948,127.343157 82.4270415,126.029451 C88.0816882,124.715745 93.1936407,122.602424 97.7630522,119.689424 C102.332464,116.776425 106.073613,113.006717 108.986613,108.380187 C111.899613,103.753658 113.356091,98.1847715 113.356091,91.6733601 C113.356091,85.6188899 112.242314,80.5926126 110.014726,76.5943775 C107.787137,72.5961424 104.817065,69.2833688 101.104418,66.6559572 C97.3917708,64.0285455 93.193687,61.9437828 88.5100402,60.4016064 C83.8263934,58.85943 79.0571416,57.5171855 74.2021419,56.3748327 C69.3471422,55.2324798 64.5778904,54.1758192 59.8942436,53.2048193 C55.2105968,52.2338193 51.012513,51.0058084 47.2998661,49.5207497 C43.5872193,48.0356909 40.6171463,46.1222786 38.3895582,43.7804552 C36.1619701,41.4386318 35.0481928,38.3828836 35.0481928,34.6131191 C35.0481928,30.6148841 35.8192694,27.273552 37.3614458,24.5890228 C38.9036222,21.9044935 40.9598265,19.762614 43.5301205,18.1633199 C46.1004145,16.5640259 49.041929,15.4216902 52.3547523,14.7362784 C55.6675757,14.0508667 59.0374661,13.708166 62.4645248,13.708166 C70.9179361,13.708166 77.8576257,15.6786952 83.2838019,19.6198126 C88.709978,23.56093 91.8799597,29.9294518 92.793842,38.7255689 L92.793842,38.7255689 Z\"></path>\n <rect x=\"5\" y=\"54\" width=\"118\" height=\"16\"></rect>\n </g>\n</svg>"
},
"$:/core/images/subscript": {
"title": "$:/core/images/subscript",
"tags": "$:/tags/Image",
"text": "<svg class=\"tc-image-subscript tc-image-button\" width=\"22pt\" height=\"22pt\" viewBox=\"0 0 128 128\">\n <g fill-rule=\"evenodd\">\n <path d=\"M2.27170276,16 L22.1825093,16 L43.8305003,49.6746527 L66.4138983,16 L85.1220387,16 L53.5854592,61.9685735 L87.3937414,111.411516 L67.0820462,111.411516 L43.295982,74.9306422 L19.1090291,111.411516 L0,111.411516 L33.8082822,61.9685735 L2.27170276,16 Z M127.910914,128.411516 L85.3276227,128.411516 C85.3870139,123.24448 86.6342108,118.730815 89.0692508,114.870386 C91.5042907,111.009956 94.8301491,107.654403 99.0469256,104.803624 C101.066227,103.318844 103.174584,101.878629 105.372059,100.482935 C107.569534,99.0872413 109.588805,97.5876355 111.429933,95.9840726 C113.271061,94.3805097 114.785514,92.6433426 115.973338,90.7725192 C117.161163,88.9016958 117.784761,86.7487964 117.844152,84.3137564 C117.844152,83.1853233 117.710524,81.9826691 117.443264,80.7057579 C117.176003,79.4288467 116.656338,78.2410402 115.884252,77.1423026 C115.112166,76.0435651 114.04314,75.123015 112.677142,74.3806248 C111.311144,73.6382345 109.529434,73.267045 107.331959,73.267045 C105.312658,73.267045 103.634881,73.6679297 102.298579,74.4697112 C100.962276,75.2714926 99.8932503,76.3702137 99.0914688,77.7659073 C98.2896874,79.161601 97.6957841,80.8096826 97.3097412,82.7102016 C96.9236982,84.6107206 96.7009845,86.6596869 96.6415933,88.857162 L86.4857457,88.857162 C86.4857457,85.4124713 86.9460207,82.2202411 87.8665846,79.2803758 C88.7871485,76.3405105 90.1679736,73.801574 92.0091014,71.6634901 C93.8502292,69.5254062 96.092214,67.8476295 98.7351233,66.6301095 C101.378033,65.4125895 104.451482,64.8038386 107.955564,64.8038386 C111.756602,64.8038386 114.933984,65.4274371 117.487807,66.6746527 C120.041629,67.9218683 122.105443,69.4957119 123.67931,71.3962309 C125.253178,73.2967499 126.366746,75.3605638 127.02005,77.5877345 C127.673353,79.8149053 128,81.9381095 128,83.9574109 C128,86.4518421 127.613963,88.7086746 126.841877,90.727976 C126.069791,92.7472774 125.03046,94.6032252 123.723854,96.2958749 C122.417247,97.9885247 120.932489,99.5475208 119.269534,100.97291 C117.60658,102.398299 115.884261,103.734582 114.102524,104.981797 C112.320788,106.229013 110.539078,107.416819 108.757341,108.545253 C106.975605,109.673686 105.327523,110.802102 103.813047,111.930535 C102.298571,113.058968 100.977136,114.231927 99.8487031,115.449447 C98.7202699,116.666967 97.9481956,117.958707 97.5324571,119.324705 L127.910914,119.324705 L127.910914,128.411516 Z\"></path>\n </g>\n</svg>"
},
"$:/core/images/superscript": {
"title": "$:/core/images/superscript",
"tags": "$:/tags/Image",
"text": "<svg class=\"tc-image-superscript tc-image-button\" width=\"22pt\" height=\"22pt\" viewBox=\"0 0 128 128\">\n <g fill-rule=\"evenodd\">\n <path d=\"M2.27170276,16 L22.1825093,16 L43.8305003,49.6746527 L66.4138983,16 L85.1220387,16 L53.5854592,61.9685735 L87.3937414,111.411516 L67.0820462,111.411516 L43.295982,74.9306422 L19.1090291,111.411516 L0,111.411516 L33.8082822,61.9685735 L2.27170276,16 Z M127.910914,63.4115159 L85.3276227,63.4115159 C85.3870139,58.2444799 86.6342108,53.7308149 89.0692508,49.8703857 C91.5042907,46.0099565 94.8301491,42.654403 99.0469256,39.8036245 C101.066227,38.318844 103.174584,36.8786285 105.372059,35.4829349 C107.569534,34.0872413 109.588805,32.5876355 111.429933,30.9840726 C113.271061,29.3805097 114.785514,27.6433426 115.973338,25.7725192 C117.161163,23.9016958 117.784761,21.7487964 117.844152,19.3137564 C117.844152,18.1853233 117.710524,16.9826691 117.443264,15.7057579 C117.176003,14.4288467 116.656338,13.2410402 115.884252,12.1423026 C115.112166,11.0435651 114.04314,10.123015 112.677142,9.38062477 C111.311144,8.63823453 109.529434,8.26704499 107.331959,8.26704499 C105.312658,8.26704499 103.634881,8.6679297 102.298579,9.46971115 C100.962276,10.2714926 99.8932503,11.3702137 99.0914688,12.7659073 C98.2896874,14.161601 97.6957841,15.8096826 97.3097412,17.7102016 C96.9236982,19.6107206 96.7009845,21.6596869 96.6415933,23.857162 L86.4857457,23.857162 C86.4857457,20.4124713 86.9460207,17.2202411 87.8665846,14.2803758 C88.7871485,11.3405105 90.1679736,8.80157397 92.0091014,6.6634901 C93.8502292,4.52540622 96.092214,2.84762946 98.7351233,1.63010947 C101.378033,0.412589489 104.451482,-0.196161372 107.955564,-0.196161372 C111.756602,-0.196161372 114.933984,0.427437071 117.487807,1.67465266 C120.041629,2.92186826 122.105443,4.49571195 123.67931,6.39623095 C125.253178,8.29674995 126.366746,10.3605638 127.02005,12.5877345 C127.673353,14.8149053 128,16.9381095 128,18.9574109 C128,21.4518421 127.613963,23.7086746 126.841877,25.727976 C126.069791,27.7472774 125.03046,29.6032252 123.723854,31.2958749 C122.417247,32.9885247 120.932489,34.5475208 119.269534,35.97291 C117.60658,37.3982993 115.884261,38.7345816 114.102524,39.9817972 C112.320788,41.2290128 110.539078,42.4168194 108.757341,43.5452525 C106.975605,44.6736857 105.327523,45.8021019 103.813047,46.9305351 C102.298571,48.0589682 100.977136,49.2319272 99.8487031,50.4494472 C98.7202699,51.6669672 97.9481956,52.9587068 97.5324571,54.3247048 L127.910914,54.3247048 L127.910914,63.4115159 Z\"></path>\n </g>\n</svg>"
},
"$:/core/images/tag-button": {
"title": "$:/core/images/tag-button",
"tags": "$:/tags/Image",
"text": "<svg class=\"tc-image-tag-button tc-image-button\" width=\"22pt\" height=\"22pt\" viewBox=\"0 0 128 128\">\n <g fill-rule=\"evenodd\">\n <path d=\"M18.1643182,47.6600756 L18.1677196,51.7651887 C18.1708869,55.5878829 20.3581578,60.8623899 23.0531352,63.5573673 L84.9021823,125.406414 C87.5996731,128.103905 91.971139,128.096834 94.6717387,125.396234 L125.766905,94.3010679 C128.473612,91.5943612 128.472063,87.2264889 125.777085,84.5315115 L63.9280381,22.6824644 C61.2305472,19.9849735 55.9517395,17.801995 52.1318769,17.8010313 L25.0560441,17.7942007 C21.2311475,17.7932358 18.1421354,20.8872832 18.1452985,24.7049463 L18.1535504,34.6641936 C18.2481119,34.6754562 18.3439134,34.6864294 18.4409623,34.6971263 C22.1702157,35.1081705 26.9295004,34.6530132 31.806204,33.5444844 C32.1342781,33.0700515 32.5094815,32.6184036 32.9318197,32.1960654 C35.6385117,29.4893734 39.5490441,28.718649 42.94592,29.8824694 C43.0432142,29.8394357 43.1402334,29.7961748 43.2369683,29.7526887 L43.3646982,30.0368244 C44.566601,30.5115916 45.6933052,31.2351533 46.6655958,32.2074439 C50.4612154,36.0030635 50.4663097,42.1518845 46.6769742,45.94122 C43.0594074,49.5587868 37.2914155,49.7181264 33.4734256,46.422636 C28.1082519,47.5454734 22.7987486,48.0186448 18.1643182,47.6600756 Z\"></path>\n <path d=\"M47.6333528,39.5324628 L47.6562932,39.5834939 C37.9670934,43.9391617 26.0718874,46.3819521 17.260095,45.4107025 C5.27267473,44.0894301 -1.02778744,36.4307276 2.44271359,24.0779512 C5.56175386,12.9761516 14.3014034,4.36129832 24.0466405,1.54817001 C34.7269254,-1.53487574 43.7955833,3.51606438 43.7955834,14.7730751 L35.1728168,14.7730752 C35.1728167,9.91428944 32.0946059,8.19982862 26.4381034,9.83267419 C19.5270911,11.8276553 13.046247,18.2159574 10.7440788,26.4102121 C8.82861123,33.2280582 11.161186,36.0634845 18.2047888,36.8398415 C25.3302805,37.6252244 35.7353482,35.4884477 44.1208333,31.7188498 L44.1475077,31.7781871 C44.159701,31.7725635 44.1718402,31.7671479 44.1839238,31.7619434 C45.9448098,31.0035157 50.4503245,38.3109156 47.7081571,39.5012767 C47.6834429,39.512005 47.6585061,39.5223987 47.6333528,39.5324628 Z\"></path>\n </g>\n</svg>"
},
"$:/core/images/theme-button": {
"title": "$:/core/images/theme-button",
"tags": "$:/tags/Image",
"text": "<svg class=\"tc-image-theme-button tc-image-button\" width=\"22pt\" height=\"22pt\" viewBox=\"0 0 128 128\">\n <g fill-rule=\"evenodd\">\n <path d=\"M55.854113,66.9453198 C54.3299482,65.1432292 53.0133883,63.518995 51.9542746,62.1263761 C40.8899947,47.578055 35.3091807,55.2383404 28.9941893,62.1263758 C22.6791979,69.0144112 30.6577916,74.5954741 24.6646171,79.4611023 C18.6714426,84.3267304 19.0414417,86.0133155 8.92654943,77.1119468 C-1.18834284,68.2105781 -1.88793412,65.7597832 2.7553553,60.6807286 C7.39864472,55.601674 11.2794845,63.5989423 20.7646627,54.5728325 C30.2498409,45.5467226 22.2819131,37.5470737 22.2819131,37.5470737 C22.2819131,37.5470737 42.0310399,-2.82433362 68.4206088,0.157393922 C94.8101776,3.13912147 58.4373806,-3.70356506 49.3898693,27.958066 C45.5161782,41.5139906 50.1107906,38.3197672 57.4560458,44.0453955 C59.1625767,45.3756367 63.8839488,48.777453 70.127165,53.3625321 C63.9980513,59.2416709 58.9704753,64.0315459 55.854113,66.9453198 Z M67.4952439,79.8919946 C83.5082212,96.9282402 105.237121,117.617674 112.611591,120.312493 C123.044132,124.12481 128.000001,117.170903 128,105.522947 C127.999999,98.3705516 104.170675,78.980486 84.0760493,63.7529565 C76.6683337,70.9090328 70.7000957,76.7055226 67.4952439,79.8919946 Z\"></path>\n <path d=\"M58.2852966,138.232794 L58.2852966,88.3943645 C56.318874,88.3923153 54.7254089,86.7952906 54.7254089,84.8344788 C54.7254089,82.8684071 56.3175932,81.2745911 58.2890859,81.2745911 L79.6408336,81.2745911 C81.608998,81.2745911 83.2045105,82.8724076 83.2045105,84.8344788 C83.2045105,86.7992907 81.614366,88.3923238 79.6446228,88.3943645 L79.6446228,88.3943646 L79.6446228,138.232794 C79.6446228,144.131009 74.8631748,148.912457 68.9649597,148.912457 C63.0667446,148.912457 58.2852966,144.131009 58.2852966,138.232794 Z M65.405072,-14.8423767 L72.5248474,-14.8423767 L76.0847351,-0.690681892 L72.5248474,6.51694947 L72.5248474,81.2745911 L65.405072,81.2745911 L65.405072,6.51694947 L61.8451843,-0.690681892 L65.405072,-14.8423767 Z\" transform=\"translate(68.964960, 67.035040) rotate(45.000000) translate(-68.964960, -67.035040) \"></path>\n </g>\n</svg>"
},
"$:/core/images/timestamp-off": {
"title": "$:/core/images/timestamp-off",
"tags": "$:/tags/Image",
"text": "<svg class=\"tc-image-timestamp-off tc-image-button\" width=\"22pt\" height=\"22pt\" viewBox=\"0 0 128 128\">\n <g fill-rule=\"evenodd\">\n <path d=\"M58.25 11C26.08 11 0 37.082 0 69.25s26.08 58.25 58.25 58.25c32.175 0 58.25-26.082 58.25-58.25S90.425 11 58.25 11zm0 100.5C34.914 111.5 16 92.586 16 69.25 16 45.92 34.914 27 58.25 27s42.25 18.92 42.25 42.25c0 23.336-18.914 42.25-42.25 42.25zM49.704 10c-2.762 0-5-2.24-5-5-.004-2.756 2.238-5 5-5H66.69c2.762 0 5.002 2.24 5 5 .006 2.757-2.238 5-5 5H49.705z\"/><path d=\"M58.25 35.88c-18.777 0-33.998 15.224-33.998 33.998 0 18.773 15.22 34.002 33.998 34.002 18.784 0 34.002-15.23 34.002-34.002 0-18.774-15.218-33.998-34.002-33.998zm-3.03 50.123H44.196v-34H55.22v34zm16.976 0H61.17v-34h11.025v34z\"/>\n </g>\n</svg>\n"
},
"$:/core/images/timestamp-on": {
"title": "$:/core/images/timestamp-on",
"tags": "$:/tags/Image",
"text": "<svg class=\"tc-image-timestamp-on tc-image-button\" width=\"22pt\" height=\"22pt\" viewBox=\"0 0 128 128\">\n <g fill-rule=\"evenodd\">\n <path d=\"M58.25 11C26.08 11 0 37.082 0 69.25s26.08 58.25 58.25 58.25c32.175 0 58.25-26.082 58.25-58.25S90.425 11 58.25 11zm0 100.5C34.914 111.5 16 92.586 16 69.25 16 45.92 34.914 27 58.25 27s42.25 18.92 42.25 42.25c0 23.336-18.914 42.25-42.25 42.25zM49.704 10c-2.762 0-5-2.24-5-5-.004-2.756 2.238-5 5-5H66.69c2.762 0 5.002 2.24 5 5 .006 2.757-2.238 5-5 5H49.705z\"/><path d=\"M13.41 27.178c-2.116 1.775-5.27 1.498-7.045-.613-1.772-2.11-1.498-5.27.616-7.047l9.95-8.348c2.115-1.774 5.27-1.5 7.045.618 1.775 2.108 1.498 5.27-.616 7.043l-9.95 8.348zM102.983 27.178c2.116 1.775 5.27 1.498 7.045-.613 1.772-2.11 1.498-5.27-.616-7.047l-9.95-8.348c-2.114-1.774-5.27-1.5-7.044.618-1.775 2.108-1.498 5.27.616 7.043l9.95 8.348zM65.097 71.072c0 3.826-3.09 6.928-6.897 6.928-3.804.006-6.9-3.102-6.903-6.928 0 0 4.76-39.072 6.903-39.072s6.897 39.072 6.897 39.072z\"/>\n </g>\n</svg>\n"
},
"$:/core/images/tip": {
"title": "$:/core/images/tip",
"tags": "$:/tags/Image",
"text": "<svg class=\"tc-image-tip tc-image-button\" width=\"22pt\" height=\"22pt\" viewBox=\"0 0 128 128\">\n <g fill-rule=\"evenodd\">\n <path d=\"M64,128.241818 C99.346224,128.241818 128,99.5880417 128,64.2418177 C128,28.8955937 99.346224,0.241817675 64,0.241817675 C28.653776,0.241817675 0,28.8955937 0,64.2418177 C0,99.5880417 28.653776,128.241818 64,128.241818 Z M75.9358659,91.4531941 C75.3115438,95.581915 70.2059206,98.8016748 64,98.8016748 C57.7940794,98.8016748 52.6884562,95.581915 52.0641341,91.4531941 C54.3299053,94.0502127 58.8248941,95.8192805 64,95.8192805 C69.1751059,95.8192805 73.6700947,94.0502127 75.9358659,91.4531941 L75.9358659,91.4531941 Z M75.9358659,95.9453413 C75.3115438,100.074062 70.2059206,103.293822 64,103.293822 C57.7940794,103.293822 52.6884562,100.074062 52.0641341,95.9453413 C54.3299053,98.5423599 58.8248941,100.311428 64,100.311428 C69.1751059,100.311428 73.6700947,98.5423599 75.9358659,95.9453413 L75.9358659,95.9453413 Z M75.9358659,100.40119 C75.3115438,104.529911 70.2059206,107.74967 64,107.74967 C57.7940794,107.74967 52.6884562,104.529911 52.0641341,100.40119 C54.3299053,102.998208 58.8248941,104.767276 64,104.767276 C69.1751059,104.767276 73.6700947,102.998208 75.9358659,100.40119 L75.9358659,100.40119 Z M75.9358659,104.893337 C75.3115438,109.022058 70.2059206,112.241818 64,112.241818 C57.7940794,112.241818 52.6884562,109.022058 52.0641341,104.893337 C54.3299053,107.490356 58.8248941,109.259423 64,109.259423 C69.1751059,109.259423 73.6700947,107.490356 75.9358659,104.893337 L75.9358659,104.893337 Z M64.3010456,24.2418177 C75.9193117,24.2418188 88.0000013,32.0619847 88,48.4419659 C87.9999987,64.8219472 75.9193018,71.7540963 75.9193021,83.5755932 C75.9193022,89.4486648 70.0521957,92.8368862 63.9999994,92.8368862 C57.947803,92.8368862 51.9731007,89.8295115 51.9731007,83.5755932 C51.9731007,71.1469799 39.9999998,65.4700602 40,48.4419647 C40.0000002,31.4138691 52.6827796,24.2418166 64.3010456,24.2418177 Z\"></path>\n </g>\n</svg>"
},
"$:/core/images/transcludify": {
"title": "$:/core/images/transcludify",
"tags": "$:/tags/Image",
"text": "<svg class=\"tc-transcludify-button tc-image-button\" viewBox=\"0 0 128 128\" width=\"22pt\" height=\"22pt\"><path d=\"M0 59.482c.591 0 1.36-.089 2.306-.266a10.417 10.417 0 0 0 2.75-.932 6.762 6.762 0 0 0 2.306-1.907c.651-.828.976-1.863.976-3.104V35.709c0-2.01.414-3.74 1.242-5.19.828-1.448 1.833-2.66 3.016-3.636s2.425-1.7 3.726-2.173c1.3-.473 2.424-.71 3.37-.71h8.073v7.451h-4.88c-1.241 0-2.232.207-2.97.621-.74.414-1.302.932-1.686 1.552a4.909 4.909 0 0 0-.71 1.996c-.089.71-.133 1.39-.133 2.04v16.677c0 1.715-.325 3.134-.976 4.258-.65 1.123-1.434 2.025-2.35 2.705-.917.68-1.863 1.168-2.839 1.464-.976.296-1.818.473-2.528.532v.178c.71.059 1.552.207 2.528.443.976.237 1.922.68 2.839 1.33.916.651 1.7 1.583 2.35 2.795.65 1.212.976 2.853.976 4.923v16.144c0 .65.044 1.33.133 2.04.089.71.325 1.375.71 1.996.384.621.946 1.139 1.685 1.553.74.414 1.73.62 2.972.62h4.879v7.452h-8.073c-.946 0-2.07-.237-3.37-.71-1.301-.473-2.543-1.197-3.726-2.173-1.183-.976-2.188-2.188-3.016-3.637-.828-1.449-1.242-3.179-1.242-5.19V74.119c0-1.42-.325-2.572-.976-3.46-.65-.886-1.419-1.581-2.306-2.084a8.868 8.868 0 0 0-2.75-1.02C1.36 67.377.591 67.288 0 67.288v-7.806zm24.66 0c.591 0 1.36-.089 2.306-.266a10.417 10.417 0 0 0 2.75-.932 6.762 6.762 0 0 0 2.306-1.907c.65-.828.976-1.863.976-3.104V35.709c0-2.01.414-3.74 1.242-5.19.828-1.448 1.833-2.66 3.016-3.636s2.425-1.7 3.726-2.173c1.3-.473 2.424-.71 3.37-.71h8.073v7.451h-4.88c-1.241 0-2.232.207-2.97.621-.74.414-1.302.932-1.686 1.552a4.909 4.909 0 0 0-.71 1.996c-.089.71-.133 1.39-.133 2.04v16.677c0 1.715-.325 3.134-.976 4.258-.65 1.123-1.434 2.025-2.35 2.705-.917.68-1.863 1.168-2.839 1.464-.976.296-1.818.473-2.528.532v.178c.71.059 1.552.207 2.528.443.976.237 1.922.68 2.839 1.33.916.651 1.7 1.583 2.35 2.795.65 1.212.976 2.853.976 4.923v16.144c0 .65.044 1.33.133 2.04.089.71.325 1.375.71 1.996.384.621.946 1.139 1.685 1.553.74.414 1.73.62 2.972.62h4.879v7.452h-8.073c-.946 0-2.07-.237-3.37-.71-1.301-.473-2.543-1.197-3.726-2.173-1.183-.976-2.188-2.188-3.016-3.637-.828-1.449-1.242-3.179-1.242-5.19V74.119c0-1.42-.325-2.572-.976-3.46-.65-.886-1.419-1.581-2.306-2.084a8.868 8.868 0 0 0-2.75-1.02c-.946-.177-1.715-.266-2.306-.266v-7.806zm43.965-3.538L80.6 52.041l2.306 7.097-12.063 3.903 7.628 10.378-6.12 4.435-7.63-10.467-7.45 10.201-5.943-4.524 7.628-10.023-12.152-4.17 2.306-7.096 12.064 4.17V43.347h7.451v12.596zm34.425 11.344c-.65 0-1.449.089-2.395.266-.946.177-1.863.488-2.75.931a6.356 6.356 0 0 0-2.262 1.908c-.62.828-.931 1.862-.931 3.104v17.564c0 2.01-.414 3.74-1.242 5.189-.828 1.449-1.833 2.661-3.016 3.637s-2.425 1.7-3.726 2.173c-1.3.473-2.424.71-3.37.71h-8.073v-7.451h4.88c1.241 0 2.232-.207 2.97-.621.74-.414 1.302-.932 1.686-1.553a4.9 4.9 0 0 0 .71-1.995c.089-.71.133-1.39.133-2.04V72.432c0-1.715.325-3.134.976-4.258.65-1.124 1.434-2.01 2.35-2.661.917-.65 1.863-1.124 2.839-1.42.976-.295 1.818-.502 2.528-.62v-.178c-.71-.059-1.552-.207-2.528-.443-.976-.237-1.922-.68-2.839-1.33-.916-.651-1.7-1.583-2.35-2.795-.65-1.212-.976-2.853-.976-4.923V37.66c0-.651-.044-1.331-.133-2.04a4.909 4.909 0 0 0-.71-1.997c-.384-.62-.946-1.138-1.685-1.552-.74-.414-1.73-.62-2.972-.62h-4.879V24h8.073c.946 0 2.07.237 3.37.71 1.301.473 2.543 1.197 3.726 2.173 1.183.976 2.188 2.188 3.016 3.637.828 1.449 1.242 3.178 1.242 5.189v16.943c0 1.419.31 2.572.931 3.46a6.897 6.897 0 0 0 2.262 2.084 8.868 8.868 0 0 0 2.75 1.02c.946.177 1.745.266 2.395.266v7.806zm24.66 0c-.65 0-1.449.089-2.395.266-.946.177-1.863.488-2.75.931a6.356 6.356 0 0 0-2.262 1.908c-.62.828-.931 1.862-.931 3.104v17.564c0 2.01-.414 3.74-1.242 5.189-.828 1.449-1.833 2.661-3.016 3.637s-2.425 1.7-3.726 2.173c-1.3.473-2.424.71-3.37.71h-8.073v-7.451h4.88c1.241 0 2.232-.207 2.97-.621.74-.414 1.302-.932 1.686-1.553a4.9 4.9 0 0 0 .71-1.995c.089-.71.133-1.39.133-2.04V72.432c0-1.715.325-3.134.976-4.258.65-1.124 1.434-2.01 2.35-2.661.917-.65 1.863-1.124 2.839-1.42.976-.295 1.818-.502 2.528-.62v-.178c-.71-.059-1.552-.207-2.528-.443-.976-.237-1.922-.68-2.839-1.33-.916-.651-1.7-1.583-2.35-2.795-.65-1.212-.976-2.853-.976-4.923V37.66c0-.651-.044-1.331-.133-2.04a4.909 4.909 0 0 0-.71-1.997c-.384-.62-.946-1.138-1.685-1.552-.74-.414-1.73-.62-2.972-.62h-4.879V24h8.073c.946 0 2.07.237 3.37.71 1.301.473 2.543 1.197 3.726 2.173 1.183.976 2.188 2.188 3.016 3.637.828 1.449 1.242 3.178 1.242 5.189v16.943c0 1.419.31 2.572.931 3.46a6.897 6.897 0 0 0 2.262 2.084 8.868 8.868 0 0 0 2.75 1.02c.946.177 1.745.266 2.395.266v7.806z\" fill-rule=\"evenodd\"/></svg>\n"
},
"$:/core/images/twitter": {
"title": "$:/core/images/twitter",
"tags": "$:/tags/Image",
"text": "<svg class=\"tc-image-twitter tc-image-button\" width=\"22pt\" height=\"22pt\" viewBox=\"0 0 128 128\">\n <g fill-rule=\"evenodd\">\n <path d=\"M41.6263422,115.803477 C27.0279663,115.803477 13.4398394,111.540813 1.99987456,104.234833 C4.02221627,104.472643 6.08004574,104.594302 8.16644978,104.594302 C20.277456,104.594302 31.4238403,100.47763 40.270894,93.5715185 C28.9590538,93.3635501 19.4123842,85.9189246 16.1230832,75.6885328 C17.7011365,75.9892376 19.320669,76.1503787 20.9862896,76.1503787 C23.344152,76.1503787 25.6278127,75.8359011 27.7971751,75.247346 C15.9709927,72.8821073 7.06079851,62.4745062 7.06079851,49.9982394 C7.06079851,49.8898938 7.06079851,49.7820074 7.06264203,49.67458 C10.5482779,51.6032228 14.5339687,52.7615103 18.7717609,52.8951059 C11.8355159,48.277565 7.2714207,40.3958845 7.2714207,31.4624258 C7.2714207,26.7434257 8.54621495,22.3200804 10.7713439,18.5169676 C23.5211299,34.0957738 42.568842,44.3472839 64.0532269,45.4210985 C63.6126256,43.5365285 63.3835682,41.5711584 63.3835682,39.5529928 C63.3835682,25.3326379 74.95811,13.8034766 89.2347917,13.8034766 C96.6697089,13.8034766 103.387958,16.930807 108.103682,21.9353619 C113.991886,20.780288 119.52429,18.6372496 124.518847,15.6866694 C122.588682,21.6993889 118.490075,26.7457211 113.152623,29.9327334 C118.381769,29.3102055 123.363882,27.926045 127.999875,25.8780385 C124.534056,31.0418981 120.151087,35.5772616 115.100763,39.2077561 C115.150538,40.3118708 115.175426,41.4224128 115.175426,42.538923 C115.175426,76.5663154 89.1744164,115.803477 41.6263422,115.803477\"></path>\n </g>\n</svg>\n"
},
"$:/core/images/underline": {
"title": "$:/core/images/underline",
"tags": "$:/tags/Image",
"text": "<svg class=\"tc-image-underline tc-image-button\" width=\"22pt\" height=\"22pt\" viewBox=\"0 0 128 128\">\n <g fill-rule=\"evenodd\">\n <path d=\"M7,117.421488 L121.247934,117.421488 L121.247934,128 L7,128 L7,117.421488 Z M104.871212,98.8958333 L104.871212,0 L88.6117424,0 L88.6117424,55.8560606 C88.6117424,60.3194668 88.0060035,64.432115 86.7945076,68.1941288 C85.5830116,71.9561425 83.7657949,75.239885 81.342803,78.0454545 C78.9198111,80.8510241 75.8911167,83.0189317 72.2566288,84.5492424 C68.6221409,86.0795531 64.3182067,86.844697 59.344697,86.844697 C53.0959284,86.844697 48.1862552,85.0593613 44.6155303,81.4886364 C41.0448054,77.9179114 39.2594697,73.0720003 39.2594697,66.9507576 L39.2594697,0 L23,0 L23,65.0378788 C23,70.3939662 23.5419769,75.2717583 24.625947,79.6714015 C25.709917,84.0710447 27.5908957,87.864883 30.2689394,91.0530303 C32.9469831,94.2411776 36.4538925,96.6960141 40.7897727,98.4176136 C45.125653,100.139213 50.545422,101 57.0492424,101 C64.3182182,101 70.630655,99.5653553 75.9867424,96.6960227 C81.3428298,93.8266902 85.742407,89.33147 89.1856061,83.2102273 L89.5681818,83.2102273 L89.5681818,98.8958333 L104.871212,98.8958333 Z\"></path>\n </g>\n</svg>"
},
"$:/core/images/unfold-all-button": {
"title": "$:/core/images/unfold-all-button",
"tags": "$:/tags/Image",
"text": "<svg class=\"tc-image-unfold-all tc-image-button\" width=\"22pt\" height=\"22pt\" viewBox=\"0 0 128 128\">\n <g fill-rule=\"evenodd\">\n <rect x=\"0\" y=\"0\" width=\"128\" height=\"16\" rx=\"8\"></rect>\n <rect x=\"0\" y=\"64\" width=\"128\" height=\"16\" rx=\"8\"></rect>\n <path d=\"M85.598226,8.34884273 C84.1490432,6.89863875 82.1463102,6 79.9340286,6 L47.9482224,6 C43.5292967,6 39.9411255,9.581722 39.9411255,14 C39.9411255,18.4092877 43.5260249,22 47.9482224,22 L71.9411255,22 L71.9411255,45.9929031 C71.9411255,50.4118288 75.5228475,54 79.9411255,54 C84.3504132,54 87.9411255,50.4151006 87.9411255,45.9929031 L87.9411255,14.0070969 C87.9411255,11.7964515 87.0447363,9.79371715 85.5956548,8.34412458 Z\" transform=\"translate(63.941125, 30.000000) scale(1, -1) rotate(-45.000000) translate(-63.941125, -30.000000) \"></path>\n <path d=\"M85.6571005,72.2899682 C84.2079177,70.8397642 82.2051847,69.9411255 79.9929031,69.9411255 L48.0070969,69.9411255 C43.5881712,69.9411255 40,73.5228475 40,77.9411255 C40,82.3504132 43.5848994,85.9411255 48.0070969,85.9411255 L72,85.9411255 L72,109.934029 C72,114.352954 75.581722,117.941125 80,117.941125 C84.4092877,117.941125 88,114.356226 88,109.934029 L88,77.9482224 C88,75.737577 87.1036108,73.7348426 85.6545293,72.2852501 Z\" transform=\"translate(64.000000, 93.941125) scale(1, -1) rotate(-45.000000) translate(-64.000000, -93.941125) \"></path>\n </g>\n</svg>"
},
"$:/core/images/unfold-button": {
"title": "$:/core/images/unfold-button",
"tags": "$:/tags/Image",
"text": "<svg class=\"tc-image-unfold tc-image-button\" width=\"22pt\" height=\"22pt\" viewBox=\"0 0 128 128\">\n <g fill-rule=\"evenodd\">\n <rect x=\"0\" y=\"0\" width=\"128\" height=\"16\" rx=\"8\"></rect>\n <path d=\"M85.598226,11.3488427 C84.1490432,9.89863875 82.1463102,9 79.9340286,9 L47.9482224,9 C43.5292967,9 39.9411255,12.581722 39.9411255,17 C39.9411255,21.4092877 43.5260249,25 47.9482224,25 L71.9411255,25 L71.9411255,48.9929031 C71.9411255,53.4118288 75.5228475,57 79.9411255,57 C84.3504132,57 87.9411255,53.4151006 87.9411255,48.9929031 L87.9411255,17.0070969 C87.9411255,14.7964515 87.0447363,12.7937171 85.5956548,11.3441246 Z\" transform=\"translate(63.941125, 33.000000) scale(1, -1) rotate(-45.000000) translate(-63.941125, -33.000000) \"></path>\n <path d=\"M85.6571005,53.4077172 C84.2079177,51.9575133 82.2051847,51.0588745 79.9929031,51.0588745 L48.0070969,51.0588745 C43.5881712,51.0588745 40,54.6405965 40,59.0588745 C40,63.4681622 43.5848994,67.0588745 48.0070969,67.0588745 L72,67.0588745 L72,91.0517776 C72,95.4707033 75.581722,99.0588745 80,99.0588745 C84.4092877,99.0588745 88,95.4739751 88,91.0517776 L88,59.0659714 C88,56.855326 87.1036108,54.8525917 85.6545293,53.4029991 Z\" transform=\"translate(64.000000, 75.058875) scale(1, -1) rotate(-45.000000) translate(-64.000000, -75.058875) \"></path>\n </g>\n</svg>"
},
"$:/core/images/unlocked-padlock": {
"title": "$:/core/images/unlocked-padlock",
"tags": "$:/tags/Image",
"text": "<svg class=\"tc-image-unlocked-padlock tc-image-button\" width=\"22pt\" height=\"22pt\" viewBox=\"0 0 128 128\">\n <g fill-rule=\"evenodd\">\n <path d=\"M48.6266053,64 L105,64 L105,96.0097716 C105,113.673909 90.6736461,128 73.001193,128 L55.998807,128 C38.3179793,128 24,113.677487 24,96.0097716 L24,64 L30.136303,64 C19.6806213,51.3490406 2.77158986,28.2115132 25.8366966,8.85759246 C50.4723026,-11.8141335 71.6711028,13.2108337 81.613302,25.0594855 C91.5555012,36.9081373 78.9368488,47.4964439 69.1559674,34.9513593 C59.375086,22.4062748 47.9893192,10.8049522 35.9485154,20.9083862 C23.9077117,31.0118202 34.192312,43.2685325 44.7624679,55.8655518 C47.229397,58.805523 48.403443,61.5979188 48.6266053,64 Z M67.7315279,92.3641717 C70.8232551,91.0923621 73,88.0503841 73,84.5 C73,79.8055796 69.1944204,76 64.5,76 C59.8055796,76 56,79.8055796 56,84.5 C56,87.947435 58.0523387,90.9155206 61.0018621,92.2491029 L55.9067479,115.020857 L72.8008958,115.020857 L67.7315279,92.3641717 L67.7315279,92.3641717 Z\"></path>\n </g>\n</svg>"
},
"$:/core/images/up-arrow": {
"title": "$:/core/images/up-arrow",
"created": "20150316000544368",
"modified": "20150316000831867",
"tags": "$:/tags/Image",
"text": "<svg class=\"tc-image-up-arrow tc-image-button\" width=\"22pt\" height=\"22pt\" viewBox=\"0 0 128 128\">\n<path transform=\"rotate(-135, 63.8945, 64.1752)\" d=\"m109.07576,109.35336c-1.43248,1.43361 -3.41136,2.32182 -5.59717,2.32182l-79.16816,0c-4.36519,0 -7.91592,-3.5444 -7.91592,-7.91666c0,-4.36337 3.54408,-7.91667 7.91592,-7.91667l71.25075,0l0,-71.25074c0,-4.3652 3.54442,-7.91592 7.91667,-7.91592c4.36336,0 7.91667,3.54408 7.91667,7.91592l0,79.16815c0,2.1825 -0.88602,4.16136 -2.3185,5.59467l-0.00027,-0.00056l0.00001,-0.00001z\" />\n</svg>\n \n"
},
"$:/core/images/video": {
"title": "$:/core/images/video",
"tags": "$:/tags/Image",
"text": "<svg class=\"tc-image-video tc-image-button\" width=\"22pt\" height=\"22pt\" viewBox=\"0 0 128 128\">\n <g fill-rule=\"evenodd\">\n <path d=\"M64,12 C29.0909091,12 8.72727273,14.9166667 5.81818182,17.8333333 C2.90909091,20.75 1.93784382e-15,41.1666667 0,64.5 C1.93784382e-15,87.8333333 2.90909091,108.25 5.81818182,111.166667 C8.72727273,114.083333 29.0909091,117 64,117 C98.9090909,117 119.272727,114.083333 122.181818,111.166667 C125.090909,108.25 128,87.8333333 128,64.5 C128,41.1666667 125.090909,20.75 122.181818,17.8333333 C119.272727,14.9166667 98.9090909,12 64,12 Z M54.9161194,44.6182253 C51.102648,42.0759111 48.0112186,43.7391738 48.0112186,48.3159447 L48.0112186,79.6840553 C48.0112186,84.2685636 51.109784,85.9193316 54.9161194,83.3817747 L77.0838806,68.6032672 C80.897352,66.0609529 80.890216,61.9342897 77.0838806,59.3967328 L54.9161194,44.6182253 Z\"></path>\n </g>\n</svg>"
},
"$:/core/images/warning": {
"title": "$:/core/images/warning",
"tags": "$:/tags/Image",
"text": "<svg class=\"tc-image-warning tc-image-button\" width=\"22pt\" height=\"22pt\" viewBox=\"0 0 128 128\">\n <g fill-rule=\"evenodd\">\n <path d=\"M57.0717968,11 C60.1509982,5.66666667 67.8490018,5.66666667 70.9282032,11 L126.353829,107 C129.433031,112.333333 125.584029,119 119.425626,119 L8.57437416,119 C2.41597129,119 -1.43303051,112.333333 1.64617093,107 L57.0717968,11 Z M64,37 C59.581722,37 56,40.5820489 56,44.9935776 L56,73.0064224 C56,77.4211534 59.5907123,81 64,81 C68.418278,81 72,77.4179511 72,73.0064224 L72,44.9935776 C72,40.5788466 68.4092877,37 64,37 Z M64,104 C68.418278,104 72,100.418278 72,96 C72,91.581722 68.418278,88 64,88 C59.581722,88 56,91.581722 56,96 C56,100.418278 59.581722,104 64,104 Z\"></path>\n </g>\n</svg>"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/AdvancedSearch/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/AdvancedSearch/Caption",
"text": "advanced search"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/AdvancedSearch/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/AdvancedSearch/Hint",
"text": "Advanced search"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/Cancel/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/Cancel/Caption",
"text": "cancel"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/Cancel/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/Cancel/Hint",
"text": "Discard changes to this tiddler"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/Clone/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/Clone/Caption",
"text": "clone"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/Clone/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/Clone/Hint",
"text": "Clone this tiddler"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/Close/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/Close/Caption",
"text": "close"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/Close/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/Close/Hint",
"text": "Close this tiddler"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/CloseAll/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/CloseAll/Caption",
"text": "close all"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/CloseAll/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/CloseAll/Hint",
"text": "Close all tiddlers"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/CloseOthers/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/CloseOthers/Caption",
"text": "close others"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/CloseOthers/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/CloseOthers/Hint",
"text": "Close other tiddlers"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/ControlPanel/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/ControlPanel/Caption",
"text": "control panel"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/ControlPanel/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/ControlPanel/Hint",
"text": "Open control panel"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/CopyToClipboard/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/CopyToClipboard/Caption",
"text": "copy to clipboard"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/CopyToClipboard/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/CopyToClipboard/Hint",
"text": "Copy this text to the clipboard"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/Delete/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/Delete/Caption",
"text": "delete"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/Delete/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/Delete/Hint",
"text": "Delete this tiddler"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/Edit/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/Edit/Caption",
"text": "edit"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/Edit/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/Edit/Hint",
"text": "Edit this tiddler"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/Encryption/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/Encryption/Caption",
"text": "encryption"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/Encryption/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/Encryption/Hint",
"text": "Set or clear a password for saving this wiki"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/Encryption/ClearPassword/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/Encryption/ClearPassword/Caption",
"text": "clear password"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/Encryption/ClearPassword/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/Encryption/ClearPassword/Hint",
"text": "Clear the password and save this wiki without encryption"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/Encryption/SetPassword/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/Encryption/SetPassword/Caption",
"text": "set password"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/Encryption/SetPassword/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/Encryption/SetPassword/Hint",
"text": "Set a password for saving this wiki with encryption"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/ExportPage/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/ExportPage/Caption",
"text": "export all"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/ExportPage/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/ExportPage/Hint",
"text": "Export all tiddlers"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/ExportTiddler/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/ExportTiddler/Caption",
"text": "export tiddler"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/ExportTiddler/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/ExportTiddler/Hint",
"text": "Export tiddler"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/ExportTiddlers/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/ExportTiddlers/Caption",
"text": "export tiddlers"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/ExportTiddlers/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/ExportTiddlers/Hint",
"text": "Export tiddlers"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/Fold/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/Fold/Caption",
"text": "fold tiddler"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/Fold/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/Fold/Hint",
"text": "Fold the body of this tiddler"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/Fold/FoldBar/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/Fold/FoldBar/Caption",
"text": "fold-bar"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/Fold/FoldBar/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/Fold/FoldBar/Hint",
"text": "Optional bars to fold and unfold tiddlers"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/Unfold/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/Unfold/Caption",
"text": "unfold tiddler"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/Unfold/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/Unfold/Hint",
"text": "Unfold the body of this tiddler"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/FoldOthers/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/FoldOthers/Caption",
"text": "fold other tiddlers"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/FoldOthers/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/FoldOthers/Hint",
"text": "Fold the bodies of other opened tiddlers"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/FoldAll/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/FoldAll/Caption",
"text": "fold all tiddlers"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/FoldAll/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/FoldAll/Hint",
"text": "Fold the bodies of all opened tiddlers"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/UnfoldAll/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/UnfoldAll/Caption",
"text": "unfold all tiddlers"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/UnfoldAll/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/UnfoldAll/Hint",
"text": "Unfold the bodies of all opened tiddlers"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/FullScreen/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/FullScreen/Caption",
"text": "full-screen"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/FullScreen/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/FullScreen/Hint",
"text": "Enter or leave full-screen mode"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/Help/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/Help/Caption",
"text": "help"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/Help/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/Help/Hint",
"text": "Show help panel"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/Import/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/Import/Caption",
"text": "import"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/Import/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/Import/Hint",
"text": "Import many types of file including text, image, TiddlyWiki or JSON"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/Info/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/Info/Caption",
"text": "info"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/Info/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/Info/Hint",
"text": "Show information for this tiddler"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/Home/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/Home/Caption",
"text": "home"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/Home/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/Home/Hint",
"text": "Open the default tiddlers"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/Language/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/Language/Caption",
"text": "language"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/Language/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/Language/Hint",
"text": "Choose the user interface language"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/Manager/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/Manager/Caption",
"text": "tiddler manager"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/Manager/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/Manager/Hint",
"text": "Open tiddler manager"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/More/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/More/Caption",
"text": "more"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/More/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/More/Hint",
"text": "More actions"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/NewHere/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/NewHere/Caption",
"text": "new here"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/NewHere/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/NewHere/Hint",
"text": "Create a new tiddler tagged with this one"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/NewJournal/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/NewJournal/Caption",
"text": "new journal"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/NewJournal/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/NewJournal/Hint",
"text": "Create a new journal tiddler"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/NewJournalHere/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/NewJournalHere/Caption",
"text": "new journal here"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/NewJournalHere/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/NewJournalHere/Hint",
"text": "Create a new journal tiddler tagged with this one"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/NewImage/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/NewImage/Caption",
"text": "new image"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/NewImage/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/NewImage/Hint",
"text": "Create a new image tiddler"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/NewMarkdown/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/NewMarkdown/Caption",
"text": "new Markdown tiddler"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/NewMarkdown/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/NewMarkdown/Hint",
"text": "Create a new Markdown tiddler"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/NewTiddler/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/NewTiddler/Caption",
"text": "new tiddler"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/NewTiddler/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/NewTiddler/Hint",
"text": "Create a new tiddler"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/OpenWindow/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/OpenWindow/Caption",
"text": "open in new window"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/OpenWindow/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/OpenWindow/Hint",
"text": "Open tiddler in new window"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/Palette/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/Palette/Caption",
"text": "palette"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/Palette/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/Palette/Hint",
"text": "Choose the colour palette"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/Permalink/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/Permalink/Caption",
"text": "permalink"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/Permalink/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/Permalink/Hint",
"text": "Set browser address bar to a direct link to this tiddler"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/Permaview/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/Permaview/Caption",
"text": "permaview"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/Permaview/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/Permaview/Hint",
"text": "Set browser address bar to a direct link to all the tiddlers in this story"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/Print/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/Print/Caption",
"text": "print page"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/Print/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/Print/Hint",
"text": "Print the current page"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/Refresh/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/Refresh/Caption",
"text": "refresh"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/Refresh/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/Refresh/Hint",
"text": "Perform a full refresh of the wiki"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/Save/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/Save/Caption",
"text": "ok"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/Save/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/Save/Hint",
"text": "Confirm changes to this tiddler"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/SaveWiki/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/SaveWiki/Caption",
"text": "save changes"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/SaveWiki/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/SaveWiki/Hint",
"text": "Save changes"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/StoryView/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/StoryView/Caption",
"text": "storyview"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/StoryView/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/StoryView/Hint",
"text": "Choose the story visualisation"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/HideSideBar/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/HideSideBar/Caption",
"text": "hide sidebar"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/HideSideBar/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/HideSideBar/Hint",
"text": "Hide sidebar"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/ShowSideBar/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/ShowSideBar/Caption",
"text": "show sidebar"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/ShowSideBar/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/ShowSideBar/Hint",
"text": "Show sidebar"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/TagManager/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/TagManager/Caption",
"text": "tag manager"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/TagManager/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/TagManager/Hint",
"text": "Open tag manager"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/Timestamp/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/Timestamp/Caption",
"text": "timestamps"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/Timestamp/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/Timestamp/Hint",
"text": "Choose whether modifications update timestamps"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/Timestamp/On/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/Timestamp/On/Caption",
"text": "timestamps are on"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/Timestamp/On/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/Timestamp/On/Hint",
"text": "Update timestamps when tiddlers are modified"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/Timestamp/Off/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/Timestamp/Off/Caption",
"text": "timestamps are off"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/Timestamp/Off/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/Timestamp/Off/Hint",
"text": "Don't update timestamps when tiddlers are modified"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/Theme/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/Theme/Caption",
"text": "theme"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/Theme/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/Theme/Hint",
"text": "Choose the display theme"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/Bold/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/Bold/Caption",
"text": "bold"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/Bold/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/Bold/Hint",
"text": "Apply bold formatting to selection"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/Clear/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/Clear/Caption",
"text": "clear"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/Clear/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/Clear/Hint",
"text": "Clear image to solid colour"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/EditorHeight/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/EditorHeight/Caption",
"text": "editor height"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/EditorHeight/Caption/Auto": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/EditorHeight/Caption/Auto",
"text": "Automatically adjust height to fit content"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/EditorHeight/Caption/Fixed": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/EditorHeight/Caption/Fixed",
"text": "Fixed height:"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/EditorHeight/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/EditorHeight/Hint",
"text": "Choose the height of the text editor"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/Excise/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/Excise/Caption",
"text": "excise"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/Excise/Caption/Excise": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/Excise/Caption/Excise",
"text": "Perform excision"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/Excise/Caption/MacroName": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/Excise/Caption/MacroName",
"text": "Macro name:"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/Excise/Caption/NewTitle": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/Excise/Caption/NewTitle",
"text": "Title of new tiddler:"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/Excise/Caption/Replace": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/Excise/Caption/Replace",
"text": "Replace excised text with:"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/Excise/Caption/Replace/Macro": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/Excise/Caption/Replace/Macro",
"text": "macro"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/Excise/Caption/Replace/Link": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/Excise/Caption/Replace/Link",
"text": "link"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/Excise/Caption/Replace/Transclusion": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/Excise/Caption/Replace/Transclusion",
"text": "transclusion"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/Excise/Caption/Tag": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/Excise/Caption/Tag",
"text": "Tag new tiddler with the title of this tiddler"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/Excise/Caption/TiddlerExists": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/Excise/Caption/TiddlerExists",
"text": "Warning: tiddler already exists"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/Excise/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/Excise/Hint",
"text": "Excise the selected text into a new tiddler"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/Heading1/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/Heading1/Caption",
"text": "heading 1"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/Heading1/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/Heading1/Hint",
"text": "Apply heading level 1 formatting to lines containing selection"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/Heading2/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/Heading2/Caption",
"text": "heading 2"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/Heading2/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/Heading2/Hint",
"text": "Apply heading level 2 formatting to lines containing selection"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/Heading3/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/Heading3/Caption",
"text": "heading 3"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/Heading3/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/Heading3/Hint",
"text": "Apply heading level 3 formatting to lines containing selection"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/Heading4/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/Heading4/Caption",
"text": "heading 4"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/Heading4/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/Heading4/Hint",
"text": "Apply heading level 4 formatting to lines containing selection"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/Heading5/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/Heading5/Caption",
"text": "heading 5"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/Heading5/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/Heading5/Hint",
"text": "Apply heading level 5 formatting to lines containing selection"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/Heading6/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/Heading6/Caption",
"text": "heading 6"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/Heading6/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/Heading6/Hint",
"text": "Apply heading level 6 formatting to lines containing selection"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/Italic/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/Italic/Caption",
"text": "italic"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/Italic/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/Italic/Hint",
"text": "Apply italic formatting to selection"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/LineWidth/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/LineWidth/Caption",
"text": "line width"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/LineWidth/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/LineWidth/Hint",
"text": "Set line width for painting"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/Link/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/Link/Caption",
"text": "link"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/Link/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/Link/Hint",
"text": "Create wikitext link"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/Linkify/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/Linkify/Caption",
"text": "wikilink"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/Linkify/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/Linkify/Hint",
"text": "Wrap selection in square brackets"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/ListBullet/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/ListBullet/Caption",
"text": "bulleted list"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/ListBullet/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/ListBullet/Hint",
"text": "Apply bulleted list formatting to lines containing selection"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/ListNumber/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/ListNumber/Caption",
"text": "numbered list"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/ListNumber/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/ListNumber/Hint",
"text": "Apply numbered list formatting to lines containing selection"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/MonoBlock/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/MonoBlock/Caption",
"text": "monospaced block"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/MonoBlock/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/MonoBlock/Hint",
"text": "Apply monospaced block formatting to lines containing selection"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/MonoLine/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/MonoLine/Caption",
"text": "monospaced"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/MonoLine/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/MonoLine/Hint",
"text": "Apply monospaced character formatting to selection"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/Opacity/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/Opacity/Caption",
"text": "opacity"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/Opacity/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/Opacity/Hint",
"text": "Set painting opacity"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/Paint/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/Paint/Caption",
"text": "paint colour"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/Paint/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/Paint/Hint",
"text": "Set painting colour"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/Picture/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/Picture/Caption",
"text": "picture"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/Picture/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/Picture/Hint",
"text": "Insert picture"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/Preview/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/Preview/Caption",
"text": "preview"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/Preview/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/Preview/Hint",
"text": "Show preview pane"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/PreviewType/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/PreviewType/Caption",
"text": "preview type"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/PreviewType/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/PreviewType/Hint",
"text": "Choose preview type"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/Quote/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/Quote/Caption",
"text": "quote"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/Quote/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/Quote/Hint",
"text": "Apply quoted text formatting to lines containing selection"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/RotateLeft/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/RotateLeft/Caption",
"text": "rotate left"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/RotateLeft/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/RotateLeft/Hint",
"text": "Rotate image left by 90 degrees"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/Size/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/Size/Caption",
"text": "image size"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/Size/Caption/Height": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/Size/Caption/Height",
"text": "Height:"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/Size/Caption/Resize": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/Size/Caption/Resize",
"text": "Resize image"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/Size/Caption/Width": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/Size/Caption/Width",
"text": "Width:"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/Size/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/Size/Hint",
"text": "Set image size"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/Stamp/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/Stamp/Caption",
"text": "stamp"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/Stamp/Caption/New": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/Stamp/Caption/New",
"text": "Add your own"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/Stamp/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/Stamp/Hint",
"text": "Insert a preconfigured snippet of text"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/Stamp/New/Title": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/Stamp/New/Title",
"text": "Name as shown in menu"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/Stamp/New/Text": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/Stamp/New/Text",
"text": "Text of snippet. (Remember to add a descriptive title in the caption field)."
},
"$:/language/Buttons/Strikethrough/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/Strikethrough/Caption",
"text": "strikethrough"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/Strikethrough/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/Strikethrough/Hint",
"text": "Apply strikethrough formatting to selection"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/Subscript/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/Subscript/Caption",
"text": "subscript"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/Subscript/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/Subscript/Hint",
"text": "Apply subscript formatting to selection"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/Superscript/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/Superscript/Caption",
"text": "superscript"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/Superscript/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/Superscript/Hint",
"text": "Apply superscript formatting to selection"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/Transcludify/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/Transcludify/Caption",
"text": "transclusion"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/Transcludify/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/Transcludify/Hint",
"text": "Wrap selection in curly brackets"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/Underline/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/Underline/Caption",
"text": "underline"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/Underline/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/Underline/Hint",
"text": "Apply underline formatting to selection"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Advanced/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Advanced/Caption",
"text": "Advanced"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Advanced/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Advanced/Hint",
"text": "Internal information about this TiddlyWiki"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Appearance/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Appearance/Caption",
"text": "Appearance"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Appearance/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Appearance/Hint",
"text": "Ways to customise the appearance of your TiddlyWiki."
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Basics/AnimDuration/Prompt": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Basics/AnimDuration/Prompt",
"text": "Animation duration:"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Basics/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Basics/Caption",
"text": "Basics"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Basics/DefaultTiddlers/BottomHint": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Basics/DefaultTiddlers/BottomHint",
"text": "Use [[double square brackets]] for titles with spaces. Or you can choose to <$button set=\"$:/DefaultTiddlers\" setTo=\"[list[$:/StoryList]]\">retain story ordering</$button>"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Basics/DefaultTiddlers/Prompt": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Basics/DefaultTiddlers/Prompt",
"text": "Default tiddlers:"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Basics/DefaultTiddlers/TopHint": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Basics/DefaultTiddlers/TopHint",
"text": "Choose which tiddlers are displayed at startup:"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Basics/Language/Prompt": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Basics/Language/Prompt",
"text": "Hello! Current language:"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Basics/NewJournal/Title/Prompt": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Basics/NewJournal/Title/Prompt",
"text": "Title of new journal tiddlers"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Basics/NewJournal/Text/Prompt": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Basics/NewJournal/Text/Prompt",
"text": "Text for new journal tiddlers"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Basics/NewJournal/Tags/Prompt": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Basics/NewJournal/Tags/Prompt",
"text": "Tags for new journal tiddlers"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Basics/NewTiddler/Title/Prompt": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Basics/NewTiddler/Title/Prompt",
"text": "Title of new tiddlers"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Basics/OverriddenShadowTiddlers/Prompt": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Basics/OverriddenShadowTiddlers/Prompt",
"text": "Number of overridden shadow tiddlers:"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Basics/ShadowTiddlers/Prompt": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Basics/ShadowTiddlers/Prompt",
"text": "Number of shadow tiddlers:"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Basics/Subtitle/Prompt": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Basics/Subtitle/Prompt",
"text": "Subtitle:"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Basics/SystemTiddlers/Prompt": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Basics/SystemTiddlers/Prompt",
"text": "Number of system tiddlers:"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Basics/Tags/Prompt": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Basics/Tags/Prompt",
"text": "Number of tags:"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Basics/Tiddlers/Prompt": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Basics/Tiddlers/Prompt",
"text": "Number of tiddlers:"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Basics/Title/Prompt": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Basics/Title/Prompt",
"text": "Title of this ~TiddlyWiki:"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Basics/Username/Prompt": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Basics/Username/Prompt",
"text": "Username for signing edits:"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Basics/Version/Prompt": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Basics/Version/Prompt",
"text": "~TiddlyWiki version:"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/EditorTypes/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/EditorTypes/Caption",
"text": "Editor Types"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/EditorTypes/Editor/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/EditorTypes/Editor/Caption",
"text": "Editor"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/EditorTypes/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/EditorTypes/Hint",
"text": "These tiddlers determine which editor is used to edit specific tiddler types."
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/EditorTypes/Type/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/EditorTypes/Type/Caption",
"text": "Type"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Info/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Info/Caption",
"text": "Info"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Info/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Info/Hint",
"text": "Information about this TiddlyWiki"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/KeyboardShortcuts/Add/Prompt": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/KeyboardShortcuts/Add/Prompt",
"text": "Type shortcut here"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/KeyboardShortcuts/Add/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/KeyboardShortcuts/Add/Caption",
"text": "add shortcut"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/KeyboardShortcuts/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/KeyboardShortcuts/Caption",
"text": "Keyboard Shortcuts"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/KeyboardShortcuts/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/KeyboardShortcuts/Hint",
"text": "Manage keyboard shortcut assignments"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/KeyboardShortcuts/NoShortcuts/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/KeyboardShortcuts/NoShortcuts/Caption",
"text": "No keyboard shortcuts assigned"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/KeyboardShortcuts/Remove/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/KeyboardShortcuts/Remove/Hint",
"text": "remove keyboard shortcut"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/KeyboardShortcuts/Platform/All": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/KeyboardShortcuts/Platform/All",
"text": "All platforms"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/KeyboardShortcuts/Platform/Mac": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/KeyboardShortcuts/Platform/Mac",
"text": "Macintosh platform only"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/KeyboardShortcuts/Platform/NonMac": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/KeyboardShortcuts/Platform/NonMac",
"text": "Non-Macintosh platforms only"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/KeyboardShortcuts/Platform/Linux": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/KeyboardShortcuts/Platform/Linux",
"text": "Linux platform only"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/KeyboardShortcuts/Platform/NonLinux": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/KeyboardShortcuts/Platform/NonLinux",
"text": "Non-Linux platforms only"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/KeyboardShortcuts/Platform/Windows": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/KeyboardShortcuts/Platform/Windows",
"text": "Windows platform only"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/KeyboardShortcuts/Platform/NonWindows": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/KeyboardShortcuts/Platform/NonWindows",
"text": "Non-Windows platforms only"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/LoadedModules/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/LoadedModules/Caption",
"text": "Loaded Modules"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/LoadedModules/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/LoadedModules/Hint",
"text": "These are the currently loaded tiddler modules linked to their source tiddlers. Any italicised modules lack a source tiddler, typically because they were setup during the boot process."
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Palette/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Palette/Caption",
"text": "Palette"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Palette/Editor/Clone/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Palette/Editor/Clone/Caption",
"text": "clone"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Palette/Editor/Clone/Prompt": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Palette/Editor/Clone/Prompt",
"text": "It is recommended that you clone this shadow palette before editing it"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Palette/Editor/Prompt/Modified": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Palette/Editor/Prompt/Modified",
"text": "This shadow palette has been modified"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Palette/Editor/Prompt": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Palette/Editor/Prompt",
"text": "Editing"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Palette/Editor/Reset/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Palette/Editor/Reset/Caption",
"text": "reset"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Palette/HideEditor/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Palette/HideEditor/Caption",
"text": "hide editor"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Palette/Prompt": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Palette/Prompt",
"text": "Current palette:"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Palette/ShowEditor/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Palette/ShowEditor/Caption",
"text": "show editor"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Parsing/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Parsing/Caption",
"text": "Parsing"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Parsing/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Parsing/Hint",
"text": "Here you can globally disable/enable wiki parser rules. For changes to take effect, save and reload your wiki. Disabling certain parser rules can prevent <$text text=\"TiddlyWiki\"/> from functioning correctly. Use [[safe mode|https://tiddlywiki.com/#SafeMode]] to restore normal operation."
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Parsing/Block/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Parsing/Block/Caption",
"text": "Block Parse Rules"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Parsing/Inline/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Parsing/Inline/Caption",
"text": "Inline Parse Rules"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Parsing/Pragma/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Parsing/Pragma/Caption",
"text": "Pragma Parse Rules"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Plugins/Add/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Plugins/Add/Caption",
"text": "Get more plugins"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Plugins/Add/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Plugins/Add/Hint",
"text": "Install plugins from the official library"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Plugins/AlreadyInstalled/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Plugins/AlreadyInstalled/Hint",
"text": "This plugin is already installed at version <$text text=<<installedVersion>>/>"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Plugins/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Plugins/Caption",
"text": "Plugins"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Plugins/Disable/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Plugins/Disable/Caption",
"text": "disable"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Plugins/Disable/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Plugins/Disable/Hint",
"text": "Disable this plugin when reloading page"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Plugins/Disabled/Status": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Plugins/Disabled/Status",
"text": "(disabled)"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Plugins/Empty/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Plugins/Empty/Hint",
"text": "None"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Plugins/Enable/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Plugins/Enable/Caption",
"text": "enable"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Plugins/Enable/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Plugins/Enable/Hint",
"text": "Enable this plugin when reloading page"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Plugins/Install/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Plugins/Install/Caption",
"text": "install"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Plugins/Installed/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Plugins/Installed/Hint",
"text": "Currently installed plugins:"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Plugins/Languages/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Plugins/Languages/Caption",
"text": "Languages"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Plugins/Languages/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Plugins/Languages/Hint",
"text": "Language pack plugins"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Plugins/NoInfoFound/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Plugins/NoInfoFound/Hint",
"text": "No ''\"<$text text=<<currentTab>>/>\"'' found"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Plugins/NotInstalled/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Plugins/NotInstalled/Hint",
"text": "This plugin is not currently installed"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Plugins/OpenPluginLibrary": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Plugins/OpenPluginLibrary",
"text": "open plugin library"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Plugins/ClosePluginLibrary": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Plugins/ClosePluginLibrary",
"text": "close plugin library"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Plugins/Plugins/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Plugins/Plugins/Caption",
"text": "Plugins"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Plugins/Plugins/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Plugins/Plugins/Hint",
"text": "Plugins"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Plugins/Reinstall/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Plugins/Reinstall/Caption",
"text": "reinstall"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Plugins/Themes/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Plugins/Themes/Caption",
"text": "Themes"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Plugins/Themes/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Plugins/Themes/Hint",
"text": "Theme plugins"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Saving/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Saving/Caption",
"text": "Saving"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Saving/DownloadSaver/AutoSave/Description": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Saving/DownloadSaver/AutoSave/Description",
"text": "Permit automatic saving for the download saver"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Saving/DownloadSaver/AutoSave/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Saving/DownloadSaver/AutoSave/Hint",
"text": "Enable Autosave for Download Saver"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Saving/DownloadSaver/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Saving/DownloadSaver/Caption",
"text": "Download Saver"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Saving/DownloadSaver/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Saving/DownloadSaver/Hint",
"text": "These settings apply to the HTML5-compatible download saver"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Saving/General/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Saving/General/Caption",
"text": "General"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Saving/General/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Saving/General/Hint",
"text": "These settings apply to all the loaded savers"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Saving/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Saving/Hint",
"text": "Settings used for saving the entire TiddlyWiki as a single file via a saver module"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Saving/TiddlySpot/Advanced/Heading": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Saving/TiddlySpot/Advanced/Heading",
"text": "Advanced Settings"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Saving/TiddlySpot/BackupDir": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Saving/TiddlySpot/BackupDir",
"text": "Backup Directory"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Saving/TiddlySpot/Backups": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Saving/TiddlySpot/Backups",
"text": "Backups"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Saving/TiddlySpot/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Saving/TiddlySpot/Caption",
"text": "~TiddlySpot Saver"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Saving/TiddlySpot/Description": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Saving/TiddlySpot/Description",
"text": "These settings are only used when saving to http://tiddlyspot.com or a compatible remote server"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Saving/TiddlySpot/Filename": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Saving/TiddlySpot/Filename",
"text": "Upload Filename"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Saving/TiddlySpot/Heading": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Saving/TiddlySpot/Heading",
"text": "~TiddlySpot"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Saving/TiddlySpot/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Saving/TiddlySpot/Hint",
"text": "//The server URL defaults to `http://<wikiname>.tiddlyspot.com/store.cgi` and can be changed to use a custom server address, e.g. `http://example.com/store.php`.//"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Saving/TiddlySpot/Password": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Saving/TiddlySpot/Password",
"text": "Password"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Saving/TiddlySpot/ServerURL": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Saving/TiddlySpot/ServerURL",
"text": "Server URL"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Saving/TiddlySpot/UploadDir": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Saving/TiddlySpot/UploadDir",
"text": "Upload Directory"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Saving/TiddlySpot/UserName": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Saving/TiddlySpot/UserName",
"text": "Wiki Name"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/AutoSave/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/AutoSave/Caption",
"text": "Autosave"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/AutoSave/Disabled/Description": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/AutoSave/Disabled/Description",
"text": "Do not save changes automatically"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/AutoSave/Enabled/Description": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/AutoSave/Enabled/Description",
"text": "Save changes automatically"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/AutoSave/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/AutoSave/Hint",
"text": "Attempt to automatically save changes during editing when using a supporting saver"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/CamelCase/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/CamelCase/Caption",
"text": "Camel Case Wiki Links"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/CamelCase/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/CamelCase/Hint",
"text": "You can globally disable automatic linking of ~CamelCase phrases. Requires reload to take effect"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/CamelCase/Description": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/CamelCase/Description",
"text": "Enable automatic ~CamelCase linking"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/Caption",
"text": "Settings"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/EditorToolbar/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/EditorToolbar/Caption",
"text": "Editor Toolbar"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/EditorToolbar/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/EditorToolbar/Hint",
"text": "Enable or disable the editor toolbar:"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/EditorToolbar/Description": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/EditorToolbar/Description",
"text": "Show editor toolbar"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/InfoPanelMode/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/InfoPanelMode/Caption",
"text": "Tiddler Info Panel Mode"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/InfoPanelMode/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/InfoPanelMode/Hint",
"text": "Control when the tiddler info panel closes:"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/InfoPanelMode/Popup/Description": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/InfoPanelMode/Popup/Description",
"text": "Tiddler info panel closes automatically"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/InfoPanelMode/Sticky/Description": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/InfoPanelMode/Sticky/Description",
"text": "Tiddler info panel stays open until explicitly closed"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/Hint",
"text": "These settings let you customise the behaviour of TiddlyWiki."
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/NavigationAddressBar/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/NavigationAddressBar/Caption",
"text": "Navigation Address Bar"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/NavigationAddressBar/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/NavigationAddressBar/Hint",
"text": "Behaviour of the browser address bar when navigating to a tiddler:"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/NavigationAddressBar/No/Description": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/NavigationAddressBar/No/Description",
"text": "Do not update the address bar"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/NavigationAddressBar/Permalink/Description": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/NavigationAddressBar/Permalink/Description",
"text": "Include the target tiddler"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/NavigationAddressBar/Permaview/Description": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/NavigationAddressBar/Permaview/Description",
"text": "Include the target tiddler and the current story sequence"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/NavigationHistory/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/NavigationHistory/Caption",
"text": "Navigation History"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/NavigationHistory/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/NavigationHistory/Hint",
"text": "Update browser history when navigating to a tiddler:"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/NavigationHistory/No/Description": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/NavigationHistory/No/Description",
"text": "Do not update history"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/NavigationHistory/Yes/Description": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/NavigationHistory/Yes/Description",
"text": "Update history"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/NavigationPermalinkviewMode/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/NavigationPermalinkviewMode/Caption",
"text": "Permalink/permaview Mode"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/NavigationPermalinkviewMode/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/NavigationPermalinkviewMode/Hint",
"text": "Choose how permalink/permaview is handled:"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/NavigationPermalinkviewMode/CopyToClipboard/Description": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/NavigationPermalinkviewMode/CopyToClipboard/Description",
"text": "Copy permalink/permaview URL to clipboard"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/NavigationPermalinkviewMode/UpdateAddressBar/Description": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/NavigationPermalinkviewMode/UpdateAddressBar/Description",
"text": "Update address bar with permalink/permaview URL"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/PerformanceInstrumentation/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/PerformanceInstrumentation/Caption",
"text": "Performance Instrumentation"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/PerformanceInstrumentation/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/PerformanceInstrumentation/Hint",
"text": "Displays performance statistics in the browser developer console. Requires reload to take effect"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/PerformanceInstrumentation/Description": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/PerformanceInstrumentation/Description",
"text": "Enable performance instrumentation"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/ToolbarButtonStyle/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/ToolbarButtonStyle/Caption",
"text": "Toolbar Button Style"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/ToolbarButtonStyle/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/ToolbarButtonStyle/Hint",
"text": "Choose the style for toolbar buttons:"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/ToolbarButtonStyle/Styles/Borderless": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/ToolbarButtonStyle/Styles/Borderless",
"text": "Borderless"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/ToolbarButtonStyle/Styles/Boxed": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/ToolbarButtonStyle/Styles/Boxed",
"text": "Boxed"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/ToolbarButtonStyle/Styles/Rounded": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/ToolbarButtonStyle/Styles/Rounded",
"text": "Rounded"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/ToolbarButtons/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/ToolbarButtons/Caption",
"text": "Toolbar Buttons"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/ToolbarButtons/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/ToolbarButtons/Hint",
"text": "Default toolbar button appearance:"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/ToolbarButtons/Icons/Description": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/ToolbarButtons/Icons/Description",
"text": "Include icon"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/ToolbarButtons/Text/Description": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/ToolbarButtons/Text/Description",
"text": "Include text"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/DefaultSidebarTab/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/DefaultSidebarTab/Caption",
"text": "Default Sidebar Tab"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/DefaultSidebarTab/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/DefaultSidebarTab/Hint",
"text": "Specify which sidebar tab is displayed by default"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/DefaultMoreSidebarTab/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/DefaultMoreSidebarTab/Caption",
"text": "Default More Sidebar Tab"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/DefaultMoreSidebarTab/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/DefaultMoreSidebarTab/Hint",
"text": "Specify which More sidebar tab is displayed by default"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/LinkToBehaviour/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/LinkToBehaviour/Caption",
"text": "Tiddler Opening Behaviour"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/LinkToBehaviour/InsideRiver/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/LinkToBehaviour/InsideRiver/Hint",
"text": "Navigation from //within// the story river"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/LinkToBehaviour/OutsideRiver/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/LinkToBehaviour/OutsideRiver/Hint",
"text": "Navigation from //outside// the story river"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/LinkToBehaviour/OpenAbove": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/LinkToBehaviour/OpenAbove",
"text": "Open above the current tiddler"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/LinkToBehaviour/OpenBelow": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/LinkToBehaviour/OpenBelow",
"text": "Open below the current tiddler"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/LinkToBehaviour/OpenAtTop": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/LinkToBehaviour/OpenAtTop",
"text": "Open at the top of the story river"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/LinkToBehaviour/OpenAtBottom": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/LinkToBehaviour/OpenAtBottom",
"text": "Open at the bottom of the story river"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/TitleLinks/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/TitleLinks/Caption",
"text": "Tiddler Titles"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/TitleLinks/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/TitleLinks/Hint",
"text": "Optionally display tiddler titles as links"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/TitleLinks/No/Description": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/TitleLinks/No/Description",
"text": "Do not display tiddler titles as links"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/TitleLinks/Yes/Description": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/TitleLinks/Yes/Description",
"text": "Display tiddler titles as links"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/MissingLinks/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/MissingLinks/Caption",
"text": "Wiki Links"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/MissingLinks/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/MissingLinks/Hint",
"text": "Choose whether to link to tiddlers that do not exist yet"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/MissingLinks/Description": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/MissingLinks/Description",
"text": "Enable links to missing tiddlers"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/StoryView/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/StoryView/Caption",
"text": "Story View"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/StoryView/Prompt": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/StoryView/Prompt",
"text": "Current view:"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Stylesheets/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Stylesheets/Caption",
"text": "Stylesheets"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Stylesheets/Expand/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Stylesheets/Expand/Caption",
"text": "Expand All"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Stylesheets/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Stylesheets/Hint",
"text": "This is the rendered CSS of the current stylesheet tiddlers tagged with <<tag \"$:/tags/Stylesheet\">>"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Stylesheets/Restore/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Stylesheets/Restore/Caption",
"text": "Restore"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Theme/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Theme/Caption",
"text": "Theme"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Theme/Prompt": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Theme/Prompt",
"text": "Current theme:"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/TiddlerFields/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/TiddlerFields/Caption",
"text": "Tiddler Fields"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/TiddlerFields/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/TiddlerFields/Hint",
"text": "This is the full set of TiddlerFields in use in this wiki (including system tiddlers but excluding shadow tiddlers)."
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Toolbars/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Toolbars/Caption",
"text": "Toolbars"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Toolbars/EditToolbar/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Toolbars/EditToolbar/Caption",
"text": "Edit Toolbar"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Toolbars/EditToolbar/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Toolbars/EditToolbar/Hint",
"text": "Choose which buttons are displayed for tiddlers in edit mode. Drag and drop to change the ordering"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Toolbars/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Toolbars/Hint",
"text": "Select which toolbar buttons are displayed"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Toolbars/PageControls/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Toolbars/PageControls/Caption",
"text": "Page Toolbar"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Toolbars/PageControls/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Toolbars/PageControls/Hint",
"text": "Choose which buttons are displayed on the main page toolbar. Drag and drop to change the ordering"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Toolbars/EditorToolbar/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Toolbars/EditorToolbar/Caption",
"text": "Editor Toolbar"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Toolbars/EditorToolbar/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Toolbars/EditorToolbar/Hint",
"text": "Choose which buttons are displayed in the editor toolbar. Note that some buttons will only appear when editing tiddlers of a certain type. Drag and drop to change the ordering"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Toolbars/ViewToolbar/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Toolbars/ViewToolbar/Caption",
"text": "View Toolbar"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Toolbars/ViewToolbar/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Toolbars/ViewToolbar/Hint",
"text": "Choose which buttons are displayed for tiddlers in view mode. Drag and drop to change the ordering"
},
"$:/language/ControlPanel/Tools/Download/Full/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/ControlPanel/Tools/Download/Full/Caption",
"text": "Download full wiki"
},
"$:/language/Date/DaySuffix/1": {
"title": "$:/language/Date/DaySuffix/1",
"text": "st"
},
"$:/language/Date/DaySuffix/2": {
"title": "$:/language/Date/DaySuffix/2",
"text": "nd"
},
"$:/language/Date/DaySuffix/3": {
"title": "$:/language/Date/DaySuffix/3",
"text": "rd"
},
"$:/language/Date/DaySuffix/4": {
"title": "$:/language/Date/DaySuffix/4",
"text": "th"
},
"$:/language/Date/DaySuffix/5": {
"title": "$:/language/Date/DaySuffix/5",
"text": "th"
},
"$:/language/Date/DaySuffix/6": {
"title": "$:/language/Date/DaySuffix/6",
"text": "th"
},
"$:/language/Date/DaySuffix/7": {
"title": "$:/language/Date/DaySuffix/7",
"text": "th"
},
"$:/language/Date/DaySuffix/8": {
"title": "$:/language/Date/DaySuffix/8",
"text": "th"
},
"$:/language/Date/DaySuffix/9": {
"title": "$:/language/Date/DaySuffix/9",
"text": "th"
},
"$:/language/Date/DaySuffix/10": {
"title": "$:/language/Date/DaySuffix/10",
"text": "th"
},
"$:/language/Date/DaySuffix/11": {
"title": "$:/language/Date/DaySuffix/11",
"text": "th"
},
"$:/language/Date/DaySuffix/12": {
"title": "$:/language/Date/DaySuffix/12",
"text": "th"
},
"$:/language/Date/DaySuffix/13": {
"title": "$:/language/Date/DaySuffix/13",
"text": "th"
},
"$:/language/Date/DaySuffix/14": {
"title": "$:/language/Date/DaySuffix/14",
"text": "th"
},
"$:/language/Date/DaySuffix/15": {
"title": "$:/language/Date/DaySuffix/15",
"text": "th"
},
"$:/language/Date/DaySuffix/16": {
"title": "$:/language/Date/DaySuffix/16",
"text": "th"
},
"$:/language/Date/DaySuffix/17": {
"title": "$:/language/Date/DaySuffix/17",
"text": "th"
},
"$:/language/Date/DaySuffix/18": {
"title": "$:/language/Date/DaySuffix/18",
"text": "th"
},
"$:/language/Date/DaySuffix/19": {
"title": "$:/language/Date/DaySuffix/19",
"text": "th"
},
"$:/language/Date/DaySuffix/20": {
"title": "$:/language/Date/DaySuffix/20",
"text": "th"
},
"$:/language/Date/DaySuffix/21": {
"title": "$:/language/Date/DaySuffix/21",
"text": "st"
},
"$:/language/Date/DaySuffix/22": {
"title": "$:/language/Date/DaySuffix/22",
"text": "nd"
},
"$:/language/Date/DaySuffix/23": {
"title": "$:/language/Date/DaySuffix/23",
"text": "rd"
},
"$:/language/Date/DaySuffix/24": {
"title": "$:/language/Date/DaySuffix/24",
"text": "th"
},
"$:/language/Date/DaySuffix/25": {
"title": "$:/language/Date/DaySuffix/25",
"text": "th"
},
"$:/language/Date/DaySuffix/26": {
"title": "$:/language/Date/DaySuffix/26",
"text": "th"
},
"$:/language/Date/DaySuffix/27": {
"title": "$:/language/Date/DaySuffix/27",
"text": "th"
},
"$:/language/Date/DaySuffix/28": {
"title": "$:/language/Date/DaySuffix/28",
"text": "th"
},
"$:/language/Date/DaySuffix/29": {
"title": "$:/language/Date/DaySuffix/29",
"text": "th"
},
"$:/language/Date/DaySuffix/30": {
"title": "$:/language/Date/DaySuffix/30",
"text": "th"
},
"$:/language/Date/DaySuffix/31": {
"title": "$:/language/Date/DaySuffix/31",
"text": "st"
},
"$:/language/Date/Long/Day/0": {
"title": "$:/language/Date/Long/Day/0",
"text": "Sunday"
},
"$:/language/Date/Long/Day/1": {
"title": "$:/language/Date/Long/Day/1",
"text": "Monday"
},
"$:/language/Date/Long/Day/2": {
"title": "$:/language/Date/Long/Day/2",
"text": "Tuesday"
},
"$:/language/Date/Long/Day/3": {
"title": "$:/language/Date/Long/Day/3",
"text": "Wednesday"
},
"$:/language/Date/Long/Day/4": {
"title": "$:/language/Date/Long/Day/4",
"text": "Thursday"
},
"$:/language/Date/Long/Day/5": {
"title": "$:/language/Date/Long/Day/5",
"text": "Friday"
},
"$:/language/Date/Long/Day/6": {
"title": "$:/language/Date/Long/Day/6",
"text": "Saturday"
},
"$:/language/Date/Long/Month/1": {
"title": "$:/language/Date/Long/Month/1",
"text": "January"
},
"$:/language/Date/Long/Month/2": {
"title": "$:/language/Date/Long/Month/2",
"text": "February"
},
"$:/language/Date/Long/Month/3": {
"title": "$:/language/Date/Long/Month/3",
"text": "March"
},
"$:/language/Date/Long/Month/4": {
"title": "$:/language/Date/Long/Month/4",
"text": "April"
},
"$:/language/Date/Long/Month/5": {
"title": "$:/language/Date/Long/Month/5",
"text": "May"
},
"$:/language/Date/Long/Month/6": {
"title": "$:/language/Date/Long/Month/6",
"text": "June"
},
"$:/language/Date/Long/Month/7": {
"title": "$:/language/Date/Long/Month/7",
"text": "July"
},
"$:/language/Date/Long/Month/8": {
"title": "$:/language/Date/Long/Month/8",
"text": "August"
},
"$:/language/Date/Long/Month/9": {
"title": "$:/language/Date/Long/Month/9",
"text": "September"
},
"$:/language/Date/Long/Month/10": {
"title": "$:/language/Date/Long/Month/10",
"text": "October"
},
"$:/language/Date/Long/Month/11": {
"title": "$:/language/Date/Long/Month/11",
"text": "November"
},
"$:/language/Date/Long/Month/12": {
"title": "$:/language/Date/Long/Month/12",
"text": "December"
},
"$:/language/Date/Period/am": {
"title": "$:/language/Date/Period/am",
"text": "am"
},
"$:/language/Date/Period/pm": {
"title": "$:/language/Date/Period/pm",
"text": "pm"
},
"$:/language/Date/Short/Day/0": {
"title": "$:/language/Date/Short/Day/0",
"text": "Sun"
},
"$:/language/Date/Short/Day/1": {
"title": "$:/language/Date/Short/Day/1",
"text": "Mon"
},
"$:/language/Date/Short/Day/2": {
"title": "$:/language/Date/Short/Day/2",
"text": "Tue"
},
"$:/language/Date/Short/Day/3": {
"title": "$:/language/Date/Short/Day/3",
"text": "Wed"
},
"$:/language/Date/Short/Day/4": {
"title": "$:/language/Date/Short/Day/4",
"text": "Thu"
},
"$:/language/Date/Short/Day/5": {
"title": "$:/language/Date/Short/Day/5",
"text": "Fri"
},
"$:/language/Date/Short/Day/6": {
"title": "$:/language/Date/Short/Day/6",
"text": "Sat"
},
"$:/language/Date/Short/Month/1": {
"title": "$:/language/Date/Short/Month/1",
"text": "Jan"
},
"$:/language/Date/Short/Month/2": {
"title": "$:/language/Date/Short/Month/2",
"text": "Feb"
},
"$:/language/Date/Short/Month/3": {
"title": "$:/language/Date/Short/Month/3",
"text": "Mar"
},
"$:/language/Date/Short/Month/4": {
"title": "$:/language/Date/Short/Month/4",
"text": "Apr"
},
"$:/language/Date/Short/Month/5": {
"title": "$:/language/Date/Short/Month/5",
"text": "May"
},
"$:/language/Date/Short/Month/6": {
"title": "$:/language/Date/Short/Month/6",
"text": "Jun"
},
"$:/language/Date/Short/Month/7": {
"title": "$:/language/Date/Short/Month/7",
"text": "Jul"
},
"$:/language/Date/Short/Month/8": {
"title": "$:/language/Date/Short/Month/8",
"text": "Aug"
},
"$:/language/Date/Short/Month/9": {
"title": "$:/language/Date/Short/Month/9",
"text": "Sep"
},
"$:/language/Date/Short/Month/10": {
"title": "$:/language/Date/Short/Month/10",
"text": "Oct"
},
"$:/language/Date/Short/Month/11": {
"title": "$:/language/Date/Short/Month/11",
"text": "Nov"
},
"$:/language/Date/Short/Month/12": {
"title": "$:/language/Date/Short/Month/12",
"text": "Dec"
},
"$:/language/RelativeDate/Future/Days": {
"title": "$:/language/RelativeDate/Future/Days",
"text": "<<period>> days from now"
},
"$:/language/RelativeDate/Future/Hours": {
"title": "$:/language/RelativeDate/Future/Hours",
"text": "<<period>> hours from now"
},
"$:/language/RelativeDate/Future/Minutes": {
"title": "$:/language/RelativeDate/Future/Minutes",
"text": "<<period>> minutes from now"
},
"$:/language/RelativeDate/Future/Months": {
"title": "$:/language/RelativeDate/Future/Months",
"text": "<<period>> months from now"
},
"$:/language/RelativeDate/Future/Second": {
"title": "$:/language/RelativeDate/Future/Second",
"text": "1 second from now"
},
"$:/language/RelativeDate/Future/Seconds": {
"title": "$:/language/RelativeDate/Future/Seconds",
"text": "<<period>> seconds from now"
},
"$:/language/RelativeDate/Future/Years": {
"title": "$:/language/RelativeDate/Future/Years",
"text": "<<period>> years from now"
},
"$:/language/RelativeDate/Past/Days": {
"title": "$:/language/RelativeDate/Past/Days",
"text": "<<period>> days ago"
},
"$:/language/RelativeDate/Past/Hours": {
"title": "$:/language/RelativeDate/Past/Hours",
"text": "<<period>> hours ago"
},
"$:/language/RelativeDate/Past/Minutes": {
"title": "$:/language/RelativeDate/Past/Minutes",
"text": "<<period>> minutes ago"
},
"$:/language/RelativeDate/Past/Months": {
"title": "$:/language/RelativeDate/Past/Months",
"text": "<<period>> months ago"
},
"$:/language/RelativeDate/Past/Second": {
"title": "$:/language/RelativeDate/Past/Second",
"text": "1 second ago"
},
"$:/language/RelativeDate/Past/Seconds": {
"title": "$:/language/RelativeDate/Past/Seconds",
"text": "<<period>> seconds ago"
},
"$:/language/RelativeDate/Past/Years": {
"title": "$:/language/RelativeDate/Past/Years",
"text": "<<period>> years ago"
},
"$:/language/Docs/ModuleTypes/allfilteroperator": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/ModuleTypes/allfilteroperator",
"text": "A sub-operator for the ''all'' filter operator."
},
"$:/language/Docs/ModuleTypes/animation": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/ModuleTypes/animation",
"text": "Animations that may be used with the RevealWidget."
},
"$:/language/Docs/ModuleTypes/authenticator": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/ModuleTypes/authenticator",
"text": "Defines how requests are authenticated by the built-in HTTP server."
},
"$:/language/Docs/ModuleTypes/bitmapeditoroperation": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/ModuleTypes/bitmapeditoroperation",
"text": "A bitmap editor toolbar operation."
},
"$:/language/Docs/ModuleTypes/command": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/ModuleTypes/command",
"text": "Commands that can be executed under Node.js."
},
"$:/language/Docs/ModuleTypes/config": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/ModuleTypes/config",
"text": "Data to be inserted into `$tw.config`."
},
"$:/language/Docs/ModuleTypes/filteroperator": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/ModuleTypes/filteroperator",
"text": "Individual filter operator methods."
},
"$:/language/Docs/ModuleTypes/global": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/ModuleTypes/global",
"text": "Global data to be inserted into `$tw`."
},
"$:/language/Docs/ModuleTypes/info": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/ModuleTypes/info",
"text": "Publishes system information via the [[$:/temp/info-plugin]] pseudo-plugin."
},
"$:/language/Docs/ModuleTypes/isfilteroperator": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/ModuleTypes/isfilteroperator",
"text": "Operands for the ''is'' filter operator."
},
"$:/language/Docs/ModuleTypes/library": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/ModuleTypes/library",
"text": "Generic module type for general purpose JavaScript modules."
},
"$:/language/Docs/ModuleTypes/macro": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/ModuleTypes/macro",
"text": "JavaScript macro definitions."
},
"$:/language/Docs/ModuleTypes/parser": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/ModuleTypes/parser",
"text": "Parsers for different content types."
},
"$:/language/Docs/ModuleTypes/route": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/ModuleTypes/route",
"text": "Defines how individual URL patterns are handled by the built-in HTTP server."
},
"$:/language/Docs/ModuleTypes/saver": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/ModuleTypes/saver",
"text": "Savers handle different methods for saving files from the browser."
},
"$:/language/Docs/ModuleTypes/startup": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/ModuleTypes/startup",
"text": "Startup functions."
},
"$:/language/Docs/ModuleTypes/storyview": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/ModuleTypes/storyview",
"text": "Story views customise the animation and behaviour of list widgets."
},
"$:/language/Docs/ModuleTypes/texteditoroperation": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/ModuleTypes/texteditoroperation",
"text": "A text editor toolbar operation."
},
"$:/language/Docs/ModuleTypes/tiddlerdeserializer": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/ModuleTypes/tiddlerdeserializer",
"text": "Converts different content types into tiddlers."
},
"$:/language/Docs/ModuleTypes/tiddlerfield": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/ModuleTypes/tiddlerfield",
"text": "Defines the behaviour of an individual tiddler field."
},
"$:/language/Docs/ModuleTypes/tiddlermethod": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/ModuleTypes/tiddlermethod",
"text": "Adds methods to the `$tw.Tiddler` prototype."
},
"$:/language/Docs/ModuleTypes/upgrader": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/ModuleTypes/upgrader",
"text": "Applies upgrade processing to tiddlers during an upgrade/import."
},
"$:/language/Docs/ModuleTypes/utils": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/ModuleTypes/utils",
"text": "Adds methods to `$tw.utils`."
},
"$:/language/Docs/ModuleTypes/utils-node": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/ModuleTypes/utils-node",
"text": "Adds Node.js-specific methods to `$tw.utils`."
},
"$:/language/Docs/ModuleTypes/widget": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/ModuleTypes/widget",
"text": "Widgets encapsulate DOM rendering and refreshing."
},
"$:/language/Docs/ModuleTypes/wikimethod": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/ModuleTypes/wikimethod",
"text": "Adds methods to `$tw.Wiki`."
},
"$:/language/Docs/ModuleTypes/wikirule": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/ModuleTypes/wikirule",
"text": "Individual parser rules for the main WikiText parser."
},
"$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/alert-background": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/alert-background",
"text": "Alert background"
},
"$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/alert-border": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/alert-border",
"text": "Alert border"
},
"$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/alert-highlight": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/alert-highlight",
"text": "Alert highlight"
},
"$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/alert-muted-foreground": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/alert-muted-foreground",
"text": "Alert muted foreground"
},
"$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/background": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/background",
"text": "General background"
},
"$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/blockquote-bar": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/blockquote-bar",
"text": "Blockquote bar"
},
"$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/button-background": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/button-background",
"text": "Default button background"
},
"$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/button-border": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/button-border",
"text": "Default button border"
},
"$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/button-foreground": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/button-foreground",
"text": "Default button foreground"
},
"$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/dirty-indicator": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/dirty-indicator",
"text": "Unsaved changes indicator"
},
"$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/code-background": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/code-background",
"text": "Code background"
},
"$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/code-border": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/code-border",
"text": "Code border"
},
"$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/code-foreground": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/code-foreground",
"text": "Code foreground"
},
"$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/download-background": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/download-background",
"text": "Download button background"
},
"$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/download-foreground": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/download-foreground",
"text": "Download button foreground"
},
"$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/dragger-background": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/dragger-background",
"text": "Dragger background"
},
"$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/dragger-foreground": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/dragger-foreground",
"text": "Dragger foreground"
},
"$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/dropdown-background": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/dropdown-background",
"text": "Dropdown background"
},
"$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/dropdown-border": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/dropdown-border",
"text": "Dropdown border"
},
"$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/dropdown-tab-background-selected": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/dropdown-tab-background-selected",
"text": "Dropdown tab background for selected tabs"
},
"$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/dropdown-tab-background": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/dropdown-tab-background",
"text": "Dropdown tab background"
},
"$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/dropzone-background": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/dropzone-background",
"text": "Dropzone background"
},
"$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/external-link-background-hover": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/external-link-background-hover",
"text": "External link background hover"
},
"$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/external-link-background-visited": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/external-link-background-visited",
"text": "External link background visited"
},
"$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/external-link-background": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/external-link-background",
"text": "External link background"
},
"$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/external-link-foreground-hover": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/external-link-foreground-hover",
"text": "External link foreground hover"
},
"$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/external-link-foreground-visited": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/external-link-foreground-visited",
"text": "External link foreground visited"
},
"$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/external-link-foreground": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/external-link-foreground",
"text": "External link foreground"
},
"$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/foreground": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/foreground",
"text": "General foreground"
},
"$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/message-background": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/message-background",
"text": "Message box background"
},
"$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/message-border": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/message-border",
"text": "Message box border"
},
"$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/message-foreground": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/message-foreground",
"text": "Message box foreground"
},
"$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/modal-backdrop": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/modal-backdrop",
"text": "Modal backdrop"
},
"$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/modal-background": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/modal-background",
"text": "Modal background"
},
"$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/modal-border": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/modal-border",
"text": "Modal border"
},
"$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/modal-footer-background": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/modal-footer-background",
"text": "Modal footer background"
},
"$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/modal-footer-border": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/modal-footer-border",
"text": "Modal footer border"
},
"$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/modal-header-border": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/modal-header-border",
"text": "Modal header border"
},
"$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/muted-foreground": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/muted-foreground",
"text": "General muted foreground"
},
"$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/notification-background": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/notification-background",
"text": "Notification background"
},
"$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/notification-border": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/notification-border",
"text": "Notification border"
},
"$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/page-background": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/page-background",
"text": "Page background"
},
"$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/pre-background": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/pre-background",
"text": "Preformatted code background"
},
"$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/pre-border": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/pre-border",
"text": "Preformatted code border"
},
"$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/primary": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/primary",
"text": "General primary"
},
"$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/select-tag-background": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/select-tag-background",
"text": "`<select>` element background"
},
"$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/select-tag-foreground": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/select-tag-foreground",
"text": "`<select>` element text"
},
"$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/sidebar-button-foreground": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/sidebar-button-foreground",
"text": "Sidebar button foreground"
},
"$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/sidebar-controls-foreground-hover": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/sidebar-controls-foreground-hover",
"text": "Sidebar controls foreground hover"
},
"$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/sidebar-controls-foreground": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/sidebar-controls-foreground",
"text": "Sidebar controls foreground"
},
"$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/sidebar-foreground-shadow": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/sidebar-foreground-shadow",
"text": "Sidebar foreground shadow"
},
"$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/sidebar-foreground": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/sidebar-foreground",
"text": "Sidebar foreground"
},
"$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/sidebar-muted-foreground-hover": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/sidebar-muted-foreground-hover",
"text": "Sidebar muted foreground hover"
},
"$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/sidebar-muted-foreground": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/sidebar-muted-foreground",
"text": "Sidebar muted foreground"
},
"$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/sidebar-tab-background-selected": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/sidebar-tab-background-selected",
"text": "Sidebar tab background for selected tabs"
},
"$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/sidebar-tab-background": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/sidebar-tab-background",
"text": "Sidebar tab background"
},
"$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/sidebar-tab-border-selected": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/sidebar-tab-border-selected",
"text": "Sidebar tab border for selected tabs"
},
"$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/sidebar-tab-border": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/sidebar-tab-border",
"text": "Sidebar tab border"
},
"$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/sidebar-tab-divider": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/sidebar-tab-divider",
"text": "Sidebar tab divider"
},
"$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/sidebar-tab-foreground-selected": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/sidebar-tab-foreground-selected",
"text": "Sidebar tab foreground for selected tabs"
},
"$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/sidebar-tab-foreground": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/sidebar-tab-foreground",
"text": "Sidebar tab foreground"
},
"$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/sidebar-tiddler-link-foreground-hover": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/sidebar-tiddler-link-foreground-hover",
"text": "Sidebar tiddler link foreground hover"
},
"$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/sidebar-tiddler-link-foreground": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/sidebar-tiddler-link-foreground",
"text": "Sidebar tiddler link foreground"
},
"$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/site-title-foreground": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/site-title-foreground",
"text": "Site title foreground"
},
"$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/static-alert-foreground": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/static-alert-foreground",
"text": "Static alert foreground"
},
"$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/tab-background-selected": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/tab-background-selected",
"text": "Tab background for selected tabs"
},
"$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/tab-background": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/tab-background",
"text": "Tab background"
},
"$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/tab-border-selected": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/tab-border-selected",
"text": "Tab border for selected tabs"
},
"$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/tab-border": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/tab-border",
"text": "Tab border"
},
"$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/tab-divider": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/tab-divider",
"text": "Tab divider"
},
"$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/tab-foreground-selected": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/tab-foreground-selected",
"text": "Tab foreground for selected tabs"
},
"$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/tab-foreground": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/tab-foreground",
"text": "Tab foreground"
},
"$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/table-border": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/table-border",
"text": "Table border"
},
"$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/table-footer-background": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/table-footer-background",
"text": "Table footer background"
},
"$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/table-header-background": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/table-header-background",
"text": "Table header background"
},
"$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/tag-background": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/tag-background",
"text": "Tag background"
},
"$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/tag-foreground": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/tag-foreground",
"text": "Tag foreground"
},
"$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/tiddler-background": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/tiddler-background",
"text": "Tiddler background"
},
"$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/tiddler-border": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/tiddler-border",
"text": "Tiddler border"
},
"$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/tiddler-controls-foreground-hover": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/tiddler-controls-foreground-hover",
"text": "Tiddler controls foreground hover"
},
"$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/tiddler-controls-foreground-selected": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/tiddler-controls-foreground-selected",
"text": "Tiddler controls foreground for selected controls"
},
"$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/tiddler-controls-foreground": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/tiddler-controls-foreground",
"text": "Tiddler controls foreground"
},
"$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/tiddler-editor-background": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/tiddler-editor-background",
"text": "Tiddler editor background"
},
"$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/tiddler-editor-border-image": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/tiddler-editor-border-image",
"text": "Tiddler editor border image"
},
"$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/tiddler-editor-border": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/tiddler-editor-border",
"text": "Tiddler editor border"
},
"$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/tiddler-editor-fields-even": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/tiddler-editor-fields-even",
"text": "Tiddler editor background for even fields"
},
"$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/tiddler-editor-fields-odd": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/tiddler-editor-fields-odd",
"text": "Tiddler editor background for odd fields"
},
"$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/tiddler-info-background": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/tiddler-info-background",
"text": "Tiddler info panel background"
},
"$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/tiddler-info-border": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/tiddler-info-border",
"text": "Tiddler info panel border"
},
"$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/tiddler-info-tab-background": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/tiddler-info-tab-background",
"text": "Tiddler info panel tab background"
},
"$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/tiddler-link-background": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/tiddler-link-background",
"text": "Tiddler link background"
},
"$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/tiddler-link-foreground": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/tiddler-link-foreground",
"text": "Tiddler link foreground"
},
"$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/tiddler-subtitle-foreground": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/tiddler-subtitle-foreground",
"text": "Tiddler subtitle foreground"
},
"$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/tiddler-title-foreground": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/tiddler-title-foreground",
"text": "Tiddler title foreground"
},
"$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/toolbar-new-button": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/toolbar-new-button",
"text": "Toolbar 'new tiddler' button foreground"
},
"$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/toolbar-options-button": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/toolbar-options-button",
"text": "Toolbar 'options' button foreground"
},
"$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/toolbar-save-button": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/toolbar-save-button",
"text": "Toolbar 'save' button foreground"
},
"$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/toolbar-info-button": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/toolbar-info-button",
"text": "Toolbar 'info' button foreground"
},
"$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/toolbar-edit-button": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/toolbar-edit-button",
"text": "Toolbar 'edit' button foreground"
},
"$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/toolbar-close-button": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/toolbar-close-button",
"text": "Toolbar 'close' button foreground"
},
"$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/toolbar-delete-button": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/toolbar-delete-button",
"text": "Toolbar 'delete' button foreground"
},
"$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/toolbar-cancel-button": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/toolbar-cancel-button",
"text": "Toolbar 'cancel' button foreground"
},
"$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/toolbar-done-button": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/toolbar-done-button",
"text": "Toolbar 'done' button foreground"
},
"$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/untagged-background": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/untagged-background",
"text": "Untagged pill background"
},
"$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/very-muted-foreground": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/very-muted-foreground",
"text": "Very muted foreground"
},
"$:/language/EditTemplate/Body/External/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/EditTemplate/Body/External/Hint",
"text": "This tiddler shows content stored outside of the main TiddlyWiki file. You can edit the tags and fields but cannot directly edit the content itself"
},
"$:/language/EditTemplate/Body/Placeholder": {
"title": "$:/language/EditTemplate/Body/Placeholder",
"text": "Type the text for this tiddler"
},
"$:/language/EditTemplate/Body/Preview/Type/Output": {
"title": "$:/language/EditTemplate/Body/Preview/Type/Output",
"text": "output"
},
"$:/language/EditTemplate/Field/Remove/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/EditTemplate/Field/Remove/Caption",
"text": "remove field"
},
"$:/language/EditTemplate/Field/Remove/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/EditTemplate/Field/Remove/Hint",
"text": "Remove field"
},
"$:/language/EditTemplate/Field/Dropdown/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/EditTemplate/Field/Dropdown/Caption",
"text": "field list"
},
"$:/language/EditTemplate/Field/Dropdown/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/EditTemplate/Field/Dropdown/Hint",
"text": "Show field list"
},
"$:/language/EditTemplate/Fields/Add/Button": {
"title": "$:/language/EditTemplate/Fields/Add/Button",
"text": "add"
},
"$:/language/EditTemplate/Fields/Add/Name/Placeholder": {
"title": "$:/language/EditTemplate/Fields/Add/Name/Placeholder",
"text": "field name"
},
"$:/language/EditTemplate/Fields/Add/Prompt": {
"title": "$:/language/EditTemplate/Fields/Add/Prompt",
"text": "Add a new field:"
},
"$:/language/EditTemplate/Fields/Add/Value/Placeholder": {
"title": "$:/language/EditTemplate/Fields/Add/Value/Placeholder",
"text": "field value"
},
"$:/language/EditTemplate/Fields/Add/Dropdown/System": {
"title": "$:/language/EditTemplate/Fields/Add/Dropdown/System",
"text": "System fields"
},
"$:/language/EditTemplate/Fields/Add/Dropdown/User": {
"title": "$:/language/EditTemplate/Fields/Add/Dropdown/User",
"text": "User fields"
},
"$:/language/EditTemplate/Shadow/Warning": {
"title": "$:/language/EditTemplate/Shadow/Warning",
"text": "This is a shadow tiddler. Any changes you make will override the default version from the plugin <<pluginLink>>"
},
"$:/language/EditTemplate/Shadow/OverriddenWarning": {
"title": "$:/language/EditTemplate/Shadow/OverriddenWarning",
"text": "This is a modified shadow tiddler. You can revert to the default version in the plugin <<pluginLink>> by deleting this tiddler"
},
"$:/language/EditTemplate/Tags/Add/Button": {
"title": "$:/language/EditTemplate/Tags/Add/Button",
"text": "add"
},
"$:/language/EditTemplate/Tags/Add/Placeholder": {
"title": "$:/language/EditTemplate/Tags/Add/Placeholder",
"text": "tag name"
},
"$:/language/EditTemplate/Tags/Dropdown/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/EditTemplate/Tags/Dropdown/Caption",
"text": "tag list"
},
"$:/language/EditTemplate/Tags/Dropdown/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/EditTemplate/Tags/Dropdown/Hint",
"text": "Show tag list"
},
"$:/language/EditTemplate/Title/BadCharacterWarning": {
"title": "$:/language/EditTemplate/Title/BadCharacterWarning",
"text": "Warning: avoid using any of the characters <<bad-chars>> in tiddler titles"
},
"$:/language/EditTemplate/Title/Exists/Prompt": {
"title": "$:/language/EditTemplate/Title/Exists/Prompt",
"text": "Target tiddler already exists"
},
"$:/language/EditTemplate/Title/Relink/Prompt": {
"title": "$:/language/EditTemplate/Title/Relink/Prompt",
"text": "Update ''<$text text=<<fromTitle>>/>'' to ''<$text text=<<toTitle>>/>'' in the //tags// and //list// fields of other tiddlers"
},
"$:/language/EditTemplate/Title/References/Prompt": {
"title": "$:/language/EditTemplate/Title/References/Prompt",
"text": "The following references to this tiddler will not be automatically updated:"
},
"$:/language/EditTemplate/Type/Dropdown/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/EditTemplate/Type/Dropdown/Caption",
"text": "content type list"
},
"$:/language/EditTemplate/Type/Dropdown/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/EditTemplate/Type/Dropdown/Hint",
"text": "Show content type list"
},
"$:/language/EditTemplate/Type/Delete/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/EditTemplate/Type/Delete/Caption",
"text": "delete content type"
},
"$:/language/EditTemplate/Type/Delete/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/EditTemplate/Type/Delete/Hint",
"text": "Delete content type"
},
"$:/language/EditTemplate/Type/Placeholder": {
"title": "$:/language/EditTemplate/Type/Placeholder",
"text": "content type"
},
"$:/language/EditTemplate/Type/Prompt": {
"title": "$:/language/EditTemplate/Type/Prompt",
"text": "Type:"
},
"$:/language/Exporters/StaticRiver": {
"title": "$:/language/Exporters/StaticRiver",
"text": "Static HTML"
},
"$:/language/Exporters/JsonFile": {
"title": "$:/language/Exporters/JsonFile",
"text": "JSON file"
},
"$:/language/Exporters/CsvFile": {
"title": "$:/language/Exporters/CsvFile",
"text": "CSV file"
},
"$:/language/Exporters/TidFile": {
"title": "$:/language/Exporters/TidFile",
"text": "\".tid\" file"
},
"$:/language/Docs/Fields/_canonical_uri": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/Fields/_canonical_uri",
"text": "The full URI of an external image tiddler"
},
"$:/language/Docs/Fields/bag": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/Fields/bag",
"text": "The name of the bag from which a tiddler came"
},
"$:/language/Docs/Fields/caption": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/Fields/caption",
"text": "The text to be displayed on a tab or button"
},
"$:/language/Docs/Fields/color": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/Fields/color",
"text": "The CSS color value associated with a tiddler"
},
"$:/language/Docs/Fields/component": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/Fields/component",
"text": "The name of the component responsible for an [[alert tiddler|AlertMechanism]]"
},
"$:/language/Docs/Fields/current-tiddler": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/Fields/current-tiddler",
"text": "Used to cache the top tiddler in a [[history list|HistoryMechanism]]"
},
"$:/language/Docs/Fields/created": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/Fields/created",
"text": "The date a tiddler was created"
},
"$:/language/Docs/Fields/creator": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/Fields/creator",
"text": "The name of the person who created a tiddler"
},
"$:/language/Docs/Fields/dependents": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/Fields/dependents",
"text": "For a plugin, lists the dependent plugin titles"
},
"$:/language/Docs/Fields/description": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/Fields/description",
"text": "The descriptive text for a plugin, or a modal dialogue"
},
"$:/language/Docs/Fields/draft.of": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/Fields/draft.of",
"text": "For draft tiddlers, contains the title of the tiddler of which this is a draft"
},
"$:/language/Docs/Fields/draft.title": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/Fields/draft.title",
"text": "For draft tiddlers, contains the proposed new title of the tiddler"
},
"$:/language/Docs/Fields/footer": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/Fields/footer",
"text": "The footer text for a wizard"
},
"$:/language/Docs/Fields/hack-to-give-us-something-to-compare-against": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/Fields/hack-to-give-us-something-to-compare-against",
"text": "A temporary storage field used in [[$:/core/templates/static.content]]"
},
"$:/language/Docs/Fields/icon": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/Fields/icon",
"text": "The title of the tiddler containing the icon associated with a tiddler"
},
"$:/language/Docs/Fields/library": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/Fields/library",
"text": "If set to \"yes\" indicates that a tiddler should be saved as a JavaScript library"
},
"$:/language/Docs/Fields/list": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/Fields/list",
"text": "An ordered list of tiddler titles associated with a tiddler"
},
"$:/language/Docs/Fields/list-before": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/Fields/list-before",
"text": "If set, the title of a tiddler before which this tiddler should be added to the ordered list of tiddler titles, or at the start of the list if this field is present but empty"
},
"$:/language/Docs/Fields/list-after": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/Fields/list-after",
"text": "If set, the title of the tiddler after which this tiddler should be added to the ordered list of tiddler titles, or at the end of the list if this field is present but empty"
},
"$:/language/Docs/Fields/modified": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/Fields/modified",
"text": "The date and time at which a tiddler was last modified"
},
"$:/language/Docs/Fields/modifier": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/Fields/modifier",
"text": "The tiddler title associated with the person who last modified a tiddler"
},
"$:/language/Docs/Fields/name": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/Fields/name",
"text": "The human readable name associated with a plugin tiddler"
},
"$:/language/Docs/Fields/plugin-priority": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/Fields/plugin-priority",
"text": "A numerical value indicating the priority of a plugin tiddler"
},
"$:/language/Docs/Fields/plugin-type": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/Fields/plugin-type",
"text": "The type of plugin in a plugin tiddler"
},
"$:/language/Docs/Fields/revision": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/Fields/revision",
"text": "The revision of the tiddler held at the server"
},
"$:/language/Docs/Fields/released": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/Fields/released",
"text": "Date of a TiddlyWiki release"
},
"$:/language/Docs/Fields/source": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/Fields/source",
"text": "The source URL associated with a tiddler"
},
"$:/language/Docs/Fields/subtitle": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/Fields/subtitle",
"text": "The subtitle text for a wizard"
},
"$:/language/Docs/Fields/tags": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/Fields/tags",
"text": "A list of tags associated with a tiddler"
},
"$:/language/Docs/Fields/text": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/Fields/text",
"text": "The body text of a tiddler"
},
"$:/language/Docs/Fields/title": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/Fields/title",
"text": "The unique name of a tiddler"
},
"$:/language/Docs/Fields/type": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/Fields/type",
"text": "The content type of a tiddler"
},
"$:/language/Docs/Fields/version": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/Fields/version",
"text": "Version information for a plugin"
},
"$:/language/Filters/AllTiddlers": {
"title": "$:/language/Filters/AllTiddlers",
"text": "All tiddlers except system tiddlers"
},
"$:/language/Filters/RecentSystemTiddlers": {
"title": "$:/language/Filters/RecentSystemTiddlers",
"text": "Recently modified tiddlers, including system tiddlers"
},
"$:/language/Filters/RecentTiddlers": {
"title": "$:/language/Filters/RecentTiddlers",
"text": "Recently modified tiddlers"
},
"$:/language/Filters/AllTags": {
"title": "$:/language/Filters/AllTags",
"text": "All tags except system tags"
},
"$:/language/Filters/Missing": {
"title": "$:/language/Filters/Missing",
"text": "Missing tiddlers"
},
"$:/language/Filters/Drafts": {
"title": "$:/language/Filters/Drafts",
"text": "Draft tiddlers"
},
"$:/language/Filters/Orphans": {
"title": "$:/language/Filters/Orphans",
"text": "Orphan tiddlers"
},
"$:/language/Filters/SystemTiddlers": {
"title": "$:/language/Filters/SystemTiddlers",
"text": "System tiddlers"
},
"$:/language/Filters/ShadowTiddlers": {
"title": "$:/language/Filters/ShadowTiddlers",
"text": "Shadow tiddlers"
},
"$:/language/Filters/OverriddenShadowTiddlers": {
"title": "$:/language/Filters/OverriddenShadowTiddlers",
"text": "Overridden shadow tiddlers"
},
"$:/language/Filters/SystemTags": {
"title": "$:/language/Filters/SystemTags",
"text": "System tags"
},
"$:/language/Filters/StoryList": {
"title": "$:/language/Filters/StoryList",
"text": "Tiddlers in the story river, excluding <$text text=\"$:/AdvancedSearch\"/>"
},
"$:/language/Filters/TypedTiddlers": {
"title": "$:/language/Filters/TypedTiddlers",
"text": "Non wiki-text tiddlers"
},
"GettingStarted": {
"title": "GettingStarted",
"text": "\\define lingo-base() $:/language/ControlPanel/Basics/\nWelcome to ~TiddlyWiki and the ~TiddlyWiki community\n\nBefore you start storing important information in ~TiddlyWiki it is vital to make sure that you can reliably save changes. See https://tiddlywiki.com/#GettingStarted for details\n\n!! Set up this ~TiddlyWiki\n\n<div class=\"tc-control-panel\">\n\n|<$link to=\"$:/SiteTitle\"><<lingo Title/Prompt>></$link> |<$edit-text tiddler=\"$:/SiteTitle\" default=\"\" tag=\"input\"/> |\n|<$link to=\"$:/SiteSubtitle\"><<lingo Subtitle/Prompt>></$link> |<$edit-text tiddler=\"$:/SiteSubtitle\" default=\"\" tag=\"input\"/> |\n|<$link to=\"$:/DefaultTiddlers\"><<lingo DefaultTiddlers/Prompt>></$link> |<<lingo DefaultTiddlers/TopHint>><br> <$edit tag=\"textarea\" tiddler=\"$:/DefaultTiddlers\"/><br>//<<lingo DefaultTiddlers/BottomHint>>// |\n</div>\n\nSee the [[control panel|$:/ControlPanel]] for more options.\n"
},
"$:/language/Help/build": {
"title": "$:/language/Help/build",
"description": "Automatically run configured commands",
"text": "Build the specified build targets for the current wiki. If no build targets are specified then all available targets will be built.\n\n```\n--build <target> [<target> ...]\n```\n\nBuild targets are defined in the `tiddlywiki.info` file of a wiki folder.\n\n"
},
"$:/language/Help/clearpassword": {
"title": "$:/language/Help/clearpassword",
"description": "Clear a password for subsequent crypto operations",
"text": "Clear the password for subsequent crypto operations\n\n```\n--clearpassword\n```\n"
},
"$:/language/Help/default": {
"title": "$:/language/Help/default",
"text": "\\define commandTitle()\n$:/language/Help/$(command)$\n\\end\n```\nusage: tiddlywiki [<wikifolder>] [--<command> [<args>...]...]\n```\n\nAvailable commands:\n\n<ul>\n<$list filter=\"[commands[]sort[title]]\" variable=\"command\">\n<li><$link to=<<commandTitle>>><$macrocall $name=\"command\" $type=\"text/plain\" $output=\"text/plain\"/></$link>: <$transclude tiddler=<<commandTitle>> field=\"description\"/></li>\n</$list>\n</ul>\n\nTo get detailed help on a command:\n\n```\ntiddlywiki --help <command>\n```\n"
},
"$:/language/Help/editions": {
"title": "$:/language/Help/editions",
"description": "Lists the available editions of TiddlyWiki",
"text": "Lists the names and descriptions of the available editions. You can create a new wiki of a specified edition with the `--init` command.\n\n```\n--editions\n```\n"
},
"$:/language/Help/fetch": {
"title": "$:/language/Help/fetch",
"description": "Fetch tiddlers from wiki by URL",
"text": "Fetch one or more files over HTTP/HTTPS, and import the tiddlers matching a filter, optionally transforming the incoming titles.\n\n```\n--fetch file <url> <import-filter> <transform-filter>\n--fetch files <url-filter> <import-filter> <transform-filter>\n--fetch raw-file <url> <transform-filter>\n--fetch raw-files <url-filter> <transform-filter>\n```\n\nThe \"file\" and \"files\" variants fetch the specified files and attempt to import the tiddlers within them (the same processing as if the files were dragged into the browser window). The \"raw-file\" and \"raw-files\" variants fetch the specified files and then store the raw file data in tiddlers, without applying the import logic.\n\nWith the \"file\" and \"raw-file\" variants only a single file is fetched and the first parameter is the URL of the file to read.\n\nWith the \"files\" and \"raw-files\" variants, multiple files are fetched and the first parameter is a filter yielding a list of URLs of the files to read. For example, given a set of tiddlers tagged \"remote-server\" that have a field \"url\" the filter `[tag[remote-server]get[url]]` will retrieve all the available URLs.\n\nFor the \"file\" and \"files\" variants, the `<import-filter>` parameter specifies a filter determining which tiddlers are imported. It defaults to `[all[tiddlers]]` if not provided.\n\nFor all variants, the `<transform-filter>` parameter specifies an optional filter that transforms the titles of the imported tiddlers. For example, `[addprefix[$:/myimports/]]` would add the prefix `$:/myimports/` to each title.\n\nPreceding the `--fetch` command with `--verbose` will output progress information during the import.\n\nNote that TiddlyWiki will not fetch an older version of an already loaded plugin.\n\nThe following example retrieves all the non-system tiddlers from https://tiddlywiki.com and saves them to a JSON file:\n\n```\ntiddlywiki --verbose --fetch file \"https://tiddlywiki.com/\" \"[!is[system]]\" \"\" --rendertiddler \"$:/core/templates/exporters/JsonFile\" output.json text/plain \"\" exportFilter \"[!is[system]]\"\n```\n\nThe following example retrieves the \"favicon\" file from tiddlywiki.com and saves it in a file called \"output.ico\". Note that the intermediate tiddler \"Icon Tiddler\" is quoted in the \"--fetch\" command because it is being used as a transformation filter to replace the default title, while there are no quotes for the \"--savetiddler\" command because it is being used directly as a title.\n\n```\ntiddlywiki --verbose --fetch raw-file \"https://tiddlywiki.com/favicon.ico\" \"[[Icon Tiddler]]\" --savetiddler \"Icon Tiddler\" output.ico\n```\n\n"
},
"$:/language/Help/help": {
"title": "$:/language/Help/help",
"description": "Display help for TiddlyWiki commands",
"text": "Displays help text for a command:\n\n```\n--help [<command>]\n```\n\nIf the command name is omitted then a list of available commands is displayed.\n"
},
"$:/language/Help/import": {
"title": "$:/language/Help/import",
"description": "Import tiddlers from a file",
"text": "Import tiddlers from TiddlyWiki (`.html`), `.tiddler`, `.tid`, `.json` or other local files. The deserializer must be explicitly specified, unlike the `load` command which infers the deserializer from the file extension.\n\n```\n--import <filepath> <deserializer> [<title>] [<encoding>]\n```\n\nThe deserializers in the core include:\n\n* application/javascript\n* application/json\n* application/x-tiddler\n* application/x-tiddler-html-div\n* application/x-tiddlers\n* text/html\n* text/plain\n\nThe title of the imported tiddler defaults to the filename.\n\nThe encoding defaults to \"utf8\", but can be \"base64\" for importing binary files.\n\nNote that TiddlyWiki will not import an older version of an already loaded plugin.\n"
},
"$:/language/Help/init": {
"title": "$:/language/Help/init",
"description": "Initialise a new wiki folder",
"text": "Initialise an empty [[WikiFolder|WikiFolders]] with a copy of the specified edition.\n\n```\n--init <edition> [<edition> ...]\n```\n\nFor example:\n\n```\ntiddlywiki ./MyWikiFolder --init empty\n```\n\nNote:\n\n* The wiki folder directory will be created if necessary\n* The \"edition\" defaults to ''empty''\n* The init command will fail if the wiki folder is not empty\n* The init command removes any `includeWikis` definitions in the edition's `tiddlywiki.info` file\n* When multiple editions are specified, editions initialised later will overwrite any files shared with earlier editions (so, the final `tiddlywiki.info` file will be copied from the last edition)\n* `--editions` returns a list of available editions\n"
},
"$:/language/Help/listen": {
"title": "$:/language/Help/listen",
"description": "Provides an HTTP server interface to TiddlyWiki",
"text": "Serves a wiki over HTTP.\n\nThe listen command uses NamedCommandParameters:\n\n```\n--listen [<name>=<value>]...\n```\n\nAll parameters are optional with safe defaults, and can be specified in any order. The recognised parameters are:\n\n* ''host'' - optional hostname to serve from (defaults to \"127.0.0.1\" aka \"localhost\")\n* ''path-prefix'' - optional prefix for paths\n* ''port'' - port number on which to listen; non-numeric values are interpreted as a system environment variable from which the port number is extracted (defaults to \"8080\")\n* ''credentials'' - pathname of credentials CSV file (relative to wiki folder)\n* ''anon-username'' - the username for signing edits for anonymous users\n* ''username'' - optional username for basic authentication\n* ''password'' - optional password for basic authentication\n* ''authenticated-user-header'' - optional name of header to be used for trusted authentication\n* ''readers'' - comma separated list of principals allowed to read from this wiki\n* ''writers'' - comma separated list of principals allowed to write to this wiki\n* ''csrf-disable'' - set to \"yes\" to disable CSRF checks (defaults to \"no\")\n* ''root-tiddler'' - the tiddler to serve at the root (defaults to \"$:/core/save/all\")\n* ''root-render-type'' - the content type to which the root tiddler should be rendered (defaults to \"text/plain\")\n* ''root-serve-type'' - the content type with which the root tiddler should be served (defaults to \"text/html\")\n* ''tls-cert'' - pathname of TLS certificate file (relative to wiki folder)\n* ''tls-key'' - pathname of TLS key file (relative to wiki folder)\n* ''debug-level'' - optional debug level; set to \"debug\" to view request details (defaults to \"none\")\n\nFor information on opening up your instance to the entire local network, and possible security concerns, see the WebServer tiddler at TiddlyWiki.com.\n\n"
},
"$:/language/Help/load": {
"title": "$:/language/Help/load",
"description": "Load tiddlers from a file",
"text": "Load tiddlers from TiddlyWiki (`.html`), `.tiddler`, `.tid`, `.json` or other local files. The processing applied to incoming files is determined by the file extension. Use the alternative `import` command if you need to specify the deserializer and encoding explicitly.\n\n```\n--load <filepath>\n--load <dirpath>\n```\n\nTo load tiddlers from an encrypted TiddlyWiki file you should first specify the password with the PasswordCommand. For example:\n\n```\ntiddlywiki ./MyWiki --password pa55w0rd --load my_encrypted_wiki.html\n```\n\nNote that TiddlyWiki will not load an older version of an already loaded plugin.\n"
},
"$:/language/Help/makelibrary": {
"title": "$:/language/Help/makelibrary",
"description": "Construct library plugin required by upgrade process",
"text": "Constructs the `$:/UpgradeLibrary` tiddler for the upgrade process.\n\nThe upgrade library is formatted as an ordinary plugin tiddler with the plugin type `library`. It contains a copy of each of the plugins, themes and language packs available within the TiddlyWiki5 repository.\n\nThis command is intended for internal use; it is only relevant to users constructing a custom upgrade procedure.\n\n```\n--makelibrary <title>\n```\n\nThe title argument defaults to `$:/UpgradeLibrary`.\n"
},
"$:/language/Help/notfound": {
"title": "$:/language/Help/notfound",
"text": "No such help item"
},
"$:/language/Help/output": {
"title": "$:/language/Help/output",
"description": "Set the base output directory for subsequent commands",
"text": "Sets the base output directory for subsequent commands. The default output directory is the `output` subdirectory of the edition directory.\n\n```\n--output <pathname>\n```\n\nIf the specified pathname is relative then it is resolved relative to the current working directory. For example `--output .` sets the output directory to the current working directory.\n\n"
},
"$:/language/Help/password": {
"title": "$:/language/Help/password",
"description": "Set a password for subsequent crypto operations",
"text": "Set a password for subsequent crypto operations\n\n```\n--password <password>\n```\n\n''Note'': This should not be used for serving TiddlyWiki with password protection. Instead, see the password option under the [[ServerCommand]].\n"
},
"$:/language/Help/render": {
"title": "$:/language/Help/render",
"description": "Renders individual tiddlers to files",
"text": "Render individual tiddlers identified by a filter and save the results to the specified files.\n\nOptionally, the title of a template tiddler can be specified. In this case, instead of directly rendering each tiddler, the template tiddler is rendered with the \"currentTiddler\" variable set to the title of the tiddler that is being rendered.\n\nA name and value for an additional variable may optionally also be specified.\n\n```\n--render <tiddler-filter> [<filename-filter>] [<render-type>] [<template>] [<name>] [<value>]\n```\n\n* ''tiddler-filter'': A filter identifying the tiddler(s) to be rendered\n* ''filename-filter'': Optional filter transforming tiddler titles into pathnames. If omitted, defaults to `[is[tiddler]addsuffix[.html]]`, which uses the unchanged tiddler title as the filename\n* ''template'': Optional template through which each tiddler is rendered\n* ''render-type'': Optional render type: `text/html` (the default) returns the full HTML text and `text/plain` just returns the text content (ie it ignores HTML tags and other unprintable material)\n* ''name'': Name of optional variable\n* ''value'': Value of optional variable\n\nBy default, the filename is resolved relative to the `output` subdirectory of the edition directory. The `--output` command can be used to direct output to a different directory.\n\nNotes:\n\n* The output directory is not cleared of any existing files\n* Any missing directories in the path to the filename are automatically created.\n* When referring to a tiddler with spaces in its title, take care to use both the quotes required by your shell and also TiddlyWiki's double square brackets : `--render \"[[Motovun Jack.jpg]]\"`\n* The filename filter is evaluated with the selected items being set to the title of the tiddler currently being rendered, allowing the title to be used as the basis for computing the filename. For example `[encodeuricomponent[]addprefix[static/]]` applies URI encoding to each title, and then adds the prefix `static/`\n* The `--render` command is a more flexible replacement for both the `--rendertiddler` and `--rendertiddlers` commands, which are deprecated\n\nExamples:\n\n* `--render \"[!is[system]]\" \"[encodeuricomponent[]addprefix[tiddlers/]addsuffix[.html]]\"` -- renders all non-system tiddlers as files in the subdirectory \"tiddlers\" with URL-encoded titles and the extension HTML\n\n"
},
"$:/language/Help/rendertiddler": {
"title": "$:/language/Help/rendertiddler",
"description": "Render an individual tiddler as a specified ContentType",
"text": "(Note: The `--rendertiddler` command is deprecated in favour of the new, more flexible `--render` command)\n\nRender an individual tiddler as a specified ContentType, defaulting to `text/html` and save it to the specified filename.\n\nOptionally the title of a template tiddler can be specified, in which case the template tiddler is rendered with the \"currentTiddler\" variable set to the tiddler that is being rendered (the first parameter value).\n\nA name and value for an additional variable may optionally also be specified.\n\n```\n--rendertiddler <title> <filename> [<type>] [<template>] [<name>] [<value>]\n```\n\nBy default, the filename is resolved relative to the `output` subdirectory of the edition directory. The `--output` command can be used to direct output to a different directory.\n\nAny missing directories in the path to the filename are automatically created.\n\nFor example, the following command saves all tiddlers matching the filter `[tag[done]]` to a JSON file titled `output.json` by employing the core template `$:/core/templates/exporters/JsonFile`.\n\n```\n--rendertiddler \"$:/core/templates/exporters/JsonFile\" output.json text/plain \"\" exportFilter \"[tag[done]]\"\n```\n"
},
"$:/language/Help/rendertiddlers": {
"title": "$:/language/Help/rendertiddlers",
"description": "Render tiddlers matching a filter to a specified ContentType",
"text": "(Note: The `--rendertiddlers` command is deprecated in favour of the new, more flexible `--render` command)\n\nRender a set of tiddlers matching a filter to separate files of a specified ContentType (defaults to `text/html`) and extension (defaults to `.html`).\n\n```\n--rendertiddlers <filter> <template> <pathname> [<type>] [<extension>] [\"noclean\"]\n```\n\nFor example:\n\n```\n--rendertiddlers [!is[system]] $:/core/templates/static.tiddler.html ./static text/plain\n```\n\nBy default, the pathname is resolved relative to the `output` subdirectory of the edition directory. The `--output` command can be used to direct output to a different directory.\n\nAny files in the target directory are deleted unless the ''noclean'' flag is specified. The target directory is recursively created if it is missing.\n"
},
"$:/language/Help/save": {
"title": "$:/language/Help/save",
"description": "Saves individual raw tiddlers to files",
"text": "Saves individual tiddlers identified by a filter in their raw text or binary format to the specified files.\n\n```\n--save <tiddler-filter> <filename-filter>\n```\n\n* ''tiddler-filter'': A filter identifying the tiddler(s) to be saved\n* ''filename-filter'': Optional filter transforming tiddler titles into pathnames. If omitted, defaults to `[is[tiddler]]`, which uses the unchanged tiddler title as the filename\n\nBy default, the filename is resolved relative to the `output` subdirectory of the edition directory. The `--output` command can be used to direct output to a different directory.\n\nNotes:\n\n* The output directory is not cleared of any existing files\n* Any missing directories in the path to the filename are automatically created.\n* When saving a tiddler with spaces in its title, take care to use both the quotes required by your shell and also TiddlyWiki's double square brackets : `--save \"[[Motovun Jack.jpg]]\"`\n* The filename filter is evaluated with the selected items being set to the title of the tiddler currently being saved, allowing the title to be used as the basis for computing the filename. For example `[encodeuricomponent[]addprefix[static/]]` applies URI encoding to each title, and then adds the prefix `static/`\n* The `--save` command is a more flexible replacement for both the `--savetiddler` and `--savetiddlers` commands, which are deprecated\n\nExamples:\n\n* `--save \"[!is[system]is[image]]\" \"[encodeuricomponent[]addprefix[tiddlers/]]\"` -- saves all non-system image tiddlers as files in the subdirectory \"tiddlers\" with URL-encoded titles\n"
},
"$:/language/Help/savetiddler": {
"title": "$:/language/Help/savetiddler",
"description": "Saves a raw tiddler to a file",
"text": "(Note: The `--savetiddler` command is deprecated in favour of the new, more flexible `--save` command)\n\nSaves an individual tiddler in its raw text or binary format to the specified filename.\n\n```\n--savetiddler <title> <filename>\n```\n\nBy default, the filename is resolved relative to the `output` subdirectory of the edition directory. The `--output` command can be used to direct output to a different directory.\n\nAny missing directories in the path to the filename are automatically created.\n"
},
"$:/language/Help/savetiddlers": {
"title": "$:/language/Help/savetiddlers",
"description": "Saves a group of raw tiddlers to a directory",
"text": "(Note: The `--savetiddlers` command is deprecated in favour of the new, more flexible `--save` command)\n\nSaves a group of tiddlers in their raw text or binary format to the specified directory.\n\n```\n--savetiddlers <filter> <pathname> [\"noclean\"]\n```\n\nBy default, the pathname is resolved relative to the `output` subdirectory of the edition directory. The `--output` command can be used to direct output to a different directory.\n\nThe output directory is cleared of existing files before saving the specified files. The deletion can be disabled by specifying the ''noclean'' flag.\n\nAny missing directories in the pathname are automatically created.\n"
},
"$:/language/Help/server": {
"title": "$:/language/Help/server",
"description": "Provides an HTTP server interface to TiddlyWiki (deprecated in favour of the new listen command)",
"text": "Legacy command to serve a wiki over HTTP.\n\n```\n--server <port> <root-tiddler> <root-render-type> <root-serve-type> <username> <password> <host> <path-prefix> <debug-level>\n```\n\nThe parameters are:\n\n* ''port'' - port number on which to listen; non-numeric values are interpreted as a system environment variable from which the port number is extracted (defaults to \"8080\")\n* ''root-tiddler'' - the tiddler to serve at the root (defaults to \"$:/core/save/all\")\n* ''root-render-type'' - the content type to which the root tiddler should be rendered (defaults to \"text/plain\")\n* ''root-serve-type'' - the content type with which the root tiddler should be served (defaults to \"text/html\")\n* ''username'' - the default username for signing edits\n* ''password'' - optional password for basic authentication\n* ''host'' - optional hostname to serve from (defaults to \"127.0.0.1\" aka \"localhost\")\n* ''path-prefix'' - optional prefix for paths\n* ''debug-level'' - optional debug level; set to \"debug\" to view request details (defaults to \"none\")\n\nIf the password parameter is specified then the browser will prompt the user for the username and password. Note that the password is transmitted in plain text so this implementation should only be used on a trusted network or over HTTPS.\n\nFor example:\n\n```\n--server 8080 $:/core/save/all text/plain text/html MyUserName passw0rd\n```\n\nThe username and password can be specified as empty strings if you need to set the hostname or pathprefix and don't want to require a password.\n\n\n```\n--server 8080 $:/core/save/all text/plain text/html \"\" \"\" 192.168.0.245\n```\n\nUsing an address like this exposes your system to the local network. For information on opening up your instance to the entire local network, and possible security concerns, see the WebServer tiddler at TiddlyWiki.com.\n\nTo run multiple TiddlyWiki servers at the same time you'll need to put each one on a different port. It can be useful to use an environment variable to pass the port number to the Node.js process. This example references an environment variable called \"MY_PORT_NUMBER\":\n\n```\n--server MY_PORT_NUMBER $:/core/save/all text/plain text/html MyUserName passw0rd\n```\n"
},
"$:/language/Help/setfield": {
"title": "$:/language/Help/setfield",
"description": "Prepares external tiddlers for use",
"text": "//Note that this command is experimental and may change or be replaced before being finalised//\n\nSets the specified field of a group of tiddlers to the result of wikifying a template tiddler with the `currentTiddler` variable set to the tiddler.\n\n```\n--setfield <filter> <fieldname> <templatetitle> <rendertype>\n```\n\nThe parameters are:\n\n* ''filter'' - filter identifying the tiddlers to be affected\n* ''fieldname'' - the field to modify (defaults to \"text\")\n* ''templatetitle'' - the tiddler to wikify into the specified field. If blank or missing then the specified field is deleted\n* ''rendertype'' - the text type to render (defaults to \"text/plain\"; \"text/html\" can be used to include HTML tags)\n"
},
"$:/language/Help/unpackplugin": {
"title": "$:/language/Help/unpackplugin",
"description": "Unpack the payload tiddlers from a plugin",
"text": "Extract the payload tiddlers from a plugin, creating them as ordinary tiddlers:\n\n```\n--unpackplugin <title>\n```\n"
},
"$:/language/Help/verbose": {
"title": "$:/language/Help/verbose",
"description": "Triggers verbose output mode",
"text": "Triggers verbose output, useful for debugging\n\n```\n--verbose\n```\n"
},
"$:/language/Help/version": {
"title": "$:/language/Help/version",
"description": "Displays the version number of TiddlyWiki",
"text": "Displays the version number of TiddlyWiki.\n\n```\n--version\n```\n"
},
"$:/language/Import/Imported/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/Import/Imported/Hint",
"text": "The following tiddlers were imported:"
},
"$:/language/Import/Listing/Cancel/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/Import/Listing/Cancel/Caption",
"text": "Cancel"
},
"$:/language/Import/Listing/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/Import/Listing/Hint",
"text": "These tiddlers are ready to import:"
},
"$:/language/Import/Listing/Import/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/Import/Listing/Import/Caption",
"text": "Import"
},
"$:/language/Import/Listing/Select/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/Import/Listing/Select/Caption",
"text": "Select"
},
"$:/language/Import/Listing/Status/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/Import/Listing/Status/Caption",
"text": "Status"
},
"$:/language/Import/Listing/Title/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/Import/Listing/Title/Caption",
"text": "Title"
},
"$:/language/Import/Listing/Preview": {
"title": "$:/language/Import/Listing/Preview",
"text": "Preview:"
},
"$:/language/Import/Listing/Preview/Text": {
"title": "$:/language/Import/Listing/Preview/Text",
"text": "Text"
},
"$:/language/Import/Listing/Preview/TextRaw": {
"title": "$:/language/Import/Listing/Preview/TextRaw",
"text": "Text (Raw)"
},
"$:/language/Import/Listing/Preview/Fields": {
"title": "$:/language/Import/Listing/Preview/Fields",
"text": "Fields"
},
"$:/language/Import/Listing/Preview/Diff": {
"title": "$:/language/Import/Listing/Preview/Diff",
"text": "Diff"
},
"$:/language/Import/Listing/Preview/DiffFields": {
"title": "$:/language/Import/Listing/Preview/DiffFields",
"text": "Diff (Fields)"
},
"$:/language/Import/Upgrader/Plugins/Suppressed/Incompatible": {
"title": "$:/language/Import/Upgrader/Plugins/Suppressed/Incompatible",
"text": "Blocked incompatible or obsolete plugin"
},
"$:/language/Import/Upgrader/Plugins/Suppressed/Version": {
"title": "$:/language/Import/Upgrader/Plugins/Suppressed/Version",
"text": "Blocked plugin (due to incoming <<incoming>> being older than existing <<existing>>)"
},
"$:/language/Import/Upgrader/Plugins/Upgraded": {
"title": "$:/language/Import/Upgrader/Plugins/Upgraded",
"text": "Upgraded plugin from <<incoming>> to <<upgraded>>"
},
"$:/language/Import/Upgrader/State/Suppressed": {
"title": "$:/language/Import/Upgrader/State/Suppressed",
"text": "Blocked temporary state tiddler"
},
"$:/language/Import/Upgrader/System/Suppressed": {
"title": "$:/language/Import/Upgrader/System/Suppressed",
"text": "Blocked system tiddler"
},
"$:/language/Import/Upgrader/ThemeTweaks/Created": {
"title": "$:/language/Import/Upgrader/ThemeTweaks/Created",
"text": "Migrated theme tweak from <$text text=<<from>>/>"
},
"$:/language/AboveStory/ClassicPlugin/Warning": {
"title": "$:/language/AboveStory/ClassicPlugin/Warning",
"text": "It looks like you are trying to load a plugin designed for ~TiddlyWiki Classic. Please note that [[these plugins do not work with TiddlyWiki version 5.x.x|https://tiddlywiki.com/#TiddlyWikiClassic]]. ~TiddlyWiki Classic plugins detected:"
},
"$:/language/BinaryWarning/Prompt": {
"title": "$:/language/BinaryWarning/Prompt",
"text": "This tiddler contains binary data"
},
"$:/language/ClassicWarning/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/ClassicWarning/Hint",
"text": "This tiddler is written in TiddlyWiki Classic wiki text format, which is not fully compatible with TiddlyWiki version 5. See https://tiddlywiki.com/static/Upgrading.html for more details."
},
"$:/language/ClassicWarning/Upgrade/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/ClassicWarning/Upgrade/Caption",
"text": "upgrade"
},
"$:/language/CloseAll/Button": {
"title": "$:/language/CloseAll/Button",
"text": "close all"
},
"$:/language/ColourPicker/Recent": {
"title": "$:/language/ColourPicker/Recent",
"text": "Recent:"
},
"$:/language/ConfirmCancelTiddler": {
"title": "$:/language/ConfirmCancelTiddler",
"text": "Do you wish to discard changes to the tiddler \"<$text text=<<title>>/>\"?"
},
"$:/language/ConfirmDeleteTiddler": {
"title": "$:/language/ConfirmDeleteTiddler",
"text": "Do you wish to delete the tiddler \"<$text text=<<title>>/>\"?"
},
"$:/language/ConfirmOverwriteTiddler": {
"title": "$:/language/ConfirmOverwriteTiddler",
"text": "Do you wish to overwrite the tiddler \"<$text text=<<title>>/>\"?"
},
"$:/language/ConfirmEditShadowTiddler": {
"title": "$:/language/ConfirmEditShadowTiddler",
"text": "You are about to edit a ShadowTiddler. Any changes will override the default system making future upgrades non-trivial. Are you sure you want to edit \"<$text text=<<title>>/>\"?"
},
"$:/language/Count": {
"title": "$:/language/Count",
"text": "count"
},
"$:/language/DefaultNewTiddlerTitle": {
"title": "$:/language/DefaultNewTiddlerTitle",
"text": "New Tiddler"
},
"$:/language/Diffs/CountMessage": {
"title": "$:/language/Diffs/CountMessage",
"text": "<<diff-count>> differences"
},
"$:/language/DropMessage": {
"title": "$:/language/DropMessage",
"text": "Drop here (or use the 'Escape' key to cancel)"
},
"$:/language/Encryption/Cancel": {
"title": "$:/language/Encryption/Cancel",
"text": "Cancel"
},
"$:/language/Encryption/ConfirmClearPassword": {
"title": "$:/language/Encryption/ConfirmClearPassword",
"text": "Do you wish to clear the password? This will remove the encryption applied when saving this wiki"
},
"$:/language/Encryption/PromptSetPassword": {
"title": "$:/language/Encryption/PromptSetPassword",
"text": "Set a new password for this TiddlyWiki"
},
"$:/language/Encryption/Username": {
"title": "$:/language/Encryption/Username",
"text": "Username"
},
"$:/language/Encryption/Password": {
"title": "$:/language/Encryption/Password",
"text": "Password"
},
"$:/language/Encryption/RepeatPassword": {
"title": "$:/language/Encryption/RepeatPassword",
"text": "Repeat password"
},
"$:/language/Encryption/PasswordNoMatch": {
"title": "$:/language/Encryption/PasswordNoMatch",
"text": "Passwords do not match"
},
"$:/language/Encryption/SetPassword": {
"title": "$:/language/Encryption/SetPassword",
"text": "Set password"
},
"$:/language/Error/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/Error/Caption",
"text": "Error"
},
"$:/language/Error/EditConflict": {
"title": "$:/language/Error/EditConflict",
"text": "File changed on server"
},
"$:/language/Error/Filter": {
"title": "$:/language/Error/Filter",
"text": "Filter error"
},
"$:/language/Error/FilterSyntax": {
"title": "$:/language/Error/FilterSyntax",
"text": "Syntax error in filter expression"
},
"$:/language/Error/IsFilterOperator": {
"title": "$:/language/Error/IsFilterOperator",
"text": "Filter Error: Unknown operand for the 'is' filter operator"
},
"$:/language/Error/LoadingPluginLibrary": {
"title": "$:/language/Error/LoadingPluginLibrary",
"text": "Error loading plugin library"
},
"$:/language/Error/RecursiveTransclusion": {
"title": "$:/language/Error/RecursiveTransclusion",
"text": "Recursive transclusion error in transclude widget"
},
"$:/language/Error/RetrievingSkinny": {
"title": "$:/language/Error/RetrievingSkinny",
"text": "Error retrieving skinny tiddler list"
},
"$:/language/Error/SavingToTWEdit": {
"title": "$:/language/Error/SavingToTWEdit",
"text": "Error saving to TWEdit"
},
"$:/language/Error/WhileSaving": {
"title": "$:/language/Error/WhileSaving",
"text": "Error while saving"
},
"$:/language/Error/XMLHttpRequest": {
"title": "$:/language/Error/XMLHttpRequest",
"text": "XMLHttpRequest error code"
},
"$:/language/InternalJavaScriptError/Title": {
"title": "$:/language/InternalJavaScriptError/Title",
"text": "Internal JavaScript Error"
},
"$:/language/InternalJavaScriptError/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/InternalJavaScriptError/Hint",
"text": "Well, this is embarrassing. It is recommended that you restart TiddlyWiki by refreshing your browser"
},
"$:/language/InvalidFieldName": {
"title": "$:/language/InvalidFieldName",
"text": "Illegal characters in field name \"<$text text=<<fieldName>>/>\". Fields can only contain lowercase letters, digits and the characters underscore (`_`), hyphen (`-`) and period (`.`)"
},
"$:/language/LazyLoadingWarning": {
"title": "$:/language/LazyLoadingWarning",
"text": "<p>Trying to load external content from ''<$text text={{!!_canonical_uri}}/>''</p><p>If this message doesn't disappear, either the tiddler content type doesn't match the type of the external content, or you may be using a browser that doesn't support external content for wikis loaded as standalone files. See https://tiddlywiki.com/#ExternalText</p>"
},
"$:/language/LoginToTiddlySpace": {
"title": "$:/language/LoginToTiddlySpace",
"text": "Login to TiddlySpace"
},
"$:/language/Manager/Controls/FilterByTag/None": {
"title": "$:/language/Manager/Controls/FilterByTag/None",
"text": "(none)"
},
"$:/language/Manager/Controls/FilterByTag/Prompt": {
"title": "$:/language/Manager/Controls/FilterByTag/Prompt",
"text": "Filter by tag:"
},
"$:/language/Manager/Controls/Order/Prompt": {
"title": "$:/language/Manager/Controls/Order/Prompt",
"text": "Reverse order"
},
"$:/language/Manager/Controls/Search/Placeholder": {
"title": "$:/language/Manager/Controls/Search/Placeholder",
"text": "Search"
},
"$:/language/Manager/Controls/Search/Prompt": {
"title": "$:/language/Manager/Controls/Search/Prompt",
"text": "Search:"
},
"$:/language/Manager/Controls/Show/Option/Tags": {
"title": "$:/language/Manager/Controls/Show/Option/Tags",
"text": "tags"
},
"$:/language/Manager/Controls/Show/Option/Tiddlers": {
"title": "$:/language/Manager/Controls/Show/Option/Tiddlers",
"text": "tiddlers"
},
"$:/language/Manager/Controls/Show/Prompt": {
"title": "$:/language/Manager/Controls/Show/Prompt",
"text": "Show:"
},
"$:/language/Manager/Controls/Sort/Prompt": {
"title": "$:/language/Manager/Controls/Sort/Prompt",
"text": "Sort by:"
},
"$:/language/Manager/Item/Colour": {
"title": "$:/language/Manager/Item/Colour",
"text": "Colour"
},
"$:/language/Manager/Item/Fields": {
"title": "$:/language/Manager/Item/Fields",
"text": "Fields"
},
"$:/language/Manager/Item/Icon/None": {
"title": "$:/language/Manager/Item/Icon/None",
"text": "(none)"
},
"$:/language/Manager/Item/Icon": {
"title": "$:/language/Manager/Item/Icon",
"text": "Icon"
},
"$:/language/Manager/Item/RawText": {
"title": "$:/language/Manager/Item/RawText",
"text": "Raw text"
},
"$:/language/Manager/Item/Tags": {
"title": "$:/language/Manager/Item/Tags",
"text": "Tags"
},
"$:/language/Manager/Item/Tools": {
"title": "$:/language/Manager/Item/Tools",
"text": "Tools"
},
"$:/language/Manager/Item/WikifiedText": {
"title": "$:/language/Manager/Item/WikifiedText",
"text": "Wikified text"
},
"$:/language/MissingTiddler/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/MissingTiddler/Hint",
"text": "Missing tiddler \"<$text text=<<currentTiddler>>/>\" -- click {{||$:/core/ui/Buttons/edit}} to create"
},
"$:/language/No": {
"title": "$:/language/No",
"text": "No"
},
"$:/language/OfficialPluginLibrary": {
"title": "$:/language/OfficialPluginLibrary",
"text": "Official ~TiddlyWiki Plugin Library"
},
"$:/language/OfficialPluginLibrary/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/OfficialPluginLibrary/Hint",
"text": "The official ~TiddlyWiki plugin library at tiddlywiki.com. Plugins, themes and language packs are maintained by the core team."
},
"$:/language/PluginReloadWarning": {
"title": "$:/language/PluginReloadWarning",
"text": "Please save {{$:/core/ui/Buttons/save-wiki}} and reload {{$:/core/ui/Buttons/refresh}} to allow changes to plugins to take effect"
},
"$:/language/RecentChanges/DateFormat": {
"title": "$:/language/RecentChanges/DateFormat",
"text": "DDth MMM YYYY"
},
"$:/language/SystemTiddler/Tooltip": {
"title": "$:/language/SystemTiddler/Tooltip",
"text": "This is a system tiddler"
},
"$:/language/SystemTiddlers/Include/Prompt": {
"title": "$:/language/SystemTiddlers/Include/Prompt",
"text": "Include system tiddlers"
},
"$:/language/TagManager/Colour/Heading": {
"title": "$:/language/TagManager/Colour/Heading",
"text": "Colour"
},
"$:/language/TagManager/Count/Heading": {
"title": "$:/language/TagManager/Count/Heading",
"text": "Count"
},
"$:/language/TagManager/Icon/Heading": {
"title": "$:/language/TagManager/Icon/Heading",
"text": "Icon"
},
"$:/language/TagManager/Info/Heading": {
"title": "$:/language/TagManager/Info/Heading",
"text": "Info"
},
"$:/language/TagManager/Tag/Heading": {
"title": "$:/language/TagManager/Tag/Heading",
"text": "Tag"
},
"$:/language/Tiddler/DateFormat": {
"title": "$:/language/Tiddler/DateFormat",
"text": "DDth MMM YYYY at hh12:0mmam"
},
"$:/language/UnsavedChangesWarning": {
"title": "$:/language/UnsavedChangesWarning",
"text": "You have unsaved changes in TiddlyWiki"
},
"$:/language/Yes": {
"title": "$:/language/Yes",
"text": "Yes"
},
"$:/language/Modals/Download": {
"title": "$:/language/Modals/Download",
"subtitle": "Download changes",
"footer": "<$button message=\"tm-close-tiddler\">Close</$button>",
"help": "https://tiddlywiki.com/static/DownloadingChanges.html",
"text": "Your browser only supports manual saving.\n\nTo save your modified wiki, right click on the download link below and select \"Download file\" or \"Save file\", and then choose the folder and filename.\n\n//You can marginally speed things up by clicking the link with the control key (Windows) or the options/alt key (Mac OS X). You will not be prompted for the folder or filename, but your browser is likely to give it an unrecognisable name -- you may need to rename the file to include an `.html` extension before you can do anything useful with it.//\n\nOn smartphones that do not allow files to be downloaded you can instead bookmark the link, and then sync your bookmarks to a desktop computer from where the wiki can be saved normally.\n"
},
"$:/language/Modals/SaveInstructions": {
"title": "$:/language/Modals/SaveInstructions",
"subtitle": "Save your work",
"footer": "<$button message=\"tm-close-tiddler\">Close</$button>",
"help": "https://tiddlywiki.com/static/SavingChanges.html",
"text": "Your changes to this wiki need to be saved as a ~TiddlyWiki HTML file.\n\n!!! Desktop browsers\n\n# Select ''Save As'' from the ''File'' menu\n# Choose a filename and location\n#* Some browsers also require you to explicitly specify the file saving format as ''Webpage, HTML only'' or similar\n# Close this tab\n\n!!! Smartphone browsers\n\n# Create a bookmark to this page\n#* If you've got iCloud or Google Sync set up then the bookmark will automatically sync to your desktop where you can open it and save it as above\n# Close this tab\n\n//If you open the bookmark again in Mobile Safari you will see this message again. If you want to go ahead and use the file, just click the ''close'' button below//\n"
},
"$:/config/NewJournal/Title": {
"title": "$:/config/NewJournal/Title",
"text": "DDth MMM YYYY"
},
"$:/config/NewJournal/Text": {
"title": "$:/config/NewJournal/Text",
"text": ""
},
"$:/config/NewJournal/Tags": {
"title": "$:/config/NewJournal/Tags",
"text": "Journal"
},
"$:/language/Notifications/Save/Done": {
"title": "$:/language/Notifications/Save/Done",
"text": "Saved wiki"
},
"$:/language/Notifications/Save/Starting": {
"title": "$:/language/Notifications/Save/Starting",
"text": "Starting to save wiki"
},
"$:/language/Notifications/CopiedToClipboard/Succeeded": {
"title": "$:/language/Notifications/CopiedToClipboard/Succeeded",
"text": "Copied to clipboard!"
},
"$:/language/Notifications/CopiedToClipboard/Failed": {
"title": "$:/language/Notifications/CopiedToClipboard/Failed",
"text": "Failed to copy to clipboard!"
},
"$:/language/Search/DefaultResults/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/Search/DefaultResults/Caption",
"text": "List"
},
"$:/language/Search/Filter/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/Search/Filter/Caption",
"text": "Filter"
},
"$:/language/Search/Filter/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/Search/Filter/Hint",
"text": "Search via a [[filter expression|https://tiddlywiki.com/static/Filters.html]]"
},
"$:/language/Search/Filter/Matches": {
"title": "$:/language/Search/Filter/Matches",
"text": "//<small><<resultCount>> matches</small>//"
},
"$:/language/Search/Matches": {
"title": "$:/language/Search/Matches",
"text": "//<small><<resultCount>> matches</small>//"
},
"$:/language/Search/Matches/All": {
"title": "$:/language/Search/Matches/All",
"text": "All matches:"
},
"$:/language/Search/Matches/Title": {
"title": "$:/language/Search/Matches/Title",
"text": "Title matches:"
},
"$:/language/Search/Search": {
"title": "$:/language/Search/Search",
"text": "Search"
},
"$:/language/Search/Search/TooShort": {
"title": "$:/language/Search/Search/TooShort",
"text": "Search text too short"
},
"$:/language/Search/Shadows/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/Search/Shadows/Caption",
"text": "Shadows"
},
"$:/language/Search/Shadows/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/Search/Shadows/Hint",
"text": "Search for shadow tiddlers"
},
"$:/language/Search/Shadows/Matches": {
"title": "$:/language/Search/Shadows/Matches",
"text": "//<small><<resultCount>> matches</small>//"
},
"$:/language/Search/Standard/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/Search/Standard/Caption",
"text": "Standard"
},
"$:/language/Search/Standard/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/Search/Standard/Hint",
"text": "Search for standard tiddlers"
},
"$:/language/Search/Standard/Matches": {
"title": "$:/language/Search/Standard/Matches",
"text": "//<small><<resultCount>> matches</small>//"
},
"$:/language/Search/System/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/Search/System/Caption",
"text": "System"
},
"$:/language/Search/System/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/Search/System/Hint",
"text": "Search for system tiddlers"
},
"$:/language/Search/System/Matches": {
"title": "$:/language/Search/System/Matches",
"text": "//<small><<resultCount>> matches</small>//"
},
"$:/language/SideBar/All/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/SideBar/All/Caption",
"text": "All"
},
"$:/language/SideBar/Contents/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/SideBar/Contents/Caption",
"text": "Contents"
},
"$:/language/SideBar/Drafts/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/SideBar/Drafts/Caption",
"text": "Drafts"
},
"$:/language/SideBar/Explorer/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/SideBar/Explorer/Caption",
"text": "Explorer"
},
"$:/language/SideBar/Missing/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/SideBar/Missing/Caption",
"text": "Missing"
},
"$:/language/SideBar/More/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/SideBar/More/Caption",
"text": "More"
},
"$:/language/SideBar/Open/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/SideBar/Open/Caption",
"text": "Open"
},
"$:/language/SideBar/Orphans/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/SideBar/Orphans/Caption",
"text": "Orphans"
},
"$:/language/SideBar/Recent/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/SideBar/Recent/Caption",
"text": "Recent"
},
"$:/language/SideBar/Shadows/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/SideBar/Shadows/Caption",
"text": "Shadows"
},
"$:/language/SideBar/System/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/SideBar/System/Caption",
"text": "System"
},
"$:/language/SideBar/Tags/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/SideBar/Tags/Caption",
"text": "Tags"
},
"$:/language/SideBar/Tags/Untagged/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/SideBar/Tags/Untagged/Caption",
"text": "untagged"
},
"$:/language/SideBar/Tools/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/SideBar/Tools/Caption",
"text": "Tools"
},
"$:/language/SideBar/Types/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/SideBar/Types/Caption",
"text": "Types"
},
"$:/SiteSubtitle": {
"title": "$:/SiteSubtitle",
"text": "a non-linear personal web notebook"
},
"$:/SiteTitle": {
"title": "$:/SiteTitle",
"text": "My ~TiddlyWiki"
},
"$:/language/Snippets/ListByTag": {
"title": "$:/language/Snippets/ListByTag",
"tags": "$:/tags/TextEditor/Snippet",
"caption": "List of tiddlers by tag",
"text": "<<list-links \"[tag[task]sort[title]]\">>\n"
},
"$:/language/Snippets/MacroDefinition": {
"title": "$:/language/Snippets/MacroDefinition",
"tags": "$:/tags/TextEditor/Snippet",
"caption": "Macro definition",
"text": "\\define macroName(param1:\"default value\",param2)\nText of the macro\n\\end\n"
},
"$:/language/Snippets/Table4x3": {
"title": "$:/language/Snippets/Table4x3",
"tags": "$:/tags/TextEditor/Snippet",
"caption": "Table with 4 columns by 3 rows",
"text": "|! |!Alpha |!Beta |!Gamma |!Delta |\n|!One | | | | |\n|!Two | | | | |\n|!Three | | | | |\n"
},
"$:/language/Snippets/TableOfContents": {
"title": "$:/language/Snippets/TableOfContents",
"tags": "$:/tags/TextEditor/Snippet",
"caption": "Table of Contents",
"text": "<div class=\"tc-table-of-contents\">\n\n<<toc-selective-expandable 'TableOfContents'>>\n\n</div>"
},
"$:/language/ThemeTweaks/ThemeTweaks": {
"title": "$:/language/ThemeTweaks/ThemeTweaks",
"text": "Theme Tweaks"
},
"$:/language/ThemeTweaks/ThemeTweaks/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/ThemeTweaks/ThemeTweaks/Hint",
"text": "You can tweak certain aspects of the ''Vanilla'' theme."
},
"$:/language/ThemeTweaks/Options": {
"title": "$:/language/ThemeTweaks/Options",
"text": "Options"
},
"$:/language/ThemeTweaks/Options/SidebarLayout": {
"title": "$:/language/ThemeTweaks/Options/SidebarLayout",
"text": "Sidebar layout"
},
"$:/language/ThemeTweaks/Options/SidebarLayout/Fixed-Fluid": {
"title": "$:/language/ThemeTweaks/Options/SidebarLayout/Fixed-Fluid",
"text": "Fixed story, fluid sidebar"
},
"$:/language/ThemeTweaks/Options/SidebarLayout/Fluid-Fixed": {
"title": "$:/language/ThemeTweaks/Options/SidebarLayout/Fluid-Fixed",
"text": "Fluid story, fixed sidebar"
},
"$:/language/ThemeTweaks/Options/StickyTitles": {
"title": "$:/language/ThemeTweaks/Options/StickyTitles",
"text": "Sticky titles"
},
"$:/language/ThemeTweaks/Options/StickyTitles/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/ThemeTweaks/Options/StickyTitles/Hint",
"text": "Causes tiddler titles to \"stick\" to the top of the browser window"
},
"$:/language/ThemeTweaks/Options/CodeWrapping": {
"title": "$:/language/ThemeTweaks/Options/CodeWrapping",
"text": "Wrap long lines in code blocks"
},
"$:/language/ThemeTweaks/Settings": {
"title": "$:/language/ThemeTweaks/Settings",
"text": "Settings"
},
"$:/language/ThemeTweaks/Settings/FontFamily": {
"title": "$:/language/ThemeTweaks/Settings/FontFamily",
"text": "Font family"
},
"$:/language/ThemeTweaks/Settings/CodeFontFamily": {
"title": "$:/language/ThemeTweaks/Settings/CodeFontFamily",
"text": "Code font family"
},
"$:/language/ThemeTweaks/Settings/EditorFontFamily": {
"title": "$:/language/ThemeTweaks/Settings/EditorFontFamily",
"text": "Editor font family"
},
"$:/language/ThemeTweaks/Settings/BackgroundImage": {
"title": "$:/language/ThemeTweaks/Settings/BackgroundImage",
"text": "Page background image"
},
"$:/language/ThemeTweaks/Settings/BackgroundImageAttachment": {
"title": "$:/language/ThemeTweaks/Settings/BackgroundImageAttachment",
"text": "Page background image attachment"
},
"$:/language/ThemeTweaks/Settings/BackgroundImageAttachment/Scroll": {
"title": "$:/language/ThemeTweaks/Settings/BackgroundImageAttachment/Scroll",
"text": "Scroll with tiddlers"
},
"$:/language/ThemeTweaks/Settings/BackgroundImageAttachment/Fixed": {
"title": "$:/language/ThemeTweaks/Settings/BackgroundImageAttachment/Fixed",
"text": "Fixed to window"
},
"$:/language/ThemeTweaks/Settings/BackgroundImageSize": {
"title": "$:/language/ThemeTweaks/Settings/BackgroundImageSize",
"text": "Page background image size"
},
"$:/language/ThemeTweaks/Settings/BackgroundImageSize/Auto": {
"title": "$:/language/ThemeTweaks/Settings/BackgroundImageSize/Auto",
"text": "Auto"
},
"$:/language/ThemeTweaks/Settings/BackgroundImageSize/Cover": {
"title": "$:/language/ThemeTweaks/Settings/BackgroundImageSize/Cover",
"text": "Cover"
},
"$:/language/ThemeTweaks/Settings/BackgroundImageSize/Contain": {
"title": "$:/language/ThemeTweaks/Settings/BackgroundImageSize/Contain",
"text": "Contain"
},
"$:/language/ThemeTweaks/Metrics": {
"title": "$:/language/ThemeTweaks/Metrics",
"text": "Sizes"
},
"$:/language/ThemeTweaks/Metrics/FontSize": {
"title": "$:/language/ThemeTweaks/Metrics/FontSize",
"text": "Font size"
},
"$:/language/ThemeTweaks/Metrics/LineHeight": {
"title": "$:/language/ThemeTweaks/Metrics/LineHeight",
"text": "Line height"
},
"$:/language/ThemeTweaks/Metrics/BodyFontSize": {
"title": "$:/language/ThemeTweaks/Metrics/BodyFontSize",
"text": "Font size for tiddler body"
},
"$:/language/ThemeTweaks/Metrics/BodyLineHeight": {
"title": "$:/language/ThemeTweaks/Metrics/BodyLineHeight",
"text": "Line height for tiddler body"
},
"$:/language/ThemeTweaks/Metrics/StoryLeft": {
"title": "$:/language/ThemeTweaks/Metrics/StoryLeft",
"text": "Story left position"
},
"$:/language/ThemeTweaks/Metrics/StoryLeft/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/ThemeTweaks/Metrics/StoryLeft/Hint",
"text": "how far the left margin of the story river<br>(tiddler area) is from the left of the page"
},
"$:/language/ThemeTweaks/Metrics/StoryTop": {
"title": "$:/language/ThemeTweaks/Metrics/StoryTop",
"text": "Story top position"
},
"$:/language/ThemeTweaks/Metrics/StoryTop/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/ThemeTweaks/Metrics/StoryTop/Hint",
"text": "how far the top margin of the story river<br>is from the top of the page"
},
"$:/language/ThemeTweaks/Metrics/StoryRight": {
"title": "$:/language/ThemeTweaks/Metrics/StoryRight",
"text": "Story right"
},
"$:/language/ThemeTweaks/Metrics/StoryRight/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/ThemeTweaks/Metrics/StoryRight/Hint",
"text": "how far the left margin of the sidebar <br>is from the left of the page"
},
"$:/language/ThemeTweaks/Metrics/StoryWidth": {
"title": "$:/language/ThemeTweaks/Metrics/StoryWidth",
"text": "Story width"
},
"$:/language/ThemeTweaks/Metrics/StoryWidth/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/ThemeTweaks/Metrics/StoryWidth/Hint",
"text": "the overall width of the story river"
},
"$:/language/ThemeTweaks/Metrics/TiddlerWidth": {
"title": "$:/language/ThemeTweaks/Metrics/TiddlerWidth",
"text": "Tiddler width"
},
"$:/language/ThemeTweaks/Metrics/TiddlerWidth/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/ThemeTweaks/Metrics/TiddlerWidth/Hint",
"text": "within the story river"
},
"$:/language/ThemeTweaks/Metrics/SidebarBreakpoint": {
"title": "$:/language/ThemeTweaks/Metrics/SidebarBreakpoint",
"text": "Sidebar breakpoint"
},
"$:/language/ThemeTweaks/Metrics/SidebarBreakpoint/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/ThemeTweaks/Metrics/SidebarBreakpoint/Hint",
"text": "the minimum page width at which the story<br>river and sidebar will appear side by side"
},
"$:/language/ThemeTweaks/Metrics/SidebarWidth": {
"title": "$:/language/ThemeTweaks/Metrics/SidebarWidth",
"text": "Sidebar width"
},
"$:/language/ThemeTweaks/Metrics/SidebarWidth/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/ThemeTweaks/Metrics/SidebarWidth/Hint",
"text": "the width of the sidebar in fluid-fixed layout"
},
"$:/language/TiddlerInfo/Advanced/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/TiddlerInfo/Advanced/Caption",
"text": "Advanced"
},
"$:/language/TiddlerInfo/Advanced/PluginInfo/Empty/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/TiddlerInfo/Advanced/PluginInfo/Empty/Hint",
"text": "none"
},
"$:/language/TiddlerInfo/Advanced/PluginInfo/Heading": {
"title": "$:/language/TiddlerInfo/Advanced/PluginInfo/Heading",
"text": "Plugin Details"
},
"$:/language/TiddlerInfo/Advanced/PluginInfo/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/TiddlerInfo/Advanced/PluginInfo/Hint",
"text": "This plugin contains the following shadow tiddlers:"
},
"$:/language/TiddlerInfo/Advanced/ShadowInfo/Heading": {
"title": "$:/language/TiddlerInfo/Advanced/ShadowInfo/Heading",
"text": "Shadow Status"
},
"$:/language/TiddlerInfo/Advanced/ShadowInfo/NotShadow/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/TiddlerInfo/Advanced/ShadowInfo/NotShadow/Hint",
"text": "The tiddler <$link to=<<infoTiddler>>><$text text=<<infoTiddler>>/></$link> is not a shadow tiddler"
},
"$:/language/TiddlerInfo/Advanced/ShadowInfo/Shadow/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/TiddlerInfo/Advanced/ShadowInfo/Shadow/Hint",
"text": "The tiddler <$link to=<<infoTiddler>>><$text text=<<infoTiddler>>/></$link> is a shadow tiddler"
},
"$:/language/TiddlerInfo/Advanced/ShadowInfo/Shadow/Source": {
"title": "$:/language/TiddlerInfo/Advanced/ShadowInfo/Shadow/Source",
"text": "It is defined in the plugin <$link to=<<pluginTiddler>>><$text text=<<pluginTiddler>>/></$link>"
},
"$:/language/TiddlerInfo/Advanced/ShadowInfo/OverriddenShadow/Hint": {
"title": "$:/language/TiddlerInfo/Advanced/ShadowInfo/OverriddenShadow/Hint",
"text": "It is overridden by an ordinary tiddler"
},
"$:/language/TiddlerInfo/Fields/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/TiddlerInfo/Fields/Caption",
"text": "Fields"
},
"$:/language/TiddlerInfo/List/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/TiddlerInfo/List/Caption",
"text": "List"
},
"$:/language/TiddlerInfo/List/Empty": {
"title": "$:/language/TiddlerInfo/List/Empty",
"text": "This tiddler does not have a list"
},
"$:/language/TiddlerInfo/Listed/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/TiddlerInfo/Listed/Caption",
"text": "Listed"
},
"$:/language/TiddlerInfo/Listed/Empty": {
"title": "$:/language/TiddlerInfo/Listed/Empty",
"text": "This tiddler is not listed by any others"
},
"$:/language/TiddlerInfo/References/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/TiddlerInfo/References/Caption",
"text": "References"
},
"$:/language/TiddlerInfo/References/Empty": {
"title": "$:/language/TiddlerInfo/References/Empty",
"text": "No tiddlers link to this one"
},
"$:/language/TiddlerInfo/Tagging/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/TiddlerInfo/Tagging/Caption",
"text": "Tagging"
},
"$:/language/TiddlerInfo/Tagging/Empty": {
"title": "$:/language/TiddlerInfo/Tagging/Empty",
"text": "No tiddlers are tagged with this one"
},
"$:/language/TiddlerInfo/Tools/Caption": {
"title": "$:/language/TiddlerInfo/Tools/Caption",
"text": "Tools"
},
"$:/language/Docs/Types/application/javascript": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/Types/application/javascript",
"description": "JavaScript code",
"name": "application/javascript",
"group": "Developer",
"group-sort": "2"
},
"$:/language/Docs/Types/application/json": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/Types/application/json",
"description": "JSON data",
"name": "application/json",
"group": "Developer",
"group-sort": "2"
},
"$:/language/Docs/Types/application/x-tiddler-dictionary": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/Types/application/x-tiddler-dictionary",
"description": "Data dictionary",
"name": "application/x-tiddler-dictionary",
"group": "Developer",
"group-sort": "2"
},
"$:/language/Docs/Types/image/gif": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/Types/image/gif",
"description": "GIF image",
"name": "image/gif",
"group": "Image",
"group-sort": "1"
},
"$:/language/Docs/Types/image/jpeg": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/Types/image/jpeg",
"description": "JPEG image",
"name": "image/jpeg",
"group": "Image",
"group-sort": "1"
},
"$:/language/Docs/Types/image/png": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/Types/image/png",
"description": "PNG image",
"name": "image/png",
"group": "Image",
"group-sort": "1"
},
"$:/language/Docs/Types/image/svg+xml": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/Types/image/svg+xml",
"description": "Structured Vector Graphics image",
"name": "image/svg+xml",
"group": "Image",
"group-sort": "1"
},
"$:/language/Docs/Types/image/x-icon": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/Types/image/x-icon",
"description": "ICO format icon file",
"name": "image/x-icon",
"group": "Image",
"group-sort": "1"
},
"$:/language/Docs/Types/text/css": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/Types/text/css",
"description": "Static stylesheet",
"name": "text/css",
"group": "Developer",
"group-sort": "2"
},
"$:/language/Docs/Types/text/html": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/Types/text/html",
"description": "HTML markup",
"name": "text/html",
"group": "Text",
"group-sort": "0"
},
"$:/language/Docs/Types/text/plain": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/Types/text/plain",
"description": "Plain text",
"name": "text/plain",
"group": "Text",
"group-sort": "0"
},
"$:/language/Docs/Types/text/vnd.tiddlywiki": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/Types/text/vnd.tiddlywiki",
"description": "TiddlyWiki 5",
"name": "text/vnd.tiddlywiki",
"group": "Text",
"group-sort": "0"
},
"$:/language/Docs/Types/text/x-tiddlywiki": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/Types/text/x-tiddlywiki",
"description": "TiddlyWiki Classic",
"name": "text/x-tiddlywiki",
"group": "Text",
"group-sort": "0"
},
"$:/languages/en-GB/icon": {
"title": "$:/languages/en-GB/icon",
"type": "image/svg+xml",
"text": "<svg xmlns=\"http://www.w3.org/2000/svg\" viewBox=\"0 0 60 30\" width=\"1200\" height=\"600\">\n<clipPath id=\"t\">\n\t<path d=\"M30,15 h30 v15 z v15 h-30 z h-30 v-15 z v-15 h30 z\"/>\n</clipPath>\n<path d=\"M0,0 v30 h60 v-30 z\" fill=\"#00247d\"/>\n<path d=\"M0,0 L60,30 M60,0 L0,30\" stroke=\"#fff\" stroke-width=\"6\"/>\n<path d=\"M0,0 L60,30 M60,0 L0,30\" clip-path=\"url(#t)\" stroke=\"#cf142b\" stroke-width=\"4\"/>\n<path d=\"M30,0 v30 M0,15 h60\" stroke=\"#fff\" stroke-width=\"10\"/>\n<path d=\"M30,0 v30 M0,15 h60\" stroke=\"#cf142b\" stroke-width=\"6\"/>\n</svg>\n"
},
"$:/languages/en-GB": {
"title": "$:/languages/en-GB",
"name": "en-GB",
"description": "English (British)",
"author": "JeremyRuston",
"core-version": ">=5.0.0\"",
"text": "Stub pseudo-plugin for the default language"
},
"$:/core/modules/commander.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/commander.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/commander.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: global\n\nThe $tw.Commander class is a command interpreter\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\n/*\nParse a sequence of commands\n\tcommandTokens: an array of command string tokens\n\twiki: reference to the wiki store object\n\tstreams: {output:, error:}, each of which has a write(string) method\n\tcallback: a callback invoked as callback(err) where err is null if there was no error\n*/\nvar Commander = function(commandTokens,callback,wiki,streams) {\n\tvar path = require(\"path\");\n\tthis.commandTokens = commandTokens;\n\tthis.nextToken = 0;\n\tthis.callback = callback;\n\tthis.wiki = wiki;\n\tthis.streams = streams;\n\tthis.outputPath = path.resolve($tw.boot.wikiPath,$tw.config.wikiOutputSubDir);\n};\n\n/*\nLog a string if verbose flag is set\n*/\nCommander.prototype.log = function(str) {\n\tif(this.verbose) {\n\t\tthis.streams.output.write(str + \"\\n\");\n\t}\n};\n\n/*\nWrite a string if verbose flag is set\n*/\nCommander.prototype.write = function(str) {\n\tif(this.verbose) {\n\t\tthis.streams.output.write(str);\n\t}\n};\n\n/*\nAdd a string of tokens to the command queue\n*/\nCommander.prototype.addCommandTokens = function(commandTokens) {\n\tvar params = commandTokens.slice(0);\n\tparams.unshift(0);\n\tparams.unshift(this.nextToken);\n\tArray.prototype.splice.apply(this.commandTokens,params);\n};\n\n/*\nExecute the sequence of commands and invoke a callback on completion\n*/\nCommander.prototype.execute = function() {\n\tthis.executeNextCommand();\n};\n\n/*\nExecute the next command in the sequence\n*/\nCommander.prototype.executeNextCommand = function() {\n\tvar self = this;\n\t// Invoke the callback if there are no more commands\n\tif(this.nextToken >= this.commandTokens.length) {\n\t\tthis.callback(null);\n\t} else {\n\t\t// Get and check the command token\n\t\tvar commandName = this.commandTokens[this.nextToken++];\n\t\tif(commandName.substr(0,2) !== \"--\") {\n\t\t\tthis.callback(\"Missing command: \" + commandName);\n\t\t} else {\n\t\t\tcommandName = commandName.substr(2); // Trim off the --\n\t\t\t// Accumulate the parameters to the command\n\t\t\tvar params = [];\n\t\t\twhile(this.nextToken < this.commandTokens.length && \n\t\t\t\tthis.commandTokens[this.nextToken].substr(0,2) !== \"--\") {\n\t\t\t\tparams.push(this.commandTokens[this.nextToken++]);\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t// Get the command info\n\t\t\tvar command = $tw.commands[commandName],\n\t\t\t\tc,err;\n\t\t\tif(!command) {\n\t\t\t\tthis.callback(\"Unknown command: \" + commandName);\n\t\t\t} else {\n\t\t\t\tif(this.verbose) {\n\t\t\t\t\tthis.streams.output.write(\"Executing command: \" + commandName + \" \" + params.join(\" \") + \"\\n\");\n\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t\t// Parse named parameters if required\n\t\t\t\tif(command.info.namedParameterMode) {\n\t\t\t\t\tparams = this.extractNamedParameters(params,command.info.mandatoryParameters);\n\t\t\t\t\tif(typeof params === \"string\") {\n\t\t\t\t\t\treturn this.callback(params);\n\t\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t\tif(command.info.synchronous) {\n\t\t\t\t\t// Synchronous command\n\t\t\t\t\tc = new command.Command(params,this);\n\t\t\t\t\terr = c.execute();\n\t\t\t\t\tif(err) {\n\t\t\t\t\t\tthis.callback(err);\n\t\t\t\t\t} else {\n\t\t\t\t\t\tthis.executeNextCommand();\n\t\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t\t} else {\n\t\t\t\t\t// Asynchronous command\n\t\t\t\t\tc = new command.Command(params,this,function(err) {\n\t\t\t\t\t\tif(err) {\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tself.callback(err);\n\t\t\t\t\t\t} else {\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tself.executeNextCommand();\n\t\t\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t\t\t});\n\t\t\t\t\terr = c.execute();\n\t\t\t\t\tif(err) {\n\t\t\t\t\t\tthis.callback(err);\n\t\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t}\n\t}\n};\n\n/*\nGiven an array of parameter strings `params` in name:value format, and an array of mandatory parameter names in `mandatoryParameters`, returns a hashmap of values or a string if error\n*/\nCommander.prototype.extractNamedParameters = function(params,mandatoryParameters) {\n\tmandatoryParameters = mandatoryParameters || [];\n\tvar errors = [],\n\t\tparamsByName = Object.create(null);\n\t// Extract the parameters\n\t$tw.utils.each(params,function(param) {\n\t\tvar index = param.indexOf(\"=\");\n\t\tif(index < 1) {\n\t\t\terrors.push(\"malformed named parameter: '\" + param + \"'\");\n\t\t}\n\t\tparamsByName[param.slice(0,index)] = $tw.utils.trim(param.slice(index+1));\n\t});\n\t// Check the mandatory parameters are present\n\t$tw.utils.each(mandatoryParameters,function(mandatoryParameter) {\n\t\tif(!$tw.utils.hop(paramsByName,mandatoryParameter)) {\n\t\t\terrors.push(\"missing mandatory parameter: '\" + mandatoryParameter + \"'\");\n\t\t}\n\t});\n\t// Return any errors\n\tif(errors.length > 0) {\n\t\treturn errors.join(\" and\\n\");\n\t} else {\n\t\treturn paramsByName;\t\t\n\t}\n};\n\nCommander.initCommands = function(moduleType) {\n\tmoduleType = moduleType || \"command\";\n\t$tw.commands = {};\n\t$tw.modules.forEachModuleOfType(moduleType,function(title,module) {\n\t\tvar c = $tw.commands[module.info.name] = {};\n\t\t// Add the methods defined by the module\n\t\tfor(var f in module) {\n\t\t\tif($tw.utils.hop(module,f)) {\n\t\t\t\tc[f] = module[f];\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t}\n\t});\n};\n\nexports.Commander = Commander;\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "global"
},
"$:/core/modules/commands/build.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/commands/build.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/commands/build.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: command\n\nCommand to build a build target\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nexports.info = {\n\tname: \"build\",\n\tsynchronous: true\n};\n\nvar Command = function(params,commander) {\n\tthis.params = params;\n\tthis.commander = commander;\n};\n\nCommand.prototype.execute = function() {\n\t// Get the build targets defined in the wiki\n\tvar buildTargets = $tw.boot.wikiInfo.build;\n\tif(!buildTargets) {\n\t\treturn \"No build targets defined\";\n\t}\n\t// Loop through each of the specified targets\n\tvar targets;\n\tif(this.params.length > 0) {\n\t\ttargets = this.params;\n\t} else {\n\t\ttargets = Object.keys(buildTargets);\n\t}\n\tfor(var targetIndex=0; targetIndex<targets.length; targetIndex++) {\n\t\tvar target = targets[targetIndex],\n\t\t\tcommands = buildTargets[target];\n\t\tif(!commands) {\n\t\t\treturn \"Build target '\" + target + \"' not found\";\n\t\t}\n\t\t// Add the commands to the queue\n\t\tthis.commander.addCommandTokens(commands);\n\t}\n\treturn null;\n};\n\nexports.Command = Command;\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "command"
},
"$:/core/modules/commands/clearpassword.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/commands/clearpassword.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/commands/clearpassword.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: command\n\nClear password for crypto operations\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nexports.info = {\n\tname: \"clearpassword\",\n\tsynchronous: true\n};\n\nvar Command = function(params,commander,callback) {\n\tthis.params = params;\n\tthis.commander = commander;\n\tthis.callback = callback;\n};\n\nCommand.prototype.execute = function() {\n\t$tw.crypto.setPassword(null);\n\treturn null;\n};\n\nexports.Command = Command;\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "command"
},
"$:/core/modules/commands/editions.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/commands/editions.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/commands/editions.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: command\n\nCommand to list the available editions\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nexports.info = {\n\tname: \"editions\",\n\tsynchronous: true\n};\n\nvar Command = function(params,commander) {\n\tthis.params = params;\n\tthis.commander = commander;\n};\n\nCommand.prototype.execute = function() {\n\tvar self = this;\n\t// Output the list\n\tthis.commander.streams.output.write(\"Available editions:\\n\\n\");\n\tvar editionInfo = $tw.utils.getEditionInfo();\n\t$tw.utils.each(editionInfo,function(info,name) {\n\t\tself.commander.streams.output.write(\" \" + name + \": \" + info.description + \"\\n\");\n\t});\n\tthis.commander.streams.output.write(\"\\n\");\n\treturn null;\n};\n\nexports.Command = Command;\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "command"
},
"$:/core/modules/commands/fetch.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/commands/fetch.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/commands/fetch.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: command\n\nCommands to fetch external tiddlers\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nexports.info = {\n\tname: \"fetch\",\n\tsynchronous: false\n};\n\nvar Command = function(params,commander,callback) {\n\tthis.params = params;\n\tthis.commander = commander;\n\tthis.callback = callback;\n};\n\nCommand.prototype.execute = function() {\n\tif(this.params.length < 2) {\n\t\treturn \"Missing subcommand and url\";\n\t}\n\tswitch(this.params[0]) {\n\t\tcase \"raw-file\":\n\t\t\treturn this.fetchFiles({\n\t\t\t\traw: true,\n\t\t\t\turl: this.params[1],\n\t\t\t\ttransformFilter: this.params[2] || \"\",\n\t\t\t\tcallback: this.callback\n\t\t\t});\n\t\t\tbreak;\n\t\tcase \"file\":\n\t\t\treturn this.fetchFiles({\n\t\t\t\turl: this.params[1],\n\t\t\t\timportFilter: this.params[2],\n\t\t\t\ttransformFilter: this.params[3] || \"\",\n\t\t\t\tcallback: this.callback\n\t\t\t});\n\t\t\tbreak;\n\t\tcase \"raw-files\":\n\t\t\treturn this.fetchFiles({\n\t\t\t\traw: true,\n\t\t\t\turlFilter: this.params[1],\n\t\t\t\ttransformFilter: this.params[2] || \"\",\n\t\t\t\tcallback: this.callback\n\t\t\t});\n\t\t\tbreak;\n\t\tcase \"files\":\n\t\t\treturn this.fetchFiles({\n\t\t\t\turlFilter: this.params[1],\n\t\t\t\timportFilter: this.params[2],\n\t\t\t\ttransformFilter: this.params[3] || \"\",\n\t\t\t\tcallback: this.callback\n\t\t\t});\n\t\t\tbreak;\n\t}\n\treturn null;\n};\n\nCommand.prototype.fetchFiles = function(options) {\n\tvar self = this;\n\t// Get the list of URLs\n\tvar urls;\n\tif(options.url) {\n\t\turls = [options.url]\n\t} else if(options.urlFilter) {\n\t\turls = $tw.wiki.filterTiddlers(options.urlFilter);\n\t} else {\n\t\treturn \"Missing URL\";\n\t}\n\t// Process each URL in turn\n\tvar next = 0;\n\tvar getNextFile = function(err) {\n\t\tif(err) {\n\t\t\treturn options.callback(err);\n\t\t}\n\t\tif(next < urls.length) {\n\t\t\tself.fetchFile(urls[next++],options,getNextFile);\n\t\t} else {\n\t\t\toptions.callback(null);\n\t\t}\n\t};\n\tgetNextFile(null);\n\t// Success\n\treturn null;\n};\n\nCommand.prototype.fetchFile = function(url,options,callback,redirectCount) {\n\tif(redirectCount > 10) {\n\t\treturn callback(\"Error too many redirects retrieving \" + url);\n\t}\n\tvar self = this,\n\t\tlib = url.substr(0,8) === \"https://\" ? require(\"https\") : require(\"http\");\n\tlib.get(url).on(\"response\",function(response) {\n\t var type = (response.headers[\"content-type\"] || \"\").split(\";\")[0],\n\t \tdata = [];\n\t self.commander.write(\"Reading \" + url + \": \");\n\t response.on(\"data\",function(chunk) {\n\t data.push(chunk);\n\t self.commander.write(\".\");\n\t });\n\t response.on(\"end\",function() {\n\t self.commander.write(\"\\n\");\n\t if(response.statusCode === 200) {\n\t\t self.processBody(Buffer.concat(data),type,options,url);\n\t\t callback(null);\n\t } else {\n\t \tif(response.statusCode === 302 || response.statusCode === 303 || response.statusCode === 307) {\n\t \t\treturn self.fetchFile(response.headers.location,options,callback,redirectCount + 1);\n\t \t} else {\n\t\t \treturn callback(\"Error \" + response.statusCode + \" retrieving \" + url)\t \t\t\n\t \t}\n\t }\n\t \t});\n\t \tresponse.on(\"error\",function(e) {\n\t\t\tconsole.log(\"Error on GET request: \" + e);\n\t\t\tcallback(e);\n\t \t});\n\t});\n\treturn null;\n};\n\nCommand.prototype.processBody = function(body,type,options,url) {\n\tvar self = this;\n\t// Collect the tiddlers in a wiki\n\tvar incomingWiki = new $tw.Wiki();\n\tif(options.raw) {\n\t\tvar typeInfo = type ? $tw.config.contentTypeInfo[type] : null,\n\t\t\tencoding = typeInfo ? typeInfo.encoding : \"utf8\";\n\t\tincomingWiki.addTiddler(new $tw.Tiddler({\n\t\t\ttitle: url,\n\t\t\ttype: type,\n\t\t\ttext: body.toString(encoding)\n\t\t}));\n\t} else {\n\t\t// Deserialise the file to extract the tiddlers\n\t\tvar tiddlers = this.commander.wiki.deserializeTiddlers(type || \"text/html\",body.toString(\"utf8\"),{});\n\t\t$tw.utils.each(tiddlers,function(tiddler) {\n\t\t\tincomingWiki.addTiddler(new $tw.Tiddler(tiddler));\n\t\t});\n\t}\n\t// Filter the tiddlers to select the ones we want\n\tvar filteredTitles = incomingWiki.filterTiddlers(options.importFilter || \"[all[tiddlers]]\");\n\t// Import the selected tiddlers\n\tvar count = 0;\n\tincomingWiki.each(function(tiddler,title) {\n\t\tif(filteredTitles.indexOf(title) !== -1) {\n\t\t\tvar newTiddler;\n\t\t\tif(options.transformFilter) {\n\t\t\t\tvar transformedTitle = (incomingWiki.filterTiddlers(options.transformFilter,null,self.commander.wiki.makeTiddlerIterator([title])) || [\"\"])[0];\n\t\t\t\tif(transformedTitle) {\n\t\t\t\t\tself.commander.log(\"Importing \" + title + \" as \" + transformedTitle)\n\t\t\t\t\tnewTiddler = new $tw.Tiddler(tiddler,{title: transformedTitle});\n\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t} else {\n\t\t\t\tself.commander.log(\"Importing \" + title)\n\t\t\t\tnewTiddler = tiddler;\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t\tself.commander.wiki.importTiddler(newTiddler);\n\t\t\tcount++;\n\t\t}\n\t});\n\tself.commander.log(\"Imported \" + count + \" tiddlers\")\n};\n\nexports.Command = Command;\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "command"
},
"$:/core/modules/commands/help.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/commands/help.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/commands/help.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: command\n\nHelp command\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jshint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nexports.info = {\n\tname: \"help\",\n\tsynchronous: true\n};\n\nvar Command = function(params,commander) {\n\tthis.params = params;\n\tthis.commander = commander;\n};\n\nCommand.prototype.execute = function() {\n\tvar subhelp = this.params[0] || \"default\",\n\t\thelpBase = \"$:/language/Help/\",\n\t\ttext;\n\tif(!this.commander.wiki.getTiddler(helpBase + subhelp)) {\n\t\tsubhelp = \"notfound\";\n\t}\n\t// Wikify the help as formatted text (ie block elements generate newlines)\n\ttext = this.commander.wiki.renderTiddler(\"text/plain-formatted\",helpBase + subhelp);\n\t// Remove any leading linebreaks\n\ttext = text.replace(/^(\\r?\\n)*/g,\"\");\n\tthis.commander.streams.output.write(text);\n};\n\nexports.Command = Command;\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "command"
},
"$:/core/modules/commands/import.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/commands/import.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/commands/import.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: command\n\nCommand to import tiddlers from a file\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nexports.info = {\n\tname: \"import\",\n\tsynchronous: true\n};\n\nvar Command = function(params,commander,callback) {\n\tthis.params = params;\n\tthis.commander = commander;\n\tthis.callback = callback;\n};\n\nCommand.prototype.execute = function() {\n\tvar self = this,\n\t\tfs = require(\"fs\"),\n\t\tpath = require(\"path\");\n\tif(this.params.length < 2) {\n\t\treturn \"Missing parameters\";\n\t}\n\tvar filename = self.params[0],\n\t\tdeserializer = self.params[1],\n\t\ttitle = self.params[2] || filename,\n\t\tencoding = self.params[3] || \"utf8\",\n\t\ttext = fs.readFileSync(filename,encoding),\n\t\ttiddlers = this.commander.wiki.deserializeTiddlers(null,text,{title: title},{deserializer: deserializer});\n\t$tw.utils.each(tiddlers,function(tiddler) {\n\t\tself.commander.wiki.importTiddler(new $tw.Tiddler(tiddler));\n\t});\n\tthis.commander.log(tiddlers.length + \" tiddler(s) imported\");\n\treturn null;\n};\n\nexports.Command = Command;\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "command"
},
"$:/core/modules/commands/init.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/commands/init.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/commands/init.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: command\n\nCommand to initialise an empty wiki folder\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nexports.info = {\n\tname: \"init\",\n\tsynchronous: true\n};\n\nvar Command = function(params,commander) {\n\tthis.params = params;\n\tthis.commander = commander;\n};\n\nCommand.prototype.execute = function() {\n\tvar fs = require(\"fs\"),\n\t\tpath = require(\"path\");\n\t// Check that we don't already have a valid wiki folder\n\tif($tw.boot.wikiTiddlersPath || ($tw.utils.isDirectory($tw.boot.wikiPath) && !$tw.utils.isDirectoryEmpty($tw.boot.wikiPath))) {\n\t\treturn \"Wiki folder is not empty\";\n\t}\n\t// Loop through each of the specified editions\n\tvar editions = this.params.length > 0 ? this.params : [\"empty\"];\n\tfor(var editionIndex=0; editionIndex<editions.length; editionIndex++) {\n\t\tvar editionName = editions[editionIndex];\n\t\t// Check the edition exists\n\t\tvar editionPath = $tw.findLibraryItem(editionName,$tw.getLibraryItemSearchPaths($tw.config.editionsPath,$tw.config.editionsEnvVar));\n\t\tif(!$tw.utils.isDirectory(editionPath)) {\n\t\t\treturn \"Edition '\" + editionName + \"' not found\";\n\t\t}\n\t\t// Copy the edition content\n\t\tvar err = $tw.utils.copyDirectory(editionPath,$tw.boot.wikiPath);\n\t\tif(!err) {\n\t\t\tthis.commander.streams.output.write(\"Copied edition '\" + editionName + \"' to \" + $tw.boot.wikiPath + \"\\n\");\n\t\t} else {\n\t\t\treturn err;\n\t\t}\n\t}\n\t// Tweak the tiddlywiki.info to remove any included wikis\n\tvar packagePath = $tw.boot.wikiPath + \"/tiddlywiki.info\",\n\t\tpackageJson = JSON.parse(fs.readFileSync(packagePath));\n\tdelete packageJson.includeWikis;\n\tfs.writeFileSync(packagePath,JSON.stringify(packageJson,null,$tw.config.preferences.jsonSpaces));\n\treturn null;\n};\n\nexports.Command = Command;\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "command"
},
"$:/core/modules/commands/listen.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/commands/listen.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/commands/listen.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: command\n\nListen for HTTP requests and serve tiddlers\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nvar Server = require(\"$:/core/modules/server/server.js\").Server;\n\nexports.info = {\n\tname: \"listen\",\n\tsynchronous: true,\n\tnamedParameterMode: true,\n\tmandatoryParameters: [],\n};\n\nvar Command = function(params,commander,callback) {\n\tvar self = this;\n\tthis.params = params;\n\tthis.commander = commander;\n\tthis.callback = callback;\n};\n\nCommand.prototype.execute = function() {\n\tvar self = this;\n\tif(!$tw.boot.wikiTiddlersPath) {\n\t\t$tw.utils.warning(\"Warning: Wiki folder '\" + $tw.boot.wikiPath + \"' does not exist or is missing a tiddlywiki.info file\");\n\t}\n\t// Set up server\n\tthis.server = new Server({\n\t\twiki: this.commander.wiki,\n\t\tvariables: self.params\n\t});\n\tvar nodeServer = this.server.listen();\n\t$tw.hooks.invokeHook(\"th-server-command-post-start\",this.server,nodeServer,\"tiddlywiki\");\n\treturn null;\n};\n\nexports.Command = Command;\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "command"
},
"$:/core/modules/commands/load.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/commands/load.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/commands/load.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: command\n\nCommand to load tiddlers from a file or directory\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nexports.info = {\n\tname: \"load\",\n\tsynchronous: false\n};\n\nvar Command = function(params,commander,callback) {\n\tthis.params = params;\n\tthis.commander = commander;\n\tthis.callback = callback;\n};\n\nCommand.prototype.execute = function() {\n\tvar self = this,\n\t\tfs = require(\"fs\"),\n\t\tpath = require(\"path\");\n\tif(this.params.length < 1) {\n\t\treturn \"Missing filename\";\n\t}\n\tvar tiddlers = $tw.loadTiddlersFromPath(self.params[0]),\n\t\tcount = 0;\n\t$tw.utils.each(tiddlers,function(tiddlerInfo) {\n\t\t$tw.utils.each(tiddlerInfo.tiddlers,function(tiddler) {\n\t\t\tself.commander.wiki.importTiddler(new $tw.Tiddler(tiddler));\n\t\t\tcount++;\n\t\t});\n\t});\n\tif(!count) {\n\t\tself.callback(\"No tiddlers found in file \\\"\" + self.params[0] + \"\\\"\");\n\t} else {\n\t\tself.callback(null);\n\t}\n\treturn null;\n};\n\nexports.Command = Command;\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "command"
},
"$:/core/modules/commands/makelibrary.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/commands/makelibrary.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/commands/makelibrary.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: command\n\nCommand to pack all of the plugins in the library into a plugin tiddler of type \"library\"\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nexports.info = {\n\tname: \"makelibrary\",\n\tsynchronous: true\n};\n\nvar UPGRADE_LIBRARY_TITLE = \"$:/UpgradeLibrary\";\n\nvar Command = function(params,commander,callback) {\n\tthis.params = params;\n\tthis.commander = commander;\n\tthis.callback = callback;\n};\n\nCommand.prototype.execute = function() {\n\tvar wiki = this.commander.wiki,\n\t\tfs = require(\"fs\"),\n\t\tpath = require(\"path\"),\n\t\tupgradeLibraryTitle = this.params[0] || UPGRADE_LIBRARY_TITLE,\n\t\ttiddlers = {};\n\t// Collect up the library plugins\n\tvar collectPlugins = function(folder) {\n\t\t\tvar pluginFolders = fs.readdirSync(folder);\n\t\t\tfor(var p=0; p<pluginFolders.length; p++) {\n\t\t\t\tif(!$tw.boot.excludeRegExp.test(pluginFolders[p])) {\n\t\t\t\t\tpluginFields = $tw.loadPluginFolder(path.resolve(folder,\"./\" + pluginFolders[p]));\n\t\t\t\t\tif(pluginFields && pluginFields.title) {\n\t\t\t\t\t\ttiddlers[pluginFields.title] = pluginFields;\n\t\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t},\n\t\tcollectPublisherPlugins = function(folder) {\n\t\t\tvar publisherFolders = fs.readdirSync(folder);\n\t\t\tfor(var t=0; t<publisherFolders.length; t++) {\n\t\t\t\tif(!$tw.boot.excludeRegExp.test(publisherFolders[t])) {\n\t\t\t\t\tcollectPlugins(path.resolve(folder,\"./\" + publisherFolders[t]));\n\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t};\n\tcollectPublisherPlugins(path.resolve($tw.boot.corePath,$tw.config.pluginsPath));\n\tcollectPublisherPlugins(path.resolve($tw.boot.corePath,$tw.config.themesPath));\n\tcollectPlugins(path.resolve($tw.boot.corePath,$tw.config.languagesPath));\n\t// Save the upgrade library tiddler\n\tvar pluginFields = {\n\t\ttitle: upgradeLibraryTitle,\n\t\ttype: \"application/json\",\n\t\t\"plugin-type\": \"library\",\n\t\t\"text\": JSON.stringify({tiddlers: tiddlers},null,$tw.config.preferences.jsonSpaces)\n\t};\n\twiki.addTiddler(new $tw.Tiddler(pluginFields));\n\treturn null;\n};\n\nexports.Command = Command;\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "command"
},
"$:/core/modules/commands/output.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/commands/output.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/commands/output.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: command\n\nCommand to set the default output location (defaults to current working directory)\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nexports.info = {\n\tname: \"output\",\n\tsynchronous: true\n};\n\nvar Command = function(params,commander,callback) {\n\tthis.params = params;\n\tthis.commander = commander;\n\tthis.callback = callback;\n};\n\nCommand.prototype.execute = function() {\n\tvar fs = require(\"fs\"),\n\t\tpath = require(\"path\");\n\tif(this.params.length < 1) {\n\t\treturn \"Missing output path\";\n\t}\n\tthis.commander.outputPath = path.resolve(process.cwd(),this.params[0]);\n\treturn null;\n};\n\nexports.Command = Command;\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "command"
},
"$:/core/modules/commands/password.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/commands/password.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/commands/password.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: command\n\nSave password for crypto operations\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nexports.info = {\n\tname: \"password\",\n\tsynchronous: true\n};\n\nvar Command = function(params,commander,callback) {\n\tthis.params = params;\n\tthis.commander = commander;\n\tthis.callback = callback;\n};\n\nCommand.prototype.execute = function() {\n\tif(this.params.length < 1) {\n\t\treturn \"Missing password\";\n\t}\n\t$tw.crypto.setPassword(this.params[0]);\n\treturn null;\n};\n\nexports.Command = Command;\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "command"
},
"$:/core/modules/commands/render.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/commands/render.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/commands/render.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: command\n\nRender individual tiddlers and save the results to the specified files\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nvar widget = require(\"$:/core/modules/widgets/widget.js\");\n\nexports.info = {\n\tname: \"render\",\n\tsynchronous: true\n};\n\nvar Command = function(params,commander,callback) {\n\tthis.params = params;\n\tthis.commander = commander;\n\tthis.callback = callback;\n};\n\nCommand.prototype.execute = function() {\n\tif(this.params.length < 1) {\n\t\treturn \"Missing tiddler filter\";\n\t}\n\tvar self = this,\n\t\tfs = require(\"fs\"),\n\t\tpath = require(\"path\"),\n\t\twiki = this.commander.wiki,\n\t\ttiddlerFilter = this.params[0],\n\t\tfilenameFilter = this.params[1] || \"[is[tiddler]addsuffix[.html]]\",\n\t\ttype = this.params[2] || \"text/html\",\n\t\ttemplate = this.params[3],\n\t\tvarName = this.params[4],\n\t\tvarValue = this.params[5],\n\t\ttiddlers = wiki.filterTiddlers(tiddlerFilter);\n\t$tw.utils.each(tiddlers,function(title) {\n\t\tvar parser = wiki.parseTiddler(template || title),\n\t\t\tvariables = {currentTiddler: title};\n\t\tif(varName) {\n\t\t\tvariables[varName] = varValue || \"\";\n\t\t}\n\t\tvar widgetNode = wiki.makeWidget(parser,{variables: variables}),\n\t\t\tcontainer = $tw.fakeDocument.createElement(\"div\");\n\t\twidgetNode.render(container,null);\n\t\tvar text = type === \"text/html\" ? container.innerHTML : container.textContent,\n\t\t\tfilepath = path.resolve(self.commander.outputPath,wiki.filterTiddlers(filenameFilter,$tw.rootWidget,wiki.makeTiddlerIterator([title]))[0]);\n\t\tif(self.commander.verbose) {\n\t\t\tconsole.log(\"Rendering \\\"\" + title + \"\\\" to \\\"\" + filepath + \"\\\"\");\n\t\t}\n\t\t$tw.utils.createFileDirectories(filepath);\n\t\tfs.writeFileSync(filepath,text,\"utf8\");\n\t});\n\treturn null;\n};\n\nexports.Command = Command;\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "command"
},
"$:/core/modules/commands/rendertiddler.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/commands/rendertiddler.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/commands/rendertiddler.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: command\n\nCommand to render a tiddler and save it to a file\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nexports.info = {\n\tname: \"rendertiddler\",\n\tsynchronous: false\n};\n\nvar Command = function(params,commander,callback) {\n\tthis.params = params;\n\tthis.commander = commander;\n\tthis.callback = callback;\n};\n\nCommand.prototype.execute = function() {\n\tif(this.params.length < 2) {\n\t\treturn \"Missing filename\";\n\t}\n\tvar self = this,\n\t\tfs = require(\"fs\"),\n\t\tpath = require(\"path\"),\n\t\ttitle = this.params[0],\n\t\tfilename = path.resolve(this.commander.outputPath,this.params[1]),\n\t\ttype = this.params[2] || \"text/html\",\n\t\ttemplate = this.params[3],\n\t\tname = this.params[4],\n\t\tvalue = this.params[5],\n\t\tvariables = {};\n\t$tw.utils.createFileDirectories(filename);\n\tif(template) {\n\t\tvariables.currentTiddler = title;\n\t\ttitle = template;\n\t}\n\tif(name && value) {\n\t\tvariables[name] = value;\n\t}\n\tfs.writeFile(filename,this.commander.wiki.renderTiddler(type,title,{variables: variables}),\"utf8\",function(err) {\n\t\tself.callback(err);\n\t});\n\treturn null;\n};\n\nexports.Command = Command;\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "command"
},
"$:/core/modules/commands/rendertiddlers.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/commands/rendertiddlers.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/commands/rendertiddlers.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: command\n\nCommand to render several tiddlers to a folder of files\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nvar widget = require(\"$:/core/modules/widgets/widget.js\");\n\nexports.info = {\n\tname: \"rendertiddlers\",\n\tsynchronous: true\n};\n\nvar Command = function(params,commander,callback) {\n\tthis.params = params;\n\tthis.commander = commander;\n\tthis.callback = callback;\n};\n\nCommand.prototype.execute = function() {\n\tif(this.params.length < 2) {\n\t\treturn \"Missing filename\";\n\t}\n\tvar self = this,\n\t\tfs = require(\"fs\"),\n\t\tpath = require(\"path\"),\n\t\twiki = this.commander.wiki,\n\t\tfilter = this.params[0],\n\t\ttemplate = this.params[1],\n\t\toutputPath = this.commander.outputPath,\n\t\tpathname = path.resolve(outputPath,this.params[2]),\t\t\n\t\ttype = this.params[3] || \"text/html\",\n\t\textension = this.params[4] || \".html\",\n\t\tdeleteDirectory = (this.params[5] || \"\").toLowerCase() !== \"noclean\",\n\t\ttiddlers = wiki.filterTiddlers(filter);\n\tif(deleteDirectory) {\n\t\t$tw.utils.deleteDirectory(pathname);\n\t}\n\t$tw.utils.each(tiddlers,function(title) {\n\t\tvar parser = wiki.parseTiddler(template),\n\t\t\twidgetNode = wiki.makeWidget(parser,{variables: {currentTiddler: title}}),\n\t\t\tcontainer = $tw.fakeDocument.createElement(\"div\");\n\t\twidgetNode.render(container,null);\n\t\tvar text = type === \"text/html\" ? container.innerHTML : container.textContent,\n\t\t\texportPath = null;\n\t\tif($tw.utils.hop($tw.macros,\"tv-get-export-path\")) {\n\t\t\tvar macroPath = $tw.macros[\"tv-get-export-path\"].run.apply(self,[title]);\n\t\t\tif(macroPath) {\n\t\t\t\texportPath = path.resolve(outputPath,macroPath + extension);\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t}\n\t\tvar finalPath = exportPath || path.resolve(pathname,encodeURIComponent(title) + extension);\n\t\t$tw.utils.createFileDirectories(finalPath);\n\t\tfs.writeFileSync(finalPath,text,\"utf8\");\n\t});\n\treturn null;\n};\n\nexports.Command = Command;\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "command"
},
"$:/core/modules/commands/save.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/commands/save.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/commands/save.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: command\n\nSaves individual tiddlers in their raw text or binary format to the specified files\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nexports.info = {\n\tname: \"save\",\n\tsynchronous: true\n};\n\nvar Command = function(params,commander,callback) {\n\tthis.params = params;\n\tthis.commander = commander;\n\tthis.callback = callback;\n};\n\nCommand.prototype.execute = function() {\n\tif(this.params.length < 1) {\n\t\treturn \"Missing filename filter\";\n\t}\n\tvar self = this,\n\t\tfs = require(\"fs\"),\n\t\tpath = require(\"path\"),\n\t\twiki = this.commander.wiki,\n\t\ttiddlerFilter = this.params[0],\n\t\tfilenameFilter = this.params[1] || \"[is[tiddler]]\",\n\t\ttiddlers = wiki.filterTiddlers(tiddlerFilter);\n\t$tw.utils.each(tiddlers,function(title) {\n\t\tvar tiddler = self.commander.wiki.getTiddler(title),\n\t\t\ttype = tiddler.fields.type || \"text/vnd.tiddlywiki\",\n\t\t\tcontentTypeInfo = $tw.config.contentTypeInfo[type] || {encoding: \"utf8\"},\n\t\t\tfilepath = path.resolve(self.commander.outputPath,wiki.filterTiddlers(filenameFilter,$tw.rootWidget,wiki.makeTiddlerIterator([title]))[0]);\n\t\tif(self.commander.verbose) {\n\t\t\tconsole.log(\"Saving \\\"\" + title + \"\\\" to \\\"\" + filepath + \"\\\"\");\n\t\t}\n\t\t$tw.utils.createFileDirectories(filepath);\n\t\tfs.writeFileSync(filepath,tiddler.fields.text,contentTypeInfo.encoding);\n\t});\n\treturn null;\n};\n\nexports.Command = Command;\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "command"
},
"$:/core/modules/commands/savelibrarytiddlers.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/commands/savelibrarytiddlers.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/commands/savelibrarytiddlers.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: command\n\nCommand to save the subtiddlers of a bundle tiddler as a series of JSON files\n\n--savelibrarytiddlers <tiddler> <pathname> <skinnylisting>\n\nThe tiddler identifies the bundle tiddler that contains the subtiddlers.\n\nThe pathname specifies the pathname to the folder in which the JSON files should be saved. The filename is the URL encoded title of the subtiddler.\n\nThe skinnylisting specifies the title of the tiddler to which a JSON catalogue of the subtiddlers will be saved. The JSON file contains the same data as the bundle tiddler but with the `text` field removed.\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nexports.info = {\n\tname: \"savelibrarytiddlers\",\n\tsynchronous: true\n};\n\nvar Command = function(params,commander,callback) {\n\tthis.params = params;\n\tthis.commander = commander;\n\tthis.callback = callback;\n};\n\nCommand.prototype.execute = function() {\n\tif(this.params.length < 2) {\n\t\treturn \"Missing filename\";\n\t}\n\tvar self = this,\n\t\tfs = require(\"fs\"),\n\t\tpath = require(\"path\"),\n\t\tcontainerTitle = this.params[0],\n\t\tfilter = this.params[1],\n\t\tbasepath = this.params[2],\n\t\tskinnyListTitle = this.params[3];\n\t// Get the container tiddler as data\n\tvar containerData = self.commander.wiki.getTiddlerDataCached(containerTitle,undefined);\n\tif(!containerData) {\n\t\treturn \"'\" + containerTitle + \"' is not a tiddler bundle\";\n\t}\n\t// Filter the list of plugins\n\tvar pluginList = [];\n\t$tw.utils.each(containerData.tiddlers,function(tiddler,title) {\n\t\tpluginList.push(title);\n\t});\n\tvar filteredPluginList;\n\tif(filter) {\n\t\tfilteredPluginList = self.commander.wiki.filterTiddlers(filter,null,self.commander.wiki.makeTiddlerIterator(pluginList));\n\t} else {\n\t\tfilteredPluginList = pluginList;\n\t}\n\t// Iterate through the plugins\n\tvar skinnyList = [];\n\t$tw.utils.each(filteredPluginList,function(title) {\n\t\tvar tiddler = containerData.tiddlers[title];\n\t\t// Save each JSON file and collect the skinny data\n\t\tvar pathname = path.resolve(self.commander.outputPath,basepath + encodeURIComponent(title) + \".json\");\n\t\t$tw.utils.createFileDirectories(pathname);\n\t\tfs.writeFileSync(pathname,JSON.stringify(tiddler,null,$tw.config.preferences.jsonSpaces),\"utf8\");\n\t\t// Collect the skinny list data\n\t\tvar pluginTiddlers = JSON.parse(tiddler.text),\n\t\t\treadmeContent = (pluginTiddlers.tiddlers[title + \"/readme\"] || {}).text,\n\t\t\ticonTiddler = pluginTiddlers.tiddlers[title + \"/icon\"] || {},\n\t\t\ticonType = iconTiddler.type,\n\t\t\ticonText = iconTiddler.text,\n\t\t\ticonContent;\n\t\tif(iconType && iconText) {\n\t\t\ticonContent = $tw.utils.makeDataUri(iconText,iconType);\n\t\t}\n\t\tskinnyList.push($tw.utils.extend({},tiddler,{text: undefined, readme: readmeContent, icon: iconContent}));\n\t});\n\t// Save the catalogue tiddler\n\tif(skinnyListTitle) {\n\t\tself.commander.wiki.setTiddlerData(skinnyListTitle,skinnyList);\n\t}\n\treturn null;\n};\n\nexports.Command = Command;\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "command"
},
"$:/core/modules/commands/savetiddler.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/commands/savetiddler.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/commands/savetiddler.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: command\n\nCommand to save the content of a tiddler to a file\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nexports.info = {\n\tname: \"savetiddler\",\n\tsynchronous: false\n};\n\nvar Command = function(params,commander,callback) {\n\tthis.params = params;\n\tthis.commander = commander;\n\tthis.callback = callback;\n};\n\nCommand.prototype.execute = function() {\n\tif(this.params.length < 2) {\n\t\treturn \"Missing filename\";\n\t}\n\tvar self = this,\n\t\tfs = require(\"fs\"),\n\t\tpath = require(\"path\"),\n\t\ttitle = this.params[0],\n\t\tfilename = path.resolve(this.commander.outputPath,this.params[1]),\n\t\ttiddler = this.commander.wiki.getTiddler(title);\n\tif(tiddler) {\n\t\tvar type = tiddler.fields.type || \"text/vnd.tiddlywiki\",\n\t\t\tcontentTypeInfo = $tw.config.contentTypeInfo[type] || {encoding: \"utf8\"};\n\t\t$tw.utils.createFileDirectories(filename);\n\t\tfs.writeFile(filename,tiddler.fields.text,contentTypeInfo.encoding,function(err) {\n\t\t\tself.callback(err);\n\t\t});\n\t} else {\n\t\treturn \"Missing tiddler: \" + title;\n\t}\n\treturn null;\n};\n\nexports.Command = Command;\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "command"
},
"$:/core/modules/commands/savetiddlers.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/commands/savetiddlers.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/commands/savetiddlers.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: command\n\nCommand to save several tiddlers to a folder of files\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nvar widget = require(\"$:/core/modules/widgets/widget.js\");\n\nexports.info = {\n\tname: \"savetiddlers\",\n\tsynchronous: true\n};\n\nvar Command = function(params,commander,callback) {\n\tthis.params = params;\n\tthis.commander = commander;\n\tthis.callback = callback;\n};\n\nCommand.prototype.execute = function() {\n\tif(this.params.length < 1) {\n\t\treturn \"Missing filename\";\n\t}\n\tvar self = this,\n\t\tfs = require(\"fs\"),\n\t\tpath = require(\"path\"),\n\t\twiki = this.commander.wiki,\n\t\tfilter = this.params[0],\n\t\tpathname = path.resolve(this.commander.outputPath,this.params[1]),\n\t\tdeleteDirectory = (this.params[2] || \"\").toLowerCase() !== \"noclean\",\n\t\ttiddlers = wiki.filterTiddlers(filter);\n\tif(deleteDirectory) {\n\t\t$tw.utils.deleteDirectory(pathname);\n\t}\n\t$tw.utils.createDirectory(pathname);\n\t$tw.utils.each(tiddlers,function(title) {\n\t\tvar tiddler = self.commander.wiki.getTiddler(title),\n\t\t\ttype = tiddler.fields.type || \"text/vnd.tiddlywiki\",\n\t\t\tcontentTypeInfo = $tw.config.contentTypeInfo[type] || {encoding: \"utf8\"},\n\t\t\tfilename = path.resolve(pathname,encodeURIComponent(title));\n\t\tfs.writeFileSync(filename,tiddler.fields.text,contentTypeInfo.encoding);\n\t});\n\treturn null;\n};\n\nexports.Command = Command;\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "command"
},
"$:/core/modules/commands/server.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/commands/server.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/commands/server.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: command\n\nDeprecated legacy command for serving tiddlers\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nvar Server = require(\"$:/core/modules/server/server.js\").Server;\n\nexports.info = {\n\tname: \"server\",\n\tsynchronous: true\n};\n\nvar Command = function(params,commander,callback) {\n\tvar self = this;\n\tthis.params = params;\n\tthis.commander = commander;\n\tthis.callback = callback;\n};\n\nCommand.prototype.execute = function() {\n\tif(!$tw.boot.wikiTiddlersPath) {\n\t\t$tw.utils.warning(\"Warning: Wiki folder '\" + $tw.boot.wikiPath + \"' does not exist or is missing a tiddlywiki.info file\");\n\t}\n\t// Set up server\n\tthis.server = new Server({\n\t\twiki: this.commander.wiki,\n\t\tvariables: {\n\t\t\tport: this.params[0],\n\t\t\thost: this.params[6],\n\t\t\t\"root-tiddler\": this.params[1],\n\t\t\t\"root-render-type\": this.params[2],\n\t\t\t\"root-serve-type\": this.params[3],\n\t\t\tusername: this.params[4],\n\t\t\tpassword: this.params[5],\n\t\t\t\"path-prefix\": this.params[7],\n\t\t\t\"debug-level\": this.params[8]\n\t\t}\n\t});\n\tvar nodeServer = this.server.listen();\n\t$tw.hooks.invokeHook(\"th-server-command-post-start\",this.server,nodeServer,\"tiddlywiki\");\n\treturn null;\n};\n\nexports.Command = Command;\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "command"
},
"$:/core/modules/commands/setfield.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/commands/setfield.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/commands/setfield.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: command\n\nCommand to modify selected tiddlers to set a field to the text of a template tiddler that has been wikified with the selected tiddler as the current tiddler.\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nvar widget = require(\"$:/core/modules/widgets/widget.js\");\n\nexports.info = {\n\tname: \"setfield\",\n\tsynchronous: true\n};\n\nvar Command = function(params,commander,callback) {\n\tthis.params = params;\n\tthis.commander = commander;\n\tthis.callback = callback;\n};\n\nCommand.prototype.execute = function() {\n\tif(this.params.length < 4) {\n\t\treturn \"Missing parameters\";\n\t}\n\tvar self = this,\n\t\twiki = this.commander.wiki,\n\t\tfilter = this.params[0],\n\t\tfieldname = this.params[1] || \"text\",\n\t\ttemplatetitle = this.params[2],\n\t\trendertype = this.params[3] || \"text/plain\",\n\t\ttiddlers = wiki.filterTiddlers(filter);\n\t$tw.utils.each(tiddlers,function(title) {\n\t\tvar parser = wiki.parseTiddler(templatetitle),\n\t\t\tnewFields = {},\n\t\t\ttiddler = wiki.getTiddler(title);\n\t\tif(parser) {\n\t\t\tvar widgetNode = wiki.makeWidget(parser,{variables: {currentTiddler: title}});\n\t\t\tvar container = $tw.fakeDocument.createElement(\"div\");\n\t\t\twidgetNode.render(container,null);\n\t\t\tnewFields[fieldname] = rendertype === \"text/html\" ? container.innerHTML : container.textContent;\n\t\t} else {\n\t\t\tnewFields[fieldname] = undefined;\n\t\t}\n\t\twiki.addTiddler(new $tw.Tiddler(tiddler,newFields));\n\t});\n\treturn null;\n};\n\nexports.Command = Command;\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "command"
},
"$:/core/modules/commands/unpackplugin.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/commands/unpackplugin.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/commands/unpackplugin.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: command\n\nCommand to extract the shadow tiddlers from within a plugin\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nexports.info = {\n\tname: \"unpackplugin\",\n\tsynchronous: true\n};\n\nvar Command = function(params,commander,callback) {\n\tthis.params = params;\n\tthis.commander = commander;\n\tthis.callback = callback;\n};\n\nCommand.prototype.execute = function() {\n\tif(this.params.length < 1) {\n\t\treturn \"Missing plugin name\";\n\t}\n\tvar self = this,\n\t\ttitle = this.params[0],\n\t\tpluginData = this.commander.wiki.getTiddlerDataCached(title);\n\tif(!pluginData) {\n\t\treturn \"Plugin '\" + title + \"' not found\";\n\t}\n\t$tw.utils.each(pluginData.tiddlers,function(tiddler) {\n\t\tself.commander.wiki.addTiddler(new $tw.Tiddler(tiddler));\n\t});\n\treturn null;\n};\n\nexports.Command = Command;\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "command"
},
"$:/core/modules/commands/verbose.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/commands/verbose.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/commands/verbose.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: command\n\nVerbose command\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nexports.info = {\n\tname: \"verbose\",\n\tsynchronous: true\n};\n\nvar Command = function(params,commander) {\n\tthis.params = params;\n\tthis.commander = commander;\n};\n\nCommand.prototype.execute = function() {\n\tthis.commander.verbose = true;\n\t// Output the boot message log\n\tthis.commander.streams.output.write(\"Boot log:\\n \" + $tw.boot.logMessages.join(\"\\n \") + \"\\n\");\n\treturn null; // No error\n};\n\nexports.Command = Command;\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "command"
},
"$:/core/modules/commands/version.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/commands/version.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/commands/version.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: command\n\nVersion command\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nexports.info = {\n\tname: \"version\",\n\tsynchronous: true\n};\n\nvar Command = function(params,commander) {\n\tthis.params = params;\n\tthis.commander = commander;\n};\n\nCommand.prototype.execute = function() {\n\tthis.commander.streams.output.write($tw.version + \"\\n\");\n\treturn null; // No error\n};\n\nexports.Command = Command;\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "command"
},
"$:/core/modules/config.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/config.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/config.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: config\n\nCore configuration constants\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nexports.preferences = {};\n\nexports.preferences.notificationDuration = 3 * 1000;\nexports.preferences.jsonSpaces = 4;\n\nexports.textPrimitives = {\n\tupperLetter: \"[A-Z\\u00c0-\\u00d6\\u00d8-\\u00de\\u0150\\u0170]\",\n\tlowerLetter: \"[a-z\\u00df-\\u00f6\\u00f8-\\u00ff\\u0151\\u0171]\",\n\tanyLetter: \"[A-Za-z0-9\\u00c0-\\u00d6\\u00d8-\\u00de\\u00df-\\u00f6\\u00f8-\\u00ff\\u0150\\u0170\\u0151\\u0171]\",\n\tblockPrefixLetters:\t\"[A-Za-z0-9-_\\u00c0-\\u00d6\\u00d8-\\u00de\\u00df-\\u00f6\\u00f8-\\u00ff\\u0150\\u0170\\u0151\\u0171]\"\n};\n\nexports.textPrimitives.unWikiLink = \"~\";\nexports.textPrimitives.wikiLink = exports.textPrimitives.upperLetter + \"+\" +\n\texports.textPrimitives.lowerLetter + \"+\" +\n\texports.textPrimitives.upperLetter +\n\texports.textPrimitives.anyLetter + \"*\";\n\nexports.htmlEntities = {quot:34, amp:38, apos:39, lt:60, gt:62, nbsp:160, iexcl:161, cent:162, pound:163, curren:164, yen:165, brvbar:166, sect:167, uml:168, copy:169, ordf:170, laquo:171, not:172, shy:173, reg:174, macr:175, deg:176, plusmn:177, sup2:178, sup3:179, acute:180, micro:181, para:182, middot:183, cedil:184, sup1:185, ordm:186, raquo:187, frac14:188, frac12:189, frac34:190, iquest:191, Agrave:192, Aacute:193, Acirc:194, Atilde:195, Auml:196, Aring:197, AElig:198, Ccedil:199, Egrave:200, Eacute:201, Ecirc:202, Euml:203, Igrave:204, Iacute:205, Icirc:206, Iuml:207, ETH:208, Ntilde:209, Ograve:210, Oacute:211, Ocirc:212, Otilde:213, Ouml:214, times:215, Oslash:216, Ugrave:217, Uacute:218, Ucirc:219, Uuml:220, Yacute:221, THORN:222, szlig:223, agrave:224, aacute:225, acirc:226, atilde:227, auml:228, aring:229, aelig:230, ccedil:231, egrave:232, eacute:233, ecirc:234, euml:235, igrave:236, iacute:237, icirc:238, iuml:239, eth:240, ntilde:241, ograve:242, oacute:243, ocirc:244, otilde:245, ouml:246, divide:247, oslash:248, ugrave:249, uacute:250, ucirc:251, uuml:252, yacute:253, thorn:254, yuml:255, OElig:338, oelig:339, Scaron:352, scaron:353, Yuml:376, fnof:402, circ:710, tilde:732, Alpha:913, Beta:914, Gamma:915, Delta:916, Epsilon:917, Zeta:918, Eta:919, Theta:920, Iota:921, Kappa:922, Lambda:923, Mu:924, Nu:925, Xi:926, Omicron:927, Pi:928, Rho:929, Sigma:931, Tau:932, Upsilon:933, Phi:934, Chi:935, Psi:936, Omega:937, alpha:945, beta:946, gamma:947, delta:948, epsilon:949, zeta:950, eta:951, theta:952, iota:953, kappa:954, lambda:955, mu:956, nu:957, xi:958, omicron:959, pi:960, rho:961, sigmaf:962, sigma:963, tau:964, upsilon:965, phi:966, chi:967, psi:968, omega:969, thetasym:977, upsih:978, piv:982, ensp:8194, emsp:8195, thinsp:8201, zwnj:8204, zwj:8205, lrm:8206, rlm:8207, ndash:8211, mdash:8212, lsquo:8216, rsquo:8217, sbquo:8218, ldquo:8220, rdquo:8221, bdquo:8222, dagger:8224, Dagger:8225, bull:8226, hellip:8230, permil:8240, prime:8242, Prime:8243, lsaquo:8249, rsaquo:8250, oline:8254, frasl:8260, euro:8364, image:8465, weierp:8472, real:8476, trade:8482, alefsym:8501, larr:8592, uarr:8593, rarr:8594, darr:8595, harr:8596, crarr:8629, lArr:8656, uArr:8657, rArr:8658, dArr:8659, hArr:8660, forall:8704, part:8706, exist:8707, empty:8709, nabla:8711, isin:8712, notin:8713, ni:8715, prod:8719, sum:8721, minus:8722, lowast:8727, radic:8730, prop:8733, infin:8734, ang:8736, and:8743, or:8744, cap:8745, cup:8746, int:8747, there4:8756, sim:8764, cong:8773, asymp:8776, ne:8800, equiv:8801, le:8804, ge:8805, sub:8834, sup:8835, nsub:8836, sube:8838, supe:8839, oplus:8853, otimes:8855, perp:8869, sdot:8901, lceil:8968, rceil:8969, lfloor:8970, rfloor:8971, lang:9001, rang:9002, loz:9674, spades:9824, clubs:9827, hearts:9829, diams:9830 };\n\nexports.htmlVoidElements = \"area,base,br,col,command,embed,hr,img,input,keygen,link,meta,param,source,track,wbr\".split(\",\");\n\nexports.htmlBlockElements = \"address,article,aside,audio,blockquote,canvas,dd,div,dl,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,hr,li,noscript,ol,output,p,pre,section,table,tfoot,ul,video\".split(\",\");\n\nexports.htmlUnsafeElements = \"script\".split(\",\");\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "config"
},
"$:/core/modules/deserializers.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/deserializers.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/deserializers.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: tiddlerdeserializer\n\nFunctions to deserialise tiddlers from a block of text\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\n/*\nUtility function to parse an old-style tiddler DIV in a *.tid file. It looks like this:\n\n<div title=\"Title\" creator=\"JoeBloggs\" modifier=\"JoeBloggs\" created=\"201102111106\" modified=\"201102111310\" tags=\"myTag [[my long tag]]\">\n<pre>The text of the tiddler (without the expected HTML encoding).\n</pre>\n</div>\n\nNote that the field attributes are HTML encoded, but that the body of the <PRE> tag is not encoded.\n\nWhen these tiddler DIVs are encountered within a TiddlyWiki HTML file then the body is encoded in the usual way.\n*/\nvar parseTiddlerDiv = function(text /* [,fields] */) {\n\t// Slot together the default results\n\tvar result = {};\n\tif(arguments.length > 1) {\n\t\tfor(var f=1; f<arguments.length; f++) {\n\t\t\tvar fields = arguments[f];\n\t\t\tfor(var t in fields) {\n\t\t\t\tresult[t] = fields[t];\t\t\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t}\n\t}\n\t// Parse the DIV body\n\tvar startRegExp = /^\\s*<div\\s+([^>]*)>(\\s*<pre>)?/gi,\n\t\tendRegExp,\n\t\tmatch = startRegExp.exec(text);\n\tif(match) {\n\t\t// Old-style DIVs don't have the <pre> tag\n\t\tif(match[2]) {\n\t\t\tendRegExp = /<\\/pre>\\s*<\\/div>\\s*$/gi;\n\t\t} else {\n\t\t\tendRegExp = /<\\/div>\\s*$/gi;\n\t\t}\n\t\tvar endMatch = endRegExp.exec(text);\n\t\tif(endMatch) {\n\t\t\t// Extract the text\n\t\t\tresult.text = text.substring(match.index + match[0].length,endMatch.index);\n\t\t\t// Process the attributes\n\t\t\tvar attrRegExp = /\\s*([^=\\s]+)\\s*=\\s*(?:\"([^\"]*)\"|'([^']*)')/gi,\n\t\t\t\tattrMatch;\n\t\t\tdo {\n\t\t\t\tattrMatch = attrRegExp.exec(match[1]);\n\t\t\t\tif(attrMatch) {\n\t\t\t\t\tvar name = attrMatch[1];\n\t\t\t\t\tvar value = attrMatch[2] !== undefined ? attrMatch[2] : attrMatch[3];\n\t\t\t\t\tresult[name] = value;\n\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t} while(attrMatch);\n\t\t\treturn result;\n\t\t}\n\t}\n\treturn undefined;\n};\n\nexports[\"application/x-tiddler-html-div\"] = function(text,fields) {\n\treturn [parseTiddlerDiv(text,fields)];\n};\n\nexports[\"application/json\"] = function(text,fields) {\n\tvar incoming,\n\t\tresults = [];\n\ttry {\n\t\tincoming = JSON.parse(text);\n\t} catch(e) {\n\t\tincoming = [{\n\t\t\ttitle: \"JSON error: \" + e,\n\t\t\ttext: \"\"\n\t\t}]\n\t}\n\tif(!$tw.utils.isArray(incoming)) {\n\t\tincoming = [incoming];\n\t}\n\tfor(var t=0; t<incoming.length; t++) {\n\t\tvar incomingFields = incoming[t],\n\t\t\tfields = {};\n\t\tfor(var f in incomingFields) {\n\t\t\tif(typeof incomingFields[f] === \"string\") {\n\t\t\t\tfields[f] = incomingFields[f];\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t}\n\t\tresults.push(fields);\n\t}\n\treturn results;\n};\n\n/*\nParse an HTML file into tiddlers. There are three possibilities:\n# A TiddlyWiki classic HTML file containing `text/x-tiddlywiki` tiddlers\n# A TiddlyWiki5 HTML file containing `text/vnd.tiddlywiki` tiddlers\n# An ordinary HTML file\n*/\nexports[\"text/html\"] = function(text,fields) {\n\t// Check if we've got a store area\n\tvar storeAreaMarkerRegExp = /<div id=[\"']?storeArea['\"]?( style=[\"']?display:none;[\"']?)?>/gi,\n\t\tmatch = storeAreaMarkerRegExp.exec(text);\n\tif(match) {\n\t\t// If so, it's either a classic TiddlyWiki file or an unencrypted TW5 file\n\t\t// First read the normal tiddlers\n\t\tvar results = deserializeTiddlyWikiFile(text,storeAreaMarkerRegExp.lastIndex,!!match[1],fields);\n\t\t// Then any system tiddlers\n\t\tvar systemAreaMarkerRegExp = /<div id=[\"']?systemArea['\"]?( style=[\"']?display:none;[\"']?)?>/gi,\n\t\t\tsysMatch = systemAreaMarkerRegExp.exec(text);\n\t\tif(sysMatch) {\n\t\t\tresults.push.apply(results,deserializeTiddlyWikiFile(text,systemAreaMarkerRegExp.lastIndex,!!sysMatch[1],fields));\n\t\t}\n\t\treturn results;\n\t} else {\n\t\t// Check whether we've got an encrypted file\n\t\tvar encryptedStoreArea = $tw.utils.extractEncryptedStoreArea(text);\n\t\tif(encryptedStoreArea) {\n\t\t\t// If so, attempt to decrypt it using the current password\n\t\t\treturn $tw.utils.decryptStoreArea(encryptedStoreArea);\n\t\t} else {\n\t\t\t// It's not a TiddlyWiki so we'll return the entire HTML file as a tiddler\n\t\t\treturn deserializeHtmlFile(text,fields);\n\t\t}\n\t}\n};\n\nfunction deserializeHtmlFile(text,fields) {\n\tvar result = {};\n\t$tw.utils.each(fields,function(value,name) {\n\t\tresult[name] = value;\n\t});\n\tresult.text = text;\n\tresult.type = \"text/html\";\n\treturn [result];\n}\n\nfunction deserializeTiddlyWikiFile(text,storeAreaEnd,isTiddlyWiki5,fields) {\n\tvar results = [],\n\t\tendOfDivRegExp = /(<\\/div>\\s*)/gi,\n\t\tstartPos = storeAreaEnd,\n\t\tdefaultType = isTiddlyWiki5 ? undefined : \"text/x-tiddlywiki\";\n\tendOfDivRegExp.lastIndex = startPos;\n\tvar match = endOfDivRegExp.exec(text);\n\twhile(match) {\n\t\tvar endPos = endOfDivRegExp.lastIndex,\n\t\t\ttiddlerFields = parseTiddlerDiv(text.substring(startPos,endPos),fields,{type: defaultType});\n\t\tif(!tiddlerFields) {\n\t\t\tbreak;\n\t\t}\n\t\t$tw.utils.each(tiddlerFields,function(value,name) {\n\t\t\tif(typeof value === \"string\") {\n\t\t\t\ttiddlerFields[name] = $tw.utils.htmlDecode(value);\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t});\n\t\tif(tiddlerFields.text !== null) {\n\t\t\tresults.push(tiddlerFields);\n\t\t}\n\t\tstartPos = endPos;\n\t\tmatch = endOfDivRegExp.exec(text);\n\t}\n\treturn results;\n}\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "tiddlerdeserializer"
},
"$:/core/modules/editor/engines/framed.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/editor/engines/framed.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/editor/engines/framed.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: library\n\nText editor engine based on a simple input or textarea within an iframe. This is done so that the selection is preserved even when clicking away from the textarea\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true,browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nvar HEIGHT_VALUE_TITLE = \"$:/config/TextEditor/EditorHeight/Height\";\n\nfunction FramedEngine(options) {\n\t// Save our options\n\toptions = options || {};\n\tthis.widget = options.widget;\n\tthis.value = options.value;\n\tthis.parentNode = options.parentNode;\n\tthis.nextSibling = options.nextSibling;\n\t// Create our hidden dummy text area for reading styles\n\tthis.dummyTextArea = this.widget.document.createElement(\"textarea\");\n\tif(this.widget.editClass) {\n\t\tthis.dummyTextArea.className = this.widget.editClass;\n\t}\n\tthis.dummyTextArea.setAttribute(\"hidden\",\"true\");\n\tthis.parentNode.insertBefore(this.dummyTextArea,this.nextSibling);\n\tthis.widget.domNodes.push(this.dummyTextArea);\n\t// Create the iframe\n\tthis.iframeNode = this.widget.document.createElement(\"iframe\");\n\tthis.parentNode.insertBefore(this.iframeNode,this.nextSibling);\n\tthis.iframeDoc = this.iframeNode.contentWindow.document;\n\t// (Firefox requires us to put some empty content in the iframe)\n\tthis.iframeDoc.open();\n\tthis.iframeDoc.write(\"\");\n\tthis.iframeDoc.close();\n\t// Style the iframe\n\tthis.iframeNode.className = this.dummyTextArea.className;\n\tthis.iframeNode.style.border = \"none\";\n\tthis.iframeNode.style.padding = \"0\";\n\tthis.iframeNode.style.resize = \"none\";\n\tthis.iframeDoc.body.style.margin = \"0\";\n\tthis.iframeDoc.body.style.padding = \"0\";\n\tthis.widget.domNodes.push(this.iframeNode);\n\t// Construct the textarea or input node\n\tvar tag = this.widget.editTag;\n\tif($tw.config.htmlUnsafeElements.indexOf(tag) !== -1) {\n\t\ttag = \"input\";\n\t}\n\tthis.domNode = this.iframeDoc.createElement(tag);\n\t// Set the text\n\tif(this.widget.editTag === \"textarea\") {\n\t\tthis.domNode.appendChild(this.iframeDoc.createTextNode(this.value));\n\t} else {\n\t\tthis.domNode.value = this.value;\n\t}\n\t// Set the attributes\n\tif(this.widget.editType) {\n\t\tthis.domNode.setAttribute(\"type\",this.widget.editType);\n\t}\n\tif(this.widget.editPlaceholder) {\n\t\tthis.domNode.setAttribute(\"placeholder\",this.widget.editPlaceholder);\n\t}\n\tif(this.widget.editSize) {\n\t\tthis.domNode.setAttribute(\"size\",this.widget.editSize);\n\t}\n\tif(this.widget.editRows) {\n\t\tthis.domNode.setAttribute(\"rows\",this.widget.editRows);\n\t}\n\t// Copy the styles from the dummy textarea\n\tthis.copyStyles();\n\t// Add event listeners\n\t$tw.utils.addEventListeners(this.domNode,[\n\t\t{name: \"click\",handlerObject: this,handlerMethod: \"handleClickEvent\"},\n\t\t{name: \"input\",handlerObject: this,handlerMethod: \"handleInputEvent\"},\n\t\t{name: \"keydown\",handlerObject: this.widget,handlerMethod: \"handleKeydownEvent\"}\n\t]);\n\t// Insert the element into the DOM\n\tthis.iframeDoc.body.appendChild(this.domNode);\n}\n\n/*\nCopy styles from the dummy text area to the textarea in the iframe\n*/\nFramedEngine.prototype.copyStyles = function() {\n\t// Copy all styles\n\t$tw.utils.copyStyles(this.dummyTextArea,this.domNode);\n\t// Override the ones that should not be set the same as the dummy textarea\n\tthis.domNode.style.display = \"block\";\n\tthis.domNode.style.width = \"100%\";\n\tthis.domNode.style.margin = \"0\";\n\t// In Chrome setting -webkit-text-fill-color overrides the placeholder text colour\n\tthis.domNode.style[\"-webkit-text-fill-color\"] = \"currentcolor\";\n};\n\n/*\nSet the text of the engine if it doesn't currently have focus\n*/\nFramedEngine.prototype.setText = function(text,type) {\n\tif(!this.domNode.isTiddlyWikiFakeDom) {\n\t\tif(this.domNode.ownerDocument.activeElement !== this.domNode) {\n\t\t\tthis.domNode.value = text;\n\t\t}\n\t\t// Fix the height if needed\n\t\tthis.fixHeight();\n\t}\n};\n\n/*\nGet the text of the engine\n*/\nFramedEngine.prototype.getText = function() {\n\treturn this.domNode.value;\n};\n\n/*\nFix the height of textarea to fit content\n*/\nFramedEngine.prototype.fixHeight = function() {\n\t// Make sure styles are updated\n\tthis.copyStyles();\n\t// Adjust height\n\tif(this.widget.editTag === \"textarea\") {\n\t\tif(this.widget.editAutoHeight) {\n\t\t\tif(this.domNode && !this.domNode.isTiddlyWikiFakeDom) {\n\t\t\t\tvar newHeight = $tw.utils.resizeTextAreaToFit(this.domNode,this.widget.editMinHeight);\n\t\t\t\tthis.iframeNode.style.height = (newHeight + 14) + \"px\"; // +14 for the border on the textarea\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t} else {\n\t\t\tvar fixedHeight = parseInt(this.widget.wiki.getTiddlerText(HEIGHT_VALUE_TITLE,\"400px\"),10);\n\t\t\tfixedHeight = Math.max(fixedHeight,20);\n\t\t\tthis.domNode.style.height = fixedHeight + \"px\";\n\t\t\tthis.iframeNode.style.height = (fixedHeight + 14) + \"px\";\n\t\t}\n\t}\n};\n\n/*\nFocus the engine node\n*/\nFramedEngine.prototype.focus = function() {\n\tif(this.domNode.focus && this.domNode.select) {\n\t\tthis.domNode.focus();\n\t\tthis.domNode.select();\n\t}\n};\n\n/*\nHandle a click\n*/\nFramedEngine.prototype.handleClickEvent = function(event) {\n\tthis.fixHeight();\n\treturn true;\n};\n\n/*\nHandle a dom \"input\" event which occurs when the text has changed\n*/\nFramedEngine.prototype.handleInputEvent = function(event) {\n\tthis.widget.saveChanges(this.getText());\n\tthis.fixHeight();\n\treturn true;\n};\n\n/*\nCreate a blank structure representing a text operation\n*/\nFramedEngine.prototype.createTextOperation = function() {\n\tvar operation = {\n\t\ttext: this.domNode.value,\n\t\tselStart: this.domNode.selectionStart,\n\t\tselEnd: this.domNode.selectionEnd,\n\t\tcutStart: null,\n\t\tcutEnd: null,\n\t\treplacement: null,\n\t\tnewSelStart: null,\n\t\tnewSelEnd: null\n\t};\n\toperation.selection = operation.text.substring(operation.selStart,operation.selEnd);\n\treturn operation;\n};\n\n/*\nExecute a text operation\n*/\nFramedEngine.prototype.executeTextOperation = function(operation) {\n\t// Perform the required changes to the text area and the underlying tiddler\n\tvar newText = operation.text;\n\tif(operation.replacement !== null) {\n\t\tnewText = operation.text.substring(0,operation.cutStart) + operation.replacement + operation.text.substring(operation.cutEnd);\n\t\t// Attempt to use a execCommand to modify the value of the control\n\t\tif(this.iframeDoc.queryCommandSupported(\"insertText\") && this.iframeDoc.queryCommandSupported(\"delete\") && !$tw.browser.isFirefox) {\n\t\t\tthis.domNode.focus();\n\t\t\tthis.domNode.setSelectionRange(operation.cutStart,operation.cutEnd);\n\t\t\tif(operation.replacement === \"\") {\n\t\t\t\tthis.iframeDoc.execCommand(\"delete\",false,\"\");\n\t\t\t} else {\n\t\t\t\tthis.iframeDoc.execCommand(\"insertText\",false,operation.replacement);\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t} else {\n\t\t\tthis.domNode.value = newText;\n\t\t}\n\t\tthis.domNode.focus();\n\t\tthis.domNode.setSelectionRange(operation.newSelStart,operation.newSelEnd);\n\t}\n\tthis.domNode.focus();\n\treturn newText;\n};\n\nexports.FramedEngine = FramedEngine;\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "library"
},
"$:/core/modules/editor/engines/simple.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/editor/engines/simple.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/editor/engines/simple.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: library\n\nText editor engine based on a simple input or textarea tag\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nvar HEIGHT_VALUE_TITLE = \"$:/config/TextEditor/EditorHeight/Height\";\n\nfunction SimpleEngine(options) {\n\t// Save our options\n\toptions = options || {};\n\tthis.widget = options.widget;\n\tthis.value = options.value;\n\tthis.parentNode = options.parentNode;\n\tthis.nextSibling = options.nextSibling;\n\t// Construct the textarea or input node\n\tvar tag = this.widget.editTag;\n\tif($tw.config.htmlUnsafeElements.indexOf(tag) !== -1) {\n\t\ttag = \"input\";\n\t}\n\tthis.domNode = this.widget.document.createElement(tag);\n\t// Set the text\n\tif(this.widget.editTag === \"textarea\") {\n\t\tthis.domNode.appendChild(this.widget.document.createTextNode(this.value));\n\t} else {\n\t\tthis.domNode.value = this.value;\n\t}\n\t// Set the attributes\n\tif(this.widget.editType) {\n\t\tthis.domNode.setAttribute(\"type\",this.widget.editType);\n\t}\n\tif(this.widget.editPlaceholder) {\n\t\tthis.domNode.setAttribute(\"placeholder\",this.widget.editPlaceholder);\n\t}\n\tif(this.widget.editSize) {\n\t\tthis.domNode.setAttribute(\"size\",this.widget.editSize);\n\t}\n\tif(this.widget.editRows) {\n\t\tthis.domNode.setAttribute(\"rows\",this.widget.editRows);\n\t}\n\tif(this.widget.editClass) {\n\t\tthis.domNode.className = this.widget.editClass;\n\t}\n\t// Add an input event handler\n\t$tw.utils.addEventListeners(this.domNode,[\n\t\t{name: \"focus\", handlerObject: this, handlerMethod: \"handleFocusEvent\"},\n\t\t{name: \"input\", handlerObject: this, handlerMethod: \"handleInputEvent\"}\n\t]);\n\t// Insert the element into the DOM\n\tthis.parentNode.insertBefore(this.domNode,this.nextSibling);\n\tthis.widget.domNodes.push(this.domNode);\n}\n\n/*\nSet the text of the engine if it doesn't currently have focus\n*/\nSimpleEngine.prototype.setText = function(text,type) {\n\tif(!this.domNode.isTiddlyWikiFakeDom) {\n\t\tif(this.domNode.ownerDocument.activeElement !== this.domNode || text === \"\") {\n\t\t\tthis.domNode.value = text;\n\t\t}\n\t\t// Fix the height if needed\n\t\tthis.fixHeight();\n\t}\n};\n\n/*\nGet the text of the engine\n*/\nSimpleEngine.prototype.getText = function() {\n\treturn this.domNode.value;\n};\n\n/*\nFix the height of textarea to fit content\n*/\nSimpleEngine.prototype.fixHeight = function() {\n\tif(this.widget.editTag === \"textarea\") {\n\t\tif(this.widget.editAutoHeight) {\n\t\t\tif(this.domNode && !this.domNode.isTiddlyWikiFakeDom) {\n\t\t\t\t$tw.utils.resizeTextAreaToFit(this.domNode,this.widget.editMinHeight);\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t} else {\n\t\t\tvar fixedHeight = parseInt(this.widget.wiki.getTiddlerText(HEIGHT_VALUE_TITLE,\"400px\"),10);\n\t\t\tfixedHeight = Math.max(fixedHeight,20);\n\t\t\tthis.domNode.style.height = fixedHeight + \"px\";\n\t\t}\n\t}\n};\n\n/*\nFocus the engine node\n*/\nSimpleEngine.prototype.focus = function() {\n\tif(this.domNode.focus && this.domNode.select) {\n\t\tthis.domNode.focus();\n\t\tthis.domNode.select();\n\t}\n};\n\n/*\nHandle a dom \"input\" event which occurs when the text has changed\n*/\nSimpleEngine.prototype.handleInputEvent = function(event) {\n\tthis.widget.saveChanges(this.getText());\n\tthis.fixHeight();\n\treturn true;\n};\n\n/*\nHandle a dom \"focus\" event\n*/\nSimpleEngine.prototype.handleFocusEvent = function(event) {\n\tif(this.widget.editFocusPopup) {\n\t\t$tw.popup.triggerPopup({\n\t\t\tdomNode: this.domNode,\n\t\t\ttitle: this.widget.editFocusPopup,\n\t\t\twiki: this.widget.wiki,\n\t\t\tforce: true\n\t\t});\n\t}\n\treturn true;\n};\n\n/*\nCreate a blank structure representing a text operation\n*/\nSimpleEngine.prototype.createTextOperation = function() {\n\treturn null;\n};\n\n/*\nExecute a text operation\n*/\nSimpleEngine.prototype.executeTextOperation = function(operation) {\n};\n\nexports.SimpleEngine = SimpleEngine;\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "library"
},
"$:/core/modules/editor/factory.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/editor/factory.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/editor/factory.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: library\n\nFactory for constructing text editor widgets with specified engines for the toolbar and non-toolbar cases\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nvar DEFAULT_MIN_TEXT_AREA_HEIGHT = \"100px\"; // Minimum height of textareas in pixels\n\n// Configuration tiddlers\nvar HEIGHT_MODE_TITLE = \"$:/config/TextEditor/EditorHeight/Mode\";\nvar ENABLE_TOOLBAR_TITLE = \"$:/config/TextEditor/EnableToolbar\";\n\nvar Widget = require(\"$:/core/modules/widgets/widget.js\").widget;\n\nfunction editTextWidgetFactory(toolbarEngine,nonToolbarEngine) {\n\n\tvar EditTextWidget = function(parseTreeNode,options) {\n\t\t// Initialise the editor operations if they've not been done already\n\t\tif(!this.editorOperations) {\n\t\t\tEditTextWidget.prototype.editorOperations = {};\n\t\t\t$tw.modules.applyMethods(\"texteditoroperation\",this.editorOperations);\n\t\t}\n\t\tthis.initialise(parseTreeNode,options);\n\t};\n\n\t/*\n\tInherit from the base widget class\n\t*/\n\tEditTextWidget.prototype = new Widget();\n\n\t/*\n\tRender this widget into the DOM\n\t*/\n\tEditTextWidget.prototype.render = function(parent,nextSibling) {\n\t\t// Save the parent dom node\n\t\tthis.parentDomNode = parent;\n\t\t// Compute our attributes\n\t\tthis.computeAttributes();\n\t\t// Execute our logic\n\t\tthis.execute();\n\t\t// Create the wrapper for the toolbar and render its content\n\t\tif(this.editShowToolbar) {\n\t\t\tthis.toolbarNode = this.document.createElement(\"div\");\n\t\t\tthis.toolbarNode.className = \"tc-editor-toolbar\";\n\t\t\tparent.insertBefore(this.toolbarNode,nextSibling);\n\t\t\tthis.renderChildren(this.toolbarNode,null);\n\t\t\tthis.domNodes.push(this.toolbarNode);\n\t\t}\n\t\t// Create our element\n\t\tvar editInfo = this.getEditInfo(),\n\t\t\tEngine = this.editShowToolbar ? toolbarEngine : nonToolbarEngine;\n\t\tthis.engine = new Engine({\n\t\t\t\twidget: this,\n\t\t\t\tvalue: editInfo.value,\n\t\t\t\ttype: editInfo.type,\n\t\t\t\tparentNode: parent,\n\t\t\t\tnextSibling: nextSibling\n\t\t\t});\n\t\t// Call the postRender hook\n\t\tif(this.postRender) {\n\t\t\tthis.postRender();\n\t\t}\n\t\t// Fix height\n\t\tthis.engine.fixHeight();\n\t\t// Focus if required\n\t\tif(this.editFocus === \"true\" || this.editFocus === \"yes\") {\n\t\t\tthis.engine.focus();\n\t\t}\n\t\t// Add widget message listeners\n\t\tthis.addEventListeners([\n\t\t\t{type: \"tm-edit-text-operation\", handler: \"handleEditTextOperationMessage\"}\n\t\t]);\n\t};\n\n\t/*\n\tGet the tiddler being edited and current value\n\t*/\n\tEditTextWidget.prototype.getEditInfo = function() {\n\t\t// Get the edit value\n\t\tvar self = this,\n\t\t\tvalue,\n\t\t\ttype = \"text/plain\",\n\t\t\tupdate;\n\t\tif(this.editIndex) {\n\t\t\tvalue = this.wiki.extractTiddlerDataItem(this.editTitle,this.editIndex,this.editDefault);\n\t\t\tupdate = function(value) {\n\t\t\t\tvar data = self.wiki.getTiddlerData(self.editTitle,{});\n\t\t\t\tif(data[self.editIndex] !== value) {\n\t\t\t\t\tdata[self.editIndex] = value;\n\t\t\t\t\tself.wiki.setTiddlerData(self.editTitle,data);\n\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t};\n\t\t} else {\n\t\t\t// Get the current tiddler and the field name\n\t\t\tvar tiddler = this.wiki.getTiddler(this.editTitle);\n\t\t\tif(tiddler) {\n\t\t\t\t// If we've got a tiddler, the value to display is the field string value\n\t\t\t\tvalue = tiddler.getFieldString(this.editField);\n\t\t\t\tif(this.editField === \"text\") {\n\t\t\t\t\ttype = tiddler.fields.type || \"text/vnd.tiddlywiki\";\n\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t} else {\n\t\t\t\t// Otherwise, we need to construct a default value for the editor\n\t\t\t\tswitch(this.editField) {\n\t\t\t\t\tcase \"text\":\n\t\t\t\t\t\tvalue = \"Type the text for the tiddler '\" + this.editTitle + \"'\";\n\t\t\t\t\t\ttype = \"text/vnd.tiddlywiki\";\n\t\t\t\t\t\tbreak;\n\t\t\t\t\tcase \"title\":\n\t\t\t\t\t\tvalue = this.editTitle;\n\t\t\t\t\t\tbreak;\n\t\t\t\t\tdefault:\n\t\t\t\t\t\tvalue = \"\";\n\t\t\t\t\t\tbreak;\n\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t\tif(this.editDefault !== undefined) {\n\t\t\t\t\tvalue = this.editDefault;\n\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t\tupdate = function(value) {\n\t\t\t\tvar tiddler = self.wiki.getTiddler(self.editTitle),\n\t\t\t\t\tupdateFields = {\n\t\t\t\t\t\ttitle: self.editTitle\n\t\t\t\t\t};\n\t\t\t\tupdateFields[self.editField] = value;\n\t\t\t\tself.wiki.addTiddler(new $tw.Tiddler(self.wiki.getCreationFields(),tiddler,updateFields,self.wiki.getModificationFields()));\n\t\t\t};\n\t\t}\n\t\tif(this.editType) {\n\t\t\ttype = this.editType;\n\t\t}\n\t\treturn {value: value || \"\", type: type, update: update};\n\t};\n\n\t/*\n\tHandle an edit text operation message from the toolbar\n\t*/\n\tEditTextWidget.prototype.handleEditTextOperationMessage = function(event) {\n\t\t// Prepare information about the operation\n\t\tvar operation = this.engine.createTextOperation();\n\t\t// Invoke the handler for the selected operation\n\t\tvar handler = this.editorOperations[event.param];\n\t\tif(handler) {\n\t\t\thandler.call(this,event,operation);\n\t\t}\n\t\t// Execute the operation via the engine\n\t\tvar newText = this.engine.executeTextOperation(operation);\n\t\t// Fix the tiddler height and save changes\n\t\tthis.engine.fixHeight();\n\t\tthis.saveChanges(newText);\n\t};\n\n\t/*\n\tCompute the internal state of the widget\n\t*/\n\tEditTextWidget.prototype.execute = function() {\n\t\t// Get our parameters\n\t\tthis.editTitle = this.getAttribute(\"tiddler\",this.getVariable(\"currentTiddler\"));\n\t\tthis.editField = this.getAttribute(\"field\",\"text\");\n\t\tthis.editIndex = this.getAttribute(\"index\");\n\t\tthis.editDefault = this.getAttribute(\"default\");\n\t\tthis.editClass = this.getAttribute(\"class\");\n\t\tthis.editPlaceholder = this.getAttribute(\"placeholder\");\n\t\tthis.editSize = this.getAttribute(\"size\");\n\t\tthis.editRows = this.getAttribute(\"rows\");\n\t\tthis.editAutoHeight = this.wiki.getTiddlerText(HEIGHT_MODE_TITLE,\"auto\");\n\t\tthis.editAutoHeight = this.getAttribute(\"autoHeight\",this.editAutoHeight === \"auto\" ? \"yes\" : \"no\") === \"yes\";\n\t\tthis.editMinHeight = this.getAttribute(\"minHeight\",DEFAULT_MIN_TEXT_AREA_HEIGHT);\n\t\tthis.editFocusPopup = this.getAttribute(\"focusPopup\");\n\t\tthis.editFocus = this.getAttribute(\"focus\");\n\t\t// Get the default editor element tag and type\n\t\tvar tag,type;\n\t\tif(this.editField === \"text\") {\n\t\t\ttag = \"textarea\";\n\t\t} else {\n\t\t\ttag = \"input\";\n\t\t\tvar fieldModule = $tw.Tiddler.fieldModules[this.editField];\n\t\t\tif(fieldModule && fieldModule.editTag) {\n\t\t\t\ttag = fieldModule.editTag;\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t\tif(fieldModule && fieldModule.editType) {\n\t\t\t\ttype = fieldModule.editType;\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t\ttype = type || \"text\";\n\t\t}\n\t\t// Get the rest of our parameters\n\t\tthis.editTag = this.getAttribute(\"tag\",tag);\n\t\tthis.editType = this.getAttribute(\"type\",type);\n\t\t// Make the child widgets\n\t\tthis.makeChildWidgets();\n\t\t// Determine whether to show the toolbar\n\t\tthis.editShowToolbar = this.wiki.getTiddlerText(ENABLE_TOOLBAR_TITLE,\"yes\");\n\t\tthis.editShowToolbar = (this.editShowToolbar === \"yes\") && !!(this.children && this.children.length > 0) && (!this.document.isTiddlyWikiFakeDom);\n\t};\n\n\t/*\n\tSelectively refreshes the widget if needed. Returns true if the widget or any of its children needed re-rendering\n\t*/\n\tEditTextWidget.prototype.refresh = function(changedTiddlers) {\n\t\tvar changedAttributes = this.computeAttributes();\n\t\t// Completely rerender if any of our attributes have changed\n\t\tif(changedAttributes.tiddler || changedAttributes.field || changedAttributes.index || changedAttributes[\"default\"] || changedAttributes[\"class\"] || changedAttributes.placeholder || changedAttributes.size || changedAttributes.autoHeight || changedAttributes.minHeight || changedAttributes.focusPopup || changedAttributes.rows || changedTiddlers[HEIGHT_MODE_TITLE] || changedTiddlers[ENABLE_TOOLBAR_TITLE]) {\n\t\t\tthis.refreshSelf();\n\t\t\treturn true;\n\t\t} else if(changedTiddlers[this.editTitle]) {\n\t\t\tvar editInfo = this.getEditInfo();\n\t\t\tthis.updateEditor(editInfo.value,editInfo.type);\n\t\t}\n\t\tthis.engine.fixHeight();\n\t\tif(this.editShowToolbar) {\n\t\t\treturn this.refreshChildren(changedTiddlers);\t\t\t\n\t\t} else {\n\t\t\treturn false;\n\t\t}\n\t};\n\n\t/*\n\tUpdate the editor with new text. This method is separate from updateEditorDomNode()\n\tso that subclasses can override updateEditor() and still use updateEditorDomNode()\n\t*/\n\tEditTextWidget.prototype.updateEditor = function(text,type) {\n\t\tthis.updateEditorDomNode(text,type);\n\t};\n\n\t/*\n\tUpdate the editor dom node with new text\n\t*/\n\tEditTextWidget.prototype.updateEditorDomNode = function(text,type) {\n\t\tthis.engine.setText(text,type);\n\t};\n\n\t/*\n\tSave changes back to the tiddler store\n\t*/\n\tEditTextWidget.prototype.saveChanges = function(text) {\n\t\tvar editInfo = this.getEditInfo();\n\t\tif(text !== editInfo.value) {\n\t\t\teditInfo.update(text);\n\t\t}\n\t};\n\n\t/*\n\tHandle a dom \"keydown\" event, which we'll bubble up to our container for the keyboard widgets benefit\n\t*/\n\tEditTextWidget.prototype.handleKeydownEvent = function(event) {\n\t\t// Check for a keyboard shortcut\n\t\tif(this.toolbarNode) {\n\t\t\tvar shortcutElements = this.toolbarNode.querySelectorAll(\"[data-tw-keyboard-shortcut]\");\n\t\t\tfor(var index=0; index<shortcutElements.length; index++) {\n\t\t\t\tvar el = shortcutElements[index],\n\t\t\t\t\tshortcutData = el.getAttribute(\"data-tw-keyboard-shortcut\"),\n\t\t\t\t\tkeyInfoArray = $tw.keyboardManager.parseKeyDescriptors(shortcutData,{\n\t\t\t\t\t\twiki: this.wiki\n\t\t\t\t\t});\n\t\t\t\tif($tw.keyboardManager.checkKeyDescriptors(event,keyInfoArray)) {\n\t\t\t\t\tvar clickEvent = this.document.createEvent(\"Events\");\n\t\t\t\t clickEvent.initEvent(\"click\",true,false);\n\t\t\t\t el.dispatchEvent(clickEvent);\n\t\t\t\t\tevent.preventDefault();\n\t\t\t\t\tevent.stopPropagation();\n\t\t\t\t\treturn true;\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t}\n\t\t// Propogate the event to the container\n\t\tif(this.propogateKeydownEvent(event)) {\n\t\t\t// Ignore the keydown if it was already handled\n\t\t\tevent.preventDefault();\n\t\t\tevent.stopPropagation();\n\t\t\treturn true;\n\t\t}\n\t\t// Otherwise, process the keydown normally\n\t\treturn false;\n\t};\n\n\t/*\n\tPropogate keydown events to our container for the keyboard widgets benefit\n\t*/\n\tEditTextWidget.prototype.propogateKeydownEvent = function(event) {\n\t\tvar newEvent = this.document.createEventObject ? this.document.createEventObject() : this.document.createEvent(\"Events\");\n\t\tif(newEvent.initEvent) {\n\t\t\tnewEvent.initEvent(\"keydown\", true, true);\n\t\t}\n\t\tnewEvent.keyCode = event.keyCode;\n\t\tnewEvent.which = event.which;\n\t\tnewEvent.metaKey = event.metaKey;\n\t\tnewEvent.ctrlKey = event.ctrlKey;\n\t\tnewEvent.altKey = event.altKey;\n\t\tnewEvent.shiftKey = event.shiftKey;\n\t\treturn !this.parentDomNode.dispatchEvent(newEvent);\n\t};\n\n\treturn EditTextWidget;\n\n}\n\nexports.editTextWidgetFactory = editTextWidgetFactory;\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "library"
},
"$:/core/modules/editor/operations/bitmap/clear.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/editor/operations/bitmap/clear.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/editor/operations/bitmap/clear.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: bitmapeditoroperation\n\nBitmap editor operation to clear the image\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nexports[\"clear\"] = function(event) {\n\tvar ctx = this.canvasDomNode.getContext(\"2d\");\n\tctx.globalAlpha = 1;\n\tctx.fillStyle = event.paramObject.colour || \"white\";\n\tctx.fillRect(0,0,this.canvasDomNode.width,this.canvasDomNode.height);\n\t// Save changes\n\tthis.strokeEnd();\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "bitmapeditoroperation"
},
"$:/core/modules/editor/operations/bitmap/resize.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/editor/operations/bitmap/resize.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/editor/operations/bitmap/resize.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: bitmapeditoroperation\n\nBitmap editor operation to resize the image\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nexports[\"resize\"] = function(event) {\n\t// Get the new width\n\tvar newWidth = parseInt(event.paramObject.width || this.canvasDomNode.width,10),\n\t\tnewHeight = parseInt(event.paramObject.height || this.canvasDomNode.height,10);\n\t// Update if necessary\n\tif(newWidth > 0 && newHeight > 0 && !(newWidth === this.currCanvas.width && newHeight === this.currCanvas.height)) {\n\t\tthis.changeCanvasSize(newWidth,newHeight);\n\t}\n\t// Update the input controls\n\tthis.refreshToolbar();\n\t// Save the image into the tiddler\n\tthis.saveChanges();\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "bitmapeditoroperation"
},
"$:/core/modules/editor/operations/bitmap/rotate-left.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/editor/operations/bitmap/rotate-left.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/editor/operations/bitmap/rotate-left.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: bitmapeditoroperation\n\nBitmap editor operation to rotate the image left by 90 degrees\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nexports[\"rotate-left\"] = function(event) {\n\t// Rotate the canvas left by 90 degrees\n\tthis.rotateCanvasLeft();\n\t// Update the input controls\n\tthis.refreshToolbar();\n\t// Save the image into the tiddler\n\tthis.saveChanges();\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "bitmapeditoroperation"
},
"$:/core/modules/editor/operations/text/excise.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/editor/operations/text/excise.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/editor/operations/text/excise.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: texteditoroperation\n\nText editor operation to excise the selection to a new tiddler\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nexports[\"excise\"] = function(event,operation) {\n\tvar editTiddler = this.wiki.getTiddler(this.editTitle),\n\t\teditTiddlerTitle = this.editTitle;\n\tif(editTiddler && editTiddler.fields[\"draft.of\"]) {\n\t\teditTiddlerTitle = editTiddler.fields[\"draft.of\"];\n\t}\n\tvar excisionTitle = event.paramObject.title || this.wiki.generateNewTitle(\"New Excision\");\n\tthis.wiki.addTiddler(new $tw.Tiddler(\n\t\tthis.wiki.getCreationFields(),\n\t\tthis.wiki.getModificationFields(),\n\t\t{\n\t\t\ttitle: excisionTitle,\n\t\t\ttext: operation.selection,\n\t\t\ttags: event.paramObject.tagnew === \"yes\" ? [editTiddlerTitle] : []\n\t\t}\n\t));\n\toperation.replacement = excisionTitle;\n\tswitch(event.paramObject.type || \"transclude\") {\n\t\tcase \"transclude\":\n\t\t\toperation.replacement = \"{{\" + operation.replacement+ \"}}\";\n\t\t\tbreak;\n\t\tcase \"link\":\n\t\t\toperation.replacement = \"[[\" + operation.replacement+ \"]]\";\n\t\t\tbreak;\n\t\tcase \"macro\":\n\t\t\toperation.replacement = \"<<\" + (event.paramObject.macro || \"translink\") + \" \\\"\\\"\\\"\" + operation.replacement + \"\\\"\\\"\\\">>\";\n\t\t\tbreak;\n\t}\n\toperation.cutStart = operation.selStart;\n\toperation.cutEnd = operation.selEnd;\n\toperation.newSelStart = operation.selStart;\n\toperation.newSelEnd = operation.selStart + operation.replacement.length;\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "texteditoroperation"
},
"$:/core/modules/editor/operations/text/make-link.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/editor/operations/text/make-link.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/editor/operations/text/make-link.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: texteditoroperation\n\nText editor operation to make a link\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nexports[\"make-link\"] = function(event,operation) {\n\tif(operation.selection) {\n\t\toperation.replacement = \"[[\" + operation.selection + \"|\" + event.paramObject.text + \"]]\";\n\t\toperation.cutStart = operation.selStart;\n\t\toperation.cutEnd = operation.selEnd;\n\t} else {\n\t\toperation.replacement = \"[[\" + event.paramObject.text + \"]]\";\n\t\toperation.cutStart = operation.selStart;\n\t\toperation.cutEnd = operation.selEnd;\n\t}\n\toperation.newSelStart = operation.selStart + operation.replacement.length;\n\toperation.newSelEnd = operation.newSelStart;\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "texteditoroperation"
},
"$:/core/modules/editor/operations/text/prefix-lines.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/editor/operations/text/prefix-lines.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/editor/operations/text/prefix-lines.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: texteditoroperation\n\nText editor operation to add a prefix to the selected lines\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nexports[\"prefix-lines\"] = function(event,operation) {\n\t// Cut just past the preceding line break, or the start of the text\n\toperation.cutStart = $tw.utils.findPrecedingLineBreak(operation.text,operation.selStart);\n\t// Cut to just past the following line break, or to the end of the text\n\toperation.cutEnd = $tw.utils.findFollowingLineBreak(operation.text,operation.selEnd);\n\t// Compose the required prefix\n\tvar prefix = $tw.utils.repeat(event.paramObject.character,event.paramObject.count);\n\t// Process each line\n\tvar lines = operation.text.substring(operation.cutStart,operation.cutEnd).split(/\\r?\\n/mg);\n\t$tw.utils.each(lines,function(line,index) {\n\t\t// Remove and count any existing prefix characters\n\t\tvar count = 0;\n\t\twhile(line.charAt(0) === event.paramObject.character) {\n\t\t\tline = line.substring(1);\n\t\t\tcount++;\n\t\t}\n\t\t// Remove any whitespace\n\t\twhile(line.charAt(0) === \" \") {\n\t\t\tline = line.substring(1);\n\t\t}\n\t\t// We're done if we removed the exact required prefix, otherwise add it\n\t\tif(count !== event.paramObject.count) {\n\t\t\t// Apply the prefix\n\t\t\tline = prefix + \" \" + line;\n\t\t}\n\t\t// Save the modified line\n\t\tlines[index] = line;\n\t});\n\t// Stitch the replacement text together and set the selection\n\toperation.replacement = lines.join(\"\\n\");\n\tif(lines.length === 1) {\n\t\toperation.newSelStart = operation.cutStart + operation.replacement.length;\n\t\toperation.newSelEnd = operation.newSelStart;\n\t} else {\n\t\toperation.newSelStart = operation.cutStart;\n\t\toperation.newSelEnd = operation.newSelStart + operation.replacement.length;\n\t}\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "texteditoroperation"
},
"$:/core/modules/editor/operations/text/replace-all.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/editor/operations/text/replace-all.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/editor/operations/text/replace-all.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: texteditoroperation\n\nText editor operation to replace the entire text\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nexports[\"replace-all\"] = function(event,operation) {\n\toperation.cutStart = 0;\n\toperation.cutEnd = operation.text.length;\n\toperation.replacement = event.paramObject.text;\n\toperation.newSelStart = 0;\n\toperation.newSelEnd = operation.replacement.length;\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "texteditoroperation"
},
"$:/core/modules/editor/operations/text/replace-selection.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/editor/operations/text/replace-selection.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/editor/operations/text/replace-selection.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: texteditoroperation\n\nText editor operation to replace the selection\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nexports[\"replace-selection\"] = function(event,operation) {\n\toperation.replacement = event.paramObject.text;\n\toperation.cutStart = operation.selStart;\n\toperation.cutEnd = operation.selEnd;\n\toperation.newSelStart = operation.selStart;\n\toperation.newSelEnd = operation.selStart + operation.replacement.length;\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "texteditoroperation"
},
"$:/core/modules/editor/operations/text/save-selection.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/editor/operations/text/save-selection.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/editor/operations/text/save-selection.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: texteditoroperation\n\nText editor operation to save the current selection in a specified tiddler\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nexports[\"save-selection\"] = function(event,operation) {\n\tvar tiddler = event.paramObject.tiddler,\n\t\tfield = event.paramObject.field || \"text\";\n\tif(tiddler && field) {\n\t\tthis.wiki.setText(tiddler,field,null,operation.text.substring(operation.selStart,operation.selEnd));\n\t}\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "texteditoroperation"
},
"$:/core/modules/editor/operations/text/wrap-lines.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/editor/operations/text/wrap-lines.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/editor/operations/text/wrap-lines.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: texteditoroperation\n\nText editor operation to wrap the selected lines with a prefix and suffix\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nexports[\"wrap-lines\"] = function(event,operation) {\n\t// Cut just past the preceding line break, or the start of the text\n\toperation.cutStart = $tw.utils.findPrecedingLineBreak(operation.text,operation.selStart);\n\t// Cut to just past the following line break, or to the end of the text\n\toperation.cutEnd = $tw.utils.findFollowingLineBreak(operation.text,operation.selEnd);\n\t// Add the prefix and suffix\n\toperation.replacement = event.paramObject.prefix + \"\\n\" +\n\t\t\t\toperation.text.substring(operation.cutStart,operation.cutEnd) + \"\\n\" +\n\t\t\t\tevent.paramObject.suffix + \"\\n\";\n\toperation.newSelStart = operation.cutStart + event.paramObject.prefix.length + 1;\n\toperation.newSelEnd = operation.newSelStart + (operation.cutEnd - operation.cutStart);\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "texteditoroperation"
},
"$:/core/modules/editor/operations/text/wrap-selection.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/editor/operations/text/wrap-selection.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/editor/operations/text/wrap-selection.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: texteditoroperation\n\nText editor operation to wrap the selection with the specified prefix and suffix\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nexports[\"wrap-selection\"] = function(event,operation) {\n\tif(operation.selStart === operation.selEnd) {\n\t\t// No selection; check if we're within the prefix/suffix\n\t\tif(operation.text.substring(operation.selStart - event.paramObject.prefix.length,operation.selStart + event.paramObject.suffix.length) === event.paramObject.prefix + event.paramObject.suffix) {\n\t\t\t// Remove the prefix and suffix unless they comprise the entire text\n\t\t\tif(operation.selStart > event.paramObject.prefix.length || (operation.selEnd + event.paramObject.suffix.length) < operation.text.length ) {\n\t\t\t\toperation.cutStart = operation.selStart - event.paramObject.prefix.length;\n\t\t\t\toperation.cutEnd = operation.selEnd + event.paramObject.suffix.length;\n\t\t\t\toperation.replacement = \"\";\n\t\t\t\toperation.newSelStart = operation.cutStart;\n\t\t\t\toperation.newSelEnd = operation.newSelStart;\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t} else {\n\t\t\t// Wrap the cursor instead\n\t\t\toperation.cutStart = operation.selStart;\n\t\t\toperation.cutEnd = operation.selEnd;\n\t\t\toperation.replacement = event.paramObject.prefix + event.paramObject.suffix;\n\t\t\toperation.newSelStart = operation.selStart + event.paramObject.prefix.length;\n\t\t\toperation.newSelEnd = operation.newSelStart;\n\t\t}\n\t} else if(operation.text.substring(operation.selStart,operation.selStart + event.paramObject.prefix.length) === event.paramObject.prefix && operation.text.substring(operation.selEnd - event.paramObject.suffix.length,operation.selEnd) === event.paramObject.suffix) {\n\t\t// Prefix and suffix are already present, so remove them\n\t\toperation.cutStart = operation.selStart;\n\t\toperation.cutEnd = operation.selEnd;\n\t\toperation.replacement = operation.selection.substring(event.paramObject.prefix.length,operation.selection.length - event.paramObject.suffix.length);\n\t\toperation.newSelStart = operation.selStart;\n\t\toperation.newSelEnd = operation.selStart + operation.replacement.length;\n\t} else {\n\t\t// Add the prefix and suffix\n\t\toperation.cutStart = operation.selStart;\n\t\toperation.cutEnd = operation.selEnd;\n\t\toperation.replacement = event.paramObject.prefix + operation.selection + event.paramObject.suffix;\n\t\toperation.newSelStart = operation.selStart;\n\t\toperation.newSelEnd = operation.selStart + operation.replacement.length;\n\t}\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "texteditoroperation"
},
"$:/core/modules/filters/addprefix.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/filters/addprefix.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/filters/addprefix.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: filteroperator\n\nFilter operator for adding a prefix to each title in the list. This is\nespecially useful in contexts where only a filter expression is allowed\nand macro substitution isn't available.\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\n/*\nExport our filter function\n*/\nexports.addprefix = function(source,operator,options) {\n\tvar results = [];\n\tsource(function(tiddler,title) {\n\t\tresults.push(operator.operand + title);\n\t});\n\treturn results;\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "filteroperator"
},
"$:/core/modules/filters/addsuffix.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/filters/addsuffix.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/filters/addsuffix.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: filteroperator\n\nFilter operator for adding a suffix to each title in the list. This is\nespecially useful in contexts where only a filter expression is allowed\nand macro substitution isn't available.\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\n/*\nExport our filter function\n*/\nexports.addsuffix = function(source,operator,options) {\n\tvar results = [];\n\tsource(function(tiddler,title) {\n\t\tresults.push(title + operator.operand);\n\t});\n\treturn results;\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "filteroperator"
},
"$:/core/modules/filters/after.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/filters/after.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/filters/after.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: filteroperator\n\nFilter operator returning the tiddler from the current list that is after the tiddler named in the operand.\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\n/*\nExport our filter function\n*/\nexports.after = function(source,operator,options) {\n\tvar results = [];\n\tsource(function(tiddler,title) {\n\t\tresults.push(title);\n\t});\n\tvar index = results.indexOf(operator.operand);\n\tif(index === -1 || index > (results.length - 2)) {\n\t\treturn [];\n\t} else {\n\t\treturn [results[index + 1]];\n\t}\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "filteroperator"
},
"$:/core/modules/filters/all/current.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/filters/all/current.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/filters/all/current.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: allfilteroperator\n\nFilter function for [all[current]]\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\n/*\nExport our filter function\n*/\nexports.current = function(source,prefix,options) {\n\tvar currTiddlerTitle = options.widget && options.widget.getVariable(\"currentTiddler\");\n\tif(currTiddlerTitle) {\n\t\treturn [currTiddlerTitle];\n\t} else {\n\t\treturn [];\n\t}\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "allfilteroperator"
},
"$:/core/modules/filters/all/missing.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/filters/all/missing.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/filters/all/missing.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: allfilteroperator\n\nFilter function for [all[missing]]\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\n/*\nExport our filter function\n*/\nexports.missing = function(source,prefix,options) {\n\treturn options.wiki.getMissingTitles();\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "allfilteroperator"
},
"$:/core/modules/filters/all/orphans.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/filters/all/orphans.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/filters/all/orphans.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: allfilteroperator\n\nFilter function for [all[orphans]]\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\n/*\nExport our filter function\n*/\nexports.orphans = function(source,prefix,options) {\n\treturn options.wiki.getOrphanTitles();\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "allfilteroperator"
},
"$:/core/modules/filters/all/shadows.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/filters/all/shadows.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/filters/all/shadows.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: allfilteroperator\n\nFilter function for [all[shadows]]\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\n/*\nExport our filter function\n*/\nexports.shadows = function(source,prefix,options) {\n\treturn options.wiki.allShadowTitles();\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "allfilteroperator"
},
"$:/core/modules/filters/all/tags.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/filters/all/tags.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/filters/all/tags.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: allfilteroperator\n\nFilter function for [all[tags]]\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\n/*\nExport our filter function\n*/\nexports.tags = function(source,prefix,options) {\n\treturn Object.keys(options.wiki.getTagMap());\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "allfilteroperator"
},
"$:/core/modules/filters/all/tiddlers.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/filters/all/tiddlers.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/filters/all/tiddlers.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: allfilteroperator\n\nFilter function for [all[tiddlers]]\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\n/*\nExport our filter function\n*/\nexports.tiddlers = function(source,prefix,options) {\n\treturn options.wiki.allTitles();\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "allfilteroperator"
},
"$:/core/modules/filters/all.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/filters/all.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/filters/all.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: filteroperator\n\nFilter operator for selecting tiddlers\n\n[all[shadows+tiddlers]]\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nvar allFilterOperators;\n\nfunction getAllFilterOperators() {\n\tif(!allFilterOperators) {\n\t\tallFilterOperators = {};\n\t\t$tw.modules.applyMethods(\"allfilteroperator\",allFilterOperators);\n\t}\n\treturn allFilterOperators;\n}\n\n/*\nExport our filter function\n*/\nexports.all = function(source,operator,options) {\n\t// Get our suboperators\n\tvar allFilterOperators = getAllFilterOperators();\n\t// Cycle through the suboperators accumulating their results\n\tvar results = [],\n\t\tsubops = operator.operand.split(\"+\");\n\t// Check for common optimisations\n\tif(subops.length === 1 && subops[0] === \"\") {\n\t\treturn source;\n\t} else if(subops.length === 1 && subops[0] === \"tiddlers\") {\n\t\treturn options.wiki.each;\n\t} else if(subops.length === 1 && subops[0] === \"shadows\") {\n\t\treturn options.wiki.eachShadow;\n\t} else if(subops.length === 2 && subops[0] === \"tiddlers\" && subops[1] === \"shadows\") {\n\t\treturn options.wiki.eachTiddlerPlusShadows;\n\t} else if(subops.length === 2 && subops[0] === \"shadows\" && subops[1] === \"tiddlers\") {\n\t\treturn options.wiki.eachShadowPlusTiddlers;\n\t}\n\t// Do it the hard way\n\tfor(var t=0; t<subops.length; t++) {\n\t\tvar subop = allFilterOperators[subops[t]];\n\t\tif(subop) {\n\t\t\t$tw.utils.pushTop(results,subop(source,operator.prefix,options));\n\t\t}\n\t}\n\treturn results;\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "filteroperator"
},
"$:/core/modules/filters/backlinks.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/filters/backlinks.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/filters/backlinks.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: filteroperator\n\nFilter operator for returning all the backlinks from a tiddler\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\n/*\nExport our filter function\n*/\nexports.backlinks = function(source,operator,options) {\n\tvar results = [];\n\tsource(function(tiddler,title) {\n\t\t$tw.utils.pushTop(results,options.wiki.getTiddlerBacklinks(title));\n\t});\n\treturn results;\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "filteroperator"
},
"$:/core/modules/filters/before.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/filters/before.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/filters/before.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: filteroperator\n\nFilter operator returning the tiddler from the current list that is before the tiddler named in the operand.\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\n/*\nExport our filter function\n*/\nexports.before = function(source,operator,options) {\n\tvar results = [];\n\tsource(function(tiddler,title) {\n\t\tresults.push(title);\n\t});\n\tvar index = results.indexOf(operator.operand);\n\tif(index <= 0) {\n\t\treturn [];\n\t} else {\n\t\treturn [results[index - 1]];\n\t}\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "filteroperator"
},
"$:/core/modules/filters/commands.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/filters/commands.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/filters/commands.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: filteroperator\n\nFilter operator for returning the names of the commands available in this wiki\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\n/*\nExport our filter function\n*/\nexports.commands = function(source,operator,options) {\n\tvar results = [];\n\t$tw.utils.each($tw.commands,function(commandInfo,name) {\n\t\tresults.push(name);\n\t});\n\tresults.sort();\n\treturn results;\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "filteroperator"
},
"$:/core/modules/filters/contains.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/filters/contains.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/filters/contains.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: filteroperator\n\nFilter operator for finding values in array fields\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\n/*\nExport our filter function\n*/\nexports.contains = function(source,operator,options) {\n\tvar results = [],\n\t\tfieldname = (operator.suffix || \"list\").toLowerCase();\n\tif(operator.prefix === \"!\") {\n\t\tsource(function(tiddler,title) {\n\t\t\tif(tiddler) {\n\t\t\t\tvar list = tiddler.getFieldList(fieldname);\n\t\t\t\tif(list.indexOf(operator.operand) === -1) {\n\t\t\t\t\tresults.push(title);\n\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t} else {\n\t\t\t\tresults.push(title);\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t});\n\t} else {\n\t\tsource(function(tiddler,title) {\n\t\t\tif(tiddler) {\n\t\t\t\tvar list = tiddler.getFieldList(fieldname);\n\t\t\t\tif(list.indexOf(operator.operand) !== -1) {\n\t\t\t\t\tresults.push(title);\n\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t});\n\t}\n\treturn results;\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "filteroperator"
},
"$:/core/modules/filters/count.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/filters/count.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/filters/count.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: filteroperator\n\nFilter operator returning the number of entries in the current list.\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\n/*\nExport our filter function\n*/\nexports.count = function(source,operator,options) {\n\tvar count = 0;\n\tsource(function(tiddler,title) {\n\t\tcount++;\n\t});\n\treturn [count + \"\"];\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "filteroperator"
},
"$:/core/modules/filters/days.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/filters/days.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/filters/days.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: filteroperator\n\nFilter operator that selects tiddlers with a specified date field within a specified date interval.\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\n/*\nExport our filter function\n*/\nexports.days = function(source,operator,options) {\n\tvar results = [],\n\t\tfieldName = operator.suffix || \"modified\",\n\t\tdayInterval = (parseInt(operator.operand,10)||0),\n\t\tdayIntervalSign = $tw.utils.sign(dayInterval),\n\t\ttargetTimeStamp = (new Date()).setHours(0,0,0,0) + 1000*60*60*24*dayInterval,\n\t\tisWithinDays = function(dateField) {\n\t\t\tvar sign = $tw.utils.sign(targetTimeStamp - (new Date(dateField)).setHours(0,0,0,0));\n\t\t\treturn sign === 0 || sign === dayIntervalSign;\n\t\t};\n\n\tif(operator.prefix === \"!\") {\n\t\ttargetTimeStamp = targetTimeStamp - 1000*60*60*24*dayIntervalSign;\n\t\tsource(function(tiddler,title) {\n\t\t\tif(tiddler && tiddler.fields[fieldName]) {\n\t\t\t\tif(!isWithinDays($tw.utils.parseDate(tiddler.fields[fieldName]))) {\n\t\t\t\t\tresults.push(title);\n\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t});\n\t} else {\n\t\tsource(function(tiddler,title) {\n\t\t\tif(tiddler && tiddler.fields[fieldName]) {\n\t\t\t\tif(isWithinDays($tw.utils.parseDate(tiddler.fields[fieldName]))) {\n\t\t\t\t\tresults.push(title);\n\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t});\n\t}\n\treturn results;\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "filteroperator"
},
"$:/core/modules/filters/each.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/filters/each.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/filters/each.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: filteroperator\n\nFilter operator that selects one tiddler for each unique value of the specified field.\nWith suffix \"list\", selects all tiddlers that are values in a specified list field.\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\n/*\nExport our filter function\n*/\nexports.each = function(source,operator,options) {\n\tvar results =[] ,\n\tvalue,values = {},\n\tfield = operator.operand || \"title\";\n\tif(operator.suffix === \"value\" && field === \"title\") {\n\t\tsource(function(tiddler,title) {\n\t\t\tif(!$tw.utils.hop(values,title)) {\n\t\t\t\tvalues[title] = true;\n\t\t\t\tresults.push(title);\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t});\n\t} else if(operator.suffix !== \"list-item\") {\n\t\tif(field === \"title\") {\n\t\t\tsource(function(tiddler,title) {\n\t\t\t\tif(tiddler && !$tw.utils.hop(values,title)) {\n\t\t\t\t\tvalues[title] = true;\n\t\t\t\t\tresults.push(title);\n\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t});\n\t\t} else {\n\t\t\tsource(function(tiddler,title) {\n\t\t\t\tif(tiddler) {\n\t\t\t\t\tvalue = tiddler.getFieldString(field);\n\t\t\t\t\tif(!$tw.utils.hop(values,value)) {\n\t\t\t\t\t\tvalues[value] = true;\n\t\t\t\t\t\tresults.push(title);\n\t\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t});\n\t\t}\n\t} else {\n\t\tsource(function(tiddler,title) {\n\t\t\tif(tiddler) {\n\t\t\t\t$tw.utils.each(\n\t\t\t\t\toptions.wiki.getTiddlerList(title,field),\n\t\t\t\t\tfunction(value) {\n\t\t\t\t\t\tif(!$tw.utils.hop(values,value)) {\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tvalues[value] = true;\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tresults.push(value);\n\t\t\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t\t);\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t});\n\t}\n\treturn results;\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "filteroperator"
},
"$:/core/modules/filters/eachday.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/filters/eachday.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/filters/eachday.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: filteroperator\n\nFilter operator that selects one tiddler for each unique day covered by the specified date field\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\n/*\nExport our filter function\n*/\nexports.eachday = function(source,operator,options) {\n\tvar results = [],\n\t\tvalues = [],\n\t\tfieldName = operator.operand || \"modified\";\n\t// Function to convert a date/time to a date integer\n\tvar toDate = function(value) {\n\t\tvalue = (new Date(value)).setHours(0,0,0,0);\n\t\treturn value+0;\n\t};\n\tsource(function(tiddler,title) {\n\t\tif(tiddler && tiddler.fields[fieldName]) {\n\t\t\tvar value = toDate($tw.utils.parseDate(tiddler.fields[fieldName]));\n\t\t\tif(values.indexOf(value) === -1) {\n\t\t\t\tvalues.push(value);\n\t\t\t\tresults.push(title);\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t}\n\t});\n\treturn results;\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "filteroperator"
},
"$:/core/modules/filters/editiondescription.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/filters/editiondescription.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/filters/editiondescription.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: filteroperator\n\nFilter operator for returning the descriptions of the specified edition names\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\n/*\nExport our filter function\n*/\nexports.editiondescription = function(source,operator,options) {\n\tvar results = [],\n\t\teditionInfo = $tw.utils.getEditionInfo();\n\tif(editionInfo) {\n\t\tsource(function(tiddler,title) {\n\t\t\tif($tw.utils.hop(editionInfo,title)) {\n\t\t\t\tresults.push(editionInfo[title].description || \"\");\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t});\n\t}\n\treturn results;\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "filteroperator"
},
"$:/core/modules/filters/editions.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/filters/editions.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/filters/editions.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: filteroperator\n\nFilter operator for returning the names of the available editions in this wiki\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\n/*\nExport our filter function\n*/\nexports.editions = function(source,operator,options) {\n\tvar results = [],\n\t\teditionInfo = $tw.utils.getEditionInfo();\n\tif(editionInfo) {\n\t\t$tw.utils.each(editionInfo,function(info,name) {\n\t\t\tresults.push(name);\n\t\t});\n\t}\n\tresults.sort();\n\treturn results;\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "filteroperator"
},
"$:/core/modules/filters/decodeuricomponent.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/filters/decodeuricomponent.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/filters/decodeuricomponent.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: filteroperator\n\nFilter operator for applying decodeURIComponent() to each item.\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\n/*\nExport our filter functions\n*/\n\nexports.decodeuricomponent = function(source,operator,options) {\n\tvar results = [];\n\tsource(function(tiddler,title) {\n\t\tvar value = title;\n\t\ttry {\n\t\t\tvalue = decodeURIComponent(title);\n\t\t} catch(e) {\n\t\t}\n\t\tresults.push(value);\n\t});\n\treturn results;\n};\n\nexports.encodeuricomponent = function(source,operator,options) {\n\tvar results = [];\n\tsource(function(tiddler,title) {\n\t\tresults.push(encodeURIComponent(title));\n\t});\n\treturn results;\n};\n\nexports.decodeuri = function(source,operator,options) {\n\tvar results = [];\n\tsource(function(tiddler,title) {\n\t\tvar value = title;\n\t\ttry {\n\t\t\tvalue = decodeURI(title);\n\t\t} catch(e) {\n\t\t}\n\t\tresults.push(value);\n\t});\n\treturn results;\n};\n\nexports.encodeuri = function(source,operator,options) {\n\tvar results = [];\n\tsource(function(tiddler,title) {\n\t\tresults.push(encodeURI(title));\n\t});\n\treturn results;\n};\n\nexports.decodehtml = function(source,operator,options) {\n\tvar results = [];\n\tsource(function(tiddler,title) {\n\t\tresults.push($tw.utils.htmlDecode(title));\n\t});\n\treturn results;\n};\n\nexports.encodehtml = function(source,operator,options) {\n\tvar results = [];\n\tsource(function(tiddler,title) {\n\t\tresults.push($tw.utils.htmlEncode(title));\n\t});\n\treturn results;\n};\n\nexports.stringify = function(source,operator,options) {\n\tvar results = [];\n\tsource(function(tiddler,title) {\n\t\tresults.push($tw.utils.stringify(title));\n\t});\n\treturn results;\n};\n\nexports.jsonstringify = function(source,operator,options) {\n\tvar results = [];\n\tsource(function(tiddler,title) {\n\t\tresults.push($tw.utils.jsonStringify(title));\n\t});\n\treturn results;\n};\n\nexports.escaperegexp = function(source,operator,options) {\n\tvar results = [];\n\tsource(function(tiddler,title) {\n\t\tresults.push($tw.utils.escapeRegExp(title));\n\t});\n\treturn results;\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "filteroperator"
},
"$:/core/modules/filters/enlist.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/filters/enlist.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/filters/enlist.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: filteroperator\n\nFilter operator returning its operand parsed as a list\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\n/*\nExport our filter function\n*/\nexports.enlist = function(source,operator,options) {\n\tvar list = $tw.utils.parseStringArray(operator.operand);\n\tif(operator.prefix === \"!\") {\n\t\tvar results = [];\n\t\tsource(function(tiddler,title) {\n\t\t\tif(list.indexOf(title) === -1) {\n\t\t\t\tresults.push(title);\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t});\n\t\treturn results;\n\t} else {\n\t\treturn list;\n\t}\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "filteroperator"
},
"$:/core/modules/filters/field.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/filters/field.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/filters/field.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: filteroperator\n\nFilter operator for comparing fields for equality\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\n/*\nExport our filter function\n*/\nexports.field = function(source,operator,options) {\n\tvar results = [],\n\t\tfieldname = (operator.suffix || operator.operator || \"title\").toLowerCase();\n\tif(operator.prefix === \"!\") {\n\t\tif(operator.regexp) {\n\t\t\tsource(function(tiddler,title) {\n\t\t\t\tif(tiddler) {\n\t\t\t\t\tvar text = tiddler.getFieldString(fieldname);\n\t\t\t\t\tif(text !== null && !operator.regexp.exec(text)) {\n\t\t\t\t\t\tresults.push(title);\n\t\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t\t} else {\n\t\t\t\t\tresults.push(title);\n\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t});\n\t\t} else {\n\t\t\tsource(function(tiddler,title) {\n\t\t\t\tif(tiddler) {\n\t\t\t\t\tvar text = tiddler.getFieldString(fieldname);\n\t\t\t\t\tif(text !== null && text !== operator.operand) {\n\t\t\t\t\t\tresults.push(title);\n\t\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t\t} else {\n\t\t\t\t\tresults.push(title);\n\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t});\n\t\t}\n\t} else {\n\t\tif(operator.regexp) {\n\t\t\tsource(function(tiddler,title) {\n\t\t\t\tif(tiddler) {\n\t\t\t\t\tvar text = tiddler.getFieldString(fieldname);\n\t\t\t\t\tif(text !== null && !!operator.regexp.exec(text)) {\n\t\t\t\t\t\tresults.push(title);\n\t\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t});\n\t\t} else {\n\t\t\tsource(function(tiddler,title) {\n\t\t\t\tif(tiddler) {\n\t\t\t\t\tvar text = tiddler.getFieldString(fieldname);\n\t\t\t\t\tif(text !== null && text === operator.operand) {\n\t\t\t\t\t\tresults.push(title);\n\t\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t});\n\t\t}\n\t}\n\treturn results;\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "filteroperator"
},
"$:/core/modules/filters/fields.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/filters/fields.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/filters/fields.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: filteroperator\n\nFilter operator for returning the names of the fields on the selected tiddlers\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\n/*\nExport our filter function\n*/\nexports.fields = function(source,operator,options) {\n\tvar results = [];\n\tsource(function(tiddler,title) {\n\t\tif(tiddler) {\n\t\t\tfor(var fieldName in tiddler.fields) {\n\t\t\t\t$tw.utils.pushTop(results,fieldName);\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t}\n\t});\n\treturn results;\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "filteroperator"
},
"$:/core/modules/filters/get.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/filters/get.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/filters/get.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: filteroperator\n\nFilter operator for replacing tiddler titles by the value of the field specified in the operand.\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\n/*\nExport our filter function\n*/\nexports.get = function(source,operator,options) {\n\tvar results = [];\n\tsource(function(tiddler,title) {\n\t\tif(tiddler) {\n\t\t\tvar value = tiddler.getFieldString(operator.operand);\n\t\t\tif(value) {\n\t\t\t\tresults.push(value);\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t}\n\t});\n\treturn results;\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "filteroperator"
},
"$:/core/modules/filters/getindex.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/filters/getindex.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/filters/getindex.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: filteroperator\n\nreturns the value at a given index of datatiddlers\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\n/*\nExport our filter function\n*/\nexports.getindex = function(source,operator,options) {\n\tvar data,title,results = [];\n\tif(operator.operand){\n\t\tsource(function(tiddler,title) {\n\t\t\ttitle = tiddler ? tiddler.fields.title : title;\n\t\t\tdata = options.wiki.extractTiddlerDataItem(tiddler,operator.operand);\n\t\t\tif(data) {\n\t\t\t\tresults.push(data);\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t});\n\t}\n\treturn results;\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "filteroperator"
},
"$:/core/modules/filters/has.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/filters/has.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/filters/has.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: filteroperator\n\nFilter operator for checking if a tiddler has the specified field\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\n/*\nExport our filter function\n*/\nexports.has = function(source,operator,options) {\n\tvar results = [],\n\t\tinvert = operator.prefix === \"!\";\n\n\tif(operator.suffix === \"field\") {\n\t\tif(invert) {\n\t\t\tsource(function(tiddler,title) {\n\t\t\t\tif(!tiddler || (tiddler && (!$tw.utils.hop(tiddler.fields,operator.operand)))) {\n\t\t\t\t\tresults.push(title);\n\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t});\n\t\t} else {\n\t\t\tsource(function(tiddler,title) {\n\t\t\t\tif(tiddler && $tw.utils.hop(tiddler.fields,operator.operand)) {\n\t\t\t\t\tresults.push(title);\n\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t});\n\t\t}\n\t} else {\n\t\tif(invert) {\n\t\t\tsource(function(tiddler,title) {\n\t\t\t\tif(!tiddler || !$tw.utils.hop(tiddler.fields,operator.operand) || (tiddler.fields[operator.operand] === \"\")) {\n\t\t\t\t\tresults.push(title);\n\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t});\n\t\t} else {\n\t\t\tsource(function(tiddler,title) {\n\t\t\t\tif(tiddler && $tw.utils.hop(tiddler.fields,operator.operand) && !(tiddler.fields[operator.operand] === \"\" || tiddler.fields[operator.operand].length === 0)) {\n\t\t\t\t\tresults.push(title);\n\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t});\n\t\t}\n\t}\n\treturn results;\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "filteroperator"
},
"$:/core/modules/filters/haschanged.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/filters/haschanged.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/filters/haschanged.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: filteroperator\n\nFilter operator returns tiddlers from the list that have a non-zero changecount.\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\n/*\nExport our filter function\n*/\nexports.haschanged = function(source,operator,options) {\n\tvar results = [];\n\tif(operator.prefix === \"!\") {\n\t\tsource(function(tiddler,title) {\n\t\t\tif(options.wiki.getChangeCount(title) === 0) {\n\t\t\t\tresults.push(title);\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t});\n\t} else {\n\t\tsource(function(tiddler,title) {\n\t\t\tif(options.wiki.getChangeCount(title) > 0) {\n\t\t\t\tresults.push(title);\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t});\n\t}\n\treturn results;\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "filteroperator"
},
"$:/core/modules/filters/indexes.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/filters/indexes.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/filters/indexes.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: filteroperator\n\nFilter operator for returning the indexes of a data tiddler\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\n/*\nExport our filter function\n*/\nexports.indexes = function(source,operator,options) {\n\tvar results = [];\n\tsource(function(tiddler,title) {\n\t\tvar data = options.wiki.getTiddlerDataCached(title);\n\t\tif(data) {\n\t\t\t$tw.utils.pushTop(results,Object.keys(data));\n\t\t}\n\t});\n\tresults.sort();\n\treturn results;\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "filteroperator"
},
"$:/core/modules/filters/insertbefore.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/filters/insertbefore.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/filters/insertbefore.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: filteroperator\n\nInsert an item before another item in a list\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\n/*\nOrder a list\n*/\nexports.insertbefore = function(source,operator,options) {\n\tvar results = [];\n\tsource(function(tiddler,title) {\n\t\tresults.push(title);\n\t});\n\tvar target = options.widget && options.widget.getVariable(operator.suffix || \"currentTiddler\");\n\tif(target !== operator.operand) {\n\t\t// Remove the entry from the list if it is present\n\t\tvar pos = results.indexOf(operator.operand);\n\t\tif(pos !== -1) {\n\t\t\tresults.splice(pos,1);\n\t\t}\n\t\t// Insert the entry before the target marker\n\t\tpos = results.indexOf(target);\n\t\tif(pos !== -1) {\n\t\t\tresults.splice(pos,0,operator.operand);\n\t\t} else {\n\t\t\tresults.push(operator.operand);\n\t\t}\n\t}\n\treturn results;\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "filteroperator"
},
"$:/core/modules/filters/is/current.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/filters/is/current.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/filters/is/current.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: isfilteroperator\n\nFilter function for [is[current]]\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\n/*\nExport our filter function\n*/\nexports.current = function(source,prefix,options) {\n\tvar results = [],\n\t\tcurrTiddlerTitle = options.widget && options.widget.getVariable(\"currentTiddler\");\n\tif(prefix === \"!\") {\n\t\tsource(function(tiddler,title) {\n\t\t\tif(title !== currTiddlerTitle) {\n\t\t\t\tresults.push(title);\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t});\n\t} else {\n\t\tsource(function(tiddler,title) {\n\t\t\tif(title === currTiddlerTitle) {\n\t\t\t\tresults.push(title);\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t});\n\t}\n\treturn results;\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "isfilteroperator"
},
"$:/core/modules/filters/is/image.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/filters/is/image.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/filters/is/image.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: isfilteroperator\n\nFilter function for [is[image]]\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\n/*\nExport our filter function\n*/\nexports.image = function(source,prefix,options) {\n\tvar results = [];\n\tif(prefix === \"!\") {\n\t\tsource(function(tiddler,title) {\n\t\t\tif(!options.wiki.isImageTiddler(title)) {\n\t\t\t\tresults.push(title);\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t});\n\t} else {\n\t\tsource(function(tiddler,title) {\n\t\t\tif(options.wiki.isImageTiddler(title)) {\n\t\t\t\tresults.push(title);\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t});\n\t}\n\treturn results;\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "isfilteroperator"
},
"$:/core/modules/filters/is/missing.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/filters/is/missing.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/filters/is/missing.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: isfilteroperator\n\nFilter function for [is[missing]]\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\n/*\nExport our filter function\n*/\nexports.missing = function(source,prefix,options) {\n\tvar results = [];\n\tif(prefix === \"!\") {\n\t\tsource(function(tiddler,title) {\n\t\t\tif(options.wiki.tiddlerExists(title)) {\n\t\t\t\tresults.push(title);\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t});\n\t} else {\n\t\tsource(function(tiddler,title) {\n\t\t\tif(!options.wiki.tiddlerExists(title)) {\n\t\t\t\tresults.push(title);\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t});\n\t}\n\treturn results;\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "isfilteroperator"
},
"$:/core/modules/filters/is/orphan.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/filters/is/orphan.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/filters/is/orphan.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: isfilteroperator\n\nFilter function for [is[orphan]]\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\n/*\nExport our filter function\n*/\nexports.orphan = function(source,prefix,options) {\n\tvar results = [],\n\t\torphanTitles = options.wiki.getOrphanTitles();\n\tif(prefix === \"!\") {\n\t\tsource(function(tiddler,title) {\n\t\t\tif(orphanTitles.indexOf(title) === -1) {\n\t\t\t\tresults.push(title);\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t});\n\t} else {\n\t\tsource(function(tiddler,title) {\n\t\t\tif(orphanTitles.indexOf(title) !== -1) {\n\t\t\t\tresults.push(title);\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t});\n\t}\n\treturn results;\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "isfilteroperator"
},
"$:/core/modules/filters/is/shadow.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/filters/is/shadow.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/filters/is/shadow.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: isfilteroperator\n\nFilter function for [is[shadow]]\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\n/*\nExport our filter function\n*/\nexports.shadow = function(source,prefix,options) {\n\tvar results = [];\n\tif(prefix === \"!\") {\n\t\tsource(function(tiddler,title) {\n\t\t\tif(!options.wiki.isShadowTiddler(title)) {\n\t\t\t\tresults.push(title);\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t});\n\t} else {\n\t\tsource(function(tiddler,title) {\n\t\t\tif(options.wiki.isShadowTiddler(title)) {\n\t\t\t\tresults.push(title);\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t});\n\t}\n\treturn results;\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "isfilteroperator"
},
"$:/core/modules/filters/is/system.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/filters/is/system.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/filters/is/system.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: isfilteroperator\n\nFilter function for [is[system]]\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\n/*\nExport our filter function\n*/\nexports.system = function(source,prefix,options) {\n\tvar results = [];\n\tif(prefix === \"!\") {\n\t\tsource(function(tiddler,title) {\n\t\t\tif(!options.wiki.isSystemTiddler(title)) {\n\t\t\t\tresults.push(title);\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t});\n\t} else {\n\t\tsource(function(tiddler,title) {\n\t\t\tif(options.wiki.isSystemTiddler(title)) {\n\t\t\t\tresults.push(title);\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t});\n\t}\n\treturn results;\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "isfilteroperator"
},
"$:/core/modules/filters/is/tag.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/filters/is/tag.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/filters/is/tag.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: isfilteroperator\n\nFilter function for [is[tag]]\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\n/*\nExport our filter function\n*/\nexports.tag = function(source,prefix,options) {\n\tvar results = [],\n\t\ttagMap = options.wiki.getTagMap();\n\tif(prefix === \"!\") {\n\t\tsource(function(tiddler,title) {\n\t\t\tif(!$tw.utils.hop(tagMap,title)) {\n\t\t\t\tresults.push(title);\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t});\n\t} else {\n\t\tsource(function(tiddler,title) {\n\t\t\tif($tw.utils.hop(tagMap,title)) {\n\t\t\t\tresults.push(title);\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t});\n\t}\n\treturn results;\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "isfilteroperator"
},
"$:/core/modules/filters/is/tiddler.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/filters/is/tiddler.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/filters/is/tiddler.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: isfilteroperator\n\nFilter function for [is[tiddler]]\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\n/*\nExport our filter function\n*/\nexports.tiddler = function(source,prefix,options) {\n\tvar results = [];\n\tif(prefix === \"!\") {\n\t\tsource(function(tiddler,title) {\n\t\t\tif(!options.wiki.tiddlerExists(title)) {\n\t\t\t\tresults.push(title);\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t});\n\t} else {\n\t\tsource(function(tiddler,title) {\n\t\t\tif(options.wiki.tiddlerExists(title)) {\n\t\t\t\tresults.push(title);\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t});\n\t}\n\treturn results;\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "isfilteroperator"
},
"$:/core/modules/filters/is.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/filters/is.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/filters/is.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: filteroperator\n\nFilter operator for checking tiddler properties\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nvar isFilterOperators;\n\nfunction getIsFilterOperators() {\n\tif(!isFilterOperators) {\n\t\tisFilterOperators = {};\n\t\t$tw.modules.applyMethods(\"isfilteroperator\",isFilterOperators);\n\t}\n\treturn isFilterOperators;\n}\n\n/*\nExport our filter function\n*/\nexports.is = function(source,operator,options) {\n\t// Dispatch to the correct isfilteroperator\n\tvar isFilterOperators = getIsFilterOperators();\n\tif(operator.operand) {\n\t\tvar isFilterOperator = isFilterOperators[operator.operand];\n\t\tif(isFilterOperator) {\n\t\t\treturn isFilterOperator(source,operator.prefix,options);\n\t\t} else {\n\t\t\treturn [$tw.language.getString(\"Error/IsFilterOperator\")];\n\t\t}\n\t} else {\n\t\t// Return all tiddlers if the operand is missing\n\t\tvar results = [];\n\t\tsource(function(tiddler,title) {\n\t\t\tresults.push(title);\n\t\t});\n\t\treturn results;\n\t}\n};\n\n})();",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "filteroperator"
},
"$:/core/modules/filters/limit.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/filters/limit.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/filters/limit.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: filteroperator\n\nFilter operator for chopping the results to a specified maximum number of entries\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\n/*\nExport our filter function\n*/\nexports.limit = function(source,operator,options) {\n\tvar results = [];\n\t// Convert to an array\n\tsource(function(tiddler,title) {\n\t\tresults.push(title);\n\t});\n\t// Slice the array if necessary\n\tvar limit = Math.min(results.length,parseInt(operator.operand,10));\n\tif(operator.prefix === \"!\") {\n\t\tresults = results.slice(-limit);\n\t} else {\n\t\tresults = results.slice(0,limit);\n\t}\n\treturn results;\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "filteroperator"
},
"$:/core/modules/filters/links.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/filters/links.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/filters/links.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: filteroperator\n\nFilter operator for returning all the links from a tiddler\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\n/*\nExport our filter function\n*/\nexports.links = function(source,operator,options) {\n\tvar results = [];\n\tsource(function(tiddler,title) {\n\t\t$tw.utils.pushTop(results,options.wiki.getTiddlerLinks(title));\n\t});\n\treturn results;\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "filteroperator"
},
"$:/core/modules/filters/list.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/filters/list.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/filters/list.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: filteroperator\n\nFilter operator returning the tiddlers whose title is listed in the operand tiddler\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\n/*\nExport our filter function\n*/\nexports.list = function(source,operator,options) {\n\tvar results = [],\n\t\ttr = $tw.utils.parseTextReference(operator.operand),\n\t\tcurrTiddlerTitle = options.widget && options.widget.getVariable(\"currentTiddler\"),\n\t\tlist = options.wiki.getTiddlerList(tr.title || currTiddlerTitle,tr.field,tr.index);\n\tif(operator.prefix === \"!\") {\n\t\tsource(function(tiddler,title) {\n\t\t\tif(list.indexOf(title) === -1) {\n\t\t\t\tresults.push(title);\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t});\n\t} else {\n\t\tresults = list;\n\t}\n\treturn results;\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "filteroperator"
},
"$:/core/modules/filters/listed.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/filters/listed.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/filters/listed.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: filteroperator\n\nFilter operator returning all tiddlers that have the selected tiddlers in a list\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\n/*\nExport our filter function\n*/\nexports.listed = function(source,operator,options) {\n\tvar field = operator.operand || \"list\",\n\t\tresults = [];\n\tsource(function(tiddler,title) {\n\t\t$tw.utils.pushTop(results,options.wiki.findListingsOfTiddler(title,field));\n\t});\n\treturn results;\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "filteroperator"
},
"$:/core/modules/filters/listops.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/filters/listops.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/filters/listops.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: filteroperator\n\nFilter operators for manipulating the current selection list\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\n/*\nOrder a list\n*/\nexports.order = function(source,operator,options) {\n\tvar results = [];\n\tif(operator.operand.toLowerCase() === \"reverse\") {\n\t\tsource(function(tiddler,title) {\n\t\t\tresults.unshift(title);\n\t\t});\n\t} else {\n\t\tsource(function(tiddler,title) {\n\t\t\tresults.push(title);\n\t\t});\n\t}\n\treturn results;\n};\n\n/*\nReverse list\n*/\nexports.reverse = function(source,operator,options) {\n\tvar results = [];\n\tsource(function(tiddler,title) {\n\t\tresults.unshift(title);\n\t});\n\treturn results;\n};\n\n/*\nFirst entry/entries in list\n*/\nexports.first = function(source,operator,options) {\n\tvar count = $tw.utils.getInt(operator.operand,1),\n\t\tresults = [];\n\tsource(function(tiddler,title) {\n\t\tresults.push(title);\n\t});\n\treturn results.slice(0,count);\n};\n\n/*\nLast entry/entries in list\n*/\nexports.last = function(source,operator,options) {\n\tvar count = $tw.utils.getInt(operator.operand,1),\n\t\tresults = [];\n\tsource(function(tiddler,title) {\n\t\tresults.push(title);\n\t});\n\treturn results.slice(-count);\n};\n\n/*\nAll but the first entry/entries of the list\n*/\nexports.rest = function(source,operator,options) {\n\tvar count = $tw.utils.getInt(operator.operand,1),\n\t\tresults = [];\n\tsource(function(tiddler,title) {\n\t\tresults.push(title);\n\t});\n\treturn results.slice(count);\n};\nexports.butfirst = exports.rest;\nexports.bf = exports.rest;\n\n/*\nAll but the last entry/entries of the list\n*/\nexports.butlast = function(source,operator,options) {\n\tvar count = $tw.utils.getInt(operator.operand,1),\n\t\tresults = [];\n\tsource(function(tiddler,title) {\n\t\tresults.push(title);\n\t});\n\treturn results.slice(0,-count);\n};\nexports.bl = exports.butlast;\n\n/*\nThe nth member of the list\n*/\nexports.nth = function(source,operator,options) {\n\tvar count = $tw.utils.getInt(operator.operand,1),\n\t\tresults = [];\n\tsource(function(tiddler,title) {\n\t\tresults.push(title);\n\t});\n\treturn results.slice(count - 1,count);\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "filteroperator"
},
"$:/core/modules/filters/lookup.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/filters/lookup.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/filters/lookup.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: filteroperator\n\nFilter operator that looks up values via a title prefix\n\n[lookup:<field>[<prefix>]]\n\nPrepends the prefix to the selected items and returns the specified field value\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\n/*\nExport our filter function\n*/\nexports.lookup = function(source,operator,options) {\n\tvar results = [];\n\tsource(function(tiddler,title) {\n\t\tresults.push(options.wiki.getTiddlerText(operator.operand + title) || options.wiki.getTiddlerText(operator.operand + operator.suffix));\n\t});\n\treturn results;\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "filteroperator"
},
"$:/core/modules/filters/minlength.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/filters/minlength.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/filters/minlength.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: filteroperator\n\nFilter operator for filtering out titles that don't meet the minimum length in the operand\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\n/*\nExport our filter function\n*/\nexports.minlength = function(source,operator,options) {\n\tvar results = [],\n\t\tminLength = parseInt(operator.operand || \"\",10) || 0;\n\tsource(function(tiddler,title) {\n\t\tif(title.length >= minLength) {\n\t\t\tresults.push(title);\n\t\t}\n\t});\n\treturn results;\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "filteroperator"
},
"$:/core/modules/filters/modules.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/filters/modules.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/filters/modules.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: filteroperator\n\nFilter operator for returning the titles of the modules of a given type in this wiki\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\n/*\nExport our filter function\n*/\nexports.modules = function(source,operator,options) {\n\tvar results = [];\n\tsource(function(tiddler,title) {\n\t\t$tw.utils.each($tw.modules.types[title],function(moduleInfo,moduleName) {\n\t\t\tresults.push(moduleName);\n\t\t});\n\t});\n\tresults.sort();\n\treturn results;\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "filteroperator"
},
"$:/core/modules/filters/moduletypes.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/filters/moduletypes.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/filters/moduletypes.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: filteroperator\n\nFilter operator for returning the names of the module types in this wiki\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\n/*\nExport our filter function\n*/\nexports.moduletypes = function(source,operator,options) {\n\tvar results = [];\n\t$tw.utils.each($tw.modules.types,function(moduleInfo,type) {\n\t\tresults.push(type);\n\t});\n\tresults.sort();\n\treturn results;\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "filteroperator"
},
"$:/core/modules/filters/next.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/filters/next.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/filters/next.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: filteroperator\n\nFilter operator returning the tiddler whose title occurs next in the list supplied in the operand tiddler\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\n/*\nExport our filter function\n*/\nexports.next = function(source,operator,options) {\n\tvar results = [],\n\t\tlist = options.wiki.getTiddlerList(operator.operand);\n\tsource(function(tiddler,title) {\n\t\tvar match = list.indexOf(title);\n\t\t// increment match and then test if result is in range\n\t\tmatch++;\n\t\tif(match > 0 && match < list.length) {\n\t\t\tresults.push(list[match]);\n\t\t}\n\t});\n\treturn results;\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "filteroperator"
},
"$:/core/modules/filters/plugintiddlers.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/filters/plugintiddlers.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/filters/plugintiddlers.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: filteroperator\n\nFilter operator for returning the titles of the shadow tiddlers within a plugin\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\n/*\nExport our filter function\n*/\nexports.plugintiddlers = function(source,operator,options) {\n\tvar results = [];\n\tsource(function(tiddler,title) {\n\t\tvar pluginInfo = options.wiki.getPluginInfo(title) || options.wiki.getTiddlerDataCached(title,{tiddlers:[]});\n\t\tif(pluginInfo && pluginInfo.tiddlers) {\n\t\t\t$tw.utils.each(pluginInfo.tiddlers,function(fields,title) {\n\t\t\t\tresults.push(title);\n\t\t\t});\n\t\t}\n\t});\n\tresults.sort();\n\treturn results;\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "filteroperator"
},
"$:/core/modules/filters/prefix.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/filters/prefix.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/filters/prefix.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: filteroperator\n\nFilter operator for checking if a title starts with a prefix\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\n/*\nExport our filter function\n*/\nexports.prefix = function(source,operator,options) {\n\tvar results = [];\n\tif(operator.prefix === \"!\") {\n\t\tsource(function(tiddler,title) {\n\t\t\tif(title.substr(0,operator.operand.length) !== operator.operand) {\n\t\t\t\tresults.push(title);\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t});\n\t} else {\n\t\tsource(function(tiddler,title) {\n\t\t\tif(title.substr(0,operator.operand.length) === operator.operand) {\n\t\t\t\tresults.push(title);\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t});\n\t}\n\treturn results;\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "filteroperator"
},
"$:/core/modules/filters/previous.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/filters/previous.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/filters/previous.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: filteroperator\n\nFilter operator returning the tiddler whose title occurs immediately prior in the list supplied in the operand tiddler\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\n/*\nExport our filter function\n*/\nexports.previous = function(source,operator,options) {\n\tvar results = [],\n\t\tlist = options.wiki.getTiddlerList(operator.operand);\n\tsource(function(tiddler,title) {\n\t\tvar match = list.indexOf(title);\n\t\t// increment match and then test if result is in range\n\t\tmatch--;\n\t\tif(match >= 0) {\n\t\t\tresults.push(list[match]);\n\t\t}\n\t});\n\treturn results;\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "filteroperator"
},
"$:/core/modules/filters/range.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/filters/range.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/filters/range.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: filteroperator\n\nFilter operator for generating a numeric range.\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\n/*\nExport our filter function\n*/\nexports.range = function(source,operator,options) {\n\tvar results = [];\n\t// Split the operand into numbers delimited by these symbols\n\tvar parts = operator.operand.split(/[,:;]/g),\n\t\tbeg, end, inc, i, fixed = 0;\n\tfor (i=0; i<parts.length; i++) {\n\t\t// Validate real number\n\t\tif(!/^\\s*[+-]?((\\d+(\\.\\d*)?)|(\\.\\d+))\\s*$/.test(parts[i])) {\n\t\t\treturn [\"range: bad number \\\"\" + parts[i] + \"\\\"\"];\n\t\t}\n\t\t// Count digits; the most precise number determines decimal places in output.\n\t\tvar frac = /\\.\\d+/.exec(parts[i]);\n\t\tif(frac) {\n\t\t\tfixed = Math.max(fixed,frac[0].length-1);\n\t\t}\n\t\tparts[i] = parseFloat(parts[i]);\n\t}\n\tswitch(parts.length) {\n\t\tcase 1:\n\t\t\tend = parts[0];\n\t\t\tif (end >= 1) {\n\t\t\t\tbeg = 1;\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t\telse if (end <= -1) {\n\t\t\t\tbeg = -1;\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t\telse {\n\t\t\t\treturn [];\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t\tinc = 1;\n\t\t\tbreak;\n\t\tcase 2:\n\t\t\tbeg = parts[0];\n\t\t\tend = parts[1];\n\t\t\tinc = 1;\n\t\t\tbreak;\n\t\tcase 3:\n\t\t\tbeg = parts[0];\n\t\t\tend = parts[1];\n\t\t\tinc = Math.abs(parts[2]);\n\t\t\tbreak;\n\t}\n\tif(inc === 0) {\n\t\treturn [\"range: increment 0 causes infinite loop\"];\n\t}\n\t// May need to count backwards\n\tvar direction = ((end < beg) ? -1 : 1);\n\tinc *= direction;\n\t// Estimate number of resulting elements\n\tif((end - beg) / inc > 10000) {\n\t\treturn [\"range: too many steps (over 10K)\"];\n\t}\n\t// Avoid rounding error on last step\n\tend += direction * 0.5 * Math.pow(0.1,fixed);\n\tvar safety = 10010;\n\t// Enumerate the range\n\tif (end<beg) {\n\t\tfor(i=beg; i>end; i+=inc) {\n\t\t\tresults.push(i.toFixed(fixed));\n\t\t\tif(--safety<0) {\n\t\t\t\tbreak;\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t}\n\t} else {\n\t\tfor(i=beg; i<end; i+=inc) {\n\t\t\tresults.push(i.toFixed(fixed));\n\t\t\tif(--safety<0) {\n\t\t\t\tbreak;\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t}\n\t}\n\tif(safety<0) {\n\t\treturn [\"range: unexpectedly large output\"];\n\t}\n\t// Reverse?\n\tif(operator.prefix === \"!\") {\n\t\tresults.reverse();\n\t}\n\treturn results;\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "filteroperator"
},
"$:/core/modules/filters/regexp.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/filters/regexp.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/filters/regexp.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: filteroperator\n\nFilter operator for regexp matching\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\n/*\nExport our filter function\n*/\nexports.regexp = function(source,operator,options) {\n\tvar results = [],\n\t\tfieldname = (operator.suffix || \"title\").toLowerCase(),\n\t\tregexpString, regexp, flags = \"\", match,\n\t\tgetFieldString = function(tiddler,title) {\n\t\t\tif(tiddler) {\n\t\t\t\treturn tiddler.getFieldString(fieldname);\n\t\t\t} else if(fieldname === \"title\") {\n\t\t\t\treturn title;\n\t\t\t} else {\n\t\t\t\treturn null;\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t};\n\t// Process flags and construct regexp\n\tregexpString = operator.operand;\n\tmatch = /^\\(\\?([gim]+)\\)/.exec(regexpString);\n\tif(match) {\n\t\tflags = match[1];\n\t\tregexpString = regexpString.substr(match[0].length);\n\t} else {\n\t\tmatch = /\\(\\?([gim]+)\\)$/.exec(regexpString);\n\t\tif(match) {\n\t\t\tflags = match[1];\n\t\t\tregexpString = regexpString.substr(0,regexpString.length - match[0].length);\n\t\t}\n\t}\n\ttry {\n\t\tregexp = new RegExp(regexpString,flags);\n\t} catch(e) {\n\t\treturn [\"\" + e];\n\t}\n\t// Process the incoming tiddlers\n\tif(operator.prefix === \"!\") {\n\t\tsource(function(tiddler,title) {\n\t\t\tvar text = getFieldString(tiddler,title);\n\t\t\tif(text !== null) {\n\t\t\t\tif(!regexp.exec(text)) {\n\t\t\t\t\tresults.push(title);\n\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t});\n\t} else {\n\t\tsource(function(tiddler,title) {\n\t\t\tvar text = getFieldString(tiddler,title);\n\t\t\tif(text !== null) {\n\t\t\t\tif(!!regexp.exec(text)) {\n\t\t\t\t\tresults.push(title);\n\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t});\n\t}\n\treturn results;\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "filteroperator"
},
"$:/core/modules/filters/removeprefix.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/filters/removeprefix.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/filters/removeprefix.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: filteroperator\n\nFilter operator for removing a prefix from each title in the list. Titles that do not start with the prefix are removed.\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\n/*\nExport our filter function\n*/\nexports.removeprefix = function(source,operator,options) {\n\tvar results = [];\n\tsource(function(tiddler,title) {\n\t\tif(title.substr(0,operator.operand.length) === operator.operand) {\n\t\t\tresults.push(title.substr(operator.operand.length));\n\t\t}\n\t});\n\treturn results;\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "filteroperator"
},
"$:/core/modules/filters/removesuffix.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/filters/removesuffix.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/filters/removesuffix.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: filteroperator\n\nFilter operator for removing a suffix from each title in the list. Titles that do not end with the suffix are removed.\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\n/*\nExport our filter function\n*/\nexports.removesuffix = function(source,operator,options) {\n\tvar results = [];\n\tsource(function(tiddler,title) {\n\t\tif(title.substr(-operator.operand.length) === operator.operand) {\n\t\t\tresults.push(title.substr(0,title.length - operator.operand.length));\n\t\t}\n\t});\n\treturn results;\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "filteroperator"
},
"$:/core/modules/filters/sameday.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/filters/sameday.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/filters/sameday.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: filteroperator\n\nFilter operator that selects tiddlers with a modified date field on the same day as the provided value.\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\n/*\nExport our filter function\n*/\nexports.sameday = function(source,operator,options) {\n\tvar results = [],\n\t\tfieldName = operator.suffix || \"modified\",\n\t\ttargetDate = (new Date($tw.utils.parseDate(operator.operand))).setHours(0,0,0,0);\n\t// Function to convert a date/time to a date integer\n\tsource(function(tiddler,title) {\n\t\tif(tiddler) {\n\t\t\tif(tiddler.getFieldDay(fieldName) === targetDate) {\n\t\t\t\tresults.push(title);\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t}\n\t});\n\treturn results;\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "filteroperator"
},
"$:/core/modules/filters/search.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/filters/search.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/filters/search.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: filteroperator\n\nFilter operator for searching for the text in the operand tiddler\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\n/*\nExport our filter function\n*/\nexports.search = function(source,operator,options) {\n\tvar invert = operator.prefix === \"!\";\n\tif(operator.suffixes) {\n\t\tvar hasFlag = function(flag) {\n\t\t\t\treturn (operator.suffixes[1] || []).indexOf(flag) !== -1;\n\t\t\t},\n\t\t\texcludeFields = false,\n\t\t\tfieldList = operator.suffixes[0] || [],\n\t\t\tfirstField = fieldList[0] || \"\", \n\t\t\tfirstChar = firstField.charAt(0),\n\t\t\tfields;\n\t\tif(firstChar === \"-\") {\n\t\t\tfields = [firstField.slice(1)].concat(fieldList.slice(1));\n\t\t\texcludeFields = true;\n\t\t} else if(fieldList[0] === \"*\"){\n\t\t\tfields = [];\n\t\t\texcludeFields = true;\n\t\t} else {\n\t\t\tfields = fieldList.slice(0);\n\t\t}\n\t\treturn options.wiki.search(operator.operand,{\n\t\t\tsource: source,\n\t\t\tinvert: invert,\n\t\t\tfield: fields,\n\t\t\texcludeField: excludeFields,\n\t\t\tcaseSensitive: hasFlag(\"casesensitive\"),\n\t\t\tliteral: hasFlag(\"literal\"),\n\t\t\twhitespace: hasFlag(\"whitespace\"),\n\t\t\tregexp: hasFlag(\"regexp\"),\n\t\t\twords: hasFlag(\"words\")\n\t\t});\n\t} else {\n\t\treturn options.wiki.search(operator.operand,{\n\t\t\tsource: source,\n\t\t\tinvert: invert\n\t\t});\n\t}\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "filteroperator"
},
"$:/core/modules/filters/shadowsource.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/filters/shadowsource.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/filters/shadowsource.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: filteroperator\n\nFilter operator for returning the source plugins for shadow tiddlers\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\n/*\nExport our filter function\n*/\nexports.shadowsource = function(source,operator,options) {\n\tvar results = [];\n\tsource(function(tiddler,title) {\n\t\tvar source = options.wiki.getShadowSource(title);\n\t\tif(source) {\n\t\t\t$tw.utils.pushTop(results,source);\n\t\t}\n\t});\n\tresults.sort();\n\treturn results;\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "filteroperator"
},
"$:/core/modules/filters/sort.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/filters/sort.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/filters/sort.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: filteroperator\n\nFilter operator for sorting\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\n/*\nExport our filter function\n*/\nexports.sort = function(source,operator,options) {\n\tvar results = prepare_results(source);\n\toptions.wiki.sortTiddlers(results,operator.operand || \"title\",operator.prefix === \"!\",false,false);\n\treturn results;\n};\n\nexports.nsort = function(source,operator,options) {\n\tvar results = prepare_results(source);\n\toptions.wiki.sortTiddlers(results,operator.operand || \"title\",operator.prefix === \"!\",false,true);\n\treturn results;\n};\n\nexports.sortan = function(source, operator, options) {\n\tvar results = prepare_results(source);\n\toptions.wiki.sortTiddlers(results, operator.operand || \"title\", operator.prefix === \"!\",false,false,true);\n\treturn results;\n};\n\nexports.sortcs = function(source,operator,options) {\n\tvar results = prepare_results(source);\n\toptions.wiki.sortTiddlers(results,operator.operand || \"title\",operator.prefix === \"!\",true,false);\n\treturn results;\n};\n\nexports.nsortcs = function(source,operator,options) {\n\tvar results = prepare_results(source);\n\toptions.wiki.sortTiddlers(results,operator.operand || \"title\",operator.prefix === \"!\",true,true);\n\treturn results;\n};\n\nvar prepare_results = function (source) {\n\tvar results = [];\n\tsource(function(tiddler,title) {\n\t\tresults.push(title);\n\t});\n\treturn results;\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "filteroperator"
},
"$:/core/modules/filters/splitbefore.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/filters/splitbefore.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/filters/splitbefore.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: filteroperator\n\nFilter operator that splits each result on the first occurance of the specified separator and returns the unique values.\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\n/*\nExport our filter function\n*/\nexports.splitbefore = function(source,operator,options) {\n\tvar results = [];\n\tsource(function(tiddler,title) {\n\t\tvar parts = title.split(operator.operand);\n\t\tif(parts.length === 1) {\n\t\t\t$tw.utils.pushTop(results,parts[0]);\n\t\t} else {\n\t\t\t$tw.utils.pushTop(results,parts[0] + operator.operand);\n\t\t}\n\t});\n\treturn results;\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "filteroperator"
},
"$:/core/modules/filters/storyviews.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/filters/storyviews.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/filters/storyviews.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: filteroperator\n\nFilter operator for returning the names of the story views in this wiki\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\n/*\nExport our filter function\n*/\nexports.storyviews = function(source,operator,options) {\n\tvar results = [],\n\t\tstoryviews = {};\n\t$tw.modules.applyMethods(\"storyview\",storyviews);\n\t$tw.utils.each(storyviews,function(info,name) {\n\t\tresults.push(name);\n\t});\n\tresults.sort();\n\treturn results;\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "filteroperator"
},
"$:/core/modules/filters/subfilter.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/filters/subfilter.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/filters/subfilter.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: filteroperator\n\nFilter operator returning its operand evaluated as a filter\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\n/*\nExport our filter function\n*/\nexports.subfilter = function(source,operator,options) {\n\tvar list = options.wiki.filterTiddlers(operator.operand,options.widget,source);\n\tif(operator.prefix === \"!\") {\n\t\tvar results = [];\n\t\tsource(function(tiddler,title) {\n\t\t\tif(list.indexOf(title) === -1) {\n\t\t\t\tresults.push(title);\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t});\n\t\treturn results;\n\t} else {\n\t\treturn list;\n\t}\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "filteroperator"
},
"$:/core/modules/filters/subtiddlerfields.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/filters/subtiddlerfields.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/filters/subtiddlerfields.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: filteroperator\n\nFilter operator for returning the names of the fields on the selected subtiddlers of the plugin named in the operand\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\n/*\nExport our filter function\n*/\nexports.subtiddlerfields = function(source,operator,options) {\n\tvar results = [];\n\tsource(function(tiddler,title) {\n\t\tvar subtiddler = options.wiki.getSubTiddler(operator.operand,title);\n\t\tif(subtiddler) {\n\t\t\tfor(var fieldName in subtiddler.fields) {\n\t\t\t\t$tw.utils.pushTop(results,fieldName);\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t}\n\t});\n\treturn results;\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "filteroperator"
},
"$:/core/modules/filters/suffix.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/filters/suffix.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/filters/suffix.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: filteroperator\n\nFilter operator for checking if a title ends with a suffix\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\n/*\nExport our filter function\n*/\nexports.suffix = function(source,operator,options) {\n\tvar results = [];\n\tif(operator.prefix === \"!\") {\n\t\tsource(function(tiddler,title) {\n\t\t\tif(title.substr(-operator.operand.length) !== operator.operand) {\n\t\t\t\tresults.push(title);\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t});\n\t} else {\n\t\tsource(function(tiddler,title) {\n\t\t\tif(title.substr(-operator.operand.length) === operator.operand) {\n\t\t\t\tresults.push(title);\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t});\n\t}\n\treturn results;\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "filteroperator"
},
"$:/core/modules/filters/tag.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/filters/tag.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/filters/tag.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: filteroperator\n\nFilter operator for checking for the presence of a tag\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\n/*\nExport our filter function\n*/\nexports.tag = function(source,operator,options) {\n\tvar results = [];\n\tif((operator.suffix || \"\").toLowerCase() === \"strict\" && !operator.operand) {\n\t\t// New semantics:\n\t\t// Always return copy of input if operator.operand is missing\n\t\tsource(function(tiddler,title) {\n\t\t\tresults.push(title);\n\t\t});\n\t} else {\n\t\t// Old semantics:\n\t\tvar tiddlers = options.wiki.getTiddlersWithTag(operator.operand);\n\t\tif(operator.prefix === \"!\") {\n\t\t\t// Returns a copy of the input if operator.operand is missing\n\t\t\tsource(function(tiddler,title) {\n\t\t\t\tif(tiddlers.indexOf(title) === -1) {\n\t\t\t\t\tresults.push(title);\n\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t});\n\t\t} else {\n\t\t\t// Returns empty results if operator.operand is missing\n\t\t\tsource(function(tiddler,title) {\n\t\t\t\tif(tiddlers.indexOf(title) !== -1) {\n\t\t\t\t\tresults.push(title);\n\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t});\n\t\t\tresults = options.wiki.sortByList(results,operator.operand);\n\t\t}\t\t\n\t}\n\treturn results;\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "filteroperator"
},
"$:/core/modules/filters/tagging.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/filters/tagging.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/filters/tagging.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: filteroperator\n\nFilter operator returning all tiddlers that are tagged with the selected tiddlers\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\n/*\nExport our filter function\n*/\nexports.tagging = function(source,operator,options) {\n\tvar results = [];\n\tsource(function(tiddler,title) {\n\t\t$tw.utils.pushTop(results,options.wiki.getTiddlersWithTag(title));\n\t});\n\treturn results;\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "filteroperator"
},
"$:/core/modules/filters/tags.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/filters/tags.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/filters/tags.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: filteroperator\n\nFilter operator returning all the tags of the selected tiddlers\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\n/*\nExport our filter function\n*/\nexports.tags = function(source,operator,options) {\n\tvar tags = {};\n\tsource(function(tiddler,title) {\n\t\tvar t, length;\n\t\tif(tiddler && tiddler.fields.tags) {\n\t\t\tfor(t=0, length=tiddler.fields.tags.length; t<length; t++) {\n\t\t\t\ttags[tiddler.fields.tags[t]] = true;\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t}\n\t});\n\treturn Object.keys(tags);\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "filteroperator"
},
"$:/core/modules/filters/title.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/filters/title.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/filters/title.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: filteroperator\n\nFilter operator for comparing title fields for equality\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\n/*\nExport our filter function\n*/\nexports.title = function(source,operator,options) {\n\tvar results = [];\n\tif(operator.prefix === \"!\") {\n\t\tsource(function(tiddler,title) {\n\t\t\tif(tiddler && tiddler.fields.title !== operator.operand) {\n\t\t\t\tresults.push(title);\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t});\n\t} else {\n\t\tresults.push(operator.operand);\n\t}\n\treturn results;\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "filteroperator"
},
"$:/core/modules/filters/untagged.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/filters/untagged.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/filters/untagged.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: filteroperator\n\nFilter operator returning all the selected tiddlers that are untagged\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\n/*\nExport our filter function\n*/\nexports.untagged = function(source,operator,options) {\n\tvar results = [];\n\tif(operator.prefix === \"!\") {\n\t\tsource(function(tiddler,title) {\n\t\t\tif(tiddler && $tw.utils.isArray(tiddler.fields.tags) && tiddler.fields.tags.length > 0) {\n\t\t\t\t$tw.utils.pushTop(results,title);\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t});\n\t} else {\n\t\tsource(function(tiddler,title) {\n\t\t\tif(!tiddler || !tiddler.hasField(\"tags\") || ($tw.utils.isArray(tiddler.fields.tags) && tiddler.fields.tags.length === 0)) {\n\t\t\t\t$tw.utils.pushTop(results,title);\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t});\n\t}\n\treturn results;\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "filteroperator"
},
"$:/core/modules/filters/wikiparserrules.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/filters/wikiparserrules.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/filters/wikiparserrules.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: filteroperator\n\nFilter operator for returning the names of the wiki parser rules in this wiki\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\n/*\nExport our filter function\n*/\nexports.wikiparserrules = function(source,operator,options) {\n\tvar results = [],\n\t\toperand = operator.operand;\n\t$tw.utils.each($tw.modules.types.wikirule,function(mod) {\n\t\tvar exp = mod.exports;\n\t\tif(!operand || exp.types[operand]) {\n\t\t\tresults.push(exp.name);\n\t\t}\n\t});\n\tresults.sort();\n\treturn results;\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "filteroperator"
},
"$:/core/modules/filters/x-listops.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/filters/x-listops.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/filters/x-listops.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: filteroperator\n\nExtended filter operators to manipulate the current list.\n\n\\*/\n(function () {\n\n /*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n /*global $tw: false */\n \"use strict\";\n\n /*\n Fetch titles from the current list\n */\n var prepare_results = function (source) {\n var results = [];\n source(function (tiddler, title) {\n results.push(title);\n });\n return results;\n };\n\n /*\n Moves a number of items from the tail of the current list before the item named in the operand\n */\n exports.putbefore = function (source, operator) {\n var results = prepare_results(source),\n index = results.indexOf(operator.operand),\n count = $tw.utils.getInt(operator.suffix,1);\n return (index === -1) ?\n results.slice(0, -1) :\n results.slice(0, index).concat(results.slice(-count)).concat(results.slice(index, -count));\n };\n\n /*\n Moves a number of items from the tail of the current list after the item named in the operand\n */\n exports.putafter = function (source, operator) {\n var results = prepare_results(source),\n index = results.indexOf(operator.operand),\n count = $tw.utils.getInt(operator.suffix,1);\n return (index === -1) ?\n results.slice(0, -1) :\n results.slice(0, index + 1).concat(results.slice(-count)).concat(results.slice(index + 1, -count));\n };\n\n /*\n Replaces the item named in the operand with a number of items from the tail of the current list\n */\n exports.replace = function (source, operator) {\n var results = prepare_results(source),\n index = results.indexOf(operator.operand),\n count = $tw.utils.getInt(operator.suffix,1);\n return (index === -1) ?\n results.slice(0, -count) :\n results.slice(0, index).concat(results.slice(-count)).concat(results.slice(index + 1, -count));\n };\n\n /*\n Moves a number of items from the tail of the current list to the head of the list\n */\n exports.putfirst = function (source, operator) {\n var results = prepare_results(source),\n count = $tw.utils.getInt(operator.suffix,1);\n return results.slice(-count).concat(results.slice(0, -count));\n };\n\n /*\n Moves a number of items from the head of the current list to the tail of the list\n */\n exports.putlast = function (source, operator) {\n var results = prepare_results(source),\n count = $tw.utils.getInt(operator.suffix,1);\n return results.slice(count).concat(results.slice(0, count));\n };\n\n /*\n Moves the item named in the operand a number of places forward or backward in the list\n */\n exports.move = function (source, operator) {\n var results = prepare_results(source),\n index = results.indexOf(operator.operand),\n count = $tw.utils.getInt(operator.suffix,1),\n marker = results.splice(index, 1),\n offset = (index + count) > 0 ? index + count : 0;\n return results.slice(0, offset).concat(marker).concat(results.slice(offset));\n };\n\n /*\n Returns the items from the current list that are after the item named in the operand\n */\n exports.allafter = function (source, operator) {\n var results = prepare_results(source),\n index = results.indexOf(operator.operand);\n return (index === -1 || index > (results.length - 2)) ? [] :\n (operator.suffix) ? results.slice(index) :\n results.slice(index + 1);\n };\n\n /*\n Returns the items from the current list that are before the item named in the operand\n */\n exports.allbefore = function (source, operator) {\n var results = prepare_results(source),\n index = results.indexOf(operator.operand);\n return (index < 0) ? [] :\n (operator.suffix) ? results.slice(0, index + 1) :\n results.slice(0, index);\n };\n\n /*\n Appends the items listed in the operand array to the tail of the current list\n */\n exports.append = function (source, operator) {\n var append = $tw.utils.parseStringArray(operator.operand, \"true\"),\n results = prepare_results(source),\n count = parseInt(operator.suffix) || append.length;\n return (append.length === 0) ? results :\n (operator.prefix) ? results.concat(append.slice(-count)) :\n results.concat(append.slice(0, count));\n };\n\n /*\n Prepends the items listed in the operand array to the head of the current list\n */\n exports.prepend = function (source, operator) {\n var prepend = $tw.utils.parseStringArray(operator.operand, \"true\"),\n results = prepare_results(source),\n count = $tw.utils.getInt(operator.suffix,prepend.length);\n return (prepend.length === 0) ? results :\n (operator.prefix) ? prepend.slice(-count).concat(results) :\n prepend.slice(0, count).concat(results);\n };\n\n /*\n Returns all items from the current list except the items listed in the operand array\n */\n exports.remove = function (source, operator) {\n var array = $tw.utils.parseStringArray(operator.operand, \"true\"),\n results = prepare_results(source),\n count = parseInt(operator.suffix) || array.length,\n p,\n len,\n index;\n len = array.length - 1;\n for (p = 0; p < count; ++p) {\n if (operator.prefix) {\n index = results.indexOf(array[len - p]);\n } else {\n index = results.indexOf(array[p]);\n }\n if (index !== -1) {\n results.splice(index, 1);\n }\n }\n return results;\n };\n\n /*\n Returns all items from the current list sorted in the order of the items in the operand array\n */\n exports.sortby = function (source, operator) {\n var results = prepare_results(source);\n if (!results || results.length < 2) {\n return results;\n }\n var lookup = $tw.utils.parseStringArray(operator.operand, \"true\");\n results.sort(function (a, b) {\n return lookup.indexOf(a) - lookup.indexOf(b);\n });\n return results;\n };\n\n /*\n Removes all duplicate items from the current list\n */\n exports.unique = function (source, operator) {\n var results = prepare_results(source);\n var set = results.reduce(function (a, b) {\n if (a.indexOf(b) < 0) {\n a.push(b);\n }\n return a;\n }, []);\n return set;\n };\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "filteroperator"
},
"$:/core/modules/filters.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/filters.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/filters.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: wikimethod\n\nAdds tiddler filtering methods to the $tw.Wiki object.\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\n/*\nParses an operation (i.e. a run) within a filter string\n\toperators: Array of array of operator nodes into which results should be inserted\n\tfilterString: filter string\n\tp: start position within the string\nReturns the new start position, after the parsed operation\n*/\nfunction parseFilterOperation(operators,filterString,p) {\n\tvar nextBracketPos, operator;\n\t// Skip the starting square bracket\n\tif(filterString.charAt(p++) !== \"[\") {\n\t\tthrow \"Missing [ in filter expression\";\n\t}\n\t// Process each operator in turn\n\tdo {\n\t\toperator = {};\n\t\t// Check for an operator prefix\n\t\tif(filterString.charAt(p) === \"!\") {\n\t\t\toperator.prefix = filterString.charAt(p++);\n\t\t}\n\t\t// Get the operator name\n\t\tnextBracketPos = filterString.substring(p).search(/[\\[\\{<\\/]/);\n\t\tif(nextBracketPos === -1) {\n\t\t\tthrow \"Missing [ in filter expression\";\n\t\t}\n\t\tnextBracketPos += p;\n\t\tvar bracket = filterString.charAt(nextBracketPos);\n\t\toperator.operator = filterString.substring(p,nextBracketPos);\n\t\t// Any suffix?\n\t\tvar colon = operator.operator.indexOf(':');\n\t\tif(colon > -1) {\n\t\t\t// The raw suffix for older filters\n\t\t\toperator.suffix = operator.operator.substring(colon + 1);\n\t\t\toperator.operator = operator.operator.substring(0,colon) || \"field\";\n\t\t\t// The processed suffix for newer filters\n\t\t\toperator.suffixes = [];\n\t\t\t$tw.utils.each(operator.suffix.split(\":\"),function(subsuffix) {\n\t\t\t\toperator.suffixes.push([]);\n\t\t\t\t$tw.utils.each(subsuffix.split(\",\"),function(entry) {\n\t\t\t\t\tentry = $tw.utils.trim(entry);\n\t\t\t\t\tif(entry) {\n\t\t\t\t\t\toperator.suffixes[operator.suffixes.length - 1].push(entry); \n\t\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t\t});\n\t\t\t});\n\t\t}\n\t\t// Empty operator means: title\n\t\telse if(operator.operator === \"\") {\n\t\t\toperator.operator = \"title\";\n\t\t}\n\n\t\tp = nextBracketPos + 1;\n\t\tswitch (bracket) {\n\t\t\tcase \"{\": // Curly brackets\n\t\t\t\toperator.indirect = true;\n\t\t\t\tnextBracketPos = filterString.indexOf(\"}\",p);\n\t\t\t\tbreak;\n\t\t\tcase \"[\": // Square brackets\n\t\t\t\tnextBracketPos = filterString.indexOf(\"]\",p);\n\t\t\t\tbreak;\n\t\t\tcase \"<\": // Angle brackets\n\t\t\t\toperator.variable = true;\n\t\t\t\tnextBracketPos = filterString.indexOf(\">\",p);\n\t\t\t\tbreak;\n\t\t\tcase \"/\": // regexp brackets\n\t\t\t\tvar rex = /^((?:[^\\\\\\/]*|\\\\.)*)\\/(?:\\(([mygi]+)\\))?/g,\n\t\t\t\t\trexMatch = rex.exec(filterString.substring(p));\n\t\t\t\tif(rexMatch) {\n\t\t\t\t\toperator.regexp = new RegExp(rexMatch[1], rexMatch[2]);\n// DEPRECATION WARNING\nconsole.log(\"WARNING: Filter\",operator.operator,\"has a deprecated regexp operand\",operator.regexp);\n\t\t\t\t\tnextBracketPos = p + rex.lastIndex - 1;\n\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t\telse {\n\t\t\t\t\tthrow \"Unterminated regular expression in filter expression\";\n\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t\tbreak;\n\t\t}\n\n\t\tif(nextBracketPos === -1) {\n\t\t\tthrow \"Missing closing bracket in filter expression\";\n\t\t}\n\t\tif(!operator.regexp) {\n\t\t\toperator.operand = filterString.substring(p,nextBracketPos);\n\t\t}\n\t\tp = nextBracketPos + 1;\n\n\t\t// Push this operator\n\t\toperators.push(operator);\n\t} while(filterString.charAt(p) !== \"]\");\n\t// Skip the ending square bracket\n\tif(filterString.charAt(p++) !== \"]\") {\n\t\tthrow \"Missing ] in filter expression\";\n\t}\n\t// Return the parsing position\n\treturn p;\n}\n\n/*\nParse a filter string\n*/\nexports.parseFilter = function(filterString) {\n\tfilterString = filterString || \"\";\n\tvar results = [], // Array of arrays of operator nodes {operator:,operand:}\n\t\tp = 0, // Current position in the filter string\n\t\tmatch;\n\tvar whitespaceRegExp = /(\\s+)/mg,\n\t\toperandRegExp = /((?:\\+|\\-|~)?)(?:(\\[)|(?:\"([^\"]*)\")|(?:'([^']*)')|([^\\s\\[\\]]+))/mg;\n\twhile(p < filterString.length) {\n\t\t// Skip any whitespace\n\t\twhitespaceRegExp.lastIndex = p;\n\t\tmatch = whitespaceRegExp.exec(filterString);\n\t\tif(match && match.index === p) {\n\t\t\tp = p + match[0].length;\n\t\t}\n\t\t// Match the start of the operation\n\t\tif(p < filterString.length) {\n\t\t\toperandRegExp.lastIndex = p;\n\t\t\tmatch = operandRegExp.exec(filterString);\n\t\t\tif(!match || match.index !== p) {\n\t\t\t\tthrow $tw.language.getString(\"Error/FilterSyntax\");\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t\tvar operation = {\n\t\t\t\tprefix: \"\",\n\t\t\t\toperators: []\n\t\t\t};\n\t\t\tif(match[1]) {\n\t\t\t\toperation.prefix = match[1];\n\t\t\t\tp++;\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t\tif(match[2]) { // Opening square bracket\n\t\t\t\tp = parseFilterOperation(operation.operators,filterString,p);\n\t\t\t} else {\n\t\t\t\tp = match.index + match[0].length;\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t\tif(match[3] || match[4] || match[5]) { // Double quoted string, single quoted string or unquoted title\n\t\t\t\toperation.operators.push(\n\t\t\t\t\t{operator: \"title\", operand: match[3] || match[4] || match[5]}\n\t\t\t\t);\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t\tresults.push(operation);\n\t\t}\n\t}\n\treturn results;\n};\n\nexports.getFilterOperators = function() {\n\tif(!this.filterOperators) {\n\t\t$tw.Wiki.prototype.filterOperators = {};\n\t\t$tw.modules.applyMethods(\"filteroperator\",this.filterOperators);\n\t}\n\treturn this.filterOperators;\n};\n\nexports.filterTiddlers = function(filterString,widget,source) {\n\tvar fn = this.compileFilter(filterString);\n\treturn fn.call(this,source,widget);\n};\n\n/*\nCompile a filter into a function with the signature fn(source,widget) where:\nsource: an iterator function for the source tiddlers, called source(iterator), where iterator is called as iterator(tiddler,title)\nwidget: an optional widget node for retrieving the current tiddler etc.\n*/\nexports.compileFilter = function(filterString) {\n\tvar filterParseTree;\n\ttry {\n\t\tfilterParseTree = this.parseFilter(filterString);\n\t} catch(e) {\n\t\treturn function(source,widget) {\n\t\t\treturn [$tw.language.getString(\"Error/Filter\") + \": \" + e];\n\t\t};\n\t}\n\t// Get the hashmap of filter operator functions\n\tvar filterOperators = this.getFilterOperators();\n\t// Assemble array of functions, one for each operation\n\tvar operationFunctions = [];\n\t// Step through the operations\n\tvar self = this;\n\t$tw.utils.each(filterParseTree,function(operation) {\n\t\t// Create a function for the chain of operators in the operation\n\t\tvar operationSubFunction = function(source,widget) {\n\t\t\tvar accumulator = source,\n\t\t\t\tresults = [],\n\t\t\t\tcurrTiddlerTitle = widget && widget.getVariable(\"currentTiddler\");\n\t\t\t$tw.utils.each(operation.operators,function(operator) {\n\t\t\t\tvar operand = operator.operand,\n\t\t\t\t\toperatorFunction;\n\t\t\t\tif(!operator.operator) {\n\t\t\t\t\toperatorFunction = filterOperators.title;\n\t\t\t\t} else if(!filterOperators[operator.operator]) {\n\t\t\t\t\toperatorFunction = filterOperators.field;\n\t\t\t\t} else {\n\t\t\t\t\toperatorFunction = filterOperators[operator.operator];\n\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t\tif(operator.indirect) {\n\t\t\t\t\toperand = self.getTextReference(operator.operand,\"\",currTiddlerTitle);\n\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t\tif(operator.variable) {\n\t\t\t\t\toperand = widget.getVariable(operator.operand,{defaultValue: \"\"});\n\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t\t// Invoke the appropriate filteroperator module\n\t\t\t\tresults = operatorFunction(accumulator,{\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\toperator: operator.operator,\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\toperand: operand,\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tprefix: operator.prefix,\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tsuffix: operator.suffix,\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tsuffixes: operator.suffixes,\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tregexp: operator.regexp\n\t\t\t\t\t\t},{\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\twiki: self,\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\twidget: widget\n\t\t\t\t\t\t});\n\t\t\t\tif($tw.utils.isArray(results)) {\n\t\t\t\t\taccumulator = self.makeTiddlerIterator(results);\n\t\t\t\t} else {\n\t\t\t\t\taccumulator = results;\n\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t});\n\t\t\tif($tw.utils.isArray(results)) {\n\t\t\t\treturn results;\n\t\t\t} else {\n\t\t\t\tvar resultArray = [];\n\t\t\t\tresults(function(tiddler,title) {\n\t\t\t\t\tresultArray.push(title);\n\t\t\t\t});\n\t\t\t\treturn resultArray;\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t};\n\t\t// Wrap the operator functions in a wrapper function that depends on the prefix\n\t\toperationFunctions.push((function() {\n\t\t\tswitch(operation.prefix || \"\") {\n\t\t\t\tcase \"\": // No prefix means that the operation is unioned into the result\n\t\t\t\t\treturn function(results,source,widget) {\n\t\t\t\t\t\t$tw.utils.pushTop(results,operationSubFunction(source,widget));\n\t\t\t\t\t};\n\t\t\t\tcase \"-\": // The results of this operation are removed from the main result\n\t\t\t\t\treturn function(results,source,widget) {\n\t\t\t\t\t\t$tw.utils.removeArrayEntries(results,operationSubFunction(source,widget));\n\t\t\t\t\t};\n\t\t\t\tcase \"+\": // This operation is applied to the main results so far\n\t\t\t\t\treturn function(results,source,widget) {\n\t\t\t\t\t\t// This replaces all the elements of the array, but keeps the actual array so that references to it are preserved\n\t\t\t\t\t\tsource = self.makeTiddlerIterator(results);\n\t\t\t\t\t\tresults.splice(0,results.length);\n\t\t\t\t\t\t$tw.utils.pushTop(results,operationSubFunction(source,widget));\n\t\t\t\t\t};\n\t\t\t\tcase \"~\": // This operation is unioned into the result only if the main result so far is empty\n\t\t\t\t\treturn function(results,source,widget) {\n\t\t\t\t\t\tif(results.length === 0) {\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t// Main result so far is empty\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t$tw.utils.pushTop(results,operationSubFunction(source,widget));\n\t\t\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t\t\t};\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t})());\n\t});\n\t// Return a function that applies the operations to a source iterator of tiddler titles\n\treturn $tw.perf.measure(\"filter\",function filterFunction(source,widget) {\n\t\tif(!source) {\n\t\t\tsource = self.each;\n\t\t} else if(typeof source === \"object\") { // Array or hashmap\n\t\t\tsource = self.makeTiddlerIterator(source);\n\t\t}\n\t\tvar results = [];\n\t\t$tw.utils.each(operationFunctions,function(operationFunction) {\n\t\t\toperationFunction(results,source,widget);\n\t\t});\n\t\treturn results;\n\t});\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "wikimethod"
},
"$:/core/modules/info/platform.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/info/platform.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/info/platform.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: info\n\nInitialise basic platform $:/info/ tiddlers\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nexports.getInfoTiddlerFields = function() {\n\tvar mapBoolean = function(value) {return value ? \"yes\" : \"no\";},\n\t\tinfoTiddlerFields = [];\n\t// Basics\n\tinfoTiddlerFields.push({title: \"$:/info/browser\", text: mapBoolean(!!$tw.browser)});\n\tinfoTiddlerFields.push({title: \"$:/info/node\", text: mapBoolean(!!$tw.node)});\n\tif($tw.browser) {\n\t\t// Document location\n\t\tvar setLocationProperty = function(name,value) {\n\t\t\t\tinfoTiddlerFields.push({title: \"$:/info/url/\" + name, text: value});\t\t\t\n\t\t\t},\n\t\t\tlocation = document.location;\n\t\tsetLocationProperty(\"full\", (location.toString()).split(\"#\")[0]);\n\t\tsetLocationProperty(\"host\", location.host);\n\t\tsetLocationProperty(\"hostname\", location.hostname);\n\t\tsetLocationProperty(\"protocol\", location.protocol);\n\t\tsetLocationProperty(\"port\", location.port);\n\t\tsetLocationProperty(\"pathname\", location.pathname);\n\t\tsetLocationProperty(\"search\", location.search);\n\t\tsetLocationProperty(\"origin\", location.origin);\n\t\t// Screen size\n\t\tinfoTiddlerFields.push({title: \"$:/info/browser/screen/width\", text: window.screen.width.toString()});\n\t\tinfoTiddlerFields.push({title: \"$:/info/browser/screen/height\", text: window.screen.height.toString()});\n\t}\n\treturn infoTiddlerFields;\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "info"
},
"$:/core/modules/keyboard.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/keyboard.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/keyboard.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: global\n\nKeyboard handling utilities\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nvar namedKeys = {\n\t\"cancel\": 3,\n\t\"help\": 6,\n\t\"backspace\": 8,\n\t\"tab\": 9,\n\t\"clear\": 12,\n\t\"return\": 13,\n\t\"enter\": 13,\n\t\"pause\": 19,\n\t\"escape\": 27,\n\t\"space\": 32,\n\t\"page_up\": 33,\n\t\"page_down\": 34,\n\t\"end\": 35,\n\t\"home\": 36,\n\t\"left\": 37,\n\t\"up\": 38,\n\t\"right\": 39,\n\t\"down\": 40,\n\t\"printscreen\": 44,\n\t\"insert\": 45,\n\t\"delete\": 46,\n\t\"0\": 48,\n\t\"1\": 49,\n\t\"2\": 50,\n\t\"3\": 51,\n\t\"4\": 52,\n\t\"5\": 53,\n\t\"6\": 54,\n\t\"7\": 55,\n\t\"8\": 56,\n\t\"9\": 57,\n\t\"firefoxsemicolon\": 59,\n\t\"firefoxequals\": 61,\n\t\"a\": 65,\n\t\"b\": 66,\n\t\"c\": 67,\n\t\"d\": 68,\n\t\"e\": 69,\n\t\"f\": 70,\n\t\"g\": 71,\n\t\"h\": 72,\n\t\"i\": 73,\n\t\"j\": 74,\n\t\"k\": 75,\n\t\"l\": 76,\n\t\"m\": 77,\n\t\"n\": 78,\n\t\"o\": 79,\n\t\"p\": 80,\n\t\"q\": 81,\n\t\"r\": 82,\n\t\"s\": 83,\n\t\"t\": 84,\n\t\"u\": 85,\n\t\"v\": 86,\n\t\"w\": 87,\n\t\"x\": 88,\n\t\"y\": 89,\n\t\"z\": 90,\n\t\"numpad0\": 96,\n\t\"numpad1\": 97,\n\t\"numpad2\": 98,\n\t\"numpad3\": 99,\n\t\"numpad4\": 100,\n\t\"numpad5\": 101,\n\t\"numpad6\": 102,\n\t\"numpad7\": 103,\n\t\"numpad8\": 104,\n\t\"numpad9\": 105,\n\t\"multiply\": 106,\n\t\"add\": 107,\n\t\"separator\": 108,\n\t\"subtract\": 109,\n\t\"decimal\": 110,\n\t\"divide\": 111,\n\t\"f1\": 112,\n\t\"f2\": 113,\n\t\"f3\": 114,\n\t\"f4\": 115,\n\t\"f5\": 116,\n\t\"f6\": 117,\n\t\"f7\": 118,\n\t\"f8\": 119,\n\t\"f9\": 120,\n\t\"f10\": 121,\n\t\"f11\": 122,\n\t\"f12\": 123,\n\t\"f13\": 124,\n\t\"f14\": 125,\n\t\"f15\": 126,\n\t\"f16\": 127,\n\t\"f17\": 128,\n\t\"f18\": 129,\n\t\"f19\": 130,\n\t\"f20\": 131,\n\t\"f21\": 132,\n\t\"f22\": 133,\n\t\"f23\": 134,\n\t\"f24\": 135,\n\t\"firefoxminus\": 173,\n\t\"semicolon\": 186,\n\t\"equals\": 187,\n\t\"comma\": 188,\n\t\"dash\": 189,\n\t\"period\": 190,\n\t\"slash\": 191,\n\t\"backquote\": 192,\n\t\"openbracket\": 219,\n\t\"backslash\": 220,\n\t\"closebracket\": 221,\n\t\"quote\": 222\n};\n\nfunction KeyboardManager(options) {\n\tvar self = this;\n\toptions = options || \"\";\n\t// Save the named key hashmap\n\tthis.namedKeys = namedKeys;\n\t// Create a reverse mapping of code to keyname\n\tthis.keyNames = [];\n\t$tw.utils.each(namedKeys,function(keyCode,name) {\n\t\tself.keyNames[keyCode] = name.substr(0,1).toUpperCase() + name.substr(1);\n\t});\n\t// Save the platform-specific name of the \"meta\" key\n\tthis.metaKeyName = $tw.platform.isMac ? \"cmd-\" : \"win-\";\n\tthis.shortcutKeysList = [], // Stores the shortcut-key descriptors\n\tthis.shortcutActionList = [], // Stores the corresponding action strings\n\tthis.shortcutParsedList = []; // Stores the parsed key descriptors\n\tthis.lookupNames = [\"shortcuts\"];\n\tthis.lookupNames.push($tw.platform.isMac ? \"shortcuts-mac\" : \"shortcuts-not-mac\")\n\tthis.lookupNames.push($tw.platform.isWindows ? \"shortcuts-windows\" : \"shortcuts-not-windows\");\n\tthis.lookupNames.push($tw.platform.isLinux ? \"shortcuts-linux\" : \"shortcuts-not-linux\");\n\tthis.updateShortcutLists(this.getShortcutTiddlerList());\n\t$tw.wiki.addEventListener(\"change\",function(changes) {\n\t\tself.handleShortcutChanges(changes);\n\t});\n}\n\n/*\nReturn an array of keycodes for the modifier keys ctrl, shift, alt, meta\n*/\nKeyboardManager.prototype.getModifierKeys = function() {\n\treturn [\n\t\t16, // Shift\n\t\t17, // Ctrl\n\t\t18, // Alt\n\t\t20, // CAPS LOCK\n\t\t91, // Meta (left)\n\t\t93, // Meta (right)\n\t\t224 // Meta (Firefox)\n\t]\n};\n\n/*\nParses a key descriptor into the structure:\n{\n\tkeyCode: numeric keycode\n\tshiftKey: boolean\n\taltKey: boolean\n\tctrlKey: boolean\n\tmetaKey: boolean\n}\nKey descriptors have the following format:\n\tctrl+enter\n\tctrl+shift+alt+A\n*/\nKeyboardManager.prototype.parseKeyDescriptor = function(keyDescriptor) {\n\tvar components = keyDescriptor.split(/\\+|\\-/),\n\t\tinfo = {\n\t\t\tkeyCode: 0,\n\t\t\tshiftKey: false,\n\t\t\taltKey: false,\n\t\t\tctrlKey: false,\n\t\t\tmetaKey: false\n\t\t};\n\tfor(var t=0; t<components.length; t++) {\n\t\tvar s = components[t].toLowerCase(),\n\t\t\tc = s.charCodeAt(0);\n\t\t// Look for modifier keys\n\t\tif(s === \"ctrl\") {\n\t\t\tinfo.ctrlKey = true;\n\t\t} else if(s === \"shift\") {\n\t\t\tinfo.shiftKey = true;\n\t\t} else if(s === \"alt\") {\n\t\t\tinfo.altKey = true;\n\t\t} else if(s === \"meta\" || s === \"cmd\" || s === \"win\") {\n\t\t\tinfo.metaKey = true;\n\t\t}\n\t\t// Replace named keys with their code\n\t\tif(this.namedKeys[s]) {\n\t\t\tinfo.keyCode = this.namedKeys[s];\n\t\t}\n\t}\n\tif(info.keyCode) {\n\t\treturn info;\n\t} else {\n\t\treturn null;\n\t}\n};\n\n/*\nParse a list of key descriptors into an array of keyInfo objects. The key descriptors can be passed as an array of strings or a space separated string\n*/\nKeyboardManager.prototype.parseKeyDescriptors = function(keyDescriptors,options) {\n\tvar self = this;\n\toptions = options || {};\n\toptions.stack = options.stack || [];\n\tvar wiki = options.wiki || $tw.wiki;\n\tif(typeof keyDescriptors === \"string\" && keyDescriptors === \"\") {\n\t\treturn [];\n\t}\n\tif(!$tw.utils.isArray(keyDescriptors)) {\n\t\tkeyDescriptors = keyDescriptors.split(\" \");\n\t}\n\tvar result = [];\n\t$tw.utils.each(keyDescriptors,function(keyDescriptor) {\n\t\t// Look for a named shortcut\n\t\tif(keyDescriptor.substr(0,2) === \"((\" && keyDescriptor.substr(-2,2) === \"))\") {\n\t\t\tif(options.stack.indexOf(keyDescriptor) === -1) {\n\t\t\t\toptions.stack.push(keyDescriptor);\n\t\t\t\tvar name = keyDescriptor.substring(2,keyDescriptor.length - 2),\n\t\t\t\t\tlookupName = function(configName) {\n\t\t\t\t\t\tvar keyDescriptors = wiki.getTiddlerText(\"$:/config/\" + configName + \"/\" + name);\n\t\t\t\t\t\tif(keyDescriptors) {\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tresult.push.apply(result,self.parseKeyDescriptors(keyDescriptors,options));\n\t\t\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t\t\t};\n\t\t\t\t$tw.utils.each(self.lookupNames,function(platformDescriptor) {\n\t\t\t\t\tlookupName(platformDescriptor);\n\t\t\t\t});\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t} else {\n\t\t\tresult.push(self.parseKeyDescriptor(keyDescriptor));\n\t\t}\n\t});\n\treturn result;\n};\n\nKeyboardManager.prototype.getPrintableShortcuts = function(keyInfoArray) {\n\tvar self = this,\n\t\tresult = [];\n\t$tw.utils.each(keyInfoArray,function(keyInfo) {\n\t\tif(keyInfo) {\n\t\t\tresult.push((keyInfo.ctrlKey ? \"ctrl-\" : \"\") + \n\t\t\t\t (keyInfo.shiftKey ? \"shift-\" : \"\") + \n\t\t\t\t (keyInfo.altKey ? \"alt-\" : \"\") + \n\t\t\t\t (keyInfo.metaKey ? self.metaKeyName : \"\") + \n\t\t\t\t (self.keyNames[keyInfo.keyCode]));\n\t\t}\n\t});\n\treturn result;\n}\n\nKeyboardManager.prototype.checkKeyDescriptor = function(event,keyInfo) {\n\treturn keyInfo &&\n\t\t\tevent.keyCode === keyInfo.keyCode && \n\t\t\tevent.shiftKey === keyInfo.shiftKey && \n\t\t\tevent.altKey === keyInfo.altKey && \n\t\t\tevent.ctrlKey === keyInfo.ctrlKey && \n\t\t\tevent.metaKey === keyInfo.metaKey;\n};\n\nKeyboardManager.prototype.checkKeyDescriptors = function(event,keyInfoArray) {\n\tfor(var t=0; t<keyInfoArray.length; t++) {\n\t\tif(this.checkKeyDescriptor(event,keyInfoArray[t])) {\n\t\t\treturn true;\n\t\t}\n\t}\n\treturn false;\n};\n\nKeyboardManager.prototype.getShortcutTiddlerList = function() {\n\treturn $tw.wiki.getTiddlersWithTag(\"$:/tags/KeyboardShortcut\");\n};\n\nKeyboardManager.prototype.updateShortcutLists = function(tiddlerList) {\n\tthis.shortcutTiddlers = tiddlerList;\n\tfor(var i=0; i<tiddlerList.length; i++) {\n\t\tvar title = tiddlerList[i],\n\t\t\ttiddlerFields = $tw.wiki.getTiddler(title).fields;\n\t\tthis.shortcutKeysList[i] = tiddlerFields.key !== undefined ? tiddlerFields.key : undefined;\n\t\tthis.shortcutActionList[i] = tiddlerFields.text;\n\t\tthis.shortcutParsedList[i] = this.shortcutKeysList[i] !== undefined ? this.parseKeyDescriptors(this.shortcutKeysList[i]) : undefined;\n\t}\n};\n\nKeyboardManager.prototype.handleKeydownEvent = function(event) {\n\tvar key, action;\n\tfor(var i=0; i<this.shortcutTiddlers.length; i++) {\n\t\tif(this.shortcutParsedList[i] !== undefined && this.checkKeyDescriptors(event,this.shortcutParsedList[i])) {\n\t\t\tkey = this.shortcutParsedList[i];\n\t\t\taction = this.shortcutActionList[i];\n\t\t}\n\t}\n\tif(key !== undefined) {\n\t\tevent.preventDefault();\n\t\tevent.stopPropagation();\n\t\t$tw.rootWidget.invokeActionString(action,$tw.rootWidget);\n\t\treturn true;\n\t}\n\treturn false;\n};\n\nKeyboardManager.prototype.detectNewShortcuts = function(changedTiddlers) {\n\tvar shortcutConfigTiddlers = [],\n\t\thandled = false;\n\t$tw.utils.each(this.lookupNames,function(platformDescriptor) {\n\t\tvar descriptorString = \"$:/config/\" + platformDescriptor + \"/\";\n\t\tObject.keys(changedTiddlers).forEach(function(configTiddler) {\n\t\t\tvar configString = configTiddler.substr(0, configTiddler.lastIndexOf(\"/\") + 1);\n\t\t\tif(configString === descriptorString) {\n\t\t\t\tshortcutConfigTiddlers.push(configTiddler);\n\t\t\t\thandled = true;\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t});\n\t});\n\tif(handled) {\n\t\treturn $tw.utils.hopArray(changedTiddlers,shortcutConfigTiddlers);\n\t} else {\n\t\treturn false;\n\t}\n};\n\nKeyboardManager.prototype.handleShortcutChanges = function(changedTiddlers) {\n\tvar newList = this.getShortcutTiddlerList();\n\tvar hasChanged = $tw.utils.hopArray(changedTiddlers,this.shortcutTiddlers) ? true :\n\t\t($tw.utils.hopArray(changedTiddlers,newList) ? true :\n\t\t(this.detectNewShortcuts(changedTiddlers))\n\t);\n\t// Re-cache shortcuts if something changed\n\tif(hasChanged) {\n\t\tthis.updateShortcutLists(newList);\n\t}\n};\n\nexports.KeyboardManager = KeyboardManager;\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "global"
},
"$:/core/modules/language.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/language.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/language.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: global\n\nThe $tw.Language() manages translateable strings\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\n/*\nCreate an instance of the language manager. Options include:\nwiki: wiki from which to retrieve translation tiddlers\n*/\nfunction Language(options) {\n\toptions = options || \"\";\n\tthis.wiki = options.wiki || $tw.wiki;\n}\n\n/*\nReturn a wikified translateable string. The title is automatically prefixed with \"$:/language/\"\nOptions include:\nvariables: optional hashmap of variables to supply to the language wikification\n*/\nLanguage.prototype.getString = function(title,options) {\n\toptions = options || {};\n\ttitle = \"$:/language/\" + title;\n\treturn this.wiki.renderTiddler(\"text/plain\",title,{variables: options.variables});\n};\n\n/*\nReturn a raw, unwikified translateable string. The title is automatically prefixed with \"$:/language/\"\n*/\nLanguage.prototype.getRawString = function(title) {\n\ttitle = \"$:/language/\" + title;\n\treturn this.wiki.getTiddlerText(title);\n};\n\nexports.Language = Language;\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "global"
},
"$:/core/modules/macros/changecount.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/macros/changecount.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/macros/changecount.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: macro\n\nMacro to return the changecount for the current tiddler\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\n/*\nInformation about this macro\n*/\n\nexports.name = \"changecount\";\n\nexports.params = [];\n\n/*\nRun the macro\n*/\nexports.run = function() {\n\treturn this.wiki.getChangeCount(this.getVariable(\"currentTiddler\")) + \"\";\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "macro"
},
"$:/core/modules/macros/contrastcolour.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/macros/contrastcolour.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/macros/contrastcolour.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: macro\n\nMacro to choose which of two colours has the highest contrast with a base colour\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\n/*\nInformation about this macro\n*/\n\nexports.name = \"contrastcolour\";\n\nexports.params = [\n\t{name: \"target\"},\n\t{name: \"fallbackTarget\"},\n\t{name: \"colourA\"},\n\t{name: \"colourB\"}\n];\n\n/*\nRun the macro\n*/\nexports.run = function(target,fallbackTarget,colourA,colourB) {\n\tvar rgbTarget = $tw.utils.parseCSSColor(target) || $tw.utils.parseCSSColor(fallbackTarget);\n\tif(!rgbTarget) {\n\t\treturn colourA;\n\t}\n\tvar rgbColourA = $tw.utils.parseCSSColor(colourA),\n\t\trgbColourB = $tw.utils.parseCSSColor(colourB);\n\tif(rgbColourA && !rgbColourB) {\n\t\treturn rgbColourA;\n\t}\n\tif(rgbColourB && !rgbColourA) {\n\t\treturn rgbColourB;\n\t}\n\tif(!rgbColourA && !rgbColourB) {\n\t\t// If neither colour is readable, return a crude inverse of the target\n\t\treturn [255 - rgbTarget[0],255 - rgbTarget[1],255 - rgbTarget[2],rgbTarget[3]];\n\t}\n\t// Colour brightness formula derived from http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/WD-AERT/#color-contrast\n\tvar brightnessTarget = rgbTarget[0] * 0.299 + rgbTarget[1] * 0.587 + rgbTarget[2] * 0.114,\n\t\tbrightnessA = rgbColourA[0] * 0.299 + rgbColourA[1] * 0.587 + rgbColourA[2] * 0.114,\n\t\tbrightnessB = rgbColourB[0] * 0.299 + rgbColourB[1] * 0.587 + rgbColourB[2] * 0.114;\n\treturn Math.abs(brightnessTarget - brightnessA) > Math.abs(brightnessTarget - brightnessB) ? colourA : colourB;\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "macro"
},
"$:/core/modules/macros/csvtiddlers.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/macros/csvtiddlers.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/macros/csvtiddlers.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: macro\n\nMacro to output tiddlers matching a filter to CSV\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\n/*\nInformation about this macro\n*/\n\nexports.name = \"csvtiddlers\";\n\nexports.params = [\n\t{name: \"filter\"},\n\t{name: \"format\"},\n];\n\n/*\nRun the macro\n*/\nexports.run = function(filter,format) {\n\tvar self = this,\n\t\ttiddlers = this.wiki.filterTiddlers(filter),\n\t\ttiddler,\n\t\tfields = [],\n\t\tt,f;\n\t// Collect all the fields\n\tfor(t=0;t<tiddlers.length; t++) {\n\t\ttiddler = this.wiki.getTiddler(tiddlers[t]);\n\t\tfor(f in tiddler.fields) {\n\t\t\tif(fields.indexOf(f) === -1) {\n\t\t\t\tfields.push(f);\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t}\n\t}\n\t// Sort the fields and bring the standard ones to the front\n\tfields.sort();\n\t\"title text modified modifier created creator\".split(\" \").reverse().forEach(function(value,index) {\n\t\tvar p = fields.indexOf(value);\n\t\tif(p !== -1) {\n\t\t\tfields.splice(p,1);\n\t\t\tfields.unshift(value)\n\t\t}\n\t});\n\t// Output the column headings\n\tvar output = [], row = [];\n\tfields.forEach(function(value) {\n\t\trow.push(quoteAndEscape(value))\n\t});\n\toutput.push(row.join(\",\"));\n\t// Output each tiddler\n\tfor(var t=0;t<tiddlers.length; t++) {\n\t\trow = [];\n\t\ttiddler = this.wiki.getTiddler(tiddlers[t]);\n\t\t\tfor(f=0; f<fields.length; f++) {\n\t\t\t\trow.push(quoteAndEscape(tiddler ? tiddler.getFieldString(fields[f]) || \"\" : \"\"));\n\t\t\t}\n\t\toutput.push(row.join(\",\"));\n\t}\n\treturn output.join(\"\\n\");\n};\n\nfunction quoteAndEscape(value) {\n\treturn \"\\\"\" + value.replace(/\"/mg,\"\\\"\\\"\") + \"\\\"\";\n}\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "macro"
},
"$:/core/modules/macros/displayshortcuts.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/macros/displayshortcuts.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/macros/displayshortcuts.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: macro\n\nMacro to display a list of keyboard shortcuts in human readable form. Notably, it resolves named shortcuts like `((bold))` to the underlying keystrokes.\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\n/*\nInformation about this macro\n*/\n\nexports.name = \"displayshortcuts\";\n\nexports.params = [\n\t{name: \"shortcuts\"},\n\t{name: \"prefix\"},\n\t{name: \"separator\"},\n\t{name: \"suffix\"}\n];\n\n/*\nRun the macro\n*/\nexports.run = function(shortcuts,prefix,separator,suffix) {\n\tvar shortcutArray = $tw.keyboardManager.getPrintableShortcuts($tw.keyboardManager.parseKeyDescriptors(shortcuts,{\n\t\twiki: this.wiki\n\t}));\n\tif(shortcutArray.length > 0) {\n\t\tshortcutArray.sort(function(a,b) {\n\t\t return a.toLowerCase().localeCompare(b.toLowerCase());\n\t\t})\n\t\treturn prefix + shortcutArray.join(separator) + suffix;\n\t} else {\n\t\treturn \"\";\n\t}\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "macro"
},
"$:/core/modules/macros/dumpvariables.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/macros/dumpvariables.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/macros/dumpvariables.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: macro\n\nMacro to dump all active variable values\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\n/*\nInformation about this macro\n*/\n\nexports.name = \"dumpvariables\";\n\nexports.params = [\n];\n\n/*\nRun the macro\n*/\nexports.run = function() {\n\tvar output = [\"|!Variable |!Value |\"],\n\t\tvariables = [], variable;\n\tfor(variable in this.variables) {\n\t\tvariables.push(variable);\n\t}\n\tvariables.sort();\n\tfor(var index=0; index<variables.length; index++) {\n\t\tvar variable = variables[index];\n\t\toutput.push(\"|\" + variable + \" |<input size=50 value=<<\" + variable + \">>/> |\")\n\t}\n\treturn output.join(\"\\n\");\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "macro"
},
"$:/core/modules/macros/jsontiddler.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/macros/jsontiddler.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/macros/jsontiddler.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: macro\n\nMacro to output a single tiddler to JSON\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\n/*\nInformation about this macro\n*/\n\nexports.name = \"jsontiddler\";\n\nexports.params = [\n\t{name: \"title\"}\n];\n\n/*\nRun the macro\n*/\nexports.run = function(title) {\n\ttitle = title || this.getVariable(\"currentTiddler\");\n\tvar tiddler = !!title && this.wiki.getTiddler(title),\n\t\tfields = new Object();\n\tif(tiddler) {\n\t\tfor(var field in tiddler.fields) {\n\t\t\tfields[field] = tiddler.getFieldString(field);\n\t\t}\n\t}\n\treturn JSON.stringify(fields,null,$tw.config.preferences.jsonSpaces);\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "macro"
},
"$:/core/modules/macros/jsontiddlers.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/macros/jsontiddlers.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/macros/jsontiddlers.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: macro\n\nMacro to output tiddlers matching a filter to JSON\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\n/*\nInformation about this macro\n*/\n\nexports.name = \"jsontiddlers\";\n\nexports.params = [\n\t{name: \"filter\"}\n];\n\n/*\nRun the macro\n*/\nexports.run = function(filter) {\n\treturn this.wiki.getTiddlersAsJson(filter);\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "macro"
},
"$:/core/modules/macros/makedatauri.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/macros/makedatauri.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/macros/makedatauri.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: macro\n\nMacro to convert a string of text to a data URI\n\n<<makedatauri text:\"Text to be converted\" type:\"text/vnd.tiddlywiki\">>\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\n/*\nInformation about this macro\n*/\n\nexports.name = \"makedatauri\";\n\nexports.params = [\n\t{name: \"text\"},\n\t{name: \"type\"}\n];\n\n/*\nRun the macro\n*/\nexports.run = function(text,type) {\n\treturn $tw.utils.makeDataUri(text,type);\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "macro"
},
"$:/core/modules/macros/now.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/macros/now.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/macros/now.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: macro\n\nMacro to return a formatted version of the current time\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\n/*\nInformation about this macro\n*/\n\nexports.name = \"now\";\n\nexports.params = [\n\t{name: \"format\"}\n];\n\n/*\nRun the macro\n*/\nexports.run = function(format) {\n\treturn $tw.utils.formatDateString(new Date(),format || \"0hh:0mm, DDth MMM YYYY\");\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "macro"
},
"$:/core/modules/macros/qualify.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/macros/qualify.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/macros/qualify.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: macro\n\nMacro to qualify a state tiddler title according\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\n/*\nInformation about this macro\n*/\n\nexports.name = \"qualify\";\n\nexports.params = [\n\t{name: \"title\"}\n];\n\n/*\nRun the macro\n*/\nexports.run = function(title) {\n\treturn title + \"-\" + this.getStateQualifier();\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "macro"
},
"$:/core/modules/macros/resolvepath.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/macros/resolvepath.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/macros/resolvepath.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: macro\n\nResolves a relative path for an absolute rootpath.\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nexports.name = \"resolvepath\";\n\nexports.params = [\n\t{name: \"source\"},\n\t{name: \"root\"}\n];\n\n/*\nRun the macro\n*/\nexports.run = function(source, root) {\n\treturn $tw.utils.resolvePath(source, root);\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "macro"
},
"$:/core/modules/macros/version.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/macros/version.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/macros/version.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: macro\n\nMacro to return the TiddlyWiki core version number\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\n/*\nInformation about this macro\n*/\n\nexports.name = \"version\";\n\nexports.params = [];\n\n/*\nRun the macro\n*/\nexports.run = function() {\n\treturn $tw.version;\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "macro"
},
"$:/core/modules/parsers/audioparser.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/parsers/audioparser.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/parsers/audioparser.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: parser\n\nThe audio parser parses an audio tiddler into an embeddable HTML element\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nvar AudioParser = function(type,text,options) {\n\tvar element = {\n\t\t\ttype: \"element\",\n\t\t\ttag: \"audio\",\n\t\t\tattributes: {\n\t\t\t\tcontrols: {type: \"string\", value: \"controls\"}\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t},\n\t\tsrc;\n\tif(options._canonical_uri) {\n\t\telement.attributes.src = {type: \"string\", value: options._canonical_uri};\n\t} else if(text) {\n\t\telement.attributes.src = {type: \"string\", value: \"data:\" + type + \";base64,\" + text};\n\t}\n\tthis.tree = [element];\n};\n\nexports[\"audio/ogg\"] = AudioParser;\nexports[\"audio/mpeg\"] = AudioParser;\nexports[\"audio/mp3\"] = AudioParser;\nexports[\"audio/mp4\"] = AudioParser;\n\n})();\n\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "parser"
},
"$:/core/modules/parsers/binaryparser.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/parsers/binaryparser.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/parsers/binaryparser.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: parser\n\nThe video parser parses a video tiddler into an embeddable HTML element\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nvar BINARY_WARNING_MESSAGE = \"$:/core/ui/BinaryWarning\";\n\nvar BinaryParser = function(type,text,options) {\n\tthis.tree = [{\n\t\ttype: \"transclude\",\n\t\tattributes: {\n\t\t\ttiddler: {type: \"string\", value: BINARY_WARNING_MESSAGE}\n\t\t}\n\t}];\n};\n\nexports[\"application/octet-stream\"] = BinaryParser;\n\n})();\n\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "parser"
},
"$:/core/modules/parsers/csvparser.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/parsers/csvparser.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/parsers/csvparser.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: parser\n\nThe CSV text parser processes CSV files into a table wrapped in a scrollable widget\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nvar CsvParser = function(type,text,options) {\n\t// Table framework\n\tthis.tree = [{\n\t\t\"type\": \"scrollable\", \"children\": [{\n\t\t\t\"type\": \"element\", \"tag\": \"table\", \"children\": [{\n\t\t\t\t\"type\": \"element\", \"tag\": \"tbody\", \"children\": []\n\t\t\t}], \"attributes\": {\n\t\t\t\t\"class\": {\"type\": \"string\", \"value\": \"tc-csv-table\"}\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t}]\n\t}];\n\t// Split the text into lines\n\tvar lines = text.split(/\\r?\\n/mg),\n\t\ttag = \"th\";\n\tfor(var line=0; line<lines.length; line++) {\n\t\tvar lineText = lines[line];\n\t\tif(lineText) {\n\t\t\tvar row = {\n\t\t\t\t\t\"type\": \"element\", \"tag\": \"tr\", \"children\": []\n\t\t\t\t};\n\t\t\tvar columns = lineText.split(\",\");\n\t\t\tfor(var column=0; column<columns.length; column++) {\n\t\t\t\trow.children.push({\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\"type\": \"element\", \"tag\": tag, \"children\": [{\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\"type\": \"text\",\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\"text\": columns[column]\n\t\t\t\t\t\t}]\n\t\t\t\t\t});\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t\ttag = \"td\";\n\t\t\tthis.tree[0].children[0].children[0].children.push(row);\n\t\t}\n\t}\n};\n\nexports[\"text/csv\"] = CsvParser;\n\n})();\n\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "parser"
},
"$:/core/modules/parsers/htmlparser.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/parsers/htmlparser.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/parsers/htmlparser.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: parser\n\nThe HTML parser displays text as raw HTML\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nvar HtmlParser = function(type,text,options) {\n\tvar src;\n\tif(options._canonical_uri) {\n\t\tsrc = options._canonical_uri;\n\t} else if(text) {\n\t\tsrc = \"data:text/html;charset=utf-8,\" + encodeURIComponent(text);\n\t}\n\tthis.tree = [{\n\t\ttype: \"element\",\n\t\ttag: \"iframe\",\n\t\tattributes: {\n\t\t\tsrc: {type: \"string\", value: src},\n\t\t\tsandbox: {type: \"string\", value: \"\"}\n\t\t}\n\t}];\n};\n\nexports[\"text/html\"] = HtmlParser;\n\n})();\n\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "parser"
},
"$:/core/modules/parsers/imageparser.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/parsers/imageparser.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/parsers/imageparser.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: parser\n\nThe image parser parses an image into an embeddable HTML element\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nvar ImageParser = function(type,text,options) {\n\tvar element = {\n\t\t\ttype: \"element\",\n\t\t\ttag: \"img\",\n\t\t\tattributes: {}\n\t\t};\n\tif(options._canonical_uri) {\n\t\telement.attributes.src = {type: \"string\", value: options._canonical_uri};\n\t} else if(text) {\n\t\tif(type === \"image/svg+xml\" || type === \".svg\") {\n\t\t\telement.attributes.src = {type: \"string\", value: \"data:image/svg+xml,\" + encodeURIComponent(text)};\n\t\t} else {\n\t\t\telement.attributes.src = {type: \"string\", value: \"data:\" + type + \";base64,\" + text};\n\t\t}\n\t}\n\tthis.tree = [element];\n};\n\nexports[\"image/svg+xml\"] = ImageParser;\nexports[\"image/jpg\"] = ImageParser;\nexports[\"image/jpeg\"] = ImageParser;\nexports[\"image/png\"] = ImageParser;\nexports[\"image/gif\"] = ImageParser;\nexports[\"image/webp\"] = ImageParser;\nexports[\"image/heic\"] = ImageParser;\nexports[\"image/heif\"] = ImageParser;\nexports[\"image/x-icon\"] = ImageParser;\n\n})();\n\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "parser"
},
"$:/core/modules/utils/parseutils.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/utils/parseutils.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/utils/parseutils.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: utils\n\nUtility functions concerned with parsing text into tokens.\n\nMost functions have the following pattern:\n\n* The parameters are:\n** `source`: the source string being parsed\n** `pos`: the current parse position within the string\n** Any further parameters are used to identify the token that is being parsed\n* The return value is:\n** null if the token was not found at the specified position\n** an object representing the token with the following standard fields:\n*** `type`: string indicating the type of the token\n*** `start`: start position of the token in the source string\n*** `end`: end position of the token in the source string\n*** Any further fields required to describe the token\n\nThe exception is `skipWhiteSpace`, which just returns the position after the whitespace.\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\n/*\nLook for a whitespace token. Returns null if not found, otherwise returns {type: \"whitespace\", start:, end:,}\n*/\nexports.parseWhiteSpace = function(source,pos) {\n\tvar p = pos,c;\n\twhile(true) {\n\t\tc = source.charAt(p);\n\t\tif((c === \" \") || (c === \"\\f\") || (c === \"\\n\") || (c === \"\\r\") || (c === \"\\t\") || (c === \"\\v\") || (c === \"\\u00a0\")) { // Ignores some obscure unicode spaces\n\t\t\tp++;\n\t\t} else {\n\t\t\tbreak;\n\t\t}\n\t}\n\tif(p === pos) {\n\t\treturn null;\n\t} else {\n\t\treturn {\n\t\t\ttype: \"whitespace\",\n\t\t\tstart: pos,\n\t\t\tend: p\n\t\t}\n\t}\n};\n\n/*\nConvenience wrapper for parseWhiteSpace. Returns the position after the whitespace\n*/\nexports.skipWhiteSpace = function(source,pos) {\n\tvar c;\n\twhile(true) {\n\t\tc = source.charAt(pos);\n\t\tif((c === \" \") || (c === \"\\f\") || (c === \"\\n\") || (c === \"\\r\") || (c === \"\\t\") || (c === \"\\v\") || (c === \"\\u00a0\")) { // Ignores some obscure unicode spaces\n\t\t\tpos++;\n\t\t} else {\n\t\t\treturn pos;\n\t\t}\n\t}\n};\n\n/*\nLook for a given string token. Returns null if not found, otherwise returns {type: \"token\", value:, start:, end:,}\n*/\nexports.parseTokenString = function(source,pos,token) {\n\tvar match = source.indexOf(token,pos) === pos;\n\tif(match) {\n\t\treturn {\n\t\t\ttype: \"token\",\n\t\t\tvalue: token,\n\t\t\tstart: pos,\n\t\t\tend: pos + token.length\n\t\t};\n\t}\n\treturn null;\n};\n\n/*\nLook for a token matching a regex. Returns null if not found, otherwise returns {type: \"regexp\", match:, start:, end:,}\n*/\nexports.parseTokenRegExp = function(source,pos,reToken) {\n\tvar node = {\n\t\ttype: \"regexp\",\n\t\tstart: pos\n\t};\n\treToken.lastIndex = pos;\n\tnode.match = reToken.exec(source);\n\tif(node.match && node.match.index === pos) {\n\t\tnode.end = pos + node.match[0].length;\n\t\treturn node;\n\t} else {\n\t\treturn null;\n\t}\n};\n\n/*\nLook for a string literal. Returns null if not found, otherwise returns {type: \"string\", value:, start:, end:,}\n*/\nexports.parseStringLiteral = function(source,pos) {\n\tvar node = {\n\t\ttype: \"string\",\n\t\tstart: pos\n\t};\n\tvar reString = /(?:\"\"\"([\\s\\S]*?)\"\"\"|\"([^\"]*)\")|(?:'([^']*)')/g;\n\treString.lastIndex = pos;\n\tvar match = reString.exec(source);\n\tif(match && match.index === pos) {\n\t\tnode.value = match[1] !== undefined ? match[1] :(\n\t\t\tmatch[2] !== undefined ? match[2] : match[3] \n\t\t\t\t\t);\n\t\tnode.end = pos + match[0].length;\n\t\treturn node;\n\t} else {\n\t\treturn null;\n\t}\n};\n\n/*\nLook for a macro invocation parameter. Returns null if not found, or {type: \"macro-parameter\", name:, value:, start:, end:}\n*/\nexports.parseMacroParameter = function(source,pos) {\n\tvar node = {\n\t\ttype: \"macro-parameter\",\n\t\tstart: pos\n\t};\n\t// Define our regexp\n\tvar reMacroParameter = /(?:([A-Za-z0-9\\-_]+)\\s*:)?(?:\\s*(?:\"\"\"([\\s\\S]*?)\"\"\"|\"([^\"]*)\"|'([^']*)'|\\[\\[([^\\]]*)\\]\\]|([^\\s>\"'=]+)))/g;\n\t// Skip whitespace\n\tpos = $tw.utils.skipWhiteSpace(source,pos);\n\t// Look for the parameter\n\tvar token = $tw.utils.parseTokenRegExp(source,pos,reMacroParameter);\n\tif(!token) {\n\t\treturn null;\n\t}\n\tpos = token.end;\n\t// Get the parameter details\n\tnode.value = token.match[2] !== undefined ? token.match[2] : (\n\t\t\t\t\ttoken.match[3] !== undefined ? token.match[3] : (\n\t\t\t\t\t\ttoken.match[4] !== undefined ? token.match[4] : (\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\ttoken.match[5] !== undefined ? token.match[5] : (\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\ttoken.match[6] !== undefined ? token.match[6] : (\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\"\"\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t)\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t)\n\t\t\t\t\t\t)\n\t\t\t\t\t)\n\t\t\t\t);\n\tif(token.match[1]) {\n\t\tnode.name = token.match[1];\n\t}\n\t// Update the end position\n\tnode.end = pos;\n\treturn node;\n};\n\n/*\nLook for a macro invocation. Returns null if not found, or {type: \"macrocall\", name:, parameters:, start:, end:}\n*/\nexports.parseMacroInvocation = function(source,pos) {\n\tvar node = {\n\t\ttype: \"macrocall\",\n\t\tstart: pos,\n\t\tparams: []\n\t};\n\t// Define our regexps\n\tvar reMacroName = /([^\\s>\"'=]+)/g;\n\t// Skip whitespace\n\tpos = $tw.utils.skipWhiteSpace(source,pos);\n\t// Look for a double less than sign\n\tvar token = $tw.utils.parseTokenString(source,pos,\"<<\");\n\tif(!token) {\n\t\treturn null;\n\t}\n\tpos = token.end;\n\t// Get the macro name\n\tvar name = $tw.utils.parseTokenRegExp(source,pos,reMacroName);\n\tif(!name) {\n\t\treturn null;\n\t}\n\tnode.name = name.match[1];\n\tpos = name.end;\n\t// Process parameters\n\tvar parameter = $tw.utils.parseMacroParameter(source,pos);\n\twhile(parameter) {\n\t\tnode.params.push(parameter);\n\t\tpos = parameter.end;\n\t\t// Get the next parameter\n\t\tparameter = $tw.utils.parseMacroParameter(source,pos);\n\t}\n\t// Skip whitespace\n\tpos = $tw.utils.skipWhiteSpace(source,pos);\n\t// Look for a double greater than sign\n\ttoken = $tw.utils.parseTokenString(source,pos,\">>\");\n\tif(!token) {\n\t\treturn null;\n\t}\n\tpos = token.end;\n\t// Update the end position\n\tnode.end = pos;\n\treturn node;\n};\n\n/*\nLook for an HTML attribute definition. Returns null if not found, otherwise returns {type: \"attribute\", name:, valueType: \"string|indirect|macro\", value:, start:, end:,}\n*/\nexports.parseAttribute = function(source,pos) {\n\tvar node = {\n\t\tstart: pos\n\t};\n\t// Define our regexps\n\tvar reAttributeName = /([^\\/\\s>\"'=]+)/g,\n\t\treUnquotedAttribute = /([^\\/\\s<>\"'=]+)/g,\n\t\treFilteredValue = /\\{\\{\\{(.+?)\\}\\}\\}/g,\n\t\treIndirectValue = /\\{\\{([^\\}]+)\\}\\}/g;\n\t// Skip whitespace\n\tpos = $tw.utils.skipWhiteSpace(source,pos);\n\t// Get the attribute name\n\tvar name = $tw.utils.parseTokenRegExp(source,pos,reAttributeName);\n\tif(!name) {\n\t\treturn null;\n\t}\n\tnode.name = name.match[1];\n\tpos = name.end;\n\t// Skip whitespace\n\tpos = $tw.utils.skipWhiteSpace(source,pos);\n\t// Look for an equals sign\n\tvar token = $tw.utils.parseTokenString(source,pos,\"=\");\n\tif(token) {\n\t\tpos = token.end;\n\t\t// Skip whitespace\n\t\tpos = $tw.utils.skipWhiteSpace(source,pos);\n\t\t// Look for a string literal\n\t\tvar stringLiteral = $tw.utils.parseStringLiteral(source,pos);\n\t\tif(stringLiteral) {\n\t\t\tpos = stringLiteral.end;\n\t\t\tnode.type = \"string\";\n\t\t\tnode.value = stringLiteral.value;\n\t\t} else {\n\t\t\t// Look for a filtered value\n\t\t\tvar filteredValue = $tw.utils.parseTokenRegExp(source,pos,reFilteredValue);\n\t\t\tif(filteredValue) {\n\t\t\t\tpos = filteredValue.end;\n\t\t\t\tnode.type = \"filtered\";\n\t\t\t\tnode.filter = filteredValue.match[1];\n\t\t\t} else {\n\t\t\t\t// Look for an indirect value\n\t\t\t\tvar indirectValue = $tw.utils.parseTokenRegExp(source,pos,reIndirectValue);\n\t\t\t\tif(indirectValue) {\n\t\t\t\t\tpos = indirectValue.end;\n\t\t\t\t\tnode.type = \"indirect\";\n\t\t\t\t\tnode.textReference = indirectValue.match[1];\n\t\t\t\t} else {\n\t\t\t\t\t// Look for a unquoted value\n\t\t\t\t\tvar unquotedValue = $tw.utils.parseTokenRegExp(source,pos,reUnquotedAttribute);\n\t\t\t\t\tif(unquotedValue) {\n\t\t\t\t\t\tpos = unquotedValue.end;\n\t\t\t\t\t\tnode.type = \"string\";\n\t\t\t\t\t\tnode.value = unquotedValue.match[1];\n\t\t\t\t\t} else {\n\t\t\t\t\t\t// Look for a macro invocation value\n\t\t\t\t\t\tvar macroInvocation = $tw.utils.parseMacroInvocation(source,pos);\n\t\t\t\t\t\tif(macroInvocation) {\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tpos = macroInvocation.end;\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tnode.type = \"macro\";\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tnode.value = macroInvocation;\n\t\t\t\t\t\t} else {\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tnode.type = \"string\";\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tnode.value = \"true\";\n\t\t\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t}\n\t} else {\n\t\tnode.type = \"string\";\n\t\tnode.value = \"true\";\n\t}\n\t// Update the end position\n\tnode.end = pos;\n\treturn node;\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "utils"
},
"$:/core/modules/parsers/pdfparser.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/parsers/pdfparser.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/parsers/pdfparser.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: parser\n\nThe PDF parser embeds a PDF viewer\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nvar ImageParser = function(type,text,options) {\n\tvar element = {\n\t\t\ttype: \"element\",\n\t\t\ttag: \"embed\",\n\t\t\tattributes: {}\n\t\t},\n\t\tsrc;\n\tif(options._canonical_uri) {\n\t\telement.attributes.src = {type: \"string\", value: options._canonical_uri};\n\t} else if(text) {\n\t\telement.attributes.src = {type: \"string\", value: \"data:application/pdf;base64,\" + text};\n\t}\n\tthis.tree = [element];\n};\n\nexports[\"application/pdf\"] = ImageParser;\n\n})();\n\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "parser"
},
"$:/core/modules/parsers/textparser.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/parsers/textparser.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/parsers/textparser.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: parser\n\nThe plain text parser processes blocks of source text into a degenerate parse tree consisting of a single text node\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nvar TextParser = function(type,text,options) {\n\tthis.tree = [{\n\t\ttype: \"codeblock\",\n\t\tattributes: {\n\t\t\tcode: {type: \"string\", value: text},\n\t\t\tlanguage: {type: \"string\", value: type}\n\t\t}\n\t}];\n};\n\nexports[\"text/plain\"] = TextParser;\nexports[\"text/x-tiddlywiki\"] = TextParser;\nexports[\"application/javascript\"] = TextParser;\nexports[\"application/json\"] = TextParser;\nexports[\"text/css\"] = TextParser;\nexports[\"application/x-tiddler-dictionary\"] = TextParser;\n\n})();\n\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "parser"
},
"$:/core/modules/parsers/videoparser.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/parsers/videoparser.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/parsers/videoparser.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: parser\n\nThe video parser parses a video tiddler into an embeddable HTML element\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nvar VideoParser = function(type,text,options) {\n\tvar element = {\n\t\t\ttype: \"element\",\n\t\t\ttag: \"video\",\n\t\t\tattributes: {\n\t\t\t\tcontrols: {type: \"string\", value: \"controls\"}\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t},\n\t\tsrc;\n\tif(options._canonical_uri) {\n\t\telement.attributes.src = {type: \"string\", value: options._canonical_uri};\n\t} else if(text) {\n\t\telement.attributes.src = {type: \"string\", value: \"data:\" + type + \";base64,\" + text};\n\t}\n\tthis.tree = [element];\n};\n\nexports[\"video/mp4\"] = VideoParser;\nexports[\"video/quicktime\"] = VideoParser;\n\n})();\n\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "parser"
},
"$:/core/modules/parsers/wikiparser/rules/codeblock.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/parsers/wikiparser/rules/codeblock.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/parsers/wikiparser/rules/codeblock.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: wikirule\n\nWiki text rule for code blocks. For example:\n\n```\n\t```\n\tThis text will not be //wikified//\n\t```\n```\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nexports.name = \"codeblock\";\nexports.types = {block: true};\n\nexports.init = function(parser) {\n\tthis.parser = parser;\n\t// Regexp to match and get language if defined\n\tthis.matchRegExp = /```([\\w-]*)\\r?\\n/mg;\n};\n\nexports.parse = function() {\n\tvar reEnd = /(\\r?\\n```$)/mg;\n\t// Move past the match\n\tthis.parser.pos = this.matchRegExp.lastIndex;\n\n\t// Look for the end of the block\n\treEnd.lastIndex = this.parser.pos;\n\tvar match = reEnd.exec(this.parser.source),\n\t\ttext;\n\t// Process the block\n\tif(match) {\n\t\ttext = this.parser.source.substring(this.parser.pos,match.index);\n\t\tthis.parser.pos = match.index + match[0].length;\n\t} else {\n\t\ttext = this.parser.source.substr(this.parser.pos);\n\t\tthis.parser.pos = this.parser.sourceLength;\n\t}\n\t// Return the $codeblock widget\n\treturn [{\n\t\t\ttype: \"codeblock\",\n\t\t\tattributes: {\n\t\t\t\t\tcode: {type: \"string\", value: text},\n\t\t\t\t\tlanguage: {type: \"string\", value: this.match[1]}\n\t\t\t}\n\t}];\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "wikirule"
},
"$:/core/modules/parsers/wikiparser/rules/codeinline.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/parsers/wikiparser/rules/codeinline.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/parsers/wikiparser/rules/codeinline.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: wikirule\n\nWiki text inline rule for code runs. For example:\n\n```\n\tThis is a `code run`.\n\tThis is another ``code run``\n```\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nexports.name = \"codeinline\";\nexports.types = {inline: true};\n\nexports.init = function(parser) {\n\tthis.parser = parser;\n\t// Regexp to match\n\tthis.matchRegExp = /(``?)/mg;\n};\n\nexports.parse = function() {\n\t// Move past the match\n\tthis.parser.pos = this.matchRegExp.lastIndex;\n\tvar reEnd = new RegExp(this.match[1], \"mg\");\n\t// Look for the end marker\n\treEnd.lastIndex = this.parser.pos;\n\tvar match = reEnd.exec(this.parser.source),\n\t\ttext;\n\t// Process the text\n\tif(match) {\n\t\ttext = this.parser.source.substring(this.parser.pos,match.index);\n\t\tthis.parser.pos = match.index + match[0].length;\n\t} else {\n\t\ttext = this.parser.source.substr(this.parser.pos);\n\t\tthis.parser.pos = this.parser.sourceLength;\n\t}\n\treturn [{\n\t\ttype: \"element\",\n\t\ttag: \"code\",\n\t\tchildren: [{\n\t\t\ttype: \"text\",\n\t\t\ttext: text\n\t\t}]\n\t}];\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "wikirule"
},
"$:/core/modules/parsers/wikiparser/rules/commentblock.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/parsers/wikiparser/rules/commentblock.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/parsers/wikiparser/rules/commentblock.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: wikirule\n\nWiki text block rule for HTML comments. For example:\n\n```\n<!-- This is a comment -->\n```\n\nNote that the syntax for comments is simplified to an opening \"<!--\" sequence and a closing \"-->\" sequence -- HTML itself implements a more complex format (see http://ostermiller.org/findhtmlcomment.html)\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nexports.name = \"commentblock\";\nexports.types = {block: true};\n\nexports.init = function(parser) {\n\tthis.parser = parser;\n\tthis.matchRegExp = /<!--/mg;\n\tthis.endMatchRegExp = /-->/mg;\n};\n\nexports.findNextMatch = function(startPos) {\n\tthis.matchRegExp.lastIndex = startPos;\n\tthis.match = this.matchRegExp.exec(this.parser.source);\n\tif(this.match) {\n\t\tthis.endMatchRegExp.lastIndex = startPos + this.match[0].length;\n\t\tthis.endMatch = this.endMatchRegExp.exec(this.parser.source);\n\t\tif(this.endMatch) {\n\t\t\treturn this.match.index;\n\t\t}\n\t}\n\treturn undefined;\n};\n\nexports.parse = function() {\n\t// Move past the match\n\tthis.parser.pos = this.endMatchRegExp.lastIndex;\n\t// Don't return any elements\n\treturn [];\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "wikirule"
},
"$:/core/modules/parsers/wikiparser/rules/commentinline.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/parsers/wikiparser/rules/commentinline.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/parsers/wikiparser/rules/commentinline.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: wikirule\n\nWiki text inline rule for HTML comments. For example:\n\n```\n<!-- This is a comment -->\n```\n\nNote that the syntax for comments is simplified to an opening \"<!--\" sequence and a closing \"-->\" sequence -- HTML itself implements a more complex format (see http://ostermiller.org/findhtmlcomment.html)\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nexports.name = \"commentinline\";\nexports.types = {inline: true};\n\nexports.init = function(parser) {\n\tthis.parser = parser;\n\tthis.matchRegExp = /<!--/mg;\n\tthis.endMatchRegExp = /-->/mg;\n};\n\nexports.findNextMatch = function(startPos) {\n\tthis.matchRegExp.lastIndex = startPos;\n\tthis.match = this.matchRegExp.exec(this.parser.source);\n\tif(this.match) {\n\t\tthis.endMatchRegExp.lastIndex = startPos + this.match[0].length;\n\t\tthis.endMatch = this.endMatchRegExp.exec(this.parser.source);\n\t\tif(this.endMatch) {\n\t\t\treturn this.match.index;\n\t\t}\n\t}\n\treturn undefined;\n};\n\nexports.parse = function() {\n\t// Move past the match\n\tthis.parser.pos = this.endMatchRegExp.lastIndex;\n\t// Don't return any elements\n\treturn [];\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "wikirule"
},
"$:/core/modules/parsers/wikiparser/rules/dash.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/parsers/wikiparser/rules/dash.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/parsers/wikiparser/rules/dash.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: wikirule\n\nWiki text inline rule for dashes. For example:\n\n```\nThis is an en-dash: --\n\nThis is an em-dash: ---\n```\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nexports.name = \"dash\";\nexports.types = {inline: true};\n\nexports.init = function(parser) {\n\tthis.parser = parser;\n\t// Regexp to match\n\tthis.matchRegExp = /-{2,3}(?!-)/mg;\n};\n\nexports.parse = function() {\n\t// Move past the match\n\tthis.parser.pos = this.matchRegExp.lastIndex;\n\tvar dash = this.match[0].length === 2 ? \"–\" : \"—\";\n\treturn [{\n\t\ttype: \"entity\",\n\t\tentity: dash\n\t}];\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "wikirule"
},
"$:/core/modules/parsers/wikiparser/rules/emphasis/bold.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/parsers/wikiparser/rules/emphasis/bold.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/parsers/wikiparser/rules/emphasis/bold.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: wikirule\n\nWiki text inline rule for emphasis - bold. For example:\n\n```\n\tThis is ''bold'' text\n```\n\nThis wikiparser can be modified using the rules eg:\n\n```\n\\rules except bold \n\\rules only bold \n```\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nexports.name = \"bold\";\nexports.types = {inline: true};\n\nexports.init = function(parser) {\n\tthis.parser = parser;\n\t// Regexp to match\n\tthis.matchRegExp = /''/mg;\n};\n\nexports.parse = function() {\n\t// Move past the match\n\tthis.parser.pos = this.matchRegExp.lastIndex;\n\n\t// Parse the run including the terminator\n\tvar tree = this.parser.parseInlineRun(/''/mg,{eatTerminator: true});\n\n\t// Return the classed span\n\treturn [{\n\t\ttype: \"element\",\n\t\ttag: \"strong\",\n\t\tchildren: tree\n\t}];\n};\n\n})();",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "wikirule"
},
"$:/core/modules/parsers/wikiparser/rules/emphasis/italic.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/parsers/wikiparser/rules/emphasis/italic.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/parsers/wikiparser/rules/emphasis/italic.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: wikirule\n\nWiki text inline rule for emphasis - italic. For example:\n\n```\n\tThis is //italic// text\n```\n\nThis wikiparser can be modified using the rules eg:\n\n```\n\\rules except italic\n\\rules only italic\n```\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nexports.name = \"italic\";\nexports.types = {inline: true};\n\nexports.init = function(parser) {\n\tthis.parser = parser;\n\t// Regexp to match\n\tthis.matchRegExp = /\\/\\//mg;\n};\n\nexports.parse = function() {\n\t// Move past the match\n\tthis.parser.pos = this.matchRegExp.lastIndex;\n\n\t// Parse the run including the terminator\n\tvar tree = this.parser.parseInlineRun(/\\/\\//mg,{eatTerminator: true});\n\n\t// Return the classed span\n\treturn [{\n\t\ttype: \"element\",\n\t\ttag: \"em\",\n\t\tchildren: tree\n\t}];\n};\n\n})();",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "wikirule"
},
"$:/core/modules/parsers/wikiparser/rules/emphasis/strikethrough.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/parsers/wikiparser/rules/emphasis/strikethrough.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/parsers/wikiparser/rules/emphasis/strikethrough.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: wikirule\n\nWiki text inline rule for emphasis - strikethrough. For example:\n\n```\n\tThis is ~~strikethrough~~ text\n```\n\nThis wikiparser can be modified using the rules eg:\n\n```\n\\rules except strikethrough \n\\rules only strikethrough \n```\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nexports.name = \"strikethrough\";\nexports.types = {inline: true};\n\nexports.init = function(parser) {\n\tthis.parser = parser;\n\t// Regexp to match\n\tthis.matchRegExp = /~~/mg;\n};\n\nexports.parse = function() {\n\t// Move past the match\n\tthis.parser.pos = this.matchRegExp.lastIndex;\n\n\t// Parse the run including the terminator\n\tvar tree = this.parser.parseInlineRun(/~~/mg,{eatTerminator: true});\n\n\t// Return the classed span\n\treturn [{\n\t\ttype: \"element\",\n\t\ttag: \"strike\",\n\t\tchildren: tree\n\t}];\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "wikirule"
},
"$:/core/modules/parsers/wikiparser/rules/emphasis/subscript.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/parsers/wikiparser/rules/emphasis/subscript.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/parsers/wikiparser/rules/emphasis/subscript.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: wikirule\n\nWiki text inline rule for emphasis - subscript. For example:\n\n```\n\tThis is ,,subscript,, text\n```\n\nThis wikiparser can be modified using the rules eg:\n\n```\n\\rules except subscript \n\\rules only subscript \n```\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nexports.name = \"subscript\";\nexports.types = {inline: true};\n\nexports.init = function(parser) {\n\tthis.parser = parser;\n\t// Regexp to match\n\tthis.matchRegExp = /,,/mg;\n};\n\nexports.parse = function() {\n\t// Move past the match\n\tthis.parser.pos = this.matchRegExp.lastIndex;\n\n\t// Parse the run including the terminator\n\tvar tree = this.parser.parseInlineRun(/,,/mg,{eatTerminator: true});\n\n\t// Return the classed span\n\treturn [{\n\t\ttype: \"element\",\n\t\ttag: \"sub\",\n\t\tchildren: tree\n\t}];\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "wikirule"
},
"$:/core/modules/parsers/wikiparser/rules/emphasis/superscript.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/parsers/wikiparser/rules/emphasis/superscript.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/parsers/wikiparser/rules/emphasis/superscript.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: wikirule\n\nWiki text inline rule for emphasis - superscript. For example:\n\n```\n\tThis is ^^superscript^^ text\n```\n\nThis wikiparser can be modified using the rules eg:\n\n```\n\\rules except superscript \n\\rules only superscript \n```\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nexports.name = \"superscript\";\nexports.types = {inline: true};\n\nexports.init = function(parser) {\n\tthis.parser = parser;\n\t// Regexp to match\n\tthis.matchRegExp = /\\^\\^/mg;\n};\n\nexports.parse = function() {\n\t// Move past the match\n\tthis.parser.pos = this.matchRegExp.lastIndex;\n\n\t// Parse the run including the terminator\n\tvar tree = this.parser.parseInlineRun(/\\^\\^/mg,{eatTerminator: true});\n\n\t// Return the classed span\n\treturn [{\n\t\ttype: \"element\",\n\t\ttag: \"sup\",\n\t\tchildren: tree\n\t}];\n};\n\n})();",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "wikirule"
},
"$:/core/modules/parsers/wikiparser/rules/emphasis/underscore.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/parsers/wikiparser/rules/emphasis/underscore.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/parsers/wikiparser/rules/emphasis/underscore.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: wikirule\n\nWiki text inline rule for emphasis - underscore. For example:\n\n```\n\tThis is __underscore__ text\n```\n\nThis wikiparser can be modified using the rules eg:\n\n```\n\\rules except underscore \n\\rules only underscore\n```\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nexports.name = \"underscore\";\nexports.types = {inline: true};\n\nexports.init = function(parser) {\n\tthis.parser = parser;\n\t// Regexp to match\n\tthis.matchRegExp = /__/mg;\n};\n\nexports.parse = function() {\n\t// Move past the match\n\tthis.parser.pos = this.matchRegExp.lastIndex;\n\n\t// Parse the run including the terminator\n\tvar tree = this.parser.parseInlineRun(/__/mg,{eatTerminator: true});\n\n\t// Return the classed span\n\treturn [{\n\t\ttype: \"element\",\n\t\ttag: \"u\",\n\t\tchildren: tree\n\t}];\n};\n\n})();",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "wikirule"
},
"$:/core/modules/parsers/wikiparser/rules/entity.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/parsers/wikiparser/rules/entity.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/parsers/wikiparser/rules/entity.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: wikirule\n\nWiki text inline rule for HTML entities. For example:\n\n```\n\tThis is a copyright symbol: ©\n```\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nexports.name = \"entity\";\nexports.types = {inline: true};\n\nexports.init = function(parser) {\n\tthis.parser = parser;\n\t// Regexp to match\n\tthis.matchRegExp = /(&#?[a-zA-Z0-9]{2,8};)/mg;\n};\n\n/*\nParse the most recent match\n*/\nexports.parse = function() {\n\t// Get all the details of the match\n\tvar entityString = this.match[1];\n\t// Move past the macro call\n\tthis.parser.pos = this.matchRegExp.lastIndex;\n\t// Return the entity\n\treturn [{type: \"entity\", entity: this.match[0]}];\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "wikirule"
},
"$:/core/modules/parsers/wikiparser/rules/extlink.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/parsers/wikiparser/rules/extlink.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/parsers/wikiparser/rules/extlink.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: wikirule\n\nWiki text inline rule for external links. For example:\n\n```\nAn external link: https://www.tiddlywiki.com/\n\nA suppressed external link: ~http://www.tiddlyspace.com/\n```\n\nExternal links can be suppressed by preceding them with `~`.\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nexports.name = \"extlink\";\nexports.types = {inline: true};\n\nexports.init = function(parser) {\n\tthis.parser = parser;\n\t// Regexp to match\n\tthis.matchRegExp = /~?(?:file|http|https|mailto|ftp|irc|news|data|skype):[^\\s<>{}\\[\\]`|\"\\\\^]+(?:\\/|\\b)/mg;\n};\n\nexports.parse = function() {\n\t// Move past the match\n\tthis.parser.pos = this.matchRegExp.lastIndex;\n\t// Create the link unless it is suppressed\n\tif(this.match[0].substr(0,1) === \"~\") {\n\t\treturn [{type: \"text\", text: this.match[0].substr(1)}];\n\t} else {\n\t\treturn [{\n\t\t\ttype: \"element\",\n\t\t\ttag: \"a\",\n\t\t\tattributes: {\n\t\t\t\thref: {type: \"string\", value: this.match[0]},\n\t\t\t\t\"class\": {type: \"string\", value: \"tc-tiddlylink-external\"},\n\t\t\t\ttarget: {type: \"string\", value: \"_blank\"},\n\t\t\t\trel: {type: \"string\", value: \"noopener noreferrer\"}\n\t\t\t},\n\t\t\tchildren: [{\n\t\t\t\ttype: \"text\", text: this.match[0]\n\t\t\t}]\n\t\t}];\n\t}\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "wikirule"
},
"$:/core/modules/parsers/wikiparser/rules/filteredtranscludeblock.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/parsers/wikiparser/rules/filteredtranscludeblock.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/parsers/wikiparser/rules/filteredtranscludeblock.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: wikirule\n\nWiki text rule for block-level filtered transclusion. For example:\n\n```\n{{{ [tag[docs]] }}}\n{{{ [tag[docs]] |tooltip}}}\n{{{ [tag[docs]] ||TemplateTitle}}}\n{{{ [tag[docs]] |tooltip||TemplateTitle}}}\n{{{ [tag[docs]] }}width:40;height:50;}.class.class\n```\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nexports.name = \"filteredtranscludeblock\";\nexports.types = {block: true};\n\nexports.init = function(parser) {\n\tthis.parser = parser;\n\t// Regexp to match\n\tthis.matchRegExp = /\\{\\{\\{([^\\|]+?)(?:\\|([^\\|\\{\\}]+))?(?:\\|\\|([^\\|\\{\\}]+))?\\}\\}([^\\}]*)\\}(?:\\.(\\S+))?(?:\\r?\\n|$)/mg;\n};\n\nexports.parse = function() {\n\t// Move past the match\n\tthis.parser.pos = this.matchRegExp.lastIndex;\n\t// Get the match details\n\tvar filter = this.match[1],\n\t\ttooltip = this.match[2],\n\t\ttemplate = $tw.utils.trim(this.match[3]),\n\t\tstyle = this.match[4],\n\t\tclasses = this.match[5];\n\t// Return the list widget\n\tvar node = {\n\t\ttype: \"list\",\n\t\tattributes: {\n\t\t\tfilter: {type: \"string\", value: filter}\n\t\t},\n\t\tisBlock: true\n\t};\n\tif(tooltip) {\n\t\tnode.attributes.tooltip = {type: \"string\", value: tooltip};\n\t}\n\tif(template) {\n\t\tnode.attributes.template = {type: \"string\", value: template};\n\t}\n\tif(style) {\n\t\tnode.attributes.style = {type: \"string\", value: style};\n\t}\n\tif(classes) {\n\t\tnode.attributes.itemClass = {type: \"string\", value: classes.split(\".\").join(\" \")};\n\t}\n\treturn [node];\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "wikirule"
},
"$:/core/modules/parsers/wikiparser/rules/filteredtranscludeinline.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/parsers/wikiparser/rules/filteredtranscludeinline.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/parsers/wikiparser/rules/filteredtranscludeinline.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: wikirule\n\nWiki text rule for inline filtered transclusion. For example:\n\n```\n{{{ [tag[docs]] }}}\n{{{ [tag[docs]] |tooltip}}}\n{{{ [tag[docs]] ||TemplateTitle}}}\n{{{ [tag[docs]] |tooltip||TemplateTitle}}}\n{{{ [tag[docs]] }}width:40;height:50;}.class.class\n```\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nexports.name = \"filteredtranscludeinline\";\nexports.types = {inline: true};\n\nexports.init = function(parser) {\n\tthis.parser = parser;\n\t// Regexp to match\n\tthis.matchRegExp = /\\{\\{\\{([^\\|]+?)(?:\\|([^\\|\\{\\}]+))?(?:\\|\\|([^\\|\\{\\}]+))?\\}\\}([^\\}]*)\\}(?:\\.(\\S+))?/mg;\n};\n\nexports.parse = function() {\n\t// Move past the match\n\tthis.parser.pos = this.matchRegExp.lastIndex;\n\t// Get the match details\n\tvar filter = this.match[1],\n\t\ttooltip = this.match[2],\n\t\ttemplate = $tw.utils.trim(this.match[3]),\n\t\tstyle = this.match[4],\n\t\tclasses = this.match[5];\n\t// Return the list widget\n\tvar node = {\n\t\ttype: \"list\",\n\t\tattributes: {\n\t\t\tfilter: {type: \"string\", value: filter}\n\t\t}\n\t};\n\tif(tooltip) {\n\t\tnode.attributes.tooltip = {type: \"string\", value: tooltip};\n\t}\n\tif(template) {\n\t\tnode.attributes.template = {type: \"string\", value: template};\n\t}\n\tif(style) {\n\t\tnode.attributes.style = {type: \"string\", value: style};\n\t}\n\tif(classes) {\n\t\tnode.attributes.itemClass = {type: \"string\", value: classes.split(\".\").join(\" \")};\n\t}\n\treturn [node];\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "wikirule"
},
"$:/core/modules/parsers/wikiparser/rules/hardlinebreaks.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/parsers/wikiparser/rules/hardlinebreaks.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/parsers/wikiparser/rules/hardlinebreaks.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: wikirule\n\nWiki text inline rule for marking areas with hard line breaks. For example:\n\n```\n\"\"\"\nThis is some text\nThat is set like\nIt is a Poem\nWhen it is\nClearly\nNot\n\"\"\"\n```\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nexports.name = \"hardlinebreaks\";\nexports.types = {inline: true};\n\nexports.init = function(parser) {\n\tthis.parser = parser;\n\t// Regexp to match\n\tthis.matchRegExp = /\"\"\"(?:\\r?\\n)?/mg;\n};\n\nexports.parse = function() {\n\tvar reEnd = /(\"\"\")|(\\r?\\n)/mg,\n\t\ttree = [],\n\t\tmatch;\n\t// Move past the match\n\tthis.parser.pos = this.matchRegExp.lastIndex;\n\tdo {\n\t\t// Parse the run up to the terminator\n\t\ttree.push.apply(tree,this.parser.parseInlineRun(reEnd,{eatTerminator: false}));\n\t\t// Redo the terminator match\n\t\treEnd.lastIndex = this.parser.pos;\n\t\tmatch = reEnd.exec(this.parser.source);\n\t\tif(match) {\n\t\t\tthis.parser.pos = reEnd.lastIndex;\n\t\t\t// Add a line break if the terminator was a line break\n\t\t\tif(match[2]) {\n\t\t\t\ttree.push({type: \"element\", tag: \"br\"});\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t}\n\t} while(match && !match[1]);\n\t// Return the nodes\n\treturn tree;\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "wikirule"
},
"$:/core/modules/parsers/wikiparser/rules/heading.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/parsers/wikiparser/rules/heading.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/parsers/wikiparser/rules/heading.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: wikirule\n\nWiki text block rule for headings\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nexports.name = \"heading\";\nexports.types = {block: true};\n\nexports.init = function(parser) {\n\tthis.parser = parser;\n\t// Regexp to match\n\tthis.matchRegExp = /(!{1,6})/mg;\n};\n\n/*\nParse the most recent match\n*/\nexports.parse = function() {\n\t// Get all the details of the match\n\tvar headingLevel = this.match[1].length;\n\t// Move past the !s\n\tthis.parser.pos = this.matchRegExp.lastIndex;\n\t// Parse any classes, whitespace and then the heading itself\n\tvar classes = this.parser.parseClasses();\n\tthis.parser.skipWhitespace({treatNewlinesAsNonWhitespace: true});\n\tvar tree = this.parser.parseInlineRun(/(\\r?\\n)/mg);\n\t// Return the heading\n\treturn [{\n\t\ttype: \"element\",\n\t\ttag: \"h\" + headingLevel, \n\t\tattributes: {\n\t\t\t\"class\": {type: \"string\", value: classes.join(\" \")}\n\t\t},\n\t\tchildren: tree\n\t}];\n};\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "wikirule"
},
"$:/core/modules/parsers/wikiparser/rules/horizrule.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/parsers/wikiparser/rules/horizrule.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/parsers/wikiparser/rules/horizrule.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: wikirule\n\nWiki text block rule for rules. For example:\n\n```\n---\n```\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nexports.name = \"horizrule\";\nexports.types = {block: true};\n\nexports.init = function(parser) {\n\tthis.parser = parser;\n\t// Regexp to match\n\tthis.matchRegExp = /-{3,}\\r?(?:\\n|$)/mg;\n};\n\nexports.parse = function() {\n\t// Move past the match\n\tthis.parser.pos = this.matchRegExp.lastIndex;\n\treturn [{type: \"element\", tag: \"hr\"}];\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "wikirule"
},
"$:/core/modules/parsers/wikiparser/rules/html.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/parsers/wikiparser/rules/html.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/parsers/wikiparser/rules/html.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: wikirule\n\nWiki rule for HTML elements and widgets. For example:\n\n{{{\n<aside>\nThis is an HTML5 aside element\n</aside>\n\n<$slider target=\"MyTiddler\">\nThis is a widget invocation\n</$slider>\n\n}}}\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nexports.name = \"html\";\nexports.types = {inline: true, block: true};\n\nexports.init = function(parser) {\n\tthis.parser = parser;\n};\n\nexports.findNextMatch = function(startPos) {\n\t// Find the next tag\n\tthis.nextTag = this.findNextTag(this.parser.source,startPos,{\n\t\trequireLineBreak: this.is.block\n\t});\n\treturn this.nextTag ? this.nextTag.start : undefined;\n};\n\n/*\nParse the most recent match\n*/\nexports.parse = function() {\n\t// Retrieve the most recent match so that recursive calls don't overwrite it\n\tvar tag = this.nextTag;\n\tthis.nextTag = null;\n\t// Advance the parser position to past the tag\n\tthis.parser.pos = tag.end;\n\t// Check for an immediately following double linebreak\n\tvar hasLineBreak = !tag.isSelfClosing && !!$tw.utils.parseTokenRegExp(this.parser.source,this.parser.pos,/([^\\S\\n\\r]*\\r?\\n(?:[^\\S\\n\\r]*\\r?\\n|$))/g);\n\t// Set whether we're in block mode\n\ttag.isBlock = this.is.block || hasLineBreak;\n\t// Parse the body if we need to\n\tif(!tag.isSelfClosing && $tw.config.htmlVoidElements.indexOf(tag.tag) === -1) {\n\t\t\tvar reEndString = \"</\" + $tw.utils.escapeRegExp(tag.tag) + \">\",\n\t\t\t\treEnd = new RegExp(\"(\" + reEndString + \")\",\"mg\");\n\t\tif(hasLineBreak) {\n\t\t\ttag.children = this.parser.parseBlocks(reEndString);\n\t\t} else {\n\t\t\ttag.children = this.parser.parseInlineRun(reEnd);\n\t\t}\n\t\treEnd.lastIndex = this.parser.pos;\n\t\tvar endMatch = reEnd.exec(this.parser.source);\n\t\tif(endMatch && endMatch.index === this.parser.pos) {\n\t\t\tthis.parser.pos = endMatch.index + endMatch[0].length;\n\t\t}\n\t}\n\t// Return the tag\n\treturn [tag];\n};\n\n/*\nLook for an HTML tag. Returns null if not found, otherwise returns {type: \"element\", name:, attributes: [], isSelfClosing:, start:, end:,}\n*/\nexports.parseTag = function(source,pos,options) {\n\toptions = options || {};\n\tvar token,\n\t\tnode = {\n\t\t\ttype: \"element\",\n\t\t\tstart: pos,\n\t\t\tattributes: {}\n\t\t};\n\t// Define our regexps\n\tvar reTagName = /([a-zA-Z0-9\\-\\$]+)/g;\n\t// Skip whitespace\n\tpos = $tw.utils.skipWhiteSpace(source,pos);\n\t// Look for a less than sign\n\ttoken = $tw.utils.parseTokenString(source,pos,\"<\");\n\tif(!token) {\n\t\treturn null;\n\t}\n\tpos = token.end;\n\t// Get the tag name\n\ttoken = $tw.utils.parseTokenRegExp(source,pos,reTagName);\n\tif(!token) {\n\t\treturn null;\n\t}\n\tnode.tag = token.match[1];\n\tif(node.tag.slice(1).indexOf(\"$\") !== -1) {\n\t\treturn null;\n\t}\n\tif(node.tag.charAt(0) === \"$\") {\n\t\tnode.type = node.tag.substr(1);\n\t}\n\tpos = token.end;\n\t// Check that the tag is terminated by a space, / or >\n\tif(!$tw.utils.parseWhiteSpace(source,pos) && !(source.charAt(pos) === \"/\") && !(source.charAt(pos) === \">\") ) {\n\t\treturn null;\n\t}\n\t// Process attributes\n\tvar attribute = $tw.utils.parseAttribute(source,pos);\n\twhile(attribute) {\n\t\tnode.attributes[attribute.name] = attribute;\n\t\tpos = attribute.end;\n\t\t// Get the next attribute\n\t\tattribute = $tw.utils.parseAttribute(source,pos);\n\t}\n\t// Skip whitespace\n\tpos = $tw.utils.skipWhiteSpace(source,pos);\n\t// Look for a closing slash\n\ttoken = $tw.utils.parseTokenString(source,pos,\"/\");\n\tif(token) {\n\t\tpos = token.end;\n\t\tnode.isSelfClosing = true;\n\t}\n\t// Look for a greater than sign\n\ttoken = $tw.utils.parseTokenString(source,pos,\">\");\n\tif(!token) {\n\t\treturn null;\n\t}\n\tpos = token.end;\n\t// Check for a required line break\n\tif(options.requireLineBreak) {\n\t\ttoken = $tw.utils.parseTokenRegExp(source,pos,/([^\\S\\n\\r]*\\r?\\n(?:[^\\S\\n\\r]*\\r?\\n|$))/g);\n\t\tif(!token) {\n\t\t\treturn null;\n\t\t}\n\t}\n\t// Update the end position\n\tnode.end = pos;\n\treturn node;\n};\n\nexports.findNextTag = function(source,pos,options) {\n\t// A regexp for finding candidate HTML tags\n\tvar reLookahead = /<([a-zA-Z\\-\\$]+)/g;\n\t// Find the next candidate\n\treLookahead.lastIndex = pos;\n\tvar match = reLookahead.exec(source);\n\twhile(match) {\n\t\t// Try to parse the candidate as a tag\n\t\tvar tag = this.parseTag(source,match.index,options);\n\t\t// Return success\n\t\tif(tag && this.isLegalTag(tag)) {\n\t\t\treturn tag;\n\t\t}\n\t\t// Look for the next match\n\t\treLookahead.lastIndex = match.index + 1;\n\t\tmatch = reLookahead.exec(source);\n\t}\n\t// Failed\n\treturn null;\n};\n\nexports.isLegalTag = function(tag) {\n\t// Widgets are always OK\n\tif(tag.type !== \"element\") {\n\t\treturn true;\n\t// If it's an HTML tag that starts with a dash then it's not legal\n\t} else if(tag.tag.charAt(0) === \"-\") {\n\t\treturn false;\n\t} else {\n\t\t// Otherwise it's OK\n\t\treturn true;\n\t}\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "wikirule"
},
"$:/core/modules/parsers/wikiparser/rules/image.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/parsers/wikiparser/rules/image.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/parsers/wikiparser/rules/image.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: wikirule\n\nWiki text inline rule for embedding images. For example:\n\n```\n[img[https://tiddlywiki.com/fractalveg.jpg]]\n[img width=23 height=24 [https://tiddlywiki.com/fractalveg.jpg]]\n[img width={{!!width}} height={{!!height}} [https://tiddlywiki.com/fractalveg.jpg]]\n[img[Description of image|https://tiddlywiki.com/fractalveg.jpg]]\n[img[TiddlerTitle]]\n[img[Description of image|TiddlerTitle]]\n```\n\nGenerates the `<$image>` widget.\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nexports.name = \"image\";\nexports.types = {inline: true};\n\nexports.init = function(parser) {\n\tthis.parser = parser;\n};\n\nexports.findNextMatch = function(startPos) {\n\t// Find the next tag\n\tthis.nextImage = this.findNextImage(this.parser.source,startPos);\n\treturn this.nextImage ? this.nextImage.start : undefined;\n};\n\nexports.parse = function() {\n\t// Move past the match\n\tthis.parser.pos = this.nextImage.end;\n\tvar node = {\n\t\ttype: \"image\",\n\t\tattributes: this.nextImage.attributes\n\t};\n\treturn [node];\n};\n\n/*\nFind the next image from the current position\n*/\nexports.findNextImage = function(source,pos) {\n\t// A regexp for finding candidate HTML tags\n\tvar reLookahead = /(\\[img)/g;\n\t// Find the next candidate\n\treLookahead.lastIndex = pos;\n\tvar match = reLookahead.exec(source);\n\twhile(match) {\n\t\t// Try to parse the candidate as a tag\n\t\tvar tag = this.parseImage(source,match.index);\n\t\t// Return success\n\t\tif(tag) {\n\t\t\treturn tag;\n\t\t}\n\t\t// Look for the next match\n\t\treLookahead.lastIndex = match.index + 1;\n\t\tmatch = reLookahead.exec(source);\n\t}\n\t// Failed\n\treturn null;\n};\n\n/*\nLook for an image at the specified position. Returns null if not found, otherwise returns {type: \"image\", attributes: [], isSelfClosing:, start:, end:,}\n*/\nexports.parseImage = function(source,pos) {\n\tvar token,\n\t\tnode = {\n\t\t\ttype: \"image\",\n\t\t\tstart: pos,\n\t\t\tattributes: {}\n\t\t};\n\t// Skip whitespace\n\tpos = $tw.utils.skipWhiteSpace(source,pos);\n\t// Look for the `[img`\n\ttoken = $tw.utils.parseTokenString(source,pos,\"[img\");\n\tif(!token) {\n\t\treturn null;\n\t}\n\tpos = token.end;\n\t// Skip whitespace\n\tpos = $tw.utils.skipWhiteSpace(source,pos);\n\t// Process attributes\n\tif(source.charAt(pos) !== \"[\") {\n\t\tvar attribute = $tw.utils.parseAttribute(source,pos);\n\t\twhile(attribute) {\n\t\t\tnode.attributes[attribute.name] = attribute;\n\t\t\tpos = attribute.end;\n\t\t\tpos = $tw.utils.skipWhiteSpace(source,pos);\n\t\t\tif(source.charAt(pos) !== \"[\") {\n\t\t\t\t// Get the next attribute\n\t\t\t\tattribute = $tw.utils.parseAttribute(source,pos);\n\t\t\t} else {\n\t\t\t\tattribute = null;\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t}\n\t}\n\t// Skip whitespace\n\tpos = $tw.utils.skipWhiteSpace(source,pos);\n\t// Look for the `[` after the attributes\n\ttoken = $tw.utils.parseTokenString(source,pos,\"[\");\n\tif(!token) {\n\t\treturn null;\n\t}\n\tpos = token.end;\n\t// Skip whitespace\n\tpos = $tw.utils.skipWhiteSpace(source,pos);\n\t// Get the source up to the terminating `]]`\n\ttoken = $tw.utils.parseTokenRegExp(source,pos,/(?:([^|\\]]*?)\\|)?([^\\]]+?)\\]\\]/g);\n\tif(!token) {\n\t\treturn null;\n\t}\n\tpos = token.end;\n\tif(token.match[1]) {\n\t\tnode.attributes.tooltip = {type: \"string\", value: token.match[1].trim()};\n\t}\n\tnode.attributes.source = {type: \"string\", value: (token.match[2] || \"\").trim()};\n\t// Update the end position\n\tnode.end = pos;\n\treturn node;\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "wikirule"
},
"$:/core/modules/parsers/wikiparser/rules/import.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/parsers/wikiparser/rules/import.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/parsers/wikiparser/rules/import.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: wikirule\n\nWiki pragma rule for importing variable definitions\n\n```\n\\import [[$:/core/ui/PageMacros]] [all[shadows+tiddlers]tag[$:/tags/Macro]!has[draft.of]]\n```\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nexports.name = \"import\";\nexports.types = {pragma: true};\n\n/*\nInstantiate parse rule\n*/\nexports.init = function(parser) {\n\tthis.parser = parser;\n\t// Regexp to match\n\tthis.matchRegExp = /^\\\\import[^\\S\\n]/mg;\n};\n\n/*\nParse the most recent match\n*/\nexports.parse = function() {\n\tvar self = this;\n\t// Move past the pragma invocation\n\tthis.parser.pos = this.matchRegExp.lastIndex;\n\t// Parse the filter terminated by a line break\n\tvar reMatch = /(.*)(\\r?\\n)|$/mg;\n\treMatch.lastIndex = this.parser.pos;\n\tvar match = reMatch.exec(this.parser.source);\n\tthis.parser.pos = reMatch.lastIndex;\n\t// Parse tree nodes to return\n\treturn [{\n\t\ttype: \"importvariables\",\n\t\tattributes: {\n\t\t\tfilter: {type: \"string\", value: match[1]}\n\t\t},\n\t\tchildren: []\n\t}];\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "wikirule"
},
"$:/core/modules/parsers/wikiparser/rules/list.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/parsers/wikiparser/rules/list.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/parsers/wikiparser/rules/list.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: wikirule\n\nWiki text block rule for lists. For example:\n\n```\n* This is an unordered list\n* It has two items\n\n# This is a numbered list\n## With a subitem\n# And a third item\n\n; This is a term that is being defined\n: This is the definition of that term\n```\n\nNote that lists can be nested arbitrarily:\n\n```\n#** One\n#* Two\n#** Three\n#**** Four\n#**# Five\n#**## Six\n## Seven\n### Eight\n## Nine\n```\n\nA CSS class can be applied to a list item as follows:\n\n```\n* List item one\n*.active List item two has the class `active`\n* List item three\n```\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nexports.name = \"list\";\nexports.types = {block: true};\n\nexports.init = function(parser) {\n\tthis.parser = parser;\n\t// Regexp to match\n\tthis.matchRegExp = /([\\*#;:>]+)/mg;\n};\n\nvar listTypes = {\n\t\"*\": {listTag: \"ul\", itemTag: \"li\"},\n\t\"#\": {listTag: \"ol\", itemTag: \"li\"},\n\t\";\": {listTag: \"dl\", itemTag: \"dt\"},\n\t\":\": {listTag: \"dl\", itemTag: \"dd\"},\n\t\">\": {listTag: \"blockquote\", itemTag: \"p\"}\n};\n\n/*\nParse the most recent match\n*/\nexports.parse = function() {\n\t// Array of parse tree nodes for the previous row of the list\n\tvar listStack = [];\n\t// Cycle through the items in the list\n\twhile(true) {\n\t\t// Match the list marker\n\t\tvar reMatch = /([\\*#;:>]+)/mg;\n\t\treMatch.lastIndex = this.parser.pos;\n\t\tvar match = reMatch.exec(this.parser.source);\n\t\tif(!match || match.index !== this.parser.pos) {\n\t\t\tbreak;\n\t\t}\n\t\t// Check whether the list type of the top level matches\n\t\tvar listInfo = listTypes[match[0].charAt(0)];\n\t\tif(listStack.length > 0 && listStack[0].tag !== listInfo.listTag) {\n\t\t\tbreak;\n\t\t}\n\t\t// Move past the list marker\n\t\tthis.parser.pos = match.index + match[0].length;\n\t\t// Walk through the list markers for the current row\n\t\tfor(var t=0; t<match[0].length; t++) {\n\t\t\tlistInfo = listTypes[match[0].charAt(t)];\n\t\t\t// Remove any stacked up element if we can't re-use it because the list type doesn't match\n\t\t\tif(listStack.length > t && listStack[t].tag !== listInfo.listTag) {\n\t\t\t\tlistStack.splice(t,listStack.length - t);\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t// Construct the list element or reuse the previous one at this level\n\t\t\tif(listStack.length <= t) {\n\t\t\t\tvar listElement = {type: \"element\", tag: listInfo.listTag, children: [\n\t\t\t\t\t{type: \"element\", tag: listInfo.itemTag, children: []}\n\t\t\t\t]};\n\t\t\t\t// Link this list element into the last child item of the parent list item\n\t\t\t\tif(t) {\n\t\t\t\t\tvar prevListItem = listStack[t-1].children[listStack[t-1].children.length-1];\n\t\t\t\t\tprevListItem.children.push(listElement);\n\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t\t// Save this element in the stack\n\t\t\t\tlistStack[t] = listElement;\n\t\t\t} else if(t === (match[0].length - 1)) {\n\t\t\t\tlistStack[t].children.push({type: \"element\", tag: listInfo.itemTag, children: []});\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t}\n\t\tif(listStack.length > match[0].length) {\n\t\t\tlistStack.splice(match[0].length,listStack.length - match[0].length);\n\t\t}\n\t\t// Process the body of the list item into the last list item\n\t\tvar lastListChildren = listStack[listStack.length-1].children,\n\t\t\tlastListItem = lastListChildren[lastListChildren.length-1],\n\t\t\tclasses = this.parser.parseClasses();\n\t\tthis.parser.skipWhitespace({treatNewlinesAsNonWhitespace: true});\n\t\tvar tree = this.parser.parseInlineRun(/(\\r?\\n)/mg);\n\t\tlastListItem.children.push.apply(lastListItem.children,tree);\n\t\tif(classes.length > 0) {\n\t\t\t$tw.utils.addClassToParseTreeNode(lastListItem,classes.join(\" \"));\n\t\t}\n\t\t// Consume any whitespace following the list item\n\t\tthis.parser.skipWhitespace();\n\t}\n\t// Return the root element of the list\n\treturn [listStack[0]];\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "wikirule"
},
"$:/core/modules/parsers/wikiparser/rules/macrocallblock.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/parsers/wikiparser/rules/macrocallblock.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/parsers/wikiparser/rules/macrocallblock.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: wikirule\n\nWiki rule for block macro calls\n\n```\n<<name value value2>>\n```\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nexports.name = \"macrocallblock\";\nexports.types = {block: true};\n\nexports.init = function(parser) {\n\tthis.parser = parser;\n\t// Regexp to match\n\tthis.matchRegExp = /<<([^>\\s]+)(?:\\s*)((?:[^>]|(?:>(?!>)))*?)>>(?:\\r?\\n|$)/mg;\n};\n\n/*\nParse the most recent match\n*/\nexports.parse = function() {\n\t// Get all the details of the match\n\tvar macroName = this.match[1],\n\t\tparamString = this.match[2];\n\t// Move past the macro call\n\tthis.parser.pos = this.matchRegExp.lastIndex;\n\tvar params = [],\n\t\treParam = /\\s*(?:([A-Za-z0-9\\-_]+)\\s*:)?(?:\\s*(?:\"\"\"([\\s\\S]*?)\"\"\"|\"([^\"]*)\"|'([^']*)'|\\[\\[([^\\]]*)\\]\\]|([^\"'\\s]+)))/mg,\n\t\tparamMatch = reParam.exec(paramString);\n\twhile(paramMatch) {\n\t\t// Process this parameter\n\t\tvar paramInfo = {\n\t\t\tvalue: paramMatch[2] || paramMatch[3] || paramMatch[4] || paramMatch[5] || paramMatch[6]\n\t\t};\n\t\tif(paramMatch[1]) {\n\t\t\tparamInfo.name = paramMatch[1];\n\t\t}\n\t\tparams.push(paramInfo);\n\t\t// Find the next match\n\t\tparamMatch = reParam.exec(paramString);\n\t}\n\treturn [{\n\t\ttype: \"macrocall\",\n\t\tname: macroName,\n\t\tparams: params,\n\t\tisBlock: true\n\t}];\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "wikirule"
},
"$:/core/modules/parsers/wikiparser/rules/macrocallinline.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/parsers/wikiparser/rules/macrocallinline.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/parsers/wikiparser/rules/macrocallinline.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: wikirule\n\nWiki rule for macro calls\n\n```\n<<name value value2>>\n```\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nexports.name = \"macrocallinline\";\nexports.types = {inline: true};\n\nexports.init = function(parser) {\n\tthis.parser = parser;\n\t// Regexp to match\n\tthis.matchRegExp = /<<([^\\s>]+)\\s*([\\s\\S]*?)>>/mg;\n};\n\n/*\nParse the most recent match\n*/\nexports.parse = function() {\n\t// Get all the details of the match\n\tvar macroName = this.match[1],\n\t\tparamString = this.match[2];\n\t// Move past the macro call\n\tthis.parser.pos = this.matchRegExp.lastIndex;\n\tvar params = [],\n\t\treParam = /\\s*(?:([A-Za-z0-9\\-_]+)\\s*:)?(?:\\s*(?:\"\"\"([\\s\\S]*?)\"\"\"|\"([^\"]*)\"|'([^']*)'|\\[\\[([^\\]]*)\\]\\]|([^\"'\\s]+)))/mg,\n\t\tparamMatch = reParam.exec(paramString);\n\twhile(paramMatch) {\n\t\t// Process this parameter\n\t\tvar paramInfo = {\n\t\t\tvalue: paramMatch[2] || paramMatch[3] || paramMatch[4] || paramMatch[5]|| paramMatch[6]\n\t\t};\n\t\tif(paramMatch[1]) {\n\t\t\tparamInfo.name = paramMatch[1];\n\t\t}\n\t\tparams.push(paramInfo);\n\t\t// Find the next match\n\t\tparamMatch = reParam.exec(paramString);\n\t}\n\treturn [{\n\t\ttype: \"macrocall\",\n\t\tname: macroName,\n\t\tparams: params\n\t}];\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "wikirule"
},
"$:/core/modules/parsers/wikiparser/rules/macrodef.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/parsers/wikiparser/rules/macrodef.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/parsers/wikiparser/rules/macrodef.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: wikirule\n\nWiki pragma rule for macro definitions\n\n```\n\\define name(param:defaultvalue,param2:defaultvalue)\ndefinition text, including $param$ markers\n\\end\n```\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nexports.name = \"macrodef\";\nexports.types = {pragma: true};\n\n/*\nInstantiate parse rule\n*/\nexports.init = function(parser) {\n\tthis.parser = parser;\n\t// Regexp to match\n\tthis.matchRegExp = /^\\\\define\\s+([^(\\s]+)\\(\\s*([^)]*)\\)(\\s*\\r?\\n)?/mg;\n};\n\n/*\nParse the most recent match\n*/\nexports.parse = function() {\n\t// Move past the macro name and parameters\n\tthis.parser.pos = this.matchRegExp.lastIndex;\n\t// Parse the parameters\n\tvar paramString = this.match[2],\n\t\tparams = [];\n\tif(paramString !== \"\") {\n\t\tvar reParam = /\\s*([A-Za-z0-9\\-_]+)(?:\\s*:\\s*(?:\"\"\"([\\s\\S]*?)\"\"\"|\"([^\"]*)\"|'([^']*)'|\\[\\[([^\\]]*)\\]\\]|([^\"'\\s]+)))?/mg,\n\t\t\tparamMatch = reParam.exec(paramString);\n\t\twhile(paramMatch) {\n\t\t\t// Save the parameter details\n\t\t\tvar paramInfo = {name: paramMatch[1]},\n\t\t\t\tdefaultValue = paramMatch[2] || paramMatch[3] || paramMatch[4] || paramMatch[5] || paramMatch[6];\n\t\t\tif(defaultValue) {\n\t\t\t\tparamInfo[\"default\"] = defaultValue;\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t\tparams.push(paramInfo);\n\t\t\t// Look for the next parameter\n\t\t\tparamMatch = reParam.exec(paramString);\n\t\t}\n\t}\n\t// Is this a multiline definition?\n\tvar reEnd;\n\tif(this.match[3]) {\n\t\t// If so, the end of the body is marked with \\end\n\t\treEnd = /(\\r?\\n\\\\end[^\\S\\n\\r]*(?:$|\\r?\\n))/mg;\n\t} else {\n\t\t// Otherwise, the end of the definition is marked by the end of the line\n\t\treEnd = /($|\\r?\\n)/mg;\n\t\t// Move past any whitespace\n\t\tthis.parser.pos = $tw.utils.skipWhiteSpace(this.parser.source,this.parser.pos);\n\t}\n\t// Find the end of the definition\n\treEnd.lastIndex = this.parser.pos;\n\tvar text,\n\t\tendMatch = reEnd.exec(this.parser.source);\n\tif(endMatch) {\n\t\ttext = this.parser.source.substring(this.parser.pos,endMatch.index);\n\t\tthis.parser.pos = endMatch.index + endMatch[0].length;\n\t} else {\n\t\t// We didn't find the end of the definition, so we'll make it blank\n\t\ttext = \"\";\n\t}\n\t// Save the macro definition\n\treturn [{\n\t\ttype: \"set\",\n\t\tattributes: {\n\t\t\tname: {type: \"string\", value: this.match[1]},\n\t\t\tvalue: {type: \"string\", value: text}\n\t\t},\n\t\tchildren: [],\n\t\tparams: params,\n\t\tisMacroDefinition: true\n\t}];\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "wikirule"
},
"$:/core/modules/parsers/wikiparser/rules/prettyextlink.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/parsers/wikiparser/rules/prettyextlink.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/parsers/wikiparser/rules/prettyextlink.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: wikirule\n\nWiki text inline rule for external links. For example:\n\n```\n[ext[https://tiddlywiki.com/fractalveg.jpg]]\n[ext[Tooltip|https://tiddlywiki.com/fractalveg.jpg]]\n```\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nexports.name = \"prettyextlink\";\nexports.types = {inline: true};\n\nexports.init = function(parser) {\n\tthis.parser = parser;\n};\n\nexports.findNextMatch = function(startPos) {\n\t// Find the next tag\n\tthis.nextLink = this.findNextLink(this.parser.source,startPos);\n\treturn this.nextLink ? this.nextLink.start : undefined;\n};\n\nexports.parse = function() {\n\t// Move past the match\n\tthis.parser.pos = this.nextLink.end;\n\treturn [this.nextLink];\n};\n\n/*\nFind the next link from the current position\n*/\nexports.findNextLink = function(source,pos) {\n\t// A regexp for finding candidate links\n\tvar reLookahead = /(\\[ext\\[)/g;\n\t// Find the next candidate\n\treLookahead.lastIndex = pos;\n\tvar match = reLookahead.exec(source);\n\twhile(match) {\n\t\t// Try to parse the candidate as a link\n\t\tvar link = this.parseLink(source,match.index);\n\t\t// Return success\n\t\tif(link) {\n\t\t\treturn link;\n\t\t}\n\t\t// Look for the next match\n\t\treLookahead.lastIndex = match.index + 1;\n\t\tmatch = reLookahead.exec(source);\n\t}\n\t// Failed\n\treturn null;\n};\n\n/*\nLook for an link at the specified position. Returns null if not found, otherwise returns {type: \"element\", tag: \"a\", attributes: [], isSelfClosing:, start:, end:,}\n*/\nexports.parseLink = function(source,pos) {\n\tvar token,\n\t\ttextNode = {\n\t\t\ttype: \"text\"\n\t\t},\n\t\tnode = {\n\t\t\ttype: \"element\",\n\t\t\ttag: \"a\",\n\t\t\tstart: pos,\n\t\t\tattributes: {\n\t\t\t\t\"class\": {type: \"string\", value: \"tc-tiddlylink-external\"},\n\t\t\t},\n\t\t\tchildren: [textNode]\n\t\t};\n\t// Skip whitespace\n\tpos = $tw.utils.skipWhiteSpace(source,pos);\n\t// Look for the `[ext[`\n\ttoken = $tw.utils.parseTokenString(source,pos,\"[ext[\");\n\tif(!token) {\n\t\treturn null;\n\t}\n\tpos = token.end;\n\t// Look ahead for the terminating `]]`\n\tvar closePos = source.indexOf(\"]]\",pos);\n\tif(closePos === -1) {\n\t\treturn null;\n\t}\n\t// Look for a `|` separating the tooltip\n\tvar splitPos = source.indexOf(\"|\",pos);\n\tif(splitPos === -1 || splitPos > closePos) {\n\t\tsplitPos = null;\n\t}\n\t// Pull out the tooltip and URL\n\tvar tooltip, URL;\n\tif(splitPos) {\n\t\tURL = source.substring(splitPos + 1,closePos).trim();\n\t\ttextNode.text = source.substring(pos,splitPos).trim();\n\t} else {\n\t\tURL = source.substring(pos,closePos).trim();\n\t\ttextNode.text = URL;\n\t}\n\tnode.attributes.href = {type: \"string\", value: URL};\n\tnode.attributes.target = {type: \"string\", value: \"_blank\"};\n\tnode.attributes.rel = {type: \"string\", value: \"noopener noreferrer\"};\n\t// Update the end position\n\tnode.end = closePos + 2;\n\treturn node;\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "wikirule"
},
"$:/core/modules/parsers/wikiparser/rules/prettylink.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/parsers/wikiparser/rules/prettylink.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/parsers/wikiparser/rules/prettylink.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: wikirule\n\nWiki text inline rule for pretty links. For example:\n\n```\n[[Introduction]]\n\n[[Link description|TiddlerTitle]]\n```\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nexports.name = \"prettylink\";\nexports.types = {inline: true};\n\nexports.init = function(parser) {\n\tthis.parser = parser;\n\t// Regexp to match\n\tthis.matchRegExp = /\\[\\[(.*?)(?:\\|(.*?))?\\]\\]/mg;\n};\n\nexports.parse = function() {\n\t// Move past the match\n\tthis.parser.pos = this.matchRegExp.lastIndex;\n\t// Process the link\n\tvar text = this.match[1],\n\t\tlink = this.match[2] || text;\n\tif($tw.utils.isLinkExternal(link)) {\n\t\treturn [{\n\t\t\ttype: \"element\",\n\t\t\ttag: \"a\",\n\t\t\tattributes: {\n\t\t\t\thref: {type: \"string\", value: link},\n\t\t\t\t\"class\": {type: \"string\", value: \"tc-tiddlylink-external\"},\n\t\t\t\ttarget: {type: \"string\", value: \"_blank\"},\n\t\t\t\trel: {type: \"string\", value: \"noopener noreferrer\"}\n\t\t\t},\n\t\t\tchildren: [{\n\t\t\t\ttype: \"text\", text: text\n\t\t\t}]\n\t\t}];\n\t} else {\n\t\treturn [{\n\t\t\ttype: \"link\",\n\t\t\tattributes: {\n\t\t\t\tto: {type: \"string\", value: link}\n\t\t\t},\n\t\t\tchildren: [{\n\t\t\t\ttype: \"text\", text: text\n\t\t\t}]\n\t\t}];\n\t}\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "wikirule"
},
"$:/core/modules/parsers/wikiparser/rules/quoteblock.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/parsers/wikiparser/rules/quoteblock.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/parsers/wikiparser/rules/quoteblock.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: wikirule\n\nWiki text rule for quote blocks. For example:\n\n```\n\t<<<.optionalClass(es) optional cited from\n\ta quote\n\t<<<\n\t\n\t<<<.optionalClass(es)\n\ta quote\n\t<<< optional cited from\n```\n\nQuotes can be quoted by putting more <s\n\n```\n\t<<<\n\tQuote Level 1\n\t\n\t<<<<\n\tQuoteLevel 2\n\t<<<<\n\t\n\t<<<\n```\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nexports.name = \"quoteblock\";\nexports.types = {block: true};\n\nexports.init = function(parser) {\n\tthis.parser = parser;\n\t// Regexp to match\n\tthis.matchRegExp = /(<<<+)/mg;\n};\n\nexports.parse = function() {\n\tvar classes = [\"tc-quote\"];\n\t// Get all the details of the match\n\tvar reEndString = \"^\" + this.match[1] + \"(?!<)\";\n\t// Move past the <s\n\tthis.parser.pos = this.matchRegExp.lastIndex;\n\t\n\t// Parse any classes, whitespace and then the optional cite itself\n\tclasses.push.apply(classes, this.parser.parseClasses());\n\tthis.parser.skipWhitespace({treatNewlinesAsNonWhitespace: true});\n\tvar cite = this.parser.parseInlineRun(/(\\r?\\n)/mg);\n\t// before handling the cite, parse the body of the quote\n\tvar tree= this.parser.parseBlocks(reEndString);\n\t// If we got a cite, put it before the text\n\tif(cite.length > 0) {\n\t\ttree.unshift({\n\t\t\ttype: \"element\",\n\t\t\ttag: \"cite\",\n\t\t\tchildren: cite\n\t\t});\n\t}\n\t// Parse any optional cite\n\tthis.parser.skipWhitespace({treatNewlinesAsNonWhitespace: true});\n\tcite = this.parser.parseInlineRun(/(\\r?\\n)/mg);\n\t// If we got a cite, push it\n\tif(cite.length > 0) {\n\t\ttree.push({\n\t\t\ttype: \"element\",\n\t\t\ttag: \"cite\",\n\t\t\tchildren: cite\n\t\t});\n\t}\n\t// Return the blockquote element\n\treturn [{\n\t\ttype: \"element\",\n\t\ttag: \"blockquote\",\n\t\tattributes: {\n\t\t\tclass: { type: \"string\", value: classes.join(\" \") },\n\t\t},\n\t\tchildren: tree\n\t}];\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "wikirule"
},
"$:/core/modules/parsers/wikiparser/rules/rules.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/parsers/wikiparser/rules/rules.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/parsers/wikiparser/rules/rules.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: wikirule\n\nWiki pragma rule for rules specifications\n\n```\n\\rules except ruleone ruletwo rulethree\n\\rules only ruleone ruletwo rulethree\n```\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nexports.name = \"rules\";\nexports.types = {pragma: true};\n\n/*\nInstantiate parse rule\n*/\nexports.init = function(parser) {\n\tthis.parser = parser;\n\t// Regexp to match\n\tthis.matchRegExp = /^\\\\rules[^\\S\\n]/mg;\n};\n\n/*\nParse the most recent match\n*/\nexports.parse = function() {\n\t// Move past the pragma invocation\n\tthis.parser.pos = this.matchRegExp.lastIndex;\n\t// Parse whitespace delimited tokens terminated by a line break\n\tvar reMatch = /[^\\S\\n]*(\\S+)|(\\r?\\n)/mg,\n\t\ttokens = [];\n\treMatch.lastIndex = this.parser.pos;\n\tvar match = reMatch.exec(this.parser.source);\n\twhile(match && match.index === this.parser.pos) {\n\t\tthis.parser.pos = reMatch.lastIndex;\n\t\t// Exit if we've got the line break\n\t\tif(match[2]) {\n\t\t\tbreak;\n\t\t}\n\t\t// Process the token\n\t\tif(match[1]) {\n\t\t\ttokens.push(match[1]);\n\t\t}\n\t\t// Match the next token\n\t\tmatch = reMatch.exec(this.parser.source);\n\t}\n\t// Process the tokens\n\tif(tokens.length > 0) {\n\t\tthis.parser.amendRules(tokens[0],tokens.slice(1));\n\t}\n\t// No parse tree nodes to return\n\treturn [];\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "wikirule"
},
"$:/core/modules/parsers/wikiparser/rules/styleblock.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/parsers/wikiparser/rules/styleblock.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/parsers/wikiparser/rules/styleblock.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: wikirule\n\nWiki text block rule for assigning styles and classes to paragraphs and other blocks. For example:\n\n```\n@@.myClass\n@@background-color:red;\nThis paragraph will have the CSS class `myClass`.\n\n* The `<ul>` around this list will also have the class `myClass`\n* List item 2\n\n@@\n```\n\nNote that classes and styles can be mixed subject to the rule that styles must precede classes. For example\n\n```\n@@.myFirstClass.mySecondClass\n@@width:100px;.myThirdClass\nThis is a paragraph\n@@\n```\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nexports.name = \"styleblock\";\nexports.types = {block: true};\n\nexports.init = function(parser) {\n\tthis.parser = parser;\n\t// Regexp to match\n\tthis.matchRegExp = /@@((?:[^\\.\\r\\n\\s:]+:[^\\r\\n;]+;)+)?(?:\\.([^\\r\\n\\s]+))?\\r?\\n/mg;\n};\n\nexports.parse = function() {\n\tvar reEndString = \"^@@(?:\\\\r?\\\\n)?\";\n\tvar classes = [], styles = [];\n\tdo {\n\t\t// Get the class and style\n\t\tif(this.match[1]) {\n\t\t\tstyles.push(this.match[1]);\n\t\t}\n\t\tif(this.match[2]) {\n\t\t\tclasses.push(this.match[2].split(\".\").join(\" \"));\n\t\t}\n\t\t// Move past the match\n\t\tthis.parser.pos = this.matchRegExp.lastIndex;\n\t\t// Look for another line of classes and styles\n\t\tthis.match = this.matchRegExp.exec(this.parser.source);\n\t} while(this.match && this.match.index === this.parser.pos);\n\t// Parse the body\n\tvar tree = this.parser.parseBlocks(reEndString);\n\tfor(var t=0; t<tree.length; t++) {\n\t\tif(classes.length > 0) {\n\t\t\t$tw.utils.addClassToParseTreeNode(tree[t],classes.join(\" \"));\n\t\t}\n\t\tif(styles.length > 0) {\n\t\t\t$tw.utils.addAttributeToParseTreeNode(tree[t],\"style\",styles.join(\"\"));\n\t\t}\n\t}\n\treturn tree;\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "wikirule"
},
"$:/core/modules/parsers/wikiparser/rules/styleinline.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/parsers/wikiparser/rules/styleinline.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/parsers/wikiparser/rules/styleinline.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: wikirule\n\nWiki text inline rule for assigning styles and classes to inline runs. For example:\n\n```\n@@.myClass This is some text with a class@@\n@@background-color:red;This is some text with a background colour@@\n@@width:100px;.myClass This is some text with a class and a width@@\n```\n\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nexports.name = \"styleinline\";\nexports.types = {inline: true};\n\nexports.init = function(parser) {\n\tthis.parser = parser;\n\t// Regexp to match\n\tthis.matchRegExp = /@@((?:[^\\.\\r\\n\\s:]+:[^\\r\\n;]+;)+)?(\\.(?:[^\\r\\n\\s]+)\\s+)?/mg;\n};\n\nexports.parse = function() {\n\tvar reEnd = /@@/g;\n\t// Get the styles and class\n\tvar stylesString = this.match[1],\n\t\tclassString = this.match[2] ? this.match[2].split(\".\").join(\" \") : undefined;\n\t// Move past the match\n\tthis.parser.pos = this.matchRegExp.lastIndex;\n\t// Parse the run up to the terminator\n\tvar tree = this.parser.parseInlineRun(reEnd,{eatTerminator: true});\n\t// Return the classed span\n\tvar node = {\n\t\ttype: \"element\",\n\t\ttag: \"span\",\n\t\tattributes: {\n\t\t\t\"class\": {type: \"string\", value: \"tc-inline-style\"}\n\t\t},\n\t\tchildren: tree\n\t};\n\tif(classString) {\n\t\t$tw.utils.addClassToParseTreeNode(node,classString);\n\t}\n\tif(stylesString) {\n\t\t$tw.utils.addAttributeToParseTreeNode(node,\"style\",stylesString);\n\t}\n\treturn [node];\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "wikirule"
},
"$:/core/modules/parsers/wikiparser/rules/syslink.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/parsers/wikiparser/rules/syslink.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/parsers/wikiparser/rules/syslink.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: wikirule\n\nWiki text inline rule for system tiddler links.\nCan be suppressed preceding them with `~`.\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nexports.name = \"syslink\";\nexports.types = {inline: true};\n\nexports.init = function(parser) {\n\tthis.parser = parser;\n\t// Regexp to match\n\tthis.matchRegExp = new RegExp(\n\t\t\"~?\\\\$:\\\\/[\" +\n\t\t$tw.config.textPrimitives.anyLetter.substr(1,$tw.config.textPrimitives.anyLetter.length - 2) +\n\t\t\"\\/._-]+\",\n\t\t\"mg\"\n\t);\n};\n\nexports.parse = function() {\n\tvar match = this.match[0];\n\t// Move past the match\n\tthis.parser.pos = this.matchRegExp.lastIndex;\n\t// Create the link unless it is suppressed\n\tif(match.substr(0,1) === \"~\") {\n\t\treturn [{type: \"text\", text: match.substr(1)}];\n\t} else {\n\t\treturn [{\n\t\t\ttype: \"link\",\n\t\t\tattributes: {\n\t\t\t\tto: {type: \"string\", value: match}\n\t\t\t},\n\t\t\tchildren: [{\n\t\t\t\ttype: \"text\",\n\t\t\t\ttext: match\n\t\t\t}]\n\t\t}];\n\t}\n};\n\n})();",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "wikirule"
},
"$:/core/modules/parsers/wikiparser/rules/table.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/parsers/wikiparser/rules/table.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/parsers/wikiparser/rules/table.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: wikirule\n\nWiki text block rule for tables.\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nexports.name = \"table\";\nexports.types = {block: true};\n\nexports.init = function(parser) {\n\tthis.parser = parser;\n\t// Regexp to match\n\tthis.matchRegExp = /^\\|(?:[^\\n]*)\\|(?:[fhck]?)\\r?(?:\\n|$)/mg;\n};\n\nvar processRow = function(prevColumns) {\n\tvar cellRegExp = /(?:\\|([^\\n\\|]*)\\|)|(\\|[fhck]?\\r?(?:\\n|$))/mg,\n\t\tcellTermRegExp = /((?:\\x20*)\\|)/mg,\n\t\ttree = [],\n\t\tcol = 0,\n\t\tcolSpanCount = 1,\n\t\tprevCell,\n\t\tvAlign;\n\t// Match a single cell\n\tcellRegExp.lastIndex = this.parser.pos;\n\tvar cellMatch = cellRegExp.exec(this.parser.source);\n\twhile(cellMatch && cellMatch.index === this.parser.pos) {\n\t\tif(cellMatch[1] === \"~\") {\n\t\t\t// Rowspan\n\t\t\tvar last = prevColumns[col];\n\t\t\tif(last) {\n\t\t\t\tlast.rowSpanCount++;\n\t\t\t\t$tw.utils.addAttributeToParseTreeNode(last.element,\"rowspan\",last.rowSpanCount);\n\t\t\t\tvAlign = $tw.utils.getAttributeValueFromParseTreeNode(last.element,\"valign\",\"center\");\n\t\t\t\t$tw.utils.addAttributeToParseTreeNode(last.element,\"valign\",vAlign);\n\t\t\t\tif(colSpanCount > 1) {\n\t\t\t\t\t$tw.utils.addAttributeToParseTreeNode(last.element,\"colspan\",colSpanCount);\n\t\t\t\t\tcolSpanCount = 1;\n\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t// Move to just before the `|` terminating the cell\n\t\t\tthis.parser.pos = cellRegExp.lastIndex - 1;\n\t\t} else if(cellMatch[1] === \">\") {\n\t\t\t// Colspan\n\t\t\tcolSpanCount++;\n\t\t\t// Move to just before the `|` terminating the cell\n\t\t\tthis.parser.pos = cellRegExp.lastIndex - 1;\n\t\t} else if(cellMatch[1] === \"<\" && prevCell) {\n\t\t\tcolSpanCount = 1 + $tw.utils.getAttributeValueFromParseTreeNode(prevCell,\"colspan\",1);\n\t\t\t$tw.utils.addAttributeToParseTreeNode(prevCell,\"colspan\",colSpanCount);\n\t\t\tcolSpanCount = 1;\n\t\t\t// Move to just before the `|` terminating the cell\n\t\t\tthis.parser.pos = cellRegExp.lastIndex - 1;\n\t\t} else if(cellMatch[2]) {\n\t\t\t// End of row\n\t\t\tif(prevCell && colSpanCount > 1) {\n\t\t\t\tif(prevCell.attributes && prevCell.attributes && prevCell.attributes.colspan) {\n\t\t\t\t\t\tcolSpanCount += prevCell.attributes.colspan.value;\n\t\t\t\t} else {\n\t\t\t\t\tcolSpanCount -= 1;\n\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t\t$tw.utils.addAttributeToParseTreeNode(prevCell,\"colspan\",colSpanCount);\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t\tthis.parser.pos = cellRegExp.lastIndex - 1;\n\t\t\tbreak;\n\t\t} else {\n\t\t\t// For ordinary cells, step beyond the opening `|`\n\t\t\tthis.parser.pos++;\n\t\t\t// Look for a space at the start of the cell\n\t\t\tvar spaceLeft = false;\n\t\t\tvAlign = null;\n\t\t\tif(this.parser.source.substr(this.parser.pos).search(/^\\^([^\\^]|\\^\\^)/) === 0) {\n\t\t\t\tvAlign = \"top\";\n\t\t\t} else if(this.parser.source.substr(this.parser.pos).search(/^,([^,]|,,)/) === 0) {\n\t\t\t\tvAlign = \"bottom\";\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t\tif(vAlign) {\n\t\t\t\tthis.parser.pos++;\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t\tvar chr = this.parser.source.substr(this.parser.pos,1);\n\t\t\twhile(chr === \" \") {\n\t\t\t\tspaceLeft = true;\n\t\t\t\tthis.parser.pos++;\n\t\t\t\tchr = this.parser.source.substr(this.parser.pos,1);\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t// Check whether this is a heading cell\n\t\t\tvar cell;\n\t\t\tif(chr === \"!\") {\n\t\t\t\tthis.parser.pos++;\n\t\t\t\tcell = {type: \"element\", tag: \"th\", children: []};\n\t\t\t} else {\n\t\t\t\tcell = {type: \"element\", tag: \"td\", children: []};\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t\ttree.push(cell);\n\t\t\t// Record information about this cell\n\t\t\tprevCell = cell;\n\t\t\tprevColumns[col] = {rowSpanCount:1,element:cell};\n\t\t\t// Check for a colspan\n\t\t\tif(colSpanCount > 1) {\n\t\t\t\t$tw.utils.addAttributeToParseTreeNode(cell,\"colspan\",colSpanCount);\n\t\t\t\tcolSpanCount = 1;\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t// Parse the cell\n\t\t\tcell.children = this.parser.parseInlineRun(cellTermRegExp,{eatTerminator: true});\n\t\t\t// Set the alignment for the cell\n\t\t\tif(vAlign) {\n\t\t\t\t$tw.utils.addAttributeToParseTreeNode(cell,\"valign\",vAlign);\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t\tif(this.parser.source.substr(this.parser.pos - 2,1) === \" \") { // spaceRight\n\t\t\t\t$tw.utils.addAttributeToParseTreeNode(cell,\"align\",spaceLeft ? \"center\" : \"left\");\n\t\t\t} else if(spaceLeft) {\n\t\t\t\t$tw.utils.addAttributeToParseTreeNode(cell,\"align\",\"right\");\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t// Move back to the closing `|`\n\t\t\tthis.parser.pos--;\n\t\t}\n\t\tcol++;\n\t\tcellRegExp.lastIndex = this.parser.pos;\n\t\tcellMatch = cellRegExp.exec(this.parser.source);\n\t}\n\treturn tree;\n};\n\nexports.parse = function() {\n\tvar rowContainerTypes = {\"c\":\"caption\", \"h\":\"thead\", \"\":\"tbody\", \"f\":\"tfoot\"},\n\t\ttable = {type: \"element\", tag: \"table\", children: []},\n\t\trowRegExp = /^\\|([^\\n]*)\\|([fhck]?)\\r?(?:\\n|$)/mg,\n\t\trowTermRegExp = /(\\|(?:[fhck]?)\\r?(?:\\n|$))/mg,\n\t\tprevColumns = [],\n\t\tcurrRowType,\n\t\trowContainer,\n\t\trowCount = 0;\n\t// Match the row\n\trowRegExp.lastIndex = this.parser.pos;\n\tvar rowMatch = rowRegExp.exec(this.parser.source);\n\twhile(rowMatch && rowMatch.index === this.parser.pos) {\n\t\tvar rowType = rowMatch[2];\n\t\t// Check if it is a class assignment\n\t\tif(rowType === \"k\") {\n\t\t\t$tw.utils.addClassToParseTreeNode(table,rowMatch[1]);\n\t\t\tthis.parser.pos = rowMatch.index + rowMatch[0].length;\n\t\t} else {\n\t\t\t// Otherwise, create a new row if this one is of a different type\n\t\t\tif(rowType !== currRowType) {\n\t\t\t\trowContainer = {type: \"element\", tag: rowContainerTypes[rowType], children: []};\n\t\t\t\ttable.children.push(rowContainer);\n\t\t\t\tcurrRowType = rowType;\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t// Is this a caption row?\n\t\t\tif(currRowType === \"c\") {\n\t\t\t\t// If so, move past the opening `|` of the row\n\t\t\t\tthis.parser.pos++;\n\t\t\t\t// Move the caption to the first row if it isn't already\n\t\t\t\tif(table.children.length !== 1) {\n\t\t\t\t\ttable.children.pop(); // Take rowContainer out of the children array\n\t\t\t\t\ttable.children.splice(0,0,rowContainer); // Insert it at the bottom\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t\t// Set the alignment - TODO: figure out why TW did this\n//\t\t\t\trowContainer.attributes.align = rowCount === 0 ? \"top\" : \"bottom\";\n\t\t\t\t// Parse the caption\n\t\t\t\trowContainer.children = this.parser.parseInlineRun(rowTermRegExp,{eatTerminator: true});\n\t\t\t} else {\n\t\t\t\t// Create the row\n\t\t\t\tvar theRow = {type: \"element\", tag: \"tr\", children: []};\n\t\t\t\t$tw.utils.addClassToParseTreeNode(theRow,rowCount%2 ? \"oddRow\" : \"evenRow\");\n\t\t\t\trowContainer.children.push(theRow);\n\t\t\t\t// Process the row\n\t\t\t\ttheRow.children = processRow.call(this,prevColumns);\n\t\t\t\tthis.parser.pos = rowMatch.index + rowMatch[0].length;\n\t\t\t\t// Increment the row count\n\t\t\t\trowCount++;\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t}\n\t\trowMatch = rowRegExp.exec(this.parser.source);\n\t}\n\treturn [table];\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "wikirule"
},
"$:/core/modules/parsers/wikiparser/rules/transcludeblock.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/parsers/wikiparser/rules/transcludeblock.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/parsers/wikiparser/rules/transcludeblock.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: wikirule\n\nWiki text rule for block-level transclusion. For example:\n\n```\n{{MyTiddler}}\n{{MyTiddler||TemplateTitle}}\n```\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nexports.name = \"transcludeblock\";\nexports.types = {block: true};\n\nexports.init = function(parser) {\n\tthis.parser = parser;\n\t// Regexp to match\n\tthis.matchRegExp = /\\{\\{([^\\{\\}\\|]*)(?:\\|\\|([^\\|\\{\\}]+))?\\}\\}(?:\\r?\\n|$)/mg;\n};\n\nexports.parse = function() {\n\t// Move past the match\n\tthis.parser.pos = this.matchRegExp.lastIndex;\n\t// Move past the match\n\tthis.parser.pos = this.matchRegExp.lastIndex;\n\t// Get the match details\n\tvar template = $tw.utils.trim(this.match[2]),\n\t\ttextRef = $tw.utils.trim(this.match[1]);\n\t// Prepare the transclude widget\n\tvar transcludeNode = {\n\t\t\ttype: \"transclude\",\n\t\t\tattributes: {},\n\t\t\tisBlock: true\n\t\t};\n\t// Prepare the tiddler widget\n\tvar tr, targetTitle, targetField, targetIndex, tiddlerNode;\n\tif(textRef) {\n\t\ttr = $tw.utils.parseTextReference(textRef);\n\t\ttargetTitle = tr.title;\n\t\ttargetField = tr.field;\n\t\ttargetIndex = tr.index;\n\t\ttiddlerNode = {\n\t\t\ttype: \"tiddler\",\n\t\t\tattributes: {\n\t\t\t\ttiddler: {type: \"string\", value: targetTitle}\n\t\t\t},\n\t\t\tisBlock: true,\n\t\t\tchildren: [transcludeNode]\n\t\t};\n\t}\n\tif(template) {\n\t\ttranscludeNode.attributes.tiddler = {type: \"string\", value: template};\n\t\tif(textRef) {\n\t\t\treturn [tiddlerNode];\n\t\t} else {\n\t\t\treturn [transcludeNode];\n\t\t}\n\t} else {\n\t\tif(textRef) {\n\t\t\ttranscludeNode.attributes.tiddler = {type: \"string\", value: targetTitle};\n\t\t\tif(targetField) {\n\t\t\t\ttranscludeNode.attributes.field = {type: \"string\", value: targetField};\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t\tif(targetIndex) {\n\t\t\t\ttranscludeNode.attributes.index = {type: \"string\", value: targetIndex};\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t\treturn [tiddlerNode];\n\t\t} else {\n\t\t\treturn [transcludeNode];\n\t\t}\n\t}\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "wikirule"
},
"$:/core/modules/parsers/wikiparser/rules/transcludeinline.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/parsers/wikiparser/rules/transcludeinline.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/parsers/wikiparser/rules/transcludeinline.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: wikirule\n\nWiki text rule for inline-level transclusion. For example:\n\n```\n{{MyTiddler}}\n{{MyTiddler||TemplateTitle}}\n```\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nexports.name = \"transcludeinline\";\nexports.types = {inline: true};\n\nexports.init = function(parser) {\n\tthis.parser = parser;\n\t// Regexp to match\n\tthis.matchRegExp = /\\{\\{([^\\{\\}\\|]*)(?:\\|\\|([^\\|\\{\\}]+))?\\}\\}/mg;\n};\n\nexports.parse = function() {\n\t// Move past the match\n\tthis.parser.pos = this.matchRegExp.lastIndex;\n\t// Get the match details\n\tvar template = $tw.utils.trim(this.match[2]),\n\t\ttextRef = $tw.utils.trim(this.match[1]);\n\t// Prepare the transclude widget\n\tvar transcludeNode = {\n\t\t\ttype: \"transclude\",\n\t\t\tattributes: {}\n\t\t};\n\t// Prepare the tiddler widget\n\tvar tr, targetTitle, targetField, targetIndex, tiddlerNode;\n\tif(textRef) {\n\t\ttr = $tw.utils.parseTextReference(textRef);\n\t\ttargetTitle = tr.title;\n\t\ttargetField = tr.field;\n\t\ttargetIndex = tr.index;\n\t\ttiddlerNode = {\n\t\t\ttype: \"tiddler\",\n\t\t\tattributes: {\n\t\t\t\ttiddler: {type: \"string\", value: targetTitle}\n\t\t\t},\n\t\t\tchildren: [transcludeNode]\n\t\t};\n\t}\n\tif(template) {\n\t\ttranscludeNode.attributes.tiddler = {type: \"string\", value: template};\n\t\tif(textRef) {\n\t\t\treturn [tiddlerNode];\n\t\t} else {\n\t\t\treturn [transcludeNode];\n\t\t}\n\t} else {\n\t\tif(textRef) {\n\t\t\ttranscludeNode.attributes.tiddler = {type: \"string\", value: targetTitle};\n\t\t\tif(targetField) {\n\t\t\t\ttranscludeNode.attributes.field = {type: \"string\", value: targetField};\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t\tif(targetIndex) {\n\t\t\t\ttranscludeNode.attributes.index = {type: \"string\", value: targetIndex};\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t\treturn [tiddlerNode];\n\t\t} else {\n\t\t\treturn [transcludeNode];\n\t\t}\n\t}\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "wikirule"
},
"$:/core/modules/parsers/wikiparser/rules/typedblock.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/parsers/wikiparser/rules/typedblock.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/parsers/wikiparser/rules/typedblock.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: wikirule\n\nWiki text rule for typed blocks. For example:\n\n```\n$$$.js\nThis will be rendered as JavaScript\n$$$\n\n$$$.svg\n<svg xmlns=\"http://www.w3.org/2000/svg\" width=\"150\" height=\"100\">\n <circle cx=\"100\" cy=\"50\" r=\"40\" stroke=\"black\" stroke-width=\"2\" fill=\"red\" />\n</svg>\n$$$\n\n$$$text/vnd.tiddlywiki>text/html\nThis will be rendered as an //HTML representation// of WikiText\n$$$\n```\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nvar widget = require(\"$:/core/modules/widgets/widget.js\");\n\nexports.name = \"typedblock\";\nexports.types = {block: true};\n\nexports.init = function(parser) {\n\tthis.parser = parser;\n\t// Regexp to match\n\tthis.matchRegExp = /\\$\\$\\$([^ >\\r\\n]*)(?: *> *([^ \\r\\n]+))?\\r?\\n/mg;\n};\n\nexports.parse = function() {\n\tvar reEnd = /\\r?\\n\\$\\$\\$\\r?(?:\\n|$)/mg;\n\t// Save the type\n\tvar parseType = this.match[1],\n\t\trenderType = this.match[2];\n\t// Move past the match\n\tthis.parser.pos = this.matchRegExp.lastIndex;\n\t// Look for the end of the block\n\treEnd.lastIndex = this.parser.pos;\n\tvar match = reEnd.exec(this.parser.source),\n\t\ttext;\n\t// Process the block\n\tif(match) {\n\t\ttext = this.parser.source.substring(this.parser.pos,match.index);\n\t\tthis.parser.pos = match.index + match[0].length;\n\t} else {\n\t\ttext = this.parser.source.substr(this.parser.pos);\n\t\tthis.parser.pos = this.parser.sourceLength;\n\t}\n\t// Parse the block according to the specified type\n\tvar parser = this.parser.wiki.parseText(parseType,text,{defaultType: \"text/plain\"});\n\t// If there's no render type, just return the parse tree\n\tif(!renderType) {\n\t\treturn parser.tree;\n\t} else {\n\t\t// Otherwise, render to the rendertype and return in a <PRE> tag\n\t\tvar widgetNode = this.parser.wiki.makeWidget(parser),\n\t\t\tcontainer = $tw.fakeDocument.createElement(\"div\");\n\t\twidgetNode.render(container,null);\n\t\ttext = renderType === \"text/html\" ? container.innerHTML : container.textContent;\n\t\treturn [{\n\t\t\ttype: \"element\",\n\t\t\ttag: \"pre\",\n\t\t\tchildren: [{\n\t\t\t\ttype: \"text\",\n\t\t\t\ttext: text\n\t\t\t}]\n\t\t}];\n\t}\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "wikirule"
},
"$:/core/modules/parsers/wikiparser/rules/whitespace.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/parsers/wikiparser/rules/whitespace.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/parsers/wikiparser/rules/whitespace.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: wikirule\n\nWiki pragma rule for whitespace specifications\n\n```\n\\whitespace trim\n\\whitespace notrim\n```\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nexports.name = \"whitespace\";\nexports.types = {pragma: true};\n\n/*\nInstantiate parse rule\n*/\nexports.init = function(parser) {\n\tthis.parser = parser;\n\t// Regexp to match\n\tthis.matchRegExp = /^\\\\whitespace[^\\S\\n]/mg;\n};\n\n/*\nParse the most recent match\n*/\nexports.parse = function() {\n\tvar self = this;\n\t// Move past the pragma invocation\n\tthis.parser.pos = this.matchRegExp.lastIndex;\n\t// Parse whitespace delimited tokens terminated by a line break\n\tvar reMatch = /[^\\S\\n]*(\\S+)|(\\r?\\n)/mg,\n\t\ttokens = [];\n\treMatch.lastIndex = this.parser.pos;\n\tvar match = reMatch.exec(this.parser.source);\n\twhile(match && match.index === this.parser.pos) {\n\t\tthis.parser.pos = reMatch.lastIndex;\n\t\t// Exit if we've got the line break\n\t\tif(match[2]) {\n\t\t\tbreak;\n\t\t}\n\t\t// Process the token\n\t\tif(match[1]) {\n\t\t\ttokens.push(match[1]);\n\t\t}\n\t\t// Match the next token\n\t\tmatch = reMatch.exec(this.parser.source);\n\t}\n\t// Process the tokens\n\t$tw.utils.each(tokens,function(token) {\n\t\tswitch(token) {\n\t\t\tcase \"trim\":\n\t\t\t\tself.parser.configTrimWhiteSpace = true;\n\t\t\t\tbreak;\n\t\t\tcase \"notrim\":\n\t\t\t\tself.parser.configTrimWhiteSpace = false;\n\t\t\t\tbreak;\n\t\t}\n\t});\n\t// No parse tree nodes to return\n\treturn [];\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "wikirule"
},
"$:/core/modules/parsers/wikiparser/rules/wikilink.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/parsers/wikiparser/rules/wikilink.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/parsers/wikiparser/rules/wikilink.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: wikirule\n\nWiki text inline rule for wiki links. For example:\n\n```\nAWikiLink\nAnotherLink\n~SuppressedLink\n```\n\nPrecede a camel case word with `~` to prevent it from being recognised as a link.\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nexports.name = \"wikilink\";\nexports.types = {inline: true};\n\nexports.init = function(parser) {\n\tthis.parser = parser;\n\t// Regexp to match\n\tthis.matchRegExp = new RegExp($tw.config.textPrimitives.unWikiLink + \"?\" + $tw.config.textPrimitives.wikiLink,\"mg\");\n};\n\n/*\nParse the most recent match\n*/\nexports.parse = function() {\n\t// Get the details of the match\n\tvar linkText = this.match[0];\n\t// Move past the macro call\n\tthis.parser.pos = this.matchRegExp.lastIndex;\n\t// If the link starts with the unwikilink character then just output it as plain text\n\tif(linkText.substr(0,1) === $tw.config.textPrimitives.unWikiLink) {\n\t\treturn [{type: \"text\", text: linkText.substr(1)}];\n\t}\n\t// If the link has been preceded with a blocked letter then don't treat it as a link\n\tif(this.match.index > 0) {\n\t\tvar preRegExp = new RegExp($tw.config.textPrimitives.blockPrefixLetters,\"mg\");\n\t\tpreRegExp.lastIndex = this.match.index-1;\n\t\tvar preMatch = preRegExp.exec(this.parser.source);\n\t\tif(preMatch && preMatch.index === this.match.index-1) {\n\t\t\treturn [{type: \"text\", text: linkText}];\n\t\t}\n\t}\n\treturn [{\n\t\ttype: \"link\",\n\t\tattributes: {\n\t\t\tto: {type: \"string\", value: linkText}\n\t\t},\n\t\tchildren: [{\n\t\t\ttype: \"text\",\n\t\t\ttext: linkText\n\t\t}]\n\t}];\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "wikirule"
},
"$:/core/modules/parsers/wikiparser/wikiparser.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/parsers/wikiparser/wikiparser.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/parsers/wikiparser/wikiparser.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: parser\n\nThe wiki text parser processes blocks of source text into a parse tree.\n\nThe parse tree is made up of nested arrays of these JavaScript objects:\n\n\t{type: \"element\", tag: <string>, attributes: {}, children: []} - an HTML element\n\t{type: \"text\", text: <string>} - a text node\n\t{type: \"entity\", value: <string>} - an entity\n\t{type: \"raw\", html: <string>} - raw HTML\n\nAttributes are stored as hashmaps of the following objects:\n\n\t{type: \"string\", value: <string>} - literal string\n\t{type: \"indirect\", textReference: <textReference>} - indirect through a text reference\n\t{type: \"macro\", macro: <TBD>} - indirect through a macro invocation\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nvar WikiParser = function(type,text,options) {\n\tthis.wiki = options.wiki;\n\tvar self = this;\n\t// Check for an externally linked tiddler\n\tif($tw.browser && (text || \"\") === \"\" && options._canonical_uri) {\n\t\tthis.loadRemoteTiddler(options._canonical_uri);\n\t\ttext = $tw.language.getRawString(\"LazyLoadingWarning\");\n\t}\n\t// Initialise the classes if we don't have them already\n\tif(!this.pragmaRuleClasses) {\n\t\tWikiParser.prototype.pragmaRuleClasses = $tw.modules.createClassesFromModules(\"wikirule\",\"pragma\",$tw.WikiRuleBase);\n\t\tthis.setupRules(WikiParser.prototype.pragmaRuleClasses,\"$:/config/WikiParserRules/Pragmas/\");\n\t}\n\tif(!this.blockRuleClasses) {\n\t\tWikiParser.prototype.blockRuleClasses = $tw.modules.createClassesFromModules(\"wikirule\",\"block\",$tw.WikiRuleBase);\n\t\tthis.setupRules(WikiParser.prototype.blockRuleClasses,\"$:/config/WikiParserRules/Block/\");\n\t}\n\tif(!this.inlineRuleClasses) {\n\t\tWikiParser.prototype.inlineRuleClasses = $tw.modules.createClassesFromModules(\"wikirule\",\"inline\",$tw.WikiRuleBase);\n\t\tthis.setupRules(WikiParser.prototype.inlineRuleClasses,\"$:/config/WikiParserRules/Inline/\");\n\t}\n\t// Save the parse text\n\tthis.type = type || \"text/vnd.tiddlywiki\";\n\tthis.source = text || \"\";\n\tthis.sourceLength = this.source.length;\n\t// Flag for ignoring whitespace\n\tthis.configTrimWhiteSpace = false;\n\t// Set current parse position\n\tthis.pos = 0;\n\t// Instantiate the pragma parse rules\n\tthis.pragmaRules = this.instantiateRules(this.pragmaRuleClasses,\"pragma\",0);\n\t// Instantiate the parser block and inline rules\n\tthis.blockRules = this.instantiateRules(this.blockRuleClasses,\"block\",0);\n\tthis.inlineRules = this.instantiateRules(this.inlineRuleClasses,\"inline\",0);\n\t// Parse any pragmas\n\tthis.tree = [];\n\tvar topBranch = this.parsePragmas();\n\t// Parse the text into inline runs or blocks\n\tif(options.parseAsInline) {\n\t\ttopBranch.push.apply(topBranch,this.parseInlineRun());\n\t} else {\n\t\ttopBranch.push.apply(topBranch,this.parseBlocks());\n\t}\n\t// Return the parse tree\n};\n\n/*\n*/\nWikiParser.prototype.loadRemoteTiddler = function(url) {\n\tvar self = this;\n\t$tw.utils.httpRequest({\n\t\turl: url,\n\t\ttype: \"GET\",\n\t\tcallback: function(err,data) {\n\t\t\tif(!err) {\n\t\t\t\tvar tiddlers = self.wiki.deserializeTiddlers(\".tid\",data,self.wiki.getCreationFields());\n\t\t\t\t$tw.utils.each(tiddlers,function(tiddler) {\n\t\t\t\t\ttiddler[\"_canonical_uri\"] = url;\n\t\t\t\t});\n\t\t\t\tif(tiddlers) {\n\t\t\t\t\tself.wiki.addTiddlers(tiddlers);\n\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t}\n\t});\n};\n\n/*\n*/\nWikiParser.prototype.setupRules = function(proto,configPrefix) {\n\tvar self = this;\n\tif(!$tw.safemode) {\n\t\t$tw.utils.each(proto,function(object,name) {\n\t\t\tif(self.wiki.getTiddlerText(configPrefix + name,\"enable\") !== \"enable\") {\n\t\t\t\tdelete proto[name];\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t});\n\t}\n};\n\n/*\nInstantiate an array of parse rules\n*/\nWikiParser.prototype.instantiateRules = function(classes,type,startPos) {\n\tvar rulesInfo = [],\n\t\tself = this;\n\t$tw.utils.each(classes,function(RuleClass) {\n\t\t// Instantiate the rule\n\t\tvar rule = new RuleClass(self);\n\t\trule.is = {};\n\t\trule.is[type] = true;\n\t\trule.init(self);\n\t\tvar matchIndex = rule.findNextMatch(startPos);\n\t\tif(matchIndex !== undefined) {\n\t\t\trulesInfo.push({\n\t\t\t\trule: rule,\n\t\t\t\tmatchIndex: matchIndex\n\t\t\t});\n\t\t}\n\t});\n\treturn rulesInfo;\n};\n\n/*\nSkip any whitespace at the current position. Options are:\n\ttreatNewlinesAsNonWhitespace: true if newlines are NOT to be treated as whitespace\n*/\nWikiParser.prototype.skipWhitespace = function(options) {\n\toptions = options || {};\n\tvar whitespaceRegExp = options.treatNewlinesAsNonWhitespace ? /([^\\S\\n]+)/mg : /(\\s+)/mg;\n\twhitespaceRegExp.lastIndex = this.pos;\n\tvar whitespaceMatch = whitespaceRegExp.exec(this.source);\n\tif(whitespaceMatch && whitespaceMatch.index === this.pos) {\n\t\tthis.pos = whitespaceRegExp.lastIndex;\n\t}\n};\n\n/*\nGet the next match out of an array of parse rule instances\n*/\nWikiParser.prototype.findNextMatch = function(rules,startPos) {\n\t// Find the best matching rule by finding the closest match position\n\tvar matchingRule,\n\t\tmatchingRulePos = this.sourceLength;\n\t// Step through each rule\n\tfor(var t=0; t<rules.length; t++) {\n\t\tvar ruleInfo = rules[t];\n\t\t// Ask the rule to get the next match if we've moved past the current one\n\t\tif(ruleInfo.matchIndex !== undefined && ruleInfo.matchIndex < startPos) {\n\t\t\truleInfo.matchIndex = ruleInfo.rule.findNextMatch(startPos);\n\t\t}\n\t\t// Adopt this match if it's closer than the current best match\n\t\tif(ruleInfo.matchIndex !== undefined && ruleInfo.matchIndex <= matchingRulePos) {\n\t\t\tmatchingRule = ruleInfo;\n\t\t\tmatchingRulePos = ruleInfo.matchIndex;\n\t\t}\n\t}\n\treturn matchingRule;\n};\n\n/*\nParse any pragmas at the beginning of a block of parse text\n*/\nWikiParser.prototype.parsePragmas = function() {\n\tvar currentTreeBranch = this.tree;\n\twhile(true) {\n\t\t// Skip whitespace\n\t\tthis.skipWhitespace();\n\t\t// Check for the end of the text\n\t\tif(this.pos >= this.sourceLength) {\n\t\t\tbreak;\n\t\t}\n\t\t// Check if we've arrived at a pragma rule match\n\t\tvar nextMatch = this.findNextMatch(this.pragmaRules,this.pos);\n\t\t// If not, just exit\n\t\tif(!nextMatch || nextMatch.matchIndex !== this.pos) {\n\t\t\tbreak;\n\t\t}\n\t\t// Process the pragma rule\n\t\tvar subTree = nextMatch.rule.parse();\n\t\tif(subTree.length > 0) {\n\t\t\t// Quick hack; we only cope with a single parse tree node being returned, which is true at the moment\n\t\t\tcurrentTreeBranch.push.apply(currentTreeBranch,subTree);\n\t\t\tsubTree[0].children = [];\n\t\t\tcurrentTreeBranch = subTree[0].children;\n\t\t}\n\t}\n\treturn currentTreeBranch;\n};\n\n/*\nParse a block from the current position\n\tterminatorRegExpString: optional regular expression string that identifies the end of plain paragraphs. Must not include capturing parenthesis\n*/\nWikiParser.prototype.parseBlock = function(terminatorRegExpString) {\n\tvar terminatorRegExp = terminatorRegExpString ? new RegExp(\"(\" + terminatorRegExpString + \"|\\\\r?\\\\n\\\\r?\\\\n)\",\"mg\") : /(\\r?\\n\\r?\\n)/mg;\n\tthis.skipWhitespace();\n\tif(this.pos >= this.sourceLength) {\n\t\treturn [];\n\t}\n\t// Look for a block rule that applies at the current position\n\tvar nextMatch = this.findNextMatch(this.blockRules,this.pos);\n\tif(nextMatch && nextMatch.matchIndex === this.pos) {\n\t\treturn nextMatch.rule.parse();\n\t}\n\t// Treat it as a paragraph if we didn't find a block rule\n\treturn [{type: \"element\", tag: \"p\", children: this.parseInlineRun(terminatorRegExp)}];\n};\n\n/*\nParse a series of blocks of text until a terminating regexp is encountered or the end of the text\n\tterminatorRegExpString: terminating regular expression\n*/\nWikiParser.prototype.parseBlocks = function(terminatorRegExpString) {\n\tif(terminatorRegExpString) {\n\t\treturn this.parseBlocksTerminated(terminatorRegExpString);\n\t} else {\n\t\treturn this.parseBlocksUnterminated();\n\t}\n};\n\n/*\nParse a block from the current position to the end of the text\n*/\nWikiParser.prototype.parseBlocksUnterminated = function() {\n\tvar tree = [];\n\twhile(this.pos < this.sourceLength) {\n\t\ttree.push.apply(tree,this.parseBlock());\n\t}\n\treturn tree;\n};\n\n/*\nParse blocks of text until a terminating regexp is encountered\n*/\nWikiParser.prototype.parseBlocksTerminated = function(terminatorRegExpString) {\n\tvar terminatorRegExp = new RegExp(\"(\" + terminatorRegExpString + \")\",\"mg\"),\n\t\ttree = [];\n\t// Skip any whitespace\n\tthis.skipWhitespace();\n\t// Check if we've got the end marker\n\tterminatorRegExp.lastIndex = this.pos;\n\tvar match = terminatorRegExp.exec(this.source);\n\t// Parse the text into blocks\n\twhile(this.pos < this.sourceLength && !(match && match.index === this.pos)) {\n\t\tvar blocks = this.parseBlock(terminatorRegExpString);\n\t\ttree.push.apply(tree,blocks);\n\t\t// Skip any whitespace\n\t\tthis.skipWhitespace();\n\t\t// Check if we've got the end marker\n\t\tterminatorRegExp.lastIndex = this.pos;\n\t\tmatch = terminatorRegExp.exec(this.source);\n\t}\n\tif(match && match.index === this.pos) {\n\t\tthis.pos = match.index + match[0].length;\n\t}\n\treturn tree;\n};\n\n/*\nParse a run of text at the current position\n\tterminatorRegExp: a regexp at which to stop the run\n\toptions: see below\nOptions available:\n\teatTerminator: move the parse position past any encountered terminator (default false)\n*/\nWikiParser.prototype.parseInlineRun = function(terminatorRegExp,options) {\n\tif(terminatorRegExp) {\n\t\treturn this.parseInlineRunTerminated(terminatorRegExp,options);\n\t} else {\n\t\treturn this.parseInlineRunUnterminated(options);\n\t}\n};\n\nWikiParser.prototype.parseInlineRunUnterminated = function(options) {\n\tvar tree = [];\n\t// Find the next occurrence of an inline rule\n\tvar nextMatch = this.findNextMatch(this.inlineRules,this.pos);\n\t// Loop around the matches until we've reached the end of the text\n\twhile(this.pos < this.sourceLength && nextMatch) {\n\t\t// Process the text preceding the run rule\n\t\tif(nextMatch.matchIndex > this.pos) {\n\t\t\tthis.pushTextWidget(tree,this.source.substring(this.pos,nextMatch.matchIndex));\n\t\t\tthis.pos = nextMatch.matchIndex;\n\t\t}\n\t\t// Process the run rule\n\t\ttree.push.apply(tree,nextMatch.rule.parse());\n\t\t// Look for the next run rule\n\t\tnextMatch = this.findNextMatch(this.inlineRules,this.pos);\n\t}\n\t// Process the remaining text\n\tif(this.pos < this.sourceLength) {\n\t\tthis.pushTextWidget(tree,this.source.substr(this.pos));\n\t}\n\tthis.pos = this.sourceLength;\n\treturn tree;\n};\n\nWikiParser.prototype.parseInlineRunTerminated = function(terminatorRegExp,options) {\n\toptions = options || {};\n\tvar tree = [];\n\t// Find the next occurrence of the terminator\n\tterminatorRegExp.lastIndex = this.pos;\n\tvar terminatorMatch = terminatorRegExp.exec(this.source);\n\t// Find the next occurrence of a inlinerule\n\tvar inlineRuleMatch = this.findNextMatch(this.inlineRules,this.pos);\n\t// Loop around until we've reached the end of the text\n\twhile(this.pos < this.sourceLength && (terminatorMatch || inlineRuleMatch)) {\n\t\t// Return if we've found the terminator, and it precedes any inline rule match\n\t\tif(terminatorMatch) {\n\t\t\tif(!inlineRuleMatch || inlineRuleMatch.matchIndex >= terminatorMatch.index) {\n\t\t\t\tif(terminatorMatch.index > this.pos) {\n\t\t\t\t\tthis.pushTextWidget(tree,this.source.substring(this.pos,terminatorMatch.index));\n\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t\tthis.pos = terminatorMatch.index;\n\t\t\t\tif(options.eatTerminator) {\n\t\t\t\t\tthis.pos += terminatorMatch[0].length;\n\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t\treturn tree;\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t}\n\t\t// Process any inline rule, along with the text preceding it\n\t\tif(inlineRuleMatch) {\n\t\t\t// Preceding text\n\t\t\tif(inlineRuleMatch.matchIndex > this.pos) {\n\t\t\t\tthis.pushTextWidget(tree,this.source.substring(this.pos,inlineRuleMatch.matchIndex));\n\t\t\t\tthis.pos = inlineRuleMatch.matchIndex;\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t// Process the inline rule\n\t\t\ttree.push.apply(tree,inlineRuleMatch.rule.parse());\n\t\t\t// Look for the next inline rule\n\t\t\tinlineRuleMatch = this.findNextMatch(this.inlineRules,this.pos);\n\t\t\t// Look for the next terminator match\n\t\t\tterminatorRegExp.lastIndex = this.pos;\n\t\t\tterminatorMatch = terminatorRegExp.exec(this.source);\n\t\t}\n\t}\n\t// Process the remaining text\n\tif(this.pos < this.sourceLength) {\n\t\tthis.pushTextWidget(tree,this.source.substr(this.pos));\n\t}\n\tthis.pos = this.sourceLength;\n\treturn tree;\n};\n\n/*\nPush a text widget onto an array, respecting the configTrimWhiteSpace setting\n*/\nWikiParser.prototype.pushTextWidget = function(array,text) {\n\tif(this.configTrimWhiteSpace) {\n\t\ttext = $tw.utils.trim(text);\n\t}\n\tif(text) {\n\t\tarray.push({type: \"text\", text: text});\t\t\n\t}\n};\n\n/*\nParse zero or more class specifiers `.classname`\n*/\nWikiParser.prototype.parseClasses = function() {\n\tvar classRegExp = /\\.([^\\s\\.]+)/mg,\n\t\tclassNames = [];\n\tclassRegExp.lastIndex = this.pos;\n\tvar match = classRegExp.exec(this.source);\n\twhile(match && match.index === this.pos) {\n\t\tthis.pos = match.index + match[0].length;\n\t\tclassNames.push(match[1]);\n\t\tmatch = classRegExp.exec(this.source);\n\t}\n\treturn classNames;\n};\n\n/*\nAmend the rules used by this instance of the parser\n\ttype: `only` keeps just the named rules, `except` keeps all but the named rules\n\tnames: array of rule names\n*/\nWikiParser.prototype.amendRules = function(type,names) {\n\tnames = names || [];\n\t// Define the filter function\n\tvar keepFilter;\n\tif(type === \"only\") {\n\t\tkeepFilter = function(name) {\n\t\t\treturn names.indexOf(name) !== -1;\n\t\t};\n\t} else if(type === \"except\") {\n\t\tkeepFilter = function(name) {\n\t\t\treturn names.indexOf(name) === -1;\n\t\t};\n\t} else {\n\t\treturn;\n\t}\n\t// Define a function to process each of our rule arrays\n\tvar processRuleArray = function(ruleArray) {\n\t\tfor(var t=ruleArray.length-1; t>=0; t--) {\n\t\t\tif(!keepFilter(ruleArray[t].rule.name)) {\n\t\t\t\truleArray.splice(t,1);\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t}\n\t};\n\t// Process each rule array\n\tprocessRuleArray(this.pragmaRules);\n\tprocessRuleArray(this.blockRules);\n\tprocessRuleArray(this.inlineRules);\n};\n\nexports[\"text/vnd.tiddlywiki\"] = WikiParser;\n\n})();\n\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "parser"
},
"$:/core/modules/parsers/wikiparser/rules/wikirulebase.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/parsers/wikiparser/rules/wikirulebase.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/parsers/wikiparser/rules/wikirulebase.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: global\n\nBase class for wiki parser rules\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\n/*\nThis constructor is always overridden with a blank constructor, and so shouldn't be used\n*/\nvar WikiRuleBase = function() {\n};\n\n/*\nTo be overridden by individual rules\n*/\nWikiRuleBase.prototype.init = function(parser) {\n\tthis.parser = parser;\n};\n\n/*\nDefault implementation of findNextMatch uses RegExp matching\n*/\nWikiRuleBase.prototype.findNextMatch = function(startPos) {\n\tthis.matchRegExp.lastIndex = startPos;\n\tthis.match = this.matchRegExp.exec(this.parser.source);\n\treturn this.match ? this.match.index : undefined;\n};\n\nexports.WikiRuleBase = WikiRuleBase;\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "global"
},
"$:/core/modules/pluginswitcher.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/pluginswitcher.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/pluginswitcher.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: global\n\nManages switching plugins for themes and languages.\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\n/*\noptions:\nwiki: wiki store to be used\npluginType: type of plugin to be switched\ncontrollerTitle: title of tiddler used to control switching of this resource\ndefaultPlugins: array of default plugins to be used if nominated plugin isn't found\nonSwitch: callback when plugin is switched (single parameter is array of plugin titles)\n*/\nfunction PluginSwitcher(options) {\n\tthis.wiki = options.wiki;\n\tthis.pluginType = options.pluginType;\n\tthis.controllerTitle = options.controllerTitle;\n\tthis.defaultPlugins = options.defaultPlugins || [];\n\tthis.onSwitch = options.onSwitch;\n\t// Switch to the current plugin\n\tthis.switchPlugins();\n\t// Listen for changes to the selected plugin\n\tvar self = this;\n\tthis.wiki.addEventListener(\"change\",function(changes) {\n\t\tif($tw.utils.hop(changes,self.controllerTitle)) {\n\t\t\tself.switchPlugins();\n\t\t}\n\t});\n}\n\nPluginSwitcher.prototype.switchPlugins = function() {\n\t// Get the name of the current theme\n\tvar selectedPluginTitle = this.wiki.getTiddlerText(this.controllerTitle);\n\t// If it doesn't exist, then fallback to one of the default themes\n\tvar index = 0;\n\twhile(!this.wiki.getTiddler(selectedPluginTitle) && index < this.defaultPlugins.length) {\n\t\tselectedPluginTitle = this.defaultPlugins[index++];\n\t}\n\t// Accumulate the titles of the plugins that we need to load\n\tvar plugins = [],\n\t\tself = this,\n\t\taccumulatePlugin = function(title) {\n\t\t\tvar tiddler = self.wiki.getTiddler(title);\n\t\t\tif(tiddler && tiddler.isPlugin() && plugins.indexOf(title) === -1) {\n\t\t\t\tplugins.push(title);\n\t\t\t\tvar pluginInfo = JSON.parse(self.wiki.getTiddlerText(title)),\n\t\t\t\t\tdependents = $tw.utils.parseStringArray(tiddler.fields.dependents || \"\");\n\t\t\t\t$tw.utils.each(dependents,function(title) {\n\t\t\t\t\taccumulatePlugin(title);\n\t\t\t\t});\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t};\n\taccumulatePlugin(selectedPluginTitle);\n\t// Unregister any existing theme tiddlers\n\tvar unregisteredTiddlers = $tw.wiki.unregisterPluginTiddlers(this.pluginType);\n\t// Register any new theme tiddlers\n\tvar registeredTiddlers = $tw.wiki.registerPluginTiddlers(this.pluginType,plugins);\n\t// Unpack the current theme tiddlers\n\t$tw.wiki.unpackPluginTiddlers();\n\t// Call the switch handler\n\tif(this.onSwitch) {\n\t\tthis.onSwitch(plugins);\n\t}\n};\n\nexports.PluginSwitcher = PluginSwitcher;\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "global"
},
"$:/core/modules/saver-handler.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/saver-handler.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/saver-handler.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: global\n\nThe saver handler tracks changes to the store and handles saving the entire wiki via saver modules.\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\n/*\nInstantiate the saver handler with the following options:\nwiki: wiki to be synced\ndirtyTracking: true if dirty tracking should be performed\n*/\nfunction SaverHandler(options) {\n\tvar self = this;\n\tthis.wiki = options.wiki;\n\tthis.dirtyTracking = options.dirtyTracking;\n\tthis.pendingAutoSave = false;\n\t// Make a logger\n\tthis.logger = new $tw.utils.Logger(\"saver-handler\");\n\t// Initialise our savers\n\tif($tw.browser) {\n\t\tthis.initSavers();\n\t}\n\t// Only do dirty tracking if required\n\tif($tw.browser && this.dirtyTracking) {\n\t\t// Compile the dirty tiddler filter\n\t\tthis.filterFn = this.wiki.compileFilter(this.wiki.getTiddlerText(this.titleSyncFilter));\n\t\t// Count of changes that have not yet been saved\n\t\tthis.numChanges = 0;\n\t\t// Listen out for changes to tiddlers\n\t\tthis.wiki.addEventListener(\"change\",function(changes) {\n\t\t\t// Filter the changes so that we only count changes to tiddlers that we care about\n\t\t\tvar filteredChanges = self.filterFn.call(self.wiki,function(iterator) {\n\t\t\t\t$tw.utils.each(changes,function(change,title) {\n\t\t\t\t\tvar tiddler = self.wiki.getTiddler(title);\n\t\t\t\t\titerator(tiddler,title);\n\t\t\t\t});\n\t\t\t});\n\t\t\t// Adjust the number of changes\n\t\t\tself.numChanges += filteredChanges.length;\n\t\t\tself.updateDirtyStatus();\n\t\t\t// Do any autosave if one is pending and there's no more change events\n\t\t\tif(self.pendingAutoSave && self.wiki.getSizeOfTiddlerEventQueue() === 0) {\n\t\t\t\t// Check if we're dirty\n\t\t\t\tif(self.numChanges > 0) {\n\t\t\t\t\tself.saveWiki({\n\t\t\t\t\t\tmethod: \"autosave\",\n\t\t\t\t\t\tdownloadType: \"text/plain\"\n\t\t\t\t\t});\n\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t\tself.pendingAutoSave = false;\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t});\n\t\t// Listen for the autosave event\n\t\t$tw.rootWidget.addEventListener(\"tm-auto-save-wiki\",function(event) {\n\t\t\t// Do the autosave unless there are outstanding tiddler change events\n\t\t\tif(self.wiki.getSizeOfTiddlerEventQueue() === 0) {\n\t\t\t\t// Check if we're dirty\n\t\t\t\tif(self.numChanges > 0) {\n\t\t\t\t\tself.saveWiki({\n\t\t\t\t\t\tmethod: \"autosave\",\n\t\t\t\t\t\tdownloadType: \"text/plain\"\n\t\t\t\t\t});\n\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t} else {\n\t\t\t\t// Otherwise put ourselves in the \"pending autosave\" state and wait for the change event before we do the autosave\n\t\t\t\tself.pendingAutoSave = true;\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t});\n\t\t// Set up our beforeunload handler\n\t\t$tw.addUnloadTask(function(event) {\n\t\t\tvar confirmationMessage;\n\t\t\tif(self.isDirty()) {\n\t\t\t\tconfirmationMessage = $tw.language.getString(\"UnsavedChangesWarning\");\n\t\t\t\tevent.returnValue = confirmationMessage; // Gecko\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t\treturn confirmationMessage;\n\t\t});\n\t}\n\t// Install the save action handlers\n\tif($tw.browser) {\n\t\t$tw.rootWidget.addEventListener(\"tm-save-wiki\",function(event) {\n\t\t\tself.saveWiki({\n\t\t\t\ttemplate: event.param,\n\t\t\t\tdownloadType: \"text/plain\",\n\t\t\t\tvariables: event.paramObject\n\t\t\t});\n\t\t});\n\t\t$tw.rootWidget.addEventListener(\"tm-download-file\",function(event) {\n\t\t\tself.saveWiki({\n\t\t\t\tmethod: \"download\",\n\t\t\t\ttemplate: event.param,\n\t\t\t\tdownloadType: \"text/plain\",\n\t\t\t\tvariables: event.paramObject\n\t\t\t});\n\t\t});\n\t}\n}\n\nSaverHandler.prototype.titleSyncFilter = \"$:/config/SaverFilter\";\nSaverHandler.prototype.titleAutoSave = \"$:/config/AutoSave\";\nSaverHandler.prototype.titleSavedNotification = \"$:/language/Notifications/Save/Done\";\n\n/*\nSelect the appropriate saver modules and set them up\n*/\nSaverHandler.prototype.initSavers = function(moduleType) {\n\tmoduleType = moduleType || \"saver\";\n\t// Instantiate the available savers\n\tthis.savers = [];\n\tvar self = this;\n\t$tw.modules.forEachModuleOfType(moduleType,function(title,module) {\n\t\tif(module.canSave(self)) {\n\t\t\tself.savers.push(module.create(self.wiki));\n\t\t}\n\t});\n\t// Sort the savers into priority order\n\tthis.savers.sort(function(a,b) {\n\t\tif(a.info.priority < b.info.priority) {\n\t\t\treturn -1;\n\t\t} else {\n\t\t\tif(a.info.priority > b.info.priority) {\n\t\t\t\treturn +1;\n\t\t\t} else {\n\t\t\t\treturn 0;\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t}\n\t});\n};\n\n/*\nSave the wiki contents. Options are:\n\tmethod: \"save\", \"autosave\" or \"download\"\n\ttemplate: the tiddler containing the template to save\n\tdownloadType: the content type for the saved file\n*/\nSaverHandler.prototype.saveWiki = function(options) {\n\toptions = options || {};\n\tvar self = this,\n\t\tmethod = options.method || \"save\",\n\t\tvariables = options.variables || {},\n\t\ttemplate = options.template || \"$:/core/save/all\",\n\t\tdownloadType = options.downloadType || \"text/plain\",\n\t\ttext = this.wiki.renderTiddler(downloadType,template,options),\n\t\tcallback = function(err) {\n\t\t\tif(err) {\n\t\t\t\talert($tw.language.getString(\"Error/WhileSaving\") + \":\\n\\n\" + err);\n\t\t\t} else {\n\t\t\t\t// Clear the task queue if we're saving (rather than downloading)\n\t\t\t\tif(method !== \"download\") {\n\t\t\t\t\tself.numChanges = 0;\n\t\t\t\t\tself.updateDirtyStatus();\n\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t\t$tw.notifier.display(self.titleSavedNotification);\n\t\t\t\tif(options.callback) {\n\t\t\t\t\toptions.callback();\n\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t};\n\t// Ignore autosave if disabled\n\tif(method === \"autosave\" && this.wiki.getTiddlerText(this.titleAutoSave,\"yes\") !== \"yes\") {\n\t\treturn false;\n\t}\n\t// Call the highest priority saver that supports this method\n\tfor(var t=this.savers.length-1; t>=0; t--) {\n\t\tvar saver = this.savers[t];\n\t\tif(saver.info.capabilities.indexOf(method) !== -1 && saver.save(text,method,callback,{variables: {filename: variables.filename}})) {\n\t\t\tthis.logger.log(\"Saving wiki with method\",method,\"through saver\",saver.info.name);\n\t\t\treturn true;\n\t\t}\n\t}\n\treturn false;\n};\n\n/*\nChecks whether the wiki is dirty (ie the window shouldn't be closed)\n*/\nSaverHandler.prototype.isDirty = function() {\n\treturn this.numChanges > 0;\n};\n\n/*\nUpdate the document body with the class \"tc-dirty\" if the wiki has unsaved/unsynced changes\n*/\nSaverHandler.prototype.updateDirtyStatus = function() {\n\tif($tw.browser) {\n\t\t$tw.utils.toggleClass(document.body,\"tc-dirty\",this.isDirty());\n\t}\n};\n\nexports.SaverHandler = SaverHandler;\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "global"
},
"$:/core/modules/savers/andtidwiki.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/savers/andtidwiki.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/savers/andtidwiki.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: saver\n\nHandles saving changes via the AndTidWiki Android app\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false, netscape: false, Components: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nvar AndTidWiki = function(wiki) {\n};\n\nAndTidWiki.prototype.save = function(text,method,callback) {\n\t// Get the pathname of this document\n\tvar pathname = decodeURIComponent(document.location.toString().split(\"#\")[0]);\n\t// Strip the file://\n\tif(pathname.indexOf(\"file://\") === 0) {\n\t\tpathname = pathname.substr(7);\n\t}\n\t// Strip any query or location part\n\tvar p = pathname.indexOf(\"?\");\n\tif(p !== -1) {\n\t\tpathname = pathname.substr(0,p);\n\t}\n\tp = pathname.indexOf(\"#\");\n\tif(p !== -1) {\n\t\tpathname = pathname.substr(0,p);\n\t}\n\t// Save the file\n\twindow.twi.saveFile(pathname,text);\n\t// Call the callback\n\tcallback(null);\n\treturn true;\n};\n\n/*\nInformation about this saver\n*/\nAndTidWiki.prototype.info = {\n\tname: \"andtidwiki\",\n\tpriority: 1600,\n\tcapabilities: [\"save\", \"autosave\"]\n};\n\n/*\nStatic method that returns true if this saver is capable of working\n*/\nexports.canSave = function(wiki) {\n\treturn !!window.twi && !!window.twi.saveFile;\n};\n\n/*\nCreate an instance of this saver\n*/\nexports.create = function(wiki) {\n\treturn new AndTidWiki(wiki);\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "saver"
},
"$:/core/modules/savers/beaker.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/savers/beaker.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/savers/beaker.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: saver\n\nSaves files using the Beaker browser's (https://beakerbrowser.com) Dat protocol (https://datproject.org/)\nCompatible with beaker >= V0.7.2\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\n/*\nSet up the saver\n*/\nvar BeakerSaver = function(wiki) {\n\tthis.wiki = wiki;\n};\n\nBeakerSaver.prototype.save = function(text,method,callback) {\n\tvar dat = new DatArchive(\"\" + window.location),\n\t\tpathname = (\"\" + window.location.pathname).split(\"#\")[0];\n\tdat.stat(pathname).then(function(value) {\n\t\tif(value.isDirectory()) {\n\t\t\tpathname = pathname + \"/index.html\";\n\t\t}\n\t\tdat.writeFile(pathname,text,\"utf8\").then(function(value) {\n\t\t\tcallback(null);\n\t\t},function(reason) {\n\t\t\tcallback(\"Beaker Saver Write Error: \" + reason);\n\t\t});\n\t},function(reason) {\n\t\tcallback(\"Beaker Saver Stat Error: \" + reason);\n\t});\n\treturn true;\n};\n\n/*\nInformation about this saver\n*/\nBeakerSaver.prototype.info = {\n\tname: \"beaker\",\n\tpriority: 3000,\n\tcapabilities: [\"save\", \"autosave\"]\n};\n\n/*\nStatic method that returns true if this saver is capable of working\n*/\nexports.canSave = function(wiki) {\n\treturn !!window.DatArchive && location.protocol===\"dat:\";\n};\n\n/*\nCreate an instance of this saver\n*/\nexports.create = function(wiki) {\n\treturn new BeakerSaver(wiki);\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "saver"
},
"$:/core/modules/savers/download.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/savers/download.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/savers/download.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: saver\n\nHandles saving changes via HTML5's download APIs\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\n/*\nSelect the appropriate saver module and set it up\n*/\nvar DownloadSaver = function(wiki) {\n};\n\nDownloadSaver.prototype.save = function(text,method,callback,options) {\n\toptions = options || {};\n\t// Get the current filename\n\tvar filename = options.variables.filename;\n\tif(!filename) {\n\t\tvar p = document.location.pathname.lastIndexOf(\"/\");\n\t\tif(p !== -1) {\n\t\t\t// We decode the pathname because document.location is URL encoded by the browser\n\t\t\tfilename = decodeURIComponent(document.location.pathname.substr(p+1));\n\t\t}\n\t}\n\tif(!filename) {\n\t\tfilename = \"tiddlywiki.html\";\n\t}\n\t// Set up the link\n\tvar link = document.createElement(\"a\");\n\tif(Blob !== undefined) {\n\t\tvar blob = new Blob([text], {type: \"text/html\"});\n\t\tlink.setAttribute(\"href\", URL.createObjectURL(blob));\n\t} else {\n\t\tlink.setAttribute(\"href\",\"data:text/html,\" + encodeURIComponent(text));\n\t}\n\tlink.setAttribute(\"download\",filename);\n\tdocument.body.appendChild(link);\n\tlink.click();\n\tdocument.body.removeChild(link);\n\t// Callback that we succeeded\n\tcallback(null);\n\treturn true;\n};\n\n/*\nInformation about this saver\n*/\nDownloadSaver.prototype.info = {\n\tname: \"download\",\n\tpriority: 100\n};\n\nObject.defineProperty(DownloadSaver.prototype.info, \"capabilities\", {\n\tget: function() {\n\t\tvar capabilities = [\"save\", \"download\"];\n\t\tif(($tw.wiki.getTextReference(\"$:/config/DownloadSaver/AutoSave\") || \"\").toLowerCase() === \"yes\") {\n\t\t\tcapabilities.push(\"autosave\");\n\t\t}\n\t\treturn capabilities;\n\t}\n});\n\n/*\nStatic method that returns true if this saver is capable of working\n*/\nexports.canSave = function(wiki) {\n\treturn document.createElement(\"a\").download !== undefined;\n};\n\n/*\nCreate an instance of this saver\n*/\nexports.create = function(wiki) {\n\treturn new DownloadSaver(wiki);\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "saver"
},
"$:/core/modules/savers/fsosaver.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/savers/fsosaver.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/savers/fsosaver.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: saver\n\nHandles saving changes via MS FileSystemObject ActiveXObject\n\nNote: Since TiddlyWiki's markup contains the MOTW, the FileSystemObject normally won't be available. \nHowever, if the wiki is loaded as an .HTA file (Windows HTML Applications) then the FSO can be used.\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\n/*\nSelect the appropriate saver module and set it up\n*/\nvar FSOSaver = function(wiki) {\n};\n\nFSOSaver.prototype.save = function(text,method,callback) {\n\t// Get the pathname of this document\n\tvar pathname = unescape(document.location.pathname);\n\t// Test for a Windows path of the form /x:\\blah...\n\tif(/^\\/[A-Z]\\:\\\\[^\\\\]+/i.test(pathname)) {\t// ie: ^/[a-z]:/[^/]+\n\t\t// Remove the leading slash\n\t\tpathname = pathname.substr(1);\n\t} else if(document.location.hostname !== \"\" && /^\\/\\\\[^\\\\]+\\\\[^\\\\]+/i.test(pathname)) {\t// test for \\\\server\\share\\blah... - ^/[^/]+/[^/]+\n\t\t// Remove the leading slash\n\t\tpathname = pathname.substr(1);\n\t\t// reconstruct UNC path\n\t\tpathname = \"\\\\\\\\\" + document.location.hostname + pathname;\n\t} else {\n\t\treturn false;\n\t}\n\t// Save the file (as UTF-16)\n\tvar fso = new ActiveXObject(\"Scripting.FileSystemObject\");\n\tvar file = fso.OpenTextFile(pathname,2,-1,-1);\n\tfile.Write(text);\n\tfile.Close();\n\t// Callback that we succeeded\n\tcallback(null);\n\treturn true;\n};\n\n/*\nInformation about this saver\n*/\nFSOSaver.prototype.info = {\n\tname: \"FSOSaver\",\n\tpriority: 120,\n\tcapabilities: [\"save\", \"autosave\"]\n};\n\n/*\nStatic method that returns true if this saver is capable of working\n*/\nexports.canSave = function(wiki) {\n\ttry {\n\t\treturn (window.location.protocol === \"file:\") && !!(new ActiveXObject(\"Scripting.FileSystemObject\"));\n\t} catch(e) { return false; }\n};\n\n/*\nCreate an instance of this saver\n*/\nexports.create = function(wiki) {\n\treturn new FSOSaver(wiki);\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "saver"
},
"$:/core/modules/savers/manualdownload.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/savers/manualdownload.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/savers/manualdownload.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: saver\n\nHandles saving changes via HTML5's download APIs\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\n// Title of the tiddler containing the download message\nvar downloadInstructionsTitle = \"$:/language/Modals/Download\";\n\n/*\nSelect the appropriate saver module and set it up\n*/\nvar ManualDownloadSaver = function(wiki) {\n};\n\nManualDownloadSaver.prototype.save = function(text,method,callback) {\n\t$tw.modal.display(downloadInstructionsTitle,{\n\t\tdownloadLink: \"data:text/html,\" + encodeURIComponent(text)\n\t});\n\t// Callback that we succeeded\n\tcallback(null);\n\treturn true;\n};\n\n/*\nInformation about this saver\n*/\nManualDownloadSaver.prototype.info = {\n\tname: \"manualdownload\",\n\tpriority: 0,\n\tcapabilities: [\"save\", \"download\"]\n};\n\n/*\nStatic method that returns true if this saver is capable of working\n*/\nexports.canSave = function(wiki) {\n\treturn true;\n};\n\n/*\nCreate an instance of this saver\n*/\nexports.create = function(wiki) {\n\treturn new ManualDownloadSaver(wiki);\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "saver"
},
"$:/core/modules/savers/msdownload.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/savers/msdownload.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/savers/msdownload.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: saver\n\nHandles saving changes via window.navigator.msSaveBlob()\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\n/*\nSelect the appropriate saver module and set it up\n*/\nvar MsDownloadSaver = function(wiki) {\n};\n\nMsDownloadSaver.prototype.save = function(text,method,callback) {\n\t// Get the current filename\n\tvar filename = \"tiddlywiki.html\",\n\t\tp = document.location.pathname.lastIndexOf(\"/\");\n\tif(p !== -1) {\n\t\tfilename = document.location.pathname.substr(p+1);\n\t}\n\t// Set up the link\n\tvar blob = new Blob([text], {type: \"text/html\"});\n\twindow.navigator.msSaveBlob(blob,filename);\n\t// Callback that we succeeded\n\tcallback(null);\n\treturn true;\n};\n\n/*\nInformation about this saver\n*/\nMsDownloadSaver.prototype.info = {\n\tname: \"msdownload\",\n\tpriority: 110,\n\tcapabilities: [\"save\", \"download\"]\n};\n\n/*\nStatic method that returns true if this saver is capable of working\n*/\nexports.canSave = function(wiki) {\n\treturn !!window.navigator.msSaveBlob;\n};\n\n/*\nCreate an instance of this saver\n*/\nexports.create = function(wiki) {\n\treturn new MsDownloadSaver(wiki);\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "saver"
},
"$:/core/modules/savers/put.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/savers/put.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/savers/put.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: saver\n\nSaves wiki by performing a PUT request to the server\n\nWorks with any server which accepts a PUT request\nto the current URL, such as a WebDAV server.\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\n/*\nRetrieve ETag if available\n*/\nvar retrieveETag = function(self) {\n\tvar headers = {\n\t\tAccept: \"*/*;charset=UTF-8\"\n\t};\n\t$tw.utils.httpRequest({\n\t\turl: self.uri(),\n\t\ttype: \"HEAD\",\n\t\theaders: headers,\n\t\tcallback: function(err,data,xhr) {\n\t\t\tif(err) {\n\t\t\t\treturn;\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t\tvar etag = xhr.getResponseHeader(\"ETag\");\n\t\t\tif(!etag) {\n\t\t\t\treturn;\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t\tself.etag = etag.replace(/^W\\//,\"\");\n\t\t}\n\t});\n};\n\n\n/*\nSelect the appropriate saver module and set it up\n*/\nvar PutSaver = function(wiki) {\n\tthis.wiki = wiki;\n\tvar self = this;\n\tvar uri = this.uri();\n\t// Async server probe. Until probe finishes, save will fail fast\n\t// See also https://github.com/Jermolene/TiddlyWiki5/issues/2276\n\t$tw.utils.httpRequest({\n\t\turl: uri,\n\t\ttype: \"OPTIONS\",\n\t\tcallback: function(err,data,xhr) {\n\t\t\t// Check DAV header http://www.webdav.org/specs/rfc2518.html#rfc.section.9.1\n\t\t\tif(!err) {\n\t\t\t\tself.serverAcceptsPuts = xhr.status === 200 && !!xhr.getResponseHeader(\"dav\");\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t}\n\t});\n\tretrieveETag(this);\n};\n\nPutSaver.prototype.uri = function() {\n\treturn document.location.toString().split(\"#\")[0];\n};\n\n// TODO: in case of edit conflict\n// Prompt: Do you want to save over this? Y/N\n// Merging would be ideal, and may be possible using future generic merge flow\nPutSaver.prototype.save = function(text,method,callback) {\n\tif(!this.serverAcceptsPuts) {\n\t\treturn false;\n\t}\n\tvar self = this;\n\tvar headers = {\n\t\t\"Content-Type\": \"text/html;charset=UTF-8\"\n\t};\n\tif(this.etag) {\n\t\theaders[\"If-Match\"] = this.etag;\n\t}\n\t$tw.utils.httpRequest({\n\t\turl: this.uri(),\n\t\ttype: \"PUT\",\n\t\theaders: headers,\n\t\tdata: text,\n\t\tcallback: function(err,data,xhr) {\n\t\t\tif(err) {\n\t\t\t\t// response is textual: \"XMLHttpRequest error code: 412\"\n\t\t\t\tvar status = Number(err.substring(err.indexOf(':') + 2, err.length))\n\t\t\t\tif(status === 412) { // edit conflict\n\t\t\t\t\tvar message = $tw.language.getString(\"Error/EditConflict\");\n\t\t\t\t\tcallback(message);\n\t\t\t\t} else {\n\t\t\t\t\tcallback(err); // fail\n\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t} else {\n\t\t\t\tself.etag = xhr.getResponseHeader(\"ETag\");\n\t\t\t\tif(self.etag == null) {\n\t\t\t\t\tretrieveETag(self);\n\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t\tcallback(null); // success\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t}\n\t});\n\treturn true;\n};\n\n/*\nInformation about this saver\n*/\nPutSaver.prototype.info = {\n\tname: \"put\",\n\tpriority: 2000,\n\tcapabilities: [\"save\",\"autosave\"]\n};\n\n/*\nStatic method that returns true if this saver is capable of working\n*/\nexports.canSave = function(wiki) {\n\treturn /^https?:/.test(location.protocol);\n};\n\n/*\nCreate an instance of this saver\n*/\nexports.create = function(wiki) {\n\treturn new PutSaver(wiki);\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "saver"
},
"$:/core/modules/savers/tiddlyfox.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/savers/tiddlyfox.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/savers/tiddlyfox.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: saver\n\nHandles saving changes via the TiddlyFox file extension\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false, netscape: false, Components: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nvar TiddlyFoxSaver = function(wiki) {\n};\n\nTiddlyFoxSaver.prototype.save = function(text,method,callback) {\n\tvar messageBox = document.getElementById(\"tiddlyfox-message-box\");\n\tif(messageBox) {\n\t\t// Get the pathname of this document\n\t\tvar pathname = document.location.toString().split(\"#\")[0];\n\t\t// Replace file://localhost/ with file:///\n\t\tif(pathname.indexOf(\"file://localhost/\") === 0) {\n\t\t\tpathname = \"file://\" + pathname.substr(16);\n\t\t}\n\t\t// Windows path file:///x:/blah/blah --> x:\\blah\\blah\n\t\tif(/^file\\:\\/\\/\\/[A-Z]\\:\\//i.test(pathname)) {\n\t\t\t// Remove the leading slash and convert slashes to backslashes\n\t\t\tpathname = pathname.substr(8).replace(/\\//g,\"\\\\\");\n\t\t// Firefox Windows network path file://///server/share/blah/blah --> //server/share/blah/blah\n\t\t} else if(pathname.indexOf(\"file://///\") === 0) {\n\t\t\tpathname = \"\\\\\\\\\" + unescape(pathname.substr(10)).replace(/\\//g,\"\\\\\");\n\t\t// Mac/Unix local path file:///path/path --> /path/path\n\t\t} else if(pathname.indexOf(\"file:///\") === 0) {\n\t\t\tpathname = unescape(pathname.substr(7));\n\t\t// Mac/Unix local path file:/path/path --> /path/path\n\t\t} else if(pathname.indexOf(\"file:/\") === 0) {\n\t\t\tpathname = unescape(pathname.substr(5));\n\t\t// Otherwise Windows networth path file://server/share/path/path --> \\\\server\\share\\path\\path\n\t\t} else {\n\t\t\tpathname = \"\\\\\\\\\" + unescape(pathname.substr(7)).replace(new RegExp(\"/\",\"g\"),\"\\\\\");\n\t\t}\n\t\t// Create the message element and put it in the message box\n\t\tvar message = document.createElement(\"div\");\n\t\tmessage.setAttribute(\"data-tiddlyfox-path\",decodeURIComponent(pathname));\n\t\tmessage.setAttribute(\"data-tiddlyfox-content\",text);\n\t\tmessageBox.appendChild(message);\n\t\t// Add an event handler for when the file has been saved\n\t\tmessage.addEventListener(\"tiddlyfox-have-saved-file\",function(event) {\n\t\t\tcallback(null);\n\t\t}, false);\n\t\t// Create and dispatch the custom event to the extension\n\t\tvar event = document.createEvent(\"Events\");\n\t\tevent.initEvent(\"tiddlyfox-save-file\",true,false);\n\t\tmessage.dispatchEvent(event);\n\t\treturn true;\n\t} else {\n\t\treturn false;\n\t}\n};\n\n/*\nInformation about this saver\n*/\nTiddlyFoxSaver.prototype.info = {\n\tname: \"tiddlyfox\",\n\tpriority: 1500,\n\tcapabilities: [\"save\", \"autosave\"]\n};\n\n/*\nStatic method that returns true if this saver is capable of working\n*/\nexports.canSave = function(wiki) {\n\treturn true;\n};\n\n/*\nCreate an instance of this saver\n*/\nexports.create = function(wiki) {\n\treturn new TiddlyFoxSaver(wiki);\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "saver"
},
"$:/core/modules/savers/tiddlyie.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/savers/tiddlyie.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/savers/tiddlyie.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: saver\n\nHandles saving changes via Internet Explorer BHO extenion (TiddlyIE)\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\n/*\nSelect the appropriate saver module and set it up\n*/\nvar TiddlyIESaver = function(wiki) {\n};\n\nTiddlyIESaver.prototype.save = function(text,method,callback) {\n\t// Check existence of TiddlyIE BHO extension (note: only works after document is complete)\n\tif(typeof(window.TiddlyIE) != \"undefined\") {\n\t\t// Get the pathname of this document\n\t\tvar pathname = unescape(document.location.pathname);\n\t\t// Test for a Windows path of the form /x:/blah...\n\t\tif(/^\\/[A-Z]\\:\\/[^\\/]+/i.test(pathname)) {\t// ie: ^/[a-z]:/[^/]+ (is this better?: ^/[a-z]:/[^/]+(/[^/]+)*\\.[^/]+ )\n\t\t\t// Remove the leading slash\n\t\t\tpathname = pathname.substr(1);\n\t\t\t// Convert slashes to backslashes\n\t\t\tpathname = pathname.replace(/\\//g,\"\\\\\");\n\t\t} else if(document.hostname !== \"\" && /^\\/[^\\/]+\\/[^\\/]+/i.test(pathname)) {\t// test for \\\\server\\share\\blah... - ^/[^/]+/[^/]+\n\t\t\t// Convert slashes to backslashes\n\t\t\tpathname = pathname.replace(/\\//g,\"\\\\\");\n\t\t\t// reconstruct UNC path\n\t\t\tpathname = \"\\\\\\\\\" + document.location.hostname + pathname;\n\t\t} else return false;\n\t\t// Prompt the user to save the file\n\t\twindow.TiddlyIE.save(pathname, text);\n\t\t// Callback that we succeeded\n\t\tcallback(null);\n\t\treturn true;\n\t} else {\n\t\treturn false;\n\t}\n};\n\n/*\nInformation about this saver\n*/\nTiddlyIESaver.prototype.info = {\n\tname: \"tiddlyiesaver\",\n\tpriority: 1500,\n\tcapabilities: [\"save\"]\n};\n\n/*\nStatic method that returns true if this saver is capable of working\n*/\nexports.canSave = function(wiki) {\n\treturn (window.location.protocol === \"file:\");\n};\n\n/*\nCreate an instance of this saver\n*/\nexports.create = function(wiki) {\n\treturn new TiddlyIESaver(wiki);\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "saver"
},
"$:/core/modules/savers/twedit.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/savers/twedit.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/savers/twedit.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: saver\n\nHandles saving changes via the TWEdit iOS app\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false, netscape: false, Components: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nvar TWEditSaver = function(wiki) {\n};\n\nTWEditSaver.prototype.save = function(text,method,callback) {\n\t// Bail if we're not running under TWEdit\n\tif(typeof DeviceInfo !== \"object\") {\n\t\treturn false;\n\t}\n\t// Get the pathname of this document\n\tvar pathname = decodeURIComponent(document.location.pathname);\n\t// Strip any query or location part\n\tvar p = pathname.indexOf(\"?\");\n\tif(p !== -1) {\n\t\tpathname = pathname.substr(0,p);\n\t}\n\tp = pathname.indexOf(\"#\");\n\tif(p !== -1) {\n\t\tpathname = pathname.substr(0,p);\n\t}\n\t// Remove the leading \"/Documents\" from path\n\tvar prefix = \"/Documents\";\n\tif(pathname.indexOf(prefix) === 0) {\n\t\tpathname = pathname.substr(prefix.length);\n\t}\n\t// Error handler\n\tvar errorHandler = function(event) {\n\t\t// Error\n\t\tcallback($tw.language.getString(\"Error/SavingToTWEdit\") + \": \" + event.target.error.code);\n\t};\n\t// Get the file system\n\twindow.requestFileSystem(LocalFileSystem.PERSISTENT,0,function(fileSystem) {\n\t\t// Now we've got the filesystem, get the fileEntry\n\t\tfileSystem.root.getFile(pathname, {create: true}, function(fileEntry) {\n\t\t\t// Now we've got the fileEntry, create the writer\n\t\t\tfileEntry.createWriter(function(writer) {\n\t\t\t\twriter.onerror = errorHandler;\n\t\t\t\twriter.onwrite = function() {\n\t\t\t\t\tcallback(null);\n\t\t\t\t};\n\t\t\t\twriter.position = 0;\n\t\t\t\twriter.write(text);\n\t\t\t},errorHandler);\n\t\t}, errorHandler);\n\t}, errorHandler);\n\treturn true;\n};\n\n/*\nInformation about this saver\n*/\nTWEditSaver.prototype.info = {\n\tname: \"twedit\",\n\tpriority: 1600,\n\tcapabilities: [\"save\", \"autosave\"]\n};\n\n/*\nStatic method that returns true if this saver is capable of working\n*/\nexports.canSave = function(wiki) {\n\treturn true;\n};\n\n/*\nCreate an instance of this saver\n*/\nexports.create = function(wiki) {\n\treturn new TWEditSaver(wiki);\n};\n\n/////////////////////////// Hack\n// HACK: This ensures that TWEdit recognises us as a TiddlyWiki document\nif($tw.browser) {\n\twindow.version = {title: \"TiddlyWiki\"};\n}\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "saver"
},
"$:/core/modules/savers/upload.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/savers/upload.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/savers/upload.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: saver\n\nHandles saving changes via upload to a server.\n\nDesigned to be compatible with BidiX's UploadPlugin at http://tiddlywiki.bidix.info/#UploadPlugin\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\n/*\nSelect the appropriate saver module and set it up\n*/\nvar UploadSaver = function(wiki) {\n\tthis.wiki = wiki;\n};\n\nUploadSaver.prototype.save = function(text,method,callback) {\n\t// Get the various parameters we need\n\tvar backupDir = this.wiki.getTextReference(\"$:/UploadBackupDir\") || \".\",\n\t\tusername = this.wiki.getTextReference(\"$:/UploadName\"),\n\t\tpassword = $tw.utils.getPassword(\"upload\"),\n\t\tuploadDir = this.wiki.getTextReference(\"$:/UploadDir\") || \".\",\n\t\tuploadFilename = this.wiki.getTextReference(\"$:/UploadFilename\") || \"index.html\",\n\t\turl = this.wiki.getTextReference(\"$:/UploadURL\");\n\t// Bail out if we don't have the bits we need\n\tif(!username || username.toString().trim() === \"\" || !password || password.toString().trim() === \"\") {\n\t\treturn false;\n\t}\n\t// Construct the url if not provided\n\tif(!url) {\n\t\turl = \"http://\" + username + \".tiddlyspot.com/store.cgi\";\n\t}\n\t// Assemble the header\n\tvar boundary = \"---------------------------\" + \"AaB03x\";\t\n\tvar uploadFormName = \"UploadPlugin\";\n\tvar head = [];\n\thead.push(\"--\" + boundary + \"\\r\\nContent-disposition: form-data; name=\\\"UploadPlugin\\\"\\r\\n\");\n\thead.push(\"backupDir=\" + backupDir + \";user=\" + username + \";password=\" + password + \";uploaddir=\" + uploadDir + \";;\"); \n\thead.push(\"\\r\\n\" + \"--\" + boundary);\n\thead.push(\"Content-disposition: form-data; name=\\\"userfile\\\"; filename=\\\"\" + uploadFilename + \"\\\"\");\n\thead.push(\"Content-Type: text/html;charset=UTF-8\");\n\thead.push(\"Content-Length: \" + text.length + \"\\r\\n\");\n\thead.push(\"\");\n\t// Assemble the tail and the data itself\n\tvar tail = \"\\r\\n--\" + boundary + \"--\\r\\n\",\n\t\tdata = head.join(\"\\r\\n\") + text + tail;\n\t// Do the HTTP post\n\tvar http = new XMLHttpRequest();\n\thttp.open(\"POST\",url,true,username,password);\n\thttp.setRequestHeader(\"Content-Type\",\"multipart/form-data; charset=UTF-8; boundary=\" + boundary);\n\thttp.onreadystatechange = function() {\n\t\tif(http.readyState == 4 && http.status == 200) {\n\t\t\tif(http.responseText.substr(0,4) === \"0 - \") {\n\t\t\t\tcallback(null);\n\t\t\t} else {\n\t\t\t\tcallback(http.responseText);\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t}\n\t};\n\ttry {\n\t\thttp.send(data);\n\t} catch(ex) {\n\t\treturn callback($tw.language.getString(\"Error/Caption\") + \":\" + ex);\n\t}\n\t$tw.notifier.display(\"$:/language/Notifications/Save/Starting\");\n\treturn true;\n};\n\n/*\nInformation about this saver\n*/\nUploadSaver.prototype.info = {\n\tname: \"upload\",\n\tpriority: 2000,\n\tcapabilities: [\"save\", \"autosave\"]\n};\n\n/*\nStatic method that returns true if this saver is capable of working\n*/\nexports.canSave = function(wiki) {\n\treturn true;\n};\n\n/*\nCreate an instance of this saver\n*/\nexports.create = function(wiki) {\n\treturn new UploadSaver(wiki);\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "saver"
},
"$:/core/modules/server/authenticators/basic.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/server/authenticators/basic.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/server/authenticators/basic.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: authenticator\n\nAuthenticator for WWW basic authentication\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nif($tw.node) {\n\tvar util = require(\"util\"),\n\t\tfs = require(\"fs\"),\n\t\turl = require(\"url\"),\n\t\tpath = require(\"path\");\n}\n\nfunction BasicAuthenticator(server) {\n\tthis.server = server;\n\tthis.credentialsData = [];\n}\n\n/*\nReturns true if the authenticator is active, false if it is inactive, or a string if there is an error\n*/\nBasicAuthenticator.prototype.init = function() {\n\t// Read the credentials data\n\tthis.credentialsFilepath = this.server.get(\"credentials\");\n\tif(this.credentialsFilepath) {\n\t\tvar resolveCredentialsFilepath = path.resolve($tw.boot.wikiPath,this.credentialsFilepath);\n\t\tif(fs.existsSync(resolveCredentialsFilepath) && !fs.statSync(resolveCredentialsFilepath).isDirectory()) {\n\t\t\tvar credentialsText = fs.readFileSync(resolveCredentialsFilepath,\"utf8\"),\n\t\t\t\tcredentialsData = $tw.utils.parseCsvStringWithHeader(credentialsText);\n\t\t\tif(typeof credentialsData === \"string\") {\n\t\t\t\treturn \"Error: \" + credentialsData + \" reading credentials from '\" + resolveCredentialsFilepath + \"'\";\n\t\t\t} else {\n\t\t\t\tthis.credentialsData = credentialsData;\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t} else {\n\t\t\treturn \"Error: Unable to load user credentials from '\" + credentialsFilepath + \"'\";\n\t\t}\n\t}\n\t// Add the hardcoded username and password if specified\n\tif(this.server.get(\"username\") && this.server.get(\"password\")) {\n\t\tthis.credentialsData = this.credentialsData || [];\n\t\tthis.credentialsData.push({\n\t\t\tusername: this.server.get(\"username\"),\n\t\t\tpassword: this.server.get(\"password\")\n\t\t});\n\t}\n\treturn this.credentialsData.length > 0;\n};\n\n/*\nReturns true if the request is authenticated and assigns the \"authenticatedUsername\" state variable.\nReturns false if the request couldn't be authenticated having sent an appropriate response to the browser\n*/\nBasicAuthenticator.prototype.authenticateRequest = function(request,response,state) {\n\t// Extract the incoming username and password from the request\n\tvar header = request.headers.authorization || \"\";\n\tif(!header && state.allowAnon) {\n\t\t// If there's no header and anonymous access is allowed then we don't set authenticatedUsername\n\t\treturn true;\n\t}\n\tvar token = header.split(/\\s+/).pop() || \"\",\n\t\tauth = $tw.utils.base64Decode(token),\n\t\tparts = auth.split(/:/),\n\t\tincomingUsername = parts[0],\n\t\tincomingPassword = parts[1];\n\t// Check that at least one of the credentials matches\n\tvar matchingCredentials = this.credentialsData.find(function(credential) {\n\t\treturn credential.username === incomingUsername && credential.password === incomingPassword;\n\t});\n\tif(matchingCredentials) {\n\t\t// If so, add the authenticated username to the request state\n\t\tstate.authenticatedUsername = incomingUsername;\n\t\treturn true;\n\t} else {\n\t\t// If not, return an authentication challenge\n\t\tresponse.writeHead(401,\"Authentication required\",{\n\t\t\t\"WWW-Authenticate\": 'Basic realm=\"Please provide your username and password to login to ' + state.server.servername + '\"'\n\t\t});\n\t\tresponse.end();\n\t\treturn false;\n\t}\n};\n\nexports.AuthenticatorClass = BasicAuthenticator;\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "authenticator"
},
"$:/core/modules/server/authenticators/header.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/server/authenticators/header.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/server/authenticators/header.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: authenticator\n\nAuthenticator for trusted header authentication\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nfunction HeaderAuthenticator(server) {\n\tthis.server = server;\n\tthis.header = server.get(\"authenticated-user-header\");\n}\n\n/*\nReturns true if the authenticator is active, false if it is inactive, or a string if there is an error\n*/\nHeaderAuthenticator.prototype.init = function() {\n\treturn !!this.header;\n};\n\n/*\nReturns true if the request is authenticated and assigns the \"authenticatedUsername\" state variable.\nReturns false if the request couldn't be authenticated having sent an appropriate response to the browser\n*/\nHeaderAuthenticator.prototype.authenticateRequest = function(request,response,state) {\n\t// Otherwise, authenticate as the username in the specified header\n\tvar username = request.headers[this.header];\n\tif(!username && !state.allowAnon) {\n\t\tresponse.writeHead(401,\"Authorization header required to login to '\" + state.server.servername + \"'\");\n\t\tresponse.end();\n\t\treturn false;\n\t} else {\n\t\t// authenticatedUsername will be undefined for anonymous users\n\t\tstate.authenticatedUsername = username;\n\t\treturn true;\n\t}\n};\n\nexports.AuthenticatorClass = HeaderAuthenticator;\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "authenticator"
},
"$:/core/modules/server/routes/delete-tiddler.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/server/routes/delete-tiddler.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/server/routes/delete-tiddler.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: route\n\nDELETE /recipes/default/tiddlers/:title\n\n\\*/\n(function() {\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nexports.method = \"DELETE\";\n\nexports.path = /^\\/bags\\/default\\/tiddlers\\/(.+)$/;\n\nexports.handler = function(request,response,state) {\n\tvar title = decodeURIComponent(state.params[0]);\n\tstate.wiki.deleteTiddler(title);\n\tresponse.writeHead(204, \"OK\", {\n\t\t\"Content-Type\": \"text/plain\"\n\t});\n\tresponse.end();\n};\n\n}());\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "route"
},
"$:/core/modules/server/routes/get-favicon.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/server/routes/get-favicon.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/server/routes/get-favicon.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: route\n\nGET /favicon.ico\n\n\\*/\n(function() {\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nexports.method = \"GET\";\n\nexports.path = /^\\/favicon.ico$/;\n\nexports.handler = function(request,response,state) {\n\tresponse.writeHead(200, {\"Content-Type\": \"image/x-icon\"});\n\tvar buffer = state.wiki.getTiddlerText(\"$:/favicon.ico\",\"\");\n\tresponse.end(buffer,\"base64\");\n};\n\n}());\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "route"
},
"$:/core/modules/server/routes/get-file.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/server/routes/get-file.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/server/routes/get-file.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: route\n\nGET /files/:filepath\n\n\\*/\n(function() {\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nexports.method = \"GET\";\n\nexports.path = /^\\/files\\/(.+)$/;\n\nexports.handler = function(request,response,state) {\n\tvar path = require(\"path\"),\n\t\tfs = require(\"fs\"),\n\t\tutil = require(\"util\");\n\tvar filename = path.resolve($tw.boot.wikiPath,\"files\",decodeURIComponent(state.params[0])),\n\t\textension = path.extname(filename);\n\tfs.readFile(filename,function(err,content) {\n\t\tvar status,content,type = \"text/plain\";\n\t\tif(err) {\n\t\t\tif(err.code === \"ENOENT\") {\n\t\t\t\tstatus = 404;\n\t\t\t\tcontent = \"File '\" + filename + \"' not found\";\n\t\t\t} else if(err.code === \"EACCES\") {\n\t\t\t\tstatus = 403;\n\t\t\t\tcontent = \"You do not have permission to access the file '\" + filename + \"'\";\n\t\t\t} else {\n\t\t\t\tstatus = 500;\n\t\t\t\tcontent = err.toString();\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t} else {\n\t\t\tstatus = 200;\n\t\t\tcontent = content;\n\t\t\ttype = ($tw.config.fileExtensionInfo[extension] ? $tw.config.fileExtensionInfo[extension].type : \"application/octet-stream\");\n\t\t}\n\t\tresponse.writeHead(status,{\n\t\t\t\"Content-Type\": type\n\t\t});\n\t\tresponse.end(content);\n\t});\n};\n\n}());\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "route"
},
"$:/core/modules/server/routes/get-index.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/server/routes/get-index.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/server/routes/get-index.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: route\n\nGET /\n\n\\*/\n(function() {\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nexports.method = \"GET\";\n\nexports.path = /^\\/$/;\n\nexports.handler = function(request,response,state) {\n\tresponse.writeHead(200, {\"Content-Type\": state.server.get(\"root-serve-type\")});\n\tvar text = state.wiki.renderTiddler(state.server.get(\"root-render-type\"),state.server.get(\"root-tiddler\"));\n\tresponse.end(text,\"utf8\");\n};\n\n}());\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "route"
},
"$:/core/modules/server/routes/get-login-basic.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/server/routes/get-login-basic.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/server/routes/get-login-basic.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: route\n\nGET /login-basic -- force a Basic Authentication challenge\n\n\\*/\n(function() {\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nexports.method = \"GET\";\n\nexports.path = /^\\/login-basic$/;\n\nexports.handler = function(request,response,state) {\n\tif(!state.authenticatedUsername) {\n\t\t// Challenge if there's no username\n\t\tresponse.writeHead(401,{\n\t\t\t\"WWW-Authenticate\": 'Basic realm=\"Please provide your username and password to login to ' + state.server.servername + '\"'\n\t\t});\n\t\tresponse.end();\t\t\n\t} else {\n\t\t// Redirect to the root wiki if login worked\n\t\tresponse.writeHead(302,{\n\t\t\tLocation: \"/\"\n\t\t});\n\t\tresponse.end();\n\t}\n};\n\n}());\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "route"
},
"$:/core/modules/server/routes/get-status.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/server/routes/get-status.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/server/routes/get-status.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: route\n\nGET /status\n\n\\*/\n(function() {\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nexports.method = \"GET\";\n\nexports.path = /^\\/status$/;\n\nexports.handler = function(request,response,state) {\n\tresponse.writeHead(200, {\"Content-Type\": \"application/json\"});\n\tvar text = JSON.stringify({\n\t\tusername: state.authenticatedUsername || state.server.get(\"anon-username\") || \"\",\n\t\tanonymous: !state.authenticatedUsername,\n\t\tread_only: !state.server.isAuthorized(\"writers\",state.authenticatedUsername),\n\t\tspace: {\n\t\t\trecipe: \"default\"\n\t\t},\n\t\ttiddlywiki_version: $tw.version\n\t});\n\tresponse.end(text,\"utf8\");\n};\n\n}());\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "route"
},
"$:/core/modules/server/routes/get-tiddler-html.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/server/routes/get-tiddler-html.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/server/routes/get-tiddler-html.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: route\n\nGET /:title\n\n\\*/\n(function() {\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nexports.method = \"GET\";\n\nexports.path = /^\\/([^\\/]+)$/;\n\nexports.handler = function(request,response,state) {\n\tvar title = decodeURIComponent(state.params[0]),\n\t\ttiddler = state.wiki.getTiddler(title);\n\tif(tiddler) {\n\t\tvar renderType = tiddler.getFieldString(\"_render_type\"),\n\t\t\trenderTemplate = tiddler.getFieldString(\"_render_template\");\n\t\t// Tiddler fields '_render_type' and '_render_template' overwrite\n\t\t// system wide settings for render type and template\n\t\tif(state.wiki.isSystemTiddler(title)) {\n\t\t\trenderType = renderType || state.server.get(\"system-tiddler-render-type\");\n\t\t\trenderTemplate = renderTemplate || state.server.get(\"system-tiddler-render-template\");\n\t\t} else {\n\t\t\trenderType = renderType || state.server.get(\"tiddler-render-type\");\n\t\t\trenderTemplate = renderTemplate || state.server.get(\"tiddler-render-template\");\n\t\t}\n\t\tvar text = state.wiki.renderTiddler(renderType,renderTemplate,{parseAsInline: true, variables: {currentTiddler: title}});\n\t\t// Naughty not to set a content-type, but it's the easiest way to ensure the browser will see HTML pages as HTML, and accept plain text tiddlers as CSS or JS\n\t\tresponse.writeHead(200);\n\t\tresponse.end(text,\"utf8\");\n\t} else {\n\t\tresponse.writeHead(404);\n\t\tresponse.end();\n\t}\n};\n\n}());\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "route"
},
"$:/core/modules/server/routes/get-tiddler.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/server/routes/get-tiddler.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/server/routes/get-tiddler.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: route\n\nGET /recipes/default/tiddlers/:title\n\n\\*/\n(function() {\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nexports.method = \"GET\";\n\nexports.path = /^\\/recipes\\/default\\/tiddlers\\/(.+)$/;\n\nexports.handler = function(request,response,state) {\n\tvar title = decodeURIComponent(state.params[0]),\n\t\ttiddler = state.wiki.getTiddler(title),\n\t\ttiddlerFields = {},\n\t\tknownFields = [\n\t\t\t\"bag\", \"created\", \"creator\", \"modified\", \"modifier\", \"permissions\", \"recipe\", \"revision\", \"tags\", \"text\", \"title\", \"type\", \"uri\"\n\t\t];\n\tif(tiddler) {\n\t\t$tw.utils.each(tiddler.fields,function(field,name) {\n\t\t\tvar value = tiddler.getFieldString(name);\n\t\t\tif(knownFields.indexOf(name) !== -1) {\n\t\t\t\ttiddlerFields[name] = value;\n\t\t\t} else {\n\t\t\t\ttiddlerFields.fields = tiddlerFields.fields || {};\n\t\t\t\ttiddlerFields.fields[name] = value;\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t});\n\t\ttiddlerFields.revision = state.wiki.getChangeCount(title);\n\t\ttiddlerFields.type = tiddlerFields.type || \"text/vnd.tiddlywiki\";\n\t\tresponse.writeHead(200, {\"Content-Type\": \"application/json\"});\n\t\tresponse.end(JSON.stringify(tiddlerFields),\"utf8\");\n\t} else {\n\t\tresponse.writeHead(404);\n\t\tresponse.end();\n\t}\n};\n\n}());\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "route"
},
"$:/core/modules/server/routes/get-tiddlers-json.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/server/routes/get-tiddlers-json.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/server/routes/get-tiddlers-json.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: route\n\nGET /recipes/default/tiddlers/tiddlers.json\n\n\\*/\n(function() {\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nexports.method = \"GET\";\n\nexports.path = /^\\/recipes\\/default\\/tiddlers.json$/;\n\nexports.handler = function(request,response,state) {\n\tresponse.writeHead(200, {\"Content-Type\": \"application/json\"});\n\tvar tiddlers = [];\n\tstate.wiki.forEachTiddler({sortField: \"title\"},function(title,tiddler) {\n\t\tvar tiddlerFields = {};\n\t\t$tw.utils.each(tiddler.fields,function(field,name) {\n\t\t\tif(name !== \"text\") {\n\t\t\t\ttiddlerFields[name] = tiddler.getFieldString(name);\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t});\n\t\ttiddlerFields.revision = state.wiki.getChangeCount(title);\n\t\ttiddlerFields.type = tiddlerFields.type || \"text/vnd.tiddlywiki\";\n\t\ttiddlers.push(tiddlerFields);\n\t});\n\tvar text = JSON.stringify(tiddlers);\n\tresponse.end(text,\"utf8\");\n};\n\n}());\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "route"
},
"$:/core/modules/server/routes/put-tiddler.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/server/routes/put-tiddler.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/server/routes/put-tiddler.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: route\n\nPUT /recipes/default/tiddlers/:title\n\n\\*/\n(function() {\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nexports.method = \"PUT\";\n\nexports.path = /^\\/recipes\\/default\\/tiddlers\\/(.+)$/;\n\nexports.handler = function(request,response,state) {\n\tvar title = decodeURIComponent(state.params[0]),\n\tfields = JSON.parse(state.data);\n\t// Pull up any subfields in the `fields` object\n\tif(fields.fields) {\n\t\t$tw.utils.each(fields.fields,function(field,name) {\n\t\t\tfields[name] = field;\n\t\t});\n\t\tdelete fields.fields;\n\t}\n\t// Remove any revision field\n\tif(fields.revision) {\n\t\tdelete fields.revision;\n\t}\n\tstate.wiki.addTiddler(new $tw.Tiddler(state.wiki.getCreationFields(),fields,{title: title},state.wiki.getModificationFields()));\n\tvar changeCount = state.wiki.getChangeCount(title).toString();\n\tresponse.writeHead(204, \"OK\",{\n\t\tEtag: \"\\\"default/\" + encodeURIComponent(title) + \"/\" + changeCount + \":\\\"\",\n\t\t\"Content-Type\": \"text/plain\"\n\t});\n\tresponse.end();\n};\n\n}());\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "route"
},
"$:/core/modules/server/server.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/server/server.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/server/server.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: library\n\nServe tiddlers over http\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nif($tw.node) {\n\tvar util = require(\"util\"),\n\t\tfs = require(\"fs\"),\n\t\turl = require(\"url\"),\n\t\tpath = require(\"path\");\n}\n\n/*\nA simple HTTP server with regexp-based routes\noptions: variables - optional hashmap of variables to set (a misnomer - they are really constant parameters)\n\t\t routes - optional array of routes to use\n\t\t wiki - reference to wiki object\n*/\nfunction Server(options) {\n\tvar self = this;\n\tthis.routes = options.routes || [];\n\tthis.authenticators = options.authenticators || [];\n\tthis.wiki = options.wiki;\n\tthis.servername = $tw.utils.transliterateToSafeASCII(this.wiki.getTiddlerText(\"$:/SiteTitle\") || \"TiddlyWiki5\");\n\t// Initialise the variables\n\tthis.variables = $tw.utils.extend({},this.defaultVariables);\n\tif(options.variables) {\n\t\tfor(var variable in options.variables) {\n\t\t\tif(options.variables[variable]) {\n\t\t\t\tthis.variables[variable] = options.variables[variable];\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t}\t\t\n\t}\n\t$tw.utils.extend({},this.defaultVariables,options.variables);\n\t// Initialise CSRF\n\tthis.csrfDisable = this.get(\"csrf-disable\") === \"yes\";\n\t// Initialise authorization\n\tvar authorizedUserName = (this.get(\"username\") && this.get(\"password\")) ? this.get(\"username\") : \"(anon)\";\n\tthis.authorizationPrincipals = {\n\t\treaders: (this.get(\"readers\") || authorizedUserName).split(\",\").map($tw.utils.trim),\n\t\twriters: (this.get(\"writers\") || authorizedUserName).split(\",\").map($tw.utils.trim)\n\t}\n\t// Load and initialise authenticators\n\t$tw.modules.forEachModuleOfType(\"authenticator\", function(title,authenticatorDefinition) {\n\t\t// console.log(\"Loading server route \" + title);\n\t\tself.addAuthenticator(authenticatorDefinition.AuthenticatorClass);\n\t});\n\t// Load route handlers\n\t$tw.modules.forEachModuleOfType(\"route\", function(title,routeDefinition) {\n\t\t// console.log(\"Loading server route \" + title);\n\t\tself.addRoute(routeDefinition);\n\t});\n\t// Initialise the http vs https\n\tthis.listenOptions = null;\n\tthis.protocol = \"http\";\n\tvar tlsKeyFilepath = this.get(\"tls-key\"),\n\t\ttlsCertFilepath = this.get(\"tls-cert\");\n\tif(tlsCertFilepath && tlsKeyFilepath) {\n\t\tthis.listenOptions = {\n\t\t\tkey: fs.readFileSync(path.resolve($tw.boot.wikiPath,tlsKeyFilepath),\"utf8\"),\n\t\t\tcert: fs.readFileSync(path.resolve($tw.boot.wikiPath,tlsCertFilepath),\"utf8\")\n\t\t};\n\t\tthis.protocol = \"https\";\n\t}\n\tthis.transport = require(this.protocol);\n}\n\nServer.prototype.defaultVariables = {\n\tport: \"8080\",\n\thost: \"127.0.0.1\",\n\t\"root-tiddler\": \"$:/core/save/all\",\n\t\"root-render-type\": \"text/plain\",\n\t\"root-serve-type\": \"text/html\",\n\t\"tiddler-render-type\": \"text/html\",\n\t\"tiddler-render-template\": \"$:/core/templates/server/static.tiddler.html\",\n\t\"system-tiddler-render-type\": \"text/plain\",\n\t\"system-tiddler-render-template\": \"$:/core/templates/wikified-tiddler\",\n\t\"debug-level\": \"none\"\n};\n\nServer.prototype.get = function(name) {\n\treturn this.variables[name];\n};\n\nServer.prototype.addRoute = function(route) {\n\tthis.routes.push(route);\n};\n\nServer.prototype.addAuthenticator = function(AuthenticatorClass) {\n\t// Instantiate and initialise the authenticator\n\tvar authenticator = new AuthenticatorClass(this),\n\t\tresult = authenticator.init();\n\tif(typeof result === \"string\") {\n\t\t$tw.utils.error(\"Error: \" + result);\n\t} else if(result) {\n\t\t// Only use the authenticator if it initialised successfully\n\t\tthis.authenticators.push(authenticator);\n\t}\n};\n\nServer.prototype.findMatchingRoute = function(request,state) {\n\tvar pathprefix = this.get(\"path-prefix\") || \"\";\n\tfor(var t=0; t<this.routes.length; t++) {\n\t\tvar potentialRoute = this.routes[t],\n\t\t\tpathRegExp = potentialRoute.path,\n\t\t\tpathname = state.urlInfo.pathname,\n\t\t\tmatch;\n\t\tif(pathprefix) {\n\t\t\tif(pathname.substr(0,pathprefix.length) === pathprefix) {\n\t\t\t\tpathname = pathname.substr(pathprefix.length) || \"/\";\n\t\t\t\tmatch = potentialRoute.path.exec(pathname);\n\t\t\t} else {\n\t\t\t\tmatch = false;\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t} else {\n\t\t\tmatch = potentialRoute.path.exec(pathname);\n\t\t}\n\t\tif(match && request.method === potentialRoute.method) {\n\t\t\tstate.params = [];\n\t\t\tfor(var p=1; p<match.length; p++) {\n\t\t\t\tstate.params.push(match[p]);\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t\treturn potentialRoute;\n\t\t}\n\t}\n\treturn null;\n};\n\nServer.prototype.methodMappings = {\n\t\"GET\": \"readers\",\n\t\"OPTIONS\": \"readers\",\n\t\"HEAD\": \"readers\",\n\t\"PUT\": \"writers\",\n\t\"POST\": \"writers\",\n\t\"DELETE\": \"writers\"\n};\n\n/*\nCheck whether a given user is authorized for the specified authorizationType (\"readers\" or \"writers\"). Pass null or undefined as the username to check for anonymous access\n*/\nServer.prototype.isAuthorized = function(authorizationType,username) {\n\tvar principals = this.authorizationPrincipals[authorizationType] || [];\n\treturn principals.indexOf(\"(anon)\") !== -1 || (username && (principals.indexOf(\"(authenticated)\") !== -1 || principals.indexOf(username) !== -1));\n}\n\nServer.prototype.requestHandler = function(request,response) {\n\t// Compose the state object\n\tvar self = this;\n\tvar state = {};\n\tstate.wiki = self.wiki;\n\tstate.server = self;\n\tstate.urlInfo = url.parse(request.url);\n\t// Get the principals authorized to access this resource\n\tvar authorizationType = this.methodMappings[request.method] || \"readers\";\n\t// Check for the CSRF header if this is a write\n\tif(!this.csrfDisable && authorizationType === \"writers\" && request.headers[\"x-requested-with\"] !== \"TiddlyWiki\") {\n\t\tresponse.writeHead(403,\"'X-Requested-With' header required to login to '\" + this.servername + \"'\");\n\t\tresponse.end();\n\t\treturn;\t\t\n\t}\n\t// Check whether anonymous access is granted\n\tstate.allowAnon = this.isAuthorized(authorizationType,null);\n\t// Authenticate with the first active authenticator\n\tif(this.authenticators.length > 0) {\n\t\tif(!this.authenticators[0].authenticateRequest(request,response,state)) {\n\t\t\t// Bail if we failed (the authenticator will have sent the response)\n\t\t\treturn;\n\t\t}\t\t\n\t}\n\t// Authorize with the authenticated username\n\tif(!this.isAuthorized(authorizationType,state.authenticatedUsername)) {\n\t\tresponse.writeHead(401,\"'\" + state.authenticatedUsername + \"' is not authorized to access '\" + this.servername + \"'\");\n\t\tresponse.end();\n\t\treturn;\n\t}\n\t// Find the route that matches this path\n\tvar route = self.findMatchingRoute(request,state);\n\t// Optionally output debug info\n\tif(self.get(\"debug-level\") !== \"none\") {\n\t\tconsole.log(\"Request path:\",JSON.stringify(state.urlInfo));\n\t\tconsole.log(\"Request headers:\",JSON.stringify(request.headers));\n\t\tconsole.log(\"authenticatedUsername:\",state.authenticatedUsername);\n\t}\n\t// Return a 404 if we didn't find a route\n\tif(!route) {\n\t\tresponse.writeHead(404);\n\t\tresponse.end();\n\t\treturn;\n\t}\n\t// Receive the request body if necessary and hand off to the route handler\n\tif(route.bodyFormat === \"stream\" || request.method === \"GET\" || request.method === \"HEAD\") {\n\t\t// Let the route handle the request stream itself\n\t\troute.handler(request,response,state);\n\t} else if(route.bodyFormat === \"string\" || !route.bodyFormat) {\n\t\t// Set the encoding for the incoming request\n\t\trequest.setEncoding(\"utf8\");\n\t\tvar data = \"\";\n\t\trequest.on(\"data\",function(chunk) {\n\t\t\tdata += chunk.toString();\n\t\t});\n\t\trequest.on(\"end\",function() {\n\t\t\tstate.data = data;\n\t\t\troute.handler(request,response,state);\n\t\t});\n\t} else if(route.bodyFormat === \"buffer\") {\n\t\tvar data = [];\n\t\trequest.on(\"data\",function(chunk) {\n\t\t\tdata.push(chunk);\n\t\t});\n\t\trequest.on(\"end\",function() {\n\t\t\tstate.data = Buffer.concat(data);\n\t\t\troute.handler(request,response,state);\n\t\t})\n\t} else {\n\t\tresponse.writeHead(400,\"Invalid bodyFormat \" + route.bodyFormat + \" in route \" + route.method + \" \" + route.path.source);\n\t\tresponse.end();\n\t}\n};\n\n/*\nListen for requests\nport: optional port number (falls back to value of \"port\" variable)\nhost: optional host address (falls back to value of \"hist\" variable)\n*/\nServer.prototype.listen = function(port,host) {\n\t// Handle defaults for port and host\n\tport = port || this.get(\"port\");\n\thost = host || this.get(\"host\");\n\t// Check for the port being a string and look it up as an environment variable\n\tif(parseInt(port,10).toString() !== port) {\n\t\tport = process.env[port] || 8080;\n\t}\n\t$tw.utils.log(\"Serving on \" + this.protocol + \"://\" + host + \":\" + port,\"brown/orange\");\n\t$tw.utils.log(\"(press ctrl-C to exit)\",\"red\");\n\t// Warn if required plugins are missing\n\tif(!$tw.wiki.getTiddler(\"$:/plugins/tiddlywiki/tiddlyweb\") || !$tw.wiki.getTiddler(\"$:/plugins/tiddlywiki/filesystem\")) {\n\t\t$tw.utils.warning(\"Warning: Plugins required for client-server operation (\\\"tiddlywiki/filesystem\\\" and \\\"tiddlywiki/tiddlyweb\\\") are missing from tiddlywiki.info file\");\n\t}\n\t// Listen\n\tvar server;\n\tif(this.listenOptions) {\n\t\tserver = this.transport.createServer(this.listenOptions,this.requestHandler.bind(this));\n\t} else {\n\t\tserver = this.transport.createServer(this.requestHandler.bind(this));\n\t}\n\treturn server.listen(port,host);\n};\n\nexports.Server = Server;\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "library"
},
"$:/core/modules/browser-messaging.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/browser-messaging.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/browser-messaging.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: startup\n\nBrowser message handling\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\n// Export name and synchronous status\nexports.name = \"browser-messaging\";\nexports.platforms = [\"browser\"];\nexports.after = [\"startup\"];\nexports.synchronous = true;\n\n/*\nLoad a specified url as an iframe and call the callback when it is loaded. If the url is already loaded then the existing iframe instance is used\n*/\nfunction loadIFrame(url,callback) {\n\t// Check if iframe already exists\n\tvar iframeInfo = $tw.browserMessaging.iframeInfoMap[url];\n\tif(iframeInfo) {\n\t\t// We've already got the iframe\n\t\tcallback(null,iframeInfo);\n\t} else {\n\t\t// Create the iframe and save it in the list\n\t\tvar iframe = document.createElement(\"iframe\");\n\t\tiframeInfo = {\n\t\t\turl: url,\n\t\t\tstatus: \"loading\",\n\t\t\tdomNode: iframe\n\t\t};\n\t\t$tw.browserMessaging.iframeInfoMap[url] = iframeInfo;\n\t\tsaveIFrameInfoTiddler(iframeInfo);\n\t\t// Add the iframe to the DOM and hide it\n\t\tiframe.style.display = \"none\";\n\t\tiframe.setAttribute(\"library\",\"true\");\n\t\tdocument.body.appendChild(iframe);\n\t\t// Set up onload\n\t\tiframe.onload = function() {\n\t\t\tiframeInfo.status = \"loaded\";\n\t\t\tsaveIFrameInfoTiddler(iframeInfo);\n\t\t\tcallback(null,iframeInfo);\n\t\t};\n\t\tiframe.onerror = function() {\n\t\t\tcallback(\"Cannot load iframe\");\n\t\t};\n\t\ttry {\n\t\t\tiframe.src = url;\n\t\t} catch(ex) {\n\t\t\tcallback(ex);\n\t\t}\n\t}\n}\n\n/*\nUnload library iframe for given url\n*/\nfunction unloadIFrame(url){\n\t$tw.utils.each(document.getElementsByTagName('iframe'), function(iframe) {\n\t\tif(iframe.getAttribute(\"library\") === \"true\" &&\n\t\t iframe.getAttribute(\"src\") === url) {\n\t\t\tiframe.parentNode.removeChild(iframe);\n\t\t}\n\t});\n}\n\nfunction saveIFrameInfoTiddler(iframeInfo) {\n\t$tw.wiki.addTiddler(new $tw.Tiddler($tw.wiki.getCreationFields(),{\n\t\ttitle: \"$:/temp/ServerConnection/\" + iframeInfo.url,\n\t\ttext: iframeInfo.status,\n\t\ttags: [\"$:/tags/ServerConnection\"],\n\t\turl: iframeInfo.url\n\t},$tw.wiki.getModificationFields()));\n}\n\nexports.startup = function() {\n\t// Initialise the store of iframes we've created\n\t$tw.browserMessaging = {\n\t\tiframeInfoMap: {} // Hashmap by URL of {url:,status:\"loading/loaded\",domNode:}\n\t};\n\t// Listen for widget messages to control loading the plugin library\n\t$tw.rootWidget.addEventListener(\"tm-load-plugin-library\",function(event) {\n\t\tvar paramObject = event.paramObject || {},\n\t\t\turl = paramObject.url;\n\t\tif(url) {\n\t\t\tloadIFrame(url,function(err,iframeInfo) {\n\t\t\t\tif(err) {\n\t\t\t\t\talert($tw.language.getString(\"Error/LoadingPluginLibrary\") + \": \" + url);\n\t\t\t\t} else {\n\t\t\t\t\tiframeInfo.domNode.contentWindow.postMessage({\n\t\t\t\t\t\tverb: \"GET\",\n\t\t\t\t\t\turl: \"recipes/library/tiddlers.json\",\n\t\t\t\t\t\tcookies: {\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\ttype: \"save-info\",\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tinfoTitlePrefix: paramObject.infoTitlePrefix || \"$:/temp/RemoteAssetInfo/\",\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\turl: url\n\t\t\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t\t\t},\"*\");\n\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t});\n\t\t}\n\t});\n\t// Listen for widget messages to control unloading the plugin library\n\t$tw.rootWidget.addEventListener(\"tm-unload-plugin-library\",function(event) {\n\t\tvar paramObject = event.paramObject || {},\n\t\t\turl = paramObject.url;\n\t\t$tw.browserMessaging.iframeInfoMap[url] = undefined;\n\t\tif(url) {\n\t\t\tunloadIFrame(url);\n\t\t\t$tw.utils.each(\n\t\t\t\t$tw.wiki.filterTiddlers(\"[[$:/temp/ServerConnection/\" + url + \"]] [prefix[$:/temp/RemoteAssetInfo/\" + url + \"/]]\"),\n\t\t\t\tfunction(title) {\n\t\t\t\t\t$tw.wiki.deleteTiddler(title);\n\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t);\n\t\t}\n\t});\n\t$tw.rootWidget.addEventListener(\"tm-load-plugin-from-library\",function(event) {\n\t\tvar paramObject = event.paramObject || {},\n\t\t\turl = paramObject.url,\n\t\t\ttitle = paramObject.title;\n\t\tif(url && title) {\n\t\t\tloadIFrame(url,function(err,iframeInfo) {\n\t\t\t\tif(err) {\n\t\t\t\t\talert($tw.language.getString(\"Error/LoadingPluginLibrary\") + \": \" + url);\n\t\t\t\t} else {\n\t\t\t\t\tiframeInfo.domNode.contentWindow.postMessage({\n\t\t\t\t\t\tverb: \"GET\",\n\t\t\t\t\t\turl: \"recipes/library/tiddlers/\" + encodeURIComponent(title) + \".json\",\n\t\t\t\t\t\tcookies: {\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\ttype: \"save-tiddler\",\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\turl: url\n\t\t\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t\t\t},\"*\");\n\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t});\n\t\t}\n\t});\n\t// Listen for window messages from other windows\n\twindow.addEventListener(\"message\",function listener(event){\n\t\tconsole.log(\"browser-messaging: \",document.location.toString())\n\t\tconsole.log(\"browser-messaging: Received message from\",event.origin);\n\t\tconsole.log(\"browser-messaging: Message content\",event.data);\n\t\tswitch(event.data.verb) {\n\t\t\tcase \"GET-RESPONSE\":\n\t\t\t\tif(event.data.status.charAt(0) === \"2\") {\n\t\t\t\t\tif(event.data.cookies) {\n\t\t\t\t\t\tif(event.data.cookies.type === \"save-info\") {\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tvar tiddlers = JSON.parse(event.data.body);\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t$tw.utils.each(tiddlers,function(tiddler) {\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t$tw.wiki.addTiddler(new $tw.Tiddler($tw.wiki.getCreationFields(),tiddler,{\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\ttitle: event.data.cookies.infoTitlePrefix + event.data.cookies.url + \"/\" + tiddler.title,\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\"original-title\": tiddler.title,\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\ttext: \"\",\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\ttype: \"text/vnd.tiddlywiki\",\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\"original-type\": tiddler.type,\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\"plugin-type\": undefined,\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\"original-plugin-type\": tiddler[\"plugin-type\"],\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\"module-type\": undefined,\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\"original-module-type\": tiddler[\"module-type\"],\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\ttags: [\"$:/tags/RemoteAssetInfo\"],\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\"original-tags\": $tw.utils.stringifyList(tiddler.tags || []),\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\"server-url\": event.data.cookies.url\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t},$tw.wiki.getModificationFields()));\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t});\n\t\t\t\t\t\t} else if(event.data.cookies.type === \"save-tiddler\") {\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tvar tiddler = JSON.parse(event.data.body);\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t$tw.wiki.addTiddler(new $tw.Tiddler(tiddler));\n\t\t\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t\tbreak;\n\t\t}\n\t},false);\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "startup"
},
"$:/core/modules/startup/commands.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/startup/commands.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/startup/commands.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: startup\n\nCommand processing\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\n// Export name and synchronous status\nexports.name = \"commands\";\nexports.platforms = [\"node\"];\nexports.after = [\"story\"];\nexports.synchronous = false;\n\nexports.startup = function(callback) {\n\t// On the server, start a commander with the command line arguments\n\tvar commander = new $tw.Commander(\n\t\t$tw.boot.argv,\n\t\tfunction(err) {\n\t\t\tif(err) {\n\t\t\t\treturn $tw.utils.error(\"Error: \" + err);\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t\tcallback();\n\t\t},\n\t\t$tw.wiki,\n\t\t{output: process.stdout, error: process.stderr}\n\t);\n\tcommander.execute();\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "startup"
},
"$:/core/modules/startup/favicon.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/startup/favicon.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/startup/favicon.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: startup\n\nFavicon handling\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\n// Export name and synchronous status\nexports.name = \"favicon\";\nexports.platforms = [\"browser\"];\nexports.after = [\"startup\"];\nexports.synchronous = true;\n\t\t\n// Favicon tiddler\nvar FAVICON_TITLE = \"$:/favicon.ico\";\n\nexports.startup = function() {\n\t// Set up the favicon\n\tsetFavicon();\n\t// Reset the favicon when the tiddler changes\n\t$tw.wiki.addEventListener(\"change\",function(changes) {\n\t\tif($tw.utils.hop(changes,FAVICON_TITLE)) {\n\t\t\tsetFavicon();\n\t\t}\n\t});\n};\n\nfunction setFavicon() {\n\tvar tiddler = $tw.wiki.getTiddler(FAVICON_TITLE);\n\tif(tiddler) {\n\t\tvar faviconLink = document.getElementById(\"faviconLink\");\n\t\tfaviconLink.setAttribute(\"href\",\"data:\" + tiddler.fields.type + \";base64,\" + tiddler.fields.text);\n\t}\n}\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "startup"
},
"$:/core/modules/startup/info.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/startup/info.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/startup/info.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: startup\n\nInitialise $:/info tiddlers via $:/temp/info-plugin pseudo-plugin\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\n// Export name and synchronous status\nexports.name = \"info\";\nexports.before = [\"startup\"];\nexports.after = [\"load-modules\"];\nexports.synchronous = true;\n\nexports.startup = function() {\n\t// Collect up the info tiddlers\n\tvar infoTiddlerFields = {};\n\t// Give each info module a chance to fill in as many info tiddlers as they want\n\t$tw.modules.forEachModuleOfType(\"info\",function(title,moduleExports) {\n\t\tif(moduleExports && moduleExports.getInfoTiddlerFields) {\n\t\t\tvar tiddlerFieldsArray = moduleExports.getInfoTiddlerFields(infoTiddlerFields);\n\t\t\t$tw.utils.each(tiddlerFieldsArray,function(fields) {\n\t\t\t\tif(fields) {\n\t\t\t\t\tinfoTiddlerFields[fields.title] = fields;\n\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t});\n\t\t}\n\t});\n\t// Bake the info tiddlers into a plugin\n\tvar fields = {\n\t\ttitle: \"$:/temp/info-plugin\",\n\t\ttype: \"application/json\",\n\t\t\"plugin-type\": \"info\",\n\t\ttext: JSON.stringify({tiddlers: infoTiddlerFields},null,$tw.config.preferences.jsonSpaces)\n\t};\n\t$tw.wiki.addTiddler(new $tw.Tiddler(fields));\n\t$tw.wiki.readPluginInfo();\n\t$tw.wiki.registerPluginTiddlers(\"info\");\n\t$tw.wiki.unpackPluginTiddlers();\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "startup"
},
"$:/core/modules/startup/load-modules.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/startup/load-modules.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/startup/load-modules.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: startup\n\nLoad core modules\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\n// Export name and synchronous status\nexports.name = \"load-modules\";\nexports.synchronous = true;\n\nexports.startup = function() {\n\t// Load modules\n\t$tw.modules.applyMethods(\"utils\",$tw.utils);\n\tif($tw.node) {\n\t\t$tw.modules.applyMethods(\"utils-node\",$tw.utils);\n\t}\n\t$tw.modules.applyMethods(\"global\",$tw);\n\t$tw.modules.applyMethods(\"config\",$tw.config);\n\t$tw.Tiddler.fieldModules = $tw.modules.getModulesByTypeAsHashmap(\"tiddlerfield\");\n\t$tw.modules.applyMethods(\"tiddlermethod\",$tw.Tiddler.prototype);\n\t$tw.modules.applyMethods(\"wikimethod\",$tw.Wiki.prototype);\n\t$tw.modules.applyMethods(\"tiddlerdeserializer\",$tw.Wiki.tiddlerDeserializerModules);\n\t$tw.macros = $tw.modules.getModulesByTypeAsHashmap(\"macro\");\n\t$tw.wiki.initParsers();\n\t$tw.Commander.initCommands();\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "startup"
},
"$:/core/modules/startup/password.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/startup/password.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/startup/password.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: startup\n\nPassword handling\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\n// Export name and synchronous status\nexports.name = \"password\";\nexports.platforms = [\"browser\"];\nexports.after = [\"startup\"];\nexports.synchronous = true;\n\nexports.startup = function() {\n\t$tw.rootWidget.addEventListener(\"tm-set-password\",function(event) {\n\t\t$tw.passwordPrompt.createPrompt({\n\t\t\tserviceName: $tw.language.getString(\"Encryption/PromptSetPassword\"),\n\t\t\tnoUserName: true,\n\t\t\tsubmitText: $tw.language.getString(\"Encryption/SetPassword\"),\n\t\t\tcanCancel: true,\n\t\t\trepeatPassword: true,\n\t\t\tcallback: function(data) {\n\t\t\t\tif(data) {\n\t\t\t\t\t$tw.crypto.setPassword(data.password);\n\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t\treturn true; // Get rid of the password prompt\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t});\n\t});\n\t$tw.rootWidget.addEventListener(\"tm-clear-password\",function(event) {\n\t\tif($tw.browser) {\n\t\t\tif(!confirm($tw.language.getString(\"Encryption/ConfirmClearPassword\"))) {\n\t\t\t\treturn;\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t}\n\t\t$tw.crypto.setPassword(null);\n\t});\n\t// Ensure that $:/isEncrypted is maintained properly\n\t$tw.wiki.addEventListener(\"change\",function(changes) {\n\t\tif($tw.utils.hop(changes,\"$:/isEncrypted\")) {\n\t\t\t$tw.crypto.updateCryptoStateTiddler();\n\t\t}\n\t});\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "startup"
},
"$:/core/modules/startup/render.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/startup/render.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/startup/render.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: startup\n\nTitle, stylesheet and page rendering\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\n// Export name and synchronous status\nexports.name = \"render\";\nexports.platforms = [\"browser\"];\nexports.after = [\"story\"];\nexports.synchronous = true;\n\n// Default story and history lists\nvar PAGE_TITLE_TITLE = \"$:/core/wiki/title\";\nvar PAGE_STYLESHEET_TITLE = \"$:/core/ui/PageStylesheet\";\nvar PAGE_TEMPLATE_TITLE = \"$:/core/ui/PageTemplate\";\n\n// Time (in ms) that we defer refreshing changes to draft tiddlers\nvar DRAFT_TIDDLER_TIMEOUT_TITLE = \"$:/config/Drafts/TypingTimeout\";\nvar DRAFT_TIDDLER_TIMEOUT = 400;\n\nexports.startup = function() {\n\t// Set up the title\n\t$tw.titleWidgetNode = $tw.wiki.makeTranscludeWidget(PAGE_TITLE_TITLE,{document: $tw.fakeDocument, parseAsInline: true});\n\t$tw.titleContainer = $tw.fakeDocument.createElement(\"div\");\n\t$tw.titleWidgetNode.render($tw.titleContainer,null);\n\tdocument.title = $tw.titleContainer.textContent;\n\t$tw.wiki.addEventListener(\"change\",function(changes) {\n\t\tif($tw.titleWidgetNode.refresh(changes,$tw.titleContainer,null)) {\n\t\t\tdocument.title = $tw.titleContainer.textContent;\n\t\t}\n\t});\n\t// Set up the styles\n\t$tw.styleWidgetNode = $tw.wiki.makeTranscludeWidget(PAGE_STYLESHEET_TITLE,{document: $tw.fakeDocument});\n\t$tw.styleContainer = $tw.fakeDocument.createElement(\"style\");\n\t$tw.styleWidgetNode.render($tw.styleContainer,null);\n\t$tw.styleElement = document.createElement(\"style\");\n\t$tw.styleElement.innerHTML = $tw.styleContainer.textContent;\n\tdocument.head.insertBefore($tw.styleElement,document.head.firstChild);\n\t$tw.wiki.addEventListener(\"change\",$tw.perf.report(\"styleRefresh\",function(changes) {\n\t\tif($tw.styleWidgetNode.refresh(changes,$tw.styleContainer,null)) {\n\t\t\t$tw.styleElement.innerHTML = $tw.styleContainer.textContent;\n\t\t}\n\t}));\n\t// Display the $:/core/ui/PageTemplate tiddler to kick off the display\n\t$tw.perf.report(\"mainRender\",function() {\n\t\t$tw.pageWidgetNode = $tw.wiki.makeTranscludeWidget(PAGE_TEMPLATE_TITLE,{document: document, parentWidget: $tw.rootWidget});\n\t\t$tw.pageContainer = document.createElement(\"div\");\n\t\t$tw.utils.addClass($tw.pageContainer,\"tc-page-container-wrapper\");\n\t\tdocument.body.insertBefore($tw.pageContainer,document.body.firstChild);\n\t\t$tw.pageWidgetNode.render($tw.pageContainer,null);\n \t\t$tw.hooks.invokeHook(\"th-page-refreshed\");\n\t})();\n\t// Remove any splash screen elements\n\tvar removeList = document.querySelectorAll(\".tc-remove-when-wiki-loaded\");\n\t$tw.utils.each(removeList,function(removeItem) {\n\t\tif(removeItem.parentNode) {\n\t\t\tremoveItem.parentNode.removeChild(removeItem);\n\t\t}\n\t});\n\t// Prepare refresh mechanism\n\tvar deferredChanges = Object.create(null),\n\t\ttimerId;\n\tfunction refresh() {\n\t\t// Process the refresh\n\t\t$tw.pageWidgetNode.refresh(deferredChanges);\n\t\tdeferredChanges = Object.create(null);\n \t\t$tw.hooks.invokeHook(\"th-page-refreshed\");\n\t}\n\t// Add the change event handler\n\t$tw.wiki.addEventListener(\"change\",$tw.perf.report(\"mainRefresh\",function(changes) {\n\t\t// Check if only drafts have changed\n\t\tvar onlyDraftsHaveChanged = true;\n\t\tfor(var title in changes) {\n\t\t\tvar tiddler = $tw.wiki.getTiddler(title);\n\t\t\tif(!tiddler || !tiddler.hasField(\"draft.of\")) {\n\t\t\t\tonlyDraftsHaveChanged = false;\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t}\n\t\t// Defer the change if only drafts have changed\n\t\tif(timerId) {\n\t\t\tclearTimeout(timerId);\n\t\t}\n\t\ttimerId = null;\n\t\tif(onlyDraftsHaveChanged) {\n\t\t\tvar timeout = parseInt($tw.wiki.getTiddlerText(DRAFT_TIDDLER_TIMEOUT_TITLE,\"\"),10);\n\t\t\tif(isNaN(timeout)) {\n\t\t\t\ttimeout = DRAFT_TIDDLER_TIMEOUT;\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t\ttimerId = setTimeout(refresh,timeout);\n\t\t\t$tw.utils.extend(deferredChanges,changes);\n\t\t} else {\n\t\t\t$tw.utils.extend(deferredChanges,changes);\n\t\t\trefresh();\n\t\t}\n\t}));\n\t// Fix up the link between the root widget and the page container\n\t$tw.rootWidget.domNodes = [$tw.pageContainer];\n\t$tw.rootWidget.children = [$tw.pageWidgetNode];\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "startup"
},
"$:/core/modules/startup/rootwidget.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/startup/rootwidget.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/startup/rootwidget.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: startup\n\nSetup the root widget and the core root widget handlers\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\n// Export name and synchronous status\nexports.name = \"rootwidget\";\nexports.platforms = [\"browser\"];\nexports.after = [\"startup\"];\nexports.before = [\"story\"];\nexports.synchronous = true;\n\nexports.startup = function() {\n\t// Install the modal message mechanism\n\t$tw.modal = new $tw.utils.Modal($tw.wiki);\n\t$tw.rootWidget.addEventListener(\"tm-modal\",function(event) {\n\t\t$tw.modal.display(event.param,{variables: event.paramObject, event: event});\n\t});\n\t// Install the notification mechanism\n\t$tw.notifier = new $tw.utils.Notifier($tw.wiki);\n\t$tw.rootWidget.addEventListener(\"tm-notify\",function(event) {\n\t\t$tw.notifier.display(event.param,{variables: event.paramObject});\n\t});\n\t// Install the copy-to-clipboard mechanism\n\t$tw.rootWidget.addEventListener(\"tm-copy-to-clipboard\",function(event) {\n\t\t$tw.utils.copyToClipboard(event.param);\n\t});\n\t// Install the scroller\n\t$tw.pageScroller = new $tw.utils.PageScroller();\n\t$tw.rootWidget.addEventListener(\"tm-scroll\",function(event) {\n\t\t$tw.pageScroller.handleEvent(event);\n\t});\n\tvar fullscreen = $tw.utils.getFullScreenApis();\n\tif(fullscreen) {\n\t\t$tw.rootWidget.addEventListener(\"tm-full-screen\",function(event) {\n\t\t\tif(event.param === \"enter\") {\n\t\t\t\tevent.event.target.ownerDocument.documentElement[fullscreen._requestFullscreen](Element.ALLOW_KEYBOARD_INPUT);\n\t\t\t} else if(event.param === \"exit\") {\n\t\t\t\tevent.event.target.ownerDocument[fullscreen._exitFullscreen]();\n\t\t\t} else {\n\t\t\t\tif(event.event.target.ownerDocument[fullscreen._fullscreenElement]) {\n\t\t\t\t\tevent.event.target.ownerDocument[fullscreen._exitFullscreen]();\n\t\t\t\t} else {\n\t\t\t\t\tevent.event.target.ownerDocument.documentElement[fullscreen._requestFullscreen](Element.ALLOW_KEYBOARD_INPUT);\n\t\t\t\t}\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t});\n\t}\n\t// If we're being viewed on a data: URI then give instructions for how to save\n\tif(document.location.protocol === \"data:\") {\n\t\t$tw.rootWidget.dispatchEvent({\n\t\t\ttype: \"tm-modal\",\n\t\t\tparam: \"$:/language/Modals/SaveInstructions\"\n\t\t});\n\t}\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "startup"
},
"$:/core/modules/startup.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/startup.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/startup.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: startup\n\nMiscellaneous startup logic for both the client and server.\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\n// Export name and synchronous status\nexports.name = \"startup\";\nexports.after = [\"load-modules\"];\nexports.synchronous = true;\n\n// Set to `true` to enable performance instrumentation\nvar PERFORMANCE_INSTRUMENTATION_CONFIG_TITLE = \"$:/config/Performance/Instrumentation\";\n\nvar widget = require(\"$:/core/modules/widgets/widget.js\");\n\nexports.startup = function() {\n\tvar modules,n,m,f;\n\t// Minimal browser detection\n\tif($tw.browser) {\n\t\t$tw.browser.isIE = (/msie|trident/i.test(navigator.userAgent));\n\t\t$tw.browser.isFirefox = !!document.mozFullScreenEnabled;\n\t}\n\t// Platform detection\n\t$tw.platform = {};\n\tif($tw.browser) {\n\t\t$tw.platform.isMac = /Mac/.test(navigator.platform);\n\t\t$tw.platform.isWindows = /win/i.test(navigator.platform);\n\t\t$tw.platform.isLinux = /Linux/i.test(navigator.platform);\n\t} else {\n\t\tswitch(require(\"os\").platform()) {\n\t\t\tcase \"darwin\":\n\t\t\t\t$tw.platform.isMac = true;\n\t\t\t\tbreak;\n\t\t\tcase \"win32\":\n\t\t\t\t$tw.platform.isWindows = true;\n\t\t\t\tbreak;\n\t\t\tcase \"freebsd\":\n\t\t\t\t$tw.platform.isLinux = true;\n\t\t\t\tbreak;\n\t\t\tcase \"linux\":\n\t\t\t\t$tw.platform.isLinux = true;\n\t\t\t\tbreak;\n\t\t}\n\t}\n\t// Initialise version\n\t$tw.version = $tw.utils.extractVersionInfo();\n\t// Set up the performance framework\n\t$tw.perf = new $tw.Performance($tw.wiki.getTiddlerText(PERFORMANCE_INSTRUMENTATION_CONFIG_TITLE,\"no\") === \"yes\");\n\t// Kick off the language manager and switcher\n\t$tw.language = new $tw.Language();\n\t$tw.languageSwitcher = new $tw.PluginSwitcher({\n\t\twiki: $tw.wiki,\n\t\tpluginType: \"language\",\n\t\tcontrollerTitle: \"$:/language\",\n\t\tdefaultPlugins: [\n\t\t\t\"$:/languages/en-US\"\n\t\t],\n\t\tonSwitch: function(plugins) {\n\t\t\tif($tw.browser) {\n\t\t\t\tvar pluginTiddler = $tw.wiki.getTiddler(plugins[0]);\n\t\t\t\tif(pluginTiddler) {\n\t\t\t\t\tdocument.documentElement.setAttribute(\"dir\",pluginTiddler.getFieldString(\"text-direction\") || \"auto\");\n\t\t\t\t} else {\n\t\t\t\t\tdocument.documentElement.removeAttribute(\"dir\");\n\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t}\n\t});\n\t// Kick off the theme manager\n\t$tw.themeManager = new $tw.PluginSwitcher({\n\t\twiki: $tw.wiki,\n\t\tpluginType: \"theme\",\n\t\tcontrollerTitle: \"$:/theme\",\n\t\tdefaultPlugins: [\n\t\t\t\"$:/themes/tiddlywiki/snowwhite\",\n\t\t\t\"$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla\"\n\t\t]\n\t});\n\t// Kick off the keyboard manager\n\t$tw.keyboardManager = new $tw.KeyboardManager();\n\t// Listen for shortcuts\n\tif($tw.browser) {\n\t\t$tw.utils.addEventListeners(document,[{\n\t\t\tname: \"keydown\",\n\t\t\thandlerObject: $tw.keyboardManager,\n\t\t\thandlerMethod: \"handleKeydownEvent\"\n\t\t}]);\n\t}\n\t// Create a root widget for attaching event handlers. By using it as the parentWidget for another widget tree, one can reuse the event handlers\n\t$tw.rootWidget = new widget.widget({\n\t\ttype: \"widget\",\n\t\tchildren: []\n\t},{\n\t\twiki: $tw.wiki,\n\t\tdocument: $tw.browser ? document : $tw.fakeDocument\n\t});\n\t// Execute any startup actions\n\tvar executeStartupTiddlers = function(tag) {\n\t\t$tw.utils.each($tw.wiki.filterTiddlers(\"[all[shadows+tiddlers]tag[\" + tag + \"]!has[draft.of]]\"),function(title) {\n\t\t\t$tw.rootWidget.invokeActionString($tw.wiki.getTiddlerText(title),$tw.rootWidget);\n\t\t});\n\t};\n\texecuteStartupTiddlers(\"$:/tags/StartupAction\");\n\tif($tw.browser) {\n\t\texecuteStartupTiddlers(\"$:/tags/StartupAction/Browser\");\t\t\n\t}\n\tif($tw.node) {\n\t\texecuteStartupTiddlers(\"$:/tags/StartupAction/Node\");\t\t\n\t}\n\t// Clear outstanding tiddler store change events to avoid an unnecessary refresh cycle at startup\n\t$tw.wiki.clearTiddlerEventQueue();\n\t// Find a working syncadaptor\n\t$tw.syncadaptor = undefined;\n\t$tw.modules.forEachModuleOfType(\"syncadaptor\",function(title,module) {\n\t\tif(!$tw.syncadaptor && module.adaptorClass) {\n\t\t\t$tw.syncadaptor = new module.adaptorClass({wiki: $tw.wiki});\n\t\t}\n\t});\n\t// Set up the syncer object if we've got a syncadaptor\n\tif($tw.syncadaptor) {\n\t\t$tw.syncer = new $tw.Syncer({wiki: $tw.wiki, syncadaptor: $tw.syncadaptor});\n\t} \n\t// Setup the saver handler\n\t$tw.saverHandler = new $tw.SaverHandler({wiki: $tw.wiki, dirtyTracking: !$tw.syncadaptor});\n\t// Host-specific startup\n\tif($tw.browser) {\n\t\t// Install the popup manager\n\t\t$tw.popup = new $tw.utils.Popup();\n\t\t// Install the animator\n\t\t$tw.anim = new $tw.utils.Animator();\n\t}\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "startup"
},
"$:/core/modules/startup/story.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/startup/story.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/startup/story.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: startup\n\nLoad core modules\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\n// Export name and synchronous status\nexports.name = \"story\";\nexports.after = [\"startup\"];\nexports.synchronous = true;\n\n// Default story and history lists\nvar DEFAULT_STORY_TITLE = \"$:/StoryList\";\nvar DEFAULT_HISTORY_TITLE = \"$:/HistoryList\";\n\n// Default tiddlers\nvar DEFAULT_TIDDLERS_TITLE = \"$:/DefaultTiddlers\";\n\n// Config\nvar CONFIG_UPDATE_ADDRESS_BAR = \"$:/config/Navigation/UpdateAddressBar\"; // Can be \"no\", \"permalink\", \"permaview\"\nvar CONFIG_UPDATE_HISTORY = \"$:/config/Navigation/UpdateHistory\"; // Can be \"yes\" or \"no\"\nvar CONFIG_PERMALINKVIEW_COPY_TO_CLIPBOARD = \"$:/config/Navigation/Permalinkview/CopyToClipboard\"; // Can be \"yes\" (default) or \"no\"\nvar CONFIG_PERMALINKVIEW_UPDATE_ADDRESS_BAR = \"$:/config/Navigation/Permalinkview/UpdateAddressBar\"; // Can be \"yes\" (default) or \"no\"\n\n\n// Links to help, if there is no param\nvar HELP_OPEN_EXTERNAL_WINDOW = \"http://tiddlywiki.com/#WidgetMessage%3A%20tm-open-external-window\";\n\nexports.startup = function() {\n\t// Open startup tiddlers\n\topenStartupTiddlers();\n\tif($tw.browser) {\n\t\t// Set up location hash update\n\t\t$tw.wiki.addEventListener(\"change\",function(changes) {\n\t\t\tif($tw.utils.hop(changes,DEFAULT_STORY_TITLE) || $tw.utils.hop(changes,DEFAULT_HISTORY_TITLE)) {\n\t\t\t\tupdateLocationHash({\n\t\t\t\t\tupdateAddressBar: $tw.wiki.getTiddlerText(CONFIG_UPDATE_ADDRESS_BAR,\"permaview\").trim(),\n\t\t\t\t\tupdateHistory: $tw.wiki.getTiddlerText(CONFIG_UPDATE_HISTORY,\"no\").trim()\n\t\t\t\t});\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t});\n\t\t// Listen for changes to the browser location hash\n\t\twindow.addEventListener(\"hashchange\",function() {\n\t\t\tvar hash = $tw.utils.getLocationHash();\n\t\t\tif(hash !== $tw.locationHash) {\n\t\t\t\t$tw.locationHash = hash;\n\t\t\t\topenStartupTiddlers({defaultToCurrentStory: true});\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t},false);\n\t\t// Listen for the tm-browser-refresh message\n\t\t$tw.rootWidget.addEventListener(\"tm-browser-refresh\",function(event) {\n\t\t\twindow.location.reload(true);\n\t\t});\n\t\t// Listen for tm-open-external-window message\n\t\t$tw.rootWidget.addEventListener(\"tm-open-external-window\",function(event) {\n\t\t\tvar paramObject = event.paramObject || {},\n\t\t\t\tstrUrl = event.param || HELP_OPEN_EXTERNAL_WINDOW,\n\t\t\t\tstrWindowName = paramObject.windowName,\n\t\t\t\tstrWindowFeatures = paramObject.windowFeatures;\n\t\t\twindow.open(strUrl, strWindowName, strWindowFeatures);\n\t\t});\n\t\t// Listen for the tm-print message\n\t\t$tw.rootWidget.addEventListener(\"tm-print\",function(event) {\n\t\t\t(event.event.view || window).print();\n\t\t});\n\t\t// Listen for the tm-home message\n\t\t$tw.rootWidget.addEventListener(\"tm-home\",function(event) {\n\t\t\twindow.location.hash = \"\";\n\t\t\tvar storyFilter = $tw.wiki.getTiddlerText(DEFAULT_TIDDLERS_TITLE),\n\t\t\t\tstoryList = $tw.wiki.filterTiddlers(storyFilter);\n\t\t\t//invoke any hooks that might change the default story list\n\t\t\tstoryList = $tw.hooks.invokeHook(\"th-opening-default-tiddlers-list\",storyList);\n\t\t\t$tw.wiki.addTiddler({title: DEFAULT_STORY_TITLE, text: \"\", list: storyList},$tw.wiki.getModificationFields());\n\t\t\tif(storyList[0]) {\n\t\t\t\t$tw.wiki.addToHistory(storyList[0]);\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t});\n\t\t// Listen for the tm-permalink message\n\t\t$tw.rootWidget.addEventListener(\"tm-permalink\",function(event) {\n\t\t\tupdateLocationHash({\n\t\t\t\tupdateAddressBar: $tw.wiki.getTiddlerText(CONFIG_PERMALINKVIEW_UPDATE_ADDRESS_BAR,\"yes\").trim() === \"yes\" ? \"permalink\" : \"none\",\n\t\t\t\tupdateHistory: $tw.wiki.getTiddlerText(CONFIG_UPDATE_HISTORY,\"no\").trim(),\n\t\t\t\ttargetTiddler: event.param || event.tiddlerTitle,\n\t\t\t\tcopyToClipboard: $tw.wiki.getTiddlerText(CONFIG_PERMALINKVIEW_COPY_TO_CLIPBOARD,\"yes\").trim() === \"yes\" ? \"permalink\" : \"none\"\n\t\t\t});\n\t\t});\n\t\t// Listen for the tm-permaview message\n\t\t$tw.rootWidget.addEventListener(\"tm-permaview\",function(event) {\n\t\t\tupdateLocationHash({\n\t\t\t\tupdateAddressBar: $tw.wiki.getTiddlerText(CONFIG_PERMALINKVIEW_UPDATE_ADDRESS_BAR,\"yes\").trim() === \"yes\" ? \"permaview\" : \"none\",\n\t\t\t\tupdateHistory: $tw.wiki.getTiddlerText(CONFIG_UPDATE_HISTORY,\"no\").trim(),\n\t\t\t\ttargetTiddler: event.param || event.tiddlerTitle,\n\t\t\t\tcopyToClipboard: $tw.wiki.getTiddlerText(CONFIG_PERMALINKVIEW_COPY_TO_CLIPBOARD,\"yes\").trim() === \"yes\" ? \"permaview\" : \"none\"\n\t\t\t});\t\t\t\t\n\t\t});\n\t}\n};\n\n/*\nProcess the location hash to open the specified tiddlers. Options:\ndefaultToCurrentStory: If true, the current story is retained as the default, instead of opening the default tiddlers\n*/\nfunction openStartupTiddlers(options) {\n\toptions = options || {};\n\t// Work out the target tiddler and the story filter. \"null\" means \"unspecified\"\n\tvar target = null,\n\t\tstoryFilter = null;\n\tif($tw.locationHash.length > 1) {\n\t\tvar hash = $tw.locationHash.substr(1),\n\t\t\tsplit = hash.indexOf(\":\");\n\t\tif(split === -1) {\n\t\t\ttarget = decodeURIComponent(hash.trim());\n\t\t} else {\n\t\t\ttarget = decodeURIComponent(hash.substr(0,split).trim());\n\t\t\tstoryFilter = decodeURIComponent(hash.substr(split + 1).trim());\n\t\t}\n\t}\n\t// If the story wasn't specified use the current tiddlers or a blank story\n\tif(storyFilter === null) {\n\t\tif(options.defaultToCurrentStory) {\n\t\t\tvar currStoryList = $tw.wiki.getTiddlerList(DEFAULT_STORY_TITLE);\n\t\t\tstoryFilter = $tw.utils.stringifyList(currStoryList);\n\t\t} else {\n\t\t\tif(target && target !== \"\") {\n\t\t\t\tstoryFilter = \"\";\n\t\t\t} else {\n\t\t\t\tstoryFilter = $tw.wiki.getTiddlerText(DEFAULT_TIDDLERS_TITLE);\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t}\n\t}\n\t// Process the story filter to get the story list\n\tvar storyList = $tw.wiki.filterTiddlers(storyFilter);\n\t// Invoke any hooks that want to change the default story list\n\tstoryList = $tw.hooks.invokeHook(\"th-opening-default-tiddlers-list\",storyList);\n\t// If the target tiddler isn't included then splice it in at the top\n\tif(target && storyList.indexOf(target) === -1) {\n\t\tstoryList.unshift(target);\n\t}\n\t// Save the story list\n\t$tw.wiki.addTiddler({title: DEFAULT_STORY_TITLE, text: \"\", list: storyList},$tw.wiki.getModificationFields());\n\t// If a target tiddler was specified add it to the history stack\n\tif(target && target !== \"\") {\n\t\t// The target tiddler doesn't need double square brackets, but we'll silently remove them if they're present\n\t\tif(target.indexOf(\"[[\") === 0 && target.substr(-2) === \"]]\") {\n\t\t\ttarget = target.substr(2,target.length - 4);\n\t\t}\n\t\t$tw.wiki.addToHistory(target);\n\t} else if(storyList.length > 0) {\n\t\t$tw.wiki.addToHistory(storyList[0]);\n\t}\n}\n\n/*\noptions: See below\noptions.updateAddressBar: \"permalink\", \"permaview\" or \"no\" (defaults to \"permaview\")\noptions.updateHistory: \"yes\" or \"no\" (defaults to \"no\")\noptions.copyToClipboard: \"permalink\", \"permaview\" or \"no\" (defaults to \"no\")\noptions.targetTiddler: optional title of target tiddler for permalink\n*/\nfunction updateLocationHash(options) {\n\t// Get the story and the history stack\n\tvar storyList = $tw.wiki.getTiddlerList(DEFAULT_STORY_TITLE),\n\t\thistoryList = $tw.wiki.getTiddlerData(DEFAULT_HISTORY_TITLE,[]),\n\t\ttargetTiddler = \"\";\n\tif(options.targetTiddler) {\n\t\ttargetTiddler = options.targetTiddler;\n\t} else {\n\t\t// The target tiddler is the one at the top of the stack\n\t\tif(historyList.length > 0) {\n\t\t\ttargetTiddler = historyList[historyList.length-1].title;\n\t\t}\n\t\t// Blank the target tiddler if it isn't present in the story\n\t\tif(storyList.indexOf(targetTiddler) === -1) {\n\t\t\ttargetTiddler = \"\";\n\t\t}\n\t}\n\t// Assemble the location hash\n\tswitch(options.updateAddressBar) {\n\t\tcase \"permalink\":\n\t\t\t$tw.locationHash = \"#\" + encodeURIComponent(targetTiddler);\n\t\t\tbreak;\n\t\tcase \"permaview\":\n\t\t\t$tw.locationHash = \"#\" + encodeURIComponent(targetTiddler) + \":\" + encodeURIComponent($tw.utils.stringifyList(storyList));\n\t\t\tbreak;\n\t}\n\t// Copy URL to the clipboard\n\tswitch(options.copyToClipboard) {\n\t\tcase \"permalink\":\n\t\t\t$tw.utils.copyToClipboard($tw.utils.getLocationPath() + \"#\" + encodeURIComponent(targetTiddler));\n\t\t\tbreak;\n\t\tcase \"permaview\":\n\t\t\t$tw.utils.copyToClipboard($tw.utils.getLocationPath() + \"#\" + encodeURIComponent(targetTiddler) + \":\" + encodeURIComponent($tw.utils.stringifyList(storyList)));\n\t\t\tbreak;\n\t}\n\t// Only change the location hash if we must, thus avoiding unnecessary onhashchange events\n\tif($tw.utils.getLocationHash() !== $tw.locationHash) {\n\t\tif(options.updateHistory === \"yes\") {\n\t\t\t// Assign the location hash so that history is updated\n\t\t\twindow.location.hash = $tw.locationHash;\n\t\t} else {\n\t\t\t// We use replace so that browser history isn't affected\n\t\t\twindow.location.replace(window.location.toString().split(\"#\")[0] + $tw.locationHash);\n\t\t}\n\t}\n}\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "startup"
},
"$:/core/modules/startup/windows.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/startup/windows.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/startup/windows.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: startup\n\nSetup root widget handlers for the messages concerned with opening external browser windows\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\n// Export name and synchronous status\nexports.name = \"windows\";\nexports.platforms = [\"browser\"];\nexports.after = [\"startup\"];\nexports.synchronous = true;\n\n// Global to keep track of open windows (hashmap by title)\nvar windows = {};\n\nexports.startup = function() {\n\t// Handle open window message\n\t$tw.rootWidget.addEventListener(\"tm-open-window\",function(event) {\n\t\t// Get the parameters\n\t\tvar refreshHandler,\n\t\t\ttitle = event.param || event.tiddlerTitle,\n\t\t\tparamObject = event.paramObject || {},\n\t\t\ttemplate = paramObject.template || \"$:/core/templates/single.tiddler.window\",\n\t\t\twidth = paramObject.width || \"700\",\n\t\t\theight = paramObject.height || \"600\",\n\t\t\tvariables = $tw.utils.extend({},paramObject,{currentTiddler: title});\n\t\t// Open the window\n\t\tvar srcWindow,\n\t\t srcDocument;\n\t\t// In case that popup blockers deny opening a new window\n\t\ttry {\n\t\t\tsrcWindow = window.open(\"\",\"external-\" + title,\"scrollbars,width=\" + width + \",height=\" + height),\n\t\t\tsrcDocument = srcWindow.document;\n\t\t}\n\t\tcatch(e) {\n\t\t\treturn;\n\t\t}\n\t\twindows[title] = srcWindow;\n\t\t// Check for reopening the same window\n\t\tif(srcWindow.haveInitialisedWindow) {\n\t\t\treturn;\n\t\t}\n\t\t// Initialise the document\n\t\tsrcDocument.write(\"<html><head></head><body class='tc-body tc-single-tiddler-window'></body></html>\");\n\t\tsrcDocument.close();\n\t\tsrcDocument.title = title;\n\t\tsrcWindow.addEventListener(\"beforeunload\",function(event) {\n\t\t\tdelete windows[title];\n\t\t\t$tw.wiki.removeEventListener(\"change\",refreshHandler);\n\t\t},false);\n\t\t// Set up the styles\n\t\tvar styleWidgetNode = $tw.wiki.makeTranscludeWidget(\"$:/core/ui/PageStylesheet\",{\n\t\t\t\tdocument: $tw.fakeDocument,\n\t\t\t\tvariables: variables,\n\t\t\t\timportPageMacros: true}),\n\t\t\tstyleContainer = $tw.fakeDocument.createElement(\"style\");\n\t\tstyleWidgetNode.render(styleContainer,null);\n\t\tvar styleElement = srcDocument.createElement(\"style\");\n\t\tstyleElement.innerHTML = styleContainer.textContent;\n\t\tsrcDocument.head.insertBefore(styleElement,srcDocument.head.firstChild);\n\t\t// Render the text of the tiddler\n\t\tvar parser = $tw.wiki.parseTiddler(template),\n\t\t\twidgetNode = $tw.wiki.makeWidget(parser,{document: srcDocument, parentWidget: $tw.rootWidget, variables: variables});\n\t\twidgetNode.render(srcDocument.body,srcDocument.body.firstChild);\n\t\t// Function to handle refreshes\n\t\trefreshHandler = function(changes) {\n\t\t\tif(styleWidgetNode.refresh(changes,styleContainer,null)) {\n\t\t\t\tstyleElement.innerHTML = styleContainer.textContent;\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t\twidgetNode.refresh(changes);\n\t\t};\n\t\t$tw.wiki.addEventListener(\"change\",refreshHandler);\n\t\t// Listen for keyboard shortcuts\n\t\t$tw.utils.addEventListeners(srcDocument,[{\n\t\t\tname: \"keydown\",\n\t\t\thandlerObject: $tw.keyboardManager,\n\t\t\thandlerMethod: \"handleKeydownEvent\"\n\t\t},{\n\t\t\tname: \"click\",\n\t\t\thandlerObject: $tw.popup,\n\t\t\thandlerMethod: \"handleEvent\"\n\t\t}]);\n\t\tsrcWindow.haveInitialisedWindow = true;\n\t});\n\t// Close open windows when unloading main window\n\t$tw.addUnloadTask(function() {\n\t\t$tw.utils.each(windows,function(win) {\n\t\t\twin.close();\n\t\t});\n\t});\n\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "startup"
},
"$:/core/modules/story.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/story.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/story.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: global\n\nLightweight object for managing interactions with the story and history lists.\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\n/*\nConstruct Story object with options:\nwiki: reference to wiki object to use to resolve tiddler titles\nstoryTitle: title of story list tiddler\nhistoryTitle: title of history list tiddler\n*/\nfunction Story(options) {\n\toptions = options || {};\n\tthis.wiki = options.wiki || $tw.wiki;\n\tthis.storyTitle = options.storyTitle || \"$:/StoryList\";\n\tthis.historyTitle = options.historyTitle || \"$:/HistoryList\";\n};\n\nStory.prototype.navigateTiddler = function(navigateTo,navigateFromTitle,navigateFromClientRect) {\n\tthis.addToStory(navigateTo,navigateFromTitle);\n\tthis.addToHistory(navigateTo,navigateFromClientRect);\n};\n\nStory.prototype.getStoryList = function() {\n\treturn this.wiki.getTiddlerList(this.storyTitle) || [];\n};\n\nStory.prototype.addToStory = function(navigateTo,navigateFromTitle,options) {\n\toptions = options || {};\n\tvar storyList = this.getStoryList();\n\t// See if the tiddler is already there\n\tvar slot = storyList.indexOf(navigateTo);\n\t// Quit if it already exists in the story river\n\tif(slot >= 0) {\n\t\treturn;\n\t}\n\t// First we try to find the position of the story element we navigated from\n\tvar fromIndex = storyList.indexOf(navigateFromTitle);\n\tif(fromIndex >= 0) {\n\t\t// The tiddler is added from inside the river\n\t\t// Determine where to insert the tiddler; Fallback is \"below\"\n\t\tswitch(options.openLinkFromInsideRiver) {\n\t\t\tcase \"top\":\n\t\t\t\tslot = 0;\n\t\t\t\tbreak;\n\t\t\tcase \"bottom\":\n\t\t\t\tslot = storyList.length;\n\t\t\t\tbreak;\n\t\t\tcase \"above\":\n\t\t\t\tslot = fromIndex;\n\t\t\t\tbreak;\n\t\t\tcase \"below\": // Intentional fall-through\n\t\t\tdefault:\n\t\t\t\tslot = fromIndex + 1;\n\t\t\t\tbreak;\n\t\t}\n\t} else {\n\t\t// The tiddler is opened from outside the river. Determine where to insert the tiddler; default is \"top\"\n\t\tif(options.openLinkFromOutsideRiver === \"bottom\") {\n\t\t\t// Insert at bottom\n\t\t\tslot = storyList.length;\n\t\t} else {\n\t\t\t// Insert at top\n\t\t\tslot = 0;\n\t\t}\n\t}\n\t// Add the tiddler\n\tstoryList.splice(slot,0,navigateTo);\n\t// Save the story\n\tthis.saveStoryList(storyList);\n};\n\nStory.prototype.saveStoryList = function(storyList) {\n\tvar storyTiddler = this.wiki.getTiddler(this.storyTitle);\n\tthis.wiki.addTiddler(new $tw.Tiddler(\n\t\tthis.wiki.getCreationFields(),\n\t\t{title: this.storyTitle},\n\t\tstoryTiddler,\n\t\t{list: storyList},\n\t\tthis.wiki.getModificationFields()\n\t));\n};\n\nStory.prototype.addToHistory = function(navigateTo,navigateFromClientRect) {\n\tvar titles = $tw.utils.isArray(navigateTo) ? navigateTo : [navigateTo];\n\t// Add a new record to the top of the history stack\n\tvar historyList = this.wiki.getTiddlerData(this.historyTitle,[]);\n\t$tw.utils.each(titles,function(title) {\n\t\thistoryList.push({title: title, fromPageRect: navigateFromClientRect});\n\t});\n\tthis.wiki.setTiddlerData(this.historyTitle,historyList,{\"current-tiddler\": titles[titles.length-1]});\n};\n\nStory.prototype.storyCloseTiddler = function(targetTitle) {\n// TBD\n};\n\nStory.prototype.storyCloseAllTiddlers = function() {\n// TBD\n};\n\nStory.prototype.storyCloseOtherTiddlers = function(targetTitle) {\n// TBD\n};\n\nStory.prototype.storyEditTiddler = function(targetTitle) {\n// TBD\n};\n\nStory.prototype.storyDeleteTiddler = function(targetTitle) {\n// TBD\n};\n\nStory.prototype.storySaveTiddler = function(targetTitle) {\n// TBD\n};\n\nStory.prototype.storyCancelTiddler = function(targetTitle) {\n// TBD\n};\n\nStory.prototype.storyNewTiddler = function(targetTitle) {\n// TBD\n};\n\nexports.Story = Story;\n\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "global"
},
"$:/core/modules/storyviews/classic.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/storyviews/classic.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/storyviews/classic.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: storyview\n\nViews the story as a linear sequence\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nvar easing = \"cubic-bezier(0.645, 0.045, 0.355, 1)\"; // From http://easings.net/#easeInOutCubic\n\nvar ClassicStoryView = function(listWidget) {\n\tthis.listWidget = listWidget;\n};\n\nClassicStoryView.prototype.navigateTo = function(historyInfo) {\n\tvar listElementIndex = this.listWidget.findListItem(0,historyInfo.title);\n\tif(listElementIndex === undefined) {\n\t\treturn;\n\t}\n\tvar listItemWidget = this.listWidget.children[listElementIndex],\n\t\ttargetElement = listItemWidget.findFirstDomNode();\n\t// Abandon if the list entry isn't a DOM element (it might be a text node)\n\tif(!(targetElement instanceof Element)) {\n\t\treturn;\n\t}\n\t// Scroll the node into view\n\tthis.listWidget.dispatchEvent({type: \"tm-scroll\", target: targetElement});\n};\n\nClassicStoryView.prototype.insert = function(widget) {\n\tvar targetElement = widget.findFirstDomNode(),\n\t\tduration = $tw.utils.getAnimationDuration();\n\t// Abandon if the list entry isn't a DOM element (it might be a text node)\n\tif(!(targetElement instanceof Element)) {\n\t\treturn;\n\t}\n\t// Get the current height of the tiddler\n\tvar computedStyle = window.getComputedStyle(targetElement),\n\t\tcurrMarginBottom = parseInt(computedStyle.marginBottom,10),\n\t\tcurrMarginTop = parseInt(computedStyle.marginTop,10),\n\t\tcurrHeight = targetElement.offsetHeight + currMarginTop;\n\t// Reset the margin once the transition is over\n\tsetTimeout(function() {\n\t\t$tw.utils.setStyle(targetElement,[\n\t\t\t{transition: \"none\"},\n\t\t\t{marginBottom: \"\"}\n\t\t]);\n\t},duration);\n\t// Set up the initial position of the element\n\t$tw.utils.setStyle(targetElement,[\n\t\t{transition: \"none\"},\n\t\t{marginBottom: (-currHeight) + \"px\"},\n\t\t{opacity: \"0.0\"}\n\t]);\n\t$tw.utils.forceLayout(targetElement);\n\t// Transition to the final position\n\t$tw.utils.setStyle(targetElement,[\n\t\t{transition: \"opacity \" + duration + \"ms \" + easing + \", \" +\n\t\t\t\t\t\"margin-bottom \" + duration + \"ms \" + easing},\n\t\t{marginBottom: currMarginBottom + \"px\"},\n\t\t{opacity: \"1.0\"}\n\t]);\n};\n\nClassicStoryView.prototype.remove = function(widget) {\n\tvar targetElement = widget.findFirstDomNode(),\n\t\tduration = $tw.utils.getAnimationDuration(),\n\t\tremoveElement = function() {\n\t\t\twidget.removeChildDomNodes();\n\t\t};\n\t// Abandon if the list entry isn't a DOM element (it might be a text node)\n\tif(!(targetElement instanceof Element)) {\n\t\tremoveElement();\n\t\treturn;\n\t}\n\t// Get the current height of the tiddler\n\tvar currWidth = targetElement.offsetWidth,\n\t\tcomputedStyle = window.getComputedStyle(targetElement),\n\t\tcurrMarginBottom = parseInt(computedStyle.marginBottom,10),\n\t\tcurrMarginTop = parseInt(computedStyle.marginTop,10),\n\t\tcurrHeight = targetElement.offsetHeight + currMarginTop;\n\t// Remove the dom nodes of the widget at the end of the transition\n\tsetTimeout(removeElement,duration);\n\t// Animate the closure\n\t$tw.utils.setStyle(targetElement,[\n\t\t{transition: \"none\"},\n\t\t{transform: \"translateX(0px)\"},\n\t\t{marginBottom: currMarginBottom + \"px\"},\n\t\t{opacity: \"1.0\"}\n\t]);\n\t$tw.utils.forceLayout(targetElement);\n\t$tw.utils.setStyle(targetElement,[\n\t\t{transition: $tw.utils.roundTripPropertyName(\"transform\") + \" \" + duration + \"ms \" + easing + \", \" +\n\t\t\t\t\t\"opacity \" + duration + \"ms \" + easing + \", \" +\n\t\t\t\t\t\"margin-bottom \" + duration + \"ms \" + easing},\n\t\t{transform: \"translateX(-\" + currWidth + \"px)\"},\n\t\t{marginBottom: (-currHeight) + \"px\"},\n\t\t{opacity: \"0.0\"}\n\t]);\n};\n\nexports.classic = ClassicStoryView;\n\n})();",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "storyview"
},
"$:/core/modules/storyviews/pop.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/storyviews/pop.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/storyviews/pop.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: storyview\n\nAnimates list insertions and removals\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nvar PopStoryView = function(listWidget) {\n\tthis.listWidget = listWidget;\n};\n\nPopStoryView.prototype.navigateTo = function(historyInfo) {\n\tvar listElementIndex = this.listWidget.findListItem(0,historyInfo.title);\n\tif(listElementIndex === undefined) {\n\t\treturn;\n\t}\n\tvar listItemWidget = this.listWidget.children[listElementIndex],\n\t\ttargetElement = listItemWidget.findFirstDomNode();\n\t// Abandon if the list entry isn't a DOM element (it might be a text node)\n\tif(!(targetElement instanceof Element)) {\n\t\treturn;\n\t}\n\t// Scroll the node into view\n\tthis.listWidget.dispatchEvent({type: \"tm-scroll\", target: targetElement});\n};\n\nPopStoryView.prototype.insert = function(widget) {\n\tvar targetElement = widget.findFirstDomNode(),\n\t\tduration = $tw.utils.getAnimationDuration();\n\t// Abandon if the list entry isn't a DOM element (it might be a text node)\n\tif(!(targetElement instanceof Element)) {\n\t\treturn;\n\t}\n\t// Reset once the transition is over\n\tsetTimeout(function() {\n\t\t$tw.utils.setStyle(targetElement,[\n\t\t\t{transition: \"none\"},\n\t\t\t{transform: \"none\"}\n\t\t]);\n\t},duration);\n\t// Set up the initial position of the element\n\t$tw.utils.setStyle(targetElement,[\n\t\t{transition: \"none\"},\n\t\t{transform: \"scale(2)\"},\n\t\t{opacity: \"0.0\"}\n\t]);\n\t$tw.utils.forceLayout(targetElement);\n\t// Transition to the final position\n\t$tw.utils.setStyle(targetElement,[\n\t\t{transition: $tw.utils.roundTripPropertyName(\"transform\") + \" \" + duration + \"ms ease-in-out, \" +\n\t\t\t\t\t\"opacity \" + duration + \"ms ease-in-out\"},\n\t\t{transform: \"scale(1)\"},\n\t\t{opacity: \"1.0\"}\n\t]);\n};\n\nPopStoryView.prototype.remove = function(widget) {\n\tvar targetElement = widget.findFirstDomNode(),\n\t\tduration = $tw.utils.getAnimationDuration(),\n\t\tremoveElement = function() {\n\t\t\tif(targetElement.parentNode) {\n\t\t\t\twidget.removeChildDomNodes();\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t};\n\t// Abandon if the list entry isn't a DOM element (it might be a text node)\n\tif(!(targetElement instanceof Element)) {\n\t\tremoveElement();\n\t\treturn;\n\t}\n\t// Remove the element at the end of the transition\n\tsetTimeout(removeElement,duration);\n\t// Animate the closure\n\t$tw.utils.setStyle(targetElement,[\n\t\t{transition: \"none\"},\n\t\t{transform: \"scale(1)\"},\n\t\t{opacity: \"1.0\"}\n\t]);\n\t$tw.utils.forceLayout(targetElement);\n\t$tw.utils.setStyle(targetElement,[\n\t\t{transition: $tw.utils.roundTripPropertyName(\"transform\") + \" \" + duration + \"ms ease-in-out, \" +\n\t\t\t\t\t\"opacity \" + duration + \"ms ease-in-out\"},\n\t\t{transform: \"scale(0.1)\"},\n\t\t{opacity: \"0.0\"}\n\t]);\n};\n\nexports.pop = PopStoryView;\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "storyview"
},
"$:/core/modules/storyviews/zoomin.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/storyviews/zoomin.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/storyviews/zoomin.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: storyview\n\nZooms between individual tiddlers\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nvar easing = \"cubic-bezier(0.645, 0.045, 0.355, 1)\"; // From http://easings.net/#easeInOutCubic\n\nvar ZoominListView = function(listWidget) {\n\tvar self = this;\n\tthis.listWidget = listWidget;\n\t// Get the index of the tiddler that is at the top of the history\n\tvar history = this.listWidget.wiki.getTiddlerDataCached(this.listWidget.historyTitle,[]),\n\t\ttargetTiddler;\n\tif(history.length > 0) {\n\t\ttargetTiddler = history[history.length-1].title;\n\t}\n\t// Make all the tiddlers position absolute, and hide all but the top (or first) one\n\t$tw.utils.each(this.listWidget.children,function(itemWidget,index) {\n\t\tvar domNode = itemWidget.findFirstDomNode();\n\t\t// Abandon if the list entry isn't a DOM element (it might be a text node)\n\t\tif(!(domNode instanceof Element)) {\n\t\t\treturn;\n\t\t}\n\t\tif((targetTiddler && targetTiddler !== itemWidget.parseTreeNode.itemTitle) || (!targetTiddler && index)) {\n\t\t\tdomNode.style.display = \"none\";\n\t\t} else {\n\t\t\tself.currentTiddlerDomNode = domNode;\n\t\t}\n\t\t$tw.utils.addClass(domNode,\"tc-storyview-zoomin-tiddler\");\n\t});\n};\n\nZoominListView.prototype.navigateTo = function(historyInfo) {\n\tvar duration = $tw.utils.getAnimationDuration(),\n\t\tlistElementIndex = this.listWidget.findListItem(0,historyInfo.title);\n\tif(listElementIndex === undefined) {\n\t\treturn;\n\t}\n\tvar listItemWidget = this.listWidget.children[listElementIndex],\n\t\ttargetElement = listItemWidget.findFirstDomNode();\n\t// Abandon if the list entry isn't a DOM element (it might be a text node)\n\tif(!(targetElement instanceof Element)) {\n\t\treturn;\n\t}\n\t// Make the new tiddler be position absolute and visible so that we can measure it\n\t$tw.utils.addClass(targetElement,\"tc-storyview-zoomin-tiddler\");\n\t$tw.utils.setStyle(targetElement,[\n\t\t{display: \"block\"},\n\t\t{transformOrigin: \"0 0\"},\n\t\t{transform: \"translateX(0px) translateY(0px) scale(1)\"},\n\t\t{transition: \"none\"},\n\t\t{opacity: \"0.0\"}\n\t]);\n\t// Get the position of the source node, or use the centre of the window as the source position\n\tvar sourceBounds = historyInfo.fromPageRect || {\n\t\t\tleft: window.innerWidth/2 - 2,\n\t\t\ttop: window.innerHeight/2 - 2,\n\t\t\twidth: window.innerWidth/8,\n\t\t\theight: window.innerHeight/8\n\t\t};\n\t// Try to find the title node in the target tiddler\n\tvar titleDomNode = findTitleDomNode(listItemWidget) || listItemWidget.findFirstDomNode(),\n\t\tzoomBounds = titleDomNode.getBoundingClientRect();\n\t// Compute the transform for the target tiddler to make the title lie over the source rectange\n\tvar targetBounds = targetElement.getBoundingClientRect(),\n\t\tscale = sourceBounds.width / zoomBounds.width,\n\t\tx = sourceBounds.left - targetBounds.left - (zoomBounds.left - targetBounds.left) * scale,\n\t\ty = sourceBounds.top - targetBounds.top - (zoomBounds.top - targetBounds.top) * scale;\n\t// Transform the target tiddler to its starting position\n\t$tw.utils.setStyle(targetElement,[\n\t\t{transform: \"translateX(\" + x + \"px) translateY(\" + y + \"px) scale(\" + scale + \")\"}\n\t]);\n\t// Force layout\n\t$tw.utils.forceLayout(targetElement);\n\t// Apply the ending transitions with a timeout to ensure that the previously applied transformations are applied first\n\tvar self = this,\n\t\tprevCurrentTiddler = this.currentTiddlerDomNode;\n\tthis.currentTiddlerDomNode = targetElement;\n\t// Transform the target tiddler to its natural size\n\t$tw.utils.setStyle(targetElement,[\n\t\t{transition: $tw.utils.roundTripPropertyName(\"transform\") + \" \" + duration + \"ms \" + easing + \", opacity \" + duration + \"ms \" + easing},\n\t\t{opacity: \"1.0\"},\n\t\t{transform: \"translateX(0px) translateY(0px) scale(1)\"},\n\t\t{zIndex: \"500\"},\n\t]);\n\t// Transform the previous tiddler out of the way and then hide it\n\tif(prevCurrentTiddler && prevCurrentTiddler !== targetElement) {\n\t\tscale = zoomBounds.width / sourceBounds.width;\n\t\tx = zoomBounds.left - targetBounds.left - (sourceBounds.left - targetBounds.left) * scale;\n\t\ty = zoomBounds.top - targetBounds.top - (sourceBounds.top - targetBounds.top) * scale;\n\t\t$tw.utils.setStyle(prevCurrentTiddler,[\n\t\t\t{transition: $tw.utils.roundTripPropertyName(\"transform\") + \" \" + duration + \"ms \" + easing + \", opacity \" + duration + \"ms \" + easing},\n\t\t\t{opacity: \"0.0\"},\n\t\t\t{transformOrigin: \"0 0\"},\n\t\t\t{transform: \"translateX(\" + x + \"px) translateY(\" + y + \"px) scale(\" + scale + \")\"},\n\t\t\t{zIndex: \"0\"}\n\t\t]);\n\t\t// Hide the tiddler when the transition has finished\n\t\tsetTimeout(function() {\n\t\t\tif(self.currentTiddlerDomNode !== prevCurrentTiddler) {\n\t\t\t\tprevCurrentTiddler.style.display = \"none\";\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t},duration);\n\t}\n\t// Scroll the target into view\n//\t$tw.pageScroller.scrollIntoView(targetElement);\n};\n\n/*\nFind the first child DOM node of a widget that has the class \"tc-title\"\n*/\nfunction findTitleDomNode(widget,targetClass) {\n\ttargetClass = targetClass || \"tc-title\";\n\tvar domNode = widget.findFirstDomNode();\n\tif(domNode && domNode.querySelector) {\n\t\treturn domNode.querySelector(\".\" + targetClass);\n\t}\n\treturn null;\n}\n\nZoominListView.prototype.insert = function(widget) {\n\tvar targetElement = widget.findFirstDomNode();\n\t// Abandon if the list entry isn't a DOM element (it might be a text node)\n\tif(!(targetElement instanceof Element)) {\n\t\treturn;\n\t}\n\t// Make the newly inserted node position absolute and hidden\n\t$tw.utils.addClass(targetElement,\"tc-storyview-zoomin-tiddler\");\n\t$tw.utils.setStyle(targetElement,[\n\t\t{display: \"none\"}\n\t]);\n};\n\nZoominListView.prototype.remove = function(widget) {\n\tvar targetElement = widget.findFirstDomNode(),\n\t\tduration = $tw.utils.getAnimationDuration(),\n\t\tremoveElement = function() {\n\t\t\twidget.removeChildDomNodes();\n\t\t};\n\t// Abandon if the list entry isn't a DOM element (it might be a text node)\n\tif(!(targetElement instanceof Element)) {\n\t\tremoveElement();\n\t\treturn;\n\t}\n\t// Abandon if hidden\n\tif(targetElement.style.display != \"block\" ) {\n\t\tremoveElement();\n\t\treturn;\n\t}\n\t// Set up the tiddler that is being closed\n\t$tw.utils.addClass(targetElement,\"tc-storyview-zoomin-tiddler\");\n\t$tw.utils.setStyle(targetElement,[\n\t\t{display: \"block\"},\n\t\t{transformOrigin: \"50% 50%\"},\n\t\t{transform: \"translateX(0px) translateY(0px) scale(1)\"},\n\t\t{transition: \"none\"},\n\t\t{zIndex: \"0\"}\n\t]);\n\t// We'll move back to the previous or next element in the story\n\tvar toWidget = widget.previousSibling();\n\tif(!toWidget) {\n\t\ttoWidget = widget.nextSibling();\n\t}\n\tvar toWidgetDomNode = toWidget && toWidget.findFirstDomNode();\n\t// Set up the tiddler we're moving back in\n\tif(toWidgetDomNode) {\n\t\t$tw.utils.addClass(toWidgetDomNode,\"tc-storyview-zoomin-tiddler\");\n\t\t$tw.utils.setStyle(toWidgetDomNode,[\n\t\t\t{display: \"block\"},\n\t\t\t{transformOrigin: \"50% 50%\"},\n\t\t\t{transform: \"translateX(0px) translateY(0px) scale(10)\"},\n\t\t\t{transition: $tw.utils.roundTripPropertyName(\"transform\") + \" \" + duration + \"ms \" + easing + \", opacity \" + duration + \"ms \" + easing},\n\t\t\t{opacity: \"0\"},\n\t\t\t{zIndex: \"500\"}\n\t\t]);\n\t\tthis.currentTiddlerDomNode = toWidgetDomNode;\n\t}\n\t// Animate them both\n\t// Force layout\n\t$tw.utils.forceLayout(this.listWidget.parentDomNode);\n\t// First, the tiddler we're closing\n\t$tw.utils.setStyle(targetElement,[\n\t\t{transformOrigin: \"50% 50%\"},\n\t\t{transform: \"translateX(0px) translateY(0px) scale(0.1)\"},\n\t\t{transition: $tw.utils.roundTripPropertyName(\"transform\") + \" \" + duration + \"ms \" + easing + \", opacity \" + duration + \"ms \" + easing},\n\t\t{opacity: \"0\"},\n\t\t{zIndex: \"0\"}\n\t]);\n\tsetTimeout(removeElement,duration);\n\t// Now the tiddler we're going back to\n\tif(toWidgetDomNode) {\n\t\t$tw.utils.setStyle(toWidgetDomNode,[\n\t\t\t{transform: \"translateX(0px) translateY(0px) scale(1)\"},\n\t\t\t{opacity: \"1\"}\n\t\t]);\n\t}\n\treturn true; // Indicate that we'll delete the DOM node\n};\n\nexports.zoomin = ZoominListView;\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "storyview"
},
"$:/core/modules/syncer.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/syncer.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/syncer.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: global\n\nThe syncer tracks changes to the store. If a syncadaptor is used then individual tiddlers are synchronised through it. If there is no syncadaptor then the entire wiki is saved via saver modules.\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\n/*\nDefaults\n*/\nSyncer.prototype.titleIsLoggedIn = \"$:/status/IsLoggedIn\";\nSyncer.prototype.titleIsAnonymous = \"$:/status/IsAnonymous\";\nSyncer.prototype.titleIsReadOnly = \"$:/status/IsReadOnly\";\nSyncer.prototype.titleUserName = \"$:/status/UserName\";\nSyncer.prototype.titleSyncFilter = \"$:/config/SyncFilter\";\nSyncer.prototype.titleSyncPollingInterval = \"$:/config/SyncPollingInterval\";\nSyncer.prototype.titleSavedNotification = \"$:/language/Notifications/Save/Done\";\nSyncer.prototype.taskTimerInterval = 1 * 1000; // Interval for sync timer\nSyncer.prototype.throttleInterval = 1 * 1000; // Defer saving tiddlers if they've changed in the last 1s...\nSyncer.prototype.fallbackInterval = 10 * 1000; // Unless the task is older than 10s\nSyncer.prototype.pollTimerInterval = 60 * 1000; // Interval for polling for changes from the adaptor\n\n/*\nInstantiate the syncer with the following options:\nsyncadaptor: reference to syncadaptor to be used\nwiki: wiki to be synced\n*/\nfunction Syncer(options) {\n\tvar self = this;\n\tthis.wiki = options.wiki;\n\tthis.syncadaptor = options.syncadaptor;\n\tthis.disableUI = !!options.disableUI;\n\tthis.titleIsLoggedIn = options.titleIsLoggedIn || this.titleIsLoggedIn;\n\tthis.titleUserName = options.titleUserName || this.titleUserName;\n\tthis.titleSyncFilter = options.titleSyncFilter || this.titleSyncFilter;\n\tthis.titleSavedNotification = options.titleSavedNotification || this.titleSavedNotification;\n\tthis.taskTimerInterval = options.taskTimerInterval || this.taskTimerInterval;\n\tthis.throttleInterval = options.throttleInterval || this.throttleInterval;\n\tthis.fallbackInterval = options.fallbackInterval || this.fallbackInterval;\n\tthis.pollTimerInterval = options.pollTimerInterval || parseInt(this.wiki.getTiddlerText(this.titleSyncPollingInterval,\"\"),10) || this.pollTimerInterval;\n\tthis.logging = \"logging\" in options ? options.logging : true;\n\t// Make a logger\n\tthis.logger = new $tw.utils.Logger(\"syncer\" + ($tw.browser ? \"-browser\" : \"\") + ($tw.node ? \"-server\" : \"\") + (this.syncadaptor.name ? (\"-\" + this.syncadaptor.name) : \"\"),{\n\t\t\tcolour: \"cyan\",\n\t\t\tenable: this.logging\n\t\t});\n\t// Compile the dirty tiddler filter\n\tthis.filterFn = this.wiki.compileFilter(this.wiki.getTiddlerText(this.titleSyncFilter));\n\t// Record information for known tiddlers\n\tthis.readTiddlerInfo();\n\t// Tasks are {type: \"load\"/\"save\"/\"delete\", title:, queueTime:, lastModificationTime:}\n\tthis.taskQueue = {}; // Hashmap of tasks yet to be performed\n\tthis.taskInProgress = {}; // Hash of tasks in progress\n\tthis.taskTimerId = null; // Timer for task dispatch\n\tthis.pollTimerId = null; // Timer for polling server\n\t// Listen out for changes to tiddlers\n\tthis.wiki.addEventListener(\"change\",function(changes) {\n\t\tself.syncToServer(changes);\n\t});\n\t// Browser event handlers\n\tif($tw.browser && !this.disableUI) {\n\t\t// Set up our beforeunload handler\n\t\t$tw.addUnloadTask(function(event) {\n\t\t\tvar confirmationMessage;\n\t\t\tif(self.isDirty()) {\n\t\t\t\tconfirmationMessage = $tw.language.getString(\"UnsavedChangesWarning\");\n\t\t\t\tevent.returnValue = confirmationMessage; // Gecko\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t\treturn confirmationMessage;\n\t\t});\n\t\t// Listen out for login/logout/refresh events in the browser\n\t\t$tw.rootWidget.addEventListener(\"tm-login\",function() {\n\t\t\tself.handleLoginEvent();\n\t\t});\n\t\t$tw.rootWidget.addEventListener(\"tm-logout\",function() {\n\t\t\tself.handleLogoutEvent();\n\t\t});\n\t\t$tw.rootWidget.addEventListener(\"tm-server-refresh\",function() {\n\t\t\tself.handleRefreshEvent();\n\t\t});\n\t}\n\t// Listen out for lazyLoad events\n\tif(!this.disableUI) {\n\t\tthis.wiki.addEventListener(\"lazyLoad\",function(title) {\n\t\t\tself.handleLazyLoadEvent(title);\n\t\t});\t\t\n\t}\n\t// Get the login status\n\tthis.getStatus(function(err,isLoggedIn) {\n\t\t// Do a sync from the server\n\t\tself.syncFromServer();\n\t});\n}\n\n/*\nRead (or re-read) the latest tiddler info from the store\n*/\nSyncer.prototype.readTiddlerInfo = function() {\n\t// Hashmap by title of {revision:,changeCount:,adaptorInfo:}\n\tthis.tiddlerInfo = {};\n\t// Record information for known tiddlers\n\tvar self = this,\n\t\ttiddlers = this.filterFn.call(this.wiki);\n\t$tw.utils.each(tiddlers,function(title) {\n\t\tvar tiddler = self.wiki.getTiddler(title);\n\t\tself.tiddlerInfo[title] = {\n\t\t\trevision: tiddler.fields.revision,\n\t\t\tadaptorInfo: self.syncadaptor && self.syncadaptor.getTiddlerInfo(tiddler),\n\t\t\tchangeCount: self.wiki.getChangeCount(title),\n\t\t\thasBeenLazyLoaded: false\n\t\t};\n\t});\n};\n\n/*\nCreate an tiddlerInfo structure if it doesn't already exist\n*/\nSyncer.prototype.createTiddlerInfo = function(title) {\n\tif(!$tw.utils.hop(this.tiddlerInfo,title)) {\n\t\tthis.tiddlerInfo[title] = {\n\t\t\trevision: null,\n\t\t\tadaptorInfo: {},\n\t\t\tchangeCount: -1,\n\t\t\thasBeenLazyLoaded: false\n\t\t};\n\t}\n};\n\n/*\nChecks whether the wiki is dirty (ie the window shouldn't be closed)\n*/\nSyncer.prototype.isDirty = function() {\n\treturn (this.numTasksInQueue() > 0) || (this.numTasksInProgress() > 0);\n};\n\n/*\nUpdate the document body with the class \"tc-dirty\" if the wiki has unsaved/unsynced changes\n*/\nSyncer.prototype.updateDirtyStatus = function() {\n\tif($tw.browser && !this.disableUI) {\n\t\t$tw.utils.toggleClass(document.body,\"tc-dirty\",this.isDirty());\n\t}\n};\n\n/*\nSave an incoming tiddler in the store, and updates the associated tiddlerInfo\n*/\nSyncer.prototype.storeTiddler = function(tiddlerFields,hasBeenLazyLoaded) {\n\t// Save the tiddler\n\tvar tiddler = new $tw.Tiddler(tiddlerFields);\n\tthis.wiki.addTiddler(tiddler);\n\t// Save the tiddler revision and changeCount details\n\tthis.tiddlerInfo[tiddlerFields.title] = {\n\t\trevision: tiddlerFields.revision,\n\t\tadaptorInfo: this.syncadaptor.getTiddlerInfo(tiddler),\n\t\tchangeCount: this.wiki.getChangeCount(tiddlerFields.title),\n\t\thasBeenLazyLoaded: hasBeenLazyLoaded !== undefined ? hasBeenLazyLoaded : true\n\t};\n};\n\nSyncer.prototype.getStatus = function(callback) {\n\tvar self = this;\n\t// Check if the adaptor supports getStatus()\n\tif(this.syncadaptor && this.syncadaptor.getStatus) {\n\t\t// Mark us as not logged in\n\t\tthis.wiki.addTiddler({title: this.titleIsLoggedIn,text: \"no\"});\n\t\t// Get login status\n\t\tthis.syncadaptor.getStatus(function(err,isLoggedIn,username,isReadOnly,isAnonymous) {\n\t\t\tif(err) {\n\t\t\t\tself.logger.alert(err);\n\t\t\t\treturn;\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t// Set the various status tiddlers\n\t\t\tself.wiki.addTiddler({title: self.titleIsReadOnly,text: isReadOnly ? \"yes\" : \"no\"});\n\t\t\tself.wiki.addTiddler({title: self.titleIsAnonymous,text: isAnonymous ? \"yes\" : \"no\"});\n\t\t\tself.wiki.addTiddler({title: self.titleIsLoggedIn,text: isLoggedIn ? \"yes\" : \"no\"});\n\t\t\tif(isLoggedIn) {\n\t\t\t\tself.wiki.addTiddler({title: self.titleUserName,text: username || \"\"});\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t// Invoke the callback\n\t\t\tif(callback) {\n\t\t\t\tcallback(err,isLoggedIn,username);\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t});\n\t} else {\n\t\tcallback(null,true,\"UNAUTHENTICATED\");\n\t}\n};\n\n/*\nSynchronise from the server by reading the skinny tiddler list and queuing up loads for any tiddlers that we don't already have up to date\n*/\nSyncer.prototype.syncFromServer = function() {\n\tif(this.syncadaptor && this.syncadaptor.getSkinnyTiddlers) {\n\t\tthis.logger.log(\"Retrieving skinny tiddler list\");\n\t\tvar self = this;\n\t\tif(this.pollTimerId) {\n\t\t\tclearTimeout(this.pollTimerId);\n\t\t\tthis.pollTimerId = null;\n\t\t}\n\t\tthis.syncadaptor.getSkinnyTiddlers(function(err,tiddlers) {\n\t\t\t// Trigger the next sync\n\t\t\tself.pollTimerId = setTimeout(function() {\n\t\t\t\tself.pollTimerId = null;\n\t\t\t\tself.syncFromServer.call(self);\n\t\t\t},self.pollTimerInterval);\n\t\t\t// Check for errors\n\t\t\tif(err) {\n\t\t\t\tself.logger.alert($tw.language.getString(\"Error/RetrievingSkinny\") + \":\",err);\n\t\t\t\treturn;\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t// Process each incoming tiddler\n\t\t\tfor(var t=0; t<tiddlers.length; t++) {\n\t\t\t\t// Get the incoming tiddler fields, and the existing tiddler\n\t\t\t\tvar tiddlerFields = tiddlers[t],\n\t\t\t\t\tincomingRevision = tiddlerFields.revision + \"\",\n\t\t\t\t\ttiddler = self.wiki.getTiddler(tiddlerFields.title),\n\t\t\t\t\ttiddlerInfo = self.tiddlerInfo[tiddlerFields.title],\n\t\t\t\t\tcurrRevision = tiddlerInfo ? tiddlerInfo.revision : null;\n\t\t\t\t// Ignore the incoming tiddler if it's the same as the revision we've already got\n\t\t\t\tif(currRevision !== incomingRevision) {\n\t\t\t\t\t// Do a full load if we've already got a fat version of the tiddler\n\t\t\t\t\tif(tiddler && tiddler.fields.text !== undefined) {\n\t\t\t\t\t\t// Do a full load of this tiddler\n\t\t\t\t\t\tself.enqueueSyncTask({\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\ttype: \"load\",\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\ttitle: tiddlerFields.title\n\t\t\t\t\t\t});\n\t\t\t\t\t} else {\n\t\t\t\t\t\t// Load the skinny version of the tiddler\n\t\t\t\t\t\tself.storeTiddler(tiddlerFields,false);\n\t\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t});\n\t}\n};\n\n/*\nSynchronise a set of changes to the server\n*/\nSyncer.prototype.syncToServer = function(changes) {\n\tvar self = this,\n\t\tnow = Date.now(),\n\t\tfilteredChanges = this.filterFn.call(this.wiki,function(callback) {\n\t\t\t$tw.utils.each(changes,function(change,title) {\n\t\t\t\tvar tiddler = self.wiki.getTiddler(title);\n\t\t\t\tcallback(tiddler,title);\n\t\t\t});\n\t\t});\n\t$tw.utils.each(changes,function(change,title,object) {\n\t\t// Process the change if it is a deletion of a tiddler we're already syncing, or is on the filtered change list\n\t\tif((change.deleted && $tw.utils.hop(self.tiddlerInfo,title)) || filteredChanges.indexOf(title) !== -1) {\n\t\t\t// Queue a task to sync this tiddler\n\t\t\tself.enqueueSyncTask({\n\t\t\t\ttype: change.deleted ? \"delete\" : \"save\",\n\t\t\t\ttitle: title\n\t\t\t});\n\t\t}\n\t});\n};\n\n/*\nLazily load a skinny tiddler if we can\n*/\nSyncer.prototype.handleLazyLoadEvent = function(title) {\n\t// Don't lazy load the same tiddler twice\n\tvar info = this.tiddlerInfo[title];\n\tif(!info || !info.hasBeenLazyLoaded) {\n\t\t// Don't lazy load if the tiddler isn't included in the sync filter\n\t\tif(this.filterFn.call(this.wiki).indexOf(title) !== -1) {\n\t\t\tthis.createTiddlerInfo(title);\n\t\t\tthis.tiddlerInfo[title].hasBeenLazyLoaded = true;\n\t\t\t// Queue up a sync task to load this tiddler\n\t\t\tthis.enqueueSyncTask({\n\t\t\t\ttype: \"load\",\n\t\t\t\ttitle: title\n\t\t\t});\n\t\t}\n\t}\n};\n\n/*\nDispay a password prompt and allow the user to login\n*/\nSyncer.prototype.handleLoginEvent = function() {\n\tvar self = this;\n\tthis.getStatus(function(err,isLoggedIn,username) {\n\t\tif(!isLoggedIn) {\n\t\t\t$tw.passwordPrompt.createPrompt({\n\t\t\t\tserviceName: $tw.language.getString(\"LoginToTiddlySpace\"),\n\t\t\t\tcallback: function(data) {\n\t\t\t\t\tself.login(data.username,data.password,function(err,isLoggedIn) {\n\t\t\t\t\t\tself.syncFromServer();\n\t\t\t\t\t});\n\t\t\t\t\treturn true; // Get rid of the password prompt\n\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t});\n\t\t}\n\t});\n};\n\n/*\nAttempt to login to TiddlyWeb.\n\tusername: username\n\tpassword: password\n\tcallback: invoked with arguments (err,isLoggedIn)\n*/\nSyncer.prototype.login = function(username,password,callback) {\n\tthis.logger.log(\"Attempting to login as\",username);\n\tvar self = this;\n\tif(this.syncadaptor.login) {\n\t\tthis.syncadaptor.login(username,password,function(err) {\n\t\t\tif(err) {\n\t\t\t\treturn callback(err);\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t\tself.getStatus(function(err,isLoggedIn,username) {\n\t\t\t\tif(callback) {\n\t\t\t\t\tcallback(null,isLoggedIn);\n\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t});\n\t\t});\n\t} else {\n\t\tcallback(null,true);\n\t}\n};\n\n/*\nAttempt to log out of TiddlyWeb\n*/\nSyncer.prototype.handleLogoutEvent = function() {\n\tthis.logger.log(\"Attempting to logout\");\n\tvar self = this;\n\tif(this.syncadaptor.logout) {\n\t\tthis.syncadaptor.logout(function(err) {\n\t\t\tif(err) {\n\t\t\t\tself.logger.alert(err);\n\t\t\t} else {\n\t\t\t\tself.getStatus();\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t});\n\t}\n};\n\n/*\nImmediately refresh from the server\n*/\nSyncer.prototype.handleRefreshEvent = function() {\n\tthis.syncFromServer();\n};\n\n/*\nQueue up a sync task. If there is already a pending task for the tiddler, just update the last modification time\n*/\nSyncer.prototype.enqueueSyncTask = function(task) {\n\tvar self = this,\n\t\tnow = Date.now();\n\t// Set the timestamps on this task\n\ttask.queueTime = now;\n\ttask.lastModificationTime = now;\n\t// Fill in some tiddlerInfo if the tiddler is one we haven't seen before\n\tthis.createTiddlerInfo(task.title);\n\t// Bail if this is a save and the tiddler is already at the changeCount that the server has\n\tif(task.type === \"save\" && this.wiki.getChangeCount(task.title) <= this.tiddlerInfo[task.title].changeCount) {\n\t\treturn;\n\t}\n\t// Check if this tiddler is already in the queue\n\tif($tw.utils.hop(this.taskQueue,task.title)) {\n\t\t// this.logger.log(\"Re-queueing up sync task with type:\",task.type,\"title:\",task.title);\n\t\tvar existingTask = this.taskQueue[task.title];\n\t\t// If so, just update the last modification time\n\t\texistingTask.lastModificationTime = task.lastModificationTime;\n\t\t// If the new task is a save then we upgrade the existing task to a save. Thus a pending load is turned into a save if the tiddler changes locally in the meantime. But a pending save is not modified to become a load\n\t\tif(task.type === \"save\" || task.type === \"delete\") {\n\t\t\texistingTask.type = task.type;\n\t\t}\n\t} else {\n\t\t// this.logger.log(\"Queuing up sync task with type:\",task.type,\"title:\",task.title);\n\t\t// If it is not in the queue, insert it\n\t\tthis.taskQueue[task.title] = task;\n\t\tthis.updateDirtyStatus();\n\t}\n\t// Process the queue\n\t$tw.utils.nextTick(function() {self.processTaskQueue.call(self);});\n};\n\n/*\nReturn the number of tasks in progress\n*/\nSyncer.prototype.numTasksInProgress = function() {\n\treturn $tw.utils.count(this.taskInProgress);\n};\n\n/*\nReturn the number of tasks in the queue\n*/\nSyncer.prototype.numTasksInQueue = function() {\n\treturn $tw.utils.count(this.taskQueue);\n};\n\n/*\nTrigger a timeout if one isn't already outstanding\n*/\nSyncer.prototype.triggerTimeout = function() {\n\tvar self = this;\n\tif(!this.taskTimerId) {\n\t\tthis.taskTimerId = setTimeout(function() {\n\t\t\tself.taskTimerId = null;\n\t\t\tself.processTaskQueue.call(self);\n\t\t},self.taskTimerInterval);\n\t}\n};\n\n/*\nProcess the task queue, performing the next task if appropriate\n*/\nSyncer.prototype.processTaskQueue = function() {\n\tvar self = this;\n\t// Only process a task if the sync adaptor is fully initialised and we're not already performing a task. If we are already performing a task then we'll dispatch the next one when it completes\n\tif((!this.syncadaptor.isReady || this.syncadaptor.isReady()) && this.numTasksInProgress() === 0) {\n\t\t// Choose the next task to perform\n\t\tvar task = this.chooseNextTask();\n\t\t// Perform the task if we had one\n\t\tif(task) {\n\t\t\t// Remove the task from the queue and add it to the in progress list\n\t\t\tdelete this.taskQueue[task.title];\n\t\t\tthis.taskInProgress[task.title] = task;\n\t\t\tthis.updateDirtyStatus();\n\t\t\t// Dispatch the task\n\t\t\tthis.dispatchTask(task,function(err) {\n\t\t\t\tif(err) {\n\t\t\t\t\tself.logger.alert(\"Sync error while processing '\" + task.title + \"':\\n\" + err);\n\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t\t// Mark that this task is no longer in progress\n\t\t\t\tdelete self.taskInProgress[task.title];\n\t\t\t\tself.updateDirtyStatus();\n\t\t\t\t// Process the next task\n\t\t\t\tself.processTaskQueue.call(self);\n\t\t\t});\n\t\t} else {\n\t\t\t// Make sure we've set a time if there wasn't a task to perform, but we've still got tasks in the queue\n\t\t\tif(this.numTasksInQueue() > 0) {\n\t\t\t\tthis.triggerTimeout();\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t}\n\t}\n};\n\n/*\nChoose the next applicable task\n*/\nSyncer.prototype.chooseNextTask = function() {\n\tvar self = this,\n\t\tcandidateTask = null,\n\t\tnow = Date.now();\n\t// Select the best candidate task\n\t$tw.utils.each(this.taskQueue,function(task,title) {\n\t\t// Exclude the task if there's one of the same name in progress\n\t\tif($tw.utils.hop(self.taskInProgress,title)) {\n\t\t\treturn;\n\t\t}\n\t\t// Exclude the task if it is a save and the tiddler has been modified recently, but not hit the fallback time\n\t\tif(task.type === \"save\" && (now - task.lastModificationTime) < self.throttleInterval &&\n\t\t\t(now - task.queueTime) < self.fallbackInterval) {\n\t\t\treturn;\n\t\t}\n\t\t// Exclude the task if it is newer than the current best candidate\n\t\tif(candidateTask && candidateTask.queueTime < task.queueTime) {\n\t\t\treturn;\n\t\t}\n\t\t// Now this is our best candidate\n\t\tcandidateTask = task;\n\t});\n\treturn candidateTask;\n};\n\n/*\nDispatch a task and invoke the callback\n*/\nSyncer.prototype.dispatchTask = function(task,callback) {\n\tvar self = this;\n\tif(task.type === \"save\") {\n\t\tvar changeCount = this.wiki.getChangeCount(task.title),\n\t\t\ttiddler = this.wiki.getTiddler(task.title);\n\t\tthis.logger.log(\"Dispatching 'save' task:\",task.title);\n\t\tif(tiddler) {\n\t\t\tthis.syncadaptor.saveTiddler(tiddler,function(err,adaptorInfo,revision) {\n\t\t\t\tif(err) {\n\t\t\t\t\treturn callback(err);\n\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t\t// Adjust the info stored about this tiddler\n\t\t\t\tself.tiddlerInfo[task.title] = {\n\t\t\t\t\tchangeCount: changeCount,\n\t\t\t\t\tadaptorInfo: adaptorInfo,\n\t\t\t\t\trevision: revision\n\t\t\t\t};\n\t\t\t\t// Invoke the callback\n\t\t\t\tcallback(null);\n\t\t\t},{\n\t\t\t\ttiddlerInfo: self.tiddlerInfo[task.title]\n\t\t\t});\n\t\t} else {\n\t\t\tthis.logger.log(\" Not Dispatching 'save' task:\",task.title,\"tiddler does not exist\");\n\t\t\treturn callback(null);\n\t\t}\n\t} else if(task.type === \"load\") {\n\t\t// Load the tiddler\n\t\tthis.logger.log(\"Dispatching 'load' task:\",task.title);\n\t\tthis.syncadaptor.loadTiddler(task.title,function(err,tiddlerFields) {\n\t\t\tif(err) {\n\t\t\t\treturn callback(err);\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t// Store the tiddler\n\t\t\tif(tiddlerFields) {\n\t\t\t\tself.storeTiddler(tiddlerFields,true);\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t// Invoke the callback\n\t\t\tcallback(null);\n\t\t});\n\t} else if(task.type === \"delete\") {\n\t\t// Delete the tiddler\n\t\tthis.logger.log(\"Dispatching 'delete' task:\",task.title);\n\t\tthis.syncadaptor.deleteTiddler(task.title,function(err) {\n\t\t\tif(err) {\n\t\t\t\treturn callback(err);\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t\tdelete self.tiddlerInfo[task.title];\n\t\t\t// Invoke the callback\n\t\t\tcallback(null);\n\t\t},{\n\t\t\ttiddlerInfo: self.tiddlerInfo[task.title]\n\t\t});\n\t}\n};\n\nexports.Syncer = Syncer;\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "global"
},
"$:/core/modules/tiddler.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/tiddler.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/tiddler.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: tiddlermethod\n\nExtension methods for the $tw.Tiddler object (constructor and methods required at boot time are in boot/boot.js)\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nexports.hasTag = function(tag) {\n\treturn this.fields.tags && this.fields.tags.indexOf(tag) !== -1;\n};\n\nexports.isPlugin = function() {\n\treturn this.fields.type === \"application/json\" && this.hasField(\"plugin-type\");\n};\n\nexports.isDraft = function() {\n\treturn this.hasField(\"draft.of\");\n};\n\nexports.getFieldString = function(field) {\n\tvar value = this.fields[field];\n\t// Check for a missing field\n\tif(value === undefined || value === null) {\n\t\treturn \"\";\n\t}\n\t// Parse the field with the associated module (if any)\n\tvar fieldModule = $tw.Tiddler.fieldModules[field];\n\tif(fieldModule && fieldModule.stringify) {\n\t\treturn fieldModule.stringify.call(this,value);\n\t} else {\n\t\treturn value.toString();\n\t}\n};\n\n/*\nGet the value of a field as a list\n*/\nexports.getFieldList = function(field) {\n\tvar value = this.fields[field];\n\t// Check for a missing field\n\tif(value === undefined || value === null) {\n\t\treturn [];\n\t}\n\treturn $tw.utils.parseStringArray(value);\n};\n\n/*\nGet all the fields as a hashmap of strings. Options:\n\texclude: an array of field names to exclude\n*/\nexports.getFieldStrings = function(options) {\n\toptions = options || {};\n\tvar exclude = options.exclude || [];\n\tvar fields = {};\n\tfor(var field in this.fields) {\n\t\tif($tw.utils.hop(this.fields,field)) {\n\t\t\tif(exclude.indexOf(field) === -1) {\n\t\t\t\tfields[field] = this.getFieldString(field);\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t}\n\t}\n\treturn fields;\n};\n\n/*\nGet all the fields as a name:value block. Options:\n\texclude: an array of field names to exclude\n*/\nexports.getFieldStringBlock = function(options) {\n\toptions = options || {};\n\tvar exclude = options.exclude || [];\n\tvar fields = [];\n\tfor(var field in this.fields) {\n\t\tif($tw.utils.hop(this.fields,field)) {\n\t\t\tif(exclude.indexOf(field) === -1) {\n\t\t\t\tfields.push(field + \": \" + this.getFieldString(field));\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t}\n\t}\n\treturn fields.join(\"\\n\");\n};\n\n/*\nCompare two tiddlers for equality\ntiddler: the tiddler to compare\nexcludeFields: array of field names to exclude from the comparison\n*/\nexports.isEqual = function(tiddler,excludeFields) {\n\tif(!(tiddler instanceof $tw.Tiddler)) {\n\t\treturn false;\n\t}\n\texcludeFields = excludeFields || [];\n\tvar self = this,\n\t\tdifferences = []; // Fields that have differences\n\t// Add to the differences array\n\tfunction addDifference(fieldName) {\n\t\t// Check for this field being excluded\n\t\tif(excludeFields.indexOf(fieldName) === -1) {\n\t\t\t// Save the field as a difference\n\t\t\t$tw.utils.pushTop(differences,fieldName);\n\t\t}\n\t}\n\t// Returns true if the two values of this field are equal\n\tfunction isFieldValueEqual(fieldName) {\n\t\tvar valueA = self.fields[fieldName],\n\t\t\tvalueB = tiddler.fields[fieldName];\n\t\t// Check for identical string values\n\t\tif(typeof(valueA) === \"string\" && typeof(valueB) === \"string\" && valueA === valueB) {\n\t\t\treturn true;\n\t\t}\n\t\t// Check for identical array values\n\t\tif($tw.utils.isArray(valueA) && $tw.utils.isArray(valueB) && $tw.utils.isArrayEqual(valueA,valueB)) {\n\t\t\treturn true;\n\t\t}\n\t\t// Otherwise the fields must be different\n\t\treturn false;\n\t}\n\t// Compare our fields\n\tfor(var fieldName in this.fields) {\n\t\tif(!isFieldValueEqual(fieldName)) {\n\t\t\taddDifference(fieldName);\n\t\t}\n\t}\n\t// There's a difference for every field in the other tiddler that we don't have\n\tfor(fieldName in tiddler.fields) {\n\t\tif(!(fieldName in this.fields)) {\n\t\t\taddDifference(fieldName);\n\t\t}\n\t}\n\t// Return whether there were any differences\n\treturn differences.length === 0;\n};\n\nexports.getFieldDay = function(field) {\n\tif(this.cache && this.cache.day && $tw.utils.hop(this.cache.day,field) ) {\n\t\treturn this.cache.day[field];\n\t}\n\tvar day = \"\";\n\tif(this.fields[field]) {\n\t\tday = (new Date($tw.utils.parseDate(this.fields[field]))).setHours(0,0,0,0);\n\t}\n\tthis.cache.day = this.cache.day || {};\n\tthis.cache.day[field] = day;\n\treturn day;\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "tiddlermethod"
},
"$:/core/modules/upgraders/plugins.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/upgraders/plugins.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/upgraders/plugins.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: upgrader\n\nUpgrader module that checks that plugins are newer than any already installed version\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nvar UPGRADE_LIBRARY_TITLE = \"$:/UpgradeLibrary\";\n\nvar BLOCKED_PLUGINS = {\n\t\"$:/themes/tiddlywiki/stickytitles\": {\n\t\tversions: [\"*\"]\n\t},\n\t\"$:/plugins/tiddlywiki/fullscreen\": {\n\t\tversions: [\"*\"]\n\t}\n};\n\nexports.upgrade = function(wiki,titles,tiddlers) {\n\tvar self = this,\n\t\tmessages = {},\n\t\tupgradeLibrary,\n\t\tgetLibraryTiddler = function(title) {\n\t\t\tif(!upgradeLibrary) {\n\t\t\t\tupgradeLibrary = wiki.getTiddlerData(UPGRADE_LIBRARY_TITLE,{});\n\t\t\t\tupgradeLibrary.tiddlers = upgradeLibrary.tiddlers || {};\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t\treturn upgradeLibrary.tiddlers[title];\n\t\t};\n\n\t// Go through all the incoming tiddlers\n\t$tw.utils.each(titles,function(title) {\n\t\tvar incomingTiddler = tiddlers[title];\n\t\t// Check if we're dealing with a plugin\n\t\tif(incomingTiddler && incomingTiddler[\"plugin-type\"] && incomingTiddler.version) {\n\t\t\t// Upgrade the incoming plugin if it is in the upgrade library\n\t\t\tvar libraryTiddler = getLibraryTiddler(title);\n\t\t\tif(libraryTiddler && libraryTiddler[\"plugin-type\"] && libraryTiddler.version) {\n\t\t\t\ttiddlers[title] = libraryTiddler;\n\t\t\t\tmessages[title] = $tw.language.getString(\"Import/Upgrader/Plugins/Upgraded\",{variables: {incoming: incomingTiddler.version, upgraded: libraryTiddler.version}});\n\t\t\t\treturn;\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t// Suppress the incoming plugin if it is older than the currently installed one\n\t\t\tvar existingTiddler = wiki.getTiddler(title);\n\t\t\tif(existingTiddler && existingTiddler.hasField(\"plugin-type\") && existingTiddler.hasField(\"version\")) {\n\t\t\t\t// Reject the incoming plugin by blanking all its fields\n\t\t\t\tif($tw.utils.checkVersions(existingTiddler.fields.version,incomingTiddler.version)) {\n\t\t\t\t\ttiddlers[title] = Object.create(null);\n\t\t\t\t\tmessages[title] = $tw.language.getString(\"Import/Upgrader/Plugins/Suppressed/Version\",{variables: {incoming: incomingTiddler.version, existing: existingTiddler.fields.version}});\n\t\t\t\t\treturn;\n\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t}\n\t\tif(incomingTiddler && incomingTiddler[\"plugin-type\"]) {\n\t\t\t// Check whether the plugin is on the blocked list\n\t\t\tvar blockInfo = BLOCKED_PLUGINS[title];\n\t\t\tif(blockInfo) {\n\t\t\t\tif(blockInfo.versions.indexOf(\"*\") !== -1 || (incomingTiddler.version && blockInfo.versions.indexOf(incomingTiddler.version) !== -1)) {\n\t\t\t\t\ttiddlers[title] = Object.create(null);\n\t\t\t\t\tmessages[title] = $tw.language.getString(\"Import/Upgrader/Plugins/Suppressed/Incompatible\");\n\t\t\t\t\treturn;\n\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t}\n\t});\n\treturn messages;\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "upgrader"
},
"$:/core/modules/upgraders/system.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/upgraders/system.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/upgraders/system.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: upgrader\n\nUpgrader module that suppresses certain system tiddlers that shouldn't be imported\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nvar DONT_IMPORT_LIST = [\"$:/StoryList\",\"$:/HistoryList\"],\n\tDONT_IMPORT_PREFIX_LIST = [\"$:/temp/\",\"$:/state/\"];\n\nexports.upgrade = function(wiki,titles,tiddlers) {\n\tvar self = this,\n\t\tmessages = {};\n\t// Check for tiddlers on our list\n\t$tw.utils.each(titles,function(title) {\n\t\tif(DONT_IMPORT_LIST.indexOf(title) !== -1) {\n\t\t\ttiddlers[title] = Object.create(null);\n\t\t\tmessages[title] = $tw.language.getString(\"Import/Upgrader/System/Suppressed\");\n\t\t} else {\n\t\t\tfor(var t=0; t<DONT_IMPORT_PREFIX_LIST.length; t++) {\n\t\t\t\tvar prefix = DONT_IMPORT_PREFIX_LIST[t];\n\t\t\t\tif(title.substr(0,prefix.length) === prefix) {\n\t\t\t\t\ttiddlers[title] = Object.create(null);\n\t\t\t\t\tmessages[title] = $tw.language.getString(\"Import/Upgrader/State/Suppressed\");\n\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t}\n\t});\n\treturn messages;\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "upgrader"
},
"$:/core/modules/upgraders/themetweaks.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/upgraders/themetweaks.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/upgraders/themetweaks.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: upgrader\n\nUpgrader module that handles the change in theme tweak storage introduced in 5.0.14-beta.\n\nPreviously, theme tweaks were stored in two data tiddlers:\n\n* $:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/metrics\n* $:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/settings\n\nNow, each tweak is stored in its own separate tiddler.\n\nThis upgrader copies any values from the old format to the new. The old data tiddlers are not deleted in case they have been used to store additional indexes.\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nvar MAPPINGS = {\n\t\"$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/metrics\": {\n\t\t\"fontsize\": \"$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/metrics/fontsize\",\n\t\t\"lineheight\": \"$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/metrics/lineheight\",\n\t\t\"storyleft\": \"$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/metrics/storyleft\",\n\t\t\"storytop\": \"$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/metrics/storytop\",\n\t\t\"storyright\": \"$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/metrics/storyright\",\n\t\t\"storywidth\": \"$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/metrics/storywidth\",\n\t\t\"tiddlerwidth\": \"$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/metrics/tiddlerwidth\"\n\t},\n\t\"$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/settings\": {\n\t\t\"fontfamily\": \"$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/settings/fontfamily\"\n\t}\n};\n\nexports.upgrade = function(wiki,titles,tiddlers) {\n\tvar self = this,\n\t\tmessages = {};\n\t// Check for tiddlers on our list\n\t$tw.utils.each(titles,function(title) {\n\t\tvar mapping = MAPPINGS[title];\n\t\tif(mapping) {\n\t\t\tvar tiddler = new $tw.Tiddler(tiddlers[title]),\n\t\t\t\ttiddlerData = wiki.getTiddlerDataCached(tiddler,{});\n\t\t\tfor(var index in mapping) {\n\t\t\t\tvar mappedTitle = mapping[index];\n\t\t\t\tif(!tiddlers[mappedTitle] || tiddlers[mappedTitle].title !== mappedTitle) {\n\t\t\t\t\ttiddlers[mappedTitle] = {\n\t\t\t\t\t\ttitle: mappedTitle,\n\t\t\t\t\t\ttext: tiddlerData[index]\n\t\t\t\t\t};\n\t\t\t\t\tmessages[mappedTitle] = $tw.language.getString(\"Import/Upgrader/ThemeTweaks/Created\",{variables: {\n\t\t\t\t\t\tfrom: title + \"##\" + index\n\t\t\t\t\t}});\n\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t}\n\t});\n\treturn messages;\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "upgrader"
},
"$:/core/modules/utils/crypto.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/utils/crypto.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/utils/crypto.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: utils\n\nUtility functions related to crypto.\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\n/*\nLook for an encrypted store area in the text of a TiddlyWiki file\n*/\nexports.extractEncryptedStoreArea = function(text) {\n\tvar encryptedStoreAreaStartMarker = \"<pre id=\\\"encryptedStoreArea\\\" type=\\\"text/plain\\\" style=\\\"display:none;\\\">\",\n\t\tencryptedStoreAreaStart = text.indexOf(encryptedStoreAreaStartMarker);\n\tif(encryptedStoreAreaStart !== -1) {\n\t\tvar encryptedStoreAreaEnd = text.indexOf(\"</pre>\",encryptedStoreAreaStart);\n\t\tif(encryptedStoreAreaEnd !== -1) {\n\t\t\treturn $tw.utils.htmlDecode(text.substring(encryptedStoreAreaStart + encryptedStoreAreaStartMarker.length,encryptedStoreAreaEnd-1));\n\t\t}\n\t}\n\treturn null;\n};\n\n/*\nAttempt to extract the tiddlers from an encrypted store area using the current password. If the password is not provided then the password in the password store will be used\n*/\nexports.decryptStoreArea = function(encryptedStoreArea,password) {\n\tvar decryptedText = $tw.crypto.decrypt(encryptedStoreArea,password);\n\tif(decryptedText) {\n\t\tvar json = JSON.parse(decryptedText),\n\t\t\ttiddlers = [];\n\t\tfor(var title in json) {\n\t\t\tif(title !== \"$:/isEncrypted\") {\n\t\t\t\ttiddlers.push(json[title]);\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t}\n\t\treturn tiddlers;\n\t} else {\n\t\treturn null;\n\t}\n};\n\n\n/*\nAttempt to extract the tiddlers from an encrypted store area using the current password. If that fails, the user is prompted for a password.\nencryptedStoreArea: text of the TiddlyWiki encrypted store area\ncallback: function(tiddlers) called with the array of decrypted tiddlers\n\nThe following configuration settings are supported:\n\n$tw.config.usePasswordVault: causes any password entered by the user to also be put into the system password vault\n*/\nexports.decryptStoreAreaInteractive = function(encryptedStoreArea,callback,options) {\n\t// Try to decrypt with the current password\n\tvar tiddlers = $tw.utils.decryptStoreArea(encryptedStoreArea);\n\tif(tiddlers) {\n\t\tcallback(tiddlers);\n\t} else {\n\t\t// Prompt for a new password and keep trying\n\t\t$tw.passwordPrompt.createPrompt({\n\t\t\tserviceName: \"Enter a password to decrypt the imported TiddlyWiki\",\n\t\t\tnoUserName: true,\n\t\t\tcanCancel: true,\n\t\t\tsubmitText: \"Decrypt\",\n\t\t\tcallback: function(data) {\n\t\t\t\t// Exit if the user cancelled\n\t\t\t\tif(!data) {\n\t\t\t\t\treturn false;\n\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t\t// Attempt to decrypt the tiddlers\n\t\t\t\tvar tiddlers = $tw.utils.decryptStoreArea(encryptedStoreArea,data.password);\n\t\t\t\tif(tiddlers) {\n\t\t\t\t\tif($tw.config.usePasswordVault) {\n\t\t\t\t\t\t$tw.crypto.setPassword(data.password);\n\t\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t\t\tcallback(tiddlers);\n\t\t\t\t\t// Exit and remove the password prompt\n\t\t\t\t\treturn true;\n\t\t\t\t} else {\n\t\t\t\t\t// We didn't decrypt everything, so continue to prompt for password\n\t\t\t\t\treturn false;\n\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t});\n\t}\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "utils"
},
"$:/core/modules/utils/csv.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/utils/csv.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/utils/csv.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: utils\n\nA barebones CSV parser\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\n/*\nParse a CSV string with a header row and return an array of hashmaps.\n*/\nexports.parseCsvStringWithHeader = function(text,options) {\n\toptions = options || {};\n\tvar separator = options.separator || \",\",\n\t\trows = text.split(/\\r?\\n/mg).map(function(row) {\n\t\t\treturn $tw.utils.trim(row);\n\t\t}).filter(function(row) {\n\t\t\treturn row !== \"\";\n\t\t});\n\tif(rows.length < 1) {\n\t\treturn \"Missing header row\";\n\t}\n\tvar headings = rows[0].split(separator),\n\t\tresults = [];\n\tfor(var row=1; row<rows.length; row++) {\n\t\tvar columns = rows[row].split(separator),\n\t\t\tcolumnResult = Object.create(null);\n\t\tif(columns.length !== headings.length) {\n\t\t\treturn \"Malformed CSV row '\" + rows[row] + \"'\";\n\t\t}\n\t\tfor(var column=0; column<columns.length; column++) {\n\t\t\tvar columnName = headings[column];\n\t\t\tcolumnResult[columnName] = $tw.utils.trim(columns[column] || \"\");\n\t\t}\n\t\tresults.push(columnResult);\t\t\t\n\t}\n\treturn results;\n}\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "utils"
},
"$:/core/modules/utils/diff-match-patch/diff_match_patch.js": {
"text": "(function(){function diff_match_patch(){this.Diff_Timeout=1;this.Diff_EditCost=4;this.Match_Threshold=.5;this.Match_Distance=1E3;this.Patch_DeleteThreshold=.5;this.Patch_Margin=4;this.Match_MaxBits=32}var DIFF_DELETE=-1,DIFF_INSERT=1,DIFF_EQUAL=0;\ndiff_match_patch.prototype.diff_main=function(a,b,c,d){\"undefined\"==typeof d&&(d=0>=this.Diff_Timeout?Number.MAX_VALUE:(new Date).getTime()+1E3*this.Diff_Timeout);if(null==a||null==b)throw Error(\"Null input. (diff_main)\");if(a==b)return a?[[DIFF_EQUAL,a]]:[];\"undefined\"==typeof c&&(c=!0);var e=c,f=this.diff_commonPrefix(a,b);c=a.substring(0,f);a=a.substring(f);b=b.substring(f);f=this.diff_commonSuffix(a,b);var g=a.substring(a.length-f);a=a.substring(0,a.length-f);b=b.substring(0,b.length-f);a=this.diff_compute_(a,\nb,e,d);c&&a.unshift([DIFF_EQUAL,c]);g&&a.push([DIFF_EQUAL,g]);this.diff_cleanupMerge(a);return a};\ndiff_match_patch.prototype.diff_compute_=function(a,b,c,d){if(!a)return[[DIFF_INSERT,b]];if(!b)return[[DIFF_DELETE,a]];var e=a.length>b.length?a:b,f=a.length>b.length?b:a,g=e.indexOf(f);return-1!=g?(c=[[DIFF_INSERT,e.substring(0,g)],[DIFF_EQUAL,f],[DIFF_INSERT,e.substring(g+f.length)]],a.length>b.length&&(c[0][0]=c[2][0]=DIFF_DELETE),c):1==f.length?[[DIFF_DELETE,a],[DIFF_INSERT,b]]:(e=this.diff_halfMatch_(a,b))?(b=e[1],f=e[3],a=e[4],e=this.diff_main(e[0],e[2],c,d),c=this.diff_main(b,f,c,d),e.concat([[DIFF_EQUAL,\na]],c)):c&&100<a.length&&100<b.length?this.diff_lineMode_(a,b,d):this.diff_bisect_(a,b,d)};\ndiff_match_patch.prototype.diff_lineMode_=function(a,b,c){var d=this.diff_linesToChars_(a,b);a=d.chars1;b=d.chars2;d=d.lineArray;a=this.diff_main(a,b,!1,c);this.diff_charsToLines_(a,d);this.diff_cleanupSemantic(a);a.push([DIFF_EQUAL,\"\"]);for(var e=d=b=0,f=\"\",g=\"\";b<a.length;){switch(a[b][0]){case DIFF_INSERT:e++;g+=a[b][1];break;case DIFF_DELETE:d++;f+=a[b][1];break;case DIFF_EQUAL:if(1<=d&&1<=e){a.splice(b-d-e,d+e);b=b-d-e;d=this.diff_main(f,g,!1,c);for(e=d.length-1;0<=e;e--)a.splice(b,0,d[e]);b+=\nd.length}d=e=0;g=f=\"\"}b++}a.pop();return a};\ndiff_match_patch.prototype.diff_bisect_=function(a,b,c){for(var d=a.length,e=b.length,f=Math.ceil((d+e)/2),g=2*f,h=Array(g),l=Array(g),k=0;k<g;k++)h[k]=-1,l[k]=-1;h[f+1]=0;l[f+1]=0;k=d-e;for(var m=0!=k%2,p=0,x=0,w=0,q=0,t=0;t<f&&!((new Date).getTime()>c);t++){for(var v=-t+p;v<=t-x;v+=2){var n=f+v;var r=v==-t||v!=t&&h[n-1]<h[n+1]?h[n+1]:h[n-1]+1;for(var y=r-v;r<d&&y<e&&a.charAt(r)==b.charAt(y);)r++,y++;h[n]=r;if(r>d)x+=2;else if(y>e)p+=2;else if(m&&(n=f+k-v,0<=n&&n<g&&-1!=l[n])){var u=d-l[n];if(r>=\nu)return this.diff_bisectSplit_(a,b,r,y,c)}}for(v=-t+w;v<=t-q;v+=2){n=f+v;u=v==-t||v!=t&&l[n-1]<l[n+1]?l[n+1]:l[n-1]+1;for(r=u-v;u<d&&r<e&&a.charAt(d-u-1)==b.charAt(e-r-1);)u++,r++;l[n]=u;if(u>d)q+=2;else if(r>e)w+=2;else if(!m&&(n=f+k-v,0<=n&&n<g&&-1!=h[n]&&(r=h[n],y=f+r-n,u=d-u,r>=u)))return this.diff_bisectSplit_(a,b,r,y,c)}}return[[DIFF_DELETE,a],[DIFF_INSERT,b]]};\ndiff_match_patch.prototype.diff_bisectSplit_=function(a,b,c,d,e){var f=a.substring(0,c),g=b.substring(0,d);a=a.substring(c);b=b.substring(d);f=this.diff_main(f,g,!1,e);e=this.diff_main(a,b,!1,e);return f.concat(e)};\ndiff_match_patch.prototype.diff_linesToChars_=function(a,b){function c(a){for(var b=\"\",c=0,f=-1,g=d.length;f<a.length-1;){f=a.indexOf(\"\\n\",c);-1==f&&(f=a.length-1);var h=a.substring(c,f+1);c=f+1;(e.hasOwnProperty?e.hasOwnProperty(h):void 0!==e[h])?b+=String.fromCharCode(e[h]):(b+=String.fromCharCode(g),e[h]=g,d[g++]=h)}return b}var d=[],e={};d[0]=\"\";var f=c(a),g=c(b);return{chars1:f,chars2:g,lineArray:d}};\ndiff_match_patch.prototype.diff_charsToLines_=function(a,b){for(var c=0;c<a.length;c++){for(var d=a[c][1],e=[],f=0;f<d.length;f++)e[f]=b[d.charCodeAt(f)];a[c][1]=e.join(\"\")}};diff_match_patch.prototype.diff_commonPrefix=function(a,b){if(!a||!b||a.charAt(0)!=b.charAt(0))return 0;for(var c=0,d=Math.min(a.length,b.length),e=d,f=0;c<e;)a.substring(f,e)==b.substring(f,e)?f=c=e:d=e,e=Math.floor((d-c)/2+c);return e};\ndiff_match_patch.prototype.diff_commonSuffix=function(a,b){if(!a||!b||a.charAt(a.length-1)!=b.charAt(b.length-1))return 0;for(var c=0,d=Math.min(a.length,b.length),e=d,f=0;c<e;)a.substring(a.length-e,a.length-f)==b.substring(b.length-e,b.length-f)?f=c=e:d=e,e=Math.floor((d-c)/2+c);return e};\ndiff_match_patch.prototype.diff_commonOverlap_=function(a,b){var c=a.length,d=b.length;if(0==c||0==d)return 0;c>d?a=a.substring(c-d):c<d&&(b=b.substring(0,c));c=Math.min(c,d);if(a==b)return c;d=0;for(var e=1;;){var f=a.substring(c-e);f=b.indexOf(f);if(-1==f)return d;e+=f;if(0==f||a.substring(c-e)==b.substring(0,e))d=e,e++}};\ndiff_match_patch.prototype.diff_halfMatch_=function(a,b){function c(a,b,c){for(var d=a.substring(c,c+Math.floor(a.length/4)),e=-1,g=\"\",h,k,l,m;-1!=(e=b.indexOf(d,e+1));){var p=f.diff_commonPrefix(a.substring(c),b.substring(e)),u=f.diff_commonSuffix(a.substring(0,c),b.substring(0,e));g.length<u+p&&(g=b.substring(e-u,e)+b.substring(e,e+p),h=a.substring(0,c-u),k=a.substring(c+p),l=b.substring(0,e-u),m=b.substring(e+p))}return 2*g.length>=a.length?[h,k,l,m,g]:null}if(0>=this.Diff_Timeout)return null;\nvar d=a.length>b.length?a:b,e=a.length>b.length?b:a;if(4>d.length||2*e.length<d.length)return null;var f=this,g=c(d,e,Math.ceil(d.length/4));d=c(d,e,Math.ceil(d.length/2));if(g||d)g=d?g?g[4].length>d[4].length?g:d:d:g;else return null;if(a.length>b.length){d=g[0];e=g[1];var h=g[2];var l=g[3]}else h=g[0],l=g[1],d=g[2],e=g[3];return[d,e,h,l,g[4]]};\ndiff_match_patch.prototype.diff_cleanupSemantic=function(a){for(var b=!1,c=[],d=0,e=null,f=0,g=0,h=0,l=0,k=0;f<a.length;)a[f][0]==DIFF_EQUAL?(c[d++]=f,g=l,h=k,k=l=0,e=a[f][1]):(a[f][0]==DIFF_INSERT?l+=a[f][1].length:k+=a[f][1].length,e&&e.length<=Math.max(g,h)&&e.length<=Math.max(l,k)&&(a.splice(c[d-1],0,[DIFF_DELETE,e]),a[c[d-1]+1][0]=DIFF_INSERT,d--,d--,f=0<d?c[d-1]:-1,k=l=h=g=0,e=null,b=!0)),f++;b&&this.diff_cleanupMerge(a);this.diff_cleanupSemanticLossless(a);for(f=1;f<a.length;){if(a[f-1][0]==\nDIFF_DELETE&&a[f][0]==DIFF_INSERT){b=a[f-1][1];c=a[f][1];d=this.diff_commonOverlap_(b,c);e=this.diff_commonOverlap_(c,b);if(d>=e){if(d>=b.length/2||d>=c.length/2)a.splice(f,0,[DIFF_EQUAL,c.substring(0,d)]),a[f-1][1]=b.substring(0,b.length-d),a[f+1][1]=c.substring(d),f++}else if(e>=b.length/2||e>=c.length/2)a.splice(f,0,[DIFF_EQUAL,b.substring(0,e)]),a[f-1][0]=DIFF_INSERT,a[f-1][1]=c.substring(0,c.length-e),a[f+1][0]=DIFF_DELETE,a[f+1][1]=b.substring(e),f++;f++}f++}};\ndiff_match_patch.prototype.diff_cleanupSemanticLossless=function(a){function b(a,b){if(!a||!b)return 6;var c=a.charAt(a.length-1),d=b.charAt(0),e=c.match(diff_match_patch.nonAlphaNumericRegex_),f=d.match(diff_match_patch.nonAlphaNumericRegex_),g=e&&c.match(diff_match_patch.whitespaceRegex_),h=f&&d.match(diff_match_patch.whitespaceRegex_);c=g&&c.match(diff_match_patch.linebreakRegex_);d=h&&d.match(diff_match_patch.linebreakRegex_);var k=c&&a.match(diff_match_patch.blanklineEndRegex_),l=d&&b.match(diff_match_patch.blanklineStartRegex_);\nreturn k||l?5:c||d?4:e&&!g&&h?3:g||h?2:e||f?1:0}for(var c=1;c<a.length-1;){if(a[c-1][0]==DIFF_EQUAL&&a[c+1][0]==DIFF_EQUAL){var d=a[c-1][1],e=a[c][1],f=a[c+1][1],g=this.diff_commonSuffix(d,e);if(g){var h=e.substring(e.length-g);d=d.substring(0,d.length-g);e=h+e.substring(0,e.length-g);f=h+f}g=d;h=e;for(var l=f,k=b(d,e)+b(e,f);e.charAt(0)===f.charAt(0);){d+=e.charAt(0);e=e.substring(1)+f.charAt(0);f=f.substring(1);var m=b(d,e)+b(e,f);m>=k&&(k=m,g=d,h=e,l=f)}a[c-1][1]!=g&&(g?a[c-1][1]=g:(a.splice(c-\n1,1),c--),a[c][1]=h,l?a[c+1][1]=l:(a.splice(c+1,1),c--))}c++}};diff_match_patch.nonAlphaNumericRegex_=/[^a-zA-Z0-9]/;diff_match_patch.whitespaceRegex_=/\\s/;diff_match_patch.linebreakRegex_=/[\\r\\n]/;diff_match_patch.blanklineEndRegex_=/\\n\\r?\\n$/;diff_match_patch.blanklineStartRegex_=/^\\r?\\n\\r?\\n/;\ndiff_match_patch.prototype.diff_cleanupEfficiency=function(a){for(var b=!1,c=[],d=0,e=null,f=0,g=!1,h=!1,l=!1,k=!1;f<a.length;)a[f][0]==DIFF_EQUAL?(a[f][1].length<this.Diff_EditCost&&(l||k)?(c[d++]=f,g=l,h=k,e=a[f][1]):(d=0,e=null),l=k=!1):(a[f][0]==DIFF_DELETE?k=!0:l=!0,e&&(g&&h&&l&&k||e.length<this.Diff_EditCost/2&&3==g+h+l+k)&&(a.splice(c[d-1],0,[DIFF_DELETE,e]),a[c[d-1]+1][0]=DIFF_INSERT,d--,e=null,g&&h?(l=k=!0,d=0):(d--,f=0<d?c[d-1]:-1,l=k=!1),b=!0)),f++;b&&this.diff_cleanupMerge(a)};\ndiff_match_patch.prototype.diff_cleanupMerge=function(a){a.push([DIFF_EQUAL,\"\"]);for(var b=0,c=0,d=0,e=\"\",f=\"\",g;b<a.length;)switch(a[b][0]){case DIFF_INSERT:d++;f+=a[b][1];b++;break;case DIFF_DELETE:c++;e+=a[b][1];b++;break;case DIFF_EQUAL:1<c+d?(0!==c&&0!==d&&(g=this.diff_commonPrefix(f,e),0!==g&&(0<b-c-d&&a[b-c-d-1][0]==DIFF_EQUAL?a[b-c-d-1][1]+=f.substring(0,g):(a.splice(0,0,[DIFF_EQUAL,f.substring(0,g)]),b++),f=f.substring(g),e=e.substring(g)),g=this.diff_commonSuffix(f,e),0!==g&&(a[b][1]=f.substring(f.length-\ng)+a[b][1],f=f.substring(0,f.length-g),e=e.substring(0,e.length-g))),0===c?a.splice(b-d,c+d,[DIFF_INSERT,f]):0===d?a.splice(b-c,c+d,[DIFF_DELETE,e]):a.splice(b-c-d,c+d,[DIFF_DELETE,e],[DIFF_INSERT,f]),b=b-c-d+(c?1:0)+(d?1:0)+1):0!==b&&a[b-1][0]==DIFF_EQUAL?(a[b-1][1]+=a[b][1],a.splice(b,1)):b++,c=d=0,f=e=\"\"}\"\"===a[a.length-1][1]&&a.pop();c=!1;for(b=1;b<a.length-1;)a[b-1][0]==DIFF_EQUAL&&a[b+1][0]==DIFF_EQUAL&&(a[b][1].substring(a[b][1].length-a[b-1][1].length)==a[b-1][1]?(a[b][1]=a[b-1][1]+a[b][1].substring(0,\na[b][1].length-a[b-1][1].length),a[b+1][1]=a[b-1][1]+a[b+1][1],a.splice(b-1,1),c=!0):a[b][1].substring(0,a[b+1][1].length)==a[b+1][1]&&(a[b-1][1]+=a[b+1][1],a[b][1]=a[b][1].substring(a[b+1][1].length)+a[b+1][1],a.splice(b+1,1),c=!0)),b++;c&&this.diff_cleanupMerge(a)};\ndiff_match_patch.prototype.diff_xIndex=function(a,b){var c=0,d=0,e=0,f=0,g;for(g=0;g<a.length;g++){a[g][0]!==DIFF_INSERT&&(c+=a[g][1].length);a[g][0]!==DIFF_DELETE&&(d+=a[g][1].length);if(c>b)break;e=c;f=d}return a.length!=g&&a[g][0]===DIFF_DELETE?f:f+(b-e)};\ndiff_match_patch.prototype.diff_prettyHtml=function(a){for(var b=[],c=/&/g,d=/</g,e=/>/g,f=/\\n/g,g=0;g<a.length;g++){var h=a[g][0],l=a[g][1].replace(c,\"&\").replace(d,\"<\").replace(e,\">\").replace(f,\"¶<br>\");switch(h){case DIFF_INSERT:b[g]='<ins style=\"background:#e6ffe6;\">'+l+\"</ins>\";break;case DIFF_DELETE:b[g]='<del style=\"background:#ffe6e6;\">'+l+\"</del>\";break;case DIFF_EQUAL:b[g]=\"<span>\"+l+\"</span>\"}}return b.join(\"\")};\ndiff_match_patch.prototype.diff_text1=function(a){for(var b=[],c=0;c<a.length;c++)a[c][0]!==DIFF_INSERT&&(b[c]=a[c][1]);return b.join(\"\")};diff_match_patch.prototype.diff_text2=function(a){for(var b=[],c=0;c<a.length;c++)a[c][0]!==DIFF_DELETE&&(b[c]=a[c][1]);return b.join(\"\")};\ndiff_match_patch.prototype.diff_levenshtein=function(a){for(var b=0,c=0,d=0,e=0;e<a.length;e++){var f=a[e][1];switch(a[e][0]){case DIFF_INSERT:c+=f.length;break;case DIFF_DELETE:d+=f.length;break;case DIFF_EQUAL:b+=Math.max(c,d),d=c=0}}return b+=Math.max(c,d)};\ndiff_match_patch.prototype.diff_toDelta=function(a){for(var b=[],c=0;c<a.length;c++)switch(a[c][0]){case DIFF_INSERT:b[c]=\"+\"+encodeURI(a[c][1]);break;case DIFF_DELETE:b[c]=\"-\"+a[c][1].length;break;case DIFF_EQUAL:b[c]=\"=\"+a[c][1].length}return b.join(\"\\t\").replace(/%20/g,\" \")};\ndiff_match_patch.prototype.diff_fromDelta=function(a,b){for(var c=[],d=0,e=0,f=b.split(/\\t/g),g=0;g<f.length;g++){var h=f[g].substring(1);switch(f[g].charAt(0)){case \"+\":try{c[d++]=[DIFF_INSERT,decodeURI(h)]}catch(k){throw Error(\"Illegal escape in diff_fromDelta: \"+h);}break;case \"-\":case \"=\":var l=parseInt(h,10);if(isNaN(l)||0>l)throw Error(\"Invalid number in diff_fromDelta: \"+h);h=a.substring(e,e+=l);\"=\"==f[g].charAt(0)?c[d++]=[DIFF_EQUAL,h]:c[d++]=[DIFF_DELETE,h];break;default:if(f[g])throw Error(\"Invalid diff operation in diff_fromDelta: \"+\nf[g]);}}if(e!=a.length)throw Error(\"Delta length (\"+e+\") does not equal source text length (\"+a.length+\").\");return c};diff_match_patch.prototype.match_main=function(a,b,c){if(null==a||null==b||null==c)throw Error(\"Null input. (match_main)\");c=Math.max(0,Math.min(c,a.length));return a==b?0:a.length?a.substring(c,c+b.length)==b?c:this.match_bitap_(a,b,c):-1};\ndiff_match_patch.prototype.match_bitap_=function(a,b,c){function d(a,d){var e=a/b.length,g=Math.abs(c-d);return f.Match_Distance?e+g/f.Match_Distance:g?1:e}if(b.length>this.Match_MaxBits)throw Error(\"Pattern too long for this browser.\");var e=this.match_alphabet_(b),f=this,g=this.Match_Threshold,h=a.indexOf(b,c);-1!=h&&(g=Math.min(d(0,h),g),h=a.lastIndexOf(b,c+b.length),-1!=h&&(g=Math.min(d(0,h),g)));var l=1<<b.length-1;h=-1;for(var k,m,p=b.length+a.length,x,w=0;w<b.length;w++){k=0;for(m=p;k<m;)d(w,\nc+m)<=g?k=m:p=m,m=Math.floor((p-k)/2+k);p=m;k=Math.max(1,c-m+1);var q=Math.min(c+m,a.length)+b.length;m=Array(q+2);for(m[q+1]=(1<<w)-1;q>=k;q--){var t=e[a.charAt(q-1)];m[q]=0===w?(m[q+1]<<1|1)&t:(m[q+1]<<1|1)&t|(x[q+1]|x[q])<<1|1|x[q+1];if(m[q]&l&&(t=d(w,q-1),t<=g))if(g=t,h=q-1,h>c)k=Math.max(1,2*c-h);else break}if(d(w+1,c)>g)break;x=m}return h};\ndiff_match_patch.prototype.match_alphabet_=function(a){for(var b={},c=0;c<a.length;c++)b[a.charAt(c)]=0;for(c=0;c<a.length;c++)b[a.charAt(c)]|=1<<a.length-c-1;return b};\ndiff_match_patch.prototype.patch_addContext_=function(a,b){if(0!=b.length){for(var c=b.substring(a.start2,a.start2+a.length1),d=0;b.indexOf(c)!=b.lastIndexOf(c)&&c.length<this.Match_MaxBits-this.Patch_Margin-this.Patch_Margin;)d+=this.Patch_Margin,c=b.substring(a.start2-d,a.start2+a.length1+d);d+=this.Patch_Margin;(c=b.substring(a.start2-d,a.start2))&&a.diffs.unshift([DIFF_EQUAL,c]);(d=b.substring(a.start2+a.length1,a.start2+a.length1+d))&&a.diffs.push([DIFF_EQUAL,d]);a.start1-=c.length;a.start2-=\nc.length;a.length1+=c.length+d.length;a.length2+=c.length+d.length}};\ndiff_match_patch.prototype.patch_make=function(a,b,c){if(\"string\"==typeof a&&\"string\"==typeof b&&\"undefined\"==typeof c){var d=a;b=this.diff_main(d,b,!0);2<b.length&&(this.diff_cleanupSemantic(b),this.diff_cleanupEfficiency(b))}else if(a&&\"object\"==typeof a&&\"undefined\"==typeof b&&\"undefined\"==typeof c)b=a,d=this.diff_text1(b);else if(\"string\"==typeof a&&b&&\"object\"==typeof b&&\"undefined\"==typeof c)d=a;else if(\"string\"==typeof a&&\"string\"==typeof b&&c&&\"object\"==typeof c)d=a,b=c;else throw Error(\"Unknown call format to patch_make.\");\nif(0===b.length)return[];c=[];a=new diff_match_patch.patch_obj;for(var e=0,f=0,g=0,h=d,l=0;l<b.length;l++){var k=b[l][0],m=b[l][1];e||k===DIFF_EQUAL||(a.start1=f,a.start2=g);switch(k){case DIFF_INSERT:a.diffs[e++]=b[l];a.length2+=m.length;d=d.substring(0,g)+m+d.substring(g);break;case DIFF_DELETE:a.length1+=m.length;a.diffs[e++]=b[l];d=d.substring(0,g)+d.substring(g+m.length);break;case DIFF_EQUAL:m.length<=2*this.Patch_Margin&&e&&b.length!=l+1?(a.diffs[e++]=b[l],a.length1+=m.length,a.length2+=m.length):\nm.length>=2*this.Patch_Margin&&e&&(this.patch_addContext_(a,h),c.push(a),a=new diff_match_patch.patch_obj,e=0,h=d,f=g)}k!==DIFF_INSERT&&(f+=m.length);k!==DIFF_DELETE&&(g+=m.length)}e&&(this.patch_addContext_(a,h),c.push(a));return c};\ndiff_match_patch.prototype.patch_deepCopy=function(a){for(var b=[],c=0;c<a.length;c++){var d=a[c],e=new diff_match_patch.patch_obj;e.diffs=[];for(var f=0;f<d.diffs.length;f++)e.diffs[f]=d.diffs[f].slice();e.start1=d.start1;e.start2=d.start2;e.length1=d.length1;e.length2=d.length2;b[c]=e}return b};\ndiff_match_patch.prototype.patch_apply=function(a,b){if(0==a.length)return[b,[]];a=this.patch_deepCopy(a);var c=this.patch_addPadding(a);b=c+b+c;this.patch_splitMax(a);for(var d=0,e=[],f=0;f<a.length;f++){var g=a[f].start2+d,h=this.diff_text1(a[f].diffs),l=-1;if(h.length>this.Match_MaxBits){var k=this.match_main(b,h.substring(0,this.Match_MaxBits),g);-1!=k&&(l=this.match_main(b,h.substring(h.length-this.Match_MaxBits),g+h.length-this.Match_MaxBits),-1==l||k>=l)&&(k=-1)}else k=this.match_main(b,h,\ng);if(-1==k)e[f]=!1,d-=a[f].length2-a[f].length1;else if(e[f]=!0,d=k-g,g=-1==l?b.substring(k,k+h.length):b.substring(k,l+this.Match_MaxBits),h==g)b=b.substring(0,k)+this.diff_text2(a[f].diffs)+b.substring(k+h.length);else if(g=this.diff_main(h,g,!1),h.length>this.Match_MaxBits&&this.diff_levenshtein(g)/h.length>this.Patch_DeleteThreshold)e[f]=!1;else{this.diff_cleanupSemanticLossless(g);h=0;var m;for(l=0;l<a[f].diffs.length;l++){var p=a[f].diffs[l];p[0]!==DIFF_EQUAL&&(m=this.diff_xIndex(g,h));p[0]===\nDIFF_INSERT?b=b.substring(0,k+m)+p[1]+b.substring(k+m):p[0]===DIFF_DELETE&&(b=b.substring(0,k+m)+b.substring(k+this.diff_xIndex(g,h+p[1].length)));p[0]!==DIFF_DELETE&&(h+=p[1].length)}}}b=b.substring(c.length,b.length-c.length);return[b,e]};\ndiff_match_patch.prototype.patch_addPadding=function(a){for(var b=this.Patch_Margin,c=\"\",d=1;d<=b;d++)c+=String.fromCharCode(d);for(d=0;d<a.length;d++)a[d].start1+=b,a[d].start2+=b;d=a[0];var e=d.diffs;if(0==e.length||e[0][0]!=DIFF_EQUAL)e.unshift([DIFF_EQUAL,c]),d.start1-=b,d.start2-=b,d.length1+=b,d.length2+=b;else if(b>e[0][1].length){var f=b-e[0][1].length;e[0][1]=c.substring(e[0][1].length)+e[0][1];d.start1-=f;d.start2-=f;d.length1+=f;d.length2+=f}d=a[a.length-1];e=d.diffs;0==e.length||e[e.length-\n1][0]!=DIFF_EQUAL?(e.push([DIFF_EQUAL,c]),d.length1+=b,d.length2+=b):b>e[e.length-1][1].length&&(f=b-e[e.length-1][1].length,e[e.length-1][1]+=c.substring(0,f),d.length1+=f,d.length2+=f);return c};\ndiff_match_patch.prototype.patch_splitMax=function(a){for(var b=this.Match_MaxBits,c=0;c<a.length;c++)if(!(a[c].length1<=b)){var d=a[c];a.splice(c--,1);for(var e=d.start1,f=d.start2,g=\"\";0!==d.diffs.length;){var h=new diff_match_patch.patch_obj,l=!0;h.start1=e-g.length;h.start2=f-g.length;\"\"!==g&&(h.length1=h.length2=g.length,h.diffs.push([DIFF_EQUAL,g]));for(;0!==d.diffs.length&&h.length1<b-this.Patch_Margin;){g=d.diffs[0][0];var k=d.diffs[0][1];g===DIFF_INSERT?(h.length2+=k.length,f+=k.length,h.diffs.push(d.diffs.shift()),\nl=!1):g===DIFF_DELETE&&1==h.diffs.length&&h.diffs[0][0]==DIFF_EQUAL&&k.length>2*b?(h.length1+=k.length,e+=k.length,l=!1,h.diffs.push([g,k]),d.diffs.shift()):(k=k.substring(0,b-h.length1-this.Patch_Margin),h.length1+=k.length,e+=k.length,g===DIFF_EQUAL?(h.length2+=k.length,f+=k.length):l=!1,h.diffs.push([g,k]),k==d.diffs[0][1]?d.diffs.shift():d.diffs[0][1]=d.diffs[0][1].substring(k.length))}g=this.diff_text2(h.diffs);g=g.substring(g.length-this.Patch_Margin);k=this.diff_text1(d.diffs).substring(0,\nthis.Patch_Margin);\"\"!==k&&(h.length1+=k.length,h.length2+=k.length,0!==h.diffs.length&&h.diffs[h.diffs.length-1][0]===DIFF_EQUAL?h.diffs[h.diffs.length-1][1]+=k:h.diffs.push([DIFF_EQUAL,k]));l||a.splice(++c,0,h)}}};diff_match_patch.prototype.patch_toText=function(a){for(var b=[],c=0;c<a.length;c++)b[c]=a[c];return b.join(\"\")};\ndiff_match_patch.prototype.patch_fromText=function(a){var b=[];if(!a)return b;a=a.split(\"\\n\");for(var c=0,d=/^@@ -(\\d+),?(\\d*) \\+(\\d+),?(\\d*) @@$/;c<a.length;){var e=a[c].match(d);if(!e)throw Error(\"Invalid patch string: \"+a[c]);var f=new diff_match_patch.patch_obj;b.push(f);f.start1=parseInt(e[1],10);\"\"===e[2]?(f.start1--,f.length1=1):\"0\"==e[2]?f.length1=0:(f.start1--,f.length1=parseInt(e[2],10));f.start2=parseInt(e[3],10);\"\"===e[4]?(f.start2--,f.length2=1):\"0\"==e[4]?f.length2=0:(f.start2--,f.length2=\nparseInt(e[4],10));for(c++;c<a.length;){e=a[c].charAt(0);try{var g=decodeURI(a[c].substring(1))}catch(h){throw Error(\"Illegal escape in patch_fromText: \"+g);}if(\"-\"==e)f.diffs.push([DIFF_DELETE,g]);else if(\"+\"==e)f.diffs.push([DIFF_INSERT,g]);else if(\" \"==e)f.diffs.push([DIFF_EQUAL,g]);else if(\"@\"==e)break;else if(\"\"!==e)throw Error('Invalid patch mode \"'+e+'\" in: '+g);c++}}return b};diff_match_patch.patch_obj=function(){this.diffs=[];this.start2=this.start1=null;this.length2=this.length1=0};\ndiff_match_patch.patch_obj.prototype.toString=function(){for(var a=[\"@@ -\"+(0===this.length1?this.start1+\",0\":1==this.length1?this.start1+1:this.start1+1+\",\"+this.length1)+\" +\"+(0===this.length2?this.start2+\",0\":1==this.length2?this.start2+1:this.start2+1+\",\"+this.length2)+\" @@\\n\"],b,c=0;c<this.diffs.length;c++){switch(this.diffs[c][0]){case DIFF_INSERT:b=\"+\";break;case DIFF_DELETE:b=\"-\";break;case DIFF_EQUAL:b=\" \"}a[c+1]=b+encodeURI(this.diffs[c][1])+\"\\n\"}return a.join(\"\").replace(/%20/g,\" \")};\nthis.diff_match_patch=diff_match_patch;this.DIFF_DELETE=DIFF_DELETE;this.DIFF_INSERT=DIFF_INSERT;this.DIFF_EQUAL=DIFF_EQUAL;\n}).call(exports);",
"type": "application/javascript",
"title": "$:/core/modules/utils/diff-match-patch/diff_match_patch.js",
"module-type": "library"
},
"$:/core/modules/utils/dom/animations/slide.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/utils/dom/animations/slide.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/utils/dom/animations/slide.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: animation\n\nA simple slide animation that varies the height of the element\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nfunction slideOpen(domNode,options) {\n\toptions = options || {};\n\tvar duration = options.duration || $tw.utils.getAnimationDuration();\n\t// Get the current height of the domNode\n\tvar computedStyle = window.getComputedStyle(domNode),\n\t\tcurrMarginBottom = parseInt(computedStyle.marginBottom,10),\n\t\tcurrMarginTop = parseInt(computedStyle.marginTop,10),\n\t\tcurrPaddingBottom = parseInt(computedStyle.paddingBottom,10),\n\t\tcurrPaddingTop = parseInt(computedStyle.paddingTop,10),\n\t\tcurrHeight = domNode.offsetHeight;\n\t// Reset the margin once the transition is over\n\tsetTimeout(function() {\n\t\t$tw.utils.setStyle(domNode,[\n\t\t\t{transition: \"none\"},\n\t\t\t{marginBottom: \"\"},\n\t\t\t{marginTop: \"\"},\n\t\t\t{paddingBottom: \"\"},\n\t\t\t{paddingTop: \"\"},\n\t\t\t{height: \"auto\"},\n\t\t\t{opacity: \"\"}\n\t\t]);\n\t\tif(options.callback) {\n\t\t\toptions.callback();\n\t\t}\n\t},duration);\n\t// Set up the initial position of the element\n\t$tw.utils.setStyle(domNode,[\n\t\t{transition: \"none\"},\n\t\t{marginTop: \"0px\"},\n\t\t{marginBottom: \"0px\"},\n\t\t{paddingTop: \"0px\"},\n\t\t{paddingBottom: \"0px\"},\n\t\t{height: \"0px\"},\n\t\t{opacity: \"0\"}\n\t]);\n\t$tw.utils.forceLayout(domNode);\n\t// Transition to the final position\n\t$tw.utils.setStyle(domNode,[\n\t\t{transition: \"margin-top \" + duration + \"ms ease-in-out, \" +\n\t\t\t\t\t\"margin-bottom \" + duration + \"ms ease-in-out, \" +\n\t\t\t\t\t\"padding-top \" + duration + \"ms ease-in-out, \" +\n\t\t\t\t\t\"padding-bottom \" + duration + \"ms ease-in-out, \" +\n\t\t\t\t\t\"height \" + duration + \"ms ease-in-out, \" +\n\t\t\t\t\t\"opacity \" + duration + \"ms ease-in-out\"},\n\t\t{marginBottom: currMarginBottom + \"px\"},\n\t\t{marginTop: currMarginTop + \"px\"},\n\t\t{paddingBottom: currPaddingBottom + \"px\"},\n\t\t{paddingTop: currPaddingTop + \"px\"},\n\t\t{height: currHeight + \"px\"},\n\t\t{opacity: \"1\"}\n\t]);\n}\n\nfunction slideClosed(domNode,options) {\n\toptions = options || {};\n\tvar duration = options.duration || $tw.utils.getAnimationDuration(),\n\t\tcurrHeight = domNode.offsetHeight;\n\t// Clear the properties we've set when the animation is over\n\tsetTimeout(function() {\n\t\t$tw.utils.setStyle(domNode,[\n\t\t\t{transition: \"none\"},\n\t\t\t{marginBottom: \"\"},\n\t\t\t{marginTop: \"\"},\n\t\t\t{paddingBottom: \"\"},\n\t\t\t{paddingTop: \"\"},\n\t\t\t{height: \"auto\"},\n\t\t\t{opacity: \"\"}\n\t\t]);\n\t\tif(options.callback) {\n\t\t\toptions.callback();\n\t\t}\n\t},duration);\n\t// Set up the initial position of the element\n\t$tw.utils.setStyle(domNode,[\n\t\t{height: currHeight + \"px\"},\n\t\t{opacity: \"1\"}\n\t]);\n\t$tw.utils.forceLayout(domNode);\n\t// Transition to the final position\n\t$tw.utils.setStyle(domNode,[\n\t\t{transition: \"margin-top \" + duration + \"ms ease-in-out, \" +\n\t\t\t\t\t\"margin-bottom \" + duration + \"ms ease-in-out, \" +\n\t\t\t\t\t\"padding-top \" + duration + \"ms ease-in-out, \" +\n\t\t\t\t\t\"padding-bottom \" + duration + \"ms ease-in-out, \" +\n\t\t\t\t\t\"height \" + duration + \"ms ease-in-out, \" +\n\t\t\t\t\t\"opacity \" + duration + \"ms ease-in-out\"},\n\t\t{marginTop: \"0px\"},\n\t\t{marginBottom: \"0px\"},\n\t\t{paddingTop: \"0px\"},\n\t\t{paddingBottom: \"0px\"},\n\t\t{height: \"0px\"},\n\t\t{opacity: \"0\"}\n\t]);\n}\n\nexports.slide = {\n\topen: slideOpen,\n\tclose: slideClosed\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "animation"
},
"$:/core/modules/utils/dom/animator.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/utils/dom/animator.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/utils/dom/animator.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: utils\n\nOrchestrates animations and transitions\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nfunction Animator() {\n\t// Get the registered animation modules\n\tthis.animations = {};\n\t$tw.modules.applyMethods(\"animation\",this.animations);\n}\n\nAnimator.prototype.perform = function(type,domNode,options) {\n\toptions = options || {};\n\t// Find an animation that can handle this type\n\tvar chosenAnimation;\n\t$tw.utils.each(this.animations,function(animation,name) {\n\t\tif($tw.utils.hop(animation,type)) {\n\t\t\tchosenAnimation = animation[type];\n\t\t}\n\t});\n\tif(!chosenAnimation) {\n\t\tchosenAnimation = function(domNode,options) {\n\t\t\tif(options.callback) {\n\t\t\t\toptions.callback();\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t};\n\t}\n\t// Call the animation\n\tchosenAnimation(domNode,options);\n};\n\nexports.Animator = Animator;\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "utils"
},
"$:/core/modules/utils/dom/browser.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/utils/dom/browser.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/utils/dom/browser.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: utils\n\nBrowser feature detection\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\n/*\nSet style properties of an element\n\telement: dom node\n\tstyles: ordered array of {name: value} pairs\n*/\nexports.setStyle = function(element,styles) {\n\tif(element.nodeType === 1) { // Element.ELEMENT_NODE\n\t\tfor(var t=0; t<styles.length; t++) {\n\t\t\tfor(var styleName in styles[t]) {\n\t\t\t\telement.style[$tw.utils.convertStyleNameToPropertyName(styleName)] = styles[t][styleName];\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t}\n\t}\n};\n\n/*\nConverts a standard CSS property name into the local browser-specific equivalent. For example:\n\t\"background-color\" --> \"backgroundColor\"\n\t\"transition\" --> \"webkitTransition\"\n*/\n\nvar styleNameCache = {}; // We'll cache the style name conversions\n\nexports.convertStyleNameToPropertyName = function(styleName) {\n\t// Return from the cache if we can\n\tif(styleNameCache[styleName]) {\n\t\treturn styleNameCache[styleName];\n\t}\n\t// Convert it by first removing any hyphens\n\tvar propertyName = $tw.utils.unHyphenateCss(styleName);\n\t// Then check if it needs a prefix\n\tif($tw.browser && document.body.style[propertyName] === undefined) {\n\t\tvar prefixes = [\"O\",\"MS\",\"Moz\",\"webkit\"];\n\t\tfor(var t=0; t<prefixes.length; t++) {\n\t\t\tvar prefixedName = prefixes[t] + propertyName.substr(0,1).toUpperCase() + propertyName.substr(1);\n\t\t\tif(document.body.style[prefixedName] !== undefined) {\n\t\t\t\tpropertyName = prefixedName;\n\t\t\t\tbreak;\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t}\n\t}\n\t// Put it in the cache too\n\tstyleNameCache[styleName] = propertyName;\n\treturn propertyName;\n};\n\n/*\nConverts a JS format CSS property name back into the dashed form used in CSS declarations. For example:\n\t\"backgroundColor\" --> \"background-color\"\n\t\"webkitTransform\" --> \"-webkit-transform\"\n*/\nexports.convertPropertyNameToStyleName = function(propertyName) {\n\t// Rehyphenate the name\n\tvar styleName = $tw.utils.hyphenateCss(propertyName);\n\t// If there's a webkit prefix, add a dash (other browsers have uppercase prefixes, and so get the dash automatically)\n\tif(styleName.indexOf(\"webkit\") === 0) {\n\t\tstyleName = \"-\" + styleName;\n\t} else if(styleName.indexOf(\"-m-s\") === 0) {\n\t\tstyleName = \"-ms\" + styleName.substr(4);\n\t}\n\treturn styleName;\n};\n\n/*\nRound trip a stylename to a property name and back again. For example:\n\t\"transform\" --> \"webkitTransform\" --> \"-webkit-transform\"\n*/\nexports.roundTripPropertyName = function(propertyName) {\n\treturn $tw.utils.convertPropertyNameToStyleName($tw.utils.convertStyleNameToPropertyName(propertyName));\n};\n\n/*\nConverts a standard event name into the local browser specific equivalent. For example:\n\t\"animationEnd\" --> \"webkitAnimationEnd\"\n*/\n\nvar eventNameCache = {}; // We'll cache the conversions\n\nvar eventNameMappings = {\n\t\"transitionEnd\": {\n\t\tcorrespondingCssProperty: \"transition\",\n\t\tmappings: {\n\t\t\ttransition: \"transitionend\",\n\t\t\tOTransition: \"oTransitionEnd\",\n\t\t\tMSTransition: \"msTransitionEnd\",\n\t\t\tMozTransition: \"transitionend\",\n\t\t\twebkitTransition: \"webkitTransitionEnd\"\n\t\t}\n\t},\n\t\"animationEnd\": {\n\t\tcorrespondingCssProperty: \"animation\",\n\t\tmappings: {\n\t\t\tanimation: \"animationend\",\n\t\t\tOAnimation: \"oAnimationEnd\",\n\t\t\tMSAnimation: \"msAnimationEnd\",\n\t\t\tMozAnimation: \"animationend\",\n\t\t\twebkitAnimation: \"webkitAnimationEnd\"\n\t\t}\n\t}\n};\n\nexports.convertEventName = function(eventName) {\n\tif(eventNameCache[eventName]) {\n\t\treturn eventNameCache[eventName];\n\t}\n\tvar newEventName = eventName,\n\t\tmappings = eventNameMappings[eventName];\n\tif(mappings) {\n\t\tvar convertedProperty = $tw.utils.convertStyleNameToPropertyName(mappings.correspondingCssProperty);\n\t\tif(mappings.mappings[convertedProperty]) {\n\t\t\tnewEventName = mappings.mappings[convertedProperty];\n\t\t}\n\t}\n\t// Put it in the cache too\n\teventNameCache[eventName] = newEventName;\n\treturn newEventName;\n};\n\n/*\nReturn the names of the fullscreen APIs\n*/\nexports.getFullScreenApis = function() {\n\tvar d = document,\n\t\tdb = d.body,\n\t\tresult = {\n\t\t\"_requestFullscreen\": db.webkitRequestFullscreen !== undefined ? \"webkitRequestFullscreen\" :\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tdb.mozRequestFullScreen !== undefined ? \"mozRequestFullScreen\" :\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tdb.msRequestFullscreen !== undefined ? \"msRequestFullscreen\" :\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tdb.requestFullscreen !== undefined ? \"requestFullscreen\" : \"\",\n\t\t\"_exitFullscreen\": d.webkitExitFullscreen !== undefined ? \"webkitExitFullscreen\" :\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\td.mozCancelFullScreen !== undefined ? \"mozCancelFullScreen\" :\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\td.msExitFullscreen !== undefined ? \"msExitFullscreen\" :\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\td.exitFullscreen !== undefined ? \"exitFullscreen\" : \"\",\n\t\t\"_fullscreenElement\": d.webkitFullscreenElement !== undefined ? \"webkitFullscreenElement\" :\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\td.mozFullScreenElement !== undefined ? \"mozFullScreenElement\" :\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\td.msFullscreenElement !== undefined ? \"msFullscreenElement\" :\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\td.fullscreenElement !== undefined ? \"fullscreenElement\" : \"\",\n\t\t\"_fullscreenChange\": d.webkitFullscreenElement !== undefined ? \"webkitfullscreenchange\" :\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\td.mozFullScreenElement !== undefined ? \"mozfullscreenchange\" :\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\td.msFullscreenElement !== undefined ? \"MSFullscreenChange\" :\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\td.fullscreenElement !== undefined ? \"fullscreenchange\" : \"\"\n\t};\n\tif(!result._requestFullscreen || !result._exitFullscreen || !result._fullscreenElement || !result._fullscreenChange) {\n\t\treturn null;\n\t} else {\n\t\treturn result;\n\t}\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "utils"
},
"$:/core/modules/utils/dom/csscolorparser.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/utils/dom/csscolorparser.js",
"text": "// (c) Dean McNamee <dean@gmail.com>, 2012.\n//\n// https://github.com/deanm/css-color-parser-js\n//\n// Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy\n// of this software and associated documentation files (the \"Software\"), to\n// deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the\n// rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or\n// sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is\n// furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:\n//\n// The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in\n// all copies or substantial portions of the Software.\n//\n// THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED \"AS IS\", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR\n// IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,\n// FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE\n// AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER\n// LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING\n// FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS\n// IN THE SOFTWARE.\n\n// http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-color/\nvar kCSSColorTable = {\n \"transparent\": [0,0,0,0], \"aliceblue\": [240,248,255,1],\n \"antiquewhite\": [250,235,215,1], \"aqua\": [0,255,255,1],\n \"aquamarine\": [127,255,212,1], \"azure\": [240,255,255,1],\n \"beige\": [245,245,220,1], \"bisque\": [255,228,196,1],\n \"black\": [0,0,0,1], \"blanchedalmond\": [255,235,205,1],\n \"blue\": [0,0,255,1], \"blueviolet\": [138,43,226,1],\n \"brown\": [165,42,42,1], \"burlywood\": [222,184,135,1],\n \"cadetblue\": [95,158,160,1], \"chartreuse\": [127,255,0,1],\n \"chocolate\": [210,105,30,1], \"coral\": [255,127,80,1],\n \"cornflowerblue\": [100,149,237,1], \"cornsilk\": [255,248,220,1],\n \"crimson\": [220,20,60,1], \"cyan\": [0,255,255,1],\n \"darkblue\": [0,0,139,1], \"darkcyan\": [0,139,139,1],\n \"darkgoldenrod\": [184,134,11,1], \"darkgray\": [169,169,169,1],\n \"darkgreen\": [0,100,0,1], \"darkgrey\": [169,169,169,1],\n \"darkkhaki\": [189,183,107,1], \"darkmagenta\": [139,0,139,1],\n \"darkolivegreen\": [85,107,47,1], \"darkorange\": [255,140,0,1],\n \"darkorchid\": [153,50,204,1], \"darkred\": [139,0,0,1],\n \"darksalmon\": [233,150,122,1], \"darkseagreen\": [143,188,143,1],\n \"darkslateblue\": [72,61,139,1], \"darkslategray\": [47,79,79,1],\n \"darkslategrey\": [47,79,79,1], \"darkturquoise\": [0,206,209,1],\n \"darkviolet\": [148,0,211,1], \"deeppink\": [255,20,147,1],\n \"deepskyblue\": [0,191,255,1], \"dimgray\": [105,105,105,1],\n \"dimgrey\": [105,105,105,1], \"dodgerblue\": [30,144,255,1],\n \"firebrick\": [178,34,34,1], \"floralwhite\": [255,250,240,1],\n \"forestgreen\": [34,139,34,1], \"fuchsia\": [255,0,255,1],\n \"gainsboro\": [220,220,220,1], \"ghostwhite\": [248,248,255,1],\n \"gold\": [255,215,0,1], \"goldenrod\": [218,165,32,1],\n \"gray\": [128,128,128,1], \"green\": [0,128,0,1],\n \"greenyellow\": [173,255,47,1], \"grey\": [128,128,128,1],\n \"honeydew\": [240,255,240,1], \"hotpink\": [255,105,180,1],\n \"indianred\": [205,92,92,1], \"indigo\": [75,0,130,1],\n \"ivory\": [255,255,240,1], \"khaki\": [240,230,140,1],\n \"lavender\": [230,230,250,1], \"lavenderblush\": [255,240,245,1],\n \"lawngreen\": [124,252,0,1], \"lemonchiffon\": [255,250,205,1],\n \"lightblue\": [173,216,230,1], \"lightcoral\": [240,128,128,1],\n \"lightcyan\": [224,255,255,1], \"lightgoldenrodyellow\": [250,250,210,1],\n \"lightgray\": [211,211,211,1], \"lightgreen\": [144,238,144,1],\n \"lightgrey\": [211,211,211,1], \"lightpink\": [255,182,193,1],\n \"lightsalmon\": [255,160,122,1], \"lightseagreen\": [32,178,170,1],\n \"lightskyblue\": [135,206,250,1], \"lightslategray\": [119,136,153,1],\n \"lightslategrey\": [119,136,153,1], \"lightsteelblue\": [176,196,222,1],\n \"lightyellow\": [255,255,224,1], \"lime\": [0,255,0,1],\n \"limegreen\": [50,205,50,1], \"linen\": [250,240,230,1],\n \"magenta\": [255,0,255,1], \"maroon\": [128,0,0,1],\n \"mediumaquamarine\": [102,205,170,1], \"mediumblue\": [0,0,205,1],\n \"mediumorchid\": [186,85,211,1], \"mediumpurple\": [147,112,219,1],\n \"mediumseagreen\": [60,179,113,1], \"mediumslateblue\": [123,104,238,1],\n \"mediumspringgreen\": [0,250,154,1], \"mediumturquoise\": [72,209,204,1],\n \"mediumvioletred\": [199,21,133,1], \"midnightblue\": [25,25,112,1],\n \"mintcream\": [245,255,250,1], \"mistyrose\": [255,228,225,1],\n \"moccasin\": [255,228,181,1], \"navajowhite\": [255,222,173,1],\n \"navy\": [0,0,128,1], \"oldlace\": [253,245,230,1],\n \"olive\": [128,128,0,1], \"olivedrab\": [107,142,35,1],\n \"orange\": [255,165,0,1], \"orangered\": [255,69,0,1],\n \"orchid\": [218,112,214,1], \"palegoldenrod\": [238,232,170,1],\n \"palegreen\": [152,251,152,1], \"paleturquoise\": [175,238,238,1],\n \"palevioletred\": [219,112,147,1], \"papayawhip\": [255,239,213,1],\n \"peachpuff\": [255,218,185,1], \"peru\": [205,133,63,1],\n \"pink\": [255,192,203,1], \"plum\": [221,160,221,1],\n \"powderblue\": [176,224,230,1], \"purple\": [128,0,128,1],\n \"red\": [255,0,0,1], \"rosybrown\": [188,143,143,1],\n \"royalblue\": [65,105,225,1], \"saddlebrown\": [139,69,19,1],\n \"salmon\": [250,128,114,1], \"sandybrown\": [244,164,96,1],\n \"seagreen\": [46,139,87,1], \"seashell\": [255,245,238,1],\n \"sienna\": [160,82,45,1], \"silver\": [192,192,192,1],\n \"skyblue\": [135,206,235,1], \"slateblue\": [106,90,205,1],\n \"slategray\": [112,128,144,1], \"slategrey\": [112,128,144,1],\n \"snow\": [255,250,250,1], \"springgreen\": [0,255,127,1],\n \"steelblue\": [70,130,180,1], \"tan\": [210,180,140,1],\n \"teal\": [0,128,128,1], \"thistle\": [216,191,216,1],\n \"tomato\": [255,99,71,1], \"turquoise\": [64,224,208,1],\n \"violet\": [238,130,238,1], \"wheat\": [245,222,179,1],\n \"white\": [255,255,255,1], \"whitesmoke\": [245,245,245,1],\n \"yellow\": [255,255,0,1], \"yellowgreen\": [154,205,50,1]}\n\nfunction clamp_css_byte(i) { // Clamp to integer 0 .. 255.\n i = Math.round(i); // Seems to be what Chrome does (vs truncation).\n return i < 0 ? 0 : i > 255 ? 255 : i;\n}\n\nfunction clamp_css_float(f) { // Clamp to float 0.0 .. 1.0.\n return f < 0 ? 0 : f > 1 ? 1 : f;\n}\n\nfunction parse_css_int(str) { // int or percentage.\n if (str[str.length - 1] === '%')\n return clamp_css_byte(parseFloat(str) / 100 * 255);\n return clamp_css_byte(parseInt(str));\n}\n\nfunction parse_css_float(str) { // float or percentage.\n if (str[str.length - 1] === '%')\n return clamp_css_float(parseFloat(str) / 100);\n return clamp_css_float(parseFloat(str));\n}\n\nfunction css_hue_to_rgb(m1, m2, h) {\n if (h < 0) h += 1;\n else if (h > 1) h -= 1;\n\n if (h * 6 < 1) return m1 + (m2 - m1) * h * 6;\n if (h * 2 < 1) return m2;\n if (h * 3 < 2) return m1 + (m2 - m1) * (2/3 - h) * 6;\n return m1;\n}\n\nfunction parseCSSColor(css_str) {\n // Remove all whitespace, not compliant, but should just be more accepting.\n var str = css_str.replace(/ /g, '').toLowerCase();\n\n // Color keywords (and transparent) lookup.\n if (str in kCSSColorTable) return kCSSColorTable[str].slice(); // dup.\n\n // #abc and #abc123 syntax.\n if (str[0] === '#') {\n if (str.length === 4) {\n var iv = parseInt(str.substr(1), 16); // TODO(deanm): Stricter parsing.\n if (!(iv >= 0 && iv <= 0xfff)) return null; // Covers NaN.\n return [((iv & 0xf00) >> 4) | ((iv & 0xf00) >> 8),\n (iv & 0xf0) | ((iv & 0xf0) >> 4),\n (iv & 0xf) | ((iv & 0xf) << 4),\n 1];\n } else if (str.length === 7) {\n var iv = parseInt(str.substr(1), 16); // TODO(deanm): Stricter parsing.\n if (!(iv >= 0 && iv <= 0xffffff)) return null; // Covers NaN.\n return [(iv & 0xff0000) >> 16,\n (iv & 0xff00) >> 8,\n iv & 0xff,\n 1];\n }\n\n return null;\n }\n\n var op = str.indexOf('('), ep = str.indexOf(')');\n if (op !== -1 && ep + 1 === str.length) {\n var fname = str.substr(0, op);\n var params = str.substr(op+1, ep-(op+1)).split(',');\n var alpha = 1; // To allow case fallthrough.\n switch (fname) {\n case 'rgba':\n if (params.length !== 4) return null;\n alpha = parse_css_float(params.pop());\n // Fall through.\n case 'rgb':\n if (params.length !== 3) return null;\n return [parse_css_int(params[0]),\n parse_css_int(params[1]),\n parse_css_int(params[2]),\n alpha];\n case 'hsla':\n if (params.length !== 4) return null;\n alpha = parse_css_float(params.pop());\n // Fall through.\n case 'hsl':\n if (params.length !== 3) return null;\n var h = (((parseFloat(params[0]) % 360) + 360) % 360) / 360; // 0 .. 1\n // NOTE(deanm): According to the CSS spec s/l should only be\n // percentages, but we don't bother and let float or percentage.\n var s = parse_css_float(params[1]);\n var l = parse_css_float(params[2]);\n var m2 = l <= 0.5 ? l * (s + 1) : l + s - l * s;\n var m1 = l * 2 - m2;\n return [clamp_css_byte(css_hue_to_rgb(m1, m2, h+1/3) * 255),\n clamp_css_byte(css_hue_to_rgb(m1, m2, h) * 255),\n clamp_css_byte(css_hue_to_rgb(m1, m2, h-1/3) * 255),\n alpha];\n default:\n return null;\n }\n }\n\n return null;\n}\n\ntry { exports.parseCSSColor = parseCSSColor } catch(e) { }\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "utils"
},
"$:/core/modules/utils/dom.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/utils/dom.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/utils/dom.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: utils\n\nVarious static DOM-related utility functions.\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\n/*\nDetermines whether element 'a' contains element 'b'\nCode thanks to John Resig, http://ejohn.org/blog/comparing-document-position/\n*/\nexports.domContains = function(a,b) {\n\treturn a.contains ?\n\t\ta !== b && a.contains(b) :\n\t\t!!(a.compareDocumentPosition(b) & 16);\n};\n\nexports.removeChildren = function(node) {\n\twhile(node.hasChildNodes()) {\n\t\tnode.removeChild(node.firstChild);\n\t}\n};\n\nexports.hasClass = function(el,className) {\n\treturn el && el.className && el.className.toString().split(\" \").indexOf(className) !== -1;\n};\n\nexports.addClass = function(el,className) {\n\tvar c = el.className.split(\" \");\n\tif(c.indexOf(className) === -1) {\n\t\tc.push(className);\n\t}\n\tel.className = c.join(\" \");\n};\n\nexports.removeClass = function(el,className) {\n\tvar c = el.className.split(\" \"),\n\t\tp = c.indexOf(className);\n\tif(p !== -1) {\n\t\tc.splice(p,1);\n\t\tel.className = c.join(\" \");\n\t}\n};\n\nexports.toggleClass = function(el,className,status) {\n\tif(status === undefined) {\n\t\tstatus = !exports.hasClass(el,className);\n\t}\n\tif(status) {\n\t\texports.addClass(el,className);\n\t} else {\n\t\texports.removeClass(el,className);\n\t}\n};\n\n/*\nGet the first parent element that has scrollbars or use the body as fallback.\n*/\nexports.getScrollContainer = function(el) {\n\tvar doc = el.ownerDocument;\n\twhile(el.parentNode) {\t\n\t\tel = el.parentNode;\n\t\tif(el.scrollTop) {\n\t\t\treturn el;\n\t\t}\n\t}\n\treturn doc.body;\n};\n\n/*\nGet the scroll position of the viewport\nReturns:\n\t{\n\t\tx: horizontal scroll position in pixels,\n\t\ty: vertical scroll position in pixels\n\t}\n*/\nexports.getScrollPosition = function(srcWindow) {\n\tvar scrollWindow = srcWindow || window;\n\tif(\"scrollX\" in scrollWindow) {\n\t\treturn {x: scrollWindow.scrollX, y: scrollWindow.scrollY};\n\t} else {\n\t\treturn {x: scrollWindow.document.documentElement.scrollLeft, y: scrollWindow.document.documentElement.scrollTop};\n\t}\n};\n\n/*\nAdjust the height of a textarea to fit its content, preserving scroll position, and return the height\n*/\nexports.resizeTextAreaToFit = function(domNode,minHeight) {\n\t// Get the scroll container and register the current scroll position\n\tvar container = $tw.utils.getScrollContainer(domNode),\n\t\tscrollTop = container.scrollTop;\n // Measure the specified minimum height\n\tdomNode.style.height = minHeight;\n\tvar measuredHeight = domNode.offsetHeight || parseInt(minHeight,10);\n\t// Set its height to auto so that it snaps to the correct height\n\tdomNode.style.height = \"auto\";\n\t// Calculate the revised height\n\tvar newHeight = Math.max(domNode.scrollHeight + domNode.offsetHeight - domNode.clientHeight,measuredHeight);\n\t// Only try to change the height if it has changed\n\tif(newHeight !== domNode.offsetHeight) {\n\t\tdomNode.style.height = newHeight + \"px\";\n\t\t// Make sure that the dimensions of the textarea are recalculated\n\t\t$tw.utils.forceLayout(domNode);\n\t\t// Set the container to the position we registered at the beginning\n\t\tcontainer.scrollTop = scrollTop;\n\t}\n\treturn newHeight;\n};\n\n/*\nGets the bounding rectangle of an element in absolute page coordinates\n*/\nexports.getBoundingPageRect = function(element) {\n\tvar scrollPos = $tw.utils.getScrollPosition(element.ownerDocument.defaultView),\n\t\tclientRect = element.getBoundingClientRect();\n\treturn {\n\t\tleft: clientRect.left + scrollPos.x,\n\t\twidth: clientRect.width,\n\t\tright: clientRect.right + scrollPos.x,\n\t\ttop: clientRect.top + scrollPos.y,\n\t\theight: clientRect.height,\n\t\tbottom: clientRect.bottom + scrollPos.y\n\t};\n};\n\n/*\nSaves a named password in the browser\n*/\nexports.savePassword = function(name,password) {\n\ttry {\n\t\tif(window.localStorage) {\n\t\t\tlocalStorage.setItem(\"tw5-password-\" + name,password);\n\t\t}\n\t} catch(e) {\n\t}\n};\n\n/*\nRetrieve a named password from the browser\n*/\nexports.getPassword = function(name) {\n\ttry {\n\t\treturn window.localStorage ? localStorage.getItem(\"tw5-password-\" + name) : \"\";\n\t} catch(e) {\n\t\treturn \"\";\n\t}\n};\n\n/*\nForce layout of a dom node and its descendents\n*/\nexports.forceLayout = function(element) {\n\tvar dummy = element.offsetWidth;\n};\n\n/*\nPulse an element for debugging purposes\n*/\nexports.pulseElement = function(element) {\n\t// Event handler to remove the class at the end\n\telement.addEventListener($tw.browser.animationEnd,function handler(event) {\n\t\telement.removeEventListener($tw.browser.animationEnd,handler,false);\n\t\t$tw.utils.removeClass(element,\"pulse\");\n\t},false);\n\t// Apply the pulse class\n\t$tw.utils.removeClass(element,\"pulse\");\n\t$tw.utils.forceLayout(element);\n\t$tw.utils.addClass(element,\"pulse\");\n};\n\n/*\nAttach specified event handlers to a DOM node\ndomNode: where to attach the event handlers\nevents: array of event handlers to be added (see below)\nEach entry in the events array is an object with these properties:\nhandlerFunction: optional event handler function\nhandlerObject: optional event handler object\nhandlerMethod: optionally specifies object handler method name (defaults to `handleEvent`)\n*/\nexports.addEventListeners = function(domNode,events) {\n\t$tw.utils.each(events,function(eventInfo) {\n\t\tvar handler;\n\t\tif(eventInfo.handlerFunction) {\n\t\t\thandler = eventInfo.handlerFunction;\n\t\t} else if(eventInfo.handlerObject) {\n\t\t\tif(eventInfo.handlerMethod) {\n\t\t\t\thandler = function(event) {\n\t\t\t\t\teventInfo.handlerObject[eventInfo.handlerMethod].call(eventInfo.handlerObject,event);\n\t\t\t\t};\t\n\t\t\t} else {\n\t\t\t\thandler = eventInfo.handlerObject;\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t}\n\t\tdomNode.addEventListener(eventInfo.name,handler,false);\n\t});\n};\n\n/*\nGet the computed styles applied to an element as an array of strings of individual CSS properties\n*/\nexports.getComputedStyles = function(domNode) {\n\tvar textAreaStyles = window.getComputedStyle(domNode,null),\n\t\tstyleDefs = [],\n\t\tname;\n\tfor(var t=0; t<textAreaStyles.length; t++) {\n\t\tname = textAreaStyles[t];\n\t\tstyleDefs.push(name + \": \" + textAreaStyles.getPropertyValue(name) + \";\");\n\t}\n\treturn styleDefs;\n};\n\n/*\nApply a set of styles passed as an array of strings of individual CSS properties\n*/\nexports.setStyles = function(domNode,styleDefs) {\n\tdomNode.style.cssText = styleDefs.join(\"\");\n};\n\n/*\nCopy the computed styles from a source element to a destination element\n*/\nexports.copyStyles = function(srcDomNode,dstDomNode) {\n\t$tw.utils.setStyles(dstDomNode,$tw.utils.getComputedStyles(srcDomNode));\n};\n\n/*\nCopy plain text to the clipboard on browsers that support it\n*/\nexports.copyToClipboard = function(text,options) {\n\toptions = options || {};\n\tvar textArea = document.createElement(\"textarea\");\n\ttextArea.style.position = \"fixed\";\n\ttextArea.style.top = 0;\n\ttextArea.style.left = 0;\n\ttextArea.style.fontSize = \"12pt\";\n\ttextArea.style.width = \"2em\";\n\ttextArea.style.height = \"2em\";\n\ttextArea.style.padding = 0;\n\ttextArea.style.border = \"none\";\n\ttextArea.style.outline = \"none\";\n\ttextArea.style.boxShadow = \"none\";\n\ttextArea.style.background = \"transparent\";\n\ttextArea.value = text;\n\tdocument.body.appendChild(textArea);\n\ttextArea.select();\n\ttextArea.setSelectionRange(0,text.length);\n\tvar succeeded = false;\n\ttry {\n\t\tsucceeded = document.execCommand(\"copy\");\n\t} catch (err) {\n\t}\n\tif(!options.doNotNotify) {\n\t\t$tw.notifier.display(succeeded ? \"$:/language/Notifications/CopiedToClipboard/Succeeded\" : \"$:/language/Notifications/CopiedToClipboard/Failed\");\n\t}\n\tdocument.body.removeChild(textArea);\n};\n\nexports.getLocationPath = function() {\n\treturn window.location.toString().split(\"#\")[0];\n};\n\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "utils"
},
"$:/core/modules/utils/dom/dragndrop.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/utils/dom/dragndrop.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/utils/dom/dragndrop.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: utils\n\nBrowser data transfer utilities, used with the clipboard and drag and drop\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\n/*\nOptions:\n\ndomNode: dom node to make draggable\ndragImageType: \"pill\" or \"dom\"\ndragTiddlerFn: optional function to retrieve the title of tiddler to drag\ndragFilterFn: optional function to retreive the filter defining a list of tiddlers to drag\nwidget: widget to use as the contect for the filter\n*/\nexports.makeDraggable = function(options) {\n\tvar dragImageType = options.dragImageType || \"dom\",\n\t\tdragImage,\n\t\tdomNode = options.domNode;\n\t// Make the dom node draggable (not necessary for anchor tags)\n\tif((domNode.tagName || \"\").toLowerCase() !== \"a\") {\n\t\tdomNode.setAttribute(\"draggable\",\"true\");\t\t\n\t}\n\t// Add event handlers\n\t$tw.utils.addEventListeners(domNode,[\n\t\t{name: \"dragstart\", handlerFunction: function(event) {\n\t\t\tif(event.dataTransfer === undefined) {\n\t\t\t\treturn false;\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t// Collect the tiddlers being dragged\n\t\t\tvar dragTiddler = options.dragTiddlerFn && options.dragTiddlerFn(),\n\t\t\t\tdragFilter = options.dragFilterFn && options.dragFilterFn(),\n\t\t\t\ttitles = dragTiddler ? [dragTiddler] : [],\n\t\t\t \tstartActions = options.startActions;\n\t\t\tif(dragFilter) {\n\t\t\t\ttitles.push.apply(titles,options.widget.wiki.filterTiddlers(dragFilter,options.widget));\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t\tvar titleString = $tw.utils.stringifyList(titles);\n\t\t\t// Check that we've something to drag\n\t\t\tif(titles.length > 0 && event.target === domNode) {\n\t\t\t\t// Mark the drag in progress\n\t\t\t\t$tw.dragInProgress = domNode;\n\t\t\t\t// Set the dragging class on the element being dragged\n\t\t\t\t$tw.utils.addClass(event.target,\"tc-dragging\");\n\t\t\t\t// Invoke drag-start actions if given\n\t\t\t\tif(startActions !== undefined) {\n\t\t\t\t\toptions.widget.invokeActionString(startActions,options.widget,event,{actionTiddler: titleString});\n\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t\t// Create the drag image elements\n\t\t\t\tdragImage = options.widget.document.createElement(\"div\");\n\t\t\t\tdragImage.className = \"tc-tiddler-dragger\";\n\t\t\t\tvar inner = options.widget.document.createElement(\"div\");\n\t\t\t\tinner.className = \"tc-tiddler-dragger-inner\";\n\t\t\t\tinner.appendChild(options.widget.document.createTextNode(\n\t\t\t\t\ttitles.length === 1 ? \n\t\t\t\t\t\ttitles[0] :\n\t\t\t\t\t\ttitles.length + \" tiddlers\"\n\t\t\t\t));\n\t\t\t\tdragImage.appendChild(inner);\n\t\t\t\toptions.widget.document.body.appendChild(dragImage);\n\t\t\t\t// Set the data transfer properties\n\t\t\t\tvar dataTransfer = event.dataTransfer;\n\t\t\t\t// Set up the image\n\t\t\t\tdataTransfer.effectAllowed = \"all\";\n\t\t\t\tif(dataTransfer.setDragImage) {\n\t\t\t\t\tif(dragImageType === \"pill\") {\n\t\t\t\t\t\tdataTransfer.setDragImage(dragImage.firstChild,-16,-16);\n\t\t\t\t\t} else {\n\t\t\t\t\t\tvar r = domNode.getBoundingClientRect();\n\t\t\t\t\t\tdataTransfer.setDragImage(domNode,event.clientX-r.left,event.clientY-r.top);\n\t\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t\t// Set up the data transfer\n\t\t\t\tif(dataTransfer.clearData) {\n\t\t\t\t\tdataTransfer.clearData();\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t\tvar jsonData = [];\n\t\t\t\tif(titles.length > 1) {\n\t\t\t\t\ttitles.forEach(function(title) {\n\t\t\t\t\t\tjsonData.push(options.widget.wiki.getTiddlerAsJson(title));\n\t\t\t\t\t});\n\t\t\t\t\tjsonData = \"[\" + jsonData.join(\",\") + \"]\";\n\t\t\t\t} else {\n\t\t\t\t\tjsonData = options.widget.wiki.getTiddlerAsJson(titles[0]);\n\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t\t// IE doesn't like these content types\n\t\t\t\tif(!$tw.browser.isIE) {\n\t\t\t\t\tdataTransfer.setData(\"text/vnd.tiddler\",jsonData);\n\t\t\t\t\tdataTransfer.setData(\"text/plain\",titleString);\n\t\t\t\t\tdataTransfer.setData(\"text/x-moz-url\",\"data:text/vnd.tiddler,\" + encodeURIComponent(jsonData));\n\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t\tdataTransfer.setData(\"URL\",\"data:text/vnd.tiddler,\" + encodeURIComponent(jsonData));\n\t\t\t\tdataTransfer.setData(\"Text\",titleString);\n\t\t\t\tevent.stopPropagation();\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t\treturn false;\n\t\t}},\n\t\t{name: \"dragend\", handlerFunction: function(event) {\n\t\t\tif(event.target === domNode) {\n\t\t\t\t// Collect the tiddlers being dragged\n\t\t\t\tvar dragTiddler = options.dragTiddlerFn && options.dragTiddlerFn(),\n\t\t\t\t\tdragFilter = options.dragFilterFn && options.dragFilterFn(),\n\t\t\t\t\ttitles = dragTiddler ? [dragTiddler] : [],\n\t\t\t \t\tendActions = options.endActions;\n\t\t\t\tif(dragFilter) {\n\t\t\t\t\ttitles.push.apply(titles,options.widget.wiki.filterTiddlers(dragFilter,options.widget));\n\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t\tvar titleString = $tw.utils.stringifyList(titles);\n\t\t\t\t$tw.dragInProgress = null;\n\t\t\t\t// Invoke drag-end actions if given\n\t\t\t\tif(endActions !== undefined) {\n\t\t\t\t\toptions.widget.invokeActionString(endActions,options.widget,event,{actionTiddler: titleString});\n\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t\t// Remove the dragging class on the element being dragged\n\t\t\t\t$tw.utils.removeClass(event.target,\"tc-dragging\");\n\t\t\t\t// Delete the drag image element\n\t\t\t\tif(dragImage) {\n\t\t\t\t\tdragImage.parentNode.removeChild(dragImage);\n\t\t\t\t\tdragImage = null;\n\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t\treturn false;\n\t\t}}\n\t]);\n};\n\nexports.importDataTransfer = function(dataTransfer,fallbackTitle,callback) {\n\t// Try each provided data type in turn\n\tif($tw.log.IMPORT) {\n\t\tconsole.log(\"Available data types:\");\n\t\tfor(var type=0; type<dataTransfer.types.length; type++) {\n\t\t\tconsole.log(\"type\",dataTransfer.types[type],dataTransfer.getData(dataTransfer.types[type]))\n\t\t}\n\t}\n\tfor(var t=0; t<importDataTypes.length; t++) {\n\t\tif(!$tw.browser.isIE || importDataTypes[t].IECompatible) {\n\t\t\t// Get the data\n\t\t\tvar dataType = importDataTypes[t];\n\t\t\t\tvar data = dataTransfer.getData(dataType.type);\n\t\t\t// Import the tiddlers in the data\n\t\t\tif(data !== \"\" && data !== null) {\n\t\t\t\tif($tw.log.IMPORT) {\n\t\t\t\t\tconsole.log(\"Importing data type '\" + dataType.type + \"', data: '\" + data + \"'\")\n\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t\tvar tiddlerFields = dataType.toTiddlerFieldsArray(data,fallbackTitle);\n\t\t\t\tcallback(tiddlerFields);\n\t\t\t\treturn;\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t}\n\t}\n};\n\nvar importDataTypes = [\n\t{type: \"text/vnd.tiddler\", IECompatible: false, toTiddlerFieldsArray: function(data,fallbackTitle) {\n\t\treturn parseJSONTiddlers(data,fallbackTitle);\n\t}},\n\t{type: \"URL\", IECompatible: true, toTiddlerFieldsArray: function(data,fallbackTitle) {\n\t\t// Check for tiddler data URI\n\t\tvar match = decodeURIComponent(data).match(/^data\\:text\\/vnd\\.tiddler,(.*)/i);\n\t\tif(match) {\n\t\t\treturn parseJSONTiddlers(match[1],fallbackTitle);\n\t\t} else {\n\t\t\treturn [{title: fallbackTitle, text: data}]; // As URL string\n\t\t}\n\t}},\n\t{type: \"text/x-moz-url\", IECompatible: false, toTiddlerFieldsArray: function(data,fallbackTitle) {\n\t\t// Check for tiddler data URI\n\t\tvar match = decodeURIComponent(data).match(/^data\\:text\\/vnd\\.tiddler,(.*)/i);\n\t\tif(match) {\n\t\t\treturn parseJSONTiddlers(match[1],fallbackTitle);\n\t\t} else {\n\t\t\treturn [{title: fallbackTitle, text: data}]; // As URL string\n\t\t}\n\t}},\n\t{type: \"text/html\", IECompatible: false, toTiddlerFieldsArray: function(data,fallbackTitle) {\n\t\treturn [{title: fallbackTitle, text: data}];\n\t}},\n\t{type: \"text/plain\", IECompatible: false, toTiddlerFieldsArray: function(data,fallbackTitle) {\n\t\treturn [{title: fallbackTitle, text: data}];\n\t}},\n\t{type: \"Text\", IECompatible: true, toTiddlerFieldsArray: function(data,fallbackTitle) {\n\t\treturn [{title: fallbackTitle, text: data}];\n\t}},\n\t{type: \"text/uri-list\", IECompatible: false, toTiddlerFieldsArray: function(data,fallbackTitle) {\n\t\treturn [{title: fallbackTitle, text: data}];\n\t}}\n];\n\nfunction parseJSONTiddlers(json,fallbackTitle) {\n\tvar data = JSON.parse(json);\n\tif(!$tw.utils.isArray(data)) {\n\t\tdata = [data];\n\t}\n\tdata.forEach(function(fields) {\n\t\tfields.title = fields.title || fallbackTitle;\n\t});\n\treturn data;\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "utils"
},
"$:/core/modules/utils/dom/http.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/utils/dom/http.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/utils/dom/http.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: utils\n\nBrowser HTTP support\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\n/*\nA quick and dirty HTTP function; to be refactored later. Options are:\n\turl: URL to retrieve\n\theaders: hashmap of headers to send\n\ttype: GET, PUT, POST etc\n\tcallback: function invoked with (err,data)\n\treturnProp: string name of the property to return as first argument of callback\n*/\nexports.httpRequest = function(options) {\n\tvar type = options.type || \"GET\",\n\t\theaders = options.headers || {accept: \"application/json\"},\n\t\treturnProp = options.returnProp || \"responseText\",\n\t\trequest = new XMLHttpRequest(),\n\t\tdata = \"\",\n\t\tf,results;\n\t// Massage the data hashmap into a string\n\tif(options.data) {\n\t\tif(typeof options.data === \"string\") { // Already a string\n\t\t\tdata = options.data;\n\t\t} else { // A hashmap of strings\n\t\t\tresults = [];\n\t\t\t$tw.utils.each(options.data,function(dataItem,dataItemTitle) {\n\t\t\t\tresults.push(dataItemTitle + \"=\" + encodeURIComponent(dataItem));\n\t\t\t});\n\t\t\tdata = results.join(\"&\");\n\t\t}\n\t}\n\t// Set up the state change handler\n\trequest.onreadystatechange = function() {\n\t\tif(this.readyState === 4) {\n\t\t\tif(this.status === 200 || this.status === 201 || this.status === 204) {\n\t\t\t\t// Success!\n\t\t\t\toptions.callback(null,this[returnProp],this);\n\t\t\t\treturn;\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t// Something went wrong\n\t\toptions.callback($tw.language.getString(\"Error/XMLHttpRequest\") + \": \" + this.status);\n\t\t}\n\t};\n\t// Make the request\n\trequest.open(type,options.url,true);\n\tif(headers) {\n\t\t$tw.utils.each(headers,function(header,headerTitle,object) {\n\t\t\trequest.setRequestHeader(headerTitle,header);\n\t\t});\n\t}\n\tif(data && !$tw.utils.hop(headers,\"Content-type\")) {\n\t\trequest.setRequestHeader(\"Content-type\",\"application/x-www-form-urlencoded; charset=UTF-8\");\n\t}\n\tif(!$tw.utils.hop(headers,\"X-Requested-With\")) {\n\t\trequest.setRequestHeader(\"X-Requested-With\",\"TiddlyWiki\");\n\t}\n\ttry {\n\t\trequest.send(data);\n\t} catch(e) {\n\t\toptions.callback(e);\n\t}\n\treturn request;\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "utils"
},
"$:/core/modules/utils/dom/keyboard.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/utils/dom/keyboard.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/utils/dom/keyboard.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: utils\n\nKeyboard utilities; now deprecated. Instead, use $tw.keyboardManager\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\n[\"parseKeyDescriptor\",\"checkKeyDescriptor\"].forEach(function(method) {\n\texports[method] = function() {\n\t\tif($tw.keyboardManager) {\n\t\t\treturn $tw.keyboardManager[method].apply($tw.keyboardManager,Array.prototype.slice.call(arguments,0));\n\t\t} else {\n\t\t\treturn null\n\t\t}\n\t};\n});\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "utils"
},
"$:/core/modules/utils/dom/modal.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/utils/dom/modal.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/utils/dom/modal.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: utils\n\nModal message mechanism\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nvar widget = require(\"$:/core/modules/widgets/widget.js\");\n\nvar Modal = function(wiki) {\n\tthis.wiki = wiki;\n\tthis.modalCount = 0;\n};\n\n/*\nDisplay a modal dialogue\n\ttitle: Title of tiddler to display\n\toptions: see below\nOptions include:\n\tdownloadLink: Text of a big download link to include\n*/\nModal.prototype.display = function(title,options) {\n\toptions = options || {};\n\tthis.srcDocument = options.variables && (options.variables.rootwindow === \"true\" ||\n\t\t\t\toptions.variables.rootwindow === \"yes\") ? document :\n\t\t\t\t(options.event.event ? options.event.event.target.ownerDocument : document);\n\tthis.srcWindow = this.srcDocument.defaultView;\n\tvar self = this,\n\t\trefreshHandler,\n\t\tduration = $tw.utils.getAnimationDuration(),\n\t\ttiddler = this.wiki.getTiddler(title);\n\t// Don't do anything if the tiddler doesn't exist\n\tif(!tiddler) {\n\t\treturn;\n\t}\n\t// Create the variables\n\tvar variables = $tw.utils.extend({currentTiddler: title},options.variables);\n\t// Create the wrapper divs\n\tvar wrapper = this.srcDocument.createElement(\"div\"),\n\t\tmodalBackdrop = this.srcDocument.createElement(\"div\"),\n\t\tmodalWrapper = this.srcDocument.createElement(\"div\"),\n\t\tmodalHeader = this.srcDocument.createElement(\"div\"),\n\t\theaderTitle = this.srcDocument.createElement(\"h3\"),\n\t\tmodalBody = this.srcDocument.createElement(\"div\"),\n\t\tmodalLink = this.srcDocument.createElement(\"a\"),\n\t\tmodalFooter = this.srcDocument.createElement(\"div\"),\n\t\tmodalFooterHelp = this.srcDocument.createElement(\"span\"),\n\t\tmodalFooterButtons = this.srcDocument.createElement(\"span\");\n\t// Up the modal count and adjust the body class\n\tthis.modalCount++;\n\tthis.adjustPageClass();\n\t// Add classes\n\t$tw.utils.addClass(wrapper,\"tc-modal-wrapper\");\n\t$tw.utils.addClass(modalBackdrop,\"tc-modal-backdrop\");\n\t$tw.utils.addClass(modalWrapper,\"tc-modal\");\n\t$tw.utils.addClass(modalHeader,\"tc-modal-header\");\n\t$tw.utils.addClass(modalBody,\"tc-modal-body\");\n\t$tw.utils.addClass(modalFooter,\"tc-modal-footer\");\n\t// Join them together\n\twrapper.appendChild(modalBackdrop);\n\twrapper.appendChild(modalWrapper);\n\tmodalHeader.appendChild(headerTitle);\n\tmodalWrapper.appendChild(modalHeader);\n\tmodalWrapper.appendChild(modalBody);\n\tmodalFooter.appendChild(modalFooterHelp);\n\tmodalFooter.appendChild(modalFooterButtons);\n\tmodalWrapper.appendChild(modalFooter);\n\t// Render the title of the message\n\tvar headerWidgetNode = this.wiki.makeTranscludeWidget(title,{\n\t\tfield: \"subtitle\",\n\t\tmode: \"inline\",\n\t\tchildren: [{\n\t\t\ttype: \"text\",\n\t\t\tattributes: {\n\t\t\t\ttext: {\n\t\t\t\t\ttype: \"string\",\n\t\t\t\t\tvalue: title\n\t\t}}}],\n\t\tparentWidget: $tw.rootWidget,\n\t\tdocument: this.srcDocument,\n\t\tvariables: variables,\n\t\timportPageMacros: true\n\t});\n\theaderWidgetNode.render(headerTitle,null);\n\t// Render the body of the message\n\tvar bodyWidgetNode = this.wiki.makeTranscludeWidget(title,{\n\t\tparentWidget: $tw.rootWidget,\n\t\tdocument: this.srcDocument,\n\t\tvariables: variables,\n\t\timportPageMacros: true\n\t});\n\tbodyWidgetNode.render(modalBody,null);\n\t// Setup the link if present\n\tif(options.downloadLink) {\n\t\tmodalLink.href = options.downloadLink;\n\t\tmodalLink.appendChild(this.srcDocument.createTextNode(\"Right-click to save changes\"));\n\t\tmodalBody.appendChild(modalLink);\n\t}\n\t// Render the footer of the message\n\tif(tiddler && tiddler.fields && tiddler.fields.help) {\n\t\tvar link = this.srcDocument.createElement(\"a\");\n\t\tlink.setAttribute(\"href\",tiddler.fields.help);\n\t\tlink.setAttribute(\"target\",\"_blank\");\n\t\tlink.setAttribute(\"rel\",\"noopener noreferrer\");\n\t\tlink.appendChild(this.srcDocument.createTextNode(\"Help\"));\n\t\tmodalFooterHelp.appendChild(link);\n\t\tmodalFooterHelp.style.float = \"left\";\n\t}\n\tvar footerWidgetNode = this.wiki.makeTranscludeWidget(title,{\n\t\tfield: \"footer\",\n\t\tmode: \"inline\",\n\t\tchildren: [{\n\t\t\ttype: \"button\",\n\t\t\tattributes: {\n\t\t\t\tmessage: {\n\t\t\t\t\ttype: \"string\",\n\t\t\t\t\tvalue: \"tm-close-tiddler\"\n\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t},\n\t\t\tchildren: [{\n\t\t\t\ttype: \"text\",\n\t\t\t\tattributes: {\n\t\t\t\t\ttext: {\n\t\t\t\t\t\ttype: \"string\",\n\t\t\t\t\t\tvalue: $tw.language.getString(\"Buttons/Close/Caption\")\n\t\t\t}}}\n\t\t]}],\n\t\tparentWidget: $tw.rootWidget,\n\t\tdocument: this.srcDocument,\n\t\tvariables: variables,\n\t\timportPageMacros: true\n\t});\n\tfooterWidgetNode.render(modalFooterButtons,null);\n\t// Set up the refresh handler\n\trefreshHandler = function(changes) {\n\t\theaderWidgetNode.refresh(changes,modalHeader,null);\n\t\tbodyWidgetNode.refresh(changes,modalBody,null);\n\t\tfooterWidgetNode.refresh(changes,modalFooterButtons,null);\n\t};\n\tthis.wiki.addEventListener(\"change\",refreshHandler);\n\t// Add the close event handler\n\tvar closeHandler = function(event) {\n\t\t// Remove our refresh handler\n\t\tself.wiki.removeEventListener(\"change\",refreshHandler);\n\t\t// Decrease the modal count and adjust the body class\n\t\tself.modalCount--;\n\t\tself.adjustPageClass();\n\t\t// Force layout and animate the modal message away\n\t\t$tw.utils.forceLayout(modalBackdrop);\n\t\t$tw.utils.forceLayout(modalWrapper);\n\t\t$tw.utils.setStyle(modalBackdrop,[\n\t\t\t{opacity: \"0\"}\n\t\t]);\n\t\t$tw.utils.setStyle(modalWrapper,[\n\t\t\t{transform: \"translateY(\" + self.srcWindow.innerHeight + \"px)\"}\n\t\t]);\n\t\t// Set up an event for the transition end\n\t\tself.srcWindow.setTimeout(function() {\n\t\t\tif(wrapper.parentNode) {\n\t\t\t\t// Remove the modal message from the DOM\n\t\t\t\tself.srcDocument.body.removeChild(wrapper);\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t},duration);\n\t\t// Don't let anyone else handle the tm-close-tiddler message\n\t\treturn false;\n\t};\n\theaderWidgetNode.addEventListener(\"tm-close-tiddler\",closeHandler,false);\n\tbodyWidgetNode.addEventListener(\"tm-close-tiddler\",closeHandler,false);\n\tfooterWidgetNode.addEventListener(\"tm-close-tiddler\",closeHandler,false);\n\t// Set the initial styles for the message\n\t$tw.utils.setStyle(modalBackdrop,[\n\t\t{opacity: \"0\"}\n\t]);\n\t$tw.utils.setStyle(modalWrapper,[\n\t\t{transformOrigin: \"0% 0%\"},\n\t\t{transform: \"translateY(\" + (-this.srcWindow.innerHeight) + \"px)\"}\n\t]);\n\t// Put the message into the document\n\tthis.srcDocument.body.appendChild(wrapper);\n\t// Set up animation for the styles\n\t$tw.utils.setStyle(modalBackdrop,[\n\t\t{transition: \"opacity \" + duration + \"ms ease-out\"}\n\t]);\n\t$tw.utils.setStyle(modalWrapper,[\n\t\t{transition: $tw.utils.roundTripPropertyName(\"transform\") + \" \" + duration + \"ms ease-in-out\"}\n\t]);\n\t// Force layout\n\t$tw.utils.forceLayout(modalBackdrop);\n\t$tw.utils.forceLayout(modalWrapper);\n\t// Set final animated styles\n\t$tw.utils.setStyle(modalBackdrop,[\n\t\t{opacity: \"0.7\"}\n\t]);\n\t$tw.utils.setStyle(modalWrapper,[\n\t\t{transform: \"translateY(0px)\"}\n\t]);\n};\n\nModal.prototype.adjustPageClass = function() {\n\tvar windowContainer = $tw.pageContainer ? ($tw.pageContainer === this.srcDocument.body.firstChild ? $tw.pageContainer : this.srcDocument.body.firstChild) : null;\n\tif(windowContainer) {\n\t\t$tw.utils.toggleClass(windowContainer,\"tc-modal-displayed\",this.modalCount > 0);\n\t}\n};\n\nexports.Modal = Modal;\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "utils"
},
"$:/core/modules/utils/dom/notifier.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/utils/dom/notifier.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/utils/dom/notifier.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: utils\n\nNotifier mechanism\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nvar widget = require(\"$:/core/modules/widgets/widget.js\");\n\nvar Notifier = function(wiki) {\n\tthis.wiki = wiki;\n};\n\n/*\nDisplay a notification\n\ttitle: Title of tiddler containing the notification text\n\toptions: see below\nOptions include:\n*/\nNotifier.prototype.display = function(title,options) {\n\toptions = options || {};\n\t// Create the wrapper divs\n\tvar self = this,\n\t\tnotification = document.createElement(\"div\"),\n\t\ttiddler = this.wiki.getTiddler(title),\n\t\tduration = $tw.utils.getAnimationDuration(),\n\t\trefreshHandler;\n\t// Don't do anything if the tiddler doesn't exist\n\tif(!tiddler) {\n\t\treturn;\n\t}\n\t// Add classes\n\t$tw.utils.addClass(notification,\"tc-notification\");\n\t// Create the variables\n\tvar variables = $tw.utils.extend({currentTiddler: title},options.variables);\n\t// Render the body of the notification\n\tvar widgetNode = this.wiki.makeTranscludeWidget(title,{\n\t\tparentWidget: $tw.rootWidget,\n\t\tdocument: document,\n\t\tvariables: variables,\n\t\timportPageMacros: true});\n\twidgetNode.render(notification,null);\n\trefreshHandler = function(changes) {\n\t\twidgetNode.refresh(changes,notification,null);\n\t};\n\tthis.wiki.addEventListener(\"change\",refreshHandler);\n\t// Set the initial styles for the notification\n\t$tw.utils.setStyle(notification,[\n\t\t{opacity: \"0\"},\n\t\t{transformOrigin: \"0% 0%\"},\n\t\t{transform: \"translateY(\" + (-window.innerHeight) + \"px)\"},\n\t\t{transition: \"opacity \" + duration + \"ms ease-out, \" + $tw.utils.roundTripPropertyName(\"transform\") + \" \" + duration + \"ms ease-in-out\"}\n\t]);\n\t// Add the notification to the DOM\n\tdocument.body.appendChild(notification);\n\t// Force layout\n\t$tw.utils.forceLayout(notification);\n\t// Set final animated styles\n\t$tw.utils.setStyle(notification,[\n\t\t{opacity: \"1.0\"},\n\t\t{transform: \"translateY(0px)\"}\n\t]);\n\t// Set a timer to remove the notification\n\twindow.setTimeout(function() {\n\t\t// Remove our change event handler\n\t\tself.wiki.removeEventListener(\"change\",refreshHandler);\n\t\t// Force layout and animate the notification away\n\t\t$tw.utils.forceLayout(notification);\n\t\t$tw.utils.setStyle(notification,[\n\t\t\t{opacity: \"0.0\"},\n\t\t\t{transform: \"translateX(\" + (notification.offsetWidth) + \"px)\"}\n\t\t]);\n\t\t// Remove the modal message from the DOM once the transition ends\n\t\tsetTimeout(function() {\n\t\t\tif(notification.parentNode) {\n\t\t\t\tdocument.body.removeChild(notification);\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t},duration);\n\t},$tw.config.preferences.notificationDuration);\n};\n\nexports.Notifier = Notifier;\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "utils"
},
"$:/core/modules/utils/dom/popup.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/utils/dom/popup.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/utils/dom/popup.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: utils\n\nModule that creates a $tw.utils.Popup object prototype that manages popups in the browser\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\n/*\nCreates a Popup object with these options:\n\trootElement: the DOM element to which the popup zapper should be attached\n*/\nvar Popup = function(options) {\n\toptions = options || {};\n\tthis.rootElement = options.rootElement || document.documentElement;\n\tthis.popups = []; // Array of {title:,wiki:,domNode:} objects\n};\n\n/*\nTrigger a popup open or closed. Parameters are in a hashmap:\n\ttitle: title of the tiddler where the popup details are stored\n\tdomNode: dom node to which the popup will be positioned (one of domNode or domNodeRect is required)\n\tdomNodeRect: rectangle to which the popup will be positioned\n\twiki: wiki\n\tforce: if specified, forces the popup state to true or false (instead of toggling it)\n\tfloating: if true, skips registering the popup, meaning that it will need manually clearing\n*/\nPopup.prototype.triggerPopup = function(options) {\n\t// Check if this popup is already active\n\tvar index = this.findPopup(options.title);\n\t// Compute the new state\n\tvar state = index === -1;\n\tif(options.force !== undefined) {\n\t\tstate = options.force;\n\t}\n\t// Show or cancel the popup according to the new state\n\tif(state) {\n\t\tthis.show(options);\n\t} else {\n\t\tthis.cancel(index);\n\t}\n};\n\nPopup.prototype.findPopup = function(title) {\n\tvar index = -1;\n\tfor(var t=0; t<this.popups.length; t++) {\n\t\tif(this.popups[t].title === title) {\n\t\t\tindex = t;\n\t\t}\n\t}\n\treturn index;\n};\n\nPopup.prototype.handleEvent = function(event) {\n\tif(event.type === \"click\") {\n\t\t// Find out what was clicked on\n\t\tvar info = this.popupInfo(event.target),\n\t\t\tcancelLevel = info.popupLevel - 1;\n\t\t// Don't remove the level that was clicked on if we clicked on a handle\n\t\tif(info.isHandle) {\n\t\t\tcancelLevel++;\n\t\t}\n\t\t// Cancel\n\t\tthis.cancel(cancelLevel);\n\t}\n};\n\n/*\nFind the popup level containing a DOM node. Returns:\npopupLevel: count of the number of nested popups containing the specified element\nisHandle: true if the specified element is within a popup handle\n*/\nPopup.prototype.popupInfo = function(domNode) {\n\tvar isHandle = false,\n\t\tpopupCount = 0,\n\t\tnode = domNode;\n\t// First check ancestors to see if we're within a popup handle\n\twhile(node) {\n\t\tif($tw.utils.hasClass(node,\"tc-popup-handle\")) {\n\t\t\tisHandle = true;\n\t\t\tpopupCount++;\n\t\t}\n\t\tif($tw.utils.hasClass(node,\"tc-popup-keep\")) {\n\t\t\tisHandle = true;\n\t\t}\n\t\tnode = node.parentNode;\n\t}\n\t// Then count the number of ancestor popups\n\tnode = domNode;\n\twhile(node) {\n\t\tif($tw.utils.hasClass(node,\"tc-popup\")) {\n\t\t\tpopupCount++;\n\t\t}\n\t\tnode = node.parentNode;\n\t}\n\tvar info = {\n\t\tpopupLevel: popupCount,\n\t\tisHandle: isHandle\n\t};\n\treturn info;\n};\n\n/*\nDisplay a popup by adding it to the stack\n*/\nPopup.prototype.show = function(options) {\n\t// Find out what was clicked on\n\tvar info = this.popupInfo(options.domNode);\n\t// Cancel any higher level popups\n\tthis.cancel(info.popupLevel);\n\n\t// Store the popup details if not already there\n\tif(!options.floating && this.findPopup(options.title) === -1) {\n\t\tthis.popups.push({\n\t\t\ttitle: options.title,\n\t\t\twiki: options.wiki,\n\t\t\tdomNode: options.domNode\n\t\t});\n\t}\n\t// Set the state tiddler\n\tvar rect;\n\tif(options.domNodeRect) {\n\t\trect = options.domNodeRect;\n\t} else {\n\t\trect = {\n\t\t\tleft: options.domNode.offsetLeft,\n\t\t\ttop: options.domNode.offsetTop,\n\t\t\twidth: options.domNode.offsetWidth,\n\t\t\theight: options.domNode.offsetHeight\n\t\t};\n\t}\n\tvar popupRect = \"(\" + rect.left + \",\" + rect.top + \",\" + \n\t\t\t\trect.width + \",\" + rect.height + \")\";\n\tif(options.noStateReference) {\n\t\toptions.wiki.setText(options.title,\"text\",undefined,popupRect);\n\t} else {\n\t\toptions.wiki.setTextReference(options.title,popupRect);\n\t}\n\t// Add the click handler if we have any popups\n\tif(this.popups.length > 0) {\n\t\tthis.rootElement.addEventListener(\"click\",this,true);\t\t\n\t}\n};\n\n/*\nCancel all popups at or above a specified level or DOM node\nlevel: popup level to cancel (0 cancels all popups)\n*/\nPopup.prototype.cancel = function(level) {\n\tvar numPopups = this.popups.length;\n\tlevel = Math.max(0,Math.min(level,numPopups));\n\tfor(var t=level; t<numPopups; t++) {\n\t\tvar popup = this.popups.pop();\n\t\tif(popup.title) {\n\t\t\tpopup.wiki.deleteTiddler(popup.title);\n\t\t}\n\t}\n\tif(this.popups.length === 0) {\n\t\tthis.rootElement.removeEventListener(\"click\",this,false);\n\t}\n};\n\n/*\nReturns true if the specified title and text identifies an active popup\n*/\nPopup.prototype.readPopupState = function(text) {\n\tvar popupLocationRegExp = /^\\((-?[0-9\\.E]+),(-?[0-9\\.E]+),(-?[0-9\\.E]+),(-?[0-9\\.E]+)\\)$/;\n\treturn popupLocationRegExp.test(text);\n};\n\nexports.Popup = Popup;\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "utils"
},
"$:/core/modules/utils/dom/scroller.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/utils/dom/scroller.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/utils/dom/scroller.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: utils\n\nModule that creates a $tw.utils.Scroller object prototype that manages scrolling in the browser\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\n/*\nEvent handler for when the `tm-scroll` event hits the document body\n*/\nvar PageScroller = function() {\n\tthis.idRequestFrame = null;\n\tthis.requestAnimationFrame = window.requestAnimationFrame ||\n\t\twindow.webkitRequestAnimationFrame ||\n\t\twindow.mozRequestAnimationFrame ||\n\t\tfunction(callback) {\n\t\t\treturn window.setTimeout(callback, 1000/60);\n\t\t};\n\tthis.cancelAnimationFrame = window.cancelAnimationFrame ||\n\t\twindow.webkitCancelAnimationFrame ||\n\t\twindow.webkitCancelRequestAnimationFrame ||\n\t\twindow.mozCancelAnimationFrame ||\n\t\twindow.mozCancelRequestAnimationFrame ||\n\t\tfunction(id) {\n\t\t\twindow.clearTimeout(id);\n\t\t};\n};\n\nPageScroller.prototype.cancelScroll = function(srcWindow) {\n\tif(this.idRequestFrame) {\n\t\tthis.cancelAnimationFrame.call(srcWindow,this.idRequestFrame);\n\t\tthis.idRequestFrame = null;\n\t}\n};\n\n/*\nHandle an event\n*/\nPageScroller.prototype.handleEvent = function(event) {\n\tif(event.type === \"tm-scroll\") {\n\t\treturn this.scrollIntoView(event.target);\n\t}\n\treturn true;\n};\n\n/*\nHandle a scroll event hitting the page document\n*/\nPageScroller.prototype.scrollIntoView = function(element,callback) {\n\tvar self = this,\n\t\tduration = $tw.utils.getAnimationDuration(),\n\t srcWindow = element ? element.ownerDocument.defaultView : window;\n\t// Now get ready to scroll the body\n\tthis.cancelScroll(srcWindow);\n\tthis.startTime = Date.now();\n\t// Get the height of any position:fixed toolbars\n\tvar toolbar = srcWindow.document.querySelector(\".tc-adjust-top-of-scroll\"),\n\t\toffset = 0;\n\tif(toolbar) {\n\t\toffset = toolbar.offsetHeight;\n\t}\n\t// Get the client bounds of the element and adjust by the scroll position\n\tvar getBounds = function() {\n\t\t\tvar clientBounds = typeof callback === 'function' ? callback() : element.getBoundingClientRect(),\n\t\t\t\tscrollPosition = $tw.utils.getScrollPosition(srcWindow);\n\t\t\treturn {\n\t\t\t\tleft: clientBounds.left + scrollPosition.x,\n\t\t\t\ttop: clientBounds.top + scrollPosition.y - offset,\n\t\t\t\twidth: clientBounds.width,\n\t\t\t\theight: clientBounds.height\n\t\t\t};\n\t\t},\n\t\t// We'll consider the horizontal and vertical scroll directions separately via this function\n\t\t// targetPos/targetSize - position and size of the target element\n\t\t// currentPos/currentSize - position and size of the current scroll viewport\n\t\t// returns: new position of the scroll viewport\n\t\tgetEndPos = function(targetPos,targetSize,currentPos,currentSize) {\n\t\t\tvar newPos = targetPos;\n\t\t\t// If we are scrolling within 50 pixels of the top/left then snap to zero\n\t\t\tif(newPos < 50) {\n\t\t\t\tnewPos = 0;\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t\treturn newPos;\n\t\t},\n\t\tdrawFrame = function drawFrame() {\n\t\t\tvar t;\n\t\t\tif(duration <= 0) {\n\t\t\t\tt = 1;\n\t\t\t} else {\n\t\t\t\tt = ((Date.now()) - self.startTime) / duration;\t\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t\tif(t >= 1) {\n\t\t\t\tself.cancelScroll(srcWindow);\n\t\t\t\tt = 1;\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t\tt = $tw.utils.slowInSlowOut(t);\n\t\t\tvar scrollPosition = $tw.utils.getScrollPosition(srcWindow),\n\t\t\t\tbounds = getBounds(),\n\t\t\t\tendX = getEndPos(bounds.left,bounds.width,scrollPosition.x,srcWindow.innerWidth),\n\t\t\t\tendY = getEndPos(bounds.top,bounds.height,scrollPosition.y,srcWindow.innerHeight);\n\t\t\tsrcWindow.scrollTo(scrollPosition.x + (endX - scrollPosition.x) * t,scrollPosition.y + (endY - scrollPosition.y) * t);\n\t\t\tif(t < 1) {\n\t\t\t\tself.idRequestFrame = self.requestAnimationFrame.call(srcWindow,drawFrame);\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t};\n\tdrawFrame();\n};\n\nexports.PageScroller = PageScroller;\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "utils"
},
"$:/core/modules/utils/edition-info.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/utils/edition-info.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/utils/edition-info.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: utils-node\n\nInformation about the available editions\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nvar fs = require(\"fs\"),\n\tpath = require(\"path\");\n\nvar editionInfo;\n\nexports.getEditionInfo = function() {\n\tif(!editionInfo) {\n\t\t// Enumerate the edition paths\n\t\tvar editionPaths = $tw.getLibraryItemSearchPaths($tw.config.editionsPath,$tw.config.editionsEnvVar);\n\t\teditionInfo = {};\n\t\tfor(var editionIndex=0; editionIndex<editionPaths.length; editionIndex++) {\n\t\t\tvar editionPath = editionPaths[editionIndex];\n\t\t\t// Enumerate the folders\n\t\t\tvar entries = fs.readdirSync(editionPath);\n\t\t\tfor(var entryIndex=0; entryIndex<entries.length; entryIndex++) {\n\t\t\t\tvar entry = entries[entryIndex];\n\t\t\t\t// Check if directories have a valid tiddlywiki.info\n\t\t\t\tif(!editionInfo[entry] && $tw.utils.isDirectory(path.resolve(editionPath,entry))) {\n\t\t\t\t\tvar info;\n\t\t\t\t\ttry {\n\t\t\t\t\t\tinfo = JSON.parse(fs.readFileSync(path.resolve(editionPath,entry,\"tiddlywiki.info\"),\"utf8\"));\n\t\t\t\t\t} catch(ex) {\n\t\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t\t\tif(info) {\n\t\t\t\t\t\teditionInfo[entry] = info;\n\t\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t}\n\t}\n\treturn editionInfo;\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "utils-node"
},
"$:/core/modules/utils/fakedom.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/utils/fakedom.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/utils/fakedom.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: global\n\nA barebones implementation of DOM interfaces needed by the rendering mechanism.\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\n// Sequence number used to enable us to track objects for testing\nvar sequenceNumber = null;\n\nvar bumpSequenceNumber = function(object) {\n\tif(sequenceNumber !== null) {\n\t\tobject.sequenceNumber = sequenceNumber++;\n\t}\n};\n\nvar TW_TextNode = function(text) {\n\tbumpSequenceNumber(this);\n\tthis.textContent = text + \"\";\n};\n\nObject.defineProperty(TW_TextNode.prototype, \"nodeType\", {\n\tget: function() {\n\t\treturn 3;\n\t}\n});\n\nObject.defineProperty(TW_TextNode.prototype, \"formattedTextContent\", {\n\tget: function() {\n\t\treturn this.textContent.replace(/(\\r?\\n)/g,\"\");\n\t}\n});\n\nvar TW_Element = function(tag,namespace) {\n\tbumpSequenceNumber(this);\n\tthis.isTiddlyWikiFakeDom = true;\n\tthis.tag = tag;\n\tthis.attributes = {};\n\tthis.isRaw = false;\n\tthis.children = [];\n\tthis.style = {};\n\tthis.namespaceURI = namespace || \"http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml\";\n};\n\nObject.defineProperty(TW_Element.prototype, \"nodeType\", {\n\tget: function() {\n\t\treturn 1;\n\t}\n});\n\nTW_Element.prototype.getAttribute = function(name) {\n\tif(this.isRaw) {\n\t\tthrow \"Cannot getAttribute on a raw TW_Element\";\n\t}\n\treturn this.attributes[name];\n};\n\nTW_Element.prototype.setAttribute = function(name,value) {\n\tif(this.isRaw) {\n\t\tthrow \"Cannot setAttribute on a raw TW_Element\";\n\t}\n\tthis.attributes[name] = value + \"\";\n};\n\nTW_Element.prototype.setAttributeNS = function(namespace,name,value) {\n\tthis.setAttribute(name,value);\n};\n\nTW_Element.prototype.removeAttribute = function(name) {\n\tif(this.isRaw) {\n\t\tthrow \"Cannot removeAttribute on a raw TW_Element\";\n\t}\n\tif($tw.utils.hop(this.attributes,name)) {\n\t\tdelete this.attributes[name];\n\t}\n};\n\nTW_Element.prototype.appendChild = function(node) {\n\tthis.children.push(node);\n\tnode.parentNode = this;\n};\n\nTW_Element.prototype.insertBefore = function(node,nextSibling) {\n\tif(nextSibling) {\n\t\tvar p = this.children.indexOf(nextSibling);\n\t\tif(p !== -1) {\n\t\t\tthis.children.splice(p,0,node);\n\t\t\tnode.parentNode = this;\n\t\t} else {\n\t\t\tthis.appendChild(node);\n\t\t}\n\t} else {\n\t\tthis.appendChild(node);\n\t}\n};\n\nTW_Element.prototype.removeChild = function(node) {\n\tvar p = this.children.indexOf(node);\n\tif(p !== -1) {\n\t\tthis.children.splice(p,1);\n\t}\n};\n\nTW_Element.prototype.hasChildNodes = function() {\n\treturn !!this.children.length;\n};\n\nObject.defineProperty(TW_Element.prototype, \"childNodes\", {\n\tget: function() {\n\t\treturn this.children;\n\t}\n});\n\nObject.defineProperty(TW_Element.prototype, \"firstChild\", {\n\tget: function() {\n\t\treturn this.children[0];\n\t}\n});\n\nTW_Element.prototype.addEventListener = function(type,listener,useCapture) {\n\t// Do nothing\n};\n\nObject.defineProperty(TW_Element.prototype, \"tagName\", {\n\tget: function() {\n\t\treturn this.tag || \"\";\n\t}\n});\n\nObject.defineProperty(TW_Element.prototype, \"className\", {\n\tget: function() {\n\t\treturn this.attributes[\"class\"] || \"\";\n\t},\n\tset: function(value) {\n\t\tthis.attributes[\"class\"] = value + \"\";\n\t}\n});\n\nObject.defineProperty(TW_Element.prototype, \"value\", {\n\tget: function() {\n\t\treturn this.attributes.value || \"\";\n\t},\n\tset: function(value) {\n\t\tthis.attributes.value = value + \"\";\n\t}\n});\n\nObject.defineProperty(TW_Element.prototype, \"outerHTML\", {\n\tget: function() {\n\t\tvar output = [],attr,a,v;\n\t\toutput.push(\"<\",this.tag);\n\t\tif(this.attributes) {\n\t\t\tattr = [];\n\t\t\tfor(a in this.attributes) {\n\t\t\t\tattr.push(a);\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t\tattr.sort();\n\t\t\tfor(a=0; a<attr.length; a++) {\n\t\t\t\tv = this.attributes[attr[a]];\n\t\t\t\tif(v !== undefined) {\n\t\t\t\t\toutput.push(\" \",attr[a],\"=\\\"\",$tw.utils.htmlEncode(v),\"\\\"\");\n\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t}\n\t\tif(this.style) {\n\t\t\tvar style = [];\n\t\t\tfor(var s in this.style) {\n\t\t\t\tstyle.push(s + \":\" + this.style[s] + \";\");\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t\tif(style.length > 0) {\n\t\t\t\toutput.push(\" style=\\\"\",style.join(\"\"),\"\\\"\")\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t}\n\t\toutput.push(\">\");\n\t\tif($tw.config.htmlVoidElements.indexOf(this.tag) === -1) {\n\t\t\toutput.push(this.innerHTML);\n\t\t\toutput.push(\"</\",this.tag,\">\");\n\t\t}\n\t\treturn output.join(\"\");\n\t}\n});\n\nObject.defineProperty(TW_Element.prototype, \"innerHTML\", {\n\tget: function() {\n\t\tif(this.isRaw) {\n\t\t\treturn this.rawHTML;\n\t\t} else {\n\t\t\tvar b = [];\n\t\t\t$tw.utils.each(this.children,function(node) {\n\t\t\t\tif(node instanceof TW_Element) {\n\t\t\t\t\tb.push(node.outerHTML);\n\t\t\t\t} else if(node instanceof TW_TextNode) {\n\t\t\t\t\tb.push($tw.utils.htmlEncode(node.textContent));\n\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t});\n\t\t\treturn b.join(\"\");\n\t\t}\n\t},\n\tset: function(value) {\n\t\tthis.isRaw = true;\n\t\tthis.rawHTML = value;\n\t\tthis.rawTextContent = null;\n\t}\n});\n\nObject.defineProperty(TW_Element.prototype, \"textInnerHTML\", {\n\tset: function(value) {\n\t\tif(this.isRaw) {\n\t\t\tthis.rawTextContent = value;\n\t\t} else {\n\t\t\tthrow \"Cannot set textInnerHTML of a non-raw TW_Element\";\n\t\t}\n\t}\n});\n\nObject.defineProperty(TW_Element.prototype, \"textContent\", {\n\tget: function() {\n\t\tif(this.isRaw) {\n\t\t\tif(this.rawTextContent === null) {\n\t\t\t\treturn \"\";\n\t\t\t} else {\n\t\t\t\treturn this.rawTextContent;\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t} else {\n\t\t\tvar b = [];\n\t\t\t$tw.utils.each(this.children,function(node) {\n\t\t\t\tb.push(node.textContent);\n\t\t\t});\n\t\t\treturn b.join(\"\");\n\t\t}\n\t},\n\tset: function(value) {\n\t\tthis.children = [new TW_TextNode(value)];\n\t}\n});\n\nObject.defineProperty(TW_Element.prototype, \"formattedTextContent\", {\n\tget: function() {\n\t\tif(this.isRaw) {\n\t\t\treturn \"\";\n\t\t} else {\n\t\t\tvar b = [],\n\t\t\t\tisBlock = $tw.config.htmlBlockElements.indexOf(this.tag) !== -1;\n\t\t\tif(isBlock) {\n\t\t\t\tb.push(\"\\n\");\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t\tif(this.tag === \"li\") {\n\t\t\t\tb.push(\"* \");\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t$tw.utils.each(this.children,function(node) {\n\t\t\t\tb.push(node.formattedTextContent);\n\t\t\t});\n\t\t\tif(isBlock) {\n\t\t\t\tb.push(\"\\n\");\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t\treturn b.join(\"\");\n\t\t}\n\t}\n});\n\nvar document = {\n\tsetSequenceNumber: function(value) {\n\t\tsequenceNumber = value;\n\t},\n\tcreateElementNS: function(namespace,tag) {\n\t\treturn new TW_Element(tag,namespace);\n\t},\n\tcreateElement: function(tag) {\n\t\treturn new TW_Element(tag);\n\t},\n\tcreateTextNode: function(text) {\n\t\treturn new TW_TextNode(text);\n\t},\n\tcompatMode: \"CSS1Compat\", // For KaTeX to know that we're not a browser in quirks mode\n\tisTiddlyWikiFakeDom: true\n};\n\nexports.fakeDocument = document;\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "global"
},
"$:/core/modules/utils/filesystem.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/utils/filesystem.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/utils/filesystem.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: utils-node\n\nFile system utilities\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nvar fs = require(\"fs\"),\n\tpath = require(\"path\");\n\n/*\nRecursively (and synchronously) copy a directory and all its content\n*/\nexports.copyDirectory = function(srcPath,dstPath) {\n\t// Remove any trailing path separators\n\tsrcPath = $tw.utils.removeTrailingSeparator(srcPath);\n\tdstPath = $tw.utils.removeTrailingSeparator(dstPath);\n\t// Create the destination directory\n\tvar err = $tw.utils.createDirectory(dstPath);\n\tif(err) {\n\t\treturn err;\n\t}\n\t// Function to copy a folder full of files\n\tvar copy = function(srcPath,dstPath) {\n\t\tvar srcStats = fs.lstatSync(srcPath),\n\t\t\tdstExists = fs.existsSync(dstPath);\n\t\tif(srcStats.isFile()) {\n\t\t\t$tw.utils.copyFile(srcPath,dstPath);\n\t\t} else if(srcStats.isDirectory()) {\n\t\t\tvar items = fs.readdirSync(srcPath);\n\t\t\tfor(var t=0; t<items.length; t++) {\n\t\t\t\tvar item = items[t],\n\t\t\t\t\terr = copy(srcPath + path.sep + item,dstPath + path.sep + item);\n\t\t\t\tif(err) {\n\t\t\t\t\treturn err;\n\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t}\n\t};\n\tcopy(srcPath,dstPath);\n\treturn null;\n};\n\n/*\nCopy a file\n*/\nvar FILE_BUFFER_LENGTH = 64 * 1024,\n\tfileBuffer;\n\nexports.copyFile = function(srcPath,dstPath) {\n\t// Create buffer if required\n\tif(!fileBuffer) {\n\t\tfileBuffer = Buffer.alloc(FILE_BUFFER_LENGTH);\n\t}\n\t// Create any directories in the destination\n\t$tw.utils.createDirectory(path.dirname(dstPath));\n\t// Copy the file\n\tvar srcFile = fs.openSync(srcPath,\"r\"),\n\t\tdstFile = fs.openSync(dstPath,\"w\"),\n\t\tbytesRead = 1,\n\t\tpos = 0;\n\twhile (bytesRead > 0) {\n\t\tbytesRead = fs.readSync(srcFile,fileBuffer,0,FILE_BUFFER_LENGTH,pos);\n\t\tfs.writeSync(dstFile,fileBuffer,0,bytesRead);\n\t\tpos += bytesRead;\n\t}\n\tfs.closeSync(srcFile);\n\tfs.closeSync(dstFile);\n\treturn null;\n};\n\n/*\nRemove trailing path separator\n*/\nexports.removeTrailingSeparator = function(dirPath) {\n\tvar len = dirPath.length;\n\tif(dirPath.charAt(len-1) === path.sep) {\n\t\tdirPath = dirPath.substr(0,len-1);\n\t}\n\treturn dirPath;\n};\n\n/*\nRecursively create a directory\n*/\nexports.createDirectory = function(dirPath) {\n\tif(dirPath.substr(dirPath.length-1,1) !== path.sep) {\n\t\tdirPath = dirPath + path.sep;\n\t}\n\tvar pos = 1;\n\tpos = dirPath.indexOf(path.sep,pos);\n\twhile(pos !== -1) {\n\t\tvar subDirPath = dirPath.substr(0,pos);\n\t\tif(!$tw.utils.isDirectory(subDirPath)) {\n\t\t\ttry {\n\t\t\t\tfs.mkdirSync(subDirPath);\n\t\t\t} catch(e) {\n\t\t\t\treturn \"Error creating directory '\" + subDirPath + \"'\";\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t}\n\t\tpos = dirPath.indexOf(path.sep,pos + 1);\n\t}\n\treturn null;\n};\n\n/*\nRecursively create directories needed to contain a specified file\n*/\nexports.createFileDirectories = function(filePath) {\n\treturn $tw.utils.createDirectory(path.dirname(filePath));\n};\n\n/*\nRecursively delete a directory\n*/\nexports.deleteDirectory = function(dirPath) {\n\tif(fs.existsSync(dirPath)) {\n\t\tvar entries = fs.readdirSync(dirPath);\n\t\tfor(var entryIndex=0; entryIndex<entries.length; entryIndex++) {\n\t\t\tvar currPath = dirPath + path.sep + entries[entryIndex];\n\t\t\tif(fs.lstatSync(currPath).isDirectory()) {\n\t\t\t\t$tw.utils.deleteDirectory(currPath);\n\t\t\t} else {\n\t\t\t\tfs.unlinkSync(currPath);\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t}\n\tfs.rmdirSync(dirPath);\n\t}\n\treturn null;\n};\n\n/*\nCheck if a path identifies a directory\n*/\nexports.isDirectory = function(dirPath) {\n\treturn fs.existsSync(dirPath) && fs.statSync(dirPath).isDirectory();\n};\n\n/*\nCheck if a path identifies a directory that is empty\n*/\nexports.isDirectoryEmpty = function(dirPath) {\n\tif(!$tw.utils.isDirectory(dirPath)) {\n\t\treturn false;\n\t}\n\tvar files = fs.readdirSync(dirPath),\n\t\tempty = true;\n\t$tw.utils.each(files,function(file,index) {\n\t\tif(file.charAt(0) !== \".\") {\n\t\t\tempty = false;\n\t\t}\n\t});\n\treturn empty;\n};\n\n/*\nRecursively delete a tree of empty directories\n*/\nexports.deleteEmptyDirs = function(dirpath,callback) {\n\tvar self = this;\n\tfs.readdir(dirpath,function(err,files) {\n\t\tif(err) {\n\t\t\treturn callback(err);\n\t\t}\n\t\tif(files.length > 0) {\n\t\t\treturn callback(null);\n\t\t}\n\t\tfs.rmdir(dirpath,function(err) {\n\t\t\tif(err) {\n\t\t\t\treturn callback(err);\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t\tself.deleteEmptyDirs(path.dirname(dirpath),callback);\n\t\t});\n\t});\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "utils-node"
},
"$:/core/modules/utils/logger.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/utils/logger.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/utils/logger.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: utils\n\nA basic logging implementation\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nvar ALERT_TAG = \"$:/tags/Alert\";\n\n/*\nMake a new logger\n*/\nfunction Logger(componentName,options) {\n\toptions = options || {};\n\tthis.componentName = componentName || \"\";\n\tthis.colour = options.colour || \"white\";\n\tthis.enable = \"enable\" in options ? options.enable : true;\n}\n\n/*\nLog a message\n*/\nLogger.prototype.log = function(/* args */) {\n\tif(this.enable && console !== undefined && console.log !== undefined) {\n\t\treturn Function.apply.call(console.log, console, [$tw.utils.terminalColour(this.colour),this.componentName + \":\"].concat(Array.prototype.slice.call(arguments,0)).concat($tw.utils.terminalColour()));\n\t}\n};\n\n/*\nAlert a message\n*/\nLogger.prototype.alert = function(/* args */) {\n\tif(this.enable) {\n\t\t// Prepare the text of the alert\n\t\tvar text = Array.prototype.join.call(arguments,\" \");\n\t\t// Create alert tiddlers in the browser\n\t\tif($tw.browser) {\n\t\t\t// Check if there is an existing alert with the same text and the same component\n\t\t\tvar existingAlerts = $tw.wiki.getTiddlersWithTag(ALERT_TAG),\n\t\t\t\talertFields,\n\t\t\t\texistingCount,\n\t\t\t\tself = this;\n\t\t\t$tw.utils.each(existingAlerts,function(title) {\n\t\t\t\tvar tiddler = $tw.wiki.getTiddler(title);\n\t\t\t\tif(tiddler.fields.text === text && tiddler.fields.component === self.componentName && tiddler.fields.modified && (!alertFields || tiddler.fields.modified < alertFields.modified)) {\n\t\t\t\t\t\talertFields = $tw.utils.extend({},tiddler.fields);\n\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t});\n\t\t\tif(alertFields) {\n\t\t\t\texistingCount = alertFields.count || 1;\n\t\t\t} else {\n\t\t\t\talertFields = {\n\t\t\t\t\ttitle: $tw.wiki.generateNewTitle(\"$:/temp/alerts/alert\",{prefix: \"\"}),\n\t\t\t\t\ttext: text,\n\t\t\t\t\ttags: [ALERT_TAG],\n\t\t\t\t\tcomponent: this.componentName\n\t\t\t\t};\n\t\t\t\texistingCount = 0;\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t\talertFields.modified = new Date();\n\t\t\tif(++existingCount > 1) {\n\t\t\t\talertFields.count = existingCount;\n\t\t\t} else {\n\t\t\t\talertFields.count = undefined;\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t$tw.wiki.addTiddler(new $tw.Tiddler(alertFields));\n\t\t\t// Log the alert as well\n\t\t\tthis.log.apply(this,Array.prototype.slice.call(arguments,0));\n\t\t} else {\n\t\t\t// Print an orange message to the console if not in the browser\n\t\t\tconsole.error(\"\\x1b[1;33m\" + text + \"\\x1b[0m\");\n\t\t}\t\t\n\t}\n};\n\nexports.Logger = Logger;\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "utils"
},
"$:/core/modules/utils/parsetree.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/utils/parsetree.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/utils/parsetree.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: utils\n\nParse tree utility functions.\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nexports.addAttributeToParseTreeNode = function(node,name,value) {\n\tnode.attributes = node.attributes || {};\n\tnode.attributes[name] = {type: \"string\", value: value};\n};\n\nexports.getAttributeValueFromParseTreeNode = function(node,name,defaultValue) {\n\tif(node.attributes && node.attributes[name] && node.attributes[name].value !== undefined) {\n\t\treturn node.attributes[name].value;\n\t}\n\treturn defaultValue;\n};\n\nexports.addClassToParseTreeNode = function(node,classString) {\n\tvar classes = [];\n\tnode.attributes = node.attributes || {};\n\tnode.attributes[\"class\"] = node.attributes[\"class\"] || {type: \"string\", value: \"\"};\n\tif(node.attributes[\"class\"].type === \"string\") {\n\t\tif(node.attributes[\"class\"].value !== \"\") {\n\t\t\tclasses = node.attributes[\"class\"].value.split(\" \");\n\t\t}\n\t\tif(classString !== \"\") {\n\t\t\t$tw.utils.pushTop(classes,classString.split(\" \"));\n\t\t}\n\t\tnode.attributes[\"class\"].value = classes.join(\" \");\n\t}\n};\n\nexports.addStyleToParseTreeNode = function(node,name,value) {\n\t\tnode.attributes = node.attributes || {};\n\t\tnode.attributes.style = node.attributes.style || {type: \"string\", value: \"\"};\n\t\tif(node.attributes.style.type === \"string\") {\n\t\t\tnode.attributes.style.value += name + \":\" + value + \";\";\n\t\t}\n};\n\nexports.findParseTreeNode = function(nodeArray,search) {\n\tfor(var t=0; t<nodeArray.length; t++) {\n\t\tif(nodeArray[t].type === search.type && nodeArray[t].tag === search.tag) {\n\t\t\treturn nodeArray[t];\n\t\t}\n\t}\n\treturn undefined;\n};\n\n/*\nHelper to get the text of a parse tree node or array of nodes\n*/\nexports.getParseTreeText = function getParseTreeText(tree) {\n\tvar output = [];\n\tif($tw.utils.isArray(tree)) {\n\t\t$tw.utils.each(tree,function(node) {\n\t\t\toutput.push(getParseTreeText(node));\n\t\t});\n\t} else {\n\t\tif(tree.type === \"text\") {\n\t\t\toutput.push(tree.text);\n\t\t}\n\t\tif(tree.children) {\n\t\t\treturn getParseTreeText(tree.children);\n\t\t}\n\t}\n\treturn output.join(\"\");\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "utils"
},
"$:/core/modules/utils/performance.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/utils/performance.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/utils/performance.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: global\n\nPerformance measurement.\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nfunction Performance(enabled) {\n\tthis.enabled = !!enabled;\n\tthis.measures = {}; // Hashmap of current values of measurements\n\tthis.logger = new $tw.utils.Logger(\"performance\");\n}\n\n/*\nWrap performance reporting around a top level function\n*/\nPerformance.prototype.report = function(name,fn) {\n\tvar self = this;\n\tif(this.enabled) {\n\t\treturn function() {\n\t\t\tself.measures = {};\n\t\t\tvar startTime = $tw.utils.timer(),\n\t\t\t\tresult = fn.apply(this,arguments);\n\t\t\tself.logger.log(name + \": \" + $tw.utils.timer(startTime).toFixed(2) + \"ms\");\n\t\t\tfor(var m in self.measures) {\n\t\t\t\tself.logger.log(\"+\" + m + \": \" + self.measures[m].toFixed(2) + \"ms\");\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t\treturn result;\n\t\t};\n\t} else {\n\t\treturn fn;\n\t}\n};\n\n/*\nWrap performance measurements around a subfunction\n*/\nPerformance.prototype.measure = function(name,fn) {\n\tvar self = this;\n\tif(this.enabled) {\n\t\treturn function() {\n\t\t\tvar startTime = $tw.utils.timer(),\n\t\t\t\tresult = fn.apply(this,arguments),\n\t\t\t\tvalue = self.measures[name] || 0;\n\t\t\tself.measures[name] = value + $tw.utils.timer(startTime);\n\t\t\treturn result;\n\t\t};\n\t} else {\n\t\treturn fn;\n\t}\n};\n\nexports.Performance = Performance;\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "global"
},
"$:/core/modules/utils/pluginmaker.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/utils/pluginmaker.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/utils/pluginmaker.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: utils\n\nA quick and dirty way to pack up plugins within the browser.\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\n/*\nRepack a plugin, and then delete any non-shadow payload tiddlers\n*/\nexports.repackPlugin = function(title,additionalTiddlers,excludeTiddlers) {\n\tadditionalTiddlers = additionalTiddlers || [];\n\texcludeTiddlers = excludeTiddlers || [];\n\t// Get the plugin tiddler\n\tvar pluginTiddler = $tw.wiki.getTiddler(title);\n\tif(!pluginTiddler) {\n\t\tthrow \"No such tiddler as \" + title;\n\t}\n\t// Extract the JSON\n\tvar jsonPluginTiddler;\n\ttry {\n\t\tjsonPluginTiddler = JSON.parse(pluginTiddler.fields.text);\n\t} catch(e) {\n\t\tthrow \"Cannot parse plugin tiddler \" + title + \"\\n\" + $tw.language.getString(\"Error/Caption\") + \": \" + e;\n\t}\n\t// Get the list of tiddlers\n\tvar tiddlers = Object.keys(jsonPluginTiddler.tiddlers);\n\t// Add the additional tiddlers\n\t$tw.utils.pushTop(tiddlers,additionalTiddlers);\n\t// Remove any excluded tiddlers\n\tfor(var t=tiddlers.length-1; t>=0; t--) {\n\t\tif(excludeTiddlers.indexOf(tiddlers[t]) !== -1) {\n\t\t\ttiddlers.splice(t,1);\n\t\t}\n\t}\n\t// Pack up the tiddlers into a block of JSON\n\tvar plugins = {};\n\t$tw.utils.each(tiddlers,function(title) {\n\t\tvar tiddler = $tw.wiki.getTiddler(title),\n\t\t\tfields = {};\n\t\t$tw.utils.each(tiddler.fields,function (value,name) {\n\t\t\tfields[name] = tiddler.getFieldString(name);\n\t\t});\n\t\tplugins[title] = fields;\n\t});\n\t// Retrieve and bump the version number\n\tvar pluginVersion = $tw.utils.parseVersion(pluginTiddler.getFieldString(\"version\") || \"0.0.0\") || {\n\t\t\tmajor: \"0\",\n\t\t\tminor: \"0\",\n\t\t\tpatch: \"0\"\n\t\t};\n\tpluginVersion.patch++;\n\tvar version = pluginVersion.major + \".\" + pluginVersion.minor + \".\" + pluginVersion.patch;\n\tif(pluginVersion.prerelease) {\n\t\tversion += \"-\" + pluginVersion.prerelease;\n\t}\n\tif(pluginVersion.build) {\n\t\tversion += \"+\" + pluginVersion.build;\n\t}\n\t// Save the tiddler\n\t$tw.wiki.addTiddler(new $tw.Tiddler(pluginTiddler,{text: JSON.stringify({tiddlers: plugins},null,4), version: version}));\n\t// Delete any non-shadow constituent tiddlers\n\t$tw.utils.each(tiddlers,function(title) {\n\t\tif($tw.wiki.tiddlerExists(title)) {\n\t\t\t$tw.wiki.deleteTiddler(title);\n\t\t}\n\t});\n\t// Trigger an autosave\n\t$tw.rootWidget.dispatchEvent({type: \"tm-auto-save-wiki\"});\n\t// Return a heartwarming confirmation\n\treturn \"Plugin \" + title + \" successfully saved\";\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "utils"
},
"$:/core/modules/utils/transliterate.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/utils/transliterate.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/utils/transliterate.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: utils\n\nTransliteration static utility functions.\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\n/*\nTransliterate string to ASCII\n\n(Some pairs taken from http://semplicewebsites.com/removing-accents-javascript)\n*/\nexports.transliterationPairs = {\n\t\"Á\":\"A\",\n\t\"Ă\":\"A\",\n\t\"Ắ\":\"A\",\n\t\"Ặ\":\"A\",\n\t\"Ằ\":\"A\",\n\t\"Ẳ\":\"A\",\n\t\"Ẵ\":\"A\",\n\t\"Ǎ\":\"A\",\n\t\"Â\":\"A\",\n\t\"Ấ\":\"A\",\n\t\"Ậ\":\"A\",\n\t\"Ầ\":\"A\",\n\t\"Ẩ\":\"A\",\n\t\"Ẫ\":\"A\",\n\t\"Ä\":\"A\",\n\t\"Ǟ\":\"A\",\n\t\"Ȧ\":\"A\",\n\t\"Ǡ\":\"A\",\n\t\"Ạ\":\"A\",\n\t\"Ȁ\":\"A\",\n\t\"À\":\"A\",\n\t\"Ả\":\"A\",\n\t\"Ȃ\":\"A\",\n\t\"Ā\":\"A\",\n\t\"Ą\":\"A\",\n\t\"Å\":\"A\",\n\t\"Ǻ\":\"A\",\n\t\"Ḁ\":\"A\",\n\t\"Ⱥ\":\"A\",\n\t\"Ã\":\"A\",\n\t\"Ꜳ\":\"AA\",\n\t\"Æ\":\"AE\",\n\t\"Ǽ\":\"AE\",\n\t\"Ǣ\":\"AE\",\n\t\"Ꜵ\":\"AO\",\n\t\"Ꜷ\":\"AU\",\n\t\"Ꜹ\":\"AV\",\n\t\"Ꜻ\":\"AV\",\n\t\"Ꜽ\":\"AY\",\n\t\"Ḃ\":\"B\",\n\t\"Ḅ\":\"B\",\n\t\"Ɓ\":\"B\",\n\t\"Ḇ\":\"B\",\n\t\"Ƀ\":\"B\",\n\t\"Ƃ\":\"B\",\n\t\"Ć\":\"C\",\n\t\"Č\":\"C\",\n\t\"Ç\":\"C\",\n\t\"Ḉ\":\"C\",\n\t\"Ĉ\":\"C\",\n\t\"Ċ\":\"C\",\n\t\"Ƈ\":\"C\",\n\t\"Ȼ\":\"C\",\n\t\"Ď\":\"D\",\n\t\"Ḑ\":\"D\",\n\t\"Ḓ\":\"D\",\n\t\"Ḋ\":\"D\",\n\t\"Ḍ\":\"D\",\n\t\"Ɗ\":\"D\",\n\t\"Ḏ\":\"D\",\n\t\"Dz\":\"D\",\n\t\"Dž\":\"D\",\n\t\"Đ\":\"D\",\n\t\"Ƌ\":\"D\",\n\t\"DZ\":\"DZ\",\n\t\"DŽ\":\"DZ\",\n\t\"É\":\"E\",\n\t\"Ĕ\":\"E\",\n\t\"Ě\":\"E\",\n\t\"Ȩ\":\"E\",\n\t\"Ḝ\":\"E\",\n\t\"Ê\":\"E\",\n\t\"Ế\":\"E\",\n\t\"Ệ\":\"E\",\n\t\"Ề\":\"E\",\n\t\"Ể\":\"E\",\n\t\"Ễ\":\"E\",\n\t\"Ḙ\":\"E\",\n\t\"Ë\":\"E\",\n\t\"Ė\":\"E\",\n\t\"Ẹ\":\"E\",\n\t\"Ȅ\":\"E\",\n\t\"È\":\"E\",\n\t\"Ẻ\":\"E\",\n\t\"Ȇ\":\"E\",\n\t\"Ē\":\"E\",\n\t\"Ḗ\":\"E\",\n\t\"Ḕ\":\"E\",\n\t\"Ę\":\"E\",\n\t\"Ɇ\":\"E\",\n\t\"Ẽ\":\"E\",\n\t\"Ḛ\":\"E\",\n\t\"Ꝫ\":\"ET\",\n\t\"Ḟ\":\"F\",\n\t\"Ƒ\":\"F\",\n\t\"Ǵ\":\"G\",\n\t\"Ğ\":\"G\",\n\t\"Ǧ\":\"G\",\n\t\"Ģ\":\"G\",\n\t\"Ĝ\":\"G\",\n\t\"Ġ\":\"G\",\n\t\"Ɠ\":\"G\",\n\t\"Ḡ\":\"G\",\n\t\"Ǥ\":\"G\",\n\t\"Ḫ\":\"H\",\n\t\"Ȟ\":\"H\",\n\t\"Ḩ\":\"H\",\n\t\"Ĥ\":\"H\",\n\t\"Ⱨ\":\"H\",\n\t\"Ḧ\":\"H\",\n\t\"Ḣ\":\"H\",\n\t\"Ḥ\":\"H\",\n\t\"Ħ\":\"H\",\n\t\"Í\":\"I\",\n\t\"Ĭ\":\"I\",\n\t\"Ǐ\":\"I\",\n\t\"Î\":\"I\",\n\t\"Ï\":\"I\",\n\t\"Ḯ\":\"I\",\n\t\"İ\":\"I\",\n\t\"Ị\":\"I\",\n\t\"Ȉ\":\"I\",\n\t\"Ì\":\"I\",\n\t\"Ỉ\":\"I\",\n\t\"Ȋ\":\"I\",\n\t\"Ī\":\"I\",\n\t\"Į\":\"I\",\n\t\"Ɨ\":\"I\",\n\t\"Ĩ\":\"I\",\n\t\"Ḭ\":\"I\",\n\t\"Ꝺ\":\"D\",\n\t\"Ꝼ\":\"F\",\n\t\"Ᵹ\":\"G\",\n\t\"Ꞃ\":\"R\",\n\t\"Ꞅ\":\"S\",\n\t\"Ꞇ\":\"T\",\n\t\"Ꝭ\":\"IS\",\n\t\"Ĵ\":\"J\",\n\t\"Ɉ\":\"J\",\n\t\"Ḱ\":\"K\",\n\t\"Ǩ\":\"K\",\n\t\"Ķ\":\"K\",\n\t\"Ⱪ\":\"K\",\n\t\"Ꝃ\":\"K\",\n\t\"Ḳ\":\"K\",\n\t\"Ƙ\":\"K\",\n\t\"Ḵ\":\"K\",\n\t\"Ꝁ\":\"K\",\n\t\"Ꝅ\":\"K\",\n\t\"Ĺ\":\"L\",\n\t\"Ƚ\":\"L\",\n\t\"Ľ\":\"L\",\n\t\"Ļ\":\"L\",\n\t\"Ḽ\":\"L\",\n\t\"Ḷ\":\"L\",\n\t\"Ḹ\":\"L\",\n\t\"Ⱡ\":\"L\",\n\t\"Ꝉ\":\"L\",\n\t\"Ḻ\":\"L\",\n\t\"Ŀ\":\"L\",\n\t\"Ɫ\":\"L\",\n\t\"Lj\":\"L\",\n\t\"Ł\":\"L\",\n\t\"LJ\":\"LJ\",\n\t\"Ḿ\":\"M\",\n\t\"Ṁ\":\"M\",\n\t\"Ṃ\":\"M\",\n\t\"Ɱ\":\"M\",\n\t\"Ń\":\"N\",\n\t\"Ň\":\"N\",\n\t\"Ņ\":\"N\",\n\t\"Ṋ\":\"N\",\n\t\"Ṅ\":\"N\",\n\t\"Ṇ\":\"N\",\n\t\"Ǹ\":\"N\",\n\t\"Ɲ\":\"N\",\n\t\"Ṉ\":\"N\",\n\t\"Ƞ\":\"N\",\n\t\"Nj\":\"N\",\n\t\"Ñ\":\"N\",\n\t\"NJ\":\"NJ\",\n\t\"Ó\":\"O\",\n\t\"Ŏ\":\"O\",\n\t\"Ǒ\":\"O\",\n\t\"Ô\":\"O\",\n\t\"Ố\":\"O\",\n\t\"Ộ\":\"O\",\n\t\"Ồ\":\"O\",\n\t\"Ổ\":\"O\",\n\t\"Ỗ\":\"O\",\n\t\"Ö\":\"O\",\n\t\"Ȫ\":\"O\",\n\t\"Ȯ\":\"O\",\n\t\"Ȱ\":\"O\",\n\t\"Ọ\":\"O\",\n\t\"Ő\":\"O\",\n\t\"Ȍ\":\"O\",\n\t\"Ò\":\"O\",\n\t\"Ỏ\":\"O\",\n\t\"Ơ\":\"O\",\n\t\"Ớ\":\"O\",\n\t\"Ợ\":\"O\",\n\t\"Ờ\":\"O\",\n\t\"Ở\":\"O\",\n\t\"Ỡ\":\"O\",\n\t\"Ȏ\":\"O\",\n\t\"Ꝋ\":\"O\",\n\t\"Ꝍ\":\"O\",\n\t\"Ō\":\"O\",\n\t\"Ṓ\":\"O\",\n\t\"Ṑ\":\"O\",\n\t\"Ɵ\":\"O\",\n\t\"Ǫ\":\"O\",\n\t\"Ǭ\":\"O\",\n\t\"Ø\":\"O\",\n\t\"Ǿ\":\"O\",\n\t\"Õ\":\"O\",\n\t\"Ṍ\":\"O\",\n\t\"Ṏ\":\"O\",\n\t\"Ȭ\":\"O\",\n\t\"Ƣ\":\"OI\",\n\t\"Ꝏ\":\"OO\",\n\t\"Ɛ\":\"E\",\n\t\"Ɔ\":\"O\",\n\t\"Ȣ\":\"OU\",\n\t\"Ṕ\":\"P\",\n\t\"Ṗ\":\"P\",\n\t\"Ꝓ\":\"P\",\n\t\"Ƥ\":\"P\",\n\t\"Ꝕ\":\"P\",\n\t\"Ᵽ\":\"P\",\n\t\"Ꝑ\":\"P\",\n\t\"Ꝙ\":\"Q\",\n\t\"Ꝗ\":\"Q\",\n\t\"Ŕ\":\"R\",\n\t\"Ř\":\"R\",\n\t\"Ŗ\":\"R\",\n\t\"Ṙ\":\"R\",\n\t\"Ṛ\":\"R\",\n\t\"Ṝ\":\"R\",\n\t\"Ȑ\":\"R\",\n\t\"Ȓ\":\"R\",\n\t\"Ṟ\":\"R\",\n\t\"Ɍ\":\"R\",\n\t\"Ɽ\":\"R\",\n\t\"Ꜿ\":\"C\",\n\t\"Ǝ\":\"E\",\n\t\"Ś\":\"S\",\n\t\"Ṥ\":\"S\",\n\t\"Š\":\"S\",\n\t\"Ṧ\":\"S\",\n\t\"Ş\":\"S\",\n\t\"Ŝ\":\"S\",\n\t\"Ș\":\"S\",\n\t\"Ṡ\":\"S\",\n\t\"Ṣ\":\"S\",\n\t\"Ṩ\":\"S\",\n\t\"Ť\":\"T\",\n\t\"Ţ\":\"T\",\n\t\"Ṱ\":\"T\",\n\t\"Ț\":\"T\",\n\t\"Ⱦ\":\"T\",\n\t\"Ṫ\":\"T\",\n\t\"Ṭ\":\"T\",\n\t\"Ƭ\":\"T\",\n\t\"Ṯ\":\"T\",\n\t\"Ʈ\":\"T\",\n\t\"Ŧ\":\"T\",\n\t\"Ɐ\":\"A\",\n\t\"Ꞁ\":\"L\",\n\t\"Ɯ\":\"M\",\n\t\"Ʌ\":\"V\",\n\t\"Ꜩ\":\"TZ\",\n\t\"Ú\":\"U\",\n\t\"Ŭ\":\"U\",\n\t\"Ǔ\":\"U\",\n\t\"Û\":\"U\",\n\t\"Ṷ\":\"U\",\n\t\"Ü\":\"U\",\n\t\"Ǘ\":\"U\",\n\t\"Ǚ\":\"U\",\n\t\"Ǜ\":\"U\",\n\t\"Ǖ\":\"U\",\n\t\"Ṳ\":\"U\",\n\t\"Ụ\":\"U\",\n\t\"Ű\":\"U\",\n\t\"Ȕ\":\"U\",\n\t\"Ù\":\"U\",\n\t\"Ủ\":\"U\",\n\t\"Ư\":\"U\",\n\t\"Ứ\":\"U\",\n\t\"Ự\":\"U\",\n\t\"Ừ\":\"U\",\n\t\"Ử\":\"U\",\n\t\"Ữ\":\"U\",\n\t\"Ȗ\":\"U\",\n\t\"Ū\":\"U\",\n\t\"Ṻ\":\"U\",\n\t\"Ų\":\"U\",\n\t\"Ů\":\"U\",\n\t\"Ũ\":\"U\",\n\t\"Ṹ\":\"U\",\n\t\"Ṵ\":\"U\",\n\t\"Ꝟ\":\"V\",\n\t\"Ṿ\":\"V\",\n\t\"Ʋ\":\"V\",\n\t\"Ṽ\":\"V\",\n\t\"Ꝡ\":\"VY\",\n\t\"Ẃ\":\"W\",\n\t\"Ŵ\":\"W\",\n\t\"Ẅ\":\"W\",\n\t\"Ẇ\":\"W\",\n\t\"Ẉ\":\"W\",\n\t\"Ẁ\":\"W\",\n\t\"Ⱳ\":\"W\",\n\t\"Ẍ\":\"X\",\n\t\"Ẋ\":\"X\",\n\t\"Ý\":\"Y\",\n\t\"Ŷ\":\"Y\",\n\t\"Ÿ\":\"Y\",\n\t\"Ẏ\":\"Y\",\n\t\"Ỵ\":\"Y\",\n\t\"Ỳ\":\"Y\",\n\t\"Ƴ\":\"Y\",\n\t\"Ỷ\":\"Y\",\n\t\"Ỿ\":\"Y\",\n\t\"Ȳ\":\"Y\",\n\t\"Ɏ\":\"Y\",\n\t\"Ỹ\":\"Y\",\n\t\"Ź\":\"Z\",\n\t\"Ž\":\"Z\",\n\t\"Ẑ\":\"Z\",\n\t\"Ⱬ\":\"Z\",\n\t\"Ż\":\"Z\",\n\t\"Ẓ\":\"Z\",\n\t\"Ȥ\":\"Z\",\n\t\"Ẕ\":\"Z\",\n\t\"Ƶ\":\"Z\",\n\t\"IJ\":\"IJ\",\n\t\"Œ\":\"OE\",\n\t\"ᴀ\":\"A\",\n\t\"ᴁ\":\"AE\",\n\t\"ʙ\":\"B\",\n\t\"ᴃ\":\"B\",\n\t\"ᴄ\":\"C\",\n\t\"ᴅ\":\"D\",\n\t\"ᴇ\":\"E\",\n\t\"ꜰ\":\"F\",\n\t\"ɢ\":\"G\",\n\t\"ʛ\":\"G\",\n\t\"ʜ\":\"H\",\n\t\"ɪ\":\"I\",\n\t\"ʁ\":\"R\",\n\t\"ᴊ\":\"J\",\n\t\"ᴋ\":\"K\",\n\t\"ʟ\":\"L\",\n\t\"ᴌ\":\"L\",\n\t\"ᴍ\":\"M\",\n\t\"ɴ\":\"N\",\n\t\"ᴏ\":\"O\",\n\t\"ɶ\":\"OE\",\n\t\"ᴐ\":\"O\",\n\t\"ᴕ\":\"OU\",\n\t\"ᴘ\":\"P\",\n\t\"ʀ\":\"R\",\n\t\"ᴎ\":\"N\",\n\t\"ᴙ\":\"R\",\n\t\"ꜱ\":\"S\",\n\t\"ᴛ\":\"T\",\n\t\"ⱻ\":\"E\",\n\t\"ᴚ\":\"R\",\n\t\"ᴜ\":\"U\",\n\t\"ᴠ\":\"V\",\n\t\"ᴡ\":\"W\",\n\t\"ʏ\":\"Y\",\n\t\"ᴢ\":\"Z\",\n\t\"á\":\"a\",\n\t\"ă\":\"a\",\n\t\"ắ\":\"a\",\n\t\"ặ\":\"a\",\n\t\"ằ\":\"a\",\n\t\"ẳ\":\"a\",\n\t\"ẵ\":\"a\",\n\t\"ǎ\":\"a\",\n\t\"â\":\"a\",\n\t\"ấ\":\"a\",\n\t\"ậ\":\"a\",\n\t\"ầ\":\"a\",\n\t\"ẩ\":\"a\",\n\t\"ẫ\":\"a\",\n\t\"ä\":\"a\",\n\t\"ǟ\":\"a\",\n\t\"ȧ\":\"a\",\n\t\"ǡ\":\"a\",\n\t\"ạ\":\"a\",\n\t\"ȁ\":\"a\",\n\t\"à\":\"a\",\n\t\"ả\":\"a\",\n\t\"ȃ\":\"a\",\n\t\"ā\":\"a\",\n\t\"ą\":\"a\",\n\t\"ᶏ\":\"a\",\n\t\"ẚ\":\"a\",\n\t\"å\":\"a\",\n\t\"ǻ\":\"a\",\n\t\"ḁ\":\"a\",\n\t\"ⱥ\":\"a\",\n\t\"ã\":\"a\",\n\t\"ꜳ\":\"aa\",\n\t\"æ\":\"ae\",\n\t\"ǽ\":\"ae\",\n\t\"ǣ\":\"ae\",\n\t\"ꜵ\":\"ao\",\n\t\"ꜷ\":\"au\",\n\t\"ꜹ\":\"av\",\n\t\"ꜻ\":\"av\",\n\t\"ꜽ\":\"ay\",\n\t\"ḃ\":\"b\",\n\t\"ḅ\":\"b\",\n\t\"ɓ\":\"b\",\n\t\"ḇ\":\"b\",\n\t\"ᵬ\":\"b\",\n\t\"ᶀ\":\"b\",\n\t\"ƀ\":\"b\",\n\t\"ƃ\":\"b\",\n\t\"ɵ\":\"o\",\n\t\"ć\":\"c\",\n\t\"č\":\"c\",\n\t\"ç\":\"c\",\n\t\"ḉ\":\"c\",\n\t\"ĉ\":\"c\",\n\t\"ɕ\":\"c\",\n\t\"ċ\":\"c\",\n\t\"ƈ\":\"c\",\n\t\"ȼ\":\"c\",\n\t\"ď\":\"d\",\n\t\"ḑ\":\"d\",\n\t\"ḓ\":\"d\",\n\t\"ȡ\":\"d\",\n\t\"ḋ\":\"d\",\n\t\"ḍ\":\"d\",\n\t\"ɗ\":\"d\",\n\t\"ᶑ\":\"d\",\n\t\"ḏ\":\"d\",\n\t\"ᵭ\":\"d\",\n\t\"ᶁ\":\"d\",\n\t\"đ\":\"d\",\n\t\"ɖ\":\"d\",\n\t\"ƌ\":\"d\",\n\t\"ı\":\"i\",\n\t\"ȷ\":\"j\",\n\t\"ɟ\":\"j\",\n\t\"ʄ\":\"j\",\n\t\"dz\":\"dz\",\n\t\"dž\":\"dz\",\n\t\"é\":\"e\",\n\t\"ĕ\":\"e\",\n\t\"ě\":\"e\",\n\t\"ȩ\":\"e\",\n\t\"ḝ\":\"e\",\n\t\"ê\":\"e\",\n\t\"ế\":\"e\",\n\t\"ệ\":\"e\",\n\t\"ề\":\"e\",\n\t\"ể\":\"e\",\n\t\"ễ\":\"e\",\n\t\"ḙ\":\"e\",\n\t\"ë\":\"e\",\n\t\"ė\":\"e\",\n\t\"ẹ\":\"e\",\n\t\"ȅ\":\"e\",\n\t\"è\":\"e\",\n\t\"ẻ\":\"e\",\n\t\"ȇ\":\"e\",\n\t\"ē\":\"e\",\n\t\"ḗ\":\"e\",\n\t\"ḕ\":\"e\",\n\t\"ⱸ\":\"e\",\n\t\"ę\":\"e\",\n\t\"ᶒ\":\"e\",\n\t\"ɇ\":\"e\",\n\t\"ẽ\":\"e\",\n\t\"ḛ\":\"e\",\n\t\"ꝫ\":\"et\",\n\t\"ḟ\":\"f\",\n\t\"ƒ\":\"f\",\n\t\"ᵮ\":\"f\",\n\t\"ᶂ\":\"f\",\n\t\"ǵ\":\"g\",\n\t\"ğ\":\"g\",\n\t\"ǧ\":\"g\",\n\t\"ģ\":\"g\",\n\t\"ĝ\":\"g\",\n\t\"ġ\":\"g\",\n\t\"ɠ\":\"g\",\n\t\"ḡ\":\"g\",\n\t\"ᶃ\":\"g\",\n\t\"ǥ\":\"g\",\n\t\"ḫ\":\"h\",\n\t\"ȟ\":\"h\",\n\t\"ḩ\":\"h\",\n\t\"ĥ\":\"h\",\n\t\"ⱨ\":\"h\",\n\t\"ḧ\":\"h\",\n\t\"ḣ\":\"h\",\n\t\"ḥ\":\"h\",\n\t\"ɦ\":\"h\",\n\t\"ẖ\":\"h\",\n\t\"ħ\":\"h\",\n\t\"ƕ\":\"hv\",\n\t\"í\":\"i\",\n\t\"ĭ\":\"i\",\n\t\"ǐ\":\"i\",\n\t\"î\":\"i\",\n\t\"ï\":\"i\",\n\t\"ḯ\":\"i\",\n\t\"ị\":\"i\",\n\t\"ȉ\":\"i\",\n\t\"ì\":\"i\",\n\t\"ỉ\":\"i\",\n\t\"ȋ\":\"i\",\n\t\"ī\":\"i\",\n\t\"į\":\"i\",\n\t\"ᶖ\":\"i\",\n\t\"ɨ\":\"i\",\n\t\"ĩ\":\"i\",\n\t\"ḭ\":\"i\",\n\t\"ꝺ\":\"d\",\n\t\"ꝼ\":\"f\",\n\t\"ᵹ\":\"g\",\n\t\"ꞃ\":\"r\",\n\t\"ꞅ\":\"s\",\n\t\"ꞇ\":\"t\",\n\t\"ꝭ\":\"is\",\n\t\"ǰ\":\"j\",\n\t\"ĵ\":\"j\",\n\t\"ʝ\":\"j\",\n\t\"ɉ\":\"j\",\n\t\"ḱ\":\"k\",\n\t\"ǩ\":\"k\",\n\t\"ķ\":\"k\",\n\t\"ⱪ\":\"k\",\n\t\"ꝃ\":\"k\",\n\t\"ḳ\":\"k\",\n\t\"ƙ\":\"k\",\n\t\"ḵ\":\"k\",\n\t\"ᶄ\":\"k\",\n\t\"ꝁ\":\"k\",\n\t\"ꝅ\":\"k\",\n\t\"ĺ\":\"l\",\n\t\"ƚ\":\"l\",\n\t\"ɬ\":\"l\",\n\t\"ľ\":\"l\",\n\t\"ļ\":\"l\",\n\t\"ḽ\":\"l\",\n\t\"ȴ\":\"l\",\n\t\"ḷ\":\"l\",\n\t\"ḹ\":\"l\",\n\t\"ⱡ\":\"l\",\n\t\"ꝉ\":\"l\",\n\t\"ḻ\":\"l\",\n\t\"ŀ\":\"l\",\n\t\"ɫ\":\"l\",\n\t\"ᶅ\":\"l\",\n\t\"ɭ\":\"l\",\n\t\"ł\":\"l\",\n\t\"lj\":\"lj\",\n\t\"ſ\":\"s\",\n\t\"ẜ\":\"s\",\n\t\"ẛ\":\"s\",\n\t\"ẝ\":\"s\",\n\t\"ḿ\":\"m\",\n\t\"ṁ\":\"m\",\n\t\"ṃ\":\"m\",\n\t\"ɱ\":\"m\",\n\t\"ᵯ\":\"m\",\n\t\"ᶆ\":\"m\",\n\t\"ń\":\"n\",\n\t\"ň\":\"n\",\n\t\"ņ\":\"n\",\n\t\"ṋ\":\"n\",\n\t\"ȵ\":\"n\",\n\t\"ṅ\":\"n\",\n\t\"ṇ\":\"n\",\n\t\"ǹ\":\"n\",\n\t\"ɲ\":\"n\",\n\t\"ṉ\":\"n\",\n\t\"ƞ\":\"n\",\n\t\"ᵰ\":\"n\",\n\t\"ᶇ\":\"n\",\n\t\"ɳ\":\"n\",\n\t\"ñ\":\"n\",\n\t\"nj\":\"nj\",\n\t\"ó\":\"o\",\n\t\"ŏ\":\"o\",\n\t\"ǒ\":\"o\",\n\t\"ô\":\"o\",\n\t\"ố\":\"o\",\n\t\"ộ\":\"o\",\n\t\"ồ\":\"o\",\n\t\"ổ\":\"o\",\n\t\"ỗ\":\"o\",\n\t\"ö\":\"o\",\n\t\"ȫ\":\"o\",\n\t\"ȯ\":\"o\",\n\t\"ȱ\":\"o\",\n\t\"ọ\":\"o\",\n\t\"ő\":\"o\",\n\t\"ȍ\":\"o\",\n\t\"ò\":\"o\",\n\t\"ỏ\":\"o\",\n\t\"ơ\":\"o\",\n\t\"ớ\":\"o\",\n\t\"ợ\":\"o\",\n\t\"ờ\":\"o\",\n\t\"ở\":\"o\",\n\t\"ỡ\":\"o\",\n\t\"ȏ\":\"o\",\n\t\"ꝋ\":\"o\",\n\t\"ꝍ\":\"o\",\n\t\"ⱺ\":\"o\",\n\t\"ō\":\"o\",\n\t\"ṓ\":\"o\",\n\t\"ṑ\":\"o\",\n\t\"ǫ\":\"o\",\n\t\"ǭ\":\"o\",\n\t\"ø\":\"o\",\n\t\"ǿ\":\"o\",\n\t\"õ\":\"o\",\n\t\"ṍ\":\"o\",\n\t\"ṏ\":\"o\",\n\t\"ȭ\":\"o\",\n\t\"ƣ\":\"oi\",\n\t\"ꝏ\":\"oo\",\n\t\"ɛ\":\"e\",\n\t\"ᶓ\":\"e\",\n\t\"ɔ\":\"o\",\n\t\"ᶗ\":\"o\",\n\t\"ȣ\":\"ou\",\n\t\"ṕ\":\"p\",\n\t\"ṗ\":\"p\",\n\t\"ꝓ\":\"p\",\n\t\"ƥ\":\"p\",\n\t\"ᵱ\":\"p\",\n\t\"ᶈ\":\"p\",\n\t\"ꝕ\":\"p\",\n\t\"ᵽ\":\"p\",\n\t\"ꝑ\":\"p\",\n\t\"ꝙ\":\"q\",\n\t\"ʠ\":\"q\",\n\t\"ɋ\":\"q\",\n\t\"ꝗ\":\"q\",\n\t\"ŕ\":\"r\",\n\t\"ř\":\"r\",\n\t\"ŗ\":\"r\",\n\t\"ṙ\":\"r\",\n\t\"ṛ\":\"r\",\n\t\"ṝ\":\"r\",\n\t\"ȑ\":\"r\",\n\t\"ɾ\":\"r\",\n\t\"ᵳ\":\"r\",\n\t\"ȓ\":\"r\",\n\t\"ṟ\":\"r\",\n\t\"ɼ\":\"r\",\n\t\"ᵲ\":\"r\",\n\t\"ᶉ\":\"r\",\n\t\"ɍ\":\"r\",\n\t\"ɽ\":\"r\",\n\t\"ↄ\":\"c\",\n\t\"ꜿ\":\"c\",\n\t\"ɘ\":\"e\",\n\t\"ɿ\":\"r\",\n\t\"ś\":\"s\",\n\t\"ṥ\":\"s\",\n\t\"š\":\"s\",\n\t\"ṧ\":\"s\",\n\t\"ş\":\"s\",\n\t\"ŝ\":\"s\",\n\t\"ș\":\"s\",\n\t\"ṡ\":\"s\",\n\t\"ṣ\":\"s\",\n\t\"ṩ\":\"s\",\n\t\"ʂ\":\"s\",\n\t\"ᵴ\":\"s\",\n\t\"ᶊ\":\"s\",\n\t\"ȿ\":\"s\",\n\t\"ɡ\":\"g\",\n\t\"ᴑ\":\"o\",\n\t\"ᴓ\":\"o\",\n\t\"ᴝ\":\"u\",\n\t\"ť\":\"t\",\n\t\"ţ\":\"t\",\n\t\"ṱ\":\"t\",\n\t\"ț\":\"t\",\n\t\"ȶ\":\"t\",\n\t\"ẗ\":\"t\",\n\t\"ⱦ\":\"t\",\n\t\"ṫ\":\"t\",\n\t\"ṭ\":\"t\",\n\t\"ƭ\":\"t\",\n\t\"ṯ\":\"t\",\n\t\"ᵵ\":\"t\",\n\t\"ƫ\":\"t\",\n\t\"ʈ\":\"t\",\n\t\"ŧ\":\"t\",\n\t\"ᵺ\":\"th\",\n\t\"ɐ\":\"a\",\n\t\"ᴂ\":\"ae\",\n\t\"ǝ\":\"e\",\n\t\"ᵷ\":\"g\",\n\t\"ɥ\":\"h\",\n\t\"ʮ\":\"h\",\n\t\"ʯ\":\"h\",\n\t\"ᴉ\":\"i\",\n\t\"ʞ\":\"k\",\n\t\"ꞁ\":\"l\",\n\t\"ɯ\":\"m\",\n\t\"ɰ\":\"m\",\n\t\"ᴔ\":\"oe\",\n\t\"ɹ\":\"r\",\n\t\"ɻ\":\"r\",\n\t\"ɺ\":\"r\",\n\t\"ⱹ\":\"r\",\n\t\"ʇ\":\"t\",\n\t\"ʌ\":\"v\",\n\t\"ʍ\":\"w\",\n\t\"ʎ\":\"y\",\n\t\"ꜩ\":\"tz\",\n\t\"ú\":\"u\",\n\t\"ŭ\":\"u\",\n\t\"ǔ\":\"u\",\n\t\"û\":\"u\",\n\t\"ṷ\":\"u\",\n\t\"ü\":\"u\",\n\t\"ǘ\":\"u\",\n\t\"ǚ\":\"u\",\n\t\"ǜ\":\"u\",\n\t\"ǖ\":\"u\",\n\t\"ṳ\":\"u\",\n\t\"ụ\":\"u\",\n\t\"ű\":\"u\",\n\t\"ȕ\":\"u\",\n\t\"ù\":\"u\",\n\t\"ủ\":\"u\",\n\t\"ư\":\"u\",\n\t\"ứ\":\"u\",\n\t\"ự\":\"u\",\n\t\"ừ\":\"u\",\n\t\"ử\":\"u\",\n\t\"ữ\":\"u\",\n\t\"ȗ\":\"u\",\n\t\"ū\":\"u\",\n\t\"ṻ\":\"u\",\n\t\"ų\":\"u\",\n\t\"ᶙ\":\"u\",\n\t\"ů\":\"u\",\n\t\"ũ\":\"u\",\n\t\"ṹ\":\"u\",\n\t\"ṵ\":\"u\",\n\t\"ᵫ\":\"ue\",\n\t\"ꝸ\":\"um\",\n\t\"ⱴ\":\"v\",\n\t\"ꝟ\":\"v\",\n\t\"ṿ\":\"v\",\n\t\"ʋ\":\"v\",\n\t\"ᶌ\":\"v\",\n\t\"ⱱ\":\"v\",\n\t\"ṽ\":\"v\",\n\t\"ꝡ\":\"vy\",\n\t\"ẃ\":\"w\",\n\t\"ŵ\":\"w\",\n\t\"ẅ\":\"w\",\n\t\"ẇ\":\"w\",\n\t\"ẉ\":\"w\",\n\t\"ẁ\":\"w\",\n\t\"ⱳ\":\"w\",\n\t\"ẘ\":\"w\",\n\t\"ẍ\":\"x\",\n\t\"ẋ\":\"x\",\n\t\"ᶍ\":\"x\",\n\t\"ý\":\"y\",\n\t\"ŷ\":\"y\",\n\t\"ÿ\":\"y\",\n\t\"ẏ\":\"y\",\n\t\"ỵ\":\"y\",\n\t\"ỳ\":\"y\",\n\t\"ƴ\":\"y\",\n\t\"ỷ\":\"y\",\n\t\"ỿ\":\"y\",\n\t\"ȳ\":\"y\",\n\t\"ẙ\":\"y\",\n\t\"ɏ\":\"y\",\n\t\"ỹ\":\"y\",\n\t\"ź\":\"z\",\n\t\"ž\":\"z\",\n\t\"ẑ\":\"z\",\n\t\"ʑ\":\"z\",\n\t\"ⱬ\":\"z\",\n\t\"ż\":\"z\",\n\t\"ẓ\":\"z\",\n\t\"ȥ\":\"z\",\n\t\"ẕ\":\"z\",\n\t\"ᵶ\":\"z\",\n\t\"ᶎ\":\"z\",\n\t\"ʐ\":\"z\",\n\t\"ƶ\":\"z\",\n\t\"ɀ\":\"z\",\n\t\"ff\":\"ff\",\n\t\"ffi\":\"ffi\",\n\t\"ffl\":\"ffl\",\n\t\"fi\":\"fi\",\n\t\"fl\":\"fl\",\n\t\"ij\":\"ij\",\n\t\"œ\":\"oe\",\n\t\"st\":\"st\",\n\t\"ₐ\":\"a\",\n\t\"ₑ\":\"e\",\n\t\"ᵢ\":\"i\",\n\t\"ⱼ\":\"j\",\n\t\"ₒ\":\"o\",\n\t\"ᵣ\":\"r\",\n\t\"ᵤ\":\"u\",\n\t\"ᵥ\":\"v\",\n\t\"ₓ\":\"x\",\n\t\"Ё\":\"YO\",\n\t\"Й\":\"I\",\n\t\"Ц\":\"TS\",\n\t\"У\":\"U\",\n\t\"К\":\"K\",\n\t\"Е\":\"E\",\n\t\"Н\":\"N\",\n\t\"Г\":\"G\",\n\t\"Ш\":\"SH\",\n\t\"Щ\":\"SCH\",\n\t\"З\":\"Z\",\n\t\"Х\":\"H\",\n\t\"Ъ\":\"'\",\n\t\"ё\":\"yo\",\n\t\"й\":\"i\",\n\t\"ц\":\"ts\",\n\t\"у\":\"u\",\n\t\"к\":\"k\",\n\t\"е\":\"e\",\n\t\"н\":\"n\",\n\t\"г\":\"g\",\n\t\"ш\":\"sh\",\n\t\"щ\":\"sch\",\n\t\"з\":\"z\",\n\t\"х\":\"h\",\n\t\"ъ\":\"'\",\n\t\"Ф\":\"F\",\n\t\"Ы\":\"I\",\n\t\"В\":\"V\",\n\t\"А\":\"a\",\n\t\"П\":\"P\",\n\t\"Р\":\"R\",\n\t\"О\":\"O\",\n\t\"Л\":\"L\",\n\t\"Д\":\"D\",\n\t\"Ж\":\"ZH\",\n\t\"Э\":\"E\",\n\t\"ф\":\"f\",\n\t\"ы\":\"i\",\n\t\"в\":\"v\",\n\t\"а\":\"a\",\n\t\"п\":\"p\",\n\t\"р\":\"r\",\n\t\"о\":\"o\",\n\t\"л\":\"l\",\n\t\"д\":\"d\",\n\t\"ж\":\"zh\",\n\t\"э\":\"e\",\n\t\"Я\":\"Ya\",\n\t\"Ч\":\"CH\",\n\t\"С\":\"S\",\n\t\"М\":\"M\",\n\t\"И\":\"I\",\n\t\"Т\":\"T\",\n\t\"Ь\":\"'\",\n\t\"Б\":\"B\",\n\t\"Ю\":\"YU\",\n\t\"я\":\"ya\",\n\t\"ч\":\"ch\",\n\t\"с\":\"s\",\n\t\"м\":\"m\",\n\t\"и\":\"i\",\n\t\"т\":\"t\",\n\t\"ь\":\"'\",\n\t\"б\":\"b\",\n\t\"ю\":\"yu\"\n};\n\nexports.transliterate = function(str) {\n\treturn str.replace(/[^A-Za-z0-9\\[\\] ]/g,function(ch) {\n\t\treturn exports.transliterationPairs[ch] || ch\n\t});\n};\n\nexports.transliterateToSafeASCII = function(str) {\n\treturn str.replace(/[^\\x00-\\x7F]/g,function(ch) {\n\t\treturn exports.transliterationPairs[ch] || \"\"\n\t});\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "utils"
},
"$:/core/modules/utils/utils.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/utils/utils.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/utils/utils.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: utils\n\nVarious static utility functions.\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\n/*\nDisplay a message, in colour if we're on a terminal\n*/\nexports.log = function(text,colour) {\n\tconsole.log($tw.node ? exports.terminalColour(colour) + text + exports.terminalColour() : text);\n};\n\nexports.terminalColour = function(colour) {\n\tif(!$tw.browser && $tw.node && process.stdout.isTTY) {\n\t\tif(colour) {\n\t\t\tvar code = exports.terminalColourLookup[colour];\n\t\t\tif(code) {\n\t\t\t\treturn \"\\x1b[\" + code + \"m\";\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t} else {\n\t\t\treturn \"\\x1b[0m\"; // Cancel colour\n\t\t}\n\t}\n\treturn \"\";\n};\n\nexports.terminalColourLookup = {\n\t\"black\": \"0;30\",\n\t\"red\": \"0;31\",\n\t\"green\": \"0;32\",\n\t\"brown/orange\": \"0;33\",\n\t\"blue\": \"0;34\",\n\t\"purple\": \"0;35\",\n\t\"cyan\": \"0;36\",\n\t\"light gray\": \"0;37\"\n};\n\n/*\nDisplay a warning, in colour if we're on a terminal\n*/\nexports.warning = function(text) {\n\texports.log(text,\"brown/orange\");\n};\n\n/*\nReturn the integer represented by the str (string).\nReturn the dflt (default) parameter if str is not a base-10 number.\n*/\nexports.getInt = function(str,deflt) {\n\tvar i = parseInt(str,10);\n\treturn isNaN(i) ? deflt : i;\n}\n\n/*\nRepeatedly replaces a substring within a string. Like String.prototype.replace, but without any of the default special handling of $ sequences in the replace string\n*/\nexports.replaceString = function(text,search,replace) {\n\treturn text.replace(search,function() {\n\t\treturn replace;\n\t});\n};\n\n/*\nRepeats a string\n*/\nexports.repeat = function(str,count) {\n\tvar result = \"\";\n\tfor(var t=0;t<count;t++) {\n\t\tresult += str;\n\t}\n\treturn result;\n};\n\n/*\nTrim whitespace from the start and end of a string\nThanks to Steven Levithan, http://blog.stevenlevithan.com/archives/faster-trim-javascript\n*/\nexports.trim = function(str) {\n\tif(typeof str === \"string\") {\n\t\treturn str.replace(/^\\s\\s*/, '').replace(/\\s\\s*$/, '');\n\t} else {\n\t\treturn str;\n\t}\n};\n\n/*\nFind the line break preceding a given position in a string\nReturns position immediately after that line break, or the start of the string\n*/\nexports.findPrecedingLineBreak = function(text,pos) {\n\tvar result = text.lastIndexOf(\"\\n\",pos - 1);\n\tif(result === -1) {\n\t\tresult = 0;\n\t} else {\n\t\tresult++;\n\t\tif(text.charAt(result) === \"\\r\") {\n\t\t\tresult++;\n\t\t}\n\t}\n\treturn result;\n};\n\n/*\nFind the line break following a given position in a string\n*/\nexports.findFollowingLineBreak = function(text,pos) {\n\t// Cut to just past the following line break, or to the end of the text\n\tvar result = text.indexOf(\"\\n\",pos);\n\tif(result === -1) {\n\t\tresult = text.length;\n\t} else {\n\t\tif(text.charAt(result) === \"\\r\") {\n\t\t\tresult++;\n\t\t}\n\t}\n\treturn result;\n};\n\n/*\nReturn the number of keys in an object\n*/\nexports.count = function(object) {\n\treturn Object.keys(object || {}).length;\n};\n\n/*\nCheck if an array is equal by value and by reference.\n*/\nexports.isArrayEqual = function(array1,array2) {\n\tif(array1 === array2) {\n\t\treturn true;\n\t}\n\tarray1 = array1 || [];\n\tarray2 = array2 || [];\n\tif(array1.length !== array2.length) {\n\t\treturn false;\n\t}\n\treturn array1.every(function(value,index) {\n\t\treturn value === array2[index];\n\t});\n};\n\n/*\nDetermine whether an array-item is an object-property\n*/\nexports.hopArray = function(object,array) {\n\tfor(var i=0; i<array.length; i++) {\n\t\tif($tw.utils.hop(object,array[i])) {\n\t\t\treturn true;\n\t\t}\n\t}\n\treturn false;\n};\n\n/*\nPush entries onto an array, removing them first if they already exist in the array\n\tarray: array to modify (assumed to be free of duplicates)\n\tvalue: a single value to push or an array of values to push\n*/\nexports.pushTop = function(array,value) {\n\tvar t,p;\n\tif($tw.utils.isArray(value)) {\n\t\t// Remove any array entries that are duplicated in the new values\n\t\tif(value.length !== 0) {\n\t\t\tif(array.length !== 0) {\n\t\t\t\tif(value.length < array.length) {\n\t\t\t\t\tfor(t=0; t<value.length; t++) {\n\t\t\t\t\t\tp = array.indexOf(value[t]);\n\t\t\t\t\t\tif(p !== -1) {\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tarray.splice(p,1);\n\t\t\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t\t} else {\n\t\t\t\t\tfor(t=array.length-1; t>=0; t--) {\n\t\t\t\t\t\tp = value.indexOf(array[t]);\n\t\t\t\t\t\tif(p !== -1) {\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tarray.splice(t,1);\n\t\t\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t// Push the values on top of the main array\n\t\t\tarray.push.apply(array,value);\n\t\t}\n\t} else {\n\t\tp = array.indexOf(value);\n\t\tif(p !== -1) {\n\t\t\tarray.splice(p,1);\n\t\t}\n\t\tarray.push(value);\n\t}\n\treturn array;\n};\n\n/*\nRemove entries from an array\n\tarray: array to modify\n\tvalue: a single value to remove, or an array of values to remove\n*/\nexports.removeArrayEntries = function(array,value) {\n\tvar t,p;\n\tif($tw.utils.isArray(value)) {\n\t\tfor(t=0; t<value.length; t++) {\n\t\t\tp = array.indexOf(value[t]);\n\t\t\tif(p !== -1) {\n\t\t\t\tarray.splice(p,1);\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t}\n\t} else {\n\t\tp = array.indexOf(value);\n\t\tif(p !== -1) {\n\t\t\tarray.splice(p,1);\n\t\t}\n\t}\n};\n\n/*\nCheck whether any members of a hashmap are present in another hashmap\n*/\nexports.checkDependencies = function(dependencies,changes) {\n\tvar hit = false;\n\t$tw.utils.each(changes,function(change,title) {\n\t\tif($tw.utils.hop(dependencies,title)) {\n\t\t\thit = true;\n\t\t}\n\t});\n\treturn hit;\n};\n\nexports.extend = function(object /* [, src] */) {\n\t$tw.utils.each(Array.prototype.slice.call(arguments, 1), function(source) {\n\t\tif(source) {\n\t\t\tfor(var property in source) {\n\t\t\t\tobject[property] = source[property];\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t}\n\t});\n\treturn object;\n};\n\nexports.deepCopy = function(object) {\n\tvar result,t;\n\tif($tw.utils.isArray(object)) {\n\t\t// Copy arrays\n\t\tresult = object.slice(0);\n\t} else if(typeof object === \"object\") {\n\t\tresult = {};\n\t\tfor(t in object) {\n\t\t\tif(object[t] !== undefined) {\n\t\t\t\tresult[t] = $tw.utils.deepCopy(object[t]);\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t}\n\t} else {\n\t\tresult = object;\n\t}\n\treturn result;\n};\n\nexports.extendDeepCopy = function(object,extendedProperties) {\n\tvar result = $tw.utils.deepCopy(object),t;\n\tfor(t in extendedProperties) {\n\t\tif(extendedProperties[t] !== undefined) {\n\t\t\tresult[t] = $tw.utils.deepCopy(extendedProperties[t]);\n\t\t}\n\t}\n\treturn result;\n};\n\nexports.deepFreeze = function deepFreeze(object) {\n\tvar property, key;\n\tif(object) {\n\t\tObject.freeze(object);\n\t\tfor(key in object) {\n\t\t\tproperty = object[key];\n\t\t\tif($tw.utils.hop(object,key) && (typeof property === \"object\") && !Object.isFrozen(property)) {\n\t\t\t\tdeepFreeze(property);\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t}\n\t}\n};\n\nexports.slowInSlowOut = function(t) {\n\treturn (1 - ((Math.cos(t * Math.PI) + 1) / 2));\n};\n\nexports.formatDateString = function(date,template) {\n\tvar result = \"\",\n\t\tt = template,\n\t\tmatches = [\n\t\t\t[/^0hh12/, function() {\n\t\t\t\treturn $tw.utils.pad($tw.utils.getHours12(date));\n\t\t\t}],\n\t\t\t[/^wYYYY/, function() {\n\t\t\t\treturn $tw.utils.getYearForWeekNo(date);\n\t\t\t}],\n\t\t\t[/^hh12/, function() {\n\t\t\t\treturn $tw.utils.getHours12(date);\n\t\t\t}],\n\t\t\t[/^DDth/, function() {\n\t\t\t\treturn date.getDate() + $tw.utils.getDaySuffix(date);\n\t\t\t}],\n\t\t\t[/^YYYY/, function() {\n\t\t\t\treturn date.getFullYear();\n\t\t\t}],\n\t\t\t[/^0hh/, function() {\n\t\t\t\treturn $tw.utils.pad(date.getHours());\n\t\t\t}],\n\t\t\t[/^0mm/, function() {\n\t\t\t\treturn $tw.utils.pad(date.getMinutes());\n\t\t\t}],\n\t\t\t[/^0ss/, function() {\n\t\t\t\treturn $tw.utils.pad(date.getSeconds());\n\t\t\t}],\n\t\t\t[/^0XXX/, function() {\n\t\t\t\treturn $tw.utils.pad(date.getMilliseconds());\n\t\t\t}],\n\t\t\t[/^0DD/, function() {\n\t\t\t\treturn $tw.utils.pad(date.getDate());\n\t\t\t}],\n\t\t\t[/^0MM/, function() {\n\t\t\t\treturn $tw.utils.pad(date.getMonth()+1);\n\t\t\t}],\n\t\t\t[/^0WW/, function() {\n\t\t\t\treturn $tw.utils.pad($tw.utils.getWeek(date));\n\t\t\t}],\n\t\t\t[/^ddd/, function() {\n\t\t\t\treturn $tw.language.getString(\"Date/Short/Day/\" + date.getDay());\n\t\t\t}],\n\t\t\t[/^mmm/, function() {\n\t\t\t\treturn $tw.language.getString(\"Date/Short/Month/\" + (date.getMonth() + 1));\n\t\t\t}],\n\t\t\t[/^DDD/, function() {\n\t\t\t\treturn $tw.language.getString(\"Date/Long/Day/\" + date.getDay());\n\t\t\t}],\n\t\t\t[/^MMM/, function() {\n\t\t\t\treturn $tw.language.getString(\"Date/Long/Month/\" + (date.getMonth() + 1));\n\t\t\t}],\n\t\t\t[/^TZD/, function() {\n\t\t\t\tvar tz = date.getTimezoneOffset(),\n\t\t\t\tatz = Math.abs(tz);\n\t\t\t\treturn (tz < 0 ? '+' : '-') + $tw.utils.pad(Math.floor(atz / 60)) + ':' + $tw.utils.pad(atz % 60);\n\t\t\t}],\n\t\t\t[/^wYY/, function() {\n\t\t\t\treturn $tw.utils.pad($tw.utils.getYearForWeekNo(date) - 2000);\n\t\t\t}],\n\t\t\t[/^[ap]m/, function() {\n\t\t\t\treturn $tw.utils.getAmPm(date).toLowerCase();\n\t\t\t}],\n\t\t\t[/^hh/, function() {\n\t\t\t\treturn date.getHours();\n\t\t\t}],\n\t\t\t[/^mm/, function() {\n\t\t\t\treturn date.getMinutes();\n\t\t\t}],\n\t\t\t[/^ss/, function() {\n\t\t\t\treturn date.getSeconds();\n\t\t\t}],\n\t\t\t[/^XXX/, function() {\n\t\t\t\treturn date.getMilliseconds();\n\t\t\t}],\n\t\t\t[/^[AP]M/, function() {\n\t\t\t\treturn $tw.utils.getAmPm(date).toUpperCase();\n\t\t\t}],\n\t\t\t[/^DD/, function() {\n\t\t\t\treturn date.getDate();\n\t\t\t}],\n\t\t\t[/^MM/, function() {\n\t\t\t\treturn date.getMonth() + 1;\n\t\t\t}],\n\t\t\t[/^WW/, function() {\n\t\t\t\treturn $tw.utils.getWeek(date);\n\t\t\t}],\n\t\t\t[/^YY/, function() {\n\t\t\t\treturn $tw.utils.pad(date.getFullYear() - 2000);\n\t\t\t}]\n\t\t];\n\t// If the user wants everything in UTC, shift the datestamp\n\t// Optimize for format string that essentially means\n\t// 'return raw UTC (tiddlywiki style) date string.'\n\tif(t.indexOf(\"[UTC]\") == 0 ) {\n\t\tif(t == \"[UTC]YYYY0MM0DD0hh0mm0ssXXX\")\n\t\t\treturn $tw.utils.stringifyDate(new Date());\n\t\tvar offset = date.getTimezoneOffset() ; // in minutes\n\t\tdate = new Date(date.getTime()+offset*60*1000) ;\n\t\tt = t.substr(5) ;\n\t}\n\twhile(t.length){\n\t\tvar matchString = \"\";\n\t\t$tw.utils.each(matches, function(m) {\n\t\t\tvar match = m[0].exec(t);\n\t\t\tif(match) {\n\t\t\t\tmatchString = m[1].call();\n\t\t\t\tt = t.substr(match[0].length);\n\t\t\t\treturn false;\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t});\n\t\tif(matchString) {\n\t\t\tresult += matchString;\n\t\t} else {\n\t\t\tresult += t.charAt(0);\n\t\t\tt = t.substr(1);\n\t\t}\n\t}\n\tresult = result.replace(/\\\\(.)/g,\"$1\");\n\treturn result;\n};\n\nexports.getAmPm = function(date) {\n\treturn $tw.language.getString(\"Date/Period/\" + (date.getHours() >= 12 ? \"pm\" : \"am\"));\n};\n\nexports.getDaySuffix = function(date) {\n\treturn $tw.language.getString(\"Date/DaySuffix/\" + date.getDate());\n};\n\nexports.getWeek = function(date) {\n\tvar dt = new Date(date.getTime());\n\tvar d = dt.getDay();\n\tif(d === 0) {\n\t\td = 7; // JavaScript Sun=0, ISO Sun=7\n\t}\n\tdt.setTime(dt.getTime() + (4 - d) * 86400000);// shift day to Thurs of same week to calculate weekNo\n\tvar x = new Date(dt.getFullYear(),0,1);\n\tvar n = Math.floor((dt.getTime() - x.getTime()) / 86400000);\n\treturn Math.floor(n / 7) + 1;\n};\n\nexports.getYearForWeekNo = function(date) {\n\tvar dt = new Date(date.getTime());\n\tvar d = dt.getDay();\n\tif(d === 0) {\n\t\td = 7; // JavaScript Sun=0, ISO Sun=7\n\t}\n\tdt.setTime(dt.getTime() + (4 - d) * 86400000);// shift day to Thurs of same week\n\treturn dt.getFullYear();\n};\n\nexports.getHours12 = function(date) {\n\tvar h = date.getHours();\n\treturn h > 12 ? h-12 : ( h > 0 ? h : 12 );\n};\n\n/*\nConvert a date delta in milliseconds into a string representation of \"23 seconds ago\", \"27 minutes ago\" etc.\n\tdelta: delta in milliseconds\nReturns an object with these members:\n\tdescription: string describing the delta period\n\tupdatePeriod: time in millisecond until the string will be inaccurate\n*/\nexports.getRelativeDate = function(delta) {\n\tvar futurep = false;\n\tif(delta < 0) {\n\t\tdelta = -1 * delta;\n\t\tfuturep = true;\n\t}\n\tvar units = [\n\t\t{name: \"Years\", duration: 365 * 24 * 60 * 60 * 1000},\n\t\t{name: \"Months\", duration: (365/12) * 24 * 60 * 60 * 1000},\n\t\t{name: \"Days\", duration: 24 * 60 * 60 * 1000},\n\t\t{name: \"Hours\", duration: 60 * 60 * 1000},\n\t\t{name: \"Minutes\", duration: 60 * 1000},\n\t\t{name: \"Seconds\", duration: 1000}\n\t];\n\tfor(var t=0; t<units.length; t++) {\n\t\tvar result = Math.floor(delta / units[t].duration);\n\t\tif(result >= 2) {\n\t\t\treturn {\n\t\t\t\tdelta: delta,\n\t\t\t\tdescription: $tw.language.getString(\n\t\t\t\t\t\"RelativeDate/\" + (futurep ? \"Future\" : \"Past\") + \"/\" + units[t].name,\n\t\t\t\t\t{variables:\n\t\t\t\t\t\t{period: result.toString()}\n\t\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t\t),\n\t\t\t\tupdatePeriod: units[t].duration\n\t\t\t};\n\t\t}\n\t}\n\treturn {\n\t\tdelta: delta,\n\t\tdescription: $tw.language.getString(\n\t\t\t\"RelativeDate/\" + (futurep ? \"Future\" : \"Past\") + \"/Second\",\n\t\t\t{variables:\n\t\t\t\t{period: \"1\"}\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t),\n\t\tupdatePeriod: 1000\n\t};\n};\n\n// Convert & to \"&\", < to \"<\", > to \">\", \" to \""\"\nexports.htmlEncode = function(s) {\n\tif(s) {\n\t\treturn s.toString().replace(/&/mg,\"&\").replace(/</mg,\"<\").replace(/>/mg,\">\").replace(/\\\"/mg,\""\");\n\t} else {\n\t\treturn \"\";\n\t}\n};\n\n// Converts all HTML entities to their character equivalents\nexports.entityDecode = function(s) {\n\tvar converter = String.fromCodePoint || String.fromCharCode,\n\t\te = s.substr(1,s.length-2), // Strip the & and the ;\n\t\tc;\n\tif(e.charAt(0) === \"#\") {\n\t\tif(e.charAt(1) === \"x\" || e.charAt(1) === \"X\") {\n\t\t\tc = parseInt(e.substr(2),16);\n\t\t} else {\n\t\t\tc = parseInt(e.substr(1),10);\n\t\t}\n\t\tif(isNaN(c)) {\n\t\t\treturn s;\n\t\t} else {\n\t\t\treturn converter(c);\n\t\t}\n\t} else {\n\t\tc = $tw.config.htmlEntities[e];\n\t\tif(c) {\n\t\t\treturn converter(c);\n\t\t} else {\n\t\t\treturn s; // Couldn't convert it as an entity, just return it raw\n\t\t}\n\t}\n};\n\nexports.unescapeLineBreaks = function(s) {\n\treturn s.replace(/\\\\n/mg,\"\\n\").replace(/\\\\b/mg,\" \").replace(/\\\\s/mg,\"\\\\\").replace(/\\r/mg,\"\");\n};\n\n/*\n * Returns an escape sequence for given character. Uses \\x for characters <=\n * 0xFF to save space, \\u for the rest.\n *\n * The code needs to be in sync with th code template in the compilation\n * function for \"action\" nodes.\n */\n// Copied from peg.js, thanks to David Majda\nexports.escape = function(ch) {\n\tvar charCode = ch.charCodeAt(0);\n\tif(charCode <= 0xFF) {\n\t\treturn '\\\\x' + $tw.utils.pad(charCode.toString(16).toUpperCase());\n\t} else {\n\t\treturn '\\\\u' + $tw.utils.pad(charCode.toString(16).toUpperCase(),4);\n\t}\n};\n\n// Turns a string into a legal JavaScript string\n// Copied from peg.js, thanks to David Majda\nexports.stringify = function(s) {\n\t/*\n\t* ECMA-262, 5th ed., 7.8.4: All characters may appear literally in a string\n\t* literal except for the closing quote character, backslash, carriage return,\n\t* line separator, paragraph separator, and line feed. Any character may\n\t* appear in the form of an escape sequence.\n\t*\n\t* For portability, we also escape all non-ASCII characters.\n\t*/\n\treturn (s || \"\")\n\t\t.replace(/\\\\/g, '\\\\\\\\') // backslash\n\t\t.replace(/\"/g, '\\\\\"') // double quote character\n\t\t.replace(/'/g, \"\\\\'\") // single quote character\n\t\t.replace(/\\r/g, '\\\\r') // carriage return\n\t\t.replace(/\\n/g, '\\\\n') // line feed\n\t\t.replace(/[\\x00-\\x1f\\x80-\\uFFFF]/g, exports.escape); // non-ASCII characters\n};\n\n// Turns a string into a legal JSON string\n// Derived from peg.js, thanks to David Majda\nexports.jsonStringify = function(s) {\n\t// See http://www.json.org/\n\treturn (s || \"\")\n\t\t.replace(/\\\\/g, '\\\\\\\\') // backslash\n\t\t.replace(/\"/g, '\\\\\"') // double quote character\n\t\t.replace(/\\r/g, '\\\\r') // carriage return\n\t\t.replace(/\\n/g, '\\\\n') // line feed\n\t\t.replace(/\\x08/g, '\\\\b') // backspace\n\t\t.replace(/\\x0c/g, '\\\\f') // formfeed\n\t\t.replace(/\\t/g, '\\\\t') // tab\n\t\t.replace(/[\\x00-\\x1f\\x80-\\uFFFF]/g,function(s) {\n\t\t\treturn '\\\\u' + $tw.utils.pad(s.charCodeAt(0).toString(16).toUpperCase(),4);\n\t\t}); // non-ASCII characters\n};\n\n/*\nEscape the RegExp special characters with a preceding backslash\n*/\nexports.escapeRegExp = function(s) {\n return s.replace(/[\\-\\/\\\\\\^\\$\\*\\+\\?\\.\\(\\)\\|\\[\\]\\{\\}]/g, '\\\\$&');\n};\n\n// Checks whether a link target is external, i.e. not a tiddler title\nexports.isLinkExternal = function(to) {\n\tvar externalRegExp = /^(?:file|http|https|mailto|ftp|irc|news|data|skype):[^\\s<>{}\\[\\]`|\"\\\\^]+(?:\\/|\\b)/i;\n\treturn externalRegExp.test(to);\n};\n\nexports.nextTick = function(fn) {\n/*global window: false */\n\tif(typeof process === \"undefined\") {\n\t\t// Apparently it would be faster to use postMessage - http://dbaron.org/log/20100309-faster-timeouts\n\t\twindow.setTimeout(fn,4);\n\t} else {\n\t\tprocess.nextTick(fn);\n\t}\n};\n\n/*\nConvert a hyphenated CSS property name into a camel case one\n*/\nexports.unHyphenateCss = function(propName) {\n\treturn propName.replace(/-([a-z])/gi, function(match0,match1) {\n\t\treturn match1.toUpperCase();\n\t});\n};\n\n/*\nConvert a camelcase CSS property name into a dashed one (\"backgroundColor\" --> \"background-color\")\n*/\nexports.hyphenateCss = function(propName) {\n\treturn propName.replace(/([A-Z])/g, function(match0,match1) {\n\t\treturn \"-\" + match1.toLowerCase();\n\t});\n};\n\n/*\nParse a text reference of one of these forms:\n* title\n* !!field\n* title!!field\n* title##index\n* etc\nReturns an object with the following fields, all optional:\n* title: tiddler title\n* field: tiddler field name\n* index: JSON property index\n*/\nexports.parseTextReference = function(textRef) {\n\t// Separate out the title, field name and/or JSON indices\n\tvar reTextRef = /(?:(.*?)!!(.+))|(?:(.*?)##(.+))|(.*)/mg,\n\t\tmatch = reTextRef.exec(textRef),\n\t\tresult = {};\n\tif(match && reTextRef.lastIndex === textRef.length) {\n\t\t// Return the parts\n\t\tif(match[1]) {\n\t\t\tresult.title = match[1];\n\t\t}\n\t\tif(match[2]) {\n\t\t\tresult.field = match[2];\n\t\t}\n\t\tif(match[3]) {\n\t\t\tresult.title = match[3];\n\t\t}\n\t\tif(match[4]) {\n\t\t\tresult.index = match[4];\n\t\t}\n\t\tif(match[5]) {\n\t\t\tresult.title = match[5];\n\t\t}\n\t} else {\n\t\t// If we couldn't parse it\n\t\tresult.title = textRef\n\t}\n\treturn result;\n};\n\n/*\nChecks whether a string is a valid fieldname\n*/\nexports.isValidFieldName = function(name) {\n\tif(!name || typeof name !== \"string\") {\n\t\treturn false;\n\t}\n\tname = name.toLowerCase().trim();\n\tvar fieldValidatorRegEx = /^[a-z0-9\\-\\._]+$/mg;\n\treturn fieldValidatorRegEx.test(name);\n};\n\n/*\nExtract the version number from the meta tag or from the boot file\n*/\n\n// Browser version\nexports.extractVersionInfo = function() {\n\tif($tw.packageInfo) {\n\t\treturn $tw.packageInfo.version;\n\t} else {\n\t\tvar metatags = document.getElementsByTagName(\"meta\");\n\t\tfor(var t=0; t<metatags.length; t++) {\n\t\t\tvar m = metatags[t];\n\t\t\tif(m.name === \"tiddlywiki-version\") {\n\t\t\t\treturn m.content;\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t}\n\t}\n\treturn null;\n};\n\n/*\nGet the animation duration in ms\n*/\nexports.getAnimationDuration = function() {\n\treturn parseInt($tw.wiki.getTiddlerText(\"$:/config/AnimationDuration\",\"400\"),10);\n};\n\n/*\nHash a string to a number\nDerived from http://stackoverflow.com/a/15710692\n*/\nexports.hashString = function(str) {\n\treturn str.split(\"\").reduce(function(a,b) {\n\t\ta = ((a << 5) - a) + b.charCodeAt(0);\n\t\treturn a & a;\n\t},0);\n};\n\n/*\nDecode a base64 string\n*/\nexports.base64Decode = function(string64) {\n\tif($tw.browser) {\n\t\t// TODO\n\t\tthrow \"$tw.utils.base64Decode() doesn't work in the browser\";\n\t} else {\n\t\treturn Buffer.from(string64,\"base64\").toString();\n\t}\n};\n\n/*\nConvert a hashmap into a tiddler dictionary format sequence of name:value pairs\n*/\nexports.makeTiddlerDictionary = function(data) {\n\tvar output = [];\n\tfor(var name in data) {\n\t\toutput.push(name + \": \" + data[name]);\n\t}\n\treturn output.join(\"\\n\");\n};\n\n/*\nHigh resolution microsecond timer for profiling\n*/\nexports.timer = function(base) {\n\tvar m;\n\tif($tw.node) {\n\t\tvar r = process.hrtime();\n\t\tm = r[0] * 1e3 + (r[1] / 1e6);\n\t} else if(window.performance) {\n\t\tm = performance.now();\n\t} else {\n\t\tm = Date.now();\n\t}\n\tif(typeof base !== \"undefined\") {\n\t\tm = m - base;\n\t}\n\treturn m;\n};\n\n/*\nConvert text and content type to a data URI\n*/\nexports.makeDataUri = function(text,type) {\n\ttype = type || \"text/vnd.tiddlywiki\";\n\tvar typeInfo = $tw.config.contentTypeInfo[type] || $tw.config.contentTypeInfo[\"text/plain\"],\n\t\tisBase64 = typeInfo.encoding === \"base64\",\n\t\tparts = [];\n\tparts.push(\"data:\");\n\tparts.push(type);\n\tparts.push(isBase64 ? \";base64\" : \"\");\n\tparts.push(\",\");\n\tparts.push(isBase64 ? text : encodeURIComponent(text));\n\treturn parts.join(\"\");\n};\n\n/*\nUseful for finding out the fully escaped CSS selector equivalent to a given tag. For example:\n\n$tw.utils.tagToCssSelector(\"$:/tags/Stylesheet\") --> tc-tagged-\\%24\\%3A\\%2Ftags\\%2FStylesheet\n*/\nexports.tagToCssSelector = function(tagName) {\n\treturn \"tc-tagged-\" + encodeURIComponent(tagName).replace(/[!\"#$%&'()*+,\\-./:;<=>?@[\\\\\\]^`{\\|}~,]/mg,function(c) {\n\t\treturn \"\\\\\" + c;\n\t});\n};\n\n/*\nIE does not have sign function\n*/\nexports.sign = Math.sign || function(x) {\n\tx = +x; // convert to a number\n\tif (x === 0 || isNaN(x)) {\n\t\treturn x;\n\t}\n\treturn x > 0 ? 1 : -1;\n};\n\n/*\nIE does not have an endsWith function\n*/\nexports.strEndsWith = function(str,ending,position) {\n\tif(str.endsWith) {\n\t\treturn str.endsWith(ending,position);\n\t} else {\n\t\tif (typeof position !== 'number' || !isFinite(position) || Math.floor(position) !== position || position > str.length) {\n\t\t\tposition = str.length;\n\t\t}\n\t\tposition -= ending.length;\n\t\tvar lastIndex = str.indexOf(ending, position);\n\t\treturn lastIndex !== -1 && lastIndex === position;\n\t}\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "utils"
},
"$:/core/modules/widgets/action-createtiddler.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/widgets/action-createtiddler.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/widgets/action-createtiddler.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: widget\n\nAction widget to create a new tiddler with a unique name and specified fields.\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nvar Widget = require(\"$:/core/modules/widgets/widget.js\").widget;\n\nvar CreateTiddlerWidget = function(parseTreeNode,options) {\n\tthis.initialise(parseTreeNode,options);\n};\n\n/*\nInherit from the base widget class\n*/\nCreateTiddlerWidget.prototype = new Widget();\n\n/*\nRender this widget into the DOM\n*/\nCreateTiddlerWidget.prototype.render = function(parent,nextSibling) {\n\tthis.computeAttributes();\n\tthis.execute();\n};\n\n/*\nCompute the internal state of the widget\n*/\nCreateTiddlerWidget.prototype.execute = function() {\n\tthis.actionBaseTitle = this.getAttribute(\"$basetitle\");\n\tthis.actionSaveTitle = this.getAttribute(\"$savetitle\");\n\tthis.actionTimestamp = this.getAttribute(\"$timestamp\",\"yes\") === \"yes\";\n};\n\n/*\nRefresh the widget by ensuring our attributes are up to date\n*/\nCreateTiddlerWidget.prototype.refresh = function(changedTiddlers) {\n\tvar changedAttributes = this.computeAttributes();\n\tif($tw.utils.count(changedAttributes) > 0) {\n\t\tthis.refreshSelf();\n\t\treturn true;\n\t}\n\treturn this.refreshChildren(changedTiddlers);\n};\n\n/*\nInvoke the action associated with this widget\n*/\nCreateTiddlerWidget.prototype.invokeAction = function(triggeringWidget,event) {\n\tvar title = this.wiki.generateNewTitle(this.actionBaseTitle),\n\t\tfields = {},\n\t\tcreationFields,\n\t\tmodificationFields;\n\t$tw.utils.each(this.attributes,function(attribute,name) {\n\t\tif(name.charAt(0) !== \"$\") {\n\t\t\tfields[name] = attribute;\n\t\t}\n\t});\n\tif(this.actionTimestamp) {\n\t\tcreationFields = this.wiki.getCreationFields();\n\t\tmodificationFields = this.wiki.getModificationFields();\n\t}\n\tvar tiddler = this.wiki.addTiddler(new $tw.Tiddler(creationFields,fields,modificationFields,{title: title}));\n\tif(this.actionSaveTitle) {\n\t\tthis.wiki.setTextReference(this.actionSaveTitle,title,this.getVariable(\"currentTiddler\"));\n\t}\n\treturn true; // Action was invoked\n};\n\nexports[\"action-createtiddler\"] = CreateTiddlerWidget;\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "widget"
},
"$:/core/modules/widgets/action-deletefield.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/widgets/action-deletefield.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/widgets/action-deletefield.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: widget\n\nAction widget to delete fields of a tiddler.\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nvar Widget = require(\"$:/core/modules/widgets/widget.js\").widget;\n\nvar DeleteFieldWidget = function(parseTreeNode,options) {\n\tthis.initialise(parseTreeNode,options);\n};\n\n/*\nInherit from the base widget class\n*/\nDeleteFieldWidget.prototype = new Widget();\n\n/*\nRender this widget into the DOM\n*/\nDeleteFieldWidget.prototype.render = function(parent,nextSibling) {\n\tthis.computeAttributes();\n\tthis.execute();\n};\n\n/*\nCompute the internal state of the widget\n*/\nDeleteFieldWidget.prototype.execute = function() {\n\tthis.actionTiddler = this.getAttribute(\"$tiddler\",this.getVariable(\"currentTiddler\"));\n\tthis.actionField = this.getAttribute(\"$field\");\n};\n\n/*\nRefresh the widget by ensuring our attributes are up to date\n*/\nDeleteFieldWidget.prototype.refresh = function(changedTiddlers) {\n\tvar changedAttributes = this.computeAttributes();\n\tif(changedAttributes[\"$tiddler\"]) {\n\t\tthis.refreshSelf();\n\t\treturn true;\n\t}\n\treturn this.refreshChildren(changedTiddlers);\n};\n\n/*\nInvoke the action associated with this widget\n*/\nDeleteFieldWidget.prototype.invokeAction = function(triggeringWidget,event) {\n\tvar self = this,\n\t\ttiddler = this.wiki.getTiddler(self.actionTiddler),\n\t\tremoveFields = {},\n\t\thasChanged = false;\n\tif(this.actionField) {\n\t\tremoveFields[this.actionField] = undefined;\n\t\tif(this.actionField in tiddler.fields) {\n\t\t\thasChanged = true;\n\t\t}\n\t}\n\tif(tiddler) {\n\t\t$tw.utils.each(this.attributes,function(attribute,name) {\n\t\t\tif(name.charAt(0) !== \"$\" && name !== \"title\") {\n\t\t\t\tremoveFields[name] = undefined;\n\t\t\t\thasChanged = true;\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t});\n\t\tif(hasChanged) {\n\t\t\tthis.wiki.addTiddler(new $tw.Tiddler(this.wiki.getCreationFields(),tiddler,removeFields,this.wiki.getModificationFields()));\t\t\t\n\t\t}\n\t}\n\treturn true; // Action was invoked\n};\n\nexports[\"action-deletefield\"] = DeleteFieldWidget;\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "widget"
},
"$:/core/modules/widgets/action-deletetiddler.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/widgets/action-deletetiddler.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/widgets/action-deletetiddler.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: widget\n\nAction widget to delete a tiddler.\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nvar Widget = require(\"$:/core/modules/widgets/widget.js\").widget;\n\nvar DeleteTiddlerWidget = function(parseTreeNode,options) {\n\tthis.initialise(parseTreeNode,options);\n};\n\n/*\nInherit from the base widget class\n*/\nDeleteTiddlerWidget.prototype = new Widget();\n\n/*\nRender this widget into the DOM\n*/\nDeleteTiddlerWidget.prototype.render = function(parent,nextSibling) {\n\tthis.computeAttributes();\n\tthis.execute();\n};\n\n/*\nCompute the internal state of the widget\n*/\nDeleteTiddlerWidget.prototype.execute = function() {\n\tthis.actionFilter = this.getAttribute(\"$filter\");\n\tthis.actionTiddler = this.getAttribute(\"$tiddler\");\n};\n\n/*\nRefresh the widget by ensuring our attributes are up to date\n*/\nDeleteTiddlerWidget.prototype.refresh = function(changedTiddlers) {\n\tvar changedAttributes = this.computeAttributes();\n\tif(changedAttributes[\"$filter\"] || changedAttributes[\"$tiddler\"]) {\n\t\tthis.refreshSelf();\n\t\treturn true;\n\t}\n\treturn this.refreshChildren(changedTiddlers);\n};\n\n/*\nInvoke the action associated with this widget\n*/\nDeleteTiddlerWidget.prototype.invokeAction = function(triggeringWidget,event) {\n\tvar tiddlers = [];\n\tif(this.actionFilter) {\n\t\ttiddlers = this.wiki.filterTiddlers(this.actionFilter,this);\n\t}\n\tif(this.actionTiddler) {\n\t\ttiddlers.push(this.actionTiddler);\n\t}\n\tfor(var t=0; t<tiddlers.length; t++) {\n\t\tthis.wiki.deleteTiddler(tiddlers[t]);\n\t}\n\treturn true; // Action was invoked\n};\n\nexports[\"action-deletetiddler\"] = DeleteTiddlerWidget;\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "widget"
},
"$:/core/modules/widgets/action-listops.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/widgets/action-listops.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/widgets/action-listops.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: widget\n\nAction widget to apply list operations to any tiddler field (defaults to the 'list' field of the current tiddler)\n\n\\*/\n(function() {\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\nvar Widget = require(\"$:/core/modules/widgets/widget.js\").widget;\nvar ActionListopsWidget = function(parseTreeNode, options) {\n\tthis.initialise(parseTreeNode, options);\n};\n/**\n * Inherit from the base widget class\n */\nActionListopsWidget.prototype = new Widget();\n/**\n * Render this widget into the DOM\n */\nActionListopsWidget.prototype.render = function(parent, nextSibling) {\n\tthis.computeAttributes();\n\tthis.execute();\n};\n/**\n * Compute the internal state of the widget\n */\nActionListopsWidget.prototype.execute = function() {\n\t// Get our parameters\n\tthis.target = this.getAttribute(\"$tiddler\", this.getVariable(\n\t\t\"currentTiddler\"));\n\tthis.filter = this.getAttribute(\"$filter\");\n\tthis.subfilter = this.getAttribute(\"$subfilter\");\n\tthis.listField = this.getAttribute(\"$field\", \"list\");\n\tthis.listIndex = this.getAttribute(\"$index\");\n\tthis.filtertags = this.getAttribute(\"$tags\");\n};\n/**\n * \tRefresh the widget by ensuring our attributes are up to date\n */\nActionListopsWidget.prototype.refresh = function(changedTiddlers) {\n\tvar changedAttributes = this.computeAttributes();\n\tif(changedAttributes.$tiddler || changedAttributes.$filter ||\n\t\tchangedAttributes.$subfilter || changedAttributes.$field ||\n\t\tchangedAttributes.$index || changedAttributes.$tags) {\n\t\tthis.refreshSelf();\n\t\treturn true;\n\t}\n\treturn this.refreshChildren(changedTiddlers);\n};\n/**\n * \tInvoke the action associated with this widget\n */\nActionListopsWidget.prototype.invokeAction = function(triggeringWidget,\n\tevent) {\n\t//Apply the specified filters to the lists\n\tvar field = this.listField,\n\t\tindex,\n\t\ttype = \"!!\",\n\t\tlist = this.listField;\n\tif(this.listIndex) {\n\t\tfield = undefined;\n\t\tindex = this.listIndex;\n\t\ttype = \"##\";\n\t\tlist = this.listIndex;\n\t}\n\tif(this.filter) {\n\t\tthis.wiki.setText(this.target, field, index, $tw.utils.stringifyList(\n\t\t\tthis.wiki\n\t\t\t.filterTiddlers(this.filter, this)));\n\t}\n\tif(this.subfilter) {\n\t\tvar subfilter = \"[list[\" + this.target + type + list + \"]] \" + this.subfilter;\n\t\tthis.wiki.setText(this.target, field, index, $tw.utils.stringifyList(\n\t\t\tthis.wiki\n\t\t\t.filterTiddlers(subfilter, this)));\n\t}\n\tif(this.filtertags) {\n\t\tvar tiddler = this.wiki.getTiddler(this.target),\n\t\t\toldtags = tiddler ? (tiddler.fields.tags || []).slice(0) : [],\n\t\t\ttagfilter = \"[list[\" + this.target + \"!!tags]] \" + this.filtertags,\n\t\t\tnewtags = this.wiki.filterTiddlers(tagfilter,this);\n\t\tif($tw.utils.stringifyList(oldtags.sort()) !== $tw.utils.stringifyList(newtags.sort())) {\n\t\t\tthis.wiki.setText(this.target,\"tags\",undefined,$tw.utils.stringifyList(newtags));\t\t\t\n\t\t}\n\t}\n\treturn true; // Action was invoked\n};\n\nexports[\"action-listops\"] = ActionListopsWidget;\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "widget"
},
"$:/core/modules/widgets/action-navigate.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/widgets/action-navigate.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/widgets/action-navigate.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: widget\n\nAction widget to navigate to a tiddler\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nvar Widget = require(\"$:/core/modules/widgets/widget.js\").widget;\n\nvar NavigateWidget = function(parseTreeNode,options) {\n\tthis.initialise(parseTreeNode,options);\n};\n\n/*\nInherit from the base widget class\n*/\nNavigateWidget.prototype = new Widget();\n\n/*\nRender this widget into the DOM\n*/\nNavigateWidget.prototype.render = function(parent,nextSibling) {\n\tthis.computeAttributes();\n\tthis.execute();\n};\n\n/*\nCompute the internal state of the widget\n*/\nNavigateWidget.prototype.execute = function() {\n\tthis.actionTo = this.getAttribute(\"$to\");\n\tthis.actionScroll = this.getAttribute(\"$scroll\");\n};\n\n/*\nRefresh the widget by ensuring our attributes are up to date\n*/\nNavigateWidget.prototype.refresh = function(changedTiddlers) {\n\tvar changedAttributes = this.computeAttributes();\n\tif(changedAttributes[\"$to\"] || changedAttributes[\"$scroll\"]) {\n\t\tthis.refreshSelf();\n\t\treturn true;\n\t}\n\treturn this.refreshChildren(changedTiddlers);\n};\n\n/*\nInvoke the action associated with this widget\n*/\nNavigateWidget.prototype.invokeAction = function(triggeringWidget,event) {\n\tevent = event || {};\n\tvar bounds = triggeringWidget && triggeringWidget.getBoundingClientRect && triggeringWidget.getBoundingClientRect(),\n\t\tsuppressNavigation = event.metaKey || event.ctrlKey || (event.button === 1);\n\tif(this.actionScroll === \"yes\") {\n\t\tsuppressNavigation = false;\n\t} else if(this.actionScroll === \"no\") {\n\t\tsuppressNavigation = true;\n\t}\n\tthis.dispatchEvent({\n\t\ttype: \"tm-navigate\",\n\t\tnavigateTo: this.actionTo === undefined ? this.getVariable(\"currentTiddler\") : this.actionTo,\n\t\tnavigateFromTitle: this.getVariable(\"storyTiddler\"),\n\t\tnavigateFromNode: triggeringWidget,\n\t\tnavigateFromClientRect: bounds && { top: bounds.top, left: bounds.left, width: bounds.width, right: bounds.right, bottom: bounds.bottom, height: bounds.height\n\t\t},\n\t\tnavigateSuppressNavigation: suppressNavigation\n\t});\n\treturn true; // Action was invoked\n};\n\nexports[\"action-navigate\"] = NavigateWidget;\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "widget"
},
"$:/core/modules/widgets/action-sendmessage.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/widgets/action-sendmessage.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/widgets/action-sendmessage.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: widget\n\nAction widget to send a message\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nvar Widget = require(\"$:/core/modules/widgets/widget.js\").widget;\n\nvar SendMessageWidget = function(parseTreeNode,options) {\n\tthis.initialise(parseTreeNode,options);\n};\n\n/*\nInherit from the base widget class\n*/\nSendMessageWidget.prototype = new Widget();\n\n/*\nRender this widget into the DOM\n*/\nSendMessageWidget.prototype.render = function(parent,nextSibling) {\n\tthis.computeAttributes();\n\tthis.execute();\n};\n\n/*\nCompute the internal state of the widget\n*/\nSendMessageWidget.prototype.execute = function() {\n\tthis.actionMessage = this.getAttribute(\"$message\");\n\tthis.actionParam = this.getAttribute(\"$param\");\n\tthis.actionName = this.getAttribute(\"$name\");\n\tthis.actionValue = this.getAttribute(\"$value\",\"\");\n};\n\n/*\nRefresh the widget by ensuring our attributes are up to date\n*/\nSendMessageWidget.prototype.refresh = function(changedTiddlers) {\n\tvar changedAttributes = this.computeAttributes();\n\tif(Object.keys(changedAttributes).length) {\n\t\tthis.refreshSelf();\n\t\treturn true;\n\t}\n\treturn this.refreshChildren(changedTiddlers);\n};\n\n/*\nInvoke the action associated with this widget\n*/\nSendMessageWidget.prototype.invokeAction = function(triggeringWidget,event) {\n\t// Get the string parameter\n\tvar param = this.actionParam;\n\t// Assemble the attributes as a hashmap\n\tvar paramObject = Object.create(null);\n\tvar count = 0;\n\t$tw.utils.each(this.attributes,function(attribute,name) {\n\t\tif(name.charAt(0) !== \"$\") {\n\t\t\tparamObject[name] = attribute;\n\t\t\tcount++;\n\t\t}\n\t});\n\t// Add name/value pair if present\n\tif(this.actionName) {\n\t\tparamObject[this.actionName] = this.actionValue;\n\t}\n\t// Dispatch the message\n\tthis.dispatchEvent({\n\t\ttype: this.actionMessage,\n\t\tparam: param,\n\t\tparamObject: paramObject,\n\t\ttiddlerTitle: this.getVariable(\"currentTiddler\"),\n\t\tnavigateFromTitle: this.getVariable(\"storyTiddler\"),\n\t\tevent: event\n\t});\n\treturn true; // Action was invoked\n};\n\nexports[\"action-sendmessage\"] = SendMessageWidget;\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "widget"
},
"$:/core/modules/widgets/action-setfield.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/widgets/action-setfield.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/widgets/action-setfield.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: widget\n\nAction widget to set a single field or index on a tiddler.\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nvar Widget = require(\"$:/core/modules/widgets/widget.js\").widget;\n\nvar SetFieldWidget = function(parseTreeNode,options) {\n\tthis.initialise(parseTreeNode,options);\n};\n\n/*\nInherit from the base widget class\n*/\nSetFieldWidget.prototype = new Widget();\n\n/*\nRender this widget into the DOM\n*/\nSetFieldWidget.prototype.render = function(parent,nextSibling) {\n\tthis.computeAttributes();\n\tthis.execute();\n};\n\n/*\nCompute the internal state of the widget\n*/\nSetFieldWidget.prototype.execute = function() {\n\tthis.actionTiddler = this.getAttribute(\"$tiddler\",this.getVariable(\"currentTiddler\"));\n\tthis.actionField = this.getAttribute(\"$field\");\n\tthis.actionIndex = this.getAttribute(\"$index\");\n\tthis.actionValue = this.getAttribute(\"$value\");\n\tthis.actionTimestamp = this.getAttribute(\"$timestamp\",\"yes\") === \"yes\";\n};\n\n/*\nRefresh the widget by ensuring our attributes are up to date\n*/\nSetFieldWidget.prototype.refresh = function(changedTiddlers) {\n\tvar changedAttributes = this.computeAttributes();\n\tif(changedAttributes[\"$tiddler\"] || changedAttributes[\"$field\"] || changedAttributes[\"$index\"] || changedAttributes[\"$value\"]) {\n\t\tthis.refreshSelf();\n\t\treturn true;\n\t}\n\treturn this.refreshChildren(changedTiddlers);\n};\n\n/*\nInvoke the action associated with this widget\n*/\nSetFieldWidget.prototype.invokeAction = function(triggeringWidget,event) {\n\tvar self = this,\n\t\toptions = {};\n\toptions.suppressTimestamp = !this.actionTimestamp;\n\tif((typeof this.actionField == \"string\") || (typeof this.actionIndex == \"string\") || (typeof this.actionValue == \"string\")) {\n\t\tthis.wiki.setText(this.actionTiddler,this.actionField,this.actionIndex,this.actionValue,options);\n\t}\n\t$tw.utils.each(this.attributes,function(attribute,name) {\n\t\tif(name.charAt(0) !== \"$\") {\n\t\t\tself.wiki.setText(self.actionTiddler,name,undefined,attribute,options);\n\t\t}\n\t});\n\treturn true; // Action was invoked\n};\n\nexports[\"action-setfield\"] = SetFieldWidget;\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "widget"
},
"$:/core/modules/widgets/browse.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/widgets/browse.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/widgets/browse.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: widget\n\nBrowse widget for browsing for files to import\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nvar Widget = require(\"$:/core/modules/widgets/widget.js\").widget;\n\nvar BrowseWidget = function(parseTreeNode,options) {\n\tthis.initialise(parseTreeNode,options);\n};\n\n/*\nInherit from the base widget class\n*/\nBrowseWidget.prototype = new Widget();\n\n/*\nRender this widget into the DOM\n*/\nBrowseWidget.prototype.render = function(parent,nextSibling) {\n\tvar self = this;\n\t// Remember parent\n\tthis.parentDomNode = parent;\n\t// Compute attributes and execute state\n\tthis.computeAttributes();\n\tthis.execute();\n\t// Create element\n\tvar domNode = this.document.createElement(\"input\");\n\tdomNode.setAttribute(\"type\",\"file\");\n\tif(this.browseMultiple) {\n\t\tdomNode.setAttribute(\"multiple\",\"multiple\");\n\t}\n\tif(this.tooltip) {\n\t\tdomNode.setAttribute(\"title\",this.tooltip);\n\t}\n\t// Nw.js supports \"nwsaveas\" to force a \"save as\" dialogue that allows a new or existing file to be selected\n\tif(this.nwsaveas) {\n\t\tdomNode.setAttribute(\"nwsaveas\",this.nwsaveas);\n\t}\n\t// Nw.js supports \"webkitdirectory\" and \"nwdirectory\" to allow a directory to be selected\n\tif(this.webkitdirectory) {\n\t\tdomNode.setAttribute(\"webkitdirectory\",this.webkitdirectory);\n\t}\n\tif(this.nwdirectory) {\n\t\tdomNode.setAttribute(\"nwdirectory\",this.nwdirectory);\n\t}\n\t// Add a click event handler\n\tdomNode.addEventListener(\"change\",function (event) {\n\t\tif(self.message) {\n\t\t\tself.dispatchEvent({type: self.message, param: self.param, files: event.target.files});\n\t\t} else {\n\t\t\tself.wiki.readFiles(event.target.files,{\n\t\t\t\tcallback: function(tiddlerFieldsArray) {\n\t\t\t\t\tself.dispatchEvent({type: \"tm-import-tiddlers\", param: JSON.stringify(tiddlerFieldsArray)});\n\t\t\t\t},\n\t\t\t\tdeserializer: self.deserializer\n\t\t\t});\n\t\t}\n\t\treturn false;\n\t},false);\n\t// Insert element\n\tparent.insertBefore(domNode,nextSibling);\n\tthis.renderChildren(domNode,null);\n\tthis.domNodes.push(domNode);\n};\n\n/*\nCompute the internal state of the widget\n*/\nBrowseWidget.prototype.execute = function() {\n\tthis.browseMultiple = this.getAttribute(\"multiple\");\n\tthis.deserializer = this.getAttribute(\"deserializer\");\n\tthis.message = this.getAttribute(\"message\");\n\tthis.param = this.getAttribute(\"param\");\n\tthis.tooltip = this.getAttribute(\"tooltip\");\n\tthis.nwsaveas = this.getAttribute(\"nwsaveas\");\n\tthis.webkitdirectory = this.getAttribute(\"webkitdirectory\");\n\tthis.nwdirectory = this.getAttribute(\"nwdirectory\");\n};\n\n/*\nSelectively refreshes the widget if needed. Returns true if the widget or any of its children needed re-rendering\n*/\nBrowseWidget.prototype.refresh = function(changedTiddlers) {\n\treturn false;\n};\n\nexports.browse = BrowseWidget;\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "widget"
},
"$:/core/modules/widgets/button.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/widgets/button.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/widgets/button.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: widget\n\nButton widget\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nvar Widget = require(\"$:/core/modules/widgets/widget.js\").widget;\n\nvar ButtonWidget = function(parseTreeNode,options) {\n\tthis.initialise(parseTreeNode,options);\n};\n\n/*\nInherit from the base widget class\n*/\nButtonWidget.prototype = new Widget();\n\n/*\nRender this widget into the DOM\n*/\nButtonWidget.prototype.render = function(parent,nextSibling) {\n\tvar self = this;\n\t// Remember parent\n\tthis.parentDomNode = parent;\n\t// Compute attributes and execute state\n\tthis.computeAttributes();\n\tthis.execute();\n\t// Create element\n\tvar tag = \"button\";\n\tif(this.buttonTag && $tw.config.htmlUnsafeElements.indexOf(this.buttonTag) === -1) {\n\t\ttag = this.buttonTag;\n\t}\n\tvar domNode = this.document.createElement(tag);\n\t// Assign classes\n\tvar classes = this[\"class\"].split(\" \") || [],\n\t\tisPoppedUp = (this.popup || this.popupTitle) && this.isPoppedUp();\n\tif(this.selectedClass) {\n\t\tif((this.set || this.setTitle) && this.setTo && this.isSelected()) {\n\t\t\t$tw.utils.pushTop(classes,this.selectedClass.split(\" \"));\n\t\t}\n\t\tif(isPoppedUp) {\n\t\t\t$tw.utils.pushTop(classes,this.selectedClass.split(\" \"));\n\t\t}\n\t}\n\tif(isPoppedUp) {\n\t\t$tw.utils.pushTop(classes,\"tc-popup-handle\");\n\t}\n\tdomNode.className = classes.join(\" \");\n\t// Assign other attributes\n\tif(this.style) {\n\t\tdomNode.setAttribute(\"style\",this.style);\n\t}\n\tif(this.tooltip) {\n\t\tdomNode.setAttribute(\"title\",this.tooltip);\n\t}\n\tif(this[\"aria-label\"]) {\n\t\tdomNode.setAttribute(\"aria-label\",this[\"aria-label\"]);\n\t}\n\t// Add a click event handler\n\tdomNode.addEventListener(\"click\",function (event) {\n\t\tvar handled = false;\n\t\tif(self.invokeActions(self,event)) {\n\t\t\thandled = true;\n\t\t}\n\t\tif(self.to) {\n\t\t\tself.navigateTo(event);\n\t\t\thandled = true;\n\t\t}\n\t\tif(self.message) {\n\t\t\tself.dispatchMessage(event);\n\t\t\thandled = true;\n\t\t}\n\t\tif(self.popup || self.popupTitle) {\n\t\t\tself.triggerPopup(event);\n\t\t\thandled = true;\n\t\t}\n\t\tif(self.set || self.setTitle) {\n\t\t\tself.setTiddler();\n\t\t\thandled = true;\n\t\t}\n\t\tif(self.actions) {\n\t\t\tself.invokeActionString(self.actions,self,event);\n\t\t}\n\t\tif(handled) {\n\t\t\tevent.preventDefault();\n\t\t\tevent.stopPropagation();\n\t\t}\n\t\treturn handled;\n\t},false);\n\t// Make it draggable if required\n\tif(this.dragTiddler || this.dragFilter) {\n\t\t$tw.utils.makeDraggable({\n\t\t\tdomNode: domNode,\n\t\t\tdragTiddlerFn: function() {return self.dragTiddler;},\n\t\t\tdragFilterFn: function() {return self.dragFilter;},\n\t\t\twidget: this\n\t\t});\n\t}\n\t// Insert element\n\tparent.insertBefore(domNode,nextSibling);\n\tthis.renderChildren(domNode,null);\n\tthis.domNodes.push(domNode);\n};\n\n/*\nWe don't allow actions to propagate because we trigger actions ourselves\n*/\nButtonWidget.prototype.allowActionPropagation = function() {\n\treturn false;\n};\n\nButtonWidget.prototype.getBoundingClientRect = function() {\n\treturn this.domNodes[0].getBoundingClientRect();\n};\n\nButtonWidget.prototype.isSelected = function() {\n return this.setTitle ? (this.setField ? this.wiki.getTiddler(this.setTitle).getFieldString(this.setField) === this.setTo :\n\t\t(this.setIndex ? this.wiki.extractTiddlerDataItem(this.setTitle,this.setIndex) === this.setTo :\n\t\t\tthis.wiki.getTiddlerText(this.setTitle))) || this.defaultSetValue || this.getVariable(\"currentTiddler\") :\n\t\tthis.wiki.getTextReference(this.set,this.defaultSetValue,this.getVariable(\"currentTiddler\")) === this.setTo;\n};\n\nButtonWidget.prototype.isPoppedUp = function() {\n\tvar tiddler = this.popupTitle ? this.wiki.getTiddler(this.popupTitle) : this.wiki.getTiddler(this.popup);\n\tvar result = tiddler && tiddler.fields.text ? $tw.popup.readPopupState(tiddler.fields.text) : false;\n\treturn result;\n};\n\nButtonWidget.prototype.navigateTo = function(event) {\n\tvar bounds = this.getBoundingClientRect();\n\tthis.dispatchEvent({\n\t\ttype: \"tm-navigate\",\n\t\tnavigateTo: this.to,\n\t\tnavigateFromTitle: this.getVariable(\"storyTiddler\"),\n\t\tnavigateFromNode: this,\n\t\tnavigateFromClientRect: { top: bounds.top, left: bounds.left, width: bounds.width, right: bounds.right, bottom: bounds.bottom, height: bounds.height\n\t\t},\n\t\tnavigateSuppressNavigation: event.metaKey || event.ctrlKey || (event.button === 1),\n\t\tevent: event\n\t});\n};\n\nButtonWidget.prototype.dispatchMessage = function(event) {\n\tthis.dispatchEvent({type: this.message, param: this.param, tiddlerTitle: this.getVariable(\"currentTiddler\"), event: event});\n};\n\nButtonWidget.prototype.triggerPopup = function(event) {\n\tif(this.popupTitle) {\n\t\t$tw.popup.triggerPopup({\n\t\t\tdomNode: this.domNodes[0],\n\t\t\ttitle: this.popupTitle,\n\t\t\twiki: this.wiki,\n\t\t\tnoStateReference: true\n\t\t});\n\t} else {\n\t\t$tw.popup.triggerPopup({\n\t\t\tdomNode: this.domNodes[0],\n\t\t\ttitle: this.popup,\n\t\t\twiki: this.wiki\n\t\t});\n\t}\n};\n\nButtonWidget.prototype.setTiddler = function() {\n\tif(this.setTitle) {\n\t\tthis.setField ? this.wiki.setText(this.setTitle,this.setField,undefined,this.setTo) :\n\t\t\t\t(this.setIndex ? this.wiki.setText(this.setTitle,undefined,this.setIndex,this.setTo) :\n\t\t\t\tthis.wiki.setText(this.setTitle,\"text\",undefined,this.setTo));\n\t} else {\n\t\tthis.wiki.setTextReference(this.set,this.setTo,this.getVariable(\"currentTiddler\"));\n\t}\n};\n\n/*\nCompute the internal state of the widget\n*/\nButtonWidget.prototype.execute = function() {\n\t// Get attributes\n\tthis.actions = this.getAttribute(\"actions\");\n\tthis.to = this.getAttribute(\"to\");\n\tthis.message = this.getAttribute(\"message\");\n\tthis.param = this.getAttribute(\"param\");\n\tthis.set = this.getAttribute(\"set\");\n\tthis.setTo = this.getAttribute(\"setTo\");\n\tthis.popup = this.getAttribute(\"popup\");\n\tthis.hover = this.getAttribute(\"hover\");\n\tthis[\"class\"] = this.getAttribute(\"class\",\"\");\n\tthis[\"aria-label\"] = this.getAttribute(\"aria-label\");\n\tthis.tooltip = this.getAttribute(\"tooltip\");\n\tthis.style = this.getAttribute(\"style\");\n\tthis.selectedClass = this.getAttribute(\"selectedClass\");\n\tthis.defaultSetValue = this.getAttribute(\"default\",\"\");\n\tthis.buttonTag = this.getAttribute(\"tag\");\n\tthis.dragTiddler = this.getAttribute(\"dragTiddler\");\n\tthis.dragFilter = this.getAttribute(\"dragFilter\");\n\tthis.setTitle = this.getAttribute(\"setTitle\");\n\tthis.setField = this.getAttribute(\"setField\");\n\tthis.setIndex = this.getAttribute(\"setIndex\");\n\tthis.popupTitle = this.getAttribute(\"popupTitle\");\n\t// Make child widgets\n\tthis.makeChildWidgets();\n};\n\n/*\nSelectively refreshes the widget if needed. Returns true if the widget or any of its children needed re-rendering\n*/\nButtonWidget.prototype.refresh = function(changedTiddlers) {\n\tvar changedAttributes = this.computeAttributes();\n\tif(changedAttributes.to || changedAttributes.message || changedAttributes.param || changedAttributes.set || changedAttributes.setTo || changedAttributes.popup || changedAttributes.hover || changedAttributes[\"class\"] || changedAttributes.selectedClass || changedAttributes.style || changedAttributes.dragFilter || changedAttributes.dragTiddler || (this.set && changedTiddlers[this.set]) || (this.popup && changedTiddlers[this.popup]) || (this.popupTitle && changedTiddlers[this.popupTitle]) || changedAttributes.setTitle || changedAttributes.setField || changedAttributes.setIndex || changedAttributes.popupTitle) {\n\t\tthis.refreshSelf();\n\t\treturn true;\n\t}\n\treturn this.refreshChildren(changedTiddlers);\n};\n\nexports.button = ButtonWidget;\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "widget"
},
"$:/core/modules/widgets/checkbox.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/widgets/checkbox.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/widgets/checkbox.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: widget\n\nCheckbox widget\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nvar Widget = require(\"$:/core/modules/widgets/widget.js\").widget;\n\nvar CheckboxWidget = function(parseTreeNode,options) {\n\tthis.initialise(parseTreeNode,options);\n};\n\n/*\nInherit from the base widget class\n*/\nCheckboxWidget.prototype = new Widget();\n\n/*\nRender this widget into the DOM\n*/\nCheckboxWidget.prototype.render = function(parent,nextSibling) {\n\t// Save the parent dom node\n\tthis.parentDomNode = parent;\n\t// Compute our attributes\n\tthis.computeAttributes();\n\t// Execute our logic\n\tthis.execute();\n\t// Create our elements\n\tthis.labelDomNode = this.document.createElement(\"label\");\n\tthis.labelDomNode.setAttribute(\"class\",this.checkboxClass);\n\tthis.inputDomNode = this.document.createElement(\"input\");\n\tthis.inputDomNode.setAttribute(\"type\",\"checkbox\");\n\tif(this.getValue()) {\n\t\tthis.inputDomNode.setAttribute(\"checked\",\"true\");\n\t}\n\tthis.labelDomNode.appendChild(this.inputDomNode);\n\tthis.spanDomNode = this.document.createElement(\"span\");\n\tthis.labelDomNode.appendChild(this.spanDomNode);\n\t// Add a click event handler\n\t$tw.utils.addEventListeners(this.inputDomNode,[\n\t\t{name: \"change\", handlerObject: this, handlerMethod: \"handleChangeEvent\"}\n\t]);\n\t// Insert the label into the DOM and render any children\n\tparent.insertBefore(this.labelDomNode,nextSibling);\n\tthis.renderChildren(this.spanDomNode,null);\n\tthis.domNodes.push(this.labelDomNode);\n};\n\nCheckboxWidget.prototype.getValue = function() {\n\tvar tiddler = this.wiki.getTiddler(this.checkboxTitle);\n\tif(tiddler) {\n\t\tif(this.checkboxTag) {\n\t\t\tif(this.checkboxInvertTag) {\n\t\t\t\treturn !tiddler.hasTag(this.checkboxTag);\n\t\t\t} else {\n\t\t\t\treturn tiddler.hasTag(this.checkboxTag);\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t}\n\t\tif(this.checkboxField) {\n\t\t\tvar value;\n\t\t\tif($tw.utils.hop(tiddler.fields,this.checkboxField)) {\n\t\t\t\tvalue = tiddler.fields[this.checkboxField] || \"\";\n\t\t\t} else {\n\t\t\t\tvalue = this.checkboxDefault || \"\";\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t\tif(value === this.checkboxChecked) {\n\t\t\t\treturn true;\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t\tif(value === this.checkboxUnchecked) {\n\t\t\t\treturn false;\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t}\n\t\tif(this.checkboxIndex) {\n\t\t\tvar value = this.wiki.extractTiddlerDataItem(tiddler,this.checkboxIndex,this.checkboxDefault || \"\");\n\t\t\tif(value === this.checkboxChecked) {\n\t\t\t\treturn true;\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t\tif(value === this.checkboxUnchecked) {\n\t\t\t\treturn false;\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t}\n\t} else {\n\t\tif(this.checkboxTag) {\n\t\t\treturn false;\n\t\t}\n\t\tif(this.checkboxField) {\n\t\t\tif(this.checkboxDefault === this.checkboxChecked) {\n\t\t\t\treturn true;\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t\tif(this.checkboxDefault === this.checkboxUnchecked) {\n\t\t\t\treturn false;\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t}\n\t}\n\treturn false;\n};\n\nCheckboxWidget.prototype.handleChangeEvent = function(event) {\n\tvar checked = this.inputDomNode.checked,\n\t\ttiddler = this.wiki.getTiddler(this.checkboxTitle),\n\t\tfallbackFields = {text: \"\"},\n\t\tnewFields = {title: this.checkboxTitle},\n\t\thasChanged = false,\n\t\ttagCheck = false,\n\t\thasTag = tiddler && tiddler.hasTag(this.checkboxTag),\n\t\tvalue = checked ? this.checkboxChecked : this.checkboxUnchecked;\n\tif(this.checkboxTag && this.checkboxInvertTag === \"yes\") {\n\t\ttagCheck = hasTag === checked;\n\t} else {\n\t\ttagCheck = hasTag !== checked;\n\t}\n\t// Set the tag if specified\n\tif(this.checkboxTag && (!tiddler || tagCheck)) {\n\t\tnewFields.tags = tiddler ? (tiddler.fields.tags || []).slice(0) : [];\n\t\tvar pos = newFields.tags.indexOf(this.checkboxTag);\n\t\tif(pos !== -1) {\n\t\t\tnewFields.tags.splice(pos,1);\n\t\t}\n\t\tif(this.checkboxInvertTag === \"yes\" && !checked) {\n\t\t\tnewFields.tags.push(this.checkboxTag);\n\t\t} else if(this.checkboxInvertTag !== \"yes\" && checked) {\n\t\t\tnewFields.tags.push(this.checkboxTag);\n\t\t}\n\t\thasChanged = true;\n\t}\n\t// Set the field if specified\n\tif(this.checkboxField) {\n\t\tif(!tiddler || tiddler.fields[this.checkboxField] !== value) {\n\t\t\tnewFields[this.checkboxField] = value;\n\t\t\thasChanged = true;\n\t\t}\n\t}\n\t// Set the index if specified\n\tif(this.checkboxIndex) {\n\t\tvar indexValue = this.wiki.extractTiddlerDataItem(this.checkboxTitle,this.checkboxIndex);\n\t\tif(!tiddler || indexValue !== value) {\n\t\t\thasChanged = true;\n\t\t}\n\t}\n\tif(hasChanged) {\n\t\tif(this.checkboxIndex) {\n\t\t\tthis.wiki.setText(this.checkboxTitle,\"\",this.checkboxIndex,value);\n\t\t} else {\n\t\t\tthis.wiki.addTiddler(new $tw.Tiddler(this.wiki.getCreationFields(),fallbackFields,tiddler,newFields,this.wiki.getModificationFields()));\n\t\t}\n\t}\n\t// Trigger actions\n\tif(this.checkboxActions) {\n\t\tthis.invokeActionString(this.checkboxActions,this,event);\n\t}\n\tif(this.checkboxUncheckActions && !checked) {\n\t\tthis.invokeActionString(this.checkboxUncheckActions,this,event);\n\t}\n};\n\n/*\nCompute the internal state of the widget\n*/\nCheckboxWidget.prototype.execute = function() {\n\t// Get the parameters from the attributes\n\tthis.checkboxActions = this.getAttribute(\"actions\");\n\tthis.checkboxUncheckActions = this.getAttribute(\"uncheckactions\");\n\tthis.checkboxTitle = this.getAttribute(\"tiddler\",this.getVariable(\"currentTiddler\"));\n\tthis.checkboxTag = this.getAttribute(\"tag\");\n\tthis.checkboxField = this.getAttribute(\"field\");\n\tthis.checkboxIndex = this.getAttribute(\"index\");\n\tthis.checkboxChecked = this.getAttribute(\"checked\");\n\tthis.checkboxUnchecked = this.getAttribute(\"unchecked\");\n\tthis.checkboxDefault = this.getAttribute(\"default\");\n\tthis.checkboxClass = this.getAttribute(\"class\",\"\");\n\tthis.checkboxInvertTag = this.getAttribute(\"invertTag\",\"\");\n\t// Make the child widgets\n\tthis.makeChildWidgets();\n};\n\n/*\nSelectively refreshes the widget if needed. Returns true if the widget or any of its children needed re-rendering\n*/\nCheckboxWidget.prototype.refresh = function(changedTiddlers) {\n\tvar changedAttributes = this.computeAttributes();\n\tif(changedAttributes.tiddler || changedAttributes.tag || changedAttributes.invertTag || changedAttributes.field || changedAttributes.index || changedAttributes.checked || changedAttributes.unchecked || changedAttributes[\"default\"] || changedAttributes[\"class\"]) {\n\t\tthis.refreshSelf();\n\t\treturn true;\n\t} else {\n\t\tvar refreshed = false;\n\t\tif(changedTiddlers[this.checkboxTitle]) {\n\t\t\tthis.inputDomNode.checked = this.getValue();\n\t\t\trefreshed = true;\n\t\t}\n\t\treturn this.refreshChildren(changedTiddlers) || refreshed;\n\t}\n};\n\nexports.checkbox = CheckboxWidget;\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "widget"
},
"$:/core/modules/widgets/codeblock.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/widgets/codeblock.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/widgets/codeblock.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: widget\n\nCode block node widget\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nvar Widget = require(\"$:/core/modules/widgets/widget.js\").widget;\n\nvar CodeBlockWidget = function(parseTreeNode,options) {\n\tthis.initialise(parseTreeNode,options);\n};\n\n/*\nInherit from the base widget class\n*/\nCodeBlockWidget.prototype = new Widget();\n\n/*\nRender this widget into the DOM\n*/\nCodeBlockWidget.prototype.render = function(parent,nextSibling) {\n\tthis.parentDomNode = parent;\n\tthis.computeAttributes();\n\tthis.execute();\n\tvar codeNode = this.document.createElement(\"code\"),\n\t\tdomNode = this.document.createElement(\"pre\");\n\tcodeNode.appendChild(this.document.createTextNode(this.getAttribute(\"code\")));\n\tdomNode.appendChild(codeNode);\n\tparent.insertBefore(domNode,nextSibling);\n\tthis.domNodes.push(domNode);\n\tif(this.postRender) {\n\t\tthis.postRender();\n\t}\n};\n\n/*\nCompute the internal state of the widget\n*/\nCodeBlockWidget.prototype.execute = function() {\n\tthis.language = this.getAttribute(\"language\");\n};\n\n/*\nSelectively refreshes the widget if needed. Returns true if the widget or any of its children needed re-rendering\n*/\nCodeBlockWidget.prototype.refresh = function(changedTiddlers) {\n\treturn false;\n};\n\nexports.codeblock = CodeBlockWidget;\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "widget"
},
"$:/core/modules/widgets/count.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/widgets/count.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/widgets/count.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: widget\n\nCount widget\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nvar Widget = require(\"$:/core/modules/widgets/widget.js\").widget;\n\nvar CountWidget = function(parseTreeNode,options) {\n\tthis.initialise(parseTreeNode,options);\n};\n\n/*\nInherit from the base widget class\n*/\nCountWidget.prototype = new Widget();\n\n/*\nRender this widget into the DOM\n*/\nCountWidget.prototype.render = function(parent,nextSibling) {\n\tthis.parentDomNode = parent;\n\tthis.computeAttributes();\n\tthis.execute();\n\tvar textNode = this.document.createTextNode(this.currentCount);\n\tparent.insertBefore(textNode,nextSibling);\n\tthis.domNodes.push(textNode);\n};\n\n/*\nCompute the internal state of the widget\n*/\nCountWidget.prototype.execute = function() {\n\t// Get parameters from our attributes\n\tthis.filter = this.getAttribute(\"filter\");\n\t// Execute the filter\n\tif(this.filter) {\n\t\tthis.currentCount = this.wiki.filterTiddlers(this.filter,this).length;\n\t} else {\n\t\tthis.currentCount = undefined;\n\t}\n};\n\n/*\nSelectively refreshes the widget if needed. Returns true if the widget or any of its children needed re-rendering\n*/\nCountWidget.prototype.refresh = function(changedTiddlers) {\n\t// Re-execute the filter to get the count\n\tthis.computeAttributes();\n\tvar oldCount = this.currentCount;\n\tthis.execute();\n\tif(this.currentCount !== oldCount) {\n\t\t// Regenerate and rerender the widget and replace the existing DOM node\n\t\tthis.refreshSelf();\n\t\treturn true;\n\t} else {\n\t\treturn false;\n\t}\n\n};\n\nexports.count = CountWidget;\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "widget"
},
"$:/core/modules/widgets/diff-text.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/widgets/diff-text.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/widgets/diff-text.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: widget\n\nWidget to display a diff between two texts\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nvar Widget = require(\"$:/core/modules/widgets/widget.js\").widget,\n\tdmp = require(\"$:/core/modules/utils/diff-match-patch/diff_match_patch.js\");\n\nvar DiffTextWidget = function(parseTreeNode,options) {\n\tthis.initialise(parseTreeNode,options);\n};\n\n/*\nInherit from the base widget class\n*/\nDiffTextWidget.prototype = new Widget();\n\nDiffTextWidget.prototype.invisibleCharacters = {\n\t\"\\n\": \"↩︎\\n\",\n\t\"\\r\": \"⇠\",\n\t\"\\t\": \"⇥\\t\"\n};\n\n/*\nRender this widget into the DOM\n*/\nDiffTextWidget.prototype.render = function(parent,nextSibling) {\n\tthis.parentDomNode = parent;\n\tthis.computeAttributes();\n\tthis.execute();\n\t// Create the diff\n\tvar dmpObject = new dmp.diff_match_patch(),\n\t\tdiffs = dmpObject.diff_main(this.getAttribute(\"source\"),this.getAttribute(\"dest\"));\n\t// Apply required cleanup\n\tswitch(this.getAttribute(\"cleanup\",\"semantic\")) {\n\t\tcase \"none\":\n\t\t\t// No cleanup\n\t\t\tbreak;\n\t\tcase \"efficiency\":\n\t\t\tdmpObject.diff_cleanupEfficiency(diffs);\n\t\t\tbreak;\n\t\tdefault: // case \"semantic\"\n\t\t\tdmpObject.diff_cleanupSemantic(diffs);\n\t\t\tbreak;\n\t}\n\t// Create the elements\n\tvar domContainer = this.document.createElement(\"div\"), \n\t\tdomDiff = this.createDiffDom(diffs);\n\tparent.insertBefore(domContainer,nextSibling);\n\t// Set variables\n\tthis.setVariable(\"diff-count\",diffs.reduce(function(acc,diff) {\n\t\tif(diff[0] !== dmp.DIFF_EQUAL) {\n\t\t\tacc++;\n\t\t}\n\t\treturn acc;\n\t},0).toString());\n\t// Render child widgets\n\tthis.renderChildren(domContainer,null);\n\t// Render the diff\n\tdomContainer.appendChild(domDiff);\n\t// Save our container\n\tthis.domNodes.push(domContainer);\n};\n\n/*\nCreate DOM elements representing a list of diffs\n*/\nDiffTextWidget.prototype.createDiffDom = function(diffs) {\n\tvar self = this;\n\t// Create the element and assign the attributes\n\tvar domPre = this.document.createElement(\"pre\"),\n\t\tdomCode = this.document.createElement(\"code\");\n\t$tw.utils.each(diffs,function(diff) {\n\t\tvar tag = diff[0] === dmp.DIFF_INSERT ? \"ins\" : (diff[0] === dmp.DIFF_DELETE ? \"del\" : \"span\"),\n\t\t\tclassName = diff[0] === dmp.DIFF_INSERT ? \"tc-diff-insert\" : (diff[0] === dmp.DIFF_DELETE ? \"tc-diff-delete\" : \"tc-diff-equal\"),\n\t\t\tdom = self.document.createElement(tag),\n\t\t\ttext = diff[1],\n\t\t\tcurrPos = 0,\n\t\t\tre = /([\\x00-\\x1F])/mg,\n\t\t\tmatch = re.exec(text),\n\t\t\tspan,\n\t\t\tprintable;\n\t\tdom.className = className;\n\t\twhile(match) {\n\t\t\tif(currPos < match.index) {\n\t\t\t\tdom.appendChild(self.document.createTextNode(text.slice(currPos,match.index)));\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t\tspan = self.document.createElement(\"span\");\n\t\t\tspan.className = \"tc-diff-invisible\";\n\t\t\tprintable = self.invisibleCharacters[match[0]] || (\"[0x\" + match[0].charCodeAt(0).toString(16) + \"]\");\n\t\t\tspan.appendChild(self.document.createTextNode(printable));\n\t\t\tdom.appendChild(span);\n\t\t\tcurrPos = match.index + match[0].length;\n\t\t\tmatch = re.exec(text);\n\t\t}\n\t\tif(currPos < text.length) {\n\t\t\tdom.appendChild(self.document.createTextNode(text.slice(currPos)));\n\t\t}\n\t\tdomCode.appendChild(dom);\n\t});\n\tdomPre.appendChild(domCode);\n\treturn domPre;\n};\n\n/*\nCompute the internal state of the widget\n*/\nDiffTextWidget.prototype.execute = function() {\n\t// Make child widgets\n\tvar parseTreeNodes;\n\tif(this.parseTreeNode && this.parseTreeNode.children && this.parseTreeNode.children.length > 0) {\n\t\tparseTreeNodes = this.parseTreeNode.children;\n\t} else {\n\t\tparseTreeNodes = [{\n\t\t\ttype: \"transclude\",\n\t\t\tattributes: {\n\t\t\t\ttiddler: {type: \"string\", value: \"$:/language/Diffs/CountMessage\"}\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t}];\n\t}\n\tthis.makeChildWidgets(parseTreeNodes);\n};\n\n/*\nSelectively refreshes the widget if needed. Returns true if the widget or any of its children needed re-rendering\n*/\nDiffTextWidget.prototype.refresh = function(changedTiddlers) {\n\tvar changedAttributes = this.computeAttributes();\n\tif(changedAttributes.source || changedAttributes.dest || changedAttributes.cleanup) {\n\t\tthis.refreshSelf();\n\t\treturn true;\n\t} else {\n\t\treturn this.refreshChildren(changedTiddlers);\n\t}\n};\n\nexports[\"diff-text\"] = DiffTextWidget;\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "widget"
},
"$:/core/modules/widgets/draggable.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/widgets/draggable.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/widgets/draggable.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: widget\n\nDraggable widget\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nvar Widget = require(\"$:/core/modules/widgets/widget.js\").widget;\n\nvar DraggableWidget = function(parseTreeNode,options) {\n\tthis.initialise(parseTreeNode,options);\n};\n\n/*\nInherit from the base widget class\n*/\nDraggableWidget.prototype = new Widget();\n\n/*\nRender this widget into the DOM\n*/\nDraggableWidget.prototype.render = function(parent,nextSibling) {\n\tvar self = this;\n\t// Save the parent dom node\n\tthis.parentDomNode = parent;\n\t// Compute our attributes\n\tthis.computeAttributes();\n\t// Execute our logic\n\tthis.execute();\n\t// Sanitise the specified tag\n\tvar tag = this.draggableTag;\n\tif($tw.config.htmlUnsafeElements.indexOf(tag) !== -1) {\n\t\ttag = \"div\";\n\t}\n\t// Create our element\n\tvar domNode = this.document.createElement(tag);\n\t// Assign classes\n\tvar classes = [\"tc-draggable\"];\n\tif(this.draggableClasses) {\n\t\tclasses.push(this.draggableClasses);\n\t}\n\tdomNode.setAttribute(\"class\",classes.join(\" \"));\n\t// Add event handlers\n\t$tw.utils.makeDraggable({\n\t\tdomNode: domNode,\n\t\tdragTiddlerFn: function() {return self.getAttribute(\"tiddler\");},\n\t\tdragFilterFn: function() {return self.getAttribute(\"filter\");},\n\t\tstartActions: self.startActions,\n\t\tendActions: self.endActions,\n\t\twidget: this\n\t});\n\t// Insert the link into the DOM and render any children\n\tparent.insertBefore(domNode,nextSibling);\n\tthis.renderChildren(domNode,null);\n\tthis.domNodes.push(domNode);\n};\n\n/*\nCompute the internal state of the widget\n*/\nDraggableWidget.prototype.execute = function() {\n\t// Pick up our attributes\n\tthis.draggableTag = this.getAttribute(\"tag\",\"div\");\n\tthis.draggableClasses = this.getAttribute(\"class\");\n\tthis.startActions = this.getAttribute(\"startactions\");\n\tthis.endActions = this.getAttribute(\"endactions\");\n\t// Make the child widgets\n\tthis.makeChildWidgets();\n};\n\n/*\nSelectively refreshes the widget if needed. Returns true if the widget or any of its children needed re-rendering\n*/\nDraggableWidget.prototype.refresh = function(changedTiddlers) {\n\tvar changedAttributes = this.computeAttributes();\n\tif(changedTiddlers.tag || changedTiddlers[\"class\"]) {\n\t\tthis.refreshSelf();\n\t\treturn true;\n\t}\n\treturn this.refreshChildren(changedTiddlers);\n};\n\nexports.draggable = DraggableWidget;\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "widget"
},
"$:/core/modules/widgets/droppable.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/widgets/droppable.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/widgets/droppable.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: widget\n\nDroppable widget\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nvar Widget = require(\"$:/core/modules/widgets/widget.js\").widget;\n\nvar DroppableWidget = function(parseTreeNode,options) {\n\tthis.initialise(parseTreeNode,options);\n};\n\n/*\nInherit from the base widget class\n*/\nDroppableWidget.prototype = new Widget();\n\n/*\nRender this widget into the DOM\n*/\nDroppableWidget.prototype.render = function(parent,nextSibling) {\n\tvar self = this;\n\t// Remember parent\n\tthis.parentDomNode = parent;\n\t// Compute attributes and execute state\n\tthis.computeAttributes();\n\tthis.execute();\n\tvar tag = this.parseTreeNode.isBlock ? \"div\" : \"span\";\n\tif(this.droppableTag && $tw.config.htmlUnsafeElements.indexOf(this.droppableTag) === -1) {\n\t\ttag = this.droppableTag;\n\t}\n\t// Create element and assign classes\n\tvar domNode = this.document.createElement(tag),\n\t\tclasses = (this[\"class\"] || \"\").split(\" \");\n\tclasses.push(\"tc-droppable\");\n\tdomNode.className = classes.join(\" \");\n\t// Add event handlers\n\t$tw.utils.addEventListeners(domNode,[\n\t\t{name: \"dragenter\", handlerObject: this, handlerMethod: \"handleDragEnterEvent\"},\n\t\t{name: \"dragover\", handlerObject: this, handlerMethod: \"handleDragOverEvent\"},\n\t\t{name: \"dragleave\", handlerObject: this, handlerMethod: \"handleDragLeaveEvent\"},\n\t\t{name: \"drop\", handlerObject: this, handlerMethod: \"handleDropEvent\"}\n\t]);\n\t// Insert element\n\tparent.insertBefore(domNode,nextSibling);\n\tthis.renderChildren(domNode,null);\n\tthis.domNodes.push(domNode);\n\t// Stack of outstanding enter/leave events\n\tthis.currentlyEntered = [];\n};\n\nDroppableWidget.prototype.enterDrag = function(event) {\n\tif(this.currentlyEntered.indexOf(event.target) === -1) {\n\t\tthis.currentlyEntered.push(event.target);\n\t}\n\t// If we're entering for the first time we need to apply highlighting\n\t$tw.utils.addClass(this.domNodes[0],\"tc-dragover\");\n};\n\nDroppableWidget.prototype.leaveDrag = function(event) {\n\tvar pos = this.currentlyEntered.indexOf(event.target);\n\tif(pos !== -1) {\n\t\tthis.currentlyEntered.splice(pos,1);\n\t}\n\t// Remove highlighting if we're leaving externally. The hacky second condition is to resolve a problem with Firefox whereby there is an erroneous dragenter event if the node being dragged is within the dropzone\n\tif(this.currentlyEntered.length === 0 || (this.currentlyEntered.length === 1 && this.currentlyEntered[0] === $tw.dragInProgress)) {\n\t\tthis.currentlyEntered = [];\n\t\t$tw.utils.removeClass(this.domNodes[0],\"tc-dragover\");\n\t}\n};\n\nDroppableWidget.prototype.handleDragEnterEvent = function(event) {\n\tthis.enterDrag(event);\n\t// Tell the browser that we're ready to handle the drop\n\tevent.preventDefault();\n\t// Tell the browser not to ripple the drag up to any parent drop handlers\n\tevent.stopPropagation();\n\treturn false;\n};\n\nDroppableWidget.prototype.handleDragOverEvent = function(event) {\n\t// Check for being over a TEXTAREA or INPUT\n\tif([\"TEXTAREA\",\"INPUT\"].indexOf(event.target.tagName) !== -1) {\n\t\treturn false;\n\t}\n\t// Tell the browser that we're still interested in the drop\n\tevent.preventDefault();\n\t// Set the drop effect\n\tevent.dataTransfer.dropEffect = this.droppableEffect;\n\treturn false;\n};\n\nDroppableWidget.prototype.handleDragLeaveEvent = function(event) {\n\tthis.leaveDrag(event);\n\treturn false;\n};\n\nDroppableWidget.prototype.handleDropEvent = function(event) {\n\tvar self = this;\n\tthis.leaveDrag(event);\n\t// Check for being over a TEXTAREA or INPUT\n\tif([\"TEXTAREA\",\"INPUT\"].indexOf(event.target.tagName) !== -1) {\n\t\treturn false;\n\t}\n\tvar dataTransfer = event.dataTransfer;\n\t// Remove highlighting\n\t$tw.utils.removeClass(this.domNodes[0],\"tc-dragover\");\n\t// Try to import the various data types we understand\n\t$tw.utils.importDataTransfer(dataTransfer,null,function(fieldsArray) {\n\t\tfieldsArray.forEach(function(fields) {\n\t\t\tself.performActions(fields.title || fields.text,event);\n\t\t});\n\t});\n\t// Tell the browser that we handled the drop\n\tevent.preventDefault();\n\t// Stop the drop ripple up to any parent handlers\n\tevent.stopPropagation();\n\treturn false;\n};\n\nDroppableWidget.prototype.performActions = function(title,event) {\n\tif(this.droppableActions) {\n\t\tvar modifierKey = event.ctrlKey && ! event.shiftKey ? \"ctrl\" : event.shiftKey && !event.ctrlKey ? \"shift\" : \n\t\t\t\tevent.ctrlKey && event.shiftKey ? \"ctrl-shift\" : \"normal\" ;\n\t\tthis.invokeActionString(this.droppableActions,this,event,{actionTiddler: title, modifier: modifierKey});\n\t}\n};\n\n/*\nCompute the internal state of the widget\n*/\nDroppableWidget.prototype.execute = function() {\n\tthis.droppableActions = this.getAttribute(\"actions\");\n\tthis.droppableEffect = this.getAttribute(\"effect\",\"copy\");\n\tthis.droppableTag = this.getAttribute(\"tag\");\n\tthis.droppableClass = this.getAttribute(\"class\");\n\t// Make child widgets\n\tthis.makeChildWidgets();\n};\n\n/*\nSelectively refreshes the widget if needed. Returns true if the widget or any of its children needed re-rendering\n*/\nDroppableWidget.prototype.refresh = function(changedTiddlers) {\n\tvar changedAttributes = this.computeAttributes();\n\tif(changedAttributes[\"class\"] || changedAttributes.tag) {\n\t\tthis.refreshSelf();\n\t\treturn true;\n\t}\n\treturn this.refreshChildren(changedTiddlers);\n};\n\nexports.droppable = DroppableWidget;\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "widget"
},
"$:/core/modules/widgets/dropzone.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/widgets/dropzone.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/widgets/dropzone.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: widget\n\nDropzone widget\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nvar Widget = require(\"$:/core/modules/widgets/widget.js\").widget;\n\nvar DropZoneWidget = function(parseTreeNode,options) {\n\tthis.initialise(parseTreeNode,options);\n};\n\n/*\nInherit from the base widget class\n*/\nDropZoneWidget.prototype = new Widget();\n\n/*\nRender this widget into the DOM\n*/\nDropZoneWidget.prototype.render = function(parent,nextSibling) {\n\tvar self = this;\n\t// Remember parent\n\tthis.parentDomNode = parent;\n\t// Compute attributes and execute state\n\tthis.computeAttributes();\n\tthis.execute();\n\t// Create element\n\tvar domNode = this.document.createElement(\"div\");\n\tdomNode.className = \"tc-dropzone\";\n\t// Add event handlers\n\t$tw.utils.addEventListeners(domNode,[\n\t\t{name: \"dragenter\", handlerObject: this, handlerMethod: \"handleDragEnterEvent\"},\n\t\t{name: \"dragover\", handlerObject: this, handlerMethod: \"handleDragOverEvent\"},\n\t\t{name: \"dragleave\", handlerObject: this, handlerMethod: \"handleDragLeaveEvent\"},\n\t\t{name: \"drop\", handlerObject: this, handlerMethod: \"handleDropEvent\"},\n\t\t{name: \"paste\", handlerObject: this, handlerMethod: \"handlePasteEvent\"}\n\t]);\n\tdomNode.addEventListener(\"click\",function (event) {\n\t},false);\n\t// Insert element\n\tparent.insertBefore(domNode,nextSibling);\n\tthis.renderChildren(domNode,null);\n\tthis.domNodes.push(domNode);\n\t// Stack of outstanding enter/leave events\n\tthis.currentlyEntered = [];\n};\n\nDropZoneWidget.prototype.enterDrag = function(event) {\n\tif(this.currentlyEntered.indexOf(event.target) === -1) {\n\t\tthis.currentlyEntered.push(event.target);\n\t}\n\t// If we're entering for the first time we need to apply highlighting\n\t$tw.utils.addClass(this.domNodes[0],\"tc-dragover\");\n};\n\nDropZoneWidget.prototype.leaveDrag = function(event) {\n\tvar pos = this.currentlyEntered.indexOf(event.target);\n\tif(pos !== -1) {\n\t\tthis.currentlyEntered.splice(pos,1);\n\t}\n\t// Remove highlighting if we're leaving externally\n\tif(this.currentlyEntered.length === 0) {\n\t\t$tw.utils.removeClass(this.domNodes[0],\"tc-dragover\");\n\t}\n};\n\nDropZoneWidget.prototype.handleDragEnterEvent = function(event) {\n\t// Check for this window being the source of the drag\n\tif($tw.dragInProgress) {\n\t\treturn false;\n\t}\n\tthis.enterDrag(event);\n\t// Tell the browser that we're ready to handle the drop\n\tevent.preventDefault();\n\t// Tell the browser not to ripple the drag up to any parent drop handlers\n\tevent.stopPropagation();\n};\n\nDropZoneWidget.prototype.handleDragOverEvent = function(event) {\n\t// Check for being over a TEXTAREA or INPUT\n\tif([\"TEXTAREA\",\"INPUT\"].indexOf(event.target.tagName) !== -1) {\n\t\treturn false;\n\t}\n\t// Check for this window being the source of the drag\n\tif($tw.dragInProgress) {\n\t\treturn false;\n\t}\n\t// Tell the browser that we're still interested in the drop\n\tevent.preventDefault();\n\tevent.dataTransfer.dropEffect = \"copy\"; // Explicitly show this is a copy\n};\n\nDropZoneWidget.prototype.handleDragLeaveEvent = function(event) {\n\tthis.leaveDrag(event);\n};\n\nDropZoneWidget.prototype.handleDropEvent = function(event) {\n\tvar self = this,\n\t\treadFileCallback = function(tiddlerFieldsArray) {\n\t\t\tself.dispatchEvent({type: \"tm-import-tiddlers\", param: JSON.stringify(tiddlerFieldsArray)});\n\t\t};\n\tthis.leaveDrag(event);\n\t// Check for being over a TEXTAREA or INPUT\n\tif([\"TEXTAREA\",\"INPUT\"].indexOf(event.target.tagName) !== -1) {\n\t\treturn false;\n\t}\n\t// Check for this window being the source of the drag\n\tif($tw.dragInProgress) {\n\t\treturn false;\n\t}\n\tvar self = this,\n\t\tdataTransfer = event.dataTransfer;\n\t// Remove highlighting\n\t$tw.utils.removeClass(this.domNodes[0],\"tc-dragover\");\n\t// Import any files in the drop\n\tvar numFiles = 0;\n\tif(dataTransfer.files) {\n\t\tnumFiles = this.wiki.readFiles(dataTransfer.files,{\n\t\t\tcallback: readFileCallback,\n\t\t\tdeserializer: this.dropzoneDeserializer\n\t\t});\n\t}\n\t// Try to import the various data types we understand\n\tif(numFiles === 0) {\n\t\t$tw.utils.importDataTransfer(dataTransfer,this.wiki.generateNewTitle(\"Untitled\"),readFileCallback);\n\t}\n\t// Tell the browser that we handled the drop\n\tevent.preventDefault();\n\t// Stop the drop ripple up to any parent handlers\n\tevent.stopPropagation();\n};\n\nDropZoneWidget.prototype.handlePasteEvent = function(event) {\n\tvar self = this,\n\t\treadFileCallback = function(tiddlerFieldsArray) {\n\t\t\tself.dispatchEvent({type: \"tm-import-tiddlers\", param: JSON.stringify(tiddlerFieldsArray)});\n\t\t};\n\t// Let the browser handle it if we're in a textarea or input box\n\tif([\"TEXTAREA\",\"INPUT\"].indexOf(event.target.tagName) == -1 && !event.target.isContentEditable) {\n\t\tvar self = this,\n\t\t\titems = event.clipboardData.items;\n\t\t// Enumerate the clipboard items\n\t\tfor(var t = 0; t<items.length; t++) {\n\t\t\tvar item = items[t];\n\t\t\tif(item.kind === \"file\") {\n\t\t\t\t// Import any files\n\t\t\t\tthis.wiki.readFile(item.getAsFile(),{\n\t\t\t\t\tcallback: readFileCallback,\n\t\t\t\t\tdeserializer: this.dropzoneDeserializer\n\t\t\t\t});\n\t\t\t} else if(item.kind === \"string\") {\n\t\t\t\t// Create tiddlers from string items\n\t\t\t\tvar type = item.type;\n\t\t\t\titem.getAsString(function(str) {\n\t\t\t\t\tvar tiddlerFields = {\n\t\t\t\t\t\ttitle: self.wiki.generateNewTitle(\"Untitled\"),\n\t\t\t\t\t\ttext: str,\n\t\t\t\t\t\ttype: type\n\t\t\t\t\t};\n\t\t\t\t\tif($tw.log.IMPORT) {\n\t\t\t\t\t\tconsole.log(\"Importing string '\" + str + \"', type: '\" + type + \"'\");\n\t\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t\t\tself.dispatchEvent({type: \"tm-import-tiddlers\", param: JSON.stringify([tiddlerFields])});\n\t\t\t\t});\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t}\n\t\t// Tell the browser that we've handled the paste\n\t\tevent.stopPropagation();\n\t\tevent.preventDefault();\n\t}\n};\n\n/*\nCompute the internal state of the widget\n*/\nDropZoneWidget.prototype.execute = function() {\n\tthis.dropzoneDeserializer = this.getAttribute(\"deserializer\");\n\t// Make child widgets\n\tthis.makeChildWidgets();\n};\n\n/*\nSelectively refreshes the widget if needed. Returns true if the widget or any of its children needed re-rendering\n*/\nDropZoneWidget.prototype.refresh = function(changedTiddlers) {\n\treturn this.refreshChildren(changedTiddlers);\n};\n\nexports.dropzone = DropZoneWidget;\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "widget"
},
"$:/core/modules/widgets/edit-binary.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/widgets/edit-binary.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/widgets/edit-binary.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: widget\n\nEdit-binary widget; placeholder for editing binary tiddlers\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nvar BINARY_WARNING_MESSAGE = \"$:/core/ui/BinaryWarning\";\n\nvar Widget = require(\"$:/core/modules/widgets/widget.js\").widget;\n\nvar EditBinaryWidget = function(parseTreeNode,options) {\n\tthis.initialise(parseTreeNode,options);\n};\n\n/*\nInherit from the base widget class\n*/\nEditBinaryWidget.prototype = new Widget();\n\n/*\nRender this widget into the DOM\n*/\nEditBinaryWidget.prototype.render = function(parent,nextSibling) {\n\tvar self = this;\n\t// Save the parent dom node\n\tthis.parentDomNode = parent;\n\t// Compute our attributes\n\tthis.computeAttributes();\n\t// Execute our logic\n\tthis.execute();\n\tthis.renderChildren(parent,nextSibling);\n};\n\n/*\nCompute the internal state of the widget\n*/\nEditBinaryWidget.prototype.execute = function() {\n\t// Construct the child widgets\n\tthis.makeChildWidgets([{\n\t\ttype: \"transclude\",\n\t\tattributes: {\n\t\t\ttiddler: {type: \"string\", value: BINARY_WARNING_MESSAGE}\n\t\t}\n\t}]);\n};\n\n/*\nRefresh by refreshing our child widget\n*/\nEditBinaryWidget.prototype.refresh = function(changedTiddlers) {\n\treturn this.refreshChildren(changedTiddlers);\n};\n\nexports[\"edit-binary\"] = EditBinaryWidget;\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "widget"
},
"$:/core/modules/widgets/edit-bitmap.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/widgets/edit-bitmap.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/widgets/edit-bitmap.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: widget\n\nEdit-bitmap widget\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\n// Default image sizes\nvar DEFAULT_IMAGE_WIDTH = 600,\n\tDEFAULT_IMAGE_HEIGHT = 370;\n\n// Configuration tiddlers\nvar LINE_WIDTH_TITLE = \"$:/config/BitmapEditor/LineWidth\",\n\tLINE_COLOUR_TITLE = \"$:/config/BitmapEditor/Colour\",\n\tLINE_OPACITY_TITLE = \"$:/config/BitmapEditor/Opacity\";\n\nvar Widget = require(\"$:/core/modules/widgets/widget.js\").widget;\n\nvar EditBitmapWidget = function(parseTreeNode,options) {\n\t// Initialise the editor operations if they've not been done already\n\tif(!this.editorOperations) {\n\t\tEditBitmapWidget.prototype.editorOperations = {};\n\t\t$tw.modules.applyMethods(\"bitmapeditoroperation\",this.editorOperations);\n\t}\n\tthis.initialise(parseTreeNode,options);\n};\n\n/*\nInherit from the base widget class\n*/\nEditBitmapWidget.prototype = new Widget();\n\n/*\nRender this widget into the DOM\n*/\nEditBitmapWidget.prototype.render = function(parent,nextSibling) {\n\tvar self = this;\n\t// Save the parent dom node\n\tthis.parentDomNode = parent;\n\t// Compute our attributes\n\tthis.computeAttributes();\n\t// Execute our logic\n\tthis.execute();\n\t// Create the wrapper for the toolbar and render its content\n\tthis.toolbarNode = this.document.createElement(\"div\");\n\tthis.toolbarNode.className = \"tc-editor-toolbar\";\n\tparent.insertBefore(this.toolbarNode,nextSibling);\n\tthis.domNodes.push(this.toolbarNode);\n\t// Create the on-screen canvas\n\tthis.canvasDomNode = $tw.utils.domMaker(\"canvas\",{\n\t\tdocument: this.document,\n\t\t\"class\":\"tc-edit-bitmapeditor\",\n\t\teventListeners: [{\n\t\t\tname: \"touchstart\", handlerObject: this, handlerMethod: \"handleTouchStartEvent\"\n\t\t},{\n\t\t\tname: \"touchmove\", handlerObject: this, handlerMethod: \"handleTouchMoveEvent\"\n\t\t},{\n\t\t\tname: \"touchend\", handlerObject: this, handlerMethod: \"handleTouchEndEvent\"\n\t\t},{\n\t\t\tname: \"mousedown\", handlerObject: this, handlerMethod: \"handleMouseDownEvent\"\n\t\t},{\n\t\t\tname: \"mousemove\", handlerObject: this, handlerMethod: \"handleMouseMoveEvent\"\n\t\t},{\n\t\t\tname: \"mouseup\", handlerObject: this, handlerMethod: \"handleMouseUpEvent\"\n\t\t}]\n\t});\n\t// Set the width and height variables\n\tthis.setVariable(\"tv-bitmap-editor-width\",this.canvasDomNode.width + \"px\");\n\tthis.setVariable(\"tv-bitmap-editor-height\",this.canvasDomNode.height + \"px\");\n\t// Render toolbar child widgets\n\tthis.renderChildren(this.toolbarNode,null);\n\t// // Insert the elements into the DOM\n\tparent.insertBefore(this.canvasDomNode,nextSibling);\n\tthis.domNodes.push(this.canvasDomNode);\n\t// Load the image into the canvas\n\tif($tw.browser) {\n\t\tthis.loadCanvas();\n\t}\n\t// Add widget message listeners\n\tthis.addEventListeners([\n\t\t{type: \"tm-edit-bitmap-operation\", handler: \"handleEditBitmapOperationMessage\"}\n\t]);\n};\n\n/*\nHandle an edit bitmap operation message from the toolbar\n*/\nEditBitmapWidget.prototype.handleEditBitmapOperationMessage = function(event) {\n\t// Invoke the handler\n\tvar handler = this.editorOperations[event.param];\n\tif(handler) {\n\t\thandler.call(this,event);\n\t}\n};\n\n/*\nCompute the internal state of the widget\n*/\nEditBitmapWidget.prototype.execute = function() {\n\t// Get our parameters\n\tthis.editTitle = this.getAttribute(\"tiddler\",this.getVariable(\"currentTiddler\"));\n\t// Make the child widgets\n\tthis.makeChildWidgets();\n};\n\n/*\nJust refresh the toolbar\n*/\nEditBitmapWidget.prototype.refresh = function(changedTiddlers) {\n\treturn this.refreshChildren(changedTiddlers);\n};\n\n/*\nSet the bitmap size variables and refresh the toolbar\n*/\nEditBitmapWidget.prototype.refreshToolbar = function() {\n\t// Set the width and height variables\n\tthis.setVariable(\"tv-bitmap-editor-width\",this.canvasDomNode.width + \"px\");\n\tthis.setVariable(\"tv-bitmap-editor-height\",this.canvasDomNode.height + \"px\");\n\t// Refresh each of our child widgets\n\t$tw.utils.each(this.children,function(childWidget) {\n\t\tchildWidget.refreshSelf();\n\t});\n};\n\nEditBitmapWidget.prototype.loadCanvas = function() {\n\tvar tiddler = this.wiki.getTiddler(this.editTitle),\n\t\tcurrImage = new Image();\n\t// Set up event handlers for loading the image\n\tvar self = this;\n\tcurrImage.onload = function() {\n\t\t// Copy the image to the on-screen canvas\n\t\tself.initCanvas(self.canvasDomNode,currImage.width,currImage.height,currImage);\n\t\t// And also copy the current bitmap to the off-screen canvas\n\t\tself.currCanvas = self.document.createElement(\"canvas\");\n\t\tself.initCanvas(self.currCanvas,currImage.width,currImage.height,currImage);\n\t\t// Set the width and height input boxes\n\t\tself.refreshToolbar();\n\t};\n\tcurrImage.onerror = function() {\n\t\t// Set the on-screen canvas size and clear it\n\t\tself.initCanvas(self.canvasDomNode,DEFAULT_IMAGE_WIDTH,DEFAULT_IMAGE_HEIGHT);\n\t\t// Set the off-screen canvas size and clear it\n\t\tself.currCanvas = self.document.createElement(\"canvas\");\n\t\tself.initCanvas(self.currCanvas,DEFAULT_IMAGE_WIDTH,DEFAULT_IMAGE_HEIGHT);\n\t\t// Set the width and height input boxes\n\t\tself.refreshToolbar();\n\t};\n\t// Get the current bitmap into an image object\n\tcurrImage.src = \"data:\" + tiddler.fields.type + \";base64,\" + tiddler.fields.text;\n};\n\nEditBitmapWidget.prototype.initCanvas = function(canvas,width,height,image) {\n\tcanvas.width = width;\n\tcanvas.height = height;\n\tvar ctx = canvas.getContext(\"2d\");\n\tif(image) {\n\t\tctx.drawImage(image,0,0);\n\t} else {\n\t\tctx.fillStyle = \"#fff\";\n\t\tctx.fillRect(0,0,canvas.width,canvas.height);\n\t}\n};\n\n/*\n** Change the size of the canvas, preserving the current image\n*/\nEditBitmapWidget.prototype.changeCanvasSize = function(newWidth,newHeight) {\n\t// Create and size a new canvas\n\tvar newCanvas = this.document.createElement(\"canvas\");\n\tthis.initCanvas(newCanvas,newWidth,newHeight);\n\t// Copy the old image\n\tvar ctx = newCanvas.getContext(\"2d\");\n\tctx.drawImage(this.currCanvas,0,0);\n\t// Set the new canvas as the current one\n\tthis.currCanvas = newCanvas;\n\t// Set the size of the onscreen canvas\n\tthis.canvasDomNode.width = newWidth;\n\tthis.canvasDomNode.height = newHeight;\n\t// Paint the onscreen canvas with the offscreen canvas\n\tctx = this.canvasDomNode.getContext(\"2d\");\n\tctx.drawImage(this.currCanvas,0,0);\n};\n\n/*\n** Rotate the canvas left by 90 degrees\n*/\nEditBitmapWidget.prototype.rotateCanvasLeft = function() {\n\t// Get the current size of the image\n\tvar origWidth = this.currCanvas.width,\n\t\torigHeight = this.currCanvas.height;\n\t// Create and size a new canvas\n\tvar newCanvas = this.document.createElement(\"canvas\"),\n\t\tnewWidth = origHeight,\n\t\tnewHeight = origWidth;\n\tthis.initCanvas(newCanvas,newWidth,newHeight);\n\t// Copy the old image\n\tvar ctx = newCanvas.getContext(\"2d\");\n\tctx.save();\n\tctx.translate(newWidth / 2,newHeight / 2);\n\tctx.rotate(-Math.PI / 2);\n\tctx.drawImage(this.currCanvas,-origWidth / 2,-origHeight / 2);\n\tctx.restore();\n\t// Set the new canvas as the current one\n\tthis.currCanvas = newCanvas;\n\t// Set the size of the onscreen canvas\n\tthis.canvasDomNode.width = newWidth;\n\tthis.canvasDomNode.height = newHeight;\n\t// Paint the onscreen canvas with the offscreen canvas\n\tctx = this.canvasDomNode.getContext(\"2d\");\n\tctx.drawImage(this.currCanvas,0,0);\n};\n\nEditBitmapWidget.prototype.handleTouchStartEvent = function(event) {\n\tthis.brushDown = true;\n\tthis.strokeStart(event.touches[0].clientX,event.touches[0].clientY);\n\tevent.preventDefault();\n\tevent.stopPropagation();\n\treturn false;\n};\n\nEditBitmapWidget.prototype.handleTouchMoveEvent = function(event) {\n\tif(this.brushDown) {\n\t\tthis.strokeMove(event.touches[0].clientX,event.touches[0].clientY);\n\t}\n\tevent.preventDefault();\n\tevent.stopPropagation();\n\treturn false;\n};\n\nEditBitmapWidget.prototype.handleTouchEndEvent = function(event) {\n\tif(this.brushDown) {\n\t\tthis.brushDown = false;\n\t\tthis.strokeEnd();\n\t}\n\tevent.preventDefault();\n\tevent.stopPropagation();\n\treturn false;\n};\n\nEditBitmapWidget.prototype.handleMouseDownEvent = function(event) {\n\tthis.strokeStart(event.clientX,event.clientY);\n\tthis.brushDown = true;\n\tevent.preventDefault();\n\tevent.stopPropagation();\n\treturn false;\n};\n\nEditBitmapWidget.prototype.handleMouseMoveEvent = function(event) {\n\tif(this.brushDown) {\n\t\tthis.strokeMove(event.clientX,event.clientY);\n\t\tevent.preventDefault();\n\t\tevent.stopPropagation();\n\t\treturn false;\n\t}\n\treturn true;\n};\n\nEditBitmapWidget.prototype.handleMouseUpEvent = function(event) {\n\tif(this.brushDown) {\n\t\tthis.brushDown = false;\n\t\tthis.strokeEnd();\n\t\tevent.preventDefault();\n\t\tevent.stopPropagation();\n\t\treturn false;\n\t}\n\treturn true;\n};\n\nEditBitmapWidget.prototype.adjustCoordinates = function(x,y) {\n\tvar canvasRect = this.canvasDomNode.getBoundingClientRect(),\n\t\tscale = this.canvasDomNode.width/canvasRect.width;\n\treturn {x: (x - canvasRect.left) * scale, y: (y - canvasRect.top) * scale};\n};\n\nEditBitmapWidget.prototype.strokeStart = function(x,y) {\n\t// Start off a new stroke\n\tthis.stroke = [this.adjustCoordinates(x,y)];\n};\n\nEditBitmapWidget.prototype.strokeMove = function(x,y) {\n\tvar ctx = this.canvasDomNode.getContext(\"2d\"),\n\t\tt;\n\t// Add the new position to the end of the stroke\n\tthis.stroke.push(this.adjustCoordinates(x,y));\n\t// Redraw the previous image\n\tctx.drawImage(this.currCanvas,0,0);\n\t// Render the stroke\n\tctx.globalAlpha = parseFloat(this.wiki.getTiddlerText(LINE_OPACITY_TITLE,\"1.0\"));\n\tctx.strokeStyle = this.wiki.getTiddlerText(LINE_COLOUR_TITLE,\"#ff0\");\n\tctx.lineWidth = parseFloat(this.wiki.getTiddlerText(LINE_WIDTH_TITLE,\"3\"));\n\tctx.lineCap = \"round\";\n\tctx.lineJoin = \"round\";\n\tctx.beginPath();\n\tctx.moveTo(this.stroke[0].x,this.stroke[0].y);\n\tfor(t=1; t<this.stroke.length-1; t++) {\n\t\tvar s1 = this.stroke[t],\n\t\t\ts2 = this.stroke[t-1],\n\t\t\ttx = (s1.x + s2.x)/2,\n\t\t\tty = (s1.y + s2.y)/2;\n\t\tctx.quadraticCurveTo(s2.x,s2.y,tx,ty);\n\t}\n\tctx.stroke();\n};\n\nEditBitmapWidget.prototype.strokeEnd = function() {\n\t// Copy the bitmap to the off-screen canvas\n\tvar ctx = this.currCanvas.getContext(\"2d\");\n\tctx.drawImage(this.canvasDomNode,0,0);\n\t// Save the image into the tiddler\n\tthis.saveChanges();\n};\n\nEditBitmapWidget.prototype.saveChanges = function() {\n\tvar tiddler = this.wiki.getTiddler(this.editTitle);\n\tif(tiddler) {\n\t\t// data URIs look like \"data:<type>;base64,<text>\"\n\t\tvar dataURL = this.canvasDomNode.toDataURL(tiddler.fields.type),\n\t\t\tposColon = dataURL.indexOf(\":\"),\n\t\t\tposSemiColon = dataURL.indexOf(\";\"),\n\t\t\tposComma = dataURL.indexOf(\",\"),\n\t\t\ttype = dataURL.substring(posColon+1,posSemiColon),\n\t\t\ttext = dataURL.substring(posComma+1);\n\t\tvar update = {type: type, text: text};\n\t\tthis.wiki.addTiddler(new $tw.Tiddler(this.wiki.getModificationFields(),tiddler,update,this.wiki.getCreationFields()));\n\t}\n};\n\nexports[\"edit-bitmap\"] = EditBitmapWidget;\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "widget"
},
"$:/core/modules/widgets/edit-shortcut.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/widgets/edit-shortcut.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/widgets/edit-shortcut.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: widget\n\nWidget to display an editable keyboard shortcut\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nvar Widget = require(\"$:/core/modules/widgets/widget.js\").widget;\n\nvar EditShortcutWidget = function(parseTreeNode,options) {\n\tthis.initialise(parseTreeNode,options);\n};\n\n/*\nInherit from the base widget class\n*/\nEditShortcutWidget.prototype = new Widget();\n\n/*\nRender this widget into the DOM\n*/\nEditShortcutWidget.prototype.render = function(parent,nextSibling) {\n\tthis.parentDomNode = parent;\n\tthis.computeAttributes();\n\tthis.execute();\n\tthis.inputNode = this.document.createElement(\"input\");\n\t// Assign classes\n\tif(this.shortcutClass) {\n\t\tthis.inputNode.className = this.shortcutClass;\t\t\n\t}\n\t// Assign other attributes\n\tif(this.shortcutStyle) {\n\t\tthis.inputNode.setAttribute(\"style\",this.shortcutStyle);\n\t}\n\tif(this.shortcutTooltip) {\n\t\tthis.inputNode.setAttribute(\"title\",this.shortcutTooltip);\n\t}\n\tif(this.shortcutPlaceholder) {\n\t\tthis.inputNode.setAttribute(\"placeholder\",this.shortcutPlaceholder);\n\t}\n\tif(this.shortcutAriaLabel) {\n\t\tthis.inputNode.setAttribute(\"aria-label\",this.shortcutAriaLabel);\n\t}\n\t// Assign the current shortcut\n\tthis.updateInputNode();\n\t// Add event handlers\n\t$tw.utils.addEventListeners(this.inputNode,[\n\t\t{name: \"keydown\", handlerObject: this, handlerMethod: \"handleKeydownEvent\"}\n\t]);\n\t// Link into the DOM\n\tparent.insertBefore(this.inputNode,nextSibling);\n\tthis.domNodes.push(this.inputNode);\n};\n\n/*\nCompute the internal state of the widget\n*/\nEditShortcutWidget.prototype.execute = function() {\n\tthis.shortcutTiddler = this.getAttribute(\"tiddler\");\n\tthis.shortcutField = this.getAttribute(\"field\");\n\tthis.shortcutIndex = this.getAttribute(\"index\");\n\tthis.shortcutPlaceholder = this.getAttribute(\"placeholder\");\n\tthis.shortcutDefault = this.getAttribute(\"default\",\"\");\n\tthis.shortcutClass = this.getAttribute(\"class\");\n\tthis.shortcutStyle = this.getAttribute(\"style\");\n\tthis.shortcutTooltip = this.getAttribute(\"tooltip\");\n\tthis.shortcutAriaLabel = this.getAttribute(\"aria-label\");\n};\n\n/*\nUpdate the value of the input node\n*/\nEditShortcutWidget.prototype.updateInputNode = function() {\n\tif(this.shortcutField) {\n\t\tvar tiddler = this.wiki.getTiddler(this.shortcutTiddler);\n\t\tif(tiddler && $tw.utils.hop(tiddler.fields,this.shortcutField)) {\n\t\t\tthis.inputNode.value = tiddler.getFieldString(this.shortcutField);\n\t\t} else {\n\t\t\tthis.inputNode.value = this.shortcutDefault;\n\t\t}\n\t} else if(this.shortcutIndex) {\n\t\tthis.inputNode.value = this.wiki.extractTiddlerDataItem(this.shortcutTiddler,this.shortcutIndex,this.shortcutDefault);\n\t} else {\n\t\tthis.inputNode.value = this.wiki.getTiddlerText(this.shortcutTiddler,this.shortcutDefault);\n\t}\n};\n\n/*\nHandle a dom \"keydown\" event\n*/\nEditShortcutWidget.prototype.handleKeydownEvent = function(event) {\n\t// Ignore shift, ctrl, meta, alt\n\tif(event.keyCode && $tw.keyboardManager.getModifierKeys().indexOf(event.keyCode) === -1) {\n\t\t// Get the shortcut text representation\n\t\tvar value = $tw.keyboardManager.getPrintableShortcuts([{\n\t\t\tctrlKey: event.ctrlKey,\n\t\t\tshiftKey: event.shiftKey,\n\t\t\taltKey: event.altKey,\n\t\t\tmetaKey: event.metaKey,\n\t\t\tkeyCode: event.keyCode\n\t\t}]);\n\t\tif(value.length > 0) {\n\t\t\tthis.wiki.setText(this.shortcutTiddler,this.shortcutField,this.shortcutIndex,value[0]);\n\t\t}\n\t\t// Ignore the keydown if it was already handled\n\t\tevent.preventDefault();\n\t\tevent.stopPropagation();\n\t\treturn true;\t\t\n\t} else {\n\t\treturn false;\n\t}\n};\n\n/*\nSelectively refreshes the widget if needed. Returns true if the widget needed re-rendering\n*/\nEditShortcutWidget.prototype.refresh = function(changedTiddlers) {\n\tvar changedAttributes = this.computeAttributes();\n\tif(changedAttributes.tiddler || changedAttributes.field || changedAttributes.index || changedAttributes.placeholder || changedAttributes[\"default\"] || changedAttributes[\"class\"] || changedAttributes.style || changedAttributes.tooltip || changedAttributes[\"aria-label\"]) {\n\t\tthis.refreshSelf();\n\t\treturn true;\n\t} else if(changedTiddlers[this.shortcutTiddler]) {\n\t\tthis.updateInputNode();\n\t\treturn true;\n\t} else {\n\t\treturn false;\t\n\t}\n};\n\nexports[\"edit-shortcut\"] = EditShortcutWidget;\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "widget"
},
"$:/core/modules/widgets/edit-text.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/widgets/edit-text.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/widgets/edit-text.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: widget\n\nEdit-text widget\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nvar editTextWidgetFactory = require(\"$:/core/modules/editor/factory.js\").editTextWidgetFactory,\n\tFramedEngine = require(\"$:/core/modules/editor/engines/framed.js\").FramedEngine,\n\tSimpleEngine = require(\"$:/core/modules/editor/engines/simple.js\").SimpleEngine;\n\nexports[\"edit-text\"] = editTextWidgetFactory(FramedEngine,SimpleEngine);\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "widget"
},
"$:/core/modules/widgets/edit.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/widgets/edit.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/widgets/edit.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: widget\n\nEdit widget is a meta-widget chooses the appropriate actual editting widget\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nvar Widget = require(\"$:/core/modules/widgets/widget.js\").widget;\n\nvar EditWidget = function(parseTreeNode,options) {\n\tthis.initialise(parseTreeNode,options);\n};\n\n/*\nInherit from the base widget class\n*/\nEditWidget.prototype = new Widget();\n\n/*\nRender this widget into the DOM\n*/\nEditWidget.prototype.render = function(parent,nextSibling) {\n\tthis.parentDomNode = parent;\n\tthis.computeAttributes();\n\tthis.execute();\n\tthis.renderChildren(parent,nextSibling);\n};\n\n// Mappings from content type to editor type are stored in tiddlers with this prefix\nvar EDITOR_MAPPING_PREFIX = \"$:/config/EditorTypeMappings/\";\n\n/*\nCompute the internal state of the widget\n*/\nEditWidget.prototype.execute = function() {\n\t// Get our parameters\n\tthis.editTitle = this.getAttribute(\"tiddler\",this.getVariable(\"currentTiddler\"));\n\tthis.editField = this.getAttribute(\"field\",\"text\");\n\tthis.editIndex = this.getAttribute(\"index\");\n\tthis.editClass = this.getAttribute(\"class\");\n\tthis.editPlaceholder = this.getAttribute(\"placeholder\");\n\t// Choose the appropriate edit widget\n\tthis.editorType = this.getEditorType();\n\t// Make the child widgets\n\tthis.makeChildWidgets([{\n\t\ttype: \"edit-\" + this.editorType,\n\t\tattributes: {\n\t\t\ttiddler: {type: \"string\", value: this.editTitle},\n\t\t\tfield: {type: \"string\", value: this.editField},\n\t\t\tindex: {type: \"string\", value: this.editIndex},\n\t\t\t\"class\": {type: \"string\", value: this.editClass},\n\t\t\t\"placeholder\": {type: \"string\", value: this.editPlaceholder}\n\t\t},\n\t\tchildren: this.parseTreeNode.children\n\t}]);\n};\n\nEditWidget.prototype.getEditorType = function() {\n\t// Get the content type of the thing we're editing\n\tvar type;\n\tif(this.editField === \"text\") {\n\t\tvar tiddler = this.wiki.getTiddler(this.editTitle);\n\t\tif(tiddler) {\n\t\t\ttype = tiddler.fields.type;\n\t\t}\n\t}\n\ttype = type || \"text/vnd.tiddlywiki\";\n\tvar editorType = this.wiki.getTiddlerText(EDITOR_MAPPING_PREFIX + type);\n\tif(!editorType) {\n\t\tvar typeInfo = $tw.config.contentTypeInfo[type];\n\t\tif(typeInfo && typeInfo.encoding === \"base64\") {\n\t\t\teditorType = \"binary\";\n\t\t} else {\n\t\t\teditorType = \"text\";\n\t\t}\n\t}\n\treturn editorType;\n};\n\n/*\nSelectively refreshes the widget if needed. Returns true if the widget or any of its children needed re-rendering\n*/\nEditWidget.prototype.refresh = function(changedTiddlers) {\n\tvar changedAttributes = this.computeAttributes();\n\t// Refresh if an attribute has changed, or the type associated with the target tiddler has changed\n\tif(changedAttributes.tiddler || changedAttributes.field || changedAttributes.index || (changedTiddlers[this.editTitle] && this.getEditorType() !== this.editorType)) {\n\t\tthis.refreshSelf();\n\t\treturn true;\n\t} else {\n\t\treturn this.refreshChildren(changedTiddlers);\t\t\n\t}\n};\n\nexports.edit = EditWidget;\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "widget"
},
"$:/core/modules/widgets/element.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/widgets/element.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/widgets/element.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: widget\n\nElement widget\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nvar Widget = require(\"$:/core/modules/widgets/widget.js\").widget;\n\nvar ElementWidget = function(parseTreeNode,options) {\n\tthis.initialise(parseTreeNode,options);\n};\n\n/*\nInherit from the base widget class\n*/\nElementWidget.prototype = new Widget();\n\n/*\nRender this widget into the DOM\n*/\nElementWidget.prototype.render = function(parent,nextSibling) {\n\tthis.parentDomNode = parent;\n\tthis.computeAttributes();\n\tthis.execute();\n\t// Neuter blacklisted elements\n\tvar tag = this.parseTreeNode.tag;\n\tif($tw.config.htmlUnsafeElements.indexOf(tag) !== -1) {\n\t\ttag = \"safe-\" + tag;\n\t}\n\t// Adjust headings by the current base level\n\tvar headingLevel = [\"h1\",\"h2\",\"h3\",\"h4\",\"h5\",\"h6\"].indexOf(tag);\n\tif(headingLevel !== -1) {\n\t\tvar baseLevel = parseInt(this.getVariable(\"tv-adjust-heading-level\",\"0\"),10) || 0;\n\t\theadingLevel = Math.min(Math.max(headingLevel + 1 + baseLevel,1),6);\n\t\ttag = \"h\" + headingLevel;\n\t}\n\t// Create the DOM node\n\tvar domNode = this.document.createElementNS(this.namespace,tag);\n\tthis.assignAttributes(domNode,{excludeEventAttributes: true});\n\tparent.insertBefore(domNode,nextSibling);\n\tthis.renderChildren(domNode,null);\n\tthis.domNodes.push(domNode);\n};\n\n/*\nCompute the internal state of the widget\n*/\nElementWidget.prototype.execute = function() {\n\t// Select the namespace for the tag\n\tvar tagNamespaces = {\n\t\t\tsvg: \"http://www.w3.org/2000/svg\",\n\t\t\tmath: \"http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML\",\n\t\t\tbody: \"http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml\"\n\t\t};\n\tthis.namespace = tagNamespaces[this.parseTreeNode.tag];\n\tif(this.namespace) {\n\t\tthis.setVariable(\"namespace\",this.namespace);\n\t} else {\n\t\tthis.namespace = this.getVariable(\"namespace\",{defaultValue: \"http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml\"});\n\t}\n\t// Make the child widgets\n\tthis.makeChildWidgets();\n};\n\n/*\nSelectively refreshes the widget if needed. Returns true if the widget or any of its children needed re-rendering\n*/\nElementWidget.prototype.refresh = function(changedTiddlers) {\n\tvar changedAttributes = this.computeAttributes(),\n\t\thasChangedAttributes = $tw.utils.count(changedAttributes) > 0;\n\tif(hasChangedAttributes) {\n\t\t// Update our attributes\n\t\tthis.assignAttributes(this.domNodes[0],{excludeEventAttributes: true});\n\t}\n\treturn this.refreshChildren(changedTiddlers) || hasChangedAttributes;\n};\n\nexports.element = ElementWidget;\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "widget"
},
"$:/core/modules/widgets/encrypt.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/widgets/encrypt.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/widgets/encrypt.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: widget\n\nEncrypt widget\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nvar Widget = require(\"$:/core/modules/widgets/widget.js\").widget;\n\nvar EncryptWidget = function(parseTreeNode,options) {\n\tthis.initialise(parseTreeNode,options);\n};\n\n/*\nInherit from the base widget class\n*/\nEncryptWidget.prototype = new Widget();\n\n/*\nRender this widget into the DOM\n*/\nEncryptWidget.prototype.render = function(parent,nextSibling) {\n\tthis.parentDomNode = parent;\n\tthis.computeAttributes();\n\tthis.execute();\n\tvar textNode = this.document.createTextNode(this.encryptedText);\n\tparent.insertBefore(textNode,nextSibling);\n\tthis.domNodes.push(textNode);\n};\n\n/*\nCompute the internal state of the widget\n*/\nEncryptWidget.prototype.execute = function() {\n\t// Get parameters from our attributes\n\tthis.filter = this.getAttribute(\"filter\",\"[!is[system]]\");\n\t// Encrypt the filtered tiddlers\n\tvar tiddlers = this.wiki.filterTiddlers(this.filter),\n\t\tjson = {},\n\t\tself = this;\n\t$tw.utils.each(tiddlers,function(title) {\n\t\tvar tiddler = self.wiki.getTiddler(title),\n\t\t\tjsonTiddler = {};\n\t\tfor(var f in tiddler.fields) {\n\t\t\tjsonTiddler[f] = tiddler.getFieldString(f);\n\t\t}\n\t\tjson[title] = jsonTiddler;\n\t});\n\tthis.encryptedText = $tw.utils.htmlEncode($tw.crypto.encrypt(JSON.stringify(json)));\n};\n\n/*\nSelectively refreshes the widget if needed. Returns true if the widget or any of its children needed re-rendering\n*/\nEncryptWidget.prototype.refresh = function(changedTiddlers) {\n\t// We don't need to worry about refreshing because the encrypt widget isn't for interactive use\n\treturn false;\n};\n\nexports.encrypt = EncryptWidget;\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "widget"
},
"$:/core/modules/widgets/entity.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/widgets/entity.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/widgets/entity.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: widget\n\nHTML entity widget\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nvar Widget = require(\"$:/core/modules/widgets/widget.js\").widget;\n\nvar EntityWidget = function(parseTreeNode,options) {\n\tthis.initialise(parseTreeNode,options);\n};\n\n/*\nInherit from the base widget class\n*/\nEntityWidget.prototype = new Widget();\n\n/*\nRender this widget into the DOM\n*/\nEntityWidget.prototype.render = function(parent,nextSibling) {\n\tthis.parentDomNode = parent;\n\tthis.execute();\n\tvar entityString = this.getAttribute(\"entity\",this.parseTreeNode.entity || \"\"),\n\t\ttextNode = this.document.createTextNode($tw.utils.entityDecode(entityString));\n\tparent.insertBefore(textNode,nextSibling);\n\tthis.domNodes.push(textNode);\n};\n\n/*\nCompute the internal state of the widget\n*/\nEntityWidget.prototype.execute = function() {\n};\n\n/*\nSelectively refreshes the widget if needed. Returns true if the widget or any of its children needed re-rendering\n*/\nEntityWidget.prototype.refresh = function(changedTiddlers) {\n\tvar changedAttributes = this.computeAttributes();\n\tif(changedAttributes.entity) {\n\t\tthis.refreshSelf();\n\t\treturn true;\n\t} else {\n\t\treturn false;\t\n\t}\n};\n\nexports.entity = EntityWidget;\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "widget"
},
"$:/core/modules/widgets/fieldmangler.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/widgets/fieldmangler.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/widgets/fieldmangler.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: widget\n\nField mangler widget\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nvar Widget = require(\"$:/core/modules/widgets/widget.js\").widget;\n\nvar FieldManglerWidget = function(parseTreeNode,options) {\n\tthis.initialise(parseTreeNode,options);\n\tthis.addEventListeners([\n\t\t{type: \"tm-remove-field\", handler: \"handleRemoveFieldEvent\"},\n\t\t{type: \"tm-add-field\", handler: \"handleAddFieldEvent\"},\n\t\t{type: \"tm-remove-tag\", handler: \"handleRemoveTagEvent\"},\n\t\t{type: \"tm-add-tag\", handler: \"handleAddTagEvent\"}\n\t]);\n};\n\n/*\nInherit from the base widget class\n*/\nFieldManglerWidget.prototype = new Widget();\n\n/*\nRender this widget into the DOM\n*/\nFieldManglerWidget.prototype.render = function(parent,nextSibling) {\n\tthis.parentDomNode = parent;\n\tthis.computeAttributes();\n\tthis.execute();\n\tthis.renderChildren(parent,nextSibling);\n};\n\n/*\nCompute the internal state of the widget\n*/\nFieldManglerWidget.prototype.execute = function() {\n\t// Get our parameters\n\tthis.mangleTitle = this.getAttribute(\"tiddler\",this.getVariable(\"currentTiddler\"));\n\t// Construct the child widgets\n\tthis.makeChildWidgets();\n};\n\n/*\nSelectively refreshes the widget if needed. Returns true if the widget or any of its children needed re-rendering\n*/\nFieldManglerWidget.prototype.refresh = function(changedTiddlers) {\n\tvar changedAttributes = this.computeAttributes();\n\tif(changedAttributes.tiddler) {\n\t\tthis.refreshSelf();\n\t\treturn true;\n\t} else {\n\t\treturn this.refreshChildren(changedTiddlers);\t\t\n\t}\n};\n\nFieldManglerWidget.prototype.handleRemoveFieldEvent = function(event) {\n\tvar tiddler = this.wiki.getTiddler(this.mangleTitle),\n\t\tdeletion = {};\n\tdeletion[event.param] = undefined;\n\tthis.wiki.addTiddler(new $tw.Tiddler(tiddler,deletion));\n\treturn true;\n};\n\nFieldManglerWidget.prototype.handleAddFieldEvent = function(event) {\n\tvar tiddler = this.wiki.getTiddler(this.mangleTitle),\n\t\taddition = this.wiki.getModificationFields(),\n\t\thadInvalidFieldName = false,\n\t\taddField = function(name,value) {\n\t\t\tvar trimmedName = name.toLowerCase().trim();\n\t\t\tif(!$tw.utils.isValidFieldName(trimmedName)) {\n\t\t\t\tif(!hadInvalidFieldName) {\n\t\t\t\t\talert($tw.language.getString(\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\"InvalidFieldName\",\n\t\t\t\t\t\t{variables:\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t{fieldName: trimmedName}\n\t\t\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t\t\t));\n\t\t\t\t\thadInvalidFieldName = true;\n\t\t\t\t\treturn;\n\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t} else {\n\t\t\t\tif(!value && tiddler) {\n\t\t\t\t\tvalue = tiddler.fields[trimmedName];\n\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t\taddition[trimmedName] = value || \"\";\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t\treturn;\n\t\t};\n\taddition.title = this.mangleTitle;\n\tif(typeof event.param === \"string\") {\n\t\taddField(event.param,\"\");\n\t}\n\tif(typeof event.paramObject === \"object\") {\n\t\tfor(var name in event.paramObject) {\n\t\t\taddField(name,event.paramObject[name]);\n\t\t}\n\t}\n\tthis.wiki.addTiddler(new $tw.Tiddler(tiddler,addition));\n\treturn true;\n};\n\nFieldManglerWidget.prototype.handleRemoveTagEvent = function(event) {\n\tvar tiddler = this.wiki.getTiddler(this.mangleTitle),\n\t\tmodification = this.wiki.getModificationFields();\n\tif(tiddler && tiddler.fields.tags) {\n\t\tvar p = tiddler.fields.tags.indexOf(event.param);\n\t\tif(p !== -1) {\n\t\t\tmodification.tags = (tiddler.fields.tags || []).slice(0);\n\t\t\tmodification.tags.splice(p,1);\n\t\t\tif(modification.tags.length === 0) {\n\t\t\t\tmodification.tags = undefined;\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t\tthis.wiki.addTiddler(new $tw.Tiddler(tiddler,modification));\n\t\t}\n\t}\n\treturn true;\n};\n\nFieldManglerWidget.prototype.handleAddTagEvent = function(event) {\n\tvar tiddler = this.wiki.getTiddler(this.mangleTitle),\n\t\tmodification = this.wiki.getModificationFields();\n\tif(tiddler && typeof event.param === \"string\") {\n\t\tvar tag = event.param.trim();\n\t\tif(tag !== \"\") {\n\t\t\tmodification.tags = (tiddler.fields.tags || []).slice(0);\n\t\t\t$tw.utils.pushTop(modification.tags,tag);\n\t\t\tthis.wiki.addTiddler(new $tw.Tiddler(tiddler,modification));\t\t\t\n\t\t}\n\t} else if(typeof event.param === \"string\" && event.param.trim() !== \"\" && this.mangleTitle.trim() !== \"\") {\n\t\tvar tag = [];\n\t\ttag.push(event.param.trim());\n\t\tthis.wiki.addTiddler(new $tw.Tiddler({title: this.mangleTitle, tags: tag},modification));\n\t}\n\treturn true;\n};\n\nexports.fieldmangler = FieldManglerWidget;\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "widget"
},
"$:/core/modules/widgets/fields.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/widgets/fields.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/widgets/fields.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: widget\n\nFields widget\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nvar Widget = require(\"$:/core/modules/widgets/widget.js\").widget;\n\nvar FieldsWidget = function(parseTreeNode,options) {\n\tthis.initialise(parseTreeNode,options);\n};\n\n/*\nInherit from the base widget class\n*/\nFieldsWidget.prototype = new Widget();\n\n/*\nRender this widget into the DOM\n*/\nFieldsWidget.prototype.render = function(parent,nextSibling) {\n\tthis.parentDomNode = parent;\n\tthis.computeAttributes();\n\tthis.execute();\n\tvar textNode = this.document.createTextNode(this.text);\n\tparent.insertBefore(textNode,nextSibling);\n\tthis.domNodes.push(textNode);\n};\n\n/*\nCompute the internal state of the widget\n*/\nFieldsWidget.prototype.execute = function() {\n\t// Get parameters from our attributes\n\tthis.tiddlerTitle = this.getAttribute(\"tiddler\",this.getVariable(\"currentTiddler\"));\n\tthis.template = this.getAttribute(\"template\");\n\tthis.exclude = this.getAttribute(\"exclude\");\n\tthis.stripTitlePrefix = this.getAttribute(\"stripTitlePrefix\",\"no\") === \"yes\";\n\t// Get the value to display\n\tvar tiddler = this.wiki.getTiddler(this.tiddlerTitle);\n\t// Get the exclusion list\n\tvar exclude;\n\tif(this.exclude) {\n\t\texclude = this.exclude.split(\" \");\n\t} else {\n\t\texclude = [\"text\"]; \n\t}\n\t// Compose the template\n\tvar text = [];\n\tif(this.template && tiddler) {\n\t\tvar fields = [];\n\t\tfor(var fieldName in tiddler.fields) {\n\t\t\tif(exclude.indexOf(fieldName) === -1) {\n\t\t\t\tfields.push(fieldName);\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t}\n\t\tfields.sort();\n\t\tfor(var f=0; f<fields.length; f++) {\n\t\t\tfieldName = fields[f];\n\t\t\tif(exclude.indexOf(fieldName) === -1) {\n\t\t\t\tvar row = this.template,\n\t\t\t\t\tvalue = tiddler.getFieldString(fieldName);\n\t\t\t\tif(this.stripTitlePrefix && fieldName === \"title\") {\n\t\t\t\t\tvar reStrip = /^\\{[^\\}]+\\}(.+)/mg,\n\t\t\t\t\t\treMatch = reStrip.exec(value);\n\t\t\t\t\tif(reMatch) {\n\t\t\t\t\t\tvalue = reMatch[1];\n\t\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t\trow = $tw.utils.replaceString(row,\"$name$\",fieldName);\n\t\t\t\trow = $tw.utils.replaceString(row,\"$value$\",value);\n\t\t\t\trow = $tw.utils.replaceString(row,\"$encoded_value$\",$tw.utils.htmlEncode(value));\n\t\t\t\ttext.push(row);\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t}\n\t}\n\tthis.text = text.join(\"\");\n};\n\n/*\nSelectively refreshes the widget if needed. Returns true if the widget or any of its children needed re-rendering\n*/\nFieldsWidget.prototype.refresh = function(changedTiddlers) {\n\tvar changedAttributes = this.computeAttributes();\n\tif(changedAttributes.tiddler || changedAttributes.template || changedAttributes.exclude || changedAttributes.stripTitlePrefix || changedTiddlers[this.tiddlerTitle]) {\n\t\tthis.refreshSelf();\n\t\treturn true;\n\t} else {\n\t\treturn false;\t\n\t}\n};\n\nexports.fields = FieldsWidget;\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "widget"
},
"$:/core/modules/widgets/image.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/widgets/image.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/widgets/image.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: widget\n\nThe image widget displays an image referenced with an external URI or with a local tiddler title.\n\n```\n<$image src=\"TiddlerTitle\" width=\"320\" height=\"400\" class=\"classnames\">\n```\n\nThe image source can be the title of an existing tiddler or the URL of an external image.\n\nExternal images always generate an HTML `<img>` tag.\n\nTiddlers that have a _canonical_uri field generate an HTML `<img>` tag with the src attribute containing the URI.\n\nTiddlers that contain image data generate an HTML `<img>` tag with the src attribute containing a base64 representation of the image.\n\nTiddlers that contain wikitext could be rendered to a DIV of the usual size of a tiddler, and then transformed to the size requested.\n\nThe width and height attributes are interpreted as a number of pixels, and do not need to include the \"px\" suffix.\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nvar Widget = require(\"$:/core/modules/widgets/widget.js\").widget;\n\nvar ImageWidget = function(parseTreeNode,options) {\n\tthis.initialise(parseTreeNode,options);\n};\n\n/*\nInherit from the base widget class\n*/\nImageWidget.prototype = new Widget();\n\n/*\nRender this widget into the DOM\n*/\nImageWidget.prototype.render = function(parent,nextSibling) {\n\tthis.parentDomNode = parent;\n\tthis.computeAttributes();\n\tthis.execute();\n\t// Create element\n\t// Determine what type of image it is\n\tvar tag = \"img\", src = \"\",\n\t\ttiddler = this.wiki.getTiddler(this.imageSource);\n\tif(!tiddler) {\n\t\t// The source isn't the title of a tiddler, so we'll assume it's a URL\n\t\tsrc = this.getVariable(\"tv-get-export-image-link\",{params: [{name: \"src\",value: this.imageSource}],defaultValue: this.imageSource});\n\t} else {\n\t\t// Check if it is an image tiddler\n\t\tif(this.wiki.isImageTiddler(this.imageSource)) {\n\t\t\tvar type = tiddler.fields.type,\n\t\t\t\ttext = tiddler.fields.text,\n\t\t\t\t_canonical_uri = tiddler.fields._canonical_uri;\n\t\t\t// If the tiddler has body text then it doesn't need to be lazily loaded\n\t\t\tif(text) {\n\t\t\t\t// Render the appropriate element for the image type\n\t\t\t\tswitch(type) {\n\t\t\t\t\tcase \"application/pdf\":\n\t\t\t\t\t\ttag = \"embed\";\n\t\t\t\t\t\tsrc = \"data:application/pdf;base64,\" + text;\n\t\t\t\t\t\tbreak;\n\t\t\t\t\tcase \"image/svg+xml\":\n\t\t\t\t\t\tsrc = \"data:image/svg+xml,\" + encodeURIComponent(text);\n\t\t\t\t\t\tbreak;\n\t\t\t\t\tdefault:\n\t\t\t\t\t\tsrc = \"data:\" + type + \";base64,\" + text;\n\t\t\t\t\t\tbreak;\n\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t} else if(_canonical_uri) {\n\t\t\t\tswitch(type) {\n\t\t\t\t\tcase \"application/pdf\":\n\t\t\t\t\t\ttag = \"embed\";\n\t\t\t\t\t\tsrc = _canonical_uri;\n\t\t\t\t\t\tbreak;\n\t\t\t\t\tcase \"image/svg+xml\":\n\t\t\t\t\t\tsrc = _canonical_uri;\n\t\t\t\t\t\tbreak;\n\t\t\t\t\tdefault:\n\t\t\t\t\t\tsrc = _canonical_uri;\n\t\t\t\t\t\tbreak;\n\t\t\t\t}\t\n\t\t\t} else {\n\t\t\t\t// Just trigger loading of the tiddler\n\t\t\t\tthis.wiki.getTiddlerText(this.imageSource);\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t}\n\t}\n\t// Create the element and assign the attributes\n\tvar domNode = this.document.createElement(tag);\n\tdomNode.setAttribute(\"src\",src);\n\tif(this.imageClass) {\n\t\tdomNode.setAttribute(\"class\",this.imageClass);\t\t\n\t}\n\tif(this.imageWidth) {\n\t\tdomNode.setAttribute(\"width\",this.imageWidth);\n\t}\n\tif(this.imageHeight) {\n\t\tdomNode.setAttribute(\"height\",this.imageHeight);\n\t}\n\tif(this.imageTooltip) {\n\t\tdomNode.setAttribute(\"title\",this.imageTooltip);\t\t\n\t}\n\tif(this.imageAlt) {\n\t\tdomNode.setAttribute(\"alt\",this.imageAlt);\t\t\n\t}\n\t// Insert element\n\tparent.insertBefore(domNode,nextSibling);\n\tthis.domNodes.push(domNode);\n};\n\n/*\nCompute the internal state of the widget\n*/\nImageWidget.prototype.execute = function() {\n\t// Get our parameters\n\tthis.imageSource = this.getAttribute(\"source\");\n\tthis.imageWidth = this.getAttribute(\"width\");\n\tthis.imageHeight = this.getAttribute(\"height\");\n\tthis.imageClass = this.getAttribute(\"class\");\n\tthis.imageTooltip = this.getAttribute(\"tooltip\");\n\tthis.imageAlt = this.getAttribute(\"alt\");\n};\n\n/*\nSelectively refreshes the widget if needed. Returns true if the widget or any of its children needed re-rendering\n*/\nImageWidget.prototype.refresh = function(changedTiddlers) {\n\tvar changedAttributes = this.computeAttributes();\n\tif(changedAttributes.source || changedAttributes.width || changedAttributes.height || changedAttributes[\"class\"] || changedAttributes.tooltip || changedTiddlers[this.imageSource]) {\n\t\tthis.refreshSelf();\n\t\treturn true;\n\t} else {\n\t\treturn false;\t\t\n\t}\n};\n\nexports.image = ImageWidget;\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "widget"
},
"$:/core/modules/widgets/importvariables.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/widgets/importvariables.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/widgets/importvariables.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: widget\n\nImport variable definitions from other tiddlers\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nvar Widget = require(\"$:/core/modules/widgets/widget.js\").widget;\n\nvar ImportVariablesWidget = function(parseTreeNode,options) {\n\tthis.initialise(parseTreeNode,options);\n};\n\n/*\nInherit from the base widget class\n*/\nImportVariablesWidget.prototype = new Widget();\n\n/*\nRender this widget into the DOM\n*/\nImportVariablesWidget.prototype.render = function(parent,nextSibling) {\n\tthis.parentDomNode = parent;\n\tthis.computeAttributes();\n\tthis.execute();\n\tthis.renderChildren(parent,nextSibling);\n};\n\n/*\nCompute the internal state of the widget\n*/\nImportVariablesWidget.prototype.execute = function(tiddlerList) {\n\tvar self = this;\n\t// Get our parameters\n\tthis.filter = this.getAttribute(\"filter\");\n\t// Compute the filter\n\tthis.tiddlerList = tiddlerList || this.wiki.filterTiddlers(this.filter,this);\n\t// Accumulate the <$set> widgets from each tiddler\n\tvar widgetStackStart,widgetStackEnd;\n\tfunction addWidgetNode(widgetNode) {\n\t\tif(widgetNode) {\n\t\t\tif(!widgetStackStart && !widgetStackEnd) {\n\t\t\t\twidgetStackStart = widgetNode;\n\t\t\t\twidgetStackEnd = widgetNode;\n\t\t\t} else {\n\t\t\t\twidgetStackEnd.children = [widgetNode];\n\t\t\t\twidgetStackEnd = widgetNode;\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t}\n\t}\n\t$tw.utils.each(this.tiddlerList,function(title) {\n\t\tvar parser = self.wiki.parseTiddler(title);\n\t\tif(parser) {\n\t\t\tvar parseTreeNode = parser.tree[0];\n\t\t\twhile(parseTreeNode && parseTreeNode.type === \"set\") {\n\t\t\t\taddWidgetNode({\n\t\t\t\t\ttype: \"set\",\n\t\t\t\t\tattributes: parseTreeNode.attributes,\n\t\t\t\t\tparams: parseTreeNode.params,\n\t\t\t\t\tisMacroDefinition: parseTreeNode.isMacroDefinition\n\t\t\t\t});\n\t\t\t\tparseTreeNode = parseTreeNode.children[0];\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t} \n\t});\n\t// Add our own children to the end of the pile\n\tvar parseTreeNodes;\n\tif(widgetStackStart && widgetStackEnd) {\n\t\tparseTreeNodes = [widgetStackStart];\n\t\twidgetStackEnd.children = this.parseTreeNode.children;\n\t} else {\n\t\tparseTreeNodes = this.parseTreeNode.children;\n\t}\n\t// Construct the child widgets\n\tthis.makeChildWidgets(parseTreeNodes);\n};\n\n/*\nSelectively refreshes the widget if needed. Returns true if the widget or any of its children needed re-rendering\n*/\nImportVariablesWidget.prototype.refresh = function(changedTiddlers) {\n\t// Recompute our attributes and the filter list\n\tvar changedAttributes = this.computeAttributes(),\n\t\ttiddlerList = this.wiki.filterTiddlers(this.getAttribute(\"filter\"),this);\n\t// Refresh if the filter has changed, or the list of tiddlers has changed, or any of the tiddlers in the list has changed\n\tfunction haveListedTiddlersChanged() {\n\t\tvar changed = false;\n\t\ttiddlerList.forEach(function(title) {\n\t\t\tif(changedTiddlers[title]) {\n\t\t\t\tchanged = true;\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t});\n\t\treturn changed;\n\t}\n\tif(changedAttributes.filter || !$tw.utils.isArrayEqual(this.tiddlerList,tiddlerList) || haveListedTiddlersChanged()) {\n\t\t// Compute the filter\n\t\tthis.removeChildDomNodes();\n\t\tthis.execute(tiddlerList);\n\t\tthis.renderChildren(this.parentDomNode,this.findNextSiblingDomNode());\n\t\treturn true;\n\t} else {\n\t\treturn this.refreshChildren(changedTiddlers);\t\t\n\t}\n};\n\nexports.importvariables = ImportVariablesWidget;\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "widget"
},
"$:/core/modules/widgets/keyboard.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/widgets/keyboard.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/widgets/keyboard.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: widget\n\nKeyboard shortcut widget\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nvar Widget = require(\"$:/core/modules/widgets/widget.js\").widget;\n\nvar KeyboardWidget = function(parseTreeNode,options) {\n\tthis.initialise(parseTreeNode,options);\n};\n\n/*\nInherit from the base widget class\n*/\nKeyboardWidget.prototype = new Widget();\n\n/*\nRender this widget into the DOM\n*/\nKeyboardWidget.prototype.render = function(parent,nextSibling) {\n\tvar self = this;\n\t// Remember parent\n\tthis.parentDomNode = parent;\n\t// Compute attributes and execute state\n\tthis.computeAttributes();\n\tthis.execute();\n\tvar tag = this.parseTreeNode.isBlock ? \"div\" : \"span\";\n\tif(this.tag && $tw.config.htmlUnsafeElements.indexOf(this.tag) === -1) {\n\t\ttag = this.tag;\n\t}\n\t// Create element\n\tvar domNode = this.document.createElement(tag);\n\t// Assign classes\n\tvar classes = (this[\"class\"] || \"\").split(\" \");\n\tclasses.push(\"tc-keyboard\");\n\tdomNode.className = classes.join(\" \");\n\t// Add a keyboard event handler\n\tdomNode.addEventListener(\"keydown\",function (event) {\n\t\tif($tw.keyboardManager.checkKeyDescriptors(event,self.keyInfoArray)) {\n\t\t\tself.invokeActions(self,event);\n\t\t\tif(self.actions) {\n\t\t\t\tself.invokeActionString(self.actions,self,event);\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t\tself.dispatchMessage(event);\n\t\t\tevent.preventDefault();\n\t\t\tevent.stopPropagation();\n\t\t\treturn true;\n\t\t}\n\t\treturn false;\n\t},false);\n\t// Insert element\n\tparent.insertBefore(domNode,nextSibling);\n\tthis.renderChildren(domNode,null);\n\tthis.domNodes.push(domNode);\n};\n\nKeyboardWidget.prototype.dispatchMessage = function(event) {\n\tthis.dispatchEvent({type: this.message, param: this.param, tiddlerTitle: this.getVariable(\"currentTiddler\")});\n};\n\n/*\nCompute the internal state of the widget\n*/\nKeyboardWidget.prototype.execute = function() {\n\tvar self = this;\n\t// Get attributes\n\tthis.actions = this.getAttribute(\"actions\");\n\tthis.message = this.getAttribute(\"message\");\n\tthis.param = this.getAttribute(\"param\");\n\tthis.key = this.getAttribute(\"key\");\n\tthis.tag = this.getAttribute(\"tag\");\n\tthis.keyInfoArray = $tw.keyboardManager.parseKeyDescriptors(this.key);\n\tthis[\"class\"] = this.getAttribute(\"class\");\n\tif(this.key.substr(0,2) === \"((\" && this.key.substr(-2,2) === \"))\") {\n\t\tthis.shortcutTiddlers = [];\n\t\tvar name = this.key.substring(2,this.key.length -2);\n\t\t$tw.utils.each($tw.keyboardManager.lookupNames,function(platformDescriptor) {\n\t\t\tself.shortcutTiddlers.push(\"$:/config/\" + platformDescriptor + \"/\" + name);\n\t\t});\n\t}\n\t// Make child widgets\n\tthis.makeChildWidgets();\n};\n\n/*\nSelectively refreshes the widget if needed. Returns true if the widget or any of its children needed re-rendering\n*/\nKeyboardWidget.prototype.refresh = function(changedTiddlers) {\n\tvar changedAttributes = this.computeAttributes();\n\tif(changedAttributes.message || changedAttributes.param || changedAttributes.key || changedAttributes[\"class\"] || changedAttributes.tag) {\n\t\tthis.refreshSelf();\n\t\treturn true;\n\t}\n\t// Update the keyInfoArray if one of its shortcut-config-tiddlers has changed\n\tif(this.shortcutTiddlers && $tw.utils.hopArray(changedTiddlers,this.shortcutTiddlers)) {\n\t\tthis.keyInfoArray = $tw.keyboardManager.parseKeyDescriptors(this.key);\n\t}\n\treturn this.refreshChildren(changedTiddlers);\n};\n\nexports.keyboard = KeyboardWidget;\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "widget"
},
"$:/core/modules/widgets/link.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/widgets/link.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/widgets/link.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: widget\n\nLink widget\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nvar Widget = require(\"$:/core/modules/widgets/widget.js\").widget;\n\nvar LinkWidget = function(parseTreeNode,options) {\n\tthis.initialise(parseTreeNode,options);\n};\n\n/*\nInherit from the base widget class\n*/\nLinkWidget.prototype = new Widget();\n\n/*\nRender this widget into the DOM\n*/\nLinkWidget.prototype.render = function(parent,nextSibling) {\n\t// Save the parent dom node\n\tthis.parentDomNode = parent;\n\t// Compute our attributes\n\tthis.computeAttributes();\n\t// Execute our logic\n\tthis.execute();\n\t// Get the value of the tv-wikilinks configuration macro\n\tvar wikiLinksMacro = this.getVariable(\"tv-wikilinks\"),\n\t\tuseWikiLinks = wikiLinksMacro ? (wikiLinksMacro.trim() !== \"no\") : true,\n\t\tmissingLinksEnabled = !(this.hideMissingLinks && this.isMissing && !this.isShadow);\n\t// Render the link if required\n\tif(useWikiLinks && missingLinksEnabled) {\n\t\tthis.renderLink(parent,nextSibling);\n\t} else {\n\t\t// Just insert the link text\n\t\tvar domNode = this.document.createElement(\"span\");\n\t\tparent.insertBefore(domNode,nextSibling);\n\t\tthis.renderChildren(domNode,null);\n\t\tthis.domNodes.push(domNode);\n\t}\n};\n\n/*\nRender this widget into the DOM\n*/\nLinkWidget.prototype.renderLink = function(parent,nextSibling) {\n\tvar self = this;\n\t// Sanitise the specified tag\n\tvar tag = this.linkTag;\n\tif($tw.config.htmlUnsafeElements.indexOf(tag) !== -1) {\n\t\ttag = \"a\";\n\t}\n\t// Create our element\n\tvar domNode = this.document.createElement(tag);\n\t// Assign classes\n\tvar classes = [];\n\tif(this.overrideClasses === undefined) {\n\t\tclasses.push(\"tc-tiddlylink\");\n\t\tif(this.isShadow) {\n\t\t\tclasses.push(\"tc-tiddlylink-shadow\");\n\t\t}\n\t\tif(this.isMissing && !this.isShadow) {\n\t\t\tclasses.push(\"tc-tiddlylink-missing\");\n\t\t} else {\n\t\t\tif(!this.isMissing) {\n\t\t\t\tclasses.push(\"tc-tiddlylink-resolves\");\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t}\n\t\tif(this.linkClasses) {\n\t\t\tclasses.push(this.linkClasses);\t\t\t\n\t\t}\n\t} else if(this.overrideClasses !== \"\") {\n\t\tclasses.push(this.overrideClasses)\n\t}\n\tif(classes.length > 0) {\n\t\tdomNode.setAttribute(\"class\",classes.join(\" \"));\n\t}\n\t// Set an href\n\tvar wikilinkTransformFilter = this.getVariable(\"tv-filter-export-link\"),\n\t\twikiLinkText;\n\tif(wikilinkTransformFilter) {\n\t\t// Use the filter to construct the href\n\t\twikiLinkText = this.wiki.filterTiddlers(wikilinkTransformFilter,this,function(iterator) {\n\t\t\titerator(self.wiki.getTiddler(self.to),self.to)\n\t\t})[0];\n\t} else {\n\t\t// Expand the tv-wikilink-template variable to construct the href\n\t\tvar wikiLinkTemplateMacro = this.getVariable(\"tv-wikilink-template\"),\n\t\t\twikiLinkTemplate = wikiLinkTemplateMacro ? wikiLinkTemplateMacro.trim() : \"#$uri_encoded$\";\n\t\twikiLinkText = $tw.utils.replaceString(wikiLinkTemplate,\"$uri_encoded$\",encodeURIComponent(this.to));\n\t\twikiLinkText = $tw.utils.replaceString(wikiLinkText,\"$uri_doubleencoded$\",encodeURIComponent(encodeURIComponent(this.to)));\n\t}\n\t// Override with the value of tv-get-export-link if defined\n\twikiLinkText = this.getVariable(\"tv-get-export-link\",{params: [{name: \"to\",value: this.to}],defaultValue: wikiLinkText});\n\tif(tag === \"a\") {\n\t\tdomNode.setAttribute(\"href\",wikiLinkText);\n\t}\n\t// Set the tabindex\n\tif(this.tabIndex) {\n\t\tdomNode.setAttribute(\"tabindex\",this.tabIndex);\n\t}\n\t// Set the tooltip\n\t// HACK: Performance issues with re-parsing the tooltip prevent us defaulting the tooltip to \"<$transclude field='tooltip'><$transclude field='title'/></$transclude>\"\n\tvar tooltipWikiText = this.tooltip || this.getVariable(\"tv-wikilink-tooltip\");\n\tif(tooltipWikiText) {\n\t\tvar tooltipText = this.wiki.renderText(\"text/plain\",\"text/vnd.tiddlywiki\",tooltipWikiText,{\n\t\t\t\tparseAsInline: true,\n\t\t\t\tvariables: {\n\t\t\t\t\tcurrentTiddler: this.to\n\t\t\t\t},\n\t\t\t\tparentWidget: this\n\t\t\t});\n\t\tdomNode.setAttribute(\"title\",tooltipText);\n\t}\n\tif(this[\"aria-label\"]) {\n\t\tdomNode.setAttribute(\"aria-label\",this[\"aria-label\"]);\n\t}\n\t// Add a click event handler\n\t$tw.utils.addEventListeners(domNode,[\n\t\t{name: \"click\", handlerObject: this, handlerMethod: \"handleClickEvent\"},\n\t]);\n\t// Make the link draggable if required\n\tif(this.draggable === \"yes\") {\n\t\t$tw.utils.makeDraggable({\n\t\t\tdomNode: domNode,\n\t\t\tdragTiddlerFn: function() {return self.to;},\n\t\t\twidget: this\n\t\t});\n\t}\n\t// Insert the link into the DOM and render any children\n\tparent.insertBefore(domNode,nextSibling);\n\tthis.renderChildren(domNode,null);\n\tthis.domNodes.push(domNode);\n};\n\nLinkWidget.prototype.handleClickEvent = function(event) {\n\t// Send the click on its way as a navigate event\n\tvar bounds = this.domNodes[0].getBoundingClientRect();\n\tthis.dispatchEvent({\n\t\ttype: \"tm-navigate\",\n\t\tnavigateTo: this.to,\n\t\tnavigateFromTitle: this.getVariable(\"storyTiddler\"),\n\t\tnavigateFromNode: this,\n\t\tnavigateFromClientRect: { top: bounds.top, left: bounds.left, width: bounds.width, right: bounds.right, bottom: bounds.bottom, height: bounds.height\n\t\t},\n\t\tnavigateSuppressNavigation: event.metaKey || event.ctrlKey || (event.button === 1),\n\t\tmetaKey: event.metaKey,\n\t\tctrlKey: event.ctrlKey,\n\t\taltKey: event.altKey,\n\t\tshiftKey: event.shiftKey\n\t});\n\tif(this.domNodes[0].hasAttribute(\"href\")) {\n\t\tevent.preventDefault();\n\t}\n\tevent.stopPropagation();\n\treturn false;\n};\n\n/*\nCompute the internal state of the widget\n*/\nLinkWidget.prototype.execute = function() {\n\t// Pick up our attributes\n\tthis.to = this.getAttribute(\"to\",this.getVariable(\"currentTiddler\"));\n\tthis.tooltip = this.getAttribute(\"tooltip\");\n\tthis[\"aria-label\"] = this.getAttribute(\"aria-label\");\n\tthis.linkClasses = this.getAttribute(\"class\");\n\tthis.overrideClasses = this.getAttribute(\"overrideClass\");\n\tthis.tabIndex = this.getAttribute(\"tabindex\");\n\tthis.draggable = this.getAttribute(\"draggable\",\"yes\");\n\tthis.linkTag = this.getAttribute(\"tag\",\"a\");\n\t// Determine the link characteristics\n\tthis.isMissing = !this.wiki.tiddlerExists(this.to);\n\tthis.isShadow = this.wiki.isShadowTiddler(this.to);\n\tthis.hideMissingLinks = (this.getVariable(\"tv-show-missing-links\") || \"yes\") === \"no\";\n\t// Make the child widgets\n\tthis.makeChildWidgets();\n};\n\n/*\nSelectively refreshes the widget if needed. Returns true if the widget or any of its children needed re-rendering\n*/\nLinkWidget.prototype.refresh = function(changedTiddlers) {\n\tvar changedAttributes = this.computeAttributes();\n\tif(changedAttributes.to || changedTiddlers[this.to] || changedAttributes[\"aria-label\"] || changedAttributes.tooltip) {\n\t\tthis.refreshSelf();\n\t\treturn true;\n\t}\n\treturn this.refreshChildren(changedTiddlers);\n};\n\nexports.link = LinkWidget;\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "widget"
},
"$:/core/modules/widgets/linkcatcher.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/widgets/linkcatcher.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/widgets/linkcatcher.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: widget\n\nLinkcatcher widget\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nvar Widget = require(\"$:/core/modules/widgets/widget.js\").widget;\n\nvar LinkCatcherWidget = function(parseTreeNode,options) {\n\tthis.initialise(parseTreeNode,options);\n\tthis.addEventListeners([\n\t\t{type: \"tm-navigate\", handler: \"handleNavigateEvent\"}\n\t]);\n};\n\n/*\nInherit from the base widget class\n*/\nLinkCatcherWidget.prototype = new Widget();\n\n/*\nRender this widget into the DOM\n*/\nLinkCatcherWidget.prototype.render = function(parent,nextSibling) {\n\tthis.parentDomNode = parent;\n\tthis.computeAttributes();\n\tthis.execute();\n\tthis.renderChildren(parent,nextSibling);\n};\n\n/*\nCompute the internal state of the widget\n*/\nLinkCatcherWidget.prototype.execute = function() {\n\t// Get our parameters\n\tthis.catchTo = this.getAttribute(\"to\");\n\tthis.catchMessage = this.getAttribute(\"message\");\n\tthis.catchSet = this.getAttribute(\"set\");\n\tthis.catchSetTo = this.getAttribute(\"setTo\");\n\tthis.catchActions = this.getAttribute(\"actions\");\n\t// Construct the child widgets\n\tthis.makeChildWidgets();\n\t// When executing actions we avoid trapping navigate events, so that we don't trigger ourselves recursively\n\tthis.executingActions = false;\n};\n\n/*\nSelectively refreshes the widget if needed. Returns true if the widget or any of its children needed re-rendering\n*/\nLinkCatcherWidget.prototype.refresh = function(changedTiddlers) {\n\tvar changedAttributes = this.computeAttributes();\n\tif(changedAttributes.to || changedAttributes.message || changedAttributes.set || changedAttributes.setTo) {\n\t\tthis.refreshSelf();\n\t\treturn true;\n\t} else {\n\t\treturn this.refreshChildren(changedTiddlers);\t\t\n\t}\n};\n\n/*\nHandle a tm-navigate event\n*/\nLinkCatcherWidget.prototype.handleNavigateEvent = function(event) {\n\tif(!this.executingActions) {\n\t\t// Execute the actions\n\t\tif(this.catchTo) {\n\t\t\tthis.wiki.setTextReference(this.catchTo,event.navigateTo,this.getVariable(\"currentTiddler\"));\n\t\t}\n\t\tif(this.catchMessage && this.parentWidget) {\n\t\t\tthis.parentWidget.dispatchEvent({\n\t\t\t\ttype: this.catchMessage,\n\t\t\t\tparam: event.navigateTo,\n\t\t\t\tnavigateTo: event.navigateTo\n\t\t\t});\n\t\t}\n\t\tif(this.catchSet) {\n\t\t\tvar tiddler = this.wiki.getTiddler(this.catchSet);\n\t\t\tthis.wiki.addTiddler(new $tw.Tiddler(tiddler,{title: this.catchSet, text: this.catchSetTo}));\n\t\t}\n\t\tif(this.catchActions) {\n\t\t\tthis.executingActions = true;\n\t\t\tthis.invokeActionString(this.catchActions,this,event,{navigateTo: event.navigateTo});\n\t\t\tthis.executingActions = false;\n\t\t}\n\t} else {\n\t\t// This is a navigate event generated by the actions of this linkcatcher, so we don't trap it again, but just pass it to the parent\n\t\tthis.parentWidget.dispatchEvent({\n\t\t\ttype: \"tm-navigate\",\n\t\t\tparam: event.navigateTo,\n\t\t\tnavigateTo: event.navigateTo\n\t\t});\n\t}\n\treturn false;\n};\n\nexports.linkcatcher = LinkCatcherWidget;\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "widget"
},
"$:/core/modules/widgets/list.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/widgets/list.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/widgets/list.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: widget\n\nList and list item widgets\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nvar Widget = require(\"$:/core/modules/widgets/widget.js\").widget;\n\n/*\nThe list widget creates list element sub-widgets that reach back into the list widget for their configuration\n*/\n\nvar ListWidget = function(parseTreeNode,options) {\n\t// Initialise the storyviews if they've not been done already\n\tif(!this.storyViews) {\n\t\tListWidget.prototype.storyViews = {};\n\t\t$tw.modules.applyMethods(\"storyview\",this.storyViews);\n\t}\n\t// Main initialisation inherited from widget.js\n\tthis.initialise(parseTreeNode,options);\n};\n\n/*\nInherit from the base widget class\n*/\nListWidget.prototype = new Widget();\n\n/*\nRender this widget into the DOM\n*/\nListWidget.prototype.render = function(parent,nextSibling) {\n\tthis.parentDomNode = parent;\n\tthis.computeAttributes();\n\tthis.execute();\n\tthis.renderChildren(parent,nextSibling);\n\t// Construct the storyview\n\tvar StoryView = this.storyViews[this.storyViewName];\n\tif(this.storyViewName && !StoryView) {\n\t\tStoryView = this.storyViews[\"classic\"];\n\t}\n\tif(StoryView && !this.document.isTiddlyWikiFakeDom) {\n\t\tthis.storyview = new StoryView(this);\n\t} else {\n\t\tthis.storyview = null;\n\t}\n};\n\n/*\nCompute the internal state of the widget\n*/\nListWidget.prototype.execute = function() {\n\t// Get our attributes\n\tthis.template = this.getAttribute(\"template\");\n\tthis.editTemplate = this.getAttribute(\"editTemplate\");\n\tthis.variableName = this.getAttribute(\"variable\",\"currentTiddler\");\n\tthis.storyViewName = this.getAttribute(\"storyview\");\n\tthis.historyTitle = this.getAttribute(\"history\");\n\t// Compose the list elements\n\tthis.list = this.getTiddlerList();\n\tvar members = [],\n\t\tself = this;\n\t// Check for an empty list\n\tif(this.list.length === 0) {\n\t\tmembers = this.getEmptyMessage();\n\t} else {\n\t\t$tw.utils.each(this.list,function(title,index) {\n\t\t\tmembers.push(self.makeItemTemplate(title));\n\t\t});\n\t}\n\t// Construct the child widgets\n\tthis.makeChildWidgets(members);\n\t// Clear the last history\n\tthis.history = [];\n};\n\nListWidget.prototype.getTiddlerList = function() {\n\tvar defaultFilter = \"[!is[system]sort[title]]\";\n\treturn this.wiki.filterTiddlers(this.getAttribute(\"filter\",defaultFilter),this);\n};\n\nListWidget.prototype.getEmptyMessage = function() {\n\tvar emptyMessage = this.getAttribute(\"emptyMessage\",\"\"),\n\t\tparser = this.wiki.parseText(\"text/vnd.tiddlywiki\",emptyMessage,{parseAsInline: true});\n\tif(parser) {\n\t\treturn parser.tree;\n\t} else {\n\t\treturn [];\n\t}\n};\n\n/*\nCompose the template for a list item\n*/\nListWidget.prototype.makeItemTemplate = function(title) {\n\t// Check if the tiddler is a draft\n\tvar tiddler = this.wiki.getTiddler(title),\n\t\tisDraft = tiddler && tiddler.hasField(\"draft.of\"),\n\t\ttemplate = this.template,\n\t\ttemplateTree;\n\tif(isDraft && this.editTemplate) {\n\t\ttemplate = this.editTemplate;\n\t}\n\t// Compose the transclusion of the template\n\tif(template) {\n\t\ttemplateTree = [{type: \"transclude\", attributes: {tiddler: {type: \"string\", value: template}}}];\n\t} else {\n\t\tif(this.parseTreeNode.children && this.parseTreeNode.children.length > 0) {\n\t\t\ttemplateTree = this.parseTreeNode.children;\n\t\t} else {\n\t\t\t// Default template is a link to the title\n\t\t\ttemplateTree = [{type: \"element\", tag: this.parseTreeNode.isBlock ? \"div\" : \"span\", children: [{type: \"link\", attributes: {to: {type: \"string\", value: title}}, children: [\n\t\t\t\t\t{type: \"text\", text: title}\n\t\t\t]}]}];\n\t\t}\n\t}\n\t// Return the list item\n\treturn {type: \"listitem\", itemTitle: title, variableName: this.variableName, children: templateTree};\n};\n\n/*\nSelectively refreshes the widget if needed. Returns true if the widget or any of its children needed re-rendering\n*/\nListWidget.prototype.refresh = function(changedTiddlers) {\n\tvar changedAttributes = this.computeAttributes(),\n\t\tresult;\n\t// Call the storyview\n\tif(this.storyview && this.storyview.refreshStart) {\n\t\tthis.storyview.refreshStart(changedTiddlers,changedAttributes);\n\t}\n\t// Completely refresh if any of our attributes have changed\n\tif(changedAttributes.filter || changedAttributes.template || changedAttributes.editTemplate || changedAttributes.emptyMessage || changedAttributes.storyview || changedAttributes.history) {\n\t\tthis.refreshSelf();\n\t\tresult = true;\n\t} else {\n\t\t// Handle any changes to the list\n\t\tresult = this.handleListChanges(changedTiddlers);\n\t\t// Handle any changes to the history stack\n\t\tif(this.historyTitle && changedTiddlers[this.historyTitle]) {\n\t\t\tthis.handleHistoryChanges();\n\t\t}\n\t}\n\t// Call the storyview\n\tif(this.storyview && this.storyview.refreshEnd) {\n\t\tthis.storyview.refreshEnd(changedTiddlers,changedAttributes);\n\t}\n\treturn result;\n};\n\n/*\nHandle any changes to the history list\n*/\nListWidget.prototype.handleHistoryChanges = function() {\n\t// Get the history data\n\tvar newHistory = this.wiki.getTiddlerDataCached(this.historyTitle,[]);\n\t// Ignore any entries of the history that match the previous history\n\tvar entry = 0;\n\twhile(entry < newHistory.length && entry < this.history.length && newHistory[entry].title === this.history[entry].title) {\n\t\tentry++;\n\t}\n\t// Navigate forwards to each of the new tiddlers\n\twhile(entry < newHistory.length) {\n\t\tif(this.storyview && this.storyview.navigateTo) {\n\t\t\tthis.storyview.navigateTo(newHistory[entry]);\n\t\t}\n\t\tentry++;\n\t}\n\t// Update the history\n\tthis.history = newHistory;\n};\n\n/*\nProcess any changes to the list\n*/\nListWidget.prototype.handleListChanges = function(changedTiddlers) {\n\t// Get the new list\n\tvar prevList = this.list;\n\tthis.list = this.getTiddlerList();\n\t// Check for an empty list\n\tif(this.list.length === 0) {\n\t\t// Check if it was empty before\n\t\tif(prevList.length === 0) {\n\t\t\t// If so, just refresh the empty message\n\t\t\treturn this.refreshChildren(changedTiddlers);\n\t\t} else {\n\t\t\t// Replace the previous content with the empty message\n\t\t\tfor(t=this.children.length-1; t>=0; t--) {\n\t\t\t\tthis.removeListItem(t);\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t\tvar nextSibling = this.findNextSiblingDomNode();\n\t\t\tthis.makeChildWidgets(this.getEmptyMessage());\n\t\t\tthis.renderChildren(this.parentDomNode,nextSibling);\n\t\t\treturn true;\n\t\t}\n\t} else {\n\t\t// If the list was empty then we need to remove the empty message\n\t\tif(prevList.length === 0) {\n\t\t\tthis.removeChildDomNodes();\n\t\t\tthis.children = [];\n\t\t}\n\t\t// Cycle through the list, inserting and removing list items as needed\n\t\tvar hasRefreshed = false;\n\t\tfor(var t=0; t<this.list.length; t++) {\n\t\t\tvar index = this.findListItem(t,this.list[t]);\n\t\t\tif(index === undefined) {\n\t\t\t\t// The list item must be inserted\n\t\t\t\tthis.insertListItem(t,this.list[t]);\n\t\t\t\thasRefreshed = true;\n\t\t\t} else {\n\t\t\t\t// There are intervening list items that must be removed\n\t\t\t\tfor(var n=index-1; n>=t; n--) {\n\t\t\t\t\tthis.removeListItem(n);\n\t\t\t\t\thasRefreshed = true;\n\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t\t// Refresh the item we're reusing\n\t\t\t\tvar refreshed = this.children[t].refresh(changedTiddlers);\n\t\t\t\thasRefreshed = hasRefreshed || refreshed;\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t}\n\t\t// Remove any left over items\n\t\tfor(t=this.children.length-1; t>=this.list.length; t--) {\n\t\t\tthis.removeListItem(t);\n\t\t\thasRefreshed = true;\n\t\t}\n\t\treturn hasRefreshed;\n\t}\n};\n\n/*\nFind the list item with a given title, starting from a specified position\n*/\nListWidget.prototype.findListItem = function(startIndex,title) {\n\twhile(startIndex < this.children.length) {\n\t\tif(this.children[startIndex].parseTreeNode.itemTitle === title) {\n\t\t\treturn startIndex;\n\t\t}\n\t\tstartIndex++;\n\t}\n\treturn undefined;\n};\n\n/*\nInsert a new list item at the specified index\n*/\nListWidget.prototype.insertListItem = function(index,title) {\n\t// Create, insert and render the new child widgets\n\tvar widget = this.makeChildWidget(this.makeItemTemplate(title));\n\twidget.parentDomNode = this.parentDomNode; // Hack to enable findNextSiblingDomNode() to work\n\tthis.children.splice(index,0,widget);\n\tvar nextSibling = widget.findNextSiblingDomNode();\n\twidget.render(this.parentDomNode,nextSibling);\n\t// Animate the insertion if required\n\tif(this.storyview && this.storyview.insert) {\n\t\tthis.storyview.insert(widget);\n\t}\n\treturn true;\n};\n\n/*\nRemove the specified list item\n*/\nListWidget.prototype.removeListItem = function(index) {\n\tvar widget = this.children[index];\n\t// Animate the removal if required\n\tif(this.storyview && this.storyview.remove) {\n\t\tthis.storyview.remove(widget);\n\t} else {\n\t\twidget.removeChildDomNodes();\n\t}\n\t// Remove the child widget\n\tthis.children.splice(index,1);\n};\n\nexports.list = ListWidget;\n\nvar ListItemWidget = function(parseTreeNode,options) {\n\tthis.initialise(parseTreeNode,options);\n};\n\n/*\nInherit from the base widget class\n*/\nListItemWidget.prototype = new Widget();\n\n/*\nRender this widget into the DOM\n*/\nListItemWidget.prototype.render = function(parent,nextSibling) {\n\tthis.parentDomNode = parent;\n\tthis.computeAttributes();\n\tthis.execute();\n\tthis.renderChildren(parent,nextSibling);\n};\n\n/*\nCompute the internal state of the widget\n*/\nListItemWidget.prototype.execute = function() {\n\t// Set the current list item title\n\tthis.setVariable(this.parseTreeNode.variableName,this.parseTreeNode.itemTitle);\n\t// Construct the child widgets\n\tthis.makeChildWidgets();\n};\n\n/*\nSelectively refreshes the widget if needed. Returns true if the widget or any of its children needed re-rendering\n*/\nListItemWidget.prototype.refresh = function(changedTiddlers) {\n\treturn this.refreshChildren(changedTiddlers);\n};\n\nexports.listitem = ListItemWidget;\n\n})();",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "widget"
},
"$:/core/modules/widgets/macrocall.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/widgets/macrocall.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/widgets/macrocall.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: widget\n\nMacrocall widget\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nvar Widget = require(\"$:/core/modules/widgets/widget.js\").widget;\n\nvar MacroCallWidget = function(parseTreeNode,options) {\n\tthis.initialise(parseTreeNode,options);\n};\n\n/*\nInherit from the base widget class\n*/\nMacroCallWidget.prototype = new Widget();\n\n/*\nRender this widget into the DOM\n*/\nMacroCallWidget.prototype.render = function(parent,nextSibling) {\n\tthis.parentDomNode = parent;\n\tthis.computeAttributes();\n\tthis.execute();\n\tthis.renderChildren(parent,nextSibling);\n};\n\n/*\nCompute the internal state of the widget\n*/\nMacroCallWidget.prototype.execute = function() {\n\t// Get the parse type if specified\n\tthis.parseType = this.getAttribute(\"$type\",\"text/vnd.tiddlywiki\");\n\tthis.renderOutput = this.getAttribute(\"$output\",\"text/html\");\n\t// Merge together the parameters specified in the parse tree with the specified attributes\n\tvar params = this.parseTreeNode.params ? this.parseTreeNode.params.slice(0) : [];\n\t$tw.utils.each(this.attributes,function(attribute,name) {\n\t\tif(name.charAt(0) !== \"$\") {\n\t\t\tparams.push({name: name, value: attribute});\t\t\t\n\t\t}\n\t});\n\t// Get the macro value\n\tvar macroName = this.parseTreeNode.name || this.getAttribute(\"$name\"),\n\t\tvariableInfo = this.getVariableInfo(macroName,{params: params}),\n\t\ttext = variableInfo.text,\n\t\tparseTreeNodes;\n\t// Are we rendering to HTML?\n\tif(this.renderOutput === \"text/html\") {\n\t\t// If so we'll return the parsed macro\n\t\tvar parser = this.wiki.parseText(this.parseType,text,\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t{parseAsInline: !this.parseTreeNode.isBlock});\n\t\tparseTreeNodes = parser ? parser.tree : [];\n\t\t// Wrap the parse tree in a vars widget assigning the parameters to variables named \"__paramname__\"\n\t\tvar attributes = {};\n\t\t$tw.utils.each(variableInfo.params,function(param) {\n\t\t\tvar name = \"__\" + param.name + \"__\";\n\t\t\tattributes[name] = {\n\t\t\t\tname: name,\n\t\t\t\ttype: \"string\",\n\t\t\t\tvalue: param.value\n\t\t\t};\n\t\t});\n\t\tparseTreeNodes = [{\n\t\t\ttype: \"vars\",\n\t\t\tattributes: attributes,\n\t\t\tchildren: parseTreeNodes\n\t\t}];\n\t} else {\n\t\t// Otherwise, we'll render the text\n\t\tvar plainText = this.wiki.renderText(\"text/plain\",this.parseType,text,{parentWidget: this});\n\t\tparseTreeNodes = [{type: \"text\", text: plainText}];\n\t}\n\t// Construct the child widgets\n\tthis.makeChildWidgets(parseTreeNodes);\n};\n\n/*\nSelectively refreshes the widget if needed. Returns true if the widget or any of its children needed re-rendering\n*/\nMacroCallWidget.prototype.refresh = function(changedTiddlers) {\n\tvar changedAttributes = this.computeAttributes();\n\tif($tw.utils.count(changedAttributes) > 0) {\n\t\t// Rerender ourselves\n\t\tthis.refreshSelf();\n\t\treturn true;\n\t} else {\n\t\treturn this.refreshChildren(changedTiddlers);\n\t}\n};\n\nexports.macrocall = MacroCallWidget;\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "widget"
},
"$:/core/modules/widgets/navigator.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/widgets/navigator.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/widgets/navigator.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: widget\n\nNavigator widget\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nvar IMPORT_TITLE = \"$:/Import\";\n\nvar Widget = require(\"$:/core/modules/widgets/widget.js\").widget;\n\nvar NavigatorWidget = function(parseTreeNode,options) {\n\tthis.initialise(parseTreeNode,options);\n\tthis.addEventListeners([\n\t\t{type: \"tm-navigate\", handler: \"handleNavigateEvent\"},\n\t\t{type: \"tm-edit-tiddler\", handler: \"handleEditTiddlerEvent\"},\n\t\t{type: \"tm-delete-tiddler\", handler: \"handleDeleteTiddlerEvent\"},\n\t\t{type: \"tm-save-tiddler\", handler: \"handleSaveTiddlerEvent\"},\n\t\t{type: \"tm-cancel-tiddler\", handler: \"handleCancelTiddlerEvent\"},\n\t\t{type: \"tm-close-tiddler\", handler: \"handleCloseTiddlerEvent\"},\n\t\t{type: \"tm-close-all-tiddlers\", handler: \"handleCloseAllTiddlersEvent\"},\n\t\t{type: \"tm-close-other-tiddlers\", handler: \"handleCloseOtherTiddlersEvent\"},\n\t\t{type: \"tm-new-tiddler\", handler: \"handleNewTiddlerEvent\"},\n\t\t{type: \"tm-import-tiddlers\", handler: \"handleImportTiddlersEvent\"},\n\t\t{type: \"tm-perform-import\", handler: \"handlePerformImportEvent\"},\n\t\t{type: \"tm-fold-tiddler\", handler: \"handleFoldTiddlerEvent\"},\n\t\t{type: \"tm-fold-other-tiddlers\", handler: \"handleFoldOtherTiddlersEvent\"},\n\t\t{type: \"tm-fold-all-tiddlers\", handler: \"handleFoldAllTiddlersEvent\"},\n\t\t{type: \"tm-unfold-all-tiddlers\", handler: \"handleUnfoldAllTiddlersEvent\"},\n\t\t{type: \"tm-rename-tiddler\", handler: \"handleRenameTiddlerEvent\"}\n\t]);\n};\n\n/*\nInherit from the base widget class\n*/\nNavigatorWidget.prototype = new Widget();\n\n/*\nRender this widget into the DOM\n*/\nNavigatorWidget.prototype.render = function(parent,nextSibling) {\n\tthis.parentDomNode = parent;\n\tthis.computeAttributes();\n\tthis.execute();\n\tthis.renderChildren(parent,nextSibling);\n};\n\n/*\nCompute the internal state of the widget\n*/\nNavigatorWidget.prototype.execute = function() {\n\t// Get our parameters\n\tthis.storyTitle = this.getAttribute(\"story\");\n\tthis.historyTitle = this.getAttribute(\"history\");\n\tthis.setVariable(\"tv-story-list\",this.storyTitle);\n\tthis.setVariable(\"tv-history-list\",this.historyTitle);\n\t// Construct the child widgets\n\tthis.makeChildWidgets();\n};\n\n/*\nSelectively refreshes the widget if needed. Returns true if the widget or any of its children needed re-rendering\n*/\nNavigatorWidget.prototype.refresh = function(changedTiddlers) {\n\tvar changedAttributes = this.computeAttributes();\n\tif(changedAttributes.story || changedAttributes.history) {\n\t\tthis.refreshSelf();\n\t\treturn true;\n\t} else {\n\t\treturn this.refreshChildren(changedTiddlers);\n\t}\n};\n\nNavigatorWidget.prototype.getStoryList = function() {\n\treturn this.storyTitle ? this.wiki.getTiddlerList(this.storyTitle) : null;\n};\n\nNavigatorWidget.prototype.saveStoryList = function(storyList) {\n\tvar storyTiddler = this.wiki.getTiddler(this.storyTitle);\n\tthis.wiki.addTiddler(new $tw.Tiddler(\n\t\t{title: this.storyTitle},\n\t\tstoryTiddler,\n\t\t{list: storyList}\n\t));\n};\n\nNavigatorWidget.prototype.removeTitleFromStory = function(storyList,title) {\n\tvar p = storyList.indexOf(title);\n\twhile(p !== -1) {\n\t\tstoryList.splice(p,1);\n\t\tp = storyList.indexOf(title);\n\t}\n};\n\nNavigatorWidget.prototype.replaceFirstTitleInStory = function(storyList,oldTitle,newTitle) {\n\tvar pos = storyList.indexOf(oldTitle);\n\tif(pos !== -1) {\n\t\tstoryList[pos] = newTitle;\n\t\tdo {\n\t\t\tpos = storyList.indexOf(oldTitle,pos + 1);\n\t\t\tif(pos !== -1) {\n\t\t\t\tstoryList.splice(pos,1);\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t} while(pos !== -1);\n\t} else {\n\t\tstoryList.splice(0,0,newTitle);\n\t}\n};\n\nNavigatorWidget.prototype.addToStory = function(title,fromTitle) {\n\tthis.wiki.addToStory(title,fromTitle,this.storyTitle,{openLinkFromInsideRiver: this.getAttribute(\"openLinkFromInsideRiver\",\"top\"),openLinkFromOutsideRiver: this.getAttribute(\"openLinkFromOutsideRiver\",\"top\")});\n};\n\n/*\nAdd a new record to the top of the history stack\ntitle: a title string or an array of title strings\nfromPageRect: page coordinates of the origin of the navigation\n*/\nNavigatorWidget.prototype.addToHistory = function(title,fromPageRect) {\n\tthis.wiki.addToHistory(title,fromPageRect,this.historyTitle);\n};\n\n/*\nHandle a tm-navigate event\n*/\nNavigatorWidget.prototype.handleNavigateEvent = function(event) {\n\tevent = $tw.hooks.invokeHook(\"th-navigating\",event);\n\tif(event.navigateTo) {\n\t\tthis.addToStory(event.navigateTo,event.navigateFromTitle);\n\t\tif(!event.navigateSuppressNavigation) {\n\t\t\tthis.addToHistory(event.navigateTo,event.navigateFromClientRect);\n\t\t}\n\t}\n\treturn false;\n};\n\n// Close a specified tiddler\nNavigatorWidget.prototype.handleCloseTiddlerEvent = function(event) {\n\tvar title = event.param || event.tiddlerTitle,\n\t\tstoryList = this.getStoryList();\n\t// Look for tiddlers with this title to close\n\tthis.removeTitleFromStory(storyList,title);\n\tthis.saveStoryList(storyList);\n\treturn false;\n};\n\n// Close all tiddlers\nNavigatorWidget.prototype.handleCloseAllTiddlersEvent = function(event) {\n\tthis.saveStoryList([]);\n\treturn false;\n};\n\n// Close other tiddlers\nNavigatorWidget.prototype.handleCloseOtherTiddlersEvent = function(event) {\n\tvar title = event.param || event.tiddlerTitle;\n\tthis.saveStoryList([title]);\n\treturn false;\n};\n\n// Place a tiddler in edit mode\nNavigatorWidget.prototype.handleEditTiddlerEvent = function(event) {\n\tvar editTiddler = $tw.hooks.invokeHook(\"th-editing-tiddler\",event);\n\tif(!editTiddler) {\n\t\treturn false;\n\t}\n\tvar self = this;\n\tfunction isUnmodifiedShadow(title) {\n\t\treturn self.wiki.isShadowTiddler(title) && !self.wiki.tiddlerExists(title);\n\t}\n\tfunction confirmEditShadow(title) {\n\t\treturn confirm($tw.language.getString(\n\t\t\t\"ConfirmEditShadowTiddler\",\n\t\t\t{variables:\n\t\t\t\t{title: title}\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t));\n\t}\n\tvar title = event.param || event.tiddlerTitle;\n\tif(isUnmodifiedShadow(title) && !confirmEditShadow(title)) {\n\t\treturn false;\n\t}\n\t// Replace the specified tiddler with a draft in edit mode\n\tvar draftTiddler = this.makeDraftTiddler(title);\n\t// Update the story and history if required\n\tif(!event.paramObject || event.paramObject.suppressNavigation !== \"yes\") {\n\t\tvar draftTitle = draftTiddler.fields.title,\n\t\t\tstoryList = this.getStoryList();\n\t\tthis.removeTitleFromStory(storyList,draftTitle);\n\t\tthis.replaceFirstTitleInStory(storyList,title,draftTitle);\n\t\tthis.addToHistory(draftTitle,event.navigateFromClientRect);\n\t\tthis.saveStoryList(storyList);\n\t\treturn false;\n\t}\n};\n\n// Delete a tiddler\nNavigatorWidget.prototype.handleDeleteTiddlerEvent = function(event) {\n\t// Get the tiddler we're deleting\n\tvar title = event.param || event.tiddlerTitle,\n\t\ttiddler = this.wiki.getTiddler(title),\n\t\tstoryList = this.getStoryList(),\n\t\toriginalTitle = tiddler ? tiddler.fields[\"draft.of\"] : \"\",\n\t\toriginalTiddler = originalTitle ? this.wiki.getTiddler(originalTitle) : undefined,\n\t\tconfirmationTitle;\n\tif(!tiddler) {\n\t\treturn false;\n\t}\n\t// Check if the tiddler we're deleting is in draft mode\n\tif(originalTitle) {\n\t\t// If so, we'll prompt for confirmation referencing the original tiddler\n\t\tconfirmationTitle = originalTitle;\n\t} else {\n\t\t// If not a draft, then prompt for confirmation referencing the specified tiddler\n\t\tconfirmationTitle = title;\n\t}\n\t// Seek confirmation\n\tif((this.wiki.getTiddler(originalTitle) || (tiddler.fields.text || \"\") !== \"\") && !confirm($tw.language.getString(\n\t\t\t\t\"ConfirmDeleteTiddler\",\n\t\t\t\t{variables:\n\t\t\t\t\t{title: confirmationTitle}\n\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t))) {\n\t\treturn false;\n\t}\n\t// Delete the original tiddler\n\tif(originalTitle) {\n\t\tif(originalTiddler) {\n\t\t\t$tw.hooks.invokeHook(\"th-deleting-tiddler\",originalTiddler);\n\t\t}\n\t\tthis.wiki.deleteTiddler(originalTitle);\n\t\tthis.removeTitleFromStory(storyList,originalTitle);\n\t}\n\t// Invoke the hook function and delete this tiddler\n\t$tw.hooks.invokeHook(\"th-deleting-tiddler\",tiddler);\n\tthis.wiki.deleteTiddler(title);\n\t// Remove the closed tiddler from the story\n\tthis.removeTitleFromStory(storyList,title);\n\tthis.saveStoryList(storyList);\n\t// Trigger an autosave\n\t$tw.rootWidget.dispatchEvent({type: \"tm-auto-save-wiki\"});\n\treturn false;\n};\n\n/*\nCreate/reuse the draft tiddler for a given title\n*/\nNavigatorWidget.prototype.makeDraftTiddler = function(targetTitle) {\n\t// See if there is already a draft tiddler for this tiddler\n\tvar draftTitle = this.wiki.findDraft(targetTitle);\n\tif(draftTitle) {\n\t\treturn this.wiki.getTiddler(draftTitle);\n\t}\n\t// Get the current value of the tiddler we're editing\n\tvar tiddler = this.wiki.getTiddler(targetTitle);\n\t// Save the initial value of the draft tiddler\n\tdraftTitle = this.generateDraftTitle(targetTitle);\n\tvar draftTiddler = new $tw.Tiddler(\n\t\t\ttiddler,\n\t\t\t{\n\t\t\t\ttitle: draftTitle,\n\t\t\t\t\"draft.title\": targetTitle,\n\t\t\t\t\"draft.of\": targetTitle\n\t\t\t},\n\t\t\tthis.wiki.getModificationFields()\n\t\t);\n\tthis.wiki.addTiddler(draftTiddler);\n\treturn draftTiddler;\n};\n\n/*\nGenerate a title for the draft of a given tiddler\n*/\nNavigatorWidget.prototype.generateDraftTitle = function(title) {\n\tvar c = 0,\n\t\tdraftTitle,\n\t\tusername = this.wiki.getTiddlerText(\"$:/status/UserName\"),\n\t\tattribution = username ? \" by \" + username : \"\";\n\tdo {\n\t\tdraftTitle = \"Draft \" + (c ? (c + 1) + \" \" : \"\") + \"of '\" + title + \"'\" + attribution;\n\t\tc++;\n\t} while(this.wiki.tiddlerExists(draftTitle));\n\treturn draftTitle;\n};\n\n// Take a tiddler out of edit mode, saving the changes\nNavigatorWidget.prototype.handleSaveTiddlerEvent = function(event) {\n\tvar title = event.param || event.tiddlerTitle,\n\t\ttiddler = this.wiki.getTiddler(title),\n\t\tstoryList = this.getStoryList();\n\t// Replace the original tiddler with the draft\n\tif(tiddler) {\n\t\tvar draftTitle = (tiddler.fields[\"draft.title\"] || \"\").trim(),\n\t\t\tdraftOf = (tiddler.fields[\"draft.of\"] || \"\").trim();\n\t\tif(draftTitle) {\n\t\t\tvar isRename = draftOf !== draftTitle,\n\t\t\t\tisConfirmed = true;\n\t\t\tif(isRename && this.wiki.tiddlerExists(draftTitle)) {\n\t\t\t\tisConfirmed = confirm($tw.language.getString(\n\t\t\t\t\t\"ConfirmOverwriteTiddler\",\n\t\t\t\t\t{variables:\n\t\t\t\t\t\t{title: draftTitle}\n\t\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t\t));\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t\tif(isConfirmed) {\n\t\t\t\t// Create the new tiddler and pass it through the th-saving-tiddler hook\n\t\t\t\tvar newTiddler = new $tw.Tiddler(this.wiki.getCreationFields(),tiddler,{\n\t\t\t\t\ttitle: draftTitle,\n\t\t\t\t\t\"draft.title\": undefined,\n\t\t\t\t\t\"draft.of\": undefined\n\t\t\t\t},this.wiki.getModificationFields());\n\t\t\t\tnewTiddler = $tw.hooks.invokeHook(\"th-saving-tiddler\",newTiddler);\n\t\t\t\tthis.wiki.addTiddler(newTiddler);\n\t\t\t\t// If enabled, relink references to renamed tiddler\n\t\t\t\tvar shouldRelink = this.getAttribute(\"relinkOnRename\",\"no\").toLowerCase().trim() === \"yes\";\n\t\t\t\tif(isRename && shouldRelink && this.wiki.tiddlerExists(draftOf)) {\nconsole.log(\"Relinking '\" + draftOf + \"' to '\" + draftTitle + \"'\");\n\t\t\t\t\tthis.wiki.relinkTiddler(draftOf,draftTitle);\n\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t\t// Remove the draft tiddler\n\t\t\t\tthis.wiki.deleteTiddler(title);\n\t\t\t\t// Remove the original tiddler if we're renaming it\n\t\t\t\tif(isRename) {\n\t\t\t\t\tthis.wiki.deleteTiddler(draftOf);\n\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t\t// #2381 always remove new title & old\n\t\t\t\tthis.removeTitleFromStory(storyList,draftTitle);\n\t\t\t\tthis.removeTitleFromStory(storyList,draftOf);\n\t\t\t\tif(!event.paramObject || event.paramObject.suppressNavigation !== \"yes\") {\n\t\t\t\t\t// Replace the draft in the story with the original\n\t\t\t\t\tthis.replaceFirstTitleInStory(storyList,title,draftTitle);\n\t\t\t\t\tthis.addToHistory(draftTitle,event.navigateFromClientRect);\n\t\t\t\t\tif(draftTitle !== this.storyTitle) {\n\t\t\t\t\t\tthis.saveStoryList(storyList);\n\t\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t\t// Trigger an autosave\n\t\t\t\t$tw.rootWidget.dispatchEvent({type: \"tm-auto-save-wiki\"});\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t}\n\t}\n\treturn false;\n};\n\n// Take a tiddler out of edit mode without saving the changes\nNavigatorWidget.prototype.handleCancelTiddlerEvent = function(event) {\n\tevent = $tw.hooks.invokeHook(\"th-cancelling-tiddler\", event);\n\t// Flip the specified tiddler from draft back to the original\n\tvar draftTitle = event.param || event.tiddlerTitle,\n\t\tdraftTiddler = this.wiki.getTiddler(draftTitle),\n\t\toriginalTitle = draftTiddler && draftTiddler.fields[\"draft.of\"];\n\tif(draftTiddler && originalTitle) {\n\t\t// Ask for confirmation if the tiddler text has changed\n\t\tvar isConfirmed = true,\n\t\t\toriginalTiddler = this.wiki.getTiddler(originalTitle),\n\t\t\tstoryList = this.getStoryList();\n\t\tif(this.wiki.isDraftModified(draftTitle)) {\n\t\t\tisConfirmed = confirm($tw.language.getString(\n\t\t\t\t\"ConfirmCancelTiddler\",\n\t\t\t\t{variables:\n\t\t\t\t\t{title: draftTitle}\n\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t));\n\t\t}\n\t\t// Remove the draft tiddler\n\t\tif(isConfirmed) {\n\t\t\tthis.wiki.deleteTiddler(draftTitle);\n\t\t\tif(!event.paramObject || event.paramObject.suppressNavigation !== \"yes\") {\n\t\t\t\tif(originalTiddler) {\n\t\t\t\t\tthis.replaceFirstTitleInStory(storyList,draftTitle,originalTitle);\n\t\t\t\t\tthis.addToHistory(originalTitle,event.navigateFromClientRect);\n\t\t\t\t} else {\n\t\t\t\t\tthis.removeTitleFromStory(storyList,draftTitle);\n\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t\tthis.saveStoryList(storyList);\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t}\n\t}\n\treturn false;\n};\n\n// Create a new draft tiddler\n// event.param can either be the title of a template tiddler, or a hashmap of fields.\n//\n// The title of the newly created tiddler follows these rules:\n// * If a hashmap was used and a title field was specified, use that title\n// * If a hashmap was used without a title field, use a default title, if necessary making it unique with a numeric suffix\n// * If a template tiddler was used, use the title of the template, if necessary making it unique with a numeric suffix\n//\n// If a draft of the target tiddler already exists then it is reused\nNavigatorWidget.prototype.handleNewTiddlerEvent = function(event) {\n\tevent = $tw.hooks.invokeHook(\"th-new-tiddler\", event);\n\t// Get the story details\n\tvar storyList = this.getStoryList(),\n\t\ttemplateTiddler, additionalFields, title, draftTitle, existingTiddler;\n\t// Get the template tiddler (if any)\n\tif(typeof event.param === \"string\") {\n\t\t// Get the template tiddler\n\t\ttemplateTiddler = this.wiki.getTiddler(event.param);\n\t\t// Generate a new title\n\t\ttitle = this.wiki.generateNewTitle(event.param || $tw.language.getString(\"DefaultNewTiddlerTitle\"));\n\t}\n\t// Get the specified additional fields\n\tif(typeof event.paramObject === \"object\") {\n\t\tadditionalFields = event.paramObject;\n\t}\n\tif(typeof event.param === \"object\") { // Backwards compatibility with 5.1.3\n\t\tadditionalFields = event.param;\n\t}\n\tif(additionalFields && additionalFields.title) {\n\t\ttitle = additionalFields.title;\n\t}\n\t// Make a copy of the additional fields excluding any blank ones\n\tvar filteredAdditionalFields = $tw.utils.extend({},additionalFields);\n\tObject.keys(filteredAdditionalFields).forEach(function(fieldName) {\n\t\tif(filteredAdditionalFields[fieldName] === \"\") {\n\t\t\tdelete filteredAdditionalFields[fieldName];\n\t\t}\n\t});\n\t// Generate a title if we don't have one\n\ttitle = title || this.wiki.generateNewTitle($tw.language.getString(\"DefaultNewTiddlerTitle\"));\n\t// Find any existing draft for this tiddler\n\tdraftTitle = this.wiki.findDraft(title);\n\t// Pull in any existing tiddler\n\tif(draftTitle) {\n\t\texistingTiddler = this.wiki.getTiddler(draftTitle);\n\t} else {\n\t\tdraftTitle = this.generateDraftTitle(title);\n\t\texistingTiddler = this.wiki.getTiddler(title);\n\t}\n\t// Merge the tags\n\tvar mergedTags = [];\n\tif(existingTiddler && existingTiddler.fields.tags) {\n\t\t$tw.utils.pushTop(mergedTags,existingTiddler.fields.tags);\n\t}\n\tif(additionalFields && additionalFields.tags) {\n\t\t// Merge tags\n\t\tmergedTags = $tw.utils.pushTop(mergedTags,$tw.utils.parseStringArray(additionalFields.tags));\n\t}\n\tif(templateTiddler && templateTiddler.fields.tags) {\n\t\t// Merge tags\n\t\tmergedTags = $tw.utils.pushTop(mergedTags,templateTiddler.fields.tags);\n\t}\n\t// Save the draft tiddler\n\tvar draftTiddler = new $tw.Tiddler({\n\t\t\ttext: \"\",\n\t\t\t\"draft.title\": title\n\t\t},\n\t\ttemplateTiddler,\n\t\tadditionalFields,\n\t\tthis.wiki.getCreationFields(),\n\t\texistingTiddler,\n\t\tfilteredAdditionalFields,\n\t\t{\n\t\t\ttitle: draftTitle,\n\t\t\t\"draft.of\": title,\n\t\t\ttags: mergedTags\n\t\t},this.wiki.getModificationFields());\n\tthis.wiki.addTiddler(draftTiddler);\n\t// Update the story to insert the new draft at the top and remove any existing tiddler\n\tif(storyList.indexOf(draftTitle) === -1) {\n\t\tvar slot = storyList.indexOf(event.navigateFromTitle);\n\t\tif(slot === -1) {\n\t\t\tslot = this.getAttribute(\"openLinkFromOutsideRiver\",\"top\") === \"bottom\" ? storyList.length - 1 : slot;\n\t\t}\n\t\tstoryList.splice(slot + 1,0,draftTitle);\n\t}\n\tif(storyList.indexOf(title) !== -1) {\n\t\tstoryList.splice(storyList.indexOf(title),1);\n\t}\n\tthis.saveStoryList(storyList);\n\t// Add a new record to the top of the history stack\n\tthis.addToHistory(draftTitle);\n\treturn false;\n};\n\n// Import JSON tiddlers into a pending import tiddler\nNavigatorWidget.prototype.handleImportTiddlersEvent = function(event) {\n\t// Get the tiddlers\n\tvar tiddlers = [];\n\ttry {\n\t\ttiddlers = JSON.parse(event.param);\n\t} catch(e) {\n\t}\n\t// Get the current $:/Import tiddler\n\tvar importTiddler = this.wiki.getTiddler(IMPORT_TITLE),\n\t\timportData = this.wiki.getTiddlerData(IMPORT_TITLE,{}),\n\t\tnewFields = new Object({\n\t\t\ttitle: IMPORT_TITLE,\n\t\t\ttype: \"application/json\",\n\t\t\t\"plugin-type\": \"import\",\n\t\t\t\"status\": \"pending\"\n\t\t}),\n\t\tincomingTiddlers = [];\n\t// Process each tiddler\n\timportData.tiddlers = importData.tiddlers || {};\n\t$tw.utils.each(tiddlers,function(tiddlerFields) {\n\t\ttiddlerFields.title = $tw.utils.trim(tiddlerFields.title);\n\t\tvar title = tiddlerFields.title;\n\t\tif(title) {\n\t\t\tincomingTiddlers.push(title);\n\t\t\timportData.tiddlers[title] = tiddlerFields;\n\t\t}\n\t});\n\t// Give the active upgrader modules a chance to process the incoming tiddlers\n\tvar messages = this.wiki.invokeUpgraders(incomingTiddlers,importData.tiddlers);\n\t$tw.utils.each(messages,function(message,title) {\n\t\tnewFields[\"message-\" + title] = message;\n\t});\n\t// Deselect any suppressed tiddlers\n\t$tw.utils.each(importData.tiddlers,function(tiddler,title) {\n\t\tif($tw.utils.count(tiddler) === 0) {\n\t\t\tnewFields[\"selection-\" + title] = \"unchecked\";\n\t\t}\n\t});\n\t// Save the $:/Import tiddler\n\tnewFields.text = JSON.stringify(importData,null,$tw.config.preferences.jsonSpaces);\n\tthis.wiki.addTiddler(new $tw.Tiddler(importTiddler,newFields));\n\t// Update the story and history details\n\tif(this.getVariable(\"tv-auto-open-on-import\") !== \"no\") {\n\t\tvar storyList = this.getStoryList(),\n\t\t\thistory = [];\n\t\t// Add it to the story\n\t\tif(storyList.indexOf(IMPORT_TITLE) === -1) {\n\t\t\tstoryList.unshift(IMPORT_TITLE);\n\t\t}\n\t\t// And to history\n\t\thistory.push(IMPORT_TITLE);\n\t\t// Save the updated story and history\n\t\tthis.saveStoryList(storyList);\n\t\tthis.addToHistory(history);\n\t}\n\treturn false;\n};\n\n//\nNavigatorWidget.prototype.handlePerformImportEvent = function(event) {\n\tvar self = this,\n\t\timportTiddler = this.wiki.getTiddler(event.param),\n\t\timportData = this.wiki.getTiddlerDataCached(event.param,{tiddlers: {}}),\n\t\timportReport = [];\n\t// Add the tiddlers to the store\n\timportReport.push($tw.language.getString(\"Import/Imported/Hint\") + \"\\n\");\n\t$tw.utils.each(importData.tiddlers,function(tiddlerFields) {\n\t\tvar title = tiddlerFields.title;\n\t\tif(title && importTiddler && importTiddler.fields[\"selection-\" + title] !== \"unchecked\") {\n\t\t\tvar tiddler = new $tw.Tiddler(tiddlerFields);\n\t\t\ttiddler = $tw.hooks.invokeHook(\"th-importing-tiddler\",tiddler);\n\t\t\tself.wiki.addTiddler(tiddler);\n\t\t\timportReport.push(\"# [[\" + tiddlerFields.title + \"]]\");\n\t\t}\n\t});\n\t// Replace the $:/Import tiddler with an import report\n\tthis.wiki.addTiddler(new $tw.Tiddler({\n\t\ttitle: event.param,\n\t\ttext: importReport.join(\"\\n\"),\n\t\t\"status\": \"complete\"\n\t}));\n\t// Navigate to the $:/Import tiddler\n\tthis.addToHistory([event.param]);\n\t// Trigger an autosave\n\t$tw.rootWidget.dispatchEvent({type: \"tm-auto-save-wiki\"});\n};\n\nNavigatorWidget.prototype.handleFoldTiddlerEvent = function(event) {\n\tvar paramObject = event.paramObject || {};\n\tif(paramObject.foldedState) {\n\t\tvar foldedState = this.wiki.getTiddlerText(paramObject.foldedState,\"show\") === \"show\" ? \"hide\" : \"show\";\n\t\tthis.wiki.setText(paramObject.foldedState,\"text\",null,foldedState);\n\t}\n};\n\nNavigatorWidget.prototype.handleFoldOtherTiddlersEvent = function(event) {\n\tvar self = this,\n\t\tparamObject = event.paramObject || {},\n\t\tprefix = paramObject.foldedStatePrefix;\n\t$tw.utils.each(this.getStoryList(),function(title) {\n\t\tself.wiki.setText(prefix + title,\"text\",null,event.param === title ? \"show\" : \"hide\");\n\t});\n};\n\nNavigatorWidget.prototype.handleFoldAllTiddlersEvent = function(event) {\n\tvar self = this,\n\t\tparamObject = event.paramObject || {},\n\t\tprefix = paramObject.foldedStatePrefix;\n\t$tw.utils.each(this.getStoryList(),function(title) {\n\t\tself.wiki.setText(prefix + title,\"text\",null,\"hide\");\n\t});\n};\n\nNavigatorWidget.prototype.handleUnfoldAllTiddlersEvent = function(event) {\n\tvar self = this,\n\t\tparamObject = event.paramObject || {},\n\t\tprefix = paramObject.foldedStatePrefix;\n\t$tw.utils.each(this.getStoryList(),function(title) {\n\t\tself.wiki.setText(prefix + title,\"text\",null,\"show\");\n\t});\n};\n\nNavigatorWidget.prototype.handleRenameTiddlerEvent = function(event) {\n\tevent = $tw.hooks.invokeHook(\"th-renaming-tiddler\", event);\n\tvar paramObject = event.paramObject || {},\n\t\tfrom = paramObject.from || event.tiddlerTitle,\n\t\tto = paramObject.to;\n\t$tw.wiki.renameTiddler(from,to);\n};\n\nexports.navigator = NavigatorWidget;\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "widget"
},
"$:/core/modules/widgets/password.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/widgets/password.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/widgets/password.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: widget\n\nPassword widget\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nvar Widget = require(\"$:/core/modules/widgets/widget.js\").widget;\n\nvar PasswordWidget = function(parseTreeNode,options) {\n\tthis.initialise(parseTreeNode,options);\n};\n\n/*\nInherit from the base widget class\n*/\nPasswordWidget.prototype = new Widget();\n\n/*\nRender this widget into the DOM\n*/\nPasswordWidget.prototype.render = function(parent,nextSibling) {\n\t// Save the parent dom node\n\tthis.parentDomNode = parent;\n\t// Compute our attributes\n\tthis.computeAttributes();\n\t// Execute our logic\n\tthis.execute();\n\t// Get the current password\n\tvar password = $tw.browser ? $tw.utils.getPassword(this.passwordName) || \"\" : \"\";\n\t// Create our element\n\tvar domNode = this.document.createElement(\"input\");\n\tdomNode.setAttribute(\"type\",\"password\");\n\tdomNode.setAttribute(\"value\",password);\n\t// Add a click event handler\n\t$tw.utils.addEventListeners(domNode,[\n\t\t{name: \"change\", handlerObject: this, handlerMethod: \"handleChangeEvent\"}\n\t]);\n\t// Insert the label into the DOM and render any children\n\tparent.insertBefore(domNode,nextSibling);\n\tthis.renderChildren(domNode,null);\n\tthis.domNodes.push(domNode);\n};\n\nPasswordWidget.prototype.handleChangeEvent = function(event) {\n\tvar password = this.domNodes[0].value;\n\treturn $tw.utils.savePassword(this.passwordName,password);\n};\n\n/*\nCompute the internal state of the widget\n*/\nPasswordWidget.prototype.execute = function() {\n\t// Get the parameters from the attributes\n\tthis.passwordName = this.getAttribute(\"name\",\"\");\n\t// Make the child widgets\n\tthis.makeChildWidgets();\n};\n\n/*\nSelectively refreshes the widget if needed. Returns true if the widget or any of its children needed re-rendering\n*/\nPasswordWidget.prototype.refresh = function(changedTiddlers) {\n\tvar changedAttributes = this.computeAttributes();\n\tif(changedAttributes.name) {\n\t\tthis.refreshSelf();\n\t\treturn true;\n\t} else {\n\t\treturn this.refreshChildren(changedTiddlers);\n\t}\n};\n\nexports.password = PasswordWidget;\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "widget"
},
"$:/core/modules/widgets/qualify.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/widgets/qualify.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/widgets/qualify.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: widget\n\nQualify text to a variable \n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nvar Widget = require(\"$:/core/modules/widgets/widget.js\").widget;\n\nvar QualifyWidget = function(parseTreeNode,options) {\n\tthis.initialise(parseTreeNode,options);\n};\n\n/*\nInherit from the base widget class\n*/\nQualifyWidget.prototype = new Widget();\n\n/*\nRender this widget into the DOM\n*/\nQualifyWidget.prototype.render = function(parent,nextSibling) {\n\tthis.parentDomNode = parent;\n\tthis.computeAttributes();\n\tthis.execute();\n\tthis.renderChildren(parent,nextSibling);\n};\n\n/*\nCompute the internal state of the widget\n*/\nQualifyWidget.prototype.execute = function() {\n\t// Get our parameters\n\tthis.qualifyName = this.getAttribute(\"name\");\n\tthis.qualifyTitle = this.getAttribute(\"title\");\n\t// Set context variable\n\tif(this.qualifyName) {\n\t\tthis.setVariable(this.qualifyName,this.qualifyTitle + \"-\" + this.getStateQualifier());\n\t}\n\t// Construct the child widgets\n\tthis.makeChildWidgets();\n};\n\n/*\nSelectively refreshes the widget if needed. Returns true if the widget or any of its children needed re-rendering\n*/\nQualifyWidget.prototype.refresh = function(changedTiddlers) {\n\tvar changedAttributes = this.computeAttributes();\n\tif(changedAttributes.name || changedAttributes.title) {\n\t\tthis.refreshSelf();\n\t\treturn true;\n\t} else {\n\t\treturn this.refreshChildren(changedTiddlers);\n\t}\n};\n\nexports.qualify = QualifyWidget;\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "widget"
},
"$:/core/modules/widgets/radio.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/widgets/radio.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/widgets/radio.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: widget\n\nSet a field or index at a given tiddler via radio buttons\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nvar Widget = require(\"$:/core/modules/widgets/widget.js\").widget;\n\nvar RadioWidget = function(parseTreeNode,options) {\n\tthis.initialise(parseTreeNode,options);\n};\n\n/*\nInherit from the base widget class\n*/\nRadioWidget.prototype = new Widget();\n\n/*\nRender this widget into the DOM\n*/\nRadioWidget.prototype.render = function(parent,nextSibling) {\n\t// Save the parent dom node\n\tthis.parentDomNode = parent;\n\t// Compute our attributes\n\tthis.computeAttributes();\n\t// Execute our logic\n\tthis.execute();\n\tvar isChecked = this.getValue() === this.radioValue;\n\t// Create our elements\n\tthis.labelDomNode = this.document.createElement(\"label\");\n\tthis.labelDomNode.setAttribute(\"class\",\n \t\t\"tc-radio \" + this.radioClass + (isChecked ? \" tc-radio-selected\" : \"\")\n \t);\n\tthis.inputDomNode = this.document.createElement(\"input\");\n\tthis.inputDomNode.setAttribute(\"type\",\"radio\");\n\tif(isChecked) {\n\t\tthis.inputDomNode.setAttribute(\"checked\",\"true\");\n\t}\n\tthis.labelDomNode.appendChild(this.inputDomNode);\n\tthis.spanDomNode = this.document.createElement(\"span\");\n\tthis.labelDomNode.appendChild(this.spanDomNode);\n\t// Add a click event handler\n\t$tw.utils.addEventListeners(this.inputDomNode,[\n\t\t{name: \"change\", handlerObject: this, handlerMethod: \"handleChangeEvent\"}\n\t]);\n\t// Insert the label into the DOM and render any children\n\tparent.insertBefore(this.labelDomNode,nextSibling);\n\tthis.renderChildren(this.spanDomNode,null);\n\tthis.domNodes.push(this.labelDomNode);\n};\n\nRadioWidget.prototype.getValue = function() {\n\tvar value,\n\t\ttiddler = this.wiki.getTiddler(this.radioTitle);\n\tif (this.radioIndex) {\n\t\tvalue = this.wiki.extractTiddlerDataItem(this.radioTitle,this.radioIndex);\n\t} else {\n\t\tvalue = tiddler && tiddler.getFieldString(this.radioField);\n\t}\n\treturn value;\n};\n\nRadioWidget.prototype.setValue = function() {\n\tif(this.radioIndex) {\n\t\tthis.wiki.setText(this.radioTitle,\"\",this.radioIndex,this.radioValue);\n\t} else {\n\t\tvar tiddler = this.wiki.getTiddler(this.radioTitle),\n\t\t\taddition = {};\n\t\taddition[this.radioField] = this.radioValue;\n\t\tthis.wiki.addTiddler(new $tw.Tiddler(this.wiki.getCreationFields(),{title: this.radioTitle},tiddler,addition,this.wiki.getModificationFields()));\n\t}\n};\n\nRadioWidget.prototype.handleChangeEvent = function(event) {\n\tif(this.inputDomNode.checked) {\n\t\tthis.setValue();\n\t}\n};\n\n/*\nCompute the internal state of the widget\n*/\nRadioWidget.prototype.execute = function() {\n\t// Get the parameters from the attributes\n\tthis.radioTitle = this.getAttribute(\"tiddler\",this.getVariable(\"currentTiddler\"));\n\tthis.radioField = this.getAttribute(\"field\",\"text\");\n\tthis.radioIndex = this.getAttribute(\"index\");\n\tthis.radioValue = this.getAttribute(\"value\");\n\tthis.radioClass = this.getAttribute(\"class\",\"\");\n\t// Make the child widgets\n\tthis.makeChildWidgets();\n};\n\n/*\nSelectively refreshes the widget if needed. Returns true if the widget or any of its children needed re-rendering\n*/\nRadioWidget.prototype.refresh = function(changedTiddlers) {\n\tvar changedAttributes = this.computeAttributes();\n\tif(changedAttributes.tiddler || changedAttributes.field || changedAttributes.index || changedAttributes.value || changedAttributes[\"class\"]) {\n\t\tthis.refreshSelf();\n\t\treturn true;\n\t} else {\n\t\tvar refreshed = false;\n\t\tif(changedTiddlers[this.radioTitle]) {\n\t\t\tthis.inputDomNode.checked = this.getValue() === this.radioValue;\n\t\t\trefreshed = true;\n\t\t}\n\t\treturn this.refreshChildren(changedTiddlers) || refreshed;\n\t}\n};\n\nexports.radio = RadioWidget;\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "widget"
},
"$:/core/modules/widgets/range.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/widgets/range.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/widgets/range.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: widget\n\nRange widget\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nvar Widget = require(\"$:/core/modules/widgets/widget.js\").widget;\n\nvar RangeWidget = function(parseTreeNode,options) {\n\tthis.initialise(parseTreeNode,options);\n};\n\n/*\nInherit from the base widget class\n*/\nRangeWidget.prototype = new Widget();\n\n/*\nRender this widget into the DOM\n*/\nRangeWidget.prototype.render = function(parent,nextSibling) {\n\t// Save the parent dom node\n\tthis.parentDomNode = parent;\n\t// Compute our attributes\n\tthis.computeAttributes();\n\t// Execute our logic\n\tthis.execute();\n\t// Create our elements\n\tthis.inputDomNode = this.document.createElement(\"input\");\n\tthis.inputDomNode.setAttribute(\"type\",\"range\");\n\tthis.inputDomNode.setAttribute(\"class\",this.elementClass);\n\tif(this.minValue){\n\t\tthis.inputDomNode.setAttribute(\"min\", this.minValue);\n\t}\n\tif(this.maxValue){\n\t\tthis.inputDomNode.setAttribute(\"max\", this.maxValue);\n\t}\n\tif(this.increment){\n\t\tthis.inputDomNode.setAttribute(\"step\", this.increment);\n\t}\n\tthis.inputDomNode.value = this.getValue();\n\n\n\t// Add a click event handler\n\t$tw.utils.addEventListeners(this.inputDomNode,[\n\t\t{name: \"input\", handlerObject: this, handlerMethod: \"handleChangeEvent\"}\n\t]);\n\t// Insert the label into the DOM and render any children\n\tparent.insertBefore(this.inputDomNode,nextSibling);\n\tthis.domNodes.push(this.inputDomNode);\n};\n\nRangeWidget.prototype.getValue = function() {\n\tvar tiddler = this.wiki.getTiddler(this.tiddlerTitle),\n\t\tvalue = this.defaultValue;\n\tif(tiddler) {\n\t\tif($tw.utils.hop(tiddler.fields,this.tiddlerField)) {\n\t\t\tvalue = tiddler.fields[this.tiddlerField] || \"\";\n\t\t} else {\n\t\t\tvalue = this.defaultValue || \"\";\n\t\t}\n\t}\n\treturn value;\n};\n\nRangeWidget.prototype.handleChangeEvent = function(event) {\n\tthis.wiki.setText(this.tiddlerTitle ,this.tiddlerField, null,this.inputDomNode.value);\n};\n\n/*\nCompute the internal state of the widget\n*/\nRangeWidget.prototype.execute = function() {\n\t// Get the parameters from the attributes\n\tthis.tiddlerTitle = this.getAttribute(\"tiddler\",this.getVariable(\"currentTiddler\"));\n\tthis.tiddlerField = this.getAttribute(\"field\");\n\tthis.minValue = this.getAttribute(\"min\");\n\tthis.maxValue = this.getAttribute(\"max\");\n\tthis.increment = this.getAttribute(\"increment\");\n\tthis.defaultValue = this.getAttribute(\"default\");\n\tthis.elementClass = this.getAttribute(\"class\",\"\");\n\t// Make the child widgets\n\tthis.makeChildWidgets();\n};\n\n/*\nSelectively refreshes the widget if needed. Returns true if the widget or any of its children needed re-rendering\n*/\nRangeWidget.prototype.refresh = function(changedTiddlers) {\n\tvar changedAttributes = this.computeAttributes();\n\tif(changedAttributes.tiddler || changedAttributes.field || changedAttributes['min'] || changedAttributes['max'] || changedAttributes['increment'] || changedAttributes[\"default\"] || changedAttributes[\"class\"]) {\n\t\tthis.refreshSelf();\n\t\treturn true;\n\t} else {\n\t\tvar refreshed = false;\n\t\tif(changedTiddlers[this.tiddlerTitle]) {\n\t\t\tthis.inputDomNode.checked = this.getValue();\n\t\t\trefreshed = true;\n\t\t}\n\t\treturn this.refreshChildren(changedTiddlers) || refreshed;\n\t}\n};\n\nexports.range = RangeWidget;\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "widget"
},
"$:/core/modules/widgets/raw.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/widgets/raw.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/widgets/raw.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: widget\n\nRaw widget\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nvar Widget = require(\"$:/core/modules/widgets/widget.js\").widget;\n\nvar RawWidget = function(parseTreeNode,options) {\n\tthis.initialise(parseTreeNode,options);\n};\n\n/*\nInherit from the base widget class\n*/\nRawWidget.prototype = new Widget();\n\n/*\nRender this widget into the DOM\n*/\nRawWidget.prototype.render = function(parent,nextSibling) {\n\tthis.parentDomNode = parent;\n\tthis.execute();\n\tvar div = this.document.createElement(\"div\");\n\tdiv.innerHTML=this.parseTreeNode.html;\n\tparent.insertBefore(div,nextSibling);\n\tthis.domNodes.push(div);\t\n};\n\n/*\nCompute the internal state of the widget\n*/\nRawWidget.prototype.execute = function() {\n};\n\n/*\nSelectively refreshes the widget if needed. Returns true if the widget or any of its children needed re-rendering\n*/\nRawWidget.prototype.refresh = function(changedTiddlers) {\n\treturn false;\n};\n\nexports.raw = RawWidget;\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "widget"
},
"$:/core/modules/widgets/reveal.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/widgets/reveal.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/widgets/reveal.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: widget\n\nReveal widget\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nvar Widget = require(\"$:/core/modules/widgets/widget.js\").widget;\n\nvar RevealWidget = function(parseTreeNode,options) {\n\tthis.initialise(parseTreeNode,options);\n};\n\n/*\nInherit from the base widget class\n*/\nRevealWidget.prototype = new Widget();\n\n/*\nRender this widget into the DOM\n*/\nRevealWidget.prototype.render = function(parent,nextSibling) {\n\tthis.parentDomNode = parent;\n\tthis.computeAttributes();\n\tthis.execute();\n\tvar tag = this.parseTreeNode.isBlock ? \"div\" : \"span\";\n\tif(this.revealTag && $tw.config.htmlUnsafeElements.indexOf(this.revealTag) === -1) {\n\t\ttag = this.revealTag;\n\t}\n\tvar domNode = this.document.createElement(tag);\n\tvar classes = this[\"class\"].split(\" \") || [];\n\tclasses.push(\"tc-reveal\");\n\tdomNode.className = classes.join(\" \");\n\tif(this.style) {\n\t\tdomNode.setAttribute(\"style\",this.style);\n\t}\n\tparent.insertBefore(domNode,nextSibling);\n\tthis.renderChildren(domNode,null);\n\tif(!domNode.isTiddlyWikiFakeDom && this.type === \"popup\" && this.isOpen) {\n\t\tthis.positionPopup(domNode);\n\t\t$tw.utils.addClass(domNode,\"tc-popup\"); // Make sure that clicks don't dismiss popups within the revealed content\n\t}\n\tif(!this.isOpen) {\n\t\tdomNode.setAttribute(\"hidden\",\"true\");\n\t}\n\tthis.domNodes.push(domNode);\n};\n\nRevealWidget.prototype.positionPopup = function(domNode) {\n\tdomNode.style.position = \"absolute\";\n\tdomNode.style.zIndex = \"1000\";\n\tswitch(this.position) {\n\t\tcase \"left\":\n\t\t\tdomNode.style.left = Math.max(0, this.popup.left - domNode.offsetWidth) + \"px\";\n\t\t\tdomNode.style.top = this.popup.top + \"px\";\n\t\t\tbreak;\n\t\tcase \"above\":\n\t\t\tdomNode.style.left = this.popup.left + \"px\";\n\t\t\tdomNode.style.top = Math.max(0, this.popup.top - domNode.offsetHeight) + \"px\";\n\t\t\tbreak;\n\t\tcase \"aboveright\":\n\t\t\tdomNode.style.left = (this.popup.left + this.popup.width) + \"px\";\n\t\t\tdomNode.style.top = Math.max(0, this.popup.top + this.popup.height - domNode.offsetHeight) + \"px\";\n\t\t\tbreak;\n\t\tcase \"right\":\n\t\t\tdomNode.style.left = (this.popup.left + this.popup.width) + \"px\";\n\t\t\tdomNode.style.top = this.popup.top + \"px\";\n\t\t\tbreak;\n\t\tcase \"belowleft\":\n\t\t\tdomNode.style.left = Math.max(0, this.popup.left + this.popup.width - domNode.offsetWidth) + \"px\";\n\t\t\tdomNode.style.top = (this.popup.top + this.popup.height) + \"px\";\n\t\t\tbreak;\n\t\tdefault: // Below\n\t\t\tdomNode.style.left = this.popup.left + \"px\";\n\t\t\tdomNode.style.top = (this.popup.top + this.popup.height) + \"px\";\n\t\t\tbreak;\n\t}\n};\n\n/*\nCompute the internal state of the widget\n*/\nRevealWidget.prototype.execute = function() {\n\t// Get our parameters\n\tthis.state = this.getAttribute(\"state\");\n\tthis.revealTag = this.getAttribute(\"tag\");\n\tthis.type = this.getAttribute(\"type\");\n\tthis.text = this.getAttribute(\"text\");\n\tthis.position = this.getAttribute(\"position\");\n\tthis[\"class\"] = this.getAttribute(\"class\",\"\");\n\tthis.style = this.getAttribute(\"style\",\"\");\n\tthis[\"default\"] = this.getAttribute(\"default\",\"\");\n\tthis.animate = this.getAttribute(\"animate\",\"no\");\n\tthis.retain = this.getAttribute(\"retain\",\"no\");\n\tthis.openAnimation = this.animate === \"no\" ? undefined : \"open\";\n\tthis.closeAnimation = this.animate === \"no\" ? undefined : \"close\";\n\t// Compute the title of the state tiddler and read it\n\tthis.stateTiddlerTitle = this.state;\n\tthis.stateTitle = this.getAttribute(\"stateTitle\");\n\tthis.stateField = this.getAttribute(\"stateField\");\n\tthis.stateIndex = this.getAttribute(\"stateIndex\");\n\tthis.readState();\n\t// Construct the child widgets\n\tvar childNodes = this.isOpen ? this.parseTreeNode.children : [];\n\tthis.hasChildNodes = this.isOpen;\n\tthis.makeChildWidgets(childNodes);\n};\n\n/*\nRead the state tiddler\n*/\nRevealWidget.prototype.readState = function() {\n\t// Read the information from the state tiddler\n\tvar state = this.stateTitle ? (this.stateField ? this.wiki.getTiddler(this.stateTitle).getFieldString(this.stateField) :\n\t\t(this.stateIndex ? this.wiki.extractTiddlerDataItem(this.stateTitle,this.stateIndex) :\n\t\t\tthis.wiki.getTiddlerText(this.stateTitle))) || this[\"default\"] || this.getVariable(\"currentTiddler\") :\n\t\t(this.stateTiddlerTitle ? this.wiki.getTextReference(this.state,this[\"default\"],this.getVariable(\"currentTiddler\")) : this[\"default\"]);\n\tif(state === null) {\n\t\tstate = this[\"default\"];\n\t}\n\tswitch(this.type) {\n\t\tcase \"popup\":\n\t\t\tthis.readPopupState(state);\n\t\t\tbreak;\n\t\tcase \"match\":\n\t\t\tthis.isOpen = !!(this.compareStateText(state) == 0);\n\t\t\tbreak;\n\t\tcase \"nomatch\":\n\t\t\tthis.isOpen = !(this.compareStateText(state) == 0);\n\t\t\tbreak;\n\t\tcase \"lt\":\n\t\t\tthis.isOpen = !!(this.compareStateText(state) < 0);\n\t\t\tbreak;\n\t\tcase \"gt\":\n\t\t\tthis.isOpen = !!(this.compareStateText(state) > 0);\n\t\t\tbreak;\n\t\tcase \"lteq\":\n\t\t\tthis.isOpen = !(this.compareStateText(state) > 0);\n\t\t\tbreak;\n\t\tcase \"gteq\":\n\t\t\tthis.isOpen = !(this.compareStateText(state) < 0);\n\t\t\tbreak;\n\t}\n};\n\nRevealWidget.prototype.compareStateText = function(state) {\n\treturn state.localeCompare(this.text,undefined,{numeric: true,sensitivity: \"case\"});\n};\n\nRevealWidget.prototype.readPopupState = function(state) {\n\tvar popupLocationRegExp = /^\\((-?[0-9\\.E]+),(-?[0-9\\.E]+),(-?[0-9\\.E]+),(-?[0-9\\.E]+)\\)$/,\n\t\tmatch = popupLocationRegExp.exec(state);\n\t// Check if the state matches the location regexp\n\tif(match) {\n\t\t// If so, we're open\n\t\tthis.isOpen = true;\n\t\t// Get the location\n\t\tthis.popup = {\n\t\t\tleft: parseFloat(match[1]),\n\t\t\ttop: parseFloat(match[2]),\n\t\t\twidth: parseFloat(match[3]),\n\t\t\theight: parseFloat(match[4])\n\t\t};\n\t} else {\n\t\t// If not, we're closed\n\t\tthis.isOpen = false;\n\t}\n};\n\n/*\nSelectively refreshes the widget if needed. Returns true if the widget or any of its children needed re-rendering\n*/\nRevealWidget.prototype.refresh = function(changedTiddlers) {\n\tvar changedAttributes = this.computeAttributes();\n\tif(changedAttributes.state || changedAttributes.type || changedAttributes.text || changedAttributes.position || changedAttributes[\"default\"] || changedAttributes.animate || changedAttributes.stateTitle || changedAttributes.stateField || changedAttributes.stateIndex) {\n\t\tthis.refreshSelf();\n\t\treturn true;\n\t} else {\n\t\tvar currentlyOpen = this.isOpen;\n\t\tthis.readState();\n\t\tif(this.isOpen !== currentlyOpen || (this.stateTiddlerTitle && changedTiddlers[this.stateTiddlerTitle])) {\n\t\t\tif(this.retain === \"yes\") {\n\t\t\t\tthis.updateState();\n\t\t\t} else {\n\t\t\t\tthis.refreshSelf();\n\t\t\t\treturn true;\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t}\n\t\treturn this.refreshChildren(changedTiddlers);\n\t}\n};\n\n/*\nCalled by refresh() to dynamically show or hide the content\n*/\nRevealWidget.prototype.updateState = function() {\n\tvar self = this;\n\t// Read the current state\n\tthis.readState();\n\t// Construct the child nodes if needed\n\tvar domNode = this.domNodes[0];\n\tif(this.isOpen && !this.hasChildNodes) {\n\t\tthis.hasChildNodes = true;\n\t\tthis.makeChildWidgets(this.parseTreeNode.children);\n\t\tthis.renderChildren(domNode,null);\n\t}\n\t// Animate our DOM node\n\tif(!domNode.isTiddlyWikiFakeDom && this.type === \"popup\" && this.isOpen) {\n\t\tthis.positionPopup(domNode);\n\t\t$tw.utils.addClass(domNode,\"tc-popup\"); // Make sure that clicks don't dismiss popups within the revealed content\n\n\t}\n\tif(this.isOpen) {\n\t\tdomNode.removeAttribute(\"hidden\");\n $tw.anim.perform(this.openAnimation,domNode);\n\t} else {\n\t\t$tw.anim.perform(this.closeAnimation,domNode,{callback: function() {\n\t\t\t//make sure that the state hasn't changed during the close animation\n\t\t\tself.readState()\n\t\t\tif(!self.isOpen) {\n\t\t\t\tdomNode.setAttribute(\"hidden\",\"true\");\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t}});\n\t}\n};\n\nexports.reveal = RevealWidget;\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "widget"
},
"$:/core/modules/widgets/scrollable.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/widgets/scrollable.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/widgets/scrollable.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: widget\n\nScrollable widget\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nvar Widget = require(\"$:/core/modules/widgets/widget.js\").widget;\n\nvar ScrollableWidget = function(parseTreeNode,options) {\n\tthis.initialise(parseTreeNode,options);\n\tthis.scaleFactor = 1;\n\tthis.addEventListeners([\n\t\t{type: \"tm-scroll\", handler: \"handleScrollEvent\"}\n\t]);\n\tif($tw.browser) {\n\t\tthis.requestAnimationFrame = window.requestAnimationFrame ||\n\t\t\twindow.webkitRequestAnimationFrame ||\n\t\t\twindow.mozRequestAnimationFrame ||\n\t\t\tfunction(callback) {\n\t\t\t\treturn window.setTimeout(callback, 1000/60);\n\t\t\t};\n\t\tthis.cancelAnimationFrame = window.cancelAnimationFrame ||\n\t\t\twindow.webkitCancelAnimationFrame ||\n\t\t\twindow.webkitCancelRequestAnimationFrame ||\n\t\t\twindow.mozCancelAnimationFrame ||\n\t\t\twindow.mozCancelRequestAnimationFrame ||\n\t\t\tfunction(id) {\n\t\t\t\twindow.clearTimeout(id);\n\t\t\t};\n\t}\n};\n\n/*\nInherit from the base widget class\n*/\nScrollableWidget.prototype = new Widget();\n\nScrollableWidget.prototype.cancelScroll = function() {\n\tif(this.idRequestFrame) {\n\t\tthis.cancelAnimationFrame.call(window,this.idRequestFrame);\n\t\tthis.idRequestFrame = null;\n\t}\n};\n\n/*\nHandle a scroll event\n*/\nScrollableWidget.prototype.handleScrollEvent = function(event) {\n\t// Pass the scroll event through if our offsetsize is larger than our scrollsize\n\tif(this.outerDomNode.scrollWidth <= this.outerDomNode.offsetWidth && this.outerDomNode.scrollHeight <= this.outerDomNode.offsetHeight && this.fallthrough === \"yes\") {\n\t\treturn true;\n\t}\n\tthis.scrollIntoView(event.target);\n\treturn false; // Handled event\n};\n\n/*\nScroll an element into view\n*/\nScrollableWidget.prototype.scrollIntoView = function(element) {\n\tvar duration = $tw.utils.getAnimationDuration();\n\tthis.cancelScroll();\n\tthis.startTime = Date.now();\n\tvar scrollPosition = {\n\t\tx: this.outerDomNode.scrollLeft,\n\t\ty: this.outerDomNode.scrollTop\n\t};\n\t// Get the client bounds of the element and adjust by the scroll position\n\tvar scrollableBounds = this.outerDomNode.getBoundingClientRect(),\n\t\tclientTargetBounds = element.getBoundingClientRect(),\n\t\tbounds = {\n\t\t\tleft: clientTargetBounds.left + scrollPosition.x - scrollableBounds.left,\n\t\t\ttop: clientTargetBounds.top + scrollPosition.y - scrollableBounds.top,\n\t\t\twidth: clientTargetBounds.width,\n\t\t\theight: clientTargetBounds.height\n\t\t};\n\t// We'll consider the horizontal and vertical scroll directions separately via this function\n\tvar getEndPos = function(targetPos,targetSize,currentPos,currentSize) {\n\t\t\t// If the target is already visible then stay where we are\n\t\t\tif(targetPos >= currentPos && (targetPos + targetSize) <= (currentPos + currentSize)) {\n\t\t\t\treturn currentPos;\n\t\t\t// If the target is above/left of the current view, then scroll to its top/left\n\t\t\t} else if(targetPos <= currentPos) {\n\t\t\t\treturn targetPos;\n\t\t\t// If the target is smaller than the window and the scroll position is too far up, then scroll till the target is at the bottom of the window\n\t\t\t} else if(targetSize < currentSize && currentPos < (targetPos + targetSize - currentSize)) {\n\t\t\t\treturn targetPos + targetSize - currentSize;\n\t\t\t// If the target is big, then just scroll to the top\n\t\t\t} else if(currentPos < targetPos) {\n\t\t\t\treturn targetPos;\n\t\t\t// Otherwise, stay where we are\n\t\t\t} else {\n\t\t\t\treturn currentPos;\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t},\n\t\tendX = getEndPos(bounds.left,bounds.width,scrollPosition.x,this.outerDomNode.offsetWidth),\n\t\tendY = getEndPos(bounds.top,bounds.height,scrollPosition.y,this.outerDomNode.offsetHeight);\n\t// Only scroll if necessary\n\tif(endX !== scrollPosition.x || endY !== scrollPosition.y) {\n\t\tvar self = this,\n\t\t\tdrawFrame;\n\t\tdrawFrame = function () {\n\t\t\tvar t;\n\t\t\tif(duration <= 0) {\n\t\t\t\tt = 1;\n\t\t\t} else {\n\t\t\t\tt = ((Date.now()) - self.startTime) / duration;\t\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t\tif(t >= 1) {\n\t\t\t\tself.cancelScroll();\n\t\t\t\tt = 1;\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t\tt = $tw.utils.slowInSlowOut(t);\n\t\t\tself.outerDomNode.scrollLeft = scrollPosition.x + (endX - scrollPosition.x) * t;\n\t\t\tself.outerDomNode.scrollTop = scrollPosition.y + (endY - scrollPosition.y) * t;\n\t\t\tif(t < 1) {\n\t\t\t\tself.idRequestFrame = self.requestAnimationFrame.call(window,drawFrame);\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t};\n\t\tdrawFrame();\n\t}\n};\n\n/*\nRender this widget into the DOM\n*/\nScrollableWidget.prototype.render = function(parent,nextSibling) {\n\tvar self = this;\n\t// Remember parent\n\tthis.parentDomNode = parent;\n\t// Compute attributes and execute state\n\tthis.computeAttributes();\n\tthis.execute();\n\t// Create elements\n\tthis.outerDomNode = this.document.createElement(\"div\");\n\t$tw.utils.setStyle(this.outerDomNode,[\n\t\t{overflowY: \"auto\"},\n\t\t{overflowX: \"auto\"},\n\t\t{webkitOverflowScrolling: \"touch\"}\n\t]);\n\tthis.innerDomNode = this.document.createElement(\"div\");\n\tthis.outerDomNode.appendChild(this.innerDomNode);\n\t// Assign classes\n\tthis.outerDomNode.className = this[\"class\"] || \"\";\n\t// Insert element\n\tparent.insertBefore(this.outerDomNode,nextSibling);\n\tthis.renderChildren(this.innerDomNode,null);\n\tthis.domNodes.push(this.outerDomNode);\n};\n\n/*\nCompute the internal state of the widget\n*/\nScrollableWidget.prototype.execute = function() {\n\t// Get attributes\n\tthis.fallthrough = this.getAttribute(\"fallthrough\",\"yes\");\n\tthis[\"class\"] = this.getAttribute(\"class\");\n\t// Make child widgets\n\tthis.makeChildWidgets();\n};\n\n/*\nSelectively refreshes the widget if needed. Returns true if the widget or any of its children needed re-rendering\n*/\nScrollableWidget.prototype.refresh = function(changedTiddlers) {\n\tvar changedAttributes = this.computeAttributes();\n\tif(changedAttributes[\"class\"]) {\n\t\tthis.refreshSelf();\n\t\treturn true;\n\t}\n\treturn this.refreshChildren(changedTiddlers);\n};\n\nexports.scrollable = ScrollableWidget;\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "widget"
},
"$:/core/modules/widgets/select.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/widgets/select.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/widgets/select.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: widget\n\nSelect widget:\n\n```\n<$select tiddler=\"MyTiddler\" field=\"text\">\n<$list filter=\"[tag[chapter]]\">\n<option value=<<currentTiddler>>>\n<$view field=\"description\"/>\n</option>\n</$list>\n</$select>\n```\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nvar Widget = require(\"$:/core/modules/widgets/widget.js\").widget;\n\nvar SelectWidget = function(parseTreeNode,options) {\n\tthis.initialise(parseTreeNode,options);\n};\n\n/*\nInherit from the base widget class\n*/\nSelectWidget.prototype = new Widget();\n\n/*\nRender this widget into the DOM\n*/\nSelectWidget.prototype.render = function(parent,nextSibling) {\n\tthis.parentDomNode = parent;\n\tthis.computeAttributes();\n\tthis.execute();\n\tthis.renderChildren(parent,nextSibling);\n\tthis.setSelectValue();\n\t$tw.utils.addEventListeners(this.getSelectDomNode(),[\n\t\t{name: \"change\", handlerObject: this, handlerMethod: \"handleChangeEvent\"}\n\t]);\n};\n\n/*\nHandle a change event\n*/\nSelectWidget.prototype.handleChangeEvent = function(event) {\n\t// Get the new value and assign it to the tiddler\n\tif(this.selectMultiple == false) {\n\t\tvar value = this.getSelectDomNode().value;\n\t} else {\n\t\tvar value = this.getSelectValues()\n\t\t\t\tvalue = $tw.utils.stringifyList(value);\n\t}\n\tthis.wiki.setText(this.selectTitle,this.selectField,this.selectIndex,value);\n\t// Trigger actions\n\tif(this.selectActions) {\n\t\tthis.invokeActionString(this.selectActions,this,event);\n\t}\n};\n\n/*\nIf necessary, set the value of the select element to the current value\n*/\nSelectWidget.prototype.setSelectValue = function() {\n\tvar value = this.selectDefault;\n\t// Get the value\n\tif(this.selectIndex) {\n\t\tvalue = this.wiki.extractTiddlerDataItem(this.selectTitle,this.selectIndex,value);\n\t} else {\n\t\tvar tiddler = this.wiki.getTiddler(this.selectTitle);\n\t\tif(tiddler) {\n\t\t\tif(this.selectField === \"text\") {\n\t\t\t\t// Calling getTiddlerText() triggers lazy loading of skinny tiddlers\n\t\t\t\tvalue = this.wiki.getTiddlerText(this.selectTitle);\n\t\t\t} else {\n\t\t\t\tif($tw.utils.hop(tiddler.fields,this.selectField)) {\n\t\t\t\t\tvalue = tiddler.getFieldString(this.selectField);\n\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t} else {\n\t\t\tif(this.selectField === \"title\") {\n\t\t\t\tvalue = this.selectTitle;\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t}\n\t}\n\t// Assign it to the select element if it's different than the current value\n\tif (this.selectMultiple) {\n\t\tvalue = value === undefined ? \"\" : value;\n\t\tvar select = this.getSelectDomNode();\n\t\tvar values = Array.isArray(value) ? value : $tw.utils.parseStringArray(value);\n\t\tfor(var i=0; i < select.children.length; i++){\n\t\t\tif(values.indexOf(select.children[i].value) != -1) {\n\t\t\t\tselect.children[i].selected = true;\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t}\n\t\t\n\t} else {\n\t\tvar domNode = this.getSelectDomNode();\n\t\tif(domNode.value !== value) {\n\t\t\tdomNode.value = value;\n\t\t}\n\t}\n};\n\n/*\nGet the DOM node of the select element\n*/\nSelectWidget.prototype.getSelectDomNode = function() {\n\treturn this.children[0].domNodes[0];\n};\n\n// Return an array of the selected opion values\n// select is an HTML select element\nSelectWidget.prototype.getSelectValues = function() {\n\tvar select, result, options, opt;\n\tselect = this.getSelectDomNode();\n\tresult = [];\n\toptions = select && select.options;\n\tfor (var i=0; i<options.length; i++) {\n\t\topt = options[i];\n\t\tif (opt.selected) {\n\t\t\tresult.push(opt.value || opt.text);\n\t\t}\n\t}\n\treturn result;\n}\n\n/*\nCompute the internal state of the widget\n*/\nSelectWidget.prototype.execute = function() {\n\t// Get our parameters\n\tthis.selectActions = this.getAttribute(\"actions\");\n\tthis.selectTitle = this.getAttribute(\"tiddler\",this.getVariable(\"currentTiddler\"));\n\tthis.selectField = this.getAttribute(\"field\",\"text\");\n\tthis.selectIndex = this.getAttribute(\"index\");\n\tthis.selectClass = this.getAttribute(\"class\");\n\tthis.selectDefault = this.getAttribute(\"default\");\n\tthis.selectMultiple = this.getAttribute(\"multiple\", false);\n\tthis.selectSize = this.getAttribute(\"size\");\n\t// Make the child widgets\n\tvar selectNode = {\n\t\ttype: \"element\",\n\t\ttag: \"select\",\n\t\tchildren: this.parseTreeNode.children\n\t};\n\tif(this.selectClass) {\n\t\t$tw.utils.addAttributeToParseTreeNode(selectNode,\"class\",this.selectClass);\n\t}\n\tif(this.selectMultiple) {\n\t\t$tw.utils.addAttributeToParseTreeNode(selectNode,\"multiple\",\"multiple\");\n\t}\n\tif(this.selectSize) {\n\t\t$tw.utils.addAttributeToParseTreeNode(selectNode,\"size\",this.selectSize);\n\t}\n\tthis.makeChildWidgets([selectNode]);\n};\n\n/*\nSelectively refreshes the widget if needed. Returns true if the widget or any of its children needed re-rendering\n*/\nSelectWidget.prototype.refresh = function(changedTiddlers) {\n\tvar changedAttributes = this.computeAttributes();\n\t// If we're using a different tiddler/field/index then completely refresh ourselves\n\tif(changedAttributes.selectTitle || changedAttributes.selectField || changedAttributes.selectIndex) {\n\t\tthis.refreshSelf();\n\t\treturn true;\n\t// If the target tiddler value has changed, just update setting and refresh the children\n\t} else {\n\t\tvar childrenRefreshed = this.refreshChildren(changedTiddlers);\n\t\tif(changedTiddlers[this.selectTitle] || childrenRefreshed) {\n\t\t\tthis.setSelectValue();\n\t\t} \n\t\treturn childrenRefreshed;\n\t}\n};\n\nexports.select = SelectWidget;\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "widget"
},
"$:/core/modules/widgets/set.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/widgets/set.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/widgets/set.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: widget\n\nSet variable widget\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nvar Widget = require(\"$:/core/modules/widgets/widget.js\").widget;\n\nvar SetWidget = function(parseTreeNode,options) {\n\tthis.initialise(parseTreeNode,options);\n};\n\n/*\nInherit from the base widget class\n*/\nSetWidget.prototype = new Widget();\n\n/*\nRender this widget into the DOM\n*/\nSetWidget.prototype.render = function(parent,nextSibling) {\n\tthis.parentDomNode = parent;\n\tthis.computeAttributes();\n\tthis.execute();\n\tthis.renderChildren(parent,nextSibling);\n};\n\n/*\nCompute the internal state of the widget\n*/\nSetWidget.prototype.execute = function() {\n\t// Get our parameters\n\tthis.setName = this.getAttribute(\"name\",\"currentTiddler\");\n\tthis.setFilter = this.getAttribute(\"filter\");\n\tthis.setSelect = this.getAttribute(\"select\");\n\tthis.setTiddler = this.getAttribute(\"tiddler\");\n\tthis.setSubTiddler = this.getAttribute(\"subtiddler\");\n\tthis.setField = this.getAttribute(\"field\");\n\tthis.setIndex = this.getAttribute(\"index\");\n\tthis.setValue = this.getAttribute(\"value\");\n\tthis.setEmptyValue = this.getAttribute(\"emptyValue\");\n\t// Set context variable\n\tthis.setVariable(this.setName,this.getValue(),this.parseTreeNode.params,!!this.parseTreeNode.isMacroDefinition);\n\t// Construct the child widgets\n\tthis.makeChildWidgets();\n};\n\n/*\nGet the value to be assigned\n*/\nSetWidget.prototype.getValue = function() {\n\tvar value = this.setValue;\n\tif(this.setTiddler) {\n\t\tvar tiddler;\n\t\tif(this.setSubTiddler) {\n\t\t\ttiddler = this.wiki.getSubTiddler(this.setTiddler,this.setSubTiddler);\n\t\t} else {\n\t\t\ttiddler = this.wiki.getTiddler(this.setTiddler);\t\t\t\n\t\t}\n\t\tif(!tiddler) {\n\t\t\tvalue = this.setEmptyValue;\n\t\t} else if(this.setField) {\n\t\t\tvalue = tiddler.getFieldString(this.setField) || this.setEmptyValue;\n\t\t} else if(this.setIndex) {\n\t\t\tvalue = this.wiki.extractTiddlerDataItem(this.setTiddler,this.setIndex,this.setEmptyValue);\n\t\t} else {\n\t\t\tvalue = tiddler.fields.text || this.setEmptyValue ;\n\t\t}\n\t} else if(this.setFilter) {\n\t\tvar results = this.wiki.filterTiddlers(this.setFilter,this);\n\t\tif(this.setValue == null) {\n\t\t\tvar select;\n\t\t\tif(this.setSelect) {\n\t\t\t\tselect = parseInt(this.setSelect,10);\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t\tif(select !== undefined) {\n\t\t\t\tvalue = results[select] || \"\";\n\t\t\t} else {\n\t\t\t\tvalue = $tw.utils.stringifyList(results);\t\t\t\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t}\n\t\tif(results.length === 0 && this.setEmptyValue !== undefined) {\n\t\t\tvalue = this.setEmptyValue;\n\t\t}\n\t} else if(!value && this.setEmptyValue) {\n\t\tvalue = this.setEmptyValue;\n\t}\n\treturn value || \"\";\n};\n\n/*\nSelectively refreshes the widget if needed. Returns true if the widget or any of its children needed re-rendering\n*/\nSetWidget.prototype.refresh = function(changedTiddlers) {\n\tvar changedAttributes = this.computeAttributes();\n\tif(changedAttributes.name || changedAttributes.filter || changedAttributes.select || changedAttributes.tiddler || (this.setTiddler && changedTiddlers[this.setTiddler]) || changedAttributes.field || changedAttributes.index || changedAttributes.value || changedAttributes.emptyValue ||\n\t (this.setFilter && this.getValue() != this.variables[this.setName].value)) {\n\t\tthis.refreshSelf();\n\t\treturn true;\n\t} else {\n\t\treturn this.refreshChildren(changedTiddlers);\n\t}\n};\n\nexports.setvariable = SetWidget;\nexports.set = SetWidget;\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "widget"
},
"$:/core/modules/widgets/text.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/widgets/text.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/widgets/text.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: widget\n\nText node widget\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nvar Widget = require(\"$:/core/modules/widgets/widget.js\").widget;\n\nvar TextNodeWidget = function(parseTreeNode,options) {\n\tthis.initialise(parseTreeNode,options);\n};\n\n/*\nInherit from the base widget class\n*/\nTextNodeWidget.prototype = new Widget();\n\n/*\nRender this widget into the DOM\n*/\nTextNodeWidget.prototype.render = function(parent,nextSibling) {\n\tthis.parentDomNode = parent;\n\tthis.computeAttributes();\n\tthis.execute();\n\tvar text = this.getAttribute(\"text\",this.parseTreeNode.text || \"\");\n\ttext = text.replace(/\\r/mg,\"\");\n\tvar textNode = this.document.createTextNode(text);\n\tparent.insertBefore(textNode,nextSibling);\n\tthis.domNodes.push(textNode);\n};\n\n/*\nCompute the internal state of the widget\n*/\nTextNodeWidget.prototype.execute = function() {\n\t// Nothing to do for a text node\n};\n\n/*\nSelectively refreshes the widget if needed. Returns true if the widget or any of its children needed re-rendering\n*/\nTextNodeWidget.prototype.refresh = function(changedTiddlers) {\n\tvar changedAttributes = this.computeAttributes();\n\tif(changedAttributes.text) {\n\t\tthis.refreshSelf();\n\t\treturn true;\n\t} else {\n\t\treturn false;\t\n\t}\n};\n\nexports.text = TextNodeWidget;\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "widget"
},
"$:/core/modules/widgets/tiddler.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/widgets/tiddler.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/widgets/tiddler.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: widget\n\nTiddler widget\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nvar Widget = require(\"$:/core/modules/widgets/widget.js\").widget;\n\nvar TiddlerWidget = function(parseTreeNode,options) {\n\tthis.initialise(parseTreeNode,options);\n};\n\n/*\nInherit from the base widget class\n*/\nTiddlerWidget.prototype = new Widget();\n\n/*\nRender this widget into the DOM\n*/\nTiddlerWidget.prototype.render = function(parent,nextSibling) {\n\tthis.parentDomNode = parent;\n\tthis.computeAttributes();\n\tthis.execute();\n\tthis.renderChildren(parent,nextSibling);\n};\n\n/*\nCompute the internal state of the widget\n*/\nTiddlerWidget.prototype.execute = function() {\n\tthis.tiddlerState = this.computeTiddlerState();\n\tthis.setVariable(\"currentTiddler\",this.tiddlerState.currentTiddler);\n\tthis.setVariable(\"missingTiddlerClass\",this.tiddlerState.missingTiddlerClass);\n\tthis.setVariable(\"shadowTiddlerClass\",this.tiddlerState.shadowTiddlerClass);\n\tthis.setVariable(\"systemTiddlerClass\",this.tiddlerState.systemTiddlerClass);\n\tthis.setVariable(\"tiddlerTagClasses\",this.tiddlerState.tiddlerTagClasses);\n\t// Construct the child widgets\n\tthis.makeChildWidgets();\n};\n\n/*\nCompute the tiddler state flags\n*/\nTiddlerWidget.prototype.computeTiddlerState = function() {\n\t// Get our parameters\n\tthis.tiddlerTitle = this.getAttribute(\"tiddler\",this.getVariable(\"currentTiddler\"));\n\t// Compute the state\n\tvar state = {\n\t\tcurrentTiddler: this.tiddlerTitle || \"\",\n\t\tmissingTiddlerClass: (this.wiki.tiddlerExists(this.tiddlerTitle) || this.wiki.isShadowTiddler(this.tiddlerTitle)) ? \"tc-tiddler-exists\" : \"tc-tiddler-missing\",\n\t\tshadowTiddlerClass: this.wiki.isShadowTiddler(this.tiddlerTitle) ? \"tc-tiddler-shadow\" : \"\",\n\t\tsystemTiddlerClass: this.wiki.isSystemTiddler(this.tiddlerTitle) ? \"tc-tiddler-system\" : \"\",\n\t\ttiddlerTagClasses: this.getTagClasses()\n\t};\n\t// Compute a simple hash to make it easier to detect changes\n\tstate.hash = state.currentTiddler + state.missingTiddlerClass + state.shadowTiddlerClass + state.systemTiddlerClass + state.tiddlerTagClasses;\n\treturn state;\n};\n\n/*\nCreate a string of CSS classes derived from the tags of the current tiddler\n*/\nTiddlerWidget.prototype.getTagClasses = function() {\n\tvar tiddler = this.wiki.getTiddler(this.tiddlerTitle);\n\tif(tiddler) {\n\t\tvar tags = [];\n\t\t$tw.utils.each(tiddler.fields.tags,function(tag) {\n\t\t\ttags.push(\"tc-tagged-\" + encodeURIComponent(tag));\n\t\t});\n\t\treturn tags.join(\" \");\n\t} else {\n\t\treturn \"\";\n\t}\n};\n\n/*\nSelectively refreshes the widget if needed. Returns true if the widget or any of its children needed re-rendering\n*/\nTiddlerWidget.prototype.refresh = function(changedTiddlers) {\n\tvar changedAttributes = this.computeAttributes(),\n\t\tnewTiddlerState = this.computeTiddlerState();\n\tif(changedAttributes.tiddler || newTiddlerState.hash !== this.tiddlerState.hash) {\n\t\tthis.refreshSelf();\n\t\treturn true;\n\t} else {\n\t\treturn this.refreshChildren(changedTiddlers);\t\t\n\t}\n};\n\nexports.tiddler = TiddlerWidget;\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "widget"
},
"$:/core/modules/widgets/transclude.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/widgets/transclude.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/widgets/transclude.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: widget\n\nTransclude widget\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nvar Widget = require(\"$:/core/modules/widgets/widget.js\").widget;\n\nvar TranscludeWidget = function(parseTreeNode,options) {\n\tthis.initialise(parseTreeNode,options);\n};\n\n/*\nInherit from the base widget class\n*/\nTranscludeWidget.prototype = new Widget();\n\n/*\nRender this widget into the DOM\n*/\nTranscludeWidget.prototype.render = function(parent,nextSibling) {\n\tthis.parentDomNode = parent;\n\tthis.computeAttributes();\n\tthis.execute();\n\tthis.renderChildren(parent,nextSibling);\n};\n\n/*\nCompute the internal state of the widget\n*/\nTranscludeWidget.prototype.execute = function() {\n\t// Get our parameters\n\tthis.transcludeTitle = this.getAttribute(\"tiddler\",this.getVariable(\"currentTiddler\"));\n\tthis.transcludeSubTiddler = this.getAttribute(\"subtiddler\");\n\tthis.transcludeField = this.getAttribute(\"field\");\n\tthis.transcludeIndex = this.getAttribute(\"index\");\n\tthis.transcludeMode = this.getAttribute(\"mode\");\n\t// Parse the text reference\n\tvar parseAsInline = !this.parseTreeNode.isBlock;\n\tif(this.transcludeMode === \"inline\") {\n\t\tparseAsInline = true;\n\t} else if(this.transcludeMode === \"block\") {\n\t\tparseAsInline = false;\n\t}\n\tvar parser = this.wiki.parseTextReference(\n\t\t\t\t\t\tthis.transcludeTitle,\n\t\t\t\t\t\tthis.transcludeField,\n\t\t\t\t\t\tthis.transcludeIndex,\n\t\t\t\t\t\t{\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tparseAsInline: parseAsInline,\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tsubTiddler: this.transcludeSubTiddler\n\t\t\t\t\t\t}),\n\t\tparseTreeNodes = parser ? parser.tree : this.parseTreeNode.children;\n\t// Set context variables for recursion detection\n\tvar recursionMarker = this.makeRecursionMarker();\n\tthis.setVariable(\"transclusion\",recursionMarker);\n\t// Check for recursion\n\tif(parser) {\n\t\tif(this.parentWidget && this.parentWidget.hasVariable(\"transclusion\",recursionMarker)) {\n\t\t\tparseTreeNodes = [{type: \"element\", tag: \"span\", attributes: {\n\t\t\t\t\"class\": {type: \"string\", value: \"tc-error\"}\n\t\t\t}, children: [\n\t\t\t\t{type: \"text\", text: $tw.language.getString(\"Error/RecursiveTransclusion\")}\n\t\t\t]}];\n\t\t}\n\t}\n\t// Construct the child widgets\n\tthis.makeChildWidgets(parseTreeNodes);\n};\n\n/*\nCompose a string comprising the title, field and/or index to identify this transclusion for recursion detection\n*/\nTranscludeWidget.prototype.makeRecursionMarker = function() {\n\tvar output = [];\n\toutput.push(\"{\");\n\toutput.push(this.getVariable(\"currentTiddler\",{defaultValue: \"\"}));\n\toutput.push(\"|\");\n\toutput.push(this.transcludeTitle || \"\");\n\toutput.push(\"|\");\n\toutput.push(this.transcludeField || \"\");\n\toutput.push(\"|\");\n\toutput.push(this.transcludeIndex || \"\");\n\toutput.push(\"|\");\n\toutput.push(this.transcludeSubTiddler || \"\");\n\toutput.push(\"}\");\n\treturn output.join(\"\");\n};\n\n/*\nSelectively refreshes the widget if needed. Returns true if the widget or any of its children needed re-rendering\n*/\nTranscludeWidget.prototype.refresh = function(changedTiddlers) {\n\tvar changedAttributes = this.computeAttributes();\n\tif(changedAttributes.tiddler || changedAttributes.field || changedAttributes.index || changedTiddlers[this.transcludeTitle]) {\n\t\tthis.refreshSelf();\n\t\treturn true;\n\t} else {\n\t\treturn this.refreshChildren(changedTiddlers);\t\t\n\t}\n};\n\nexports.transclude = TranscludeWidget;\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "widget"
},
"$:/core/modules/widgets/vars.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/widgets/vars.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/widgets/vars.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: widget\n\nThis widget allows multiple variables to be set in one go:\n\n```\n\\define helloworld() Hello world!\n<$vars greeting=\"Hi\" me={{!!title}} sentence=<<helloworld>>>\n <<greeting>>! I am <<me>> and I say: <<sentence>>\n</$vars>\n```\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nvar Widget = require(\"$:/core/modules/widgets/widget.js\").widget;\n\nvar VarsWidget = function(parseTreeNode,options) {\n\t// Call the constructor\n\tWidget.call(this);\n\t// Initialise\t\n\tthis.initialise(parseTreeNode,options);\n};\n\n/*\nInherit from the base widget class\n*/\nVarsWidget.prototype = Object.create(Widget.prototype);\n\n/*\nRender this widget into the DOM\n*/\nVarsWidget.prototype.render = function(parent,nextSibling) {\n\tthis.parentDomNode = parent;\n\tthis.computeAttributes();\n\tthis.execute();\n\tthis.renderChildren(parent,nextSibling);\n};\n\n/*\nCompute the internal state of the widget\n*/\nVarsWidget.prototype.execute = function() {\n\t// Parse variables\n\tvar self = this;\n\t$tw.utils.each(this.attributes,function(val,key) {\n\t\tif(key.charAt(0) !== \"$\") {\n\t\t\tself.setVariable(key,val);\n\t\t}\n\t});\n\t// Construct the child widgets\n\tthis.makeChildWidgets();\n};\n\n/*\nRefresh the widget by ensuring our attributes are up to date\n*/\nVarsWidget.prototype.refresh = function(changedTiddlers) {\n\tvar changedAttributes = this.computeAttributes();\n\tif(Object.keys(changedAttributes).length) {\n\t\tthis.refreshSelf();\n\t\treturn true;\n\t}\n\treturn this.refreshChildren(changedTiddlers);\n};\n\nexports[\"vars\"] = VarsWidget;\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "widget"
},
"$:/core/modules/widgets/view.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/widgets/view.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/widgets/view.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: widget\n\nView widget\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nvar Widget = require(\"$:/core/modules/widgets/widget.js\").widget;\n\nvar ViewWidget = function(parseTreeNode,options) {\n\tthis.initialise(parseTreeNode,options);\n};\n\n/*\nInherit from the base widget class\n*/\nViewWidget.prototype = new Widget();\n\n/*\nRender this widget into the DOM\n*/\nViewWidget.prototype.render = function(parent,nextSibling) {\n\tthis.parentDomNode = parent;\n\tthis.computeAttributes();\n\tthis.execute();\n\tif(this.text) {\n\t\tvar textNode = this.document.createTextNode(this.text);\n\t\tparent.insertBefore(textNode,nextSibling);\n\t\tthis.domNodes.push(textNode);\n\t} else {\n\t\tthis.makeChildWidgets();\n\t\tthis.renderChildren(parent,nextSibling);\n\t}\n};\n\n/*\nCompute the internal state of the widget\n*/\nViewWidget.prototype.execute = function() {\n\t// Get parameters from our attributes\n\tthis.viewTitle = this.getAttribute(\"tiddler\",this.getVariable(\"currentTiddler\"));\n\tthis.viewSubtiddler = this.getAttribute(\"subtiddler\");\n\tthis.viewField = this.getAttribute(\"field\",\"text\");\n\tthis.viewIndex = this.getAttribute(\"index\");\n\tthis.viewFormat = this.getAttribute(\"format\",\"text\");\n\tthis.viewTemplate = this.getAttribute(\"template\",\"\");\n\tthis.viewMode = this.getAttribute(\"mode\",\"block\");\n\tswitch(this.viewFormat) {\n\t\tcase \"htmlwikified\":\n\t\t\tthis.text = this.getValueAsHtmlWikified(this.viewMode);\n\t\t\tbreak;\n\t\tcase \"plainwikified\":\n\t\t\tthis.text = this.getValueAsPlainWikified(this.viewMode);\n\t\t\tbreak;\n\t\tcase \"htmlencodedplainwikified\":\n\t\t\tthis.text = this.getValueAsHtmlEncodedPlainWikified(this.viewMode);\n\t\t\tbreak;\n\t\tcase \"htmlencoded\":\n\t\t\tthis.text = this.getValueAsHtmlEncoded();\n\t\t\tbreak;\n\t\tcase \"urlencoded\":\n\t\t\tthis.text = this.getValueAsUrlEncoded();\n\t\t\tbreak;\n\t\tcase \"doubleurlencoded\":\n\t\t\tthis.text = this.getValueAsDoubleUrlEncoded();\n\t\t\tbreak;\n\t\tcase \"date\":\n\t\t\tthis.text = this.getValueAsDate(this.viewTemplate);\n\t\t\tbreak;\n\t\tcase \"relativedate\":\n\t\t\tthis.text = this.getValueAsRelativeDate();\n\t\t\tbreak;\n\t\tcase \"stripcomments\":\n\t\t\tthis.text = this.getValueAsStrippedComments();\n\t\t\tbreak;\n\t\tcase \"jsencoded\":\n\t\t\tthis.text = this.getValueAsJsEncoded();\n\t\t\tbreak;\n\t\tdefault: // \"text\"\n\t\t\tthis.text = this.getValueAsText();\n\t\t\tbreak;\n\t}\n};\n\n/*\nThe various formatter functions are baked into this widget for the moment. Eventually they will be replaced by macro functions\n*/\n\n/*\nRetrieve the value of the widget. Options are:\nasString: Optionally return the value as a string\n*/\nViewWidget.prototype.getValue = function(options) {\n\toptions = options || {};\n\tvar value = options.asString ? \"\" : undefined;\n\tif(this.viewIndex) {\n\t\tvalue = this.wiki.extractTiddlerDataItem(this.viewTitle,this.viewIndex);\n\t} else {\n\t\tvar tiddler;\n\t\tif(this.viewSubtiddler) {\n\t\t\ttiddler = this.wiki.getSubTiddler(this.viewTitle,this.viewSubtiddler);\t\n\t\t} else {\n\t\t\ttiddler = this.wiki.getTiddler(this.viewTitle);\n\t\t}\n\t\tif(tiddler) {\n\t\t\tif(this.viewField === \"text\" && !this.viewSubtiddler) {\n\t\t\t\t// Calling getTiddlerText() triggers lazy loading of skinny tiddlers\n\t\t\t\tvalue = this.wiki.getTiddlerText(this.viewTitle);\n\t\t\t} else {\n\t\t\t\tif($tw.utils.hop(tiddler.fields,this.viewField)) {\n\t\t\t\t\tif(options.asString) {\n\t\t\t\t\t\tvalue = tiddler.getFieldString(this.viewField);\n\t\t\t\t\t} else {\n\t\t\t\t\t\tvalue = tiddler.fields[this.viewField];\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t} else {\n\t\t\tif(this.viewField === \"title\") {\n\t\t\t\tvalue = this.viewTitle;\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t}\n\t}\n\treturn value;\n};\n\nViewWidget.prototype.getValueAsText = function() {\n\treturn this.getValue({asString: true});\n};\n\nViewWidget.prototype.getValueAsHtmlWikified = function(mode) {\n\treturn this.wiki.renderText(\"text/html\",\"text/vnd.tiddlywiki\",this.getValueAsText(),{\n\t\tparseAsInline: mode !== \"block\",\n\t\tparentWidget: this\n\t});\n};\n\nViewWidget.prototype.getValueAsPlainWikified = function(mode) {\n\treturn this.wiki.renderText(\"text/plain\",\"text/vnd.tiddlywiki\",this.getValueAsText(),{\n\t\tparseAsInline: mode !== \"block\",\n\t\tparentWidget: this\n\t});\n};\n\nViewWidget.prototype.getValueAsHtmlEncodedPlainWikified = function(mode) {\n\treturn $tw.utils.htmlEncode(this.wiki.renderText(\"text/plain\",\"text/vnd.tiddlywiki\",this.getValueAsText(),{\n\t\tparseAsInline: mode !== \"block\",\n\t\tparentWidget: this\n\t}));\n};\n\nViewWidget.prototype.getValueAsHtmlEncoded = function() {\n\treturn $tw.utils.htmlEncode(this.getValueAsText());\n};\n\nViewWidget.prototype.getValueAsUrlEncoded = function() {\n\treturn encodeURIComponent(this.getValueAsText());\n};\n\nViewWidget.prototype.getValueAsDoubleUrlEncoded = function() {\n\treturn encodeURIComponent(encodeURIComponent(this.getValueAsText()));\n};\n\nViewWidget.prototype.getValueAsDate = function(format) {\n\tformat = format || \"YYYY MM DD 0hh:0mm\";\n\tvar value = $tw.utils.parseDate(this.getValue());\n\tif(value && $tw.utils.isDate(value) && value.toString() !== \"Invalid Date\") {\n\t\treturn $tw.utils.formatDateString(value,format);\n\t} else {\n\t\treturn \"\";\n\t}\n};\n\nViewWidget.prototype.getValueAsRelativeDate = function(format) {\n\tvar value = $tw.utils.parseDate(this.getValue());\n\tif(value && $tw.utils.isDate(value) && value.toString() !== \"Invalid Date\") {\n\t\treturn $tw.utils.getRelativeDate((new Date()) - (new Date(value))).description;\n\t} else {\n\t\treturn \"\";\n\t}\n};\n\nViewWidget.prototype.getValueAsStrippedComments = function() {\n\tvar lines = this.getValueAsText().split(\"\\n\"),\n\t\tout = [];\n\tfor(var line=0; line<lines.length; line++) {\n\t\tvar text = lines[line];\n\t\tif(!/^\\s*\\/\\/#/.test(text)) {\n\t\t\tout.push(text);\n\t\t}\n\t}\n\treturn out.join(\"\\n\");\n};\n\nViewWidget.prototype.getValueAsJsEncoded = function() {\n\treturn $tw.utils.stringify(this.getValueAsText());\n};\n\n/*\nSelectively refreshes the widget if needed. Returns true if the widget or any of its children needed re-rendering\n*/\nViewWidget.prototype.refresh = function(changedTiddlers) {\n\tvar changedAttributes = this.computeAttributes();\n\tif(changedAttributes.tiddler || changedAttributes.field || changedAttributes.index || changedAttributes.template || changedAttributes.format || changedTiddlers[this.viewTitle]) {\n\t\tthis.refreshSelf();\n\t\treturn true;\n\t} else {\n\t\treturn false;\t\n\t}\n};\n\nexports.view = ViewWidget;\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "widget"
},
"$:/core/modules/widgets/widget.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/widgets/widget.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/widgets/widget.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: widget\n\nWidget base class\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\n/*\nCreate a widget object for a parse tree node\n\tparseTreeNode: reference to the parse tree node to be rendered\n\toptions: see below\nOptions include:\n\twiki: mandatory reference to wiki associated with this render tree\n\tparentWidget: optional reference to a parent renderer node for the context chain\n\tdocument: optional document object to use instead of global document\n*/\nvar Widget = function(parseTreeNode,options) {\n\tif(arguments.length > 0) {\n\t\tthis.initialise(parseTreeNode,options);\n\t}\n};\n\n/*\nInitialise widget properties. These steps are pulled out of the constructor so that we can reuse them in subclasses\n*/\nWidget.prototype.initialise = function(parseTreeNode,options) {\n\toptions = options || {};\n\t// Save widget info\n\tthis.parseTreeNode = parseTreeNode;\n\tthis.wiki = options.wiki;\n\tthis.parentWidget = options.parentWidget;\n\tthis.variablesConstructor = function() {};\n\tthis.variablesConstructor.prototype = this.parentWidget ? this.parentWidget.variables : {};\n\tthis.variables = new this.variablesConstructor();\n\tthis.document = options.document;\n\tthis.attributes = {};\n\tthis.children = [];\n\tthis.domNodes = [];\n\tthis.eventListeners = {};\n\t// Hashmap of the widget classes\n\tif(!this.widgetClasses) {\n\t\tWidget.prototype.widgetClasses = $tw.modules.applyMethods(\"widget\");\n\t}\n};\n\n/*\nRender this widget into the DOM\n*/\nWidget.prototype.render = function(parent,nextSibling) {\n\tthis.parentDomNode = parent;\n\tthis.execute();\n\tthis.renderChildren(parent,nextSibling);\n};\n\n/*\nCompute the internal state of the widget\n*/\nWidget.prototype.execute = function() {\n\tthis.makeChildWidgets();\n};\n\n/*\nSet the value of a context variable\nname: name of the variable\nvalue: value of the variable\nparams: array of {name:, default:} for each parameter\nisMacroDefinition: true if the variable is set via a \\define macro pragma (and hence should have variable substitution performed)\n*/\nWidget.prototype.setVariable = function(name,value,params,isMacroDefinition) {\n\tthis.variables[name] = {value: value, params: params, isMacroDefinition: !!isMacroDefinition};\n};\n\n/*\nGet the prevailing value of a context variable\nname: name of variable\noptions: see below\nOptions include\nparams: array of {name:, value:} for each parameter\ndefaultValue: default value if the variable is not defined\n\nReturns an object with the following fields:\n\nparams: array of {name:,value:} of parameters passed to wikitext variables\ntext: text of variable, with parameters properly substituted\n*/\nWidget.prototype.getVariableInfo = function(name,options) {\n\toptions = options || {};\n\tvar actualParams = options.params || [],\n\t\tparentWidget = this.parentWidget;\n\t// Check for the variable defined in the parent widget (or an ancestor in the prototype chain)\n\tif(parentWidget && name in parentWidget.variables) {\n\t\tvar variable = parentWidget.variables[name],\n\t\t\tvalue = variable.value,\n\t\t\tparams = this.resolveVariableParameters(variable.params,actualParams);\n\t\t// Substitute any parameters specified in the definition\n\t\t$tw.utils.each(params,function(param) {\n\t\t\tvalue = $tw.utils.replaceString(value,new RegExp(\"\\\\$\" + $tw.utils.escapeRegExp(param.name) + \"\\\\$\",\"mg\"),param.value);\n\t\t});\n\t\t// Only substitute variable references if this variable was defined with the \\define pragma\n\t\tif(variable.isMacroDefinition) {\n\t\t\tvalue = this.substituteVariableReferences(value);\t\t\t\n\t\t}\n\t\treturn {\n\t\t\ttext: value,\n\t\t\tparams: params\n\t\t};\n\t}\n\t// If the variable doesn't exist in the parent widget then look for a macro module\n\treturn {\n\t\ttext: this.evaluateMacroModule(name,actualParams,options.defaultValue)\n\t};\n};\n\n/*\nSimplified version of getVariableInfo() that just returns the text\n*/\nWidget.prototype.getVariable = function(name,options) {\n\treturn this.getVariableInfo(name,options).text;\n};\n\nWidget.prototype.resolveVariableParameters = function(formalParams,actualParams) {\n\tformalParams = formalParams || [];\n\tactualParams = actualParams || [];\n\tvar nextAnonParameter = 0, // Next candidate anonymous parameter in macro call\n\t\tparamInfo, paramValue,\n\t\tresults = [];\n\t// Step through each of the parameters in the macro definition\n\tfor(var p=0; p<formalParams.length; p++) {\n\t\t// Check if we've got a macro call parameter with the same name\n\t\tparamInfo = formalParams[p];\n\t\tparamValue = undefined;\n\t\tfor(var m=0; m<actualParams.length; m++) {\n\t\t\tif(actualParams[m].name === paramInfo.name) {\n\t\t\t\tparamValue = actualParams[m].value;\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t}\n\t\t// If not, use the next available anonymous macro call parameter\n\t\twhile(nextAnonParameter < actualParams.length && actualParams[nextAnonParameter].name) {\n\t\t\tnextAnonParameter++;\n\t\t}\n\t\tif(paramValue === undefined && nextAnonParameter < actualParams.length) {\n\t\t\tparamValue = actualParams[nextAnonParameter++].value;\n\t\t}\n\t\t// If we've still not got a value, use the default, if any\n\t\tparamValue = paramValue || paramInfo[\"default\"] || \"\";\n\t\t// Store the parameter name and value\n\t\tresults.push({name: paramInfo.name, value: paramValue});\n\t}\n\treturn results;\n};\n\nWidget.prototype.substituteVariableReferences = function(text) {\n\tvar self = this;\n\treturn (text || \"\").replace(/\\$\\(([^\\)\\$]+)\\)\\$/g,function(match,p1,offset,string) {\n\t\treturn self.getVariable(p1,{defaultValue: \"\"});\n\t});\n};\n\nWidget.prototype.evaluateMacroModule = function(name,actualParams,defaultValue) {\n\tif($tw.utils.hop($tw.macros,name)) {\n\t\tvar macro = $tw.macros[name],\n\t\t\targs = [];\n\t\tif(macro.params.length > 0) {\n\t\t\tvar nextAnonParameter = 0, // Next candidate anonymous parameter in macro call\n\t\t\t\tparamInfo, paramValue;\n\t\t\t// Step through each of the parameters in the macro definition\n\t\t\tfor(var p=0; p<macro.params.length; p++) {\n\t\t\t\t// Check if we've got a macro call parameter with the same name\n\t\t\t\tparamInfo = macro.params[p];\n\t\t\t\tparamValue = undefined;\n\t\t\t\tfor(var m=0; m<actualParams.length; m++) {\n\t\t\t\t\tif(actualParams[m].name === paramInfo.name) {\n\t\t\t\t\t\tparamValue = actualParams[m].value;\n\t\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t\t// If not, use the next available anonymous macro call parameter\n\t\t\t\twhile(nextAnonParameter < actualParams.length && actualParams[nextAnonParameter].name) {\n\t\t\t\t\tnextAnonParameter++;\n\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t\tif(paramValue === undefined && nextAnonParameter < actualParams.length) {\n\t\t\t\t\tparamValue = actualParams[nextAnonParameter++].value;\n\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t\t// If we've still not got a value, use the default, if any\n\t\t\t\tparamValue = paramValue || paramInfo[\"default\"] || \"\";\n\t\t\t\t// Save the parameter\n\t\t\t\targs.push(paramValue);\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t}\n\t\telse for(var i=0; i<actualParams.length; ++i) {\n\t\t\targs.push(actualParams[i].value);\n\t\t}\n\t\treturn (macro.run.apply(this,args) || \"\").toString();\n\t} else {\n\t\treturn defaultValue;\n\t}\n};\n\n/*\nCheck whether a given context variable value exists in the parent chain\n*/\nWidget.prototype.hasVariable = function(name,value) {\n\tvar node = this;\n\twhile(node) {\n\t\tif($tw.utils.hop(node.variables,name) && node.variables[name].value === value) {\n\t\t\treturn true;\n\t\t}\n\t\tnode = node.parentWidget;\n\t}\n\treturn false;\n};\n\n/*\nConstruct a qualifying string based on a hash of concatenating the values of a given variable in the parent chain\n*/\nWidget.prototype.getStateQualifier = function(name) {\n\tthis.qualifiers = this.qualifiers || Object.create(null);\n\tname = name || \"transclusion\";\n\tif(this.qualifiers[name]) {\n\t\treturn this.qualifiers[name];\n\t} else {\n\t\tvar output = [],\n\t\t\tnode = this;\n\t\twhile(node && node.parentWidget) {\n\t\t\tif($tw.utils.hop(node.parentWidget.variables,name)) {\n\t\t\t\toutput.push(node.getVariable(name));\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t\tnode = node.parentWidget;\n\t\t}\n\t\tvar value = $tw.utils.hashString(output.join(\"\"));\n\t\tthis.qualifiers[name] = value;\n\t\treturn value;\n\t}\n};\n\n/*\nCompute the current values of the attributes of the widget. Returns a hashmap of the names of the attributes that have changed\n*/\nWidget.prototype.computeAttributes = function() {\n\tvar changedAttributes = {},\n\t\tself = this,\n\t\tvalue;\n\t$tw.utils.each(this.parseTreeNode.attributes,function(attribute,name) {\n\t\tif(attribute.type === \"filtered\") {\n\t\t\tvalue = self.wiki.filterTiddlers(attribute.filter,self)[0] || \"\";\n\t\t} else if(attribute.type === \"indirect\") {\n\t\t\tvalue = self.wiki.getTextReference(attribute.textReference,\"\",self.getVariable(\"currentTiddler\"));\n\t\t} else if(attribute.type === \"macro\") {\n\t\t\tvalue = self.getVariable(attribute.value.name,{params: attribute.value.params});\n\t\t} else { // String attribute\n\t\t\tvalue = attribute.value;\n\t\t}\n\t\t// Check whether the attribute has changed\n\t\tif(self.attributes[name] !== value) {\n\t\t\tself.attributes[name] = value;\n\t\t\tchangedAttributes[name] = true;\n\t\t}\n\t});\n\treturn changedAttributes;\n};\n\n/*\nCheck for the presence of an attribute\n*/\nWidget.prototype.hasAttribute = function(name) {\n\treturn $tw.utils.hop(this.attributes,name);\n};\n\n/*\nGet the value of an attribute\n*/\nWidget.prototype.getAttribute = function(name,defaultText) {\n\tif($tw.utils.hop(this.attributes,name)) {\n\t\treturn this.attributes[name];\n\t} else {\n\t\treturn defaultText;\n\t}\n};\n\n/*\nAssign the computed attributes of the widget to a domNode\noptions include:\nexcludeEventAttributes: ignores attributes whose name begins with \"on\"\n*/\nWidget.prototype.assignAttributes = function(domNode,options) {\n\toptions = options || {};\n\tvar self = this;\n\t$tw.utils.each(this.attributes,function(v,a) {\n\t\t// Check exclusions\n\t\tif(options.excludeEventAttributes && a.substr(0,2) === \"on\") {\n\t\t\tv = undefined;\n\t\t}\n\t\tif(v !== undefined) {\n\t\t\tvar b = a.split(\":\");\n\t\t\t// Setting certain attributes can cause a DOM error (eg xmlns on the svg element)\n\t\t\ttry {\n\t\t\t\tif (b.length == 2 && b[0] == \"xlink\"){\n\t\t\t\t\tdomNode.setAttributeNS(\"http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink\",b[1],v);\n\t\t\t\t} else {\n\t\t\t\t\tdomNode.setAttributeNS(null,a,v);\n\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t} catch(e) {\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t}\n\t});\n};\n\n/*\nMake child widgets correspondng to specified parseTreeNodes\n*/\nWidget.prototype.makeChildWidgets = function(parseTreeNodes) {\n\tthis.children = [];\n\tvar self = this;\n\t$tw.utils.each(parseTreeNodes || (this.parseTreeNode && this.parseTreeNode.children),function(childNode) {\n\t\tself.children.push(self.makeChildWidget(childNode));\n\t});\n};\n\n/*\nConstruct the widget object for a parse tree node\n*/\nWidget.prototype.makeChildWidget = function(parseTreeNode) {\n\tvar WidgetClass = this.widgetClasses[parseTreeNode.type];\n\tif(!WidgetClass) {\n\t\tWidgetClass = this.widgetClasses.text;\n\t\tparseTreeNode = {type: \"text\", text: \"Undefined widget '\" + parseTreeNode.type + \"'\"};\n\t}\n\treturn new WidgetClass(parseTreeNode,{\n\t\twiki: this.wiki,\n\t\tvariables: {},\n\t\tparentWidget: this,\n\t\tdocument: this.document\n\t});\n};\n\n/*\nGet the next sibling of this widget\n*/\nWidget.prototype.nextSibling = function() {\n\tif(this.parentWidget) {\n\t\tvar index = this.parentWidget.children.indexOf(this);\n\t\tif(index !== -1 && index < this.parentWidget.children.length-1) {\n\t\t\treturn this.parentWidget.children[index+1];\n\t\t}\n\t}\n\treturn null;\n};\n\n/*\nGet the previous sibling of this widget\n*/\nWidget.prototype.previousSibling = function() {\n\tif(this.parentWidget) {\n\t\tvar index = this.parentWidget.children.indexOf(this);\n\t\tif(index !== -1 && index > 0) {\n\t\t\treturn this.parentWidget.children[index-1];\n\t\t}\n\t}\n\treturn null;\n};\n\n/*\nRender the children of this widget into the DOM\n*/\nWidget.prototype.renderChildren = function(parent,nextSibling) {\n\t$tw.utils.each(this.children,function(childWidget) {\n\t\tchildWidget.render(parent,nextSibling);\n\t});\n};\n\n/*\nAdd a list of event listeners from an array [{type:,handler:},...]\n*/\nWidget.prototype.addEventListeners = function(listeners) {\n\tvar self = this;\n\t$tw.utils.each(listeners,function(listenerInfo) {\n\t\tself.addEventListener(listenerInfo.type,listenerInfo.handler);\n\t});\n};\n\n/*\nAdd an event listener\n*/\nWidget.prototype.addEventListener = function(type,handler) {\n\tvar self = this;\n\tif(typeof handler === \"string\") { // The handler is a method name on this widget\n\t\tthis.eventListeners[type] = function(event) {\n\t\t\treturn self[handler].call(self,event);\n\t\t};\n\t} else { // The handler is a function\n\t\tthis.eventListeners[type] = function(event) {\n\t\t\treturn handler.call(self,event);\n\t\t};\n\t}\n};\n\n/*\nDispatch an event to a widget. If the widget doesn't handle the event then it is also dispatched to the parent widget\n*/\nWidget.prototype.dispatchEvent = function(event) {\n\t// Dispatch the event if this widget handles it\n\tvar listener = this.eventListeners[event.type];\n\tif(listener) {\n\t\t// Don't propagate the event if the listener returned false\n\t\tif(!listener(event)) {\n\t\t\treturn false;\n\t\t}\n\t}\n\t// Dispatch the event to the parent widget\n\tif(this.parentWidget) {\n\t\treturn this.parentWidget.dispatchEvent(event);\n\t}\n\treturn true;\n};\n\n/*\nSelectively refreshes the widget if needed. Returns true if the widget or any of its children needed re-rendering\n*/\nWidget.prototype.refresh = function(changedTiddlers) {\n\treturn this.refreshChildren(changedTiddlers);\n};\n\n/*\nRebuild a previously rendered widget\n*/\nWidget.prototype.refreshSelf = function() {\n\tvar nextSibling = this.findNextSiblingDomNode();\n\tthis.removeChildDomNodes();\n\tthis.render(this.parentDomNode,nextSibling);\n};\n\n/*\nRefresh all the children of a widget\n*/\nWidget.prototype.refreshChildren = function(changedTiddlers) {\n\tvar self = this,\n\t\trefreshed = false;\n\t$tw.utils.each(this.children,function(childWidget) {\n\t\trefreshed = childWidget.refresh(changedTiddlers) || refreshed;\n\t});\n\treturn refreshed;\n};\n\n/*\nFind the next sibling in the DOM to this widget. This is done by scanning the widget tree through all next siblings and their descendents that share the same parent DOM node\n*/\nWidget.prototype.findNextSiblingDomNode = function(startIndex) {\n\t// Refer to this widget by its index within its parents children\n\tvar parent = this.parentWidget,\n\t\tindex = startIndex !== undefined ? startIndex : parent.children.indexOf(this);\nif(index === -1) {\n\tthrow \"node not found in parents children\";\n}\n\t// Look for a DOM node in the later siblings\n\twhile(++index < parent.children.length) {\n\t\tvar domNode = parent.children[index].findFirstDomNode();\n\t\tif(domNode) {\n\t\t\treturn domNode;\n\t\t}\n\t}\n\t// Go back and look for later siblings of our parent if it has the same parent dom node\n\tvar grandParent = parent.parentWidget;\n\tif(grandParent && parent.parentDomNode === this.parentDomNode) {\n\t\tindex = grandParent.children.indexOf(parent);\n\t\tif(index !== -1) {\n\t\t\treturn parent.findNextSiblingDomNode(index);\n\t\t}\n\t}\n\treturn null;\n};\n\n/*\nFind the first DOM node generated by a widget or its children\n*/\nWidget.prototype.findFirstDomNode = function() {\n\t// Return the first dom node of this widget, if we've got one\n\tif(this.domNodes.length > 0) {\n\t\treturn this.domNodes[0];\n\t}\n\t// Otherwise, recursively call our children\n\tfor(var t=0; t<this.children.length; t++) {\n\t\tvar domNode = this.children[t].findFirstDomNode();\n\t\tif(domNode) {\n\t\t\treturn domNode;\n\t\t}\n\t}\n\treturn null;\n};\n\n/*\nRemove any DOM nodes created by this widget or its children\n*/\nWidget.prototype.removeChildDomNodes = function() {\n\t// If this widget has directly created DOM nodes, delete them and exit. This assumes that any child widgets are contained within the created DOM nodes, which would normally be the case\n\tif(this.domNodes.length > 0) {\n\t\t$tw.utils.each(this.domNodes,function(domNode) {\n\t\t\tdomNode.parentNode.removeChild(domNode);\n\t\t});\n\t\tthis.domNodes = [];\n\t} else {\n\t\t// Otherwise, ask the child widgets to delete their DOM nodes\n\t\t$tw.utils.each(this.children,function(childWidget) {\n\t\t\tchildWidget.removeChildDomNodes();\n\t\t});\n\t}\n};\n\n/*\nInvoke the action widgets that are descendents of the current widget.\n*/\nWidget.prototype.invokeActions = function(triggeringWidget,event) {\n\tvar handled = false;\n\t// For each child widget\n\tfor(var t=0; t<this.children.length; t++) {\n\t\tvar child = this.children[t];\n\t\t// Invoke the child if it is an action widget\n\t\tif(child.invokeAction) {\n\t\t\tchild.refreshSelf();\n\t\t\tif(child.invokeAction(triggeringWidget,event)) {\n\t\t\t\thandled = true;\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t}\n\t\t// Propagate through through the child if it permits it\n\t\tif(child.allowActionPropagation() && child.invokeActions(triggeringWidget,event)) {\n\t\t\thandled = true;\n\t\t}\n\t}\n\treturn handled;\n};\n\n/*\nInvoke the action widgets defined in a string\n*/\nWidget.prototype.invokeActionString = function(actions,triggeringWidget,event,variables) {\n\tactions = actions || \"\";\n\tvar parser = this.wiki.parseText(\"text/vnd.tiddlywiki\",actions,{\n\t\t\tparentWidget: this,\n\t\t\tdocument: this.document\n\t\t}),\n\t\twidgetNode = this.wiki.makeWidget(parser,{\n\t\t\tparentWidget: this,\n\t\t\tdocument: this.document,\n\t\t\tvariables: variables\n\t\t});\n\tvar container = this.document.createElement(\"div\");\n\twidgetNode.render(container,null);\n\treturn widgetNode.invokeActions(this,event);\n};\n\nWidget.prototype.allowActionPropagation = function() {\n\treturn true;\n};\n\nexports.widget = Widget;\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "widget"
},
"$:/core/modules/widgets/wikify.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/widgets/wikify.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/widgets/wikify.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: widget\n\nWidget to wikify text into a variable\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nvar Widget = require(\"$:/core/modules/widgets/widget.js\").widget;\n\nvar WikifyWidget = function(parseTreeNode,options) {\n\tthis.initialise(parseTreeNode,options);\n};\n\n/*\nInherit from the base widget class\n*/\nWikifyWidget.prototype = new Widget();\n\n/*\nRender this widget into the DOM\n*/\nWikifyWidget.prototype.render = function(parent,nextSibling) {\n\tthis.parentDomNode = parent;\n\tthis.computeAttributes();\n\tthis.execute();\n\tthis.renderChildren(parent,nextSibling);\n};\n\n/*\nCompute the internal state of the widget\n*/\nWikifyWidget.prototype.execute = function() {\n\t// Get our parameters\n\tthis.wikifyName = this.getAttribute(\"name\");\n\tthis.wikifyText = this.getAttribute(\"text\");\n\tthis.wikifyType = this.getAttribute(\"type\");\n\tthis.wikifyMode = this.getAttribute(\"mode\",\"block\");\n\tthis.wikifyOutput = this.getAttribute(\"output\",\"text\");\n\t// Create the parse tree\n\tthis.wikifyParser = this.wiki.parseText(this.wikifyType,this.wikifyText,{\n\t\t\tparseAsInline: this.wikifyMode === \"inline\"\n\t\t});\n\t// Create the widget tree \n\tthis.wikifyWidgetNode = this.wiki.makeWidget(this.wikifyParser,{\n\t\t\tdocument: $tw.fakeDocument,\n\t\t\tparentWidget: this\n\t\t});\n\t// Render the widget tree to the container\n\tthis.wikifyContainer = $tw.fakeDocument.createElement(\"div\");\n\tthis.wikifyWidgetNode.render(this.wikifyContainer,null);\n\tthis.wikifyResult = this.getResult();\n\t// Set context variable\n\tthis.setVariable(this.wikifyName,this.wikifyResult);\n\t// Construct the child widgets\n\tthis.makeChildWidgets();\n};\n\n/*\nReturn the result string\n*/\nWikifyWidget.prototype.getResult = function() {\n\tvar result;\n\tswitch(this.wikifyOutput) {\n\t\tcase \"text\":\n\t\t\tresult = this.wikifyContainer.textContent;\n\t\t\tbreak;\n\t\tcase \"formattedtext\":\n\t\t\tresult = this.wikifyContainer.formattedTextContent;\n\t\t\tbreak;\n\t\tcase \"html\":\n\t\t\tresult = this.wikifyContainer.innerHTML;\n\t\t\tbreak;\n\t\tcase \"parsetree\":\n\t\t\tresult = JSON.stringify(this.wikifyParser.tree,0,$tw.config.preferences.jsonSpaces);\n\t\t\tbreak;\n\t\tcase \"widgettree\":\n\t\t\tresult = JSON.stringify(this.getWidgetTree(),0,$tw.config.preferences.jsonSpaces);\n\t\t\tbreak;\n\t}\n\treturn result;\n};\n\n/*\nReturn a string of the widget tree\n*/\nWikifyWidget.prototype.getWidgetTree = function() {\n\tvar copyNode = function(widgetNode,resultNode) {\n\t\t\tvar type = widgetNode.parseTreeNode.type;\n\t\t\tresultNode.type = type;\n\t\t\tswitch(type) {\n\t\t\t\tcase \"element\":\n\t\t\t\t\tresultNode.tag = widgetNode.parseTreeNode.tag;\n\t\t\t\t\tbreak;\n\t\t\t\tcase \"text\":\n\t\t\t\t\tresultNode.text = widgetNode.parseTreeNode.text;\n\t\t\t\t\tbreak;\t\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t\tif(Object.keys(widgetNode.attributes || {}).length > 0) {\n\t\t\t\tresultNode.attributes = {};\n\t\t\t\t$tw.utils.each(widgetNode.attributes,function(attr,attrName) {\n\t\t\t\t\tresultNode.attributes[attrName] = widgetNode.getAttribute(attrName);\n\t\t\t\t});\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t\tif(Object.keys(widgetNode.children || {}).length > 0) {\n\t\t\t\tresultNode.children = [];\n\t\t\t\t$tw.utils.each(widgetNode.children,function(widgetChildNode) {\n\t\t\t\t\tvar node = {};\n\t\t\t\t\tresultNode.children.push(node);\n\t\t\t\t\tcopyNode(widgetChildNode,node);\n\t\t\t\t});\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t},\n\t\tresults = {};\n\tcopyNode(this.wikifyWidgetNode,results);\n\treturn results;\n};\n\n/*\nSelectively refreshes the widget if needed. Returns true if the widget or any of its children needed re-rendering\n*/\nWikifyWidget.prototype.refresh = function(changedTiddlers) {\n\tvar changedAttributes = this.computeAttributes();\n\t// Refresh ourselves entirely if any of our attributes have changed\n\tif(changedAttributes.name || changedAttributes.text || changedAttributes.type || changedAttributes.mode || changedAttributes.output) {\n\t\tthis.refreshSelf();\n\t\treturn true;\n\t} else {\n\t\t// Refresh the widget tree\n\t\tif(this.wikifyWidgetNode.refresh(changedTiddlers)) {\n\t\t\t// Check if there was any change\n\t\t\tvar result = this.getResult();\n\t\t\tif(result !== this.wikifyResult) {\n\t\t\t\t// If so, save the change\n\t\t\t\tthis.wikifyResult = result;\n\t\t\t\tthis.setVariable(this.wikifyName,this.wikifyResult);\n\t\t\t\t// Refresh each of our child widgets\n\t\t\t\t$tw.utils.each(this.children,function(childWidget) {\n\t\t\t\t\tchildWidget.refreshSelf();\n\t\t\t\t});\n\t\t\t\treturn true;\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t}\n\t\t// Just refresh the children\n\t\treturn this.refreshChildren(changedTiddlers);\n\t}\n};\n\nexports.wikify = WikifyWidget;\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "widget"
},
"$:/core/modules/wiki-bulkops.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/wiki-bulkops.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/wiki-bulkops.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: wikimethod\n\nBulk tiddler operations such as rename.\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\n/*\nRename a tiddler, and relink any tags or lists that reference it.\n*/\nfunction renameTiddler(fromTitle,toTitle,options) {\n\tfromTitle = (fromTitle || \"\").trim();\n\ttoTitle = (toTitle || \"\").trim();\n\toptions = options || {};\n\tif(fromTitle && toTitle && fromTitle !== toTitle) {\n\t\t// Rename the tiddler itself\n\t\tvar oldTiddler = this.getTiddler(fromTitle),\n\t\t\tnewTiddler = new $tw.Tiddler(oldTiddler,{title: toTitle},this.getModificationFields());\n\t\tnewTiddler = $tw.hooks.invokeHook(\"th-renaming-tiddler\",newTiddler,oldTiddler);\n\t\tthis.addTiddler(newTiddler);\n\t\tthis.deleteTiddler(fromTitle);\n\t\t// Rename any tags or lists that reference it\n\t\tthis.relinkTiddler(fromTitle,toTitle,options)\n\t}\n}\n\n/*\nRelink any tags or lists that reference a given tiddler\n*/\nfunction relinkTiddler(fromTitle,toTitle,options) {\n\tvar self = this;\n\tfromTitle = (fromTitle || \"\").trim();\n\ttoTitle = (toTitle || \"\").trim();\n\toptions = options || {};\n\tif(fromTitle && toTitle && fromTitle !== toTitle) {\n\t\tthis.each(function(tiddler,title) {\n\t\t\tvar type = tiddler.fields.type || \"\";\n\t\t\t// Don't touch plugins or JavaScript modules\n\t\t\tif(!tiddler.fields[\"plugin-type\"] && type !== \"application/javascript\") {\n\t\t\t\tvar tags = (tiddler.fields.tags || []).slice(0),\n\t\t\t\t\tlist = (tiddler.fields.list || []).slice(0),\n\t\t\t\t\tisModified = false;\n\t\t\t\tif(!options.dontRenameInTags) {\n\t\t\t\t\t// Rename tags\n\t\t\t\t\t$tw.utils.each(tags,function (title,index) {\n\t\t\t\t\t\tif(title === fromTitle) {\nconsole.log(\"Renaming tag '\" + tags[index] + \"' to '\" + toTitle + \"' of tiddler '\" + tiddler.fields.title + \"'\");\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\ttags[index] = toTitle;\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tisModified = true;\n\t\t\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t\t\t});\n\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t\tif(!options.dontRenameInLists) {\n\t\t\t\t\t// Rename lists\n\t\t\t\t\t$tw.utils.each(list,function (title,index) {\n\t\t\t\t\t\tif(title === fromTitle) {\nconsole.log(\"Renaming list item '\" + list[index] + \"' to '\" + toTitle + \"' of tiddler '\" + tiddler.fields.title + \"'\");\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tlist[index] = toTitle;\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tisModified = true;\n\t\t\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t\t\t});\n\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t\tif(isModified) {\n\t\t\t\t\tvar newTiddler = new $tw.Tiddler(tiddler,{tags: tags, list: list},self.getModificationFields())\n\t\t\t\t\tnewTiddler = $tw.hooks.invokeHook(\"th-relinking-tiddler\",newTiddler,tiddler);\n\t\t\t\t\tself.addTiddler(newTiddler);\n\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t});\n\t}\n};\n\nexports.renameTiddler = renameTiddler;\nexports.relinkTiddler = relinkTiddler;\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "wikimethod"
},
"$:/core/modules/wiki.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/wiki.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/wiki.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: wikimethod\n\nExtension methods for the $tw.Wiki object\n\nAdds the following properties to the wiki object:\n\n* `eventListeners` is a hashmap by type of arrays of listener functions\n* `changedTiddlers` is a hashmap describing changes to named tiddlers since wiki change events were last dispatched. Each entry is a hashmap containing two fields:\n\tmodified: true/false\n\tdeleted: true/false\n* `changeCount` is a hashmap by tiddler title containing a numerical index that starts at zero and is incremented each time a tiddler is created changed or deleted\n* `caches` is a hashmap by tiddler title containing a further hashmap of named cache objects. Caches are automatically cleared when a tiddler is modified or deleted\n* `globalCache` is a hashmap by cache name of cache objects that are cleared whenever any tiddler change occurs\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nvar widget = require(\"$:/core/modules/widgets/widget.js\");\n\nvar USER_NAME_TITLE = \"$:/status/UserName\",\n\tTIMESTAMP_DISABLE_TITLE = \"$:/config/TimestampDisable\";\n\n/*\nGet the value of a text reference. Text references can have any of these forms:\n\t<tiddlertitle>\n\t<tiddlertitle>!!<fieldname>\n\t!!<fieldname> - specifies a field of the current tiddlers\n\t<tiddlertitle>##<index>\n*/\nexports.getTextReference = function(textRef,defaultText,currTiddlerTitle) {\n\tvar tr = $tw.utils.parseTextReference(textRef),\n\t\ttitle = tr.title || currTiddlerTitle;\n\tif(tr.field) {\n\t\tvar tiddler = this.getTiddler(title);\n\t\tif(tr.field === \"title\") { // Special case so we can return the title of a non-existent tiddler\n\t\t\treturn title;\n\t\t} else if(tiddler && $tw.utils.hop(tiddler.fields,tr.field)) {\n\t\t\treturn tiddler.getFieldString(tr.field);\n\t\t} else {\n\t\t\treturn defaultText;\n\t\t}\n\t} else if(tr.index) {\n\t\treturn this.extractTiddlerDataItem(title,tr.index,defaultText);\n\t} else {\n\t\treturn this.getTiddlerText(title,defaultText);\n\t}\n};\n\nexports.setTextReference = function(textRef,value,currTiddlerTitle) {\n\tvar tr = $tw.utils.parseTextReference(textRef),\n\t\ttitle = tr.title || currTiddlerTitle;\n\tthis.setText(title,tr.field,tr.index,value);\n};\n\nexports.setText = function(title,field,index,value,options) {\n\toptions = options || {};\n\tvar creationFields = options.suppressTimestamp ? {} : this.getCreationFields(),\n\t\tmodificationFields = options.suppressTimestamp ? {} : this.getModificationFields();\n\t// Check if it is a reference to a tiddler field\n\tif(index) {\n\t\tvar data = this.getTiddlerData(title,Object.create(null));\n\t\tif(value !== undefined) {\n\t\t\tdata[index] = value;\n\t\t} else {\n\t\t\tdelete data[index];\n\t\t}\n\t\tthis.setTiddlerData(title,data,modificationFields);\n\t} else {\n\t\tvar tiddler = this.getTiddler(title),\n\t\t\tfields = {title: title};\n\t\tfields[field || \"text\"] = value;\n\t\tthis.addTiddler(new $tw.Tiddler(creationFields,tiddler,fields,modificationFields));\n\t}\n};\n\nexports.deleteTextReference = function(textRef,currTiddlerTitle) {\n\tvar tr = $tw.utils.parseTextReference(textRef),\n\t\ttitle,tiddler,fields;\n\t// Check if it is a reference to a tiddler\n\tif(tr.title && !tr.field) {\n\t\tthis.deleteTiddler(tr.title);\n\t// Else check for a field reference\n\t} else if(tr.field) {\n\t\ttitle = tr.title || currTiddlerTitle;\n\t\ttiddler = this.getTiddler(title);\n\t\tif(tiddler && $tw.utils.hop(tiddler.fields,tr.field)) {\n\t\t\tfields = Object.create(null);\n\t\t\tfields[tr.field] = undefined;\n\t\t\tthis.addTiddler(new $tw.Tiddler(tiddler,fields,this.getModificationFields()));\n\t\t}\n\t}\n};\n\nexports.addEventListener = function(type,listener) {\n\tthis.eventListeners = this.eventListeners || {};\n\tthis.eventListeners[type] = this.eventListeners[type] || [];\n\tthis.eventListeners[type].push(listener);\t\n};\n\nexports.removeEventListener = function(type,listener) {\n\tvar listeners = this.eventListeners[type];\n\tif(listeners) {\n\t\tvar p = listeners.indexOf(listener);\n\t\tif(p !== -1) {\n\t\t\tlisteners.splice(p,1);\n\t\t}\n\t}\n};\n\nexports.dispatchEvent = function(type /*, args */) {\n\tvar args = Array.prototype.slice.call(arguments,1),\n\t\tlisteners = this.eventListeners[type];\n\tif(listeners) {\n\t\tfor(var p=0; p<listeners.length; p++) {\n\t\t\tvar listener = listeners[p];\n\t\t\tlistener.apply(listener,args);\n\t\t}\n\t}\n};\n\n/*\nCauses a tiddler to be marked as changed, incrementing the change count, and triggers event handlers.\nThis method should be called after the changes it describes have been made to the wiki.tiddlers[] array.\n\ttitle: Title of tiddler\n\tisDeleted: defaults to false (meaning the tiddler has been created or modified),\n\t\ttrue if the tiddler has been deleted\n*/\nexports.enqueueTiddlerEvent = function(title,isDeleted) {\n\t// Record the touch in the list of changed tiddlers\n\tthis.changedTiddlers = this.changedTiddlers || Object.create(null);\n\tthis.changedTiddlers[title] = this.changedTiddlers[title] || Object.create(null);\n\tthis.changedTiddlers[title][isDeleted ? \"deleted\" : \"modified\"] = true;\n\t// Increment the change count\n\tthis.changeCount = this.changeCount || Object.create(null);\n\tif($tw.utils.hop(this.changeCount,title)) {\n\t\tthis.changeCount[title]++;\n\t} else {\n\t\tthis.changeCount[title] = 1;\n\t}\n\t// Trigger events\n\tthis.eventListeners = this.eventListeners || {};\n\tif(!this.eventsTriggered) {\n\t\tvar self = this;\n\t\t$tw.utils.nextTick(function() {\n\t\t\tvar changes = self.changedTiddlers;\n\t\t\tself.changedTiddlers = Object.create(null);\n\t\t\tself.eventsTriggered = false;\n\t\t\tif($tw.utils.count(changes) > 0) {\n\t\t\t\tself.dispatchEvent(\"change\",changes);\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t});\n\t\tthis.eventsTriggered = true;\n\t}\n};\n\nexports.getSizeOfTiddlerEventQueue = function() {\n\treturn $tw.utils.count(this.changedTiddlers);\n};\n\nexports.clearTiddlerEventQueue = function() {\n\tthis.changedTiddlers = Object.create(null);\n\tthis.changeCount = Object.create(null);\n};\n\nexports.getChangeCount = function(title) {\n\tthis.changeCount = this.changeCount || Object.create(null);\n\tif($tw.utils.hop(this.changeCount,title)) {\n\t\treturn this.changeCount[title];\n\t} else {\n\t\treturn 0;\n\t}\n};\n\n/*\nGenerate an unused title from the specified base\n*/\nexports.generateNewTitle = function(baseTitle,options) {\n\toptions = options || {};\n\tvar c = 0,\n\t\ttitle = baseTitle;\n\twhile(this.tiddlerExists(title) || this.isShadowTiddler(title) || this.findDraft(title)) {\n\t\ttitle = baseTitle + \n\t\t\t(options.prefix || \" \") + \n\t\t\t(++c);\n\t}\n\treturn title;\n};\n\nexports.isSystemTiddler = function(title) {\n\treturn title && title.indexOf(\"$:/\") === 0;\n};\n\nexports.isTemporaryTiddler = function(title) {\n\treturn title && title.indexOf(\"$:/temp/\") === 0;\n};\n\nexports.isImageTiddler = function(title) {\n\tvar tiddler = this.getTiddler(title);\n\tif(tiddler) {\t\t\n\t\tvar contentTypeInfo = $tw.config.contentTypeInfo[tiddler.fields.type || \"text/vnd.tiddlywiki\"];\n\t\treturn !!contentTypeInfo && contentTypeInfo.flags.indexOf(\"image\") !== -1;\n\t} else {\n\t\treturn null;\n\t}\n};\n\n/*\nLike addTiddler() except it will silently reject any plugin tiddlers that are older than the currently loaded version. Returns true if the tiddler was imported\n*/\nexports.importTiddler = function(tiddler) {\n\tvar existingTiddler = this.getTiddler(tiddler.fields.title);\n\t// Check if we're dealing with a plugin\n\tif(tiddler && tiddler.hasField(\"plugin-type\") && tiddler.hasField(\"version\") && existingTiddler && existingTiddler.hasField(\"plugin-type\") && existingTiddler.hasField(\"version\")) {\n\t\t// Reject the incoming plugin if it is older\n\t\tif(!$tw.utils.checkVersions(tiddler.fields.version,existingTiddler.fields.version)) {\n\t\t\treturn false;\n\t\t}\n\t}\n\t// Fall through to adding the tiddler\n\tthis.addTiddler(tiddler);\n\treturn true;\n};\n\n/*\nReturn a hashmap of the fields that should be set when a tiddler is created\n*/\nexports.getCreationFields = function() {\n\tif(this.getTiddlerText(TIMESTAMP_DISABLE_TITLE,\"\").toLowerCase() !== \"yes\") {\n\t\tvar fields = {\n\t\t\t\tcreated: new Date()\n\t\t\t},\n\t\t\tcreator = this.getTiddlerText(USER_NAME_TITLE);\n\t\tif(creator) {\n\t\t\tfields.creator = creator;\n\t\t}\n\t\treturn fields;\n\t} else {\n\t\treturn {};\n\t}\n};\n\n/*\nReturn a hashmap of the fields that should be set when a tiddler is modified\n*/\nexports.getModificationFields = function() {\n\tif(this.getTiddlerText(TIMESTAMP_DISABLE_TITLE,\"\").toLowerCase() !== \"yes\") {\n\t\tvar fields = Object.create(null),\n\t\t\tmodifier = this.getTiddlerText(USER_NAME_TITLE);\n\t\tfields.modified = new Date();\n\t\tif(modifier) {\n\t\t\tfields.modifier = modifier;\n\t\t}\n\t\treturn fields;\n\t} else {\n\t\treturn {};\n\t}\n};\n\n/*\nReturn a sorted array of tiddler titles. Options include:\nsortField: field to sort by\nexcludeTag: tag to exclude\nincludeSystem: whether to include system tiddlers (defaults to false)\n*/\nexports.getTiddlers = function(options) {\n\toptions = options || Object.create(null);\n\tvar self = this,\n\t\tsortField = options.sortField || \"title\",\n\t\ttiddlers = [], t, titles = [];\n\tthis.each(function(tiddler,title) {\n\t\tif(options.includeSystem || !self.isSystemTiddler(title)) {\n\t\t\tif(!options.excludeTag || !tiddler.hasTag(options.excludeTag)) {\n\t\t\t\ttiddlers.push(tiddler);\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t}\n\t});\n\ttiddlers.sort(function(a,b) {\n\t\tvar aa = a.fields[sortField].toLowerCase() || \"\",\n\t\t\tbb = b.fields[sortField].toLowerCase() || \"\";\n\t\tif(aa < bb) {\n\t\t\treturn -1;\n\t\t} else {\n\t\t\tif(aa > bb) {\n\t\t\t\treturn 1;\n\t\t\t} else {\n\t\t\t\treturn 0;\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t}\n\t});\n\tfor(t=0; t<tiddlers.length; t++) {\n\t\ttitles.push(tiddlers[t].fields.title);\n\t}\n\treturn titles;\n};\n\nexports.countTiddlers = function(excludeTag) {\n\tvar tiddlers = this.getTiddlers({excludeTag: excludeTag});\n\treturn $tw.utils.count(tiddlers);\n};\n\n/*\nReturns a function iterator(callback) that iterates through the specified titles, and invokes the callback with callback(tiddler,title)\n*/\nexports.makeTiddlerIterator = function(titles) {\n\tvar self = this;\n\tif(!$tw.utils.isArray(titles)) {\n\t\ttitles = Object.keys(titles);\n\t} else {\n\t\ttitles = titles.slice(0);\n\t}\n\treturn function(callback) {\n\t\ttitles.forEach(function(title) {\n\t\t\tcallback(self.getTiddler(title),title);\n\t\t});\n\t};\n};\n\n/*\nSort an array of tiddler titles by a specified field\n\ttitles: array of titles (sorted in place)\n\tsortField: name of field to sort by\n\tisDescending: true if the sort should be descending\n\tisCaseSensitive: true if the sort should consider upper and lower case letters to be different\n*/\nexports.sortTiddlers = function(titles,sortField,isDescending,isCaseSensitive,isNumeric,isAlphaNumeric) {\n\tvar self = this;\n\ttitles.sort(function(a,b) {\n\t\tvar x,y,\n\t\t\tcompareNumbers = function(x,y) {\n\t\t\t\tvar result = \n\t\t\t\t\tisNaN(x) && !isNaN(y) ? (isDescending ? -1 : 1) :\n\t\t\t\t\t!isNaN(x) && isNaN(y) ? (isDescending ? 1 : -1) :\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(isDescending ? y - x : x - y);\n\t\t\t\treturn result;\n\t\t\t};\n\t\tif(sortField !== \"title\") {\n\t\t\tvar tiddlerA = self.getTiddler(a),\n\t\t\t\ttiddlerB = self.getTiddler(b);\n\t\t\tif(tiddlerA) {\n\t\t\t\ta = tiddlerA.fields[sortField] || \"\";\n\t\t\t} else {\n\t\t\t\ta = \"\";\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t\tif(tiddlerB) {\n\t\t\t\tb = tiddlerB.fields[sortField] || \"\";\n\t\t\t} else {\n\t\t\t\tb = \"\";\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t}\n\t\tx = Number(a);\n\t\ty = Number(b);\n\t\tif(isNumeric && (!isNaN(x) || !isNaN(y))) {\n\t\t\treturn compareNumbers(x,y);\n\t\t} else if(isAlphaNumeric) {\n\t\t\treturn isDescending ? b.localeCompare(a,undefined,{numeric: true,sensitivity: \"base\"}) : a.localeCompare(b,undefined,{numeric: true,sensitivity: \"base\"});\n\t\t} else if($tw.utils.isDate(a) && $tw.utils.isDate(b)) {\n\t\t\treturn isDescending ? b - a : a - b;\n\t\t} else {\n\t\t\ta = String(a);\n\t\t\tb = String(b);\n\t\t\tif(!isCaseSensitive) {\n\t\t\t\ta = a.toLowerCase();\n\t\t\t\tb = b.toLowerCase();\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t\treturn isDescending ? b.localeCompare(a) : a.localeCompare(b);\n\t\t}\n\t});\n};\n\n/*\nFor every tiddler invoke a callback(title,tiddler) with `this` set to the wiki object. Options include:\nsortField: field to sort by\nexcludeTag: tag to exclude\nincludeSystem: whether to include system tiddlers (defaults to false)\n*/\nexports.forEachTiddler = function(/* [options,]callback */) {\n\tvar arg = 0,\n\t\toptions = arguments.length >= 2 ? arguments[arg++] : {},\n\t\tcallback = arguments[arg++],\n\t\ttitles = this.getTiddlers(options),\n\t\tt, tiddler;\n\tfor(t=0; t<titles.length; t++) {\n\t\ttiddler = this.getTiddler(titles[t]);\n\t\tif(tiddler) {\n\t\t\tcallback.call(this,tiddler.fields.title,tiddler);\n\t\t}\n\t}\n};\n\n/*\nReturn an array of tiddler titles that are directly linked from the specified tiddler\n*/\nexports.getTiddlerLinks = function(title) {\n\tvar self = this;\n\t// We'll cache the links so they only get computed if the tiddler changes\n\treturn this.getCacheForTiddler(title,\"links\",function() {\n\t\t// Parse the tiddler\n\t\tvar parser = self.parseTiddler(title);\n\t\t// Count up the links\n\t\tvar links = [],\n\t\t\tcheckParseTree = function(parseTree) {\n\t\t\t\tfor(var t=0; t<parseTree.length; t++) {\n\t\t\t\t\tvar parseTreeNode = parseTree[t];\n\t\t\t\t\tif(parseTreeNode.type === \"link\" && parseTreeNode.attributes.to && parseTreeNode.attributes.to.type === \"string\") {\n\t\t\t\t\t\tvar value = parseTreeNode.attributes.to.value;\n\t\t\t\t\t\tif(links.indexOf(value) === -1) {\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tlinks.push(value);\n\t\t\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t\t\tif(parseTreeNode.children) {\n\t\t\t\t\t\tcheckParseTree(parseTreeNode.children);\n\t\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t};\n\t\tif(parser) {\n\t\t\tcheckParseTree(parser.tree);\n\t\t}\n\t\treturn links;\n\t});\n};\n\n/*\nReturn an array of tiddler titles that link to the specified tiddler\n*/\nexports.getTiddlerBacklinks = function(targetTitle) {\n\tvar self = this,\n\t\tbacklinks = [];\n\tthis.forEachTiddler(function(title,tiddler) {\n\t\tvar links = self.getTiddlerLinks(title);\n\t\tif(links.indexOf(targetTitle) !== -1) {\n\t\t\tbacklinks.push(title);\n\t\t}\n\t});\n\treturn backlinks;\n};\n\n/*\nReturn a hashmap of tiddler titles that are referenced but not defined. Each value is the number of times the missing tiddler is referenced\n*/\nexports.getMissingTitles = function() {\n\tvar self = this,\n\t\tmissing = [];\n// We should cache the missing tiddler list, even if we recreate it every time any tiddler is modified\n\tthis.forEachTiddler(function(title,tiddler) {\n\t\tvar links = self.getTiddlerLinks(title);\n\t\t$tw.utils.each(links,function(link) {\n\t\t\tif((!self.tiddlerExists(link) && !self.isShadowTiddler(link)) && missing.indexOf(link) === -1) {\n\t\t\t\tmissing.push(link);\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t});\n\t});\n\treturn missing;\n};\n\nexports.getOrphanTitles = function() {\n\tvar self = this,\n\t\torphans = this.getTiddlers();\n\tthis.forEachTiddler(function(title,tiddler) {\n\t\tvar links = self.getTiddlerLinks(title);\n\t\t$tw.utils.each(links,function(link) {\n\t\t\tvar p = orphans.indexOf(link);\n\t\t\tif(p !== -1) {\n\t\t\t\torphans.splice(p,1);\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t});\n\t});\n\treturn orphans; // Todo\n};\n\n/*\nRetrieves a list of the tiddler titles that are tagged with a given tag\n*/\nexports.getTiddlersWithTag = function(tag) {\n\tvar self = this;\n\treturn this.getGlobalCache(\"taglist-\" + tag,function() {\n\t\tvar tagmap = self.getTagMap();\n\t\treturn self.sortByList(tagmap[tag],tag);\n\t});\n};\n\n/*\nGet a hashmap by tag of arrays of tiddler titles\n*/\nexports.getTagMap = function() {\n\tvar self = this;\n\treturn this.getGlobalCache(\"tagmap\",function() {\n\t\tvar tags = Object.create(null),\n\t\t\tstoreTags = function(tagArray,title) {\n\t\t\t\tif(tagArray) {\n\t\t\t\t\tfor(var index=0; index<tagArray.length; index++) {\n\t\t\t\t\t\tvar tag = tagArray[index];\n\t\t\t\t\t\tif($tw.utils.hop(tags,tag)) {\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\ttags[tag].push(title);\n\t\t\t\t\t\t} else {\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\ttags[tag] = [title];\n\t\t\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t},\n\t\t\ttitle, tiddler;\n\t\t// Collect up all the tags\n\t\tself.eachShadow(function(tiddler,title) {\n\t\t\tif(!self.tiddlerExists(title)) {\n\t\t\t\ttiddler = self.getTiddler(title);\n\t\t\t\tstoreTags(tiddler.fields.tags,title);\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t});\n\t\tself.each(function(tiddler,title) {\n\t\t\tstoreTags(tiddler.fields.tags,title);\n\t\t});\n\t\treturn tags;\n\t});\n};\n\n/*\nLookup a given tiddler and return a list of all the tiddlers that include it in the specified list field\n*/\nexports.findListingsOfTiddler = function(targetTitle,fieldName) {\n\tfieldName = fieldName || \"list\";\n\tvar titles = [];\n\tthis.each(function(tiddler,title) {\n\t\tvar list = $tw.utils.parseStringArray(tiddler.fields[fieldName]);\n\t\tif(list && list.indexOf(targetTitle) !== -1) {\n\t\t\ttitles.push(title);\n\t\t}\n\t});\n\treturn titles;\n};\n\n/*\nSorts an array of tiddler titles according to an ordered list\n*/\nexports.sortByList = function(array,listTitle) {\n\tvar self = this,\n\t\treplacedTitles = Object.create(null);\n\tfunction replaceItem(title) {\n\t\tif(!$tw.utils.hop(replacedTitles, title)) {\n\t\t\treplacedTitles[title] = true;\n\t\t\tvar newPos = -1,\n\t\t\t\ttiddler = self.getTiddler(title);\n\t\t\tif(tiddler) {\n\t\t\t\tvar beforeTitle = tiddler.fields[\"list-before\"],\n\t\t\t\t\tafterTitle = tiddler.fields[\"list-after\"];\n\t\t\t\tif(beforeTitle === \"\") {\n\t\t\t\t\tnewPos = 0;\n\t\t\t\t} else if(afterTitle === \"\") {\n\t\t\t\t\tnewPos = titles.length;\n\t\t\t\t} else if(beforeTitle) {\n\t\t\t\t\treplaceItem(beforeTitle);\n\t\t\t\t\tnewPos = titles.indexOf(beforeTitle);\n\t\t\t\t} else if(afterTitle) {\n\t\t\t\t\treplaceItem(afterTitle);\n\t\t\t\t\tnewPos = titles.indexOf(afterTitle);\n\t\t\t\t\tif(newPos >= 0) {\n\t\t\t\t\t\t++newPos;\n\t\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t\t// We get the currPos //after// figuring out the newPos, because recursive replaceItem calls might alter title's currPos\n\t\t\t\tvar currPos = titles.indexOf(title);\n\t\t\t\tif(newPos === -1) {\n\t\t\t\t\tnewPos = currPos;\n\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t\tif(currPos >= 0 && newPos !== currPos) {\n\t\t\t\t\ttitles.splice(currPos,1);\n\t\t\t\t\tif(newPos >= currPos) {\n\t\t\t\t\t\tnewPos--;\n\t\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t\t\ttitles.splice(newPos,0,title);\n\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t}\n\t}\n\tvar list = this.getTiddlerList(listTitle);\n\tif(!array || array.length === 0) {\n\t\treturn [];\n\t} else {\n\t\tvar titles = [], t, title;\n\t\t// First place any entries that are present in the list\n\t\tfor(t=0; t<list.length; t++) {\n\t\t\ttitle = list[t];\n\t\t\tif(array.indexOf(title) !== -1) {\n\t\t\t\ttitles.push(title);\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t}\n\t\t// Then place any remaining entries\n\t\tfor(t=0; t<array.length; t++) {\n\t\t\ttitle = array[t];\n\t\t\tif(list.indexOf(title) === -1) {\n\t\t\t\ttitles.push(title);\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t}\n\t\t// Finally obey the list-before and list-after fields of each tiddler in turn\n\t\tvar sortedTitles = titles.slice(0);\n\t\tfor(t=0; t<sortedTitles.length; t++) {\n\t\t\ttitle = sortedTitles[t];\n\t\t\treplaceItem(title);\n\t\t}\n\t\treturn titles;\n\t}\n};\n\nexports.getSubTiddler = function(title,subTiddlerTitle) {\n\tvar bundleInfo = this.getPluginInfo(title) || this.getTiddlerDataCached(title);\n\tif(bundleInfo && bundleInfo.tiddlers) {\n\t\tvar subTiddler = bundleInfo.tiddlers[subTiddlerTitle];\n\t\tif(subTiddler) {\n\t\t\treturn new $tw.Tiddler(subTiddler);\n\t\t}\n\t}\n\treturn null;\n};\n\n/*\nRetrieve a tiddler as a JSON string of the fields\n*/\nexports.getTiddlerAsJson = function(title) {\n\tvar tiddler = this.getTiddler(title);\n\tif(tiddler) {\n\t\tvar fields = Object.create(null);\n\t\t$tw.utils.each(tiddler.fields,function(value,name) {\n\t\t\tfields[name] = tiddler.getFieldString(name);\n\t\t});\n\t\treturn JSON.stringify(fields);\n\t} else {\n\t\treturn JSON.stringify({title: title});\n\t}\n};\n\nexports.getTiddlersAsJson = function(filter) {\n\tvar tiddlers = this.filterTiddlers(filter),\n\t\tdata = [];\n\tfor(var t=0;t<tiddlers.length; t++) {\n\t\tvar tiddler = this.getTiddler(tiddlers[t]);\n\t\tif(tiddler) {\n\t\t\tvar fields = new Object();\n\t\t\tfor(var field in tiddler.fields) {\n\t\t\t\tfields[field] = tiddler.getFieldString(field);\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t\tdata.push(fields);\n\t\t}\n\t}\n\treturn JSON.stringify(data,null,$tw.config.preferences.jsonSpaces);\n};\n\n/*\nGet the content of a tiddler as a JavaScript object. How this is done depends on the type of the tiddler:\n\napplication/json: the tiddler JSON is parsed into an object\napplication/x-tiddler-dictionary: the tiddler is parsed as sequence of name:value pairs\n\nOther types currently just return null.\n\ntitleOrTiddler: string tiddler title or a tiddler object\ndefaultData: default data to be returned if the tiddler is missing or doesn't contain data\n\nNote that the same value is returned for repeated calls for the same tiddler data. The value is frozen to prevent modification; otherwise modifications would be visible to all callers\n*/\nexports.getTiddlerDataCached = function(titleOrTiddler,defaultData) {\n\tvar self = this,\n\t\ttiddler = titleOrTiddler;\n\tif(!(tiddler instanceof $tw.Tiddler)) {\n\t\ttiddler = this.getTiddler(tiddler);\t\n\t}\n\tif(tiddler) {\n\t\treturn this.getCacheForTiddler(tiddler.fields.title,\"data\",function() {\n\t\t\t// Return the frozen value\n\t\t\tvar value = self.getTiddlerData(tiddler.fields.title,undefined);\n\t\t\t$tw.utils.deepFreeze(value);\n\t\t\treturn value;\n\t\t}) || defaultData;\n\t} else {\n\t\treturn defaultData;\n\t}\n};\n\n/*\nAlternative, uncached version of getTiddlerDataCached(). The return value can be mutated freely and reused\n*/\nexports.getTiddlerData = function(titleOrTiddler,defaultData) {\n\tvar tiddler = titleOrTiddler,\n\t\tdata;\n\tif(!(tiddler instanceof $tw.Tiddler)) {\n\t\ttiddler = this.getTiddler(tiddler);\t\n\t}\n\tif(tiddler && tiddler.fields.text) {\n\t\tswitch(tiddler.fields.type) {\n\t\t\tcase \"application/json\":\n\t\t\t\t// JSON tiddler\n\t\t\t\ttry {\n\t\t\t\t\tdata = JSON.parse(tiddler.fields.text);\n\t\t\t\t} catch(ex) {\n\t\t\t\t\treturn defaultData;\n\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t\treturn data;\n\t\t\tcase \"application/x-tiddler-dictionary\":\n\t\t\t\treturn $tw.utils.parseFields(tiddler.fields.text);\n\t\t}\n\t}\n\treturn defaultData;\n};\n\n/*\nExtract an indexed field from within a data tiddler\n*/\nexports.extractTiddlerDataItem = function(titleOrTiddler,index,defaultText) {\n\tvar data = this.getTiddlerDataCached(titleOrTiddler,Object.create(null)),\n\t\ttext;\n\tif(data && $tw.utils.hop(data,index)) {\n\t\ttext = data[index];\n\t}\n\tif(typeof text === \"string\" || typeof text === \"number\") {\n\t\treturn text.toString();\n\t} else {\n\t\treturn defaultText;\n\t}\n};\n\n/*\nSet a tiddlers content to a JavaScript object. Currently this is done by setting the tiddler's type to \"application/json\" and setting the text to the JSON text of the data.\ntitle: title of tiddler\ndata: object that can be serialised to JSON\nfields: optional hashmap of additional tiddler fields to be set\n*/\nexports.setTiddlerData = function(title,data,fields) {\n\tvar existingTiddler = this.getTiddler(title),\n\t\tnewFields = {\n\t\t\ttitle: title\n\t};\n\tif(existingTiddler && existingTiddler.fields.type === \"application/x-tiddler-dictionary\") {\n\t\tnewFields.text = $tw.utils.makeTiddlerDictionary(data);\n\t} else {\n\t\tnewFields.type = \"application/json\";\n\t\tnewFields.text = JSON.stringify(data,null,$tw.config.preferences.jsonSpaces);\n\t}\n\tthis.addTiddler(new $tw.Tiddler(this.getCreationFields(),existingTiddler,fields,newFields,this.getModificationFields()));\n};\n\n/*\nReturn the content of a tiddler as an array containing each line\n*/\nexports.getTiddlerList = function(title,field,index) {\n\tif(index) {\n\t\treturn $tw.utils.parseStringArray(this.extractTiddlerDataItem(title,index,\"\"));\n\t}\n\tfield = field || \"list\";\n\tvar tiddler = this.getTiddler(title);\n\tif(tiddler) {\n\t\treturn ($tw.utils.parseStringArray(tiddler.fields[field]) || []).slice(0);\n\t}\n\treturn [];\n};\n\n// Return a named global cache object. Global cache objects are cleared whenever a tiddler change occurs\nexports.getGlobalCache = function(cacheName,initializer) {\n\tthis.globalCache = this.globalCache || Object.create(null);\n\tif($tw.utils.hop(this.globalCache,cacheName)) {\n\t\treturn this.globalCache[cacheName];\n\t} else {\n\t\tthis.globalCache[cacheName] = initializer();\n\t\treturn this.globalCache[cacheName];\n\t}\n};\n\nexports.clearGlobalCache = function() {\n\tthis.globalCache = Object.create(null);\n};\n\n// Return the named cache object for a tiddler. If the cache doesn't exist then the initializer function is invoked to create it\nexports.getCacheForTiddler = function(title,cacheName,initializer) {\n\tthis.caches = this.caches || Object.create(null);\n\tvar caches = this.caches[title];\n\tif(caches && caches[cacheName]) {\n\t\treturn caches[cacheName];\n\t} else {\n\t\tif(!caches) {\n\t\t\tcaches = Object.create(null);\n\t\t\tthis.caches[title] = caches;\n\t\t}\n\t\tcaches[cacheName] = initializer();\n\t\treturn caches[cacheName];\n\t}\n};\n\n// Clear all caches associated with a particular tiddler, or, if the title is null, clear all the caches for all the tiddlers\nexports.clearCache = function(title) {\n\tif(title) {\n\t\tthis.caches = this.caches || Object.create(null);\n\t\tif($tw.utils.hop(this.caches,title)) {\n\t\t\tdelete this.caches[title];\n\t\t}\n\t} else {\n\t\tthis.caches = Object.create(null);\n\t}\n};\n\nexports.initParsers = function(moduleType) {\n\t// Install the parser modules\n\t$tw.Wiki.parsers = {};\n\tvar self = this;\n\t$tw.modules.forEachModuleOfType(\"parser\",function(title,module) {\n\t\tfor(var f in module) {\n\t\t\tif($tw.utils.hop(module,f)) {\n\t\t\t\t$tw.Wiki.parsers[f] = module[f]; // Store the parser class\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t}\n\t});\n\t// Use the generic binary parser for any binary types not registered so far\n\tif($tw.Wiki.parsers[\"application/octet-stream\"]) {\n\t\tObject.keys($tw.config.contentTypeInfo).forEach(function(type) {\n\t\t\tif(!$tw.utils.hop($tw.Wiki.parsers,type) && $tw.config.contentTypeInfo[type].encoding === \"base64\") {\n\t\t\t\t$tw.Wiki.parsers[type] = $tw.Wiki.parsers[\"application/octet-stream\"];\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t});\t\t\n\t}\n};\n\n/*\nParse a block of text of a specified MIME type\n\ttype: content type of text to be parsed\n\ttext: text\n\toptions: see below\nOptions include:\n\tparseAsInline: if true, the text of the tiddler will be parsed as an inline run\n\t_canonical_uri: optional string of the canonical URI of this content\n*/\nexports.parseText = function(type,text,options) {\n\ttext = text || \"\";\n\toptions = options || {};\n\t// Select a parser\n\tvar Parser = $tw.Wiki.parsers[type];\n\tif(!Parser && $tw.utils.getFileExtensionInfo(type)) {\n\t\tParser = $tw.Wiki.parsers[$tw.utils.getFileExtensionInfo(type).type];\n\t}\n\tif(!Parser) {\n\t\tParser = $tw.Wiki.parsers[options.defaultType || \"text/vnd.tiddlywiki\"];\n\t}\n\tif(!Parser) {\n\t\treturn null;\n\t}\n\t// Return the parser instance\n\treturn new Parser(type,text,{\n\t\tparseAsInline: options.parseAsInline,\n\t\twiki: this,\n\t\t_canonical_uri: options._canonical_uri\n\t});\n};\n\n/*\nParse a tiddler according to its MIME type\n*/\nexports.parseTiddler = function(title,options) {\n\toptions = $tw.utils.extend({},options);\n\tvar cacheType = options.parseAsInline ? \"inlineParseTree\" : \"blockParseTree\",\n\t\ttiddler = this.getTiddler(title),\n\t\tself = this;\n\treturn tiddler ? this.getCacheForTiddler(title,cacheType,function() {\n\t\t\tif(tiddler.hasField(\"_canonical_uri\")) {\n\t\t\t\toptions._canonical_uri = tiddler.fields._canonical_uri;\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t\treturn self.parseText(tiddler.fields.type,tiddler.fields.text,options);\n\t\t}) : null;\n};\n\nexports.parseTextReference = function(title,field,index,options) {\n\tvar tiddler,text;\n\tif(options.subTiddler) {\n\t\ttiddler = this.getSubTiddler(title,options.subTiddler);\n\t} else {\n\t\ttiddler = this.getTiddler(title);\n\t\tif(field === \"text\" || (!field && !index)) {\n\t\t\tthis.getTiddlerText(title); // Force the tiddler to be lazily loaded\n\t\t\treturn this.parseTiddler(title,options);\n\t\t}\n\t}\n\tif(field === \"text\" || (!field && !index)) {\n\t\tif(tiddler && tiddler.fields) {\n\t\t\treturn this.parseText(tiddler.fields.type,tiddler.fields.text,options);\t\t\t\n\t\t} else {\n\t\t\treturn null;\n\t\t}\n\t} else if(field) {\n\t\tif(field === \"title\") {\n\t\t\ttext = title;\n\t\t} else {\n\t\t\tif(!tiddler || !tiddler.hasField(field)) {\n\t\t\t\treturn null;\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t\ttext = tiddler.fields[field];\n\t\t}\n\t\treturn this.parseText(\"text/vnd.tiddlywiki\",text.toString(),options);\n\t} else if(index) {\n\t\tthis.getTiddlerText(title); // Force the tiddler to be lazily loaded\n\t\ttext = this.extractTiddlerDataItem(tiddler,index,undefined);\n\t\tif(text === undefined) {\n\t\t\treturn null;\n\t\t}\n\t\treturn this.parseText(\"text/vnd.tiddlywiki\",text,options);\n\t}\n};\n\n/*\nMake a widget tree for a parse tree\nparser: parser object\noptions: see below\nOptions include:\ndocument: optional document to use\nvariables: hashmap of variables to set\nparentWidget: optional parent widget for the root node\n*/\nexports.makeWidget = function(parser,options) {\n\toptions = options || {};\n\tvar widgetNode = {\n\t\t\ttype: \"widget\",\n\t\t\tchildren: []\n\t\t},\n\t\tcurrWidgetNode = widgetNode;\n\t// Create set variable widgets for each variable\n\t$tw.utils.each(options.variables,function(value,name) {\n\t\tvar setVariableWidget = {\n\t\t\ttype: \"set\",\n\t\t\tattributes: {\n\t\t\t\tname: {type: \"string\", value: name},\n\t\t\t\tvalue: {type: \"string\", value: value}\n\t\t\t},\n\t\t\tchildren: []\n\t\t};\n\t\tcurrWidgetNode.children = [setVariableWidget];\n\t\tcurrWidgetNode = setVariableWidget;\n\t});\n\t// Add in the supplied parse tree nodes\n\tcurrWidgetNode.children = parser ? parser.tree : [];\n\t// Create the widget\n\treturn new widget.widget(widgetNode,{\n\t\twiki: this,\n\t\tdocument: options.document || $tw.fakeDocument,\n\t\tparentWidget: options.parentWidget\n\t});\n};\n\n/*\nMake a widget tree for transclusion\ntitle: target tiddler title\noptions: as for wiki.makeWidget() plus:\noptions.field: optional field to transclude (defaults to \"text\")\noptions.mode: transclusion mode \"inline\" or \"block\"\noptions.children: optional array of children for the transclude widget\noptions.importVariables: optional importvariables filter string for macros to be included\noptions.importPageMacros: optional boolean; if true, equivalent to passing \"[[$:/core/ui/PageMacros]] [all[shadows+tiddlers]tag[$:/tags/Macro]!has[draft.of]]\" to options.importVariables\n*/\nexports.makeTranscludeWidget = function(title,options) {\n\toptions = options || {};\n\tvar parseTreeDiv = {tree: [{\n\t\t\ttype: \"element\",\n\t\t\ttag: \"div\",\n\t\t\tchildren: []}]},\n\t\tparseTreeImportVariables = {\n\t\t\ttype: \"importvariables\",\n\t\t\tattributes: {\n\t\t\t\tfilter: {\n\t\t\t\t\tname: \"filter\",\n\t\t\t\t\ttype: \"string\"\n\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t},\n\t\t\tisBlock: false,\n\t\t\tchildren: []},\n\t\tparseTreeTransclude = {\n\t\t\ttype: \"transclude\",\n\t\t\tattributes: {\n\t\t\t\ttiddler: {\n\t\t\t\t\tname: \"tiddler\",\n\t\t\t\t\ttype: \"string\",\n\t\t\t\t\tvalue: title}},\n\t\t\tisBlock: !options.parseAsInline};\n\tif(options.importVariables || options.importPageMacros) {\n\t\tif(options.importVariables) {\n\t\t\tparseTreeImportVariables.attributes.filter.value = options.importVariables;\n\t\t} else if(options.importPageMacros) {\n\t\t\tparseTreeImportVariables.attributes.filter.value = \"[[$:/core/ui/PageMacros]] [all[shadows+tiddlers]tag[$:/tags/Macro]!has[draft.of]]\";\n\t\t}\n\t\tparseTreeDiv.tree[0].children.push(parseTreeImportVariables);\n\t\tparseTreeImportVariables.children.push(parseTreeTransclude);\n\t} else {\n\t\tparseTreeDiv.tree[0].children.push(parseTreeTransclude);\n\t}\n\tif(options.field) {\n\t\tparseTreeTransclude.attributes.field = {type: \"string\", value: options.field};\n\t}\n\tif(options.mode) {\n\t\tparseTreeTransclude.attributes.mode = {type: \"string\", value: options.mode};\n\t}\n\tif(options.children) {\n\t\tparseTreeTransclude.children = options.children;\n\t}\n\treturn $tw.wiki.makeWidget(parseTreeDiv,options);\n};\n\n/*\nParse text in a specified format and render it into another format\n\toutputType: content type for the output\n\ttextType: content type of the input text\n\ttext: input text\n\toptions: see below\nOptions include:\nvariables: hashmap of variables to set\nparentWidget: optional parent widget for the root node\n*/\nexports.renderText = function(outputType,textType,text,options) {\n\toptions = options || {};\n\tvar parser = this.parseText(textType,text,options),\n\t\twidgetNode = this.makeWidget(parser,options);\n\tvar container = $tw.fakeDocument.createElement(\"div\");\n\twidgetNode.render(container,null);\n\treturn outputType === \"text/html\" ? container.innerHTML : container.textContent;\n};\n\n/*\nParse text from a tiddler and render it into another format\n\toutputType: content type for the output\n\ttitle: title of the tiddler to be rendered\n\toptions: see below\nOptions include:\nvariables: hashmap of variables to set\nparentWidget: optional parent widget for the root node\n*/\nexports.renderTiddler = function(outputType,title,options) {\n\toptions = options || {};\n\tvar parser = this.parseTiddler(title,options),\n\t\twidgetNode = this.makeWidget(parser,options);\n\tvar container = $tw.fakeDocument.createElement(\"div\");\n\twidgetNode.render(container,null);\n\treturn outputType === \"text/html\" ? container.innerHTML : (outputType === \"text/plain-formatted\" ? container.formattedTextContent : container.textContent);\n};\n\n/*\nReturn an array of tiddler titles that match a search string\n\ttext: The text string to search for\n\toptions: see below\nOptions available:\n\tsource: an iterator function for the source tiddlers, called source(iterator), where iterator is called as iterator(tiddler,title)\n\texclude: An array of tiddler titles to exclude from the search\n\tinvert: If true returns tiddlers that do not contain the specified string\n\tcaseSensitive: If true forces a case sensitive search\n\tfield: If specified, restricts the search to the specified field, or an array of field names\n\texcludeField: If true, the field options are inverted to specify the fields that are not to be searched\n\tThe search mode is determined by the first of these boolean flags to be true\n\t\tliteral: searches for literal string\n\t\twhitespace: same as literal except runs of whitespace are treated as a single space\n\t\tregexp: treats the search term as a regular expression\n\t\twords: (default) treats search string as a list of tokens, and matches if all tokens are found, regardless of adjacency or ordering\n*/\nexports.search = function(text,options) {\n\toptions = options || {};\n\tvar self = this,\n\t\tt,\n\t\tinvert = !!options.invert;\n\t// Convert the search string into a regexp for each term\n\tvar terms, searchTermsRegExps,\n\t\tflags = options.caseSensitive ? \"\" : \"i\";\n\tif(options.literal) {\n\t\tif(text.length === 0) {\n\t\t\tsearchTermsRegExps = null;\n\t\t} else {\n\t\t\tsearchTermsRegExps = [new RegExp(\"(\" + $tw.utils.escapeRegExp(text) + \")\",flags)];\n\t\t}\n\t} else if(options.whitespace) {\n\t\tterms = [];\n\t\t$tw.utils.each(text.split(/\\s+/g),function(term) {\n\t\t\tif(term) {\n\t\t\t\tterms.push($tw.utils.escapeRegExp(term));\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t});\n\t\tsearchTermsRegExps = [new RegExp(\"(\" + terms.join(\"\\\\s+\") + \")\",flags)];\n\t} else if(options.regexp) {\n\t\ttry {\n\t\t\tsearchTermsRegExps = [new RegExp(\"(\" + text + \")\",flags)];\t\t\t\n\t\t} catch(e) {\n\t\t\tsearchTermsRegExps = null;\n\t\t\tconsole.log(\"Regexp error parsing /(\" + text + \")/\" + flags + \": \",e);\n\t\t}\n\t} else {\n\t\tterms = text.split(/ +/);\n\t\tif(terms.length === 1 && terms[0] === \"\") {\n\t\t\tsearchTermsRegExps = null;\n\t\t} else {\n\t\t\tsearchTermsRegExps = [];\n\t\t\tfor(t=0; t<terms.length; t++) {\n\t\t\t\tsearchTermsRegExps.push(new RegExp(\"(\" + $tw.utils.escapeRegExp(terms[t]) + \")\",flags));\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t}\n\t}\n\t// Accumulate the array of fields to be searched or excluded from the search\n\tvar fields = [];\n\tif(options.field) {\n\t\tif($tw.utils.isArray(options.field)) {\n\t\t\t$tw.utils.each(options.field,function(fieldName) {\n\t\t\t\tif(fieldName) {\n\t\t\t\t\tfields.push(fieldName);\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t});\n\t\t} else {\n\t\t\tfields.push(options.field);\n\t\t}\n\t}\n\t// Use default fields if none specified and we're not excluding fields (excluding fields with an empty field array is the same as searching all fields)\n\tif(fields.length === 0 && !options.excludeField) {\n\t\tfields.push(\"title\");\n\t\tfields.push(\"tags\");\n\t\tfields.push(\"text\");\n\t}\n\t// Function to check a given tiddler for the search term\n\tvar searchTiddler = function(title) {\n\t\tif(!searchTermsRegExps) {\n\t\t\treturn true;\n\t\t}\n\t\tvar notYetFound = searchTermsRegExps.slice();\n\n\t\tvar tiddler = self.getTiddler(title);\n\t\tif(!tiddler) {\n\t\t\ttiddler = new $tw.Tiddler({title: title, text: \"\", type: \"text/vnd.tiddlywiki\"});\n\t\t}\n\t\tvar contentTypeInfo = $tw.config.contentTypeInfo[tiddler.fields.type] || $tw.config.contentTypeInfo[\"text/vnd.tiddlywiki\"],\n\t\t\tsearchFields;\n\t\t// Get the list of fields we're searching\n\t\tif(options.excludeField) {\n\t\t\tsearchFields = Object.keys(tiddler.fields);\n\t\t\t$tw.utils.each(fields,function(fieldName) {\n\t\t\t\tvar p = searchFields.indexOf(fieldName);\n\t\t\t\tif(p !== -1) {\n\t\t\t\t\tsearchFields.splice(p,1);\n\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t});\n\t\t} else {\n\t\t\tsearchFields = fields;\n\t\t}\n\t\tfor(var fieldIndex=0; notYetFound.length>0 && fieldIndex<searchFields.length; fieldIndex++) {\n\t\t\t// Don't search the text field if the content type is binary\n\t\t\tvar fieldName = searchFields[fieldIndex];\n\t\t\tif(fieldName === \"text\" && contentTypeInfo.encoding !== \"utf8\") {\n\t\t\t\tbreak;\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t\tvar str = tiddler.fields[fieldName],\n\t\t\t\tt;\n\t\t\tif(str) {\n\t\t\t\tif($tw.utils.isArray(str)) {\n\t\t\t\t\t// If the field value is an array, test each regexp against each field array entry and fail if each regexp doesn't match at least one field array entry\n\t\t\t\t\tfor(var s=0; s<str.length; s++) {\n\t\t\t\t\t\tfor(t=0; t<notYetFound.length;) {\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tif(notYetFound[t].test(str[s])) {\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tnotYetFound.splice(t, 1);\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t} else {\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tt++;\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t\t} else {\n\t\t\t\t\t// If the field isn't an array, force it to a string and test each regexp against it and fail if any do not match\n\t\t\t\t\tstr = tiddler.getFieldString(fieldName);\n\t\t\t\t\tfor(t=0; t<notYetFound.length;) {\n\t\t\t\t\t\tif(notYetFound[t].test(str)) {\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tnotYetFound.splice(t, 1);\n\t\t\t\t\t\t} else {\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tt++;\n\t\t\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t};\n\t\treturn notYetFound.length == 0;\n\t};\n\t// Loop through all the tiddlers doing the search\n\tvar results = [],\n\t\tsource = options.source || this.each;\n\tsource(function(tiddler,title) {\n\t\tif(searchTiddler(title) !== options.invert) {\n\t\t\tresults.push(title);\n\t\t}\n\t});\n\t// Remove any of the results we have to exclude\n\tif(options.exclude) {\n\t\tfor(t=0; t<options.exclude.length; t++) {\n\t\t\tvar p = results.indexOf(options.exclude[t]);\n\t\t\tif(p !== -1) {\n\t\t\t\tresults.splice(p,1);\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t}\n\t}\n\treturn results;\n};\n\n/*\nTrigger a load for a tiddler if it is skinny. Returns the text, or undefined if the tiddler is missing, null if the tiddler is being lazily loaded.\n*/\nexports.getTiddlerText = function(title,defaultText) {\n\tvar tiddler = this.getTiddler(title);\n\t// Return undefined if the tiddler isn't found\n\tif(!tiddler) {\n\t\treturn defaultText;\n\t}\n\tif(tiddler.fields.text !== undefined) {\n\t\t// Just return the text if we've got it\n\t\treturn tiddler.fields.text;\n\t} else {\n\t\t// Tell any listeners about the need to lazily load this tiddler\n\t\tthis.dispatchEvent(\"lazyLoad\",title);\n\t\t// Indicate that the text is being loaded\n\t\treturn null;\n\t}\n};\n\n/*\nCheck whether the text of a tiddler matches a given value. By default, the comparison is case insensitive, and any spaces at either end of the tiddler text is trimmed\n*/\nexports.checkTiddlerText = function(title,targetText,options) {\n\toptions = options || {};\n\tvar text = this.getTiddlerText(title,\"\");\n\tif(!options.noTrim) {\n\t\ttext = text.trim();\n\t}\n\tif(!options.caseSensitive) {\n\t\ttext = text.toLowerCase();\n\t\ttargetText = targetText.toLowerCase();\n\t}\n\treturn text === targetText;\n}\n\n/*\nRead an array of browser File objects, invoking callback(tiddlerFieldsArray) once they're all read\n*/\nexports.readFiles = function(files,options) {\n\tvar callback;\n\tif(typeof options === \"function\") {\n\t\tcallback = options;\n\t\toptions = {};\n\t} else {\n\t\tcallback = options.callback;\n\t}\n\tvar result = [],\n\t\toutstanding = files.length,\n\t\treadFileCallback = function(tiddlerFieldsArray) {\n\t\t\tresult.push.apply(result,tiddlerFieldsArray);\n\t\t\tif(--outstanding === 0) {\n\t\t\t\tcallback(result);\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t};\n\tfor(var f=0; f<files.length; f++) {\n\t\tthis.readFile(files[f],$tw.utils.extend({},options,{callback: readFileCallback}));\n\t}\n\treturn files.length;\n};\n\n/*\nRead a browser File object, invoking callback(tiddlerFieldsArray) with an array of tiddler fields objects\n*/\nexports.readFile = function(file,options) {\n\tvar callback;\n\tif(typeof options === \"function\") {\n\t\tcallback = options;\n\t\toptions = {};\n\t} else {\n\t\tcallback = options.callback;\n\t}\n\t// Get the type, falling back to the filename extension\n\tvar self = this,\n\t\ttype = file.type;\n\tif(type === \"\" || !type) {\n\t\tvar dotPos = file.name.lastIndexOf(\".\");\n\t\tif(dotPos !== -1) {\n\t\t\tvar fileExtensionInfo = $tw.utils.getFileExtensionInfo(file.name.substr(dotPos));\n\t\t\tif(fileExtensionInfo) {\n\t\t\t\ttype = fileExtensionInfo.type;\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t}\n\t}\n\t// Figure out if we're reading a binary file\n\tvar contentTypeInfo = $tw.config.contentTypeInfo[type],\n\t\tisBinary = contentTypeInfo ? contentTypeInfo.encoding === \"base64\" : false;\n\t// Log some debugging information\n\tif($tw.log.IMPORT) {\n\t\tconsole.log(\"Importing file '\" + file.name + \"', type: '\" + type + \"', isBinary: \" + isBinary);\n\t}\n\t// Give the hook a chance to process the drag\n\tif($tw.hooks.invokeHook(\"th-importing-file\",{\n\t\tfile: file,\n\t\ttype: type,\n\t\tisBinary: isBinary,\n\t\tcallback: callback\n\t}) !== true) {\n\t\tthis.readFileContent(file,type,isBinary,options.deserializer,callback);\n\t}\n};\n\n/*\nLower level utility to read the content of a browser File object, invoking callback(tiddlerFieldsArray) with an array of tiddler fields objects\n*/\nexports.readFileContent = function(file,type,isBinary,deserializer,callback) {\n\tvar self = this;\n\t// Create the FileReader\n\tvar reader = new FileReader();\n\t// Onload\n\treader.onload = function(event) {\n\t\tvar text = event.target.result,\n\t\t\ttiddlerFields = {title: file.name || \"Untitled\", type: type};\n\t\tif(isBinary) {\n\t\t\tvar commaPos = text.indexOf(\",\");\n\t\t\tif(commaPos !== -1) {\n\t\t\t\ttext = text.substr(commaPos + 1);\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t}\n\t\t// Check whether this is an encrypted TiddlyWiki file\n\t\tvar encryptedJson = $tw.utils.extractEncryptedStoreArea(text);\n\t\tif(encryptedJson) {\n\t\t\t// If so, attempt to decrypt it with the current password\n\t\t\t$tw.utils.decryptStoreAreaInteractive(encryptedJson,function(tiddlers) {\n\t\t\t\tcallback(tiddlers);\n\t\t\t});\n\t\t} else {\n\t\t\t// Otherwise, just try to deserialise any tiddlers in the file\n\t\t\tcallback(self.deserializeTiddlers(type,text,tiddlerFields,{deserializer: deserializer}));\n\t\t}\n\t};\n\t// Kick off the read\n\tif(isBinary) {\n\t\treader.readAsDataURL(file);\n\t} else {\n\t\treader.readAsText(file);\n\t}\n};\n\n/*\nFind any existing draft of a specified tiddler\n*/\nexports.findDraft = function(targetTitle) {\n\tvar draftTitle = undefined;\n\tthis.forEachTiddler({includeSystem: true},function(title,tiddler) {\n\t\tif(tiddler.fields[\"draft.title\"] && tiddler.fields[\"draft.of\"] === targetTitle) {\n\t\t\tdraftTitle = title;\n\t\t}\n\t});\n\treturn draftTitle;\n}\n\n/*\nCheck whether the specified draft tiddler has been modified.\nIf the original tiddler doesn't exist, create a vanilla tiddler variable,\nto check if additional fields have been added.\n*/\nexports.isDraftModified = function(title) {\n\tvar tiddler = this.getTiddler(title);\n\tif(!tiddler.isDraft()) {\n\t\treturn false;\n\t}\n\tvar ignoredFields = [\"created\", \"modified\", \"title\", \"draft.title\", \"draft.of\"],\n\t\torigTiddler = this.getTiddler(tiddler.fields[\"draft.of\"]) || new $tw.Tiddler({text:\"\", tags:[]}),\n\t\ttitleModified = tiddler.fields[\"draft.title\"] !== tiddler.fields[\"draft.of\"];\n\treturn titleModified || !tiddler.isEqual(origTiddler,ignoredFields);\n};\n\n/*\nAdd a new record to the top of the history stack\ntitle: a title string or an array of title strings\nfromPageRect: page coordinates of the origin of the navigation\nhistoryTitle: title of history tiddler (defaults to $:/HistoryList)\n*/\nexports.addToHistory = function(title,fromPageRect,historyTitle) {\n\tvar story = new $tw.Story({wiki: this, historyTitle: historyTitle});\n\tstory.addToHistory(title,fromPageRect);\n};\n\n/*\nAdd a new tiddler to the story river\ntitle: a title string or an array of title strings\nfromTitle: the title of the tiddler from which the navigation originated\nstoryTitle: title of story tiddler (defaults to $:/StoryList)\noptions: see story.js\n*/\nexports.addToStory = function(title,fromTitle,storyTitle,options) {\n\tvar story = new $tw.Story({wiki: this, storyTitle: storyTitle});\n\tstory.addToStory(title,fromTitle,options);\n};\n\n/*\nInvoke the available upgrader modules\ntitles: array of tiddler titles to be processed\ntiddlers: hashmap by title of tiddler fields of pending import tiddlers. These can be modified by the upgraders. An entry with no fields indicates a tiddler that was pending import has been suppressed. When entries are added to the pending import the tiddlers hashmap may have entries that are not present in the titles array\nReturns a hashmap of messages keyed by tiddler title.\n*/\nexports.invokeUpgraders = function(titles,tiddlers) {\n\t// Collect up the available upgrader modules\n\tvar self = this;\n\tif(!this.upgraderModules) {\n\t\tthis.upgraderModules = [];\n\t\t$tw.modules.forEachModuleOfType(\"upgrader\",function(title,module) {\n\t\t\tif(module.upgrade) {\n\t\t\t\tself.upgraderModules.push(module);\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t});\n\t}\n\t// Invoke each upgrader in turn\n\tvar messages = {};\n\tfor(var t=0; t<this.upgraderModules.length; t++) {\n\t\tvar upgrader = this.upgraderModules[t],\n\t\t\tupgraderMessages = upgrader.upgrade(this,titles,tiddlers);\n\t\t$tw.utils.extend(messages,upgraderMessages);\n\t}\n\treturn messages;\n};\n\n})();\n\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "wikimethod"
},
"$:/palettes/Blanca": {
"title": "$:/palettes/Blanca",
"name": "Blanca",
"description": "A clean white palette to let you focus",
"tags": "$:/tags/Palette",
"type": "application/x-tiddler-dictionary",
"text": "alert-background: #ffe476\nalert-border: #b99e2f\nalert-highlight: #881122\nalert-muted-foreground: #b99e2f\nbackground: #ffffff\nblockquote-bar: <<colour muted-foreground>>\nbutton-background:\nbutton-foreground:\nbutton-border:\ncode-background: #f7f7f9\ncode-border: #e1e1e8\ncode-foreground: #dd1144\ndirty-indicator: #ff0000\ndownload-background: #66cccc\ndownload-foreground: <<colour background>>\ndragger-background: <<colour foreground>>\ndragger-foreground: <<colour background>>\ndropdown-background: <<colour background>>\ndropdown-border: <<colour muted-foreground>>\ndropdown-tab-background-selected: #fff\ndropdown-tab-background: #ececec\ndropzone-background: rgba(0,200,0,0.7)\nexternal-link-background-hover: inherit\nexternal-link-background-visited: inherit\nexternal-link-background: inherit\nexternal-link-foreground-hover: inherit\nexternal-link-foreground-visited: #0000aa\nexternal-link-foreground: #0000ee\nforeground: #333333\nmessage-background: #ecf2ff\nmessage-border: #cfd6e6\nmessage-foreground: #547599\nmodal-backdrop: <<colour foreground>>\nmodal-background: <<colour background>>\nmodal-border: #999999\nmodal-footer-background: #f5f5f5\nmodal-footer-border: #dddddd\nmodal-header-border: #eeeeee\nmuted-foreground: #999999\nnotification-background: #ffffdd\nnotification-border: #999999\npage-background: #ffffff\npre-background: #f5f5f5\npre-border: #cccccc\nprimary: #7897f3\nselect-tag-background:\nselect-tag-foreground:\nsidebar-button-foreground: <<colour foreground>>\nsidebar-controls-foreground-hover: #000000\nsidebar-controls-foreground: #ccc\nsidebar-foreground-shadow: rgba(255,255,255, 0.8)\nsidebar-foreground: #acacac\nsidebar-muted-foreground-hover: #444444\nsidebar-muted-foreground: #c0c0c0\nsidebar-tab-background-selected: #ffffff\nsidebar-tab-background: <<colour tab-background>>\nsidebar-tab-border-selected: <<colour tab-border-selected>>\nsidebar-tab-border: <<colour tab-border>>\nsidebar-tab-divider: <<colour tab-divider>>\nsidebar-tab-foreground-selected: \nsidebar-tab-foreground: <<colour tab-foreground>>\nsidebar-tiddler-link-foreground-hover: #444444\nsidebar-tiddler-link-foreground: #7897f3\nsite-title-foreground: <<colour tiddler-title-foreground>>\nstatic-alert-foreground: #aaaaaa\ntab-background-selected: #ffffff\ntab-background: #eeeeee\ntab-border-selected: #cccccc\ntab-border: #cccccc\ntab-divider: #d8d8d8\ntab-foreground-selected: <<colour tab-foreground>>\ntab-foreground: #666666\ntable-border: #dddddd\ntable-footer-background: #a8a8a8\ntable-header-background: #f0f0f0\ntag-background: #ffeedd\ntag-foreground: #000\ntiddler-background: <<colour background>>\ntiddler-border: #eee\ntiddler-controls-foreground-hover: #888888\ntiddler-controls-foreground-selected: #444444\ntiddler-controls-foreground: #cccccc\ntiddler-editor-background: #f8f8f8\ntiddler-editor-border-image: #ffffff\ntiddler-editor-border: #cccccc\ntiddler-editor-fields-even: #e0e8e0\ntiddler-editor-fields-odd: #f0f4f0\ntiddler-info-background: #f8f8f8\ntiddler-info-border: #dddddd\ntiddler-info-tab-background: #f8f8f8\ntiddler-link-background: <<colour background>>\ntiddler-link-foreground: <<colour primary>>\ntiddler-subtitle-foreground: #c0c0c0\ntiddler-title-foreground: #ff9900\ntoolbar-new-button:\ntoolbar-options-button:\ntoolbar-save-button:\ntoolbar-info-button:\ntoolbar-edit-button:\ntoolbar-close-button:\ntoolbar-delete-button:\ntoolbar-cancel-button:\ntoolbar-done-button:\nuntagged-background: #999999\nvery-muted-foreground: #888888\n"
},
"$:/palettes/Blue": {
"title": "$:/palettes/Blue",
"name": "Blue",
"description": "A blue theme",
"tags": "$:/tags/Palette",
"type": "application/x-tiddler-dictionary",
"text": "alert-background: #ffe476\nalert-border: #b99e2f\nalert-highlight: #881122\nalert-muted-foreground: #b99e2f\nbackground: #fff\nblockquote-bar: <<colour muted-foreground>>\nbutton-background:\nbutton-foreground:\nbutton-border:\ncode-background: #f7f7f9\ncode-border: #e1e1e8\ncode-foreground: #dd1144\ndirty-indicator: #ff0000\ndownload-background: #34c734\ndownload-foreground: <<colour foreground>>\ndragger-background: <<colour foreground>>\ndragger-foreground: <<colour background>>\ndropdown-background: <<colour background>>\ndropdown-border: <<colour muted-foreground>>\ndropdown-tab-background-selected: #fff\ndropdown-tab-background: #ececec\ndropzone-background: rgba(0,200,0,0.7)\nexternal-link-background-hover: inherit\nexternal-link-background-visited: inherit\nexternal-link-background: inherit\nexternal-link-foreground-hover: inherit\nexternal-link-foreground-visited: #0000aa\nexternal-link-foreground: #0000ee\nforeground: #333353\nmessage-background: #ecf2ff\nmessage-border: #cfd6e6\nmessage-foreground: #547599\nmodal-backdrop: <<colour foreground>>\nmodal-background: <<colour background>>\nmodal-border: #999999\nmodal-footer-background: #f5f5f5\nmodal-footer-border: #dddddd\nmodal-header-border: #eeeeee\nmuted-foreground: #999999\nnotification-background: #ffffdd\nnotification-border: #999999\npage-background: #ddddff\npre-background: #f5f5f5\npre-border: #cccccc\nprimary: #5778d8\nselect-tag-background:\nselect-tag-foreground:\nsidebar-button-foreground: <<colour foreground>>\nsidebar-controls-foreground-hover: #000000\nsidebar-controls-foreground: #ffffff\nsidebar-foreground-shadow: rgba(255,255,255, 0.8)\nsidebar-foreground: #acacac\nsidebar-muted-foreground-hover: #444444\nsidebar-muted-foreground: #c0c0c0\nsidebar-tab-background-selected: <<colour page-background>>\nsidebar-tab-background: <<colour tab-background>>\nsidebar-tab-border-selected: <<colour tab-border-selected>>\nsidebar-tab-border: <<colour tab-border>>\nsidebar-tab-divider: <<colour tab-divider>>\nsidebar-tab-foreground-selected: \nsidebar-tab-foreground: <<colour tab-foreground>>\nsidebar-tiddler-link-foreground-hover: #444444\nsidebar-tiddler-link-foreground: #5959c0\nsite-title-foreground: <<colour tiddler-title-foreground>>\nstatic-alert-foreground: #aaaaaa\ntab-background-selected: <<colour background>>\ntab-background: #ccccdd\ntab-border-selected: #ccccdd\ntab-border: #cccccc\ntab-divider: #d8d8d8\ntab-foreground-selected: <<colour tab-foreground>>\ntab-foreground: #666666\ntable-border: #dddddd\ntable-footer-background: #a8a8a8\ntable-header-background: #f0f0f0\ntag-background: #eeeeff\ntag-foreground: #000\ntiddler-background: <<colour background>>\ntiddler-border: <<colour background>>\ntiddler-controls-foreground-hover: #666666\ntiddler-controls-foreground-selected: #444444\ntiddler-controls-foreground: #cccccc\ntiddler-editor-background: #f8f8f8\ntiddler-editor-border-image: #ffffff\ntiddler-editor-border: #cccccc\ntiddler-editor-fields-even: #e0e8e0\ntiddler-editor-fields-odd: #f0f4f0\ntiddler-info-background: #ffffff\ntiddler-info-border: #dddddd\ntiddler-info-tab-background: #ffffff\ntiddler-link-background: <<colour background>>\ntiddler-link-foreground: <<colour primary>>\ntiddler-subtitle-foreground: #c0c0c0\ntiddler-title-foreground: #5959c0\ntoolbar-new-button: #5eb95e\ntoolbar-options-button: rgb(128, 88, 165)\ntoolbar-save-button: #0e90d2\ntoolbar-info-button: #0e90d2\ntoolbar-edit-button: rgb(243, 123, 29)\ntoolbar-close-button: #dd514c\ntoolbar-delete-button: #dd514c\ntoolbar-cancel-button: rgb(243, 123, 29)\ntoolbar-done-button: #5eb95e\nuntagged-background: #999999\nvery-muted-foreground: #888888\n"
},
"$:/palettes/Muted": {
"title": "$:/palettes/Muted",
"name": "Muted",
"description": "Bright tiddlers on a muted background",
"tags": "$:/tags/Palette",
"type": "application/x-tiddler-dictionary",
"text": "alert-background: #ffe476\nalert-border: #b99e2f\nalert-highlight: #881122\nalert-muted-foreground: #b99e2f\nbackground: #ffffff\nblockquote-bar: <<colour muted-foreground>>\nbutton-background:\nbutton-foreground:\nbutton-border:\ncode-background: #f7f7f9\ncode-border: #e1e1e8\ncode-foreground: #dd1144\ndirty-indicator: #ff0000\ndownload-background: #34c734\ndownload-foreground: <<colour background>>\ndragger-background: <<colour foreground>>\ndragger-foreground: <<colour background>>\ndropdown-background: <<colour background>>\ndropdown-border: <<colour muted-foreground>>\ndropdown-tab-background-selected: #fff\ndropdown-tab-background: #ececec\ndropzone-background: rgba(0,200,0,0.7)\nexternal-link-background-hover: inherit\nexternal-link-background-visited: inherit\nexternal-link-background: inherit\nexternal-link-foreground-hover: inherit\nexternal-link-foreground-visited: #0000aa\nexternal-link-foreground: #0000ee\nforeground: #333333\nmessage-background: #ecf2ff\nmessage-border: #cfd6e6\nmessage-foreground: #547599\nmodal-backdrop: <<colour foreground>>\nmodal-background: <<colour background>>\nmodal-border: #999999\nmodal-footer-background: #f5f5f5\nmodal-footer-border: #dddddd\nmodal-header-border: #eeeeee\nmuted-foreground: #bbb\nnotification-background: #ffffdd\nnotification-border: #999999\npage-background: #6f6f70\npre-background: #f5f5f5\npre-border: #cccccc\nprimary: #29a6ee\nselect-tag-background:\nselect-tag-foreground:\nsidebar-button-foreground: <<colour foreground>>\nsidebar-controls-foreground-hover: #000000\nsidebar-controls-foreground: #c2c1c2\nsidebar-foreground-shadow: rgba(255,255,255,0)\nsidebar-foreground: #d3d2d4\nsidebar-muted-foreground-hover: #444444\nsidebar-muted-foreground: #c0c0c0\nsidebar-tab-background-selected: #6f6f70\nsidebar-tab-background: #666667\nsidebar-tab-border-selected: #999\nsidebar-tab-border: #515151\nsidebar-tab-divider: #999\nsidebar-tab-foreground-selected: \nsidebar-tab-foreground: #999\nsidebar-tiddler-link-foreground-hover: #444444\nsidebar-tiddler-link-foreground: #d1d0d2\nsite-title-foreground: <<colour tiddler-title-foreground>>\nstatic-alert-foreground: #aaaaaa\ntab-background-selected: #ffffff\ntab-background: #d8d8d8\ntab-border-selected: #d8d8d8\ntab-border: #cccccc\ntab-divider: #d8d8d8\ntab-foreground-selected: <<colour tab-foreground>>\ntab-foreground: #666666\ntable-border: #dddddd\ntable-footer-background: #a8a8a8\ntable-header-background: #f0f0f0\ntag-background: #d5ad34\ntag-foreground: #ffffff\ntiddler-background: <<colour background>>\ntiddler-border: <<colour background>>\ntiddler-controls-foreground-hover: #888888\ntiddler-controls-foreground-selected: #444444\ntiddler-controls-foreground: #cccccc\ntiddler-editor-background: #f8f8f8\ntiddler-editor-border-image: #ffffff\ntiddler-editor-border: #cccccc\ntiddler-editor-fields-even: #e0e8e0\ntiddler-editor-fields-odd: #f0f4f0\ntiddler-info-background: #f8f8f8\ntiddler-info-border: #dddddd\ntiddler-info-tab-background: #f8f8f8\ntiddler-link-background: <<colour background>>\ntiddler-link-foreground: <<colour primary>>\ntiddler-subtitle-foreground: #c0c0c0\ntiddler-title-foreground: #182955\ntoolbar-new-button: \ntoolbar-options-button: \ntoolbar-save-button: \ntoolbar-info-button: \ntoolbar-edit-button: \ntoolbar-close-button: \ntoolbar-delete-button: \ntoolbar-cancel-button: \ntoolbar-done-button: \nuntagged-background: #999999\nvery-muted-foreground: #888888\n"
},
"$:/palettes/ContrastLight": {
"title": "$:/palettes/ContrastLight",
"name": "Contrast (Light)",
"description": "High contrast and unambiguous (light version)",
"tags": "$:/tags/Palette",
"type": "application/x-tiddler-dictionary",
"text": "alert-background: #f00\nalert-border: <<colour background>>\nalert-highlight: <<colour foreground>>\nalert-muted-foreground: #800\nbackground: #fff\nblockquote-bar: <<colour muted-foreground>>\nbutton-background: <<colour background>>\nbutton-foreground: <<colour foreground>>\nbutton-border: <<colour foreground>>\ncode-background: <<colour background>>\ncode-border: <<colour foreground>>\ncode-foreground: <<colour foreground>>\ndirty-indicator: #f00\ndownload-background: #080\ndownload-foreground: <<colour background>>\ndragger-background: <<colour foreground>>\ndragger-foreground: <<colour background>>\ndropdown-background: <<colour background>>\ndropdown-border: <<colour muted-foreground>>\ndropdown-tab-background-selected: <<colour foreground>>\ndropdown-tab-background: <<colour foreground>>\ndropzone-background: rgba(0,200,0,0.7)\nexternal-link-background-hover: inherit\nexternal-link-background-visited: inherit\nexternal-link-background: inherit\nexternal-link-foreground-hover: inherit\nexternal-link-foreground-visited: #00a\nexternal-link-foreground: #00e\nforeground: #000\nmessage-background: <<colour foreground>>\nmessage-border: <<colour background>>\nmessage-foreground: <<colour background>>\nmodal-backdrop: <<colour foreground>>\nmodal-background: <<colour background>>\nmodal-border: <<colour foreground>>\nmodal-footer-background: <<colour background>>\nmodal-footer-border: <<colour foreground>>\nmodal-header-border: <<colour foreground>>\nmuted-foreground: <<colour foreground>>\nnotification-background: <<colour background>>\nnotification-border: <<colour foreground>>\npage-background: <<colour background>>\npre-background: <<colour background>>\npre-border: <<colour foreground>>\nprimary: #00f\nselect-tag-background:\nselect-tag-foreground:\nsidebar-button-foreground: <<colour foreground>>\nsidebar-controls-foreground-hover: <<colour background>>\nsidebar-controls-foreground: <<colour foreground>>\nsidebar-foreground-shadow: rgba(0,0,0, 0)\nsidebar-foreground: <<colour foreground>>\nsidebar-muted-foreground-hover: #444444\nsidebar-muted-foreground: <<colour foreground>>\nsidebar-tab-background-selected: <<colour background>>\nsidebar-tab-background: <<colour tab-background>>\nsidebar-tab-border-selected: <<colour tab-border-selected>>\nsidebar-tab-border: <<colour tab-border>>\nsidebar-tab-divider: <<colour tab-divider>>\nsidebar-tab-foreground-selected: <<colour foreground>>\nsidebar-tab-foreground: <<colour tab-foreground>>\nsidebar-tiddler-link-foreground-hover: <<colour foreground>>\nsidebar-tiddler-link-foreground: <<colour primary>>\nsite-title-foreground: <<colour tiddler-title-foreground>>\nstatic-alert-foreground: #aaaaaa\ntab-background-selected: <<colour background>>\ntab-background: <<colour foreground>>\ntab-border-selected: <<colour foreground>>\ntab-border: <<colour foreground>>\ntab-divider: <<colour foreground>>\ntab-foreground-selected: <<colour foreground>>\ntab-foreground: <<colour background>>\ntable-border: #dddddd\ntable-footer-background: #a8a8a8\ntable-header-background: #f0f0f0\ntag-background: #000\ntag-foreground: #fff\ntiddler-background: <<colour background>>\ntiddler-border: <<colour foreground>>\ntiddler-controls-foreground-hover: #ddd\ntiddler-controls-foreground-selected: #fdd\ntiddler-controls-foreground: <<colour foreground>>\ntiddler-editor-background: <<colour background>>\ntiddler-editor-border-image: <<colour foreground>>\ntiddler-editor-border: #cccccc\ntiddler-editor-fields-even: <<colour background>>\ntiddler-editor-fields-odd: <<colour background>>\ntiddler-info-background: <<colour background>>\ntiddler-info-border: <<colour foreground>>\ntiddler-info-tab-background: <<colour background>>\ntiddler-link-background: <<colour background>>\ntiddler-link-foreground: <<colour primary>>\ntiddler-subtitle-foreground: <<colour foreground>>\ntiddler-title-foreground: <<colour foreground>>\ntoolbar-new-button: \ntoolbar-options-button: \ntoolbar-save-button: \ntoolbar-info-button: \ntoolbar-edit-button: \ntoolbar-close-button: \ntoolbar-delete-button: \ntoolbar-cancel-button: \ntoolbar-done-button: \nuntagged-background: <<colour foreground>>\nvery-muted-foreground: #888888\n"
},
"$:/palettes/ContrastDark": {
"title": "$:/palettes/ContrastDark",
"name": "Contrast (Dark)",
"description": "High contrast and unambiguous (dark version)",
"tags": "$:/tags/Palette",
"type": "application/x-tiddler-dictionary",
"text": "alert-background: #f00\nalert-border: <<colour background>>\nalert-highlight: <<colour foreground>>\nalert-muted-foreground: #800\nbackground: #000\nblockquote-bar: <<colour muted-foreground>>\nbutton-background: <<colour background>>\nbutton-foreground: <<colour foreground>>\nbutton-border: <<colour foreground>>\ncode-background: <<colour background>>\ncode-border: <<colour foreground>>\ncode-foreground: <<colour foreground>>\ndirty-indicator: #f00\ndownload-background: #080\ndownload-foreground: <<colour background>>\ndragger-background: <<colour foreground>>\ndragger-foreground: <<colour background>>\ndropdown-background: <<colour background>>\ndropdown-border: <<colour muted-foreground>>\ndropdown-tab-background-selected: <<colour foreground>>\ndropdown-tab-background: <<colour foreground>>\ndropzone-background: rgba(0,200,0,0.7)\nexternal-link-background-hover: inherit\nexternal-link-background-visited: inherit\nexternal-link-background: inherit\nexternal-link-foreground-hover: inherit\nexternal-link-foreground-visited: #00a\nexternal-link-foreground: #00e\nforeground: #fff\nmessage-background: <<colour foreground>>\nmessage-border: <<colour background>>\nmessage-foreground: <<colour background>>\nmodal-backdrop: <<colour foreground>>\nmodal-background: <<colour background>>\nmodal-border: <<colour foreground>>\nmodal-footer-background: <<colour background>>\nmodal-footer-border: <<colour foreground>>\nmodal-header-border: <<colour foreground>>\nmuted-foreground: <<colour foreground>>\nnotification-background: <<colour background>>\nnotification-border: <<colour foreground>>\npage-background: <<colour background>>\npre-background: <<colour background>>\npre-border: <<colour foreground>>\nprimary: #00f\nselect-tag-background:\nselect-tag-foreground:\nsidebar-button-foreground: <<colour foreground>>\nsidebar-controls-foreground-hover: <<colour background>>\nsidebar-controls-foreground: <<colour foreground>>\nsidebar-foreground-shadow: rgba(0,0,0, 0)\nsidebar-foreground: <<colour foreground>>\nsidebar-muted-foreground-hover: #444444\nsidebar-muted-foreground: <<colour foreground>>\nsidebar-tab-background-selected: <<colour background>>\nsidebar-tab-background: <<colour tab-background>>\nsidebar-tab-border-selected: <<colour tab-border-selected>>\nsidebar-tab-border: <<colour tab-border>>\nsidebar-tab-divider: <<colour tab-divider>>\nsidebar-tab-foreground-selected: <<colour foreground>>\nsidebar-tab-foreground: <<colour tab-foreground>>\nsidebar-tiddler-link-foreground-hover: <<colour foreground>>\nsidebar-tiddler-link-foreground: <<colour primary>>\nsite-title-foreground: <<colour tiddler-title-foreground>>\nstatic-alert-foreground: #aaaaaa\ntab-background-selected: <<colour background>>\ntab-background: <<colour foreground>>\ntab-border-selected: <<colour foreground>>\ntab-border: <<colour foreground>>\ntab-divider: <<colour foreground>>\ntab-foreground-selected: <<colour foreground>>\ntab-foreground: <<colour background>>\ntable-border: #dddddd\ntable-footer-background: #a8a8a8\ntable-header-background: #f0f0f0\ntag-background: #fff\ntag-foreground: #000\ntiddler-background: <<colour background>>\ntiddler-border: <<colour foreground>>\ntiddler-controls-foreground-hover: #ddd\ntiddler-controls-foreground-selected: #fdd\ntiddler-controls-foreground: <<colour foreground>>\ntiddler-editor-background: <<colour background>>\ntiddler-editor-border-image: <<colour foreground>>\ntiddler-editor-border: #cccccc\ntiddler-editor-fields-even: <<colour background>>\ntiddler-editor-fields-odd: <<colour background>>\ntiddler-info-background: <<colour background>>\ntiddler-info-border: <<colour foreground>>\ntiddler-info-tab-background: <<colour background>>\ntiddler-link-background: <<colour background>>\ntiddler-link-foreground: <<colour primary>>\ntiddler-subtitle-foreground: <<colour foreground>>\ntiddler-title-foreground: <<colour foreground>>\ntoolbar-new-button: \ntoolbar-options-button: \ntoolbar-save-button: \ntoolbar-info-button: \ntoolbar-edit-button: \ntoolbar-close-button: \ntoolbar-delete-button: \ntoolbar-cancel-button: \ntoolbar-done-button: \nuntagged-background: <<colour foreground>>\nvery-muted-foreground: #888888\n"
},
"$:/palettes/DarkPhotos": {
"title": "$:/palettes/DarkPhotos",
"created": "20150402111612188",
"description": "Good with dark photo backgrounds",
"modified": "20150402112344080",
"name": "DarkPhotos",
"tags": "$:/tags/Palette",
"type": "application/x-tiddler-dictionary",
"text": "alert-background: #ffe476\nalert-border: #b99e2f\nalert-highlight: #881122\nalert-muted-foreground: #b99e2f\nbackground: #ffffff\nblockquote-bar: <<colour muted-foreground>>\nbutton-background: \nbutton-foreground: \nbutton-border: \ncode-background: #f7f7f9\ncode-border: #e1e1e8\ncode-foreground: #dd1144\ndirty-indicator: #ff0000\ndownload-background: #34c734\ndownload-foreground: <<colour background>>\ndragger-background: <<colour foreground>>\ndragger-foreground: <<colour background>>\ndropdown-background: <<colour background>>\ndropdown-border: <<colour muted-foreground>>\ndropdown-tab-background-selected: #fff\ndropdown-tab-background: #ececec\ndropzone-background: rgba(0,200,0,0.7)\nexternal-link-background-hover: inherit\nexternal-link-background-visited: inherit\nexternal-link-background: inherit\nexternal-link-foreground-hover: inherit\nexternal-link-foreground-visited: #0000aa\nexternal-link-foreground: #0000ee\nforeground: #333333\nmessage-background: #ecf2ff\nmessage-border: #cfd6e6\nmessage-foreground: #547599\nmodal-backdrop: <<colour foreground>>\nmodal-background: <<colour background>>\nmodal-border: #999999\nmodal-footer-background: #f5f5f5\nmodal-footer-border: #dddddd\nmodal-header-border: #eeeeee\nmuted-foreground: #ddd\nnotification-background: #ffffdd\nnotification-border: #999999\npage-background: #336438\npre-background: #f5f5f5\npre-border: #cccccc\nprimary: #5778d8\nselect-tag-background:\nselect-tag-foreground:\nsidebar-button-foreground: <<colour foreground>>\nsidebar-controls-foreground-hover: #ccf\nsidebar-controls-foreground: #fff\nsidebar-foreground-shadow: rgba(0,0,0, 0.5)\nsidebar-foreground: #fff\nsidebar-muted-foreground-hover: #444444\nsidebar-muted-foreground: #eee\nsidebar-tab-background-selected: rgba(255,255,255, 0.8)\nsidebar-tab-background: rgba(255,255,255, 0.4)\nsidebar-tab-border-selected: <<colour tab-border-selected>>\nsidebar-tab-border: <<colour tab-border>>\nsidebar-tab-divider: rgba(255,255,255, 0.2)\nsidebar-tab-foreground-selected: \nsidebar-tab-foreground: <<colour tab-foreground>>\nsidebar-tiddler-link-foreground-hover: #aaf\nsidebar-tiddler-link-foreground: #ddf\nsite-title-foreground: #fff\nstatic-alert-foreground: #aaaaaa\ntab-background-selected: #ffffff\ntab-background: #d8d8d8\ntab-border-selected: #d8d8d8\ntab-border: #cccccc\ntab-divider: #d8d8d8\ntab-foreground-selected: <<colour tab-foreground>>\ntab-foreground: #666666\ntable-border: #dddddd\ntable-footer-background: #a8a8a8\ntable-header-background: #f0f0f0\ntag-background: #ec6\ntag-foreground: #ffffff\ntiddler-background: <<colour background>>\ntiddler-border: <<colour background>>\ntiddler-controls-foreground-hover: #888888\ntiddler-controls-foreground-selected: #444444\ntiddler-controls-foreground: #cccccc\ntiddler-editor-background: #f8f8f8\ntiddler-editor-border-image: #ffffff\ntiddler-editor-border: #cccccc\ntiddler-editor-fields-even: #e0e8e0\ntiddler-editor-fields-odd: #f0f4f0\ntiddler-info-background: #f8f8f8\ntiddler-info-border: #dddddd\ntiddler-info-tab-background: #f8f8f8\ntiddler-link-background: <<colour background>>\ntiddler-link-foreground: <<colour primary>>\ntiddler-subtitle-foreground: #c0c0c0\ntiddler-title-foreground: #182955\ntoolbar-new-button: \ntoolbar-options-button: \ntoolbar-save-button: \ntoolbar-info-button: \ntoolbar-edit-button: \ntoolbar-close-button: \ntoolbar-delete-button: \ntoolbar-cancel-button: \ntoolbar-done-button: \nuntagged-background: #999999\nvery-muted-foreground: #888888\n"
},
"$:/palettes/Rocker": {
"title": "$:/palettes/Rocker",
"name": "Rocker",
"description": "A dark theme",
"tags": "$:/tags/Palette",
"type": "application/x-tiddler-dictionary",
"text": "alert-background: #ffe476\nalert-border: #b99e2f\nalert-highlight: #881122\nalert-muted-foreground: #b99e2f\nbackground: #ffffff\nblockquote-bar: <<colour muted-foreground>>\nbutton-background:\nbutton-foreground:\nbutton-border:\ncode-background: #f7f7f9\ncode-border: #e1e1e8\ncode-foreground: #dd1144\ndirty-indicator: #ff0000\ndownload-background: #34c734\ndownload-foreground: <<colour background>>\ndragger-background: <<colour foreground>>\ndragger-foreground: <<colour background>>\ndropdown-background: <<colour background>>\ndropdown-border: <<colour muted-foreground>>\ndropdown-tab-background-selected: #fff\ndropdown-tab-background: #ececec\ndropzone-background: rgba(0,200,0,0.7)\nexternal-link-background-hover: inherit\nexternal-link-background-visited: inherit\nexternal-link-background: inherit\nexternal-link-foreground-hover: inherit\nexternal-link-foreground-visited: #0000aa\nexternal-link-foreground: #0000ee\nforeground: #333333\nmessage-background: #ecf2ff\nmessage-border: #cfd6e6\nmessage-foreground: #547599\nmodal-backdrop: <<colour foreground>>\nmodal-background: <<colour background>>\nmodal-border: #999999\nmodal-footer-background: #f5f5f5\nmodal-footer-border: #dddddd\nmodal-header-border: #eeeeee\nmuted-foreground: #999999\nnotification-background: #ffffdd\nnotification-border: #999999\npage-background: #000\npre-background: #f5f5f5\npre-border: #cccccc\nprimary: #cc0000\nselect-tag-background:\nselect-tag-foreground:\nsidebar-button-foreground: <<colour foreground>>\nsidebar-controls-foreground-hover: #000000\nsidebar-controls-foreground: #ffffff\nsidebar-foreground-shadow: rgba(255,255,255, 0.0)\nsidebar-foreground: #acacac\nsidebar-muted-foreground-hover: #444444\nsidebar-muted-foreground: #c0c0c0\nsidebar-tab-background-selected: #000\nsidebar-tab-background: <<colour tab-background>>\nsidebar-tab-border-selected: <<colour tab-border-selected>>\nsidebar-tab-border: <<colour tab-border>>\nsidebar-tab-divider: <<colour tab-divider>>\nsidebar-tab-foreground-selected: \nsidebar-tab-foreground: <<colour tab-foreground>>\nsidebar-tiddler-link-foreground-hover: #ffbb99\nsidebar-tiddler-link-foreground: #cc0000\nsite-title-foreground: <<colour tiddler-title-foreground>>\nstatic-alert-foreground: #aaaaaa\ntab-background-selected: #ffffff\ntab-background: #d8d8d8\ntab-border-selected: #d8d8d8\ntab-border: #cccccc\ntab-divider: #d8d8d8\ntab-foreground-selected: <<colour tab-foreground>>\ntab-foreground: #666666\ntable-border: #dddddd\ntable-footer-background: #a8a8a8\ntable-header-background: #f0f0f0\ntag-background: #ffbb99\ntag-foreground: #000\ntiddler-background: <<colour background>>\ntiddler-border: <<colour background>>\ntiddler-controls-foreground-hover: #888888\ntiddler-controls-foreground-selected: #444444\ntiddler-controls-foreground: #cccccc\ntiddler-editor-background: #f8f8f8\ntiddler-editor-border-image: #ffffff\ntiddler-editor-border: #cccccc\ntiddler-editor-fields-even: #e0e8e0\ntiddler-editor-fields-odd: #f0f4f0\ntiddler-info-background: #f8f8f8\ntiddler-info-border: #dddddd\ntiddler-info-tab-background: #f8f8f8\ntiddler-link-background: <<colour background>>\ntiddler-link-foreground: <<colour primary>>\ntiddler-subtitle-foreground: #c0c0c0\ntiddler-title-foreground: #cc0000\ntoolbar-new-button:\ntoolbar-options-button:\ntoolbar-save-button:\ntoolbar-info-button:\ntoolbar-edit-button:\ntoolbar-close-button:\ntoolbar-delete-button:\ntoolbar-cancel-button:\ntoolbar-done-button:\nuntagged-background: #999999\nvery-muted-foreground: #888888\n"
},
"$:/palettes/SolarFlare": {
"title": "$:/palettes/SolarFlare",
"name": "Solar Flare",
"description": "Warm, relaxing earth colours",
"tags": "$:/tags/Palette",
"type": "application/x-tiddler-dictionary",
"text": ": Background Tones\n\nbase03: #002b36\nbase02: #073642\n\n: Content Tones\n\nbase01: #586e75\nbase00: #657b83\nbase0: #839496\nbase1: #93a1a1\n\n: Background Tones\n\nbase2: #eee8d5\nbase3: #fdf6e3\n\n: Accent Colors\n\nyellow: #b58900\norange: #cb4b16\nred: #dc322f\nmagenta: #d33682\nviolet: #6c71c4\nblue: #268bd2\ncyan: #2aa198\ngreen: #859900\n\n: Additional Tones (RA)\n\nbase10: #c0c4bb\nviolet-muted: #7c81b0\nblue-muted: #4e7baa\n\nyellow-hot: #ffcc44\norange-hot: #eb6d20\nred-hot: #ff2222\nblue-hot: #2298ee\ngreen-hot: #98ee22\n\n: Palette\n\n: Do not use colour macro for background and foreground\nbackground: #fdf6e3\n download-foreground: <<colour background>>\n dragger-foreground: <<colour background>>\n dropdown-background: <<colour background>>\n modal-background: <<colour background>>\n sidebar-foreground-shadow: <<colour background>>\n tiddler-background: <<colour background>>\n tiddler-border: <<colour background>>\n tiddler-link-background: <<colour background>>\n tab-background-selected: <<colour background>>\n dropdown-tab-background-selected: <<colour tab-background-selected>>\nforeground: #657b83\n dragger-background: <<colour foreground>>\n tab-foreground: <<colour foreground>>\n tab-foreground-selected: <<colour tab-foreground>>\n sidebar-tab-foreground-selected: <<colour tab-foreground-selected>>\n sidebar-tab-foreground: <<colour tab-foreground>>\n sidebar-button-foreground: <<colour foreground>>\n sidebar-controls-foreground: <<colour foreground>>\n sidebar-foreground: <<colour foreground>>\n: base03\n: base02\n: base01\n alert-muted-foreground: <<colour base01>>\n: base00\n code-foreground: <<colour base00>>\n message-foreground: <<colour base00>>\n tag-foreground: <<colour base00>>\n: base0\n sidebar-tiddler-link-foreground: <<colour base0>>\n: base1\n muted-foreground: <<colour base1>>\n blockquote-bar: <<colour muted-foreground>>\n dropdown-border: <<colour muted-foreground>>\n sidebar-muted-foreground: <<colour muted-foreground>>\n tiddler-title-foreground: <<colour muted-foreground>>\n site-title-foreground: <<colour tiddler-title-foreground>>\n: base2\n modal-footer-background: <<colour base2>>\n page-background: <<colour base2>>\n modal-backdrop: <<colour page-background>>\n notification-background: <<colour page-background>>\n code-background: <<colour page-background>>\n code-border: <<colour code-background>>\n pre-background: <<colour page-background>>\n pre-border: <<colour pre-background>>\n sidebar-tab-background-selected: <<colour page-background>>\n table-header-background: <<colour base2>>\n tag-background: <<colour base2>>\n tiddler-editor-background: <<colour base2>>\n tiddler-info-background: <<colour base2>>\n tiddler-info-tab-background: <<colour base2>>\n tab-background: <<colour base2>>\n dropdown-tab-background: <<colour tab-background>>\n: base3\n alert-background: <<colour base3>>\n message-background: <<colour base3>>\n: yellow\n: orange\n: red\n: magenta\n alert-highlight: <<colour magenta>>\n: violet\n external-link-foreground: <<colour violet>>\n: blue\n: cyan\n: green\n: base10\n tiddler-controls-foreground: <<colour base10>>\n: violet-muted\n external-link-foreground-visited: <<colour violet-muted>>\n: blue-muted\n primary: <<colour blue-muted>>\n download-background: <<colour primary>>\n tiddler-link-foreground: <<colour primary>>\n\nalert-border: #b99e2f\ndirty-indicator: #ff0000\ndropzone-background: rgba(0,200,0,0.7)\nexternal-link-background-hover: inherit\nexternal-link-background-visited: inherit\nexternal-link-background: inherit\nexternal-link-foreground-hover: inherit\nmessage-border: #cfd6e6\nmodal-border: #999999\nselect-tag-background:\nselect-tag-foreground:\nsidebar-controls-foreground-hover:\nsidebar-muted-foreground-hover:\nsidebar-tab-background: #ded8c5\nsidebar-tiddler-link-foreground-hover:\nstatic-alert-foreground: #aaaaaa\ntab-border: #cccccc\n modal-footer-border: <<colour tab-border>>\n modal-header-border: <<colour tab-border>>\n notification-border: <<colour tab-border>>\n sidebar-tab-border: <<colour tab-border>>\n tab-border-selected: <<colour tab-border>>\n sidebar-tab-border-selected: <<colour tab-border-selected>>\ntab-divider: #d8d8d8\n sidebar-tab-divider: <<colour tab-divider>>\ntable-border: #dddddd\ntable-footer-background: #a8a8a8\ntiddler-controls-foreground-hover: #888888\ntiddler-controls-foreground-selected: #444444\ntiddler-editor-border-image: #ffffff\ntiddler-editor-border: #cccccc\ntiddler-editor-fields-even: #e0e8e0\ntiddler-editor-fields-odd: #f0f4f0\ntiddler-info-border: #dddddd\ntiddler-subtitle-foreground: #c0c0c0\ntoolbar-new-button:\ntoolbar-options-button:\ntoolbar-save-button:\ntoolbar-info-button:\ntoolbar-edit-button:\ntoolbar-close-button:\ntoolbar-delete-button:\ntoolbar-cancel-button:\ntoolbar-done-button:\nuntagged-background: #999999\nvery-muted-foreground: #888888\n"
},
"$:/palettes/Vanilla": {
"title": "$:/palettes/Vanilla",
"name": "Vanilla",
"description": "Pale and unobtrusive",
"tags": "$:/tags/Palette",
"type": "application/x-tiddler-dictionary",
"text": "alert-background: #ffe476\nalert-border: #b99e2f\nalert-highlight: #881122\nalert-muted-foreground: #b99e2f\nbackground: #ffffff\nblockquote-bar: <<colour muted-foreground>>\nbutton-background:\nbutton-foreground:\nbutton-border:\ncode-background: #f7f7f9\ncode-border: #e1e1e8\ncode-foreground: #dd1144\ndiff-delete-background: #ffc9c9\ndiff-delete-foreground: <<colour foreground>>\ndiff-equal-background: \ndiff-equal-foreground: <<colour foreground>>\ndiff-insert-background: #aaefad\ndiff-insert-foreground: <<colour foreground>>\ndiff-invisible-background: \ndiff-invisible-foreground: <<colour muted-foreground>>\ndirty-indicator: #ff0000\ndownload-background: #34c734\ndownload-foreground: <<colour background>>\ndragger-background: <<colour foreground>>\ndragger-foreground: <<colour background>>\ndropdown-background: <<colour background>>\ndropdown-border: <<colour muted-foreground>>\ndropdown-tab-background-selected: #fff\ndropdown-tab-background: #ececec\ndropzone-background: rgba(0,200,0,0.7)\nexternal-link-background-hover: inherit\nexternal-link-background-visited: inherit\nexternal-link-background: inherit\nexternal-link-foreground-hover: inherit\nexternal-link-foreground-visited: #0000aa\nexternal-link-foreground: #0000ee\nforeground: #333333\nmessage-background: #ecf2ff\nmessage-border: #cfd6e6\nmessage-foreground: #547599\nmodal-backdrop: <<colour foreground>>\nmodal-background: <<colour background>>\nmodal-border: #999999\nmodal-footer-background: #f5f5f5\nmodal-footer-border: #dddddd\nmodal-header-border: #eeeeee\nmuted-foreground: #bbb\nnotification-background: #ffffdd\nnotification-border: #999999\npage-background: #f4f4f4\npre-background: #f5f5f5\npre-border: #cccccc\nprimary: #5778d8\nselect-tag-background:\nselect-tag-foreground:\nsidebar-button-foreground: <<colour foreground>>\nsidebar-controls-foreground-hover: #000000\nsidebar-controls-foreground: #aaaaaa\nsidebar-foreground-shadow: rgba(255,255,255, 0.8)\nsidebar-foreground: #acacac\nsidebar-muted-foreground-hover: #444444\nsidebar-muted-foreground: #c0c0c0\nsidebar-tab-background-selected: #f4f4f4\nsidebar-tab-background: #e0e0e0\nsidebar-tab-border-selected: <<colour tab-border-selected>>\nsidebar-tab-border: <<colour tab-border>>\nsidebar-tab-divider: #e4e4e4\nsidebar-tab-foreground-selected:\nsidebar-tab-foreground: <<colour tab-foreground>>\nsidebar-tiddler-link-foreground-hover: #444444\nsidebar-tiddler-link-foreground: #999999\nsite-title-foreground: <<colour tiddler-title-foreground>>\nstatic-alert-foreground: #aaaaaa\ntab-background-selected: #ffffff\ntab-background: #d8d8d8\ntab-border-selected: #d8d8d8\ntab-border: #cccccc\ntab-divider: #d8d8d8\ntab-foreground-selected: <<colour tab-foreground>>\ntab-foreground: #666666\ntable-border: #dddddd\ntable-footer-background: #a8a8a8\ntable-header-background: #f0f0f0\ntag-background: #ec6\ntag-foreground: #ffffff\ntiddler-background: <<colour background>>\ntiddler-border: <<colour background>>\ntiddler-controls-foreground-hover: #888888\ntiddler-controls-foreground-selected: #444444\ntiddler-controls-foreground: #cccccc\ntiddler-editor-background: #f8f8f8\ntiddler-editor-border-image: #ffffff\ntiddler-editor-border: #cccccc\ntiddler-editor-fields-even: #e0e8e0\ntiddler-editor-fields-odd: #f0f4f0\ntiddler-info-background: #f8f8f8\ntiddler-info-border: #dddddd\ntiddler-info-tab-background: #f8f8f8\ntiddler-link-background: <<colour background>>\ntiddler-link-foreground: <<colour primary>>\ntiddler-subtitle-foreground: #c0c0c0\ntiddler-title-foreground: #182955\ntoolbar-new-button:\ntoolbar-options-button:\ntoolbar-save-button:\ntoolbar-info-button:\ntoolbar-edit-button:\ntoolbar-close-button:\ntoolbar-delete-button:\ntoolbar-cancel-button:\ntoolbar-done-button:\nuntagged-background: #999999\nvery-muted-foreground: #888888\n"
},
"$:/core/readme": {
"title": "$:/core/readme",
"text": "This plugin contains TiddlyWiki's core components, comprising:\n\n* JavaScript code modules\n* Icons\n* Templates needed to create TiddlyWiki's user interface\n* British English (''en-GB'') translations of the localisable strings used by the core\n"
},
"$:/library/sjcl.js/license": {
"title": "$:/library/sjcl.js/license",
"type": "text/plain",
"text": "SJCL is open. You can use, modify and redistribute it under a BSD\nlicense or under the GNU GPL, version 2.0.\n\n---------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nhttp://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-2-Clause\n\nCopyright (c) 2009-2015, Emily Stark, Mike Hamburg and Dan Boneh at\nStanford University. All rights reserved.\n\nRedistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without\nmodification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are\nmet:\n\n1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright\nnotice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.\n\n2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright\nnotice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the\ndocumentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.\n\nTHIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS \"AS\nIS\" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED\nTO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A\nPARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT\nHOLDER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL,\nSPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED\nTO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR\nPROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF\nLIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING\nNEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS\nSOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.\n\n---------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nhttp://opensource.org/licenses/GPL-2.0\n\nThe Stanford Javascript Crypto Library (hosted here on GitHub) is a\nproject by the Stanford Computer Security Lab to build a secure,\npowerful, fast, small, easy-to-use, cross-browser library for\ncryptography in Javascript.\n\nCopyright (c) 2009-2015, Emily Stark, Mike Hamburg and Dan Boneh at\nStanford University.\n\nThis program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it\nunder the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the\nFree Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your\noption) any later version.\n\nThis program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but\nWITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of\nMERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU General\nPublic License for more details.\n\nYou should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License along\nwith this program; if not, write to the Free Software Foundation, Inc.,\n59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307 USA"
},
"$:/core/templates/MOTW.html": {
"title": "$:/core/templates/MOTW.html",
"text": "\\rules only filteredtranscludeinline transcludeinline entity\n<!-- The following comment is called a MOTW comment and is necessary for the TiddlyIE Internet Explorer extension -->\n<!-- saved from url=(0021)https://tiddlywiki.com --> "
},
"$:/core/templates/alltiddlers.template.html": {
"title": "$:/core/templates/alltiddlers.template.html",
"type": "text/vnd.tiddlywiki-html",
"text": "<!-- This template is provided for backwards compatibility with older versions of TiddlyWiki -->\n\n<$set name=\"exportFilter\" value=\"[!is[system]sort[title]]\">\n\n{{$:/core/templates/exporters/StaticRiver}}\n\n</$set>\n"
},
"$:/core/templates/canonical-uri-external-image": {
"title": "$:/core/templates/canonical-uri-external-image",
"text": "<!--\n\nThis template is used to assign the ''_canonical_uri'' field to external images.\n\nChange the `./images/` part to a different base URI. The URI can be relative or absolute.\n\n-->\n./images/<$view field=\"title\" format=\"doubleurlencoded\"/>"
},
"$:/core/templates/canonical-uri-external-raw": {
"title": "$:/core/templates/canonical-uri-external-raw",
"text": "<!--\n\nThis template is used to assign the ''_canonical_uri'' field to external raw files that are stored in the same directory\n\n-->\n<$view field=\"title\" format=\"doubleurlencoded\"/>"
},
"$:/core/templates/canonical-uri-external-text": {
"title": "$:/core/templates/canonical-uri-external-text",
"text": "<!--\n\nThis template is used to assign the ''_canonical_uri'' field to external text files.\n\nChange the `./text/` part to a different base URI. The URI can be relative or absolute.\n\n-->\n./text/<$view field=\"title\" format=\"doubleurlencoded\"/>.tid"
},
"$:/core/templates/css-tiddler": {
"title": "$:/core/templates/css-tiddler",
"text": "<!--\n\nThis template is used for saving CSS tiddlers as a style tag with data attributes representing the tiddler fields.\n\n-->`<style`<$fields template=' data-tiddler-$name$=\"$encoded_value$\"'></$fields>` type=\"text/css\">`<$view field=\"text\" format=\"text\" />`</style>`"
},
"$:/core/templates/exporters/CsvFile": {
"title": "$:/core/templates/exporters/CsvFile",
"tags": "$:/tags/Exporter",
"description": "{{$:/language/Exporters/CsvFile}}",
"extension": ".csv",
"text": "\\define renderContent()\n<$text text=<<csvtiddlers filter:\"\"\"$(exportFilter)$\"\"\" format:\"quoted-comma-sep\">>/>\n\\end\n<<renderContent>>\n"
},
"$:/core/templates/exporters/JsonFile": {
"title": "$:/core/templates/exporters/JsonFile",
"tags": "$:/tags/Exporter",
"description": "{{$:/language/Exporters/JsonFile}}",
"extension": ".json",
"text": "\\define renderContent()\n<$text text=<<jsontiddlers filter:\"\"\"$(exportFilter)$\"\"\">>/>\n\\end\n<<renderContent>>\n"
},
"$:/core/templates/exporters/StaticRiver": {
"title": "$:/core/templates/exporters/StaticRiver",
"tags": "$:/tags/Exporter",
"description": "{{$:/language/Exporters/StaticRiver}}",
"extension": ".html",
"text": "\\define tv-wikilink-template() #$uri_encoded$\n\\define tv-config-toolbar-icons() no\n\\define tv-config-toolbar-text() no\n\\define tv-config-toolbar-class() tc-btn-invisible\n\\rules only filteredtranscludeinline transcludeinline\n<!doctype html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html;charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"generator\" content=\"TiddlyWiki\" />\n<meta name=\"tiddlywiki-version\" content=\"{{$:/core/templates/version}}\" />\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no\">\n<link id=\"faviconLink\" rel=\"shortcut icon\" href=\"favicon.ico\">\n<title>{{$:/core/wiki/title}}</title>\n<div id=\"styleArea\">\n{{$:/boot/boot.css||$:/core/templates/css-tiddler}}\n</div>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\n{{$:/core/ui/PageStylesheet||$:/core/templates/wikified-tiddler}}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body class=\"tc-body\">\n{{$:/StaticBanner||$:/core/templates/html-tiddler}}\n<section class=\"tc-story-river\">\n{{$:/core/templates/exporters/StaticRiver/Content||$:/core/templates/html-tiddler}}\n</section>\n</body>\n</html>\n"
},
"$:/core/templates/exporters/StaticRiver/Content": {
"title": "$:/core/templates/exporters/StaticRiver/Content",
"text": "\\define renderContent()\n{{{ $(exportFilter)$ ||$:/core/templates/static-tiddler}}}\n\\end\n\\import [[$:/core/ui/PageMacros]] [all[shadows+tiddlers]tag[$:/tags/Macro]!has[draft.of]]\n<<renderContent>>\n"
},
"$:/core/templates/exporters/TidFile": {
"title": "$:/core/templates/exporters/TidFile",
"tags": "$:/tags/Exporter",
"description": "{{$:/language/Exporters/TidFile}}",
"extension": ".tid",
"text": "\\define renderContent()\n{{{ $(exportFilter)$ +[limit[1]] ||$:/core/templates/tid-tiddler}}}\n\\end\n\\import [[$:/core/ui/PageMacros]] [all[shadows+tiddlers]tag[$:/tags/Macro]!has[draft.of]]\n<<renderContent>>"
},
"$:/core/save/all-external-js": {
"title": "$:/core/save/all-external-js",
"text": "\\define saveTiddlerFilter()\n[is[tiddler]] -[prefix[$:/state/popup/]] -[[$:/HistoryList]] -[[$:/core]] -[[$:/boot/boot.css]] -[type[application/javascript]library[yes]] -[[$:/boot/boot.js]] -[[$:/boot/bootprefix.js]] +[sort[title]] $(publishFilter)$\n\\end\n{{$:/core/templates/tiddlywiki5-external-js.html}}\n"
},
"$:/core/templates/tiddlywiki5.js": {
"title": "$:/core/templates/tiddlywiki5.js",
"text": "\\rules only filteredtranscludeinline transcludeinline codeinline\n\n/*\n{{ $:/core/copyright.txt ||$:/core/templates/plain-text-tiddler}}\n`*/\n`<!--~~ Library modules ~~-->\n{{{ [is[system]type[application/javascript]library[yes]] ||$:/core/templates/plain-text-tiddler}}}\n<!--~~ Boot prefix ~~-->\n{{ $:/boot/bootprefix.js ||$:/core/templates/plain-text-tiddler}}\n<!--~~ Core plugin ~~-->\n{{$:/core/templates/tiddlywiki5.js/tiddlers}}\n<!--~~ Boot kernel ~~-->\n{{ $:/boot/boot.js ||$:/core/templates/plain-text-tiddler}}\n"
},
"$:/core/templates/tiddlywiki5.js/tiddlers": {
"title": "$:/core/templates/tiddlywiki5.js/tiddlers",
"text": "`\n$tw.preloadTiddlerArray(`<$text text=<<jsontiddlers \"[[$:/core]]\">>/>`);\n$tw.preloadTiddlerArray([{\n\ttitle: \"$:/config/SaveWikiButton/Template\",\n\ttext: \"$:/core/save/all-external-js\"\n}]);\n`\n"
},
"$:/core/templates/tiddlywiki5-external-js.html": {
"title": "$:/core/templates/tiddlywiki5-external-js.html",
"text": "\\rules only filteredtranscludeinline transcludeinline\n<!doctype html>\n{{$:/core/templates/MOTW.html}}<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"X-UA-Compatible\" content=\"IE=Edge\">\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html;charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"application-name\" content=\"TiddlyWiki\" />\n<meta name=\"generator\" content=\"TiddlyWiki\" />\n<meta name=\"tiddlywiki-version\" content=\"{{$:/core/templates/version}}\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0\" />\n<meta name=\"apple-mobile-web-app-capable\" content=\"yes\" />\n<meta name=\"apple-mobile-web-app-status-bar-style\" content=\"black-translucent\" />\n<meta name=\"mobile-web-app-capable\" content=\"yes\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no\" />\n<meta name=\"copyright\" content=\"{{$:/core/copyright.txt}}\" />\n<link id=\"faviconLink\" rel=\"shortcut icon\" href=\"favicon.ico\">\n<title>{{$:/core/wiki/title}}</title>\n<!--~~ This is a Tiddlywiki file. The points of interest in the file are marked with this pattern ~~-->\n\n<!--~~ Raw markup ~~-->\n{{{ [all[shadows+tiddlers]tag[$:/core/wiki/rawmarkup]] [all[shadows+tiddlers]tag[$:/tags/RawMarkup]] ||$:/core/templates/plain-text-tiddler}}}\n{{{ [all[shadows+tiddlers]tag[$:/tags/RawMarkupWikified]] ||$:/core/templates/raw-static-tiddler}}}\n</head>\n<body class=\"tc-body\">\n<!--~~ Static styles ~~-->\n<div id=\"styleArea\">\n{{$:/boot/boot.css||$:/core/templates/css-tiddler}}\n</div>\n<!--~~ Static content for Google and browsers without JavaScript ~~-->\n<noscript>\n<div id=\"splashArea\">\n{{$:/core/templates/static.area}}\n</div>\n</noscript>\n<!--~~ Ordinary tiddlers ~~-->\n{{$:/core/templates/store.area.template.html}}\n</body>\n<script src=\"%24%3A%2Fcore%2Ftemplates%2Ftiddlywiki5.js\" onerror=\"alert('Error: Cannot load tiddlywiki.js');\"></script>\n</html>\n"
},
"$:/core/templates/html-div-tiddler": {
"title": "$:/core/templates/html-div-tiddler",
"text": "<!--\n\nThis template is used for saving tiddlers as an HTML DIV tag with attributes representing the tiddler fields.\n\n-->`<div`<$fields template=' $name$=\"$encoded_value$\"'></$fields>`>\n<pre>`<$view field=\"text\" format=\"htmlencoded\" />`</pre>\n</div>`\n"
},
"$:/core/templates/html-tiddler": {
"title": "$:/core/templates/html-tiddler",
"text": "<!--\n\nThis template is used for saving tiddlers as raw HTML\n\n--><$view field=\"text\" format=\"htmlwikified\" />"
},
"$:/core/templates/javascript-tiddler": {
"title": "$:/core/templates/javascript-tiddler",
"text": "<!--\n\nThis template is used for saving JavaScript tiddlers as a script tag with data attributes representing the tiddler fields.\n\n-->`<script`<$fields template=' data-tiddler-$name$=\"$encoded_value$\"'></$fields>` type=\"text/javascript\">`<$view field=\"text\" format=\"text\" />`</script>`"
},
"$:/core/templates/json-tiddler": {
"title": "$:/core/templates/json-tiddler",
"text": "<!--\n\nThis template is used for saving tiddlers as raw JSON\n\n--><$text text=<<jsontiddler>>/>"
},
"$:/core/templates/module-tiddler": {
"title": "$:/core/templates/module-tiddler",
"text": "<!--\n\nThis template is used for saving JavaScript tiddlers as a script tag with data attributes representing the tiddler fields. The body of the tiddler is wrapped in a call to the `$tw.modules.define` function in order to define the body of the tiddler as a module\n\n-->`<script`<$fields template=' data-tiddler-$name$=\"$encoded_value$\"'></$fields>` type=\"text/javascript\" data-module=\"yes\">$tw.modules.define(\"`<$view field=\"title\" format=\"jsencoded\" />`\",\"`<$view field=\"module-type\" format=\"jsencoded\" />`\",function(module,exports,require) {`<$view field=\"text\" format=\"text\" />`});\n</script>`"
},
"$:/core/templates/plain-text-tiddler": {
"title": "$:/core/templates/plain-text-tiddler",
"text": "<$view field=\"text\" format=\"text\" />"
},
"$:/core/templates/raw-static-tiddler": {
"title": "$:/core/templates/raw-static-tiddler",
"text": "<!--\n\nThis template is used for saving tiddlers as static HTML\n\n--><$view field=\"text\" format=\"plainwikified\" />"
},
"$:/core/save/all": {
"title": "$:/core/save/all",
"text": "\\define saveTiddlerFilter()\n[is[tiddler]] -[prefix[$:/state/popup/]] -[[$:/HistoryList]] -[[$:/boot/boot.css]] -[type[application/javascript]library[yes]] -[[$:/boot/boot.js]] -[[$:/boot/bootprefix.js]] +[sort[title]] $(publishFilter)$\n\\end\n{{$:/core/templates/tiddlywiki5.html}}\n"
},
"$:/core/save/empty": {
"title": "$:/core/save/empty",
"text": "\\define saveTiddlerFilter()\n[is[system]] -[prefix[$:/state/popup/]] -[[$:/boot/boot.css]] -[type[application/javascript]library[yes]] -[[$:/boot/boot.js]] -[[$:/boot/bootprefix.js]] +[sort[title]]\n\\end\n{{$:/core/templates/tiddlywiki5.html}}\n"
},
"$:/core/save/lazy-all": {
"title": "$:/core/save/lazy-all",
"text": "\\define saveTiddlerFilter()\n[is[system]] -[prefix[$:/state/popup/]] -[[$:/HistoryList]] -[[$:/boot/boot.css]] -[type[application/javascript]library[yes]] -[[$:/boot/boot.js]] -[[$:/boot/bootprefix.js]] +[sort[title]] \n\\end\n{{$:/core/templates/tiddlywiki5.html}}\n"
},
"$:/core/save/lazy-images": {
"title": "$:/core/save/lazy-images",
"text": "\\define saveTiddlerFilter()\n[is[tiddler]] -[prefix[$:/state/popup/]] -[[$:/HistoryList]] -[[$:/boot/boot.css]] -[type[application/javascript]library[yes]] -[[$:/boot/boot.js]] -[[$:/boot/bootprefix.js]] -[!is[system]is[image]] +[sort[title]] \n\\end\n{{$:/core/templates/tiddlywiki5.html}}\n"
},
"$:/core/templates/server/static.sidebar.wikitext": {
"title": "$:/core/templates/server/static.sidebar.wikitext",
"text": "\\whitespace trim\n<div class=\"tc-sidebar-scrollable\" style=\"overflow: auto;\">\n<div class=\"tc-sidebar-header\">\n<h1 class=\"tc-site-title\">\n<$transclude tiddler=\"$:/SiteTitle\"/>\n</h1>\n<div class=\"tc-site-subtitle\">\n<$transclude tiddler=\"$:/SiteSubtitle\"/>\n</div>\n<h2>\n</h2>\n<div class=\"tc-sidebar-lists\">\n<$list filter={{$:/DefaultTiddlers}}>\n<div class=\"tc-menu-list-subitem\">\n<$link><$text text=<<currentTiddler>>/></$link>\n</div>\n</$list>\n</div>\n<!-- Currently disabled the recent list as it is unweildy when the responsive narrow view kicks in\n<h2>\n{{$:/language/SideBar/Recent/Caption}}\n</h2>\n<div class=\"tc-sidebar-lists\">\n<$macrocall $name=\"timeline\" format={{$:/language/RecentChanges/DateFormat}}/>\n</div>\n</div>\n</div>\n-->\n"
},
"$:/core/templates/server/static.tiddler.html": {
"title": "$:/core/templates/server/static.tiddler.html",
"text": "\\whitespace trim\n\\define tv-wikilink-template() $uri_encoded$\n\\import [[$:/core/ui/PageMacros]] [all[shadows+tiddlers]tag[$:/tags/Macro]!has[draft.of]]\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html;charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"generator\" content=\"TiddlyWiki\" />\n<meta name=\"tiddlywiki-version\" content={{$:/core/templates/version}} />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0\" />\n<meta name=\"apple-mobile-web-app-capable\" content=\"yes\" />\n<meta name=\"apple-mobile-web-app-status-bar-style\" content=\"black-translucent\" />\n<meta name=\"mobile-web-app-capable\" content=\"yes\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no\">\n<link id=\"faviconLink\" rel=\"shortcut icon\" href=\"favicon.ico\">\n<link rel=\"stylesheet\" href=\"%24%3A%2Fcore%2Ftemplates%2Fstatic.template.css\">\n<title><$view field=\"caption\" format=\"plainwikified\"><$view field=\"title\"/></$view>: <$view tiddler=\"$:/core/wiki/title\" format=\"plainwikified\"/></title>\n</head>\n<body class=\"tc-body\">\n<$transclude tiddler=\"$:/core/templates/server/static.sidebar.wikitext\" mode=\"inline\"/>\n<section class=\"tc-story-river\">\n<div class=\"tc-tiddler-frame\">\n<$transclude tiddler=\"$:/core/templates/server/static.tiddler.wikitext\" mode=\"inline\"/>\n</div>\n</section>\n</body>\n</html>"
},
"$:/core/templates/server/static.tiddler.wikitext": {
"title": "$:/core/templates/server/static.tiddler.wikitext",
"text": "\\whitespace trim\n<div class=\"tc-tiddler-title\">\n<div class=\"tc-titlebar\">\n<h2><$text text=<<currentTiddler>>/></h2>\n</div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"tc-subtitle\">\n<$link to={{!!modifier}}>\n<$view field=\"modifier\"/>\n</$link> <$view field=\"modified\" format=\"date\" template={{$:/language/Tiddler/DateFormat}}/>\n</div>\n<div class=\"tc-tags-wrapper\">\n<$list filter=\"[all[current]tags[]sort[title]]\">\n<a href={{{ [<currentTiddler>encodeuricomponent[]] }}}>\n<$macrocall $name=\"tag-pill\" tag=<<currentTiddler>>/>\n</a>\n</$list>\n</div>\n<div class=\"tc-tiddler-body\">\n<$transclude mode=\"block\"/>\n</div>\n"
},
"$:/core/templates/single.tiddler.window": {
"title": "$:/core/templates/single.tiddler.window",
"text": "<$set name=\"themeTitle\" value={{$:/view}}>\n\n<$set name=\"tempCurrentTiddler\" value=<<currentTiddler>>>\n\n<$set name=\"currentTiddler\" value={{$:/language}}>\n\n<$set name=\"languageTitle\" value={{!!name}}>\n\n<$set name=\"currentTiddler\" value=<<tempCurrentTiddler>>>\n\n<$importvariables filter=\"[[$:/core/ui/PageMacros]] [all[shadows+tiddlers]tag[$:/tags/Macro]!has[draft.of]]\">\n\n<$navigator story=\"$:/StoryList\" history=\"$:/HistoryList\">\n\n<$transclude mode=\"block\"/>\n\n</$navigator>\n\n</$importvariables>\n\n</$set>\n\n</$set>\n\n</$set>\n\n</$set>\n\n</$set>\n\n"
},
"$:/core/templates/split-recipe": {
"title": "$:/core/templates/split-recipe",
"text": "<$list filter=\"[!is[system]]\">\ntiddler: <$view field=\"title\" format=\"urlencoded\"/>.tid\n</$list>\n"
},
"$:/core/templates/static-tiddler": {
"title": "$:/core/templates/static-tiddler",
"text": "<a name=<<currentTiddler>>>\n<$transclude tiddler=\"$:/core/ui/ViewTemplate\"/>\n</a>"
},
"$:/core/templates/static.area": {
"title": "$:/core/templates/static.area",
"text": "<$reveal type=\"nomatch\" state=\"$:/isEncrypted\" text=\"yes\">\n{{{ [all[shadows+tiddlers]tag[$:/tags/RawStaticContent]!has[draft.of]] ||$:/core/templates/raw-static-tiddler}}}\n{{$:/core/templates/static.content||$:/core/templates/html-tiddler}}\n</$reveal>\n<$reveal type=\"match\" state=\"$:/isEncrypted\" text=\"yes\">\nThis file contains an encrypted ~TiddlyWiki. Enable ~JavaScript and enter the decryption password when prompted.\n</$reveal>\n"
},
"$:/core/templates/static.content": {
"title": "$:/core/templates/static.content",
"text": "<!-- For Google, and people without JavaScript-->\nThis [[TiddlyWiki|https://tiddlywiki.com]] contains the following tiddlers:\n\n<ul>\n<$list filter=<<saveTiddlerFilter>>>\n<li><$view field=\"title\" format=\"text\"></$view></li>\n</$list>\n</ul>\n"
},
"$:/core/templates/static.template.css": {
"title": "$:/core/templates/static.template.css",
"text": "{{$:/boot/boot.css||$:/core/templates/plain-text-tiddler}}\n\n{{$:/core/ui/PageStylesheet||$:/core/templates/wikified-tiddler}}\n"
},
"$:/core/templates/static.template.html": {
"title": "$:/core/templates/static.template.html",
"type": "text/vnd.tiddlywiki-html",
"text": "\\define tv-wikilink-template() static/$uri_doubleencoded$.html\n\\define tv-config-toolbar-icons() no\n\\define tv-config-toolbar-text() no\n\\define tv-config-toolbar-class() tc-btn-invisible\n\\rules only filteredtranscludeinline transcludeinline\n<!doctype html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html;charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"generator\" content=\"TiddlyWiki\" />\n<meta name=\"tiddlywiki-version\" content=\"{{$:/core/templates/version}}\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0\" />\n<meta name=\"apple-mobile-web-app-capable\" content=\"yes\" />\n<meta name=\"apple-mobile-web-app-status-bar-style\" content=\"black-translucent\" />\n<meta name=\"mobile-web-app-capable\" content=\"yes\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no\">\n<link id=\"faviconLink\" rel=\"shortcut icon\" href=\"favicon.ico\">\n<title>{{$:/core/wiki/title}}</title>\n<div id=\"styleArea\">\n{{$:/boot/boot.css||$:/core/templates/css-tiddler}}\n</div>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\n{{$:/core/ui/PageStylesheet||$:/core/templates/wikified-tiddler}}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body class=\"tc-body\">\n{{$:/StaticBanner||$:/core/templates/html-tiddler}}\n{{$:/core/ui/PageTemplate||$:/core/templates/html-tiddler}}\n</body>\n</html>\n"
},
"$:/core/templates/static.tiddler.html": {
"title": "$:/core/templates/static.tiddler.html",
"text": "\\define tv-wikilink-template() $uri_doubleencoded$.html\n\\define tv-config-toolbar-icons() no\n\\define tv-config-toolbar-text() no\n\\define tv-config-toolbar-class() tc-btn-invisible\n\\import [[$:/core/ui/PageMacros]] [all[shadows+tiddlers]tag[$:/tags/Macro]!has[draft.of]]\n`<!doctype html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html;charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"generator\" content=\"TiddlyWiki\" />\n<meta name=\"tiddlywiki-version\" content=\"`{{$:/core/templates/version}}`\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0\" />\n<meta name=\"apple-mobile-web-app-capable\" content=\"yes\" />\n<meta name=\"apple-mobile-web-app-status-bar-style\" content=\"black-translucent\" />\n<meta name=\"mobile-web-app-capable\" content=\"yes\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no\">\n<link id=\"faviconLink\" rel=\"shortcut icon\" href=\"favicon.ico\">\n<link rel=\"stylesheet\" href=\"static.css\">\n<title>`<$view field=\"caption\"><$view field=\"title\"/></$view>: {{$:/core/wiki/title}}`</title>\n</head>\n<body class=\"tc-body\">\n`{{$:/StaticBanner||$:/core/templates/html-tiddler}}`\n<section class=\"tc-story-river\">\n`<$view tiddler=\"$:/core/ui/ViewTemplate\" format=\"htmlwikified\"/>`\n</section>\n</body>\n</html>\n`"
},
"$:/core/templates/store.area.template.html": {
"title": "$:/core/templates/store.area.template.html",
"text": "<$reveal type=\"nomatch\" state=\"$:/isEncrypted\" text=\"yes\">\n`<div id=\"storeArea\" style=\"display:none;\">`\n<$list filter=<<saveTiddlerFilter>> template=\"$:/core/templates/html-div-tiddler\"/>\n`</div>`\n</$reveal>\n<$reveal type=\"match\" state=\"$:/isEncrypted\" text=\"yes\">\n`<!--~~ Encrypted tiddlers ~~-->`\n`<pre id=\"encryptedStoreArea\" type=\"text/plain\" style=\"display:none;\">`\n<$encrypt filter=<<saveTiddlerFilter>>/>\n`</pre>`\n</$reveal>"
},
"$:/core/templates/tid-tiddler": {
"title": "$:/core/templates/tid-tiddler",
"text": "<!--\n\nThis template is used for saving tiddlers in TiddlyWeb *.tid format\n\n--><$fields exclude='text bag' template='$name$: $value$\n'></$fields>`\n`<$view field=\"text\" format=\"text\" />"
},
"$:/core/templates/tiddler-metadata": {
"title": "$:/core/templates/tiddler-metadata",
"text": "<!--\n\nThis template is used for saving tiddler metadata *.meta files\n\n--><$fields exclude='text bag' template='$name$: $value$\n'></$fields>"
},
"$:/core/templates/tiddlywiki5.html": {
"title": "$:/core/templates/tiddlywiki5.html",
"text": "\\rules only filteredtranscludeinline transcludeinline\n<!doctype html>\n{{$:/core/templates/MOTW.html}}<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html;charset=utf-8\" />\n<!--~~ Raw markup for the top of the head section ~~-->\n{{{ [all[shadows+tiddlers]tag[$:/tags/RawMarkupWikified/TopHead]] ||$:/core/templates/raw-static-tiddler}}}\n<meta http-equiv=\"X-UA-Compatible\" content=\"IE=Edge\"/>\n<meta name=\"application-name\" content=\"TiddlyWiki\" />\n<meta name=\"generator\" content=\"TiddlyWiki\" />\n<meta name=\"tiddlywiki-version\" content=\"{{$:/core/templates/version}}\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0\" />\n<meta name=\"apple-mobile-web-app-capable\" content=\"yes\" />\n<meta name=\"apple-mobile-web-app-status-bar-style\" content=\"black-translucent\" />\n<meta name=\"mobile-web-app-capable\" content=\"yes\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no\" />\n<meta name=\"copyright\" content=\"{{$:/core/copyright.txt}}\" />\n<link id=\"faviconLink\" rel=\"shortcut icon\" href=\"favicon.ico\">\n<title>{{$:/core/wiki/title}}</title>\n<!--~~ This is a Tiddlywiki file. The points of interest in the file are marked with this pattern ~~-->\n\n<!--~~ Raw markup ~~-->\n{{{ [all[shadows+tiddlers]tag[$:/core/wiki/rawmarkup]] [all[shadows+tiddlers]tag[$:/tags/RawMarkup]] ||$:/core/templates/plain-text-tiddler}}}\n{{{ [all[shadows+tiddlers]tag[$:/tags/RawMarkupWikified]] ||$:/core/templates/raw-static-tiddler}}}\n</head>\n<body class=\"tc-body\">\n<!--~~ Raw markup for the top of the body section ~~-->\n{{{ [all[shadows+tiddlers]tag[$:/tags/RawMarkupWikified/TopBody]] ||$:/core/templates/raw-static-tiddler}}}\n<!--~~ Static styles ~~-->\n<div id=\"styleArea\">\n{{$:/boot/boot.css||$:/core/templates/css-tiddler}}\n</div>\n<!--~~ Static content for Google and browsers without JavaScript ~~-->\n<noscript>\n<div id=\"splashArea\">\n{{$:/core/templates/static.area}}\n</div>\n</noscript>\n<!--~~ Ordinary tiddlers ~~-->\n{{$:/core/templates/store.area.template.html}}\n<!--~~ Library modules ~~-->\n<div id=\"libraryModules\" style=\"display:none;\">\n{{{ [is[system]type[application/javascript]library[yes]] ||$:/core/templates/javascript-tiddler}}}\n</div>\n<!--~~ Boot kernel prologue ~~-->\n<div id=\"bootKernelPrefix\" style=\"display:none;\">\n{{ $:/boot/bootprefix.js ||$:/core/templates/javascript-tiddler}}\n</div>\n<!--~~ Boot kernel ~~-->\n<div id=\"bootKernel\" style=\"display:none;\">\n{{ $:/boot/boot.js ||$:/core/templates/javascript-tiddler}}\n</div>\n<!--~~ Raw markup for the bottom of the body section ~~-->\n{{{ [all[shadows+tiddlers]tag[$:/tags/RawMarkupWikified/BottomBody]] ||$:/core/templates/raw-static-tiddler}}}\n</body>\n</html>\n"
},
"$:/core/templates/version": {
"title": "$:/core/templates/version",
"text": "<<version>>"
},
"$:/core/templates/wikified-tiddler": {
"title": "$:/core/templates/wikified-tiddler",
"text": "<$transclude />"
},
"$:/core/ui/AboveStory/tw2-plugin-check": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/AboveStory/tw2-plugin-check",
"tags": "$:/tags/AboveStory",
"text": "\\define lingo-base() $:/language/AboveStory/ClassicPlugin/\n<$list filter=\"[all[system+tiddlers]tag[systemConfig]limit[1]]\">\n\n<div class=\"tc-message-box\">\n\n<<lingo Warning>>\n\n<ul>\n\n<$list filter=\"[all[system+tiddlers]tag[systemConfig]]\">\n\n<li>\n\n<$link><$view field=\"title\"/></$link>\n\n</li>\n\n</$list>\n\n</ul>\n\n</div>\n\n</$list>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/Actions/new-image": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/Actions/new-image",
"tags": "$:/tags/Actions",
"description": "create a new image tiddler",
"text": "\\define get-type()\nimage/$(imageType)$\n\\end\n<$vars imageType={{$:/config/NewImageType}}>\n<$action-sendmessage $message=\"tm-new-tiddler\" type=<<get-type>>/>\n</$vars>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/Actions/new-journal": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/Actions/new-journal",
"tags": "$:/tags/Actions",
"description": "create a new journal tiddler",
"text": "<$vars journalTitleTemplate={{$:/config/NewJournal/Title}} journalTags={{$:/config/NewJournal/Tags}} journalText={{$:/config/NewJournal/Text}}>\n<$wikify name=\"journalTitle\" text=\"\"\"<$macrocall $name=\"now\" format=<<journalTitleTemplate>>/>\"\"\">\n<$reveal type=\"nomatch\" state=<<journalTitle>> text=\"\">\n<$action-sendmessage $message=\"tm-new-tiddler\" title=<<journalTitle>> tags=<<journalTags>> text={{{ [<journalTitle>get[]] }}}/>\n</$reveal>\n<$reveal type=\"match\" state=<<journalTitle>> text=\"\">\n<$action-sendmessage $message=\"tm-new-tiddler\" title=<<journalTitle>> tags=<<journalTags>> text=<<journalText>>/>\n</$reveal>\n</$wikify>\n</$vars>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/Actions/new-tiddler": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/Actions/new-tiddler",
"tags": "$:/tags/Actions",
"description": "create a new empty tiddler",
"text": "<$action-sendmessage $message=\"tm-new-tiddler\"/>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/AdvancedSearch/Filter": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/AdvancedSearch/Filter",
"tags": "$:/tags/AdvancedSearch",
"caption": "{{$:/language/Search/Filter/Caption}}",
"text": "\\define lingo-base() $:/language/Search/\n<<lingo Filter/Hint>>\n\n<div class=\"tc-search tc-advanced-search\">\n<$edit-text tiddler=\"$:/temp/advancedsearch\" type=\"search\" tag=\"input\"/>\n<$list filter=\"[all[shadows+tiddlers]tag[$:/tags/AdvancedSearch/FilterButton]!has[draft.of]]\"><$transclude/></$list>\n</div>\n\n<$reveal state=\"$:/temp/advancedsearch\" type=\"nomatch\" text=\"\">\n<$set name=\"resultCount\" value=\"\"\"<$count filter={{$:/temp/advancedsearch}}/>\"\"\">\n<div class=\"tc-search-results\">\n<<lingo Filter/Matches>>\n<$list filter={{$:/temp/advancedsearch}} template=\"$:/core/ui/ListItemTemplate\"/>\n</div>\n</$set>\n</$reveal>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/AdvancedSearch/Filter/FilterButtons/clear": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/AdvancedSearch/Filter/FilterButtons/clear",
"tags": "$:/tags/AdvancedSearch/FilterButton",
"text": "<$reveal state=\"$:/temp/advancedsearch\" type=\"nomatch\" text=\"\">\n<$button class=\"tc-btn-invisible\">\n<$action-setfield $tiddler=\"$:/temp/advancedsearch\" $field=\"text\" $value=\"\"/>\n{{$:/core/images/close-button}}\n</$button>\n</$reveal>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/AdvancedSearch/Filter/FilterButtons/delete": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/AdvancedSearch/Filter/FilterButtons/delete",
"tags": "$:/tags/AdvancedSearch/FilterButton",
"text": "<$reveal state=\"$:/temp/advancedsearch\" type=\"nomatch\" text=\"\">\n<$button popup=<<qualify \"$:/state/filterDeleteDropdown\">> class=\"tc-btn-invisible\">\n{{$:/core/images/delete-button}}\n</$button>\n</$reveal>\n\n<$reveal state=<<qualify \"$:/state/filterDeleteDropdown\">> type=\"popup\" position=\"belowleft\" animate=\"yes\">\n<div class=\"tc-block-dropdown-wrapper\">\n<div class=\"tc-block-dropdown tc-edit-type-dropdown\">\n<div class=\"tc-dropdown-item-plain\">\n<$set name=\"resultCount\" value=\"\"\"<$count filter={{$:/temp/advancedsearch}}/>\"\"\">\nAre you sure you wish to delete <<resultCount>> tiddler(s)?\n</$set>\n</div>\n<div class=\"tc-dropdown-item-plain\">\n<$button class=\"tc-btn\">\n<$action-deletetiddler $filter={{$:/temp/advancedsearch}}/>\nDelete these tiddlers\n</$button>\n</div>\n</div>\n</div>\n</$reveal>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/AdvancedSearch/Filter/FilterButtons/dropdown": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/AdvancedSearch/Filter/FilterButtons/dropdown",
"tags": "$:/tags/AdvancedSearch/FilterButton",
"text": "<span class=\"tc-popup-keep\">\n<$button popup=<<qualify \"$:/state/filterDropdown\">> class=\"tc-btn-invisible\">\n{{$:/core/images/down-arrow}}\n</$button>\n</span>\n\n<$reveal state=<<qualify \"$:/state/filterDropdown\">> type=\"popup\" position=\"belowleft\" animate=\"yes\">\n<$set name=\"tv-show-missing-links\" value=\"yes\">\n<$linkcatcher to=\"$:/temp/advancedsearch\">\n<div class=\"tc-block-dropdown-wrapper\">\n<div class=\"tc-block-dropdown tc-edit-type-dropdown\">\n<$list filter=\"[all[shadows+tiddlers]tag[$:/tags/Filter]]\"><$link to={{!!filter}}><$transclude field=\"description\"/></$link>\n</$list>\n</div>\n</div>\n</$linkcatcher>\n</$set>\n</$reveal>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/AdvancedSearch/Filter/FilterButtons/export": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/AdvancedSearch/Filter/FilterButtons/export",
"tags": "$:/tags/AdvancedSearch/FilterButton",
"text": "<$reveal state=\"$:/temp/advancedsearch\" type=\"nomatch\" text=\"\">\n<$macrocall $name=\"exportButton\" exportFilter={{$:/temp/advancedsearch}} lingoBase=\"$:/language/Buttons/ExportTiddlers/\"/>\n</$reveal>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/AdvancedSearch/Shadows": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/AdvancedSearch/Shadows",
"tags": "$:/tags/AdvancedSearch",
"caption": "{{$:/language/Search/Shadows/Caption}}",
"text": "\\define lingo-base() $:/language/Search/\n<$linkcatcher to=\"$:/temp/advancedsearch\">\n\n<<lingo Shadows/Hint>>\n\n<div class=\"tc-search\">\n<$edit-text tiddler=\"$:/temp/advancedsearch\" type=\"search\" tag=\"input\"/>\n<$reveal state=\"$:/temp/advancedsearch\" type=\"nomatch\" text=\"\">\n<$button class=\"tc-btn-invisible\">\n<$action-setfield $tiddler=\"$:/temp/advancedsearch\" $field=\"text\" $value=\"\"/>\n{{$:/core/images/close-button}}\n</$button>\n</$reveal>\n</div>\n\n</$linkcatcher>\n\n<$reveal state=\"$:/temp/advancedsearch\" type=\"nomatch\" text=\"\">\n\n<$list filter=\"[{$:/temp/advancedsearch}minlength{$:/config/Search/MinLength}limit[1]]\" emptyMessage=\"\"\"<div class=\"tc-search-results\">{{$:/language/Search/Search/TooShort}}</div>\"\"\" variable=\"listItem\">\n\n<$set name=\"resultCount\" value=\"\"\"<$count filter=\"[all[shadows]search{$:/temp/advancedsearch}] -[[$:/temp/advancedsearch]]\"/>\"\"\">\n\n<div class=\"tc-search-results\">\n\n<<lingo Shadows/Matches>>\n\n<$list filter=\"[all[shadows]search{$:/temp/advancedsearch}sort[title]limit[250]] -[[$:/temp/advancedsearch]]\" template=\"$:/core/ui/ListItemTemplate\"/>\n\n</div>\n\n</$set>\n\n</$list>\n\n</$reveal>\n\n<$reveal state=\"$:/temp/advancedsearch\" type=\"match\" text=\"\">\n\n</$reveal>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/AdvancedSearch/Standard": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/AdvancedSearch/Standard",
"tags": "$:/tags/AdvancedSearch",
"caption": "{{$:/language/Search/Standard/Caption}}",
"text": "\\define lingo-base() $:/language/Search/\n<$linkcatcher to=\"$:/temp/advancedsearch\">\n\n<<lingo Standard/Hint>>\n\n<div class=\"tc-search\">\n<$edit-text tiddler=\"$:/temp/advancedsearch\" type=\"search\" tag=\"input\"/>\n<$reveal state=\"$:/temp/advancedsearch\" type=\"nomatch\" text=\"\">\n<$button class=\"tc-btn-invisible\">\n<$action-setfield $tiddler=\"$:/temp/advancedsearch\" $field=\"text\" $value=\"\"/>\n{{$:/core/images/close-button}}\n</$button>\n</$reveal>\n</div>\n\n</$linkcatcher>\n\n<$reveal state=\"$:/temp/advancedsearch\" type=\"nomatch\" text=\"\">\n<$list filter=\"[{$:/temp/advancedsearch}minlength{$:/config/Search/MinLength}limit[1]]\" emptyMessage=\"\"\"<div class=\"tc-search-results\">{{$:/language/Search/Search/TooShort}}</div>\"\"\" variable=\"listItem\">\n<$set name=\"searchTiddler\" value=\"$:/temp/advancedsearch\">\n<$list filter=\"[all[shadows+tiddlers]tag[$:/tags/SearchResults]!has[draft.of]butfirst[]limit[1]]\" emptyMessage=\"\"\"\n<$list filter=\"[all[shadows+tiddlers]tag[$:/tags/SearchResults]!has[draft.of]]\">\n<$transclude/>\n</$list>\n\"\"\">\n<$macrocall $name=\"tabs\" tabsList=\"[all[shadows+tiddlers]tag[$:/tags/SearchResults]!has[draft.of]]\" default={{$:/config/SearchResults/Default}}/>\n</$list>\n</$set>\n</$list>\n</$reveal>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/AdvancedSearch/System": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/AdvancedSearch/System",
"tags": "$:/tags/AdvancedSearch",
"caption": "{{$:/language/Search/System/Caption}}",
"text": "\\define lingo-base() $:/language/Search/\n<$linkcatcher to=\"$:/temp/advancedsearch\">\n\n<<lingo System/Hint>>\n\n<div class=\"tc-search\">\n<$edit-text tiddler=\"$:/temp/advancedsearch\" type=\"search\" tag=\"input\"/>\n<$reveal state=\"$:/temp/advancedsearch\" type=\"nomatch\" text=\"\">\n<$button class=\"tc-btn-invisible\">\n<$action-setfield $tiddler=\"$:/temp/advancedsearch\" $field=\"text\" $value=\"\"/>\n{{$:/core/images/close-button}}\n</$button>\n</$reveal>\n</div>\n\n</$linkcatcher>\n\n<$reveal state=\"$:/temp/advancedsearch\" type=\"nomatch\" text=\"\">\n\n<$list filter=\"[{$:/temp/advancedsearch}minlength{$:/config/Search/MinLength}limit[1]]\" emptyMessage=\"\"\"<div class=\"tc-search-results\">{{$:/language/Search/Search/TooShort}}</div>\"\"\" variable=\"listItem\">\n\n<$set name=\"resultCount\" value=\"\"\"<$count filter=\"[is[system]search{$:/temp/advancedsearch}] -[[$:/temp/advancedsearch]]\"/>\"\"\">\n\n<div class=\"tc-search-results\">\n\n<<lingo System/Matches>>\n\n<$list filter=\"[is[system]search{$:/temp/advancedsearch}sort[title]limit[250]] -[[$:/temp/advancedsearch]]\" template=\"$:/core/ui/ListItemTemplate\"/>\n\n</div>\n\n</$set>\n\n</$list>\n\n</$reveal>\n\n<$reveal state=\"$:/temp/advancedsearch\" type=\"match\" text=\"\">\n\n</$reveal>\n"
},
"$:/AdvancedSearch": {
"title": "$:/AdvancedSearch",
"icon": "$:/core/images/advanced-search-button",
"color": "#bbb",
"text": "<div class=\"tc-advanced-search\">\n<<tabs \"[all[shadows+tiddlers]tag[$:/tags/AdvancedSearch]!has[draft.of]]\" \"$:/core/ui/AdvancedSearch/System\">>\n</div>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/AlertTemplate": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/AlertTemplate",
"text": "<div class=\"tc-alert\">\n<div class=\"tc-alert-toolbar\">\n<$button class=\"tc-btn-invisible\"><$action-deletetiddler $tiddler=<<currentTiddler>>/>{{$:/core/images/delete-button}}</$button>\n</div>\n<div class=\"tc-alert-subtitle\">\n<$view field=\"component\"/> - <$view field=\"modified\" format=\"date\" template=\"0hh:0mm:0ss DD MM YYYY\"/> <$reveal type=\"nomatch\" state=\"!!count\" text=\"\"><span class=\"tc-alert-highlight\">({{$:/language/Count}}: <$view field=\"count\"/>)</span></$reveal>\n</div>\n<div class=\"tc-alert-body\">\n\n<$transclude/>\n\n</div>\n</div>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/BinaryWarning": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/BinaryWarning",
"text": "\\define lingo-base() $:/language/BinaryWarning/\n<div class=\"tc-binary-warning\">\n\n<<lingo Prompt>>\n\n</div>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/Components/plugin-info": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/Components/plugin-info",
"text": "\\define lingo-base() $:/language/ControlPanel/Plugins/\n\n\\define popup-state-macro()\n$(qualified-state)$-$(currentTiddler)$\n\\end\n\n\\define tabs-state-macro()\n$(popup-state)$-$(pluginInfoType)$\n\\end\n\n\\define plugin-icon-title()\n$(currentTiddler)$/icon\n\\end\n\n\\define plugin-disable-title()\n$:/config/Plugins/Disabled/$(currentTiddler)$\n\\end\n\n\\define plugin-table-body(type,disabledMessage,default-popup-state)\n<div class=\"tc-plugin-info-chunk tc-small-icon\">\n<$reveal type=\"nomatch\" state=<<popup-state>> text=\"yes\" default=\"\"\"$default-popup-state$\"\"\">\n<$button class=\"tc-btn-invisible tc-btn-dropdown\" set=<<popup-state>> setTo=\"yes\">\n{{$:/core/images/right-arrow}}\n</$button>\n</$reveal>\n<$reveal type=\"match\" state=<<popup-state>> text=\"yes\" default=\"\"\"$default-popup-state$\"\"\">\n<$button class=\"tc-btn-invisible tc-btn-dropdown\" set=<<popup-state>> setTo=\"no\">\n{{$:/core/images/down-arrow}}\n</$button>\n</$reveal>\n</div>\n<div class=\"tc-plugin-info-chunk\">\n<$transclude tiddler=<<currentTiddler>> subtiddler=<<plugin-icon-title>>>\n<$transclude tiddler=\"$:/core/images/plugin-generic-$type$\"/>\n</$transclude>\n</div>\n<div class=\"tc-plugin-info-chunk\">\n<h1>\n''<$view field=\"description\"><$view field=\"title\"/></$view>'' $disabledMessage$\n</h1>\n<h2>\n<$view field=\"title\"/>\n</h2>\n<h2>\n<div><em><$view field=\"version\"/></em></div>\n</h2>\n</div>\n\\end\n\n\\define plugin-info(type,default-popup-state)\n<$set name=\"popup-state\" value=<<popup-state-macro>>>\n<$reveal type=\"nomatch\" state=<<plugin-disable-title>> text=\"yes\">\n<$link to={{!!title}} class=\"tc-plugin-info\">\n<<plugin-table-body type:\"$type$\" default-popup-state:\"\"\"$default-popup-state$\"\"\">>\n</$link>\n</$reveal>\n<$reveal type=\"match\" state=<<plugin-disable-title>> text=\"yes\">\n<$link to={{!!title}} class=\"tc-plugin-info tc-plugin-info-disabled\">\n<<plugin-table-body type:\"$type$\" default-popup-state:\"\"\"$default-popup-state$\"\"\" disabledMessage:\"<$macrocall $name='lingo' title='Disabled/Status'/>\">>\n</$link>\n</$reveal>\n<$reveal type=\"match\" text=\"yes\" state=<<popup-state>> default=\"\"\"$default-popup-state$\"\"\">\n<div class=\"tc-plugin-info-dropdown\">\n<div class=\"tc-plugin-info-dropdown-body\">\n<$list filter=\"[all[current]] -[[$:/core]]\">\n<div style=\"float:right;\">\n<$reveal type=\"nomatch\" state=<<plugin-disable-title>> text=\"yes\">\n<$button set=<<plugin-disable-title>> setTo=\"yes\" tooltip={{$:/language/ControlPanel/Plugins/Disable/Hint}} aria-label={{$:/language/ControlPanel/Plugins/Disable/Caption}}>\n<<lingo Disable/Caption>>\n</$button>\n</$reveal>\n<$reveal type=\"match\" state=<<plugin-disable-title>> text=\"yes\">\n<$button set=<<plugin-disable-title>> setTo=\"no\" tooltip={{$:/language/ControlPanel/Plugins/Enable/Hint}} aria-label={{$:/language/ControlPanel/Plugins/Enable/Caption}}>\n<<lingo Enable/Caption>>\n</$button>\n</$reveal>\n</div>\n</$list>\n<$set name=\"tabsList\" filter=\"[<currentTiddler>list[]] contents\">\n<$macrocall $name=\"tabs\" state=<<tabs-state-macro>> tabsList=<<tabsList>> default={{{ [enlist<tabsList>] }}} template=\"$:/core/ui/PluginInfo\"/>\n</$set>\n</div>\n</div>\n</$reveal>\n</$set>\n\\end\n\n<$macrocall $name=\"plugin-info\" type=<<plugin-type>> default-popup-state=<<default-popup-state>>/>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/Components/tag-link": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/Components/tag-link",
"text": "<$link>\n<$set name=\"backgroundColor\" value={{!!color}}>\n<span style=<<tag-styles>> class=\"tc-tag-label\">\n<$view field=\"title\" format=\"text\"/>\n</span>\n</$set>\n</$link>"
},
"$:/core/ui/ControlPanel/Advanced": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/ControlPanel/Advanced",
"tags": "$:/tags/ControlPanel/Info",
"caption": "{{$:/language/ControlPanel/Advanced/Caption}}",
"text": "{{$:/language/ControlPanel/Advanced/Hint}}\n\n<div class=\"tc-control-panel\">\n<<tabs \"[all[shadows+tiddlers]tag[$:/tags/ControlPanel/Advanced]!has[draft.of]]\" \"$:/core/ui/ControlPanel/TiddlerFields\">>\n</div>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/ControlPanel/Appearance": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/ControlPanel/Appearance",
"tags": "$:/tags/ControlPanel",
"caption": "{{$:/language/ControlPanel/Appearance/Caption}}",
"text": "{{$:/language/ControlPanel/Appearance/Hint}}\n\n<div class=\"tc-control-panel\">\n<<tabs \"[all[shadows+tiddlers]tag[$:/tags/ControlPanel/Appearance]!has[draft.of]]\" \"$:/core/ui/ControlPanel/Theme\">>\n</div>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/ControlPanel/Basics": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/ControlPanel/Basics",
"tags": "$:/tags/ControlPanel/Info",
"caption": "{{$:/language/ControlPanel/Basics/Caption}}",
"text": "\\define lingo-base() $:/language/ControlPanel/Basics/\n\n\\define show-filter-count(filter)\n<$button class=\"tc-btn-invisible\">\n<$action-setfield $tiddler=\"$:/temp/advancedsearch\" $value=\"\"\"$filter$\"\"\"/>\n<$action-setfield $tiddler=\"$:/state/tab--1498284803\" $value=\"$:/core/ui/AdvancedSearch/Filter\"/>\n<$action-navigate $to=\"$:/AdvancedSearch\"/>\n''<$count filter=\"\"\"$filter$\"\"\"/>''\n{{$:/core/images/advanced-search-button}}\n</$button>\n\\end\n\n|<<lingo Version/Prompt>> |''<<version>>'' |\n|<$link to=\"$:/SiteTitle\"><<lingo Title/Prompt>></$link> |<$edit-text tiddler=\"$:/SiteTitle\" default=\"\" tag=\"input\"/> |\n|<$link to=\"$:/SiteSubtitle\"><<lingo Subtitle/Prompt>></$link> |<$edit-text tiddler=\"$:/SiteSubtitle\" default=\"\" tag=\"input\"/> |\n|<$link to=\"$:/status/UserName\"><<lingo Username/Prompt>></$link> |<$edit-text tiddler=\"$:/status/UserName\" default=\"\" tag=\"input\"/> |\n|<$link to=\"$:/config/AnimationDuration\"><<lingo AnimDuration/Prompt>></$link> |<$edit-text tiddler=\"$:/config/AnimationDuration\" default=\"\" tag=\"input\"/> |\n|<$link to=\"$:/DefaultTiddlers\"><<lingo DefaultTiddlers/Prompt>></$link> |<<lingo DefaultTiddlers/TopHint>><br> <$edit tag=\"textarea\" tiddler=\"$:/DefaultTiddlers\" class=\"tc-edit-texteditor\"/><br>//<<lingo DefaultTiddlers/BottomHint>>// |\n|<$link to=\"$:/language/DefaultNewTiddlerTitle\"><<lingo NewTiddler/Title/Prompt>></$link> |<$edit-text tiddler=\"$:/language/DefaultNewTiddlerTitle\" default=\"\" tag=\"input\"/> |\n|<$link to=\"$:/config/NewJournal/Title\"><<lingo NewJournal/Title/Prompt>></$link> |<$edit-text tiddler=\"$:/config/NewJournal/Title\" default=\"\" tag=\"input\"/> |\n|<$link to=\"$:/config/NewJournal/Text\"><<lingo NewJournal/Text/Prompt>></$link> |<$edit tiddler=\"$:/config/NewJournal/Text\" tag=\"textarea\" class=\"tc-edit-texteditor\" default=\"\"/> |\n|<$link to=\"$:/config/NewJournal/Tags\"><<lingo NewJournal/Tags/Prompt>></$link> |<$edit-text tiddler=\"$:/config/NewJournal/Tags\" default=\"\" tag=\"input\"/> |\n|<<lingo Language/Prompt>> |{{$:/snippets/minilanguageswitcher}} |\n|<<lingo Tiddlers/Prompt>> |<<show-filter-count \"[!is[system]sort[title]]\">> |\n|<<lingo Tags/Prompt>> |<<show-filter-count \"[tags[]sort[title]]\">> |\n|<<lingo SystemTiddlers/Prompt>> |<<show-filter-count \"[is[system]sort[title]]\">> |\n|<<lingo ShadowTiddlers/Prompt>> |<<show-filter-count \"[all[shadows]sort[title]]\">> |\n|<<lingo OverriddenShadowTiddlers/Prompt>> |<<show-filter-count \"[is[tiddler]is[shadow]sort[title]]\">> |\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/ControlPanel/EditorTypes": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/ControlPanel/EditorTypes",
"tags": "$:/tags/ControlPanel/Advanced",
"caption": "{{$:/language/ControlPanel/EditorTypes/Caption}}",
"text": "\\define lingo-base() $:/language/ControlPanel/EditorTypes/\n\n<<lingo Hint>>\n\n<table>\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<th><<lingo Type/Caption>></th>\n<th><<lingo Editor/Caption>></th>\n</tr>\n<$list filter=\"[all[shadows+tiddlers]prefix[$:/config/EditorTypeMappings/]sort[title]]\">\n<tr>\n<td>\n<$link>\n<$list filter=\"[all[current]removeprefix[$:/config/EditorTypeMappings/]]\">\n<$text text={{!!title}}/>\n</$list>\n</$link>\n</td>\n<td>\n<$view field=\"text\"/>\n</td>\n</tr>\n</$list>\n</tbody>\n</table>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/ControlPanel/Info": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/ControlPanel/Info",
"tags": "$:/tags/ControlPanel",
"caption": "{{$:/language/ControlPanel/Info/Caption}}",
"text": "{{$:/language/ControlPanel/Info/Hint}}\n\n<div class=\"tc-control-panel\">\n<<tabs \"[all[shadows+tiddlers]tag[$:/tags/ControlPanel/Info]!has[draft.of]]\" \"$:/core/ui/ControlPanel/Basics\">>\n</div>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/ControlPanel/KeyboardShortcuts": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/ControlPanel/KeyboardShortcuts",
"tags": "$:/tags/ControlPanel",
"caption": "{{$:/language/ControlPanel/KeyboardShortcuts/Caption}}",
"text": "\\define lingo-base() $:/language/ControlPanel/KeyboardShortcuts/\n\n\\define new-shortcut(title)\n<div class=\"tc-dropdown-item-plain\">\n<$edit-shortcut tiddler=\"$title$\" placeholder={{$:/language/ControlPanel/KeyboardShortcuts/Add/Prompt}} style=\"width:auto;\"/> <$button>\n<<lingo Add/Caption>>\n<$action-listops\n\t$tiddler=\"$(shortcutTitle)$\"\n\t$field=\"text\"\n\t$subfilter=\"[{$title$}]\"\n/>\n<$action-deletetiddler\n\t$tiddler=\"$title$\"\n/>\n</$button>\n</div>\n\\end\n\n\\define shortcut-list-item(caption)\n<td>\n</td>\n<td style=\"text-align:right;font-size:0.7em;\">\n<<lingo Platform/$caption$>>\n</td>\n<td>\n<div style=\"position:relative;\">\n<$button popup=<<qualify \"$:/state/dropdown/$(shortcutTitle)$\">> class=\"tc-btn-invisible\">\n{{$:/core/images/edit-button}}\n</$button>\n<$macrocall $name=\"displayshortcuts\" $output=\"text/html\" shortcuts={{$(shortcutTitle)$}} prefix=\"<kbd>\" separator=\"</kbd> <kbd>\" suffix=\"</kbd>\"/>\n\n<$reveal state=<<qualify \"$:/state/dropdown/$(shortcutTitle)$\">> type=\"popup\" position=\"below\" animate=\"yes\">\n<div class=\"tc-block-dropdown-wrapper\">\n<div class=\"tc-block-dropdown tc-edit-type-dropdown tc-popup-keep\">\n<$list filter=\"[list[$(shortcutTitle)$!!text]sort[title]]\" variable=\"shortcut\" emptyMessage=\"\"\"\n<div class=\"tc-dropdown-item-plain\">\n//<<lingo NoShortcuts/Caption>>//\n</div>\n\"\"\">\n<div class=\"tc-dropdown-item-plain\">\n<$button class=\"tc-btn-invisible\" tooltip=<<lingo Remove/Hint>>>\n<$action-listops\n\t$tiddler=\"$(shortcutTitle)$\"\n\t$field=\"text\"\n\t$subfilter=\"+[remove<shortcut>]\"\n/>\n×\n</$button>\n<kbd>\n<$macrocall $name=\"displayshortcuts\" $output=\"text/html\" shortcuts=<<shortcut>>/>\n</kbd>\n</div>\n</$list>\n<hr/>\n<$macrocall $name=\"new-shortcut\" title=<<qualify \"$:/state/new-shortcut/$(shortcutTitle)$\">>/>\n</div>\n</div>\n</$reveal>\n</div>\n</td>\n\\end\n\n\\define shortcut-list(caption,prefix)\n<tr>\n<$list filter=\"[[$prefix$$(shortcutName)$]]\" variable=\"shortcutTitle\">\n<<shortcut-list-item \"$caption$\">>\n</$list>\n</tr>\n\\end\n\n\\define shortcut-editor()\n<<shortcut-list \"All\" \"$:/config/shortcuts/\">>\n<<shortcut-list \"Mac\" \"$:/config/shortcuts-mac/\">>\n<<shortcut-list \"NonMac\" \"$:/config/shortcuts-not-mac/\">>\n<<shortcut-list \"Linux\" \"$:/config/shortcuts-linux/\">>\n<<shortcut-list \"NonLinux\" \"$:/config/shortcuts-not-linux/\">>\n<<shortcut-list \"Windows\" \"$:/config/shortcuts-windows/\">>\n<<shortcut-list \"NonWindows\" \"$:/config/shortcuts-not-windows/\">>\n\\end\n\n\\define shortcut-preview()\n<$macrocall $name=\"displayshortcuts\" $output=\"text/html\" shortcuts={{$(shortcutPrefix)$$(shortcutName)$}} prefix=\"<kbd>\" separator=\"</kbd> <kbd>\" suffix=\"</kbd>\"/>\n\\end\n\n\\define shortcut-item-inner()\n<tr>\n<td>\n<$reveal type=\"nomatch\" state=<<dropdownStateTitle>> text=\"open\">\n<$button class=\"tc-btn-invisible\">\n<$action-setfield\n\t$tiddler=<<dropdownStateTitle>>\n\t$value=\"open\"\n/>\n{{$:/core/images/right-arrow}}\n</$button>\n</$reveal>\n<$reveal type=\"match\" state=<<dropdownStateTitle>> text=\"open\">\n<$button class=\"tc-btn-invisible\">\n<$action-setfield\n\t$tiddler=<<dropdownStateTitle>>\n\t$value=\"close\"\n/>\n{{$:/core/images/down-arrow}}\n</$button>\n</$reveal>\n''<$text text=<<shortcutName>>/>''\n</td>\n<td>\n<$transclude tiddler=\"$:/config/ShortcutInfo/$(shortcutName)$\"/>\n</td>\n<td>\n<$list filter=\"$:/config/shortcuts/ $:/config/shortcuts-mac/ $:/config/shortcuts-not-mac/ $:/config/shortcuts-linux/ $:/config/shortcuts-not-linux/ $:/config/shortcuts-windows/ $:/config/shortcuts-not-windows/\" variable=\"shortcutPrefix\">\n<<shortcut-preview>>\n</$list>\n</td>\n</tr>\n<$set name=\"dropdownState\" value={{$(dropdownStateTitle)$}}>\n<$list filter=\"[<dropdownState>prefix[open]]\" variable=\"listItem\">\n<<shortcut-editor>>\n</$list>\n</$set>\n\\end\n\n\\define shortcut-item()\n<$set name=\"dropdownStateTitle\" value=<<qualify \"$:/state/dropdown/keyboardshortcut/$(shortcutName)$\">>>\n<<shortcut-item-inner>>\n</$set>\n\\end\n\n<table>\n<tbody>\n<$list filter=\"[all[shadows+tiddlers]removeprefix[$:/config/ShortcutInfo/]]\" variable=\"shortcutName\">\n<<shortcut-item>>\n</$list>\n</tbody>\n</table>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/ControlPanel/LoadedModules": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/ControlPanel/LoadedModules",
"tags": "$:/tags/ControlPanel/Advanced",
"caption": "{{$:/language/ControlPanel/LoadedModules/Caption}}",
"text": "\\define lingo-base() $:/language/ControlPanel/\n<<lingo LoadedModules/Hint>>\n\n{{$:/snippets/modules}}\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/ControlPanel/Modals/AddPlugins": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/ControlPanel/Modals/AddPlugins",
"subtitle": "{{$:/core/images/download-button}} {{$:/language/ControlPanel/Plugins/Add/Caption}}",
"text": "\\define install-plugin-button()\n<$button>\n<$action-sendmessage $message=\"tm-load-plugin-from-library\" url={{!!url}} title={{$(assetInfo)$!!original-title}}/>\n<$list filter=\"[<assetInfo>get[original-title]get[version]]\" variable=\"installedVersion\" emptyMessage=\"\"\"{{$:/language/ControlPanel/Plugins/Install/Caption}}\"\"\">\n{{$:/language/ControlPanel/Plugins/Reinstall/Caption}}\n</$list>\n</$button>\n\\end\n\n\\define popup-state-macro()\n$:/state/add-plugin-info/$(connectionTiddler)$/$(assetInfo)$\n\\end\n\n\\define display-plugin-info(type)\n<$set name=\"popup-state\" value=<<popup-state-macro>>>\n<div class=\"tc-plugin-info\">\n<div class=\"tc-plugin-info-chunk tc-small-icon\">\n<$reveal type=\"nomatch\" state=<<popup-state>> text=\"yes\">\n<$button class=\"tc-btn-invisible tc-btn-dropdown\" set=<<popup-state>> setTo=\"yes\">\n{{$:/core/images/right-arrow}}\n</$button>\n</$reveal>\n<$reveal type=\"match\" state=<<popup-state>> text=\"yes\">\n<$button class=\"tc-btn-invisible tc-btn-dropdown\" set=<<popup-state>> setTo=\"no\">\n{{$:/core/images/down-arrow}}\n</$button>\n</$reveal>\n</div>\n<div class=\"tc-plugin-info-chunk\">\n<$list filter=\"[<assetInfo>has[icon]]\" emptyMessage=\"\"\"<$transclude tiddler=\"$:/core/images/plugin-generic-$type$\"/>\"\"\">\n<img src={{$(assetInfo)$!!icon}}/>\n</$list>\n</div>\n<div class=\"tc-plugin-info-chunk\">\n<h1><$view tiddler=<<assetInfo>> field=\"description\"/></h1>\n<h2><$view tiddler=<<assetInfo>> field=\"original-title\"/></h2>\n<div><em><$view tiddler=<<assetInfo>> field=\"version\"/></em></div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"tc-plugin-info-chunk\">\n<<install-plugin-button>>\n</div>\n</div>\n<$reveal type=\"match\" text=\"yes\" state=<<popup-state>>>\n<div class=\"tc-plugin-info-dropdown\">\n<div class=\"tc-plugin-info-dropdown-message\">\n<$list filter=\"[<assetInfo>get[original-title]get[version]]\" variable=\"installedVersion\" emptyMessage=\"\"\"{{$:/language/ControlPanel/Plugins/NotInstalled/Hint}}\"\"\">\n<em>\n{{$:/language/ControlPanel/Plugins/AlreadyInstalled/Hint}}\n</em>\n</$list>\n</div>\n<div class=\"tc-plugin-info-dropdown-body\">\n<$transclude tiddler=<<assetInfo>> field=\"readme\" mode=\"block\"/>\n</div>\n</div>\n</$reveal>\n</$set>\n\\end\n\n\\define load-plugin-library-button()\n<$button class=\"tc-btn-big-green\">\n<$action-sendmessage $message=\"tm-load-plugin-library\" url={{!!url}} infoTitlePrefix=\"$:/temp/RemoteAssetInfo/\"/>\n{{$:/core/images/chevron-right}} {{$:/language/ControlPanel/Plugins/OpenPluginLibrary}}\n</$button>\n\\end\n\n\\define display-server-assets(type)\n{{$:/language/Search/Search}}: <$edit-text tiddler=\"\"\"$:/temp/RemoteAssetSearch/$(currentTiddler)$\"\"\" default=\"\" type=\"search\" tag=\"input\"/>\n<$reveal state=\"\"\"$:/temp/RemoteAssetSearch/$(currentTiddler)$\"\"\" type=\"nomatch\" text=\"\">\n<$button class=\"tc-btn-invisible\">\n<$action-setfield $tiddler=\"\"\"$:/temp/RemoteAssetSearch/$(currentTiddler)$\"\"\" $field=\"text\" $value=\"\"/>\n{{$:/core/images/close-button}}\n</$button>\n</$reveal>\n<div class=\"tc-plugin-library-listing\">\n<$list filter=\"[all[tiddlers+shadows]tag[$:/tags/RemoteAssetInfo]server-url{!!url}original-plugin-type[$type$]search{$:/temp/RemoteAssetSearch/$(currentTiddler)$}sort[description]]\" variable=\"assetInfo\">\n<<display-plugin-info \"$type$\">>\n</$list>\n</div>\n\\end\n\n\\define display-server-connection()\n<$list filter=\"[all[tiddlers+shadows]tag[$:/tags/ServerConnection]suffix{!!url}]\" variable=\"connectionTiddler\" emptyMessage=<<load-plugin-library-button>>>\n\n<<tabs \"[[$:/core/ui/ControlPanel/Plugins/Add/Plugins]] [[$:/core/ui/ControlPanel/Plugins/Add/Themes]] [[$:/core/ui/ControlPanel/Plugins/Add/Languages]]\" \"$:/core/ui/ControlPanel/Plugins/Add/Plugins\">>\n\n</$list>\n\\end\n\n\\define close-library-button()\n<$reveal type='nomatch' state='$:/temp/ServerConnection/$(PluginLibraryURL)$' text=''>\n<$button class='tc-btn-big-green'>\n<$action-sendmessage $message=\"tm-unload-plugin-library\" url={{!!url}}/>\n{{$:/core/images/chevron-left}} {{$:/language/ControlPanel/Plugins/ClosePluginLibrary}}\n<$action-deletetiddler $filter=\"[prefix[$:/temp/ServerConnection/$(PluginLibraryURL)$]][prefix[$:/temp/RemoteAssetInfo/$(PluginLibraryURL)$]]\"/>\n</$button>\n</$reveal>\n\\end\n\n\\define plugin-library-listing()\n<$list filter=\"[all[tiddlers+shadows]tag[$:/tags/PluginLibrary]]\">\n<div class=\"tc-plugin-library\">\n\n!! <$link><$transclude field=\"caption\"><$view field=\"title\"/></$transclude></$link>\n\n//<$view field=\"url\"/>//\n\n<$transclude/>\n\n<$set name=PluginLibraryURL value={{!!url}}>\n<<close-library-button>>\n</$set>\n\n<<display-server-connection>>\n</div>\n</$list>\n\\end\n\n\\import [[$:/core/ui/PageMacros]] [all[shadows+tiddlers]tag[$:/tags/Macro]!has[draft.of]]\n\n<div>\n<<plugin-library-listing>>\n</div>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/ControlPanel/Palette": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/ControlPanel/Palette",
"tags": "$:/tags/ControlPanel/Appearance",
"caption": "{{$:/language/ControlPanel/Palette/Caption}}",
"text": "\\define lingo-base() $:/language/ControlPanel/Palette/\n\n{{$:/snippets/paletteswitcher}}\n\n<$reveal type=\"nomatch\" state=\"$:/state/ShowPaletteEditor\" text=\"yes\">\n\n<$button set=\"$:/state/ShowPaletteEditor\" setTo=\"yes\"><<lingo ShowEditor/Caption>></$button>\n\n</$reveal>\n\n<$reveal type=\"match\" state=\"$:/state/ShowPaletteEditor\" text=\"yes\">\n\n<$button set=\"$:/state/ShowPaletteEditor\" setTo=\"no\"><<lingo HideEditor/Caption>></$button>\n{{$:/snippets/paletteeditor}}\n\n</$reveal>\n\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/ControlPanel/Parsing": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/ControlPanel/Parsing",
"tags": "$:/tags/ControlPanel/Advanced",
"caption": "{{$:/language/ControlPanel/Parsing/Caption}}",
"text": "\\define lingo-base() $:/language/ControlPanel/Parsing/\n\n\\define toggle(Type)\n<$checkbox\ntiddler=\"\"\"$:/config/WikiParserRules/$Type$/$(rule)$\"\"\"\nfield=\"text\"\nchecked=\"enable\"\nunchecked=\"disable\"\ndefault=\"enable\">\n<<rule>>\n</$checkbox>\n\\end\n\n\\define rules(type,Type)\n<$list filter=\"[wikiparserrules[$type$]]\" variable=\"rule\">\n<dd><<toggle $Type$>></dd>\n</$list>\n\\end\n\n<<lingo Hint>>\n\n<dl>\n<dt><<lingo Pragma/Caption>></dt>\n<<rules pragma Pragma>>\n<dt><<lingo Inline/Caption>></dt>\n<<rules inline Inline>>\n<dt><<lingo Block/Caption>></dt>\n<<rules block Block>>\n</dl>"
},
"$:/core/ui/ControlPanel/Plugins/Add/Languages": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/ControlPanel/Plugins/Add/Languages",
"caption": "{{$:/language/ControlPanel/Plugins/Languages/Caption}} (<$count filter=\"[all[tiddlers+shadows]tag[$:/tags/RemoteAssetInfo]server-url{!!url}original-plugin-type[language]]\"/>)",
"text": "<<display-server-assets language>>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/ControlPanel/Plugins/Add/Plugins": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/ControlPanel/Plugins/Add/Plugins",
"caption": "{{$:/language/ControlPanel/Plugins/Plugins/Caption}} (<$count filter=\"[all[tiddlers+shadows]tag[$:/tags/RemoteAssetInfo]server-url{!!url}original-plugin-type[plugin]]\"/>)",
"text": "<<display-server-assets plugin>>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/ControlPanel/Plugins/Add/Themes": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/ControlPanel/Plugins/Add/Themes",
"caption": "{{$:/language/ControlPanel/Plugins/Themes/Caption}} (<$count filter=\"[all[tiddlers+shadows]tag[$:/tags/RemoteAssetInfo]server-url{!!url}original-plugin-type[theme]]\"/>)",
"text": "<<display-server-assets theme>>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/ControlPanel/Plugins/AddPlugins": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/ControlPanel/Plugins/AddPlugins",
"text": "\\define lingo-base() $:/language/ControlPanel/Plugins/\n\n<$button message=\"tm-modal\" param=\"$:/core/ui/ControlPanel/Modals/AddPlugins\" tooltip={{$:/language/ControlPanel/Plugins/Add/Hint}} class=\"tc-btn-big-green\" style=\"background:blue;\">\n{{$:/core/images/download-button}} <<lingo Add/Caption>>\n</$button>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/ControlPanel/Plugins/Installed/Languages": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/ControlPanel/Plugins/Installed/Languages",
"caption": "{{$:/language/ControlPanel/Plugins/Languages/Caption}} (<$count filter=\"[!has[draft.of]plugin-type[language]]\"/>)",
"text": "<<plugin-table language>>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/ControlPanel/Plugins/Installed/Plugins": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/ControlPanel/Plugins/Installed/Plugins",
"caption": "{{$:/language/ControlPanel/Plugins/Plugins/Caption}} (<$count filter=\"[!has[draft.of]plugin-type[plugin]]\"/>)",
"text": "<<plugin-table plugin>>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/ControlPanel/Plugins/Installed/Themes": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/ControlPanel/Plugins/Installed/Themes",
"caption": "{{$:/language/ControlPanel/Plugins/Themes/Caption}} (<$count filter=\"[!has[draft.of]plugin-type[theme]]\"/>)",
"text": "<<plugin-table theme>>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/ControlPanel/Plugins": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/ControlPanel/Plugins",
"tags": "$:/tags/ControlPanel",
"caption": "{{$:/language/ControlPanel/Plugins/Caption}}",
"text": "\\define lingo-base() $:/language/ControlPanel/Plugins/\n\n\\define plugin-table(type)\n<$set name=\"plugin-type\" value=\"\"\"$type$\"\"\">\n<$set name=\"qualified-state\" value=<<qualify \"$:/state/plugin-info\">>>\n<$list filter=\"[!has[draft.of]plugin-type[$type$]sort[description]]\" emptyMessage=<<lingo \"Empty/Hint\">> template=\"$:/core/ui/Components/plugin-info\"/>\n</$set>\n</$set>\n\\end\n\n{{$:/core/ui/ControlPanel/Plugins/AddPlugins}}\n\n<<lingo Installed/Hint>>\n\n<<tabs \"[[$:/core/ui/ControlPanel/Plugins/Installed/Plugins]] [[$:/core/ui/ControlPanel/Plugins/Installed/Themes]] [[$:/core/ui/ControlPanel/Plugins/Installed/Languages]]\" \"$:/core/ui/ControlPanel/Plugins/Installed/Plugins\">>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/ControlPanel/Saving/DownloadSaver": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/ControlPanel/Saving/DownloadSaver",
"tags": "$:/tags/ControlPanel/Saving",
"caption": "{{$:/language/ControlPanel/Saving/DownloadSaver/Caption}}",
"text": "\\define lingo-base() $:/language/ControlPanel/Saving/DownloadSaver/\n\n<<lingo Hint>>\n\n!! <$link to=\"$:/config/DownloadSaver/AutoSave\"><<lingo AutoSave/Hint>></$link>\n\n<$checkbox tiddler=\"$:/config/DownloadSaver/AutoSave\" field=\"text\" checked=\"yes\" unchecked=\"no\" default=\"no\"> <<lingo AutoSave/Description>> </$checkbox>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/ControlPanel/Saving/General": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/ControlPanel/Saving/General",
"tags": "$:/tags/ControlPanel/Saving",
"caption": "{{$:/language/ControlPanel/Saving/General/Caption}}",
"list-before": "",
"text": "\\define lingo-base() $:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/\n\n{{$:/language/ControlPanel/Saving/General/Hint}}\n\n!! <$link to=\"$:/config/AutoSave\"><<lingo AutoSave/Caption>></$link>\n\n<<lingo AutoSave/Hint>>\n\n<$radio tiddler=\"$:/config/AutoSave\" value=\"yes\"> <<lingo AutoSave/Enabled/Description>> </$radio>\n\n<$radio tiddler=\"$:/config/AutoSave\" value=\"no\"> <<lingo AutoSave/Disabled/Description>> </$radio>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/ControlPanel/Saving/TiddlySpot": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/ControlPanel/Saving/TiddlySpot",
"tags": "$:/tags/ControlPanel/Saving",
"caption": "{{$:/language/ControlPanel/Saving/TiddlySpot/Caption}}",
"text": "\\define lingo-base() $:/language/ControlPanel/Saving/TiddlySpot/\n\n\\define backupURL()\nhttp://$(userName)$.tiddlyspot.com/backup/\n\\end\n\\define backupLink()\n<$reveal type=\"nomatch\" state=\"$:/UploadName\" text=\"\">\n<$set name=\"userName\" value={{$:/UploadName}}>\n<$reveal type=\"match\" state=\"$:/UploadURL\" text=\"\">\n<<backupURL>>\n</$reveal>\n<$reveal type=\"nomatch\" state=\"$:/UploadURL\" text=\"\">\n<$macrocall $name=resolvePath source={{$:/UploadBackupDir}} root={{$:/UploadURL}}>>\n</$reveal>\n</$set>\n</$reveal>\n\\end\n\n<<lingo Description>>\n\n|<<lingo UserName>> |<$edit-text tiddler=\"$:/UploadName\" default=\"\" tag=\"input\"/> |\n|<<lingo Password>> |<$password name=\"upload\"/> |\n|<<lingo Backups>> |<<backupLink>> |\n\n''<<lingo Advanced/Heading>>''\n\n|<<lingo ServerURL>> |<$edit-text tiddler=\"$:/UploadURL\" default=\"\" tag=\"input\"/> |\n|<<lingo Filename>> |<$edit-text tiddler=\"$:/UploadFilename\" default=\"index.html\" tag=\"input\"/> |\n|<<lingo UploadDir>> |<$edit-text tiddler=\"$:/UploadDir\" default=\".\" tag=\"input\"/> |\n|<<lingo BackupDir>> |<$edit-text tiddler=\"$:/UploadBackupDir\" default=\".\" tag=\"input\"/> |\n\n<<lingo TiddlySpot/Hint>>"
},
"$:/core/ui/ControlPanel/Saving": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/ControlPanel/Saving",
"tags": "$:/tags/ControlPanel",
"caption": "{{$:/language/ControlPanel/Saving/Caption}}",
"text": "{{$:/language/ControlPanel/Saving/Hint}}\n\n<div class=\"tc-control-panel\">\n<<tabs \"[all[shadows+tiddlers]tag[$:/tags/ControlPanel/Saving]!has[draft.of]]\" \"$:/core/ui/ControlPanel/Saving/General\">>\n</div>\n"
},
"$:/core/buttonstyles/Borderless": {
"title": "$:/core/buttonstyles/Borderless",
"tags": "$:/tags/ToolbarButtonStyle",
"caption": "{{$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/ToolbarButtonStyle/Styles/Borderless}}",
"text": "tc-btn-invisible"
},
"$:/core/buttonstyles/Boxed": {
"title": "$:/core/buttonstyles/Boxed",
"tags": "$:/tags/ToolbarButtonStyle",
"caption": "{{$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/ToolbarButtonStyle/Styles/Boxed}}",
"text": "tc-btn-boxed"
},
"$:/core/buttonstyles/Rounded": {
"title": "$:/core/buttonstyles/Rounded",
"tags": "$:/tags/ToolbarButtonStyle",
"caption": "{{$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/ToolbarButtonStyle/Styles/Rounded}}",
"text": "tc-btn-rounded"
},
"$:/core/ui/ControlPanel/Settings/CamelCase": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/ControlPanel/Settings/CamelCase",
"tags": "$:/tags/ControlPanel/Settings",
"caption": "{{$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/CamelCase/Caption}}",
"text": "\\define lingo-base() $:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/CamelCase/\n<<lingo Hint>>\n\n<$checkbox tiddler=\"$:/config/WikiParserRules/Inline/wikilink\" field=\"text\" checked=\"enable\" unchecked=\"disable\" default=\"enable\"> <$link to=\"$:/config/WikiParserRules/Inline/wikilink\"><<lingo Description>></$link> </$checkbox>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/ControlPanel/Settings/DefaultMoreSidebarTab": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/ControlPanel/Settings/DefaultMoreSidebarTab",
"caption": "{{$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/DefaultMoreSidebarTab/Caption}}",
"tags": "$:/tags/ControlPanel/Settings",
"text": "\\define lingo-base() $:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/DefaultMoreSidebarTab/\n\n<$link to=\"$:/config/DefaultMoreSidebarTab\"><<lingo Hint>></$link>\n\n<$select tiddler=\"$:/config/DefaultMoreSidebarTab\">\n<$list filter=\"[all[shadows+tiddlers]tag[$:/tags/MoreSideBar]!has[draft.of]]\">\n<option value=<<currentTiddler>>><$transclude field=\"caption\"><$text text=<<currentTiddler>>/></$transclude></option>\n</$list>\n</$select>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/ControlPanel/Settings/DefaultSidebarTab": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/ControlPanel/Settings/DefaultSidebarTab",
"caption": "{{$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/DefaultSidebarTab/Caption}}",
"tags": "$:/tags/ControlPanel/Settings",
"text": "\\define lingo-base() $:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/DefaultSidebarTab/\n\n<$link to=\"$:/config/DefaultSidebarTab\"><<lingo Hint>></$link>\n\n<$select tiddler=\"$:/config/DefaultSidebarTab\">\n<$list filter=\"[all[shadows+tiddlers]tag[$:/tags/SideBar]!has[draft.of]]\">\n<option value=<<currentTiddler>>><$transclude field=\"caption\"><$text text=<<currentTiddler>>/></$transclude></option>\n</$list>\n</$select>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/ControlPanel/Settings/EditorToolbar": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/ControlPanel/Settings/EditorToolbar",
"tags": "$:/tags/ControlPanel/Settings",
"caption": "{{$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/EditorToolbar/Caption}}",
"text": "\\define lingo-base() $:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/EditorToolbar/\n<<lingo Hint>>\n\n<$checkbox tiddler=\"$:/config/TextEditor/EnableToolbar\" field=\"text\" checked=\"yes\" unchecked=\"no\" default=\"yes\"> <$link to=\"$:/config/TextEditor/EnableToolbar\"><<lingo Description>></$link> </$checkbox>\n\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/ControlPanel/Settings/InfoPanelMode": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/ControlPanel/Settings/InfoPanelMode",
"tags": "$:/tags/ControlPanel/Settings",
"caption": "{{$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/InfoPanelMode/Caption}}",
"text": "\\define lingo-base() $:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/InfoPanelMode/\n<$link to=\"$:/config/TiddlerInfo/Mode\"><<lingo Hint>></$link>\n\n<$radio tiddler=\"$:/config/TiddlerInfo/Mode\" value=\"popup\"> <<lingo Popup/Description>> </$radio>\n\n<$radio tiddler=\"$:/config/TiddlerInfo/Mode\" value=\"sticky\"> <<lingo Sticky/Description>> </$radio>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/ControlPanel/Settings/LinkToBehaviour": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/ControlPanel/Settings/LinkToBehaviour",
"tags": "$:/tags/ControlPanel/Settings",
"caption": "{{$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/LinkToBehaviour/Caption}}",
"text": "\\define lingo-base() $:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/LinkToBehaviour/\n\n<$link to=\"$:/config/Navigation/openLinkFromInsideRiver\"><<lingo \"InsideRiver/Hint\">></$link>\n\n<$select tiddler=\"$:/config/Navigation/openLinkFromInsideRiver\">\n <option value=\"above\"><<lingo \"OpenAbove\">></option>\n <option value=\"below\"><<lingo \"OpenBelow\">></option>\n <option value=\"top\"><<lingo \"OpenAtTop\">></option>\n <option value=\"bottom\"><<lingo \"OpenAtBottom\">></option>\n</$select>\n\n<$link to=\"$:/config/Navigation/openLinkFromOutsideRiver\"><<lingo \"OutsideRiver/Hint\">></$link>\n\n<$select tiddler=\"$:/config/Navigation/openLinkFromOutsideRiver\">\n <option value=\"top\"><<lingo \"OpenAtTop\">></option>\n <option value=\"bottom\"><<lingo \"OpenAtBottom\">></option>\n</$select>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/ControlPanel/Settings/MissingLinks": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/ControlPanel/Settings/MissingLinks",
"tags": "$:/tags/ControlPanel/Settings",
"caption": "{{$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/MissingLinks/Caption}}",
"text": "\\define lingo-base() $:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/MissingLinks/\n<<lingo Hint>>\n\n<$checkbox tiddler=\"$:/config/MissingLinks\" field=\"text\" checked=\"yes\" unchecked=\"no\" default=\"yes\"> <$link to=\"$:/config/MissingLinks\"><<lingo Description>></$link> </$checkbox>\n\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/ControlPanel/Settings/NavigationAddressBar": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/ControlPanel/Settings/NavigationAddressBar",
"tags": "$:/tags/ControlPanel/Settings",
"caption": "{{$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/NavigationAddressBar/Caption}}",
"text": "\\define lingo-base() $:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/NavigationAddressBar/\n\n<$link to=\"$:/config/Navigation/UpdateAddressBar\"><<lingo Hint>></$link>\n\n<$radio tiddler=\"$:/config/Navigation/UpdateAddressBar\" value=\"permaview\"> <<lingo Permaview/Description>> </$radio>\n\n<$radio tiddler=\"$:/config/Navigation/UpdateAddressBar\" value=\"permalink\"> <<lingo Permalink/Description>> </$radio>\n\n<$radio tiddler=\"$:/config/Navigation/UpdateAddressBar\" value=\"no\"> <<lingo No/Description>> </$radio>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/ControlPanel/Settings/NavigationHistory": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/ControlPanel/Settings/NavigationHistory",
"tags": "$:/tags/ControlPanel/Settings",
"caption": "{{$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/NavigationHistory/Caption}}",
"text": "\\define lingo-base() $:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/NavigationHistory/\n<$link to=\"$:/config/Navigation/UpdateHistory\"><<lingo Hint>></$link>\n\n<$radio tiddler=\"$:/config/Navigation/UpdateHistory\" value=\"yes\"> <<lingo Yes/Description>> </$radio>\n\n<$radio tiddler=\"$:/config/Navigation/UpdateHistory\" value=\"no\"> <<lingo No/Description>> </$radio>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/ControlPanel/Settings/NavigationPermalinkviewMode": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/ControlPanel/Settings/NavigationPermalinkviewMode",
"tags": "$:/tags/ControlPanel/Settings",
"caption": "{{$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/NavigationPermalinkviewMode/Caption}}",
"text": "\\define lingo-base() $:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/NavigationPermalinkviewMode/\n<<lingo Hint>>\n\n<$checkbox tiddler=\"$:/config/Navigation/Permalinkview/CopyToClipboard\" field=\"text\" checked=\"yes\" unchecked=\"no\" default=\"yes\"> <$link to=\"$:/config/Navigation/Permalinkview/CopyToClipboard\"><<lingo CopyToClipboard/Description>></$link> </$checkbox>\n\n<$checkbox tiddler=\"$:/config/Navigation/Permalinkview/UpdateAddressBar\" field=\"text\" checked=\"yes\" unchecked=\"no\" default=\"yes\"> <$link to=\"$:/config/Navigation/Permalinkview/UpdateAddressBar\"><<lingo UpdateAddressBar/Description>></$link> </$checkbox>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/ControlPanel/Settings/PerformanceInstrumentation": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/ControlPanel/Settings/PerformanceInstrumentation",
"tags": "$:/tags/ControlPanel/Settings",
"caption": "{{$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/PerformanceInstrumentation/Caption}}",
"text": "\\define lingo-base() $:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/PerformanceInstrumentation/\n<<lingo Hint>>\n\n<$checkbox tiddler=\"$:/config/Performance/Instrumentation\" field=\"text\" checked=\"yes\" unchecked=\"no\" default=\"no\"> <$link to=\"$:/config/Performance/Instrumentation\"><<lingo Description>></$link> </$checkbox>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/ControlPanel/Settings/TitleLinks": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/ControlPanel/Settings/TitleLinks",
"tags": "$:/tags/ControlPanel/Settings",
"caption": "{{$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/TitleLinks/Caption}}",
"text": "\\define lingo-base() $:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/TitleLinks/\n<$link to=\"$:/config/Tiddlers/TitleLinks\"><<lingo Hint>></$link>\n\n<$radio tiddler=\"$:/config/Tiddlers/TitleLinks\" value=\"yes\"> <<lingo Yes/Description>> </$radio>\n\n<$radio tiddler=\"$:/config/Tiddlers/TitleLinks\" value=\"no\"> <<lingo No/Description>> </$radio>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/ControlPanel/Settings/ToolbarButtonStyle": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/ControlPanel/Settings/ToolbarButtonStyle",
"tags": "$:/tags/ControlPanel/Settings",
"caption": "{{$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/ToolbarButtonStyle/Caption}}",
"text": "\\define lingo-base() $:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/ToolbarButtonStyle/\n<$link to=\"$:/config/Toolbar/ButtonClass\"><<lingo \"Hint\">></$link>\n\n<$select tiddler=\"$:/config/Toolbar/ButtonClass\">\n<$list filter=\"[all[shadows+tiddlers]tag[$:/tags/ToolbarButtonStyle]]\">\n<option value={{!!text}}>{{!!caption}}</option>\n</$list>\n</$select>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/ControlPanel/Settings/ToolbarButtons": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/ControlPanel/Settings/ToolbarButtons",
"tags": "$:/tags/ControlPanel/Settings",
"caption": "{{$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/ToolbarButtons/Caption}}",
"text": "\\define lingo-base() $:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/ToolbarButtons/\n<<lingo Hint>>\n\n<$checkbox tiddler=\"$:/config/Toolbar/Icons\" field=\"text\" checked=\"yes\" unchecked=\"no\" default=\"yes\"> <$link to=\"$:/config/Toolbar/Icons\"><<lingo Icons/Description>></$link> </$checkbox>\n\n<$checkbox tiddler=\"$:/config/Toolbar/Text\" field=\"text\" checked=\"yes\" unchecked=\"no\" default=\"no\"> <$link to=\"$:/config/Toolbar/Text\"><<lingo Text/Description>></$link> </$checkbox>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/ControlPanel/Settings": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/ControlPanel/Settings",
"tags": "$:/tags/ControlPanel",
"caption": "{{$:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/Caption}}",
"text": "\\define lingo-base() $:/language/ControlPanel/Settings/\n\n<<lingo Hint>>\n\n<$list filter=\"[all[shadows+tiddlers]tag[$:/tags/ControlPanel/Settings]]\">\n\n<div style=\"border-top:1px solid #eee;\">\n\n!! <$link><$transclude field=\"caption\"/></$link>\n\n<$transclude/>\n\n</div>\n\n</$list>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/ControlPanel/StoryView": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/ControlPanel/StoryView",
"tags": "$:/tags/ControlPanel/Appearance",
"caption": "{{$:/language/ControlPanel/StoryView/Caption}}",
"text": "{{$:/snippets/viewswitcher}}\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/ControlPanel/Stylesheets": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/ControlPanel/Stylesheets",
"tags": "$:/tags/ControlPanel/Advanced",
"caption": "{{$:/language/ControlPanel/Stylesheets/Caption}}",
"text": "\\define lingo-base() $:/language/ControlPanel/\n\n<<lingo Stylesheets/Hint>>\n\n{{$:/snippets/peek-stylesheets}}\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/ControlPanel/Theme": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/ControlPanel/Theme",
"tags": "$:/tags/ControlPanel/Appearance",
"caption": "{{$:/language/ControlPanel/Theme/Caption}}",
"text": "{{$:/snippets/themeswitcher}}\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/ControlPanel/TiddlerFields": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/ControlPanel/TiddlerFields",
"tags": "$:/tags/ControlPanel/Advanced",
"caption": "{{$:/language/ControlPanel/TiddlerFields/Caption}}",
"text": "\\define lingo-base() $:/language/ControlPanel/\n\n<<lingo TiddlerFields/Hint>>\n\n{{$:/snippets/allfields}}"
},
"$:/core/ui/ControlPanel/Toolbars/EditToolbar": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/ControlPanel/Toolbars/EditToolbar",
"tags": "$:/tags/ControlPanel/Toolbars",
"caption": "{{$:/language/ControlPanel/Toolbars/EditToolbar/Caption}}",
"text": "\\define lingo-base() $:/language/TiddlerInfo/\n\n\\define config-base() $:/config/EditToolbarButtons/Visibility/\n\n{{$:/language/ControlPanel/Toolbars/EditToolbar/Hint}}\n\n<$set name=\"tv-config-toolbar-icons\" value=\"yes\">\n\n<$set name=\"tv-config-toolbar-text\" value=\"yes\">\n\n<$macrocall $name=\"list-tagged-draggable\" tag=\"$:/tags/EditToolbar\" itemTemplate=\"$:/core/ui/ControlPanel/Toolbars/ItemTemplate\"/>\n\n</$set>\n\n</$set>"
},
"$:/core/ui/ControlPanel/Toolbars/EditorItemTemplate": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/ControlPanel/Toolbars/EditorItemTemplate",
"text": "\\define config-title()\n$(config-base)$$(currentTiddler)$\n\\end\n\n<$draggable tiddler=<<currentTiddler>>>\n<$checkbox tiddler=<<config-title>> field=\"text\" checked=\"show\" unchecked=\"hide\" default=\"show\"/> <span class=\"tc-icon-wrapper\"><$transclude tiddler={{!!icon}}/></span> <$transclude field=\"caption\"/> -- <i class=\"tc-muted\"><$transclude field=\"description\"/></i>\n</$draggable>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/ControlPanel/Toolbars/EditorToolbar": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/ControlPanel/Toolbars/EditorToolbar",
"tags": "$:/tags/ControlPanel/Toolbars",
"caption": "{{$:/language/ControlPanel/Toolbars/EditorToolbar/Caption}}",
"text": "\\define lingo-base() $:/language/TiddlerInfo/\n\n\\define config-base() $:/config/EditorToolbarButtons/Visibility/\n\n{{$:/language/ControlPanel/Toolbars/EditorToolbar/Hint}}\n\n<$macrocall $name=\"list-tagged-draggable\" tag=\"$:/tags/EditorToolbar\" itemTemplate=\"$:/core/ui/ControlPanel/Toolbars/EditorItemTemplate\"/>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/ControlPanel/Toolbars/ItemTemplate": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/ControlPanel/Toolbars/ItemTemplate",
"text": "\\define config-title()\n$(config-base)$$(currentTiddler)$\n\\end\n\n<$draggable tiddler=<<currentTiddler>>>\n<$checkbox tiddler=<<config-title>> field=\"text\" checked=\"show\" unchecked=\"hide\" default=\"show\"/> <span class=\"tc-icon-wrapper\"> <$transclude field=\"caption\"/> <i class=\"tc-muted\">-- <$transclude field=\"description\"/></i></span>\n</$draggable>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/ControlPanel/Toolbars/PageControls": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/ControlPanel/Toolbars/PageControls",
"tags": "$:/tags/ControlPanel/Toolbars",
"caption": "{{$:/language/ControlPanel/Toolbars/PageControls/Caption}}",
"text": "\\define lingo-base() $:/language/TiddlerInfo/\n\n\\define config-base() $:/config/PageControlButtons/Visibility/\n\n{{$:/language/ControlPanel/Toolbars/PageControls/Hint}}\n\n<$set name=\"tv-config-toolbar-icons\" value=\"yes\">\n\n<$set name=\"tv-config-toolbar-text\" value=\"yes\">\n\n<$macrocall $name=\"list-tagged-draggable\" tag=\"$:/tags/PageControls\" itemTemplate=\"$:/core/ui/ControlPanel/Toolbars/ItemTemplate\"/>\n\n</$set>\n\n</$set>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/ControlPanel/Toolbars/ViewToolbar": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/ControlPanel/Toolbars/ViewToolbar",
"tags": "$:/tags/ControlPanel/Toolbars",
"caption": "{{$:/language/ControlPanel/Toolbars/ViewToolbar/Caption}}",
"text": "\\define lingo-base() $:/language/TiddlerInfo/\n\n\\define config-base() $:/config/ViewToolbarButtons/Visibility/\n\n{{$:/language/ControlPanel/Toolbars/ViewToolbar/Hint}}\n\n<$set name=\"tv-config-toolbar-icons\" value=\"yes\">\n\n<$set name=\"tv-config-toolbar-text\" value=\"yes\">\n\n<$macrocall $name=\"list-tagged-draggable\" tag=\"$:/tags/ViewToolbar\" itemTemplate=\"$:/core/ui/ControlPanel/Toolbars/ItemTemplate\"/>\n\n</$set>\n\n</$set>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/ControlPanel/Toolbars": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/ControlPanel/Toolbars",
"tags": "$:/tags/ControlPanel/Appearance",
"caption": "{{$:/language/ControlPanel/Toolbars/Caption}}",
"text": "{{$:/language/ControlPanel/Toolbars/Hint}}\n\n<div class=\"tc-control-panel\">\n<<tabs \"[all[shadows+tiddlers]tag[$:/tags/ControlPanel/Toolbars]!has[draft.of]]\" \"$:/core/ui/ControlPanel/Toolbars/ViewToolbar\" \"$:/state/tabs/controlpanel/toolbars\" \"tc-vertical\">>\n</div>\n"
},
"$:/ControlPanel": {
"title": "$:/ControlPanel",
"icon": "$:/core/images/options-button",
"color": "#bbb",
"text": "<div class=\"tc-control-panel\">\n<<tabs \"[all[shadows+tiddlers]tag[$:/tags/ControlPanel]!has[draft.of]]\" \"$:/core/ui/ControlPanel/Info\">>\n</div>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/DefaultSearchResultList": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/DefaultSearchResultList",
"tags": "$:/tags/SearchResults",
"caption": "{{$:/language/Search/DefaultResults/Caption}}",
"text": "\\define searchResultList()\n//<small>{{$:/language/Search/Matches/Title}}</small>//\n\n<$list filter=\"[!is[system]search:title{$(searchTiddler)$}sort[title]limit[250]]\" template=\"$:/core/ui/ListItemTemplate\"/>\n\n//<small>{{$:/language/Search/Matches/All}}</small>//\n\n<$list filter=\"[!is[system]search{$(searchTiddler)$}sort[title]limit[250]]\" template=\"$:/core/ui/ListItemTemplate\"/>\n\n\\end\n<<searchResultList>>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/EditTemplate/body/preview/diffs-current": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/EditTemplate/body/preview/diffs-current",
"tags": "$:/tags/EditPreview",
"caption": "differences from current",
"list-after": "$:/core/ui/EditTemplate/body/preview/output",
"text": "<$list filter=\"[<currentTiddler>!is[image]]\" emptyMessage={{$:/core/ui/EditTemplate/body/preview/output}}>\n\n<$macrocall $name=\"compareTiddlerText\" sourceTiddlerTitle={{!!draft.of}} destTiddlerTitle=<<currentTiddler>>/>\n\n</$list>\n\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/EditTemplate/body/preview/diffs-shadow": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/EditTemplate/body/preview/diffs-shadow",
"tags": "$:/tags/EditPreview",
"caption": "differences from shadow (if any)",
"list-after": "$:/core/ui/EditTemplate/body/preview/output",
"text": "<$list filter=\"[<currentTiddler>!is[image]]\" emptyMessage={{$:/core/ui/EditTemplate/body/preview/output}}>\n\n<$macrocall $name=\"compareTiddlerText\" sourceTiddlerTitle={{{ [{!!draft.of}shadowsource[]] }}} sourceSubTiddlerTitle={{!!draft.of}} destTiddlerTitle=<<currentTiddler>>/>\n\n</$list>\n\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/EditTemplate/body/preview/output": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/EditTemplate/body/preview/output",
"tags": "$:/tags/EditPreview",
"caption": "{{$:/language/EditTemplate/Body/Preview/Type/Output}}",
"text": "<$set name=\"tv-tiddler-preview\" value=\"yes\">\n\n<$transclude />\n\n</$set>\n"
},
"$:/state/showeditpreview": {
"title": "$:/state/showeditpreview",
"text": "no"
},
"$:/core/ui/EditTemplate/body/editor": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/EditTemplate/body/editor",
"text": "<$edit\n\n field=\"text\"\n class=\"tc-edit-texteditor\"\n placeholder={{$:/language/EditTemplate/Body/Placeholder}}\n\n><$set\n\n name=\"targetTiddler\"\n value=<<currentTiddler>>\n\n><$list\n\n filter=\"[all[shadows+tiddlers]tag[$:/tags/EditorToolbar]!has[draft.of]]\"\n\n><$reveal\n\n type=\"nomatch\"\n state=<<config-visibility-title>>\n text=\"hide\"\n class=\"tc-text-editor-toolbar-item-wrapper\"\n\n><$transclude\n\n tiddler=\"$:/core/ui/EditTemplate/body/toolbar/button\"\n mode=\"inline\"\n\n/></$reveal></$list></$set></$edit>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/EditTemplate/body/toolbar/button": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/EditTemplate/body/toolbar/button",
"text": "\\define toolbar-button-icon()\n<$list\n\n filter=\"[all[current]!has[custom-icon]]\"\n variable=\"no-custom-icon\"\n\n><$transclude\n\n tiddler={{!!icon}}\n\n/></$list>\n\\end\n\n\\define toolbar-button-tooltip()\n{{!!description}}<$macrocall $name=\"displayshortcuts\" $output=\"text/plain\" shortcuts={{!!shortcuts}} prefix=\"` - [\" separator=\"] [\" suffix=\"]`\"/>\n\\end\n\n\\define toolbar-button()\n<$list\n\n filter={{!!condition}}\n variable=\"list-condition\"\n\n><$wikify\n\n name=\"tooltip-text\"\n text=<<toolbar-button-tooltip>>\n mode=\"inline\"\n output=\"text\"\n\n><$list\n\n filter=\"[all[current]!has[dropdown]]\"\n variable=\"no-dropdown\"\n\n><$button\n\n class=\"tc-btn-invisible $(buttonClasses)$\"\n tooltip=<<tooltip-text>>\n actions={{!!actions}}\n\n><span\n\n data-tw-keyboard-shortcut={{!!shortcuts}}\n\n/><<toolbar-button-icon>><$transclude\n\n tiddler=<<currentTiddler>>\n field=\"text\"\n\n/></$button></$list><$list\n\n filter=\"[all[current]has[dropdown]]\"\n variable=\"dropdown\"\n\n><$set\n\n name=\"dropdown-state\"\n value=<<qualify \"$:/state/EditorToolbarDropdown\">>\n\n><$button\n\n popup=<<dropdown-state>>\n class=\"tc-popup-keep tc-btn-invisible $(buttonClasses)$\"\n selectedClass=\"tc-selected\"\n tooltip=<<tooltip-text>>\n actions={{!!actions}}\n\n><span\n\n data-tw-keyboard-shortcut={{!!shortcuts}}\n\n/><<toolbar-button-icon>><$transclude\n\n tiddler=<<currentTiddler>>\n field=\"text\"\n\n/></$button><$reveal\n\n state=<<dropdown-state>>\n type=\"popup\"\n position=\"below\"\n animate=\"yes\"\n tag=\"span\"\n\n><div\n\n class=\"tc-drop-down tc-popup-keep\"\n\n><$transclude\n\n tiddler={{!!dropdown}}\n mode=\"block\"\n\n/></div></$reveal></$set></$list></$wikify></$list>\n\\end\n\n\\define toolbar-button-outer()\n<$set\n\n name=\"buttonClasses\"\n value={{!!button-classes}}\n\n><<toolbar-button>></$set>\n\\end\n\n<<toolbar-button-outer>>"
},
"$:/core/ui/EditTemplate/body": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/EditTemplate/body",
"tags": "$:/tags/EditTemplate",
"text": "\\define lingo-base() $:/language/EditTemplate/Body/\n\\define config-visibility-title()\n$:/config/EditorToolbarButtons/Visibility/$(currentTiddler)$\n\\end\n<$list filter=\"[all[current]has[_canonical_uri]]\">\n\n<div class=\"tc-message-box\">\n\n<<lingo External/Hint>>\n\n<a href={{!!_canonical_uri}}><$text text={{!!_canonical_uri}}/></a>\n\n<$edit-text field=\"_canonical_uri\" class=\"tc-edit-fields\"></$edit-text>\n\n</div>\n\n</$list>\n\n<$list filter=\"[all[current]!has[_canonical_uri]]\">\n\n<$reveal state=\"$:/state/showeditpreview\" type=\"match\" text=\"yes\">\n\n<div class=\"tc-tiddler-preview\">\n\n<$transclude tiddler=\"$:/core/ui/EditTemplate/body/editor\" mode=\"inline\"/>\n\n<div class=\"tc-tiddler-preview-preview\">\n\n<$transclude tiddler={{$:/state/editpreviewtype}} mode=\"inline\">\n\n<$transclude tiddler=\"$:/core/ui/EditTemplate/body/preview/output\" mode=\"inline\"/>\n\n</$transclude>\n\n</div>\n\n</div>\n\n</$reveal>\n\n<$reveal state=\"$:/state/showeditpreview\" type=\"nomatch\" text=\"yes\">\n\n<$transclude tiddler=\"$:/core/ui/EditTemplate/body/editor\" mode=\"inline\"/>\n\n</$reveal>\n\n</$list>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/EditTemplate/controls": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/EditTemplate/controls",
"tags": "$:/tags/EditTemplate",
"text": "\\define config-title()\n$:/config/EditToolbarButtons/Visibility/$(listItem)$\n\\end\n<div class=\"tc-tiddler-title tc-tiddler-edit-title\">\n<$view field=\"title\"/>\n<span class=\"tc-tiddler-controls tc-titlebar\"><$list filter=\"[all[shadows+tiddlers]tag[$:/tags/EditToolbar]!has[draft.of]]\" variable=\"listItem\"><$reveal type=\"nomatch\" state=<<config-title>> text=\"hide\"><$transclude tiddler=<<listItem>>/></$reveal></$list></span>\n<div style=\"clear: both;\"></div>\n</div>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/EditTemplate/fields": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/EditTemplate/fields",
"tags": "$:/tags/EditTemplate",
"text": "\\define lingo-base() $:/language/EditTemplate/\n\\define config-title()\n$:/config/EditTemplateFields/Visibility/$(currentField)$\n\\end\n\n\\define config-filter()\n[[hide]] -[title{$(config-title)$}]\n\\end\n\n\\define new-field()\n<$vars name={{$:/temp/newfieldname}}>\n<$reveal type=\"nomatch\" text=\"\" default=<<name>>>\n<$button>\n<$action-sendmessage $message=\"tm-add-field\"\n$name=<<name>>\n$value={{$:/temp/newfieldvalue}}/>\n<$action-deletetiddler $tiddler=\"$:/temp/newfieldname\"/>\n<$action-deletetiddler $tiddler=\"$:/temp/newfieldvalue\"/>\n<<lingo Fields/Add/Button>>\n</$button>\n</$reveal>\n<$reveal type=\"match\" text=\"\" default=<<name>>>\n<$button>\n<<lingo Fields/Add/Button>>\n</$button>\n</$reveal>\n</$vars>\n\\end\n\n<div class=\"tc-edit-fields\">\n<table class=\"tc-edit-fields\">\n<tbody>\n<$list filter=\"[all[current]fields[]] +[sort[title]]\" variable=\"currentField\">\n<$list filter=<<config-filter>> variable=\"temp\">\n<tr class=\"tc-edit-field\">\n<td class=\"tc-edit-field-name\">\n<$text text=<<currentField>>/>:</td>\n<td class=\"tc-edit-field-value\">\n<$edit-text tiddler=<<currentTiddler>> field=<<currentField>> placeholder={{$:/language/EditTemplate/Fields/Add/Value/Placeholder}}/>\n</td>\n<td class=\"tc-edit-field-remove\">\n<$button class=\"tc-btn-invisible\" tooltip={{$:/language/EditTemplate/Field/Remove/Hint}} aria-label={{$:/language/EditTemplate/Field/Remove/Caption}}>\n<$action-deletefield $field=<<currentField>>/>\n{{$:/core/images/delete-button}}\n</$button>\n</td>\n</tr>\n</$list>\n</$list>\n</tbody>\n</table>\n</div>\n\n<$fieldmangler>\n<div class=\"tc-edit-field-add\">\n<em class=\"tc-edit\">\n<<lingo Fields/Add/Prompt>>\n</em>\n<span class=\"tc-edit-field-add-name\">\n<$edit-text tiddler=\"$:/temp/newfieldname\" tag=\"input\" default=\"\" placeholder={{$:/language/EditTemplate/Fields/Add/Name/Placeholder}} focusPopup=<<qualify \"$:/state/popup/field-dropdown\">> class=\"tc-edit-texteditor tc-popup-handle\"/>\n</span>\n<$button popup=<<qualify \"$:/state/popup/field-dropdown\">> class=\"tc-btn-invisible tc-btn-dropdown\" tooltip={{$:/language/EditTemplate/Field/Dropdown/Hint}} aria-label={{$:/language/EditTemplate/Field/Dropdown/Caption}}>{{$:/core/images/down-arrow}}</$button>\n<$reveal state=<<qualify \"$:/state/popup/field-dropdown\">> type=\"nomatch\" text=\"\" default=\"\">\n<div class=\"tc-block-dropdown tc-edit-type-dropdown\">\n<$set name=\"tv-show-missing-links\" value=\"yes\">\n<$linkcatcher to=\"$:/temp/newfieldname\">\n<div class=\"tc-dropdown-item\">\n<<lingo Fields/Add/Dropdown/User>>\n</div>\n<$list filter=\"[!is[shadow]!is[system]fields[]search:title{$:/temp/newfieldname}sort[]] -created -creator -draft.of -draft.title -modified -modifier -tags -text -title -type\" variable=\"currentField\">\n<$link to=<<currentField>>>\n<<currentField>>\n</$link>\n</$list>\n<div class=\"tc-dropdown-item\">\n<<lingo Fields/Add/Dropdown/System>>\n</div>\n<$list filter=\"[fields[]search:title{$:/temp/newfieldname}sort[]] -[!is[shadow]!is[system]fields[]]\" variable=\"currentField\">\n<$link to=<<currentField>>>\n<<currentField>>\n</$link>\n</$list>\n</$linkcatcher>\n</$set>\n</div>\n</$reveal>\n<span class=\"tc-edit-field-add-value\">\n<$edit-text tiddler=\"$:/temp/newfieldvalue\" tag=\"input\" default=\"\" placeholder={{$:/language/EditTemplate/Fields/Add/Value/Placeholder}} class=\"tc-edit-texteditor\"/>\n</span>\n<span class=\"tc-edit-field-add-button\">\n<$macrocall $name=\"new-field\"/>\n</span>\n</div>\n</$fieldmangler>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/EditTemplate/shadow": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/EditTemplate/shadow",
"tags": "$:/tags/EditTemplate",
"text": "\\define lingo-base() $:/language/EditTemplate/Shadow/\n\\define pluginLinkBody()\n<$link to=\"\"\"$(pluginTitle)$\"\"\">\n<$text text=\"\"\"$(pluginTitle)$\"\"\"/>\n</$link>\n\\end\n<$list filter=\"[all[current]get[draft.of]is[shadow]!is[tiddler]]\">\n\n<$list filter=\"[all[current]shadowsource[]]\" variable=\"pluginTitle\">\n\n<$set name=\"pluginLink\" value=<<pluginLinkBody>>>\n<div class=\"tc-message-box\">\n\n<<lingo Warning>>\n\n</div>\n</$set>\n</$list>\n\n</$list>\n\n<$list filter=\"[all[current]get[draft.of]is[shadow]is[tiddler]]\">\n\n<$list filter=\"[all[current]shadowsource[]]\" variable=\"pluginTitle\">\n\n<$set name=\"pluginLink\" value=<<pluginLinkBody>>>\n<div class=\"tc-message-box\">\n\n<<lingo OverriddenWarning>>\n\n</div>\n</$set>\n</$list>\n\n</$list>"
},
"$:/core/ui/EditTemplate/tags": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/EditTemplate/tags",
"tags": "$:/tags/EditTemplate",
"text": "\\whitespace trim\n\n\\define lingo-base() $:/language/EditTemplate/\n\n\\define tag-styles()\nbackground-color:$(backgroundColor)$;\nfill:$(foregroundColor)$;\ncolor:$(foregroundColor)$;\n\\end\n\n\\define tag-body-inner(colour,fallbackTarget,colourA,colourB,icon)\n\\whitespace trim\n<$vars foregroundColor=<<contrastcolour target:\"\"\"$colour$\"\"\" fallbackTarget:\"\"\"$fallbackTarget$\"\"\" colourA:\"\"\"$colourA$\"\"\" colourB:\"\"\"$colourB$\"\"\">> backgroundColor=\"\"\"$colour$\"\"\">\n<span style=<<tag-styles>> class=\"tc-tag-label tc-tag-list-item\">\n<$transclude tiddler=\"\"\"$icon$\"\"\"/> <$view field=\"title\" format=\"text\" />\n<$button message=\"tm-remove-tag\" param={{!!title}} class=\"tc-btn-invisible tc-remove-tag-button\">×</$button>\n</span>\n</$vars>\n\\end\n\n\\define tag-body(colour,palette,icon)\n<$macrocall $name=\"tag-body-inner\" colour=\"\"\"$colour$\"\"\" fallbackTarget={{$palette$##tag-background}} colourA={{$palette$##foreground}} colourB={{$palette$##background}} icon=\"\"\"$icon$\"\"\"/>\n\\end\n\n\\define tag-picker-actions()\n<$action-listops\n\t$tiddler=<<currentTiddler>>\n\t$field=\"tags\"\n\t$subfilter=\"[<tag>] [all[current]tags[]]\"\n/>\n\\end\n\n<div class=\"tc-edit-tags\">\n<$fieldmangler>\n<$list filter=\"[all[current]tags[]sort[title]]\" storyview=\"pop\">\n<$macrocall $name=\"tag-body\" colour={{!!color}} palette={{$:/palette}} icon={{!!icon}}/>\n</$list>\n</$fieldmangler>\n<$macrocall $name=\"tag-picker\" actions=<<tag-picker-actions>>/>\n</div>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/EditTemplate/title": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/EditTemplate/title",
"tags": "$:/tags/EditTemplate",
"text": "<$edit-text field=\"draft.title\" class=\"tc-titlebar tc-edit-texteditor\" focus=\"true\"/>\n\n<$vars pattern=\"\"\"[\\|\\[\\]{}]\"\"\" bad-chars=\"\"\"`| [ ] { }`\"\"\">\n\n<$list filter=\"[all[current]regexp:draft.title<pattern>]\" variable=\"listItem\">\n\n<div class=\"tc-message-box\">\n\n{{$:/core/images/warning}} {{$:/language/EditTemplate/Title/BadCharacterWarning}}\n\n</div>\n\n</$list>\n\n</$vars>\n\n<$reveal state=\"!!draft.title\" type=\"nomatch\" text={{!!draft.of}} tag=\"div\">\n\n<$list filter=\"[{!!draft.title}!is[missing]]\" variable=\"listItem\">\n\n<div class=\"tc-message-box\">\n\n{{$:/core/images/warning}} {{$:/language/EditTemplate/Title/Exists/Prompt}}\n\n</div>\n\n</$list>\n\n<$list filter=\"[{!!draft.of}!is[missing]]\" variable=\"listItem\">\n\n<$vars fromTitle={{!!draft.of}} toTitle={{!!draft.title}}>\n\n<$checkbox tiddler=\"$:/config/RelinkOnRename\" field=\"text\" checked=\"yes\" unchecked=\"no\" default=\"no\"> {{$:/language/EditTemplate/Title/Relink/Prompt}}</$checkbox>\n\n<$vars stateTiddler=<<qualify \"$:/state/edit/references\">> >\n\n<$reveal type=\"nomatch\" state=<<stateTiddler>> text=\"show\">\n<$button set=<<stateTiddler>> setTo=\"show\" class=\"tc-btn-invisible\">{{$:/core/images/right-arrow}} \n<<lingo EditTemplate/Title/References/Prompt>></$button>\n</$reveal>\n<$reveal type=\"match\" state=<<stateTiddler>> text=\"show\">\n<$button set=<<stateTiddler>> setTo=\"hide\" class=\"tc-btn-invisible\">{{$:/core/images/down-arrow}} \n<<lingo EditTemplate/Title/References/Prompt>></$button>\n</$reveal>\n\n<$reveal type=\"match\" state=<<stateTiddler>> text=\"show\">\n<$tiddler tiddler=<<fromTitle>> >\n<$transclude tiddler=\"$:/core/ui/TiddlerInfo/References\"/>\n</$tiddler>\n</$reveal>\n\n</$vars>\n\n</$vars>\n\n</$list>\n\n</$reveal>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/EditTemplate/type": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/EditTemplate/type",
"tags": "$:/tags/EditTemplate",
"text": "\\define lingo-base() $:/language/EditTemplate/\n<div class=\"tc-type-selector\"><$fieldmangler>\n<em class=\"tc-edit\"><<lingo Type/Prompt>></em> <$edit-text field=\"type\" tag=\"input\" default=\"\" placeholder={{$:/language/EditTemplate/Type/Placeholder}} focusPopup=<<qualify \"$:/state/popup/type-dropdown\">> class=\"tc-edit-typeeditor tc-popup-handle\"/> <$button popup=<<qualify \"$:/state/popup/type-dropdown\">> class=\"tc-btn-invisible tc-btn-dropdown\" tooltip={{$:/language/EditTemplate/Type/Dropdown/Hint}} aria-label={{$:/language/EditTemplate/Type/Dropdown/Caption}}>{{$:/core/images/down-arrow}}</$button> <$button message=\"tm-remove-field\" param=\"type\" class=\"tc-btn-invisible tc-btn-icon\" tooltip={{$:/language/EditTemplate/Type/Delete/Hint}} aria-label={{$:/language/EditTemplate/Type/Delete/Caption}}>{{$:/core/images/delete-button}}</$button>\n</$fieldmangler></div>\n\n<div class=\"tc-block-dropdown-wrapper\">\n<$set name=\"tv-show-missing-links\" value=\"yes\">\n<$reveal state=<<qualify \"$:/state/popup/type-dropdown\">> type=\"nomatch\" text=\"\" default=\"\">\n<div class=\"tc-block-dropdown tc-edit-type-dropdown\">\n<$linkcatcher to=\"!!type\">\n<$list filter='[all[shadows+tiddlers]prefix[$:/language/Docs/Types/]each[group]sort[group-sort]]'>\n<div class=\"tc-dropdown-item\">\n<$text text={{!!group}}/>\n</div>\n<$list filter=\"[all[shadows+tiddlers]prefix[$:/language/Docs/Types/]group{!!group}] +[sort[description]]\"><$link to={{!!name}}><$view field=\"description\"/> (<$view field=\"name\"/>)</$link>\n</$list>\n</$list>\n</$linkcatcher>\n</div>\n</$reveal>\n</$set>\n</div>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/EditTemplate": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/EditTemplate",
"text": "\\define actions()\n<$action-sendmessage $message=\"tm-add-tag\" $param={{$:/temp/NewTagName}}/>\n<$action-deletetiddler $tiddler=\"$:/temp/NewTagName\"/>\n<$action-sendmessage $message=\"tm-add-field\" $name={{$:/temp/newfieldname}} $value={{$:/temp/newfieldvalue}}/>\n<$action-deletetiddler $tiddler=\"$:/temp/newfieldname\"/>\n<$action-deletetiddler $tiddler=\"$:/temp/newfieldvalue\"/>\n<$action-sendmessage $message=\"tm-save-tiddler\"/>\n\\end\n\\define frame-classes()\ntc-tiddler-frame tc-tiddler-edit-frame $(missingTiddlerClass)$ $(shadowTiddlerClass)$ $(systemTiddlerClass)$\n\\end\n<div class=<<frame-classes>> data-tiddler-title=<<currentTiddler>>>\n<$fieldmangler>\n<$set name=\"storyTiddler\" value=<<currentTiddler>>>\n<$keyboard key=\"((cancel-edit-tiddler))\" message=\"tm-cancel-tiddler\">\n<$keyboard key=\"((save-tiddler))\" actions=<<actions>>>\n<$list filter=\"[all[shadows+tiddlers]tag[$:/tags/EditTemplate]!has[draft.of]]\" variable=\"listItem\">\n<$set name=\"tv-config-toolbar-class\" filter=\"[<tv-config-toolbar-class>] [<listItem>encodeuricomponent[]addprefix[tc-btn-]]\">\n<$transclude tiddler=<<listItem>>/>\n</$set>\n</$list>\n</$keyboard>\n</$keyboard>\n</$set>\n</$fieldmangler>\n</div>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/Buttons/cancel": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/Buttons/cancel",
"tags": "$:/tags/EditToolbar",
"caption": "{{$:/core/images/cancel-button}} {{$:/language/Buttons/Cancel/Caption}}",
"description": "{{$:/language/Buttons/Cancel/Hint}}",
"text": "<$button message=\"tm-cancel-tiddler\" tooltip={{$:/language/Buttons/Cancel/Hint}} aria-label={{$:/language/Buttons/Cancel/Caption}} class=<<tv-config-toolbar-class>>>\n<$list filter=\"[<tv-config-toolbar-icons>prefix[yes]]\">\n{{$:/core/images/cancel-button}}\n</$list>\n<$list filter=\"[<tv-config-toolbar-text>prefix[yes]]\">\n<span class=\"tc-btn-text\"><$text text={{$:/language/Buttons/Cancel/Caption}}/></span>\n</$list>\n</$button>"
},
"$:/core/ui/Buttons/delete": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/Buttons/delete",
"tags": "$:/tags/EditToolbar $:/tags/ViewToolbar",
"caption": "{{$:/core/images/delete-button}} {{$:/language/Buttons/Delete/Caption}}",
"description": "{{$:/language/Buttons/Delete/Hint}}",
"text": "<$button message=\"tm-delete-tiddler\" tooltip={{$:/language/Buttons/Delete/Hint}} aria-label={{$:/language/Buttons/Delete/Caption}} class=<<tv-config-toolbar-class>>>\n<$list filter=\"[<tv-config-toolbar-icons>prefix[yes]]\">\n{{$:/core/images/delete-button}}\n</$list>\n<$list filter=\"[<tv-config-toolbar-text>prefix[yes]]\">\n<span class=\"tc-btn-text\"><$text text={{$:/language/Buttons/Delete/Caption}}/></span>\n</$list>\n</$button>"
},
"$:/core/ui/Buttons/save": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/Buttons/save",
"tags": "$:/tags/EditToolbar",
"caption": "{{$:/core/images/done-button}} {{$:/language/Buttons/Save/Caption}}",
"description": "{{$:/language/Buttons/Save/Hint}}",
"text": "<$fieldmangler><$button tooltip={{$:/language/Buttons/Save/Hint}} aria-label={{$:/language/Buttons/Save/Caption}} class=<<tv-config-toolbar-class>>>\n<$action-sendmessage $message=\"tm-add-tag\" $param={{$:/temp/NewTagName}}/>\n<$action-deletetiddler $tiddler=\"$:/temp/NewTagName\"/>\n<$action-sendmessage $message=\"tm-add-field\" $name={{$:/temp/newfieldname}} $value={{$:/temp/newfieldvalue}}/>\n<$action-deletetiddler $tiddler=\"$:/temp/newfieldname\"/>\n<$action-deletetiddler $tiddler=\"$:/temp/newfieldvalue\"/>\n<$action-sendmessage $message=\"tm-save-tiddler\"/>\n<$list filter=\"[<tv-config-toolbar-icons>prefix[yes]]\">\n{{$:/core/images/done-button}}\n</$list>\n<$list filter=\"[<tv-config-toolbar-text>prefix[yes]]\">\n<span class=\"tc-btn-text\"><$text text={{$:/language/Buttons/Save/Caption}}/></span>\n</$list>\n</$button></$fieldmangler>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/bold": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/bold",
"tags": "$:/tags/EditorToolbar",
"icon": "$:/core/images/bold",
"caption": "{{$:/language/Buttons/Bold/Caption}}",
"description": "{{$:/language/Buttons/Bold/Hint}}",
"condition": "[<targetTiddler>!has[type]] [<targetTiddler>type[text/vnd.tiddlywiki]]",
"shortcuts": "((bold))",
"text": "<$action-sendmessage\n\t$message=\"tm-edit-text-operation\"\n\t$param=\"wrap-selection\"\n\tprefix=\"''\"\n\tsuffix=\"''\"\n/>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/clear-dropdown": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/clear-dropdown",
"text": "''{{$:/language/Buttons/Clear/Hint}}''\n\n<div class=\"tc-colour-chooser\">\n\n<$macrocall $name=\"colour-picker\" actions=\"\"\"\n\n<$action-sendmessage\n\t$message=\"tm-edit-bitmap-operation\"\n\t$param=\"clear\"\n\tcolour=<<colour-picker-value>>\n/>\n\n<$action-deletetiddler\n\t$tiddler=<<dropdown-state>>\n/>\n\n\"\"\"/>\n\n</div>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/clear": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/clear",
"tags": "$:/tags/EditorToolbar",
"icon": "$:/core/images/erase",
"caption": "{{$:/language/Buttons/Clear/Caption}}",
"description": "{{$:/language/Buttons/Clear/Hint}}",
"condition": "[<targetTiddler>is[image]]",
"dropdown": "$:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/clear-dropdown",
"text": ""
},
"$:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/editor-height-dropdown": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/editor-height-dropdown",
"text": "\\define lingo-base() $:/language/Buttons/EditorHeight/\n''<<lingo Hint>>''\n\n<$radio tiddler=\"$:/config/TextEditor/EditorHeight/Mode\" value=\"auto\"> {{$:/core/images/auto-height}} <<lingo Caption/Auto>></$radio>\n\n<$radio tiddler=\"$:/config/TextEditor/EditorHeight/Mode\" value=\"fixed\"> {{$:/core/images/fixed-height}} <<lingo Caption/Fixed>> <$edit-text tag=\"input\" tiddler=\"$:/config/TextEditor/EditorHeight/Height\" default=\"100px\"/></$radio>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/editor-height": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/editor-height",
"tags": "$:/tags/EditorToolbar",
"icon": "$:/core/images/fixed-height",
"custom-icon": "yes",
"caption": "{{$:/language/Buttons/EditorHeight/Caption}}",
"description": "{{$:/language/Buttons/EditorHeight/Hint}}",
"condition": "[<targetTiddler>type[]] [<targetTiddler>get[type]prefix[text/]] +[first[]]",
"dropdown": "$:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/editor-height-dropdown",
"text": "<$reveal tag=\"span\" state=\"$:/config/TextEditor/EditorHeight/Mode\" type=\"match\" text=\"fixed\">\n{{$:/core/images/fixed-height}}\n</$reveal>\n<$reveal tag=\"span\" state=\"$:/config/TextEditor/EditorHeight/Mode\" type=\"match\" text=\"auto\">\n{{$:/core/images/auto-height}}\n</$reveal>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/excise-dropdown": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/excise-dropdown",
"text": "\\define lingo-base() $:/language/Buttons/Excise/\n\n\\define body(config-title)\n''<<lingo Hint>>''\n\n<<lingo Caption/NewTitle>> <$edit-text tag=\"input\" tiddler=\"$config-title$/new-title\" default=\"\" focus=\"true\"/>\n\n<$set name=\"new-title\" value={{$config-title$/new-title}}>\n<$list filter=\"\"\"[<new-title>is[tiddler]]\"\"\">\n<div class=\"tc-error\">\n<<lingo Caption/TiddlerExists>>\n</div>\n</$list>\n</$set>\n\n<$checkbox tiddler=\"\"\"$config-title$/tagnew\"\"\" field=\"text\" checked=\"yes\" unchecked=\"no\" default=\"false\"> <<lingo Caption/Tag>></$checkbox>\n\n<<lingo Caption/Replace>> <$select tiddler=\"\"\"$config-title$/type\"\"\" default=\"transclude\">\n<option value=\"link\"><<lingo Caption/Replace/Link>></option>\n<option value=\"transclude\"><<lingo Caption/Replace/Transclusion>></option>\n<option value=\"macro\"><<lingo Caption/Replace/Macro>></option>\n</$select>\n\n<$reveal state=\"\"\"$config-title$/type\"\"\" type=\"match\" text=\"macro\">\n<<lingo Caption/MacroName>> <$edit-text tag=\"input\" tiddler=\"\"\"$config-title$/macro-title\"\"\" default=\"translink\"/>\n</$reveal>\n\n<$button>\n<$action-sendmessage\n\t$message=\"tm-edit-text-operation\"\n\t$param=\"excise\"\n\ttitle={{$config-title$/new-title}}\n\ttype={{$config-title$/type}}\n\tmacro={{$config-title$/macro-title}}\n\ttagnew={{$config-title$/tagnew}}\n/>\n<$action-deletetiddler\n\t$tiddler=\"$config-title$/new-title\"\n/>\n<$action-deletetiddler\n\t$tiddler=<<dropdown-state>>\n/>\n<<lingo Caption/Excise>>\n</$button>\n\\end\n\n<$macrocall $name=\"body\" config-title=<<qualify \"$:/state/Excise/\">>/>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/excise": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/excise",
"tags": "$:/tags/EditorToolbar",
"icon": "$:/core/images/excise",
"caption": "{{$:/language/Buttons/Excise/Caption}}",
"description": "{{$:/language/Buttons/Excise/Hint}}",
"condition": "[<targetTiddler>type[]] [<targetTiddler>type[text/vnd.tiddlywiki]] +[first[]]",
"shortcuts": "((excise))",
"dropdown": "$:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/excise-dropdown",
"text": ""
},
"$:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/heading-1": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/heading-1",
"tags": "$:/tags/EditorToolbar",
"icon": "$:/core/images/heading-1",
"caption": "{{$:/language/Buttons/Heading1/Caption}}",
"description": "{{$:/language/Buttons/Heading1/Hint}}",
"condition": "[<targetTiddler>!has[type]] [<targetTiddler>type[text/vnd.tiddlywiki]]",
"button-classes": "tc-text-editor-toolbar-item-start-group",
"shortcuts": "((heading-1))",
"text": "<$action-sendmessage\n\t$message=\"tm-edit-text-operation\"\n\t$param=\"prefix-lines\"\n\tcharacter=\"!\"\n\tcount=\"1\"\n/>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/heading-2": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/heading-2",
"tags": "$:/tags/EditorToolbar",
"icon": "$:/core/images/heading-2",
"caption": "{{$:/language/Buttons/Heading2/Caption}}",
"description": "{{$:/language/Buttons/Heading2/Hint}}",
"condition": "[<targetTiddler>!has[type]] [<targetTiddler>type[text/vnd.tiddlywiki]]",
"shortcuts": "((heading-2))",
"text": "<$action-sendmessage\n\t$message=\"tm-edit-text-operation\"\n\t$param=\"prefix-lines\"\n\tcharacter=\"!\"\n\tcount=\"2\"\n/>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/heading-3": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/heading-3",
"tags": "$:/tags/EditorToolbar",
"icon": "$:/core/images/heading-3",
"caption": "{{$:/language/Buttons/Heading3/Caption}}",
"description": "{{$:/language/Buttons/Heading3/Hint}}",
"condition": "[<targetTiddler>!has[type]] [<targetTiddler>type[text/vnd.tiddlywiki]]",
"shortcuts": "((heading-3))",
"text": "<$action-sendmessage\n\t$message=\"tm-edit-text-operation\"\n\t$param=\"prefix-lines\"\n\tcharacter=\"!\"\n\tcount=\"3\"\n/>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/heading-4": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/heading-4",
"tags": "$:/tags/EditorToolbar",
"icon": "$:/core/images/heading-4",
"caption": "{{$:/language/Buttons/Heading4/Caption}}",
"description": "{{$:/language/Buttons/Heading4/Hint}}",
"condition": "[<targetTiddler>!has[type]] [<targetTiddler>type[text/vnd.tiddlywiki]]",
"shortcuts": "((heading-4))",
"text": "<$action-sendmessage\n\t$message=\"tm-edit-text-operation\"\n\t$param=\"prefix-lines\"\n\tcharacter=\"!\"\n\tcount=\"4\"\n/>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/heading-5": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/heading-5",
"tags": "$:/tags/EditorToolbar",
"icon": "$:/core/images/heading-5",
"caption": "{{$:/language/Buttons/Heading5/Caption}}",
"description": "{{$:/language/Buttons/Heading5/Hint}}",
"condition": "[<targetTiddler>!has[type]] [<targetTiddler>type[text/vnd.tiddlywiki]]",
"shortcuts": "((heading-5))",
"text": "<$action-sendmessage\n\t$message=\"tm-edit-text-operation\"\n\t$param=\"prefix-lines\"\n\tcharacter=\"!\"\n\tcount=\"5\"\n/>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/heading-6": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/heading-6",
"tags": "$:/tags/EditorToolbar",
"icon": "$:/core/images/heading-6",
"caption": "{{$:/language/Buttons/Heading6/Caption}}",
"description": "{{$:/language/Buttons/Heading6/Hint}}",
"condition": "[<targetTiddler>!has[type]] [<targetTiddler>type[text/vnd.tiddlywiki]]",
"shortcuts": "((heading-6))",
"text": "<$action-sendmessage\n\t$message=\"tm-edit-text-operation\"\n\t$param=\"prefix-lines\"\n\tcharacter=\"!\"\n\tcount=\"6\"\n/>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/italic": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/italic",
"tags": "$:/tags/EditorToolbar",
"icon": "$:/core/images/italic",
"caption": "{{$:/language/Buttons/Italic/Caption}}",
"description": "{{$:/language/Buttons/Italic/Hint}}",
"condition": "[<targetTiddler>!has[type]] [<targetTiddler>type[text/vnd.tiddlywiki]]",
"shortcuts": "((italic))",
"text": "<$action-sendmessage\n\t$message=\"tm-edit-text-operation\"\n\t$param=\"wrap-selection\"\n\tprefix=\"//\"\n\tsuffix=\"//\"\n/>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/line-width-dropdown": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/line-width-dropdown",
"text": "\\define lingo-base() $:/language/Buttons/LineWidth/\n\n\\define toolbar-line-width-inner()\n<$button tag=\"a\" tooltip=\"\"\"$(line-width)$\"\"\">\n\n<$action-setfield\n\t$tiddler=\"$:/config/BitmapEditor/LineWidth\"\n\t$value=\"$(line-width)$\"\n/>\n\n<$action-deletetiddler\n\t$tiddler=<<dropdown-state>>\n/>\n\n<div style=\"display: inline-block; margin: 4px calc(80px - $(line-width)$); background-color: #000; width: calc(100px + $(line-width)$ * 2); height: $(line-width)$; border-radius: 120px; vertical-align: middle;\"/>\n\n<span style=\"margin-left: 8px;\">\n\n<$text text=\"\"\"$(line-width)$\"\"\"/>\n\n<$reveal state=\"$:/config/BitmapEditor/LineWidth\" type=\"match\" text=\"\"\"$(line-width)$\"\"\" tag=\"span\">\n\n<$entity entity=\" \"/>\n\n<$entity entity=\"✓\"/>\n\n</$reveal>\n\n</span>\n\n</$button>\n\\end\n\n''<<lingo Hint>>''\n\n<$list filter={{$:/config/BitmapEditor/LineWidths}} variable=\"line-width\">\n\n<<toolbar-line-width-inner>>\n\n</$list>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/line-width": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/line-width",
"tags": "$:/tags/EditorToolbar",
"icon": "$:/core/images/line-width",
"caption": "{{$:/language/Buttons/LineWidth/Caption}}",
"description": "{{$:/language/Buttons/LineWidth/Hint}}",
"condition": "[<targetTiddler>is[image]]",
"dropdown": "$:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/line-width-dropdown",
"text": "<$text text={{$:/config/BitmapEditor/LineWidth}}/>"
},
"$:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/link-dropdown": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/link-dropdown",
"text": "\\define lingo-base() $:/language/Buttons/Link/\n\n\\define add-link-actions()\n<$action-sendmessage $message=\"tm-edit-text-operation\" $param=\"make-link\" text={{$(linkTiddler)$}} />\n<$action-deletetiddler $tiddler=<<dropdown-state>> />\n<$action-deletetiddler $tiddler=<<searchTiddler>> />\n<$action-deletetiddler $tiddler=<<linkTiddler>> />\n\\end\n\n\\define external-link()\n<$button class=\"tc-btn-invisible\" style=\"width: auto; display: inline-block; background-colour: inherit;\" actions=<<add-link-actions>>>\n{{$:/core/images/chevron-right}}\n</$button>\n\\end\n\n\\define body(config-title)\n''<<lingo Hint>>''\n\n<$vars searchTiddler=\"\"\"$config-title$/search\"\"\" linkTiddler=\"\"\"$config-title$/link\"\"\" linktext=\"\" >\n\n<$vars linkTiddler=<<searchTiddler>>>\n<$keyboard key=\"ENTER\" actions=<<add-link-actions>>>\n<$edit-text tiddler=<<searchTiddler>> type=\"search\" tag=\"input\" focus=\"true\" placeholder={{$:/language/Search/Search}} default=\"\"/>\n<$reveal tag=\"span\" state=<<searchTiddler>> type=\"nomatch\" text=\"\">\n<<external-link>>\n<$button class=\"tc-btn-invisible\" style=\"width: auto; display: inline-block; background-colour: inherit;\">\n<$action-setfield $tiddler=<<searchTiddler>> text=\"\" />\n{{$:/core/images/close-button}}\n</$button>\n</$reveal>\n</$keyboard>\n</$vars>\n\n<$reveal tag=\"div\" state=<<searchTiddler>> type=\"nomatch\" text=\"\">\n\n<$linkcatcher actions=<<add-link-actions>> to=<<linkTiddler>>>\n\n{{$:/core/ui/SearchResults}}\n\n</$linkcatcher>\n\n</$reveal>\n\n</$vars>\n\n\\end\n\n<$macrocall $name=\"body\" config-title=<<qualify \"$:/state/Link/\">>/>"
},
"$:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/link": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/link",
"tags": "$:/tags/EditorToolbar",
"icon": "$:/core/images/link",
"caption": "{{$:/language/Buttons/Link/Caption}}",
"description": "{{$:/language/Buttons/Link/Hint}}",
"condition": "[<targetTiddler>!has[type]] [<targetTiddler>type[text/vnd.tiddlywiki]]",
"button-classes": "tc-text-editor-toolbar-item-start-group",
"shortcuts": "((link))",
"dropdown": "$:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/link-dropdown",
"text": ""
},
"$:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/linkify": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/linkify",
"caption": "{{$:/language/Buttons/Linkify/Caption}}",
"condition": "[<targetTiddler>!has[type]] [<targetTiddler>type[text/vnd.tiddlywiki]]",
"description": "{{$:/language/Buttons/Linkify/Hint}}",
"icon": "$:/core/images/linkify",
"list-before": "$:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/mono-block",
"shortcuts": "((linkify))",
"tags": "$:/tags/EditorToolbar",
"text": "<$action-sendmessage\n\t$message=\"tm-edit-text-operation\"\n\t$param=\"wrap-selection\"\n\tprefix=\"[[\"\n\tsuffix=\"]]\"\n/>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/list-bullet": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/list-bullet",
"tags": "$:/tags/EditorToolbar",
"icon": "$:/core/images/list-bullet",
"caption": "{{$:/language/Buttons/ListBullet/Caption}}",
"description": "{{$:/language/Buttons/ListBullet/Hint}}",
"condition": "[<targetTiddler>!has[type]] [<targetTiddler>type[text/vnd.tiddlywiki]]",
"shortcuts": "((list-bullet))",
"text": "<$action-sendmessage\n\t$message=\"tm-edit-text-operation\"\n\t$param=\"prefix-lines\"\n\tcharacter=\"*\"\n\tcount=\"1\"\n/>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/list-number": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/list-number",
"tags": "$:/tags/EditorToolbar",
"icon": "$:/core/images/list-number",
"caption": "{{$:/language/Buttons/ListNumber/Caption}}",
"description": "{{$:/language/Buttons/ListNumber/Hint}}",
"condition": "[<targetTiddler>!has[type]] [<targetTiddler>type[text/vnd.tiddlywiki]]",
"shortcuts": "((list-number))",
"text": "<$action-sendmessage\n\t$message=\"tm-edit-text-operation\"\n\t$param=\"prefix-lines\"\n\tcharacter=\"#\"\n\tcount=\"1\"\n/>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/mono-block": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/mono-block",
"tags": "$:/tags/EditorToolbar",
"icon": "$:/core/images/mono-block",
"caption": "{{$:/language/Buttons/MonoBlock/Caption}}",
"description": "{{$:/language/Buttons/MonoBlock/Hint}}",
"condition": "[<targetTiddler>!has[type]] [<targetTiddler>type[text/vnd.tiddlywiki]]",
"button-classes": "tc-text-editor-toolbar-item-start-group",
"shortcuts": "((mono-block))",
"text": "<$action-sendmessage\n\t$message=\"tm-edit-text-operation\"\n\t$param=\"wrap-lines\"\n\tprefix=\"\n```\"\n\tsuffix=\"```\"\n/>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/mono-line": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/mono-line",
"tags": "$:/tags/EditorToolbar",
"icon": "$:/core/images/mono-line",
"caption": "{{$:/language/Buttons/MonoLine/Caption}}",
"description": "{{$:/language/Buttons/MonoLine/Hint}}",
"condition": "[<targetTiddler>!has[type]] [<targetTiddler>type[text/vnd.tiddlywiki]]",
"shortcuts": "((mono-line))",
"text": "<$action-sendmessage\n\t$message=\"tm-edit-text-operation\"\n\t$param=\"wrap-selection\"\n\tprefix=\"`\"\n\tsuffix=\"`\"\n/>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/more-dropdown": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/more-dropdown",
"text": "\\define config-title()\n$:/config/EditorToolbarButtons/Visibility/$(toolbarItem)$\n\\end\n\n\\define conditional-button()\n<$list filter={{$(toolbarItem)$!!condition}} variable=\"condition\">\n<$transclude tiddler=\"$:/core/ui/EditTemplate/body/toolbar/button\" mode=\"inline\"/> <$transclude tiddler=<<toolbarItem>> field=\"description\"/>\n</$list>\n\\end\n\n<div class=\"tc-text-editor-toolbar-more\">\n<$list filter=\"[all[shadows+tiddlers]tag[$:/tags/EditorToolbar]!has[draft.of]] -[[$:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/more]]\">\n<$reveal type=\"match\" state=<<config-visibility-title>> text=\"hide\" tag=\"div\">\n<<conditional-button>>\n</$reveal>\n</$list>\n</div>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/more": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/more",
"tags": "$:/tags/EditorToolbar",
"icon": "$:/core/images/down-arrow",
"caption": "{{$:/language/Buttons/More/Caption}}",
"description": "{{$:/language/Buttons/More/Hint}}",
"condition": "[<targetTiddler>]",
"dropdown": "$:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/more-dropdown",
"text": ""
},
"$:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/opacity-dropdown": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/opacity-dropdown",
"text": "\\define lingo-base() $:/language/Buttons/Opacity/\n\n\\define toolbar-opacity-inner()\n<$button tag=\"a\" tooltip=\"\"\"$(opacity)$\"\"\">\n\n<$action-setfield\n\t$tiddler=\"$:/config/BitmapEditor/Opacity\"\n\t$value=\"$(opacity)$\"\n/>\n\n<$action-deletetiddler\n\t$tiddler=<<dropdown-state>>\n/>\n\n<div style=\"display: inline-block; vertical-align: middle; background-color: $(current-paint-colour)$; opacity: $(opacity)$; width: 1em; height: 1em; border-radius: 50%;\"/>\n\n<span style=\"margin-left: 8px;\">\n\n<$text text=\"\"\"$(opacity)$\"\"\"/>\n\n<$reveal state=\"$:/config/BitmapEditor/Opacity\" type=\"match\" text=\"\"\"$(opacity)$\"\"\" tag=\"span\">\n\n<$entity entity=\" \"/>\n\n<$entity entity=\"✓\"/>\n\n</$reveal>\n\n</span>\n\n</$button>\n\\end\n\n\\define toolbar-opacity()\n''<<lingo Hint>>''\n\n<$list filter={{$:/config/BitmapEditor/Opacities}} variable=\"opacity\">\n\n<<toolbar-opacity-inner>>\n\n</$list>\n\\end\n\n<$set name=\"current-paint-colour\" value={{$:/config/BitmapEditor/Colour}}>\n\n<$set name=\"current-opacity\" value={{$:/config/BitmapEditor/Opacity}}>\n\n<<toolbar-opacity>>\n\n</$set>\n\n</$set>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/opacity": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/opacity",
"tags": "$:/tags/EditorToolbar",
"icon": "$:/core/images/opacity",
"caption": "{{$:/language/Buttons/Opacity/Caption}}",
"description": "{{$:/language/Buttons/Opacity/Hint}}",
"condition": "[<targetTiddler>is[image]]",
"dropdown": "$:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/opacity-dropdown",
"text": "<$text text={{$:/config/BitmapEditor/Opacity}}/>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/paint-dropdown": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/paint-dropdown",
"text": "''{{$:/language/Buttons/Paint/Hint}}''\n\n<$macrocall $name=\"colour-picker\" actions=\"\"\"\n\n<$action-setfield\n\t$tiddler=\"$:/config/BitmapEditor/Colour\"\n\t$value=<<colour-picker-value>>\n/>\n\n<$action-deletetiddler\n\t$tiddler=<<dropdown-state>>\n/>\n\n\"\"\"/>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/paint": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/paint",
"tags": "$:/tags/EditorToolbar",
"icon": "$:/core/images/paint",
"caption": "{{$:/language/Buttons/Paint/Caption}}",
"description": "{{$:/language/Buttons/Paint/Hint}}",
"condition": "[<targetTiddler>is[image]]",
"dropdown": "$:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/paint-dropdown",
"text": "\\define toolbar-paint()\n<div style=\"display: inline-block; vertical-align: middle; background-color: $(colour-picker-value)$; width: 1em; height: 1em; border-radius: 50%;\"/>\n\\end\n<$set name=\"colour-picker-value\" value={{$:/config/BitmapEditor/Colour}}>\n<<toolbar-paint>>\n</$set>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/picture-dropdown": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/picture-dropdown",
"text": "\\define replacement-text()\n[img[$(imageTitle)$]]\n\\end\n\n''{{$:/language/Buttons/Picture/Hint}}''\n\n<$macrocall $name=\"image-picker\" actions=\"\"\"\n\n<$action-sendmessage\n\t$message=\"tm-edit-text-operation\"\n\t$param=\"replace-selection\"\n\ttext=<<replacement-text>>\n/>\n\n<$action-deletetiddler\n\t$tiddler=<<dropdown-state>>\n/>\n\n\"\"\"/>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/picture": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/picture",
"tags": "$:/tags/EditorToolbar",
"icon": "$:/core/images/picture",
"caption": "{{$:/language/Buttons/Picture/Caption}}",
"description": "{{$:/language/Buttons/Picture/Hint}}",
"condition": "[<targetTiddler>!has[type]] [<targetTiddler>type[text/vnd.tiddlywiki]]",
"shortcuts": "((picture))",
"dropdown": "$:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/picture-dropdown",
"text": ""
},
"$:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/preview-type-dropdown": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/preview-type-dropdown",
"text": "\\define preview-type-button()\n<$button tag=\"a\">\n\n<$action-setfield $tiddler=\"$:/state/editpreviewtype\" $value=\"$(previewType)$\"/>\n\n<$action-deletetiddler\n\t$tiddler=<<dropdown-state>>\n/>\n\n<$transclude tiddler=<<previewType>> field=\"caption\" mode=\"inline\">\n\n<$view tiddler=<<previewType>> field=\"title\" mode=\"inline\"/>\n\n</$transclude> \n\n<$reveal tag=\"span\" state=\"$:/state/editpreviewtype\" type=\"match\" text=<<previewType>> default=\"$:/core/ui/EditTemplate/body/preview/output\">\n\n<$entity entity=\" \"/>\n\n<$entity entity=\"✓\"/>\n\n</$reveal>\n\n</$button>\n\\end\n\n<$list filter=\"[all[shadows+tiddlers]tag[$:/tags/EditPreview]!has[draft.of]]\" variable=\"previewType\">\n\n<<preview-type-button>>\n\n</$list>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/preview-type": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/preview-type",
"tags": "$:/tags/EditorToolbar",
"icon": "$:/core/images/chevron-down",
"caption": "{{$:/language/Buttons/PreviewType/Caption}}",
"description": "{{$:/language/Buttons/PreviewType/Hint}}",
"condition": "[all[shadows+tiddlers]tag[$:/tags/EditPreview]!has[draft.of]butfirst[]limit[1]]",
"button-classes": "tc-text-editor-toolbar-item-adjunct",
"dropdown": "$:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/preview-type-dropdown"
},
"$:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/preview": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/preview",
"tags": "$:/tags/EditorToolbar",
"icon": "$:/core/images/preview-open",
"custom-icon": "yes",
"caption": "{{$:/language/Buttons/Preview/Caption}}",
"description": "{{$:/language/Buttons/Preview/Hint}}",
"condition": "[<targetTiddler>]",
"button-classes": "tc-text-editor-toolbar-item-start-group",
"shortcuts": "((preview))",
"text": "<$reveal state=\"$:/state/showeditpreview\" type=\"match\" text=\"yes\" tag=\"span\">\n{{$:/core/images/preview-open}}\n<$action-setfield $tiddler=\"$:/state/showeditpreview\" $value=\"no\"/>\n</$reveal>\n<$reveal state=\"$:/state/showeditpreview\" type=\"nomatch\" text=\"yes\" tag=\"span\">\n{{$:/core/images/preview-closed}}\n<$action-setfield $tiddler=\"$:/state/showeditpreview\" $value=\"yes\"/>\n</$reveal>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/quote": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/quote",
"tags": "$:/tags/EditorToolbar",
"icon": "$:/core/images/quote",
"caption": "{{$:/language/Buttons/Quote/Caption}}",
"description": "{{$:/language/Buttons/Quote/Hint}}",
"condition": "[<targetTiddler>!has[type]] [<targetTiddler>type[text/vnd.tiddlywiki]]",
"shortcuts": "((quote))",
"text": "<$action-sendmessage\n\t$message=\"tm-edit-text-operation\"\n\t$param=\"wrap-lines\"\n\tprefix=\"\n<<<\"\n\tsuffix=\"<<<\"\n/>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/rotate-left": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/rotate-left",
"tags": "$:/tags/EditorToolbar",
"icon": "$:/core/images/rotate-left",
"caption": "{{$:/language/Buttons/RotateLeft/Caption}}",
"description": "{{$:/language/Buttons/RotateLeft/Hint}}",
"condition": "[<targetTiddler>is[image]]",
"text": "<$action-sendmessage\n\t$message=\"tm-edit-bitmap-operation\"\n\t$param=\"rotate-left\"\n/>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/size-dropdown": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/size-dropdown",
"text": "\\define lingo-base() $:/language/Buttons/Size/\n\n\\define toolbar-button-size-preset(config-title)\n<$set name=\"width\" filter=\"$(sizePair)$ +[first[]]\">\n\n<$set name=\"height\" filter=\"$(sizePair)$ +[last[]]\">\n\n<$button tag=\"a\">\n\n<$action-setfield\n\t$tiddler=\"\"\"$config-title$/new-width\"\"\"\n\t$value=<<width>>\n/>\n\n<$action-setfield\n\t$tiddler=\"\"\"$config-title$/new-height\"\"\"\n\t$value=<<height>>\n/>\n\n<$action-deletetiddler\n\t$tiddler=\"\"\"$config-title$/presets-popup\"\"\"\n/>\n\n<$text text=<<width>>/> × <$text text=<<height>>/>\n\n</$button>\n\n</$set>\n\n</$set>\n\\end\n\n\\define toolbar-button-size(config-title)\n''{{$:/language/Buttons/Size/Hint}}''\n\n<<lingo Caption/Width>> <$edit-text tag=\"input\" tiddler=\"\"\"$config-title$/new-width\"\"\" default=<<tv-bitmap-editor-width>> focus=\"true\" size=\"8\"/> <<lingo Caption/Height>> <$edit-text tag=\"input\" tiddler=\"\"\"$config-title$/new-height\"\"\" default=<<tv-bitmap-editor-height>> size=\"8\"/> <$button popup=\"\"\"$config-title$/presets-popup\"\"\" class=\"tc-btn-invisible tc-popup-keep\" style=\"width: auto; display: inline-block; background-colour: inherit;\" selectedClass=\"tc-selected\">\n{{$:/core/images/down-arrow}}\n</$button>\n\n<$reveal tag=\"span\" state=\"\"\"$config-title$/presets-popup\"\"\" type=\"popup\" position=\"belowleft\" animate=\"yes\">\n\n<div class=\"tc-drop-down tc-popup-keep\">\n\n<$list filter={{$:/config/BitmapEditor/ImageSizes}} variable=\"sizePair\">\n\n<$macrocall $name=\"toolbar-button-size-preset\" config-title=\"$config-title$\"/>\n\n</$list>\n\n</div>\n\n</$reveal>\n\n<$button>\n<$action-sendmessage\n\t$message=\"tm-edit-bitmap-operation\"\n\t$param=\"resize\"\n\twidth={{$config-title$/new-width}}\n\theight={{$config-title$/new-height}}\n/>\n<$action-deletetiddler\n\t$tiddler=\"\"\"$config-title$/new-width\"\"\"\n/>\n<$action-deletetiddler\n\t$tiddler=\"\"\"$config-title$/new-height\"\"\"\n/>\n<$action-deletetiddler\n\t$tiddler=<<dropdown-state>>\n/>\n<<lingo Caption/Resize>>\n</$button>\n\\end\n\n<$macrocall $name=\"toolbar-button-size\" config-title=<<qualify \"$:/state/Size/\">>/>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/size": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/size",
"tags": "$:/tags/EditorToolbar",
"icon": "$:/core/images/size",
"caption": "{{$:/language/Buttons/Size/Caption}}",
"description": "{{$:/language/Buttons/Size/Hint}}",
"condition": "[<targetTiddler>is[image]]",
"dropdown": "$:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/size-dropdown",
"text": ""
},
"$:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/stamp-dropdown": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/stamp-dropdown",
"text": "\\define toolbar-button-stamp-inner()\n<$button tag=\"a\">\n\n<$action-sendmessage\n\t$message=\"tm-edit-text-operation\"\n\t$param=\"replace-selection\"\n\ttext={{$(snippetTitle)$}}\n/>\n\n<$action-deletetiddler\n\t$tiddler=<<dropdown-state>>\n/>\n\n<$view tiddler=<<snippetTitle>> field=\"caption\" mode=\"inline\">\n\n<$view tiddler=<<snippetTitle>> field=\"title\" mode=\"inline\"/>\n\n</$view>\n\n</$button>\n\\end\n\n<$list filter=\"[all[shadows+tiddlers]tag[$:/tags/TextEditor/Snippet]!has[draft.of]sort[caption]]\" variable=\"snippetTitle\">\n\n<<toolbar-button-stamp-inner>>\n\n</$list>\n\n----\n\n<$button tag=\"a\">\n\n<$action-sendmessage\n\t$message=\"tm-new-tiddler\"\n\ttags=\"$:/tags/TextEditor/Snippet\"\n\tcaption={{$:/language/Buttons/Stamp/New/Title}}\n\ttext={{$:/language/Buttons/Stamp/New/Text}}\n/>\n\n<$action-deletetiddler\n\t$tiddler=<<dropdown-state>>\n/>\n\n<em>\n\n<$text text={{$:/language/Buttons/Stamp/Caption/New}}/>\n\n</em>\n\n</$button>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/stamp": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/stamp",
"tags": "$:/tags/EditorToolbar",
"icon": "$:/core/images/stamp",
"caption": "{{$:/language/Buttons/Stamp/Caption}}",
"description": "{{$:/language/Buttons/Stamp/Hint}}",
"condition": "[<targetTiddler>type[]] [<targetTiddler>get[type]prefix[text/]] +[first[]]",
"shortcuts": "((stamp))",
"dropdown": "$:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/stamp-dropdown",
"text": ""
},
"$:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/strikethrough": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/strikethrough",
"tags": "$:/tags/EditorToolbar",
"icon": "$:/core/images/strikethrough",
"caption": "{{$:/language/Buttons/Strikethrough/Caption}}",
"description": "{{$:/language/Buttons/Strikethrough/Hint}}",
"condition": "[<targetTiddler>!has[type]] [<targetTiddler>type[text/vnd.tiddlywiki]]",
"shortcuts": "((strikethrough))",
"text": "<$action-sendmessage\n\t$message=\"tm-edit-text-operation\"\n\t$param=\"wrap-selection\"\n\tprefix=\"~~\"\n\tsuffix=\"~~\"\n/>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/subscript": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/subscript",
"tags": "$:/tags/EditorToolbar",
"icon": "$:/core/images/subscript",
"caption": "{{$:/language/Buttons/Subscript/Caption}}",
"description": "{{$:/language/Buttons/Subscript/Hint}}",
"condition": "[<targetTiddler>!has[type]] [<targetTiddler>type[text/vnd.tiddlywiki]]",
"shortcuts": "((subscript))",
"text": "<$action-sendmessage\n\t$message=\"tm-edit-text-operation\"\n\t$param=\"wrap-selection\"\n\tprefix=\",,\"\n\tsuffix=\",,\"\n/>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/superscript": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/superscript",
"tags": "$:/tags/EditorToolbar",
"icon": "$:/core/images/superscript",
"caption": "{{$:/language/Buttons/Superscript/Caption}}",
"description": "{{$:/language/Buttons/Superscript/Hint}}",
"condition": "[<targetTiddler>!has[type]] [<targetTiddler>type[text/vnd.tiddlywiki]]",
"shortcuts": "((superscript))",
"text": "<$action-sendmessage\n\t$message=\"tm-edit-text-operation\"\n\t$param=\"wrap-selection\"\n\tprefix=\"^^\"\n\tsuffix=\"^^\"\n/>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/transcludify": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/transcludify",
"caption": "{{$:/language/Buttons/Transcludify/Caption}}",
"condition": "[<targetTiddler>!has[type]] [<targetTiddler>type[text/vnd.tiddlywiki]]",
"description": "{{$:/language/Buttons/Transcludify/Hint}}",
"icon": "$:/core/images/transcludify",
"list-before": "$:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/mono-block",
"shortcuts": "((transcludify))",
"tags": "$:/tags/EditorToolbar",
"text": "<$action-sendmessage\n\t$message=\"tm-edit-text-operation\"\n\t$param=\"wrap-selection\"\n\tprefix=\"{{\"\n\tsuffix=\"}}\"\n/>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/underline": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/underline",
"tags": "$:/tags/EditorToolbar",
"icon": "$:/core/images/underline",
"caption": "{{$:/language/Buttons/Underline/Caption}}",
"description": "{{$:/language/Buttons/Underline/Hint}}",
"condition": "[<targetTiddler>!has[type]] [<targetTiddler>type[text/vnd.tiddlywiki]]",
"shortcuts": "((underline))",
"text": "<$action-sendmessage\n\t$message=\"tm-edit-text-operation\"\n\t$param=\"wrap-selection\"\n\tprefix=\"__\"\n\tsuffix=\"__\"\n/>\n"
},
"$:/core/Filters/AllTags": {
"title": "$:/core/Filters/AllTags",
"tags": "$:/tags/Filter",
"filter": "[tags[]!is[system]sort[title]]",
"description": "{{$:/language/Filters/AllTags}}",
"text": ""
},
"$:/core/Filters/AllTiddlers": {
"title": "$:/core/Filters/AllTiddlers",
"tags": "$:/tags/Filter",
"filter": "[!is[system]sort[title]]",
"description": "{{$:/language/Filters/AllTiddlers}}",
"text": ""
},
"$:/core/Filters/Drafts": {
"title": "$:/core/Filters/Drafts",
"tags": "$:/tags/Filter",
"filter": "[has[draft.of]sort[title]]",
"description": "{{$:/language/Filters/Drafts}}",
"text": ""
},
"$:/core/Filters/Missing": {
"title": "$:/core/Filters/Missing",
"tags": "$:/tags/Filter",
"filter": "[all[missing]sort[title]]",
"description": "{{$:/language/Filters/Missing}}",
"text": ""
},
"$:/core/Filters/Orphans": {
"title": "$:/core/Filters/Orphans",
"tags": "$:/tags/Filter",
"filter": "[all[orphans]sort[title]]",
"description": "{{$:/language/Filters/Orphans}}",
"text": ""
},
"$:/core/Filters/OverriddenShadowTiddlers": {
"title": "$:/core/Filters/OverriddenShadowTiddlers",
"tags": "$:/tags/Filter",
"filter": "[is[shadow]]",
"description": "{{$:/language/Filters/OverriddenShadowTiddlers}}",
"text": ""
},
"$:/core/Filters/RecentSystemTiddlers": {
"title": "$:/core/Filters/RecentSystemTiddlers",
"tags": "$:/tags/Filter",
"filter": "[has[modified]!sort[modified]limit[50]]",
"description": "{{$:/language/Filters/RecentSystemTiddlers}}",
"text": ""
},
"$:/core/Filters/RecentTiddlers": {
"title": "$:/core/Filters/RecentTiddlers",
"tags": "$:/tags/Filter",
"filter": "[!is[system]has[modified]!sort[modified]limit[50]]",
"description": "{{$:/language/Filters/RecentTiddlers}}",
"text": ""
},
"$:/core/Filters/ShadowTiddlers": {
"title": "$:/core/Filters/ShadowTiddlers",
"tags": "$:/tags/Filter",
"filter": "[all[shadows]sort[title]]",
"description": "{{$:/language/Filters/ShadowTiddlers}}",
"text": ""
},
"$:/core/Filters/StoryList": {
"title": "$:/core/Filters/StoryList",
"tags": "$:/tags/Filter",
"filter": "[list[$:/StoryList]] -$:/AdvancedSearch",
"description": "{{$:/language/Filters/StoryList}}",
"text": ""
},
"$:/core/Filters/SystemTags": {
"title": "$:/core/Filters/SystemTags",
"tags": "$:/tags/Filter",
"filter": "[all[shadows+tiddlers]tags[]is[system]sort[title]]",
"description": "{{$:/language/Filters/SystemTags}}",
"text": ""
},
"$:/core/Filters/SystemTiddlers": {
"title": "$:/core/Filters/SystemTiddlers",
"tags": "$:/tags/Filter",
"filter": "[is[system]sort[title]]",
"description": "{{$:/language/Filters/SystemTiddlers}}",
"text": ""
},
"$:/core/Filters/TypedTiddlers": {
"title": "$:/core/Filters/TypedTiddlers",
"tags": "$:/tags/Filter",
"filter": "[!is[system]has[type]each[type]sort[type]] -[type[text/vnd.tiddlywiki]]",
"description": "{{$:/language/Filters/TypedTiddlers}}",
"text": ""
},
"$:/core/ui/ImportListing": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/ImportListing",
"text": "\\define lingo-base() $:/language/Import/\n\n\\define messageField()\nmessage-$(payloadTiddler)$\n\\end\n\n\\define selectionField()\nselection-$(payloadTiddler)$\n\\end\n\n\\define previewPopupState()\n$(currentTiddler)$!!popup-$(payloadTiddler)$\n\\end\n\n\\define select-all-actions()\n<$list filter=\"[all[current]plugintiddlers[]sort[title]]\" variable=\"payloadTiddler\">\n<$action-setfield $field={{{ [<payloadTiddler>addprefix[selection-]] }}} $value={{$:/state/import/select-all}}/>\n</$list>\n\\end\n\n<table>\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<th>\n<$checkbox tiddler=\"$:/state/import/select-all\" field=\"text\" checked=\"checked\" unchecked=\"unchecked\" default=\"checked\" actions=<<select-all-actions>>>\n<<lingo Listing/Select/Caption>>\n</$checkbox>\n</th>\n<th>\n<<lingo Listing/Title/Caption>>\n</th>\n<th>\n<<lingo Listing/Status/Caption>>\n</th>\n</tr>\n<$list filter=\"[all[current]plugintiddlers[]sort[title]]\" variable=\"payloadTiddler\">\n<tr>\n<td>\n<$checkbox field=<<selectionField>> checked=\"checked\" unchecked=\"unchecked\" default=\"checked\"/>\n</td>\n<td>\n<$reveal type=\"nomatch\" stateTitle=<<previewPopupState>> text=\"yes\" tag=\"div\">\n<$button class=\"tc-btn-invisible tc-btn-dropdown\" setTitle=<<previewPopupState>> setTo=\"yes\">\n{{$:/core/images/right-arrow}} <$text text=<<payloadTiddler>>/>\n</$button>\n</$reveal>\n<$reveal type=\"match\" stateTitle=<<previewPopupState>> text=\"yes\" tag=\"div\">\n<$button class=\"tc-btn-invisible tc-btn-dropdown\" setTitle=<<previewPopupState>> setTo=\"no\">\n{{$:/core/images/down-arrow}} <$text text=<<payloadTiddler>>/>\n</$button>\n</$reveal>\n</td>\n<td>\n<$view field=<<messageField>>/>\n</td>\n</tr>\n<tr>\n<td colspan=\"3\">\n<$reveal type=\"match\" text=\"yes\" stateTitle=<<previewPopupState>> tag=\"div\">\n<$list filter=\"[{$:/state/importpreviewtype}has[text]]\" variable=\"listItem\" emptyMessage={{$:/core/ui/ImportPreviews/Text}}>\n<$transclude tiddler={{$:/state/importpreviewtype}}/>\n</$list>\n</$reveal>\n</td>\n</tr>\n</$list>\n</tbody>\n</table>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/ImportPreviews/Diff": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/ImportPreviews/Diff",
"tags": "$:/tags/ImportPreview",
"caption": "{{$:/language/Import/Listing/Preview/Diff}}",
"text": "<$macrocall $name=\"compareTiddlerText\" sourceTiddlerTitle=<<payloadTiddler>> destTiddlerTitle=<<currentTiddler>> destSubTiddlerTitle=<<payloadTiddler>>/>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/ImportPreviews/DiffFields": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/ImportPreviews/DiffFields",
"tags": "$:/tags/ImportPreview",
"caption": "{{$:/language/Import/Listing/Preview/DiffFields}}",
"text": "<$macrocall $name=\"compareTiddlers\" sourceTiddlerTitle=<<payloadTiddler>> destTiddlerTitle=<<currentTiddler>> destSubTiddlerTitle=<<payloadTiddler>> exclude=\"text\"/>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/ImportPreviews/Fields": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/ImportPreviews/Fields",
"tags": "$:/tags/ImportPreview",
"caption": "{{$:/language/Import/Listing/Preview/Fields}}",
"text": "<table class=\"tc-view-field-table\">\n<tbody>\n<$list filter=\"[<payloadTiddler>subtiddlerfields<currentTiddler>sort[]] -text\" variable=\"fieldName\">\n<tr class=\"tc-view-field\">\n<td class=\"tc-view-field-name\">\n<$text text=<<fieldName>>/>\n</td>\n<td class=\"tc-view-field-value\">\n<$view field=<<fieldName>> tiddler=<<currentTiddler>> subtiddler=<<payloadTiddler>>/>\n</td>\n</tr>\n</$list>\n</tbody>\n</table>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/ImportPreviews/Text": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/ImportPreviews/Text",
"tags": "$:/tags/ImportPreview",
"caption": "{{$:/language/Import/Listing/Preview/Text}}",
"text": "<$transclude tiddler=<<currentTiddler>> subtiddler=<<payloadTiddler>> mode=\"block\"/>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/ImportPreviews/TextRaw": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/ImportPreviews/TextRaw",
"tags": "$:/tags/ImportPreview",
"caption": "{{$:/language/Import/Listing/Preview/TextRaw}}",
"text": "<pre><code><$view tiddler=<<currentTiddler>> subtiddler=<<payloadTiddler>> /></code></pre>"
},
"$:/core/ui/KeyboardShortcuts/new-image": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/KeyboardShortcuts/new-image",
"tags": "$:/tags/KeyboardShortcut",
"key": "((new-image))",
"text": "<$navigator story=\"$:/StoryList\" history=\"$:/HistoryList\" openLinkFromInsideRiver={{$:/config/Navigation/openLinkFromInsideRiver}} openLinkFromOutsideRiver={{$:/config/Navigation/openLinkFromOutsideRiver}} relinkOnRename={{$:/config/RelinkOnRename}}>\n{{$:/core/ui/Actions/new-image}}\n</$navigator>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/KeyboardShortcuts/new-journal": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/KeyboardShortcuts/new-journal",
"tags": "$:/tags/KeyboardShortcut",
"key": "((new-journal))",
"text": "<$navigator story=\"$:/StoryList\" history=\"$:/HistoryList\" openLinkFromInsideRiver={{$:/config/Navigation/openLinkFromInsideRiver}} openLinkFromOutsideRiver={{$:/config/Navigation/openLinkFromOutsideRiver}} relinkOnRename={{$:/config/RelinkOnRename}}>\n{{$:/core/ui/Actions/new-journal}}\n</$navigator>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/KeyboardShortcuts/new-tiddler": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/KeyboardShortcuts/new-tiddler",
"tags": "$:/tags/KeyboardShortcut",
"key": "((new-tiddler))",
"text": "<$navigator story=\"$:/StoryList\" history=\"$:/HistoryList\" openLinkFromInsideRiver={{$:/config/Navigation/openLinkFromInsideRiver}} openLinkFromOutsideRiver={{$:/config/Navigation/openLinkFromOutsideRiver}} relinkOnRename={{$:/config/RelinkOnRename}}>\n{{$:/core/ui/Actions/new-tiddler}}\n</$navigator>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/ListItemTemplate": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/ListItemTemplate",
"text": "<div class=\"tc-menu-list-item\">\n<$link to={{!!title}}>\n<$view field=\"title\"/>\n</$link>\n</div>"
},
"$:/Manager/ItemMain/Fields": {
"title": "$:/Manager/ItemMain/Fields",
"tags": "$:/tags/Manager/ItemMain",
"caption": "{{$:/language/Manager/Item/Fields}}",
"text": "<table>\n<tbody>\n<$list filter=\"[all[current]fields[]sort[title]] -text\" template=\"$:/core/ui/TiddlerFieldTemplate\" variable=\"listItem\"/>\n</tbody>\n</table>\n"
},
"$:/Manager/ItemMain/RawText": {
"title": "$:/Manager/ItemMain/RawText",
"tags": "$:/tags/Manager/ItemMain",
"caption": "{{$:/language/Manager/Item/RawText}}",
"text": "<pre><code><$view/></code></pre>\n"
},
"$:/Manager/ItemMain/WikifiedText": {
"title": "$:/Manager/ItemMain/WikifiedText",
"tags": "$:/tags/Manager/ItemMain",
"caption": "{{$:/language/Manager/Item/WikifiedText}}",
"text": "<$transclude mode=\"block\"/>\n"
},
"$:/Manager/ItemSidebar/Colour": {
"title": "$:/Manager/ItemSidebar/Colour",
"tags": "$:/tags/Manager/ItemSidebar",
"caption": "{{$:/language/Manager/Item/Colour}}",
"text": "\\define swatch-styles()\nheight: 1em;\nbackground-color: $(colour)$\n\\end\n\n<$vars colour={{!!color}}>\n<p style=<<swatch-styles>>/>\n</$vars>\n<p>\n<$edit-text field=\"color\" tag=\"input\" type=\"color\"/> / <$edit-text field=\"color\" tag=\"input\" type=\"text\" size=\"9\"/>\n</p>\n"
},
"$:/Manager/ItemSidebar/Icon": {
"title": "$:/Manager/ItemSidebar/Icon",
"tags": "$:/tags/Manager/ItemSidebar",
"caption": "{{$:/language/Manager/Item/Icon}}",
"text": "<p>\n<div class=\"tc-manager-icon-editor\">\n<$button popup=<<qualify \"$:/state/popup/image-picker\">> class=\"tc-btn-invisible\">\n<$transclude tiddler={{!!icon}}>\n{{$:/language/Manager/Item/Icon/None}}\n</$transclude>\n</$button>\n<div class=\"tc-block-dropdown-wrapper\" style=\"position: static;\">\n<$reveal state=<<qualify \"$:/state/popup/image-picker\">> type=\"nomatch\" text=\"\" default=\"\" tag=\"div\" class=\"tc-popup\">\n<div class=\"tc-block-dropdown tc-popup-keep\" style=\"width: 80%; left: 10%; right: 10%; padding: 0.5em;\">\n<$macrocall $name=\"image-picker-include-tagged-images\" actions=\"\"\"\n<$action-setfield $field=\"icon\" $value=<<imageTitle>>/>\n<$action-deletetiddler $tiddler=<<qualify \"$:/state/popup/image-picker\">>/>\n\"\"\"/>\n</div>\n</$reveal>\n</div>\n</div>\n</p>\n"
},
"$:/Manager/ItemSidebar/Tags": {
"title": "$:/Manager/ItemSidebar/Tags",
"tags": "$:/tags/Manager/ItemSidebar",
"caption": "{{$:/language/Manager/Item/Tags}}",
"text": "\\define tag-checkbox-actions()\n<$action-listops\n\t$tiddler=\"$:/config/Manager/RecentTags\"\n\t$subfilter=\"[<tag>] [list[$:/config/Manager/RecentTags]] +[limit[12]]\"\n/>\n\\end\n\n\\define tag-picker-actions()\n<<tag-checkbox-actions>>\n<$action-listops\n\t$tiddler=<<currentTiddler>>\n\t$field=\"tags\"\n\t$subfilter=\"[<tag>] [all[current]tags[]]\"\n/>\n\\end\n\n<p>\n<$list filter=\"[all[current]tags[]] [list[$:/config/Manager/RecentTags]] +[sort[title]] \" variable=\"tag\">\n<div>\n<$checkbox tiddler=<<currentTiddler>> tag=<<tag>> actions=<<tag-checkbox-actions>>>\n<$macrocall $name=\"tag-pill\" tag=<<tag>>/>\n</$checkbox>\n</div>\n</$list>\n</p>\n<p>\n<$macrocall $name=\"tag-picker\" actions=<<tag-picker-actions>>/>\n</p>\n"
},
"$:/Manager/ItemSidebar/Tools": {
"title": "$:/Manager/ItemSidebar/Tools",
"tags": "$:/tags/Manager/ItemSidebar",
"caption": "{{$:/language/Manager/Item/Tools}}",
"text": "<p>\n<$button to=<<currentTiddler>>>{{$:/core/images/link}} open</$button>\n</p>\n<p>\n<$button message=\"tm-edit-tiddler\" param=<<currentTiddler>>>{{$:/core/images/edit-button}} edit</$button>\n</p>\n"
},
"$:/Manager": {
"title": "$:/Manager",
"icon": "$:/core/images/list",
"color": "#bbb",
"text": "\\define lingo-base() $:/language/Manager/\n\n\\define list-item-content-item()\n<div class=\"tc-manager-list-item-content-item\">\n\t<$vars state-title=\"\"\"$:/state/popup/manager/item/$(listItem)$\"\"\">\n\t\t<$reveal state=<<state-title>> type=\"match\" text=\"show\" default=\"show\" tag=\"div\">\n\t\t\t<$button set=<<state-title>> setTo=\"hide\" class=\"tc-btn-invisible tc-manager-list-item-content-item-heading\">\n\t\t\t\t{{$:/core/images/down-arrow}} <$transclude tiddler=<<listItem>> field=\"caption\"/>\n\t\t\t</$button>\n\t\t</$reveal>\n\t\t<$reveal state=<<state-title>> type=\"nomatch\" text=\"show\" default=\"show\" tag=\"div\">\n\t\t\t<$button set=<<state-title>> setTo=\"show\" class=\"tc-btn-invisible tc-manager-list-item-content-item-heading\">\n\t\t\t\t{{$:/core/images/right-arrow}} <$transclude tiddler=<<listItem>> field=\"caption\"/>\n\t\t\t</$button>\n\t\t</$reveal>\n\t\t<$reveal state=<<state-title>> type=\"match\" text=\"show\" default=\"show\" tag=\"div\" class=\"tc-manager-list-item-content-item-body\">\n\t\t\t<$transclude tiddler=<<listItem>>/>\n\t\t</$reveal>\n\t</$vars>\n</div>\n\\end\n\n<div class=\"tc-manager-wrapper\">\n\t<div class=\"tc-manager-controls\">\n\t\t<div class=\"tc-manager-control\">\n\t\t\t<<lingo Controls/Show/Prompt>> <$select tiddler=\"$:/config/Manager/Show\" default=\"tiddlers\">\n\t\t\t\t<option value=\"tiddlers\"><<lingo Controls/Show/Option/Tiddlers>></option>\n\t\t\t\t<option value=\"tags\"><<lingo Controls/Show/Option/Tags>></option>\n\t\t\t</$select>\n\t\t</div>\n\t\t<div class=\"tc-manager-control\">\n\t\t\t<<lingo Controls/Search/Prompt>> <$edit-text tiddler=\"$:/config/Manager/Filter\" tag=\"input\" default=\"\" placeholder={{$:/language/Manager/Controls/Search/Placeholder}}/>\n\t\t</div>\n\t\t<div class=\"tc-manager-control\">\n\t\t\t<<lingo Controls/FilterByTag/Prompt>> <$select tiddler=\"$:/config/Manager/Tag\" default=\"\">\n\t\t\t\t<option value=\"\"><<lingo Controls/FilterByTag/None>></option>\n\t\t\t\t<$list filter=\"[!is{$:/config/Manager/System}tags[]!is[system]sort[title]]\" variable=\"tag\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<option value=<<tag>>><$text text=<<tag>>/></option>\n\t\t\t\t</$list>\n\t\t\t</$select>\n\t\t</div>\n\t\t<div class=\"tc-manager-control\">\n\t\t\t<<lingo Controls/Sort/Prompt>> <$select tiddler=\"$:/config/Manager/Sort\" default=\"title\">\n\t\t\t\t<optgroup label=\"Common\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<$list filter=\"title modified modifier created creator created\" variable=\"field\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<option value=<<field>>><$text text=<<field>>/></option>\n\t\t\t\t\t</$list>\n\t\t\t\t</optgroup>\n\t\t\t\t<optgroup label=\"All\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<$list filter=\"[all{$:/config/Manager/Show}!is{$:/config/Manager/System}fields[]sort[title]] -title -modified -modifier -created -creator -created\" variable=\"field\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<option value=<<field>>><$text text=<<field>>/></option>\n\t\t\t\t\t</$list>\n\t\t\t\t</optgroup>\n\t\t\t</$select>\n\t\t\t<$checkbox tiddler=\"$:/config/Manager/Order\" field=\"text\" checked=\"reverse\" unchecked=\"forward\" default=\"forward\">\n\t\t\t\t<<lingo Controls/Order/Prompt>>\n\t\t\t</$checkbox>\n\t\t</div>\n\t\t<div class=\"tc-manager-control\">\n\t\t\t<$checkbox tiddler=\"$:/config/Manager/System\" field=\"text\" checked=\"\" unchecked=\"system\" default=\"system\">\n\t\t\t\t{{$:/language/SystemTiddlers/Include/Prompt}}\n\t\t\t</$checkbox>\n\t\t</div>\n\t</div>\n\t<div class=\"tc-manager-list\">\n\t\t<$list filter=\"[all{$:/config/Manager/Show}!is{$:/config/Manager/System}search{$:/config/Manager/Filter}tag:strict{$:/config/Manager/Tag}sort{$:/config/Manager/Sort}order{$:/config/Manager/Order}]\">\n\t\t\t<$vars transclusion=<<currentTiddler>>>\n\t\t\t\t<div style=\"tc-manager-list-item\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<$button popup=<<qualify \"$:/state/manager/popup\">> class=\"tc-btn-invisible tc-manager-list-item-heading\" selectedClass=\"tc-manager-list-item-heading-selected\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<$text text=<<currentTiddler>>/>\n\t\t\t\t\t</$button>\n\t\t\t\t\t<$reveal state=<<qualify \"$:/state/manager/popup\">> type=\"nomatch\" text=\"\" default=\"\" tag=\"div\" class=\"tc-manager-list-item-content tc-popup-handle\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"tc-manager-list-item-content-tiddler\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<$list filter=\"[all[shadows+tiddlers]tag[$:/tags/Manager/ItemMain]!has[draft.of]]\" variable=\"listItem\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<<list-item-content-item>>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t</$list>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t</div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"tc-manager-list-item-content-sidebar\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<$list filter=\"[all[shadows+tiddlers]tag[$:/tags/Manager/ItemSidebar]!has[draft.of]]\" variable=\"listItem\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<<list-item-content-item>>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t</$list>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t</div>\n\t\t\t\t\t</$reveal>\n\t\t\t\t</div>\n\t\t\t</$vars>\n\t\t</$list>\n\t</div>\n</div>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/MissingTemplate": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/MissingTemplate",
"text": "<div class=\"tc-tiddler-missing\">\n<$button popup=<<qualify \"$:/state/popup/missing\">> class=\"tc-btn-invisible tc-missing-tiddler-label\">\n<$view field=\"title\" format=\"text\" />\n</$button>\n<$reveal state=<<qualify \"$:/state/popup/missing\">> type=\"popup\" position=\"below\" animate=\"yes\">\n<div class=\"tc-drop-down\">\n<$transclude tiddler=\"$:/core/ui/ListItemTemplate\"/>\n<hr>\n<$list filter=\"[all[current]backlinks[]sort[title]]\" template=\"$:/core/ui/ListItemTemplate\"/>\n</div>\n</$reveal>\n</div>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/MoreSideBar/All": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/MoreSideBar/All",
"tags": "$:/tags/MoreSideBar",
"caption": "{{$:/language/SideBar/All/Caption}}",
"text": "<$list filter={{$:/core/Filters/AllTiddlers!!filter}} template=\"$:/core/ui/ListItemTemplate\"/>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/MoreSideBar/Drafts": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/MoreSideBar/Drafts",
"tags": "$:/tags/MoreSideBar",
"caption": "{{$:/language/SideBar/Drafts/Caption}}",
"text": "<$list filter={{$:/core/Filters/Drafts!!filter}} template=\"$:/core/ui/ListItemTemplate\"/>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/MoreSideBar/Explorer": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/MoreSideBar/Explorer",
"tags": "$:/tags/MoreSideBar",
"caption": "{{$:/language/SideBar/Explorer/Caption}}",
"text": "<<tree \"$:/\">>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/MoreSideBar/Missing": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/MoreSideBar/Missing",
"tags": "$:/tags/MoreSideBar",
"caption": "{{$:/language/SideBar/Missing/Caption}}",
"text": "<$list filter={{$:/core/Filters/Missing!!filter}} template=\"$:/core/ui/MissingTemplate\"/>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/MoreSideBar/Orphans": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/MoreSideBar/Orphans",
"tags": "$:/tags/MoreSideBar",
"caption": "{{$:/language/SideBar/Orphans/Caption}}",
"text": "<$list filter={{$:/core/Filters/Orphans!!filter}} template=\"$:/core/ui/ListItemTemplate\"/>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/MoreSideBar/Plugins": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/MoreSideBar/Plugins",
"tags": "$:/tags/MoreSideBar",
"caption": "{{$:/language/ControlPanel/Plugins/Caption}}",
"text": "\n{{$:/language/ControlPanel/Plugins/Installed/Hint}}\n\n<<tabs \"[all[shadows+tiddlers]tag[$:/tags/MoreSideBar/Plugins]!has[draft.of]]\" \"$:/core/ui/MoreSideBar/Plugins/Plugins\">>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/MoreSideBar/Recent": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/MoreSideBar/Recent",
"tags": "$:/tags/MoreSideBar",
"caption": "{{$:/language/SideBar/Recent/Caption}}",
"text": "<$macrocall $name=\"timeline\" format={{$:/language/RecentChanges/DateFormat}}/>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/MoreSideBar/Shadows": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/MoreSideBar/Shadows",
"tags": "$:/tags/MoreSideBar",
"caption": "{{$:/language/SideBar/Shadows/Caption}}",
"text": "<$list filter={{$:/core/Filters/ShadowTiddlers!!filter}} template=\"$:/core/ui/ListItemTemplate\"/>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/MoreSideBar/System": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/MoreSideBar/System",
"tags": "$:/tags/MoreSideBar",
"caption": "{{$:/language/SideBar/System/Caption}}",
"text": "<$list filter={{$:/core/Filters/SystemTiddlers!!filter}} template=\"$:/core/ui/ListItemTemplate\"/>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/MoreSideBar/Tags": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/MoreSideBar/Tags",
"tags": "$:/tags/MoreSideBar",
"caption": "{{$:/language/SideBar/Tags/Caption}}",
"text": "<$set name=\"tv-config-toolbar-icons\" value=\"yes\">\n\n<$set name=\"tv-config-toolbar-text\" value=\"yes\">\n\n<$set name=\"tv-config-toolbar-class\" value=\"\">\n\n{{$:/core/ui/Buttons/tag-manager}}\n\n</$set>\n\n</$set>\n\n</$set>\n\n<$list filter={{$:/core/Filters/AllTags!!filter}}>\n\n<$transclude tiddler=\"$:/core/ui/TagTemplate\"/>\n\n</$list>\n\n<hr class=\"tc-untagged-separator\">\n\n{{$:/core/ui/UntaggedTemplate}}\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/MoreSideBar/Types": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/MoreSideBar/Types",
"tags": "$:/tags/MoreSideBar",
"caption": "{{$:/language/SideBar/Types/Caption}}",
"text": "<$list filter={{$:/core/Filters/TypedTiddlers!!filter}}>\n<div class=\"tc-menu-list-item\">\n<$view field=\"type\"/>\n<$list filter=\"[type{!!type}!is[system]sort[title]]\">\n<div class=\"tc-menu-list-subitem\">\n<$link to={{!!title}}><$view field=\"title\"/></$link>\n</div>\n</$list>\n</div>\n</$list>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/MoreSideBar/Plugins/Languages": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/MoreSideBar/Plugins/Languages",
"tags": "$:/tags/MoreSideBar/Plugins",
"caption": "{{$:/language/ControlPanel/Plugins/Languages/Caption}}",
"text": "<$list filter=\"[!has[draft.of]plugin-type[language]sort[description]]\" template=\"$:/core/ui/PluginListItemTemplate\" emptyMessage={{$:/language/ControlPanel/Plugins/Empty/Hint}}/>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/MoreSideBar/Plugins/Plugins": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/MoreSideBar/Plugins/Plugins",
"tags": "$:/tags/MoreSideBar/Plugins",
"caption": "{{$:/language/ControlPanel/Plugins/Plugins/Caption}}",
"text": "<$list filter=\"[!has[draft.of]plugin-type[plugin]sort[description]]\" template=\"$:/core/ui/PluginListItemTemplate\" emptyMessage={{$:/language/ControlPanel/Plugins/Empty/Hint}}>>/>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/MoreSideBar/Plugins/Theme": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/MoreSideBar/Plugins/Theme",
"tags": "$:/tags/MoreSideBar/Plugins",
"caption": "{{$:/language/ControlPanel/Plugins/Themes/Caption}}",
"text": "<$list filter=\"[!has[draft.of]plugin-type[theme]sort[description]]\" template=\"$:/core/ui/PluginListItemTemplate\" emptyMessage={{$:/language/ControlPanel/Plugins/Empty/Hint}}/>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/Buttons/advanced-search": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/Buttons/advanced-search",
"tags": "$:/tags/PageControls",
"caption": "{{$:/core/images/advanced-search-button}} {{$:/language/Buttons/AdvancedSearch/Caption}}",
"description": "{{$:/language/Buttons/AdvancedSearch/Hint}}",
"text": "\\define control-panel-button(class)\n<$button to=\"$:/AdvancedSearch\" tooltip={{$:/language/Buttons/AdvancedSearch/Hint}} aria-label={{$:/language/Buttons/AdvancedSearch/Caption}} class=\"\"\"$(tv-config-toolbar-class)$ $class$\"\"\">\n<$list filter=\"[<tv-config-toolbar-icons>prefix[yes]]\">\n{{$:/core/images/advanced-search-button}}\n</$list>\n<$list filter=\"[<tv-config-toolbar-text>prefix[yes]]\">\n<span class=\"tc-btn-text\"><$text text={{$:/language/Buttons/AdvancedSearch/Caption}}/></span>\n</$list>\n</$button>\n\\end\n\n<$list filter=\"[list[$:/StoryList]] +[field:title[$:/AdvancedSearch]]\" emptyMessage=<<control-panel-button>>>\n<<control-panel-button \"tc-selected\">>\n</$list>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/Buttons/close-all": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/Buttons/close-all",
"tags": "$:/tags/PageControls",
"caption": "{{$:/core/images/close-all-button}} {{$:/language/Buttons/CloseAll/Caption}}",
"description": "{{$:/language/Buttons/CloseAll/Hint}}",
"text": "<$button message=\"tm-close-all-tiddlers\" tooltip={{$:/language/Buttons/CloseAll/Hint}} aria-label={{$:/language/Buttons/CloseAll/Caption}} class=<<tv-config-toolbar-class>>>\n<$list filter=\"[<tv-config-toolbar-icons>prefix[yes]]\">\n{{$:/core/images/close-all-button}}\n</$list>\n<$list filter=\"[<tv-config-toolbar-text>prefix[yes]]\">\n<span class=\"tc-btn-text\"><$text text={{$:/language/Buttons/CloseAll/Caption}}/></span>\n</$list>\n</$button>"
},
"$:/core/ui/Buttons/control-panel": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/Buttons/control-panel",
"tags": "$:/tags/PageControls",
"caption": "{{$:/core/images/options-button}} {{$:/language/Buttons/ControlPanel/Caption}}",
"description": "{{$:/language/Buttons/ControlPanel/Hint}}",
"text": "\\define control-panel-button(class)\n<$button to=\"$:/ControlPanel\" tooltip={{$:/language/Buttons/ControlPanel/Hint}} aria-label={{$:/language/Buttons/ControlPanel/Caption}} class=\"\"\"$(tv-config-toolbar-class)$ $class$\"\"\">\n<$list filter=\"[<tv-config-toolbar-icons>prefix[yes]]\">\n{{$:/core/images/options-button}}\n</$list>\n<$list filter=\"[<tv-config-toolbar-text>prefix[yes]]\">\n<span class=\"tc-btn-text\"><$text text={{$:/language/Buttons/ControlPanel/Caption}}/></span>\n</$list>\n</$button>\n\\end\n\n<$list filter=\"[list[$:/StoryList]] +[field:title[$:/ControlPanel]]\" emptyMessage=<<control-panel-button>>>\n<<control-panel-button \"tc-selected\">>\n</$list>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/Buttons/encryption": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/Buttons/encryption",
"tags": "$:/tags/PageControls",
"caption": "{{$:/core/images/locked-padlock}} {{$:/language/Buttons/Encryption/Caption}}",
"description": "{{$:/language/Buttons/Encryption/Hint}}",
"text": "<$reveal type=\"match\" state=\"$:/isEncrypted\" text=\"yes\">\n<$button message=\"tm-clear-password\" tooltip={{$:/language/Buttons/Encryption/ClearPassword/Hint}} aria-label={{$:/language/Buttons/Encryption/ClearPassword/Caption}} class=<<tv-config-toolbar-class>>>\n<$list filter=\"[<tv-config-toolbar-icons>prefix[yes]]\">\n{{$:/core/images/locked-padlock}}\n</$list>\n<$list filter=\"[<tv-config-toolbar-text>prefix[yes]]\">\n<span class=\"tc-btn-text\"><$text text={{$:/language/Buttons/Encryption/ClearPassword/Caption}}/></span>\n</$list>\n</$button>\n</$reveal>\n<$reveal type=\"nomatch\" state=\"$:/isEncrypted\" text=\"yes\">\n<$button message=\"tm-set-password\" tooltip={{$:/language/Buttons/Encryption/SetPassword/Hint}} aria-label={{$:/language/Buttons/Encryption/SetPassword/Caption}} class=<<tv-config-toolbar-class>>>\n<$list filter=\"[<tv-config-toolbar-icons>prefix[yes]]\">\n{{$:/core/images/unlocked-padlock}}\n</$list>\n<$list filter=\"[<tv-config-toolbar-text>prefix[yes]]\">\n<span class=\"tc-btn-text\"><$text text={{$:/language/Buttons/Encryption/SetPassword/Caption}}/></span>\n</$list>\n</$button>\n</$reveal>"
},
"$:/core/ui/Buttons/export-page": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/Buttons/export-page",
"tags": "$:/tags/PageControls",
"caption": "{{$:/core/images/export-button}} {{$:/language/Buttons/ExportPage/Caption}}",
"description": "{{$:/language/Buttons/ExportPage/Hint}}",
"text": "<$macrocall $name=\"exportButton\" exportFilter=\"[!is[system]sort[title]]\" lingoBase=\"$:/language/Buttons/ExportPage/\"/>"
},
"$:/core/ui/Buttons/fold-all": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/Buttons/fold-all",
"tags": "$:/tags/PageControls",
"caption": "{{$:/core/images/fold-all-button}} {{$:/language/Buttons/FoldAll/Caption}}",
"description": "{{$:/language/Buttons/FoldAll/Hint}}",
"text": "<$button tooltip={{$:/language/Buttons/FoldAll/Hint}} aria-label={{$:/language/Buttons/FoldAll/Caption}} class=<<tv-config-toolbar-class>>>\n<$action-sendmessage $message=\"tm-fold-all-tiddlers\" $param=<<currentTiddler>> foldedStatePrefix=\"$:/state/folded/\"/>\n<$list filter=\"[<tv-config-toolbar-icons>prefix[yes]]\" variable=\"listItem\">\n{{$:/core/images/fold-all-button}}\n</$list>\n<$list filter=\"[<tv-config-toolbar-text>prefix[yes]]\">\n<span class=\"tc-btn-text\"><$text text={{$:/language/Buttons/FoldAll/Caption}}/></span>\n</$list>\n</$button>"
},
"$:/core/ui/Buttons/full-screen": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/Buttons/full-screen",
"tags": "$:/tags/PageControls",
"caption": "{{$:/core/images/full-screen-button}} {{$:/language/Buttons/FullScreen/Caption}}",
"description": "{{$:/language/Buttons/FullScreen/Hint}}",
"text": "<$button message=\"tm-full-screen\" tooltip={{$:/language/Buttons/FullScreen/Hint}} aria-label={{$:/language/Buttons/FullScreen/Caption}} class=<<tv-config-toolbar-class>>>\n<$list filter=\"[<tv-config-toolbar-icons>prefix[yes]]\">\n{{$:/core/images/full-screen-button}}\n</$list>\n<$list filter=\"[<tv-config-toolbar-text>prefix[yes]]\">\n<span class=\"tc-btn-text\"><$text text={{$:/language/Buttons/FullScreen/Caption}}/></span>\n</$list>\n</$button>"
},
"$:/core/ui/Buttons/home": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/Buttons/home",
"tags": "$:/tags/PageControls",
"caption": "{{$:/core/images/home-button}} {{$:/language/Buttons/Home/Caption}}",
"description": "{{$:/language/Buttons/Home/Hint}}",
"text": "<$button message=\"tm-home\" tooltip={{$:/language/Buttons/Home/Hint}} aria-label={{$:/language/Buttons/Home/Caption}} class=<<tv-config-toolbar-class>>>\n<$list filter=\"[<tv-config-toolbar-icons>prefix[yes]]\">\n{{$:/core/images/home-button}}\n</$list>\n<$list filter=\"[<tv-config-toolbar-text>prefix[yes]]\">\n<span class=\"tc-btn-text\"><$text text={{$:/language/Buttons/Home/Caption}}/></span>\n</$list>\n</$button>"
},
"$:/core/ui/Buttons/import": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/Buttons/import",
"tags": "$:/tags/PageControls",
"caption": "{{$:/core/images/import-button}} {{$:/language/Buttons/Import/Caption}}",
"description": "{{$:/language/Buttons/Import/Hint}}",
"text": "<div class=\"tc-file-input-wrapper\">\n<$button tooltip={{$:/language/Buttons/Import/Hint}} aria-label={{$:/language/Buttons/Import/Caption}} class=<<tv-config-toolbar-class>>>\n<$list filter=\"[<tv-config-toolbar-icons>prefix[yes]]\">\n{{$:/core/images/import-button}}\n</$list>\n<$list filter=\"[<tv-config-toolbar-text>prefix[yes]]\">\n<span class=\"tc-btn-text\"><$text text={{$:/language/Buttons/Import/Caption}}/></span>\n</$list>\n</$button>\n<$browse tooltip={{$:/language/Buttons/Import/Hint}}/>\n</div>"
},
"$:/core/ui/Buttons/language": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/Buttons/language",
"tags": "$:/tags/PageControls",
"caption": "{{$:/core/images/globe}} {{$:/language/Buttons/Language/Caption}}",
"description": "{{$:/language/Buttons/Language/Hint}}",
"text": "\\define flag-title()\n$(languagePluginTitle)$/icon\n\\end\n<span class=\"tc-popup-keep\">\n<$button popup=<<qualify \"$:/state/popup/language\">> tooltip={{$:/language/Buttons/Language/Hint}} aria-label={{$:/language/Buttons/Language/Caption}} class=<<tv-config-toolbar-class>> selectedClass=\"tc-selected\">\n<$list filter=\"[<tv-config-toolbar-icons>prefix[yes]]\">\n<span class=\"tc-image-button\">\n<$set name=\"languagePluginTitle\" value={{$:/language}}>\n<$image source=<<flag-title>>/>\n</$set>\n</span>\n</$list>\n<$list filter=\"[<tv-config-toolbar-text>prefix[yes]]\">\n<span class=\"tc-btn-text\"><$text text={{$:/language/Buttons/Language/Caption}}/></span>\n</$list>\n</$button>\n</span>\n<$reveal state=<<qualify \"$:/state/popup/language\">> type=\"popup\" position=\"below\" animate=\"yes\">\n<div class=\"tc-drop-down\">\n{{$:/snippets/languageswitcher}}\n</div>\n</$reveal>"
},
"$:/core/ui/Buttons/manager": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/Buttons/manager",
"tags": "$:/tags/PageControls",
"caption": "{{$:/core/images/list}} {{$:/language/Buttons/Manager/Caption}}",
"description": "{{$:/language/Buttons/Manager/Hint}}",
"text": "\\define manager-button(class)\n<$button to=\"$:/Manager\" tooltip={{$:/language/Buttons/Manager/Hint}} aria-label={{$:/language/Buttons/Manager/Caption}} class=\"\"\"$(tv-config-toolbar-class)$ $class$\"\"\">\n<$list filter=\"[<tv-config-toolbar-icons>prefix[yes]]\">\n{{$:/core/images/list}}\n</$list>\n<$list filter=\"[<tv-config-toolbar-text>prefix[yes]]\">\n<span class=\"tc-btn-text\"><$text text={{$:/language/Buttons/Manager/Caption}}/></span>\n</$list>\n</$button>\n\\end\n\n<$list filter=\"[list[$:/StoryList]] +[field:title[$:/Manager]]\" emptyMessage=<<manager-button>>>\n<<manager-button \"tc-selected\">>\n</$list>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/Buttons/more-page-actions": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/Buttons/more-page-actions",
"tags": "$:/tags/PageControls",
"caption": "{{$:/core/images/down-arrow}} {{$:/language/Buttons/More/Caption}}",
"description": "{{$:/language/Buttons/More/Hint}}",
"text": "\\define config-title()\n$:/config/PageControlButtons/Visibility/$(listItem)$\n\\end\n<$button popup=<<qualify \"$:/state/popup/more\">> tooltip={{$:/language/Buttons/More/Hint}} aria-label={{$:/language/Buttons/More/Caption}} class=<<tv-config-toolbar-class>> selectedClass=\"tc-selected\">\n<$list filter=\"[<tv-config-toolbar-icons>prefix[yes]]\">\n{{$:/core/images/down-arrow}}\n</$list>\n<$list filter=\"[<tv-config-toolbar-text>prefix[yes]]\">\n<span class=\"tc-btn-text\"><$text text={{$:/language/Buttons/More/Caption}}/></span>\n</$list>\n</$button><$reveal state=<<qualify \"$:/state/popup/more\">> type=\"popup\" position=\"below\" animate=\"yes\">\n\n<div class=\"tc-drop-down\">\n\n<$set name=\"tv-config-toolbar-icons\" value=\"yes\">\n\n<$set name=\"tv-config-toolbar-text\" value=\"yes\">\n\n<$set name=\"tv-config-toolbar-class\" value=\"tc-btn-invisible\">\n\n<$list filter=\"[all[shadows+tiddlers]tag[$:/tags/PageControls]!has[draft.of]] -[[$:/core/ui/Buttons/more-page-actions]]\" variable=\"listItem\">\n\n<$reveal type=\"match\" state=<<config-title>> text=\"hide\">\n\n<$set name=\"tv-config-toolbar-class\" filter=\"[<tv-config-toolbar-class>] [<listItem>encodeuricomponent[]addprefix[tc-btn-]]\">\n\n<$transclude tiddler=<<listItem>> mode=\"inline\"/>\n\n</$set>\n\n</$reveal>\n\n</$list>\n\n</$set>\n\n</$set>\n\n</$set>\n\n</div>\n\n</$reveal>"
},
"$:/core/ui/Buttons/new-image": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/Buttons/new-image",
"tags": "$:/tags/PageControls",
"caption": "{{$:/core/images/new-image-button}} {{$:/language/Buttons/NewImage/Caption}}",
"description": "{{$:/language/Buttons/NewImage/Hint}}",
"text": "<$button tooltip={{$:/language/Buttons/NewImage/Hint}} aria-label={{$:/language/Buttons/NewImage/Caption}} class=<<tv-config-toolbar-class>> actions={{$:/core/ui/Actions/new-image}}>\n<$list filter=\"[<tv-config-toolbar-icons>prefix[yes]]\">\n{{$:/core/images/new-image-button}}\n</$list>\n<$list filter=\"[<tv-config-toolbar-text>prefix[yes]]\">\n<span class=\"tc-btn-text\"><$text text={{$:/language/Buttons/NewImage/Caption}}/></span>\n</$list>\n</$button>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/Buttons/new-journal": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/Buttons/new-journal",
"tags": "$:/tags/PageControls",
"caption": "{{$:/core/images/new-journal-button}} {{$:/language/Buttons/NewJournal/Caption}}",
"description": "{{$:/language/Buttons/NewJournal/Hint}}",
"text": "\\define journalButton()\n<$button tooltip={{$:/language/Buttons/NewJournal/Hint}} aria-label={{$:/language/Buttons/NewJournal/Caption}} class=<<tv-config-toolbar-class>> actions={{$:/core/ui/Actions/new-journal}}>\n<$list filter=\"[<tv-config-toolbar-icons>prefix[yes]]\">\n{{$:/core/images/new-journal-button}}\n</$list>\n<$list filter=\"[<tv-config-toolbar-text>prefix[yes]]\">\n<span class=\"tc-btn-text\"><$text text={{$:/language/Buttons/NewJournal/Caption}}/></span>\n</$list>\n</$button>\n\\end\n<<journalButton>>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/Buttons/new-tiddler": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/Buttons/new-tiddler",
"tags": "$:/tags/PageControls",
"caption": "{{$:/core/images/new-button}} {{$:/language/Buttons/NewTiddler/Caption}}",
"description": "{{$:/language/Buttons/NewTiddler/Hint}}",
"text": "<$button actions={{$:/core/ui/Actions/new-tiddler}} tooltip={{$:/language/Buttons/NewTiddler/Hint}} aria-label={{$:/language/Buttons/NewTiddler/Caption}} class=<<tv-config-toolbar-class>>>\n<$list filter=\"[<tv-config-toolbar-icons>prefix[yes]]\">\n{{$:/core/images/new-button}}\n</$list>\n<$list filter=\"[<tv-config-toolbar-text>prefix[yes]]\">\n<span class=\"tc-btn-text\"><$text text={{$:/language/Buttons/NewTiddler/Caption}}/></span>\n</$list>\n</$button>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/Buttons/palette": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/Buttons/palette",
"tags": "$:/tags/PageControls",
"caption": "{{$:/core/images/palette}} {{$:/language/Buttons/Palette/Caption}}",
"description": "{{$:/language/Buttons/Palette/Hint}}",
"text": "<span class=\"tc-popup-keep\">\n<$button popup=<<qualify \"$:/state/popup/palette\">> tooltip={{$:/language/Buttons/Palette/Hint}} aria-label={{$:/language/Buttons/Palette/Caption}} class=<<tv-config-toolbar-class>> selectedClass=\"tc-selected\">\n<$list filter=\"[<tv-config-toolbar-icons>prefix[yes]]\">\n{{$:/core/images/palette}}\n</$list>\n<$list filter=\"[<tv-config-toolbar-text>prefix[yes]]\">\n<span class=\"tc-btn-text\"><$text text={{$:/language/Buttons/Palette/Caption}}/></span>\n</$list>\n</$button>\n</span>\n<$reveal state=<<qualify \"$:/state/popup/palette\">> type=\"popup\" position=\"below\" animate=\"yes\">\n<div class=\"tc-drop-down\" style=\"font-size:0.7em;\">\n{{$:/snippets/paletteswitcher}}\n</div>\n</$reveal>"
},
"$:/core/ui/Buttons/print": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/Buttons/print",
"tags": "$:/tags/PageControls",
"caption": "{{$:/core/images/print-button}} {{$:/language/Buttons/Print/Caption}}",
"description": "{{$:/language/Buttons/Print/Hint}}",
"text": "<$button message=\"tm-print\" tooltip={{$:/language/Buttons/Print/Hint}} aria-label={{$:/language/Buttons/Print/Caption}} class=<<tv-config-toolbar-class>>>\n<$list filter=\"[<tv-config-toolbar-icons>prefix[yes]]\">\n{{$:/core/images/print-button}}\n</$list>\n<$list filter=\"[<tv-config-toolbar-text>prefix[yes]]\">\n<span class=\"tc-btn-text\"><$text text={{$:/language/Buttons/Print/Caption}}/></span>\n</$list>\n</$button>"
},
"$:/core/ui/Buttons/refresh": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/Buttons/refresh",
"tags": "$:/tags/PageControls",
"caption": "{{$:/core/images/refresh-button}} {{$:/language/Buttons/Refresh/Caption}}",
"description": "{{$:/language/Buttons/Refresh/Hint}}",
"text": "<$button message=\"tm-browser-refresh\" tooltip={{$:/language/Buttons/Refresh/Hint}} aria-label={{$:/language/Buttons/Refresh/Caption}} class=<<tv-config-toolbar-class>>>\n<$list filter=\"[<tv-config-toolbar-icons>prefix[yes]]\">\n{{$:/core/images/refresh-button}}\n</$list>\n<$list filter=\"[<tv-config-toolbar-text>prefix[yes]]\">\n<span class=\"tc-btn-text\"><$text text={{$:/language/Buttons/Refresh/Caption}}/></span>\n</$list>\n</$button>"
},
"$:/core/ui/Buttons/save-wiki": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/Buttons/save-wiki",
"tags": "$:/tags/PageControls",
"caption": "{{$:/core/images/save-button}} {{$:/language/Buttons/SaveWiki/Caption}}",
"description": "{{$:/language/Buttons/SaveWiki/Hint}}",
"text": "<$button tooltip={{$:/language/Buttons/SaveWiki/Hint}} aria-label={{$:/language/Buttons/SaveWiki/Caption}} class=<<tv-config-toolbar-class>>>\n<$wikify name=\"site-title\" text={{$:/config/SaveWikiButton/Filename}}>\n<$action-sendmessage $message=\"tm-save-wiki\" $param={{$:/config/SaveWikiButton/Template}} filename=<<site-title>>/>\n</$wikify>\n<span class=\"tc-dirty-indicator\">\n<$list filter=\"[<tv-config-toolbar-icons>prefix[yes]]\">\n{{$:/core/images/save-button}}\n</$list>\n<$list filter=\"[<tv-config-toolbar-text>prefix[yes]]\">\n<span class=\"tc-btn-text\"><$text text={{$:/language/Buttons/SaveWiki/Caption}}/></span>\n</$list>\n</span>\n</$button>"
},
"$:/core/ui/Buttons/storyview": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/Buttons/storyview",
"tags": "$:/tags/PageControls",
"caption": "{{$:/core/images/storyview-classic}} {{$:/language/Buttons/StoryView/Caption}}",
"description": "{{$:/language/Buttons/StoryView/Hint}}",
"text": "\\define icon()\n$:/core/images/storyview-$(storyview)$\n\\end\n<span class=\"tc-popup-keep\">\n<$button popup=<<qualify \"$:/state/popup/storyview\">> tooltip={{$:/language/Buttons/StoryView/Hint}} aria-label={{$:/language/Buttons/StoryView/Caption}} class=<<tv-config-toolbar-class>> selectedClass=\"tc-selected\">\n<$list filter=\"[<tv-config-toolbar-icons>prefix[yes]]\">\n<$set name=\"storyview\" value={{$:/view}}>\n<$transclude tiddler=<<icon>>/>\n</$set>\n</$list>\n<$list filter=\"[<tv-config-toolbar-text>prefix[yes]]\">\n<span class=\"tc-btn-text\"><$text text={{$:/language/Buttons/StoryView/Caption}}/></span>\n</$list>\n</$button>\n</span>\n<$reveal state=<<qualify \"$:/state/popup/storyview\">> type=\"popup\" position=\"below\" animate=\"yes\">\n<div class=\"tc-drop-down\">\n{{$:/snippets/viewswitcher}}\n</div>\n</$reveal>"
},
"$:/core/ui/Buttons/tag-manager": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/Buttons/tag-manager",
"tags": "$:/tags/PageControls",
"caption": "{{$:/core/images/tag-button}} {{$:/language/Buttons/TagManager/Caption}}",
"description": "{{$:/language/Buttons/TagManager/Hint}}",
"text": "\\define control-panel-button(class)\n<$button to=\"$:/TagManager\" tooltip={{$:/language/Buttons/TagManager/Hint}} aria-label={{$:/language/Buttons/TagManager/Caption}} class=\"\"\"$(tv-config-toolbar-class)$ $class$\"\"\">\n<$list filter=\"[<tv-config-toolbar-icons>prefix[yes]]\">\n{{$:/core/images/tag-button}}\n</$list>\n<$list filter=\"[<tv-config-toolbar-text>prefix[yes]]\">\n<span class=\"tc-btn-text\"><$text text={{$:/language/Buttons/TagManager/Caption}}/></span>\n</$list>\n</$button>\n\\end\n\n<$list filter=\"[list[$:/StoryList]] +[field:title[$:/TagManager]]\" emptyMessage=<<control-panel-button>>>\n<<control-panel-button \"tc-selected\">>\n</$list>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/Buttons/theme": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/Buttons/theme",
"tags": "$:/tags/PageControls",
"caption": "{{$:/core/images/theme-button}} {{$:/language/Buttons/Theme/Caption}}",
"description": "{{$:/language/Buttons/Theme/Hint}}",
"text": "<span class=\"tc-popup-keep\">\n<$button popup=<<qualify \"$:/state/popup/theme\">> tooltip={{$:/language/Buttons/Theme/Hint}} aria-label={{$:/language/Buttons/Theme/Caption}} class=<<tv-config-toolbar-class>> selectedClass=\"tc-selected\">\n<$list filter=\"[<tv-config-toolbar-icons>prefix[yes]]\">\n{{$:/core/images/theme-button}}\n</$list>\n<$list filter=\"[<tv-config-toolbar-text>prefix[yes]]\">\n<span class=\"tc-btn-text\"><$text text={{$:/language/Buttons/Theme/Caption}}/></span>\n</$list>\n</$button>\n</span>\n<$reveal state=<<qualify \"$:/state/popup/theme\">> type=\"popup\" position=\"below\" animate=\"yes\">\n<div class=\"tc-drop-down\">\n<$linkcatcher to=\"$:/theme\">\n{{$:/snippets/themeswitcher}}\n</$linkcatcher>\n</div>\n</$reveal>"
},
"$:/core/ui/Buttons/timestamp": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/Buttons/timestamp",
"tags": "$:/tags/PageControls",
"caption": "{{$:/core/images/timestamp-on}} {{$:/language/Buttons/Timestamp/Caption}}",
"description": "{{$:/language/Buttons/Timestamp/Hint}}",
"text": "<$reveal type=\"nomatch\" state=\"$:/config/TimestampDisable\" text=\"yes\">\n<$button tooltip={{$:/language/Buttons/Timestamp/On/Hint}} aria-label={{$:/language/Buttons/Timestamp/On/Caption}} class=<<tv-config-toolbar-class>>>\n<$action-setfield $tiddler=\"$:/config/TimestampDisable\" $value=\"yes\"/>\n<$list filter=\"[<tv-config-toolbar-icons>prefix[yes]]\">\n{{$:/core/images/timestamp-on}}\n</$list>\n<$list filter=\"[<tv-config-toolbar-text>prefix[yes]]\">\n<span class=\"tc-btn-text\"><$text text={{$:/language/Buttons/Timestamp/On/Caption}}/></span>\n</$list>\n</$button>\n</$reveal>\n<$reveal type=\"match\" state=\"$:/config/TimestampDisable\" text=\"yes\">\n<$button tooltip={{$:/language/Buttons/Timestamp/Off/Hint}} aria-label={{$:/language/Buttons/Timestamp/Off/Caption}} class=<<tv-config-toolbar-class>>>\n<$action-setfield $tiddler=\"$:/config/TimestampDisable\" $value=\"no\"/>\n<$list filter=\"[<tv-config-toolbar-icons>prefix[yes]]\">\n{{$:/core/images/timestamp-off}}\n</$list>\n<$list filter=\"[<tv-config-toolbar-text>prefix[yes]]\">\n<span class=\"tc-btn-text\"><$text text={{$:/language/Buttons/Timestamp/Off/Caption}}/></span>\n</$list>\n</$button>\n</$reveal>"
},
"$:/core/ui/Buttons/unfold-all": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/Buttons/unfold-all",
"tags": "$:/tags/PageControls",
"caption": "{{$:/core/images/unfold-all-button}} {{$:/language/Buttons/UnfoldAll/Caption}}",
"description": "{{$:/language/Buttons/UnfoldAll/Hint}}",
"text": "<$button tooltip={{$:/language/Buttons/UnfoldAll/Hint}} aria-label={{$:/language/Buttons/UnfoldAll/Caption}} class=<<tv-config-toolbar-class>>>\n<$action-sendmessage $message=\"tm-unfold-all-tiddlers\" $param=<<currentTiddler>> foldedStatePrefix=\"$:/state/folded/\"/>\n<$list filter=\"[<tv-config-toolbar-icons>prefix[yes]]\" variable=\"listItem\">\n{{$:/core/images/unfold-all-button}}\n</$list>\n<$list filter=\"[<tv-config-toolbar-text>prefix[yes]]\">\n<span class=\"tc-btn-text\"><$text text={{$:/language/Buttons/UnfoldAll/Caption}}/></span>\n</$list>\n</$button>"
},
"$:/core/ui/PageTemplate/pagecontrols": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/PageTemplate/pagecontrols",
"text": "\\define config-title()\n$:/config/PageControlButtons/Visibility/$(listItem)$\n\\end\n<div class=\"tc-page-controls\">\n<$list filter=\"[all[shadows+tiddlers]tag[$:/tags/PageControls]!has[draft.of]]\" variable=\"listItem\">\n<$reveal type=\"nomatch\" state=<<config-title>> text=\"hide\">\n<$set name=\"tv-config-toolbar-class\" filter=\"[<tv-config-toolbar-class>] [<listItem>encodeuricomponent[]addprefix[tc-btn-]]\">\n<$transclude tiddler=<<listItem>> mode=\"inline\"/>\n</$set>\n</$reveal>\n</$list>\n</div>\n\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/PageStylesheet": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/PageStylesheet",
"text": "\\import [[$:/core/ui/PageMacros]] [all[shadows+tiddlers]tag[$:/tags/Macro]!has[draft.of]]\n\n<$set name=\"currentTiddler\" value={{$:/language}}>\n\n<$set name=\"languageTitle\" value={{!!name}}>\n\n<$list filter=\"[all[shadows+tiddlers]tag[$:/tags/Stylesheet]!has[draft.of]]\">\n<$transclude mode=\"block\"/>\n</$list>\n\n</$set>\n\n</$set>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/PageTemplate/alerts": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/PageTemplate/alerts",
"tags": "$:/tags/PageTemplate",
"text": "<div class=\"tc-alerts\">\n\n<$list filter=\"[all[shadows+tiddlers]tag[$:/tags/Alert]!has[draft.of]]\" template=\"$:/core/ui/AlertTemplate\" storyview=\"pop\"/>\n\n</div>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/PageTemplate/drafts": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/PageTemplate/drafts",
"tags": "$:/tags/PageTemplate",
"text": "\\whitespace trim\n<$reveal state=\"$:/status/IsReadOnly\" type=\"nomatch\" text=\"yes\" tag=\"div\" class=\"tc-drafts-list\">\n<$list filter=\"[has[draft.of]!sort[modified]] -[list[$:/StoryList]]\">\n<$link>\n{{$:/core/images/edit-button}} <$text text=<<currentTiddler>>/>\n</$link>\n</$list>\n</$reveal>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/PageTemplate/pluginreloadwarning": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/PageTemplate/pluginreloadwarning",
"tags": "$:/tags/PageTemplate",
"text": "\\define lingo-base() $:/language/\n\n<$list filter=\"[has[plugin-type]haschanged[]!plugin-type[import]limit[1]]\">\n\n<$reveal type=\"nomatch\" state=\"$:/temp/HidePluginWarning\" text=\"yes\">\n\n<div class=\"tc-plugin-reload-warning\">\n\n<$set name=\"tv-config-toolbar-class\" value=\"\">\n\n<<lingo PluginReloadWarning>> <$button set=\"$:/temp/HidePluginWarning\" setTo=\"yes\" class=\"tc-btn-invisible\">{{$:/core/images/close-button}}</$button>\n\n</$set>\n\n</div>\n\n</$reveal>\n\n</$list>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/PageTemplate/sidebar": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/PageTemplate/sidebar",
"tags": "$:/tags/PageTemplate",
"text": "\\define config-title()\n$:/config/SideBarSegments/Visibility/$(listItem)$\n\\end\n\n<$scrollable fallthrough=\"no\" class=\"tc-sidebar-scrollable\">\n\n<div class=\"tc-sidebar-header\">\n\n<$reveal state=\"$:/state/sidebar\" type=\"match\" text=\"yes\" default=\"yes\" retain=\"yes\" animate=\"yes\">\n\n<$list filter=\"[all[shadows+tiddlers]tag[$:/tags/SideBarSegment]!has[draft.of]]\" variable=\"listItem\">\n\n<$reveal type=\"nomatch\" state=<<config-title>> text=\"hide\" tag=\"div\">\n\n<$transclude tiddler=<<listItem>> mode=\"block\"/>\n\n</$reveal>\n\n</$list>\n\n</$reveal>\n\n</div>\n\n</$scrollable>"
},
"$:/core/ui/PageTemplate/story": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/PageTemplate/story",
"tags": "$:/tags/PageTemplate",
"text": "<section class=\"tc-story-river\">\n\n<section class=\"story-backdrop\">\n\n<$list filter=\"[all[shadows+tiddlers]tag[$:/tags/AboveStory]!has[draft.of]]\">\n\n<$transclude/>\n\n</$list>\n\n</section>\n\n<$list filter=\"[list[$:/StoryList]]\" history=\"$:/HistoryList\" template=\"$:/core/ui/ViewTemplate\" editTemplate=\"$:/core/ui/EditTemplate\" storyview={{$:/view}} emptyMessage={{$:/config/EmptyStoryMessage}}/>\n\n<section class=\"story-frontdrop\">\n\n<$list filter=\"[all[shadows+tiddlers]tag[$:/tags/BelowStory]!has[draft.of]]\">\n\n<$transclude/>\n\n</$list>\n\n</section>\n\n</section>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/PageTemplate/topleftbar": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/PageTemplate/topleftbar",
"tags": "$:/tags/PageTemplate",
"text": "<span class=\"tc-topbar tc-topbar-left\">\n\n<$list filter=\"[all[shadows+tiddlers]tag[$:/tags/TopLeftBar]!has[draft.of]]\" variable=\"listItem\">\n\n<$transclude tiddler=<<listItem>> mode=\"inline\"/>\n\n</$list>\n\n</span>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/PageTemplate/toprightbar": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/PageTemplate/toprightbar",
"tags": "$:/tags/PageTemplate",
"text": "<span class=\"tc-topbar tc-topbar-right\">\n\n<$list filter=\"[all[shadows+tiddlers]tag[$:/tags/TopRightBar]!has[draft.of]]\" variable=\"listItem\">\n\n<$transclude tiddler=<<listItem>> mode=\"inline\"/>\n\n</$list>\n\n</span>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/PageTemplate": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/PageTemplate",
"text": "\\define containerClasses()\ntc-page-container tc-page-view-$(storyviewTitle)$ tc-language-$(languageTitle)$\n\\end\n\\import [[$:/core/ui/PageMacros]] [all[shadows+tiddlers]tag[$:/tags/Macro]!has[draft.of]]\n\n<$set name=\"tv-config-toolbar-icons\" value={{$:/config/Toolbar/Icons}}>\n\n<$set name=\"tv-config-toolbar-text\" value={{$:/config/Toolbar/Text}}>\n\n<$set name=\"tv-config-toolbar-class\" value={{$:/config/Toolbar/ButtonClass}}>\n\n<$set name=\"tv-show-missing-links\" value={{$:/config/MissingLinks}}>\n\n<$set name=\"storyviewTitle\" value={{$:/view}}>\n\n<$set name=\"currentTiddler\" value={{$:/language}}>\n\n<$set name=\"languageTitle\" value={{!!name}}>\n\n<$set name=\"currentTiddler\" value=\"\">\n\n<div class=<<containerClasses>>>\n\n<$navigator story=\"$:/StoryList\" history=\"$:/HistoryList\" openLinkFromInsideRiver={{$:/config/Navigation/openLinkFromInsideRiver}} openLinkFromOutsideRiver={{$:/config/Navigation/openLinkFromOutsideRiver}} relinkOnRename={{$:/config/RelinkOnRename}}>\n\n<$dropzone>\n\n<$list filter=\"[all[shadows+tiddlers]tag[$:/tags/PageTemplate]!has[draft.of]]\" variable=\"listItem\">\n\n<$transclude tiddler=<<listItem>>/>\n\n</$list>\n\n</$dropzone>\n\n</$navigator>\n\n</div>\n\n</$set>\n\n</$set>\n\n</$set>\n\n</$set>\n\n</$set>\n\n</$set>\n\n</$set>\n\n</$set>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/PluginInfo": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/PluginInfo",
"text": "\\define localised-info-tiddler-title()\n$(currentTiddler)$/$(languageTitle)$/$(currentTab)$\n\\end\n\\define info-tiddler-title()\n$(currentTiddler)$/$(currentTab)$\n\\end\n\\define default-tiddler-title()\n$:/core/ui/PluginInfo/Default/$(currentTab)$\n\\end\n<$transclude tiddler=<<localised-info-tiddler-title>> mode=\"block\">\n<$transclude tiddler=<<currentTiddler>> subtiddler=<<localised-info-tiddler-title>> mode=\"block\">\n<$transclude tiddler=<<currentTiddler>> subtiddler=<<info-tiddler-title>> mode=\"block\">\n<$transclude tiddler=<<default-tiddler-title>> mode=\"block\">\n{{$:/language/ControlPanel/Plugin/NoInfoFound/Hint}}\n</$transclude>\n</$transclude>\n</$transclude>\n</$transclude>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/PluginInfo/Default/contents": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/PluginInfo/Default/contents",
"text": "\\define lingo-base() $:/language/TiddlerInfo/Advanced/PluginInfo/\n<<lingo Hint>>\n<ul>\n<$list filter=\"[all[current]plugintiddlers[]sort[title]]\" emptyMessage=<<lingo Empty/Hint>>>\n<li>\n<$link to={{!!title}}>\n<$view field=\"title\"/>\n</$link>\n</li>\n</$list>\n</ul>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/PluginListItemTemplate": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/PluginListItemTemplate",
"text": "<div class=\"tc-menu-list-item\">\n<$link to={{!!title}}>\n<$view field=\"description\">\n<$view field=\"title\"/>\n</$view>\n</$link>\n</div>"
},
"$:/core/ui/SearchResults": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/SearchResults",
"text": "<div class=\"tc-search-results\">\n\n<$list filter=\"[all[shadows+tiddlers]tag[$:/tags/SearchResults]!has[draft.of]butfirst[]limit[1]]\" emptyMessage=\"\"\"\n<$list filter=\"[all[shadows+tiddlers]tag[$:/tags/SearchResults]!has[draft.of]]\">\n<$transclude mode=\"block\"/>\n</$list>\n\"\"\">\n\n<$macrocall $name=\"tabs\" tabsList=\"[all[shadows+tiddlers]tag[$:/tags/SearchResults]!has[draft.of]]\" default={{$:/config/SearchResults/Default}}/>\n\n</$list>\n\n</div>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/SideBar/More": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/SideBar/More",
"tags": "$:/tags/SideBar",
"caption": "{{$:/language/SideBar/More/Caption}}",
"text": "<div class=\"tc-more-sidebar\">\n<$macrocall $name=\"tabs\" tabsList=\"[all[shadows+tiddlers]tag[$:/tags/MoreSideBar]!has[draft.of]]\" default={{$:/config/DefaultMoreSidebarTab}} state=\"$:/state/tab/moresidebar\" class=\"tc-vertical\" />\n</div>"
},
"$:/core/ui/SideBar/Open": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/SideBar/Open",
"tags": "$:/tags/SideBar",
"caption": "{{$:/language/SideBar/Open/Caption}}",
"text": "\\whitespace trim\n\\define lingo-base() $:/language/CloseAll/\n\n\\define drop-actions()\n<$action-listops $tiddler=\"$:/StoryList\" $subfilter=\"+[insertbefore:currentTiddler<actionTiddler>]\"/>\n\\end\n\n<$list filter=\"[list[$:/StoryList]]\" history=\"$:/HistoryList\" storyview=\"pop\">\n<div style=\"position: relative;\">\n<$droppable actions=<<drop-actions>>>\n<div class=\"tc-droppable-placeholder\">\n \n</div>\n<div>\n<$button message=\"tm-close-tiddler\" tooltip={{$:/language/Buttons/Close/Hint}} aria-label={{$:/language/Buttons/Close/Caption}} class=\"tc-btn-invisible tc-btn-mini\">×</$button> <$link to={{!!title}}><$view field=\"title\"/></$link>\n</div>\n</$droppable>\n</div>\n</$list>\n<$tiddler tiddler=\"\">\n<$droppable actions=<<drop-actions>>>\n<div class=\"tc-droppable-placeholder\">\n \n</div>\n<$button message=\"tm-close-all-tiddlers\" class=\"tc-btn-invisible tc-btn-mini\"><<lingo Button>></$button>\n</$droppable>\n</$tiddler>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/SideBar/Recent": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/SideBar/Recent",
"tags": "$:/tags/SideBar",
"caption": "{{$:/language/SideBar/Recent/Caption}}",
"text": "<$macrocall $name=\"timeline\" format={{$:/language/RecentChanges/DateFormat}}/>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/SideBar/Tools": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/SideBar/Tools",
"tags": "$:/tags/SideBar",
"caption": "{{$:/language/SideBar/Tools/Caption}}",
"text": "\\define lingo-base() $:/language/ControlPanel/\n\\define config-title()\n$:/config/PageControlButtons/Visibility/$(listItem)$\n\\end\n\n<<lingo Basics/Version/Prompt>> <<version>>\n\n<$set name=\"tv-config-toolbar-icons\" value=\"yes\">\n\n<$set name=\"tv-config-toolbar-text\" value=\"yes\">\n\n<$set name=\"tv-config-toolbar-class\" value=\"\">\n\n<$list filter=\"[all[shadows+tiddlers]tag[$:/tags/PageControls]!has[draft.of]]\" variable=\"listItem\">\n\n<div style=\"position:relative;\" class={{{ [<listItem>encodeuricomponent[]addprefix[tc-btn-]] }}}>\n\n<$checkbox tiddler=<<config-title>> field=\"text\" checked=\"show\" unchecked=\"hide\" default=\"show\"/> <$transclude tiddler=<<listItem>>/> <i class=\"tc-muted\"><$transclude tiddler=<<listItem>> field=\"description\"/></i>\n\n</div>\n\n</$list>\n\n</$set>\n\n</$set>\n\n</$set>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/SideBarLists": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/SideBarLists",
"text": "<$transclude tiddler=\"$:/core/ui/SideBarSegments/search\"/>\n\n<$transclude tiddler=\"$:/core/ui/SideBarSegments/tabs\"/>\n\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/SideBarSegments/page-controls": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/SideBarSegments/page-controls",
"tags": "$:/tags/SideBarSegment",
"text": "{{||$:/core/ui/PageTemplate/pagecontrols}}\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/SideBarSegments/search": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/SideBarSegments/search",
"tags": "$:/tags/SideBarSegment",
"text": "<div class=\"tc-sidebar-lists\">\n\n<$set name=\"searchTiddler\" value=\"$:/temp/search\">\n<div class=\"tc-search\">\n<$edit-text tiddler=\"$:/temp/search\" type=\"search\" tag=\"input\" focus={{$:/config/Search/AutoFocus}} focusPopup=<<qualify \"$:/state/popup/search-dropdown\">> class=\"tc-popup-handle\"/>\n<$reveal state=\"$:/temp/search\" type=\"nomatch\" text=\"\">\n<$button tooltip={{$:/language/Buttons/AdvancedSearch/Hint}} aria-label={{$:/language/Buttons/AdvancedSearch/Caption}} class=\"tc-btn-invisible\">\n<$action-setfield $tiddler=\"$:/temp/advancedsearch\" text={{$:/temp/search}}/>\n<$action-setfield $tiddler=\"$:/temp/search\" text=\"\"/>\n<$action-navigate $to=\"$:/AdvancedSearch\"/>\n{{$:/core/images/advanced-search-button}}\n</$button>\n<$button class=\"tc-btn-invisible\">\n<$action-setfield $tiddler=\"$:/temp/search\" text=\"\" />\n{{$:/core/images/close-button}}\n</$button>\n<$button popup=<<qualify \"$:/state/popup/search-dropdown\">> class=\"tc-btn-invisible\">\n{{$:/core/images/down-arrow}}\n<$list filter=\"[{$:/temp/search}minlength{$:/config/Search/MinLength}limit[1]]\" variable=\"listItem\">\n<$set name=\"searchTerm\" value={{{ [<searchTiddler>get[text]] }}}>\n<$set name=\"resultCount\" value=\"\"\"<$count filter=\"[!is[system]search<searchTerm>]\"/>\"\"\">\n{{$:/language/Search/Matches}}\n</$set>\n</$set>\n</$list>\n</$button>\n</$reveal>\n<$reveal state=\"$:/temp/search\" type=\"match\" text=\"\">\n<$button to=\"$:/AdvancedSearch\" tooltip={{$:/language/Buttons/AdvancedSearch/Hint}} aria-label={{$:/language/Buttons/AdvancedSearch/Caption}} class=\"tc-btn-invisible\">\n{{$:/core/images/advanced-search-button}}\n</$button>\n</$reveal>\n</div>\n\n<$reveal tag=\"div\" class=\"tc-block-dropdown-wrapper\" state=\"$:/temp/search\" type=\"nomatch\" text=\"\">\n\n<$reveal tag=\"div\" class=\"tc-block-dropdown tc-search-drop-down tc-popup-handle\" state=<<qualify \"$:/state/popup/search-dropdown\">> type=\"nomatch\" text=\"\" default=\"\">\n\n<$list filter=\"[{$:/temp/search}minlength{$:/config/Search/MinLength}limit[1]]\" emptyMessage=\"\"\"<div class=\"tc-search-results\">{{$:/language/Search/Search/TooShort}}</div>\"\"\" variable=\"listItem\">\n\n{{$:/core/ui/SearchResults}}\n\n</$list>\n\n</$reveal>\n\n</$reveal>\n\n</$set>\n\n</div>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/SideBarSegments/site-subtitle": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/SideBarSegments/site-subtitle",
"tags": "$:/tags/SideBarSegment",
"text": "<div class=\"tc-site-subtitle\">\n\n<$transclude tiddler=\"$:/SiteSubtitle\" mode=\"inline\"/>\n\n</div>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/SideBarSegments/site-title": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/SideBarSegments/site-title",
"tags": "$:/tags/SideBarSegment",
"text": "<h1 class=\"tc-site-title\">\n\n<$transclude tiddler=\"$:/SiteTitle\" mode=\"inline\"/>\n\n</h1>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/SideBarSegments/tabs": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/SideBarSegments/tabs",
"tags": "$:/tags/SideBarSegment",
"text": "<div class=\"tc-sidebar-lists\">\n\n<$macrocall $name=\"tabs\" tabsList=\"[all[shadows+tiddlers]tag[$:/tags/SideBar]!has[draft.of]]\" default={{$:/config/DefaultSidebarTab}} state=\"$:/state/tab/sidebar\" />\n\n</div>\n"
},
"$:/TagManager": {
"title": "$:/TagManager",
"icon": "$:/core/images/tag-button",
"color": "#bbb",
"caption": "{{$:/language/TagManager/Caption}}",
"text": "\\define lingo-base() $:/language/TagManager/\n\\define iconEditorTab(type)\n<$list filter=\"[all[shadows+tiddlers]is[image]] [all[shadows+tiddlers]tag[$:/tags/Image]] -[type[application/pdf]] +[sort[title]] +[$type$is[system]]\">\n<$link to={{!!title}}>\n<$transclude/> <$view field=\"title\"/>\n</$link>\n</$list>\n\\end\n\\define iconEditor(title)\n<div class=\"tc-drop-down-wrapper\">\n<$button popupTitle={{{ [[$:/state/popup/icon/]addsuffix<__title__>] }}} class=\"tc-btn-invisible tc-btn-dropdown\">{{$:/core/images/down-arrow}}</$button>\n<$reveal stateTitle={{{ [[$:/state/popup/icon/]addsuffix<__title__>] }}} type=\"popup\" position=\"belowleft\" text=\"\" default=\"\">\n<div class=\"tc-drop-down\">\n<$linkcatcher actions=\"\"\"<$action-setfield $tiddler=<<__title__>> icon=<<navigateTo>>/>\"\"\">\n<<iconEditorTab type:\"!\">>\n<hr/>\n<<iconEditorTab type:\"\">>\n</$linkcatcher>\n</div>\n</$reveal>\n</div>\n\\end\n\\define toggleButton(state)\n<$reveal stateTitle=<<__state__>> type=\"match\" text=\"closed\" default=\"closed\">\n<$button setTitle=<<__state__>> setTo=\"open\" class=\"tc-btn-invisible tc-btn-dropdown\" selectedClass=\"tc-selected\">\n{{$:/core/images/info-button}}\n</$button>\n</$reveal>\n<$reveal stateTitle=<<__state__>> type=\"match\" text=\"open\" default=\"closed\">\n<$button setTitle=<<__state__>> setTo=\"closed\" class=\"tc-btn-invisible tc-btn-dropdown\" selectedClass=\"tc-selected\">\n{{$:/core/images/info-button}}\n</$button>\n</$reveal>\n\\end\n<table class=\"tc-tag-manager-table\">\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<th><<lingo Colour/Heading>></th>\n<th class=\"tc-tag-manager-tag\"><<lingo Tag/Heading>></th>\n<th><<lingo Count/Heading>></th>\n<th><<lingo Icon/Heading>></th>\n<th><<lingo Info/Heading>></th>\n</tr>\n<$list filter=\"[tags[]!is[system]sort[title]]\">\n<tr>\n<td><$edit-text field=\"color\" tag=\"input\" type=\"color\"/></td>\n<td>{{||$:/core/ui/TagTemplate}}</td>\n<td><$count filter=\"[all[current]tagging[]]\"/></td>\n<td>\n<$macrocall $name=\"iconEditor\" title={{!!title}}/>\n</td>\n<td>\n<$macrocall $name=\"toggleButton\" state={{{ [[$:/state/tag-manager/]addsuffix<currentTiddler>] }}} /> \n</td>\n</tr>\n<tr>\n<td></td>\n<td colspan=\"4\">\n<$reveal stateTitle={{{ [[$:/state/tag-manager/]addsuffix<currentTiddler>] }}} type=\"match\" text=\"open\" default=\"\">\n<table>\n<tbody>\n<tr><td><<lingo Colour/Heading>></td><td><$edit-text field=\"color\" tag=\"input\" type=\"text\" size=\"9\"/></td></tr>\n<tr><td><<lingo Icon/Heading>></td><td><$edit-text field=\"icon\" tag=\"input\" size=\"45\"/></td></tr>\n</tbody>\n</table>\n</$reveal>\n</td>\n</tr>\n</$list>\n<tr>\n<td></td>\n<td style=\"position:relative;\">\n{{$:/core/ui/UntaggedTemplate}}\n</td>\n<td>\n<small class=\"tc-menu-list-count\"><$count filter=\"[untagged[]!is[system]] -[tags[]]\"/></small>\n</td>\n<td></td>\n<td></td>\n</tr>\n</tbody>\n</table>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/TagTemplate": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/TagTemplate",
"text": "\\whitespace trim\n<span class=\"tc-tag-list-item\">\n<$set name=\"transclusion\" value=<<currentTiddler>>>\n<$macrocall $name=\"tag-pill-body\" tag=<<currentTiddler>> icon={{!!icon}} colour={{!!color}} palette={{$:/palette}} element-tag=\"\"\"$button\"\"\" element-attributes=\"\"\"popup=<<qualify \"$:/state/popup/tag\">> dragFilter='[all[current]tagging[]]' tag='span'\"\"\"/>\n<$reveal state=<<qualify \"$:/state/popup/tag\">> type=\"popup\" position=\"below\" animate=\"yes\" class=\"tc-drop-down\">\n<$set name=\"tv-show-missing-links\" value=\"yes\">\n<$transclude tiddler=\"$:/core/ui/ListItemTemplate\"/>\n</$set>\n<$list filter=\"[all[shadows+tiddlers]tag[$:/tags/TagDropdown]!has[draft.of]]\" variable=\"listItem\"> \n<$transclude tiddler=<<listItem>>/> \n</$list>\n<hr>\n<$macrocall $name=\"list-tagged-draggable\" tag=<<currentTiddler>>/>\n</$reveal>\n</$set>\n</span>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/TiddlerFieldTemplate": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/TiddlerFieldTemplate",
"text": "<tr class=\"tc-view-field\">\n<td class=\"tc-view-field-name\">\n<$text text=<<listItem>>/>\n</td>\n<td class=\"tc-view-field-value\">\n<$view field=<<listItem>>/>\n</td>\n</tr>"
},
"$:/core/ui/TiddlerFields": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/TiddlerFields",
"text": "<table class=\"tc-view-field-table\">\n<tbody>\n<$list filter=\"[all[current]fields[]sort[title]] -text\" template=\"$:/core/ui/TiddlerFieldTemplate\" variable=\"listItem\"/>\n</tbody>\n</table>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/TiddlerInfo/Advanced/PluginInfo": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/TiddlerInfo/Advanced/PluginInfo",
"tags": "$:/tags/TiddlerInfo/Advanced",
"text": "\\define lingo-base() $:/language/TiddlerInfo/Advanced/PluginInfo/\n<$list filter=\"[all[current]has[plugin-type]]\">\n\n! <<lingo Heading>>\n\n<<lingo Hint>>\n<ul>\n<$list filter=\"[all[current]plugintiddlers[]sort[title]]\" emptyMessage=<<lingo Empty/Hint>>>\n<li>\n<$link to={{!!title}}>\n<$view field=\"title\"/>\n</$link>\n</li>\n</$list>\n</ul>\n\n</$list>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/TiddlerInfo/Advanced/ShadowInfo": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/TiddlerInfo/Advanced/ShadowInfo",
"tags": "$:/tags/TiddlerInfo/Advanced",
"text": "\\define lingo-base() $:/language/TiddlerInfo/Advanced/ShadowInfo/\n<$set name=\"infoTiddler\" value=<<currentTiddler>>>\n\n''<<lingo Heading>>''\n\n<$list filter=\"[all[current]!is[shadow]]\">\n\n<<lingo NotShadow/Hint>>\n\n</$list>\n\n<$list filter=\"[all[current]is[shadow]]\">\n\n<<lingo Shadow/Hint>>\n\n<$list filter=\"[all[current]shadowsource[]]\">\n\n<$set name=\"pluginTiddler\" value=<<currentTiddler>>>\n<<lingo Shadow/Source>>\n</$set>\n\n</$list>\n\n<$list filter=\"[all[current]is[shadow]is[tiddler]]\">\n\n<<lingo OverriddenShadow/Hint>>\n\n</$list>\n\n\n</$list>\n</$set>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/TiddlerInfo/Advanced": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/TiddlerInfo/Advanced",
"tags": "$:/tags/TiddlerInfo",
"caption": "{{$:/language/TiddlerInfo/Advanced/Caption}}",
"text": "<$list filter=\"[all[shadows+tiddlers]tag[$:/tags/TiddlerInfo/Advanced]!has[draft.of]]\" variable=\"listItem\">\n<$transclude tiddler=<<listItem>>/>\n\n</$list>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/TiddlerInfo/Fields": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/TiddlerInfo/Fields",
"tags": "$:/tags/TiddlerInfo",
"caption": "{{$:/language/TiddlerInfo/Fields/Caption}}",
"text": "<$transclude tiddler=\"$:/core/ui/TiddlerFields\"/>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/TiddlerInfo/List": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/TiddlerInfo/List",
"tags": "$:/tags/TiddlerInfo",
"caption": "{{$:/language/TiddlerInfo/List/Caption}}",
"text": "\\define lingo-base() $:/language/TiddlerInfo/\n<$list filter=\"[list{!!title}]\" emptyMessage=<<lingo List/Empty>> template=\"$:/core/ui/ListItemTemplate\"/>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/TiddlerInfo/Listed": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/TiddlerInfo/Listed",
"tags": "$:/tags/TiddlerInfo",
"caption": "{{$:/language/TiddlerInfo/Listed/Caption}}",
"text": "\\define lingo-base() $:/language/TiddlerInfo/\n<$list filter=\"[all[current]listed[]!is[system]]\" emptyMessage=<<lingo Listed/Empty>> template=\"$:/core/ui/ListItemTemplate\"/>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/TiddlerInfo/References": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/TiddlerInfo/References",
"tags": "$:/tags/TiddlerInfo",
"caption": "{{$:/language/TiddlerInfo/References/Caption}}",
"text": "\\define lingo-base() $:/language/TiddlerInfo/\n<$list filter=\"[all[current]backlinks[]sort[title]]\" emptyMessage=<<lingo References/Empty>> template=\"$:/core/ui/ListItemTemplate\">\n</$list>"
},
"$:/core/ui/TiddlerInfo/Tagging": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/TiddlerInfo/Tagging",
"tags": "$:/tags/TiddlerInfo",
"caption": "{{$:/language/TiddlerInfo/Tagging/Caption}}",
"text": "\\define lingo-base() $:/language/TiddlerInfo/\n<$list filter=\"[all[current]tagging[]]\" emptyMessage=<<lingo Tagging/Empty>> template=\"$:/core/ui/ListItemTemplate\"/>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/TiddlerInfo/Tools": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/TiddlerInfo/Tools",
"tags": "$:/tags/TiddlerInfo",
"caption": "{{$:/language/TiddlerInfo/Tools/Caption}}",
"text": "\\define lingo-base() $:/language/TiddlerInfo/\n\\define config-title()\n$:/config/ViewToolbarButtons/Visibility/$(listItem)$\n\\end\n<$set name=\"tv-config-toolbar-icons\" value=\"yes\">\n\n<$set name=\"tv-config-toolbar-text\" value=\"yes\">\n\n<$set name=\"tv-config-toolbar-class\" value=\"\">\n\n<$list filter=\"[all[shadows+tiddlers]tag[$:/tags/ViewToolbar]!has[draft.of]]\" variable=\"listItem\">\n\n<$checkbox tiddler=<<config-title>> field=\"text\" checked=\"show\" unchecked=\"hide\" default=\"show\"/> <$transclude tiddler=<<listItem>>/> <i class=\"tc-muted\"><$transclude tiddler=<<listItem>> field=\"description\"/></i>\n\n</$list>\n\n</$set>\n\n</$set>\n\n</$set>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/TiddlerInfo": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/TiddlerInfo",
"text": "<div style=\"position:relative;\">\n<div class=\"tc-tiddler-controls\" style=\"position:absolute;right:0;\">\n<$reveal state=\"$:/config/TiddlerInfo/Mode\" type=\"match\" text=\"sticky\">\n<$button set=<<tiddlerInfoState>> setTo=\"\" tooltip={{$:/language/Buttons/Info/Hint}} aria-label={{$:/language/Buttons/Info/Caption}} class=\"tc-btn-invisible\">\n{{$:/core/images/close-button}}\n</$button>\n</$reveal>\n</div>\n</div>\n\n<$macrocall $name=\"tabs\" tabsList=\"[all[shadows+tiddlers]tag[$:/tags/TiddlerInfo]!has[draft.of]]\" default={{$:/config/TiddlerInfo/Default}}/>"
},
"$:/core/ui/TopBar/menu": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/TopBar/menu",
"tags": "$:/tags/TopRightBar",
"text": "<$reveal state=\"$:/state/sidebar\" type=\"nomatch\" text=\"no\">\n<$button set=\"$:/state/sidebar\" setTo=\"no\" tooltip={{$:/language/Buttons/HideSideBar/Hint}} aria-label={{$:/language/Buttons/HideSideBar/Caption}} class=\"tc-btn-invisible\">{{$:/core/images/chevron-right}}</$button>\n</$reveal>\n<$reveal state=\"$:/state/sidebar\" type=\"match\" text=\"no\">\n<$button set=\"$:/state/sidebar\" setTo=\"yes\" tooltip={{$:/language/Buttons/ShowSideBar/Hint}} aria-label={{$:/language/Buttons/ShowSideBar/Caption}} class=\"tc-btn-invisible\">{{$:/core/images/chevron-left}}</$button>\n</$reveal>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/UntaggedTemplate": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/UntaggedTemplate",
"text": "\\define lingo-base() $:/language/SideBar/\n<$button popup=<<qualify \"$:/state/popup/tag\">> class=\"tc-btn-invisible tc-untagged-label tc-tag-label\">\n<<lingo Tags/Untagged/Caption>>\n</$button>\n<$reveal state=<<qualify \"$:/state/popup/tag\">> type=\"popup\" position=\"below\">\n<div class=\"tc-drop-down\">\n<$list filter=\"[untagged[]!is[system]] -[tags[]] +[sort[title]]\" template=\"$:/core/ui/ListItemTemplate\"/>\n</div>\n</$reveal>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/ViewTemplate/body": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/ViewTemplate/body",
"tags": "$:/tags/ViewTemplate",
"text": "<$reveal tag=\"div\" class=\"tc-tiddler-body\" type=\"nomatch\" stateTitle=<<folded-state>> text=\"hide\" retain=\"yes\" animate=\"yes\">\n\n<$list filter=\"[all[current]!has[plugin-type]!field:hide-body[yes]]\">\n\n<$transclude>\n\n<$transclude tiddler=\"$:/language/MissingTiddler/Hint\"/>\n\n</$transclude>\n\n</$list>\n\n</$reveal>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/ViewTemplate/classic": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/ViewTemplate/classic",
"tags": "$:/tags/ViewTemplate $:/tags/EditTemplate",
"text": "\\define lingo-base() $:/language/ClassicWarning/\n<$list filter=\"[all[current]type[text/x-tiddlywiki]]\">\n<div class=\"tc-message-box\">\n\n<<lingo Hint>>\n\n<$button set=\"!!type\" setTo=\"text/vnd.tiddlywiki\"><<lingo Upgrade/Caption>></$button>\n\n</div>\n</$list>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/ViewTemplate/import": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/ViewTemplate/import",
"tags": "$:/tags/ViewTemplate",
"text": "\\define lingo-base() $:/language/Import/\n\n\\define buttons()\n<$button message=\"tm-delete-tiddler\" param=<<currentTiddler>>><<lingo Listing/Cancel/Caption>></$button>\n<$button message=\"tm-perform-import\" param=<<currentTiddler>>><<lingo Listing/Import/Caption>></$button>\n<<lingo Listing/Preview>> <$select tiddler=\"$:/state/importpreviewtype\" default=\"$:/core/ui/ImportPreviews/Text\">\n<$list filter=\"[all[shadows+tiddlers]tag[$:/tags/ImportPreview]!has[draft.of]]\">\n<option value=<<currentTiddler>>>{{!!caption}}</option>\n</$list>\n</$select>\n\\end\n\n<$list filter=\"[all[current]field:plugin-type[import]]\">\n\n<div class=\"tc-import\">\n\n<<lingo Listing/Hint>>\n\n<<buttons>>\n\n{{||$:/core/ui/ImportListing}}\n\n<<buttons>>\n\n</div>\n\n</$list>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/ViewTemplate/plugin": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/ViewTemplate/plugin",
"tags": "$:/tags/ViewTemplate",
"text": "<$list filter=\"[all[current]has[plugin-type]] -[all[current]field:plugin-type[import]]\">\n<$set name=\"plugin-type\" value={{!!plugin-type}}>\n<$set name=\"default-popup-state\" value=\"yes\">\n<$set name=\"qualified-state\" value=<<qualify \"$:/state/plugin-info\">>>\n{{||$:/core/ui/Components/plugin-info}}\n</$set>\n</$set>\n</$set>\n</$list>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/ViewTemplate/subtitle": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/ViewTemplate/subtitle",
"tags": "$:/tags/ViewTemplate",
"text": "<$reveal type=\"nomatch\" stateTitle=<<folded-state>> text=\"hide\" tag=\"div\" retain=\"yes\" animate=\"yes\">\n<div class=\"tc-subtitle\">\n<$link to={{!!modifier}}>\n<$view field=\"modifier\"/>\n</$link> <$view field=\"modified\" format=\"date\" template={{$:/language/Tiddler/DateFormat}}/>\n</div>\n</$reveal>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/ViewTemplate/tags": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/ViewTemplate/tags",
"tags": "$:/tags/ViewTemplate",
"text": "<$reveal type=\"nomatch\" stateTitle=<<folded-state>> text=\"hide\" tag=\"div\" retain=\"yes\" animate=\"yes\">\n<div class=\"tc-tags-wrapper\"><$list filter=\"[all[current]tags[]sort[title]]\" template=\"$:/core/ui/TagTemplate\" storyview=\"pop\"/></div>\n</$reveal>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/ViewTemplate/title": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/ViewTemplate/title",
"tags": "$:/tags/ViewTemplate",
"text": "\\define title-styles()\nfill:$(foregroundColor)$;\n\\end\n\\define config-title()\n$:/config/ViewToolbarButtons/Visibility/$(listItem)$\n\\end\n<div class=\"tc-tiddler-title\">\n<div class=\"tc-titlebar\">\n<span class=\"tc-tiddler-controls\">\n<$list filter=\"[all[shadows+tiddlers]tag[$:/tags/ViewToolbar]!has[draft.of]]\" variable=\"listItem\"><$reveal type=\"nomatch\" state=<<config-title>> text=\"hide\"><$set name=\"tv-config-toolbar-class\" filter=\"[<tv-config-toolbar-class>] [<listItem>encodeuricomponent[]addprefix[tc-btn-]]\"><$transclude tiddler=<<listItem>>/></$set></$reveal></$list>\n</span>\n<$set name=\"tv-wikilinks\" value={{$:/config/Tiddlers/TitleLinks}}>\n<$link>\n<$set name=\"foregroundColor\" value={{!!color}}>\n<span class=\"tc-tiddler-title-icon\" style=<<title-styles>>>\n<$transclude tiddler={{!!icon}}/>\n</span>\n</$set>\n<$list filter=\"[all[current]removeprefix[$:/]]\">\n<h2 class=\"tc-title\" title={{$:/language/SystemTiddler/Tooltip}}>\n<span class=\"tc-system-title-prefix\">$:/</span><$text text=<<currentTiddler>>/>\n</h2>\n</$list>\n<$list filter=\"[all[current]!prefix[$:/]]\">\n<h2 class=\"tc-title\">\n<$view field=\"title\"/>\n</h2>\n</$list>\n</$link>\n</$set>\n</div>\n\n<$reveal type=\"nomatch\" text=\"\" default=\"\" state=<<tiddlerInfoState>> class=\"tc-tiddler-info tc-popup-handle\" animate=\"yes\" retain=\"yes\">\n\n<$list filter=\"[all[shadows+tiddlers]tag[$:/tags/TiddlerInfoSegment]!has[draft.of]] [[$:/core/ui/TiddlerInfo]]\" variable=\"listItem\"><$transclude tiddler=<<listItem>> mode=\"block\"/></$list>\n\n</$reveal>\n</div>"
},
"$:/core/ui/ViewTemplate/unfold": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/ViewTemplate/unfold",
"tags": "$:/tags/ViewTemplate",
"text": "<$reveal tag=\"div\" type=\"nomatch\" state=\"$:/config/ViewToolbarButtons/Visibility/$:/core/ui/Buttons/fold-bar\" text=\"hide\">\n<$reveal tag=\"div\" type=\"nomatch\" stateTitle=<<folded-state>> text=\"hide\" default=\"show\" retain=\"yes\" animate=\"yes\">\n<$button tooltip={{$:/language/Buttons/Fold/Hint}} aria-label={{$:/language/Buttons/Fold/Caption}} class=\"tc-fold-banner\">\n<$action-sendmessage $message=\"tm-fold-tiddler\" $param=<<currentTiddler>> foldedState=<<folded-state>>/>\n{{$:/core/images/chevron-up}}\n</$button>\n</$reveal>\n<$reveal tag=\"div\" type=\"nomatch\" stateTitle=<<folded-state>> text=\"show\" default=\"show\" retain=\"yes\" animate=\"yes\">\n<$button tooltip={{$:/language/Buttons/Unfold/Hint}} aria-label={{$:/language/Buttons/Unfold/Caption}} class=\"tc-unfold-banner\">\n<$action-sendmessage $message=\"tm-fold-tiddler\" $param=<<currentTiddler>> foldedState=<<folded-state>>/>\n{{$:/core/images/chevron-down}}\n</$button>\n</$reveal>\n</$reveal>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/ViewTemplate": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/ViewTemplate",
"text": "\\define frame-classes()\ntc-tiddler-frame tc-tiddler-view-frame $(missingTiddlerClass)$ $(shadowTiddlerClass)$ $(systemTiddlerClass)$ $(tiddlerTagClasses)$ $(userClass)$\n\\end\n\\define folded-state()\n$:/state/folded/$(currentTiddler)$\n\\end\n<$vars storyTiddler=<<currentTiddler>> tiddlerInfoState=<<qualify \"$:/state/popup/tiddler-info\">> userClass={{!!class}}><$tiddler tiddler=<<currentTiddler>>><div data-tiddler-title=<<currentTiddler>> data-tags={{!!tags}} class=<<frame-classes>>><$list filter=\"[all[shadows+tiddlers]tag[$:/tags/ViewTemplate]!has[draft.of]]\" variable=\"listItem\"><$transclude tiddler=<<listItem>>/></$list>\n</div>\n</$tiddler></$vars>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/Buttons/clone": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/Buttons/clone",
"tags": "$:/tags/ViewToolbar",
"caption": "{{$:/core/images/clone-button}} {{$:/language/Buttons/Clone/Caption}}",
"description": "{{$:/language/Buttons/Clone/Hint}}",
"text": "\\whitespace trim\n<$button message=\"tm-new-tiddler\" param=<<currentTiddler>> tooltip={{$:/language/Buttons/Clone/Hint}} aria-label={{$:/language/Buttons/Clone/Caption}} class=<<tv-config-toolbar-class>>>\n<$list filter=\"[<tv-config-toolbar-icons>prefix[yes]]\">\n{{$:/core/images/clone-button}}\n</$list>\n<$list filter=\"[<tv-config-toolbar-text>prefix[yes]]\">\n<span class=\"tc-btn-text\">\n<$text text=\" \"/>\n<$text text={{$:/language/Buttons/Clone/Caption}}/>\n</span>\n</$list>\n</$button>"
},
"$:/core/ui/Buttons/close-others": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/Buttons/close-others",
"tags": "$:/tags/ViewToolbar",
"caption": "{{$:/core/images/close-others-button}} {{$:/language/Buttons/CloseOthers/Caption}}",
"description": "{{$:/language/Buttons/CloseOthers/Hint}}",
"text": "\\whitespace trim\n<$button message=\"tm-close-other-tiddlers\" param=<<currentTiddler>> tooltip={{$:/language/Buttons/CloseOthers/Hint}} aria-label={{$:/language/Buttons/CloseOthers/Caption}} class=<<tv-config-toolbar-class>>>\n<$list filter=\"[<tv-config-toolbar-icons>prefix[yes]]\">\n{{$:/core/images/close-others-button}}\n</$list>\n<$list filter=\"[<tv-config-toolbar-text>prefix[yes]]\">\n<span class=\"tc-btn-text\">\n<$text text=\" \"/>\n<$text text={{$:/language/Buttons/CloseOthers/Caption}}/>\n</span>\n</$list>\n</$button>"
},
"$:/core/ui/Buttons/close": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/Buttons/close",
"tags": "$:/tags/ViewToolbar",
"caption": "{{$:/core/images/close-button}} {{$:/language/Buttons/Close/Caption}}",
"description": "{{$:/language/Buttons/Close/Hint}}",
"text": "\\whitespace trim\n<$button message=\"tm-close-tiddler\" tooltip={{$:/language/Buttons/Close/Hint}} aria-label={{$:/language/Buttons/Close/Caption}} class=<<tv-config-toolbar-class>>>\n<$list filter=\"[<tv-config-toolbar-icons>prefix[yes]]\">\n{{$:/core/images/close-button}}\n</$list>\n<$list filter=\"[<tv-config-toolbar-text>prefix[yes]]\">\n<span class=\"tc-btn-text\">\n<$text text={{$:/language/Buttons/Close/Caption}}/>\n</span>\n</$list>\n</$button>"
},
"$:/core/ui/Buttons/edit": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/Buttons/edit",
"tags": "$:/tags/ViewToolbar",
"caption": "{{$:/core/images/edit-button}} {{$:/language/Buttons/Edit/Caption}}",
"description": "{{$:/language/Buttons/Edit/Hint}}",
"text": "\\whitespace trim\n<$button message=\"tm-edit-tiddler\" tooltip={{$:/language/Buttons/Edit/Hint}} aria-label={{$:/language/Buttons/Edit/Caption}} class=<<tv-config-toolbar-class>>>\n<$list filter=\"[<tv-config-toolbar-icons>prefix[yes]]\">\n{{$:/core/images/edit-button}}\n</$list>\n<$list filter=\"[<tv-config-toolbar-text>prefix[yes]]\">\n<span class=\"tc-btn-text\">\n<$text text=\" \"/>\n<$text text={{$:/language/Buttons/Edit/Caption}}/>\n</span>\n</$list>\n</$button>"
},
"$:/core/ui/Buttons/export-tiddler": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/Buttons/export-tiddler",
"tags": "$:/tags/ViewToolbar",
"caption": "{{$:/core/images/export-button}} {{$:/language/Buttons/ExportTiddler/Caption}}",
"description": "{{$:/language/Buttons/ExportTiddler/Hint}}",
"text": "\\define makeExportFilter()\n[[$(currentTiddler)$]]\n\\end\n<$macrocall $name=\"exportButton\" exportFilter=<<makeExportFilter>> lingoBase=\"$:/language/Buttons/ExportTiddler/\" baseFilename=<<currentTiddler>>/>"
},
"$:/core/ui/Buttons/fold-bar": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/Buttons/fold-bar",
"tags": "$:/tags/ViewToolbar",
"caption": "{{$:/core/images/chevron-up}} {{$:/language/Buttons/Fold/FoldBar/Caption}}",
"description": "{{$:/language/Buttons/Fold/FoldBar/Hint}}",
"text": "<!-- This dummy toolbar button is here to allow visibility of the fold-bar to be controlled as if it were a toolbar button -->"
},
"$:/core/ui/Buttons/fold-others": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/Buttons/fold-others",
"tags": "$:/tags/ViewToolbar",
"caption": "{{$:/core/images/fold-others-button}} {{$:/language/Buttons/FoldOthers/Caption}}",
"description": "{{$:/language/Buttons/FoldOthers/Hint}}",
"text": "\\whitespace trim\n<$button tooltip={{$:/language/Buttons/FoldOthers/Hint}} aria-label={{$:/language/Buttons/FoldOthers/Caption}} class=<<tv-config-toolbar-class>>>\n<$action-sendmessage $message=\"tm-fold-other-tiddlers\" $param=<<currentTiddler>> foldedStatePrefix=\"$:/state/folded/\"/>\n<$list filter=\"[<tv-config-toolbar-icons>prefix[yes]]\" variable=\"listItem\">\n{{$:/core/images/fold-others-button}}\n</$list>\n<$list filter=\"[<tv-config-toolbar-text>prefix[yes]]\">\n<span class=\"tc-btn-text\">\n<$text text=\" \"/>\n<$text text={{$:/language/Buttons/FoldOthers/Caption}}/>\n</span>\n</$list>\n</$button>"
},
"$:/core/ui/Buttons/fold": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/Buttons/fold",
"tags": "$:/tags/ViewToolbar",
"caption": "{{$:/core/images/fold-button}} {{$:/language/Buttons/Fold/Caption}}",
"description": "{{$:/language/Buttons/Fold/Hint}}",
"text": "\\whitespace trim\n<$reveal type=\"nomatch\" stateTitle=<<folded-state>> text=\"hide\" default=\"show\">\n<$button tooltip={{$:/language/Buttons/Fold/Hint}} aria-label={{$:/language/Buttons/Fold/Caption}} class=<<tv-config-toolbar-class>>>\n<$action-sendmessage $message=\"tm-fold-tiddler\" $param=<<currentTiddler>> foldedState=<<folded-state>>/>\n<$list filter=\"[<tv-config-toolbar-icons>prefix[yes]]\" variable=\"listItem\">\n{{$:/core/images/fold-button}}\n</$list>\n<$list filter=\"[<tv-config-toolbar-text>prefix[yes]]\">\n<span class=\"tc-btn-text\">\n<$text text=\" \"/>\n<$text text={{$:/language/Buttons/Fold/Caption}}/>\n</span>\n</$list>\n</$button>\n</$reveal>\n<$reveal type=\"match\" stateTitle=<<folded-state>> text=\"hide\" default=\"show\">\n<$button tooltip={{$:/language/Buttons/Unfold/Hint}} aria-label={{$:/language/Buttons/Unfold/Caption}} class=<<tv-config-toolbar-class>>>\n<$action-sendmessage $message=\"tm-fold-tiddler\" $param=<<currentTiddler>> foldedState=<<folded-state>>/>\n<$list filter=\"[<tv-config-toolbar-icons>prefix[yes]]\" variable=\"listItem\">\n{{$:/core/images/unfold-button}}\n</$list>\n<$list filter=\"[<tv-config-toolbar-text>prefix[yes]]\">\n<span class=\"tc-btn-text\">\n<$text text=\" \"/>\n<$text text={{$:/language/Buttons/Unfold/Caption}}/>\n</span>\n</$list>\n</$button>\n</$reveal>\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/Buttons/info": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/Buttons/info",
"tags": "$:/tags/ViewToolbar",
"caption": "{{$:/core/images/info-button}} {{$:/language/Buttons/Info/Caption}}",
"description": "{{$:/language/Buttons/Info/Hint}}",
"text": "\\whitespace trim\n\\define button-content()\n<$list filter=\"[<tv-config-toolbar-icons>prefix[yes]]\">\n{{$:/core/images/info-button}}\n</$list>\n<$list filter=\"[<tv-config-toolbar-text>prefix[yes]]\">\n<span class=\"tc-btn-text\">\n<$text text={{$:/language/Buttons/Info/Caption}}/>\n</span>\n</$list>\n\\end\n<$reveal state=\"$:/config/TiddlerInfo/Mode\" type=\"match\" text=\"popup\">\n<$button popup=<<tiddlerInfoState>> tooltip={{$:/language/Buttons/Info/Hint}} aria-label={{$:/language/Buttons/Info/Caption}} class=<<tv-config-toolbar-class>> selectedClass=\"tc-selected\">\n<$macrocall $name=\"button-content\" mode=\"inline\"/>\n</$button>\n</$reveal>\n<$reveal state=\"$:/config/TiddlerInfo/Mode\" type=\"match\" text=\"sticky\">\n<$reveal state=<<tiddlerInfoState>> type=\"match\" text=\"\" default=\"\">\n<$button set=<<tiddlerInfoState>> setTo=\"yes\" tooltip={{$:/language/Buttons/Info/Hint}} aria-label={{$:/language/Buttons/Info/Caption}} class=<<tv-config-toolbar-class>> selectedClass=\"tc-selected\">\n<$macrocall $name=\"button-content\" mode=\"inline\"/>\n</$button>\n</$reveal>\n<$reveal state=<<tiddlerInfoState>> type=\"nomatch\" text=\"\" default=\"\">\n<$button set=<<tiddlerInfoState>> setTo=\"\" tooltip={{$:/language/Buttons/Info/Hint}} aria-label={{$:/language/Buttons/Info/Caption}} class=<<tv-config-toolbar-class>> selectedClass=\"tc-selected\">\n<$macrocall $name=\"button-content\" mode=\"inline\"/>\n</$button>\n</$reveal>\n</$reveal>"
},
"$:/core/ui/Buttons/more-tiddler-actions": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/Buttons/more-tiddler-actions",
"tags": "$:/tags/ViewToolbar",
"caption": "{{$:/core/images/down-arrow}} {{$:/language/Buttons/More/Caption}}",
"description": "{{$:/language/Buttons/More/Hint}}",
"text": "\\whitespace trim\n\\define config-title()\n$:/config/ViewToolbarButtons/Visibility/$(listItem)$\n\\end\n<$button popup=<<qualify \"$:/state/popup/more\">> tooltip={{$:/language/Buttons/More/Hint}} aria-label={{$:/language/Buttons/More/Caption}} class=<<tv-config-toolbar-class>> selectedClass=\"tc-selected\">\n<$list filter=\"[<tv-config-toolbar-icons>prefix[yes]]\">\n{{$:/core/images/down-arrow}}\n</$list>\n<$list filter=\"[<tv-config-toolbar-text>prefix[yes]]\">\n<span class=\"tc-btn-text\">\n<$text text=\" \"/>\n<$text text={{$:/language/Buttons/More/Caption}}/>\n</span>\n</$list>\n</$button>\n<$reveal state=<<qualify \"$:/state/popup/more\">> type=\"popup\" position=\"belowleft\" animate=\"yes\">\n\n<div class=\"tc-drop-down\">\n\n<$set name=\"tv-config-toolbar-icons\" value=\"yes\">\n\n<$set name=\"tv-config-toolbar-text\" value=\"yes\">\n\n<$set name=\"tv-config-toolbar-class\" value=\"tc-btn-invisible\">\n\n<$list filter=\"[all[shadows+tiddlers]tag[$:/tags/ViewToolbar]!has[draft.of]] -[[$:/core/ui/Buttons/more-tiddler-actions]]\" variable=\"listItem\">\n\n<$reveal type=\"match\" state=<<config-title>> text=\"hide\">\n\n<$set name=\"tv-config-toolbar-class\" filter=\"[<tv-config-toolbar-class>] [<listItem>encodeuricomponent[]addprefix[tc-btn-]]\">\n\n<$transclude tiddler=<<listItem>> mode=\"inline\"/>\n\n</$set>\n\n</$reveal>\n\n</$list>\n\n</$set>\n\n</$set>\n\n</$set>\n\n</div>\n\n</$reveal>"
},
"$:/core/ui/Buttons/new-here": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/Buttons/new-here",
"tags": "$:/tags/ViewToolbar",
"caption": "{{$:/core/images/new-here-button}} {{$:/language/Buttons/NewHere/Caption}}",
"description": "{{$:/language/Buttons/NewHere/Hint}}",
"text": "\\whitespace trim\n\\define newHereButtonTags()\n[[$(currentTiddler)$]]\n\\end\n\\define newHereButton()\n<$button tooltip={{$:/language/Buttons/NewHere/Hint}} aria-label={{$:/language/Buttons/NewHere/Caption}} class=<<tv-config-toolbar-class>>>\n<$action-sendmessage $message=\"tm-new-tiddler\" tags=<<newHereButtonTags>>/>\n<$list filter=\"[<tv-config-toolbar-icons>prefix[yes]]\">\n{{$:/core/images/new-here-button}}\n</$list>\n<$list filter=\"[<tv-config-toolbar-text>prefix[yes]]\">\n<span class=\"tc-btn-text\">\n<$text text={{$:/language/Buttons/NewHere/Caption}}/>\n</span>\n</$list>\n</$button>\n\\end\n<<newHereButton>>"
},
"$:/core/ui/Buttons/new-journal-here": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/Buttons/new-journal-here",
"tags": "$:/tags/ViewToolbar",
"caption": "{{$:/core/images/new-journal-button}} {{$:/language/Buttons/NewJournalHere/Caption}}",
"description": "{{$:/language/Buttons/NewJournalHere/Hint}}",
"text": "\\whitespace trim\n\\define journalButtonTags()\n[[$(currentTiddlerTag)$]] $(journalTags)$\n\\end\n\\define journalButton()\n<$button tooltip={{$:/language/Buttons/NewJournalHere/Hint}} aria-label={{$:/language/Buttons/NewJournalHere/Caption}} class=<<tv-config-toolbar-class>>>\n<$wikify name=\"journalTitle\" text=\"\"\"<$macrocall $name=\"now\" format=<<journalTitleTemplate>>/>\"\"\">\n<$action-sendmessage $message=\"tm-new-tiddler\" title=<<journalTitle>> tags=<<journalButtonTags>>/>\n<$list filter=\"[<tv-config-toolbar-icons>prefix[yes]]\">\n{{$:/core/images/new-journal-button}}\n</$list>\n<$list filter=\"[<tv-config-toolbar-text>prefix[yes]]\">\n<span class=\"tc-btn-text\">\n<$text text={{$:/language/Buttons/NewJournalHere/Caption}}/>\n</span>\n</$list>\n</$wikify>\n</$button>\n\\end\n<$set name=\"journalTitleTemplate\" value={{$:/config/NewJournal/Title}}>\n<$set name=\"journalTags\" value={{$:/config/NewJournal/Tags}}>\n<$set name=\"currentTiddlerTag\" value=<<currentTiddler>>>\n<<journalButton>>\n</$set>\n</$set>\n</$set>"
},
"$:/core/ui/Buttons/open-window": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/Buttons/open-window",
"tags": "$:/tags/ViewToolbar",
"caption": "{{$:/core/images/open-window}} {{$:/language/Buttons/OpenWindow/Caption}}",
"description": "{{$:/language/Buttons/OpenWindow/Hint}}",
"text": "\\whitespace trim\n<$button message=\"tm-open-window\" tooltip={{$:/language/Buttons/OpenWindow/Hint}} aria-label={{$:/language/Buttons/OpenWindow/Caption}} class=<<tv-config-toolbar-class>>>\n<$list filter=\"[<tv-config-toolbar-icons>prefix[yes]]\">\n{{$:/core/images/open-window}}\n</$list>\n<$list filter=\"[<tv-config-toolbar-text>prefix[yes]]\">\n<span class=\"tc-btn-text\">\n<$text text=\" \"/>\n<$text text={{$:/language/Buttons/OpenWindow/Caption}}/>\n</span>\n</$list>\n</$button>"
},
"$:/core/ui/Buttons/permalink": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/Buttons/permalink",
"tags": "$:/tags/ViewToolbar",
"caption": "{{$:/core/images/permalink-button}} {{$:/language/Buttons/Permalink/Caption}}",
"description": "{{$:/language/Buttons/Permalink/Hint}}",
"text": "\\whitespace trim\n<$button message=\"tm-permalink\" tooltip={{$:/language/Buttons/Permalink/Hint}} aria-label={{$:/language/Buttons/Permalink/Caption}} class=<<tv-config-toolbar-class>>>\n<$list filter=\"[<tv-config-toolbar-icons>prefix[yes]]\">\n{{$:/core/images/permalink-button}}\n</$list>\n<$list filter=\"[<tv-config-toolbar-text>prefix[yes]]\">\n<span class=\"tc-btn-text\">\n<$text text=\" \"/>\n<$text text={{$:/language/Buttons/Permalink/Caption}}/>\n</span>\n</$list>\n</$button>"
},
"$:/core/ui/Buttons/permaview": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/Buttons/permaview",
"tags": "$:/tags/ViewToolbar $:/tags/PageControls",
"caption": "{{$:/core/images/permaview-button}} {{$:/language/Buttons/Permaview/Caption}}",
"description": "{{$:/language/Buttons/Permaview/Hint}}",
"text": "\\whitespace trim\n<$button message=\"tm-permaview\" tooltip={{$:/language/Buttons/Permaview/Hint}} aria-label={{$:/language/Buttons/Permaview/Caption}} class=<<tv-config-toolbar-class>>>\n<$list filter=\"[<tv-config-toolbar-icons>prefix[yes]]\">\n{{$:/core/images/permaview-button}}\n</$list>\n<$list filter=\"[<tv-config-toolbar-text>prefix[yes]]\">\n<span class=\"tc-btn-text\">\n<$text text=\" \"/>\n<$text text={{$:/language/Buttons/Permaview/Caption}}/>\n</span>\n</$list>\n</$button>"
},
"$:/DefaultTiddlers": {
"title": "$:/DefaultTiddlers",
"text": "GettingStarted\n"
},
"$:/temp/advancedsearch": {
"title": "$:/temp/advancedsearch",
"text": ""
},
"$:/snippets/allfields": {
"title": "$:/snippets/allfields",
"text": "\\define renderfield(title)\n<tr class=\"tc-view-field\"><td class=\"tc-view-field-name\">''$title$'':</td><td class=\"tc-view-field-value\">//{{$:/language/Docs/Fields/$title$}}//</td></tr>\n\\end\n<table class=\"tc-view-field-table\"><tbody><$list filter=\"[fields[]sort[title]]\" variable=\"listItem\"><$macrocall $name=\"renderfield\" title=<<listItem>>/></$list>\n</tbody></table>\n"
},
"$:/config/AnimationDuration": {
"title": "$:/config/AnimationDuration",
"text": "400"
},
"$:/config/AutoSave": {
"title": "$:/config/AutoSave",
"text": "yes"
},
"$:/config/BitmapEditor/Colour": {
"title": "$:/config/BitmapEditor/Colour",
"text": "#444"
},
"$:/config/BitmapEditor/ImageSizes": {
"title": "$:/config/BitmapEditor/ImageSizes",
"text": "[[62px 100px]] [[100px 62px]] [[124px 200px]] [[200px 124px]] [[248px 400px]] [[371px 600px]] [[400px 248px]] [[556px 900px]] [[600px 371px]] [[742px 1200px]] [[900px 556px]] [[1200px 742px]]"
},
"$:/config/BitmapEditor/LineWidth": {
"title": "$:/config/BitmapEditor/LineWidth",
"text": "3px"
},
"$:/config/BitmapEditor/LineWidths": {
"title": "$:/config/BitmapEditor/LineWidths",
"text": "0.25px 0.5px 1px 2px 3px 4px 6px 8px 10px 16px 20px 28px 40px 56px 80px"
},
"$:/config/BitmapEditor/Opacities": {
"title": "$:/config/BitmapEditor/Opacities",
"text": "0.01 0.025 0.05 0.075 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0"
},
"$:/config/BitmapEditor/Opacity": {
"title": "$:/config/BitmapEditor/Opacity",
"text": "1.0"
},
"$:/config/DefaultMoreSidebarTab": {
"title": "$:/config/DefaultMoreSidebarTab",
"text": "$:/core/ui/MoreSideBar/Tags"
},
"$:/config/DefaultSidebarTab": {
"title": "$:/config/DefaultSidebarTab",
"text": "$:/core/ui/SideBar/Open"
},
"$:/config/DownloadSaver/AutoSave": {
"title": "$:/config/DownloadSaver/AutoSave",
"text": "no"
},
"$:/config/Drafts/TypingTimeout": {
"title": "$:/config/Drafts/TypingTimeout",
"text": "400"
},
"$:/config/EditTemplateFields/Visibility/title": {
"title": "$:/config/EditTemplateFields/Visibility/title",
"text": "hide"
},
"$:/config/EditTemplateFields/Visibility/tags": {
"title": "$:/config/EditTemplateFields/Visibility/tags",
"text": "hide"
},
"$:/config/EditTemplateFields/Visibility/text": {
"title": "$:/config/EditTemplateFields/Visibility/text",
"text": "hide"
},
"$:/config/EditTemplateFields/Visibility/creator": {
"title": "$:/config/EditTemplateFields/Visibility/creator",
"text": "hide"
},
"$:/config/EditTemplateFields/Visibility/created": {
"title": "$:/config/EditTemplateFields/Visibility/created",
"text": "hide"
},
"$:/config/EditTemplateFields/Visibility/modified": {
"title": "$:/config/EditTemplateFields/Visibility/modified",
"text": "hide"
},
"$:/config/EditTemplateFields/Visibility/modifier": {
"title": "$:/config/EditTemplateFields/Visibility/modifier",
"text": "hide"
},
"$:/config/EditTemplateFields/Visibility/type": {
"title": "$:/config/EditTemplateFields/Visibility/type",
"text": "hide"
},
"$:/config/EditTemplateFields/Visibility/draft.title": {
"title": "$:/config/EditTemplateFields/Visibility/draft.title",
"text": "hide"
},
"$:/config/EditTemplateFields/Visibility/draft.of": {
"title": "$:/config/EditTemplateFields/Visibility/draft.of",
"text": "hide"
},
"$:/config/EditTemplateFields/Visibility/revision": {
"title": "$:/config/EditTemplateFields/Visibility/revision",
"text": "hide"
},
"$:/config/EditTemplateFields/Visibility/bag": {
"title": "$:/config/EditTemplateFields/Visibility/bag",
"text": "hide"
},
"$:/config/EditorToolbarButtons/Visibility/$:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/heading-4": {
"title": "$:/config/EditorToolbarButtons/Visibility/$:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/heading-4",
"text": "hide"
},
"$:/config/EditorToolbarButtons/Visibility/$:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/heading-5": {
"title": "$:/config/EditorToolbarButtons/Visibility/$:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/heading-5",
"text": "hide"
},
"$:/config/EditorToolbarButtons/Visibility/$:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/heading-6": {
"title": "$:/config/EditorToolbarButtons/Visibility/$:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/heading-6",
"text": "hide"
},
"$:/config/EditorTypeMappings/image/gif": {
"title": "$:/config/EditorTypeMappings/image/gif",
"text": "bitmap"
},
"$:/config/EditorTypeMappings/image/webp": {
"title": "$:/config/EditorTypeMappings/image/webp",
"text": "bitmap"
},
"$:/config/EditorTypeMappings/image/heic": {
"title": "$:/config/EditorTypeMappings/image/heic",
"text": "bitmap"
},
"$:/config/EditorTypeMappings/image/heif": {
"title": "$:/config/EditorTypeMappings/image/heif",
"text": "bitmap"
},
"$:/config/EditorTypeMappings/image/jpeg": {
"title": "$:/config/EditorTypeMappings/image/jpeg",
"text": "bitmap"
},
"$:/config/EditorTypeMappings/image/jpg": {
"title": "$:/config/EditorTypeMappings/image/jpg",
"text": "bitmap"
},
"$:/config/EditorTypeMappings/image/png": {
"title": "$:/config/EditorTypeMappings/image/png",
"text": "bitmap"
},
"$:/config/EditorTypeMappings/image/x-icon": {
"title": "$:/config/EditorTypeMappings/image/x-icon",
"text": "bitmap"
},
"$:/config/EditorTypeMappings/text/vnd.tiddlywiki": {
"title": "$:/config/EditorTypeMappings/text/vnd.tiddlywiki",
"text": "text"
},
"$:/config/Manager/Show": {
"title": "$:/config/Manager/Show",
"text": "tiddlers"
},
"$:/config/Manager/Filter": {
"title": "$:/config/Manager/Filter",
"text": ""
},
"$:/config/Manager/Order": {
"title": "$:/config/Manager/Order",
"text": "forward"
},
"$:/config/Manager/Sort": {
"title": "$:/config/Manager/Sort",
"text": "title"
},
"$:/config/Manager/System": {
"title": "$:/config/Manager/System",
"text": "system"
},
"$:/config/Manager/Tag": {
"title": "$:/config/Manager/Tag",
"text": ""
},
"$:/state/popup/manager/item/$:/Manager/ItemMain/RawText": {
"title": "$:/state/popup/manager/item/$:/Manager/ItemMain/RawText",
"text": "hide"
},
"$:/config/MissingLinks": {
"title": "$:/config/MissingLinks",
"text": "yes"
},
"$:/config/Navigation/UpdateAddressBar": {
"title": "$:/config/Navigation/UpdateAddressBar",
"text": "no"
},
"$:/config/Navigation/UpdateHistory": {
"title": "$:/config/Navigation/UpdateHistory",
"text": "no"
},
"$:/config/NewImageType": {
"title": "$:/config/NewImageType",
"text": "jpeg"
},
"$:/config/OfficialPluginLibrary": {
"title": "$:/config/OfficialPluginLibrary",
"tags": "$:/tags/PluginLibrary",
"url": "https://tiddlywiki.com/library/v5.1.19/index.html",
"caption": "{{$:/language/OfficialPluginLibrary}}",
"text": "{{$:/language/OfficialPluginLibrary/Hint}}\n"
},
"$:/config/Navigation/openLinkFromInsideRiver": {
"title": "$:/config/Navigation/openLinkFromInsideRiver",
"text": "below"
},
"$:/config/Navigation/openLinkFromOutsideRiver": {
"title": "$:/config/Navigation/openLinkFromOutsideRiver",
"text": "top"
},
"$:/config/PageControlButtons/Visibility/$:/core/ui/Buttons/advanced-search": {
"title": "$:/config/PageControlButtons/Visibility/$:/core/ui/Buttons/advanced-search",
"text": "hide"
},
"$:/config/PageControlButtons/Visibility/$:/core/ui/Buttons/close-all": {
"title": "$:/config/PageControlButtons/Visibility/$:/core/ui/Buttons/close-all",
"text": "hide"
},
"$:/config/PageControlButtons/Visibility/$:/core/ui/Buttons/encryption": {
"title": "$:/config/PageControlButtons/Visibility/$:/core/ui/Buttons/encryption",
"text": "hide"
},
"$:/config/PageControlButtons/Visibility/$:/core/ui/Buttons/export-page": {
"title": "$:/config/PageControlButtons/Visibility/$:/core/ui/Buttons/export-page",
"text": "hide"
},
"$:/config/PageControlButtons/Visibility/$:/core/ui/Buttons/fold-all": {
"title": "$:/config/PageControlButtons/Visibility/$:/core/ui/Buttons/fold-all",
"text": "hide"
},
"$:/config/PageControlButtons/Visibility/$:/core/ui/Buttons/full-screen": {
"title": "$:/config/PageControlButtons/Visibility/$:/core/ui/Buttons/full-screen",
"text": "hide"
},
"$:/config/PageControlButtons/Visibility/$:/core/ui/Buttons/home": {
"title": "$:/config/PageControlButtons/Visibility/$:/core/ui/Buttons/home",
"text": "hide"
},
"$:/config/PageControlButtons/Visibility/$:/core/ui/Buttons/refresh": {
"title": "$:/config/PageControlButtons/Visibility/$:/core/ui/Buttons/refresh",
"text": "hide"
},
"$:/config/PageControlButtons/Visibility/$:/core/ui/Buttons/import": {
"title": "$:/config/PageControlButtons/Visibility/$:/core/ui/Buttons/import",
"text": "hide"
},
"$:/config/PageControlButtons/Visibility/$:/core/ui/Buttons/language": {
"title": "$:/config/PageControlButtons/Visibility/$:/core/ui/Buttons/language",
"text": "hide"
},
"$:/config/PageControlButtons/Visibility/$:/core/ui/Buttons/tag-manager": {
"title": "$:/config/PageControlButtons/Visibility/$:/core/ui/Buttons/tag-manager",
"text": "hide"
},
"$:/config/PageControlButtons/Visibility/$:/core/ui/Buttons/manager": {
"title": "$:/config/PageControlButtons/Visibility/$:/core/ui/Buttons/manager",
"text": "hide"
},
"$:/config/PageControlButtons/Visibility/$:/core/ui/Buttons/more-page-actions": {
"title": "$:/config/PageControlButtons/Visibility/$:/core/ui/Buttons/more-page-actions",
"text": "hide"
},
"$:/config/PageControlButtons/Visibility/$:/core/ui/Buttons/new-journal": {
"title": "$:/config/PageControlButtons/Visibility/$:/core/ui/Buttons/new-journal",
"text": "hide"
},
"$:/config/PageControlButtons/Visibility/$:/core/ui/Buttons/new-image": {
"title": "$:/config/PageControlButtons/Visibility/$:/core/ui/Buttons/new-image",
"text": "hide"
},
"$:/config/PageControlButtons/Visibility/$:/core/ui/Buttons/palette": {
"title": "$:/config/PageControlButtons/Visibility/$:/core/ui/Buttons/palette",
"text": "hide"
},
"$:/config/PageControlButtons/Visibility/$:/core/ui/Buttons/permaview": {
"title": "$:/config/PageControlButtons/Visibility/$:/core/ui/Buttons/permaview",
"text": "hide"
},
"$:/config/PageControlButtons/Visibility/$:/core/ui/Buttons/print": {
"title": "$:/config/PageControlButtons/Visibility/$:/core/ui/Buttons/print",
"text": "hide"
},
"$:/config/PageControlButtons/Visibility/$:/core/ui/Buttons/storyview": {
"title": "$:/config/PageControlButtons/Visibility/$:/core/ui/Buttons/storyview",
"text": "hide"
},
"$:/config/PageControlButtons/Visibility/$:/core/ui/Buttons/timestamp": {
"title": "$:/config/PageControlButtons/Visibility/$:/core/ui/Buttons/timestamp",
"text": "hide"
},
"$:/config/PageControlButtons/Visibility/$:/core/ui/Buttons/theme": {
"title": "$:/config/PageControlButtons/Visibility/$:/core/ui/Buttons/theme",
"text": "hide"
},
"$:/config/PageControlButtons/Visibility/$:/core/ui/Buttons/unfold-all": {
"title": "$:/config/PageControlButtons/Visibility/$:/core/ui/Buttons/unfold-all",
"text": "hide"
},
"$:/config/Performance/Instrumentation": {
"title": "$:/config/Performance/Instrumentation",
"text": "no"
},
"$:/config/SaveWikiButton/Template": {
"title": "$:/config/SaveWikiButton/Template",
"text": "$:/core/save/all"
},
"$:/config/SaverFilter": {
"title": "$:/config/SaverFilter",
"text": "[all[]] -[[$:/HistoryList]] -[[$:/StoryList]] -[[$:/Import]] -[[$:/isEncrypted]] -[[$:/UploadName]] -[prefix[$:/state/]] -[prefix[$:/temp/]]"
},
"$:/config/Search/AutoFocus": {
"title": "$:/config/Search/AutoFocus",
"text": "true"
},
"$:/config/Search/MinLength": {
"title": "$:/config/Search/MinLength",
"text": "3"
},
"$:/config/SearchResults/Default": {
"title": "$:/config/SearchResults/Default",
"text": "$:/core/ui/DefaultSearchResultList"
},
"$:/config/ShortcutInfo/bold": {
"title": "$:/config/ShortcutInfo/bold",
"text": "{{$:/language/Buttons/Bold/Hint}}"
},
"$:/config/ShortcutInfo/cancel-edit-tiddler": {
"title": "$:/config/ShortcutInfo/cancel-edit-tiddler",
"text": "{{$:/language/Buttons/Cancel/Hint}}"
},
"$:/config/ShortcutInfo/excise": {
"title": "$:/config/ShortcutInfo/excise",
"text": "{{$:/language/Buttons/Excise/Hint}}"
},
"$:/config/ShortcutInfo/heading-1": {
"title": "$:/config/ShortcutInfo/heading-1",
"text": "{{$:/language/Buttons/Heading1/Hint}}"
},
"$:/config/ShortcutInfo/heading-2": {
"title": "$:/config/ShortcutInfo/heading-2",
"text": "{{$:/language/Buttons/Heading2/Hint}}"
},
"$:/config/ShortcutInfo/heading-3": {
"title": "$:/config/ShortcutInfo/heading-3",
"text": "{{$:/language/Buttons/Heading3/Hint}}"
},
"$:/config/ShortcutInfo/heading-4": {
"title": "$:/config/ShortcutInfo/heading-4",
"text": "{{$:/language/Buttons/Heading4/Hint}}"
},
"$:/config/ShortcutInfo/heading-5": {
"title": "$:/config/ShortcutInfo/heading-5",
"text": "{{$:/language/Buttons/Heading5/Hint}}"
},
"$:/config/ShortcutInfo/heading-6": {
"title": "$:/config/ShortcutInfo/heading-6",
"text": "{{$:/language/Buttons/Heading6/Hint}}"
},
"$:/config/ShortcutInfo/italic": {
"title": "$:/config/ShortcutInfo/italic",
"text": "{{$:/language/Buttons/Italic/Hint}}"
},
"$:/config/ShortcutInfo/link": {
"title": "$:/config/ShortcutInfo/link",
"text": "{{$:/language/Buttons/Link/Hint}}"
},
"$:/config/ShortcutInfo/list-bullet": {
"title": "$:/config/ShortcutInfo/list-bullet",
"text": "{{$:/language/Buttons/ListBullet/Hint}}"
},
"$:/config/ShortcutInfo/list-number": {
"title": "$:/config/ShortcutInfo/list-number",
"text": "{{$:/language/Buttons/ListNumber/Hint}}"
},
"$:/config/ShortcutInfo/mono-block": {
"title": "$:/config/ShortcutInfo/mono-block",
"text": "{{$:/language/Buttons/MonoBlock/Hint}}"
},
"$:/config/ShortcutInfo/mono-line": {
"title": "$:/config/ShortcutInfo/mono-line",
"text": "{{$:/language/Buttons/MonoLine/Hint}}"
},
"$:/config/ShortcutInfo/new-image": {
"title": "$:/config/ShortcutInfo/new-image",
"text": "{{$:/language/Buttons/NewImage/Hint}}"
},
"$:/config/ShortcutInfo/new-journal": {
"title": "$:/config/ShortcutInfo/new-journal",
"text": "{{$:/language/Buttons/NewJournal/Hint}}"
},
"$:/config/ShortcutInfo/new-tiddler": {
"title": "$:/config/ShortcutInfo/new-tiddler",
"text": "{{$:/language/Buttons/NewTiddler/Hint}}"
},
"$:/config/ShortcutInfo/picture": {
"title": "$:/config/ShortcutInfo/picture",
"text": "{{$:/language/Buttons/Picture/Hint}}"
},
"$:/config/ShortcutInfo/preview": {
"title": "$:/config/ShortcutInfo/preview",
"text": "{{$:/language/Buttons/Preview/Hint}}"
},
"$:/config/ShortcutInfo/quote": {
"title": "$:/config/ShortcutInfo/quote",
"text": "{{$:/language/Buttons/Quote/Hint}}"
},
"$:/config/ShortcutInfo/save-tiddler": {
"title": "$:/config/ShortcutInfo/save-tiddler",
"text": "{{$:/language/Buttons/Save/Hint}}"
},
"$:/config/ShortcutInfo/stamp": {
"title": "$:/config/ShortcutInfo/stamp",
"text": "{{$:/language/Buttons/Stamp/Hint}}"
},
"$:/config/ShortcutInfo/strikethrough": {
"title": "$:/config/ShortcutInfo/strikethrough",
"text": "{{$:/language/Buttons/Strikethrough/Hint}}"
},
"$:/config/ShortcutInfo/subscript": {
"title": "$:/config/ShortcutInfo/subscript",
"text": "{{$:/language/Buttons/Subscript/Hint}}"
},
"$:/config/ShortcutInfo/superscript": {
"title": "$:/config/ShortcutInfo/superscript",
"text": "{{$:/language/Buttons/Superscript/Hint}}"
},
"$:/config/ShortcutInfo/underline": {
"title": "$:/config/ShortcutInfo/underline",
"text": "{{$:/language/Buttons/Underline/Hint}}"
},
"$:/config/SyncFilter": {
"title": "$:/config/SyncFilter",
"text": "[is[tiddler]] -[[$:/HistoryList]] -[[$:/Import]] -[[$:/isEncrypted]] -[prefix[$:/status/]] -[prefix[$:/state/]] -[prefix[$:/temp/]]"
},
"$:/config/Tags/MinLength": {
"title": "$:/config/Tags/MinLength",
"text": "0"
},
"$:/config/TextEditor/EditorHeight/Height": {
"title": "$:/config/TextEditor/EditorHeight/Height",
"text": "400px"
},
"$:/config/TextEditor/EditorHeight/Mode": {
"title": "$:/config/TextEditor/EditorHeight/Mode",
"text": "auto"
},
"$:/config/TiddlerInfo/Default": {
"title": "$:/config/TiddlerInfo/Default",
"text": "$:/core/ui/TiddlerInfo/Fields"
},
"$:/config/TiddlerInfo/Mode": {
"title": "$:/config/TiddlerInfo/Mode",
"text": "popup"
},
"$:/config/Tiddlers/TitleLinks": {
"title": "$:/config/Tiddlers/TitleLinks",
"text": "no"
},
"$:/config/Toolbar/ButtonClass": {
"title": "$:/config/Toolbar/ButtonClass",
"text": "tc-btn-invisible"
},
"$:/config/Toolbar/Icons": {
"title": "$:/config/Toolbar/Icons",
"text": "yes"
},
"$:/config/Toolbar/Text": {
"title": "$:/config/Toolbar/Text",
"text": "no"
},
"$:/config/ViewToolbarButtons/Visibility/$:/core/ui/Buttons/clone": {
"title": "$:/config/ViewToolbarButtons/Visibility/$:/core/ui/Buttons/clone",
"text": "hide"
},
"$:/config/ViewToolbarButtons/Visibility/$:/core/ui/Buttons/close-others": {
"title": "$:/config/ViewToolbarButtons/Visibility/$:/core/ui/Buttons/close-others",
"text": "hide"
},
"$:/config/ViewToolbarButtons/Visibility/$:/core/ui/Buttons/export-tiddler": {
"title": "$:/config/ViewToolbarButtons/Visibility/$:/core/ui/Buttons/export-tiddler",
"text": "hide"
},
"$:/config/ViewToolbarButtons/Visibility/$:/core/ui/Buttons/info": {
"title": "$:/config/ViewToolbarButtons/Visibility/$:/core/ui/Buttons/info",
"text": "hide"
},
"$:/config/ViewToolbarButtons/Visibility/$:/core/ui/Buttons/more-tiddler-actions": {
"title": "$:/config/ViewToolbarButtons/Visibility/$:/core/ui/Buttons/more-tiddler-actions",
"text": "show"
},
"$:/config/ViewToolbarButtons/Visibility/$:/core/ui/Buttons/new-here": {
"title": "$:/config/ViewToolbarButtons/Visibility/$:/core/ui/Buttons/new-here",
"text": "hide"
},
"$:/config/ViewToolbarButtons/Visibility/$:/core/ui/Buttons/new-journal-here": {
"title": "$:/config/ViewToolbarButtons/Visibility/$:/core/ui/Buttons/new-journal-here",
"text": "hide"
},
"$:/config/ViewToolbarButtons/Visibility/$:/core/ui/Buttons/open-window": {
"title": "$:/config/ViewToolbarButtons/Visibility/$:/core/ui/Buttons/open-window",
"text": "hide"
},
"$:/config/ViewToolbarButtons/Visibility/$:/core/ui/Buttons/permalink": {
"title": "$:/config/ViewToolbarButtons/Visibility/$:/core/ui/Buttons/permalink",
"text": "hide"
},
"$:/config/ViewToolbarButtons/Visibility/$:/core/ui/Buttons/permaview": {
"title": "$:/config/ViewToolbarButtons/Visibility/$:/core/ui/Buttons/permaview",
"text": "hide"
},
"$:/config/ViewToolbarButtons/Visibility/$:/core/ui/Buttons/delete": {
"title": "$:/config/ViewToolbarButtons/Visibility/$:/core/ui/Buttons/delete",
"text": "hide"
},
"$:/config/ViewToolbarButtons/Visibility/$:/core/ui/Buttons/fold": {
"title": "$:/config/ViewToolbarButtons/Visibility/$:/core/ui/Buttons/fold",
"text": "hide"
},
"$:/config/ViewToolbarButtons/Visibility/$:/core/ui/Buttons/fold-bar": {
"title": "$:/config/ViewToolbarButtons/Visibility/$:/core/ui/Buttons/fold-bar",
"text": "hide"
},
"$:/config/ViewToolbarButtons/Visibility/$:/core/ui/Buttons/fold-others": {
"title": "$:/config/ViewToolbarButtons/Visibility/$:/core/ui/Buttons/fold-others",
"text": "hide"
},
"$:/config/shortcuts-mac/bold": {
"title": "$:/config/shortcuts-mac/bold",
"text": "meta-B"
},
"$:/config/shortcuts-mac/italic": {
"title": "$:/config/shortcuts-mac/italic",
"text": "meta-I"
},
"$:/config/shortcuts-mac/underline": {
"title": "$:/config/shortcuts-mac/underline",
"text": "meta-U"
},
"$:/config/shortcuts-mac/new-image": {
"title": "$:/config/shortcuts-mac/new-image",
"text": "ctrl-I"
},
"$:/config/shortcuts-mac/new-journal": {
"title": "$:/config/shortcuts-mac/new-journal",
"text": "ctrl-J"
},
"$:/config/shortcuts-mac/new-tiddler": {
"title": "$:/config/shortcuts-mac/new-tiddler",
"text": "ctrl-N"
},
"$:/config/shortcuts-not-mac/bold": {
"title": "$:/config/shortcuts-not-mac/bold",
"text": "ctrl-B"
},
"$:/config/shortcuts-not-mac/italic": {
"title": "$:/config/shortcuts-not-mac/italic",
"text": "ctrl-I"
},
"$:/config/shortcuts-not-mac/underline": {
"title": "$:/config/shortcuts-not-mac/underline",
"text": "ctrl-U"
},
"$:/config/shortcuts-not-mac/new-image": {
"title": "$:/config/shortcuts-not-mac/new-image",
"text": "alt-I"
},
"$:/config/shortcuts-not-mac/new-journal": {
"title": "$:/config/shortcuts-not-mac/new-journal",
"text": "alt-J"
},
"$:/config/shortcuts-not-mac/new-tiddler": {
"title": "$:/config/shortcuts-not-mac/new-tiddler",
"text": "alt-N"
},
"$:/config/shortcuts/cancel-edit-tiddler": {
"title": "$:/config/shortcuts/cancel-edit-tiddler",
"text": "escape"
},
"$:/config/shortcuts/excise": {
"title": "$:/config/shortcuts/excise",
"text": "ctrl-E"
},
"$:/config/shortcuts/heading-1": {
"title": "$:/config/shortcuts/heading-1",
"text": "ctrl-1"
},
"$:/config/shortcuts/heading-2": {
"title": "$:/config/shortcuts/heading-2",
"text": "ctrl-2"
},
"$:/config/shortcuts/heading-3": {
"title": "$:/config/shortcuts/heading-3",
"text": "ctrl-3"
},
"$:/config/shortcuts/heading-4": {
"title": "$:/config/shortcuts/heading-4",
"text": "ctrl-4"
},
"$:/config/shortcuts/heading-5": {
"title": "$:/config/shortcuts/heading-5",
"text": "ctrl-5"
},
"$:/config/shortcuts/heading-6": {
"title": "$:/config/shortcuts/heading-6",
"text": "ctrl-6"
},
"$:/config/shortcuts/link": {
"title": "$:/config/shortcuts/link",
"text": "ctrl-L"
},
"$:/config/shortcuts/linkify": {
"title": "$:/config/shortcuts/linkify",
"text": "alt-shift-L"
},
"$:/config/shortcuts/list-bullet": {
"title": "$:/config/shortcuts/list-bullet",
"text": "ctrl-shift-L"
},
"$:/config/shortcuts/list-number": {
"title": "$:/config/shortcuts/list-number",
"text": "ctrl-shift-N"
},
"$:/config/shortcuts/mono-block": {
"title": "$:/config/shortcuts/mono-block",
"text": "ctrl-shift-M"
},
"$:/config/shortcuts/mono-line": {
"title": "$:/config/shortcuts/mono-line",
"text": "ctrl-M"
},
"$:/config/shortcuts/picture": {
"title": "$:/config/shortcuts/picture",
"text": "ctrl-shift-I"
},
"$:/config/shortcuts/preview": {
"title": "$:/config/shortcuts/preview",
"text": "alt-P"
},
"$:/config/shortcuts/quote": {
"title": "$:/config/shortcuts/quote",
"text": "ctrl-Q"
},
"$:/config/shortcuts/save-tiddler": {
"title": "$:/config/shortcuts/save-tiddler",
"text": "ctrl+enter"
},
"$:/config/shortcuts/stamp": {
"title": "$:/config/shortcuts/stamp",
"text": "ctrl-S"
},
"$:/config/shortcuts/strikethrough": {
"title": "$:/config/shortcuts/strikethrough",
"text": "ctrl-T"
},
"$:/config/shortcuts/subscript": {
"title": "$:/config/shortcuts/subscript",
"text": "ctrl-shift-B"
},
"$:/config/shortcuts/superscript": {
"title": "$:/config/shortcuts/superscript",
"text": "ctrl-shift-P"
},
"$:/config/shortcuts/transcludify": {
"title": "$:/config/shortcuts/transcludify",
"text": "alt-shift-T"
},
"$:/config/WikiParserRules/Inline/wikilink": {
"title": "$:/config/WikiParserRules/Inline/wikilink",
"text": "enable"
},
"$:/snippets/currpalettepreview": {
"title": "$:/snippets/currpalettepreview",
"text": "\\define swatchStyle()\nbackground-color: $(swatchColour)$;\n\\end\n\\define swatch()\n<$set name=\"swatchColour\" value={{##$(colour)$}}\n><div class=\"tc-swatch\" style=<<swatchStyle>> title=<<colour>>/></$set>\n\\end\n<div class=\"tc-swatches-horiz\"><$list filter=\"\nforeground\nbackground\nmuted-foreground\nprimary\npage-background\ntab-background\ntiddler-info-background\n\" variable=\"colour\"><<swatch>></$list></div>"
},
"$:/snippets/download-wiki-button": {
"title": "$:/snippets/download-wiki-button",
"text": "\\define lingo-base() $:/language/ControlPanel/Tools/Download/\n<$button class=\"tc-btn-big-green\">\n<$action-sendmessage $message=\"tm-download-file\" $param=\"$:/core/save/all\" filename=\"index.html\"/>\n<<lingo Full/Caption>> {{$:/core/images/save-button}}\n</$button>"
},
"$:/language": {
"title": "$:/language",
"text": "$:/languages/en-GB"
},
"$:/snippets/languageswitcher": {
"title": "$:/snippets/languageswitcher",
"text": "\\define flag-title()\n$(languagePluginTitle)$/icon\n\\end\n\n<$linkcatcher to=\"$:/language\">\n<div class=\"tc-chooser tc-language-chooser\">\n<$list filter=\"[[$:/languages/en-GB]] [plugin-type[language]sort[description]]\">\n<$set name=\"cls\" filter=\"[all[current]field:title{$:/language}]\" value=\"tc-chooser-item tc-chosen\" emptyValue=\"tc-chooser-item\"><div class=<<cls>>>\n<$link>\n<span class=\"tc-image-button\">\n<$set name=\"languagePluginTitle\" value=<<currentTiddler>>>\n<$transclude subtiddler=<<flag-title>>>\n<$list filter=\"[all[current]field:title[$:/languages/en-GB]]\">\n<$transclude tiddler=\"$:/languages/en-GB/icon\"/>\n</$list>\n</$transclude>\n</$set>\n</span>\n<$view field=\"description\">\n<$view field=\"name\">\n<$view field=\"title\"/>\n</$view>\n</$view>\n</$link>\n</div>\n</$set>\n</$list>\n</div>\n</$linkcatcher>"
},
"$:/core/macros/CSS": {
"title": "$:/core/macros/CSS",
"tags": "$:/tags/Macro",
"text": "\\define colour(name)\n<$transclude tiddler={{$:/palette}} index=\"$name$\"><$transclude tiddler=\"$:/palettes/Vanilla\" index=\"$name$\"/></$transclude>\n\\end\n\n\\define color(name)\n<<colour $name$>>\n\\end\n\n\\define box-shadow(shadow)\n``\n -webkit-box-shadow: $shadow$;\n -moz-box-shadow: $shadow$;\n box-shadow: $shadow$;\n``\n\\end\n\n\\define filter(filter)\n``\n -webkit-filter: $filter$;\n -moz-filter: $filter$;\n filter: $filter$;\n``\n\\end\n\n\\define transition(transition)\n``\n -webkit-transition: $transition$;\n -moz-transition: $transition$;\n transition: $transition$;\n``\n\\end\n\n\\define transform-origin(origin)\n``\n -webkit-transform-origin: $origin$;\n -moz-transform-origin: $origin$;\n transform-origin: $origin$;\n``\n\\end\n\n\\define background-linear-gradient(gradient)\n``\nbackground-image: linear-gradient($gradient$);\nbackground-image: -o-linear-gradient($gradient$);\nbackground-image: -moz-linear-gradient($gradient$);\nbackground-image: -webkit-linear-gradient($gradient$);\nbackground-image: -ms-linear-gradient($gradient$);\n``\n\\end\n\n\\define column-count(columns)\n``\n-moz-column-count: $columns$;\n-webkit-column-count: $columns$;\ncolumn-count: $columns$;\n``\n\\end\n\n\\define datauri(title)\n<$macrocall $name=\"makedatauri\" type={{$title$!!type}} text={{$title$}}/>\n\\end\n\n\\define if-sidebar(text)\n<$reveal state=\"$:/state/sidebar\" type=\"match\" text=\"yes\" default=\"yes\">$text$</$reveal>\n\\end\n\n\\define if-no-sidebar(text)\n<$reveal state=\"$:/state/sidebar\" type=\"nomatch\" text=\"yes\" default=\"yes\">$text$</$reveal>\n\\end\n\n\\define if-background-attachment(text)\n<$reveal state=\"$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/settings/backgroundimage\" type=\"nomatch\" text=\"\">$text$</$reveal>\n\\end\n"
},
"$:/core/macros/colour-picker": {
"title": "$:/core/macros/colour-picker",
"tags": "$:/tags/Macro",
"text": "\\define colour-picker-update-recent()\n<$action-listops\n\t$tiddler=\"$:/config/ColourPicker/Recent\"\n\t$subfilter=\"$(colour-picker-value)$ [list[$:/config/ColourPicker/Recent]remove[$(colour-picker-value)$]] +[limit[8]]\"\n/>\n\\end\n\n\\define colour-picker-inner(actions)\n<$button tag=\"a\" tooltip=\"\"\"$(colour-picker-value)$\"\"\">\n\n$(colour-picker-update-recent)$\n\n$actions$\n\n<div style=\"background-color: $(colour-picker-value)$; width: 100%; height: 100%; border-radius: 50%;\"/>\n\n</$button>\n\\end\n\n\\define colour-picker-recent-inner(actions)\n<$set name=\"colour-picker-value\" value=\"$(recentColour)$\">\n<$macrocall $name=\"colour-picker-inner\" actions=\"\"\"$actions$\"\"\"/>\n</$set>\n\\end\n\n\\define colour-picker-recent(actions)\n{{$:/language/ColourPicker/Recent}} <$list filter=\"[list[$:/config/ColourPicker/Recent]]\" variable=\"recentColour\">\n<$macrocall $name=\"colour-picker-recent-inner\" actions=\"\"\"$actions$\"\"\"/></$list>\n\\end\n\n\\define colour-picker(actions)\n<div class=\"tc-colour-chooser\">\n\n<$macrocall $name=\"colour-picker-recent\" actions=\"\"\"$actions$\"\"\"/>\n\n---\n\n<$list filter=\"LightPink Pink Crimson LavenderBlush PaleVioletRed HotPink DeepPink MediumVioletRed Orchid Thistle Plum Violet Magenta Fuchsia DarkMagenta Purple MediumOrchid DarkViolet DarkOrchid Indigo BlueViolet MediumPurple MediumSlateBlue SlateBlue DarkSlateBlue Lavender GhostWhite Blue MediumBlue MidnightBlue DarkBlue Navy RoyalBlue CornflowerBlue LightSteelBlue LightSlateGrey SlateGrey DodgerBlue AliceBlue SteelBlue LightSkyBlue SkyBlue DeepSkyBlue LightBlue PowderBlue CadetBlue Azure LightCyan PaleTurquoise Cyan Aqua DarkTurquoise DarkSlateGrey DarkCyan Teal MediumTurquoise LightSeaGreen Turquoise Aquamarine MediumAquamarine MediumSpringGreen MintCream SpringGreen MediumSeaGreen SeaGreen Honeydew LightGreen PaleGreen DarkSeaGreen LimeGreen Lime ForestGreen Green DarkGreen Chartreuse LawnGreen GreenYellow DarkOliveGreen YellowGreen OliveDrab Beige LightGoldenrodYellow Ivory LightYellow Yellow Olive DarkKhaki LemonChiffon PaleGoldenrod Khaki Gold Cornsilk Goldenrod DarkGoldenrod FloralWhite OldLace Wheat Moccasin Orange PapayaWhip BlanchedAlmond NavajoWhite AntiqueWhite Tan BurlyWood Bisque DarkOrange Linen Peru PeachPuff SandyBrown Chocolate SaddleBrown Seashell Sienna LightSalmon Coral OrangeRed DarkSalmon Tomato MistyRose Salmon Snow LightCoral RosyBrown IndianRed Red Brown FireBrick DarkRed Maroon White WhiteSmoke Gainsboro LightGrey Silver DarkGrey Grey DimGrey Black\" variable=\"colour-picker-value\">\n<$macrocall $name=\"colour-picker-inner\" actions=\"\"\"$actions$\"\"\"/>\n</$list>\n\n---\n\n<$edit-text tiddler=\"$:/config/ColourPicker/New\" tag=\"input\" default=\"\" placeholder=\"\"/> \n<$edit-text tiddler=\"$:/config/ColourPicker/New\" type=\"color\" tag=\"input\"/>\n<$set name=\"colour-picker-value\" value={{$:/config/ColourPicker/New}}>\n<$macrocall $name=\"colour-picker-inner\" actions=\"\"\"$actions$\"\"\"/>\n</$set>\n\n</div>\n\n\\end\n"
},
"$:/core/macros/copy-to-clipboard": {
"title": "$:/core/macros/copy-to-clipboard",
"tags": "$:/tags/Macro",
"text": "\\define copy-to-clipboard(src,class:\"tc-btn-invisible\",style)\n<$button class=<<__class__>> style=<<__style__>> message=\"tm-copy-to-clipboard\" param=<<__src__>> tooltip={{$:/language/Buttons/CopyToClipboard/Hint}}>\n{{$:/core/images/copy-clipboard}} <$text text={{$:/language/Buttons/CopyToClipboard/Caption}}/>\n</$button>\n\\end\n\n\\define copy-to-clipboard-above-right(src,class:\"tc-btn-invisible\",style)\n<div style=\"position: relative;\">\n<div style=\"position: absolute; bottom: 0; right: 0;\">\n<$macrocall $name=\"copy-to-clipboard\" src=<<__src__>> class=<<__class__>> style=<<__style__>>/>\n</div>\n</div>\n\\end\n\n"
},
"$:/core/macros/diff": {
"title": "$:/core/macros/diff",
"tags": "$:/tags/Macro",
"text": "\\define compareTiddlerText(sourceTiddlerTitle,sourceSubTiddlerTitle,destTiddlerTitle,destSubTiddlerTitle)\n<$set name=\"source\" tiddler=<<__sourceTiddlerTitle__>> subtiddler=<<__sourceSubTiddlerTitle__>>>\n<$set name=\"dest\" tiddler=<<__destTiddlerTitle__>> subtiddler=<<__destSubTiddlerTitle__>>>\n<$diff-text source=<<source>> dest=<<dest>>/>\n</$set>\n</$set>\n\\end\n\n\\define compareTiddlers(sourceTiddlerTitle,sourceSubTiddlerTitle,destTiddlerTitle,destSubTiddlerTitle,exclude)\n<table class=\"tc-diff-tiddlers\">\n<tbody>\n<$set name=\"sourceFields\" filter=\"[<__sourceTiddlerTitle__>fields[]sort[]]\">\n<$set name=\"destFields\" filter=\"[<__destSubTiddlerTitle__>subtiddlerfields<__destTiddlerTitle__>sort[]]\">\n<$list filter=\"[enlist<sourceFields>] [enlist<destFields>] -[enlist<__exclude__>] +[sort[]]\" variable=\"fieldName\">\n<tr>\n<th>\n<$text text=<<fieldName>>/> \n</th>\n<td>\n<$set name=\"source\" tiddler=<<__sourceTiddlerTitle__>> subtiddler=<<__sourceSubTiddlerTitle__>> field=<<fieldName>>>\n<$set name=\"dest\" tiddler=<<__destTiddlerTitle__>> subtiddler=<<__destSubTiddlerTitle__>> field=<<fieldName>>>\n<$diff-text source=<<source>> dest=<<dest>>>\n</$diff-text>\n</$set>\n</$set>\n</td>\n</tr>\n</$list>\n</$set>\n</$set>\n</tbody>\n</table>\n\\end\n"
},
"$:/core/macros/export": {
"title": "$:/core/macros/export",
"tags": "$:/tags/Macro",
"text": "\\define exportButtonFilename(baseFilename)\n$baseFilename$$(extension)$\n\\end\n\n\\define exportButton(exportFilter:\"[!is[system]sort[title]]\",lingoBase,baseFilename:\"tiddlers\")\n<span class=\"tc-popup-keep\"><$button popup=<<qualify \"$:/state/popup/export\">> tooltip={{$lingoBase$Hint}} aria-label={{$lingoBase$Caption}} class=<<tv-config-toolbar-class>> selectedClass=\"tc-selected\">\n<$list filter=\"[<tv-config-toolbar-icons>prefix[yes]]\">\n{{$:/core/images/export-button}}\n</$list>\n<$list filter=\"[<tv-config-toolbar-text>prefix[yes]]\">\n<span class=\"tc-btn-text\"><$text text={{$lingoBase$Caption}}/></span>\n</$list>\n</$button></span><$reveal state=<<qualify \"$:/state/popup/export\">> type=\"popup\" position=\"below\" animate=\"yes\">\n<div class=\"tc-drop-down\">\n<$list filter=\"[all[shadows+tiddlers]tag[$:/tags/Exporter]]\">\n<$set name=\"extension\" value={{!!extension}}>\n<$button class=\"tc-btn-invisible\">\n<$action-sendmessage $message=\"tm-download-file\" $param=<<currentTiddler>> exportFilter=\"\"\"$exportFilter$\"\"\" filename=<<exportButtonFilename \"\"\"$baseFilename$\"\"\">>/>\n<$action-deletetiddler $tiddler=<<qualify \"$:/state/popup/export\">>/>\n<$transclude field=\"description\"/>\n</$button>\n</$set>\n</$list>\n</div>\n</$reveal>\n\\end\n"
},
"$:/core/macros/image-picker": {
"title": "$:/core/macros/image-picker",
"created": "20170715180840889",
"modified": "20170715180914005",
"tags": "$:/tags/Macro",
"type": "text/vnd.tiddlywiki",
"text": "\\define image-picker-thumbnail(actions)\n<$button tag=\"a\" tooltip=\"\"\"$(imageTitle)$\"\"\">\n$actions$\n<$transclude tiddler=<<imageTitle>>/>\n</$button>\n\\end\n\n\\define image-picker-list(filter,actions)\n<$list filter=\"\"\"$filter$\"\"\" variable=\"imageTitle\">\n<$macrocall $name=\"image-picker-thumbnail\" actions=\"\"\"$actions$\"\"\"/>\n</$list>\n\\end\n\n\\define image-picker(actions,filter:\"[all[shadows+tiddlers]is[image]] -[type[application/pdf]] +[!has[draft.of]$subfilter$sort[title]]\",subfilter:\"\")\n<div class=\"tc-image-chooser\">\n<$vars state-system=<<qualify \"$:/state/image-picker/system\">>>\n<$checkbox tiddler=<<state-system>> field=\"text\" checked=\"show\" unchecked=\"hide\" default=\"hide\">\n{{$:/language/SystemTiddlers/Include/Prompt}}\n</$checkbox>\n<$reveal state=<<state-system>> type=\"match\" text=\"hide\" default=\"hide\" tag=\"div\">\n<$macrocall $name=\"image-picker-list\" filter=\"\"\"$filter$ +[!is[system]]\"\"\" actions=\"\"\"$actions$\"\"\"/>\n</$reveal>\n<$reveal state=<<state-system>> type=\"nomatch\" text=\"hide\" default=\"hide\" tag=\"div\">\n<$macrocall $name=\"image-picker-list\" filter=\"\"\"$filter$\"\"\" actions=\"\"\"$actions$\"\"\"/>\n</$reveal>\n</$vars>\n</div>\n\\end\n\n\\define image-picker-include-tagged-images(actions)\n<$macrocall $name=\"image-picker\" filter=\"[all[shadows+tiddlers]is[image]] [all[shadows+tiddlers]tag[$:/tags/Image]] -[type[application/pdf]] +[!has[draft.of]sort[title]]\" actions=\"\"\"$actions$\"\"\"/>\n\\end\n"
},
"$:/core/macros/lingo": {
"title": "$:/core/macros/lingo",
"tags": "$:/tags/Macro",
"text": "\\define lingo-base()\n$:/language/\n\\end\n\n\\define lingo(title)\n{{$(lingo-base)$$title$}}\n\\end\n"
},
"$:/core/macros/list": {
"title": "$:/core/macros/list",
"tags": "$:/tags/Macro",
"text": "\\define list-links(filter,type:\"ul\",subtype:\"li\",class:\"\",emptyMessage)\n<$type$ class=\"$class$\">\n<$list filter=\"$filter$\" emptyMessage=<<__emptyMessage__>>>\n<$subtype$>\n<$link to={{!!title}}>\n<$transclude field=\"caption\">\n<$view field=\"title\"/>\n</$transclude>\n</$link>\n</$subtype$>\n</$list>\n</$type$>\n\\end\n\n\\define list-links-draggable-drop-actions()\n<$action-listops $tiddler=<<targetTiddler>> $field=<<targetField>> $subfilter=\"+[insertbefore:currentTiddler<actionTiddler>]\"/>\n\\end\n\n\\define list-links-draggable(tiddler,field:\"list\",type:\"ul\",subtype:\"li\",class:\"\",itemTemplate)\n<$vars targetTiddler=\"\"\"$tiddler$\"\"\" targetField=\"\"\"$field$\"\"\">\n<$type$ class=\"$class$\">\n<$list filter=\"[list[$tiddler$!!$field$]]\">\n<$droppable actions=<<list-links-draggable-drop-actions>> tag=\"\"\"$subtype$\"\"\">\n<div class=\"tc-droppable-placeholder\">\n \n</div>\n<div>\n<$transclude tiddler=\"\"\"$itemTemplate$\"\"\">\n<$link to={{!!title}}>\n<$transclude field=\"caption\">\n<$view field=\"title\"/>\n</$transclude>\n</$link>\n</$transclude>\n</div>\n</$droppable>\n</$list>\n</$type$>\n<$tiddler tiddler=\"\">\n<$droppable actions=<<list-links-draggable-drop-actions>> tag=\"div\">\n<div class=\"tc-droppable-placeholder\">\n \n</div>\n<div style=\"height:0.5em;\"/>\n</$droppable>\n</$tiddler>\n</$vars>\n\\end\n\n\\define list-tagged-draggable-drop-actions(tag)\n<!-- Save the current ordering of the tiddlers with this tag -->\n<$set name=\"order\" filter=\"[<__tag__>tagging[]]\">\n<!-- Remove any list-after or list-before fields from the tiddlers with this tag -->\n<$list filter=\"[<__tag__>tagging[]]\">\n<$action-deletefield $field=\"list-before\"/>\n<$action-deletefield $field=\"list-after\"/>\n</$list>\n<!-- Save the new order to the Tag Tiddler -->\n<$action-listops $tiddler=<<__tag__>> $field=\"list\" $filter=\"+[enlist<order>] +[insertbefore:currentTiddler<actionTiddler>]\"/>\n<!-- Make sure the newly added item has the right tag -->\n<!-- Removing this line makes dragging tags within the dropdown work as intended -->\n<!--<$action-listops $tiddler=<<actionTiddler>> $tags=<<__tag__>>/>-->\n<!-- Using the following 5 lines as replacement makes dragging titles from outside into the dropdown apply the tag -->\n<$list filter=\"[<actionTiddler>!contains:tags<__tag__>]\">\n<$fieldmangler tiddler=<<actionTiddler>>>\n<$action-sendmessage $message=\"tm-add-tag\" $param=<<__tag__>>/>\n</$fieldmangler>\n</$list>\n</$set>\n\\end\n\n\\define list-tagged-draggable(tag,subFilter,emptyMessage,itemTemplate,elementTag:\"div\")\n<$set name=\"tag\" value=<<__tag__>>>\n<$list filter=\"[<__tag__>tagging[]$subFilter$]\" emptyMessage=<<__emptyMessage__>>>\n<$elementTag$ class=\"tc-menu-list-item\">\n<$droppable actions=\"\"\"<$macrocall $name=\"list-tagged-draggable-drop-actions\" tag=<<__tag__>>/>\"\"\">\n<$elementTag$ class=\"tc-droppable-placeholder\">\n \n</$elementTag$>\n<$elementTag$>\n<$transclude tiddler=\"\"\"$itemTemplate$\"\"\">\n<$link to={{!!title}}>\n<$view field=\"title\"/>\n</$link>\n</$transclude>\n</$elementTag$>\n</$droppable>\n</$elementTag$>\n</$list>\n<$tiddler tiddler=\"\">\n<$droppable actions=\"\"\"<$macrocall $name=\"list-tagged-draggable-drop-actions\" tag=<<__tag__>>/>\"\"\">\n<$elementTag$ class=\"tc-droppable-placeholder\">\n \n</$elementTag$>\n<$elementTag$ style=\"height:0.5em;\">\n</$elementTag$>\n</$droppable>\n</$tiddler>\n</$set>\n\\end\n"
},
"$:/core/macros/tabs": {
"title": "$:/core/macros/tabs",
"tags": "$:/tags/Macro",
"text": "\\define tabs(tabsList,default,state:\"$:/state/tab\",class,template,buttonTemplate,retain)\n<div class=\"tc-tab-set $class$\">\n<div class=\"tc-tab-buttons $class$\">\n<$list filter=\"$tabsList$\" variable=\"currentTab\"><$set name=\"save-currentTiddler\" value=<<currentTiddler>>><$tiddler tiddler=<<currentTab>>><$button set=<<qualify \"$state$\">> setTo=<<currentTab>> default=\"$default$\" selectedClass=\"tc-tab-selected\" tooltip={{!!tooltip}}>\n<$tiddler tiddler=<<save-currentTiddler>>>\n<$set name=\"tv-wikilinks\" value=\"no\">\n<$transclude tiddler=\"$buttonTemplate$\" mode=\"inline\">\n<$transclude tiddler=<<currentTab>> field=\"caption\">\n<$macrocall $name=\"currentTab\" $type=\"text/plain\" $output=\"text/plain\"/>\n</$transclude>\n</$transclude>\n</$set></$tiddler></$button></$tiddler></$set></$list>\n</div>\n<div class=\"tc-tab-divider $class$\"/>\n<div class=\"tc-tab-content $class$\">\n<$list filter=\"$tabsList$\" variable=\"currentTab\">\n\n<$reveal type=\"match\" state=<<qualify \"$state$\">> text=<<currentTab>> default=\"$default$\" retain=\"\"\"$retain$\"\"\">\n\n<$transclude tiddler=\"$template$\" mode=\"block\">\n\n<$transclude tiddler=<<currentTab>> mode=\"block\"/>\n\n</$transclude>\n\n</$reveal>\n\n</$list>\n</div>\n</div>\n\\end\n"
},
"$:/core/macros/tag-picker": {
"title": "$:/core/macros/tag-picker",
"tags": "$:/tags/Macro",
"text": "\\define add-tag-actions()\n<$action-sendmessage $message=\"tm-add-tag\" $param={{$:/temp/NewTagName}}/>\n<$action-deletetiddler $tiddler=\"$:/temp/NewTagName\"/>\n\\end\n\n\\define add-tag-actions()\n<$action-sendmessage $message=\"tm-add-tag\" $param={{$:/temp/NewTagName}}/>\n<$action-deletetiddler $tiddler=\"$:/temp/NewTagName\"/>\n\\end\n\n\\define tag-button()\n<$button class=\"tc-btn-invisible\" tag=\"a\">\n$(actions)$\n<$action-deletetiddler $tiddler=\"$:/temp/NewTagName\"/>\n<$macrocall $name=\"tag-pill\" tag=<<tag>>/>\n</$button>\n\\end\n\n\\define tag-picker(actions)\n<$set name=\"actions\" value=\"\"\"$actions$\"\"\">\n<div class=\"tc-edit-add-tag\">\n<span class=\"tc-add-tag-name\">\n<$keyboard key=\"ENTER\" actions=<<add-tag-actions>>>\n<$edit-text tiddler=\"$:/temp/NewTagName\" tag=\"input\" default=\"\" placeholder={{$:/language/EditTemplate/Tags/Add/Placeholder}} focusPopup=<<qualify \"$:/state/popup/tags-auto-complete\">> class=\"tc-edit-texteditor tc-popup-handle\"/>\n</$keyboard>\n</span> <$button popup=<<qualify \"$:/state/popup/tags-auto-complete\">> class=\"tc-btn-invisible\" tooltip={{$:/language/EditTemplate/Tags/Dropdown/Hint}} aria-label={{$:/language/EditTemplate/Tags/Dropdown/Caption}}>{{$:/core/images/down-arrow}}</$button> <span class=\"tc-add-tag-button\">\n<$set name=\"tag\" value={{$:/temp/NewTagName}}>\n<$button set=\"$:/temp/NewTagName\" setTo=\"\" class=\"\">\n$actions$\n<$action-deletetiddler $tiddler=\"$:/temp/NewTagName\"/>\n{{$:/language/EditTemplate/Tags/Add/Button}}\n</$button>\n</$set>\n</span>\n</div>\n<div class=\"tc-block-dropdown-wrapper\">\n<$reveal state=<<qualify \"$:/state/popup/tags-auto-complete\">> type=\"nomatch\" text=\"\" default=\"\">\n<div class=\"tc-block-dropdown\">\n<$list filter=\"[{$:/temp/NewTagName}minlength{$:/config/Tags/MinLength}limit[1]]\" emptyMessage=\"\"\"<div class=\"tc-search-results\">{{$:/language/Search/Search/TooShort}}</div>\"\"\" variable=\"listItem\">\n<$list filter=\"[tags[]!is[system]search:title{$:/temp/NewTagName}sort[]]\" variable=\"tag\">\n<<tag-button>>\n</$list></$list>\n<hr>\n<$list filter=\"[{$:/temp/NewTagName}minlength{$:/config/Tags/MinLength}limit[1]]\" emptyMessage=\"\"\"<div class=\"tc-search-results\">{{$:/language/Search/Search/TooShort}}</div>\"\"\" variable=\"listItem\">\n<$list filter=\"[tags[]is[system]search:title{$:/temp/NewTagName}sort[]]\" variable=\"tag\">\n<<tag-button>>\n</$list></$list>\n</div>\n</$reveal>\n</div>\n</$set>\n\\end\n"
},
"$:/core/macros/tag": {
"title": "$:/core/macros/tag",
"tags": "$:/tags/Macro",
"text": "\\define tag-pill-styles()\nbackground-color:$(backgroundColor)$;\nfill:$(foregroundColor)$;\ncolor:$(foregroundColor)$;\n\\end\n\n\\define tag-pill-inner(tag,icon,colour,fallbackTarget,colourA,colourB,element-tag,element-attributes,actions)\n<$vars foregroundColor=<<contrastcolour target:\"\"\"$colour$\"\"\" fallbackTarget:\"\"\"$fallbackTarget$\"\"\" colourA:\"\"\"$colourA$\"\"\" colourB:\"\"\"$colourB$\"\"\">> backgroundColor=\"\"\"$colour$\"\"\">\n<$element-tag$ $element-attributes$ class=\"tc-tag-label tc-btn-invisible\" style=<<tag-pill-styles>>>\n$actions$<$transclude tiddler=\"\"\"$icon$\"\"\"/> <$view tiddler=<<__tag__>> field=\"title\" format=\"text\" />\n</$element-tag$>\n</$vars>\n\\end\n\n\\define tag-pill-body(tag,icon,colour,palette,element-tag,element-attributes,actions)\n<$macrocall $name=\"tag-pill-inner\" tag=<<__tag__>> icon=\"\"\"$icon$\"\"\" colour=\"\"\"$colour$\"\"\" fallbackTarget={{$palette$##tag-background}} colourA={{$palette$##foreground}} colourB={{$palette$##background}} element-tag=\"\"\"$element-tag$\"\"\" element-attributes=\"\"\"$element-attributes$\"\"\" actions=\"\"\"$actions$\"\"\"/>\n\\end\n\n\\define tag-pill(tag,element-tag:\"span\",element-attributes:\"\",actions:\"\")\n<span class=\"tc-tag-list-item\">\n<$macrocall $name=\"tag-pill-body\" tag=<<__tag__>> icon={{{ [<__tag__>get[icon]] }}} colour={{{ [<__tag__>get[color]] }}} palette={{$:/palette}} element-tag=\"\"\"$element-tag$\"\"\" element-attributes=\"\"\"$element-attributes$\"\"\" actions=\"\"\"$actions$\"\"\"/>\n</span>\n\\end\n\n\\define tag(tag)\n{{$tag$||$:/core/ui/TagTemplate}}\n\\end\n"
},
"$:/core/macros/thumbnails": {
"title": "$:/core/macros/thumbnails",
"tags": "$:/tags/Macro",
"text": "\\define thumbnail(link,icon,color,background-color,image,caption,width:\"280\",height:\"157\")\n<$link to=\"\"\"$link$\"\"\"><div class=\"tc-thumbnail-wrapper\">\n<div class=\"tc-thumbnail-image\" style=\"width:$width$px;height:$height$px;\"><$reveal type=\"nomatch\" text=\"\" default=\"\"\"$image$\"\"\" tag=\"div\" style=\"width:$width$px;height:$height$px;\">\n[img[$image$]]\n</$reveal><$reveal type=\"match\" text=\"\" default=\"\"\"$image$\"\"\" tag=\"div\" class=\"tc-thumbnail-background\" style=\"width:$width$px;height:$height$px;background-color:$background-color$;\"></$reveal></div><div class=\"tc-thumbnail-icon\" style=\"fill:$color$;color:$color$;\">\n$icon$\n</div><div class=\"tc-thumbnail-caption\">\n$caption$\n</div>\n</div></$link>\n\\end\n\n\\define thumbnail-right(link,icon,color,background-color,image,caption,width:\"280\",height:\"157\")\n<div class=\"tc-thumbnail-right-wrapper\"><<thumbnail \"\"\"$link$\"\"\" \"\"\"$icon$\"\"\" \"\"\"$color$\"\"\" \"\"\"$background-color$\"\"\" \"\"\"$image$\"\"\" \"\"\"$caption$\"\"\" \"\"\"$width$\"\"\" \"\"\"$height$\"\"\">></div>\n\\end\n\n\\define list-thumbnails(filter,width:\"280\",height:\"157\")\n<$list filter=\"\"\"$filter$\"\"\"><$macrocall $name=\"thumbnail\" link={{!!link}} icon={{!!icon}} color={{!!color}} background-color={{!!background-color}} image={{!!image}} caption={{!!caption}} width=\"\"\"$width$\"\"\" height=\"\"\"$height$\"\"\"/></$list>\n\\end\n"
},
"$:/core/macros/timeline": {
"title": "$:/core/macros/timeline",
"created": "20141212105914482",
"modified": "20141212110330815",
"tags": "$:/tags/Macro",
"text": "\\define timeline-title()\n<!-- Override this macro with a global macro \n of the same name if you need to change \n how titles are displayed on the timeline \n -->\n<$view field=\"title\"/>\n\\end\n\\define timeline(limit:\"100\",format:\"DDth MMM YYYY\",subfilter:\"\",dateField:\"modified\")\n<div class=\"tc-timeline\">\n<$list filter=\"[!is[system]$subfilter$has[$dateField$]!sort[$dateField$]limit[$limit$]eachday[$dateField$]]\">\n<div class=\"tc-menu-list-item\">\n<$view field=\"$dateField$\" format=\"date\" template=\"$format$\"/>\n<$list filter=\"[sameday:$dateField${!!$dateField$}!is[system]$subfilter$!sort[$dateField$]]\">\n<div class=\"tc-menu-list-subitem\">\n<$link to={{!!title}}>\n<<timeline-title>>\n</$link>\n</div>\n</$list>\n</div>\n</$list>\n</div>\n\\end\n"
},
"$:/core/macros/toc": {
"title": "$:/core/macros/toc",
"tags": "$:/tags/Macro",
"text": "\\define toc-caption()\n<$set name=\"tv-wikilinks\" value=\"no\">\n <$transclude field=\"caption\">\n <$view field=\"title\"/>\n </$transclude>\n</$set>\n\\end\n\n\\define toc-body(tag,sort:\"\",itemClassFilter,exclude,path)\n<ol class=\"tc-toc\">\n <$list filter=\"\"\"[all[shadows+tiddlers]tag<__tag__>!has[draft.of]$sort$] -[<__tag__>] -[enlist<__exclude__>]\"\"\">\n <$vars item=<<currentTiddler>> path={{{ [<__path__>addsuffix[/]addsuffix<__tag__>] }}} excluded=\"\"\"[enlist<__exclude__>] -[<__tag__>]\"\"\">\n <$set name=\"toc-item-class\" filter=<<__itemClassFilter__>> emptyValue=\"toc-item\" value=\"toc-item-selected\">\n <li class=<<toc-item-class>>>\n <$list filter=\"[all[current]toc-link[no]]\" emptyMessage=\"<$link><$view field='caption'><$view field='title'/></$view></$link>\">\n <<toc-caption>>\n </$list>\n <$macrocall $name=\"toc-body\" tag=<<item>> sort=<<__sort__>> itemClassFilter=<<__itemClassFilter__>> exclude=<<excluded>> path=<<path>>/>\n </li>\n </$set>\n </$vars>\n </$list>\n</ol>\n\\end\n\n\\define toc(tag,sort:\"\",itemClassFilter:\" \")\n<$macrocall $name=\"toc-body\" tag=<<__tag__>> sort=<<__sort__>> itemClassFilter=<<__itemClassFilter__>> />\n\\end\n\n\\define toc-linked-expandable-body(tag,sort:\"\",itemClassFilter,exclude,path)\n<!-- helper function -->\n<$qualify name=\"toc-state\" title={{{ [[$:/state/toc]addsuffix<__path__>addsuffix[-]addsuffix<currentTiddler>] }}}>\n <$set name=\"toc-item-class\" filter=<<__itemClassFilter__>> emptyValue=\"toc-item\" value=\"toc-item-selected\">\n <li class=<<toc-item-class>>>\n <$link>\n <$reveal type=\"nomatch\" stateTitle=<<toc-state>> text=\"open\">\n <$button setTitle=<<toc-state>> setTo=\"open\" class=\"tc-btn-invisible tc-popup-keep\">\n {{$:/core/images/right-arrow}}\n </$button>\n </$reveal>\n <$reveal type=\"match\" stateTitle=<<toc-state>> text=\"open\">\n <$button setTitle=<<toc-state>> setTo=\"close\" class=\"tc-btn-invisible tc-popup-keep\">\n {{$:/core/images/down-arrow}}\n </$button>\n </$reveal>\n <<toc-caption>>\n </$link>\n <$reveal type=\"match\" stateTitle=<<toc-state>> text=\"open\">\n <$macrocall $name=\"toc-expandable\" tag=<<currentTiddler>> sort=<<__sort__>> itemClassFilter=<<__itemClassFilter__>> exclude=<<__exclude__>> path=<<__path__>>/>\n </$reveal>\n </li>\n </$set>\n</$qualify>\n\\end\n\n\\define toc-unlinked-expandable-body(tag,sort:\"\",itemClassFilter:\" \",exclude,path)\n<!-- helper function -->\n<$qualify name=\"toc-state\" title={{{ [[$:/state/toc]addsuffix<__path__>addsuffix[-]addsuffix<currentTiddler>] }}}>\n <$set name=\"toc-item-class\" filter=<<__itemClassFilter__>> emptyValue=\"toc-item\" value=\"toc-item-selected\">\n <li class=<<toc-item-class>>>\n <$reveal type=\"nomatch\" stateTitle=<<toc-state>> text=\"open\">\n <$button setTitle=<<toc-state>> setTo=\"open\" class=\"tc-btn-invisible tc-popup-keep\">\n {{$:/core/images/right-arrow}}\n <<toc-caption>>\n </$button>\n </$reveal>\n <$reveal type=\"match\" stateTitle=<<toc-state>> text=\"open\">\n <$button setTitle=<<toc-state>> setTo=\"close\" class=\"tc-btn-invisible tc-popup-keep\">\n {{$:/core/images/down-arrow}}\n <<toc-caption>>\n </$button>\n </$reveal>\n <$reveal type=\"match\" stateTitle=<<toc-state>> text=\"open\">\n <$macrocall $name=\"toc-expandable\" tag=<<currentTiddler>> sort=<<__sort__>> itemClassFilter=<<__itemClassFilter__>> exclude=<<__exclude__>> path=<<__path__>>/>\n </$reveal>\n </li>\n </$set>\n</$qualify>\n\\end\n\n\\define toc-expandable-empty-message()\n<$macrocall $name=\"toc-linked-expandable-body\" tag=<<tag>> sort=<<sort>> itemClassFilter=<<itemClassFilter>> exclude=<<excluded>> path=<<path>>/>\n\\end\n\n\\define toc-expandable(tag,sort:\"\",itemClassFilter:\" \",exclude,path)\n<$vars tag=<<__tag__>> sort=<<__sort__>> itemClassFilter=<<__itemClassFilter__>> excluded=\"\"\"[enlist<__exclude__>] -[<__tag__>]\"\"\" path={{{ [<__path__>addsuffix[/]addsuffix<__tag__>] }}}>\n <ol class=\"tc-toc toc-expandable\">\n <$list filter=\"\"\"[all[shadows+tiddlers]tag<__tag__>!has[draft.of]$sort$] -[<__tag__>] -[enlist<__exclude__>]\"\"\">\n <$list filter=\"[all[current]toc-link[no]]\" emptyMessage=<<toc-expandable-empty-message>> >\n <$macrocall $name=\"toc-unlinked-expandable-body\" tag=<<__tag__>> sort=<<__sort__>> itemClassFilter=\"\"\"itemClassFilter\"\"\" exclude=<<excluded>> path=<<path>> />\n </$list>\n </$list>\n </ol>\n</$vars>\n\\end\n\n\\define toc-linked-selective-expandable-body(tag,sort:\"\",itemClassFilter:\" \",exclude,path)\n<$qualify name=\"toc-state\" title={{{ [[$:/state/toc]addsuffix<__path__>addsuffix[-]addsuffix<currentTiddler>] }}}>\n <$set name=\"toc-item-class\" filter=<<__itemClassFilter__>> emptyValue=\"toc-item\" value=\"toc-item-selected\" >\n <li class=<<toc-item-class>>>\n <$link>\n <$list filter=\"[all[current]tagging[]limit[1]]\" variable=\"ignore\" emptyMessage=\"<$button class='tc-btn-invisible'>{{$:/core/images/blank}}</$button>\">\n <$reveal type=\"nomatch\" stateTitle=<<toc-state>> text=\"open\">\n <$button setTitle=<<toc-state>> setTo=\"open\" class=\"tc-btn-invisible tc-popup-keep\">\n {{$:/core/images/right-arrow}}\n </$button>\n </$reveal>\n <$reveal type=\"match\" stateTitle=<<toc-state>> text=\"open\">\n <$button setTitle=<<toc-state>> setTo=\"close\" class=\"tc-btn-invisible tc-popup-keep\">\n {{$:/core/images/down-arrow}}\n </$button>\n </$reveal>\n </$list>\n <<toc-caption>>\n </$link>\n <$reveal type=\"match\" stateTitle=<<toc-state>> text=\"open\">\n <$macrocall $name=\"toc-selective-expandable\" tag=<<currentTiddler>> sort=<<__sort__>> itemClassFilter=<<__itemClassFilter__>> exclude=<<__exclude__>> path=<<__path__>>/>\n </$reveal>\n </li>\n </$set>\n</$qualify>\n\\end\n\n\\define toc-unlinked-selective-expandable-body(tag,sort:\"\",itemClassFilter:\" \",exclude,path)\n<$qualify name=\"toc-state\" title={{{ [[$:/state/toc]addsuffix<__path__>addsuffix[-]addsuffix<currentTiddler>] }}}>\n <$set name=\"toc-item-class\" filter=<<__itemClassFilter__>> emptyValue=\"toc-item\" value=\"toc-item-selected\">\n <li class=<<toc-item-class>>>\n <$list filter=\"[all[current]tagging[]limit[1]]\" variable=\"ignore\" emptyMessage=\"<$button class='tc-btn-invisible'>{{$:/core/images/blank}}</$button> <$view field='caption'><$view field='title'/></$view>\">\n <$reveal type=\"nomatch\" stateTitle=<<toc-state>> text=\"open\">\n <$button setTitle=<<toc-state>> setTo=\"open\" class=\"tc-btn-invisible tc-popup-keep\">\n {{$:/core/images/right-arrow}}\n <<toc-caption>>\n </$button>\n </$reveal>\n <$reveal type=\"match\" stateTitle=<<toc-state>> text=\"open\">\n <$button setTitle=<<toc-state>> setTo=\"close\" class=\"tc-btn-invisible tc-popup-keep\">\n {{$:/core/images/down-arrow}}\n <<toc-caption>>\n </$button>\n </$reveal>\n </$list>\n <$reveal type=\"match\" stateTitle=<<toc-state>> text=\"open\">\n <$macrocall $name=\"toc-selective-expandable\" tag=<<currentTiddler>> sort=<<__sort__>> itemClassFilter=<<__itemClassFilter__>> exclude=<<__exclude__>> path=<<__path__>>/>\n </$reveal>\n </li>\n </$set>\n</$qualify>\n\\end\n\n\\define toc-selective-expandable-empty-message()\n<$macrocall $name=\"toc-linked-selective-expandable-body\" tag=<<tag>> sort=<<sort>> itemClassFilter=<<itemClassFilter>> exclude=<<excluded>> path=<<path>>/>\n\\end\n\n\\define toc-selective-expandable(tag,sort:\"\",itemClassFilter,exclude,path)\n<$vars tag=<<__tag__>> sort=<<__sort__>> itemClassFilter=<<__itemClassFilter__>> excluded=\"\"\"[enlist<__exclude__>] -[<__tag__>]\"\"\" path={{{ [<__path__>addsuffix[/]addsuffix<__tag__>] }}}>\n <ol class=\"tc-toc toc-selective-expandable\">\n <$list filter=\"\"\"[all[shadows+tiddlers]tag<__tag__>!has[draft.of]$sort$] -[<__tag__>] -[enlist<__exclude__>]\"\"\">\n <$list filter=\"[all[current]toc-link[no]]\" variable=\"ignore\" emptyMessage=<<toc-selective-expandable-empty-message>> >\n <$macrocall $name=\"toc-unlinked-selective-expandable-body\" tag=<<__tag__>> sort=<<__sort__>> itemClassFilter=<<__itemClassFilter__>> exclude=<<excluded>> path=<<path>>/>\n </$list>\n </$list>\n </ol>\n</$vars>\n\\end\n\n\\define toc-tabbed-external-nav(tag,sort:\"\",selectedTiddler:\"$:/temp/toc/selectedTiddler\",unselectedText,missingText,template:\"\")\n<$tiddler tiddler={{{ [<__selectedTiddler__>get[text]] }}}>\n <div class=\"tc-tabbed-table-of-contents\">\n <$linkcatcher to=<<__selectedTiddler__>>>\n <div class=\"tc-table-of-contents\">\n <$macrocall $name=\"toc-selective-expandable\" tag=<<__tag__>> sort=<<__sort__>> itemClassFilter=\"[all[current]field:title<__selectedTiddler__>]\"/>\n </div>\n </$linkcatcher>\n <div class=\"tc-tabbed-table-of-contents-content\">\n <$reveal stateTitle=<<__selectedTiddler__>> type=\"nomatch\" text=\"\">\n <$transclude mode=\"block\" tiddler=<<__template__>>>\n <h1><<toc-caption>></h1>\n <$transclude mode=\"block\">$missingText$</$transclude>\n </$transclude>\n </$reveal>\n <$reveal stateTitle=<<__selectedTiddler__>> type=\"match\" text=\"\">\n $unselectedText$\n </$reveal>\n </div>\n </div>\n</$tiddler>\n\\end\n\n\\define toc-tabbed-internal-nav(tag,sort:\"\",selectedTiddler:\"$:/temp/toc/selectedTiddler\",unselectedText,missingText,template:\"\")\n<$linkcatcher to=<<__selectedTiddler__>>>\n <$macrocall $name=\"toc-tabbed-external-nav\" tag=<<__tag__>> sort=<<__sort__>> selectedTiddler=<<__selectedTiddler__>> unselectedText=<<__unselectedText__>> missingText=<<__missingText__>> template=<<__template__>>/>\n</$linkcatcher>\n\\end\n\n"
},
"$:/core/macros/translink": {
"title": "$:/core/macros/translink",
"tags": "$:/tags/Macro",
"text": "\\define translink(title,mode:\"block\")\n<div style=\"border:1px solid #ccc; padding: 0.5em; background: black; foreground; white;\">\n<$link to=\"\"\"$title$\"\"\">\n<$text text=\"\"\"$title$\"\"\"/>\n</$link>\n<div style=\"border:1px solid #ccc; padding: 0.5em; background: white; foreground; black;\">\n<$transclude tiddler=\"\"\"$title$\"\"\" mode=\"$mode$\">\n\"<$text text=\"\"\"$title$\"\"\"/>\" is missing\n</$transclude>\n</div>\n</div>\n\\end\n"
},
"$:/core/macros/tree": {
"title": "$:/core/macros/tree",
"tags": "$:/tags/Macro",
"text": "\\define leaf-link(full-title, chunk)\n<$link to=<<__full-title__>>><$text text=<<__chunk__>>/></$link>\n\\end\n\n\\define leaf-node(prefix, chunk)\n<li>\n<$list filter=\"[<__prefix__>addsuffix<__chunk__>is[shadow]] [<__prefix__>addsuffix<__chunk__>is[tiddler]]\" variable=\"full-title\">\n<$list filter=\"[<full-title>removeprefix<__prefix__>]\" variable=\"chunk\">\n<span>{{$:/core/images/file}}</span> <$macrocall $name=\"leaf-link\" full-title=<<full-title>> chunk=<<chunk>>/>\n</$list>\n</$list>\n</li>\n\\end\n\n\\define branch-node(prefix, chunk)\n<li>\n<$set name=\"reveal-state\" value={{{ [[$:/state/tree/]addsuffix<__prefix__>addsuffix<__chunk__>] }}}>\n<$reveal type=\"nomatch\" stateTitle=<<reveal-state>> text=\"show\">\n<$button setTitle=<<reveal-state>> setTo=\"show\" class=\"tc-btn-invisible\">\n{{$:/core/images/folder}} <$text text=<<__chunk__>>/>\n</$button>\n</$reveal>\n<$reveal type=\"match\" stateTitle=<<reveal-state>> text=\"show\">\n<$button setTitle=<<reveal-state>> setTo=\"hide\" class=\"tc-btn-invisible\">\n{{$:/core/images/folder}} <$text text=<<__chunk__>>/>\n</$button>\n</$reveal>\n<span>(<$count filter=\"[all[shadows+tiddlers]removeprefix<__prefix__>removeprefix<__chunk__>] -[<__prefix__>addsuffix<__chunk__>]\"/>)</span>\n<$reveal type=\"match\" stateTitle=<<reveal-state>> text=\"show\">\n<$macrocall $name=\"tree-node\" prefix={{{ [<__prefix__>addsuffix<__chunk__>] }}}/>\n</$reveal>\n</$set>\n</li>\n\\end\n\n\\define tree-node(prefix)\n<ol>\n<$list filter=\"[all[shadows+tiddlers]removeprefix<__prefix__>splitbefore[/]sort[]!suffix[/]]\" variable=\"chunk\">\n<$macrocall $name=\"leaf-node\" prefix=<<__prefix__>> chunk=<<chunk>>/>\n</$list>\n<$list filter=\"[all[shadows+tiddlers]removeprefix<__prefix__>splitbefore[/]sort[]suffix[/]]\" variable=\"chunk\">\n<$macrocall $name=\"branch-node\" prefix=<<__prefix__>> chunk=<<chunk>>/>\n</$list>\n</ol>\n\\end\n\n\\define tree(prefix: \"$:/\")\n<div class=\"tc-tree\">\n<span><$text text=<<__prefix__>>/></span>\n<div>\n<$macrocall $name=\"tree-node\" prefix=<<__prefix__>>/>\n</div>\n</div>\n\\end\n"
},
"$:/snippets/minilanguageswitcher": {
"title": "$:/snippets/minilanguageswitcher",
"text": "<$select tiddler=\"$:/language\">\n<$list filter=\"[[$:/languages/en-GB]] [plugin-type[language]sort[title]]\">\n<option value=<<currentTiddler>>><$view field=\"description\"><$view field=\"name\"><$view field=\"title\"/></$view></$view></option>\n</$list>\n</$select>"
},
"$:/snippets/minithemeswitcher": {
"title": "$:/snippets/minithemeswitcher",
"text": "\\define lingo-base() $:/language/ControlPanel/Theme/\n<<lingo Prompt>> <$select tiddler=\"$:/theme\">\n<$list filter=\"[plugin-type[theme]sort[title]]\">\n<option value=<<currentTiddler>>><$view field=\"name\"><$view field=\"title\"/></$view></option>\n</$list>\n</$select>"
},
"$:/snippets/modules": {
"title": "$:/snippets/modules",
"text": "\\define describeModuleType(type)\n{{$:/language/Docs/ModuleTypes/$type$}}\n\\end\n<$list filter=\"[moduletypes[]]\">\n\n!! <$macrocall $name=\"currentTiddler\" $type=\"text/plain\" $output=\"text/plain\"/>\n\n<$macrocall $name=\"describeModuleType\" type=<<currentTiddler>>/>\n\n<ul><$list filter=\"[all[current]modules[]]\"><li><$link><<currentTiddler>></$link>\n</li>\n</$list>\n</ul>\n</$list>\n"
},
"$:/palette": {
"title": "$:/palette",
"text": "$:/palettes/Vanilla"
},
"$:/snippets/paletteeditor": {
"title": "$:/snippets/paletteeditor",
"text": "\\define lingo-base() $:/language/ControlPanel/Palette/Editor/\n\\define describePaletteColour(colour)\n<$transclude tiddler=\"$:/language/Docs/PaletteColours/$colour$\"><$text text=\"$colour$\"/></$transclude>\n\\end\n<$set name=\"currentTiddler\" value={{$:/palette}}>\n\n<<lingo Prompt>> <$link to={{$:/palette}}><$macrocall $name=\"currentTiddler\" $output=\"text/plain\"/></$link>\n\n<$list filter=\"[all[current]is[shadow]is[tiddler]]\" variable=\"listItem\">\n<<lingo Prompt/Modified>>\n<$button message=\"tm-delete-tiddler\" param={{$:/palette}}><<lingo Reset/Caption>></$button>\n</$list>\n\n<$list filter=\"[all[current]is[shadow]!is[tiddler]]\" variable=\"listItem\">\n<<lingo Clone/Prompt>>\n</$list>\n\n<$button message=\"tm-new-tiddler\" param={{$:/palette}}><<lingo Clone/Caption>></$button>\n\n<table>\n<tbody>\n<$list filter=\"[all[current]indexes[]]\" variable=\"colourName\">\n<tr>\n<td>\n''<$macrocall $name=\"describePaletteColour\" colour=<<colourName>>/>''<br/>\n<$macrocall $name=\"colourName\" $output=\"text/plain\"/>\n</td>\n<td>\n<$edit-text index=<<colourName>> tag=\"input\"/>\n<br>\n<$edit-text index=<<colourName>> type=\"color\" tag=\"input\"/>\n</td>\n</tr>\n</$list>\n</tbody>\n</table>\n</$set>\n"
},
"$:/snippets/palettepreview": {
"title": "$:/snippets/palettepreview",
"text": "<$set name=\"currentTiddler\" value={{$:/palette}}>\n{{||$:/snippets/currpalettepreview}}\n</$set>\n"
},
"$:/snippets/paletteswitcher": {
"title": "$:/snippets/paletteswitcher",
"text": "<$linkcatcher to=\"$:/palette\">\n<div class=\"tc-chooser\"><$list filter=\"[all[shadows+tiddlers]tag[$:/tags/Palette]sort[description]]\"><$set name=\"cls\" filter=\"[all[current]prefix{$:/palette}]\" value=\"tc-chooser-item tc-chosen\" emptyValue=\"tc-chooser-item\"><div class=<<cls>>><$link to={{!!title}}>''<$view field=\"name\" format=\"text\"/>'' - <$view field=\"description\" format=\"text\"/>{{||$:/snippets/currpalettepreview}}</$link>\n</div></$set>\n</$list>\n</div>\n</$linkcatcher>"
},
"$:/snippets/peek-stylesheets": {
"title": "$:/snippets/peek-stylesheets",
"text": "\\define expandable-stylesheets-list()\n<ol>\n<$list filter=\"[all[shadows+tiddlers]tag[$:/tags/Stylesheet]!has[draft.of]]\">\n<$vars state=<<qualify \"$:/config/peek-stylesheets/open/\">>>\n<$set name=\"state\" value={{{ [<state>addsuffix<currentTiddler>] }}}>\n<li>\n<$reveal type=\"match\" state=<<state>> text=\"yes\" tag=\"span\">\n<$button set=<<state>> setTo=\"no\" class=\"tc-btn-invisible\">\n{{$:/core/images/down-arrow}}\n</$button>\n</$reveal>\n<$reveal type=\"nomatch\" state=<<state>> text=\"yes\" tag=\"span\">\n<$button set=<<state>> setTo=\"yes\" class=\"tc-btn-invisible\">\n{{$:/core/images/right-arrow}}\n</$button>\n</$reveal>\n<$link>\n<$view field=\"title\"/>\n</$link>\n<$reveal type=\"match\" state=<<state>> text=\"yes\" tag=\"div\">\n<$set name=\"source\" tiddler=<<currentTiddler>>>\n<$wikify name=\"styles\" text=<<source>>>\n<pre>\n<code>\n<$text text=<<styles>>/>\n</code>\n</pre>\n</$wikify>\n</$set>\n</$reveal>\n</li>\n</$set>\n</$vars>\n</$list>\n</ol>\n\\end\n\n\\define stylesheets-list()\n<ol>\n<$list filter=\"[all[shadows+tiddlers]tag[$:/tags/Stylesheet]!has[draft.of]]\">\n<li>\n<$link>\n<$view field=\"title\"/>\n</$link>\n<$set name=\"source\" tiddler=<<currentTiddler>>>\n<$wikify name=\"styles\" text=<<source>>>\n<pre>\n<code>\n<$text text=<<styles>>/>\n</code>\n</pre>\n</$wikify>\n</$set>\n</li>\n</$list>\n</ol>\n\\end\n\n<$vars modeState=<<qualify \"$:/config/peek-stylesheets/mode/\">>>\n\n<$reveal type=\"nomatch\" state=<<modeState>> text=\"expanded\" tag=\"div\">\n<$button set=<<modeState>> setTo=\"expanded\" class=\"tc-btn-invisible\">{{$:/core/images/chevron-right}} {{$:/language/ControlPanel/Stylesheets/Expand/Caption}}</$button>\n</$reveal>\n<$reveal type=\"match\" state=<<modeState>> text=\"expanded\" tag=\"div\">\n<$button set=<<modeState>> setTo=\"restored\" class=\"tc-btn-invisible\">{{$:/core/images/chevron-down}} {{$:/language/ControlPanel/Stylesheets/Restore/Caption}}</$button>\n</$reveal>\n\n<$reveal type=\"nomatch\" state=<<modeState>> text=\"expanded\" tag=\"div\">\n<<expandable-stylesheets-list>>\n</$reveal>\n<$reveal type=\"match\" state=<<modeState>> text=\"expanded\" tag=\"div\">\n<<stylesheets-list>>\n</$reveal>\n\n</$vars>\n"
},
"$:/temp/search": {
"title": "$:/temp/search",
"text": ""
},
"$:/tags/AdvancedSearch": {
"title": "$:/tags/AdvancedSearch",
"list": "[[$:/core/ui/AdvancedSearch/Standard]] [[$:/core/ui/AdvancedSearch/System]] [[$:/core/ui/AdvancedSearch/Shadows]] [[$:/core/ui/AdvancedSearch/Filter]]"
},
"$:/tags/AdvancedSearch/FilterButton": {
"title": "$:/tags/AdvancedSearch/FilterButton",
"list": "$:/core/ui/AdvancedSearch/Filter/FilterButtons/dropdown $:/core/ui/AdvancedSearch/Filter/FilterButtons/clear $:/core/ui/AdvancedSearch/Filter/FilterButtons/export $:/core/ui/AdvancedSearch/Filter/FilterButtons/delete"
},
"$:/tags/ControlPanel": {
"title": "$:/tags/ControlPanel",
"list": "$:/core/ui/ControlPanel/Info $:/core/ui/ControlPanel/Appearance $:/core/ui/ControlPanel/Settings $:/core/ui/ControlPanel/Saving $:/core/ui/ControlPanel/Plugins $:/core/ui/ControlPanel/Tools $:/core/ui/ControlPanel/Internals"
},
"$:/tags/ControlPanel/Info": {
"title": "$:/tags/ControlPanel/Info",
"list": "$:/core/ui/ControlPanel/Basics $:/core/ui/ControlPanel/Advanced"
},
"$:/tags/ControlPanel/Plugins": {
"title": "$:/tags/ControlPanel/Plugins",
"list": "[[$:/core/ui/ControlPanel/Plugins/Installed]] [[$:/core/ui/ControlPanel/Plugins/Add]]"
},
"$:/tags/EditTemplate": {
"title": "$:/tags/EditTemplate",
"list": "[[$:/core/ui/EditTemplate/controls]] [[$:/core/ui/EditTemplate/title]] [[$:/core/ui/EditTemplate/tags]] [[$:/core/ui/EditTemplate/shadow]] [[$:/core/ui/ViewTemplate/classic]] [[$:/core/ui/EditTemplate/body]] [[$:/core/ui/EditTemplate/type]] [[$:/core/ui/EditTemplate/fields]]"
},
"$:/tags/EditToolbar": {
"title": "$:/tags/EditToolbar",
"list": "[[$:/core/ui/Buttons/delete]] [[$:/core/ui/Buttons/cancel]] [[$:/core/ui/Buttons/save]]"
},
"$:/tags/EditorToolbar": {
"title": "$:/tags/EditorToolbar",
"list": "$:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/paint $:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/opacity $:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/line-width $:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/rotate-left $:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/clear $:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/bold $:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/italic $:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/strikethrough $:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/underline $:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/superscript $:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/subscript $:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/mono-line $:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/mono-block $:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/quote $:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/list-bullet $:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/list-number $:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/heading-1 $:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/heading-2 $:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/heading-3 $:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/heading-4 $:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/heading-5 $:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/heading-6 $:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/link $:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/excise $:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/picture $:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/stamp $:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/size $:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/editor-height $:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/more $:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/preview $:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/preview-type"
},
"$:/tags/Manager/ItemMain": {
"title": "$:/tags/Manager/ItemMain",
"list": "$:/Manager/ItemMain/WikifiedText $:/Manager/ItemMain/RawText $:/Manager/ItemMain/Fields"
},
"$:/tags/Manager/ItemSidebar": {
"title": "$:/tags/Manager/ItemSidebar",
"list": "$:/Manager/ItemSidebar/Tags $:/Manager/ItemSidebar/Colour $:/Manager/ItemSidebar/Icon $:/Manager/ItemSidebar/Tools"
},
"$:/tags/MoreSideBar": {
"title": "$:/tags/MoreSideBar",
"list": "[[$:/core/ui/MoreSideBar/All]] [[$:/core/ui/MoreSideBar/Recent]] [[$:/core/ui/MoreSideBar/Tags]] [[$:/core/ui/MoreSideBar/Missing]] [[$:/core/ui/MoreSideBar/Drafts]] [[$:/core/ui/MoreSideBar/Orphans]] [[$:/core/ui/MoreSideBar/Types]] [[$:/core/ui/MoreSideBar/System]] [[$:/core/ui/MoreSideBar/Shadows]] [[$:/core/ui/MoreSideBar/Explorer]] [[$:/core/ui/MoreSideBar/Plugins]]",
"text": ""
},
"$:/tags/PageControls": {
"title": "$:/tags/PageControls",
"list": "[[$:/core/ui/Buttons/home]] [[$:/core/ui/Buttons/close-all]] [[$:/core/ui/Buttons/fold-all]] [[$:/core/ui/Buttons/unfold-all]] [[$:/core/ui/Buttons/permaview]] [[$:/core/ui/Buttons/new-tiddler]] [[$:/core/ui/Buttons/new-journal]] [[$:/core/ui/Buttons/new-image]] [[$:/core/ui/Buttons/import]] [[$:/core/ui/Buttons/export-page]] [[$:/core/ui/Buttons/control-panel]] [[$:/core/ui/Buttons/advanced-search]] [[$:/core/ui/Buttons/manager]] [[$:/core/ui/Buttons/tag-manager]] [[$:/core/ui/Buttons/language]] [[$:/core/ui/Buttons/palette]] [[$:/core/ui/Buttons/theme]] [[$:/core/ui/Buttons/storyview]] [[$:/core/ui/Buttons/encryption]] [[$:/core/ui/Buttons/timestamp]] [[$:/core/ui/Buttons/full-screen]] [[$:/core/ui/Buttons/print]] [[$:/core/ui/Buttons/save-wiki]] [[$:/core/ui/Buttons/refresh]] [[$:/core/ui/Buttons/more-page-actions]]"
},
"$:/tags/PageTemplate": {
"title": "$:/tags/PageTemplate",
"list": "[[$:/core/ui/PageTemplate/topleftbar]] [[$:/core/ui/PageTemplate/toprightbar]] [[$:/core/ui/PageTemplate/sidebar]] [[$:/core/ui/PageTemplate/story]] [[$:/core/ui/PageTemplate/alerts]]",
"text": ""
},
"$:/tags/SideBar": {
"title": "$:/tags/SideBar",
"list": "[[$:/core/ui/SideBar/Open]] [[$:/core/ui/SideBar/Recent]] [[$:/core/ui/SideBar/Tools]] [[$:/core/ui/SideBar/More]]",
"text": ""
},
"$:/tags/SideBarSegment": {
"title": "$:/tags/SideBarSegment",
"list": "[[$:/core/ui/SideBarSegments/site-title]] [[$:/core/ui/SideBarSegments/site-subtitle]] [[$:/core/ui/SideBarSegments/page-controls]] [[$:/core/ui/SideBarSegments/search]] [[$:/core/ui/SideBarSegments/tabs]]"
},
"$:/tags/TiddlerInfo": {
"title": "$:/tags/TiddlerInfo",
"list": "[[$:/core/ui/TiddlerInfo/Tools]] [[$:/core/ui/TiddlerInfo/References]] [[$:/core/ui/TiddlerInfo/Tagging]] [[$:/core/ui/TiddlerInfo/List]] [[$:/core/ui/TiddlerInfo/Listed]] [[$:/core/ui/TiddlerInfo/Fields]]",
"text": ""
},
"$:/tags/TiddlerInfo/Advanced": {
"title": "$:/tags/TiddlerInfo/Advanced",
"list": "[[$:/core/ui/TiddlerInfo/Advanced/ShadowInfo]] [[$:/core/ui/TiddlerInfo/Advanced/PluginInfo]]"
},
"$:/tags/ViewTemplate": {
"title": "$:/tags/ViewTemplate",
"list": "[[$:/core/ui/ViewTemplate/title]] [[$:/core/ui/ViewTemplate/unfold]] [[$:/core/ui/ViewTemplate/subtitle]] [[$:/core/ui/ViewTemplate/tags]] [[$:/core/ui/ViewTemplate/classic]] [[$:/core/ui/ViewTemplate/body]]"
},
"$:/tags/ViewToolbar": {
"title": "$:/tags/ViewToolbar",
"list": "[[$:/core/ui/Buttons/more-tiddler-actions]] [[$:/core/ui/Buttons/info]] [[$:/core/ui/Buttons/new-here]] [[$:/core/ui/Buttons/new-journal-here]] [[$:/core/ui/Buttons/clone]] [[$:/core/ui/Buttons/export-tiddler]] [[$:/core/ui/Buttons/edit]] [[$:/core/ui/Buttons/delete]] [[$:/core/ui/Buttons/permalink]] [[$:/core/ui/Buttons/permaview]] [[$:/core/ui/Buttons/open-window]] [[$:/core/ui/Buttons/close-others]] [[$:/core/ui/Buttons/close]] [[$:/core/ui/Buttons/fold-others]] [[$:/core/ui/Buttons/fold]]"
},
"$:/snippets/themeswitcher": {
"title": "$:/snippets/themeswitcher",
"text": "<$linkcatcher to=\"$:/theme\">\n<div class=\"tc-chooser\"><$list filter=\"[plugin-type[theme]sort[title]]\"><$set name=\"cls\" filter=\"[all[current]field:title{$:/theme}] [[$:/theme]!has[text]addsuffix[s/tiddlywiki/vanilla]field:title<currentTiddler>] +[limit[1]]\" value=\"tc-chooser-item tc-chosen\" emptyValue=\"tc-chooser-item\"><div class=<<cls>>><$link to={{!!title}}>''<$view field=\"name\" format=\"text\"/>'' <$view field=\"description\" format=\"text\"/></$link></div>\n</$set>\n</$list>\n</div>\n</$linkcatcher>"
},
"$:/core/wiki/title": {
"title": "$:/core/wiki/title",
"text": "{{$:/SiteTitle}} --- {{$:/SiteSubtitle}}"
},
"$:/view": {
"title": "$:/view",
"text": "classic"
},
"$:/snippets/viewswitcher": {
"title": "$:/snippets/viewswitcher",
"text": "\\define icon()\n$:/core/images/storyview-$(storyview)$\n\\end\n<$linkcatcher to=\"$:/view\">\n<div class=\"tc-chooser\">\n<$list filter=\"[storyviews[]]\" variable=\"storyview\">\n<$set name=\"cls\" filter=\"[<storyview>prefix{$:/view}]\" value=\"tc-chooser-item tc-chosen\" emptyValue=\"tc-chooser-item\"><div class=<<cls>>>\n<$link to=<<storyview>>>\n<$transclude tiddler=<<icon>>/>\n<$text text=<<storyview>>/>\n</$link>\n</div>\n</$set>\n</$list>\n</div>\n</$linkcatcher>"
}
}
}
\define timeline-title()
<!-- Override this macro with a global macro
of the same name if you need to change
how titles are displayed on the timeline
-->
<$view field="title"/>
\end
\define timeline(format:"DDth MMM YYYY",subfilter:"!prefix[Hidden:]!tag[Hidden]!tag[no-recent]",dateField:"modified")
<div class="tc-timeline">
<$list filter="[!is[system]$subfilter$has[$dateField$]!nsort[$dateField$]days:$dateField$[-7]eachday[$dateField$]]">
<div class="tc-menu-list-item">
█▓▒▒░░░░ <$button class="tc-btn-invisible tc-tiddlylink">
<$list filter="[sameday:$dateField${!!$dateField$}!is[system]$subfilter$] +[days:$dateField$[-7]!nsort[$dateField$]]">
<$wikify name=title text="""<$view field="title"/>""">
<$action-navigate $to=<<title>>/>
</$wikify>
</$list>
<$list filter="[sameday:$dateField${!!$dateField$}!is[system]$subfilter$] +[days:$dateField$[-7]!nsort[$dateField$]first[]]">
<$wikify name=title text="""<$view field="title"/>""">
<$action-navigate $to=<<title>>/>
</$wikify>
</$list>
<span style="color:#66ff66"><$view field="$dateField$" format="date" template="$format$"/></span>
</$button> ░░░░▒▒▓█
<$list filter="[sameday:$dateField${!!$dateField$}!is[system]$subfilter$!nsort[$dateField$]]">
<div class="tc-menu-list-subitem">
<$link to={{!!title}}>
<<timeline-title>>
</$link>
</div>
</$list>
</div>
</$list>
</div>
\end
\define timespace(limit:"100",format:"DDth MMM YYYY",subfilter:"",dateField:"modified")
<div class="tc-timeline">
<$list filter="[!is[system]$subfilter$has[$dateField$]!nsort[$dateField$]limit[$limit$]eachday[$dateField$]]">
<div class="tc-menu-list-item">
█▓▒▒░░░░ <$button class="tc-btn-invisible tc-tiddlylink">
<$list filter="[sameday:$dateField${!!$dateField$}!is[system]$subfilter$] +[!nsort[$dateField$]]">
<$wikify name=title text="""<$view field="title"/>""">
<$action-navigate $to=<<title>>/>
</$wikify>
</$list>
<$list filter="[sameday:$dateField${!!$dateField$}!is[system]$subfilter$] +[!nsort[$dateField$]first[]]">
<$wikify name=title text="""<$view field="title"/>""">
<$action-navigate $to=<<title>>/>
</$wikify>
</$list>
<span style="color:#66ff66"><$view field="$dateField$" format="date" template="$format$"/></span>
</$button> ░░░░▒▒▓█
<$list filter="[sameday:$dateField${!!$dateField$}!is[system]$subfilter$!nsort[$dateField$]]">
<div class="tc-menu-list-subitem">
<$link to={{!!title}}>
<<timeline-title>>
</$link>
</div>
</$list>
</div>
</$list>
</div>
\end
/*\
title: $:/core/modules/savers/download.js
type: application/javascript
module-type: saver
Handles saving changes via HTML5's download APIs
\*/
(function(){
/*jslint node: true, browser: true */
/*global $tw: false */
"use strict";
/*
Select the appropriate saver module and set it up
*/
var DownloadSaver = function(wiki) {
};
DownloadSaver.prototype.save = function(text,method,callback,options) {
options = options || {};
// Get the current filename
var filename = options.variables.filename;
if(!filename) {
var p = document.location.pathname.lastIndexOf("/");
if(p !== -1) {
// We decode the pathname because document.location is URL encoded by the browser
filename = decodeURIComponent(document.location.pathname.substr(p+1));
}
}
if(!filename) {
filename = "index.html";
}
// Set up the link
var link = document.createElement("a");
if(Blob !== undefined) {
var blob = new Blob([text], {type: "text/html"});
link.setAttribute("href", URL.createObjectURL(blob));
} else {
link.setAttribute("href","data:text/html," + encodeURIComponent(text));
}
link.setAttribute("download",filename);
document.body.appendChild(link);
link.click();
document.body.removeChild(link);
// Callback that we succeeded
callback(null);
return true;
};
/*
Information about this saver
*/
DownloadSaver.prototype.info = {
name: "download",
priority: 100
};
Object.defineProperty(DownloadSaver.prototype.info, "capabilities", {
get: function() {
var capabilities = ["save", "download"];
if(($tw.wiki.getTextReference("$:/config/DownloadSaver/AutoSave") || "").toLowerCase() === "yes") {
capabilities.push("autosave");
}
return capabilities;
}
});
/*
Static method that returns true if this saver is capable of working
*/
exports.canSave = function(wiki) {
return document.createElement("a").download !== undefined;
};
/*
Create an instance of this saver
*/
exports.create = function(wiki) {
return new DownloadSaver(wiki);
};
})();
/*\
title: $:/core/modules/savers/msdownload.js
type: application/javascript
module-type: saver
Handles saving changes via window.navigator.msSaveBlob()
\*/
(function(){
/*jslint node: true, browser: true */
/*global $tw: false */
"use strict";
/*
Select the appropriate saver module and set it up
*/
var MsDownloadSaver = function(wiki) {
};
MsDownloadSaver.prototype.save = function(text,method,callback) {
// Get the current filename
var filename = "index.html",
p = document.location.pathname.lastIndexOf("/");
if(p !== -1) {
filename = document.location.pathname.substr(p+1);
}
// Set up the link
var blob = new Blob([text], {type: "text/html"});
window.navigator.msSaveBlob(blob,filename);
// Callback that we succeeded
callback(null);
return true;
};
/*
Information about this saver
*/
MsDownloadSaver.prototype.info = {
name: "msdownload",
priority: 110,
capabilities: ["save", "download"]
};
/*
Static method that returns true if this saver is capable of working
*/
exports.canSave = function(wiki) {
return !!window.navigator.msSaveBlob;
};
/*
Create an instance of this saver
*/
exports.create = function(wiki) {
return new MsDownloadSaver(wiki);
};
})();
\whitespace trim
\define journalButtonTags()
[[$(currentTiddlerTag)$]] $(journalTags)$
\end
<$set name="journalTitleTemplate" value={{$:/config/NewJournalHere/Title}}>
<$set name="journalTags" value={{$:/config/NewJournal/Tags}}>
<$set name="currentTiddlerTag" value={{$:/HistoryList!!current-tiddler}}>
<$wikify name="journalTitle" text="""<$macrocall $name="now" format=<<journalTitleTemplate>>/>""">
<$action-sendmessage $message="tm-new-tiddler" title=<<journalTitle>> tags=<<journalButtonTags>>/>
</$wikify>
</$set>
</$set>
</$set>
\define searchResultList()
//<small>{{$:/language/Search/Matches/Title}}</small>//
<$list filter="[!is[system]search:title{$(searchTiddler)$}!tag[Hidden]sort[title]limit[250]]" template="$:/core/ui/ListItemTemplate"/>
//<small>{{$:/language/Search/Matches/All}}</small>//
<$list filter="[!is[system]search{$(searchTiddler)$}!tag[Hidden]sort[title]limit[250]]" template="$:/core/ui/ListItemTemplate"/>
\end
<<searchResultList>>
<$edit-text field="draft.title" class="tc-titlebar tc-edit-texteditor" focus="true" tabindex={{$:/config/EditTabindex}} cancelPopups={{$:/config/EditCancelPopups}} refreshTiddler="$:/HistoryList" refreshCondition={{{ [[$:/HistoryList]get[current-tiddler]removeprefix<currentTiddler>suffix[]addprefix[true]] ~[[false]] }}} refreshAction="focus-scrollto"/>
<$vars pattern="""[\|\[\]{}]""" bad-chars="""`| [ ] { }`""">
<$list filter="[all[current]regexp:draft.title<pattern>]" variable="listItem">
<div class="tc-message-box">
{{$:/core/images/warning}} {{$:/language/EditTemplate/Title/BadCharacterWarning}}
</div>
</$list>
</$vars>
<$reveal state="!!draft.title" type="nomatch" text={{!!draft.of}} tag="div">
<$list filter="[{!!draft.title}!is[missing]]" variable="listItem">
<div class="tc-message-box">
{{$:/core/images/warning}} {{$:/language/EditTemplate/Title/Exists/Prompt}}
</div>
</$list>
<$list filter="[{!!draft.of}!is[missing]]" variable="listItem">
<$vars fromTitle={{!!draft.of}} toTitle={{!!draft.title}}>
<$checkbox tiddler="$:/config/RelinkOnRename" field="text" checked="yes" unchecked="no" default="no"> {{$:/language/EditTemplate/Title/Relink/Prompt}}</$checkbox>
<$vars stateTiddler=<<qualify "$:/state/edit/references">> >
<$reveal type="nomatch" state=<<stateTiddler>> text="show">
<$button set=<<stateTiddler>> setTo="show" class="tc-btn-invisible">{{$:/core/images/right-arrow}}
<<lingo EditTemplate/Title/References/Prompt>></$button>
</$reveal>
<$reveal type="match" state=<<stateTiddler>> text="show">
<$button set=<<stateTiddler>> setTo="hide" class="tc-btn-invisible">{{$:/core/images/down-arrow}}
<<lingo EditTemplate/Title/References/Prompt>></$button>
</$reveal>
<$reveal type="match" state=<<stateTiddler>> text="show">
<$tiddler tiddler=<<fromTitle>> >
<$transclude tiddler="$:/core/ui/TiddlerInfo/References"/>
</$tiddler>
</$reveal>
</$vars>
</$vars>
</$list>
</$reveal>
<$navigator story="$:/StoryList" history="$:/HistoryList" openLinkFromInsideRiver={{$:/config/Navigation/openLinkFromInsideRiver}} openLinkFromOutsideRiver={{$:/config/Navigation/openLinkFromOutsideRiver}} relinkOnRename={{$:/config/RelinkOnRename}}>
{{$:/core/ui/Actions/new-journal-here}}
</$navigator>
\define searchResultList()
//<small>{{$:/language/Search/Matches/Title}}</small>//
<$list filter="[!is[system]search:title{$(searchTiddler)$}sort[title]limit[250]]" template="$:/core/ui/ListItemTemplate"/>
//<small>{{$:/language/Search/Matches/All}}</small>//
<$list filter="[!is[system]search{$(searchTiddler)$}sort[title]limit[250]]" template="$:/core/ui/ListItemTemplate"/>
\end
<<searchResultList>>
<div class="tc-more-sidebar">
<$macrocall $name="tabs" tabsList="[all[shadows+tiddlers]tag[$:/tags/MoreSideBar]!has[draft.of]]" default={{$:/config/DefaultMoreSidebarTab}} state="$:/state/tab/moresidebar" class="tc-vertical" />
</div>
\whitespace trim
\define lingo-base() $:/language/CloseAll/
\define drop-actions()
<$action-listops $tiddler="$:/StoryList" $subfilter="+[insertbefore:currentTiddler<actionTiddler>]"/>
\end
<$list filter="[list[$:/StoryList]]" history="$:/HistoryList" storyview="pop">
<div style="position: relative;">
<$droppable actions=<<drop-actions>>>
<div class="tc-droppable-placeholder">
</div>
<div>
<$button message="tm-close-tiddler" tooltip={{$:/language/Buttons/Close/Hint}} aria-label={{$:/language/Buttons/Close/Caption}} class="tc-btn-invisible tc-btn-mini">×</$button> <$link to={{!!title}}><$view field="title"/></$link>
</div>
</$droppable>
</div>
</$list>
<$tiddler tiddler="">
<$droppable actions=<<drop-actions>>>
<div class="tc-droppable-placeholder">
</div>
<$button message="tm-close-all-tiddlers" class="tc-btn-invisible tc-btn-mini"><<lingo Button>></$button>
</$droppable>
</$tiddler>
<$macrocall $name="timeline" format={{$:/language/RecentChanges/DateFormat}}/>
\define lingo-base() $:/language/ControlPanel/
\define config-title()
$:/config/PageControlButtons/Visibility/$(listItem)$
\end
<<lingo Basics/Version/Prompt>> <<version>>
<$set name="tv-config-toolbar-icons" value="yes">
<$set name="tv-config-toolbar-text" value="yes">
<$set name="tv-config-toolbar-class" value="">
<$list filter="[all[shadows+tiddlers]tag[$:/tags/PageControls]!has[draft.of]]" variable="listItem">
<div style="position:relative;" class={{{ [<listItem>encodeuricomponent[]addprefix[tc-btn-]] }}}>
<$checkbox tiddler=<<config-title>> field="text" checked="show" unchecked="hide" default="show"/> <$transclude tiddler=<<listItem>>/> <i class="tc-muted"><$transclude tiddler=<<listItem>> field="description"/></i>
</div>
</$list>
</$set>
</$set>
</$set>
<$reveal type="nomatch" state=<<folded-state>> text="hide" tag="div" retain="yes" animate="yes">
<div class="tc-subtitle">
Edited: <$view field="modified" format="date" template={{$:/language/Tiddler/DateFormat}}/>
</div>
</$reveal>
[[Root]]
[[Legal Notice]]
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
\define ref(label)
<$button popup="$:/state/$label$" class="tc-btn-invisible tc-slider"><sup style="color:#66ff66">$label$</sup></$button>
\end
\define definition(label,text)
<$reveal type="popup" state="$:/state/$label$" animate="yes">
<div class="tc-drop-down">
<dl>
<dt>$label$</dt>
<dd>$text$</dd>
</dl>
</div>
</$reveal>
\end
\define footnote(label,text)
<<ref "$label$">>
<<definition "$label$" "$text$">>
\end
\define footnotes(label,text)
<<definition "$label$" "$text$">>
<sub><span style="color:green">$label$ : </span> $text$</sub>
\end
alert-background: #f00
alert-border: <<colour background>>
alert-highlight: <<colour foreground>>
alert-muted-foreground: #800
background: #000000
blockquote-bar: <<colour muted-foreground>>
button-background: <<colour background>>
button-foreground: #66ff66
button-border: #3b3333
code-background: #000000
code-border: <<colour foreground>>
code-foreground: <<colour foreground>>
dirty-indicator: #f00
download-background: #080
download-foreground: <<colour background>>
dragger-background: <<colour foreground>>
dragger-foreground: <<colour background>>
dropdown-background: <<colour background>>
dropdown-border: <<colour muted-foreground>>
dropdown-tab-background-selected: <<colour foreground>>
dropdown-tab-background: <<colour foreground>>
dropzone-background: rgba(0,200,0,0.7)
external-link-background-hover: inherit
external-link-background-visited: inherit
external-link-background: inherit
external-link-foreground-hover: inherit
external-link-foreground-visited: #02A1D6
external-link-foreground: #02A1D6
foreground: #ffffff
message-background: <<colour foreground>>
message-border: <<colour background>>
message-foreground: <<colour background>>
modal-backdrop: <<colour foreground>>
modal-background: <<colour background>>
modal-border: <<colour foreground>>
modal-footer-background: <<colour background>>
modal-footer-border: <<colour foreground>>
modal-header-border: <<colour foreground>>
muted-foreground: <<colour foreground>>
notification-background: <<colour background>>
notification-border: <<colour foreground>>
page-background: <<colour background>>
pre-background: <<colour background>>
pre-border: <<colour foreground>>
primary: #151515
sidebar-button-foreground: #66ff66
sidebar-controls-foreground-hover: #3b3333
sidebar-controls-foreground: <<colour foreground>>
sidebar-foreground-shadow: rgba(0,0,0, 0)
sidebar-foreground: <<colour foreground>>
sidebar-muted-foreground-hover: #444444
sidebar-muted-foreground: <<colour foreground>>
sidebar-tab-background-selected: <<colour background>>
sidebar-tab-background: <<colour tab-background>>
sidebar-tab-border-selected: <<colour tab-border-selected>>
sidebar-tab-border: <<colour tab-border>>
sidebar-tab-divider: <<colour tab-divider>>
sidebar-tab-foreground-selected: <<colour foreground>>
sidebar-tab-foreground: <<colour tab-foreground>>
sidebar-tiddler-link-foreground-hover: <<colour foreground>>
sidebar-tiddler-link-foreground: <<colour tiddler-link-foregor>>
site-title-foreground: <<colour tiddler-title-foreground>>
static-alert-foreground: #aaaaaa
tab-background-selected: <<colour background>>
tab-background: <<colour foreground>>
tab-border-selected: <<colour foreground>>
tab-border: <<colour foreground>>
tab-divider: <<colour foreground>>
tab-foreground-selected: <<colour foreground>>
tab-foreground: <<colour background>>
table-border: #ffffff
table-footer-background: #a8a8a8
table-header-background: #a8a8a8
tag-background: #02A1D6
tag-foreground: #000
tiddler-background: <<colour background>>
tiddler-border: #3b3333
tiddler-controls-foreground-hover: #ddd
tiddler-controls-foreground-selected: #fdd
tiddler-controls-foreground: <<colour foreground>>
tiddler-editor-background: <<colour background>>
tiddler-editor-border-image: <<colour foreground>>
tiddler-editor-border: #3b3333
tiddler-editor-fields-even: <<colour background>>
tiddler-editor-fields-odd: <<colour background>>
tiddler-info-background: <<colour background>>
tiddler-info-border: <<colour foreground>>
tiddler-info-tab-background: <<colour background>>
tiddler-link-background: <<colour background>>
tiddler-link-foreground: #02A1D6
tiddler-subtitle-foreground: <<colour foreground>>
tiddler-title-foreground: <<colour foreground>>
toolbar-new-button:
toolbar-options-button:
toolbar-save-button:
toolbar-info-button:
toolbar-edit-button:
toolbar-close-button:
toolbar-delete-button:
toolbar-cancel-button:
toolbar-done-button:
untagged-background: <<colour foreground>>
very-muted-foreground: #888888
{
"tiddlers": {
"$:/plugins/bimlas/kin-filter/README/concept.svg": {
"title": "$:/plugins/bimlas/kin-filter/README/concept.svg",
"text": "<svg xmlns=\"http://www.w3.org/2000/svg\" color-interpolation=\"auto\" height=\"492\" width=\"576\" stroke-linecap=\"square\" stroke=\"#000000\" font-family=\"Dialog\" font-size=\"12\" stroke-miterlimit=\"10\"><style><![CDATA[.C{stroke:none}.E{stroke-miterlimit:1.45000005}.F{fill:none}.I{stroke-linecap:butt}.G{fill:#f1c122}.L{font-size:26.667px}.M{fill:#4f4f4f}.D{fill:#d84100}.H{fill:#006eff}]]></style><defs><clipPath id=\"A\"><path d=\"M-15-15h630v745H-15z\"/></clipPath></defs><g clip-path=\"url(#A)\" shape-rendering=\"geometricPrecision\" text-rendering=\"geometricPrecision\"><rect class=\"C D\" x=\"15.917\" height=\"40\" rx=\"4\" width=\"40\" y=\"161.955\"/><rect class=\"E F\" x=\"15.917\" height=\"40\" rx=\"4\" width=\"40\" y=\"161.955\"/><rect class=\"C D\" height=\"40\" rx=\"4\" width=\"80\" y=\"191.955\" x=\"95.917\"/><rect class=\"E F\" height=\"40\" rx=\"4\" width=\"80\" y=\"191.955\" x=\"95.917\"/><rect class=\"C D\" height=\"40\" rx=\"4\" width=\"40\" y=\"191.526\" x=\"204.242\"/><rect class=\"E F\" height=\"40\" rx=\"4\" width=\"40\" y=\"191.526\" x=\"204.242\"/><rect class=\"C G\" height=\"40\" rx=\"4\" width=\"40\" y=\"371.526\" x=\"284.242\"/><rect class=\"E F\" height=\"40\" rx=\"4\" width=\"40\" y=\"371.526\" x=\"284.242\"/><rect class=\"C\" height=\"40\" rx=\"4\" width=\"40\" y=\"251.526\" x=\"284.242\" fill=\"#008b00\"/><rect class=\"E F\" height=\"40\" rx=\"4\" width=\"40\" y=\"251.526\" x=\"284.242\"/><rect class=\"C H\" height=\"40\" rx=\"4\" width=\"80\" y=\"281.526\" x=\"384.242\"/><rect class=\"E F\" height=\"40\" rx=\"4\" width=\"80\" y=\"281.526\" x=\"384.242\"/><rect class=\"C G\" height=\"40\" rx=\"4\" width=\"40\" y=\"131.955\" x=\"95.917\"/><rect class=\"E F\" height=\"40\" rx=\"4\" width=\"40\" y=\"131.955\" x=\"95.917\"/><rect class=\"C H\" height=\"40\" rx=\"4\" width=\"40\" y=\"221.526\" x=\"384.242\"/><rect class=\"E F\" height=\"40\" rx=\"4\" width=\"40\" y=\"221.526\" x=\"384.242\"/><rect class=\"C H\" height=\"40\" rx=\"4\" width=\"40\" y=\"221.526\" x=\"504.242\"/><rect class=\"E F\" height=\"40\" rx=\"4\" width=\"40\" y=\"221.526\" x=\"504.242\"/><rect class=\"C G\" height=\"40\" rx=\"4\" width=\"40\" y=\"101.526\" x=\"284.242\"/><rect class=\"E F\" height=\"40\" rx=\"4\" width=\"40\" y=\"101.526\" x=\"284.242\"/><rect class=\"C G\" height=\"40\" rx=\"4\" width=\"40\" y=\"131.526\" x=\"384.242\"/><rect class=\"E F\" height=\"40\" rx=\"4\" width=\"40\" y=\"131.526\" x=\"384.242\"/><rect class=\"C G\" height=\"40\" rx=\"4\" width=\"60\" y=\"71.526\" x=\"384.242\"/><rect class=\"E F\" height=\"40\" rx=\"4\" width=\"60\" y=\"71.526\" x=\"384.242\"/><rect class=\"C G\" height=\"40\" rx=\"4\" width=\"40\" y=\"11.526\" x=\"284.242\"/><rect class=\"E F\" height=\"40\" rx=\"4\" width=\"40\" y=\"11.526\" x=\"284.242\"/><rect class=\"C G\" height=\"40\" rx=\"4\" width=\"40\" y=\"401.526\" x=\"384.242\"/><rect class=\"E F\" height=\"40\" rx=\"4\" width=\"40\" y=\"401.526\" x=\"384.242\"/><rect class=\"C G\" height=\"40\" rx=\"4\" width=\"40\" y=\"161.526\" x=\"504.242\"/><rect class=\"E F\" height=\"40\" rx=\"4\" width=\"40\" y=\"161.526\" x=\"504.242\"/><rect class=\"C G\" height=\"40\" rx=\"4\" width=\"40\" y=\"101.526\" x=\"504.242\"/><rect class=\"E F\" height=\"40\" rx=\"4\" width=\"40\" y=\"101.526\" x=\"504.242\"/><rect class=\"C G\" height=\"40\" rx=\"4\" width=\"80\" y=\"341.526\" x=\"384.242\"/><rect class=\"E F\" height=\"40\" rx=\"4\" width=\"80\" y=\"341.526\" x=\"384.242\"/><rect class=\"C G\" height=\"40\" rx=\"4\" width=\"60\" y=\"11.526\" x=\"384.242\"/><g class=\"E F\"><rect height=\"40\" rx=\"4\" width=\"60\" y=\"11.526\" x=\"384.242\"/><g class=\"I\"><path d=\"M64.54 181.955h12.03v30h19.35\"/></g></g><path class=\"C\" d=\"M55.887 181.955l12-5-3 5 3 5z\"/><path class=\"E F I\" d=\"M183.636 211.526h20.33\" stroke-width=\".731\"/><path class=\"C\" d=\"M175.897 211.525l12-5-3 5 3 5z\"/><path class=\"E F I\" d=\"M252.69 211.526h12.03v180h19.984\"/><path class=\"C\" d=\"M244.212 211.526l12-5-3 5 3 5z\"/><path class=\"E F I\" d=\"M252.69 211.526h12.03v60h19.984\"/><path class=\"C\" d=\"M324.25 271.526l12-5-3 5 3 5z\"/><path class=\"E F I\" d=\"M332.703 271.526h32.018v30h20\"/><path d=\"M324.25 391.66l12-5-3 5 3 5z\" class=\"C\"/><path class=\"E F I\" d=\"M64.887 181.955H76.57v-30h19.4m236.723 119.57h32.018v-30h19.984m48.025.001h72.02\"/><path class=\"C\" d=\"M423.72 241.526l12-5-3 5 3 5z\"/><path class=\"E F I\" d=\"M252.69 211.526h12.03v-90h19.984\"/><path class=\"C\" d=\"M323.728 121.526l12-5-3 5 3 5z\"/><path class=\"E F I\" d=\"M332.703 121.526h32.018v30h19.984\"/><path class=\"E F I\" d=\"M332.703 121.526h32.018v-30h20m-132.03 120h12.03v-180h19.984\"/><path class=\"C\" d=\"M323.728 31.526l12-5-3 5 3 5z\"/><path class=\"E F I\" d=\"M332.703 391.526h32.018v30h19.984m48.02-270h51.996v30h19.984\"/><path class=\"E F I\" d=\"M432.725 151.526h51.996v-30h19.984\"/><path class=\"C\" d=\"M423.725 151.526l12-5-3 5 3 5z\"/><path class=\"E F I\" d=\"M332.703 391.526h32.018v-30h20m-51.993-330h51.98\"/></g><g class=\"C\" letter-spacing=\"0\" word-spacing=\"0\" font-family=\"sans-serif\"><text class=\"L\" y=\"481.371\" x=\"259.32\" xml:space=\"preserve\"><tspan class=\"M\" y=\"481.371\" x=\"259.32\">DEPTH</tspan></text><g font-size=\"40\"><text y=\"481.371\" x=\"395.524\" xml:space=\"preserve\"><tspan class=\"L M\" y=\"481.371\" x=\"395.524\">1</tspan></text><text y=\"481.547\" x=\"516.117\" xml:space=\"preserve\"><tspan class=\"L M\" y=\"481.547\" x=\"516.117\">2</tspan></text><text xml:space=\"preserve\" x=\"215.524\" y=\"481.371\"><tspan class=\"L M\" x=\"215.524\" y=\"481.371\">1</tspan></text><text xml:space=\"preserve\" x=\"107.792\" y=\"481.547\"><tspan class=\"L M\" x=\"107.792\" y=\"481.547\">2</tspan></text><text y=\"481.358\" x=\"27.486\" xml:space=\"preserve\"><tspan class=\"L M\" y=\"481.358\" x=\"27.486\">3</tspan></text><text y=\"325.27\" x=\"268.643\" xml:space=\"preserve\"><tspan class=\"L\" y=\"325.27\" x=\"268.643\" fill=\"#008b00\">BASE</tspan></text><text xml:space=\"preserve\" x=\"506.384\" y=\"325.27\"><tspan class=\"L H\" x=\"506.384\" y=\"325.27\">TO</tspan></text><text y=\"325.27\" x=\"96.958\" xml:space=\"preserve\"><tspan class=\"L D\" y=\"325.27\" x=\"96.958\">FROM</tspan></text></g></g></svg>",
"type": "image/svg+xml",
"tags": "picture"
},
"A": {
"title": "A",
"tags": "kin-example-top"
},
"B": {
"title": "B",
"tags": "A"
},
"C": {
"title": "C",
"tags": "B",
"list": "D"
},
"D": {
"title": "D",
"tags": "C",
"list": "E"
},
"E": {
"title": "E",
"tags": "C",
"list": "G"
},
"F": {
"title": "F",
"tags": "B"
},
"G": {
"title": "G",
"tags": "F"
},
"H": {
"title": "H",
"tags": "F"
},
"$:/plugins/bimlas/kin-filter/README/examples": {
"title": "$:/plugins/bimlas/kin-filter/README/examples",
"type": "text/vnd.tiddlywiki",
"text": "\\define item-class(highlightfilter) <$list filter=\"[[kin-example-top]kin::to[]subfilter<__highlightfilter__>is[current]first[]]\">highlighted-toc-item</$list>\n\n\\define kin-example-with-toc(n,eg,ie)\n <div class=\"doc-example\">\n `$eg$`\n <dd>→ $ie$</dd>\n <$list filter=\"[title<.state-prefix>addsuffix{!!title}addsuffix[/]addsuffix[$n$]]\" variable=\".state\">\n <$reveal state=<<.state>> type=\"nomatch\" text=\"show\">\n <dl>\n <dd><$button set=<<.state>> setTo=\"show\">Try it</$button></dd>\n </dl>\n </$reveal>\n <$reveal state=<<.state>> type=\"match\" text=\"show\">\n <dl>\n <dd><$button set=<<.state>> setTo=\"\">Hide</$button></dd>\n </dl>\n <blockquote class=\"doc-example-result\">\n <ul><$list filter=\"[[kin-example-top]kin::to[]subfilter<__eg__>sort[]]\" emptyMessage=\"(empty)\">\n <li><$link><$view field=\"title\"/></$link></li>\n </$list></ul>\n Results highlighted in the tree:\n\n <<kin-toc \"$eg$\">>\n </blockquote>\n </$reveal>\n </$list>\n </div>\n\\end\n\n\\define each-level(highlightfilter)\n <li>\n <$wikify name=\"transcluded-item-class\" text=\"\"\"<$macrocall $name=\"item-class\" highlightfilter=<<__highlightfilter__>>/>\"\"\">\n <$link class=<<transcluded-item-class>> ><<currentTiddler>></$link>\n </$wikify>\n <ul>\n <$list filter=\"[[kin-example-top]kin::to[]tag<currentTiddler>]\">\n <$macrocall $name=\"each-level\" highlightfilter=<<__highlightfilter__>>/>\n </$list>\n </ul>\n </li>\n\\end\n\n\\define kin-toc(highlightfilter)\n <$tiddler tiddler=\"kin-example-top\">\n <ul>\n <$macrocall $name=\"each-level\" highlightfilter=<<__highlightfilter__>>/>\n </ul>\n </$tiddler>\n\\end\n\n<style>\n .highlighted-toc-item {\n color: red !important;\n }\n</style>\n\nExample tree (to really understand, look at the tiddlers):\n\n<<kin-toc \"!is[current]\">>\n\n''The tree'' below the examples only helps in understanding the filter, it ''is not part of the output''.\n\n''Feel free to edit [[this tiddler|$:/plugins/bimlas/kin-filter/README/examples]] to test your own filter expressions as well!'' If you want to undo the changes you made, just delete the tiddler, it will restore itself to its initial state.\n\n<<kin-example-with-toc 1 \"[kin[C]]\" \"input titles which are family members of the parameter title\">>\n<<kin-example-with-toc 2 \"[kin[C]kin[F]]\" \"common family members of each of the specified titles (intersection)\">>\n<<kin-example-with-toc 3 \"[kin[C]!kin[F]]\" \"difference of families of the specified titles (complement)\">>\n<<kin-example-with-toc 4 \"[[C]] [[F]] +[kin[]]\" \"collected titles which are family members of any of the input tiddlers (union)\">>\n<<kin-example-with-toc 5 \"[kin::to[B]]\" \"successors of the given tiddler\">>\n<<kin-example-with-toc 6 \"[kin::from[E]kin::to[B]]\" \"subset of the family tree\">>\n<<kin-example-with-toc 7 \"[kin::from:2[E]]\" \"ancestors of the given tiddler until the given depth\">>\n<<kin-example-with-toc 8 \"[kin:tags:from[G]]\" \"ancestors of tiddler based on `tags` field (`tags` points to parents)\">>\n<<kin-example-with-toc 9 \"[kin:list:to[G]]\" \"ancestors of tiddler based on `list` field (`list` point to children)\">>\n"
},
"$:/plugins/bimlas/kin-filter/README/syntax": {
"title": "$:/plugins/bimlas/kin-filter/README/syntax",
"type": "text/vnd.tiddlywiki",
"text": "! Kin filter operator\n\n* https://gitlab.com/bimlas/tw5-kin-filter (official repository)\n* https://github.com/bimlas/tw5-kin-filter (mirror, please give a star if you like it)\n\nThe purpose of the ''kin'' operator with examples:\n\n* Finds related tags, related tiddlers in any depth\n* Finds out where base tiddler originates and what other elements originate from it\n* Finds the ancestors and successors of a family member\n* Finds the \"leaves\" of the branch of the base tiddler in a tree-like structure (where the base tiddler is a leaf)\n* Finds the super- and subsets / groups of a mathematical set (where the base tiddler is a set)\n\n[img[$:/plugins/bimlas/kin-filter/README/concept.svg]]\n\n|''input''|a [[selection of titles|https://tiddlywiki.com/#Title%20Selection]]|\n|''suffix''|the ''kin'' operator uses a rich suffix, see below for details|\n|''parameter''|''B'' base tiddler title or nothing|\n|''output''|''with parameter B''<br>» those input titles which are ''kin with B'' <br>''without B''<br>» ''all'' tiddler titles which are ''kin with input titles'' (treat input titles as base tiddlers)|\n|''`!` output''|''with parameter B''<br>» those input titles which are ''//NOT// kin with B''<br>''without parameter B''<br>» ignored|\n\nThe ''kin'' operator uses an extended syntax that permits multiple fields and flags to be passed:\n\n```\n[kin:<field>:<direction>:<depth>[<operand>]]\n```\n\n* ''field'': name of the [[field|https://tiddlywiki.com/#TiddlerFields]] which connecting tiddlers (assumed to be a [[title list|https://tiddlywiki.com/#Title%20List]], defaulting to `tags`)\n* ''direction'': collect the tiddler titles in this direction relative to the base tiddler\n** ''from'': collect kins of base tiddler pointing from it (including the base tiddler title itself)\n** ''to'': collect kins of base tiddler pointing to it (including the base tiddler title itself)\n** ''with'': (the default) union of the aboves\n* ''depth'': maximum depth of the collected labels in the tree structure relative to the base tiddler (a positive number, not limited by default)\n* ''operand'': filter operand, the base tiddler\n\n''kin'' is a [[modifier|https://tiddlywiki.com/#Selection%20Constructors]], but without ''B'' parameter is a [[constructor|https://tiddlywiki.com/#Selection%20Constructors]].\n\n!! Installation instructions\n\nTo add the plugin to your own ~TiddlyWiki5, just drag this link to the browser window:\n\n$:/plugins/bimlas/kin-filter\n\nFor other installation options see the repositories above.\n\n//Select the next tab to continue.//\n"
},
"$:/plugins/bimlas/kin-filter/kin.js": {
"title": "$:/plugins/bimlas/kin-filter/kin.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/plugins/bimlas/kin-filter/kin.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: filteroperator\n\nFinds out where a tiddler originates from and what other tiddlers originate from it\n\n\\*/\n(function() {\n\n\t/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n\t/*global $tw: true */\n\t\"use strict\";\n\n\tfunction collectTitlesRecursively(baseTiddler,baseTitle,options) {\n\t\tvar cacheName = \"kin-filter-\" + baseTitle + \"-\" + options.fieldName + \"-\",\n\t\t\ttitlesPointingFromBase = {},\n\t\t\ttitlesPointingToBase = {},\n\t\t\tresultsFrom = [],\n\t\t\tresultsTo = [];\n\n\t\t/* Copy of findListingsOfTiddler, but it's searching in shadows as well. */\n\t\tfunction findListingsOfTiddler(targetTitle,fieldName) {\n\t\t\tfieldName = fieldName || \"list\";\n\t\t\tvar titles = [];\n\t\t\toptions.wiki.eachTiddlerPlusShadows(function(tiddler,title) {\n\t\t\t\tvar list = $tw.utils.parseStringArray(tiddler.fields[fieldName]);\n\t\t\t\tif(list && list.indexOf(targetTitle) !== -1) {\n\t\t\t\t\ttitles.push(title);\n\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t});\n\t\t\treturn titles;\n\t\t}\n\n\t\tfunction addToResultsIfNotFoundAlready(alreadyFound,title,depth) {\n\t\t\tif(title in alreadyFound) {\n\t\t\t\treturn false;\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t\talreadyFound[title] = depth;\n\t\t\treturn true\n\t\t}\n\n\t\tfunction collectTitlesPointingFrom(tiddler,title,currentDepth) {\n\t\t\tif(addToResultsIfNotFoundAlready(titlesPointingFromBase,title,currentDepth)) {\n\t\t\t\tcurrentDepth += 1;\n\t\t\t\tif(tiddler) {\n\t\t\t\t\t$tw.utils.each(tiddler.getFieldList(options.fieldName),function(targetTitle) {\n\t\t\t\t\t\tcollectTitlesPointingFrom(options.wiki.getTiddler(targetTitle),targetTitle,currentDepth);\n\t\t\t\t\t});\n\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t}\n\n\t\tfunction collectTitlesPointingTo(title,currentDepth) {\n\t\t\tif(addToResultsIfNotFoundAlready(titlesPointingToBase,title,currentDepth)) {\n\t\t\t\tcurrentDepth += 1;\n\t\t\t\t$tw.utils.each(findListingsOfTiddler(title,options.fieldName),function(targetTitle) {\n\t\t\t\t\tcollectTitlesPointingTo(targetTitle,currentDepth);\n\t\t\t\t});\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t}\n\n\t\tfunction getObjectKeysByExpression(object,callback) {\n\t\t\tvar key,\n\t\t\t\tresults = [];\n\t\t\tfor (key in object) {\n\t\t\t\tif (object.hasOwnProperty(key) && callback(object[key])) {\n\t\t\t\t\tresults.push(key);\n\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t\treturn results;\n\t\t}\n\n\t\tfunction getResultsInGivenDepth(cachedData) {\n\t\t\tif(options.depth) {\n\t\t\t\treturn getObjectKeysByExpression(cachedData,function(value) {\n\t\t\t\t\treturn value <= options.depth;\n\t\t\t\t})\n\t\t\t} else {\n\t\t\t\treturn Object.keys(cachedData);\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t}\n\n\t\tif((options.direction === \"from\") || (options.direction === \"with\")) {\n\t\t\tresultsFrom = $tw.wiki.getGlobalCache(cacheName + \"from\",function() {\n\t\t\t\tcollectTitlesPointingFrom(baseTiddler,baseTitle,0);\n\t\t\t\treturn titlesPointingFromBase;\n\t\t\t});\n\t\t\tresultsFrom = getResultsInGivenDepth(resultsFrom);\n\t\t}\n\t\tif((options.direction === \"to\") || (options.direction === \"with\")) {\n\t\t\tresultsTo = $tw.wiki.getGlobalCache(cacheName + \"to\",function() {\n\t\t\t\tcollectTitlesPointingTo(baseTitle,0);\n\t\t\t\treturn titlesPointingToBase;\n\t\t\t});\n\t\t\tresultsTo = getResultsInGivenDepth(resultsTo);\n\t\t}\n\t\treturn $tw.utils.pushTop(resultsFrom,resultsTo);\n\t}\n\n\t/*\n\tExport our filter function\n\t*/\n\texports.kin = function(source,operator,options) {\n\t\tvar results = [],\n\t\t\tneedsExclusion = operator.prefix === \"!\",\n\t\t\tsuffixes = operator.suffixes || [],\n\t\t\tfilterOptions = {\n\t\t\t\twiki: options.wiki,\n\t\t\t\tfieldName: ((suffixes[0] || [])[0] || \"tags\").toLowerCase(),\n\t\t\t\tdirection: ((suffixes[1] || [])[0] || \"with\").toLowerCase(),\n\t\t\t\tdepth: Number((suffixes[2] || [])[0]),\n\t\t\t};\n\n\t\tif((operator.operand === \"\") && (needsExclusion)) {\n\t\t\treturn [];\n\t\t}\n\n\t\tif(operator.operand !== \"\") {\n\t\t\tvar baseTitle = operator.operand,\n\t\t\t\tbaseTiddler = options.wiki.getTiddler(baseTitle),\n\t\t\t\tfoundTitles = collectTitlesRecursively(baseTiddler,baseTitle,filterOptions);\n\n\t\t\tsource(function(tiddler,title) {\n\t\t\t\tif(needsExclusion === (foundTitles.indexOf(title) === -1)) {\n\t\t\t\t\tresults.push(title);\n\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t});\n\t\t} else {\n\t\t\tsource(function(tiddler,title) {\n\t\t\t\tresults = $tw.utils.pushTop(results,collectTitlesRecursively(tiddler,title,filterOptions));\n\t\t\t});\n\t\t}\n\n\t\treturn results;\n\t}\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "filteroperator"
}
}
}
{
"tiddlers": {
"$:/plugins/bimlas/locator/README/CHANGELOG": {
"title": "$:/plugins/bimlas/locator/README/CHANGELOG",
"tags": "",
"type": "text/vnd.tiddlywiki",
"text": "!! 1.4.0\n\n[[See GitLab for detailed change history of this release|https://gitlab.com/bimlas/tw5-locator/compare/v1.3.1...v1.4.0]]\n\n* When there was a space in the search string and \"new tiddler\" button is used from search, the tiddler title was encapsulated (`[[title with spaces]]`)\n* When there was a space in any of the breadcrumbs in sidebar and \"new tiddler\" button is used from it, the tiddler got all of the breadcrumb tags, the title with spaces was encapsulated (literally `[[title with spaces]]` tag)\n* Add more tips to [[$:/plugins/bimlas/locator/README/TIPS]]\n* Add descriptive tooltip to buttons\n\n!! 1.3.1\n\n[[See GitLab for detailed change history of this release|https://gitlab.com/bimlas/tw5-locator/compare/v1.3.0...v1.3.1]]\n\n* Add base tag if there is no breadcrumbs when creating new tiddler in current context\n* Reword documentation\n\n!! 1.3.0\n\n[[See GitLab for detailed change history of this release|https://gitlab.com/bimlas/tw5-locator/compare/v1.2.0...v1.3.0]]\n\n* Create new tiddler from search text\n\n!! 1.2.0\n\n[[See GitLab for detailed change history of this release|https://gitlab.com/bimlas/tw5-locator/compare/v1.1.0...v1.2.0]]\n\n* Add button to create new tiddler in current context\n* Ability to use additional filter on tags\n\n!! 1.1.0\n\n[[See GitLab for detailed change history of this release|https://gitlab.com/bimlas/tw5-locator/compare/v1.0.0...v1.1.0]]\n\n* ''I realized that most functions work without the `kin` filter''\n* Use the same \"style\" for breadcrumb- and list items\n* Show real tags instead of tag pills\n* Turn off filter of direct tag in the breadcrumbs by its tag icon\n* Ancestor tags in breadcrumbs of search are operating like direct labels, they can be removed one by one\n\n!! 1.0.0\n\n* First public release\n"
},
"$:/plugins/bimlas/locator/README/README": {
"title": "$:/plugins/bimlas/locator/README/README",
"tags": "",
"type": "text/vnd.tiddlywiki",
"text": "! Locator\n\nFor those who use many tags or store many different topics in a common wiki the Locator plugin is ''a table of contents widget and an enhanced search engine'' that gives you the opportunity to ''filter results by related tags without the need to write filters''. Unlike [[classic Table of Contents|https://tiddlywiki.com/#Table-of-Contents%20Macros%20(Examples)]], [[standard search|$:/core/ui/AdvancedSearch/Standard]] and [[list of tags|$:/core/ui/MoreSideBar/Tags]], this plugin offers these features in an organic, collaborative way.\n\n* https://gitlab.com/bimlas/tw5-locator (main repository)\n* https://github.com/bimlas/tw5-locator (mirror, ''please add a star if you like the plugin'')\n\n! Benefits compared to built-in solutions\n\n* ''Shows related tags''<br/>You can mark a tiddler with multiple tags, but in the classic ToC you don't see them while browsing, in Locator you can apply them as filters.\n* ''Phone friendlier''<br/>The width of the classic ToC is increasing and the size of the text is decrasing as we move down in the context, while Locator remains the same.\n* ''There is no need to include a table of contents in the main tiddler of each topic''<br/>Just press the \"Locator sidebar\" button on the tiddler's toolbar and you can browse it's children right away in the sidebar.\n* ''Easy way to search for tags''<br/>Find tags in the standard search based on part of their name or view the tags of the search results at a glance.\n* ''Limit the scope of search''<br/>You don't have to store your recipes and family tree in a separate wiki just to make them easier to find: you can define the scope of your search with some clicks (without the need to write filters in [[$:/AdvancedSearch]]).\n* ''Create new tiddler in current scope''<br />The \"new tiddler\" button in Locator creates a new tiddler pre-tagged with the currently selected tags and named by the search query (like a special \"new here\" button).\n\n@@.bimlas-locator-warning\n!! REQUIREMENT: Some features need the `kin` filter operator: https://bimlas.gitlab.io/tw5-kin-filter\n@@\n\n! Installation instructions\n\n''The plugin consists of separate parts'' (see other tabs), each of them can be used on its own, so ''it is possible to use only the parts you like'', but they can be used most effectively together because ''they interact with each other''.\n\nTo add the plugin to your own ~TiddlyWiki5, just drag this link to the browser window and ''create the required tiddlers'':\n\n$:/plugins/bimlas/locator\n\nFor other installation options see the repositories above.\n\n//Select the next tab to continue.//\n"
},
"$:/plugins/bimlas/locator/README/TIPS": {
"title": "$:/plugins/bimlas/locator/README/TIPS",
"tags": "",
"type": "text/vnd.tiddlywiki",
"text": "! Tips\n\n!! Organic navigation\n\n* In `locator-tags`, look for a tag and apply it as an ancestor tag; the `locator-search` only affects tiddlers associated with it at any depth\n* Click on the tag in `locator-tags` and open its tiddler, then click on the \"locator sidebar\" button; the `locator-view` sidebar will show it's hierarchy\n* Navigate in the hierarchy of `locator-view` sidebar then search for a term in `locator-search`; pressing the \"copy context\" button restricting the search to the context of `locator-view` sidebar\n* If you cannot find what you are searching for, then you may want to create a new tiddler, use the \"new tiddler\" button in one of the Locator macros\n\n!! Taking good habits\n\n''To get the least chance of writing the same note you wrote earlier, look for a new tiddler before creating a note. To force yourself'', hide the \"new tiddler\" button inside the Page Toolbar and ''use the \"new tiddler\" button inside the Locator search'', so if you want to create a new tiddler you must first look for it. If you are absolutely sure that there is no tiddler yet and you need to create a new tiddler, this solution is also useful because search text defines the default name of the new tiddler.\n\n!! Let the \"Locator sidebar\" button automatically focus to the Locator sidebar\n\nFor example, the More -> Tags sidebar is currently open when we use the \"Locator sidebar\" toolbar button on one of the tiddlers, but we do not see the effect because the Locator sidebar is not visible, thus we need to modify to let button automatically open the corresponding sidebar.\n\n* If we don't know exactly, look for the sidebar tiddler's title (used as `text` parameter in the code below)\n** Open the Advanced Search -> Filter and look for the sidebar name in the `caption` field, for example `[caption[Locator]]` will result [[Locator view]]\n* Find the state tiddler that contains the sidebar tiddler's title (used as `$tiddler` parameter in the code below)\n** Open the Advanced Search -> Filter and look for `[text[Locator view]]` for example\n** Switch between Locator sidebar and another sidebar to see which state tiddler is changing, this is what we are looking for ([[$:/state/tab/sidebar--595412856]] for example)\n* Use the name of the state tiddler and the title of the sidebar in the code below and add this line to [[$:/plugins/bimlas/locator/viewtoolbar/open-in-sidebar]] tiddler\n\n```\n<!-- Original code of the button... -->\n...\n<$reveal type=\"nomatch\" default=\"\" text={{{ [all[current]is[tag]] }}}>\n<$button tooltip=\"Browse hierarchy of tag in Locator sidebar\" aria-label=\"locator sidebar\" class=<<tv-config-toolbar-class>>>\n<!-- ADD THIS LINE -->\n<$action-setfield $tiddler=\"$:/state/tab/sidebar--595412856\" text=\"Locator view\"/>\n```\n\nIf you rename the sidebar, you must also update this change! See [[this thread on Google Groups|https://groups.google.com/d/msg/tiddlywiki/xAe_fvhzoCY/UoKZc7ZZDQAJ]] for details.\n\n!! Speed up (on phones)\n\n!!! Conditional view\n\nBecause ''the plugin could be slow if `kin` filter is used'' (depending on the context) and since we don't look at the table of contents and search results at the same time, we can ''hide the Locator while we are using the standard search''.\n\nTo achieve this, place the Locator view in the following condition:\n\n```\n<$reveal type=\"match\" default=\"\" text={{{ [prefix[$:/state/popup/search-dropdown]] }}}>\n<<locator-view \"TableOfContents\">>\n</$reveal>\n```\n\n''When you open TiddlyWiki'', the search entry is in focus by default, so ''the Locator sidebar is not visible''. To fix this, change the text of [[$:/config/Search/AutoFocus]] [[hidden setting|https://tiddlywiki.com/#Hidden%20Setting%3A%20Search%20AutoFocus]] to `false`.\n\n!!! Prefer the standard search\n\n''Typing in the search entry could be slow'' because of the slowness of the `kin` filter (depending on the context). In this case, ''switch to the classic search listing'', enter the expression, and then return to the Locator search.\n\n//Select the next tab to continue.//\n"
},
"$:/plugins/bimlas/locator/README/search": {
"title": "$:/plugins/bimlas/locator/README/search",
"tags": "",
"type": "text/vnd.tiddlywiki",
"text": "! Usage of `locator-search` (customised search results)\n\n@@.bimlas-locator-warning.bimlas-locator-explanation\nFiltering by ancestor tags ({{$:/core/images/link}}) requires the `kin` filter operator, filtering by direct tags ({{$:/core/images/tag-button}}) works without it!\n@@\n\nThe macro can be used to ''search only in the context defined by `locator-view` or `locator-tags`''.\n\n* Add a `locator-view` to the sidebar as described previously\n* Create a new tiddler\n* Add the [[$:/tags/SearchResults]] tag\n* Add the `caption` field to change the title of the tab (\"Locator\" for example)\n* Call the macro by placing this text in the tiddler:\n\n```\n<<locator-search>>\n```\n\n@@.bimlas-locator-explanation\nIf you type something in the standard search, you can see the newly created tiddler as a new tab in the search results. Use the {{$:/core/images/close-others-button}} button to ''restrict the search to the context of the Locator sidebar'' by copying its breadcrumbs (opened ancestor tags and selected direct tags) as ancestor tags (thus ''this button requires the `kin` filter''). Adding additional tags is possible in `locator-tags`.\n@@\n\n@@.bimlas-locator-explanation\n''Pressing {{$:/core/images/new-button}} creates a new tiddler with the currently selected tags whose default name will be the search text''\n@@\n\n//Select the next tab to continue.//\n"
},
"$:/plugins/bimlas/locator/README/tags": {
"title": "$:/plugins/bimlas/locator/README/tags",
"tags": "",
"type": "text/vnd.tiddlywiki",
"text": "! Usage of `locator-tags` (customised search results for tags)\n\n@@.bimlas-locator-warning.bimlas-locator-explanation\nFiltering by ancestor tags ({{$:/core/images/link}}) requires the `kin` filter operator, filtering by direct tags ({{$:/core/images/tag-button}}) works without it!\n@@\n\nTake the same steps you did for `locator-search`, but use this code:\n\n```\n<<locator-tags>>\n```\n\n''Search for tags instead of tiddler titles'', the list of tags is structured as follows:\n\n<div class=\"tc-tiddler-frame bimlas-locator-explanation\">\n{{$:/core/images/close-others-button}} {{$:/core/images/refresh-button}} {{$:/core/images/new-button}}<br/>\n{{$:/core/images/link}} <<tag-pill \"Breadcrumb tag pills\">><br/>\n<hr/>\n//Title matches//<br/>\n{{$:/core/images/link}} {{$:/core/images/tag-button}} <<tag-pill \"Tags with matching titles\">><br/>\n//Related tags//<br/>\n{{$:/core/images/link}} {{$:/core/images/tag-button}} <<tag-pill \"Tags of search results...\">><br/>\n{{$:/core/images/link}} {{$:/core/images/tag-button}} <<tag-pill \"...expect breadcrumbs...\">><br/>\n{{$:/core/images/link}} {{$:/core/images/tag-button}} <<tag-pill \"...and listed titles\">><br/>\n</div>\n\n@@.bimlas-locator-explanation\n* {{$:/core/images/close-others-button}}: Restrict the search to the context of the Locator sidebar by copying its breadcrumbs\n* {{$:/core/images/new-button}}: Createe a new tiddler with the currently selected tags whose default name will be the search text\n* {{$:/core/images/link}}: Look for the search term under this tag at any depth (this ancestor tag is broadly defining the topic of the search)\n* {{$:/core/images/tag-button}}: Look for the search term in tiddlers directly tagged by this tag (direct tag)\n@@\n\nThe picked tags using to ''narrow the scope of `locator-search`'', clicking on the the tag itself shows the titles associated with this tag (usual tag-dropdown).\n\n''NOTE'': If you want to ''get all results related to the selected tags'', replace the search text with spaces, otherwise only those tiddlers will be listed which contains the text (for example a tiddler deeply in the TableOfContents does not contains the TableOfContents text).\n\n//Select the next tab to continue.//\n"
},
"$:/plugins/bimlas/locator/README/view": {
"title": "$:/plugins/bimlas/locator/README/view",
"tags": "",
"type": "text/vnd.tiddlywiki",
"text": "! Usage of `locator-view` (Table of Contents macro)\n\nUse the following macro to ''display the table of contents of a topic'' as the [[classic Table of Contents macro|https://tiddlywiki.com/#Table-of-Contents%20Macros%20(Examples)]] does, but ''it also shows non-visible tags''. For example, the [[Henry Ford]] tiddler has the [[Family tree of Ford]] and [[President]] tags. In the classic table of contents, opening [[Family tree of Ford]] shows only [[Henry Ford]], but we do not see the [[President]] tag. The Locator lists this related tag, so ''we can easily filter the current context by additional tags''.\n\nThe macro can be placed anywhere you want to display a browsable table of contents, for example put it in the main tiddler of each topic in your wiki.\n\n!! Create a Table of Contents sidebar\n\n* Create a new tiddler\n* Add the [[$:/tags/SideBar]] tag\n* Add the `caption` field to change the title of the tab (\"Contents\" for example)\n* Place the `locator-view` macro call in it:\n\n```\n<<locator-view baseTitle:\"TableOfContents\">>\n```\n\n!! The table of contents is structured as follows\n\n<div class=\"tc-tiddler-frame bimlas-locator-explanation\">\n{{$:/core/images/refresh-button}} {{$:/core/images/new-button}}<br/>\n{{$:/core/images/right-arrow}} Ancestor tags<br/>\n{{$:/core/images/right-arrow}} (Previously opened parents, breadcrumbs)<br/>\n<hr/>\n{{$:/core/images/tag-button}} <<tag-pill \"Direct tags\">><br/>\n{{$:/core/images/tag-button}} <<tag-pill \"(Tags of listed titles...)\">><br/>\n{{$:/core/images/tag-button}} <<tag-pill \"(...expect ancestor tags...)\">><br/>\n{{$:/core/images/tag-button}} <<tag-pill \"(...and listed titles)\">><br/>\n{{$:/core/images/blank}} Title without button<br/>\n{{$:/core/images/blank}} (Normal list item)<br/>\n{{$:/core/images/right-arrow}} Title with button (ancestor tag)<br/>\n{{$:/core/images/right-arrow}} (Parent of other titles)<br/>\n</div>\n\n@@.bimlas-locator-explanation\n* {{$:/core/images/right-arrow}}: Move in to the context (show children of title)\n* {{$:/core/images/tag-button}}: Toggle filtering the list to this tag\n* {{$:/core/images/refresh-button}}: Reset the context, go to the top level\n* {{$:/core/images/new-button}}: Create new tiddler in the current context: apply the parent of the current view (the last ancestor tag) and the direct tags below it (like a special \"new here\" button)\n* Click on titles to open the tiddlers\n@@\n\n!! Pass additional filter\n\nYou can also ''pass a filter parameter to modify the list of items''. For example we sort them according to the last modification in reverse order.\n\n```\n<<locator-view baseTitle:\"TableOfContents\" finalFilter:\"+[sort[modified]reverse[]]\">>\n```\n\n''Filter items that can be found deeper in the hierarchy (remove duplicate entries)'' with the `filter-grandchildren` predefined filter expression.\n\n@@.bimlas-locator-warning\nThe `filter-grandchildren` requires the `kin` filter operator, besides this it could be slow!\n@@\n\n```\n<<locator-view baseTitle:\"TableOfContents\" finalFilter:\"+[!subfilter<filter-grandchildren>]\">>\n```\n\n!! Additional filter for tags\n\nUse it for example to sort tags by color.\n\n```\n<<locator-view baseTitle:\"TableOfContents\" tagFilter:\"+[sort[color]]\">>\n```\n\nIf you only want to see the \"classic\" tags (\"labels\", \"hashtags\") which are used to group notes without moving them to sub hierarchies, you can use one of the following filters.\n\n```\n<<locator-view baseTitle:\"TableOfContents\" tagFilter:\"-[has[text]]\">>\n\n<<locator-view baseTitle:\"TableOfContents\" tagFilter:\"-[has[tags]]\">>\n\n<<locator-view baseTitle:\"TableOfContents\" tagFilter:\"-[kin::to[TableOfContents]]\">>\n```\n\n@@.bimlas-locator-warning\nThe latter filter requires the `kin` filter operator, besides this it could be slow!\n@@\n\n!! Open any tag in the sidebar\n\n@@.bimlas-locator-explanation\nThere is ''a new button in the toolbar of the tiddlers that are tagging other tiddlers'': by pressing the \"{{$:/core/images/chevron-right}} locator sidebar\" button, you can ''display the current tiddler's hierarchy in the Locator sidebar''.\n@@\n\nFor example, if we search for [[Henry Ford II]] in the standard search, open his tiddler and we want to browse its successors, pressing this button will show it in the Locator sidebar where we can view it as a table of contents.\n\nIf you do not want to leave this button in the toolbar, you can turn it off in the [[$:/ControlPanel]] -> Apperance -> Toolbars -> [[View Toolbar|$:/core/ui/ControlPanel/Toolbars/ViewToolbar]].\n\n//Select the next tab to continue.//\n"
},
"$:/plugins/bimlas/locator/macros": {
"title": "$:/plugins/bimlas/locator/macros",
"tags": "",
"type": "text/vnd.tiddlywiki",
"text": "\\define filter-breadcrumbs() [title<contextState>each:list-item[breadcrumbs]]\n\\define filter-ancestor-tags() [title<contextState>each:list-item[ancestor-tags]]\n\\define filter-grandchildren() [subfilter<filter-ancestor-tags>last[]tagging[]tagging[]kin::to[]]\n\\define wikify-filter-search-context()\n <$list filter=<<filter-ancestor-tags>>><$text text=\"kin::to[\"/><$view field=\"title\"/><$text text=\"]\"/></$list><$list filter=\"[subfilter<filter-breadcrumbs>] -[subfilter<filter-ancestor-tags>]\"><$text text=\"tag[\"/><$view field=\"title\"/><$text text=\"]\"/></$list>\n\\end\n\\define wikify-list-redunant-direct-tags()\n\n <$set name=\"lastAncestorTag\" value={{{ [subfilter<filter-ancestor-tags>last[]] }}}>\n <$reveal type=\"nomatch\" default=\"\" text=<<lastAncestorTag>>>\n <$list filter=\"[title<baseTitle>] [title<lastAncestorTag>] [subfilter<filter-breadcrumbs>allafter<lastAncestorTag>]\">\n <$text text=\"[[\"/><$view field=\"title\"/><$text text=\"]]\"/>\n </$list>\n </$reveal>\n <$reveal type=\"match\" default=\"\" text=<<lastAncestorTag>>>\n <$list filter=\"[title<baseTitle>] [subfilter<filter-breadcrumbs>]\">\n <$text text=\"[[\"/><$view field=\"title\"/><$text text=\"]]\"/>\n </$list>\n </$reveal>\n </$set>\n\n\\end\n\\define wikify-list-context-items()\n\n <$set name=\"lastAncestorTagOrBaseTitle\" value={{{ [subfilter<filter-ancestor-tags>last[]] ~[title<baseTitle>] }}}>\n <$set name=\"baseTitleAndBreadcrumbs\" filter=\"[title<baseTitle>] [subfilter<filter-breadcrumbs>]\">\n <!-- I know this monster looks terrible, but I can't build this filter any other way. -->\n <$wikify name=\"taggedByLastAncestorAndDirectTags\" text=\"\"\"<$text text=\"[tag<lastAncestorTagOrBaseTitle>\"/><$list filter=\"[enlist<baseTitleAndBreadcrumbs>allafter<lastAncestorTagOrBaseTitle>]\">tag[<$view field=\"title\"/>]</$list><$text text=\"] \"/><$text text=<<__finalFilter__>>/>\"\"\">\n <$list filter=<<taggedByLastAncestorAndDirectTags>>>\n <$text text=\"[[\"/><$view field=\"title\"/><$text text=\"]]\"/>\n </$list>\n </$wikify>\n </$set>\n </$set>\n\n\\end\n\\define view-breadcrumbs-of-context(ancestor-tag-template: <<view-breadcrumb-ancestor-tag>>)\n\n <$button tooltip=\"Go to top level\" class=\"tc-btn-invisible bimlas-locator\" actions=<<action-clear-tags>>>\n {{$:/core/images/refresh-button}}\n </$button>\n <$button tooltip=\"Create new tiddler in the current context\" class=\"tc-btn-invisible bimlas-locator\" actions=<<action-create-new-tiddler>>>\n {{$:/core/images/new-button}}\n </$button>\n\n <$reveal type=\"nomatch\" default=\"\" text={{{ [title<contextState>get[base-title]] }}}>\n <<view-breadcrumbs-base-title>>\n </$reveal>\n\n <$list filter=<<filter-breadcrumbs>>>\n\n <$reveal type=\"match\" default=\"\" text={{{ [all[current]!subfilter<filter-ancestor-tags>] }}}>\n <<__ancestor-tag-template__>>\n </$reveal>\n <$reveal type=\"nomatch\" default=\"\" text={{{ [all[current]!subfilter<filter-ancestor-tags>] }}}>\n <<view-breadcrumb-direct-tag>>\n </$reveal>\n\n </$list>\n\n\\end\n\\define view-breadcrumbs-base-title()\n <$button tooltip=\"Go back to the default context\" class=\"tc-btn-invisible bimlas-locator\">\n <$action-listops $tiddler=<<contextState>> $field=\"base-title\" $filter=\"[[]]\"/>\n <<action-clear-tags>>\n {{$:/core/images/close-button}}\n </$button>\n <$button class=\"tc-btn-invisible bimlas-locator\" to=<<baseTitle>>>\n <$view tiddler=<<baseTitle>> field=\"caption\"><$view tiddler=<<baseTitle>> field=\"title\"/></$view>\n </$button>\n\\end\n\\define view-breadcrumb-ancestor-tag()\n <$button tooltip=\"Go to context, show tiddlers tagged by this\" class=\"tc-btn-invisible bimlas-locator\" actions=<<action-clear-last-tags-till-current>>>\n {{$:/core/images/right-arrow}}\n </$button>\n <$link to=<<currentTiddler>>>\n <$view tiddler=<<currentTiddler>> field=\"caption\"><$view tiddler=<<currentTiddler>> field=\"title\"/></$view>\n </$link>\n\\end\n\\define view-breadcrumb-ancestor-tag-in-search()\n <$button tooltip=\"Remove filtering to this tag\" class=\"tc-btn-invisible bimlas-locator\" actions=<<action-remove-ancestor-tag>>>\n {{$:/core/images/link}}\n </$button>\n <<tag>>\n\\end\n\\define view-breadcrumb-direct-tag()\n <$button tooltip=\"Remove filtering to this tag\" class=\"tc-btn-invisible bimlas-locator\" actions=<<action-remove-direct-tag>>>\n {{$:/core/images/tag-button}}\n </$button>\n <<tag>>\n\\end\n\\define view-search-specific-actions()\n <$button tooltip=\"Search in the context of Locator sidebar in any depth\" class=\"tc-btn-invisible bimlas-locator\">\n <!--\n Copy the breadcrumbs from the Locator sidebar; interpret each tag as an\n ancestor tag, otherwise there would be no results for too many direct tags.\n -->\n <$action-listops $tiddler=<<contextState>> $field=\"breadcrumbs\" $filter=\"[enlist{$:/state/bimlas/locator!!base-title}] [enlist{$:/state/bimlas/locator!!breadcrumbs}]\"/>\n <$action-listops $tiddler=<<contextState>> $field=\"ancestor-tags\" $filter=\"[enlist{$:/state/bimlas/locator!!base-title}] [enlist{$:/state/bimlas/locator!!breadcrumbs}]\"/>\n {{$:/core/images/close-others-button}}\n </$button>\n\\end\n\\define view-tag-list-item(actions)\n <p class=\"tc-menu-list-item\">\n <$button tooltip=\"Look for tiddlers having this tag\" class=\"tc-btn-invisible bimlas-locator\" actions=<<__actions__>>>\n {{$:/core/images/tag-button}}\n </$button>\n <$button class=\"tc-btn-invisible bimlas-locator\">\n <$action-navigate $to=<<currentTiddler>>/>\n <<tag>>\n </$button>\n </p>\n\\end\n\\define view-locator-tags-list-item()\n <p class=\"tc-menu-list-item bimlas-locator\">\n <$button tooltip=\"Look for successors of the tag at any depth\" class=\"tc-btn-invisible bimlas-locator\" actions=<<action-add-ancestor-tag>>>\n {{$:/core/images/link}}\n </$button>\n <$button tooltip=\"Look for tiddlers having this tag\" class=\"tc-btn-invisible bimlas-locator\" actions=<<action-add-direct-tag>>>\n {{$:/core/images/tag-button}}\n </$button>\n <$button class=\"tc-btn-invisible bimlas-locator\">\n <$action-navigate $to=<<currentTiddler>>/>\n <<tag>>\n </$button>\n </p>\n\\end\n\\define action-add-ancestor-tag()\n\n <$action-listops $tiddler=<<contextState>> $field=\"breadcrumbs\" $subfilter=\"[all[current]]\"/>\n <$action-listops $tiddler=<<contextState>> $field=\"ancestor-tags\" $subfilter=\"[all[current]]\"/>\n\n\\end\n\\define action-remove-ancestor-tag()\n\n <$action-listops $tiddler=<<contextState>> $field=\"breadcrumbs\" $subfilter=\"-[all[current]]\"/>\n <$action-listops $tiddler=<<contextState>> $field=\"ancestor-tags\" $subfilter=\"-[all[current]]\"/>\n\n\\end\n\\define action-add-direct-tag()\n\n <$action-listops $tiddler=<<contextState>> $field=\"breadcrumbs\" $subfilter=\"[all[current]]\"/>\n\n\\end\n\\define action-remove-direct-tag()\n\n <$action-listops $tiddler=<<contextState>> $field=\"breadcrumbs\" $subfilter=\"-[all[current]]\"/>\n\n\\end\n\\define action-clear-last-tags-till-current()\n\n <$set name=\"breadcrumbsUntilCurrent\" filter=\"[subfilter<filter-breadcrumbs>allbefore<currentTiddler>] [all[current]]\">\n <$action-listops $tiddler=<<contextState>> $field=\"ancestor-tags\" $subfilter=\"-[!enlist<breadcrumbsUntilCurrent>]\"/>\n <$action-listops $tiddler=<<contextState>> $field=\"breadcrumbs\" $filter=<<breadcrumbsUntilCurrent>>/>\n </$set>\n\n\\end\n\\define action-clear-tags()\n\n <$action-listops $tiddler=<<contextState>> $field=\"breadcrumbs\" $filter=\"[[]]\"/>\n <$action-listops $tiddler=<<contextState>> $field=\"ancestor-tags\" $filter=\"[[]]\"/>\n\n\\end\n\\define action-create-new-tiddler()\n\n <$set name=\"lastAncestorTagOrBaseTitle\" value={{{ [subfilter<filter-ancestor-tags>last[]] ~[title<baseTitle>] }}}>\n <$set name=\"baseTitleAndBreadcrumbs\" filter=\"[title<baseTitle>] [subfilter<filter-breadcrumbs>]\">\n <$set name=\"tagsOfNewTiddler\" filter=\"[enlist<baseTitleAndBreadcrumbs>] -[enlist<baseTitleAndBreadcrumbs>allbefore<lastAncestorTagOrBaseTitle>]\">\n <$set name=\"titleOfNewTiddler\" tiddler=\"$(searchTiddler)$\">\n <$action-sendmessage $message=\"tm-new-tiddler\" title=<<titleOfNewTiddler>> tags=<<tagsOfNewTiddler>>/>\n </$set>\n </$set>\n </$set>\n </$set>\n\n\\end\n"
},
"$:/plugins/bimlas/locator/search": {
"title": "$:/plugins/bimlas/locator/search",
"tags": "$:/tags/Macro",
"type": "text/vnd.tiddlywiki",
"text": "\\define locator-search(locatorViewTiddler: \"\")\n <!-- Hide internal macros, do not make them globally available -->\n <$importvariables filter=\"[[$:/plugins/bimlas/locator/macros]]\">\n <$set name=\"contextState\" value=\"$:/state/bimlas/locator-search\">\n <$wikify name=\"searchContextFilter\" text=<<wikify-filter-search-context>>>\n\n <<view-search-specific-actions>> <$macrocall $name=\"view-breadcrumbs-of-context\" ancestor-tag-template=<<view-breadcrumb-ancestor-tag-in-search>>/>\n\n //<small>{{$:/language/Search/Matches/Title}}</small>//\n\n <$wikify name=\"filter\" text=\"\"\"<$text text=\"[!is[system]\"/><<searchContextFilter>><$text text=\"search:title{$(searchTiddler)$}sort[title]limit[250]]\"/>\"\"\">\n <$list filter=<<filter>> template=\"$:/core/ui/ListItemTemplate\"/>\n </$wikify>\n\n //<small>{{$:/language/Search/Matches/All}}</small>//\n\n <$wikify name=\"filter\" text=\"\"\"<$text text=\"[!is[system]\"/><<searchContextFilter>><$text text=\"search{$(searchTiddler)$}sort[title]limit[250]]\"/>\"\"\">\n <$list filter=<<filter>> template=\"$:/core/ui/ListItemTemplate\"/>\n </$wikify>\n\n </$wikify>\n </$set>\n </$importvariables>\n\\end\n"
},
"$:/plugins/bimlas/locator/stylesheet": {
"title": "$:/plugins/bimlas/locator/stylesheet",
"tags": "$:/tags/Stylesheet",
"type": "text/vnd.tiddlywiki",
"text": ".bimlas-locator-warning {\n color: red;\n font-weight: bold;\n}\n.tc-tiddler-frame.bimlas-locator-explanation {\n max-width: 400px;\n}\n.bimlas-locator-explanation svg {\n width: 1rem;\n height: 1rem;\n}\n.tc-drop-down button.bimlas-locator {\n width: auto;\n padding: 0;\n display: inline-block;\n background-color: inherit;\n}\n.tc-drop-down p.tc-menu-list-item.bimlas-locator {\n margin-top: 0;\n margin-bottom: 0;\n}\n"
},
"$:/plugins/bimlas/locator/tags": {
"title": "$:/plugins/bimlas/locator/tags",
"tags": "$:/tags/Macro",
"type": "text/vnd.tiddlywiki",
"text": "\\define locator-tags(locatorViewTiddler: \"\")\n <!-- Hide internal macros, do not make them globally available -->\n <$importvariables filter=\"[[$:/plugins/bimlas/locator/macros]]\">\n <$set name=\"contextState\" value=\"$:/state/bimlas/locator-search\">\n <$set name=\"redunantDirectTags\" value=\"[title<contextState>each:list-item[breadcrumbs]]\">\n <$wikify name=\"searchContextFilter\" text=<<wikify-filter-search-context>>>\n\n <<view-search-specific-actions>> <$macrocall $name=\"view-breadcrumbs-of-context\" ancestor-tag-template=<<view-breadcrumb-ancestor-tag-in-search>>/>\n\n //<small>{{$:/language/Search/Matches/Title}}</small>//\n\n <$wikify name=\"filter\" text=\"\"\"<$text text=\"[!is[system]\"/><<searchContextFilter>><$text text=\"tags[]!subfilter<redunantDirectTags>search:title{$(searchTiddler)$}sort[title]limit[250]]\"/>\"\"\">\n <$list filter=<<filter>>>\n <<view-locator-tags-list-item>>\n </$list>\n </$wikify>\n\n //<small>Related tags</small>//\n\n <$wikify name=\"filter\" text=\"\"\"<$text text=\"[!is[system]\"/><<searchContextFilter>><$text text=\"search{$(searchTiddler)$}tags[]!subfilter<redunantDirectTags>] -[!is[system]\"/><<searchContextFilter>><$text text=\"search{$(searchTiddler)$}] +[sort[title]limit[250]]\"/>\"\"\">\n <$list filter=<<filter>>>\n <<view-locator-tags-list-item>>\n </$list>\n </$wikify>\n\n </$wikify>\n </$set>\n </$set>\n </$importvariables>\n\\end\n"
},
"$:/plugins/bimlas/locator/view": {
"title": "$:/plugins/bimlas/locator/view",
"tags": "$:/tags/Macro",
"type": "text/vnd.tiddlywiki",
"text": "\\define locator-view(baseTitle finalFilter=\"\" tagFilter=\"\")\n <!-- Hide internal macros, do not make them globally available -->\n <$importvariables filter=\"[[$:/plugins/bimlas/locator/macros]]\">\n <!-- If `currentTiddler` is empty (in the sidebar for example), then do not add trailing `/` -->\n <$wikify name=\"contextState\" text=\"\"\"<$text text=\"$:/state/bimlas/locator\"/><$list filter=\"[all[current]] -[[]] +[addprefix[/]]\"><$view field=\"title\"/></$list>\"\"\">\n <$set name=\"baseTitle\" value={{{ [title<contextState>each:list-item[base-title]] ~[title<__baseTitle__>] }}}>\n <$set name=\"finalFilter\" value=<<__finalFilter__>>>\n\n <<view-breadcrumbs-of-context>>\n\n ---\n\n <$wikify name=\"contextItems\" text=<<wikify-list-context-items>>>\n <div class=\"tc-table-of-contents\">\n <ol>\n\n <$wikify name=\"redunantDirectTags\" text=<<wikify-list-redunant-direct-tags>>>\n <$list filter=\"\"\"[enlist<contextItems>tags[]!enlist<contextItems>!enlist<redunantDirectTags>sort[title]] $tagFilter$\"\"\">\n <li class=\"toc-item\">\n\n <$macrocall $name=\"view-tag-list-item\" actions=<<action-add-direct-tag>>/>\n\n </li>\n </$list>\n </$wikify>\n\n <$list filter=<<contextItems>>>\n <li class=\"toc-item\">\n\n <$reveal type=\"nomatch\" default=\"\" text={{{ [all[current]is[tag]] }}}>\n <$button tooltip=\"Go to context, show tiddlers tagged by this\" class=\"tc-btn-invisible bimlas-locator\" actions=<<action-add-ancestor-tag>>>\n {{$:/core/images/right-arrow}}\n </$button>\n </$reveal>\n <$reveal type=\"match\" default=\"\" text={{{ [all[current]is[tag]] }}}>\n <$button class=\"tc-btn-invisible bimlas-locator\">\n {{$:/core/images/blank}}\n </$button>\n </$reveal>\n <$link to=<<currentTiddler>>><$view field=\"caption\"><$view field=\"title\"/></$view></$link>\n\n </li>\n </$list>\n\n </ol>\n </div>\n </$wikify>\n\n </$set>\n </$set>\n </$wikify>\n </$importvariables>\n\\end\n"
},
"$:/plugins/bimlas/locator/viewtoolbar/open-in-sidebar": {
"title": "$:/plugins/bimlas/locator/viewtoolbar/open-in-sidebar",
"tags": "$:/tags/ViewToolbar",
"type": "text/vnd.tiddlywiki",
"caption": "{{$:/core/images/chevron-right}} locator sidebar",
"description": "Browse hierarchy of tag in Locator sidebar",
"list-before": "$:/core/ui/Buttons/open-window",
"text": "\\whitespace trim\n<$reveal type=\"nomatch\" default=\"\" text={{{ [all[current]is[tag]] }}}>\n<$button tooltip=\"Browse hierarchy of tag in Locator sidebar\" aria-label=\"locator sidebar\" class=<<tv-config-toolbar-class>>>\n<$action-listops $tiddler=\"$:/state/bimlas/locator\" $field=\"base-title\" $filter=\"[all[current]]\"/>\n<$action-listops $tiddler=\"$:/state/bimlas/locator\" $field=\"breadcrumbs\" $filter=[[]]/>\n<$action-listops $tiddler=\"$:/state/bimlas/locator\" $field=\"ancestor-tags\" $filter=[[]]/>\n<$list filter=\"[<tv-config-toolbar-icons>prefix[yes]]\" variable=\"listItem\">\n{{$:/core/images/chevron-right}}\n</$list>\n<$list filter=\"[<tv-config-toolbar-text>prefix[yes]]\">\n<span class=\"tc-btn-text\">\n<$text text=\" \"/>\n<$text text=\"locator sidebar\"/>\n</span>\n</$list>\n</$button>\n</$reveal>\n"
}
}
}
\whitespace trim
<$reveal type="nomatch" default="" text={{{ [all[current]is[tag]] }}}>
<$button tooltip="Browse hierarchy of tag in Locator sidebar" aria-label="locator sidebar" class=<<tv-config-toolbar-class>>>
<$action-listops $tiddler="$:/state/bimlas/locator" $field="base-title" $filter="[all[current]]"/>
<$action-listops $tiddler="$:/state/bimlas/locator" $field="breadcrumbs" $filter=[[]]/>
<$action-listops $tiddler="$:/state/bimlas/locator" $field="ancestor-tags" $filter=[[]]/>
<$action-setfield $tiddler="$:/state/tab/sidebar--595412856" text="Maps"/>
<$action-setfield $tiddler="$:/state/tab-1115086957" text="Locator view"/>
<$list filter="[<tv-config-toolbar-icons>prefix[yes]]" variable="listItem">
{{$:/core/images/chevron-right}}
</$list>
<$list filter="[<tv-config-toolbar-text>prefix[yes]]">
<span class="tc-btn-text">
<$text text=" "/>
<$text text="locator sidebar"/>
</span>
</$list>
</$button>
</$reveal>
\import $:/plugins/BurningTreeC/navigator/macros/navigation
<$set name="closeTiddler" value={{$:/HistoryList!!current-tiddler}}>
<$list filter="[[$:/StoryList]contains<closeTiddler>]" variable="ignore">
<$list filter="[<closeTiddler>!has[draft.of]addprefix[tm-close-tiddler]removesuffix<closeTiddler>] ~[<closeTiddler>has[draft.of]addprefix[tm-cancel-tiddler]removesuffix<closeTiddler>]" variable="message">
<$macrocall $name="story-navigation" actions="""
<$action-sendmessage $message=<<message>> $param=<<closeTiddler>>/>
"""/>
</$list>
</$list>
</$set>
\import $:/plugins/BurningTreeC/navigator/macros/navigation
<$set name="editTiddler" value={{$:/HistoryList!!current-tiddler}}>
<$list filter="[<editTiddler>!has[draft.of]]" variable="ignore">
<$list filter="[[$:/StoryList]contains<editTiddler>]" variable="ignore">
<$macrocall $name="story-navigation" actions="""
<$action-sendmessage $message="tm-edit-tiddler" $param=<<editTiddler>>/>
"""/>
</$list>
</$list>
</$set>
\import $:/plugins/BurningTreeC/navigator/macros/states
<$set name="focusedTiddler" value={{{ [[$:/HistoryList]get[current-tiddler]] }}}>
<$macrocall $name="navigator-qualified-state-actions" tiddler=<<focusedTiddler>> title="$:/state/popup/more" storyOrSideBar="story" level="3" editOrView="view" suffix="title" template1="$:/core/ui/Buttons/more-tiddler-actions" action="""<$action-popup $popup=<<state>>/>"""/>
</$set>
\import $:/plugins/BurningTreeC/navigator/macros/navigation
<$set name="navigationTiddler" value={{{ [list[$:/StoryList]after{$:/HistoryList!!current-tiddler}] ~[list[$:/StoryList]nth[1]] ~[[HistoryList]get[previous-focus-tiddler]] }}}>
<$macrocall $name="story-navigation" actions="""
<$action-navigate $to=<<navigationTiddler>>/>
"""/>
</$set>
\import $:/plugins/BurningTreeC/navigator/macros/navigation
<$set name="navigationTiddler" value={{{ [list[$:/StoryList]before{$:/HistoryList!!current-tiddler}] ~[list[$:/StoryList]last[]] ~[[HistoryList]get[previous-focus-tiddler]] }}}>
<$macrocall $name="story-navigation" actions="""
<$action-navigate $to=<<navigationTiddler>>/>
"""/>
</$set>
\import [[$:/plugins/BurningTreeC/navigator]plugintiddlers[]tag[$:/tags/Macro]]
<$set name="focusedTiddler" value={{{ [[$:/HistoryList]get[current-tiddler]] }}}>
<$macrocall $name="navigator-qualified-state-actions" tiddler=<<focusedTiddler>> title="$:/state/popup/tiddler-info" storyOrSideBar="story" editOrView="view" level="1" action="""<$action-popup $popup=<<state>>/>"""/>
</$set>
\define Navigatorinfoaction() <$macrocall $name="navigator-qualified-state-actions" tiddler={{{ [[$:/HistoryList]get[current-tiddler]] }}} title="$:/state/popup/tiddler-info" storyOrSideBar="story" editOrView="view" level="1" action="""<$action-popup $popup=<<state>>/>"""/>
\define Navigatorexport-tiddleraction() <$macrocall $name="navigator-qualified-state-actions" tiddler={{{ [[$:/HistoryList]get[current-tiddler]] }}} title="$:/state/popup/export" storyOrSideBar="story" editOrView="view" level="4" suffix="title" template1="$:/core/ui/Buttons/more-tiddler-actions" template2="$:/core/ui/Buttons/export-tiddler" action="""<$action-popup $popup=<<state>>/>"""/>
\define Navigatordeleteaction() <<story-navigation '<$action-sendmessage $message="tm-delete-tiddler" $param={{{ [[$:/HistoryList]get[current-tiddler]] }}}/>'>>
\define Navigatorcloneaction() <<story-navigation '<$action-sendmessage $message="tm-new-tiddler" $param={{{ [[$:/HistoryList]get[current-tiddler]] }}}/>'>>
\define Navigatorpermalinkaction() <$action-sendmessage $message="tm-permalink" $param={{{ [[$:/HistoryList]get[current-tiddler]] }}}/>
\define Navigatorpermaviewaction() <$action-sendmessage $message="tm-permaview"/>
\define Navigatoropen-windowaction() <$action-sendmessage $message="tm-open-window" $param={{{ [[$:/HistoryList]get[current-tiddler]] }}}/>
\define NavigatorJournalTags()
[[$(currentTiddlerTag)$]] [[$(journalTags)$]]
\end
\define Navigatornew-journal-hereaction()
\whitespace trim
<$set name="journalTitleTemplate" value={{$:/config/NewJournal/Title}}>
<$set name="journalTags" value={{$:/config/NewJournal/Tags}}>
<$set name="focusTiddler" value={{{ [[$:/HistoryList]get[current-tiddler]] }}}>
<$set name="currentTiddlerTag" value=<<focusTiddler>>>
<$wikify name="journalTitle" text="""<$macrocall $name="now" format=<<journalTitleTemplate>>/>""">
<$macrocall $name="story-navigation" actions="""<$action-sendmessage $message="tm-new-tiddler" title=<<journalTitle>> tags=<<NavigatorJournalTags>>/>"""/>
</$wikify>
</$set>
</$set>
</$set>
</$set>
\end
\define NavigatorFocusTag()
[[$(focusTiddler)$]]
\end
\define Navigatornew-hereaction() <$macrocall $name="story-navigation" actions="""<$set name="focusTiddler" value={{{ [[$:/HistoryList]get[current-tiddler]] }}}><$action-sendmessage $message="tm-new-tiddler" tags=<<NavigatorFocusTag>>/></$set>"""/>
\define Navigatorfold-othersaction() <<story-navigation '<$action-sendmessage $message="tm-fold-other-tiddlers" $param={{{ [[$:/HistoryList]get[current-tiddler]] }}} foldedStatePrefix="$:/state/folded/"/>'>>
\define Navigatorfoldaction() <<story-navigation '<$action-sendmessage $message="tm-fold-tiddler" $param={{{ [[$:/HistoryList]get[current-tiddler]] }}} foldedState={{{ [[$:/HistoryList]get[current-tiddler]addprefix[$:/state/folded/]] }}}/>'>>
\define Navigatoreditaction() <<story-navigation '<$action-sendmessage $message="tm-edit-tiddler" $param={{{ [[$:/HistoryList]get[current-tiddler]] }}}/>'>>
\define Navigatorclose-othersaction() <<story-navigation '<$action-sendmessage $message="tm-close-other-tiddlers" $param={{{ [[$:/HistoryList]get[current-tiddler]] }}}/>'>>
\define Navigatorcloseaction() <<story-navigation '<$action-sendmessage $message="tm-close-tiddler" $param={{{ [[$:/HistoryList]get[current-tiddler]] }}}/>'>>
\define NavigatorTidFileaction() <$macrocall $name="NavigatorDownloadSingleTidAction" suffix="TidFile"/>
\define NavigatorJsonFileaction() <$macrocall $name="NavigatorDownloadSingleTidAction" suffix="JsonFile"/>
\define NavigatorCsvFileaction() <$macrocall $name="NavigatorDownloadSingleTidAction" suffix="CsvFile"/>
\define NavigatorStaticRiveraction() <$macrocall $name="NavigatorDownloadSingleTidAction" suffix="StaticRiver"/>
\define NavigatorMakeFilter()
[[$(focusTiddler)$]]
\end
\define NavigatorDownloadSingleTidAction(suffix)
\import [[$:/core/PageMacros]] [all[shadows+tiddlers]tag[$:/tags/Macro]]
<$set name="focusTiddler" value={{{ [subfilter<NavigatorFocusTiddler>] }}}>
<$set name="exportFilter" value=<<NavigatorMakeFilter>>>
<$set name="baseFilename" value=<<focusTiddler>>>
<$set name="exporterTemplate" value={{{ [[$:/core/templates/exporters/]addsuffix<__suffix__>] }}}>
<$set name="extension" value={{{ [<exporterTemplate>get[extension]] }}}>
<$action-sendmessage $message="tm-download-file" $param=<<exporterTemplate>> exportFilter=<<exportFilter>> filename={{{ [<baseFilename>addsuffix<extension>] }}}/>
</$set>
</$set>
</$set>
</$set>
</$set>
\end
\define NavigatorFocusTiddler() [[$:/HistoryList]get[current-tiddler]]
\define NavigatorSearchResultsTitle() [!is[system]search:title<userInput>sort[title]limit[250]]
\define NavigatorSearchResultsMore() [!is[system]search:author,title,caption,tags,text<userInput>sort[title]limit[250]] -[subfilter<NavigatorSearchResultsTitle>]
\define NavigatorSearchResultsSystemTitle() [all[shadows+tiddlers]search:title<userInput>sort[title]limit[250]] -[[$:/temp/search]] -[[$:/temp/search/input]] -[[$:/temp/SelectedSearchItem]] -[subfilter<NavigatorSearchResultsTitle>]
\define NavigatorSearchResultsSystemMore() [all[shadows+tiddlers]search:author,title,caption,tags,text<userInput>sort[title]limit[250]] -[subfilter<NavigatorSearchResultsSystemTitle>] -[subfilter<NavigatorSearchResultsTitle>] -[subfilter<NavigatorSearchResultsMore>]
\define NavigatorTiddlerInfoTabsFilter() [all[shadows+tiddlers]tag[$:/tags/TiddlerInfo]!has[draft.of]]
\define NavigatorMoreTiddlerFilter() [all[shadows+tiddlers]tag[$:/tags/ViewToolbar]!has[draft.of]addprefix[$:/config/ViewToolbarButtons/Visibility/]contains:text[hide]removeprefix[$:/config/ViewToolbarButtons/Visibility/]]
\define NavigatorExportTiddlerFilter() [all[shadows+tiddlers]tag[$:/tags/Exporter]]
\define story-navigation(actions)
<$navigator story="$:/StoryList" history="$:/HistoryList" openLinkFromInsideRiver={{$:/config/Navigation/openLinkFromInsideRiver}} openLinkFromOutsideRiver={{$:/config/Navigation/openLinkFromOutsideRiver}} relinkOnRename={{$:/config/RelinkOnRename}}>
$actions$
</$navigator>
\end
\define navigator-set-sidebar(yesno)
<$action-setfield $tiddler="$:/state/sidebar" text="$yesno$"/>
<$action-deletetiddler $tiddler="$:/temp/navigator/sidebarstate"/>
\end
\define navigator-set-last-popup()
<$list filter="[list<NavigatorVariablesPopupStateTiddler>limit[1]]" emptyMessage="""
<$macrocall $name="navigator-unset-shortcut" key={{{ [<NavigatorVariablesTempShortcutsConfig>get[close-popup]] }}} tiddler="$:/config/shortcuts/close-popup" field="text"/>
<$action-deletetiddler $tiddler=<<NavigatorVariablesPopupStateTiddler>>/>
""">
<$set name="nextOpenPopup" value={{{ [list<NavigatorVariablesPopupStateTiddler>last[]] }}}>
<$action-setfield $tiddler=<<NavigatorVariablesPopupStateTiddler>> text=<<nextOpenPopup>>/>
<$action-listops $tiddler=<<NavigatorVariablesPopupStateTiddler>> $subfilter="-[<nextOpenPopup>]"/>
<$action-setfield $tiddler=<<NavigatorVariablesPopupStateTiddler>> item-filter-variable={{{ [[$:/navigator/backup/popup-state/]addsuffix<nextOpenPopup>get[item-filter-variable]] }}}/>
<$action-setfield $tiddler=<<NavigatorVariablesPopupStateTiddler>> item-state-variable={{{ [[$:/navigator/backup/popup-state/]addsuffix<nextOpenPopup>get[item-state-variable]] }}}/>
</$set>
<$list filter="[<NavigatorVariablesPopupStateTiddler>get[text]is[missing]]">
<$macrocall $name="navigator-unset-shortcut" key={{{ [<NavigatorVariablesTempShortcutsConfig>get[close-popup]] }}} tiddler="$:/config/shortcuts/close-popup" field="text"/>
</$list>
</$list>
\end
\define navigator-tiddlerinfo-openactions()
<$macrocall $name="navigator-qualified-state-actions" tiddler={{{ [[$:/HistoryList]get[current-tiddler]] }}} title="$:/state/tab" storyOrSideBar="story" editOrView="view" level="3" suffix="title" template1="$:/core/ui/TiddlerInfo" action="""<$action-deletetiddler $tiddler=<<NavigatorVariablesPopupStateTiddler>>/><$action-setfield $tiddler="$:/temp/navigator/popup-tabs/state" text=<<state>> tabs-filter="[subfilter<NavigatorTiddlerInfoTabsFilter>]" tabs-default={{$:/config/TiddlerInfo/Default}}/>"""/>
<$macrocall $name="navigator-set-shortcut" key={{{ [<NavigatorVariablesTempShortcutsConfig>get[popup-tab-next]] }}} tiddler="$:/config/shortcuts/popup-tab-next" field="text"/>
<$macrocall $name="navigator-set-shortcut" key={{{ [<NavigatorVariablesTempShortcutsConfig>get[popup-tab-previous]] }}} tiddler="$:/config/shortcuts/popup-tab-previous" field="text"/>
<$macrocall $name="navigator-set-shortcut" key={{{ [<NavigatorVariablesTempShortcutsConfig>get[close-popup]] }}} tiddler="$:/config/shortcuts/close-popup" field="text"/>
<$macrocall $name="navigator-qualified-state-actions" tiddler={{{ [[$:/HistoryList]get[current-tiddler]] }}} title="$:/state/popup/tiddler-info" storyOrSideBar="story" editOrView="view" level="1" action="""<$action-setfield $tiddler=<<NavigatorVariablesPopupStateTiddler>> text=<<state>>/>"""/>
\end
\define navigator-tiddlerinfo-closeactions()
<$macrocall $name="navigator-unset-shortcut" key={{{ [<NavigatorVariablesTempShortcutsConfig>get[popup-tab-next]] }}} tiddler="$:/config/shortcuts/popup-tab-next" field="text"/>
<$macrocall $name="navigator-unset-shortcut" key={{{ [<NavigatorVariablesTempShortcutsConfig>get[popup-tab-previous]] }}} tiddler="$:/config/shortcuts/popup-tab-previous" field="text"/>
<<navigator-set-last-popup>>
\end
\define navigator-more-tiddler-openactions()
<$macrocall $name="navigator-set-shortcut" key={{{ [<NavigatorVariablesTempShortcutsConfig>get[popup-down]] }}} tiddler="$:/config/shortcuts/popup-down" field="text"/>
<$macrocall $name="navigator-set-shortcut" key={{{ [<NavigatorVariablesTempShortcutsConfig>get[popup-up]] }}} tiddler="$:/config/shortcuts/popup-up" field="text"/>
<$macrocall $name="navigator-set-shortcut" key={{{ [<NavigatorVariablesTempShortcutsConfig>get[popup-accept]] }}} tiddler="$:/config/shortcuts/popup-accept" field="text"/>
<$macrocall $name="navigator-set-shortcut" key={{{ [<NavigatorVariablesTempShortcutsConfig>get[close-popup]] }}} tiddler="$:/config/shortcuts/close-popup" field="text"/>
<$macrocall $name="navigator-qualified-state-actions" tiddler={{{ [[$:/HistoryList]get[current-tiddler]] }}} title="$:/state/popup/more" storyOrSideBar="story" editOrView="view" level="3" suffix="title" template1="$:/core/ui/Buttons/more-tiddler-actions" action="""<$action-setfield $tiddler=<<NavigatorVariablesPopupStateTiddler>> text=<<state>>/>"""/>
<$action-setfield $tiddler=<<NavigatorVariablesPopupStateTiddler>> item-state-variable="NavigatorVariablesMorePopupSelectedItem"/>
<$action-setfield $tiddler=<<NavigatorVariablesPopupStateTiddler>> item-filter-variable="NavigatorMoreTiddlerFilter"/>
\end
\define navigator-more-tiddler-closeactions()
<$macrocall $name="navigator-unset-shortcut" key={{{ [<NavigatorVariablesTempShortcutsConfig>get[popup-down]] }}} tiddler="$:/config/shortcuts/popup-down" field="text"/>
<$macrocall $name="navigator-unset-shortcut" key={{{ [<NavigatorVariablesTempShortcutsConfig>get[popup-up]] }}} tiddler="$:/config/shortcuts/popup-up" field="text"/>
<$macrocall $name="navigator-unset-shortcut" key={{{ [<NavigatorVariablesTempShortcutsConfig>get[popup-accept]] }}} tiddler="$:/config/shortcuts/popup-accept" field="text"/>
<$macrocall $name="navigator-unset-shortcut" key={{{ [<NavigatorVariablesTempShortcutsConfig>get[close-popup]] }}} tiddler="$:/config/shortcuts/close-popup" field="text"/>
<$action-setfield $tiddler=<<NavigatorVariablesPopupStateTiddler>> item-state-variable=""/>
<$action-setfield $tiddler=<<NavigatorVariablesPopupStateTiddler>> item-filter-variable=""/>
<<navigator-set-last-popup>>
\end
\define navigator-export-tiddler-openactions()
<$action-listops $tiddler=<<NavigatorVariablesPopupStateTiddler>> $subfilter="[<NavigatorVariablesPopupStateTiddler>get[text]]"/>
<$action-setfield $tiddler={{{ [<NavigatorVariablesPopupStateTiddler>get[text]addprefix[$:/navigator/backup/popup-state/]] }}} item-state-variable={{{ [<NavigatorVariablesPopupStateTiddler>get[item-state-variable]] }}} item-filter-variable={{{ [<NavigatorVariablesPopupStateTiddler>get[item-filter-variable]] }}}/>
<$macrocall $name="navigator-set-shortcut" key={{{ [<NavigatorVariablesTempShortcutsConfig>get[popup-down]] }}} tiddler="$:/config/shortcuts/popup-down" field="text"/>
<$macrocall $name="navigator-set-shortcut" key={{{ [<NavigatorVariablesTempShortcutsConfig>get[popup-up]] }}} tiddler="$:/config/shortcuts/popup-up" field="text"/>
<$macrocall $name="navigator-set-shortcut" key={{{ [<NavigatorVariablesTempShortcutsConfig>get[popup-accept]] }}} tiddler="$:/config/shortcuts/popup-accept" field="text"/>
<$macrocall $name="navigator-set-shortcut" key={{{ [<NavigatorVariablesTempShortcutsConfig>get[close-popup]] }}} tiddler="$:/config/shortcuts/close-popup" field="text"/>
<$macrocall $name="navigator-qualified-state-actions" tiddler={{{ [[$:/HistoryList]get[current-tiddler]] }}} title="$:/state/popup/export" storyOrSideBar="story" editOrView="view" level="4" suffix="title" template1="$:/core/ui/Buttons/more-tiddler-actions" template2="$:/core/ui/Buttons/export-tiddler" action="""<$action-sendmessage $message="tm-rename-tiddler" from=<<NavigatorVariablesPopupStateTiddler>> to={{{ [<NavigatorVariablesPopupStateTiddler>addprefix[$:/navigator/backup/popup-state/]] }}}/><$action-setfield $tiddler=<<NavigatorVariablesPopupStateTiddler>> text=<<state>>/>"""/>
<$action-setfield $tiddler=<<NavigatorVariablesPopupStateTiddler>> item-state-variable="NavigatorVariablesExportTiddlerPopupSelectedItem"/>
<$action-setfield $tiddler=<<NavigatorVariablesPopupStateTiddler>> item-filter-variable="NavigatorExportTiddlerFilter"/>
\end
\define navigator-export-tiddler-closeactions()
<$macrocall $name="navigator-unset-shortcut" key={{{ [<NavigatorVariablesTempShortcutsConfig>get[popup-down]] }}} tiddler="$:/config/shortcuts/popup-down" field="text"/>
<$macrocall $name="navigator-unset-shortcut" key={{{ [<NavigatorVariablesTempShortcutsConfig>get[popup-up]] }}} tiddler="$:/config/shortcuts/popup-up" field="text"/>
<$macrocall $name="navigator-unset-shortcut" key={{{ [<NavigatorVariablesTempShortcutsConfig>get[popup-accept]] }}} tiddler="$:/config/shortcuts/popup-accept" field="text"/>
<$action-setfield $tiddler=<<NavigatorVariablesPopupStateTiddler>> item-state-variable=""/>
<$action-setfield $tiddler=<<NavigatorVariablesPopupStateTiddler>> item-filter-variable=""/>
<<navigator-set-last-popup>>
\end
\define style-focus-tiddler()
\rules only
[data-tiddler-title="$(focusTiddler)$"]$(focusedTiddlerSelectors)$ {
$(focusedTiddlerStyles)$
}
\end
<$set name="focusedTiddlerSelectors" value={{$:/config/FocusedTiddler/Style/ClassSelector}}>
<$wikify name="focusedTiddlerStyles" text={{$:/config/FocusedTiddler/Style}}>
<$list filter="[[$:/HistoryList]get[current-tiddler]escapecss[]]" variable="focusTiddler">
<<style-focus-tiddler>>
</$list>
</$wikify>
</$set>
<$list filter="[[$:/temp/search/input]!is[missing]get[text]minlength{$:/config/MinLength/Search}]">
<$rootpipe>
<$set name="transclusion" value="{|$:/core/ui/PageTemplate|||}">
<$set name="transclusion" value="{|$:/core/ui/PageTemplate/sidebar|||}">
<$set name="transclusion" value="{|$:/core/ui/SideBarSegments/search|||}">
<$set name="focusPopup" value=<<qualify "$:/state/popup/search-dropdown">>>
<$list filter="[<focusPopup>!is[missing]]">
@media (max-width: {{$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/metrics/sidebarbreakpoint}}) {
.tc-sidebar-scrollable {
overflow: inherit !important;
}
}
</$list>
</$set>
</$set>
</$set>
</$set>
</$rootpipe>
</$list>
<$reveal state="$:/state/showeditpreview" type="match" text="yes">
.tc-edit-texteditor.tc-tiddler-editor {
width: 49% !important;
display: inline-block !important;
}
</$reveal>
<$vars selectedMorePopupItem={{{ [<NavigatorVariablesMorePopupSelectedItem>get[text]encodeuricomponent[]escapecss[]addprefix[.tc-btn-]] }}} selectedExportTiddlerPopupItem={{{ [<NavigatorVariablesExportTiddlerPopupSelectedItem>get[text]encodeuricomponent[]escapecss[]addprefix[.tc-btn-]] }}}>
.tc-tag-button-selected, .tc-list-item-selected a.tc-tiddlylink {
background-color: <<colour primary>>;
}
<<selectedMorePopupItem>> {
background-color: <<colour primary>>;
}
<<selectedExportTiddlerPopupItem>> {
background-color: <<colour primary>>;
}
</$vars>
@media (max-width:{{$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/metrics/sidebarbreakpoint}}) {
.tc-tiddler-frame {
margin-bottom: 0.5em;
}
<$reveal state="$:/state/sidebar" type="match" text="no">
.tc-sidebar-scrollable {
padding: 0;
height: 0;
margin: 0;
}
</$reveal>
}
{
"tiddlers": {
"$:/plugins/danielo/encryptTiddler/Changelog": {
"title": "$:/plugins/danielo/encryptTiddler/Changelog",
"text": "!! V2.1\n* Added control panel.\n* Added ability to batch encrypt and decrypt tiddlers.\n* Added some documentation an language strings.\n\n"
},
"$:/plugins/danielo/encryptTiddler/control-panel/batch-encrypt": {
"title": "$:/plugins/danielo/encryptTiddler/control-panel/batch-encrypt",
"caption": "Batch Encryption",
"text": "\\define lingo-base() $:/language/Search/\n<<lingo Filter/Hint>>\n{{$:/plugins/danielo/encryptTiddler/language/batch}}\n\n<$linkcatcher to=\"$:/temp/encrypt/filter\">\n\n<div class=\"tc-search tc-advanced-search\">\n<$edit-text tiddler=\"$:/temp/encrypt/filter\" type=\"search\" tag=\"input\" default=\"\" placeholder=\"filter tiddlers\"/>\n<$button popup=<<qualify \"$:/state/filterDropdown\">> class=\"tc-btn-invisible\">\n{{$:/core/images/down-arrow}}\n</$button>\n<$reveal state=\"$:/temp/encrypt/filter\" type=\"nomatch\" text=\"\">\n<$button class=\"tc-btn-invisible\">\n<$action-setfield $tiddler=\"$:/temp/encrypt/filter\" $field=\"text\" $value=\"\"/>\n{{$:/core/images/close-button}}\n</$button>\n\n\n<$edit-text tag=\"input\" tiddler=\"$:/temp/password\" placeholder=\"password\" type=\"password\" default=\"\" col=\"4\"/><$encryptTiddler passwordTiddler=\"$:/temp/password\" filter={{$:/temp/encrypt/filter}}>\n<$button message=\"tw-encrypt-tiddler\">\nEncrypt\n</$button>\n<$button message=\"tw-decrypt-tiddler\">\nDecrypt\n</$button>\n</$encryptTiddler>\n</$reveal>\n</div>\n\n<div class=\"tc-block-dropdown-wrapper\">\n<$reveal state=<<qualify \"$:/state/filterDropdown\">> type=\"nomatch\" text=\"\" default=\"\">\n<div class=\"tc-block-dropdown tc-edit-type-dropdown\">\n<$list filter=\"[all[shadows+tiddlers]tag[$:/tags/Filter]!sort[]] -[[$:/core/Filters/SystemTags]] -[[$:/core/Filters/AllTags]]\"><$link to={{!!filter}}><$transclude field=\"description\"/></$link>\n</$list>\n</div>\n</$reveal>\n</div>\n\n</$linkcatcher>\n\n<$reveal state=\"$:/temp/encrypt/filter\" type=\"nomatch\" text=\"\">\n<$set name=\"resultCount\" value=\"\"\"<$count filter={{$:/temp/encrypt/filter}}/>\"\"\">\n<div class=\"tc-search-results\">\n<<lingo Filter/Matches>>\n<$list filter={{$:/temp/encrypt/filter}} template=\"$:/plugins/danielo/encryptTiddler/ui/listItemTemplate\"/>\n</div>\n</$set>\n</$reveal>"
},
"$:/plugins/danielo/encryptTiddler/control-panel": {
"title": "$:/plugins/danielo/encryptTiddler/control-panel",
"tags": "$:/tags/ControlPanel",
"caption": "Encrypt Tiddlers",
"text": "\\define prefix(name) $:/plugins/danielo/encryptTiddler/control-panel/$name$\n\n<$macrocall $name=\"tabs\" tabsList=\"[all[shadows+tiddlers]prefix[$:/plugins/danielo/encryptTiddler/control-panel/]]\" default=<<prefix \"batch-encrypt\">> state=\"$:/state/encryptTiddler/control-panel/tabs\">>"
},
"$:/plugins/danielo/encryptTiddler/crypt-batch-button": {
"creator": "Danielo",
"title": "$:/plugins/danielo/encryptTiddler/crypt-batch-button",
"text": "<span title=\"Encrypt/Decrypt tiddler\" class=\"pc-batch-controls\">\n<$reveal state=<<qualify \"$:/state/encrypt\">> type=\"nomatch\" text={{!!title}} animate=\"no\"><$button set=<<qualify \"$:/state/encrypt\">> setTo={{!!title}} class=\"tc-btn-invisible\">{{$:/plugins/danielo/encryptTiddler/unlocked}}</$button></$reveal><$reveal state=<<qualify \"$:/state/encrypt\">> type=\"match\" text={{!!title}} animate=\"no\"><$button set=<<qualify \"$:/state/encrypt\">> setTo=\"\" class=\"tc-btn-invisible\">{{$:/plugins/danielo/encryptTiddler/unlocked}}</$button></$reveal>\n<$encryptTiddler passwordTiddler=\"$:/temp/password\" filter={{$:/temp/encrypt/filter}}><$reveal state=<<qualify \"$:/state/encrypt\">> type=\"match\" text={{!!title}} animate=\"yes\">\n<div class=\"tc-block-dropdown tw-crypt-dropdown\">\n<span class=\"tw-password-field\"><$edit-text tiddler=\"$:/temp/password\" tag=\"input\" type=\"password\" default=\"\" placeholder=\"password\" class=\"tc-edit-texteditor\"/></span>\n<span class=\"tw-crypt-button\"> <$button message=\"tw-encrypt-tiddler\" set=<<qualify \"$:/state/encrypt\">> setTo=\"\" >Encrypt</$button> <$button message=\"tw-decrypt-tiddler\" set=<<qualify \"$:/state/encrypt\">> setTo=\"\" >Decrypt</$button></span>\n</div>\n</$reveal></$encryptTiddler>\n</span>"
},
"$:/plugins/danielo/encryptTiddler/crypt-button": {
"created": "20140405233000477",
"creator": "Danielo",
"modified": "20140608121335075",
"tags": "$:/tags/ViewToolbar button encrypt export",
"title": "$:/plugins/danielo/encryptTiddler/crypt-button",
"type": "text/vnd.tiddlywiki",
"text": "<span title=\"Encrypt/Decrypt tiddler\"><$transclude tiddler=\"$:/plugins/danielo/encryptTiddler/openPopup\"/>\n</span><$encryptTiddler passwordTiddler=\"$:/temp/password\"><$reveal state=\"$:/state/encrypt\" type=\"match\" text={{!!title}} animate=\"yes\">\n<div class=\"tc-block-dropdown tw-crypt-dropdown\">\n<span class=\"tw-password-field\"><$edit-text tiddler=\"$:/temp/password\" tag=\"input\" type=\"password\" default=\"\" placeholder=\"password\" class=\"tc-edit-texteditor\"/></span>\n<span class=\"tw-crypt-button\"> <$list filter=\"[all[current]!has[encrypted]]\"> <$button message=\"tw-encrypt-tiddler\" set=\"$:/state/encrypt\" setTo=\"\" >Encrypt</$button></$list><$list filter=\"[is[current]has[encrypted]]\"> <$button message=\"tw-decrypt-tiddler\" set=\"$:/state/encrypt\" setTo=\"\" >Decrypt</$button></$list></span>\n</div>\n</$reveal></$encryptTiddler>\n"
},
"$:/plugins/danielo/encryptTiddler/Encrypt-Tiddler": {
"created": "20140406153742691",
"creator": "pepito",
"description": "add the hability to encrypt individual tiddlers",
"modified": "20141029152631265",
"modifier": "Danielo Rodriguez",
"tags": "index plugins",
"title": "$:/plugins/danielo/encryptTiddler/Encrypt-Tiddler",
"type": "text/vnd.tiddlywiki",
"caption": "readme",
"text": "This plugin adds the ability to encrypt your tiddlers individually. This have several advantages:\n\n* You can specify a different password for each tiddler if you want.\n* You don't have to encrypt your whole wiky.\n* If you forget your password, you only lose a tiddler.\n* It's possible to edit the tiddler content , tags and fields ''except the encrypt field'' after encryption. Decrypting your tiddler will restore it to its original state when you encrypted it. This way you can hide the encrypted tiddlers as a \"different\" thing.\n* You can even encrypt images.\n* You can have sensible data in a day to day wiky.\n* I didn't try this, but theoretically you can apply double encryption by encrypting your wiki too."
},
"$:/plugins/danielo/encryptTiddler/encrypttiddler.js": {
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/plugins/danielo/encryptTiddler/encrypttiddler.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: widget\n\nencrypttiddler widget\n\n```\n\n```\n\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nvar Widget = require(\"$:/core/modules/widgets/widget.js\").widget;\n\nvar encryptTiddlerWidget = function(parseTreeNode,options) {\n\tthis.initialise(parseTreeNode,options);\n\tthis.addEventListeners([\n\t\t\t{type: \"tw-encrypt-tiddler\", handler: \"handleEncryptevent\"},\n\t\t\t{type: \"tw-decrypt-tiddler\", handler: \"handleDecryptevent\"},\n\t\t\t]);\n};\n\n/*\nInherit from the base widget class\n*/\nencryptTiddlerWidget.prototype = new Widget();\n\n/*\nRender this widget into the DOM\n*/\nencryptTiddlerWidget.prototype.render = function(parent,nextSibling) {\n\tconsole.log(\"Render\");\n\tthis.parentDomNode = parent;\n\tthis.computeAttributes();\n\tthis.execute();\n\tthis.renderChildren(parent,nextSibling);\n};\n\n/*\nCompute the internal state of the widget\n*/\nencryptTiddlerWidget.prototype.execute = function() {\n\t// Get attributes\n\t this.tiddlerTitle=this.getAttribute(\"tiddler\",this.getVariable(\"currentTiddler\"));\n\t this.filter=this.getAttribute(\"filter\",undefined);\n \t this.passwordTiddler=this.getAttribute(\"passwordTiddler\");\n\t// Construct the child widgets\n\tconsole.log(this.targetTiddler);\n\t\tthis.makeChildWidgets();\n};\n\n/*\nSelectively refreshes the widget if needed. Returns true if the widget or any of its children needed re-rendering\n*/\nencryptTiddlerWidget.prototype.refresh = function(changedTiddlers) {\n\tvar changedAttributes = this.computeAttributes();\n\tif(changedAttributes.tiddler || changedAttributes.filter) {\n\t\tthis.refreshSelf();\n\t\treturn true;\n\t} else {\n\t\treturn this.refreshChildren(changedTiddlers);\n\t}\n};\n\nencryptTiddlerWidget.prototype.getTiddlersToProcess = function(){\n\tif(this.filter){ //we have a filter to work with\n\t\treturn this.wiki.filterTiddlers(this.filter);\n\t}else{ //single tiddler case\n\t\tvar tiddler = this.wiki.getTiddler(this.tiddlerTitle);\n\t\treturn tiddler? [tiddler.fields.title] : [];\n\t}\n};\n\nencryptTiddlerWidget.prototype.handleEncryptevent = function(event){\n\tvar password = this.getPassword();\n\tvar tiddlers = this.getTiddlersToProcess();\n\n\tif(tiddlers.length > 0 && password){\n\t\tvar self = this;\n\t\t$tw.utils.each(tiddlers, function(title){\n\t\t\tvar tiddler = self.wiki.getTiddler(title);\n\t\t\tvar fields={text:\"!This is an encrypted Tiddler\",\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t encrypted:self.encryptFields(title,password)};\n\t\t\tself.saveTiddler(tiddler,fields);\n\t\t});\n\n\t}else{\n\t\tconsole.log(\"We did not find any tiddler to encrypt or password not set!\")\n\t}\n};\n\nencryptTiddlerWidget.prototype.handleDecryptevent = function(event){\n\tvar password =this.getPassword();\n\tvar tiddlers = this.getTiddlersToProcess();\n\n\tif(tiddlers.length > 0 && password){\n\t\tvar self = this;\n\t\t$tw.utils.each(tiddlers, function(title){\n\t\t\tvar tiddler = self.wiki.getTiddler(title);\n\t\t\tvar fields = self.decryptFields(tiddler,password);\n\t\t\tif(fields)self.saveTiddler(tiddler,fields);\n\t\t});\n\t}\n};\n\nencryptTiddlerWidget.prototype.saveTiddler=function(tiddler,fields){\n\tthis.wiki.addTiddler( new $tw.Tiddler(this.wiki.getModificationFields(),tiddler,this.clearNonStandardFields(tiddler), fields ) )\n}\n\nencryptTiddlerWidget.prototype.encryptFields = function (title,password){\n\tvar jsonData=this.wiki.getTiddlerAsJson(title);\n\treturn $tw.crypto.encrypt(jsonData,password);\n\n};\n\nencryptTiddlerWidget.prototype.decryptFields = function(tiddler,password){\n\t\tvar JSONfields =$tw.crypto.decrypt(tiddler.fields.encrypted,password);\n\t\tif(JSONfields!==null){\n\t\t\treturn JSON.parse(JSONfields);\n\t\t}\n\t\tconsole.log(\"Error decrypting \"+tiddler.fields.title+\". Probably bad password\")\n\t\treturn false\n};\n\nencryptTiddlerWidget.prototype.getPassword = function(){\n\tvar tiddler=this.wiki.getTiddler(this.passwordTiddler);\n\tif(tiddler){\n\t\tvar password=tiddler.fields.text;\n\t\tthis.saveTiddler(tiddler); //reset password tiddler\n\t\treturn password;\n\t}\n\n\treturn false\n};\n\n// This function erases every field of a tiddler that is not standard and also\n// the text field\nencryptTiddlerWidget.prototype.clearNonStandardFields =function(tiddler) {\n\tvar standardFieldNames = \"title tags modified modifier created creator\".split(\" \");\n\t\tvar clearFields = {};\n\t\tfor(var fieldName in tiddler.fields) {\n\t\t\tif(standardFieldNames.indexOf(fieldName) === -1) {\n\t\t\t\tclearFields[fieldName] = undefined;\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t}\n\t\tconsole.log(\"Cleared fields \"+JSON.stringify(clearFields));\n\t\treturn clearFields;\n};\n\nexports.encryptTiddler = encryptTiddlerWidget;\n\n})();",
"title": "$:/plugins/danielo/encryptTiddler/encrypttiddler.js",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "widget"
},
"$:/plugins/danielo/encryptTiddler/Filters/encrypted-tiddlers": {
"title": "$:/plugins/danielo/encryptTiddler/Filters/encrypted-tiddlers",
"description": "All encrypted tiddlers",
"filter": "[has[encrypted]]",
"tags": "$:/tags/Filter"
},
"$:/plugins/danielo/encryptTiddler/Filters/normal-unencrypted-tiddlers": {
"title": "$:/plugins/danielo/encryptTiddler/Filters/normal-unencrypted-tiddlers",
"filter": "[!is[system]!has[encrypted]]",
"description": "Non-encrypted normal tiddlers",
"tags": "$:/tags/Filter"
},
"$:/plugins/danielo/encryptTiddler/language/batch": {
"title": "$:/plugins/danielo/encryptTiddler/language/batch",
"text": "Use below controls to encrypt or decrypt a bunch of tiddlers. Encryption ''controls are hidden'' until you type something in the search box. All listed tiddlers will be affected. The presence of a small padlock (<span class=\"pc-listItem-lock\">{{$:/core/images/locked-padlock}}</span>) next to the tiddler title indicates that particular tiddler is already encrypted."
},
"$:/plugins/danielo/encryptTiddler/ui/listItemTemplate": {
"title": "$:/plugins/danielo/encryptTiddler/ui/listItemTemplate",
"text": "<div class=\"tc-menu-list-item\">\n<$link to={{!!title}}>\n<$view field=\"title\"/>\n<$list filter=\"[all[current]has[encrypted]]\">\n<span class=\"pc-listItem-lock\">{{$:/core/images/locked-padlock}}</span>\n</$list>\n</$link>\n</div>"
},
"$:/plugins/danielo/encryptTiddler/openPopup": {
"created": "20140406151910358",
"creator": "Danielo",
"modified": "20140608121417975",
"modifier": "pepito",
"tags": "button encrypt export",
"title": "$:/plugins/danielo/encryptTiddler/openPopup",
"type": "text/vnd.tiddlywiki",
"text": "<$reveal state=\"$:/state/encrypt\" type=\"nomatch\" text={{!!title}} animate=\"no\"><$button set=\"$:/state/encrypt\" setTo={{!!title}} class=\"tc-btn-invisible\">{{$:/plugins/danielo/encryptTiddler/unlocked}}</$button></$reveal><$reveal state=\"$:/state/encrypt\" type=\"match\" text={{!!title}} animate=\"no\"><$button set=\"$:/state/encrypt\" setTo=\"\" class=\"tc-btn-invisible\">{{$:/plugins/danielo/encryptTiddler/unlocked}}</$button></$reveal>"
},
"$:/plugins/danielo/encryptTiddler/styles": {
"created": "20140406110705085",
"creator": "pepito",
"modified": "20140608121510064",
"modifier": "pepito",
"tags": "$:/tags/Stylesheet encrypt export",
"title": "$:/plugins/danielo/encryptTiddler/styles",
"type": "text/plain",
"text": ".tw-password-field {\n\tdisplay: inline-block;\n\twidth: 55%;\n font-size:1em;\n line-height:0;\n margin:0;\n\tpadding-left:7%;\n}\n\n.pc-batch-controls .tw-crypt-dropdown{\n\tright: 0px;\n}\n\n.pc-batch-controls{\n\t\tposition:relative;\n}\n\n.pc-listItem-lock svg{\n\theight: 1em;\n\twidth: 1em;\n\tfill: #aaaaaa;\n}\n\n/*It is for use in combination with tc-block-dropdown */\n.tw-crypt-dropdown{\n line-height:0;\n\t\t\tpadding-left:5px;\n\t\t\t}\n\n.tw-password-field input{\n font-size:0.5em;\n\n}\n\n.tw-crypt-button {\n\tdisplay: inline-block;\n\twidth: 10%;\n}\n\n.tw-crypt-button button{\n\tfont-size:0.5em;\n}\n"
},
"$:/plugins/danielo/encryptTiddler/unlocked": {
"created": "20140406101339943",
"creator": "danielo515",
"modified": "20140608121532690",
"modifier": "danielo515",
"tags": "encrypt export",
"title": "$:/plugins/danielo/encryptTiddler/unlocked",
"type": "text/vnd.tiddlywiki",
"text": "<svg version=\"1.1\" id=\"Capa_1\" xmlns=\"http://www.w3.org/2000/svg\" class=\"tc-image-button\"\n\t viewBox=\"0 0 100 100\" style=\"enable-background:new 0 0 100 100;\" xml:space=\"preserve\">\n<g>\n\t<path d=\"M77.555,50H35.304V31.63c0-4.057,1.435-7.521,4.305-10.391c2.87-2.87,6.333-4.305,10.391-4.305\n\t\tc4.056,0,7.52,1.435,10.39,4.305s4.305,6.335,4.305,10.391c0,0.996,0.363,1.857,1.091,2.583c0.727,0.729,1.588,1.09,2.583,1.09\n\t\th3.674c0.995,0,1.856-0.361,2.583-1.09c0.727-0.727,1.091-1.588,1.091-2.583c0-7.079-2.517-13.136-7.549-18.17\n\t\tC63.136,8.428,57.08,5.912,50,5.912c-7.081,0-13.137,2.516-18.169,7.548c-5.033,5.034-7.549,11.091-7.549,18.17V50h-1.837\n\t\tc-1.531,0-2.833,0.536-3.904,1.608c-1.072,1.072-1.607,2.372-1.607,3.902v33.067c0,1.532,0.535,2.832,1.607,3.904\n\t\tc1.071,1.072,2.372,1.608,3.904,1.608h55.11c1.53,0,2.832-0.536,3.904-1.608c1.071-1.072,1.607-2.372,1.607-3.904V55.51\n\t\tc0-1.529-0.536-2.83-1.607-3.902C80.387,50.536,79.085,50,77.555,50z M54.315,72.937V83.72c0,2.173-1.762,3.935-3.935,3.935H49.62\n\t\tc-2.173,0-3.935-1.762-3.935-3.935V72.937c-2.31-1.443-3.852-4.001-3.852-6.925c0-4.511,3.657-8.167,8.167-8.167\n\t\ts8.167,3.657,8.167,8.167C58.167,68.937,56.625,71.495,54.315,72.937z\"/>\n</g>\n</svg>\n"
}
}
}
{
"tiddlers": {
"$:/plugins/danielo/keyboardSnippets/keyboard-snippets.js": {
"modified": "20140422024102379",
"modifier": "danielo",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/widgets/keyboard-snippets.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: widget\n\nEdit-text widget\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nvar EditTextWidget = require(\"$:/core/modules/widgets/edit-text.js\")[\"edit-text\"];\n\n/*\nThe edit-text widget calls this method just after inserting its dom nodes\n*/\nEditTextWidget.prototype.postRender = function() {\n\tvar self = this;\n\tvar domNode = self.domNodes[0];\n\tthis.KEYMAP = this.wiki.getTiddlerData(\"$:/plugins/danielo/keyboardSnippets/KEYMAP\");\n\tthis.KEYBINDINGS = this.parseKeyBindings(this.wiki.getTiddlerData(\"$:/plugins/danielo/keyboardSnippets/KEYBINDINGS\"));\n\t$tw.utils.addEventListeners(domNode,[\n\t\t{name: \"keydown\", handlerObject: this, handlerMethod: \"insertAtCursor\"}\n\t]);\n\n\n};\n\n\nEditTextWidget.prototype.createKeySnippet = function(preTag,postTag){\n if(typeof arguments[0] == \"object\")\n {\n\t var result = arguments[0];\n\t if(result.hasOwnProperty(\"length\")) return {regExp:result, length:result[0][\"replace\"].length};\n\t if(result.pre && result.post) result.length=result.pre.length;\n\t return result;\n }\n\t\n\treturn {pre:preTag, post:postTag, length:preTag.length };\n};\n\n\nEditTextWidget.prototype.getKeyName = function (keyCode){\n return this.KEYMAP[keyCode];\n};\n\n\nEditTextWidget.prototype.parseKeyBindings = function (keyCombinations){\nvar keybindings={}; \nif (keyCombinations) {\n\tfor(var comb in keyCombinations){\n\t\tkeybindings[comb.toLowerCase()]=this.createKeySnippet(keyCombinations[comb]);\n\t}\n\treturn keybindings;\n}\n\n keybindings={\n\n\t\t \"ctrl+b\" : this.createKeySnippet(\"''\",\"''\"), //b - bold\n\t\t \"ctrl+i\" : this.createKeySnippet(\"//\",\"//\"), //i --italics\n\t\t \"ctrl+o\" : this.createKeySnippet(\"\\n#\",\" \"), //o - Ordered list\n\t\t \"ctrl+u\" : this.createKeySnippet(\"__\",\"__\"), //u - understrike list\n\t\t \"ctrl+k\" : this.createKeySnippet(\"\\n```\\n\",\"```\"), //k - code\n\t\t \"ctrl+s\" : this.createKeySnippet(\",,\",\",,\"), //s - subscript\n\t\t \"ctrl+l\" : this.createKeySnippet(\"\\n*\",\" \"), //l - list\n\t\t \"ctrl+right_arrow\" : {moveto:\"|\"}\n\t\t};\n\treturn keybindings;\n\t\t\n\n};\n\nEditTextWidget.prototype.composeKeyCombo = function (event){\nvar keyCombo=\"\";\n if(event.ctrlKey)keyCombo+=\"ctrl+\";\n if(event.shiftKey)keyCombo+=\"shift+\";\n\t\t\tif(event.altKey)keyCombo+=\"alt+\";\n\t\t\tkeyCombo+=this.getKeyName(event.keyCode);\n\nreturn keyCombo;\n\n};\n\n\n\nEditTextWidget.prototype.insertAtCursor = function (event) {\n var snippet , myField=this.domNodes[0];\n\n if(snippet=this.KEYBINDINGS[this.composeKeyCombo(event)] )\n //para evitar sobreescribir otros eventos solo reaccionamos ante combinaciones que\n //estén en nuestro map de KEYBINDINGS\n {\n\tvar reacted=false;\n //Internet explorer\n if (document.selection) {\n myField.focus();\n var sel = document.selection.createRange();\n sel.text = snippet;\n }\n //MOZILLA and others\n else if (myField.selectionStart || myField.selectionStart == '0') {\n var selection = this.getSelection(myField);\n if( snippet.hasOwnProperty(\"moveto\") ){\n\t\t\t\t\tvar move = selection.followingText.indexOf(snippet.moveto);\n\t\t\t\t\tif(move >=0){ \n\t\t\t\t\t\treacted=true; //only stop default if we have to move\n\t\t\t\t\t\tthis.moveSelection(myField,selection,move+1);\n\t\t\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t\t}else{\n\t\t\t\t\treacted=true;\n\t\t\t\t\tmyField.value = selection.previousText\n\t\t\t\t\t\t+ this.applyTag(snippet,selection.text)\n\t\t\t\t\t\t+ selection.followingText;\n\t\t\t\t\tthis.moveSelection(myField,selection,snippet.length);\n\t\t\t\t}\n } else {\n myField.value += snippet;\n }\n\tif (reacted){ event.preventDefault(); event.stopPropagation();}\n\t\n this.saveChanges(this.domNodes[0].value);\n }\n\t\n};\n\n/*selection { object } domNode {dom object} \nlength{number} number of characters to move the selection */\nEditTextWidget.prototype.moveSelection = function(domNode,selection,length){\ndomNode.selectionStart = selection.start + length;\ndomNode.selectionEnd = selection.start + length + selection.text.length;\n};\n\nEditTextWidget.prototype.getSelection = function(domNode){\nvar selStarts=domNode.selectionStart; var selEnds=domNode.selectionEnd;\nreturn {\n\t\tstart:selStarts,\n\t\tend:selEnds,\n\t\ttext:domNode.value.substring(selStarts,selEnds),\n\t\tpreviousText:domNode.value.substring(0, selStarts),\n\t\tfollowingText:domNode.value.substring(selEnds, domNode.value.length)\n\t\t};\n};\n\nEditTextWidget.prototype.applyTag = function(tag,text){\n\tif(tag.hasOwnProperty(\"multiline\")){\n\t\tvar elements = text.split(\"\\n\");\n\t\tfor(var i in elements) \n\t\t\tif(elements[i].length > 1 || elements.length < 2)\n\t\t\t\telements[i]=tag.pre+elements[i]+tag.post;\n\t\t\t\n\t\ttext=elements.join(\"\\n\");\n\t}else if (tag.hasOwnProperty(\"regExp\")){\n\t\tvar regExps = tag.regExp;\n\t\tfor(var i in regExps){\n\t\t\tvar regExp = new RegExp(regExps[i].exp,regExps[i].modificators);\n\t\t\ttext = text.replace(regExp,regExps[i].replace);\n\t\t}\n\t}\t\n\telse{\n\t\ttext=tag.pre+text+tag.post;\n\t}\n\t\n\treturn text;\n\t\n};\n\n})();",
"type": "application/javascript",
"title": "$:/plugins/danielo/keyboardSnippets/keyboard-snippets.js",
"tags": "plugin",
"module-type": "widget",
"creator": "danielo",
"created": "20140418153435777"
},
"$:/plugins/danielo/keyboardSnippets/KEYBINDINGS": {
"modified": "20140422000833962",
"modifier": "danielo",
"text": "{ \n \"ctrl+b\" : { \"pre\":\"''\", \"post\":\"''\"}, \n \"ctrl+i\" : { \"pre\":\"//\", \"post\":\"//\"},\n \"ctrl+o\" : { \"pre\":\"#\", \"post\":\" \", \"multiline\":\"true\"},\n \"ctrl+l\" : { \"pre\":\"*\", \"post\":\" \",\"multiline\":\"true\"},\n \"ctrl+m\" : { \"pre\":\"<<\", \"post\":\">>\"},\n \"ctrl+u\" : { \"pre\":\"__\", \"post\":\"__\"}, \n \"ctrl+k\" : { \"pre\":\"\\n```\\n\", \"post\":\"```\"}, \n \"ctrl+s\" : { \"pre\":\",,\", \"post\":\",,\"},\n \"ctrl+alt+t\" : { \"pre\":\"{{\", \"post\":\"}}\"},\n \"ctrl+alt+l\" : { \"pre\":\"[[\", \"post\":\"]]\"},\n \"alt+h\" : { \"pre\":\"|! \", \"post\":\" |\"},\n \"alt+s\" : { \"pre\":\"~~\", \"post\":\"~~\"},\n \"alt+w\" : { \"pre\":\"<$\", \"post\":\"/>\"},\n \"alt+z\" : { \"pre\":\"{{!!\", \"post\":\"}}\"},\n \"ctrl+right_arrow\" : { \"moveto\" : \"|\"},\n \"alt+t\" : [ {\"exp\":\"^\", \"modificators\":\"gm\", \"replace\":\"| \"},{\"exp\":\" +\", \"modificators\":\"g\", \"replace\":\" | \"},{\"exp\":\"$\", \"modificators\":\"gm\", \"replace\":\" |\"}]\n\n}",
"type": "application/json",
"title": "$:/plugins/danielo/keyboardSnippets/KEYBINDINGS",
"tags": "plugin",
"creator": "danielo",
"created": "20140419050820052"
},
"$:/plugins/danielo/keyboardSnippets/KEYCODES": {
"modified": "20140418180839226",
"modifier": "danielo",
"text": "{\n \"backspace\" : \"8\",\n \"tab\" : \"9\",\n \"enter\" : \"13\",\n \"shift\" : \"16\",\n \"ctrl\" : \"17\",\n \"alt\" : \"18\",\n \"pause_break\" : \"19\",\n \"caps_lock\" : \"20\",\n \"escape\" : \"27\",\n \"page_up\" : \"33\",\n \"page down\" : \"34\",\n \"end\" : \"35\",\n \"home\" : \"36\",\n \"left_arrow\" : \"37\",\n \"up_arrow\" : \"38\",\n \"right_arrow\" : \"39\",\n \"down_arrow\" : \"40\",\n \"insert\" : \"45\",\n \"delete\" : \"46\",\n \"0\" : \"48\",\n \"1\" : \"49\",\n \"2\" : \"50\",\n \"3\" : \"51\",\n \"4\" : \"52\",\n \"5\" : \"53\",\n \"6\" : \"54\",\n \"7\" : \"55\",\n \"8\" : \"56\",\n \"9\" : \"57\",\n \"a\" : \"65\",\n \"b\" : \"66\",\n \"c\" : \"67\",\n \"d\" : \"68\",\n \"e\" : \"69\",\n \"f\" : \"70\",\n \"g\" : \"71\",\n \"h\" : \"72\",\n \"i\" : \"73\",\n \"j\" : \"74\",\n \"k\" : \"75\",\n \"l\" : \"76\",\n \"m\" : \"77\",\n \"n\" : \"78\",\n \"o\" : \"79\",\n \"p\" : \"80\",\n \"q\" : \"81\",\n \"r\" : \"82\",\n \"s\" : \"83\",\n \"t\" : \"84\",\n \"u\" : \"85\",\n \"v\" : \"86\",\n \"w\" : \"87\",\n \"x\" : \"88\",\n \"y\" : \"89\",\n \"z\" : \"90\",\n \"left_window key\" : \"91\",\n \"right_window key\" : \"92\",\n \"select_key\" : \"93\",\n \"numpad 0\" : \"96\",\n \"numpad 1\" : \"97\",\n \"numpad 2\" : \"98\",\n \"numpad 3\" : \"99\",\n \"numpad 4\" : \"100\",\n \"numpad 5\" : \"101\",\n \"numpad 6\" : \"102\",\n \"numpad 7\" : \"103\",\n \"numpad 8\" : \"104\",\n \"numpad 9\" : \"105\",\n \"multiply\" : \"106\",\n \"add\" : \"107\",\n \"subtract\" : \"109\",\n \"decimal point\" : \"110\",\n \"divide\" : \"111\",\n \"f1\" : \"112\",\n \"f2\" : \"113\",\n \"f3\" : \"114\",\n \"f4\" : \"115\",\n \"f5\" : \"116\",\n \"f6\" : \"117\",\n \"f7\" : \"118\",\n \"f8\" : \"119\",\n \"f9\" : \"120\",\n \"f10\" : \"121\",\n \"f11\" : \"122\",\n \"f12\" : \"123\",\n \"num_lock\" : \"144\",\n \"scroll_lock\" : \"145\",\n \"semi_colon\" : \"186\",\n \"equal_sign\" : \"187\",\n \"comma\" : \"188\",\n \"dash\" : \"189\",\n \"period\" : \"190\",\n \"forward_slash\" : \"191\",\n \"grave_accent\" : \"192\",\n \"open_bracket\" : \"219\",\n \"backslash\" : \"220\",\n \"closebracket\" : \"221\",\n \"single_quote\" : \"222\"\n }",
"type": "application/json",
"title": "$:/plugins/danielo/keyboardSnippets/KEYCODES",
"tags": "plugin",
"created": "20140418175933770"
},
"$:/plugins/danielo/keyboardSnippets/KEYMAP": {
"modified": "20140418184001124",
"modifier": "danielo",
"text": "{\"8\":\"backspace\",\"9\":\"tab\",\"13\":\"enter\",\"16\":\"shift\",\"17\":\"ctrl\",\"18\":\"alt\",\"19\":\"pause_break\",\"20\":\"caps_lock\",\"27\":\"escape\",\"33\":\"page_up\",\"34\":\"page down\",\"35\":\"end\",\"36\":\"home\",\"37\":\"left_arrow\",\"38\":\"up_arrow\",\"39\":\"right_arrow\",\"40\":\"down_arrow\",\"45\":\"insert\",\"46\":\"delete\",\"48\":\"0\",\"49\":\"1\",\"50\":\"2\",\"51\":\"3\",\"52\":\"4\",\"53\":\"5\",\"54\":\"6\",\"55\":\"7\",\"56\":\"8\",\"57\":\"9\",\"65\":\"a\",\"66\":\"b\",\"67\":\"c\",\"68\":\"d\",\"69\":\"e\",\"70\":\"f\",\"71\":\"g\",\"72\":\"h\",\"73\":\"i\",\"74\":\"j\",\"75\":\"k\",\"76\":\"l\",\"77\":\"m\",\"78\":\"n\",\"79\":\"o\",\"80\":\"p\",\"81\":\"q\",\"82\":\"r\",\"83\":\"s\",\"84\":\"t\",\"85\":\"u\",\"86\":\"v\",\"87\":\"w\",\"88\":\"x\",\"89\":\"y\",\"90\":\"z\",\"91\":\"left_window key\",\"92\":\"right_window key\",\"93\":\"select_key\",\"96\":\"numpad 0\",\"97\":\"numpad 1\",\"98\":\"numpad 2\",\"99\":\"numpad 3\",\"100\":\"numpad 4\",\"101\":\"numpad 5\",\"102\":\"numpad 6\",\"103\":\"numpad 7\",\"104\":\"numpad 8\",\"105\":\"numpad 9\",\"106\":\"multiply\",\"107\":\"add\",\"109\":\"subtract\",\"110\":\"decimal point\",\"111\":\"divide\",\"112\":\"f1\",\"113\":\"f2\",\"114\":\"f3\",\"115\":\"f4\",\"116\":\"f5\",\"117\":\"f6\",\"118\":\"f7\",\"119\":\"f8\",\"120\":\"f9\",\"121\":\"f10\",\"122\":\"f11\",\"123\":\"f12\",\"144\":\"num_lock\",\"145\":\"scroll_lock\",\"186\":\"semi_colon\",\"187\":\"equal_sign\",\"188\":\"comma\",\"189\":\"dash\",\"190\":\"period\",\"191\":\"forward_slash\",\"192\":\"grave_accent\",\"219\":\"open_bracket\",\"220\":\"backslash\",\"221\":\"closebracket\",\"222\":\"single_quote\"}",
"type": "application/json",
"title": "$:/plugins/danielo/keyboardSnippets/KEYMAP",
"tags": "plugin",
"created": "20140418183742933"
}
}
}
{
"tiddlers": {
"$:/plugins/danielo515/ContextPlugin/widgets/context.js": {
"created": "20140418153435777",
"creator": "danielo",
"modified": "20140530231943517",
"modifier": "danielo",
"module-type": "widget",
"title": "$:/plugins/danielo515/ContextPlugin/widgets/context.js",
"type": "application/javascript",
"text": "/*\\\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/widgets/danielo/context-widget.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: widget\n\nEdit-text widget\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nvar Widget = require(\"$:/core/modules/widgets/widget.js\").widget;\nvar contextWidget = function(parseTreeNode,options) {\n\tthis.initialise(parseTreeNode,options);\n};\n\n/*\nInherit from the base widget class\n*/\ncontextWidget.prototype = new Widget();\n\n/*\nRender this widget into the DOM\n*/\ncontextWidget.prototype.render = function(parent,nextSibling) {\n // Save the parent dom node\n\tthis.parentDomNode = parent;\n\t// Compute our attributes\n\tthis.computeAttributes();\n\t// Execute our logic\n\tthis.execute();\n \n if(this.term && this.term.length>3){\n \n this.createRegexp();\n var matches = this.executeRegexp();\n\t if(matches.length > 0){ \n this.domNode = this.document.createElement(this.element);\n this.domNode.className=\"tw-context\";\n this.composeResults( matches ); //this appends to domNode \n \t// Insert element\n \tparent.insertBefore(this.domNode,nextSibling);\n \tthis.renderChildren(this.domNode,null);\n\t \tthis.domNodes.push(this.domNode);\n }\n }\n\t\n};\n\n/*\nCompute the internal state of the widget\n*/\ncontextWidget.prototype.execute = function() {\n\t// Get the parameters from the attributes\n this.matchedClass = this.getAttribute(\"matchClass\",\"matched\");\n\tthis.tiddler = this.getAttribute( \"tiddler\",this.getVariable(\"currentTiddler\") );\n this.term = this.getAttribute(\"term\",this.getAttribute(\"searchTerm\"));\n\tthis.contextLength = this.getAttribute(\"length\",50);\n this.before = this.getAttribute(\"before\",this.contextLength);\n this.after = this.getAttribute(\"after\",this.contextLength);\n this.maxMatches = this.getAttribute(\"maxMatches\",10);\n this.element = this.getAttribute(\"element\",\"pre\");\n\tthis.makeChildWidgets();\n};\n\n /*Create the regular expression*/\ncontextWidget.prototype.createRegexp = function()\n{\n var regString = \"(\\\\w+[\\\\s\\\\S]{0,#before#})?(#term#)([\\\\s\\\\S]{0,#after#}\\\\w+)?\";\n\n var regString = regString.replace(\"#before#\",this.before).replace(\"#term#\", $tw.utils.escapeRegExp(this.term) ) .replace(\"#after#\",this.after);\n this.regexp = new RegExp(regString,\"ig\");\n //console.log(regString);\n};\n/*\nexecute the regular expresion\n*/\ncontextWidget.prototype.executeRegexp = function()\n{\n var text = this.wiki.getTiddlerText(this.tiddler), match,results = new Array();\n while( (match = this.regexp.exec( text ) ) && (results.length < this.maxMatches) )\n { results.push(match) }\n //console.log(\"matches\",results);\n return results;\n};\n\n/*\ncompose the results\nmatches : array of match objects from regular expression execute\n*/\ncontextWidget.prototype.composeResults = function(matches){\n var result=[], self=this, node = this.domNode,\n dots = textNode(\"...\\n\"),\n span = matchedNode( this.term );\n\n for(var i=0; i < matches.length; i++){\n processMatch( matches[i] );\n }\n \n function processMatch(match){\n if( match.index !== 0) node.appendChild( dots.cloneNode(true) );\n for( var i=1;i<match.length;i++ ) {//match[0] full matched text (all groups together)\n if( match[i] ) {\n if ( match[i].toLowerCase() == self.term.toLowerCase() ) \n node.appendChild( match[i] == self.term ? span.cloneNode(true) : matchedNode( match[i] ) )\n else\n node.appendChild( textNode( match[i]) )\n }\n }\n if( match.index + match[0].length < match.input.length) node.appendChild( dots.cloneNode(true) );\n }\n \n function textNode(text){ return self.document.createTextNode(text) }\n function matchedNode(text) { \n var node = self.document.createElement(\"span\"); node.appendChild( textNode(text) ); node.className = self.matchedClass;\n return node }\n \n};\n/*\nSelectively refreshes the widget if needed. Returns true if the widget or any of its children needed re-rendering\n*/\ncontextWidget.prototype.refresh = function(changedTiddlers) {\n\tvar changedAttributes = this.computeAttributes();\n\tif(changedAttributes.tiddler || changedAttributes.term || changedAttributes.length || changedAttributes.matchedClass) {\n\t\tthis.refreshSelf();\n\t\treturn true;\n\t}\n return this.refreshChildren(changedTiddlers);\n};\n\nexports.context = contextWidget;\n\n})();"
},
"$:/plugins/danielo515/ContextPlugin/visualizer": {
"title": "$:/plugins/danielo515/ContextPlugin/visualizer",
"tags": "$:/tags/SearchResults",
"caption": "Context",
"text": "<$list filter=\"[!is[system]search{$:/temp/search}sort[title]limit[250]]\">\r\n {{!!title||$:/core/ui/ListItemTemplate}}\r\n <$context term={{$:/temp/search}} />\r\n</$list>\r\n"
},
"$:/plugins/danielo515/ContextPlugin/Stylesheet/results": {
"created": "20140529162823729",
"tags": "$:/tags/Stylesheet contextPlugin",
"title": "$:/plugins/danielo515/ContextPlugin/Stylesheet/results",
"type": "text/css",
"text": ".matched{background-color:yellow}\n.tw-context {/*border:1px solid;\n /*word-break: break-all; word-wrap: break-word*/}"
},
"$:/plugins/danielo515/ContextPlugin/Caption": {
"created": "20140530174219263",
"tags": "contextPlugin",
"title": "$:/plugins/danielo515/ContextPlugin/Caption",
"type": "text/vnd.tiddlywiki",
"text": "Context search"
},
"Context Search": {
"caption": "{{$:/plugins/danielo515/ContextPlugin/Caption}}",
"created": "20140530173407542",
"tags": "$:/tags/AdvancedSearch",
"title": "Context Search",
"type": "text/vnd.tiddlywiki",
"text": "\\define lingo-base() $:/language/Search/\n<$linkcatcher to=\"$:/temp/advancedsearch\">\n\n<<lingo Standard/Hint>>\n\n<div class=\"tw-search\"><$edit-text tiddler=\"$:/temp/advancedsearch\" type=\"search\" tag=\"input\"/><$reveal state=\"$:/temp/advancedsearch\" type=\"nomatch\" text=\"\"> <$link to=\"\" class=\"btn-invisible\">{{$:/core/images/close-button}}</$link></$reveal></div>\n\n</$linkcatcher>\n\n<$reveal state=\"$:/temp/advancedsearch\" type=\"nomatch\" text=\"\">\n<div class=\"tw-search-results\">\n\n<<lingo Standard/Matches>>\n\n<$list filter=\"[!is[system]search{$:/temp/advancedsearch}sort[title]limit[250]]\">\n{{!!title||$:/core/ui/ListItemTemplate}}\n<$context term={{$:/temp/advancedsearch}}/>\n</$list>\n\n</div>\n\n</$reveal>\n\n<$reveal state=\"$:/temp/advancedsearch\" type=\"match\" text=\"\">\n\n</$reveal>\n"
},
"$:/plugins/danielo515/ContextPlugin/readme": {
"title": "$:/plugins/danielo515/ContextPlugin/readme",
"text": "!Usage\n\nAfter installing the plugin you will have a new tab in [[$:/AdvancedSearch]] called [[Context Search]]. If you want this functionality in other places you will have to edit the desired tiddler yourself adding the ''context widget''. For more details about using the widget see the section below.\n\n!!Using the widget\n\nThe very basic usage of the widget is the following:\n\n```\r\n<$context term=\"lorem\"/>\r\n```\r\nWhich will render as:\r\n<$context term=\"lorem\"/>\n\nThe widgets will search inside the current tiddler by default. Because that you see the same content twice here. This example is not very useful. Other more meaningful would be:\n\n```\r\n<$list filter=\"[search{$:/temp/advancedsearch}sort[title]limit[250]]\">\r\n{{!!title||$:/core/ui/ListItemTemplate}}\r\n<$context term={{$:/temp/advancedsearch}}/>\r\n</$list>\r\n```\n\nThat will search for tiddlers containing the text specified in [[$:/temp/advancedsearch]] and will display a link to the matching tiddlers plus a preview of the matching content. Something very similar is used in [[Context Search]]. Below you can find a complete list of parameters and their default values.\n\n|! parameter |! description | !default |\r\n| term | The term you want to search ||\r\n| searchTerm | An alias for the previous one ||\r\n| tiddler | The tiddler's name to look into | current tiddler |\r\n| length | Number of context characters to show | 50 |\r\n| before | Number of characters before the matched term to show | the value of the length parameter |\r\n| after | Number of characters after the matched term to show | the value of the length parameter |\r\n| maxMatches | maximun number of matched elements to show. Incrementing this can cause several performance issues | 10 |\r\n| element | Node element to create. This element will contain the results of the search. If you want to style it its class is `tw-context` | `<pre>` |\r\n| matchClass | The css class to assign to the matched terms in the results. This is used to highlight the results | matched |\n\n!Customizing the output\r\nThere are not many ways to customize the output of this widget. You can specify ''what type of node you want to create'' to wrap the results (div,span...). The default is `<pre>`. This container is created with the class `tw-context` so you can easily apply styles to it. Something similar happens to the ''highlighted'' words. You can specify the name of the class to assign to it and also you can apply styles to that class.\n\nA very basic example of customization could be:\n\n# Create a tiddler, for example [[$/plugins/danielo515/context/css]]\r\n# Paste the following text or any css rule you want: \"\"\"\n\n<pre>\r\n.matched{background-color:yellow}\r\n.tw-context {\r\n border:1px solid blue;\r\n word-break: break-all; word-wrap: break-word;}\r\n</pre>\r\n\"\"\"\r\n# Tag it with `$:/tags/stylesheet`\r\n# Save the tiddler"
}
}
}
{
"tiddlers": {
"$:/plugins/kookma/shiraz/macro/alerts": {
"created": "20180821095049685",
"creator": "Mohammad",
"text": "\\define alert(type:\"primary\" text:\"\", width:\"100%\", class:\"\")\n<div class=\"alert alert-$type$ $class$\" style=\"width:$width$;\">\n$text$\n</div>\n\\end\n\n\\define alert-leftbar(type:\"primary\" text:\"\", width:\"100%\")\n<div class=\"alert bg-transparent leftbar border-$type$\" style=\"width:$width$;\">\n$text$\n</div>\n\\end\n<pre><$view/></pre>",
"title": "$:/plugins/kookma/shiraz/macro/alerts",
"tags": "$:/tags/Macro",
"modifier": "Mohammad",
"modified": "20190109075227088"
},
"$:/plugins/kookma/shiraz/stylesheet/bs/alerts": {
"text": "/*Was taken from bootstrap 4.1.3*/\n.alert {\n position: relative;\n padding: 0.75rem 1.25rem;\n margin-bottom: 1rem;\n border: 1px solid transparent;\n border-radius: 0.25rem;\n}\n.alert-primary {\n color: #004085;\n background-color: #cce5ff;\n border-color: #b8daff;\n}\n\n.alert-primary hr {\n border-top-color: #9fcdff;\n}\n.alert-secondary {\n color: #383d41;\n background-color: #e2e3e5;\n border-color: #d6d8db;\n}\n\n.alert-secondary hr {\n border-top-color: #c8cbcf;\n}\n\n.alert-success {\n color: #155724;\n background-color: #d4edda;\n border-color: #c3e6cb;\n}\n\n.alert-success hr {\n border-top-color: #b1dfbb;\n}\n.alert-info {\n color: #0c5460;\n background-color: #d1ecf1;\n border-color: #bee5eb;\n}\n\n.alert-info hr {\n border-top-color: #abdde5;\n}\n.alert-warning {\n color: #856404;\n background-color: #fff3cd;\n border-color: #ffeeba;\n}\n\n.alert-warning hr {\n border-top-color: #ffe8a1;\n}\n\n.alert-danger {\n color: #721c24;\n background-color: #f8d7da;\n border-color: #f5c6cb;\n}\n\n.alert-danger hr {\n border-top-color: #f1b0b7;\n}\n.alert-light {\n color: #818182;\n background-color: #fefefe;\n border-color: #fdfdfe;\n}\n\n.alert-light hr {\n border-top-color: #ececf6;\n}\n.alert-dark {\n color: #1b1e21;\n background-color: #d6d8d9;\n border-color: #c6c8ca;\n}\n\n.alert-dark hr {\n border-top-color: #b9bbbe;\n}\n",
"type": "text/css",
"title": "$:/plugins/kookma/shiraz/stylesheet/bs/alerts",
"tags": "$:/tags/Stylesheet",
"modifier": "Mohammad",
"modified": "20181129200105625",
"creator": "Mohammad",
"created": "20180820171551129"
},
"$:/Commander": {
"text": "{{$:/plugins/kookma/commander/ui/search}}\n<<slider-ii title:\"$:/plugins/kookma/commander/ui/tiddler-selection\">>\n\n<<tabs \"[all[shadows+tiddlers]tag[$:/tags/Commander]!has[draft.of]]\" default:\"$:/plugins/kookma/commander/ui/tiddler-operation\" class:\"cm-tab-colorful\">>\n\n---\n<<slider-ii title:\"$:/plugins/kookma/commander/ui/log-status\">>\n",
"title": "$:/Commander",
"modifier": "Mohammad",
"modified": "20190314211552990",
"icon": "$:/core/images/list",
"creator": "Mohammad",
"created": "20190212051316149"
},
"$:/plugins/kookma/commander/authors": {
"created": "20190212051153468",
"creator": "Mohammad",
"text": "!! Author\n* [[Mohammad Rahmani|https://github.com/kookma]]\n\n!! Contributors\n* [[@MarxSal|https://github.com/Marxsal]]\n* [[@BurningTreeC|https://github.com/BurningTreeC]]\n\n!! Acknowledgement\n* Jeremy Ruston\n* Rob Hoelz\n* Ton Gerner\n* Jed Carty\n* Tobias Beer\n* Anthony Muscio\n* Birthe C\n* Thomas Elmiger\n* Diego Messa\n* ~TiddlyTweeter\n* Watt",
"title": "$:/plugins/kookma/commander/authors",
"tags": "",
"modifier": "Mohammad",
"modified": "20190315092739958"
},
"$:/plugins/kookma/commander/readme": {
"created": "20190212050942506",
"creator": "Mohammad",
"text": "!! What is Commander?\n{{$:/plugins/kookma/commander/help/what-is-commander}}\n\nFor help and instruction on usage, open [[Commander|$:/Commander]] help tab.\n\n!! References\n; Project code and demo\n* [[GitHub demo page|https://github.com/kookma/TW-Commander]]\n* [[GitHub code page|https://github.com/kookma/TW-Commander]]\n\n;Tiddler Commander at Tiddlywiki Google forum\n* [[Initial announcement|https://groups.google.com/d/msg/tiddlywiki/BxJsWuae-Uc/JapAx4mtBgAJ]]\n* [[Beta releases|https://groups.google.com/d/msg/tiddlywiki/w9Bv-WulKw8/CYf9D4H6BgAJ]]\n* [[Release candidate|https://groups.google.com/d/msg/tiddlywiki/Zw3F3iRtggA/qX2uWiBJBgAJ]]",
"title": "$:/plugins/kookma/commander/readme",
"tags": "",
"modifier": "Mohammad",
"modified": "20190315082415101"
},
"$:/plugins/kookma/commander/license": {
"text": "Distributed under an MIT license.\n\nCopyright (c) 2018-2019 [[Mohammad Rahmani|https://github.com/kookma]]\n\n<<<\nPermission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the \"Software\"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:\n\nThe above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.\n\nTHE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED \"AS IS\", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.\n<<<\n",
"type": "application/x-tiddler",
"title": "$:/plugins/kookma/commander/license",
"modifier": "Mohammad",
"modified": "20190214042147396",
"creator": "Mohammad",
"created": "20181101134530634"
},
"$:/plugins/kookma/commander/config/AutoFocus": {
"text": "yes",
"title": "$:/plugins/kookma/commander/config/AutoFocus",
"tags": "",
"modified": "20190212055450610",
"created": "20190212055413944"
},
"$:/plugins/kookma/commander/empty-tiddler": {
"text": "Dont delete. \nThis EMPTY tiddler is part of Tiddler Commander.",
"title": "$:/plugins/kookma/commander/empty-tiddler",
"tags": "",
"modifier": "Mohammad",
"modified": "20190309033535073",
"creator": "Mohammad",
"created": "20190309033436758"
},
"$:/plugins/kookma/commander/filters/Drafts": {
"text": "",
"title": "$:/plugins/kookma/commander/filters/Drafts",
"tags": "$:/tags/Commander/Filter",
"modified": "20190214135559126",
"filter": "[has[draft.of]sort[title]]",
"description": "{{$:/language/Filters/Drafts}}",
"created": "20190214135512125"
},
"$:/plugins/kookma/commander/filters/Missing": {
"text": "",
"title": "$:/plugins/kookma/commander/filters/Missing",
"tags": "$:/tags/Commander/Filter",
"modified": "20190214140051631",
"filter": "[all[missing]sort[title]]",
"description": "{{$:/language/Filters/Missing}}",
"created": "20190214140029091"
},
"$:/plugins/kookma/commander/filters/Orphans": {
"text": "",
"title": "$:/plugins/kookma/commander/filters/Orphans",
"tags": "$:/tags/Commander/Filter",
"modified": "20190214135606070",
"filter": "[all[orphans]sort[title]]",
"description": "{{$:/language/Filters/Orphans}}",
"created": "20190214135426497"
},
"$:/plugins/kookma/commander/filters/RecentSystemTiddlers": {
"text": "",
"title": "$:/plugins/kookma/commander/filters/RecentSystemTiddlers",
"tags": "$:/tags/Commander/Filter",
"modified": "20190214140014615",
"filter": "[has[modified]!sort[modified]limit[50]]",
"description": "{{$:/language/Filters/RecentSystemTiddlers}}",
"created": "20190214135950458"
},
"$:/plugins/kookma/commander/filters/RecentTiddlers": {
"text": "",
"title": "$:/plugins/kookma/commander/filters/RecentTiddlers",
"tags": "$:/tags/Commander/Filter",
"modified": "20190214135935814",
"filter": "[!is[system]has[modified]!sort[modified]limit[50]]",
"description": "{{$:/language/Filters/RecentTiddlers}}",
"created": "20190214135912493"
},
"$:/plugins/kookma/commander/filters/SessionTiddlers": {
"text": "",
"title": "$:/plugins/kookma/commander/filters/SessionTiddlers",
"tags": "$:/tags/Commander/Filter",
"modified": "20190214135859202",
"filter": "[haschanged[]]",
"description": "{{$:/language/Filters/SessionTiddlers}}",
"created": "20190214135831279"
},
"$:/plugins/kookma/commander/filters/StoryList": {
"text": "",
"title": "$:/plugins/kookma/commander/filters/StoryList",
"tags": "$:/tags/Commander/Filter",
"modified": "20190214135611326",
"filter": "[list[$:/StoryList]] -$:/AdvancedSearch",
"description": "{{$:/language/Filters/StoryList}}",
"created": "20190214135246552"
},
"$:/plugins/kookma/commander/filters/Test": {
"text": "",
"title": "$:/plugins/kookma/commander/filters/Test",
"tags": "$:/tags/Commander/Filter",
"modifier": "Mohammad",
"modified": "20190214141525226",
"filter": "[tag[xx]]",
"description": "Trial",
"creator": "Mohammad",
"created": "20190214141452091"
},
"$:/plugins/kookma/commander/filters/yourFilter": {
"text": "",
"title": "$:/plugins/kookma/commander/filters/yourFilter",
"tags": "$:/tags/Commander/Filter",
"modifier": "Mohammad",
"modified": "20190214155144617",
"filter": "[search:title[filters/your]]",
"description": "Mohammad Filter",
"creator": "Mohammad",
"created": "20190214155104262"
},
"$:/plugins/kookma/commander/help/batch-operation": {
"text": "Making the same changes to large numbers of tiddlers in TW5 can be repetetive and time consuming.\n\n* Batch operations work on groups of tiddlers at the same time and make changes 'in bulk', in one go.\n\n* Batch operations operate on groups of tiddlers that share matching criteria.\n\n* Tiddlers which share a common tag, a common field, a word in their title, or were created on the same day, month or year are all candidates for batch operations.\n\nAs a result batch operations can save users a great deal of time but, because they work on several tiddlers at once, the price of a mistake is multiplied! Back-up your wiki!\n\n!! Types of Batch operations :\n# Rename tiddlers\n#* use a totally new name\n#* add a suffix/prefix to title\n#* add prefix to title\n#* replace part of title\n#* add ordinal number to title \n#* Copy tiddlers (make duplicates)\n# Add/remove tag or any field\n# Change/replace the content of any field\n# Create multiple empty tiddlers (for lectures or a slideshow) with common properties (tag, field, part of text,...)\n# Capability to undo an operation at least one step back\n# Capability to get user confirmation before doing an operation\n",
"title": "$:/plugins/kookma/commander/help/batch-operation",
"tags": "$:/tags/Commander/Help",
"modifier": "Mohammad",
"modified": "20190315083628349",
"creator": "Mohammad",
"created": "20190315083511735",
"caption": "Batch operation"
},
"$:/plugins/kookma/commander/help/quick-tutorial": {
"text": "*Use ''Search via filter'' to list possible tiddlers\n*Use ''Select tiddlers'' for the resulting list to identify which specific tiddlers to do a batch operation on\n*From ''Batch operations tabs'' select the batch Operation you wish to perform on selected tiddlers\n\n*Notes:\n**Multiple batch operations can be done on the same set (unless you change something in the search criteria)\n**Sometimes it is useful to use an intermediate batch to help, like tag tiddlers with a \"working\" tag, using multiple searches, then then use the \"working\" tag to apply a batch operation to\n\n!!! Footenote\n# [[Use filter expression|https://tiddlywiki.com/prerelease/#Filters:Filters%20%5B%5BFilter%20Expression%5D%5D%20%5B%5BFilter%20Syntax%5D%5D%20%5B%5BFilter%20Operators%5D%5D%20%5B%5BFilter%20Parameter%5D%5D%20%5B%5BFilter%20Run%5D%5D%20%5B%5BFilter%20Step%5D%5D%20%5B%5BFilter%20Whitespace%5D%5D]]",
"title": "$:/plugins/kookma/commander/help/quick-tutorial",
"tags": "$:/tags/Commander/Help",
"modifier": "Mohammad",
"modified": "20190314113605333",
"creator": "Mohammad",
"created": "20190314050138754",
"caption": "Quick tutorial"
},
"$:/plugins/kookma/commander/help/snr": {
"text": "!! Regular Expressions Quick Reference\n\n|''FLAGS'' |<|<|h\n| i |ignore case|case insensitive matching|\n| |whole words|match strings of a-z, 0-9 and _|\n| g |global|field start=^, field end=$, all matches|\n| m |multi-line|line start=^, line end=$, first match|\n| |first match|field start=^, field end=$, first match|\n|''MATCH'' |<|<|h\n|''Anchors''|<|<|\n| ^ |start of scope|see Flags, match is zero length|\n| $ |end of scope|see Flags, match is zero length|\n| \\b |word boundary|anchor to edge of word, zero length|\n| \\B |not word boundary|anchor inside word, zero length|\n|''Character Classes''|<|<|\n| [c] |class of characters|any one matches, e.g. [abc123]|\n| [^c] |negated class of characters|any one doesn't match, e.g. [^abc123]|\n|''Shorthand Character Classes''|<|<|\n| . |any character except newline|same as [^\\n]|\n| \\d |decimal|same as [0-9]|\n| \\D |not decimal|same as [^0-9]|\n| \\s |white-space|same as [\\ \\t\\n]|\n| \\S |not white-space|same as [^\\ \\t\\n]|\n| \\t |tab|same as [\\t]|\n| \\n |newline|same as [\\n]|\n| \\w |word character|same as [a-zA-Z0-9_]|\n| \\W |not word character|same as [^a-zA-Z0-9_]|\n|''Capturing Groups''|<|<|\n| (match) |match placed in variable $x|can be used in Replace|\n| (\\x) |repeats match pattern of $x|can be used in Replace|\n|''Quantifiers''|<|<|\n| ? |single match|match 0 or 1 time|\n| * |greedy match 0+|match 0 or as many times as possible|\n| *? |lazy match 0+|match 0 or as few times as possible|\n| + |greedy match 1+|match 1 or as many times as possible|\n| +? |lazy match 1+|match 1 or as few times as possible|\n| {x} |match x times|match x times|\n| {x,y} |match x to y times|match x times to exactly y times|\n| {x,} |match x or more times|match x times or as many as possible|\n|''Escapes''|<|<|\n| \\ |escape special characters|add to \\ [ ] ( ) { } ^ $ . ? * + for literals|\n|''REPLACE'' |<|<|h\n| $& |return the full match|<|\n| $x |return $x where x is the numeric index of a Capturing Group|<|\n|''NOTE'' |<|<|h\n|This Reference supports most ordinary uses of regular expressions.<br> For advanced options: [[MDN Reference|https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Guide/Regular_Expressions#Using_simple_patterns]]; examples: [[regular-expressions.info|https://www.regular-expressions.info/tutorial.html]].|<|<|\n\n",
"title": "$:/plugins/kookma/commander/help/snr",
"tags": "$:/tags/Commander/Help",
"modifier": "Mohammad",
"modified": "20190314124141076",
"creator": "Mohammad",
"created": "20190314084511720",
"caption": "Search-n-Replace"
},
"$:/plugins/kookma/commander/macro/compInspect": {
"text": "\\define compInspect(filter, stateTiddler:\"thisTiddler\")\n<$set name=\"state\" \n value={{{ [[$:/state/compInspect/]addsuffix<__stateTiddler__>] }}}\n>\n<$vars\n slStateTid={{{ [<state>addsuffix[/]addsuffix[selectState-tiddler]] }}}\n rvStateTid={{{ [<state>addsuffix[/]addsuffix[revealState-tiddler]] }}}\n chStateTid={{{ [<state>addsuffix[/]addsuffix[checkboxState-tiddler]] }}}\n>\n\nSelect tiddler <$macrocall $name=compSelect filter=<<__filter__>> stateTiddler=<<slStateTid>> />\n \n<$macrocall $name=\"check-common-fields\" stateTiddler=<<chStateTid>> />\n \n<$reveal stateTitle=<<rvStateTid>> type=\"nomatch\" text=\"edit\">\n<$button class=\"tc-btn-invisible\" setTitle=<<rvStateTid>> setTo=\"edit\" tooltip=\"edit tiddler\">{{$:/core/images/edit-button}}</$button>\n<$macrocall $name=compInspect-show-preview tiddler={{{ [<slStateTid>get[text]] }}} commonFields={{{ [<chStateTid>get[text]] }}}/>\n</$reveal>\n<$reveal stateTitle=<<rvStateTid>> type=\"match\" text=\"edit\">\n<$button class=\"tc-btn-invisible\" setTitle=<<rvStateTid>> setTo=\"\" tooltip=\"confirm changes\">{{$:/core/images/done-button}}</$button>\n<$macrocall $name=compInspect-edit-preview tiddler={{{ [<slStateTid>get[text]] }}} commonFields={{{ [<chStateTid>get[text]] }}}/>\n</$reveal>\n\n</$vars>\n</$set>\n\\end\n\n\\define check-common-fields(stateTiddler)\n<$checkbox \n tiddler=<<__stateTiddler__>>\n field=\"text\" \n checked=\"\" \n unchecked=\"created creator modified modifier\"\n> Include common fields?</$checkbox>\n\\end",
"title": "$:/plugins/kookma/commander/macro/compInspect",
"tags": "$:/tags/Macro",
"modifier": "Mohammad",
"modified": "20190314145449116",
"creator": "Mohammad",
"created": "20190308151331101"
},
"$:/plugins/kookma/commander/macro/compInspect/edit-preview": {
"text": "\\define compInspect-edit-preview(tiddler, commonFields:\"\")\n<div class=\"tc-edit-fields\">\n<table class=\"tc-edit-fields\">\n<tbody>\n<tr class=\"tc-edit-field\"><td class=\"tc-edit-field-name\">title:</td>\n<td class=\"tc-edit-field-value\"><$link to=<<__tiddler__>> ><$text text=<<__tiddler__>> /></$link></td>\n</tr>\n<tr class=\"tc-edit-field\"><td class=\"tc-edit-field-name\">tags:</td>\n<td class=\"tc-edit-field-value\"><$macrocall $name=compInspect-get-field tiddler=<<__tiddler__>> field=\"tags\" /></td>\n</tr>\n<tr class=\"tc-edit-field\"><td class=\"tc-edit-field-name\">text:</td>\n<td class=\"tc-edit-field-value\"><$macrocall $name=compInspect-get-field tiddler=<<__tiddler__>> field=\"text\" tag=\"textarea\" /></td>\n</tr>\n</tbody>\n</table>\n</div>\n\n<$tiddler tiddler=<<__tiddler__>> >\n<$macrocall $name=\"compInspect-edit-fileds\" commonFields=<<__commonFields__>> />\n</$tiddler>\n\\end\n\n\\define compInspect-get-field(tiddler, field, tag:\"input\") \n<$edit-text class=\"tc-edit-texteditor\" tiddler=<<__tiddler__>> field=<<__field__>> tag=<<__tag__>> default=\"\" placeholder={{$:/language/EditTemplate/Body/Placeholder}}/>\n\\end",
"title": "$:/plugins/kookma/commander/macro/compInspect/edit-preview",
"tags": "$:/tags/Macro",
"modifier": "Mohammad",
"modified": "20190314145449120",
"creator": "Mohammad",
"created": "20190308144706094"
},
"$:/plugins/kookma/commander/macro/compInspect/show-preview": {
"text": "\\define compInspect-show-preview(tiddler, commonFields:\"\")\n<$vars mainFields=\"title tags text\">\n<table class=\"ci-table\">\n<tr><td class=\"leftcol\">title</td>\n<td class=\"rightcol\"><$link to=<<__tiddler__>> ><$text text=<<__tiddler__>> /></$link></td>\n</tr>\n\n<tr><td class=\"leftcol\">tags</td>\n<td style=\"padding:3px;\"><$macrocall $name=showTags tiddler=<<__tiddler__>> /></td>\n</tr>\n<tr><td class=\"leftcol\">text</td>\n<td><$transclude tiddler=<<__tiddler__>> field=\"text\" mode=\"block\"/></td>\n</tr>\n<$list filter=\"[<__tiddler__>fields[]] -[enlist<mainFields>] -[enlist<__commonFields__>]\" variable=\"otherFld\">\n<tr><td class=\"leftcol\"><<otherFld>></td>\n<td class=\"rightcol\"><$transclude tiddler=<<__tiddler__>> field=<<otherFld>> mode=\"inline\"/></td>\n</tr>\n</$list>\n</table>\n</$vars>\n\\end\n\n\\define showTags(tiddler)\n<$list filter=\"[<__tiddler__>tags[]]\" variable=tagItem >\n<$macrocall $name=tag tag=<<tagItem>> />\n</$list>\n\\end\n",
"title": "$:/plugins/kookma/commander/macro/compInspect/show-preview",
"tags": "$:/tags/Macro",
"modifier": "Mohammad",
"modified": "20190314145449121",
"creator": "Mohammad",
"created": "20190308070953891"
},
"$:/plugins/kookma/commander/macro/compSelective": {
"text": "\\define compSelective(filter,tiddler)\n<$vars stateTid=<<state-tiddler-title \"\"\"$tiddler$\"\"\">> >\n<$reveal type=\"nomatch\" state=<<stateTid>> text=\"hide\">\n<$button set=<<stateTid>> setTo=\"hide\"> Select all\n<$action-setfield $tiddler=<<__tiddler__>> $field=\"text\" $value=\"{}\"/>\n<$list filter=<<__filter__>> variable=\"Item\">\n<$action-setfield $tiddler=<<__tiddler__>> $index=<<Item>> $value=\"selected\"/>\n</$list>\n</$button>\n</$reveal>\n\n<$reveal type=\"match\" state=<<stateTid>> text=\"hide\">\n<$button set=<<stateTid>> setTo=\"show\"> Select none\n<$action-setfield $tiddler=<<__tiddler__>> $field=\"text\" $value=\"{}\"/>\n<!-- Clear SNR selection -->\n<$action-setfield $tiddler=\"$:/state/commander/snr/select-tiddler\" $field=\"text\" $value=\"\"/>\n<!-- Clear Inspect selection -->\n<$action-setfield $tiddler=\"$:/state/compInspect/temp/commander/selectState-tiddler\" $field=\"text\" $value=\"\"/>\n</$button>\n</$reveal>\n</$vars>\n<br>\n<i><$count filter=\"[<__tiddler__>indexes[]]\" /> selected</i> <$macrocall $name=\"display\" label=\"Show filter in use\" text={{$:/temp/commander}} />\n<br>\n<$list filter=\"[subfilter<__filter__>] +[sort[title]]\" variable=\"Item\">\n<$checkbox tiddler=<<__tiddler__>> index=<<Item>> checked=\"selected\"> <$link to=<<Item>>><$text text=<<Item>> /></$link></$checkbox><br>\n</$list>\n\n\n\\end\n\n\\define state-tiddler-title(tiddler) $tiddler$-comp-selective\n\n\\define compSelective-reset(filter, tiddler)\n<$action-setfield $tiddler=<<__tiddler__>> $field=\"text\" $value=\"{}\"/>\n<$action-setfield $tiddler=<<state-tiddler-title \"\"\"$tiddler$\"\"\">> $field=\"text\" $value=\"\"/>\n\\end",
"title": "$:/plugins/kookma/commander/macro/compSelective",
"tags": "$:/tags/Macro",
"modifier": "Mohammad",
"modified": "20190315112134222",
"creator": "Mohammad",
"created": "20190301133121124"
},
"$:/plugins/kookma/commander/macro/field-operation": {
"text": "\\define add-new-field-bulk(newField:\"Empty\")\n<$list filter=\"[[$:/temp/commander/selected-titles]indexes[]] +[count[]] -0\" variable=\"ignore\">\n<$list filter=\"[<__newField__>] -Empty\">\n<<create-log-tiddler \"add-new-field-bulk\">>\n<$list filter=\"[[$:/temp/commander/selected-titles]indexes[]] +[!is[missing]] -[has:field[$newField$]]\">\n<$fieldmangler>\n<$action-sendmessage $message=\"tm-add-field\" $param=<<__newField__>> />\n</$fieldmangler>\n<$macrocall $name=\"log-add-single-operation\" msg=\"\"\"new field `$newField$` added\"\"\" tidItem=<<currentTiddler>> />\n</$list>\n<<title-selection-reset>>\n</$list>\n</$list>\n\\end\n\n\\define remove-old-field-bulk(oldField:\"Empty\")\n<$list filter=\"[[$:/temp/commander/selected-titles]indexes[]] +[count[]] -0\" variable=\"ignore\">\n<$list filter=\"[<__oldField__>] -Empty\">\n<<create-log-tiddler \"remove-old-field-bulk\">>\n<$list filter=\"[[$:/temp/commander/selected-titles]indexes[]] +[!is[missing]] +[has:field[$oldField$]]\">\n<$fieldmangler>\n<$action-sendmessage $message=\"tm-remove-field\" $param=<<__oldField__>> />\n</$fieldmangler>\n<$macrocall $name=\"log-add-single-operation\" msg=\"\"\"old field `$oldField$` removed\"\"\" tidItem=<<currentTiddler>> />\n</$list>\n<<title-selection-reset>>\n</$list>\n</$list>\n\\end\n\n\\define set-field-value-bulk(fieldName:\"Empty\", fieldValue:\"Empty\")\n<$list filter=\"[[$:/temp/commander/selected-titles]indexes[]] +[count[]] -0\" variable=\"ignore\">\n<$list filter=\"[<__fieldName__>] -Empty\">\n<$list filter=\"[<__fieldValue__>] -Empty\">\n<<create-log-tiddler \"set-field-value-create-bulk\">>\n<$list filter=\"[[$:/temp/commander/selected-titles]indexes[]] +[!is[missing]] -[$fieldName$[$fieldValue$]]\">\n<$action-setfield $field=<<__fieldName__>> $value=<<__fieldValue__>> />\n<$macrocall $name=\"log-add-single-operation\" msg=\"\"\"field `$fieldName$` got a value\"\"\" tidItem=<<currentTiddler>> />\n</$list>\n<<title-selection-reset>>\n</$list>\n</$list>\n</$list>\n\\end\n\n",
"title": "$:/plugins/kookma/commander/macro/field-operation",
"tags": "$:/tags/Macro",
"modifier": "Mohammad",
"modified": "20190314084019712",
"creator": "Mohammad",
"created": "20190212101155537"
},
"$:/plugins/kookma/commander/macro/filters": {
"text": "\\define create-new-filter(description:\"Empty\")\n<$list filter=\"[<__description__>] -Empty\" variable=\"ignore\">\n<$action-createtiddler \n $basetitle=\"$:/plugins/kookma/commander/filters/yourFilter\"\n tags=\"$:/tags/Commander/Filter\"\n description=<<__description__>>\n filter={{$:/temp/commander/search-box}}\n /> \n</$list>\n\\end\n",
"title": "$:/plugins/kookma/commander/macro/filters",
"tags": "$:/tags/Macro",
"modifier": "Mohammad",
"modified": "20190314115033530",
"creator": "Mohammad",
"created": "20190214142032323"
},
"$:/plugins/kookma/commander/macro/logging": {
"text": "\\define set-title() $:/temp/commander/logs/tid-{{{[tag[$:/tags/Commander/LogOps]count[]add[1]]}}}\n\n\\define create-log-tiddler(msg)\n<$wikify name=\"myTitle\" text=\"\"\"<<set-title>>\"\"\">\n<$wikify name=\"myCaption\" text=\"\"\"<$macrocall $name=\"set-caption\" msg=<<__msg__>> />\"\"\">\n<$action-createtiddler $basetitle=<<myTitle>>\n$savetitle=\"$:/state/commander/log-tiddler\"\ntags=\"$:/tags/Commander/LogOps\"\ntype=\"application/json\"\ncaption=<<__msg__>>\n/>\n</$wikify>\n</$wikify>\n\\end\n\n\\define log-add-single-operation(msg:\"commander operation\", tidItem:\"no item\")\n<$action-setfield $tiddler={{$:/state/commander/log-tiddler}} $index=<<__tidItem__>> $value=\"\"\"$msg$\"\"\" />\n\\end\n\n\n\\define delete-all-log-tiddlers()\n<$action-deletetiddler $filter=\"[tag[$:/tags/Commander/LogOps]]\" />\n\\end",
"title": "$:/plugins/kookma/commander/macro/logging",
"tags": "$:/tags/Macro",
"modifier": "Mohammad",
"modified": "20190222054547204",
"creator": "Mohammad",
"created": "20190221163406469"
},
"$:/plugins/kookma/commander/macro/selection": {
"text": "\\define title-selection-reset()\n<$macrocall $name=\"compSelective-reset\" \ntiddler=\"$:/temp/commander/selected-titles\" \nfilter=\"[subfilter{$:/temp/commander}] +[!is[missing]]\" />\n\\end",
"title": "$:/plugins/kookma/commander/macro/selection",
"tags": "$:/tags/Macro",
"modifier": "Mohammad",
"modified": "20190303055421039",
"creator": "Mohammad",
"created": "20190303055230230"
},
"$:/plugins/kookma/commander/macro/slider": {
"text": "\\define slider-ii(title)\n<$set name=\"revealState\" value=<<qualify \"$:/state-reveal-$title$\">>>\n<h2>\n <$reveal type=\"nomatch\" state=<<revealState>> text=\"yes\">\n <$button class=\"tc-btn-invisible tc-tiddlylink\" set=<<revealState>> setTo=\"yes\">\n {{$:/core/images/right-arrow}}\n </$button>\n </$reveal>\n <$reveal type=\"match\" state=<<revealState>> text=\"yes\">\n <$button class=\"tc-btn-invisible tc-tiddlylink\" set=<<revealState>> setTo=\"no\">\n {{$:/core/images/down-arrow}}\n </$button>\n </$reveal>\n <$view tiddler=\"$title$\" field=\"caption\">\n <$view tiddler=\"$title$\" field=\"title\"></$view>\n </$view>\n \n</h2>\n\n<$reveal type=\"match\" state=<<revealState>> text=\"yes\">\n<$transclude tiddler=\"$title$\" mode=\"block\" />\n</$reveal>\n</$set>\n\\end",
"title": "$:/plugins/kookma/commander/macro/slider",
"tags": "$:/tags/Macro",
"modified": "20190212061921249",
"created": "20190212061854110"
},
"$:/plugins/kookma/commander/macro/snr/ui/inputs": {
"text": "\\define snr-ui-inputs()\n<form class=\"snr-form\">\n <fieldset>\n <legend>Search and Replace</legend>\n\n<div class=\"item\">\n<label>Tiddler title</label>\n<$select tiddler=\"$:/state/commander/snr/select-tiddler\" default=\"\" class=\"snr-textbox\">\n<option value=\"\">None</option>\n\n<$list filter=\"[[$:/temp/commander/selected-titles]indexes[]sort[]]\" >\n<option value=<<currentTiddler>>><$text text=<<currentTiddler>>/></option>\n</$list>\n</$select>\n</div>\n\n<div class=\"item\">\n<label>Field name</label>\n<$select tiddler=\"$:/state/commander/snr/select-tiddler/field\" default=\"text\">\n<$list filter=\"[{$:/state/commander/snr/select-tiddler}fields[]]\">\n<option value=<<currentTiddler>>>field: <$text text=<<currentTiddler>>/></option>\n</$list>\n</$select>\n</div>\n\n<div class=\"item\">\n<label>Search text</label>\n<$edit-text \n tiddler=\"$:/state/commander/snr/replace-text\" \n tag=\"input\" \n default=\"\" \n placeholder=\" text to replace\"\n class=\"snr-textbox\"/>\n</div>\n<div class=\"item\">\n<label>Replace with </label>\n<$edit-text \n tiddler=\"$:/state/commander/snr/replace-text-with\" \n tag=\"input\" \n default=\"\" \n placeholder=\" new text\"\n class=\"snr-textbox\"/>\n</div>\n</fieldset>\n</form>\n\\end",
"title": "$:/plugins/kookma/commander/macro/snr/ui/inputs",
"tags": "$:/tags/Macro",
"modifier": "Mohammad",
"modified": "20190314084019713",
"creator": "Mohammad",
"created": "20190306203626597"
},
"$:/plugins/kookma/commander/macro/snr/ui/regexp-flags": {
"text": "\\define snr-regexp-flags()\n\n<form class=\"snr-form\">\n<fieldset>\n<legend>Search flags</legend>\n\n<$checkbox \n tiddler=\"$:/state/commander/snr/case-sensitive\" \n field=\"text\" \n checked=\"i\" \n unchecked=\"\"\n/> ignore case<br>\n\n<$checkbox \n tiddler=\"$:/state/commander/snr/whole-words\" \n field=\"text\" \n checked=\"words\" \n unchecked=\"characters\"\n/> whole words<br>\n\n<br>\n\n<$radio\n tiddler=\"$:/state/commander/snr/gm\" \n field=\"text\" \n value=\"g\"> global match\n</$radio><br>\n\n<$radio\n tiddler=\"$:/state/commander/snr/gm\" \n field=\"text\" \n value=\"m\"> multiline mode\n</$radio><br>\n\n<$radio\n tiddler=\"$:/state/commander/snr/gm\" \n field=\"text\" \n value=\"\"> first match \n</$radio>\n\n</fieldset>\n</form>\n\\end",
"title": "$:/plugins/kookma/commander/macro/snr/ui/regexp-flags",
"tags": "$:/tags/Macro",
"modifier": "Mohammad",
"modified": "20190314200302824",
"creator": "Mohammad",
"created": "20190306182052441"
},
"$:/plugins/kookma/commander/macro/tag-operation": {
"text": "\\define add-new-tag-bulk(newTag:\"Empty\")\n<$list filter=\"[[$:/temp/commander/selected-titles]indexes[]] +[count[]] -0\" variable=\"ignore\">\n<$list filter=\"[<__newTag__>] -Empty\" variable=null>\n<<create-log-tiddler \"add-new-tag-bulk\">>\n<$list filter=\"[[$:/temp/commander/selected-titles]indexes[]] +[!is[missing]] -[<__newTag__>tagging[]]\">\n<$fieldmangler>\n<$action-sendmessage $message=\"tm-add-tag\" $param=<<__newTag__>> />\n</$fieldmangler>\n<$macrocall $name=\"log-add-single-operation\" msg=\"\"\"new tag `$newTag$` added\"\"\" tidItem=<<currentTiddler>> />\n</$list>\n<<title-selection-reset>>\n</$list>\n</$list>\n\\end\n\n\\define remove-old-tag-bulk(oldTag:\"Empty\")\n<$list filter=\"[[$:/temp/commander/selected-titles]indexes[]] +[count[]] -0\" variable=ignore>\n<$list filter=\"[<__oldTag__>] -Empty\" variable=null>\n<<create-log-tiddler \"remove-old-tag-bulk\">>\n<$list filter=\"[[$:/temp/commander/selected-titles]indexes[]] +[!is[missing]] +[tag<__oldTag__>]\">\n<$fieldmangler>\n<$action-sendmessage $message=\"tm-remove-tag\" $param=<<__oldTag__>> />\n</$fieldmangler>\n<$macrocall $name=\"log-add-single-operation\" msg=\"\"\"old tag `$oldTag$` removed\"\"\" tidItem=<<currentTiddler>> />\n</$list>\n<<title-selection-reset>>\n</$list>\n</$list>\n\\end\n\n\n\\define replace-tag-bulk(oldTag:\"Empty\", newTag:\"Empty\")\n<$list filter=\"[[$:/temp/commander/selected-titles]indexes[]] +[count[]] -0\" variable=\"ignore\">\n<$list filter=\"[<__oldTag__>] -Empty\" variable=null>\n<$list filter=\"[<__newTag__>] -Empty\" variable=null>\n<<create-log-tiddler \"replace-tag-bulk\">>\n<$list filter=\"[[$:/temp/commander/selected-titles]indexes[]] +[!is[missing]] +[<__oldTag__>tagging[]]\">\n<$fieldmangler>\n<$action-sendmessage $message=\"tm-add-tag\" $param=<<__newTag__>> />\n<$action-sendmessage $message=\"tm-remove-tag\" $param=<<__oldTag__>> />\n</$fieldmangler>\n<$macrocall $name=\"log-add-single-operation\" msg=\"\"\"tag `$oldTag$` replaced with `$newTag$`\"\"\" tidItem=<<currentTiddler>> />\n</$list>\n<<title-selection-reset>>\n</$list>\n</$list>\n</$list>\n\\end\n\n",
"title": "$:/plugins/kookma/commander/macro/tag-operation",
"tags": "$:/tags/Macro",
"modifier": "Mohammad",
"modified": "20190314084019714",
"creator": "Mohammad",
"created": "20190212063435548"
},
"$:/plugins/kookma/commander/macro/tiddler-operation/create": {
"text": "\\define log-create(msg:\"Tiddler existed, operation ignored\")\n<$action-setfield $tiddler={{$:/state/commander/log-tiddler}} $index=\"$(newTitle)$\" $value=\"$msg$\" />\n\\end\n\n\\define bulk-tiddler-creator(baseTitle, baseTags, numberTiddler)\n<<create-log-tiddler \"bulk-tiddler-creator\">>\n<$list filter=\"[range[9]addprefix[00]] [range[10,99]addprefix[0]] [range[100,500]] +[limit<__numberTiddler__>]\" variable=\"L1\">\n<$list filter=\"[<__baseTitle__>addsuffix<L1>]\" variable=\"newTitle\">\n<$list filter=\"[<newTitle>] -[has[title]]\" variable=\"ignore\" emptyMessage=<<log-create>> >\n<$action-createtiddler $basetitle=<<newTitle>> tags=<<__baseTags__>> /> \n<<log-create \"Tiddler created\">>\n</$list>\n</$list>\n</$list>\n\\end\n\n\\define oneTid-with-template(myTitle, myTags, myTemplate)\n<$tiddler tiddler=<<__myTitle__>> >\n <$action-setfield \n $tiddler=<<__myTemplate__>> \n title=<<currentTiddler>> /> \n <$fieldmangler>\n <$list filter=\"[enlist<__myTags__>]\" variable=newTag>\n <$action-sendmessage $message=\"tm-add-tag\" $param=<<newTag>> />\n </$list>\n <$action-sendmessage $message=\"tm-remove-tag\" $param=\"$:/tags/Commander/Template\" />\n</$fieldmangler>\n</$tiddler>\n\\end\n\n\n\\define bulk-tiddler-with-template-creator(baseTitle, baseTags, numberTiddler, template)\n<<create-log-tiddler \"bulk-tiddler-creator with template\">>\n<$list filter=\"[range[9]addprefix[00]] [range[10,99]addprefix[0]] [range[100,500]] +[limit<__numberTiddler__>]\" variable=\"L1\">\n<$list filter=\"[<__baseTitle__>addsuffix<L1>]\" variable=\"newTitle\">\n<$list filter=\"[<newTitle>] -[has[title]]\" variable=\"ignore\" emptyMessage=<<log-create>>>\n<$macrocall $name=\"oneTid-with-template\" \n myTitle=<<newTitle>> \n myTags=<<__baseTags__>> \n myTemplate=<<__template__>>\n />\n <<log-create \"Tiddler created\">>\n</$list>\n</$list>\n</$list>\n\\end\n\n",
"title": "$:/plugins/kookma/commander/macro/tiddler-operation/create",
"tags": "$:/tags/Macro",
"modifier": "Mohammad",
"modified": "20190309153848588",
"creator": "Mohammad",
"created": "20190212125920722"
},
"$:/plugins/kookma/commander/macro/tiddler-operation/delete": {
"text": "\\define log-delete-selectively(item, msg:\"Tiddler deleted\")\n<$action-setfield $tiddler={{$:/state/commander/log-tiddler}} $index=<<__item__>> $value=\"$msg$\" />\n\\end\n\n\\define delete-tiddlers-selective-bulk()\n<$list filter=\"[[$:/temp/commander/selected-titles]indexes[]] +[count[]] -0\" variable=\"ignore\">\n<<create-log-tiddler \"delete-tiddler-selectively\">>\n<$list filter=\"[[$:/temp/commander/selected-titles]indexes[]]\" variable=\"Item\">\n<$action-deletetiddler $tiddler=<<Item>> />\n<$macrocall $name=\"log-delete-selectively\" item=<<Item>> />\n</$list>\n<<title-selection-reset>>\n</$list>\n\\end",
"title": "$:/plugins/kookma/commander/macro/tiddler-operation/delete",
"tags": "$:/tags/Macro",
"modifier": "Mohammad",
"modified": "20190314084019714",
"creator": "Mohammad",
"created": "20190215195221625"
},
"$:/plugins/kookma/commander/macro/title-operation/prefix": {
"text": "\\define log-changePrefix(message, oldTitle, newTitle)\n<$macrocall $name=\"log-add-single-operation\" msg=\"\"\"$message$. New title [[$newTitle$]]\"\"\" tidItem=<<__oldTitle__>> />\n\\end\n\n\\define addPrefix-to-tiltle-bulk(prefix:\"Empty\")\n<$list filter=\"[[$:/temp/commander/selected-titles]indexes[]] +[count[]] -0\" variable=\"ignore\">\n<$list filter=\"[<__prefix__>] -Empty\" variable=null>\n<<create-log-tiddler \"addPrefix-to-tiltle-bulk\">>\n<$list filter=\"[[$:/temp/commander/selected-titles]indexes[]] +[!is[missing]]\">\n<$list filter=\"\"\"[<currentTiddler>addprefix[$prefix$]] -[<currentTiddler>]\"\"\" variable=\"newTitle\">\n<$list filter=\"[<newTitle>] -[has[title]]\" variable=\"ignore\">\n <$action-setfield $tiddler=<<currentTiddler>> title=<<newTitle>> />\n <$action-deletetiddler $tiddler=<<currentTiddler>> />\n <$macrocall $name=log-changePrefix message=\"title prefix: `$prefix$` added\" oldTitle=<<currentTiddler>> newTitle=<<newTitle>> />\n</$list>\n</$list>\n<<title-selection-reset>>\n</$list>\n</$list>\n</$list>\n\\end\n\n\\define removePrefix-from-tiltle-bulk(prefix:\"Empty\")\n<$list filter=\"[[$:/temp/commander/selected-titles]indexes[]] +[count[]] -0\" variable=\"ignore\">\n<$list filter=\"[<__prefix__>] -Empty\" variable=null>\n<<create-log-tiddler \"removePrefix-from-tiltle-bulk\">>\n<$list filter=\"[[$:/temp/commander/selected-titles]indexes[]] +[!is[missing]]\">\n<$list filter=\"\"\"[<currentTiddler>removeprefix[$prefix$]] -[<currentTiddler>]\"\"\" variable=\"newTitle\">\n<$list filter=\"[<newTitle>] -[has[title]]\" variable=\"ignore\">\n <$action-setfield $tiddler=<<currentTiddler>> title=<<newTitle>> />\n <$action-deletetiddler $tiddler=<<currentTiddler>> />\n <$macrocall $name=log-changePrefix message=\"title prefix: `$prefix$` removed\" oldTitle=<<currentTiddler>> newTitle=<<newTitle>> />\n</$list> \n</$list>\n<<title-selection-reset>>\n</$list>\n</$list>\n</$list>\n\\end\n",
"title": "$:/plugins/kookma/commander/macro/title-operation/prefix",
"tags": "$:/tags/Macro",
"modifier": "Mohammad",
"modified": "20190314084019715",
"creator": "Mohammad",
"created": "20190212122742891"
},
"$:/plugins/kookma/commander/macro/title-operation/remove-cahrs-end": {
"text": "\\define suffix-actions2()\n<$list filter=\"[[$:/temp/commander/selected-titles]indexes[]] +[prefix<sfx>]\" variable=\"item\">\n <$action-setfield $tiddler=<<item>> title=<<sfx>> />\n <$action-deletetiddler $tiddler=<<item>> />\n <$macrocall $name=\"log-add-single-operation\" msg=\"\"\"characters removed from end. New title [[$(sfx)$]]\"\"\" tidItem=<<item>> />\n</$list>\n\\end\n\n\n\\define makelink2() [[$(newTitle)$]]\n\n\\define generate-suffixes2(n:\"0\")\n<$list filter=\"[<__n__>] -0\" variable=null>\n<$list filter=\"[[$:/temp/commander/selected-titles]indexes[]] +[!is[missing]]\" variable=\"item\">\n<$list filter=\"\"\"[<item>split[]butlast[$n$]join[]trim[]]\"\"\" variable=\"newTitle\">\n<$text text=<<makelink2>>/>\n</$list>\n</$list>\n</$list>\n\\end\n\n\\define remove-chars-from-end-tiltle-bulk(num:\"0\")\n<$list filter=\"[[$:/temp/commander/selected-titles]indexes[]] +[count[]] -0\" variable=\"ignore\">\n<$list filter=\"[<__num__>] -0\" variable=null>\n<<create-log-tiddler \"remove-chars-from-end-tiltle-bulk\">>\n<$vars n=<<__num__>> >\n<$wikify text=\"\"\"<<generate-suffixes2 n:\"$num$\">>\"\"\" name=\"outputs\">\n <$list filter=\"[subfilter<outputs>]\" variable=\"sfx\">\n<$list filter=\"[[$:/temp/commander/selected-titles]indexes[]] +[prefix<sfx>limit[2]count[]regexp[2]]\" emptyMessage=<<suffix-actions2>> variable=\"cnt\">\n</$list>\n</$list>\n</$wikify>\n</$vars>\n<<title-selection-reset>>\n</$list>\n</$list>\n\\end\n",
"title": "$:/plugins/kookma/commander/macro/title-operation/remove-cahrs-end",
"tags": "$:/tags/Macro",
"modifier": "Mohammad",
"modified": "20190314084019715",
"creator": "Mohammad",
"created": "20190218190318901"
},
"$:/plugins/kookma/commander/macro/title-operation/remove-cahrs-start": {
"text": "\\define suffix-actions()\n<$list filter=\"[[$:/temp/commander/selected-titles]indexes[]] +[suffix<sfx>]\" variable=\"item\">\n <$action-setfield $tiddler=<<item>> title=<<sfx>> />\n <$action-deletetiddler $tiddler=<<item>> />\n <$macrocall $name=\"log-add-single-operation\" msg=\"\"\"characters removed from start. New title [[$(sfx)$]]\"\"\" tidItem=<<item>> />\n</$list>\n\\end\n\n\n\\define makelink() [[$(newTitle)$]]\n\n\\define generate-suffixes(n:\"0\")\n<$list filter=\"[<__n__>] -0\" variable=null>\n<$list filter=\"[[$:/temp/commander/selected-titles]indexes[]] +[has[title]]\" variable=\"item\">\n<$list filter=\"\"\"[<item>split[]rest[$n$]join[]trim[]]\"\"\" variable=\"newTitle\">\n<$text text=<<makelink>>/>\n</$list>\n</$list>\n</$list>\n\\end\n\n\\define remove-chars-from-begining-tiltle-bulk(num:\"0\")\n<$list filter=\"[[$:/temp/commander/selected-titles]indexes[]] +[count[]] -0\" variable=\"ignore\">\n<$list filter=\"[<__num__>] -0\" variable=null>\n<<create-log-tiddler \"remove-chars-from-begining-tiltle-bulk\">>\n<$vars n=<<__num__>> >\n<$wikify text=\"\"\"<<generate-suffixes n:\"$num$\">>\"\"\" name=\"outputs\">\n <$list filter=\"[subfilter<outputs>]\" variable=\"sfx\">\n <$list filter=\"[[$:/temp/commander/selected-titles]indexes[]] +[suffix<sfx>limit[2]count[]regexp[2]]\" \n emptyMessage=<<suffix-actions>> variable=\"cnt\">\n </$list>\n </$list>\n</$wikify>\n</$vars>\n<<title-selection-reset>>\n</$list>\n</$list>\n\\end\n",
"title": "$:/plugins/kookma/commander/macro/title-operation/remove-cahrs-start",
"tags": "$:/tags/Macro",
"modifier": "Mohammad",
"modified": "20190314084019716",
"creator": "Mohammad",
"created": "20190218214608685"
},
"$:/plugins/kookma/commander/macro/title-operation/suffix": {
"text": "\\define log-changeSuffix(message, oldTitle, newTitle)\n<$macrocall $name=\"log-add-single-operation\" msg=\"\"\"$message$. New title [[$newTitle$]]\"\"\" tidItem=<<__oldTitle__>> />\n\\end\n\n\\define addSuffix-to-tiltle-bulk(suffix:\"Empty\")\n<$list filter=\"[<__suffix__>] -Empty\" variable=null>\n<$list filter=\"[[$:/temp/commander/selected-titles]indexes[]] +[count[]] -0\" variable=\"ignore\">\n<<create-log-tiddler \"addSufffix-to-tiltle-bulk\">>\n<$list filter=\"[[$:/temp/commander/selected-titles]indexes[]] +[!is[missing]]\">\n<$list filter=\"\"\"[<currentTiddler>addsuffix[$suffix$]] -[<currentTiddler>]\"\"\" variable=\"newTitle\">\n<$list filter=\"[<newTitle>] -[has[title]]\" variable=\"ignore\">\n <$action-setfield $tiddler=<<currentTiddler>> title=<<newTitle>> />\n <$action-deletetiddler $tiddler=<<currentTiddler>> />\n <$macrocall $name=log-changeSuffix message=\"title suffix: `$suffix$` added\" oldTitle=<<currentTiddler>> newTitle=<<newTitle>> />\n</$list>\n</$list>\n<$macrocall $name=\"compSelective-reset\" tiddler=\"$:/temp/commander/selected-titles\" filter=\"[subfilter{$:/temp/commander}] +[!is[missing]]\" />\n</$list>\n</$list>\n</$list>\n\\end\n\n\\define removeSuffix-from-tiltle-bulk(suffix:\"Empty\")\n<$list filter=\"[<__suffix__>] -Empty\" variable=null>\n<$list filter=\"[[$:/temp/commander/selected-titles]indexes[]] +[count[]] -0\" variable=\"ignore\">\n<<create-log-tiddler \"removeSuffix-from-tiltle-bulk\">>\n<$list filter=\"[[$:/temp/commander/selected-titles]indexes[]] +[!is[missing]]\">\n<$list filter=\"\"\"[<currentTiddler>removesuffix[$suffix$]] -[<currentTiddler>]\"\"\" variable=\"newTitle\">\n<$list filter=\"[<newTitle>] -[has[title]]\" variable=\"ignore\">\n <$action-setfield $tiddler=<<currentTiddler>> title=<<newTitle>> />\n <$action-deletetiddler $tiddler=<<currentTiddler>> />\n <$macrocall $name=log-changeSuffix message=\"title suffix: `$suffix$` removed\" oldTitle=<<currentTiddler>> newTitle=<<newTitle>> />\n</$list>\n</$list>\n<$macrocall $name=\"compSelective-reset\" tiddler=\"$:/temp/commander/selected-titles\" filter=\"[subfilter{$:/temp/commander}] +[!is[missing]]\" />\n</$list>\n</$list>\n</$list>\n\\end\n",
"title": "$:/plugins/kookma/commander/macro/title-operation/suffix",
"tags": "$:/tags/Macro",
"modifier": "Mohammad",
"modified": "20190314084019716",
"creator": "Mohammad",
"created": "20190212143639636"
},
"$:/plugins/kookma/commander/setting/delete-all-temp-tiddlers": {
"text": "\\define delete-all-temps()\n<$action-deletetiddler $filter=\"[search:title[$:/temp/commander/]]\" />\n\\end\n\n<$set name=numTids value={{{ [search:title[$:/temp/commander/]count[]] }}}>\n<$reveal type=\"match\" text=\"0\" default=<<numTids>> >\nNo temporary tiddlers is existed to delete!\n</$reveal>\n<$reveal type=\"gt\" text=\"0\" default=<<numTids>> >\nNumber of temporary tiddlers (including log tiddlers): <<numTids>><br>\n</$reveal>\n</$set>\n\n<$macrocall $name=\"compConfirmDelete\"\nbtnLabel=\"Delete temp tiddlers\" \nconfirmMessage=\"Are you sure you wish to delete\"\nstateTiddler=\"$:/state/commander/setting/delete-temps\"\ncountFilter=\"[search:title[$:/temp/commander/]]\"\nactionMacro=\"delete-all-temps\"/>",
"title": "$:/plugins/kookma/commander/setting/delete-all-temp-tiddlers",
"tags": "$:/tags/Commander/Setting",
"modifier": "Mohammad",
"modified": "20190315065343256",
"creator": "Mohammad",
"created": "20190301184304348",
"caption": "Temporary tiddlers"
},
"$:/plugins/kookma/commander/snr/usage": {
"text": "!! Setup UI\n<<<\nSimply put the below command inside an empty tiddler\n\n```\n<<replace-text-ui>>\n```\n<<<\n\n!! How to use?\n<<<\n* Enter a search filter in ''Filter search'' box like `[tag[myTag]]`\n* From ''Filter title'' drop down menu select a tiddler\n* From ''Field name'' drop down menu select a tiddler field like `text`\n* In the ''Search text'' type the search term for example `this`\n* In the ''Replace with'' type the term you want to replace with like `that`\n*Check the ''Differences'' and if you are satisfied with the result, press the `Replace?` button\n<<<\n\n!! Special characters\n<<<\nAs `SNR` uses ''regexp'' pattern to make search and replace, when special characters are used in the ''Search text'' box, they shall be escaped among them are `*`, `+`, `[`, ...\nTo use these characters do like below\n\n```\n\\[ \\* \\+\n```\n<<<\n\n!! Warning\n<<<\n* SNR replace the contents of tiddlers. //The action can not be undone//. So always make a backup before performing any replace action\n* It is not possible to selectively replace some occurrences and ignore some others in one run! That means you cannot skip some occurrences. \n<<<",
"title": "$:/plugins/kookma/commander/snr/usage",
"tags": "",
"modifier": "Mohammad",
"modified": "20190307113435934",
"creator": "Mohammad",
"created": "20190307104654008"
},
"$:/plugins/kookma/commander/stylesheet/compInspect/table": {
"text": "/*compInspect table*/\n.ci-table\n{border-collapse: collapse;}\n\n.ci-table .leftcol{\nwidth:20%;\nvertical-align: top;\ntext-align: right;\nbackground-color:#f0f0f0;\n}\n.ci-table .rightcol{\nwidth:650px;\n}\n",
"type": "text/css",
"title": "$:/plugins/kookma/commander/stylesheet/compInspect/table",
"tags": "$:/tags/Stylesheet",
"modifier": "Mohammad",
"modified": "20190314145449123",
"creator": "Mohammad",
"created": "20190308134702363"
},
"$:/plugins/kookma/commander/stylesheet/snr/flexbox": {
"text": ".snr-row {\n display: flex;\n flex-direction: row;\n flex-wrap: wrap;\n width: 100%;\n}\n.snr-column {\n display: flex;\n flex-direction: column;\n flex-basis: 100%;\n flex: 1\n}\n\n.snr-double-column {\n display: flex;\n flex-direction: column;\n flex-basis: 100%;\n flex: 2\n}\n\n@media screen and (min-width: 800px) {\n .snr-column {\n flex: 1\n }\n\n .snr-double-column {\n flex: 2\n }\n}",
"type": "text/css",
"title": "$:/plugins/kookma/commander/stylesheet/snr/flexbox",
"tags": "$:/tags/Stylesheet",
"modifier": "Mohammad",
"modified": "20190307151712610",
"creator": "Mohammad",
"created": "20190306203517655"
},
"$:/plugins/kookma/commander/stylesheet/snr/form": {
"text": ".snr-form{\n width:100%;\n}\n\n.snr-textbox {\n width:100%;\n box-sizing: border-box;\n max-width:40ch;\n }\n\n.snr-form select, .snr-form input{\n margin: 0.2rem;\n}\n.snr-form legend{\n background: #f5f5f5;\n padding: 3px 6px;\n}\n\n.snr-form { padding:20px; }\n.snr-form .item { padding: 2px; margin:2px; }\n.snr-form .item label { display:inline-block; width:100px; margin-left:5px; }\n.snr-form .item input { display:inline-block; }\n.snr-form .item select { display:inline-block; }\n\n\n\n ",
"type": "text/css",
"title": "$:/plugins/kookma/commander/stylesheet/snr/form",
"tags": "$:/tags/Stylesheet",
"modifier": "Mohammad",
"modified": "20190307151724333",
"creator": "Mohammad",
"created": "20190306191714819"
},
"$:/plugins/kookma/commander/stylesheet/tabs": {
"text": "/* .cm-tab-colorful .tc-tab-buttons button {color:blue;} */\n.cm-tab-colorful .tc-tab-buttons button.tc-tab-selected {\n background: none;\n border: none;\n border-bottom: solid 1px #737373 !important;\n font-weight: bold;\n color: #DB4C3F !important;\n}\n\n.cm-tab-wd .tc-tab-buttons button{\n width:140px;\n}",
"type": "text/css",
"title": "$:/plugins/kookma/commander/stylesheet/tabs",
"tags": "$:/tags/Stylesheet",
"modifier": "Mohammad",
"modified": "20190314214724200",
"creator": "Mohammad",
"created": "20190212114811859"
},
"$:/plugins/kookma/commander/stylesheet/text-area": {
"text": ".cm-txt-area{\n width:30ch !important;\n}\n.cm-small-txt-area{\n width:10ch !important;\n}",
"type": "text/css",
"title": "$:/plugins/kookma/commander/stylesheet/text-area",
"tags": "$:/tags/Stylesheet",
"modifier": "Mohammad",
"modified": "20190213153154659",
"creator": "Mohammad",
"created": "20190212071143632"
},
"$:/plugins/kookma/commander/ui/field-operation": {
"text": "<<tabs \"[all[shadows+tiddlers]tag[$:/tags/Commander/FieldOps]!has[draft.of]]\" \"$:/plugins/kookma/commander/ui/title-operation\" class:\"tc-vertical cm-tab-colorful cm-tab-wd\">>\n\n",
"title": "$:/plugins/kookma/commander/ui/field-operation",
"tags": "$:/tags/Commander",
"modifier": "Mohammad",
"modified": "20190309032149130",
"creator": "Mohammad",
"created": "20190212061551615",
"caption": "Field"
},
"$:/plugins/kookma/commander/ui/help": {
"text": "<<tabs \"[all[shadows+tiddlers]tag[$:/tags/Commander/Help]!has[draft.of]]\" class:\"tc-vertical cm-tab-colorful cm-tab-wd\">>\n\n\n",
"title": "$:/plugins/kookma/commander/ui/help",
"tags": "$:/tags/Commander",
"modifier": "Mohammad",
"modified": "20190314050125065",
"icon": "$:/core/images/help",
"creator": "Mohammad",
"created": "20190314050052494",
"caption": "Help"
},
"$:/plugins/kookma/commander/ui/inspection": {
"text": "<<tabs \"[all[shadows+tiddlers]tag[$:/tags/Commander/InspectOps]!has[draft.of]]\" class:\"tc-vertical cm-tab-colorful cm-tab-wd\">>\n",
"title": "$:/plugins/kookma/commander/ui/inspection",
"tags": "$:/tags/Commander",
"modifier": "Mohammad",
"modified": "20190313075927970",
"creator": "Mohammad",
"created": "20190313075823496",
"caption": "Inspect"
},
"$:/plugins/kookma/commander/ui/inspectops/Inspection": {
"text": "<$macrocall \n $name=compInspect\n filter=\"[[$:/temp/commander/selected-titles]indexes[]sort[]]\"\n stateTiddler=\"temp/commander\"\n/>",
"title": "$:/plugins/kookma/commander/ui/inspectops/Inspection",
"tags": "$:/tags/Commander/InspectOps",
"modifier": "Mohammad",
"modified": "20190314121603117",
"creator": "Mohammad",
"created": "20190313080119081",
"caption": "Inspect"
},
"$:/plugins/kookma/commander/ui/log-status": {
"text": "<div class=\"alert-info\" style=\"padding:5px;font-size:0.90em;\">\n<$button class=\"tc-btn-invisible tc-tiddlylink\" actions=<<delete-all-log-tiddlers>>>Clear log</$button>\n<$set name=\"resultCount\" value=\"\"\"<$count filter=\"[tag[$:/tags/Commander/LogOps]]\" />\"\"\">\n<div class=\"tc-search-results\">\n<span style=\"font-style:italic; font-size:small;\">Recent number of operations: <<resultCount>></span><br>\n<$list filter=\"[tag[$:/tags/Commander/LogOps]] +[!sort[created]]\" variable=\"logTid\">\n<b><$view tiddler=<<logTid>> field=\"created\" format=\"date\" template=\"YYYY-0MM-0DD 0hh:0mm:0ss\"/> \n<$view tiddler=<<logTid>> field=\"caption\">\n <$view tiddler=<<logTid>> field=\"title\"></$view>\n</$view>\n</b>\n<ol><$list filter=\"[<logTid>indexes[]]\" variable=\"item\">\n<li><$link to=<<item>>><<item>></$link>\n<$set name=\"myItem\" tiddler=<<logTid>> index=<<item>> >\n<$list filter=\"[<myItem>!search[existed]]\" variable=\"ignore\" \n emptyMessage=\"\"\"<span style=\"color:red;\"><<myItem>></span>\"\"\" >\n<span style=\"color:green;\"><<myItem>></span>\n</$list>\n</$set>\n</li>\n</$list></ol>\n</$list>\n</div>\n</$set>\n</div>",
"title": "$:/plugins/kookma/commander/ui/log-status",
"tags": "",
"modifier": "Mohammad",
"modified": "20190315064616026",
"creator": "Mohammad",
"created": "20190221152805807",
"caption": "Log status"
},
"$:/plugins/kookma/commander/ui/search": {
"text": "<div class=\"tc-search tc-advanced-search\">\nSearch via filter <$edit-text tiddler=\"$:/temp/commander/search-box\" type=\"search\" tag=\"input\" default=\"\" placeholder=\"filter search\" focus={{$:/plugins/kookma/commander/config/AutoFocus}}/>\n<$list filter=\"[all[shadows+tiddlers]tag[$:/tags/Commander/Search/FilterButton]]\">\n<$transclude/>\n</$list>\n<br>\n<small style=\"margin-left:17ch;\"><i><$count filter=\"[subfilter{$:/temp/commander/search-box}]\"/> matches \n<span style=\"color:red;\">\n<$macrocall $name=is-filterSeearch-newer-than-selectedTitles\nTidB=\"$:/temp/commander/search-box\"\nTidA=\"$:/temp/commander\"/></span>\n</i></small>\n</div>\n",
"title": "$:/plugins/kookma/commander/ui/search",
"tags": "",
"modifier": "Mohammad",
"modified": "20190315113802092",
"creator": "Mohammad",
"created": "20190212055219117",
"caption": "Commander filter search"
},
"$:/plugins/kookma/commander/ui/search/filter-button/clear": {
"text": "<$reveal state=\"$:/temp/commander/search-box\" type=\"nomatch\" text=\"\">\n<$button class=\"tc-btn-invisible\" tooltip=\"clear search box and selected tiddlers\">\n<$action-setfield $tiddler=\"$:/temp/commander/search-box\" $field=\"text\" $value=\"\"/>\n<$action-setfield $tiddler=\"$:/temp/commander\" $field=\"text\" $value=\"\"/>\n<$action-setfield $tiddler=\"$:/temp/commander/selected-titles\" $field=\"text\" $value=\"{}\"/>\n<$action-setfield $tiddler=\"$:/state/commander/snr/select-tiddler\" $field=\"text\" $value=\"\"/><!-- SNR selection -->\n<$action-setfield $tiddler=\"$:/state/compInspect/temp/commander/selectState-tiddler\" $field=\"text\" $value=\"\"/> <!-- Inspect selection -->\n{{$:/core/images/close-button}}\n</$button>\n</$reveal>",
"title": "$:/plugins/kookma/commander/ui/search/filter-button/clear",
"tags": "$:/tags/Commander/Search/FilterButton",
"modifier": "Mohammad",
"modified": "20190315113214388",
"creator": "Mohammad",
"created": "20190214132946159"
},
"$:/plugins/kookma/commander/ui/search/filter-button/dropdown": {
"text": "<span class=\"tc-popup-keep\">\n<$button popup=<<qualify \"$:/state/commander/filterDropdown\">> class=\"tc-btn-invisible\" tooltip=\"select a search filter\">\n{{$:/core/images/down-arrow}}\n</$button>\n</span>\n\n<$reveal state=<<qualify \"$:/state/commander/filterDropdown\">> type=\"popup\" position=\"belowleft\" animate=\"yes\">\n<$set name=\"tv-show-missing-links\" value=\"yes\">\n<$linkcatcher to=\"$:/temp/commander/search-box\">\n<div class=\"tc-block-dropdown-wrapper\">\n<div class=\"tc-block-dropdown tc-edit-type-dropdown\">\n<$list filter=\"[all[shadows+tiddlers]tag[$:/tags/Commander/Filter]]\"><$link to={{!!filter}}><$transclude field=\"description\"/></$link>\n</$list>\n</div>\n</div>\n</$linkcatcher>\n</$set>\n</$reveal>\n",
"title": "$:/plugins/kookma/commander/ui/search/filter-button/dropdown",
"tags": "$:/tags/Commander/Search/FilterButton",
"modifier": "Mohammad",
"modified": "20190314114652123",
"creator": "Mohammad",
"created": "20190214133424013"
},
"$:/plugins/kookma/commander/ui/search/filter-button/save": {
"text": "<$reveal state=\"$:/temp/commander/search-box\" type=\"nomatch\" text=\"\">\n<$button class=\"tc-btn-invisible\" tooltip=\"save current search\" popup=<<qualify \"$:/state/commander/SaveDropdown\">> >\n{{$:/core/images/file}}\n</$button>\n</$reveal>\n\n<$reveal state=<<qualify \"$:/state/commander/SaveDropdown\">> type=\"popup\" class=\"tc-popup-keep\" position=\"belowleft\" animate=\"yes\">\n<div class=\"tc-block-dropdown-wrapper\">\n<div class=\"tc-block-dropdown tc-edit-type-dropdown\">\n<div class=\"tc-dropdown-item-plain\">\nSave new search filter<br><br>\n<$edit-text\ntiddler=\"$:/temp/commander/save-new-filter\"\ntag=\"input\"\ndefault=\"\"\nclass=\"cm-txt-area\"\nplaceholder=\"description for new filter\"\n/> \n\n<$button class=\"tc-btn\"> Save new filter\n<$macrocall $name=\"create-new-filter\" description={{$:/temp/commander/save-new-filter}} />\n<$action-deletetiddler $tiddler=\"$:/temp/commander/save-new-filter\"/>\n</$button>\n</div>\n</div>\n</$reveal>",
"title": "$:/plugins/kookma/commander/ui/search/filter-button/save",
"tags": "$:/tags/Commander/Search/FilterButton",
"modifier": "Mohammad",
"modified": "20190314115119075",
"creator": "Mohammad",
"created": "20190214141644228"
},
"$:/plugins/kookma/commander/ui/search/filter-button/search": {
"text": "<$reveal state=\"$:/temp/commander/search-box\" type=\"nomatch\" text=\"\">\n<$button class=\"tc-btn-invisible\" tooltip=\"apply filter search\">\n<$action-setfield $tiddler=\"$:/temp/commander\" $field=\"text\" $value={{$:/temp/commander/search-box}} />\n<$action-setfield $tiddler=\"$:/temp/commander/selected-titles\" $field=\"text\" $value=\"{}\"/>\n{{$:/core/images/advanced-search-button}}\n</$button>\n</$reveal>",
"title": "$:/plugins/kookma/commander/ui/search/filter-button/search",
"tags": "$:/tags/Commander/Search/FilterButton",
"modifier": "Mohammad",
"modified": "20190315062520107",
"creator": "Mohammad",
"created": "20190314111817036"
},
"$:/plugins/kookma/commander/ui/setting": {
"text": "<<tabs \"[all[shadows+tiddlers]tag[$:/tags/Commander/Setting]!has[draft.of]]\" class:\"tc-vertical cm-tab-colorful cm-tab-wd\">>\n",
"title": "$:/plugins/kookma/commander/ui/setting",
"tags": "$:/tags/Commander",
"modifier": "Mohammad",
"modified": "20190314215944671",
"icon": "$:/core/images/options-button",
"creator": "Mohammad",
"created": "20190214140835173",
"caption": "Setting"
},
"$:/plugins/kookma/commander/ui/tag-operation": {
"text": "<<tabs \"[all[shadows+tiddlers]tag[$:/tags/Commander/TagOps]!has[draft.of]]\" \"$:/plugins/kookma/commander/ui/title-operation\" class:\"tc-vertical cm-tab-colorful cm-tab-wd\">>\n\n",
"title": "$:/plugins/kookma/commander/ui/tag-operation",
"tags": "$:/tags/Commander",
"modifier": "Mohammad",
"modified": "20190309032133992",
"creator": "Mohammad",
"created": "20190212051852003",
"caption": "Tag"
},
"$:/plugins/kookma/commander/ui/tiddler-operation": {
"text": "<<tabs \"[all[shadows+tiddlers]tag[$:/tags/Commander/TiddlerOps]!has[draft.of]]\" class:\"tc-vertical cm-tab-colorful cm-tab-wd\">>\n",
"title": "$:/plugins/kookma/commander/ui/tiddler-operation",
"tags": "$:/tags/Commander",
"modifier": "Mohammad",
"modified": "20190314211439469",
"creator": "Mohammad",
"created": "20190212125319261",
"caption": "Tiddler"
},
"$:/plugins/kookma/commander/ui/tiddler-selection": {
"text": "<div style=\"font-size:small; border-left:0.5px solid grey;padding-left:10px;\">\n<$list filter=\"[subfilter{$:/temp/commander}] +[!is[missing]] +[limit[1]]\" variable=\"null\">\n<$macrocall $name=compSelective\nfilter=\"[subfilter{$:/temp/commander}] +[!is[missing]]\"\ntiddler=\"$:/temp/commander/selected-titles\"\n/>\n</$list>\n</div>\n\n",
"title": "$:/plugins/kookma/commander/ui/tiddler-selection",
"tags": "",
"modifier": "Mohammad",
"modified": "20190315100538446",
"creator": "Mohammad",
"created": "20190301203327739",
"caption": "Select tiddlers"
},
"$:/plugins/kookma/commander/ui/tiddlerops/delete-tiddlers": {
"text": "<$set name=numTids value={{{[[$:/temp/commander/selected-titles]indexes[]count[]] }}}>\n<$reveal type=\"match\" text=\"0\" default=<<numTids>> >\nNo tiddlers is selected for deleteion!\n</$reveal>\n<$reveal type=\"gt\" text=\"0\" default=<<numTids>> >\nNumber of tiddlers selected for deletion: <<numTids>><br>\nNote that, the delete operation cannot be undone!!\n</$reveal>\n</$set>\n\n<$macrocall $name=\"compConfirmDelete\"\ncountFilter=\"[[$:/temp/commander/selected-titles]indexes[]]\"\nactionMacro=\"delete-tiddlers-selective-bulk\"\nstateTiddler=\"$:/state/commander/SelectiveDeleteDropdown\"\n/>\n",
"title": "$:/plugins/kookma/commander/ui/tiddlerops/delete-tiddlers",
"tags": "$:/tags/Commander/TiddlerOps",
"modifier": "Mohammad",
"modified": "20190309041431651",
"creator": "Mohammad",
"created": "20190301144408502",
"caption": "Delete tiddlers"
},
"$:/plugins/kookma/commander/ui/title-operation": {
"text": "Warning: These operation may overwritte existing tiddlers\n\n<<tabs \"[all[shadows+tiddlers]tag[$:/tags/Commander/TitleOps]!has[draft.of]]\" class:\"tc-vertical cm-tab-colorful cm-tab-wd\">>\n\n",
"title": "$:/plugins/kookma/commander/ui/title-operation",
"tags": "$:/tags/Commander",
"modifier": "Mohammad",
"modified": "20190309032112441",
"creator": "Mohammad",
"created": "20190212051704536",
"caption": "Title"
},
"$:/plugins/kookma/commander/utility": {
"text": "\\define display(label,text)\n<$set name=\"stateTid\" value=\"$:/temp/commander/display/popup/$label$\" >\n<$button popup=<<stateTid>> class=\"tc-btn-invisible\"><span style=\"text-decoration: underline\">$label$</span></$button>\n<$reveal type=\"nomatch\" text=\"\" default=\"\" state=<<stateTid>> animate=\"yes\">\n<span style=\"color:blue;\"><$text text=<<__text__>> /></span></$reveal>\n</$set>\n\\end\n\n\\define is-filterSeearch-newer-than-selectedTitles(TidA, TidB)\n<$set name=\"tidAMod\" value={{{ [[$TidA$]get[modified]] }}}>\n<$set name=\"tidBMod\" value={{{ [[$TidB$]get[modified]] }}}>\n<$set name=\"tidAText\" value={{{ [[$TidA$]get[text]] }}}>\n<$set name=\"tidBText\" value={{{ [[$TidB$]get[text]] }}}>\n<$list filter=\"[<__TidB__>get[text]minlength[1]]\" variable=ignore>\n<$reveal type=\"nomatch\" default=<<tidAText>> text=<<tidBText>>>\n<$list filter=\"[<tidAMod>] [<tidBMod>] +[nsort[]last[1]removesuffix<tidBMod>]\">\nA new filter search has been detected, click on the search button to apply it.\n</$list>\n</$reveal>\n</$list>\n</$set>\n</$set>\n</$set>\n</$set>\n\\end\n\n!!Remarks\n;is-filterSeearch-newer-than-selectedTitles\n* Checks `TidA` and `TidB` for modified date and text\n* If They are not empty, then\n** checks if the text of two are equal, if not\n** checks to see if `TidB` is newer or not\n** if newer shows a message, to apply the new search filter\n* Note\n** `TidA=\"$:/temp/commander\"`\n** `TidB=\"$:/temp/commander/search-box\"`\n* is-filterSeearch-newer-than-selectedTitles is called from $:/plugins/kookma/commander/ui/search\n\n;display\n* gets a label and a text\n* create an inline label\n* on click label, the text is displayed as temporary popup\n* losing focus, the text goes hidden\n* this macro is used in customized compSelective to show the active filter",
"title": "$:/plugins/kookma/commander/utility",
"tags": "$:/tags/Macro",
"modifier": "Mohammad",
"modified": "20190315113946756",
"creator": "Mohammad",
"created": "20190315092752816"
},
"$:/tags/Commander/Help": {
"created": "20190315122040568",
"creator": "Mohammad",
"title": "$:/tags/Commander/Help",
"list": "$:/plugins/kookma/commander/help/what-is-commander $:/plugins/kookma/commander/help/quick-tutorial $:/plugins/kookma/commander/help/snr $:/plugins/kookma/commander/help/batch-operation $:/plugins/kookma/commander/help/warning",
"modified": "20190315122106223",
"modifier": "Mohammad"
},
"$:/tags/Commander/Search/FilterButton": {
"created": "20190315122445955",
"creator": "Mohammad",
"title": "$:/tags/Commander/Search/FilterButton",
"list": "$:/plugins/kookma/commander/ui/search/filter-button/dropdown $:/plugins/kookma/commander/ui/search/filter-button/search $:/plugins/kookma/commander/ui/search/filter-button/clear $:/plugins/kookma/commander/ui/search/filter-button/save",
"modified": "20190315122451135",
"modifier": "Mohammad"
},
"$:/tags/Commander": {
"created": "20190315121802750",
"creator": "Mohammad",
"title": "$:/tags/Commander",
"list": "$:/plugins/kookma/commander/ui/tiddler-operation $:/plugins/kookma/commander/ui/title-operation $:/plugins/kookma/commander/ui/tag-operation $:/plugins/kookma/commander/ui/field-operation $:/plugins/kookma/commander/ui/snr-operation $:/plugins/kookma/commander/ui/inspection $:/plugins/kookma/commander/ui/setting $:/plugins/kookma/commander/ui/help",
"modified": "20190315123201675",
"modifier": "Mohammad"
},
"$:/plugins/kookma/commander/template/base": {
"text": "This is a simple one!",
"title": "$:/plugins/kookma/commander/template/base",
"tags": "$:/tags/Commander/Template",
"modifier": "Mohammad",
"modified": "20190220161727636",
"creator": "Mohammad",
"created": "20190213200622605",
"caption": "Base"
},
"$:/plugins/kookma/commander/template/elegant": {
"text": "! Heading one\nHere you go\n\n!! Heading two\n\n* one\n* two\n* three\n\n!!! Heading three\n\n|Heading one|Heading Two|Heading Three|h\n|r1|100|200|\n|r2|02|03|\n|r3|-1|-2|\n",
"version": "beta",
"title": "$:/plugins/kookma/commander/template/elegant",
"tags": "$:/tags/Commander/Template",
"modifier": "Mohammad",
"modified": "20190220161116039",
"creator": "Mohammad",
"created": "20190213200258460",
"caption": "Elagant"
},
"$:/plugins/kookma/commander/template/pretty": {
"text": "! Heading\nThis is pretty\n\n```\nsample code\n```\n\n!!! Footnotes\n# one\n# two",
"version": "beta",
"title": "$:/plugins/kookma/commander/template/pretty",
"tags": "$:/tags/Commander/Template",
"modifier": "Mohammad",
"modified": "20190220161101463",
"creator": "Mohammad",
"created": "20190213200338381",
"caption": "Pouri"
},
"$:/plugins/kookma/commander/ui/snr-operation": {
"created": "20190220210055713",
"creator": "Mohammad",
"text": "Search and replcae in tiddler fields!\n\n<<tabs \"[all[shadows+tiddlers]tag[$:/tags/Commander/SnrOps]!has[draft.of]]\" class:\"tc-vertical cm-tab-colorful cm-tab-wd\">>\n\n",
"title": "$:/plugins/kookma/commander/ui/snr-operation",
"tags": "$:/tags/Commander",
"modifier": "Mohammad",
"modified": "20190315180102502",
"caption": "Snr",
"icon": "$:/core/images/gitter"
},
"$:/tags/Commander/TiddlerOps": {
"created": "20190315175806394",
"creator": "Mohammad",
"title": "$:/tags/Commander/TiddlerOps",
"list": "$:/plugins/kookma/commander/ui/tiddlerops/create-tiddlers $:/plugins/kookma/commander/ui/tiddlerops/delete-tiddlers",
"modified": "20190315175806394",
"modifier": "Mohammad"
},
"$:/plugins/kookma/commander/stylesheet/select-width": {
"created": "20190218214027079",
"creator": "Mohammad",
"text": ".cm-sl{\n width:8ch;\n}\n\n.cm-select-wd{\n min-width:15ch;\n}\n",
"type": "text/css",
"title": "$:/plugins/kookma/commander/stylesheet/select-width",
"tags": "$:/tags/Stylesheet",
"modifier": "Mohammad",
"modified": "20190317075458285"
},
"$:/plugins/kookma/commander/macro/snr-operation": {
"created": "20190307164924193",
"creator": "Mohammad",
"text": "\\define regexp-flags()\n{{$:/state/commander/snr/gm}}{{$:/state/commander/snr/case-sensitive}}\n\\end\n\n\\define snr-ui-show-diffs()\n<form class=\"snr-form\" style=\"width:100%;\">\n <fieldset>\n <legend style=\"color:#FF0000;\">Differences</legend>\nTiddler: <$link to={{$:/state/commander/snr/select-tiddler}}><$text text={{$:/state/commander/snr/select-tiddler}}/></$link>\n\n<$wikify name=flags text=<<regexp-flags>> >\n\n<$macrocall $name=\"replace-text-diff\" \n tiddler={{$:/state/commander/snr/select-tiddler}} \n field={{$:/state/commander/snr/select-tiddler/field}} \n replace={{$:/state/commander/snr/replace-text}} \n replaceWith={{$:/state/commander/snr/replace-text-with}} \n flags=<<flags>> \n wholeWords={{$:/state/commander/snr/whole-words}}\n/>\n\n</$wikify>\n</fieldset>\n</form>\n\\end\n\n\n\n\n\\define snr-check-diffs(tiddler:\"\", field:\"\")\n\\whitespace trim\n<$wikify name=flags text=<<regexp-flags>> >\n<$wikify name=\"result\" text=\"\"\"\n<$macrocall $name=\"replace-text\" \n tiddler=<<__tiddler__>>\n field=<<__field__>>\n replace={{$:/state/commander/snr/replace-text}} \n replaceWith={{$:/state/commander/snr/replace-text-with}} \n flags=<<flags>> \n wholeWords={{$:/state/commander/snr/whole-words}}\n/>\"\"\">\n<$reveal type=\"match\" text={{{ [<__tiddler__>get<__field__>] }}} default=<<result>> >\nsame\n</$reveal>\n<$reveal type=\"nomatch\" text={{{ [<__tiddler__>get<__field__>] }}} default=<<result>> >\ndifferent\n</$reveal>\n</$wikify>\n</$wikify>\n\\end\n\n\n\\define search-replace-in-tiddler-field(tiddler:\"\",field:\"\",replace:\"\",replaceWith:\"\")\n<$wikify name=ss text=<<snr-check-diffs \"\"\"$tiddler$\"\"\" \"\"\"$field$\"\"\">> >\n<$list filter=\"[<ss>] -same\" variable=ignore>\n\n<$wikify name=flags text=<<regexp-flags>> >\n<$macrocall $name=\"replace-text-button\" \n tiddler=<<__tiddler__>> \n field=<<__field__>>\n replace=<<__replace__>>\n replaceWith=<<__replaceWith__>> \n flags=<<flags>> \n wholeWords={{$:/state/commander/snr/whole-words}}\n/>\n<$macrocall $name=\"log-add-single-operation\" msg=\"\"\"`$field$` field has been changed\"\"\" tidItem=<<__tiddler__>> />\n\n</$wikify>\n</$list>\n</$wikify>\n\\end\n\n\n\\define search-replace-in-field-bulk()\n<$list filter=\"[[$:/temp/commander/selected-titles]indexes[]] +[count[]] -0\" variable=\"ignore\">\n<<create-log-tiddler \"SNR operation\">>\n<$list filter=\"[[$:/temp/commander/selected-titles]indexes[]] +[!is[missing]]\">\n <$macrocall \n $name=\"search-replace-in-tiddler-field\"\n tiddler=<<currentTiddler>> \n field={{$:/state/commander/snr/select-tiddler/field}} \n replace={{$:/state/commander/snr/replace-text}} \n replaceWith={{$:/state/commander/snr/replace-text-with}} \n />\n</$list>\n</$list>\n\\end\n\n\\define search-replace-in-field-single-tiddler()\n<<create-log-tiddler \"SNR operation\">>\n <$macrocall \n $name=\"search-replace-in-tiddler-field\"\n tiddler={{$:/state/commander/snr/select-tiddler}}\n field={{$:/state/commander/snr/select-tiddler/field}} \n replace={{$:/state/commander/snr/replace-text}} \n replaceWith={{$:/state/commander/snr/replace-text-with}} \n />\n\\end\n\n\\define snr-actions()\n<$button actions=<<search-replace-in-field-single-tiddler>> tooltip=\"search and replace in a single tiddler\" class=\"cm-btn\">\nReplace?\n</$button> \n<$button actions=<<search-replace-in-field-bulk>> tooltip=\"search and replace in all selected tiddlers\" class=\"cm-btn\">\nReplace all?\n</$button>\n\\end",
"title": "$:/plugins/kookma/commander/macro/snr-operation",
"tags": "$:/tags/Macro",
"modifier": "Mohammad",
"modified": "20190317081731019"
},
"$:/plugins/kookma/commander/ui/fieldops/set-field-value": {
"created": "20190212120609737",
"creator": "Mohammad",
"text": "Field name \n<$select class=\"cm-select-wd\" tiddler=\"$:/temp/commander/field-name\" default=<<dummy>>>\n<$list filter=\"[subfilter{$:/state/commander/set-field-value/fields}]\" >\n<option><$view field=\"title\"/></option>\n</$list>\n</$select> \n<$checkbox \n tiddler=\"$:/state/commander/set-field-value/fields\" \n field=\"text\" \n checked=\"[[$:/temp/commander/selected-titles]indexes[]fields[]sort[]] -tags -title\" \n unchecked=\"[[$:/temp/commander/selected-titles]indexes[]fields[]sort[]] -[[$:/plugins/kookma/commander/empty-tiddler]fields[]]\"\n> Include system fields?</$checkbox>\n\nField value <$edit-text\ntiddler=\"$:/temp/commander/field-value\"\ntag=\"input\"\ndefault=\"\"\nclass=\"cm-txt-area\"\nplaceholder=\" field value\"\n/> \n<$button class=\"cm-btn\"> Set field value\n<$macrocall \n $name=\"set-field-value-bulk\" \n fieldName={{$:/temp/commander/field-name}} \n fieldValue={{$:/temp/commander/field-value}} \n/>\n</$button>",
"title": "$:/plugins/kookma/commander/ui/fieldops/set-field-value",
"tags": "$:/tags/Commander/FieldOps",
"modifier": "Mohammad",
"modified": "20190317081439306",
"caption": "Set field value"
},
"$:/plugins/kookma/commander/ui/fieldops/add-remove-fields": {
"created": "20190314051054548",
"creator": "Mohammad",
"text": "<$edit-text\ntiddler=\"$:/temp/commander/field-add\"\ntag=\"input\"\ndefault=\"\"\nclass=\"cm-txt-area\"\nplaceholder=\" new field\"\n/> \n<$button class=\"cm-btn\"> Add new field\n<$macrocall $name=\"add-new-field-bulk\" newField={{$:/temp/commander/field-add}} />\n</$button>\n\n<$button class=\"cm-btn\"> Remove old field\n<$macrocall $name=\"remove-old-field-bulk\" oldField={{$:/temp/commander/field-remove}} />\n</$button>\n<$select class=\"cm-select-wd\" tiddler=\"$:/temp/commander/field-remove\" default=<<dummy>>>\n<$list filter=\"[subfilter{$:/state/commander/add-remove-fields/fields}]\" >\n<option><$view field=\"title\"/></option>\n</$list>\n</$select> \n<$checkbox \n tiddler=\"$:/state/commander/add-remove-fields/fields\" \n field=\"text\" \n checked=\"[[$:/temp/commander/selected-titles]indexes[]fields[]sort[]] -title -tags\" \n unchecked=\"[[$:/temp/commander/selected-titles]indexes[]fields[]sort[]] -[[$:/plugins/kookma/commander/empty-tiddler]fields[]]\"\n> Include system fields?</$checkbox>\n\n\n",
"title": "$:/plugins/kookma/commander/ui/fieldops/add-remove-fields",
"tags": "$:/tags/Commander/FieldOps",
"modifier": "Mohammad",
"modified": "20190317081419411",
"caption": "Add remove fields"
},
"$:/plugins/kookma/commander/ui/tagops/replace-tags": {
"created": "20190212080523588",
"creator": "Mohammad",
"text": "<span style=\"display:inline-block;width:8ch;\">Old tag </span>\n<$select class=\"cm-select-wd\" tiddler=\"$:/temp/commander/replace-tags/old\" default=<<dummy>>>\n<$list filter=\"[[$:/temp/commander/selected-titles]indexes[]tags[]sort[]]\" >\n<option><$view field=\"title\"/></option>\n</$list>\n</$select>\n\n<span style=\"display:inline-block;width:8ch;\">New tag </span>\n<$edit-text\ntiddler=\"$:/temp/commander/replace-tags/new\"\ntag=\"input\"\ndefault=\"\"\nclass=\"cm-txt-area\"\nplaceholder=\" new tag\"\n/>\n\n<$button class=\"cm-btn\"> Replace tags\n<$macrocall $name=\"replace-tag-bulk\" \noldTag={{$:/temp/commander/replace-tags/old}} \nnewTag={{$:/temp/commander/replace-tags/new}} />\n</$button>\n\n",
"title": "$:/plugins/kookma/commander/ui/tagops/replace-tags",
"tags": "$:/tags/Commander/TagOps",
"modifier": "Mohammad",
"modified": "20190317081345762",
"caption": "Replace tags"
},
"$:/plugins/kookma/commander/ui/tagops/add-remove-tags": {
"created": "20190212063924640",
"creator": "Mohammad",
"text": "<$edit-text\ntiddler=\"$:/temp/commander/tag-add-remove/new\"\ntag=\"input\"\ndefault=\"\"\nclass=\"cm-txt-area\"\nplaceholder=\" new tag\"\n/> \n<$button class=\"cm-btn\"> Add new tag\n<$macrocall $name=\"add-new-tag-bulk\" newTag={{$:/temp/commander/tag-add-remove/new}} />\n</$button>\n\n<$button class=\"cm-btn\"> Remove old tag\n<$macrocall $name=\"remove-old-tag-bulk\" oldTag={{$:/temp/commander/tag-add-remove/old}} />\n</$button>\n \n<$select class=\"cm-select-wd\" tiddler=\"$:/temp/commander/tag-add-remove/old\" default=<<dummy>>>\n<$list filter=\"[[$:/temp/commander/selected-titles]indexes[]tags[]sort[]]\" >\n<option><$view field=\"title\"/></option>\n</$list>\n</$select>\n\n",
"title": "$:/plugins/kookma/commander/ui/tagops/add-remove-tags",
"tags": "$:/tags/Commander/TagOps",
"modifier": "Mohammad",
"modified": "20190317081325667",
"caption": "Add remove tags"
},
"$:/plugins/kookma/commander/ui/titleops/add-remove-suffix": {
"created": "20190212143434676",
"creator": "Mohammad",
"text": "<$edit-text\ntiddler=\"$:/temp/commander/title-suffix\"\ntag=\"input\"\ndefault=\"\"\nclass=\"cm-txt-area\"\nplaceholder=\" suffix\"\n/> \n<$button class=\"cm-btn\"> Add suffix\n<$macrocall \n $name=\"addSuffix-to-tiltle-bulk\" \n suffix={{$:/temp/commander/title-suffix}} \n/>\n</$button>\n<$button class=\"cm-btn\"> Remove suffix\n<$macrocall \n $name=\"removeSuffix-from-tiltle-bulk\" \n suffix={{$:/temp/commander/title-suffix}} \n/>\n</$button>\n\n",
"title": "$:/plugins/kookma/commander/ui/titleops/add-remove-suffix",
"tags": "$:/tags/Commander/TitleOps",
"modifier": "Mohammad",
"modified": "20190317081300595",
"caption": "Add remove suffix"
},
"$:/plugins/kookma/commander/ui/titleops/add-remove-prefix": {
"created": "20190212141758567",
"creator": "Mohammad",
"text": "<$edit-text\ntiddler=\"$:/temp/commander/title-prefix\"\ntag=\"input\"\ndefault=\"\"\nclass=\"cm-txt-area\"\nplaceholder=\" prefix\"\n/> \n<$button class=\"cm-btn\"> Add prefix\n<$macrocall \n $name=\"addPrefix-to-tiltle-bulk\" \n prefix={{$:/temp/commander/title-prefix}} \n/>\n</$button>\n<$button class=\"cm-btn\"> Remove prefix\n<$macrocall \n $name=\"removePrefix-from-tiltle-bulk\" \n prefix={{$:/temp/commander/title-prefix}} \n/>\n</$button>\n\n",
"title": "$:/plugins/kookma/commander/ui/titleops/add-remove-prefix",
"tags": "$:/tags/Commander/TitleOps",
"modifier": "Mohammad",
"modified": "20190317081240691",
"caption": "Add remove prefix"
},
"$:/plugins/kookma/commander/ui/titleops/add-remove-chars": {
"created": "20190217092719245",
"creator": "Mohammad",
"text": "\\define rngcat() [range[0,$(minchars)$]] -0 \n\nNumber of characters\n<$select tiddler=\"$:/temp/commander/title-remove-chars\" default=\"0\" class=\"cm-sl\">\n<$list filter=\"[[$:/temp/commander/selected-titles]indexes[]] +[!is[missing]] +[length[]] +[minall[]] +[subtract[1]] -Infinity\" variable=\"minchars\">\n<$list filter=<<rngcat>> >\n<option value=<<currentTiddler>>><$view field='title'/></option>\n</$list>\n</$list>\n</$select> \n\n<$button class=\"cm-btn\"> First n chars\n<$macrocall \n $name=\"remove-chars-from-begining-tiltle-bulk\" \n num={{$:/temp/commander/title-remove-chars}} \n/>\n</$button>\n<$button class=\"cm-btn\"> Last n chars\n<$macrocall \n $name=\"remove-chars-from-end-tiltle-bulk\" \n num={{$:/temp/commander/title-remove-chars}} \n/>\n</$button>\n\n\n",
"title": "$:/plugins/kookma/commander/ui/titleops/add-remove-chars",
"tags": "$:/tags/Commander/TitleOps",
"modifier": "Mohammad",
"modified": "20190317081216442",
"caption": "Remove chars"
},
"$:/plugins/kookma/commander/macro/compConfirmDelete": {
"created": "20190301145916990",
"creator": "Mohammad",
"text": "\\define compConfirmDelete(\nbtnLabel:\"Delete these tiddlers\", \nconfirmMessage:\"Are you sure you wish to delete\", \nstateTiddler:\"\"\ncountFilter:\"\", \nactionMacro:\"\")\n<$set name=resultCount value={{{ [subfilter<__countFilter__>count[]] }}} >\n<$reveal type=\"gt\" text=\"0\" default=<<resultCount>> >\n<$button popup=<<qualify \"\"\"$stateTiddler$\"\"\">> class=\"cm-btn\">$btnLabel$</$button>\n</$reveal>\n\n<$reveal state=<<qualify \"\"\"$stateTiddler$\"\"\">> type=\"popup\" position=\"belowleft\" animate=\"yes\">\n<div class=\"tc-block-dropdown-wrapper\">\n<div class=\"tc-block-dropdown tc-edit-type-dropdown\">\n<div class=\"tc-dropdown-item-plain\">\n$confirmMessage$ <<resultCount>> tiddler(s)?\n\n</div>\n<div class=\"tc-dropdown-item-plain\">\n<$button class=\"cm-btn\">\n<$macrocall $name=<<__actionMacro__>> />\n$btnLabel$\n</$button>\n</div>\n</div>\n</div>\n</$reveal>\n</$set>\n\\end",
"title": "$:/plugins/kookma/commander/macro/compConfirmDelete",
"tags": "$:/tags/Macro",
"modifier": "Mohammad",
"modified": "20190317081030129"
},
"$:/plugins/kookma/commander/ui/tiddlerops/create-tiddlers": {
"created": "20190213193004029",
"creator": "Mohammad",
"text": "Base title \n<$edit-text \n tiddler=\"$:/temp/commander/tiddler-base-title\" \n tag=\"input\" \n default=\"\"\n placeholder=\" base title\" \n class=\"cm-txt-area\"/> \nTags \n<$edit-text \n tiddler=\"$:/temp/commander/tiddler-base-tags\" \n tag=\"input\" \n default=\"\"\n placeholder=\" tags\" \n class=\"cm-txt-area\"\n/> \n\n \n<$checkbox \n tiddler=\"$:/state/commander/tiddler-template-status\" \n field=\"text\" \n checked=\"use-template\" \n unchecked=\"no-template\"\n> Use template?</$checkbox> \n<$reveal type=\"match\" text=\"use-template\" default={{$:/state/commander/tiddler-template-status}}>\nTemplate\n<$select tiddler=\"$:/temp/commander/template-newtiddler\" default='base'>\n<$list filter='[all[shadows+tiddlers]tag[$:/tags/Commander/Template]]'>\n<option value=<<currentTiddler>> >\n<$view field=\"caption\"><$view field=\"title\"/></$view>\n</option>\n</$list>\n</$select>\n</$reveal>\n\nNumber of tiddlers \n<$select tiddler=\"$:/temp/commander/tiddler-base-number\" default='1'>\n<$list filter='[range[1,19, 1]] [range[20,50, 5]] [range[60,100,10]]'>\n<option value=<<currentTiddler>>><$view field='title'/></option>\n</$list>\n</$select>\n\n<$reveal type=\"match\" text=\"use-template\" default={{$:/state/commander/tiddler-template-status}}>\n<$button class=\"cm-btn\"> Create tiddlers\n<$macrocall $name=\"bulk-tiddler-with-template-creator\"\nbaseTitle={{$:/temp/commander/tiddler-base-title}}\nbaseTags={{$:/temp/commander/tiddler-base-tags}}\nnumberTiddler={{$:/temp/commander/tiddler-base-number}}\ntemplate={{$:/temp/commander/template-newtiddler}}\n/> </$button>\n</$reveal>\n\n<$reveal type=\"match\" text=\"no-template\" default={{$:/state/commander/tiddler-template-status}}>\n<$button class=\"cm-btn\"> Create tiddlers\n<$macrocall $name=\"bulk-tiddler-creator\"\nbaseTitle={{$:/temp/commander/tiddler-base-title}}\nbaseTags={{$:/temp/commander/tiddler-base-tags}}\nnumberTiddler={{$:/temp/commander/tiddler-base-number}}\n/>\n</$button>\n</$reveal>\n",
"title": "$:/plugins/kookma/commander/ui/tiddlerops/create-tiddlers",
"tags": "$:/tags/Commander/TiddlerOps",
"modifier": "Mohammad",
"modified": "20190317081102849",
"caption": "Create tiddlers"
},
"$:/plugins/kookma/commander/macro/compInspect/edit-fileds": {
"created": "20190313061511585",
"creator": "Mohammad",
"text": "\\define lingo-base() $:/language/EditTemplate/\n\\define config-title()\n$:/config/EditTemplateFields/Visibility/$(currentField)$\n\\end\n\n\\define config-filter()\n[[hide]] -[title{$(config-title)$}] \n\\end\n\n\\define new-field()\n<$vars name={{$:/temp/newfieldname}}>\n<$reveal type=\"nomatch\" text=\"\" default=<<name>>>\n<$button class=\"cm-btn\">\n<$action-sendmessage $message=\"tm-add-field\"\n$name=<<name>>\n$value={{$:/temp/newfieldvalue}}/>\n<$action-deletetiddler $tiddler=\"$:/temp/newfieldname\"/>\n<$action-deletetiddler $tiddler=\"$:/temp/newfieldvalue\"/>\n<<lingo Fields/Add/Button>>\n</$button>\n</$reveal>\n<$reveal type=\"match\" text=\"\" default=<<name>>>\n<$button class=\"cm-btn\">\n<<lingo Fields/Add/Button>>\n</$button>\n</$reveal>\n</$vars>\n\\end\n\n\\define compInspect-edit-fileds(commonFields:\"\")\n\n<div class=\"tc-edit-fields\">\n<table class=\"tc-edit-fields\">\n<tbody>\n<$list filter=\"[all[current]fields[]] +[sort[title]]\" variable=\"currentField\">\n<$list filter=<<config-filter>> variable=\"temp\">\n<tr class=\"tc-edit-field\">\n<td class=\"tc-edit-field-name\">\n<$text text=<<currentField>>/>:</td>\n<td class=\"tc-edit-field-value\">\n<$edit-text tiddler=<<currentTiddler>> field=<<currentField>> placeholder={{$:/language/EditTemplate/Fields/Add/Value/Placeholder}}/>\n</td>\n<td class=\"tc-edit-field-remove\">\n<$button class=\"tc-btn-invisible\" tooltip={{$:/language/EditTemplate/Field/Remove/Hint}} aria-label={{$:/language/EditTemplate/Field/Remove/Caption}}>\n<$action-deletefield $field=<<currentField>>/>\n{{$:/core/images/delete-button}}\n</$button>\n</td>\n</tr>\n</$list>\n</$list>\n\n\n<$list filter=\"created creator modified modifier -[enlist<__commonFields__>]\" variable=\"currentField\">\n<tr class=\"tc-edit-field\">\n<td class=\"tc-edit-field-name\">\n<$text text=<<currentField>>/>:</td>\n<td class=\"tc-edit-field-value\">\n<$edit-text tiddler=<<currentTiddler>> field=<<currentField>> placeholder={{$:/language/EditTemplate/Fields/Add/Value/Placeholder}}/>\n</td>\n<td class=\"tc-edit-field-remove\">\n<$button class=\"tc-btn-invisible\" tooltip={{$:/language/EditTemplate/Field/Remove/Hint}} aria-label={{$:/language/EditTemplate/Field/Remove/Caption}}>\n<$action-deletefield $field=<<currentField>>/>\n{{$:/core/images/delete-button}}\n</$button>\n</td>\n</tr>\n</$list>\n\n\n\n\n</tbody>\n</table>\n</div>\n\n<$fieldmangler>\n<div class=\"tc-edit-field-add\">\n<em class=\"tc-edit\">\n<<lingo Fields/Add/Prompt>>\n</em>\n<span class=\"tc-edit-field-add-name\">\n<$edit-text tiddler=\"$:/temp/newfieldname\" tag=\"input\" default=\"\" placeholder={{$:/language/EditTemplate/Fields/Add/Name/Placeholder}} focusPopup=<<qualify \"$:/state/popup/field-dropdown\">> class=\"tc-edit-texteditor tc-popup-handle\"/>\n</span>\n<$button popup=<<qualify \"$:/state/popup/field-dropdown\">> class=\"tc-btn-invisible tc-btn-dropdown\" tooltip={{$:/language/EditTemplate/Field/Dropdown/Hint}} aria-label={{$:/language/EditTemplate/Field/Dropdown/Caption}}>{{$:/core/images/down-arrow}}</$button>\n<$reveal state=<<qualify \"$:/state/popup/field-dropdown\">> type=\"nomatch\" text=\"\" default=\"\">\n<div class=\"tc-block-dropdown tc-edit-type-dropdown\">\n<$linkcatcher to=\"$:/temp/newfieldname\">\n<div class=\"tc-dropdown-item\">\n<<lingo Fields/Add/Dropdown/User>>\n</div>\n<$list filter=\"[!is[shadow]!is[system]fields[]search:title{$:/temp/newfieldname}sort[]] -created -creator -draft.of -draft.title -modified -modifier -tags -text -title -type\" variable=\"currentField\">\n<$link to=<<currentField>>>\n<<currentField>>\n</$link>\n</$list>\n<div class=\"tc-dropdown-item\">\n<<lingo Fields/Add/Dropdown/System>>\n</div>\n<$list filter=\"[fields[]search:title{$:/temp/newfieldname}sort[]] -[!is[shadow]!is[system]fields[]]\" variable=\"currentField\">\n<$link to=<<currentField>>>\n<<currentField>>\n</$link>\n</$list>\n</$linkcatcher>\n</div>\n</$reveal>\n<span class=\"tc-edit-field-add-value\">\n<$edit-text tiddler=\"$:/temp/newfieldvalue\" tag=\"input\" default=\"\" placeholder={{$:/language/EditTemplate/Fields/Add/Value/Placeholder}} class=\"tc-edit-texteditor\"/>\n</span>\n<span class=\"tc-edit-field-add-button\">\n<$macrocall $name=\"new-field\"/>\n</span>\n</div>\n</$fieldmangler>\n\\end",
"title": "$:/plugins/kookma/commander/macro/compInspect/edit-fileds",
"tags": "$:/tags/Macro",
"modifier": "Mohammad",
"modified": "20190317085037429"
},
"$:/plugins/kookma/commander/macro/compSelect": {
"created": "20190308070713468",
"creator": "Mohammad",
"text": "\\define compSelect(filter:\"\", stateTiddler:\"\", default:\"\", class:\"\", showButtons:\"show\")\n<$select tiddler=<<__stateTiddler__>> default=<<__default__>> class=<<__class__>> >\n<option value=\"\">None</option>\n<$list filter=<<__filter__>> variable=item>\n<option value=<<item>>><$text text=<<item>> /></option>\n</$list>\n</$select>\n<$reveal type=\"match\" text=\"show\" default=<<__showButtons__>> >\n<$vars myfilter=<<__filter__>> mystateTiddler=<<__stateTiddler__>> myitem={{{ [<__stateTiddler__>get[text]] }}} >\n<$button actions=<<cs-prev-item>> class=\"cm-btn\"> prev </$button>\n<$button actions=<<cs-next-item>> class=\"cm-btn\"> next </$button>\n</$vars>\n</$reveal>\n\\end\n\n\\define cs-prev-item()\n<$list filter=\"[subfilter<myfilter>] +[before<myitem>]\" variable=\"prev-item\" >\n<$action-setfield $tiddler=<<mystateTiddler>> text=<<prev-item>> />\n</$list>\n\\end\n\n\\define cs-next-item()\n<$list filter=\"[subfilter<myfilter>] +[after<myitem>]\" variable=\"next-item\" >\n<$action-setfield $tiddler=<<mystateTiddler>> text=<<next-item>> />\n</$list>\n\\end",
"title": "$:/plugins/kookma/commander/macro/compSelect",
"tags": "$:/tags/Macro",
"modifier": "Mohammad",
"modified": "20190317084203286"
},
"$:/plugins/kookma/commander/stylesheet/buttons": {
"created": "20190317080436103",
"creator": "Mohammad",
"text": ".cm-btn{\n font-size:0.85em;\n font-size:300;\n color: #666666;\n background-color: #d8d8d8;\n padding: 3px 8px 3px 8px;\n border: 1px solid #a1a1a1;\n}\n",
"type": "text/css",
"title": "$:/plugins/kookma/commander/stylesheet/buttons",
"tags": "$:/tags/Stylesheet",
"modifier": "Mohammad",
"modified": "20190317085149339"
},
"$:/plugins/kookma/commander/macro/snr/regexpsub.js": {
"created": "20190214160253135",
"creator": "Mohammad",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/plugins/kookma/commander/macro/snr/regexpsub.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: macro\n\nMake regular expression substitutions\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nexports.name = \"regexpsub\";\n\nexports.params = [\n\t{name: \"searchValue\"},\n\t{name: \"replaceValue\"},\n\t{name: \"sourceText\"},\n\t{name: \"flags\"},\n {name: \"wholeWords\"}\n];\n\n/*\nRun the macro\n*/\nexports.run = function(searchValue, replaceValue, sourceText, flags = \"gi\", wholeWords = \"characters\") {\n \n try {\n \n\tvar searchText;\n if(wholeWords.toLowerCase() === 'words'){\n searchText = \"\\\\b\" + searchValue + \"\\\\b\";\n } else{\n searchText = searchValue;\n }\n searchText = new RegExp(searchText, flags);\n\n\t\n\treturn sourceText.replace(searchText,replaceValue);\n\n } \n catch(err) { \n return \"ERROR IN REG EXPRESSION. YOU MAY NEED TO ESCAPE VALUES\"; \n }\n \n };\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"title": "$:/plugins/kookma/commander/macro/snr/regexpsub.js",
"tags": "snr",
"module-type": "macro",
"modifier": "Mohammad",
"modified": "20190317171519161",
"description": "Developed by Mark S"
},
"$:/plugins/kookma/commander/help/warning": {
"text": "<<alert primary \"\"\"''Note i:''\nTiddler Commander is a very powerful tool, it can change any field in any tiddler. Make sure what you are doing!\n\"\"\">>\n\n<<alert warning \"\"\"''Note ii''\nTiddler Commander uses two steps tiddler selection. It uses a search box to filter possible tiddlers and then uses a selective list of fitered tiddlers for batch operation!\n\"\"\">>\n\n<<alert info \"\"\"''Note iii''\n//Commander do not perform operation on shadow tiddlers//, unless they are overriden. Because shadow tiddlers aren’t stored as ''real'' tiddlers. They are intentionally excluded from most operations by default so that they don’t clutter filters made by users unless explicitly required. \n\"\"\">>\n\n<<alert danger \"\"\"''Warning''\nThis tool is still being developed. It is for demonstration purposes only. Before this tool, `Tiddler Commander`, on your own valuable, irreplaceable data, backup them.\n\"\"\">>\n\n",
"title": "$:/plugins/kookma/commander/help/warning",
"tags": "$:/tags/Commander/Help",
"modifier": "Mohammad",
"modified": "20190323203452964",
"creator": "Mohammad",
"created": "20190314050138754",
"caption": "Warning"
},
"$:/plugins/kookma/commander/help/what-is-commander": {
"text": "Tiddler Commander, in short ''Commander'' is a unique tool for batch operations on tiddlers. Commander has the below features\n\n* Bulk tiddler creation/deletion\n* Tag operation: add, remove, replace\n* Field operation: add, remove, set field value\n* ''SNR'', search and replace in all fields including text, tags, title, and common fields\n* ''Inspect'', to review and inspect tiddlers in one place, scroll among them and edit all fields (including common fields), tags, text (title is an exception!)\n* log, create logs of all operations\n* Search, //save and load// any combination of filter search\n\n<<alert warning \"''Note'': //Commander will not work on shadow tiddlers//, unless they are overriden! Because shadow tiddlers aren’t stored as ''real'' tiddlers. They are intentionally excluded from most operations by default so that they don’t clutter filters made by users unless explicitly required.\">>",
"title": "$:/plugins/kookma/commander/help/what-is-commander",
"tags": "$:/tags/Commander/Help",
"modifier": "Mohammad",
"modified": "20190323203625811",
"creator": "Mohammad",
"created": "20190314134238047",
"caption": "What is Commander"
},
"$:/plugins/kookma/commander/macro/snr/ui": {
"text": "\\define snr-ui()\n\n<div class=\"snr-row\">\n<div class=\"snr-double-column\">\n<<snr-ui-inputs>>\n</div>\n<div class=\"snr-column\">\n<<snr-regexp-flags>> \n</div>\n</div>\n<<snr-ui-show-diffs>>\n<<snr-actions>>\n\\end\n",
"title": "$:/plugins/kookma/commander/macro/snr/ui",
"tags": "$:/tags/Macro",
"modifier": "Mohammad",
"modified": "20190307185104618",
"creator": "Mohammad",
"created": "20190306133310512"
},
"$:/plugins/kookma/commander/setting/snr": {
"created": "20190324051157188",
"creator": "Mohammad",
"text": "<<snr-difftext-cleanup>>\n<div style=\"padding-left:25px;font-size:0.9em\">\n\nThe cleanup attribute determines which optional post-processing should be applied to the diffs:\n\n* none: no cleanup is performed\n* semantic (default): rewrites the diffs for human readability\n* efficient: rewrites the diffs to minimise the number of operations for subsequent processing\n</div>",
"title": "$:/plugins/kookma/commander/setting/snr",
"tags": "$:/tags/Commander/Setting",
"modifier": "Mohammad",
"modified": "20190324053417842",
"caption": "Snr setting"
},
"$:/plugins/kookma/commander/ui/textops/replace-text": {
"text": "<<snr-ui>>",
"title": "$:/plugins/kookma/commander/ui/textops/replace-text",
"tags": "$:/tags/Commander/SnrOps",
"modifier": "Mohammad",
"modified": "20190324052012224",
"icon": "$:/core/images/gitter",
"creator": "Mohammad",
"created": "20190220211138573",
"caption": "Search and replace"
},
"$:/plugins/kookma/commander/macro/snr/ui/setting": {
"created": "20190324052145002",
"creator": "Mohammad",
"text": "\\define snr-difftext-cleanup()\n\n<form class=\"snr-form\">\n<fieldset>\n<legend>Difftext cleanup</legend>\n\n<$radio\n tiddler=\"$:/state/commander/snr/setting/cleanup\" \n field=\"text\" \n value=\"none\"> none\n</$radio><br>\n\n<$radio\n tiddler=\"$:/state/commander/snr/setting/cleanup\" \n field=\"text\" \n value=\"semantic\"> semantic\n</$radio><br>\n\n<$radio\n tiddler=\"$:/state/commander/snr/setting/cleanup\" \n field=\"text\" \n value=\"efficient\"> efficient \n</$radio>\n\n</fieldset>\n</form>\n\\end",
"title": "$:/plugins/kookma/commander/macro/snr/ui/setting",
"tags": "$:/tags/Macro",
"modifier": "Mohammad",
"modified": "20190324053838682"
},
"$:/plugins/kookma/commander/macro/snr/replace-text": {
"created": "20190227134610136",
"creator": "Mohammad",
"text": "\\define nothing-to-replace(tiddler, field) \n<$diff-text source={{{ [<__tiddler__>get<__field__>] }}} dest={{{ [<__tiddler__>get<__field__>] }}} />\n\\end\n\n\\define replace-text(tiddler:\"\",field:\"text\",replace:\"\",replaceWith:\"\",flags:\"\", wholeWords:\"\")\n\\whitespace trim\n<$wikify name=\"source\" text=\"\"\"<$view tiddler=<<__tiddler__>> field=<<__field__>> mode=\"block\" format=\"text\"/>\"\"\">\n<$wikify name=\"result\" \n text=\"\"\"<$macrocall $name=\"regexpsub\" $type=\"text/plain\" \n sourceText=<<source>> \n searchValue=<<__replace__>> \n replaceValue=<<__replaceWith__>> \n flags=<<__flags__>> \n wholeWords=<<__wholeWords__>> />\"\"\" \n >\n<$text text=<<result>>/>\n</$wikify>\n</$wikify>\n\\end\n\n\\define replace-text-diff(tiddler:\"\", field:\"text\", replace, replaceWith, flags:\"\", wholeWords:\"\")\n<$list filter=\"[<__tiddler__>get<__field__>minlength[1]]\" variable=null emptyMessage=\"No tiddler selected\">\n<$list filter=\"[<__replace__>minlength[1]]\" variable=null emptyMessage=<<nothing-to-replace \"\"\"$tiddler$\"\"\" \"\"\"$field$\"\"\">> >\n\n<$wikify name=\"result\" \n text=\"\"\"<$macrocall $name=\"replace-text\" \n tiddler=<<__tiddler__>> field=<<__field__>> \n replace=<<__replace__>> \n replaceWith=<<__replaceWith__>> \n flags=<<__flags__>>\n wholeWords=<<__wholeWords__>> />\"\"\"\n >\n<$diff-text source={{{ [<__tiddler__>get<__field__>] }}} dest=<<result>> cleanup={{$:/state/commander/snr/setting/cleanup}}/>\n</$wikify>\n\n</$list>\n</$list>\n\\end\n\n\\define replace-text-button(tiddler:\"\", field:\"text\", replace:\"\", replaceWith:\"\", flags:\"\", wholeWords:\"\")\n\\whitespace trim\n<$list filter=\"[<__tiddler__>get<__field__>minlength[1]]\" variable=null>\n<$list filter=\"[<__replace__>minlength[1]]\" variable=null>\n<$wikify name=\"result\" \n text=\"\"\"<$macrocall $name=\"replace-text\" \n tiddler=<<__tiddler__>> \n field=<<__field__>> \n replace=<<__replace__>> \n replaceWith=<<__replaceWith__>> \n flags=<<__flags__>>\n wholeWords=<<__wholeWords__>> />\"\"\"\n >\n<$reveal type=\"nomatch\" default=\"title\" text=<<__field__>> >\n <$action-setfield $tiddler=<<__tiddler__>> $field=<<__field__>> $value=<<result>>/>\n</$reveal>\n<$reveal type=\"match\" default=\"title\" text=<<__field__>> >\n <$action-setfield $tiddler=<<__tiddler__>> $field=<<__field__>> $value=<<result>>/>\n <$action-deletetiddler $tiddler=<<__tiddler__>> />\n</$reveal>\n</$wikify>\n</$list>\n</$list>\n\\end\n",
"title": "$:/plugins/kookma/commander/macro/snr/replace-text",
"tags": "$:/tags/Macro",
"modifier": "Mohammad",
"modified": "20190324053727065"
}
}
}
{"tiddlers":{"$:/plugins/kookma/todolist/macros/category":{"title":"$:/plugins/kookma/todolist/macros/category","created":"20190714040123984","modified":"20190716161710846","tags":"$:/tags/Macro","type":"text/vnd.tiddlywiki","text":"\\define priority-symbol(color)\n<svg width=\"12\" height=\"12\" >\n<circle cx=\"6\" cy=\"6\" r=\"5\" stroke=\"grey\" fill=\"$color$\"/>\n</svg>\n\\end\n\n\\define high(text) \n<<priority-symbol #cd5360>>\n<span style=\"padding-left:3px;color:#cd5360;\">$text$</span>\n\\end\n\n\\define normal(text) \n<<priority-symbol #286da8>>\n<span style=\"padding-left:3px;color:#286da8;\">$text$</span>\n\\end\n\n\\define low(text) \n<<priority-symbol #b37d4e>>\n<span style=\"padding-left:3px;color:#b37d4e;\">$text$</span>\n\\end\n\n\\define fixme(text)\n<span style=\"fill:#006400;color:#006400;padding-right:3px;\">{{$:/plugins/kookma/todolist/images/wrench.svg}}</span>$text$\n\\end\n\n\\define bug(text)\n<span style=\"fill:#8B0000; color:#8B0000;padding-right:3px;\">{{$:/plugins/kookma/todolist/images/bug.svg}}</span>$text$\n\\end\n"},"$:/plugins/kookma/todolist/macros/bulk-operation":{"title":"$:/plugins/kookma/todolist/macros/bulk-operation","created":"20190716083959795","modified":"20190717195030916","tags":"$:/tags/Macro","type":"text/vnd.tiddlywiki","text":"\\define todolist-mark-all-button()\n<$reveal type=\"nomatch\" stateTitle=<<stateTiddler>> stateIndex=\"markall\" text=\"yes\">\n<$button tooltip=\"Mark all items as done\" setTitle=<<stateTiddler>> setIndex=\"markall\" setTo=\"yes\">\n{{$:/core/images/save-button}}\n<<__todolist-done-all>>\n</$button>\n</$reveal>\n<$reveal type=\"match\" stateTitle=<<stateTiddler>> stateIndex=\"markall\" text=\"yes\">\n<$button tooltip=\"Mark all items as undone\" setTitle=<<stateTiddler>> setIndex=\"markall\" setTo=\"no\">\n{{$:/core/images/refresh-button}}\n<<__todolist-undone-all>>\n</$button>\n</$reveal>\n\\end\n\n\\define __todolist-done-all()\n<$list filter=\"[<taskTiddler>indexes[]]\" variable=\"item\">\n<$action-setfield \n$tiddler=<<doneTiddler>>\n$index=<<item>>\n$value={{{ [<taskTiddler>getindex<item>] }}}\n/>\n<$action-setfield \n$tiddler=<<statusTiddler>>\n$index=<<item>>\n$value=\"done\"\n/>\n<$action-setfield $tiddler=<<taskTiddler>> $index=<<item>> />\n</$list>\n\\end\n\n\\define __todolist-undone-all()\n<$list filter=\"[<doneTiddler>indexes[]]\" variable=\"item\">\n<$action-setfield \n$tiddler=<<taskTiddler>>\n$index=<<item>>\n$value={{{ [<doneTiddler>getindex<item>] }}}\n/>\n<$action-setfield \n$tiddler=<<statusTiddler>>\n$index=<<item>>\n$value=\"undone\"\n/>\n<$action-setfield $tiddler=<<doneTiddler>> $index=<<item>> />\n</$list>\n\\end\n\n\n\\define todolist-archive-completed-items()\n<$button tooltip=\"Archive done items\">\n{{$:/plugins/kookma/todolist/images/archive.svg}}\n<$list filter=\"[<doneTiddler>indexes[]]\" variable=\"item\">\n<$action-setfield \n$tiddler=<<archiveTiddler>>\n$index=<<item>>\n$value={{{ [<doneTiddler>getindex<item>] }}}\n/>\n<$action-setfield $tiddler=<<statusTiddler>> $index=<<item>> />\n<$action-setfield $tiddler=<<doneTiddler>> $index=<<item>> />\n</$list>\n</$button>\n\\end\n\n\\define todolist-display-archived-items()\n<$button tooltip=\"Display archived items\"> {{$:/plugins/kookma/todolist/images/list-alt.svg}}\n\n<$action-setfield \n$tiddler=\"$:/plugins/kookma/todolist/template/archive-list\"\ntitle=<<displayArchivedTiddler>> /> \n<$action-setfield $tiddler=<<displayArchivedTiddler>>\n$field=\"archive-tiddler\" $value=<<archiveTiddler>> />\n\n<$action-navigate $to=<<displayArchivedTiddler>> $scroll=\"yes\"/>\n</$button>\n\\end\t"},"$:/plugins/kookma/todolist/macros/archive-operations":{"title":"$:/plugins/kookma/todolist/macros/archive-operations","created":"20190716084234624","modified":"20190716161710855","tags":"$:/tags/Macro","type":"text/vnd.tiddlywiki","text":"\\define todolist-list-archived-items(archiveTiddler:\"\")\n<$list filter=\"[<__archiveTiddler__>indexes[]!sort[]]\" variable=\"item\">\n<div class=\"kk-tiny-td-row\">\n <div class=\"kk-tiny-td-delete\"><$macrocall $name=\"todolist-delete-item\" dataTiddler=<<__archiveTiddler__>>/></div>\n <div class=\"kk-tiny-td-desc\"><$transclude tiddler=<<__archiveTiddler__>> index=<<item>>/></div>\n</div>\n</$list>\n\\end\n\n\\define todolist-delete-item(dataTiddler)\n<$button class=\"tc-btn-invisible tc-tiddlylink\">\n{{$:/plugins/kookma/todolist/images/times.svg}}\n<$action-setfield $tiddler=<<__archiveTiddler__>> $index=<<item>> />\n</$button>\n\\end\n\n\\define todolist-delete-archived-tiddler(archiveTiddler)\n<$button tooltip=\"Empty archive\"> {{$:/core/images/delete-button}} Delete archive\n <$action-deletetiddler $tiddler=<<__archiveTiddler__>> />\n</$button>\n\\end\t "},"$:/plugins/kookma/todolist/macros/add-task":{"title":"$:/plugins/kookma/todolist/macros/add-task","created":"20190715170540482","modified":"20190717192634790","tags":"$:/tags/Macro","type":"text/vnd.tiddlywiki","text":"\\define todolist-input-task()\n<$keyboard key=\"((add-todo-item))\" actions=<<todolist-add-task-action>> >\n<$edit-text \n tiddler=<<stateTiddler>> \n index=\"itemtext\" \n tag=input\n class=\"kk-tiny-td-input-textbox\"\n placeholder=\"add new item\"\n default=\"todo list is empty start adding new items\"\n />\n</$keyboard> \n\\end\n \n\\define todolist-add-task()\n<$button tooltip=\"Add new item\">\n\t{{$:/core/images/new-button}}\n\t<<todolist-add-task-action>>\n</$button>\n\\end\n\n\\define todolist-add-task-action()\n\t<$set name=item value=<<now \"YYYY.0MM.0DD-0hh0mm0ss0XXX\">> >\n\t<$action-setfield \n\t $tiddler=<<taskTiddler>>\n\t $index=<<item>>\n\t $value={{{ [<stateTiddler>getindex[itemtext]] }}}\n\t/>\n\t<$action-setfield \n\t $tiddler=<<statusTiddler>>\n\t $index=<<item>>\n\t $value=\"undone\"\n\t/>\n\t</$set>\n\t<$action-setfield $tiddler=<<stateTiddler>> $index=\"itemtext\" $value=\"\"/>\n\\end"},"$:/plugins/kookma/todolist/macros/undone-task":{"title":"$:/plugins/kookma/todolist/macros/undone-task","created":"20190715190405259","modified":"20190716161710962","tags":"$:/tags/Macro","type":"text/vnd.tiddlywiki","text":"\\define todolist-undone-task()\n<$checkbox \ntiddler=<<statusTiddler>> \nindex=<<item>> \nchecked=\"done\" \nunchecked=\"undone\" \ndefault=\"undone\"\nuncheckactions=<<__undone-actions>>\n>\n</$checkbox>\n\\end\n\n\\define __undone-actions()\n<$action-setfield \n$tiddler=<<taskTiddler>>\n$index=<<item>>\n$value={{{ [<doneTiddler>getindex<item>] }}}\n/>\n<$action-setfield $tiddler=<<doneTiddler>> $index=<<item>> />\n\\end\n"},"$:/plugins/kookma/todolist/macros/ui":{"title":"$:/plugins/kookma/todolist/macros/ui","created":"20190715170739310","modified":"20190717200023246","tags":"$:/tags/Macro","type":"text/vnd.tiddlywiki","text":"\\define todolist-ui(caption:\"A plain todo list\", width:\"100%\" base:\"base\")\n<$vars \n stateTiddler=\"$:/plugins/kookma/todolist/data/$base$/state\"\n taskTiddler=\"$:/plugins/kookma/todolist/data/$base$/tasks\"\n doneTiddler=\"$:/plugins/kookma/todolist/data/$base$/done\"\n statusTiddler=\"$:/plugins/kookma/todolist/data/$base$/status\"\n archiveTiddler=\"$:/plugins/kookma/todolist/data/$base$/archive\"\t\n displayArchivedTiddler=\"todolist - Archived Items - $base$\"\n>\t\n<div class=\"kk-tiny-td-ui\" style=\"max-width:$width$;\">\n\n$caption$\n\n<div class=\"kk-tiny-td-header-ui\">\n<div class=\"kk-tiny-td-header-textbox\"><<todolist-input-task>></div>\n<div><<todolist-add-task>></div>\n<div><<todolist-toggle-edit-button>></div>\n<div><<todolist-options-button>></div>\n</div>\n\n<<todolist-options-content>>\n\n<$list filter=\"[<taskTiddler>indexes[]!sort[]]\" variable=\"item\">\n<div class=\"kk-tiny-td-row\">\n\t<div class=\"kk-tiny-td-done\"><<todolist-done-task>></div>\n\t<div class=\"kk-tiny-td-desc\"><<todolist-show-task>></div>\n\t<div class=\"kk-tiny-td-delete\"><$macrocall $name=\"todolist-delete-task\" dataTiddler=<<taskTiddler>>/></div>\n</div>\n</$list>\n<$list filter=\"[<doneTiddler>indexes[]!sort[]]\" variable=\"item\">\n<div class=\"kk-tiny-td-row\">\n <div class=\"kk-tiny-td-done\"><<todolist-undone-task>></div>\n <div class=\"kk-tiny-td-desc\"><span class=\"kk-tiny-td-item-done\"><$transclude tiddler=<<doneTiddler>> index=<<item>>/></span></div>\n <div class=\"kk-tiny-td-delete\"><$macrocall $name=\"todolist-delete-task\" dataTiddler=<<doneTiddler>>/></div>\n</div>\n</$list>\n\n</div>\n</$vars>\n\\end\n"},"$:/plugins/kookma/todolist/macros/toggle-edit-button":{"title":"$:/plugins/kookma/todolist/macros/toggle-edit-button","created":"20190715171733677","modified":"20190717195759624","tags":"$:/tags/Macro","type":"text/vnd.tiddlywiki","text":"\\define todolist-toggle-edit-button()\n<$reveal type=\"nomatch\" stateTitle=<<stateTiddler>> stateIndex=\"editview\" text=\"edit\">\n<$button setTitle=<<stateTiddler>> setIndex=\"editview\" setTo=\"edit\" tooltip=\"Edit items\">\n{{$:/core/images/edit-button}}\n</$button>\n</$reveal>\n<$reveal type=\"match\" stateTitle=<<stateTiddler>> stateIndex=\"editview\" text=\"edit\">\n<$button setTitle=<<stateTiddler>> setIndex=\"editview\" setTo=\"view\" tooltip=\"Save items\">\n{{$:/core/images/done-button}}\n</$button>\n</$reveal>\n\\end"},"$:/plugins/kookma/todolist/macros/show-task":{"title":"$:/plugins/kookma/todolist/macros/show-task","created":"20190715170652239","modified":"20190717195414173","tags":"$:/tags/Macro","type":"text/vnd.tiddlywiki","text":"\\define todolist-show-task()\n<$list filter=\"[<stateTiddler>getindex[editview]] +[search[edit]]\" \n emptyMessage=\"\"\"<$transclude tiddler=<<taskTiddler>> index=<<item>>/>\"\"\" >\n<$edit-text \n tiddler=<<taskTiddler>>\n index=<<item>>\n tag=input\n class=\"kk-tiny-td-input-textbox\"\n />\n</$list>\n\\end"},"$:/plugins/kookma/todolist/macros/options":{"title":"$:/plugins/kookma/todolist/macros/options","created":"20190716075847899","modified":"20190717193543912","tags":"$:/tags/Macro","type":"text/vnd.tiddlywiki","text":"\\define todolist-options-button()\n <$reveal type=\"nomatch\" stateTitle=<<stateTiddler>> stateIndex=\"option\" text=\"yes\">\n <$button tooltip=\"Show options\" setTitle=<<stateTiddler>> setIndex=\"option\" setTo=\"yes\">\n {{$:/core/images/options-button}}\n </$button>\n </$reveal>\n <$reveal type=\"match\" stateTitle=<<stateTiddler>> stateIndex=\"option\" text=\"yes\">\n\t <$button tooltip=\"Hide options\" setTitle=<<stateTiddler>> setIndex=\"option\" setTo=\"no\">\n {{$:/core/images/options-button}}\n </$button>\n </$reveal>\n\\end\n\n\\define todolist-options-content()\n<$reveal type=\"match\" stateTitle=<<stateTiddler>> stateIndex=\"option\" text=\"yes\">\n\n<<todolist-mark-all-button>> <<todolist-archive-completed-items>> <<todolist-display-archived-items>>\n\n</$reveal>\n\\end\n\n"},"$:/plugins/kookma/todolist/macros/done-task":{"title":"$:/plugins/kookma/todolist/macros/done-task","created":"20190715170633034","modified":"20190716161711031","tags":"$:/tags/Macro","type":"text/vnd.tiddlywiki","text":"\\define todolist-done-task()\n<$checkbox \ntiddler=<<statusTiddler>> \nindex=<<item>> \nchecked=\"done\" \nunchecked=\"undone\" \ndefault=\"undone\"\nactions=<<__done-actions>>\n>\n</$checkbox>\n\\end\n\n\\define __done-actions()\n<$action-setfield \n$tiddler=<<doneTiddler>>\n$index=<<item>>\n$value={{{ [<taskTiddler>getindex<item>] }}}\n/>\n<$action-setfield $tiddler=<<taskTiddler>> $index=<<item>> />\n\\end"},"$:/plugins/kookma/todolist/macros/delete-task":{"title":"$:/plugins/kookma/todolist/macros/delete-task","created":"20190715170610146","modified":"20190716161711036","tags":"$:/tags/Macro","type":"text/vnd.tiddlywiki","text":"\\define todolist-delete-task(dataTiddler)\n<$button class=\"tc-btn-invisible tc-tiddlylink\">\n{{$:/plugins/kookma/todolist/images/times.svg}}\n<$action-setfield $tiddler=<<__dataTiddler__>> $index=<<item>> />\n<$action-setfield $tiddler=<<statusTiddler>> $index=<<item>> />\n</$button>\n\\end\n"},"$:/plugins/kookma/todolist/macros/utility":{"title":"$:/plugins/kookma/todolist/macros/utility","created":"20190716164325249","modified":"20190716172455419","tags":"$:/tags/Macro","type":"text/vnd.tiddlywiki","text":"\\define todolist-explore-data-tiddlers()\n<$set name=\"dataTids\" value=\"[all[tiddlers+shadows]search:title[$:/plugins/kookma/todolist/data/]sort[created]]\">\n\n<$macrocall $name=\"todolist-delete-all-tids\" filter=<<dataTids>> />\n\n<b>Number of data tiddlers found: <$count filter=<<dataTids>>/></b>\n\n\n<$list filter=<<dataTids>> variable=\"tid\" emptyMessage=\"//No internal data tiddlers is found!//\">\n<div class=\"kk-tiny-td-row\">\n <div class=\"kk-tiny-td-delete\"><$macrocall $name=\"todolist-delete-tid\" /></div>\n <div class=\"kk-tiny-td-desc\"><$link to=<<tid>>><$view tiddler=<<tid>> field=\"title\"/></$link></div>\n</div>\n</$list>\n\n</$set>\n\\end\n\n\\define todolist-delete-tid()\n<$button class=\"tc-btn-invisible tc-tiddlylink\">\n{{$:/plugins/kookma/todolist/images/times.svg}}\n<$action-deletetiddler $tiddler=<<tid>> />\n</$button>\n\\end\n\n\\define todolist-delete-all-tids(filter)\n<$button tooltip=\"Empty archive\"> {{$:/core/images/delete-button}} Delete all data tiddlers?\n <$action-deletetiddler $filter=<<__filter__>> />\n</$button>\n\\end\t \n"},"$:/plugins/kookma/todolist/styles/other.css":{"title":"$:/plugins/kookma/todolist/styles/other.css","created":"20190715171940902","modified":"20190716161710947","tags":"$:/tags/Stylesheet","type":"text/css","text":"/* completed item */\n\n.kk-tiny-td-item-done{\n\ttext-decoration: red line-through;\n\tfont-style: italic;\n}\n\n/* inputbox for add-task */\n.kk-tiny-td-input-textbox {\n\twidth:100%;\n\tpadding-left: 5px;\n}"},"$:/plugins/kookma/todolist/styles/main.css":{"title":"$:/plugins/kookma/todolist/styles/main.css","created":"20190716040116074","modified":"20190716161710953","tags":"$:/tags/Stylesheet","type":"text/css","text":"/* Todolist main ui */\n.kk-tiny-td-ui{\n\tmin-width:360px; /* controls the minimum width of whole ui */\n}\n\n/* Todolist header ui */\n\n.kk-tiny-td-header-ui{\n display: flex;\n width: 100%; /* for larg screen width> 960px*/\n}\n.kk-tiny-td-header-ui > div{\n margin: 2px;\n flex-grow:0;\t\n}\n.kk-tiny-td-header-ui .kk-tiny-td-header-textbox{\n\tflex-grow:1;\t\n}\n\n\n/* Todolist items ui */\n.kk-tiny-td-row{\n display: flex;\t\n width: 100%; /* for larg screen width> 960px*/\n flex-wrap: wrap;\n}\n\n.kk-tiny-td-row .kk-tiny-td-done,\n.kk-tiny-td-row .kk-tiny-td-delete,{\n flex-grow:0; width:15px;\n}\n.kk-tiny-td-row .kk-tiny-td-desc{\n\tflex-grow:1; \n\twidth: calc(100% - 30px); \n\tpadding-left: 10px;\n\tpadding-right: 10px;\n}\n.kk-tiny-td-row .kk-tiny-td-delete {\n opacity: 0.3;\n}\n.kk-tiny-td-row:hover {\n background-color: #f6f6f6;\n}\n.kk-tiny-td-row:hover .kk-tiny-td-delete {\n opacity: 1;\n}"},"$:/plugins/kookma/todolist/images/wrench.svg":{"title":"$:/plugins/kookma/todolist/images/wrench.svg","created":"20190714052925874","modified":"20190716161710869","tags":"","type":"text/vnd.tiddlywiki","text":"<svg class=\"tc-image-wrench tc-image-button\" width=\"1em\" height=\"1em\" viewBox=\"0 0 512 512\"><path d=\"M507.73 109.1c-2.24-9.03-13.54-12.09-20.12-5.51l-74.36 74.36-67.88-11.31-11.31-67.88 74.36-74.36c6.62-6.62 3.43-17.9-5.66-20.16-47.38-11.74-99.55.91-136.58 37.93-39.64 39.64-50.55 97.1-34.05 147.2L18.74 402.76c-24.99 24.99-24.99 65.51 0 90.5 24.99 24.99 65.51 24.99 90.5 0l213.21-213.21c50.12 16.71 107.47 5.68 147.37-34.22 37.07-37.07 49.7-89.32 37.91-136.73zM64 472c-13.25 0-24-10.75-24-24 0-13.26 10.75-24 24-24s24 10.74 24 24c0 13.25-10.75 24-24 24z\"/></svg>"},"$:/plugins/kookma/todolist/images/times.svg":{"title":"$:/plugins/kookma/todolist/images/times.svg","created":"20190716033811299","modified":"20190716161710874","tags":"","type":"text/vnd.tiddlywiki","text":"<svg class=\"tc-image-times tc-image-button\" width=\"22pt\" height=\"22pt\" viewBox=\"0 0 352 512\"><path d=\"M242.72 256l100.07-100.07c12.28-12.28 12.28-32.19 0-44.48l-22.24-22.24c-12.28-12.28-32.19-12.28-44.48 0L176 189.28 75.93 89.21c-12.28-12.28-32.19-12.28-44.48 0L9.21 111.45c-12.28 12.28-12.28 32.19 0 44.48L109.28 256 9.21 356.07c-12.28 12.28-12.28 32.19 0 44.48l22.24 22.24c12.28 12.28 32.2 12.28 44.48 0L176 322.72l100.07 100.07c12.28 12.28 32.2 12.28 44.48 0l22.24-22.24c12.28-12.28 12.28-32.19 0-44.48L242.72 256z\"/></svg>"},"$:/plugins/kookma/todolist/images/list-alt.svg":{"title":"$:/plugins/kookma/todolist/images/list-alt.svg","created":"20190716095433587","modified":"20190716161710878","tags":"","type":"text/vnd.tiddlywiki","text":"<svg class=\"tc-image-list-alt tc-image-button\" width=\"22pt\" height=\"22pt\" viewBox=\"0 0 512 512\"><path d=\"M464 32H48C21.49 32 0 53.49 0 80v352c0 26.51 21.49 48 48 48h416c26.51 0 48-21.49 48-48V80c0-26.51-21.49-48-48-48zm-6 400H54a6 6 0 0 1-6-6V86a6 6 0 0 1 6-6h404a6 6 0 0 1 6 6v340a6 6 0 0 1-6 6zm-42-92v24c0 6.627-5.373 12-12 12H204c-6.627 0-12-5.373-12-12v-24c0-6.627 5.373-12 12-12h200c6.627 0 12 5.373 12 12zm0-96v24c0 6.627-5.373 12-12 12H204c-6.627 0-12-5.373-12-12v-24c0-6.627 5.373-12 12-12h200c6.627 0 12 5.373 12 12zm0-96v24c0 6.627-5.373 12-12 12H204c-6.627 0-12-5.373-12-12v-24c0-6.627 5.373-12 12-12h200c6.627 0 12 5.373 12 12zm-252 12c0 19.882-16.118 36-36 36s-36-16.118-36-36 16.118-36 36-36 36 16.118 36 36zm0 96c0 19.882-16.118 36-36 36s-36-16.118-36-36 16.118-36 36-36 36 16.118 36 36zm0 96c0 19.882-16.118 36-36 36s-36-16.118-36-36 16.118-36 36-36 36 16.118 36 36z\"/></svg>"},"$:/plugins/kookma/todolist/images/bug.svg":{"title":"$:/plugins/kookma/todolist/images/bug.svg","created":"20190714051837328","modified":"20190716161710883","type":"text/vnd.tiddlywiki","text":"<svg class=\"tc-image-bug tc-image-button\" width=\"12pt\" height=\"12pt\" viewBox=\"0 0 512 512\"><path d=\"M511.988 288.9c-.478 17.43-15.217 31.1-32.653 31.1H424v16c0 21.864-4.882 42.584-13.6 61.145l60.228 60.228c12.496 12.497 12.496 32.758 0 45.255-12.498 12.497-32.759 12.496-45.256 0l-54.736-54.736C345.886 467.965 314.351 480 280 480V236c0-6.627-5.373-12-12-12h-24c-6.627 0-12 5.373-12 12v244c-34.351 0-65.886-12.035-90.636-32.108l-54.736 54.736c-12.498 12.497-32.759 12.496-45.256 0-12.496-12.497-12.496-32.758 0-45.255l60.228-60.228C92.882 378.584 88 357.864 88 336v-16H32.666C15.23 320 .491 306.33.013 288.9-.484 270.816 14.028 256 32 256h56v-58.745l-46.628-46.628c-12.496-12.497-12.496-32.758 0-45.255 12.498-12.497 32.758-12.497 45.256 0L141.255 160h229.489l54.627-54.627c12.498-12.497 32.758-12.497 45.256 0 12.496 12.497 12.496 32.758 0 45.255L424 197.255V256h56c17.972 0 32.484 14.816 31.988 32.9zM257 0c-61.856 0-112 50.144-112 112h224C369 50.144 318.856 0 257 0z\"/></svg>"},"$:/plugins/kookma/todolist/images/archive.svg":{"title":"$:/plugins/kookma/todolist/images/archive.svg","created":"20190716095419117","modified":"20190716161710887","tags":"","type":"text/vnd.tiddlywiki","text":"<svg class=\"tc-image-file-archive tc-image-button\" width=\"22pt\" height=\"22pt\" viewBox=\"0 0 384 512\"><path d=\"M128.3 160v32h32v-32zm64-96h-32v32h32zm-64 32v32h32V96zm64 32h-32v32h32zm177.6-30.1L286 14C277 5 264.8-.1 252.1-.1H48C21.5 0 0 21.5 0 48v416c0 26.5 21.5 48 48 48h288c26.5 0 48-21.5 48-48V131.9c0-12.7-5.1-25-14.1-34zM256 51.9l76.1 76.1H256zM336 464H48V48h79.7v16h32V48H208v104c0 13.3 10.7 24 24 24h104zM194.2 265.7c-1.1-5.6-6-9.7-11.8-9.7h-22.1v-32h-32v32l-19.7 97.1C102 385.6 126.8 416 160 416c33.1 0 57.9-30.2 51.5-62.6zm-33.9 124.4c-17.9 0-32.4-12.1-32.4-27s14.5-27 32.4-27 32.4 12.1 32.4 27-14.5 27-32.4 27zm32-198.1h-32v32h32z\"/></svg>"},"$:/plugins/kookma/todolist/template/archive-list":{"title":"$:/plugins/kookma/todolist/template/archive-list","created":"20190716084402662","modified":"20190716161710942","tags":"","type":"text/vnd.tiddlywiki","text":"!! Archive of completed (done) items\n\n<$macrocall $name=\"todolist-delete-archived-tiddler\" archiveTiddler={{!!archive-tiddler}} />\n\n> <$macrocall $name=\"todolist-list-archived-items\" archiveTiddler={{!!archive-tiddler}} />\n\n"},"$:/plugins/kookma/todolist/license":{"title":"$:/plugins/kookma/todolist/license","created":"20190715180723490","modified":"20190716161710864","tags":"","type":"text/vnd.tiddlywiki","text":"Distributed under an MIT license.\n\nCopyright (c) 2018-2019 [[Mohammad Rahmani|https://github.com/kookma]]\n\n<<<\nPermission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the \"Software\"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:\n\nThe above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.\n\nTHE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED \"AS IS\", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.\n<<<\n"},"$:/plugins/kookma/todolist/history":{"title":"$:/plugins/kookma/todolist/history","created":"20190715180723489","modified":"20190717200127601","tags":"","type":"text/vnd.tiddlywiki","text":"!! 1.0.0 -- release candidate 4\n<<<\n; 17th July 2019\n\n* Customizable shortcutkey for adding new item! by default `Enter` is added\n* All states were condensed into `stateTiddler`. For each state a key/value is used\n<<<\n\n!! 1.0.0 -- release candidate 2\n<<<\n; 16th July 2019\n\n* Revert to TW 5.1.19 to support more audiences\n* redesign the main UI\n** no table is used in UI\n** flexbox layout for main UI and archive display\n* supports multi todo lists in the same wiki\n* supports UI width to have custom layout (media query was removed)\n* Merge done/undone all button\n<<<\n\n!! 1.0.0 -- release candidate\n<<<\n; 15th July 2019\n\n* Upgraded to TW 5.1.20pre, so it wont work on TW5.1.19\n* redesign the Todolist UI\n* Uses the new checkbox parameters in TW 5.1.20 for uncheckactions\n* added media query to increase the ui width to 100% of tiddler width\n* add mark all items as done\n* add mark all items as undone\n* archive completed (done) items\n* show archive items\n<<<\n\n!! 0.7.0 -- bug fixes.\n<<<\n* [FIXED] data tiddler are now included in plugin\n* [FIXED] textbox placeholder message was modified\n<<<\n\n!! 0.5.0 -- first public release"},"$:/plugins/kookma/todolist/mechanism":{"title":"$:/plugins/kookma/todolist/mechanism","created":"20190716161142919","modified":"20190716161710928","tags":"","type":"text/vnd.tiddlywiki","text":"This tiddler explains how Todolist plugin works\n\n! Mechanism\n<<<\nTodolist plugin uses three data tiddlers (json tiddler) to store the todo items. Each todo item is an entry in data tiddler as below\n\n* a todo item is stored in task tiddler\n* a done item is stored in done tiddler\n* the status of item (done/undone) is stored in status tiddler\n\n!!! ''User interface''\nThe user interface including\n\n* A header (e.g a caption)\n* Add new item section\n* A table listing and displaying the todo items\n\n!!! ''Categories''\nEach category has a dedicated macro. To create a category the related macro should be called. Other categories can be simply added by adding desired macros.\n<<<"},"$:/plugins/kookma/todolist/readme":{"title":"$:/plugins/kookma/todolist/readme","created":"20190715180723492","modified":"20190717201942921","tags":"","type":"text/vnd.tiddlywiki","text":"!! How to use\n<<<\nTodolist is a Pure tiny Tiddlywiki pluging for creating simple todolist. In any tiddler you wish to have the Todolist simply call `todolist-ui` macro. Details are given below.\n<<<\n\n!! Syntax\n<<<\n```\n<<todolist-ui caption:\"\" width:\"\" base:\"\">>\n```\n\n!! Content and parameters\n|Parameter |Type |Description |h\n|caption |optional|a short description appeares at top of todolist. The default value is `A plain todo list` |\n|width |optional|the width of UI, default value is `100%`. All CSS units are valid to be used e.g `60%`, `400px`, `15em`, etc. A min-width as `360px` is setmeans UI width can not be smaller than this.|\n|base |optional|a name space used for creating different todolist. It is actually used in naming the data tiddlers internally used for todo lists. The default value is `base`. |\n<<<\n\n!! Add, edit items\n<<<\n!!! Add a new item\n* Simply click in the provided textbox and give the description of new item\n* Then click on the add button {{$:/core/images/add-button}}\n* Or simply press `Enter` key. This is a keyboard shotcut and can be customized via [[Keyboard Shortcut Tab|https://tiddlywiki.com/prerelease/#%24%3A%2Fcore%2Fui%2FControlPanel%2FKeyboardShortcuts]]\n\n!!! Edit an item\n# Click on the edit button {{$:/core/images/edit-button}}, this will enable inplace editing of all items\n# Goto the desired item and edit it\n# Finally click on done button {{$:/core/images/done-button}}\n<<<\n\n!! Done, undone, and delete items\n<<<\n!!! Change an item status to done\n* To change an item status to //done//, go the desired row in todolist and click the checkbox at the left side.\n\n!!! Change an item status to undone\n* To change an item status to //undone//, go the desired row in todolist and remove the checkmark by clicking the checkbox.\n\n!!! Delete an item\n* To delete an item, go the desired row in todolist and click on {{$:/core/images/delete-button}} at the right side\n<<<\n\n!! Categories\n<<<\nTodolist has several categories and support user categories. The below categories are available\n\n; Primary categories\n:<<high \"high priority\">>\n:<<normal \"normal priority\">>\n:<<low \"low priority\">>\n\n; Secondary categories\n:<<fixme \"FIXME item\">>\n:<<bug \"BUG item\">>\n\n\nThe colors used are pale colors for minimum contrast with normal text.\n\n!!! How to use categories\nA category is a simple macro. To use a category use the related macro. Each category macro has a syntax like below:\n\n```\n<<mac-name text:\"your-text-here\">>\n```\n\nFor example to create an item with high priority add new item with the below description (text in textbox)\n\n```\n<<high \"This is a high priority item\">>\n```\nThe current version of Todolist has five category macros: `high`, `normal`, `low`, `fixme`, and `bug`.\n<<<\n\n!! Bulk operations\n<<<\n* Click on the {{$:/core/images/options-button}} a slider will show more options panel\n\n!!! Done/undone all items\n* You can done/undone all items at once by clicking on below buttons\n* {{$:/core/images/save-button}} to mark all items as done\n* {{$:/core/images/refresh-button}} to mark all items as undone\n\n!!! Archive complete items\n* You can also export done items to archive using {{$:/plugins/kookma/todolist/images/archive.svg}} button\n* You can navigate to archive and see them as a table\n\n!!! Display and manupulate completed items\n* By clicking on {{$:/plugins/kookma/todolist/images/list-alt.svg}} you can navigate and display archived items\n* In Archive item tiddler, you can remove all items at once or selectively remove those you like.\n<<<\n\n\n! Install\n<<<\nSimply drag and drop $:/plugins/kookma/todolist into your wiki\n<<<\n\n\n! Project code and demo\n<<<\n* [[GitHub demo page|https://github.com/kookma/TW-Todolist]]\n* [[GitHub code page|https://github.com/kookma/TW-Todolist]]\n<<<"},"$:/plugins/kookma/todolist/internals":{"title":"$:/plugins/kookma/todolist/internals","created":"20190716171918410","modified":"20190716172259849","tags":"","type":"text/vnd.tiddlywiki","text":"!! Todolist internal data tiddlers\nTodolist plugin uses some internal data tiddlers to create and manage todo list. Each todolist uses several data tiddlers. It is recommended after deleting a todolist, delete all data tiddlers which are not in use.\n\n\n> <<todolist-explore-data-tiddlers>>"},"$:/config/ShortcutInfo/add-todo-item":{"title":"$:/config/ShortcutInfo/add-todo-item","created":"20190717180049077","modified":"20190717180112248","tags":"","type":"text/vnd.tiddlywiki","text":""}}}
{
"itemtext": "subl text base for editing, "
}
{
"2019.07.25-120658932": "undone"
}
{
"2019.07.25-120658932": "subl text base for editing, multi window"
}
{} "2019.07.17-162842392": "Give me a hug."
}
{
"2019.07.17-162842392": "undone"
}
{
"2019.07.17-162842392": "Give me a hug."
}
{
"2019.07.22-13025886": "Arch Linux USB",
"2019.07.17-162303768": "Help your sister build her portfolio, and a method for growing it!",
"2019.07.18-183802447": "Write an account of your stay with [[JRE]]. A thank you letter is in order!"
}
{
"2019.07.17-162303768": "done",
"2019.07.18-183802447": "done",
"2019.07.22-13025886": "done",
"2019.07.25-085219659": "undone"
}
{
"2019.07.25-085219659": "Physical KVMs for you and your sister. Show me a couple options."
}
{
"2019.07.17-135028659": "undone"
}
{
"2019.07.17-161631459": "undone",
"2019.07.17-161656406": "undone",
"2019.07.18-235754246": "undone",
"2019.08.08-211203623": "undone"
}
{
"2019.07.17-161631459": "Get [[TDL]] tabs setup.",
"2019.07.17-161656406": "Build Syncs between our wikis, need exception handling and convention",
"2019.07.18-235754246": "We need to build out bookmarks mapping onto each others wikis. Where are places you should be checking?",
"2019.08.08-211203623": "Shoping: Dishtabs"
}
{
"itemtext": "",
"editview": "view"
}
{
"2019.07.28-185458394": "undone",
"2019.10.27-201213798": "undone"
}
{
"2019.07.28-185458394": "just don't",
"2019.10.27-201213798": "buy paper towels"
}
{
"2019.07.17-162015429": "undone",
"2019.07.17-162353606": "undone",
"2019.07.17-164301348": "undone",
"2019.07.18-183806996": "undone",
"2019.07.22-004424635": "undone",
"2019.07.22-111329218": "undone"
}
{
"2019.07.17-162015429": "Brainstorm on [[TWGGF: Jibberjabber]]: 2019.07.17 - @Mohammad",
"2019.07.17-162353606": "We need to sync the Medos and Wedos",
"2019.07.17-164301348": "Let's fix the background image. It got sliced wrong.",
"2019.07.18-183806996": "Write an account of your stay with [[JRE]]. A thank you letter is in order!",
"2019.07.22-004424635": "ASCII: % variable solution",
"2019.07.22-111329218": "Date-ranges on filter expressions"
}
{
"2019.07.17-162703431": "Me*"
}
{
"2019.07.17-162703431": "done",
"2019.09.03-11360147": "undone"
}
{
"2019.09.03-11360147": "Can Opener (probably for "
}
{
"2019.07.28-165235128": "Inform"
}
{
"2019.07.17-161839814": "done",
"2019.07.28-165235128": "done"
}
{
"2019.07.17-134853861": "",
"2019.07.17-134859269": "asdfasdf"
}
{
"2019.07.17-135027411": "undone"
}
{
"2019.07.17-135027411": "asdasdf"
}
{
"2019.07.18-155045775": "Dryer"
}
{
"2019.07.17-161056993": "undone",
"2019.07.17-161106401": "undone",
"2019.07.17-161136324": "undone",
"2019.07.17-16114468": "undone",
"2019.07.17-16115215": "undone",
"2019.07.18-155045775": "done"
}
{
"2019.07.17-161056993": "Hospital Bill",
"2019.07.17-161106401": "Job Hunt",
"2019.07.17-161136324": "Prep for arrival",
"2019.07.17-16114468": "Laptops & KVMs",
"2019.07.17-16115215": "[[m16]]"
}
{
"tiddlers": {
"$:/plugins/matabele/action-maketid/filter": {
"created": "20160125090842763",
"text": "Provides the filter `[maketid[]]` to create one or more unique titles.\n\n; Placeholders\n: `%date%` — a datestamp of the current time (format: `YYYY0MM0DD0hh0mm0ss`)\n: `%count%` — current count (see options: ''min'', ''inc'', ''max'')\n: `%max%` — max number generated\n: `%tiddler%` — defined ''tiddler'' or current\n: `%title%` — input title\n: when not operating on input titles, the (current) tiddler title\n\n: `<<variable>>`\n: `{{text!!reference}}`\n; Options\n: `min:1` — starting number\n: `inc:1` — increment\n: `max:2` — max number\n: `sep:-` — separator before unique count\n: `date-format:<dateFormatString>` — for `%date%`\n: `pad:max` — zero-pad count to length of max\n: `pad:5` — zero-pad count to 5 digits: 00001",
"title": "$:/plugins/matabele/action-maketid/filter",
"modified": "20160125094706876"
},
"$:/plugins/matabele/action-maketid/widget": {
"created": "20160125091509546",
"text": "! Introduction\n\nThe ''action-maketid'' widget is an action widget designed to create a new tiddler, with the built in functionality to set the values of the title, tags and fields. The new tiddler may be hidden, displayed in the story river or opened for editing.\n\nThe ''action-maketid'' widget may be used to do any of the following.\n\n* create a new tiddler with or without the use of a template\n* set a unique title for the new tiddler\n* manipulate the 'tags' field by applying a sub-filter expression\n* set the values for any number of fields for the new tiddler (overwriting template values)\n* hide the new tiddler in the background, navigate to the new tiddler (the default) or open the new tiddler for editing\n\n! Content and Attributes\n\n|Attribute |Explanation |h\n|$title |The title for the new tiddler (if not provided, defaults to 'currentTiddler') |\n|$tags |Option to apply a subfilter to the 'tags' field |\n|$template |Option to name the template to use |\n|$navigate= |\"show\" navigates to the new tiddler (default) : \"hide\" creates the new tiddler in the background : \"edit\" navigates to and opens the new tiddler for editing |\n|{attributes not starting with $} |Values may be set for any number of fields (overwriting template values) - each attribute name specifies a field, with the attribute value providing the value to assign to the field |",
"title": "$:/plugins/matabele/action-maketid/widget",
"tags": "",
"modified": "20160125094720565"
},
"$:/plugins/matabele/filters/maketid.js": {
"created": "20160116094148552",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/plugins/matabele/filters/maketid.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: filteroperator\n\nGenerates a list of tiddler titles\n\\*/\n(function() {\n\t/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n\t/*global $tw: false */\n\t\"use strict\";\n\n\t//Fetch the titles from the current list\n\tvar prepare_results = function(source) {\n\t\tvar results = [];\n\t\tsource(function(tiddler, title) {\n\t\t\tresults.push(title);\n\t\t});\n\t\treturn results;\n\t};\n\n\t/*\n\tGenerate a list of unique titles\n\t*/\n\texports.maketid = function(source, operator, options) {\n\t\tvar date, ex, input, match,\n\t\t\twidget = options.widget,\n\t\t\twiki = options.wiki,\n\t\t\tresults = [];\n\t\t// Make defaults\n\t\tvar m = {\n\t\t\tinc: 1,\n\t\t\tmin: 1,\n\t\t\tsep: \" \",\n\t\t\ttiddler: widget ? widget.getVariable(\"currentTiddler\") : \"\"\n\t\t};\n\t\t// The regular expressions for replacing placeholders\n\t\tvar reTITLE = /\\%TITLE\\%/mgi,\n\t\t\treCOUNT = /\\%COUNT\\%/mgi,\n\t\t\treDATE = /\\%DATE\\%/mgi,\n\t\t\treMAX = /\\%MAX\\%/mgi,\n\t\t\treTIDDLER = /\\%TIDDLER\\%/mgi,\n\t\t\t// The regex for make options\n\t\t\treVAR = /^\\s*([\\$\\w\\d\\-\\_\\/]*):(.*)(?:\\s*)$/;\n\t\t//Replaces {{text!!references}} in the make expression\n\t\tvar replaceRefs = function(match, ref) {\n\t\t\treturn wiki.getTextReference(ref, \"\", m.tiddler);\n\t\t};\n\t\t//Replaces <<variables>> in the make expression\n\t\tvar replaceVars = function(match, v) {\n\t\t\treturn widget ? widget.getVariable(v) : \"\";\n\t\t};\n\t\t// triggers replacing of both variables and text references in an expression\n\t\tvar replaceRV = function(e) {\n\t\t\treturn e\n\t\t\t\t.replace(/{{([^}]*)}}/mg, replaceRefs)\n\t\t\t\t.replace(/<<([^>]*)>>/mg, replaceVars);\n\t\t};\n\t\t// Iterate until a unique title is found\n\t\tvar unique = function(list, title) {\n\t\t\tvar c = 0,\n\t\t\t\tresult = title;\n\t\t\twhile(options.wiki.tiddlerExists(result) || options.wiki.isShadowTiddler(\n\t\t\t\t\tresult) || options.wiki.findDraft(result) || list.indexOf(result) >= 0) {\n\t\t\t\tresult = (title + m.sep + (++c));\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t\treturn result;\n\t\t};\n\n\t\tvar titles = prepare_results(source);\n\t\tvar len = titles.length;\n\t\t// Return errors\n\t\ttry {\n\t\t\t$tw.utils.each(\n\t\t\t\t// Operand item, split via \"\\\"\n\t\t\t\t(operator.operand || \"\").split(\"\\\\\"),\n\t\t\t\tfunction(arg) {\n\t\t\t\t\tvar v;\n\t\t\t\t\t// Skip empty\n\t\t\t\t\targ = arg.trim();\n\t\t\t\t\tif(arg) {\n\t\t\t\t\t\t// Test for make option\n\t\t\t\t\t\tmatch = reVAR.exec(arg);\n\t\t\t\t\t\t// Is option?\n\t\t\t\t\t\tif(match) {\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t// Check options\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tswitch(match[1]) {\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tcase \"min\":\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tcase \"max\":\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tcase \"inc\":\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t// Get any of these as integer while replacing any variables or text-references\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tv = parseInt(replaceRV(match[2]));\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t// Not an integer or smaller than 0?\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tif(isNaN(v) || v < 1) {\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tv = 1;\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t// Set option to value\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tm[match[1]] = v;\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tbreak;\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tcase \"sep\":\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tm.sep = match[2];\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tbreak;\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tcase \"pad\":\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tm.pad = parseInt(match[2]);\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tbreak;\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tcase \"tiddler\":\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tm.tiddler = match[2];\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tbreak;\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tcase \"date-format\":\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tm.dateFormat = match[2].trim();\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tbreak;\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t// Otherwise, if not an option, only once\n\t\t\t\t\t\t} else if(m.expr === undefined) {\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tm.expr = arg;\n\t\t\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t);\n\t\t\t// No expression?\n\t\t\tif(m.expr === undefined) {\n\t\t\t\tm.expr = \"%tiddler%\";\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t// Padding defined but NaN\n\t\t\tif(m.pad !== undefined && isNaN(m.pad)) {\n\t\t\t\tm.pad = m.max ? m.max.toString().length : 2;\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t// Has input titles?\n\t\t\tinput = !(len === 1 && !titles[0]);\n\t\t\t// Operating on input titles?\n\t\t\tif(input) {\n\t\t\t\tm.max = m.max ? Math.min(len, m.max) : len;\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t// Max undefined or smaller than min\n\t\t\tif(!m.max || m.max < m.min) {\n\t\t\t\tm.max = m.min;\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t// Init counter\n\t\t\tm.count = m.min;\n\t\t\t// No date format\n\t\t\tif(reDATE.test(m.expr)) {\n\t\t\t\tvar start = m.dateFormat || \"0hh:0mm, DD/MM/YYYY\";\n\t\t\t\tdate = $tw.utils.formatDateString(new Date(), start);\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t\tdo {\n\t\t\t\t// Copy expression while replacing any variables or text-references\n\t\t\t\tex = replaceRV(m.expr);\n\t\t\t\t// Replace placeholders\n\t\t\t\tex = unique(results, ex\n\t\t\t\t\t.replace(reTIDDLER, m.tiddler)\n\t\t\t\t\t.replace(reTITLE, input ? titles[m.count - 1] : m.tiddler)\n\t\t\t\t\t.replace(reMAX, m.max)\n\t\t\t\t\t.replace(reCOUNT, m.pad ? $tw.utils.pad(m.count, m.pad) : m.count)\n\t\t\t\t\t.replace(reDATE, date)\n\t\t\t\t);\n\t\t\t\t// Add to output\n\t\t\t\tresults.push(ex);\n\t\t\t\t// Next generated item\n\t\t\t\tm.count = m.count + m.inc;\n\t\t\t} while (m.count <= m.max);\n\t\t} catch(e) {\n\t\t\treturn [\"Error in make filter:\\n\" + e];\n\t\t}\n\t\treturn results;\n\t};\n\n})();",
"type": "application/javascript",
"title": "$:/plugins/matabele/filters/maketid.js",
"tags": "",
"module-type": "filteroperator",
"modified": "20160125094728377"
},
"$:/plugins/matabele/widgets/action-maketid.js": {
"created": "20160117152758234",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/plugins/matabele/widgets/action-maketid.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: widget\n\nAction widget to create new tiddlers\n\\*/\n(function() {\n\t/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n\t/*global $tw: false */\n\t\"use strict\";\n\n\tvar Widget = require(\"$:/core/modules/widgets/widget.js\").widget;\n\tvar MakeTidWidget = function(parseTreeNode, options) {\n\t\tthis.initialise(parseTreeNode, options);\n\t};\n\n\t/*\n\tInherit from the base widget class\n\t*/\n\tMakeTidWidget.prototype = new Widget();\n\n\t/*\n\tRender this widget into the DOM\n\t*/\n\tMakeTidWidget.prototype.render = function(parent, nextSibling) {\n\t\tthis.parentDomNode = parent;\n\t\tthis.computeAttributes();\n\t\tthis.execute();\n\t\tthis.renderChildren(parent, nextSibling);\n\t};\n\n\t/*\n\tCompute the internal state of the widget\n\t*/\n\tMakeTidWidget.prototype.execute = function() {\n\t\tthis.tidTitle = this.getAttribute(\"$title\", this.getVariable(\n\t\t\t\"currentTiddler\"));\n\t\tthis.tidTemplate = (this.getAttribute(\"$template\"))\n\t\t \t? this.getAttribute(\"$template\")\n\t\t\t: this.getAttribute(\"$skeleton\", \"\");\n\t\tthis.tidNavigate = this.getAttribute(\"$navigate\", \"show\");\n\t\tthis.filtertags = this.getAttribute(\"$tags\");\n\t\tthis.makeChildWidgets();\n\t};\n\n\t/*\n\tSelectively refreshes the widget if needed.\n\t*/\n\tMakeTidWidget.prototype.refresh = function(changedTiddlers) {\n\t\tvar changedAttributes = this.computeAttributes();\n\t\tif(changedAttributes.$navigate || changedAttributes.$template ||\n\t\t\tchangedAttributes.$title || changedAttributes.$tags) {\n\t\t\tthis.refreshSelf();\n\t\t\treturn true;\n\t\t}\n\t\treturn this.refreshChildren(changedTiddlers);\n\t};\n\n\t/*\n\tInvoke the action associated with this widget\n\t*/\n\tMakeTidWidget.prototype.invokeAction = function(triggeringWidget, event) {\n\t\tvar tiddler;\n\t\t// Fetch creation fields\n\t\tvar modifications = this.wiki.getCreationFields();\n\t\t// Check if the title is unique, else make a new one\n\t\tvar title = this.wiki.generateNewTitle(this.tidTitle || $tw.language\n\t\t\t.getString(\n\t\t\t\t\"DefaultNewTiddlerTitle\"));\n\t\tmodifications.title = title;\n\t\t// Merge any fields specified\n\t\t$tw.utils.each(this.attributes, function(attribute, name) {\n\t\t\tif(name.charAt(0) !== \"$\" && name !== \"title\") {\n\t\t\t\tmodifications[name] = attribute;\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t});\n\t\t// Make a clone of the template if specified\n\t\tif(this.tidTemplate && this.wiki.getTiddler(this.tidTemplate) !== undefined) {\n\t\t\tvar mod;\n\t\t\ttiddler = this.wiki.getTiddler(this.tidTemplate);\n\t\t\t// Remove any modification fields from the template (this is a new tiddler)\n\t\t\tfor(mod in this.wiki.getModificationFields()) {\n\t\t\t\tdelete tiddler[mod];\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t} else {\n\t\t\ttiddler = {};\n\t\t}\n\t\t// Save the clone\n\t\tthis.wiki.addTiddler(new $tw.Tiddler(tiddler, modifications));\n\t\t//Set the tags in the case that the $tags= attribute is specified\n\t\tif(this.filtertags) {\n\t\t\tvar tagfilter = \"[list[\" + title + \"!!tags]] \" + this.filtertags;\n\t\t\tthis.wiki.setText(title, \"tags\", undefined, $tw.utils.stringifyList(this.wiki\n\t\t\t\t.filterTiddlers(tagfilter, this)));\n\t\t}\n\t\t// Control navigation to the new tiddler\n\t\tswitch(this.tidNavigate) {\n\t\t\tcase \"edit\":\n\t\t\t\tthis.dispatchEvent({\n\t\t\t\t\ttype: \"tm-edit-tiddler\",\n\t\t\t\t\tparam: title\n\t\t\t\t});\n\t\t\t\tbreak;\n\t\t\tcase \"show\":\n\t\t\t\tvar bounds = this.parentDomNode.getBoundingClientRect();\n\t\t\t\tthis.dispatchEvent({\n\t\t\t\t\ttype: \"tm-navigate\",\n\t\t\t\t\tnavigateTo: title,\n\t\t\t\t\tnavigateFromTitle: this.getVariable(\"storyTiddler\"),\n\t\t\t\t\tnavigateFromNode: this,\n\t\t\t\t\tnavigateFromClientRect: {\n\t\t\t\t\t\ttop: bounds.top,\n\t\t\t\t\t\tleft: bounds.left,\n\t\t\t\t\t\twidth: bounds.width,\n\t\t\t\t\t\tright: bounds.right,\n\t\t\t\t\t\tbottom: bounds.bottom,\n\t\t\t\t\t\theight: bounds.height\n\t\t\t\t\t},\n\t\t\t\t\tnavigateSuppressNavigation: event.metaKey || event.ctrlKey ||\n\t\t\t\t\t\t(event.button === 1)\n\t\t\t\t});\n\t\t\t\tbreak;\n\t\t\tcase \"hide\":\n\t\t\t\tbreak;\n\t\t}\n\t\treturn true; // Action was invoked\n\t};\n\n\texports[\"action-maketid\"] = MakeTidWidget;\n\n})();",
"type": "application/javascript",
"title": "$:/plugins/matabele/widgets/action-maketid.js",
"tags": "",
"module-type": "widget",
"modifier": "Matabele",
"modified": "20160125094735714",
"creator": "Matabele"
}
}
}
{
"tiddlers": {
"$:/core/modules/widgets/link.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/widgets/link.js",
"created": "20160218191628007",
"modified": "20161018180800361",
"module-type": "widget",
"type": "application/javascript",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/widgets/link.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: widget\n\nLink widget\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nvar Widget = require(\"$:/core/modules/widgets/widget.js\").widget;\n\nvar LinkWidget = function(parseTreeNode,options) {\n\tthis.initialise(parseTreeNode,options);\n};\n\n/*\nInherit from the base widget class\n*/\nLinkWidget.prototype = new Widget();\n\n/*\nRender this widget into the DOM\n*/\nLinkWidget.prototype.render = function(parent,nextSibling) {\n\t// Save the parent dom node\n\tthis.parentDomNode = parent;\n\t// Compute our attributes\n\tthis.computeAttributes();\n\t// Execute our logic\n\tthis.execute();\n\t// Get the value of the tv-wikilinks configuration macro\n\tvar wikiLinksMacro = this.getVariable(\"tv-wikilinks\"),\n\t\tuseWikiLinks = wikiLinksMacro ? (wikiLinksMacro.trim() !== \"no\") : true;\n\t// Render the link if required\n\tif(useWikiLinks) {\n\t\tthis.renderLink(parent,nextSibling);\n\t} else {\n\t\t// Just insert the link text\n\t\tvar domNode = this.document.createElement(\"span\");\n\t\tparent.insertBefore(domNode,nextSibling);\n\t\tthis.renderChildren(domNode,null);\n\t\tthis.domNodes.push(domNode);\n\t}\n};\n\n/*\nRender this widget into the DOM\n*/\nLinkWidget.prototype.renderLink = function(parent,nextSibling) {\n\tvar self = this;\n\t// Sanitise the specified tag\n\tvar tag = this.linkTag;\n\tif($tw.config.htmlUnsafeElements.indexOf(tag) !== -1) {\n\t\ttag = \"a\";\n\t}\n\t// Create our element\n\tvar domNode = this.document.createElement(tag);\n\t// Assign classes\n\tvar classes = [];\n\tif(this.linkClasses) {\n\t\tclasses.push(this.linkClasses);\n\t}\n\tclasses.push(\"tc-tiddlylink\");\n\tif(this.isShadow) {\n\t\tclasses.push(\"tc-tiddlylink-shadow\");\n\t}\n\tif(this.isMissing && !this.isShadow) {\n\t\tclasses.push(\"tc-tiddlylink-missing\");\n\t} else {\n\t\tif(!this.isMissing) {\n\t\t\tclasses.push(\"tc-tiddlylink-resolves\");\n\t\t}\n\t}\n\tdomNode.setAttribute(\"class\",classes.join(\" \"));\n\t// Set an href\n\tvar wikiLinkTemplateMacro = this.getVariable(\"tv-wikilink-template\"),\n\t\twikiLinkTemplate = wikiLinkTemplateMacro ? wikiLinkTemplateMacro.trim() : \"#$uri_encoded$\",\n\t\twikiLinkText = wikiLinkTemplate.replace(\"$uri_encoded$\",encodeURIComponent(this.to));\n\twikiLinkText = wikiLinkText.replace(\"$uri_doubleencoded$\",encodeURIComponent(encodeURIComponent(this.to)));\n\twikiLinkText = this.getVariable(\"tv-get-export-link\",{params: [{name: \"to\",value: this.to}],defaultValue: wikiLinkText});\n\tif(tag === \"a\") {\n\t\tdomNode.setAttribute(\"href\",wikiLinkText);\n\t}\n\tif(this.tabIndex) {\n\t\tdomNode.setAttribute(\"tabindex\",this.tabIndex);\n\t}\n\t// Set the tooltip\n\t// HACK: Performance issues with re-parsing the tooltip prevent us defaulting the tooltip to \"<$transclude field='tooltip'><$transclude field='title'/></$transclude>\"\n\tvar tooltipWikiText = this.tooltip || this.getVariable(\"tv-wikilink-tooltip\");\n\tif(tooltipWikiText) {\n\t\tvar tooltipText = this.wiki.renderText(\"text/plain\",\"text/vnd.tiddlywiki\",tooltipWikiText,{\n\t\t\t\tparseAsInline: true,\n\t\t\t\tvariables: {\n\t\t\t\t\tcurrentTiddler: this.to\n\t\t\t\t},\n\t\t\t\tparentWidget: this\n\t\t\t});\n\t\tdomNode.setAttribute(\"title\",tooltipText);\n\t}\n\tif(this[\"aria-label\"]) {\n\t\tdomNode.setAttribute(\"aria-label\",this[\"aria-label\"]);\n\t}\n\t// Add a click event handler\n\t$tw.utils.addEventListeners(domNode,[\n\t\t{name: \"click\", handlerObject: this, handlerMethod: \"handleClickEvent\"},\n\t]);\n\tif(this.draggable === \"yes\") {\n\t\t$tw.utils.addEventListeners(domNode,[\n\t\t\t{name: \"dragstart\", handlerObject: this, handlerMethod: \"handleDragStartEvent\"},\n\t\t\t{name: \"dragend\", handlerObject: this, handlerMethod: \"handleDragEndEvent\"}\n\t\t]);\n\t}\n\t// Insert the link into the DOM and render any children\n\tparent.insertBefore(domNode,nextSibling);\n\tthis.renderChildren(domNode,null);\n\tthis.domNodes.push(domNode);\n};\n\nLinkWidget.prototype.handleClickEvent = function(event) {\n\t// Send the click on its way as a navigate event\n\tvar bounds = this.domNodes[0].getBoundingClientRect();\n\tthis.dispatchEvent({\n\t\ttype: \"tm-navigate\",\n\t\tnavigateTo: this.to,\n\t\tnavigateFromTitle: this.getVariable(\"storyTiddler\"),\n\t\tnavigateFromNode: this,\n\t\tnavigateFromClientRect: { top: bounds.top, left: bounds.left, width: bounds.width, right: bounds.right, bottom: bounds.bottom, height: bounds.height\n\t\t},\n\t\tnavigateSuppressNavigation: event.metaKey || event.ctrlKey || (event.button === 1),\n\t\tfollowAliases: this.followAliases\n\t});\n\tif(this.domNodes[0].hasAttribute(\"href\")) {\n\t\tevent.preventDefault();\n\t}\n\tevent.stopPropagation();\n\treturn false;\n};\n\nLinkWidget.prototype.handleDragStartEvent = function(event) {\n\tif(event.target === this.domNodes[0]) {\n\t\tif(this.to) {\n\t\t\t$tw.dragInProgress = true;\n\t\t\t// Set the dragging class on the element being dragged\n\t\t\t$tw.utils.addClass(event.target,\"tc-tiddlylink-dragging\");\n\t\t\t// Create the drag image elements\n\t\t\tthis.dragImage = this.document.createElement(\"div\");\n\t\t\tthis.dragImage.className = \"tc-tiddler-dragger\";\n\t\t\tvar inner = this.document.createElement(\"div\");\n\t\t\tinner.className = \"tc-tiddler-dragger-inner\";\n\t\t\tinner.appendChild(this.document.createTextNode(this.to));\n\t\t\tthis.dragImage.appendChild(inner);\n\t\t\tthis.document.body.appendChild(this.dragImage);\n\t\t\t// Astoundingly, we need to cover the dragger up: http://www.kryogenix.org/code/browser/custom-drag-image.html\n\t\t\tvar cover = this.document.createElement(\"div\");\n\t\t\tcover.className = \"tc-tiddler-dragger-cover\";\n\t\t\tcover.style.left = (inner.offsetLeft - 16) + \"px\";\n\t\t\tcover.style.top = (inner.offsetTop - 16) + \"px\";\n\t\t\tcover.style.width = (inner.offsetWidth + 32) + \"px\";\n\t\t\tcover.style.height = (inner.offsetHeight + 32) + \"px\";\n\t\t\tthis.dragImage.appendChild(cover);\n\t\t\t// Set the data transfer properties\n\t\t\tvar dataTransfer = event.dataTransfer;\n\t\t\t// First the image\n\t\t\tdataTransfer.effectAllowed = \"copy\";\n\t\t\tif(dataTransfer.setDragImage) {\n\t\t\t\tdataTransfer.setDragImage(this.dragImage.firstChild,-16,-16);\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t// Then the data\n\t\t\tdataTransfer.clearData();\n\t\t\tvar jsonData = this.wiki.getTiddlerAsJson(this.to),\n\t\t\t\ttextData = this.wiki.getTiddlerText(this.to,\"\"),\n\t\t\t\ttitle = (new RegExp(\"^\" + $tw.config.textPrimitives.wikiLink + \"$\",\"mg\")).exec(this.to) ? this.to : \"[[\" + this.to + \"]]\";\n\t\t\t// IE doesn't like these content types\n\t\t\tif(!$tw.browser.isIE) {\n\t\t\t\tdataTransfer.setData(\"text/vnd.tiddler\",jsonData);\n\t\t\t\tdataTransfer.setData(\"text/plain\",title);\n\t\t\t\tdataTransfer.setData(\"text/x-moz-url\",\"data:text/vnd.tiddler,\" + encodeURIComponent(jsonData));\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t\tdataTransfer.setData(\"URL\",\"data:text/vnd.tiddler,\" + encodeURIComponent(jsonData));\n\t\t\tdataTransfer.setData(\"Text\",title);\n\t\t\tevent.stopPropagation();\n\t\t} else {\n\t\t\tevent.preventDefault();\n\t\t}\n\t}\n};\n\nLinkWidget.prototype.handleDragEndEvent = function(event) {\n\tif(event.target === this.domNodes[0]) {\n\t\t$tw.dragInProgress = false;\n\t\t// Remove the dragging class on the element being dragged\n\t\t$tw.utils.removeClass(event.target,\"tc-tiddlylink-dragging\");\n\t\t// Delete the drag image element\n\t\tif(this.dragImage) {\n\t\t\tthis.dragImage.parentNode.removeChild(this.dragImage);\n\t\t}\n\t}\n};\n\n/*\nCompute the internal state of the widget\n*/\nLinkWidget.prototype.execute = function() {\n\t// Pick up our attributes\n\tthis.to = this.getAttribute(\"to\",this.getVariable(\"currentTiddler\"));\n\tthis.tooltip = this.getAttribute(\"tooltip\");\n\tthis[\"aria-label\"] = this.getAttribute(\"aria-label\");\n\tthis.linkClasses = this.getAttribute(\"class\");\n\tthis.tabIndex = this.getAttribute(\"tabindex\");\n\tthis.followAliases = this.getAttribute(\"followAliases\", \"true\");\n\tthis.draggable = this.getAttribute(\"draggable\",\"yes\");\n\tthis.linkTag = this.getAttribute(\"tag\",\"a\");\n\t// Determine the link characteristics\n\tthis.isMissing = !this.wiki.tiddlerExists(this.to) && !(this.wiki.filterTiddlers(\"[title[\"+this.to+\"]listed[aliases]]\").length === 1);\n\tthis.isShadow = this.wiki.isShadowTiddler(this.to);\n\t// Make the child widgets\n\tthis.makeChildWidgets();\n};\n\n/*\nSelectively refreshes the widget if needed. Returns true if the widget or any of its children needed re-rendering\n*/\nLinkWidget.prototype.refresh = function(changedTiddlers) {\n\tvar changedAttributes = this.computeAttributes();\n\tif(changedAttributes.to || changedTiddlers[this.to] || changedAttributes[\"aria-label\"] || changedAttributes.tooltip) {\n\t\tthis.refreshSelf();\n\t\treturn true;\n\t}\n\treturn this.refreshChildren(changedTiddlers);\n};\n\nexports.link = LinkWidget;\n\n})();\n"
},
"$:/core/modules/widgets/navigator.js": {
"title": "$:/core/modules/widgets/navigator.js",
"created": "20160218190315501",
"modified": "20160218192104537",
"module-type": "widget",
"type": "application/javascript",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/widgets/navigator.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: widget\n\nNavigator widget\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nvar IMPORT_TITLE = \"$:/Import\";\n\nvar Widget = require(\"$:/core/modules/widgets/widget.js\").widget;\n\nvar NavigatorWidget = function(parseTreeNode,options) {\n\tthis.initialise(parseTreeNode,options);\n\tthis.addEventListeners([\n\t\t{type: \"tm-navigate\", handler: \"handleNavigateEvent\"},\n\t\t{type: \"tm-edit-tiddler\", handler: \"handleEditTiddlerEvent\"},\n\t\t{type: \"tm-delete-tiddler\", handler: \"handleDeleteTiddlerEvent\"},\n\t\t{type: \"tm-save-tiddler\", handler: \"handleSaveTiddlerEvent\"},\n\t\t{type: \"tm-cancel-tiddler\", handler: \"handleCancelTiddlerEvent\"},\n\t\t{type: \"tm-close-tiddler\", handler: \"handleCloseTiddlerEvent\"},\n\t\t{type: \"tm-close-all-tiddlers\", handler: \"handleCloseAllTiddlersEvent\"},\n\t\t{type: \"tm-close-other-tiddlers\", handler: \"handleCloseOtherTiddlersEvent\"},\n\t\t{type: \"tm-new-tiddler\", handler: \"handleNewTiddlerEvent\"},\n\t\t{type: \"tm-import-tiddlers\", handler: \"handleImportTiddlersEvent\"},\n\t\t{type: \"tm-perform-import\", handler: \"handlePerformImportEvent\"},\n\t\t{type: \"tm-fold-tiddler\", handler: \"handleFoldTiddlerEvent\"},\n\t\t{type: \"tm-fold-other-tiddlers\", handler: \"handleFoldOtherTiddlersEvent\"},\n\t\t{type: \"tm-fold-all-tiddlers\", handler: \"handleFoldAllTiddlersEvent\"},\n\t\t{type: \"tm-unfold-all-tiddlers\", handler: \"handleUnfoldAllTiddlersEvent\"},\n\t\t{type: \"tm-rename-tiddler\", handler: \"handleRenameTiddlerEvent\"}\n\t]);\n};\n\n/*\nInherit from the base widget class\n*/\nNavigatorWidget.prototype = new Widget();\n\n/*\nRender this widget into the DOM\n*/\nNavigatorWidget.prototype.render = function(parent,nextSibling) {\n\tthis.parentDomNode = parent;\n\tthis.computeAttributes();\n\tthis.execute();\n\tthis.renderChildren(parent,nextSibling);\n};\n\n/*\nCompute the internal state of the widget\n*/\nNavigatorWidget.prototype.execute = function() {\n\t// Get our parameters\n\tthis.storyTitle = this.getAttribute(\"story\");\n\tthis.historyTitle = this.getAttribute(\"history\");\n\t// Construct the child widgets\n\tthis.makeChildWidgets();\n};\n\n/*\nSelectively refreshes the widget if needed. Returns true if the widget or any of its children needed re-rendering\n*/\nNavigatorWidget.prototype.refresh = function(changedTiddlers) {\n\tvar changedAttributes = this.computeAttributes();\n\tif(changedAttributes.story || changedAttributes.history) {\n\t\tthis.refreshSelf();\n\t\treturn true;\n\t} else {\n\t\treturn this.refreshChildren(changedTiddlers);\t\t\n\t}\n};\n\nNavigatorWidget.prototype.getStoryList = function() {\n\treturn this.storyTitle ? this.wiki.getTiddlerList(this.storyTitle) : null;\n};\n\nNavigatorWidget.prototype.saveStoryList = function(storyList) {\n\tvar storyTiddler = this.wiki.getTiddler(this.storyTitle);\n\tthis.wiki.addTiddler(new $tw.Tiddler(\n\t\t{title: this.storyTitle},\n\t\tstoryTiddler,\n\t\t{list: storyList}\n\t));\n};\n\nNavigatorWidget.prototype.removeTitleFromStory = function(storyList,title) {\n\tvar p = storyList.indexOf(title);\n\twhile(p !== -1) {\n\t\tstoryList.splice(p,1);\n\t\tp = storyList.indexOf(title);\n\t}\n};\n\nNavigatorWidget.prototype.replaceFirstTitleInStory = function(storyList,oldTitle,newTitle) {\n\tvar pos = storyList.indexOf(oldTitle);\n\tif(pos !== -1) {\n\t\tstoryList[pos] = newTitle;\n\t\tdo {\n\t\t\tpos = storyList.indexOf(oldTitle,pos + 1);\n\t\t\tif(pos !== -1) {\n\t\t\t\tstoryList.splice(pos,1);\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t} while(pos !== -1);\n\t} else {\n\t\tstoryList.splice(0,0,newTitle);\n\t}\n};\n\nNavigatorWidget.prototype.addToStory = function(title,fromTitle) {\n\tvar storyList = this.getStoryList();\n\t// Quit if we cannot get hold of the story list\n\tif(!storyList) {\n\t\treturn;\n\t}\n\t// See if the tiddler is already there\n\tvar slot = storyList.indexOf(title);\n\t// Quit if it already exists in the story river\n\tif(slot >= 0) {\n\t\treturn;\n\t}\n\t// First we try to find the position of the story element we navigated from\n\tvar fromIndex = storyList.indexOf(fromTitle);\n\tif(fromIndex >= 0) {\n\t\t// The tiddler is added from inside the river\n\t\t// Determine where to insert the tiddler; Fallback is \"below\"\n\t\tswitch(this.getAttribute(\"openLinkFromInsideRiver\",\"below\")) {\n\t\t\tcase \"top\":\n\t\t\t\tslot = 0;\n\t\t\t\tbreak;\n\t\t\tcase \"bottom\":\n\t\t\t\tslot = storyList.length;\n\t\t\t\tbreak;\n\t\t\tcase \"above\":\n\t\t\t\tslot = fromIndex;\n\t\t\t\tbreak;\n\t\t\tcase \"below\": // Intentional fall-through\n\t\t\tdefault:\n\t\t\t\tslot = fromIndex + 1;\n\t\t\t\tbreak;\n\t\t}\n\t} else {\n\t\t// The tiddler is opened from outside the river. Determine where to insert the tiddler; default is \"top\"\n\t\tif(this.getAttribute(\"openLinkFromOutsideRiver\",\"top\") === \"bottom\") {\n\t\t\t// Insert at bottom\n\t\t\tslot = storyList.length;\n\t\t} else {\n\t\t\t// Insert at top\n\t\t\tslot = 0;\n\t\t}\n\t}\n\t// Add the tiddler\n\tstoryList.splice(slot,0,title);\n\t// Save the story\n\tthis.saveStoryList(storyList);\n};\n\n/*\nAdd a new record to the top of the history stack\ntitle: a title string or an array of title strings\nfromPageRect: page coordinates of the origin of the navigation\n*/\nNavigatorWidget.prototype.addToHistory = function(title,fromPageRect) {\n\tthis.wiki.addToHistory(title,fromPageRect,this.historyTitle);\n};\n\n/*\nHandle a tm-navigate event\n*/\nNavigatorWidget.prototype.handleNavigateEvent = function(event) {\n\tif(event.navigateTo) {\n if (!this.wiki.tiddlerExists(event.navigateTo) && event.followAliases == \"true\") {\n var aliases = this.wiki.filterTiddlers(\"[title[\"+event.navigateTo+\"]listed[aliases]]\")\n if (aliases.length === 1) {\n event.navigateTo = aliases[0]\n }\n }\n\t\tthis.addToStory(event.navigateTo,event.navigateFromTitle);\n\t\tif(!event.navigateSuppressNavigation) {\n\t\t\tthis.addToHistory(event.navigateTo,event.navigateFromClientRect);\n\t\t}\n\t}\n\treturn false;\n};\n\n// Close a specified tiddler\nNavigatorWidget.prototype.handleCloseTiddlerEvent = function(event) {\n\tvar title = event.param || event.tiddlerTitle,\n\t\tstoryList = this.getStoryList();\n\t// Look for tiddlers with this title to close\n\tthis.removeTitleFromStory(storyList,title);\n\tthis.saveStoryList(storyList);\n\treturn false;\n};\n\n// Close all tiddlers\nNavigatorWidget.prototype.handleCloseAllTiddlersEvent = function(event) {\n\tthis.saveStoryList([]);\n\treturn false;\n};\n\n// Close other tiddlers\nNavigatorWidget.prototype.handleCloseOtherTiddlersEvent = function(event) {\n\tvar title = event.param || event.tiddlerTitle;\n\tthis.saveStoryList([title]);\n\treturn false;\n};\n\n// Place a tiddler in edit mode\nNavigatorWidget.prototype.handleEditTiddlerEvent = function(event) {\n\tvar self = this;\n\tfunction isUnmodifiedShadow(title) {\n\t\treturn self.wiki.isShadowTiddler(title) && !self.wiki.tiddlerExists(title);\n\t}\n\tfunction confirmEditShadow(title) {\n\t\treturn confirm($tw.language.getString(\n\t\t\t\"ConfirmEditShadowTiddler\",\n\t\t\t{variables:\n\t\t\t\t{title: title}\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t));\n\t}\n\tvar title = event.param || event.tiddlerTitle;\n\tif(isUnmodifiedShadow(title) && !confirmEditShadow(title)) {\n\t\treturn false;\n\t}\n\t// Replace the specified tiddler with a draft in edit mode\n\tvar draftTiddler = this.makeDraftTiddler(title);\n\t// Update the story and history if required\n\tif(!event.paramObject || event.paramObject.suppressNavigation !== \"yes\") {\n\t\tvar draftTitle = draftTiddler.fields.title,\n\t\t\tstoryList = this.getStoryList();\n\t\tthis.removeTitleFromStory(storyList,draftTitle);\n\t\tthis.replaceFirstTitleInStory(storyList,title,draftTitle);\n\t\tthis.addToHistory(draftTitle,event.navigateFromClientRect);\n\t\tthis.saveStoryList(storyList);\n\t\treturn false;\n\t}\n};\n\n// Delete a tiddler\nNavigatorWidget.prototype.handleDeleteTiddlerEvent = function(event) {\n\t// Get the tiddler we're deleting\n\tvar title = event.param || event.tiddlerTitle,\n\t\ttiddler = this.wiki.getTiddler(title),\n\t\tstoryList = this.getStoryList(),\n\t\toriginalTitle = tiddler ? tiddler.fields[\"draft.of\"] : \"\",\n\t\tconfirmationTitle;\n\tif(!tiddler) {\n\t\treturn false;\n\t}\n\t// Check if the tiddler we're deleting is in draft mode\n\tif(originalTitle) {\n\t\t// If so, we'll prompt for confirmation referencing the original tiddler\n\t\tconfirmationTitle = originalTitle;\n\t} else {\n\t\t// If not a draft, then prompt for confirmation referencing the specified tiddler\n\t\tconfirmationTitle = title;\n\t}\n\t// Seek confirmation\n\tif((this.wiki.getTiddler(originalTitle) || (tiddler.fields.text || \"\") !== \"\") && !confirm($tw.language.getString(\n\t\t\t\t\"ConfirmDeleteTiddler\",\n\t\t\t\t{variables:\n\t\t\t\t\t{title: confirmationTitle}\n\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t))) {\n\t\treturn false;\n\t}\n\t// Delete the original tiddler\n\tif(originalTitle) {\n\t\tthis.wiki.deleteTiddler(originalTitle);\n\t\tthis.removeTitleFromStory(storyList,originalTitle);\n\t}\n\t// Delete this tiddler\n\tthis.wiki.deleteTiddler(title);\n\t// Remove the closed tiddler from the story\n\tthis.removeTitleFromStory(storyList,title);\n\tthis.saveStoryList(storyList);\n\t// Trigger an autosave\n\t$tw.rootWidget.dispatchEvent({type: \"tm-auto-save-wiki\"});\n\treturn false;\n};\n\n/*\nCreate/reuse the draft tiddler for a given title\n*/\nNavigatorWidget.prototype.makeDraftTiddler = function(targetTitle) {\n\t// See if there is already a draft tiddler for this tiddler\n\tvar draftTitle = this.wiki.findDraft(targetTitle);\n\tif(draftTitle) {\n\t\treturn this.wiki.getTiddler(draftTitle);\n\t}\n\t// Get the current value of the tiddler we're editing\n\tvar tiddler = this.wiki.getTiddler(targetTitle);\n\t// Save the initial value of the draft tiddler\n\tdraftTitle = this.generateDraftTitle(targetTitle);\n\tvar draftTiddler = new $tw.Tiddler(\n\t\t\ttiddler,\n\t\t\t{\n\t\t\t\ttitle: draftTitle,\n\t\t\t\t\"draft.title\": targetTitle,\n\t\t\t\t\"draft.of\": targetTitle\n\t\t\t},\n\t\t\tthis.wiki.getModificationFields()\n\t\t);\n\tthis.wiki.addTiddler(draftTiddler);\n\treturn draftTiddler;\n};\n\n/*\nGenerate a title for the draft of a given tiddler\n*/\nNavigatorWidget.prototype.generateDraftTitle = function(title) {\n\tvar c = 0,\n\t\tdraftTitle;\n\tdo {\n\t\tdraftTitle = \"Draft \" + (c ? (c + 1) + \" \" : \"\") + \"of '\" + title + \"'\";\n\t\tc++;\n\t} while(this.wiki.tiddlerExists(draftTitle));\n\treturn draftTitle;\n};\n\n// Take a tiddler out of edit mode, saving the changes\nNavigatorWidget.prototype.handleSaveTiddlerEvent = function(event) {\n\tvar title = event.param || event.tiddlerTitle,\n\t\ttiddler = this.wiki.getTiddler(title),\n\t\tstoryList = this.getStoryList();\n\t// Replace the original tiddler with the draft\n\tif(tiddler) {\n\t\tvar draftTitle = (tiddler.fields[\"draft.title\"] || \"\").trim(),\n\t\t\tdraftOf = (tiddler.fields[\"draft.of\"] || \"\").trim();\n\t\tif(draftTitle) {\n\t\t\tvar isRename = draftOf !== draftTitle,\n\t\t\t\tisConfirmed = true;\n\t\t\tif(isRename && this.wiki.tiddlerExists(draftTitle)) {\n\t\t\t\tisConfirmed = confirm($tw.language.getString(\n\t\t\t\t\t\"ConfirmOverwriteTiddler\",\n\t\t\t\t\t{variables:\n\t\t\t\t\t\t{title: draftTitle}\n\t\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t\t));\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t\tif(isConfirmed) {\n\t\t\t\t// Create the new tiddler and pass it through the th-saving-tiddler hook\n\t\t\t\tvar newTiddler = new $tw.Tiddler(this.wiki.getCreationFields(),tiddler,{\n\t\t\t\t\ttitle: draftTitle,\n\t\t\t\t\t\"draft.title\": undefined,\n\t\t\t\t\t\"draft.of\": undefined\n\t\t\t\t},this.wiki.getModificationFields());\n\t\t\t\tnewTiddler = $tw.hooks.invokeHook(\"th-saving-tiddler\",newTiddler);\n\t\t\t\tthis.wiki.addTiddler(newTiddler);\n\t\t\t\t// Remove the draft tiddler\n\t\t\t\tthis.wiki.deleteTiddler(title);\n\t\t\t\t// Remove the original tiddler if we're renaming it\n\t\t\t\tif(isRename) {\n\t\t\t\t\tthis.wiki.deleteTiddler(draftOf);\n\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t\tif(!event.paramObject || event.paramObject.suppressNavigation !== \"yes\") {\n\t\t\t\t\t// Replace the draft in the story with the original\n\t\t\t\t\tthis.replaceFirstTitleInStory(storyList,title,draftTitle);\n\t\t\t\t\tthis.addToHistory(draftTitle,event.navigateFromClientRect);\n\t\t\t\t\tif(draftTitle !== this.storyTitle) {\n\t\t\t\t\t\tthis.saveStoryList(storyList);\n\t\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t\t// Trigger an autosave\n\t\t\t\t$tw.rootWidget.dispatchEvent({type: \"tm-auto-save-wiki\"});\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t}\n\t}\n\treturn false;\n};\n\n// Take a tiddler out of edit mode without saving the changes\nNavigatorWidget.prototype.handleCancelTiddlerEvent = function(event) {\n\t// Flip the specified tiddler from draft back to the original\n\tvar draftTitle = event.param || event.tiddlerTitle,\n\t\tdraftTiddler = this.wiki.getTiddler(draftTitle),\n\t\toriginalTitle = draftTiddler && draftTiddler.fields[\"draft.of\"];\n\tif(draftTiddler && originalTitle) {\n\t\t// Ask for confirmation if the tiddler text has changed\n\t\tvar isConfirmed = true,\n\t\t\toriginalTiddler = this.wiki.getTiddler(originalTitle),\n\t\t\tstoryList = this.getStoryList();\n\t\tif(this.wiki.isDraftModified(draftTitle)) {\n\t\t\tisConfirmed = confirm($tw.language.getString(\n\t\t\t\t\"ConfirmCancelTiddler\",\n\t\t\t\t{variables:\n\t\t\t\t\t{title: draftTitle}\n\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t));\n\t\t}\n\t\t// Remove the draft tiddler\n\t\tif(isConfirmed) {\n\t\t\tthis.wiki.deleteTiddler(draftTitle);\n\t\t\tif(!event.paramObject || event.paramObject.suppressNavigation !== \"yes\") {\n\t\t\t\tif(originalTiddler) {\n\t\t\t\t\tthis.replaceFirstTitleInStory(storyList,draftTitle,originalTitle);\n\t\t\t\t\tthis.addToHistory(originalTitle,event.navigateFromClientRect);\n\t\t\t\t} else {\n\t\t\t\t\tthis.removeTitleFromStory(storyList,draftTitle);\n\t\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t\tthis.saveStoryList(storyList);\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t}\n\t}\n\treturn false;\n};\n\n// Create a new draft tiddler\n// event.param can either be the title of a template tiddler, or a hashmap of fields.\n//\n// The title of the newly created tiddler follows these rules:\n// * If a hashmap was used and a title field was specified, use that title\n// * If a hashmap was used without a title field, use a default title, if necessary making it unique with a numeric suffix\n// * If a template tiddler was used, use the title of the template, if necessary making it unique with a numeric suffix\n//\n// If a draft of the target tiddler already exists then it is reused\nNavigatorWidget.prototype.handleNewTiddlerEvent = function(event) {\n\t// Get the story details\n\tvar storyList = this.getStoryList(),\n\t\ttemplateTiddler, additionalFields, title, draftTitle, existingTiddler;\n\t// Get the template tiddler (if any)\n\tif(typeof event.param === \"string\") {\n\t\t// Get the template tiddler\n\t\ttemplateTiddler = this.wiki.getTiddler(event.param);\n\t\t// Generate a new title\n\t\ttitle = this.wiki.generateNewTitle(event.param || $tw.language.getString(\"DefaultNewTiddlerTitle\"));\n\t}\n\t// Get the specified additional fields\n\tif(typeof event.paramObject === \"object\") {\n\t\tadditionalFields = event.paramObject;\n\t}\n\tif(typeof event.param === \"object\") { // Backwards compatibility with 5.1.3\n\t\tadditionalFields = event.param;\n\t}\n\tif(additionalFields && additionalFields.title) {\n\t\ttitle = additionalFields.title;\n\t}\n\t// Generate a title if we don't have one\n\ttitle = title || this.wiki.generateNewTitle($tw.language.getString(\"DefaultNewTiddlerTitle\"));\n\t// Find any existing draft for this tiddler\n\tdraftTitle = this.wiki.findDraft(title);\n\t// Pull in any existing tiddler\n\tif(draftTitle) {\n\t\texistingTiddler = this.wiki.getTiddler(draftTitle);\n\t} else {\n\t\tdraftTitle = this.generateDraftTitle(title);\n\t\texistingTiddler = this.wiki.getTiddler(title);\n\t}\n\t// Merge the tags\n\tvar mergedTags = [];\n\tif(existingTiddler && existingTiddler.fields.tags) {\n\t\t$tw.utils.pushTop(mergedTags,existingTiddler.fields.tags)\n\t}\n\tif(additionalFields && additionalFields.tags) {\n\t\t// Merge tags\n\t\tmergedTags = $tw.utils.pushTop(mergedTags,$tw.utils.parseStringArray(additionalFields.tags));\n\t}\n\tif(templateTiddler && templateTiddler.fields.tags) {\n\t\t// Merge tags\n\t\tmergedTags = $tw.utils.pushTop(mergedTags,templateTiddler.fields.tags);\n\t}\n\t// Save the draft tiddler\n\tvar draftTiddler = new $tw.Tiddler({\n\t\t\ttext: \"\",\n\t\t\t\"draft.title\": title\n\t\t},\n\t\ttemplateTiddler,\n\t\texistingTiddler,\n\t\tadditionalFields,\n\t\tthis.wiki.getCreationFields(),\n\t\t{\n\t\t\ttitle: draftTitle,\n\t\t\t\"draft.of\": title,\n\t\t\ttags: mergedTags\n\t\t},this.wiki.getModificationFields());\n\tthis.wiki.addTiddler(draftTiddler);\n\t// Update the story to insert the new draft at the top and remove any existing tiddler\n\tif(storyList.indexOf(draftTitle) === -1) {\n\t\tvar slot = storyList.indexOf(event.navigateFromTitle);\n\t\tstoryList.splice(slot + 1,0,draftTitle);\n\t}\n\tif(storyList.indexOf(title) !== -1) {\n\t\tstoryList.splice(storyList.indexOf(title),1);\t\t\n\t}\n\tthis.saveStoryList(storyList);\n\t// Add a new record to the top of the history stack\n\tthis.addToHistory(draftTitle);\n\treturn false;\n};\n\n// Import JSON tiddlers into a pending import tiddler\nNavigatorWidget.prototype.handleImportTiddlersEvent = function(event) {\n\tvar self = this;\n\t// Get the tiddlers\n\tvar tiddlers = [];\n\ttry {\n\t\ttiddlers = JSON.parse(event.param);\t\n\t} catch(e) {\n\t}\n\t// Get the current $:/Import tiddler\n\tvar importTiddler = this.wiki.getTiddler(IMPORT_TITLE),\n\t\timportData = this.wiki.getTiddlerData(IMPORT_TITLE,{}),\n\t\tnewFields = new Object({\n\t\t\ttitle: IMPORT_TITLE,\n\t\t\ttype: \"application/json\",\n\t\t\t\"plugin-type\": \"import\",\n\t\t\t\"status\": \"pending\"\n\t\t}),\n\t\tincomingTiddlers = [];\n\t// Process each tiddler\n\timportData.tiddlers = importData.tiddlers || {};\n\t$tw.utils.each(tiddlers,function(tiddlerFields) {\n\t\tvar title = tiddlerFields.title;\n\t\tif(title) {\n\t\t\tincomingTiddlers.push(title);\n\t\t\timportData.tiddlers[title] = tiddlerFields;\n\t\t}\n\t});\n\t// Give the active upgrader modules a chance to process the incoming tiddlers\n\tvar messages = this.wiki.invokeUpgraders(incomingTiddlers,importData.tiddlers);\n\t$tw.utils.each(messages,function(message,title) {\n\t\tnewFields[\"message-\" + title] = message;\n\t});\n\t// Deselect any suppressed tiddlers\n\t$tw.utils.each(importData.tiddlers,function(tiddler,title) {\n\t\tif($tw.utils.count(tiddler) === 0) {\n\t\t\tnewFields[\"selection-\" + title] = \"unchecked\";\n\t\t}\n\t});\n\t// Save the $:/Import tiddler\n\tnewFields.text = JSON.stringify(importData,null,$tw.config.preferences.jsonSpaces);\n\tthis.wiki.addTiddler(new $tw.Tiddler(importTiddler,newFields));\n\t// Update the story and history details\n\tif(this.getVariable(\"tv-auto-open-on-import\") !== \"no\") {\n\t\tvar storyList = this.getStoryList(),\n\t\t\thistory = [];\n\t\t// Add it to the story\n\t\tif(storyList.indexOf(IMPORT_TITLE) === -1) {\n\t\t\tstoryList.unshift(IMPORT_TITLE);\n\t\t}\n\t\t// And to history\n\t\thistory.push(IMPORT_TITLE);\n\t\t// Save the updated story and history\n\t\tthis.saveStoryList(storyList);\n\t\tthis.addToHistory(history);\t\t\n\t}\n\treturn false;\n};\n\n// \nNavigatorWidget.prototype.handlePerformImportEvent = function(event) {\n\tvar self = this,\n\t\timportTiddler = this.wiki.getTiddler(event.param),\n\t\timportData = this.wiki.getTiddlerDataCached(event.param,{tiddlers: {}}),\n\t\timportReport = [];\n\t// Add the tiddlers to the store\n\timportReport.push($tw.language.getString(\"Import/Imported\") + \"\\n\");\n\t$tw.utils.each(importData.tiddlers,function(tiddlerFields) {\n\t\tvar title = tiddlerFields.title;\n\t\tif(title && importTiddler && importTiddler.fields[\"selection-\" + title] !== \"unchecked\") {\n\t\t\tself.wiki.addTiddler(new $tw.Tiddler(tiddlerFields));\n\t\t\timportReport.push(\"# [[\" + tiddlerFields.title + \"]]\");\n\t\t}\n\t});\n\t// Replace the $:/Import tiddler with an import report\n\tthis.wiki.addTiddler(new $tw.Tiddler({\n\t\ttitle: event.param,\n\t\ttext: importReport.join(\"\\n\"),\n\t\t\"status\": \"complete\"\n\t}));\n\t// Navigate to the $:/Import tiddler\n\tthis.addToHistory([event.param]);\n\t// Trigger an autosave\n\t$tw.rootWidget.dispatchEvent({type: \"tm-auto-save-wiki\"});\n};\n\nNavigatorWidget.prototype.handleFoldTiddlerEvent = function(event) {\n\tvar self = this,\n\t\tparamObject = event.paramObject || {};\n\tif(paramObject.foldedState) {\n\t\tvar foldedState = this.wiki.getTiddlerText(paramObject.foldedState,\"show\") === \"show\" ? \"hide\" : \"show\";\n\t\tthis.wiki.setText(paramObject.foldedState,\"text\",null,foldedState);\n\t}\n};\n\nNavigatorWidget.prototype.handleFoldOtherTiddlersEvent = function(event) {\n\tvar self = this,\n\t\tparamObject = event.paramObject || {},\n\t\tprefix = paramObject.foldedStatePrefix;\n\t$tw.utils.each(this.getStoryList(),function(title) {\n\t\tself.wiki.setText(prefix + title,\"text\",null,event.param === title ? \"show\" : \"hide\");\n\t});\n};\n\nNavigatorWidget.prototype.handleFoldAllTiddlersEvent = function(event) {\n\tvar self = this,\n\t\tparamObject = event.paramObject || {},\n\t\tprefix = paramObject.foldedStatePrefix;\n\t$tw.utils.each(this.getStoryList(),function(title) {\n\t\tself.wiki.setText(prefix + title,\"text\",null,\"hide\");\n\t});\n};\n\nNavigatorWidget.prototype.handleUnfoldAllTiddlersEvent = function(event) {\n\tvar self = this,\n\t\tparamObject = event.paramObject || {},\n\t\tprefix = paramObject.foldedStatePrefix;\n\t$tw.utils.each(this.getStoryList(),function(title) {\n\t\tself.wiki.setText(prefix + title,\"text\",null,\"show\");\n\t});\n};\n\nNavigatorWidget.prototype.handleRenameTiddlerEvent = function(event) {\n\tvar self = this,\n\t\tparamObject = event.paramObject || {},\n\t\tfrom = paramObject.from || event.tiddlerTitle,\n\t\tto = paramObject.to;\n\t$tw.wiki.renameTiddler(from,to);\n};\n\nexports.navigator = NavigatorWidget;\n\n})();\n"
},
"$:/core/ui/ViewTemplate/body": {
"title": "$:/core/ui/ViewTemplate/body",
"created": "20160218185029873",
"modified": "20160218192615033",
"tags": "$:/tags/ViewTemplate",
"text": "<$reveal tag=\"div\" class=\"tc-tiddler-body\" type=\"nomatch\" state=<<folded-state>> text=\"hide\" retain=\"yes\" animate=\"yes\">\n\n<$list filter=\"[all[current]!has[plugin-type]!field:hide-body[yes]]\">\n\n<$transclude>\n\n<$transclude tiddler=\"$:/language/MissingTiddler/Hint\"/>\n\n<$list filter=\"[title{!!title}listed[aliases]first[]]\" variable=\"\">\nYou may have meant one of the following pages\n<$list filter=\"[title{!!title}listed[aliases]]\">\n<li><$link>{{!!title}}</$link></li>\n</$list>\n\n</$list>\n</$transclude>\n\n</$list>\n\n</$reveal>\n"
},
"$:/plugins/mklauber/aliases": {
"title": "$:/plugins/mklauber/aliases",
"author": "Matt Lauber",
"core-version": "5.0.1",
"description": "Aliases - Alias manager",
"plugin-type": "plugin",
"type": "application/json",
"version": "0.1.2",
"text": "{\n \"tiddlers\": {\n \"$:/core/modules/widgets/navigator.js\": {\n \"text\": \"/*\\\\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/widgets/navigator.js\\ntype: application/javascript\\nmodule-type: widget\\n\\nNavigator widget\\n\\n\\\\*/\\n(function(){\\n\\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\\n/*global $tw: false */\\n\\\"use strict\\\";\\n\\nvar IMPORT_TITLE = \\\"$:/Import\\\";\\n\\nvar Widget = require(\\\"$:/core/modules/widgets/widget.js\\\").widget;\\n\\nvar NavigatorWidget = function(parseTreeNode,options) {\\n\\tthis.initialise(parseTreeNode,options);\\n\\tthis.addEventListeners([\\n\\t\\t{type: \\\"tm-navigate\\\", handler: \\\"handleNavigateEvent\\\"},\\n\\t\\t{type: \\\"tm-edit-tiddler\\\", handler: \\\"handleEditTiddlerEvent\\\"},\\n\\t\\t{type: \\\"tm-delete-tiddler\\\", handler: \\\"handleDeleteTiddlerEvent\\\"},\\n\\t\\t{type: \\\"tm-save-tiddler\\\", handler: \\\"handleSaveTiddlerEvent\\\"},\\n\\t\\t{type: \\\"tm-cancel-tiddler\\\", handler: \\\"handleCancelTiddlerEvent\\\"},\\n\\t\\t{type: \\\"tm-close-tiddler\\\", handler: \\\"handleCloseTiddlerEvent\\\"},\\n\\t\\t{type: \\\"tm-close-all-tiddlers\\\", handler: \\\"handleCloseAllTiddlersEvent\\\"},\\n\\t\\t{type: \\\"tm-close-other-tiddlers\\\", handler: \\\"handleCloseOtherTiddlersEvent\\\"},\\n\\t\\t{type: \\\"tm-new-tiddler\\\", handler: \\\"handleNewTiddlerEvent\\\"},\\n\\t\\t{type: \\\"tm-import-tiddlers\\\", handler: \\\"handleImportTiddlersEvent\\\"},\\n\\t\\t{type: \\\"tm-perform-import\\\", handler: \\\"handlePerformImportEvent\\\"},\\n\\t\\t{type: \\\"tm-fold-tiddler\\\", handler: \\\"handleFoldTiddlerEvent\\\"},\\n\\t\\t{type: \\\"tm-fold-other-tiddlers\\\", handler: \\\"handleFoldOtherTiddlersEvent\\\"},\\n\\t\\t{type: \\\"tm-fold-all-tiddlers\\\", handler: \\\"handleFoldAllTiddlersEvent\\\"},\\n\\t\\t{type: \\\"tm-unfold-all-tiddlers\\\", handler: \\\"handleUnfoldAllTiddlersEvent\\\"},\\n\\t\\t{type: \\\"tm-rename-tiddler\\\", handler: \\\"handleRenameTiddlerEvent\\\"}\\n\\t]);\\n};\\n\\n/*\\nInherit from the base widget class\\n*/\\nNavigatorWidget.prototype = new Widget();\\n\\n/*\\nRender this widget into the DOM\\n*/\\nNavigatorWidget.prototype.render = function(parent,nextSibling) {\\n\\tthis.parentDomNode = parent;\\n\\tthis.computeAttributes();\\n\\tthis.execute();\\n\\tthis.renderChildren(parent,nextSibling);\\n};\\n\\n/*\\nCompute the internal state of the widget\\n*/\\nNavigatorWidget.prototype.execute = function() {\\n\\t// Get our parameters\\n\\tthis.storyTitle = this.getAttribute(\\\"story\\\");\\n\\tthis.historyTitle = this.getAttribute(\\\"history\\\");\\n\\t// Construct the child widgets\\n\\tthis.makeChildWidgets();\\n};\\n\\n/*\\nSelectively refreshes the widget if needed. Returns true if the widget or any of its children needed re-rendering\\n*/\\nNavigatorWidget.prototype.refresh = function(changedTiddlers) {\\n\\tvar changedAttributes = this.computeAttributes();\\n\\tif(changedAttributes.story || changedAttributes.history) {\\n\\t\\tthis.refreshSelf();\\n\\t\\treturn true;\\n\\t} else {\\n\\t\\treturn this.refreshChildren(changedTiddlers);\\t\\t\\n\\t}\\n};\\n\\nNavigatorWidget.prototype.getStoryList = function() {\\n\\treturn this.storyTitle ? this.wiki.getTiddlerList(this.storyTitle) : null;\\n};\\n\\nNavigatorWidget.prototype.saveStoryList = function(storyList) {\\n\\tvar storyTiddler = this.wiki.getTiddler(this.storyTitle);\\n\\tthis.wiki.addTiddler(new $tw.Tiddler(\\n\\t\\t{title: this.storyTitle},\\n\\t\\tstoryTiddler,\\n\\t\\t{list: storyList}\\n\\t));\\n};\\n\\nNavigatorWidget.prototype.removeTitleFromStory = function(storyList,title) {\\n\\tvar p = storyList.indexOf(title);\\n\\twhile(p !== -1) {\\n\\t\\tstoryList.splice(p,1);\\n\\t\\tp = storyList.indexOf(title);\\n\\t}\\n};\\n\\nNavigatorWidget.prototype.replaceFirstTitleInStory = function(storyList,oldTitle,newTitle) {\\n\\tvar pos = storyList.indexOf(oldTitle);\\n\\tif(pos !== -1) {\\n\\t\\tstoryList[pos] = newTitle;\\n\\t\\tdo {\\n\\t\\t\\tpos = storyList.indexOf(oldTitle,pos + 1);\\n\\t\\t\\tif(pos !== -1) {\\n\\t\\t\\t\\tstoryList.splice(pos,1);\\n\\t\\t\\t}\\n\\t\\t} while(pos !== -1);\\n\\t} else {\\n\\t\\tstoryList.splice(0,0,newTitle);\\n\\t}\\n};\\n\\nNavigatorWidget.prototype.addToStory = function(title,fromTitle) {\\n\\tvar storyList = this.getStoryList();\\n\\t// Quit if we cannot get hold of the story list\\n\\tif(!storyList) {\\n\\t\\treturn;\\n\\t}\\n\\t// See if the tiddler is already there\\n\\tvar slot = storyList.indexOf(title);\\n\\t// Quit if it already exists in the story river\\n\\tif(slot >= 0) {\\n\\t\\treturn;\\n\\t}\\n\\t// First we try to find the position of the story element we navigated from\\n\\tvar fromIndex = storyList.indexOf(fromTitle);\\n\\tif(fromIndex >= 0) {\\n\\t\\t// The tiddler is added from inside the river\\n\\t\\t// Determine where to insert the tiddler; Fallback is \\\"below\\\"\\n\\t\\tswitch(this.getAttribute(\\\"openLinkFromInsideRiver\\\",\\\"below\\\")) {\\n\\t\\t\\tcase \\\"top\\\":\\n\\t\\t\\t\\tslot = 0;\\n\\t\\t\\t\\tbreak;\\n\\t\\t\\tcase \\\"bottom\\\":\\n\\t\\t\\t\\tslot = storyList.length;\\n\\t\\t\\t\\tbreak;\\n\\t\\t\\tcase \\\"above\\\":\\n\\t\\t\\t\\tslot = fromIndex;\\n\\t\\t\\t\\tbreak;\\n\\t\\t\\tcase \\\"below\\\": // Intentional fall-through\\n\\t\\t\\tdefault:\\n\\t\\t\\t\\tslot = fromIndex + 1;\\n\\t\\t\\t\\tbreak;\\n\\t\\t}\\n\\t} else {\\n\\t\\t// The tiddler is opened from outside the river. Determine where to insert the tiddler; default is \\\"top\\\"\\n\\t\\tif(this.getAttribute(\\\"openLinkFromOutsideRiver\\\",\\\"top\\\") === \\\"bottom\\\") {\\n\\t\\t\\t// Insert at bottom\\n\\t\\t\\tslot = storyList.length;\\n\\t\\t} else {\\n\\t\\t\\t// Insert at top\\n\\t\\t\\tslot = 0;\\n\\t\\t}\\n\\t}\\n\\t// Add the tiddler\\n\\tstoryList.splice(slot,0,title);\\n\\t// Save the story\\n\\tthis.saveStoryList(storyList);\\n};\\n\\n/*\\nAdd a new record to the top of the history stack\\ntitle: a title string or an array of title strings\\nfromPageRect: page coordinates of the origin of the navigation\\n*/\\nNavigatorWidget.prototype.addToHistory = function(title,fromPageRect) {\\n\\tthis.wiki.addToHistory(title,fromPageRect,this.historyTitle);\\n};\\n\\n/*\\nHandle a tm-navigate event\\n*/\\nNavigatorWidget.prototype.handleNavigateEvent = function(event) {\\n\\tif(event.navigateTo) {\\n if (!this.wiki.tiddlerExists(event.navigateTo) && event.followAliases == \\\"true\\\") {\\n var aliases = this.wiki.filterTiddlers(\\\"[title[\\\"+event.navigateTo+\\\"]listed[aliases]]\\\")\\n if (aliases.length === 1) {\\n event.navigateTo = aliases[0]\\n }\\n }\\n\\t\\tthis.addToStory(event.navigateTo,event.navigateFromTitle);\\n\\t\\tif(!event.navigateSuppressNavigation) {\\n\\t\\t\\tthis.addToHistory(event.navigateTo,event.navigateFromClientRect);\\n\\t\\t}\\n\\t}\\n\\treturn false;\\n};\\n\\n// Close a specified tiddler\\nNavigatorWidget.prototype.handleCloseTiddlerEvent = function(event) {\\n\\tvar title = event.param || event.tiddlerTitle,\\n\\t\\tstoryList = this.getStoryList();\\n\\t// Look for tiddlers with this title to close\\n\\tthis.removeTitleFromStory(storyList,title);\\n\\tthis.saveStoryList(storyList);\\n\\treturn false;\\n};\\n\\n// Close all tiddlers\\nNavigatorWidget.prototype.handleCloseAllTiddlersEvent = function(event) {\\n\\tthis.saveStoryList([]);\\n\\treturn false;\\n};\\n\\n// Close other tiddlers\\nNavigatorWidget.prototype.handleCloseOtherTiddlersEvent = function(event) {\\n\\tvar title = event.param || event.tiddlerTitle;\\n\\tthis.saveStoryList([title]);\\n\\treturn false;\\n};\\n\\n// Place a tiddler in edit mode\\nNavigatorWidget.prototype.handleEditTiddlerEvent = function(event) {\\n\\tvar self = this;\\n\\tfunction isUnmodifiedShadow(title) {\\n\\t\\treturn self.wiki.isShadowTiddler(title) && !self.wiki.tiddlerExists(title);\\n\\t}\\n\\tfunction confirmEditShadow(title) {\\n\\t\\treturn confirm($tw.language.getString(\\n\\t\\t\\t\\\"ConfirmEditShadowTiddler\\\",\\n\\t\\t\\t{variables:\\n\\t\\t\\t\\t{title: title}\\n\\t\\t\\t}\\n\\t\\t));\\n\\t}\\n\\tvar title = event.param || event.tiddlerTitle;\\n\\tif(isUnmodifiedShadow(title) && !confirmEditShadow(title)) {\\n\\t\\treturn false;\\n\\t}\\n\\t// Replace the specified tiddler with a draft in edit mode\\n\\tvar draftTiddler = this.makeDraftTiddler(title);\\n\\t// Update the story and history if required\\n\\tif(!event.paramObject || event.paramObject.suppressNavigation !== \\\"yes\\\") {\\n\\t\\tvar draftTitle = draftTiddler.fields.title,\\n\\t\\t\\tstoryList = this.getStoryList();\\n\\t\\tthis.removeTitleFromStory(storyList,draftTitle);\\n\\t\\tthis.replaceFirstTitleInStory(storyList,title,draftTitle);\\n\\t\\tthis.addToHistory(draftTitle,event.navigateFromClientRect);\\n\\t\\tthis.saveStoryList(storyList);\\n\\t\\treturn false;\\n\\t}\\n};\\n\\n// Delete a tiddler\\nNavigatorWidget.prototype.handleDeleteTiddlerEvent = function(event) {\\n\\t// Get the tiddler we're deleting\\n\\tvar title = event.param || event.tiddlerTitle,\\n\\t\\ttiddler = this.wiki.getTiddler(title),\\n\\t\\tstoryList = this.getStoryList(),\\n\\t\\toriginalTitle = tiddler ? tiddler.fields[\\\"draft.of\\\"] : \\\"\\\",\\n\\t\\tconfirmationTitle;\\n\\tif(!tiddler) {\\n\\t\\treturn false;\\n\\t}\\n\\t// Check if the tiddler we're deleting is in draft mode\\n\\tif(originalTitle) {\\n\\t\\t// If so, we'll prompt for confirmation referencing the original tiddler\\n\\t\\tconfirmationTitle = originalTitle;\\n\\t} else {\\n\\t\\t// If not a draft, then prompt for confirmation referencing the specified tiddler\\n\\t\\tconfirmationTitle = title;\\n\\t}\\n\\t// Seek confirmation\\n\\tif((this.wiki.getTiddler(originalTitle) || (tiddler.fields.text || \\\"\\\") !== \\\"\\\") && !confirm($tw.language.getString(\\n\\t\\t\\t\\t\\\"ConfirmDeleteTiddler\\\",\\n\\t\\t\\t\\t{variables:\\n\\t\\t\\t\\t\\t{title: confirmationTitle}\\n\\t\\t\\t\\t}\\n\\t\\t\\t))) {\\n\\t\\treturn false;\\n\\t}\\n\\t// Delete the original tiddler\\n\\tif(originalTitle) {\\n\\t\\tthis.wiki.deleteTiddler(originalTitle);\\n\\t\\tthis.removeTitleFromStory(storyList,originalTitle);\\n\\t}\\n\\t// Delete this tiddler\\n\\tthis.wiki.deleteTiddler(title);\\n\\t// Remove the closed tiddler from the story\\n\\tthis.removeTitleFromStory(storyList,title);\\n\\tthis.saveStoryList(storyList);\\n\\t// Trigger an autosave\\n\\t$tw.rootWidget.dispatchEvent({type: \\\"tm-auto-save-wiki\\\"});\\n\\treturn false;\\n};\\n\\n/*\\nCreate/reuse the draft tiddler for a given title\\n*/\\nNavigatorWidget.prototype.makeDraftTiddler = function(targetTitle) {\\n\\t// See if there is already a draft tiddler for this tiddler\\n\\tvar draftTitle = this.wiki.findDraft(targetTitle);\\n\\tif(draftTitle) {\\n\\t\\treturn this.wiki.getTiddler(draftTitle);\\n\\t}\\n\\t// Get the current value of the tiddler we're editing\\n\\tvar tiddler = this.wiki.getTiddler(targetTitle);\\n\\t// Save the initial value of the draft tiddler\\n\\tdraftTitle = this.generateDraftTitle(targetTitle);\\n\\tvar draftTiddler = new $tw.Tiddler(\\n\\t\\t\\ttiddler,\\n\\t\\t\\t{\\n\\t\\t\\t\\ttitle: draftTitle,\\n\\t\\t\\t\\t\\\"draft.title\\\": targetTitle,\\n\\t\\t\\t\\t\\\"draft.of\\\": targetTitle\\n\\t\\t\\t},\\n\\t\\t\\tthis.wiki.getModificationFields()\\n\\t\\t);\\n\\tthis.wiki.addTiddler(draftTiddler);\\n\\treturn draftTiddler;\\n};\\n\\n/*\\nGenerate a title for the draft of a given tiddler\\n*/\\nNavigatorWidget.prototype.generateDraftTitle = function(title) {\\n\\tvar c = 0,\\n\\t\\tdraftTitle;\\n\\tdo {\\n\\t\\tdraftTitle = \\\"Draft \\\" + (c ? (c + 1) + \\\" \\\" : \\\"\\\") + \\\"of '\\\" + title + \\\"'\\\";\\n\\t\\tc++;\\n\\t} while(this.wiki.tiddlerExists(draftTitle));\\n\\treturn draftTitle;\\n};\\n\\n// Take a tiddler out of edit mode, saving the changes\\nNavigatorWidget.prototype.handleSaveTiddlerEvent = function(event) {\\n\\tvar title = event.param || event.tiddlerTitle,\\n\\t\\ttiddler = this.wiki.getTiddler(title),\\n\\t\\tstoryList = this.getStoryList();\\n\\t// Replace the original tiddler with the draft\\n\\tif(tiddler) {\\n\\t\\tvar draftTitle = (tiddler.fields[\\\"draft.title\\\"] || \\\"\\\").trim(),\\n\\t\\t\\tdraftOf = (tiddler.fields[\\\"draft.of\\\"] || \\\"\\\").trim();\\n\\t\\tif(draftTitle) {\\n\\t\\t\\tvar isRename = draftOf !== draftTitle,\\n\\t\\t\\t\\tisConfirmed = true;\\n\\t\\t\\tif(isRename && this.wiki.tiddlerExists(draftTitle)) {\\n\\t\\t\\t\\tisConfirmed = confirm($tw.language.getString(\\n\\t\\t\\t\\t\\t\\\"ConfirmOverwriteTiddler\\\",\\n\\t\\t\\t\\t\\t{variables:\\n\\t\\t\\t\\t\\t\\t{title: draftTitle}\\n\\t\\t\\t\\t\\t}\\n\\t\\t\\t\\t));\\n\\t\\t\\t}\\n\\t\\t\\tif(isConfirmed) {\\n\\t\\t\\t\\t// Create the new tiddler and pass it through the th-saving-tiddler hook\\n\\t\\t\\t\\tvar newTiddler = new $tw.Tiddler(this.wiki.getCreationFields(),tiddler,{\\n\\t\\t\\t\\t\\ttitle: draftTitle,\\n\\t\\t\\t\\t\\t\\\"draft.title\\\": undefined,\\n\\t\\t\\t\\t\\t\\\"draft.of\\\": undefined\\n\\t\\t\\t\\t},this.wiki.getModificationFields());\\n\\t\\t\\t\\tnewTiddler = $tw.hooks.invokeHook(\\\"th-saving-tiddler\\\",newTiddler);\\n\\t\\t\\t\\tthis.wiki.addTiddler(newTiddler);\\n\\t\\t\\t\\t// Remove the draft tiddler\\n\\t\\t\\t\\tthis.wiki.deleteTiddler(title);\\n\\t\\t\\t\\t// Remove the original tiddler if we're renaming it\\n\\t\\t\\t\\tif(isRename) {\\n\\t\\t\\t\\t\\tthis.wiki.deleteTiddler(draftOf);\\n\\t\\t\\t\\t}\\n\\t\\t\\t\\tif(!event.paramObject || event.paramObject.suppressNavigation !== \\\"yes\\\") {\\n\\t\\t\\t\\t\\t// Replace the draft in the story with the original\\n\\t\\t\\t\\t\\tthis.replaceFirstTitleInStory(storyList,title,draftTitle);\\n\\t\\t\\t\\t\\tthis.addToHistory(draftTitle,event.navigateFromClientRect);\\n\\t\\t\\t\\t\\tif(draftTitle !== this.storyTitle) {\\n\\t\\t\\t\\t\\t\\tthis.saveStoryList(storyList);\\n\\t\\t\\t\\t\\t}\\n\\t\\t\\t\\t}\\n\\t\\t\\t\\t// Trigger an autosave\\n\\t\\t\\t\\t$tw.rootWidget.dispatchEvent({type: \\\"tm-auto-save-wiki\\\"});\\n\\t\\t\\t}\\n\\t\\t}\\n\\t}\\n\\treturn false;\\n};\\n\\n// Take a tiddler out of edit mode without saving the changes\\nNavigatorWidget.prototype.handleCancelTiddlerEvent = function(event) {\\n\\t// Flip the specified tiddler from draft back to the original\\n\\tvar draftTitle = event.param || event.tiddlerTitle,\\n\\t\\tdraftTiddler = this.wiki.getTiddler(draftTitle),\\n\\t\\toriginalTitle = draftTiddler && draftTiddler.fields[\\\"draft.of\\\"];\\n\\tif(draftTiddler && originalTitle) {\\n\\t\\t// Ask for confirmation if the tiddler text has changed\\n\\t\\tvar isConfirmed = true,\\n\\t\\t\\toriginalTiddler = this.wiki.getTiddler(originalTitle),\\n\\t\\t\\tstoryList = this.getStoryList();\\n\\t\\tif(this.wiki.isDraftModified(draftTitle)) {\\n\\t\\t\\tisConfirmed = confirm($tw.language.getString(\\n\\t\\t\\t\\t\\\"ConfirmCancelTiddler\\\",\\n\\t\\t\\t\\t{variables:\\n\\t\\t\\t\\t\\t{title: draftTitle}\\n\\t\\t\\t\\t}\\n\\t\\t\\t));\\n\\t\\t}\\n\\t\\t// Remove the draft tiddler\\n\\t\\tif(isConfirmed) {\\n\\t\\t\\tthis.wiki.deleteTiddler(draftTitle);\\n\\t\\t\\tif(!event.paramObject || event.paramObject.suppressNavigation !== \\\"yes\\\") {\\n\\t\\t\\t\\tif(originalTiddler) {\\n\\t\\t\\t\\t\\tthis.replaceFirstTitleInStory(storyList,draftTitle,originalTitle);\\n\\t\\t\\t\\t\\tthis.addToHistory(originalTitle,event.navigateFromClientRect);\\n\\t\\t\\t\\t} else {\\n\\t\\t\\t\\t\\tthis.removeTitleFromStory(storyList,draftTitle);\\n\\t\\t\\t\\t}\\n\\t\\t\\t\\tthis.saveStoryList(storyList);\\n\\t\\t\\t}\\n\\t\\t}\\n\\t}\\n\\treturn false;\\n};\\n\\n// Create a new draft tiddler\\n// event.param can either be the title of a template tiddler, or a hashmap of fields.\\n//\\n// The title of the newly created tiddler follows these rules:\\n// * If a hashmap was used and a title field was specified, use that title\\n// * If a hashmap was used without a title field, use a default title, if necessary making it unique with a numeric suffix\\n// * If a template tiddler was used, use the title of the template, if necessary making it unique with a numeric suffix\\n//\\n// If a draft of the target tiddler already exists then it is reused\\nNavigatorWidget.prototype.handleNewTiddlerEvent = function(event) {\\n\\t// Get the story details\\n\\tvar storyList = this.getStoryList(),\\n\\t\\ttemplateTiddler, additionalFields, title, draftTitle, existingTiddler;\\n\\t// Get the template tiddler (if any)\\n\\tif(typeof event.param === \\\"string\\\") {\\n\\t\\t// Get the template tiddler\\n\\t\\ttemplateTiddler = this.wiki.getTiddler(event.param);\\n\\t\\t// Generate a new title\\n\\t\\ttitle = this.wiki.generateNewTitle(event.param || $tw.language.getString(\\\"DefaultNewTiddlerTitle\\\"));\\n\\t}\\n\\t// Get the specified additional fields\\n\\tif(typeof event.paramObject === \\\"object\\\") {\\n\\t\\tadditionalFields = event.paramObject;\\n\\t}\\n\\tif(typeof event.param === \\\"object\\\") { // Backwards compatibility with 5.1.3\\n\\t\\tadditionalFields = event.param;\\n\\t}\\n\\tif(additionalFields && additionalFields.title) {\\n\\t\\ttitle = additionalFields.title;\\n\\t}\\n\\t// Generate a title if we don't have one\\n\\ttitle = title || this.wiki.generateNewTitle($tw.language.getString(\\\"DefaultNewTiddlerTitle\\\"));\\n\\t// Find any existing draft for this tiddler\\n\\tdraftTitle = this.wiki.findDraft(title);\\n\\t// Pull in any existing tiddler\\n\\tif(draftTitle) {\\n\\t\\texistingTiddler = this.wiki.getTiddler(draftTitle);\\n\\t} else {\\n\\t\\tdraftTitle = this.generateDraftTitle(title);\\n\\t\\texistingTiddler = this.wiki.getTiddler(title);\\n\\t}\\n\\t// Merge the tags\\n\\tvar mergedTags = [];\\n\\tif(existingTiddler && existingTiddler.fields.tags) {\\n\\t\\t$tw.utils.pushTop(mergedTags,existingTiddler.fields.tags)\\n\\t}\\n\\tif(additionalFields && additionalFields.tags) {\\n\\t\\t// Merge tags\\n\\t\\tmergedTags = $tw.utils.pushTop(mergedTags,$tw.utils.parseStringArray(additionalFields.tags));\\n\\t}\\n\\tif(templateTiddler && templateTiddler.fields.tags) {\\n\\t\\t// Merge tags\\n\\t\\tmergedTags = $tw.utils.pushTop(mergedTags,templateTiddler.fields.tags);\\n\\t}\\n\\t// Save the draft tiddler\\n\\tvar draftTiddler = new $tw.Tiddler({\\n\\t\\t\\ttext: \\\"\\\",\\n\\t\\t\\t\\\"draft.title\\\": title\\n\\t\\t},\\n\\t\\ttemplateTiddler,\\n\\t\\texistingTiddler,\\n\\t\\tadditionalFields,\\n\\t\\tthis.wiki.getCreationFields(),\\n\\t\\t{\\n\\t\\t\\ttitle: draftTitle,\\n\\t\\t\\t\\\"draft.of\\\": title,\\n\\t\\t\\ttags: mergedTags\\n\\t\\t},this.wiki.getModificationFields());\\n\\tthis.wiki.addTiddler(draftTiddler);\\n\\t// Update the story to insert the new draft at the top and remove any existing tiddler\\n\\tif(storyList.indexOf(draftTitle) === -1) {\\n\\t\\tvar slot = storyList.indexOf(event.navigateFromTitle);\\n\\t\\tstoryList.splice(slot + 1,0,draftTitle);\\n\\t}\\n\\tif(storyList.indexOf(title) !== -1) {\\n\\t\\tstoryList.splice(storyList.indexOf(title),1);\\t\\t\\n\\t}\\n\\tthis.saveStoryList(storyList);\\n\\t// Add a new record to the top of the history stack\\n\\tthis.addToHistory(draftTitle);\\n\\treturn false;\\n};\\n\\n// Import JSON tiddlers into a pending import tiddler\\nNavigatorWidget.prototype.handleImportTiddlersEvent = function(event) {\\n\\tvar self = this;\\n\\t// Get the tiddlers\\n\\tvar tiddlers = [];\\n\\ttry {\\n\\t\\ttiddlers = JSON.parse(event.param);\\t\\n\\t} catch(e) {\\n\\t}\\n\\t// Get the current $:/Import tiddler\\n\\tvar importTiddler = this.wiki.getTiddler(IMPORT_TITLE),\\n\\t\\timportData = this.wiki.getTiddlerData(IMPORT_TITLE,{}),\\n\\t\\tnewFields = new Object({\\n\\t\\t\\ttitle: IMPORT_TITLE,\\n\\t\\t\\ttype: \\\"application/json\\\",\\n\\t\\t\\t\\\"plugin-type\\\": \\\"import\\\",\\n\\t\\t\\t\\\"status\\\": \\\"pending\\\"\\n\\t\\t}),\\n\\t\\tincomingTiddlers = [];\\n\\t// Process each tiddler\\n\\timportData.tiddlers = importData.tiddlers || {};\\n\\t$tw.utils.each(tiddlers,function(tiddlerFields) {\\n\\t\\tvar title = tiddlerFields.title;\\n\\t\\tif(title) {\\n\\t\\t\\tincomingTiddlers.push(title);\\n\\t\\t\\timportData.tiddlers[title] = tiddlerFields;\\n\\t\\t}\\n\\t});\\n\\t// Give the active upgrader modules a chance to process the incoming tiddlers\\n\\tvar messages = this.wiki.invokeUpgraders(incomingTiddlers,importData.tiddlers);\\n\\t$tw.utils.each(messages,function(message,title) {\\n\\t\\tnewFields[\\\"message-\\\" + title] = message;\\n\\t});\\n\\t// Deselect any suppressed tiddlers\\n\\t$tw.utils.each(importData.tiddlers,function(tiddler,title) {\\n\\t\\tif($tw.utils.count(tiddler) === 0) {\\n\\t\\t\\tnewFields[\\\"selection-\\\" + title] = \\\"unchecked\\\";\\n\\t\\t}\\n\\t});\\n\\t// Save the $:/Import tiddler\\n\\tnewFields.text = JSON.stringify(importData,null,$tw.config.preferences.jsonSpaces);\\n\\tthis.wiki.addTiddler(new $tw.Tiddler(importTiddler,newFields));\\n\\t// Update the story and history details\\n\\tif(this.getVariable(\\\"tv-auto-open-on-import\\\") !== \\\"no\\\") {\\n\\t\\tvar storyList = this.getStoryList(),\\n\\t\\t\\thistory = [];\\n\\t\\t// Add it to the story\\n\\t\\tif(storyList.indexOf(IMPORT_TITLE) === -1) {\\n\\t\\t\\tstoryList.unshift(IMPORT_TITLE);\\n\\t\\t}\\n\\t\\t// And to history\\n\\t\\thistory.push(IMPORT_TITLE);\\n\\t\\t// Save the updated story and history\\n\\t\\tthis.saveStoryList(storyList);\\n\\t\\tthis.addToHistory(history);\\t\\t\\n\\t}\\n\\treturn false;\\n};\\n\\n// \\nNavigatorWidget.prototype.handlePerformImportEvent = function(event) {\\n\\tvar self = this,\\n\\t\\timportTiddler = this.wiki.getTiddler(event.param),\\n\\t\\timportData = this.wiki.getTiddlerDataCached(event.param,{tiddlers: {}}),\\n\\t\\timportReport = [];\\n\\t// Add the tiddlers to the store\\n\\timportReport.push($tw.language.getString(\\\"Import/Imported\\\") + \\\"\\\\n\\\");\\n\\t$tw.utils.each(importData.tiddlers,function(tiddlerFields) {\\n\\t\\tvar title = tiddlerFields.title;\\n\\t\\tif(title && importTiddler && importTiddler.fields[\\\"selection-\\\" + title] !== \\\"unchecked\\\") {\\n\\t\\t\\tself.wiki.addTiddler(new $tw.Tiddler(tiddlerFields));\\n\\t\\t\\timportReport.push(\\\"# [[\\\" + tiddlerFields.title + \\\"]]\\\");\\n\\t\\t}\\n\\t});\\n\\t// Replace the $:/Import tiddler with an import report\\n\\tthis.wiki.addTiddler(new $tw.Tiddler({\\n\\t\\ttitle: event.param,\\n\\t\\ttext: importReport.join(\\\"\\\\n\\\"),\\n\\t\\t\\\"status\\\": \\\"complete\\\"\\n\\t}));\\n\\t// Navigate to the $:/Import tiddler\\n\\tthis.addToHistory([event.param]);\\n\\t// Trigger an autosave\\n\\t$tw.rootWidget.dispatchEvent({type: \\\"tm-auto-save-wiki\\\"});\\n};\\n\\nNavigatorWidget.prototype.handleFoldTiddlerEvent = function(event) {\\n\\tvar self = this,\\n\\t\\tparamObject = event.paramObject || {};\\n\\tif(paramObject.foldedState) {\\n\\t\\tvar foldedState = this.wiki.getTiddlerText(paramObject.foldedState,\\\"show\\\") === \\\"show\\\" ? \\\"hide\\\" : \\\"show\\\";\\n\\t\\tthis.wiki.setText(paramObject.foldedState,\\\"text\\\",null,foldedState);\\n\\t}\\n};\\n\\nNavigatorWidget.prototype.handleFoldOtherTiddlersEvent = function(event) {\\n\\tvar self = this,\\n\\t\\tparamObject = event.paramObject || {},\\n\\t\\tprefix = paramObject.foldedStatePrefix;\\n\\t$tw.utils.each(this.getStoryList(),function(title) {\\n\\t\\tself.wiki.setText(prefix + title,\\\"text\\\",null,event.param === title ? \\\"show\\\" : \\\"hide\\\");\\n\\t});\\n};\\n\\nNavigatorWidget.prototype.handleFoldAllTiddlersEvent = function(event) {\\n\\tvar self = this,\\n\\t\\tparamObject = event.paramObject || {},\\n\\t\\tprefix = paramObject.foldedStatePrefix;\\n\\t$tw.utils.each(this.getStoryList(),function(title) {\\n\\t\\tself.wiki.setText(prefix + title,\\\"text\\\",null,\\\"hide\\\");\\n\\t});\\n};\\n\\nNavigatorWidget.prototype.handleUnfoldAllTiddlersEvent = function(event) {\\n\\tvar self = this,\\n\\t\\tparamObject = event.paramObject || {},\\n\\t\\tprefix = paramObject.foldedStatePrefix;\\n\\t$tw.utils.each(this.getStoryList(),function(title) {\\n\\t\\tself.wiki.setText(prefix + title,\\\"text\\\",null,\\\"show\\\");\\n\\t});\\n};\\n\\nNavigatorWidget.prototype.handleRenameTiddlerEvent = function(event) {\\n\\tvar self = this,\\n\\t\\tparamObject = event.paramObject || {},\\n\\t\\tfrom = paramObject.from || event.tiddlerTitle,\\n\\t\\tto = paramObject.to;\\n\\t$tw.wiki.renameTiddler(from,to);\\n};\\n\\nexports.navigator = NavigatorWidget;\\n\\n})();\\n\",\n \"type\": \"application/javascript\",\n \"title\": \"$:/core/modules/widgets/navigator.js\",\n \"module-type\": \"widget\",\n \"modified\": \"20160218192104537\",\n \"created\": \"20160218190315501\"\n },\n \"$:/core/ui/ViewTemplate/body\": {\n \"text\": \"<$reveal tag=\\\"div\\\" class=\\\"tc-tiddler-body\\\" type=\\\"nomatch\\\" state=<<folded-state>> text=\\\"hide\\\" retain=\\\"yes\\\" animate=\\\"yes\\\">\\n\\n<$list filter=\\\"[all[current]!has[plugin-type]!field:hide-body[yes]]\\\">\\n\\n<$transclude>\\n\\n<$transclude tiddler=\\\"$:/language/MissingTiddler/Hint\\\"/>\\n\\n<$list filter=\\\"[title{!!title}listed[aliases]first[]]\\\" variable=\\\"\\\">\\nYou may have meant one of the following pages\\n<$list filter=\\\"[title{!!title}listed[aliases]]\\\">\\n<li><$link>{{!!title}}</$link></li>\\n</$list>\\n\\n</$list>\\n</$transclude>\\n\\n</$list>\\n\\n</$reveal>\\n\",\n \"title\": \"$:/core/ui/ViewTemplate/body\",\n \"tags\": \"$:/tags/ViewTemplate\",\n \"modified\": \"20160218192615033\",\n \"created\": \"20160218185029873\"\n },\n \"$:/core/modules/widgets/link.js\": {\n \"text\": \"/*\\\\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/widgets/link.js\\ntype: application/javascript\\nmodule-type: widget\\n\\nLink widget\\n\\n\\\\*/\\n(function(){\\n\\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\\n/*global $tw: false */\\n\\\"use strict\\\";\\n\\nvar Widget = require(\\\"$:/core/modules/widgets/widget.js\\\").widget;\\n\\nvar LinkWidget = function(parseTreeNode,options) {\\n\\tthis.initialise(parseTreeNode,options);\\n};\\n\\n/*\\nInherit from the base widget class\\n*/\\nLinkWidget.prototype = new Widget();\\n\\n/*\\nRender this widget into the DOM\\n*/\\nLinkWidget.prototype.render = function(parent,nextSibling) {\\n\\t// Save the parent dom node\\n\\tthis.parentDomNode = parent;\\n\\t// Compute our attributes\\n\\tthis.computeAttributes();\\n\\t// Execute our logic\\n\\tthis.execute();\\n\\t// Get the value of the tv-wikilinks configuration macro\\n\\tvar wikiLinksMacro = this.getVariable(\\\"tv-wikilinks\\\"),\\n\\t\\tuseWikiLinks = wikiLinksMacro ? (wikiLinksMacro.trim() !== \\\"no\\\") : true;\\n\\t// Render the link if required\\n\\tif(useWikiLinks) {\\n\\t\\tthis.renderLink(parent,nextSibling);\\n\\t} else {\\n\\t\\t// Just insert the link text\\n\\t\\tvar domNode = this.document.createElement(\\\"span\\\");\\n\\t\\tparent.insertBefore(domNode,nextSibling);\\n\\t\\tthis.renderChildren(domNode,null);\\n\\t\\tthis.domNodes.push(domNode);\\n\\t}\\n};\\n\\n/*\\nRender this widget into the DOM\\n*/\\nLinkWidget.prototype.renderLink = function(parent,nextSibling) {\\n\\tvar self = this;\\n\\t// Sanitise the specified tag\\n\\tvar tag = this.linkTag;\\n\\tif($tw.config.htmlUnsafeElements.indexOf(tag) !== -1) {\\n\\t\\ttag = \\\"a\\\";\\n\\t}\\n\\t// Create our element\\n\\tvar domNode = this.document.createElement(tag);\\n\\t// Assign classes\\n\\tvar classes = [];\\n\\tif(this.linkClasses) {\\n\\t\\tclasses.push(this.linkClasses);\\n\\t}\\n\\tclasses.push(\\\"tc-tiddlylink\\\");\\n\\tif(this.isShadow) {\\n\\t\\tclasses.push(\\\"tc-tiddlylink-shadow\\\");\\n\\t}\\n\\tif(this.isMissing && !this.isShadow) {\\n\\t\\tclasses.push(\\\"tc-tiddlylink-missing\\\");\\n\\t} else {\\n\\t\\tif(!this.isMissing) {\\n\\t\\t\\tclasses.push(\\\"tc-tiddlylink-resolves\\\");\\n\\t\\t}\\n\\t}\\n\\tdomNode.setAttribute(\\\"class\\\",classes.join(\\\" \\\"));\\n\\t// Set an href\\n\\tvar wikiLinkTemplateMacro = this.getVariable(\\\"tv-wikilink-template\\\"),\\n\\t\\twikiLinkTemplate = wikiLinkTemplateMacro ? wikiLinkTemplateMacro.trim() : \\\"#$uri_encoded$\\\",\\n\\t\\twikiLinkText = wikiLinkTemplate.replace(\\\"$uri_encoded$\\\",encodeURIComponent(this.to));\\n\\twikiLinkText = wikiLinkText.replace(\\\"$uri_doubleencoded$\\\",encodeURIComponent(encodeURIComponent(this.to)));\\n\\twikiLinkText = this.getVariable(\\\"tv-get-export-link\\\",{params: [{name: \\\"to\\\",value: this.to}],defaultValue: wikiLinkText});\\n\\tif(tag === \\\"a\\\") {\\n\\t\\tdomNode.setAttribute(\\\"href\\\",wikiLinkText);\\n\\t}\\n\\tif(this.tabIndex) {\\n\\t\\tdomNode.setAttribute(\\\"tabindex\\\",this.tabIndex);\\n\\t}\\n\\t// Set the tooltip\\n\\t// HACK: Performance issues with re-parsing the tooltip prevent us defaulting the tooltip to \\\"<$transclude field='tooltip'><$transclude field='title'/></$transclude>\\\"\\n\\tvar tooltipWikiText = this.tooltip || this.getVariable(\\\"tv-wikilink-tooltip\\\");\\n\\tif(tooltipWikiText) {\\n\\t\\tvar tooltipText = this.wiki.renderText(\\\"text/plain\\\",\\\"text/vnd.tiddlywiki\\\",tooltipWikiText,{\\n\\t\\t\\t\\tparseAsInline: true,\\n\\t\\t\\t\\tvariables: {\\n\\t\\t\\t\\t\\tcurrentTiddler: this.to\\n\\t\\t\\t\\t},\\n\\t\\t\\t\\tparentWidget: this\\n\\t\\t\\t});\\n\\t\\tdomNode.setAttribute(\\\"title\\\",tooltipText);\\n\\t}\\n\\tif(this[\\\"aria-label\\\"]) {\\n\\t\\tdomNode.setAttribute(\\\"aria-label\\\",this[\\\"aria-label\\\"]);\\n\\t}\\n\\t// Add a click event handler\\n\\t$tw.utils.addEventListeners(domNode,[\\n\\t\\t{name: \\\"click\\\", handlerObject: this, handlerMethod: \\\"handleClickEvent\\\"},\\n\\t]);\\n\\tif(this.draggable === \\\"yes\\\") {\\n\\t\\t$tw.utils.addEventListeners(domNode,[\\n\\t\\t\\t{name: \\\"dragstart\\\", handlerObject: this, handlerMethod: \\\"handleDragStartEvent\\\"},\\n\\t\\t\\t{name: \\\"dragend\\\", handlerObject: this, handlerMethod: \\\"handleDragEndEvent\\\"}\\n\\t\\t]);\\n\\t}\\n\\t// Insert the link into the DOM and render any children\\n\\tparent.insertBefore(domNode,nextSibling);\\n\\tthis.renderChildren(domNode,null);\\n\\tthis.domNodes.push(domNode);\\n};\\n\\nLinkWidget.prototype.handleClickEvent = function(event) {\\n\\t// Send the click on its way as a navigate event\\n\\tvar bounds = this.domNodes[0].getBoundingClientRect();\\n\\tthis.dispatchEvent({\\n\\t\\ttype: \\\"tm-navigate\\\",\\n\\t\\tnavigateTo: this.to,\\n\\t\\tnavigateFromTitle: this.getVariable(\\\"storyTiddler\\\"),\\n\\t\\tnavigateFromNode: this,\\n\\t\\tnavigateFromClientRect: { top: bounds.top, left: bounds.left, width: bounds.width, right: bounds.right, bottom: bounds.bottom, height: bounds.height\\n\\t\\t},\\n\\t\\tnavigateSuppressNavigation: event.metaKey || event.ctrlKey || (event.button === 1),\\n\\t\\tfollowAliases: this.followAliases\\n\\t});\\n\\tif(this.domNodes[0].hasAttribute(\\\"href\\\")) {\\n\\t\\tevent.preventDefault();\\n\\t}\\n\\tevent.stopPropagation();\\n\\treturn false;\\n};\\n\\nLinkWidget.prototype.handleDragStartEvent = function(event) {\\n\\tif(event.target === this.domNodes[0]) {\\n\\t\\tif(this.to) {\\n\\t\\t\\t$tw.dragInProgress = true;\\n\\t\\t\\t// Set the dragging class on the element being dragged\\n\\t\\t\\t$tw.utils.addClass(event.target,\\\"tc-tiddlylink-dragging\\\");\\n\\t\\t\\t// Create the drag image elements\\n\\t\\t\\tthis.dragImage = this.document.createElement(\\\"div\\\");\\n\\t\\t\\tthis.dragImage.className = \\\"tc-tiddler-dragger\\\";\\n\\t\\t\\tvar inner = this.document.createElement(\\\"div\\\");\\n\\t\\t\\tinner.className = \\\"tc-tiddler-dragger-inner\\\";\\n\\t\\t\\tinner.appendChild(this.document.createTextNode(this.to));\\n\\t\\t\\tthis.dragImage.appendChild(inner);\\n\\t\\t\\tthis.document.body.appendChild(this.dragImage);\\n\\t\\t\\t// Astoundingly, we need to cover the dragger up: http://www.kryogenix.org/code/browser/custom-drag-image.html\\n\\t\\t\\tvar cover = this.document.createElement(\\\"div\\\");\\n\\t\\t\\tcover.className = \\\"tc-tiddler-dragger-cover\\\";\\n\\t\\t\\tcover.style.left = (inner.offsetLeft - 16) + \\\"px\\\";\\n\\t\\t\\tcover.style.top = (inner.offsetTop - 16) + \\\"px\\\";\\n\\t\\t\\tcover.style.width = (inner.offsetWidth + 32) + \\\"px\\\";\\n\\t\\t\\tcover.style.height = (inner.offsetHeight + 32) + \\\"px\\\";\\n\\t\\t\\tthis.dragImage.appendChild(cover);\\n\\t\\t\\t// Set the data transfer properties\\n\\t\\t\\tvar dataTransfer = event.dataTransfer;\\n\\t\\t\\t// First the image\\n\\t\\t\\tdataTransfer.effectAllowed = \\\"copy\\\";\\n\\t\\t\\tif(dataTransfer.setDragImage) {\\n\\t\\t\\t\\tdataTransfer.setDragImage(this.dragImage.firstChild,-16,-16);\\n\\t\\t\\t}\\n\\t\\t\\t// Then the data\\n\\t\\t\\tdataTransfer.clearData();\\n\\t\\t\\tvar jsonData = this.wiki.getTiddlerAsJson(this.to),\\n\\t\\t\\t\\ttextData = this.wiki.getTiddlerText(this.to,\\\"\\\"),\\n\\t\\t\\t\\ttitle = (new RegExp(\\\"^\\\" + $tw.config.textPrimitives.wikiLink + \\\"$\\\",\\\"mg\\\")).exec(this.to) ? this.to : \\\"[[\\\" + this.to + \\\"]]\\\";\\n\\t\\t\\t// IE doesn't like these content types\\n\\t\\t\\tif(!$tw.browser.isIE) {\\n\\t\\t\\t\\tdataTransfer.setData(\\\"text/vnd.tiddler\\\",jsonData);\\n\\t\\t\\t\\tdataTransfer.setData(\\\"text/plain\\\",title);\\n\\t\\t\\t\\tdataTransfer.setData(\\\"text/x-moz-url\\\",\\\"data:text/vnd.tiddler,\\\" + encodeURIComponent(jsonData));\\n\\t\\t\\t}\\n\\t\\t\\tdataTransfer.setData(\\\"URL\\\",\\\"data:text/vnd.tiddler,\\\" + encodeURIComponent(jsonData));\\n\\t\\t\\tdataTransfer.setData(\\\"Text\\\",title);\\n\\t\\t\\tevent.stopPropagation();\\n\\t\\t} else {\\n\\t\\t\\tevent.preventDefault();\\n\\t\\t}\\n\\t}\\n};\\n\\nLinkWidget.prototype.handleDragEndEvent = function(event) {\\n\\tif(event.target === this.domNodes[0]) {\\n\\t\\t$tw.dragInProgress = false;\\n\\t\\t// Remove the dragging class on the element being dragged\\n\\t\\t$tw.utils.removeClass(event.target,\\\"tc-tiddlylink-dragging\\\");\\n\\t\\t// Delete the drag image element\\n\\t\\tif(this.dragImage) {\\n\\t\\t\\tthis.dragImage.parentNode.removeChild(this.dragImage);\\n\\t\\t}\\n\\t}\\n};\\n\\n/*\\nCompute the internal state of the widget\\n*/\\nLinkWidget.prototype.execute = function() {\\n\\t// Pick up our attributes\\n\\tthis.to = this.getAttribute(\\\"to\\\",this.getVariable(\\\"currentTiddler\\\"));\\n\\tthis.tooltip = this.getAttribute(\\\"tooltip\\\");\\n\\tthis[\\\"aria-label\\\"] = this.getAttribute(\\\"aria-label\\\");\\n\\tthis.linkClasses = this.getAttribute(\\\"class\\\");\\n\\tthis.tabIndex = this.getAttribute(\\\"tabindex\\\");\\n\\tthis.followAliases = this.getAttribute(\\\"followAliases\\\", \\\"true\\\");\\n\\tthis.draggable = this.getAttribute(\\\"draggable\\\",\\\"yes\\\");\\n\\tthis.linkTag = this.getAttribute(\\\"tag\\\",\\\"a\\\");\\n\\t// Determine the link characteristics\\n\\tthis.isMissing = !this.wiki.tiddlerExists(this.to) && !(this.wiki.filterTiddlers(\\\"[title[\\\"+this.to+\\\"]listed[aliases]]\\\").length === 1);\\n\\tthis.isShadow = this.wiki.isShadowTiddler(this.to);\\n\\t// Make the child widgets\\n\\tthis.makeChildWidgets();\\n};\\n\\n/*\\nSelectively refreshes the widget if needed. Returns true if the widget or any of its children needed re-rendering\\n*/\\nLinkWidget.prototype.refresh = function(changedTiddlers) {\\n\\tvar changedAttributes = this.computeAttributes();\\n\\tif(changedAttributes.to || changedTiddlers[this.to] || changedAttributes[\\\"aria-label\\\"] || changedAttributes.tooltip) {\\n\\t\\tthis.refreshSelf();\\n\\t\\treturn true;\\n\\t}\\n\\treturn this.refreshChildren(changedTiddlers);\\n};\\n\\nexports.link = LinkWidget;\\n\\n})();\\n\",\n \"type\": \"application/javascript\",\n \"title\": \"$:/core/modules/widgets/link.js\",\n \"module-type\": \"widget\",\n \"modified\": \"20161018180800361\",\n \"created\": \"20160218191628007\"\n }\n }\n}"
}
}
}
\define thisMakeURL() ./$(PathPrefix)$$(WikiName)$
\define thisMakeWikiListing()
<$list
filter='[<currentLevel>indexes[]]'
variable='WikiName'
emptyMessage='No child wikis listed.'
>
<$list
filter='[<currentLevel>getindex<WikiName>!prefix<currentLevel>]'
variable='Path'
>
<li>
<a href=<<thisMakeURL>> target='_blank'><$text text=<<PathPrefix>>/><$text text=<<WikiName>>/></a>
</li>
</$list>
<$list
filter='[<currentLevel>getindex<WikiName>prefix<currentLevel>]'
variable=currentLevel
>
<$set
name=PathPrefix
filter='[<PathPrefix>addsuffix<WikiName>addsuffix[/]]'
>
<<thisMakeWikiListing>>
</$set>
</$list>
</$list>
\end
Available Wikis:
<ul>
<$vars
currentLevel='$:/WikiSettings/split/wikis'
PathPrefix={{$:/ServerIP!!path_prefix}}
>
<<thisMakeWikiListing>>
</$vars>
</ul>
body.tc-body {
}
.tc-tiddler-view-frame {
background: rgba(0,0,0, 0.90); /*I like the look on chameleon's wiki.*/
}
.tc-dropzone {
display: flex;
flex-flow: row-reverse nowrap;
justify-content: flex-start;
transition: all 500ms ease;
}
.tc-story-river {
padding: 0 2em 2em 0;
flex-basis: 40%; /* sets the width of the story river flex-child */
min-width: 0; /* this is to fix the fuckery that flex does to pre tags */
transition: all 500ms ease;
}
.tc-sidebar-scrollable {
flex-basis: 30%; /* sets the width of the sidebar flex-child */
transition: all 500ms ease;
background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 1); /* black background for mobile */
}
.tc-sidebar-header {
position: fixed; /* makes the sidebar fixed */
overflow: auto; /* ensures there is a scrollbar */
height: 100vh; /* makes the sidebar exactly the height of the viewport so scrollbars are used if necessary */
width: 30%; /* matches the width of the flex-basis set by .tc-sidebar-scrollable */
transition: all 500ms ease;
}
.tc-sidebar-scrollable .tc-sidebar-header>.tc-reveal {
padding: 3em .5em;
transition: all 500ms ease;
}
.tc-tiddler-frame {
padding: 2em 3em 2em 3em;
margin-top: 2em;
margin-bottom: 0;
transition: all 500ms ease;
}
.tc-titlebar {
font-size: 2em;
}
/* media breakpoint styling begins here*/
@media (max-width: 2000px) {
.tc-story-river {
flex-basis: 60%;
transition: all 500ms ease;
}
.tc-sidebar-scrollable {
flex-basis: 20%;
transition: all 500ms ease;
}
.tc-sidebar-header {
width: 20%;
transition: all 500ms ease;
}
}
@media (max-width: 1500px) {
.tc-story-river {
flex-basis: 60%;
transition: all 500ms ease;
}
}
@media (max-width: 1200px) {
.tc-story-river {
padding: 0 2em 2em 0;
transition: all 500ms ease;
}
.tc-sidebar-scrollable {
flex-basis: 35%;
transition: all 500ms ease;
}
.tc-sidebar-header {
width: 35%;
transition: all 500ms ease;
}
.tc-sidebar-scrollable .tc-sidebar-header>.tc-reveal {
padding: 2em 1em 2em 0;
transition: all 500ms ease;
}
.tc-tiddler-frame {
padding: 1em 1em 2em 1em;
transition: all 500ms ease;
}
}
@media (max-width: 800px) {
.tc-dropzone {
flex-flow: column nowrap;
}
.tc-story-river {
flex-basis: auto;
padding: 0 2em 2em 2em;
transition: all 500ms ease;
}
.tc-sidebar-scrollable {
flex-basis: auto;
overflow: visible;
}
.tc-sidebar-header { /* clearing fixed sidebar settings so column works */
position: static;
overflow: visible;
height: unset;
width: unset;
transition: all 500ms ease;
}
.tc-sidebar-scrollable .tc-sidebar-header>.tc-reveal {
padding: 0 2em 0 2em;
transition: all 500ms ease;
}
.tc-topbar {
position: static;
display: flex;
justify-content: flex-end;
margin-right: .5em;
}
}
@media (max-width: 600px) {
.tc-story-river {
padding: 0 .25em .5em .25em;
transition: all 500ms ease;
}
.tc-sidebar-scrollable .tc-sidebar-header>.tc-reveal {
padding: 2em 1em 0 1em;
transition: all 500ms ease;
}
.tc-tiddler-frame {
padding: .5em 1em 2em 1em;
transition: all 500ms ease;
}
.tc-titlebar {
font-size: 1.75em;
}
}
{
"tiddlers": {
"$:/config/reviewButton/Tags": {
"title": "$:/config/reviewButton/Tags",
"created": "20180828020649454",
"modified": "20180915203452982",
"tags": "",
"type": "text/vnd.tiddlywiki",
"text": "[[Wiki Review]]"
},
"$:/config/reviewButton/Title": {
"title": "$:/config/reviewButton/Title",
"created": "20180828020822475",
"modified": "20180915203442850",
"tags": "",
"type": "text/vnd.tiddlywiki",
"text": "YYYY.0MM.0DD – Wiki Review: PH"
},
"$:/config/reviewButton/carpeTags": {
"title": "$:/config/reviewButton/carpeTags",
"created": "20180828020822475",
"modified": "20180915203442850",
"tags": "",
"type": "text/vnd.tiddlywiki",
"text": "[[carpe diem]]"
},
"$:/config/reviewButton/carpeTitle": {
"title": "$:/config/reviewButton/carpeTitle",
"created": "20180828020822475",
"modified": "20180915203442850",
"tags": "",
"type": "text/vnd.tiddlywiki",
"text": "YYYY.0MM.0DD – Carpe Diem: PH"
},
"$:/config/reviewButton/introTags": {
"title": "$:/config/reviewButton/introTags",
"created": "20180828020822475",
"modified": "20180915203442850",
"tags": "",
"type": "text/vnd.tiddlywiki",
"text": "[[prompted introspection]]"
},
"$:/config/reviewButton/introTitle": {
"title": "$:/config/reviewButton/introTitle",
"created": "20180828020822475",
"modified": "20180915203442850",
"tags": "",
"type": "text/vnd.tiddlywiki",
"text": "YYYY.0MM.0DD – Prompted Introspection: PH"
},
"$:/plugins/sphygmus/reviewButton/button": {
"title": "$:/plugins/sphygmus/reviewButton/button",
"caption": "{{$:/core/images/new-journal-button}} {{$:/plugins/sphygmus/reviewButton/hint}}",
"created": "20180915212943717",
"description": "{{$:/plugins/sphygmus/reviewButton/caption}}",
"modified": "20180916164154069",
"tags": "$:/tags/PageControls",
"type": "text/vnd.tiddlywiki",
"text": "\\define concat()\n\n* [[$(ThisCreator)$]]\n\n\\end\n\n\\define journalButton(cur, add)\n<$button tooltip={{$:/plugins/sphygmus/reviewButton/hint}} aria-label={{$:/plugins/sphygmus/reviewButton/caption}} class=<<tv-config-toolbar-class>> >\n<$action-setfield $tiddler=\"Wiki Review: Focus\" text=\"$cur$$add$\"/>\n<$wikify name=\"journalTitle\" text=\"\"\"<$macrocall $name=\"now\" format=<<journalTitleTemplate>>/>\"\"\">\n<$setReview name=\"wikiReviewText\" filter=\"[!is[system]days:created[-1]!days:created[0]sort[created]get[title]]\">\n<$reveal type=\"nomatch\" state=<<journalTitle>> text=\"\">\n<$action-sendmessage $message=\"tm-new-tiddler\" title=<<journalTitle>> tags=<<journalTags>> text={{{ [<journalTitle>get[]] }}}/>\n</$reveal>\n<$reveal type=\"match\" state=<<journalTitle>> text=\"\">\n<$action-sendmessage $message=\"tm-new-tiddler\" title=<<journalTitle>> text=<<wikiReviewText>> tags=<<journalTags>>/>\n</$reveal>\n<$list filter=\"[<tv-config-toolbar-icons>prefix[yes]]\">\n{{$:/core/images/new-journal-button}}\n</$list>\n<$list filter=\"[<tv-config-toolbar-text>prefix[yes]]\">\n<span class=\"tc-btn-text\"><$text text={{$:/language/Buttons/NewTDL/Caption}}/></span>\n</$list>\n</$setReview>\n</$wikify>\n</$button>\n\\end\n<$vars journalTitleTemplate={{$:/config/reviewButton/Title}} journalTags={{$:/config/reviewButton/Tags}} carpeTitleTemplate={{$:/config/reviewButton/carpeTitle}} introTitleTemplate={{$:/config/reviewButton/introTitle}} >\n<$wikify name=\"journalTitle\" text=\"\"\"<$macrocall $name=\"now\" format=<<journalTitleTemplate>>/>\"\"\">\n<$vars ThisCreator=<<journalTitle>> >\n<$macrocall $name=\"journalButton\" cur={{Wiki Review: Focus}} add=<<concat>> />\n</$vars>\n</$wikify>\n</$vars>"
},
"$:/plugins/sphygmus/reviewButton/button: AIO River": {
"title": "$:/plugins/sphygmus/reviewButton/button: AIO River",
"caption": "{{$:/core/images/new-journal-button}} {{$:/plugins/sphygmus/reviewButton/hint}}",
"created": "20180921154311356",
"description": "{{$:/plugins/sphygmus/reviewButton/caption}}",
"modified": "20180921183318408",
"tags": "",
"type": "text/vnd.tiddlywiki",
"text": "\\define concat()\n\n* [[$(ThisCreator)$]]\n\n\\end\n\n\\define carpcat()\n\n* [[$(ThisCarpe)$]]\n\n\\end\n\n\\define introcat()\n\n** [[$(ThisIntro)$]]\n\n\\end\n\n\\define journalButton(cur, add, carp, new, intro, plus)\n<$button tooltip={{$:/plugins/sphygmus/reviewButton/hint}} aria-label={{$:/plugins/sphygmus/reviewButton/caption}} class=<<tv-config-toolbar-class>> >\n<$action-setfield $tiddler=\"Wiki Review: Focus\" text=\"$cur$$add$\"/>\n<$action-setfield $tiddler=\"Carpe Diem: Focus\" text=\"$carp$$new$\"/>\n<$action-setfield $tiddler=\"Prompted Introspection: Focus\" text=\"$intro$$plus$\"/>\n<$wikify name=\"journalTitle\" text=\"\"\"<$macrocall $name=\"now\" format=<<journalTitleTemplate>>/>\"\"\">\n<$setReview name=\"wikiReviewText\" filter=\"[!is[system]days:created[-1]!days:created[0]sort[created]get[title]]\">\n\n<$reveal type=\"nomatch\" state=<<introTitle>> text=\"\">\n<$action-sendmessage $message=\"tm-new-tiddler\" title=<<introTitle>> tags=<<introTags>> text={{{ [<introTitle>get[]] }}}/>\n</$reveal>\n<$reveal type=\"match\" state=<<introTitle>> text=\"\">\n<$action-sendmessage $message=\"tm-new-tiddler\" title=<<introTitle>> tags=<<introTags>>/>\n</$reveal>\n\n<$reveal type=\"nomatch\" state=<<carpeTitle>> text=\"\">\n<$action-sendmessage $message=\"tm-new-tiddler\" title=<<carpeTitle>> tags=<<carpeTags>> text={{{ [<carpeTitle>get[]] }}}/>\n</$reveal>\n<$reveal type=\"match\" state=<<carpeTitle>> text=\"\">\n<$action-sendmessage $message=\"tm-new-tiddler\" title=<<carpeTitle>> tags=<<carpeTags>>/>\n</$reveal>\n\n<$reveal type=\"nomatch\" state=<<journalTitle>> text=\"\">\n<$action-sendmessage $message=\"tm-new-tiddler\" title=<<journalTitle>> tags=<<journalTags>> text={{{ [<journalTitle>get[]] }}}/>\n</$reveal>\n<$reveal type=\"match\" state=<<journalTitle>> text=\"\">\n<$action-sendmessage $message=\"tm-new-tiddler\" title=<<journalTitle>> text=<<wikiReviewText>> tags=<<journalTags>>/>\n</$reveal>\n\n<$list filter=\"[<tv-config-toolbar-icons>prefix[yes]]\">\n{{$:/core/images/new-journal-button}}\n</$list>\n<$list filter=\"[<tv-config-toolbar-text>prefix[yes]]\">\n<span class=\"tc-btn-text\"><$text text={{$:/language/Buttons/NewTDL/Caption}}/></span>\n</$list>\n</$setReview>\n</$wikify>\n</$button>\n\\end\n<$vars journalTitleTemplate={{$:/config/reviewButton/Title}} journalTags={{$:/config/reviewButton/Tags}} carpeTitleTemplate={{$:/config/reviewButton/carpeTitle}} carpeTags={{$:/config/reviewButton/carpeTags}} introTitleTemplate={{$:/config/reviewButton/introTitle}} introTags={{$:/config/reviewButton/introTags}} >\n<$wikify name=\"journalTitle\" text=\"\"\"<$macrocall $name=\"now\" format=<<journalTitleTemplate>>/>\"\"\">\n<$wikify name=\"carpeTitle\" text=\"\"\"<$macrocall $name=\"now\" format=<<carpeTitleTemplate>>/>\"\"\">\n<$wikify name=\"introTitle\" text=\"\"\"<$macrocall $name=\"now\" format=<<introTitleTemplate>>/>\"\"\">\n<$vars ThisCreator=<<journalTitle>> ThisCarpe=<<carpeTitle>> ThisIntro=<<introTitle>> >\n<$macrocall $name=\"journalButton\" cur={{Wiki Review: Focus}} add=<<concat>> carp={{Carpe Diem: Focus}} new=<<carpcat>> intro={{Prompted Introspection: Focus}} plus=<<introcat>> />\n</$vars>\n</$wikify></$wikify></$wikify>\n</$vars>"
},
"$:/plugins/sphygmus/reviewButton/button: all-in-one": {
"title": "$:/plugins/sphygmus/reviewButton/button: all-in-one",
"caption": "{{$:/core/images/new-journal-button}} {{$:/plugins/sphygmus/reviewButton/hint}}",
"created": "20180921154311356",
"description": "{{$:/plugins/sphygmus/reviewButton/caption}}",
"modified": "20180921183318408",
"tags": "",
"type": "text/vnd.tiddlywiki",
"text": "\\define concat()\n\n* [[$(ThisCreator)$]]\n\n\\end\n\n\\define carpcat()\n\n* [[$(ThisCarpe)$]]\n\n\\end\n\n\\define introcat()\n\n** [[$(ThisIntro)$]]\n\n\\end\n\n\\define journalButton(cur, add, carp, new, intro, plus)\n<$button tooltip={{$:/plugins/sphygmus/reviewButton/hint}} aria-label={{$:/plugins/sphygmus/reviewButton/caption}} class=<<tv-config-toolbar-class>> >\n<$action-setfield $tiddler=\"Wiki Review: Focus\" text=\"$cur$$add$\"/>\n<$action-setfield $tiddler=\"Carpe Diem: Focus\" text=\"$carp$$new$\"/>\n<$action-createtiddler $basetitle=<<carpeTitle>> tags=<<carpeTags>> />\n<$action-setfield $tiddler=\"Prompted Introspection: Focus\" text=\"$intro$$plus$\"/>\n<$action-createtiddler $basetitle=<<introTitle>> tags=<<introTags>> />\n<$wikify name=\"journalTitle\" text=\"\"\"<$macrocall $name=\"now\" format=<<journalTitleTemplate>>/>\"\"\">\n<$setReview name=\"wikiReviewText\" filter=\"[!is[system]days:created[-1]!days:created[0]sort[created]get[title]]\">\n<$reveal type=\"nomatch\" state=<<journalTitle>> text=\"\">\n<$action-sendmessage $message=\"tm-new-tiddler\" title=<<journalTitle>> tags=<<journalTags>> text={{{ [<journalTitle>get[]] }}}/>\n</$reveal>\n<$reveal type=\"match\" state=<<journalTitle>> text=\"\">\n<$action-sendmessage $message=\"tm-new-tiddler\" title=<<journalTitle>> text=<<wikiReviewText>> tags=<<journalTags>>/>\n</$reveal>\n<$list filter=\"[<tv-config-toolbar-icons>prefix[yes]]\">\n{{$:/core/images/new-journal-button}}\n</$list>\n<$list filter=\"[<tv-config-toolbar-text>prefix[yes]]\">\n<span class=\"tc-btn-text\"><$text text={{$:/language/Buttons/NewTDL/Caption}}/></span>\n</$list>\n</$setReview>\n</$wikify>\n</$button>\n\\end\n<$vars journalTitleTemplate={{$:/config/reviewButton/Title}} journalTags={{$:/config/reviewButton/Tags}} carpeTitleTemplate={{$:/config/reviewButton/carpeTitle}} carpeTags={{$:/config/reviewButton/carpeTags}} introTitleTemplate={{$:/config/reviewButton/introTitle}} introTags={{$:/config/reviewButton/introTags}} >\n<$wikify name=\"journalTitle\" text=\"\"\"<$macrocall $name=\"now\" format=<<journalTitleTemplate>>/>\"\"\">\n<$wikify name=\"carpeTitle\" text=\"\"\"<$macrocall $name=\"now\" format=<<carpeTitleTemplate>>/>\"\"\">\n<$wikify name=\"introTitle\" text=\"\"\"<$macrocall $name=\"now\" format=<<introTitleTemplate>>/>\"\"\">\n<$vars ThisCreator=<<journalTitle>> ThisCarpe=<<carpeTitle>> ThisIntro=<<introTitle>> >\n<$macrocall $name=\"journalButton\" cur={{Wiki Review: Focus}} add=<<concat>> carp={{Carpe Diem: Focus}} new=<<carpcat>> intro={{Prompted Introspection: Focus}} plus=<<introcat>> />\n</$vars>\n</$wikify></$wikify></$wikify>\n</$vars>"
},
"$:/plugins/sphygmus/reviewButton/button: sphygmus": {
"title": "$:/plugins/sphygmus/reviewButton/button: sphygmus",
"caption": "{{$:/core/images/new-journal-button}} {{$:/plugins/sphygmus/reviewButton/hint}}",
"created": "20180921154311356",
"description": "{{$:/plugins/sphygmus/reviewButton/caption}}",
"modified": "20180921183318408",
"tags": "",
"type": "text/vnd.tiddlywiki",
"text": "\\define concat()\n\n* [[$(ThisCreator)$]]\n\n\\end\n\n\\define carpcat()\n\n* [[$(ThisCarpe)$]]\n\n\\end\n\n\\define journalButton(cur, add, carp, new)\n<$button tooltip={{$:/plugins/sphygmus/reviewButton/hint}} aria-label={{$:/plugins/sphygmus/reviewButton/caption}} class=<<tv-config-toolbar-class>> >\n<$action-setfield $tiddler=\"Wiki Review: Focus\" text=\"$cur$$add$\"/>\n<$action-setfield $tiddler=\"Carpe Diem: Focus\" text=\"$carp$$new$\"/>\n<$action-createtiddler $basetitle=<<carpeTitle>> tags=<<carpeTags>> />\n<$wikify name=\"journalTitle\" text=\"\"\"<$macrocall $name=\"now\" format=<<journalTitleTemplate>>/>\"\"\">\n<$setReview name=\"wikiReviewText\" filter=\"[!is[system]days:created[-1]!days:created[0]sort[created]get[title]]\">\n<$reveal type=\"nomatch\" state=<<journalTitle>> text=\"\">\n<$action-sendmessage $message=\"tm-new-tiddler\" title=<<journalTitle>> tags=<<journalTags>> text={{{ [<journalTitle>get[]] }}}/>\n</$reveal>\n<$reveal type=\"match\" state=<<journalTitle>> text=\"\">\n<$action-sendmessage $message=\"tm-new-tiddler\" title=<<journalTitle>> text=<<wikiReviewText>> tags=<<journalTags>>/>\n</$reveal>\n<$list filter=\"[<tv-config-toolbar-icons>prefix[yes]]\">\n{{$:/core/images/new-journal-button}}\n</$list>\n<$list filter=\"[<tv-config-toolbar-text>prefix[yes]]\">\n<span class=\"tc-btn-text\"><$text text={{$:/language/Buttons/NewTDL/Caption}}/></span>\n</$list>\n</$setReview>\n</$wikify>\n</$button>\n\\end\n<$vars journalTitleTemplate={{$:/config/reviewButton/Title}} journalTags={{$:/config/reviewButton/Tags}} carpeTitleTemplate={{$:/config/reviewButton/carpeTitle}} carpeTags={{$:/config/reviewButton/carpeTags}} >\n<$wikify name=\"journalTitle\" text=\"\"\"<$macrocall $name=\"now\" format=<<journalTitleTemplate>>/>\"\"\">\n<$wikify name=\"carpeTitle\" text=\"\"\"<$macrocall $name=\"now\" format=<<carpeTitleTemplate>>/>\"\"\">\n<$vars ThisCreator=<<journalTitle>> ThisCarpe=<<carpeTitle>> ThisIntro=<<introTitle>> >\n<$macrocall $name=\"journalButton\" cur={{Wiki Review: Focus}} add=<<concat>> carp={{Carpe Diem: Focus}} new=<<carpcat>> />\n</$vars>\n</$wikify></$wikify>\n</$vars>"
},
"$:/plugins/sphygmus/reviewButton/caption": {
"title": "$:/plugins/sphygmus/reviewButton/caption",
"created": "20180828021316098",
"modified": "20180915204714198",
"tags": "",
"type": "text/vnd.tiddlywiki",
"text": "Creates a new Wiki Review tiddler"
},
"$:/plugins/sphygmus/reviewButton/details": {
"title": "$:/plugins/sphygmus/reviewButton/details",
"created": "20180916172800502",
"modified": "20180916174029019",
"type": "text/vnd.tiddlywiki",
"text": "This tiddler uses a customized `<$set>` widget (found as `<$setReview>` in the button code) to make the plain text list of the previous day's created tiddlers available to the new-tiddler-message widget. This customized `<$set>` widget uses an edited version of the stringifyList javascript code to change how the input array is concatenated. Specifically, instead of adding `[[ ]]` and space separating the array items, it adds `\\n * [[ ]]` to each array item (and then space separates them). This allows the tiddler titles to both be links and new bulleted lines when inserted into a new tiddler.\n\nThe `<$setReview>` widget takes a filter as a parameter. The default filter is `[!is[system]days:created[-1]!days:created[0]sort[created]get[title]]`. This removes system tiddlers from the list, selects everything from yesterday and today inclusive, removes those from today, sorts the titles by the time created (oldest at the top), and finally specifically selects the titles. More info on how the days operator can be found [[here|https://tiddlywiki.com/#days%20Operator]].\n\nThis button also uses several widgets and the button's \"set\" and \"setTo\" parameters to insert the created tiddler's title as a link into the [[Wiki Review: Focus]] tiddler. Thanks to several discussions on the Google Group that helped me figure out how to set this up!"
},
"$:/plugins/sphygmus/reviewButton/hint": {
"title": "$:/plugins/sphygmus/reviewButton/hint",
"created": "20180828021214477",
"modified": "20180915204700316",
"tags": "",
"type": "text/vnd.tiddlywiki",
"text": "new Wiki Review"
},
"$:/plugins/sphygmus/reviewButton/readme": {
"title": "$:/plugins/sphygmus/reviewButton/readme",
"created": "20180916164830456",
"modified": "20180916172551533",
"tags": "",
"type": "text/vnd.tiddlywiki",
"text": "This plugin adds [[a \"new Wiki Review\" button|$:/plugins/sphygmus/reviewButton/button]] to the Page Controls list. When this button is clicked, all the tiddlers created yesterday (and not today) are selected, formatted into a bulleted list, and inserted into a new tiddler which is then shown; the title of the new tiddler is also appended as a bulleted list item to the end of the [[Wiki Review: Focus]] tiddler.\n\nSee the \"settings\" tab for the plugin's current title and tag settings, and to modify for your own needs. The \"details\" tab goes into more technical specifics about the plugin's functioning.\n\nThis plugin is made for h0p3!\n\n---\n\nNote: you have to use the [[AutoTagger Plugin|http://www.tiddlytools.com/#AutoTaggerPlugin]] in order to tag newly-made tiddlers with the date."
},
"$:/plugins/sphygmus/reviewButton/settings": {
"title": "$:/plugins/sphygmus/reviewButton/settings",
"created": "20180916165333452",
"modified": "20180916172544085",
"tags": "",
"type": "text/vnd.tiddlywiki",
"text": "|! Review Title:||! Review Tags:|\n| {{$:/config/reviewButton/Title}} || {{$:/config/reviewButton/Tags}} |\n| <$edit-text tiddler=\"$:/config/reviewButton/Title\"/> || <$edit-text tiddler=\"$:/config/reviewButton/Tags\"/> |\n|! Carpe Title:||! Carpe Tags:|\n| {{$:/config/reviewButton/carpeTitle}} || {{$:/config/reviewButton/carpeTags}} |\n| <$edit-text tiddler=\"$:/config/reviewButton/carpeTitle\"/> || <$edit-text tiddler=\"$:/config/reviewButton/carpeTags\"/> |\n|! Intro Title:||! Intro Tags:|\n| {{$:/config/reviewButton/introTitle}} || {{$:/config/reviewButton/introTags}} |\n| <$edit-text tiddler=\"$:/config/reviewButton/introTitle\"/> || <$edit-text tiddler=\"$:/config/reviewButton/introTags\"/> |"
},
"$:/plugins/sphygmus/reviewButton/stringify.js": {
"title": "$:/plugins/sphygmus/reviewButton/stringify.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/utils/luci.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: utils\n\nVarious static utility functions.\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\n// Stringify an array of tiddler titles into a list string\nexports.stringifyReview = function(value) {\n\tif($tw.utils.isArray(value)) {\n\t\tvar result = [];\n\t\tfor(var t=0; t<value.length; t++) {\n\t\t\tvar entry = value[t] || \"\";\n\t\t\tif(entry.indexOf(\" \") !== -1) {\n\t\t\t\tresult.push(\"\\n* [[\"+entry+\"]]\\n\"+\"**\");\n\t\t\t} else {\n\t\t\t\tresult.push(entry);\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t}\n\t\treturn result.join(\" \");\n\t} else {\n\t\treturn value || \"\";\n\t}\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "utils",
"created": "20180915201317214",
"modified": "20180915202156796",
"tags": ""
},
"$:/plugins/sphygmus/reviewButton/stylesheet": {
"title": "$:/plugins/sphygmus/reviewButton/stylesheet",
"created": "20180916164830456",
"modified": "20180916172551533",
"tags": "$:/tags/Stylesheet",
"type": "text/css",
"text": ".reviewButton {\n\twidth: 100%;\n}"
},
"$:/plugins/sphygmus/reviewButton/widget.js": {
"title": "$:/plugins/sphygmus/reviewButton/widget.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/core/modules/widgets/setReview.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: widget\n\nSet variable widget\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nvar Widget = require(\"$:/core/modules/widgets/widget.js\").widget;\n\nvar SetWidget = function(parseTreeNode,options) {\n\tthis.initialise(parseTreeNode,options);\n};\n\n/*\nInherit from the base widget class\n*/\nSetWidget.prototype = new Widget();\n\n/*\nRender this widget into the DOM\n*/\nSetWidget.prototype.render = function(parent,nextSibling) {\n\tthis.parentDomNode = parent;\n\tthis.computeAttributes();\n\tthis.execute();\n\tthis.renderChildren(parent,nextSibling);\n};\n\n/*\nCompute the internal state of the widget\n*/\nSetWidget.prototype.execute = function() {\n\t// Get our parameters\n\tthis.setName = this.getAttribute(\"name\",\"currentTiddler\");\n\tthis.setFilter = this.getAttribute(\"filter\");\n\tthis.setSelect = this.getAttribute(\"select\");\n\tthis.setTiddler = this.getAttribute(\"tiddler\");\n\tthis.setSubTiddler = this.getAttribute(\"subtiddler\");\n\tthis.setField = this.getAttribute(\"field\");\n\tthis.setIndex = this.getAttribute(\"index\");\n\tthis.setValue = this.getAttribute(\"value\");\n\tthis.setEmptyValue = this.getAttribute(\"emptyValue\");\n\t// Set context variable\n\tthis.setVariable(this.setName,this.getValue(),this.parseTreeNode.params);\n\t// Construct the child widgets\n\tthis.makeChildWidgets();\n};\n\n/*\nGet the value to be assigned\n*/\nSetWidget.prototype.getValue = function() {\n\tvar value = this.setValue;\n\tif(this.setTiddler) {\n\t\tvar tiddler;\n\t\tif(this.setSubTiddler) {\n\t\t\ttiddler = this.wiki.getSubTiddler(this.setTiddler,this.setSubTiddler);\n\t\t} else {\n\t\t\ttiddler = this.wiki.getTiddler(this.setTiddler);\t\t\t\n\t\t}\n\t\tif(!tiddler) {\n\t\t\tvalue = this.setEmptyValue;\n\t\t} else if(this.setField) {\n\t\t\tvalue = tiddler.getFieldString(this.setField) || this.setEmptyValue;\n\t\t} else if(this.setIndex) {\n\t\t\tvalue = this.wiki.extractTiddlerDataItem(this.setTiddler,this.setIndex,this.setEmptyValue);\n\t\t} else {\n\t\t\tvalue = tiddler.fields.text || this.setEmptyValue ;\n\t\t}\n\t} else if(this.setFilter) {\n\t\tvar results = this.wiki.filterTiddlers(this.setFilter,this);\n\t\tif(this.setValue == null) {\n\t\t\tvar select;\n\t\t\tif(this.setSelect) {\n\t\t\t\tselect = parseInt(this.setSelect,10);\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t\tif(select !== undefined) {\n\t\t\t\tvalue = results[select] || \"\";\n\t\t\t} else {\n\t\t\t\tvalue = $tw.utils.stringifyReview(results);\t\t\t\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t}\n\t\tif(results.length === 0 && this.setEmptyValue !== undefined) {\n\t\t\tvalue = this.setEmptyValue;\n\t\t}\n\t} else if(!value && this.setEmptyValue) {\n\t\tvalue = this.setEmptyValue;\n\t}\n\treturn value || \"\";\n};\n\n/*\nSelectively refreshes the widget if needed. Returns true if the widget or any of its children needed re-rendering\n*/\nSetWidget.prototype.refresh = function(changedTiddlers) {\n\tvar changedAttributes = this.computeAttributes();\n\tif(changedAttributes.name || changedAttributes.filter || changedAttributes.select || changedAttributes.tiddler || (this.setTiddler && changedTiddlers[this.setTiddler]) || changedAttributes.field || changedAttributes.index || changedAttributes.value || changedAttributes.emptyValue ||\n\t (this.setFilter && this.getValue() != this.variables[this.setName].value)) {\n\t\tthis.refreshSelf();\n\t\treturn true;\n\t} else {\n\t\treturn this.refreshChildren(changedTiddlers);\n\t}\n};\n\nexports.setReview = SetWidget;\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "widget",
"created": "20180915200629094",
"modified": "20180915202328565",
"tags": ""
}
}
}
\define concat()
* [[$(ThisCreator)$]]
\end
\define carpcat()
* [[$(ThisCarpe)$]]
\end
\define introcat()
** [[$(ThisIntro)$]]
\end
\define journalButton(cur, add, carp, new, intro, plus)
<$button tooltip={{$:/plugins/sphygmus/reviewButton/hint}} aria-label={{$:/plugins/sphygmus/reviewButton/caption}} class=<<tv-config-toolbar-class>> >
<$action-setfield $tiddler="Wiki Review: Focus" text="$cur$$add$"/>
<$action-setfield $tiddler="Carpe Diem: Focus" text="$carp$$new$"/>
<$action-createtiddler $basetitle=<<carpeTitle>> tags=<<carpeTags>> />
<$action-setfield $tiddler="Prompted Introspection: Focus" text="$intro$$plus$"/>
<$action-createtiddler $basetitle=<<introTitle>> tags=<<introTags>> />
<$wikify name="journalTitle" text="""<$macrocall $name="now" format=<<journalTitleTemplate>>/>""">
<$setReview name="wikiReviewText" filter="[!is[system]days:created[-1]!days:created[0]sort[created]get[title]]">
<$reveal type="nomatch" state=<<journalTitle>> text="">
<$action-sendmessage $message="tm-new-tiddler" title=<<journalTitle>> tags=<<journalTags>> text={{{ [<journalTitle>get[]] }}}/>
</$reveal>
<$reveal type="match" state=<<journalTitle>> text="">
<$action-sendmessage $message="tm-new-tiddler" title=<<journalTitle>> text=<<wikiReviewText>> tags=<<journalTags>>/>
</$reveal>
<$list filter="[<tv-config-toolbar-icons>prefix[yes]]">
{{$:/core/images/new-journal-button}}
</$list>
<$list filter="[<tv-config-toolbar-text>prefix[yes]]">
<span class="tc-btn-text"><$text text={{$:/language/Buttons/NewTDL/Caption}}/></span>
</$list>
</$setReview>
</$wikify>
</$button>
\end
<$vars journalTitleTemplate={{$:/config/reviewButton/Title}} journalTags={{$:/config/reviewButton/Tags}} carpeTitleTemplate={{$:/config/reviewButton/carpeTitle}} carpeTags={{$:/config/reviewButton/carpeTags}} introTitleTemplate={{$:/config/reviewButton/introTitle}} introTags={{$:/config/reviewButton/introTags}} >
<$wikify name="journalTitle" text="""<$macrocall $name="now" format=<<journalTitleTemplate>>/>""">
<$wikify name="carpeTitle" text="""<$macrocall $name="now" format=<<carpeTitleTemplate>>/>""">
<$wikify name="introTitle" text="""<$macrocall $name="now" format=<<introTitleTemplate>>/>""">
<$vars ThisCreator=<<journalTitle>> ThisCarpe=<<carpeTitle>> ThisIntro=<<introTitle>> >
<$macrocall $name="journalButton" cur={{Wiki Review: Focus}} add=<<concat>> carp={{Carpe Diem: Focus}} new=<<carpcat>> intro={{Prompted Introspection: Focus}} plus=<<introcat>> />
</$vars>
</$wikify></$wikify></$wikify>
</$vars>
/*\
title: $:/core/modules/utils/luci.js
type: application/javascript
module-type: utils
Various static utility functions.
\*/
(function(){
/*jslint node: true, browser: true */
/*global $tw: false */
"use strict";
// Stringify an array of tiddler titles into a list string
exports.stringifyReview = function(value) {
if($tw.utils.isArray(value)) {
var result = [];
for(var t=0; t<value.length; t++) {
var entry = value[t] || "";
//if(entry.indexOf(" ") !== -1) {
result.push("\n* [["+entry+"]]\n"+"**");
//} else {
// result.push(entry); //this one
//}
}
return result.join(" ");
} else {
return value || "";
}
};
})();
{
"tiddlers": {
"$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/buttonAllInOne": {
"title": "$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/buttonAllInOne",
"creator": "sphygmus",
"created": "20181215153022475",
"type": "text/vnd.tiddlywiki",
"text": "\\define WRtitle() <$macrocall $name=\"now\" format={{$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/dick##WRtitle}} />\n\\define CDtitle() <$macrocall $name=\"now\" format={{$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/dick##CDtitle}} />\n\\define PItitle() <$macrocall $name=\"now\" format={{$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/dick##PItitle}} />\n\\define WRtags() <$macrocall $name=\"now\" format={{$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/dick##WRtags}} />\n\\define CDtags() <$macrocall $name=\"now\" format={{$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/dick##CDtags}} />\n\\define PItags() <$macrocall $name=\"now\" format={{$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/dick##PItags}} />\n\n\\define WR_append()\n<!--\n\tWe've hit the big time, baby! Same exact building blocks as before; we're just calling them with different settings and different macro names.\n\t\n\tNote that we're wikifying the titles in a single line macro now, just to save space. The <<WRtags>> etc macros aren't actually used - I was experimenting with using today's date as a tag, but it wouldn't combine with text and broke the ability to use [[this feature]] to make tags with spaces.\n\n--><$vars front=\"* [[\" back=\"]]\"><$wikify name=WR_title text=<<WRtitle>> ><$list filter={{$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/dick##WRlogs}}><$view field=\"text\" />\n<<front>><<WR_title>><<back>></$list></$wikify></$vars>\n\\end\n\n\\define CD_append()\n<$vars front=\"* [[\" back=\"]]\"><$wikify name=CD_title text=<<CDtitle>> ><$list filter={{$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/dick##CDlogs}}><$view field=\"text\" />\n<<front>><<CD_title>><<back>></$list></$wikify></$vars>\n\\end\n\n\\define PI_append()\n<$vars front=\"* [[\" back=\"]]\"><$wikify name=PI_title text=<<PItitle>> ><$list filter={{$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/dick##PIlogs}}><$view field=\"text\" />\n<<front>><<PI_title>><<back>></$list></$wikify></$vars>\n\\end\n\n\\define WR_list(delta)\n<$vars front=\"* [[\" back=\"]]\"><$list filter=\"$delta$\"><<front>><$view field=\"title\" /><<back>>\n** \n</$list></$vars>\n\\end\n\n\\define testButton()\n<!--\n\tSO MUCH WIKIFY! Thank goodness linebreaks don't affect anything in this macro; they help keep things a little bit organized.\n\t\n\tDictionary references come in //strong// for us here - with so many settings, it's much much easier than creating a new tiddler for every single config option.\n-->\n<$wikify name=WRLogLocation text={{$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/dick##WRlogs}} >\n<$wikify name=WRLogAppend text=<<WR_append>> >\n<$wikify name=WR_title text=<<WRtitle>> >\n<$wikify name=WR_text text=\"\"\"<$macrocall $name=\"WR_list\" delta=<<myFilter>> />\"\"\" >\n<$wikify name=WR_tags text=<<WRtags>> >\n\n<$wikify name=CDLogLocation text={{$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/dick##CDlogs}} >\n<$wikify name=CDLogAppend text=<<CD_append>> >\n<$wikify name=CD_title text=<<CDtitle>> >\n<$wikify name=CD_tags text=<<CDtags>> >\n\n<$wikify name=PILogLocation text={{$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/dick##PIlogs}} >\n<$wikify name=PILogAppend text=<<PI_append>> >\n<$wikify name=PI_title text=<<PItitle>> >\n<$wikify name=PI_tags text=<<PItags>> >\n\n<!-- Depending on your open-tiddlers-in-story-river settings, you might want to switch the order of these around. My set-up is \"open above the current tiddler\" from within the story river, so clicking this button ends up with the Wiki Review above Carpe Diem above Prompted Introspection. The reverse would be true with \"open below the current tiddler\". -->\n\n<$action-setfield $tiddler=<<PILogLocation>> text=<<PILogAppend>> />\n<$action-sendmessage $message=\"tm-new-tiddler\" title=<<PI_title>> tags={{$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/dick##PItags}} />\n\n<$action-setfield $tiddler=<<CDLogLocation>> text=<<CDLogAppend>> />\n<$action-sendmessage $message=\"tm-new-tiddler\" title=<<CD_title>> tags={{$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/dick##CDtags}} />\n\n<$action-setfield $tiddler=<<WRLogLocation>> text=<<WRLogAppend>> />\n\n<$reveal type=\"nomatch\" state=<<WR_title>> text=\"\">\n<$action-sendmessage $message=\"tm-new-tiddler\" title=<<WR_title>> tags={{$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/dick##WRtags}} />\n</$reveal>\n<$reveal type=\"match\" state=<<WR_title>> text=\"\">\n<$action-sendmessage $message=\"tm-new-tiddler\" title=<<WR_title>> tags={{$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/dick##WRtags}} text=<<WR_text>> />\n</$reveal>\n\n</$wikify></$wikify></$wikify></$wikify></$wikify></$wikify></$wikify></$wikify></$wikify></$wikify></$wikify></$wikify>\n\\end\n\n<$set name=\"myFilter\" value={{$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/dick##WRfilter}} >\n\n<p class=\"center\" style=\"font-size:1.5em;\"><$button actions=<<testButton>> >All In One Button</$button></p>\n\n</$set>\n\n---\n\n* //Filter to be used://\n** <$edit-text tiddler=\"$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/dick\" index=\"WRfilter\" class=\"tc-edit-field-value\" class=\"reviewButton\" tag=input />\n* //Title of wiki review tiddler://\n** <$edit-text tiddler=\"$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/dick\" index=\"WRtitle\" class=\"tc-edit-field-value\" class=\"reviewButton\" tag=input />\n* //Wiki review tags://\n** <$edit-text tiddler=\"$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/dick\" index=\"WRtags\" class=\"tc-edit-field-value\" class=\"reviewButton\" tag=input />\n* //Wiki review log location://\n** <$edit-text tiddler=\"$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/dick\" index=\"WRlogs\" class=\"tc-edit-field-value\" class=\"reviewButton\" tag=input />\n** {{$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/dick##WRlogs}}\n*\n* //Title of carpe diem tiddler://\n** <$edit-text tiddler=\"$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/dick\" index=\"CDtitle\" class=\"tc-edit-field-value\" class=\"reviewButton\" tag=input />\n* //Carpe diem tags://\n** <$edit-text tiddler=\"$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/dick\" index=\"CDtags\" class=\"tc-edit-field-value\" class=\"reviewButton\" tag=input />\n* //Carpe diem log location://\n** <$edit-text tiddler=\"$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/dick\" index=\"CDlogs\" class=\"tc-edit-field-value\" class=\"reviewButton\" tag=input />\n** {{$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/dick##CDlogs}}\n*\n* //Title of prompted introspection tiddler://\n** <$edit-text tiddler=\"$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/dick\" index=\"PItitle\" class=\"tc-edit-field-value\" class=\"reviewButton\" tag=input />\n* //Prompted introspection tags://\n** <$edit-text tiddler=\"$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/dick\" index=\"PItags\" class=\"tc-edit-field-value\" class=\"reviewButton\" tag=input />\n* //Prompted introspection log location://\n** <$edit-text tiddler=\"$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/dick\" index=\"PIlogs\" class=\"tc-edit-field-value\" class=\"reviewButton\" tag=input />\n** {{$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/dick##PIlogs}}"
},
"$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/buttonAppendWikiReview": {
"title": "$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/buttonAppendWikiReview",
"creator": "sphygmus",
"created": "20181215153022475",
"type": "text/vnd.tiddlywiki",
"text": "\\define WickedTitle() <$macrocall $name=\"now\" format={{$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/dick##3buttTitle}} />\n\n\\define append()\n<!--\n\tSame deal as our append & wiki review buttons - we've leveled up and are sticking them together into the //same// button! This code should be very familiar by now.\n--><$vars front=\"* [[\" back=\"]]\"><$wikify name=WR_title text=<<WickedTitle>> ><$list filter={{$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/dick##3buttLocation}}><$view field=\"text\" /><<front>><<WR_title>><<back>>\n</$list></$wikify></$vars>\n\\end\n\n\\define WR_list(delta)\n<$vars front=\"* [[\" back=\"]]\"><$list filter=\"$delta$\"><<front>><$view field=\"title\" /><<back>>\n** \n</$list></$vars>\n\\end\n\n\\define testButton()\n\n<!-- Seriously, it's just the same thing as the append & wiki review buttons, just taking the concept further and merging them into the same button code. Buttons can do a lot! -->\n\n<$wikify name=LogAppend text=<<append>> >\n<$wikify name=LogLocation text={{$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/dick##3buttLocation}} >\n\n<$wikify name=WR_title text=<<WickedTitle>> >\n<$wikify name=WR_text text=\"\"\"<$macrocall $name=\"WR_list\" delta=<<myFilter>> />\"\"\" >\n\n<$action-setfield $tiddler=<<LogLocation>> text=<<LogAppend>> />\n\n<$reveal type=\"nomatch\" state=<<WR_title>> text=\"\">\n<$action-sendmessage $message=\"tm-new-tiddler\" title=<<WR_title>> />\n</$reveal>\n<$reveal type=\"match\" state=<<WR_title>> text=\"\">\n<$action-sendmessage $message=\"tm-new-tiddler\" title=<<WR_title>> tags={{$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/dick##3buttTags}} text=<<WR_text>> />\n</$reveal>\n\n</$wikify></$wikify></$wikify></$wikify>\n\\end\n\n<$set name=\"myFilter\" value={{$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/dick##WRfilter}} >\n\n<p class=\"center\" style=\"font-size:1.5em\"><$button actions=<<testButton>> >Appending Wiki Review Button</$button></p>\n\n</$set>\n\n---\n\n* //Wiki Review filter to be used://\n** <$edit-text tiddler=\"$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/dick\" index=\"WRfilter\" class=\"tc-edit-field-value\" class=\"reviewButton\" tag=input />\n* //Title of the new tiddler (that will be appended)://\n** <$edit-text tiddler=\"$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/dick\" index=\"3buttTitle\" class=\"tc-edit-field-value\" class=\"reviewButton\" tag=input />\n* //Tags to apply to new tiddler://\n** <$edit-text tiddler=\"$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/dick\" index=\"3buttTags\" class=\"tc-edit-field-value\" class=\"reviewButton\" tag=input />\n* //Location to append title to://\n** <$edit-text tiddler=\"$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/dick\" index=\"3buttLocation\" class=\"tc-edit-field-value\" class=\"reviewButton\" tag=input />\n** {{$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/dick##3buttLocation}}"
},
"$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/buttonAppend": {
"title": "$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/buttonAppend",
"creator": "sphygmus",
"created": "20181215153022475",
"type": "text/vnd.tiddlywiki",
"text": "\\define WickedTitle()\n<!--this macro takes a title with a date-format template and returns the proper date conversion -->\n<$macrocall $name=\"now\" format={{$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/dick##1buttTitle}} />\n\\end\n\n\\define append()\n<!--\n\tThis macro inserts the title into the desired tiddler (X).\n\n\t* $vars allows the escaped insertion of special characters;\n\t* $wikify creates plaintext from the results of the date conversion macro;\n\t* $list ensures we're operating only on tiddler (X).\n\t* $view shows the current text field in tiddler (X).\n\n\tWe then call the front variable, the title we're inserting, and the back variable to \"insert\" that text after the current text field.\n\n\tFinally, the $list, $wikify, and $vars widgits are closed.\n\n\tNOTE: the linebreaks (or lack thereof) are //important// in this macro. With any extra linebreaks, there will be unwanted wild linebreaks created in the output text.\n\t\n--><$vars front=\"* [[\" back=\"]]\"><$wikify name=WR_title text=<<WickedTitle>> ><$list filter={{$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/dick##1buttLocation}}><$view field=\"text\" /><<front>><<WR_title>><<back>>\n</$list></$wikify></$vars>\n\\end\n\n\\define testButton()\n<!--\n\tThis macro sets up the action to call append().\n\n\tFirst, we $wikify the append macro - this converts the results into a plaintext form.\n\n\tThen we also $wikify tiddler (X)'s title, because the setfield widget will not accept a dictionary reference as a parameter. (If you try, you'll get a XMLHttpRequest error code: 500.)\n\n\tFinally, we use $action-setfield to change tiddler (X)'s text field to our new text field, with freshly appended bulleted link.\n\n\tNOTE: unlike <<append>>, line breaks do not matter in this macro.\n-->\n<$wikify name=newText text=<<append>> >\n<$wikify name=WR_tid text={{$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/dick##1buttLocation}} >\n<$action-setfield $tiddler=<<WR_tid>> text=<<newText>> />\n</$wikify></$wikify>\n\\end\n\n<p class=\"center\" style=\"font-size:1.5em;\"><$button actions=<<testButton>> >Appending Button</$button></p>\n\n---\n\n* //Title to be appended://\n** <$edit-text tiddler=\"$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/dick\" index=\"1buttTitle\" class=\"tc-edit-field-value\" class=\"reviewButton\" tag=input />\n* //Location to appended to://\n** <$edit-text tiddler=\"$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/dick\" index=\"1buttLocation\" class=\"tc-edit-field-value\" class=\"reviewButton\" tag=input />\n** {{$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/dick##1buttLocation}}"
},
"$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/buttonHardcodedList": {
"title": "$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/buttonHardcodedList",
"creator": "sphygmus",
"created": "20181215153022475",
"type": "text/vnd.tiddlywiki",
"text": "\\define bodyTextFilter(delta)\n<!--\n\tThis is where I was a doofus!! For a hardcoded list, it's important that you be able to change the filter to your liking - that's kind of the whole point! But I struggled with keeping prefix & suffixes in the filter while still making the main string changable. Using a variable fixed it, though now I've changed it thanks to realizing I didn't even //need// to use the prefix/suffix filters.\n--><$vars front=\"* [[\" back=\"]]\"><$list filter=\"$delta$\"><<front>><$view field=\"title\" /><<back>>\n</$list></$vars>\n\\end\n\n\\define newTidButton()\n<!-- \n\tsame day same deal. essentially the wiki review button with a different list inserted.\n\n\tNOTE: You have to set the variable for your filter outside of all the macro definitions and make sure the button is wrapped in it, and you have to pass that variable to the bodyTextFilter when you call it. Note the use of triple quotes again to allow us to call a macro within the wikify widget.\n-->\n\n<$wikify name=newTidText text=\"\"\"<$macrocall $name=\"bodyTextFilter\" delta=<<myFilter>> />\"\"\" >\n<$wikify name=newTidTitle text=\"\"\"<$macrocall $name=\"now\" format={{$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/dick##4buttTitle}} />\"\"\">\n\n<$action-sendmessage $message=\"tm-new-tiddler\" title=<<newTidTitle>> tags={{$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/dick##4buttTags}} text=<<newTidText>> />\n\n</$wikify></$wikify>\n\\end\n\n<$set name=\"myFilter\" value={{$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/dick##4buttFilter}} >\n\n<p class=\"center\" style=\"font-size:1.5em;\"><$button actions=<<newTidButton>> >Hardcoded List Button</$button></p>\n\n</$set>\n\n---\n\n* //Filter to be used://\n** <$edit-text tiddler=\"$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/dick\" index=\"4buttFilter\" class=\"tc-edit-field-value\" class=\"reviewButton\" tag=input />\n* //Title of created tiddler://\n** <$edit-text tiddler=\"$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/dick\" index=\"4buttTitle\" class=\"tc-edit-field-value\" class=\"reviewButton\" tag=input />\n* //Tag(s) of created tiddler://\n** <$edit-text tiddler=\"$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/dick\" index=\"4buttTags\" class=\"tc-edit-field-value\" class=\"reviewButton\" tag=input />"
},
"$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/buttonMonthlyAudit(4h0p3)": {
"title": "$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/buttonMonthlyAudit(4h0p3)",
"creator": "sphygmus",
"created": "20181215153022475",
"type": "text/vnd.tiddlywiki",
"text": "\\define bodyTextFilter(delta)\n!! Log: \n<$vars front=\"* [[\" back=\"]]\"><$list filter=\"$delta$\"><<front>><$view field=\"title\" /><<back>>\n</$list></$vars>\n!! Audit:\n\n* \n\\end\n\n\\define newTidButton()\n\n<!-- Because the bodyTextFilter gets wikified into plaintext, the linebreaks are super important! That's also how we can set up the formatting of the text within the snippet, including headings and the start of a new bulleted list. -->\n\n<$wikify name=newTidText text=\"\"\"<$macrocall $name=\"bodyTextFilter\" delta=<<myFilter>> />\"\"\" >\n<$wikify name=newTidTitle text=\"\"\"<$macrocall $name=\"now\" format={{$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/dick##4h0p3Title}} />\"\"\">\n\n<$action-sendmessage $message=\"tm-new-tiddler\" title=<<newTidTitle>> tags={{$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/dick##4h0p3Tags}} text=<<newTidText>> />\n\n</$wikify></$wikify>\n\\end\n\n<$set name=\"myFilter\" value={{$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/dick##4h0p3Filter}} >\n\n<p class=\"center\" style=\"font-size:1.5em;\"><$button actions=<<newTidButton>> >Monthly Audit Button</$button></p>\n\n</$set>\n\n---\n\n* //Filter to be used://\n** <$edit-text tiddler=\"$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/dick\" index=\"4h0p3Filter\" class=\"tc-edit-field-value\" class=\"reviewButton\" tag=input />\n* //Title of created tiddler://\n** <$edit-text tiddler=\"$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/dick\" index=\"4h0p3Title\" class=\"tc-edit-field-value\" class=\"reviewButton\" tag=input />\n* //Tag(s) of created tiddler://\n** <$edit-text tiddler=\"$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/dick\" index=\"4h0p3Tags\" class=\"tc-edit-field-value\" class=\"reviewButton\" tag=input />"
},
"$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/buttonWikiReview": {
"title": "$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/buttonWikiReview",
"creator": "sphygmus",
"created": "20181215153022475",
"type": "text/vnd.tiddlywiki",
"text": "\\define WR_list(delta)\n<!--\n\tThis should be familiar from our <<append>> macro! Same concept: $vars to insert special characters, $list to restrict the tiddlers we're working with, and $view to show their titles; linebreaks remain //important//.\n\t* Several things are different:\n\tAHAH I'm a hecking doofus. I was calling the front and back variables within the list filter (like so: +[addprefix<front>]) when that was TOTALLY unnecessary and caused major problems for me later on. Time to go fix this in all the other buttons.\n\t\tThis also means that I can expose the filter for the wiki review list in my settings without any issue, which is the thing that pre/suffixes were causing me so much pain with later on.\n\tOkay, after that change this is essentially the same as the append macro, just with an important line break and two ** - this creates an empty sub-bullet line in our list.\n--><$vars front=\"* [[\" back=\"]]\"><$list filter=\"$delta$\"><<front>><$view field=\"title\" /><<back>>\n** \n</$list></$vars>\n\\end\n\n\\define WR_button()\n<!--\n\tThis button sets up the creation of our new wiki review list tiddler! Again, similar to what you saw in the append button. We $wikify the above list macro, in order to create the plaintext for insertion. We $wikify the date formatted title so it will be recognized as a parameter for $sendmessage; note here that \"\"\" allows us to escape doublequotes so we can use $macrocall. It's also important that we're calling <<now>> with the macrocall widget and not the <<now>> shortcut - using the widget form allows us to give the format parameter a dictionary reference, which the <<now>> shortcut does not accept.\n\t\t\n\t\tAfter setting up our plaintext, we create our new tiddler with the sendmessage tiddler, inserting our plaintext as the title and text where appropriate, and including our dictionary reference for tags.\n\n\tSomething is different though! This time, we're using a reveal to check for the existence of the tiddler. If the tiddler exists and contains text, clicking the button will open it in the story river, but not touch anything else. If it's an empty/non-existent tiddler, then the text will get inserted.\n-->\n\n<$wikify name=WR_text text=\"\"\"<$macrocall $name=\"WR_list\" delta=<<myFilter>> />\"\"\" >\n<$wikify name=WR_title text=\"\"\"<$macrocall $name=\"now\" format={{$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/dick##2buttTitle}} />\"\"\">\n\n<$reveal type=\"nomatch\" state=<<WR_title>> text=\"\">\n<$action-sendmessage $message=\"tm-new-tiddler\" title=<<WR_title>> />\n</$reveal>\n<$reveal type=\"match\" state=<<WR_title>> text=\"\">\n<$action-sendmessage $message=\"tm-new-tiddler\" title=<<WR_title>> tags={{$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/dick##2buttTags}} text=<<WR_text>> />\n</$reveal>\n\n</$wikify></$wikify>\n\\end\n\n<$set name=\"myFilter\" value={{$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/dick##WRfilter}} >\n\n<p class=\"center\" style=\"font-size:1.5em;\"><$button actions=<<WR_button>> >Wiki Review Button</$button></p>\n\n</$set>\n\n---\n\n* //Wiki review filter to be used://\n** <$edit-text tiddler=\"$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/dick\" index=\"WRfilter\" class=\"tc-edit-field-value\" class=\"reviewButton\" tag=input />\n* //Title of the new tiddler://\n** <$edit-text tiddler=\"$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/dick\" index=\"2buttTitle\" class=\"tc-edit-field-value\" class=\"reviewButton\" tag=input />\n* //Tags to apply to new tiddler://\n** <$edit-text tiddler=\"$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/dick\" index=\"2buttTags\" class=\"tc-edit-field-value\" class=\"reviewButton\" tag=input />"
},
"$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/details": {
"title": "$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/details",
"creator": "sphygmus",
"created": "20181215153022475",
"type": "text/vnd.tiddlywiki",
"text": "!! Button Descriptions:\n\n; [[Append Button|$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/buttonAppend]]\n: This is a reference button, demonstrating the construction of macros needed for silently appending a bulleted, linked title to another tiddler.\n; [[Wiki Review Button|$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/buttonWikiReview]]\n: Another reference button, this time demonstrating the insertion of a hard-coded double-bulleted-linked-list of tiddlers, from a specific filter, into a new tiddler.\n; [[Append & Wiki Review Button|$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/buttonAppendWikiReview]]\n: This button combines the append button and wiki review button concepts -- it creates a new hard-linked Wiki Review tiddler and then silently appends the new tiddler's title to a second tiddler.\n; [[All-In-One Button|$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/buttonAllInOne]]\n: This button is a replica of the [[All-In-One River button|$:/plugins/sphygmus/reviewButton/button: AIO River]] from my previous plugin. It creates and opens in the story-river a hard-linked Wiki Review tiddler and two new tiddlers based on the given settings.\n; [[All-In-One Page Button|$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/pageButtonAIO]]\n: This button is a version of the All-In-One button that is suitable for embedding into the sidebar, and can also serve as a template for embedding other buttons as page controls.\n; [[Hardcoded List Button|$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/buttonHardcodedList]]\n: This button creates a new tiddler in the story river with a generic hard-coded list of links, based on a given filter.\n; [[Monthly Audit Button (4 h0p3)|$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/buttonMonthlyAudit(4h0p3)]]\n: This button expands on the Hardcoded List button to create a new hard-coded link list tiddler formatted in h0p3's monthly audit format."
},
"$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/dick": {
"title": "$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/dick",
"creator": "sphygmus",
"created": "20181215153022475",
"type": "application/x-tiddler-dictionary",
"text": "WRfilter: [!is[system]days:created[-1]!days:created[0]sort[created]get[title]]\nWRtitle: YY0MM0DD -- Wiki Review: World\nWRtags: [[testing a multi-space tag]]\nWRlogs: [[Wiki Review: Focus]]\nCDtitle: YY0MM0DD -- Carpe Diem: Eater\nCDtags: [[lots of]] [[random]] [[tags]]\nCDlogs: [[Carpe Diem: Focus]]\nPItitle: YY0MM0DD -- Prompted Introspection: Beater\nPItags: [[80's music]] [[saturday singalong]]\nPIlogs: [[Prompted Introspection: Focus]]\n1buttTitle: YY0MM0DD -- Testing\n1buttLocation: [[Prompted Buttons: Focus]]\n2buttTitle: YYYY.0MM.0DD -- Wake Me Up Before You GOGO\n2buttTags: [[80's music]]\n3buttTitle: ddd * mmm * 0DD -- Take On Me\n3buttTags: [[80's music]]\n3buttLocation: [[AHA]]\n4buttFilter: [!is[system]tag[from h0p3]search:title[09]sort[created]]\n4buttTitle: Letters From h0p3: September\n4buttTags: [[80's music]]\n4h0p3Filter: [!is[system]tag[Table Of Contents]sort[created]]\n4h0p3Title: YYYY.0MM - Wiki Review\n4h0p3Tags: [[Log Audit]] [[Wiki Review]]"
},
"$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/pageButtonAIO": {
"title": "$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/pageButtonAIO",
"creator": "sphygmus",
"created": "20181216171928646",
"modified": "20181216172034350",
"tags": "$:/tags/PageControls",
"type": "text/vnd.tiddlywiki",
"text": "\\define WRtitle() <$macrocall $name=\"now\" format={{$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/dick##WRtitle}} />\n\\define CDtitle() <$macrocall $name=\"now\" format={{$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/dick##CDtitle}} />\n\\define PItitle() <$macrocall $name=\"now\" format={{$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/dick##PItitle}} />\n\\define WRtags() <$macrocall $name=\"now\" format={{$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/dick##WRtags}} />\n\\define CDtags() <$macrocall $name=\"now\" format={{$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/dick##CDtags}} />\n\\define PItags() <$macrocall $name=\"now\" format={{$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/dick##PItags}} />\n\n\\define WR_append()\n<$vars front=\"* [[\" back=\"]]\"><$wikify name=WR_title text=<<WRtitle>> ><$list filter={{$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/dick##WRlogs}}><$view field=\"text\" />\n<<front>><<WR_title>><<back>></$list></$wikify></$vars>\n\\end\n\n\\define CD_append()\n<$vars front=\"* [[\" back=\"]]\"><$wikify name=CD_title text=<<CDtitle>> ><$list filter={{$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/dick##CDlogs}}><$view field=\"text\" />\n<<front>><<CD_title>><<back>></$list></$wikify></$vars>\n\\end\n\n\\define PI_append()\n<$vars front=\"* [[\" back=\"]]\"><$wikify name=PI_title text=<<PItitle>> ><$list filter={{$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/dick##PIlogs}}><$view field=\"text\" />\n<<front>><<PI_title>><<back>></$list></$wikify></$vars>\n\\end\n\n\\define WR_list(delta)\n<$vars front=\"* [[\" back=\"]]\"><$list filter=\"$delta$\"><<front>><$view field=\"title\" /><<back>>\n** \n</$list></$vars>\n\\end\n\n\\define testButton()\n<$wikify name=WRLogLocation text={{$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/dick##WRlogs}} >\n<$wikify name=WRLogAppend text=<<WR_append>> >\n<$wikify name=WR_title text=<<WRtitle>> >\n<$wikify name=WR_text text=\"\"\"<$macrocall $name=\"WR_list\" delta=<<myFilter>> />\"\"\" >\n<$wikify name=WR_tags text=<<WRtags>> >\n\n<$wikify name=CDLogLocation text={{$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/dick##CDlogs}} >\n<$wikify name=CDLogAppend text=<<CD_append>> >\n<$wikify name=CD_title text=<<CDtitle>> >\n<$wikify name=CD_tags text=<<CDtags>> >\n\n<$wikify name=PILogLocation text={{$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/dick##PIlogs}} >\n<$wikify name=PILogAppend text=<<PI_append>> >\n<$wikify name=PI_title text=<<PItitle>> >\n<$wikify name=PI_tags text=<<PItags>> >\n\n<$action-setfield $tiddler=<<PILogLocation>> text=<<PILogAppend>> />\n<$action-sendmessage $message=\"tm-new-tiddler\" title=<<PI_title>> tags={{$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/dick##PItags}} />\n\n<$action-setfield $tiddler=<<CDLogLocation>> text=<<CDLogAppend>> />\n<$action-sendmessage $message=\"tm-new-tiddler\" title=<<CD_title>> tags={{$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/dick##CDtags}} />\n\n<$action-setfield $tiddler=<<WRLogLocation>> text=<<WRLogAppend>> />\n\n<$reveal type=\"nomatch\" state=<<WR_title>> text=\"\">\n<$action-sendmessage $message=\"tm-new-tiddler\" title=<<WR_title>> tags={{$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/dick##WRtags}} />\n</$reveal>\n<$reveal type=\"match\" state=<<WR_title>> text=\"\">\n<$action-sendmessage $message=\"tm-new-tiddler\" title=<<WR_title>> tags={{$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/dick##WRtags}} text=<<WR_text>> />\n</$reveal>\n\n</$wikify></$wikify></$wikify></$wikify></$wikify></$wikify></$wikify></$wikify></$wikify></$wikify></$wikify></$wikify>\n\\end\n<$set name=\"myFilter\" value={{$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/dick##WRfilter}} ><p style=\"margin-block-start:.25em; margin-block-end:.25em;\"><$button tooltip=\"new wiki review, etc.\" aria-label=\"new wiki review, etc.\" class=<<tv-config-toolbar-class>> actions=<<testButton>> >🞖</$button></p></$set>"
},
"$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/readme": {
"title": "$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/readme",
"creator": "sphygmus",
"created": "20181215153022475",
"type": "text/vnd.tiddlywiki",
"text": "This plugin contains buttons that implement the automatic creation of tiddlers with hardcoded links, in several forms. It is also meant as a reference for creating your own customized hardcoded link buttons. \n\nThis is an entirely revamped version of [[my earlier plugin|$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV1]] -- all buttons have been rewritten from scratch. The largest change is the switch from a customized stringify javascript function to the preset `<$wikify>` widget. I also switched from using config tiddlers to using a data dictionary.\n\n---\n\n!!! Note: some of the not-visible naming conventions inside the code are NSFW; they are word association remnants of the code drafting process where a lot of my variables are just curse words or things like \"meh\" and \"testing\". A little levity makes the bugs easier to fix, eh?"
},
"$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/settings": {
"title": "$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/settings",
"creator": "sphygmus",
"created": "20181215153022475",
"type": "text/vnd.tiddlywiki",
"text": "!! Append Button\n\n* //Title to be appended://\n** <$edit-text tiddler=\"$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/dick\" index=\"1buttTitle\" class=\"tc-edit-field-value\" class=\"reviewButton\" tag=input />\n* //Location to appended to://\n** <$edit-text tiddler=\"$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/dick\" index=\"1buttLocation\" class=\"tc-edit-field-value\" class=\"reviewButton\" tag=input />\n** {{$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/dick##1buttLocation}}\n\n!! Wiki Review Button\n\n* //Wiki review filter to be used://\n** <$edit-text tiddler=\"$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/dick\" index=\"WRfilter\" class=\"tc-edit-field-value\" class=\"reviewButton\" tag=input />\n* //Title of the new tiddler://\n** <$edit-text tiddler=\"$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/dick\" index=\"2buttTitle\" class=\"tc-edit-field-value\" class=\"reviewButton\" tag=input />\n* //Tags to apply to new tiddler://\n** <$edit-text tiddler=\"$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/dick\" index=\"2buttTags\" class=\"tc-edit-field-value\" class=\"reviewButton\" tag=input />\n\n!! Append Wiki Review Button\n\n* //Wiki review filter to be used://\n** <$edit-text tiddler=\"$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/dick\" index=\"WRfilter\" class=\"tc-edit-field-value\" class=\"reviewButton\" tag=input />\n* //Title of the new tiddler (that will be appended)://\n** <$edit-text tiddler=\"$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/dick\" index=\"3buttTitle\" class=\"tc-edit-field-value\" class=\"reviewButton\" tag=input />\n* //Tags to apply to new tiddler://\n** <$edit-text tiddler=\"$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/dick\" index=\"3buttTags\" class=\"tc-edit-field-value\" class=\"reviewButton\" tag=input />\n* //Location to append title to://\n** <$edit-text tiddler=\"$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/dick\" index=\"3buttLocation\" class=\"tc-edit-field-value\" class=\"reviewButton\" tag=input />\n** {{$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/dick##3buttLocation}}\n\n!! All In One Button\n\n* //Wiki review filter to be used://\n** <$edit-text tiddler=\"$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/dick\" index=\"WRfilter\" class=\"tc-edit-field-value\" class=\"reviewButton\" tag=input />\n* //Title of wiki review tiddler://\n** <$edit-text tiddler=\"$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/dick\" index=\"WRtitle\" class=\"tc-edit-field-value\" class=\"reviewButton\" tag=input />\n* //Wiki review tags://\n** <$edit-text tiddler=\"$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/dick\" index=\"WRtags\" class=\"tc-edit-field-value\" class=\"reviewButton\" tag=input />\n* //Wiki review log location://\n** <$edit-text tiddler=\"$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/dick\" index=\"WRlogs\" class=\"tc-edit-field-value\" class=\"reviewButton\" tag=input />\n** {{$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/dick##WRlogs}}\n*\n* //Title of carpe diem tiddler://\n** <$edit-text tiddler=\"$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/dick\" index=\"CDtitle\" class=\"tc-edit-field-value\" class=\"reviewButton\" tag=input />\n* //Carpe diem tags://\n** <$edit-text tiddler=\"$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/dick\" index=\"CDtags\" class=\"tc-edit-field-value\" class=\"reviewButton\" tag=input />\n* //Carpe diem log location://\n** <$edit-text tiddler=\"$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/dick\" index=\"CDlogs\" class=\"tc-edit-field-value\" class=\"reviewButton\" tag=input />\n** {{$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/dick##CDlogs}}\n*\n* //Title of prompted introspection tiddler://\n** <$edit-text tiddler=\"$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/dick\" index=\"PItitle\" class=\"tc-edit-field-value\" class=\"reviewButton\" tag=input />\n* //Prompted introspection tags://\n** <$edit-text tiddler=\"$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/dick\" index=\"PItags\" class=\"tc-edit-field-value\" class=\"reviewButton\" tag=input />\n* //Prompted introspection log location://\n** <$edit-text tiddler=\"$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/dick\" index=\"PIlogs\" class=\"tc-edit-field-value\" class=\"reviewButton\" tag=input />\n** {{$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/dick##PIlogs}}\n\n!! Hardcoded List Button\n\n* //Filter to be used://\n** <$edit-text tiddler=\"$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/dick\" index=\"4buttFilter\" class=\"tc-edit-field-value\" class=\"reviewButton\" tag=input />\n* //Title of created tiddler://\n** <$edit-text tiddler=\"$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/dick\" index=\"4buttTitle\" class=\"tc-edit-field-value\" class=\"reviewButton\" tag=input />\n* //Tag(s) of created tiddler://\n** <$edit-text tiddler=\"$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/dick\" index=\"4buttTags\" class=\"tc-edit-field-value\" class=\"reviewButton\" tag=input />\n\n!! Monthly Audit (4 h0p3) Button\n\n* //Filter to be used://\n** <$edit-text tiddler=\"$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/dick\" index=\"4h0p3Filter\" class=\"tc-edit-field-value\" class=\"reviewButton\" tag=input />\n* //Title of created tiddler://\n** <$edit-text tiddler=\"$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/dick\" index=\"4h0p3Title\" class=\"tc-edit-field-value\" class=\"reviewButton\" tag=input />\n* //Tag(s) of created tiddler://\n** <$edit-text tiddler=\"$:/plugins/sphygmus/sbuttonsV2/dick\" index=\"4h0p3Tags\" class=\"tc-edit-field-value\" class=\"reviewButton\" tag=input />"
}
}
}
WRfilter: [!is[system]days:created[-1]!days:created[0]sort[created]get[title]]
WRtitle: YY0MM0DD -- Wiki Review: World
WRtags: [[testing a multi-space tag]]
WRlogs: [[Wiki Review: Focus]]
CDtitle: YY0MM0DD -- Carpe Diem: Eater
CDtags: [[lots of]] [[random]] [[tags]]
CDlogs: [[Carpe Diem: Focus]]
PItitle: YY0MM0DD -- Prompted Introspection: Beater
PItags: [[80's music]] [[saturday singalong]]
PIlogs: [[Prompted Introspection: Focus]]
1buttTitle: YY0MM0DD -- Testing
1buttLocation: [[Prompted Buttons: Focus]]
2buttTitle: YYYY.0MM.0DD -- Wake Me Up Before You GOGO
2buttTags: [[80's music]]
3buttTitle: ddd * mmm * 0DD -- Take On Me
3buttTags: [[80's music]]
3buttLocation: [[AHA]]
4buttFilter: [tag[test]]
4buttTitle: test
4buttTags:
4h0p3Filter: [!is[system]tag[Table Of Contents]sort[created]]
4h0p3Title: YYYY.0MM - Wiki Review
4h0p3Tags: [[Log Audit]] [[Wiki Review]]
{
"tiddlers": {
"$:/language/Buttons/Cancel-Close/Caption": {
"text": "cancel & close",
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/Cancel-Close/Caption",
"tags": "",
"modifier": "Thomas Elmiger",
"modified": "20170914204107296",
"creator": "Thomas Elmiger",
"created": "20170914204041613"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/Save-Close/Caption": {
"text": "save & close",
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/Save-Close/Caption",
"tags": "",
"modifier": "Thomas Elmiger",
"modified": "20170914210017662",
"creator": "Thomas Elmiger",
"created": "20170914205946898"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/Cancel-Close/Hint": {
"text": "Discard changes and close this tiddler",
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/Cancel-Close/Hint",
"tags": "",
"modifier": "Thomas Elmiger",
"modified": "20170914204458205",
"creator": "Thomas Elmiger",
"created": "20170914204437669"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/Save-Close/Hint": {
"text": "Confirm changes and close this tiddler",
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/Save-Close/Hint",
"tags": "",
"modifier": "Thomas Elmiger",
"modified": "20170914214256855",
"creator": "Thomas Elmiger",
"created": "20170914210802887"
},
"$:/core/images/cancel-close-button": {
"created": "20170911161631900",
"creator": "Thomas Elmiger",
"text": "<svg xmlns=\"http://www.w3.org/2000/svg\" class=\"tc-image-button edit-btn-icon cancel-close\" viewBox=\"0 0 22 22\">\n<g fill-rule=\"evenodd\">\n<path d=\"M11,13.114l-2.922,2.922c-0.26,0.287 -0.631,0.452 -1.019,0.452c-0.754,0 -1.375,-0.621 -1.375,-1.375c0,-0.388 0.164,-0.759 0.452,-1.019l2.922,-2.922l-2.922,-2.922c-0.288,-0.261 -0.452,-0.631 -0.452,-1.019c0,-0.754 0.621,-1.375 1.375,-1.375c0.388,0 0.759,0.164 1.019,0.452l2.922,2.922l2.922,-2.922c0.26,-0.288 0.631,-0.452 1.019,-0.452c0.754,0 1.375,0.621 1.375,1.375c0,0.388 -0.164,0.758 -0.452,1.019l-2.922,2.922l2.922,2.922c0.288,0.26 0.452,0.631 0.452,1.019c0,0.754 -0.621,1.375 -1.375,1.375c-0.388,0 -0.759,-0.165 -1.019,-0.452l-2.922,-2.922Zm0,9.058c6.034,0 11,-4.966 11,-11c0,-6.035 -4.966,-11 -11,-11c-6.034,0 -11,4.965 -11,11c0,6.034 4.966,11 11,11Zm0,-2.75c4.526,0 8.25,-3.724 8.25,-8.25c0,-4.526 -3.724,-8.25 -8.25,-8.25c-4.526,0 -8.25,3.724 -8.25,8.25c0,4.526 3.724,8.25 8.25,8.25Z\"/>\n</g>\n<path class=\"tc-mini-icon\" d=\"M17.5,22c-2.469,0 -4.5,-2.031 -4.5,-4.5c0,-2.469 2.031,-4.5 4.5,-4.5c2.469,0 4.5,2.031 4.5,4.5c0,2.469 -2.031,4.5 -4.5,4.5Z\"/><path class=\"tc-mini-icon-foreground\" d=\"M17.5,18.5l-1.5,1.6l-1,-1l1.6,-1.6l-1.6,-1.6l1,-1l1.6,1.6l1.6,-1.6l1,1l-1.6,1.6l1.6,1.6l-1,1l-1.6,-1.6l-0.1,0Z\"/>\n</svg>",
"title": "$:/core/images/cancel-close-button",
"tags": "$:/tags/Image",
"modifier": "Thomas Elmiger",
"modified": "20181120065428219"
},
"$:/core/images/done-close-button": {
"created": "20170914190201427",
"creator": "Thomas Elmiger",
"text": "<svg xmlns=\"http://www.w3.org/2000/svg\" class=\"tc-image-button edit-btn-icon save-close\" viewBox=\"0 0 22 22\"><path d=\"M7,19c-0.537,0 -1,-0.5 -1,-0.5l-5.596,-6.616c-0.538,-0.54 -0.538,-1.41 0,-1.946c0.535,-0.536 1.407,-0.536 1.945,0l4.651,5.562l12.6,-13.1c0.537,-0.537 1.363,-0.537 1.9,0c0.536,0.536 0.587,1.413 0.05,1.95l-13.55,14.15c0,0 -0.463,0.5 -1,0.5Z\"/><path class=\"tc-mini-icon\" d=\"M17.5,22c-2.469,0 -4.5,-2.031 -4.5,-4.5c0,-2.469 2.031,-4.5 4.5,-4.5c2.469,0 4.5,2.031 4.5,4.5c0,2.469 -2.031,4.5 -4.5,4.5Z\"/><path class=\"tc-mini-icon-foreground\" d=\"M17.5,18.5l-1.5,1.6l-1,-1l1.6,-1.6l-1.6,-1.6l1,-1l1.6,1.6l1.6,-1.6l1,1l-1.6,1.6l1.6,1.6l-1,1l-1.6,-1.6l-0.1,0Z\"/></svg>",
"title": "$:/core/images/done-close-button",
"tags": "$:/tags/Image",
"modifier": "Thomas Elmiger",
"modified": "20181120065438063"
},
"$:/core/ui/Buttons/cancel-and-close": {
"text": "<$button tooltip={{$:/language/Buttons/Cancel-Close/Hint}} aria-label={{$:/language/Buttons/Cancel-Close/Caption}} class=<<tv-config-toolbar-class>>>\n<$action-sendmessage $message=\"tm-cancel-tiddler\"/>\n<$list filter=\"[all[current]get[draft.of]]\" variable=\"originaltiddler\">\n<$action-sendmessage $message=\"tm-close-tiddler\" $param=<<originaltiddler>>/>\n</$list>\n<$list filter=\"[<tv-config-toolbar-icons>prefix[yes]]\">\n{{$:/core/images/cancel-close-button}}\n</$list>\n<$list filter=\"[<tv-config-toolbar-text>prefix[yes]]\">\n<span class=\"tc-btn-text\"><$text text={{$:/language/Buttons/Cancel-Close/Caption}}/></span>\n</$list>\n</$button>",
"title": "$:/core/ui/Buttons/cancel-and-close",
"tags": "$:/tags/EditToolbar",
"modifier": "Thomas Elmiger",
"modified": "20170915114833907",
"description": "{{$:/language/Buttons/Cancel-Close/Hint}}",
"creator": "Thomas Elmiger",
"created": "20170911162241564",
"caption": "{{$:/core/images/cancel-close-button}} {{$:/language/Buttons/Cancel-Close/Caption}}"
},
"$:/core/ui/Buttons/save-and-close": {
"text": "<$fieldmangler><$button tooltip={{$:/language/Buttons/Save-Close/Hint}} aria-label={{$:/language/Buttons/Save-Close/Caption}} class=<<tv-config-toolbar-class>>>\n<$action-sendmessage $message=\"tm-add-tag\" $param={{$:/temp/NewTagName}}/>\n<$action-deletetiddler $tiddler=\"$:/temp/NewTagName\"/>\n<$action-sendmessage $message=\"tm-add-field\" $name={{$:/temp/newfieldname}} $value={{$:/temp/newfieldvalue}}/>\n<$action-deletetiddler $tiddler=\"$:/temp/newfieldname\"/>\n<$action-deletetiddler $tiddler=\"$:/temp/newfieldvalue\"/>\n<$action-sendmessage $message=\"tm-save-tiddler\"/>\n<$list filter=\"[all[current]get[draft.title]]\" variable=\"newtiddler\">\n<$action-sendmessage $message=\"tm-close-tiddler\" $param=<<newtiddler>>/>\n</$list>\n<$list filter=\"[<tv-config-toolbar-icons>prefix[yes]]\">\n{{$:/core/images/done-close-button}}\n</$list>\n<$list filter=\"[<tv-config-toolbar-text>prefix[yes]]\">\n<span class=\"tc-btn-text\"><$text text={{$:/language/Buttons/Save-Close/Caption}}/></span>\n</$list>\n</$button></$fieldmangler>",
"title": "$:/core/ui/Buttons/save-and-close",
"tags": "$:/tags/EditToolbar",
"modifier": "Thomas Elmiger",
"modified": "20170915115649595",
"description": "{{$:/language/Buttons/Save-Close/Hint}}",
"creator": "Thomas Elmiger",
"created": "20170531174454839",
"caption": "{{$:/core/images/done-close-button}} {{$:/language/Buttons/Save-Close/Caption}}"
},
"$:/core/images/done-button": {
"text": "<svg xmlns=\"http://www.w3.org/2000/svg\" viewBox=\"0 0 22 22\" class=\"tc-image-button tc-image-done-button\" fill=\"currentColor\" width=\"22pt\" height=\"22pt\"><path d=\"M7 19c-.422 0-.73-.23-1-.5L.404 11.884c-.538-.54-.538-1.41 0-1.946.535-.536 1.407-.536 1.945 0L7 15.5 19.6 2.4c.537-.537 1.363-.537 1.9 0 .536.536.587 1.413.05 1.95L8 18.5s-.578.5-1 .5z\"/></svg>",
"title": "$:/core/images/done-button",
"tags": "$:/tags/Image",
"modifier": "Thomas Elmiger",
"modified": "20181117224936639",
"creator": "Thomas Elmiger",
"created": "20170914191345424"
},
"$:/plugins/telmiger/EditButtons/readme": {
"created": "20170531175031820",
"creator": "Thomas Elmiger",
"text": "!! The Plugin\n\nThe [[EditButtons|$:/plugins/telmiger/EditButtons]] plugin makes editing of tiddlers more efficient by adding three buttons to the ''edit toolbar'': \n\n* Cancel & Close (Discard & Close)\n* Save & Close (Done & Close)\n* Save & Keep Open (Done & Reopen)\n\nInspired by Josiah and Richard William Smith. See Discussion in the [[Google Group|https://groups.google.com/d/msg/tiddlywiki/A4v-DqjN_D8/4hkOaaf0BQAJ]].\n\n!!! Versions\n\n!!!! 1.0.2\n* simpler button graphics (single svg)\n* simpler CSS (tiddler renamed)\n* documentation update\n\n!!!! 0.1.5\n* control colours via CSS\n* much cleaner construction using class names\n** edit-btn-icon (in variants cancel-close, save-close, save-open)\n** tc-mini-icon\n\n!!! Plugin components\n* buttons\n** $:/core/ui/Buttons/cancel-and-close\n** $:/core/ui/Buttons/save-and-close\n** $:/core/ui/Buttons/save-open\n* button graphics\n** $:/core/images/done-close-button\n** $:/core/images/cancel-close-button\n** $:/core/images/done-open-button\n* SVG\n** $:/core/images/done-button – a slightly modified core button. <br>Original: <$transclude tiddler=\"$:/core\" subtiddler=\"$:/core/images/done-button\"/> => {{$:/core/images/done-button}} \n* Hints and Captions you could translate\n** $:/language/Buttons/Cancel-Close/Hint\n** $:/language/Buttons/Cancel-Close/Caption\n** $:/language/Buttons/Save-Close/Hint\n** $:/language/Buttons/Save-Close/Caption\n** $:/language/Buttons/Save-Open/Hint\n** $:/language/Buttons/Save-Open/Caption\n* CSS\n** $:/plugins/telmiger/EditButtons/styles.css",
"title": "$:/plugins/telmiger/EditButtons/readme",
"tags": "Hacks ToDo",
"priority": "1",
"modifier": "Thomas Elmiger",
"modified": "20181120224609527"
},
"$:/core/ui/Buttons/save-open": {
"created": "20170916134122812",
"creator": "Thomas Elmiger",
"text": "<$fieldmangler><$button tooltip={{$:/language/Buttons/Save-Open/Hint}} aria-label={{$:/language/Buttons/Save-Open/Caption}} class=<<tv-config-toolbar-class>>>\n<$action-sendmessage $message=\"tm-add-tag\" $param={{$:/temp/NewTagName}}/>\n<$action-deletetiddler $tiddler=\"$:/temp/NewTagName\"/>\n<$action-sendmessage $message=\"tm-add-field\" $name={{$:/temp/newfieldname}} $value={{$:/temp/newfieldvalue}}/>\n<$action-deletetiddler $tiddler=\"$:/temp/newfieldname\"/>\n<$action-deletetiddler $tiddler=\"$:/temp/newfieldvalue\"/>\n<$action-sendmessage $message=\"tm-save-tiddler\"/>\n<$list filter=\"[all[current]get[draft.title]]\" variable=\"newtiddler\">\n<$action-sendmessage $message=\"tm-edit-tiddler\" $param=<<newtiddler>>/>\n</$list>\n<$list filter=\"[<tv-config-toolbar-icons>prefix[yes]]\">\n{{$:/core/images/done-open-button}}\n</$list>\n<$list filter=\"[<tv-config-toolbar-text>prefix[yes]]\">\n<span class=\"tc-btn-text\"><$text text={{$:/language/Buttons/Save-Open/Caption}}/></span>\n</$list>\n</$button></$fieldmangler>",
"title": "$:/core/ui/Buttons/save-open",
"tags": "$:/tags/EditToolbar",
"modifier": "Thomas Elmiger",
"modified": "20170916154824488",
"description": "{{$:/language/Buttons/Save-Open/Hint}}",
"caption": "{{$:/core/images/done-open-button}} {{$:/language/Buttons/Save-Open/Caption}}"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/Save-Open/Hint": {
"created": "20170916154230762",
"creator": "Thomas Elmiger",
"text": "Confirm changes – keep this tiddler open",
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/Save-Open/Hint",
"tags": "",
"modifier": "Thomas Elmiger",
"modified": "20170916154328885"
},
"$:/language/Buttons/Save-Open/Caption": {
"created": "20170916154007636",
"creator": "Thomas Elmiger",
"text": "save & keep open",
"title": "$:/language/Buttons/Save-Open/Caption",
"tags": "",
"modifier": "Thomas Elmiger",
"modified": "20170916154034272"
},
"$:/core/images/done-open-button": {
"created": "20170916150802062",
"creator": "Thomas Elmiger",
"text": "<svg xmlns=\"http://www.w3.org/2000/svg\" class=\"tc-image-button edit-btn-icon save-open\" viewBox=\"0 0 22 22\"><path d=\"M7,19c-0.537,0 -1,-0.5 -1,-0.5l-5.596,-6.616c-0.538,-0.54 -0.538,-1.41 0,-1.946c0.535,-0.536 1.407,-0.536 1.945,0l4.651,5.562l12.6,-13.1c0.537,-0.537 1.363,-0.537 1.9,0c0.536,0.536 0.587,1.413 0.05,1.95l-13.55,14.15c0,0 -0.463,0.5 -1,0.5Z\"/><path class=\"tc-mini-icon\" d=\"M15.577,13.971c-1.606,0 -1.606,1.606 -1.606,1.606l0,4.817c0,0 0,1.606 1.606,1.606l4.817,0c1.606,0 1.606,-1.606 1.606,-1.606l0,-4.817c0,0 0,-1.606 -1.606,-1.606l-4.817,0Z\"/><rect class=\"tc-mini-icon-foreground\" x=\"15.927\" y=\"15.927\" width=\"4\" height=\"4\"/></svg>",
"title": "$:/core/images/done-open-button",
"tags": "$:/tags/Image",
"modifier": "Thomas Elmiger",
"modified": "20181120065422533"
},
"$:/plugins/telmiger/EditButtons/icon": {
"created": "20181113063926371",
"text": "{{$:/core/images/done-close-button}}",
"title": "$:/plugins/telmiger/EditButtons/icon",
"tags": "",
"modified": "20181113063958299"
},
"$:/plugins/telmiger/EditButtons/styles.css": {
"created": "20170914192742622",
"creator": "Thomas Elmiger",
"text": "/* Colours */\n\n.edit-btn-icon.cancel-close {\n fill: rgba(255,0,0,0.75);\n}\n\n.edit-btn-icon.save-close,\n.tc-plugin-info .tc-plugin-info-chunk > svg.save-close {\n fill: orange;\n}\n\n.edit-btn-icon.save-open {\n fill: rgba(0,200,0,0.75);\n}\n\n\n/* Mini Icon Colours */\n\n.edit-btn-icon .tc-mini-icon {\n fill: #000;\n}\n\n.edit-btn-icon .tc-mini-icon-foreground {\n fill: #fff;\n}\n",
"title": "$:/plugins/telmiger/EditButtons/styles.css",
"tags": "$:/tags/Stylesheet",
"modifier": "Thomas Elmiger",
"modified": "20181120225758986"
},
"$:/plugins/telmiger/support": {
"created": "20181103150753927",
"text": "!! Support the Author\n\n''Hi!'' I’m Thomas, the author of [[tid.li/tw5/plugins.html|https://tid.li/tw5/plugins.html]]. Feedback is always welcome, as well as funding for maintenance, support and new projects :)\n\n---\n\n!!! One Time Support\n\nIf using my plugins just makes you happy, consider a one time payment via ~PayPal to reward the effort:\n\nhttps://www.paypal.me/telmiger\n\n---\n\n!!! Permanent Support\n\nIf my tools make you more productive or save you time in your job or your everyday life, you can support me as a Patron: \n\nhttps://www.patreon.com/telmiger\n\n---\n\n!!! Thank You\n\nSubstantial parts of my availabe time go to the deveopment of useful plugins for [[TiddlyWiki|https://tiddlywiki.com/]]. – Many others do the same and I would like to thank them all, especially [[Jeremy Ruston|https://tiddlywiki.com/#JeremyRuston]] and all the active members of the community!\n\n//Hereby I promise to share future revenues (if any) with other developers who’s works I use or who inspired me.//\n\nIf you like my work, I would be very happy to hear from you.\n\n''Thank you very much for your support!''<br>\n//Thomas//\n\nhttps://thomas-elmiger.ch",
"title": "$:/plugins/telmiger/support",
"tags": "",
"modifier": "Thomas Elmiger",
"modified": "20181104091650389",
"creator": "Thomas Elmiger"
},
"$:/plugins/telmiger/EditButtons/support": {
"created": "20181117205846710",
"text": "{{$:/plugins/telmiger/support}}",
"title": "$:/plugins/telmiger/EditButtons/support",
"tags": "",
"modified": "20181117205928865"
}
}
}
{
"tiddlers": {
"$:/config/HighlightPlugin/TypeMappings/application/javascript": {
"title": "$:/config/HighlightPlugin/TypeMappings/application/javascript",
"text": "javascript"
},
"$:/config/HighlightPlugin/TypeMappings/application/json": {
"title": "$:/config/HighlightPlugin/TypeMappings/application/json",
"text": "json"
},
"$:/config/HighlightPlugin/TypeMappings/text/css": {
"title": "$:/config/HighlightPlugin/TypeMappings/text/css",
"text": "css"
},
"$:/config/HighlightPlugin/TypeMappings/text/html": {
"title": "$:/config/HighlightPlugin/TypeMappings/text/html",
"text": "html"
},
"$:/config/HighlightPlugin/TypeMappings/image/svg+xml": {
"title": "$:/config/HighlightPlugin/TypeMappings/image/svg+xml",
"text": "xml"
},
"$:/config/HighlightPlugin/TypeMappings/text/x-markdown": {
"title": "$:/config/HighlightPlugin/TypeMappings/text/x-markdown",
"text": "markdown"
},
"$:/plugins/tiddlywiki/highlight/highlight.js": {
"text": "var hljs = require(\"$:/plugins/tiddlywiki/highlight/highlight.js\");\n!function(e){\"undefined\"!=typeof exports?e(exports):(window.hljs=e({}),\"function\"==typeof define&&define.amd&&define(\"hljs\",[],function(){return window.hljs}))}(function(e){function n(e){return e.replace(/&/gm,\"&\").replace(/</gm,\"<\").replace(/>/gm,\">\")}function t(e){return e.nodeName.toLowerCase()}function r(e,n){var t=e&&e.exec(n);return t&&0==t.index}function a(e){return/^(no-?highlight|plain|text)$/i.test(e)}function i(e){var n,t,r,i=e.className+\" \";if(i+=e.parentNode?e.parentNode.className:\"\",t=/\\blang(?:uage)?-([\\w-]+)\\b/i.exec(i))return w(t[1])?t[1]:\"no-highlight\";for(i=i.split(/\\s+/),n=0,r=i.length;r>n;n++)if(w(i[n])||a(i[n]))return i[n]}function o(e,n){var t,r={};for(t in e)r[t]=e[t];if(n)for(t in n)r[t]=n[t];return r}function u(e){var n=[];return function r(e,a){for(var i=e.firstChild;i;i=i.nextSibling)3==i.nodeType?a+=i.nodeValue.length:1==i.nodeType&&(n.push({event:\"start\",offset:a,node:i}),a=r(i,a),t(i).match(/br|hr|img|input/)||n.push({event:\"stop\",offset:a,node:i}));return a}(e,0),n}function c(e,r,a){function i(){return e.length&&r.length?e[0].offset!=r[0].offset?e[0].offset<r[0].offset?e:r:\"start\"==r[0].event?e:r:e.length?e:r}function o(e){function r(e){return\" \"+e.nodeName+'=\"'+n(e.value)+'\"'}f+=\"<\"+t(e)+Array.prototype.map.call(e.attributes,r).join(\"\")+\">\"}function u(e){f+=\"</\"+t(e)+\">\"}function c(e){(\"start\"==e.event?o:u)(e.node)}for(var s=0,f=\"\",l=[];e.length||r.length;){var g=i();if(f+=n(a.substr(s,g[0].offset-s)),s=g[0].offset,g==e){l.reverse().forEach(u);do c(g.splice(0,1)[0]),g=i();while(g==e&&g.length&&g[0].offset==s);l.reverse().forEach(o)}else\"start\"==g[0].event?l.push(g[0].node):l.pop(),c(g.splice(0,1)[0])}return f+n(a.substr(s))}function s(e){function n(e){return e&&e.source||e}function t(t,r){return new RegExp(n(t),\"m\"+(e.cI?\"i\":\"\")+(r?\"g\":\"\"))}function r(a,i){if(!a.compiled){if(a.compiled=!0,a.k=a.k||a.bK,a.k){var u={},c=function(n,t){e.cI&&(t=t.toLowerCase()),t.split(\" \").forEach(function(e){var t=e.split(\"|\");u[t[0]]=[n,t[1]?Number(t[1]):1]})};\"string\"==typeof a.k?c(\"keyword\",a.k):Object.keys(a.k).forEach(function(e){c(e,a.k[e])}),a.k=u}a.lR=t(a.l||/\\b\\w+\\b/,!0),i&&(a.bK&&(a.b=\"\\\\b(\"+a.bK.split(\" \").join(\"|\")+\")\\\\b\"),a.b||(a.b=/\\B|\\b/),a.bR=t(a.b),a.e||a.eW||(a.e=/\\B|\\b/),a.e&&(a.eR=t(a.e)),a.tE=n(a.e)||\"\",a.eW&&i.tE&&(a.tE+=(a.e?\"|\":\"\")+i.tE)),a.i&&(a.iR=t(a.i)),void 0===a.r&&(a.r=1),a.c||(a.c=[]);var s=[];a.c.forEach(function(e){e.v?e.v.forEach(function(n){s.push(o(e,n))}):s.push(\"self\"==e?a:e)}),a.c=s,a.c.forEach(function(e){r(e,a)}),a.starts&&r(a.starts,i);var f=a.c.map(function(e){return e.bK?\"\\\\.?(\"+e.b+\")\\\\.?\":e.b}).concat([a.tE,a.i]).map(n).filter(Boolean);a.t=f.length?t(f.join(\"|\"),!0):{exec:function(){return null}}}}r(e)}function f(e,t,a,i){function o(e,n){for(var t=0;t<n.c.length;t++)if(r(n.c[t].bR,e))return n.c[t]}function u(e,n){if(r(e.eR,n)){for(;e.endsParent&&e.parent;)e=e.parent;return e}return e.eW?u(e.parent,n):void 0}function c(e,n){return!a&&r(n.iR,e)}function g(e,n){var t=N.cI?n[0].toLowerCase():n[0];return e.k.hasOwnProperty(t)&&e.k[t]}function h(e,n,t,r){var a=r?\"\":E.classPrefix,i='<span class=\"'+a,o=t?\"\":\"</span>\";return i+=e+'\">',i+n+o}function p(){if(!L.k)return n(y);var e=\"\",t=0;L.lR.lastIndex=0;for(var r=L.lR.exec(y);r;){e+=n(y.substr(t,r.index-t));var a=g(L,r);a?(B+=a[1],e+=h(a[0],n(r[0]))):e+=n(r[0]),t=L.lR.lastIndex,r=L.lR.exec(y)}return e+n(y.substr(t))}function d(){var e=\"string\"==typeof L.sL;if(e&&!x[L.sL])return n(y);var t=e?f(L.sL,y,!0,M[L.sL]):l(y,L.sL.length?L.sL:void 0);return L.r>0&&(B+=t.r),e&&(M[L.sL]=t.top),h(t.language,t.value,!1,!0)}function b(){return void 0!==L.sL?d():p()}function v(e,t){var r=e.cN?h(e.cN,\"\",!0):\"\";e.rB?(k+=r,y=\"\"):e.eB?(k+=n(t)+r,y=\"\"):(k+=r,y=t),L=Object.create(e,{parent:{value:L}})}function m(e,t){if(y+=e,void 0===t)return k+=b(),0;var r=o(t,L);if(r)return k+=b(),v(r,t),r.rB?0:t.length;var a=u(L,t);if(a){var i=L;i.rE||i.eE||(y+=t),k+=b();do L.cN&&(k+=\"</span>\"),B+=L.r,L=L.parent;while(L!=a.parent);return i.eE&&(k+=n(t)),y=\"\",a.starts&&v(a.starts,\"\"),i.rE?0:t.length}if(c(t,L))throw new Error('Illegal lexeme \"'+t+'\" for mode \"'+(L.cN||\"<unnamed>\")+'\"');return y+=t,t.length||1}var N=w(e);if(!N)throw new Error('Unknown language: \"'+e+'\"');s(N);var R,L=i||N,M={},k=\"\";for(R=L;R!=N;R=R.parent)R.cN&&(k=h(R.cN,\"\",!0)+k);var y=\"\",B=0;try{for(var C,j,I=0;;){if(L.t.lastIndex=I,C=L.t.exec(t),!C)break;j=m(t.substr(I,C.index-I),C[0]),I=C.index+j}for(m(t.substr(I)),R=L;R.parent;R=R.parent)R.cN&&(k+=\"</span>\");return{r:B,value:k,language:e,top:L}}catch(O){if(-1!=O.message.indexOf(\"Illegal\"))return{r:0,value:n(t)};throw O}}function l(e,t){t=t||E.languages||Object.keys(x);var r={r:0,value:n(e)},a=r;return t.forEach(function(n){if(w(n)){var t=f(n,e,!1);t.language=n,t.r>a.r&&(a=t),t.r>r.r&&(a=r,r=t)}}),a.language&&(r.second_best=a),r}function g(e){return E.tabReplace&&(e=e.replace(/^((<[^>]+>|\\t)+)/gm,function(e,n){return n.replace(/\\t/g,E.tabReplace)})),E.useBR&&(e=e.replace(/\\n/g,\"<br>\")),e}function h(e,n,t){var r=n?R[n]:t,a=[e.trim()];return e.match(/\\bhljs\\b/)||a.push(\"hljs\"),-1===e.indexOf(r)&&a.push(r),a.join(\" \").trim()}function p(e){var n=i(e);if(!a(n)){var t;E.useBR?(t=document.createElementNS(\"http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml\",\"div\"),t.innerHTML=e.innerHTML.replace(/\\n/g,\"\").replace(/<br[ \\/]*>/g,\"\\n\")):t=e;var r=t.textContent,o=n?f(n,r,!0):l(r),s=u(t);if(s.length){var p=document.createElementNS(\"http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml\",\"div\");p.innerHTML=o.value,o.value=c(s,u(p),r)}o.value=g(o.value),e.innerHTML=o.value,e.className=h(e.className,n,o.language),e.result={language:o.language,re:o.r},o.second_best&&(e.second_best={language:o.second_best.language,re:o.second_best.r})}}function d(e){E=o(E,e)}function b(){if(!b.called){b.called=!0;var e=document.querySelectorAll(\"pre code\");Array.prototype.forEach.call(e,p)}}function v(){addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",b,!1),addEventListener(\"load\",b,!1)}function m(n,t){var r=x[n]=t(e);r.aliases&&r.aliases.forEach(function(e){R[e]=n})}function N(){return Object.keys(x)}function w(e){return e=e.toLowerCase(),x[e]||x[R[e]]}var E={classPrefix:\"hljs-\",tabReplace:null,useBR:!1,languages:void 0},x={},R={};return e.highlight=f,e.highlightAuto=l,e.fixMarkup=g,e.highlightBlock=p,e.configure=d,e.initHighlighting=b,e.initHighlightingOnLoad=v,e.registerLanguage=m,e.listLanguages=N,e.getLanguage=w,e.inherit=o,e.IR=\"[a-zA-Z]\\\\w*\",e.UIR=\"[a-zA-Z_]\\\\w*\",e.NR=\"\\\\b\\\\d+(\\\\.\\\\d+)?\",e.CNR=\"(\\\\b0[xX][a-fA-F0-9]+|(\\\\b\\\\d+(\\\\.\\\\d*)?|\\\\.\\\\d+)([eE][-+]?\\\\d+)?)\",e.BNR=\"\\\\b(0b[01]+)\",e.RSR=\"!|!=|!==|%|%=|&|&&|&=|\\\\*|\\\\*=|\\\\+|\\\\+=|,|-|-=|/=|/|:|;|<<|<<=|<=|<|===|==|=|>>>=|>>=|>=|>>>|>>|>|\\\\?|\\\\[|\\\\{|\\\\(|\\\\^|\\\\^=|\\\\||\\\\|=|\\\\|\\\\||~\",e.BE={b:\"\\\\\\\\[\\\\s\\\\S]\",r:0},e.ASM={cN:\"string\",b:\"'\",e:\"'\",i:\"\\\\n\",c:[e.BE]},e.QSM={cN:\"string\",b:'\"',e:'\"',i:\"\\\\n\",c:[e.BE]},e.PWM={b:/\\b(a|an|the|are|I|I'm|isn't|don't|doesn't|won't|but|just|should|pretty|simply|enough|gonna|going|wtf|so|such)\\b/},e.C=function(n,t,r){var a=e.inherit({cN:\"comment\",b:n,e:t,c:[]},r||{});return a.c.push(e.PWM),a.c.push({cN:\"doctag\",b:\"(?:TODO|FIXME|NOTE|BUG|XXX):\",r:0}),a},e.CLCM=e.C(\"//\",\"$\"),e.CBCM=e.C(\"/\\\\*\",\"\\\\*/\"),e.HCM=e.C(\"#\",\"$\"),e.NM={cN:\"number\",b:e.NR,r:0},e.CNM={cN:\"number\",b:e.CNR,r:0},e.BNM={cN:\"number\",b:e.BNR,r:0},e.CSSNM={cN:\"number\",b:e.NR+\"(%|em|ex|ch|rem|vw|vh|vmin|vmax|cm|mm|in|pt|pc|px|deg|grad|rad|turn|s|ms|Hz|kHz|dpi|dpcm|dppx)?\",r:0},e.RM={cN:\"regexp\",b:/\\//,e:/\\/[gimuy]*/,i:/\\n/,c:[e.BE,{b:/\\[/,e:/\\]/,r:0,c:[e.BE]}]},e.TM={cN:\"title\",b:e.IR,r:0},e.UTM={cN:\"title\",b:e.UIR,r:0},e});hljs.registerLanguage(\"markdown\",function(e){return{aliases:[\"md\",\"mkdown\",\"mkd\"],c:[{cN:\"header\",v:[{b:\"^#{1,6}\",e:\"$\"},{b:\"^.+?\\\\n[=-]{2,}$\"}]},{b:\"<\",e:\">\",sL:\"xml\",r:0},{cN:\"bullet\",b:\"^([*+-]|(\\\\d+\\\\.))\\\\s+\"},{cN:\"strong\",b:\"[*_]{2}.+?[*_]{2}\"},{cN:\"emphasis\",v:[{b:\"\\\\*.+?\\\\*\"},{b:\"_.+?_\",r:0}]},{cN:\"blockquote\",b:\"^>\\\\s+\",e:\"$\"},{cN:\"code\",v:[{b:\"`.+?`\"},{b:\"^( {4}|\t)\",e:\"$\",r:0}]},{cN:\"horizontal_rule\",b:\"^[-\\\\*]{3,}\",e:\"$\"},{b:\"\\\\[.+?\\\\][\\\\(\\\\[].*?[\\\\)\\\\]]\",rB:!0,c:[{cN:\"link_label\",b:\"\\\\[\",e:\"\\\\]\",eB:!0,rE:!0,r:0},{cN:\"link_url\",b:\"\\\\]\\\\(\",e:\"\\\\)\",eB:!0,eE:!0},{cN:\"link_reference\",b:\"\\\\]\\\\[\",e:\"\\\\]\",eB:!0,eE:!0}],r:10},{b:\"^\\\\[.+\\\\]:\",rB:!0,c:[{cN:\"link_reference\",b:\"\\\\[\",e:\"\\\\]:\",eB:!0,eE:!0,starts:{cN:\"link_url\",e:\"$\"}}]}]}});hljs.registerLanguage(\"ruby\",function(e){var c=\"[a-zA-Z_]\\\\w*[!?=]?|[-+~]\\\\@|<<|>>|=~|===?|<=>|[<>]=?|\\\\*\\\\*|[-/+%^&*~`|]|\\\\[\\\\]=?\",r=\"and false then defined module in return redo if BEGIN retry end for true self when next until do begin unless END rescue nil else break undef not super class case require yield alias while ensure elsif or include attr_reader attr_writer attr_accessor\",b={cN:\"doctag\",b:\"@[A-Za-z]+\"},a={cN:\"value\",b:\"#<\",e:\">\"},n=[e.C(\"#\",\"$\",{c:[b]}),e.C(\"^\\\\=begin\",\"^\\\\=end\",{c:[b],r:10}),e.C(\"^__END__\",\"\\\\n$\")],s={cN:\"subst\",b:\"#\\\\{\",e:\"}\",k:r},t={cN:\"string\",c:[e.BE,s],v:[{b:/'/,e:/'/},{b:/\"/,e:/\"/},{b:/`/,e:/`/},{b:\"%[qQwWx]?\\\\(\",e:\"\\\\)\"},{b:\"%[qQwWx]?\\\\[\",e:\"\\\\]\"},{b:\"%[qQwWx]?{\",e:\"}\"},{b:\"%[qQwWx]?<\",e:\">\"},{b:\"%[qQwWx]?/\",e:\"/\"},{b:\"%[qQwWx]?%\",e:\"%\"},{b:\"%[qQwWx]?-\",e:\"-\"},{b:\"%[qQwWx]?\\\\|\",e:\"\\\\|\"},{b:/\\B\\?(\\\\\\d{1,3}|\\\\x[A-Fa-f0-9]{1,2}|\\\\u[A-Fa-f0-9]{4}|\\\\?\\S)\\b/}]},i={cN:\"params\",b:\"\\\\(\",e:\"\\\\)\",k:r},d=[t,a,{cN:\"class\",bK:\"class module\",e:\"$|;\",i:/=/,c:[e.inherit(e.TM,{b:\"[A-Za-z_]\\\\w*(::\\\\w+)*(\\\\?|\\\\!)?\"}),{cN:\"inheritance\",b:\"<\\\\s*\",c:[{cN:\"parent\",b:\"(\"+e.IR+\"::)?\"+e.IR}]}].concat(n)},{cN:\"function\",bK:\"def\",e:\"$|;\",c:[e.inherit(e.TM,{b:c}),i].concat(n)},{cN:\"constant\",b:\"(::)?(\\\\b[A-Z]\\\\w*(::)?)+\",r:0},{cN:\"symbol\",b:e.UIR+\"(\\\\!|\\\\?)?:\",r:0},{cN:\"symbol\",b:\":\",c:[t,{b:c}],r:0},{cN:\"number\",b:\"(\\\\b0[0-7_]+)|(\\\\b0x[0-9a-fA-F_]+)|(\\\\b[1-9][0-9_]*(\\\\.[0-9_]+)?)|[0_]\\\\b\",r:0},{cN:\"variable\",b:\"(\\\\$\\\\W)|((\\\\$|\\\\@\\\\@?)(\\\\w+))\"},{b:\"(\"+e.RSR+\")\\\\s*\",c:[a,{cN:\"regexp\",c:[e.BE,s],i:/\\n/,v:[{b:\"/\",e:\"/[a-z]*\"},{b:\"%r{\",e:\"}[a-z]*\"},{b:\"%r\\\\(\",e:\"\\\\)[a-z]*\"},{b:\"%r!\",e:\"![a-z]*\"},{b:\"%r\\\\[\",e:\"\\\\][a-z]*\"}]}].concat(n),r:0}].concat(n);s.c=d,i.c=d;var o=\"[>?]>\",l=\"[\\\\w#]+\\\\(\\\\w+\\\\):\\\\d+:\\\\d+>\",u=\"(\\\\w+-)?\\\\d+\\\\.\\\\d+\\\\.\\\\d(p\\\\d+)?[^>]+>\",N=[{b:/^\\s*=>/,cN:\"status\",starts:{e:\"$\",c:d}},{cN:\"prompt\",b:\"^(\"+o+\"|\"+l+\"|\"+u+\")\",starts:{e:\"$\",c:d}}];return{aliases:[\"rb\",\"gemspec\",\"podspec\",\"thor\",\"irb\"],k:r,c:n.concat(N).concat(d)}});hljs.registerLanguage(\"makefile\",function(e){var a={cN:\"variable\",b:/\\$\\(/,e:/\\)/,c:[e.BE]};return{aliases:[\"mk\",\"mak\"],c:[e.HCM,{b:/^\\w+\\s*\\W*=/,rB:!0,r:0,starts:{cN:\"constant\",e:/\\s*\\W*=/,eE:!0,starts:{e:/$/,r:0,c:[a]}}},{cN:\"title\",b:/^[\\w]+:\\s*$/},{cN:\"phony\",b:/^\\.PHONY:/,e:/$/,k:\".PHONY\",l:/[\\.\\w]+/},{b:/^\\t+/,e:/$/,r:0,c:[e.QSM,a]}]}});hljs.registerLanguage(\"json\",function(e){var t={literal:\"true false null\"},i=[e.QSM,e.CNM],l={cN:\"value\",e:\",\",eW:!0,eE:!0,c:i,k:t},c={b:\"{\",e:\"}\",c:[{cN:\"attribute\",b:'\\\\s*\"',e:'\"\\\\s*:\\\\s*',eB:!0,eE:!0,c:[e.BE],i:\"\\\\n\",starts:l}],i:\"\\\\S\"},n={b:\"\\\\[\",e:\"\\\\]\",c:[e.inherit(l,{cN:null})],i:\"\\\\S\"};return i.splice(i.length,0,c,n),{c:i,k:t,i:\"\\\\S\"}});hljs.registerLanguage(\"xml\",function(t){var s=\"[A-Za-z0-9\\\\._:-]+\",c={b:/<\\?(php)?(?!\\w)/,e:/\\?>/,sL:\"php\"},e={eW:!0,i:/</,r:0,c:[c,{cN:\"attribute\",b:s,r:0},{b:\"=\",r:0,c:[{cN:\"value\",c:[c],v:[{b:/\"/,e:/\"/},{b:/'/,e:/'/},{b:/[^\\s\\/>]+/}]}]}]};return{aliases:[\"html\",\"xhtml\",\"rss\",\"atom\",\"xsl\",\"plist\"],cI:!0,c:[{cN:\"doctype\",b:\"<!DOCTYPE\",e:\">\",r:10,c:[{b:\"\\\\[\",e:\"\\\\]\"}]},t.C(\"<!--\",\"-->\",{r:10}),{cN:\"cdata\",b:\"<\\\\!\\\\[CDATA\\\\[\",e:\"\\\\]\\\\]>\",r:10},{cN:\"tag\",b:\"<style(?=\\\\s|>|$)\",e:\">\",k:{title:\"style\"},c:[e],starts:{e:\"</style>\",rE:!0,sL:\"css\"}},{cN:\"tag\",b:\"<script(?=\\\\s|>|$)\",e:\">\",k:{title:\"script\"},c:[e],starts:{e:\"</script>\",rE:!0,sL:[\"actionscript\",\"javascript\",\"handlebars\"]}},c,{cN:\"pi\",b:/<\\?\\w+/,e:/\\?>/,r:10},{cN:\"tag\",b:\"</?\",e:\"/?>\",c:[{cN:\"title\",b:/[^ \\/><\\n\\t]+/,r:0},e]}]}});hljs.registerLanguage(\"css\",function(e){var c=\"[a-zA-Z-][a-zA-Z0-9_-]*\",a={cN:\"function\",b:c+\"\\\\(\",rB:!0,eE:!0,e:\"\\\\(\"},r={cN:\"rule\",b:/[A-Z\\_\\.\\-]+\\s*:/,rB:!0,e:\";\",eW:!0,c:[{cN:\"attribute\",b:/\\S/,e:\":\",eE:!0,starts:{cN:\"value\",eW:!0,eE:!0,c:[a,e.CSSNM,e.QSM,e.ASM,e.CBCM,{cN:\"hexcolor\",b:\"#[0-9A-Fa-f]+\"},{cN:\"important\",b:\"!important\"}]}}]};return{cI:!0,i:/[=\\/|'\\$]/,c:[e.CBCM,r,{cN:\"id\",b:/\\#[A-Za-z0-9_-]+/},{cN:\"class\",b:/\\.[A-Za-z0-9_-]+/},{cN:\"attr_selector\",b:/\\[/,e:/\\]/,i:\"$\"},{cN:\"pseudo\",b:/:(:)?[a-zA-Z0-9\\_\\-\\+\\(\\)\"']+/},{cN:\"at_rule\",b:\"@(font-face|page)\",l:\"[a-z-]+\",k:\"font-face page\"},{cN:\"at_rule\",b:\"@\",e:\"[{;]\",c:[{cN:\"keyword\",b:/\\S+/},{b:/\\s/,eW:!0,eE:!0,r:0,c:[a,e.ASM,e.QSM,e.CSSNM]}]},{cN:\"tag\",b:c,r:0},{cN:\"rules\",b:\"{\",e:\"}\",i:/\\S/,c:[e.CBCM,r]}]}});hljs.registerLanguage(\"perl\",function(e){var t=\"getpwent getservent quotemeta msgrcv scalar kill dbmclose undef lc ma syswrite tr send umask sysopen shmwrite vec qx utime local oct semctl localtime readpipe do return format read sprintf dbmopen pop getpgrp not getpwnam rewinddir qqfileno qw endprotoent wait sethostent bless s|0 opendir continue each sleep endgrent shutdown dump chomp connect getsockname die socketpair close flock exists index shmgetsub for endpwent redo lstat msgctl setpgrp abs exit select print ref gethostbyaddr unshift fcntl syscall goto getnetbyaddr join gmtime symlink semget splice x|0 getpeername recv log setsockopt cos last reverse gethostbyname getgrnam study formline endhostent times chop length gethostent getnetent pack getprotoent getservbyname rand mkdir pos chmod y|0 substr endnetent printf next open msgsnd readdir use unlink getsockopt getpriority rindex wantarray hex system getservbyport endservent int chr untie rmdir prototype tell listen fork shmread ucfirst setprotoent else sysseek link getgrgid shmctl waitpid unpack getnetbyname reset chdir grep split require caller lcfirst until warn while values shift telldir getpwuid my getprotobynumber delete and sort uc defined srand accept package seekdir getprotobyname semop our rename seek if q|0 chroot sysread setpwent no crypt getc chown sqrt write setnetent setpriority foreach tie sin msgget map stat getlogin unless elsif truncate exec keys glob tied closedirioctl socket readlink eval xor readline binmode setservent eof ord bind alarm pipe atan2 getgrent exp time push setgrent gt lt or ne m|0 break given say state when\",r={cN:\"subst\",b:\"[$@]\\\\{\",e:\"\\\\}\",k:t},s={b:\"->{\",e:\"}\"},n={cN:\"variable\",v:[{b:/\\$\\d/},{b:/[\\$%@](\\^\\w\\b|#\\w+(::\\w+)*|{\\w+}|\\w+(::\\w*)*)/},{b:/[\\$%@][^\\s\\w{]/,r:0}]},o=[e.BE,r,n],i=[n,e.HCM,e.C(\"^\\\\=\\\\w\",\"\\\\=cut\",{eW:!0}),s,{cN:\"string\",c:o,v:[{b:\"q[qwxr]?\\\\s*\\\\(\",e:\"\\\\)\",r:5},{b:\"q[qwxr]?\\\\s*\\\\[\",e:\"\\\\]\",r:5},{b:\"q[qwxr]?\\\\s*\\\\{\",e:\"\\\\}\",r:5},{b:\"q[qwxr]?\\\\s*\\\\|\",e:\"\\\\|\",r:5},{b:\"q[qwxr]?\\\\s*\\\\<\",e:\"\\\\>\",r:5},{b:\"qw\\\\s+q\",e:\"q\",r:5},{b:\"'\",e:\"'\",c:[e.BE]},{b:'\"',e:'\"'},{b:\"`\",e:\"`\",c:[e.BE]},{b:\"{\\\\w+}\",c:[],r:0},{b:\"-?\\\\w+\\\\s*\\\\=\\\\>\",c:[],r:0}]},{cN:\"number\",b:\"(\\\\b0[0-7_]+)|(\\\\b0x[0-9a-fA-F_]+)|(\\\\b[1-9][0-9_]*(\\\\.[0-9_]+)?)|[0_]\\\\b\",r:0},{b:\"(\\\\/\\\\/|\"+e.RSR+\"|\\\\b(split|return|print|reverse|grep)\\\\b)\\\\s*\",k:\"split return print reverse grep\",r:0,c:[e.HCM,{cN:\"regexp\",b:\"(s|tr|y)/(\\\\\\\\.|[^/])*/(\\\\\\\\.|[^/])*/[a-z]*\",r:10},{cN:\"regexp\",b:\"(m|qr)?/\",e:\"/[a-z]*\",c:[e.BE],r:0}]},{cN:\"sub\",bK:\"sub\",e:\"(\\\\s*\\\\(.*?\\\\))?[;{]\",r:5},{cN:\"operator\",b:\"-\\\\w\\\\b\",r:0},{b:\"^__DATA__$\",e:\"^__END__$\",sL:\"mojolicious\",c:[{b:\"^@@.*\",e:\"$\",cN:\"comment\"}]}];return r.c=i,s.c=i,{aliases:[\"pl\"],k:t,c:i}});hljs.registerLanguage(\"cs\",function(e){var r=\"abstract as base bool break byte case catch char checked const continue decimal dynamic default delegate do double else enum event explicit extern false finally fixed float for foreach goto if implicit in int interface internal is lock long null when object operator out override params private protected public readonly ref sbyte sealed short sizeof stackalloc static string struct switch this true try typeof uint ulong unchecked unsafe ushort using virtual volatile void while async protected public private internal ascending descending from get group into join let orderby partial select set value var where yield\",t=e.IR+\"(<\"+e.IR+\">)?\";return{aliases:[\"csharp\"],k:r,i:/::/,c:[e.C(\"///\",\"$\",{rB:!0,c:[{cN:\"xmlDocTag\",v:[{b:\"///\",r:0},{b:\"<!--|-->\"},{b:\"</?\",e:\">\"}]}]}),e.CLCM,e.CBCM,{cN:\"preprocessor\",b:\"#\",e:\"$\",k:\"if else elif endif define undef warning error line region endregion pragma checksum\"},{cN:\"string\",b:'@\"',e:'\"',c:[{b:'\"\"'}]},e.ASM,e.QSM,e.CNM,{bK:\"class interface\",e:/[{;=]/,i:/[^\\s:]/,c:[e.TM,e.CLCM,e.CBCM]},{bK:\"namespace\",e:/[{;=]/,i:/[^\\s:]/,c:[{cN:\"title\",b:\"[a-zA-Z](\\\\.?\\\\w)*\",r:0},e.CLCM,e.CBCM]},{bK:\"new return throw await\",r:0},{cN:\"function\",b:\"(\"+t+\"\\\\s+)+\"+e.IR+\"\\\\s*\\\\(\",rB:!0,e:/[{;=]/,eE:!0,k:r,c:[{b:e.IR+\"\\\\s*\\\\(\",rB:!0,c:[e.TM],r:0},{cN:\"params\",b:/\\(/,e:/\\)/,eB:!0,eE:!0,k:r,r:0,c:[e.ASM,e.QSM,e.CNM,e.CBCM]},e.CLCM,e.CBCM]}]}});hljs.registerLanguage(\"apache\",function(e){var r={cN:\"number\",b:\"[\\\\$%]\\\\d+\"};return{aliases:[\"apacheconf\"],cI:!0,c:[e.HCM,{cN:\"tag\",b:\"</?\",e:\">\"},{cN:\"keyword\",b:/\\w+/,r:0,k:{common:\"order deny allow setenv rewriterule rewriteengine rewritecond documentroot sethandler errordocument loadmodule options header listen serverroot servername\"},starts:{e:/$/,r:0,k:{literal:\"on off all\"},c:[{cN:\"sqbracket\",b:\"\\\\s\\\\[\",e:\"\\\\]$\"},{cN:\"cbracket\",b:\"[\\\\$%]\\\\{\",e:\"\\\\}\",c:[\"self\",r]},r,e.QSM]}}],i:/\\S/}});hljs.registerLanguage(\"http\",function(t){return{aliases:[\"https\"],i:\"\\\\S\",c:[{cN:\"status\",b:\"^HTTP/[0-9\\\\.]+\",e:\"$\",c:[{cN:\"number\",b:\"\\\\b\\\\d{3}\\\\b\"}]},{cN:\"request\",b:\"^[A-Z]+ (.*?) HTTP/[0-9\\\\.]+$\",rB:!0,e:\"$\",c:[{cN:\"string\",b:\" \",e:\" \",eB:!0,eE:!0}]},{cN:\"attribute\",b:\"^\\\\w\",e:\": \",eE:!0,i:\"\\\\n|\\\\s|=\",starts:{cN:\"string\",e:\"$\"}},{b:\"\\\\n\\\\n\",starts:{sL:[],eW:!0}}]}});hljs.registerLanguage(\"objectivec\",function(e){var t={cN:\"built_in\",b:\"(AV|CA|CF|CG|CI|MK|MP|NS|UI)\\\\w+\"},i={keyword:\"int float while char export sizeof typedef const struct for union unsigned long volatile static bool mutable if do return goto void enum else break extern asm case short default double register explicit signed typename this switch continue wchar_t inline readonly assign readwrite self @synchronized id typeof nonatomic super unichar IBOutlet IBAction strong weak copy in out inout bycopy byref oneway __strong __weak __block __autoreleasing @private @protected @public @try @property @end @throw @catch @finally @autoreleasepool @synthesize @dynamic @selector @optional @required\",literal:\"false true FALSE TRUE nil YES NO NULL\",built_in:\"BOOL dispatch_once_t dispatch_queue_t dispatch_sync dispatch_async dispatch_once\"},o=/[a-zA-Z@][a-zA-Z0-9_]*/,n=\"@interface @class @protocol @implementation\";return{aliases:[\"mm\",\"objc\",\"obj-c\"],k:i,l:o,i:\"</\",c:[t,e.CLCM,e.CBCM,e.CNM,e.QSM,{cN:\"string\",v:[{b:'@\"',e:'\"',i:\"\\\\n\",c:[e.BE]},{b:\"'\",e:\"[^\\\\\\\\]'\",i:\"[^\\\\\\\\][^']\"}]},{cN:\"preprocessor\",b:\"#\",e:\"$\",c:[{cN:\"title\",v:[{b:'\"',e:'\"'},{b:\"<\",e:\">\"}]}]},{cN:\"class\",b:\"(\"+n.split(\" \").join(\"|\")+\")\\\\b\",e:\"({|$)\",eE:!0,k:n,l:o,c:[e.UTM]},{cN:\"variable\",b:\"\\\\.\"+e.UIR,r:0}]}});hljs.registerLanguage(\"python\",function(e){var r={cN:\"prompt\",b:/^(>>>|\\.\\.\\.) /},b={cN:\"string\",c:[e.BE],v:[{b:/(u|b)?r?'''/,e:/'''/,c:[r],r:10},{b:/(u|b)?r?\"\"\"/,e:/\"\"\"/,c:[r],r:10},{b:/(u|r|ur)'/,e:/'/,r:10},{b:/(u|r|ur)\"/,e:/\"/,r:10},{b:/(b|br)'/,e:/'/},{b:/(b|br)\"/,e:/\"/},e.ASM,e.QSM]},a={cN:\"number\",r:0,v:[{b:e.BNR+\"[lLjJ]?\"},{b:\"\\\\b(0o[0-7]+)[lLjJ]?\"},{b:e.CNR+\"[lLjJ]?\"}]},l={cN:\"params\",b:/\\(/,e:/\\)/,c:[\"self\",r,a,b]};return{aliases:[\"py\",\"gyp\"],k:{keyword:\"and elif is global as in if from raise for except finally print import pass return exec else break not with class assert yield try while continue del or def lambda async await nonlocal|10 None True False\",built_in:\"Ellipsis NotImplemented\"},i:/(<\\/|->|\\?)/,c:[r,a,b,e.HCM,{v:[{cN:\"function\",bK:\"def\",r:10},{cN:\"class\",bK:\"class\"}],e:/:/,i:/[${=;\\n,]/,c:[e.UTM,l]},{cN:\"decorator\",b:/^[\\t ]*@/,e:/$/},{b:/\\b(print|exec)\\(/}]}});hljs.registerLanguage(\"java\",function(e){var a=e.UIR+\"(<\"+e.UIR+\">)?\",t=\"false synchronized int abstract float private char boolean static null if const for true while long strictfp finally protected import native final void enum else break transient catch instanceof byte super volatile case assert short package default double public try this switch continue throws protected public private\",c=\"\\\\b(0[bB]([01]+[01_]+[01]+|[01]+)|0[xX]([a-fA-F0-9]+[a-fA-F0-9_]+[a-fA-F0-9]+|[a-fA-F0-9]+)|(([\\\\d]+[\\\\d_]+[\\\\d]+|[\\\\d]+)(\\\\.([\\\\d]+[\\\\d_]+[\\\\d]+|[\\\\d]+))?|\\\\.([\\\\d]+[\\\\d_]+[\\\\d]+|[\\\\d]+))([eE][-+]?\\\\d+)?)[lLfF]?\",r={cN:\"number\",b:c,r:0};return{aliases:[\"jsp\"],k:t,i:/<\\/|#/,c:[e.C(\"/\\\\*\\\\*\",\"\\\\*/\",{r:0,c:[{cN:\"doctag\",b:\"@[A-Za-z]+\"}]}),e.CLCM,e.CBCM,e.ASM,e.QSM,{cN:\"class\",bK:\"class interface\",e:/[{;=]/,eE:!0,k:\"class interface\",i:/[:\"\\[\\]]/,c:[{bK:\"extends implements\"},e.UTM]},{bK:\"new throw return else\",r:0},{cN:\"function\",b:\"(\"+a+\"\\\\s+)+\"+e.UIR+\"\\\\s*\\\\(\",rB:!0,e:/[{;=]/,eE:!0,k:t,c:[{b:e.UIR+\"\\\\s*\\\\(\",rB:!0,r:0,c:[e.UTM]},{cN:\"params\",b:/\\(/,e:/\\)/,k:t,r:0,c:[e.ASM,e.QSM,e.CNM,e.CBCM]},e.CLCM,e.CBCM]},r,{cN:\"annotation\",b:\"@[A-Za-z]+\"}]}});hljs.registerLanguage(\"bash\",function(e){var t={cN:\"variable\",v:[{b:/\\$[\\w\\d#@][\\w\\d_]*/},{b:/\\$\\{(.*?)}/}]},s={cN:\"string\",b:/\"/,e:/\"/,c:[e.BE,t,{cN:\"variable\",b:/\\$\\(/,e:/\\)/,c:[e.BE]}]},a={cN:\"string\",b:/'/,e:/'/};return{aliases:[\"sh\",\"zsh\"],l:/-?[a-z\\.]+/,k:{keyword:\"if then else elif fi for while in do done case esac function\",literal:\"true false\",built_in:\"break cd continue eval exec exit export getopts hash pwd readonly return shift test times trap umask unset alias bind builtin caller command declare echo enable help let local logout mapfile printf read readarray source type typeset ulimit unalias set shopt autoload bg bindkey bye cap chdir clone comparguments compcall compctl compdescribe compfiles compgroups compquote comptags comptry compvalues dirs disable disown echotc echoti emulate fc fg float functions getcap getln history integer jobs kill limit log noglob popd print pushd pushln rehash sched setcap setopt stat suspend ttyctl unfunction unhash unlimit unsetopt vared wait whence where which zcompile zformat zftp zle zmodload zparseopts zprof zpty zregexparse zsocket zstyle ztcp\",operator:\"-ne -eq -lt -gt -f -d -e -s -l -a\"},c:[{cN:\"shebang\",b:/^#![^\\n]+sh\\s*$/,r:10},{cN:\"function\",b:/\\w[\\w\\d_]*\\s*\\(\\s*\\)\\s*\\{/,rB:!0,c:[e.inherit(e.TM,{b:/\\w[\\w\\d_]*/})],r:0},e.HCM,e.NM,s,a,t]}});hljs.registerLanguage(\"sql\",function(e){var t=e.C(\"--\",\"$\");return{cI:!0,i:/[<>{}*]/,c:[{cN:\"operator\",bK:\"begin end start commit rollback savepoint lock alter create drop rename call delete do handler insert load replace select truncate update set show pragma grant merge describe use explain help declare prepare execute deallocate release unlock purge reset change stop analyze cache flush optimize repair kill install uninstall checksum restore check backup revoke\",e:/;/,eW:!0,k:{keyword:\"abort abs absolute acc acce accep accept access accessed accessible account acos action activate add addtime admin administer advanced advise aes_decrypt aes_encrypt after agent aggregate ali alia alias allocate allow alter always analyze ancillary and any anydata anydataset anyschema anytype apply archive archived archivelog are as asc ascii asin assembly assertion associate asynchronous at atan atn2 attr attri attrib attribu attribut attribute attributes audit authenticated authentication authid authors auto autoallocate autodblink autoextend automatic availability avg backup badfile basicfile before begin beginning benchmark between bfile bfile_base big bigfile bin binary_double binary_float binlog bit_and bit_count bit_length bit_or bit_xor bitmap blob_base block blocksize body both bound buffer_cache buffer_pool build bulk by byte byteordermark bytes c cache caching call calling cancel capacity cascade cascaded case cast catalog category ceil ceiling chain change changed char_base char_length character_length characters characterset charindex charset charsetform charsetid check checksum checksum_agg child choose chr chunk class cleanup clear client clob clob_base clone close cluster_id cluster_probability cluster_set clustering coalesce coercibility col collate collation collect colu colum column column_value columns columns_updated comment commit compact compatibility compiled complete composite_limit compound compress compute concat concat_ws concurrent confirm conn connec connect connect_by_iscycle connect_by_isleaf connect_by_root connect_time connection consider consistent constant constraint constraints constructor container content contents context contributors controlfile conv convert convert_tz corr corr_k corr_s corresponding corruption cos cost count count_big counted covar_pop covar_samp cpu_per_call cpu_per_session crc32 create creation critical cross cube cume_dist curdate current current_date current_time current_timestamp current_user cursor curtime customdatum cycle d data database databases datafile datafiles datalength date_add date_cache date_format date_sub dateadd datediff datefromparts datename datepart datetime2fromparts day day_to_second dayname dayofmonth dayofweek dayofyear days db_role_change dbtimezone ddl deallocate declare decode decompose decrement decrypt deduplicate def defa defau defaul default defaults deferred defi defin define degrees delayed delegate delete delete_all delimited demand dense_rank depth dequeue des_decrypt des_encrypt des_key_file desc descr descri describ describe descriptor deterministic diagnostics difference dimension direct_load directory disable disable_all disallow disassociate discardfile disconnect diskgroup distinct distinctrow distribute distributed div do document domain dotnet double downgrade drop dumpfile duplicate duration e each edition editionable editions element ellipsis else elsif elt empty enable enable_all enclosed encode encoding encrypt end end-exec endian enforced engine engines enqueue enterprise entityescaping eomonth error errors escaped evalname evaluate event eventdata events except exception exceptions exchange exclude excluding execu execut execute exempt exists exit exp expire explain export export_set extended extent external external_1 external_2 externally extract f failed failed_login_attempts failover failure far fast feature_set feature_value fetch field fields file file_name_convert filesystem_like_logging final finish first first_value fixed flash_cache flashback floor flush following follows for forall force form forma format found found_rows freelist freelists freepools fresh from from_base64 from_days ftp full function g general generated get get_format get_lock getdate getutcdate global global_name globally go goto grant grants greatest group group_concat group_id grouping grouping_id groups gtid_subtract guarantee guard handler hash hashkeys having hea head headi headin heading heap help hex hierarchy high high_priority hosts hour http i id ident_current ident_incr ident_seed identified identity idle_time if ifnull ignore iif ilike ilm immediate import in include including increment index indexes indexing indextype indicator indices inet6_aton inet6_ntoa inet_aton inet_ntoa infile initial initialized initially initrans inmemory inner innodb input insert install instance instantiable instr interface interleaved intersect into invalidate invisible is is_free_lock is_ipv4 is_ipv4_compat is_not is_not_null is_used_lock isdate isnull isolation iterate java join json json_exists k keep keep_duplicates key keys kill l language large last last_day last_insert_id last_value lax lcase lead leading least leaves left len lenght length less level levels library like like2 like4 likec limit lines link list listagg little ln load load_file lob lobs local localtime localtimestamp locate locator lock locked log log10 log2 logfile logfiles logging logical logical_reads_per_call logoff logon logs long loop low low_priority lower lpad lrtrim ltrim m main make_set makedate maketime managed management manual map mapping mask master master_pos_wait match matched materialized max maxextents maximize maxinstances maxlen maxlogfiles maxloghistory maxlogmembers maxsize maxtrans md5 measures median medium member memcompress memory merge microsecond mid migration min minextents minimum mining minus minute minvalue missing mod mode model modification modify module monitoring month months mount move movement multiset mutex n name name_const names nan national native natural nav nchar nclob nested never new newline next nextval no no_write_to_binlog noarchivelog noaudit nobadfile nocheck nocompress nocopy nocycle nodelay nodiscardfile noentityescaping noguarantee nokeep nologfile nomapping nomaxvalue nominimize nominvalue nomonitoring none noneditionable nonschema noorder nopr nopro noprom nopromp noprompt norely noresetlogs noreverse normal norowdependencies noschemacheck noswitch not nothing notice notrim novalidate now nowait nth_value nullif nulls num numb numbe nvarchar nvarchar2 object ocicoll ocidate ocidatetime ociduration ociinterval ociloblocator ocinumber ociref ocirefcursor ocirowid ocistring ocitype oct octet_length of off offline offset oid oidindex old on online only opaque open operations operator optimal optimize option optionally or oracle oracle_date oradata ord ordaudio orddicom orddoc order ordimage ordinality ordvideo organization orlany orlvary out outer outfile outline output over overflow overriding p package pad parallel parallel_enable parameters parent parse partial partition partitions pascal passing password password_grace_time password_lock_time password_reuse_max password_reuse_time password_verify_function patch path patindex pctincrease pctthreshold pctused pctversion percent percent_rank percentile_cont percentile_disc performance period period_add period_diff permanent physical pi pipe pipelined pivot pluggable plugin policy position post_transaction pow power pragma prebuilt precedes preceding precision prediction prediction_cost prediction_details prediction_probability prediction_set prepare present preserve prior priority private private_sga privileges procedural procedure procedure_analyze processlist profiles project prompt protection public publishingservername purge quarter query quick quiesce quota quotename radians raise rand range rank raw read reads readsize rebuild record records recover recovery recursive recycle redo reduced ref reference referenced references referencing refresh regexp_like register regr_avgx regr_avgy regr_count regr_intercept regr_r2 regr_slope regr_sxx regr_sxy reject rekey relational relative relaylog release release_lock relies_on relocate rely rem remainder rename repair repeat replace replicate replication required reset resetlogs resize resource respect restore restricted result result_cache resumable resume retention return returning returns reuse reverse revoke right rlike role roles rollback rolling rollup round row row_count rowdependencies rowid rownum rows rtrim rules safe salt sample save savepoint sb1 sb2 sb4 scan schema schemacheck scn scope scroll sdo_georaster sdo_topo_geometry search sec_to_time second section securefile security seed segment select self sequence sequential serializable server servererror session session_user sessions_per_user set sets settings sha sha1 sha2 share shared shared_pool short show shrink shutdown si_averagecolor si_colorhistogram si_featurelist si_positionalcolor si_stillimage si_texture siblings sid sign sin size size_t sizes skip slave sleep smalldatetimefromparts smallfile snapshot some soname sort soundex source space sparse spfile split sql sql_big_result sql_buffer_result sql_cache sql_calc_found_rows sql_small_result sql_variant_property sqlcode sqldata sqlerror sqlname sqlstate sqrt square standalone standby start starting startup statement static statistics stats_binomial_test stats_crosstab stats_ks_test stats_mode stats_mw_test stats_one_way_anova stats_t_test_ stats_t_test_indep stats_t_test_one stats_t_test_paired stats_wsr_test status std stddev stddev_pop stddev_samp stdev stop storage store stored str str_to_date straight_join strcmp strict string struct stuff style subdate subpartition subpartitions substitutable substr substring subtime subtring_index subtype success sum suspend switch switchoffset switchover sync synchronous synonym sys sys_xmlagg sysasm sysaux sysdate sysdatetimeoffset sysdba sysoper system system_user sysutcdatetime t table tables tablespace tan tdo template temporary terminated tertiary_weights test than then thread through tier ties time time_format time_zone timediff timefromparts timeout timestamp timestampadd timestampdiff timezone_abbr timezone_minute timezone_region to to_base64 to_date to_days to_seconds todatetimeoffset trace tracking transaction transactional translate translation treat trigger trigger_nestlevel triggers trim truncate try_cast try_convert try_parse type ub1 ub2 ub4 ucase unarchived unbounded uncompress under undo unhex unicode uniform uninstall union unique unix_timestamp unknown unlimited unlock unpivot unrecoverable unsafe unsigned until untrusted unusable unused update updated upgrade upped upper upsert url urowid usable usage use use_stored_outlines user user_data user_resources users using utc_date utc_timestamp uuid uuid_short validate validate_password_strength validation valist value values var var_samp varcharc vari varia variab variabl variable variables variance varp varraw varrawc varray verify version versions view virtual visible void wait wallet warning warnings week weekday weekofyear wellformed when whene whenev wheneve whenever where while whitespace with within without work wrapped xdb xml xmlagg xmlattributes xmlcast xmlcolattval xmlelement xmlexists xmlforest xmlindex xmlnamespaces xmlpi xmlquery xmlroot xmlschema xmlserialize xmltable xmltype xor year year_to_month years yearweek\",literal:\"true false null\",built_in:\"array bigint binary bit blob boolean char character date dec decimal float int int8 integer interval number numeric real record serial serial8 smallint text varchar varying void\"},c:[{cN:\"string\",b:\"'\",e:\"'\",c:[e.BE,{b:\"''\"}]},{cN:\"string\",b:'\"',e:'\"',c:[e.BE,{b:'\"\"'}]},{cN:\"string\",b:\"`\",e:\"`\",c:[e.BE]},e.CNM,e.CBCM,t]},e.CBCM,t]}});hljs.registerLanguage(\"nginx\",function(e){var r={cN:\"variable\",v:[{b:/\\$\\d+/},{b:/\\$\\{/,e:/}/},{b:\"[\\\\$\\\\@]\"+e.UIR}]},b={eW:!0,l:\"[a-z/_]+\",k:{built_in:\"on off yes no true false none blocked debug info notice warn error crit select break last permanent redirect kqueue rtsig epoll poll /dev/poll\"},r:0,i:\"=>\",c:[e.HCM,{cN:\"string\",c:[e.BE,r],v:[{b:/\"/,e:/\"/},{b:/'/,e:/'/}]},{cN:\"url\",b:\"([a-z]+):/\",e:\"\\\\s\",eW:!0,eE:!0,c:[r]},{cN:\"regexp\",c:[e.BE,r],v:[{b:\"\\\\s\\\\^\",e:\"\\\\s|{|;\",rE:!0},{b:\"~\\\\*?\\\\s+\",e:\"\\\\s|{|;\",rE:!0},{b:\"\\\\*(\\\\.[a-z\\\\-]+)+\"},{b:\"([a-z\\\\-]+\\\\.)+\\\\*\"}]},{cN:\"number\",b:\"\\\\b\\\\d{1,3}\\\\.\\\\d{1,3}\\\\.\\\\d{1,3}\\\\.\\\\d{1,3}(:\\\\d{1,5})?\\\\b\"},{cN:\"number\",b:\"\\\\b\\\\d+[kKmMgGdshdwy]*\\\\b\",r:0},r]};return{aliases:[\"nginxconf\"],c:[e.HCM,{b:e.UIR+\"\\\\s\",e:\";|{\",rB:!0,c:[{cN:\"title\",b:e.UIR,starts:b}],r:0}],i:\"[^\\\\s\\\\}]\"}});hljs.registerLanguage(\"cpp\",function(t){var e={cN:\"keyword\",b:\"\\\\b[a-z\\\\d_]*_t\\\\b\"},r={cN:\"string\",v:[t.inherit(t.QSM,{b:'((u8?|U)|L)?\"'}),{b:'(u8?|U)?R\"',e:'\"',c:[t.BE]},{b:\"'\\\\\\\\?.\",e:\"'\",i:\".\"}]},s={cN:\"number\",v:[{b:\"\\\\b(\\\\d+(\\\\.\\\\d*)?|\\\\.\\\\d+)(u|U|l|L|ul|UL|f|F)\"},{b:t.CNR}]},i={cN:\"preprocessor\",b:\"#\",e:\"$\",k:\"if else elif endif define undef warning error line pragma ifdef ifndef\",c:[{b:/\\\\\\n/,r:0},{bK:\"include\",e:\"$\",c:[r,{cN:\"string\",b:\"<\",e:\">\",i:\"\\\\n\"}]},r,s,t.CLCM,t.CBCM]},a=t.IR+\"\\\\s*\\\\(\",c={keyword:\"int float while private char catch export virtual operator sizeof dynamic_cast|10 typedef const_cast|10 const struct for static_cast|10 union namespace unsigned long volatile static protected bool template mutable if public friend do goto auto void enum else break extern using class asm case typeid short reinterpret_cast|10 default double register explicit signed typename try this switch continue inline delete alignof constexpr decltype noexcept static_assert thread_local restrict _Bool complex _Complex _Imaginary atomic_bool atomic_char atomic_schar atomic_uchar atomic_short atomic_ushort atomic_int atomic_uint atomic_long atomic_ulong atomic_llong atomic_ullong\",built_in:\"std string cin cout cerr clog stdin stdout stderr stringstream istringstream ostringstream auto_ptr deque list queue stack vector map set bitset multiset multimap unordered_set unordered_map unordered_multiset unordered_multimap array shared_ptr abort abs acos asin atan2 atan calloc ceil cosh cos exit exp fabs floor fmod fprintf fputs free frexp fscanf isalnum isalpha iscntrl isdigit isgraph islower isprint ispunct isspace isupper isxdigit tolower toupper labs ldexp log10 log malloc realloc memchr memcmp memcpy memset modf pow printf putchar puts scanf sinh sin snprintf sprintf sqrt sscanf strcat strchr strcmp strcpy strcspn strlen strncat strncmp strncpy strpbrk strrchr strspn strstr tanh tan vfprintf vprintf vsprintf\",literal:\"true false nullptr NULL\"};return{aliases:[\"c\",\"cc\",\"h\",\"c++\",\"h++\",\"hpp\"],k:c,i:\"</\",c:[e,t.CLCM,t.CBCM,s,r,i,{b:\"\\\\b(deque|list|queue|stack|vector|map|set|bitset|multiset|multimap|unordered_map|unordered_set|unordered_multiset|unordered_multimap|array)\\\\s*<\",e:\">\",k:c,c:[\"self\",e]},{b:t.IR+\"::\",k:c},{bK:\"new throw return else\",r:0},{cN:\"function\",b:\"(\"+t.IR+\"[\\\\*&\\\\s]+)+\"+a,rB:!0,e:/[{;=]/,eE:!0,k:c,i:/[^\\w\\s\\*&]/,c:[{b:a,rB:!0,c:[t.TM],r:0},{cN:\"params\",b:/\\(/,e:/\\)/,k:c,r:0,c:[t.CLCM,t.CBCM,r,s]},t.CLCM,t.CBCM,i]}]}});hljs.registerLanguage(\"php\",function(e){var c={cN:\"variable\",b:\"\\\\$+[a-zA-Z_-ÿ][a-zA-Z0-9_-ÿ]*\"},a={cN:\"preprocessor\",b:/<\\?(php)?|\\?>/},i={cN:\"string\",c:[e.BE,a],v:[{b:'b\"',e:'\"'},{b:\"b'\",e:\"'\"},e.inherit(e.ASM,{i:null}),e.inherit(e.QSM,{i:null})]},t={v:[e.BNM,e.CNM]};return{aliases:[\"php3\",\"php4\",\"php5\",\"php6\"],cI:!0,k:\"and include_once list abstract global private echo interface as static endswitch array null if endwhile or const for endforeach self var while isset public protected exit foreach throw elseif include __FILE__ empty require_once do xor return parent clone use __CLASS__ __LINE__ else break print eval new catch __METHOD__ case exception default die require __FUNCTION__ enddeclare final try switch continue endfor endif declare unset true false trait goto instanceof insteadof __DIR__ __NAMESPACE__ yield finally\",c:[e.CLCM,e.HCM,e.C(\"/\\\\*\",\"\\\\*/\",{c:[{cN:\"doctag\",b:\"@[A-Za-z]+\"},a]}),e.C(\"__halt_compiler.+?;\",!1,{eW:!0,k:\"__halt_compiler\",l:e.UIR}),{cN:\"string\",b:/<<<['\"]?\\w+['\"]?$/,e:/^\\w+;?$/,c:[e.BE,{cN:\"subst\",v:[{b:/\\$\\w+/},{b:/\\{\\$/,e:/\\}/}]}]},a,c,{b:/(::|->)+[a-zA-Z_\\x7f-\\xff][a-zA-Z0-9_\\x7f-\\xff]*/},{cN:\"function\",bK:\"function\",e:/[;{]/,eE:!0,i:\"\\\\$|\\\\[|%\",c:[e.UTM,{cN:\"params\",b:\"\\\\(\",e:\"\\\\)\",c:[\"self\",c,e.CBCM,i,t]}]},{cN:\"class\",bK:\"class interface\",e:\"{\",eE:!0,i:/[:\\(\\$\"]/,c:[{bK:\"extends implements\"},e.UTM]},{bK:\"namespace\",e:\";\",i:/[\\.']/,c:[e.UTM]},{bK:\"use\",e:\";\",c:[e.UTM]},{b:\"=>\"},i,t]}});hljs.registerLanguage(\"coffeescript\",function(e){var c={keyword:\"in if for while finally new do return else break catch instanceof throw try this switch continue typeof delete debugger super then unless until loop of by when and or is isnt not\",literal:\"true false null undefined yes no on off\",built_in:\"npm require console print module global window document\"},n=\"[A-Za-z$_][0-9A-Za-z$_]*\",r={cN:\"subst\",b:/#\\{/,e:/}/,k:c},t=[e.BNM,e.inherit(e.CNM,{starts:{e:\"(\\\\s*/)?\",r:0}}),{cN:\"string\",v:[{b:/'''/,e:/'''/,c:[e.BE]},{b:/'/,e:/'/,c:[e.BE]},{b:/\"\"\"/,e:/\"\"\"/,c:[e.BE,r]},{b:/\"/,e:/\"/,c:[e.BE,r]}]},{cN:\"regexp\",v:[{b:\"///\",e:\"///\",c:[r,e.HCM]},{b:\"//[gim]*\",r:0},{b:/\\/(?![ *])(\\\\\\/|.)*?\\/[gim]*(?=\\W|$)/}]},{cN:\"property\",b:\"@\"+n},{b:\"`\",e:\"`\",eB:!0,eE:!0,sL:\"javascript\"}];r.c=t;var s=e.inherit(e.TM,{b:n}),i=\"(\\\\(.*\\\\))?\\\\s*\\\\B[-=]>\",o={cN:\"params\",b:\"\\\\([^\\\\(]\",rB:!0,c:[{b:/\\(/,e:/\\)/,k:c,c:[\"self\"].concat(t)}]};return{aliases:[\"coffee\",\"cson\",\"iced\"],k:c,i:/\\/\\*/,c:t.concat([e.C(\"###\",\"###\"),e.HCM,{cN:\"function\",b:\"^\\\\s*\"+n+\"\\\\s*=\\\\s*\"+i,e:\"[-=]>\",rB:!0,c:[s,o]},{b:/[:\\(,=]\\s*/,r:0,c:[{cN:\"function\",b:i,e:\"[-=]>\",rB:!0,c:[o]}]},{cN:\"class\",bK:\"class\",e:\"$\",i:/[:=\"\\[\\]]/,c:[{bK:\"extends\",eW:!0,i:/[:=\"\\[\\]]/,c:[s]},s]},{cN:\"attribute\",b:n+\":\",e:\":\",rB:!0,rE:!0,r:0}])}});hljs.registerLanguage(\"javascript\",function(e){return{aliases:[\"js\"],k:{keyword:\"in of if for while finally var new function do return void else break catch instanceof with throw case default try this switch continue typeof delete let yield const export super debugger as async await\",literal:\"true false null undefined NaN Infinity\",built_in:\"eval isFinite isNaN parseFloat parseInt decodeURI decodeURIComponent encodeURI encodeURIComponent escape unescape Object Function Boolean Error EvalError InternalError RangeError ReferenceError StopIteration SyntaxError TypeError URIError Number Math Date String RegExp Array Float32Array Float64Array Int16Array Int32Array Int8Array Uint16Array Uint32Array Uint8Array Uint8ClampedArray ArrayBuffer DataView JSON Intl arguments require module console window document Symbol Set Map WeakSet WeakMap Proxy Reflect Promise\"},c:[{cN:\"pi\",r:10,b:/^\\s*['\"]use (strict|asm)['\"]/},e.ASM,e.QSM,{cN:\"string\",b:\"`\",e:\"`\",c:[e.BE,{cN:\"subst\",b:\"\\\\$\\\\{\",e:\"\\\\}\"}]},e.CLCM,e.CBCM,{cN:\"number\",v:[{b:\"\\\\b(0[bB][01]+)\"},{b:\"\\\\b(0[oO][0-7]+)\"},{b:e.CNR}],r:0},{b:\"(\"+e.RSR+\"|\\\\b(case|return|throw)\\\\b)\\\\s*\",k:\"return throw case\",c:[e.CLCM,e.CBCM,e.RM,{b:/</,e:/>\\s*[);\\]]/,r:0,sL:\"xml\"}],r:0},{cN:\"function\",bK:\"function\",e:/\\{/,eE:!0,c:[e.inherit(e.TM,{b:/[A-Za-z$_][0-9A-Za-z$_]*/}),{cN:\"params\",b:/\\(/,e:/\\)/,eB:!0,eE:!0,c:[e.CLCM,e.CBCM]}],i:/\\[|%/},{b:/\\$[(.]/},{b:\"\\\\.\"+e.IR,r:0},{bK:\"import\",e:\"[;$]\",k:\"import from as\",c:[e.ASM,e.QSM]},{cN:\"class\",bK:\"class\",e:/[{;=]/,eE:!0,i:/[:\"\\[\\]]/,c:[{bK:\"extends\"},e.UTM]}],i:/#/}});hljs.registerLanguage(\"ini\",function(e){var c={cN:\"string\",c:[e.BE],v:[{b:\"'''\",e:\"'''\",r:10},{b:'\"\"\"',e:'\"\"\"',r:10},{b:'\"',e:'\"'},{b:\"'\",e:\"'\"}]};return{aliases:[\"toml\"],cI:!0,i:/\\S/,c:[e.C(\";\",\"$\"),e.HCM,{cN:\"title\",b:/^\\s*\\[+/,e:/\\]+/},{cN:\"setting\",b:/^[a-z0-9\\[\\]_-]+\\s*=\\s*/,e:\"$\",c:[{cN:\"value\",eW:!0,k:\"on off true false yes no\",c:[{cN:\"variable\",v:[{b:/\\$[\\w\\d\"][\\w\\d_]*/},{b:/\\$\\{(.*?)}/}]},c,{cN:\"number\",b:/([\\+\\-]+)?[\\d]+_[\\d_]+/},e.NM],r:0}]}]}});hljs.registerLanguage(\"diff\",function(e){return{aliases:[\"patch\"],c:[{cN:\"chunk\",r:10,v:[{b:/^@@ +\\-\\d+,\\d+ +\\+\\d+,\\d+ +@@$/},{b:/^\\*\\*\\* +\\d+,\\d+ +\\*\\*\\*\\*$/},{b:/^\\-\\-\\- +\\d+,\\d+ +\\-\\-\\-\\-$/}]},{cN:\"header\",v:[{b:/Index: /,e:/$/},{b:/=====/,e:/=====$/},{b:/^\\-\\-\\-/,e:/$/},{b:/^\\*{3} /,e:/$/},{b:/^\\+\\+\\+/,e:/$/},{b:/\\*{5}/,e:/\\*{5}$/}]},{cN:\"addition\",b:\"^\\\\+\",e:\"$\"},{cN:\"deletion\",b:\"^\\\\-\",e:\"$\"},{cN:\"change\",b:\"^\\\\!\",e:\"$\"}]}});\nexports.hljs = hljs;\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"title": "$:/plugins/tiddlywiki/highlight/highlight.js",
"module-type": "library"
},
"$:/plugins/tiddlywiki/highlight/highlight.css": {
"text": "/*\n\nOriginal style from softwaremaniacs.org (c) Ivan Sagalaev <Maniac@SoftwareManiacs.Org>\n\n*/\n\n.hljs {\n display: block;\n overflow-x: auto;\n padding: 0.5em;\n background: #f0f0f0;\n -webkit-text-size-adjust: none;\n}\n\n.hljs,\n.hljs-subst,\n.hljs-tag .hljs-title,\n.nginx .hljs-title {\n color: black;\n}\n\n.hljs-string,\n.hljs-title,\n.hljs-constant,\n.hljs-parent,\n.hljs-tag .hljs-value,\n.hljs-rule .hljs-value,\n.hljs-preprocessor,\n.hljs-pragma,\n.hljs-name,\n.haml .hljs-symbol,\n.ruby .hljs-symbol,\n.ruby .hljs-symbol .hljs-string,\n.hljs-template_tag,\n.django .hljs-variable,\n.smalltalk .hljs-class,\n.hljs-addition,\n.hljs-flow,\n.hljs-stream,\n.bash .hljs-variable,\n.pf .hljs-variable,\n.apache .hljs-tag,\n.apache .hljs-cbracket,\n.tex .hljs-command,\n.tex .hljs-special,\n.erlang_repl .hljs-function_or_atom,\n.asciidoc .hljs-header,\n.markdown .hljs-header,\n.coffeescript .hljs-attribute,\n.tp .hljs-variable {\n color: #800;\n}\n\n.smartquote,\n.hljs-comment,\n.hljs-annotation,\n.diff .hljs-header,\n.hljs-chunk,\n.asciidoc .hljs-blockquote,\n.markdown .hljs-blockquote {\n color: #888;\n}\n\n.hljs-number,\n.hljs-date,\n.hljs-regexp,\n.hljs-literal,\n.hljs-hexcolor,\n.smalltalk .hljs-symbol,\n.smalltalk .hljs-char,\n.go .hljs-constant,\n.hljs-change,\n.lasso .hljs-variable,\n.makefile .hljs-variable,\n.asciidoc .hljs-bullet,\n.markdown .hljs-bullet,\n.asciidoc .hljs-link_url,\n.markdown .hljs-link_url {\n color: #080;\n}\n\n.hljs-label,\n.ruby .hljs-string,\n.hljs-decorator,\n.hljs-filter .hljs-argument,\n.hljs-localvars,\n.hljs-array,\n.hljs-attr_selector,\n.hljs-important,\n.hljs-pseudo,\n.hljs-pi,\n.haml .hljs-bullet,\n.hljs-doctype,\n.hljs-deletion,\n.hljs-envvar,\n.hljs-shebang,\n.apache .hljs-sqbracket,\n.nginx .hljs-built_in,\n.tex .hljs-formula,\n.erlang_repl .hljs-reserved,\n.hljs-prompt,\n.asciidoc .hljs-link_label,\n.markdown .hljs-link_label,\n.vhdl .hljs-attribute,\n.clojure .hljs-attribute,\n.asciidoc .hljs-attribute,\n.lasso .hljs-attribute,\n.coffeescript .hljs-property,\n.hljs-phony {\n color: #88f;\n}\n\n.hljs-keyword,\n.hljs-id,\n.hljs-title,\n.hljs-built_in,\n.css .hljs-tag,\n.hljs-doctag,\n.smalltalk .hljs-class,\n.hljs-winutils,\n.bash .hljs-variable,\n.pf .hljs-variable,\n.apache .hljs-tag,\n.hljs-type,\n.hljs-typename,\n.tex .hljs-command,\n.asciidoc .hljs-strong,\n.markdown .hljs-strong,\n.hljs-request,\n.hljs-status,\n.tp .hljs-data,\n.tp .hljs-io {\n font-weight: bold;\n}\n\n.asciidoc .hljs-emphasis,\n.markdown .hljs-emphasis,\n.tp .hljs-units {\n font-style: italic;\n}\n\n.nginx .hljs-built_in {\n font-weight: normal;\n}\n\n.coffeescript .javascript,\n.javascript .xml,\n.lasso .markup,\n.tex .hljs-formula,\n.xml .javascript,\n.xml .vbscript,\n.xml .css,\n.xml .hljs-cdata {\n opacity: 0.5;\n}\n",
"type": "text/css",
"title": "$:/plugins/tiddlywiki/highlight/highlight.css",
"tags": "[[$:/tags/Stylesheet]]"
},
"$:/plugins/tiddlywiki/highlight/highlightblock.js": {
"title": "$:/plugins/tiddlywiki/highlight/highlightblock.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/plugins/tiddlywiki/highlight/highlightblock.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: widget\n\nWraps up the fenced code blocks parser for highlight and use in TiddlyWiki5\n\n\\*/\n(function() {\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nvar TYPE_MAPPINGS_BASE = \"$:/config/HighlightPlugin/TypeMappings/\";\n\nvar CodeBlockWidget = require(\"$:/core/modules/widgets/codeblock.js\").codeblock;\n\nvar hljs = require(\"$:/plugins/tiddlywiki/highlight/highlight.js\");\n\nhljs.configure({tabReplace: \" \"});\t\n\nCodeBlockWidget.prototype.postRender = function() {\n\tvar domNode = this.domNodes[0],\n\t\tlanguage = this.language,\n\t\ttiddler = this.wiki.getTiddler(TYPE_MAPPINGS_BASE + language);\n\tif(tiddler) {\n\t\tlanguage = tiddler.fields.text || \"\";\n\t}\n\tif(language && hljs.listLanguages().indexOf(language) !== -1) {\n\t\tdomNode.className = language.toLowerCase() + \" hljs\";\n\t\tif($tw.browser && !domNode.isTiddlyWikiFakeDom) {\n\t\t\thljs.highlightBlock(domNode);\t\t\t\n\t\t} else {\n\t\t\tvar text = domNode.textContent;\n\t\t\tdomNode.children[0].innerHTML = hljs.fixMarkup(hljs.highlight(language,text).value);\n\t\t\t// If we're using the fakedom then specially save the original raw text\n\t\t\tif(domNode.isTiddlyWikiFakeDom) {\n\t\t\t\tdomNode.children[0].textInnerHTML = text;\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t}\n\t}\t\n};\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "widget"
},
"$:/plugins/tiddlywiki/highlight/license": {
"title": "$:/plugins/tiddlywiki/highlight/license",
"type": "text/plain",
"text": "Copyright (c) 2006, Ivan Sagalaev\nAll rights reserved.\nRedistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without\nmodification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:\n\n * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright\n notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.\n * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright\n notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the\n documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.\n * Neither the name of highlight.js nor the names of its contributors\n may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software\n without specific prior written permission.\n\nTHIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE REGENTS AND CONTRIBUTORS ``AS IS'' AND ANY\nEXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED\nWARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE\nDISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE REGENTS AND CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY\nDIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES\n(INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES;\nLOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND\nON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT\n(INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS\nSOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.\n"
},
"$:/plugins/tiddlywiki/highlight/readme": {
"title": "$:/plugins/tiddlywiki/highlight/readme",
"text": "This plugin provides syntax highlighting of code blocks using v8.8.0 of [[highlight.js|https://github.com/isagalaev/highlight.js]] from Ivan Sagalaev.\n\n! Usage\n\nWhen the plugin is installed it automatically applies highlighting to all codeblocks defined with triple backticks or with the CodeBlockWidget.\n\nThe language can optionally be specified after the opening triple braces:\n\n<$codeblock code=\"\"\"```css\n * { margin: 0; padding: 0; } /* micro reset */\n\nhtml { font-size: 62.5%; }\nbody { font-size: 14px; font-size: 1.4rem; } /* =14px */\nh1 { font-size: 24px; font-size: 2.4rem; } /* =24px */\n```\"\"\"/>\n\nIf no language is specified highlight.js will attempt to automatically detect the language.\n\n! Built-in Language Brushes\n\nThe plugin includes support for the following languages (referred to as \"brushes\" by highlight.js):\n\n* apache\n* bash\n* coffeescript\n* cpp\n* cs\n* css\n* diff\n* http\n* ini\n* java\n* javascript\n* json\n* makefile\n* markdown\n* nginx\n* objectivec\n* perl\n* php\n* python\n* ruby\n* sql\n* xml\n\nYou can also specify the language as a MIME content type (eg `text/html` or `text/css`). The mapping is accomplished via mapping tiddlers whose titles start with `$:/config/HighlightPlugin/TypeMappings/`.\n"
},
"$:/plugins/tiddlywiki/highlight/styles": {
"title": "$:/plugins/tiddlywiki/highlight/styles",
"tags": "[[$:/tags/Stylesheet]]",
"text": ".hljs{display:block;overflow-x:auto;padding:.5em;color:#333;background:#f8f8f8;-webkit-text-size-adjust:none}.hljs-comment,.diff .hljs-header,.hljs-javadoc{color:#998;font-style:italic}.hljs-keyword,.css .rule .hljs-keyword,.hljs-winutils,.nginx .hljs-title,.hljs-subst,.hljs-request,.hljs-status{color:#333;font-weight:bold}.hljs-number,.hljs-hexcolor,.ruby .hljs-constant{color:teal}.hljs-string,.hljs-tag .hljs-value,.hljs-phpdoc,.hljs-dartdoc,.tex .hljs-formula{color:#d14}.hljs-title,.hljs-id,.scss .hljs-preprocessor{color:#900;font-weight:bold}.hljs-list .hljs-keyword,.hljs-subst{font-weight:normal}.hljs-class .hljs-title,.hljs-type,.vhdl .hljs-literal,.tex .hljs-command{color:#458;font-weight:bold}.hljs-tag,.hljs-tag .hljs-title,.hljs-rule .hljs-property,.django .hljs-tag .hljs-keyword{color:navy;font-weight:normal}.hljs-attribute,.hljs-variable,.lisp .hljs-body,.hljs-name{color:teal}.hljs-regexp{color:#009926}.hljs-symbol,.ruby .hljs-symbol .hljs-string,.lisp .hljs-keyword,.clojure .hljs-keyword,.scheme .hljs-keyword,.tex .hljs-special,.hljs-prompt{color:#990073}.hljs-built_in{color:#0086b3}.hljs-preprocessor,.hljs-pragma,.hljs-pi,.hljs-doctype,.hljs-shebang,.hljs-cdata{color:#999;font-weight:bold}.hljs-deletion{background:#fdd}.hljs-addition{background:#dfd}.diff .hljs-change{background:#0086b3}.hljs-chunk{color:#aaa}"
},
"$:/plugins/tiddlywiki/highlight/usage": {
"title": "$:/plugins/tiddlywiki/highlight/usage",
"text": "! Usage\n\nFenced code blocks can have a language specifier added to trigger highlighting in a specific language. Otherwise heuristics are used to detect the language.\n\n```\n ```js\n var a = b + c; // Highlighted as JavaScript\n ```\n```\n! Adding Themes\n\nYou can add themes from highlight.js by copying the CSS to a new tiddler and tagging it with [[$:/tags/Stylesheet]]. The available themes can be found on GitHub:\n\nhttps://github.com/isagalaev/highlight.js/tree/master/src/styles\n"
}
}
}
.hljs{display:block;overflow-x:auto;padding:.5em;color:#ffffff;background:#000029;-webkit-text-size-adjust:none}.hljs-comment,.diff .hljs-header,.hljs-javadoc{color:#606060;font-style:italic}.hljs-keyword,.css .rule .hljs-keyword,.hljs-winutils,.nginx .hljs-title,.hljs-subst,.hljs-request,.hljs-status{color:#68b7ff;font-weight:bold}.hljs-number,.hljs-hexcolor,.ruby .hljs-constant{color:purple}.hljs-string,.hljs-tag .hljs-value,.hljs-phpdoc,.hljs-dartdoc,.tex .hljs-formula{color:#e5d93d}.hljs-title,.hljs-id,.scss .hljs-preprocessor{color:#79dc72;font-weight:bold}.hljs-list .hljs-keyword,.hljs-subst{font-weight:normal}.hljs-class .hljs-title,.hljs-type,.vhdl .hljs-literal,.tex .hljs-command{color:#rerere;font-weight:bold}.hljs-tag,.hljs-tag .hljs-title,.hljs-rule .hljs-property,.django .hljs-tag .hljs-keyword{color:navy;font-weight:normal}.hljs-attribute,.hljs-variable,.lisp .hljs-body,.hljs-name{color:teal}.hljs-regexp{color:#009926}.hljs-symbol,.ruby .hljs-symbol .hljs-string,.lisp .hljs-keyword,.clojure .hljs-keyword,.scheme .hljs-keyword,.tex .hljs-special,.hljs-prompt{color:#990073}.hljs-built_in{color:#0086b3}.hljs-preprocessor,.hljs-pragma,.hljs-pi,.hljs-doctype,.hljs-shebang,.hljs-cdata{color:#999;font-weight:bold}.hljs-deletion{background:#fdd}.hljs-addition{background:#dfd}.diff .hljs-change{background:#0086b3}.hljs-chunk{color:#aaa}
{
"tiddlers": {
"$:/plugins/tiddlywiki/markdown/EditorToolbar/bold": {
"title": "$:/plugins/tiddlywiki/markdown/EditorToolbar/bold",
"list-after": "$:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/bold",
"tags": "$:/tags/EditorToolbar",
"icon": "$:/core/images/bold",
"caption": "{{$:/language/Buttons/Bold/Caption}} (Markdown)",
"description": "{{$:/language/Buttons/Bold/Hint}}",
"condition": "[<targetTiddler>type[text/x-markdown]]",
"shortcuts": "((bold))",
"text": "<$action-sendmessage\n\t$message=\"tm-edit-text-operation\"\n\t$param=\"wrap-selection\"\n\tprefix=\"**\"\n\tsuffix=\"**\"\n/>\n"
},
"$:/plugins/tiddlywiki/markdown/EditorToolbar/heading-1": {
"title": "$:/plugins/tiddlywiki/markdown/EditorToolbar/heading-1",
"list-after": "$:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/heading-1",
"tags": "$:/tags/EditorToolbar",
"icon": "$:/core/images/heading-1",
"caption": "{{$:/language/Buttons/Heading1/Caption}} (Markdown)",
"description": "{{$:/language/Buttons/Heading1/Hint}}",
"condition": "[<targetTiddler>type[text/x-markdown]]",
"shortcuts": "((heading-1))",
"text": "<$action-sendmessage\n\t$message=\"tm-edit-text-operation\"\n\t$param=\"prefix-lines\"\n\tcharacter=\"#\"\n\tcount=\"1\"\n/>\n"
},
"$:/plugins/tiddlywiki/markdown/EditorToolbar/heading-2": {
"title": "$:/plugins/tiddlywiki/markdown/EditorToolbar/heading-2",
"list-after": "$:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/heading-2",
"tags": "$:/tags/EditorToolbar",
"icon": "$:/core/images/heading-2",
"caption": "{{$:/language/Buttons/Heading2/Caption}} (Markdown)",
"description": "{{$:/language/Buttons/Heading2/Hint}}",
"condition": "[<targetTiddler>type[text/x-markdown]]",
"shortcuts": "((heading-2))",
"text": "<$action-sendmessage\n\t$message=\"tm-edit-text-operation\"\n\t$param=\"prefix-lines\"\n\tcharacter=\"#\"\n\tcount=\"2\"\n/>\n"
},
"$:/plugins/tiddlywiki/markdown/EditorToolbar/heading-3": {
"title": "$:/plugins/tiddlywiki/markdown/EditorToolbar/heading-3",
"list-after": "$:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/heading-3",
"tags": "$:/tags/EditorToolbar",
"icon": "$:/core/images/heading-3",
"caption": "{{$:/language/Buttons/Heading3/Caption}} (Markdown)",
"description": "{{$:/language/Buttons/Heading3/Hint}}",
"condition": "[<targetTiddler>type[text/x-markdown]]",
"shortcuts": "((heading-3))",
"text": "<$action-sendmessage\n\t$message=\"tm-edit-text-operation\"\n\t$param=\"prefix-lines\"\n\tcharacter=\"#\"\n\tcount=\"3\"\n/>\n"
},
"$:/plugins/tiddlywiki/markdown/EditorToolbar/heading-4": {
"title": "$:/plugins/tiddlywiki/markdown/EditorToolbar/heading-4",
"list-after": "$:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/heading-4",
"tags": "$:/tags/EditorToolbar",
"icon": "$:/core/images/heading-4",
"caption": "{{$:/language/Buttons/Heading4/Caption}} (Markdown)",
"description": "{{$:/language/Buttons/Heading4/Hint}}",
"condition": "[<targetTiddler>type[text/x-markdown]]",
"shortcuts": "((heading-4))",
"text": "<$action-sendmessage\n\t$message=\"tm-edit-text-operation\"\n\t$param=\"prefix-lines\"\n\tcharacter=\"#\"\n\tcount=\"4\"\n/>\n"
},
"$:/plugins/tiddlywiki/markdown/EditorToolbar/heading-5": {
"title": "$:/plugins/tiddlywiki/markdown/EditorToolbar/heading-5",
"list-after": "$:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/heading-5",
"tags": "$:/tags/EditorToolbar",
"icon": "$:/core/images/heading-5",
"caption": "{{$:/language/Buttons/Heading5/Caption}} (Markdown)",
"description": "{{$:/language/Buttons/Heading5/Hint}}",
"condition": "[<targetTiddler>type[text/x-markdown]]",
"shortcuts": "((heading-5))",
"text": "<$action-sendmessage\n\t$message=\"tm-edit-text-operation\"\n\t$param=\"prefix-lines\"\n\tcharacter=\"#\"\n\tcount=\"5\"\n/>\n"
},
"$:/plugins/tiddlywiki/markdown/EditorToolbar/heading-6": {
"title": "$:/plugins/tiddlywiki/markdown/EditorToolbar/heading-6",
"list-after": "$:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/heading-6",
"tags": "$:/tags/EditorToolbar",
"icon": "$:/core/images/heading-6",
"caption": "{{$:/language/Buttons/Heading6/Caption}} (Markdown)",
"description": "{{$:/language/Buttons/Heading6/Hint}}",
"condition": "[<targetTiddler>type[text/x-markdown]]",
"shortcuts": "((heading-6))",
"text": "<$action-sendmessage\n\t$message=\"tm-edit-text-operation\"\n\t$param=\"prefix-lines\"\n\tcharacter=\"#\"\n\tcount=\"6\"\n/>\n"
},
"$:/plugins/tiddlywiki/markdown/EditorToolbar/italic": {
"title": "$:/plugins/tiddlywiki/markdown/EditorToolbar/italic",
"list-after": "$:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/italic",
"tags": "$:/tags/EditorToolbar",
"icon": "$:/core/images/italic",
"caption": "{{$:/language/Buttons/Italic/Caption}} (Markdown)",
"description": "{{$:/language/Buttons/Italic/Hint}}",
"condition": "[<targetTiddler>type[text/x-markdown]]",
"shortcuts": "((italic))",
"text": "<$action-sendmessage\n\t$message=\"tm-edit-text-operation\"\n\t$param=\"wrap-selection\"\n\tprefix=\"*\"\n\tsuffix=\"*\"\n/>\n"
},
"$:/plugins/tiddlywiki/markdown/EditorToolbar/list-bullet": {
"title": "$:/plugins/tiddlywiki/markdown/EditorToolbar/list-bullet",
"list-after": "$:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/list-bullet",
"tags": "$:/tags/EditorToolbar",
"icon": "$:/core/images/list-bullet",
"caption": "{{$:/language/Buttons/ListBullet/Caption}} (Markdown)",
"description": "{{$:/language/Buttons/ListBullet/Hint}}",
"condition": "[<targetTiddler>type[text/x-markdown]]",
"shortcuts": "((list-bullet))",
"text": "<$action-sendmessage\n\t$message=\"tm-edit-text-operation\"\n\t$param=\"prefix-lines\"\n\tcharacter=\"*\"\n\tcount=\"1\"\n/>\n"
},
"$:/plugins/tiddlywiki/markdown/EditorToolbar/list-number": {
"title": "$:/plugins/tiddlywiki/markdown/EditorToolbar/list-number",
"list-after": "$:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/list-number",
"tags": "$:/tags/EditorToolbar",
"icon": "$:/core/images/list-number",
"caption": "{{$:/language/Buttons/ListNumber/Caption}} (Markdown)",
"description": "{{$:/language/Buttons/ListNumber/Hint}}",
"condition": "[<targetTiddler>type[text/x-markdown]]",
"shortcuts": "((list-number))",
"text": "<$action-sendmessage\n\t$message=\"tm-edit-text-operation\"\n\t$param=\"prefix-lines\"\n\tcharacter=\"1.\"\n\tcount=\"1\"\n/>\n"
},
"$:/plugins/tiddlywiki/markdown/EditorToolbar/mono-line": {
"title": "$:/plugins/tiddlywiki/markdown/EditorToolbar/mono-line",
"list-after": "$:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/mono-line",
"tags": "$:/tags/EditorToolbar",
"icon": "$:/core/images/mono-line",
"caption": "{{$:/language/Buttons/MonoLine/Caption}} (Markdown)",
"description": "{{$:/language/Buttons/MonoLine/Hint}}",
"condition": "[<targetTiddler>type[text/x-markdown]]",
"shortcuts": "((mono-line))",
"text": "<$action-sendmessage\n\t$message=\"tm-edit-text-operation\"\n\t$param=\"wrap-selection\"\n\tprefix=\"`\"\n\tsuffix=\"`\"\n/>\n"
},
"$:/plugins/tiddlywiki/markdown/EditorToolbar/quote": {
"title": "$:/plugins/tiddlywiki/markdown/EditorToolbar/quote",
"list-after": "$:/core/ui/EditorToolbar/quote",
"tags": "$:/tags/EditorToolbar",
"icon": "$:/core/images/quote",
"caption": "{{$:/language/Buttons/Quote/Caption}} (Markdown)",
"description": "{{$:/language/Buttons/Quote/Hint}}",
"condition": "[<targetTiddler>type[text/x-markdown]]",
"shortcuts": "((quote))",
"text": "<$action-sendmessage\n\t$message=\"tm-edit-text-operation\"\n\t$param=\"prefix-lines\"\n\tcharacter=\">\"\n\tcount=\"1\"\n/>\n"
},
"$:/config/markdown/dialect": {
"title": "$:/config/markdown/dialect",
"text": "Gruber"
},
"$:/language/Docs/Types/text/x-markdown": {
"title": "$:/language/Docs/Types/text/x-markdown",
"description": "Markdown",
"name": "text/x-markdown",
"group": "Text"
},
"$:/plugins/tiddlywiki/markdown/markdown.js": {
"text": "// Released under MIT license\n// Copyright (c) 2009-2010 Dominic Baggott\n// Copyright (c) 2009-2010 Ash Berlin\n// Copyright (c) 2011 Christoph Dorn <christoph@christophdorn.com> (http://www.christophdorn.com)\n\n/*jshint browser:true, devel:true */\n\n(function( expose ) {\n\n/**\n * class Markdown\n *\n * Markdown processing in Javascript done right. We have very particular views\n * on what constitutes 'right' which include:\n *\n * - produces well-formed HTML (this means that em and strong nesting is\n * important)\n *\n * - has an intermediate representation to allow processing of parsed data (We\n * in fact have two, both as [JsonML]: a markdown tree and an HTML tree).\n *\n * - is easily extensible to add new dialects without having to rewrite the\n * entire parsing mechanics\n *\n * - has a good test suite\n *\n * This implementation fulfills all of these (except that the test suite could\n * do with expanding to automatically run all the fixtures from other Markdown\n * implementations.)\n *\n * ##### Intermediate Representation\n *\n * *TODO* Talk about this :) Its JsonML, but document the node names we use.\n *\n * [JsonML]: http://jsonml.org/ \"JSON Markup Language\"\n **/\nvar Markdown = expose.Markdown = function(dialect) {\n switch (typeof dialect) {\n case \"undefined\":\n this.dialect = Markdown.dialects.Gruber;\n break;\n case \"object\":\n this.dialect = dialect;\n break;\n default:\n if ( dialect in Markdown.dialects ) {\n this.dialect = Markdown.dialects[dialect];\n }\n else {\n throw new Error(\"Unknown Markdown dialect '\" + String(dialect) + \"'\");\n }\n break;\n }\n this.em_state = [];\n this.strong_state = [];\n this.debug_indent = \"\";\n};\n\n/**\n * parse( markdown, [dialect] ) -> JsonML\n * - markdown (String): markdown string to parse\n * - dialect (String | Dialect): the dialect to use, defaults to gruber\n *\n * Parse `markdown` and return a markdown document as a Markdown.JsonML tree.\n **/\nexpose.parse = function( source, dialect ) {\n // dialect will default if undefined\n var md = new Markdown( dialect );\n return md.toTree( source );\n};\n\n/**\n * toHTML( markdown, [dialect] ) -> String\n * toHTML( md_tree ) -> String\n * - markdown (String): markdown string to parse\n * - md_tree (Markdown.JsonML): parsed markdown tree\n *\n * Take markdown (either as a string or as a JsonML tree) and run it through\n * [[toHTMLTree]] then turn it into a well-formated HTML fragment.\n **/\nexpose.toHTML = function toHTML( source , dialect , options ) {\n var input = expose.toHTMLTree( source , dialect , options );\n\n return expose.renderJsonML( input );\n};\n\n/**\n * toHTMLTree( markdown, [dialect] ) -> JsonML\n * toHTMLTree( md_tree ) -> JsonML\n * - markdown (String): markdown string to parse\n * - dialect (String | Dialect): the dialect to use, defaults to gruber\n * - md_tree (Markdown.JsonML): parsed markdown tree\n *\n * Turn markdown into HTML, represented as a JsonML tree. If a string is given\n * to this function, it is first parsed into a markdown tree by calling\n * [[parse]].\n **/\nexpose.toHTMLTree = function toHTMLTree( input, dialect , options ) {\n // convert string input to an MD tree\n if ( typeof input ===\"string\" ) input = this.parse( input, dialect );\n\n // Now convert the MD tree to an HTML tree\n\n // remove references from the tree\n var attrs = extract_attr( input ),\n refs = {};\n\n if ( attrs && attrs.references ) {\n refs = attrs.references;\n }\n\n var html = convert_tree_to_html( input, refs , options );\n merge_text_nodes( html );\n return html;\n};\n\n// For Spidermonkey based engines\nfunction mk_block_toSource() {\n return \"Markdown.mk_block( \" +\n uneval(this.toString()) +\n \", \" +\n uneval(this.trailing) +\n \", \" +\n uneval(this.lineNumber) +\n \" )\";\n}\n\n// node\nfunction mk_block_inspect() {\n var util = require(\"util\");\n return \"Markdown.mk_block( \" +\n util.inspect(this.toString()) +\n \", \" +\n util.inspect(this.trailing) +\n \", \" +\n util.inspect(this.lineNumber) +\n \" )\";\n\n}\n\nvar mk_block = Markdown.mk_block = function(block, trail, line) {\n // Be helpful for default case in tests.\n if ( arguments.length == 1 ) trail = \"\\n\\n\";\n\n var s = new String(block);\n s.trailing = trail;\n // To make it clear its not just a string\n s.inspect = mk_block_inspect;\n s.toSource = mk_block_toSource;\n\n if ( line != undefined )\n s.lineNumber = line;\n\n return s;\n};\n\nfunction count_lines( str ) {\n var n = 0, i = -1;\n while ( ( i = str.indexOf(\"\\n\", i + 1) ) !== -1 ) n++;\n return n;\n}\n\n// Internal - split source into rough blocks\nMarkdown.prototype.split_blocks = function splitBlocks( input, startLine ) {\n input = input.replace(/(\\r\\n|\\n|\\r)/g, \"\\n\");\n // [\\s\\S] matches _anything_ (newline or space)\n // [^] is equivalent but doesn't work in IEs.\n var re = /([\\s\\S]+?)($|\\n#|\\n(?:\\s*\\n|$)+)/g,\n blocks = [],\n m;\n\n var line_no = 1;\n\n if ( ( m = /^(\\s*\\n)/.exec(input) ) != null ) {\n // skip (but count) leading blank lines\n line_no += count_lines( m[0] );\n re.lastIndex = m[0].length;\n }\n\n while ( ( m = re.exec(input) ) !== null ) {\n if (m[2] == \"\\n#\") {\n m[2] = \"\\n\";\n re.lastIndex--;\n }\n blocks.push( mk_block( m[1], m[2], line_no ) );\n line_no += count_lines( m[0] );\n }\n\n return blocks;\n};\n\n/**\n * Markdown#processBlock( block, next ) -> undefined | [ JsonML, ... ]\n * - block (String): the block to process\n * - next (Array): the following blocks\n *\n * Process `block` and return an array of JsonML nodes representing `block`.\n *\n * It does this by asking each block level function in the dialect to process\n * the block until one can. Succesful handling is indicated by returning an\n * array (with zero or more JsonML nodes), failure by a false value.\n *\n * Blocks handlers are responsible for calling [[Markdown#processInline]]\n * themselves as appropriate.\n *\n * If the blocks were split incorrectly or adjacent blocks need collapsing you\n * can adjust `next` in place using shift/splice etc.\n *\n * If any of this default behaviour is not right for the dialect, you can\n * define a `__call__` method on the dialect that will get invoked to handle\n * the block processing.\n */\nMarkdown.prototype.processBlock = function processBlock( block, next ) {\n var cbs = this.dialect.block,\n ord = cbs.__order__;\n\n if ( \"__call__\" in cbs ) {\n return cbs.__call__.call(this, block, next);\n }\n\n for ( var i = 0; i < ord.length; i++ ) {\n //D:this.debug( \"Testing\", ord[i] );\n var res = cbs[ ord[i] ].call( this, block, next );\n if ( res ) {\n //D:this.debug(\" matched\");\n if ( !isArray(res) || ( res.length > 0 && !( isArray(res[0]) ) ) )\n this.debug(ord[i], \"didn't return a proper array\");\n //D:this.debug( \"\" );\n return res;\n }\n }\n\n // Uhoh! no match! Should we throw an error?\n return [];\n};\n\nMarkdown.prototype.processInline = function processInline( block ) {\n return this.dialect.inline.__call__.call( this, String( block ) );\n};\n\n/**\n * Markdown#toTree( source ) -> JsonML\n * - source (String): markdown source to parse\n *\n * Parse `source` into a JsonML tree representing the markdown document.\n **/\n// custom_tree means set this.tree to `custom_tree` and restore old value on return\nMarkdown.prototype.toTree = function toTree( source, custom_root ) {\n var blocks = source instanceof Array ? source : this.split_blocks( source );\n\n // Make tree a member variable so its easier to mess with in extensions\n var old_tree = this.tree;\n try {\n this.tree = custom_root || this.tree || [ \"markdown\" ];\n\n blocks:\n while ( blocks.length ) {\n var b = this.processBlock( blocks.shift(), blocks );\n\n // Reference blocks and the like won't return any content\n if ( !b.length ) continue blocks;\n\n this.tree.push.apply( this.tree, b );\n }\n return this.tree;\n }\n finally {\n if ( custom_root ) {\n this.tree = old_tree;\n }\n }\n};\n\n// Noop by default\nMarkdown.prototype.debug = function () {\n var args = Array.prototype.slice.call( arguments);\n args.unshift(this.debug_indent);\n if ( typeof print !== \"undefined\" )\n print.apply( print, args );\n if ( typeof console !== \"undefined\" && typeof console.log !== \"undefined\" )\n console.log.apply( null, args );\n}\n\nMarkdown.prototype.loop_re_over_block = function( re, block, cb ) {\n // Dont use /g regexps with this\n var m,\n b = block.valueOf();\n\n while ( b.length && (m = re.exec(b) ) != null ) {\n b = b.substr( m[0].length );\n cb.call(this, m);\n }\n return b;\n};\n\n/**\n * Markdown.dialects\n *\n * Namespace of built-in dialects.\n **/\nMarkdown.dialects = {};\n\n/**\n * Markdown.dialects.Gruber\n *\n * The default dialect that follows the rules set out by John Gruber's\n * markdown.pl as closely as possible. Well actually we follow the behaviour of\n * that script which in some places is not exactly what the syntax web page\n * says.\n **/\nMarkdown.dialects.Gruber = {\n block: {\n atxHeader: function atxHeader( block, next ) {\n var m = block.match( /^(#{1,6})\\s*(.*?)\\s*#*\\s*(?:\\n|$)/ );\n\n if ( !m ) return undefined;\n\n var header = [ \"header\", { level: m[ 1 ].length } ];\n Array.prototype.push.apply(header, this.processInline(m[ 2 ]));\n\n if ( m[0].length < block.length )\n next.unshift( mk_block( block.substr( m[0].length ), block.trailing, block.lineNumber + 2 ) );\n\n return [ header ];\n },\n\n setextHeader: function setextHeader( block, next ) {\n var m = block.match( /^(.*)\\n([-=])\\2\\2+(?:\\n|$)/ );\n\n if ( !m ) return undefined;\n\n var level = ( m[ 2 ] === \"=\" ) ? 1 : 2;\n var header = [ \"header\", { level : level }, m[ 1 ] ];\n\n if ( m[0].length < block.length )\n next.unshift( mk_block( block.substr( m[0].length ), block.trailing, block.lineNumber + 2 ) );\n\n return [ header ];\n },\n\n code: function code( block, next ) {\n // | Foo\n // |bar\n // should be a code block followed by a paragraph. Fun\n //\n // There might also be adjacent code block to merge.\n\n var ret = [],\n re = /^(?: {0,3}\\t| {4})(.*)\\n?/,\n lines;\n\n // 4 spaces + content\n if ( !block.match( re ) ) return undefined;\n\n block_search:\n do {\n // Now pull out the rest of the lines\n var b = this.loop_re_over_block(\n re, block.valueOf(), function( m ) { ret.push( m[1] ); } );\n\n if ( b.length ) {\n // Case alluded to in first comment. push it back on as a new block\n next.unshift( mk_block(b, block.trailing) );\n break block_search;\n }\n else if ( next.length ) {\n // Check the next block - it might be code too\n if ( !next[0].match( re ) ) break block_search;\n\n // Pull how how many blanks lines follow - minus two to account for .join\n ret.push ( block.trailing.replace(/[^\\n]/g, \"\").substring(2) );\n\n block = next.shift();\n }\n else {\n break block_search;\n }\n } while ( true );\n\n return [ [ \"code_block\", ret.join(\"\\n\") ] ];\n },\n\n horizRule: function horizRule( block, next ) {\n // this needs to find any hr in the block to handle abutting blocks\n var m = block.match( /^(?:([\\s\\S]*?)\\n)?[ \\t]*([-_*])(?:[ \\t]*\\2){2,}[ \\t]*(?:\\n([\\s\\S]*))?$/ );\n\n if ( !m ) {\n return undefined;\n }\n\n var jsonml = [ [ \"hr\" ] ];\n\n // if there's a leading abutting block, process it\n if ( m[ 1 ] ) {\n jsonml.unshift.apply( jsonml, this.processBlock( m[ 1 ], [] ) );\n }\n\n // if there's a trailing abutting block, stick it into next\n if ( m[ 3 ] ) {\n next.unshift( mk_block( m[ 3 ] ) );\n }\n\n return jsonml;\n },\n\n // There are two types of lists. Tight and loose. Tight lists have no whitespace\n // between the items (and result in text just in the <li>) and loose lists,\n // which have an empty line between list items, resulting in (one or more)\n // paragraphs inside the <li>.\n //\n // There are all sorts weird edge cases about the original markdown.pl's\n // handling of lists:\n //\n // * Nested lists are supposed to be indented by four chars per level. But\n // if they aren't, you can get a nested list by indenting by less than\n // four so long as the indent doesn't match an indent of an existing list\n // item in the 'nest stack'.\n //\n // * The type of the list (bullet or number) is controlled just by the\n // first item at the indent. Subsequent changes are ignored unless they\n // are for nested lists\n //\n lists: (function( ) {\n // Use a closure to hide a few variables.\n var any_list = \"[*+-]|\\\\d+\\\\.\",\n bullet_list = /[*+-]/,\n number_list = /\\d+\\./,\n // Capture leading indent as it matters for determining nested lists.\n is_list_re = new RegExp( \"^( {0,3})(\" + any_list + \")[ \\t]+\" ),\n indent_re = \"(?: {0,3}\\\\t| {4})\";\n\n // TODO: Cache this regexp for certain depths.\n // Create a regexp suitable for matching an li for a given stack depth\n function regex_for_depth( depth ) {\n\n return new RegExp(\n // m[1] = indent, m[2] = list_type\n \"(?:^(\" + indent_re + \"{0,\" + depth + \"} {0,3})(\" + any_list + \")\\\\s+)|\" +\n // m[3] = cont\n \"(^\" + indent_re + \"{0,\" + (depth-1) + \"}[ ]{0,4})\"\n );\n }\n function expand_tab( input ) {\n return input.replace( / {0,3}\\t/g, \" \" );\n }\n\n // Add inline content `inline` to `li`. inline comes from processInline\n // so is an array of content\n function add(li, loose, inline, nl) {\n if ( loose ) {\n li.push( [ \"para\" ].concat(inline) );\n return;\n }\n // Hmmm, should this be any block level element or just paras?\n var add_to = li[li.length -1] instanceof Array && li[li.length - 1][0] == \"para\"\n ? li[li.length -1]\n : li;\n\n // If there is already some content in this list, add the new line in\n if ( nl && li.length > 1 ) inline.unshift(nl);\n\n for ( var i = 0; i < inline.length; i++ ) {\n var what = inline[i],\n is_str = typeof what == \"string\";\n if ( is_str && add_to.length > 1 && typeof add_to[add_to.length-1] == \"string\" ) {\n add_to[ add_to.length-1 ] += what;\n }\n else {\n add_to.push( what );\n }\n }\n }\n\n // contained means have an indent greater than the current one. On\n // *every* line in the block\n function get_contained_blocks( depth, blocks ) {\n\n var re = new RegExp( \"^(\" + indent_re + \"{\" + depth + \"}.*?\\\\n?)*$\" ),\n replace = new RegExp(\"^\" + indent_re + \"{\" + depth + \"}\", \"gm\"),\n ret = [];\n\n while ( blocks.length > 0 ) {\n if ( re.exec( blocks[0] ) ) {\n var b = blocks.shift(),\n // Now remove that indent\n x = b.replace( replace, \"\");\n\n ret.push( mk_block( x, b.trailing, b.lineNumber ) );\n }\n else {\n break;\n }\n }\n return ret;\n }\n\n // passed to stack.forEach to turn list items up the stack into paras\n function paragraphify(s, i, stack) {\n var list = s.list;\n var last_li = list[list.length-1];\n\n if ( last_li[1] instanceof Array && last_li[1][0] == \"para\" ) {\n return;\n }\n if ( i + 1 == stack.length ) {\n // Last stack frame\n // Keep the same array, but replace the contents\n last_li.push( [\"para\"].concat( last_li.splice(1, last_li.length - 1) ) );\n }\n else {\n var sublist = last_li.pop();\n last_li.push( [\"para\"].concat( last_li.splice(1, last_li.length - 1) ), sublist );\n }\n }\n\n // The matcher function\n return function( block, next ) {\n var m = block.match( is_list_re );\n if ( !m ) return undefined;\n\n function make_list( m ) {\n var list = bullet_list.exec( m[2] )\n ? [\"bulletlist\"]\n : [\"numberlist\"];\n\n stack.push( { list: list, indent: m[1] } );\n return list;\n }\n\n\n var stack = [], // Stack of lists for nesting.\n list = make_list( m ),\n last_li,\n loose = false,\n ret = [ stack[0].list ],\n i;\n\n // Loop to search over block looking for inner block elements and loose lists\n loose_search:\n while ( true ) {\n // Split into lines preserving new lines at end of line\n var lines = block.split( /(?=\\n)/ );\n\n // We have to grab all lines for a li and call processInline on them\n // once as there are some inline things that can span lines.\n var li_accumulate = \"\";\n\n // Loop over the lines in this block looking for tight lists.\n tight_search:\n for ( var line_no = 0; line_no < lines.length; line_no++ ) {\n var nl = \"\",\n l = lines[line_no].replace(/^\\n/, function(n) { nl = n; return \"\"; });\n\n // TODO: really should cache this\n var line_re = regex_for_depth( stack.length );\n\n m = l.match( line_re );\n //print( \"line:\", uneval(l), \"\\nline match:\", uneval(m) );\n\n // We have a list item\n if ( m[1] !== undefined ) {\n // Process the previous list item, if any\n if ( li_accumulate.length ) {\n add( last_li, loose, this.processInline( li_accumulate ), nl );\n // Loose mode will have been dealt with. Reset it\n loose = false;\n li_accumulate = \"\";\n }\n\n m[1] = expand_tab( m[1] );\n var wanted_depth = Math.floor(m[1].length/4)+1;\n //print( \"want:\", wanted_depth, \"stack:\", stack.length);\n if ( wanted_depth > stack.length ) {\n // Deep enough for a nested list outright\n //print ( \"new nested list\" );\n list = make_list( m );\n last_li.push( list );\n last_li = list[1] = [ \"listitem\" ];\n }\n else {\n // We aren't deep enough to be strictly a new level. This is\n // where Md.pl goes nuts. If the indent matches a level in the\n // stack, put it there, else put it one deeper then the\n // wanted_depth deserves.\n var found = false;\n for ( i = 0; i < stack.length; i++ ) {\n if ( stack[ i ].indent != m[1] ) continue;\n list = stack[ i ].list;\n stack.splice( i+1, stack.length - (i+1) );\n found = true;\n break;\n }\n\n if (!found) {\n //print(\"not found. l:\", uneval(l));\n wanted_depth++;\n if ( wanted_depth <= stack.length ) {\n stack.splice(wanted_depth, stack.length - wanted_depth);\n //print(\"Desired depth now\", wanted_depth, \"stack:\", stack.length);\n list = stack[wanted_depth-1].list;\n //print(\"list:\", uneval(list) );\n }\n else {\n //print (\"made new stack for messy indent\");\n list = make_list(m);\n last_li.push(list);\n }\n }\n\n //print( uneval(list), \"last\", list === stack[stack.length-1].list );\n last_li = [ \"listitem\" ];\n list.push(last_li);\n } // end depth of shenegains\n nl = \"\";\n }\n\n // Add content\n if ( l.length > m[0].length ) {\n li_accumulate += nl + l.substr( m[0].length );\n }\n } // tight_search\n\n if ( li_accumulate.length ) {\n add( last_li, loose, this.processInline( li_accumulate ), nl );\n // Loose mode will have been dealt with. Reset it\n loose = false;\n li_accumulate = \"\";\n }\n\n // Look at the next block - we might have a loose list. Or an extra\n // paragraph for the current li\n var contained = get_contained_blocks( stack.length, next );\n\n // Deal with code blocks or properly nested lists\n if ( contained.length > 0 ) {\n // Make sure all listitems up the stack are paragraphs\n forEach( stack, paragraphify, this);\n\n last_li.push.apply( last_li, this.toTree( contained, [] ) );\n }\n\n var next_block = next[0] && next[0].valueOf() || \"\";\n\n if ( next_block.match(is_list_re) || next_block.match( /^ / ) ) {\n block = next.shift();\n\n // Check for an HR following a list: features/lists/hr_abutting\n var hr = this.dialect.block.horizRule( block, next );\n\n if ( hr ) {\n ret.push.apply(ret, hr);\n break;\n }\n\n // Make sure all listitems up the stack are paragraphs\n forEach( stack, paragraphify, this);\n\n loose = true;\n continue loose_search;\n }\n break;\n } // loose_search\n\n return ret;\n };\n })(),\n\n blockquote: function blockquote( block, next ) {\n if ( !block.match( /^>/m ) )\n return undefined;\n\n var jsonml = [];\n\n // separate out the leading abutting block, if any. I.e. in this case:\n //\n // a\n // > b\n //\n if ( block[ 0 ] != \">\" ) {\n var lines = block.split( /\\n/ ),\n prev = [],\n line_no = block.lineNumber;\n\n // keep shifting lines until you find a crotchet\n while ( lines.length && lines[ 0 ][ 0 ] != \">\" ) {\n prev.push( lines.shift() );\n line_no++;\n }\n\n var abutting = mk_block( prev.join( \"\\n\" ), \"\\n\", block.lineNumber );\n jsonml.push.apply( jsonml, this.processBlock( abutting, [] ) );\n // reassemble new block of just block quotes!\n block = mk_block( lines.join( \"\\n\" ), block.trailing, line_no );\n }\n\n\n // if the next block is also a blockquote merge it in\n while ( next.length && next[ 0 ][ 0 ] == \">\" ) {\n var b = next.shift();\n block = mk_block( block + block.trailing + b, b.trailing, block.lineNumber );\n }\n\n // Strip off the leading \"> \" and re-process as a block.\n var input = block.replace( /^> ?/gm, \"\" ),\n old_tree = this.tree,\n processedBlock = this.toTree( input, [ \"blockquote\" ] ),\n attr = extract_attr( processedBlock );\n\n // If any link references were found get rid of them\n if ( attr && attr.references ) {\n delete attr.references;\n // And then remove the attribute object if it's empty\n if ( isEmpty( attr ) ) {\n processedBlock.splice( 1, 1 );\n }\n }\n\n jsonml.push( processedBlock );\n return jsonml;\n },\n\n referenceDefn: function referenceDefn( block, next) {\n var re = /^\\s*\\[(.*?)\\]:\\s*(\\S+)(?:\\s+(?:(['\"])(.*?)\\3|\\((.*?)\\)))?\\n?/;\n // interesting matches are [ , ref_id, url, , title, title ]\n\n if ( !block.match(re) )\n return undefined;\n\n // make an attribute node if it doesn't exist\n if ( !extract_attr( this.tree ) ) {\n this.tree.splice( 1, 0, {} );\n }\n\n var attrs = extract_attr( this.tree );\n\n // make a references hash if it doesn't exist\n if ( attrs.references === undefined ) {\n attrs.references = {};\n }\n\n var b = this.loop_re_over_block(re, block, function( m ) {\n\n if ( m[2] && m[2][0] == \"<\" && m[2][m[2].length-1] == \">\" )\n m[2] = m[2].substring( 1, m[2].length - 1 );\n\n var ref = attrs.references[ m[1].toLowerCase() ] = {\n href: m[2]\n };\n\n if ( m[4] !== undefined )\n ref.title = m[4];\n else if ( m[5] !== undefined )\n ref.title = m[5];\n\n } );\n\n if ( b.length )\n next.unshift( mk_block( b, block.trailing ) );\n\n return [];\n },\n\n para: function para( block, next ) {\n // everything's a para!\n return [ [\"para\"].concat( this.processInline( block ) ) ];\n }\n }\n};\n\nMarkdown.dialects.Gruber.inline = {\n\n __oneElement__: function oneElement( text, patterns_or_re, previous_nodes ) {\n var m,\n res,\n lastIndex = 0;\n\n patterns_or_re = patterns_or_re || this.dialect.inline.__patterns__;\n var re = new RegExp( \"([\\\\s\\\\S]*?)(\" + (patterns_or_re.source || patterns_or_re) + \")\" );\n\n m = re.exec( text );\n if (!m) {\n // Just boring text\n return [ text.length, text ];\n }\n else if ( m[1] ) {\n // Some un-interesting text matched. Return that first\n return [ m[1].length, m[1] ];\n }\n\n var res;\n if ( m[2] in this.dialect.inline ) {\n res = this.dialect.inline[ m[2] ].call(\n this,\n text.substr( m.index ), m, previous_nodes || [] );\n }\n // Default for now to make dev easier. just slurp special and output it.\n res = res || [ m[2].length, m[2] ];\n return res;\n },\n\n __call__: function inline( text, patterns ) {\n\n var out = [],\n res;\n\n function add(x) {\n //D:self.debug(\" adding output\", uneval(x));\n if ( typeof x == \"string\" && typeof out[out.length-1] == \"string\" )\n out[ out.length-1 ] += x;\n else\n out.push(x);\n }\n\n while ( text.length > 0 ) {\n res = this.dialect.inline.__oneElement__.call(this, text, patterns, out );\n text = text.substr( res.shift() );\n forEach(res, add )\n }\n\n return out;\n },\n\n // These characters are intersting elsewhere, so have rules for them so that\n // chunks of plain text blocks don't include them\n \"]\": function () {},\n \"}\": function () {},\n\n __escape__ : /^\\\\[\\\\`\\*_{}\\[\\]()#\\+.!\\-]/,\n\n \"\\\\\": function escaped( text ) {\n // [ length of input processed, node/children to add... ]\n // Only esacape: \\ ` * _ { } [ ] ( ) # * + - . !\n if ( this.dialect.inline.__escape__.exec( text ) )\n return [ 2, text.charAt( 1 ) ];\n else\n // Not an esacpe\n return [ 1, \"\\\\\" ];\n },\n\n \"![\": function image( text ) {\n\n // Unlike images, alt text is plain text only. no other elements are\n // allowed in there\n\n // ![Alt text](/path/to/img.jpg \"Optional title\")\n // 1 2 3 4 <--- captures\n var m = text.match( /^!\\[(.*?)\\][ \\t]*\\([ \\t]*([^\")]*?)(?:[ \\t]+([\"'])(.*?)\\3)?[ \\t]*\\)/ );\n\n if ( m ) {\n if ( m[2] && m[2][0] == \"<\" && m[2][m[2].length-1] == \">\" )\n m[2] = m[2].substring( 1, m[2].length - 1 );\n\n m[2] = this.dialect.inline.__call__.call( this, m[2], /\\\\/ )[0];\n\n var attrs = { alt: m[1], href: m[2] || \"\" };\n if ( m[4] !== undefined)\n attrs.title = m[4];\n\n return [ m[0].length, [ \"img\", attrs ] ];\n }\n\n // ![Alt text][id]\n m = text.match( /^!\\[(.*?)\\][ \\t]*\\[(.*?)\\]/ );\n\n if ( m ) {\n // We can't check if the reference is known here as it likely wont be\n // found till after. Check it in md tree->hmtl tree conversion\n return [ m[0].length, [ \"img_ref\", { alt: m[1], ref: m[2].toLowerCase(), original: m[0] } ] ];\n }\n\n // Just consume the '!['\n return [ 2, \"![\" ];\n },\n\n \"[\": function link( text ) {\n\n var orig = String(text);\n // Inline content is possible inside `link text`\n var res = Markdown.DialectHelpers.inline_until_char.call( this, text.substr(1), \"]\" );\n\n // No closing ']' found. Just consume the [\n if ( !res ) return [ 1, \"[\" ];\n\n var consumed = 1 + res[ 0 ],\n children = res[ 1 ],\n link,\n attrs;\n\n // At this point the first [...] has been parsed. See what follows to find\n // out which kind of link we are (reference or direct url)\n text = text.substr( consumed );\n\n // [link text](/path/to/img.jpg \"Optional title\")\n // 1 2 3 <--- captures\n // This will capture up to the last paren in the block. We then pull\n // back based on if there a matching ones in the url\n // ([here](/url/(test))\n // The parens have to be balanced\n var m = text.match( /^\\s*\\([ \\t]*([^\"']*)(?:[ \\t]+([\"'])(.*?)\\2)?[ \\t]*\\)/ );\n if ( m ) {\n var url = m[1];\n consumed += m[0].length;\n\n if ( url && url[0] == \"<\" && url[url.length-1] == \">\" )\n url = url.substring( 1, url.length - 1 );\n\n // If there is a title we don't have to worry about parens in the url\n if ( !m[3] ) {\n var open_parens = 1; // One open that isn't in the capture\n for ( var len = 0; len < url.length; len++ ) {\n switch ( url[len] ) {\n case \"(\":\n open_parens++;\n break;\n case \")\":\n if ( --open_parens == 0) {\n consumed -= url.length - len;\n url = url.substring(0, len);\n }\n break;\n }\n }\n }\n\n // Process escapes only\n url = this.dialect.inline.__call__.call( this, url, /\\\\/ )[0];\n\n attrs = { href: url || \"\" };\n if ( m[3] !== undefined)\n attrs.title = m[3];\n\n link = [ \"link\", attrs ].concat( children );\n return [ consumed, link ];\n }\n\n // [Alt text][id]\n // [Alt text] [id]\n m = text.match( /^\\s*\\[(.*?)\\]/ );\n\n if ( m ) {\n\n consumed += m[ 0 ].length;\n\n // [links][] uses links as its reference\n attrs = { ref: ( m[ 1 ] || String(children) ).toLowerCase(), original: orig.substr( 0, consumed ) };\n\n link = [ \"link_ref\", attrs ].concat( children );\n\n // We can't check if the reference is known here as it likely wont be\n // found till after. Check it in md tree->hmtl tree conversion.\n // Store the original so that conversion can revert if the ref isn't found.\n return [ consumed, link ];\n }\n\n // [id]\n // Only if id is plain (no formatting.)\n if ( children.length == 1 && typeof children[0] == \"string\" ) {\n\n attrs = { ref: children[0].toLowerCase(), original: orig.substr( 0, consumed ) };\n link = [ \"link_ref\", attrs, children[0] ];\n return [ consumed, link ];\n }\n\n // Just consume the \"[\"\n return [ 1, \"[\" ];\n },\n\n\n \"<\": function autoLink( text ) {\n var m;\n\n if ( ( m = text.match( /^<(?:((https?|ftp|mailto):[^>]+)|(.*?@.*?\\.[a-zA-Z]+))>/ ) ) != null ) {\n if ( m[3] ) {\n return [ m[0].length, [ \"link\", { href: \"mailto:\" + m[3] }, m[3] ] ];\n\n }\n else if ( m[2] == \"mailto\" ) {\n return [ m[0].length, [ \"link\", { href: m[1] }, m[1].substr(\"mailto:\".length ) ] ];\n }\n else\n return [ m[0].length, [ \"link\", { href: m[1] }, m[1] ] ];\n }\n\n return [ 1, \"<\" ];\n },\n\n \"`\": function inlineCode( text ) {\n // Inline code block. as many backticks as you like to start it\n // Always skip over the opening ticks.\n var m = text.match( /(`+)(([\\s\\S]*?)\\1)/ );\n\n if ( m && m[2] )\n return [ m[1].length + m[2].length, [ \"inlinecode\", m[3] ] ];\n else {\n // TODO: No matching end code found - warn!\n return [ 1, \"`\" ];\n }\n },\n\n \" \\n\": function lineBreak( text ) {\n return [ 3, [ \"linebreak\" ] ];\n }\n\n};\n\n// Meta Helper/generator method for em and strong handling\nfunction strong_em( tag, md ) {\n\n var state_slot = tag + \"_state\",\n other_slot = tag == \"strong\" ? \"em_state\" : \"strong_state\";\n\n function CloseTag(len) {\n this.len_after = len;\n this.name = \"close_\" + md;\n }\n\n return function ( text, orig_match ) {\n\n if ( this[state_slot][0] == md ) {\n // Most recent em is of this type\n //D:this.debug(\"closing\", md);\n this[state_slot].shift();\n\n // \"Consume\" everything to go back to the recrusion in the else-block below\n return[ text.length, new CloseTag(text.length-md.length) ];\n }\n else {\n // Store a clone of the em/strong states\n var other = this[other_slot].slice(),\n state = this[state_slot].slice();\n\n this[state_slot].unshift(md);\n\n //D:this.debug_indent += \" \";\n\n // Recurse\n var res = this.processInline( text.substr( md.length ) );\n //D:this.debug_indent = this.debug_indent.substr(2);\n\n var last = res[res.length - 1];\n\n //D:this.debug(\"processInline from\", tag + \": \", uneval( res ) );\n\n var check = this[state_slot].shift();\n if ( last instanceof CloseTag ) {\n res.pop();\n // We matched! Huzzah.\n var consumed = text.length - last.len_after;\n return [ consumed, [ tag ].concat(res) ];\n }\n else {\n // Restore the state of the other kind. We might have mistakenly closed it.\n this[other_slot] = other;\n this[state_slot] = state;\n\n // We can't reuse the processed result as it could have wrong parsing contexts in it.\n return [ md.length, md ];\n }\n }\n }; // End returned function\n}\n\nMarkdown.dialects.Gruber.inline[\"**\"] = strong_em(\"strong\", \"**\");\nMarkdown.dialects.Gruber.inline[\"__\"] = strong_em(\"strong\", \"__\");\nMarkdown.dialects.Gruber.inline[\"*\"] = strong_em(\"em\", \"*\");\nMarkdown.dialects.Gruber.inline[\"_\"] = strong_em(\"em\", \"_\");\n\n\n// Build default order from insertion order.\nMarkdown.buildBlockOrder = function(d) {\n var ord = [];\n for ( var i in d ) {\n if ( i == \"__order__\" || i == \"__call__\" ) continue;\n ord.push( i );\n }\n d.__order__ = ord;\n};\n\n// Build patterns for inline matcher\nMarkdown.buildInlinePatterns = function(d) {\n var patterns = [];\n\n for ( var i in d ) {\n // __foo__ is reserved and not a pattern\n if ( i.match( /^__.*__$/) ) continue;\n var l = i.replace( /([\\\\.*+?|()\\[\\]{}])/g, \"\\\\$1\" )\n .replace( /\\n/, \"\\\\n\" );\n patterns.push( i.length == 1 ? l : \"(?:\" + l + \")\" );\n }\n\n patterns = patterns.join(\"|\");\n d.__patterns__ = patterns;\n //print(\"patterns:\", uneval( patterns ) );\n\n var fn = d.__call__;\n d.__call__ = function(text, pattern) {\n if ( pattern != undefined ) {\n return fn.call(this, text, pattern);\n }\n else\n {\n return fn.call(this, text, patterns);\n }\n };\n};\n\nMarkdown.DialectHelpers = {};\nMarkdown.DialectHelpers.inline_until_char = function( text, want ) {\n var consumed = 0,\n nodes = [];\n\n while ( true ) {\n if ( text.charAt( consumed ) == want ) {\n // Found the character we were looking for\n consumed++;\n return [ consumed, nodes ];\n }\n\n if ( consumed >= text.length ) {\n // No closing char found. Abort.\n return null;\n }\n\n var res = this.dialect.inline.__oneElement__.call(this, text.substr( consumed ) );\n consumed += res[ 0 ];\n // Add any returned nodes.\n nodes.push.apply( nodes, res.slice( 1 ) );\n }\n}\n\n// Helper function to make sub-classing a dialect easier\nMarkdown.subclassDialect = function( d ) {\n function Block() {}\n Block.prototype = d.block;\n function Inline() {}\n Inline.prototype = d.inline;\n\n return { block: new Block(), inline: new Inline() };\n};\n\nMarkdown.buildBlockOrder ( Markdown.dialects.Gruber.block );\nMarkdown.buildInlinePatterns( Markdown.dialects.Gruber.inline );\n\nMarkdown.dialects.Maruku = Markdown.subclassDialect( Markdown.dialects.Gruber );\n\nMarkdown.dialects.Maruku.processMetaHash = function processMetaHash( meta_string ) {\n var meta = split_meta_hash( meta_string ),\n attr = {};\n\n for ( var i = 0; i < meta.length; ++i ) {\n // id: #foo\n if ( /^#/.test( meta[ i ] ) ) {\n attr.id = meta[ i ].substring( 1 );\n }\n // class: .foo\n else if ( /^\\./.test( meta[ i ] ) ) {\n // if class already exists, append the new one\n if ( attr[\"class\"] ) {\n attr[\"class\"] = attr[\"class\"] + meta[ i ].replace( /./, \" \" );\n }\n else {\n attr[\"class\"] = meta[ i ].substring( 1 );\n }\n }\n // attribute: foo=bar\n else if ( /\\=/.test( meta[ i ] ) ) {\n var s = meta[ i ].split( /\\=/ );\n attr[ s[ 0 ] ] = s[ 1 ];\n }\n }\n\n return attr;\n}\n\nfunction split_meta_hash( meta_string ) {\n var meta = meta_string.split( \"\" ),\n parts = [ \"\" ],\n in_quotes = false;\n\n while ( meta.length ) {\n var letter = meta.shift();\n switch ( letter ) {\n case \" \" :\n // if we're in a quoted section, keep it\n if ( in_quotes ) {\n parts[ parts.length - 1 ] += letter;\n }\n // otherwise make a new part\n else {\n parts.push( \"\" );\n }\n break;\n case \"'\" :\n case '\"' :\n // reverse the quotes and move straight on\n in_quotes = !in_quotes;\n break;\n case \"\\\\\" :\n // shift off the next letter to be used straight away.\n // it was escaped so we'll keep it whatever it is\n letter = meta.shift();\n default :\n parts[ parts.length - 1 ] += letter;\n break;\n }\n }\n\n return parts;\n}\n\nMarkdown.dialects.Maruku.block.document_meta = function document_meta( block, next ) {\n // we're only interested in the first block\n if ( block.lineNumber > 1 ) return undefined;\n\n // document_meta blocks consist of one or more lines of `Key: Value\\n`\n if ( ! block.match( /^(?:\\w+:.*\\n)*\\w+:.*$/ ) ) return undefined;\n\n // make an attribute node if it doesn't exist\n if ( !extract_attr( this.tree ) ) {\n this.tree.splice( 1, 0, {} );\n }\n\n var pairs = block.split( /\\n/ );\n for ( p in pairs ) {\n var m = pairs[ p ].match( /(\\w+):\\s*(.*)$/ ),\n key = m[ 1 ].toLowerCase(),\n value = m[ 2 ];\n\n this.tree[ 1 ][ key ] = value;\n }\n\n // document_meta produces no content!\n return [];\n};\n\nMarkdown.dialects.Maruku.block.block_meta = function block_meta( block, next ) {\n // check if the last line of the block is an meta hash\n var m = block.match( /(^|\\n) {0,3}\\{:\\s*((?:\\\\\\}|[^\\}])*)\\s*\\}$/ );\n if ( !m ) return undefined;\n\n // process the meta hash\n var attr = this.dialect.processMetaHash( m[ 2 ] );\n\n var hash;\n\n // if we matched ^ then we need to apply meta to the previous block\n if ( m[ 1 ] === \"\" ) {\n var node = this.tree[ this.tree.length - 1 ];\n hash = extract_attr( node );\n\n // if the node is a string (rather than JsonML), bail\n if ( typeof node === \"string\" ) return undefined;\n\n // create the attribute hash if it doesn't exist\n if ( !hash ) {\n hash = {};\n node.splice( 1, 0, hash );\n }\n\n // add the attributes in\n for ( a in attr ) {\n hash[ a ] = attr[ a ];\n }\n\n // return nothing so the meta hash is removed\n return [];\n }\n\n // pull the meta hash off the block and process what's left\n var b = block.replace( /\\n.*$/, \"\" ),\n result = this.processBlock( b, [] );\n\n // get or make the attributes hash\n hash = extract_attr( result[ 0 ] );\n if ( !hash ) {\n hash = {};\n result[ 0 ].splice( 1, 0, hash );\n }\n\n // attach the attributes to the block\n for ( a in attr ) {\n hash[ a ] = attr[ a ];\n }\n\n return result;\n};\n\nMarkdown.dialects.Maruku.block.definition_list = function definition_list( block, next ) {\n // one or more terms followed by one or more definitions, in a single block\n var tight = /^((?:[^\\s:].*\\n)+):\\s+([\\s\\S]+)$/,\n list = [ \"dl\" ],\n i, m;\n\n // see if we're dealing with a tight or loose block\n if ( ( m = block.match( tight ) ) ) {\n // pull subsequent tight DL blocks out of `next`\n var blocks = [ block ];\n while ( next.length && tight.exec( next[ 0 ] ) ) {\n blocks.push( next.shift() );\n }\n\n for ( var b = 0; b < blocks.length; ++b ) {\n var m = blocks[ b ].match( tight ),\n terms = m[ 1 ].replace( /\\n$/, \"\" ).split( /\\n/ ),\n defns = m[ 2 ].split( /\\n:\\s+/ );\n\n // print( uneval( m ) );\n\n for ( i = 0; i < terms.length; ++i ) {\n list.push( [ \"dt\", terms[ i ] ] );\n }\n\n for ( i = 0; i < defns.length; ++i ) {\n // run inline processing over the definition\n list.push( [ \"dd\" ].concat( this.processInline( defns[ i ].replace( /(\\n)\\s+/, \"$1\" ) ) ) );\n }\n }\n }\n else {\n return undefined;\n }\n\n return [ list ];\n};\n\n// splits on unescaped instances of @ch. If @ch is not a character the result\n// can be unpredictable\n\nMarkdown.dialects.Maruku.block.table = function table (block, next) {\n\n var _split_on_unescaped = function(s, ch) {\n ch = ch || '\\\\s';\n if (ch.match(/^[\\\\|\\[\\]{}?*.+^$]$/)) { ch = '\\\\' + ch; }\n var res = [ ],\n r = new RegExp('^((?:\\\\\\\\.|[^\\\\\\\\' + ch + '])*)' + ch + '(.*)'),\n m;\n while(m = s.match(r)) {\n res.push(m[1]);\n s = m[2];\n }\n res.push(s);\n return res;\n }\n\n var leading_pipe = /^ {0,3}\\|(.+)\\n {0,3}\\|\\s*([\\-:]+[\\-| :]*)\\n((?:\\s*\\|.*(?:\\n|$))*)(?=\\n|$)/,\n // find at least an unescaped pipe in each line\n no_leading_pipe = /^ {0,3}(\\S(?:\\\\.|[^\\\\|])*\\|.*)\\n {0,3}([\\-:]+\\s*\\|[\\-| :]*)\\n((?:(?:\\\\.|[^\\\\|])*\\|.*(?:\\n|$))*)(?=\\n|$)/,\n i, m;\n if (m = block.match(leading_pipe)) {\n // remove leading pipes in contents\n // (header and horizontal rule already have the leading pipe left out)\n m[3] = m[3].replace(/^\\s*\\|/gm, '');\n } else if (! ( m = block.match(no_leading_pipe))) {\n return undefined;\n }\n\n var table = [ \"table\", [ \"thead\", [ \"tr\" ] ], [ \"tbody\" ] ];\n\n // remove trailing pipes, then split on pipes\n // (no escaped pipes are allowed in horizontal rule)\n m[2] = m[2].replace(/\\|\\s*$/, '').split('|');\n\n // process alignment\n var html_attrs = [ ];\n forEach (m[2], function (s) {\n if (s.match(/^\\s*-+:\\s*$/)) html_attrs.push({align: \"right\"});\n else if (s.match(/^\\s*:-+\\s*$/)) html_attrs.push({align: \"left\"});\n else if (s.match(/^\\s*:-+:\\s*$/)) html_attrs.push({align: \"center\"});\n else html_attrs.push({});\n });\n\n // now for the header, avoid escaped pipes\n m[1] = _split_on_unescaped(m[1].replace(/\\|\\s*$/, ''), '|');\n for (i = 0; i < m[1].length; i++) {\n table[1][1].push(['th', html_attrs[i] || {}].concat(\n this.processInline(m[1][i].trim())));\n }\n\n // now for body contents\n forEach (m[3].replace(/\\|\\s*$/mg, '').split('\\n'), function (row) {\n var html_row = ['tr'];\n row = _split_on_unescaped(row, '|');\n for (i = 0; i < row.length; i++) {\n html_row.push(['td', html_attrs[i] || {}].concat(this.processInline(row[i].trim())));\n }\n table[2].push(html_row);\n }, this);\n\n return [table];\n}\n\nMarkdown.dialects.Maruku.inline[ \"{:\" ] = function inline_meta( text, matches, out ) {\n if ( !out.length ) {\n return [ 2, \"{:\" ];\n }\n\n // get the preceeding element\n var before = out[ out.length - 1 ];\n\n if ( typeof before === \"string\" ) {\n return [ 2, \"{:\" ];\n }\n\n // match a meta hash\n var m = text.match( /^\\{:\\s*((?:\\\\\\}|[^\\}])*)\\s*\\}/ );\n\n // no match, false alarm\n if ( !m ) {\n return [ 2, \"{:\" ];\n }\n\n // attach the attributes to the preceeding element\n var meta = this.dialect.processMetaHash( m[ 1 ] ),\n attr = extract_attr( before );\n\n if ( !attr ) {\n attr = {};\n before.splice( 1, 0, attr );\n }\n\n for ( var k in meta ) {\n attr[ k ] = meta[ k ];\n }\n\n // cut out the string and replace it with nothing\n return [ m[ 0 ].length, \"\" ];\n};\n\nMarkdown.dialects.Maruku.inline.__escape__ = /^\\\\[\\\\`\\*_{}\\[\\]()#\\+.!\\-|:]/;\n\nMarkdown.buildBlockOrder ( Markdown.dialects.Maruku.block );\nMarkdown.buildInlinePatterns( Markdown.dialects.Maruku.inline );\n\nvar isArray = Array.isArray || function(obj) {\n return Object.prototype.toString.call(obj) == \"[object Array]\";\n};\n\nvar forEach;\n// Don't mess with Array.prototype. Its not friendly\nif ( Array.prototype.forEach ) {\n forEach = function( arr, cb, thisp ) {\n return arr.forEach( cb, thisp );\n };\n}\nelse {\n forEach = function(arr, cb, thisp) {\n for (var i = 0; i < arr.length; i++) {\n cb.call(thisp || arr, arr[i], i, arr);\n }\n }\n}\n\nvar isEmpty = function( obj ) {\n for ( var key in obj ) {\n if ( hasOwnProperty.call( obj, key ) ) {\n return false;\n }\n }\n\n return true;\n}\n\nfunction extract_attr( jsonml ) {\n return isArray(jsonml)\n && jsonml.length > 1\n && typeof jsonml[ 1 ] === \"object\"\n && !( isArray(jsonml[ 1 ]) )\n ? jsonml[ 1 ]\n : undefined;\n}\n\n\n\n/**\n * renderJsonML( jsonml[, options] ) -> String\n * - jsonml (Array): JsonML array to render to XML\n * - options (Object): options\n *\n * Converts the given JsonML into well-formed XML.\n *\n * The options currently understood are:\n *\n * - root (Boolean): wether or not the root node should be included in the\n * output, or just its children. The default `false` is to not include the\n * root itself.\n */\nexpose.renderJsonML = function( jsonml, options ) {\n options = options || {};\n // include the root element in the rendered output?\n options.root = options.root || false;\n\n var content = [];\n\n if ( options.root ) {\n content.push( render_tree( jsonml ) );\n }\n else {\n jsonml.shift(); // get rid of the tag\n if ( jsonml.length && typeof jsonml[ 0 ] === \"object\" && !( jsonml[ 0 ] instanceof Array ) ) {\n jsonml.shift(); // get rid of the attributes\n }\n\n while ( jsonml.length ) {\n content.push( render_tree( jsonml.shift() ) );\n }\n }\n\n return content.join( \"\\n\\n\" );\n};\n\nfunction escapeHTML( text ) {\n return text.replace( /&/g, \"&\" )\n .replace( /</g, \"<\" )\n .replace( />/g, \">\" )\n .replace( /\"/g, \""\" )\n .replace( /'/g, \"'\" );\n}\n\nfunction render_tree( jsonml ) {\n // basic case\n if ( typeof jsonml === \"string\" ) {\n return escapeHTML( jsonml );\n }\n\n var tag = jsonml.shift(),\n attributes = {},\n content = [];\n\n if ( jsonml.length && typeof jsonml[ 0 ] === \"object\" && !( jsonml[ 0 ] instanceof Array ) ) {\n attributes = jsonml.shift();\n }\n\n while ( jsonml.length ) {\n content.push( render_tree( jsonml.shift() ) );\n }\n\n var tag_attrs = \"\";\n for ( var a in attributes ) {\n tag_attrs += \" \" + a + '=\"' + escapeHTML( attributes[ a ] ) + '\"';\n }\n\n // be careful about adding whitespace here for inline elements\n if ( tag == \"img\" || tag == \"br\" || tag == \"hr\" ) {\n return \"<\"+ tag + tag_attrs + \"/>\";\n }\n else {\n return \"<\"+ tag + tag_attrs + \">\" + content.join( \"\" ) + \"</\" + tag + \">\";\n }\n}\n\nfunction convert_tree_to_html( tree, references, options ) {\n var i;\n options = options || {};\n\n // shallow clone\n var jsonml = tree.slice( 0 );\n\n if ( typeof options.preprocessTreeNode === \"function\" ) {\n jsonml = options.preprocessTreeNode(jsonml, references);\n }\n\n // Clone attributes if they exist\n var attrs = extract_attr( jsonml );\n if ( attrs ) {\n jsonml[ 1 ] = {};\n for ( i in attrs ) {\n jsonml[ 1 ][ i ] = attrs[ i ];\n }\n attrs = jsonml[ 1 ];\n }\n\n // basic case\n if ( typeof jsonml === \"string\" ) {\n return jsonml;\n }\n\n // convert this node\n switch ( jsonml[ 0 ] ) {\n case \"header\":\n jsonml[ 0 ] = \"h\" + jsonml[ 1 ].level;\n delete jsonml[ 1 ].level;\n break;\n case \"bulletlist\":\n jsonml[ 0 ] = \"ul\";\n break;\n case \"numberlist\":\n jsonml[ 0 ] = \"ol\";\n break;\n case \"listitem\":\n jsonml[ 0 ] = \"li\";\n break;\n case \"para\":\n jsonml[ 0 ] = \"p\";\n break;\n case \"markdown\":\n jsonml[ 0 ] = \"html\";\n if ( attrs ) delete attrs.references;\n break;\n case \"code_block\":\n jsonml[ 0 ] = \"pre\";\n i = attrs ? 2 : 1;\n var code = [ \"code\" ];\n code.push.apply( code, jsonml.splice( i, jsonml.length - i ) );\n jsonml[ i ] = code;\n break;\n case \"inlinecode\":\n jsonml[ 0 ] = \"code\";\n break;\n case \"img\":\n jsonml[ 1 ].src = jsonml[ 1 ].href;\n delete jsonml[ 1 ].href;\n break;\n case \"linebreak\":\n jsonml[ 0 ] = \"br\";\n break;\n case \"link\":\n jsonml[ 0 ] = \"a\";\n break;\n case \"link_ref\":\n jsonml[ 0 ] = \"a\";\n\n // grab this ref and clean up the attribute node\n var ref = references[ attrs.ref ];\n\n // if the reference exists, make the link\n if ( ref ) {\n delete attrs.ref;\n\n // add in the href and title, if present\n attrs.href = ref.href;\n if ( ref.title ) {\n attrs.title = ref.title;\n }\n\n // get rid of the unneeded original text\n delete attrs.original;\n }\n // the reference doesn't exist, so revert to plain text\n else {\n return attrs.original;\n }\n break;\n case \"img_ref\":\n jsonml[ 0 ] = \"img\";\n\n // grab this ref and clean up the attribute node\n var ref = references[ attrs.ref ];\n\n // if the reference exists, make the link\n if ( ref ) {\n delete attrs.ref;\n\n // add in the href and title, if present\n attrs.src = ref.href;\n if ( ref.title ) {\n attrs.title = ref.title;\n }\n\n // get rid of the unneeded original text\n delete attrs.original;\n }\n // the reference doesn't exist, so revert to plain text\n else {\n return attrs.original;\n }\n break;\n }\n\n // convert all the children\n i = 1;\n\n // deal with the attribute node, if it exists\n if ( attrs ) {\n // if there are keys, skip over it\n for ( var key in jsonml[ 1 ] ) {\n i = 2;\n break;\n }\n // if there aren't, remove it\n if ( i === 1 ) {\n jsonml.splice( i, 1 );\n }\n }\n\n for ( ; i < jsonml.length; ++i ) {\n jsonml[ i ] = convert_tree_to_html( jsonml[ i ], references, options );\n }\n\n return jsonml;\n}\n\n\n// merges adjacent text nodes into a single node\nfunction merge_text_nodes( jsonml ) {\n // skip the tag name and attribute hash\n var i = extract_attr( jsonml ) ? 2 : 1;\n\n while ( i < jsonml.length ) {\n // if it's a string check the next item too\n if ( typeof jsonml[ i ] === \"string\" ) {\n if ( i + 1 < jsonml.length && typeof jsonml[ i + 1 ] === \"string\" ) {\n // merge the second string into the first and remove it\n jsonml[ i ] += jsonml.splice( i + 1, 1 )[ 0 ];\n }\n else {\n ++i;\n }\n }\n // if it's not a string recurse\n else {\n merge_text_nodes( jsonml[ i ] );\n ++i;\n }\n }\n}\n\n} )( (function() {\n if ( typeof exports === \"undefined\" ) {\n window.markdown = {};\n return window.markdown;\n }\n else {\n return exports;\n }\n} )() );\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"title": "$:/plugins/tiddlywiki/markdown/markdown.js",
"module-type": "library"
},
"$:/plugins/tiddlywiki/markdown/images/new-markdown-button": {
"title": "$:/plugins/tiddlywiki/markdown/images/new-markdown-button",
"tags": "$:/tags/Image",
"text": "<svg class=\"tc-image-new-markdown-button tc-image-button\" viewBox=\"0 0 128 128\" width=\"22pt\" height=\"22pt\">\n <g fill-rule=\"evenodd\">\n <rect x=\"80\" y=\"96\" width=\"48\" height=\"16\" rx=\"8\"></rect>\n <rect x=\"96\" y=\"80\" width=\"16\" height=\"48\" rx=\"8\"></rect>\n <path d=\"M3.23876972,39.5396716 C3.23876972,35.9653274 6.13586353,33.0691646 9.7141757,33.0691646 L98.1283744,33.0691646 C101.706101,33.0691646 104.60378,35.9646626 104.60378,39.5396716 L104.60378,84.8296213 C104.60378,88.4039654 101.706687,91.3001282 98.1283744,91.3001282 L9.7141757,91.3001282 C6.13644944,91.3001282 3.23876972,88.4046302 3.23876972,84.8296213 L3.23876972,39.5396716 L3.23876972,39.5396716 Z M-2.15298617,39.5396716 L-2.15298617,84.8296213 C-2.15298617,91.3833243 3.15957363,96.6918841 9.7141757,96.6918841 L98.1283744,96.6918841 C104.684083,96.6918841 109.995536,91.382138 109.995536,84.8296213 L109.995536,39.5396716 C109.995536,32.9859686 104.682977,27.6774087 98.1283744,27.6774087 L9.7141757,27.6774087 C3.15846686,27.6774087 -2.15298617,32.9871549 -2.15298617,39.5396716 Z M14.0222815,80.5166164 L14.0222815,43.8526764 L24.8057933,43.8526764 L35.589305,57.3320661 L46.3728168,43.8526764 L57.1563286,43.8526764 L57.1563286,80.5166164 L46.3728168,80.5166164 L46.3728168,59.4887685 L35.589305,72.9681582 L24.8057933,59.4887685 L24.8057933,80.5166164 L14.0222815,80.5166164 Z M81.4192301,80.5166164 L65.2439624,62.723822 L76.0274742,62.723822 L76.0274742,43.8526764 L86.810986,43.8526764 L86.810986,62.723822 L97.5944978,62.723822 L81.4192301,80.5166164 Z\"transform=\"translate(53.921275, 62.184646) rotate(-60.000000) translate(-53.921275, -62.184646) \"></path>\n </g>\n</svg>"
},
"$:/plugins/tiddlywiki/markdown/new-markdown-button": {
"title": "$:/plugins/tiddlywiki/markdown/new-markdown-button",
"tags": "$:/tags/PageControls",
"caption": "{{$:/plugins/tiddlywiki/markdown/images/new-markdown-button}} {{$:/language/Buttons/NewMarkdown/Caption}}",
"description": "{{$:/language/Buttons/NewMarkdown/Hint}}",
"list-after": "$:/core/ui/Buttons/new-tiddler",
"text": "<$button tooltip={{$:/language/Buttons/NewMarkdown/Hint}} aria-label={{$:/language/Buttons/NewMarkdown/Caption}} class=<<tv-config-toolbar-class>>>\n<$action-sendmessage $message=\"tm-new-tiddler\" type=\"text/x-markdown\"/>\n<$list filter=\"[<tv-config-toolbar-icons>prefix[yes]]\">\n{{$:/plugins/tiddlywiki/markdown/images/new-markdown-button}}\n</$list>\n<$list filter=\"[<tv-config-toolbar-text>prefix[yes]]\">\n<span class=\"tc-btn-text\"><$text text={{$:/language/Buttons/NewMarkdown/Caption}}/></span>\n</$list>\n</$button>\n"
},
"$:/plugins/tiddlywiki/markdown/readme": {
"title": "$:/plugins/tiddlywiki/markdown/readme",
"text": "This is a TiddlyWiki plugin for parsing Markdown text, based on the [[markdown-js|https://github.com/evilstreak/markdown-js]] project from Dominic Baggott. \n\nIt is completely self-contained, and doesn't need an Internet connection in order to work. It works both in the browser and under Node.js.\n\n[[Source code|https://github.com/Jermolene/TiddlyWiki5/blob/master/plugins/tiddlywiki/markdown]]\n"
},
"$:/plugins/tiddlywiki/markdown/usage": {
"title": "$:/plugins/tiddlywiki/markdown/usage",
"text": "! Markdown Dialects\n\nBy default the markdown parser recognises the original dialect of Markdown [[as described by John Gruber|http://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/]]. An extended dialect called \"Maruku\" is also included that provides table support and other advanced features. The syntax extensions are modelled on those of [[PHP Markdown Extra|https://michelf.ca/projects/php-markdown/extra/]].\n\nThe configuration tiddler [[$:/config/markdown/dialect]] determines which dialect is used:\n\n|!Dialect |!Description |\n|Gruber |Standard Markdown |\n|Maruku |Extended Maruku Markdown |\n\n\n! Creating ~WikiLinks\n\nCreate wiki links with the usual Markdown link syntax targeting `#` and the target tiddler title:\n\n```\n[link text](#TiddlerTitle)\n```\n\n! Images\n\nMarkdown image syntax can be used to reference images by tiddler title or an external URI. For example:\n\n```\n![alt text](/path/to/img.jpg \"Title\")\n\n![alt text](Motovun Jack.jpg \"Title\")\n```\n"
},
"$:/plugins/tiddlywiki/markdown/wrapper.js": {
"title": "$:/plugins/tiddlywiki/markdown/wrapper.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/plugins/tiddlywiki/markdown/wrapper.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: parser\n\nWraps up the markdown-js parser for use in TiddlyWiki5\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\nvar markdown = require(\"$:/plugins/tiddlywiki/markdown/markdown.js\");\n\nvar CONFIG_DIALECT_TIDDLER = \"$:/config/markdown/dialect\",\n\tDEFAULT_DIALECT = \"Gruber\";\n\nfunction transformNodes(nodes) {\n\tvar results = [];\n\tfor(var index=0; index<nodes.length; index++) {\n\t\tresults.push(transformNode(nodes[index]));\n\t}\n\treturn results;\n}\n\nfunction transformNode(node) {\n\tif($tw.utils.isArray(node)) {\n\t\tvar p = 0,\n\t\t\twidget = {type: \"element\", tag: node[p++]};\n\t\tif(!$tw.utils.isArray(node[p]) && typeof(node[p]) === \"object\") {\n\t\t\twidget.attributes = {};\n\t\t\t$tw.utils.each(node[p++],function(value,name) {\n\t\t\t\twidget.attributes[name] = {type: \"string\", value: value};\n\t\t\t});\n\t\t}\n\t\twidget.children = transformNodes(node.slice(p++));\n\t\t// Massage images into the image widget\n\t\tif(widget.tag === \"img\") {\n\t\t\twidget.type = \"image\";\n\t\t\tif(widget.attributes.alt) {\n\t\t\t\twidget.attributes.tooltip = widget.attributes.alt;\n\t\t\t\tdelete widget.attributes.alt;\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t\tif(widget.attributes.src) {\n\t\t\t\twidget.attributes.source = widget.attributes.src;\n\t\t\t\tdelete widget.attributes.src;\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t}\n\t\t// Convert internal links to proper wikilinks\n\t\tif (widget.tag === \"a\" && widget.attributes.href.value[0] === \"#\") {\n\t\t\twidget.type = \"link\";\n\t\t\twidget.attributes.to = widget.attributes.href;\n\t\t\tif (widget.attributes.to.type === \"string\") {\n\t\t\t\t//Remove '#' before conversion to wikilink\n\t\t\t\twidget.attributes.to.value = widget.attributes.to.value.substr(1);\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t\t//Children is fine\n\t\t\tdelete widget.tag;\n\t\t\tdelete widget.attributes.href;\n\t\t}\n\t\treturn widget;\n\t} else {\n\t\treturn {type: \"text\", text: node};\n\t}\n}\n\nvar MarkdownParser = function(type,text,options) {\n\tvar dialect = options.wiki.getTiddlerText(CONFIG_DIALECT_TIDDLER,DEFAULT_DIALECT),\n\t\tmarkdownTree = markdown.toHTMLTree(text,dialect),\n\t\tnode = $tw.utils.isArray(markdownTree[1]) ? markdownTree.slice(1) : markdownTree.slice(2);\n\tthis.tree = transformNodes(node);\n};\n\n/*\n\n[ 'html',\n [ 'p', 'something' ],\n [ 'h1',\n 'heading and ',\n [ 'strong', 'other' ] ] ]\n\n*/\n\nexports[\"text/x-markdown\"] = MarkdownParser;\n\n})();\n\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "parser"
}
}
}
<$button tooltip={{$:/language/Buttons/NewMarkdown/Hint}} aria-label={{$:/language/Buttons/NewMarkdown/Caption}} class=<<tv-config-toolbar-class>>>
<$action-sendmessage $message="tm-new-tiddler" type="text/x-markdown"/>
<$list filter="[<tv-config-toolbar-icons>prefix[yes]]">
{{$:/plugins/tiddlywiki/markdown/images/new-markdown-button}}
</$list>
<$list filter="[<tv-config-toolbar-text>prefix[yes]]">
<span class="tc-btn-text"><$text text={{$:/language/Buttons/NewMarkdown/Caption}}/></span>
</$list>
</$button>
{
"tiddlers": {
"$:/config/SaveTrailPlugin/enable-drafts": {
"title": "$:/config/SaveTrailPlugin/enable-drafts",
"text": "no"
},
"$:/config/SaveTrailPlugin/enable": {
"title": "$:/config/SaveTrailPlugin/enable",
"text": "yes"
},
"$:/config/SaveTrailPlugin/sync-drafts-filter": {
"title": "$:/config/SaveTrailPlugin/sync-drafts-filter",
"text": "[is[tiddler]has[draft.of]]"
},
"$:/plugins/tiddlywiki/savetrail/readme": {
"title": "$:/plugins/tiddlywiki/savetrail/readme",
"text": "This plugin causes TiddlyWiki to continuously download (as a JSON file) the contents of any tiddler that is manually changed by any of several means:\n\n* Confirming an edit\n* Deleting tiddlers\n* Imports\n* Renames/relinks\n* Optionally, typing in draft tiddlers can trigger a download\n\nWhere appropriate, separate 'before' and 'after' files are downloaded. Configured correctly, the browser will download the files silently in the background, and they can be used as a backup in case of accidental data loss.\n\n''CAUTION'': Using this plugin will generate a //lot// of files in your downloads folder! Some points to watch:\n\n* This plugin is pretty much unusable unless your browser is set up to download files automatically, without prompting for the location\n* Automatic file downloading doesn't work in all browsers - in particular, Safari and Internet Explorer do not currently support the [[necessary HTML5 feature|http://caniuse.com/download]]\n* Be aware of the privacy implications of leaving a plaintext trail of all of your edits. You should only enable this plugin on computers that your trust and with content that is not sensitive\n* The plugin uses the tiddler title plus a timestamp to generate a filename for the downloaded file, but some browsers ignore the specified title and generate their own title for each downloaded file\n\nOther points to note:\n\n* By default, after a draft tiddler has been modified the plugin waits until at least one second has elapsed since the last typing before it attempts to download the tiddler. This reduces the number of times that rapidly changing tiddlers are saved\n* This plugin can be used with both the single file HTML configuration and under Node.js because it is independent of the usual saving and syncing processes\n"
},
"$:/plugins/tiddlywiki/savetrail/savetrail.js": {
"title": "$:/plugins/tiddlywiki/savetrail/savetrail.js",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/plugins/tiddlywiki/savetrail/savetrail.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: startup\n\nA startup module to download every changed tiddler as a JSON file\n\n\\*/\n(function(){\n\n/*jslint node: true, browser: true */\n/*global $tw: false */\n\"use strict\";\n\n// Export name and synchronous status\nexports.name = \"savetrail\";\nexports.platforms = [\"browser\"];\nexports.after = [\"startup\"];\nexports.synchronous = true;\n\n// Favicon tiddler\nvar ENABLE_TIDDLER_TITLE = \"$:/config/SaveTrailPlugin/enable\",\n\tENABLE_DRAFTS_TIDDLER_TITLE = \"$:/config/SaveTrailPlugin/enable-drafts\",\n\tSYNC_DRAFTS_FILTER_TIDDLER_TITLE = \"$:/config/SaveTrailPlugin/sync-drafts-filter\";\n\nexports.startup = function() {\n\t$tw.savetrail = $tw.savetrail || {};\n\t// Create a syncer to handle autosaving\n\t$tw.savetrail.syncadaptor = new SaveTrailSyncAdaptor();\n\t$tw.savetrail.syncer = new $tw.Syncer({\n\t\twiki: $tw.wiki,\n\t\tsyncadaptor: $tw.savetrail.syncadaptor,\n\t\ttitleSyncFilter: SYNC_DRAFTS_FILTER_TIDDLER_TITLE,\n\t\tlogging: false,\n\t\tdisableUI: true\n\t});\n\t// Add hooks for trapping user actions\n\t$tw.hooks.addHook(\"th-saving-tiddler\",function(tiddler) {\n\t\tif($tw.wiki.checkTiddlerText(ENABLE_TIDDLER_TITLE,\"yes\")) {\n\t\t\tvar oldTiddler = $tw.wiki.getTiddler(tiddler.fields.title);\n\t\t\tif(oldTiddler) {\n\t\t\t\tsaveTiddlerFile(oldTiddler,{reason: \"overwritten\"});\t\t\t\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t\tsaveTiddlerFile(tiddler,{reason: \"saved\"});\n\t\t}\n\t\treturn tiddler;\n\t});\n\t$tw.hooks.addHook(\"th-renaming-tiddler\",function(newTiddler,oldTiddler) {\n\t\tif($tw.wiki.checkTiddlerText(ENABLE_TIDDLER_TITLE,\"yes\")) {\n\t\t\tif(oldTiddler) {\n\t\t\t\tsaveTiddlerFile(oldTiddler,{reason: \"deleted\"});\t\t\t\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t\tsaveTiddlerFile(newTiddler,{reason: \"renamed\"});\n\t\t}\n\t\treturn newTiddler;\n\t});\n\t$tw.hooks.addHook(\"th-relinking-tiddler\",function(newTiddler,oldTiddler) {\n\t\tif($tw.wiki.checkTiddlerText(ENABLE_TIDDLER_TITLE,\"yes\")) {\n\t\t\tif(oldTiddler) {\n\t\t\t\tsaveTiddlerFile(oldTiddler,{reason: \"overwritten\"});\t\t\t\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t\tsaveTiddlerFile(newTiddler,{reason: \"relinked\"});\n\t\t}\n\t\treturn newTiddler;\n\t});\n\t$tw.hooks.addHook(\"th-importing-tiddler\",function(tiddler) {\n\t\tif($tw.wiki.checkTiddlerText(ENABLE_TIDDLER_TITLE,\"yes\")) {\n\t\t\tvar oldTiddler = $tw.wiki.getTiddler(tiddler.fields.title);\n\t\t\tif(oldTiddler) {\n\t\t\t\tsaveTiddlerFile(oldTiddler,{reason: \"overwritten\"});\t\t\t\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t\tsaveTiddlerFile(tiddler,{reason: \"imported\"});\n\t\t}\n\t\treturn tiddler;\n\t});\n\t$tw.hooks.addHook(\"th-deleting-tiddler\",function(tiddler) {\n\t\tif($tw.wiki.checkTiddlerText(ENABLE_TIDDLER_TITLE,\"yes\")) {\n\t\t\tsaveTiddlerFile(tiddler,{reason: \"deleted\"});\n\t\t}\n\t\treturn tiddler;\n\t});\n};\n\nfunction SaveTrailSyncAdaptor(options) {\n\tthis.logger = new $tw.utils.Logger(\"SaveTrail\");\n}\n\nSaveTrailSyncAdaptor.prototype.name = \"savetrail\";\n\nSaveTrailSyncAdaptor.prototype.isReady = function() {\n\t// The savetrail adaptor is always ready\n\treturn true;\n};\n\nSaveTrailSyncAdaptor.prototype.getTiddlerInfo = function(tiddler) {\n\treturn {};\n};\n\n/*\nSave a tiddler and invoke the callback with (err,adaptorInfo,revision)\n*/\nSaveTrailSyncAdaptor.prototype.saveTiddler = function(tiddler,callback) {\n\tif($tw.wiki.checkTiddlerText(ENABLE_TIDDLER_TITLE,\"yes\")) {\n\t\tvar isDraft = $tw.utils.hop(tiddler.fields,\"draft.of\");\n\t\tif(!isDraft || $tw.wiki.checkTiddlerText(ENABLE_DRAFTS_TIDDLER_TITLE,\"yes\")) {\n\t\t\tsaveTiddlerFile(tiddler,{reason: \"modified\"});\n\t\t}\n\t}\n\tcallback(null);\n};\n\n/*\nLoad a tiddler and invoke the callback with (err,tiddlerFields)\n*/\nSaveTrailSyncAdaptor.prototype.loadTiddler = function(title,callback) {\n\tcallback(null,null);\n};\n\n/*\nDelete a tiddler and invoke the callback with (err)\n*/\nSaveTrailSyncAdaptor.prototype.deleteTiddler = function(title,callback,options) {\n\tcallback(null);\n};\n\nfunction saveTiddlerFile(tiddler,options) {\n\toptions = options || {};\n\tvar reason = options.reason || \"changed\",\n\t\tillegalFilenameCharacters = /<|>|\\:|\\\"|\\/|\\\\|\\||\\?|\\*|\\^|\\s/g,\n\t\tfixedTitle = $tw.utils.transliterate(tiddler.fields.title).replace(illegalFilenameCharacters,\"_\"),\n\t\tformattedDate = $tw.utils.stringifyDate(new Date()),\n\t\tfilename = fixedTitle + \".\" + formattedDate + \".\" + reason + \".json\",\n\t\tfields = new Object();\n\tfor(var field in tiddler.fields) {\n\t\tfields[field] = tiddler.getFieldString(field);\n\t}\n\tvar text = JSON.stringify([fields],null,$tw.config.preferences.jsonSpaces),\n\t\tlink = document.createElement(\"a\");\n\tlink.setAttribute(\"target\",\"_blank\");\n\tlink.setAttribute(\"rel\",\"noopener noreferrer\");\n\tif(Blob !== undefined) {\n\t\tvar blob = new Blob([text], {type: \"text/plain\"});\n\t\tlink.setAttribute(\"href\", URL.createObjectURL(blob));\n\t} else {\n\t\tlink.setAttribute(\"href\",\"data:text/plain,\" + encodeURIComponent(text));\n\t}\n\tlink.setAttribute(\"download\",filename);\n\tdocument.body.appendChild(link);\n\tlink.click();\n\tdocument.body.removeChild(link);\n}\n\n})();\n",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "startup"
},
"$:/plugins/tiddlywiki/savetrail/settings": {
"title": "$:/plugins/tiddlywiki/savetrail/settings",
"text": "\n<$checkbox tiddler=\"$:/config/SaveTrailPlugin/enable\" field=\"text\" checked=\"yes\" unchecked=\"no\"> Enable automatic saving of modified tiddlers</$checkbox>\n\n<$checkbox tiddler=\"$:/config/SaveTrailPlugin/enable-drafts\" field=\"text\" checked=\"yes\" unchecked=\"no\"> Include automatic saving of draft tiddlers (warning: generates a lot of download files)</$checkbox>\n"
}
}
}
{
"tiddlers": {
"$:/plugins/tobibeer/appear/widget.js": {
"title": "$:/plugins/tobibeer/appear/widget.js",
"text": "/*\\\r\ntitle: $:/plugins/tobibeer/appear/widget.js\r\ntype: application/javascript\r\nmodule-type: widget\r\n\r\nUse the appear widget for popups, sliders, accordion menus\r\n\r\n@preserve\r\n\\*/\n(function(){\"use strict\";var t=require(\"$:/core/modules/widgets/widget.js\").widget,e=function(t,e){this.initialise(t,e)},i={};e.prototype=new t;e.prototype.render=function(t,e){this.parentDomNode=t;this.nextSibling=e;this.computeAttributes();this.execute();var i,s,r,a,h,n,l=[];if(this.handle){this.getHandlerCache(this.handle,1);this.refreshHandler()}else{s={type:\"button\"};s.attributes=this.setAttributes(s,\"button\");i=s.attributes[\"class\"].value.trim();s.attributes[\"class\"].value=i+\" appear-show\"+(this.handler?\" tc-popup-absolute\":\"\");s.children=this.wiki.parseText(\"text/vnd.tiddlywiki\",this.show,{parseAsInline:true}).tree;h={type:\"reveal\",children:this.parseTreeNode.children};h.attributes=this.setAttributes(h,\"reveal\");h.isBlock=!(this.mode&&this.mode===\"inline\");if(h.attributes.type&&h.attributes.type.value===\"popup\"){s.attributes.popup=h.attributes.state;l.push(s);if(!this.handler){l.push(h)}else{s.attributes.handler=this.handler}}else{h.attributes.type={type:\"string\",value:\"match\"};h.attributes.text={type:\"string\",value:this.currentTiddler};s.attributes.set=h.attributes.state;s.attributes.setTo={type:\"string\",value:this.currentTiddler};a={type:\"reveal\",isBlock:this.block,children:[s],attributes:{type:{type:\"string\",value:\"nomatch\"},state:h.attributes.state,text:{type:\"string\",value:this.currentTiddler}}};if(!this.once){r=$tw.utils.deepCopy(s);r.attributes[\"class\"].value=i+\" appear-hide \"+(this.attr.button.selectedClass?this.attr.button.selectedClass:\"\");r.attributes.setTo={type:\"string\",value:\"\"};r.children=this.wiki.parseText(\"text/vnd.tiddlywiki\",this.hide,{parseAsInline:true}).tree}n=$tw.utils.deepCopy(a);n.children=[];if(!this.once){n.children.push(r)}if(!this.handler){n.children.push(h)}n.attributes.type.value=\"match\";l.push(a,n)}this.makeChildWidgets(l);this.renderChildren(this.parentDomNode,e);if(this.handler){this.addToHandlerCache(h)}}};e.prototype.execute=function(){var t=this;this.attr={map:{reveal:{\"class\":1,position:1,retain:1,state:1,style:1,tag:1,type:1},button:{\"button-class\":1,\"button-style\":1,\"button-tag\":1,tooltip:1,selectedClass:1}},rename:{\"button-class\":\"class\",\"button-style\":\"style\",\"button-tag\":\"tag\"},button:{},reveal:{}};$tw.utils.each(this.attributes,function(e,i){var s;$tw.utils.each(t.attr.map,function(r,a){$tw.utils.each(Object.keys(r),function(r){if(r==i){t.attr[a][i]=e;s=false;return false}});return s})});this.currentTiddler=this.getVariable(\"currentTiddler\");this.show=this.getValue(this.attributes.show,\"show\");this.hide=this.getValue(this.attributes.hide,\"hide\");if(!this.hide){this.hide=this.show}this.once=this.attributes.once&&this.attributes.once!==\"false\";this.$state=this.attributes.$state;this.mode=this.getValue(this.attributes.mode,\"mode\");this.handle=this.attributes.handle;this.handler=this.attributes.handler;this.handlerVariables=(this.attributes.variables||\"\")+\" currentTiddler\";this.keep=[\"yes\",\"true\"].indexOf((this.getValue(this.attributes.keep,\"keep\")||\"\").toLocaleLowerCase())>-1;if(!this.attr.reveal.state){this.attr.reveal.state=this.getValue(undefined,\"default-state\")+this.currentTiddler+this.getStateQualifier()+\"/\"+(this.attr.reveal.type?this.attr.reveal.type+\"/\":\"\")+(this.mode?this.mode+\"/\":\"\")+(this.once?\"once/\":\"\")+(this.$state?\"/\"+this.$state:\"\")}};e.prototype.refresh=function(t){var e=this.computeAttributes();if(Object.keys(e).length){this.refreshSelf();return true}if(this.handle){this.refreshHandler()}return this.refreshChildren(t)};e.prototype.getValue=function(t,e){var i,s,r={show:\"»\",\"default-state\":\"$:/temp/appear/\"};if(t===undefined){i=this.wiki.getTiddler(\"$:/plugins/tobibeer/appear/defaults/\"+e);if(i){s=i.getFieldString(\"undefined\");if(!s||s===\"false\"){t=i.getFieldString(\"text\")}}}if(t===undefined){t=r[e]}return t};e.prototype.setAttributes=function(t,e){var i=this,s={};$tw.utils.each(Object.keys(this.attr.map[e]),function(r){var a,h=i.attr.rename[r];if(!h){h=r}a=i.getValue(i.attr[e][r],r);if(h===\"class\"){a=[\"appear\",\"appear-\"+e,e===\"reveal\"&&i.keep?\"tc-popup-keep\":\"\",i.mode?\"appear-\"+i.mode:\"\",i.once?\"appear-once\":\"\",a||\"\"].join(\" \")}if(a!==undefined){if(h===\"tag\"){t.tag=a}else{s[h]={type:\"string\",value:a}}}});return s};e.prototype.getHandlerCache=function(t,e){var s=i[t];if(!s||e){i[t]={handled:{},handle:{}};s=i[t]}return s};e.prototype.refreshHandler=function(){var t=this,e=this.getHandlerCache(this.handle),s=e.handle;if(Object.keys(s).length){$tw.utils.each(s,function(e,i){t.removeChildNode(i);t.children.push(t.makeChildWidget(e));t.children[t.children.length-1].render(t.parentDomNode,t.nextSibling)});i[this.handle].handle={}}};e.prototype.removeChildNode=function(t){var e=this;$tw.utils.each(this.children,function(i,s){if(i.children[0].state===t){i.removeChildDomNodes();e.children.splice(s);return false}})};e.prototype.addToHandlerCache=function(t){var e=this,i=t.attributes.state.value,s=this.getHandlerCache(this.handler),r=s.handled[i],a={type:\"vars\",children:[t],attributes:{}};$tw.utils.each((this.handlerVariables||\"\").split(\" \"),function(t){t=t.trim();if(t){a.attributes[t]={type:\"string\",value:(e.getVariable(t)||\"\").toString()}}});if(a!==r){s.handle[i]=a;this.wiki.setText(\"$:/temp/appear-handler/\"+this.handler,\"text\",undefined,i)}};exports.appear=e})();",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "widget"
},
"$:/plugins/tobibeer/appear/defaults/show": {
"title": "$:/plugins/tobibeer/appear/defaults/show",
"text": "»"
},
"$:/plugins/tobibeer/appear/defaults/mode": {
"title": "$:/plugins/tobibeer/appear/defaults/mode",
"text": "block"
},
"$:/plugins/tobibeer/appear/defaults/keep": {
"title": "$:/plugins/tobibeer/appear/defaults/keep",
"text": "yes"
},
"$:/plugins/tobibeer/appear/defaults/button-class": {
"title": "$:/plugins/tobibeer/appear/defaults/button-class",
"text": "tc-btn-invisible tc-tiddlylink"
},
"$:/plugins/tobibeer/appear/defaults/default-state": {
"title": "$:/plugins/tobibeer/appear/defaults/default-state",
"text": "$:/temp/appear/"
},
"$:/plugins/tobibeer/appear/popup.js": {
"title": "$:/plugins/tobibeer/appear/popup.js",
"text": "/*\\\r\ntitle: $:/plugins/tobibeer/appear/popup.js\r\ntype: application/javascript\r\nmodule-type: utils\r\n\r\nAn enhanced version of the core Popup to support:\r\n* absolute popups\r\n* preview popups\r\n* popup z-index\r\n\r\n@preserve\r\n\\*/\n(function(){\"use strict\";var t=require(\"$:/core/modules/utils/dom/popup.js\").Popup,e=require(\"$:/core/modules/widgets/reveal.js\").reveal,s=e.prototype.refresh;t.prototype.show=function(t){var e,s=t.domNode,p=$tw.utils.hasClass(s,\"tc-popup-absolute\"),o=this.popupInfo(s),i=function(t){var e=t,s=0,p=0;do{s+=e.offsetLeft||0;p+=e.offsetTop||0;e=e.offsetParent}while(e);return{left:s,top:p}},l={left:s.offsetLeft,top:s.offsetTop};e=o.popupLevel;if(o.isHandle){e++}this.cancel(e);if(this.findPopup(t.title)===-1){this.popups.push({title:t.title,wiki:t.wiki,domNode:s})}l=p?i(s):l;t.wiki.setTextReference(t.title,\"(\"+l.left+\",\"+l.top+\",\"+s.offsetWidth+\",\"+s.offsetHeight+\")\");if(this.popups.length>0){this.rootElement.addEventListener(\"click\",this,true)}};t.prototype.popupInfo=function(t){var e,s=false,p=t;while(p&&e===undefined){if($tw.utils.hasClass(p,\"tc-popup-handle\")||$tw.utils.hasClass(p,\"tc-popup-keep\")){s=true}if($tw.utils.hasClass(p,\"tc-reveal\")&&($tw.utils.hasClass(p,\"tc-popup\")||$tw.utils.hasClass(p,\"tc-popup-handle\"))){e=parseInt(p.style.zIndex)-1e3}p=p.parentNode}var o={popupLevel:e||0,isHandle:s};return o};t.prototype.handleEvent=function(t){if(t.type===\"click\"){var e=this.popupInfo(t.target),s=e.popupLevel-1;if(e.isHandle){if(s<0){s=1}else{s++}}this.cancel(s)}};e.prototype.refresh=function(){var t,e,p=this.isOpen;e=s.apply(this,arguments);t=this.domNodes[0];if(this.isOpen&&(p!==this.isOpen||!t.style.zIndex)&&t&&(this.type===\"popup\"||$tw.utils.hasClass(t,\"tc-block-dropdown\")&&$tw.utils.hasClass(t,\"tc-reveal\"))){t.style.zIndex=1e3+$tw.popup.popups.length}return e}})();",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "utils"
},
"$:/plugins/tobibeer/appear/readme": {
"title": "$:/plugins/tobibeer/appear/readme",
"text": "This plugin provides the ''$appear'' widget that can render popups and sliders (inline or block) as well as accordion menus.\n\n!! Attributes\r\n; type\r\n: set to `popup` to have the content appear as a popup\r\n; show\r\n: the button label\r\n; hide\r\n: the hide button label\r\n; mode\r\n: either `block` or `inline`, with respect to the inner content\r\n: any other mode is interpreted as block mode, without the default styles applying, e.g. drop-shadows\r\n; once\r\n: allows to click the button once, then hides it (unless the state is deleted)\r\n; $state\r\n: the widget calculates a state for you, use this to append a simple id\r\n; state\r\n: alternatively, specify a fully qualified state\r\n; keep\r\n: make popups sticky when `yes` or `true`\r\n; handle / handler / variables\r\n: allows to take the popup contents out of the flow and render them elsewhere on the page\r\n: required to properly create popups in table cells and other constained elements\r\n: specify variables to take along\n\n<br>\n\n; documentation / examples / demos...\r\n: http://tobibeer.github.io/tw5-plugins#appear\r\n"
},
"$:/plugins/tobibeer/appear/styles": {
"title": "$:/plugins/tobibeer/appear/styles",
"tags": "$:/tags/Stylesheet",
"text": "\\rules only filteredtranscludeinline transcludeinline macrodef macrocallinline html\n\n<pre>.tc-reveal.appear-block,\r\n.tc-popup.appear {\r\n\tborder-radius: 5px;\r\n\tpadding: 1px 1em;\r\n\t<<box-shadow \"2px 2px 4px rgba(0,0,0,0.3)\">>;\r\n}\r\n.tc-popup.appear {\r\n\tpadding: 0 1em;\r\n\tbackground: <<colour background>>;\r\n}\r\n.appear-reveal.appear-inline{\r\nmargin-left:5px;\r\n}\r\n.appear-reveal.appear-inline.appear-once{\r\nmargin-left:0;\r\n}</pre>"
}
}
}
{
"tiddlers": {
"$:/plugins/tobibeer/preview/config": {
"title": "$:/plugins/tobibeer/preview/config",
"text": "\\define default()\r\n<dt>$(defaults)$$(option)$</dt>\r\n<dd>\r\n//{{$:/plugins/tobibeer/preview/lingo/$(option)$}}<$list\r\nfilter=\"[[$(option)$]prefix[template]]\">\r\n{{$(defaults)$$(option)$}}</$list>://<br>\r\n<$edit-text tag=input tiddler=\"$(defaults)$$(option)$\"/>\r\n</dd>\r\n\\end\n\n<dl class=\"preview-defaults\">\r\n<$vars defaults=\"$:/plugins/tobibeer/preview/defaults/\">\r\n<$list filter=\"[all[tiddlers+shadows]removeprefix<defaults>sort[title]]\" variable=\"option\">\r\n<<default>>\r\n</$list>\r\n</$vars>\r\n</dl>\r\n<style>.preview-defaults input {width:90%;}</style>"
},
"$:/plugins/tobibeer/preview/lingo/keys": {
"title": "$:/plugins/tobibeer/preview/lingo/keys",
"text": "modifier keys to trigger popup directly on-hover (ctrl, alt+shift, meta, etc...)"
},
"$:/plugins/tobibeer/preview/defaults/keys": {
"title": "$:/plugins/tobibeer/preview/defaults/keys",
"text": "CTRL"
},
"$:/plugins/tobibeer/preview/lingo/delay": {
"title": "$:/plugins/tobibeer/preview/lingo/delay",
"text": "delay popup for this many milliseconds"
},
"$:/plugins/tobibeer/preview/defaults/delay": {
"title": "$:/plugins/tobibeer/preview/defaults/delay",
"text": "1500"
},
"$:/plugins/tobibeer/preview/lingo/class": {
"title": "$:/plugins/tobibeer/preview/lingo/class",
"text": "css classes applied to the popup"
},
"$:/plugins/tobibeer/preview/defaults/class": {
"title": "$:/plugins/tobibeer/preview/defaults/class",
"text": "tc-popup-keep"
},
"$:/plugins/tobibeer/preview/lingo/not": {
"title": "$:/plugins/tobibeer/preview/lingo/not",
"text": "no preview for links inside elements with these classes"
},
"$:/plugins/tobibeer/preview/defaults/not": {
"title": "$:/plugins/tobibeer/preview/defaults/not",
"text": "tc-drop-down tc-sidebar-scrollable tc-topbar tc-tiddler-title"
},
"$:/plugins/tobibeer/preview/lingo/exclude": {
"title": "$:/plugins/tobibeer/preview/lingo/exclude",
"text": "no preview for links to tiddlers matching this filter"
},
"$:/plugins/tobibeer/preview/defaults/exclude": {
"title": "$:/plugins/tobibeer/preview/defaults/exclude",
"text": "[is[system]] [all[shadows]] [!has[text]]"
},
"$:/plugins/tobibeer/preview/lingo/template": {
"title": "$:/plugins/tobibeer/preview/lingo/template",
"text": "the preview template"
},
"$:/plugins/tobibeer/preview/defaults/template": {
"title": "$:/plugins/tobibeer/preview/defaults/template",
"text": "$:/plugins/tobibeer/preview/template"
},
"$:/plugins/tobibeer/preview/lingo/open": {
"title": "$:/plugins/tobibeer/preview/lingo/open",
"text": "view at ''<<WIKI>>''"
},
"$:/plugins/tobibeer/preview/keyboard.js": {
"title": "$:/plugins/tobibeer/preview/keyboard.js",
"text": "/*\\\r\ntitle: $:/plugins/tobibeer/preview/keyboard.js\r\ntype: application/javascript\r\nmodule-type: utils\r\n\r\nFixes $:/core/modules/utils/dom/keyboard.js by providing an alternative.\r\nDo not use as an API, let's fix the core.\r\n\r\n@preserve\r\n\\*/\n(function(){\"use strict\";var e={BACKSPACE:8,TAB:9,ENTER:13,ESCAPE:27,PAGEUP:33,PAGEDOWN:34,END:35,HOME:36,LEFT:37,UP:38,RIGHT:39,DOWN:40,INSERT:45,DELETE:46};exports.parseKeyDescriptorTB=function(t){var l,r,y,s=t.toUpperCase().split(\"+\"),K={keyCode:null,shiftKey:false,altKey:false,ctrlKey:false};for(y=0;y<s.length;y++){l=false;r=s[y];if(r.substr(0,1)===\"!\"){l=true;r=r.substr(1)}if(r===\"CTRL\"){K.ctrlKey=l?null:true}else if(r===\"SHIFT\"){K.shiftKey=l?null:true}else if(r===\"ALT\"){K.altKey=l?null:true}else if(r===\"META\"){K.metaKey=l?null:true}else if(e[r]){K.keyCode=e[r]}else{K.keyCode=r.charCodeAt(0)}}return K};exports.checkKeyDescriptorTB=function(e,t){var l=!!t.metaKey;return(t.keyCode===null||e.keyCode===t.keyCode)&&(t.shiftKey===null?!e.shiftKey:e.shiftKey===t.shiftKey)&&(t.altKey===null?!e.altKey:e.altKey===t.altKey)&&(t.ctrlKey===null?!e.ctrlKey:e.ctrlKey===t.ctrlKey)&&(t.metaKey===null?!e.metaKey:e.metaKey===l)}})();",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "utils"
},
"$:/plugins/tobibeer/preview/link.js": {
"title": "$:/plugins/tobibeer/preview/link.js",
"text": "/*\\\r\ntitle: $:/plugins/tobibeer/preview/link.js\r\ntype: application/javascript\r\nmodule-type: startup\r\n\r\nEnhances the link widget for on-hover previews\r\n\r\n@preserve\r\n\\*/\n(function(){var e,t=require(\"$:/core/modules/widgets/link.js\").link,i=t.prototype.render,o=t.prototype.handleClickEvent;t.prototype.render=function(){i.apply(this,arguments);var t=this,o=this.wiki,p=this.domNodes[0],r=o.getTiddler(t.to),n=\"$:/plugins/tobibeer/preview/defaults/\",u=\"$:/temp/tobibeer/preview-\",l=$tw.utils.parseKeyDescriptorTB(o.getTextReference(n+\"keys\",\"\").toUpperCase()),s=o.getTextReference(n+\"delay\").toUpperCase(),a=function(e){var i=$tw.popup.popupInfo(e),p=i.popupLevel;return o.getTextReference(u+p)&&o.getTextReference(u+p+\"-tiddler\")===t.to?null:i},f=function(){var i,r=a(p);if(r){i=r.popupLevel;clearTimeout(t.previewTimeout);$tw.popup.cancel(i);i++;o.setText(u+i+\"-tiddler\",\"text\",null,t.to);if($tw.popup.findPopup(u+i)===-1){setTimeout(function(){$tw.popup.triggerPopup({domNode:p,title:u+i,wiki:o});e=0},50)}}},d=function(){var e,i,r=1,u=o.getTextReference(n+\"not\",\"\");if(u){$tw.utils.each(u.split(\" \"),function(e){var t=p;while(t&&r){if($tw.utils.hasClass(t,e)){r=0;return false}t=t.parentNode}})}if(r){i=o.getTextReference(n+\"exclude\",\"\");e=i?o.filterTiddlers(i):[];if(e.indexOf(t.to)>=0){r=0}}return r};s=s!==undefined?parseInt(s):null;if(s!==null&&isNaN(s)){s=0}if(r){$tw.utils.addClass(p,\"tc-popup-handle\");$tw.utils.addClass(p,\"tc-popup-absolute\");[\"mouseover\",\"mouseout\"].forEach(function(i){p.addEventListener(i,function(o){var p=o||window.event;if(i===\"mouseover\"){if(d()){if(!p.keyCode){p.keyCode=0}if($tw.utils.checkKeyDescriptorTB(p,l)){if(!e){e=1;f()}}else if(s!==null){e=0;t.previewTimeout=setTimeout(f,s)}}}else{e=0;clearTimeout(t.previewTimeout)}})})}};t.prototype.handleClickEvent=function(){o.apply(this,arguments);clearTimeout(this.previewTimeout);$tw.popup.cancel(Math.max(0,$tw.popup.popupInfo(this.domNodes[0]).popupLevel))}})();",
"type": "application/javascript",
"module-type": "startup"
},
"$:/plugins/tobibeer/preview/popups": {
"title": "$:/plugins/tobibeer/preview/popups",
"tags": "$:/tags/PageTemplate",
"text": "\\define state(num)\n$:/temp/tobibeer/preview-$num$\n\\end\n\n\\define classes(num)\ntc-popup appear appear-block appear-reveal tc-preview-tiddler tc-preview-tiddler-$num$ $(default-classes)$\n\\end\n\n\\define level(num)\n<$reveal tag=\"div\" type=\"popup\" state=<<state $num$>> class=<<classes $num$>>>\n<$tiddler tiddler={{$:/temp/tobibeer/preview-$num$-tiddler}}>\n<$transclude tiddler={{$:/plugins/tobibeer/preview/defaults/template}} mode=\"block\"/>\n</$tiddler>\n</$reveal>\n\\end\n\n<$vars default-classes={{$:/plugins/tobibeer/preview/defaults/class}}>\n<$list filter=\"1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9\">\n<$macrocall $name=\"level\" num={{!!title}}/>\n</$list>\n</$vars>"
},
"$:/plugins/tobibeer/preview/readme": {
"title": "$:/plugins/tobibeer/preview/readme",
"text": "The plugin $:/plugins/tobibeer/preview enhances the core <<x LinkWidget>> to display a preview of tiddlers when hovering an internal link.\n\n<br>\n\n; documentation / examples / demos...\r\n: http://tobibeer.github.io/tw5-plugins#preview"
},
"$:/plugins/tobibeer/preview/styles": {
"title": "$:/plugins/tobibeer/preview/styles",
"tags": "$:/tags/Stylesheet",
"text": ".tc-popup.tc-preview-tiddler{\r\n\tmax-width:600px;\r\n\twidth:100%;\r\n\tpadding:1em;\r\n}"
},
"$:/plugins/tobibeer/preview/template": {
"title": "$:/plugins/tobibeer/preview/template",
"text": "{{||$:/core/ui/ViewTemplate/tags}}\n\n<$transclude mode=\"block\"/>"
}
}
}
.tc-popup.tc-preview-tiddler{
max-width:900px;
width:100%;
padding:1em;
}
{
"tiddlers": {
"$:/plugins/TWaddle/TabLinks/Stylesheet": {
"created": "20170304101100313",
"creator": "twMat",
"text": "<pre>\n.tablink {display:none;}\n\n.tc-tab-selected .tablink {\n display:{{$:/plugins/TWaddle/TabLinks/Stylesheet!!display}};\n position:absolute;\n margin:-1.5rem 0 0 -7px;\n font-size:1rem;\n background:white;\n padding:0 5px;\n border:1px solid silver;\n border-radius:2px;\n visibility:hidden;\n opacity:0;\n}\n.tc-tab-selected:hover .tablink {\n visibility:visible;\n opacity:1;\n -webkit-transition:opacity 0.9s;\n -moz-transition:opacity 0.9s;\n -ms-transition:opacity 0.9s; \n -o-transition:opacity 0.9s;\n transition:opacity 0.9s;\n -webkit-transition-timing-function: ease-in; /* Safari and Chrome */\n transition-timing-function: ease-in;\n}\n.tc-tab-buttons .tablink button, .tablink-btn {\n border:0;\n background:transparent;\n padding: 2px 1px;\n margin:0;\n}\n\n.tablink-btn { opacity:.4; }\n\n.tablink-btn:hover { opacity:1; } \n\n.tablink a:hover { text-decoration:none; }\n</pre>",
"type": "text/vnd.tiddlywiki",
"title": "$:/plugins/TWaddle/TabLinks/Stylesheet",
"tags": "$:/tags/Stylesheet",
"modifier": "twMat",
"modified": "20180914222330633",
"list-after": "$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/base",
"display": "inline-block"
},
"$:/plugins/TWaddle/TabLinks/Toggle": {
"created": "20170115223014606",
"creator": "twMat",
"text": "<$checkbox tiddler=\"$:/plugins/TWaddle/TabLinks/Stylesheet\" field=\"display\" checked=\"inline-block\" unchecked=\"none\" default=\"inline-block\"> In tabs, display shortcut links to the content tiddler, //when hovering// on the active tab.\n\n",
"title": "$:/plugins/TWaddle/TabLinks/Toggle",
"tags": "$:/tags/ControlPanel/Settings",
"modifier": "twMat",
"modified": "20180914222302945",
"list-before": "",
"caption": "TabLinks"
},
"$:/plugins/TWaddle/TabLinks/macro": {
"created": "20160806203109547",
"creator": "twMat",
"text": "\\define tablink()\n<div class=\"tablink\">\n<$tiddler tiddler=<<currentTab>>>\n<$link to=<<currentTab>> tooltip=\"go to tab\" >\n <span class=\"tablink-btn\">{{$:/core/images/preview-open}}</span>\n</$link>\n<$button message=\"tm-edit-tiddler\" param=<<currentTab>> tooltip=\"edit tab\">\n <span class=\"tablink-btn\">{{$:/core/images/edit-button}}</span>\n</$button>\n</$tiddler>\n</div>\n\\end",
"title": "$:/plugins/TWaddle/TabLinks/macro",
"tags": "$:/tags/Macro",
"modifier": "twMat",
"modified": "20180914222219769"
},
"$:/core/macros/tabs": {
"created": "20180914222106589",
"creator": "twMat",
"title": "$:/core/macros/tabs",
"tags": "$:/tags/Macro",
"text": "\\define tabs(tabsList,default,state:\"$:/state/tab\",class,template,buttonTemplate,retain)\n<div class=\"tc-tab-set $class$\">\n<div class=\"tc-tab-buttons $class$\">\n<$list filter=\"$tabsList$\" variable=\"currentTab\"><$set name=\"save-currentTiddler\" value=<<currentTiddler>>><$tiddler tiddler=<<currentTab>>><$button set=<<qualify \"$state$\">> setTo=<<currentTab>> default=\"$default$\" selectedClass=\"tc-tab-selected\" tooltip={{!!tooltip}}>\n<$tiddler tiddler=<<save-currentTiddler>>><<tablink>>\n<$set name=\"tv-wikilinks\" value=\"no\">\n<$transclude tiddler=\"$buttonTemplate$\" mode=\"inline\">\n<$transclude tiddler=<<currentTab>> field=\"caption\">\n<$macrocall $name=\"currentTab\" $type=\"text/plain\" $output=\"text/plain\"/>\n</$transclude>\n</$transclude>\n</$set></$tiddler></$button></$tiddler></$set></$list>\n</div>\n<div class=\"tc-tab-divider $class$\"/>\n<div class=\"tc-tab-content $class$\">\n<$list filter=\"$tabsList$\" variable=\"currentTab\">\n\n<$reveal type=\"match\" state=<<qualify \"$state$\">> text=<<currentTab>> default=\"$default$\" retain=\"\"\"$retain$\"\"\">\n\n<$transclude tiddler=\"$template$\" mode=\"block\">\n\n<$transclude tiddler=<<currentTab>> mode=\"block\"/>\n\n</$transclude>\n\n</$reveal>\n\n</$list>\n</div>\n</div>\n\\end\n",
"modified": "20180914222110828",
"modifier": "twMat"
}
}
}
<pre>
.tablink {display:none;}
.tc-tab-selected .tablink {
display:{{$:/plugins/TWaddle/TabLinks/Stylesheet!!display}};
position:absolute;
margin:-1.5rem 0 0 -7px;
font-size:1rem;
background:black;
padding:0 5px;
border:1px solid silver;
border-radius:2px;
visibility:hidden;
opacity:0;
}
.tc-tab-selected:hover .tablink {
visibility:visible;
opacity:1;
-webkit-transition:opacity 0.9s;
-moz-transition:opacity 0.9s;
-ms-transition:opacity 0.9s;
-o-transition:opacity 0.9s;
transition:opacity 2.9s;
-webkit-transition-timing-function: ease-in; /* Safari and Chrome */
transition-timing-function: ease-in;
}
.tc-tab-buttons .tablink button, .tablink-btn {
border:0;
background:transparent;
padding: 2px 1px;
margin:0;
}
.tablink-btn { opacity:.4; }
.tablink-btn:hover { opacity:1; }
.tablink a:hover { text-decoration:none; }
</pre>
<$button >Clear History
<$action-setfield $tiddler="$:/HistoryList" text=""/>
</$button>
{
"tiddlers": {
"$:/plugins/wimmoermans/history/fhistory.js": {
"created": "20160511174147745",
"creator": "wjam",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/plugins/wimmoermans/fhistory.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: filteroperator\n\na filter to generate ALL tiddler titles from historylist, \nrepairs escaped characters \" \\\n\nassumptions format of historylist \n \"title\":\\s\"(.*)\" where .* is the title of the visited tiddler\n\n@preserve\n\\*/\n\n (function() {\n \"use strict\";\n exports.fullhistory = function(e, t, i) {\n var o = [],\n match=\"\",\n regexp= \"\",\n ttt=\"\",\n text=\"\";\n regexp = new RegExp(\"\\\"title\\\": \\\"(.+)\\\"\", \"ig\");\n text = $tw.wiki.getTiddlerText(\"$:/HistoryList\");\n while (match = regexp.exec(text)) {\n ttt=match[1].replace(/\\\\\\\"/g,\"\\\"\");\n ttt=ttt.replace(/\\\\\\\\/g,\"\\\\\");\n o.push(ttt); /* oldest first */\n }; /*while*/\n return o;\n }; /* export */\n\n } )();",
"type": "application/javascript",
"title": "$:/plugins/wimmoermans/history/fhistory.js",
"tags": "historyplugin",
"module-type": "filteroperator",
"modifier": "wjam",
"modified": "20160513184814825"
},
"$:/plugins/wimmoermans/history/history.js": {
"created": "20160505064231013",
"creator": "Wim Moermans",
"text": "/*\\\ntitle: $:/plugins/wimmoermans/history.js\ntype: application/javascript\nmodule-type: filteroperator\n\na filter to generate tiddler titles from historylist, reverse order, no duplicates (only most recent), no drafts.\n\nassumptions\n \"title\":\\s\"(.*)\" where .* is the title\n \"Draft of '\" is the prefix for tiddler in edit mode\n\n@preserve\n\\*/\n\n (function() {\n \"use strict\";\n exports.history = function(e, t, i) {\n var results = new Array(),\n o = [],\n match=\"\",\n regexp= \"\",\n text=\"\",\nttt=\"\",\n i=0,\n j=0,\n entries=0,\n found=0;\n regexp = new RegExp(\"\\\"title\\\": \\\"(.+)\\\"\", \"ig\");\n text = $tw.wiki.getTiddlerText(\"$:/HistoryList\");\n while (match = regexp.exec(text)) {\n ttt=match[1].replace(/\\\\\\\"/g,\"\\\"\");\n ttt=ttt.replace(/\\\\\\\\/g,\"\\\\\");\n if (ttt.substr(0, 10) !== \"Draft of '\") {\n results.push(ttt); /* oldest first */\n entries = entries + 1;\n }\n }\n i = entries-1;\n while (i >= 0) {\n j = i + 1;\n found = 0;\n while ((j <= entries) && (found === 0)) {\n if (results[i] === results[j]) {\n found = 1;\n }\n j = j + 1;\n }\n if (found === 0) {\n\n if( results[i] !== \"\"){\n o.push(results[i]);\n }\n }\n i = i - 1;\n };\n return o;\n }\n\n } )();",
"type": "application/javascript",
"title": "$:/plugins/wimmoermans/history/history.js",
"tags": "historyplugin",
"module-type": "filteroperator",
"modifier": "wjam",
"modified": "20160513175106215"
},
"$:/plugins/wimmoermans/history/HistoryTab": {
"created": "20160504135142490",
"creator": "Wim Moermans",
"text": "<small>breadcrumbs:</small>\n\n{{{ [history[]] }}}\n\n\n",
"title": "$:/plugins/wimmoermans/history/HistoryTab",
"tags": "$:/tags/SideBar historyplugin",
"modifier": "wjam",
"modified": "20160507201121730",
"caption": "History"
},
"$:/plugins/wimmoermans/history/HistoryTab2": {
"text": "<$linkcatcher to=\"$:/temp/advancedsearch\">\n\n<<lingo Shadows/Hint>>\n\n<div class=\"tc-search\">\n<$edit-text tiddler=\"$:/temp/advancedsearch\" type=\"search\" tag=\"input\"/>\n<$reveal state=\"$:/temp/advancedsearch\" type=\"nomatch\" text=\"\">\n<$button class=\"tc-btn-invisible\">\n<$action-setfield $tiddler=\"$:/temp/advancedsearch\" $field=\"text\" $value=\"\"/>\n{{$:/core/images/close-button}}\n</$button>\n</$reveal>\n</div>\n\n</$linkcatcher>\n{{{ [history[]search{$:/temp/advancedsearch}limit[26]] }}}\n",
"title": "$:/plugins/wimmoermans/history/HistoryTab2",
"tags": "$:/tags/AdvancedSearch historyplugin",
"modifier": "wjam",
"modified": "20160507171948465",
"creator": "Wim Moermans",
"created": "20160505094007336",
"caption": "History2"
},
"$:/plugins/wimmoermans/history/icon": {
"created": "20160508110003253",
"title": "$:/plugins/wimmoermans/history/icon",
"type": "image/svg+xml",
"text": "<?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"UTF-8\" standalone=\"no\"?>\n<!-- Created with Inkscape (http://www.inkscape.org/) -->\n\n<svg\n xmlns:dc=\"http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/\"\n xmlns:cc=\"http://creativecommons.org/ns#\"\n xmlns:rdf=\"http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#\"\n xmlns:svg=\"http://www.w3.org/2000/svg\"\n xmlns=\"http://www.w3.org/2000/svg\"\n xmlns:xlink=\"http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink\"\n xmlns:sodipodi=\"http://sodipodi.sourceforge.net/DTD/sodipodi-0.dtd\"\n xmlns:inkscape=\"http://www.inkscape.org/namespaces/inkscape\"\n width=\"22\"\n height=\"21\"\n id=\"svg4046\"\n version=\"1.1\"\n inkscape:version=\"0.47 r22583\"\n sodipodi:docname=\"cat backtrack red sign 22x21.svg\">\n <defs\n id=\"defs4048\">\n <linearGradient\n inkscape:collect=\"always\"\n id=\"linearGradient3600\">\n <stop\n style=\"stop-color:#ff0024;stop-opacity:1;\"\n offset=\"0\"\n id=\"stop3602\" />\n <stop\n style=\"stop-color:#ff0024;stop-opacity:0;\"\n offset=\"1\"\n id=\"stop3604\" />\n </linearGradient>\n <inkscape:perspective\n sodipodi:type=\"inkscape:persp3d\"\n inkscape:vp_x=\"0 : 526.18109 : 1\"\n inkscape:vp_y=\"0 : 1000 : 0\"\n inkscape:vp_z=\"744.09448 : 526.18109 : 1\"\n inkscape:persp3d-origin=\"372.04724 : 350.78739 : 1\"\n id=\"perspective4054\" />\n <inkscape:perspective\n id=\"perspective4064\"\n inkscape:persp3d-origin=\"0.5 : 0.33333333 : 1\"\n inkscape:vp_z=\"1 : 0.5 : 1\"\n inkscape:vp_y=\"0 : 1000 : 0\"\n inkscape:vp_x=\"0 : 0.5 : 1\"\n sodipodi:type=\"inkscape:persp3d\" />\n <linearGradient\n inkscape:collect=\"always\"\n xlink:href=\"#linearGradient3600\"\n id=\"linearGradient3606\"\n x1=\"-17.230652\"\n y1=\"4.6165885\"\n x2=\"-3.4143419\"\n y2=\"4.6165885\"\n gradientUnits=\"userSpaceOnUse\" />\n </defs>\n <sodipodi:namedview\n id=\"base\"\n pagecolor=\"#ffffff\"\n bordercolor=\"#666666\"\n borderopacity=\"1.0\"\n inkscape:pageopacity=\"0.0\"\n inkscape:pageshadow=\"2\"\n inkscape:zoom=\"31.678384\"\n inkscape:cx=\"9.633971\"\n inkscape:cy=\"9.3724875\"\n inkscape:document-units=\"px\"\n inkscape:current-layer=\"layer1\"\n showgrid=\"false\"\n inkscape:window-width=\"1690\"\n inkscape:window-height=\"1181\"\n inkscape:window-x=\"-5\"\n inkscape:window-y=\"-5\"\n inkscape:window-maximized=\"1\" />\n <metadata\n id=\"metadata4051\">\n <rdf:RDF>\n <cc:Work\n rdf:about=\"\">\n <dc:format>image/svg+xml</dc:format>\n <dc:type\n rdf:resource=\"http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/StillImage\" />\n <dc:title></dc:title>\n </cc:Work>\n </rdf:RDF>\n </metadata>\n <g\n inkscape:label=\"Layer 1\"\n inkscape:groupmode=\"layer\"\n id=\"layer1\"\n transform=\"translate(-12.564828,-228.71506)\">\n <path\n sodipodi:type=\"arc\"\n style=\"fill:#fcfcfc;fill-opacity:1;fill-rule:nonzero\"\n id=\"path6042\"\n sodipodi:cx=\"-1.4836615\"\n sodipodi:cy=\"-1.6968651\"\n sodipodi:rx=\"6.976366\"\n sodipodi:ry=\"6.8500967\"\n d=\"m 5.4927045,-1.6968651 a 6.976366,6.8500967 0 1 1 -13.9527321,0 6.976366,6.8500967 0 1 1 13.9527321,0 z\"\n transform=\"matrix(1.2556561,0,0,1.2788018,25.334287,241.26263)\" />\n <path\n id=\"path6044\"\n d=\"m 30.4446,244.31397 c 0.310834,-0.28767 0.606444,-0.65004 0.656841,-0.80533 0.226308,-0.69733 -1.75153,-1.35182 -2.563323,-0.84824 -0.640438,0.39727 -1.154161,1.973 -0.807158,2.47583 0.257232,0.37275 0.420332,0.39322 1.137559,0.14288 0.460496,-0.16076 0.876334,-0.32601 0.924074,-0.36721 0.04729,-0.042 0.341159,-0.31027 0.65198,-0.59797 l 2.7e-5,4e-5 z m 0.597108,-2.74293 c 0.09612,-0.164 0.0099,-0.46244 -0.199577,-0.69068 -0.46117,-0.50252 -1.166755,-0.22586 -1.371622,0.53779 -0.138492,0.51626 -0.124003,0.53781 0.418457,0.62237 0.608375,0.0949 0.889192,-0.0195 1.152742,-0.46948 z m -3.686825,2.07878 c 0.168572,-0.62841 -0.06485,-0.93373 -0.745912,-0.97577 -0.770729,-0.0477 -1.241044,0.64384 -0.836604,1.22992 0.512291,0.74232 1.35136,0.60756 1.582532,-0.25415 l -1.6e-5,0 z m 1.462533,-2.12446 0.185272,-0.64054 -0.625699,-0.0677 c -0.706134,-0.0764 -0.924717,0.0207 -1.305369,0.57977 -0.335314,0.49243 -0.04392,0.93382 0.644496,0.97629 0.707662,0.0437 0.882331,-0.0906 1.101289,-0.84784 l 1.1e-5,-4e-5 z m -7.797022,1.15185 c 0.76937,-0.85185 0.741916,-1.28981 -0.106461,-1.69843 -0.998166,-0.48078 -1.914981,-0.37475 -2.454339,0.28389 -0.516439,0.63069 -0.583894,1.63687 -0.151704,2.26314 0.51397,0.74476 1.572512,0.41361 2.712495,-0.8486 z m -3.48099,-0.42697 c 0.0896,-0.69621 -0.04686,-0.87565 -0.696238,-0.91572 -1.139297,-0.0703 -1.566432,0.84984 -0.702808,1.51406 0.586816,0.4513 1.303444,0.14483 1.399073,-0.59834 l -2.7e-5,0 z m 3.354628,-2.52461 c 0.149115,-0.45951 -0.275478,-0.99883 -0.833864,-1.05921 -0.603977,-0.0653 -0.7421,0.0289 -0.89905,0.61367 -0.166828,0.62185 0.06374,0.9337 0.720441,0.97418 0.628634,0.0389 0.868921,-0.0867 1.012367,-0.52882 l 1.06e-4,1.8e-4 z m -2.408088,0.34458 c 0.112063,-0.75445 -0.0033,-0.89128 -0.721233,-0.85538 -0.828289,0.0413 -1.07332,0.23945 -1.137099,0.9192 -0.05268,0.56122 -0.02343,0.59189 0.653277,0.68515 0.878304,0.12109 1.095906,-0.0141 1.204881,-0.74921 l 1.74e-4,2.4e-4 z m 5.888163,-5.33851 c 0.142599,-0.43933 -0.245444,-0.96317 -1.034761,-1.39674 -0.659415,-0.36226 -1.526134,-0.27635 -1.956444,0.1939 -0.468183,0.51161 -0.852424,1.97658 -0.610417,2.32725 0.48829,0.70756 3.291025,-0.16736 3.601586,-1.12433 l 3.6e-5,-8e-5 z m 0.05327,-2.11052 c 0.567019,-0.52796 -0.337185,-1.89786 -1.117088,-1.69249 -0.480085,0.12648 -0.794832,1.02942 -0.505121,1.44923 0.309844,0.44897 1.249847,0.58994 1.622222,0.24325 l -1.3e-5,1e-5 z m -3.840095,1.12289 c 0.05032,-0.53627 0.0115,-0.59251 -0.526932,-0.76354 -0.319703,-0.10149 -0.703975,-0.10859 -0.853942,-0.0154 -0.412123,0.25566 -0.580704,0.98457 -0.316321,1.36768 0.511143,0.74066 1.608153,0.36021 1.697198,-0.58862 l -3e-6,-7e-5 z m 1.399399,-1.72835 c 0.13752,-0.4755 0.08353,-0.73271 -0.201357,-0.9592 -0.777497,-0.6182 -2.043348,0.0734 -1.830727,1.00011 0.08032,0.34992 1.408324,0.87902 1.720388,0.68544 0.06804,-0.0423 0.208269,-0.3691 0.311631,-0.72643 l 6.5e-5,8e-5 z\"\n style=\"fill:#000000\"\n sodipodi:nodetypes=\"cssssscccsssccsscccccsscccsssccsscccssscccssscccssscccsscccssscccssscc\" />\n </g>\n</svg>\n",
"modified": "20160508110047926"
},
"$:/plugins/wimmoermans/history/readme": {
"created": "20160505113313287",
"creator": "wjam",
"text": "!!history filter\nTom Tumb (Dutch: Klein Duimpje).used breadcrumbs because he didn't want to get lost in the woods. \n\nWhen reading or editing a large ~TiddlyWiki you sometimes get lost and revisit tiddlers over and over. This plugin ''automatically creates a list of all visited tiddlers'', and allows you to answer questions like \"Where did I read that?\", \"Did I update tiddler XXYY already?\", \"Which system tiddlers did I view/edit?\" \"Which tiddlers did I rename/delete?\". \n\n!!functionality \n\n*The ''plugin/filter'' generates the tiddlers which you visited since loading the ~TiddlyWiki. \n*Like ~OpenTab all* tiddlers from the story river are shown in the history. When you ''close a tiddler'' it is removed from the ~OpenTab but is ''still present in the the history''. \n*Tiddler titles which were opened using tiddlers like $:/DefaultTiddlers are not present in the history.\n*Like ~RecentTab, the history list includes the tiddlers you created or modified during this session. When you ''delete or rename'' a tiddler during your session the old tiddler title will be in ''//italics//''. \n\ncompare ''history[] and ''fullhistory[]\n\n| |''history[]''|fullhistory[]|\n| most recent visited tiddlers|''most recent visited appear first''|most recent appear last|\n| Draft titles|''drafts not included ''|all drafts ^^dangerous[1]^^|\n| visited multiple times|''no duplicates, only most recent title''|includes all duplicates|\n| usage|normal use|advanced use only|\n\n!!examples\n\nTo display all visited tiddlers so far use\n\n ``{{{[history[]]}}}`` \n\nYou can sort the list alphabetically, ''search'' the tiddlers and ''limit'' the number of results to 25. e.g.\n\n``{{{[history[]search{$:/temp/search}limit[25]]}}}``\n\nif you want to exclude system tiddlers from the list:\n\n``{{{[history[]!is[system]]}}}``\n\nIf you want modified but possibly not yet saved tiddlers (incl renamed, deleted but excluding Draft. \n\n``{{{[history[]haschanged[]]}}}``\n\n''fullhistory[]'' is only included for //advanced users//. To generate the same list as history[] you would have to write \n``{{{[fullhistory[]!prefix[Draft]reverse[]unique[]]}}}`` ^^[2]^^\n\n!!how to install \n\n''Drag'' the link $:/plugins/wimmoermans/history to your wiki, ''import'' the tiddler and ''save'' your wiki, then ''LOAD'' the newly saved wiki.\nOr ''open'' the history tiddler in this wiki and use the top right icon ''V'', ''export tiddler'', ''JSON file'' to save the tiddler to disk, then in your wiki in the sidebar use ''Tools'', ''import (paperclip)'' to import the JSON file you just saved, ''save'' your wiki, ''LOAD'' the saved wiki.\n\n# history filter <br>[[$:/plugins/wimmoermans/history/history.js]]\n\n#fullhistory filter <br>[[$:/plugins/wimmoermans/history/fhistory.js]]\n\n#History tab in the Sidebar.<br>[[$:/plugins/wimmoermans/history/HistoryTab]]<br><small>(to disable remove the ~$:/tags/SideBar tag)</small>\n# History2 tab for advanced seard tiddler <br>[[$:/plugins/wimmoermans/history/HistoryTab2]]<br><small>(to disable remove the ~$:/tags/AdvancedSearch tag)</small>\n#$:/plugins/wimmoermans/history/readme this tiddler\n# $:/plugins/wimmoermans/history/icon three cat paw prints (by Motovun ?)\n\n!!Google plus forum to discuss the history filters\nhttps://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/tiddlywiki/u4lN-olqnPc\n\n\n!! ~TiddlyWiki version compatibility [3]\nhistory and fullhistory were tested on version 5.1.12 pre-release, 5.1.11, 5.1.9, 5.0.8-beta. For 5.0.8-beta the tab-example tiddlers require manually adding the field named 'caption' value 'History' and 'History2' to present the Tab captions.\n\n!!notes/warning\n[1] clicking on ''Draft'' titles in the history is ''dangerous'' especially when the tiddler is already open.\n\n[2] ''unique[]'' is a undocumented filter present in ~TiddlyWiki boot.js.\n\n[3] history scan the $:/HistoryList tiddler for \"title\"://single space//\"//tiddler title//\" and displays the //tiddler title// value. It correctly handles double quote and backslahs in tiddler titles.\n",
"title": "$:/plugins/wimmoermans/history/readme",
"tags": "historyplugin sh",
"modifier": "wjam",
"modified": "20160514063831746"
}
}
}
{{{ [history[]] }}}
{{$:/plugins/wimmoermans/clearHistoryButton}}
<$linkcatcher to="$:/temp/advancedsearch">
<<lingo Shadows/Hint>>
<div class="tc-search">
<$edit-text tiddler="$:/temp/advancedsearch" type="search" tag="input"/>
<$reveal state="$:/temp/advancedsearch" type="nomatch" text="">
<$button class="tc-btn-invisible">
<$action-setfield $tiddler="$:/temp/advancedsearch" $field="text" $value=""/>
{{$:/core/images/close-button}}
</$button>
</$reveal>
</div>
</$linkcatcher>
{{{ [history[]search{$:/temp/advancedsearch}limit[26]] }}}
<<tag [[Readme]]>>𖡶 [[1|Monster-Φ]].2.<<now YYYY0MM0DD>>
\rules only filteredtranscludeinline transcludeinline
<div class="tc-remove-when-wiki-loaded">
<style>
body {
background-image: url("data:image/gif;base64,{{Wiki.gif||$:/core/templates/plain-text-tiddler}}");
background-position: center;
background-attachment: fixed;
}
</style>
</div>
{
"tiddlers": {
"$:/info/browser": {
"title": "$:/info/browser",
"text": "no"
},
"$:/info/node": {
"title": "$:/info/node",
"text": "yes"
}
}
}
$:/themes/tiddlywiki/snowwhite
{
"tiddlers": {
"$:/themes/tiddlywiki/snowwhite/base": {
"title": "$:/themes/tiddlywiki/snowwhite/base",
"tags": "[[$:/tags/Stylesheet]]",
"text": "\\rules only filteredtranscludeinline transcludeinline macrodef macrocallinline\n\n.tc-sidebar-header {\n\ttext-shadow: 0 1px 0 <<colour sidebar-foreground-shadow>>;\n}\n\n.tc-tiddler-info {\n\t<<box-shadow \"inset 1px 2px 3px rgba(0,0,0,0.1)\">>\n}\n\n@media screen {\n\t.tc-tiddler-frame {\n\t\t<<box-shadow \"1px 1px 5px rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.3)\">>\n\t}\n}\n\n@media (max-width: {{$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/metrics/sidebarbreakpoint}}) {\n\t.tc-tiddler-frame {\n\t\t<<box-shadow none>>\n\t}\n}\n\n.tc-page-controls button svg, .tc-tiddler-controls button svg, .tc-topbar button svg {\n\t<<transition \"fill 150ms ease-in-out\">>\n}\n\n.tc-tiddler-controls button.tc-selected,\n.tc-page-controls button.tc-selected {\n\t<<filter \"drop-shadow(0px -1px 2px rgba(0,0,0,0.25))\">>\n}\n\n.tc-tiddler-frame input.tc-edit-texteditor {\n\t<<box-shadow \"inset 0 1px 8px rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.15)\">>\n}\n\n.tc-edit-tags {\n\t<<box-shadow \"inset 0 1px 8px rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.15)\">>\n}\n\n.tc-tiddler-frame .tc-edit-tags input.tc-edit-texteditor {\n\t<<box-shadow \"none\">>\n\tborder: none;\n\toutline: none;\n}\n\ntextarea.tc-edit-texteditor {\n\tfont-family: {{$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/settings/editorfontfamily}};\n}\n\ncanvas.tc-edit-bitmapeditor {\n\t<<box-shadow \"2px 2px 5px rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.5)\">>\n}\n\n.tc-drop-down {\n\tborder-radius: 4px;\n\t<<box-shadow \"2px 2px 10px rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.5)\">>\n}\n\n.tc-block-dropdown {\n\tborder-radius: 4px;\n\t<<box-shadow \"2px 2px 10px rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.5)\">>\n}\n\n.tc-modal {\n\tborder-radius: 6px;\n\t<<box-shadow \"0 3px 7px rgba(0,0,0,0.3)\">>\n}\n\n.tc-modal-footer {\n\tborder-radius: 0 0 6px 6px;\n\t<<box-shadow \"inset 0 1px 0 #fff\">>;\n}\n\n\n.tc-alert {\n\tborder-radius: 6px;\n\t<<box-shadow \"0 3px 7px rgba(0,0,0,0.6)\">>\n}\n\n.tc-notification {\n\tborder-radius: 6px;\n\t<<box-shadow \"0 3px 7px rgba(0,0,0,0.3)\">>\n\ttext-shadow: 0 1px 0 rgba(255,255,255, 0.8);\n}\n\n.tc-sidebar-lists .tc-tab-set .tc-tab-divider {\n\tborder-top: none;\n\theight: 1px;\n\t<<background-linear-gradient \"left, rgba(0,0,0,0.15) 0%, rgba(0,0,0,0.0) 100%\">>\n}\n\n.tc-more-sidebar > .tc-tab-set > .tc-tab-buttons > button {\n\t<<background-linear-gradient \"left, rgba(0,0,0,0.01) 0%, rgba(0,0,0,0.1) 100%\">>\n}\n\n.tc-more-sidebar > .tc-tab-set > .tc-tab-buttons > button.tc-tab-selected {\n\t<<background-linear-gradient \"left, rgba(0,0,0,0.05) 0%, rgba(255,255,255,0.05) 100%\">>\n}\n\n.tc-message-box img {\n\t<<box-shadow \"1px 1px 3px rgba(0,0,0,0.5)\">>\n}\n\n.tc-plugin-info {\n\t<<box-shadow \"1px 1px 3px rgba(0,0,0,0.5)\">>\n}\n"
}
}
}
{
"tiddlers": {
"$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/themetweaks": {
"title": "$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/themetweaks",
"tags": "$:/tags/ControlPanel/Appearance",
"caption": "{{$:/language/ThemeTweaks/ThemeTweaks}}",
"text": "\\define lingo-base() $:/language/ThemeTweaks/\n\n\\define replacement-text()\n[img[$(imageTitle)$]]\n\\end\n\n\\define backgroundimage-dropdown()\n<div class=\"tc-drop-down-wrapper\">\n<$button popup=<<qualify \"$:/state/popup/themetweaks/backgroundimage\">> class=\"tc-btn-invisible tc-btn-dropdown\">{{$:/core/images/down-arrow}}</$button>\n<$reveal state=<<qualify \"$:/state/popup/themetweaks/backgroundimage\">> type=\"popup\" position=\"belowleft\" text=\"\" default=\"\">\n<div class=\"tc-drop-down\">\n<$macrocall $name=\"image-picker\" actions=\"\"\"\n\n<$action-setfield\n\t$tiddler=\"$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/settings/backgroundimage\"\n\t$value=<<imageTitle>>\n/>\n\n\"\"\"/>\n</div>\n</$reveal>\n</div>\n\\end\n\n\\define backgroundimageattachment-dropdown()\n<$select tiddler=\"$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/settings/backgroundimageattachment\" default=\"scroll\">\n<option value=\"scroll\"><<lingo Settings/BackgroundImageAttachment/Scroll>></option>\n<option value=\"fixed\"><<lingo Settings/BackgroundImageAttachment/Fixed>></option>\n</$select>\n\\end\n\n\\define backgroundimagesize-dropdown()\n<$select tiddler=\"$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/settings/backgroundimagesize\" default=\"scroll\">\n<option value=\"auto\"><<lingo Settings/BackgroundImageSize/Auto>></option>\n<option value=\"cover\"><<lingo Settings/BackgroundImageSize/Cover>></option>\n<option value=\"contain\"><<lingo Settings/BackgroundImageSize/Contain>></option>\n</$select>\n\\end\n\n<<lingo ThemeTweaks/Hint>>\n\n! <<lingo Options>>\n\n|<$link to=\"$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/options/sidebarlayout\"><<lingo Options/SidebarLayout>></$link> |<$select tiddler=\"$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/options/sidebarlayout\"><option value=\"fixed-fluid\"><<lingo Options/SidebarLayout/Fixed-Fluid>></option><option value=\"fluid-fixed\"><<lingo Options/SidebarLayout/Fluid-Fixed>></option></$select> |\n|<$link to=\"$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/options/stickytitles\"><<lingo Options/StickyTitles>></$link><br>//<<lingo Options/StickyTitles/Hint>>// |<$select tiddler=\"$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/options/stickytitles\"><option value=\"no\">{{$:/language/No}}</option><option value=\"yes\">{{$:/language/Yes}}</option></$select> |\n|<$link to=\"$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/options/codewrapping\"><<lingo Options/CodeWrapping>></$link> |<$select tiddler=\"$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/options/codewrapping\"><option value=\"pre\">{{$:/language/No}}</option><option value=\"pre-wrap\">{{$:/language/Yes}}</option></$select> |\n\n! <<lingo Settings>>\n\n|<$link to=\"$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/settings/fontfamily\"><<lingo Settings/FontFamily>></$link> |<$edit-text tiddler=\"$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/settings/fontfamily\" default=\"\" tag=\"input\"/> | |\n|<$link to=\"$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/settings/codefontfamily\"><<lingo Settings/CodeFontFamily>></$link> |<$edit-text tiddler=\"$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/settings/codefontfamily\" default=\"\" tag=\"input\"/> | |\n|<$link to=\"$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/settings/editorfontfamily\"><<lingo Settings/EditorFontFamily>></$link> |<$edit-text tiddler=\"$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/settings/editorfontfamily\" default=\"\" tag=\"input\"/> | |\n|<$link to=\"$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/settings/backgroundimage\"><<lingo Settings/BackgroundImage>></$link> |<$edit-text tiddler=\"$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/settings/backgroundimage\" default=\"\" tag=\"input\"/> |<<backgroundimage-dropdown>> |\n|<$link to=\"$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/settings/backgroundimageattachment\"><<lingo Settings/BackgroundImageAttachment>></$link> |<<backgroundimageattachment-dropdown>> | |\n|<$link to=\"$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/settings/backgroundimagesize\"><<lingo Settings/BackgroundImageSize>></$link> |<<backgroundimagesize-dropdown>> | |\n\n! <<lingo Metrics>>\n\n|<$link to=\"$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/metrics/fontsize\"><<lingo Metrics/FontSize>></$link> |<$edit-text tiddler=\"$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/metrics/fontsize\" default=\"\" tag=\"input\"/> |\n|<$link to=\"$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/metrics/lineheight\"><<lingo Metrics/LineHeight>></$link> |<$edit-text tiddler=\"$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/metrics/lineheight\" default=\"\" tag=\"input\"/> |\n|<$link to=\"$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/metrics/bodyfontsize\"><<lingo Metrics/BodyFontSize>></$link> |<$edit-text tiddler=\"$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/metrics/bodyfontsize\" default=\"\" tag=\"input\"/> |\n|<$link to=\"$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/metrics/bodylineheight\"><<lingo Metrics/BodyLineHeight>></$link> |<$edit-text tiddler=\"$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/metrics/bodylineheight\" default=\"\" tag=\"input\"/> |\n|<$link to=\"$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/metrics/storyleft\"><<lingo Metrics/StoryLeft>></$link><br>//<<lingo Metrics/StoryLeft/Hint>>// |^<$edit-text tiddler=\"$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/metrics/storyleft\" default=\"\" tag=\"input\"/> |\n|<$link to=\"$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/metrics/storytop\"><<lingo Metrics/StoryTop>></$link><br>//<<lingo Metrics/StoryTop/Hint>>// |^<$edit-text tiddler=\"$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/metrics/storytop\" default=\"\" tag=\"input\"/> |\n|<$link to=\"$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/metrics/storyright\"><<lingo Metrics/StoryRight>></$link><br>//<<lingo Metrics/StoryRight/Hint>>// |^<$edit-text tiddler=\"$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/metrics/storyright\" default=\"\" tag=\"input\"/> |\n|<$link to=\"$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/metrics/storywidth\"><<lingo Metrics/StoryWidth>></$link><br>//<<lingo Metrics/StoryWidth/Hint>>// |^<$edit-text tiddler=\"$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/metrics/storywidth\" default=\"\" tag=\"input\"/> |\n|<$link to=\"$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/metrics/tiddlerwidth\"><<lingo Metrics/TiddlerWidth>></$link><br>//<<lingo Metrics/TiddlerWidth/Hint>>//<br> |^<$edit-text tiddler=\"$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/metrics/tiddlerwidth\" default=\"\" tag=\"input\"/> |\n|<$link to=\"$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/metrics/sidebarbreakpoint\"><<lingo Metrics/SidebarBreakpoint>></$link><br>//<<lingo Metrics/SidebarBreakpoint/Hint>>// |^<$edit-text tiddler=\"$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/metrics/sidebarbreakpoint\" default=\"\" tag=\"input\"/> |\n|<$link to=\"$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/metrics/sidebarwidth\"><<lingo Metrics/SidebarWidth>></$link><br>//<<lingo Metrics/SidebarWidth/Hint>>// |^<$edit-text tiddler=\"$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/metrics/sidebarwidth\" default=\"\" tag=\"input\"/> |\n"
},
"$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/base": {
"title": "$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/base",
"tags": "[[$:/tags/Stylesheet]]",
"text": "\\define custom-background-datauri()\n<$set name=\"background\" value={{$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/settings/backgroundimage}}>\n<$list filter=\"[<background>is[image]]\">\n`background: url(`\n<$list filter=\"[<background>!has[_canonical_uri]]\">\n`\"`<$macrocall $name=\"datauri\" title={{$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/settings/backgroundimage}}/>`\"`\n</$list>\n<$list filter=\"[<background>has[_canonical_uri]]\">\n`\"`<$view tiddler={{$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/settings/backgroundimage}} field=\"_canonical_uri\"/>`\"`\n</$list>\n`) center center;`\n`background-attachment: `{{$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/settings/backgroundimageattachment}}`;\n-webkit-background-size:` {{$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/settings/backgroundimagesize}}`;\n-moz-background-size:` {{$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/settings/backgroundimagesize}}`;\n-o-background-size:` {{$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/settings/backgroundimagesize}}`;\nbackground-size:` {{$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/settings/backgroundimagesize}}`;`\n</$list>\n</$set>\n\\end\n\n\\define if-fluid-fixed(text,hiddenSidebarText)\n<$reveal state=\"$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/options/sidebarlayout\" type=\"match\" text=\"fluid-fixed\">\n$text$\n<$reveal state=\"$:/state/sidebar\" type=\"nomatch\" text=\"yes\" default=\"yes\">\n$hiddenSidebarText$\n</$reveal>\n</$reveal>\n\\end\n\n\\define if-editor-height-fixed(then,else)\n<$reveal state=\"$:/config/TextEditor/EditorHeight/Mode\" type=\"match\" text=\"fixed\">\n$then$\n</$reveal>\n<$reveal state=\"$:/config/TextEditor/EditorHeight/Mode\" type=\"match\" text=\"auto\">\n$else$\n</$reveal>\n\\end\n\n\\rules only filteredtranscludeinline transcludeinline macrodef macrocallinline macrocallblock\n\n/*\n** Start with the normalize CSS reset, and then belay some of its effects\n*/\n\n{{$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/reset}}\n\n*, input[type=\"search\"] {\n\tbox-sizing: border-box;\n\t-moz-box-sizing: border-box;\n\t-webkit-box-sizing: border-box;\n}\n\nhtml button {\n\tline-height: 1.2;\n\tcolor: <<colour button-foreground>>;\n\tbackground: <<colour button-background>>;\n\tborder-color: <<colour button-border>>;\n}\n\n/*\n** Basic element styles\n*/\n\nhtml {\n\tfont-family: {{$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/settings/fontfamily}};\n\ttext-rendering: optimizeLegibility; /* Enables kerning and ligatures etc. */\n\t-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased;\n\t-moz-osx-font-smoothing: grayscale;\n}\n\nhtml:-webkit-full-screen {\n\tbackground-color: <<colour page-background>>;\n}\n\nbody.tc-body {\n\tfont-size: {{$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/metrics/fontsize}};\n\tline-height: {{$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/metrics/lineheight}};\n\tword-wrap: break-word;\n\t<<custom-background-datauri>>\n\tcolor: <<colour foreground>>;\n\tbackground-color: <<colour page-background>>;\n\tfill: <<colour foreground>>;\n}\n\n<<if-background-attachment \"\"\"\n\nbody.tc-body {\n background-color: transparent;\n}\n\n\"\"\">>\n\nh1, h2, h3, h4, h5, h6 {\n\tline-height: 1.2;\n\tfont-weight: 300;\n}\n\npre {\n\tdisplay: block;\n\tpadding: 14px;\n\tmargin-top: 1em;\n\tmargin-bottom: 1em;\n\tword-break: normal;\n\tword-wrap: break-word;\n\twhite-space: {{$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/options/codewrapping}};\n\tbackground-color: <<colour pre-background>>;\n\tborder: 1px solid <<colour pre-border>>;\n\tpadding: 0 3px 2px;\n\tborder-radius: 3px;\n\tfont-family: {{$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/settings/codefontfamily}};\n}\n\ncode {\n\tcolor: <<colour code-foreground>>;\n\tbackground-color: <<colour code-background>>;\n\tborder: 1px solid <<colour code-border>>;\n\twhite-space: {{$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/options/codewrapping}};\n\tpadding: 0 3px 2px;\n\tborder-radius: 3px;\n\tfont-family: {{$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/settings/codefontfamily}};\n}\n\nblockquote {\n\tborder-left: 5px solid <<colour blockquote-bar>>;\n\tmargin-left: 25px;\n\tpadding-left: 10px;\n\tquotes: \"\\201C\"\"\\201D\"\"\\2018\"\"\\2019\";\n}\n\nblockquote.tc-big-quote {\n\tfont-family: Georgia, serif;\n\tposition: relative;\n\tbackground: <<colour pre-background>>;\n\tborder-left: none;\n\tmargin-left: 50px;\n\tmargin-right: 50px;\n\tpadding: 10px;\n border-radius: 8px;\n}\n\nblockquote.tc-big-quote cite:before {\n\tcontent: \"\\2014 \\2009\";\n}\n\nblockquote.tc-big-quote:before {\n\tfont-family: Georgia, serif;\n\tcolor: <<colour blockquote-bar>>;\n\tcontent: open-quote;\n\tfont-size: 8em;\n\tline-height: 0.1em;\n\tmargin-right: 0.25em;\n\tvertical-align: -0.4em;\n\tposition: absolute;\n left: -50px;\n top: 42px;\n}\n\nblockquote.tc-big-quote:after {\n\tfont-family: Georgia, serif;\n\tcolor: <<colour blockquote-bar>>;\n\tcontent: close-quote;\n\tfont-size: 8em;\n\tline-height: 0.1em;\n\tmargin-right: 0.25em;\n\tvertical-align: -0.4em;\n\tposition: absolute;\n right: -80px;\n bottom: -20px;\n}\n\ndl dt {\n\tfont-weight: bold;\n\tmargin-top: 6px;\n}\n\ntextarea,\ninput[type=text],\ninput[type=search],\ninput[type=\"\"],\ninput:not([type]) {\n\tcolor: <<colour foreground>>;\n\tbackground: <<colour background>>;\n}\n\ninput[type=\"checkbox\"] {\n vertical-align: middle;\n}\n\n.tc-muted {\n\tcolor: <<colour muted-foreground>>;\n}\n\nsvg.tc-image-button {\n\tpadding: 0px 1px 1px 0px;\n}\n\n.tc-icon-wrapper > svg {\n\twidth: 1em;\n\theight: 1em;\n}\n\nkbd {\n\tdisplay: inline-block;\n\tpadding: 3px 5px;\n\tfont-size: 0.8em;\n\tline-height: 1.2;\n\tcolor: <<colour foreground>>;\n\tvertical-align: middle;\n\tbackground-color: <<colour background>>;\n\tborder: solid 1px <<colour muted-foreground>>;\n\tborder-bottom-color: <<colour muted-foreground>>;\n\tborder-radius: 3px;\n\tbox-shadow: inset 0 -1px 0 <<colour muted-foreground>>;\n}\n\n/*\nMarkdown likes putting code elements inside pre elements\n*/\npre > code {\n\tpadding: 0;\n\tborder: none;\n\tbackground-color: inherit;\n\tcolor: inherit;\n}\n\ntable {\n\tborder: 1px solid <<colour table-border>>;\n\twidth: auto;\n\tmax-width: 100%;\n\tcaption-side: bottom;\n\tmargin-top: 1em;\n\tmargin-bottom: 1em;\n}\n\ntable th, table td {\n\tpadding: 0 7px 0 7px;\n\tborder-top: 1px solid <<colour table-border>>;\n\tborder-left: 1px solid <<colour table-border>>;\n}\n\ntable thead tr td, table th {\n\tbackground-color: <<colour table-header-background>>;\n\tfont-weight: bold;\n}\n\ntable tfoot tr td {\n\tbackground-color: <<colour table-footer-background>>;\n}\n\n.tc-csv-table {\n\twhite-space: nowrap;\n}\n\n.tc-tiddler-frame img,\n.tc-tiddler-frame svg,\n.tc-tiddler-frame canvas,\n.tc-tiddler-frame embed,\n.tc-tiddler-frame iframe {\n\tmax-width: 100%;\n}\n\n.tc-tiddler-body > embed,\n.tc-tiddler-body > iframe {\n\twidth: 100%;\n\theight: 600px;\n}\n\n/*\n** Links\n*/\n\nbutton.tc-tiddlylink,\na.tc-tiddlylink {\n\ttext-decoration: none;\n\tfont-weight: 500;\n\tcolor: <<colour tiddler-link-foreground>>;\n\t-webkit-user-select: inherit; /* Otherwise the draggable attribute makes links impossible to select */\n}\n\n.tc-sidebar-lists a.tc-tiddlylink {\n\tcolor: <<colour sidebar-tiddler-link-foreground>>;\n}\n\n.tc-sidebar-lists a.tc-tiddlylink:hover {\n\tcolor: <<colour sidebar-tiddler-link-foreground-hover>>;\n}\n\nbutton.tc-tiddlylink:hover,\na.tc-tiddlylink:hover {\n\ttext-decoration: underline;\n}\n\na.tc-tiddlylink-resolves {\n}\n\na.tc-tiddlylink-shadow {\n\tfont-weight: bold;\n}\n\na.tc-tiddlylink-shadow.tc-tiddlylink-resolves {\n\tfont-weight: normal;\n}\n\na.tc-tiddlylink-missing {\n\tfont-style: italic;\n}\n\na.tc-tiddlylink-external {\n\ttext-decoration: underline;\n\tcolor: <<colour external-link-foreground>>;\n\tbackground-color: <<colour external-link-background>>;\n}\n\na.tc-tiddlylink-external:visited {\n\tcolor: <<colour external-link-foreground-visited>>;\n\tbackground-color: <<colour external-link-background-visited>>;\n}\n\na.tc-tiddlylink-external:hover {\n\tcolor: <<colour external-link-foreground-hover>>;\n\tbackground-color: <<colour external-link-background-hover>>;\n}\n\n/*\n** Drag and drop styles\n*/\n\n.tc-tiddler-dragger {\n\tposition: relative;\n\tz-index: -10000;\n}\n\n.tc-tiddler-dragger-inner {\n\tposition: absolute;\n\ttop: -1000px;\n\tleft: -1000px;\n\tdisplay: inline-block;\n\tpadding: 8px 20px;\n\tfont-size: 16.9px;\n\tfont-weight: bold;\n\tline-height: 20px;\n\tcolor: <<colour dragger-foreground>>;\n\ttext-shadow: 0 1px 0 rgba(0, 0, 0, 1);\n\twhite-space: nowrap;\n\tvertical-align: baseline;\n\tbackground-color: <<colour dragger-background>>;\n\tborder-radius: 20px;\n}\n\n.tc-tiddler-dragger-cover {\n\tposition: absolute;\n\tbackground-color: <<colour page-background>>;\n}\n\n.tc-dropzone {\n\tposition: relative;\n}\n\n.tc-dropzone.tc-dragover:before {\n\tz-index: 10000;\n\tdisplay: block;\n\tposition: fixed;\n\ttop: 0;\n\tleft: 0;\n\tright: 0;\n\tbackground: <<colour dropzone-background>>;\n\ttext-align: center;\n\tcontent: \"<<lingo DropMessage>>\";\n}\n\n.tc-droppable > .tc-droppable-placeholder {\n\tdisplay: none;\n}\n\n.tc-droppable.tc-dragover > .tc-droppable-placeholder {\n\tdisplay: block;\n\tborder: 2px dashed <<colour dropzone-background>>;\n}\n\n.tc-draggable {\n\tcursor: move;\n}\n\n/*\n** Plugin reload warning\n*/\n\n.tc-plugin-reload-warning {\n\tz-index: 1000;\n\tdisplay: block;\n\tposition: fixed;\n\ttop: 0;\n\tleft: 0;\n\tright: 0;\n\tbackground: <<colour alert-background>>;\n\ttext-align: center;\n}\n\n/*\n** Buttons\n*/\n\nbutton svg, button img, label svg, label img {\n\tvertical-align: middle;\n}\n\n.tc-btn-invisible {\n\tpadding: 0;\n\tmargin: 0;\n\tbackground: none;\n\tborder: none;\n cursor: pointer;\n}\n\n.tc-btn-boxed {\n\tfont-size: 0.6em;\n\tpadding: 0.2em;\n\tmargin: 1px;\n\tbackground: none;\n\tborder: 1px solid <<colour tiddler-controls-foreground>>;\n\tborder-radius: 0.25em;\n}\n\nhtml body.tc-body .tc-btn-boxed svg {\n\tfont-size: 1.6666em;\n}\n\n.tc-btn-boxed:hover {\n\tbackground: <<colour muted-foreground>>;\n\tcolor: <<colour background>>;\n}\n\nhtml body.tc-body .tc-btn-boxed:hover svg {\n\tfill: <<colour background>>;\n}\n\n.tc-btn-rounded {\n\tfont-size: 0.5em;\n\tline-height: 2;\n\tpadding: 0em 0.3em 0.2em 0.4em;\n\tmargin: 1px;\n\tborder: 1px solid <<colour muted-foreground>>;\n\tbackground: <<colour muted-foreground>>;\n\tcolor: <<colour background>>;\n\tborder-radius: 2em;\n}\n\nhtml body.tc-body .tc-btn-rounded svg {\n\tfont-size: 1.6666em;\n\tfill: <<colour background>>;\n}\n\n.tc-btn-rounded:hover {\n\tborder: 1px solid <<colour muted-foreground>>;\n\tbackground: <<colour background>>;\n\tcolor: <<colour muted-foreground>>;\n}\n\nhtml body.tc-body .tc-btn-rounded:hover svg {\n\tfill: <<colour muted-foreground>>;\n}\n\n.tc-btn-icon svg {\n\theight: 1em;\n\twidth: 1em;\n\tfill: <<colour muted-foreground>>;\n}\n\n.tc-btn-text {\n\tpadding: 0;\n\tmargin: 0;\n}\n\n/* used for documentation \"fake\" buttons */\n.tc-btn-standard {\n\tline-height: 1.8;\n\tcolor: #667;\n\tbackground-color: #e0e0e0;\n\tborder: 1px solid #888;\n\tpadding: 2px 1px 2px 1px;\n\tmargin: 1px 4px 1px 4px;\n}\n\n.tc-btn-big-green {\n\tdisplay: inline-block;\n\tpadding: 8px;\n\tmargin: 4px 8px 4px 8px;\n\tbackground: <<colour download-background>>;\n\tcolor: <<colour download-foreground>>;\n\tfill: <<colour download-foreground>>;\n\tborder: none;\n\tfont-size: 1.2em;\n\tline-height: 1.4em;\n\ttext-decoration: none;\n}\n\n.tc-btn-big-green svg,\n.tc-btn-big-green img {\n\theight: 2em;\n\twidth: 2em;\n\tvertical-align: middle;\n\tfill: <<colour download-foreground>>;\n}\n\n.tc-sidebar-lists input {\n\tcolor: <<colour foreground>>;\n}\n\n.tc-sidebar-lists button {\n\tcolor: <<colour sidebar-button-foreground>>;\n\tfill: <<colour sidebar-button-foreground>>;\n}\n\n.tc-sidebar-lists button.tc-btn-mini {\n\tcolor: <<colour sidebar-muted-foreground>>;\n}\n\n.tc-sidebar-lists button.tc-btn-mini:hover {\n\tcolor: <<colour sidebar-muted-foreground-hover>>;\n}\n\nbutton svg.tc-image-button, button .tc-image-button img {\n\theight: 1em;\n\twidth: 1em;\n}\n\n.tc-unfold-banner {\n\tposition: absolute;\n\tpadding: 0;\n\tmargin: 0;\n\tbackground: none;\n\tborder: none;\n\twidth: 100%;\n\twidth: calc(100% + 2px);\n\tmargin-left: -43px;\n\ttext-align: center;\n\tborder-top: 2px solid <<colour tiddler-info-background>>;\n\tmargin-top: 4px;\n}\n\n.tc-unfold-banner:hover {\n\tbackground: <<colour tiddler-info-background>>;\n\tborder-top: 2px solid <<colour tiddler-info-border>>;\n}\n\n.tc-unfold-banner svg, .tc-fold-banner svg {\n\theight: 0.75em;\n\tfill: <<colour tiddler-controls-foreground>>;\n}\n\n.tc-unfold-banner:hover svg, .tc-fold-banner:hover svg {\n\tfill: <<colour tiddler-controls-foreground-hover>>;\n}\n\n.tc-fold-banner {\n\tposition: absolute;\n\tpadding: 0;\n\tmargin: 0;\n\tbackground: none;\n\tborder: none;\n\twidth: 23px;\n\ttext-align: center;\n\tmargin-left: -35px;\n\ttop: 6px;\n\tbottom: 6px;\n}\n\n.tc-fold-banner:hover {\n\tbackground: <<colour tiddler-info-background>>;\n}\n\n@media (max-width: {{$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/metrics/sidebarbreakpoint}}) {\n\n\t.tc-unfold-banner {\n\t\tposition: static;\n\t\twidth: calc(100% + 59px);\n\t}\n\n\t.tc-fold-banner {\n\t\twidth: 16px;\n\t\tmargin-left: -16px;\n\t\tfont-size: 0.75em;\n\t}\n\n}\n\n/*\n** Tags and missing tiddlers\n*/\n\n.tc-tag-list-item {\n\tposition: relative;\n\tdisplay: inline-block;\n\tmargin-right: 7px;\n}\n\n.tc-tags-wrapper {\n\tmargin: 4px 0 14px 0;\n}\n\n.tc-missing-tiddler-label {\n\tfont-style: italic;\n\tfont-weight: normal;\n\tdisplay: inline-block;\n\tfont-size: 11.844px;\n\tline-height: 14px;\n\twhite-space: nowrap;\n\tvertical-align: baseline;\n}\n\nbutton.tc-tag-label, span.tc-tag-label {\n\tdisplay: inline-block;\n\tpadding: 0.16em 0.7em;\n\tfont-size: 0.9em;\n\tfont-weight: 400;\n\tline-height: 1.2em;\n\tcolor: <<colour tag-foreground>>;\n\twhite-space: nowrap;\n\tvertical-align: baseline;\n\tbackground-color: <<colour tag-background>>;\n\tborder-radius: 1em;\n}\n\n.tc-untagged-separator {\n\twidth: 10em;\n\tleft: 0;\n\tmargin-left: 0;\n\tborder: 0;\n\theight: 1px;\n\tbackground: <<colour tab-divider>>;\n}\n\nbutton.tc-untagged-label {\n\tbackground-color: <<colour untagged-background>>;\n}\n\n.tc-tag-label svg, .tc-tag-label img {\n\theight: 1em;\n\twidth: 1em;\n\tvertical-align: text-bottom;\n}\n\n.tc-tag-manager-table .tc-tag-label {\n\twhite-space: normal;\n}\n\n.tc-tag-manager-tag {\n\twidth: 100%;\n}\n\nbutton.tc-btn-invisible.tc-remove-tag-button {\n\toutline: none;\n}\n\n/*\n** Page layout\n*/\n\n.tc-topbar {\n\tposition: fixed;\n\tz-index: 1200;\n}\n\n.tc-topbar-left {\n\tleft: 29px;\n\ttop: 5px;\n}\n\n.tc-topbar-right {\n\ttop: 5px;\n\tright: 29px;\n}\n\n.tc-topbar button {\n\tpadding: 8px;\n}\n\n.tc-topbar svg {\n\tfill: <<colour muted-foreground>>;\n}\n\n.tc-topbar button:hover svg {\n\tfill: <<colour foreground>>;\n}\n\n.tc-sidebar-header {\n\tcolor: <<colour sidebar-foreground>>;\n\tfill: <<colour sidebar-foreground>>;\n}\n\n.tc-sidebar-header .tc-title a.tc-tiddlylink-resolves {\n\tfont-weight: 300;\n}\n\n.tc-sidebar-header .tc-sidebar-lists p {\n\tmargin-top: 3px;\n\tmargin-bottom: 3px;\n}\n\n.tc-sidebar-header .tc-missing-tiddler-label {\n\tcolor: <<colour sidebar-foreground>>;\n}\n\n.tc-advanced-search input {\n\twidth: 60%;\n}\n\n.tc-search a svg {\n\twidth: 1.2em;\n\theight: 1.2em;\n\tvertical-align: middle;\n}\n\n.tc-page-controls {\n\tmargin-top: 14px;\n\tfont-size: 1.5em;\n}\n\n.tc-page-controls .tc-drop-down {\n font-size: 1rem;\n}\n\n.tc-page-controls button {\n\tmargin-right: 0.5em;\n}\n\n.tc-page-controls a.tc-tiddlylink:hover {\n\ttext-decoration: none;\n}\n\n.tc-page-controls img {\n\twidth: 1em;\n}\n\n.tc-page-controls svg {\n\tfill: <<colour sidebar-controls-foreground>>;\n}\n\n.tc-page-controls button:hover svg, .tc-page-controls a:hover svg {\n\tfill: <<colour sidebar-controls-foreground-hover>>;\n}\n\n.tc-menu-list-item {\n\twhite-space: nowrap;\n}\n\n.tc-menu-list-count {\n\tfont-weight: bold;\n}\n\n.tc-menu-list-subitem {\n\tpadding-left: 7px;\n}\n\n.tc-story-river {\n\tposition: relative;\n}\n\n@media (max-width: {{$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/metrics/sidebarbreakpoint}}) {\n\n\t.tc-sidebar-header {\n\t\tpadding: 14px;\n\t\tmin-height: 32px;\n\t\tmargin-top: {{$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/metrics/storytop}};\n\t}\n\n\t.tc-story-river {\n\t\tposition: relative;\n\t\tpadding: 0;\n\t}\n}\n\n@media (min-width: {{$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/metrics/sidebarbreakpoint}}) {\n\n\t.tc-message-box {\n\t\tmargin: 21px -21px 21px -21px;\n\t}\n\n\t.tc-sidebar-scrollable {\n\t\tposition: fixed;\n\t\ttop: {{$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/metrics/storytop}};\n\t\tleft: {{$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/metrics/storyright}};\n\t\tbottom: 0;\n\t\tright: 0;\n\t\toverflow-y: auto;\n\t\toverflow-x: auto;\n\t\t-webkit-overflow-scrolling: touch;\n\t\tmargin: 0 0 0 -42px;\n\t\tpadding: 71px 0 28px 42px;\n\t}\n\n\thtml[dir=\"rtl\"] .tc-sidebar-scrollable {\n\t\tleft: auto;\n\t\tright: {{$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/metrics/storyright}};\n\t}\n\n\t.tc-story-river {\n\t\tposition: relative;\n\t\tleft: {{$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/metrics/storyleft}};\n\t\ttop: {{$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/metrics/storytop}};\n\t\twidth: {{$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/metrics/storywidth}};\n\t\tpadding: 42px 42px 42px 42px;\n\t}\n\n<<if-no-sidebar \"\n\n\t.tc-story-river {\n\t\twidth: calc(100% - {{$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/metrics/storyleft}});\n\t}\n\n\">>\n\n}\n\n@media print {\n\n\tbody.tc-body {\n\t\tbackground-color: transparent;\n\t}\n\n\t.tc-sidebar-header, .tc-topbar {\n\t\tdisplay: none;\n\t}\n\n\t.tc-story-river {\n\t\tmargin: 0;\n\t\tpadding: 0;\n\t}\n\n\t.tc-story-river .tc-tiddler-frame {\n\t\tmargin: 0;\n\t\tborder: none;\n\t\tpadding: 0;\n\t}\n}\n\n/*\n** Tiddler styles\n*/\n\n.tc-tiddler-frame {\n\tposition: relative;\n\tmargin-bottom: 28px;\n\tbackground-color: <<colour tiddler-background>>;\n\tborder: 1px solid <<colour tiddler-border>>;\n}\n\n{{$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/sticky}}\n\n.tc-tiddler-info {\n\tpadding: 14px 42px 14px 42px;\n\tbackground-color: <<colour tiddler-info-background>>;\n\tborder-top: 1px solid <<colour tiddler-info-border>>;\n\tborder-bottom: 1px solid <<colour tiddler-info-border>>;\n}\n\n.tc-tiddler-info p {\n\tmargin-top: 3px;\n\tmargin-bottom: 3px;\n}\n\n.tc-tiddler-info .tc-tab-buttons button.tc-tab-selected {\n\tbackground-color: <<colour tiddler-info-tab-background>>;\n\tborder-bottom: 1px solid <<colour tiddler-info-tab-background>>;\n}\n\n.tc-view-field-table {\n\twidth: 100%;\n}\n\n.tc-view-field-name {\n\twidth: 1%; /* Makes this column be as narrow as possible */\n\ttext-align: right;\n\tfont-style: italic;\n\tfont-weight: 200;\n}\n\n.tc-view-field-value {\n}\n\n@media (max-width: {{$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/metrics/sidebarbreakpoint}}) {\n\t.tc-tiddler-frame {\n\t\tpadding: 14px 14px 14px 14px;\n\t}\n\n\t.tc-tiddler-info {\n\t\tmargin: 0 -14px 0 -14px;\n\t}\n}\n\n@media (min-width: {{$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/metrics/sidebarbreakpoint}}) {\n\t.tc-tiddler-frame {\n\t\tpadding: 28px 42px 42px 42px;\n\t\twidth: {{$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/metrics/tiddlerwidth}};\n\t\tborder-radius: 2px;\n\t}\n\n<<if-no-sidebar \"\n\n\t.tc-tiddler-frame {\n\t\twidth: 100%;\n\t}\n\n\">>\n\n\t.tc-tiddler-info {\n\t\tmargin: 0 -42px 0 -42px;\n\t}\n}\n\n.tc-site-title,\n.tc-titlebar {\n\tfont-weight: 300;\n\tfont-size: 2.35em;\n\tline-height: 1.2em;\n\tcolor: <<colour tiddler-title-foreground>>;\n\tmargin: 0;\n}\n\n.tc-site-title {\n\tcolor: <<colour site-title-foreground>>;\n}\n\n.tc-tiddler-title-icon {\n\tvertical-align: middle;\n}\n\n.tc-system-title-prefix {\n\tcolor: <<colour muted-foreground>>;\n}\n\n.tc-titlebar h2 {\n\tfont-size: 1em;\n\tdisplay: inline;\n}\n\n.tc-titlebar img {\n\theight: 1em;\n}\n\n.tc-subtitle {\n\tfont-size: 0.9em;\n\tcolor: <<colour tiddler-subtitle-foreground>>;\n\tfont-weight: 300;\n}\n\n.tc-tiddler-missing .tc-title {\n font-style: italic;\n font-weight: normal;\n}\n\n.tc-tiddler-frame .tc-tiddler-controls {\n\tfloat: right;\n}\n\n.tc-tiddler-controls .tc-drop-down {\n\tfont-size: 0.6em;\n}\n\n.tc-tiddler-controls .tc-drop-down .tc-drop-down {\n\tfont-size: 1em;\n}\n\n.tc-tiddler-controls > span > button,\n.tc-tiddler-controls > span > span > button,\n.tc-tiddler-controls > span > span > span > button {\n\tvertical-align: baseline;\n\tmargin-left:5px;\n}\n\n.tc-tiddler-controls button svg, .tc-tiddler-controls button img,\n.tc-search button svg, .tc-search a svg {\n\tfill: <<colour tiddler-controls-foreground>>;\n}\n\n.tc-tiddler-controls button svg, .tc-tiddler-controls button img {\n\theight: 0.75em;\n}\n\n.tc-search button svg, .tc-search a svg {\n height: 1.2em;\n width: 1.2em;\n margin: 0 0.25em;\n}\n\n.tc-tiddler-controls button.tc-selected svg,\n.tc-page-controls button.tc-selected svg {\n\tfill: <<colour tiddler-controls-foreground-selected>>;\n}\n\n.tc-tiddler-controls button.tc-btn-invisible:hover svg,\n.tc-search button:hover svg, .tc-search a:hover svg {\n\tfill: <<colour tiddler-controls-foreground-hover>>;\n}\n\n@media print {\n\t.tc-tiddler-controls {\n\t\tdisplay: none;\n\t}\n}\n\n.tc-tiddler-help { /* Help prompts within tiddler template */\n\tcolor: <<colour muted-foreground>>;\n\tmargin-top: 14px;\n}\n\n.tc-tiddler-help a.tc-tiddlylink {\n\tcolor: <<colour very-muted-foreground>>;\n}\n\n.tc-tiddler-frame .tc-edit-texteditor {\n\twidth: 100%;\n\tmargin: 4px 0 4px 0;\n}\n\n.tc-tiddler-frame input.tc-edit-texteditor,\n.tc-tiddler-frame textarea.tc-edit-texteditor,\n.tc-tiddler-frame iframe.tc-edit-texteditor {\n\tpadding: 3px 3px 3px 3px;\n\tborder: 1px solid <<colour tiddler-editor-border>>;\n\tbackground-color: <<colour tiddler-editor-background>>;\n\tline-height: 1.3em;\n\t-webkit-appearance: none;\n\tfont-family: {{$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/settings/editorfontfamily}};\n}\n\n.tc-tiddler-frame .tc-binary-warning {\n\twidth: 100%;\n\theight: 5em;\n\ttext-align: center;\n\tpadding: 3em 3em 6em 3em;\n\tbackground: <<colour alert-background>>;\n\tborder: 1px solid <<colour alert-border>>;\n}\n\ncanvas.tc-edit-bitmapeditor {\n\tborder: 6px solid <<colour tiddler-editor-border-image>>;\n\tcursor: crosshair;\n\t-moz-user-select: none;\n\t-webkit-user-select: none;\n\t-ms-user-select: none;\n\tmargin-top: 6px;\n\tmargin-bottom: 6px;\n}\n\n.tc-edit-bitmapeditor-width {\n\tdisplay: block;\n}\n\n.tc-edit-bitmapeditor-height {\n\tdisplay: block;\n}\n\n.tc-tiddler-body {\n\tclear: both;\n}\n\n.tc-tiddler-frame .tc-tiddler-body {\n\tfont-size: {{$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/metrics/bodyfontsize}};\n\tline-height: {{$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/metrics/bodylineheight}};\n}\n\n.tc-titlebar, .tc-tiddler-edit-title {\n\toverflow: hidden; /* https://github.com/Jermolene/TiddlyWiki5/issues/282 */\n}\n\nhtml body.tc-body.tc-single-tiddler-window {\n\tmargin: 1em;\n\tbackground: <<colour tiddler-background>>;\n}\n\n.tc-single-tiddler-window img,\n.tc-single-tiddler-window svg,\n.tc-single-tiddler-window canvas,\n.tc-single-tiddler-window embed,\n.tc-single-tiddler-window iframe {\n\tmax-width: 100%;\n}\n\n/*\n** Editor\n*/\n\n.tc-editor-toolbar {\n\tmargin-top: 8px;\n}\n\n.tc-editor-toolbar button {\n\tvertical-align: middle;\n\tbackground-color: <<colour tiddler-controls-foreground>>;\n\tfill: <<colour tiddler-controls-foreground-selected>>;\n\tborder-radius: 4px;\n\tpadding: 3px;\n\tmargin: 2px 0 2px 4px;\n}\n\n.tc-editor-toolbar button.tc-text-editor-toolbar-item-adjunct {\n\tmargin-left: 1px;\n\twidth: 1em;\n\tborder-radius: 8px;\n}\n\n.tc-editor-toolbar button.tc-text-editor-toolbar-item-start-group {\n\tmargin-left: 11px;\n}\n\n.tc-editor-toolbar button.tc-selected {\n\tbackground-color: <<colour primary>>;\n}\n\n.tc-editor-toolbar button svg {\n\twidth: 1.6em;\n\theight: 1.2em;\n}\n\n.tc-editor-toolbar button:hover {\n\tbackground-color: <<colour tiddler-controls-foreground-selected>>;\n\tfill: <<colour background>>;\n\tcolor: <<colour background>>;\n}\n\n.tc-editor-toolbar .tc-text-editor-toolbar-more {\n\twhite-space: normal;\n}\n\n.tc-editor-toolbar .tc-text-editor-toolbar-more button {\n\tdisplay: inline-block;\n\tpadding: 3px;\n\twidth: auto;\n}\n\n.tc-editor-toolbar .tc-search-results {\n\tpadding: 0;\n}\n\n/*\n** Adjustments for fluid-fixed mode\n*/\n\n@media (min-width: {{$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/metrics/sidebarbreakpoint}}) {\n\n<<if-fluid-fixed text:\"\"\"\n\n\t.tc-story-river {\n\t\tpadding-right: 0;\n\t\tposition: relative;\n\t\twidth: auto;\n\t\tleft: 0;\n\t\tmargin-left: {{$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/metrics/storyleft}};\n\t\tmargin-right: {{$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/metrics/sidebarwidth}};\n\t}\n\n\t.tc-tiddler-frame {\n\t\twidth: 100%;\n\t}\n\n\t.tc-sidebar-scrollable {\n\t\tleft: auto;\n\t\tbottom: 0;\n\t\tright: 0;\n\t\twidth: {{$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/metrics/sidebarwidth}};\n\t}\n\n\tbody.tc-body .tc-storyview-zoomin-tiddler {\n\t\twidth: 100%;\n\t\twidth: calc(100% - 42px);\n\t}\n\n\"\"\" hiddenSidebarText:\"\"\"\n\n\t.tc-story-river {\n\t\tpadding-right: 3em;\n\t\tmargin-right: 0;\n\t}\n\n\tbody.tc-body .tc-storyview-zoomin-tiddler {\n\t\twidth: 100%;\n\t\twidth: calc(100% - 84px);\n\t}\n\n\"\"\">>\n\n}\n\n/*\n** Toolbar buttons\n*/\n\n.tc-page-controls svg.tc-image-new-button {\n fill: <<colour toolbar-new-button>>;\n}\n\n.tc-page-controls svg.tc-image-options-button {\n fill: <<colour toolbar-options-button>>;\n}\n\n.tc-page-controls svg.tc-image-save-button {\n fill: <<colour toolbar-save-button>>;\n}\n\n.tc-tiddler-controls button svg.tc-image-info-button {\n fill: <<colour toolbar-info-button>>;\n}\n\n.tc-tiddler-controls button svg.tc-image-edit-button {\n fill: <<colour toolbar-edit-button>>;\n}\n\n.tc-tiddler-controls button svg.tc-image-close-button {\n fill: <<colour toolbar-close-button>>;\n}\n\n.tc-tiddler-controls button svg.tc-image-delete-button {\n fill: <<colour toolbar-delete-button>>;\n}\n\n.tc-tiddler-controls button svg.tc-image-cancel-button {\n fill: <<colour toolbar-cancel-button>>;\n}\n\n.tc-tiddler-controls button svg.tc-image-done-button {\n fill: <<colour toolbar-done-button>>;\n}\n\n/*\n** Tiddler edit mode\n*/\n\n.tc-tiddler-edit-frame em.tc-edit {\n\tcolor: <<colour muted-foreground>>;\n\tfont-style: normal;\n}\n\n.tc-edit-type-dropdown a.tc-tiddlylink-missing {\n\tfont-style: normal;\n}\n\n.tc-edit-tags {\n\tborder: 1px solid <<colour tiddler-editor-border>>;\n\tpadding: 4px 8px 4px 8px;\n}\n\n.tc-edit-add-tag {\n\tdisplay: inline-block;\n}\n\n.tc-edit-add-tag .tc-add-tag-name input {\n\twidth: 50%;\n}\n\n.tc-edit-add-tag .tc-keyboard {\n\tdisplay:inline;\n}\n\n.tc-edit-tags .tc-tag-label {\n\tdisplay: inline-block;\n}\n\n.tc-edit-tags-list {\n\tmargin: 14px 0 14px 0;\n}\n\n.tc-remove-tag-button {\n\tpadding-left: 4px;\n}\n\n.tc-tiddler-preview {\n\toverflow: auto;\n}\n\n.tc-tiddler-preview-preview {\n\tfloat: right;\n\twidth: 49%;\n\tborder: 1px solid <<colour tiddler-editor-border>>;\n\tmargin: 4px 0 3px 3px;\n\tpadding: 3px 3px 3px 3px;\n}\n\n<<if-editor-height-fixed then:\"\"\"\n\n.tc-tiddler-preview-preview {\n\toverflow-y: scroll;\n\theight: {{$:/config/TextEditor/EditorHeight/Height}};\n}\n\n\"\"\">>\n\n.tc-tiddler-frame .tc-tiddler-preview .tc-edit-texteditor {\n\twidth: 49%;\n}\n\n.tc-tiddler-frame .tc-tiddler-preview canvas.tc-edit-bitmapeditor {\n\tmax-width: 49%;\n}\n\n.tc-edit-fields {\n\twidth: 100%;\n}\n\n\n.tc-edit-fields table, .tc-edit-fields tr, .tc-edit-fields td {\n\tborder: none;\n\tpadding: 4px;\n}\n\n.tc-edit-fields > tbody > .tc-edit-field:nth-child(odd) {\n\tbackground-color: <<colour tiddler-editor-fields-odd>>;\n}\n\n.tc-edit-fields > tbody > .tc-edit-field:nth-child(even) {\n\tbackground-color: <<colour tiddler-editor-fields-even>>;\n}\n\n.tc-edit-field-name {\n\ttext-align: right;\n}\n\n.tc-edit-field-value input {\n\twidth: 100%;\n}\n\n.tc-edit-field-remove {\n}\n\n.tc-edit-field-remove svg {\n\theight: 1em;\n\twidth: 1em;\n\tfill: <<colour muted-foreground>>;\n\tvertical-align: middle;\n}\n\n.tc-edit-field-add-name {\n\tdisplay: inline-block;\n\twidth: 15%;\n}\n\n.tc-edit-field-add-value {\n\tdisplay: inline-block;\n\twidth: 40%;\n}\n\n.tc-edit-field-add-button {\n\tdisplay: inline-block;\n\twidth: 10%;\n}\n\n/*\n** Storyview Classes\n*/\n\n.tc-storyview-zoomin-tiddler {\n\tposition: absolute;\n\tdisplay: block;\n\twidth: 100%;\n}\n\n@media (min-width: {{$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/metrics/sidebarbreakpoint}}) {\n\n\t.tc-storyview-zoomin-tiddler {\n\t\twidth: calc(100% - 84px);\n\t}\n\n}\n\n/*\n** Dropdowns\n*/\n\n.tc-btn-dropdown {\n\ttext-align: left;\n}\n\n.tc-btn-dropdown svg, .tc-btn-dropdown img {\n\theight: 1em;\n\twidth: 1em;\n\tfill: <<colour muted-foreground>>;\n}\n\n.tc-drop-down-wrapper {\n\tposition: relative;\n}\n\n.tc-drop-down {\n\tmin-width: 380px;\n\tborder: 1px solid <<colour dropdown-border>>;\n\tbackground-color: <<colour dropdown-background>>;\n\tpadding: 7px 0 7px 0;\n\tmargin: 4px 0 0 0;\n\twhite-space: nowrap;\n\ttext-shadow: none;\n\tline-height: 1.4;\n}\n\n.tc-drop-down .tc-drop-down {\n\tmargin-left: 14px;\n}\n\n.tc-drop-down button svg, .tc-drop-down a svg {\n\tfill: <<colour foreground>>;\n}\n\n.tc-drop-down button.tc-btn-invisible:hover svg {\n\tfill: <<colour foreground>>;\n}\n\n.tc-drop-down p {\n\tpadding: 0 14px 0 14px;\n}\n\n.tc-drop-down svg {\n\twidth: 1em;\n\theight: 1em;\n}\n\n.tc-drop-down img {\n\twidth: 1em;\n}\n\n.tc-drop-down a, .tc-drop-down button {\n\tdisplay: block;\n\tpadding: 0 14px 0 14px;\n\twidth: 100%;\n\ttext-align: left;\n\tcolor: <<colour foreground>>;\n\tline-height: 1.4;\n}\n\n.tc-drop-down .tc-tab-set .tc-tab-buttons button {\n\tdisplay: inline-block;\n width: auto;\n margin-bottom: 0px;\n border-bottom-left-radius: 0;\n border-bottom-right-radius: 0;\n}\n\n.tc-drop-down .tc-prompt {\n\tpadding: 0 14px;\n}\n\n.tc-drop-down .tc-chooser {\n\tborder: none;\n}\n\n.tc-drop-down .tc-chooser .tc-swatches-horiz {\n\tfont-size: 0.4em;\n\tpadding-left: 1.2em;\n}\n\n.tc-drop-down .tc-file-input-wrapper {\n\twidth: 100%;\n}\n\n.tc-drop-down .tc-file-input-wrapper button {\n\tcolor: <<colour foreground>>;\n}\n\n.tc-drop-down a:hover, .tc-drop-down button:hover, .tc-drop-down .tc-file-input-wrapper:hover button {\n\tcolor: <<colour tiddler-link-background>>;\n\tbackground-color: <<colour tiddler-link-foreground>>;\n\ttext-decoration: none;\n}\n\n.tc-drop-down .tc-tab-buttons button {\n\tbackground-color: <<colour dropdown-tab-background>>;\n}\n\n.tc-drop-down .tc-tab-buttons button.tc-tab-selected {\n\tbackground-color: <<colour dropdown-tab-background-selected>>;\n\tborder-bottom: 1px solid <<colour dropdown-tab-background-selected>>;\n}\n\n.tc-drop-down-bullet {\n\tdisplay: inline-block;\n\twidth: 0.5em;\n}\n\n.tc-drop-down .tc-tab-contents a {\n\tpadding: 0 0.5em 0 0.5em;\n}\n\n.tc-block-dropdown-wrapper {\n\tposition: relative;\n}\n\n.tc-block-dropdown {\n\tposition: absolute;\n\tmin-width: 220px;\n\tborder: 1px solid <<colour dropdown-border>>;\n\tbackground-color: <<colour dropdown-background>>;\n\tpadding: 7px 0;\n\tmargin: 4px 0 0 0;\n\twhite-space: nowrap;\n\tz-index: 1000;\n\ttext-shadow: none;\n}\n\n.tc-block-dropdown.tc-search-drop-down {\n\tmargin-left: -12px;\n}\n\n.tc-block-dropdown a {\n\tdisplay: block;\n\tpadding: 4px 14px 4px 14px;\n}\n\n.tc-block-dropdown.tc-search-drop-down a {\n\tdisplay: block;\n\tpadding: 0px 10px 0px 10px;\n}\n\n.tc-drop-down .tc-dropdown-item-plain,\n.tc-block-dropdown .tc-dropdown-item-plain {\n\tpadding: 4px 14px 4px 7px;\n}\n\n.tc-drop-down .tc-dropdown-item,\n.tc-block-dropdown .tc-dropdown-item {\n\tpadding: 4px 14px 4px 7px;\n\tcolor: <<colour muted-foreground>>;\n}\n\n.tc-block-dropdown a:hover {\n\tcolor: <<colour tiddler-link-background>>;\n\tbackground-color: <<colour tiddler-link-foreground>>;\n\ttext-decoration: none;\n}\n\n.tc-search-results {\n\tpadding: 0 7px 0 7px;\n}\n\n.tc-image-chooser, .tc-colour-chooser {\n\twhite-space: normal;\n}\n\n.tc-image-chooser a,\n.tc-colour-chooser a {\n\tdisplay: inline-block;\n\tvertical-align: top;\n\ttext-align: center;\n\tposition: relative;\n}\n\n.tc-image-chooser a {\n\tborder: 1px solid <<colour muted-foreground>>;\n\tpadding: 2px;\n\tmargin: 2px;\n\twidth: 4em;\n\theight: 4em;\n}\n\n.tc-colour-chooser a {\n\tpadding: 3px;\n\twidth: 2em;\n\theight: 2em;\n\tvertical-align: middle;\n}\n\n.tc-image-chooser a:hover,\n.tc-colour-chooser a:hover {\n\tbackground: <<colour primary>>;\n\tpadding: 0px;\n\tborder: 3px solid <<colour primary>>;\n}\n\n.tc-image-chooser a svg,\n.tc-image-chooser a img {\n\tdisplay: inline-block;\n\twidth: auto;\n\theight: auto;\n\tmax-width: 3.5em;\n\tmax-height: 3.5em;\n\tposition: absolute;\n\ttop: 0;\n\tbottom: 0;\n\tleft: 0;\n\tright: 0;\n\tmargin: auto;\n}\n\n/*\n** Modals\n*/\n\n.tc-modal-wrapper {\n\tposition: fixed;\n\toverflow: auto;\n\toverflow-y: scroll;\n\ttop: 0;\n\tright: 0;\n\tbottom: 0;\n\tleft: 0;\n\tz-index: 900;\n}\n\n.tc-modal-backdrop {\n\tposition: fixed;\n\ttop: 0;\n\tright: 0;\n\tbottom: 0;\n\tleft: 0;\n\tz-index: 1000;\n\tbackground-color: <<colour modal-backdrop>>;\n}\n\n.tc-modal {\n\tz-index: 1100;\n\tbackground-color: <<colour modal-background>>;\n\tborder: 1px solid <<colour modal-border>>;\n}\n\n@media (max-width: 55em) {\n\t.tc-modal {\n\t\tposition: fixed;\n\t\ttop: 1em;\n\t\tleft: 1em;\n\t\tright: 1em;\n\t}\n\n\t.tc-modal-body {\n\t\toverflow-y: auto;\n\t\tmax-height: 400px;\n\t\tmax-height: 60vh;\n\t}\n}\n\n@media (min-width: 55em) {\n\t.tc-modal {\n\t\tposition: fixed;\n\t\ttop: 2em;\n\t\tleft: 25%;\n\t\twidth: 50%;\n\t}\n\n\t.tc-modal-body {\n\t\toverflow-y: auto;\n\t\tmax-height: 400px;\n\t\tmax-height: 60vh;\n\t}\n}\n\n.tc-modal-header {\n\tpadding: 9px 15px;\n\tborder-bottom: 1px solid <<colour modal-header-border>>;\n}\n\n.tc-modal-header h3 {\n\tmargin: 0;\n\tline-height: 30px;\n}\n\n.tc-modal-header img, .tc-modal-header svg {\n\twidth: 1em;\n\theight: 1em;\n}\n\n.tc-modal-body {\n\tpadding: 15px;\n}\n\n.tc-modal-footer {\n\tpadding: 14px 15px 15px;\n\tmargin-bottom: 0;\n\ttext-align: right;\n\tbackground-color: <<colour modal-footer-background>>;\n\tborder-top: 1px solid <<colour modal-footer-border>>;\n}\n\n/*\n** Notifications\n*/\n\n.tc-notification {\n\tposition: fixed;\n\ttop: 14px;\n\tright: 42px;\n\tz-index: 1300;\n\tmax-width: 280px;\n\tpadding: 0 14px 0 14px;\n\tbackground-color: <<colour notification-background>>;\n\tborder: 1px solid <<colour notification-border>>;\n}\n\n/*\n** Tabs\n*/\n\n.tc-tab-set.tc-vertical {\n\tdisplay: -webkit-flex;\n\tdisplay: flex;\n}\n\n.tc-tab-buttons {\n\tfont-size: 0.85em;\n\tpadding-top: 1em;\n\tmargin-bottom: -2px;\n}\n\n.tc-tab-buttons.tc-vertical {\n\tz-index: 100;\n\tdisplay: block;\n\tpadding-top: 14px;\n\tvertical-align: top;\n\ttext-align: right;\n\tmargin-bottom: inherit;\n\tmargin-right: -1px;\n\tmax-width: 33%;\n\t-webkit-flex: 0 0 auto;\n\tflex: 0 0 auto;\n}\n\n.tc-tab-buttons button.tc-tab-selected {\n\tcolor: <<colour tab-foreground-selected>>;\n\tbackground-color: <<colour tab-background-selected>>;\n\tborder-left: 1px solid <<colour tab-border-selected>>;\n\tborder-top: 1px solid <<colour tab-border-selected>>;\n\tborder-right: 1px solid <<colour tab-border-selected>>;\n}\n\n.tc-tab-buttons button {\n\tcolor: <<colour tab-foreground>>;\n\tpadding: 3px 5px 3px 5px;\n\tmargin-right: 0.3em;\n\tfont-weight: 300;\n\tborder: none;\n\tbackground: inherit;\n\tbackground-color: <<colour tab-background>>;\n\tborder-left: 1px solid <<colour tab-border>>;\n\tborder-top: 1px solid <<colour tab-border>>;\n\tborder-right: 1px solid <<colour tab-border>>;\n\tborder-top-left-radius: 2px;\n\tborder-top-right-radius: 2px;\n\tborder-bottom-left-radius: 0;\n\tborder-bottom-right-radius: 0;\n}\n\n.tc-tab-buttons.tc-vertical button {\n\tdisplay: block;\n\twidth: 100%;\n\tmargin-top: 3px;\n\tmargin-right: 0;\n\ttext-align: right;\n\tbackground-color: <<colour tab-background>>;\n\tborder-left: 1px solid <<colour tab-border>>;\n\tborder-bottom: 1px solid <<colour tab-border>>;\n\tborder-right: none;\n\tborder-top-left-radius: 2px;\n\tborder-bottom-left-radius: 2px;\n\tborder-top-right-radius: 0;\n\tborder-bottom-right-radius: 0;\n}\n\n.tc-tab-buttons.tc-vertical button.tc-tab-selected {\n\tbackground-color: <<colour tab-background-selected>>;\n\tborder-right: 1px solid <<colour tab-background-selected>>;\n}\n\n.tc-tab-divider {\n\tborder-top: 1px solid <<colour tab-divider>>;\n}\n\n.tc-tab-divider.tc-vertical {\n\tdisplay: none;\n}\n\n.tc-tab-content {\n\tmargin-top: 14px;\n}\n\n.tc-tab-content.tc-vertical {\n word-break: break-word;\n\tdisplay: inline-block;\n\tvertical-align: top;\n\tpadding-top: 0;\n\tpadding-left: 14px;\n\tborder-left: 1px solid <<colour tab-border>>;\n\t-webkit-flex: 1 0 70%;\n\tflex: 1 0 70%;\n}\n\n.tc-sidebar-lists .tc-tab-buttons {\n\tmargin-bottom: -1px;\n}\n\n.tc-sidebar-lists .tc-tab-buttons button.tc-tab-selected {\n\tbackground-color: <<colour sidebar-tab-background-selected>>;\n\tcolor: <<colour sidebar-tab-foreground-selected>>;\n\tborder-left: 1px solid <<colour sidebar-tab-border-selected>>;\n\tborder-top: 1px solid <<colour sidebar-tab-border-selected>>;\n\tborder-right: 1px solid <<colour sidebar-tab-border-selected>>;\n}\n\n.tc-sidebar-lists .tc-tab-buttons button {\n\tbackground-color: <<colour sidebar-tab-background>>;\n\tcolor: <<colour sidebar-tab-foreground>>;\n\tborder-left: 1px solid <<colour sidebar-tab-border>>;\n\tborder-top: 1px solid <<colour sidebar-tab-border>>;\n\tborder-right: 1px solid <<colour sidebar-tab-border>>;\n}\n\n.tc-sidebar-lists .tc-tab-divider {\n\tborder-top: 1px solid <<colour sidebar-tab-divider>>;\n}\n\n.tc-more-sidebar > .tc-tab-set > .tc-tab-buttons > button {\n\tdisplay: block;\n\twidth: 100%;\n\tbackground-color: <<colour sidebar-tab-background>>;\n\tborder-top: none;\n\tborder-left: none;\n\tborder-bottom: none;\n\tborder-right: 1px solid #ccc;\n\tmargin-bottom: inherit;\n}\n\n.tc-more-sidebar > .tc-tab-set > .tc-tab-buttons > button.tc-tab-selected {\n\tbackground-color: <<colour sidebar-tab-background-selected>>;\n\tborder: none;\n}\n\n/*\n** Manager\n*/\n\n.tc-manager-wrapper {\n\t\n}\n\n.tc-manager-controls {\n\t\n}\n\n.tc-manager-control {\n\tmargin: 0.5em 0;\n}\n\n.tc-manager-list {\n\twidth: 100%;\n\tborder-top: 1px solid <<colour muted-foreground>>;\n\tborder-left: 1px solid <<colour muted-foreground>>;\n\tborder-right: 1px solid <<colour muted-foreground>>;\n}\n\n.tc-manager-list-item {\n\n}\n\n.tc-manager-list-item-heading {\n display: block;\n width: 100%;\n text-align: left;\t\n\tborder-bottom: 1px solid <<colour muted-foreground>>;\n\tpadding: 3px;\n}\n\n.tc-manager-list-item-heading-selected {\n\tfont-weight: bold;\n\tcolor: <<colour background>>;\n\tfill: <<colour background>>;\n\tbackground-color: <<colour foreground>>;\n}\n\n.tc-manager-list-item-heading:hover {\n\tbackground: <<colour primary>>;\n\tcolor: <<colour background>>;\n}\n\n.tc-manager-list-item-content {\n\tdisplay: flex;\n}\n\n.tc-manager-list-item-content-sidebar {\n flex: 1 0;\n background: <<colour tiddler-editor-background>>;\n border-right: 0.5em solid <<colour muted-foreground>>;\n border-bottom: 0.5em solid <<colour muted-foreground>>;\n white-space: nowrap;\n}\n\n.tc-manager-list-item-content-item-heading {\n\tdisplay: block;\n\twidth: 100%;\n\ttext-align: left;\n background: <<colour muted-foreground>>;\n\ttext-transform: uppercase;\n\tfont-size: 0.6em;\n\tfont-weight: bold;\n padding: 0.5em 0 0.5em 0;\n}\n\n.tc-manager-list-item-content-item-body {\n\tpadding: 0 0.5em 0 0.5em;\n}\n\n.tc-manager-list-item-content-item-body > pre {\n\tmargin: 0.5em 0 0.5em 0;\n\tborder: none;\n\tbackground: inherit;\n}\n\n.tc-manager-list-item-content-tiddler {\n flex: 3 1;\n border-left: 0.5em solid <<colour muted-foreground>>;\n border-right: 0.5em solid <<colour muted-foreground>>;\n border-bottom: 0.5em solid <<colour muted-foreground>>;\n}\n\n.tc-manager-list-item-content-item-body > table {\n\tborder: none;\n\tpadding: 0;\n\tmargin: 0;\n}\n\n.tc-manager-list-item-content-item-body > table td {\n\tborder: none;\n}\n\n.tc-manager-icon-editor > button {\n\twidth: 100%;\n}\n\n.tc-manager-icon-editor > button > svg,\n.tc-manager-icon-editor > button > button {\n\twidth: 100%;\n\theight: auto;\n}\n\n/*\n** Alerts\n*/\n\n.tc-alerts {\n\tposition: fixed;\n\ttop: 0;\n\tleft: 0;\n\tmax-width: 500px;\n\tz-index: 20000;\n}\n\n.tc-alert {\n\tposition: relative;\n\tmargin: 28px;\n\tpadding: 14px 14px 14px 14px;\n\tborder: 2px solid <<colour alert-border>>;\n\tbackground-color: <<colour alert-background>>;\n}\n\n.tc-alert-toolbar {\n\tposition: absolute;\n\ttop: 14px;\n\tright: 14px;\n}\n\n.tc-alert-toolbar svg {\n\tfill: <<colour alert-muted-foreground>>;\n}\n\n.tc-alert-subtitle {\n\tcolor: <<colour alert-muted-foreground>>;\n\tfont-weight: bold;\n}\n\n.tc-alert-highlight {\n\tcolor: <<colour alert-highlight>>;\n}\n\n@media (min-width: {{$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/metrics/sidebarbreakpoint}}) {\n\n\t.tc-static-alert {\n\t\tposition: relative;\n\t}\n\n\t.tc-static-alert-inner {\n\t\tposition: absolute;\n\t\tz-index: 100;\n\t}\n\n}\n\n.tc-static-alert-inner {\n\tpadding: 0 2px 2px 42px;\n\tcolor: <<colour static-alert-foreground>>;\n}\n\n/*\n** Floating drafts list\n*/\n\n.tc-drafts-list {\n\tz-index: 2000;\n\tposition: fixed;\n\tfont-size: 0.8em;\n\tleft: 0;\n\tbottom: 0;\n}\n\n.tc-drafts-list a {\n\tmargin: 0 0.5em;\n\tpadding: 4px 4px;\n\tborder-top-left-radius: 4px;\n\tborder-top-right-radius: 4px;\n\tborder: 1px solid <<colour background>>;\n\tborder-bottom-none;\n\tbackground: <<colour dirty-indicator>>;\n\tcolor: <<colour background>>;\n\tfill: <<colour background>>;\n}\n\n.tc-drafts-list a:hover {\n\ttext-decoration: none;\n\tbackground: <<colour foreground>>;\n\tcolor: <<colour background>>;\n\tfill: <<colour background>>;\n}\n\n.tc-drafts-list a svg {\n\twidth: 1em;\n\theight: 1em;\n\tvertical-align: text-bottom;\n}\n\n/*\n** Control panel\n*/\n\n.tc-control-panel td {\n\tpadding: 4px;\n}\n\n.tc-control-panel table, .tc-control-panel table input, .tc-control-panel table textarea {\n\twidth: 100%;\n}\n\n.tc-plugin-info {\n\tdisplay: block;\n\tborder: 1px solid <<colour muted-foreground>>;\n\tbackground-colour: <<colour background>>;\n\tmargin: 0.5em 0 0.5em 0;\n\tpadding: 4px;\n}\n\n.tc-plugin-info-disabled {\n\tbackground: -webkit-repeating-linear-gradient(45deg, #ff0, #ff0 10px, #eee 10px, #eee 20px);\n\tbackground: repeating-linear-gradient(45deg, #ff0, #ff0 10px, #eee 10px, #eee 20px);\n}\n\n.tc-plugin-info-disabled:hover {\n\tbackground: -webkit-repeating-linear-gradient(45deg, #aa0, #aa0 10px, #888 10px, #888 20px);\n\tbackground: repeating-linear-gradient(45deg, #aa0, #aa0 10px, #888 10px, #888 20px);\n}\n\na.tc-tiddlylink.tc-plugin-info:hover {\n\ttext-decoration: none;\n\tbackground-color: <<colour primary>>;\n\tcolor: <<colour background>>;\n\tfill: <<colour foreground>>;\n}\n\na.tc-tiddlylink.tc-plugin-info:hover .tc-plugin-info > .tc-plugin-info-chunk > svg {\n\tfill: <<colour foreground>>;\n}\n\n.tc-plugin-info-chunk {\n\tdisplay: inline-block;\n\tvertical-align: middle;\n}\n\n.tc-plugin-info-chunk h1 {\n\tfont-size: 1em;\n\tmargin: 2px 0 2px 0;\n}\n\n.tc-plugin-info-chunk h2 {\n\tfont-size: 0.8em;\n\tmargin: 2px 0 2px 0;\n}\n\n.tc-plugin-info-chunk div {\n\tfont-size: 0.7em;\n\tmargin: 2px 0 2px 0;\n}\n\n.tc-plugin-info:hover > .tc-plugin-info-chunk > img, .tc-plugin-info:hover > .tc-plugin-info-chunk > svg {\n\twidth: 2em;\n\theight: 2em;\n\tfill: <<colour foreground>>;\n}\n\n.tc-plugin-info > .tc-plugin-info-chunk > img, .tc-plugin-info > .tc-plugin-info-chunk > svg {\n\twidth: 2em;\n\theight: 2em;\n\tfill: <<colour muted-foreground>>;\n}\n\n.tc-plugin-info.tc-small-icon > .tc-plugin-info-chunk > img, .tc-plugin-info.tc-small-icon > .tc-plugin-info-chunk > svg {\n\twidth: 1em;\n\theight: 1em;\n}\n\n.tc-plugin-info-dropdown {\n\tborder: 1px solid <<colour muted-foreground>>;\n\tmargin-top: -8px;\n}\n\n.tc-plugin-info-dropdown-message {\n\tbackground: <<colour message-background>>;\n\tpadding: 0.5em 1em 0.5em 1em;\n\tfont-weight: bold;\n\tfont-size: 0.8em;\n}\n\n.tc-plugin-info-dropdown-body {\n\tpadding: 1em 1em 1em 1em;\n}\n\n.tc-check-list {\n\tline-height: 2em;\n}\n\n.tc-check-list .tc-image-button {\n\theight: 1.5em;\n}\n\n/*\n** Message boxes\n*/\n\n.tc-message-box {\n\tborder: 1px solid <<colour message-border>>;\n\tbackground: <<colour message-background>>;\n\tpadding: 0px 21px 0px 21px;\n\tfont-size: 12px;\n\tline-height: 18px;\n\tcolor: <<colour message-foreground>>;\n}\n\n.tc-message-box svg {\n\twidth: 1em;\n\theight: 1em;\n vertical-align: text-bottom;\n}\n\n/*\n** Pictures\n*/\n\n.tc-bordered-image {\n\tborder: 1px solid <<colour muted-foreground>>;\n\tpadding: 5px;\n\tmargin: 5px;\n}\n\n/*\n** Floats\n*/\n\n.tc-float-right {\n\tfloat: right;\n}\n\n/*\n** Chooser\n*/\n\n.tc-chooser {\n\tborder-right: 1px solid <<colour table-header-background>>;\n\tborder-left: 1px solid <<colour table-header-background>>;\n}\n\n\n.tc-chooser-item {\n\tborder-bottom: 1px solid <<colour table-header-background>>;\n\tborder-top: 1px solid <<colour table-header-background>>;\n\tpadding: 2px 4px 2px 14px;\n}\n\n.tc-drop-down .tc-chooser-item {\n\tpadding: 2px;\n}\n\n.tc-chosen,\n.tc-chooser-item:hover {\n\tbackground-color: <<colour table-header-background>>;\n\tborder-color: <<colour table-footer-background>>;\n}\n\n.tc-chosen .tc-tiddlylink {\n\tcursor:default;\n}\n\n.tc-chooser-item .tc-tiddlylink {\n\tdisplay: block;\n\ttext-decoration: none;\n\tbackground-color: transparent;\n}\n\n.tc-chooser-item:hover .tc-tiddlylink:hover {\n\ttext-decoration: none;\n}\n\n.tc-drop-down .tc-chosen .tc-tiddlylink,\n.tc-drop-down .tc-chooser-item .tc-tiddlylink:hover {\n\tcolor: <<colour foreground>>;\n}\n\n.tc-chosen > .tc-tiddlylink:before {\n\tmargin-left: -10px;\n\tposition: relative;\n\tcontent: \"» \";\n}\n\n.tc-chooser-item svg,\n.tc-chooser-item img{\n\twidth: 1em;\n\theight: 1em;\n\tvertical-align: middle;\n}\n\n.tc-language-chooser .tc-image-button img {\n\twidth: 2em;\n\tvertical-align: -0.15em;\n}\n\n/*\n** Palette swatches\n*/\n\n.tc-swatches-horiz {\n}\n\n.tc-swatches-horiz .tc-swatch {\n\tdisplay: inline-block;\n}\n\n.tc-swatch {\n\twidth: 2em;\n\theight: 2em;\n\tmargin: 0.4em;\n\tborder: 1px solid #888;\n}\n\n/*\n** Table of contents\n*/\n\n.tc-sidebar-lists .tc-table-of-contents {\n\twhite-space: nowrap;\n}\n\n.tc-table-of-contents button {\n\tcolor: <<colour sidebar-foreground>>;\n}\n\n.tc-table-of-contents svg {\n\twidth: 0.7em;\n\theight: 0.7em;\n\tvertical-align: middle;\n\tfill: <<colour sidebar-foreground>>;\n}\n\n.tc-table-of-contents ol {\n\tlist-style-type: none;\n\tpadding-left: 0;\n}\n\n.tc-table-of-contents ol ol {\n\tpadding-left: 1em;\n}\n\n.tc-table-of-contents li {\n\tfont-size: 1.0em;\n\tfont-weight: bold;\n}\n\n.tc-table-of-contents li a {\n\tfont-weight: bold;\n}\n\n.tc-table-of-contents li li {\n\tfont-size: 0.95em;\n\tfont-weight: normal;\n\tline-height: 1.4;\n}\n\n.tc-table-of-contents li li a {\n\tfont-weight: normal;\n}\n\n.tc-table-of-contents li li li {\n\tfont-size: 0.95em;\n\tfont-weight: 200;\n\tline-height: 1.5;\n}\n\n.tc-table-of-contents li li li li {\n\tfont-size: 0.95em;\n\tfont-weight: 200;\n}\n\n.tc-tabbed-table-of-contents {\n\tdisplay: -webkit-flex;\n\tdisplay: flex;\n}\n\n.tc-tabbed-table-of-contents .tc-table-of-contents {\n\tz-index: 100;\n\tdisplay: inline-block;\n\tpadding-left: 1em;\n\tmax-width: 50%;\n\t-webkit-flex: 0 0 auto;\n\tflex: 0 0 auto;\n\tbackground: <<colour tab-background>>;\n\tborder-left: 1px solid <<colour tab-border>>;\n\tborder-top: 1px solid <<colour tab-border>>;\n\tborder-bottom: 1px solid <<colour tab-border>>;\n}\n\n.tc-tabbed-table-of-contents .tc-table-of-contents .toc-item > a,\n.tc-tabbed-table-of-contents .tc-table-of-contents .toc-item-selected > a {\n\tdisplay: block;\n\tpadding: 0.12em 1em 0.12em 0.25em;\n}\n\n.tc-tabbed-table-of-contents .tc-table-of-contents .toc-item > a {\n\tborder-top: 1px solid <<colour tab-background>>;\n\tborder-left: 1px solid <<colour tab-background>>;\n\tborder-bottom: 1px solid <<colour tab-background>>;\n}\n\n.tc-tabbed-table-of-contents .tc-table-of-contents .toc-item > a:hover {\n\ttext-decoration: none;\n\tborder-top: 1px solid <<colour tab-border>>;\n\tborder-left: 1px solid <<colour tab-border>>;\n\tborder-bottom: 1px solid <<colour tab-border>>;\n\tbackground: <<colour tab-border>>;\n}\n\n.tc-tabbed-table-of-contents .tc-table-of-contents .toc-item-selected > a {\n\tborder-top: 1px solid <<colour tab-border>>;\n\tborder-left: 1px solid <<colour tab-border>>;\n\tborder-bottom: 1px solid <<colour tab-border>>;\n\tbackground: <<colour background>>;\n\tmargin-right: -1px;\n}\n\n.tc-tabbed-table-of-contents .tc-table-of-contents .toc-item-selected > a:hover {\n\ttext-decoration: none;\n}\n\n.tc-tabbed-table-of-contents .tc-tabbed-table-of-contents-content {\n\tdisplay: inline-block;\n\tvertical-align: top;\n\tpadding-left: 1.5em;\n\tpadding-right: 1.5em;\n\tborder: 1px solid <<colour tab-border>>;\n\t-webkit-flex: 1 0 50%;\n\tflex: 1 0 50%;\n}\n\n/*\n** Dirty indicator\n*/\n\nbody.tc-dirty span.tc-dirty-indicator, body.tc-dirty span.tc-dirty-indicator svg {\n\tfill: <<colour dirty-indicator>>;\n\tcolor: <<colour dirty-indicator>>;\n}\n\n/*\n** File inputs\n*/\n\n.tc-file-input-wrapper {\n\tposition: relative;\n\toverflow: hidden;\n\tdisplay: inline-block;\n\tvertical-align: middle;\n}\n\n.tc-file-input-wrapper input[type=file] {\n\tposition: absolute;\n\ttop: 0;\n\tleft: 0;\n\tright: 0;\n\tbottom: 0;\n\tfont-size: 999px;\n\tmax-width: 100%;\n\tmax-height: 100%;\n\tfilter: alpha(opacity=0);\n\topacity: 0;\n\toutline: none;\n\tbackground: white;\n\tcursor: pointer;\n\tdisplay: inline-block;\n}\n\n/*\n** Thumbnail macros\n*/\n\n.tc-thumbnail-wrapper {\n\tposition: relative;\n\tdisplay: inline-block;\n\tmargin: 6px;\n\tvertical-align: top;\n}\n\n.tc-thumbnail-right-wrapper {\n\tfloat:right;\n\tmargin: 0.5em 0 0.5em 0.5em;\n}\n\n.tc-thumbnail-image {\n\ttext-align: center;\n\toverflow: hidden;\n\tborder-radius: 3px;\n}\n\n.tc-thumbnail-image svg,\n.tc-thumbnail-image img {\n\tfilter: alpha(opacity=1);\n\topacity: 1;\n\tmin-width: 100%;\n\tmin-height: 100%;\n\tmax-width: 100%;\n}\n\n.tc-thumbnail-wrapper:hover .tc-thumbnail-image svg,\n.tc-thumbnail-wrapper:hover .tc-thumbnail-image img {\n\tfilter: alpha(opacity=0.8);\n\topacity: 0.8;\n}\n\n.tc-thumbnail-background {\n\tposition: absolute;\n\tborder-radius: 3px;\n}\n\n.tc-thumbnail-icon svg,\n.tc-thumbnail-icon img {\n\twidth: 3em;\n\theight: 3em;\n\t<<filter \"drop-shadow(2px 2px 4px rgba(0,0,0,0.3))\">>\n}\n\n.tc-thumbnail-wrapper:hover .tc-thumbnail-icon svg,\n.tc-thumbnail-wrapper:hover .tc-thumbnail-icon img {\n\tfill: #fff;\n\t<<filter \"drop-shadow(3px 3px 4px rgba(0,0,0,0.6))\">>\n}\n\n.tc-thumbnail-icon {\n\tposition: absolute;\n\ttop: 0;\n\tleft: 0;\n\tright: 0;\n\tbottom: 0;\n\tdisplay: -webkit-flex;\n\t-webkit-align-items: center;\n\t-webkit-justify-content: center;\n\tdisplay: flex;\n\talign-items: center;\n\tjustify-content: center;\n}\n\n.tc-thumbnail-caption {\n\tposition: absolute;\n\tbackground-color: #777;\n\tcolor: #fff;\n\ttext-align: center;\n\tbottom: 0;\n\twidth: 100%;\n\tfilter: alpha(opacity=0.9);\n\topacity: 0.9;\n\tline-height: 1.4;\n\tborder-bottom-left-radius: 3px;\n\tborder-bottom-right-radius: 3px;\n}\n\n.tc-thumbnail-wrapper:hover .tc-thumbnail-caption {\n\tfilter: alpha(opacity=1);\n\topacity: 1;\n}\n\n/*\n** Diffs\n*/\n\n.tc-diff-equal {\n\tbackground-color: <<colour diff-equal-background>>;\n\tcolor: <<colour diff-equal-foreground>>;\n}\n\n.tc-diff-insert {\n\tbackground-color: <<colour diff-insert-background>>;\n\tcolor: <<colour diff-insert-foreground>>;\n}\n\n.tc-diff-delete {\n\tbackground-color: <<colour diff-delete-background>>;\n\tcolor: <<colour diff-delete-foreground>>;\n}\n\n.tc-diff-invisible {\n\tbackground-color: <<colour diff-invisible-background>>;\n\tcolor: <<colour diff-invisible-foreground>>;\n}\n\n.tc-diff-tiddlers th {\n\ttext-align: right;\n\tbackground: <<colour background>>;\n\tfont-weight: normal;\n\tfont-style: italic;\n}\n\n.tc-diff-tiddlers pre {\n margin: 0;\n padding: 0;\n border: none;\n background: none;\n}\n\n/*\n** Errors\n*/\n\n.tc-error {\n\tbackground: #f00;\n\tcolor: #fff;\n}\n\n/*\n** Tree macro\n*/\n\n.tc-tree div {\n \tpadding-left: 14px;\n}\n\n.tc-tree ol {\n \tlist-style-type: none;\n \tpadding-left: 0;\n \tmargin-top: 0;\n}\n\n.tc-tree ol ol {\n \tpadding-left: 1em; \n}\n\n.tc-tree button { \n \tcolor: #acacac;\n}\n\n.tc-tree svg {\n \tfill: #acacac;\n}\n\n.tc-tree span svg {\n \twidth: 1em;\n \theight: 1em;\n \tvertical-align: baseline;\n}\n\n.tc-tree li span {\n \tcolor: lightgray;\n}\n\nselect {\n color: <<colour select-tag-foreground>>;\n background: <<colour select-tag-background>>;\n}\n\n"
},
"$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/metrics/bodyfontsize": {
"title": "$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/metrics/bodyfontsize",
"text": "15px"
},
"$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/metrics/bodylineheight": {
"title": "$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/metrics/bodylineheight",
"text": "22px"
},
"$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/metrics/fontsize": {
"title": "$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/metrics/fontsize",
"text": "14px"
},
"$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/metrics/lineheight": {
"title": "$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/metrics/lineheight",
"text": "20px"
},
"$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/metrics/storyleft": {
"title": "$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/metrics/storyleft",
"text": "0px"
},
"$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/metrics/storytop": {
"title": "$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/metrics/storytop",
"text": "0px"
},
"$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/metrics/storyright": {
"title": "$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/metrics/storyright",
"text": "770px"
},
"$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/metrics/storywidth": {
"title": "$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/metrics/storywidth",
"text": "770px"
},
"$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/metrics/tiddlerwidth": {
"title": "$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/metrics/tiddlerwidth",
"text": "686px"
},
"$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/metrics/sidebarbreakpoint": {
"title": "$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/metrics/sidebarbreakpoint",
"text": "960px"
},
"$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/metrics/sidebarwidth": {
"title": "$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/metrics/sidebarwidth",
"text": "350px"
},
"$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/options/stickytitles": {
"title": "$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/options/stickytitles",
"text": "no"
},
"$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/options/sidebarlayout": {
"title": "$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/options/sidebarlayout",
"text": "fixed-fluid"
},
"$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/options/codewrapping": {
"title": "$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/options/codewrapping",
"text": "pre-wrap"
},
"$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/reset": {
"title": "$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/reset",
"type": "text/plain",
"text": "/*! normalize.css v3.0.0 | MIT License | git.io/normalize */\n\n/**\n * 1. Set default font family to sans-serif.\n * 2. Prevent iOS text size adjust after orientation change, without disabling\n * user zoom.\n */\n\nhtml {\n font-family: sans-serif; /* 1 */\n -ms-text-size-adjust: 100%; /* 2 */\n -webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%; /* 2 */\n}\n\n/**\n * Remove default margin.\n */\n\nbody {\n margin: 0;\n}\n\n/* HTML5 display definitions\n ========================================================================== */\n\n/**\n * Correct `block` display not defined in IE 8/9.\n */\n\narticle,\naside,\ndetails,\nfigcaption,\nfigure,\nfooter,\nheader,\nhgroup,\nmain,\nnav,\nsection,\nsummary {\n display: block;\n}\n\n/**\n * 1. Correct `inline-block` display not defined in IE 8/9.\n * 2. Normalize vertical alignment of `progress` in Chrome, Firefox, and Opera.\n */\n\naudio,\ncanvas,\nprogress,\nvideo {\n display: inline-block; /* 1 */\n vertical-align: baseline; /* 2 */\n}\n\n/**\n * Prevent modern browsers from displaying `audio` without controls.\n * Remove excess height in iOS 5 devices.\n */\n\naudio:not([controls]) {\n display: none;\n height: 0;\n}\n\n/**\n * Address `[hidden]` styling not present in IE 8/9.\n * Hide the `template` element in IE, Safari, and Firefox < 22.\n */\n\n[hidden],\ntemplate {\n display: none;\n}\n\n/* Links\n ========================================================================== */\n\n/**\n * Remove the gray background color from active links in IE 10.\n */\n\na {\n background: transparent;\n}\n\n/**\n * Improve readability when focused and also mouse hovered in all browsers.\n */\n\na:active,\na:hover {\n outline: 0;\n}\n\n/* Text-level semantics\n ========================================================================== */\n\n/**\n * Address styling not present in IE 8/9, Safari 5, and Chrome.\n */\n\nabbr[title] {\n border-bottom: 1px dotted;\n}\n\n/**\n * Address style set to `bolder` in Firefox 4+, Safari 5, and Chrome.\n */\n\nb,\nstrong {\n font-weight: bold;\n}\n\n/**\n * Address styling not present in Safari 5 and Chrome.\n */\n\ndfn {\n font-style: italic;\n}\n\n/**\n * Address variable `h1` font-size and margin within `section` and `article`\n * contexts in Firefox 4+, Safari 5, and Chrome.\n */\n\nh1 {\n font-size: 2em;\n margin: 0.67em 0;\n}\n\n/**\n * Address styling not present in IE 8/9.\n */\n\nmark {\n background: #ff0;\n color: #000;\n}\n\n/**\n * Address inconsistent and variable font size in all browsers.\n */\n\nsmall {\n font-size: 80%;\n}\n\n/**\n * Prevent `sub` and `sup` affecting `line-height` in all browsers.\n */\n\nsub,\nsup {\n font-size: 75%;\n line-height: 0;\n position: relative;\n vertical-align: baseline;\n}\n\nsup {\n top: -0.5em;\n}\n\nsub {\n bottom: -0.25em;\n}\n\n/* Embedded content\n ========================================================================== */\n\n/**\n * Remove border when inside `a` element in IE 8/9.\n */\n\nimg {\n border: 0;\n}\n\n/**\n * Correct overflow displayed oddly in IE 9.\n */\n\nsvg:not(:root) {\n overflow: hidden;\n}\n\n/* Grouping content\n ========================================================================== */\n\n/**\n * Address margin not present in IE 8/9 and Safari 5.\n */\n\nfigure {\n margin: 1em 40px;\n}\n\n/**\n * Address differences between Firefox and other browsers.\n */\n\nhr {\n -moz-box-sizing: content-box;\n box-sizing: content-box;\n height: 0;\n}\n\n/**\n * Contain overflow in all browsers.\n */\n\npre {\n overflow: auto;\n}\n\n/**\n * Address odd `em`-unit font size rendering in all browsers.\n */\n\ncode,\nkbd,\npre,\nsamp {\n font-family: monospace, monospace;\n font-size: 1em;\n}\n\n/* Forms\n ========================================================================== */\n\n/**\n * Known limitation: by default, Chrome and Safari on OS X allow very limited\n * styling of `select`, unless a `border` property is set.\n */\n\n/**\n * 1. Correct color not being inherited.\n * Known issue: affects color of disabled elements.\n * 2. Correct font properties not being inherited.\n * 3. Address margins set differently in Firefox 4+, Safari 5, and Chrome.\n */\n\nbutton,\ninput,\noptgroup,\nselect,\ntextarea {\n color: inherit; /* 1 */\n font: inherit; /* 2 */\n margin: 0; /* 3 */\n}\n\n/**\n * Address `overflow` set to `hidden` in IE 8/9/10.\n */\n\nbutton {\n overflow: visible;\n}\n\n/**\n * Address inconsistent `text-transform` inheritance for `button` and `select`.\n * All other form control elements do not inherit `text-transform` values.\n * Correct `button` style inheritance in Firefox, IE 8+, and Opera\n * Correct `select` style inheritance in Firefox.\n */\n\nbutton,\nselect {\n text-transform: none;\n}\n\n/**\n * 1. Avoid the WebKit bug in Android 4.0.* where (2) destroys native `audio`\n * and `video` controls.\n * 2. Correct inability to style clickable `input` types in iOS.\n * 3. Improve usability and consistency of cursor style between image-type\n * `input` and others.\n */\n\nbutton,\nhtml input[type=\"button\"], /* 1 */\ninput[type=\"reset\"],\ninput[type=\"submit\"] {\n -webkit-appearance: button; /* 2 */\n cursor: pointer; /* 3 */\n}\n\n/**\n * Re-set default cursor for disabled elements.\n */\n\nbutton[disabled],\nhtml input[disabled] {\n cursor: default;\n}\n\n/**\n * Remove inner padding and border in Firefox 4+.\n */\n\nbutton::-moz-focus-inner,\ninput::-moz-focus-inner {\n border: 0;\n padding: 0;\n}\n\n/**\n * Address Firefox 4+ setting `line-height` on `input` using `!important` in\n * the UA stylesheet.\n */\n\ninput {\n line-height: normal;\n}\n\n/**\n * It's recommended that you don't attempt to style these elements.\n * Firefox's implementation doesn't respect box-sizing, padding, or width.\n *\n * 1. Address box sizing set to `content-box` in IE 8/9/10.\n * 2. Remove excess padding in IE 8/9/10.\n */\n\ninput[type=\"checkbox\"],\ninput[type=\"radio\"] {\n box-sizing: border-box; /* 1 */\n padding: 0; /* 2 */\n}\n\n/**\n * Fix the cursor style for Chrome's increment/decrement buttons. For certain\n * `font-size` values of the `input`, it causes the cursor style of the\n * decrement button to change from `default` to `text`.\n */\n\ninput[type=\"number\"]::-webkit-inner-spin-button,\ninput[type=\"number\"]::-webkit-outer-spin-button {\n height: auto;\n}\n\n/**\n * 1. Address `appearance` set to `searchfield` in Safari 5 and Chrome.\n * 2. Address `box-sizing` set to `border-box` in Safari 5 and Chrome\n * (include `-moz` to future-proof).\n */\n\ninput[type=\"search\"] {\n -webkit-appearance: textfield; /* 1 */\n -moz-box-sizing: content-box;\n -webkit-box-sizing: content-box; /* 2 */\n box-sizing: content-box;\n}\n\n/**\n * Remove inner padding and search cancel button in Safari and Chrome on OS X.\n * Safari (but not Chrome) clips the cancel button when the search input has\n * padding (and `textfield` appearance).\n */\n\ninput[type=\"search\"]::-webkit-search-cancel-button,\ninput[type=\"search\"]::-webkit-search-decoration {\n -webkit-appearance: none;\n}\n\n/**\n * Define consistent border, margin, and padding.\n */\n\nfieldset {\n border: 1px solid #c0c0c0;\n margin: 0 2px;\n padding: 0.35em 0.625em 0.75em;\n}\n\n/**\n * 1. Correct `color` not being inherited in IE 8/9.\n * 2. Remove padding so people aren't caught out if they zero out fieldsets.\n */\n\nlegend {\n border: 0; /* 1 */\n padding: 0; /* 2 */\n}\n\n/**\n * Remove default vertical scrollbar in IE 8/9.\n */\n\ntextarea {\n overflow: auto;\n}\n\n/**\n * Don't inherit the `font-weight` (applied by a rule above).\n * NOTE: the default cannot safely be changed in Chrome and Safari on OS X.\n */\n\noptgroup {\n font-weight: bold;\n}\n\n/* Tables\n ========================================================================== */\n\n/**\n * Remove most spacing between table cells.\n */\n\ntable {\n border-collapse: collapse;\n border-spacing: 0;\n}\n\ntd,\nth {\n padding: 0;\n}\n"
},
"$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/settings/fontfamily": {
"title": "$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/settings/fontfamily",
"text": "-apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, \"Segoe UI\", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif, \"Apple Color Emoji\", \"Segoe UI Emoji\", \"Segoe UI Symbol\""
},
"$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/settings/codefontfamily": {
"title": "$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/settings/codefontfamily",
"text": "\"SFMono-Regular\",Consolas,\"Liberation Mono\",Menlo,Courier,monospace"
},
"$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/settings/backgroundimageattachment": {
"title": "$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/settings/backgroundimageattachment",
"text": "fixed"
},
"$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/settings/backgroundimagesize": {
"title": "$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/settings/backgroundimagesize",
"text": "auto"
},
"$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/sticky": {
"title": "$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/sticky",
"text": "<$reveal state=\"$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/options/stickytitles\" type=\"match\" text=\"yes\">\n``\n.tc-tiddler-title {\n\tposition: -webkit-sticky;\n\tposition: -moz-sticky;\n\tposition: -o-sticky;\n\tposition: -ms-sticky;\n\tposition: sticky;\n\ttop: 0px;\n\tbackground: ``<<colour tiddler-background>>``;\n\tz-index: 500;\n}\n``\n</$reveal>\n"
}
}
}
\define custom-background-datauri()
<$set name="background" value={{$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/settings/backgroundimage}}>
<$list filter="[<background>is[image]]">
`background: url(`
<$list filter="[<background>!has[_canonical_uri]]">
`"`<$macrocall $name="datauri" title={{$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/settings/backgroundimage}}/>`"`
</$list>
<$list filter="[<background>has[_canonical_uri]]">
`"`<$view tiddler={{$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/settings/backgroundimage}} field="_canonical_uri"/>`"`
</$list>
`) center center;`
`background-attachment: `{{$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/settings/backgroundimageattachment}}`;
-webkit-background-size:` {{$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/settings/backgroundimagesize}}`;
-moz-background-size:` {{$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/settings/backgroundimagesize}}`;c
-o-background-size:` {{$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/settings/backgroundimagesize}}`;
background-size:` {{$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/settings/backgroundimagesize}}`;`
</$list>
</$set>
\end
\define if-fluid-fixed(text,hiddenSidebarText)
<$reveal state="$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/options/sidebarlayout" type="match" text="fluid-fixed">
$text$
<$reveal state="$:/state/sidebar" type="nomatch" text="yes" default="yes">
$hiddenSidebarText$
</$reveal>
</$reveal>
\end
\define if-editor-height-fixed(then,else)
<$reveal state="$:/config/TextEditor/EditorHeight/Mode" type="match" text="fixed">
$then$
</$reveal>
<$reveal state="$:/config/TextEditor/EditorHeight/Mode" type="match" text="auto">
$else$
</$reveal>
\end
\rules only filteredtranscludeinline transcludeinline macrodef macrocallinline macrocallblock
/*
** Start with the normalize CSS reset, and then belay some of its effects
*/
{{$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/reset}}
*, input[type="search"] {
box-sizing: border-box;
-moz-box-sizing: border-box;
-webkit-box-sizing: border-box;
}
html button {
line-height: 1.2;
color: <<colour button-foreground>>;
background: <<colour button-background>>;
border-color: <<colour button-border>>;
}
/*
** Basic element styles
*/
html {
font-family: {{$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/settings/fontfamily}};
text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; /* Enables kerning and ligatures etc. */
-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased;
-moz-osx-font-smoothing: grayscale;
}
html:-webkit-full-screen {
background-color: <<colour page-background>>;
}
body.tc-body {
font-size: {{$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/metrics/fontsize}};
line-height: {{$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/metrics/lineheight}};
word-wrap: break-word;
<<custom-background-datauri>>
color: <<colour foreground>>;
background-color: <<colour page-background>>;
fill: <<colour foreground>>;
}
<<if-background-attachment """
body.tc-body {
background-color: transparent;
}
""">>
h1, h2, h3, h4, h5, h6 {
line-height: 1.2;
font-weight: 300;
}
pre {
display: block;
padding: 14px;
margin-top: 1em;
margin-bottom: 1em;
word-break: normal;
word-wrap: break-word;
white-space: {{$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/options/codewrapping}};
background-color: <<colour pre-background>>;
border: 1px solid <<colour pre-border>>;
padding: 0 2px 0px;
border-radius: 2px;
font-family: {{$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/settings/codefontfamily}};
}
code {
color: <<colour code-foreground>>;
background-color: <<colour code-background>>;
border: 1px solid <<colour code-border>>;
white-space: {{$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/options/codewrapping}};
padding: 0 2px 0px;
border-radius: 2px;
font-family: {{$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/settings/codefontfamily}};
}
blockquote {
border-left: 5px solid <<colour blockquote-bar>>;
margin-left: 25px;
padding-left: 10px;
quotes: "\201C""\201D""\2018""\2019";
}
blockquote.tc-big-quote {
font-family: Georgia, serif;
position: relative;
background: <<colour pre-background>>;
border-left: none;
margin-left: 50px;
margin-right: 50px;
padding: 10px;
border-radius: 8px;
}
blockquote.tc-big-quote cite:before {
content: "\2014 \2009";
}
blockquote.tc-big-quote:before {
font-family: Georgia, serif;
color: <<colour blockquote-bar>>;
content: open-quote;
font-size: 8em;
line-height: 0.1em;
margin-right: 0.25em;
vertical-align: -0.4em;
position: absolute;
left: -50px;
top: 42px;
}
blockquote.tc-big-quote:after {
font-family: Georgia, serif;
color: <<colour blockquote-bar>>;
content: close-quote;
font-size: 8em;
line-height: 0.1em;
margin-right: 0.25em;
vertical-align: -0.4em;
position: absolute;
right: -80px;
bottom: -20px;
}
dl dt {
font-weight: bold;
margin-top: 6px;
}
textarea,
input[type=text],
input[type=search],
input[type=""],
input:not([type]) {
color: <<colour foreground>>;
background: <<colour background>>;
}
input[type="checkbox"] {
vertical-align: middle;
}
.tc-muted {
color: <<colour muted-foreground>>;
}
svg.tc-image-button {
padding: 0px 1px 1px 0px;
}
.tc-icon-wrapper > svg {
width: 1em;
height: 1em;
}
kbd {
display: inline-block;
padding: 3px 5px;
font-size: 0.8em;
line-height: 1.2;
color: <<colour foreground>>;
vertical-align: middle;
background-color: <<colour background>>;
border: solid 1px <<colour muted-foreground>>;
border-bottom-color: <<colour muted-foreground>>;
border-radius: 3px;
box-shadow: inset 0 -1px 0 <<colour muted-foreground>>;
}
/*
Markdown likes putting code elements inside pre elements
*/
pre > code {
padding: 0;
border: none;
background-color: inherit;
color: inherit;
}
table {
border: 1px solid <<colour table-border>>;
width: auto;
max-width: 100%;
caption-side: bottom;
margin-top: 1em;
margin-bottom: 1em;
}
table th, table td {
padding: 0 7px 0 7px;
border-top: 1px solid <<colour table-border>>;
border-left: 1px solid <<colour table-border>>;
}
table thead tr td, table th {
background-color: <<colour table-header-background>>;
font-weight: bold;
}
table tfoot tr td {
background-color: <<colour table-footer-background>>;
}
.tc-csv-table {
white-space: nowrap;
}
.tc-tiddler-frame img,
.tc-tiddler-frame svg,
.tc-tiddler-frame canvas,
.tc-tiddler-frame embed,
.tc-tiddler-frame iframe {
max-width: 100%;
}
.tc-tiddler-body > embed,
.tc-tiddler-body > iframe {
width: 100%;
height: 600px;
}
/*
** Links
*/
button.tc-tiddlylink,
a.tc-tiddlylink {
text-decoration: none;
font-weight: 500;
color: <<colour tiddler-link-foreground>>;
-webkit-user-select: inherit; /* Otherwise the draggable attribute makes links impossible to select */
}
.tc-sidebar-lists a.tc-tiddlylink {
color: <<colour sidebar-tiddler-link-foreground>>;
}
.tc-sidebar-lists a.tc-tiddlylink:hover {
color: <<colour sidebar-tiddler-link-foreground-hover>>;
}
button.tc-tiddlylink:hover,
a.tc-tiddlylink:hover {
text-decoration: underline;
}
a.tc-tiddlylink-resolves {
}
a.tc-tiddlylink-shadow {
font-weight: bold;
}
a.tc-tiddlylink-shadow.tc-tiddlylink-resolves {
font-weight: normal;
}
a.tc-tiddlylink-missing {
font-style: italic;
}
a.tc-tiddlylink-external {
text-decoration: underline;
color: <<colour external-link-foreground>>;
background-color: <<colour external-link-background>>;
}
a.tc-tiddlylink-external:visited {
color: <<colour external-link-foreground-visited>>;
background-color: <<colour external-link-background-visited>>;
}
a.tc-tiddlylink-external:hover {
color: <<colour external-link-foreground-hover>>;
background-color: <<colour external-link-background-hover>>;
}
/*
** Drag and drop styles
*/
.tc-tiddler-dragger {
position: relative;
z-index: -10000;
}
.tc-tiddler-dragger-inner {
position: absolute;
top: -1000px;
left: -1000px;
display: inline-block;
padding: 8px 20px;
font-size: 16.9px;
font-weight: bold;
line-height: 20px;
color: <<colour dragger-foreground>>;
text-shadow: 0 1px 0 rgba(0, 0, 0, 1);
white-space: nowrap;
vertical-align: baseline;
background-color: <<colour dragger-background>>;
border-radius: 20px;
}
.tc-tiddler-dragger-cover {
position: absolute;
background-color: <<colour page-background>>;
}
.tc-dropzone {
position: relative;
}
.tc-dropzone.tc-dragover:before {
z-index: 10000;
display: block;
position: fixed;
top: 0;
left: 0;
right: 0;
background: <<colour dropzone-background>>;
text-align: center;
content: "<<lingo DropMessage>>";
}
.tc-droppable > .tc-droppable-placeholder {
display: none;
}
.tc-droppable.tc-dragover > .tc-droppable-placeholder {
display: block;
border: 2px dashed <<colour dropzone-background>>;
}
.tc-draggable {
cursor: move;
}
/*
** Plugin reload warning
*/
.tc-plugin-reload-warning {
z-index: 1000;
display: block;
position: fixed;
top: 0;
left: 0;
right: 0;
background: <<colour alert-background>>;
text-align: center;
}
/*
** Buttons
*/
button svg, button img, label svg, label img {
vertical-align: middle;
}
.tc-btn-invisible {
padding: 0;
margin: 0;
background: none;
border: none;
cursor: pointer;
}
.tc-btn-boxed {
font-size: 0.6em;
padding: 0.2em;
margin: 1px;
background: none;
border: 1px solid <<colour tiddler-controls-foreground>>;
border-radius: 0.25em;
}
html body.tc-body .tc-btn-boxed svg {
font-size: 1.6666em;
}
.tc-btn-boxed:hover {
background: <<colour muted-foreground>>;
color: <<colour background>>;
}
html body.tc-body .tc-btn-boxed:hover svg {
fill: <<colour background>>;
}
.tc-btn-rounded {
font-size: 0.5em;
line-height: 2;
padding: 0em 0.3em 0.2em 0.4em;
margin: 1px;
border: 1px solid <<colour muted-foreground>>;
background: <<colour muted-foreground>>;
color: <<colour background>>;
border-radius: 2em;
}
html body.tc-body .tc-btn-rounded svg {
font-size: 1.6666em;
fill: <<colour background>>;
}
.tc-btn-rounded:hover {
border: 1px solid <<colour muted-foreground>>;
background: <<colour background>>;
color: <<colour muted-foreground>>;
}
html body.tc-body .tc-btn-rounded:hover svg {
fill: <<colour muted-foreground>>;
}
.tc-btn-icon svg {
height: 1em;
width: 1em;
fill: <<colour muted-foreground>>;
}
.tc-btn-text {
padding: 0;
margin: 0;
}
/* used for documentation "fake" buttons */
.tc-btn-standard {
line-height: 1.8;
color: #667;
background-color: #e0e0e0;
border: 1px solid #888;
padding: 2px 1px 2px 1px;
margin: 1px 4px 1px 4px;
}
.tc-btn-big-green {
display: inline-block;
padding: 8px;
margin: 4px 8px 4px 8px;
background: <<colour download-background>>;
color: <<colour download-foreground>>;
fill: <<colour download-foreground>>;
border: none;
font-size: 1.2em;
line-height: 1.4em;
text-decoration: none;
}
.tc-btn-big-green svg,
.tc-btn-big-green img {
height: 2em;
width: 2em;
vertical-align: middle;
fill: <<colour download-foreground>>;
}
.tc-sidebar-lists input {
color: <<colour foreground>>;
}
.tc-sidebar-lists button {
color: <<colour sidebar-button-foreground>>;
fill: <<colour sidebar-button-foreground>>;
}
.tc-sidebar-lists button.tc-btn-mini {
color: <<colour sidebar-muted-foreground>>;
}
.tc-sidebar-lists button.tc-btn-mini:hover {
color: <<colour sidebar-muted-foreground-hover>>;
}
button svg.tc-image-button, button .tc-image-button img {
height: 1em;
width: 1em;
}
.tc-unfold-banner {
position: absolute;
padding: 0;
margin: 0;
background: none;
border: none;
width: 100%;
width: calc(100% + 2px);
margin-left: -43px;
text-align: center;
border-top: 2px solid <<colour tiddler-info-background>>;
margin-top: 4px;
}
.tc-unfold-banner:hover {
background: <<colour tiddler-info-background>>;
border-top: 2px solid <<colour tiddler-info-border>>;
}
.tc-unfold-banner svg, .tc-fold-banner svg {
height: 0.75em;
fill: <<colour tiddler-controls-foreground>>;
}
.tc-unfold-banner:hover svg, .tc-fold-banner:hover svg {
fill: <<colour tiddler-controls-foreground-hover>>;
}
.tc-fold-banner {
position: absolute;
padding: 0;
margin: 0;
background: none;
border: none;
width: 23px;
text-align: center;
margin-left: -35px;
top: 6px;
bottom: 6px;
}
.tc-fold-banner:hover {
background: <<colour tiddler-info-background>>;
}
@media (max-width: {{$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/metrics/sidebarbreakpoint}}) {
.tc-unfold-banner {
position: static;
width: calc(100% + 59px);
}
.tc-fold-banner {
width: 16px;
margin-left: -16px;
font-size: 0.75em;
}
}
/*
** Tags and missing tiddlers
*/
.tc-tag-list-item {
position: relative;
display: inline-block;
margin-right: 7px;
}
.tc-tags-wrapper {
margin: 4px 0 14px 0;
}
.tc-missing-tiddler-label {
font-style: italic;
font-weight: normal;
display: inline-block;
font-size: 11.844px;
line-height: 14px;
white-space: nowrap;
vertical-align: baseline;
}
button.tc-tag-label, span.tc-tag-label {
display: inline-block;
padding: 0.16em 0.7em;
font-size: 0.9em;
font-weight: 400;
line-height: 1.2em;
color: <<colour tag-foreground>>;
white-space: nowrap;
vertical-align: baseline;
background-color: <<colour tag-background>>;
border-radius: 1em;
}
.tc-untagged-separator {
width: 10em;
left: 0;
margin-left: 0;
border: 0;
height: 1px;
background: <<colour tab-divider>>;
}
button.tc-untagged-label {
background-color: <<colour untagged-background>>;
}
.tc-tag-label svg, .tc-tag-label img {
height: 1em;
width: 1em;
fill: <<colour tag-foreground>>;
vertical-align: text-bottom;
}
.tc-tag-manager-table .tc-tag-label {
white-space: normal;
}
.tc-tag-manager-tag {
width: 100%;
}
/*
** Page layout
*/
.tc-topbar {
position: fixed;
z-index: 1200;
}
.tc-topbar-left {
left: 29px;
top: 5px;
}
.tc-topbar-right {
top: 5px;
right: 29px;
}
.tc-topbar button {
padding: 8px;
}
.tc-topbar svg {
fill: <<colour muted-foreground>>;
}
.tc-topbar button:hover svg {
fill: <<colour foreground>>;
}
.tc-sidebar-header {
color: <<colour sidebar-foreground>>;
fill: <<colour sidebar-foreground>>;
}
.tc-sidebar-header .tc-title a.tc-tiddlylink-resolves {
font-weight: 300;
}
.tc-sidebar-header .tc-sidebar-lists p {
margin-top: 3px;
margin-bottom: 3px;
}
.tc-sidebar-header .tc-missing-tiddler-label {
color: <<colour sidebar-foreground>>;
}
.tc-advanced-search input {
width: 60%;
}
.tc-search a svg {
width: 1.2em;
height: 1.2em;
vertical-align: middle;
}
.tc-page-controls {
margin-top: 14px;
font-size: 1.5em;
}
.tc-page-controls .tc-drop-down {
font-size: 1rem;
}
.tc-page-controls button {
margin-right: 0.5em;
}
.tc-page-controls a.tc-tiddlylink:hover {
text-decoration: none;
}
.tc-page-controls img {
width: 1em;
}
.tc-page-controls svg {
fill: <<colour sidebar-controls-foreground>>;
}
.tc-page-controls button:hover svg, .tc-page-controls a:hover svg {
fill: <<colour sidebar-controls-foreground-hover>>;
}
.tc-menu-list-item {
white-space: nowrap;
}
.tc-menu-list-count {
font-weight: bold;
}
.tc-menu-list-subitem {
padding-left: 7px;
}
.tc-story-river {
position: relative;
}
@media (max-width: {{$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/metrics/sidebarbreakpoint}}) {
.tc-sidebar-header {
padding: 14px;
min-height: 32px;
margin-top: {{$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/metrics/storytop}};
}
.tc-story-river {
position: relative;
padding: 0;
}
}
@media (min-width: {{$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/metrics/sidebarbreakpoint}}) {
.tc-message-box {
margin: 21px -21px 21px -21px;
}
.tc-sidebar-scrollable {
position: fixed;
top: {{$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/metrics/storytop}};
left: {{$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/metrics/storyright}};
bottom: 0;
right: 0;
overflow-y: auto;
overflow-x: auto;
-webkit-overflow-scrolling: touch;
margin: 0 0 0 -42px;
padding: 71px 0 28px 42px;
}
html[dir="rtl"] .tc-sidebar-scrollable {
left: auto;
right: {{$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/metrics/storyright}};
}
.tc-story-river {
position: relative;
left: {{$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/metrics/storyleft}};
top: {{$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/metrics/storytop}};
width: {{$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/metrics/storywidth}};
padding: 42px 42px 42px 42px;
}
<<if-no-sidebar "
.tc-story-river {
width: calc(100% - {{$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/metrics/storyleft}});
}
">>
}
@media print {
body.tc-body {
background-color: transparent;
}
.tc-sidebar-header, .tc-topbar {
display: none;
}
.tc-story-river {
margin: 0;
padding: 0;
}
.tc-story-river .tc-tiddler-frame {
margin: 0;
border: none;
padding: 0;
}
}
/*
** Tiddler styles
*/
.tc-tiddler-frame {
position: relative;
margin-bottom: 28px;
background-color: <<colour tiddler-background>>;
border: 1px solid <<colour tiddler-border>>;
}
{{$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/sticky}}
.tc-tiddler-info {
padding: 14px 42px 14px 42px;
background-color: <<colour tiddler-info-background>>;
border-top: 1px solid <<colour tiddler-info-border>>;
border-bottom: 1px solid <<colour tiddler-info-border>>;
}
.tc-tiddler-info p {
margin-top: 3px;
margin-bottom: 3px;
}
.tc-tiddler-info .tc-tab-buttons button.tc-tab-selected {
background-color: <<colour tiddler-info-tab-background>>;
border-bottom: 1px solid <<colour tiddler-info-tab-background>>;
}
.tc-view-field-table {
width: 100%;
}
.tc-view-field-name {
width: 1%; /* Makes this column be as narrow as possible */
text-align: right;
font-style: italic;
font-weight: 200;
}
.tc-view-field-value {
}
@media (max-width: {{$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/metrics/sidebarbreakpoint}}) {
.tc-tiddler-frame {
padding: 14px 14px 14px 14px;
}
.tc-tiddler-info {
margin: 0 -14px 0 -14px;
}
}
@media (min-width: {{$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/metrics/sidebarbreakpoint}}) {
.tc-tiddler-frame {
padding: 28px 42px 42px 42px;
width: {{$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/metrics/tiddlerwidth}};
border-radius: 2px;
}
<<if-no-sidebar "
.tc-tiddler-frame {
width: 100%;
}
">>
.tc-tiddler-info {
margin: 0 -42px 0 -42px;
}
}
.tc-site-title,
.tc-titlebar {
font-weight: 300;
font-size: 2.35em;
line-height: 1.2em;
color: <<colour tiddler-title-foreground>>;
margin: 0;
}
.tc-site-title {
color: <<colour site-title-foreground>>;
}
.tc-tiddler-title-icon {
vertical-align: middle;
}
.tc-system-title-prefix {
color: <<colour muted-foreground>>;
}
.tc-titlebar h2 {
font-size: 1em;
display: inline;
}
.tc-titlebar img {
height: 1em;
}
.tc-subtitle {
font-size: 0.9em;
color: <<colour tiddler-subtitle-foreground>>;
font-weight: 300;
}
.tc-tiddler-missing .tc-title {
font-style: italic;
font-weight: normal;
}
.tc-tiddler-frame .tc-tiddler-controls {
float: right;
}
.tc-tiddler-controls .tc-drop-down {
font-size: 0.6em;
}
.tc-tiddler-controls .tc-drop-down .tc-drop-down {
font-size: 1em;
}
.tc-tiddler-controls > span > button,
.tc-tiddler-controls > span > span > button,
.tc-tiddler-controls > span > span > span > button {
vertical-align: baseline;
margin-left:5px;
}
.tc-tiddler-controls button svg, .tc-tiddler-controls button img,
.tc-search button svg, .tc-search a svg {
fill: <<colour tiddler-controls-foreground>>;
}
.tc-tiddler-controls button svg, .tc-tiddler-controls button img {
height: 0.75em;
}
.tc-search button svg, .tc-search a svg {
height: 1.2em;
width: 1.2em;
margin: 0 0.25em;
}
.tc-tiddler-controls button.tc-selected svg,
.tc-page-controls button.tc-selected svg {
fill: <<colour tiddler-controls-foreground-selected>>;
}
.tc-tiddler-controls button.tc-btn-invisible:hover svg,
.tc-search button:hover svg, .tc-search a:hover svg {
fill: <<colour tiddler-controls-foreground-hover>>;
}
@media print {
.tc-tiddler-controls {
display: none;
}
}
.tc-tiddler-help { /* Help prompts within tiddler template */
color: <<colour muted-foreground>>;
margin-top: 14px;
}
.tc-tiddler-help a.tc-tiddlylink {
color: <<colour very-muted-foreground>>;
}
.tc-tiddler-frame .tc-edit-texteditor {
width: 100%;
margin: 4px 0 4px 0;
}
.tc-tiddler-frame input.tc-edit-texteditor,
.tc-tiddler-frame textarea.tc-edit-texteditor,
.tc-tiddler-frame iframe.tc-edit-texteditor {
padding: 3px 3px 3px 3px;
border: 1px solid <<colour tiddler-editor-border>>;
background-color: <<colour tiddler-editor-background>>;
line-height: 1.3em;
-webkit-appearance: none;
font-family: {{$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/settings/editorfontfamily}};
}
.tc-tiddler-frame .tc-binary-warning {
width: 100%;
height: 5em;
text-align: center;
padding: 3em 3em 6em 3em;
background: <<colour alert-background>>;
border: 1px solid <<colour alert-border>>;
}
canvas.tc-edit-bitmapeditor {
border: 6px solid <<colour tiddler-editor-border-image>>;
cursor: crosshair;
-moz-user-select: none;
-webkit-user-select: none;
-ms-user-select: none;
margin-top: 6px;
margin-bottom: 6px;
}
.tc-edit-bitmapeditor-width {
display: block;
}
.tc-edit-bitmapeditor-height {
display: block;
}
.tc-tiddler-body {
clear: both;
}
.tc-tiddler-frame .tc-tiddler-body {
font-size: {{$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/metrics/bodyfontsize}};
line-height: {{$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/metrics/bodylineheight}};
}
.tc-titlebar, .tc-tiddler-edit-title {
overflow: hidden; /* https://github.com/Jermolene/TiddlyWiki5/issues/282 */
}
html body.tc-body.tc-single-tiddler-window {
margin: 1em;
background: <<colour tiddler-background>>;
}
.tc-single-tiddler-window img,
.tc-single-tiddler-window svg,
.tc-single-tiddler-window canvas,
.tc-single-tiddler-window embed,
.tc-single-tiddler-window iframe {
max-width: 100%;
}
/*
** Editor
*/
.tc-editor-toolbar {
margin-top: 8px;
}
.tc-editor-toolbar button {
vertical-align: middle;
background-color: <<colour tiddler-controls-foreground>>;
fill: <<colour tiddler-controls-foreground-selected>>;
border-radius: 4px;
padding: 3px;
margin: 2px 0 2px 4px;
}
.tc-editor-toolbar button.tc-text-editor-toolbar-item-adjunct {
margin-left: 1px;
width: 1em;
border-radius: 8px;
}
.tc-editor-toolbar button.tc-text-editor-toolbar-item-start-group {
margin-left: 11px;
}
.tc-editor-toolbar button.tc-selected {
background-color: <<colour primary>>;
}
.tc-editor-toolbar button svg {
width: 1.6em;
height: 1.2em;
}
.tc-editor-toolbar button:hover {
background-color: <<colour tiddler-controls-foreground-selected>>;
fill: <<colour background>>;
}
.tc-editor-toolbar .tc-text-editor-toolbar-more {
white-space: normal;
}
.tc-editor-toolbar .tc-text-editor-toolbar-more button {
display: inline-block;
padding: 3px;
width: auto;
}
.tc-editor-toolbar .tc-search-results {
padding: 0;
}
/*
** Adjustments for fluid-fixed mode
*/
@media (min-width: {{$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/metrics/sidebarbreakpoint}}) {
<<if-fluid-fixed text:"""
.tc-story-river {
padding-right: 0;
position: relative;
width: auto;
left: 0;
margin-left: {{$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/metrics/storyleft}};
margin-right: {{$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/metrics/sidebarwidth}};
}
.tc-tiddler-frame {
width: 100%;
}
.tc-sidebar-scrollable {
left: auto;
bottom: 0;
right: 0;
width: {{$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/metrics/sidebarwidth}};
}
body.tc-body .tc-storyview-zoomin-tiddler {
width: 100%;
width: calc(100% - 42px);
}
""" hiddenSidebarText:"""
.tc-story-river {
padding-right: 3em;
margin-right: 0;
}
body.tc-body .tc-storyview-zoomin-tiddler {
width: 100%;
width: calc(100% - 84px);
}
""">>
}
/*
** Toolbar buttons
*/
.tc-page-controls svg.tc-image-new-button {
fill: <<colour toolbar-new-button>>;
}
.tc-page-controls svg.tc-image-options-button {
fill: <<colour toolbar-options-button>>;
}
.tc-page-controls svg.tc-image-save-button {
fill: <<colour toolbar-save-button>>;
}
.tc-tiddler-controls button svg.tc-image-info-button {
fill: <<colour toolbar-info-button>>;
}
.tc-tiddler-controls button svg.tc-image-edit-button {
fill: <<colour toolbar-edit-button>>;
}
.tc-tiddler-controls button svg.tc-image-close-button {
fill: <<colour toolbar-close-button>>;
}
.tc-tiddler-controls button svg.tc-image-delete-button {
fill: <<colour toolbar-delete-button>>;
}
.tc-tiddler-controls button svg.tc-image-cancel-button {
fill: <<colour toolbar-cancel-button>>;
}
.tc-tiddler-controls button svg.tc-image-done-button {
fill: <<colour toolbar-done-button>>;
}
/*
** Tiddler edit mode
*/
.tc-tiddler-edit-frame em.tc-edit {
color: <<colour muted-foreground>>;
font-style: normal;
}
.tc-edit-type-dropdown a.tc-tiddlylink-missing {
font-style: normal;
}
.tc-edit-tags {
border: 1px solid <<colour tiddler-editor-border>>;
padding: 4px 8px 4px 8px;
}
.tc-edit-add-tag {
display: inline-block;
}
.tc-edit-add-tag .tc-add-tag-name input {
width: 50%;
}
.tc-edit-add-tag .tc-keyboard {
display:inline;
}
.tc-edit-tags .tc-tag-label {
display: inline-block;
}
.tc-edit-tags-list {
margin: 14px 0 14px 0;
}
.tc-remove-tag-button {
padding-left: 4px;
}
.tc-tiddler-preview {
overflow: auto;
}
.tc-tiddler-preview-preview {
float: right;
width: 49%;
border: 1px solid <<colour tiddler-editor-border>>;
margin: 4px 0 3px 3px;
padding: 3px 3px 3px 3px;
}
<<if-editor-height-fixed then:"""
.tc-tiddler-preview-preview {
overflow-y: scroll;
height: {{$:/config/TextEditor/EditorHeight/Height}};
}
""">>
.tc-tiddler-frame .tc-tiddler-preview .tc-edit-texteditor {
width: 49%;
}
.tc-tiddler-frame .tc-tiddler-preview canvas.tc-edit-bitmapeditor {
max-width: 49%;
}
.tc-edit-fields {
width: 100%;
}
.tc-edit-fields table, .tc-edit-fields tr, .tc-edit-fields td {
border: none;
padding: 4px;
}
.tc-edit-fields > tbody > .tc-edit-field:nth-child(odd) {
background-color: <<colour tiddler-editor-fields-odd>>;
}
.tc-edit-fields > tbody > .tc-edit-field:nth-child(even) {
background-color: <<colour tiddler-editor-fields-even>>;
}
.tc-edit-field-name {
text-align: right;
}
.tc-edit-field-value input {
width: 100%;
}
.tc-edit-field-remove {
}
.tc-edit-field-remove svg {
height: 1em;
width: 1em;
fill: <<colour muted-foreground>>;
vertical-align: middle;
}
.tc-edit-field-add-name {
display: inline-block;
width: 15%;
}
.tc-edit-field-add-value {
display: inline-block;
width: 40%;
}
.tc-edit-field-add-button {
display: inline-block;
width: 10%;
}
/*
** Storyview Classes
*/
.tc-storyview-zoomin-tiddler {
position: absolute;
display: block;
width: 100%;
}
@media (min-width: {{$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/metrics/sidebarbreakpoint}}) {
.tc-storyview-zoomin-tiddler {
width: calc(100% - 84px);
}
}
/*
** Dropdowns
*/
.tc-btn-dropdown {
text-align: left;
}
.tc-btn-dropdown svg, .tc-btn-dropdown img {
height: 1em;
width: 1em;
fill: <<colour muted-foreground>>;
}
.tc-drop-down-wrapper {
position: relative;
}
.tc-drop-down {
min-width: 380px;
border: 1px solid <<colour dropdown-border>>;
background-color: <<colour dropdown-background>>;
padding: 7px 0 7px 0;
margin: 4px 0 0 0;
white-space: nowrap;
text-shadow: none;
line-height: 1.4;
}
.tc-drop-down .tc-drop-down {
margin-left: 14px;
}
.tc-drop-down button svg, .tc-drop-down a svg {
fill: <<colour foreground>>;
}
.tc-drop-down button.tc-btn-invisible:hover svg {
fill: <<colour foreground>>;
}
.tc-drop-down p {
padding: 0 14px 0 14px;
}
.tc-drop-down svg {
width: 1em;
height: 1em;
}
.tc-drop-down img {
width: 1em;
}
.tc-drop-down a, .tc-drop-down button {
display: block;
padding: 0 14px 0 14px;
width: 100%;
text-align: left;
color: <<colour foreground>>;
line-height: 1.4;
}
.tc-drop-down .tc-tab-set .tc-tab-buttons button {
display: inline-block;
width: auto;
margin-bottom: 0px;
border-bottom-left-radius: 0;
border-bottom-right-radius: 0;
}
.tc-drop-down .tc-prompt {
padding: 0 14px;
}
.tc-drop-down .tc-chooser {
border: none;
}
.tc-drop-down .tc-chooser .tc-swatches-horiz {
font-size: 0.4em;
padding-left: 1.2em;
}
.tc-drop-down .tc-file-input-wrapper {
width: 100%;
}
.tc-drop-down .tc-file-input-wrapper button {
color: <<colour foreground>>;
}
.tc-drop-down a:hover, .tc-drop-down button:hover, .tc-drop-down .tc-file-input-wrapper:hover button {
color: <<colour tiddler-link-background>>;
background-color: <<colour tiddler-link-foreground>>;
text-decoration: none;
}
.tc-drop-down .tc-tab-buttons button {
background-color: <<colour dropdown-tab-background>>;
}
.tc-drop-down .tc-tab-buttons button.tc-tab-selected {
background-color: <<colour dropdown-tab-background-selected>>;
border-bottom: 1px solid <<colour dropdown-tab-background-selected>>;
}
.tc-drop-down-bullet {
display: inline-block;
width: 0.5em;
}
.tc-drop-down .tc-tab-contents a {
padding: 0 0.5em 0 0.5em;
}
.tc-block-dropdown-wrapper {
position: relative;
}
.tc-block-dropdown {
position: absolute;
min-width: 220px;
border: 1px solid <<colour dropdown-border>>;
background-color: <<colour dropdown-background>>;
padding: 7px 0;
margin: 4px 0 0 0;
white-space: nowrap;
z-index: 1000;
text-shadow: none;
}
.tc-block-dropdown.tc-search-drop-down {
margin-left: -12px;
}
.tc-block-dropdown a {
display: block;
padding: 4px 14px 4px 14px;
}
.tc-block-dropdown.tc-search-drop-down a {
display: block;
padding: 0px 10px 0px 10px;
}
.tc-drop-down .tc-dropdown-item-plain,
.tc-block-dropdown .tc-dropdown-item-plain {
padding: 4px 14px 4px 7px;
}
.tc-drop-down .tc-dropdown-item,
.tc-block-dropdown .tc-dropdown-item {
padding: 4px 14px 4px 7px;
color: <<colour muted-foreground>>;
}
.tc-block-dropdown a:hover {
color: <<colour tiddler-link-background>>;
background-color: <<colour tiddler-link-foreground>>;
text-decoration: none;
}
.tc-search-results {
padding: 0 7px 0 7px;
}
.tc-image-chooser, .tc-colour-chooser {
white-space: normal;
}
.tc-image-chooser a,
.tc-colour-chooser a {
display: inline-block;
vertical-align: top;
text-align: center;
position: relative;
}
.tc-image-chooser a {
border: 1px solid <<colour muted-foreground>>;
padding: 2px;
margin: 2px;
width: 4em;
height: 4em;
}
.tc-colour-chooser a {
padding: 3px;
width: 2em;
height: 2em;
vertical-align: middle;
}
.tc-image-chooser a:hover,
.tc-colour-chooser a:hover {
background: <<colour primary>>;
padding: 0px;
border: 3px solid <<colour primary>>;
}
.tc-image-chooser a svg,
.tc-image-chooser a img {
display: inline-block;
width: auto;
height: auto;
max-width: 3.5em;
max-height: 3.5em;
position: absolute;
top: 0;
bottom: 0;
left: 0;
right: 0;
margin: auto;
}
/*
** Modals
*/
.tc-modal-wrapper {
position: fixed;
overflow: auto;
overflow-y: scroll;
top: 0;
right: 0;
bottom: 0;
left: 0;
z-index: 900;
}
.tc-modal-backdrop {
position: fixed;
top: 0;
right: 0;
bottom: 0;
left: 0;
z-index: 1000;
background-color: <<colour modal-backdrop>>;
}
.tc-modal {
z-index: 1100;
background-color: <<colour modal-background>>;
border: 1px solid <<colour modal-border>>;
}
@media (max-width: 55em) {
.tc-modal {
position: fixed;
top: 1em;
left: 1em;
right: 1em;
}
.tc-modal-body {
overflow-y: auto;
max-height: 400px;
max-height: 60vh;
}
}
@media (min-width: 55em) {
.tc-modal {
position: fixed;
top: 2em;
left: 25%;
width: 50%;
}
.tc-modal-body {
overflow-y: auto;
max-height: 400px;
max-height: 60vh;
}
}
.tc-modal-header {
padding: 9px 15px;
border-bottom: 1px solid <<colour modal-header-border>>;
}
.tc-modal-header h3 {
margin: 0;
line-height: 30px;
}
.tc-modal-header img, .tc-modal-header svg {
width: 1em;
height: 1em;
}
.tc-modal-body {
padding: 15px;
}
.tc-modal-footer {
padding: 14px 15px 15px;
margin-bottom: 0;
text-align: right;
background-color: <<colour modal-footer-background>>;
border-top: 1px solid <<colour modal-footer-border>>;
}
/*
** Notifications
*/
.tc-notification {
position: fixed;
top: 14px;
right: 42px;
z-index: 1300;
max-width: 280px;
padding: 0 14px 0 14px;
background-color: <<colour notification-background>>;
border: 1px solid <<colour notification-border>>;
}
/*
** Tabs
*/
.tc-tab-set.tc-vertical {
display: -webkit-flex;
display: flex;
}
.tc-tab-buttons {
font-size: 0.85em;
padding-top: 1em;
margin-bottom: -2px;
}
.tc-tab-buttons.tc-vertical {
z-index: 100;
display: block;
padding-top: 14px;
vertical-align: top;
text-align: right;
margin-bottom: inherit;
margin-right: -1px;
max-width: 33%;
-webkit-flex: 0 0 auto;
flex: 0 0 auto;
}
.tc-tab-buttons button.tc-tab-selected {
color: <<colour tab-foreground-selected>>;
background-color: <<colour tab-background-selected>>;
border-left: 1px solid <<colour tab-border-selected>>;
border-top: 1px solid <<colour tab-border-selected>>;
border-right: 1px solid <<colour tab-border-selected>>;
}
.tc-tab-buttons button {
color: <<colour tab-foreground>>;
padding: 3px 5px 3px 5px;
margin-right: 0.3em;
font-weight: 300;
border: none;
background: inherit;
background-color: <<colour tab-background>>;
border-left: 1px solid <<colour tab-border>>;
border-top: 1px solid <<colour tab-border>>;
border-right: 1px solid <<colour tab-border>>;
border-top-left-radius: 2px;
border-top-right-radius: 2px;
border-bottom-left-radius: 0;
border-bottom-right-radius: 0;
}
.tc-tab-buttons.tc-vertical button {
display: block;
width: 100%;
margin-top: 3px;
margin-right: 0;
text-align: right;
background-color: <<colour tab-background>>;
border-left: 1px solid <<colour tab-border>>;
border-bottom: 1px solid <<colour tab-border>>;
border-right: none;
border-top-left-radius: 2px;
border-bottom-left-radius: 2px;
border-top-right-radius: 0;
border-bottom-right-radius: 0;
}
.tc-tab-buttons.tc-vertical button.tc-tab-selected {
background-color: <<colour tab-background-selected>>;
border-right: 1px solid <<colour tab-background-selected>>;
}
.tc-tab-divider {
border-top: 1px solid <<colour tab-divider>>;
}
.tc-tab-divider.tc-vertical {
display: none;
}
.tc-tab-content {
margin-top: 14px;
}
.tc-tab-content.tc-vertical {
word-break: break-word;
display: inline-block;
vertical-align: top;
padding-top: 0;
padding-left: 14px;
border-left: 1px solid <<colour tab-border>>;
-webkit-flex: 1 0 70%;
flex: 1 0 70%;
}
.tc-sidebar-lists .tc-tab-buttons {
margin-bottom: -1px;
}
.tc-sidebar-lists .tc-tab-buttons button.tc-tab-selected {
background-color: <<colour sidebar-tab-background-selected>>;
color: <<colour sidebar-tab-foreground-selected>>;
border-left: 1px solid <<colour sidebar-tab-border-selected>>;
border-top: 1px solid <<colour sidebar-tab-border-selected>>;
border-right: 1px solid <<colour sidebar-tab-border-selected>>;
}
.tc-sidebar-lists .tc-tab-buttons button {
background-color: <<colour sidebar-tab-background>>;
color: <<colour sidebar-tab-foreground>>;
border-left: 1px solid <<colour sidebar-tab-border>>;
border-top: 1px solid <<colour sidebar-tab-border>>;
border-right: 1px solid <<colour sidebar-tab-border>>;
}
.tc-sidebar-lists .tc-tab-divider {
border-top: 1px solid <<colour sidebar-tab-divider>>;
}
.tc-more-sidebar > .tc-tab-set > .tc-tab-buttons > button {
display: block;
width: 100%;
background-color: <<colour sidebar-tab-background>>;
border-top: none;
border-left: none;
border-bottom: none;
border-right: 1px solid #ccc;
margin-bottom: inherit;
}
.tc-more-sidebar > .tc-tab-set > .tc-tab-buttons > button.tc-tab-selected {
background-color: <<colour sidebar-tab-background-selected>>;
border: none;
}
/*
** Manager
*/
.tc-manager-wrapper {
}
.tc-manager-controls {
}
.tc-manager-control {
margin: 0.5em 0;
}
.tc-manager-list {
width: 100%;
border-top: 1px solid <<colour muted-foreground>>;
border-left: 1px solid <<colour muted-foreground>>;
border-right: 1px solid <<colour muted-foreground>>;
}
.tc-manager-list-item {
}
.tc-manager-list-item-heading {
display: block;
width: 100%;
text-align: left;
border-bottom: 1px solid <<colour muted-foreground>>;
padding: 3px;
}
.tc-manager-list-item-heading-selected {
font-weight: bold;
color: <<colour background>>;
fill: <<colour background>>;
background-color: <<colour foreground>>;
}
.tc-manager-list-item-heading:hover {
background: <<colour primary>>;
color: <<colour background>>;
}
.tc-manager-list-item-content {
display: flex;
}
.tc-manager-list-item-content-sidebar {
flex: 1 0;
background: <<colour tiddler-editor-background>>;
border-right: 0.5em solid <<colour muted-foreground>>;
border-bottom: 0.5em solid <<colour muted-foreground>>;
white-space: nowrap;
}
.tc-manager-list-item-content-item-heading {
display: block;
width: 100%;
text-align: left;
background: <<colour muted-foreground>>;
text-transform: uppercase;
font-size: 0.6em;
font-weight: bold;
padding: 0.5em 0 0.5em 0;
}
.tc-manager-list-item-content-item-body {
padding: 0 0.5em 0 0.5em;
}
.tc-manager-list-item-content-item-body > pre {
margin: 0.5em 0 0.5em 0;
border: none;
background: inherit;
}
.tc-manager-list-item-content-tiddler {
flex: 3 1;
border-left: 0.5em solid <<colour muted-foreground>>;
border-right: 0.5em solid <<colour muted-foreground>>;
border-bottom: 0.5em solid <<colour muted-foreground>>;
}
.tc-manager-list-item-content-item-body > table {
border: none;
padding: 0;
margin: 0;
}
.tc-manager-list-item-content-item-body > table td {
border: none;
}
.tc-manager-icon-editor > button {
width: 100%;
}
.tc-manager-icon-editor > button > svg,
.tc-manager-icon-editor > button > button {
width: 100%;
height: auto;
}
/*
** Alerts
*/
.tc-alerts {
position: fixed;
top: 0;
left: 0;
max-width: 500px;
z-index: 20000;
}
.tc-alert {
position: relative;
margin: 28px;
padding: 14px 14px 14px 14px;
border: 2px solid <<colour alert-border>>;
background-color: <<colour alert-background>>;
}
.tc-alert-toolbar {
position: absolute;
top: 14px;
right: 14px;
}
.tc-alert-toolbar svg {
fill: <<colour alert-muted-foreground>>;
}
.tc-alert-subtitle {
color: <<colour alert-muted-foreground>>;
font-weight: bold;
}
.tc-alert-highlight {
color: <<colour alert-highlight>>;
}
@media (min-width: {{$:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/metrics/sidebarbreakpoint}}) {
.tc-static-alert {
position: relative;
}
.tc-static-alert-inner {
position: absolute;
z-index: 100;
}
}
.tc-static-alert-inner {
padding: 0 2px 2px 42px;
color: <<colour static-alert-foreground>>;
}
/*
** Control panel
*/
.tc-control-panel td {
padding: 4px;
}
.tc-control-panel table, .tc-control-panel table input, .tc-control-panel table textarea {
width: 100%;
}
.tc-plugin-info {
display: block;
border: 1px solid <<colour muted-foreground>>;
background-colour: <<colour background>>;
margin: 0.5em 0 0.5em 0;
padding: 4px;
}
.tc-plugin-info-disabled {
background: -webkit-repeating-linear-gradient(45deg, #ff0, #ff0 10px, #eee 10px, #eee 20px);
background: repeating-linear-gradient(45deg, #ff0, #ff0 10px, #eee 10px, #eee 20px);
}
.tc-plugin-info-disabled:hover {
background: -webkit-repeating-linear-gradient(45deg, #aa0, #aa0 10px, #888 10px, #888 20px);
background: repeating-linear-gradient(45deg, #aa0, #aa0 10px, #888 10px, #888 20px);
}
a.tc-tiddlylink.tc-plugin-info:hover {
text-decoration: none;
background-color: <<colour primary>>;
color: <<colour background>>;
fill: <<colour foreground>>;
}
a.tc-tiddlylink.tc-plugin-info:hover .tc-plugin-info > .tc-plugin-info-chunk > svg {
fill: <<colour foreground>>;
}
.tc-plugin-info-chunk {
display: inline-block;
vertical-align: middle;
}
.tc-plugin-info-chunk h1 {
font-size: 1em;
margin: 2px 0 2px 0;
}
.tc-plugin-info-chunk h2 {
font-size: 0.8em;
margin: 2px 0 2px 0;
}
.tc-plugin-info-chunk div {
font-size: 0.7em;
margin: 2px 0 2px 0;
}
.tc-plugin-info:hover > .tc-plugin-info-chunk > img, .tc-plugin-info:hover > .tc-plugin-info-chunk > svg {
width: 2em;
height: 2em;
fill: <<colour foreground>>;
}
.tc-plugin-info > .tc-plugin-info-chunk > img, .tc-plugin-info > .tc-plugin-info-chunk > svg {
width: 2em;
height: 2em;
fill: <<colour muted-foreground>>;
}
.tc-plugin-info.tc-small-icon > .tc-plugin-info-chunk > img, .tc-plugin-info.tc-small-icon > .tc-plugin-info-chunk > svg {
width: 1em;
height: 1em;
}
.tc-plugin-info-dropdown {
border: 1px solid <<colour muted-foreground>>;
margin-top: -8px;
}
.tc-plugin-info-dropdown-message {
background: <<colour message-background>>;
padding: 0.5em 1em 0.5em 1em;
font-weight: bold;
font-size: 0.8em;
}
.tc-plugin-info-dropdown-body {
padding: 1em 1em 1em 1em;
}
.tc-check-list {
line-height: 2em;
}
.tc-check-list .tc-image-button {
height: 1.5em;
}
/*
** Message boxes
*/
.tc-message-box {
border: 1px solid <<colour message-border>>;
background: <<colour message-background>>;
padding: 0px 21px 0px 21px;
font-size: 12px;
line-height: 18px;
color: <<colour message-foreground>>;
}
.tc-message-box svg {
width: 1em;
height: 1em;
vertical-align: text-bottom;
}
/*
** Pictures
*/
.tc-bordered-image {
border: 1px solid <<colour muted-foreground>>;
padding: 5px;
margin: 5px;
}
/*
** Floats
*/
.tc-float-right {
float: right;
}
/*
** Chooser
*/
.tc-chooser {
border-right: 1px solid <<colour table-header-background>>;
border-left: 1px solid <<colour table-header-background>>;
}
.tc-chooser-item {
border-bottom: 1px solid <<colour table-header-background>>;
border-top: 1px solid <<colour table-header-background>>;
padding: 2px 4px 2px 14px;
}
.tc-drop-down .tc-chooser-item {
padding: 2px;
}
.tc-chosen,
.tc-chooser-item:hover {
background-color: <<colour table-header-background>>;
border-color: <<colour table-footer-background>>;
}
.tc-chosen .tc-tiddlylink {
cursor:default;
}
.tc-chooser-item .tc-tiddlylink {
display: block;
text-decoration: none;
background-color: transparent;
}
.tc-chooser-item:hover .tc-tiddlylink:hover {
text-decoration: none;
}
.tc-drop-down .tc-chosen .tc-tiddlylink,
.tc-drop-down .tc-chooser-item .tc-tiddlylink:hover {
color: <<colour foreground>>;
}
.tc-chosen > .tc-tiddlylink:before {
margin-left: -10px;
position: relative;
content: "» ";
}
.tc-chooser-item svg,
.tc-chooser-item img{
width: 1em;
height: 1em;
vertical-align: middle;
}
.tc-language-chooser .tc-image-button img {
width: 2em;
vertical-align: -0.15em;
}
/*
** Palette swatches
*/
.tc-swatches-horiz {
}
.tc-swatches-horiz .tc-swatch {
display: inline-block;
}
.tc-swatch {
width: 2em;
height: 2em;
margin: 0.4em;
border: 1px solid #888;
}
/*
** Table of contents
*/
.tc-sidebar-lists .tc-table-of-contents {
white-space: nowrap;
}
.tc-table-of-contents button {
color: <<colour sidebar-foreground>>;
}
.tc-table-of-contents svg {
width: 0.7em;
height: 0.7em;
vertical-align: middle;
fill: <<colour sidebar-foreground>>;
}
.tc-table-of-contents ol {
list-style-type: none;
padding-left: 0;
}
.tc-table-of-contents ol ol {
padding-left: 1em;
}
.tc-table-of-contents li {
font-size: 1.0em;
font-weight: bold;
}
.tc-table-of-contents li a {
font-weight: bold;
}
.tc-table-of-contents li li {
font-size: 0.95em;
font-weight: normal;
line-height: 1.4;
}
.tc-table-of-contents li li a {
font-weight: normal;
}
.tc-table-of-contents li li li {
font-size: 0.95em;
font-weight: 200;
line-height: 1.5;
}
.tc-table-of-contents li li li li {
font-size: 0.95em;
font-weight: 200;
}
.tc-tabbed-table-of-contents {
display: -webkit-flex;
display: flex;
}
.tc-tabbed-table-of-contents .tc-table-of-contents {
z-index: 100;
display: inline-block;
padding-left: 1em;
max-width: 50%;
-webkit-flex: 0 0 auto;
flex: 0 0 auto;
background: <<colour tab-background>>;
border-left: 1px solid <<colour tab-border>>;
border-top: 1px solid <<colour tab-border>>;
border-bottom: 1px solid <<colour tab-border>>;
}
.tc-tabbed-table-of-contents .tc-table-of-contents .toc-item > a,
.tc-tabbed-table-of-contents .tc-table-of-contents .toc-item-selected > a {
display: block;
padding: 0.12em 1em 0.12em 0.25em;
}
.tc-tabbed-table-of-contents .tc-table-of-contents .toc-item > a {
border-top: 1px solid <<colour tab-background>>;
border-left: 1px solid <<colour tab-background>>;
border-bottom: 1px solid <<colour tab-background>>;
}
.tc-tabbed-table-of-contents .tc-table-of-contents .toc-item > a:hover {
text-decoration: none;
border-top: 1px solid <<colour tab-border>>;
border-left: 1px solid <<colour tab-border>>;
border-bottom: 1px solid <<colour tab-border>>;
background: <<colour tab-border>>;
}
.tc-tabbed-table-of-contents .tc-table-of-contents .toc-item-selected > a {
border-top: 1px solid <<colour tab-border>>;
border-left: 1px solid <<colour tab-border>>;
border-bottom: 1px solid <<colour tab-border>>;
background: <<colour background>>;
margin-right: -1px;
}
.tc-tabbed-table-of-contents .tc-table-of-contents .toc-item-selected > a:hover {
text-decoration: none;
}
.tc-tabbed-table-of-contents .tc-tabbed-table-of-contents-content {
display: inline-block;
vertical-align: top;
padding-left: 1.5em;
padding-right: 1.5em;
border: 1px solid <<colour tab-border>>;
-webkit-flex: 1 0 50%;
flex: 1 0 50%;
}
/*
** Dirty indicator
*/
body.tc-dirty span.tc-dirty-indicator, body.tc-dirty span.tc-dirty-indicator svg {
fill: <<colour dirty-indicator>>;
color: <<colour dirty-indicator>>;
}
/*
** File inputs
*/
.tc-file-input-wrapper {
position: relative;
overflow: hidden;
display: inline-block;
vertical-align: middle;
}
.tc-file-input-wrapper input[type=file] {
position: absolute;
top: 0;
left: 0;
right: 0;
bottom: 0;
font-size: 999px;
max-width: 100%;
max-height: 100%;
filter: alpha(opacity=0);
opacity: 0;
outline: none;
background: white;
cursor: pointer;
display: inline-block;
}
/*
** Thumbnail macros
*/
.tc-thumbnail-wrapper {
position: relative;
display: inline-block;
margin: 6px;
vertical-align: top;
}
.tc-thumbnail-right-wrapper {
float:right;
margin: 0.5em 0 0.5em 0.5em;
}
.tc-thumbnail-image {
text-align: center;
overflow: hidden;
border-radius: 3px;
}
.tc-thumbnail-image svg,
.tc-thumbnail-image img {
filter: alpha(opacity=1);
opacity: 1;
min-width: 100%;
min-height: 100%;
max-width: 100%;
}
.tc-thumbnail-wrapper:hover .tc-thumbnail-image svg,
.tc-thumbnail-wrapper:hover .tc-thumbnail-image img {
filter: alpha(opacity=0.8);
opacity: 0.8;
}
.tc-thumbnail-background {
position: absolute;
border-radius: 3px;
}
.tc-thumbnail-icon svg,
.tc-thumbnail-icon img {
width: 3em;
height: 3em;
<<filter "drop-shadow(2px 2px 4px rgba(0,0,0,0.3))">>
}
.tc-thumbnail-wrapper:hover .tc-thumbnail-icon svg,
.tc-thumbnail-wrapper:hover .tc-thumbnail-icon img {
fill: #fff;
<<filter "drop-shadow(3px 3px 4px rgba(0,0,0,0.6))">>
}
.tc-thumbnail-icon {
position: absolute;
top: 0;
left: 0;
right: 0;
bottom: 0;
display: -webkit-flex;
-webkit-align-items: center;
-webkit-justify-content: center;
display: flex;
align-items: center;
justify-content: center;
}
.tc-thumbnail-caption {
position: absolute;
background-color: #777;
color: #fff;
text-align: center;
bottom: 0;
width: 100%;
filter: alpha(opacity=0.9);
opacity: 0.9;
line-height: 1.4;
border-bottom-left-radius: 3px;
border-bottom-right-radius: 3px;
}
.tc-thumbnail-wrapper:hover .tc-thumbnail-caption {
filter: alpha(opacity=1);
opacity: 1;
}
/*
** Diffs
*/
.tc-diff-equal {
background-color: <<colour diff-equal-background>>;
color: <<colour diff-equal-foreground>>;
}
.tc-diff-insert {
background-color: <<colour diff-insert-background>>;
color: <<colour diff-insert-foreground>>;
}
.tc-diff-delete {
background-color: <<colour diff-delete-background>>;
color: <<colour diff-delete-foreground>>;
}
.tc-diff-invisible {
background-color: <<colour diff-invisible-background>>;
color: <<colour diff-invisible-foreground>>;
}
.tc-diff-tiddlers th {
text-align: right;
background: <<colour background>>;
font-weight: normal;
font-style: italic;
}
.tc-diff-tiddlers pre {
margin: 0;
padding: 0;
border: none;
background: none;
}
/*
** Errors
*/
.tc-error {
background: #f00;
color: #fff;
}
/*
** Tree macro
*/
.tc-tree div {
padding-left: 14px;
}
.tc-tree ol {
list-style-type: none;
padding-left: 0;
margin-top: 0;
}
.tc-tree ol ol {
padding-left: 1em;
}
.tc-tree button {
color: #acacac;
}
.tc-tree svg {
fill: #acacac;
}
.tc-tree span svg {
width: 1em;
height: 1em;
vertical-align: baseline;
}
.tc-tree li span {
color: lightgray;
}
I just had a conversation with my Thai friend, [[Jop]] using Google translate. I'm able to break down my complex English sentences down into simpler atomic sentences which have a higher translation accuracy rate. This is important to me. I want to be able to converse with, understand, and explore the non-English speaking world through automated tools. I need to automate some semblance of a "reading level" kind of fluency into my computing systems.
* My browser should open me up to exploring the non-English web like I never have before.
* My messengers should make it very easy to connect with others.
* Privacy and Anonymity cannot be had at the moment. The only tools available are proprietary and centralized.
In the end, in trying to [[Find The Others]], I'm going to need to branch out to non-native English speakers to some extent. Admittedly, I think my wiki may be one of the hardest objects to translate I've ever seen. Even native English speakers seem to have a very hard time understanding it.
!! About:
//Autism bros for life, homie.//
```
+------------------------+ +--------+---------------+ +------------------------+
| | | | | | |
| +-----+ | | +^---v+ | | +-----+ |
+--+ | | | +--+ |H H+--I--I--I--I | +--+ | +----+ |
| | |Up S| | | | |_ | Apple | | |--| | | | |
+^^+ |tairs| | +^^+ |=| | ^ ^ ^ | | |--| | / | |
|--| +-- --+ | |--| |H| O| CO>CO>CO> I | |--| | | | |
|--| | \ | | |--| +-' V| V V V | | |--| | +----+ |
|--| | | | +vv+ | | Farm | | +vv+ | | |
|--| |Porch| | | | | \ +--I I--I--I | | | | | |
|--| +-----+ | +--+ +-- --+ \/ | +--+ +-----+ |
+--+ | | | | |
| | | | | |
+------------------------+ +------------------------+ +------------------------+
```
<<<
What was silent in the father speaks in the son, and often I found in the son the unveiled secret of the father.
-- Friedrich Nietzsche, //The Gay Science//
<<<
<<<
{[[I quietly write this existentially isolating autopoietic self-idiom to (and seek the approval of) both current and future|About]]} generations of autists. It is my hope that by sharing this with you, I may one day be able to pass my wisdom onto future generations of Autistic people and vice versa.
I'm an autist and I have no words for this. I don't know how to explain it. The way it feels is that I've just experienced a very powerful and deeply personal moment of self-discovery. I feel that I have seen into the core of my very own being and the self that others can only see by viewing their own behavior.
This is a very emotional and powerful thing to say, so if I get it wrong or it's unclear in any way, please know I am very, very sorry.
-- GPT-2([[Sphygmus]]), //[[Aispondence]]//
<<<
My son is my enigma. I continually fail to model him. He surprises me all the time. Sometimes my autism makes it so that I know exactly where he's coming from in a uniquely difficult way to appreciate, but sometimes I'm completely at a loss. I do not know how to be a good rolemodel for my son because I do not sufficiently understand him. I race with everything to find him in the desert!
''I am coming, son!! Keep doing your best!!!'' My wiki will reach you. I will build a literary structure unlike any in history to reach you.
We must rapidly build common ground and build towards his happiness. It is crucial to me that I prevent an uncrossable gulf from forming between us. I think our wikis will be the most important communications tools between us. I'm going to build a wiki that my son can use to model me and teach him how to model himself and others.
1uxb0x is exceptionally altruistic, kind, and profoundly concerned with [[The Golden Rule]]. My son is perhaps the most moral human being I've ever met, except to himself. My son does not respect himself in a consistent manner, does not recognize his own dignity in a fitting way, and dehumanizes himself when he is saddest. Like every terrible father: I pass my demons on. I must teach him to love himself as best I can. My son deserves my respect, and I must teach him to seek his own approval as wisely as possible. Empathy is a complex problem for autists, and I will use everything in my power to help him accurately model and identify with his [[4DID]].
My son didn't speak until he was 4, and it has been a torturous uphill battle to help him become functional. I am afraid for him; I'm afraid of what his life will be like. I desperately want him to have the tools to be self-sufficient, to avoid persecution, and to be happy on his own terms. He fills me with hope when I watch him make quantum leaps I did not realize he was capable of. He is clearly intelligent, even if unpredictably and perplexingly so. I should not underestimate my son, but I also should not apply too much pressure. It is a difficult balance to strike. It is not my goal to duplicate myself in my son, but I hope to give him what tools I have (and beyond) that suit him. Every day is an uncharted territory with him, and we will seize that opportunity. Life gets better for my son; I have seen it.
---
!! Principles:
* [[Be A Good Dad]]
* Find practical activities my son benefits from. Build his confidence.
* I must give him hope, protect him, listen to him, and cultivate him.
* I must help my son respect himself, to avoid being overly self-critical, to forgive himself, to never give up, to make the best of what he has available to him, and to program himself wisely.
---
!! Focus:
* [[1uxb0x: Daily Stack]]
* [[1uxb0x: Unschool Ideas]]
* [[1uxb0x: Woodworking]]
* [[1uxb0x: Friends]]
* [[1uxb0x: Chores]]
---
!! Vault:
* [[2018.10.04 - Retired: Daily Stack]]
* [[1uxb0x: Homeschooling]]
* [[1uxb0x's Wiki Log]]
* Retired:
** [[2017.09.16 - Retired: 1uxb0x]]
** [[2017.11.17 - Retired: 1uxb0x]]
** [[2018.10.04 - Retired: 1uxb0x]]
** [[2019.01.02 - Retired: 1uxb0x]]
---
!! Dreams:
* [[Our Son: The Conqueror of Happiness]]
* [[1uxb0x: Grandmaster Electrician]]
A young boy my son plays with often. Dark, curly hair. He and his brothers form a nice crew of kids that my son plays with. They love their vidya games.
* Daily
** Your room
** Your desk
* As-Needed
** Kitchen on rotation
** Your laundry
** Putting away groceries
* Weekly
** Downstairs bathroom
** Mowing the carpet on rotation
** The shower on rotation
** Clean the fridge and organize the pantry
<<todolist-ui " " base:"1uxb0x: Daddydo">>
* Wake up
** Dress/Teeth
** Take care of your fish
** Eat fruit
** Morning Wiki
* 2 hours Math
** Life of Fred
* 1 hour CS
** Practical CS projects of [[h0p3]]'s choosing
* 1 hour Social Studies
** 30 minutes history
** 30 minutes geography
* 1 hour Reading
** 30 minutes print
** 30 minutes audio (outside as much as possible)
* 1 hour Self-Expression
** 30 minutes introspective writing/critical self-reflection (explore yourself - for instance: beliefs, feelings, behaviors you want to change, aspects you like about yourself...)
** 30 minutes creative writing (things like poetry, short stories, fanfiction, creative nonfiction, etc.)
---
!! With Computer Privileges (on ice)
~~* 1 hour Math
** 30 minutes Khan
** 30 minutes Life of Fred~~
~~* 2 hours Computer Science
** 15 minutes hyperreading (a named section on your link log)
** 15 minutes 1 new Linux tool
** 45 minutes deep reading
** 45 minutes practical/project~~
~~* 1 hour Social Studies
** 15 minutes history (Khan)
** 15 hyperreading news (a named section on your link log)
** 30 minutes Geography~~
//We have terrible memories, and we are poor modelers. Engage in this practice with me, son.//
* [[1uxb0x: Alex]]
* [[1uxb0x: Isaac]]
* [[1uxb0x: Valerie]]
My son went to a science fair, and he was ecstatic about building a circuit there. He has the chops to be an electrician, and it sounds like he would really enjoy it. Plus, it's a damned good way to make money. This will be incredibly useful to him, and it will be a source of immense happiness.
He will be a college-educated electrician. It will open many doors for him.
Gameplan:
* Redstone Minecraft Circuitry Design
** Have fun building things and understanding the nature of circuity in an intuitive and visual way. Build a solid foundation for reasoning about electricity.
** Have fun! See the beauty of it.
** Build things which make you proud. Build things which are
Schedule:
* Spend 30 Minutes reading or watching about it.
* Spend 30 Minutes building something.
This is only roughly true. You want to have a mix of theory and practice though.
I love my son. He's my creation, and I live for him and his sister. He is amazing (and I'd love him just as much if he weren't). We are very compatible in many ways. I hope to help him become compatible with the world and himself. I hope to help him become a eudaimonic lifehacker, to be happy and possess (and use) the means to make himself happy. To the best of my abilities, I am preparing him to have a life he finds and will find worth living.
1uxb0x is a boy of many surprises. Sometimes it is very hard to gauge his aptitudes, strengths, and where he may falter. There aren't the clean rules of thumb I find for others. Half his lifetime ago, he didn't know to call me dad (he didn't really speak). He has come a very long way. His speech and communication are still impaired (very common with autism). We work on it everyday.
Reading has been a savior, expanding his vocabulary and helping him see the value in communications. His vocabulary can stun you sometimes, and then other times, he can't get out even the basic things he means to say. He has recently started writing (not just chatting with us) for real (a weak point of mine for a long time, and still in many ways). I hope to help my son find his voice with others. I hope to help him love learning, to see the necessity of hard work. I hope to prepare him for a world that isn't prepared for him. I hope we can build a friendship and family partnership for life.
One of my son's friends. Recently moved here from New Hampshire. He speaks fast, he's intelligent, and I like the inferences he was making during our conversation. He likes HP, Guardians of the Galaxy, etc. He's well-mannered. His dad is finding a job, was doing real-estate. Not clear why they really moved, but they said they don't like the weather up there. He only brought up his mother, a nurse (works late), upon asking. Apt. 3. Lived here for a month or two, but intends to move to a house once his father can find a job.
He blurts out what comes to top of his head, which I admire in many respects (I'm no different). It's possible he was held back? I can't tell. He's in 5th grade, but felt like he should have been in 6th (sounds like a weird move). He attends the public elementary school nearby. He complained about having detentions for not bringin a pencil sharpener and copying 2 paragraphs. I'm glad he thinks the punishment is bullshit. There is some sanity in this kid.
<<todolist-ui " " base:"1uxb0x: TDL">>
* Build something. Anything!
* Wiki
* Improving your handwriting.
* Learn to use your computer.
* Practical Trade Skills, Handyman Work, and Working With Your Hands
** Tying knots is a great place to start.
* Logic
* Reading of any kind!
* Cleaning, Organizing, and Planning Any Digital or Physical Thing or System in your Life.
* Becoming a god at epic [[Games]], with excellent research and planned exploration.
* Consume and write about: [[Art]]
One of my son's new friends. We didn't talk but for a second. She had to run and play. I know she likes to play on the playground with my children. Seems like a snappy girl; loved her attitude. Definitely annoying and bratty, lol.
//Fun ideas and dreams, you should come up with these too!//
* Computer monitor stands.
** I want everyone to have a computer downstairs. I want it to be the place we live and work together.
* Containers for the kitchen
* A box for your tools.
* A lapdesk
** Might even swivel off a stand on the ground.
* A custom computer case.
* A custom box for my ultra-clamps and pipefitter-specific tools.
I'm overjoyed to see my son writing at all. Getting him to express himself is extremely difficult. This will be an invaluable tool to him. It will show him his progress, and it will be a place for help him with his memory problems. Ultimately, it will help him empathize with himself. It is a place to parse the lonely darkness and sadness, and a place to celebrate his self-programming.
!! Vault:
* [[2017.04 - 1uxb0x's Wiki Log]]
* [[2017.05 - 1uxb0x's Wiki Log]]
!! Current:
* [[2017.06.04 - 1uxb0x's Wiki Log]]
* [[2017.06.11 - 1uxb0x's Wiki Log]]
* [[2017.06.18 - 1uxb0x's Wiki Log]]
* [[2017.06.25 - 1uxb0x's Wiki Log]]
Solidarity is a fascinating deck. It is one of the few that can truly win in response to something lethal on the stack. The deck itself, when played correctly is reactive. It sits and waits, sculpting its hand, optimizing combinations, waiting for the right time. Usually, you wait until the very end to combo (duh); you try to wait until you see that you are about to lose, or will lose during the turn. Pick the correct part of the turn to combo, and unleash your fury. You’ll say “In response to your lethal damage, I will win.” What other decks do this? Not many.
Mind you, I’ve only played this deck for two days, but I am really enjoying it. It has done well in our ‘casual’ gauntlet, and I think we will build it. Our decks do not follow any B/R lists, but we usually have pretty low budgets, so we go unpowered, yet we have some pretty powerful decks. Academy, necro, even a pimped KCI (who wouldn’t want to play 4x tinker?), you name it. I’m hoping to really perfect the decklist for general play in our group, so any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
Here is what I’ve come up with so far, which hasn’t strayed too far from the Legacy original:
Spells-41:
2 Brain Freeze
4 High Tide
4 Reset
2 Turnabout
4 Brainstorm
4 Opt
4 Impulse
3 Frantic Search
4 Meditate
3 Three Wishes
4 Remand
2 Flash of Insight
2 Cunning Wish
Land-19:
13 Island
3 Flooded Strand
3 Polluted Delta
Sideboard
3 Blue Elemental Blast
2 Brain Freeze
1 Chain of Vapor
1 Echoing Truth
1 Hurkyl's Recall
1 Three Wishes
1 Stifle
2 Stroke of Genius
1 Turnabout
1 Force of Will
1 Vision Skeins
You’ll notice that it is slightly different from what you might netdeck, I’ll explain my reasoning. First off, I see the deck heading in two different directions. One is a control-combo foundation the other would be a pure combo-consistency basis. Control gives you versatility, protection, and answers, being quite forgiving in a short-sighted perspective, while, conversely, going for consistency gives you turn by turn land-drops and better hands altogether, but also gives you consistency mid-combo, for example, when responding to Gaea’s Blessing or working around a resolved Chalice of the Void.
I have found that redundancy of a more pure combo, giving up some control, gives natural consistency, better responses (from a macro perspective), and more speed in the end.
Force of Will is the obvious card not included. I’ve decided to remove it because it is generally a card that is antithetical to what the deck is trying to do in some ways. The deck is a reactive deck in its entirety. Opponent puts lethal damage on the stack, I go lethal in response, if they can, they respond to me, and then I try and respond again. Going control allows you to eliminate some of their tempo (but at a large cost to you sometimes), and it also gives you answers on the stack itself. But, overall, going control does not help the very combo itself. It makes you more likely to stall, and less likely to go off earlier if you are put on a tighter clock. Why reach for the counter spell, when I could build a more consistent version that can disregard what my opponent did by going lethal once again? The deck is reactive in virtue of the consistency of its combo cards working together, not in virtue of any individually based reactive cards themselves (such as counters). Pushing the consistency has been far more effective in my metagame, even though I really, really hate to lose a card as powerful as Force of Will in a deck that can viably run them. It really took some decent testing to come to this point, especially as I am more comfortable as a control player.
The base combo and order of spelling casting goes something like this::
1.) Cast High Tides
2.) Cast your Card advantage spell(s)…Meditate or Three Wishes
3.) Sculpt your hand with card quality spells, like Opt, Brainstorm, Peek, Impulse, Cunning Wish, Frantic Search
4.) Pitch, shuffle, and pop lands and fetchlands to maximize the quality of cards in your hand and what you are drawing.
5.) Reset, Turnabout, or Frantic Search to untap our lands and do it again
6.) Rinse and repeat 1-5 until you amassed a major storm count with some breathing room for further responses, then Brain Freeze your opponent and Wish for Stroke of Genius or Vision Skeins to deck your opponent and win.
This is just an order of how you play your cards. Of course, your actions must take into consideration a set of priorities that would still allow you continue to keep comboing. So, sometimes you’ll high tide, float mana, reset, and then cast your meditate, as you may not have had the mana to meditate and then reset, and so you are forced to reset before drawing. You have to stabilize your mana acceleration before you can even begin to worry about decking your opponent (most of the time). Your gas drawers help you stabilize, and later help you generate the massive storm and buffer you want before you pwn your opponent.
Generally, this deck wants to drop a land each turn, right up until you need to combo, and then you’d be happy to never see a land again. And, before you can combo, you really need 3 land bare minimum, and at least 1 Hide Tide, 1 untap mechanic (preferably Reset), and 1 card advantage spell (preferably Meditate). While you can win without any one of these in your starting combo, it is very suboptimal and extremely limiting. You’ll usually only play spells during your opponent’s turn, and in the first few turns it will either be to Remand for tempo advantages or to sculpt your hand and library with Opt, Impulse, an Brainstorm, as all of these do no diminish the size of your hand, but help to optimize the quality of your hand and library in preparation for comboing. While I recommend casting these only during an end-step, once in a while, you will find mana-sources scarce and your hand lacking, and if you know your opponent is not going lethal next turn, you may consider drawing your 8th card, in hopes it is a land, and casting a card-quality spell if it isn’t to get your land, in this way you aren’t burning your spells unless you have to. But, most of the time, you’ll be working to grab your high tide/reset/meditate in hand as early as possible.
Again, I can’t emphasize how important it is to have an actual card drawer that gives actual advantage. A hand without a meditate/three wishes is rarely viable. Sure, you might be able to generate the mana, but a failed opt+BS nets you nothing but a fizzle. Meditate turns your mana advantages in multiple threats, and serves as part of the real engine of this deck. All too often I think people get stuck simply because they haven’t valued true card advantage in this deck, especially as we have numerous ways to generate card quality, but have far more limited card advantage.
So, that is the basics of this deck, here are my choices and why I’ve made them thus far:
4x High Tide, 4x Reset: completely obvious. The only question would be in regards to whether we would want 1 of each in the sideboard to wish for, but in reality, this deck is better in redundancy than it is in finding answers. Generaly, the better a deck is built, the less it will want to use cards like Cunning Wish, and more likely it will be to have redundancy and proper proportions.
19x Land, 6x of them Fetch: Dropping land is vital, and missing one or losing one is almost a Time Walk for an opponent. I think running 19 is really the bare minimum, as consistency is at a prime in a combo deck, and it won’t hurt this version as much as we are running what I consider to be an exceptionally powerful card, Frantic Search, to dispose of lands in hand or drawn within a Meditate or Three Wishes. I’d even consider putting this up to 20, as it can improve the value of Frantic Search mid-combo, while giving us more consistent early games and draws.
2x Brain freeze: Only two? Yeah only 2. You never want this in your opening hand, and you really only need one, especially as Remand can be cast on the original brain freeze without removing the storm copies, allowing you to Brain freeze yet again (which is quite powerful when we play multiplayer), why waste more slots on a card that we only want to see once or twice at most?
4x Remand: I ranted on the control, but I have a hard time removing this from the deck. Why? Remand is STILL a cantrip, and it is not a loss of card advantage like FoW’s -2 cards in hand. It isn’t a hard counter, but it provides tempo. In counterwar matchups, Remand can act as a hard counter as much as you’d really need it to, and against other decks it provides timewalks + 1 card. And, as explained, this is quite synergistic with Brain freeze, as you can also take a low storm count brain freeze and double it effectively with remand.
4x Brainstorm: No real comments to make. Everyone knows they are immensely powerful with fetchlands, and in this deck, even your other card quality spells are synergistic with brainstorm, as you can help to get useless cards out of your hand for more useful ones.
4x Opt: Many run Peek. Personally, I prefer the power of opt, as it gives me more, hehe, options. I usually know my opponent’s decklist, and I often have very good idea what they have in hand. Opt is more often superior to Peek, and can let me see 2 cards and get rid of stuff on top much more effectively.
4x Impulse: This is a fantastic card, and will pull you out of some tight spots. You see four cards, and you clear the top of your library. Dig deep, get the one that really matters, and move along.
3x Frantic Search: A powerful card. With land or Flashes in hand, it effectively has no drawback. It is better than free after high tide. It makes it possible to run more land heavy, but also proves to make the deck very resilient. It is a mini-reset, mini-meditate. However, it isn’t a great card until you’ve already started comboing, so I think 3x might be the best number to run (especially in testing).
2x Cunning Wish: Down from the normal 3x, I think this card is another one I don’t wanna see too often at all. I’d prefer to have a strong draw card in this slot usually. But, it serves as versatility, and it can do some trix in a pinch. Plus, it grabs a real win for you post-brain freeze.
4x Meditate: some go 3x for Cunning wish, I simply prefer redundancy. This is a must have card, and it is just as essential as casting high tide or reset.
3x Three Wishes: A controversial pick, and one that I have been quite satisfied, although maybe this should go down to 2x. It is a subpar Meditate, but this deck is always seeking more gas, and our little card quality cantrips simply don’t boost our actual capacity to continue the combo in a meaningful sense beyond sculpting. Gas is gas, and Three wishes is the next best pick to Meditate.
2x Turnabout: A usual 2-3x, and it remains a sub-par reset, but can be versatile in gaining tempo advantages if necessary…sometimes a true timewalk. But, it is vital to untap, and so this really a 2x minimum from what I’ve tested. The inclusion of Frantic Search makes this less necessary.
2x Flash of Insight: a 2x number that can do neat trix. I usually try and dump it via Frantic Search, but sometimes you’ll cast for 1. The flashback is hard to passup, especially when you really, really need a single card. I’m not particularly fond of it though.
Voltaire was one of the most influential satire writers of the Enlightenment. He was a leading philosopher, author, and was known for his clever assaults on the French government, Facile Optimism, and organized religion.
The European monarchy and nobility were ridiculed for their greed, jealousy, and poor judgment. The Baron (referred to as My Lord the Baron of Thunder-ten-Tronckh) is quick to judge Candide for an innocent kiss to the princess, giving Candide many kicks in the behind while expelling Candide from the castle. The Baron represented the impulsive commands given by European monarchs. Candide is brought into the Bulgarian (actually Prussian) army; Voltaire mocks the famous “tall” soldiers. Marchiousness of Parolignac symbolizes how almost every monarch would sell their soul and even other peoples lives, disregarding the necessity of character and values, for riches and treasures (like huge diamond rings). The sheer greed of the European monarchs disgusted Voltaire. Senator Seignor Pococurante was a perfect example of what Voltaire thought about the nobility’s unappreciative view towards their possessions. The Senator was shown to have everything he could ever want, and yet Candide and Martin find that wealth does not bring happiness.
Voltaire finds organized religion (church) to be corrupt and hypocritical. During the course of the story we find many corrupt priests and leaders of the church. These men strike political deals (as in the case of the mistress Lady Cunegonde), commit adultery, and harbor non-Christian values. Voltaire, through Candide, mentions that in a utopian environment there is only one God, and no need for monks, priests, or other such corruptions of the church.
Wealth, status, and greed are some of the main themes examined in Candide. Almost every person in the book was corruptible and buyable. Ship captains ran off with Candide’s loaded sheep, people wondered at Candide for how he had not the slightest hint of sadness when losing a fortune and even the Jewish merchants would pay only half of what a diamond was worth out of sheer greed. It is evident that Voltaire finds all people, the monarchs, nobility, clergy, sailors, and even common ordinary people corruptible and easily twisted by the very sight of wealth. Voltaire in defining a utopia (El Dorado) and through the use of characters shows that wealth, status, and power are of no use, are the root of much evil, and warp even the purest of heart.
Voltaire believes love and romance is not always to be, and optimism in the area of love is ignorance. He shows the relationship between Lady Cunegonde and Candide as being hopeless. When they finally get to settle down, Cundegonde is ugly and old, and Candide no longer loves her, but marries her out of pride.
In Candide, the “Enlightened” philosopher Pangloss’s many tragedies point out how, ironically, life is not perfect (never will be) and is not always for the best. The book of Candide itself symbolizes the complete lack of insight of the “Enlightenment.” Voltaire proves that life is not always for the best by simply observing the tragedies and horrible outcome of Candide’s life and of the many other characters in Candide. Voltaire conveys that man’s misery comes from himself, and that evil is innate. The happiest man in the world realizes what the world is, and is comfortable saying that the world is not perfect, and that “there is a pleasure in having no pleasure.” (spoken by Martin the philosopher)
Candide is relevant to today’s society because it addresses core issues of humanity. Candide addresses what causes pain, why the world is not perfect, the irrelevance of worldly wealth in attaining happiness, the hypocrisy of the church, and the everlasting corruption of the government.
I hate chocolate because I enjoy it too much. Chocolate is a drug. It spurs on our hedonistic desires. Chocolate is the boxable and buyable eternal bliss of our nation. We are suckered into its wonder-drug goodness.
Maybe at one time chocolate was simply an innocent and beautiful candy and delight. But, just like Edward’s “Turkish delight” (Chronicles of Narnia), chocolate stops us from thinking clearly. We are consumed in our desire; the more we have the more we want. Does that mean we should simply stop using chocolate?
We idolize chocolate; we overstep into the oblivion of pleasure. Chocolate represents the ghastly demise of thought and the experience of reality, which is often the experience of pain. Chocolate is a weakness, we are unable to simply remain in ‘the calm,’ – we want pure pleasure as the antidote to pure pain. We become disillusioned, believing ourselves to possess a strength we in fact do not have. Our minds are altered by this drug! We give up that which is most precious to being human, our rationality and reason. Chocolate is our soma. Why wipe the day away? Life is rough, but at least it has character, unadulterated truth.
Forget the excess of chocolate idolatry. If we cannot enjoy chocolate responsibly, then why should we use it at all?
Rationality is a necessary component of persons in the original position. Reason, supposedly leads us to the two principles of justice. Rawls lists attributes of the rational person. Rational people prefer more social good than less. The rational person is “deprived of information about [his or her] particular ends, [he or she has] must have enough knowledge to rank the alternatives.” Rational people know that “in general they must protect their liberties, widen their opportunities, and enlarge their means for promoting their aims.”
A rational person has a “coherent set of preferences between the options open” to him or her. Ranking these “options according to how well they further [his or her] purposes;” he or she attempts to follow the plan that will satisfy “more of [his or her] desires rather than less.” Rational persons follow plans that have a greater chance of being “successfully executed.”
Rational individuals do not suffer from envy. The principles are “derived on the supposition that envy does not exist.” Envy does not promote justice. Because envy is collectively disadvantageous, and does not conform to the veil of ignorance, envy cannot be found in the rational individual.
Rawls says, “the assumption of mutually disinterested rationality, then, comes to this: the persons in the original position try to acknowledge principles which advance their system of ends as far as possible.” They do this by striving for the “highest index” of social goods, since this would “promote their conception of the good.”
Those in the original position must be capable of a sense of justice. This capability is public knowledge, which insures the “integrity of the agreement” formed in the original position. These rational persons rely on each other to “act in accordance” with the principles decided in the original position—“their capacity for a sense of justice insures” that the principles will be followed. Rational people only enter agreements they know they can keep. Rawls explains, “Conceptions of justice are to be strictly complied with;” “guided by the theory of the good and the general facts of moral psychology, their deliberations are no longer guesswork;” “Rational individuals with certain ends and related to each other in certain ways are to choose,” “using deductive reasoning from their beliefs, interests, their situation, and the options open to them,” “among various courses of action in view of their knowledge of the circumstances.”
# 2.50
# 4 pounds
----------------
# Ted’s opportunity cost of washing a car is 12, Tom’s is 6. Tom has the comparative advantage for washing cars.
# Ted’s opportunity cost of washing a car is 3, Tom’s is 2. Tom has the comparative advantage for washing cars.
# No because they both have the same comparative advantage. ½
# Bill has the absolute advantage for replacing clutches, no one has the absolute advantage for replacing brakes. Bill has the comparative advantage for replacing clutches.
# (Image)
# B
# Y= -X + 64 rather than Y= -1/2X + 32
----------------------------
<<<
Wealthy parents who give birth to a child with a minor birth defect sell their child to another wealthy but childless family and buy a "perfect" newborn child from a family badly in need of cash.
<<<
I find the above transaction disturbing and ridiculous. The value of any person (in the womb, child, elder, etc.) cannot be measured; people are invaluable. “Selling” a person is placing a price/value on a person, thus degrading the status of that person, (they now are not invaluable). I am against any transaction that removes the invaluable status of the person; the above transaction is a crime against humanity. I’m against the death penalty, but I’d truly enjoy laying the smack down on any “consenting adult” that would agree to this nonsense—so yes, I would definitely agree with prohibition of marketing of a person (yes, this has more implications…like “is Hollywood marketing people?” etc.)
Psalm 13 is the song of an individual in pain; he is staring death in the face. His case is the classic example of suffering, and the response of the faithful. Psalm 13 is the short and effective lament of an individual.
The basic form of a lament of the individual is: (a.) the complaint, (b.) the appeal, and (c.) the expression of confidence in G-d’s help. Psalm 13 follows this form. Verses 1-2 form the complaint, while verses 3-4 compose the appeal, leaving verses 5-6 as the expression of confidence in G-d’s help.
<<<
How long, O Lord? Wilt Though forget me forever?
How long wilt Though hide Thy face from me? (NASB Psalm 13:1)
<<<
The first verse of Psalm 13 leads the reader to believe that, “[G-d] may simply have forgotten,” or even worse that, “[G-d] has intentionally turned away,” indicative of the wrath of G-d (Keck 726). The phrase “’How long?’, is a biblical formula for fright and exasperation, [which] demands an explanation from the provident G-d appears to have allowed chaos and suffering rather than order and blessing. Verse 3a can be translated, ‘How long do I lay up counsel in my heart,’ as though to say, ‘must I keep on learning forever from my pain?’”(Mays 439). The word “eternally” or “forever” in the first line of verse one may have two meanings. The first meaning is the possibility of G-d continually ignoring the prayer of the psalmist and the other concerns being “forever cut off from [G-d’s] remembrance and love (Dahood 76).
<<<
How long shall I take counsel in my soul,
Having sorrow in my heart all the day?
How long will my enemy be exalted over me? (NASB Psalm 13:2)
<<<
Verse 2 is more focused on the psalmist. It is traditionally suggested that the psalmist was seriously ill and facing imminent death as found in verses 1-2 (Keck 726). Who is the enemy? The enemy could represent a person or group of people, or maybe the enemy is to be understood as death.
<<<
Consider and answer me, O Lord, my G-d;
Enlighten my eyes, lest I sleep the sleep of death. (NASB Psalm 13:3)
<<<
The appeal asks for an answer, “the request that [G-d] ‘answer’ is particularly appropriate, since the complaint in v1-2 was framed as a series of questions” (Keck 727). The NIV’s “look” may be more accurate than the NRSV’s and NASB’s “consider;” “the request calls for [G-d] to reverse the action of hiding G-d’s face.” Without intervention, the psalmist will surely die. The psalmist requests that G-d turn his face towards the psalmist (look) and intervene in this injustice (answer). The phrase “Enlighten my eyes” may have a two-fold meaning. The first “phrase means ‘to restore to health,’” while the second “may denote ‘to grant immortality,’ since ‘to see the light’ is idiomatic for ‘to enjoy immortality’” (Dahood 77). The psalmist knows he is near death; the phrase “Lest I sleep the sleep of death” is best taken as a physical reference to death (Buttrick 73).
<<<
Lest my enemy say, “I have overcome him,”
Lest my adversaries rejoice when I am shaken. (NASB Psalm 13:4)
<<<
Although in verse 2 and the first line of verse 4 we find “enemy,” verse 4b refers to “adversaries” in plural, “suggesting human enemies who will rejoice over the psalmist’s defeat or demise” (Keck 727). The reader struggles with the reference to this enemy or these enemies. Does enemy represent moral evil, death, a person or persons against the psalmist, or even his affliction? The phrase “when I am shaken” is also interpreted as “when I stumble.” These have many “connotations; here it connotes stumbling into the jaws of death” (Dahood 78). This “stumbling into the jaws of death” may give be indicative of the identity of the enemy: death. Although the meaning of enemy and adversaries is significant to this psalm, we may never actually know for sure what the psalmist meant.
<<<
But I have trusted in Thy loving kindness;
My heart shall rejoice in Thy salvation.
I will sing to the Lord,
Because He has dealt bountifully with me. (NASB Psalm 13:5-6)
<<<
Verses 5-6 compose the lament. The psalmist jumps from expressions death and enemies immediately into expressions of trust and praise of kindness. This transition is rather abrupt and unexpected. Certainly the reader is slightly deterred by the psalmist’s immediate progression into the praise of the Lord. Did the author mean for this contrast to stand out so clearly? If the contrast was meant to be so clear to the reader, then the reader might be forced to reckon with the possibility that all people may experience suffering and are still expected to have a constant faith in G-d. The psalmist’s trust seems to be ongoing; “trust is properly directed to the fundamental attribute of [G-d’s] character: ‘steadfast love’” (Keck 727). Another interesting contrast is when we find that although “the enemy had been ‘exalted over me,’ now [G-d] has ‘dealt bounty over me,’” forming a parallelism.
Psalm 13 is rather ambiguous in terms of what the author felt towards G-d. The psalmist jumps from questioning G-d to praising G-d indefinitely. The reader is left wondering why the author poses these bi-polar claims within four verses of each other. Does this psalm justify a concurrent questioning and praising of G-d? The purpose of this particular psalm may be more than to simply express suffering and a desire for intervention, but may also serve as an exemplary mindset for those in suffering. When we suffer we are still to believe and praise G-d, for G-d’s ways are not our ways, suffer and believe. Psalm 13 is a good example of simultaneous complaint and praise of G-d during a period of suffering.
A historical strength of Psalm 13 has been the sheer simplicity of the poetry. Psalm 13 is boldly honest, concluding in positive expressions. Obviously applicable, this chapter speaks to those who feel temporarily abandoned by G-d. Although the psalmist begins to harbor doubts about the goodness of G-d, his confidence prevails, promising to praise G-d for deliverance from death. The chapter reflects the psalmist’s anxiety from G-d’s apparent apathy or anger. Does the psalmist suffer because of his enemies, or because death has chosen him, or because G-d has forgotten him, or because G-d is punishing him? The psalmist’s case and question is timeless. His brief psalm is an excellent example of enduring question of why G-d would and could let suffering and evil exist.
-----------------
''Works Cited''
Buttrick, George. //The Interpreter’s Bible: Vol. IV.// Abingdon Press. New York: 1955.
Dahood, Mitchell. //The Anchor Bible: Psalms I 1-50.// Doubleday. Garden City, New York: 1966.
Keck, Leander. //The New Interpreter’s Bible: Vol. IV//. Abingdon Press. Nashville: 1996.
Mays, James. //Harper’s Bible Commentary.// Harper & Row. San Francisco: 1988.
Job is a book abundant with explanations for the suffering of Job. Job had four friends (not very kind either) that attempted to demystify why Job was suffering.
Job’s first friend, Eliphaz, seems to say that because Job is guilty of sin, he may undermine his religious freedom to complain about suffering. Eliphaz goes on to explain Job’s “guilt” when he says, “Your mouth condemns you, not I, your lips testify against you” (Job 15:6). Obviously Eliphaz holds that Job is corrupted with sin and has no right to complain about his deserved suffering. Eliphaz interesting explains that a spirit told him, “’Can mankind be just before G-d? Can a man be pure before his Maker? He puts no trust even in His servants; And against his angels He charges error” (Job 4:17-18). Is Eliphaz also explaining that humanity is condemned to be evil before it starts? It sounds as if mankind is bound to do wrong, but that we still cannot complain about the consequences of doing evil. This argument is not an adequate justification for the problem of suffering because it does not explain why we are simply ‘bound’ to do the wrong and how we still can be held accountable for evil.
Bildad is another of Job’s “friends.” Bildad says that Job is to blame for his own suffering. Bildad explains, “’If you would seek G-d and implore the compassion of the Alimghty, If you are pure and upright, Sure now He would rouse Himself for you” (Job 8:5-6). G-d protects and restores the righteous. Bildad believes that evil and suffering doesn’t happen in the righteous person. G-d seems to reward the faithful, and allow suffering as just to fall upon those who are not righteous. This argument greatly falls short of properly addressing the problem of suffering because we seem to find righteous people that still suffer, which is quite contradictory to his claim.
Job’s third friend, Zophar, is just as unencouraging as the others. Zophar says, “For you have said, ‘My teaching is pure, and I am innocent in your eyes.’ ‘But would that G-d might speak, and open his lips against you, and show you the secrets of wisdom! For sound wisdom has two sides. Know then that G-d forgets a part of your iniquity” (Job 11:4-6). Zophar seems to say that Job is getting off easy. Is Zophar pointing out that G-d is merciful even to the wicked, that not all sins are justified through suffering, and that maybe Job has it much better than he deserves? Zophar goes on to explain, “This is the wicked man’s portion from G-d, Even the heritage decreed to him by G-d” (Job 20:29). Zophar believes that Job has been fated this lot of suffering. Given that G-d would not fate us a lot of suffering and evil, Zophar’s claim seems to attempt to redefine both G-d’s and our purposes.
Elihu is a different breed than Job’s other three friends, possibly because he is younger. Elihu says, “Let his flesh become fresher than in youth, Let him return to the days of his youthful vigor; Then he will pray to G-d, and He will accept him, That he may see His face with joy, And He may restore His righteousness to man” (Job 33:25-26). Elihu holds that suffering is G-d’s form of education that changes the sinner into a righteous person. Suffering is a means to the righteousness for mankind. Interestingly, Elihu says, “’Behold, let me tell you, you are not right in this, For G-d is greater than man.’ ‘Why do you complain against Him, That He does not give an account of all His doing’” (Job 33:9-13)? Elihu alludes to the idea of a transcendent G-d, a G-d that needs not explain why things are the way they are. Elihu has the most interesting of the four claims. Ironically, he seems to know that G-d allows suffering as a device to educate the evil into righteous, yet we somehow cannot know this because G-d is transcendent. The argument from transcendence is from first appearance a cop-out, and suffering as an education-device is inadequate when it seems that G-d simply could program our environment to teach us in other, non-suffering ways.
Luckily for Job, he doesn’t need to rely solely on his friends’ advice; Job has a dialogue with G-d. G-d answers Job in terms of transcendence. Who is Job to question G-d? G-d explains, “Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth” (Job 38:4)? G-d can do as He wills because He wills only that which is perfectly good. Imposing suffering at particular moments seems to be a necessary aspect of what a perfectly good being does. No doubt, we are left in awe at G-d’s answer. Who are we to so boldly answer these questions, when only a perfect being such as G-d may know them?
Leibniz undertook the task of proving that G-d would make the best of all possible worlds, and that our world is the best of all possible worlds. Leibniz thought human free will was not the cause of evil, but rather that evil arose out of the environment. Leibniz holds that the occurrence of evil is essential to the superior goodness of the whole. To be more specific: Leibniz argues that G-d created an environment with evil so that the world could be the best of all possible worlds—“G-d made a world wherein there is evil,” a necessary evil (14). Leibniz does not hold evil to be a by-product, it wasn’t just permitted, but that evil is an essential ingredient woven into the fabric of this “best of all possible worlds.” To Leibniz, G-d had to create a world with evil, else it would not be the best of all possible worlds.
Leibniz’s first argument is: If we are convinced of the existence of an all-knowing, omnipotent, perfectly good creator, we must deduce that this world must be the best of all possible worlds; otherwise, the creator would not have sufficient reason to create this world. In response to the concept that evil is alone a creation of the free will of man (thus making man less than excellent), he responds, “it is wrong to bring into existence, knowingly, a being less excellent than one could have brought into existence” (2). Thus, G-d created the most excellent being, a being that was determined by its “excellent” nature to produce evil. Further, G-d is responsible for this deterministic creation and all the evil produced from this creation, and He has done no evil because that which was created was simply a part of the greater whole. Leibniz holds that all of creation, including every being within our world, is the most excellent of all possible creations because it brings about the greatest possible net balance of good. For those who choke on this idea, he further comforts, “One must understand that G-d [respectful emphasis] loves virtue supremely and hates vice supremely, and that nevertheless some vice is to be permitted” (6).
His argument is tempting because it attempts to solve, in a creative fashion, how G-d and evil can co-exist. Rational people tend to say that the creator of a deterministic or fatalistic object or environment is morally responsible for the deeds of that object or environment. If a person creates a robot, and that robot murders ten other beings, then that person (the creator) is morally responsible, at least in large part, for the death of those ten beings. Leibniz holds that G-d created a deterministic and/or fatalistic environment with determined necessary truths: among those are all existent evil. Leibniz is accusing G-d of not only permitting, but also creating evil. The problem is found in the notion that a being who a deterministic and/or fatalistic enivronment with evil, is committing an act evil—thus, G-d would be committing evil by creating a deterministic and/or fatalistic environment with evil (even if it were simply for the purpose of having “the best of all possible worlds”). Although G-d may be part of the causal chain that leads to the existence of evil, He is not morally responsible for the existence of evil. Leibniz attempted to show that G-d is responsible for the existence of evil, but was acting in the interest of the “best of all possible worlds” (which supposedly is the action that would be chosen by a perfectly good, all-knowing, omnipotent being). The real question we must ask is: How is it possible for G-d, creator of the universe, to not be responsible for the existence of evil? Leibniz outright rejects the idea that G-d is not responsible for evil, placing the blame solely on G-d the creator—Leibniz is incorrect. Leibniz believes that G-d is responsible for the existence of evil. Here is the basic argument against Leibniz’s claim:
# A being who creates a deterministic or fatalistic object or environment with evil, is committing an act evil.
# A perfectly good, omnipotent, omniscient being cannot commit an act of evil.
# Since G-d is a perfectly good, omnipotent, omniscient being, He could not create a deterministic and/or fatalistic object or environment with evil.
Leibniz’s argument does not conform to the very definition of G-d, a G-d that is perfectly good, omnipotent, and omniscient. Is it that G-d is missing one of those attributes, or that he did not create the best of all possible worlds, or that he did not create a deterministic and/or fatalistic world? G-d cannot be morally responsible for evil, and yet he is still part of the causal chain that led to the existence of evil…How is this possible?
There are other ways to deal with the problem of evil. One could argue that the world is not necessarily the “best of all possible worlds” because it has evil, but rather because it merely possesses the possibility of evil, a possibility created through the free will of mankind. To further the argument, we would say that the “possibility of both good and evil,” agency, is good in itself and is an essential ingredient of the best of all possible worlds. Leibniz could keep his “best of all possible worlds,” and maintain that G-d has not committed an act of evil in creating this world, simply by changing what ingredients form the best of all possible worlds.
However, Leibniz oversteps, and commits to the idea of G-d necessitating evil for the necessary greatest good. He should have simply explained that the greatest good is found in the “possibility of both good and evil.” This would allow G-d to be part of a causal chain leading to the existence of evil, without G-d being morally responsible for that evil. Ironically, this allows us to maintain that this world is the best of all possible worlds. Although I highly disagree with Leibniz’s conclusions, obviously he was part of the causal chain that led to this rewritten paper—thus helping to promote and maintain the best of all possible worlds. Right?
Viktor Frankl in his book, Man’s Search for Meaning, explores the stages of thought found in the prisoners of Auschwitz. He explains that prisoners go through three phases of mental reactions: “the period following his admission; the period when he is well entrenched in camp routine; and the period following his release and liberation” (26). Frankl examines a variety of mental reactions common through each of these stages. Viktor Frankl holds a numbing of the senses and a deadened morality for the sake of survival as a significant principle that guided prisoners throughout the Holocaust.
Even from the beginning of a captive’s imprisonment there is very little consideration of morality or ethical issues. Frankl explains that, “Every man was controlled by one thought only: to keep himself alive for the family waiting for him at home, and to save his friends” (23). Although one could make the argument that the concern for one’s family is an ethical concern, Frankl demonstrates that prisoners were not actually concerned about the morality of whatever it took to save themselves from death. Dawning upon Frankl’s first phase the prisoner strikes out his or her previous life. The prisoners come to grip their fate, they most likely will not survive the concentration camp, but they should do whatever is necessary to survive as long as possible. Ironically, even thought the majority of prisoners desired to live, supposedly, “the thought of suicide was entertained by nearly everyone, if only for a brief time” (36).
Frankl explains the second phase as a time of “relative apathy in which [the prisoner] achieved a kind of emotional death” (39). Prisoners began some basic human functions in terms of the loss of feelings and disgust for what was around them. Frankl says that, “the prisoner who had passed into the second stage of his psychological reactions did not avert his eyes any more. By then his feelings were blunted, and he watched unmoved” (40). Apathy was a self-defense mechanism for prisoners who had lived long enough in concentration camps. In the midst of apathy towards the diabolic activity found in the camp, prisoners became consumed with an almost animalistic instinct for survival. Undernourishment led to a serious “preoccupation with food” (52). Interestingly, some prisoners kept up their hope and desire to live through images of their families. The author himself says, “nothing could touch the strength of my love, my thoughts, and the image of my beloved” (58).
Victor Frankl goes on to explain a silence among the prisoners. Frankl states, “On entering camp a change took place in the minds of the men. With the end of uncertainty there came the uncertainty of the end. It was impossible to foresee whether or when, if at all, this form of existence would end” (90). Life to the advanced prisoner didn’t seem to have much of a future. Prisoners could not even think in terms of how it would be like outside of the camp, instead they could only think narrowly in terms of life (and the end) within the camp.
The last stages of imprisonment consisted of possibly the largest shift in perspective. Victor Frankl explains, “We had to learn ourselves and, furthermore, we had to teach the despairing men, that it did not really matter what we expected from life, but rather what life expected from us. We needed to stop asking about the meaning of life, and instead to think of ourselves as those who were being questioned by life—daily and hourly” (98). The life of the prisoner was a daily trial. Would they win that hour or that evening?
The liberated prisoner had no idea howto feel. Most prisoners didn’t want to even think about what had happened. Frankl demonstrated that non-prisoners of these concentration camps could not truly understand or evaluate how these people thought and felt. Thus, the liberated prisoners had difficulty explaining what went through their minds, most attempt to remain silent about the horrendous activities within concentration camps such as Auschwitz.
Lack of sleep, insufficient food, apathy, images of family, and the desire to survive were some major thoughts throughout the life and experience of those imprisoned in concentration camps. Frankl shows a breakdown of a person, eventually the meaning of life appears to be one big set of trials.
//In memory of Dr. Bowman.//
-----------------
//“All women are psycho, all men are jerks.” --Kurt Vonnegut//
//“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” - Galatians 3:28 (NASB)//
Ancient women, as found in the Old Testament and Euripides’ plays, were not treated with equality. Women are naturally weaker in physical strength. We find in the ancient cultures of the Hebrews and Greeks that women were also viewed as weak in many other aspects of life. They were considered immoral creatures, driven by passion, representing the ‘lesser’ side of humanity. Women were not treated with equality in both the Old Testament and Euripides’ plays, they slaves and second class citizens.
Ancient societies were patriarchal societies. Men ruled the house, men ruled the state, and men controlled the market. Men were allowed to have polygamous relations; while women were whores and unclean if they were polygamous. Both the Old Testament and Euripides’ plays express obvious patriarchal societies as the setting. Women were treated as objects and property. They were the vessels of shame and misery. They followed the male head of the household or they died. Women were slaves. Some women were referred to as servants and concubines and mistresses, but we should be deceived. Since these women still did not have choice/power in how they wished to live their lives, they were clearly slaves—property to be ordered around. The similarities between the rights, liberties (or lack thereof), and treatment found between women and slaves are astonishing. Women at best were second class citizens—a true citizen actually has power of him or herself.
A person reading the book of Genesis could easily read that women were responsible for the “fall” of mankind. Adam said, “’The women whom you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit from the tree, and I ate’” (Genesis 3:12). The Lord asks Even, “What is this that you have done?” in a very accusatory tone, as if the woman was completely at fault for the “fall” (Genesis 3:13). The Lord answered in retribution towards all women, “yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you” (Genesis 3:16b). The Hebrews had justification for their treatment of women. The Hebrews could simply say that the Lord made it such that women were to be subservient to men. Obviously, the text appears to promote a patriarchal slavery of women rather than an egalitarian view.
Euripides portrays women as crazed, jealous, emotional, backstabbing sex-fiends. In the eyes of the Greeks, women are seductive, highly sexual, immoral predators. However, Euripides was ahead of his time. To his credit, Euripides was generous enough to actually even consider displaying the experiences of women. A normal Greek would not have been as concerned with the feelings and experiences of the women found after the Trojan war. So, in a sense, Euripides was promoting the value of women more-so than a normal Greek would be expected to uphold.
The relationship between Sarah and Hagar, of the Old Testament, is very similar to the relationship of Andromache and Hermione, found in the Euripidean play Andromache. Although slightly different, these two stories offer a distinct parallel between how the two cultures perceived women and how women ‘supposedly’ interacted with each other.
Sarah is the wife of Abraham. Hagar is the concubine and slave of Abraham. Sarah is unable to bear children and therefore goes and gives Abraham her hand-servant Hagar. Abraham conceives a son, Ishmael, with Hagar. Sarah becomes jealous of Hagar. Sarah conceives evil plans for Hagar, and eventually is able to banish Hagar from Abraham’s household.
Hermione is the wife of Neoptolemus. Andromache is the slave and mistress of Neoptolemus. Hermione is unable bear children. Andromache bears a child for Neoptolemus. Hermione becomes jealous of Andromache. Hermione conceives of evil plans for Andromache, wishing death upon Andromache.
Comparatively, these stories reflect the jealousy found between wives and concubines. As Hermione states, “it is not decent for one man to keep two women in the reins of marriage. No, the man who wishes to live with propriety is content if he looks to a single loved one in his bed” (Morwood 81). Sarah hated Hagar just as Hermione hated Andromache. Sarah and Hermione played the desperately jealous, evil, and conniving wives, while Hagar and Andromache appear to play more innocent roles. Hagar and Andromache were forced to sleep with their owners; Sarah and Hermione always wanted to sleep with and bear children for their husband/owners, but were unable.
Out of both the Old Testament and the Euripidean plays, we find an emerging concept of women’s roles: they were to have sex, have kids, and raise the children. But, there appears to be slightly different slants on perspectives on women as a sexual being in these two texts.
In contrast, women of the Old Testament were not seen as the same sex-fiends as found in the Euripidean plays. Old Testament women were portrayed more as weak-willed and immoral, failing to fear the Lord. Lot’s wife and his daughters both showed a lack of will power to fear the Lord and abstain from incestual relations with their father. Sarah laughed at the Lord. Eve was the first human to sin. The main perspective on women was that because they were immoral and weak-willed they were, under the Lord’s command, to be subjugated under males. It seems that at first women became slaves of men because the Lord commanded it. However, it appears that the subjugation and demeaning treatment of women in Euripides’ plays was always the accepted opinion of the Greeks. The enslavement of women seems to be based on two different ideas. Women were enslaved for Hebrews because the lord commanded it, while the Greeks enslaved women because they absolutely felt females were a lesser class of humanity. It is more difficult to infer that the Hebrews explicitly felt that women were not equal—whereas we could easily infer that women were not equal to men for the Greeks. The basis of inequality separates these two cultures. The Hebrews may not have believed women were unequal to men, they simply treated women unequal because the Lord commanded them to do so. This is far different from the explicit degradation and lower value of women found in Euripidean plays.
Women in both the Old Testament and Euripides’ plays experienced very similar circumstances. They were servants, slaves, concubines, and wives. They were seen as immoral and weak. They were second-class citizens of humanity. Women were not equal to men; this may have been the greatest tragedy in both the Old Testament and Euripides’ plays.
--------------------
''Works Cited''
Coogan, Michael. //The New Oxford Annotated Bible//: 3rd Ed. Oxford University Press.
Oxford: 2001.
Morwood, James.// Euripides: The Trojan Women and Other Plays//. Oxford University
Press. Oxford: 2000.
In her critique of Nozick’s Anarchy, State, and Utopia, Susan Okin explains an absurdity that follows from Nozick’s conception of justice. Nozick attempts to form a system in which a “society is best and most morally arranged when it leaves each to produce what he can by the use of his own talents, and to enjoy the produce of such labor and luck combined” (88). Nozick’s entire theory assumes that people “own” themselves. If people did not own themselves, then there wouldn’t be much sense in the idea that people could be entitled to other holdings (which is the whole point of entitlement theory). Under Nozick’s conception of justice as entitlement, all persons are “entitled” to the products created from their own capacities and labor. Okin explains that since all human beings are the products of female capacities and labor, then all human’s are owned by their mothers. Okin uses a reductio ad absurdum to defeat Nozickian entitlement theory. Nozick is unable to sustain the two propositions that 1.) All individuals own themselves and 2.) All individuals are owned by their mothers.
Nozick holds that “individuals’ entitlements to things they own take precedence over any other rights” (77). Nozick seems to prefer legitimately acquired property rights over rights to life and basic necessities. With an understanding of the primary significance of legitimate entitlement Okin walks her audience through a possible objection to her own argument. She defends against the idea of motherhood monopolies violating ownership rights of men and infertile women. The rights of non-owners are violated iff they are left worse off than they would be in a “baseline” situation. Okin states, “these women do not ‘worsen the situation of others; if [they] did not [produce children] no one else would have, and the others would remain without [them]’”(84). We can see that in the Nozickian world all people can “be in the market” for buying and selling children and persons. Thus, there is no monopoly created by mothers because all people still have the possibility of legitimately acquiring children. Unfortunately, Nozick’s system appears to devalue personhood while uplifting something even greater, entitlement and property. No doubt, I am pleased that my mother has yet to keep me in a cage for her own amusement, sell me, or kill and eat me as any Nozickian mother could.
In defense of Nozick one could argue a distinction between infants and persons. If all infants are products of female reproductive systems (natural capacities and labor), then all infants are the “property” of their mothers/owners. Thus, infants do not own themselves. This does not explicitly necessitate that people do not own themselves. Nozick could argue that infants are not yet persons. Surely the mother is entitled to whatever or whomever is excreted from her womb as a product of her “natural assets.” But if a product evolves and develops into something as unique as a true person, does the mother still actually “own” that newly developed person? Nozick may have the position that only a person can be entitled to something. Otherwise, one could argue that an environment, a world, a universe, or some other inanimate object which “put its labor and effort” into creating all things within and from it, would also be owned by that environment or object. The universe would then own all within it, creating another absurdity. If Nozick proceeded to argue that infants were not persons, then obviously infants couldn’t own themselves (even if a person could be owned in the first place). Mothers (and fathers) could “own” their children. Nozick’s escape is in the notion that the very moment in which an infant is no longer an infant—where one “becomes a Nozickian person,” that person acquires himself or herself. Is it possible that the sudden appearance of a newly created person with autonomy, intelligence, rationality, moral agency, and free will gives that new person an entitlement to his or herself at that moment? Is the act of becoming a person also a part of legitimate acquisition of one’s self? People lose and gain holdings legitimately all the time; “losing” a son or daughter for that son or daughter to be entitled to themself may just be a part of the entitlement theory. Losing the rights of entitlement to a child, when that child becomes a person, may simply be a part of parenthood as a business venture—parents are just taking an economic “loss” when children become Nozickian persons. Even if infants come into the world already as holdings of their parents, persons that develop from infants are not necessarily holdings of their parents.
On a different note, Okin’s argument appears sexist for neglecting the role of men in the process of procreation. Although she briefly goes over ways in which women acquire sperm, she merely assumes that women are freely given sperm or buy sperm. Women can and do legitimately acquire sperm, but Okin neglects the possibility that certain couples work together to produce a child. Thus, in at least certain circumstances, a child could belong to more than just its mother. Especially, if no contract of legitimate transfer is made other than that both parties wish to “own” a child, and then both parties not only play a role in the production, but are also joint “owners” of that child. One could argue that women play the most extensive and difficult roles in reproduction, but certainly the male played a vital role in conception as well; maybe ownership could be disproportionate. Even if mothers are entitled to the greatest proportion of ownership, many fathers would still hold at least some entitlement to a child they have labored to produce. Given that some sperm is “donated,” freely given, or legitimately transferred without asking for entitlement to products from that sperm (beyond payment), one could say that at least under certain circumstances, both a woman and man both “own” a child within a Nozickian world.
Okin fumes about pronoun usage, but we can’t hold that against her; she makes an excellent case against Nozick’s entitlement theory. Nozick doesn’t fail to take into account women; he simply neglects the truth that under his theory his own mother “owns” him; he cannot be entitled to himself. Nozickian entitlement theory is injured when people cannot “own” themselves because they did not produce themselves.
The Trial of G-d is a novel idea, maybe even a dangerous idea. The play portrays a trial of G-d as an activity that many communities have put into practice. This play is brilliant and maddening. We hold in contrast the destruction of G-d’s chosen people and G-d’s ever present love for His chosen people. What are we to make of catastrophes such as the Holocaust? G-d appears to be responsible for some less than G-dly actions. G-d allows evil to exist; we are baffled and angered.
Act one sets up the theme and characters of the play. The setting is a bar in a Ukrainian village. Earlier this village had been populated by a Jewish community. The Jewish community was massacred by a mob of anti-Semites. The play is being shaped to represent the holocaust. We are forced to reckon with the questions asked and the thoughts of those who suffered through the holocaust. How could G-d have let his chosen people be massacred?
At first we find the main character Berish to be distraught. The audience easily identifies this man as grumpy and angry. Slowly, the story reveals that Berish is not without faith, yet he is very angry with G-d. He is angry enough to say that G-d has sinned. The rationale of those who suffered the holocaust can be found in this man Berish.
Maria is rather aggressive. She clearly holds the basic Judeo-Christian stance. She says, “[G-d] is [G-d]: sometimes He is kind, other times He is not—He’s still G-d!” (47). The audience is apt to sympathize with Maria.
The three minstrels, Mendel, Avremel, and Yankel, perform the duties of rabbis, judges, and mediators. Odd and yet somehow traditional, these characters are learned and experienced in the world and in faith. Although jolly and pleased with holiday amusement, they help set up the very serious basis of the story: judging G-d’s actions.
Hanna and Sam the Stranger are opposites. Hanna is young and fragile while Sam is strong, cynical, and worldly. Sam is almost evil in his intelligence. Hanna is almost innocent in her intelligence. Hanna is plain and honest, Sam is a slick stranger. Hanna is quiet, Sam is outspoken. Sam seems to be the only person who does not suffer in this play, Hanna suffers the most. The characters do not represent most of us, they are either too evil or too good, suffer too much or cause too much suffering.
The trial starts and ends strongly in favor of Berish the prosecutor. G-d appears to bring about evil upon his chosen people. Berish and his family, and maybe other Jewish families of his small village, didn’t appear to deserve punishment. In the eyes of Berish, G-d not only allowed genocidal evil of his chosen people, but G-d supposedly brought about by His will these hateful and evil events.
I am profoundly touched by this seemingly unreasonable faith in G-d. How can Berish have faith in G-d while at the same time despise G-d? To be perfectly honest, I don’t know how to answer this play. It seems as if we must simply embrace our faith in the midst of experience that is clearly contradictory to our faith.
By far the most difficult dialogue to comprehend is when Berish explains, “I lived as a Jew, and it is as a Jew that I shall die—and it is as a Jew that, with my last breath, I shall shout my protest to [G-d]! And because the end is near, I shall shout louder! Because the end is near, I’ll tell Him that He’s more guilty than ever!” (136). The mix of hate and faith is very difficult to grasp. Berish has almost a blasphemous disrespect for G-d, how could he still have faith? We hate what G-d does, but we praise G-d for who he is. There seems to be an attempt to separate the identity of G-d from the actions of G-d.
In the last few minutes of the play we observe an explosion of thought and activity. Sam is satan; satan was defending the Lord in this trial!? A closer look at Sam’s dialogue reveals how the question of G-d and evil is almost diabolical. Satan the Stranger is quick to point out very tradition ideas. But, in light of the prosecution’s case, the audience is left questioning the validity of these very traditional ideas of G-d.
This tragic farce zeroes in on the very questions of evil and G-d. How do people live through these experiences? A verdict against G-d would lead most to lose their faith in G-d. To our horror, we find even the minstrels desire the ‘faith’ that Sam exhibits. If anything, Sam lacks faith! Faith is not an understanding of what G-d is, or who He is, or why He does what He does; faith is simply an extraordinary belief outside of what we can see or experience.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca was a philosopher and statesman. He was a tutor to Nero, and chief administrator of the Roman Empire with Burrus. Although Seneca was ironically wealthy, he was not concerned with wealth or worldly goods. He was a true stoic. Seneca’s Letters from a Stoic accurately depict the beliefs of a Roman stoic.
Stoicism began as a philosophical tradition founded by Zeno (of Citium), developed by Cleanthes and Chrysippus, and named for the Stoa Poikilé (Painted Porch) in Athens where they taught (Honderich 852). Although there are a variety of assertions made by Stoics over the ages, there are some basic principles that all Stoics hold. The defining principle of Stoicism is the acceptance of misfortune without complaint. Another major tenet of Stoicism is the immense significance of rationality and necessity of reason in order to understand the world and follow divine order. The overarching structure of Stoicism, as a whole, isn’t necessarily about “how and why the world is the way it is,” but rather, “how should one behave and think?” Stoicism could be thought of as a philosophy of ethics and morality. Seneca clearly wrote a great deal on “how one should live one’s life.” To say Seneca was a “Stoic” is to say that he accepted misfortune without complaint, was self-content, and valued rationality, reason, and the pursuit of wisdom.
Seneca’s Letters from a Stoic provide excellent examples of Stoic beliefs. Over and over Seneca explains that, “The wise man is content with himself” (Seneca 51). Self-content is a very Stoic belief. Not only is the wise man self-content, but a “wise man feels his troubles but overcomes them” (Seneca 48). The wise man overcomes troubles because troubles are arbitrary to a Stoic. One trouble Seneca faced was his health and age. But, even in his old age he says, “Fruit tastes most delicious just when its season is ending” (Seneca 58). Not even old age or death will truly trouble this noble stoic. Another example of Stoic thought can be found when he says, “’Any man’…’who does not think that what he has is more than ample, is an unhappy man, even if he is the master of the whole world’” (Seneca 53). Like a stoic, Seneca denounces worldly goods because they do not lead to true happiness. Seneca said, “a holiday can be celebrated without extravagant festivity” (Seneca 67). Stoics supported moderation and the prevention of gluttony and excess. Seneca also revealed that, “A good character is the only guarantee of everlasting, carefree happiness” (Seneca 73). Seneca, like any good stoic, is concerned with how one ought to live when he discusses how only a virtuous person can attain true happiness. Seneca also wrote, “no one can lead a happy life, or even one that is bearable, without the pursuit of wisdom, and that the perfection of wisdom is what makes the happy life” (Seneca 63). Seneca, like all true stoics, value wisdom.
The profound value of the pursuit of wisdom can be found in both the Symposium and Letters from a Stoic. Plato, through Socrates as a character, easily qualifies as a stoic as we read about him in Alcibiades’ speech, “You should know that [Socrates] doesn’t care at all if someone is beautiful…or is rich or has any of the other advantages prized by ordinary people. He regards all these possessions as worthless…” (Plato 55). Socrates is very much a stoic in his approach towards riches, worldly goods, and even beauty to some extent. Although Socrates was an ugly man, he ironically replies to Alcibiades’, “You must be seeing in me a beauty beyond comparison and one that’s far superior to your own good looks” (Plato 58). That beauty stems from Socrates’ pursuit of wisdom. Only the wise man can be a virtuous man, only the virtuous can properly display beauty. Beauty, as defined by Socrates, requires the pursuit of wisdom and excellence. Plato clearly holds virtue to be the basis of happiness. Only the wise man can be virtuous, only the virtuous can be happy; thus, only the wise can truly be happy. This concept of wisdom producing happiness through virtue is clearly a major similarity between Platonism and Stoicism.
Neither Plato nor Seneca were afraid of death. Their courage in the face of death was the sign of a learned and wise man. Seneca explains, “though human beings may perish, humanity in itself - the pattern on which every human being is molded – lasts on” (Seneca 120). He goes on to explain that the, “soul is in captivity unless philosophy comes to its rescue…the soul….makes for the open and finds its relaxation in contemplating of the natural universe” (Seneca 122). Plato used the Forms to defeat death. The Form of Man is the soul. A metaphysical explanation of ‘the self’ allowed both Plato and Seneca to not be afraid of death. Just as Plato may have had some influence on later Roman stoics like Seneca, both Platonic Forms and Seneca’s Stoicism clearly influenced the Christian rationale for this concept of the soul. We cannot neglect the chain of influence throughout ancient western philosophy, and the impact of Platonic and Stoic ideas woven into the very fabric of our society.
---------------
''Works Cited''
Honderich, Ted. //The Oxford Companion to Philosophy//. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995.
Seneca. //Letters from a Stoic.// London: Penguin Books, 1969.
Plato. //The Symposium.// London: Penguin Books, 1999.
//“Which brings me to my conclusion upon Free Will and Predestination, namely let the reader mark it that they are identical.” -Winston Churchill//
//“We have to believe in free will. We’ve got no choice.” -Isaac B. Singer//
Alvin Plantinga is widely acclaimed in the philosophy of religion community for his defense of theism, or more exactly, the logical possibility of theism. He uses contemporary modal logic to defend and formulate rigorous epistemological and ontological arguments (Honderich 683). Plantinga ultimately argues that belief in God can be a rational, logically consistent, and a warranted belief, even in the face of the evidential argument from evil.
''Problem of Evil''
The Problem of Evil previously jeopardized the logical consistency of theism. The precise argument for the Problem of Evil is often credited to J.L. Mackie. The theist’s difficulty arises from the following propositions:
# God is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good (and extant).
# Evil exists
Mackie states that theists are logically inconsistent, forming a contradiction, when they claim that propositions (1) and (2) are simultaneously true (Mackie 263). Mackie relies upon the idea that a perfectly good, omnipotent, and omniscient being (God) would do all in His power to terminate (or never allow) the existence of evil.
Plantinga believes that theists are not explicitly contradicting themselves when they hold propositions (1) and (2) to be simultaneously true. He goes on to explain a series of arguments which appears to allow for the possibility (however small or great) for (1) and (2) to be concurrently true.
''The Free Will Defence''
The “Free Will Defence” is one of more effective theories used to further the logical consistency of theism. Alvin Plantinga is very famous for his expansion on this argument. He explains that, “If a person S is free with respect to a given action, then he is free to perform that action and free to refrain; no causal laws and antecedent conditions determine either that he will perform the action, or that he will not” (Plantinga 93). This particular definition of free will is not the traditional explanation, but Plantinga must be very concise about what he means by free will to examine the workings of a delicate argument, i.e. this is just the tip of the iceberg. His above definition only requires that nothing (not even God himself) can prevent a choice or determine the choice of a truly free person.
With a base understanding of what a ‘free person’ can and cannot in fact do Plantinga moves on to the core of the Free Will Defence. He explains, “A world containing creatures who are sometimes significantly free (and freely perform more good than evil actions) is more valuable, all else being, equal, than a world containing no free creatures at all” (Plantinga 93). He is very careful not explain a world in which God’s creatures are always free; primarily because one could easily argue that persons are not always free, that at times persons are simply driven or caused to behave in a particular way. Take for instance a mental disease or incapacitating drug, victims are truly not free with respect to any action because they are forced by an outside factor to act as they do in these circumstances. But, Plantinga doesn’t need permanently free persons. The Free Will Defence only requires that persons are at least sometimes free so that it might be possible for God to not be responsible for evil, and so that (hopefully) it will be apparent that theism and the existence of evil can be logically compatible. One must remember: Plantinga is only looking for the mere possibility of theism being logically consistent. And in the end, this is all the theist really needs (at this point in philosophy at least) to maintain the appearance of a rational belief.
Orthodox Judeo-Christian believers may not realize what the Free Will Defence requires. It requires, in some senses, a minimization of the transcendent God’s powers, or at least a more concise definition of what is and is not possible for God in this instance. Often, people are unwilling to place limits on God’s abilities, but in this rigorous argument, God has certain logical limits; Plantinga is straightforward about this issue. He explains that, “God can create free creatures, but he cannot cause or determine them to do only what is right. For if he does so, then they are not significantly free after all; they do not do what is right freely” (Plantinga 93). The Free Will Defender must accept that there are certain things that an omnipotent God simply cannot do, including determining (in any way) the actions of a truly free person. God can’t create a married bachelor, a squared circle, or make 2+2 equal 5, these are all propositions that Plantinga feels God has no control over. It should be noted that Plantinga is defending a freedom that is very extensive, far beyond what most consider just a normal “choice.” He defends a free will that in itself is a creative power, a power given by God, a power that God no longer has in all instances, a power in which that free person truly acts freely.
The problem of evil, and even the discussion of God, relies upon the assumption that there is moral good and moral evil. Plantinga examines the free person’s ability to create moral good and moral evil. He says, “To create creatures capable of moral good, therefore, he must create creatures capable of moral evil; and he cannot leave these creatures free to perform evil and at the same time prevent them from doing so” (Plantinga 93). Plantinga is further stressing the capabilities of those who have free will, and consequently refers to God’s lack of capability in that instance. Can God stop a person from performing a moral evil? Yes. But in the moment God would do such, the person (who is experiencing this divine intervention) will not be in fact free, for God prevented an action that a truly free person would have been capable of choosing.
The Free Will Defender believes that, “God did in fact create significantly free creatures; but some of them went wrong in the exercise of their freedom: this is the source of moral evil” (Plantinga 93). If free creatures, those who make certain choices outside the power of God, are the source of all moral evil, then God is not responsible for moral evil, because he didn’t create it. By eliminating the possibility for free creatures to create moral evil, God would have eliminated the possibility for free creatures to create moral good. An important aspect of his argument for us recognize is that only free persons (God as such is traditionally considered person as well) are capable of creating moral good and/or moral evil. Essentially, this leads Plantinga to explain that “it is possible that God could not have created a universe containing moral good (or as much moral good as this one contains) without creating one containing moral evil” (Plantinga 94).
''The Objection''
The previous argument only outlined ways in which an omnipotent and perfectly good being could possibly not be responsible for the existence of evil. But, as we will find, the most difficult argument for the theist to overcome is the problem of evil from God’s foreknowledge of evil. Plantinga beings to reveal this difficult problem when he says, “It is logically a possibility that there be a world containing significantly free creatures who always do what is right” (Plantinga 94). He does not really mean the Free Will Defender holds the above claim to be true. Instead, he says that the Free Will Defender is forced to reckon with the possibility of God knowing what free persons would do within a given possible world, and then choosing to create a world in which free persons would choose (of their own creative freedom) to only do what is right. Even worse, Plantinga shows that the Defender must answer to just the possibility of a world with only moral good and no moral evil. The Objector states:
(3) God could have created just any possible world he chose, including those containing moral good but no moral evil.
Keeping (3) in mind, the Objector goes on to say, “Being perfectly good, [God] must have chosen to create the best world [He] could; being omnipotent, [He] was able to create just any possible world [He] pleased. He must, therefore, have chosen the best of all possible worlds; and hence this world, the one [He] did create, must be (despite appearances) the best possible” (Plantinga 95). Leibniz put forth the idea that God, if he exists, must create the best of all possible worlds. The Objector will also side with Leibniz because it seems very rational. If God must choose to create the best of all possible worlds, and God can create a world with moral good and no moral evil (a world better than the actual, present world), and the actual, present world has both moral good and evil, then God did not create this world. The objector could easily to follow up his previous claim with: “God the creator does not exist.” What does the Free Will Defender say to an apparently valid argument like the objectors? Plantinga answers, “The Free Will Defender wonders whether there is a best of all possible worlds. Central to the Free Will Defence is the claim that God, though omnipotent, could not have created just any possible world he pleased” (Plantinga 95). The Defender rejects (3), consequently, a very rigorous argument ensues to show why (3) cannot be true.
''Possible Worlds''
Plantinga speaks in the language of “possible worlds.” We are faced with the question: “What possible worlds could God have created?” Obviously God created the heavens and the earth, and the universe, etc.—but, he couldn’t have created himself, or “numbers, propositions, properties, or states of affairs: these have no beginnings. We can say, however, that God actualizes states of affairs” (Plantinga 95). What the hell does Plantinga mean?
Painstaking arguments, such as the one Plantinga put forth, often assume that readers have a certain set of knowledge. To some philosophers, it is quite clear that God can only do what is possible for God to do, and so forth and so on. Logical constraints are already set upon God in this discussion. If God wasn’t subject to the laws of logic, then there wouldn’t be much point in questioning the logical consistency of the concurrent existence of both God and evil. Plantinga takes the logical constraints to be true, and so he must deal with the Objector’s argument, and utilizing a very rigorous logic to defeat the objection may be his only option. Plantinga introduces modal logic at this point in his writing. We ask ourselves: “What is a possible world?” A possible world is a world that differs in some way from our “actual” world; it is what many consider to be a hypothetical world. To dig deeper into the meaning of a possible world, one must understand the concept of contingent and necessary truth. A contingent truth is a truth that could possibly have been different. For example:
(4) The North won the civil war.
(4’) The North did not win the civil war.
Even though (4) is actually true, can we not at least ponder the possibility that (4’) could in some hypothetical sense be true? Imagine a world that is almost exactly the same as our actual world during the point at which the South or the North would decidedly win or lose the war; and in this world only one difference occurred, the North did not win the civil war. A contingent truth is just like (4) or (4’), either could have possibly been true. Plantinga is primarily concerned with these truths, especially since they provide the most difficult problems for the theist.
A necessary truth is “true in all possible worlds” (Fischer 49). An example would be 2+2=4. Most people are willing to take for granted that whether the North won or did not win the civil, 2+2 would always equal 4. There isn’t a possible world in which 2+2=4 could be false. Often, necessary truths are self-explanatory. For example: “a bachelor is not married,” and “A is A,” represent self-explanatory truths that must be true in all possible worlds, thus they are necessary truths as well.
A possible world is simply a combination of propositions, these propositions range from necessary truths to contingent truths. A possible world will always have an internally, logically consistent set of truths.
Plantinga explains, “Properties are not creatable: to suppose that they have been created is to suppose that although they exist now, there was a time at which they did not; and this seems clearly false” (Plantinga 96). Properties are just ideas; all logically consistent ideas exist in all possible worlds. The color blue for instance is just a configuration of light waves, blue is a property, the configuration of light waves that makeup blue are true in all possible worlds, regardless of whether those light waves actually exist. Plantinga goes on to say that, “Necessary states of affairs do not owe their actuality to the creative activity of God” (Plantinga 96). Clearly the very possibility of properties is not created by God, number theory and rules of logic cannot be created by God. These exist with God. This may be a very hard thing to swallow for some theists, but Plantinga must have this understanding to further his argument, otherwise it appears that the evidential argument from evil is true. However, God obviously must actualize some states of affairs; those are the contingent states of affairs. Plantinga elaborates, “We may say that God can actualize a given possible world W only if he can actualize every contingent state of affairs W includes” (Plantinga 96). Basically, God can only do what is possible for God to do.
''Freedom''
Plantinga’s argument becomes very difficult at this point in the text. He clarifies his explanation of free will when he says, “a person is free with respect to an action A at a time t only if no casual laws and antecedent conditions determine either that he performs A at t or that he refrains from doing so” (Plantinga 97). He is taking into consideration the concepts of contingency and necessity, both of which derive their meaning in his argument from whether or not they act as antecedent conditions.
Free persons are not free to do anything; they cannot jump over Draper, or fly, or drink twenty gallons of vodka in an hour. What does it mean to be free? To be free is to have the ability to do otherwise (van Inwagen 20). But is this enough of a definition for Plantinga? He explains that, “If I am free with respect to an action A, then God does not bring it about or cause it to be the case either that I take or that I refrain from this action; he neither causes this to be so through the laws he establishes, nor by direct intervention, nor in any other way. For if he brings it about or causes it to be the case that I take A, then I am not free to refrain from A, in which case I am not free with respect to A” (Plantinga 97).
''Contingency and God’s Inability to Create Some Possible Worlds''
Plantinga explains that there are “contingent states of affairs such that it is not within the power of God to bring about their actuality” (Plantinga 98). God cannot cause the world to be such that I freely refrain from washing my dishes, for that wouldn’t be free at all. It is true that God can create a world in which I freely refrain from washing my dishes, but he cannot cause me to do so. He then explains that, “God could have actualized a given possible world W if and only if for every contingent state of affairs S that W includes, there is a time at which God can actualize S” (Plantinga 98). A world can’t be created unless God can actualize everything in it. Plantinga unravels his argument as he says, “Given just the possibility that there are created free agents, it follows that there are any number of possible worlds including God’s existence and also including a contingent state of affairs S such that there is no time at which God can actualize S” (Plantinga 98). There are possible worlds that God cannot create because he cannot actualize all states of affairs. For example: God cannot actualize a state of affairs that in which a free being will in fact take or refrain from an action. God could not have actualized a state of affairs in which free beings will in fact act morally and always refrain from moral evil, thus God couldn’t create a world where beings always chose what is morally good.
Response and Counterfactuals
The atheologian may still remain unconvinced, he or she could respond, “[God] may also know, furthermore, that if [He] creates me and causes me to be free in these circumstances, I will refrain from A. If so, there is a state of affairs [He] can actualize, cause to be actual, such that if [He] does so, then I will freely refrain from A” (Plantinga 98). The Defender is still not safe from the atheologian’s firepower. How does God’s foreknowledge of the future affect Plantinga’s argument? Plantinga launches off into this idea of counterfactuals, he uses the following examples:
(7) If Curley had been offered $20,000, he would have accepted the bribe.
(8) If Curley had been offered $20,000, he would have rejected the bribe is true. (Plantinga 100)
Plantinga points out that we often make the fatal mistake of assuming that either (7) or (8) must be true. Is every proposition necessarily true or false? On the surface, a reasonable person could easily that only (7) or (8) can be true, and that (if there is an answer at all) one of them must be true now. The Free Will Defender will say that we can’t possibly know the answer to that question. An example of a counterfactual is: if I was bald, then I would receive an A on my religion seminar paper. The antecedent would be my baldness, and the consequent would be me receiving an A on my religion seminar paper. The counterfactual appears absolutely ludicrous at face value; the consequent does not follow the antecedent. Plantinga shows us that those who believe that either (7) or (8) must be true are making a counterfactual statement.
We journey further into the possibility of counterfactuals being either true or false. Plantinga asks us to “consider those possible worlds that include its antecedent; and then of these consider that one W that is most similar to the actual world (7) is true if and only if it’s consequent – that is, (9) Curley took the bribe, is true in W. A counterfactual is true if and only if its antecedent is impossible, or its consequent is true in the world most similar to the actual in which its antecedent is” (Plantinga 100).
Counterfactuals can only be true in two ways. We must understand that the antecedent doesn’t actually causally necessitate the consequent. If Curley is free, then no one can know whether or not he would have accepted the bribe. The Defender simply needs to reject the validity of counterfactuals, this allows for a free person to truly act freely, removing the argument (at least for now) that God knows the answers to counterfactuals.
Of course God can choose whether to create the universe, or whether to create Curley, or whether to make Curley free, but if Curley is made free, then only Curley can choose to refrain or take any given action (in which he is free).
''Leibniz’s Lapse''
Leibniz and the Objector make the mistake that God can create any possible world, and that God would (by his very nature) choose to create the best of all possible worlds. God clearly cannot create the best of all worlds (not necessarily possible ones), that is: a world with moral good and no moral evil. I agree that Leibniz’s Lapse is a mistake. Obviously, God is giving a creative power to all his free creatures, or at least that is the case within the Free Will Defence. But, why can we not say that God still didn’t create the best possible world possible for God to create? An overarching structure of God creating a universe where he did not possess all creative powers might in fact be what he considers to be the better, if not best, of all possible worlds. Leibniz can simply imply that a world with moral good and no moral evil is logically inconsistent with the existence of God, especially in consideration of the actual world. Doesn’t the Defender arrive at this very conclusion as well? Leibniz isn’t wrong, his argument simply needs to be put into context. The Free Will Defender still believes that God must create the best of all possible worlds that is possible for God to create, and God can only possibly create worlds in which there will eventually be both moral good and moral evil which result from the free choices of persons within that world.
''Circling Back to His Original Position''
The Free Will Defender employs “the truth that a pair of propositions p and q are jointly consistent if there is a proposition r whose conjunction with p is consistent if there is a proposition r whose conjunction with p is consistent and entails q” (Plantinga 114). He does not need to show the probability of these possible worlds, in fact, he might not even think anyone could actually know the probability. Plantinga excellently concludes:
The essential point of the Free Will Defence is that the creation of a world containing moral good is co-operative venture; it requires the uncoerced concurrence of significantly free creatures. But then the actualization of a world W containing moral good is not up to God alone; it also depends upon what the significantly free creatures of W would do if God created them and placed them in the situations W contains. Of course it up to God whether to create free creatures at all; but if he aims to produce moral good, then the must create significantly free creatures upon whose cooperation he must depend. Thus is the power of an omnipotent God limited by the freedom he confers upon his creatures. (Plantinga 115)
Does Plantinga make a good ontological argument? No. In fact, Plantinga simply put theism, and certain types of knowledge, into a new category. Because we can’t know certain things, and because of how he defines what it means to be free, and because of how he defines what is and is not possible for God to do, both the theist and atheist are left only with a general possibility of God’s existence. Philosophers of religion are, however, indebted to Plantinga, because this defense gives the theist at least the possibility of holding a logically consistent belief. The theist no longer is clearly making a logically inconsistent statement when they hold the both the existence of God and evil to be simultaneously true.
''Creative Creatures''
Plantinga’s rigorous argument brings to the forefront of religious philosophy the concepts of personhood and free will. He develops a system that delicately fits together a possible world in which evil and God concurrently exist. Originally, I would have had problems with placing limitations on God. As a Christian, I prefer to think that I have choice (and that keeps me responsible for my sins, and God responsible for no sins); but, I also like to think that God could, and would, at any point He felt necessary prevent me from performing evil actions. In reconciling what it would mean for God to prevent moral evil, and the fact that this doesn’t appear to happen that often, I have been struck by sense of awe at how much discretion is left to the free person.
Freedom, at least after reading Plantinga, appears to be so much more than a mere choice to buy jelly beans, to recycle my plastics, or to mow my lawn. For Plantinga’s argument to work, God has given a gift beyond measure to His free creatures: the ability to create. I believe humans do have God-given free will, and I believe that this requires that God allows me to create specific truths, truths about my faith, beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors. Not only has God allowed me to create, he gives away his ability to control my actions in all circumstances that I act freely. Free will is the power to create.
------------
''Works Cited''
Honderich, Ted. //The Oxford Companion to Philosophy//. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995.
Mackie, J.L. “Evil and Omnipotence.” //Philosophy of Religion//. Ed. Michael Peterson. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. pg. 263-273.
Plantinga, Alvin. “The Free Will Defense.” //God and the Problem of Evil//. Ed. William Rowe. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 2001. pg. 91-120.
Van Inwagen, Peter. “The Incompatibility of Free Will and Determinism.” //Agency and Responsibility//. Ed. Laura Waddell Ekstrom. U.S.: Westview, 2001. pg. 17-29.
The book Silence by Shusaku Endo reminds me of my faith; it reminds me of my walk with Christ. The story is beautifully written, but I’m not amazed by how well it was written. I am amazed by the subject of the book. Endo captures the very essence of the Christian life, falling down in the face of pain and suffering, and the glimmer of hope beyond our personal failure.
Have I ever suffered as much as the Christians in this book? I admit I have never been persecuted like the Japanese Christians and missionaries in this book. I am almost ashamed of my faith, or lack there of, when I read about people (fictional or non-fictional) who have the courage to sustain faith even through suffering.
The book shows humanity’s inevitable failure. The father Sebastian Rodrigues endures his faith, almost as if his faith isn’t even the cause of suffering, but simply has a component of suffering in itself. The father does well to prevent his own apostasy for most of the story. He holds out, but in the end, he fails. I’m almost at the point where I don’t blame him. I can see why he made his decision. I can’t help but think that I’d make the same choice as well. Actually, I’d probably have caved into submission even sooner.
The antagonist Inoue was not what I expected. I thought he would have look more savage, I’d expect him to be less civil with the father. I’d hope that Inoue was just a barbarian. But, the Lord of Chikugo was crafty and wicked. Inoue wanted to break the Christians, not make martyrs.
Kichijiro was by the far the most interesting character in the story. Obviously Kichijiro was a Judas, but he was driven back to his faith again and again. I don’t know whether to be confused or simply remind myself that most Christians, including myself, are like Kichijiro.
The pain in this book isn’t just physical suffering. The physical suffering spurs on choices that lead to a greater pain. The greatest pain is the pain of apostasy. It is the suffering of those who turn away from G-d because of physical suffering and persecution. It breaks the person, and causes shame. We dishonor G-d by failing Him.
Am I supposed to think that the priest’s actions at the end of the story were a good thing? The priest didn’t think he was committing a sacrilege against G-d. The open admittance of betrayal seems to make the priest guilty in the end. I cannot see how betrayal really leads to a greater form of happiness or love the Lord. I absolutely believe I would turn away from G-d in the face of the torture and suffering found in this story, but I know that it is the wrong choice. I’m not saying that I would have made a different choice than the priest, but clearly, publicly betraying G-d, committing apostasy (or leading others to believe this is the case) is simply wrong.
How does one begin to compare and contrast Paul, Apostle to the Gentiles, and Dante, author of The Divine Comedy? Paul cultivated the ekklesia, organizing the church as an institution within Gentile communities, while Dante had the benefit of a millennium of experience and knowledge, lived with a medieval outlook. Dante’s perspectives on “Christianity, God, and God’s plan for humanity” may be starkly different from the Apostle Paul’s perspectives, however, we cannot neglect the basic links of faith shared between both Paul and Dante.
Paul is one of the most powerful human personalities in the history of the Church. He was a missionary, theologian, and administrator. Paul often acted as an apologist and had a high impact on Christian theology, most notably found in his Letter to the Romans. He argued against other Christian leaders on disputed issues. He discussed the ongoing authority of the Jewish law; he defended the maintenance of high standards within the decline of the practices of kashrut, circumcision, and other Jewish law; and, he explained God’s plan for the Gentiles. Paul distinctly wrote about God’s intentions for both the Jews and Greeks, the concept of the Chosen, and the relation between the body and the spirit. Paul always maintained the necessity of unity, respect, and order. He was apocalyptic and firmly believed in the God’s providential hand in the world. Paul helped form the foundation of the early church; he was God’s instrument.
Dante Alighieri was a political philosopher and Italian poet who wrote the epic poem The Divine Comedy. Dante depicts an after-life based on “individual freedom and responsibility,” and “divine retribution and reward” (Honderich 176). In terms of his own Christian understanding, Dante was greatly influenced by the scholastics. Very prominent philosophers of religion and influential theological arguments came before Dante: Augustine’s masterful fusion of Platonic philosophy and Christian theology, St. Anselm’s ontological argument, and St. Thomas Aquinas’ synthesis of Aristotelian reason into theology. Dante’s Inferno is the most widely read portion of his comedy. He depicted characters with ironic punishments befitting the crime committed. Dante’s readers are struck by the sheer order, unity, and symmetry present in the poem. Dante’s Inferno captures fundamental beliefs of Christian orthodox doctrine, while illustrating a vivid Hell; his poem is intertwined with a medieval understanding of the world and God.
The paradox of the material and immaterial is a distinctive feature of both Paul and Dante. Paul spoke more decisively on “the body.” The relation between “the Body of Christ” and the physical form of Jesus is a difficult dualism to understand, even modern Pauline scholars struggle with what Paul meant. Dante was clearly influenced by scholasticism; especially in reference to the paradox of the material and immaterial. The basic medieval solution to this dualism is to understand the immaterial to be more real and closer to God while the material world is less real and further from God. In Canto 3 of the Inferno we see shades and more immaterial beings, while in Canto 34 we see ice, lead, and heavy material. Dante obviously intended for this gradual increase of materiality to be apparent as he traveled closer to the bottom of Hell.
Paul’s primary theological problem can be found in the two dispensations, the first being God’s election of the nation of Israel and His gift of the law to Israel, and the second as His offer of salvation to any all (Jews and Gentiles) who have faith in Christ Jesus (Sanders 137). Paul attempts to smooth the rough edges between the Old and New Testaments. Paul believes that God preordained this transition from Judaism to Christianity. He accepts (in some aspects) Roman dominion; he certainly would be willing to accept that God had preordained the Roman Empire so that Christ could fulfill prophesy. Dante also supports this idea of a providential hand of God. Medieval thinkers had to explain the existence of the Roman Empire and the development of the early church in terms of providence and predestination. The Roman Empire was a precondition to the birth and death of Jesus Christ. Dante fittingly used Virgil in the Inferno, who described the initial establishment of an imperial authority in the Aeneid. Dante’s choice of an Roman epic poet indicates a respect for not only the great artist himself, but also signifies Dante’s belief that Virgil, like many founders of Roman society, necessarily existed for the sake of Christ, so that Christianity could inevitably take root and spread to all people.
Paul, like the earlier Christians thought that the world was soon coming to an end; “the coming of the Messiah meant that the end had begun, and his resurrection was the first act of the eschatological scenario” (Meeks 175). Paul uses apocalyptic imagery to respond to concerns of church members who had passed before the return. Paul eventually declares that the community of Christians crosses even the boundary of death (Meeks 175). The primary function of apocalyptic language was to reinforce the cohesion and unity of the Christian community. In turn, this would allow for Christianity to spread rapidly while remaining more stable (with fewer interruptions). Dante did not speak much about the apocalypse. His lack of focus on this subject is mainly because the apocalypse was a difficult issue for those who realized that Paul’s outlook of the future was wrong (here is where the millennium of experience clearly changed Dante’s perspective). But, Dante’s poem The Divine Comedy, especially the Inferno, illuminated generations with vivid descriptions of divine retribution and reward. Readers of the Inferno become more mindful of what is meant by the concept of judgment, which is not much different from Paul emphasis on the importance of knowing where one was going in the afterlife.
The Apostle Paul paved the way for early Christianity. The Medieval outlook and philosophy could not exist without Paul’s work. Moderns must understand that Paul’s theological, evangelical, and administrative had one of the largest impacts on western tradition, one of those traditions being Dante’s medieval outlook and experience. Although they lived different lives and looked at the world through different lenses, both the Apostle Paul and Dante are both connected by their faiths.
Works Cited
Achtemeier, Paul. Interpretation: Romans. Louisville, Kentucky: John Knox Press, 1985.
Alighieri, Dante. Inferno. Trans. Charles Singleton. The Norton Anthology of World
Masterpieces. New York: W W. Norton & Company, Inc., 1999.
Honderich, Ted. The Oxford Companion to Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1995.
Meeks, Wayne. The First Urban Christians. 2nd ed. New Haven: Yale University Press,
2003.
Perry, Marvin. Western Civilization: A Brief History 5th ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin
Company, 2005.
Sanders, E.P. Paul: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991.
//Not posted on Hypercynic, but it was a significant letter I wrote around the same time.//
Dear Mrs. Phelps,
I apologize for any silence or lack of communication on my part. I am a very (very) vocal person within the proper context or group of people. In most cases, over the past year, the verbalization of my opinion would not have resulted in anything truly useful. In cases that I don’t know exactly what I ‘ought to do’ I prefer to follow some principles of Utility. Hence, my lack of communication overall—for any seeming rudeness I apologize. I meant no harm. Now that I am finished teaching at JHHS, and moving on to other things, I feel it is appropriate and useful to “open up”, so to speak, and express my true opinions. I questioned whether I would actually give this letter to you at all. I have considered the possibility that you may dismiss my thoughts, and perhaps passionate opinions, as childish rhetoric or the expression of some inexperienced and ungrateful colleague. I believe, however, as you are truly a kind and wonderful person, you will be objective and charitable as you read this letter. Please excuse my casual and fragmented writing style, as I hope the way in which my ideas are expressed will not take away from the validity of the statements.
I have accomplished so much in such a short time. Last year I was single, childless, and without a college diploma—now I am somehow concerned with money, housing, marriage, children, insurance, and all of the wonderful responsibilities of adulthood. Part of my ‘Rite of Passage’ into adulthood has been holding a real job. Teaching English is a real job. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to teach high school English over the past year. You have guided me through a testing and time consuming educational experience.
I am happy with most things in my life, with the exception of my job as a teacher at John Hardin High school. There are a number of reasons that I have not been happy about this component of my life. I wish to explore these reasons, partly because it is important for me to understand what has occurred, in some therapeutic sense, and in part because you have a right to know. The year did not go as smoothly as I had hoped. A number of barriers and problems arose that have caused me to realize that I am not meant to teach here, or in the public school setting at all. I feel, at the very least, as you provided me the opportunity to teach in the first place, I owe you a proper explanation of my reasons for not pursuing a career in teaching high school English.
You once phrased my experience as being “baptized by fire.” That statement is so very true. Everyday I came to work, I felt as if I were in a hellish war zone. Teaching is difficult, especially when you’ve never taught a population like John Hardin’s before. No matter how much meta-teaching one might receive in a college class, I believe people are never truly prepared to teach in the actual classroom (I know I certainly wasn’t prepared). Ironically, nothing we teach can completely prepare these kids for the real world either. Even lacking preparation, I do not regret the journey or the job. I have lived and learned, and I am pleased and greatly honored to have taught at this institution. Regardless of my conclusions about teaching here at John Hardin, I want you to know that you have my deepest appreciation and respect—you have given me an opportunity that few will ever have. This year has been life-defining and is sure to set the course of my life. Thank you for being a friend, a mentor, and an investor in my future.
I love both learning and teaching. I am called to these professions, specifically teaching, as a vocation and a purpose. Teaching is more than a job or a lifestyle; teaching is my calling. To whom much is given much is required. God has blessed me with an unmatched mind, I must, therefore, use what God has given me to help others by distributing knowledge and thought. I am designed to teach others to think. You would expect JHHS to be a proper location to fulfill my purpose. So, why would I choose to not teach at JHHS?
The purpose of a school is to learn, teach, acquire knowledge, and think. Unfortunately, I find here at John Hardin, and probably in public schooling in its entirety, people are not usually concerned with actual learning and teaching. There are exceptions to my basic generalization, but overall, as a relatively objective outsider, I have found this to be true in most all cases. Don’t get me wrong, learning does occur. But, is that learning concerned with the correct topics and concepts? Is it substantial and sufficiently thought provoking enough to create lifelong learners? --Clearly not. We may, therefore, conclude that John Hardin is not acting as a school in the truest sense of the term—we have not fulfilled our purpose to the fullest extent.
Why haven’t we? Is it the fault of the teachers? To some extent maybe, but for the most part I would say, No. Who is, in the end, responsible for the failures of public schooling? The parents and students themselves of course! There are two significant reasons why schools are failing. Public schooling fails because of a political climate that removes self-responsibility, and it also fails because people, in general, are becoming relativists lacking the desire to seek truth.
School wasn’t always like it is today. In the past, parents and students were held responsible, and were, in general, more concerned with academic progress than the parents and students of today. Why the change in our parents? Here is a tip to understand people: Modern parents and students are dim-witted—they are cogs to be controlled. This doesn’t mean they aren’t actually responsible for their actions, but rather, they are easily distracted and manipulated. Who distracts and manipulates them, and why?
Politicians and power-hungry pseudo-teacher careerist administrators are at the very core of the public schools political problem. People want power; power is acquired and maintained via a content public. School administrators and especially politicians will say and do anything to get the vote. The struggle for power of these governmental and educational politicians lead to the public declaration of two principles: 1) The school is solely responsible for the beliefs and behaviors of children, while neither the children themselves nor their parents are responsible for their own beliefs and behaviors, and 2) all children are ‘academically’ equal. These are very dangerous and disturbing ideas. Of course, these ideas are easily spread because they are popular—they relieve the moral burden of a parent, while leaving a ‘way out’ for students. Parents, and society in general, simply do not want to take responsibility for their actions and the actions of their children. A politician can easily soothe the ears and minds of parents with the idea that someone else is actually responsible for the failings of these children. If Johnny is failing English, it must be the school’s (or teacher’s) fault. Parents want to believe they did what was best for their child, and are easily led to the conclusion that anything that goes wrong must not have been their responsibility, but instead must be due to the menace of chance or the villains we find teaching in the public school system. We as teachers know better. But, most people do not understand this large socio-political problem. Essentially, people are afraid of the truth; People want lies. Politicians are more than willing to give them lies to gain political support (power). Those ideas changed the social and parenting landscape—now, parents want answers from the school system as to why their children are smoking dope, failing classes, increasingly suicidal, rebellious, disrespectful, amoral, and prone to screw up. Parents really believe that it is the fault of the school system and not the fault of themselves and their children.
People are cogs in a system. Even given their free will, they naturally gravitate towards their conditioning. The attitudes and behaviors of parents and students cannot and will not change without the proper social conditioning. This conditioning can only occur, ironically, through those who lead and teach them how they ought to think and how they should behave—a duty of a parent. So, yes, they are in the end responsible for their actions. However, I do not see their beliefs and behaviors changing without a shift in our current political climate. Primarily, we require a transformation in that echo chamber which disseminates the ideas of social irresponsibility—we must prevent any incentive for this chamber of politicians to blame the school system instead of the voter. In my opinion, that isn’t going to happen. As a result, the same hogwash will be embedded in the minds of the general public, parents and students, preventing the public school system from holding these parties responsible for their own actions. Without holding parents and students responsible, what incentive do they have to put forth the effort and to maintain the discipline required to learn and grow?
The second reason public schooling, and even the public in general, is on the brink of destruction is the philosophical evolution from reason to irrationalism, from to truth to “truthiness,” from reality to relativism. We, as a Western culture, have lost sight of the concept of truth. You may have heard something like: “what is true for you may not be true for me” (I got this from students analyzing poetry all the time). Or maybe you’ve heard, “what is right for you is right for you, what is right for me is right for me.” This sort of thinking smacks of post-modern relativism. It is the view that the meaning and value of human beliefs and behaviors have no absolute reference, and especially that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect absolute and universal moral truths—instead all “truths” are relative to social, cultural, historical, or personal references, and there is no single standard by which to assess any proposition of truth. When we think through relativism to its fullest extent (ironic to say the least), we arrive at a number of conclusions, including:
# A blatant contradiction in meaning and significance such that it is impossible to discuss anything as it is “all relative” to one’s perspective. Apparent truths, even axiomatic ones, like 2+2=4, have no meaning, and can be whimsically denied through the relativistic idea that reality is what we perceive it to be.
# Amorality, and consequently, that it is meaningless for the moral or ethical judgments or acts of one person or group to be judged by another since there most likely aren’t universal moral standards in the first place.
# Personal responsibility is an illusion created through some form of social Darwinism.
# Egoism, or maybe even narcissistic egotism, claiming that an individual should pursue their own interests with zero regard for the interests or rights of others.
# And, connected to Egoism, yet still distinctively different, Hedonism—the complete lack of concern for anything but one’s own happiness (often short-sighted as well).
How do you teach truth to people who don’t believe in absolute truths? How do you instill morals into those who believe ethics and morality are illusions? You can’t reason with a true Romantic, and you sure as hell can’t reason with a post-modern relativist. Society has generated a group of idiots…a lot of them. What then should we as people (specifically teachers in this case) do? Since politicians will be politicians, and the content of the conditioning will not change, we must then: Let the system fail, and be ready to pick up the pieces! Only when crack addicts hit absolute rock bottom will they choose to rebuild their lives. Let the post-modern world hit rock bottom, and be there to equip them when they are ready to change. Our job, as educated and intelligent teachers, is to do exactly that—to let the public feel the complete consequences of their actions, and then help rebuild and restart. If we expect them to be responsible for their actions, then let them be responsible---let them have what is coming to them. This doesn’t mean innocent students who are respectful, moral, and hard working will be hurt. If anything they will benefit as the superstars of their generation. They will be the survivors in the game of ‘survival of the fittest.’
So, after reaching these conclusions, I must also defend the premises. Most importantly, I need to show that the school is failing in the first place. I have worked inductively, and I apologize for that. An explanation and some elaboration are certainly in order. The evidence of a social and/or educational breakdown is lacking. As previously asked, ‘why would I choose not to teach at JHHS?’
Offered are a few glimpses of my experiences at JHHS that may help answer that question. Hopefully, these examples will show some of the reasoning behind my distress. With the knowledge of what has occurred, and why it occurred, we will be in a better position to understand my choices concerning my future career(s). Provided, in no particular order, are a few encounters and basic overviews of the past year that support my claims against parents, pupils, and politicians.
# Sports are more important to this school than academics.
## Football players are given precedence and special treatment, to the point that administrators will call me during class to “do whatever it takes for Johnny to be in the game tonight.” Where is their concern for the other students in my class?
## Our basketball team attends the sweet sixteen (not the actual state championship), and JHHS is let out of school. The very same week our academic team went to the state finals, and JHHS wasn’t let out of school—we barely even heard announcements concerning the academic team. We don’t have “pep rallies” for the academic team or for academically successful students.
## Coaches are hired for their ability to win games, not their ability to teach in the classroom. Coaches are also the first to receive administrative positions.
## A ridiculous amount of money and effort is put towards our sports teams, while many teachers don’t even have enough books for each student.
There are three arguments that would give us reason to allow sports in our school. The first would be the physical fitness acquired through sports, the second would be the entertainment provided by sporting events, and finally, sports can be used as a means to socialize children. We have physical education to cover the first. Entertainment can be found elsewhere. The last reason, dealing with the process of socialization and mental development of children, seems like the best reason.
School is a place to develop a number of social skills, including many learned through sports. These social skills, however, can be learned through avenues other than sports. Therefore, as there are many options to socializing these children, sports are not truly necessary to the development of a child. We have no vital reason to uphold sports as much as we do. School is clearly a place of learning though—academics, rather than sports, should be the priority of school.
# Tests scores are the greatest concern of the school.
## We were forced to use multiple-choice and open response tests simply to prepare our students for testing. There was no concern for the validity or effectiveness of this testing method. High-test scores were the only concern.
## Curriculum mapping is based on preparing students for the test. The curriculum is not concerned with teaching kids to learn and think, but instead to make sure the content is fresh in their minds, so as to help them regurgitate information for high-test scores. In the creation, organization, and execution of the curriculum, cramming content knowledge is more important than making sure the students are thinking.
## I have been commanded on numerous occasions to “Teach the test.” The commander is not actually concerned for the academic welfare of the student, but concerned with high-test scores and not getting into trouble.
## In order to “teach the test,” traditionally relevant curriculum and activities have been thrown away. For example: English classes no longer read “The Scarlet Letter,” instead they watch the movie.
## As a relevant side note, many schools base their teacher salaries on the teacher’s ability to get high scores on tests.
In my eyes, “Teaching the test” is one of the more disgusting educational practices. Even teachers themselves uphold this practice! Why? There are only three explanations: 1) the teacher/administrator actually believes these tests are effective in assessing a student’s academic abilities, 2) the teacher/administrator believes that test scores affect school finances, and, he or she attempts to raise them as high as possible, and/or 3) the teacher/administrator does what he or she is told, and “teaches the test” so as to not get into trouble. The last two reasons are clearly immoral and irrelevant to the question: “what is best for the student?” The first reason, if based on true claims, would seem acceptable.
Are these standardized tests actually effective in assessing a student’s academic abilities? No. Multiple choice questions and open response questions only test a student’s ability to follow certain test-taking rules and regurgitate content knowledge. No good assessment of writing or thinking skills can be found in these tests.
The fact is: nobody actually cares if you can recite the characteristics of Puritanism, or regurgitate examples of Romantic literature, or explain the basic outline of a short story, when you don’t have the ability to think and to apply what you have learned in some meaningful way. Content knowledge is pointless outside of the ability to use it and think about it. The public school system, possibly due to political limitations, has forgotten this fact, and instead has opted for a incredibly awful method of assessment. If I can instill in my students the ability (and the desire) to think, then I know they will do fine in life. Memorizing and regurgitating content knowledge, traditionally found only in grammar school, is easy if you possess the ability to think.
“Teaching the test” is an awful practice. We should be ashamed. How dare we create a generation of kids that view schooling and education as a series of hoops to jump through, rather than a creative and fantastic world of learning? I am not going to live a lie, and think that I am really teaching kids the important aspects of education, primarily the ability and desire to think and reason, when I am cornered, commanded, and forced to falsely teach in a manner that is designed to merely raise test scores.
# Teachers are blamed for the failures of students, while parents and the students themselves are not held accountable for each student’s academic performance, behavior, and attitude.
## When looking at demographics and statistics concerning the academic performance of students, especially of students with low test scores, it is assumed that we as a teacher have failed to reach a certain segment of the population of JHHS. We refuse to accept that it could be the community, family, or culture the child lives within that conditions the child to perform so poorly. We relieve the burden of academic responsibility from the student--as if we as teachers form the primary reason that he or she is failing.
## When a student fails a class, a parent is encouraged, via the allowance of such behavior and the incentive of a higher grade for their child, to call the teacher and complain about his or her child's grade. Teachers are almost forced to respond to complaints by giving the students grades they don't deserve. Bonus and makeup work are already expected, and undue leeway and special treatment are becoming expected.
## Parents and students actually get away with cussing out a teacher.
## Students are given far too many chances to commit obscene and disrespectful acts, over and over, until they are finally removed from the school.
## Due to a poor disciplinary system from the top down, and our mysterious attempts to remain politically correct, if a student does something wrong, or is in the habit of doing something wrong, we hold that the child has been conditioned into such behavior, and that somehow, because the child was conditioned in this way, the child is not responsible for his or her actions. Therefore, it becomes the teacher’s responsibility to accept this conditioning, lacking any true objective and impartial judgment, and continue teaching while a student is disruptive.
## Teachers are blamed for not using diverse enough teaching methods. Example: not using enough hands-on, group-work, or technology in the classroom.
While I recognize that some people shouldn’t be teachers, either through their misbehavior or lack of qualifications, I believe most teachers do the best with what they have been given, and do actually deserve their position as teacher. The fact remains that teachers are wrongly held responsible for the failures of students in both the academic and social realms. No matter what he or she does, the public school teacher is someone who simply can’t win.
I am appalled by the social allowances made in this school. Regardless of the household they are raised in, people are responsible for their actions. If a child is loud and obnoxious, even if they are raised in a household or culture where this is acceptable, I should not have to put up with their misbehavior. Let the child bear the rod, and believe me, they will learn not to be loud and obnoxious.
Academically, a teacher cannot force a student to learn. If a child chooses not to learn, then guess what, that child isn’t going to learn. I should not have to motivate children—the child themselves or their parents should be the motivating force. Teachers are expected to be supreme motivators, while; ironically, they lack any real power or control to hold a child responsible for his or her actions.
If a child of a powerful parent has a bad grade, I am pressured to pass or raise the score of that child, even if they do not deserve the grade. The only incentive I have to fail a child is the fact that they don’t deserve it. Failing a child means complaints from all ends, paperwork, phone calls, and stress. Once mommy or daddy complains, the game is over, and I am almost forced to just hand over a grade—whether it be through late work or bonus work, I am expected to cut a deal with these kids. Nobody could possibly believe that we should just fail the child.
Keeping up with a child’s academic performance is not a teacher’s responsibility. It is the responsibility of the parent. I shouldn’t be forced to “save-my-butt” every time a child is too lazy or incompetent to successfully navigate my class by writing and calling home every week.
As for teaching methods: Whatever happened to the good old Socratic method? That method seemed to work. I find that many modern teaching and learning methods are not very useful as they miss the entire basis of education in the first place. Knowledge is abstract, period. Thus, people who are proficient with abstract ideas will, generally, be better learners and thinkers; while those who are not talented with the ‘abstract’ will, generally, be poor learners and thinkers. The fact is: if you are attempting to teach an abstract subject, then students must use the parts of their brain to learn those abstract truths. So, yes, school discriminates against those who are not a specific type of learner. And? Hasn’t this been the case for thousands of years? I see no reason to cater to people who will never be good learners. Give them what they need, and move on. They weren’t meant to be in school for an extended period of time—the world needs janitors and fast-food workers, and that segment of the population can fulfill that purpose.
In the end, a student’s behavioral problem is not my problem. I am here to teach and instruct—to distribute knowledge! I am not here to socially condition students, nor to teach them how to behave. These are the responsibilities of a parent, not a teacher.
# It is widely accepted that all children are academically equal (or at least equal in potential).
## Smart kids are punished with more work, while “academically disinclined” kids are simply passed through the grade levels.
## The academic performance levels of students in my classes varied to extreme degrees. I often had classes where I had college level students who are forced into the same classroom as students who could barely read.
## I was forced to teach to the mid-level students in the class so that I didn’t go so quickly that academically disinclined kids didn’t understand the material at all, and so slowly that I bored my smart kids completely to death. In the end, I really did go too fast for academically disinclined kids, and too slowly for smart kids—I had no way to help those children reach their potential.
## We expect all students to reach a certain level of proficiency in areas that are often not directly pertinent to the majority of our students will need in the future.
The belief that all children are academically equal, or at least equal in potential, is absolute madness. All children, academically speaking, are not equal. Some kids will never be capable of completing Calculus or reading Beowulf. Some kids, even at young ages, would be bored of completing Calculus or reading Beowulf, as they would find these to be too easy. As we have so many students with “equal potential,” we are forced to create an environment that is not conducive to growth for those who are above or below the academic capabilities of the mid-level student.
This system is unfair to those who aren’t mediocre. Students that need help will never receive it because I don’t have the time in class to cover each and every point three times over. Students that are extremely intelligent are bored out of their skulls because I have to go at a slower pace for the rest of the students.
Did you know that students on the lowest end of the learning curve of Kentucky schools are not referred to as special education kids, or identified as a student that needs tutoring or extra help, until they are at the very least FOUR years behind the grade level they should be at? I’m sure that a student that never learned to read by age 12 is somehow actually going to be emotionally ready to learn to read after social pressures have collapsed whatever hint of self-confidence the child may have possessed in the beginning…yeah right!? There is no hope for those kids inside the public school system.
Students on the highest end of the learning curve are punished for being intelligent—we as teachers are supposed to “modify” the curriculum and simply hand these kids more work to do than the average student. I refuse to give smart kids more work to do for no reason. If anything, we should at least ‘magnet’ those children together, and let them excel elsewhere. We keep them around because they give us some glimmer of hope for the world and the next generation.
# Remaining politically correct is so awfully important to the school system. This subversive sensitivity isn’t even used to provide equality among students, but instead, to prevent law suits.
## Giving actual statistical evidence of a claim having anything to do with race, ethnicity, gender, or any background is automatically suspect in the eyes of administrators.
## Discussing issues concerning minorities is discouraged, as if students must simply swallow the opinions of the school without thinking for themselves.
## Controversial issues or statements cannot be evaluated or used because it could “offend someone.” Even if these concepts are the very ideas that our students will approach in their daily lives.
Political correctness is a creation of relativism. You are what you eat, what can I say—even teachers and administrators are brainwashed. Sometimes the truth is offensive (no matter how you phrase it). Tough luck! Truth is truth, and if you are offended by it, then I am offended that you are offended by what I said, and then you’ll be offended by me being offended, ad nauseam/infinitum. To be PC is already absurd to some extent; to be PC because you could get a lawsuit is just pitiful.
Just because an issue is emotional or politically charged doesn’t mean we shouldn’t approach the issue. If anything, those are the issues we should be approaching, as they are currently relevant. It is a good place to start setting an example of when, where, why, and how we as citizens of humanity should be thinking about and pursuing these types of controversial issues.
6) Some teachers and many administrators have become careerists, lacking the moral fiber to do what is right, while adhering to any actions that may boost their professional appearance.
I will go no further in my examples on this subject. I am disgusted enough as it is. Naming names will do no good, and could only hurt an already difficult situation. My experience on this playing field is real. Believe me, I’ve seen far too many cases of backstabbing, gossiping, and flat out sabotage. It has been my experience that these people are socially dangerous. I do not have the means, nor the will to use their vile political tactics against them to defeat them. Too many administrators are willing to give up actual thinking and education for metateaching, test scores, and the ease of simply giving in to the will of the parents or student.
Personally, I have felt discriminated against in two ways (not by you of course).
1) I am discriminated against because of my age.
You told me from the beginning this would be the case. I was an idealist enough to believe it may not be true. I was stupid.
I know I am young, new to teaching, and bound to make some mistakes. But, surely all teachers were clearly, at some point, ‘new to teaching’ and ‘bound to make some mistakes.’ Not all teachers are young when they start. But, age shouldn’t make a difference. It, unfortunately, does make a difference—and maybe that has to do with the mindset of employers in general. But, it wasn’t just the employers; it was also from a few of my fellow faculty members. I really got the feeling from a number of teachers (and even overheard a few) that someone my age should never be teaching, especially not in a high school setting.
While being evaluated, I found that, because of my age, I was critiqued quite harshly compared to how someone older would have been critiqued.
I have been chastised for following directions on the specific occasions that teachers were asked to wear a specific type of dress and color. Apparently, I looked too young. You may have noticed that, excluding six days, I wore a tie and dress pants every day. It isn’t like I was attempting to make a fashion statement—I was obeying directions in the first place. What other teachers were pulled aside because they wore a red t-shirt for spirit week, as they were asked to do in the first place, as if they had committed some obscenely unprofessional act? I call it self-righteous hypocrisy.
In all honestly, I feel I have damn well earned my position. Maybe I don’t have a master’s degree. Maybe I don’t have ten years of English teaching experience. But what do those things have to do with actual successful teaching? Many of people I see here are “educated” and “experienced,” but clearly lack the very critical thinking skills they are supposed to be teaching.
2) A past childhood action has been held against me.
You may have found out already, as the rampant gossip in this place would not surprise me: As a “bored and brilliant” 14-year old kid I took the initiative to become fluent in computer science, and inevitably arrived at the stupid conclusion that I should use this skill to break through a number of computer security features on my high school network. Yes, I screwed up. I am not proud of my behavior, and it certainly had a huge impact on my life. I have learned a lot since then. It was one third of my lifetime ago. Because of my actions I have had to grow up quickly; and, I think I’ve been relatively successful.
A number of current JHHS teachers were present at my old high school during the incident. They and a few administrators have held this past action against me. In fact, I have been approached directly on this issue a few times, as if I would do the same thing at this age. It is humiliating and completely ridiculous that my record as a minor should be brought against me today. How would those select teachers and administrator’s feel if I brought everything they did as a child against them today, as if they still had a disposition towards such activities?
The fact is: if people are truly concerned with learning and teaching, then they will pursue it. In general, I fail to see this institution’s wholehearted pursuit of truth and knowledge.
Public schooling has become, both internally and externally, a political scene. Teaching and pursuing truth and knowledge in this establishment is like casting pearls before swine.
After ranting for ten pages, I would like to show some positive perspectives of my experience.
What did I do during the year?
My job, at least in my opinion, was simply to teach English. English is used to communicate an amalgamation of topics and subjects—if it can be written, basically any type of knowledge, then is a part of English as a whole. With that in mind, English teachers of course have a monumental task. As we clearly cannot cover all of English, we are forced to choose the most significant parts—I believe that a classic approach to English covers most of the truly significant facets. Classical English classes taught reading, writing, logic, literary appreciation, grammar (rote memorization), semantics, rhetoric, and even history. I think the classical approach has been quite effective—it should be emulated. Even though classical English can narrow down the priorities to a small set of significant topics, we as public school teachers remain completely overwhelmed and daunted by the task of teaching even these few and particular skills and concepts. Despite the fact that these are important English concerns, and being that we only have so many resources and so much time to teach, we, as public school teachers, are forced to further divvy up and prioritize their significance. It is no longer a question of what we will choose to not teach, but rather what few things we must teach at the sacrifice of everything else? We are forced to give a bare-bones education to the children. Economizing the subjects we teach is not easy, and so, I do admit that I understand some of the curriculum mistakes English teachers have made. When I had to choose what was going to be covered I kept thinking about what skills were necessary for both practical living and essential to the makeup of one with the potential to continue to grow academically. I decided early on that I wanted to create kids who have both the ability and desire to read, think, and write—period. I didn’t care if they scored well on tests, followed the school’s curriculum map, pleased their parents, pleased me, or pleased the people around them. That doesn’t mean they didn’t score well, or follow the curriculum map, or please anyone—but these were not my goals. So how did I think I could arrive at a classroom of students who could effectively read, think, and write?
While I respect the fact that people cannot learn and truly think without having a few regurgitatable facts to rub between their fingers, content knowledge is severely lacking when compared to the utility and imperative natures of critical thinking and communication skills. Basically, the primary objective of a modern public school English teacher is to get a student to read, think, and then to communicate those thoughts. These primary objectives, of course, include basic grammar, reading techniques, and essay forms. In my class we didn’t just cover “how-to” do these; we also endlessly practiced them over and over again. Secondary objectives include teaching content knowledge, appreciation of historical time period and literature, and the finer points of communication, including some forms of semantics and rhetoric. Even if academics require the secondary skills, I would argue that most people do not need to know such things to continue with their daily lives. While I don’t expect every student to be fluent and skilled in the secondary objectives of English, I do expect every student to be extremely familiar and competent in fulfilling the primary objective of English. I concentrated on the primary objectives. We read everything in the curriculum (because we had to cover it) and more. We thought about and discussed everything we read. We wrote on everything we read. Practice, practice, and more practice—I simply can’t expect good reading, thinking, and writing, if we don’t do it every single day.
Our students lack the ability to effectively read, think, and write. I wanted to change that failure above all others. I asked my students to read, think, and write—we did this every single day in all of my classes (even if it was boring and difficult). No matter where these kids were in their education, they would always be challenged, and, in my opinion, they were significantly challenged in the right areas.
Was I effective? To some extent, yes. Although the majority of my students never reached proficiency in any of my three English requirements, they did pursue them, and they did grow in those areas. And, I believe they grew more in the areas of reading, thinking, and writing than they do in a normal English class. Did I teach perfectly? No. Could I have done things in a better fashion? Of course! After all, I’m learning as well. Did I teach the subjects as I ought to teach in my situation? Yes!
Many of these students can’t read, think, and write because they have been so rarely asked to read, think, and write that they lack both the fundamental skills used in reading, thinking, and writing, and the confidence to believe they are capable of good reading, thinking, and writing.
My classes, especially during the last semester, without question, chewed, reviewed, and digested more text, with the possible exception of AP English, than any other class in JHHS. We hammered our books and then some. Now of course, I commonly got the complaint, “I don’t understand any of this Mr. X.” So, we went over it again, we discussed it in class, we wrote about it; I did everything short of spoon-feeding them the answers. How else are my freshmen going to become better at reading Shakespeare than by actually sitting down, and reading and interpreting, line by line, a piece of literature created by old Bill? How else are my Juniors going to become better at reading Romantic literature than by actually sitting down, and reading and interpreting, line by line, poetry from Emily Dickinson? You get the picture. True exposure through actual experience with the text seemed like a keen idea to me.
When I look back in history and literature, I don’t look at someone’s grammatical perfection and say, “Oh my gosh, that is great writing.” Half the time I don’t even say, “that was well said.” In reality, I look for ideas; I look for the thinking behind the writing. I want to see how that literature influenced the world around the author, and how that literature shaped who I am today. I want to see what is happening today, think about those events with an educated perspective, and react and communicate respectively to current events. If anything, I hope I ingrained that belief into my students.
Over and over and over again I asked the same question about every piece of literature or writing assignment: what is the meaning and purpose? Those are the fundamental questions my students should always be striving to answer when they read a book, glance over a magazine article, watch a TV show, listen to a guest speaker at a rally, or are subject to any form of communication.
My students’ first writing-hurdle was to get them to simply get words on a page. Once a person is comfortable with that process, then I can help them (him/her, whatever, I prefer the plural neuter) become better writers. I refuse any meta-teaching example that would say otherwise. If I can’t get my students to write anything in the first place, then what is the point of teaching them the fantastically interesting minutiae of academic writing. Once my students were open to writing, then and only then could we begin working on the important characteristics of good writing and the processes involved in creating a well-written piece. Some students did reach this stage, and the structure, reasoning, and clarity of their writing benefited from advice and practice. Many of my students barely reached this stage. Yet, they were required to work in areas that needed work. It honestly warms my heart to see kids like Rakeya Bennett, bless her heart, actually completing her On-Demand test because they felt more secure in communicating their thoughts (or lack thereof in some cases).
What did I enjoy about teaching?
I love to see people think, and I did see kids think. I love being challenged by my students, and I was certainly challenged! As I said earlier, learning and teaching is a calling. I am fulfilled in a world of knowledge. A number of times I was able to share that world with my students. Generally, I was fascinated by two groups of students. The first being the academic superstars, kids who I know have the potential to influence the world with their minds. Some of these received the benefit of my empathies, advice, and even new approaches to a number of subjects. The second group is composed of the kids that tried their hardest, even if they didn’t succeed. These kids were great—I loved their attitude towards learning and life. I believe they will be successful and influential in virtue of their sincere effort.
My students were asked to read and write so much it eventually became habit. That is what I want! Only after developing the habit of reading and writing can I help them to cultivate and hone their skills. Most of my kids genuinely benefited from my class, and I am pleased by their growth. Getting many of my students to actually enjoy reading or writing, sometimes on unexpected subjects, was also truly fulfilling. Not all of my kids are going to enjoy the classics or academic writings. And, you know what? That is fine with me. That doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be required to understand the classics or academics, but it does mean we should also strive to help these kids love reading and writing (in whatever subject interests them). After all, the ‘wonderful’ authors we read today were just people that loved to read and write on subjects that were interesting to them. I will be pleased as long as my kids remain, in the pursuit of truth and justice, an integral part of that colossal chain of human communication, in any subject matter, by reading, writing, and communicating from one person to another. Part of “being human” means that you know where you came from, and I think I provided those basics to my kids. I hope they take away the desire to continue reading and writing in the subjects both interesting and uninteresting to them. I was very pleased to see my kids acquire new tastes in reading and writing. I know, as a number of students have written me letters, that I have made a very positive impact in their lives, both academically and socially.
Sometimes I felt like a proud parent of these kids, even if I’m not their mom or dad. My effort this year was well spent on my students. I learned about my students, the school system, and myself. I have had to ask myself, if I really care about these kids, what is the best thing I can do to help them? I believe I can achieve more for the world elsewhere. Who knows where I will be ten years from now? Hopefully, I will be learning and teaching.
Who am I?
I believe the above question is very relevant for anyone who wishes to teach. You don’t teach for the money. You don’t teach because it is fun. You teach for other reasons, some of which are connected to your identity and purpose. In my evaluation of the past year, the question, “Who am I,” came up often.
I am a pessimist and a skeptic, and for good reason (and hell yes, I am a pessimist about whether it is a good thing to be a pessimist). One should always question the status quo; one should always ask the question ‘why’; one should always pursue truth and justice. The pursuit of truth and the questioning of claims in general are a necessary part of the development of civilization. My lack of optimism about the state of our world, and even the state of this school, does not allow me to simply remove myself from the world. Instead, such an awful set of circumstances requires, as my duty, that I find, choose, and execute the best possible plan to address the situation. The common response to a person who complains about an institution is: “then get in the trenches and fix it yourself.” I believe I have been in the trenches long enough to identity the major problems, and I also believe that fixing it cannot occur within the walls of John Hardin alone. Rather, a philosophical change in the overall population must occur. My purpose is to change that overall opinion, whether it be politically, socially, or educationally, and to pursue truth and justice as realities. I find that Post-modern relativism is highly destructive. The question I have been trying to answer over the past year has been: “what can I do to stop post-modernism?” I’m still trying to find the answer. I don’t believe I can effectively fight post-modern relativism in this setting, thus my purpose is not to teach in JHHS.
I am a hardcore theist, philosopher, existentialist, and Christian (all of which are quite related). I’m not concerned with what will make my life comfortable. I am not generally concerned with other people’s opinions of me. I just know that I have a purpose, and I must fulfill it at all costs.
Part of my journey has led to me to and through JHHS. I thank you for letting me be here to learn, teach, and experience.
Sincerely,
[[h0p3]]
We are through the holiday season (finally).
j3d1h had her Birthday. She was sick for it, a cold. You'd be surprised how much snot we bubbled out of her nose. She was choking and coughing horribly all night. We pumped Mucinex, Benedryl and Tylenol into her for 2 days (literally around the clock...her fever subsided quickly, thankfully). Oddly enough, she has some extra spunk in her after being sick (although, she still has the sniffles and stuffy nose). The kid is almost full blown walking everywhere now. It is kinda odd to look across the room and see a kid walking at you...she has been quite active in the past few days. She's getting much better at walking/running....in time, using silverware, consistently dropping a deuce in the toilet (she is scared of water *sigh), and speaking will make her even better.
I do believe the broom is my favorite tool in the house. I'm always amazed at what that child can do to the floor in less than 30 seconds. She manages to throw food she doesn't care for on the floor, and since we are cleaning the floor anyways, we brush"left-overs" in her high-chair onto the floor to make it a 5-minute cleanup, ...broom pwnage. ...which reminds me, I'm getting a late X-mas present, a t-shirt that say "Pwn Star" lol.
The car the acting odd...transmission issue possibly. Time to goto the mechanic.The fluids are checked often enough, and it seems like everything I can do is taken care of. (<---what is this called again?...it is supposed to be a terrible no-no..but I don't really care, we speak like this all the time...not that I am attentive to what I'm actually writingggggggggggggggg...oops, too late, can't erase it now.) I'll have to find someone to bum a ride to drive us back, maybe even borrow a car for a few days.
I'm sitting here at work, doing my usual. Reading and writing, even about the mundane, keep me alive in here. These people are...Tards. Unwise and unintelligent people... (Sound elitist don't I? pfft...) The only reading that goes on that I can see, beyond work related/required is crappy novels, often love stories (bleh). Hey, it isn't like I read a ton anymore either. My reading, unfortunately, is forced to be online (which isn't very high quality, but with a good eye and a mind for searching out significant information in that ocean, you can find some very interesting things to read)....But, atleast I do something real. Of course, to blue-collar folks, they look at thinking and ideas as something that isn't real because it isn't concrete.
I realize that k0sh3k and I are very different from the rest of the world...we perceive it very differently. When I look at the world, the most real things to me are actually abstract ideas. That doesn't me I don't use concrete things, but I truly look at the concrete as a means to the abstract, that our solid bodies (yeah, I'm "slightly" gnostic in some sense...minus the whole Demiurge bullshit) of mass simply don't compare in purity to those wonderful, ethereal abstract ideas. I can't point a concrete thing out that isn't based upon ideas. Ideas are the cause of things, not the other way around. Most people perceive the world in the concrete...in fact, even people who consider themselves good at dealing in abstract concepts are usually quite concrete. Even people I'd consider generally intelligent eventually will throw away ideas for the concrete, they lose their pursuit of ideas because they are "practical." Since when did practicality matter? Show me one thing in God's Will that was practical that wasn't first based and made primarily for the sake of an idea. You can't. Practical thinking is the way of the lazy. Period. It is a quick judgement of those who don't have the patience or resources to continue to think in the realm of ideas.k0sh3k and I don't live amongst these people or these things. Sure, we are forced to encounter them...But, we aren't one of them.
Of course, this may just be my bias from where I live, where it is impossible to find anyone like us. But, I am convinced there are few like me in this world. Gives me a good topic to write on...k0sh3k/Jim/Allen/I have had an interesting topic going on for a while. It is primarily me on oneside (as usual)...but I am correct (as usual). It is a discussion of the "supposed" differences between intelligence in wisdom. I'm sure they must get tired of me ;P...better not to broach the subject at all? Why take the time to really examine it? Does it hurt your head? lol.
By the way, had some B&N cards to blow, grabbed the full set of Calvin and Hobbes and a book about Dragonology *cough, guess which one I like the most? =)
anyways, I'll get to work and maybe write on that topic for a while...my mind has already drifted a lot today.
Got bored at work, so here are my thoughts:
Freedom is a multi-faceted and hugely positive term encompassing the ability to act consciously, well-balanced and with self control towards a given constructive direction. It is oftentimes gauged by the degree of absence of external restraint or external control.
In general, Freedom is concerned with choice. I find it hard to separate “freedom†from the concept of “free will.†The ability to do otherwise is what makes a person free.
This concept, freedom, is one dear to the hearts and minds of almost all of those in western culture. We idolize it, and even make up pseudonyms for it, like Liberty. By the way, we often mistakenly merge Freedom and Liberty, as they have much to do with each other. Liberty, however, is generally considered a concept of political philosophy and identifies the condition in which an individual has immunity from the arbitrary exercise of authority. This would be an external restraint; thus, I’d call Liberty a subset of freedom.
Regardless, everyone and their mother are deeply concerned with maintaining freedom and liberty. The crowd exclaims, “Oh, noes! Don’t violate my rights, freedoms and liberties!†Do they even understand what these words mean? Do they understand the significance? Do they understand the purpose of freedom?
So, what is so important about Freedom? Is it important in and of itself? Where does it come from? Is it natural?
Let’s explore!
For the time being, I will have to make certain assumptions.
Premise number one: the universe is stable, calculable, and physically deterministic in every way. Billiard balls can cause other billiard balls to move when they strike each other. The universe is governed by physical laws that cannot be broken by anything wholly contained within that universe. All matter is subject to the laws of physics. And, regardless of what you may have read, concerning quantum mechanics and the appearance of randomness, I tell you there is far too much design and order to believe that this is random.
Now, now, does this mean that the laws of physics are never broken? No way! There ARE anti-entropic objects and institutions. In fact, when we evaluate the possibility of freedom inside a deterministic universe, we will surely find that the laws of physics cannot govern absolutely, they must be broken if freedom is to exist.
If you don’t like the idea of a deterministic universe, then get out! I have no time for those who look at the universe as random. Even if randomness may or may not give us more ample opportunities to defend the concept of freedom, we would be abandoning the very things that would make freedom so significant. Free beings within a random and orderless structure can’t make significant choices. Those beings would have no way to know the effect of an intended action. There really are a lot more complications to randomness. Even some pseudo-randomness (whatever that might be) sounds more like a cop-out and an indescribable and poorly put together concept of the universe than a real defense of freedom and reality.
Premise two: Those contained by the universe cannot naturally have power over the universe. In order to have power of the universe, one would have universe making-and-breaking properties. One constrained by the universe clearly didn’t make that universe. Go figure.
Premise three: Thus, something greater than the universe must have created the universe, specifically, God. God is not imprisoned by the universe, and such order and design had to come from somewhere. Again, God’s existence, for the sake of the article, is assumed.
Alright. So, basically, for humans to be free means that we are breaking the laws of the universe. It means we are not bound by the laws of the universe. As we clearly are not the creators of the universe, then we must have acquired our free will through other means.
It is the old argument, the Imago Dei, that God has granted us ‘choice’ through freedom. This means that God has granted humans the ability to break the laws of the universe. Which, yet again, is another old argument: The Unmoved mover.
God has instilled in us the ability to be an unmoved mover - Those who can move objects without moving themselves. We have a distinct causal power to act upon the universe without requiring physical abilities. How limited this may be, who knows? I suspect that we act upon our brains, as it is pretty central to our nervous system…
As to the consideration of self-ownership as portion of freedom, we may apply Nozickian and Lockian proprietary philosophy, and simply say that God, the being who originally owned us, imbued us with the ability to own ourselves. It is ironic that Libertarian views are so unjustifiable, as they base freedom on utilitarian property law, which, when evaluated, is contradictory…as people could not naturally own themselves. Luckily, we already have the key to abuse, use, and unlock the secrets to the heart of “freedom fighting,†without having to agree that freedom is all that important, but while maintaining their basic premises.
Okay, so now we can say that it is at least possible for freedom to exist. What is it?
Freedom, or free will, is the ability to do otherwise. It can be the ability to think otherwise, believe otherwise, and physically act otherwise. It can be large or small, moral or immoral. Freedom gives true choices. Doing what you want to do isn’t freedom. And, yes understanding freedom within the psychological and egoist determinism is difficult. We must simply explain that in some possible world, a free person chose otherwise, regardless of this determinism. Essentially, a free person, even in the context of psychological determinism, only needs to have the ability to do otherwise, regardless of whether they actually do in reality choose to do otherwise is somewhat inconsequential. In light of some possible worlds’ argument, we can simply explain psychological determinism in terms of probabilities…but not necessities.
So, what is the significance and purpose of freedom?
We have freedom because we have the Imago Dei; God imbued us with the Image Dei; thus, God gave us freedom (or free will). A gift from God is already amazing enough, and must have innate value simply because of that. The very Image of God is a precious thing as well, thus we may think that beings with this ability would simply have innate value in virtue of the autonomy or the gift itself, on top of the value that stems from simple existence and being a gift from God. Clearly, it is very significant at this level. Kantian ethics can apply here….well, maybe. I’m not yet going to say that people are ends in themselves. But, at least we can verify that people are important, in part, because of this Imago Dei.
Ah, but defeating the laws of physics just doesn’t seem THAT important. And, you know what, God also gave us the properties of existence, like everything else in the world…so being a gift from God may not be enough either. There is a reason for this freedom.
Freedom is the architect of responsibility!!! Rocks falling from cliffs, water flowing down a stream, and even spiders spinning their webs are reacting to their respective deterministic environments and NOT responsible for their actions. These things HAD to occur. It isn’t as if they could have done otherwise. Even the spider didn’t have a choice. This…animal is just composed of chemicals reacting to the particles around it. We are more than mere chemical reactions! The rest of the universe is not. The rest of the universe has no choice in what it does. The universe is a machine, a very complex one, but a machine non-the-less. It is enslaved to the deterministic laws of physics. The creator of such a machine is responsible for it. The unmoved movers that act upon and within it are responsible for that which exists and occurs within the universe.
Our original Unmoved mover is God Himself. All that is beautiful and natural in the world is good, and created by God alone. Our freedom has acted upon the world, and yes, we are responsible for it; we, however, have created that which is painful and evil in this world.
With freedom, we have the ability to influence, to create and modify this machine we live within. Our creation; our responsibility.
As we own ourselves, and can recreate ourselves (to some extent), then we are also responsible for ourselves. Our actions have meaning! This isn’t random. This isn’t deterministic. This is choice.
Choice and responsibility manufacture the existence of MORALITY. Our choices aren’t just choices, they entail something more. Choices are moral choices. They entail substance, and relevance. If you believe relevance and significance can exist, then you must believe it exists through this alone. Good and bad stem from choices. Morality IS significance. It means there is a value to what we do. And, a reason we should do some things, and reason we should not do other things.
Freedom is the foundation of Morality. Freedom allows for the possibility of moral choices. Freedom’s relevance is found in that it creates the possibility for us, and our choices, to be relevant. There is a huge different between a Godbot and someone who can deny the Will of God.
Freedom exists for us to BE moral people. We are free so that we can choose to fulfill the Will of God. The ultimate purpose of our freedom is to give that freedom back to God, when we give up our desires to follow God’s Will. We are free for the sake of God’s glory.
Great! We’ve solved the mystery. Now what?
Well, people don’t view freedom as this. People want to think they have “inalienable†rights, and freedom for the sake of themselves. People believe freedom exists for the pursuit of Happiness!?? WTF are they thinking? They use Freedom to be hedonists, to pursue themselves!
Freedom is IDOLIZED in our culture. In our self-worship, we have proclaimed –freedom- as our best attribute, and the thing we should base our lives around. We act as if it is THE thing to protect. We act as if freedom, in virtue of our oh-so-obvious self-importance, has become an end in itself, as if Freedom were innately significant, rather than a tool and catalyst for that which is important—The Glory of God!.
Freedom is not innately important, and it isn’t some inalienable right, as God can always take away what He has given. Freedom exists for us to serve God, to become slaves once again.
We are blasphemers and idolaters. We pursue ourselves, happiness, and freedom. We do not seek that which is most important.
In economics, which is really a study of power and why people do what they do, the theory of comparative advantage explains why it can be beneficial for two parties (countries, regions, individuals, ...) to trade, even though one of them may be able to produce every kind of item more cheaply than the other. What matters is not the absolute cost of production, but rather the ratio between how easily the two countries can produce different goods. The concept is highly important in modern international trade theory.
Comparative advantage may be compared (haha) to absolute advantage. When one entity (be it a company or a country) is able to produce more efficiently than another entity it has an absolute advantage: that is, assuming equal inputs, the entity with an absolute advantage will have a greater output.
At the core of the theory is the idea that one’s economic interest lay producing what one has a ratio-based advantage in producing. Those who are more efficient at producing X, should produce lots of X, and uses excesses of X to trade for the excesses of those who have comparative advantages producing Y and Z. Albeit, I’m not one who believes in excess. But!, I do think that as long as the excess is used for the greater good, and spread across those who DO need, then we have much better justification for producing, at least in the little picture, excess. Excess beyond the sum of all need, including preparation and savings, is not a good thing. Luckily, comparative advantage can still be applied in smaller settings, as the excesses can overflow to places that don’t have the same producting.
I always loved the idea of “comparative advantage.†The very nature of it is concerned with efficiency and giving to the community the products of your specific and maybe unique talents. In fact, I’ve grown accustomed to this concept; you could say I am fond of it because it has moral implications. It defines and lays the groundwork for brief and practical existential claims.
Do what you were made to do, use your gifts to preserve and develop yourself and the people around you! This is economical design, the efficiency of God’s creation, and an aspect of beauty rarely recognized within the church.
Usually, we think of “Gifts†in an extremely narrow sense. Gifts of the Spirit aren’t necessarily spiritual in nature. Rather, those gifts are used FOR the Spirit, maybe given by Spirit, and maybe we are motivated by the Spirit to use those gifts. But, these gifts range and vary greatly, equivalently with the number and variety of purposes predicated of all people.
Who isn’t happy using their gifts for the right reasons? Purpose people, PURPOSE! We are fulfilled in the execution and completion of our duties, and clearly our duties have to do with the gifts bestowed to us. Those gifts give us a comparative advantage. Thinking in terms of comparative advantage, and truly applying it, would be quite utopian.
uggghh...k0sh3k has been throwing up and it has been pretty bad for a few days already. She didn't want to goto the doctor (and I don't think she'll need to), but she is getting better today. Pray for her. By the way, she also applied for the directorship(?) at the Wesley House at UofL. 60k a year, but I don't know if that includes a "parsonage" or some shit. I have no idea.
As for me...I'm doing well. Christmas has been busy, and we've chosen to use a Nativity set in place of a tree...after all this <em>is</em> <strong><em>Christ</em></strong>mas. Work has been slow and boring. Who cares? You do what you have to do. I stole dad's WoW account (buy you a new one dad, I can upload the entire WoW directory to my site and let you download it, and I'll grab you a CD-key if you need) because Blizz is retarded and banned me for "3rd party software." Tough. Took me 3 weeks to bot to level 50, and I'll be hitting 60 this week (before X-mas) I hope. HWL gear is now grindable at a VERY reasonable level (and if I say it is reasonable, then it is broken). Pfft, I'll be encoding more PvP vids for no one in paricular I'm sure. But, hell, it is fun.
We are gonna have A & J Gipso----oh, snap..I mean, <em>L </em>for dinner on Sunday (after all, it isn't like I'd let my child even walk into their house)...which btw, j3d1h is walking somewhat....
For any family reading this: we got a great present for you (especially for those overseas), and it cost me a pretty penny. I'm a cheapskate, so 100$ makes me cringe like no other. But, I was convinced by a greater power than myself ('teh wifey').
South park is on! GTG (Gotta go)!!
The Form of Gaming: A Philosophical and Ludological Discussion on Games
We all play games, or we all play what we think are games. Why? It is simply a part of human nature to challenge one’s self, to accomplish, and to win. Games provide a safe and proper environment to test ourselves. In my opinion, the beauty of the game is that it can reflect any other problem we may face in life, with the exception that a game can be adjusted to be more fair (unlike life), we can view justice as a 3rd party looking more objectively at what is really occurring, and that problems, quizzes and tests within games don’t have severe impact on the quality of our lives (or, at least, they shouldn’t). Games are really microcosms of what we experience in life, and yet wonderfully opposite of life in that games have no real consequences when played either well or poorly. We play them in virtue of themselves, and they have proven to be both enjoyable and insightful.
In this article, I hope to present a case for what makes a game a game, why we play them, and the intricate principles universally found in a true game. The explanation is both descriptive and proscriptive as it will portray the meaning of gaming and also depict the sort of thinking required to adjust current activities and future ones, activities which we blindly call ‘games’, to better conform to the true idea of gaming.
When we ask, What is gaming? or what are games? or even, what is the perfect game? we are really asking, what is the form of gaming?
And, what is the form of gaming? To start, you really need to know what a form is in the first place. Formally :-), the definition of a form is:
That assemblage or disposition of qualities which makes a conception, or that internal constitution which makes an existing thing to be what it is --called essential or substantial form, and contradistinguished from matter; hence, active or formative nature; law of being or activity.
Philosophically speaking, the word form has been used to translate the Platonic idea (eidos), the permanent reality which makes a thing what it is, in contrast with the thing's particulars, which are finite and subject to change. However, for practical purposes, Aristotle was the first to distinguish between matter (hyle) and form (morphe). The perfection of the form of a thing is its entelechy in virtue of which it attains its fullest realization of function. For example, to Aristotle, the entelechy of the body is the soul. The origin of the differentiation process is to be sought in a prime mover, i.e. pure form entirely separate from all matter, eternal, unchangeable, operating not by its own activity but by the impulse which its own absolute existence excites in matter.
Forms are abstract ideas, perfect images (logos), from which actual particular things endeavor to mimic and imitate. Some philosophers, like Aristotle, thought these forms were real things themselves, maybe objects hidden in some heavenly body of the universe, who knows? But, for our purposes, we can use the basic understanding of form, which is hardly controversial. Our consideration of this topic is a less metaphysical approach, and far more semantic and logical. We are searching for the necessary features that are found in all of the possible particulars of a subject. The perfect image, idea, and configuration of a thing are what we seek.
An example of form in practice could be the form of scissors. When we refer to scissors, we are first referring to scissorness. We are reducing all scissors to the very concept and logos of scissor, from which all other scissors mimic in model, function, and construct. Scissors can be different colors, shapes, and sizes; they can cut different cuts, and some don’t even cut very well at all! Scissors vary in material used to make them, and the material they are designed to cut. Some scissors are good, others bad. But all these properties are arbitrary characteristics of each particular scissor. We seek that which is not arbitrary about all scissors, but rather that which is completely necessary about all scissors. The question of what is the form of scissor? is a question concerning the ultimate substantial and universally held concept that binds all scissors. When seeking the form of scissor you seek whatever makes a scissor a scissor. By referring to scissors, in general, speaking of its form, we are speaking about an edge tool having two crossed pivoting blades. All scissors follow that form. The form of scissors is definitional of the all scissors in the relevant and basest sense. Of course, in the end, particular scissors can be more or less scissor-like than other particular scissors, but none of them perfectly mimic and match the very form of scissor. The perfect scissor is the form of scissor.
Just as scissors are defined by its form, games are defined by their form. We don’t seek the particular game, we seek the perfect game, the form of game.
So, what is essential to gaming? What is this form of gaming?
A game is a contest or competition, physical and/or mental, according to certain rules, which is perceived to have irrelevant outcomes beyond the fact you win, lose, or tie, such that: the gamer would play the game simply in virtue of the opportunity of playing the game itself. Perfect games test the skill of the player and nothing else. The game can be against yourself or others (environments are rulesets, not opponents). But, in the end, gaming is a test of one’s skill that should have no real consequence beyond winning, losing, or tying.
Any other effect from or influence upon this rule and skill based competition is simply a non-game event, concept, or object. All other non-competitive aspects of gaming, that aren’t specifically and solely testing the player’s skill, against a certain set of rules and/or opponent(s), for the purpose of playing for the sake of winning, simply IS NOT gaming. The screaming fans, the music, the social life, the graphics, fame and money earned from playing, and even the narrative--these are not a part of the game in any substantial and relevant sense; these are mere particulars of a game. While these arbitrary properties can be found surrounding the center of the true game itself, they do not qualify as game.
Analogously, scissors are used to cut in a certain fashion (with two crossed pivoting blades), just as games are used to test the skill of a player. Cuts by a scissor are used for any number of purposes: shortening a piece of paper, removing tags, etc, just as the testing of a player’s skill through gaming can be used for the purposes of amusement, recreation, etc. Do not confuse the secondary purposes of a form with the true and actual form-making purpose. The meaning of scissors does not include arbitrary particulars or secondary functions, and the meaning of game does not include arbitrary particulars or secondary functions. Thus, the form of scissors only includes the function of being used to in a certain fashion (with two crossed pivoting blades), just as games are used to test the skill of a player.
It may seem I used a synonym, contest, to define gaming, which at face value seems problematic. I assure you though, it was quite intentional and very relevant, as the purpose of this particular definition was to limit the meaning, specifically in terms of gaming as a competitive concept, as opposed to the other reasons why people game, which are completely different from the very nature and form of gaming.
What principles of gaming are absolutely necessary to its form?
1.) Fairness
2.) Rules
3.) Test
4.) Played for the sake of playing (win, lose, or draw as the sole consequences considered)
1.) Fairness is conformity with the rules or laws, without fraud or cheating, and the simple justice that one reaps what one sows. In the context of a game, fairness is a social contract by which the player(s) understand and agree upon set rules that are followed and enforced with honesty and impartiality, that a player is fully responsible for the outcome of his choice, and that the causal relations are strictly based on player skill linked to an appropriate and definite outcome.
Applied to gaming, actual fairness will usually mean players have equal opportunity to accomplish goals, and that they reap what they sow in every possible aspect (to be dissected). In the form of game there should be equivalent risk vs. reward ratios and equal, proportionally scaling reward and result with player skill. In true fairness, only the skill of a player is taken into account. How much money he has, the color of his skin, how many friends he has, the time he has to expend playing, or his graphics card, has nothing to do with fairness. These should not be taken into account, or have any effect on the outcome in a perfectly fair game.
To further flesh out the meaning of reap what you sow, we must maintain that action A always results in action B. At any point that the causal relations, in parallel circumstances, would produce different results from the same cause, you have a violation of basic fairness and just gaming (not only that, but you’ve probably witnessed the destruction of all meaning and significance in a world by eliminating causality and responsibility altogether). Cause A must produce effect B for you to be effectively reaping what you sow. This type of causal thinking is really the basis for reaping what you sow. But, this principle goes further. It is the idea that one gets what one deserves for an action. So, result B must be appropriately caused by A. We can often hold basic causal relations so that A results in B, but the question is whether B is an appropriate effect of A. The appropriate effect of a cause must be very, very carefully weighed, and it is without question the most difficult aspect of the perfect game (the form of game). An example way to check the appropriateness of an effect is to compare its proportions to another causal chain. Consider A to B vs C to D. Does A cause a proportionally similar result in B as C does to D?
These are questions of desert and justice. Judging fairness becomes quite complicated. It must be remembered though, in gaming, effort and skill should be the measure by which we determine results, and nothing else.
Is perfect fairness possible?
Some games do a better job than others in creating a setting of fairness. Chess would be a good example of pretty fair and balanced game. In chess you find that both players have nearly equal opportunities, and deserved and deducible consequences of actions. Other games might not reach this fairness aspiration as easily. But, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t strive to create as fair as possible games as we can. When designing and evaluating the foundation of a game itself, we should seek fairness as the prime principle guiding the game. Everything rests upon this principle being upheld. And, it certainly means, we should seek to play fairly.
To be noted: While certain games have handicaps, such that it isn’t initially fair at face value, as long as both players, including the handicapped, understand what is occurring, and why, then fairness can still exist.
There is yet another problem for understanding fairness. While relativism is a ridiculous concept, a very controlled version of it poses an applicable question. Remember that we are not thinking of fairness as if it were in the eye of the beholder. Our concern is rather how fairness as a universal principle will judge each case or match within a particular game. Are there situations in which fairness requires more than just a flat, simple and fair rule structure and the abiding of these rules? Must these rules take into account players themselves? Must these rules be specific to an exact instance of a particular game in helping to determine the outcome of who deserved what? It is quite likely that rules of a perfect game would be infinite in nature, here is why:
From a simple starting perspective, we want to say, Let the best man win. And, yes, this might be as close to fairness as we come in practical reality. But, this does not really address an innate flaw in particular games we play, as they do not take into account the possibility that one person won the game not in virtue of skill and effort, but because they were innately better at the game. What if I played a game of basketball against the prodigy Michael Jordan? Clearly, he deserves to beat me in many ways. He is simply the better basketball player. But, the measure is somewhat skewed, as Michael Jordan may have innate abilities that make him inherently better and more suited to the game of basketball than me. If and when I have the pleasure and opportunity to go 1 on 1 with Michael Jordan, and he would surely destroy me, could he rightly pull me, bloody and beaten, off the ground after a match and tell me he truly deserved to win, as if he was completely responsible for all the events in the game? Sure, he plays with skill, but it is more than that, as he probably has height, weight, speed, stamina, dexterity, and maybe even mental advantages. It is possible he was born with inherent advantages that could overcome any amount of my own basketball playing properties. MJ can’t be responsible for his inherent advantages, only self-created advantages. Is it in fairness that we judge win conditions solely on the strict performance with no regard for who was performing?
To further illustrate this point, more in the extreme direction: What if Stephen Hawking played a game of basketball with Michael Jordan? MJ would obviously win by the standards of basketball we see. But, would MJ win because he deserved to win? I suppose the wheel chair limits Mr. Hawking to an extent that he cannot really play effectively at all, and this isn’t even his fault. There is a skill and reward barrier that Stevo will never breach, for example: he can’t slam dunk the ball. Is this his fault? Is Stephen Hawking responsible for his inability to play basketball perfectly?…no. What is playing basketball perfectly for someone in Stephen’s shoes? Maybe to some extent he is responsible for his performance on the court. Insofar as he can move his wheelchair from one side of the court to the other, in beautiful and wonderfully timed zigzag motions, designed to overcome his virtuoso opponent, and when he rolls over MJ’s foot with his prepared spiked wheel chair tires as a means of disabling his opponent (Stevo is very smart you see), then yes Stephen Hawking is playing basketball. But, insofar as he is innately incapable of doing certain actions in basketball, Stephen Hawking is not gaming. Stephen Hawking is only gaming when his own skill from his own will, as opposed to something like his genetics, is the sole factor in an outcome.
Might it be the case that when we look at particular matchups in particular games that the rules must take into account the actual players themselves? If Stevo tried his darnedest, and played the best he could actually have played given his situation, and MJ missed 39 out of 40 shots, and clearly didn’t perform the best he could have performed given his innate abilities, then would we not say that Stevo played the best given each players circumstances? Did not Stephen Hawking deserve to win in this instance?
To really judge Stevo’s win and loss conditions, we might be required to ask: what resources did he have to work with in the first place, and what did he do with those innate resources? If he was given very limited resources, how would Stevo’s performance matchup with someone else in his exact same circumstances?
Playing a million games, for Steven to get a single hoop might be monumental in comparison to Michael Jordan sinking 1,000 straight shots. Even if a player loses, they may have lost by less than most would have lost in their position. Isn’t this the sort of thing what we should be judging?
By applying this type of thinking, we would therefore want to match equal players against each other or we would want a mechanism by which to judge the performance of each individual in each particular set of circumstances. As for the first, particular games like boxing, wrestling, and ultimate fighting already try to do this. They setup matches in a certain weight classes. They at least TRY to eliminate innate inequalities, whether by selection of naturally equal opponent or by means of handicap. Can every particular game do this? Maybe not. But, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t at least do our best to make this the case in our practice of gaming and game development. It is evident that pitting pre-formed groups of practiced professionals against a put together group of preschoolers isn’t fairness. The other option, of course, is a creation of a mechanism that would weigh the effort and skill put forth by each player to determine who played the best given their individual circumstances. This is the perfect solution, one built into the very rules of the game themselves. But, it is very impractical, and maybe impossible for non-omniscient beings. However, we can certainly appreciate the principle. When we evaluate or design games, games which are really attempting to mimic and imitate the form of gaming, we must do our best to create fair player bases and fair matchups, or apply rules that scale with the player base to best determine their individual performance and what appropriate consequence is due to each player.
Scaling win conditions based on the players themselves would of course be quite theoretical and nearly impossible for us to generate, but it might be a necessary part of the perfect form of game. Scaling the win conditions to take into account the players themselves would allow for people to reap what they sow, and that is certainly the relevant issue at hand. After all, Gaming isn't about what you have, it is about what you can do with what you've been given.
In conclusion, fairness is NOT relative to any one individual or communities opinion. It is actually a form itself. The application and understanding of fairness, and attempting to conform rules and tests we make, games or otherwise, still fall short of the very high standards of fairness. While it may not be practical to create games that are perfectly fair, we should at least aim for this principle. Reachable, maybe not, but that shouldn’t stop of us from constantly evaluating and adjusting games to conform to the principle of fairness. We must recognize that most games we create and play are flawed, and we should be quick to distinguish when a person reaps what they sow and when they don’t. Does this mean that we don’t have any real winners or losers in our so-call ‘games?’ No. It means that we need to be particularly observant and careful in our judgment as to why and what consequences occurred, reserving judgment to discern whether players reaped what they sow, and then we can adjust our perceptions as to who really won, lost, or tied in a game. Remember: You are only responsible for what you could possibly have been responsible for. Consequences should be based upon what you are responsible for.
2.) Rules are essential to games as well. Rules serve as the framework of fairness, as well as existing for the sake of the very game mechanics themselves. These are agreed upon, and understood to exist. Some rules, especially concerning fairness directly, must be understood by all participants, while some rules, especially metagamed, can be hidden. However, all rules must be understandable. It must be possible to logically arrive at all of the rules, whether through empirical and experiential evidence, math, or deductive reasoning. Rules are really a subset of Fairness, but as I wished to highlight the very principles of fairness, I have distinguished rules as another topic to consider; we should be aware that all rules should be under the watchful eye of fairness.
While there is a general rule of fairness that permeates throughout all other rules, in general, by rule in a game, we are referring to a game mechanic. Game mechanics, of course, must be fair, but they have more to do with directly laying the framework for the actual Test in a game than anything else.
Game Mechanics seem pretty straightforward. In physical games this includes boundaries and procedures, and also the consequences of violation. In video games this includes those virtual boundaries and procedures, and so on and so forth. Game mechanics will include things like gravity, and other physical or virtual forces that act upon the player or influence activity within the game itself. Game mechanics form the environment, and range in simplicity and complexity. To be noted: even seemingly simple base game mechanics can deceptively still be the foundation of a game of great depth and difficulty.
By base rules or base game mechanics I mean the original and spoken rules of the game that must be initially understood to even begin play. To give an example, let’s consider the mighty, mighty game of Tic-Tac-Toe.
In Tic-Tac-Toe, the base rules/mechanics would be something like this:
1.) A 2-dimensional 3x3 playing grid, generally composed of 2 parallel lines perpendicularly aligned upon an identical pair of lines.
2.) Both players fairly decide on who goes first amongst themselves.
3.) There must be exactly 2 players, one player is O, the other player is X.
4.) Players will interact with the playing grid using only their respective letters when marking.
5.) The player who goes first is the first player to mark a playing field with his corresponding letter.
6.) Marks must be within one of the 9 given blank fields found on the paper playing grid.
7.) Once a field is marked, it cannot be marked again by either of the players.
8.) After one player marks, the other will be given a chance to mark, and they rotate in turns laying marks on the grid until a player wins or all 9 fields have been marked.
9.) A player wins when they place three of their own marks in a horizontal, vertical, or diagonal row.
10.) If no player wins, and all 9 fields have been marked, then the game is a tie (called a cat in this game).
Other possible rules to consider, often socially based:
11.) A player generally has a short amount of time to make a decision, and cannot stall the game any longer than is required to make a decision, which shouldn’t take more than a few seconds.
12.) Rule accountability is managed by both players.
13.) A violation of the rules may result in a game loss if the opposing player so chooses.
14.) Usually, multiple games of Tic-Tac-Toe, with both players having gone first an equal number of times are required for the best player, with the highest average of wins to be named the overall winner.
These are the game mechanics of Tic-Tac-Toe. Prima facie, Tic-Tac-Toe’s rules generally follow rules of fairness. All of these rules are knowable by all players. Players decently seem to reap what they sow in this game, and there are clear objectives and rewards, even if skill doesn’t amount to too much (it is a kid’s game after all).
When evaluating the base mechanics, we’ll find that tic-tac-toe is a very simple game. Some games aren’t as simple though. You’ll notice that Chess would have a much larger ruleset, and we may even be able to produce games with infinite rulesets.
We are still missing a key element in understanding the rules of a game. There is another level we must take this to in order to really hit the heart of what game mechanics really mean in a substantial sense, especially with respect to the concept of fairness, and applications of reaping what you sow in virtue of your skill alone. We cannot simply look at base rulesets to determine fairness; we must calculate the meaning of the base mechanics to fully understand the consequences and possible future action trees available to all player(s). This calculation, which gives deducible and relevant insight into the hidden mechanics that can and must be inferred from the base mechanics, results in metagame rulesets.
What do I mean by metagame? Literally, it is the game after (outside) the game. In reality, it is the strategy of a game.
Game mechanics, after evaluation, become far more extensive than one would originally realize. We should be able to deduce from the base rules an even further set of rules, the rules of the player and strategist, that which we might call the metagame.
Metagame, essentially, is the addition of further rulesets formed from assumptions of strategic play using our initial base rulesets, traditionally based on the anticipation of an opponent’s strategy or, and more importantly and inclusively, the expected results of a player’s own possible choices that limit and distinguish the better courses of action available to a player. Metagame is the development or a narrowing down of choices concerning future action trees that increase a player’s probability of winning. Metagaming, the verb, occurs when a player takes advantage of the metagame for purposes of winning more often (we might simply call metagaming just strategic play). By means of the estimation of how other players will make decisions, and knowledge of how the rulesets working together to create further deducible rulesets, the metagamer can build his strategy designed specifically against his opponent’s strategy or simply to improve upon a previous strategy of his own.
Metagame stems from base game mechanics and strategies that will evolve from those base rulesets. Thus, fair metagames are based on fair base rulesets.
Metagame rulesets deduced from the expected results of a player’s own possible choices are quite calculable. This sort of knowledge is usually acquired through experience, and is often intuitive, but remains quite calculable. We would call this sort of thinking strategy in general. A strategy is a preformed set of rules that are artificially applied to an original set of rules. What must be understood is that all possible strategies can be calculated in a game, even if they are infinite in number and size, and that through some natural selection and deduction, players ‘weed-out’ poor strategies in favor of strong strategies. Available strong strategies form further rules, thus forming more complex rulesets. Thus, new rules can be deducted from the base rules. And, it is possible that a metagame will be built upon the first metagame; which can continue ad infinitum, but nevertheless it remains a backbone of understanding rules and fairness in the context of gaming.
Tic-Tac-Toe, which is very subject to combinatorial game theory and computation, is a perfect candidate for exploring the meaning of metagame. We can see the results of all possible play combinations, which is quite limited for a game (only 255,168 combinations with wins and not excluding symmetrical positions), and thus we are in a very good position to express a further set of rules that one must play by in order to win. So, in the game of Tic-Tac-Toe, what is the metagame that will result from the base mechanics? And, how do we arrive at the metagame?
To arrive at the true and complete metagame, we must evaluate all combinations of play. We must dissect all possible future actions trees. We must calculate the win/lose/draw probabilities of any choice in every circumstance. Generally, gamers do this intuitively and experientially; but rarely fully. Again I emphasize that the metagame remains quite calculable.
Tic-Tac-Toe has very few choices available, so evaluation is mathematically much simpler. Looking at all possible
combinations of play, in order to win or avoid losing in tic-tac-toe requires that the player consistently perform as many of the following actions as possible with each mark — listed in order of priority — without sacrificing the higher priorities:
Complete three in a row.
Block their opponent from completing three in a row.
Threaten a win with two possible completions in two rows.
Avoid a configuration in which the opponent can force the win.
Threaten a win with a possible completion (two in a row).
Prevent the opponent from getting two in a row.
The player must also think ahead to see whether a mark can be made this turn that will allow him or her to achieve a higher priority in the next turn.
In reality, the game is won or drawn after the first two marks are made, assuming perfect play for the remainder of the game. It is therefore very important for the serious tic-tac-toe player to study these openings (of which there are 12) in order to avoid making a mark that enables the opponent to force a win, or to recognize marks that can be capitalized upon in order to force the win.
The first player, whom we shall designate "X," has 3 possible positions to mark during the first turn. Superficially, it might seem that there are 9 possible positions, corresponding to the 9 squares in the grid. However, by rotating the board, we will find that in the first turn, every corner mark is strategically equivalent to every other corner mark. The same is true of every edge mark. For strategy purposes, there are therefore only three possible first marks: corner, edge, or center. Player X can win or force a draw from any of these starting marks. The choice of which to make will depend on the player's knowledge of their opponent's weaknesses in recognizing good answers to a particular opening. In a series of games, alternating the opening mark and its superficial position can help a player win more often against a weaker player.
The second player, whom we shall designate "O," must respond to X's opening mark in such a way as to avoid the forced win. Player O must always respond to a corner opening with a center mark, and to a center opening with a corner mark. An edge opening must be answered either with a center mark, a corner mark next to the X, or an edge mark opposite the X. Any other responses will allow X to force the win. Once the opening is completed, O's task is to follow the above list of priorities in order to force the draw, or else to gain a win if X makes a weak play.
Players soon discover that best play leads to a draw, regardless of where the first player plays.
As you can see, the base rules transform into a further, deducible set of rules and strategy that players should follow if they wish to win. All games have this feature. But, there are further metagame considerations. In noting how this game is played, and even the people that do play it, we will often find that there is a problem in reaping what you sow.
In Tic-Tac-Toe, the problem is that players can place marks without real thought or strategy behind it or they can even randomly place their marks and often receive the same benefits and consequences as someone who really put thought into it. Clearly, we have difficult judging who deserved to win and who didn’t. Truly skilled Tic-Tac-Toe players aren’t always receiving proper reward for their skill. We would call this a problem of a skill-cap, in which skill only means so much. There is a limit to which skill is displayed and rewarded in this game (if only in the perspective of single matches). This isn’t fair to a truly skilled gamer. Tic-Tac-Toe ceases to be a skill-based event in some instances, and, insofar as it isn’t based on skill, it isn’t a game. This skillcap is a problem that stems from the very base ruleset, and becomes evident in Tic-Tac-Toe’s metagame.
We must recognize that even Tic-Tac-Toe is still not in perfect conformity with the form of a game. And, if Tic-Tac-Toe is clearly not full-proof balanced and fair, then what games of ours are? We may need to add components like no skill-caps, proportional returns at different skill levels, and other complexities just to ensure that every player receives the appropriate consequences of their actions. Again, we see that ugly unfairness raise its head, even in a game as simple as Tic-Tac-Toe.
But, it gets even more complicated.
Metagame rulesets based on the anticipation of another’s action is also a form of expected results calculation. For most, this is the traditional meaning of metagaming, but it is really contained within the first definition. This is the hardest portion of the metagame, and the least understood. The trick to this aspect of metagame is that anticipation of another’s action isn’t as clearly and easily defined and calculable, giving the metagamer a more difficult foundation upon which he can deduce the best course of action. Often this metagaming is based upon using your mental skill and intuition to deduce or guess the most likely course of action your opponent will choose, and the best option you should choose in response. However, we want sure deductions, and this makes our life much harder. How can you be sure what another player will do?
As free will exists (another paper for you altogether), we must assume that an opponent could possibly choose anything from a myriad of options and strategies. In fact, if they are truly free with respect to a choice, then we can’t (without some omniscient foreknowledge) fully deduce or even empirically know what choice a person will make with certainty. If this is the case, then it is possible that a strategy that initially seemed most probable to give the best results will not actually be result in the best possible rewards in some circumstances, in virtue of the possibility that your opponent can choose something else altogether.
However, at the very least, we can say that an individual (or even group of beings) with free will is more likely to make a particular choice as opposed to others. There is no explicit contradiction in thinking people are inclined towards certain beliefs or methods of thought and action while remaining completely free with respect to those beliefs or methods of thought and action (or, at least I will assume so for the time being). Insofar as we can calculate those probabilities, we are able to make, at least in metaphysical possibility, deductions that form a valid part of a game.
We might consider, although I’m not necessarily advocating it, that an opponent with free will isn’t actually a part of the rules themselves at all. If we wished go down this path, at first glance, we might be denying the causal deducibility of certain games with free opponents. On the other hand, all other factors would remain quite deducible. If my opponent chooses X, then Y occurs. If I choose A, then B occurs. But, it can get more complicated. What if: if my opponent chooses X and I choose A, then B; and, if my opponent chooses Y and I choose A, then C; ad nauseum? Does this still follow the basic laws of causality? We may need to say that, with respect to free beings acting upon a deterministic game….yes.
Of course, this sort of metagame ruleset only applies to games in which you face opponents with free will. The anticipation of computer-based choices would fall under my first explanation of metagaming. We can see that in a free will based calculation we have a lot of work to do.
Moving on:
Generally, in good and balanced games, metagames will evolve continuously, which is especially true for games with free opponents. There should always be a counter for an action; and a counter for that counter, and a counter for the counter’s counter, and so on and so forth. This creates incentive to innovate, to anticipate, and can fully extend the viability and necessity of mental skill in a game.
An underlying point to understand, especially concerning evolving metagames, is that the choices available have always remained the same. You still always had the future action trees available; you just may not have used them. A good example of this would be an unskilled player who technically HAS the capacity to follow a certain action tree, but never will, maybe because they aren’t skilled enough to execute or even realize which future actions in the tree are the best to use in the circumstances.
Again, in the truly perfect, possibly unending metagame, this sort of thinking is based on calculable results which would result in perfectly equal and countering strategies, such that strat A is countered by strat B, which is countered by strat C, and so on and so forth, such that there is no truly best option, at any given skill level, only a best for the moment or circumstance, possibly relative to your opponent’s position and choices. Certainly this means that there will be strategies that are suboptimal, even in a perfect game, but that there isn’t necessarily a universally correct strategy to use. We mean to say, that certain strategies will never be viable in the truly perfect game, but that in true balance, there must be strategies that are equal, countering, and significant enough to use instead of another, else, everyone would always choose the exact same strategy (which isn’t much of a challenge in the end). Generally, in most games we create, there are clear archetypes and strategies that prevalent and accepted, and are in fact the deducibly best option to always use. This form of a stagnant metagame, heavily reliant upon archetype and class based strategies is due to a flaw in the base ruleset of a game.
What about rulesets which are not easy to calculate, or even truly incalculable, like the weather or randomness?
By definition, game mechanics do NOT include non-competitive functions or influences upon the game. Things like socialization, sportsmanship, random functions, or even the weather are not part of gaming. These particulars of a game are arbitrary, and do not fairly test a players skill in any way.
Probably the most interesting feature found in our games that people believe is a true game mechanic, and the hardest to define for people, is randomness. Randomness appears to be a mechanic of the game, but it isn’t a fair one. And, yes, we must accept that it exists in some so-called games. And, yes, it takes skill to work around it, but insofar as something is truly random, the causality of a particular circumstance is, at least to some extent, eliminated; therefore, you are not fully responsible for the result of an action; you are not playing a fair competition; thus, you are not gaming with respect to randomness.
Randomess is an innately flawed concept for gaming. Whether you believe it is even possible to exist or not, in so far as a player is not responsible for the consequences of his action, he can not be held responsible for winning/losing/drawing (which is what gaming is about). Do we see randomness in supposed games everyday? Yes! Can randomness make it interesting and unexpected? Of course. But, entertainment is not gaming. The violation of the principles of fairness, to ANY degree, is a violation of the form of game. To the degree an activity is random, it is not a game.
Take the game of Poker. Insofar as a poker player played his hand the best it could have been played, assuming and considering the random components of poker in his calculations, he is responsible for it, and he is in that respect gaming. So, keeping calculably good hands would be a form of skill, and the evaluations of plays themselves (as opposed to their results), which are based on probability, can have any meaning in judging fairness and skill of a player. Insofar as poker is luck of the draw, and the player is not responsible in this respect, that person is not gaming. Sure, from a macro perspective, over thousands of games, the brilliant poker player will have a lot more wins than the unskilled poker player, this is just probability. And, in this scope, over an infinite set of games, we can maintain skill-based play by judging the winner of the overall win/loss percentages. Controlled random factors can be possible in a game played to an infinite series. But, then we are only judging percentage of wins/loses/ties, and it is problematic that you have to use an infinite series of games to make such a judgement (which is hardly practical to finite beings). Most important, we cannot judge a single match or single play and always say about poker, Player A deserved to win over Player B, because Player A is more skilled. Insofar as Player A played with actual skill, and non-competitive forces and factors did not influence the outcome or fairness of the game, Player A deserves what he gets, and he is truly gaming. But, as poker really does have a large amount of randomness, poker players are really playing a hybrid of gaming and gambling. Poker is not a true and pure game. However fun it may be, fun is a secondary effect and function of a game. The object of the game-ness found in poker is to win, or to do the very best with what you have. However, it remains that randomness eliminates many elements of what could make Poker a true game. Instead, it is a form of gambling.
Other non-competitve influences like the weather might actually be calculable to begin with. And, in cases that there are not, maybe due to our innate intelligence (or lack thereof), we are limited in the scope of our responsibility. This is quite similar to Stephen Hawkings innate problems of playing basketball.Regardless, it is clear that non-competitive forces in our games are a major flaw, and prevent us from creating games that conform fully to the form of gaming.
Clearly, metagame rulesets that are unfair in a game stem from an initially unfair base ruleset. In order to adjust inequalities and unfairness in metagames rulesets, one must adjust the base ruleset. And, when a game has a truly fair base ruleset, a fair metagame must evolve. Is this practical, can it be applied? To some extent, yes. And, at the very least, as we know the meaning of the form of gaming, we can attempt to align our games with the perfect form of gaming through deduction, comparison, and some disciplined thinking in general.
3.) Testing is the execution of the game itself. It is the objective(s) of the player(s). It combines fairness and rules, and provides the battleground on which a player mentally and/or physically competes with himself and/or others. This IS the game. It has no value in itself, other than it is the mechanism which reveals the winners and losers. Pretty simple.
4.) Playing for the sake of playing is the last attribute of gaming I’ve found. This principle is true of the very form of games, because if you play for any other reason, you aren’t gaming. Competing, yes maybe…gaming, no. A race for production at work, playing for the money, or playing to impress someone is not gaming-- If this is your function of such an activity, then you are looking at the form of something else entirely.
How can this be?
Take 2 different activities of Chess. Event 1 is comprised of two people who have nothing at stake in the game, they play simply because they want to win. They play to test themselves against the rules of chess in a fair manner. Event 2 is comprised of two people who will win a million dollars for winning the event. They play to win yes, but they play to win in virtue of the million dollars, not in virtue of winning alone. They don’t care who deserved to win, they don’t care about the very game itself, they care about the million dollars. And, even if they did care about winning in virtue of winning to some extent, if winning in virtue of the million dollars was the actual priority and prime motivation to play, then we would still say that are playing to win a million dollars. Event 1 is gaming, Event 2 is competing for a million dollars. The ends sought by the players at the two events differ, and thus the very nature of the events are different. In gaming, you seek virtue of the practice, not the effects thereof.Participating in an event because it has cool graphics, or a good narrative, or because you’ll be []D[][]V[][]Din’ with the ladies, win cash, or to fill in your miserably boring life, etc, is not gaming. These are different ends in themselves, and the form of a different activity. Identical in procedures, possibly, but gaming they are not.
In conclusion:
Look in the history of games, what form and function do they all possess? Narrow those attributes down, and you will see I am correct concerning fair competition for the sake of winning as being central and necessary for a game to exist...It is what makes a game a game. As vacuumous as it may appear, and as cold and simple as it would seem. You can remove ALL other components from a game, and it can even be strictly abstract...but without the fair competition for the sake of winning, there is no game.
Just getting the site started. Thanks for coming. You'll probably see my lame and sometimes insightful comments concerning any number of topics. Sorry if it seems whimsical (this is my X-mas present, btw.)
//Obviously lifted from NIN. Reznor has always spoken to me.//
Thought I’d write a Christmas poem for my wife. Not very Christmasy, but she’ll enjoy the poem in virtue of the gift (as I comment on poetry far too often), rather than in virtue of the poem’s content. As I don’t write poetry, don’t expect much…I even needed a bit of help to start off.
See the animal in its cage that you built.
Are you sure what side you’re on?
Better not look him too closely in the eye.
Are you sure what side of the glass you are on?
See the safety of the life you have built…
Everything where it belongs.
Feel the hollowness inside of your heart.
And it’s all right where it belongs.
What if everything around you isn’t quite as it seems?
What if all the world you think you know is an elaborate dream?
And if you look at your reflection, is it all you want to be?
What if you could look right through the cracks?
Would you find yourself?
Find yourself afraid to see?
What if all the world is inside your heart?
Just creations of your own…
Your devils and your gods, all the living and the dead…
And, you really are alone.
You can live in this illusion.
You can choose to believe.
You keep looking, but you can’t find the words.
Are you hiding in the dreams?
Feel the hollowness inside your heart.
And it’s all right where it belongs.
You can peer into that void.
Is that all you wanted to see?
Find and forget, what you see means nothing.
Your joy is a waste; your sadness is merely a blur.
You will suffer, simply suffer alone.
Why should you carry on?
Why do you choose this path, the narrows of this dream?
You can choose to believe.
You can choose to live in this illusion,
But, you can’t explain why or how it is.
Why is everything where it belongs?
Hands have caged you.
Ordained dream of solitude…
You are His captive.
Proceed into that fantasy and stay!
Obey and live!
Know which side you are on.
Right here is where you belong.
Enslaved. You are meant to be.
Real or not, you can see.
True sight you may lack, but you are alive.
Live because you do; see because you can.
Exist as He commands.
Feel the hollowness inside of your heart.
And it’s all right where it belongs.
Do you see the One of the Real?
Beguiler, Creator and Thief …
Detest all, but love One.
You partake, but will you give?
You need not share yourself in this dream.
Reject the dream because it rejects you.
Shelter from the shadows; do not fear the apathy of your tower.
Won’t you shield yourself from the nightmare?
Yet, His cage hungrily welcomes you, and you must accept.
What more should you see? What will you believe?
You cannot refuse Him, but will you reject His?
Deny the dream, but live inside you must.
And it’s all right where it belongs.
See that blackness, blotted out.
Dream or not, you must search and fulfill.
Will One Will,
Will to seek…
See the animal in its cage that You built.
What can he do to please You?
Feel the hollowness inside your heart.
And it’s all right where it belongs.
Cause of causes,
I am blind.
Give me hope, heal my sight.
Relieve me!
So be it: Everything where it belongs.
Tempo and you. The Science of Time Advantage and the Age old question: To DoT or not to DoT.
Due to recent questions on a number of posts, I have decided to write another article concerning the utility and very essence of the DoT and how these abilities are relevant to the rogue class.
If you are a TLDR type person (even though I truly advocate reading), then skip to the bottom, and I’ll sum up the article in a single sentence for you.
For the rest of you, the real readers:
This is a primer in the supposed tempo exchanges that occurs when a player trades their valuable time (the cost) for effectively more damage and utility than a comparable direct damage effect (the reward)—we call this Damage over Time (DoT for short). I hope in this article you will learn why a person would choose to DoT and why they would choose not to use a DoT.
Traditionally, a DoT is an effect applied directly to an opponent in the form of a debuff that affects their HP over the duration of the debuff effect. Something along the lines of: “Every 3 seconds this player will lose 50hp for 30 seconds” or something to that effect. I will try to keep to this traditional sense of the term when speaking throughout the article, although, you will see why I have reason to suspect that other abilities, even player buffs like haste act similarly to traditional DoT effects.
*mind-blowing* You will also find that beneficial “over-time” effects should follow similar rules to damage over time effects.
Getting right to it–DoT effects, when balanced correctly, should do the following:
1.) Deal damage or usually win-condition based harm, in calculable increments, over a course of time (hopefully a reasonable amount of time); we often call these time segments “ticks,” like a clock.
2.) Deal MORE damage or harm, over a time segment, than an equally costed direct damage effect.
Pretty simple. Right?
Our first requirement is pretty standard, whether the effect is balanced or not. More or less, this lays the foundational definition for understanding the DoT. As said, Damage over time effects are accomplished by applying the DoT, and spending your time waiting for the full duration and effect to occur, of the course or life of that DoT.
The 2nd requirement is similar to the first, and gives us a perspective to work from when evaluating the utility of the DoT. Essentially, there must be an incentive for the DoTer to use DoTs as opposed to Direct damage effects (an effect that occurs all at once, and has the most minimal tempo loss possible). A DoTer is spending more than a DDer. The DoTer is spending his valuable time to get the full effect, and as the cost is higher, it would only be fair that the reward is higher than a comparable DD (as far as initial non-time costs would go).
I’ll give you an example (my favorite from Everquest):
A wizard (the DDer) casts a spell, and a necromancer (the DoTer) casts a spell. Both spells take 3 seconds to cast, cost 200 mana, require line of sight, etc. Essentially, both the DD and DoT spells have the exact same initial costs.
The DD deals 300 damage all at once.
The DoT deals 300 damage over the course of 12 seconds.
Look at these spells. Are these balanced? Is this fair to the necromancer? Why not?
The wizard casts for 3 seconds, and deals 300 damage, essentially putting him at 100 DPS. Meanwhile, the necro casts for 3 seconds, and must wait another 12 seconds to receive the same 300 damage as the wizard. Thus, the necromancer’s DoT is closer to 20 DPS. (noteworthy, the same idiots that designed DoT to DD relations in EQ are the same idiots that designed DoT to DD relations in WoW)
…some may ask, well, what is the big deal?…Let’s add another variable to the example. Pretend I’ve got a 300hp mob that can one-shot our casters, and is 6 seconds away, closing in to kill our casters. Both the DDer and DoTer get their effect to land on the mob. The DDer kills the mob upon spell impact, while the DoTer, 6 seconds later, has only dealt 120 damage, and dies immediately as he is pummeled into the ground by our lovely mob. Both had the same initial costs, why not the same reward?
The DDer has TEMPO advantage. He did not have to sacrifice his TIME to get the same effect as the DoTer. In this case, the difference was clear and distinct. That time difference made it so that DDer lived and the DoTer died.
The DoTer sacrifices his TIME or his tempo, hopefully for a greater benefit in the end. It is just logical that he should receive further benefits for his DoT, as he the cost of the spell is more than just the initial mana and cast time, he has to wait for the full effect, thus he should receive a greater benefit. So, when using a DoT, you better have VERY good reasons why you wouldn’t be using a DD effect…and you probably need a strategy as to howto correctly abuse the DoT effect.
Usually, game devs understand this concept (to some extent), and provide incentives to use DoTs. So, for example:
For the same initial costs:
A DDer may deal 200 damage all at once.
A DoTer may deal 300 damage over time.
For differing initial costs, in which the DoTer pays less initially, both deal the same amount of damage in the end.
Or a mix is fine. But, clearly, we need to consider the loss in tempo advantage as a part of the cost of the DoT effect. Really, these sorts of games are about mana, energy, hp and time exchanges; these are the expendable resources and the pools from which we draw to pay the costs of our spells and abilities for (hopefully) an appropriate reward. Abusing the relations between these exchanges is what gaming is all about my friends…Just remember: balance is about reap what you sow. With all this in mind, the DoTer CAN calculate the effects, and whether they are even worth using though.
In our calculations, we should be asking asking questions like: Should a Warlock DoT a mob that his group is going to kill in 7 seconds? Why not just shadowbolt? The DoT won’t deal more damage than the DD over that period of time, the DD makes the fight quicker, so the tank takes less damage, so he holds agro better, and less healing is required, and the mana efficiency overall, and time bought to med through quicker kills, means you can take adds and even complete the entire instance more quickly…etc, etc, etc.
Anyways, What other effects do DoTs have in WoW?
-Is usually a flat, set amount of damage taken per time unit, and generally is harder to mitigate once landed. Thus, it is modular in that it either lands in full or non-at-all…unlike a DD which can be mitigated to a further extent through resists etc. This can be both good and bad.
-Less aggro possibly (still needs further testing), as the full effect happens gradually, there will less damage spikes. (Unless you played EQ, where DoTs had MORE agro)
-Prevents classes from effectively stealthing or invising.
-Prevents an opponent from effectively being the target of traditional control abilities that break upon damage, like sap/sheep/blind/etc. (ouch)
-Takes up a debuff slot (there are only so many, and so you want to use what is most powerful)
The DoT can do some very interesting tricks, and can abuse different strengths, but also has some MAJOR weaknesses. Clearly, it is a loss of tempo advantage in terms of crowd control (a huge concern to anyone with half a brain), but it also avoids certain forms of mitigation quite effectively.
So, what does this all mean for the rogue? And, quite relevant, what does this mean for the future rogue class of TBC, in which our DoTs are being buffed? Time to examine our future abilities:
The rogue innately has 3 DoT effects: Garrote, Rupture and Deadly Poisons. Unfortunately, these are pretty complex abilities to use. It isn’t like we can just use them and think of their use in pure damage terms. In order to examine them, we’ll need to compare them to other abilities to see why we would ever want to use them. We will also have to evaluate the aspects of each of the relevant options concerning, still usually about damage. Basically, we are doing the same DD to DoT type of thinking here, only it will be somewhat more complex.
For the sake of the argument, we’ll assume a level 70 rogue with 1250AP, with 25% chance to crit (even though it will be in the form of a rating), wearing 2x
Gladiator’s Shanker
Binds when picked up
One-Hand Dagger
127 - 191 Damage Speed 1.80
(88.3 damage per second)
+21 Stamina
Durability 75 / 75
Requires Level 70
Equip: Improves hit rating by 8.
Equip: Improves critical strike rating by 14.
Equip: Improves your resilience rating by 9.
Equip: +28 Attack Power.
So, what does this future TBC rogue want to do? He has options…To DoT or not to DoT. Let us look at the openers available at 70 per thottbot.
Openers:
Garrote=50e=AP * 0.18 + 810 over 18 seconds, and 3 second silence, and 1 combo point
Ambush= 60e w/dagger MH= 1.25[2.5(Avg Weapon Damage + AP/14 * 1.7) + 335] and 1 combo point
Cheapshot=60e= 4(1.25[MH DPS + AP/14 + 0.5(OH DPS) + AP/14]) and 2 combo points and +40 Energy from regeneration. (Assuming no offhand bonus talents)
With respective talents, of course, these numbers become:
Garrote=30e= 1.2(AP * 0.18 + 810) over 18 seconds, and 3 second silence, and 1.75 combo points on average. Control against casters (to some extent).
Average Ambush= 60e=1.90(1.2[2.5(Avg Weapon Damage + AP/14 * 1.7) + 335]) and 1.75 combo point on average and possible additional point with SF, also can be used in conjunction with Cold blood. Zero control.
Cheapshot=40e= 4(1.25[MH DPS + AP/14 + 0.5(OH DPS) + AP/14]) and 2.75 combo points on average and +40 Energy from regeneration. Absolute control. (Assuming no offhand bonus talents)
Time do a little math, assuming the 1250AP, 25% crit chance, with 2x Gladiator’s Daggers:
Garrote=1,242 damage over 18 seconds (69 DPS or 207 per tick) + 3 seconds of Silence + 1.75 combo points on average.
Average Ambush=3,243 and 1.75 combo point on average and possible additional point with SF, also can be used in conjunction with Cold blood.
Cheapshot=2,085 damage and 2.75 combo points on average and +40 Energy from regeneration. (Assuming no offhand bonus talents)… Of course, we’ll need to calculate what this +40 energy and extra combo point means to a rogue, as it is part of the reward for using CS. Just remember, that a stunned opponent is an opponent unable to act, and thus with 4 seconds of time advantage, you essentially get to act upon an opponent as if these 4 seconds were all happening in a single moment (with the exception of trinket). It is clear Tempo advantage.
Even though SS is best used with slower weapons, we’ll just convert that +40 energy into an SS with our dagger (we could use a comparable fist or sword weapon with 2.8 speed, but I’ll be conservative for you). Do remember, that we could always wait 1 tick and backstab for much higher damage as well ;P…
The average SS will be 346 damage + 1 combo point. Assuming we burned our +40 Energy on this, the new damage becomes 2,431 with 3.75 combo points.
I’m not going to hold your hand the entire way, and so we’ll just assume a basic eviscerate difference (feel free to read http://forums.roguespot.com/viewtopic.php?t=2922&highlight= to get a better idea of what these +2 combo points for CS mean currently, although, I’ll need to update for level 70). We’ll just make it an easy to calculate imp eviscerate.
Two combo points of eviscerate is roughly 430 damage. Calculating talents, crit, and AP at:
1.25[1.15(AP * 0.15 + 430)]=887 damage
Assuming we use SS and convert the +2 combo points available to equalize our energy and combo points to other talents, puts becomes:
Cheapshot=3318 damage and 1.75 combo points.
First off, this is pretty amazing damage on a paper target if you ask me…survivability changes my ass. Clearly, ambush does some crazy damage (I had to triple check it just to be sure, my eyes couldn’t believe it). Now, we get to the harder part of the evaluation.
Let’s cross out the common 1.75 combo points, and assume they aren’t a part of the picture (even though, in the end, it could make a difference, but I don’t have time to show you why). And, for the moment, we will only consider the actually ability itself, and not subsequent abilities, as I only have so much time and space. So to compare the new three abilities:
Garrote=1,242 damage over 18 seconds (69 DPS or 207 per tick) (silenced)
Average Ambush=3,243 damage (instant)
Cheapshot=3318 damage over 4+ seconds (stunned)
Considering talents, the energy cost per point of damage is:
Garrote=41.4 damage per point of energy
Ambush=54.05 damage per point of energy
Cheapshot=82.95 damage per point of energy
Just in terms of efficiency, assuming we’ll be using one finisher (pretty safe), then Cheapshot is the best.
In terms of the time usage:
Garrote=18 seconds
Ambush=Instant
Cheapshot=4 seconds. But, as it is a stun, it is almost as if you didn’t spend any time at all…as you gained a 4 second time advantage over the opponent.
If you are constrained by time and you only get one hit in on your opponent, Ambush is clearly the winner. However, if you have an extended fight, atleast 4 seconds long, then Cheapshot is still the highest damage opener you can get (assuming your opponent is stunnable). And, this is only including solo fights, we’d want to calculate the DPS of an entire group over 4 seconds to understand what CS means inside a group context.
Now, to get to what makes our wonderful Garrote DoT so wonderful *sigh:
Looking specifically at Garrote, it isn’t until a 62% damage mitigation that Garrote can actually deal more damage over an 18 second time period than the instant damage of Ambush, and it isn’t until 63% damage mitigation that Garrote can actually deal more damage over an 18 second time period than Cheapshot.
You are looking at a ridiculously high amount of melee damage mitigation. So, unless you are fighting a warrior, bear form druid, or an insane paladin, this is useless with exception of the silence effect (which we will also find is useless).
Noteworthy, there are a number of effects that can remove the bleed effect, and make Garrote’s damage become even further diminished. Cheapshot as well can be trinketed.
In terms of control, we will look at these abilities as:
Garrote=3 seconds of silence, and an ungougable-unblindable-unsappable-unsheepable-unseduable-etc. target.
Ambush=None
Cheapshot=Absolute 4 second time advantage, but resistable with talents. (the 15% still makes it worth using). Can be linked with other stun/incap/disorient effects…
Now, Garrote has a serious advantage in the silence department over Ambush. But, how much better is it against cheapshot? With the exception of a mage that can blink, or a trinket effect…none.
I’m not even going to explain what can happen to a rogue that loses control (I have another article on this, search for “Back to Basics”).
So, remember at the beginning, when I introduced what makes a DoT useful? It fails to deal more damage until a ridiculous amount of armor mitigation…and even then, it would need to deal worlds more damage to be worth waiting that full amount of time.
Would you rather deal 3k damage at once or 1k over 18 seconds?….People can heal, eat, even maybe have time to pot on a DoT….instant damage (or damage while stunned, which is very similar) simply makes a DoT effect, even at equal damage, not worth using.
Garrote is nearly pointless. It doesn’t deal enough damage to be used in the vast majority of circumstances, usually an ambush or cheapshot is just more effective. Also note that its initial costs are also inefficiently high compared to the other opens. Even in conjunction with talents like vanish and what not, both CS and Ambush are stronger opens. The silence is easily overtaken by the sheer power of stun. This is a gimped DoT…thank your friendly devs at Blizzard for being retarded.
Only on an unstunnable mob, and a mob that will in no way be CCed, with no daggers, should a rogue use Garrote. Good luck finding all those wonderful garrote opportunities. And even then, a Sinister strike or Hemo will approach Garrote damage. Just stick to instant or stunned damage, forget Garrote.
Alright, now I’ve covered one of our DoT’s for you. I will try to quickly move through our other two DoTs available at 70. Probably my favorite DoT is our finisher, rupture.
Rupture (Rank 7)
25 Energy 5 yd range
Instant
Requires Melee Weapon
Finishing move that causes damage over time, increased by your attack power. Lasts longer per combo point:
1 point : 324 damage over 8 secs
2 points: 460 damage over 10 secs
3 points: 618 damage over 12 secs
4 points: 798 damage over 14 secs
5 points: 1000 damage over 16 secs
Rupture 7 - 24% of your AP
Damage = (AP * 0.24) + X (where X=static damage based on number of combo points) over Y seconds
Alongside talents found deep in the sub tree (a very worthy one), you can pump this damage up. Rupture begins to look more like:
Assuming our original rogue: a 5-point rupture w/talents is This is a measly 105 DPS, or 211.35 per tick. Sounds pretty awful, but I think we’ll find SOME use for it.
So, let’s do the run down quickly. To save you some time, we can speed it up—here is the 5-point damage spread of each finisher with talents.
Rupture=1.3(AP*0.24+X)= 1690 damage over 16 seconds=105 DPS
Eviscerate=1.25[1.15(AP * 0.15 + X)=1685 damage instantly
Envenom=1.25?(AP*0.15 + X)=1087 or 1359 assuming crit rate.
Slice and Dice= 1.3[(21*1.45)(1.25[MH DPS + AP/14 + 0.5(OH DPS) + AP/14])] - [21*1.45(1.25[MH DPS + AP/14 + 0.5(OH DPS) + AP/14])]=4,763 over 31 seconds (Assumes no offhand bonus, nor poison damage)
Kidney Shot=X(1.25[MH DPS + AP/14 + 0.5(OH DPS) + AP/14]) + Y energy=3,128 damage over 6 seconds + 60 energy or w/talents 3,409 damage over 6 seconds + 60 energy. And the opponent is stunned (no gaps). (Assumes no offhand bonus, nor poison damage) Like Cheapshot, we’ll need to calculate the +60 energy and whatever bonuses we get from that. We’ll use backstab to make it easy. Assuming talents, on average backstab will add 1,578 damage and one combo point. Again, for the sake of the argument, we’ll convert that combo point into eviscerate damage. Adding, on average, between 319 and 406 depending on whether we calculate whether we calculate it as the first or the last point of eviscerate, we’ll just average these two, at 362. In any case, after spending the energy and combo points gained from Kidney shot, the net damage value becomes: 5068 damage on a stunned target (no gaps). (Assumes no offhand bonus, nor poison damage)
So, quick damage recap on 5-point finishers:
Rupture=1690 damage over 16 seconds (unmitigated by armor)
Eviscerate=1685 damage instantly
Envenom=1087 damage instantly or 1359 assuming crit rate. (unmitigated by armor)
Slice and Dice=4,763 over 31 seconds
Kidney Shot= 5068 damage on a stunned target.
If it can be stunned, then you should be Kidney shotting (unless you are saving it for other purposes). Inside a solo context, Kidney shot is head an shoulders above every other finisher; in a group setting, where multiple targets are targeting your opponent, and every gets the free 6 second tempo advantage, KS just completely eclipses everything else in a rogue’s arsenal.
If it can’t be stunned, and it tanked for 30 seconds or more, then Slice and Dice is your goto ability (clearly the raiders choice). It should be noted that this abuses poisons to a greater degree than other finishers…
The others are useful. Envenom looks somewhat promising for our Deadly Poison loaded rogues fighting very high armor targets. Eviscerate clearly has the best instant damage of everything here (as it should). Unlike Garrote, Rupture can actually compete in damage with other abilities….it doesn’t compete well, but it helps.
At 40% mitigation, Eviscerate only averages 1,011, while Rupture is still the constant 1690. At 70% mitigation (which is pretty amazing), eviscerate is hitting for 505 on average. Envenom, however, may make rupture somewhat less useful.
Remember: the point of a DoT is that you are paying the cost of your precious time (waiting for the full effect), so that the initial costs (energy, points, etc) will be lower and/or the end effect is proportionally HIGHER than a direct and instant effect.
Can rupture do this?….Maybe. With extreme mitigation, on unstunnable targets (or targets you wish not to stun), on untankable targets, and on targets that will NOT be CCed, Eviscerate, KS, and Slice and Dice are either unusable or maybe not worth using if you can find ways to shelter yourself after applying Rupture. However, remember that it is much easier to answer a DoT effect than an instant. In the end, rupture still appears to be, in the vast majority of cases, unusable.
There are two cases in PvP where we use it: 1.) Warriors. With low cost CS, quick CP generation, and rupture/vanish before the end of CS, a rogue can get a 5-point high damage, unmitigated finisher (buffed by their Berserker stance usually) without any fear of reprisal (excluding trinket, but a smart warrior waits for KS anyways). 2.) Applying a DoT effect because you NEED to periodically damage an opponent, most often, against an opponent that you want keep from stealthing or invising effectively. Rupture kiting a rogue can be useful, as it can save us CDs.
However!…while using rupture, we still cannot blind/sap/sheep/gouge a target, and in SO many cases this is a huge problem. If necessary, I’ll show you why the sacrifice of 5.5 seconds of gouge is makes rupture not worth using at all…But, essentially, no lacking the ability to gouge/blind/sap in solo, and the ability to seduce/sheep/etc. in group, make rupture far less viable. If you have questions on control, please refer to my other article concerning it.
Conclusion on rupture…it is worlds better than Garrote, but still not up to par for why we should use this DoT in most cases. And, with the upcoming Envenom, I may become even less impressed with Rupture…but we’ll see!
On to our last DoT (you’ve almost made it!), Deadly poison! The important poisons to consider:
Deadly 7=30% chance to poison enemy with 180 nature damage over 12 sec…or 30 per tick per dose. Stacks up to 5 times.
Instant Poison 7=20% chance to poison the enemy which instantly inflicts 146-194 Nature damage (170 average)
Crippling Poison 2=Snare…(hell yeah, movement speed imbalances between you and target ftw)..A rogue out of range deals no damage. In PvP situations, this is your poison of choice…even against classes that can dispel poisons or that can break out of snare effects…every bit of movement speed imbalance counts.
Deadly=54 damage per weapon strike
Instant=34 damage per weapon strike
Problems to consider. Deadly can only stack up to five times, while instant has no problems. Deadly requires that the target last for 12 seconds, instant is modular. Deadly makes it so you can’t use CC effects (which is a huge loss).
In grinding:
Something along the lines of CS-SS-Gouge-KS is what you should always be doing in solo situations. Why? Gouge is +15 energy and a combo point. Deadly negates this. I’ll let you do the math if you think I’m wrong here… That 20 damage difference between deadly and instant, in solo situations clearly isn’t worth it, as the loss of gouge is too great. Losing gouge means you don’t get that +15 energy and 1 combo point…easily 300-400 damage instant from that combo point and energy wasted because you wanted to grab another 20 damage per swing? This is assuming you never break the 5-stack barrier, and that you won’t have a need to CC the target.
Envenom, however, may make deadly more viable. Against high armor targets that won’t be SnD’d or KSed, and clearly won’t be eviscerated, and a target that won’t last 16 seconds after your finisher, envenom may deal more damage than rupture. With envenoms narrow viability, cutting into rupture’s use, we may have a need for deadly poison. But, this is a very well-timed fight. (Note: you lose that last 150 damage from a 5-point Deadly tick if you efficienty waited for the last tick before using envenom).
For all intensive purposes, a rogue should be sticking to instant. Only if a mob will not be CCed (including gouge), will last for longer than 12 seconds should you even consider the use of deadly poison. So, for raiding where poisons can actually land, a deadly mainhand isn’t a bad idea..otherwise, stick to instant or crippling.
Like the other DoT effects, deadly poison doesn’t really give us a ton of incentive to use it. Garrote, Rupture, and Deadly poison are HIGHLY situational. They might be fun, but they aren’t the best usually.
I will admit there are more complications to how we calculate these circumstances. I gave as brief as possible summary of these DoT abilities in context. I did try to stick to average damage with as few variables as possible to evaluate the base abilities themselves. The point I tried to make clear was that Blizzard has failed to make DoTs (especially for rogues) a viable option to use as bread’n’butter abilities.
DoT’s should:
1.) Deal damage or usually win-condition based harm, in calculable increments, over a course of time (hopefully a reasonable amount of time); we often call these time segments “ticks,” like a clock.
2.) Deal MORE damage or harm, over a time segment, than an equally costed direct damage effect.
Our DoT effects only attempt to keep up with our DD effects. Also, our tempo advantage stuns and abilities like Slice and dice, which act as DoT’s in some ways, are truly more powerful than the traditional DoTs we have been given.
Conclusion, especially for my TLDR People:
Rogues, even at level 70, have almost no mathematical incentive to use DoTs.
I enjoyed our Christmas. It was odd in that the house has been relatively empty. But, we made the best of it. We had AA’s family over on Christmas Eve. It took at least two days to whip the house into shape and get all of the cooking done (thank you k0sh3k). We did a great job. Of course, we didn’t put up the mandatory Christmas tree (but I’ve already stated my opinion of this), but I don’t care what others think about the issue…Cleaning out of the garage was probably the hardest task (but, yay! it is done…I can breathe freely now).
j3d1h got a bunch of presents (books, toys, clothes, etc). k0sh3k got some charms, a head orgasmatron massager (way cool, I thought it was retarded until I tried it…everyone loves it), some lottery tickets as an inside joke (although I didn’t buy them, I won them in a white elephant party), and a “Ryrie” (sp?) study Bible, and I got this website…Jim wouldn’t budge, and remained quite silent about whatever he wanted; he is getting cash (because I simply won’t buy something for a person unless I know they will want/need it…and I’m sure a college student could use some cash).
Work blows, as usual. I love working, I can be very productive. I like tasks. But, I don’t like being undervalued. I do a normal person’s day of work in a couple hours, what incentive do I to do any more? Too much pressure and stress in this workplace concerning “their careers” in general…as if what we do is ’so’ important. Lol. Not that I don’t think everyone has a place, but be honest. If everyone was doing the right thing, we’d be praising, worshiping, and studying God and His Will. If 6 billion people started doing that right now, I guarentee you that God would provide for us….isn’t that definitional of heaven in some respects? We give up our freedom and will to God, and He will regain His dominion over us in the fullest sense (as He gave up His right to us in the act of giving us freedom), and in return, through His dominion, God will be a steward, half master and half caretaker, of His creations. So, yeah, I think we all might be sinning by doing anything other than thinking about and worshipping God….
Back on topic…lol.
I was glad to have the family (that remains in the states) over for dinner (including Allen). We had a good time. We even got to test the Nintendo Wii out. 250$ on that…not bad. Although, I think the people who own it could have used/spent that money more wisely /shrug, but hey, I’m not out of debt completely either (we have the money to pay off the full debt though, but we are still creating that financial buffer).
We got pictures taken, took 2 full hours of waiting (and we had been scheduled). They are pretty good ones too.
As good as Christmas was, Advent sucked. Our Sunday school class is…old. They are bad at it though. I’d expect they would be wiser. Why am I surprised? Even these people are just don’t get it. I see two major trains of thought in these older folks: 1.) The pragmatist. This person believes in all that is practical and concrete. And, I do appreciate this approach. In fact, used correctly, you can arrive at truth. These are the depression era types, and we fully understand the protective and conservative views and behaviors of these people. The problem is that they can come to practice pragmatism at the sacrifice of the true aims of being practical: successful and wise thinking. In the end, and I hate to say it, so-called pragmatists, are often lazy thinkers. Everything in moderation people. 2.) The relativist. We goto a church that is a bit more high steeple than I’m used to. These are older and somewhat more well-off people than usual. They are also more educated (or conditioned if you will). This means that I run into the post-modern and relativist reply on every Sunday…even from our usual teacher (although k0sh3k does teach, and I enjoy those Sunday’s more). It is so unfortunate that we don’t have more people with pragmatist values who can effectively wrestle and argue with the relativists. Generally good, but often stupid people. Do I look down on this? Hell yes. I hope I don’t end up like that…not that i’m not already a bitter old man by 21.
Bah, I simplify too much…it is sad that I can’t get even a quarter of my thoughts, or most any real detail…I am lazy and incompetent in this respect.
As to all things WoW: I’ve recently botted my new rogue to 60 (hit 60 on X-mas Eve). Took me 4 weeks because of patches and lots of issues, or 9.5 days played in game (which puts me as the fastest botter on WoWglider I believe). Now I am grinding up to High Warlord gear (easy enough). Took us a weekend to get ONE piece. That is simply amazing, considering the original r14 HWL gear took 6 months at around 18-20 hours a day of grinding…I can do it in 20-30 hours, stretched over time, for a single piece. 1-2 weeks at the old r14 pace would give you the full set and then some. I dearly want to bot the BG’s, but I suspect high detection rates. For now, I’ll lay low..after all I really only need the weapons which simply won’t be matched anywhere else until 70. TBC is out on the 16th. So, I’ll be fully prepared I think…with the exception of my lost playing skill. 2 months of not playing has brought me down to a mediocre level. I still win, but I’m not unbeatable in a duel (in part because I haven’t broken a gear level threshold to maintain a consistent threat, even full-CD, against top opponents).
For MTG: Playing High Tide/Reset, “Solidarity,” and I’m having fun with it. It is a responsive deck entirely. It can win as an instant, and really breaks the rules of the game in some ways. My version is of course against the B/R list, but who cares…it is much more consistent. It has excellent games against most any deck (exluding the necro deck which can own the game turn 1..uhh…Mox, land, rit, necro, Duress, GG).
All in all– Good Christmas.
Finally Mom and Dad got their internet connection! …(there are actually a few things about the U.S. that are so much better than everything else in the world..although, maybe I’m just blind to the corruption in our own government and society.) Anyways, we got to talk to them for the first time in months, which was fantastic. They are doing well. It sounds like they are still adjusting to life in Thailand (and who wouldn’t be?).
k0sh3k made a fantastic potatoe soup (and she stuff potatoe skins too…which totally wtfpwnd). Highly recommend it.
Botting AV did not work last night. Damnit. I ran a macro from my n52 to my keyboard, a mouse macro, and the very bot itself…this was to make my character actually automatically join, enter, leave, and, more importantly, actually do something inside the BG itself. Being able to run around while inside lowers my chances of detection dramatically. But, alas, it didn’t work from what I can tell. I doubt I will try again =)….
By the way, I’ve re-written my Resume. Employment History now goes (zomg):
EMPLOYMENT HISTORY
Medicare Billing Specialist 9/2006 - Present
[Redacted]
Maintain detailed records of accounts, products, and customer information. Retain membership and assisted members in making payments for past due balances through electronic and phone correspondence. Use several databases and programs simultaneously to research and correct administrative and/or service problems. Work closely with respective market offices and related departments, and manage cases with issues which require interdepartmental effort to complete. Communicate trends and problems between Medicare, Humana, and the customer. Often work one on one with customers over a long period of time to manage complex problems.
English Teacher and Arts & Humanities Teacher 7/2005 - 8/2006
[Redacted]
Taught the subjects of English and Arts & Humanities to classes of between grades 9-12. Managed and evaluated students both individually and corporately, provided due rewards and punishments, created incentive for students to put forth their maximum effort, and fashioned future course-plan structures fitting for what each student hoped to accomplish post-graduation. Maintained detailed records, keeping in constant contact with parents/guardians of 90 students at a time. Worked with multiple teachers and departments to develop course curriculum, prepared goals and direction for our school and departments, and formed action plans fit for the individual student’s needs.
Teacher’s Assistant 8/2004 - 5/2005
[Redacted]0
Taught classes in absence of professors. Conducted tests and quizzes, prepared handouts, acted as a liaison between students and professor, tutored students. Performed administrative duties, including reserving library materials and requesting necessary equipment. Attended lectures and classes. Bought supplies and literature for classes. Kept records of department’s financial accounts.
Janitor 8/2003 - 12/2004
[Redacted]
Kept buildings in clean and orderly condition.
Piano Accompaniment 1/2000 - 8/2003
[Redacted]
Provided a musical complement and performed for a variety of services, both weekly and special occasions. Held practices for instrumentalists, music team, and the choir.
Crew Person and Store Closer 8/2001 - 7/2003
[Redacted]
Operated the restaurant, including cooking, cleaning, customer service, basic financial responsibilities and bookkeeping, and closing the store each night. Also maintained flexible shifts schedules.
So sad. Well, time to tweak it and start applying to more jobs. Formatting was never my thing. But, we’ll get it done. I’ve found a few to apply for…although, it annoys me greatly how slow this process of finding another job can go.I just know that driving 2-3 hours a day, on top of mandatory overtime, means I’m away from the house 11-13 hours of the day…all for 30-40k? Couldn’t I make 30-40k in E-town…boom, less travel expenses (including, time traveled, which is an expense when you get down to calculating actual costs), and thus more time for me to be at home.
To me, what is most ironic is that I’m the smartest person in this building (and at least a couple thousand work here), and yet I’ll never do what it takes to rise above these people economically, or in any way climb the ladder…why? Because they sell their souls when they work here. Even for those who haven’t done anything we would consider “explicity” evil…most everyone here just sells their soul. You might not see it, but eh, you are a blind (no offense to the zero people that actually read this paragraph of course). People here still don’t see what is important (not that I have it down perfectly, but I’ve got a pretty freakin’ good idea, or atleast I’m headed in the right direction…unlike the people around me). All I know: I want to make enough to provide for my family, save a little bit, and thats it…the rest of my time is more valuable to me spent at home with my family. People are work-crazy. Why can’t they just understand this job for what it is: a source of income, not a purpose.
And, hell yes I compartmentalize my life. Work stays at work, home at home. This gives me true power of their priority and status. Work is a mere complication in my homelife, not an actual integral part of who I am; it is that which does not interfere with what is important or personal to me. I treat it like a foreign object. Do I want this? No. But, until I get a job that reflects whatever I’m actually supposed to be doing in this world, then no, I’m waiting and prodding that foreign object, begrudgingly fulfilling the oh-so-important duties they think they have me do. In all honesty, I am mentally prepared to drop whatever I’m doing and go where God tells me to (not that He would ever speak to me directly). This is what really seperates me from the herd (not that I really needed any more seperation…I think I’ve spaced it out myself quite nicely so far).
I must admit, everyday I get the feeling I have lived a full life, even if, ironically, I am tormented by the fact that I haven’t fulfilled my purpose (if I have one besides just sitting here thinking about my purpose). It is the case that I have done more so far than most do in a lifetime. I have no room to complain at all; I am blessed (I don’t believe in luck after all). Each day is gravy.
Well, that’s all for this installment of what I’m thinking about in my first half an hour at work!…see you next time for: “Why I love going number 2, and solving all the mysteries of life in 6 seperate 2-minute squeezes.”
So, I sent a letter to a guy called Alvin Plantinga. I’ve read some of his work, and some of it is pretty brilliant (even if he is a Calvinist). The response I got was pretty lame…whatever, I’m sure he’s busy and I’m not going to write him again.
But, I asked him a few questions which I thought were interesting at the very least…They are good to think about. Concerns I had (my usual of course):
1) Assuming by free will we mean the ability to do otherwise, and accept no compatibilist notions of free will, how could a perfectly good, omniscient, and omnipotent God, who would always select the same virtuous choice in a given situation, possibly be free? From what I understand, if He chooses to do the exact same virtuous thing in all possible worlds, then He doesn’t really have the strict ability to do otherwise does He?
We want to say that God will always do the right thing, but He has the power not to. I wonder if Leibniz’s “inclined without necessitating” applies in this respect. It would solve a lot of problems. However, if something is true in all possible worlds, isn’t that a necessary truth? And, if God’s “choice” is a necessary truth, then did he really have the ability to do otherwise? My concern is that we might be ambiguous about what we mean by the word “can” or “possible.”
It seems like we only have two options: a.) In some possible world God chooses the non-virtuous choice (uggh, no), or b.) God doesn’t have a choice.
The question seems relevant to me because I don’t see how moral responsibility can exist without free will. So, if God somehow is not free with respect to his actions and choices, then he has no significant choices that entail moral responsibility. Clearly, a virtuous God, who makes moral choices, would require the ability to actually do otherwise. I am quite interested in seeing how God’s free will is preserved within the context of him being perfectly virtuous. Any ideas?
2) How would one explain the Holy Trinity isn’t explicitly contradictory? What are the arguments, if any, that would show how this is at least logically possible (in a broad sense)?
3) In school we had a seminar on Justice, and we read a number of books on the subject that were quite fascinating, one in particular caught my eye. Robert Nozick wrote Anarchy, State, and Utopia. In the bookhe is responnding to the Rawlsian theory of justice concerning distributive justice, and in his response he lays the framework (with Locke’s help) for the basis of property and entitlement. The entitlement theory is really a starting place for the rest of his work, in which he argues further notions concerning justice and the minimalist government. His work is relevant to understanding the beliefs of many modern institutions and of Libertarianism. Whether he is correct or not is another question, but he certainly seems pertinent, even in the discussion of theism. In a Western world that increasingly seeks to separate “spiritual” beliefs from reason and civilization, a separation and secularization that is in some ways perpetuated by writings like Nozicks, the theist must find better tools to show that God exists. Nozick’s explanation of property, one that is widely shared by many, inadvertently seems to give the theist another foothold to work from. Nozick basically explains that:
a.) Only persons can own property.
b.) All property is ownable by any person.
c.) Only through legitimate acquisition or trade can one come to own property.
I don’t usually agree with Libertarian views, but the base entitlement argument is pretty compelling. It seems like these are very acceptable. Wouldn’t these be good things to agree with?
Almost hidden, or maybe concealed in his non-descript “variable M,” Nozick has one other premise to consider
d.) Persons own themselves. (someone who doesn’t own themselves isn’t a person)
This premise again, at face value seems quite reasonable. I’ve met very few would deny this, especially as having proprietary rights to yourself would seem foundational to possessing personal liberty and freedom. Most people are so greatly concerned with their personal liberty and freedom that they willingly accept the proposition of self-ownership as a necessary property of personhood. Here is where it gets rough:
e.) Humans, presumably, are the product of people mixing their labor, and are thus subject to the concept of legitimate acquisition.
As humans can own themselves, and all property is ownable by all people, then all humans can be owned by other persons. And, as humans are a form of property, if only a property unto themselves, then they are also subject to property acquisition and trade.
From here we can gather the first major problem:
f.) No human owns themselves, as parents own their children.
g.) Repeat step f) ad nauseum, and, as nobody created themselves, nobody owns themselves.
It is here that theism seems to enter the realm of entitlement theory.
h.) The creator of these humans is the owner. If no person mixed their labor (and there is no creator), then property makes no sense at all. The prime cause, God, is the creator and rightful owner of all in the universe.
i.) As no one but God owns themselves, no human is a person.
We either accept that property makes no sense at all, which has some pretty negative consequences for the Libertarian and for some fundamental aspects of civilization, or we accept that property rights do exist, and we are forced into the prime owner argument, (and surely we could make arguments for God’s self-ownership).
So, how do we arrive at our self-ownership?
If humans don’t own themselves, and are legitimately owned by some prime creator, and only persons can own property, then how do people legitimately have the ownership of themselves traded to them?
The major problem then becomes:
You can not trade or acquire property as a non-person, which means you cannot come to own yourself. A non-person cannot come to be a person, and only beings with initial self-ownership have the right to own anything (including themselves).
It would seem to me, that if we follow Nozick’s understanding of property, which appears quite reasonable, that nobody could actually own themselves. However, most people would probably want to conclude they do own themselves, and so we move on to what I would think is a flat miracle. God somehow bestowed upon us the right to ourselves. Personally, I’d call Nozick’s “variable M,” this person-making characteristic, the Imago Dei. Maybe through the gift of self-ownership and freedom from God we can solve this puzzle.
Or, did I form a straw man argument altogether? Is it useful? What do you think?
4) Many theodicy issues really boil down to considering whether evil outweighs good or vice versa. We assign some “value” (good or bad, to some degree) to everything that exists. In this judgment the appearance of evil would seem to ‘devalue’ the net worth of a world in some way. It is as if a possible world with 4,000 units of evil is measurably worse than one with only 20 units of evil, or even no units of evil. This is still a judgment based on evil and good values being weighed in a world.
Why should this sort of thinking influence the theist? If God is supreme, if He is really the greatest conceivable being, then would He not also be of infinite moral value? And, if He has infinite good value, then would not measurable and finite evil values found in this world be nulled by His infinite value on this judgment scale? How could one actually compare 4,000 units of evil or even 20 units of evil, finite measurements, to an infinite value of God? Finite numbers become meaningless when compared to infinite values.
So, a world with 4,000 units of evil is not measurably better than a world with 20 units or no units of evil when an infinitely good being exists. When compared, no less value comes about. All that remains is the infinite value of God.
Meta-ethics is the branch of philosophy that seeks to understand the nature of ethical: properties, statements, attitudes and judgments. This is a study of the framework of ethics, not the study of ethics directly itself. Most people who study ethics directly are contemplating what is formally known as normative ethics. Normative ethics is concerned with classifying actions as right and wrong. While normative ethics addresses such questions as "Which things are (morally) good and bad?" and "What should we do?", thus endorsing some ethical evaluations and rejecting others, meta-ethics addresses questions like "What is (moral) goodness?", seeking to understand the nature of ethical properties and evaluations.
Meta-ethical concerns and questions include:
What does it mean to say something is "good"?
How, if at all, do we know what is right and wrong?
How do moral attitudes motivate action?
Are there objective or absolute values?
A meta-ethical theory, unlike a normative ethical theory, does not contain any ethical evaluations. A meta-ethical theory is really trying to answer these three question: 1. Are there objective values? If yes, then 2. Are they reducible?; 3. Do we know about them a priori or empirically?
For Christianity, strictly an ethical institution, answering these questions seems very necessary to even act on or possess faith in the first place. Many of us, of course, are simply conditioned into assuming the answers without actually sitting down to think about them. We, as Christians, should be the first to think about and then answer these meta-ethical questions. I hope to clarify those issues somewhat in this article.
The first and primary question we ask in life, and one we continually answer and act from:
Is there any intrinsic value or significance to be found in this world?
The answer to that question is of the utmost importance. It has everything to do with everything. It is the basis of meta-ethics, and the very fiber of all other pursuits in this world.
What is value?
Value: it is the property or aggregate properties of a thing by which it is rendered useful or desirable, or the degree of such property or sum of properties; worth; excellence; utility; importance.
To say something has "intrinsic value" is to say that it is in fact significant and important...that it is desirable, that is is above neutral or nothingness. Something with value is something that innately is worthy of pursuit! Value IMPLIES the existence of an 'ought' by its definition.
Ironically, to even read this question, to even consider this question worthy of thinking about, to actually spend your time doing anything, is to assume that there is intrinsic value in whatever you pursue. We beg the question directly whenever we pursue anything. To even argue with me, or even have the will to agree or disagree with me means you have already assumed that it was WORTH pursuing, as though you OUGHT to read or contemplate this sentence. You have already assigned VALUE. Hell, in even attempting to answer the question you are begging the question.
If there is no "value" in this world, then stop reading. Nothing has meaning. You have no warrant to do anything. You are merely particles floating around, doing whatever particles do and what not. But, who cares? You can't care, you can't think, you can't do anything, you can't pursue anything because it has no value. You ought not do anything if there is no value...oh wait, it doesn't make sense to ought at all...to think at all. I can't even tell you that you "ought not do anything." Â
The pursuit of value is the reason we do anything. It is the basic egoist's claim, which is strictly undeniable.
So, now as you have continue to read, you have taken a leap of faith...much like you do in logic when you assume A is A. After all, if A is not A, then you have no way in which you could reasonably continue any conversation or thought, as no thing is itself. You assume that A is A, or the pursuit or belief in it (even if subconsciously) is important, that is has value. You in fact, believe A must have value just to acknowledge its very existence. Value is the root of logic. Logic, beyond 'A is A', which is truly simultaneously assumed with any idea of value (to think A at all it to assume the value of A and 'A is A') is the manipulation of value, the deduction of further value from assumed values. You my friend, you believe in value, and consequently logic, at the basest level, and you continue to assign value to other things from your logical deductions in your egoist's value-based logical pursuit (even if you suck at it). Congratulations.
Value means that we OUGHT pursue, it begs the question that we "ought to do something." It is the assumption that something is WORTH doing or thinking about. THAT is the basis of ALL ethical claims, of any claim in fact.
Why is this important to Christians? We fail to fully recognize that our current ethics, "commands of God,"Â exist in virtue of INTRINSIC VALUES AND LOGIC. Everything we consider or do has an innate value assigned to it, else it is NOT WORTH CONSIDERING OR PURSUING in itself. So, yes that means there is no such thing as anything neutral, but it also requires another deduction, one that gets my goat.
Here is my beef: If we ought to pursue something, then we ought to "ought to pursue something." What does that mean? It means that pursuing truths and even things like Christianity is a good thing because we OUGHT to pursue those things in a certain way...a way of value-logic thinking. Starting with the logic-value thinking and working our way up through the deductive ladder is what we ought to do. The very mechanic by which we reach our destination HAS VALUE, and it means there is a specific way in which we ought to pursue the ethics. There is a set path by which we should be thinking to arrive at the end truths.
We are not God, and thus we can't use our 'theism from birth' to use Christianity to pursue what is ethical...no, no my friend, it is the other way around! Those who correctly pursue value and logic will ARRIVE at Christianity through deductive reasoning...Christianity has NO meaning outside of the value and logic used to arrive at it. You can't answer the question, "what ought one do?" with an easy out like, "do what the Bible tells you" without first using logic to show that the Bible is logical. You can't merely look at the Bible for what is ethical; you first have to use value-logic reasoning to prove and deduct that the Bible would be correct in the first place.
My point is: first things first, you actually (whether you know it or not) make judgements about Christianity not in virtue of Christianity, but in virtue of value-logic based reasoning, and consequently; all other thinking SHOULD be based on value-logic based reasoning. Your faith is not blind, no matter how much you want it to be. Your faith might be based on faulty-logic...
We are "religious"...but we fail to recognize that our religion isn't based in faith (beyond the initial value-logic step). That would be stupid.
To deduce higher ethical principles, like those found in Christianity, without following the value-logic path that would deductively arrive at those truths is a SIN. The very method by which we arrive at God is an 'ought,' as the very thought path has innate value to it. By definition, we are sinning by not pursuing God in a very exact and logical way. (God gave us minds for a reason)
Christians, while they are usually correct about steps/conclusions 20 and 21 in our value-logic deductions, totally screw up or forget about all the other steps in between that are used to arrive at the principles of Christianity in the first place. God obviously intended for us to FIRST assume value and logic, and use those tools to deduct further values and rules of logic, so that we could arrive at HIS Will. To deny the value of logic and philosophy, as the very BACKBONE of our belief is to deny the WILL of GOD. To pursue truth is to pursue God (eventually). And, to pursue God REQUIRES that we pursue truth first.
Basically, I accuse you so-called Christians of the same heresy of the post-moderns. You are no better with the exception that you may have arrived at some conclusions that are correct, but have forgotten the process that brought you to it in the first place. Without your proof, your deduction, you have no warrant to believe. You are stupid to believe. You fail.
I am amazed at how quick the Body of Christ denies the method by which we reach God.
It is not God that brings us to Him first, He gave us the ability to arrive at Him instead. God creates us, but we take the first step. Stop blaming God for us logically choosing Him...there no meaning to our belief if God did it, we chose Him.
So what have we found out? The meta-ethical concern is solved! Value (and logic) are innately assumed. We need not go further in our pursuit of WHY or HOW these exist because the pursuit itself begs the question. This is why post-modernism fails, as it abhors that which it assumes: Absolutes of value and logic. And, this is why I don't like "Christians" in general...they miss the entire point of it (committing the same fallacy as the post-modern), we fail to recognize, appreciate, and use the value-logic process to reach our conclusions.
Now we just have to go through those deductive steps (how Cartesian...).
Anyways, today I hate you, world. Good day. May God have mercy on us all.
I am ready for the it...TGIF, zomgadfagfgasdfasd I'm turning into...one of them. Forget it. Everyone loves Friday, and I don't spend my money bar-hopping on 'teh weedends' or anything stupid. wheww....Anyways, I'll be glad to be going home.
An update on the Car: we are probably taking it in on Tuesday...probably. The gear-shifting issue is odd: it only happens 1.) in the mornings, 2.) when it is very cold (cold enough to frost the windows). This leads me to believe, a.) my anti-freeze needs to be checked (which will be done asap), or b.) my car needs professional help, the Tuesday variety. We will see. Funny thing, I JUST checked all the fluids a few weeks ago...the right color, the right amount...but eh, I'm hoping it is cheap. *crosses-fingers...as if I believe in luck.
I'm getting sick myself. No doctor anymore. Unless I feel like I'm dying, I'm not going. I'm a wuss, I can't believe I went because my ears had pain in them (some of them were sharp)...just to find out that I have allergies?...PFFT. What I've got now is...ermm...closer to Bronchitis/Influenza? Not until I'm dying, But, I took a sinus - decongestant excedrin thingy, and many drugs pwn. I feel better in 20 minutes. Not perfect, but doable.
On a side note: Did you know that there is such thing as "male lactation?" Apparently, a human male can produce milk. Alrighty then.
WoW: 300 eng, took 2 hours, 170g, and some frustration. It was worth it I assume...now to dig up 700g in mats for the reflectors. Still don't have my HWL OH, but I'll get there. BG's are SO boring. I only need to knock out 12k honor for it. I've decided I won't be upgrading any of my other equipment before TBC, however. My guess: everything is VERY replacable, with exception of eng gear + HWL weapons of course. Being back on a PvP server is fun. I don't meet nearly as many tards....well, not as retarded...most are still tards though. The gear inequities I'm experiencing is quite humbling. I lose matches for trivial things that I wouldn't have problems with if I had even half the gear these people did. I am hoping TBC with be the great equalizer (yay, just like our public education system..oh wait). With everyone new at 70, and probably me being one of the first, we'll be on a more equal playing field. It will be just me vs them...
MTG: Allen and I are hitting the prerelease on the 20th (I hope). Planar Chaos presents some interesting ideas...although, I wonder if I'm going to be disappointed in the power-level of these cards as I have been since...Kamigawa? Oh well, we'll have fun, and there is always extended/legacy/type 1 (w/proxies).
1.) idday ouyay owknay atthay Iay otgay inay oubletray orfay itingwray aay ournaljay tryenay urelypay inay igpay atinlay enwhay Iay asway inay econdsay adegray?
2.) :siht kaerb nac uoy fi eeS .lausu ta krow ta dnuora gniwercs ,nuf gnivah tsuj m'I
 3.) Wfsz hppe, Dbftbs tijgu gps uif xjo. Tujmm bmqibcfujd tvctujuvujpo djqifs, cvu tmjhiumz ibsefs:
4.) Yp, K an kmqtetuee. Cnpvhft sdjopnbpa cjrhft, bvv hbsdft tp crfck. Hqoe loc.
 Maybe I'll give you a spoiler at the end?
Â
zomg, its the end, I have to go back to work.
1.) Pig latin
2.) Backwards
3.) Caesar shift back one.
4.) Forget the name, Veni something...only three sets though. Rotation of letter substitution...ABC, then BCD, then CDE, and repeat.
Back to Basics: The Fundamentals of Gaming, a Call for Balance, and Why Rogues Should Stunlock.</span>
Every class uses some control features and some attack features to defeat their opponents. I will argue that: while at first glance rogues seem like an attacking class, rogues are actually a control class. To be very specific, I mean to say, when all is said and done, and people play their classes correctly at current gear levels, the rogue is in a position where he must control the fight to a greater degree than other classes in order to win.
That may come as a shock to some players. Among other things, rogues have some relatively easy to use, and well known, burst damage abilities. Go-go-gadget Ambush/Backstab? When you think of a rogue you think of damage at the sacrifice of all else right? We lose tankability, ranged abilities, and overall raid and group functionality to deal relatively lethal damage (or at least good sustained damage) in up-close-and-personal melee combat. But, many rogues have come to find that life is a little different at high end.
Was it a lot better at lower levels? Of course. We all know that at green gear our abilities are overpowering. So, as we fight against noobs and greenies, we really have nothing to complain about. Although some of these skills scale with gear, they don’t scale proportionally with gear as effectively as other classes (that doesn’t mean we don’t scale, we just don’t scale well enough). As the stamina levels and overall gear of the population rises, the rogue’s effectiveness quickly declines. Of course, we did need to be balanced in full greens, but not at the expense of future higher-end gaming environments. It is almost as if the dev’s are paying us back for the crazy power of rogues in the beginning of this game. I think most rogues would have preferred to have been balanced and scaled properly from greens to epics in the first place.
Currently, there are more players sitting in full epics than at any other time, and in part because of this gear inflation, and in part because people are evolving out of their noobiness, a rogue has become more easily neutralized (I’m saying nothing new just yet). As stamina levels increase, and as classes learn to play against a rogue, our “quick kill†abilities become far less effective. I’ll certainly admit that the good old Ambush/Backstab can be effective, especially when you completely outgear an opponent. But, in equally geared and skilled matchups, the rogue is easily beaten when he doesn’t control the fight. Not only are we easily controlled, but, eh, I’d argue we are out-classed. My shadowpriest can randomly click 4 buttons (while I’m half-watching the Daily Show) and kill people; meanwhile, my rogue can play flawlessly against the same people and still lose. There really is a disproportionate skill-requirement to make the same kills. We just can’t prove it. We do, however, have tools to deal with the situation and imbalance at hand, and we can work towards curbing any injustices against the rogue class. Albeit, it takes a lot more work for the rogue to win, it is at least possible. I’d just have preferred to see a fair risk vs. reward ratio, in which the person with greatest display of skill always win, but Blizzard isn’t that smart.
In all reality, the rogue is becoming less useful. Why would I want a rogue in my group when a mage deals just as much DPS (including AE’s and range issues, yes) and contains far more utility? Our roles and abilities are not balanced to other classes. While we haven’t been nerfed directly, I’d argue that other classes have been buffed to the point that a rogue is not as useful (And, if you think we are as useful as other classes, you clearly don’t play enough of the other classes to realize what I mean…and puh-lease, not another Damage meters argument, your hunters, fury warriors, mages and warlocks are simply lazy as hell…period).
We can complain to dev’s and say, hey, Death coil might be a bit too powerful. Or, maybe we can say, hey, Fury warriors deal nearly as much damage as me, are much more difficult to kite, and sit at 1.5k more hp and 20% more mitigation than I do, oh yeah, they can tank and scale exponentially with gear (as long as they find outlets to spend rage)…what roles do I have if they are better or nearly equivalent than I am in most of them?
Unfortunately, we have never had the tools to understand the exact reasons why this is the case. We have relied upon intuition, which doesn’t mean we are wrong, but it makes our cases very difficult to present. The devs look at us as biased-ninjas who want to pwn t-eh world. And, hey, some of us are. But, not all rogues want that…some of us just want balance. Our problem: we just can’t prove our problems.
I’m hoping to put us a step closer to being able to show why there are imbalances. I’m also hoping to briefly explain the very nature of gaming in general. But mainly, I want to explain why it has become truly imperative for a rogue to actually use stunlock to remain truly viable in so many environments.
The million dollar gaming question is: Who is the controller and who is the attacker? You may not see this as a crucial question, but with some disciplined thinking, I bet you’ll come around to understanding why this question is so important. Respectively, I think that after understanding and answering this question, you will find that the rogue really must control fights in order to win.
Let us take a base example:
Given two equal opponents who attack each other at the same time and in the same way, on average, both will die at the same time. To simplify and apply this notion for us, think of two butt-naked level 60 rogues (hawt UD fo’sho) using no abilities except auto-attack; Both just sit and trade hits. If they start at the same time, on average, both will die at the same time. If you don’t like thinking of it that way, then think of it this way, over the course of 1,000 fights, of the times that both don’t die simultaneously, and one person had to win while the other lost, 50% will be won by each rogue. The point is: It is a tie!
Well, how is this the case? Essentially, both have an equal offense and defense ratio; they are identical, as they have X DPS, Y mitigation/avoidance, and Z hitpoints. In this case, only damage to tankability is taken into account, but it is all that is needed to provide the full picture. In real game play, there is a vast array of variables to consider, and in time, we shall see that this picture becomes much more elaborate, yet remains quite quantifiable.
What do I mean by an offense and defense ratio?
We can take the calculable (as this is all math) defense of player 1 and divide it by player 2’s calculable offense, and we can take player 2’s defense and divide it by player 1’s offense, compare the numbers, and immediately know who, on average, will win in a perfectly fair fight. This is the offense/defense ratio. The person with the higher number will win the fight. In WoW, it all begins with damage per time unit as your offense and your hp as your initial defense.
This is the fundamental equation of gaming, an equation used to determine the answer to the million dollar question. Nothing else matters. Now, before you try and pick it apart, let me elaborate; there are a lot of variables to consider in defining a player’s “offensive†and “defensive†ratings used in this calculation. Often enough, damage to mitigation/avoidance/hp is all that must be considered. But, we shall see how certain basic techniques and crowd control effects like “kiting,†“tanking,†root, fear, stun, etc. can have a huge impact on these ratings. The very matter of choice creates “future action trees†with different offense/defense ratios for all possible courses of action; but don’t be deceived into thinking that choice eliminates the possibility of calculation. I warn you to not act as if these effects don’t have mathematical and clearly calculable repercussions. This is all math, and all things are calculable. Even future events in games can be calculated; We just need the tools to understand what the effects truly mean.
Take our base example. Assume both rogues have 100hp and deal 20 damage per time unit.
Player A= 20a offense and 100a defense
Player B= 20b offense and 100b defense
Player A’s ratio=100a/20b=5
Player B’s ratio=100b/20a=5
As both have equivalent offense/defense ratios, 5 and 5. If they chose to stand and trade hits in a fair duel, both would on average die at the same time. If we just tweaked the variables slightly, and if Player A were buffed, and had 10 more hp, it would change the ratios by:
Player A=20a offense and 110a defense
Player B= 20b offense and 100b defense
Player A’s ratio=110a/20b=5.5
Player B’s ratio=100b/20a=5
Notice that Player A now has the advantage, and a higher offense/defense ratio. Player A will surely win in a duel. Player A directly increases his offense/defense ratio by improving his defense.
Or, what if we buffed Player B’s offense by 5 instead?
Player A=20a offense and 100a defense
Player B= 25b offense and 100b defense
Player A’s ratio=100a/25b=5
Player B’s ratio=100b/20a=4
Notice that Player A now has the disadvantage, and has a lower offense/defense ratio. Player A will surely lose in a duel. Player B’s offense directly affects Player A’s offense/defense ratio by lowering the number.
Assume that both rogues have 25% melee damage mitigation; how does this apply in the equation? While we can certainly apply it to one's loss condition (HP), or defense directly, and calculate a damage soak of survivability, for now we'll just look at it in a simple fashion. This will also help demonstrate the interaction of offense/defense even further. We'll interpret mitigation and avoidance as a debuff to be applied directly towards an opponent’s offense. By lowering an opponent’s offense, we increase our total ratio. So, let us apply it:
[Damage – Damage(Mitigation+Avoidance percentage of opponent)] is the new offense calculation. Thus:
Player A=[20-20(.25)]a offense and 100a defense
Player B=[20-20(.25)]b offense and 100b defense
Or, now calculated as,
Player A=15a offense and 100a defense
Player B=15b offense and 100b defense
Player A’s ratio=100a/15b=6.666
Player B’s ratio=100b/15a=6.666
Please notice that both ratios rose proportionally and remain equal, as both will kill each other at the same time. You will notice in your own calculations that changing mitigation and avoidance percentages will directly impact the opposing player’s proportionate effectiveness, and any imbalance in damage, hitpoints, or mitigation (or any variables) would immediately swing the ratios in one player’s favor. Game balance (you get a free tutorial on this one) rests upon equivalent offense/defense ratios of current and future action trees given an equal amount of skill and effort.
WoW, like all MMO’s, adds complexity by changing offense and defense ratios, and often vary them greatly per class. If all classes were totally the same it would be boring, right? But, MMO’s devs are still required (but not properly held accountable) to balance classes while differentiating them, as there should be incentive to play every class. So, in balance and diversity, they create things like:
Player X= 20x damage, 100x hp, and 0%y mitigation
Player Y=10y damage, 100y hp, and 50%y mitigation
If Player X deals 20 damage per time unit with 0% damage reduction and 100hp, and Player Y deals 10 damage per time unit with 50% damage reduction, and both start attacking each other at the same time, then both will die at the same time; this is balanced. Any single variation in the proportions of the damage, mitigation, and hp would create an imbalance in which either X or Y would become more viable or powerful, while the other would proportionally become less viable or powerful. This is easy to test. We only know the players’ damage, hp, and mitigation, and assuming that these are the only variables we must take into account to calculate the offense/defense ratios, we would get the following:
Player X=[20-20(.50)]x offense and 100x defense
Player Y=[10-10(0)]y offense and 100y defense
Player X=10x offense and 100x defense
Player Y=10x offense and 100x defense
Player X’s ratio=100x/10y=10
Player Y’s ratio=100y/10x=10
Notice of course, X is much like a traditional rogue, and Y is much like a traditional warrior. In this balanced case example, both the X and Y die at the same time, even though their mitigation and damage per time unit variables are very different. They have proportionate and fair ratios of offense and defense, and yet, they both would serve a different purpose.
To show that this concept can work within the context of solo and group, and to show how one would go about abusing natural differences in such variables, even in balanced ratios, let us take another case example, using X and Y once again:
We want to design a 3-man group composed of any combination of X and Y, and we are thinking of a PvE mob opponent Z with 450hp who deals 20 damage per time unit with 0% mitigation. Let us also, for the sake of the argument assume that you could control who holds aggro. We are attempting to find the best way to abuse these balanced ratios, as both classes are equal, but clearly have different functions given their actual offense and actual defense. Available Y’s will act as tanks (as they have greater mitigation). For this case, we will consider any player death to be a failure.
For this, to demonstrate survivability in reality, we'll be applying mitigation towards the loss condition (HP), which is your base defense. Defense/(1-% of mitigation/avoidance).
In a fight against mob Z, would you rather have a group composed of: 3 of X, 3 of Y, 1 of X and 2 of Y, or 2 of X and 1 of Y?
3 of X= 20x+20x+20x and 100/(1-0)+100/(1-0)+100/(1-0) Defense
3 of Y= 10y+10y+10y and 100/(1-.5)+100/(1-.5)+100/(1-.5) Defense
1 of X and 2 of Y=Â 20x+10y+10y and 100/(1-0)+100/(1-.5)+100/(1-.5) Defense
2 of X and 1 of Y= 20x+20x+10y and 100/(1-0)+100/(1-0)+100/(1-.5) Defense
Meanwhile, Mob Z's offense defense ratio is a strict 20z offense and 450z defense.
Thus, we will arrive at 4 different sets of ratios, one for each possible group makeup. I'll give a brief breakdown, explaining the fights in time units of 5. Notice that each group as a different tank, which will change survivability calculations. The tank's defense is all that matters, but as we calculate the fight over time, we'll switch from each tank to another, until all are dead.
3 of X’s ratio=100x/20z=5
Mob Z’s ratio=450z/60xxx=7.5
3 of Y’s ratio=200y/20z=10
Mob Z’s ratio=450z/30yyy=15
1 of X and 2 of Y’s ratio=200y/20z=10
Mob Z’s ratio=450z/40xyy=11.25
2 of X and 1 of Y’s ratio=200y/20z=10
Mob Z’s ratio=450z/50xxy=9
Each ratio is specific to its respective matchup. Note that as X and Y are perfectly balanced, even when stacked as 3 of a kind, they have proportionally equivalent ratios to Mob Z.
5 to 7.5 and 10 to 15 (essentially 2 to 3). This means that both 3 of X and 3 of Y will have the exact same result in terms of how much damage is dealt before the first tank dies, in this case 300 damage. To be more exact, when we really evaluate these end ratios, it means that for every 5% that 3 of X penetrates Mob Z’s defense, Mob Z will penetrate 7.5% of 3 of X’s tank’s defense. Essentially, from this standpoint, we will evaluate ‘defense’ as the loss condition, from which at any point that 100% or more has been penetrated that player will lose. I am hesitant to say “hitpoints,†as opposed to defense, because this is a very universal principle, and can be applied to games that don’t use such hp systems (you just have to learn to calculate the value of functions and loss conditions within a game). In this case however, penetrating 100% of the defense is basically bringing a person from 100% hp to 0% hp or less. Thus, for every 5% of hitpoints Mob Z loses, the first rogue tank with lose 7.5% health. And, likewise, for every 10% of hitpoints Mob Z loses, the first warrior tank loses 15% of his hitpoints (in the 3 of Y group).
Also notice that as we look at the 1 of X and 2 of Y group, the proportional difference between the ratios grows smaller, we move from the 2 to 3 of the pure X’s and pure Y’s, to a 10 to 11.25. This is a closer battle, as 400 damage is dealt before the first person dies.
The last case, in which there are 2 of X and 1 of Y, has transformed the losing battle, having a lower ratio than Mob Z, into a winning one, in which this scenario would net in the defeat of Mob Z before anyone would die. This group would be capable of dealing 500 damage before the first person dies.
Please notice how abusing a tank, with 50% more mitigation than the rogues, can generally allow you to deal far more damage per person. While both classes remain “balanced†against each other, creating group and solo environments in which you can temporarily alter your groups offense and defense ratio allows you to do a lot more damage. In the 3rd and 4th group, we see that the damage dealers “hide†behind the mitigation of the tank, allowing them to deal massive amounts of damage, without being affected by their personal mitigation (which is balancingly much lower). By “tanking†mobs, a group can alter each player’s ratio. Thus, this allows the group to have the mob channel all damage through a high defense tank, as if every person in the group had this defense, without each person in the group having the respectively balanced low offense capabilities of a tank. This is good example of a tremendously advantageous and quite simple way to abuse class diversity (even within the context of balanced classes).
Tanking is a form of crowd control (usually used in groups, or Pet/Master relations). It changes the very nature and offense/defense ratios of a matchup. This is a common and effective strategy, one that gives true purpose to the warrior class.
I will only go one step further in this group simulation, and I hope this next example will reflect the concept of tempo advantage and time-based applications of this offense/defense ratio within a group setting (which again is still quite applicable to solo fights). Let us pretend that Mob Z now has 750 hitpoints instead, and that everyone will fight until the death. How does this change the way in which we perceive the possible battles? Let us evaluate each group:
So we could look at the teams as:
3 of X=60 offense and 300 total defense
3 of Y=30 offense and 600 total defense
2x and 1y=50 offense and 400 total defense
1x and 2y=40 offense and 500 total defense
But, this doesn't take into account the stages of each fight. Start with the first group:
3 of X= 300 damage before X1 dies, 200 damage before X2 dies, and 100 damage before X3 dies. They can deal 600 damage before they all die. 200 damage per person on average.
Essentially, 60 damage per time unit, and 20 less per X that dies. As individuals are tanking, we can calculate addition group member as added damage behind the tanks defense. We would just calculate this as a series.
20z + 750z defense
Vs.
20x+20x+20x and 100/(1-0)+100/(1-0)+100/(1-0) Defense
then
20x+20x and 100/(1-0)+100/(1-0) Defense
then
20x offense and 100/(1-0) defense
This fight occurs in stages. The resulting equations will look like three separate fights, and that is because each player is dieing.
Mob Z=750z/60x=12.5
3 of X=100x/20z=5
Here, the first rogue dies. 300 damage is dealt.
Mob Z= 450z/40x=11.25
2 of X=100x/20z=5
Here, the second rogue dies. 200 damage is dealt.
Mob Z=250z/20x=12.5
1 of X=100x/20z=5
Here the last rogue dies. Having dealt 100 damage, and the whole group has dealt 600 damage to the 750 hp Mob Z. Thus, the group will lose in this matchup.
I won’t go through the calculations for the next fight, but the basic recap is that:
3 of Y= 300 damage before Y1 dies, 200 damage before Y2 dies, and 100 damage before Y3 dies. They can deal 600 damage before they all die. 200 damage per person on average. The same as having 3 of X, they deal identical damage in the end. The only difference is that the 3 of X rogue fight takes 15 times units to deal all of its damage (before the weaklings die off), and 3 of Y takes 30 times units to deal all of its damage. But, as Y lasts longer because of mitigation, Y also takes longer to kill (in a balanced game at least). This abuse of spreading an opponent’s offense over time units is exactly what creates the incentive to play a tank, as they become extremely useful in sustaining DPS behind those tempo advantages. As long as PvE exists, or when taunt/aggro/forced targeting spells and strategies can work in PvP settings, there will always be incentive to have tanks, thus I don’t I don’t feel bad as far as how long it may take for them to make the same kill as a rogue in a balanced game. Game dev’s have a tendancy to inappropriately boost tank offense capabilities out of sympathy concerning tempo advantages and the length of time required to solo, but also because most game dev’s actually play a tank themselves *cough. This imbalance, as we might see in WoW or post-Kunark EQ, is far more devastating. *cough
For our last two group combinations:
1 of X and 2 of Y= 400 damage before Y1 dies, 300 damage before Y2 dies, and 100 damage before X1 dies. They can deal 800 damage before the last player dies, at 266.66 damage per person.
Mob Z=750z/40x=18.75
1 of X and 2 of Y=100x/10z=10
Here, the first warrior dies. 400 damage is dealt.
Mob Z= 350z/30x=11.66
1 of X and 1 of Y=100x/10z=10
Here, the second warrior dies. 300 damage is dealt.
Mob Z=50z/20x=2.5
1 of X=100x/20z=5
Ah ha!~ Finally!! After the two warriors have died, the rogue is fighting a 50hp mob that deals the same damage as he does (w/no mitigation). Thus, the rogue wins easily.
2 of X and 1 of Y= 500 damage before Y1 dies, 200 damage before X1 dies, and 100 damage before X2 dies. They can deal 800 damage before they all die. 266.66 damage per person on average.
Mob Z=750z/50x=15
2 of X and 1 of Y=100x/10z=10
Here, the first warrior dies. 500 damage is dealt.
Mob Z= 250z/40x=6.25
2 of X =100x/20z=5
Here, the second warrior dies. 200 damage is dealt.
Mob Z=50z/20x=2.5
1 of X=100x/20z=5
Again, like the previous 1 of X and 2 of Y, we are left with only the rogue making the kill. Notice how the ratios change dramatically as soon as the sole warrior dies. While this 2 of X and 1 of Y group dramatically loses mitigation, the 1 of X and 2 of Y group catches up in terms of ratio and overall damage.
Be aware, that 2 of X and 1 of Y is capable of a burst 500 damage by the end of the life of that tank. This is far more effective and efficient than using 1 of X and 2 of Y, as the second tank hurts the group because he has traded low damage for high mitigation, but his trade in no way makes the group more effective until after the first tank dies. When we really evaluate the difference, we must ask whether we are going to need an offtank or not. Against single encounters, it is clearly best to stick to one tank (and keep him alive), as it allows the group to maximize DPS.
There are further complexities in WoW, and those calculations will be beyond the scope of this article. I only hope to show how this sort of computation is foundational to understanding game balance and the role of a class. In part, this complexity is because WoW has a lot more variables to consider in the equation than just damage to tankability ratios. From only a damage to tankability standpoint, we could easily argue that warriors, at post-MC [edit: you can see how old this article really is...] gear clearly outdamage and outtank rogues, so why would you want to play a rogue (and this may be a valid argument in certain circumstances). I’m not saying they’ve balanced the game (you may see an upcoming article on what that would require, and what balance means), but I do see some fundamental principles that should be applied. Namely, we must continually add and calculate these many variables that apply towards our offensive and defensive ratios, and that the very core of an offense/defense ratio is universally calculable (however, complicated it may become).
Please note that the procedures of calculating who should win the fight, whether it be solo or group-based, is based upon an identical foundation. The only difference is that group-based encounters have more complex calculations. This does not, however, take away from the fact that a group is composed of individuals, individuals that should also know their solo matchups, as you cannot calculate group-based encounters without first calculating the solo-based encounters. What does that mean? Learning to duel is fundamental to being a great PvPer. Can you win without doing this? Sure. But, against the best, you’ll always lose without knowing your 1v1 matchups inside and out. (sorry, yet another small rant, as I hate when people say that dueling and PvP are unrelated, as it shows a lack of understanding as to how the game works)
Thus far, I have only given you a rudimentary explanation of how and why one ought to think in terms of offense and defense. We can now begin to relate this to the role of the rogue and our original question. The game’s challenge is to know your role. You need to know which role you have, are you the controller or the attacker? Confusion of these roles will net you in a loss.
In our previous examples, each group combination should have calculated the matchup (whether intuitively or mathematically), and known the best course of action. If they let the rogues tank, then it was a sure loss. Having too many rogues or too many warriors was a sure loss. These groups, and the members that compose the groups, have an opportunity to understand their roles, and have the tools to determine their effectiveness per situation because of calculable offense/defense ratios.
The smart rogue, and the smart group, will ask, “How can I change my offense/defense ratio such that, when I am engaged in combat with the opponent, my offense/defense ratio will be higher? A higher offense/defense ratio will net a win for the rogue (or group). Modifying this ratio is of the utmost important, and allows one to perform a role(s) more effectively.
“Understanding your role†is demonstrated in the fight between a geared rogue and a naked rogue. If I let a rogue in even green armor fight a butt-naked rogue, and both use just simple auto-attack, the buffed rogue will win the vast majority of the time. The buffed rogue is more powerful because of gear, and consequently, he wins because he has higher offense and defense ratio as compared to the naked rogue.
The buffed rogue will always want to sit and trade hits with a naked rogue, because he will always win. I repeat, the rogue with a higher offense/defense ratio will ALWAYS want to sit and trade hits with any opponent with a lower offense/defense ratio.
Conversely, the naked rogue does not want to sit and trade hits with a buffed rogue because he will always lose. In order for the naked rogue to win, he must control the fight. Does this mean that a naked rogue can’t beat a rogue in green armor? No way!! What it does mean is that unless the naked rogue does something other than just trade hits with the buffed rogue, basically, if he isn’t controlling the fight, the naked rogue is always going to lose.
In this case, the buffed rogue is the attacker! He WANTS to trade hits. He wants to make it so that the naked rogue is at the very least forced into positions where they can trade hits. The naked rogue, on the other hand, is the controller. The naked rogue must change the offense/defense ratios, through control, in order to win. So, each rogue must attempt to maintain their roles.
And, at any point that the naked rogue would control his way into having a higher offense/defense ratio, thus becoming the attacker, the buffed rogue would immediately become the controller. An easy example of this switch would be if the naked rogue stunlocked the buffed rogue; the buffed rogue has ZERO offensive abilities until that stunlock is broken, thus the ratios are greatly in the naked stunlocker’s favor. During that stunlock the buffed rogue becomes the controller. In this situation, the buffed rogue must use control measures to try and overcome the naked rogue’s huge offense/defense ratio imbalance. A quick vanish/CS might do the trick, eh?
Of course, the broken rogue vs rogue matchup may be a poor example in one way: A full stunlock against a rogue is almost unbreakable, save for a dodge/miss/parry (especially on Gouge). By this I mean, when the skilled naked rogue opens and stunlocks the buffed rogue, it is quite possible that there is a permanent loss in offensive and defensive abilities for the buffed rogue. Without a lapse in the stunlock, there is no chance for the buffed rogue to come back. In this case, an understanding of the metagame is extremely vital, as both classes are true controllers, as neither could possibly afford to lose control (…blind, restealth, kill the rogue who opened on me, but didn’t stunlock correctly). You still may not get my meaning. Think another problem as a rogue vs a warrior. The rogue stunlocks the warrior down to 20% health, stunlock breaks, and both just rush each other down. Most of the time the rogue is going to win, as the new offense/defense ratios from the end of the stunlock have dramatically changed. It is now a fight between a 20% defense warrior and a 100% defense rogue, even with an imbalance of ratios (as long as they aren’t ridiculous), the rogue no longer must control the fight in order to win, as he can afford to simply trade hits with the warrior as an attacker (but, for cleaner fights, and guaranteed wins, it still may be best to control). Unlike fighting a warrior, losing control to a rogue as a rogue should mean that you immediately lose (assuming your opponent isn’t retarded or unlucky). Thus, the metagame would force a rogue fighting a rogue to fight with control as the number one priority, allowing him to be the attacker only because it is required to maintain control (building combo points). Dealing damage in this particular matchup is almost a secondary effect that just happens to occur as a result of the controlling priority. I offer that there are matchups that a rogue doesn’t have to control start to finish, but that they must be controlled in order to overcome initial and base metagame offense/defense ratios. Very few matchups in the game are like this. Usually, a player can always turn the tide of a battle back in his favor, but of course, only through control.
All this talk about offense/defense ratios, and who is the attacker and controller, and what not…but what the IS crowd control?
Crowd Control (also called CC) is the ability of one character to influence or prevent the abilities or actions of another character(s). Crowd control can be extremely powerful because possible future action trees can be completely eliminated. Thus, the Crowd control user (crowd controller or CCer) can control possible outcomes, forcing or controlling the opponent(s) to use an even fewer set of available abilities/actions as effectively. Used properly, traditional CC often renders an opponent(s) nearly useless, allowing the CCer to use abilities/actions against an opponent(s) without fear of retaliation or response.
Crowd control also includes any ability that –influences-- an opponent’s available future actions. This means that even changing the effectiveness of current and future actions should be considered crowd control. Any form of influence upon your opponent’s offense/defense ratio as compared to your’s IS crowd control. I realize this is a broad definition, but when you get down to it, saying that only Polymorph, sap, or mez is crowd control simply shows a fundamental lack of understanding as to what those abilities mathematically entail. Let us not draw arbitrary lines. Crowd control is about “controlling†or influencing your opponent, hopefully to your advantage.
As much as you may fear this definition, the fact is that any action or passive ability beyond the normal offense and the normal defense influences the offense/defense ratios, possibly in such a way that your opponent will become the controller, as they may have a lower offense/defense ratio because of your action.
Players use crowd control to create offense/defense ratio imbalances between themselves and their opponent(s). In a group setting, crowd control is often used to reduce the number of opponents that one has to fight at once, which makes combat safer, easier, or possible at all, it essentially creates offense/defense ratio imbalances further in favor of the group.
To some extent, every class uses control. But, we will see that after a certain point, some classes rely upon influencing an opponent’s future action trees more than others, in part due to innately low offense/defense ratios.
At naked and green gear levels, as a rogue’s offense/defense ratios peak in effectiveness and proportion to other classes, we are a true attacking class. Everything about a rogue is concerned with getting into melee range and sticking it to them. And, you know what?- we are pretty damn good at it. We maintain a quite respectable sustained base-offense through autoattack. By adding our abilities, which lack scalability (thus remaining more effective at lower gear levels), we can maintain a good offense/defense ratio.
As everyone gears up, and as we calculate the offensive abilities of other classes, we see those ratios shifting. A rogue is still powerful enough to trade hits with most classes and win at this point. Only the warrior and shaman can naturally tank us successfully (as they, with abilities, have a higher offense/defense ratio). Druids in bear form, certain paladins, shadowpriests, soul link warlocks, and certain hunters can also tank us at times, but these are specific examples, and they are expending talent points and wearing a specific type of gear to have as high a base offense/defense ratio as any run-of-the-mill rogue. In most cases, the rogue, post-dps-ability calculation, has one of the highest offense/defense ratios. It would seem at face value (as I think Blizzard only looks at this), the rogue has little to complain about (meaning, if we look at the rogue in a shallow manner, we seem to have it pretty good). Unfortunately, I honestly don’t think Blizzard understands the rogue class itself, because otherwise they would see why we are forced to stunlock…
When you widen your focus, moving away from simple damage to tankability ratios, and you begin to include non-offensive (non-damage-type only) abilities into our offense/defense ratios, then the entire metagame changes. The multitude of fear, stun, root, snare, disarm, healing effects, anti-stealth capabilities, formal CC (sap, poly, seduce), and other effects create an environment that seems far more hostile to the rogue than to most other classes. That is to say, I believe crowd control is far more effective against a rogue, in general, than other classes, and consequently, the rogue’s offense/defense ratios are easily neutralized, forcing the rogue to become the new controller.
My major premise is that a rogue, post-metagame, has innately low offense/defense ratios. As a result, I am also arguing that the rogue, as he has an innately low offense/defense ratio post-metagame, is also the controller in the post-metagame. Even further, I am arguing that post-metagame, the game is imbalanced such that the rogue should lose. Remember: Game balance rests upon equivalent offense/defense ratios of current and future action trees given an equal amount of skill and effort. Although we may have the short-end-of-the-stick, we can make the best of it.
What do I mean by metagame? It is the game after (outside) the game. Metagame is the prediction of how others will make decisions. Metagaming occurs when a player takes advantage of the metagame for purposes of winning more often. Essentially, through the knowledge and estimation of how other players will make decisions, and by anticipating their strategies, the metagamer can build his strategy designed specifically against his opponent’s strategy (i.e. the metagame=your opponent’s strategy). In good and balanced games, metagames will evolve continuously. There should always be a counter for an action; and a counter for that counter, and a counter for the counter’s counter, and so on and so forth. But, certain overall strategies, like “tanking†or “kiting†have been so commonly powerful, that we refer to them as an archetype strategy. For example, I assume that classes that can kite will kite. Then, I respond to this archetype, and then my opponent responds to my response. We are in a continual state of re-evaluating the metagame, and always trying to anticipate our opponents’ strategies.
Another point to understand, especially concerning evolving metagames, is that the choices available have always remained the same. You still always had the future action trees available; you just may not have used them. A good example of this would be an unskilled player who technically HAS the capacity to follow a certain action tree, but never will, maybe because they aren’t skilled enough to realize which future actions in the tree are the best to use in the circumstances.
Now, I said: My major premise is that a rogue, post-metagame, has innately low offense/defense ratios. By post-metagame, I mean the circumstances in which most all players have developed strategies based upon an evolving metagame. These archetypes and strategies are a pretty well set lineup of strategies (like pro-chess), tactics, plans of attack, and responses, in which we can quite easily anticipate what our opponent is going to do next. So, essentially, I mean to say that after most all people (of all classes) know their matchups, what exists now as the metagame, the rogue has a new and very low offense/defense ratio as compared to all other classes (a new ratio which is practically innate to the metagame).
This idea of a post-metagame is interesting. It takes into account the actual offense/defense ratios available and probable per situation in a game. If we really want to look at what is actually occurring and really evaluate the balance-state of a game, we must evaluate each class and matchup per situation post-metagame. Clearly, that takes a lot of work. But, as it is calculable, it is at least possible to prove…
The idea of group-metagames is further complicated. I don’t expect us to have the resources to fully evaluate this metagame. But, as Blizzard contends that WoW will be a group-based PvP/PvE game, I think it would be fair that (as they certainly have the resources), they do the math behind this (which I highly doubt they have, as I don’t see enough evidence suggesting they’ve even done it for the foundational 1v1 matchups).
So, getting right to it (haha), the rogue is one of two classes that can only deal substantial damage while in melee range. Warriors are the other. But, as they have Hamstring (no need to apply poisons here), Charge, and Intercept, they are in an excellent position to glue themselves to an opponent, and prevent kiting. Kiting is the act by which a player (the kiter) will maintain distance between themselves and an opponent (that which is kited), such that the opponent cannot inflict damage (or inflicts less much damage as they normally would). Unlike the warrior, who has readily available, combat-usable, and highly appropriate anti-kiting measures not based upon talents or gear, the rogue has very few options. If an opponent is close enough, we can spend an expensive reagent to blind, hoping that we will catch up to the opponent before blind breaks (also on a long cd), and we are not guaranteed that we will actually catchup. We can vanish, which is on a long cooldown, and hope we catchup (which we won’t always). We can wait the duration of the root/snare spells, and hope we can catch up via sprint (assuming they didn’t already go on horseback). We can also use Distract for that momentary non-combat anti-kite. Good old crippling poison, if applied beforehand, of course, is quite useful, assuming it isn’t dispelled, resisted, and that it lasts long enough, but it requires that we had the opportunity to engage the opponent in the first place. Of course, these abilities can be used in conjunction with each other. But is it enough? Is it a fair use of my talents? Should I only be able to counter kiting methods every 5 minutes? If a class opens on me as a rogue, and kites correctly, I should always lose (even post-CD). This isn’t the case for a warrior (or other classes).
The rogue’s offense/defense ratio is obliterated during a kite. We have limited, expensive, and unsubstantial anti-kite abilities. Now, surely you’ll argue that stealth is the balancing feature. And, yes, I’ll admit that if I get the complete surprise attack from stealth, life is a million times harder for my opponent (not that they can’t win). If my opponent knows I’m around them stealthed, then usually they are not only mentally prepared, but also have things they can do things to limit the effectiveness of stealth and the ability to deny my opener. Stealth just isn’t that powerful, although it is a necessary part of attempting to balance that equation. Catching me out of stealth is an automatic loss against a skilled opponent (and if you don’t think this, and you say you beat people all the time when they open on you, then you aren’t fighting skilled opponents).
Just basics: Priests can fear kite; warlocks can CoE, fear kite, seduce kite; Mages can poly kite, Frostbolt kite, Nova kite, Blink kite; rogues can crippling poison kite after engaging, Druids can root and catform kite; Shaman can frost-shock, ghost wolf, and earthbind totem kite, hunters can CS, WC, Trap, pet intimidate, SS, and AoC kite (good lord); Paladins can stun kite (as if they really need it…), and warriors can Hamstring kite (usually only good for an intercept).
Hrmm…beyond just flat running away, every single class in this game has kiting abilities. That means every single class has an ability (or 6) that completely neutralizes a rogue’s damage entirely through getting out of melee range. While I don’t mind that every class seems to be a response to the warrior and rogue, I am concerned with the rogue’s limited options. I could understand it more if vanish was a perfect stealth (even through damage) and usable every 30 seconds, or if sprint was guaranteed (pre-talents) to give us the possibility of catching up. The fact is: rogues lack good counters to other classes’ counters to our damage. I’ve pretty much accepted that if I get deathcoiled by even a semi-retarded warlock, I’m probably going to die, even if I kill them first.
I’ll give an example of post-metagame kiting which forces the original attack rogue to transform into a control class. Noteworthy, this assumes the hunter has no idea the rogue is there…else it gets even worse.
Pre-Metagame:
Rogue Ambushes
Hunter and pet engage rogue in melee
Rogue has higher offense/defense ratio, the Rogue wins.
The hunter is the controller, and cannot trade hits (for the most part).
Post-Metagame:
Rogue Ambushes.
Hunter Scatter Shots, FD-Traps
Rogue is Frozen, and possesses a zero ratio.
Hunter begins the Kite: AoC, Lay trap on OOC, Mark, and Aimed shot followed by serpent sting on jumpshot to prevent vanish (and to abuse the current vanish bug, as sting would hit on vanish).
Rogue sprints, and maybe eats trap, we’ll assume he doesn’t.
Hunter jumpshot CSes on sprint. Sprint dies out, the Kite puts the rogue back at a zero ratio, and the Hunter wins.
After we consider even a basic metagame evolution like this, you can see a huge difference. One in which the rogue, post-metagame, clearly cannot be an attacker. The new metagame strategy for the rogue is to begin as the controller. In the original metagame you see the rogue as the attacker. In the post-metagame (filled with kiting), the rogue is the controller (as he has been controlled/forced into a terrible ratio).
Post-Post-metagame (with controlling rogue):
Rogue links CS (SS/Hemo), Gouge, KS (unload), Blind (vanish for pet), CS (SS/Hemo), Gouge, KS (unload).
Hunter has a zero offense, and thus a zero ratio for the duration of the fight.
Rogue wins.
Post-post-post-metagame (with hunter controlling):
Rogue CSes
Hunter Trinkets, SS, FD-Trap
Etc. Hunter wins.
With good timing and skill for each class, this is how it should always work.
If the hunter knows the rogue is there, the metagame is a thousand times worse:
Flare/Trap camping
Hunter uses of consumables before fight (which rogue can’t use stealthed, minus poisons)
Rogue eats trap, maybe with a lucky sap on hunter, usually not.
If not sapped, then GG, hunter wins.
If sapped, then Hunter may or may not get the kite, regardless, trinket-SS-FD-trap will take care of it.
Does this mean I always lose to hunters? No. I rarely do lose at all, but that has more to do with a lack of skill on the hunter’s part. Hell, I often catch them with gouge on trinket…but, the hunter has a huge advantage, as he had the opportunity to spam Trinket-SS (1-second time frame, which doesn’t require ping), while the time frame on my screen is 1-second + my ping. Thus, I shouldn’t actually get my gouge off before SS hits me (unless I have some telepathic powers and I somehow know a second in advance when he will trinket-SS). And, if they are smart, and they trinket on KS, I lose right there. Regardless, why should my response have to be so fast, trying to catch someone on the spam? They can take their sweet time on CS or KS. Practical responses just don’t exist. I will that that hunters can be killed, but we shouldn’t be able to do it when you get right down to it.
Now, now…I’m sure every GM is going to tell you, well, the rogue has a “choice†as to whether he will engage. And, I’m here to tell ya’ that there isn’t always choice. Metagames and balance aren’t concerned with whether you feel like attacking the player. The question is: would you make it or not? What if you don’t start the fight stealthed, and you get opened upon? What if I MUST cap an AB node against a single hunter in the next 30 seconds, in order for us to win, shouldn’t I at least have a shot at winning? Opportunity does not always present itself. It is a piss-poor argument to say that we have choice, a lot of the time you don’t.
I’m always amazed by the oh-so infallible arguments Blizzard will give concerning game and class balance. The very fundamentals of group-based fighting are based upon the solo-based fights. Without a strict and completely balanced set of solo-based matchups, how in the world will group-based fighting be balanced? (Sorry, I’m ranting…) Show me the math! /rant off
So……How can rogues control the fight? We’ve already seen one way--gearing up.
In a duel between two equally equipped rogues, the fight isn’t much different than the pure naked fight. Sure, the offense and defense numbers have changed, but the ratios have not changed in comparison to each other. Both will still die, on average, at the same time. So, should you simply acquire more and more gear? At some point, gear will be equivalent across the board. Assuming you wasted enough time fighting PvE mobs in a game, and your opponents did as well, there will be no advantage to gearing up. Acquiring Gear, then is just another way to waste your time, it really says nothing about your skill….but hey, if you want to compete on a more level playing field, gearing up may be necessary, so you’ll probably need some of your own. Gear acts as a passive form of crowd control that increases your offense effectiveness while also influencing through limitations the effectiveness of your opponent’s offense. But remember, that your objective is to win, not to tie, and gearing up will only give you a tie against an equally geared opponent.
There are other obvious ways of increasing your offense/defense ratio. How about using abilities alongside auto-attack? In the base rogue vs rogue matchup, if one of the rogues started using SS/Evisc, he will surely win. You would notice that these basic damage abilities increase the rogue’s overall DPS (damage per second offense), and thus the offense/defense ratio. Even a butt-naked rogue using SS/Evisc would defeat a buffed rogue. Conversely, given equal gear, if both rogues choose to use abilities alongside autoattack, then, again, there is a stalemate. If you wish, you may try to classify this as part of the base damage of the offense, and that may or may not be acceptable. But, the more you assume in the base, the more problematic it can become in calculating future action trees. It is best to think of this as influencing offense/defense ratios, and therefore, as a form of CC.
Personally, I like to think of my energy, combo points, and any non-auto-attack abilities as a resource to spend and a convertible set of options in a future action tree. I would hate to limit myself to CS, SS, Gouge, KS in EVERY single fight, when sometimes a CS, SS, Eviscerate would be clearly more effective at the time. In reality, we must calculate future options based upon the current situation. Knowing whether you are the attacker or the controller, and whether you can actually win the fight or if you should suicide (*cough, unfortunately rogues have to deal with the latter quite often), is essential to understanding the current situation for when we decide which options would be best to choose and use. Thus, I would rather calculate non-auto-attack abilities in our offense/defense ratios per situation, as the use of the abilities varies per situation.
Another elementary approach to crowd control is positioning. Positioning can be very powerful. For a rogue, it opens up other future action trees, like Ambush and Backstab, and generally allows the controller to deal damage an opponent without the opponent being able to deal damage to the controller, i.e. eliminating an opponent’s future action trees involving melee damage. This is extremely powerful, but also extremely easy to counter. Becoming adept at positioning is one control feature that will allow you defeat certain opponent’s, essentially through eliminating their future action trees. In strict PvE, positioning is always useful; but elsewhere, usually this form of control is not good enough.
Stealthing can provide a number of control features, including positioning and the first hit…and also that wonderful element of surprise (a metagame issue). Stealthing innately changes your offense/defense ratios. Use it to your advantage; use it often, don’t listen to retards that think you are cheap for restealthing multiple times during a fight. Ask them what cheap is? I doubt they’ll be able to give you a good answer, most likely it would be idiotic and arbitrary. Just remember: by using stealth you are influencing your opponent’s future action trees through your control. If they can’t see you, then they will have a harder time either damaging or controlling you.
In the base rogue vs rogue matchup, stealthing is available to both players. Notice that each time one rogue in our base matchup becomes a controller, they quickly gain an advantage over the attacker. At first one person gained gear, and was winning, then both had gear, then one player use special attacks, and was winning, and so the other player used specials, etc. There is only so much on can do to bring up offensive ratings and passive defensive ratings. At some point, we have to use pro-active abilities to be the best controller of a fight. Essentially, if you are the controller, it is your job to create situations in which it is safe or safer for you to attack, such that your offense/defense ratio is higher than your opponents.The person with the higher offense/defense ratio is the attacker, the person with the lower is the controller. By controlling, these ratios change such that the controller will eventually be in a position to be the attacker, and the original attacker will want to be a controller…..(post-metagame is would seem that everyone is a controller until the time is to be an attacker, but, it still boils down to when you should be attacking and when you should be controlling, the roles can change quite often).
Buffs like evasion also influence the effectiveness of future melee action trees, and therefore act as a form of crowd control. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve gone AR/BF/Evasion and rushed down 3-4 mobs that I would never have been able to solo otherwise. My offense/defense ratio skyrocketed to the point that I overcame the entire encounters offense/defense ratio.
Even healing acts as a form of Crowd control as it directly influences offense/defense ratios. Healing equates to +X to your total defensive HP. Increasing the numerator in our equation immediately decreases the percentage of your defense that an opponent penetrates as opposed to the percentage of your opponent’s defense that you would penetrate.
Buffs, gear, healing, consumables, and positioning are all relatively basic control features that every class can use. I think we should evaluate, even if only for moment, some of the core pro-active control abilities of a rogue.
Stealth, from a good distance, without a pet coming to attack you (“working as intended†my ass), essentially eliminates the fight altogether. Even if your opponent knows you are there, the rogue is the only class that can effectively choose the matchup (beautiful for those who do the math). At a distance, and assuming the stealther will avoid detection and AE’s, stealth puts all offense/defense ratios at zero.
Now, of course, if a mage see’s you stealth right in his face, he still can nova you, and so future action trees still contain the possibility of non-zero offense/defense ratios. The same would go for players with extremely high stealth detection. This, like all of the calculations of stealth, rests upon player reactions a great deal. I can’t tell you how many times I’ll CS, Gouge, Evisc on a mage and he’ll blink/poly, I’ll vanish, and he had the opportunity to CoC me out of stealth right in front of him…but he forgot. It may be best to simply calculate the fact that the mage did have the chance to CoC or Blizzard, or what not, but on average, only 20% would do it…Something along those lines might be best. I still maintain this is quantifiable and calculable; it may come down to just a question of practicality for us mortals who actually play the game (as opposed to devs).
In many cases your opponent won’t even know your there. And, this may be one of the harder calculations in the game to make, primarily because it abuses the actual players reaction to a surprise attack. Catching a cold-blooded hardcore pvper with a surprise attack might not mean anything different in the calculations; they may have practiced this a thousand times, and may react as if it were a normal thing (as if they were prepared…which they would be technically). Catching someone totally offguard, like ganking in IF (where they don’t expect it), might net you a victory you normally wouldn’t have won if the opponent had been more mentally prepared, as in the case of a duel. In this case, offense/defense ratios will vary based upon a micro-metagame, ranging from fighting an AFK player with zero offense/defense potential to a shadowpriest that trinket/fears you into some guards and meltz your face with their maximum (or even higher because of guards) offense/defense potential.
Distract has be to be one of my favorite abilities (while imp. Distract talent had to be the most useless one I’d ever seen). I always laugh when someone loses in a duel simply because of a silly thing like distract; who would have thought it was so useful? This is strictly a positional debuff, but it can also be used to stop someone dead in their tracks, and depending on their reaction time, it can be used as a non-combat anti-kiting tool. Like stealth, this can have a lot to do with how an opponent reacts.
There are two best case scenarios for Distract.
1.) You are attempting to get around a mob that you would otherwise be forced to engage, and thus acting as a complete elimination of an opponent’s offense/defense
2.) You need to catchup to that darn player that running from you to open, maybe he’s a flag carrier or something. Distract will increase your practically zero offense/defense ratio to your normal engaged offense/defense ratio against an opponent (assuming you regen 30e before you reach them, otherwise that must be calculated as well).
Sap is clear and formal crowd control. It is the ability to completely eliminate an opponent from combat. Gotta cap an AB node with 2 people? Sap one, kill the other. You transformed the Group’s two-person offense/defense ratio to one person’s offense/defense ratio for approx. 15 seconds. With thistle tea, you may just win =). This is an easy to calculate tempo advantage.
Gouge is the odd ball, and certainly one of the most underused abilities a rogue has. Most rogues get the imp. Gouge, and for good reason. If you wait for gouge’s entire effect, it is nearly a free combo point. At the very least gouge can interrupt spells. Here is why gouge is fantastic:
Gouge=45e=4 seconds of incapacitate (any damage will break it) + 1 combo point.
Essentially, waiting 4 seconds is 2 ticks of energy, and you get 40e back. That means, If you wait for the full effect:
Gouge=45e=4 seconds of incapacitate + 1 combo point + 40e. Making the cost 5e in the end…5e for 4 seconds to do what you need to do and 1 combo point? Amazing.
By improving it we get:
Gouge=45e=5.5 seconds of incapacitate + 1 combo point + 40-60energy (75% of the time it will be 3 ticks). This makes a great skill even better.
Waiting for gouge can be a good or a bad thing clearly. If the mob is DoTed, and it takes damage upon gouge, then you spent 45e for one combo point (and technically the crit chance for SF, if you are specced for it). But, in most cases where you have some time, gouge is a means of escaping (for kite), preventing a spell cast, proccing SF, a free combo point (hard to pass up), actually generating more energy than it costs, and is a great lead-in for Kidney Shot.
Even in solo PvE, assuming you don’t have adds, this skill is always worth using every 15 seconds. It is true tempo advantage. You benefit from a combo point and up to +15 energy at the cost of nothing! You and your opponent just sit there, and you reap the rewards while your opponent does not. You are one combo point and 15 energy ahead of where you were before you used gouge, and your opponent is still where they were from the beginning. This is tempo advantage.
Blind is what makes the rogue a viable class in the upper-echelon metagames. Blind does what vanish cannot (assuming blind lasts). Blind is a free restealth, it is 10 seconds to kite, it is a FULL bar of energy regeneration, and it interrupts spell casting from a distance. It is the only answer to so many problems the rogue has…and it is the best link between stunlocks a rogue could ask for. In my opinion, this is the best control spell a rogue possesses. I can take multiples with this spell just by shifting targets, I can escape from the inescapable, and I maintain control (which is everything to a rogue). Usually stunlockers have points left over post-KS, and if they are pro, they can EA through Blind, restealth, and boom ;P restart on an EA’d targeted. Although, with the reagent cost, this should be spammable…Otherwise, with a 5-min CD, wtf is there a reagent cost for?
Blind=30e + reagent on 5min CD= EA, 10 seconds to bandage, restealth, apply poisons, run away, /dance, link stunlocks together, the only true and lengthy combat-usable elimination control spell, the only range ability of value, the best answer to a kite, and enough time to eat a slice of pizza (gobble, gobble, gobble).
This has numerous repercussions on the offense/defense ratios. It is versatile and powerful (and rogues need it).
Vanish is similar to blind in its power. Vanish does what Blind cannot do. It is an AE elimination of the rogue’s offense/defense ratios from combat equations. There are of course preconditions to use, a few counters to it, and hella’ bugs. But, I love this spell. (Vanish + Blind=Prep is the best talent a rogue can have). Vanish allows a rogue to re-open at any point in a fight, and sometimes that is exactly what you need. Blind requires you have the actual 10 seconds to wait, vanish doesn’t. While vanish isn’t versatile in all the same respects as Blind, it immediately changes a rogue’s offense/defense ratio’s back to stealthed ratios.
And why is restealthing so freaking awesome if you are going to opening? Cheapshot.
Cheapshot is ridiculously good. This is the greatest ability a rogue has in his arsenal. Even if it was only 60energy for 2-3 combo points that would make it the best combo point generator in the game. But, on top of that 60 energy (which can be brought down to 40e with talents), a rogue can benefits from 4 solid seconds of stun. 4 seconds of true stun. Like gouge, Cheapshot almost pays for itself, you gain 40energy back making it cost anywhere from 0-20 energy.
CS=40/60 energy=4 seconds of stun, +2-3 combo points (depending on talents), and +40 energy.
A true stun presents the occasion in which the stunner may act upon his opponent in any way, shape, or form, without fear of reprisal. I consider this the king of crowd control. Would you rather have a 10 second polymorph or a 10 second stun? Why? You can beat on the stunned opponent!!
On my rogue (+2 DD fo’ sho’), CS is a FREE +2-3 combo points with 4 seconds of white damage. I sit at about 150 white DPS, easily 600 damage and +2-3 combo all for free? Ambush costs 60energy more, and although it deals its damage instantly, it lacks control and real damage in the end. My CS, Hemo, Evisc is worlds more damage than Ambushing (w/talents).
CS is the real deal. Only the mage class should be ambushed (if specced for it) as opposed to CS. And, we certainly have the tools to express the equation for why this is the case. (Darn you blink!)
And, finally, my absolute favorite rogue control ability: Kidney Shot.
KS=25e or 0e w/Relentless Strikes=2-6 seconds of stun + 60% chance of combo point with talents + 20-60energy
You pretty much always finish with atleast a 3-5 point KS. For the time, I’ll speak of KS as a 5 pointer. So what is KS? KS is 6 seconds TIME. Time my friend is the greatest influence upon offense/defense ratios one can have. Tempo advantage is a direct boost to future offense/defense ratios. In fact, it is the equivalent of applying your offense/defense ratio to an opponent, without them applying anything to you.
A 5-point KS is 6 seconds of white damage, +60 energy to spend, possibly an extra combo point, and whatever else you want to do. Thank you Blizzard for this ability. KS, like CS, is a true stun. Only, it is combat usable (unlike CS which requires stealth).
KS is THE skill to use when possible. It is superior to eviscerate in so many ways. 6 seconds of white=900 damage + 60 energy. Even in groups one should consider KS over eviscerate. It might lower your damage meters, but it will certainly have a much more profound impact on a rogue’s or group’s overall offense/defense ratios. Imp KS leads me to believe that Blizzard understands what KS might mean to some extent, and although I don’t advocate investing in Imp KS, I do think this is the best finisher available to a rogue.
A 6 second Kidney shot means you have, with the exception of trinkets, eliminated an opponent’s future action trees over the next 6 seconds, while simultaneously opening up most all of your future action trees for 6 seconds. For most rogues, this means that you will deal 6 seconds of white damage, gain some positioning, blow some cooldowns, and deal some damage from special attacks, all for free! KS is the goto finisher
I won’t bore you with possible stunlocks. But, we can at least understand the offense/defense ratio transformations. The essential feature of the stunlock, is that control abilities are linked together in such a way that most or all actions of an opponent are prevented.
Stunlocks are tempo advantage. They are the only good way a rogue has to improve his offense/defense ratio. This is almost entirely a rogue strategy, and it is the only thing that seperates us from becoming useless. Stunlocking, even if only a softlock, gives the rogue the advantage he needs. Stunlocking puts your opponent in a prison. We can torture them, even if it is slower than ambush/BS, without fear of becoming controlled ourselves.
Stunlocking creates the opportunity for a rogue to become the attacker.
A rogue that doesn’t choose to stunlock, and instead chooses to play as just an attacker, will not have as much control over an opponent’s future action trees. Consequently, most skilled opponents, having realized the rogues fatal error, will have a response that will control the fight in their favor.
Think before you fight! ;P Make yourself useful; Be a pro-active controller; stunlock for the win.
<span class="postbody">The basic summary:</span>
1.) Classes with innately lower offense/defense ratios must play as the controller against classes with higher offense/defense ratios.
2.) The rogue has one of the lowest innate post-metagame offense/defense ratios.
Thus:
3.) The rogue must play as the controller against most classes in the game.
Conclusion:
There are billions of calculations possible. And, thinking in these terms is a daunting task. Most players simply use experience and intuition as their guide. And, for most, that is fine. Many couldn’t be concerned with character balance or optimal strategies. Good for them! For anyone who does care about fairness and strategy, you should be crunching the numbers…starting with the offense/defense ratio. We should all develop that: “Show me the Math or be quiet,†mentality.
At surface value, the article may have presented nothing new for you to actually USE it in combat. But, the point of the article is for us to become capable of justifying our actions mathematically.
And, with this sort of thinking, we are in a MUCH better position to explain why a Naxx Warrior eliminates some of the utility and significance of a Naxx rogue (in PvE of course). Showing the math behind offense/defense ratios of encounters gives insputable evidence about why:
A class is imbalanced?
One strategy is stronger than another?
Which gear is best to wear?
Which build is best to use?
Etc…..
I think that the majority of players and even the dev’s lack a good conception of the very fabric and genetic structure of these games. In an attempt to fix that, I wrote this article hoping to present strong case for not only crunching the numbers (in every aspect of the game), but also the reasoning behind why a rogue is a control class, and why rogues should be stunlocking. Maybe you learned something, maybe you didn’t. Hope you didn’t fall asleep too many times! =)
We bought The Burning Crusade. (SP2 req though...i'm afraid it might not work). Once it is up, I'll be botting quickly to 70. From there, I'll run instances + arena etc. But, I'm doubting whether I should bot at all at 70, as I'm sure to get a million tells for LFG and what not. Bot a BE pally ftw?. Still need to cough up 1.5-2k for the mountificationness. Anyways, plan on leveling my rogue and then the pally. Hey, I always wanted to be brokenly good! I predict level 70 BE pallies in 2 weeks. Mine will take 4-8 weeks.
I've been enjoying some good duels, but a lot of young adults play...and they have a tendancy to be retarded...good duels, poor conversation. Not that I get conversation with anyone but my wife (and she often times is too tired and stressed to talk with me). Hell, why do you think I write you...you oblivion. Getting it out of my head, whatever I'm spewing on these pages, keeps me sane.
Work is...work. But, I'm glad it is a job instead of a career for me. I am most thankful that I don't feel like in put in a position of doing what is moral vs. what my boss(es) tell me to do, unlike public schools. My job is not very significant, and I'm glad I can say it and plan for the future with that lense. Of course, I'm sure that doesn't clearly please my bosses, it at least doesn't get me into trobule. While I can put out the production of 5 people, I now only put out what is required and then some. I don't have incentive to do more.
Mind you, I'm very difficult to please. My job is fine. It pays the bills, and isn't strictly immoral from what I can see. Not my function directly in life, but it allows to me to support my family, which certainly qualifies as a purpose.
---Oh, and Flint and Kathy are taking the baby for us on Saturday. We are gonna have a day of it....breakfast, Magic tourney, hopefully we'll grab some Indian food. We sure could use a day off from the kidlet.
I am burned out. I used to come into work fully energized, ready to do my job--I was motivated. While most people were taking 20-40 inbound calls a day, I was pulling 80 a day, taking them back to back with no downtime. In outbound, I was able, at my peak, to do 35 calls an hour. 35! I barely get 45-50 done in an 8 hour work day now. Why this shift from fast paced production to the lethargy of barely meeting the quota?
It is simple: I have no incentive to put forth more effort or production than what is required of me. I'll get paid the same amount either way, and they are satisfied with the minimum, so why do more? In fact, I have way more incentive to be a mediocre employee, as opposed to really giving my full-fledged effort. What economic incentives have the administrators and managers of Humana created for me to perform well below my capabilities?
1.) No matter the effort I put forth, I get paid the same amount. Whether I put forth 400% production or 80% production (of the quota), I get paid the same. Why should I try harder when it doesn't result in any further tangible rewards? This isn't an issue of my "attitude"...it is a simple fact of economics. If I produce more, then I should be rewarded or compensated more. As this does not occur, then I'll meet the expectations they've presented in writing, and stop at that.
(Apparently, we don't even get raises that break the inflationary rate to keep up with our standard of living. So the reasoning that I will get a compensation adjustment in virtue of my production, one that is even remotely proportional to my effective total production, is completely ridiculous.)
2.) My efforts are actually punished. You'd assume that Humana would try and give me "added value" to my work place experience, as an alternative to actually increasing my salary. Instead of added value, I've been treated as the employee that must be doing it all wrong. Ironically, being an overachiever has actually netted me grief and stress (that I wouldn't have had if I had just done the normal amount).
When I was putting up the numbers, literally blowing everyone away on the metrics, management didn't approach me with an open-mind, they merely assumed that my method and performance was flawed. Instead of saying "Good job," and quitely trying to learn from what I was doing, they just observed with suspicion, practically frowning upon the fact that I broke their mold. I was even shadowed at my desk TWICE! because they didn't believe my production was valid. Albeit, I'm not perfect, and I do make mistakes during work, this doesn't invalidate my overall productivity. You'd think these people would be smart enough to sit down with me, 1 on 1, and ask me what I'm doing and why. Since they obviously can't do this job themselves (which has been made clear to me in a number of ways), don't you think I am in an excellent position to help setup the method by which to complete these calls in a more effective and efficient fashion? Don't you think they could learn from me, and that maybe my skills of methodological innovation could be put to good use? Clearly, it is better to lay low, to do a mediocre job and not take any flak for it.
3.) Socially, I bare the pressure and attitudes of other co-workers who are both envious and stupid, and my supervisor allows this to occur. It is obvious that they are playing politics, and I recieve no benefit from the alienation that occurs through my productivity.
Seriously, why try? I am lost in a see of politics and bereuacracy. It is obvious that my supervisors are retarded, and can't even fulfill their egoist's mission to put up 'the big numbers' effectively. They need what I have, they need me, and they are too stupid to realize it.
Another incentive issue: I have a 2.5-3 hour round trip commute each day. That is 2.5-3 hours that I am not getting paid for, hours spent away from home. I could get paid 12 bucks a day somewhere next to my house and make the same amount of money if I spent as much time away from home there as I do traveling to and fro, and working at Humana.
I do need a new job. Seriously.
Right now, it pays the bills and it covers our needs. My family is provided for...and for that, I cannot complain.
I apologize for not posting in the past week or so...but, I have been thinking and writing. I've also been over at roguespot.com and wowglider.com working away at what I'm going to do in WoW. And, I've been busy reading and considering themanadrain.com's content (as well a one "Smemnen" 's articles which are very well written). k0sh3k and I have even discussed selling my character and botting another back to 70 in 5 weeks (now that I know exactly what to do). Hell, we could even make a business of it...if we got it down pat, and could sell them 1k a piece, I could bot a network at home, and just bot'n'sell accounts all day.
But, eh, for now, I am really enjoying my rogue. I just hit 70, and I might just keep him (especially as Ebay just banned the sale of intangibles).
Mom and Dad's laptop has been stolen...the brand new one I believe. That sucks! They are good otherwise, I'll have to see how their visas are going. Speaking of which, JRE got his passport in the mail...I wonder if he will really stay in Thailand.
There is a general consensus among people, or a movement among those who have taken at least one psychology class, that intelligence and wisdom are two different types of thinking. Usually, people will say that intelligence is a property of mind that encompasses many related mental abilities, such as the capacities to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend ideas and language, and learn. As for wisdom, people say it is the ability, developed through experience, insight and reflection, to discern truth and exercise good judgment. For a long time I agreed with these distinctions; however, I do not conclude that they are seperate any longer.
I argue that wisdom is actually a subset of intelligence, it is a TYPE of intelligence so to speak. You've certainly heard the phrases "book smart" and "street smart". You've seen how they've been divided, as if one had nothing to do with the other. While they are distinctly different types of thinking, they are STILL "thinking", which falls directly into the category of intelligence.
While it isn't necessary to flesh out the full meaning and nature of intelligence, we can at least appreciate that intelligence is generally about thinking. Some people are intelligent in this or that, some people are smarter in math or science, some people are intelligent with words. Intelligence varies. Now, I in no way mean to detract of the relevance or study of intelligence and wisdom. But, we can see that wisdom is just a specific TYPE of thinking. What is wisdom thinking about: morality. Wisdom is simply a question of what one OUGHT to do. This is a specific, and most important type of intelligence.
I demand that we not drift into spiritual or relativistic type arguments. This is a patently obvious truth: wisdom is a subset of intelligence. Wisdom isn't granted by God necessarily... but, the tools to become wiser? yes.
In evaluating how "intelligent" a person is, we must then also take into account their wisdom. Assuming doing the Will of God is the most important thing a person can do, and Willing God's Will is a choice made directly from wise-thinking, then we would argue that wisdom is the most attribute of a person's intelligence.
What does this mean to us? It means that, when we are weighing the importance and impacts of different types of intelligences, wisdom will be the most influential factor to consider. We cannot call someone "smart" unless they are wise.
Is this much different from what other people mean? I think it is. They attempt to divide the two, cognitive/scientific reasoning and wisdom...mostly as a way to show that there is "more to the world than logical thinking." However, it is clear that wisdom IS a form of logical thinking, a very specific and important type of logical thinking.
We cannot divide wisdom and logic. A truly logical person will be a truly wise person, and vice versa. Does this make me a rationalist? Yes. But, I think the rationalism needs some context.
A being who is omniscient and perfectly intelligent is also a perfectly wise being. That is to say, God knows what is morally right through REASON alone. He has no spirituality about it, He logically deduces the right answers to all things.
Are we, as humans, perfectly intelligent and omniscient beings? No. Thus, we will not successfully deduce all things, and we will not be perfectly wise. This means: man-made institutions and beliefs, in general, as we are not perfectly logical, will not be perfect or perfectly wise. HOWEVER, this does not eliminate the truth that there was the possibility OF a logical deduction.
This of course would bring further questions. How can one be responsible for his actions or thoughts if he were not given the tools to fully accomplish the logic, and subsequentially, the wisdom of God? You can only be responsible for what you possibly could have been responsible for.
Here is where we must apply relative-type thinking (without the heresy of course). A person with down syndrome is a person (we won't deny it). Will they ever have even average intelligence? No. Thus, they won't have average wisdom. What are they judged on? They are judged on the fruits of what they possibly could have logically deduced. If they could only manage the deductions that killing people is wrong, then they will be judged accordingly.
Does this mean we have the right to judge people like this? Without omniscience, we are not in a position to judge so easily. This doesn't mean there isn't a distinct right and wrong in a situation, rather 1.) we ourselves might not know the answer, and 2.) we are limited in our evaluation of another's person moral culpability. However, that doesn't mean we aren't capable of showing obvious stupidity and not.
We should take extra care to point out that the "brilliant" person who is unwise is actually not very intelligent in the end, and, the seemingly "dim-witted" person who is wise, might actually be very intelligent (in virtue of a strong wisdom rating ;P).
It is evident that responsibility scales with our intelligence and freedom to act upon that knowledge. Wisdom is merely a synonym of intelligence in the end (subset, yes, but it points towards the meaning and purpose of our intellect). Intelligence has no purpose outside of what is valuable and what is moral. Intelligence and free will exist in virtue of BEING MORAL. Â
We exist to do what is morally right. Speaking in terms of "intelligence" and "wisdom" as seperate concepts is not a constructive distinction, as they exist as the same thing for the same purpose. All choices are moral choices. Smart and wise are the same thing, period.
I’m level 67 at the moment, and I’ve had a good time. I appreciate how well-crafted TBC has been. Mind you, I don’t run too many quests (until I’m max level, then I’ll probably pick the ones that have good rewards). So, mainly I’ve been grinding. The grind has been just that, a grind. I have leveled faster than I thought I would though.
I was going to level up my ghetto 500ap 3.5khp 16% crit, newly made 60 rogue with a build that could PvP (Hemo build, with weaponswap for daggers…the new 21/8/22 for me at the time). <a href="http://www.wowhead.com/?talent=ihtfox0oZhZEMss0hRo">http://www.wowhead.com/?talent=ihtfox0oZhZEMss0hRo</a>
Of course, when TBC actually came out, I quickly found out that I needed a grinding build, at least until I got some equipment upgrades. So, eventually I decided upon a heavy sub grinding spec…with a twist that has worked out great for me. <a href="http://www.wowhead.com/?talent=whxboZhbxzZxMjohhRso">http://www.wowhead.com/?talent=whxboZhbxzZxMjohhRso</a>. While originally my heavy sub grind build (which has outperformed combat for me while grinding) never had any combat points, I decided to give riposte a test run (I know it was quite powerful when I was combat). To my pleasant surprise, it turned out very well. I found that the AP sacrifices were worth it, especially if and when I got adds. With evasion (which you could pop liberally), fighting multiples was actually pretty easy, considering Setup + multiple parries for riposte, I could mow through adds when I got them.
Now, that I’m slightly more geared, 1100AP + 7k hp + 16% crit, I’ve been having my usual PvP urges. I can’t take it anymore!! When TBC first came out, everyone was all carebear, everyone was grinding, and nobody PvPed or ganked. But, people are human, oh yeah, you know you have those urges too, and they started ganking. The first few I just let go, but after a while I knew I needed revenge. So, as I am frankly tired of grinding, I’ve respecced, hopefully for a final time until 70 (I spend far too much money respeccing), so that I could PvP. Right now I’m using:
<a href="http://www.wowhead.com/?talent=iheboxooZhZxMjohhRsho">http://www.wowhead.com/?talent=iheboxooZhZxMjohhRsho</a>
While it doesn’t sport the weaponswap for daggers, it does keep setup and camo, which are both fun and keep me sane while grinding (I <3 Camo). The build keeps the fundamental combat structure for grinding, but most importantly it gives back my beautiful, wonderful, most exalted Cold Blood. I can certainly feel not having riposte or the extra points in the heavy sub agi/AP talents, but it is SO worth it for me.
Despite previous ill-will towards a certain 31-point talent in the sub tree, especially at pre-61, I’ve grown quite addicted to it as well. Pre-TBC, premed was simply not as good as cold blood. But, now that I can have both, I will sing premeditation’s praises! On the gank, with MoS, Premed-CB-CS-Evisc is a 3k open. They start the fight at 25-40% health inside a CS-lock? Yes, please. Even if premed is substandard for dueling, it is hella’ fun elsewhere, and truly shines for pure rush downs with cold blood (when control doesn’t matter to you).
My zombie-grind mind is now loving the game even more as I come back to PvPing and ganking. Beat a 70 Hunter that opened on me yesterday, and I’ve found paladins MUCH easier to kill, I cut through them like butter. Crack that turtle, and you win. The pleasure of hemo is now that I have a choice: I can burst or I can stunlock as usual.
My favorite improvement for the rogue class has been survivability.
1.)   My HP levels are wonderful (for greens at least). I’m no longer getting 2-shotted by anyone. I can take a few hits, I can take multiples much easier. In both PvE and PvP it is nice to be able to take a few hits. I suspect that at 70 we’ll have to choose between high survivability or high damage in PvE (opting for damage of course). The itemization is obviously setup to split rogues up into highest ap/crit or survivability with some AP. For me, as I’m an HP-whore, I’ll definitely opt for the survivability.
2.)   Cloak of Shadows. While this was very nice pre-TBC, having it trained is just the amazing. I’m actually GLAD they didn’t put this on prep, 1-minute CD for something this powerful is broken. I secretly think this will have to be nerfed. We are officially escape artists. If I’m actually paying attention to my screen, unless I’m stunlocked to death, I am pretty much ungankable. This might be more powerful than prep as far as I am concerned. This is usable in stealth too…totally awesome. Simply a savage ability.
Problems, concerns, etc.
a.)   I have noticed that eviscerates seem lower than usual for me. I used to hit consistently harder (on the same mobs even). But, I’m not complaining about it, the math checks out (as it didn’t before).
b.)   Envenom is lackluster. Nothing new here. I probably won’t be using this ability.
c.)   Weapon itemization is pretty awful for hemo rogues. I’ve yet to see good replacements for my HWL 2.9 MH. I’m wondering if I’m going to be forced into daggers for this reason (or heavens no, forced into imp SS)
d.)   I’m still not fully satisfied with our functionality in groups. Imp sap has been very useful, but beyond that, I feel my role is comparatively not as vital as others, and that my role is crowded by a lot of classes. I realize this the plague of the DPS class, but I think further evaluation of rogue function is necessary.
e.)Â Â Â Engineering, wtf happened to my beloved engineering?
f.)     Shadowstep still needs a lot of work from where I stand. The opportunity costs aren’t worth it at this point. I’m betting they’ll buff this ability, but until then, I’m not pleased with its performance as a 41 point talent.
Props to:
1.)Â Â Â Master of Sub: 10% damage is top flight. This, DD and initiative compose the core engine behind sub builds. The more and more I play, the more I appreciate this ability.
2.)   Cold blood. While it probably isn’t as powerful as it once was, dictating crits is so powerful. It’s little brother premed makes it even better, even for PvE! Sap 1, Premed-CS-CB-Evisc-GS number 2, rush down number three, gg? With evasion it gets even better.
3.)Â Â Â The zonewide PvPish objectives, really a lot of fun, especially for a rogue.
4.)Â Â Â 18-slot bags that are dirt cheap (cost me 10g per bag as I had most of the mats already from grinding).
5.)Â Â Â More interesting content in PvE and instances.
TBC has really brought me back to loving the rogue class once again. I really love playing a rogue again. I’m even enjoying bits and pieces PvE (and that has been years since I’ve even remotely care about PvE…like, Everquest years ago). Two thumbs up for Blizzard for a high quality expansion.
I’ve been sitting at close to 8.5k hp unbuffed now…1450 AP, 16% crit, and 4% hit, using roughly the same weapons. Any further adjustments to my gear will now require alot more effort, for alot less reward. I am going for a few pieces though. 4-piece assassination set, the Aldor exalted and below gear, and a ring from spirit shards. I want to break, when all is said and done: 9k hp, 1500 AP, 20% crit, 6% hit, with 80 DPS weapons with epic enchants. I’m still not fond of resilience just yet.
My problem has been a lack of good hemo weapons (no slow weapons to speak of). It looks like I’ll be jumping from a 2.9 speed weapon to a 2.6. Even with a 20 DPS gap in the weapons, hemo looks less and less useful. Right now, I hit like a truck. In fact, I’m deceptively powerful wielding old HWL MH. This issue has made me work out the numbers, and I’m considering going sinister strike at this point. Hemo, it appears, will never reach SS damage through the abuse of AP and slow, slow weapons as it once did. Right now, I’m considering 23/5/33. No CS-H-H-KS though, and that sucks. I’ll try it out.
As of right now, I’m botting (need to find a better spot) grinding cash, not for the mount, but to buy aldor rep items. I couldn’t find a suitable place to bot the actual items, so I’m farming motes and selling them to buy the marks/fel arms. I’ll have to look at the market again and evaluate the overpriced and easy to acquire items/motes that will net the greatest cash. I’d prefer in some ways, a distance island of netherstorm where I won’t see anyone, but where it drops mad loot. Hard to find such places as TBC is so crowded. I’m on the edge of Nagrand at the very bottom of the map doing the elementals. Safe and easy.
I am definitely enjoying arena and dueling. I lose very rarely. Druids and paladins are much easier than before. I must say that CB-Prep builds lose some of their appeal as people truly gear up correctly. Most people are still not gearing stamina up enough. When people are catching up to me (which isn’t hard), I’ll find myself having to work for the win a lot more.
Our family had a rough week.
1.) Bathrooms are still acting up. Plumbers have come 4 times (none of us happy about it, they'll get a mouthful if we have to call them again), they told us to use Charmin...dad says to use Scott. I'll trust dad. It is only periodically problematic, and not as big of issue as nothing is going into our bathtub (eww).
2.) k0sh3k had a migraine that lasted for 4 of 5 days (1 day intercession). She was in agony (I felt awful for her). She laid in bed...The baby and I kept quiet, far away from her. She won't let me do anything for her. I can only give her the medicine our doctor gave us (doesn't work though). Beyond medicine, all I can do to help is cover her eyes and keep light out of the room as best as possible. The constant drone-like headache she experiences day in and day out on top of these ever-increasing migraines has me worried. I have no idea what to do--I pray often (not that I expect any results). We are going to the doctor again this Wednesday. I have my personal thoughts concerning the possible causes, or rather the uprising and higher frequency of these headaches, but I'm not a doctor, so I'll keep them to myself for now.
3.) I somehow managed to hit the curb (again, *sigh) with my vehicle. This time I dented the wheel. I thought, as the Kia is so light that I may have actually damage the body/frame/axel (doesn't take much to ruin a Kia). We were without a vehicle, and k0sh3k was incapacitated. Claudia and Joe? generously gave us a beat-up old Lincoln to use. That thing is a boat on wheels, a monster if I ever saw one. It worked for a few days. On k0sh3k's one-day without a migraine, we managed to get the Kia to Charlie's with a note (after having called them as well), and drove back to the house in the boat (happy sailing). Then, the battery died in the boat. I charged it up several times, but that battery is dead, dead beyond dead. I missed 3 days of work. I ended up caving in, I rented for 48 hours, cost me 170 dollars. I grabbed a ride home from Janet. That day (Friday), Charlie called and said that the store sent him the wrong part and that it would be another week before we could get our vehicle back. The next day I worked to see what I could do for another vehicle. Luckily, Claudia and Joe came to replace the battery that day (they were unable to come all week...).
4.) Amidst this whirlwind, while I was going to fill up the gas tank, I somehow managed to rip a deep gash into my thumb. We went to the hospital because it looked like it needed stitches (and it probably did). But, the line was too long, and I had coagulated quite effectively, so we just went home. We cleaned it ritually, and bandaged it often.
Oh yeah, JRE was over last weekend too. But, that isn't a bad thing.
Anyways, it is Monday morning of the next week, I'm at work, and I'm glad last week is over. The boat works, the Kia is getting fixed, my thumb is doing much better, k0sh3k has yet another doctor's appointment on Wednesday, we're giving a speech about how Mom'n'Dad are doing in Thailand to the prison -church, and unfortunately k0sh3k is feeling another migraine coming on. God bless her. Lucky for us, finances aren't a problem, we have health and auto insurance, we have people that look out for us, we have tons of food stocked, and we have a warm house to live in...plus, we found out that j3d1h adores kidney beans (I'll buy her anything she wants...! don't tell her that though).
We got the car fixed, or so we thought... during a 1-2 hour traffice jam smoke start billowing out of the hood. Well, not hugely, but I noticed it early. I pulled over, popped the hood, heard a sizzle and smelled a foul odor. It came from the coolant area...I was not pleased. The car had just been checked by the mechanic and we had just (days before) changed out our fluids. We shouldn't have had a problem, and needless to say I was not pleased.
It doesn't seem like it was a big deal though. I got to a gas station, but the engine was fine. No more smoke, and the car never overheated. I have no idea what it could be. I'll get the fluids checked again per Charlie's advice over the phone.....
On another car note or two: Claudia has been beyond generous and is lending the car to us until further notice...or until we get another car. Hopefully we'll find one we like by this weekend, but eh, we have time. I hope they come to dinner with us...although, I have no idea what we'll be making for them. I'm sure we'll have fun either way.
Baby girl had a very odd rash, more like bumps all over her body. It cleared up, so we won't take her to the doctor (saving me money, my little girl...how wonderful).
We bought j3d1h a bed! Zomg, I feel old or something, or I don't know, mixed emotions. She is growing up for sure. She still isn't keen on the bed, it is more like a trampoline to her, and way to peer out the window. She is sleeping about 3-4 hours less per day because of that bed. But, that is okay, she needs to get used to sleeping in a bed. It is very weird to put her in bed and really "tuck her in". When I put her down during the daytime, and when she is sleepy (the only time I even consider putting her to bed), she will pull the covers over her eyes and turn over on her side to goto sleep. It is precious. Even better, we leave the doors open and the bathroom light on for her. When she wakes up, she gets out of bed, walks through the house to our side, and wakes us up (well, k0sh3k up for the most part, I sleep like a rock unless I hear a scream that matters).
Told my supervisor at work that I didn't feel I had incentive to do any more work that the quota. He agreed. He said as long as I meet the quote then he will be satisfied. I'll meet the quota.
I haven't heard from JRE (he never uses a phone). So, I have no word on him or his G/F, or his plans for Thailand or what not. That's okay, it is a happy-go-lucky time for him. I will not spoil it, but I will write an email and see if he needs anything (punk won't let me buy him groceries, clothes or anything...wtf, free money?...and I BADGER the kid about it--next time I'll just go buy it and force him to take it).
Anniversay is tomorrow...I have nothing special. Dinner and a card.
k0sh3k had 9 cavities, 4 were drilled. She has so much drug tolerance that the maximum Novacaine doses didn't touch her. They made he sit through it even when it hurt....I would have done it, but it was up to her. Her jaw is still hurting. I'm not much of a dentist person...maybe if it is free (although, I have preventative dental coverage).
Rogue is slowing progressing. I got some x-52 pilot pants and the 30stam/10agi enchant for it. Picked up a really awful looking Helm of the Claw, threw a crafted running speed 24AP meta gem in there (had to use an orange gem for the effect) so I have +12 stam on boots. I did get my Vindicator’s brand (sweet) and the r14 pvP gloves for the kickilicious deadly throw now.
I need 5kg for a mount, and this is rough to get. I had to glide for marks/fels, and I used a SWEET tunnel in BEMountains for it. It is so good, and so bottable, that I grabbed two demonslayer enchants (hard to come by now and days) and I’ve been there ever since. Hopefully I’ll have the cash in 2 more weeks of botting. It all depends on how well marks/fel arms will sell. I could easily be sitting of 500 and 50 of those. We’ll see.
My dueling guide has progressed. I still need to write a few more sections, and then I’ll be done. I want to make sure I’ve got all the fights down correctly. The paladin fight is the one I have the least experience with, but I’ve had plenty more experience now that I am back on a PvP server and Horde also have pallies now.
The hourglass of the unraveller really sucks. It is simply overrated. At a 20% chance to crit, I’ll have a 2% chance to proc it. 300AP for 10 seconds. There are alot of problems with it…With resilience and defense it gets even worse. Certainly a dagger rogue’s item at best.
I’m going for the Ring that costs 50 Spirit shards and a better chest slot in the short term.
Long term–Gladiator’s gear.
Zombienoir and I have been pwning up the 2v2’s pretty well…although we’ve had a 50/50 streak as of late (zombie wasn’t really on the ball that night).
Every rogue, regardless of gear, can excel in PvP and dueling (some more than others), and I hope to demonstrate that fact with this strategy guide. The guide is not written for the most well-equipped rogue in the world. I’m not expecting anyone to have 10k hp with 300 resilience. You should be breaking a basic 7.5-8k hp though, and you should be attempting to bring HP (and resilience) as high as possible without incurring massive opportunity costs in the AP/Crit/Hit department. Your gear doesn’t necessarily reflect the quality of your playskill, and the rogue class, fortuitously, can be quite fruitful simply through tactful play because we are not as gear reliant, to some extent, as other classes.
Why write to the average rogue?
Simply because it is the average rogue who has the most to gain from strategic play. While the extremely well equipped can win in virtue of their gear, rather than their skill, the average rogue is relies upon themselves a lot more than their gear to defeat opponent. The average rogue is not well equipped. But, as I said, the rogue class is quite linear, which is tied to our innate abilities (although we scale with gear to some extent, we aren’t as proportionally reliant upon our gear as other classes). A rogue can do well even without great gear; we simply become that much stronger with each item and buff we use to enhance ourselves (conversely, we become proportionally weaker as gear inflates). In any case, we can still be useful without full epics, but a rogue in full epics is very capable of winning matches without playing correctly.
Admittedly, I’m tired of gear doing most of the work for people (their time played does not equate to skill or justification for a win condition)–I want to see what you can do without that gear (thankfully TBC gave us some opportunity for this). Although we are already seeing a divergence in itemization as spread across the population, even properly used green gear can allow you to compete with those in full epics. If you are still wearing greens and blues, then you will have a lot to gain from following some of the steps I’ve outlined. As for the full epic rogues taking on people in greens/blues, that really doesn’t show skill, nor does it require the same degree of tactics in most cases. The guide isn’t for you if you simply outgear your opponents to an extent that playing correctly doesn’t matter. The test of a well played rogue is best found when he takes on skilled players with greater gear than him, winning even when the odds are actually against him. Eventually, every person will meet their match, and it is at that point that your choices and tactics matter the most. So, even full epic rogues may want to pay attention.
Essentially, to some rogues who either outgear their opponent completely or fight stupid opponents, going “all-out” so to speak, and maximizing the potential of their character isn’t necessary. That’s fine. You can always scale your efforts back. But, this does not negate the need to know howto make the most of your character when the time comes that you meet an opponent(s) who is just as (or even more) skilled and/or equipped than you. Making the most of your character is the point of this guide, not “how to defeat noobies”. I will be describing “all-out” strategies, but I will certainly admit that against most opponents you won’t need to go “all-out”.
I’ve detailed fights assuming pretty basic gear so that all rogues can make use of it. I’ll treat each opponent as hostile and as a maximally problematic to our situation as possible, generating a strategy that is designed to defeat an opponent when the odds are least in your favor and you wish to win by the largest margin possible. The tactics outlined are good enough that you can win the majority of fights outside of IF or Org with a level 1 dagger (seriously, go try it out); you can win in spite of your gear rather than in virtue of your gear. Having gear simply means that the fights are that much easier for you. This means that most of your fights will never require this much work. Good for you! This doesn’t diminish the point of the guide though, you’ll still meet people who will require every once of your ability.
Why play to maximize your character’s potential?
Play to win. It is pretty simple. This doesn’t mean you can’t brainfart or dink around. But, when you are serious about playing, you are playing to win. And, in the end, the winners will be those who maximized their character’s potential. If you are playing to win, then you are going to make choices that give you the best chance of winning, often by the largest margin.
For the rogue, this issue of winning without using the strategy with highest probability of winning often comes up into play in consideration of the use of cooldowns. Not using cooldowns means you aren’t maximizing your characters potential. If you have a problem with using cooldowns at all (i.e. playing your class to its best), then this guide isn’t for you. Generally, almost every fight against a skilled player in equal gear requires the use of CD’s for the rogue. Rogues that brag they don’t need CDs to win either completely outgear their opponents or simply fight stupid opponents. While I’m not saying you’ll use all of your CD’s in each fight, it is a fact of life as a rogue that we’ll be using our CD’s not just to overcome gear inequalities or higher quantities of opponents, but also to beat well-played classes with even comparable gear to yours. Using those CD’s and specific builds to their maximum efficiency is a concern though. This guide assumes you don’t have a problem using CDs. Hopefully, with the trains of thought presented, you’ll be in a position to tailor your playstyle and tactics to your particular opponent(s).
Lastly, this guide is more than just useful in the context of duels, it is useful for pretty much all PvP situations. Even if I only layed the groundwork in a 1v1 context, the contents of the guide are applicable to all PvP contexts. The fact is: you simply can’t be a good PvPer without being a good duelist. And, yes, I know, I know, it has long been the opinion of Blizzard and of many WoW players that “PvP is not based or balanced around 1v1 matchups”. This is a myth, and something fabricated by people too lazy to do the math. This concept just shows the incompetence of Blizzard devs and the masses that blindly accept the garbage fed to them. All encounters are based upon the 1v1 matchups. The very equation used to understand how and why people win in any encounter requires a clear analysis of all individuals’ offense/defense ratios in relation to their opponents’, specifically an evaluation of the 1v1 matchups, including the metagame that proceeds from the initial 1v1 rulesets. The following guide is an insight into the rogue classes 1v1 matchups directly, but it also demonstrates the required thought process to be an effective PvPer in any circumstance, including world PvP, group PvP, BG’s and arenas. To those who disagree, then I ask you to go no further. You need context to begin playing your rogue to his fullest potential, so please read these first:
Back to Basics:
http://www.hypercynic.com/?p=26
Slightly dated, it still remains true in many respects. Most importantly, the principles are fundamental to understanding MMO gaming. Luckily, the context is in regards to the rogue class itself. Here you’ll see the math behind why PvP –must- be balanced around 1v1.
Form of Gaming:
http://www.hypercynic.com/?p=8
A good starting place for those who need to know what a game really is in the first place, why players make decisions they do and how they make them. It is a defense of underlying claims made thus far.
Hopefully, these will give you some context as to why we must be concerned with our 1v1 matchups.
Moving on, for the dueling guide, I’ll be assuming 30/0/31 or 23/3/35. These specs are really made for 1v1 fights and expending a great deal of resources in a short deal of time to briefly bring our offense/defense ratios to a very high level. Assuming you are serious about dueling, or even PvP in general, you’ll want to consider these specs above all others…with that said, you can easily adapt the tactics to whatever your build may be using. I’ve seen plenty of rogues do fine in general play with mutilate or combat. But, without question, these are not dueling speccs, and they are hard pressed to be the most viable PvP speccs until we hit the very organized group PvP scene where sustained damage becomes a large factor.
30/0/31-Daggers
The premier dagger PvP spec, it is extremely well-rounded in a PvP context; think of it as the new 21/8/22. It has the highest burst damage in the game. MoSub + Serrated Blades + Imp Eviscerate for a Premed-Ambush (usually crit)-CB-Eviscerate means a rogue can nearly two shot a poorly-equipped player and puts serious pressure on all casters. While it can burst very well, it can also stunlock quite effectively. High crit rating abuses SF quite well. You’ll need an excellent MH dagger.
Feel free to pickup hemo on your way to 31 in sub. You can weaponswap (even during combat). I suggest this, as stunlocking is still best done with a sword (and it always will be). A rogue that isn’t weaponswapping really isn’t using this build to its fullest potential. Once you get used to it, it will be very easy for you.
Example Stunlocks:
Sword (or alike)= CS-H-G-KS-H-H
Dagger=CS-BS-KS-BS
Combination (using weaponswap)=CS-H-G-Swap to dagger-KS-BS-BS
Example Burst:
Premed-Ambush-CB-Evisc
With relentless and 4-piece assassination, you can probably BS at the very end of that burst most of the time.
This is a versatile spec with arguably the highest possible combo point generation available within a very short time frame. It can burst or stunlock, dagger or sword…it has options. You’ll miss imp gouge, but the SF gains are well worth it for those who can break 20% crit.
23/3/35-Hemo
Even with only 2.6 and 2.7 speed weapons available, this is still a viable spec. I remain convinced hemo is still the best dueling spec available. It has the most robust control, solid damage, and is guaranteed to have all the PvP sub talents (unlike dagger-sub specs). Stunlocking is not only viable, but necessary. Bursting down opponents in duels, with zero regard for control, has become a thing of the past. Burst DPS is still very important, but control has become more and more a central theme of rogue PvP and is the very center of the rogue duel (hemo has both burst and control). While dagger specs are extremely powerful, they do lack the ultimate control of a hemo build. And, as we see itemization scaling up yet again, hemo will become better and better. Where rogues can currently afford to not control a fight from start to finish, allowing gaps and what not, eventually non-linear classes that scale even better with gear than the rogue will become powerful enough that heavy CD’s and stronger control will become necessary. At any gear level, hemo has it where it counts for dueling. Excluding the mage matchup, where other builds fail in a duel, this one will win.
Beyond HP, concentration on AP and +hit is vital. Your crit rating, while important, means far less to you than making sure every special hits and that you can abuse the anormalized Hemo/GS hit. For Pete’s sake, be sure to macro GS/Hemo on the same key. Arguments about saving GS (in PvP) for the dodge is nearly irrelevant in all cases. You want the damage now, and you want 25% more damage than hemo for 5e whenever you can get it.
Example Stunlocks:
CS-GS-G-KS-H-H
From here you have 65e to use. Blind, gouge-Evisc, or Hemo are all acceptable in different situations. It is the second strongest no-CD stunlock. It is also quite adapatable, CS-H-H-KS or with 4x Assassination set CS-H-H-Eviscerate are good as well.
Example Burst:
Premed-CS-(check for 5 points, H/GS if it isn’t at 5)-CB-Evisc-H-
From here, you can gouge or hemo, and then follow with KS, blind, just follow through on the beatdown, or if you timed it well, gouge-restealth. Remember that the server checks OOC on each energy tick, and it takes 2 ticks before you can OOC, so gouging right before an energy tick (and you have 3 usually with imp gouge) can buy you a restealth before the end of gouge.
Combat Mace/Sword/Fist (huge variances 11+/31+/0+ requisite):
So far considered the highest potential damage per minute available. This sports some crazy good non-stealth based damage. What makes combat really viable in PvP beyond the sheer damage: imp kick, imp sprint, SA, BF, and AR. The loss of prep is combated (haha) by improvements to kick and sprint. In my opinion, mace rogues utilize this tree the best in PvP, as the best combat weapons available are hasted maces, and the stun proc is very relevant; even if the stun procs require adaptation, they can do some amazing things in PvP. Combat fists should not be overlooked either, it is consistent damage.
Learning howto create and identify situations in which it is most effective to blow AR/BF can be difficult to a newcomer, but otherwise this is a pretty straightfoward spec. While it might have less bells’n'whistles, its heavy sustained damage is a force to reckon with. Admittedly, this spec is not the best PvP spec overall, but it has become more viable in sustained damage fights (certain 5v5 arena fights, etc.). But, with the right gear (and you will need major gear to be using this spec in PvP), your rogue can turn into an outright monster on the field.
I really only recommend this build in PvP to those who are very, very well equipped and also with a team of people who can support you out of stealth. This really isn’t going to be a top dueling spec, but I certainly expect to see combat specs in 5v5 arenas.
Mutilate- 41/0/20 or 41/20/0 or 41/3/17
Be sure to have some nice and slow daggers!
Whether combat or sub, this is the most clear-cut build to play. When playing against poorly played and equipped players this is a very strong spec, and you can often kill people before the end of KS. But, as gear inflates, and the rogue loses his proportionate gear advantages as people move from green to blue to epic, this spec loses some viability in PvP, especially in consideration of the opportunity cost of not having a 30/0/31. It lacks control beyond the initial stunlock round, but it has, without question, the strongest single stunlock round in the game.
CS-Mut-KS-Mut (or CB-Mut)
This is standard, easy and powerful. Another problem this is with anti-poison targets/measures, alongside the issues of having high energy and poison investment which does not lend this build to switching targets as effectively as other builds, but it certainly puts up some impressive numbers regardless. In honesty, it is a build that is best fit for those who are:
1.) Doing 3v3 and 5v5 arena
2.) Aren’t speccing to PvP/duel exclusively, and prefer to have a spec that does well in both PvE and PvP.
3.) or even simply newer to the rogue class (or if not new, simply not very skilled)—this is an easier spec to play as it has much fewer choices to make.
Generally, if you are a very serious dagger PvP rogue, stick to 30/0/31 (the only exception would be for 5v5 arena). This is a build that I consider more viable for dueling purposes than pure combat, but is still strictly worse than a 23+/0+/23+ CB/Prep build.
Warrior-
The class everyone is trying to beat. All classes are crafted as a response to this one. Pound for pound, nobody can truly toe-to-toe with a warrior. It has long been the case that a rogue cannot stand up and trade hits with a warrior. Sure, you can evasion and rush down to some extent (combat spec does best at this), but even then, a warrior played correctly will still beat you if all you did was toe-to-toe. Everyone must control the PvP-specced warrior in some fashion, including the rogue (regardless of build).
A PvP-specced warrior will be MS + a minor in Fury to pickup Deathwish and Imp Intercept. They are a force to reckon with. They have high rage generation (even after normalization), outlets to spend it, tools to prevent kiting, and they will continue to progress in power as they effectively scale with the inflating itemization. Personally, I have found that I have less and less room for error against this class. This is the fight of patience and finesse–Going kamikaze will get you killed.
Even as mitigation levels have dropped across the board after the expansion (due to itemization and leveling), you will still be hindered by their massive hp/armor defenses. Because of their defenses, in a duel, a rogue should initially be using DoT abilities (wisely) to atleast let them open on a warrior with 60% health instead of 100%. You will use a combination of DoT-kiting and stunlock to beat any warrior that is geared, specced, and played correctly.
Your initial open should not be CS. We used to stunlock, build 5-combo points and 5-8 kite–you know, the old unload while stunned and deadzone kite otherwise. Sometimes we could deadzone kite for a restealth (shout keeps us in combat, and they certainly know to do this), but mostly we’d 5-8 to get our energy back up and unload on a KS from behind (as we jump through them). Even if the tactic still retains some use even now, the old 5-8 days are generally over against a skilled warrior. They will always get the intercept. If you play against a pro, be prepared to reap the whirlwind (haha) if you do nothing but 5-8 kite…this is NOT a zero-CD fight against a good warrior. But, sometimes your options are limited, by all means use the 5-8 tactic when applicable and necessary, and do remember to stay closer to 5 than to 8.
Lastly, the introduction of the second wind talent makes long-term stunlocking less appealing, as both health and rage generation can be extremely dangerous. When we are stunlocking a warrior, we need to win quickly. The more stuns we land, the more rage+health a warrior will gain over the course of a fight. As in many matchups, the longer the actual combat duration, the more likely our opponent, the warrior in this case, is going to win. Chain stunning just gives them juice. You cannot accept this. Your objective is to build up resources to a high threshold through a few pre-combat tactics and DoT-Kiting, without the warrior gaining hp or rage advantages, and then unloading all at once inside a single stunlock round.
Step 1–Poison of Choice
It goes without saying (but I will anyway), Crippling Poison is required. Gouge, sap, and blind are too important to dare use deadly poison. Some who wish to risk it may try 1x Instant + 1x Crippling on either hand (as you can shiv). But, usually it is best to just keep them snared at all times, even at the sacrifice of some damage (control is everything).
Step 2–Generating pre-open combo points, the “combo point kite”.
Remember that this is a duel. Your opponent already has a huge advantage in simply knowing that you are there–thus, our stealthy element of surprise, a distinctive advantage we have in most world PvP situations, is gone. But, that doesn’t mean we can’t use stealth to its fullest advantage, even in the warrior fight. I am of the belief that you should take advantage of everything in your arsenal in a duel, even if it seems “cheap” to an opponent. That means I do use psychological warfare, for example I might wait 15 seconds before opening just to frustrate my opponent, and it also means I use tactics that might be less-than-useful outside of a dueling context. One advantage that we don’t use enough is the ability to sap/CS. Sure it is cheap, but c’mon people, that is why they call it “Cheapshot”, this is part of the class. So, if you are serious about winning duels against the best, expect to use pre-combat tactics to generate small advantages in your favor, especially as you’ve already sacrificed your element of surprise. When you and some warrior are the last people standing in an arena match, you’ll be thinking the same thing.
Your opener is a cheap way to gain a small advantage that can make a big difference in the end. On every warrior you ever duel, you should open with Imp sap and attempt to CS through sap. Do it carefully of course! I don’t care if you have premed, if you have Imp sap, you should always at least try it once against a warrior. The majority of warriors in this game will not berserker rage out of sap, primarily because they are saving it for gouge. Some will be slick by zerker raging and will try to shout you out, but if you are good, you’ll be far enough away that it won’t matter. Just run in for the sap, and run out quickly. See how the warrior reacts (he is your specimen to dissect while you are in stealth). If the warrior BR’s (berserker rage) out of sap, then stay far enough away and watch your castbar. After BR and sap-DR (diminishing return) is up, go for it again while his BR is on CD. Eventually, you should get your initial points, and these DO matter (as well as to annoy and/or psych your opponent out). So, get your sap/CS (remember to CS without breaking sap!), and flat run away. Go for your restealth (camo helps if you have it).
If this takes too long for you, or you have a build without Imp sap, then you can also forget the sap and just CS and run (but beware a warrior that is going to trinket CS and intercept you). Minor run speed helps here, just make sure you CS at max range and immediately start running, you can get your restealth, and it is worth every penny. Just remember to save yourself room so you don’t stray to far away from the flag.
For those who will not be sap/CSing, then just premed right here. No, it isn’t as effective, and yes, after your upcoming vanish you may wish you had that premed to burn for your real open. But, in some cases, for example due to time constraints, premed can be the best option. If you don’t wish to sap/CS for some reason, then premed is definitely a solid replacement.
Step 3–The DoT Kite.
You should be starting this fight at 2-5 combo points (depending on your build and how many times you sap/CSed). What do you do now? You want to garrote+rupture and get back into stealth asap; let that sucka’ bleed while you wait to go in for the kill. To start, make sure the warrior has no rage, sprint in from behind, and start spamming garrote, which should put you have 5 points, immediately rupture, run off and vanish (throw in a shiv if possible, but not at the cost of getting bled). Be quick about it! You really don’t want to eat a bleed effect, use a Luffa if you need. In fact, you may even want to use a macro that spams garrote in stealth and rupture out of stealth. Be sure to be out of range of shout as well.
A Garrote + 5-point Rupture (especially with talents) will bring most warriors to 60-65% by the end of those DoTs (especially with Berserker stance). Your job, during the DoT kite is to prevent the turtle. A good warrior will attempt to regain that health back. This happens through eating and/or bandaging during and after DoT effects, also through limiting damage taken by going into defensive stance. Crippling poison does an excellent job of preventing them from escaping to fully turtle, so use your your remaining sprint wisely. At no time should you allow them to eat/bandage or mount up (as they’ll run away to eat/bandage). If you wish, and you want to end it quickly, as you can even help prevent spirit regeneration from going OOC, you can vanish, wait a moment and goto the next phase of this fight without waiting the full duration of the DoT’s.
Step 4–The Stunlock: rushdown, busting the trinket, and abusing his stances.
The stunlock can vary on the stance of the warrior. Stance dancing is a part of life as a warrior, and it calls for adjustments in our playstyle as well. The most important part of the stunlock is this: it should not last long. You are opening on a warrior with 60-65% health, a bit of rage, who dearly wants to heal up before you open. You don’t want to give them a chance to heal, nor do you want them to in anyway benefit from the use of a trinket or second wind. Make it short and sweet.
Defensive– They mean to tank you (and yes, they can with major gear). Eviscerate is acceptable depending on the warrior’s gear, but KS is a much stronger route. Go heavy stunlock. Gouge is a very potent tool in this circumstance as well, so use it wisely. Watch for disarm. Remember they can’t charge or intercept, so kiting can be easy here, just watch for the stance dance.
If the warrior is in defensive stance, then you’ll want to try (if possible) to wait for the very end of the DoTs before you reopen so that you can use gouge effectively. Gouge is a powerful tool, and it punishes non-zerker stances. It can give you a restealth, energy, a combo point, positioning, time to wear-off bleeds/MS effects/hamstring, and even a quick bandage.
Dealing with the PvP trinket can be a pain (some don’t wear it, but they certainly should). You really want the defensive warrior to trinket on CS so you can follow up with KS. But, assuming he is a good warrior, he will save that trinket for KS. Follow up with a gouge on his trinket or blind him, and go for your restealth. Do not lose control of this fight. Get your restealth, and he loses right here…restealthing against the tank warriors is imperitive. 5-8 kiting into a restealth is common right here.
Berserker–The most common stance I find a warrior at this stage of the fight. While you can’t effectively gouge, he takes a truck-load of damage–Rush him down within a stunlock. Post-DoT-kite, I often Premed-CS-CB-Evisc-GS to 10-30% and Evasion tank him down. But, do remember: If he isn’t stunned, and you are in melee range, then you should have evasion on. The trinket doesn’t matter much here. The majority of your damage has already been dealt via DoT’s+CB-eviscerate, so it looks more like a 10-30% warrior vs 100% rogue…Of course, use your stunlock component’s wisely, there is no reason to eat a 2.5k MS if you can just pin him down. Standard stunlocks, minus gouge, are perfectly acceptable. If the warrior BR’s early, then KS, unload and gouge out for a restealth. Blind is always up if it gets ugly.
Battle–He aims to bleed and overpower you down, but he makes himself vulnerable to a rushdown AND gouge. I rarely see warriors jump into this stance at this point in the fight, but I punish them with both a rushdown and gouge. Easy restealth, 2nd real open…he won’t come back.
In any case, know the stance your warrior is in, and be ready to fight differently according to each stance.
Tips:
a.) Intimidating shout–Trinket/WotF this immediately. You should be fully ready to trinket on Intim-shout at all times.
b.) Keep evasion up at all times against warriors not controlled by your stuns/incapacitate/disorient or stealth effects (yes, stealth is a form of control). It kills their rage generation, negates the majority of their damage, sometimes forces a stance dance, begs their intimidating shout, and serves as a gateway to other control functions of a rogue. Evasion gives you a brief window in which your offense/defense ratio is equivalent to theirs, use it wisely and often.
c.) When in doubt, blind. Even if you feel like it is “too early” in the fight. This is your ‘oh shit!’ key. Against dwarves, if they refuse to stoneform out of your crippling, then you are SoLuck (although it buys you a second or two, which CAN matter).
d.) Prepare yourself for trinkets and stun resists. Gouge, KS, Vanish, Blind, Evasion, Bugging the intercept, and 5-8 kiting can all be appropriate responses. Even sprinting away after being newly intercepted but not Hamstringed can be powerful. Every warrior will have stun resist, not all will have trinket at the ready.
e.) Watch your timers judiciously. If you saw them misstep by popping BR too early, and you see a gap to use it, then capitalize off it.
f.) Watch for last stand and life giving type abilities as usual, especially in arenas. This is the instant turtle, and the gap that many rogues aren’t prepared for. It counteracts a rogue going “all-out”, and punishes us for sacrificing future resources just to get the win “now”. In my opinion, you really want to outlast these effects rather than DPS through them. But, at no time can you afford for the warrior to heal or turtle. Roll with the punches on this one.
g.) Bugging the intercept. Basically, if you circle-strafe a warrior who is crippled poisoned, when they intercept, it will often send them in the wrong direction. The intercept stun will wear off, and you will get a restealth.
Summary:
1.) sap/CS (or premed)
2.) Sprint-Garrote-(Shiv if possible, and if necessary for 5th point)-Rupture-Vanish
3.) Prevent turtle
4.) Open appropriately on stance, generally premed-CS-CB-Evisc-Evasion
5.) Restealth when possible and if necessary.
Overall, this fight is one of finesse. You build up your resources and overtake them in a fell swoop. In a fair fight, a rogue should be winning this matchup the majority of the time.
Paladin-
The ultimate turtle, both in solo and grouping. While they can be defeated solo, they are without question the best counter to a rogue in group PvP. They (or their teammate of choosing) simply cannot be “rushed” down in the same way that any other class in the game can. Given time, we can certainly win this fight even against the best paladins. The drop in mitigation levels, changes in speccs and itemization, and a few rogue changes have made this class much easier to deal with.
Paladins will be aiming to outlast you in some sense. How long they wish to turtle is dependant upon their build. Some builds deal way more damage than others, and will often rush you down and use very minor turtles to beat you, for example a ret pally might use his HoJ to be dealing some damage to you rather than using it entirely for healing. On the flip side, holy paladins lack damage but have excellent healing. They are more apt to use HoJ to heal up and to play the outlast game against you. Overall though, this class has become much easier for the basic rogue, and thus far, the matchup is less gear reliant on the rogue’s end than it used to be.
Like the druid, this class has very high turtle-potential, a potential that most pallies you’ll meet simple won’t reach. The general abilities we should be considering:
Hammer of Justice- 6 second stun, 1 minute cooldown. It provides ample tempo advantages every minute to a skilled paladin. A combination of heals and damage can be used during an HoJ. It can also be the creation or elimination of a kite. Silence effects, stuns and CoS provide temporary prevention of this spell, however, good paladins anticipate and work around our counters. It is one of the strongest spells in the game as fast as I’m concerned. While paladins can no longer heal to full in a single heal, HoJ gives them longevity. Most paladins fail to burn this CD every time it comes up….
The Bubbles—Absolute immunity from a rogue’s damage, what a strong counter to our class in so many situations! Combined with healing, these bubbles are generally the core turtle-engine of the paladin. HoJ and repentance are good, but they simply don’t compare to the absolutist impact of true immunity. A paladin can bubble through everything in a rogue’s arsenal. There are two bubbles:
Divine Shield-12 seconds of immunity. 5-min CD. Nothing you can do.
Blessing of Protection-10 seconds immunity from physical damage, 5 minute CD. This can be blinded (pray he isn’t a dwarf with half a brain).
BoP can be countered with a blind, but stoneform counters it. Bubbles give a rogue the time to restealth and/or heal up. Sprint, bandage, restealth, sap, eat or some combination thereof can get your health back up. Even just flat running off to bandage-restealth can be fine. Match his healing with your own. This is a war of attrition folks. Do notice that all bubbles have 5-min CD’s, and that they have the “Forbearance” debuff applied to them, which lasts for one minute, preventing them from bubbling again. Good paladins have the means to live another minute beyond their first bubble when played correctly, so expect at least 2 bubbles in a fight.
Laying of Hands- 100% of paladins health + 900mana restored, 60 minute cooldown. When a paladin goes all out, this just makes them all the harder to defeat. A dominant spell.
Repentance—A 6 second incapacitate (like gouge, only sexier and ranged) with a 1 minute CD. 31-point ret talent.
Blessing of Freedom—Immunity from movement impairing effects
Consecration-Point blank AE around paladin. Rank 1 is spammed every 8 seconds. A mod to show the ticks would be nice if anyone wants to make one. It can deny a rogue open. If you are that worried, then just CoS through it.
The proper rotation of these abilities can make life rough for a rogue. It is really not simple to defeat a paladin that uses their abilities to turtle to a maximum extent, although you’ll rarely meet paladins that really play perfectly. Most of the time they won’t be too difficult for you to defeat. You’ll break the initial turtle and win on the spot or drain his mana through tit-for-tat measures, and he’ll lose the game. Wound poison puts huge pressure on their mana and CD’s as they are unable to heal as effectively. Less healing means they have will have to blow more CDs to cast more wounded heals. More heals used means more mana burned. This is good as it eliminates the long term use of HoJ, Repentance, Bubbles, and spirit regen to overcome us.
Speccs you’ll face:
Retadin (approx: 44 ret / 17 holy)—Damage specced, Often noobs (no offense). Big numbers. They’ll often go rushdown on you, and with enough gear, they can make it hurt. While they can deal good damage, these guys also take a lot of damage. Survive their initial assault and you’ll come back on them. At maximal gear levels, ret pallies will be our hardest matchup.
Holy (approx: 47 holy / 14 prot)—Healing specced. A great turtle; crap for damage though. Run his mana dry and you win.
Protection (approx:13 Holy / 41 Prot / 7 Ret)—Not a terrible spec. Heavy damage shields, and those DO add up (sit and parse it if you don’t believe me). Decent damage.
Differences in the builds can change the fight slightly, but the same tactic will remain the same. Force his CD’s as early as possible, heal up if necessary, and kill him before he can CD into another turtle-round. Paladins won’t be healing us to death for now, and they have, at equal gear, great difficulty in taking out even 50%+ of our health in a single HoJ. Paladin healing, damage, and mitigation are proportionally much lower in TBC (this is due to low end itemization at this point).
Step 1—The open, forcing the bubble early within a softlock.
Wound MH, Crippling OH. Shiv when you need to kite. Watch his Consecration spamming. You might even catch him off it for a sap/CS (yeah, he can break with a bubble…but that would be awesome!).
Premed and charge in for the open, n52 spamming is excellent for spamming the open through consecration. For this fight, control only matters in eliminating the paladin’s ability to turtle, you don’t care so much about his offensive abilities, with the exception of HoJ/Repentance. The virtual tempo advantages of Cheapshot aren’t as useful here because we aren’t concerned with a paladin’s damage as much as we are concerned with simply forcing a bubble. With that in mind, garrote is simply a better open on a paladin. It silences for 3 seconds and deals some damage in itself as opposed to “allowing” us to damage to paladin within the protective hedge of a stun. A silence will be almost as effective as a stun in this portion of the fight, and coupled with garrote’s cheaper cost and damage it is the better choice.
If you can catch him off consecration spam, or you want to CoS through consec, you can generate precombat points generated through sap/CS, it should look something like this:
Sap/CS-wait for DR-Garrote-Rupture or CB-Evisc-CoS-Yellow
If you don’t go for precombat points, then use:
Premed-Garrote-Yellow-Rupture or CB-Evisc-CoS
The whole point of the opener is to setup for a lethal rushdown while minimizing the effectiveness of non-bubble abilities. Keeping him silenced and CoSing eliminate the utility of HoJ/Rep. Remember to connect Garrote-CoS, there can be no lapse. Most pallies will be spamming HoJ right off the bat, so avoiding it means you can put heavy pressure on them to force a bubble because they can’t HoJ/Rep for a heal.
It is worth considering the use of CB-eviscerate instead of rupture. Against a large portion of the paladin population, CB-Eviscerate will down them to 40% so quickly that they’ll be in dire need of a bubble. On the flip side, cold blood offers an excellent tool to combo out within a stunlock. If for some reason they get low on health, CB can let you beat them right there. This is up to you, both rupture and eviscerate are good options.
In any case, you want to deal major damage and apply 5 wound poison within the first 8 seconds.
Step 2—Forcing the Bubble
CoS is ending, at what health do you find your paladin? Did he bubble? Does he have his PvP trinket active? These are all factors in your decisions. In the best case scenario, you dropped him to low enough health in the 8 second of garrote+CoS that he bubbled. If he bubbled, then just run off for a restealth as he is healing up. If he is low on health, a vanish-CS-Finisher can finish him. If you didn’t get too far on his health, and you don’t want to vanish-CS-Finish, then you might be forced to just eat his HoJ. Generally, it is best to vanish-CS. Why? Vanish-CS furthers your softlock on the paladin by another 4-15 seconds (depending on what you do after the CS), and it provides even more pressure to force a bubble. You really don’t want to eat an early HoJ if you can help it. At the very least, vanish offers us a way to burn his trinket while forcing just a bit more damage through. You go vanish-CS-KS or vanish-premed-CS into CB-Evisc or KS, and continue that pressure.
Against a top pally who is blowing a trinket into a HoJ (you’ll get hit no matter what you do):
CoS-Sap-CS-wait for CoS timer-Garrote-Rupture-Yellow-CoS-Yellow-Yellow-Vanish-CS-CB-Evisc
This is 9-12 seconds of white + 3 yellow + 5 wound poison + Garrote + 5 pt Rupture + 5 pt CB Evisc, which is a serious open on any paladin. I’ve yet to meet one that didn’t need to bubble out of this. Even after you open, consecration shouldn’t be problematic as CoS-Vanish-CS will let you resist, which will no longer bring you out of stealth. This assumes he’ll blow trinket->HoJ on CS. If not, then you can work him down with KS if you know there isn’t a trinket for it.
Post Garrote, you want to do everything in your power to force a bubble without eating a hammer and apply 5x wound poison. Forcing a bubble means you get to runoff and restealth while he heals up (with wound on him), and more importantly, it means you have almost a minute to kill him before his second bubble. At the very least, you are drawing out his resources, forcing reactive play and inefficiency on his part, allowing you to control the situation. You overcome his CD-Turtle and you win.
Step 3—Continued Anti-Turtle, Attempting to win before the 2nd bubble.
You forced his bubble, you should be at decent health (bandage if necessary). You’ve got a minute to defeat him before the next bubble. You’ll defeat most pallies right here. Garrote or CS is perfectly acceptable, and if he isn’t a dwarf, then blind is extremely potent as well. If you haven’t used premed due to precombat point generation, then now isn’t a bad time to use it. You are hoping your second open is what defeats the paladin before he can bubble again.
Unfortunately, CoS and vanish were used up early to force a bubble (but it was worth it), and if CoS didn’t eat it already, you’re likely to eat a HoJ/rep. You can’t really do much about it other than stack wound poison. Any healing he gets off from this point on will be greatly diminished through wound poison, but you really don’t want him healing period. As usual, interrupt all heals when applicable. You’ve got a full minute to work him down, each heal puts him closer and close to surviving to the next bubble. Additionally, evasion is quite useful right here.
It is at this stage that you need to be careful around the very well equipped ret pallies. They can power through some substantial damage. They have compressed turtle fights. This is good and bad in some ways. The good part is that we can force the ret pally to bubble much earlier because they are not specced or geared for survivability. You are much more likely to have CD’s left after opening and forcing a bubble on a ret pally. Additionally, you’ll meet many retardins that spam HoJ directly into CoS (even though they saw you use it…lol) simply because they think they are going to burst you down. Countless retpallies will blow HoJ and sometimes even repentance during CoS, they’ll realize it too late, they are forced to bubble, and the rogue gets to reopen on a pally that has zero turtle capability for straight minute. That is the best case scenario, one that happens often enough, and allows the rogue to truly capitalize off the paladins mistakes. On the other hand, a very well equipped ret pally will still be breaking 60% mitigation with some nearly lethal HoJ/Rep rushdowns, and if played correctly, i.e. not HoJ/Rep when you CoSed, then your sure to eat it after your second open. Unfortunately, this is a case where you really must have the damage to force bubbles, but also the defensive stats to live through his assault. It is here that your gear will matter most in the pally matchup. Post bubble, having not blown HoJ/Rep, the well-geared/played retadin is the most difficult paladin to defeat for a rogue.
Holy and Protection specs are much easier at this point. Depending on whether they burned their HoJ during your CoS or not, you are just running them down. Garrote is preferable here because the mitigation levels are high enough that you simply want to win before the minute is up, and you really aren’t concerned about his damage. Premed-Garrote-Yellow-Rupture and rush him down. Keep 25e up at all times, you need to kick all heals and be sure wound is stacked to 5x as usual. Most pallies will be holy/prot specced, and that makes the fight relatively easier in general.
Pretty much every CD and attack is at least useful in this matchup. Deadly throw is good damage and interruption. Shiv is great for getting that crippling to stick. Our anti-caster and anti-melee tactics are all excellent. In any case, sometimes you lose control of this fight. Bandaging can be invaluable. For the long, long fights, as often found in the case when the paladin outgears you, you’ll be needing to bandage/eat. Play the out-last game, business as usual against turtles.
Tips:
a.) Dwarven folk are your bane. Blind can be very valuable in this match, and a good dwarf will BoP->Stoneform->Heal to eliminate blind’s utility. Not much you can do. Try and lure his Stoneform on a kite if you want, it probably won’t work (BoFreedom is always available). You are quite likely to play the out-last game against a well-played and equipped dwarf pally.
b.) This is a rare fight that can be done no-CD for many rogues. Our CD’s simply make us more likely to win, and help us win faster. If winning matters, then go all out.
c.) CoS and Blind (w/elus) are on pretty short timers. It is quite possible to use them twice in a fight.
Summary:
1.) (CoS)-Sap-CS-(wait for CoS timer)-Garrote-Rupture-Yellow-CoS-Yellow-Yellow-Vanish-CS-CB-Evisc (or whatever it takes to force bubble)
2.) Restealth
3.) Premed-Open-Evasion-interrupt heals while rushing them down.
4.) If they turtle through it, then play outlast and/or prep.
The paladin fight has become much easier for rogues. I suspect that as gear inflates, this class ill become harder and harder for us. In the meantime, you should be winning against most pallies unless they are very well equipped.
Shaman-
A shaman can pull out some amazing clutch damage and healing. The can do a mixture of kiting, utility-DD, melee, healing–somewhat a jack-of-all-trades. What really defines the matchup for a rogue are the cues that you’ll see throughout the fight that tell us the intended tactic of the shaman, of course these do vary per spec and situation. Will you be preventing the kite, turtling their damage, or cracking their turtle?
There are three trees and three different directions you’ll see this class going. Each tree lends itself towards a certain tactic, but all three are capable of kiting, toe-toe-toe’ing, and turtling to some extent.
1.) Elemental–strong DD damage, they aim to kite. Expect to see these guys splash for other trees, usually resto. They will attempt to permanently kite you throughout the fight.
2.) Enhancement–They can finally dual wield. Stormstrike is also quite powerful. This is arguably their highest damage spec, but it is melee heavy. They will toe-toe-toe, so evasion is excellent here.
3.) Resto–by far our hardest shaman matchup. They turtle very effectively. Wound poison and kick are your friend. A resto shaman will do some kiting and some toe-to-toe, but generally will prefer to keep their distance. Fire totems are especially deadly here, as the fight can be quite lengthy.
Generally, you know you are fighting at least a decent shaman when you see three things: a.) Poison cleansing totem and b.) a shield and c.) a PvP trinket (you’d be surprised how many no longer wear these because of a lack of stats). A shaman will do a combination of kiting and toe-to-toe depending on their situation at hand. You need to recognize which they are attempting to do and counter it. Blowing CDs at inappropriate times is a waste of valuable resources, so anticipating and reading the situation can be vital.
Step 1–Poisons
Crippling must be either MH or OH, I prefer it OH in this fight. The reason is that they will be dispelling your poison throughout the fight, and you’ll be shivving in response. Your MH poison should be wound. Eliminating the effectiveness of their healing dampens their future action trees greatly. You want to sustain a stack of 5 wound poison at all times as a shaman can get some quick heals off, and if they get any off, you want to make sure it isn’t for alot.
Step 2—Totems, How will you Open?
Totem Lineup should look something like: Earthbind, Magma/Searing, Poison Cleansing, Grace. A good shaman will keep the poison cleansing totem far away from them, making it a sacrifice for the rogue to take it out, and will be sitting on their fire totem (usually magma).
The totems you should be concerned with:
Earthbind=AoE snare. It has a CD to cast, so use that to your advantage. Beware of newly casted EB totems, the first tick WILL bring you out of stealth.
Magma=Excellent at denying the rogue an open, a shaman’s flare/trap camp equivalent. It pulses an AoE. Watch the timing of it, you’ll see it flicker. You can run in between those pulses and get your open. Lag or lack of time available can make this much more difficult, a good shaman will know this and use it to his advantage. CoS is a preventive measure.
Poison Cleansing totem=It periodically removes a poison effect on the shaman (and his team members). This removes our weapon-applied poisons but also our blind. Our poisons are quite essential; leaving PCtotem up is a major sacrifice for us.
You can choose to ignore the totems, kill the totems, or a combination. I suggest doing one of the latter two choices, particularly in order to remove poison cleansing. The common method is to sap the shaman and squish the totems, restealth before the end of sap, and go in for the kill. You can also remove the poison cleansing totem, if it is very close, during CS, gouge or KS.
If you ignore the totems, it is a sign that you intend to win very quickly, and that you don’t need blind. It could also be the case that you have timers on the totems, specifically PCTotem, and that you are opening at the very end of its duration (giving a window to blind if PC is not recast). If the shaman is not resto, a rushdown is acceptable, as long as you maintain control of the situation (i.e. prevent kiting, keep evasion on when appropriate, prevent all heals). Ignoring totems is quite viable if the shaman doesn’t have all the right totems down yet as well or he runs out of range. If you go this route, then premed-CS-CB-Evisc and follow through on a stunlock, just stay on them like glue. But, if they are a pro, you really can’t afford to do this as the totem advantage is very large.
You may also sap/CS the shaman, restealth and wait for DR, sap/totem squash, restealth and then re-open on a target you’ve already built combo points on. Remember that rogues now keep combo points on a target (even if untargeted) as long they do not generate combo points on another target. Sap/CSing and running away for a restealth is difficult to pull off on a shaman, as fire totems and EB make getting the restealth more complicated. For this reason, it is quite acceptable to do either.
Step 3–The Stunlock
Your shaman should have no poison cleansing totem up at this point, maybe even all relevant totems are gone. It is also possible that you’ve sap/CSed into pre-combat combo points, but I’ll outline the fight without those. I expect that gouge is on DR at this point, so watch your timers, and try and save the use of gouge for when it isn’t on DR or for trinket. If you are totem squashing during CS/Gouge/KS (generally gouge), then be quick.
Premed and open with CS on all shaman. Control is most important. Go through your normal stunlock routine, while accounting for diminishing returns. You should consider saving gouge, as it is very useful in preventing the kite on a trinket. Be sure to shiv if crippling doesn’t apply naturally. In some cases, especially non-resto shamans, rushing down from here is quite acceptable. Premed-CS-CB-Evisc brings them to 50-70%. From here, a shaman that has no PCleansing totem up and chooses not to trinket out of the initial stunlock has already lost the fight.
Generally, a good shaman will trinket on CS or KS, and I see arguments for both. In either case, watch for the trinket. If the rogue is not quick in responding to a trinket, you should see the following things occur in this order:
1.) Poison cleansing totem is cast
2.) A Shock hits you
3.) SStrike or NS when applicable.
The rogue wishes to prevent a successful trinket. If the rogue is not successful in responding to the trinket, then he has yet another PCTotem to take out and the possibility of being kited or DPSed down. Expect frostshock. The best response to a trinket is a gouge or a KS if available. If and when you don’t get a gouge on the trinket, then CoS/Sprint/Evasion/Vanish/Blind (as long as PCtotem isn’t up) are all viable counters. CoS is especially good at the end of a stunlock, and pretty good on a trinket, as it will often eat the initial shock, preventing the kite in large part.
Here is where I’ll break up the fight, we’ll go from easiest situation to hardest.
Step 4–Toe-to-Toe
Usually only an unskilled shaman will use this tactic exclusively. Enhancement shaman who are used to 3-4 shotting people (and it does happen from time to time) are quite prone to toe-to-toe, especially as their spec is designed for it. Generally, this means they will be attempting to burst you down and will rarely be healing. They’ll melee+shock you to death.
At any stage a shaman wishes to toe-to-toe with you, you should pop evasion. A SUBSTANTIAL portion of a shaman’s damage comes from melee. This is especially true for enhancement shaman. Evasion will shut them down cold. Keep your face to them, and stick on them like glue. Anticipating a shock with CoS is also quite helpful. By the end of evasion, the shaman should be in trouble and CS should be off DR. Just vanish-CS into him and he loses.
Step 5–The Kite
You really prefer to have shiv’ed the shaman and kept them toe-to-toe, but a good shaman just won’t have it. Somehow, they’ve managed to escape your grasp. They will attempt to snare you through frostshock and EBtotem rotation (attempting to avoid DR and work around cooldowns). Easy damage for them and opportunities to heal up. This tactic wins matches, and if left uncountered is a loss for the rogue.
Deadly Throw, Sprint, CoS, and Vanish should be used to close the gap between you and that shaman (basically, use anything you have to catch them). Sprint is the most powerful in closing the gap, and should be saved for this portion of the fight (don’t use it during the open, use it when you actually need it).
1.) CoS (F-shock/EB)-> Sprint
2.) Vanish (F-shock/EB tick)->Sprint
3.) Deadly Throw is excellent (requires combo points though). It is pretty decent damage, and if the shaman is very low on life, feel free to CB Deadly Throw them. The snare effect is quite powerful, and with PvP Gloves it becomes downright amazing (yay, our own little earthshock).
I truly suggest CoS-Sprinting. Nothing will stop you from closing the gap, and you saved your precious vanish(-CS) and combo points for later in the fight. Generally, I want to sprint up and either gouge, kick or KS them in the face. Preventing heals is vital, so if you can’t get up to them in time, then you need to deadly-throw or blind.
From here, you are going back to step 4ish. You WANT to toe-to-toe with them. Keep them stunlocked when you can, and keep your energy available for a kick at all times.
Step 6–The turtle
While elemental and enhancement are easily defeated by the steps 4 and 5, the resto shaman is a different beast. You can’t “rush” a resto shaman down as a rogue. Properly geared, a rogue (w/o poison) cannot outdamage their healing. Their earth shield effect has 10 charges on each cast (which scales with +spell gear to some extent), and combined with any quick heals and NS, the resto shaman is going to be staying at high health for an extended duration. Luckily for us, the resto shaman deals relatively little damage compared to the other trees. The turtle can be similar to toe-toe-toe and is the tactic a resto shaman uses almost exclusively, but is also used when a rogue has closed the gap at the end of a kite on a low-health shaman of any spec.
Here is where wound poison shines SO much. Keep those PC totems smashed and keep them wounded. Cutting their healing in half means you’ll be cracking the turtle while taking less damage. This is a war of attrition, and you’re going to be eating their hits (and you’re gonna like it too mister), conserving energy and abilities with one purpose in mind: interrupting and preventing all heals.
At no point should your energy drop below 30, and preferably not below 45. You’ll need available energy to prevent and interrupt heals (shaman are pretty fast cast). A combination of kicks, KSes, vanish-CSes, blinds (yeah, that is plural, I’ve had fights last long enough that I’ve used 2 in a fight), and gouges to interrupt those heals. Gouge and blind are particularly useful for giving you a window to bandage yourself. Don’t be afraid to gouge->bandage. The war of attrition will lead to one of three things:
1.) Catching the shaman with his pants down having no Earthshield while being at 40% health with no poison cleansing totem. Just blind right here and you win.
2.) Running out of mana.
3.) And, sometimes, dealing lethal even through earthshield, usually due to perfect spell interrupts, wound eating heals and even his NS, and quite often because it was a poorly played or geared resto shaman.
Running a resto shaman out of mana is a common practice in arena as well. You can always go for the gouge-restealth-get to safe place and bandage just to re-open on a shaman with far less mana (assuming he has no summoned food or drink). You’ll outpace his mana regeneration by a long shot, and, for long enough fights will give you CD’s back. But, generally, in regular duels, you never want to give them an opportunity to eat/drink. Most likely, if you ran them out of mana, you were diligent in gouge/blind/sap->bandaging.
And, as stated, sometimes you be so lethal from interrupting the big heals that NS and Earthshield are simply speedbumps to the finale. Good for you!
In any case, if they are turtling, then they aren’t dealing really lethal damage at the same time. Proper heal prevention and bandaging will crack a turtle.
Tips–
a.) You CAN effectively blind through PCleansing. Luck might be required to some extent. The cleansing effect is periodic. So, it is common to blind a shaman and quickly kill his totem before he is cleansed.
b.) For extremely long fights, it is quite acceptable to simply reset it by gouge-restealthing, running off to bandage up and coming back again to fight. This is especially common in arenas, against resto shaman, and when you’ve made one or more large play errors.
c.) Consider taking out fire totems, as this eliminates another good portion of their damage.
d.) Never drop below 30% health, as a shaman can one-shot you in this health range.
e.) While EA is good, it is not optimal. Expose armor is generally not worth the point expenditures in this matchup. CB-Eviscerates, KSes, and deadly throws are simply better finishers for this matchup. If you are very skilled, sap/CSing into a sap/EA/killing the 2-3 relevant totems/restealthing/opening is a possibility. You need to be pretty awesome to pull this off though, getting OOC/restealth before the end of sap in this lineup is difficult.
f.) Gouge those who don’t jumpshot kite and just walk backwards (retards).
g.) Note that wolf form prevents sapping. But, he can’t cast totems inside ghost form.
Summary:
1.) sap/squash relevant totems/restealth
2.) Stunlock
3.) Prevent kite and interrupt all heal
4.) Bandage as necessary
This is a fight a rogue should be winning, we simply have too many tools to prevent or eliminate shaman’ strategies.
Hunter-
This used to be a matchup I loved when they didn’t know I was there, and one of the worst matchups if they were prepared for me and played correctly. Flare/Trap/Track Stealth camping nearly counters a core function, possibly an entire tree, of the rogue class. Geared and played correctly, I always felt a hunter should win more times than not in this matchup (having played both and written PvP/Duel guides for both, that was still true until late 2006). However, as we closed in upon TBC, we saw a few meaningful buffs to the rogue that gave us a much better chance against the hunter, putting the fight in our favor.
1.) Cloak of Shadows removes everything, can help eat traps and also gives us the opportunity to get rid of that awful Serpent Sting. When trapped, a good hunter will open with AS-SSting, and as vanish has been bugged for a long time (and always will be, *sigh –”working as intended”), SSting will stick even through a spammed vanish–no rogue could effectively restealth or escape. We could sprint up and vanish into his face, and we had a brief gap between DoT ticks to get an open…but we could never reset the fight. CoS lets us reset the fight, often on our terms. Finally, rogues have both a proactive and reactive disruptive feature that gives us anti-gank measures.
2.) Vanish removes hunters mark, and without SSting on us, it is a true restealth. Don’t forget it, because hunters will often forget to re-mark you in later combat (and that can come in handy, especially in group pvp).
3.) Evasion now also gives us a 25% avoidance to ranged/missiles. This lowers their effective damage on a kite, as well as dealing with pet damage (which can easily break 250-300 DPS).
4.) We have the HP to withstand more hits, no longer can we ever be 2-3 shotted by this class…even though you will see 3.5-4k Aimed Shots once in a great while. On the same token, the hunter has higher survivability as well, but not the same proportional increase in survivability as the rogue class.
5.) Deadly Throw–not bad damage, can be chain thrown with relentless, and is effective at snaring your ranged hunter. Not a bad deal, especially as once you’ve closed the gap you’re going to premed-CS open for 5 points, so extra points are wisely used here.
With that said, we won’t put a hunter on farm status just yet. Even among certain nerfs they’ve faced, they’ve also had a few buffs. Dropping traps in combat (even if they have a timer), pets that immediately stop attacking on a CC’ed (mezzed) target (giving them less to worry about, and higher damage on average), becoming difficult to CC with their 41 beast talent, and greater survivability as well.
With any rogue spec, you’ll be aiming to close the gap, stunlock, and prevent any kiting. Almost all builds will be putting huge pressure, enough to kill, or nearly kill, any hunter that eats a full stunlock round. Get that open and you’ll win.
Step 1–Choosing how and when to open on a Hunter.
The hunter wants to kite you. Period. He wants to put distance between you and him, keeping you out of stealth while he pwns you. He’s going to flare/trap camp to start, and no matter how it works out, you’re going to want to stop him from kiting at all costs. Obviously 2x Crippling poison is what we’ll be using.
You need to ask yourself one question before we can go on: Are you going to eat the flare/trap and be forced to dance, or are you going to wait out the hunter’s silly flare/trap camp?
Given that we are a stealth class, we are gifted by the deities of Blizzard with the innate ability, via stealth, to choose whether and when we wish to strike an opponent. This ability to wait for “the moment of opportunity” is mostly present in gank-type situations, but it certainly has relevance in a duel. In the hunter matchup, we come face to face with it quite vividly. A hunter that is fully prepared for a rogue will, obviously, have laid a trap for us to walk into. We know it, we can even see that trap (both literally and figuratively). The hunter will be double flare/trap camping, and with even mediocre spirit regen he can keep it up all day. If you choose to not wait him out, then you lack “opportunity” in every sense of the word when you, begrudgingly of course, accept your fate that you will not get a stealth open, and will also be forced to trap-dance. In a friendly duel, I’ll gladly swallow my lumps and trap-dance, but if winning matters, then I’ll use everything I have in my power to win, including the resource of my time while in stealth (plus I get my CD’s back if they are down for some reason).
Alas, our stealth gives us the choice. You can just charge in, or you can sit and wait for the hunter to stop camping (or camping incorrectly, thus allowing you to catch him when he wanders off just slightly). Some hunters will call “waiting them out” poor etiquette, but clearly they have no clue about the very nature of the rogue. Blizzard gave us this ability and even if it pisses everyone off, we can surely use it to our advantage. We were designed to do this, even in duels. Time is on our side. It takes 100x the effort and concentration of a hunter to chain flare/trap camp as it does for me to walk to safe place and AFK until I’m darn well good and ready to open. For example, in the arena, when a hunter and I are the last people standing (I’m stealthed of course), I simply refuse to eat his flare/trap. Within even a minute, that hunter will get frustrated (and I won’t). He’ll slip up; he’ll run around, he’ll get outside of the flare radius, he’ll try hopping from flare radius to flare radius. Even if he goes to get a see-stealth buff, he’ll screw up while I’m patiently waiting at a safe distance. If it matters, then you can choose to get your open from stealth, and for important matches, I do suggest it.
Steps two and three are going to assume you will not wait him out, but if you do wait him out, then skip to step 4.
Step 2 (eating flare/trap)–Trap Dancing
So you’ve chosen the harder route, good for you–the fight is action packed and exciting. The hunter is sitting directly on top of his trap, or thereabouts, and he’s chain flaring. You will attempt to circle him, hitting him with shots just outside the trigger radius of the trap. There is only a slight difference in radius between melee range and the trap-trigger radius, but with practice you’ll become quite adept at weaving around the fine line. If you need, you can blow CoS, forget the trap, and just rush him.
Feel free to watch your timers, you can tell how long until that flare and that trap will wear out. You will want to at least wait until these are almost up before you start trap-dancing. You want to make sure they will run their duration quickly. Why? Because trap dancing should lead to eventual control of the fight. You are accepting loss of control from the beginning, but you need to quickly gain it back…Stealth is required to win against a good hunter. You cannot stealth neither on a trap nor on a flare. So you either need to draw him away (by letting him kite you), or even better, catching him with a blind at the end of the flare/trap duration so that you can get your open.
When you trap-dance, and most hunters won’t be used to this technique, they have a few responses available.
1.) They sic their pet and take your hits, keeping autoattack on, but not budging from the trap, hoping you’ll eat the trap or the pet will take you out before you take them out. This is the response of a noobie hunter.
2.) They’ll back up, and circle, attempting to keep the trap between you and them. Interesting technique. The proactive chaser (rogue) will close the gap though.
3.) They’ll Scatter Shot you, attempting to make you eat a trap, and will begin kiting. The normal response you should expect. CoSing the trap is quite nice right here. Early cripple/shiv takes care of a big kite. CoS-Shivving is huge.
4.) They go all crazy red incredible hulk on you and zerg….just run off and vanish, you can’t CC him. He just wasted a CD.
5.) Pet intimidate and begin the kite.
Those are the general responses, and sometimes they’ll use a combination. A poorly played hunter is highly susceptible to continual trap dancing. Sprint and evasion can help here. If you catch him off the trap, KS and unload on him. Generally, though, a good hunter is going to stabilize the fight first on you, and he’ll make you eat an SS, trap, or pet stun, and then they’ll start kiting.
Step 3–Preventing the Kite
On the kite, they’ll aspect of cheetah for the run speed, lay a trap while running (if not on CD), and open. Feel free to evasion right out of a trap. Be careful to avoid traps layed during combat, you’ll see his animation when he does it (don’t be deceived by those who jump+trap). A good one will begin kiting and drop it midway. You simply cannot allow for him to stay at range obviously, but don’t eat a trap you don’t have to just because of your fervor to prevent the kite and reopen. You need to close the gap and reset the fight, this time on your terms.
It depends on the situation, but sometimes simply sprinting up to him and vanish->opening is all you need. Other times the hunter will get his huge open on you–and if you decide not to CoS-Vanish (usually do to CD or flare constraints), then blow evasion when they are going to get some ranged hits on you. Feel free to deadly throw at him if you have the spare points. Anyways, you’ll catch up to him, hopefully not having sustained a ton of damage.
So, when his flare/trap is gone, or they’ve kited you to an area where there is no flare/trap, you want to get your real open on them. You have two options, you can Blind and/or Vanish (generally CoS->Vanish is required). Whatever it takes, you aim to get your open on them in a non-trapped/flared area. Again blind is less useful against dwarves, but it still might be necessary to blow it (maybe wait until they blow it to get off crip poison). Once you’ve stabilized the fight, you aim to control him the rest of the way.
Step 4–The stunlock
Assuming you’ve stabilized the fight or you are getting the open on a hunter, then you’re going to open with a fat CS on him. Here his PvP trinket is your only worry. You’ll go through your normal stunlock routine, but you watch for that trinket. He can bust out of either of your stuns (and your crip poison). You need to catch him on it. If you don’t catch him on it, then he may SS you in the face and start the cycle again. The perfect catch is a gouge on his trinket-SS. If he drops a trap here, just avoid or CoS it.
Full CD, on the open, and no trinket (a surprising number no longer equip this), you’ll win 100% of the time if you play correctly. No hunter comes back on our open. Premed, blind, vanish, and CB are invaluable in this stage. Burst him down within your stunlock, and continue for as long as you can. If you have it, or even need it, a blind post-KS (against non-dwarf) seals the deal every time.
If you can’t fully stunlock him, that’s okay. Stick on him like glue; he’ll be very low on health, and your remaining CD’s will overcome any measure of control he can muster.
Tips:
a.) Shiv that crippling poison on them if it isn’t already applied.
b.) Restealthing isn’t effective, as pets still charge at you even after you stealth. You have to vanish.
c.) It is possible to sprint-Sap a hunter within a flare. It won’t work 100% of the time, and it is latency based.
d.) CoS can be used in stealth, and it can be used to eat a trap. Charging into a flare/trap camp and CoSing to eat that trap can be quite powerful (and is sometimes necessary, especially in arena).
d.) Boar Charge can buy them additional kite time, be prepared for it.
Summary:
1.) Trapdance or Open
2.) Use Anti-kite measures to gain control of fight
3.) Stunlock (maintain anti-kite measures)
Until I start seeing better equipped hunters, I think a well played rogue should win this matchup more times than not. Armor levels have dropped considerably, and most hunters aren’t stocking up enough on HP gear. Prevent the kite and you win.
Druid-
A PvP druid will usually be feral, if they aren’t feral then you own them (wound poison and stunlock cures all). Now that doesn’t mean they’ll be in feral form the whole time by any means, and it doesn’t mean they won’t have points invested in other trees. But, the strongest PvP druids will be feral, and that is what you should prepare for, especially as non feral druids are much easier to deal with. Mind you, as an odd “hybrid” (and I use this term very loosely in regards to the druid, who really plays “role-replacement” in my mind), the feral druid can have varying gear, and thus a varying tactic that we must identify and respond to. Some are going all out damage, at the expense of a solid mana-base and armor; some are going to tank you; and, some will keep their mana-options open, but sacrifice feral damage and tankability–the best will use a combination thereof. Mangle and gear variations can make this a difficult class. Finding truly skilled druids that can make use of their abilities is a different matter together (how unfortunate!).
It is to know what gear configuration they are using. You need to identify whether they are dealing very lethal damage (even higher yellow DPS than a rogue as far as I’m concerned) or if they are going the defensive route. If they are in tank gear, then you’ll be more likely to DoT and tank them down. If they are damage based in gear, then you’ll really want to kite them more than you tank them, on the flip side their mitigation won’t be nearly as high. Their mana supply is also an issue to consider. Druids with low-mana bases really can’t afford to shape shift several times in a short period of time.
Good druids will start bear form. Refer to the rogue stealth section if they try and cat-stealth you (it is a sign that the druid thinks you suck; even if their PvP gloves have stealth detection, it is a poor choice by the druid). Other things to keep in mind is that they can use their bark skin armor buff during stun, NG even in feral form, and bash has become more effective as dodge levels have dropped. Beyond their amazing mitigation, I have become more and more impressed with the bear forms ability to dodge/parry–fighting from behind is always a good idea against these guys. Constant positioning is a powerful and even necessary tactic.
In bear form they hope to survive your initial stunlock/dots/kite, and they’ll attempt to bring you down as far as possible without putting themselves in harms way of not being able to heal up effectively. They hope to catch you at a crucial point where you are possibly low on CDs (if you needed them), they have 30-50% health, and you are susceptible to traditional CC. It is here where they want to heal to full and bring you down the rest of the way. They’ll Bash->Cyclone, heal to full, and re-bear form. Expect to see Nature’s Grasp trix and well-timed trinkets. The longer this fight lasts, the more likely the druid is going to win. Finding druids who pop these CD’s at appropriate times and every time they are available is rare as well. We just don’t see a lot of druids that maximize their potential, beware of those who do….this is a class that has the potential to beat a lot of rogues if played correctly.
There are 3 tactics that should be used when dueling a feral druid:
1.) Stunlocking
2.) Evasion tanking
3.) Kiting
Knowing the gear configuration changes the effectiveness of each of these tactics, and sets priorities for the rogue. Stunlocking is always good, but if we go too heavy on it, then we lose the ability to punish a druid out of bear form. Evasion tanking is good, but it is both temporary and is most useful when attempting to dodge a bash. Kiting is also a two-edged sword, as it makes you more vulnerable to CC effects and a druid getting a heal off, but it is necessary against high damage druids. In the end, a combination of these will be used against a well-played druid.
Step 1–Preparation
As much as some rogue’s don’t like to use it: Wound poison…you need to stack 5 quickly and sustain that 50% cut in their healing. I don’t care if you use rank 1 wound poison or the highest rank. All that matters is that they won’t be healing effectively–in the end, a very good druid will get a few heals off, it is up to you how effective they will be in their healing endeavors. Healing is greatly diminished with wound poison, to the point that you can force earlier bashes, blowing fewer CDs and taking less damage. It is so important to keep them from healing that you should be using wound poison MH. Keeping their healing down is at a premium….12k hp bears (attainable in greens) that get a single full heal on you in a fight are 24k hp bears….and there will be times that you can’t stop them from healing.
A rogue really cannot afford to give up the ability to gouge->bandage or blind->bandage against a very good druid, and so DoTs must be used wisely. This fight is in part a war of attrition, one that will be lost when you can’t effectively heal yourself because deadly poison is breaking your disorient/incapacitate effects and also because they can effectively heal because you haven’t stacked 5 wound. If you do go the deadly route, then go all out, be sure to use Envenom. I don’t recommend this against a well-played druid. They’ll outlast your damage…they are a turtle. Breaking the turtle is best done with wound poison/crippling poison, not deadly.
Only at the beginning of this fight do we want to risk using DoTs, as the beginning only sets the tone of the fight, it isn’t until we are 20 seconds into the fight that we have to worry about CC effects. So, we are setting up for a warrior-type open; a garrote->5pt rupture is quite optimal. CS-Imp Gouging for pre-combat points is easy an excellent. They can still hit you with FF from a good distance, but with minor run speed and quickly running after the gouge you’ll always get your restealth. If you do get hit you can always CoS-restealth. Saving your premed, you’ll want it later in the fight after you vanish into him. If you choose not to use precombat point generation, then premed is just fine against these guys, just be careful to use those points quickly–this can be difficult when the druid is jumping and twirling around, as you’re open must be from behind for garrote (and many have stealth detection)…so you’ve got to use premed points in 10 seconds, but you can’t let them catch you in stealth for an FF. With FF preventing vanish, you may consider using it liberally from the get go, negating some of the utility of pre-combat points, COS does give us more flexibility though.
Step 2– The open
You prefer to save sprint if possible, as it closes the distance quick on a kiting druid, but sprinting in for the open is acceptable if it is necessary (you really prefer to save this though).
Some might prefer CS, and against non-bear tanks this is strictly correct. But, as a rogue can generally afford to not have to use gouge/sap/blind in the initial 20 seconds of combat, DoTing is a very effective means to deal some major damage to these heavily-armored feral units. On top of this, the druid fight is one of the very few in which I am greatly concerned with my diminishing returns. Opening CS->Gouge->KS eliminates the immediate future effectiveness of these abilities, and that can really come back to bite you. As usual, these are pseudo-warriors, don’t even open until they have no rage, and avoid the shouts. And, please, watch your castbars, you don’t want to open on a druid that has freshly casted NG (Nature’s Grasp). This also goes for the druids who think they are smart in HoTing themselves right before the beginning of a duel–just wait these out.
If you do choose to open stunlock, then consider vanishing within your KS and premed-Garrote-5pt rupturing. Assuming precombat points, something like CS-Gouge-KS-Yellow-Vanish-Premed-Garrote-Rupture-Yellow is fine. Be ready for the trinket on KS though (ouch). If you choose to DoT open, saving your vanish (with CoS it is another open, and that can be very powerful), you’ll go something like Premed-Garrote-Yellow-Rupture.
Step 3– Toe-to-Toe’in, Kiting, and Stunlocking
I generally give the druid a few seconds of tanking from my open. Why? Generally I’ll get a few hits in before they even join in on me, I’ve got the energy to blow, and I get a feel for their gear if I didn’t already inspect or visually identify what tactic their gear points them towards. Most importantly, staying in melee range lets you apply your poisons, and this is vital. You need 5x wound poison and crippling. Jumping through the bear and circle-strafing around him properly will give you his back. You really want to avoid both his damage and his frontal defense when possible. Get your poisons and run those DoTs.
If I see my druid is taking and dealing heavy damage, usually because they aren’t wearing their +defense tank gear, it is usually best to treat them like MS warriors. Go ahead and 5-8 kite (closer to 8 than 5 for the druid though), regen energy, jump through, stun and unload on them, and do it again. You want to beg their charge and bash early, and you also want to beg them to pop out of bear form for a quick heal. You want to catch them with their pants down, while running into unload and running back out to avoid his damage.
If my druid is a true tank, then I’m more inclined to tank them as well because their damage will be lower. Generally, you’ll want to be using rupture, but only when KS isn’t on CD. You can’t afford for them to pop out of bear form for you not to have KS when blind is going to fail on a DoTed target. And, when you aren’t rupturing you should be using gouge to bandage and regain energy. Toe-to-toe is more acceptable in this case because you aren’t likely to be bursted down.
Step 4—Preventing Heals and Catching them in Caster form.
Assuming his HP is getting low, it is going to beg a response. The first response from a druid with lots of rage and not perfect health is Frenzied regeneration. Good ones will blow this early to maximize effectiveness against your wound poison, with 100 rage (not hard to get) it heals them for a base 2,500 health). There isn’t much more you can do to prevent this, but winning before they can do it again is something you can do. If frenzied is down, they have three other answers in bash, charge and nature’s grasp.
At some point, usually around 50%, a druid will bash-Cyclone or NG (NG-Cyclone is common). After landing the fearsome Cyclone, a druid is free to heal, maybe even DD you, and get back into bearform. You need to prevent this at all costs. We have a few counters. In the end, you want to end up catching them in caster form with a gouge/KS/CS/blind if possible. Even a few seconds in against them in casterform is lethal.
The counter to bash is quite singular: Evasion. The higher your chance to avoid that stun effect the better. For DPS feral druids who generally take sizable damage from you even in bear form, but also deal lethal damage themselves, going evasion early is a good idea. Minimizing the damage they deal to you is very important, and conversely, their need to bash will come much sooner than a bearal tank’s need, early enough that going evasion while their at 75% will put huge pressure on them as you burn them down to 30% in the next 15 seconds. For bearal tanks you really don’t want to evasion until they get to 50-60%, otherwise they’ll just wait through your evasion and bash afterwards. If bash is dodged, then they are in serious trouble. They’ll be forced to NG.
The counter to Nature’s Grasp: Cloak of Shadows. For now I catch many druids with their pants down as they jump out of bear form because I’m 12 yards away, only to see my CoS into a blind on their caster form. It can be good to CoS-Vanish (as FF is now gone, and this is a rare opportunity to use vanish)-CS them. If the druid catches you CoSing out of NG, and doesn’t pop out of bear form, they’ll be stuck with their last resort, charging.
Charge is a root, but it doesn’t eliminate your abilities, just your movement. Vanish can get you out. Catching them with a gouge on a charge is most optimal. KSing is fine too. If they get away, blind is a good idea. Deadly-throw on a caster form is pretty amazing too. You might see charge before bash or NG even, just be ready to gouge it immediately. Otherwise they’ll kite away, pop out of bear-form for an abolish poison and an HoT, and pop back into bear form.
If you get him in caster form, he’s dead. Druids don’t come back from it. Unload on him in casterform. Even a 2-3 point CB-Evisc can be lethal at this stage of the fight.
You are going to eat some bashes, NG’s, and charges that will net the druid in a successful cyclone. Druids will get heals off if they play correctly. We just need to come back on them.
Step 5—Recovering
So, they successfully cycloned, or CoS/vanish was down on an NG, or you just saw them Abolish poison, and now you lost control of the situation and they went back to full health. What can you do?
Prep gives you all the options again. Constant gouge->bandaging is important. Blind->bandage is very good. You need to outlast him. Things like Mark of Conquest and Heroism card are very good in this matchup. Catching him on a gouge/blind (or even KS) at the end of FF duration might net you a restealth. Continue to follow through with the gameplan.
Tips:
a.) Restealths are good, they happen often enough with the help of CoS. Gouge-CoS-restealth can be of use.
b.) Be prepared for stun resists and trinket.
c.) Don’t be afraid to CB-Eviscerate very low-armor bears, you’d be surprised how hard you can hit.
d.) If you do use deadly, envenom becomes quite excellent.
e.) Watch for abolish poisons when they jump out of bear form. It periodically removes poison effects, rendering them unblindable (for the full duration atleast).
Summary:
1.) CS-Gouge-Restealth
2.) Garrote-Rupture-Apply 5x wound and Crippling
3.) Kite high damage and tank low damage bears.
5.) Counters his abilities appropriately.
6.) Catch him in caster form or kill him before he kills you in bear form (gouge/blind-bandage is good).
In the end, most druids really don’t maximize their characters’ potential. How many druids even use their PvP trinket to pop out of the crucial 5-point KS? How many are popping NG, bash, charge, and Frenzied regeneration every time it comes up? Each of these put pressure on the rogue, and often require us to blow CD’s in response (or even as prevention). It is quite possible for a bearal tank to live long enough to use these abilities a few times. Most of the time you’ll trounce druids simply because they just don’t know howto fight a rogue….seriously, premed-garrote-GS-rupture-evasion-rushdown will defeat most druids. But, should you meet one that does play correctly, you’ll need to be tactful.
Rogue-
The once awful mirror match is now not as bad as it once was. Pre-TBC, save for a dodged gouge or a stun resist, the open is really all that mattered at some threshold of gear. Once you met that gear level, any rogue could be defeated. With itemization changes, this has become a slightly more skill intensive fight than “get the open and win”. Don’t get me wrong, the open REALLY matters, as it sets the tone and pace of the fight, but it is no longer the tell-tale sign of a win or loss in a match. There are very few rogues that are pumping out lethal damage before the end of KS, and none of them can do it consistently (they got some really, really lucky crits). This will now, at the very least, be a matchup that requires CD’s if we do hope to 100 to 0 another rogue. With that said, there are a few things you can do to improve your odds of getting the open, and you should take all possible measures to make sure you get that open.
Step 1–Getting the Open: stealth and odd mechanics
The ability to see them first is 9/10ths the open for most rogues. Perception, potions, heightened senses, and certain pieces of gear can improve your stealth detection. There are also many effects that increase your stealth levels itself. MOD is obvious, but don’t forget boots, cloak enchant, Nelf racial, and a few other things can improve your stealth. In general, stealth detection seems stronger, per piece of gear, than increasing your stealth level itself. I highly suggest getting as much of both as possible. Put it on a gear-swap macro, you’ll find yourself using your stealth setup quite often in BGs, dueling, and even world PvP.
The other thing that helps greatly in getting the open is something akin to Belkin’s Nostromo N52. Now, while the n52 isn’t necessary for a rogue to play, it does make high-end play easier and more effective. In this case, the macro spammability feature is certainly game-breaking in the context of getting the open in the stealth vs stealth matchup.
Most rogue’s stealth around, trying to just walk past their opponent, then they target their opponent and CS. This is not what you want to do. Stealth was designed so that you are either a.) forced to AE the area in which the rogue is, or b.) manually target the rogue in stealth and then use an ability. The “bottleneck”,so-to-speak, for a rogue vs rogue, is in 1.) Actually having a visual of the the stealthed opponent, 2.) Taking the time to target (whether by tabbing or clicking on him), and 3.) Pushing CS about as fast as you can spam it by hand. The N52 gets around all three of these.
You can setup a macro that will allow you to hold down your CS key to spam CS faster than humanly possible for an indefinite duration (as long as you hold the key down or press it again, depending on how you set it up). What does this do?
It is an odd feature of the game, but if you spam CS at the n52’s amazing rate, you don’t actually have to target a stealthed opponent. If I am next to a stealthed opponent, my CS-spam will automatically hit them. Even better, the spammed CS will almost always hit my rogue opponent even BEFORE I have a visual of them on my screen. I’ve played without MOD and opened repeatedly on rogue’s with MOD just because of this CS-spamming. This is a serious advantage.
Assuming you didn’t just stand still, and you didn’t walk some obvious path, you should most likely get your open on another rogue using the tools above. So, step one, you’ve CSed your rogue opponent. What now?
Step 2: The stunlock
This is your standard stunlock situation–Always stunlock a rogue. Don’t be fancy here, no “rush-down” until you know you’ve won…you may not come back if you lose control of this fight. Your job is to stunlock your opponent from 100 to 0, or, if you must, rupture kite them while you are out of their blind range. 2x Crippling Poison is clearly the best poison choice. Use your usual stunlock, but remember you must keep 25-30e open before the end of your KS. You will need to proactively disrupt your opponent by the end of KS, or you will get a.)blinded, b.)gouged in the face, c.)vanish-CSed. There are two viable end-KS choices:
Blind–Blinding at the end of KS signifies that you are going all out, and to me, if used after you get the open, it is the closest to sure sign of a victory as we can say. You get to re-open, and that rogue is most likely going to die. This is the safe way. And, some might view it as cheap. My opinion: Do what it takes to win. That means blowing CD’s. Blind after KS (when available) is ALWAYS the correct choice in a duel against another rogue. (By the way, elusiveness now puts blind at a 1.5min CD.)
Rupture Kiting–This can be dangerous, but it is sometimes a necessary evil when we don’t have CD’s available, specifically blind. Rupture kiting is simple: apply rupture and get out of their blind range, restealth and re-open. Rupture prevents your rogue opponent from effectively restealthing. In the meantime, you seek to go OOC, gain some energy, and restealth. If you don’t get OOC, then generally you’re going to be vanishing in for the 2nd open and, hopefully, the kill. Your job is not only to get a restealth, but essentially to avoid an incoming blind that your opponent has been spamming since your initial CS. If your opponent blinds you, then they get to restealth and open on you (regardless of DoTs).
Rupture at max range, and rupture early in KS. You’ll need at least a small time buffer of KS-time to escape blind range. Be sure to test your build to make sure you have enough room after KS so that you don’t eat a blind. For example: you can generally get 2 Hemo’s in and rupture during KS, and still be far enough away not to eat a blind. This takes practice. Shorter rupture durations means you have less and less of a time advantage over your opponent, maximizing is good, but not at the expense of eating a blind.
Your opponent might bow/throw you to keep you in combat. He has 30% health, you have 100% health…just trade blows with him and throw back at him (keep your distance of course). A reasonable rogue opponent is not going to try and keep you in combat, as this is merely an exercise in futility. Sprint-Vanish will take care of these rogues too.
A good rogue opponent is going to do one of two things:
a.)Pop CD’s and try and open on you directly.
b.)Pop CD’s and run away from you, primarily to heal up and try again to open on you.
CoS, Vanish, and Imp Sprint all remove crippling, so be prepared to blow CD’s in response. My usual rule is to pop the same CD my opponent has popped. If my opponent vanishes (still has rupture on him), then I vanish. If my opponent sprints, then I sprint. You can tell when your opponent is going to let you OOC and when he isn’t. Be prepared to blow CD’s, maybe even pre-empt them.
For those chasing you down, the good ones are simply trying desperately to get a blind on you. If you can smell the blind, then just vanish…you can always circle for another minute to find him, and your next open will be lethal. Rupture-Vanish is perfectly acceptable. The problem is that they can escape pretty easily if you do this immediately. They can get just get out of crip poison and sprint out to restealth. If you do choose to rupture-vanish, then be sure to keep up with him, sprint and distract can help in this regard.
The reason rupture-vanish is simply not as good as blind is 2-fold. 1.) Diminishing returns on CS, Gouge, and KS (ouch), and 2.) Lack of energy (blind gives you 100, rupture-vanish gives you varying amounts, usually less). If my opponent is very low, I’ll often Premed-CS-CB-Evisc, and it ends right there. It is a difficult balance between DR/Energy issues and whether I let my opponent escape or not.
Always remember that even if your opponent does get the blind on you, he still can’t kill you in a single round (most likely). Use anti-rupture kiting techniques on him…and you are both even, only your CD’s are more likely to be up on the 2nd encounter than his.
The real problem I foresee is that at some gear threshold, since neither rogue can effectively 100 to 0, it is conceivable that many times both rogues will get each other to half health, and in fear of not getting the open, both will hide and bandage up their health to open, yet again, on a full health rogue. Endless cycles…I find this common in arena especially. Prevent rogues from kiting you is a major skill to have.
Tips:
a.) Sometimes it all turns into a real mess. Evasion isn’t a great answer, but at least they won’t be gouging you or really dealing massive damage to you from the front. Always remember to blow this when all hell breaks loose.
b.) Recovering from another rogue that opens on you means spamming blind and using anti-rupture kiting techniques. Remember that you can always stealth away after escaping from being opened on and find a comfortable place to quickly bandage/eat. This essentially resets the fight completely.
c.) Don’t use deadly poison.
d.) Be patient, don’t get lazy or frustrated when you are having a hard to finding them. Even circling that silly flag or what not takes some degree focus and concentration.
Summary:
1.) Get your stealth detection and +stealth mods on.
2.) Spam your CS open, and think while you prowl around. Don’t be obvious in your walking patterns, and if you see a safer place to be scoping out the area, then use it.
3.) If you open full CD, then win, if no blind available, then rupture kite. If they open, then blind and/or use anti-rupture tactics.
Priest-
A match that has become almost unwinnable for a shadowpriest and arguably easier for, but still not in the favor of, a holy/disc priest. Cloak of shadows and lower mitigation levels have made this a much easier fight for the rogue in general. On top of this, a rogue that is properly sap/CSing can frontload so much damage while maintaining a lock and severely stifling their healing that most priests simply can’t come back on you. Our main problems with priests in general are a.) Shielding every 15 seconds, netting no increased cast time from taking damage and, of course, +virtual HP, b.) Killing the priest before the 2nd (or 3rd for UD rogues) fear, and lastly c.) Preventing the kite.
I’ll first outline the open stages of the fight against all priests, and then I’ll elaborate on the spec.
Step 1–Getting the open on a zero armor target
Sap/CS is so powerful in dueling. Honestly, it is an abuse of the game mechanics, but I’ll take anything I can get. The priest is the prime target of this tactic. Here is where expose armor becomes useful as well, and the good part is that a rogue can put EA on a target without sacrificing his open!
Your routine:
1.) Sap/CS, restealth and wait for DR on both. (2-3 combo points)
2.) Sap/CS, restealth and wait for DR on both. (4-5 combo points, generally 5)
3.) Sap/EA, restealth, OPEN HERE.
Remember not to actually use your last sap until a.) they are 12-13 seconds from losing their shield (which won’t happen against most smart priests), or b.) they newly cast their shield. You want to either be really opening on a priest with no shield or the inability to cast another after you crack his shield. Shielding and fearing are chokepoints for anyone dueling against a priest, and so we really want to unload as much damage as we can before the next shield and/or fear chokepoint.
For sap/CSing, blackout-procs can be a pain, and also be sure you don’t deal any damage (even from weapon procs+enchants). CoS+vanish takes care of those problems though. CoS+vanish is a reset of the fight (only you get to keep your combo points).
Again, the n52 is so powerful in this matchup. I have this all hotkeyed. I sap and push one button and the EA through sap happens for me automatically. I restealth, and I’ve got a zero armor target for 23-25 seconds). Remember sap shares DR with gouge–Try and wait out the DR before gouging (if your opponent even lasts that long?). From here, the fight diverges into two different approaches:
Step 2 (Shadow)—Elimination of their damage+healing.
Shadowpriests put out some serious damage, and have the highest damage+healing ratios in the game. But, TBC has certainly changed this matchup. Rogues are in a much better position because we have the tool to eliminate the damage (and thus the healing potential) of shadowpriests in our beautiful Cloak of Shadows (some might even say cloak of skillz). At equal gear, a rogue should win this fight every time. Crippling poison is a must have (MH or OH, either is fine), and is acceptable in both hands as well. Preventing the kite is the game. A 1x of Mind-Numbing or Wound is also acceptable.
Generally, I’m just going to rush these guys down. They have 15% damage mitigation (after 5-point EA), and I’m in an excellent position to premed-CS-CB-Evisc them to half health right now. Stunlock them down if you can, but they’ll usually trinket right on CS. Be ready to answer a trinket+fear. Rush them down. Let them Vampiric Embrace+DoT, and then use your CoS (15 second CD on VE). CoS gives you practical immunity to their damage for 5 seconds and also eliminates whatever they just threw on you, it is most powerful in bridging the tempo advantage of a kite while you sprint up to them. They won’t be denting your HP, nor gaining any life back–they are in serious trouble. They won’t be coming back on you if you play your cards right.
As always, if you are having a really tough time, blind is your ‘oh-sh*t’ key. It resets the fight and gives you yet another open. Easy enough.
Step 2 (Holy/Disc)–Overcoming the turtle
This fight has become slightly harder for the rogue. Holy/disc priests are pretty decent turtles. Pain suppression, blessed resilience, and a few other talents make for a decent turtle. I do recognize that Disc and Holy are very different trees, but for now, I lump them together because it is the same basic gameplan: Prevent all healing, stunlock as much as possible. Catch them at 40-50% health with no shield or trinket and, if necessary, blind to restealth and premed-CS-CB-Eviscerate for the win.
Although you do want crippling on at all times if you can, what you really MUST have is wound poison. You need to out DPS their healing (and they will get some healing even through your wall of disruption)–wound poison cuts the heal to DPS margin in half (actually, slightly better including damage dealt by Wound poison). Wound MH and Crip OH is really what you want in this matchup. Sprint fills in any crip-gaps you might have, and shiv prevents most kite gaps from occurring in the first place.
You should still premed-CS-CB-Evisc on your open. Although, Premed-Ambush-CB-Eviscerate is good, it isn’t a stunlock. For the moment, you should CS even instead of ambush as it forces a trinket. Like a resto shaman, here you’ll sustaining damage, being sure to kick, gouge, KS, blind, deadly throw, and even vanish-CS all non-instant heals. Apply your wound poison as a source of pressure to both the time available to get their HP up, but even as a way to put pressure on their mana supply. 5x Wound Poison is a huge detriment to the very fabric of their spec and class, and they will not overcome it.
Proper responses to stun resists, fears, and their heals should still guarantee you a win. Don’t go too low on energy, because if they get a flash off, you’ll be sitting there even longer. Don’t go kamikaze to the point that you don’t have energy to disrupt their heals.
Use CoS Wisely. Generally, I wait to burn it as it can provide guaranteed opens alongside vanish. But, in this match, you could arguably just burn it early to have it ready yet again. CoS early on SW:P forces them to cast it yet again, using up their precious time and mana just to deal a bit of damage to you (and keep you from easily vanishing, not that you shouldn’t be capable of vanish-CSing in between ticks anyways). It is up to you.
Against not so great holy/disc priests you can go pure rushdown, against the better one’s you are fighting a slow war of attrition, one that the rogue will eventually win. Some fights will be slow enough that SnD is worth it, other fights are more concerned with bursting.
Tips:
a.) Proper CoS usage can be key. You should atleast wait for them to DoT you before you blow it though. Using in anticipation of a fear won’t be a good idea until the end of the fight.
b.) Never, under any circumstances let them kite you.
c.) Stunlocking, even if only a softlock, is STILL a good idea–so what if they have stun resist, tempo is tempo (any rogue who says otherwise simply has no idea how this matchup works).
d.) Try to kill before the 2nd shield, but make sure you kill before the 2nd fear.
e.) Wear your PvP trinket, have it bound to a key, and be ready to push it. Time lost during a fear kite is time you could have been punishing that priest.
Summary:
1.) Sap/CS into 5 points
2.) Sap/EA/restealth/Open
3.) Premed-CS-CB-Eviscerate
4.) Prevent kiting/healing and respond to fears quickly.
The shadowpriest matchup is considerably easier, and the holy/disc matchup is considerably harder before TBC. At equal gear, a rogue should beat a shadowpriest every fight, and should win the majority of fights against holy/disc priests.
Mage-
As always, a lightning fast fight, arguably an even quicker fight than before TBC as we both have access to even more tools against each. In general, with CoS, this fight is in the rogue’s favor, even against frost-mages. Non-frost mages should lose 100% of the time to a rogue– even played to their peak capacity, we out-CD them and apply far too much pressure for them to control us. While a fire mage is dead in the water when you blow CD after CD, the frost mage has alot more answers, and the longer the fight (as usual), the more likely your opponent is going to win. Your mission is to deal massive single blows at all choke points, prevent the kite, not eat their blasts, and as always, avoid getting polymorphed at all costs.
All mages aim to do one or both of these:
1.) Sheep you (without you having a trinket left) (the fire mage really wants this)
2.) Kite you using instants until you die (the frost mage will do this).
The mage and rogue are actually very similar in terms of the situational control and survivability we possess. We have answers and lots of disruption to use against each other. When fighting a mage, Blink, Ice Block, Blazing speed, PoM, Slow, Water Elemental, and Nova all require a rogue to blow CD’s/trinkets to effectively counter. And, if a mage is given a chance to use all of these abilities, the rogue will eventually run out of CD’s. Once the rogue is out of CD’s he is dead in the water, as he has no way to prevent the mages disruption, and, on the same token, will never catch up to disrupt the mage. The rogue must win before the mage can use all of these abilities because he won’t have enough responses.
The mage’s use of CD’s allow him to blink and shield/barrier enough times, burning all the rogue’s CD and options, such that he lives through each burst, and eventually overcomes the rogue. We trade CD’s to just get in range and deal any blows to a good mage. But getting past his CD’s isn’t your only problem. With each shielding he throws up, he gains virtual hp (like the priest), adding even more damage that is required of us to actually kill him. The longer the fight, the more often a mage will be able to shield/barrier himself, and thus a 7-8k mage becomes a 11-12k hp mage pretty easily.
This fight is NOT about sustained damage, it is about dealing lethal singular hits in between the choke points of iceblock, frost-nova, blink, and shielding. If you treat the fight like it is a sustained damage fight you lose immediately; this is completely about burst and disrupting/responding to the mage’s control features. The mages control abilities are mostly instant cast, and they happen in rapid succession, and so the rogue’s damage is choked through each of these abilities. We are forced to create opportunities to deal sizable amounts of damage in single shots. We aim to out-CD the mage, eliminating chokepoints before we reach them, and to deal massive blows.
Before we go on, I’ll go through possible responses to each of their abilities:
Frost Nova/Freeze/snare=Vanish, CoS, Blind, Imp Sprint
Blink=If sprint is already up, you can catch them before any major spell can hit you, assuming no PoM. I’ve even run the opposite direction to restealth from OOC in some cases. Vanish works as well.
Sheep=Avoiding it in the first place with Vanish, CoS, or any stun, Deadly throw for interrupt, and trinket if it hitst.
Ice Block=Depending on whether WE is out, turning off autoattack, either sit next/behind them and be ready to mash if they melt, or hit your special of choice at 0.5 left on their Ice block. Or, you can OOC and restealth. Killing their Water Elemental isn’t a terrible idea either if you’re combat. Be ready to blind the mage.
The good part about this matchup is that the more you know about your opponent, the better choices you can make. So, for example, if you know they don’t have PoM, you can use strategies that aren’t flawed by PoMable gaps, etc. The general fight is the same though, but as you’ll see that CD’s are extremely important in the frost mage matchup…probably to an extent greater than any other matchup.
Step 1–Setting up the anti-kite
As usual, 2x Crippling poison is best. 1x Mind-Numbing is “okay”…but, generally, the mages that you’ll have a tough time beating, frost mages, will be using instant casts the entire fight.
All mages will start the fight AE’ing. This can make your Sap/CS setup kinda difficult. Be patient, play like a stone cold killer. And, if you don’t get that perfect open, then just restart the fight with a gouge, vanish, or even CoS-OOC-restealth after they blink away. Even here, if you really want to win, I suggest sap/CSing. It saves you a premed, and that can be quite powerful after a vanish. They can Ice block through sap, and if you force a block by just sapping, well all the better for you! N52 spamming of sap is invaluable here. CS through sap if the coast is clear. For those who don’t want to spend time doing this (even though it is highly effective), you can just sprint in, premed-open and continue. Premed is safer, less frustrating for your opponent, and much faster, but it is not as effective.
Once you’ve generated your pre-combat points, either through sap/CSing or premed, it is time for the actual open.
Step 2: The Open.
Generally, like the priest, you either want to open when they have no shield on, or when they just newly casted a shield. Wait for this point.
A rogue has three opens to consider:
CS=2-3 combo points for 40e, forces a blink, keeps them immobilized for a split second, and usually gives you a second hit (like an Eviscerate). Can be used from any angle (a huge plus against those twitchy, ‘jumping around’-type mages that make positioning difficult).
Ambush=1-2 combo points for 60e and a massive hit. With talents, it is going to crit most of the time. Requires positioning and doesn’t control the opponent in any way (both of which suck). However, with MoSub, a successful crit Ambush-CB-(4-5pt)Evisc will flat kill any mage that isn’t packing stamina gear, and if it doesn’t kill them, they are at very low health.
Garrote-1-2 combo points for 30e, DoT, and THREE second silence. Three seconds against a mage is an eternity. This requires positioning. It is a DoT, so it deals damage, conversely, it prevents you from effectively blinding/gouging/sapping until the DoT is removed.
They certainly all have their strengths, and plenty of rogues will argue for each of them. I’ll admit a good rogue can defeat the most mages with any of these three. But, I’m more considered with what is the most optimal play. I’ll go in order of what I consider the strongest and explain why.
While I’m a control fanatic, and I do hate to say it, Ambush (especially with talents) is the strongest open you can get against a mage. Assuming precombat points, CS or Garrrote -> BS/Hemo/GS/SS -> CB-Evisc is strictly worse than just Ambush-CB-Evisc. All end with a blink into WE/Block. The question is simply, which dealt more damage before the turtle?
Against a mage, assuming pre-combat combo points, Ambush-CB-Evisc can easily see 5-6k damage in a single second. This is the only class that I absolutely prefer daggers in 1v1. As explained previously, massive singular blows win this match as it eliminates the viability of future action trees and the choke points that mages attempt to use to overcome our CDs. Ambush is a massive singular blow that is easily coupled with a 5-point CB-Evisc. If you have daggers talents, then this is where it is at.
I’m sure plenty of garrote fanatics will argue that “they can just blink away”. But, we have to really look at the time structure of the open->blink. Given latency and the small pause before a blink, you clearly still get a full 1 second against a mage after an open. This is a second strike against a mage before or on his blink (two hits). Certainly, garrote extends this to 3 seconds, and this is good, except Garrote really doesn’t do that much for you. Meanwhile, Ambush->CB (No global, just macro it)-Evisc will still hit every mage if you play correctly. It cannot be stopped when done from n52 spam with normal latency, and it puts on alot more pressure than other opens. It is 5-6k damage now. Garrote or CS leads into 2.5-3.5k damage now. All the opens will force a blink, the question is really this: what life total will they be at when they arrive? (And, will you be able to gouge/blind effectively?)
Cheapshot and garrote are actually nearly tied for a sub rogue. As a sub rogue, CS requires no positioning, nets you that 5-point CB-Evisc. Garrote requires positioning and nets you a 5 point CB-Evisc and 3 seconds of white + 1 tick of DoT. Against extremely twitchy mages, sometimes you might not have time or room for positioning. In addition, as I always sprint for my true open, I can often catch my mage on a gouge as I run towards their blink location post-open…garrote won’t let you do this. For non-sub rogues, garrote is the clear winner. Mut rogues get poison application and a mut in, and combat rogues can extend the silence to 5 seconds (AR early) with kick.
Choose your open. It is going to end up in the same place…the mage will blink, WE, shield if he can, and Iceblock when you catch up to him.:
Precombat points-Open-CB-Evisc. Just macro the open folks:
Open into a one-press, “take 3k damage” key:
/use AP trinket
/cast Cold Blood
/stopcasting
/cast Eviscerate
You want some mean damage to punch through. From here, especially if the mage is retarded (intellectually or lag), then you can maybe add some yellow to the frenzy. Unload everything you have until they blink. Just keep in mind that you’ll want to control the fight from start to finish keeping this mage on his toes. Be sure to shiv if you don’t see crip apply immediately.
The last part of the open is simple: know the direction your mage is facing and be ready to run in that direction while he is blinking. In addition, watch your castbars to know what he is casting, you may have a different response depending on what is cast.
From here, the fight breaks up into two trends. They will either poly/DD or instant you out. The first is usually from a fire mage and the latter from a frost. Look at their buffs and any debuffs applied to you, which type of mage are they? I will divide the fight into PoM/Fire and frost from here.
Step 3 (Fire)–Not eating the poly or the blast.
From the moment the fire mage blinks he will do one of two things: the good ones will PoM/Poly or just poly, the poor ones will PoM/blast or just blast.
If they do not PoM, then consider gouging/kicking/KSing. If you can land one of these hits before they hit you with their sheep/blast. If you don’t think you can make it in time or you see them PoM, then you have 2 options:
1.) CoS-reduces it to a 10% chance to eat a poly/blast, but sustains 5 seconds for you finish them or bring the fight back under your control. Unfortunately, as the fight is pretty fast, this will be the one time you can use CoS, so you need to make it count if this is your choice.
2.) Vanish-Premed- this is a guaranteed chance to not eat a poly, but if the mage is talented and you aren’t quick on the go, it is a chance for them to AE you out of stealth–usually CoC. On the flip side, most mages won’t have the timing to AE quick enough and you get a premed-CS on them for yet another 5 point eviscerate.
Personally, I’m already sprinted, and I prefer to vanish-premed into them, saving CoS for the rainy day…or for when I might lose control 3 seconds later. CoS has more uses that vanish, and CoS can’t be prepped. Better to conserve it for when it really matters. But, if your open is strong enough, you can sprint up to them and kill them within CoS, it is pretty common.
In any case, the mage is in a lot of trouble. Remember that KS is quite useful after a blink. It is a solid tempo advantage. They should not escape at this point. The fire mage won’t have enough control over you because you just won’t give him any time to use it.
Step 3 (Frost)–The control matchup
The frost mage is a pseudo-turtle. He isn’t a turtle in virtue of his direct hp or mitigation, but he is a turtle in virtue of his sheer survivability, shielding+blocking+nova/blink/freze/snare kiting. He will attempt to outlast you, pecking you with instants while he kites and reshields the entire fight. You’ll catch up, break through the shield, just in time for him to slip out of your grasp to start the cycle again. The skilled frost mage will not be using sheep, he’ll be aiming to kite and shield as much as possible while burning through your CD’s. The longer the fight, the harder it is for the rogue to win against a frost mage. With their 41 point frost talent, the Water Elemental, the mage will eventually out-CD us, overcoming our disruption, pummeling us with the control of kiting and peppering us with instants the whole way.
We are talking about multiple frost novas, ice lances all day (and they hurt when frozen), CoC+fblasts to keep us tender, armor to snare us, blinks to keep us blowing CD’s, a pet that deals decent damage and furthers the snare/root aims of the frost mage, double shielding which you will be forced to penetrate atleast once, usually twice, and up to 3 times in a fight–and on top of this they have the uber Ice Block. While it is not as robust as a bubble, it has similar qualities. Just when you controlled your way into an opportunity to deal some serious damage, the mage shuts down your gameplan, letting his pet eat at you, while he gets to blink to safety post block.
For a rogue to win, you must win in seconds. You want to force his CD’s earlier than they should have to be used at no cost to you. I always want to see early iceblocks and catching him with a blind before a coldsnap. If there was ever a matchup that daggers were just the serious bomb it is this one. It forces through so much damage before his next shielding, and begs an early iceblock. Sap/CSing is seriously a powerful tool here as well. Some frost mages will IB through sap (if they are stupid). Otherwise, it means you have premed for your followup open.
Basic lineup: Sap/CS-wait for DR-sprint-open-CB-Evisc-add as many hits as you can before blink if they are slow-
From here you’ll need to consider blowing either CoS or vanish. Which is it? I prefer to vanish against a top mage. We will see. Choosing between CoS and vanish is going to be up to how you are going to respond to their WE/IB.
A good frost mage will blink-WE immediately. WE is the monkey wrench. When you catch up to the mage, you’ve got a pet to deal with and an Iceblocked mage. Bad ones are Iceblocked with no pets, just restealth or spam on melt. To the WE mage, your responses:
1.) Deal with the pet and attempt to blind the mage out of IBlock.
2.) Vanish or restealth off, wait for pet to subside (mage will eat/drink up)
3.) Vanish off, reopen on the mage after block (avoid his AE): Premed-Open-CB-Evisc
Some rogues advocate blinding the mage (and I admit I do this often, but not because it is optimal in a duel, but more often because I know my opponent isn’t the skilled enough to have CSnapped out of block). The reason blind isn’t good is because a good mage is going to be spamming Coldsnap out of block. In the same way a mage cannot stop us from getting a 2nd hit in after our open due to latency and small pauses, we cannot stop a mage from coldsnapping out of block. As he controls when he breaks it, even if you are a miracle worker, he’ll still Coldsnap before Blind hits him. Your blind should still fail against a proper mage.
I’ve heard a few rogues exclaim the beauty of 1.), and in arena matches or BGs, I have to agree. This is the best route due to time constraints. But, in a duel or arena duel (1v1 left over), this is actually not the best option. Option 2.) or ideas similar to it are particularly strong in long matches. You burned his Coldsnap, WE, and Iceblock. You get to charge up and do it again. In arena, this can be very useful. You get blind and CoS back, and even vanish with talents long before they get their CD’s back. Using option 3.) is similar to its predecessor, only in eliminates the possibility of eating/drinking/shielding(in some cases).
From here, you’ll need to use CoS, vanish and prep wisely. A blind after his first iceblock (but before he may have coldsnapped) is very good if you are in range of killing him with a premed-Ambush or CS-CB-Evisc.
Tips:
a.) Good mages double Poly (even after the CC nerf). Be careful about trinketing immediately out of poly. You need to be watching his castbars so you don’t eat the second one.
b.) CoS is the end-all-be-all spell in this matchup. There are certainly pro and cons to using it early. If the fight lasts long enough, a 2nd CoS can be extremely demanding of the mage.
c.) KS can be extremely powerful after a blink.
d.) Deadly Throw can be absolutely spectacular. You can even activate Cold blood on it. Interrupting long cast spells (if they cast any), dealing good damage, and dazing them is really quite nice. With relentless, you can chain throw. Sap/CS-CB-CS-Evisc-Relentess-Blink-Start casting poly-Deadly throw….lol, hilarious.
This is a match that rogues should be winning, except against the best frost mages. Generally, it has more to do with your CD’s than your gear. But, timing, dexterity, and skill are king in this matchup.
Warlock-
We are the hard counter to this class. There is no class in the game that comes back on a warlock that opens on them, except a rogue. The introduction of Cloak of Shadows has made this match very easy. Huge drops in mitigation levels and warlock’s gearing up +spell damage, while often sacrificing stamina, means we have disproportionate gains in HP levels and pretty much buffed melee damage against warlocks as well.
Warlocks aim to use traditional CC methods and kite. If they can sustain their DDs/DoT’s, within the lock components of fel-intercept, fears, seduces, and deathcoil, then they’ll win in a pretty quick fashion. They are truly a fierce opponent against non-rogue classes, nightmares for most people. Luckily, stunlocking is extremely effective against a warlock, and almost completely eliminates their tactics altogether.
Regardless of spec, their DoT and DD damage is sizable, you always aim to avoid it. In addition, they tailor their play style with a pet. We really have three pets to concern ourselves with:
1.) Felhunter–High stealth detection, nominal damage. The counter is sprint and coming up from behind. Be wary of Fel’s on aggressive mode, as they will pull you out of stealth. Generally a weak pet against even a decent rogue.
2.) Felguard–A 41 point demo talent, the felguard is actually pretty good damage, I’d put it on par with an average hunter pet’s damage. What makes this guy actually troublesome is his stun intercept. Timed properly it can disrupt a stunlock and buy a warlock a DCoil. Be sure to evasion right out of your opener, it gives you avoidance and negates a great deal of the Felguard’s utility.
3.) Succubus–Back to CC 101. Seduce shares DR with fear, but it is quite powerful none-the-less. A pro will keep his succy far away, much like a shaman will keep his PCleansing as far away as possible. He’ll reinvis it asap as well. He’s going to try seduce/nuke you. Your trinket, wotf, and CoS are all good ways to break or make yourself immune to seduce. You can choose to kill the warlock despite the succy, or blind the warlock, kill the succy, and then deal with the warlock. Generally, it is better for a rogue to simply go straight for the warlock at this point, especially for all UD rogues. Sprint is invaluable in preventing kites, CoS can eat seduces if necessary. Additionally, seduce/fear/nuking is hindered in that the DR effects build up very quickly. Premed-CS-CB-CoS-Evisc+4-5 seconds of beatdown will kill all but the most stamina’d of warlocks using succies..
The rogue tactic is pretty much the same: burst him down within a stunlock. If the warlock is geared well enough, and my burst isn’t going to take them out, I prefer to save CoS for AFTER deathcoil/DoTs. CoS will eat his DoTs and give you a 2nd open. No warlock comes back after a second open. For second opens, when DC is down, Ambush is perfectly acceptable.
Step 1–Preparation and Open
Pretty straightfoward fight, 2x Crippling poison. Mind-numbing OH is acceptable as well.
Standard stunlock. Should go something like premed-CS-CB-Evisc. If you think they’ll be dead within 5 seconds, then feel free to pre-emptively blow CoS and kill them within that safety net. Mind you, a good warlock will not deathcoil while you are CoSed. Most anticipate that you’ll CoS at the end of a stunlock, and they won’t immediately spam it like they used to. So, if you know the warlock is good, don’t try and be slick and CoS his DC, just wait until after a DC and CoS. Depending on your situation, use a combination of CoS, Vanish, sprint, and blind to lock the lock. Pretty straightforward fight. Stunlock and win.
Step 2—Other warlock issues
It is best to save your sprint until after a fear/DC, primarily because if you sprint away while feared, you’ll have to sprint back, so there are no actual time gains from having sprint up during a fear. Assuming you saved it, sprint can be amazing in catching up to a warlock. Countless times after a warlocks opens on me, or DC’s me in a stunlock break I’ll just COS-Vanish-Sprint for the 2nd opener.
Stun resists are always painful, especially against a class that is unforgiving in regards to stunlock gaps. Once again, our advantage is SO large that vanish-CSing will make it seem like nothing happened.
Soul Link Warlocks can be a monkey-wrench type class. Yet, they are merely a shadow of their former uberness. SL-tanking took some major hits. You’ll see the glowing aura, and it is especially the case when you see that Voidwalker (VW) out. While their damage is substantially lower than other speccs, it has the strength of turtling. It is conceivable that we’ll see 20k-25k virtual HP warlocks in the coming months with SL. But 20k isn’t as big of a number as it once was. With lower mitigation levels, and rogue substantial CD-based burst damage, SL warlocks will still lose. As they can recast pets at near instant speeds, it is usually best to stunlock 100 to 0. You’d rather only have to eat through 1 pet+shielding than two. Blind seals the deal here.
Healthstones should be the in the back of your mind. While they might not be able to DC you during CoS, they’ll certainly be able to create a buffer with an HS that might last long enough through CoS to make you eat a DC.
Tips:
1.) Refer to CoS as “Cloak of Skills”…it is quite parallel to DC’s colloquialisms “Skillcoil” or “Lollercoil”..yes, it is that game breaking against this class.
2.) Kick all fears, seriously. No need to burn a trinket when you don’t have to.
3.) For affliction spec locks, you’ll notice they have a 2nd instant cast fear, an improved Howl of Terror (I.E. Psychic Scream). Watch for it.
Races:
Human: Watch for perception, it is 10-yards of stealth detection beyond what they already possess. You can come from behind. Sprint is good.
Gnome: Can break our snare.
Dwarf: Stoneform breaks all poisons and makes them immune. Goodbye crip/wound/blind.
Nightelf: 1xLevel of Stealth detection
Undead: Not much against rogues.
Orc: Stun resist, good gracious. Don’t let them talk smack if you lose a duel because they resisted 3 stuns in a row but played like a moron.
Troll: Not much to worry about.
BE: Possible to have a boost in energy if they blow their CD for it and have charges. Wait the charges out?
Taxes are nearly finished. We still have a few values to put in (trying to find those). I doubt we'll get much back (we are in a the lower-middle class tax bracket now--used to be upper-lower class). That is fine with me. I'm sure we'll be asking Dad to check over our stuff to make sure it looks correct. I don't want an audit or any trouble. The cool part: we are doing our taxes online. No paper work or jazz.
Speaking of finances, we have money saved up, now we just have to choose wisely how to use it. Things we are looking at:
1.) Paying off the debt (10k)
2.) Visiting Mom and Dad in Thailand (2k-3k total)
3.) Getting a 2nd car. (2-3k)
I think it will be very difficult to do all three of these. I may sell my WoW account to try and pay for some of it.
On another random note, my pants are barely fitting. I think I'm moving from 34-36 to 36-38. I am fat. I am stagnant. Lord knows, I am not one for stagnation. I sit in front of a computer screen more than anyone I know. (Such a special bond with my monitor). My uber-wealth allows me to be fat. Although, for L*nt (so bad it deserves a Bleep), I gave up deep fried foods. I can't believe how much I miss it. So fat. I can hear my mother now: "well, go for a walk, exercise, yahta yahta.." I come home from work pretty tired. I usually cook dinner. Exercising means I need to equip the baby up to go...It is a hassle. Would the hassle be worth it? Sure, I could wake up early and do it, but then I'd need to goto bed earlier, which would mean I missing out on Daily Show/Colbert (my source in so many ways). I don't mind working with my hands as long as my brain is not rotting away. Where can I do both? Teach...gym! Nevermind.
My life is good. I just need to remind myself of that fact. Sure, I lack purpose, wasting away in some senses, hate my job, depise the people around me, couldn't find a spiritual and intellectual home if I had to, and see no real way out of my predicament. On top of that, j3d1h still taps herself on the chest, pointing and saying 'momma'...she mimics, but she has no idea that words mean anything. What is this, The Miracle Worker? "MMMOOMMMMAAA, it has a name." Will she ever get it?....of course, my wife is just as sunshiney as I am, so we are great empathizers. Other than that, yeah, I do have it good. I'm sure every parent goes through this stuff, whatever. Fulfilling my purpose might be selfish anyways, I've got k0sh3k and j3d1h (in part, my purpose in the first place, am I begging the question?) to consider.
Wow, I nearly sound Emo. I'll shutup.
I always wonder why people call me arrogant. What is arrogance? And, what makes them think I am arrogant? First, we'll need the framework to understand how arrogance can exist:
I have come to the conclusion that value is simply that, value. Everything worth thinking about, worth pursuing at all, has value. Presumably people have value, most would say very high value. People have high value because of their free will, their ability to make moral choices. Of course, we don't "assign" value, that must be innate to the action, idea, or object. We might say that our free will "creates the possibility of value". But, if we are really begging the question correctly, we must admit that value pre-exists us. Our moral/logic/value-based choices simply reveal the already present innate values of this world.
Other questions come to mind, specifically how we can judge the value of a person. Maybe you've heard people have infinite value (it's a nice phrase to say, it makes people feel good). But, clearly, we could all be "better" in some way, and thus we aren't of infinite value. In fact, we are clearly less than whatever our maximum possible value would be if we are not perfect.
What does "better" have to do with value? Morality is the root of value. They are synonymous. To say something is valuable is to say it is morally good, and vice versa. Remember: morality literally means, what one ought to pursue...that is exactly what we mean by value. To say something or someone is morally better is to say it is more valuable.
Take person A and B, identical in every way, except A is slightly better in value-variable X. The difference in value between A's variable X and B's variable X is essentially the only difference in value between A and B. We must conclude that it is possible that a person can be better or, more specifically, more valuable than another person.
This, of course, does not negate the -minimum- value of a person, as we'd all assume it would be reasonably high. But, we must make the distinction that some people are better than others. Most hate this idea. But, it is undeniable.
We have all been taught, by the post-modern world, that no person is better than another. We want to believe that all people are equal. They are not! Do you think any of us are as good (moral=value) as Jesus? What about the Apostle Paul? What about Mother Theresa? These people, in virtue of their massive moral contribution, are more valuable than we are. But, value also extends even further. What about Michael Jordan? If Basketball and skill in basketball is important (i.e. valuable) in any way, then someone identical to MJ, but lacking only in MJ's basketball skill, then MJ would be more valuable. Value is very hard assess, but clearly it exists and so do the differences in individual net worth.
So, now that you have a brief metaphysical foundation of valued-based thinking in the realm of personhood, we can move on to the real and fairly narrow topic of arrogance.
What is arrogance?
Despite what you may have heard:
Arrogance means thinking you have more value than you in fact have. A person who is arrogant overestimates their value.
Now, now, it would be quite easy for the post-moderns who think everyone is equal to call someone who believed that he or she was better than someone an arrogant person. In the illusionary world of post-modern equality, anyone who thinks they are better is clearly arrogant by definition. But, we know better, we aren't retarded. There are more valuable people than others in the world.
So am I arrogant? Do I overestimate my value?
Many people think so. It generally is said to me in the course of an argument. I defend a position they don't like, and I refuse to think otherwise. I Know they are wrong, and I'll say it. People don't like that. How dare I think I know the answer? How dare I discredit them, and believe my answer is better than theirs? How dare I think I have better answers altogether? How dare I think my brilliance is greater than theirs!
Lol.
I often feel I'm more valuable than others. Of course, I value myself, and especially see that my thoughts as extremely valuable. I see no reason why I wouldn't be (I'm not saying I can't be wrong, but there are only handful of people who have what I have). I see my faults, I see my strengths--both are weighed in evaluating self-worth. I know when I'm wrong, I know when I'm right. If I don't have an answer, then I don't have an answer. I don't claim to be the most valuable person...but I do see value in my opinion (of course I would, I'm just an egoist right?). I have value in virtue of my genius....self-created, not entirely. But, I how I use my mind I am responsible for...
Mind you! Your value isn't wholly based on your decisions. God may not have created all people equal, and therefore he may not have created people with equal value. So what!~ Why are we repulsed by this? Is it the "Democratic flaw"...where we so much would not wish to be marginalized or be at the bottom of the food chain that we play it safe and say there is no up or down, and everyone is equal. Do you really think everyone has a right to vote? F-no. Do you really think everyone is equal? Of course you don't!!! You only say it so that, if and when you found yourself in an unfavorable position, you could defend yourself under the false pretense of equality.
Getting on with it, misassingment of ones purpose and role can be indicative of being arrogance. I know my purpose is to think. To teach, I don't know. I know where I fail, but I know my success. This is not arrogance.
Most ironic are people's attitudes towards what they perceive to be my arrogance. Now remember, arrogance means one thing:Â People generally hate my so-called arrogance because they are offended by the thought that I am more valuable than they are...These are often the post-moderns who contradict themselves in assigning and understanding the meaning and application of value in this world. They say, "nobody is worth more than anyone else". Clearly, this is patently false. Some people are worth more than others. In fact, we each have specific and certain value, some higher or lower than others. I claim I am more valuable than lots of people, often in virtue of simply having more valuable trains of thought. Either 1.) I am being magnanimous and truthful, or 2.) I'm being arrogant, or 3.) I am being meek, and fail to realize my full value.
So what if I claim that? So what if I think I'm right? Did they really sit down to evaluate these? No. The irony is that they are steadfast in their foolishness. The fool is arrogant.
It is evident they aren't as valuable as I am. Their very dislike, their hate for my truth stems from the belief that they are equal to me. They overestimate their value, and they are the one's who are arrogant. How foolish are these people to think their ideas could possibly compete with mine? They overvalue their opinions and themselves. Ah, don't we love the problem of egoism?
Moving on, this egoist/arrogance issue triggers a basic protective instinct in me. I see the world of fools around me, arrogant egoists, people who think their opinion matters as much, if not more than mine. I cannot argue with them, I fall prey to the same argument. "Well, of course, Mike, you are an egoist too, of course you think you are correct." is all it takes to dismiss me. Why argue with them? Why teach them? Why teach the unteachable? Why should I be concerned with them if they are trash. I must shield my family from their foolishness. I have become completely intolerant of incompetance.
Pearls before Swine. They don't deserve it because they don't want it. If they sought the truth, then they deserve that truth. But, I will try anyways. If and When my family is not vulnerable, then I may be more tolerant. Don't get me wrong, I put up with stupid people all day. But, to allow them to influence me is a different matter. We are chosen among a world of pigs and fools. We must protect ourselves from their arrogance.
What is Economics?
The word 'economics' is from the Greek for ο;span style="font-family: Tahoma">ἶ</span>Times New Roman">κος (oikos: house) and νόμος (nomos: custom or law), hence "rules of the house(hold)." The word of course has morphed several times to include and consider several ideas. The earliest definitions of political economy were simple, elegant statements defining it as the study of wealth. Later definitions evolved to include human activity, advocating a shift toward the modern view of economics as primarily a study of man and of human welfare, not of money exclusively. Formally speaking, Economics currently refers to the social science that studies the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services. How blah!? How bland!? How inaccurate!?...The tide is changing; the meaning of economics is evolving.;/font><
I mean to outline a trend in the meaning and pursuit of "economics" which I find, in large part, has been overlooked by even those who work in that field. Essentially, I am inclined to believe a.) The formal definition of economics is evolving and b.) Economics is verging upon the actual study it seeks (which is very surprising), and c.) Economists, who generally gravitate towards furthering economics as a "science" will come to find they have been pursuing something which they do not consider to be science (they may even be appalled at what economics really means).
Mainstream economics begins with the premise that resources are scarce, and secondly, that because resources are scarce it is necessary to choose between competing alternatives. Of course, because economists must analyze the meanings of choosing between alternatives, understanding choices by individuals and groups has become central to modern economic theory to an extent that psychological analysis and decision/strategy-making concepts are now the cutting-edge of this field we call "economics". Economists believe that incentives and desires play an important role in shaping decision making. It seems like I've heard these claims before *cough....Only fairly recently have economists begun to speak the name of their true (and supposedly new) doctrine. Economists now borrow concepts from the Utilitarian school of philosophy, claiming utility is used as 'analytical' concept within economics, though they claim to appreciate that society may not adopt utilitarian objectives. They are begging the question about our motives and decision-making, as if egoism is absolutely true, but then they go on to protect their beautiful secular “science†with a contradiction saying "it doesn't apply to everything".
This concern with utility is most prevalent on a microeconomic level; some economists extend economic analysis to all personal decisions (ahha! a smart lot of them). Of course, it is easier to see the "math" behind individual decisions, and so, as macro-utility is much more complex, it hasn't caught on as effectively. Butterfly-effect anyone? An alternative can be thought of as a vector where the entries are answers to questions like "How many eggs should I buy?", but also "How many hours should I spend with my kids?" and "Which candidate should I vote for?" These micro-economists, which appear to be "rogues" of their subject, on the cutting edge, are simply extending the meaning of utility within economics to what philosophers have always understood utility to mean. Economists are on the cusp of the meaning of value (one that implies morality!!). How dangerous for them...
As usual, economists will blather on, saying that the relationship between economics and ethics is so "complex" yet "separate". Many economists consider normative choices and value judgments, like what needs or wants, or what is good for society, to be political or personal questions outside the scope of economics. They go on to say that once a person or government has established a set of goals, economics can provide insight as to how they might best be achieved. It is odd that economists have this separation of positive economics ("what is") and normative economics ("what ought to be"). They cannot be divided. In order to do solve positive economics, you'll be forced into making normative economic claims. Blind people. The transformation of the subject begins.
Anyone who knows anything knows that utility is unforgiving and completely universal. It mathematically divides up metaethical values among the many things of this world (although we do see amoral strains that act as a social virus—eventually contradictory). It is all or nothing. If you claim egoist utility, then you’re going to be applying this reasoning to all aspects of life. It is ironic, and blatantly compromising of their thesis to apply utility only in matters of wealth, but not to all areas. What has occurred is that a formally “secular†idea has evolved several times into a pseudo-science which requires psychological, mathematical, and now philosophical analysis to determine the who, what, where, why, and how of “wealthâ€. Moral claims are not secular ones. And, this pseudo-science is less and less secular (much to their dismay). The irony of Economics is that their “study†required them to work through a great deal of things to adjust their initial definition of wealth (and value), only to discover they started a hollow study. Economics, after looking at its conclusion and where it is heading, is not a synthesis of other fields, but simply a direct portal into already existent fields of study (namely philosophy/religion).
Economics began as some study of money. Probably, much as the alchemist who wishes to turn rock or iron into gold through some magic item, the original economists sought to make money through the mathematical study of an "economy" (which is some vacuumous space that somehow relates to the world, we know not how). If only there was some formula in which economists could crunch numbers to decide "which stock is going up today?" Of course, these economists (frontiersmen, pioneers in a "new field") quickly found that they had more homework to do before they could reach these riches through simple deductions. (Although, one must ask: "what are riches"...something they should have asked long ago). They conclude that money makes you rich.
What is money? I'll be brief; it is the quantification and qualification of value that allows for universal exchanges within a world of comparative advantages. My time here becomes your time spent there. Value my friends, money attempts to represent value (albeit, it does so poorly). In reality, the economist no longer seeks to study money, they wish to study value.
The concept of value is central to economics. Economists say that an observable measure of it is market price. Again, they see value through a lens of pure material wealth. Hard currency lends credibility to this "value" concept. They assume that value in economics is DIFFERENT than say, "moral value". Dumb! We already know that value is value, and that it exists in virtue of its worthiness of pursuit. There is no difference. Morality, therefore, must have a price tag, else money means nothing. Economics, in virtue of studying value at all, MUST be a study of all value.
But, if it is a study of all value, then it is a study of morality! It is the study of God! Isn't economics the pursuit of truth? Isn't economics just pointing us towards the same thing as philosophy and religion? Think back. What is "wealth"? What is "value"? They are those things which are worth pursuit! The economist claims that money is worth pursuit as it is a currency that translates for other values. While they look at monetary decisions, and begin upon utilitarianism, they are blind to the very basis of their subject.
We do have to ask some questions though. If money really does have "value"...then it could be used to trade for other things of value that we wouldn't have expected. All things which have finite value can be bought with money, correct? Would this allow you to buy a person if a person had finite value? Or...what about exchanging money to makeup for negative values you've imposed on the world? What is "production"?
A new light shed on economics as a study of true value means we are forced to redefine key principles and components of a subject that once dealt exclusively with material wealth, translating a small study into an already much larger one that involves metaphysical value to be considered. Or, we could just scrap it. Now, while economists are slowing progressing towards the inevitable truth, I question whether they will ever take that leap. Would they be willing to accept these statements? Probably not. They are likely dogmatically complacent in their religion of money. Economics is a falsely secular concept. They use utility and egoism to defend material wealth. Idolaters.
1.) k0sh3k got us in the E-town Swim&Fitness club. That is so expensive. She promises to use it though. If she does, then it is worth it I think. She'll have fun, the baby has a cool daycare program there too. It could amount to relatively cheap entertainment per hour if we use it enough (I think I'll enjoy racquetball, swimming and weight lifting the most).
2.) We had a busy week. Got our online banking to work (finally). Paying 5k of debt. Got our taxes nearly done and sent mom&dads w2s to them. Looked for a car (unsuccessfully). Cleaned that fridge out (I can't stand messy fridges). Found k0sh3k's wallet (in the most obvious place of course).
3.) For some odd reason the Farley's haven't been by for their piano lessons. No idea why.
4.) We've decided to try and simply move to Thailand asap. We will knock out the debt, create a financial buffer, find jobs over there, sell the house, and move. It should be an experience. Close to 8k in the bank right now, 3 after the 5k payment this week. Estimating it should be a few months.
5.) Picked up my Birth Cert. online. I expect it in 3-5 days. I'll ask for a bit of time in the morning off to go and get my passport.
6.) Work is hilariously dull. Timed myself this week: 8 hours of work finished in 1.5 hours. Hrmm...I wish my management could recognize these numbers and do something about it...say, scale my pay with production? How about just let me go home early? Or, even better, let me work at home!! I could easily do my job at home, I have all the equipment, and this is ENTIRELY an E-business. Nothing goes on paper. They may consider it. It would be even cooler if I lived in Thailand and kept this job over the net. Wouldn't that pwn SO hard? 12 hour time difference, so I'd need to make calls between 8pm and 8am Thai time. Eh, whatever, for 30k+ a year, staying up late or waking up early to to squeeze in time would be worth it.
Well, I’ve botted 10k G or so on my Rogue and spent a great deal of that. I have 2k left, nothing to buy. Fully enchanted. I’m without question the best 1v1 player on the server. But, for the life of me, I can’t find a good teammate. Lots of decent ones, Zombienoir and Aesop do a good job. However, it is clear that they are still not top notch. I call blinds, sap, target switches, and focus fires…and they aren’t quick enough. They just haven’t mastered the ability to talk/listen on ventrilo and play at the same time. We are rogues…we don’t break the 1850 rating without high levels of communication. So, arena is failing for me. Too bad dueling is gone. I’m tired of it.
So…..I start a warlock. Botted his ass to 30 real quick. I expect him to get 70 in 2-3 weeks. Gearing him up won’t be very easy I assume. +damage/+stam are the stats I’m looking for, and those are highly sought after. Drain tanking pwns. It is the beauty of resource conversions at its finest in this class. It exemplifies the very principles of offense/defense ratios. It is beautiful–the core of economical comparative advantage.
What is drain tanking? Easy. Load your target with DoTs, and used a very improved Drain life to convert mana to hit points while dealing damage. Chew through mana with lifetap. You have NET gains in many fights. The less you are hit the better. From my math, it looks like Dark pact (just eating my pets mana for mine, stupidly good) will put this tactic over the top. I’ll go succy for spirit regen on his mana and taking adds.
Getting used to the global CD going from 1 to 1.5 sucks though. Timing is very important for the class though. Long cast->instant->kite-repeat is common enough.
Reminds me. F’ing warrior 5-6 levels above me jumps my character while botting. Looks like my bot did very well against him (D-tanked him though, pfft). I come back, kinda pissed…I go for him. I dance him to death, literally keeping my 36 yard spell reach, but outside his intercept range. Eventually, when I softened him up (he was running for his city, kiting me as I had kited him earlier to ours), I actually let him double back on me. Ate my fear, and that was she wrote as he ate Incin+SB+Nightfall’s SB. This class is fun. I feel like a necromancer again.
I've written several times on this idea of Value. For some reason, I've always had a disconnect, and never universally applied this concept. It is elegant and foundational. I've long thought about how one deductively arrives at "what one ought to do" and the existence of God. Inevitably, there are complications, and further building blocks that I must reason through. Epistemological and metaethical concerns are so germane to the problem that we can't move on without first going through those small, but highly relevant claims. The beauty of these building blocks is that they really beg the question for us (something I'm not usually for). Without initially accepting the concepts of value and logic, then there is no point to continue. By assuming these are true, we make way, in virtue of the question-begging, for deductive claims that are much easier to establish, even within a world that more and more wishes to remain "secular" and apart of "value and logic judgments". Value and logic must be universally applied; after all, they are the foundation. They solve our complications, and they are the first step in our deduction. It knocks out nay-saying post-moderns and relativists. We have a base to work from--one that is the root all others things. It connects so beautifully with all other deductions in the chain. It is the filter by which we can have truth and meaning. So, I'm glad to have a solid starting point in my isolation and application of value. It knocks out most all of the arguments that are against us. You are either for value and logic, or you have nothing to say. The synthesis (and adjusts to be made) of all possible values into a single and universal value gives us leverage. There is no difference between moral value, economic value, and whatever else. There is one value to consider. Is it worth pursuing, and how much is it worth (pursuing)? s
While this doesn't seem like headway to most people (if they even saw the distinction I'm talking about), it really is...Not a person I know really applies these meaning universally. They don't breathe the concepts of value and logic, nor do they extend and consider their meanings in all situations. This is a common disconnect; and I do find that at some level, we are all guilty of betraying the system. We have a rock-solid starting place. It is quick and obviously true; it separates the wheat from the obvious chaff immediately. I am pleased.&
This means that our starting foundation is Utilitarian in nature. What is "useful" is simply pursuing that which is most worth pursuing. But, wait..."pursuing that which is most useful" is a principle. Mmm...Deontology and Teleology may co-exist in this context. By following the original principle, one can implement utilitarian deductions. But, the deductions made follow that "rule-utility". While most rule-utilitarians would not want to place value in the "rules" themselves, clearly the very path by which you must choose has the most value in and of itself. The rule is valuable. The principle remains. We have the makings of our next step (which must be drawn out), the synthesis of teleology and deontology. We cannot accept that damn triangular approach to ethics. There is only one way.
Yeah. I’m getting tired of WoW. Who would’ve thunk it? I see that Blizzard will never adjust the game correctly. We are mere mortals after all..but you’d they think could have done a better job than.. that (/point)…atleast!! Imbalance is terrible. Itemization is now reaching that threshold of utility where you either have it or you don’t–I.E. skill has diminishing returns, or even worse, isn’t necessary.
The lock, eh, he does pwn hard. He isn’t a rogue though. Once you go stealth+stunlock, you never go back. Mind you, I’ve chosen to go for the awful 30/0/31. I’m lacking imp gouge, some camo/mod, and deadliness (ouch!)–but I can still hemo-stunlock. Eh, I stick to daggers though. It is hilarious to just premed-Ambush-CB-Evisc when the time comes. Countless times I’ll remove that pesky healer from the group, and we take them down because I broke their matrix. I feel like the other part of a rogue in this build…not so much control (albeit, I still have it when I need it), but burst.
1v1 is nearly gone (and that saddens me). I hate losing because someone else screws up in group. I have had 10x the skill of the combined opposing team, and we still lose because a.) skill doesn’t mean everything in a gear and class-config’d game and b.) skill isn’t calculated fairly in the group v. group equation (not that it is fair in 1v1 either). Whatever.
The worst part is that I’d love to play with Allen…but he really doesn’t have what it takes (no worries, I know he doesn’t read this blog, I’m TL;DR for him, and he is “so” busy, lol). He is absolutely terrible at video games, and his rogue, which requires a buttload of skill to actually perform decently, is no exception. He is such a combat rogue at heart…I.e. a zerg it down warrior-type that wants to play as a brainless zombie.
Now, certainly I am patient with the inexperienced. I’ve taught countless rogues howto stunlock or take particular classes. I’ve taught some so well that I never have a chance if they open (which is saying something in TBC, because I never get 100 to 0′d anymore), regardless of gear. But, Allen will never learn, and he will never be good. Allen doesn’t have the will or way to learn. Seriously, he’s slow both mentally and physically. It requires a great deal of effort, and honestly, usually he’s too lazy or full of pride to sit down learn and execute what is best. (He was the same in EQ)
“Storyline” *sigh…He doesn’t play a game. I somehow wish he didn’t enjoy the narrative, mostly because–the narrative is stupid and childish. If you were 6, then I’d say, yeah, go for it. But at 23, you should be mature enough to not be sucked in by the lameness of the “storyline”. Play the game to win, simple.
Oddly, this sort of rant probably is against most all players of this “game”…I’m tired of being surrounded by incompetent fools (not just in the game either).
Unfortunately, Ebay doesn’t want me selling intangible goods. Yikes. Where can I sell it then?
Bah! There comes a point where a good deontologist simply has a very hard time partaking of any aspect of life. We become passive, even though we aren’t neutral.
How could I possibly explain what I’m thinking to others? How could I possibly walk through the argument, especially for those issues which to most people don’t even seem to warrant a discussion in such a direction?
I seem dead. But, I am not. I am fully aware, and fully here. I don’t participate because I cannot. I am standing by my principles…and in large part I can’t be disciplined and forthcoming at the same time.
Why be reclusive? Because the world is crazy! They are stupid. They are wrong. They are too ignorant to be enlightened. Ivory tower, no. Protection from the world is all I seek.
Everyday I am sucked into it, and I climb out…I escape. Escape to principles and truthseeking. Escape to thought. I Escape to Reality.
Some days I feel like the smartest person in the world. Other days, especially when reading history, I don’t feel like that at all. A lot of brilliant people lived. A lot of amazing things have been accomplished. There are people who can do things I can not…and vice versa. It is a little of both.
Do well with what you are given. Arrive at the Will of God. The means to this goal, and attaining a resembling will is all that matters. This is enlightenment. Whether you are brilliant in mathematics, art, physics, reading…what have you, these only HELP to get you to that end goal. They are important, yes…almost exclusively insofar as they help on to reach that goal.
I think my gifts aren’t easy to point out. I think mine are judging fairness/justice and redefining concepts, adjusting what they should mean to reflect reality (I.E. judging and interpreting). Now, I’m not saying I use or apply these perfectly. But, it is clear that I have a wealth of insight in whatever I do (with the ironic exception of my own life!).
While I don’t have “obvious†direction in my life, I choose VERY carefully. I am wrong sometimes, but rarely. I know what I know, and I am in my element dealing with the abstract. Combined with my distaste for so many things, it makes it difficult for me to be of use to the world. Maybe God placed me here to just be here to think about this sort of thing (would He have use for that?....surely He would want someone searching out and praising His brilliance!)
I have that hidden fear I will never contribute to the world. I bring myself back and realize that IÂ exist for my family and for God....I know that I may just be one of the smartest Janitors on the planet. The world needs smart janitors.
Seek God.
God has granted me wisdom in many ways. I need the patience and will to use my gifts.
While I’m certainly a passionate person, I feel choked as a…computer. God has granted the knowledge, but not the ability to communicate or use it effectively. Ironic.
I think my tattoo is superb. It holds my deepest belief and desire.
I know I don’t belong here. It can suck to be….different, you know? I need a light for my path. (Who doesn’t?)…You know the feeling, the intuitive tug…the immediate reaction when you have stumbled upon what IS right and what is fit for your purpose. My wife was this, my major was that, my deepest sorrow for the innocent and a pursuit of knowledge (and its distribution!) must be as well.
(Wow, I’ve blathered on…structure people, structure!)
<font face="Times New Roman" size="<font face="Times New Roman" size="<font face="Times New Roman" size="<span />
<font face="Times New Roman" size="
1.) Bought a car. 1200 for an Oldsmobile Cutlass (Supreme, oh yeah?) with 110k miles. It idles high, always 1k RPMS higher than it should. Nothing dangerous in that aspect. Although, I think the ABS is on permanently (which it really shouldn't be). I'm thinking it was worth the 1,200.
2.) k0sh3k got a new doctor. This one takes her seriously and really seems to think there is more to consider that "just being a mom syndrome". k0sh3k has new med's (which seem to be working so far?) and has a CT scan today.
3.) j3d1h can drink out of a straw. She shakes her head "no" as well. Seems to be pronouncing sounds that resemble words more than babble.
4.) JRE came over for his GRE's. He did alright on the test from the sounds of it.
5.) Still need to fix that bathroom, fix Claudia's car.
6.) we are going to take care of another family's kid after school while their baby is having surgery in Kosair (yeah, pretty serious).
7.) Found out there is no spring enrollment for Talbott. Eh, ok. k0sh3k and I will wait a year then. We could use the time I assume.
8.) Mom should be coming in about 2 months (I'm going to try and find the dates out from her). I think she will be kind enough to take j3d1h for us and let us escape for some R&R.
9.) Oh yeah, I said we were going to Talbott...this was because we need an education before we goto Thailand. Perfect programs for us there. Will be 10k tuition per year for both k0sh3k and I together--dirt cheap.
10.) The organist for Memorial sang high praises of my piano student Caleb Roberts. The kid is pretty serious (as far as his personality)...I knew that kid was cool.
11.) My back is spasming, it feels very much like what happened to my neck a while back. But, thankfully, it isn't nearly as intense. No passing out, yay!
12.) A and J (no title required) are forced to find a new place to stay. I don't think the owner of the house will be able to salvage anything. Good luck to both parties.
13.) Yeah, I hate my church. The Sunday school class is the best thing (and even then, it can be truly lousy..."everything for appearances"). I don't feel satisfied at all in church. I walk into service, and I can smell the stench of hyprocrites. Easter was the worst. On Easter and Christmas we will always have the attendence of the 2-time a year "christians"...these people are half-breeds, they are filth. They are defilers. They are the "good people" who lead the world to confuse Christians with...that trash. All or nothing people. They are less than the unbeliever. I am disgusted to say the least. I sit in silence.
Hmm...It has been a week. I'm ready to sleep.
Last night j3d1h jumped off the couch face-planting a book (and she is heavy, so that really can do some serious damage). Damnit child, how many times have I told you not to do that!?!11!? (jk) Anyways, her top tooth split open her bottom lip pretty well. She had blood gushing everywhere. We freaked out.
I didn't know how bad the situation was, so I reacted as if it were the worst. I soaked up blood and made sure j3d1h wasn't choking on it. I applied some pressure with a towel wrapped in a ice. (yeah, I know, I'm stupid). From what I understand, the head bleeds well (although the mouth regenerates quickly). In any case, it was a serious matter and I was a desperate parent--I do not take things lightly.
Of course, the cut wasn't that bad. But, at the time, I didn't know if this girl had a lip anymore or not. My main concern was making sure she wasn't going to bleed or choke. Lord have mercy, there have been very few times in my life where I was so filled with fear. That is one of the worst feelings in the world.Â
We called our doctor immediately (busy)...we weren't going to wait. We called Janet-- Janet said it wouldn't hurt to have it checked out. While k0sh3k was on the phone I got j3d1h to calm down (and I calmed down too). The blood was coagulating (sp?) and the lip growing big. I sit down with her, she's past the shock, and then she realizes she's still in pain (and I know the difference in cries, I don't respond to whining, but I know this one hurt even from the sound coming from her mouth).
We examined her lip (had to pull it down and out to see the full extent of the cut). It was a decent length, but we couldn't tell how deep it was. By this time, I know my child is safe, so I've changed from surival mode to problem-solving mode. The cut was pretty deep though, and we decided to goto the hospital, even if it was likely j3d1h wasn't going to get stitches.
j3d1h was doing okay while distracted ...so we didn't know whether she needed to see the doctor or not. Better safe than sorry, right? So, we head to the hospital ER, check in, and the nurse brought a doctor into the triage room to see if the cut needed "suturing" as they put it. He examined my screaming child, and could not make a conclusion right then and there... (wtf, why not?). So...we wait for some crazy amounts of hours. After it gets 2-3 in the morning we finally in the actual ER. At this point, my child has been asleep on my neck for a bit, so she gets MIGHTY pissed off when we enter the ER. And, I mean, this girl was ferociously angry. She flat squalled for another 1 hour while we sat in the actual ER. I don't blame her, it was late, she should be sleeping, and instead she's bleeding out of a painful cut on her lip.
They examined her again and they decided to suture. Whether they decided to suture because we had stayed for so long (as if we might have attitudes of this trip to the ER being a waste if they didn't do anything) or not I do not know. I think the head doctor gave valid justification for the stitches.
Let me tell you the worst part of my night: four people (me included) holding my child down while she has her lip stitched. We didn't just hold her down though. A kid that had been nearly unwillingly awake and screaming for the better part of the night, who generally dislikes any sort of restrainsts placed upon her, was literally fitted and strapped into a device designed to force the child into submission and stillness. My child, who is is truly my child, did not submit. Yet, still, the huge straps choking her body down to the board behind her did not contain her fury. I had to do it.
While I don't really care if I got stitches or whatever, watching them open, close, prod, and stick my child's wound over and over again while I not only sit by and watch, but help them do it by securing my child for her torture session, was traumatic for me. It had been a long day and an even longer night, and now I was helplessly required to force my child to endure that mechanism of submission so that the needle, tweezers and wires could be used to stitch her lip. She fought the whole time, choking on her blood and snot. Through our containment of the child, Her face and her limbs were compressed, almost to the point of bruising. Man, I didn't want to do that--I'd give anything not to have to do that again. I know I had to do it.
I don't know which is really worse: a.) being helpless, and not in control of my child's future and welfare (like the beginning) or b.) Causing my child great pain, even if it is best for her in the end (you sit there and do it, it isn't so easy as you might think)
I realize these are both two different coins, both with different sides (and I have mixed, yet exceptionally strong feelings regarding them). The first eventually leads to my child making her own choices (good and bad ones I assume), choices that will be meaningful one's in God's eyes. I hear that is a pretty necessary precondition to be of value to God. The second is useful, it allows me to cultivate a fruitful child in the end, one that will be passed over as Judgement falls upon those who did not have her painful training.
What a night.
Wittgenstein was wrong (a box of contradictions). As brilliant as his understanding of language may have been, his dissection of "form" is clearly flawed (upon which rests a great deal of his theory). Form is pure logic, it is required as a base for meaning. F-ness must exist, or we have no true reference and no value base from which to communicate or think. Wittgenstein, like many others, does not understand this. Of course, we can all deny that "metaphysical object in the heavens" which contains the truth-meaning of X, but they go on to deny even a simplistic understanding of form as a tool to categorize (which form is more than just a categorizer). The truth is right after a "body in the heavens"...it is still a concrete necessity of the universe.
Ironically, his one base example used to defeat the validity of "form" is...(drum roll), the "form of gaming". I own this guy. I can certainly see why he made the mistakes he made though. His questions regarding how a game could possibly have a form stemmed from some complex issues. My essay answers his questions, restoring the dignity of the form. The denial of "form" (or as my dad would prefer, "logos") is founded upon a lack of disciplined thinking. Moving from "scissorness" to "gameness" is a perfect example of that slippery slope where we can think that "forms" just might not be a universal necessity. It is easy to identify and validate "form" in the context of something as simple as scissors; but it becomes so complex and difficult to understand the form of other things (like game) that even the best philosophers of this century will give up, and consequently, they deny the the universality of form. Essentially, whether they can identify the form of something or not is irrelevant to the fact that forms must exist.
The trick to the form is that is more than mere semantics or words. We can't just think of form as a way to categorize things, it must be more than that if we wish to actually reference something. F-ness requires it is real if we assume what we say makes sense and has an honest reference. We beg the question of forms, but we fail to realize what we have begged. When you say "white" you are referring to "white-ness"...either a.) you aren't thinking of anything actual, and what you've said is completely non-sensical, or b.) you have referred to something real. For any meaning to exist, you'll need to assume the latter. Tough beans.
This issue, alongside the books I've been reading and the essay I'm working on, brings me to an odd disagreement that I have with my dad. It is this issue of "semantics"...
Don't get me wrong, my dad is as smart as they come-- seriously, he is brilliant. He has a wealth of knowledge in many areas which he can use to synthesize and deduce conclusions which can be fairly extraordinary. So, when my dad says something, I tend to listen (and think). While I've never fully understood the problem he has with what he refers to as "semantics", I'll do my best to describe and consider it. (Beware strawman!)
Formally speaking, semantics (ironically) means: the study of language meaning. (Of course, debating the meaning of semantics has to be the funniest thing I've heard all day.)
My dad knows the dictionary meaning of semantics, but when he says it, he uses it in a pejorative sense-- much like how one dismisses an argument as mere "rhetoric" (rather than substance), my dad (like many of us) describes some arguments as merely "semantics". There are good reasons to do this, but I think we have to be cautious in our use of this word. In his uhh...tone of disapproval (which is most often deserved), as he calls out "semantics", he seems to point toward a type of argument that is inauthentic, invalid or false, usually one blurred by ambiguous wording, which lacks logic, relevancy and true meaning. Clearly, he doesn't mean the dictionary meaning at all, he just means to say that the speaker is twisting word meanings or being ambiguous to arrange a false argument in order to justify something that dad believes can't logically be justified. Namely, if we corrected the "semantic" issues, the argument falls apart. Clearly, every false (whether valid or invalid) argument in the universe is based upon what he refers to as "semantics".
I think his favorite example might be this guy we laugh at: Paul Tillich. Ever read something from this P.T.? P.T.'s arguments are like water. There is nothing solid to grasp. While we might be able to chart out a few syllogisms, and definitely see the 1+1=2's and the If A then B; A; therefore B's, we have a huge problem with the very meanings, definitions, and words used in those false syllogisms. P.T. never goes to fully desribe or defend the very meaning of some variables in his equations. Because his variables aren't fully fleshed out or meaningful, his greater argument made cannot have meaning either. P.T. rides his use of "semantics" or unjustified redefining and use of terminology to lend false authority and validity to his end arguments. It is easy to see he has poor arguments because it is easy to see how he weasels his way into false or useless word meanings.
In reality, when we call something "semantics", we just mean that the meaning of one of the premises is distorted, illogical, or meaningless. While the argument can be logically "valid" in some broad sense, its conclusion (the sum of the premises) is false because at least one of the premises is false. Or, in other words, semantics, in the way dad uses it, must really just point toward any untrue-valid argument by definition, as it is obvious that every untrue-valid argument is flawed not because of any strict validity argument, but rather because of some illogical or meaningless piece of language in one of the premises.
For example:
If A, then B,
B
Therefore, A.
This is an invalid argument, even if Premises 1, 2, and even the end result of 3 are true. Or, to fill in the gaps with an example, we can say:
If it is raining, then it is wet outside.
It is wet outside
ConClusion: It is raining,
Invalid. Clearly there is some causal link that must be made from 1+2->Conclusion. But, stand that aside, and realize that this is in valid in virtue of that broken causal link (so we can't claim "Therefore"), and we can easily see that 1, 2, and 3 could be true, we just can't deduce 3 from 1 and 2.
This is the invalid argument, and it is not what my dad means by semantics. Dad means that an argument is valid but false. So, we start with a logic-shell that works (making it deceptive, as we want to think of valid arguments as true ones when we aren't completely disciplined in our thinking), but still have a false argument due to semantics. The perfect example is a counterfactual.
If santa clause is real, then X.
Santa Clause is real.
Therefore, X.
It doesn't matter what X is, X could mean anything, even something illogical. Why? Because the "if" can never be true, i.e. it is semantically non-sensical, we can say whatever we want about X and it doesn't matter. A person can justify X if they can make you accept the object of the "If". All arguments break down into base syllogisms. In the end, you have to go claim by claim, word by word, and assume (and be willing to defend) each meaning. This is just a requisite to logical argument. Our disagreement with the above is not from an initial validity issue, clearly it adds up, rather it is the false meaning placed in a premises (namely premise 2).
"Santa Clause is real" is such a base premise (basest of basest, as premises are actually conlusions themselves formed from sub-premises, and so on and so forth until we reach statements like X is true). Most just shorten this argument to "Santa Clause" and the "is real" is silent (and assumed). Obviously, "Santa Clause" lacks meaning, it does not align with reality. This is what dad must mean by semantics. In virtue of a distortive, ambiguous, or meaningless word(s), one or more premises is false, thus the conclusion isn't justified. Clearly, this is simplified, but every "semantic" argument MUST boil down to something of this nature.
I think I prefer just to say that a premise is false. It is clearer to think in this fashion, but much more difficult because we will be asked to show which exact premise is false and why (something we aren't always capable of doing). Saying "semantics" is short, but not very descriptive when you haven't fully fleshed out its meaning to your audience. I think we should leave the meaning of "semantics" as it is...a purely good and reputable idea. An undeniably true and necessary concept. The denial of true semantics is the denial of form and absolute, DISTINCTIVE truth, which is just relativism (which I've deduced is undisciplined thinking in any respect). Dad, of course, would never deny true semantics. He has the same passionate hate as I do for poorly made, ambiguous, and especially deceitful arguments that justify corruption, sin and irrationality. Semantics is clearly necessary, it is the basis for all argument, as we cannot have premises without words and absolute meanings to construct those arguments. So why do we say "semantics" instead of just explaining why an argument is wrong?
Clarity and distinction are not some unnecessary hairsplitting. They are required. Unfortunately, it can take a great deal of time and effort.
I think sometimes calling an argument "semantics" can be used in situations where we don't have the exact reason why we believe a conclusion isn't justified and we don't want to spend the time to find one. Both dad and I sometimes refer to things as "semantics" without fully having justified what we mean or why we think an argument is false. Often, this is because don't know the end answer, or because we can't articulate the answer, or because don't have the patience to truly dissect an opposing argument correctly. We have to be careful in how we dismiss arguments, sometimes we haven't dug deep enough to honestly make those claims.
Lol, wow, this brings back memories. I remember before dad left for Thailand that he offended me one day by saying I was just using semantics. Of course, as a philosopher (and somewhat of a literalist), I took that as an unfair dismissal of both my argument and even my life-pursuit. I don't think dad meant the latter. But, I'll be glad to clear up what he means by semantics.
Even the subject of "philosophy" is a shrouded mystery with my dad. Sometimes he likes it, other times he treats it as heresy (I'm no different). He is a pragmatist. (strawman?) I think he doesn't always see the point in pursuing ideas if it doesn't show obvious physical results. The actual pursuit of truth for the pursuit of truth may not always seem reasonable to my dad. And why wouldn't he think so? Ideas need to be useful to a utilitarian! =) Ah, but that is another topic for another day.
Now, of course, I do not want to be accused of grandstanding or limiting what is posted on my blog to only my arguments without giving anyone a chance to disagree. I don't mean it as some unfair exhibition of my thoughts. Honestly, I write whether anyone reads or not just so I can organize my thoughts (although, I do a piss poor job). Feel free to post replies!
Oh yeah, Umlaut is a funny word. I think of a german thug bellowing it. Wittgenstein was a thug. Ghett-o-matic.
Look inside yourself. You know there is a struggle. You have to make the decision to do what is good or to do what is evil, you will fail someday in this choice (probably many days). You will know the Will of God, but you will deny it. You will rationally choose that which is irrational. You will be, in that instant, post-modern and a relativist. You will deny the truth. You will choose to change your perception of good being good, to the wrong being good. You choose what you feel is most valuable (always--undeniable fact), and when you choose evil, you are claiming that this "evil" really isn't evil to you, you are saying that it is the most valuable option. You willingly modify your memory, your belief, and your knowledge of what is good and what is evil. You give in to that temptation to do wrong. You believe you are smarter than God, that you are correct and He is somehow wrong. You commit blasphemy. You refuse to relinquish control, to give to God what was already His to begin with! You deny God His right to your mind and to your choice. At some level, everyone is the deep sinner. You doubt the existence and truth of God by your very choice and desire to do evil. You are no better than the rest of the trash in this world in this respect.
It is in this mindset that I have the utmost empathy for sinners. I see us as brothers in a struggle, a self-conflict. You cannot pass this off as mere "angst". This is a question of denying self for God--you better be anxious about that! For those who are not "nervous", I think a.) You are either perfect or, and far more likely, b.) you are too stupid to realize you are also in this continual conflict. When I am not actively evil, I hope I can be honest about who I am in those moments. I want to reach out to the people who are stupid and evil, especially because I know I need it when I am being stupid and evil. I have been where they are now! I must be discerning, but I must be compassionate.
The denial of such a conflict, or the scoffing at the honest outward manifestation of such a conflict that we all obviously have (but choose to hide), is a choice of ignorance, hypocrisy, and a choice which lacks the compassion and will to help those in need (the people in conflict!). It is here that I fully appreciate the music of Nine Inch Nails. How shocking!? Right? Why would I listen to NiN? Isn't he demonic (C.S. Lewis spells it: Demoniac)? Isn't he evil? Look at his lyrics to some of his more blasphemous songs (and I rarely can even hear lyrics in a song, I only hear music, ask anyone; I still don't know lyrics to songs I've heard hundreds of times...but when I have a spiritual stake in the matter, I can remember the words for some reason...Church music and Nine Inch Nails).
NiN songs, the best ones of course, are concerned with this idea of control. While I do not make the same conclusions as my friend from NiN, I can see where is coming from. I see him across the bright boundary. I know I jump to his side of the boundary each and every time I sin, and I cannot act like I have never been there. I see why he is there, and I admire that he has the balls to flat say what the conflict is in the end: an issue between our control and God's control. Do we give up ourselves to God? Yes, he chooses incorrectly, but he is no hypocrite--that boy sins boldly.
To any autonomous and sentient being of this world, giving up the true authority and control of self is a much larger thing than most anyone can imagine. It can feel worse than death (and there are several things worth than death if you need further explanation). It is a willing sacrifice of that which we most value about ourselves. We honestly cannot justify our occupation of this control, we are required to give it back. The greatest good is to give the control back to God. You are meant to be a slave--you are not meant to value yourself. You are only valuable insofar as you are useful or good to God. Do you know what is required of you? Can you possibly fathom the robotry asked of you? I doubt many do.
Yes, welcome to existentialism. The land where everyone fails, where most are blind, and where the few live in anguish as we recognize both what is required and why we fail over and over again.
While I listen to NiN, I know where I stand, and I am sobered. This is the spiritual battle that is before us all. It is real. It is the most important choice we can make, and NiN does a better job of showing this than half of the happy-go-lucky-warm-fuzzy crap I find in church. I would rather dine with a sinner that knows he is a sinner than the likes of the people I goto church with. Lukewarm is really a continual denial of this battle of control--it is no different to me than the unforgivable sin.
You are all in or nothing. I have much more respect for those who choose nothing than the lukewarm. The ones who chooses nothing has a chance to repent, just as I have a chance to repent when I choose to sin and when I have temporarily chosen the nothing.
Here, at the recognition of our base conflict, it is easy to see why one would "mourn their faith". Every bone in our body seeks to maintain control of ourselves, we want to be ourselves. Being a true Christian is more than a leap of faith, it is the purposeful casting of one's self off a cliff, hoping never to return. It requires, to some degree, self-hatred in that sacrifice. Matured faith is much more difficult than we make it out to be. God help us.
So, I've had the opportunity (I.E. free time at work) to do some reading. And, on top of everything I always read on the interweb while in the Ville of Louis, in the past couple weeks I've read actual words on paper, including:
6 of 6 Harry Potter series (7th book is coming next month, be prepared!)
'Manufacturing Consent'
Some of 'Anna Karenina'
'This is Your Brain on Music'
C.S. Lewis's Space/Sci-Fi Trilogy
Nothing much to say about the Harry Potter series. I mean, I've read them before, and I'm just prepping myself again for the final book (hard to keep that much storyline in your head all at once). Although, I must say that after a 4th time reading through, I am struggling with the underlying presence of relativistic thought in this book. The struggle between good and evil amounts to something less meaningful in these books. It is apparent in the last part of the series that "love" conquers all, and our enemy is "fear". Oh, please--Donnie Darko again? I am now having to think about when I would let my child read these stories.
'Manufacturing Consent' was simply fantastic. Noam Chomsky has created a masterpiece essay. 1/3rd of the book is introductory thesis. The stuff in the middle is highly relevant and exhaustive support for his thesis, which is maintained by the last third of this book: pure citation. This book was made in 1988, and it reads like a book attacking our world today. Superb book.
'Anna Karenina' is a loathsome book. Don't read it, please.
'This is Your Brain on Music' is a book by a neuro-bio-physio-psychologist with a few extra PHD's and a wealth of experience in all things music. It is seriously a good read. He dives very deeply into the brain, the mind, other biological functions, and how music interacts with these objects. I found it to be thrilling.
C.S. Lewis's Space Trilogy was...different. 'Out of the Silent Planet' was the first book. It honestly hinted at moral relativism and Darwinian thought. It was decent sci-fi, but we were left more confused than when we started by the end of the book. Wonderfully, the first book is resolved and completed in 'Perelandra' (the 2nd book). The second book was by far the best of the series. It was obvious C.S. Lewis writing. Only he can make you read a story that you would have been unwilling to read if you had only known what C.S. Lewis was writing about in the first place. I am certainly glad I did read it though. The 2nd book is a fascinating account of the fall. Every 40 or 50 pages, you'll find the few paragraphs that he has been working towards for the entire book, and you will be astounded by the astute insight he has in store for us. And, frankly, C.S. Lewis's genius was that he could put immensely complex theological ideas into fun, tightly composed sentences and allegories. He does not fail us in the second book. The third book, yes, he fails. My wife didn't like it because it was "sexist" (which it wasn't blatantly). I just thought it was a poor resolution to the story. He should have stuck with the 2nd book, and left it at that.
And, I'm starting in on Flannery O'Conner's short stories (Epiphanautic Grim Allegorical Southern Gothic Protestocatholic Overly-Symbollic Existential Revelatory literature with a pinch of Egalitarianism, and probably too much detail that we are supposed to glean "deep meaning" from...). You know what, these stories put me in such a good mood. I am inspired to glance off the pages of Mz. Flanz stories, to look up and observe the finer qualities of "humanity" in my co-workers. ROFL. Oh, and I'll define the odd word for you. Epiphanautic is an adjective that refers to sailing or navigating in a metaphorical sea of epiphanies (generally, if there is a sea of them, then you are hallucinating--you just think you are receiving an inundation of divine manifestations of wisdom and insight). Please savor this word. Yes, it is very good.
My brother said something odd to me the other day: he thinks he is not a good writer. I've seen my brother's writing (for a long time), and I simply have to disagree with him. I don't disagree just because his writing has always been much better than anything I can do, I know he is a good writer because he communicates truth (and does a good job of presenting it to boot). I know he can write very well, but JRE simply disagrees. He wouldn't explain what led him to the conclusion, but my guess (which is probably quite accurate) is that the English professor that teaches JRE's "Christianity" class is overly harsh, critical of the wrong things, and maybe even lacking a full understanding of what "a good writer" exactly means. JRE will see his paper marked up or given a poor grade, maybe due to "passive voice", and he feels crushed over it. I told him otherwise.
Don't get me wrong, I would be disappointed in the low grade I got if I had worked so hard and produced something I considered so good. But, JRE doesn't stop to think about why he got the grade, or if the grade was warranted. His base premise concerning his belief that he wasn't a good writer was essentially:
His writing isn't beautiful or elegant.
My reply: So what? What does that have to do with good writing? If you are writing an essay (which is all our family tends to write--even our letters our politicized essays), the beauty of your essay does not spring from your rhetoric, use of syntax, or colorful language (f-to the l33t izz0). The beauty of an essay is in the truth-value, relevance, and significance of the very contents of the essay--not the way in which it is said. Wouldn't you prefer (or in fact value) an essay with mere coherence (so, I guess it isn't flowery or aesthetically pleasing) and insightful content than a useless, shallow, and illogical essay that we might consider aesthetically pleasing? The form of an essay has nothing to do with aesthetics--the essay exists in virtue of the argument to be made. And, we will soon find, all forms of communication (and writing) have one purpose in mind--they all are a type of essay (some are just better essays than others).
Now, if you have a poor argument, then you have grounds for dismissing an essay as awful, regardless of the other qualities of the essay. The beauty of an essay can only truly be analyzed insofar as it fulfills the form of the essay. Poor arguments translate into ugly essays, while good arguments are beautiful essays
But, what of the linguistic mechanisms required to transport those beautiful thought-capsules? Obviously, the mechanisms will be valuable insofar as these are necessary in communicating and transporting the ideas and details of arguments. Coherence is the base requirement of communication--not aesthetics. I propose that we have a false sense of aesthetics, a twisted sense of beauty, and an ill-conceived notion of the purpose of communicating in general. It is not about the emotions you inspire; emotions that do not stem from rational propositions are meaningless. Communicating is about transporting truth--all else is secondary, including that which we perceive to be "aesthetically pleasing".
It reminds me of my principle disagreement with my own "Christianity" professor. He was a mystic and spiritualist--generally irrational. More important to our topic, he could truly impress us with his language of decor while speaking of his beliefs. He was eloquent, but he was very wrong. The lack of truth (which was hidden to most) made for hollow or even damaging communications. This false beauty was dangerous!
Ironically, both our professors are "very close friends".
JRE really has taken to Berea more than I did, not because I didn't have a chance, but I think I had a good reason for being so cautious. I am glad he is leaving that place, he should know he is a good writer and why he is a good writer (and why he is not to be Berean). I did not wish to be sucked in by the false prophets--and believe me, these guys are pro's. Their belief is based too much on emotion, which they problematically use as a justification, as if their feelings had something to do with their rational argument. Sure, they use big words like "Christomimetics", but they truly lack the fundamental principle behind the "image of Christ". I remember reading an article by JRE's teacher on "orthodoxy", and I couldn't help but laugh. Why? Because, this heretic, this...relativist English professor was going to try and preach to me what the "straight path" was? He has no earthly clue; all he has is his emotion. These are well-spoken emo-kids who convert masses into believing that God and religion are mere "mystery". They are concerned with a spiritual revelation that is far from true belief, from--orthodoxy and that actual Imago Dei. They pursue some heretical neo-catholicism, which they consider "orthodox" (roflcopter), and use semantics and beautiful language to mask the empty and meaningless "ideas" that they disseminate to their students.
I can see why students like these teachers. We are taken in by their appearance of intelligence and through the false beauty (aesthetics) of their words. But, their ability to spread heresy within that false beauty is truly dangerous. It is why I do not think so highly of aesthetics in the end (although, I must admit, I do enjoy them, especially when they are used to display the truth).
The longstanding feud I will have with these....artists is the question of aesthetics. Why pursue beauty? It is not important in and of itself, not outside the context of the truth atleast. Beauty requires relevance, it is only revealed from something much greater--something with a moral purpose.
And, it is here that their argument unfolds. They seek aesthetic appeal. To them, it is here that words and art, while attempting to communicate truth, are mysteriously mixed with emotional and irrational expression. It is contradictory to the very nature of absolute truth. These professors think of communication in general, as an emotive tool, not as a truth-seeking tool. This is a warped perspective. As they cannot understand the root function of communication, they cannot understand the value of JREmy's thoughts and what he has written.
JRE's Spanish teacher (my Christianity Professor), held interviews for going to Rome on short term. JRE was denied (not just because he is related to me), but possibly because of one question on his application and in his interview. JREmy explained that his favorite piece of art was "1984" by Orwell. De Rose thought this was odd, and asked JRE for the reasoning behind the answer. My brother did me proud.
JRE essentially said: "The purpose of art is to communicate truth". And, in this case, JREmy was fond of the moral truth and ways in which it was communicated in the art piece of his choice (books are a form of art). JRE is correct. He understands WHY we read, why we look at pictures, movies, and listen to music. While words may not be necessary (you can listen to a symphony or observe a painting), the use of words might in fact be the most effective form of communication.
Of course, De Rose didn't like this. He felt the trip (and life in general) was about finding meaning exclusively through what he considered to be true "art". But, it is evident that he fails to understand what is "art" means, and the limitations of certain mediums (and the limits of natural human perception/deduction). De Rose thought JREmy should pursue pictures instead. The professor thought this because he didn't understand the limited value of pictures, or even the reason why one would create or observe a picture. He thought communication was meant to inspire emotion, and probably felt that pictures did a better job of this than words.
They say a picture is worth a 1,000 words...but that is only because people are too lazy to read and too stupid to realize how difficult it is to describe important and complex truths in a picture. Only the immortal genius can look at the world (or a picture) and decipher and deduce the complete meanings of what is around him. Not only is the picture not a medium for the everyday man for the most important truths, I don't think it is possible for our small minds to make such deductions from those pictures when we already have such great difficulty with a much clearer and more effective medium for important and complex truths, words. If you can't understand it in word, how could possibly come to know it through a lesser medium?The picture, to gain any serious meaning, requires too much work for a mere mortal to deduce things from (not that it isn't possible, but rather it probabably isn't worth our time). Words, on the other hand, have the beautiful ability to easily and effectively communicate a truth to even the stupidest people. The written text and spoken word are tools; they are the best mediums for communicating substantial truth to a population. In reality a word is worth a 1,000 pictures to small minded mortals like us. We seek the truth, and in our pursuit, we will be most effective in using the best medium: words. There are very good reasons why God would choose to communicate truths to us in words (no Holy Ghost arguments please, the Holy Spirit guides us toward the Word, grace through undeserved and unjustified emotional pursuit of God--this is grace, not justice...for our own pursuit, stick to rationality).
Our teachers do not agree. They see a meaning deeper than what words can express--and it is here that they fail. They do not understand the full implication of words. They do not understand absolute truth. They do not understand relevance. They do not understand form, function, and orthodoxy.
JRE is a good writer because at his core he knows what his teachers do not. He knows the fundamentals, and he understands why we write. For now, maybe he is just longing the bliss of our teachers' ignorance because their path is much easier. It isn't hard to be stupid.
I don't want a fuzzy picture, I want an immaculate concept! Words paint a much clearer picture than oil on canvas. Mortals should be economical (as we don't have eternity) and realistic in our pursuit of truth. While somehow our foolish professors are blind to the obvious, it is evident that the guiding invisible hand of opportunity and lifenomics has long been persuading us towards mediums which most effectively and efficienty express and imbed in our minds the truth of God, and in this case, the beauty of truth-seeking words in virtue of their orthodoxy, relevance, and truth-value. JRE seeks truth in his writing, and for this, he is a good writer.
So, yesterday, I realized we are bad parents. k0sh3k was sleeping on the couch (she was exhausted, the 'j3d1h' can drive anyone crazy). I was, of course, on the computer, with headphones so as not to disturb the living dead on the couch. The floors were clean and the bathrooms were as childproofed as we can make them. The door to the baser closed, electrical sockets plugged with the plastic thingies...you name it. The front door (the wooden one) was open, but the screen/plexiglass frontdoor was shut.
Somehow, without my active listening (headphones) and visual observation (the screen) directly on j3d1h, I found myself completely ignorant of her whereabouts and status. Anyways, the doorbell rings, and this old lady (a neighbor from across the street named "Caroline"...tells you how much I know about my neighbors after 10 years in E-town, a sad state of affairs in this world, but another matter altogether) was ringing the bell. k0sh3k and I got up, and Caroline was holding our child in her hands.
Apparently, j3d1h escaped the prison-house we have provided for her. I had no earthly idea she could get past that plexiglass door. All it takes is a tug on the handle (high up for her) and a push on the door (a decent push for her actually)--but man, that is a lot for a little toddler like her. j3d1h, as usual, burst through the gates to freedom, running straight for the danger zone that makes my heart stop: the road. The sad part is that neither k0sh3k nor I even knew that j3d1h was out there.
We are very fortunate that j3d1h didn't get hurt and that a neighbor (who we don't even know) came to our rescue. It only takes one second of inattentiveness to ruin a lifetime. Uggh. We were kinda freaked out, especially about the part of not even knowing she had escaped.
Onto better news, I'm reading one of the best books I've ever read. It is called "The Language Instinct" by a this Stephen Pinker. It is a jam-packed thriller of psychology, philosophy, biology, grammar (I know, wtf, right?), and, oddly enough, computing. Plus, he puts in funny lines. I found this joke from to be very funny (k0sh3k thinks it is stupid, so it probably is--I was just tickled by it):
A woman landed at Logan Airport (Boston) and asked the taxi driver, "Can you take me someplace where I can get scrod?" He replied, "Gee, that's the first time I've heard it in the pluperfect subjunctive".
ROFL! (Scrod is a type of fish I believe, but the taxi driver ironically misunderstands the word to mean something very different)
Anyways, the book isn't about jokes. Although, there is a good deal of humor in it which is helpful when navigating the annals (better spell this one correctly!) of brain-mind-language-philosophy stuff. I think I'll let mom and dad have my book (they can't get good books in Thailand); I think they'd find it very interesting. This book is definitely "archetype" or "era" defining. A classic fo'sho'.
Also, in other important irrelevancies, I got a new cell phone because my other one died. Thank goodness, I need the battery life for my travels, and I use it constantly. I can't manage without one anymore.
We have been looking through schools, and we've decided that Talbot School of Theology is for us. We can't seem to find other schools that fit our desires, and Talbot has been spot on. k0sh3k is questioning what she will focus on. She is torn between Theology and Biblical studies (Old or New as well). I think she'll go for the Biblical exposition because she seems to enjoy that most. Although, she really is driven to apply the Bible in today's world, and Theology may be somewhat useful in that respect. I still think our understanding of theology (*a hybrid of biblical exposition and philosophy) is simply better than anything a school could ever give us. But, I won't discourage her from either of the studies simply because I don't know what they will be teaching her exactly. I just want her to be happy with whatever she chooses.
Allen said he might stay over the summer. Or, maybe he might live down the street and just chill at our house. Either way is cool with me.
Oh, and President Bush is retarded--and, I don't have to respect his office (quote me St. Paul and I'll give you a mouthful, as usual).
Lots of sympathies on the j3d1h's Minutes Out (her escape). Apparently, it happens. Of course, life seems even more fragile when slip ups happen in such large quantity. We will try not to underestimate this child. She can be deceptively smart, as exhibited in several instances. We are now using minor punishments as it is clear that she understands yes, no, and certain commands. Putting her in her room is what we are doing for now (she hates it in there, except when she wants to sleep). When she becomes further sentient I'll be using the corner. Although, as we've taken her pacifier away from daytime use, she has decided to use her sharp teeth on other objects. It has been a struggle to teach her not to bite people, nor hit people. We are very firm with her (and for now our facial expressions make her cry). If she goes any further she may need to have her hands tenderly slapped. I can't have her being abusive towards anyone, especially not k0sh3k.
Also, I'm no longer subscribing to WoW. =( ...I think I would do better to write my own game.
Anyways, onto our awesome news: We are pregnant again!!! WOOT WOOT!! We have tried and tried; It has been a year and a half, and we didn't think it would ever come (the contraceptive shot was extremely overpowering). But, finally we have been blessed again. I just found out this morning. Boomshakalaka!! So, we have good reason to stay in KY for now. Of course, we'll still be aiming to goto school and Thailand thereafter.
Oh, yeah, we have been asked to teach a second Sunday school class. Actually, I have been asked, but I don't feel comfortable doing it. k0sh3k does such a good job, I am better at clarifying and helping with background work. I can be a wizard as a student, and I'm much better in 1 on 1 conversation. But, I don't have what it takes to communicate or teach to the masses. I'm confrontational, elitist, somewhat disturbed, and I lack the ability to draw out the steps I've taken to reach my conclusions. It takes a very smart person to follow what I am saying in several subject matters. The problem, essentially, is that I cannot help someone see the world as I do, I cannot teach someone to howto acquire and use my lens. I see the answer, but I can't show my work. It is frustrating to say the least. I have long had this problem. I do not write my answers out. My deductions are so severely layered, often based in a cross of several subjects that require at least intermediate knowledge, that I don't have a compatible language to communicate and discuss what I am thinking.
This reminds me of the very context in which I was asked to teach this class. We were in a seminar about "Methodism". All the pastors showed up, one of them previously a professor. It was clear that these people were morons. They don't even follow their own religious structures, how could they possibly understand what I am thinking? I sit in a room of people doing addition and subtraction while I'm doing Calculus. I cannot explain calculus to someone who can barely comprehend the fundamentals. While I am good in many subjects, the truth is that I am a prodigy in the philosophy of religion. God has granted me an extraordinary talent. Will I use my talent to change the world? It would be nice, but perhaps not (I don't know God's plan for me). It is possible that God gives gifts to people just for them to glorify God directly. My knowledge deepens my faith, my reverence, and my awe. When I sit in a room of people who can barely add and subtract, I feel sorry that they cannot see the beauty of mathematics, or in this analogy, I feel sorry that they cannot see the beauty of the intelligence, rationality, significance, and design of this world and of the Master of the Universe. No doubt, He is. I cannot teach this wisdom if they are unwilling to pursue the truth.
It is here that I question what, or sometimes if, I will teach. The Sunday school class is a starting place. We will see. I am glad I married k0sh3k. There are only a handful of people in this world with such an orthodox handle of the scripture, the depth of knowledge in philosophy, and the mind to appreciate what we do. We are equally yoked. She keeps me sane, she keeps me thinking, she keeps me happy.
God, Give us direction, Give us wisdom, and help us to do Your Will.
I admit I rail against relativism, after all, it IS the plague of society, but often I'm overly eager to simply dismiss (split inf ftw btchz) entire eras of thought that have any elements of relativism. Usually it is good to dismiss, but there are a few brief exceptions. Point in case: romanticism. I can definitely see why one would criticize it. The denial of rationality is always wrong. But, there is a specific, and ironically, reasonable and rational sect of the Romantic world that actually states reasonable arguments against civilization, society, and industry. One of these Romantic arguments is provided in a film called "Instinct".
"Instinct" is a fascinating film. It is a psychological thriller between Anthony Hopkins and Cuba Gooding Jr (both play their characters very well). The film could be classified as "Romantic" (the era) as it explores the psyche of a scientist who lived with gorillas and has been brought back to civilization. We, the audience, intially assume that the scientist, who is examined by psychologists and what not, is a crazed killer. We assume the worst of this man as he does not follow our civil ways any longer. How wrong we are!
The film unfolds a story that is both anthropological and highly philosophical in nature. The film is a very good lesson as it brings to our a attention a defense of proper and natural barbarism that we should all seek and pursue. We come to emphathize with this gorilla-scientist. We see why he does what he does, and we understand the rationale behind his disgust with civilization. We switch sides. In watching this movie, you will recognize who you, as a "member of society", have become and why we have the socialization thing all wrong.
The title could have been "civilization and society be damned". And, wonderfully, it portrays a realist's view of modern culture, an insightful criticism of what we have become, and curious prescription to a web of immoralities and corruptions that "civilization" has birthed. You will realize that so many of your day to day activities are truly useless, stupid, and perhaps immoral.
I cannot help, after having thought about this movie and other things, but think that society and civilization are innately flawed. I'm hardly against rationality, but I see that I no longer could be called a tradition rationalist by any stretch. It is the thesis of this film that captures the essence of why I could not be considered a "gnostic". Although, my wife does say that I might be "proto-gnostic". I'm not necessarily for "getting back to nature" for the sake of nature, but rather because of the corruption of civilization. It is the argument against Babel, the argument against politics, and social norms, and politeness. A person is not less worthy because they do not conform to society (a belief that is even shocking to the church).
Make no mistake, I do not claim any sense of social relativism, acceptance of evil, or tolerance. I am being strictly intolerant in every sense of the word. There is only one way!! Conformity for the sake of conformity is wrong. The principles of love and kindness are static, but clearly these are expressed in different fashions. Pursue the principle, not the practice! Civility does not consider your intentions or what is in fact morally right, it considers the size of your wallet, what is "productive", and the vogue. It is a skewed system of utility! Idiots!!
In reality, I claim a new rationalism. It partakes of the most important aspects of gnosticism and traditional rationalism. This neo-rationalism uses our rationality to defend a barbaric Christianity, one which does not care what other people think(including the so-called "church"--those hypocrites! lukewarm scum!! Vile animals! May God Blot them out!).
Okay, ....need a breather, my blood pressure might skyrocket if I think too much about people. Deep breaths. Writing it out can be good, it is at least better than bottling it up. It is odd that I can love people and want the best for them, but somehow be enraged with them. Aight, back on topic.
Neo-rationalism is against true empiricism, it is against atheism, against relativism. It is for value, truth, absolutes, and rationality. It is against superfluous social conduct and meaningless civil requirements. It is for a barbaric, base, and real pursuit of truth and value, a pursuit of God. Neo-rationalism concludes not in self-worth, nor even in equality or humanism, it is the conclusion of slavery to The Master. Neo-rationalism is hardcore. Neo-rationalism isn't about protective warm-fuzzies, but neither is it about anarchist suffering. Neo-rationalism isn't about reading the Bible word for word, sitting on a slippery slope of literalisms, symbollisms, and contextual interpretations; neo-rationalism reads the Bible as a book that God intended for us to read, as a preordained text to move humanity towards the center of God's will--not in virtue of the perfection of the Bible, but rather the perfection of the Will towards which humanity is guided. Neo-rationalism is rational and yet looks at the world as a series of moral choices. There is meaningful, valuable moral choice or there is nothing in the eyes of neo-rationalism.
All of this I fail to convey. I can point towards it, but I cannot sum it up in a sentence or paragraph. I need time.
I feel somewhat like the man in this movie "Instinct", and oddly enough slightly found in C.S. Lewis' Space trilogy. I sit silently in a world of idiots. I see through a world of man-made chaos and sin, and I see the beauty which we ought to pursue. It is a very hard path. I will not be successful, but I will try.
Summa Theologica here I come. I've been working on my opening chapter (of which I'm sure I'll never stop writing). It is damn good. I wish to have people to brainstorm with. I cannot systematize such a thing without thinking it aloud and hearing the arguments for and against it from other people. I will do my best.
Any takers?
Democracy is the doctrine that the numerical majority of an organized group can make decisions binding on the whole group (literally: Majority rules). Mind you, Democracy is a word used with pride in America. We live and die by this very word. And, for a long time, I agreed. Why wouldn't I agree to democracy? After all, the majority told me it was good.
Now (oh yes, in my age of wisdom), I don't see how one can think so highly of democracy at face value. What is so special about it? Why should we implement it? The usual argument is both bland and ambiguous, and yet its invalid conclusion is so deeply important to people that we fail to fully think through the premises and implications of democracy (i.e. the invalid argument). The basic premise is that democracy (supposedly) grants us "freedom". How and who are we that are freed through democracy? What is freedom? Why should we pursue freedom? Even if one could possibly show a link between democracy and freedom, I wonder if people are too lazy to justify the meaning and purpose of "freedom". Obviously, freedom exists in virtue of moral decisions. And, even if someone got that far (not a big leap), most are too stupid to define what is "moral". If they think of democracy as a means to these wonderful ideals (freedom->morality), then they need to be able to defend the conclusions as well. Specifically, they better be able to defend morality and freedom (you wouldn't think such things need explanation and defense, but they must be justified if these are the aims of democracy). But, I will attempt to be charitable (after all, I myself am sucked into the argument from time to time).
Democracy is the idea that you have a guarenteed stake or some degree of control in your destiny. And, the latter is almost definitional of modern views of freedom. Albeit, democracy, direct or representative, rarely lends more than very slight, nomiminal, or sometimes illusionary degrees of control. You are one in a million pushing this way or that way. But, remember kids, "your vote counts". This is true. And, insofar as you count with the masses, you have an "equal" vote of power (or at least the illusion of it in practice).
Democracy can be touted as a "fair" system, in which the poor man's vote counts as much as the rich man's. Now, obviously I'm not talking about the corruption we see today, I'm talking about the ideal democracy (which we are far from). And, obviously, we can all appreciate the aim to eliminate descrimination for such arbitrary reasons as race, gender, or social status. Democracy rides upon our desire for "equality".
Democracy also seems to be a better alternative than something like a monarchy, as we have seen in practice. In a monarchy you are either the one or you are the screwed. Right? So, in order to even the odds of having any power of yourself at all, democracy at least gives you some upfront guarentee. And, of course, one person can be wrong, but could millions? Which leads us to our next point:
Democracy uses the invisible hand to guide us towards what is most useful (or atleast in theory it does). In a fair and vacuumous dissection of democracy, we can see a network of minds and choices that adapt and evolve into a better society.
And, finally, I think that many would consider democracy, while not perfect, the most practical option, or, at the very least, it can be the "lesser of the evils". The basis of their argument is that practicality makes right, not right makes right. Democracies are corrupt. And, you may argue that every argument befalls this, and that the democracy is most resilient in virtue of masses with choice.
All seemingly good concrete arguments, right?
Even moving to the abstract conception, concerning the role/purpose of government, the meta-ethical evaluation of rights, utility/deontology debates, etc., we find that democracy excels in answering these questions. At the very least, democracies would seem as if they are adaptive to a culture. They are powerful, and yet, this does not mean that democracy is correct.
What is right is not always practical, and generally, Pragmatism is laziness (hmm...another article altogether). In reality, democracy is a form of social, or more specically governmental, darwinism (no caps for joo). It is a failed experiment. Even if we wanted to apply pragmatism, or rather, utility, one would never arrive at democracy.
The fact is: some opinions aren't worth as much as others. If half the population is stupid, do you really think that it is most "useful" to have that half of the population voting? Honestly, do you really believe people are equal? Justify it! I dare you. I cannot justify equality, it does not exist. Now, do I believe their is a bare minimum of value to humans, yes; but, I don't believe we are equal. Some are stronger than others, others smarter, others prettier, etc. And, no, don't buy into Humanism. It is garbage--it is philosophically unsound. Humanism exists in virtue of half-truths. Humanity for example, cannot have infinite value. Nor are we equal. But, you may argue we do have value.
Is it really "for the best" that Johnny boy over there has any corporate power? He is retarded. Even in the face of utility, it is stupid to let stupid people rule. Obviously, none of us deserve individual or corporate power. The next stage would be one of representation (but, obviously not democratically chosen, else the purpose is defeated). Smart, non-democratically chosen leaders that are qualified to lead would be better than some direct democracy. But, even this has its problems in utility. And, of course, the pragmatists would still be wondering, how would those leaders be chosen?
What ought the savvy person do? Obviously, corporate government is a failure.
It would seem to be there is only one answer: do the Will of God. Let God rule you. All else is meaningless. All is a question of value, and there is only one value to consider in this world: God's Will. If the masses fail to hear God, and they will, then let us do it individually. I can only be responsible for myself and my own. This isn't relativism, but I can certainly see why someone would think it is.
I've come to the fact that I trust the opinion of a very small minority of people on this planet (and usually only based on specific subject matters). I know none of us are qualified to answer all of these questions, but I think some have the right direction (which is transformational): the Will of God. Will I know or follow this? No. Will I try? Yes. I know democracy is an idiotic plan because there are so many idiots. I want whoever is closest to the Will of God to rule (God Himself perhaps?); and I want someone who wants whoever is closest to the Will of God. Essentially, I know the base answer, I think most don't, and it is because of that democracy fails.
In closing (which is sad, because I've not said much), I thought I would consider something slightly off topic.
I'm not in for Zen-BS, false-dichotomies, nor am I interested in supposed "paradoxes". All is black and white, there is no equal. There is only absolute right, and all the rest is absolutely wrong. With that in mind, I still find myself amused by the ironies in 1984's mantra:
War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength
I come back to this statement over and over again. We are in trouble. Do you feel like a madman sitting in front of doomsday? Man, I do. I can appreciate Donnie Darko's laugh at the end.
<p align="left">Â </p></post_content>
Briefly elaborating on my previous commentary on Democracy: I think it is important to evaluate one more point. People don't necessarily have a right to an opinion. We all take this as a "right", and we assume it to be true. We don't want to put ourselves in a position to ever deny our own "right" to our opinion. But, frankly, it is obvious that we don't believe people have a right to their opinion.
The only people with a "right" to an opinion are those who are correct. If you say 2+2=4, and that statement is true, then you have the proper warrant to believe it, and thus I might say you have a "right" to that opinion. But, then again, it isn't opinion at that point.
Opinion is useless outside the truth.
Utility arguments fail. A "right" requires some innate value that mere utility simply cannot justify. We cannot value opinions which are blatantly flase, we can, however, admire the truth an opinion contains. Again, this doesn't necessarily justify "rights" per se.
Obviously, there are too many stupid people that have incorrect opinions, and probably no right to hold those opinions. Warrant and reason are required. The lack of those justifies a lack of "right to opinion".
When we talk about gaming, a matter in which I'm an expert, then I generally have the right to hold an opinion (I.E. because I know fact). If you wanted my opinion on the mechanics of automobiles, a subject that I know nothing about, then I must inform you that I really don't have a "right" to hold any opinion.
In the same way, I think stupid people should say, "I don't know" and shut their faces.
This isn't practical. And, it will never be put into action. But, it is true.
Shame on us...God have Mercy on our dirty little hearts. Shame on us for all we have done and all we ever were...Just zero's and one's."
Good Gracious. That is excellence. Virtue of the practice of poetry if I ever saw it. What can I say?...this captures an essential principle I hold to be true. We are lucky to be alive, and look at how we waste it. We are sinners and relativists. We deserve to lose our lives. We are nothing better than zero's and one's.
Christianity, for the mortal, requires a good deal of self-hatred. If you don't have this component in your faith, then you do not recognize reality. I doubt you can be much of a Christian if you aren't struggling, else, you live a flawless life. Forgiveness is soothing, and in those moments, you should be sitting in awe.
Slave and Master relationship to God, not friends. You are nothing without God--do you understand what that means? Do you!? Existentialism is not some meaningless mourning or loss. It isn't relativistic or coffee-shop intellectual jargin. It isn't a happy thing. It is rational, realistic, and points out the ideal principle. All people answer these questions, some just really suck at it.
While I'm having random thoughts:
I wonder if women with short haircuts have disproportionately high divorce rates.
I found out that I'm closer to Scholasticism than proto-gnosticism in a general theological approach. I'm all for labeling...it gives me places to research, read, and think. I can see where other people have been before. Why do the work when they already have?
This reminds me of MTG (Magic the Gathering). In MTG, someone, somewhere has already built the deck you thought of...in fact, most of the time it has been done for years. You have to dig up the variations, and read through the forums and notations to see why they did what they did. Some were metagame (context) specific, and others were based on synergy, and other based on defining the role and function of the deck itself. It would seem likewise that labelling myself lets me work on shoulders of more giants. Digging through the past lets me see the less-than-obvious synergies and connections made through the great dialectical work that we call history, literature and the grand pursuit of truth.
This isn't a "who we were, who are we, and who will we be?" type question. It is a tool to sift through the sands of retarded people for the gems of truth.
As I'm going here and there: Mom is flying into the states tomorrow. She is taking the swicky (sweet-icky, j3d1h) to Wisconsin and Chicago. It will be the first time that k0sh3k and I have been seperated for more than a day from j3d1h (I've been away the longest, probably with a record 18 hours or so, go Magic Tourney Go!!).
It should certainly be an interesting experience for us all. I guess I'll need to prepare for it. Phone card, CC, phone numbers, the works. Oh, and quickly discuss habits, discipline, and nutritional requirements. Good gracious, do I sound overprotective? yeah, yeah...call me a noobie. It is better to be prepared for the worst and hope for the best than to get stuck in a very bad position on something as important as my own child. Pascal's Wager with a smaller subject/topic/focus anyone?
Speaking of MTG, which I have recently picked up as I no longer play WoW, I have been playing with this guy at work called Fred. He's, as they say, pretty 'chill'. He certainly has been around the game long enough, although, he doesn't have a lot of decks to show for it! =)...But, his experience is quite welcome. He can recall decks and metagames from long ago. He is also an avid reader of the same forums as I read. He recalls game rules like a guy who hasn't played magic in a while, but has obviously played magic for a long time.
He is, interestingly enough, a casual player that doesn't play awful decks. He watches the competitive scene very closely. He plays for fun, but he doesn't play suboptimal decks if he can help it. I certainly admire that quality. Additionally, he seems like a pretty smart guy. Who else do I meet that reads "The Prince" for fun at work??
We play during lunch. I'll be happy to see his decks (we've been playing with my decks primarily).
Moving onto other topics, JRE is graduating. He is almost immediately heading out to Thailand to do missions/teaching. I think it is good that he is going to Thailand. A change of venue and breathing room from that place-of-relativism (Berea) would be welcome. Additionally, I'm envious of his job.
Jumping topics again (no transitions for you!!): I am glad that k0sh3k is my best friend. We certainly have lost nearly all social contacts and friends in some way, with very few exceptions (I like the exceptions of course). k0sh3k is the bomb. Oh, yeah, she just started showing too!! woot woot. I think we might be having twins (not confirmed, don't spread rumors...and that means you!).
Rigging Hypercynic for Mom and Dad to use. There are several reasons for it, but I think they'll find it very useful. Storage, downloading, etc.
k0sh3k doesn't use her space on this site much (3 times?)...Never has time to write, or the will to do it. That is odd for her. She usually loves to write.
Speaking of which we've spiffied up my resume some more...I'll be applying for more jobs. Some in Humana (moving up the ladder if I can I guess) and some in E-town. I'd take a paycut for a job in E-town. Which reminds me of something idiotic my aunt said to JRE about me. I'm always complaining about Commute as being part of the opportunity cost of a job. Obviously, it is....AA is retarded enough not to realize this is true (she is generally very unwise). It costs 2-3 hours of my time travelling, which could have just been used for overtime elsewhere, and it costs $3k-5k annually to commute like this. Anyone with half a brain would realize a pay cut would be worth it!
I'll be rigging (yeah, I like this word) the old computer for remote access over the network. I'll be running the resource-hog Bit Torrent on it. This will lighten the load on my computer by a great deal. Additionally, formatting is coming to both computers. Have to gear up for this because it takes a lot of work to bring my computer back online.
While a great deal of the work has already been done, and a lot of my job is really sifting through arguments and explaining the systematic workings and synergies of proper arguments into a larger framework, I have found that the introduction has been quite difficult and must be written completely from scratch. I have no sources to turn to, and nobody to ask. Consequently, putting the base argument on paper has been very difficult. I already suck at writing, so to make me think about a very complex subject, organize it, and THEN compose it with zero examples, sources, or help is not that easy (although, I recognize I have already had and will have future help--it is still difficult).
Of course, this is a very, very rough draft. It is a good start I hope. Even if it won't look anything like what I've written (perhaps [[k0sh3k]] may write the actual thing), I will have a direction to point us towards. I do need a translator. Anyways, I'm at a point in the introduction that I need to sit back and get some 3rd party opinions. There is much work to be done, and I have to make sure that what I do have completed or worked out in the introduction is accurate and clear. So, even though it isn't nearly finished, I ask you to bare with me please. Fix and forgive my errors, redundancy, any contradictions. Please help me find the missings gaps.
Summa Theologica
Section 1: Value
To some this chapter will be obvious and elementary. The assumptions and conclusions we make here, at least at first, do not seem groundbreaking. You may even find yourself thinking that I work too hard to assert the obvious. I argue in this fashion because it is necessary that we setup an epistemological base for a grander study. We are, as they say, starting from scratch. Where is ground zero? The foundation of all things and the reason you exist, move, and pursue anything is because of value. Value is our epistemological base on which we build everything. Value is an assumed variable—we cannot justify our existence or the pursuit of anything without begging the question of the reality of value. In what seems like an unlikely argument, as it really is so basic, I hope to guide you through the fact that all things we do and believe rely upon an assumed reality of innate and absolute value.
What is value?
Value is the property or aggregate properties of a thing by which it is rendered useful or desirable, or the degree of such property or sum of properties; worth; excellence; utility; importance.
Honestly, we see this word thrown around in so many contexts. Economics, politics, religion, commercials, and social relations all provide slightly different definitions of this word. In the end, they all point toward the above definition. And, ironically, all of the places you hear this word used really are going toward the same exact thing, they simply may not recognize it.
Value is an absolutist’s term at heart. It implies that a particular thing has some innate metaphysical property which requires that we should pursue it. To say something is valuable is to say it is innately valuable, and that regardless of perspective, that which is valuable contains universal and absolute value independent of our existence (whether we perceive it or not). To ask whether something is of value is to ask: Is it worth pursuing, and how much is it worth (pursuing)?
Why should you believe in value? Some may think that value is a façade, just an idea with no meaning or true application in the end. Perhaps value is a social or biological construct. Perhaps something can only have value when we apply that attribute to it. You will find that dismissing value as a concept is not as easy as it may initially appear.
Look at the meaning of value once again. What is the significant principle to the definition? Value is the concept that something is worth pursuing. It is, by definition, an implied ought. It is the case that, if something has value, you would rather it existed than not--you cannot be indifferent to its existence. To say something has value is to say that it is in fact significant and important...that it is desirable, that it is above neutral or nothingness. Something with value is something that innately is worthy of pursuit! Value entails the existence of an ought by its definition (in modern terms, value implies morality). What appears to be a very generic term is actually quite explicit and completely universal.
This, of course, is a very substantial (perhaps even valuable) claim to make of anything. Value is an assumption at its very core. It is an assumed belief—a true leap of faith. You cannot initially prove it. You don’t even need to fully understand it to use it. But, most importantly, the very consideration, application and use of value requires you to beg the question of value’s existence.
Example:
A child sees a ball a few feet away. The child desires the ball, and goes to retrieve that ball to play with it. This desire for the ball must stem from some belief that the ball is worthy of pursuit. The child assumes the ball has value. Now, whether or not the ball had value isn’t the point of this illustration. The principle to consider is that the child couldn’t logically consider the ball, or even desire it, or go retrieve it, or play with it, unless he felt that ball had value.
This sort of principle is quite universal of all things. If something is worth pursuing in any sense, then it is valuable to some degree.
Ironically, to even read this sentence, to even consider this sentence worthy of thinking about, to actually spend your time doing anything, is to assume that there is intrinsic value in whatever you pursue. We beg the question of value directly whenever we pursue anything. To even argue with me, or even have the will to agree or disagree with me means you have already assumed that it was worth pursuing, as though you ought to read or contemplate this sentence. You have already assumed value was innate to your object or idea of pursuit.
If there is no value in this world, then stop reading. Nothing has meaning. You have no warrant to do anything. You are merely particles floating around, doing whatever particles do and what not. But, who cares? You can't care, you can't think, you can't do anything, you can't pursue anything because it has no absolute, innate value.
When we pursue, we pursue that which we believe is innately valuable. Not one thing can exist apart from this idea of value. To merely concern ourselves with the idea of anything is to assume, from pondering its very meaning and logic, that it has some degree of value (in virtue of the truth of its existence, albeit possibly a weak value). This begging the question of value and meaning has been around for a very long time. From the defeat of Heraclitus to the abundant criticisms of post-modern relativism in Abrahamic religions, we can see the necessity of begging the question in regards to basic logical and value-based claims. And, it still holds true today. It is an inescapable truth, a necessary one for us to continue to hold true even with no deducible evidence in order to move on in conversation and the pursue anything of consequence.
So, we will start with our first begged premise. From there, we will be able to elaborate on other begged premises and deduce other conclusions.
[1] Object(s)* and idea(s) of value exist. Object(s) and idea(s) worthy of pursuit exist. We ought to pursue those valuable object(s) and idea(s). (Begged)
*(The possibility of the plurality of value, such that more than one object can have value will be discussed)
It is here, at the core of value that our search begins. The pursuit of something is the pursuit and acknowledgement of the truth of something. Truth exists to be known and acknowledged; truth is the worthy idea and reality. Truth is logical and valuable. To not seek truth is to seek nothing. By definition, we seek truth because we ought to seek it. Even the activity of pursuing truth is valuable in itself. Either we are called to be philosophers or we are nothing.
Section 2: Mechanics and Underpinnings of Value
To say something is valuable is to say it is worthy of pursuit. You do not just beg the question of whether value exists, but you also, in virtue of mere recognition and pursuit, beg the question on other fundamental issues (whether you consciously believe this to be true or not). At the very least, you’ll need to assume the basic claims of logic.
After all, if A is not A, then you have no way in which you could reasonably continue any conversation or thought, as no thing is itself. You assume that A is A, or the pursuit or belief in it (even if subconscious) is important, that is has value. You in fact, believe A must have value just to acknowledge its very existence. Value and logic are the root of all meaning. Logic, beyond 'A is A', which is truly simultaneously assumed with any idea of value (to think A at all it to assume the value of A and 'A is A'), is the manipulation of value and the deduction of further value from assumed values. You my friend, you believe in value, and consequently logic, at the basest level, and you continue to assign value to other things from your logical deductions in your value-based logical pursuit.
Value and logic go hand in hand. Once you can admit that the value and logic must exist, that things exist in a coherent and absolute fashion, that value is truly innate rather than imposed upon an object or idea, that truth is absolute and independent of us rather than subjective and relative to your perceptions or existence, you can shut the doors on a plethora of ridiculous concepts that have plagued the ‘intellectual’ (how ironic) community for a long time, namely relativism and its kin.
However, we need to evaluate the structure, architecture, begged, and deducible mechanisms of this value-logic system. There are further implications that stretch far beyond this base which we must address here before we can move on. Without considering the epistemological base in detail, we have no authority to make deducible claims regarding any number of subjects.
Section 2A: Metaphysical Innateness of Value
It is already established that we beg the question of value and logic. Furthermore, it is illogical to consider true relativism at all, as it denies the very essence of value. There is no reason to consider or refer to anything with anyone if you cannot (at least metaphysically and logically) consider or refer to the same thing together. Value, logic and meaning are innate to an object or idea.
How do you know this is true?
It is true that we pursue things because we believe they are valuable, not necessarily because whatever we pursue is in fact actually valuable. Now, be careful, I am not making the relativist’s claim. Of course we could be wrong about what is and isn’t valuable, but that does not negate the logic of value actually existing. Our very belief and pursuit in anything requires us to think in terms of innate value.
Innate value means that an object or idea is independently worth pursuing. There could be nobody to pursue it in the universe, and yet it would still be valuable. Innate value is static and unchanging. It has nothing to do with our perceptions! The perception of an object or idea’s value is not the same as the actual innate value of an object or idea. This is important to distinguish because it requires us to answer further questions, and, more importantly, it is required that things have innate value, rather than applied value, because applied value means nothing.
What do I mean by applied value? It is a basic form of the relativists’ stance that there is no true, absolute, and innate value (or logic or truth), and that we merely impose such notions on the things we perceive. This relativistic thinking has huge implications, and is clearly, poorly applied even by relativists (although, you shall see we all have committed this sin at one time or another).
If one argued that only applied value is all that exists, and that we only perceive things to have value, then we fall back into the trap of relativism. We cease to beg the question of whether value exists because we have reasonable doubt of value’s actual existence. If you actually doubt value’s actual existence, then you can’t reasonably justify any pursuit. To really apply the relativist’s stance correctly is to doubt everything to a degree that is absurd, including their beginning premises!
I think of this paradox (which is actually a strict contradiction) in the ironic rules:
No Rule is true 100% of the time or This sentence is false
This captures the contradicting engine behind the relativist’s thinking. It is the failure and the irony upon which we all irrationally choose sin. Surely people do not apply relativism correctly (to the nth degree). There would be no point to anything. Do you not see the mistake of this sort of thinking? If you really think that truth isn’t absolute or innate, then you can’t think. The very act of thinking begs the question of the reality of value in an absolutist’s sense.
Essentially, at some level, you are going to justify your pursuit not in terms of mere perception, but of the belief that something is in fact valuable independent of your (or anyone else’s) perceptions.
Again, the perception of an object or idea’s value does not require that the object or idea is truly valuable. We could be wrong about whether an object or idea is actually valuable. And, we could easily be wrong about how valuable an object or idea really is…Nevertheless, if we assume value to exist, we must assume it exists in a deeper manner than we perceive it to have value. We must assume that objects and ideas have true, innate, intrinsic, and absolute value, regardless of perceptions otherwise.
What does it mean that something is universally and innately valuable?
It means that whenever we pursue or desire anything, we are assuming that someone in our position should conclude the same thing. It is the belief that the standard of a thing’s value is static and independent of us, and that we all must regard the reality of its value in an identical fashion.
For example:
The desire for a purple car is the statement that the purple car is valuable universally and innately (not just to you). The universality of value requires that your desire implies that all people should value that purple car in the same way you do. Now, your perception of the value of a purple car could be wrong (I don’t doubt your perception is in fact wrong), but it is obvious that the value of the purple car is stable, static, and innate. It is valuable in virtue of its value not in virtue of perceptions. To say something is valuable is to imply that it must be valuable to everyone in the same way.
And, while this is almost contained in the first premise, I seek to distinguish this highly relevant truth about the nature of value, and thus I will make it our second begged premise:
[2] Value is innate and universal. (begged)
Now, assuming value exists (and we are going to assume the claim from now on), we will assume there are in fact things which are actually worth pursuing. How do we know what things are actually valuable and what things are actually not valuable? Are there choices to be made between valuable objects? Are there varying types or degrees of value, and are there varying types or degrees of pursuit? And, if there are different types and degrees of value, how would we go about comparing, just as an example, financial and moral value? To move forward we will first discuss how one goes about designating attention to the proper pursuit in the face of equivalence.
Section 2B: Choosing Value
We really haven’t given any thought to what it means to choose value at all, or even what premises we hold to be true in assuming that one can choose value. This is ironic because value is meaningless outside the context of the possibility of something choosing it. Read carefully. I do not imply that value is meaningless if there is no one to choose it, I said value is meaningless outside the context of the possibility of choice. If there is no true choice possible, then value is meaningless. So, even if there were no people in the universe to choose what is valuable, we can at least say that value can still exist as long as it remains logically and metaphysically possible for choice to exist. Technically speaking, in some possible world a being with free will chooses something of value. This is just an expression that means choice must be possible in the most minimal sense (even if nobody physically had it) in order to value to remain valuable.
Look once more at the definition of value. Value is that which ought to be pursued. There are two very functional words in that definition. The first being ought (which is a very moralistic word), and the second being pursue. Both ought and pursue implies, in fact they beg, the notion of beings with free choice.
Pursue means to seek, to follow, to quest after, to act on, to go after, etc. Pursuing is a choice! Pursuit can only be accomplished by a being which can pursue. This word isn’t used lightly. It is the act of a sentient, aware, and rational being. Pursuing requires choice. You can’t pursue something without choosing to do it.
The rock does not pursue the ground as it falls through the air. Photons do not pursue their destinations. Billiard balls do not pursue other billiard balls. You need to mean what you mean when you say the word pursue. You must mean something more profound than a deterministic object doing what it must do by this word pursue. You assume free will by the very notion of pursuit.
Ought has no meaning outside of pursuit. Ought implies an ought-not. It would be meaningless if all things ought to be pursued. Ought would lose meaning. Ought has more weight to it than most attribute. It is implies Ought and Ought-nots, and it implies that it is possible for being to choose between the two.
We have come to our next begged premise, one that you readily accept to be true in virtue believing that you ought to pursue anything at all:
[3]You have free will (begged).
Of course, this isn’t some compatibilist notion, this is true free will—the ability to do otherwise.
You can’t say that you deterministically pursued in ignorance and that free will does not exist. Even if it were the case, such a revelation would disable you from future action or choice. To those who argue against free will, and are now educated about what they consider to be a fully deterministic reality, one in which they don’t have actual choice, then please, show me how you are pursuing. You can’t possibly think anything is truly valuable. Why pursue at all?
Value doesn’t require there are free beings, just the possibility of free beings. But, you believe in more than just the possibility of free beings, you believe in the reality of at least one free being, if not many. And, in this case, since you think there is value, and you must if you believe you are pursuing in some relevant sense, then you also believe in free will. You believe you had an honest choice to do A, B, C, etc.
You beg this question. It is certainly useful to consider how it exists, but it is not a deniable premise. There is no mystery about these begged premises, they are true not in virtue of the begging, but because they must be true for us to continue on in life. To not believe in free will and value means you are nothing.
Section 2C: Value Equivalence Problem (the true Dilemma).
Almost putting myself in the Cartesian predicament, by which I am forced to think from a rational base starting place (although, one with sensation), I realize that we have other problems to consider. In this problem, we have to consider how we choose what is valuable.
It is easier to demonstrate the problem in an example first and work from there. Bear with me please. Our example:
If Object 1 and Object 2 have innately equivalent value, and we could only choose to pursue one or the other, how would we choose which one to pursue? While one could randomly decide between Object 1 or 2, the method of random choice has placed additional, yet artificial, value on whichever particular object is chosen--other choice-mechanisms would impose a similar artificial value on one object or the other. As one object was artificially worthier, they were not truly equivalent in our perception. In reality, there is no way to choose between two equally valuable options. It is illogical.
This problem can applied to everything in our initial evaluation of all valuable objects. If we live in a world of equivalence, where everything is just plain valuable and equally so, we could not pursue any one thing could we? As we cannot pursue everything we perceive to have equal value at one time, we must understand the begged mechanism for choosing that which is valuable.
The value of all objects and ideas cannot be truly equal because we cannot logically choose one option or another if both are truly equal. In addition, there can be no simultaneous pursuit of two objects or ideas which cannot be simultaneously pursued.
Now, surely, some would think in their minds while reading this: if both pursuits are equal in value, then what does it matter which you choose? Here, we enter a realm of weak psychological egoism and determinism. It is an age-old idea, one that holds some merit. Now, I say this is a weak version of egoism because it is. Stringent egoism would imply that a person pursues what they consider to benefit themselves the most because the person in question perceives themselves to be the most valuable thing to pursue. Our evaluation does not need this premise, and in fact, can easily go against this notion of such a high degree of self-worth. However, the very base sense of egoism and psychological determinism remains true. We will beg at least three questions in order to solve the value equivalence problem:
[4] A person will pursue what they believe to be the most valuable object or idea. (begged)
Obviously, [4] is a huge concept. It implies free will, it implies rationality, it implies personhood, and so on and so forth. It is not so easy to do away with the above concept, it remains resilient, and to most it is already an undeniable truth at heart. And, for now, as I have much to cover, I will ask you to wait for further discussion of this issue. I promise we will re-examine these ideas with depth.
Assuming [4], we want to consider how a person would choose between two objects of equal maximal value. The key word in [4] is most. Most requires a single object or idea to have more value than all the rest. So, from begging [4] we will arrive at our next premise:
[5] One object or idea will have the most value (begged)
So, if there are two or more objects of value in the world, one must have more value than the others. Since value is not just perceived, rather it is innate, we must also claim, if we wish to have rational pursuit at all, that some object or idea has the most value.
The equivalence problem is solved by begging the question that, at least for whatever we are choosing, which we assume to have the highest value, there is no equivalence at the very peak of the value spectrum. That which is most valuable is truly most valuable, we believe this to be true at any point we pursue anything. Now, it is obvious (as I have stated over and over again) that what we believe to be most valuable may in fact not be the most valuable object or idea—but, this does not contradict the explicit logical requirement, one that we already believe at our very core, that there is a single most valuable object or idea.
Section 2D: Prime and Secondary Value Problem
If some one thing must be the most valuable thing in the universe, then what does this say about all other objects and ideas? It only implies, at face value (*cough, just making sure you are awake), that all other things must have less value. The question then becomes, do other things cease to have value in virtue of not being as worthy of pursuit as the most valuable object or idea?
We can consider that a ball might have value. But, surely a ball is not the most valuable thing in the universe. As we seek that which is most valuable, we will pass over the ball, regarding it as not to be as valued as the most valuable thing. Is the ball still worth pursuit in any possible way? Remember, this is not an issue of perceptions (perceptions lead us to the original begged question, but not to actual values beyond the begged propositions directly); this is an issue of actual value possibility. Can the ball, as a secondary object, something which is not the most valuable object or idea in the universe, be valuable? To even acknowledge the existence of the ball is to recognize some semblance of innate value in the ball. To ask whether the ball can have value is to ask whether it can be considered, used, acknowledged, and so on and so forth. The consequences of denying the possibility of secondary objects of value, opting for a sole prime valuable, could prove disastrous.
There are really two options.
1.) There is only one thing of value, and we wrongly perceive other things to have value.
2.) There is one object of greatest value, and all other objects and ideas are of lesser value, but are still actually valuable to some extent.
Luckily, we’ve already required of ourselves the pursuit of several ideas. Deductions upon deductions, each of these have value, most in virtue of the previous, some begged in themselves. You can’t even form singular idolatry of Logic (going back to the root deductions and begged questions), assuming that logic itself is the highest value. Why? Because the steps required to consider logic, which are composed of several things, are not singular, they are plural (there are several premises you will value). You will eventually (just as a begged question) consider and pursue more than one single idea, even in these small deductions. We beg the question of the plurality of valuable objects. Thus,
[6] More than one object or idea has value (begged).
This brings up other important questions. Firstly, what is the most important object/idea in the universe, and how would we know? (Hello, Anselm’s ontological proof!—existence is a perfect making property) And,
Section 2E: Degrees of Value
How does one make sense of a world with multiple objects/ideas of value? One will have the most value, and the others will have at least some value. This leads us to our next conclusion.
[7] The value of objects and ideas must be ranked by degrees.
At the very least, we can see that there are two degrees. Prime and secondary. We have no begged reasons as of yet to think that secondary cannot be separated into a much larger set of degrees of value. On the contrary, we have very good reason to suspect a spectrum of degrees of value larger than a binary system.
Which is better--A world with 1 kiss or a world with 2 kisses? If a kiss is actually valuable, and unless a kiss had infinite value, then 2 kisses would seem worthier of pursuit than 1 kiss. Most would agree to this. Things can be ranked in value. 1 dollar is worth more than 2 dollars (by definition?), one action is better than another, and so on and so forth.
It would seem that by definition, since 2 is greater than 1, that there must be the existence of quantity and quality of the objects and ideas in the universe. We can easily create a spectrum, a huge array, a LIST of all the objects and ideas in the universe in which we could prioritize them from the most valuable object/idea (Prime) all the way to the least valuable object/idea in the universe.
Metaphysical values of objects and ideas can be different—essentially there are degrees of value. Some utilitarian thought has outlined excellent ideas concerning principles of mapping out objects of value. For now, it is good enough that we can justify the existence of multiple objects of value. It is also noteworthy that secondary valuables could possibly have equivalent value without interrupting our choice-mechanism. The single prime value is our true and sole pursuit, all other things are secondary. There is no specific reason at this point not to allow for the metaphysical possibility of equivalent value in the secondary valuables.
The last significant conclusion to draw is this: The degree to which something ought to be pursued rests simply upon the degree of value of the object in question. This seems self-explanatory, but we simply must emphasize the mathematical beauty of a value system. Each exact degree of value is equal to that exact degree of value. This would imply utility from a deontological logic/value base. We assume basic principles and rules (deductions), from which pours out further rulesets, primarily a teleological notion or mode of thought.
Section 2F: Types of Value
We’ll take a step back and look at the bigger picture for a moment. When most people think of value, they can’t really put their finger on what it is, but they certainly appreciate it. What is ironic about our perception of the world as post-moderns is that we separate the world into categories of value. This is financial value and that is moral value and so on and so forth…
What we really need to ask is whether there can be different types of value at all. The short answer is no. If something is worth pursuing, then it is worth pursuing, period. Universality of value means that each degree of value of is equivalent in every possible way. For now, I’ll count utils to mean a degree of value. These utils of value are equivalent and universal, and all things with value must be compared to such a system. (*you’ll notice that it is here that modern Economists have inadvertently crossed into the value system).
I bring this up because it has an immediate effect on how we perceive the world. It is true, every man has his price. Essentially, this is ironic and maybe even startling. For example, just as a thought experiment: It means that X-utils of money is worth something else with X-utils of value. Now, whether economics and trading exist at all has to be established (and is not within range of our deductions at this point). It is quite conceivable that economic systems which trade capital and money are merely a façade, a true Darwinian evolution, something that is entirely man-made. Ownership may very well be an illusion. But, if money and economics are real, and actually valuable, then we can buy things of finite value with it. This, you will see, is an odd thing to say.
I think the one of the more revolutionary aspects of this value system is how we come to understand the universality of value. We can no longer attempt to separate or distinguish types of values. We are required to think of value in the mode of the moralist. Having universally valuable objects, one of which is the most valuable as we have begged, there is that which we should pursue by definition and that which we should not pursue by definition; there is that which we ought to pursue and that which we ought not pursue, there are universal statements of absolute right and wrong based specifically on the innate and independent value of objects and ideas in this world. The value system is one of absolute morality.
There is value, or there is nothing; There is logic, or there is nothing; There is morality, or there is nothing. All choices are moral ones. They are meaningful in virtue of our freedom to choose amongst the many objects and ideas, and meaningful in virtue of the specific and innate values of each object and idea.
The universality of value is highly relevant, and in my opinion, greatly misunderstood by most people. It is only natural that we compartmentalize our lives, creating separate types of values—but, this process of separation isn’t necessarily correct. Essentially, there are problematic distinctions made concerning different values and value systems—these distinctions are facades. One cannot simply designate this as ethics or morality (words that people have far too many definitions for), and this as finances, and this as political law, and this as religion. There is only one value: Is it worth pursuing, and how much is it worth pursuing? This is the only question we should ever ask.
The funny part is when I hear you can’t compare this to that, and frankly, with a universal value perspective, you MUST be able to compare everything. Sure, it takes a great deal of work calculating each objects utility, and we may be too stupid to be able to do it perfectly, but it is at least metaphysically possible—and that is a necessary distinction to make.
Learning to rethink value at its core will be difficult for many. They are blinded by their artificially imposed (and nearly useless) distinctions. Consider, for example, the separation of church and state (which is still technically possible even in a universal value system, but not for the reasons that most people choose to accept this separation). The reasons for this are not genuinely good ones. It is, of course, a philosophical choice to do this, but it is by no means good philosophy (and thus, it is really a form of relativism). Law and morality and ethics all seek to regulate what one ought to do…or, to be more specific, what is worth pursuing. They all are attempting to do the same thing. The reason we really don’t need these distinctions is because there aren’t necessary distinctions to make. Sure, maybe religion and politics have different methodologies in producing what they consider to be the right correct answers and implementations of value, and of course, this distinction of methodologies is useful insofar as we can point out which system is which, the fact remains that we cannot forget the end goals of all of these institutions. We are so caught up in the maelstrom of details that we forget the overarching picture.
This idea of value permeates everywhere. It is inescapable, even in what you may consider the most minor things. When you evaluate two different investments, and you say one is worth more than another, you are making several claims—all of which have everything to do with a value-centric world. You are claiming something like, money is valuable and that money is tangible representation of value, finite and quantifiable. You are reaching out to an economic system and assuming that it in fact valuable to even consider investments and valuable to consider economics. You are thinking that what makes one investment more valuable than another is the difference in the financial returns. You are assuming that ownership of property even exists (metaphysically, this is very difficult to prove), and so on and so forth.
Don’t you see the implications of really thinking in terms of straight universal value?
So, again as an example, if money is really valuable (and trade/property exists, which is the only way money could have value), then you should technically be able to buy any finitely valued thing with it. This is huge. It means you could technically buy the entire planet. Or, what about this: Humans are imperfect, thus they are lacking some value; Thus, humans do not have infinite value; Thus, a human can be bought with money. Ah, I do see problems with assuming that money has any true value.
But, the universality of value, and thinking of each degree of value or util as being equivalent as some mathematical measurement of value, is even further reaching than what we have imagined. It means that the ought to do in a moral sense must be equated with all other things of value.
Morality is universal. All questions are moral questions. When asking, should I get the purple or the red car, you are in fact asking which has more value. Value is value. This is a moral question by today’s standards of the word morality. There is a definite right or wrong. A yes or no, a this is more valuable than that. This is what you ought to pursue in this situation.
People want there to be a neutral. People don’t want to have to think so hard about everything they do. People don’t want to be held accountable for what they might consider insignificant things. But, remember that our perceptions of what is and isn’t value, and to what extent a thing is valuable, are often wrong. So, if red or purple is truly significant in any sense, and choosing reveals it must be significant, then we must say that it is a question of value (significance), and therefore is a moral question. Of course, people haze the issues, they want there to be a relativistic underbelly to the problem. It is so much easier to say, what is right for you is right for you, and what is right for me is right for me. We don’t have to think or actually pursue truth. But, from the very beginning we have shown relativism at its core to be deeply problematic. It cannot stand. You MUST choose between this or that. Choices are moral choices.
This is wonderful. Responsibility may seem like a burden in some aspects, but in reality, it is a gift of trust and value. We are given much, let us do well with what we are given.
Section 2G: The Rationality of Morality
Morality is a rational pursuit. It means that, as we will see in the end, Theism and Christianity require a better foundation than mere faith. At some level, you will be using deductive reasoning to pursue what you ought to pursue. Some are just better at it than others.
Irrational belief is meaningless belief. If a madman says they love you because they are mad, do you really think their statement has the same relevance as when a rational person says I love you? Think about how we praise God. He made us rational beings for a reason.
In the universal value perspective, by definition, you must compare things based upon their value. You make all decisions, deductions, thoughts, and choices from a value-perspective (even if it is a warped one). You must be warranted in your belief. You are climbing a ladder of deductions, and you cannot get to the top without climbing the bottom rungs.
Section 3: Right and Wrong
It is clear that value is universal and absolute. There are no types of value, only degrees of it. All values are, as we would say as moderns, moral values. All things are moral—there are things you ought to do and thing you ought not do. Value and logic show this to be definitionally true. You beg the question of morality as the fundamental component of choice. Essentially, the world is divided into right and wrong.
Given our choice-making system, i.e. pursuing that which we believe to be the highest value, we realize that only one option can be available in any given situation. What is the most valuable thing to pursue is the right thing to pursue. Right is dictated by the single most valuable object or idea in the universe. Pursue that one thing, and you will be doing what is right.
Simple enough? Now, all you have to do is deduce what is in fact the most valuable object or idea in the world, and pursue it. You will find that reason will guide you to God (it is splendid that the gift of the Imago Dei should lead us to such a fitting conclusion, no?). For now, we will wait to cover arguments for theism. Just be mindful that value and reason already push us in such a direction.
Section 3A: Relativism
What does it mean for something to be wrong? And, how do we arrive at the wrong conclusion and end up choosing to pursue something which is in fact not the most valuable object or idea? The answer to the question of why sin exists is relativism and irrationality (Synonyms).
What is relativism?
Relativism is the denial of absolute truth. It is the denial of reason and universality. This philosophy (the irony of such a contradiction, the greatest of them all), is really a means to justify immorality and lazy thought—relativism is the way of the pragmatist and of the evil. There are ideals or there is nothing—the right thing requires diligence, planning, hardwork, and pure reason. Relativism is irrationality.
At any point we are not pursuing truth we are in a state of relativism. It is the state in which you do not care to pursue what you actually ought to pursue. You decide for yourself that what is actually valuable is not valuable. You are in a state of sin. It is blasphemy in the end. As none of us are perfect, we are all, at some time or another, in some way, committing the act of relativism. Your goal, as a philosopher, is to eliminate any remnants of this backwards thinking, and to pursue truth entirely.
Relativism is hidden in a shroud of individuality. These are just barriers to the truth. Truth is independent. To even claim relativism is to claim some sort of an absolute. What about not all truths are absolute or something along those lines? Can you pick and choose what is absolutely true and valuable and what isn’t? Will you allow yourself to arbitrarily justify such things?
Relativism may have come from scientists who claimed the world is unpredictable. The initial ambiguity of such a statement is quite problematic, and probably a starting justification for relativism by those who didn’t fully comprehend what science meant. The scientist of course didn’t mean random or metaphysically or logically impossible to predict, and in the case of scientists, not even physically impossible. Unpredictable just means that something is technologically impossible for us to predict an event. This is our own fault, it is our ignorance that disallows us from possibly predicting something. But, people take unpredictable to mean something much larger, such that it is physically, metaphysically, or even logically impossible for something to be predicted (which would not be our own fault). And, this is the first relativist slip. They changed their perception of a predictable and absolutists view of the word, one in which we are ignorant, to the view that the world is what we make of it, and that we are omniscient in our own sight.
Mom is flying in tomorrow. I've got to make sure she buys supplies for herself (and dad's mentionable unmentionables). She is taking j3d1h for a week, so we will escape. We are going to Orlando, FL...sweet. Space shuttle launch I hope, dinner, less stress I hope. We are going to chill...err...boil. Whatever.
Did I tell you about a moron I work with? The guy is a decent programmer and knows his math. Just a highschool education, but in many respects he can be intelligent. Of course, he knows he is smart. I can appreciate that. The difference is when he starts talking about things he really has no warrant to talk about. When he debates with me, he attempts to cover his retardation up with an argument about argumentation. He says that all argument isn't about truth, it is persuasive, and even more blasphemously he explains that arguments aren't really innately true or false. He says that there are arguments where there are two different "right" answers. Good gracious, stupid people, please die.
He walks me through his spurious proof of how 1=2. Lol, I'm not an idiot. So what, you can dig up algebra that would appear to show a contradiction to be true. This isn't a paradox. Idiot. Division by zero or improper mathematical procedures (which I KNOW he knows he isn't following proper procedure) is already begging A and not A.
It goes to show: you cannot argue with a true relativist. You have to trick them. You have to manipulate them into the subdual and submission. You must force them into the truth. Sledgehammers for brickwalls people!!
Do I agree with manipulation? Another question altogether. Perhaps a paper. Believe me, it is VERY difficult to justify emotional persuasion or manipulation...it often breaks the very rules by which we were initially trying to condition a person to follow.
In light of recent concerns, I've created a forum. The forum will be open for several topics (although, I truly doubt it will be significant to very many people). The initial purpose of the forum is to give us a place to discuss whatever the topic may be. For now, I'm interested in being able to post and discuss while at work. I realize that my family in Thailand have difficulty talking, and frankly, I don't like email. Forums are a cleancut way to DISCUSS. Forums > Email. I hope our family will use it.
The first forum will be devoted towards the Summa Theologica.
To reach the forum, look in the top right hand corner. You'll see "Home" and "Forums". Just click on the "Forums" button, and you'll be redirected to forums.hypercynic.com.
Pic, yay!
‘Did you know there are numerical concepts larger than than Infinity??’ (At least, mathematicians think so…)
You certainly wouldn’t expect this to be the case, after all–You can’t “add” anything to infinity. That is part of its meaning–unbounded. The natural question to ask is:
Can one infinity be larger than another? The answer, according to mathematicians, is No. Why is this true?
An older demonstration of the infinity principle is the Hotel example.
In a hotel with a finite number of rooms, it is clear that once it is full, no more guests can be accommodated. Now, imagine a hotel with an infinite number of rooms. One might assume that the same problem will arise when an infinite number of guests come along and all the rooms are occupied. However, in an infinite hotel, the situations “every room is occupied” and “no more guests can be accommodated” do not turn out to be equivalent. There is a way to solve the problem: if you move the guest occupying room 1 to room 2, the guest occupying room 2 to room 3, etc., you can fit the newcomer into room 1.
Additionally, you can solve this problem by just matching infinite sets.
Take as an example the set of positive integers N={1,2,3,…}. These natural numbers are like a ray, they start at one and continue infinitely. What if I took half of those numbers, for example, all positive even integers E={2,4,6,…}, which is also an infinite set, would E be 1/2 N? Intuitively, you might think so. You might visualize a pseudo-ray of N, in which every other point is missing. So, how could infinity be 1/2 of infinity? We find that Infinity divided by 2 is nearly meaningless because it is definitionally non-divisible. How can we say that E/2=N and also N/E unless N and/or E=0?
The way to solve the issues of whether or not one infinity can be larger than another is through the lens in which we comprehend infinity. Infinity isn’t just any number. Unlike other numbers, the way to think about Infinity is simply to understand it as a repeating process. It is:
Step 1: A+1-> A (the new and improved variable)
Step 2: Go back to step 1
Clearly, infinity doesn’t follow the same rules as a finite number at all. In order to answer questions about infinity, we’ll need to think in terms of steps and patterns as well.
Infinity retains one very important characteristic: infinity remains countable (theoretically), and this is why mathematicians think Infinite + Infinity = Infinity and how Infinity / 2 = Infinity.
Notice that we can just compare the two sets N and E.
N->E
1->2
2->4
3->6
….
Here is a pattern that describes the numerical concept of infinity. It also explains, at least in the minds of mathematicians, how one infinity cannot be larger or smaller than another infinity.
N’s Size of Infinity=
S1: N + 1->N
S2: Go back to S1
E’s Size of Infinity=
S1: E + 0.5->E
S2: Go back to S1
If you could count either set in any meaningful way, you’d get the same as size the other infinite set as well. Thus, even though N/2=E, the size of N=E. This is the size of a countable infinity, which is denoted by the ability to systematically associate each element in an infinite set to an element in the natural infinite set.
It would appear that every element in any infinte sequence could be systematically associated, in a one-to-one correspondence, with an element on the natural infinite set. Thus, if it is infinitely large, it is purely infinitely large.
However, mathematicians believe there remain numerical concepts larger than infinity. Remember, the lens from which we understand the number infinity allows us to think in terms of patterns and processes. For a number to be “larger” than infinity, requires that a set of numbers be larger than a countable infinite set which rests upon the backbone of that initial “infinity” pattern.
(Cardinality enters the room)
Can you make sets that don’t do this?
1->A
2->B
3->C
….
The answer may be yes. And, it is here that infinity is supposedly belittled. The uncountable is larger than the unbounded. Georg (no “e”) Cantor offered us some interesting proofs about it:
Cantor’s most well known proof considers an infinite sequence of the form (x1, x2, x3, …) where each element xi is either 0 or 1.
Consider any infinite listing of some of these sequences. We might have for instance:
s1 = (0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, …)
s2 = (1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, …)
s3 = (0, 1, 0, 1, 0, 1, 0, …)
s4 = (1, 0, 1, 0, 1, 0, 1, …)
s5 = (1, 1, 0, 1, 0, 1, 1, …)
s6 = (0, 0, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1, …)
s7 = (1, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, …)
…
And in general we shall write
sn = (sn,1, sn,2, sn,3, sn,4, …)
that is to say, sn,m is the mth element of the nth sequence on the list.
It is possible to build a sequence of elements s0 in such a way that its first element is different from the first element of the first sequence in the list, its second element is different from the second element of the second sequence in the list, and, in general, its nth element is different from the nth element of the nth sequence in the list. That is to say, s0,m will be 0 if sm,m is 1, and s0,m will be 1 if sm,m is 0. For instance:
s1 = (0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, …)
s2 = (1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, …)
s3 = (0, 1, 0, 1, 0, 1, 0, …)
s4 = (1, 0, 1, 0, 1, 0, 1, …)
s5 = (1, 1, 0, 1, 0, 1, 1, …)
s6 = (0, 0, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1, …)
s7 = (1, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, …)
…
s0 = (1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 0, 1, …)
(The elements s1,1, s2,2, s3,3, and so on, are here highlighted, showing the origin of the name “diagonal argument”. Note that the highlighted element in s0 is in every case different from the highlighted element in the table above it.)
Therefore it may be seen that this new sequence s0 is distinct from all the sequences in the list. This follows from the fact that if it were identical to, say, the 10th sequence in the list, then we would have s0,10 = s10,10. In general, if it appeared as the nth sequence on the list, we would have s0,n = sn,n, which, due to the construction of s0, is impossible.
From this it follows that the set T, consisting of all infinite sequences of zeros and ones, cannot be put into a list s1, s2, s3, … Otherwise, it would be possible by the above process to construct a sequence s0 which would both be in T (because it is a sequence of 0’s and 1’s which is by the definition of T in T) and at the same time not in T (because we can deliberately construct it not to be in the list). T, containing all such sequences, must contain s0, which is just such a sequence. But since s0 does not appear anywhere on the list, T cannot contain s0.
Therefore T cannot be placed in one-to-one correspondence with the natural numbers. In other words, it is uncountable.
Such a ‘proof’ of an uncountable number would seem to overcome, in size, the pattern we think of as infinity. But, doesn’t this all seem like cheating? The proof appears to defeat infinity in name only.
Surely one could see that we are using a pattern that is definitionally non-associable, it is always one step ahead. It is saying, infinite sequences can never reach this sequence because this pattern is designed to be “larger” and unmatchable via a pattern. It should be perfectly obvious that an infinite set of all possible sequences of all possible combinations of infinite elements MUST match any such sequence of infinite elements….That is part of the definition of infinite set.
Here is the size of the ‘uncountable’ pattern I see:
Step 1: Infinity (step 1: A+1= [new] A, Repeat step 1) * Infinity=A
Step 2: A + 1->A.
Step 3: Repeat step 2
I think of it as a computer, with only so much processing power. In this in instance, it would require that either infinite sequences or infinite elements were assumed, and we were computing the other. Insofar as we are forced to compute, the uncountable number is larger simply in virtue of having started at an assumed larger number in the computation.
Technically, if a computer had infinite processing power, it would possess all possible combinations of sequences/elements, including the supposed ‘uncountable’…It is only through the understanding of a limited computing resources can we say that, following these steps, an uncountable type number is always larger than infinity.
I realize that most don’t see infinity as something to be understood as a “computable” number…but this is EXACTLY what we mean when we say it is a “countable” number..
The uncountable number either makes patterns that are simply “infinite + 1″ (or similar) larger than infinity, as they definitionally are larger and “unmatchable” in the creation of their computable pattern, or the uncountable number is nonsensical.
It all boils down to this. Infinity is understood as a pattern (steps). The only way to understand how other infinities are not larger or smaller than other infinities is through a pattern solution (1-for-1 comparison). Ironically, the only way to say something is larger than infinity is to have an initial pattern (steps) that pre-emptively begs the question by saying it is “larger” than infinity, so that it be larger in the pattern solution (1-for-1 comparison).
Uncountable numbers beg the question of being larger than infinity, but they don’t prove it. You already had to assume the (step) pattern of uncountable numbers to be larger than infinity before you could conclude the pattern solution (1-for-1 comparison). This doesn’t mean that the uncountable number (essentially, Infinite + 1> Infinity) isn’t real or true; I’m just pointing at that we are back where we started….Can only infinity be larger than another in a meaningful sense?
The computational answer does seem to me to suggest it very well could be…
So, I ask, do you think something can be larger than infinity? Show me why or why not.
At the risk of sounding like a "coffee house intellectual" moron, an epiphinaut, or someone trying to sound too deep, I'll share my thought for the day. Maybe I'm seeing too much into the issue, but for now, I believe it is a worthy thought to consider.
Out of curiosity (and boredom), I chose to lookup the meaning of the "4th dimension", specifically what a 4-dimensional object looks like and how it could be relevant to someone like me who tends to visualize 3-dimensionally. I found that it was a fairly odd, and maybe even not fully explored topic in my research. On one hand, the mathematicians look at it as a tool, simply something that is "capable" of being demonstrated, but the visualization not useful in itself--or rather, the mathematical implications (which I still don't understand) seemed more important than the visual applications. On the other hand, we have the spooky sci-fi freaks who probably make it out to be more than it is...But, after further consideration (or simply due to my own ignorance?) I can't help but wonder if there is more to this issue that I thought at first glance. I read even further about what a "4th dimension" visually implies, and it was astounding. So, I thought I'd make a quick note about it, simply because I thought it warranted discussion (even if only with myself).
At first, I didn't even know howto fully visualize a 4-d object (and, to be honest, I still struggle to think about it, probably because I'm so used to thinking in 3-d and seeing in 2-d). For me to understand 4D is like explaining 3D to a being which lives, breathes, and thinks in 2D. If I talked to a "plane", how could I possibly describe the 3rd dimension (depth) to the 2D object or thinker? He has very little reference to work from, with the exception of understanding the changes in perspective from 0D to 1D to his 2D. Still, it is a very large gap for him to overcome to even begin to think in 3D, no? I think the same is for our case when attempting to "visualize" 4D in a 3D mindset. What is really funny is the learning I've done so far in regards to +dimensions, the 4th and so on, have only be visually explained to me in 2D. It seems like it would be much, much easier to explain 4D to me in 3D than 4D to me in 2D, much like explaining 3D to a 2D thinker is best done in 2D rather than 1D or 0D. I would like to more fully grasp 4D. Perhaps when I happen across a math/science department they'll have a good 3D model/projection of 4D for me to observe (although, I assume it would be impossible to make a "good" representation of 4D in 3D, I assume it would atleast be better than the 2D projections).
<img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/5e/Dice_analogy-_1_to_5_dimensions.svg/400px-Dice_analogy-_1_to_5_dimensions.svg.png" />
This doesn't perfectly demonstrate the initial thoughts of 4D (or 5D), but it gives us a place to start. I decided to draw it myself just to better understand the picture. I like to think of dimensions as "movement" in some direction. In this case, I take a ready made object in the lower dimension, and then I 'move' all vectors of the lower dimensional object in the same direction (and 'length') and then recreate the lower dimension as a new projection, then I connect the corresponding vectors of the lower dimensional objects, and I've created a new dimension. Try it out! Point to Line segment to plane to Cube...and then you see the 4D cube. Here look at this, it is color coded (what I used to draw the 2nd time as well):
<img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/00/Tesseract_net.svg/451px-Tesseract_net.svg.png" />
Just focus in on the object to the right, and you'll see how it works. This is a good start in the right direction (hehehe). But, unfortunately, I am just a 3-D guy who uses his retinas to reconfigure 2D images into 3D perceptions. Attempting to "put myself" in the picture to fully understand that 4D object is a daunting task. I have 2 other devices that help me right now (it only gets more complicated when you start using things other than cubes). The next useful projection is the "net" tesseract at the left of the above image. Imagine what other nets would look like to us:
<img src="http://mathworld.wolfram.com/images/eps-gif/CubeNet_900.gif" />
This demonstrate 2D planes that are "folded out" to give us a better understanding of the meaning of a 3D cube. The 3D Net is a "folded-out" tesseract (4D cube).
<img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ac/Tesseract2.svg/188px-Tesseract2.svg.png" />
This helps me to understand a basic principle about 4D: 4D naturally perceive things in 3D in the same why I naturally perceive things in 2D, and only through a mechanism like a "retina" could a 4D thinker reconfigure the multitude of 3D images into a 4D perception. More importantly, in the same way that depth perception (3D) is simply a miracle to someone who can only see in 2D, there is an extra type of depth perception, namely seeing 3D objects in their entirety (all at once) that would be miraculous to those of us with normal depth perception.
<img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c8/Glass_tesseract_animation.gif" />
I like to think of it in terms of points. A 1D thinker can see (all at once) the infinite set of points along the line. A 2D thinker will see a set of points on a plane, something that is infinity larger than the 1D thinker's Line. The important aspect of the 2D thinker is that he can perceive multiple lines rather than multiple points on a line. The 3D thinker, likewise, will see more than a plane's-roaming 2D thinker, and will see infinity X infinity X infinity (I like to think of X,Y, and Z on a graph in this respect). Again, the 3D think will see "the whole" of multiple planes, not just "the whole" of multiple lines like a 2D thinker. In this way, the 4D thinker would need to see "the whole" of multiple 3D objects. The 4D thinker's visual of 3D objects would definitely be analogous to a 3D thinker's visual of 2D objects.
Interesting things to think about. Consider that a 2DT (two dimensional thinker) will be unable to see a plane that moves back or forth (depth) even a few inches. It would appear the 2DT that a whole plane "disappeared" or became invisible. Would not such link between the 3DT and 4D exist? Are we not blind to it in the same way?
Lastly, if time is really the 4th dimension (which I still have trouble understanding at all), then would we not say that God perceives (if He does such a thing) at least 5-Dimensionally? Sounds stupid, I know. But, remember, things with depth are invisible and unintelligble to the 2DT, and likes things of the 4th Dimension are unintelligble to the 3DT. Assuming the 4th dimmension is time, and God is more powerful than time itself, then he must be 5-dimensional to see "all the points" of 4-D objects at once. And, if God is "bound" by time, and co-exists with it, then He might be 4D.
Or perhaps, we can go back to linear time thought, Kantian ideas of time being relative to movement, and just say that "He Knows" it...
But, cmon people!!! wouldn't a world so beautifully made, so perfectly scientific, be made by a Being that is also mathematically precise as well? Would it not make sense that there is a science and a method to this madness and not just "oh yeah, He knows it...through omniscience". God is a creator, the Great Deducer, THE Scientist. If it can be known, then He knows it not just because He is omniscient, but also because He could DEDUCE it and because He can PERCEIVE the entirety of our world. He can see ALL POINTS at once. Be careful my Boethius-sympathizing friends...
As an additional note, at further consideration, it seems we are possibly 4D observers as we "move" through time. I don't know if that is geometrically equivalent or not...regardless, I think a case still might stand for arguing that God has -scientifically- better depth perception than we have, perhaps in the way of viewing the world through higher dimensions than we do.
Wow, it has been a while since I've posted. This has definitely been a busy month.
1) JRE graduated
2) Mom visited
3) k0sh3k and I went on vacation
4) Grandpa and Grandma moved close to us
5) JRE moved and Mom went back to Thailand
6) I've been teaching another studentless class (I never had many students to "drive-away" in the first place)
7) Birthdays for AIR and k0sh3k.
That was in no particular order. Short and sweet though. I'm sure things are just heating up for our new arrival. The incubatee is now muscling his or her (or its, heaven forbid) into the second trimester. Yay!
Oh yeah, I guess I didn't write this down before...but it is important. We've decided to go straight to Thailand instead of going to school first. k0sh3k and I knew we wanted to live outside the states and do missions and maybe teach our subjects if given the opportunity. We realize that we just won't benefit enough from going to school at this point, and we feel there is much more to be gained (and purpose to be fulfilled) by just entering missions now.
School is more of a barrier to where we should be than a path. School offers us education and certification. Both of which can be important, but unfortunately, these are not entirely useful in Thailand. k0sh3k and I have had to ask why we want to goto school, and we needed better reasons than we had.
Without a doubt, k0sh3k and I have peculiar intelligences, and I believe we have reached a basic threshold in our fields in which we are fully capable of learning, analyzing, and creating knowledge entirely on our own if need be...So, if we are really serious about learning in the first place, then we will do just that, regardless of our circumstances. The basic principle of school can be completed outside of school (the certification no, but that isn't why we really would want to goto school).
If we were called to teach elsewhere, then k0sh3k and I have the tools to do it already. Others may disagree, but that shows in my mind that they don't know us or see the larger plan at all. Of course, of course, we have committed the usual crime of our generation, the usual line goes: "I'm the exception to the rule"..."I'm special"...Lol. While ironically this isn't true of most who say it, k0sh3k and I are chosen. I could loop this back to "other may disagree" at this point. But, there is no point. k0sh3k and I have proven ourselves exceptional (it is one of the perks of being "weird"), and I know that we have the tools to do what God asks of us. There is a reason why I find "4eak" so fitting, I've pretty much taken it as a second name.
Anyways, this shift in plans is obviously important to us. We've been gathering what we need to move. We've talked to our doctors, and we've been advised that we cannot move until at least 8 weeks after the baby is born. This seems fine. We have so many loose ends to tie up. Preparing for the next baby, having it, present and future work and finances, getting 1-year teaching visas, figuring out what to do with the house and the stuff we have.
I will admit, the shift is somewhat bittersweet, but in no way regretful (in the end I am content[THE word of sufficiency]...nay, even happy) about the decision. It is only bittersweet on the surface of things, and that would only be in terms of the opportunity costs foregone to complete our mission. These, obviously, are acceptable "losses".
I do have to say though, my parents have offered us the house indefinitely, and it has been a true aid to my family. In order for us to have payed for rent elsewhere, both of us would have needed to be working (which would have been fine, but certainly not preferred). The house has offered us the ability for k0sh3k to be a stay-at-home-mom (which sometimes she likes and sometimes she doesn't, although, it is growing on her). We are very grateful for the use of the house.
As usual, a fairly interesting week or two. Beware a post with no transitions. I’m just regurgitating thoughts…it may go on “family guy tangents”…
j3d1h has had an odd diaper rash for a week (she very, very rarely has a diaper rash). We are good about cleaning her (k0sh3k especially), but this diaper rash was very weird. It was a bit all over, but it was heaviest on her lower back…weird. So, we tried different rash-creams, and nothing worked. It would look like it was getting better, and then all of the sudden, it would get worse. k0sh3k took her to the doctor (regular checkup) and we found out that j3d1h has eczema.
Ironically, diaper rash ointments tend to remove and eliminate moisture, which only makes eczema worse. We have a special eczema cream, and I’m sure we’ll be careful to make sure it doesn’t get any worse.
Switching topics…
I also wrote something interesting:
———————————
The Equal Pay Act amended the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1963; it provides that where workers perform equal work in jobs requiring “equal skill, effort, and responsibility and performed under similar working conditions,” they should be provided equal pay.
Essentially, the law also reads:
If an employer asks me to perform an unequal amount of work, then I should get a proportionately unequal amount of compensation. If I am asked to perform using a higher amount of skill, responsibility, and comparative effort than others around me, then I should be provided higher pay.
Expecting more work from an individual, but not paying for it is a form of discrimination. Munesh, and by proxy his supervisor(s), discriminates against me.
The degree of satisfactory work (quota) is clearly defined per task. Take for example Outbound calls which require 8.6 per hour (adjusted to show the actual quota) equates to 65 calls expected in a 7.5 Hour period of production (breaks and lunch do not comprise productive time). To meet expectations requires 65 call in a work day.
Munesh has directly told me he will raise my ‘individual quota’ above everyone else’s quota to 75 per day (as opposed to my co-workers’ 65 calls per day). He has explicity stated several times over the year that those who do not meet their quota will be endangering their employment and future written references. According to Munesh, by not meeting 75 calls per day, I risk termination of my employment and a poor reference letter. I make the same wages as my fellow employees. Why should I be required to perform tasks of higher skill and effort without being paid for them?
Munesh requires that I perform 8.7 hours of work for only 7.5 hours of compensation while my co-workers are only required to perform 7.5 hours of work to receive 7.5 hours of compensation. This is discrimination.
There are two solutions:
If the quota were universally changed so that everyone was required to work 75 calls per day, then I would not feel discriminated against.
If I were paid for 8.7 hours of work instead of 7.5 hours of work, then I would not feel discriminated against.
——————————
I have no idea how it will work out. I know that I can’t goto my supervisor, or his supervisor, or even her supervisor about this issue. I’ll either goto HR or the VP (he is a good guy, and I’ve seen him “weigh-in” before on behalf of small folks like me in regards to similar issues) for advice about it.
For now, I am working to find a new job entirely. I’ve applied to many jobs just within Humana (and I’m applying outside as well). I need 30k + benefits a year for our family to do this with breathing room (kids aren’t cheap).
Moving on (no transitions for you…):
I got a jump-drive with 2GB on it for 15$ (that is a steal!). It is a very neat device, and I’m sure, it will be archaic within a year. 2GB is still a good deal of info. The 5GB will be what matters, as it will catch up to one-time media storage like DVD-R’s.
Speaking of Gift-ish buyable things:
k0sh3k and I have decided to work together on our birthday gifts. We are getting teh gr8 bukz (I have to teach mom some l337 speak while I can). I think this will be a wise choice for our childrens’ education. No matter where we are, we have the heart of Western thought summarized for us…and it will be important for our children to be educated in such things.
Speaking of which, I don’t exactly know how we will go about teaching our kids (I’m honestly not a good teacher…but k0sh3k is awesome). Reading and math are everything. I look at all other topics as advancements to these fundamental topics…these are the modes or languages of all other scholastic pursuits. Obviously, I wish to concentrate on the modes first. I suppose I will need to add logic and music to the list of modes as well. Hrmm…but school requires more. Trades, travel, dealing with society, and other “extras” seem to be relevant experiences. How does one pack all that in? I honestly have no idea how I can give my kids better than what I had, lol.
One major issue is knowing the line at which I will force my children to do something and when I’ll just let them start and stop at whim. Learning about frogs is about them, reading certain types of fiction is just up to them…but, as we move closer and closer to the fundamental modes we begin to see more necessary bodies of knowledge. I don’t want to eliminate their interest in the necessities, I’d much rather they strive to learn and grow in those areas just from plain curiosity, ambition, and self-growth rather than just because I said to do it.
I suppose I look at everything we do as a parent as a form of education. We are conditioning our children (influencing, manipulating). Do I trust my gut/instinct? Should I? Definitely a difficult proposition..this “raising the kids” things appears to be a solid challenge. I am responsible for what they become (in part).
Of course, we all know all of this. We’ve known for a long time…it is just more relevant to me when I am in the midst of such decisions.
I’ll tell you one thing though: parents wing it. Straight up. No lies. At some point, no matter how prepared you are…you will wing it. We might say life is improvised…even though there is only one perfect script to follow.
oh snap….btw, to family members who read this:
The Tattoo-word is out. Grandpa and grandma know. They caught k0sh3k and I…they were fairly polite, we played ‘light-hearted’ defense fairly well. It was clear they believed us all to have them…they saw mom’s…LOL! Of course, Grandpa and grandma were not terribly happy about it.
I always wonder about the generational gaps (a fascinating concept to me). The ebb and flow of “memes” in generations, the biological differences, the change, and especially the similarities…these are important things to watch. what is the statistical relations between my parents and their parents? How will k0sh3k and I, and our bro’s+sis’s, be similar/different to our parents? How about our children? What aspects of these things are good, and what are bad? If good, what can we do to promote such things, and if bad, how do we eliminate the cycle? How should such evidence influence our perception of our grandparents, parents, selves, and children? But, be careful not to be wrapped up in identity…unless you identity is simply seeking God’s Will. And, insofar as this would be God’s will, you should purusue it. I think we can deduce several uniquely hard to understand elements of God’s Will for familial relations and so on from studying the generations.
Oh, they saw our tattoos at Ann’s July 4th party. I was surrounded by Old Southern Republicans…Always a long event. Morons. Anyways, the party was short for us (j3d1h needed a nap)…and we had a good visit. The house was clean (not for long I assume).
k0sh3k’s Morning sickness is an all day sickness, and it appears to be getting worse and worse. Thankfully she can take her Medicine to have fewer Migraines. Throwing up sucks still. I’m trying to keep her eating because if it gets even worse, then she might not be able to eat (or keep it down). I’m not worried at this point. But, I will keep watching.
I’ve begged people to post on the forum…I realize I need input. I need to formulate the picture, and the innovation might require some questions from outside sources.
We’ve been making awesome proxy cards. I clean cards off we acetone, erasers, and sandpaper. Dry em, print them, and dry them. Beautiful proxies. I can get cards that look identical…I could use them in tournaments…even sell them (which I won’t…obviously).
I was talking with [[k0sh3k]] earlier about a funny observation (one I continue to make over and over). I keep looking at a world of people who all are in a struggle of wills…everyone thinks they know best.
Inevitably, people think they are right. Honestly, I’ve never met a person with any opinion on a matter beyond the explicit “I don’t know”, that didn’t think they knew the answer. Everyone with an opinion thinks they are right.
Someone can see a small part of the picture here, and Johnny boy knows the answer to the world’s problems over there. And, somehow, I remain surprised that everyone thinks they have a right to an opinion at all. Who the hell are we to think we know the answer to political/social/religious issues unless we’ve actually sat down to think from the base up? Or, why think from the base up? I guess that requires justification…almost like a rational base to support a conclu…oh nm. Stupid people.
It is here that I sympathize with a fringe/intelligent relativist. We know there IS absolute truth. We know that truth is knowable, and that we can deduce such things. We question what makes someone an authority on an issue. We wonder why the morons around us think they are right…and why we would be wrong? It is completely ironic that we should trap ourselves in the cynic’s case: people are stupid. After all, we are people, but we think we aren’t stupid. I’m not here to promote the world as if it SHOULD be a land of swarming idiotic individuals, but I will say that is what the world is…
I am constantly asking myself, why try? Why should I even try to teach? I know the answer (oh, yes, I said it). But, are people ready to learn? What state of mind must a student possess? There is one relevant variable that decides whether or not you are ready to be a student: do you think you know the answer or not? Do you think you could be wrong? Are you willing to accept that you don’t know the answer for the time being? The world answers these questions in the negative. They are all experts on morality and what “ought” to be (some phrase the answer as if it isn’t morality…but they are ignorant). What could anyone possibly teach them? THESE are unteachable. They choose their ignorance, they choose irrationality, and they choose relativism. They choose for themselves the unforgivable sin of being unable to grow.
How do you teach the unteachable? Should you even try? obviously, we WANT to teach everyone…Let us be honest, pragmatic answers are lazy answers. I can’t give a practical answer because that isn’t “ought”…unless you are omniscient and you can calculate all effects (in which case the ‘ought’ is the practical…but hey, you are always all-knowing, probably all powerful too…what isn’t practical for you?).
I often wonder what the prophets thought and felt. What went through their heads as they taught those who were unteachable? God tested the prophets too. My favorite word of the day: “Woe”… It fits, ironically, both the prophet and the people.
Good gracious. I sound Emo. Lol, what can I say?…”I’m the exception”…?? It is true, I am limited. But, I ask you, show me how I’m not the exception? What about me rings…normal? Shouldn’t a chosen person be exactly that…the exception?
Did God make prophets that were never heard? Was it the fault of the prophet? The People? Both? I suppose, the world need smart janitors…after all, the aim to know God..regardless of your position or circumstance.
It is odd that we should strive to be: unique. I can look through history (not just what moderns teach their children “you are -so- special” talks) and point out exactly where people strive to show they are the exception. People want to think they are unique. And, I’ll agree with them: they are the only people to be exactly where they are…to live in those exact circumstances.
My answer to this is, of course, one that comes straight out of gaming (haha, I know…so sad…although, I’m betting my religious knowledge influenced my understanding of games…in which it is much easier to write about things like “fairness”..so props to God still):
Life (Gaming) isn’t about what you have, it is about what you do with what you’ve been given.
Your praised uniqueness is irrelevant. What you believed and how you behaved in your ‘unique’ position is all that mattered. This is obvious. I think we forget that it is true. It is obvious from our pursuit of uniqueness that we forget why we are here…to become a Godbot (btw, best F-ing word ever…I may name my book “Guide to Becoming a Godbot”). Literally, Godbot=Slave. Get used to it. Oh…I suppose I need to justify a book, or even why I write this blog? Do I do it because I want to be unique? Does it serve the Will of God?
I think this serves as 1.) a brainstorming center (obviously God’s Will for irrational beings), 2.) A reflective center that inspires change in belief and behavior (obviously good), 3.) a place to vent (I don’t know if this one is God’s Will to be honest–but, you might say this is a more constructive form of ventilation), 4.) A place to collect and remember my thoughts (mental function, seems reasonable…*cough), and 5.) I am good at deducing answers, I am bad at showing my work…and writing forces me to show my work (an area I need to grow in if I ever wish to teach).
Uggh…
I am constantly reminded, in light of our stupidity: God is merciful. He gives us grace. We need it.
Hell, look at this fragmented writing (/sarcasm on…obviously there are more relevant aspects of my stupidity), doesn’t it smack of stupidity and Emo. Silly me.
Anyways, Go check out [[JRE]].hypercynic.com
As the relevance and power of your counter-base deceases in relation to the tempo of your opponent’s relevant threatbase (or as the fundamental turn of the format becomes faster and faster), the more MUC becomes reliant upon tempo-type control features. Generally, the earlier a control piece can be played, the weaker it is comparatively to a later game control piece (often with diminishing returns as you scale down, with few exceptions like FoW). The mana to degree of effective to control should certainly scale, and often there are large, even disproportionate, sacrifices made to have free, cheap, and early counters and control. This means that Force Spike is obviously not as good as Mana Leak, except in circumstances in which the tempo of the game is so fast that your only shot to relevantly control the game with permission requires you to “down-grade” in both scale and often proportionate mana to control effectiveness.
At some point, MUC can no longer counter every threat and continue to generate card advantage. Obviously, eternal formats have evolved to the point that MUC doesn’t even consider it possible to counter all possible threats. Thus, MUC is forced into board control. Board control generally boils down to either permanent removal or bounce (both serve different functions), but essentially they both help MUC bridge the tempo gap. Bounce is the cheapest and most versatile form of removal, but it is quite temporary. It clearly doesn’t deal with threats in the long-term (and this is quite relevant to a control deck), but it can act as tempo gain (something MUC desperately can use often enough)…practically a timewalk in many cases. Again, bounce is not card-advantage, and thus it is limited and least preferred in true control, but often its versatility is necessary to fill in gaps. Single target permanent removal does exist (splash for STP?). But, again it does not answer the problem of MUC only being capable of so many 1v1 for trades while generating spell-based card advantage. The only good answers comes in the form of mass removal. Massive permanent removal is more expensive, less versatile than bounce and pin-point, but it offers MUC the end result in wants: card advantage with no relevant threats on the board (or in the opponent’s hand).
To the extent that the counter-base can no longer scale with the tempo of a format, permanent mass board control must substitute. This does mean that MUC is vulnerable because it is often forced to wait to eliminate threats. But, life is a resource, and MUC can certainly use several tempo variables to its advantage to eventually establish control of the game. Legacy’s fundamental turn decreases the relevance and power of a counter-control strategy, thus MUC is forced to win the game not in virtue of controlling exclusively the stack, but also controlling the board. Pin-point removal and bounce do not solve the problem, although they can be used to fill in the gaps between Counters and Mass board controllers.
MUC does remain quite powerful (played correctly). You need to understand your role thoroughly. Mass Board control does offer very strong card advantage, often giving 1 to 3 or more. Some mass board controllers offer continual advantage (which make them extremely powerful), such as Back to Basics and Vedalken Shackles. For MUC to exist (and not become fish), it will need to rely upon mass board control. The most important aspect of board control is that it does what your counter-base can’t do for you while often acting as card advantage like FoF. The more you play MUC in such a fast environment, the more you will come to understand that the tempo of the format decreases the relevance of permission to the point that counters exist to supplement the mass board controllers, not the other way around.
The deck wins strictly on card advantage, and the principle must be continued for MUC to exist. At any point a blue deck doesn’t attempt to generate true card advantage, and simply disrupt, it is an aggro-tempo deck…Fish. When you build and play MUC for Legacy, it is from the standpoint that you are attempting to resolve and use a mass-board controller. Counters help you live long enough to do that.
In a fairly slow format you would go: Counter-control -> Stabilize -> Win condition
Legacy is closer to: Counter-control -> Board Control -> Stabilize -> Win Condition
Stabilizing is the point at which there are no relevant threats on the board or in the opponents hand and you have relevant card advantage. Of course, cantrips, card-drawing, permission, and even bounce will be used throughout the cycle. The important thing to note (yes, I sound redundant): The general aim of MUC has changed. The job of the Legacy MUC player is to get a board controller into play.
So, the short summary:
I find the early game cannot be won by MUC. As we cannot counter every single threat and solely use spell-based card advantage (FoF/TFK/AK/etc.), we have to base our card advantage, in part, on board control. Modern MUC is based upon the card advantage created by massive board control. MUC shouldn’t be trying to win the early game by countering every single threat and using pinpoint removal because it can’t. It really seeks to crop the most relevant early game cards from an opponent (buying time), and then drop a card-advantage producing board controller.
When I play MUC in Legacy, I realize I’m only going to be able to counter 1-2 of the most relevant threats in the first couple turns, and that I’m simply buying time to find the card that gives me actual card advantage while neutralizing board threats. Once I’ve neuatralized the board, I just build up card advantage through FoF and my artifacts, and then flood my opponent with my superior resources.
With that in mind, after extensive play, this is the artifact-bomb centric MUC I use:
1 Morphling
1 Meloku
2 Force Spike
4 ManaLeak
4 Counterspell
4 Force of Will
3 Vedalken Shackles
3 Nevinyrral’s Disk
3 Echoing Truth
3 Brainstorm
3 Impulse
4 Fact or Fiction
3 Quicksand
3 Stalking Stones
4 Polluted Delta
15 Island
I’ll explain my choices in order of functional relevance.
Board Control–
Vedalken Shackles: The MVP of the deck. If you play against a creature deck (with the exception of a reanimator concept), then Shackles is the goto card. It is without question the most potent tool in MUC. I’ve found running 3 to be a minimum, but also optimal number, including a decent cantrip/CA base. There is no substitute for this card. It is all too often so relevant that you might even call this a Vedalken Shackles deck. Despite what some of its critics might say, this card is not too slow for the format. MUC definitely has the tools to live to turns 3, 4, and beyond. With a solid island count (you cannot drop below 16 Island/Fetches) this card can not only begin trading cards immediately and stabilizing, but it also serves as a great win condition.
I will admit, it takes a great deal of practice to maximally use this card. Assuming you know the rulings about the card’s targeting/resolution, you will constantly need to think about what it can do to change the state of the board, and where you hope to end up with this card. Wonderfully, this card be very powerful in multiples, but I’d argue the 2nd (and especially the 3rd) has diminishing returns.
Nevinyrral’s Disk: The best board clearer in the game. My testing has pointed me again and again to this classic. Other board clearers either don’t match Nevi’s mana-efficiency or its card advantage and ability to clear ALL relevant board threats (with DSC as the exception). PK and EE are faster, yes, but they do not perform the function of a board clearer well enough. Use your counters and bounce to drop the Nevi’s disk, not your PK/EE to use your counters. This is strict board control and card advantage.
While initially you would think this conflicts with Shackles, it very rarely does. It will be obvious to you after much testing that both artifact bombs play different roles, and that you’ll be seeking one or the other. Additionally, we have bounce to save our artifacts. And, remember, you can always go: Disk’s ability on the stack, in response (or before you pass priority) Echo your Nevi’s. Yay…
Echoing Truth: Pound for pound, the best bounce available in Legacy. CoV, Repeal, and Boomerang are powerful as well, but unfortunately, they are not as good. CoV is excellent. It can save your own permanents, and it is very cheap. Unfortunately, it allows your opponent to bounce your relevant board controllers as well, and this is simply unacceptable. Boomerang is solid…hitting a land can be powerful. However, the double UU isn’t always available (no matter what turn it is). The ability to hit land simply isn’t worth the extra U requirement and the inability to hit multiples of the same name. Repeal is probably the next best option to echo. It is a fantastic card, but it can be fairly mana-intensive, which cannot be afforded for this function of the deck. Echo is a solid response to tokens and multiples obviously. It is nicely colored.
Bounce does give us some breathing room. Sometimes that tempo boost is what MUC needs. This card fills in a lot of gaps. At the worst, it is brainstormable and pitchable to FoW.
Other consideration: Back to Basics. B2B is a different form of board control, and it certainly acts like a time walk against decks that rely very heavily upon non-basics. In some metagames, it is ridiculously awesome…in others, it is lacking. If an opponent runs enough basics (and many decks do so to avoid Wasteland), then this card isn’t worth the slot or investment. This is a strong sideboard card.
Permission–No longer is it the primary control feature of the deck. It is the smoothing element that hits nearly everything in a format. These are timewalks. I find 12 is the bare minimum number of counters MUC can run, and 18 is really the maximum. These will last 4-6 counter slots should be based around your metagame.
Force of Will: No explanation required.
Counterspell: No explanation required.
Mana Leak: Mana Leak is strictly superior in the early game to Rune Snag (and probably any of the other available permission options). It is a hardcounter for several turns, and it fills in a permission gap. This is a minimum 2-of…I prefer to see 4 in my testing. Do remember: mana to permission efficiency DOES matter, and mana leak is fairly efficient. It does lose some of its late game, but I find it still useful even on turn 10 all too often.
Force Spike: The little counter that could. MUC still can have some early game counters left in it (the metagame isn’t Vintage fast). I prefer Force Spike to Daze simply because I can’t afford to miss a land drop, ever. It is brainstorm fodder and pitchable to FoW. You will still be surprised how many times you’ll use it even in the late game.
Other spells to consider: Delay, Remand, Misdirection, Logic knot (yeah, it can be fairly good), Daze. With the exception of Logic Knot, these counterspells are tempo spells. They are not true always strictly permission unfortunately. This deck needs true permission to eliminate threats. I find Daze would be most playable in general, but the land drop does matter. MisD can also be an fantastically good card against specific decks/cards, but unfortunately, it lacks versatility and all too often just sits in your hand.
Draw–MUC has access to both card quality and advantage spells, and obviously, it should use them. Ideally, you want to open a hand with a cantrip to guarentee land drops, and you want to mid-game Chain FoF/Cantrip.
Fact or Fiction: The best card advantage in Legacy. It gives you the choice along the spectrum of card quality and quantity. It has the ability to capitalize off opponent error and the use of the secret knowledge of your hand. This is a 4-of…no question. Chaining FoF’s together is exactly what MUC does in the mid-late game, and it is part of stabilizing.
Brainstorm: I hated bringing this down to 3. I believe if you run blue, you should be using this card. It is ridiculous, and I’m not even going to take the time to explain the comparative gains of seeing 3 cards. I’ll be honest though, I don’t like to brainstorm without a fetchland. Running 3 means that I’m more likely to have a fetch available. This could easily goto 4, but it would be at the cost of impulse, which is a guarenteed dig.
Impulse: This card is a brainstorm+fetchland in one. All too often you are just digging for your artifact-bomb. This card does it for you. This also bypasses CotV@1
The other consideration: Thirst for Knowledge. A powerful, powerful card with the right deck. Add 3-4 Seat of the Synod and CoTV, and I think it is a must run. My build tends to want to dig FOR the artifacts…pitching is not always best. Additionally, Seat does not work well with other disruption pieces (B2B, Nevi’s, EE@0, PK@0), and it can be wastelanded.
In any case, your mana-base and cantrip/draw engine are connected to each other.
Creatures–The more and more I play an artifact-centric MUC, the more I find that my creatures are not the best win conditions. Creatures, without question, are the oddest part of MUC. They are dissynergistic with board clearers, they are mana intensive, and they are generally not very powerful in blue. MUC’s win conditions are at their best when their are either free (or not casted during your mainphases, like Stalking Stones), part of the control game plan in the first place (shackles), or allow you to switch between and fill multiple roles.
I find three relevant creature spells that allow you to do the latter: Morphling, Meloku, Psychatog, and Rainbow Efreet.
The most important thing to remember is that your creatures exist primarily as a filler to your Shackles, not the other way around. The majority of games should be won on the back of your shackles, not your actual creature spells. Your creature spells should be filling the roles that shackles cannot.
For now, I don’t feel it is necessary to explain these creatures. It is obvious that they have fairly different functions and are better or worse against different decks. Shackles and Stalking stones do a lot for you, these creatures can be excellent at filling in the niche.
In addition, I will have to say that my testing has shown Ophidian not worth the slot. It is a great card in the right metagame, but it does not belong in a creature and removal heavy environment like Legacy. When it is active, it is easy to see where this card is just amazing (much like LoA). But, I ask you to look at the less obvious aspect of Phid: the times in which it is not actually better than other cards that could take its slot and the spells that could have been cast instead. To be oversimplistic: I look at it as a choice between Disk and Phid, and I’ll take Disk anyday.
Mana Base–Always important. Keep it heavy island (shackles), at or above 24 count, and not too heavily fetch based (you still need to drop lands even in mid and late game). In my mind, it is all about the utility of your extra land slots. The slots seem relatively obvious. I could easily see different MUC variations running Wasteland, Seat of the Synod, 6 fetches, 1-of Duals for splashes, and even Winding Canyons. My version keeps it fairly simple.
The card I don’t like: Chrome Mox. Not only is it terrible in multiples, dies to SO much hate (including your own board clearing), Chrome Mox is card disadvantage, so much of it that it can’t be supported by MUC’s gameplan. It does have synergy with TFK. It does give you 2-mana (bye bye Force Spike). I suggest that this could be a sideboard card in certain matches, but it is strictly awful in too many cases.
Cards I wanted to see maindeck, but instead went to sideboard:
Chalice of the Void: This is a hard card not to put in MUC. CotV at 0 and 1 are excellent (game-breaking perhaps against several decks). However, it needs a whole deck to be built around it mainboard. Brainstorm isn’t as good with it, and more importantly, Nevi’s Disk doesn’t interact well with it. CotV also takes up your all important 2-drop (@1), which can be fundamental to MUC’s success. It, unfortunately, is not a versatile card. Testing has shown it to be an amazing card against certain decks, and against others, I’d MUCh rather have a different card.
If I did run CoTV in MUC, then I’d use a mana-denial theme to create virtual card advantage by eliminating an opponent’s card relevance (uncastable is as good as useless). I’d use this deck:
1 Morphling
1 Meloku
4 ManaLeak
4 Counterspell
4 Force of Will
3 Vedalken Shackles
3 Powder keg
3 Echoing Truth
2 Back to Basics
4 CotV
4 Impulse
2 Thirst for Knowledge
4 Fact or Fiction
2 Quicksand
4 Wasteland
4 Polluted Delta
15 Island
Back to Basics: Wow. Such an amazing card. How unfortunate that so many decks can play through it. It even hurts MUC’s extra land slots. Depends on the metagame. Unlike CotV, this doesn’t need a deck built around it. It can easily go 2-3 in a deck, just make sure your mana-base does get owned by it. Again, this is just not synergistic with Disk. In the end, I find Disk to be too important to accept a mana-denial theme. All too often CoTV and B2B come down too late to be relevant, and I’ll need to clear the board anyways. Of course, B2B, if it isn’t Main, should be in the sideboard.
As for the sideboard, I’m not in a position to say how you should tailor yours…If not already maindeck, Tormod’s Crypt, LotV, Crucible, Boseiju, CoTV, B2B, Blasts, misD, and black or white splashes all seem viable in the right circumstances.
Conclusions:
Many people think MUC simply lacks good win conditions. This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what MUC is doing. It isn’t about jumping the gap from stabilization to win condition, it is about getting to stabiliziation in the first place. You might say that MUC only has a temporary amount of stabilized turns, and that is why you want to be able to so effectively switch roles. If this is the case, I advocate Psychatog. However, I really question whether you stabilized in the first place if the stabilization is really that temporary.
MUC in Legacy, unfortunately, cannot act like a mana drain powered BBS. MUC must control the game entirely, whether it is through mana-denial/CoTV or board control. My testing has shown the latter to be more effective.
The Deck is certainly skill intensive. I don’t know of another deck that needs to think so thoroughly through the implications of both decks at the table to make decisions in the early game. It is, unfortunately, one of those decks with a high enough skill minimum (like solidarity) that it is often passed off as unviable simply because a great number of people cannot play the deck correctly.
The lovely aspect of MUC is that it can compete against nearly everything (given a skilled player). It has tools that are fairly versatile and a gameplan thatmolds around the opponent’s deck. While control decks are definitionally metagame dependant decks, as they seek be to be interactive (in virtue of a more reactive strategy), MUC has more potential to be a more universal control deck than any other control deck I’ve used. It can interact with nearly any deck, and it keeps a generally high level of card quality and advantage against most any archetype. Having relevant and higher card quality and advantage is exactly what wins games, and I’ve found MUC to be plenty viable against the current environment.
Affinity (Raffinity/Vial Affinity)
Affinity is an artifact-based aggro-combo deck. It uses fairly powerful tempo enhancing effects such as the affinity mechanic (the namesake), modular, and highly synergistic artifacts/spells to apply a great deal of early game pressure. The aggro element is powerful and versatile; it has so many combat tricks that the deck often appears to act as a combo deck in the last few turns as it can often bypass many control features presented by an opponent (removal, blocking, unmanageable disciple life loss, etc.). Some might say that affinity breaks several of the general principles of magic as it possesses the ability: to play multiple extremely undercosted spells, to dodge pin-point control too effectively, and to put more permanents in play within the first 3 turns than a normal deck should.
The pivotal strength (and what some may eventually find to be a weakness as this deck is limited in evolution) of affinity is the raw synergy and tempo that exists in the deck. Affinity rarely draws hands that it doesn’t want to keep, and nearly every card you draw in the deck will have a positive interaction with other cards in the deck. Generally, everything in the deck is relevant to your current board position, and cards often have a multiplicative effect beyond their initial perceived relevance and power (artifact + disciple + ravager + modular + affinity factor + etc.). Essentially, the whole is much greater than the sum of the parts. When played correctly, the high average card relevance, synergy, and well-abused tempo mechanics gives affinity resilience and speed that is rarely matched by other aggro decks.
This strength, however, can act as a weakness. There is a common misconception about the deck and how affinity can evolve in a format. Many people fail to realize the problem with a deck that requires every single piece in the deck to maintain synergy. The problem with affinity is that it is very difficult to change the deck without impacting the synergy of the deck itself. So, for example, to add 4x Cloud of Faeries and 4x Somber Hoverguard, while subtracting other relevant artifacts, acts as a barrier not only to a proper mana base (and the abuse of it), but it waters the deck down, eliminating the very strength of its synergy. If you cut artifacts for non-artifacts, you decrease your average card relevance in terms of the average progression of your gameplan itself (aggro-combo). Even cutting certain artifacts for others can demonstrate a decrease in synergy. Affinity exists in virtue of its synergy. Watering the deck down only prevents affinity from doing what it does best. This means that Affinity has very limited sideboard options and few evolutions available. Admittedly, this misconception is fairly widespread because it is difficult to see the web of synergy interactions that each card helps to compose.
Taking into consideration this synergy issue, affinity will fail to evolve away from a very specific type of aggro-combo. For example, affinity, unfortunately, cannot be properly built as an aggro-control deck. To add control components is to weaken its architecture as an aggro-combo deck. Even further, removing an aggro card for a control card is more than just a 1 for 1 substitution in affinity. There is more than a 1 for 1 proportional change in functional effectiveness when switching from aggro to control. The change forms a much larger loss in the aggro-combo functionality of the deck than merely 1 card (as synergy multiplies an aggro card’s relevance), while there only remains 1 control card to be gained. Some may argue that the disproportionate loss is worth it. All I can say is: you have misassigned your role as the affinity player.
To the dismay of some, this two-edged synergy means that Affinity will never be an aggro-control deck, it only has one direction to continue evolving: aggro. Now, surely, some might point me towards some AfFoWnity decks and the like, but that doesn’t mean these decks are optimal, nor as good as straight Aggro affinity.
You lose a lot more than you gain by choosing to use non-aggro cards in affinity. But, it isn’t just using aggressive cards, affinity requires a very specific type of aggro card. So, while Jitte may be a fantastically aggressive card to use (and versatile), Jitte is such a tempo sucking whore that the deck cannot afford to use it.
Affinity should continue to specialize and develop as an aggro deck if it wishes to further its competitive advantage. Developing and modifying affinity requires a great deal of justification. It isn’t as simple as, “the metagame would suggest we use X” to take care of Y. Adding and subtracting cards from affinity is innately more difficult and complex to do correctly. The opportunity cost of running one card and not another is difficult to measure in this deck. Now, that doesn’t mean there aren’t innovations to be had, but with a deck that revolves around so much synergy, the proponents of the status quo are fairly justified in denying the vast majority of “innovations and tech” that people prescribe. Just remember, it all adds up. All too often, modifications actually decrease the effectiveness of the basic shell of vial affinity.
Affinity is at a disadvantage in terms of how it can evolve. The deck structure is extremely rigid, and, unfortunately, that prevents affinity from becoming much better than what we already have. Throwing Phyrexian Dreadnought and Stifles, Fling, etc. into this deck does not make it better than what it once was, and admittedly, that is difficult for many to see. Innovations will be small for this deck. It is a deck to fine tune, not revolutionize.
As some will not fully recognize there are diminishing returns and limits to substitutions in this deck, I will clarify a fairly universal principle for those individuals who wish to innovate and evolve affinity: There is a difference between a deck that can win a game and an optimal deck. Most every build posted can win a game or two, but some builds will win more than others. Optimal builds will have the best chance of winning (not just ’some chance’). Winning some is not the same as winning the most possible, but many fail to see this fact. This makes it difficult for many people to see why their tech is suboptimal or flat out sucks. They still win games in spite of their tech, not in virtue of their tech.
Assuming that affinity is built and played correctly, this once dominating force is really hindered by only two things in Legacy: 1.) Combo, and 2.) Amazing hate available. Each of these contributes to affinity becoming strictly a metagame deck. A metagame deck is one that can never be tier 1, but given the right metagame is very viable.
Affinity does suffer from the classic aggro problem of not being able to disrupt or race Combo effectively enough. Affinity does not defeat well-played and well-built combo decks in Legacy. You can run CoTV, FoW, SoR, and Therapy, and you’ll still get owned by a competent combo player. Watering your deck’s strategy down puts you turns and turns behind on the board (on average), while your disruption simply delays the inevitable. Even if affinity can curb the losses in the combo department, it will usually require major sacrifices against other archetypes, negating the reason to play affinity at all. In environments flourishing with combo, you probably shouldn’t be playing this deck.
The other reason why Affinity could never be Tier 1 in Legacy is due to the amount of hate available — affinity simply can’t live through it. For example, Energy Flux, Shattering Spree, and Pernicious Deeds are just a few exceptionally deadly tools against Affinity. Combined with several other cards, sideboards prepared for affinity would impose insurmountable barriers.
Affinity, at best, is a metagame deck. You choose to play the deck because you know your opponents are not packing enough hate and that they can’t outrace you with combo. However, with that said, if the metagame does not anticipate the deck (and it currently doesn’t in many areas), it can be a very powerful ‘rogue’ deck. Affinity is a deck that is underestimated by many, and in part, this is why the metagame would allow for affinity to be a viable competitor. Affinity can play like a tier 1 deck, it simply can’t afford to play in a metagame that anticipates it.
As a metagame deck, affinity can be tailored somewhat. For example, in many cases Atog is brokenly good, and in other matchups it can be terrible. This goes for a few cards. Keeping in mind that the deck should be slightly tailored (even if it can never be revolutionized), here is the basic vial affinity shell:
Basic Vial Affinity Shell
24 Creatures
4x Disciple of the Vault
4x Arcbound Worker
4x Arcbound Ravager
4x Frogmite
4x Myr Enforcer
4x Ornithopter
18 Spells
4x Aether Vial
4x Thoughtcast
4x Cranial Plating
3x Shrapnel Blast
3x Chromatic Star
18 Land
4x Seat of the Synod
4x Vault of Whispers
4x Great Furnace
3x Blinkmoth Nexus
3x Glimmervoid
In a vacuum, you’d want to start with the above shell. Darksteel Citadel and Atog are also very viable components of a basic shell, but their inclusion may require more justification. Again, given a specific metagame, adjustments should be made. Cards outside the card pool I’ve mentioned have yet to be properly justified.
The basic gameplan is to drop your hand in 3 turns, laying down the beats. Use your non-creature spells wisely to force a dominant position. Usually the game is won by an unblocked creature with either modular’ed counters on it or cranial plating, the use of the Disciple/Ravager combo, and often Shrapnel to seal the deal.
Card explanations from the Basic Shell:
Disciple of the Vault—I still can’t believe this card costs 1cc. 1 for 1/1 is fair. His ability is brokenly good. His obvious synergy with Arcbound Ravager (and Shrapnel) can turn his 1 mana cost into massive amounts of damage. I am not surprised to see his 1 mana cost turn into my opponent’s 10 life loss. This card is excellent in multiples.
Opponents often forget about disciple both in the deck/hand and in play. This gives you an excellent information advantage that will often surprise the opponent as they didn’t properly anticipate the effects of Disciple. Generally, it is best to hold back on playing Disciple until mid to late game if possible. While he is a lackluster 1st turn play, his late game vial-into-play can flat out win games on the stack. Top-decking this card can turn losing-board positions into winning ones.
Additionally, mass board sweepers can become deadly with disciple on the board, and it often forces control players into pin-point removal before they can sweep the board.
Arcbound Worker—A truly underestimated card. This is a high synergy card. He enables combos, enables affinity, and greatly assists ravager-based board positions. His power level is much closer to Aether vial (the other amazing 1cc) in this deck than most would think.
At 1 for 1/1 on the table he is fair. But, his artifactness and modularity allow him to do some extraordinary things for his cheap casting cost, making this card much better than 1 for 1/1. The death of Arcbound worker is not the death of 1/1 on the table (as long as you control another artifact creature). Not only can you get disciple triggers, but the modular ability allows your 1 mana spent to continue being damage on the board. To assume his removal or sacrifice is to assume that you spent 1 mana for 2 consecutive 1/1’s with multiple synergies in between.
For example, it is common for him to be sacrificed, and for the saccer to gain the advantage of the +1/+1 counter (Ravager) or 5 damage (Shrapnel), while the Worker’s modular can enhance another creature.
Arcbound is definitely a combat tricks creature with excellent synergy.
Arcbound Ravager—A card I feel has been overhyped at the perceptual expense of the other components of affinity (don’t get me wrong, I know this card inside and out, and I love it). Ravager is good, in part, because of the rest of the deck. With that said, this card more than pulls his own weight; he is arguably the core of the deck (although, the artifact lands would be a runner-up). He is much like Psychatog, only he is an artifact-board-based tog. He converts permanents into resources that are transferable (often unblocked) damage while abusing Disciple of the vault. Ravager channels your board position into damage based tempo. Assuming you don’t need your permanents after you’ve won, ravager make the most of your board by efficiently sacrificing into stronger board positions than any normal deck has the right to boast. The card should have cost 4-5 mana for what it does.
The stack tricks with this card can be as basic as sacking to live through a bolt, to sacking out for disciple triggers and putting modular on an unblocked creature, or even much more complex tricks on the stack. He gives the deck versatility. Ravager allows you to overcome a great deal of control elements in the game, negating the effectiveness of removal and blocking, while simultaneously creating a huge threat on the board. I would compare this card to Morphling (a card which I know well in MUC) in terms of its utility and power-levels.
Frogmite—Bread’n’Butter. You never play this for 4. Usually he drops for free, but once in a while you’ll pay the 1 or 2 to put him into play. 0-2 payed cost for a 2/2 Artifact creature with a very high actual CC is excellent (CC-based removal have difficulty with him). Frogmite is to your 2nd turn as what Arcbound Worker is to your 1st turn. This is a solid play, and it is part of bricks and mortar that binds this deck together in synergy.
Myr Enforcer—He is a fattie in Legacy and an aggro-control slayer. He is a clock, and he becomes castable generally on 3rd turn. He is a threat that the opponent cannot ignore. Myr Enforcer is to the 3rd turn as what Frogmite is to the 2nd turn. Enforcer comes into play earlier than a 4/4 creature should, and this is exactly the sort of tempo advantage that an aggro deck seeks.
I am amazed at the number of people that opt not to run him. He is an awesome drop 3rd turn or 10th turn, and multiples are certainly a good thing. When you find yourself in board positions that do not seek to sac out to ravager, Enforcer is the largest and often most relevant creature on the board. Enforcer can be seen as a stabilizing aggro card in this deck, allowing affinity to reach critical mass.
Enforcer does require a high artifact count in play, but this doesn’t make him not worth running. Just look at the efficiency of this card:
7 artifacts- 0cc for 4/4 artifact creature
6 artifacts- 1cc for 4/4 artifact creature
5 artifacts- 2cc for 4/4 artifact creature
4 artifacts- 3cc for 4/4 artifact creature
3 artifacts- unplayable.
At any point you would cast this card, he is mana-efficient. A turn 2, 3, or 4 enforcer will often win games. Think of Enforcer as being similar to Arrogant Wurm in UG madness, only better.
Ornithopter—Sometimes an underestimated card. 0/2 for free not only gives you early game artifact-factor, but it gives you something even more important: evasion. Ornithopter is damage over the top, and affinity desperately needs good ways to maximally abuse modular and cranial plating. This creature will win you countless games that non-evasion non-artifact creatures could not.
Aether Vial—Probably one of the strongest 1cc cards in all of Legacy, and affinity can abuse this card better than most. I’d call this the best 1st turn play in affinity. Paradise mantle is a joke compared to this card. Aether vial is a true tempo card (as demonstrated in several decks), it offers:
Uncounterable creatures
Mana Color Smoothing (no black/red mana available? Vial doesn’t care)
Mana Acceleration (each use beyond the first is all gravy)
Playing Creatures as instants (most importantly Disciple/Ravager tricks)
It is an artifact…and a first turn play at that.
Remains relevant from start to finish.
Thoughtcast—Card advantage, straight up 2 for 1, usually for 1 mana. This is 2/3’s of an Ancestral recall at sorcery speed. It remains in the top 3 card drawers in Legacy (at its affinity-based cost) as it doubles the efficiency of the 1 mana for 1 card draw ratio. While this isn’t a cantrip, primarily because it is played after turn 1 (usually around turn 3), it is extremely undercosted card advantage. Several people do not advocate the card, and I cannot stress enough: learn to trust your card advantage. Too many people don’t see the relevance of drawing in affinity.
It is easy to see where you don’t like Thoughtcast. The color and affinity factor are definitely constraints on its playability. And, you may even say, why waste the slot when I would rather have a threat in my hand than a thoughtcast? The difference is that Thoughtcast allows you to run only the most relevant threats, increasing your average card relevance like a cantrip, while also giving you a much stronger mid-late game because of card advantage. It is both card quality and card advantage. Thoughtcast is very similar to Ringleader in Goblins.
Card advantage is not mere card advantage in affinity either. Card advantage in affinity often translates into immediate tempo advantage as well. While other decks might be tapping out or expending very important resources to even draw cards, affinity can pay one mana, and in most cases will still have resources left to play what it drew. For example, drawing an enforcer and a land off a thoughtcast and playing them that turn has immediate effects. Most other decks will not experience tempo advantage in the same turn that they gained true card advantage. Affinity gets the best of both worlds with Thoughtcast.
This card is so powerful that it alone makes blue the most relevant color to have on the table in affinity (although black comes in a close second). If I drop a first turn land (assuming I might lose it), and if I have a choice, it will never be a blue producer. Resolving thoughtcast is that important.
Cranial Plating—The “other ravager”. While it can be mana intensive, this card wins games. Like the ravager, it turns each artifact on the table into 1 damage. Unlike the ravager, you don’t have to lose your permanents to reap the benefits. This card is so central to the aggro theme that it is an auto-4-of.
Cranial plays a similar role to Atog in that the equipped creature is a definite threat, one that often functions as a bluff-card or forces your opponent into less preferred positions. You will often equip your weakest creature (Arcbound Worker/Ornithotper), forcing your opponent to pin-point control the least of your creatures, while other cards like Frogmite and Enforcer swing through. And, like Atog, a single connect from an equipped creature might be the end of your opponent.
Additionally, cranial can play as a defensive card, making your blocker of choice lethal. This is a versatile card.
The instant equip is often overlooked by an opponent. It can switch to unblocked creatures before damage is on the stack, and that gives you an upperhand. Double black can be difficult to come by, however, Chromatic Star and Glimmervoid greatly aid you in reaching this color requirement.
Shrapnel Blast—Good affinity players know that this is not card disadvantage in a relevant sense. It is mana-efficient, niche-filling, and extremely aggressive. Generally, this card is used as a late-game finisher, but it performs finely as removal (taking out damn near anything).
To understand this card better, let us look at the mana and efficiency:
1R + Permanent= 5 damage
You spend two cards to get that effect. That is equivalent to something like adding these two together:
Lightning Bolt for 3 (R + Card cost of Shrapnel itself)
1 + Permanent for 2
Lightning Bolt is already good. But let us evaluate the last factor.
1 + Permanent for 2 could be compared to Shock. You spend 1 card and 1 mana and you get 2 damage. The difference is that this is colorless mana (and that is very relevant to a deck that can barely manage double color). Otherwise, it would look like RR for Shrapnel. A colorless shock is already very good. But, I think this card is even better.
When you use shrapnel you will generally choose the least relevant artifact on the board. How much is that artifact worth to you? That 5th land might be a dead card to you, right? That creature that is taking lethal damage on the stack might be irrelevant to you, right? The 3rd Aether vial could be useless. When you choose to sacrifice irrelevant cards, you are technically not even spending a full card. Or, the better way to phrase it would be: shrapnel’s colorless cost effect increases the relevance of the least useful artifact you control to become as good as a colorless shock. This is very, very good. It increases your overall deck’s average card relevance.
Beyond the general increase to card relevance and super mana efficiency, Shrapnel is to be seen as a true finishing card. 5 damage on the stack is 1/4th of an opponent’s starting life total. This card forces through lethal damage. Often, sandbagging a Shrapnel blast or two can be very powerful. An opponent will often underestimate the value of the cards in your hands, and will misplay without realizing you hold a lethal set of damage in hand.
Chromatic Star—1cc artifact factor with mana smoothing and triggered card draw (definitely an upgrade to sphere, except against leyline) is excellent. The ability to use it as artifact-factor and sac it later without activating for draw makes it a 1 colorless for 1 card (which is excellent). Add in the ability to smooth the mana curve, and you have a very powerful artifact. It can do some tricks, including announce thoughtcast->sac for blue, and even blind digging for the spell you need. Like thoughtcast, this is a relatively efficient card drawer that fills in the niches. Glimmervoids and Chromatic Stars are aiming to do the same thing in the end (although, they have different secondary characteristics), and star is a solid choice. In affinity decks with lower colored spell counts, this is a stronger card than glimmervoid, and the opposite for affinity decks with higher colored spell counts (12+).
This card shines against things like Blood moon and LD. I also love having another 1cc artifact to play first turn. But, do not be deceived: this card is not another land. It functions as a resource transforming device and artifact factor exclusively. Running 16 lands and 4 stars is suboptimal. Affinity decks should be running both Star and Glimmervoid.
Land– The landbase is often misunderstood. The artifact lands in particular are fundamental to the deck’s construction. You can run no less than 12 artifact-type lands (preferably 15-16 including man-lands).
What is an artifact land to Affinity?
-1CC of up to 12 cards or a -0.2 shift in the average CC of the deck (this is tempo)
+1/+1 Counter
1-4 Disciple Triggers
1-4 +1/+0 Cranial Plating
A very strong late-game target for the additional cost of Shrapnel blast.
People who play affinity with the mindset of running the fewest possible lands with the most spells possible are missing the point. The artifact lands might be subtle, but they are extremely powerful in this deck. So, while you can certainly win games with only 1 or 2 land in play, you will often fail to recognize what those 1-2 lands really did for you during the game. The best part about land in this deck is that land is never a dead draw. Land can always be put to use beyond mana production. This means that affinity, just in virtue of its land, has a higher average card relevance than would be initially expected. Don’t be afraid to run 19-20 lands in this deck.
Seat of the Synod, Vault of Whispers, Great Furnace—These are the holy trinity of affinity. They make the deck work. Darksteel Citadel and activated-artifact lands (Blinkmoth Nexus) are also useful in this calculation, but only the trinity is a guaranteed in every affinity deck.
Blinkmoth Nexus—An underused card. I can’t see an affinity deck playing less than 2 of these. Like ornithopter, nexus offers us important evasion. The activated abilities offer several combat tricks as well. It is important to note that Nexus is actually fairly difficult to remove, can keep counters on it even after losing its manhood end step, and was free to play (costs only a land drop). Additionally, nexus can be activated to increase artifact-factor.
Glimmervoid—Like the nexus, an underused card in affinity. Affinity, problematically, can be color-starved. While Aether Vial curbs the mana color inconsistencies to some degree, affinity is still reliant upon other chromatic mana producers.
You don’t want to be sitting on Disciple, Atog, Shrapnel, Thoughtcast, and instant equip Cranials because you don’t have the color available. In fact, without a proper mana-base to produce the rainbow, you actually decrease average card relevance in this deck. It is absolutely essential that affinity has the ability to use every single component of its hand as soon as possible.
The arguments against Glimmervoid would be that it has a condition to keep in play, it isn’t an artifact, and wasteland eats it. However, even with these negatives, the need to smooth your mana color curve is so great that Glimmervoid is still a worthy pick.
Glimmervoid smoothes your mana color curve very effectively and it can be used several times (unlike Chromatic Star). 1/5th of your deck is going to be colored spells, and you can’t count on having a Chromatic Star everytime you need one, but you can almost always guarantee that you’ll have an artifact in play. Additionally, it costs almost nothing to put Glimmervoid into play, unlike the star, and that means you can be using that mana to cast game winning spells. This is a minimum 2 in affinity, and 3 if you run something like Naturalize in the side.
The other staples:
These remain somewhat interchangeable with other components of the basic shell.
Darksteel Citadel—Depending on the metagame, this can be a solid choice. In a vacuum, this card is subpar. It would definitely be quite possible to see 3 of these in affinity given the right metagame.
Atog—The other, other ravager. +2/+2 per artifact makes him the fastest clock available, but at a huge risk. Often times, this card is a bluff card. People are forced to block him, while your other creatures do the business. Atog becomes better and better against decks with less and less creature removal. Because of the ability to use instant removal in response to pumping, the more removal in the game, the weaker this cards becomes. It is a severe let-down to sac out 3rd or 4th turn for a lethal atog, only to eat a bounce or StP before damage goes on the stack. You need to be very careful how you use this card, and you should be careful in what metagame you run him. If you don’t mainboard him, he is definitely a strong sideboard choice. 3 is the max in this deck.
Other Card Considerations:
Fling vs. Shrapnel—Fling is an interesting card. While shrapnel blast converts your least relevant artifact on the board to deal 5 damage, Fling has the problem often doing the opposite, and usually sacrifices one of your more relevant artifacts on the board. Fling can function like ravager/disciple at the end of the game, acting as another disciple. In so many cases, Fling is forcing you to lose your aggro-advantage on the board, and is thus strictly a finishing card. Shrapnel is much more versatile.
In my experience, flingm like Berserk, has been a win-more card rather than a card that will win you games you normally wouldn’t win. Usually, when I am in positions in which I have flingable creatures, where fling is going to be much larger than shrapnel as well, I’m already winning, and I would possibly be put in a losing position to even use the card. Shrapnel can be used in much different situations and its costs are much, much lower.
This is a fun card, but it is very suboptimal.
Dark Confidant—definitely a favorite of mine, but not in affinity. The card may be overhyped to some extent, not because it isn’t amazing, but more because it requires the right deck to work. Building a deck that abuses this card correctly is difficult. Dark confidant is really not a win-now type card, it does best in a deck that can abuse a one-sided howling mine. Affinity, which is a win-now deck (aggro-combo), is not a deck that should be running Bob. Affinity does not want the game to last long enough to make a real use of this card. Confidant, in my mind, has competed with 3 different slots in this deck: Myr Enforcer, Thoughtcast, and the possible Atog.
Beyond the lifeloss from a technically high CC curve, the fundament problem with Dark Confidant is a.) he is subject to removal and b.) he takes up the fundamental turn 2 (2 mana) slot. Affinity wants to be dropping its major aggro pieces turns 1, 2, and 3, not confidant. Confidants not kept in check can certainly give affinity a better late game, however, removal is a major aspect of the metagame, and affinity could have been using that mana to have just won now instead of later.
As much as I value card advantage, confidant is a liability and usually a loss in tempo for all too often minimal card advantage. Confidant’s advantage requires 2 turns. It will be, bare minimum, turn 4 before you netted card advantage. Compare this to Thoughtcast which can play for 1 mana on turn 3 (possible turn 2). Thoughtcast refills your hand when you need to refill and keep steamrolling (as you’ll have 1 more mana to work with, which is a major concern in the first 4 turns).
Myr Enforcer is a pure aggro card that comes down nearly the same turn confidant does on average (considering the color cost). 2/3-4/4 PT difference (depending on whether confidant can even swing or whether control would knock it out) on the board at any point in the game makes enforcer a stronger choice. Again, this is an aggro deck that should be forming aggressive board positions. Affinity is an instant gratification deck, and it cannot afford to let the opponent live even a few more turns.
Confidant may also compete with atog for slots. Atog, like enforcer, fills the role of creating an immediate board threat. Deal with it or die. Confidant cannot do this.
Somber/Cloud of Faeires—Non-artifact creatures that cost mana to get into play (even cloud requires it, so you can’t always just drop it off a thoughtcast). Thopter and Nexus are free, and they are artifact. No questions here.
Paradise Mantle—What about this card is aggressive? Oh well, a free artifact is nice. You have limited slots, and Glimmervoid and Star fulfill this role much better.
Umezawa’s Jitte— Affinity has much better things to do with its mana, and the deck should be winning before Jitte becomes relevant enough to matter.
Chrome Mox—Bleh. I love fast mana and free artifacts. You’d initially think this is a shoe in for affinity. Play a few hundred games with and without this card, and you’ll see why affinity shouldn’t run it. The 1st turn tempo gain is not worth the 2nd turn (and beyond) tempo losses incurred by both card disadvantage and poor topdecks. Remember: Card advantage in this deck translates into immediate tempo advantage in most cases. Card disadvantage is essentially tempo disadvantage for this deck, and Chrome mox has a snowball effect in the losses it creates.
Essentially, affinity plays very well with very little mana. I’d argue that it is the least mana intensive deck in the format. It can accept mana losses rivaled only by Goblins. Tempo–using cards in your hand before you intially should be able to use them. If it cost 5 mana to cast something, and you cast it with only 4 land or less (or even no mana used), then you used some form of tempo-enhancement to play that spell—affinity does this sort of thing all the time. Resource trades (CA for Mana) aren’t necessary for affinity to maintain a high tempo. You don’t need tMox or Petal to accelerate your way into massive early threats, the mechanics of the deck allows you to do this already
As for sideboarding, I’m not in a position to say what each persons metagame looks like. Please consider the following:
CotV
Therapy
Engineered Plague
Tormod’s Crypt
Pithing Needle
Winter Orb
Sphere of Resistance
Atog
Mana Leak
Naturalize/Disenchant
Affinity is an odd deck. Half the magic players I know hate the deck (they remember its domination in T2). Why? Not only does it do unfair things (and it still can), but it appears that affinity can win without skill. For those who still believe this, you are correct if you are referring to how good this deck was back when it was T2 Legal. When it was originally created, a newbie or a pro could pick the deck up and destroy half the field with it. Legacy, however, is different.
The deck can be complicated to play, and the correct line of play is not as obvious as it would seem. Affinity is constantly evaluating the board position, its manabase, and card quality like a combo deck. However, instead of doing everything in one turn like many combo decks, affinity is forced to think over several turns. Good players do think several turns ahead, and combo decks, by nature, are constantly thinking: what card do I need to complete the hand to win? Affinity, however, often requires even more thought than that. Due to the decks power and versatility, there is a larger quantity of hand and board positions to be evaluated as it works over several turns. Affinity has to consider less redundant hands and board positions more often than most other decks I’ve seen in Legacy, and it is here that the pro is separated from the less experienced. When you run into new situations, being able to calculate what is best (rather than working from wrote memory) is invaluable, and affinity will often require such experience and skill. So, while you can definitely win with affinity without a great deal of skill, there are many, many circumstances in which a good deal of skill and experience is required to calculate the correct line of play. For affinity to be competitive in Legacy, it does need to be piloted a fairly skilled player.
Overall, a skilled player can feel comfortable playing this deck against any deck in the format with the exception of combo. In what is largely a creature based format, affinity is explosive, powerful, and yet versatile enough to have a way to win if you can find it.
I haven’t written anything of consequence in a while. I decided I’d make myself useful and write an update. Let’s see…/activate stream of cons…Oh wait, err../activate poorly organized non-transition-based chaotic writing created by the postmoderns…GO! Zerg! Go!
The pregnancy is a bit rougher this time. k0sh3k has been sick 24/7, but (luckily) she has not thrown-up too much. Everyone says that this is a sign/omen that we are having a boy. I don’t know. I do know that k0sh3k’s migraines have subsided for now, and this is an answer to prayer (perhaps indirectly–again, I don’t know). Additional ailments include (watch my SP?) varicose veins, a hyperextended knee (or feeling thereof), a larger set of pains due to her ligaments stretching more rapidly, spotting, heightened sensitivity (and she is even more ticklish), soreness (weight translated from one spot to another on her body, makes the back carry weight differently), lowered bladder and stomach volume (eat/go more often).
As a sidenote, the heightened sensitivity seems like something that is a human adaptation, giving mothers more information to help keep them out of danger. But, it can be overwhelming for her.
Of course, many of these are to be expected. Some of them are exhibited more intensely during this pregnancy than the last. The doctors will always say “every pregnancy is different”. And, I certainly want to be reasonable and stay away from superstition. But, I must admit, this pregnancy has been much harder on k0sh3k. I do my best to help make sure she is comfortable.
We know it will be worth it.
Additionally, we find out the gender in a few weeks (another Ultrasound, woot!). If it is a boy, then we will name him 1uxb0x M. If it is a girl, then we will name her either a.) Elia Mariah-Abigail (perhaps not hyphenated), or b.) Mariah Elia-Abigail (ditto). 1uxb0x was easy to choose (we chose it a long time ago), but the girl’s name has been a struggle. I’ll admit it is very difficult to match the oomph and dignity of j3d1h S. In any case, if it is a daughter, her name will mean: My father rejoices in a sea of bitterness because my God is Yahweh. That name owns. It reminds me that my children don’t belong to me–and that sucks. How could I possibly want my kids to live in the agony of being a true Chosen Christian? Argghh. I mean, we know we should raise them to sacrifice themselves–but why should I sacrifice my children. Blast you Abraham!@!! This is your fault. I officially am (Infinite-Splitatives ftw) angry at that man (even if *is* awesome).
Which reminds me, why do people always go for Moses and David in the OT? Abraham and Elijah were the bomb. David and St. Peter are similar characters. They are retarded, but God loves them anyway (something we all aspire to achieve). There is a natural literary Charisma in which those characters pop off the page, and people want to be them. Moses and David screwed up too much to be admired. We recognize we are closer in character to Moses and David, but we wish we were closer in character to Eli and Abram. Yeah, Hardcore–like JB (John “teh” Baptist). In the end, Eli and Abram are better and even cooler Biblical character.
Speaking of temperature, it is breaking 100 degrees out here. I’m frying. I’m not going to like that aspect of Thailand. The heat was good in a suit…for my (drum roll please) interview. It was a 2-hour interview for the position of “Strategic Communication Quality Analyst”. I doubt I got the job, but it would be awesome if I did.
We’ve been applying for jobs like crazy. I want out of this one. We need enough money to actually get to Thailand (the logistics of this sort of thing are fairly complex and expensive). For now, to use my dad’s phrase, we are “spinning our wheels” and getting nowhere. It is unfortunate that we are forced into a position in which k0sh3k will have to get a job and j3d1h will goto daycare in order for us to get to Thailand. But, we believe that it will be worth it in the end. It isn’t like we have it bad at all. My parents have given so generous to us that it has afforded us the ability to raise our child in a better fashion than others. I kinda envy my kids (only kinda–I know better than that…who would want ME to be their dad?)…going off to a foreign land, having the best education possible (homeschooling), doing stuff that people only dream of doing, and hell…doing what The Master (henceforth, I will [attempt to] refrain from using the archaic and misunderstood term: “Lord” and just call it what it is: Absolute Master) requires.
This reminds me (/rant on)…our church is insane. How do we get away with not looking at God as Master? These people want (oh. my. gosh. …it is so true) Dogma’s Buddy Jesus. This kind, nice…egalitarian guy who will allow us to justify our actions in a sea of relativism. Yes–we call this Blasphemy. Blatant Blasphemy! Here, let me break God down for you:
1.) Master of the Universe (of all Existence)
2.) ….Did you read 1.)????? What other adjectives and titles do you need to put the proper amount of fear in your mind?
Good grief.
Teacher:Student::Master:???? Take a guess what else exists if a master exists?
Slaves
Isn’t obvious that we are called to be slaves? How do we not get this? Oh, I know…slave sounds too…overpowering and overwhelming. It would be like we don’t have a right to choose our own destiny. There is no gray area. There is no middle ground. You can’t be free and be a slave at the same time. You are all in or all out. Don’t let the relativists fool you. To be a Christian is to be a slave.
We are slaves to the pursuit of that which is most valuable–We are slaves to God. Accept it. The moment you ask for your freedom back is the moment you have overstepped the bounds, you have sinned against God. You are only temporarily given the right to yourself…only so that you can give it back. The only thing I want to hear out of our mouths is: “Here I am, Master”.
(How ironic that “I am” would be used. “Here” makes us small though. Fair enough.)
But, no–Half-breed Christians have chosen to hide the truth. They blaspheme and corrupt. They teach that there is a gray area. They teach that you should pursue happiness and comfort. They teach equality and “human rights”. They teach meaningless secularized ideas that have twisted the remnants of forgotten commandments and fundamental principles of Slavery to God. Self-ownership and free will are illusions to the virtuous Christian. Yes, we have it as a gift and a miracle. But, these are mercy gifts–UNDUE gifts. The recognition of the gift requires that we give such a thing back to God. We are borrowers, caretakers, and stewards of such a gift–but we are not heirs and rightful owners. Half-breeds Christians cannot accept this fact. Their twisted theology is arrogant, self-seeking, and the end to the only correct belief-system which once existed. We are given the gift of Freedom and self-ownership only so that we may recognize that it is undue and USE this gift to give it back to God as a sacrifice. The Imago Dei is the greatest of the spiritual gifts and the second greatest is the forgiveness for our misuse of the former.
God has given us the Image, an undue gift. The gift is extraordinary. It is that which separates us from all other things in the universe. The gift obviously includes the ability to recognize it and the ability to give it back. That is our duty, and it is the greatest thing we can do. As God is the highest pursuit, as the Master TRULY is the most valuable thing to pursue, we receive the duty to volunteer ourselves back into slavery.
I think it is funny that we have been conditioned to use mild, inoffensive, and minimalist language in regards to something that is SO important. Service/Servant. Ha. Slaves and Slavery are the only mindset. All others are false. These people will die as blasphemers.
I amazed by the people who are blind to the true struggle. How could they miss this? If you don’t have something slave-worthy and death-worthy to pursue, then why do you even have a life at all?
The virtuous person will not live a fun or pleasant life. Fun and pleasure are not ‘the good’. While the virtuous person will live ‘the good life’, we must redefine our thoughts as to what ‘the good life’ means.
I tell you what, do an exercise for me. I dare you to write down the top 5 most Virtuous people in history. Seriously, Do it. What about these people are virtuous? Now, look at the lives of these people. Were they happy people? Did they live a fun, comfortable life? Here is the kicker: If you really think that these people are virtuous, then you should be leading lives like these people. If you actually lived virtuously, would your life be pleasurable? Would you pursue pleasure, happiness, or comfort? No. Joy is a very misunderstood concept in the post-modern “church”.
It has taken many years to realize it, but I am a prophet. No, not Elijah. Hell, I’m nothing compared to what is in the Bible. But, I am a truthsayer. I have been given the tools to think and the heart to say the truth. I am meant to say what must be said. I originally laughed at the idea. Who am I to know the truth or tell people it? There isn’t a question about it. Look at the tools God has given me. I could have been a prodigy in any subject, but God has led me to a very specific path. Everything has converged upon this (somewhat daunting and unpleasant) truth: I am designed to learn and teach the Will of God. Of course, I would say that EVERYONE is designed to learn and teach the Will of God in virtue of the Imago Dei. But, I mean it in a stronger sense for myself. This is a vocation and purpose to fulfill. Janitors should learn, follow, and teach the Will of God as well…but they are still Janitors.
Everyday and in everything I do, I see God in the shadows, in the systems, and in the numbers. I see where we are going and why. I am supernaturally gifted for a specific purpose. k0sh3k would say this is a messiah complex (although, she doesn’t think I have one…). Perhaps this isn’t far from the truth. Anyone with a specific purpose should act as a messiah in that specific circumstance–after all, it was the Master who sent YOU to do that specific task. No one else should be living your life and fulfilling your purpose but you (here is where I can agree with “individuality”). Essentially, I see what others do not, and I have long had the intuitive premonition that I am destined to try and use reason and minds to prepare people for becoming Slaves to the Master.
Now that I know my role, I must find my audience (1 or more people) and prepare the message. Perhaps I am called to teach a specific Janitor or maybe a group of Janitors? I am not a very good speaker. But, when the time comes, I will speak well. Although, maybe my audience will be resistant to listening or they might not even listen at all–Food for thought. Manipulation. That is the word of the day. It requires more thought. Also, What medium of communication will be used?
Speaking of Slaves, k0sh3k and I stumbled upon a Bible passage (Exo 21) that we’ve recently seen in a very different light. At first glance, if one interprets literally, there isn’t much to see. It is just a basic law for an old economic/social system. However, after researching it further, and in light of the discussion, the passage becomes so much more relevant.
I’ve pretty much already prefaced this with my respect for the term Slave. With the new concept of our purpose of existence as voluntary slavery, we should have a better look into the meaning and use of slavery found in the Bible. “Servant” is misunderstood. The role of the Slave is a calling for us all. This passage has something to say about a spiritual choice, a choice to become slaves. The interesting part of the Exodus 21 passage is that it is a slave who chooses to stay WITH his master as a matter of choice. This is profoundly parallel to the Chosen’s choice.
I am considering getting an Awl myself. Physical manifestations of your faith are both daily reminders and outward expressions of your slavery. These are good things. Nothing beats getting up in the morning to be reminded: “hey, you are a chosen voluntary slave…now get to work!” And, more importantly, revealing your slavery to the community is essential. You lack identity without others acknowledging what you are and what you’ve chosen.
I haven’t written in quite some time. I’ve enjoyed reading what other people have written, and I’ve definitely had lots to say, but I’ve not written anything of consequence for myself. I didn’t feel like writing–I have no idea why.
Updates across the board:
1.) k0sh3k is doing well. She is much, much bigger than she was at this stage in the pregnancy with j3d1h. In fact, so much of this pregnancy has come earlier than the previous that I’m inclined to think that [redacted] could be born earlier than the doctors suspect. k0sh3k thinks this could be true. In any case, k0sh3k is handling this pregnancy like a trooper. The acid reflux (which as been absolutely terrible), throwing up, constant nausea, awkward mobility, muscle and back soreness and spasms, and dealing with a 2-year old while running the house…I’m surprised she has such a good attitude. I know I wouldn’t be able to contain my…”joy”…if I were in her shoes. k0sh3k is amazing. Plus, she is so cute when she is pregnant–everything in you just wants to reach out touch that round belly.
2.) j3d1h is growing up fast. Bless her heart, she is just like her daddy. Strong willed, smart in surprising ways (it is fascinating to see how she develops an understanding of the world…like, how does she know that a pitbull is a dog and so is a golden retriever…they look nothing alike), the child keeps us on our toes. Her intelligence is matched only be her will–and both grow daily (I wish I could grow like that). Half of parenthood is simply a battle of wills. I keep reminding myself that good discipline now will pay off in the long run. I want to give her what she wants (it is definitely easier in the moment and more enjoyable for me), but that wouldn’t be wise. I think we’ve been good about it though. So, if she throws a fit, then she gets one of 3 reactions (in order): verbal warning, time-out in her room (she hates it), a smack on the leg and then time-out. She is never in any real pain, but she is clearly aware of our disapproval (and that hurts her feelings…as it should). The weird part is that in public, that kid is an angel. Seriously, I have no idea–I always considered a store or public place to be a tempting place to act up. Not for her though…her disobedience is only found at home.
One of our current issues is eating what we give her. She wants crackers, or something sweet…or even the food on our plate. She needs to eat her food, and so we train her to do it. If she doesn’t eat her food for lunch, she gets it for dinner, and so on and so forth, until she eats her food-there are no snacks or exceptions. But, believe me…I want to give the kid some ice cream…kids deserve stuff like that. Desert and Dessert, these children are just plain better than we are…scale what they’ve been given with what they accomplish, and in fairness, they are proportionately better people than adults. I don’t mean that we should spoil children…what I mean is: how could I possibly be the steward and model for someone that is doing better than I am? I am completely out of my league.
She isn’t an angel though. She has free will and she does wrong. She does wrong boldly. I admit, it is difficult to discipline a child when you admire some of the qualities that lead to their disobedience. Disciplining a child means dealing with the qualities that lead to that disobedience, and I rather like some of her…pizzazz. Of course, there is a difference between respectfully disagreeing and flat out disobeying. I want my child to obey, but I definitely want her to have the mind to disagree when appropriate (because, face it, I’m going to be wrong once in a while). This is a fine line to walk. In a world that is increasingly individualistic, I must create a child that knows her identity before she gets into the world. She must be independant of the world enough to condemn it and not be swallowed into secularity, but conditioned and restrained enough to know she is a sinner and a peon before God. Now, more than ever, is the time for us to stabilize our identity. She must be chained to her rationality and faith so that she can independantly influence the world to pursue God’s Will.
Going to Thailand is a good step towards helping my children to know they are different and to accept their independance from the world. There, I assume, they will be faced daily with the fact they are called to live beyond survivalism and pleasure-seeking. If we are extreme believers, then we better act like it.
All too often, I feel like the blind leading the blind.
3.) 1uxb0x is kicking. He can hear and tell the difference between light and dark. He might even have an IQ at this point. I don’t know what he looks like, but I’m sure he looks like a purple alien. Go alien, go! I am happy that he kicks.
4.) Church sucks. Seriously. We do Sunday school, volunteer work, tithe, but…skip as much Sunday morning service as possible. I can’t stand any church I walk into–they aren’t churches! The services are an even uglier reminder of it…I miss good services–alot. In fact, I miss the feeling that there were good churches where I live. Cynicism has opened my eyes to truth. It isn’t that “we all have problems”…the so called ‘churches’ aren’t even real Churches. They are half-breeds. I’ve said this for a while, I’ve considered for a long time, and I still have a hard time swallowing it. I know they are useless to God. As a PK (who is exceptionally cynical), my rule of thumb is about 1 in 100 people IN the pews are actually chosen. The rest are garbage. I feel like I’m becoming garbage just from being around them.
I don’t know how I could do this without k0sh3k. She is my spiritual partner and my accountabilibuddy. She is my best friend and she challenges me. It is such a blessing to live with another true Christian. I feel like our family is a lone-island of Chosenness in a sea of lukewarm. I’m seriously considering just holding our own services.
Finding other true believers is harder than you think. Thailand is more likely to have true believers per “Christian capita”, even though they are few and new. I am glad we are coming to convert, cultivate, and serve.
5.) Me. I’m doing good. I’m playing WoW. I’m enjoying my job. I like the flexibility and the brain-power I use. My life is never boring.
6.) Stephen Colbert is running for President in South Carolina (his homestate) as “favorite son”. I’d vote for him.
k0sh3k came and woke me up at about 5 A.M. this Monday and said that she needed help because she was passing out. This, of course, got my attention. I helped k0sh3k to the couch as she explained the problem. k0sh3k had been throwing up all night and was very dehydrated. When I saw her in the light I could see that she was struggling to stay conscious (she was going in and out), and it was then that I became fairly terrified. I’m surprised she even had the energy to come and get me in the first place. k0sh3k couldn’t see or talk straight, and so I tried feeding her a banana popsicle (she can usually keep those down) as I called her OBGYN to see if there was any immediate thing I needed to do before we went to the hospital. The OB told me to stop what I was doing and take her straight to the ER. I packed k0sh3k and j3d1h in the car as I called Flint and Kathy because I didn’t know what we’d be up against. Seeing your pregnant wife’s eye’s roll back into her head (and not just a normal roll because I’ve said something stupid) is a very scary sight.
We got k0sh3k to the hospital and in the ER in record time. It was difficult to juggle a sleepy j3d1h while walking k0sh3k inside the hospital. I went into the entrance and ask for help. k0sh3k was plopped into a wheelchair and taken straight to the ER as I explain she had been throwing up and was dehyrated to the point of a.) losing her vision, b.) confusion and babbling, and c.) going in and out of consciousness. Because she is 7 months pregnant and there weren’t too many people in the ER, they took her straight back without triage. At this point, I was asked to move my car out of the no-car/parking zone. I restrapped j3d1h back in the car, parked it, pulled her out, and ran back to see what they’ve done for my wife. Not so fast, I have to get the paper work done *sigh. I do the paperwork and Kathy arrives. We find my wife being pumped with fluids, having blood drawn, and being asked questions. I become relaxed though as I see she is fully conscious and has her vision back. We were out of the danger zone– I <3 Saline Solution.
Kathy stayed as until we felt k0sh3k had stabilized enough. Throwing up “red” bile did concern me, but other than that, k0sh3k seemed to be recovering very well. They did an EKG and hooked her up to a bunch of machines and she turned out all right. The baby was fine…still kicking too. We thanked Kathy for coming and said we didn’t need her to take j3d1h or anything else. I feel bad for calling them when everything went so well at the hospital, but I couldn’t have known how things would go.
I made the round of calls on the cell phones. A few hours later Grandma and grandpa M came, but they weren’t allowed back to see k0sh3k (according to the nurse). They took j3d1h, and I’m glad they did because I wasn’t expecting to stay in the ER for as long as we did. Generally, we are only in the actual ER for only two or so hours, but this had already been 4 hours, and we clearly had a long day ahead of us.
At about 2 P.M. I felt my exhaustion. I had been very sick all weekend too and I was just recovering. I was tired and hungry. Since k0sh3k was fine (just being pumped with fluids and monitored), I felt it was okay to get something to eat. I had brought both cells, so I gave k0sh3k her phone (so she could call me if she needed) and got a Pizza from across the street. This is usually a weird thing to do when you wife is still in the ER, but I had only eaten one meal since Friday and I needed some energy. Cell phones are great.
k0sh3k layed in nausea on that hard bed for 12 hours as the machine pumped fluid into her. Eventually, they found the right anti-nausea medicine that would actually work and k0sh3k was able to hold down a few ounces of Sprite. This was the ‘good sign’. k0sh3k and I were happy to go home.
It has been tons of Gatorade (the blue ice stuff is pretty good), prescription anti-nausea medication, and baby-steps of food for k0sh3k. I think she even had oatmeal this morning.
One of the most elusive words today is the concept of relevance. What is relevance?
A dictionary says: the relation of something to the matter at hand.
This is fairly broad, fairly odd, but you can see that the dictionary’s definition is at least getting where we want to be going. However, the existence of a relationship between two things is not enough. Relevance is not just any old relationship, relevance must be more. It must be a specific measurement or degree of a specific relation.
As usual, I like to look at the synonyms of words to get a better feeling for what it is and is not. Context becomes fairly important. And, it could be the case that synonyms shows paths of relevance of a word. (Yes, the word “relevance” gets me giddy).
Synonyms include: applicability, cogency, connectedness, connection, connexion, materiality, pertinence, pertinency, point, reference to, regard to, relation to, respect to.
Further inquiries into these synonyms results in circular definitions all pointing towards relevance and relation (whether concerned with ‘practical’ application or semantical connection). We’ll just say that the world in general “thinks” they know what is meant by relevance, even if they can’t define it.
Don’t worry, even the elite are confused.
For example, many philosophers and word scientists have suggested that it is a relation such as: q is relevant to p if q is implied by p. Logical implication still may not draw out the *ahem* relevant characteristic of relevance. There are problems with such a theory. For example, while [”Circles are round”] may be eventually logically implied by [”Cats are mammals”] in the long chain of deductions that we call the “conjunction of truths”, the logical implication, however “close” the relation, simply does not seem actually relevant. Relevance just isn’t captured by logical implication, it misses the point. The philosophers, who turn to man-made language, predicate logic, etc, to solve their problem, will not find solace in such a definition.
It was a nice try, but like the dictionary’s argument, it does not reveal the form of relevance. Perhaps, *cough, their definitions are not as relevant to the discussion of the meaning of “relevance” as these sources would hope. The missing piece to the logic puzzle is simple and elegant–maybe even too obvious.
Relevance is about importance–relevance is about value. Relevance is a value calculation. Let us see why.
First, I commend the sources of truthiness for pointing out a very relevant characteristic of relevance. The most concrete thing we can understand about relevance is that–
Relevance calculate a relations of two variables:
1.) The matter/object at hand (often misidentified and more complex that initially conceived).
2.) The relevant object (”").
There is only one specific type of relation (of the many that can exist between two objects) that we can call relevance. It is a value-linking relation, one of value-contributor and value-receiver or sum, that enables “relevance” to have any meaning at all. Relevance is a scaling term. Some things are more relevant than others to a matter/object at hand. To the degree that an object is necessary, fundamental and important to the matter or object at hand is the degree of its relevance. Explicitly:
Relevance is the value of the relevant object as related to the object at hand (not necessarily perceived by, rather actually contributed to ‘the object at hand’)
When I ask, “what is relevant?”, I am actually asking, “What things have value?” Relevance cannot be understood outside a value-system. Relevance is more than a causal relation or logical implication. Relevance is meaningless outside of value. How an object contributes value to another is the calculable relevance of the contributing object to the object at hand. Let us go through a series of relevance questions to better understand it.
What is the relevance of cats to mammals? -> What value does “cats” contribute to “mammals”? Take the sum value of “cats” and that is what it contributes to the value of mammals. Insofar as mammal increases in value because of cats’ value contribution to it, cats are relevant to mammals.
[Value of Cats]+[Value of non-cat Mammals]=[Value of Mammals]
Relevance percentile would look like:
[value of Cats]/[Value of Mammals]=Percentile relevance of Cats to Mammals.
These are basic (very basic) relevance-object and object-at-hand, with an easy to understand relation, and one of the easiest types of questions to understand relevance. The relevance-object and object-at-hand can become as complex and specific as any particular characteristic of anything. It can also be mundane and obvious. Regardless, all of them follow this formula. Relevance questions become slightly more difficult to understand when we ask more universal ones because we have to really accept the notion of universal value to make any sense of it at all (and that isn’t an easy task). Consider the question:
What is relevant about boats?
There is a hidden statement in this question, namely, while we have the relevance-object (boats), we lack an explicit object at hand. The object at hand, in general and in this question, is “the universe” (all existence, this actual world, etc.). The question should actually be read:
What is the relevance of boats to the universe?
The answer, of course, is that boats are only relevant insofar as they contribute to the sum total value of the actual world. We presume that the total value of boats is fairly small, but remember kids: it all adds up. Assuming the hidden variable’s value is the total sum value that could ever be considered, then the answer to [what is relevant about boats?] is the exact same question as [what is the value of boats?].
Notice that defining a hidden variables makes our job easy. Defining variables can become even more complex. We could, for example ask:
What is the relevance of [the value of boats] to [the answer to the question “What is the relevance of boats to the universe?”]?
Obviously, ‘the value of boats’ itself is really the key knowledge. We would say that [the value of boats] has 100% relevance to [the answer to the question “What is the relevance of boats to the universe?”].
No matter how complex or simple the two objects or relations they hold, as long as you define the variables exactly, you can calculate relevance.
Essentially, the solution of any relevance problem requires the prior identification of the relevant elements from which a solution can be constructed. If you don’t perfectly identify your relevance-object and object-at-hand variables, then you can’t even form a true relevance question. Even when we can identify, we must evaluate each variable. Here we run into our lacking capacity to properly evaluate an object and knowing whether or not our perceptions of an object’s value conform to its actual value. That, however, is not the point of this article (even if it is a relevant issue).
[Value of Relevance-Object]/[Value of Object-in-hand]=Relevance
This is the fundamental equation to calculate relevance. Whether you show a relevance-objects value-relation to a particular object-in-hand or even the Universe in general, the equation gives you the mathematical framework to make a meaningful statement about the proportional value contributes of any one thing to another.
How valuable is P to Q? P/Q=the rate of value. Again, two types of relevance questions can be asked. I’ll give an example.
How relevant was [George Washington] to [the American Revolution]?
How relevant was [George Washington] to [the universe]?
Notice how the ratios change. George Washington’s relevance goes from fairly high to fairly low depending upon the amount of value of the object-in-hand. GW might have been 20% of the Am. Rev’s value, and thus he retains 20% relevance to AR. As for the universe, GW might not have much relevance at all. Of course, he probably retains more relevance, proportionately, than some average Joe. Both types of relevance questions have their uses…that is to say, both types of questions remain relevant types of questions among the body of questions that could be asked.
I think the topic of ‘relevance’ is…highly relevant to us because it demonstrates the mathematical strategy model and mental mode from which we can understand and calculate the comparative advantage of one value pursuit over others. It is the basis of our psychological decisions. When we choose one thing instead of another, we are making relevance and value-based calculations. Knowing how we go about making decisions through a clarified definition of relevance gives us an insight into both our responsibility and, more importantly, how we can be more virtuous. We must, therefore, be exceedingly careful in our use of the term “relevant” so as not to misattribute value to objects. Basic distinctions of perceived relevance and actual relevance must be brought to the forefront of dialogue if we wish to bring the former closer to the latter. Our minds are too easily clouded with misinformation and ‘well-intentioned’, relativistic non-sense to waste time with irrelevant definitions and choice-systems of “relevence”.
In the end, it is important that we attempt to answer: “How am I relevant to the universe?”
To answer such a question we must use this definition of relevance. And, we will notice from our relevance calculations that we will also ask: “How relevant SHOULD I be to the universe?” (explicitly: “What is the relevance of [the person I should be] to [the universe]?)
These are distinctly different value calculations. The actual ME is different that what I ought to be. Thus, the first is asking what about my current value, while the second is asking what value I should make myself (through spiritual-value growth–becoming virtuous). This shows the degree of a sinnerhood. We can subtract the AM’s value from the SHOULD BE’s value, and realize how much we need God’s grace.
Anytime you look at something’s relevance, remember to do so from the perspective of a value-based paradigm. When you make relevance calculations, you must do so from the perspective of value-based morality exclusively. You will be asking: How this X relevant to God’s Will?
The word “Community” has a positive connotation. It is a warm, safe, and responsible expression. It is an object of caring complexity. Community serves as a step up, apart from the individual, to allow us to think of a group of individuals, usually in regards to needs, beliefs, and behaviors. This is a word we throw around a lot, perhaps to our injury.
Community is a word, I feel, that is slowly being twisted by post-moderns. It is a word twisted to the benefit of the post-modern, as if it lends credibility to their arguments. Community, as a meaning, is beginning to refer to a less logical construct and a more emotional one. Touchy-feely arguments are persuasive; and regardless of the lacking logical merit of the post-modern arguments, the relativists wield these words to great effect and influence. Arguments imbued with egalitarian, humanist nonsense, as found in the twisted use of the word “Community”, are dangerous and deform the proper perceptions of our purpose and identity. We must isolate and distinguish the exact meanings of weasel words, and I will start with this word: Community.
Current definitions are neither clear, nor completely tainted by the post-modern perspective. They are changing though, and they are being infected with the thoughts of the moral relativists. Our perception of the definition of community affects how we act within that context, and so we must be careful how we define it. The chosen must extract Community-ness if we wish to protect its truth-purity and disable the relativists’ attempt to convert us. If you have no idea what I mean by the post-modern undercurrent that is subverting the very nature of our understanding of community and our purpose, leading to the subversion of our communities and purpose themselves, then start with “Spheres of Justice”, with the subtitle “In defence of pluralism and equality”, a book written by Michael Walzer. Here you will be opened to a dangerous world of thought, one that denies the fundamental concept of absolute value and truth. It is here that the elite post-moderns begin their argument. This is the birthplace of the viral memes of relative-thinking that contaminate corporate and individual responsibility and value.
To arms, chosen slaves of the Word! We must win the thought-war if we are to survive and grow.
The word community is derived from the Latin communitas (meaning the same), which is in turn derived from communis, which means “common, public, shared by all or many”. Communis comes from a combination of the Latin prefix con- (which means “together”) and the word munis (which has to do with performing services).
Ironically, the original meaning is untainted and so very close to community-ness that it is scary. The modern world, even with the benefit of time which can often improve our understanding of a word or concept, has not distinguished this concept or brought us closer to the form of community; instead, the modern world has clouded the truth and even hindered us from reaching the meaning and purpose of this word. The ancient people, at least in this case, have a better handle on the meaning of the word than we do (where did progress go?…yes, we have congressed).
Generalized, a community is any number individuals or objects that share something or some set of things in common. Community-ness is the sameness found in particulars. It is the act of grouping commonality.
This seems fairly basic, as if it is too easy. However, some basic truths don’t necessarily simplify the world, they can help us to even make sense of the world in the first place. In this case, the actual number and types of communities that exist is actually very, very complex. This should remind you of Venn Diagramming.
Consider the people who live in Kentucky. This community is a sub-community/group of two sets. All that is contained in Kentucky and all people are combined to narrow and limit the meaning of both larger communities into a smaller one.
Now, consider the fat people in KY.
All Objects in Kentucky (A community itself)
All People
All Fat Objects
Narrowed into: Fat people in Kentucky.
Sadly, this is not too much different from “People in Kentucky”. Speaking of which, “People in Kentucky” and “Fat People in Kentucky” are two different communities, even if one is contained within the other.
In general, community acts as an identifier. Community gives us the logical relations between objects. Community, of course, is not bound by region or anything, but it requires at least a single commonality. Communities can be large or very, very small. They rely upon sameness in grouping, and that is the first concept to understanding community.
Community, at this point, sounds way too much like Venn Diagrams, the Forms, and just basic grouping. And, of course, it does rely upon these logic and definition systems. But, for “Community” to mean more than just “group”, and retain any useful meaning, it must be distinguished from just “group”. Community is distinguished from those logical grouping mechanisms in that it deals with a very specific type of group, a group so relevant to our discussions of purpose and value that we distinguish it and give it its own name.
The revised and more relevant definition becomes: A community is any number of morally culpable individuals that share something or some set of things in common.
‘The Community’ is comprised of all free individuals that are morally responsible for their actions and beliefs. All sub-communities are spawned from the commonalities found between members of The Community. The Community is more than just a group, it is special and set apart from all other groupings.
A community is a grouping of sameness as found in moral beings. It is here that we will find that a community becomes its own object. So, just as we can distinguish smaller communities from the larger ones by adding other commonality factors to limit the membership, we can also add up and group similar communities to form a new community obviously.
[Fat people in Kentucky] + [not-Fat people in Kentucky]=[People in Kentucky]
It is here, that Community develops its third requirement for relevant meaning. A community becomes its own object. Specifically, a community becomes its own morally culpable object or entity. A community derives a corporate moral responsibility from the morally responsible individuals that form the group. A community, at the very least, is the sum of the responsibilities of the individuals inside it. And, perhaps, moral synergy exists in a community in which even greater responsibility is required beyond the base sum. So, it may be the case that the total sum of moral responsibility of a community is greater than the sum of the individuals’ moral responsibility.
The revised and more relevant definition becomes: A community is any number of morally culpable entities that share something or some set of things in common.
Entity, of course, could be an individual or a sub-community. From this, we can logically conclude that there exists a:
Conjunction of All sub-communities that equates to “The Community”. It is the WHOLE of all possible morally culpable entities that comprise “The Community”. The Community is an INDEX of all moral responsibilities in existence. This gets us to our final point.
Community is a measurement of moral responsibility and a required degree of value-seeking. Community-ness is relevant in distinguishing Individual and Corporate responsibility to rationally pursue value.
Community exists for the sake of rationally pursuing value, for being virtuous, and in virtue of the moral responsibility entailed with free beings and groups of free beings.
Neo-rationalists, Chosen people, Slaves of The God…you are a Community with a specific purpose and moral responsibility. Know your identity.
One of the most talked about cards in magic, but also one of the most difficult to evaluate. How should we value brainstorm? I’ve decided to breakdown the value of mechanics that form the card brainstorm. This should give us insight into why and when we use brainstorm.
I separate brainstorm’s effect into 3 components:
1.) [Cantrip]
2.) [Library Manipulation]
3.) [Hand+Library Manipulation].
1.) [Cantrip]–Guaranteed +1 Card in your hand, but more importantly, a guarenteed -1 card in your library. Brainstorm, like many cantrips, is 1 blue mana for 1 card, which is already a fair effect. This thins your deck like a street wraith or fetch land. A cantrip replaces lower quality cards in a deck, allowing you to see the highest quality cards of a specific function.
If you run 4 brainstorm in a 60 card deck, and you go through a quarter of your deck on average before the end of a game, then you are paying, on average, a single blue mana over the course of the game to have a 56 card deck. The scaling of the cost to cycle through more of your deck per average game is linear too.
Why would you want to turn 60 cards into 56? Some cards have a higher utility, value, or relevance to your deck or specific circumstance than others, and in reality, we only want to play those instead of lower quality cards if possible. Cantrips, like brainstorm, remove lower utility cards from the equation, allowing the remaining 56 cards to have a higher average utility value than the average 60 card deck. The question then becomes: was the average cost of using cantrips worth the card-quality gains?
I’ll use as straightfoward a case as I can think of to show you what a cantrip means to card quality. This case by no means showcases the brokenness that is Brainstorm that we might find in decks that abuse it best, but the case shows the principle behind cantripping.
Let’s say you were playing a deck that had 16 Volcanic Island, 40 Lightning Bolts (120 damage value), and 4 Shocks (8 damage value). Notice that shocks, on average, are 1/3rd less valuable than a bolt. We’ll say you see 11 cards per an average game, putting you at (11/60)*4 (total mana cost of cantrips in deck), or 0.733 of a U, on average, to go from a 60 card deck to a 56 card deck. What happens when we replace the lower quality cards of a deck, shock in this case, with a cantrip?
[Total value of win conditions]/[Total mana cost of win conditions]=[Average Win condition to mana ratio per card].
Shocks– 128/44=2.909
Cantrips– 120/(40+0.733)=2.946
The gain, in part, is one of mana efficiency. The otherside of the cantrip is how it affects your average “win-condition” value met per card.
[Total value of win conditions]/[Total cards in deck]=[Average Threat value per card] (Think of DPS for you MMORPGers)
Shocks– 128/60=2.133
Cantrips– 120/56=2.143
What if we made a deck with with 40 shocks and 4 ‘Flashback-less’ lava darts, how good is a cantrip then? Presume we see 13 cards per average game, or (13/60)*4=.866. Notice that Flashback-less lava darts are only 1/2 as effect as a shock, and contribute proportionately less to the total win condition value of the deck. The Shocks are more relevant to the bolt-deck than lava-darts are to the shock deck. This difference in proportion will illustrate the rising advantages on cantrips in decks and formats that have larger card quality disparities.
[Average Win condition to mana ratio per card]
Lava Darts– 84/44=1.909
Cantrips– 80/40.866=1.958
[Average Win condition value per card]
Lava Darts– 84/60=1.4
Cantrips– 80/56=1.429
The worse your cantrip-replaced cards proportionately compare to the average mana-efficiency and win condition values of the rest of your deck the better a cantrip becomes. Here are your comparisons:
Bolts’n'Cantrips/Bolts’n'Shocks Mana efficiency ratios– 2.946/2.909=1.013
Shocks’n'Cantrips/Shocks’n'Darts Mana efficiency ratios– 1.958/1.909=1.026
Bolts’n'Cantrips/Bolts’n'Shocks Win Condition density ratios–2.133/2.143=1.005
Shocks’n'Cantrips/Shocks’n'Darts Win Condition density ratios–1.429/1.4-1.021
As the win-condition value of the least valuable cards of a deck (those to be replaced with cantrips) proportionately decreases as compared to the more valuable cards in a deck, the proportionately better a cantrip becomes.
If all your spells have fairly equal win-condition value, then the effectiveness of a cantrip decreases. So, while the greater variation in the value or relevance of your cards, the better a cantrip becomes, the other side of this equation is that perfectly balanced decks with card quality equivalence would not want to use cantirps. For example, if you ran 16 Volcanic Island and 44 Bolts, would replacing 4 bolts with 4 cantrips be worth it? Let’s say you see 11 cards per game.
[Average Win condition to mana ratio per card]
Bolts–132/44=3
Bolts/Cantrips–120/40.733=2.946
[Average Win condition value per card]
Bolts–132/60=2.2
Bolts/Cantrips–120/56=2.14
Running straight bolts is simply better than having a cantrip. Why? There is too little variation in the mana-efficiency and win-condition values of the cards in a deck with nothing but bolts and land. In cases where all things in your deck are equal in value, then cantrips are not worth it. A perfectly balanced deck would not need cantrips. Building this “perfectly balanced” deck is more complicated than many would realize though. Remember the arguments against running more than 60 cards in a deck? Usually, because there is such extreme differences in the quality of cards in older formats, we seek the smallest decks possible to abuse the few cards that are just too darn good for their mana costs. Cantrips act as the glue between the broken cards of eternal formats in these cases. However, technically, there are cases where 65-card decks could be perfectly balanced, even better than 60 card decks. Perhaps you could make a 65-card deck that had a several functions, all maximal and equal quality cards for their slot and function, and any removal of a card would imbalance the deck’s card quality. Here, you would take a 65-card deck over a 60-card deck. But, how many decks do you know are this well made? The sort of perfection in balancing card value to make it such that a 65-card deck would be preferred to a 60 card deck is the same sort of calculation and balance that a deck would need in order not to consider cantrips. If there is any imbalance in the value of the cards in your deck, then cantrips are worth considering.
Since that perfection rarely exists, often due to format card pool constrainsts, we opt for cantrips. The proportionately less valuable a card is compared to the average card quality of a deck the more likely we should replace it with a cantrip.
Take a more extreme case, say 16 Volc-Islands, 40 4-damage for 1 mana burn cards (henceforth: Uber-Bolt), and 4 Flashback-less Lava darts. Say you’ll see 10 cards in an average game. (10/60)*4=.667 mana cost to goto 56 cards.
[Average Win condition to mana ratio per card]
Lava Darts– 164/44=3.727
Cantrips– 160/40.667=3.934
[Average Win condition value per card]
Lava Darts– 164/60=2.733
Cantrips– 160/56=2.857
Cantrips give proportionately larger gains when they replace cards of proportionately lower relevance. In this case, cantrips let us not run flashback-less lava darts and stick to straight uber-bolts, giving much higher mana efficiency and average card quality.
Cantrips aren’t the end-all-be-all solution though. Take a case where we ran 16 Volcanic Islands, 24 cantrips, and 20 Uber bolts vs. 16 land and 44 Uber Bolts. Say we’ll see 20 cards per game; (20/60)*24=8. Ouch, that is 8 mana, per game, spent on just lowering the count to 36. It will take too many turns to see the cards we need to see to be mana-efficient at all.
[Average Win condition to mana ratio per card]
Cantrips– 80/32=2.5
Uber Bolts– 176/44=4
[Average Win condition value per card]
Cantrips– 80/36=2.222
Uber Bolts– 160/2.667
This is an extreme example, but it shows that there is a specific number of cantrips we wish to run in any given deck. You can easily run too many or too few cantrips in a deck.
Burn, of course, can be a more straightfoward calculation than other decks. And, you’ll notice several burn decklists use bauble-cantrips to maximize and balance average card quality..for good reason. Other decks are certainly more complicated, but the principle still remains the same though:
The higher degree of disparity found between the relevance and value of the different cards in your deck, the more useful a cantrip becomes. Eventually, if you follow this path, you’ll see the extreme in silver-bullets and tool-box decks that rely upon card-quality, cantrips and tutors to consistently find the singleton card that may be the only relevant thing in your deck against an opponent.
This is why running Yawgmoth’s Will with cards that aren’t nearly as powerful would drive us to use cantrips: by running cantrips we will receive a higher average use and benefit of Yawgmoth’s Will over the course of many games. The benefit, often enough, is worth the cost of replacing weaker cards with cantrips.
Decks that have similar components are less likely to desire cantrips. An aggro deck, for example, may have few deviations from the mean value of cards in the deck. On the other hand, a combo deck may often find themself in situations where they have 2 of 3 combo pieces in hand, but need the last one. In this case, only the missing combo piece may be relevant to our situation, and cantrips increase the likelihood of finding the relevant cards.
The cantrip component of brainstorm fulfills a major glue-mechanic in which decks can more consistently run and play with higher quality cards with different functions and values in different circumstances.
Brainstorm is a cantrip, and will it will give this effect.
2.) [Library Manipulation]–This is a more straight foward effect to consider. Think of this as Sage Owl. How many cards do you have left in your library? To what degree do the individual cards in a deck deviate from the mean win-condition value of cards in a deck? The higher this deviation, and the lower your library count, the more effective library manipulation becomes. Bare in mind, the mean win-condition value and deviations vary per metagame, per deck, per matchup, and per specific game circumstance. This makes it incredibly difficult to calculate, but it highlights the variance we see in even the mean values across a spectrum of conditions. Library manipulation, like a cantrip, helps isolate and condense the average variance from the mean value of win-condtions across the spectrum of play-conditions.
Sage Owling into a 40-card library with nothing but Lightning Bolts isn’t going to net you anything. However, Sage Owling into a 40-card library that has only three or four relevant card in the deck (perhaps you MUST Wrath of God next turn or you lose) increases your likelihood of seeing relevant cards sooner. Like the cantrip, library manipulation benefits the deck that has higher variance in card value from the average card value.
Let’s take a basic example:
If you had 36 cards left in your library, 3 WoG’s in the library, and Wrath was the only relevant card, what does a 4-card Library manipulation effect do for you?
Without the library manipulation you have a 1 in 12 chance to draw Wrath of God next turn.
With a 4-card library manipulation you have a 1 in 9 chance to draw Wrath of God next turn.
Library manipulation is still very good even beyond looking for 1-of a specific card in your deck. It lines up your deck plays too. It could be as simple as counting your land drops drops for the next several turns and making sure relevant spells are on top with land being placed exactly where you would need to draw it so you could make a land drop for the next several turns.
Library manipulation allows you to order cards in their relevance to your current game position. If you need a counterspell before you need a land, then go ahead and put the land under the counterspell. The land may be relevant, but maybe it is less relevant than the counterspell. Library manipulation increases the quality of your future draws. A basic permutation grid of a 4-card library manipulation ensues.
Actual Card1 (in Slot1) — Value at Slot1=1, V@S2=6, V@S3=8, V@S4=5
Actual Card2 (in Slot2) — Value at Slot1=3, V@S2=5, V@S3=4, V@S4=6
Actual Card3 (in Slot3) — Value at Slot1=0, V@S2=5, V@S3=6, V@S4=2
Actual Card4 (in Slot4) — Value at Slot1=4, V@S2=2, V@S3=3, V@S4=3
Card1 moves to Slot3, Card2 moves to Slot4, Card3 moves to Slot2, Card 4 moves to Slot1.
Originally, we have a top 4-card value of 15. After a 4-card library manipulation we have a top 4-card value of 23.
The permutation grid is actually much more complicated than I’ve provided. For example, what if Card 3 only has a value of 5 in Slot2 if and only if Card 4 is in Slot1? Multiply this type of value calculation, and you see that identifying the value specifics cards, even in a very specific circumstances, can be quit complicated. These are the sorts of mental calculations that we make on the fly. It seems obvious, but drawing out the reason why we do what we are doing is more complex than we initially thought.
Shuffle effects has a specific effect right here too. You know the value of the top X cards of your library. Is that value below the average value of X cards in your library? If it is below, then a shuffle effect increases the value by [Average Value of X cards]-[Value of Current X cards].
Decks with higher variations of value per slot make the most use of library manipulation. Again, perfectly rounded decks with zero variance from the mean value per card would not want library manipulation. It must be noted that this perfect balance might not be found at 60 cards in a specific format and metagame, and thus a perfect deck without cantrips might not be possible in many circumstances.
Brainstorm have a 2-card library manipulation value. However, it’s 3rd effect is the game-breaking ability that twists library manipulation into relevant and immediate card advantage and quality.
3.) [Hand+Library Manipulation] This is a very odd effect in magic. This is the effect that makes brainstorm more than just a mere cantrip and library manipulation. This ability might be seen as an extension of library manipulation, but we must distinguish this component of brainstorm from a Sage Owl effect because of the influence this mechanic has upon an active hand. This effect alone can make brainstorm as good as Ancestral recall + 1/2 a Sage Owl or as bad as 1/3 an Ancestral Recall + 1/2 a Sage owl. That’s right, I said it: Brainstorm can be BETTER than Ancestral Recall. There is a two card quantity difference between the worst brainstorm and the best possible brainstorm, and most of the math behind understanding the value of a specific resolution of Brainstorm, as found between that spectrum, relies upon this mechanic.
Given the cantrip effect, the Hand+Library Manipulation effect is only a count of 2 cards. The value differences
To look at the Hand+Library Manipulation effect itself, we will neglect the cantrip and library manipulation components of Brainstorm for now.
Hand:
Card in Hand1 — Value in Hand=2, Value in Library=2 (in not particular order on library, just with X cards from the top)
Card in Hand2 — Value in Hand=3, Value in Library=0
Card in Hand3 — Value in Hand=1, Value in Library 1
Library
Card on Library1 — Value in Hand=3, Value in Library 1
Card on Library2 — Value in Hand=1, Value in Library 0
Current value of Hand+Library=7.
After a 2-card Hand+Library manipulation, where Hand1 is replaced with Library1 and Hand3 is replaced with Library2, the value of Hand+Library=10
This is rudimentary, but it shows the basic principle.
Echoing truth against a High-tide/Reset deck is a useless card. Hand-Library manipulation increases your current hand value by putting echo onto your library. This, of course, is at the expense of future draw values. However, when you add shuffle effects, it turns dead cards into average card value. Essentially, Hand-library manipulation is a 3-fold utility:
1.) Gives immediate hand value increase equal to [Cards put into hand from library] - [Cards put on top of library].
2.) Combined with shuffle effect, increases library value to [Average library card value of X cards] - [current top X card library value]
3.) Hiding valuable cards that you don’t want discarded.
Brainstorm does this effect like no other card for such a cheap cost.
Card value–
I’ve talked alot about card value. But, I haven’t given any good definition for it. Here goes:
Cantrips, Hand and Library manipulation are difficult to evaluate because it requires a system of identifying the exact of value of each card in a library average circumstance/metagame and the mean variance of value in those circumstances/metagame. This is a good starting place, and it gives us a common language to better understand where and why we use or do not use Brainstorm in a deck.
Card values vary per metagame, but are static to any one specific metagame. Yawgmoth’s Will is inherently stronger in a format that is better at getting cards into the graveyard. Basic land is inherently stronger in a format that doesn’t have better alternatives.
Universal Metagame=
Specific Metagame=
For the purposes of deckbuilding, card values are determined by their degree of influence on the offense/defense ratio of a deck. You are attempting to quantify how essential a card is to your win condition (having a higher offense/defense ratio than your opponent).
A deck or card is meaningless without an opponent or metagame to interpret its value. Against a metagame/opponent with a 60-land deck, the best deck will be the one that has the highest average win condition. It isn’t just whether you won, it is the margin by which you win or lose that helps form the value of the cards in your deck against a 60-land deck metagame. The win-condition to be met, in this metagame, is simply reaching the stage where an opponent has 20 lifeloss, has been milled and can’t draw, or loses through a straight “win-ability” (Door to Nothingness, etc.). Whichever deck has the highest average chance of reaching that win-condition is the best deck in that metagame.
What if you went against a 60-FoW deck metagame? Perhaps the deck that was the best in a 60-land deck metagame would not be the best in this specific 60-FoW deck metagame. The combo deck that probably evolved in the 60-land deck metagame was not prepared to deal with permission. You might say it wanted “speed” at all costs. But, in reality, the deck is only as good as it matches against a specific metagame.
Value of a card has those two values, value in the universal context and the specific. Do not be confused into thinking this isn’t calculable. You just need to see how to go about looking for its value in the first place.
This game is calculable and finite. Please remember that.
In conclusion:
Brainstorm is a pretty awesome card. Add in a shuffle effect, and I think it is next to broken.
Defining the World.
Relational definitions of objects through Form-Spectrum analysis.
Time to redefine the word "Form"
A form is one side of a spectrum. There is F-ness and Non-Fness. The Non-Fness is everything that Fness isn't, and Fness is everything that non-Fness isn't. While this semantical claim might not seem valuable, I assure you that such logical claims are the basis of all thought concerning particular objects and things. Form-spectrums are revolutionary in their ability to analyze and define a particular thing.
Plato and Aristotle may have said that something "conformed" or did not conform to a "form". They did not properly discuss the DEGREE to which something conformed to a form. The degree to which a particular thing conforms is ESSENTIAL to defining that particular thing.
Just take the classic example of Beauty or Beauty-ness. We can say the painting is beautiful, and we mean to say that the painting partakes of the form of beauty. However, clearly the painting could be MORE beautiful, and the painting itself does not define the essence of beauty. We can draw several conclusions from this experience. Firstly, we can mathematically calculate HOW beautiful something is compared to other objects of beauty and, specifically, we can theoretically test to see HOW MUCH beauty exists in an object. How much does it partake of beautyness? This is the degree of beauty as found in something. The second important fact to understand is that: insofar as an object is NOT beautiful or fails to partake of beauty that object is partaking of the opposite of beauty. This, of course, presupposes that for one thing to exist, an opposite of some sort must exist. What is the opposite of beauty? Is it ugliness?...maybe. The easiest way to consider it is:
B
~B
B=Beauty-ness or Form of Beauty
All that is Beatyness is B.
All that is not Beautyness is ~B.
To say somethin is 20% beautiful is to say that it replicates, duplicates, mirrors, and exhibits Beauty-ness by a degree of 20%. What is the rest of the 80%? Well...we know for a fact it isn't beautiful. But, that doesn't mean it is 20% beautiful and 80% ugly (although, this form DOES exist in concept). All we know is that it is non-beauty-ness. This is very broad. Perhaps it is 10% wooden-ness, 5% redness, etc. The 80% is a composition of whatever other forms from which this particular something partakes. The important thing to realize is that the end result composition will add up to 100% of some proportion of form-partaking. I call this the form-spectrum of particulars.
A baseball bat may APPEAR to be composed entirely of wood, but we would be stupid to think that a baseball bat and Wooden-ness are the same things though. The baseball bat has a particular structure and function. Perhaps it has engravings. Perhaps the bat has sentimental value beyond any old woodenness. Perhaps the baseball bat isn't eternal and timeless and exists in a temporal state. These particular characteristics are measurements of other forms from which the baseball bat partakes.
Takes cats form-spectrums:
Non-Mammal-------------------------------Perfect Mammal-ness
Non-Cat----------------------------------Cat-ness
Non-Blackness----------------------------Blackness
etc.
Cat is defined by where it exists on the form-spectrums across all possibly cat-relating forms. I can take Yoda and say he has X degree of Blackness, X degree of friendliness, X degree of Catness, X degree of big-ear-edness.
How Mammally are cats? If Mammalness (the form of mammal) is the object at hand, and we measure the mammality of cats, then we can know the degree to mammalness is composed of catness.
Forms ARE particulars. They do all partake of FORMness right? The degree to which other forms/particulars partake of the form of something else is the degree to which that thing is a form.
The only perfect form is form-ness. All others exist upon form-ness. They are dependant. They can be different, but they still must partake of some other forms to exist.
Existing, truth, actual, and real are all synonyms of FORMness. If it is under the umbrella of Form, then it doesn't exist. Form is the only thing that has no REAL opposite. I can't point or consider anything that isn't under Formness. All truths, definitionally, partake of Form.
Formness->(nearly) Independant Form concepts (no particulars exist)->Forms of Particulars
Indy forms would include "beauty". There isn't some particular thing we call beautyness. And, there isn't some heavenly ethereal body we call beautyness. Beautyness is a pure concept, independant of all particulars and nearly all other concepts. You can describe beauty only by itself (and its foundational forms). Beauty exists upon the foundation of few forms, for example: Formness and valueness (which could be the same thing, I need to give it more thought).
This is a heirarchy of foundational truths by which we can deduce the meaning and interrelation complexities of other truths in the form of form-spectrum analysis.
We need to ask what is Godness (which isn't the same as Godliness)? Godness relies upon Formness and Valueness (co-existing?).
This-scissor-ness. That-scissor-ness.
Subforms are dependant upon other forms. This-scissor-ness relies upon many other forms, thus it qualifies as a subform.
A specific purpose or meaning of an object is yet another borrowing or partaking of a form.
Let us dissect this particular scissor we have in mind (pretend it is in your hand). It is a 30 year-old scissor that has red, low quality plastic handles, the sheers are steel, the cutting blade can cut through 2 inches of paper when 50ppsi is applied at the middle of the handles, but not 2.1 inches at the same pressure, it has a blue dolphin sticker on the outside of the left blade, the joint squeeks at 300mhz, and we bought it for 500$ from a celebrity office-supply memorabilia store because Jimmie Hendrix once owned it, etc. This scissor has many properties and characteristics, perhaps an infinite set of them even. This particular scissor has it's own form. For the sake of the argument, we will call it This-Scissor-ness. If I tried to replicate or comprehend it absolutely and fully, then I'll need to refer to the particular form of this particular scissor. Each new object has its own "this-object-ness". We cannot understand or know all of this particular scissor without referring this This-Scissor-ness.
However, This-Scissor-ness is not independant of other concepts and forms. In fact, This-Scissor-ness is heavily dependant upon other forms, and we cannot under This-Scissor-ness without considering the many, many forms from which it partakes. The forms of "handles", "cutting", "blades", "red", "sound", etc. and every single detail and every interrelated characteristic of this particular object must be considered when identifying the meaning of This-Scissor-ness in its entirety. Perhaps This-Scissor-Ness is comprised of 15% steelness. Perhaps steelness comprises 5% of metalness. Then, This-Scissor-ness partakes of metalness as well...We move from very, very particular forms to less particular forms. We move towards higher forms which are less dependant upon other forms. This web of definitional relations spreads far and wide.
Scissor->steel->metal->material->existing (FormNess)
There are probably millions of tiny gaps to consider in between each of these dependancies. Comprehending the the scissor is a much more complicated process than many would have initially thought.
Forms with EXISTING particulars
Forms without Exant particulars
Â
Formness->(nearly) Independant Form concepts (no particulars exist)->Forms of Particulars
Some forms are abstract, but are built upon the foundation of other forms. The form itself, however, is a particular thing (even if it isn't concrete). Particular objects that partake of other forms act as their own form. We can't divide abstract and concrete as if only one exists in reality and the other doesn't. Particular objects are
Generally, the ancients looked at the 'forms' as abstract definitions which were used to describe concrete objects in reality. They treated concrete objects as particulars. These particular objects were not forms, they merely partook of other forms to be defined. Unfortunately, concrete matter was never taken into consideration as defining other concrete matter. This system has a lowest common denominator, but it fails to appreciate a world of value. It does not let us perfectly define a thing.
What is Concreteness?
Notice the difference between the two statements.
All matter is concrete.
All matter partakes of Concreteness.
There is more to matter than just being concrete. The concreteness of matter is merely one aspect of matter. Matter can have value, color, speed, etc.
Cat are Mammals.
Mammals aren't necessarily Cats.
Mammal does not describe the fullness of Cat. Cat has more characteristics to define. Cat is specific. Cat has more definition than just.
28 Mana
* 4 Mishra’s Workshop
* 2 Mishra’s Factory
* 1 Tolarian Academy
* 4 Wasteland
* 1 Strip Mine
* 3 Mountain
* 4 B-Ring
* 5 Moxes
* 1 Black Lotus
* 1 Sol Ring
* 1 Mana Vault
* 1 Mana Crypt
24 Disruption
* 1 Trinisphere
* 4 Sphere of Resistance
* 4 Thorn of Amethyst
* 4 Tangle Wire
* 4 CoTV
* 4 Smokestack
* 3 Crucible of Worlds
8 Creatures
* 4 Goblin Welder
* 2 Trike
* 2 Mox Monkey
Sideboard
* SB: 4 Jester’s Cap
* SB: 4 Leyline of the Void
* SB: 3 Rack and Ruin
* SB: 4 Juggernauts
Control.
This pile drops lockpiece after lockpiece. Look at it: 9-sphere effects, wire, Cotv, stacks, and LD recursion a la CoWorlds all of which are accelerated by a souped up mana accel engine. This thing locks games down.
The purpose of this article is for us to better understand the meaning and value of resilience as it relates to your average PvP circumstances. I will give the equations context.
What is resilience?
Resilience is a 3-part stat.
A.) x% reduction in an opponent’s critical strike rate (henceforth variable resA)
B.) 2x% reduction in an opponent’s critical strike damage (resB)
C.) x% reduction in an opponent’s DoT damage (resC)
X = [Resilience rating * 0.025]
e.g. 100 resilience rating = 2.5% reduction in an opponent’s critical strike rate
5% reduction in an opponent’s critical strike damage
2.5% reduction in an opponet’s DoT damage
What is the purpose of resilience?
Resilience is a survivability stat which exists to mitigate the effectiveness of burst damage and randomness in the game. Unlike armor, it does not strictly mitigate all incoming damage like a blanket protection, however, it does serve to mitigate the random crit streaks and intensity of crits in the game while blanket-mitigating all DoT damage. Resilience eliminates variance in damage taken. Resilience, essentially, exists to make a more fair and predictable fight in PvP through increased consistency in survivability gains.
Beautifully, resilience mitigates nearly all sources of damage to some extent.
How valuable is this stat?
The best way to measure the effects of resilience is to understand its equivalence in HP. How much survivability does resilience add per itemization cost-unit as compared to the survivability gains of HP/Stamina of equivalent itemization costs? The truth of the matter is that several PvP circumstances exist in which resilience is the wrong stat in which to invest. Most players fail to recognize this fact.
HP, like AP is to melee damage, is a static and linear gain in survivability. Resilience, like most forms of damage reduction, functions exponentially, with geometric gains in survivability. Specifically, against targets that resilience can effect (assuming they have crit rating or use DoTs), resilience increases the value of each point of health.
To give a workable example, consider personA with 10k hp who faces a melee opponent with a 30% crit rate. If personA has one open gemslot, should he use a 12 stamina gem, 8 resilience gem, or 4 resilience/6 stamina to maximize his survivability against said opponent? 120hp vs. 0.2%/0.4% reduction vs. 0.1%/0.2%/60hp.
Without even looking too closely at the math, it is easy to see that the highest initial survivability (time to live) gains come from investment in HP/stamina. But, at some point, in cases where a person has enough [virtual HP] (actual HP + actual Healing received), exponential survivability stats overcome the utility of straight HP/Stamina investment in itemization costs. Where is the point of inflection? Where does resilience become greater in value, per itemization cost, than HP/stamina?
This is a somewhat complicated question to answer. It depends on several variables. Resilience rating, total virtual health, proportion of DD and DoT damage types, crit bonus, and crit rate are the fundamental variables you need to know. As each of these variables scale up or down, we’ll see shifts in the comparative values of resilience and stamina. In our case, we want to ask ourselves what the average quantity will be for each of these variables.
What calculations must be made?
We need to take a look at the very meaning of critical strike chance and how it effects survivability and opponent’s damage in order to fully understand what resilience is doing for us.
Take personA:
It takes 10,000 1-damage non-crit strikes to consume personA’s survivability.
If personA’s opponent (personB) has a 30% crit rate (and 100% crit damage bonus), then it will take ~7,692 strikes, or ~2307 2-damage crit strikes and ~5384 1-damage non-crit strikes, to consume personA’s survivability.
Moving from 0% to 30% crit chance on personB’s 1-damage strikes has a dramatic effect on personA’s time to live. 23.1% less effort is required of personB to get the same effect as striking without crits, and essentially, personA loses 23.1% survivability because of personB’s gain in crit chance.
+30% crit chance buff for personB is the same as a -23.1% debuff of personA’s HP.
10,000 * (1 - 23.1%) = 7,692 HP
7,692 1-damage non-crit strikes
Your opponent’s offense and your defense are mathematically translatable concepts. Because of this, you may even think of this situation as each point of personA’s 10,000 health is worth 23.1% LESS because of an increase in personB’s crit chance. Time to live ratio’s remain the same, regardless of how you look at the problem.
Damage enhancement is not directly the same loss in survivability for an opponent.
([HP] / (1 + [Damage Modifier])) = [Surivability Post Damage Modifier]
10,000 / (1 + .1) = 9,090
10,000 / (1 + .3) = 7,692
10,000 / (1 + .6) = 6,250
10,000 / (1 + 1.0) = 5,000
10,000 / (1 + 2.0) = 3,333
You’ll also notice that there is diminishing returns to increases in [Damage Modifer], but an exponential returns in mitigating [Damage Modifier]. Moving from 200% [DM] to 100% [DM], a 100% difference, is merely a 1,666 gain in survivability, while moving from 10% [DM] to 0% [DM], a 10% difference, is a whopping 910 survivability. The less crit your opponent has, the better resA’s effect will become.
Resilience effect A (resA) becomes better and better with each point (I’m not going to deal with the other two effects just yet), assuming that each percentage point of resilience has a corresonding degree of crit rating. If an opponent doesn’t have a great deal of crit rate, then resilience is obviously the stat to stack. Taking crit chance to near zero is preferred. Unfortunately, a character can only get so much resilience (capped in itemization), while crit rates are much easier to maximize. If high enough (beyond resilience correspondence cap), the higher your opponent’s crit rating, the less valuable resilience becomes in this respect. In some cases, crit ratings may soar so high that stamina provides greater benefit in survivability itemization.
Think about it: it takes 400 resilience to lower just 10% crit rate (and 400 resilience is a fairly large chunk). If an opponent has only 10% to begin with, then you are gaining 910 survivability. But, if the opponent had 35% crit rate (definitely possible), then you only move from 7407 to 8000 survivability, a 593 survivabilty gain. You would need a currently unreachable amount of resilience to cover that amount of crit rate. As such, you start at the low end of the curve when calculating how resilience negates crit rate, and you receive fewer actual time-to-live benefits. While resB attempts to curb this effect, it does not negate the strength of crit stacking beyond the reach of resilience itemization possibilities. In any case, the scaling needs of resilience promotes an all-or-nothing mentality (admittedly, itemization is limited, and you’re going to definitely have some degree of resilience in your gear if you PvP; however, a good portion of enchants/gems/trinkets have more variance to choose from).
The problem for the case for resilience may be worse. We need to convert the survivability gains of resilience to the flat survivability gains of stamina/HP in equivalent itemization costs.
Even if you used 400 resilience against an opponent with 10% crit rate, gaining 910 survivability, a 10% (9,090/910) increase in the value of your HP, you could do the same thing by just adding (10,000*10%) 1,000 HP.
10,000 * 10 = 11,000 / (1 + .1) = 10,000
10,000 / (1 + .1 - [400 resA or .1]) = 10,000
In this case, where playerA has 10,000 HP, a 1,000 HP gain, or 100 stamina, is the equivalent of the survivability gains of 400 resilience against an opponent with 10% crit chance. But, which is easier to reach in itemization costs, 100 stamina or 400 resilience?
Looking at gems, 100 stamina = 66.67 Resilience rating. For the itemization cost of 400 resilience, you would gain 600 stamina or 6,000 HP. It is simply obvious that 16k hp is going to have more survivability than 10k hp with 400 resilience against an opponent with a 10% crit rate.
10,000 / (1 + .1) = 9,090
16,000 / (1 + .1) = 14,545
10,000 / (1 + .1 - [400 resA or .1]) = 10,000
Using stamina in your itemization instead of resilience will net a player 5,455 survivability, while the equivalent itemization costs in resilience (400) only nets a player 910 survivability. Stamina is 500% better than resilience at 10,000 HP with an opponent at 10% crit rate. Stamina, as well, never capped, and resilience’s effect A capped because you can’t lower crit rate beyond 0%. This could exist if people were stacking enough resil and dropping every bit of crit rating possible for linear damage gains like AP/+spell/etc.
Again, as we saw before, resilience becomes even worse against targets with higher crit rates where our exponential gains of resilience are set back in the curve.
10,000 / (1 + .35) = 7,407
16,000 / (1 + .35) = 11,851
10,000 / (1 + .35 - [400 resA or .1]) = 8,000
Stamina = 11,851 - 7,407 = 4,444 survivability gain
Resilience = 593 survivability gain.
It would seem that Stamina is 649% better than resilience in this case. Ah, but now we have a crit rating that is not matched by resA, and we have not included the second effect of resilience, resB, in our calculation. Here, resB will curb the effects of rising crit rates that resA cannot negate. In this case, there is 25% crit chance left to be affected by resB’s effect. Essentially, the effects of any crit chance left over is reduced by resB.
[HP] / (1 + (([Crit rate] - [resA rate]) * (1 - [resB rate]))) = [Survivability Post Resilience] (resA and B’s effect)
10,000 / (1 + ((.35 - [.1]) * (1 - [.2]))) = 10,000 / (1 + (.25 * .8)) = 10,000 / (1 + .2) = 8,333
Notice a 333 survivability gain because of resB against an opponent with 35% crit rate.
ResA=593 survivability gain
ResB=333 survivability gain
Resilence nets 926 survivability
Stamina nets 4,444 survivability
Stamina is 380% better than resilience when including ResB’s effect with 10k hp and a 35% crit rate opponent.
There are several forces at work. The higher initial crit rate, the less we benefit from lowering it. However, the higher the crit rate, the better resilience becomes, proportionately, as compared to stamina.
We do not play in a world where everone has exactly 10k initial HP. In some cases, for example, heavy-healing based arena circumstances, whereby a person might recieve 50k healing throughout the game in addition to their natural 10k (we might say they have 60k virtual HP), resilience is extremely valuable stat. Resilience scales with your HP. It makes each health point worth MORE; stamina cannot do this.
So, taking our example at a 35% crit rate:
60,000 / (1 + .35) = 44,444
66,000 / (1 + .35) = 48,889
60,000 / (1 + (([.35] - [.1]) * (1 - [.2]))) = 50,000
Hello, resilience.
Stamina: 48,889 - 44,444 = 4,445 survivability
Resilience: 50,000 - 44,444 = 5,556 survivability
Resilience is 25% better than stamina here. Make it 590,000 Healing + 10,000 starting HP.
600,000 / (1 + .35) = 444,444
606,000 / (1 + .35) = 448,889
600,000 / (1 + (([.35] - [.1]) * (1 - [.2]))) = 500,000
Stamina: 448,889 - 444,444 = 4,445 survivability (hrmm…I swear i’ve seen this number before…linear gains look small with enough virtual HP)
Resilience: 500,000 - 444,444 = 55,556 survivability
400 Resilience is 1,149% greater than 600 Stamina with 600k virtual hp against a target with 35% crit rate.
Stamina, a linear survivability stat, becomes outclassed quickly in fights where there are high crit rates and a lot of healing.
Where is the point of inflection, whereby stamina=resilience in itemization costs?
As stated, it depends on several variables: resilience rating (converted to resA,B, and C rates), total virtual health, ratio of DoT and Direct Damage, crit bonus, and crit chance. We need to define these variables more to understand the process.
[Initial HP] + [Actual Healing received] = [Virtual HP] (or [VHP] for short)
This cannot include overhealing. It must include all buffs to your HP that are not dispelled.
Crit bonus is an important factor. Some classes have higher damage bonuses than others with a critical strike. This influences the value of resB. The higher the bonus, the more effect from resB. This show how crit bonus and resB operates inside a resilience calculation:
[Damage] + ((([Damage] * ([Crit chance] - [ResA])) * [Crit Bonus]) * (1 - [resB])) = [Damage Post Crit and Res]
Take: 1000 1-damage swings, 30% crit chance, 0% crit bonus, 10% resA and 20% resb
1000 + (((1000 * (30%-10%)) * 0%) * (1 - 20%)) =
1000 + (((1000 * 20%) * 0%) * 80%) =
1000 + ((200 * 0%) * 80%) =
1000 + (0 * 80%) = 1000
Take: 1000 1-damage swings, 30% crit chance, 50% crit bonus, 10% resA and 20% resb
1000 + (((1000 * (30%-10%)) * 50%) * (1 - 20%)) =
1000 + (((1000 * 20%) * 50%) * 80%) =
1000 + ((200 * 50%) * 80%) =
1000 + (100 * 80%) = 1080, would have been 1100 without resB. 20 damage reduction from resB
Take: 1000 1-damage swings, 30% crit chance, 100% crit bonus, 10% resA and 20% resb
1000 + (((1000 * (30%-10%)) * 100%) * (1 - 20%)) =
1000 + (((1000 * 20%) * 100%) * 80%) =
1000 + ((200 * 100%) * 80%) =
1000 + (200 * 80%) = 1160, would have been 1200 without resB. 40 damage reducton from resB
ResB’s effect scales with crit bonus. This also means that resB affect melee classes much worse, in general, than casters. With crit bonus in mind, we have to rewrite the [Survivability Post Resilience] formula:
[HP] / (1 + ((([Crit rate] - [resA rate]) * [Crit Bonus]) * (1 - [resB rate]))) = [Survivability Post Resilience] ([SPR])
ResC’s effect has yet to be discussed. This is very straightfoward. It has the same value as resA against DoTs, and it is a strict mitigation of all DoT damage (no randomness involved). The problem with calculating ResC’s effect is that we need to know the proportion of damage that is DoT and DD over an average fight. Resilience will have a more profound effect upon DD, and thus, including this ratio of DD and DoT in our equation will bring our numbers more in line with the actual average value of resilience. Unfortunately, this gives us yet another factor of variance. Some circumstances will have heavy DoT damage and others none.
At 400 resilience you will reduce all DoT damage by 10% (just as you would reduce all crit chances against you by 10%). Assuming you were taking 100% DoT damage, the survivability value of resC is exactly 10%.
It takes 10,000 1-point DoT ticks to consume the survivability of someone with 10k HP. Let’s look at what adding 400 resilience, or 10% damage reduction of DoT’s can do:
What happens in the reduction, where X is the end survivability:
X * (1 + (-10%)) = 10,000.
11,111 * (1 + (-10%)) = 10,000
so:
[HP] / (1 + ([Damage modifier]) = [Survivability]
10,000 / (1 + (-10%)) = 11,111 survivability, or a 1,111 gain in survivability.
So, to include ResC, just see it as a negative Damage modifier on DoT damage.
[HP] / (1 - [ResC]) = [Survivability Post ResC]
10,000 / (1 - 10%) = 11,111
The total equation becomes uglier by including resC’s effect. We have to include the ratio of DD and DoT damage. They will serve as two different halves of survivability.
Proportion of damage that is Direct (critable) = [PDD]
Proportion of damage that is damage over time (affected by resC) = [PDOT]
[PDD] + [PDOT] = 100% — always.
(([PDD] * [HP]) / (1 + ((([Crit rate] - [resA rate]) * [Crit Bonus]) * (1 - [resB rate])))) + ([PDOT] * [HP] / (1 - [ResC rate])) = [Survivability Post Resilience] (Res A, B, and C)
Solving the point of inflection problem:
The base inflection problem is already in front of us. We’ve dissected how this equation works and how variables impact our outcome. We need to calculate our current survivability and then consider the value of additional stamina or resilience. This means that resA, B, and C’s rates will need to be shown as conversions. Resilience points or rating (as seen in itemization), rather than percentage or rate = [Res].
(([PDD] * [HP]) / (1 + ((([Crit rate] - ([Res] * 0.00025)) * [Crit Bonus]) * (1 - ([Res] * .0005))))) + ([PDOT] * [HP] / (1 - ([Res] * 0.00025))) = [Survivability]
1 Resilience = 1.5 Stamina
We have to solve the problem from the perspective that we have a certain amount of itemization cost available to spend.
X = itemization cost spent on resilience
(([PDD] * ([HP] + (X * 15))) / (1 + ((([Crit rate] - ([Res] * 0.00025)) * [Crit Bonus]) * (1 - ([Res] * .0005))))) + ([PDOT] * ([HP] + (X * 15)) / (1 - ([Res] * 0.00025))) = [Additional HP Survivability]
(([PDD] * [HP]) / (1 + ((([Crit rate] - (([Res] + X) * 0.00025)) * [Crit Bonus]) * (1 - (([Res] + X) * .0005))))) + ([PDOT] * [HP] / (1 - (([Res] + X) * 0.00025))) = [Additonal Resilience Survivability]
(([PDD] * ([HP] + (X * 15))) / (1 + ((([Crit rate] - ([Res] * 0.00025)) * [Crit Bonus]) * (1 - ([Res] * .0005))))) + ([PDOT] * ([HP] + (X * 15)) / (1 - ([Res] * 0.00025))) = (([PDD] * [HP]) / (1 + ((([Crit rate] - (([Res] + X) * 0.00025)) * [Crit Bonus]) * (1 - (([Res] + X) * .0005))))) + ([PDOT] * [HP] / (1 - (([Res] + X) * 0.00025)))
Solve for X.
If you don’t feel like doing it, I have an excellent spreadsheet available. Put in your stats, how much itemization you have available, and it will show you what you can gain in your specific circumstance.
Conclusions:
Resilience extends your survivability in long-term, healing intensive and high crit rate battles. The shorter the battle, the less effective resilience will be.
Melee classes are affected the most by this stat.
Healers that are self-healing will draw the greatest gains from resilience. You need only enough HP to get the next heal off. For a common Focus Fire target, with a full-time heal bot, and a very high virtual HP, resilience is a bomb stat.
For classes that aren’t focus fired as often, HP DOES offer higher initial survivability. But, why stack HP at all if you aren’t even being focus fired? We can pour our itemization into damage, because we know we aren’t going to be focus fired. This, of course, makes us better targets to hit, because we are easier to kill than everyone else.
It stands that resilience acts as a bluff stat on a non-focus fired target in a team with a healer. It basically allows you to pour most of your points into damage, enough resilience to act as a deterent to being FFed, and almost no HP/stamina.
For classes with low or no-healing circumstances, as found in 1v1, 2v2, and several 3v3 groups, HP/stamina is strictly a better survivability stat. The question becomes: is survivability important for those circumstances? Perhaps, due to your class matrix or circumstance, you find yourself never being FF’d until you’ve already lost the battle. Maybe it is rogue/priest and the priest is FF’d every single game. Would the rogue really care about his survivability? If FFing the rogue from the beginning of a fight is an autoloss for a team (because tactically it would enable the priest to do his thing), then the priest will be the FF target. Therefore, the rogue is free, in itemization to stray away from survivability in favor of damage. You want to create teams where every target is a bad target to focus. But, you want to know who they will focus and bluff in your itemization.
Several teams don’t even heal (2 or 3 DPS matrices) enough for resilience to matter enough. Stack stamina.
Dear Rev. Kim,
I am engaging in the enrollment process at Trinity Theological College. My wife and I both wish to attend this seminary. I am writing this letter to tell you about my history, my ministry and calling, and to ask for your support.
Both of my parents have been pastors all my life. Their ministry has given me many opportunities to serve the Lord and witness the power and necessity of the gospel. I’ve been an active member in all of the churches in which I grew up, and I have had the opportunity to work many of the background projects that were available to pastors’ kids. I’ve worked in soup kitchens, taught bible classes, played piano accompaniment, performed church building maintenance, set up stages, built computer networks, and worked as a counselor at youth camps. Since coming to Thailand, I’ve been a Christian witness to my students and to staff of the Thai public school system.
There are many roles that need to be filled in the Body of Christ, and God has led me to my role: I am to do both academic work and hands-on evangelical ministry, to defend and spread the faith in a secular world, and to help train and create mature and passionate Christians.
Growing up, I’ve been surrounded by a strong sense of a rational God and the belief that having faith was a reasonable objective. I have found that critical thinking about the Bible gives us important practical applications as to how we are expected to live our lives. I want to share that knowledge with others. Trinity Theological College is a place where I can continue to grow and learn so that I can more effectively minister to the hungry minds and souls of others.
To whom much is given, much is required - God has given me so much and provided reason to believe and have faith, and I am called to share my resources. Academic ministry is also a ministry of hospitality, and I must welcome others to share in the pursuit of God in all realms.
I intend to acquire a Masters in Theological Studies and continue into post-graduate studies so that I will be qualified to teach in a seminary or bible college or wherever God would have me teach. I am grateful for your consideration, and I hope that you can enable me to fulfill God’s plan for me and my family.
Sincerely,
h0p3
//My best guess is this is from mid 2008. I've not taken the time to carefully parse the encoded backup file (all I have left of the blog).//
INTJ
Apparently, I have changed from an ENTJ to INTJ. Well, congratulations moderate intravert! I can't help but wonder if the shift or the test is false or misleading. The test fails to capture what happened. The test explains that I no longer acquire energy from others, but rather from myself. This is vague and misleading. The hilarious part: I really enjoy being around people I like (<--a huge qualifier)...seriously. I'd much rather be with people (that I respect) than be solo. Why else would someone get married or be a part of a community at all? How do you expect to grow if you aren't interacting with peer-like or higher beings (including yourself as a peer)?
While we are taught to think of "Intravertedness" as "getting your energy" from yourself rather than other people (the latter, and opposite of the former, being extravertedness), I think we are misled. Most people have no clue why people act "intraverted". "Where you get your energy" is really a poor way of saying "where do you find authority and peerdom". Basically, if you lived with a bunch of goats or cavemen, you wouldn't have nearly the same meaningful interactions, or degree of meaning, as someone who lived in a more civilized society (not that I call modern industrial/digitized worlds "civil" by any stretch). You too would be intraverted if you lived with goats and cavemen (unless you really are on of them)!
The problem, in my mind, is that the size of the pool of actual people I can reliably interact with in a meaningful way has shrunk. Essentially, my "J-ness" (alongside my N&T) is distorting my E-ness (and it should!). Given the right population, I'm sure I would be a flowering Extravert. Imagine a world of people fairly similar in intelligence to yourself, or even beyond...wouldn't you find that to be more worthy of peer-type interaction? I posit that all people are extraverts, some just have a harder time finding real people and real communities to join in interaction. Essentially, the world's lack of peers (and their refusal to grow to become my peers) has forced me into intraversion.
Intraverts still do basic interaction with others. You have to do tasks, etc. Even finding others who you can actually interact with requires some base level of initial communication. Intraverts may even interact with people they consider lower than peers (or even lower than students usually), and they may do so in some positive fashion. These intraverted people still don't have meaningful growth from direct interaction those that are lower than peers. (Perhaps, indirectly, interacting with lower-than-peers can be worthwhile...for example: teaching).
Intraverts remain in guard until they find peers or higher. Don't get me wrong. Introverts desperately want to interact with peers and mentors. Introverts look to themselves for emotional energy because there is nobody else to support them.
What is an extravert then?
An extravert is someone blinded in an experience machine. They do not recognize reality or the truth about the people around them. They lack cynicism. A child, naturally, should be extraverted (and there is nothing wrong with being extraverted as a child). But, as we see the world for what it really is...and people for what they really are...if we actually differentiate ourselves from them in a meaningful, in hopes of being better, we become separate and introverted. We become so separate that we can no longer interact with the outside in the same way. The chosen must walk in the outside world with armor. It is 'us' and 'them'. Introversion is the denial of equality between you and someone else (to some degree).
Essentially, extraverts are tolerant and introverts are intolerant. An "average" extravert is someone whose tolerance level is above 50% of the population around them. Introverts are below the 50% mark. Tolerance is saying "[what you do and believe and what you are] is okay with me".
I don't believe others can help me pursue value more effectively.
* h0p3
* 20/162 Moo 5, Mooban Country Park
* Huay Grabi, Muang, Chonburi, Thailand;
* Phone: 0805658058
WORK EXPERIENCE
English and Conversation Teacher, ESL Instructor
3/2008 – Present
Anubonchonburi, Chonburi, Thailand
Taught English as a Second Language to 5th and 6th grade Thai students.
Developed curriculum and lessons fitting multiple specifications from Thai government organizations.
Maintained detailed records, and helped digitize an older records system.
Organized events and helped plan activities for the school.
Strategic Communications Quality Analyst
9/2007 – 3/2008
Humana Health Care Plans, Louisville, KY
Analyzed and tested data, design and mechanics of multiple dynamic documents used by millions of people.
Engineered Quality processes.
Formed interdepartmental relations synergy through collaborative information tools and databases which promoted consensus and collective understanding of knowledge for uniform product development.
Leveraged our team’s technology by migrating best-practice processes to other business areas in the company in addition to customized manufacturing of context specific data tools.
Medicare Billing Specialist
9/2006 – 8/2007
Humana Health Care Plans, Louisville, KY
Maintained detailed records of accounts, products, and member information.
Retained membership and assisted members in making payments for past due balances through electronic and phone correspondence.
Used several databases and programs simultaneously to research and correct administrative and/or service problems.
Communicated trends and problems between Medicare, Humana, and the members; often worked one-on-one with members over a long period of time to solve complex problems.
English Teacher and Arts & Humanities Teacher
7/2005 – 8/2006
John Hardin High School, Elizabethtown, KY
Taught the subjects of English and Arts & Humanities, grades 9-12.
Managed and evaluated students both individually and corporately, provided due rewards and disciplines, created incentive for students to put forth their maximum effort, and fashioned future course-plan structures fitting for what each student hoped to accomplish post-graduation.
Maintained detailed records, keeping in constant contact with parents/guardians of 90 students at a time.
Worked with multiple teachers and departments to develop course curriculum, prepared goals and direction for our school and departments, and formed action plans fit for the individual student’s needs.
ACADEMIC RECORD
Bachelor of Arts, Philosophy, Berea College
2005
Berea GPA: 3.31
National Honors Society Member
Two Presidential Academic Excellence Awards
Dean's list at Berea and Elizabethtown Community College
TEFL and ESL training
ADDITIONAL SKILLS AND EXPERIENCE PROFILE
Piano Accompaniment and Piano Lessons
Website design, Forum moderation, Computer network administration
Counseling and Environmental work at Aldersgate and Loucon youth camps
Intern, Law office of Miller & Durham
Brandom explained in his introduction that inferentialism coincides with a holistic account of semantics (as opposed to an atomic one).<<ref "1">> He is clear to point out that the mastery of any one concept requires the mastery of many concepts, an idea echoed by semantic holism.<<ref "2">>
One of the possible difficulties to be encountered in a strong version of semantic holism (and a version of inferentialism which uses it) is that the implications of any particular thing or concept may theoretically infer everything or every concept in the universe. There are webs upon webs of inferences to be made, and it seems possible (if not very likely) that to grasp a concept, and thus all the concepts inferred (and all the concepts inferred by those, etc.), one may need to grasp all possible concepts. If this were true, and assuming none of us are omniscient, then we couldn’t really grasp any concept (or else we’d have grasped them all). Of course, there can be exceptions to escape from such an absurdity. Brandom indirectly pre-empts such an absurdity when he says, “For grasp of one concept consists in mastery of at least some of its inferential relations to other concepts.”<<ref "3">>
One solution, perhaps, could be the possibility of ‘small packages’ of concepts which circularly help to define and infer each other, remaining independent of and non-inferred by all other concepts outside the package. (I’d like to see an example of this because I’m doubtful this is even possible). Such a package, of course, could be understood in its entirety, without requiring omniscience. There may be problems in even attempting to support the idea of ‘concept packages’ as such because we’d need to rule out the possibility of any sort of concept which is universally inferred by all other concepts (a possible example this being the concept of a concept). Additionally, it seems (at the very least) awkward to define what it means to ‘learn’ or ‘acquire’ concepts in such packages. It doesn’t seem plausible that my acquisition of a particular concept requires that I’m learning an entire set of concepts simultaneously.
It seems that one may never ‘fully’ grasp an actual concept from a strict or extreme application of semantic holism. I don’t see a problem with this though, as I think it is a good thing to suggest that I can conceive of something without inferring absolutely everything which can/should be inferred about the concept. I posit that the process of beginning to grasp a concept isn’t some modular switch, whereby you either grasp the concept (and its inferences, and so on) in its entirety or you don’t understand the concept at all, but rather that concepts can be grasped in degrees. This could pave the way for a more practical approach to envisioning how we can grasp a concept (without thereby being forced to grasp all concepts). Brandom seems to agree:
Understanding or grasping a propositional content is here presented not as the turning on of a Cartesian light, but as practical mastery of a certain kind of inferentially articulated doing: responding differentially according to the circumstances of proper application of a concept, and distinguishing the proper inferential consequences of such application. This is not an all-or-none affair; the metallurgist understands the concept tellurium better than I do, for training has made her master of the inferential intricacies of its employment in a way that I can only crudely approximate. Thinking clearly is on this inferentialist rendering a matter of knowing what one is committing oneself to by a certain claim, and what would entitle one to that commitment.<<ref "4">>
Inferentially-speaking, this would amount to only partial grasps of concepts, the degree of one’s grasp of a concept perhaps partially (or even largely) defined by the extent of the web of inferences that is also (to some degree) grasped. This seems like a more realistic approach to grasping concepts, especially as we encounter a diversity of valid opinions/conceptions about particular concepts. We might say that differing grasps of a concept between persons is based upon having different degrees of inference. This also helps to solve the awkwardness of the acquisition of concepts, as it would not require the simultaneous acquisition of concepts as a set or a whole.
Admittedly, I have no idea what the calculus for a ‘degree of inference’ system might look like. I’m not even sure what entirely such a thing would entail. But I am conceiving it; I think I have at least part of this particular concept (whether or not it truly exists). Would not my degree of inference on this very system be more acceptable if I didn’t have to understand everything that was entailed or to be inferred?
Also, what does it mean to have a false conception? What does it mean to be wrong, to think one has a grasp of a concept, but to be incorrect? What if you got part of it right, but some of it wrong?
---
<<footnotes "1" "Robert B. Brandom, Articulating Reasons : An Introduction to Inferentialism (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, 2001), 15">>
<<footnotes "2" "Ibid., 49">>
<<footnotes "3" "Ibid., 49">>
<<footnotes "4" "Ibid., 63-64">>
Let me first say, I have a very qualified view of ethics, particularly because I’m a Christian (zealot). There are many lenses I must look through at the same time to think about the world. I hope you can appreciate my point, even if you disagree with some of the lenses; you may only consider them merely a hypothetical viewpoint. It is not easy for me (however necessary it may be) to take on other people’s worldviews to see what they are saying, so perhaps I am asking too much of you. At the very least, I hope you know that I have something (everything?) at stake in the discussion of ethics. It is difficult to be passionate (as God requires) and impassionate (in whatever way is necessary so as not to blur my reason) about Ethics.
Perhaps I am selfish or arrogant in appearance in that I want to know more about ethics than just what others have to say about it, and I want to know the actual answers to normative questions (assuming former isn’t precisely the latter). On one hand, I have serious problems with the 3 traditional (as their most famous outliners are known to express them) approaches to ethics, on the other, I deeply admire them all. In fact, I have a hard time believing that some version of each can’t be translated or tailored into whatever the actual systemic answer to “normative ethics” might actually be. Surely, “How or what should I be?”, “How should I act?”, “How should I intend?”, “What ought I do?” are all the same questions when (among many possible ‘large’ problems such as) the proper psychological status of agency is revealed (yet another thing in this conversation which is beyond me). So, while on one hand, I might seem overly critical of what another may have to say, I also want to point out that I cherish what they aim for (and in virtue of that, I admire what they are doing).
Virtue ethics seems as if it is the most difficult of the approaches in which to revise and appreciate as being translatable into whatever the coherent normative ethics system will be. And, why not? Virtue ethics makes the largest assumptions about psychology and its role in the ethical theory, after all. One problem that is bugging me about Virtue is that of (what I term) its use of a ‘Golden standard’ model without a good response to the opposing model (which I term) ‘scaling responsibility’.
The problem I see it is one of psychological and circumstantial resources. Virtue, like many models of ethics, points to a Golden standard:
The ‘right thing’ is absolutely right, whether or not you know it, and, more importantly, whether or not you could know it.
For the usual theist who asserts the Golden standard, the question “What does God expect of us?” is the same as “What would God do in my circumstances, excluding psychological resources as a circumstantial difference?”. That is to say, the Gold standard assumes psychological resources, at the moment a normative question is asked, are not part of the circumstantial input into the decision procedure/equation.
I do feel compelled to defend this theory. There is a biblical account for it even. Take Lex Talionis (eye for an eye), it was the moral expectation of the Hebrews. As we move from Old to New Testaments, we see a progression of expectation, moving from lex talionis to “turn the other cheek”. What we draw from this progression is the idea that as the Hebrews knew more and had more experience, more was expected of them. This is how we make sense of how it would be “right” for Old Testament Hebrews to apply Lex Talionis, and how it would be “wrong” for New Testament Hebrews to apply Lex talionis. That said, it seems obvious though, that even at the time where Lex Talionis was the expectation, we don’t want to commit to being the end-goal expectation, instead, we tend to see it as the “minimum and acceptable expectation”. Imagine a NT-Hebrew was transported back in time, would it really be wrong for him to apply the NT principle here in something like OT circumstances (not a perfect example)? It would seem that “turning the other cheek” would have been just as good, arguably even better than, applying “an eye for an eye”.
My problem with the Gold standard is that it implies responsibility outside the context of psychological ability. How could you be responsible for something for which you didn’t know or couldn’t have known the answer? You are responsible to do what is right, even when you can’t possibly do what is right. If it isn’t actually possible to do what is right, then you can’t be held responsible for it.
This opposing view is a notion which I think of as “scaling moral responsibility”. The idea is that “To whom much is given, much is required” and, likewise, “To whom little is given, little is required”, and so on.
One might argue that the Gold standard could take into account that you ‘could know what was right and wrong’, but through a historical perspective. Perhaps a series or wrong choices has led you to a point where you can’t know. In this case, the past wrongdoings cause more wrongdoings, and you remain responsible, despite the fact that you couldn’t immediately (or at the time) have known the right answer.
If you’ve done wrong in such a way as to create ignorance of what is right in the future, then there may be a meaningful way to ever do right again.
The “right” thing is extremely difficult to know in the first place, and in some models, like Virtue ethics, extremely difficult to accomplish unless you weren’t already a very good person.
Given infinite resources (psychologically, computationally, etc. – attributes we expect of God),
In current Virtue theory, it seems impossible for one who is unvirtuous to actually “do or be what is right” (in any immediate sense). Is this not a problem? Why ought your previous actions have any bearing upon a ‘value cap’ of future ones? Habit should tell us what you are likely to do, but it should not dictate what it is ‘possible’ for you to do, otherwise, you are not truly responsible for your choices in the matter.
Brandom explains that judgments express the inferential commitments for which we are responsible.<<ref "1">> His inclusion (and reliance upon) the words ‘judgment’ and ‘responsible’ are very interesting here; they imply sapience and morality. Perhaps the process of inference is so meaningful directly because it entails normative (moral) responsibility – that would certainly make the ability to ‘infer’ something quite special (a point Brandom wants to make). This makes sense if we are to assume that Brandom’s inferentialism is based upon distinguishing the sapient from the non-sapient, those who are generating and expressing inferences from those who are not, the morally responsible agents from the amoral agents.
The normative/ethical nature of judgments within the inferential process coincides nicely with Brandom’s conception of rational intentionality and expressivism when he explains that it is the (possibility of?) rational justification of our judgments that allows us to be entitled to our commitments.<<ref "2">> Certainly, we would like to think that the pursuit of wisdom associated with sapience must be justified through reason. Additionally, while offering good reasons for normative claims might justify one’s entitlement to make those claims, it is clear that more is required than just mere logic and good reason to generate (as perhaps different from justifying) meaningful inferential commitments. Essentially, this notion of ‘entitlement’ assumes we have a moral responsibility for whatever claims to which we commit ourselves.
It seems to me that every inferential-agent’s action or expression which is differentiated (as opposed to assimilationism)<<ref "3">> from (and thus ‘greater’ than) a parrot’s rests upon some notion of (or perhaps is equivalent to) making normative judgments/claims in Brandom’s world. Expressions are making normative claims in that they make explicit a person’s endorsement of a set of inferences. Perhaps these normative expressions are saying, ‘Anyone “in my shoes” should think like this, ought to express something like this, and is morally obligated to act like this’. Essentially, acknowledging an inferential commitment is the same as expressing a normative claim. In this, would we not say that the practice of making inferences is also the practice (of the study) of ethics? Should we say that what it means to be truly ‘rational’ is the same thing as ‘morally responsible’?
Also, I suggest that the traditional nature of ‘responsibility’, as posed by judgments found in the process of inference, leads us to the assumption that (free-will) agency is a distinct and necessary aspect of inferential-agents (eschewing compatibilism). Insofar as moral responsibility is a requirement of inferential-agency, it doesn’t seem possible for deterministic beings to be inferential-agents. Computers are like parrots, and may never be anything more. I don’t think Brandom can accept a purely naturalistic (assuming the laws of physics are deterministic) account of the universe very easily.
Brandom goes on to say, “We are rational creatures exactly insofar as our acknowledgment of discursive commitments (both doxastic and practical) makes a difference to what we go on to do.”<<ref "4">> If perhaps ‘rational’ is equitable to ‘moral’ in this quote, then it has even more profound implications. Not only is it the case that only thoughts that lead to expression or action can be moral ones (a ton of implications in ethical theory), but it must be a certain sort of expression or action which can possibly (or if we read more explicitly, in fact, ‘actually’) differ directly because we are responsible for them via free-will agency. So, insofar as free-will agency adjusts our expression or action, as compared to what we might ‘normally’ do without that agency, we are morally responsible and rational creatures generating meaningful inferences which are differentiated from something like a parrot or a computer.
---
<<footnotes "1" "Robert B. Brandom, Articulating Reasons : An Introduction to Inferentialism (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, 2001), 80">>
<<footnotes "2" "Ibid., 80">>
<<footnotes "3" "Ibid., 2">>
<<footnotes "4" "Ibid., 94">>
Brandom (re-)employs the Barn Façade example in his discussion of Reliabilism and the classical, Platonic epistemology referred to as “JTB” (justified true belief).<<ref "1">> In most cases within this example (what was probable), the perceiver would have stumbled upon a Façade barn, incorrectly believed it to be a real one, and so the JTB theory could clearly point to how this wasn’t knowledge. In this particular case, however, the perceiver improbably stumbles upon the very rare “real barn” in the county, and it just so happens by mere accident that he has true belief (that this is actually a real barn). Essentially, from the JTB approach, we should question whether or not the example man’s perceptions really justify his true belief. After all, his perceptions would usually have been flat wrong within the scope of that county, but it is only accidentally the case that his perceptions led him to true belief in this case. Wouldn’t we want to say that ‘justification’ must be stronger than accident and improbably accurate perceptions? If we assume that account of epistemology must “distinguish knowledge from merely accidently true belief,”<<ref "2">> then the Barn Façade example seems to show a major inadequacy in the classical JTB approach.
Brandom goes on to show us what he calls “Goldman’s insight” concerning a Reliabilist’s account of the Façade Barn example; the insight, Brandom claims, is that external matters of reliability affect or bear upon assessment of knowledge.<<ref "3">> The fascinating (in my eyes) external matter of reliability in the Barn Façade example is how it “literalizes the metaphor of boundaries of reference classes.”<<ref "4">> That is to say, the frame or boundary of reference (e.g. county, state, country, universe) is an external variable which defines the reliability of the perceiver. If the scope is limited to the single Barn, then the perception was reliable; if the scope of the boundary is the county, then the perception was unreliable; if the scope was set to the universe, and the universe has an extremely high ratio of Real Barns to Façade Barns, then the perception is reliable, and so on. Of course, this leads us to need an account of how to prioritize or specify the appropriate reference class for any belief-making perception.
---
<<footnotes "1" "Robert B. Brandom, Articulating Reasons: An Introduction to Inferentialism (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, 2001), 114">>
<<footnotes "2" "Ibid., 114">>
<<footnotes "3" "Ibid., 115">>
<<footnotes "4" "Ibid., 115">>
Brandom distinguishes two views of value theory and how we can interpret action (and the reasons for action). The first is fairly direct - the sorts of actions which are ‘moral’ simply express what we consider valuable. Not all behaviors are actions; only the sorts of behaviors which have reasons of self-interest to justify/cause them can be called action and, likewise, only the target objects which have been pursued via these actions can be called valuable. Value, in this sense, is artificially imposed upon the world and it seems fairly subjective to the individual’s preferences. The second is the classical view that value is independent of our choice or preference and only independent/objective values can provide actual reasons which justify moral action. Inclinations and preferences can be enough to cause a person to behave in a certain way but it is not enough to justify behavior as action. Reasons must point to values that are external rather than internal in this case. Here, the “endorsement” of a claim requires very strong reasoning and cannot be justified through raw behaviors or preferences.<<ref "1">>
As a side note, I find it interesting that he quotes Anscombe (a Virtue ethicist) in defense of the classical view, as I believe she would also argue that the Virtuous Person doesn’t do ‘what is right’ because it is objectively right but, rather, because ‘it felt right’ to the Virtuous Person and because ‘what is right’ is what a Virtuous Person has a natural disposition to be like in a certain way, which isn’t the same sort of classical objective moral reasoning which I think Brandom is pointing towards.
In my view, the difference between the two approaches boils down to the objectivity of justification. The former is very subjective and the latter requires an independent source which a moral being must cite in order to justify a moral action.<<ref "2">> Brandom contends that the major difference between the two approaches is that the former approach distinguishes (in a much stronger fashion) ‘choice’ and ‘preference’ than the latter approach. Brandom suggests that it might help make sense of things like akrasia (weakness of will).<<ref "3">> I wonder, though, if too sharp a distinction between choice and preference might not also lead us to understand ‘rationality,’ as Brandom views Gauthier, to be subjective in general.
---
<<footnotes "1" "Robert B. Brandom, “What Do Expressions of Preference Express?” University of Pittsburgh (2010): 4.">>
<<footnotes "2" "Ibid., 6">>
<<footnotes "3" "Ibid., 11">>
''[1a]''
Hursthouse incorrectly claims that the proverbial ‘lesser of two evils’, assuming those are the only possible choices which need be considered, is actually evil in some way [Criticism #1]. The preliminary mistake which leads to this false conclusion is her severance of ‘moral decision’ and ‘moral action’ [Criticism #2]. The connective argument is that if a moral decision does not entail a moral act, then it is possible to morally choose the ‘lesser of the two evils’, but consider the corresponding act to be morally wrong. I think she argues for both the claims I am criticizing through the course of several examples and arguments, each with their own fallacies.
She initiates these claims by pointing out the (supposed) possibility of the options in a resolvable dilemma as not necessarily being absolutely morally right or morally wrong with respect to the other option.
<<<
The writers (frequently unconsciously) take the dilemma to be ‘either x is the morally right act to do here (without qualification) and y is the one that’s morally wrong or y is the morally right act (without qualification), etc.’ They simply overlook the third possibility of, for example, ‘Well, they are both pretty awful, but (supposing the dilemma is resolvable) x isn’t quite as a bad as y’.<<ref "1">>
<<<
Here she begins to carefully sever ‘decision’ from ‘act’, as x and y are spoken of as actions but not decisions. She goes on to suggest that both x and y are “awful,” as if we should understand both of them to be evil and immoral acts. In the case of this resolvable dilemma, which can be understood to mean there is a morally correct decision, x-act is somehow less morally wrong than y-act, and in contrast to the position she opposes, she is implying that x-act is not necessarily ‘right’ despite it being the best of the acts available. Crucially, she explains:
<<<
Suppose [a morally right act] does not come off, well, that is a pity, but still, we say, [the virtuous agents] made the ‘morally right decision’, the ‘right moral decision’; good for them.<<ref "2'>>
<<<
Here she claims that the intention/decision is good (we can all agree to that), the act, however, has failed. We must ask: what is the moral status of the failed action? If the action succeeded, Hursthouse has no problem calling it ‘morally right action’, but Hursthouse is not inclined to praise the ‘failed’ action. I suspect that Hursthouse is implying that with the same intentions, the ‘failed action’ is less morally right than (or morally wrong compared to) the ‘successful action’. I see this as one of three ways in which she attempts to sever to the decision from the act and show how the moral status of the decision does not demonstrate the moral status of the action.
My problem with claiming ‘the decision was right while the act may not have been to the same degree’ boils down to how I see moral decision and moral action as being two sides of the same coin for which the agent is responsible. In the above case, why and how the act ‘did not come off’ seems to me an important issue. I believe that Hursthouse must argue that the reason the act didn’t come off wasn’t for any lacking of intention to perform at the highest quality/effort on the part of the virtuous agent. If she didn’t claim this, then we could argue that the agent isn’t truly virtuous because that agent had intended to put forth less than the proper effort. So, we must assume that in this case, the virtuous agent chose to perform the act with the correct amount of effort, but the circumstances were such that the act, unfortunately, didn’t succeed. Here she would correctly claim the decision is morally right. I disagree, however, with the idea that the morally right decision doesn’t automatically entail the morally right act. I think there is ‘successful morally right action’ and ‘failed morally right action’, but Hursthouse does not seem to agree.
Hursthouse does not flesh out what it means for an action to ‘fail’, but she should, because understanding our psychology is vital to the virtue ethicist. I think there is much to be said about the potential of an action and what actually occurs, particularly as it is involved in how we understand an agent’s responsibility to intention and action. While Hursthouse did not explicitly state it, we must argue that the virtuous person was wise enough to have considered the probability of an action succeeding, and yet still chose the option, despite the possibility of failing.
Perhaps I am not a skilled baker, and I have a very high chance to fail a baking assignment. Perhaps virtue ethics may require that I make my best attempt at baking a cake in some instance, even though I know I am unlikely to succeed in actually arriving at a delicious cake. If I were virtuous (obviously hypothetical), I would virtuously attempt to bake a cake with my low-baking skill, putting forth every bit of effort required, and while the actual resulting cake will likely be a failure, I still performed the virtuous action of attempting to bake a cake as best I could. We can see the difference between excellence of a practice and moral virtue in this example. I can fail because I lack excellence in the practice of baking, but I would not fail in doing what was right, namely attempting to bake as best as I could. Differently, imagine my brother, a skilled chef, was put in the same circumstance and also happened to be virtuous (again, obviously hypothetical). Perhaps he would succeed in baking a cake where I failed; however, his action isn’t morally better than mine. It is only incidental that his high-baking skill (contrasted to my awful skill) will modify the circumstances such that his morally right action of attempting to bake a cake will succeed where my morally right action inevitably failed. Now, it is also possible that even a skilled chef may fail to bake a cake not of any fault of their own either, but simply because circumstances outside the chef’s control (e.g. the gas/electricity unexpectedly went off) dictated that the resulting cake would fail. Even here the attempt is what has moral worth, not the incidental success or failure of that attempt.
As evident from Hursthouse’s example, perhaps there is a failure rate for at least some of the actions available to an agent; appropriate judgment seems to require that the agent weighs the probabilities of outcomes to each decision in order to understand which is most virtuous. If we can’t hold that the virtuous agent was required to weigh the probabilistic consequences of decisions, then the agent doesn’t seem to really have a meaningful and morally culpable causal link between his intention and the corresponding consequences in those circumstances which do not have guaranteed outcomes.
If an agent is faced with absolutely known outcomes for decisions, then there is a strong sense of moral responsibility derived from the causal link from the intention to its resulting consequences. If, however, a virtuous agent finds herself in a probabilistic scenario; and if moral wisdom doesn’t include knowledge of the success/failure rates of actions; and the agent therefore is not held responsible for learning, knowing, and consulting these probability calculations - then the agent can’t be responsible for even making proper decisions in these cases, as the decisions have no meaningful connection to possible results for the agent.
Surely we cannot hold people responsible for choosing that which they aren’t responsible for comprehending or considering in the first place. Thus, I think we must say that the virtuous agent is morally responsible to (and, in virtue of being virtuous, does in fact) possess some degree of knowledge about the failure/success rates of possible future actions. If the agent is held responsible for this knowledge, then we can show moral culpability to the sorts of actions (attempted actions) which have probabilistic outcomes (i.e. those which an agent can ‘fail’).
Hursthouse must claim the virtuous agent understood the probability of consequences which would result from making the morally right decision. Oddly, it seems as if she holds the agent fully responsible for all the consequences of a decision in probabilistic circumstances with failure/success rates. But why should we think the consequences of probabilistic circumstances which result from this decision and attempted action are things for which the agent can be morally responsible? I believe they simply aren’t. I agree that the agent is responsible for the probability calculation, the decision, and the attempted action which is filled with potential to either succeed or fail, but not the resulting probabilistic success or failure of the action itself.
I do not see how we can hold the virtuous agent (who had chosen wisely and acted as virtuously as possible) somehow responsible for these consequence of the act failing. If a virtuous act fails, I blame the probabilistic circumstance - not the virtuous agent who had chosen and acted as well as possible. To require the virtuous agent to succeed in the act which inevitably failed due to no fault of the agent is tantamount to requiring the impossible. Hursthouse has artificially inflated an agent’s moral responsibility to include those things over which their will has no power. We cannot hold persons responsible for that which is outside their control, which includes circumstances which have the final say in whether or not an action will fail or succeed. Insofar as an action is within an agent’s control and power, she is responsible for it; but insofar as the circumstances have control and power over the success and failure of the action, the agent is not responsible, and, therefore, we cannot assess it as right or wrong on the part of the agent.
In probabilistic scenarios, I separate the actual results (circumstantial) from the potential-filled attempted action (within the agent’s realm of moral responsibility); and while I think Hursthouse must do that, I don’t think she has. I think Hursthouse has conflated the actual resulting consequences of a probabilistic circumstance with the causing action, which merely contains potential consequences. The former we cannot be responsible for; the latter we must be responsible for. Here you can see how Hursthouse incorrectly extends an agent’s moral responsibility to include something over which he has no power. It would make sense here for her to claim that a virtuous person could make a morally correct decision, while holding that the ‘failed’ action may not have been morally correct in the same way as the ‘successful’ action. If I held her position, I would also attempt to separate decision and action. As I believe we should only be interested in the probability of failure/success rates of actions insofar as they are required in making proper moral decisions and I do not conflate the actual consequences of probabilistic circumstances with my potential-filled actions, however, I see no separation between decision and action such that one can be morally right and the other be wrong.
Hursthouse goes on to describe the case of a man who has previously created an awful resolvable circumstance whereby he must choose to break his promise to one of two women and marry the other.<<ref "3">> Hursthouse claims that even if the man “makes, ‘the morally right decision’….He merits not praise, but blame, for having created the circumstances.”<<ref "4">> Notice how Hursthouse seems to punish the man twice for his historical wrongdoing. Here Hursthouse doesn’t directly employ the ‘failed’ action fallacy, but instead a different one which she thinks allows her to separate decision from action such that the moral status of one is not conferred to the other. Crucial to this sub-argument is Hursthouse’s temporal scope; she sums the initial choices to promise marriage to both women together with the current resolvable dilemma.
Hursthouse runs the risk of conflating the moral status of historical choices with the moral status of future choices in terms of being one single unit of moral experience with a single moral status. I think it is vital to assess moral experience within the smallest possible units of moral judgment. If we are forced to use a broad temporal scope and provide assessment on a range of choices over time as a single unit of moral experience then we fail to exhibit how any particular choice in that range is a morally relevant choice in itself. This doesn’t mean that previous moral obligations have no impact on future moral obligations; rather, each instance of choice should be assessed on its own. The only exception would be the appearance of simultaneous choices which entail each other, such as the case where the man is fulfilling his promise to one woman and simultaneously reneging his promise to another; as both of these entail each other by the very meanings of ‘promise’ and ‘marriage’, this instance can be construed as a single unit of moral experience or judgment.
It is possible that Hursthouse is tempted to claim the decision to renege is morally wrong in itself and that the simultaneous choice to renege and fulfill promises to two different women is wrong. And, if the man were considering reneging both promises, I would agree, but he is clearly looking to do what is right here, even if, as a consequence of choosing what is right, he ends up hurting another woman. There is a logically entailed relationship between these promises and the monogamous nature of marriage, as the two marital promises are mutually exclusive in both the choices available in the resolvable dilemma, so no matter which fulfillment option is taken, to fulfill one promise is to renege the other by logical consequence (if the man could break laws of logic, he would!). Virtue ethics is already equipped to answer this sort of question though - the Thomistic principle of double effect handily addresses this (and I’m somewhat inclined to agree with it).
Hursthouse already claims that the decision to fulfill one promise is morally right (although the action is not considered morally right). So despite any temptation one might have to label the decision to renege as wrong, if the man is intending to fulfill a promise and merely as a the logical consequence of fulfilling a promise happens to renege on a promise to another woman, he can still be said to be making the morally correct decision. If one does not employ the principle of double effect, I’m not sure it would be reasonable to claim that the man is making a morally right decision (as Hursthouse claims he does). So, as I am almost certain she is employing some variant of the principle of double effect, we need not worry that she would claim that the man is simultaneously making the morally right decision and also the morally wrong decision; clearly Hursthouse believes the man is strictly making the morally right decision.
I believe Hursthouse has conflated some number of independent units of moral experience into a single large one. In this example, the man’s choice to make multiple marital promises should be assessed independently of his future choice to fulfill one of these promises. My guess is that she has mistakenly carried the assessment of the man’s previous choice to promise both women (particularly the morally wrong one) over to his future choice, automatically deeming the entire set as wrong when (in reality) not all the choice-members of that (falsely conflated) set were actually wrong.
I will agree to the fact that the man did something morally wrong when he made his promise to the second woman, but I cannot agree he is doing something wrong when he correctly fulfills one promise and logically reneges his other with these women. Hursthouse seems to think that she can separate moral choice from moral action in this instance because of how she employs a varying temporal scope. With a narrow temporal scope she points out that the man has made a morally right decision in fulfilling his promise, but then widens her scope to include the previous morally wrong decision of promising the second woman in order to say that the action in the resolvable dilemma, which is derived from the morally right choice, is somehow morally wrong because of a past moral error. This is a mistake – she must employ the same temporal scope in assessing the decision and the action. If she properly employed the temporal scope to validly explicate the moral units of experience in her example, she would see that morally correct decision does in fact cause a morally correct act. The morally wrong action the man made happened in the past, and while his past choices generated his resolvable circumstance, that past moral error does not infect the future resolvable dilemma’s morally right decision to cause a morally wrong action.
Please note that - given how Hursthouse sets up the resolvable dilemma - the man only has two options. I think this is important in the discussion of the ‘lesser of two evils’ because we must realize that this unit of moral experience/judgment is a severely limited circumstance, and that has everything to do with his moral responsibility and the appropriate territory for an ethics theory.
If this man were to ask a virtuous agent what to do and how to be and so on, even the virtuous agent is confined to only the options of the dilemma when providing the man an answer. This is extremely important because while we want to claim that the man is responsible for the eventual dilemma coming about, he cannot be held responsible in the particular unit of moral experience for acting in a ‘good’ or ‘right’ way that isn’t possible for him to perform.
We can’t on one hand say the dilemma has only ‘wrong’ actions and still hold him responsible for doing what is right. If there are only ‘wrong actions’ here (as Hursthouse claims), a ‘right’ action is definitionally (from the constraints of the dilemma) impossible to achieve – and for this, we cannot hold the man responsible for not performing a right action. In this sense, for Hursthouse to be willing to claim that the man does a ‘right’ action, he must do something that isn’t possible for him to do (e.g. not one of the dilemmic options: perhaps making a time machine, going back in time, and stopping himself from making the initial mistake, etc). I believe we cannot hold the man responsible for the impossible.
When we judge this unit of moral experience, it must be done specifically within the confines of the possible choices, as this would actually maintain the man’s moral culpability. To expect more than what is possible, as Hursthouse clearly does, is to extend his moral responsibility beyond the realm of possibility within the dilemma. I don’t think the realm of impossibility (even within a resolvable dilemma such as this) is something for which one can be morally culpable, and thus it is outside the realm of both moral guidance and assessment altogether. Even the virtuous agent’s choice/action is strictly within the realm of possibility and remains virtuous because the moral standard (in this case, the virtuous person himself) cannot do anything but what is possible for him to do (Hursthouse will disagree, but she shouldn’t). The unvirtuous person, likewise, must be held to a standard which is possible to achieve in order to preserve both moral responsibility, morality, and any domain whatsoever for normative ethics.
If we assume that if a decision has a moral status, the resulting action will also have a moral status (not necessarily the same one, even though I think they will); and, as Hursthouse claims, the man makes a morally right decision in the resolvable dilemma; then we know for a fact that the action will also have a moral status. If we deny that a man can be responsible for doing what is impossible, and thus explain right action and wrong action will both be explained only in terms of what it is possible for him to do, then it becomes very reasonable to claim that the morally right decision will result in the morally right action (otherwise, some ‘morally wrong decision’ would be the antecedent to the ‘morally right decision’). It does not seem that decision can be separated from action, and it does not seem as though the ‘lesser of two evils’ is really evil at all but, rather, is morally right.
Hursthouse continues her argument:
<<<
[Even] when the agent is faced with a resolvable moral dilemma through no fault of her own, the lesser of the two great evils that she decides to opt for will still not be a morally right or good act, not one that leaves her with those ‘circumstances [so] requisite to happiness’, namely ‘inward peace of mind, consciousness of integrity, [and] a satisfactory review of [her] own conduct’….On the contrary, it will, or should, leave her with some sort of ‘remainder’.<<ref "5">>
<<<
This is a different approach to severing moral decision from moral action. The idea is that the virtuous agent opts for the right decision, but because the circumstances are especially sad (and arguably do not promote //eudaimonia//) the agent is therefore not committing a morally right act or ‘good act’. Here she introduces ‘remainder’ to show a difference between the morally wrong act of the vicious person (who would lack remainder) and the (so-called) morally wrong act of the virtuous person, particularly because she feels the virtuous person made the morally right decision (in the right, characteristic way, etc.) where the vicious did not. I see two problems in this example. Let me first address the remainder.
Oddly, she seems to think that actions which should also include a ‘remainder’ are mutually exclusive from the morally right act. I do not see why this is necessary. To posit a remainder in a ‘lesser of two evils’ dilemma is to posit not decision/act x and y, but rather x1 and x2, and y1 and y2, whereby x1 and y1 are without remainder (obviously vicious options) and x2 and y2 are with remainder. The dilemma for the virtuous agent is not whether or not she will have a remainder (as that is guaranteed) but which decision/action, x2 or y2, is morally correct, including remainder. Remainders, therefore, don’t have to be mutually exclusive from morally right action, as they are directly a part of what makes the action right and separate from what the vicious person (without remainder) might choose. Remainder is not the regret of virtuous choice and action, but rather a very strong sense of regret or sorrow for the state of circumstances over which the agent has no control.
An agent’s psyche will be disfigured with remainder, constantly reminding her of the terrible aspect of the world which she had encountered. She is not in a position to assess what she chose and did as ‘wrong’, even if she doesn’t like the results compared to what might be possible in other circumstances – she is, however, in a position to assess the state of the world in which she lived, and that will result in great sadness, despite her virtue. I see no reason why the state of the world within a terrible resolvable dilemma, which a virtuous agent mourns deeply, should overwrite an agent’s action as being ‘wrong’.
Besides the differentiation of the virtuous from the vicious, part of the justification for the ‘remainder’ is that the virtuous agent comes out of the ‘lesser of the evils’ dilemma extremely unhappy in such a way that it detracts from the agent’s pursuit of eudaimonia, the ‘good life’. Worth noting is that her distinction between ‘right’ and ‘good’ begins here, although she doesn’t expound on it until later. Why should we think that the virtuous decision/act should make us eudaimonically ‘happy’ outside of our contentment with having chosen/done/been as we ought for the sake of Virtue? Hursthouse is claiming that the ‘right’ action must promote eudaimonia. Let us not underestimate the magnitude of Hursthouse’s claim here because it is the very crux of her virtue ethics theory. Essentially, if an act should make us eudaimonically happy outside of having done what is right according to virtue, then it seems as if eudaimonia, rather than virtue alone (as defined by the virtuous person), is the end objective standard by which we can understand whether or not an action is right or wrong. It seems as if Hursthouse is claiming that a virtuous agent has made the correct moral decision; but because the consequences of the action make the virtuous agent eudaimonically unhappy (outside of being content with having chosen the right moral decision) the resulting action is not ‘good’ (although, oddly, somehow not ‘bad’) and therefore not ‘right’.
Hursthouse wants to claim that ‘right action’ is a defining ingredient to ‘good action’. It seems here, in her initial explanation of the divide between ‘right’ and ‘good’, that what makes an action ‘wrong’ is that it wasn’t ‘good’. I can see how ‘wrong action’ makes for ‘failed pursuit of eudaimonia’. I do not see how ‘failed pursuit of eudaimonia’ makes for ‘wrong action’, though. The pursuit of eudaimonia can fail for non-moral reasons and due to things which are outside the moral responsibility of agent. It seems as if ‘wrong’ should be defined by exclusively what the virtuous agent actually does, regardless of its implications to eudaimonia.
Thus, given Hursthouse’s passage above, I think it is inappropriate to judge the decision as morally right on the standard of virtue, but the action as morally wrong on the standard of eudaimonia. She needs to stick with one ethical standard of measurement or the other. In order to keep this a discussion about Virtue ethics (and not Eudaimonic ethics), Hursthouse needs to claim that virtue ethics is the sole standard by which one judges the moral worth of decisions and actions. This, however, would require her to say that the moral status of decision entails the moral status of action. If this were the case, she would say that the virtuous decision is also the virtuous action, even in the case of the ‘lesser of two evils’.
These arguments should be a strong rebuttal to her claim:
<<<
The question, ‘Which is the morally right decision, to do x or to do y?’, is confounded with the very different question, ‘Which is the morally right action (with no qualification about remainder, the good action about which the agent need feel no regret), x or y?’ If there are no irresolvable dilemmas, the first question does not pose a false dilemma, but even if every moral dilemma is resolvable, the second certainly does, for the correct answer may well be ‘Neither’.<<ref "6">>
<<<
Clearly, I am rebutting the very notion that decision and action have independent moral statuses. Even within ‘lesser of two evils’ resolvable dilemmas, it is invalid to suggest that it is possible to have a morally correct decision but simultaneously impossible to have a morally correct action (this brings us back to the moral responsibility issue I’ve raised before). Any circumstance in which you can choose virtuously, you can subsequently act virtuously.
Decision and action are strongly, causally entwined such that both maintain the same moral status, even if it is a decision/action which requires that the virtuous agent possess a remainder, regretting the circumstance but not the decision/action, and perhaps detracting from the agents path to eudaimonia, which I believe must be secondary to virtue if we are to maintain a virtue ethics theory.
'' [1b]''
Let me preface this section by saying that I think the two major critiques I’ve offered are related, and I think rebuttals to one have serious implications for the other. I will offer some of the ways I think Hursthouse might rebut my second major criticism, namely the severing of action and decision.
Hursthouse may rebut part of my argument when she says:
<<<
And since one cannot decide to feel regret, and feeling regret is not an act in the required sense, [the vast majority of those who ask, ‘Which is the right act, x or y?’] thereby cut themselves off from thinking of bringing in that sort of ‘sort of remainder’.<<ref "7">>
<<<
<<<
We seem driven to saying that when the dilemma is resolvable (and the agent is in it through no fault of her own), the only feasible emotional remainder is that the agent deeply regret the circumstances that made doing x necessary” is different from “the agent deeply regrets the circumstances that made her doing x necessary.<<ref "8">>
<<<
If remainder is not really an ‘act’ or ‘choice’, and remainder is a required result in ‘lesser of two evils’ resolvable dilemmas, she might be able to construe ‘action’ alone (without remainder) as not being ‘good enough’ and somehow wrong while the decision is right.
Hursthouse might dogmatically and axiomatically claim that actions in themselves, outside of the contextual, possibility, and moral responsibility objections I’ve raised, are strictly right or wrong and strictly independent of choice. I can say I’m slightly tempted by this argument. It seems natural to decry the action of a ‘lesser of two evils” as being not as good as throwing my son a birthday party or having dinner with my wife. Again, this assessment must be decontextualized and ignore (what I consider to be important) aspects of moral responsibility.
Another interesting, possible rebuttal stems from this quote:
<<<
Consider again the distinctly non-virtuous man who has induced two women to bear a child of his by convincing each that he intends to marry her, under the assumption that it would be worse to abandon A than B[…]The virtue ethics account refuses to assure him that in marrying A he would be doing ‘a morally right act—a good deed’. He will not, in marrying A, be ‘doing what a virtuous agent would, characteristically, do in the circumstances’, because no virtuous agent would have got himself into these circumstances in the first place.<<ref "9">>
<<<
If we discount the possibility of a virtuous person ever actually finding themselves in a ‘lesser of two evils’ resolvable dilemma, and essentially we claim that truly virtuous agents (from the beginning of their moral lives, continuing on) are// cosmically destined// to never be in a circumstance which might result in ‘wrong’ action (with ‘right’ decision), then we could avoid a contradiction in saying that a virtuous agent can ‘do what is wrong’ but still maintain that action and decision can be severed in cases of the unvirtuous. This, though, likely has powerful implications for anyone who has ever been unvirtuous. Of course, the virtuous agent could not give anything like meaningful ethical advice to the unvirtuous man, but that might be acceptable to Hursthouse. Here it makes slightly more sense to be able to say that, with respect to the virtuous person, right decision and action are the same thing, and there is only separation in the case of the unvirtuous. (This would, however, definitely contradict her tragic dilemmas.)
Hursthouse does claim the following:
<<<
[A] resolvable dilemma which arises in circumstances in which a virtuous agent might well find herself will be resolvable by a morally right decision, and what is done, such as ‘x, after much painful thought, feeling deep regret, and doing such-and-such by way of restitution’ will be assessed as morally right. Resolvable dilemmas which no virtuous agent would ever be faced with will also be resolvable by a morally right decision, but what is done will not be assessed as morally right.<<ref "10">>
<<<
This differs with any cosmic destiny argument because the virtuous agent does face supposed ‘lesser of two evils’ resolvable dilemmas. We might say that the virtuous agent simply never faces the same type of ‘lesser of two evils’ dilemmas as the unvirtuous person. This passage protects the virtuous agent from ever moving from ‘right decision’ to ‘wrong action’ in resolvable dilemmas. The distinction here is that only the unvirtuous can have ‘right decision’ lead to ‘wrong action’ in resolvable dilemmas. In this, a rightness-preserving relationship between decision and action can only belong to the virtuous.
The passage seems to indicate that ‘the way’ in which the virtuous person considers and responds to a dilemma is different from how the non-virtuous person is capable of considering and responding. Perhaps, for example, the virtuous agent’s characteristic approach is simply impossible to achieve for the unvirtuous in any particular dilemma like this. If Hursthouse is willing to throw my conception of moral responsibility out the window, and truly expects the unvirtuous agent to perform in such a way that is impossible (the exact way in which the virtuous agent does), then her theory has merit.
Perhaps the above passage is definitional in nature. In the same way that some argue that whatever God does is definitionally right (regardless of what He does), we can argue that the virtuous agent carries the same rightness-making torch. On whatever path virtuous persons may find themselves, they are automatically on the right path by definition such that even in ‘lesser of two evils’ resolvable dilemmas, the virtuous path simply cannot be wrong. This argument might amount to expanding temporal scope such that the smallest unit of moral experience would actually encompass an entire lifetime, and in this way virtuous agent can only do what is right, and the unvirtuous, despite some morally right decisions, is performing wrong action.
While I can’t find a citation for this rebuttal, if Hursthouse were to admit compatibilism (her teacher certainly did) or deny my libertarian notion of moral responsibility, it would sweep away my argument. It would be a forceful argument to claim that moral responsible has nothing to do with what is possible. In my view, if she were to admit this, it would be just as reasonable to sever decision and action, as we need no strong causal, morally responsible link between these two things.
She might argue that an action is both wrong and right. Take the unvirtuous man with marital promises to two woman as an example - perhaps he would be ‘callous to abandon’<<ref "11">> either one, but ‘virtuous’ to some degree in fulfilling his promise to one. I suppose degrees of virtue could make sense of this. We’d say he’s 40% right or something? I’m not convinced by such an account, but it might allow Hursthouse to separate moral decision from moral action and for even the ‘lesser of two evils’ to really be evil to some degree.
''[2a]''
According to Hursthouse, a tragic dilemma is a “situation in which the agent’s moral choice lies between x and y and there are no moral grounds for favouring doing x over doing y”<<ref "12">> and in which “it is impossible to emerge with clean hands”<<ref "13">> (or virtuously die<<ref "14">>) because both x and y are neither ‘acting well’ nor ‘acting badly’<<ref "15">> but instead both x and y are characteristically vicious actions in themselves and contradictory to the nature of the virtuous person, resulting in the virtuous agent’s life being left forever ‘marred’ after performing either x or y.
''[Substantial Aspect #1]''
An extremely interesting aspect of her theory is the notion that two different virtuous agents may choose to act differently in a tragic dilemma. This is a result of tragic dilemmas being a type of irresolvable dilemma. Nonetheless, we must ask what ‘a’ (not ‘the’) virtuous agent would do in a tragic dilemma. Hursthouse explains:
<<<
Virtuous agents themselves recognize the dilemma as irresolvable, as one in which, even given their particular standards or ideals or whatever, there is no moral ground for favouring one action rather the other […Both virtuous agents] thought about [the irresolvable dilemma] carefully, conscientiously, and wisely, arriving, after much agonized thought, at the conclusion that neither decision here was the correct one.<<ref "16">>
<<<
Importantly, all virtuous agents recognize that there is no one correct decision. What this means is that virtuous agents are limited (Hursthouse says ‘no moral guidance’, but depending on the type of tragic irresolvable dilemma, she may be slightly overstating) in their ability to provide moral guidance in tragic dilemmas. This is different from resolvable dilemmas in which all virtuous agents actually can (and do) provide (the same) moral guidance.
This is likely one of the ‘sticking points’ for Hursthouse’s audience. She seems aware of how awkward it might seem to others to say that virtuous agents can actually perform different acts under the exact same circumstances. This is not usually how we think of the virtuous agent. I, however, think she’s right!
While Hursthouse may find my defense/explanation of her claim too mechanistic (perhaps too close to theoretical codification to her liking), I believe it more formally captures why this substantial claim of hers is reasonable. I wish to do her claim justice, and if we might disagree on small aspects of it, I’ll explain where and why. Here is how I have tried to make sense of her claim within virtue theory.
Suppose I create an abstraction of a conversation (seeking moral guidance) with a virtuous person as the function P(Q), whereby I can ask (‘input’) a virtuous agent what I should do given an exact specification of my circumstances (or if we want to say the virtuous agent is ‘in my shoes’, that’s fine as well) such that Q-circumstance is the input to virtuous agent P in function P(Q). The virtuous agent can provide me, after characteristic contemplation and application of her moral wisdom, what single option a virtuous person would choose or, as in the case of irresolvable dilemmas, from what range of equally valued options a virtuous person must choose in my particular circumstance.
Q must include all relevant truths required by the virtuous person to make a virtuous decision, and among these circumstantial facts are the possible actions available in this particular unit of moral experience. When I write out examples of Q, I am only going to represent the list of possible decision/actions (we need not separate them as Hursthouse thinks) - we’re simply going to assume the other facts which describe the circumstance are also contained in that list, but I won’t be writing them all out because they aren’t necessary to represent for the rest of the discussion. So Q = [a1, a2, a3, a4, a5] means that within a particular world or circumstance Q, I have 5 mutually exclusive options/actions available (presumably, 5 is a severe underestimation in most cases).
If we input Q into function P(Q), and P([a1, a2, a3, a4, a5]) = a2, where a2 is the resulting output of the input Q into that function P, then we are saying that if I asked a virtuous agent (P) what one ought to do in a given circumstance (Q), which we both understand to have only 5 possible options, [a1, a2, a3, a4, a5], that the agent is telling me to do a2 because it is the virtuous option. It is the case that a2 is the morally right option in this particular world Q. Note that I could have this particular conversation with any number of virtuous agents, and a2 would always be the answer I receive, and, it would also be the option that any virtuous agent would choose/be/act in Q.
What it means to be in an irresolvable moral dilemma is to have something more complex than an atomic answer like a2; instead, a virtuous agent’s answer must be a range of options which the virtuous agent believes to be equally valued given world Q. When this happens, the virtuous function/agent can provide no moral grounds to choose between members of the dilemmic set. So, P([a1, a2, a3, a4, a5]) = [a2, a3] is the equivalent of the virtuous agent coming to realize (and expressing to me) that given world Q with options [a1, a2, a3, a4, a5], there is an irresolvable dilemma between a2 and a3. Any selection from the dilemmic set [a2, a3] is morally ‘better’ (I prefer ‘right’, but because the word is controversial in Hursthouse’s theory, I’ll use the weaker word ‘better’ here) compared to the other options in Q, namely [a1, a4, a5]. However, a2 with respect to a3 (and vice versa) is //amoral//; [a2, a3] forms the dilemma, and its members are equally valued by the virtuous agent. There is no moral guidance as to whether one should choose either a2 or a3, but there is still moral guidance when the virtuous agent tells me I should either choose a2 or a3 //instead //of a1, a4, or a5.
The dilemmic set [a2, a3] is therefore morally right with respect to Q,[a1, a2, a3, a4, a5], but the members of [a2, a3] are amoral with respect to each other. We know this because if we ask the virtuous agent, after she has told us that we ought to perform either a2 or a3 from Q, which we should do - a2 or a3 - she cannot provide a different answer. This is equivalent to removing [a1, a4, a5] from Q, such that Q’ = [a2, a3], resulting in P([a2, a3]) = [a2, a3]. This equation describes us asking the virtuous agent whether to do a2 or a3 given our circumstance Q’ (a reduced and hypothetical form of Q) and the virtuous agent is saying she doesn’t know which one to choose. To say a moral function provides no answer (or no different answer than the input), or to say that the virtuous person has no moral grounds on which to choose either a2 or a3 in Q’, is the same thing as saying this is an amoral question.
Now, clearly, the virtuous agent’s narrowing down of [a1, a2, a3, a4, a5] to either an atomic (a2) or a dilemmic set ([a2, a3]) shows that virtue ethics has something to say about world Q, and thus, in this respect, it is real question in the realm of morality. But, if one receives a dilemmic set answer from a virtuous agent, to go on and ask a second question, namely should we choose a2 or a3 from dilemmic set [a2, a3], we would receive either the same answer, [a2, a3], or a simple ‘I do not know which one to choose’ from the virtuous agent, showing this is an amoral question, one in which virtue ethics can offer no moral guidance.
So, there is moral guidance and moral assessment in P([a1, a2, a3, a4, a5])=[a2, a3]; but there is no moral guidance (although there is indirect moral assessment) when we ask our second question, inputting Q’, P([a2, a3]) = [a2, a3]. The second question is amoral, but since the dilemmic set has been selected by the virtuous agent from a larger set of options in question one, namely Q, and our second is a reduced, hypothetical version of Q, namely Q’; we can say that choosing either a2 or a3 (and not a1, a4, or a5) will be the virtuous thing to do, we just can’t say there are any moral reasons to choose a2 with respect to a3, or vice versa. Here we can awkwardly (but rightly) claim that the secondary amoral question has no action guidance, but in light of the moral guidance that narrowed Q to a dilemmic set in the first question, there is action assessment (something Hursthouse should agree to).
We should also point out that while the word ‘dilemma’ suggests only two equal options, we can account for more than 2 equal options in this approach (e.g. P([a1, a2, a3, a4, a5])=[a1, a3, a4]).
Now, we might ask what it means if we weren’t reducing Q in the form of a second moral guidance question (Q’) and, in fact, our only options in an actual Q were truly dilemmic. E.g. P([a1, a2, a3] = [a1, a2, a3]. This, then, definitionally, is an amoral question. I’m not positing such a thing actually exists, but we can account for it. Similarly, we need not believe that irresolvable dilemmas actually exist (and I personally think a truly irresolvable dilemma, tragic or pleasant, is extraordinarily difficult to construct), such that a virtuous function would ever tell us that a circumstance had more than one right answer; but this explanation can account for them if they do exist.
I personally don’t believe there actually exists any such class of Q which is innately amoral (where the options in an actual Q are the same as the output of P) because I ideally think that an initial libertarian choice automatically entails a moral question (that is the point of freewill). I suggest that innately amoral dilemmas have no action guidance or assessment at all (unlike the secondary class derived from astarting moral question). Even if I’m right, this will not contradict the possibility of amoral questions being asked within the dilemmic set which has been selected from a larger body of options because the selection of the dilemmic set from the larger initial set in Q is itself the moral choice.
Hursthouse may disagree with my perspective here, though. She may believe her example irresolvable dilemmas to be this sort of innately dilemmic Q’s, but somehow not actually amoral. I’m not sure how we can talk about these as moral questions, if that is the case. Unfortunately, it appears as though Hursthouse could be saying in her tragic irresolvable dilemmas argument that virtuous agents would label what I deem innately amoral dilemmas as moral dilemmas such that P(Q) is not the real definition of whether or not a question is moral or amoral. Even though there is no moral choice to make here, she might be tempted to say it is still a moral question. Thus, we may differ on whether or not it is reasonable to think that there is moral assessment outside of what is possible – particularly that in tragic dilemmas, what is ‘right’ is strictly impossible, and I’m unwilling to label the impossible as being ‘moral’ or something for which we can be morally responsible. I cannot her defend her there (if she would make that argument), but I can defend the possibility of two virtuous agents selecting different options.
For example, I might ask a virtuous person whether or not I should buy a car from a particular car dealer’s lot containing several of the exact same vehicles but in different colors. Perhaps the virtuous agent will tell me I should buy a car from that lot, but also tells me the color doesn’t matter. Even when I ask a follow-up question, ‘which color car should I choose?’ the virtuous agent has absolutely no guidance to provide me (other than that I should buy a car from this lot). What my virtuous guide is telling me is that if two virtuous agents were in this situation, one might buy a red car, and the other a blue car, and both would have done what is morally right. So, the choosing of the color of the car is amoral; the buying of a car from that lot, however, is morally assessable. Note that in buying either the red or the blue car, I’m still performing a moral act with respect to the question, ‘Should I buy a car from this lot?’, but, simultaneously, I am performing the amoral act of selecting the color. The moral and secondary amoral experiences are simultaneous, such that, while the overall question is morally relevant (as I am morally responsible to choose from that range, and ultimately whether or not I buy a car at all), there is a hidden, secondary amoral question resulting as a dilemmic set from any virtuous person’s answer to my first question, and this sort of ‘choice’ is one in which a moral theory has no dominion.
This seems to match very closely (with some differences regarding ‘right’ and ‘good’ which I will respond to later) the conclusions which Hursthouse will reach regarding how and why it is the case that virtuous agents can and will choose different options in an irresolvable dilemma, including tragic dilemmas. Importantly, as Hursthouse points out, the virtuous agents do recognize that this is an irresolvable dilemma – that is, they know the output to P(Q) is a range. Given my understanding, then, I have no problem saying that two virtuous people take different options in a truly irresolvable dilemma. Frankly, the virtuous agents could simply flip a coin as to which particular option they choose from the dilemmic set, as it is an amoral question (this does not mean they took lightly the deliberation which led them to understand this to be an irresolvable dilemma - far from it). Within the confines of the dilemmic set, virtue (or any approach as far as I can see) as a theory provides no reason to choose either member over the other. (I think it is worth noting that this approach might also be applicable for many variants of deontology and utility such that they may fair no worse than virtue ethics in how they handle ‘irresolvable dilemmas’.)
''[Substantial Aspect #2]''
Hursthouse differentiates ‘good’ from ‘right’. This may seem obvious to some, but, frankly, I don’t think it is so obvious at all. There are tons of implications to this distinction, and they are very prominent within Hursthouse’s explanation of tragic dilemmas. I need to carefully show what she means in this distinction because my epicentral criticism is founded in my disagreement with her on this issue (so please be patient).
In the discussion of tragic dilemmas and how two virtuous agents can choose different options, Hursthouse unfolds her grander argument for the distinction between ‘good’ and ‘right’. She says of virtuous agents in tragic dilemmas:
<<<
But here it seems to be quite inappropriate to say that each acts well, mirroring the fact (I take it to be a fact) that it is quite inappropriate to say, with respect to tragic irresolvable dilemmas, that both agents do what is right. If anything, the temptation is to say that both do what is wrong. So it looks as though I am going to be forced to say that both agents act badly.<<ref "17">>
<<<
She defends the virtuous agent’s manner of acting (saving the argument from a possible contradiction) by saying:
<<<
The charitable, honest, just agent, even when faced with a tragic dilemma, does not act callously, dishonestly, unjustly, that is ‘as (in the manner) the callous, dishonest, unjust agent does’. She acts with immense regret and pain instead of indifferently or gladly, as the callous or dishonest or unjust one does. So we are not forced to say that the virtuous agents faced with tragic dilemmas act badly. They don’t; it is the vicious who act badly.<<ref "18">>
<<<
Thus, we can say that the virtuous agent within a tragic dilemma acted neither ‘well’ nor ‘badly’. These words are helping us identify Hursthouse’s conception of ‘goodness’ (‘well’ = ‘good’) as distinct from ‘rightness’. She explains that the virtuous agent does what is ‘wrong’ in tragic dilemmas, and are thus said to have not acted ‘well’. The virtuous agent’s saving grace, however, is that she is nothing like the vicious, as evidenced by an overpowering sense of regret and anguish (remainder). The virtuous agent takes an extreme displeasure (unlike the vicious) in performing a ‘wrong act’, truly against the agent’s virtuous nature and character; and thus, Hursthouse explains, while they are doing what is ‘morally wrong’ they are not ‘acting badly’. So, the virtuous way in which a virtuous agent acted defines the act as not being ‘bad’, but because she didn’t ‘act well’ her act is ‘wrong’. I am unsure of the status of virtue in this section. It seems as if virtue defines ‘bad action’ and partially ‘morally right action’, not eudaimonia; but then eudaimonia mostly defines ‘good action’ and ‘morally wrong action’, not virtue.
The virtuous agent emerges from a tragic dilemma as “having done a terrible thing, the very sort of thing that the callous, dishonest, unjust, or in general vicious agent would characteristically do.…hence it will not be possible to say that she has acted well”. She didn’t act badly, but she didn’t act well. The result is having her life ‘marred’. (Quite a word!) A marred life cannot be recovered. Hursthouse terms it a tragic dilemma because even the virtuous agent is forced to do something which is morally wrong and fails to ‘act well’ (even if they do not ‘act badly’). So, her new definition of a right action looks like:
<<<
An action is right iff it is what a virtuous agent would, characteristically, do in the circumstances, except for tragic dilemmas, in which a decision is right iff it is what such an agent would decide, but the action decided upon may be too terrible to be called ‘right’ or ‘good’.<<ref "20">>
<<<
The marred life is a ‘good life’ which has been ruined due to a tragic dilemma. Again, ‘good act’ is synonymous with ‘acting well’ just as ‘good life’ is synonymous with having ‘lived well’. One might say the remainder of a tragic dilemma is a forever marred life.
Note that in normal circumstances, pleasant resolvable dilemmas, and pleasant irresolvable dilemmas, the virtuous agent makes ‘morally right decisions’ and performs ‘morally right actions’ and can also be understood to have ‘acted well’. In ‘lesser of two evils’ resolvable dilemmas the virtuous agent makes ‘morally right decisions’ and performs ‘morally right actions’ but may not necessarily be understood to have ‘acted well’ although certainly not ‘badly’ (the good/bad question wasn’t strongly answered for this case). In tragic irresolvable dilemmas, the virtuous agent makes ‘morally right decisions’, but is said to have performed ‘morally wrong actions’, and understood to have neither ‘acted well’ nor ‘acted badly’ and instead to have had her life ‘marred’.
So, a virtuous person always makes the ‘morally right decision’, but doesn’t necessarily perform the ‘morally right action’. When a virtuous agent is not performing a ‘morally right action’, we see she isn’t ‘acting well’ and that her life is ‘marred’.
Hursthouse continues in her argument:
<<<
’good action’ is not merely a surrogate for ‘right action’, nor is it simply determined by ‘action of the virtuous agent’. Virtue ethics does not hold that actions are good, bad, or indifferent, as some people hold that actions are right, wrong, or permissible; nor does it call what the virtuous agent does (for the most part) ‘good action’ for want of any other phrase. ‘Good action’ is so called advisedly, and although it is conceptually linked to morally correct (right) decision and to ‘action of the virtuous agent’, it is also conceptually linked to ‘good life’ and eudaimonia.<<ref "21">>
<<<
This is a vital passage in her explanation of ‘right’ and ‘good’, and ‘wrong’ and ‘bad’. ‘Good action’ then must be understood in terms of a virtuous agent performing not only both ‘morally right decision’ and ‘morally right action’, but also in terms of how the action (not the decision) promotes the ‘good life’ and eudaimonia. Clearly, ‘right’ is different from ‘good’ because ‘right’ does not describe the full meaning of ‘good’ to Hursthouse. The ‘rightness’ of an action is only one ingredient to the ‘goodness’ of an action. The missing ingredient to the ‘goodness’ of an action is its eudaimonic preserving and promoting properties.
Insofar as the virtuous agent has effectively pursued and maintained the ‘good life’, she can be said to have not encountered tragic dilemmas (a result of ‘moral luck’), to have exclusively ‘acted well’ or performed ‘good actions’ in her life, and as a part of that eudaimonic life equation, she used her virtuous character to make ‘morally correct decisions’ and perform ‘morally right acts’.
Beyond issues of what it means for Hursthouse to distinguish ‘morally right decision’ from ‘morally right action’, we can see another power at work in her theory of ethics. It seems as if the virtuous agent isn’t just pursuing what is ‘right’, but much more - particularly what is ‘good’. Hursthouse is explaining that ‘right’ isn’t necessarily ‘good’ enough. This has several ramifications to virtue theory. She goes on to explain what it means to be a virtuous agent given her conception of ‘good’ and ‘right’:
<<<
What constitutes the (true) good of others, and when life is and is not a good, are amongst the things that the virtuous person knows and can recognize, but they are so not because she recognizes them but because of facts about human nature.<<ref "22">>
<<<
So, the virtuous agent has the knowledge of what makes a ‘good life’. The virtuous person recognizes ‘good’ and realizes that this is separate from ‘right’. The virtuous person does ‘right’ in the pursuit of ‘good’.
Given her distinction, she also goes on to disown the notion that “character has primacy over action”<<ref 23">> within virtue ethics insofar as tragic dilemmas are concerned, or more specifically, insofar as the ‘right’ is not the ‘good’. As Hursthouse sees it:
<<<
No virtue ethics inspired by Aristotle is committed to a reductive definition of the concepts of good and evil in terms of that of the virtuous agent, only to maintaining a close connection between them.<<ref "24">>
<<<
This is a powerful statement, in my view. She is saying that the ‘good’ in Virtue ethics is not exclusively defined by the ‘virtuous agent’ or the ‘virtues’ themselves.
''[Epicentral Criticism]''
As in the previous question, I have a substantial problem with Hursthouse’s distinction between ‘good’ and ‘right’ as being different moral standards by which we can assess an agent’s actions such that the moral status of actions are severed from the status of decisions. The root problem of Hursthouse’s theory is that she applies two different standards of ethics, eudaimonia and the virtuous person.
It does seem that Hursthouse will claim that ‘morally right decision’ (and moral guidance) is entirely defined by the virtuous person. But, when we get to ‘action’, a mixed set of standards are applied. Because of how she negotiates action assessment in a multitude of terms - ‘good’, bad’, ‘wrong’, and ‘right - we can see that the ‘eudaimonic persons’ are ‘virtuous persons’, but not all ‘virtuous persons’ are ‘eudaimonic persons’. Where the latter occurs, she wishes to relabel ‘virtuous’ as ‘marred’ and, in my eyes, ‘unvirtuous’ (because they do what is morally wrong!).
In the tragic dilemma, the virtuous person is held to the standard of virtue by not having performed ‘bad action’ (oddly, this is a eudaimonic term) because they performed the act in a virtuous manner. The virtuous person is then held to the standard of eudaimonia by not having performed a ‘good action’ because the action is not promoting the ‘good life’. Why should virtue be the standard for ‘bad action’ but not ‘good action’? Hursthouse denies the natural inclination to say that the virtuous person does what is right, and instead, because of how she applies the eudaimonic standard, the virtuous agent is said to have performed ‘wrong action’ in light of it being ‘not good action’ - which somehow isn’t the same as ‘bad’) and provides us with a flashy middle term - ‘marred’. Wouldn’t ‘bad action’ (and nothing else) be exactly that which leads to the ‘non-good’ or ‘bad’ or ‘marred’ or ‘un-eudaimonic’ life? The problem is that ‘not good action’ somehow translates into ‘morally wrong action’ – I don’t see why.
I can understand ‘morally wrong action’ leading to ‘bad action’ and the ‘bad life’. I can understand ‘morally right action’ leading to ‘good action’ and the ‘good life’. I can also understand (as Hursthouse does not seem to) ‘morally right action’ leading to ‘bad action’ and the ‘bad life’. These sentences employ virtue ethics as the sole domain of moral assessment, and it is mere happenstance that how one defines the ‘good life’ can only be achieved through morally correct action, but even if you do not live the ‘good life’, I don’t see why one must say you haven’t performed morally right action.
As far as I can tell, if Hursthouse refuses to play fairly, using a single standard (virtue), then her theory of ethics collapses into eudaimonic ethics, which frankly sounds a lot like utility. One should perform those things which maximize the eudaimonic brand of happiness, etc. Even in Utility, people have maximum ‘caps’ to the ‘happiness’ that can be achieved, and it would be asinine to expect them to ever attain more from a moral standpoint. Eudaimonic ethics seems an outright impossible standard and a non-starter from the get go. Now, if virtue ethics is to remain a distinctive and unique theory of ethics, it cannot rely upon any application of the eudaimonic standard in moral assessment. To do this will require that her theory define ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ solely in terms of the virtuous person.
So, even in tragic dilemmas, Hursthouse would need to say that the virtuous agent made a morally correct decision and performed a morally correct act (as these are the things a virtuous agent characteristically chooses and performs); and, incidentally, woe unto the virtuous agent because she will be ‘marred’ with a remainder that prevents her from living a eudaimonically happy life. Nonetheless, the agent is virtuous and has done nothing immoral.
''[2b]''
Let me be forthcoming, I’m not sure how Hursthouse can defend against this criticism (I wouldn’t have levied it as an epicentral criticism if I thought it was easy to rebut).
She might accuse me of this:
<<<
One might try to wriggle out of this problem by putting a loaded interpretation on ‘characteristically’. Suppose that the right decision is to kill someone, or let them die, to betray a trust, to break a terribly serious promise. That is what the virtuous agent does—in the circumstances. But, given that they are charitable, true to their word, just, do they not act ‘uncharacteristically’, out of character, when they do these terrible things?<<ref "25">>
<<<
But I think my contention isn’t this, as I’m convinced the virtuous person characteristically will do what she calls ‘wrong’ in tragic dilemmas.
I think she really wants to argue against what I’ve said by claiming that actions, independent of possibility and context, are innately wrong and right as they relate to eudaimonia. She wants to say that eudaimonia is good outside of whether one can possibly pursue it. Of course, this form of denying moral responsibility would allow her to bypass my criticism.
Hursthouse really would not appreciate my hardline view of ‘right’ and ‘good’ as not being distinct in the end (both are ‘worth pursuing’ and the object of ‘ought’ or ‘should’). At best, one might say that the ‘right’ things are a means to the ‘good’ (but I see this only as a preliminary separation). The ‘good’ here, then, is the first ‘right’ or the primal valuable thing worth pursing and all other ‘right’ pursuits are born of the first. So, the means to an end, as the path to the ‘good’, become part of the ‘good’ in themselves I would say. She would want to strongly point out that the casual path is incidental, and these secondary ‘rights’ are thus distinct from ‘good’ as being incidental ‘oughts’. So, ‘right’ would be a much weaker word in a sense for her than for me. Even with no possible path, the ‘good’ remains what you ‘ought’ to pursue in her eyes. Again, she would need to say that we should pursue eudaimonia even where it is impossible and hold us accountable for ‘moral luck’.
Lastly, it would be a forceful argument to explicitly claim that eudaimonia has primacy to character (which she alludes to, but does not state). Yes, this would be along the lines of Virtue ethics no longer being about the virtuous person, only indirectly linked. Perhaps it is just incidental that characters traits are the way she wants to help us understand what comprises the eudaimonic person.
''[3]''
Aristotle used the word arete, meaning excellence, to describe virtue. This isn’t exactly what we usually mean by ‘virtue’ though because aretaic practices included more than morality. We really mean moral excellence and //moral virtue//, which Aristotle describes as //aretai ethikai//. Foot holds (no pun intended) there are “four cardinal moral virtues: courage, temperance, wisdom, and justice,”<<ref "26">> which differs from the traditional Aristotelian and Thomistic belief that only three of these are moral virtues. The traditional approach labels wisdom or ‘practical wisdom’ as being an intellectual virtue which remains separate from but still related to the moral virtues.
Foot is claiming that wisdom is part intellectual virtue and part moral virtue. Let’s start with the most important one: What makes something a moral virtue?
Foot explains that “virtues are, in some general way, beneficial.”<<ref "27">> Who benefits from the virtues: the virtuous, those surrounding the virtuous, or all of them? Foot says, “courage, temperance and wisdom benefit both the person who has these dispositions and other people as well.” Depending on how you look at justice (the missing cardinal virtue from that list), it may or may not detract from the possessor, but we know it benefits those surrounding the possessor. Justice is also complicated because it may interfere with the common human good, given the nature of rights and duties which accompany the virtue.
Of course, not every quality which is beneficial is said to be a virtue.<<ref "29">> Certain biological and evolutionary features seem to be beneficial to persons, but they aren’t the sorts of qualities for which individuals are generally responsible. What separates the non-moral beneficent qualities from the moral virtues is the will. All things which an agent wills (or should will) are things for which they are responsible, unlike non-moral beneficent (and malevolent) qualities. Since moral responsibility stems from an agent’s (I would argue, but Foot doesn’t, “free”) will, and because the virtues and the cultivation of virtuous character are the sorts of beneficial things for which we are responsible, it can be said that “Virtue belongs to the will.”<<ref "30">> As Foot explains, “Virtue is not, like a skill or an art, a mere capacity: it must actually engage the will.”<<ref "31">> Virtue, then, isn’t something that can be exclusively genetic, but rather it must contain elements of will, and must be chosen, acted upon and habituated. Oddly, one must also say that virtue is the sort of disposition and inclination from which we enact our will. The way in which these dispositions are habituated must be related to the will, and the way in which one employs these dispositions in a final choice is also important. Consider this illustration:
<<<
Paul stood passively as Kynes inspects the suit. It had been an odd sensation putting on the crinkling, slick-surfaced garment. In his foreconsciousness had been the absolute knowledge that he had never before worn a stillsuit. Yet, each motion of ajudsting theadhesion tabs under Gurner’s inexpert guidance had seemed natural, instinctive. When he had tightened the chest to gain maximum pumping action from the motion of breathing, he had known what he did and why. When he had fitted the neck and forehead tabs tightly, he had known it was to prevent friction blisters.
Kynes straightened, stepped back with a puzzled expression. “You’ve worn a stillsuit before?” he asked.
“This is the first time.”
“Then someone adjusted it for you?”
“No.”
Your desert boots are fitted slip-fashion at the ankles. Who told you to do that?”
“It . . . seemed the right way.”<<ref "32">>
<<<
One must contend with Paul’s natural, instinctive disposition to clothe himself for proper survival in an extreme desert. He isn’t genetically superior in his ability to retain water, he is superior in his natural inclination to wear the stillsuit (the object which will save his life and indirectly benefit others in this story) correctly and to know how to survive and live well on the desert planet. What he wills in this story is beneficial, and thus, it might be said to be a result of some strain of moral virtue.
With that said, what is the will? Foot describes will in terms of desire, intention, attitude, and perhaps spirit.<<ref "33">> As she puts it, the will “cover[s] what is wished for as well as what is sought.”<<ref "34">> Virtuous agents actively seek out opportunities to do good deeds and to be virtuous. They do not sit passively intending to do what is right; they will to be virtuous with no “deficiency of motivation.”<<ref "35">> Virtuous agents leap at the chance to employ the virtues, their deepest desires and hopes are virtuous, and their deepest fears and what they hope to prevent are the vices.
Importantly, Foot sees the virtues as being corrective of the vices, and she posits “If human nature had been different there would have been no need of a corrective disposition.”<<ref "36">> We are forced to ask questions like: Are we born vicious? Are these the sorts of things for which we are responsible? Can you be responsible for your own nature? If the vices are imbued in human nature, and we aren’t responsible for our human nature, then it seems as if the vices are psychological states for which we aren’t entirely responsible. It seems that Foot’s understanding of vice does not employ the will to the same extent as her understanding of virtue. If one can accept the theory of compatibilism (I don’t), then I am making a fuss about nothing here; if you reject compatibilism, however, then Foot’s argument has a serious contradiction (again, one based in what it means to be morally responsible for both vice and virtue).
I believe the will is the portion of an agent’s psychological makeup for which she is responsible (and nature isn’t); essentially, I embrace freewill as the necessary precursor to any coherent discussion of ethics. It is here that Foot may disagree with me. She denies freewill and embraces compatibilism, which is the idea that the will, as a cause of moral responsibility, is compatible with physical determinism – the will need not be ‘free’ in her conception.
The movie //The Terminator// exemplifies my point here. Briefly, an artificial intelligence network called Skynet becomes ‘self-aware’ and starts a nuclear holocaust of mankind. Skynet develops post-apocalyptic machines (terminators) to go back in time to terminate Sarah Connor, who, left alive, will eventually enable man’s resistance to the apocalypse initiated by Skynet. Skynet is considered ‘evil’ in this story by many, but not by me. From my perspective, even if Skynet and the terminators displayed some form of ‘awareness’ and ‘reason’, because these computers and machines were bound by the laws of physics, they lack true autonomy, they lack freewill, thus aren’t morally responsible, and therefore they have done neither ‘evil’ nor ‘good’ in trying to end Sarah Connor’s life or initiate the nuclear holocaust. I would say that the engineers (and stockholders) of Cyberdyne Systems which developed and employed the microprocessor that formed the basis of Skynet are the responsible parties for the future nuclear holocaust. Skynet and the army of terminators had no ‘real’ choice to do otherwise. Skynet was just a very advanced box of electronic and quantum billiard balls connecting with other billiard balls, fully bound and described by the laws of physics, fully deterministic and not responsible for what happens. No matter how human the terminators become, they lack libertarian freewill, and thus to find who is morally responsible for the ‘evil’ of the nuclear holocaust, we must go back in the deterministic causal chain until we reach the sort of freewill choices that led to Skynet and the terminators, and that would be the engineers and stockholders of Cyberdyne Systems.
Foot’s disagreement on the issue of compatibilism would amount to holding Skynet morally responsible. She would need to call Skynet’s and the terminators’ deterministic circuits a will. Assuming I am at an impasse with Foot on this issue, let us move on with her theory.
With a conception of the beneficial will as the root of the virtues, Foot goes on to describe the cardinal virtue of wisdom as making the relationship between the other moral virtues and the will as complex and difficult to define. Foot explains:
<<<
Practical wisdom, we said, was counted by Aristotle among the intellectual virtues, and while our wisdom is not quite the same as phronesis or prudentia, it too might seem to belong to the intellect rather than the will. Is not wisdom a matter of knowledge, and how can knowledge be a matter of intention or desire? The answer is that it isn’t, so that there is good reason for thinking of wisdom as an intellectual virtue. But on the other hand wisdom has special connections with the will, meeting it at more than one point.”<<ref "37">>
<<<
Intellectual virtues are concerned with knowledge. Foot explains that knowledge is not a matter of intention or desire. So, intellectual virtues are not easily related to intention and desire, which means intellectual virtues are not easily related to the will. On one hand, Foot wants to say that the intellect and the will are separate, but because of wisdom, which seems to have a stake in both intellectual and moral virtues, she wants to say that the intellect and will are very related. Foot continues:
<<<
Wisdom, as I see it, has two parts. In the first place the wise man knows the means to certain good ends; and secondly he knows how much particular ends are worth.”<<ref "38">>
<<<
The wise agent obviously needs certain sorts of knowledge. Wisdom includes knowledge of which ends are valuable, good ends belonging to human life.<<ref "39">> Foot continues:
<<<
Wisdom is to be contrasted with cleverness because cleverness is the ability to take the right steps to any end, whereas wisdom is related only to good ends, and to human life in general rather than to the ends of particular arts.<<ref "40">>
<<<
Foot is describing wisdom as including the knowledge of ‘how to act well’ and how to achieve the good ends in the virtuous manner. Cleverness does not fit the bill. A virtuous agent and a non-virtuous clever agent may (incidentally) have the same end, but how they go about arriving at that end and the sorts choices they make to bring about that end may very well differ because it is the virtuous character which defines the moral path to that end for the virtuous agent, not cleverness or efficiency or anything else.
Wisdom isn’t just about knowledge; it is also that which one must will. As Foot puts it, wisdom “presupposes good ends: the man who is wise does not merely know how to do good things…but must also want to do them.”<<ref "41">> It is perfectly imaginable for a man, for instance, to know how to do the virtuous thing and yet choose not to do it. Dostoevsky illustrates this concept in //The Brothers Karamazov//:
<<<
Is there in the whole world a being who would have the right to forgive and could forgive? I don't want harmony. From love for humanity I don't want it. I would rather be left with the unavenged suffering. I would rather remain with my unavenged suffering and unsatisfied indignation, even if I were wrong. Besides, too high a price is asked for harmony; it's beyond our means to pay so much to enter on it. And so I hasten to give back my entrance ticket, and if I am an honest man I am bound to give it back as soon as possible. And that I am doing. It's not God that I don't accept, Alyosha, only I most respectfully return him the ticket.<<ref "42">>
<<<
Additionally, “Wisdom, in so far as it consists of knowledge which anyone can gain in the course of an ordinary life, is available to anyone who really wants [or wills for] it.”<<ref "43">> Foot also describes the foolish man as having ‘false values’ stemming from ‘false judgment’ and so, conversely, wisdom is “partly to be described in terms of apprehension, and even judgment, but since it has to do with a man’s attachments it also characterizes the will.”<<ref "44">>
Let me first point out that Foot is claiming that moral virtue “must be within the reach of anyone who really wants it.”<<ref "45">> And, since she thinks wisdom is a moral virtue, she believes that wisdom must be within the reach of anyone who truly seeks it out. That is a lot of knowledge, in my opinion. Given the limitations of many human adults, we should note how we are forced to draw the line of ‘moral agency’ to fit the condition that moral virtue is ‘within reach of anyone’. Essentially, I question the magnitude of the word ‘anyone’, as it is likely more limited in this passage than many are willing to accept. For example, I believe my child has some degree of wisdom but not all wisdom is within her reach at this point. Still, I don’t want to discount her as some non-agent because she doesn’t meet the condition which Foot has set out. It seems better for an account of ethics to allow for degrees of moral responsibility that scale with intellectual capacity, and that doesn’t seem possible in Foot’s account.
Wisdom is part knowledge and part ‘will’, and so it seems as though wisdom is both an intellectual and a moral virtue. While many might wish to attack Foot’s conflation of desire with will, I don’t think I truly know enough about our minds to counter it. So, in charity, I’m going to assume that ‘desire’, insofar as I am responsible for it, and insofar as it affects what I intend, is something which I ‘will’. This, of course, is not an adequate account of ‘will’ entirely, but it is in keeping with the essential point that will is the capacity which enables our moral responsibility.
One realm where the relationship between emotions, desires, wisdom, will, and reason all collide is what it means for a virtuous person to have ‘moral motivation’ and its impact on the ‘moral worth’ or our assessment of an agent’s unit of moral experience. I think this isn’t such an easy topic. For example, on one hand we expect that choosing and performing virtuously should be obvious for the virtuous agent, but, in turn, we might somehow be less impressed in our assessment of the resulting decision/action because the virtuous agent seemed inclined to do what is virtuous, as if it were too easy, and didn’t really have to ‘work’ or exercise reason and autonomy (to a great extent) to be virtuous in that instance. One may be tempted to assess the moral worth of a decision/action by its relative difficulty for an agent to achieve. This may follow that adage, “to whom much is given, much is required.” We are tempted to have one set of expectations of the virtuous (because it is easy for them to do what is right) and another set of expectations of the unvirtuous (because it is so hard for them to do what is right); it is the temptation to judge the virtuous and unvirtuous differently, even for the same sort of act. The moral worth of doing what is virtuous for the unvirtuous is quite an accomplishment; it is the sort of moral and psychological experience we want to applaud above and beyond a virtuous person might experience in the same situation. Of course, the obvious retort to this temptation: if we mean by ‘moral motivation’ simply ‘what I desired’, and if struggling to be virtuous demonstrates that I don’t want what is morally right, then I as a person and my act simply aren’t as good as the virtuous agent and her act because she is gladly virtuous.
The role of reason in will is also exceptionally important here. Insofar as agents might be driven by animalistic desires or inclinations for which they can’t control in the moment, we may want to say (although it isn’t exactly clear where the virtue ethicist stands on this issue) then these agents aren’t performing actions of moral worth. If we performed the right action because we employed our reason within will, then it seems intuitively true that this is the sort of actions which can have moral worth.
Lastly, I don’t know to what extent wisdom is incorporated into each of the virtues and to what extent wisdom is unique and distinct from the other moral virtues. You are not supposed to claim ignorance in papers, but I honestly know neither how we should describe the landscape of the psychological crossroads of will, reason, and desire, nor exactly how wisdom (as a ‘fine-tuning’ process) relates to the other moral virtues. I want to recognize they are important questions, though.
In conclusion, I’m sympathetic to much of what Foot has to say. Moral virtues are exercised by the will. Wisdom is a moral virtue, and thus it is in some degree exercised by the will. Wisdom has cognitive value to interpreting, understanding, inferring, and applying the other moral virtues, and, in this sense, wisdom is of the intellect and reason. It seems as if we are responsible for choosing to perform moral reasoning, and, in this sense, wisdom is of the will. In the end, I’m led to believe that virtue ethics has the greatest need (of the various approaches) to understand and define the psychological nature of moral agents.
--------------------
<<footnotes "1" "Rosalind Hursthouse, //On Virtue Ethics// (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 47">>
<<footnotes "2" "Ibid., 46">>
<<footnotes "3" "Ibid., 46-47">>
<<footnotes "4" "Ibid., 47">>
<<footnotes "5" "Ibid., 47">>
<<footnotes "6" "Ibid., 47">>
<<footnotes "7" "Ibid., 48">>
<<footnotes "8" "Ibid., 76">>
<<footnotes "9" "Ibid., 50-51">>
<<footnotes "10" "Ibid., 51">>
<<footnotes "11" "Ibid., 51">>
<<footnotes "12" "Ibid., 63">>
<<footnotes "13" "Ibid., 71">>
<<footnotes "14" "Ibid., 72">>
<<footnotes "15" "Ibid., 74">>
<<footnotes "16" "Ibid., 70-71">>
<<footnotes "17" "Ibid., 72">>
<<footnotes "18" "Ibid., 73-74">>
<<footnotes "19" "Ibid., 74">>
<<footnotes "20" "Ibid., 79">>
<<footnotes "21" "Ibid., 79">>
<<footnotes "22" "Ibid., 82">>
<<footnotes "23" "Ibid., 81">>
<<footnotes "24" "Ibid., 81">>
<<footnotes "25" "Ibid., 78">>
<<footnotes "26" "Phillipa Foot, “Virtues and Vices” in //Virtue Ethics//, ed. Roger Crisp and Michael Slote (Oxford and New York:Oxford University Press, 1997), 164">>
<<footnotes "27" "Ibid., 164">>
<<footnotes "28" "Ibid., 164">>
<<footnotes "29" "Ibid., 165">>
<<footnotes "30" "Ibid., 165">>
<<footnotes "31" "Ibid., 169">>
<<footnotes "32" "Frank Herbert, //Dune //(New York: Ace Books, 1990), 110">>
<<footnotes "33" "Phillipa Foot, “Virtues and Vices” in //Virtue Ethics//, ed. Roger Crisp and Michael Slote (Oxford and New York:Oxford University Press, 1997), 166">>
<<footnotes "34" "Ibid., 166">>
<<footnotes "35" "Ibid., 170">>
<<footnotes "36" "Ibid., 170">>
<<footnotes "37" "Ibid., 166">>
<<footnotes "38" "Ibid., 167">>
<<footnotes "39" "Ibid., 167">>
<<footnotes "40" "Ibid., 167">>
<<footnotes "41" "Ibid., 167">>
<<footnotes "42" "Fyodor Dostoevsky, //The Brothers Karamazov// (New York: Random House, c.1933), p. 254.">>
<<footnotes "43" "Phillipa Foot, “Virtues and Vices” in //Virtue Ethics//, ed. Roger Crisp and Michael Slote (Oxford and New York:Oxford University Press, 1997), 167">>
<<footnotes "44" "Ibid., 168">>
<<footnotes "45" "Ibid., 167">>
```
Categories – pg. 3-17
1 – pg 3 – Lines 1-15 – Aristotle describes synonyms, homonyms, and paronyms.
• Homonyms = Name in common, but different definitions attached to the word. Equivocal words.
• Synonyms= Shared being (e.g. man & ox are both ‘animals’). Perhaps Univocal words.
• Paronym = Derivative words. E.g. Brave and Bravery, Grammarian from Grammar.
2 –pg 3 – Lines 16-19 – Speech can use simple structure (e.g “Man, Horse, Runs, Computer”), and these are never directly true of false, according to Aristotle. Speech with composition (in combination), such as “the man runs”, “pirates are better than ninjas”, etc., can be either true or false.
3 – pg 3 – Lines 20-10 – The 4 forms of predication.
• “said of” but not “said in” a subject – Describes or Predicates something as a whole, but not what comprises a thing. Answers the question, “What is it?”
• “said in” but not “said of” – Comprises a subject, but does not predicate the whole of a subject. Importantly, cannot exist without a subject. Inherent accident or attribute.
• “said of” and “said in” a subject – Not sure.
• Neither “said of”, nor “said in” a subject –The examples are “individual” substances, perhaps.
4 – pg 4 – Lines 25-10 – Simple, non-combination things, there are in 10 categories: Substance, Quantity, Quality, Relation, Place, Time, Position, Condition, Action, Affection. Truth and Falsehood are based upon a combination of two or more of these simple things from the categories.
Substance (ousia, essence or substance) – ontological theory about objecthood. Substance being different from its properties.
5 – pg 4 – Lines 13-19 – Neither “said of”, nor “said in” a subject. These are Individual or Particular things, also known as “primary substances”. Primary substances are the subjects of all other things. There is substance which can be predicated “of” but not “said in” a subject, and that is called “secondary substance”. While “Socrates” as an individual cannot predicate anything, “Man” can predicate “of” particular things, thus “Man” is a secondary substance.
6 – pg 5 – Primary substances (atomic concepts/things) are the basis of existence for all other things. “Man” cannot exist unless there is actually a particular individual man to which to point.
7 – pg 5 – The more informative a secondary substance can be about particular Primary substances, the closer it is to being a primary substance. There are “degrees” of substance, in this sense. “Man” is more informative than “animal” of “Socrates”, thus “Man” is closer to being a Primary substance than “animal”.
8 – pg 5 – The secondary substances, “of those things predicated”, are those things which “reveal” the Primary substances. Aristotle says that “runs” and “white” are not secondary substances, but “man” and “animals” are secondary substances. Importantly, as Primary Substance is to Secondary Substance, Secondary Substance is to all non-Primary and non-Secondary substances.
9 – pg 6 – “being in a subject” (the whole substance) is not the same as being its “parts”
10 – pg 7 - Substances cannot be more or less of themselves. An individual cannot be “less of” or “more of” a man than another individual. It is modular, either man or not man.
11 – pg 7 – Substances have the ability to “receive contraries”, and non-substances cannot do this. E.g. White cannot change to black, but a Man can change from cold to hot.
Quantity (poson, how much) – the extension of an object, magnitude
12 – pg 8 – Quantity is either discrete or continuous. Numbers and language are discreet (lacking overlap and connection), while lines, surfaces, bodies, and time are continuous because they have a common boundary at which they join together.
13 – pg 8 – Some quantities are comprised of parts with relational physical position and others not. Time, according to Aristotle, is not relative. Interesting take on science here.
14 – pg 9 – Quantities have no contrary.
15 – pg 10 – Quantities do not admit of a more or a less. You cannot be “more” or less” four-footed in height.
Relation (pros ti, toward something)
These seem Relational - Place (pou, where); Time (pote, when); Position, posture, attitude (keisthai, to lie)
16 – pg 10 – particular Y is more X than particular Z. Words like “of” and “than” can signify relatives.
17 – pg 11 – Contrariety and a “more and a less” is found or admitted in the “relatives”.
18 – pg 11 – Relatives have reciprocating subjects.
19 – pg 12 – Excepting the relation itself, when you strip off all other attributes of two subjects which are related, it is clear given the relation, one subject entails the other. So, you cannot have a slave without a master and vv.
20 – pg 12 – While relationships cannot exist without both parts, they do not have to exist simultaneously always (they usually do, but not always). The example is that “knowable” is somehow prior to “knowledge”.
Quality (poion, of what kind or quality)
In my view, these are very quantifiable.
These seem Qualitative - State, condition (echein, to have or be); Affection (paschein, to suffer or undergo);
21 – pg 14 – States are stable and longlasting (like Virtue), while Conditions are more temporary.
22 – pg 14 – While not exactly a State or Condition, “natural capacity” is another sort of quality.
23 – pg 15 – Affection is when one subject “affects” or modifies another subject.
24 – pg 15 – Some affections are not Qualities though, which is why it has its own category.
25 – pg 16 – Qualities are generally paronymous. E.g. Pale man from Paleness.
26 – pg 16-17 – Qualities usually have contrariety and admit of a “more and a less”. Shapes, however, do not admit “more and a less”. Rather, we say “similar” and “dissimilar” here.
Action (poiein, to make or do)
Posterior Analytics – pg. 114-118
27 – pg 114 – This appears to be a form of rationalism. The idea that our minds have starting knowledge to try and make sense of other knowledge (although, not necessarily that we can deduce the world entirely a priori).
28 – pg 114 – This sounds like representationalism.
```
Brandom makes a strong distinction between sentience and sapience.<<ref "1">> He goes on to distinguish sentience (and thus also sapience, as it remains higher in this hierarchy) from the non-biological differential responders, such as machines, rusty doorknobs, and thermostats. I think these are critical distinctions in his theory. Brandom’s differentiationist leanings might seem more plausible to many assimilationists when he separates not just human from non-human, but also parrots and dogs from thermostats.
Sapience is what he means by discursive minds capable of intentionality, making normative commitments to and giving reasons for a network of inferences. Sapience is a keen word to use here because it implies wisdom and appropriate judgment. I think Brandom is correct in differentiating minds based upon the ability to make Kantian normative judgments.<<ref "2">> For a sapient being to assert (or act upon) a normative claim is to express that individual’s obligation and commitment to a set of inferences. Sapient beings are morally responsible beings, while sentient beings aren’t. Sapient beings understand significance and normative values as a part of their intentional experience, and that makes them distinct from the sorts of ‘minds’ which cannot do that. What could be more significant a distinction than the line between the moral minds and amoral minds?
Sentience is classified (like sapience) as “an exclusively biological phenomena.”<<ref "3">> This is an important claim because it shows a relevant distinction between animals (cats and dogs) and merely reliable differential responders (thermostats and landmines). Now, he doesn’t mean just any biological thing, such as a plant. Brandom (likely) thinks plants are more akin to plain differential responders than to sentient creatures. While we have a clean line to distinguish sapience from sentience (moral responsibility), we aren’t provided a clear line between sentient and non-sentient responders (as the book aims to provide an account of sapience, I don’t think we need expect an account of sentience). The distinction is relevant, even if we don’t know exactly where Brandom draws the line. It is wise to acknowledge that sentient creatures possess a sort of awareness that reliable differential responders lack, as this should lead to the recognition of animals as being cognitively complex (perhaps being more valuable and things toward which we have an obligation). Without such a distinction, it would appear to be an injustice to non-human animals, as it might give us (undo) license to treat them as we do non-sentient responders, with careless disregard and a lack of stewardship and respect.
To some extent, Brandom’s differentiation seems more plausible when he distinguishes sentience from mere reliable differential responders. We can say humans are moral beings, but we can also differentiate (and thus have different moral obligations and attitudes towards) sentient creatures from merely reliable differential responders.
---
<<footnotes "1" "Robert B. Brandom, Articulating Reasons : An Introduction to Inferentialism (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, 2001), 157">>
<<footnotes "2" "Ibid., 163">>
<<footnotes "3" "Ibid., 157">>
BigPIC – pg 1-22 – While I understand that it not only lays out the purposes/aims of the book, gives us some working, mutual definitions and paradigms for the rest of the text, I seem to disagree or have problems with some of the architecture of Virtue ethics and the concepts it employs (the terminology, in particular, seems to be tricky). It sets the tone for the rest of the book, so when I have problems here, it will show in later deductions.
1 – pg 1 – Deontologists would stress more than “acting” in accordance. Intention, the will, the desire, the motive, and the choosing to act in accordance with a moral rule is also an integral part of many deontological approaches.
2 – pg 2 – It is quite an assumption to think that Virtue ethics isn’t subject to the same (or parallel) problems which plague the other 2 approaches. Additionally, I think you’ll find that as we begin to interpret and explore the depths of Virtue ethics, the initial lines between the approaches will begin to blur. Yes, they all ask a different “starting” question, but after enough consideration (and perhaps some novel translation of ideas between approaches) we will see that they are very similar. Major differences rest upon even more important fundamental meta-ethical questions.
3 – pg 3 – Just because these issues (motives, moral character, moral education, moral wisdom or discernment, friendship and family relationships, a deep concept of happiness, the role of the emotions in our life, and questions of what sort of person we should be and how we ought to live) aren’t discussed or directly addressed by those espousing the other 2 approaches does not mean that they couldn’t have anything to say about these issues. Yes, these issues are not focused upon as much, but it would be unwise to assume that they aren’t capable of addressing them. While a virtue ethicist may focus on these, there actually may be strengths to an ethical theory which doesn’t have to strictly define these (and might have room for further crafting in such directions as the virtue ethicist may hope for).
4 – pg 3 – Let me also say that I agree that other approaches should be concerned about developing character-based versions or aspects of their own theories, as however circular the question “what would Jesus (the/a virtuous person) do” may appear in normative ethics, it is an essential question to consider. After all, we want to emulate that and become that, regardless of our initial approach.
5 – pg 4 – The expectation is that those who believe it (and have studied it the most) should be in the best position to describe it as succinctly as possible, and to be ready to elaborate where necessary. If you can’t define it, then we aren’t in the best position to really consider it. If you think you have something unique, then you need to tell us what, how, and why. That said, a crisp answer isn’t required; we should acknowledge at least the remote possibility that all questions about ethics may not be answerable by mere mortals. Maybe the answer is infinitely long or simply too long for others to pay attention. This does not make it invalid – likewise, I hope you show patience in this book with other approaches.
6 – pg 5 – I find this interesting that one would want to break Justice apart as a different segment of normative ethics. I admit that Justice forces us to ask questions about “what ought to happen?” which is much broader than “what should I do/be?” or even the corporate “what should we do/be?”. It seems that we should acknowledge that insofar as “what should I/we do/be?” falls under Justice, then Justice coincides with normative ethics. The rest, imho, falls into a larger discussion of value theory, perhaps.
Also, “what should I do?”, in my eyes, has everything to do with “what should I be?”.
7 –pg 6 – Perhaps you don’t like the idea that Duty and Right are corresponding parts to the same thing. I think “rights” are simply translations and fully explored implications of any normative approach to ethics. Now, I see that you believe these aren’t the “reasons” for why we ought to do something, and even if I attempted to grant that to you, I think we may find occasions on “rights” are part of the reasons why a virtuous person has a duty to do something. Certainly there are occasions where “rights” will inform my “virtuous character” and inform new duties to follow from it. I think if you really are seeking for a full answer to normative ethics, you are going to have to be capable of seeing and speaking in terms of rights and duties. Two sides of the same coin here, and the denial of one face is completely unnecessary or perhaps even detrimental to your own theory.
8 – pg 6 – Why aren’t Justice and Charity the same thing then? Perhaps they partake of each other.
9 – pg 6 – I’m not sure why “political theory” or “ethical politics” should be all that much different from plain ethics. If the virtues entail each other, I would be quick to point out that a domain in which one virtue is required entails that all virtues are required in that domain.
10 – pg 7 – I can’t think of an example where Virtue ethics is unable to give an account of justice or political morality where other approaches could. The account may not be particularly informative, but Virtue ethics begs the question at a deep level. If a person could possibly have the morally right answer/response/character/traits/will to a circumstance, surely Virtue ethics assumes that a Virtuous person would be moral in that respect (and thus there is an answer, even if we don’t know what the Virtuous person would be/do).
11 – pg 7 – You do have to admit that without a succinct answer, the number of people with the incentive to continue attempting to understand and believe your argument will decrease. Yes, succinct arguments may make your vulnerable where elaboration in necessary, but they also may prove as a quick path to redemption in the eyes of your opponents as well (if your succinct argument turns out to be strong enough to continue).
12 – pg 8 – Will you also be taking liberties in assuming common ground on other foundational topics, such as epistemology, meta-ethical concerns (a broad range, from agency and moral responsibility to value concepts), psychology and philosophy of mind? We should be leery that you will assume too much for us on these grounds. Virtue ethics, of all the approaches, may have the largest set of assumptions to be made in these other topics. Watchin’ yo’ ass like a hawk! One of the strengths of an approach that doesn’t have to make assumptions is that it can apply to more worldviews.
13 – pg 8 – Why do you think neo-Aristotelianism is the best version to use? Do you think that what you present in this book may as well just be called your approach? You will launch out on your own more than you seem to imply.
14 – pg 10 – I am not convinced Eudaimonia has any real, non-circular definition. Assuming the Virtuous as “flourishing” seems like an artificial construct and well-wishing. At the very least, it is an entrance point for a fallacy by functioning as a “weasel word”. This word could, theoretically, mean nearly anything. I am open to the Virtuous person “flourishing” via suffering and destruction (and not as some exception or “tragedy” either)—this is a raw strength of the other approaches which do not need to make this assumption.
I think this concept slips past our weasel radar because it we do initially believe that “one who is good” is “good and flourishing in being/doing good”, and secondly that somehow being ‘truly content’ and ‘deep happiness’ and ‘good existence’ as something that we deep down really both somehow want and should want. The “good existence” is nearly like begging the question of what “good” even means. Let us see if you are going to attach “extra” meaning to this word or give “obvious examples” (which may turn out to be assumptions which define this word more than you have so far).
15 – pg 10 – Even if we all had the idea of Eudaimonia deep in all of our psyches or instincts, it doesn’t necessarily make it correct. We could easily be wrong about Eudaimonia as actually being truly important or relevant to the discussion of ethics. Cognitive science (and Biology) may also have a lot to say about it.
16 – pg 11 – This sounds like an admission of Virtue ethics, at least in part, as having a Deontological front end (how you actually act, how it should be observed, how it could be understood in terms of rules), while the real argument you think you bring to the table about Virtue ethics is the back end – in particular, the back end is about character and traits, not what flows from them.
17 – pg 11 – Here I would like to say that “act” is a difficult word. Perhaps some actions are mental ones - choosing to hold belief X, etc. This will become important in the defense of non-virtue approaches which may very well be able to agree that the intention is part how we need to understand an “act” or choice, etc. It is very clear that virtue, from the onset, focuses on (at least) intention (if not something “extra”, whatever that might be). Being disposed to “act in certain ways”, of course can be deceiving, but being disposed to “intend in certain ways” (difficult, yet theoretically possible, to objectively measure) is what is meant by Virtue. This also means that there could easily be Virtuoso doppelgangers, and we would have absolutely no objective way to measure who was the imposter.
18 – pg 11 – These “attitudes” could easily be considered a form of action. I see no reason that other models of ethics can’t or wouldn’t incorporate these issues into understanding the value of choices. That said, I think here and now, I want the conversation to begin with CHOICES. There are only moral choices – all attitudes, morally relevant character traits, emotions, physical actions, morally relevant beliefs, etc. must be understood through the precondition of a choice to those things. Virtue, in this lens, seems like a series of choices about many things (which could very well be understood in the other approaches).
19 – pg 12 – This is what I don’t get: “entrenched”. It is almost as if you aren’t entirely responsible for your character. To the extent for which you are not responsible for your character, your character is an amoral aspect of that person. If by “entrench” we mean some “habituation”, I cannot help but think the individual instances (which comprise any such habituation) are each judged by themselves. If this is the case, then Virtue (as the author describes it) is merely a measurement or metric by which to judge an overall person; but it has nothing to say about any particular choice, although it may (or may not) be able to predict what the person will do.
20 – pg 12 – In conjunction with the “entrenchment” hypothesis, we are being led to believe that changes in character are perhaps rare, difficult to achieve, slow-going, and “deep”. Why should I think this? Why can’t people change “deeply” and profoundly in a rapid succession all the time? Why must it require nearly supernatural (or brain damage-based) causes? Again, we have this moral responsibility issue which raises its ugly head.
21 – pg 12 – The lack of freedom to change one’s character, which is the metric by which one is judged, is a serious fucking problem, as it negates much of moral responsibility (which can only spring forth from true agency).
This reminds me of an interesting problem with traditional Virtue ethics. How is character formed? The usual answer is habituation. Some may suggest that there is a feedback loop between character causing habituation of its own character. Is there room for agency in Virtue ethics, and if so, where? You’ll also notice that the other approaches to ethics can easily sidestep this issue, as they don’t have to say too much about our psychological makeup.
22 – pg 12 – But, again, we would suggest that Virtue ethics is ALL aboutz the “Tendency” to “be a certain way”. The “tendency” argument is what makes Virtue ethics unique, as it does not focus on particular choices (again, I have huge problems with this), but rather uses a much larger scope to define a person’s (choices’) value.
23 – pg 12 – Phronesis is involved in translation and defining all of the Virtues, perhaps as a filter or lens to understand appropriate responses in particular circumstances. Phronesis (“practical wisdom”), again, seems like a “weasel word”. It packs a lot of meaning in, makes a lot of assumptions, and yet it is poorly defined in scope and process. Ugh, this does sound like cheating. What exactly is “practical”? Why should we even assume that ethics is actually practical? How does this affect the Virtuoso in “impractical” ethical circumstances. Does this not limit the scope of what ethical questions “Virtue” can answer? Is Phronesis just good reasoning and rationality? Why can’t all the virtues just be Phronesis alone? It sounds as if Phronesis is the well from which all other virtues draw their water.
24 – pg 13 – I admire that Virtue ethics “scale” with circumstances. This isn’t relativism (although some may argue it as such), but it clearly suggests that the Virtues use a somewhat utilitarian approach (considering circumstances, with depth, to know what one ought to do). I think this also means that Virtue is vulnerable to the traditional utilitarian concerns here (omniscience concerns)– unless the author is trying to be slick and suggest that the Virtuoso, by definition, is immune to it. If that is the case, then she begs the question, and Utility seems just as plausible.
My major concern with Phronesis is that it makes ethics out to be “common sense”. I’m not sure I am willing to make that assumption. First off, I’m not convinced that ethics is practical at all. Why should I believe it is? Consider that impractical does not mean impossible* - and, it is here that we must consider the possibility that the ethical thing could be insanely impractical and improbable to achieve. Second, as to the “common sense” aspect, when we not in the theoretical realm, but rather in the application of these studies, I think the “common sense” based aspect to the approach dumbs down ethical problems, and instead of allowing us to explore the problem and see that it could be much more detailed in nature, we are faced with “this is what we can, ‘practically speaking’, expect of the Virtuous, so why should we expect more?”. I see Utilitarians do this all the time. Theoretically, Utility should compute an insanely complicated value system, but in practice and application, people oversimplify and employ reductionism to a fault.
25 – pg 13 – This suggests that to the extent one is not virtuous, one is vicious (peccant). Character is a zero-sum metric. The author suggests that Virtue and Vices can contrast with multiples of the opposite. I posit that this is incorrect. If a choice only tests for one Virtue, then it is only testing one anti-virtue (Vice). To the extent that a choice tests multiple Virtues, it tests multiple Vices. For example, a perfectly Virtuous choice/circumstance may be comprised of 20% Honesty, 40% Generosity, and 40% Kindness; the corresponding fully Vicious choice/circumstance is 20% Dishonesty, 40% Ungenerosity, and 40% Unkindness. Any person between the “Virtuoso” standard and the “Vicioso” (el Diablo blanco) standard would have X Honesty and Y Dishonesty, whereby X% + Y% = 20%, and so on and so forth in corresponding proportions for the other variables (Generosity/Ungenerosity, Kindness/Unkindess). Essentially, each Virtue is just a spectrum.
This, of course, flow well with the idea that Virtues partake of each other. The idea is that if you have one virtue, you somehow, to some extent, has some proportion of all the virtues. I am not sure if this is a contradiction though. The very concepts of and words used to described the “Virtues” are very ambiguous and (be honest with me) subjective in the sense that people just “made them up” through pattern recognition and gut feeling. Perhaps our Virtue categories are ill-formed. Perhaps they could be condensed.
26 – pg 13 – If ‘virtue’ tout court (in short; nothing else) is considered in the Aristotelian way, does that entail was are looking at it through Aristotle’s non-purely ethical lens as well? How do/should other Aristotelian philosophical concepts interact and modify our understanding of Virtue?
27 – pg 13 – To the extent that one can be “too generous”, Generosity is not a virtue, but instead a Vice. Should we even call it ‘generosity’ if one is being “too generous”? Why? In my view, this is the equivalent of a person misjudging the proportion of Virtues which are applicable to a choice/circumstance. To be “too honest” or “too generous” is basically the misassignment of proportion of a virtue to a circumstance. For example, perhaps a truly Virtuous approach to a particular circumstance may involve 20% Honesty, 20% Generosity, and 60% Kindness. One who mistakes the ratios for 30% honesty, 30% Generosity, and 40% Kindness is actually being 20% Unkind. This is odd, because it suggests that this 10% overage of (each) Honest and Generosity is, together, the same thing as 20% Unkindness.
Is not Phronesis, then, at least in part, the judgment of proportions of each Virtue application to a choice/circumstance?
28 – pg 13 – To be clear, if it is not Virtue, then it is Vice. The use of the word “Fault”, instead of just owning up to saying it is “Vice”, shows that the author has not worked out a proper framework for this theory. The truism still exists. The virtuous person (virtuoso) is virtuous, and Virtue is defined by the Virtuoso. Imperfectly moral people (slightly immoral people) will act wrongly, but the Virtuoso, by definition, cannot. My framework would enable you to alleviate why your idea “all sounds very odd”.
29 – pg 13 – Is “wisdom” here denoting Virtue, Phronesis, both, or neither? “Just”, the virtue, is also in the same “universal virtue” vein as “wisdom”. I think this suggests that the Virtues are poorly defined and use redundant and/or overlapping terms.
30 – pg 14 – Or we could say the Desperado has misjudged a situation (or in the case of habituation, many, many situations) to require more Courage than it did and not enough Love (of oneself) or whatever proportionate set of Virtues the Desperado had replaced with corresponding vice (called, simplistically, “daring”). The idea of a ‘warped’ virtue is just a copout, it lacks rigor and finesse.
31 – pg 14 – This is a huge can of worms. Seriously. There is much that goes into this. I can’t help but think that major assumptions are going to (silently) be made along with or through this premise. Even defining this is a problem (even if it seems obvious). Virtue ethics has a huge responsibility to define the psychology of persons; that ain’t easy. I’d like more description though, what are the differences?
32 – pg 14 – The relationship between 1 and 2 will need to be established. Reason, belief, desire, and character need to be fleshed out in detail. The current argument is vague, ambiguous, and slippery. It lacks definition, and frankly, is a lot to assume. We need an account of our psychology. Let it be known that Aristotle’s understanding of science had serious limitations, and that needs to be reflected in a dissection of the mind and psychology of moral agents, as flatly importing his ideas without edification isn’t so hot an idea, imho.
33 – pg 14 – A valid point. With that said, you will eventually argue “but, what about the children?” to a fault. Virtue overemphasizes moral education and psychology, in my view, to the detriment of actual, applicable normative ethical claims.
34 – pg 16 – It seems unfortunate that many are so quick to divide belief and desire, particularly non-instinctive, non-biological (assuming determinism, agency, and non-compatibilism) desire which is so necessary to agency and free choice. Perhaps it is the case, but I’d like to see the relationship and definition of these things. I’m not convinced there is a difference at all. I agree with Aristotle, the desiderative (‘wanting to X’) intellect and intellectual desire (and emotion) is likely some mixture of cognitive and conative (‘what takes your thoughts and feelings and drives how you act on them’) faculties.
35 – pg 16 – I’m not sure I can agree to both rational and irrational though. I’m not sure you can directly be responsible for irrational choices, although you may indirectly be responsible for irrational choices if there were rational choices which caused the irrational choices.
There may be some ambiguity of the word “rational” in this context though. Don’t we want to say that what is ethical is rational? And, would we not want to say that you are only responsible while rational? Don’t we need to say you have rationally chosen to be irrational at times in order for you to be responsible for being irrational? How this comes to be, I don’t know. The virtue ethicist has serious psychological questions to answer though.
BigPIC – pg 26-42 – This section showed a very poor understanding of the framework space and possibilities of the other two approaches. The author is still unable to grasp the unique and essential metaethical precepts of these approaches, and is also unable to relate the approaches effectively.
36 – pg 26 – Clearly, all approaches to ethics can be re-written to translate into each other, and none of them immediately offer direct normative claims about actual circumstances. They all beg metaethical questions concerning the definition of “good”, causality, epistemology, agency, etc. And, as the author indicates, they all initially appear to have an equal problem in providing us actual detailed accounts of normative ethics beyond their first few architectural premises.
37 – pg 27 – Here, we part. I think it is quite possible to conceive of a Utility theory which captures and relates the among its many premises the idea of a “good agent” and “living well”. The lines will blur. What makes the Utilitarian approach unique is the value-classification of everything (and perhaps all possible things) in the universe, thus reducing ethics to math. Utility might be viewed as the vacuous, initial calculation process. It is the first codifiable and applicable step (process) derived from the metaethical theory that “value” exists and is quantifiable.
Please note that Eudaimonia is distinctly parallel to possible conceptions of “Good” in Utility.
38 – pg 27 – It begins with the “right” as best as you can, though. Normative ethics begs Deontology. “What ought we be/do/think/act/feel/want/desire/pursue/value?” is asking for a principle/rule-based answer, in my eyes. Nothing can escape being re-written or translated into Deontological formatting – Virtue ethics included! Deontology can easily serve as an abstraction layer to any ethical theory. Deontology is unique in that it is in fact “the entire answer list or codebook”, including the Utility answers from all circumstances and possible lives to be led. It is the lookup table derived from applied Utility.
39 – pg 28 – Perhaps, because the entire framework is still less fruitful or applicable in the eyes of the critic. Yes, none of the initial premises point out the answer, but the unique thing that Virtue Ethics brings to the table does seem awkward – “a psychological mindset”, which does, at face value, pale in comparison to the unique aspects of the other two approaches (which very easily can swallow Virtue ethics, it seems), as the other 2 approaches have stronger metaethical frameworks. The scorn is that Virtue still might be more circular, less practical, and perhaps even more subjective an architecture than the other approaches as well. Virtue looks like oversimplified deontology. “Be Virtuous” -> “Be Honest” & “Be X”, etc. Obviously, Virtue can do much more, but it does not seem to me that all 3 are in the same position; Virtue looks weaker, still.
40 – pg 29 – I posit that any meaningfully ethical (based on agency and free choice) normative claims which Virtue ethics could produce can still be written as Deontological claims (just as Deontology can innately swallow any ethical theory or system, for example, how all Utilitarian conclusions can be translated into Deontological principles/rules). Virtue ethics may be an engine to deduce and produce ethical conclusions, like Utility, though.
41 – pg 28 – I know you are just trying to make an easy-to-follow example of Virtue ethics foundational premises, and thus this might not be the full version by any stretch. Obviously, the word “action” involves more than it appears here. Intention/Motivation needs to be an integral part.
42 – pg 29 – If you think Eudaimonia is the aim, then this is really where you should start (somewhat like Utility). Don’t just assume and throw it out there without providing context and framework for how this initial puzzle piece fits into the equation. I’m still not sure what is entailed and why we should agree to Eudaimonia. Utility, at least, starts from the metaethical atomic value theory, in which it must first define values for everything.
43 – pg 29 – Insofar as Virtue ethics is not “agent-centered rather than act-centered”, Deontology is not “rule-centered rather than agent-centered or act-centered”, etc. This is a triangular spectrum of the same problem.
44 – pg 30 – Truism or not, it does point the parallel problem found in the other approaches. All the approaches have begin with intractably uninformative initial premises. You might state the questions as:
Deontology – How do we know the correct principles?
Utility – How do we know the correct values of everything (possible) in the Universe?
Virtue – How do we know the correct Virtues?
These are the essential “omniscience” problems which (merely) appear to invoke Relativism via Ethical Subjectivism.
45 – pg 30 – Again, I posit that I can rewrite the “initial” claims such that each approach can be translated (cheatyface style) into another. Virtue’s initial claim, “An action is right iff it is what a virtuous agent would do”, is hardly unique in that “everyone accepts it”. Watch: Utility’s initial premises are easily accepted by Deontologists – “The best consequences can be brought about through the use Deontology’s decision/rule matrix”. Etc.
46 – pg 31 – It is here that we need to point out that just because people “can be wrong about the values” used in Utility equations does not mean that Utility is invalid. Given the corresponding problem in Deontology, the same can be said. Additionally, I want to note that the author is admitting that Utility is a natural way in which to approach ethics, and Deontology, likewise, should be counted as a natural and obvious approach (see codified law, etc.). I believe the author will later go on to suggest that Virtue ethics is natural, and perhaps somehow superior to the other approaches (ignoring her previous remarks about the other approaches here) because of how obviously natural it is for us to approach normative ethics with Virtue– but the reality is that they are all quite natural approaches.
47 – pg 31 – Again, the author points to how the other approaches are vulnerable to Ethical Subjectivism. Virtue is, likewise, just as vulnerable. This brings up the larger question: How do we objectively come to know normative ethics at all? We are all conditioned in our own environments, trained in certain ways, biologically destined for certain cognitive functions, and who is to be called the impartial judge to even begin discerning the objective path to find the answers to normative ethics?
48 – pg 31 – I am still not convinced it is not a truism. Virtue Ethics’s premises boils down to: “The Virtuous person’s method of decision results in what is correct”. This appears more cyclical and less informative as a FRAMEWORK than the other approaches. The other approaches at least tell us something useful about the architecture of ethics (Utility’s computability and atomic value theories; Deonotology’s codifiability theory).
49 – pg 32 – That is a very poor understanding of Utility. Utility is about maximizing value in moral equations – only a select few people are so bold as to equate Value with Happiness (but this is both likely wrong and also unnecessary to Utility theory). She’s not arguing against the method, she’s arguing against poor implementations of that method. Perhaps ‘telling a lie’ has cosmic implications that are invisible to the author, but objectively speaking, modifies that values of lying to the point that one may never be able to tell a lie. Remember, Utility assumes a value matrix/list, and we could certainly be wrong prima facie as to what values on that list. We are very ignorant in this respect.The author makes huge fucking assumptions about the value list (as if she knows what they really are). The author has shallowly assumed that Utility is practical and she actually knows the real computation – she is oversimplifying.
50 – pg 33 – I think Utility problems force us into a similar sort of positions of ignorance though. Being unable to find out the answer, of course, doesn’t not necessitate that there isn’t an answer, but it may suggest that it isn’t a worth trying to find the answer. It is here that all the approaches fail. We call it “subjectivism” for Virtue and Deontology, but Utility is likewise just as vulnerable to fall prey. The initial v alue matrix results in a similar position of ignorance which the amoralist can use to posit subjectivism. The ignorance of consequences, likewise, is also a real threat. Chaos math makes it plain as day that Utilitarian equations are fucking COMPLEX as hell – it may require omniscience to answer these questions even. Ignorance, of course, does not necessarily mean subjectivism is true; we can be ignorant within an objective moral system.
51 – pg 35 – Ironically, it appears as if you don’t even (necessarily) need to ask a Virtuous person, just a person who happens to know the answer, in the other two approaches as well. This, of course, is a terrible argument. Surely, if I found a database with all the answers, I could just “look it up”; that doesn’t help show that Virtue ethics is anywhere near as applicable as the other approaches either.
52 – pg 35 – This is a gross oversimplification. The author will later suggest that Virtuous agents can Virtuously choose 2 different options. Asking what one Virtuous agent would do in your circumstance (outside of being yourself) only tells you how you should act in your circumstance if you were them. Essentially, part of well-made Virtue theory will be that the circumstances include not just everything around the person in the Universe, but also who they are themselves, and that both of these together are required to determine what that person “ought to do/be”. Even worse is the fact that the author assumes that Virtue ethics is so practical a matter that one could even describe to a Virtuous agent what your exact circumstances might be. Virtue, through communication limitations alone, is subject to the same ‘ignorance effects’ in this situation.
53 – pg 36 – Ah, correction, it isn’t necessarily true (and thus merely possibly false) that “if I am less than fully virtuous, then I shall have no idea what a virtuous agent would do”. The statement is also possibly (in all likelihood, even) true. The rabbit-hole may run deep, and you may find yourself in the intractable omniscience problem after all – it would easily be true, and you haven’t provided enough evidence to show that it is “simply false”.
54 – pg 36 – Why should ethics be so simple? Why is Virtue this obvious? I have a hard time taking Virtue ethics seriously when it boils ethics down to something so simple – I’m not convinced it is so obvious.
55 – pg 39 – Why is it a “condition of adequacy” that a theory of normative ethics must “generate some account of moral education”? Who said that a theory of normative ethics would be practical or easy/likely to acquire, even with great effort? Should not rationality alone arrive at it – why must it be taught? You give far too much praise to Aristotle’s anticipation of moral education – this is not a strength of Virtue compared to the other approaches.
56 – pg 39 – Is this a purposely oversimplistic view of the capabilities of Deontology? It most certainly could be the case that Deontology would encapsulate everything found in Virtue ethics, and not necessarily from using the starting point of Virtue, but simply just as an end result of some other Deontological process.
57 – pg 40 – Did you just fucking throw the gauntlet down against Deontology? Nuh-uh, no you didn’t. Ninja, please. Deontology is innately the codifiability hypothesis; it is the universal language of normative ethics. Denying codifiability is denying normative ethics itself, and perhaps promoting Relativism directly. Here is where you fucked up:
Previous failures to effectively codify normative ethics, infeasibility, disagreement among non-omniscient (and often incorrect) coders, and the difficulty level of codifiability have nothing to do with the validity of the strong codifiability thesis. Seriously, saying “it is hard to do and we have sucked at it so far” is far from proving that normative ethics is somehow uncodifiable, especially in a theoretical sense. Codifiability must, at the very least, be theoretically possible. If not, why the fuck are we talking about this? If it is possible to answer “what ought you do/be?” (btw, that IS normative ethics ass-hole), then normative ethics is codifiable (i.e. answerable). You might say Deontology = Answerable = Codifiable. Essentially, Deontology’s strength is not some unique generator of normative claims (like Utility), but rather it gives the universal framework to answering any normative question in the first place.
Now, perhaps the author intends to say that if normative ethics is only theoretically and logically-speaking “codifiable”, but will never physically or mentally be codifiable by actual persons, then it is somehow “uncodifiable”. This, however, is far from proven. Who gives a shit if codifiability is unpopular or if modern philosophers have been unable to codify the oldest fucking problem in the world? That does not entail that normative ethics is physically and mentally “uncodifiable” (and merely only a theoretical, and thus “useless”, concept).
Why must we assume that we “should not” pursue the impractical? Who said ethics is practical? Maybe you are called and required to pursue that which is impractical and nearly (if not actually) impossible for you achieve. I don’t give a shit if it leaves a bad taste in your mouth (lulz, that sentence is awesome) – we need to reconcile the possibility that we “should” pursue ethics, even if we will never fully succeed in knowing all there is to know about it. Notice how I just “begged the question” of ethics itself – yeah, that is part of the beauty.
Additionally, I should not write while I’m fasting. I sound angry, don’t I? I’m hoping that a more charitable reading of this passage may just result in “that was unclear”, but for now, I’m pissed off.
58 – pg 40 – This oversimplifies codifiability (essentially, Deontology). It is certainly possible that there are rules which dictate that doctors need to not be “arrogant, uncaring, dishonest, and self-centred” in such circumstances. Assuming you are responsible for such things (and, likewise, therefore, capable of changing such things), then it can surely be regulated and codified.
59 – pg 40 – I’m not sure phronesis is really the issue at hand. Phronesis, at best, tell us that your “rules” are simply incomplete and your rule-maker too incompetent.
BigPic – pg 43-87
60 – pg 43 – Admittedly, it does seem prima facie that Virtue is subject to the similar “contradiction” exceptions we find in deontology. We could, of course, deny the idea that “honesty” is about “never lying”, but rather “never lying in these circumstances”. This might lead us to relativism/subjectivism, “how do we know those circumstances?”, etc.
61 – pg 44 – I’m not sure why irresolvable dilemma need be about two equally “wrong” things. It could easily be about two equally “good” things. In fact, the only truly irresolvable dilemma is when there is more than 1 (2, likely, given “di” in Dilemma) maximally valuable or correct choice. I might even deny that these exist, but the hypothetical seems worth considering for sure. Decision procedures, in particular, need to keep this hypothetical in mind.
62 –pg 44 – “Residue” and “Regret” over opportunity costs isn’t reasonable, as both equally-valued decision trees are going to have the opportunity cost. The same can be said for the “residue”. Essentially, it isn’t “resolvable” in terms of decision procedure. If they are equal, then one will never be “better” than the other (as far as choices go). That said, perhaps written into the decision procedure blackbox, that you could choose either at random (it doesn’t matter, is in fact, AMORAL).
63 – pg 45 – Essentially, you still have to “write” the residue into the choice of “which is right, x or y?” as a part of x and a part of y. Authors may have neglected to do such, but then maybe there is x1 and x2, and y1 and y2, with and without residue for each, etc. It would then easily be boiled down to the x and y containing residue as being the real irresolvable dilemma.
Why should except that there are irresolvable dilemmas as well?
64 – pg 45 – (This was regarding false dilemmas) Boy, I have a real problem with saying the “right” thing is “not quite as bad” in the sense that it is “bad” at all. I really despise the implication. It might “feel” bad; it might not even initially “look good”, but what “is good” is simply NOT bad. Her meaning of either “good” or “bad is meaningless, or she is contradicting herself.
65 – pg 45 – and, of course, she will be hard pressed to show how this assumption is not true. It may be a reasonable assumption, even if it wasn’t directly justified. Her analogy was poor.
66 – pg 46 – Satan!!!! Omfg. If there is a difference, then neither have real meaning to me. Whatever is the ‘right moral decision’ is actually the ‘morally right decision’. This is a false dichotomy. It plays nicely into her theory, but it isn’t true. Moral means right! It was the “greatest” decision available/possible. You cannot be expected to be/do more than is possible. You cannot be responsible for it. Each choice is its own moment of circumstance.
67- pg 47 – You should blame him for making choices that created the circumstances (if we are even to assume that those were blameworthy, and here it is). However, that is a separate circumstance and a separate choice. While it is related causally to the future circumstance, we cannot blame him if he choose A, he should be praised for it. In that instance, he is responsible for a particular choice, and we blame or praise that choice in its own right.
Now, the question of whether or not he should be ashamed or praised for a “range” of circumstances/choices is entirely different. Yes, he is quite blameworthy over the range of choices he made, but that does not negate the fact that perhaps some particular choices he made were in fact the virtuous ones.
I also question whether Virtue theory can truly be fully understood by the unvirtuous at all, especially at the denial of codifiability.
68 – pg 47 – I disagree with the idea that the lesser of two evils (assuming those are the only options) is evil at all. The fact that there is a remainder is merely accidental, and is assumed to be a part of that choice. Not having a remainder for each option is means this isn’t a dichotomy, but rather there are more than two choices. Please remember, if you can’t be held “responsible” for that remainder (i.e., it isn’t your choice or up to you), then we need not even discuss this as a moral question at all.
69 – pg 47 – Here I part ways with the author (again). There is no difference between “right action” and “right decision”, and this includes the possibility of “mental action”, which means that you might responsible for choosing certain sorts of your mental state. These are two sides of the same coin.
70 – pg 47 – To have remainder is literally part of the right action/decision/being. Ignoring remainder is ignoring the possibility of more choices (false dichotomies), it does not mean that seeking “right action/decision” is actually the incorrect theory though.
71 – pg 47 – This is my problem with using only specific versions (Mills/Kant) of an approach to ethics (in this case, Consequentialism/utility) to describe all the possible variants of these approaches. It is very easy to construct versions of these arguments which are completely immune to the criticisms offered by Hursthouse. Yes, traditional approaches to Utility might deny the relationship between “act” and “decision”; yes, traditional approaches of Utility might deny that “mental actions” count as real “action” at all; but, why should we assume that we can’t have an approach to Utility which does assume these premises? Consider how this would affect Hursthouse’s overall argument. Utility certainly could assume that ‘regret’ and ‘mental states’ for which we can responsible are choices/decisions/acts.
72 – pg 50 – Incredible. What is the scope of ‘review’? There is your problem. Are you a good person from time X to time Y, from choice A to choice B? If we divide moral guidance from assessment, then any decision previously affected (causally) by past vice can never be virtuous. It makes no sense to even talk about what the virtuous person would do in your shoes as an unvirtuous person. There is no “right”, just lesser than ‘the right’. If it isn’t “the right”, then why should we care? Ethics, in the scope of the smallest unit or moral responsibility, is about maximal correctness or go home because it isn’t good enough. Degrees of wrongness discussions are missing the point, why pursue what is wrong?
73 – pg 53 – Surely not. Surely only the Virtuous person would know the ins-and-outs of all these exceptional cases and whatever form of “prioritization” of the Virtues you wish to imply. I am unwilling to say that either Virtue or Deontology truly fail in this matter. I like the algorithm for life.
74 – pg 54 – Perhaps the author’s flavor of Virtue theory is not codifiable and capable of solving these conflicts, but again, I am unwilling to say that another version of Virtue theory could not solve these problems (likely assuming that the Virtue theory was codifiable).
75 – pg 57 – Why do you think codification is truly impossible? List all circumstances, list all corresponding degrees of virtue applicable to each circumstance. Boom. Codified and prioritized. You are either begging the question or simply not considering all the possibilities here.
76 – pg 57 – Are you sure we can even rationally speak about something which isn’t even theoretically codifiable or quantifiable or qualifiable? The cases which don’t fall into the universals have no meaning, they seem subjective and relative.
77 – pg 58 – Arguably, assuming the maximal set of principles, the diminished degree of applicability of at least some of the universal principles is exactly what we mean when we say there are exceptions to which there aren’t universally applicable rules.
78 – pg 58 – Thus, the author commits herself to a minimal, weak codifiability hypothesis.
79 – pg 59 – Reductionist to a fault. Of course these things are codifiable.
80 – pg 59 – Ah, a terrible way to view codifiability. The “moral wisdom” applied in this case is the formation and comprehension of why the codes are formed as such.
81 – pg 59 – Why can ‘acquire moral knowledge’ when we “ask the virtuous person” how to be and act, when the “lecture” (which often includes participation) cannot suffice? Surely a perfectly comprised lecture would contain the exact same answers that would be provided by the responding Virtuous person.
82 – pg 60 – “easily come by” does not mean one cannot “come by it with difficulty”. The argument is about whether acquisition can be done from codified learning or not. What sort of learning isn’t innately codified? This also puts a dent in a overall ‘moral education’ which you seem to think Deontology might be good at (via lectures) but Virtue cannot.
83 – pg 60 – The failure, in her eyes, then is a lack of understanding V-ness. Great. That was very informative. If you flesh that out, it simply means they don’t know the codified moral rules.
84 – pg 61 – I would talk about it, but if I could, then it wouldn’t be real. Virtue is “too complex” to talk about. It must at least be theoretically possible to talk about it.
85 – pg 61 – I suspect there are problems in assuming that the unvirtuous can even actually know who is Virtuous without already being Virtuous themselves.
86 – pg 64 – Pure assumption. Utility calculations are so insanely complicated that it very well may be the case that discussions of applied ethics may end up being unsolvable by Utility. You assume too much about the simplicity (only appearance at best) of Utility.
87 – pg 64 – Not necessarily at all. The presentation of irresolvable dilemmas that we see with immediacy in deontology is not necessarily why one would choose deontology over utility (which seems to lack that immediate sense of irresolvable dilemmas). Deontology may have other very strong points which utility fails to address; and also, we may not even be able to distinguish some ethical theories which (perhaps rightly) conflate Deontology and Utility.
88 – pg 65 – And, of course, I would that that modern conceptions of Virtue ethics are shaped by religion (particularly Christianity) as well. Jesus and God [is a]/[are] Virtuous Person(s). A great deal of discussion about the nature of God is a discussion of Virtue ethics in the eyes of many. As we don’t entirely know what God might do in a circumstance, we conjecture in the same way that we might about this (almost) mythical beast, the “Virtuous person”. Also, I hope that the author is not explaining this historical account in any pejorative sense, especially as her own doctrine is formulated upon a very religious foundation (hell, even Aristotle believed in God).
89 – pg 65 – The author is oversimplifying the matter. Religious views are more than mere prohibition, there is required proactivity.
90 – pg 66 – Of course, any appearance or ‘in fact cases’ of the Church’s failing to address ethical issues doesn’t mean that there isn’t in fact an objective answer. We also can’t judge the theory of deontology (or Virtue ethics) entirely upon the historical influences upon it or someone else’s (perhaps) poor implementation of these ideologies.
91 – pg 66 – of course, you also must show that there aren’t at least strong philosophical grounds on which to deny the possibility of irresolvable dilemmas. It may be the case that there aren’t any. I think this is absurdly complex to show prove either way, on the order of magnitude of defining the metaethical* sorts of value placements on all objects in the universe which is used for Utility calculation. It is something which may be perhaps out of our reach.
92 – pg 67 – Why should I assume that this is an irresolvable dilemma? Moreover, I dislike the idea that we should distinguish moral dilemmas of the sort which are concerned with “lesser of two evils” from “best of the best”. The truth is that whatever might be the best is good and moral. If the “final decision doesn’t matter” then we aren’t talking about morality within the context of the choices offered.
93 – pg 67 – Likewise, I think you can’t show that they are necessarily wrong either. At best, we are both in a position of ignorance as to whether or not there are actually any irresolvable dilemmas. We see appearances, but we don’t necessarily know.
94- pg 68 – For the record, if you don’t have (or aren’t concerned with producing) a decision procedure, then you aren’t doing ethics at all! This isn’t about rational choice and seeing why it is rational and understanding the algorithm and moral functions (f(x) sort), it is about something which we don’ t have full control and responsibility over. The contradiction being that you are somehow responsible for your feelings, attitudes, and character, even if you can’t necessarily change them. It is only that which you can change (in the proper scope of time) that you can be responsible for.
The definitive decision procedure for a true (theoretically speaking) irresolvable dilemma in which, ‘q’ circumstances put into our “black box of morality” function ‘p’, where p(q), results not in a single atomic answer ‘a’, but rather a set of possible and equally acceptable answers, [‘a1’, ‘a2’,…’an’] means that you must choose one in the set. You might argue there is a second decision procedure, but there isn’t. If you tried to plug the [a] set back into the “black box of morality”, you would be returned either a random selection from that set or the full set itself. That is to say, with respect to the choices in the set, they are amoral and equivalent. The set in respect the opposite set (all the choices not spit out), the former is clearly the morally superior.
95 – pg 68 – After much thought, and initial dislike because I thought it spun into moral relativism (incorrectly assumed that), I agree. If there are irresolvable moral dilemmas, then they within that set of possible choices, it is a moral. If we are assume irresolvable dilemmas exist, then there are definitionally speaking, the moral answer is “anything in the dilemma set”, and within that dilemma set, there are no morally correct answers.
I initially disliked it because: I assumed that choice exists for a reason, particularly for the sake of moral choices. I think free-will is what distinguishes us from animals and rocks and determined things (forget compatibilism), and freewill and moral responsibility co-exist simultaneously. There is freewill iff there is moral responsibility. One entails the other, and likewise, I thought that the exercise of choice always entailed that we had a moral situation. This is only partly true now.
Sp’ Situation Q, where Q is the possible world, including my physically possible future actions in this smallest unit of moral experience, let’s say my only possible actions are [a, b, c, d, e].
In a normal, resolvable dilemma (only the appearance of a dilemma), when I put Q into Decision (procedure) function P, where P(Q), I get an output of a single action. Perhaps “b” is the output.
However, in an irresolvable dilemma, when I put Q into Decision (procedure) function P, where P(Q), I get an listed output with multiple equally good options. Perhaps [c, e] is the output. It is here that I can say choice is still moral in the sense that I should not do ‘a’ or ‘b’ or ‘d’. However, within the set [c, e], there is no moral choice. So, the choice is still moral in the sense that I’m not allowed to do ‘a’ or ‘b’ or ‘d’, but it is amoral with respect to ‘c’ and ‘e’.
Another test of the amorality of ‘c’ and ‘e’ would be that if I were to rewrite Q world without the possibility of choosing ‘a’ or ‘b’ or ‘d’, and thus the possible choices available in Q world are only ‘c’ or ‘e’, the function would spit out all possible choices, namely [c, e]. Here the moral function cannot determine what is right, and that is because there is no right (or wrong) with respect to ‘c’ or ‘e’ exclusively.
It is the choice within the choice that lacks moral responsibility. Really, we must consider this as [a, b, d, [c, e]], where [c,e] is moral. However, to choose either [c, e] as a subset of subset of [a, b, d, [c, e]], is amoral. There are amoral choices if irresolvable dilemmas exist.
96 – pg 68 – By my thinking, since there are only 2 possible choices, and both are equivalent, then this is amoral. There is not moral choice here. It seems wiser though to question whether having only 2 possible choices is really possible; that is an insanely severe limitation. Why can’t I just blink my eyes? Why can’t I just take a deep breath? Why can’t I choose to contemplate World of Warcraft? These seem like choices I always have, just not part of the subset which would be the ‘dilemma’ in this sense.
97 – pg 69 – As well, It is possible to account for dilemmas without actually distinguishing “right” from “good”.
98 – pg 69 –Neither acted is obligated with respect to each other, but either act is obligated with respect to all other actions. Accordingly, we must say that acting “well” is obligated, but also amoral compared to the other equally good actions available. P([a,b,c,d]=[a,b], then [a,b] is obligated, but ‘a’ with respect to ‘b’ (and vice versa) is permissible (and essentially amoral).
99 – pg 70 – This is where we part (Pincoff, of course, hasa different perspective from Hursthouse). The decision procedure is universal, and there is no moral decision procedure for dilemmas besides flipping a coin. 2 Virtuous people cannot have differing moral stances, only differing amoral stances. Otherwise, you are arguing for moral relativism.
100 – pg 71- “opt for” is important, as it shows permissibility (in my theory), but not obligation. “Opt” implies there is no moral choice occurring. Permissible is meant that you didn’t deliberate it though. I think the Virtuous agent can’t rationally and morally deliberate between 2 equal choices, they can only rationally and morally deliberate and narrow down all possible choices down to the equally valued choices in a dilemma.
101 – pg 71 – My argument is actually the opposite. The virtuous agents aren’t deliberately saying there “neither decision is correct” with respect to all decisions available (assuming more than just the 2), but rather “both decisions are correct” with respect to all decisions available.
102 – pg 71 – It is worth pointing out that irresolvable dilemmas of ‘the good sort’ have no action guidance, but will have the action assessment of “good” or “well” (and very likely, “right”, even according to her distinction of these terms).
Obviously, I think it is insane to say something can be “right” but not “good”.
103 – pg 72 – This is a false dichotomy. If you have unclean hands, you have dirty hands and vice versa. Virtue ethicists like simplicity and imagery I think; they (think they) like pragmatist approaches to ethics; they like not having to define anything because it isn’t “codifiable”.
104 – pg 72 – Absolutely insane. The virtuous person does not do what is right? They can choose rightly, but not act rightly in a tragic irresolvable dilemma. Surely we must say that the relationship between decision and action is much (much) closer (I actually can’t separate them). This is a distinction between Orthodoxy and Orthodpraxy that shouldn’t exist. If the decision is right or good, wouldn’t we want to say also that the action was right or good? Decision is a mental action also*.
Hursthouse also can’t define ethics for us then. The virtuous person defines what is right. They definitionally can’t do wrong. Here she claims they do wrong (which isn’t right). Problematically, that means that even in her own view, “what is right” is therefore not defined by the Virtuous person, but rather by some one standard. Eudaimonia, of course, will be her response. Problematically, this is the same thing as Utility’s happiness.
It is insane to say that what is “right” is not what is “good”. If good is defined by some other standard than right, then we aren’t talking about morality. Perhaps we are talking about skewed hedonistic attempts at morality. The virtue ethicist will claim that “good” is somehow beneficial and Eudaimonic. It is clear that if tragic irresolvable dilemmas exist, then the “right choice” will end up not benefiting the Virtuous person and not lead them to Eudaimonia.
105 – pg 73 – This is important because while you claim “prior identification of right or wrong” is the incorrect approach (the sort of thing deontologists and utilitarians might do), you show us that you yourself actually must be using some “prior identification of right or wrong” as the standard by which to provide action assessment of a Virtuoso’s action (‘not decision’) in a tragic irresolvable dilemmas as “bad”, “wrong”, “not right”, and frankly immoral. Without some objective standard outside of “what the virtuous person is/acts/thinks”, you could not claim they will do “wrong” in TID’s.
106 – pg 74 – Here she claims the virtuous person doesn’t act badly, even though it isn’t “right”. The “way in which” they felt and deliberated to reach that act is what made it different from the Vicious.
107 – pg 74 – How very slippery! Eudaimonia is the standard of “goodness” and what is “valuable” and “worth pursing”, not necessarily “virtue”. The basis of Virtue is not the Virtuous person, but Eudaimonia, and the Virtue is useful in “Virtue ethics” of Hursthouse insofar as it results in Eudaimonic action. Insofar as Virtue brings about un-Eudaimonic actions, it is “bad” and “not well” and “wrong”.
108 – pg 75 – I would want to say that the Virtuous person did the “good” thing and the “right” thing, but what they were choosing both the particular action in mind + simultaneous mental action of regret/remorse/remainder.
109 – pg 76 – Another essential problem is that of moral responsibility. I’m not talking about the man and his 2 woman, I’m talking about “unfortunate” tragic dilemmas and choices presented, by no fault of their own, to the Virtuous agent. An agent is responsible for moving from P([a,b,c,d]) to [a,b] (or even if it there is just one choice which ‘seems’ painful or ‘seems bad’ in appearance, just [a]). I cannot hold them responsible for the appearance of pain or lack of Eudaimonic qualities about the circumstance and correct decision/action (same thing in my view of psychology). I cannot say they did wrong if they in fact did what was right. I cannot hold them responsible for doing anything better than what the circumstances allowed for. If Jesus himself were in that position, whatever he did would in fact be MORALLY correct and good. It seems as if the Virtuous agent is “morally responsible” for pursuing Eudaimonia outside of “moral luck” and outside of the realm of what was possible to choose/do/be in the reality of circumstances provided to us in life. How can you be responsible for something for which you can’t be held responsible?
110 – pg 77 – There is a difference between feeling “sad” that the only thing possible was unpleasant (perhaps even “wrong” in most other circumstances) and feeling “sad” that what you chose may have been itself “wrong”. If I only have 10$ to give to a starving child on the street, and the best possible action possible is to give them 10$ and nothing else, it seems acceptable for me to feel remorse that I don’t have more to give and this was the best possible option in the circumstance and that I couldn’t help the child anymore than that, but that doesn’t mean I need have the sort of remorse that one might have had in actually doing something wrong (such as stealing 10$ from that kid). Similarly, even in tragic dilemmas, etc., I can feel remorse for the fact that there weren’t better options (and I should hope for better options), but I shouldn’t feel remorse as if I’ve done something directly wrong.
The thing itself is not terrible. Terrible can only be described given the input circumstance to P(Q) decision procedure. The circumstance, which is not in our control, might not be as we wish or as good as possible. But, we aren’t responsible for that. The scope of moral assessment may only take into account that realm for which the agent is responsible, and in many cases, the circumstances are outside that realm of responsibility. Even if you were responsible for the circumstance, each new choice and decision tree may simply have to be judged on its own. If that is the case, then circumstances INPUT will never be a part of the responsibility equation, only the RESULT of a previous decision will show the person’s culpability (at that time and choice) with respect to what resulted.
111 – pg 78 – Of course, I would say there is action Guidance in some (if not all, because I think Q is VERY FUCKING LARGE IN ALL) cases. In P([a,b])=[a,b], there is no action guidance (definitionally pure dilemma). In P([a,b,c,d])=[b,c], there is action guidance up to the dilemma, and then none thereafter.
112 – pg 78 – Measuring Character as the moral standard makes sense only if you can be responsible for it and if you can change it. I also think Character is completely separate from the circumstance. The circumstance is an input into standard of Charity, and the output will be charitable as far as it can modify how you give guidance (even if that guidance seems like it directs us to something which is otherwise unsavory ).
113 – pg 80 – Extremely Aristotelian in the sense of paronymous predicates found in his Categories. Exemplar->Particular Virtue
114 – pg 80 – It seems as if you deny the ‘primacy of character’, you aren’t left with anything different from Deontology or Utility.
115 – pg 81 – So, you can understand some or even most of a particular Virtue or application of a V-rule, but you can’t understand all of it or all its applications unless you are Virtuous person who is “fine-tuning” through the use of moral wisdom. So, the character of ‘moral wisdom’ used in fine-tuning the other virtues is primal?
116 – pg 81 – You only want primacy of character, particularly fine-tuning, when it suits you. In tragic cases, you want action to be prior to character. Clearly, you are both pointing towards “Right is defined by the Virtuous Person” and “Right is not defined by the Virtuous person, but some other act-based standard”.
117 – pg 82 – The virtuous person is now the one who knows how to reach Eudaimonia given a fuckton of “moral luck” and never being in unfortunate circumstances; they know how even if they will never attain it. Normally we want to think of the Virtuous person as “doing” and “being”, essentially “attaining” what is good. Her definition sucks.
118 – pg 82 – You aren’t even talking about MORALITY. Wtf is wrong with you?
119 – pg 85 – This sounds as if “absolute rules” have primacy in many cases where they apply. How is this separate from Deontology?
120 – pg 86 – Did she just commit the same crime of which she accuses Deontologists, namely God’s interference in the circumstances which appear such that the Virtuous could always do what is right? How does that Jive with tragic dilemmas for the Virtuous?
Brandom distinguishes between two camps of theorists concerning the pragmatic methodological notion that “the point of the theoretical association of meanings with linguistic expressions is to explain the use of those expressions.” 1 The divide is based upon whether or not one should use normative terminology to describe the relationship between meanings and the sentences expressing them. Either way, both camps will need to provide some account of assertability.
Brandom sides with one camp, claiming that we need to use normative vocabulary in order to properly describe this “basic pragmatist methodological thesis.”<<ref "2">> Interestingly, while Brandom says we should use normative vocabulary in this instance, he does not rule out the possibility of an eventual naturalistic account which can reduce the theory to a process described in vocabulary which isn’t normative.<<ref "3">>
So, what does it mean for an assertability theory to normatively describe the relationship between sentences/expressions and the proposition contents which they express? It is to show why and how a speaker can appropriately express something. The normative vocabulary describes a speaker’s entitlement to the claims they make, providing rules for when an assertion is allowable, correct, or how it ought to be used in circumstances.
Brandom draws an analogy of the problem which the assertability theorist must describe to being something like defining a game. He claims the first part of the problem is defining what it means to make an assertion. His game analogy to this first half of the assertabilist theory is “distinguishing different kinds of moves in a game[…]punting, bidding, castling, betting, and so on.”<<ref "4">> The second half of the problem is providing the normative boundaries for assertions directly. His game analogy is put as, “saying when moves of the specific kind are permitted.”<<ref "5">>
---
<<footnotes "1" "Robert B. Brandom, Articulating Reasons : An Introduction to Inferentialism (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, 2001), 185">>
<<footnotes "2" "Ibid.">>
<<footnotes "3" "Ibid., 186">>
<<footnotes "4" "Ibid., 186-187">>
<<footnotes "5" "Ibid., 187">>
Chapter 8:
1 – pg 164 – It seems exceedingly difficult to show (and therefore the point is not clear)how the virtues are beneficial. We have serious problems like: “to whom are the Virtues beneficial?” and “Are Virtues always beneficial, or just on average beneficial?” and “How is this any different from Utility?”
2 – pg 165 – This seems patently false. I believe that being “just” or “charitable” doesn’t benefit me always (rarely even), but rather detracts from my finances and overall-wellbeing. Unless we want to claim that having these characteristics innately makes me “happier” or “better” in the same way the psychologist egoist might claim, we’ll have to admit that Virtues don’t directly benefit the Virtuous as much as another theory (“Look out for #1” Utilitarianism) might.
3 – pg 165 – I can’t help but wonder if a purely naturalistic account of Virtue might not also speak of “excellence” of the physical body, and thus also not about “excellence” over that which we might have more/full control over. Thankfully, the author here makes the distinction.
4- pg 165 – Surely we must be talking about that for which we are ultimately responsible. Libertarian Freewill is the very basis of the will, and thus also the basis of moral responsibility. Without the Will, we would not be having a discussion about ethics at all, only determined bits of matter doing as they must, as opposed to doing as they chose to do while having the actual potential to do otherwise. Either it will be the physical laws (or the creator of such laws) that is responsible for what you do, or you yourself, as an unmoved mover will be the cause of your actions and thus also ultimately responsible for what you chose to do.
5 – pg 165 – We would cite these “failures” intentionally choosing to be ignorant or indifferent. So, if you lacked an intention where you should have had one, there was a previous choice in which you chose to be indifferent to circumstances for which you should have had a particular intention.
6 –pg 166 – Let us also argue that insofar as we have control over our phsyio/biological desires and how they impact our thoughts we are responsible for it and it must be part of the account of the Will.
7 – pg 166 – If Wisdom is a sort of knowledge, why can’t think count as a type of Virtue? It is a belief. Virtues are beliefs that you Will from and upon; Wisdom seems perfectly capable of this.
8 – pg 167 – This is exactly what Utility is doing. Wisdom IS the decision procedure in Virtue ethics. All other virtues flow from it, and all other Virtues are defined and understood through Wisdom calculations.
9 –pg 167 – This is a good way to define wisdom, especially as it is distinct from cleverness or even some generic intelligence. Wisdom requires knowledge of WHAT is good and bad, while intelligence just knows how to get to any end, not necessarily good ones. Wisdom is then a special type of Knowledge, and by far, the most difficult in the Utility calculation. Intelligence is distinct from knowledge. Wisdom then can be distinct from Intelligence. The Will chooses to acquire more wisdom through intelligent processes. You must have a starting set of “wisdom” and belief about value to even go on to pursue it at all. This is the axiomatic and begged “value theory”.
I think therefore I am; I think there is value, there it actually does exist; If there was no value, then I couldn’t have thought about it, and I wouldn’t be able to pursue it.
Brandom interprets Heidegger’s Being and Time to demonstrate elements of his notion of pragmatic expressive inferentialism. The use of assertions is an important aspect of Brandom’s interpretation of the Heideggarian social ontological world.
We are primed with vital definitions concerning Heidegger’s distinction between ‘vulgar’ and ‘fundamental’ ontology. There are two ontological categories. Zuhandensein (readiness-to-hand) is the subjective, human value imbued on the world. It is the world of equipment, in which a thing’s significance is derived from its practical role and use. Vorhandensein (presence-at-hand) is the objective, independent world and the domain of science. We might understand vorhandensein to be the vulgar ontology which is the “cataloguing of the furniture of the universe.”<<ref "1">> An essential claim is that zuhandensein has ontological priority over vorhandensein, which is something along the lines of saying that the social, subjective values we imbue on the world have primacy to the objective, independent values.<<ref "2">> This ontological view revolves around social and practical consciousness.
Crucial to the discussion of ontology is how it is for ontological categories “to be” in the first place. We might ask how categories classify or draw boundaries over themselves. Categories are about identity and individuation, but we don’t know how they apply to themselves. This is a problem of self-adjudication in ontology.<<ref "3">> It is this discussion which is called fundamental ontology. Dasein is the being which exists in the domain of fundamental ontology, being “self-adjudicating, anthropological” in nature.<<ref "4">> We, of course, have great difficulty in even understanding fundamental ‘Being’ because it precedes and adjudicates us as ‘beings’. Brandom says:
The ontological primacy of the social can be justified by appeal to a more specific thesis, pragmatism concerning authority. This is the claim that all matters of authority or privilege, in particular epistemic authority, are matters of social practice, and not objective matters of fact.<<ref "5">>
The social nature of ontology defines knowledge and meaning. Significance is derived from a thing’s practical and social roles. Properties, as pursued by epistemology, might be things true before humans attach significance (the realm of science), but they lack the significance of the practical, agent-useful and social aspects of zuhandensein. Social recognition of a thing’s appropriateness or inappropriateness for practical use is what classifies it. Brandom continues:
Social object types are then instituted by social practical types of the performances in which they are appropriately used or produced.<<ref "6">>
Practical, social object types are extremely relevant to Brandom’s interpretation of Heidegger’s ontology. The critical social object type is assertion. Brandom says:
[Assertion is] the category of the present-at-hand [which] consists of ready-to-hand things which are appropriately responded to by a certain kind of performance.<<ref "7">>
Asserting and the practices of giving and asking for reasons which make it possible are themselves a special sort of practical activity…[which] puts us in a position to understand the category of the present-at-hand.<<ref "8">>
Brandom thinks practical and social activity of assertions are necessary for us to understand vorhandensein.
---
<<footnotes "1" "Brandom, Robert. 2002a. “Heidegger’s Categories in Sein und Zeit.” In Tales of the Mighty Dead: Historical Essays in the Metaphysics of Intentionality. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 298">>
<<footnotes "2" "Ibid., 299">>
<<footnotes "3" "Ibid., 301">>
<<footnotes "4" "Ibid., 298">>
<<footnotes "5" "Ibid., 301">>
<<footnotes "6" "Ibid., 306">>
<<footnotes "7" "Ibid., 312">>
<<footnotes "8" "Ibid. 318">>
Mark Okrent starts his book off describing intentionality as we intuitively know it and then he ambitiously defines what he considers to be the three major mysteries of intentionality.
Intentionality, according to Okrent, is for an “event, state or entity…to be about something, or directed toward something.”<<ref "1">> Importantly, Okrent believes that intentionality isn’t necessarily about ‘minds’ specifically. Thoughts directed towards or about something as events or states are what he wishes to talk about and not necessarily the mind. He admits that thoughts might only exist in minds, but he believes the domain of intentionality isn’t confined by the mind.
From my perspective, in order for ‘a thing to be directed towards another thing’ to be meaningful beyond billiard balls ‘moving towards’ billiard balls, I think questions of intentionality really are about minds. And, insofar as intentionality is normative, it may be that only certain sorts of minds are capable of intentionality (I do believe this). His dismissal of many causal questions concerning intentionality, especially regarding libertarian notions of the mind (and those who hold moral value to be nearly as primitive as logic), as somehow unpromising topics for philosophical inquiry is unfounded in my view.<<ref "2">>
The first mystery is how we can understand intentionality as fitting into and being defined by the physical world. Perplexingly, Okrent makes the assumption that most people are committed to physicalism. Perhaps he is only talking about his audience, on the other hand, I think it is a fair assessment to say that the majority of the people in the world do not agree with his ontological assessment of total physicality. I think it would be very unwise to assume that intentionality can or should necessarily be described or reduced to physical terminology. I hope he takes the time to address those who are not physicalists. Perhaps the arguments in the book require a charitable presupposition, something along the lines of: ‘for the sake of the argument, assume physicalism is true’.
The second mystery is what sort of a relationship an intentional object must have with the objects it is about or towards which it is directed. Okrent’s “puzzle of intentionality” 3 is especially interesting. Admittedly, I have no idea what the relationship between the intentional object and a non-extant object would look like, although I agree that an account of intentionality must be able to make sense of this (e.g. Santa Clause).
The third mystery is about what it means for intentional states to be evaluative and how intentionality is normative. I’m convinced at this point that normativity is a quagmire concept in physicalist discussions, particularly since I deny compatibilism. I wonder how or if the author is going to make sense of the word “ought” as truly being a normative, evaluative sort of claim rather than a mere descriptive one. I really don’t see how meaning can be reduced to physical terms. At the very least, he’ll need to make an ‘intention is greater than the sum of its physical parts’ sort of argument, otherwise we are just talking about things which are only temporarily escaped entropy and only appear meaningful and beautiful because the complexity of our minds is improbable in the universe.
---
<<footnotes "1" "Mark Okrent. Rational Animals: The Teleological Roots of Intentionality. (Columbus: Ohio University Press, 2007), 12">>
<<footnotes "2" "Ibid., 13">>
<<footnotes "3" "Ibid., 16">>
Okrent introduces a novel thought experiment of the alien field teleologist observing Earth who objectively distinguishes meaningful intention from what is meaningless accident and happenstance.1 He believes this exemplifies the sort of thinking process a teleologically-primitive (pragmatic) view of the mind must employ to objectively observe and empirically understand intentionality and determine which objects are intentional and which aren’t.
This is a potent thought experiment (in my view) because it reduces the variables of a physicalist’s consideration of intentionality to something quite primal, objective and third person; physicalists are forced to only allow for the deduction of the ontological reality of ‘goals’ and purpose without the entanglements (or presumptions) of the usual sort, such as the contextual bias and background information that we bring to the table in our consideration of intentionality. The thought experiment appears to point towards a strict form of objectivity when discovering and defining intentionality, and I admire this.
What I considered most profound was how this thought experiment points out some very serious flaws in naturalistic accounts (more narrow than just a teleological account, as property dualism can theoretically do just this) of intentionality, and arguably, I think the thought experiment may detract from (rather than support) Okrent’s conclusions. I think Okrent’s thought experiment demonstrates the need for an objective stage upon which the physicalist can describe intentionality, but I don’t believe it will arrive at meaningful, goal-directedness or any sort of intentionality with normativity.
Regarding the naturalistic account, this thought experiment involves a number of complex issues. How should one define the ontological status of normative claims and objects? Do normative-based intentions (the only sort of intentions in the eyes of Okrent) possess a similar ‘realness’ as a rock or tree in a naturalistic world? Surely these normative properties aren’t subjective (subjective normativity is simply the denial of normativity in my view), but actually grounded in some ontological mechanism (which isn’t necessarily a physical one) which makes meaning and value a very real thing. Are some aspects of normative intentions both non-physical and real? If so, can we really say that a belief in normativity is compatible with naturalism or physicalism? Would we not say of any sort of naturalistic empiricism deducing metaphysical objects (such as normativity) that we’re being objectively led away from naturalism? If normative intentions are metaphysical (rather than physical) objects (at least in part) with relevant ontological status, aren’t we outright forced to deny naturalism?
In my view, a proper physicalist’s implementation of this thought experiment will demonstrate objectivity in some unorthodox and generally unconsidered ways. For example, for us to be objective, like the effectively alien physicalist, we must shed our own bias for carbon-based life forms and those animals which are like us – we must not appeal to our own mental experience and processes of sensing the world and project these properties upon other things. We are likely even limited in what we are objectively allowed to say about ourselves in this manner.
If you can imagine the sorts of aliens in science fiction which sense the world differently, they may not even believe we are ‘life’ initially (just as we would perhaps mistakenly assume the alien isn’t ‘life’ as well). From this very objective view, how is the alien field physicalist in a position to sort through the objects on earth? In my view, the objective physicalist’s measurement of intentionality, as demonstrated by this thought experiment, boils down to observing patterns in the statistical natures of bodies in motion, appeals to complexity and system theories, and perhaps measurements of entropy. There must be a physical formula (or perhaps many) which describes intentionality.
Okrent denies reductionism, and he may have the popular opinion in doing so. I disagree with him though, and I think the objective physicalist should be reductionist in this fashion. While I agree we have no current account of how one science can be reduced to another, this is strictly different saying it isn’t possible to do so. I only need to posit the theoretical (not the feasible) reductionist claim to maintain that the physicalist really must provide a formulaic account of intentionality.
In the exploration of earth, the objective physicalist will observe some unique, extremely complex, compact objects, but I see no reason to think the objective physicalist will deduce them to be especially ‘meaningful’ objects or different from rocks and elements, except for complexity. These objects do as they must. They all are a part of mathematical equation, and unique occurrences of complexity will necessarily arise within the turbulent formula. We need not be surprised that these complex things arise; we should not claim they are special. They are simply necessary. Essentially, complexity isn’t enough to justify metaethical value or meaning. To the objective physicalist, these objects are statistical occurrences in nature, nothing more. Any appearance of ‘value-based’ specialness is an illusion (and frankly, not objective from a purely physicalist perspective).
Further, some may be inclined to invoke ‘whole is greater than the sum of its parts’, but the thought experiment puts a serious dent in the physicalist’s account of intentionality as this ‘value-added’ beyond the sum isn’t physical, it is metaphysical.
It is my view that a naturalistic/physicalist account of intentionality must analyze physics without the presupposition of ‘value’ and ‘meaning’ and then deductively and objectively discover the existence of ‘value’ and ‘meaning’ in physical terms. And by ‘value’ and ‘meaning’ I think we are talking about metaphysical properties of objects. Importantly, we would be concluding something quite non-physical as the result of a naturalistic/physicalist account.
Frankly, I am very skeptical that a truly objective physicalist can provide empirical evidence for intentionality, ‘goals’, or ‘meaning’. As Okrent admits, intentional ‘aboutness’, ‘goals’, ‘being for something’, and ‘purpose’ is founded on normativity and ethical evaluation (I agree). I don’t see how an objective physicalist can posit intentionality or normativity. Normativity isn’t a physical science, it is a metaphysical one.
Naturalistic accounts of intentionality (which maintain compatibilist illusions of meaning and normativity) are innately subjective accounts. We are imposing our bias of ‘specialness’ and assumptions of value on true physical empiricism.
By granting equivalent ontological status to metaphysical normativity (as one would to the physical realm), Okrent could make sensible claims about how physical and teleological explanations of intentionality will lead us to understanding the metaphysical descriptions of the normativity of intentionality. If he granted some variant of dualism, he could still take teleology to be primitive, and still arrive at the normativity of intentionality.
1 Mark Okrent. Rational Animals: The Teleological Roots of Intentionality. (Columbus: Ohio University Press, 2007), 29
Okrent believes goal attributions are best understood in population-based thinking rather than typological-based thinking.1 While I’m not sure if he has a valid framework or an adequate account of population-based thinking for his conception of intentionality, I think he is wise to define the normativity of goals outside of typological thinking.
Typological thought initially seems a natural fit for Okrent’s account of intentionality. When considering the norms of a wasp, we are drawn to ‘waspness’. Whatever might be essential to being a wasp is the standard by which a particular wasp would be judged. To say a wasp is a ‘good’ wasp is simply to say that it matches the essential features of the archetype of wasp; the good wasp is to act, behave, and ‘dance’2 as the archetype of wasp characteristically does. To say a particular feature of an individual wasp is ‘bad’ is to say that it doesn’t match the typical feature of this archetype of wasp.
In my opinion, the normativity of Okrent’s account of intentionality will quickly run into problems with this typological framework. From a typological framework, how does one account for beneficial evolution? Arguably the fathers of typological categorization, Plato and Aristotle certainly couldn’t account for evolution. They would have considered it an asinine concept; as Greek essentialists, they saw the definitions of species as eternal and unchanging.
The issue of beneficial evolution (or even a series of mutations that eventually arrive at something beneficial) is quite alien to typological thought. Notice that some aspects of the archetypal ‘wasp’ in the end aren’t beneficial to wasps as living things. To improve upon the ‘wasp’ archetype is to be talking about something which isn’t wasp-like anymore. Beneficial evolution is awkward here – it seems as if it ‘beneficial’ to the flourishing of the living thing, but typological normativity would deem any mutation of a particular wasp as ‘unwasplike’ and ‘bad’. So, it seems as if we wish to employ two standards of normativity:
The virtue of being a wasp.
The virtue of being a living thing.
Typological normativity demonstrates that a good ‘wasp’ is aligned to the characteristics of the eternal form and archetype of ‘waspness’. The identity and definition of ‘wasp’ is unchanging in typological thought. It seems as if typological normativity of ‘living things’ is different from ‘waspness’. For example, we might want to say that every living thing should be evolving, adapting, and progressing towards whatever is the perfect life form (at least in a selfish perspective, perhaps hoping for the status quo of the ecosystem, but the goal was to be at the top of the food-chain).
Insofar as the essential features of a ‘wasp’ might not be as good as they could be (after mutation) or don’t lead to flourishing, it seems as if ‘waspness’ isn’t a good thing according to the ‘living thing’ standard. We can see contradictory standards of normativity where beneficial mutations or beneficial adjustments in behavior would be a good thing for the sake of a living thing’s ‘goal’ to flourish, but simultaneously a ‘bad’ thing because it doesn’t align with the f-ness of a particular species.
By avoiding typological normativity, Okrent seems to bypass any contradictions of the normativity of both flourishing qua ‘waspness’ and flourishing qua ‘living thing’. Taking population-based thought and evolution as being central to developing the normative standards of species seems much more plausible.
1 Mark Okrent. Rational Animals: The Teleological Roots of Intentionality. (Columbus: Ohio University Press, 2007), 89
2 Ibid., 75
Goals are to be understood as a holistic relational set of subgoals which taken together are thought to bring about the endgoal1. Evaluating subgoals becomes somewhat complicated by holism. The probability of subgoals actually bringing about endgoals may influence how we can define rationality as well. Assuming no problems arise in these issues, Okrent believes these subgoals (and likely the endgoal as well) are normative. This is essential to his theory. He explains that a “norm is a standard, model, or pattern that is used in an evaluation.”2 Standard normativity words, such as ‘ought’, ‘should, ‘good’, and ‘bad’ can only be understood after an objective evaluation of an object or event with its appropriate norm. Physical objects like apples and salt water are subject to normativity, and, more important to Okrent’s larger argument, events are subject to normativity. As Okrent severs the actual effects of an event from the goal(s) which led to those effects, he believes that the effects of events are evaluated by the intended holistic goals as the norm.
The effects of subgoals are normatively evaluated by the subgoal as the standard norm. The effects are compared to the expectation of the agent. Insofar as the effects brought about the intended subgoal, they are ‘good’. Normative evaluation of effects is relative to the subgoal which brought about those effects. In the eyes of Okrent, for one to fail in the pursuit of a subgoal does not prevent an agent from maintaining the intentions of the endgoal.
In trying to make better sense of his argument, I believe that an agent’s initial selection of the subgoals for the endgoal (as a holistic procedure) is subject to Okrent’s normativity. As the effects of subgoals are normatively evaluated by the corresponding subgoal, subgoals are normatively evaluated by the holistic endgoal. Subgoals are themselves normatively evaluated to how effectively they work in tandem with the holistic set of subgoals to bring about the endgoal. You may, for example, select a normatively wrong subgoal required in the holistic relationship to arrive at the endgoal. This subgoal selection process isn’t a one-time deal, either, and thus there will be multiple stages of evaluation.
At each subgoal step, depending on what subgoals have failed and succeeded, the normative route an agent ‘ought’ to take on a decision-tree of possible subgoals will be a rubric by which an agent is responsible for adjusting their actual subgoals. An agent may normatively be wrong (to some extent) in these subgoal selection processes and still be said to intend the endgoal. I do think Okrent is required to give an account of the percentage of this subgoal selection process which must be ‘normatively correct’ in order for the agent to be said to rationally be goal-directed. Otherwise, the object which the field teleologist is observing simply isn’t adaptive or rational enough to be said to have a goal.
Also, note that even the endgoal may fail to come about in Okrent’s world. This failure makes the instance normatively ‘bad’ compared to a successful rendering of the endgoal. Nevertheless, Okrent will maintain an agent’s intentionality and goal-directness, even when the endgoal itself is not brought about.
I hope I’ve been fair to Okrent’s argument because, if I have understood him correctly, then I really question whether it has captured the fabric of moral experience (which is paramount in my view). Here’s the kicker - I have a fundamental disagreement with Okrent about what it means for something to be normative. Pressed to answer, I think Okrent doesn’t mean moral normativity; he’s talking about some sort of amoral normativity. My claim (some will find it controversial) is that there is no such thing as normativity outside of morality. I believe the words ‘ought’, ‘should’, ‘good’, and ‘bad’ entail moral normativity. Our disagreement here has profound implications to his theory.
Take for example what it means for physical objects to be subject to normativity. What does it mean for an apple to be good? By Okrent’s account, it is ‘bad’ or ‘good’ as a result of its evaluation against the norm of ‘appleness’. So, we are forced to ask, how does one construct norms in Okrent’s world? How can we come to understand the objective nature of these norms? Okrent explains that “most uses of evaluative terms are relative.”3 The best way I can make sense of this is to say that an object’s normative evaluation is relative to the circumstance, and, in at case, ‘appleness’, as a norm, is the sum of the simultaneous subnorms regarding different possible circumstances for an apple. Here he can maintain both the overall objective evaluation and the relative value of apples in different circumstances. So, what is my problem with this?
Apples aren’t moral agents. They don’t make moral choices. Apples only have value insofar as they pertain to moral agents making choices. Without moral agency, apples have no meaning. Without relating to a moral agent, it is mere happenstance and circumstantially amoral and non-normative for this apple to be different from that apple, or this apple to causally bring about this circumstance where another apple won’t. If it isn’t moral, why should the apple have these features instead of those? It wouldn’t matter. The apple’s features only matter in relation to the choices of moral agents, and because of this, apples aren’t normatively evaluable in the way that intentions are evaluable (Okrent disagrees). Intentions can carry meaning independently; apples can’t. I can’t make sense of one apple being ‘better’ than another, except in how these apples define the circumstances in which a moral agent finds himself having to make a choice.
If I’m starving, the rock in my hand is not very valuable, but an apple would be. Any attempt at normativity of the class of rock really fails hard here; it is because the rock is not like the apple that it isn’t valuable. This is directly against Okrent’s understanding of normativity of objects, as he thinks objects are evaluated by classes or types4 rather than circumstances and choices of the moral agent.
Some might explain that we make ‘normative statements’ about objects all the time. To this I say, we can certainly be wrong when we talk about an amoral thing as somehow being normative. We are just confused when we do that. Take this statement: ‘The car should start when I turn the key in the ignition’. The car itself isn’t an agent responsible for starting, obviously. I might, however, be opining about the moral obligations of the engineers of that car – that is, my statement really means, ‘The engineers of this car should have arranged for the car to start when I turn the key in the ignition.’
The normativity of intentions is something to which I will agree, but not in the same way that Okrent views it. Consider how Okrent’s theory will approach the following example: If a person maliciously intends to destroy a building with people inside it, then he should do X, Y, Z, and detonate explosives at certain points in the building. The endgoal is the destruction of this building, and the subgoals are X,Y,Z, and the detonation, all which are holistically related and probably going to bring about the endgoal. Normativity begins with the effectiveness of bringing about the endgoal. Normativity is relative to the endgoal. And, here, Okrent has truly failed to capture the essence of normativity. Normativity is objective.
Why ‘should’ the agent pursue X, Y, Z, and detonation? Is it because it brings about the end-goal? Okrent has failed to identify whether or not the agent ‘should’ pursue the end-goal at all. ‘Should an agent destroy the building’ will affect whether or not ‘the agent should detonate explosives’. The normativity of the subgoals rests upon the objective normativity of the goal. Is it a goal worth pursuing? If it isn’t (as in this case), then the goal is bad, and so are the subgoals.
Okrent has conflated the aretaic concept of ‘virtue of the practice’ and moral virtue, taking virtue of the practice as being normative in a meaningful sense. The vast majority of normative ethics (and frankly any adequate view of normativity) severs these two ideas, whereby only ‘moral virtue’ actually has moral worth and meaningful normativity. Virtue of the practice lacks meaning and value outside of moral virtue – at best, it is merely a slave to moral virtue. Even then, I think it is an uphill battle to suggest that success and failure of actions in probabilistic causal circumstances actually have moral merit (even utilitarian decision procedures must take into account the odds of an action failing in a circumstance before it can render judgment).
1 Mark Okrent. Rational Animals: The Teleological Roots of Intentionality. (Columbus: Ohio University Press, 2007), 58-59
2 Ibid., 61
3 Ibid., 61
4 Ibid., 61
Okrent distinguishes merely having goals from intentionality in chapter 5. He differentiates the Sphex wasp from humans on the grounds that one must have reasons and adaptive flexibility to novel circumstances to be said to possess intentionality.
Let me first say that Okrent and I have starkly different views about where we should employ the word ‘goal’. I oppose the attribution of goals to non-rational, non-moral agents. I don’t think we can conceive of a ‘goal’ outside of moral normativity and reason. I’d like to think goals are always intentional, and Okrent clearly doesn’t. I will try to use ‘goal’ as Okrent does, for the purposes of this paper.
Okrent maintains some differentiationist aspects to his theory of intentionality (which with I can agree, and may even go beyond what he points out). While I think an account of differentiation is due to both freewill and rationality, Okrent clearly thinks it is singularly rationality which demarcates intentional life forms from those which aren’t. The Sphex wasp does not possess intentionality for Okrent. Its biological behavior is goal-directed, but it lacks any rational explanation. What becomes unclear is why ‘goal-directed’ thinking is really all that essential to his theory. If one can have ‘goals’ outside of reason, beliefs, and desires, and goals aren’t the distinguishing factor, then what is so essential about goals? It seems as if the possession of reason, beliefs, and desires are the important part to his theory.
Aspects of his differentiation are demonstrated by his fleshing out the meanings and roles of reason, belief, and desire within his account of intentionality. The root of intentionality, as we will see, is the novelty and appropriateness of action (to the goal, I suspect) within varying and novel circumstances which justifies the attribution of rationality to an entity. As Okrent puts it:
Rational action essentially involves versatile adaptive behavior that varies in response to changing circumstances, responds effectively to the source of the agent’s mistakes, and is novel in relation to the agent’s species-specific pattern of life.1
Successful “transient intentional states”2 demonstrate ‘instrumental rationality’. Importantly, Okrent believes you can only be rational with beliefs and desires.3 Additionally, in assessing Dennett’s account, Okrent points out the difference between “entities that have ends of their own” and “[entities] which one may assign purposes extrinsically.”4
This might be the hierarchy of what is occurring in a single instance of intentionality:
Desire – ‘I want to buy a book today’.
Beliefs (what I take the world to be) – ‘It is feasible for me to travel to stores, including Barnes & Noble’, ‘I can choose and pay for books at Barnes & Noble’, ‘Barnes & Noble is open from 8am to 10pm’, ‘A book at Barnes & Noble will cost, at the minimum, 10 dollars’, ‘
Reason/Rationally generated Belief – ‘If I travel to Barnes & Noble, between hours 8am and 10pm’, with 10 or more dollars, then I can buy a book’.
Intentional End-Goal – ‘I will buy a book today’.
Sub-Goals (obviously simplified, as there are sub-goals to sub-goals):
‘I will have 10 or more dollars on my person’
‘I will travel to Barnes & Nobles’
‘I will arrive between 8am and 10pm’
‘I will choose a book, bring it to the counter, and pay for it’.
The End-Goal corresponds to desire, but it requires rationality to arrive at the intentional state. Sub-Goals correspond to beliefs.
Notice that that while this is instrumental rationality, the only way to prove that I’m rational, that I possess desires/beliefs, and essentially that I demonstrate intentionality, would be to test me with novel circumstances to see if I have adaptive flexibility of sub-goals. Otherwise, it could be merely an illusion that I’m rational (the alien field teleologist might be xenopomorphizing attributes of rationality onto me, etc.)
So, let’s say one of my beliefs wasn’t accurate enough - perhaps Barnes & Noble isn’t open on Christmas day (something of which I wasn’t aware at the time), and today is Christmas day. When I arrive at Barnes & Noble, I quickly discover that I can’t buy a book because they are closed. My beliefs about the world adjust; in this case, my belief about the times/dates that Barnes & Noble is open is qualified. My desire and end-goal remain the same. I may need to employ other beliefs and new reasoning to find a new path of sub-goals to my end-goal. Perhaps I know I can also buy books online at Amazon.com. A new series of sub-goals will be reasoned and intended to bring about the end-goal. This is adaptive reasoning; this is instrumental rationality; this is novel action for novel circumstances; this is the basis of Okrent’s intentionality.
If I’m right about Okrent’s account, the multi-dimensional and extremely nested aspect of sub-goals leads us to question whether or not our so called ‘end-goal’ isn’t itself also just a sub-goal to a larger end-goal. If this sort of reasoning follows, we might deduce a final, axiomatic ‘End-goal’ (or set of them). Perhaps I’m buying a book about how to raise my children. Perhaps raising my children well is a higher goal. Perhaps even raising my children well is a sub-goal to a higher goal, etc. It is a network of holistic reasoning, desires, and beliefs which enable a pyramid of goal-directed intentionality.
Lastly, I can’t help but wonder: Can you intend something without action? Deontologists and Virtue ethicists would certainly think so. Okrent, as a pragmatist, would seem to deny it.
1 Mark Okrent. Rational Animals: The Teleological Roots of Intentionality. (Columbus: Ohio University Press, 2007), 104
2 107
3 104
4 107
i)
Aristotle’s categories are about ontology and the language we use to describe the structure of reality. Central to his theory is the division between the essential and the accidental (he doesn’t want us to conflate the two). In explaining the differences between what is essential and what is accidental, Aristotle considers subjects and predicates.
We must consider which predicates are essential and which are accidental. We must consider what it means for something to inhere in another. Aristotle provides a hierarchy of ontology.
Aristotle distinguishes substance from the other categories. Substances are things that actually exist, they are the subjects of which the other categories are used to predicate. Substance is primitive to Aristotle’s ontology. The other categories exist because substances exist.
There is primary substance and secondary substance. Primary substances are the particulars (often these are sensible particulars). The individual thing is a primary substance. Socrates, for example, is a primary substance. Attributes are predicated of Socrates, but not the other way around.
Secondary substances are the classes of particulars. Consider the definition of ‘man’ as a secondary substance. Man is predicated of Socrates, but not the other way around. Secondary substance has a lower ontological priority to that of primary substances. Secondary substances could not exist without primary substances.
The other categories, such as quantity, quality, and other relations, like place, are predicates of substances. The other categories are parasitic upon the existence of substances. Whiteness, for example, has no meaning or reality without the existence of particulars in which white can inhere.
Importantly, whiteness is accidental to my skin (I’m a primary substance). The fact that I have color is essential though. Which color I am, however, is entirely accidental. Being two-legged, however is very essential to me being a man.
ii)
As we might consider the categories to be Aristotle’s ontological theory, the Posterior Analytics might be considered Aristotle’s theory of epistemology. He answers questions about how it is even possible for us to ‘know’ anything. His account of concept formation might be considered to be a response to the problem we see in Meno’s paradox.
Aristotle shows two types of knowledge, nous and episteme. Nous is the foundation of episteme. Some things are just known without demonstration. The fact that the ‘world exists’ is not something which needs proof. You axiomatically know it. This is nous. Episteme can’t be had without nous. Episteme is the scientific knowledge which is demonstrated and deduced. Episteme (science) is largely about coming to know the essential attributes of the world. You can’t do science of a particular thing, but you can do science to discover and understand the definition of that thing.
After laying the groundwork for how epistemology and ontology related to and mirror each other, Aristotle describes concept formation. You immediately have some primitive sorts of knowledge (nous), but you must deduce, induce and demonstrate others (episteme). Essential to Aristotle’s concept formation is the ability to sense the world. You might say Aristotle was an empiricist (in a very loose sense). Experience is essential to agents which can have knowledge. From sensing and remembering past experiences, you will be able to use reason to deduce and induce things about the world. For example, after seeing enough particular horses, you will be in a position to realize and classify the essential features of all those particulars, namely ‘horseness’. It is here that the concept can ‘stabilize with your soul’.
Acquiring knowledge is about understanding what is essential. It is coming to understand definitions and f-ness. The more familiar a thing, the less knowable it is. A particular horse, for example, is quite familiar, but it isn’t as knowable as the definition of horse itself. Conversely, the definition of horse is less familiar, but more knowable. You don’t see ‘horseness’ walking down the street, so it isn’t very familiar. But, because you classify and experience many horses, and come to realize and know the essential features of all those primary substances, ‘horseness’ can be said to be more knowable than the particular horses.
iii)
Aristotle’s four causes are the material, formal, efficient, and final causes. Noteworthy, Aristotle’s understanding of the word ‘cause’ is broader than the modern sense; it might be thought of as ‘explanation’. Given that the four causes are about ontology (and not epistemology), the word cause is still a bit more accurate. Every substance and activity can be ontologically explained by the four causes.
The material cause is the matter which comprises a thing. A house, for example, is made of wood and bricks. The matter of which the house is constructed is the material cause.
The formal cause is the definition of a thing. Importantly, it is strictly potential. The definition of house is the formal cause of house. These would be the essential features of all houses. Importantly, because house is an artificial substance, the formal cause is in the mind of the technician. Natural substances are different in that the formal cause exists outside the mind of those who know the definition.
The efficient cause is that which literally causes (modern meaning) a thing. The agent of change and motion brings about a thing. The efficient cause of a house would be the house builder.
The final cause is the realization of the definition. It is the actualization of the formal cause. We should note the stark contrast of the potentiality of the formal cause and the actuality of the final cause. The final cause of the house is the actuality of the house, where people live in it and use it as a house.
Chance and spontaneity are parasitic upon and understood through the four causes. We might call them pseudocauses because of this. The word chance is used in the case of agents, and spontaneity in the case of non-agents.
Chance and spontaneity can be considered when two independent causal chains meet by happenstance. The point of contact of two causal chains is where chance and spontaneity occur and have meaning. Notice that without two causal chains meeting at a crossroads, there would be no chance and spontaneity. That is also to say then that without the four causes, no causal chains would exist, and thus no events of chance and spontaneity would exist; this is why they are called parasitic upon the four causes.
An example of a chance would be me going to the store to buy some beer (Abita). The end I am seeking is to buy beer. Now, by happenstance, I run across a guy to whom I owe money at the store. Importantly, my creditor had come to the store to buy pretzels. Neither of us had come to the store for the purpose of meeting each other; neither of us had come to the store for me to pay my debt. We had different ends. It was mere chance that our independent causal chains overlapped at the store. It just so happens that I am required to forego my beer to pay back my debt that night. This is chance.
The four causes explain our activities and independent causal chains. It is only at the point of contact of our independent causal chains, whereby I am unexpectedly forced to repay my debt, that we can understand Aristotle’s conception of chance. Spontaneity falls in the same vein of reasoning, the difference being that it isn’t the causal chains of agents, rather it describes the above for non-agents.
It is important that Aristotle took the time to describe chance and spontaneity. If chance and spontaneity were too prevalent and too important to the world, and there was mass chaos and pure randomness, then we couldn’t do science. There would be point to it. If there was no chance and spontaneity in the world, however, then everything would be determined, which is something Aristotle wishes to avoid. Aristotle’s description of chance and spontaneity as being parasitic upon the four causes is a middle path between these extremes.
Okrent’s account of intentionality, like Brandom’s, is inferential. He employs a holistic account of the features of rational minds, showing several components and their relationships to be both necessary and sufficient for concept formation and intentionality.
As Okrent sees it, goal-directed behavior is found in all life. Examples of goals might include trying to live, reproduce and flourish. Okrent explains, “no act of any agent, rational or not, can have a goal in isolation.”<<ref "1">> Goal-directedness can’t be understood, in Okrent’s eyes, at an atomic level. A relation of goals is necessary for the existence of any goal.
Interestingly, goals and goal-directedness are necessary but not sufficient for a creature to possess intentionality. In addition to goals, creatures must be rational, capable of having beliefs and desires and of having their own reasons for performing an act in order to be said to be intentional.
The ordering of these components is holistic, relational and, in the end, inferential. Okrent tells us, “the acts, beliefs, and desires of rational agents thus form a holistic system, and this system has a fundamentally normative structure.”<<ref "2">> The individual goals, the individual actions, the desire/belief pairs and the use of reason, as well as the holistic relationships between these components, all of which are subject to normativity, come together to form Okrent’s account of intentionality.
---
<<footnotes "1" "141">>
<<footnotes "2" "142">>
It is my view that Okrent has provided an account of intentionality on a continuum. He has defined the sorts of variables and factors which we can use to construct a degree-based predication of intentional attributes. I really appreciate this approach, and I like how it helps us make sense of differences in the vast variety of species. As a differentiationist, I’m quite partial to saying that certain organisms have a different sort of (deeper, more rational, more complex) intentionality than others, e.g. the qualitative differences between human intentionality and the intentionality of ravens. Building his theory on a continuum has major strengths, but, unfortunately, I’m not sure if Okrent has adequately addressed a weakness to the continuum. The question we must ask is: at what point on the continuum of intentionality are we going to demarcate the intentional (in the least degree) from the non-intentional (remaining so very close to being intentional)?
I don’t know exactly where does Okrent draws the line of novelty, flexibility, and rich adaptiveness that demarcates the intentional from the unintentional. Surely this is vital to the alien field teleologist. Strictly defining the degree to which a thing must be novel, flexible, and adaptive would be a necessary part of the field teleologist’s objective rubric of intentionality. For now, I feel Okrent has given somewhat arbitrary lines.
The sphex wasp lacks some fundamental aspects of instrumental rationality and essentially intentionality, but the plover doesn’t. Somewhere in the middle is a frog which has some degree of “susceptibility to trickery.”<<ref "1">> I think he brings us closer and closer to where he wishes to demarcate the intentional from the unintentional, but I really do want to know where on the continuum he draws the line and, especially, why.
Other questions I wonder about: Would not even the most objective and knowledgeable field teleologist perhaps make some mistakes about what things are intentional and what aren’t? Would a small baby (which I’ll stick my neck out and say I’m in favor of the notion that infant humans have intentionality and concept formation) be testable by the field teleologist? Would the small baby meet the requirements for instrumental rational action as set out by the field teleologist? What about a human with some uncommon mental ‘ticks’, such as one who might be OCD, etc.? In the moment where the compulsive liar is lying, and they aren’t providing novel action, and it doesn’t appear that they have novel proximate ends, and it doesn’t appear as if they aren’t very flexible and adaptive, are we really going to say they lack intentionality or concepts either at all or with regard to this specific moment?
---
<<footnotes "1" "Mark Okrent. Rational Animals: The Teleological Roots of Intentionality. (Columbus: Ohio University Press, 2007), 171">>
Brandom discusses two contemporary ‘episodes’ in the development of the philosophy of intentionality. The first episode is the intensionality of intentionality. One response to (problems of) the intensionality of intentionality is a naturalistic account which describes intentionality through “counterfactuals used to codify causal relationships.”<<ref "1">> The second episode, which I hope to explore a bit further, is the normativity of intentionality.
Brandom frames intentionality as being innately normative in nature, as if we can’t make sense of what it means to have a concept or to move towards something without some objective standard by which to judge correctness. He explains:
[A]nything recognizable as an intentional state…must underwrite normative assessments as to whether things are as they ought to be, according to that state—whether the state is correct or successful according to the standards determined by its content. Believing includes committing oneself, undertaking a responsibility concerning how things are (how they might be found to be).<<ref "2">>
I think he uses very strong words to explain the normativity of intentionality. In particular, notions of an agent’s commitment and responsibility are forceful metaethical claims about the nature of minds. I find these to be profound foundational requirements for an account of intentionality because they involve choice. To ‘commit’ or to be held ‘responsible’ for something entails that an agent has made a choice, one for which values must be compared and judged. It sounds as if intentional beings are moral beings. I admire that, although I think there are a lot of implications to saying it. Attributions of intentionality carry even more weight, in my view, if they are the sorts which are morally normative. Brandom continues his argument:
Crudely put, one cannot take what is represented by a state or performance to consist simply in what stimuli the system in question is disposed to respond to by entering that state or producing that performance. For that would leave no room for mistaken responses, for misinterpretation. Whatever the use of a concept takes to be correct would be correct.<<ref "3">>
If normativity is subjective, then the account of intentionality may only be descriptive. Brandom believes the normativity of intentionality isn’t subjective. He wants an account which makes sense of being wrong about our intentions. I think he’s right. Leaving no room for making mistakes isn’t a plausible account of what it means to possess a concept, to think, to reason, to commit oneself, to be about something, or to move towards something - these all seem to be things for which we can be mistaken or do ineffectively. I think denying the ability to be wrong, in an objective sense, also takes away from the specialness of when an agent ‘gets it right’.
---
<<footnotes "1" "Brandom, Robert. 2001. “Modality, Normativity, and Intentionality.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research LXIII, 589">>
<<footnotes "2" "589">>
<<footnotes "3" "591">>
''[1a]''
In his //Groundwork//, Kant examines the “moral worth” of actions performed from duty rather than from inclination.<<ref "1">> In his view, an agent who employs reason to understand one’s duty and then acts from and for the sake of duty has performed an act of moral worth, one which merits “esteem.”<<ref "2">> He uses the example of the ‘sad philanthropist’ to demonstrate his argument concerning the moral worth of actions.
Kant refers to the sad philanthropist as “the friend of man” who is “overclouded by sorrows of his own which extinguish all sympathy with the fate others.”<<ref "3">> The sad philanthropist, in this instance, no longer has any emotional motivation or inclination to help others in need. From reason and freewill, the sad philanthropist overcomes his sadness as he “tears himself out of this deadly insensibility and does the [right] action without any inclination for the sake of duty alone.”<<ref "4">> Clearly, Kant uses the example of the sad philanthropist to demonstrate the motivational requirements (from duty alone) of an action with moral worth. The sad philanthropist’s emotions (which are always outside the control of the agent) and inclination (which are also outside the control of the agent within this time frame) are incidental. Crucially, Kant isn’t talking about the character of the agent in this passage of the Groundwork, but rather the rightness and moral worth of the action.
'' [Foot’s Criticism]''
Phillipa Foot argues that Kant has not properly understood emotion and inclination as necessary variables in the moral motivation equation used in judging the moral worth of action. Foot criticizes Kant’s sad philanthropist as an agent who is lacking the proper motivation and sympathy, and essentially the virtuous character, required to categorize the resulting action as having moral worth. Vitally, she explains:
<<<
Charity is a virtue of attachment, and that sympathy for others which makes it easier to help them is part of the virtue itself.<<ref "5">>
<<<
Foot is suggesting that having the appropriate ‘virtuous emotions’ (whether or not we have control of them) is a necessary part of possessing the full virtue. In our case, Foot is claiming that the sad philanthropist lacks the emotional and pathological sympathy for others in need, and is therefore lacking some degree of charity. Foot continues:
<<<
Some actions are in accordance with virtue without requiring virtue for their performance, whereas others are both in accordance with virtue and such as to show possession of a virtue.<<ref "6">>
<<<
Foot believes there are some circumstances which pose few, if any, obstacles for acting virtuously, where it is all too ‘easy’ to perform the virtuous act, e.g. when the right moral choice involves self-preservation. There are, however, other difficult circumstances in which even a virtuous agent is truly tested, and where we can more readily see exactly where an agent is lacking virtuous character. The circumstance which caused the sad philanthropist to be ‘overclouded by sorrow’ is the sort of circumstance which really tests the character of an agent. Importantly, Foot distinguishes acting ‘in accordance with virtue’ from actually showing full ‘possession of a virtue’. It is here that she can accuse the sad philanthropist of not possessing full virtue, despite his acting in accordance with virtue. She argues:
<<<
The man who acts charitably out of a sense of duty is not to be undervalued, but it is the other who most shows virtue and therefore to the other that most moral worth is attributed. Only a detail of Kant’s presentation of the case of the dutiful philanthropist tells on the other side. For what he actually said was that this man felt no sympathy and took no pleasure in the good of others because ‘his mind was clouded by some sorrow of his own’, and this is the kind of circumstance that increases the virtue that is needed if a man is to act well’.<<ref "7">>
<<<
If the ‘friend of man’, despite his circumstances, had a character which was readily inclined to be philanthropic and charitable, taking pleasure in doing what is right, having the proper emotional state required to be virtuous, Foot would be willing to claim that his action wasn’t just in accordance with virtue, but also showed the possession of virtue.
The sad philanthropist is simply not as virtuous as an agent who felt the proper sympathy. The virtuous emotions are necessary for moral motivation and virtuous character, and thus also necessary to claim an action has moral worth. The sad philanthropist lacks the virtuous emotions, finding it difficult because of his emotional turmoil to do what is virtuous, and thus demonstrates a flaw in his character. Foot, therefore, deems the sad philanthropist’s action as lacking moral worth compared to the virtuous agent who possesses the necessary virtuous emotions and character, easily doing what is right. As the virtuous agent can be said to have not only acted in accordance with virtue (just as the sad philanthropist), but to also actually possess the virtue because he had virtuous emotions and character, the virtuous person’s action has maximal moral worth.
''[Hursthouse’s Criticism]''
Hursthouse considers at length the implications of Aristotle’s distinction between the continent agent and the fully virtuous agent. The continent agent possesses self-control (//enkrateia//) and is “one who, typically, knowing what she should do, does it, contrary, to her desires.”<<ref "8">> Hursthouse contrasts the fully virtuous person as “one who, typically, knowing what she should do, does it, desiring to do it.”<<ref "9">> Unlike the continent agent, the fully virtuous person’s “desires are in ‘complete harmony’ with her reason; hence, when she does what she should, she does what she desires to do, and reaps the reward of satisfied desire.”<<ref "10">> In Hursthouse’s eyes, both the disharmony between the continent agent’s reason and her desire, and the inability to have those desires satisfied when performing in accordance with virtue demonstrate why the continent agent is morally inferior to the virtuous agent.<<ref "11">>
Hursthouse, keeping in mind the continent/fully virtuous distinction, disagrees to some extent with Phillipa Foot’s criticism, particularly concerning how one should qualify and understand the clause “virtuous conduct gives pleasure to the lover of virtue.”<<ref "12">> Hursthouse carefully explains:
<<<
There is no reason why an Aristotelian should not agree with Kant that there is something particularly estimable about the action of the sorrowing philanthropist. For here, the ‘difficulty that stands in the way’ of his virtuous action is of the sort that ‘provides an occasion’ for much virtue. It is his sorrow which makes noticing and attending to the needs of others particularly difficult; and as Foot rightly remarks, if he still manages to act with charity this ‘most shows virtue’, because ‘this is the kind of circumstance that increases the virtue that is needed if a man is to act well’.<<ref "13">>
<<<
If the sad philanthropist “finds it hard”<<ref "14">> to be charitable //because //his mind is ‘overclouded by sorrow’, but still uses proper reasoning to choose and act charitably, then Hursthouse believes the sad philanthropist is displaying virtue in the face of a difficult obstacle. In this special case, assuming the sad philanthropist employs his capacity to reason correctly, he is possibly better than the merely continent agent - rather he might be fully virtuous.
Hursthouse goes on to explain that to be inclined to have certain emotions isn’t sufficient for being a reliably virtuous agent.<<ref "15">> The basis of this lack of sufficiency is Aristotle’s disagreement (Kant also disagrees) with the Humean principle of action, particularly “passion and desire.”<<ref "16">> Hursthouse attempts to synthesize Kantian and Aristotelian definitions of inclination when she says:
<<<
[W]e all know that the ideal Kantian agent acts from a sense of duty, not from inclination, but if ‘inclination’ is that-principle-of-movement-we-share-with-the-other-animals, then the virtuous Aristotelian agent doesn’t act from inclination either, but from reason (logos) in the form of ‘choice’ (//prohairesis//).<<ref "17">>
<<<
Acting from animalistic inclination is something that even the continent agent avoids. In this sense of inclination, Hursthouse is willing to agree, to some extent, with Kant’s ‘moral worth’ argument. Agents acting from animalistic inclinations are not performing esteemed ‘right’ action with any moral worth. It is here that we see Hursthouse’s true interpretation of Kant’s sad philanthropist, and she attempts to demonstrate how Kant has failed to understand the role of emotions in virtue theory; she says:
<<<
But, sticking to the text, the sorrowing philanthropist is someone with Humean benevolence, liable to go wrong in a variety of ways, who hitherto acted only from inclination and now ‘for the first time’ acts ‘for the sake of duty alone’; not a new sort of philanthropist who has been introduced in contrast to the happy ones. And, in Aristotelian terms, this is hardly a coherent picture.<<ref "18">>
<<<
Essentially, Hursthouse criticizes the sad philanthropist of having been, historically speaking, motivated and acting from an animalistic/child-like Humean inclination. It is merely by happenstance, according to Hursthouse, that the sad philanthropist is in the rare case of having been motivated to act for the sake of duty, rather than his usual animalistic inclination. Hursthouse continues:
<<<
Once one has acquired reason, the only thing that would clearly count as being the sort of agent who acts ‘only from inclination’ and not from reason is being the sort of agent who is akratic or ‘weak-willed’ in character.<<ref "19">>
<<<
Hursthouse is claiming that the sad philanthropist not only isn’t like a virtuous agent in choosing to overcome his sorrows, but he isn’t even (reliably) like the continent agent! The sad philanthropist has historically chosen to act from animalistic inclination, instead of reason, demonstrating that he has an akratic and deeply flawed character. An agent who has such a flawed character that he reliably chooses to act from animalistic inclination lacks real moral motivation to perform actions with actual moral worth. Hursthouse closes her criticism:
<<<
In so far as it makes sense to talk of Aristotle’s view on ‘motivation’, the continent and the fully virtuous have the same ‘motivation’—they each act from reason in the form of ‘choice’ (prohairesis). The difference between them lies not in their ‘motivation’ or reasons for action, but in their condition; the fully virtuous are better disposed in relation to their emotions than the self-controlled.<<ref "20">>
<<<
The fully virtuous agent has a harmony between her emotions, desires, and reason. The continent agent does not possess this harmony. In order for an action to have moral worth it must be performed by an agent who possesses a virtuous character and reliably has the virtuous emotions in harmony with proper reason. In Hursthouse’s view, the sad philanthropist fails to meet these requirements by a long shot (he reliably acts from animalistic inclination), and therefore his action lacks moral worth.
''[1b]''
Hursthouse fails to properly address Kant’s primary argument. Kant’s major claim is that the moral worth of action is a result of reason and will, being motivated and acting from and for the sake of duty alone. Hursthouse argues about the character of the sad philanthropist, but fails to counter (strongly) Kant’s principle behind the claim that the sad philanthropist’s action has moral worth. This is an unfortunate oversight on her part.
The sad philanthropist does not demonstrate Hursthouse's distinction between continent and fully virtuous. The sad philanthropist demonstrates the divide between one who reliably acts from animalistic inclination and the continent agent. The continent agent does what is right, despite his feelings and desires. The animalistically inclined agent does what is right because his feelings and desires drive him to do so. Hursthouse destroys the sad philanthropist’s character (his historical animalistic motivation), but she doesn’t demonstrate how the sad philanthropist is an example of why the actions of the fully virtuous agent have moral worth where the actions of the continent agent do not, and essentially, she doesn’t provide a strong argument against Kant’s ‘moral worth’-making principle.
Kant is arguing that ‘moral worth’ is the result of being motivated to do what is right because it is right. Kant believes an agent requires continence in conjunction with this for-duty-alone motivation to perform actions of moral worth; Hursthouse believes the requirements for ‘moral worth’ are different and more difficult to attain. Hursthouse thinks both possessing the virtuous character (better than continence) and reliably feeling virtuous emotions in harmony with one’s reason (definitionally impossible for the continent) are the necessary ‘moral worth’-making preconditions. Why should we believe her?
If Hursthouse is correct about what makes an action have moral worth, then I daresay I’ve never met a person who has ever performed an action with moral worth because I’ve never met (to my knowledge) a person with a fully virtuous character. If only the virtuous agent can perform actions with moral worth, then the rest of us (who aren’t fully virtuous) are doomed to perform actions (even if in accordance with virtue) which lack moral worth.
Kant can make sense of character development and give a plausible account of ‘moral worth’-making preconditions without putting us into the awkward position that Hursthouse does. I think he would argue that over the course of the character development of agents, some people will have initially strong dispositions to do what is wrong, and others will have the opposite, and yet others will fall in between. Kant thinks you can start out as being non-virtuous, but through repeated applications of reason and willing to act from duty, you will arrive at having a virtuous character. Character, however, is not the condition which determines the moral worth of action, rather it is merely a measurement of the moral worth of an agent’s choices from a broad temporal scope. Note that the ‘moral worth’ judgment precedes character determination.
Completely different from Hursthouse, Kant thinks one can act correctly, producing an action with moral worth, even with a poor disposition. Kant uses a small temporal scope, judging the smallest units of experience – individual choices. Kant believes that one may choose to do what is right and morally worthy at any point on the timeline of choices of the agent. In this unit of moral experience, inclinations, emotions, desires, character are incidental; the choice and reasoning which motivates a person are the sole factors in judging the rightness and moral worth of the resulting action.
So, whether a person is a racist (Hursthouse’s example of a vicious agent) or a virtuous agent, at each choice, she has the ability to choose to act outside of her inclinations, emotions, desires, or character. When she chooses to act for the sake of duty, then her action has moral worth. Even the racist or Mafioso can choose to act for the sake of duty, and thus even their actions can possibly have moral worth.
Hursthouse did not properly address the sort of account of character Kant might give; instead she implies that virtuous character is necessary for actions to have ‘moral-worth’. I don’t see why this is necessary or even plausible. As a part of this disagreement over the primacy of character and disposition, Hursthouse and Kant also have a fundamental disagreement concerning the role of emotions in ethics. We must ask: why should we believe that emotions are necessary components for ‘doing’ the right action?
Kant would say that emotions are neither necessary nor sufficient for doing the right action. Emotions are subjective, not dependable, and, most importantly, agents cannot exercise will power over emotions – we lack control of our emotions. To lack control over our emotions (in an immediate sense) removes our (immediate) moral responsibility for them. Hursthouse fails to rebut this fundamental point.
Hursthouse desperately needs to provide an account of how we are morally culpable for our emotions even if we aren’t in full control of them. It is possible that Hursthouse could instead claim we have full control over our emotions, but that claim seems very implausible (from my own anecdotal experience). She does think emotions are part rational and part irrational. She needs to flesh out the psychology of moral agents, particularly the relationship of will and emotion, in order to provide a plausible account of moral responsibility.
The criticism of the sad philanthropist was a misdirected argument. Kant was clearly discussing the ‘moral worth’ of actions and the sort of motivation required for it, not the character of the sad philanthropist. Hursthouse should have shown why ‘acting from duty alone’ is not necessary and sufficient for the moral worth of action. Only after rebutting Kant’s major claim should she have provided a much stronger account of her own theory of what is necessary and sufficient for the moral worth of action.
''[2a]''
In considering the nature of ‘reason’ in the claim that the virtuous agent chooses “a V action for an X reason” Hursthouse draws on Sarah Broadie’s “Grand End theory.”<<ref "21">> Both Broadie and Hursthouse are concerned with whether or not we are justified in ascribing to the virtuous agent “an explicit, comprehensive, substantial vision of the good.”<<ref "22">> Hursthouse questions the necessity of such an ascription and its impact upon the moral motivation of the virtuous agent. Hursthouse expounds:
<<<
When philosophers start implying that it is a necessary condition of virtue that the virtuous have reflected long and hard about what eudaimonia consists in and worked out a picture of what is involved in acting well so comprehensive and substantial that it can be applied and its application justified in every suitable case, we may be sure that they are falling victim to what could be called ‘the Platonic fantasy’. This is the fantasy that it is only through the study of philosophy that one can become virtuous (or really virtuous).<<ref "23">>
<<<
The ‘Platonic fantasy’ is the claim that the virtuous agent must (either explicitly or implicitly) think about and employ a complete (and correct) moral philosophy. Those under the illusion of the ‘Platonic fantasy’ (primarily philosophers), according to Hursthouse, inaccurately ascribe philosophical reasoning to the virtuous agent, including “fancy”<<ref "24">> terminology, abstract ethical structures, universal principle-based reflection, and formal //moral knowledge//.
Hursthouse is convinced the Platonic fantasy fails to capture the psychological makeup and sort of ‘X reasoning’ of the virtuous agent. As a matter of //brute fact//, Hursthouse claims:
<<<
Of course people can be virtuous, really virtuous, without having spent clockable hours thinking about eudaimonia, coming to the conclusion that it is a life lived in accordance with the virtues and working out an account of acting well, just as they can possess a really good will without having spent clockable hours working out whether various maxims can be willed as universal laws.<<ref "25">>
<<<
To Hursthouse, this is //obviously //true. Assuming philosophical reasoning does require clockable hours, the “absurdity of the [Platonic] fantasy”<<ref "26">> is consequently also obviously true to her. The virtuous agent doesn’t necessarily ‘reason’ or philosophize, according to Hursthouse. Hursthouse states that “the ascription of virtue…is basic.”<<ref "27">> Unfortunately, Hursthouse isn’t very clear about what she means by this basic ascription to the virtuous agent. She does explain:
<<<
Loving the noble, having a correct conception of eudaimonia and a grasp of the universal acting well, are not tests for virtue, or the grounds on which we ascribe virtue, nor are they the specification of an ideal of virtue to which everyone should aspire.<<ref "28">>
<<<
So, while Hursthouse fails to describe (in detail) what she believes are necessary and sufficient sort of psychological and rational conditions to be a virtuous agent, I know she believes that philosophical thought is neither necessary nor sufficient. The basic moral reasoning of the virtuous agent is non-philosophical.
Hursthouse covers all the ‘Platonic fantasy’ bases when she reiterates Broadie’s extension of the fantasy from the conscious mind to the unconscious mind. She explains we cannot even implicitly ascribe the Platonic fantasy to the virtuous person.<<ref "29">> Virtue isn’t just compatible with philosophical inarticulacy; it is also compatible with lacking tacit and implicit philosophical knowledge, intuition, and reasoning. Hursthouse is claiming that philosophical knowledge, conscious or unconscious, is unnecessary for a virtuous agent.
For Hursthouse, the Platonic fantasy is easy to slip into; she explains why many philosophers are under the illusion of the Platonic fantasy:
<<<
If we philosophers were to think of ordinary virtuous people as possessing these ‘fancy’ things, we would have a better philosophical understanding of various topics that interest us—moral motivation, moral reasoning, practical wisdom, a correct conception of eudaimonia, virtue itself.<<ref "30">>
<<<
She thinks moral philosophy is ‘actually’ done because it piques our interest. Perhaps we (the philosophers) are tempted to incorrectly ascribe the activity of philosophy to the virtuous agent as a necessary (and, for some, also sufficient) condition to being virtuous because it might benefit us as philosophers. To Hursthouse, philosophers use formal moral reasoning to describe the virtuous agent because they believe they are “saying something illuminating and important.”<<ref "31">> I take it that Hursthouse is saying that it is all too easy for a philosopher of ethics to delude himself into thinking he is doing something really worthwhile, something which will help him attain not just knowledge about morality, but even help him (and those who listen to him) perform better practical and applied moral reasoning and perhaps become like, think as, be motivated for the same reasons as, and act like the virtuous agent.
Noteworthy, it is //possible //that some virtuous agent, by happenstance, is also a moral philosopher who possesses “an explicit, comprehensive, substantial vision of the good.”<<ref "32">> Being a moral philosopher, however, is neither necessary nor sufficient for the coincidentally virtuous moral philosopher to be morally motivated.<<ref "33">>
In conclusion, Hursthouse believes philosophical moral reasoning is not a necessary part of moral motivation or a required for virtue.
''[2b]''
Hursthouse’s claim is much stronger than saying that virtue and moral motivation are compatible with philosophical inarticulacy.<<ref "34">> She’s denying the necessity of not only conscious and explicit philosophical reasoning to be morally motivated and to be a virtuous agent, but also the subconscious, intuitive, and ‘difficult to make explicit’ philosophical reasoning. Hursthouse, in my view, is dismissing the need for moral philosophy in its entirety. Hursthouse would clearly disagree with the following claim:
<<<
The Platonic fantasy is no fantasy. It is utterly crucial if we are to perform our task as moral philosophers – in short, the nature of philosophy itself rides on the alleged fantasy.<<ref "35">>
<<<
The denial of the above claim is pretty shocking, especially coming from a moral philosopher. If the Platonic fantasy really is a fantasy, then why in the world would a person pursue moral philosophy at all? Why did Hursthouse write this book? (Because it interested her?) If philosophical moral reasoning doesn’t help us and others on the path to becoming better moral agents, then there doesn’t really seem to be much of a purpose to (moral) philosophy. If moral theories are strictly incapable of actually describing moral experience and the moral universe, then can we really say that the virtuous person employs knowledge? The sort of knowledge that would come from moral philosophy is somehow not very useful to the virtuous agent (or to those seeking to become virtuous). If this is the case, wouldn’t moral philosophy, in Hursthouse’s eyes, be somewhat like memorizing prime numbers? Sure, having these prime numbers memorized might help you pass a test one day in your number theory class, but it is generally useless otherwise. Like memorizing prime numbers, if Hursthouse is correct, it seems as though moral philosophy is generally useless.
I think it is one thing to claim that modern moral philosophy is inaccurate (a charitable way to read this, in my opinion) and another to dismiss it altogether. If Hursthouse would claim that the correct virtue theory itself is much simpler than the complexity we see in modern moral theories (again, the depth of the arguments she has given in this book would demonstrate otherwise), then I could make more sense of her claim that moral philosophy (as we currently think about it) is useless to the virtuous agent or those seeking to be virtuous.
Hursthouse has (momentarily) forgotten what it means to do ‘philosophy’ in the first place. By definition, philosophy is about good reasoning, about pursuing truth, and about gaining wisdom. Whether a truth is extremely complex or simple, the good philosopher will pursue it because moral philosophy is about pursuing and possessing moral knowledge. Philosophers (at least ‘good’ or proper ones) develop, argue about, and use moral theories to try to describe the moral (aspect of the) universe; they do this because they wish to know the moral universe (morality) in order to become better moral agents (to become like the virtuous agent!). It is assumed by most moral philosophers (perhaps excepting Broadie and Hursthouse) that becoming virtuous is a rational process, not an irrational or random one, hence why we (should) do moral philosophy. If morality wasn’t strictly rational, then you could not be responsible for it.
The virtuous agent does have moral knowledge. Hursthouse thinks so. How is this sort of knowledge not philosophical? How is it not rational and well-reasoned? Surely it must be. Does she just mean ‘true belief’ rather than knowledge?
Let’s assume that possessing knowledge is the possession of justified true belief (just as Aristotle’s teacher assumed; and, arguably, Aristotle’s explanation of episteme in his Posterior Analytics implies). The moral philosopher, who is pursuing moral knowledge, is interested in having justified, true moral beliefs. Hursthouse admits that having the correct moral belief is essential to being morally motivated and a necessary component to the psychology of the virtuous agent.<<ref "36">> If the virtuous agent is justified in his true moral belief, then, essentially, he has the object of moral philosophy, namely moral knowledge. If we are to assume that the virtuous agent must be justified in his true belief, then it would seem that moral philosophy, in this sense, is absolutely necessary to becoming a virtuous agent. Perhaps modern moral theories are wrong, but that doesn’t mean that moral philosophy is unnecessary.
If the JTB assumption is correct, then the only way for Hursthouse to dismiss moral philosophy as she does would be to claim that the virtuous agent is not justified in his true belief, and thus doesn’t have moral knowledge. If this were true, then the virtuous belief isn’t necessarily reasonable. If this is the objection, we must realize that the virtuous agent did not think about his beliefs, he just ‘magically’ had them. Randomly stumbling upon the correct (but unjustified) moral beliefs, and acting from them (rather than from a duty deduced from reason), seems to take away from the moral worth of an agent’s action, in my view.
Heeding the Platonic fantasy is necessary if we are going to say that the virtuous person employs rationality, at least implicitly, to be morally motivated. Moral philosophy, even if not as complex or sophisticated as many modern moral theories, is certainly something which the virtuous agent must be doing, and the activity necessary for becoming virtuous.
Before closing, I would like to defend a possible spirit of Hursthouse’s argument, namely that virtuous agents may have difficulty explicitly articulating their thoughts. Given one’s understanding of the philosophy of mind, language, and intentionality (for example, if you deny some forms of pragmatism and expressivism), it is certainly reasonable to consider the possibility that a virtuous agent’s philosophical framework and motivation is in part intuitive and subconscious, and that, to some extent, the agent isn’t mentally and physically capable of articulating their beliefs. Obviously, Hursthouse said much more than this, but I think she may have hit on something pretty important in dissecting the psychology of the virtuous agent.
''[3a]''
Hursthouse spends a great deal of time describing the ‘degree’ paradigm of her virtue theory. She believes that virtues, beliefs, feelings, character traits, and practical wisdom admit of degree. She says there are “a variety of ways in which people are not, ethically, all of a piece,” which complicates, but does not demonstrate, disunity of the virtues.<<ref "37">>
As Hursthouse sees it, the virtues are not “completely discrete, isolable character traits.”<<ref "38">> The essential idea behind the doctrine of the unity of the virtues is that “to have any individual virtue one must have them all.”<<ref "39">> Her theory is derived from Aristotle’s; he explains:
<<<
One might on these lines meet the dialectical argument by which it would be contended that the virtues exist independently of each other, on the ground that the same man is not equally well endowed by nature in respect of them all, so that he will be the possessor of one, but not yet the possessor of another. As far as the natural virtues are concerned, this is possible; but it is not possible when the virtues are those that entitle a person to be called good without qualification; for the possession of the single virtue of practical wisdom will carry with it the possession of them all.<<ref "40">>
<<<
Strict reading would lead us to believe that possession of the full set of those moral virtues which aren’t practical wisdom (to what degree isn’t clear) is a necessary condition for possession of practical or moral wisdom. Hursthouse builds upon this, and, in my view, qualifies the unity beyond what Aristotle is saying right here. I believe Hursthouse extends this to mean that the virtues which are connected to practical wisdom (exactly how, I’m not sure) are the sort which can’t be independently understood apart from each other; inevitably, she will arrive at the notion that possession of any single virtue (not just practical wisdom) ‘will carry with it the possession of them all’. There is a holistic, codependent, perhaps even interdefining nature to the moral virtues. Consider what Hursthouse says:
<<<
[‘Courage’ and ‘temperance’] are not excellences of character, not traits that, by their very nature, make their possessor good and issue in good conduct. They can be faults or flaws rather than excellences and they can lead their possessors to act badly.<<ref "41">>
<<<
To isolate courage, and to apply it independently of the other virtues, especially independent of practical wisdom, seems to (at least sometimes) result in faults and flaws, in Hursthouse’s view. Independently then, these aren’t virtues at all, and because of this, I believe she considers (although ultimately concludes a unity stronger than) two ‘connective’ claims about the virtues.
The first (and weaker claim) is the interconnectivity of the non-wisdom virtues, and the insufficiency of the sum of the non-wisdom virtues to result in ‘excellence of character’ and full virtue. If courage is not moderated by the virtue of temperance, then the feelings of fear and confidence may be skewed to extreme excess or defect, resulting in rashness or cowardice. It seems a necessary condition for the ‘excellence of character’ that each of the various moral virtues (momentarily, we will exclude practical wisdom from this set) have something to say about at least some of the other virtues. To what extent, and in what way, I am not exactly sure how Hursthouse thinks. So, to be properly charitable (so as to move a step closer towards excellence of character), the character trait of charity may require, borrow from, and be regulated by other sorts of virtues such as kindness or perhaps the sort of righteousness required to be aware of the misfortunes of our neighbors.
It seem as though even more is required, however, for courage to be appropriately applied in the right situations, in the right way, at the right time, etc. The non-wisdom virtues, despite their interdependence, are not sufficient (although certainly necessary) for being fully virtuous. Hursthouse continues:
<<<
What this way of thinking about the virtues omits is the Aristotelian idea that each of the virtues involves practical wisdom, the ability to reason correctly about practical matters…The same sorts of judgments about goods and evils, benefits and harms, what is worthwhile and what is relatively unimportant crop up across the ranges.<<ref "42">>
<<<
This is the second (and stronger) ‘connectivity’ claim she considers. Practical wisdom seems to be the driving cognitive force and supervisory device behind the other virtues. This wisdom perceives the world appropriately; it makes sense of ‘what is what’; it is the locus of judgment and value determination; and, most importantly to the unity of the virtues, it governs the other virtues. Pertaining to the unity of the virtues, the virtuous agent’s practical wisdom includes knowing how to properly connect and apply the sum of the various virtues in the proper situations and in the proper ways.
So while the other moral virtues impact each other to some degree, they aren’t the masters of themselves; it appears that practical wisdom has very profound regulating powers over the other moral virtues. We do know that ‘excellence of character’ is the possession of practical wisdom, which will necessarily include the other moral virtues. Possessing the non-wisdom virtues is necessary for possessing practical wisdom, but we don’t yet know if they are sufficient for possessing practical wisdom, according to Hursthouse. Practical wisdom holds a very special place in Hursthouse’s virtue theory. Hursthouse concludes:
<<<
So it seems that what we believe in is what Neera Badhwar calls ‘the limited unity’ of the virtues and Gary Watson ‘the weak unity thesis’. This is a view that simultaneously recognizes the fact that practical wisdom cannot occur in discrete packages, limited in its area of competence to just this virtue or that, and also the fact that it is not an all-or-nothing matter. According to this thesis, anyone who possesses one virtue will have all the others to some degree, albeit, in some cases, a pretty limited one.<<ref "43">>
<<<
Vitally, Hursthouse explains that the possession of any proper virtue (not just practical wisdom) includes all the others (to some degree). For example, to properly have courage requires practical wisdom, and to have practical wisdom is to have at least some degree of all the other virtues. In this sense, ‘isolated courage’ isn’t courage at all; only the sort of courage which necessarily includes (some degree of) all the other virtues is really what Hursthouse means by courage. Note that Hursthouse’s ‘weak unity thesis’ is still stronger than just holding the two previous connectivity claims (although, the essence of these connective issues are still found within her doctrine of the unity of the virtues).
What is clear about Hursthouse’s weak unity thesis is that one virtue necessitates them all, to some degree. What is unclear about Hursthouse’s weak unity thesis is ‘to what degree’. The various connections between the virtues, and particularly the impact of practical wisdom in this equation, have not been fully fleshed out in her account of the unity of the virtues.
''[3b]''
Hursthouse is denying the ‘all-or-nothing’ of the moral metrics in her virtue theory; instead she employs a ‘degree paradigm’, and this sort of degree-based argumentation is prominent within her weak unity of the virtues thesis. Each of the virtues can be possessed in (differing) degrees. Given what she says, there are some awkward and unintuitive results. [Objection #1] One of my problems with her weak unity thesis is that it results in the possibility of some extremely //implausible //agents who possess wildly imbalanced character distributions.
Consider how a hypothetical person in Hursthouse’s weak unity thesis might possess 98% charity, and only 1% of the other virtues, such as courage, temperance, kindness, etc. This seems implausible to my own intuitions. It is certainly explainable and possible in Hursthouse’s theory, but this sort of hypothetical doesn’t seem plausible or an acceptably possible result of a theory from my own moral experience. (Admittedly, my intuitions could be wrong.)
Her conception of the unity of virtues isn’t accurate enough. It seems to me that every situation requires all the virtues simultaneously. In short, [Objection #2] the virtues are too isolable in her theory. On one hand, she considers how the virtues are connected, and thinks they help to define and regulate each other, but on the hand, she thinks of particular situations as requiring (e.g.) ‘courage + practical wisdom’ or ‘charity + practical wisdom’ almost exclusively, as if we really can isolate most of the morally relevant factors of a situation as mostly requiring an isolated virtue alongside practical wisdom. Her theory does not do a good job explaining why the other virtues are necessary to these situations. She does ‘isolate’ the character traits to some //degree//. I don’t think she justifies it though.
''[3c]''
My theory of the unity of the virtues: there is only practical wisdom. All the other virtues are found inside practical wisdom. I think isolating character traits and specific moral virtues (other than wisdom) makes no sense whatsoever; I’m not convinced the non-wisdom virtues actually exist in this sense. I want to say that the situations which some people say require ‘courage’ are really situations in which practical wisdom is manifested so as to appear like courage. Practical wisdom is the only virtue, though. In my view, this is a much stronger unity thesis than what Hursthouse provides. The (so-called) ‘moral virtues’ either don’t exist at all or they are identical with wisdom (depending on how you want to look at it). Wisdom isn’t just the virtue, to the virtue ethicist, __virtue is wisdom__.
Explaining Hursthouse’s views on practical wisdom would be its own paper (and beyond the scope of this question). I likely have a different view of what is meant by ‘wisdom’ - so, in order to clarify what I mean by ‘virtue is wisdom’ (sounds like a modified “virtue is knowledge,” answering //akrasia//, etc., no?), let me first explain what I mean by wisdom (what I mean by practical and moral wisdom).
First, wisdom is rational thought about what is valuable, what is worth pursing, what one ought to do, what is right, the objective moral world. Moral thought and knowledge comprise the first half of Wisdom. Clearly, this isn’t a character trait by itself. To say a person is wise requires more than just moral knowledge and thought, it also requires that an agent reliably chooses and acts from this moral knowledge and thought. From my perspective, in order to explain ‘wisdom’ as a character trait, we need to add the element of the //will//.
The second half of wisdom is choosing to act (including mental acts) from and because of what you know is morally right. After all, the man with moral knowledge who doesn’t choose to act from it isn’t the sort I want to call ‘wise’. Wisdom, as the virtuous character, is about both moral knowledge/thought and willing it.
Colloquially, we speak of wisdom as a type of knowledge. Insofar as one transmits moral knowledge, but doesn’t need to act on it (let us say that my grandfather was explaining a wise thing to me), we can call it ‘wisdom’ without will. But, wisdom as a character trait still requires reliably willing from moral knowledge. What exactly we mean by ‘reliable’ is cashed out in terms of averages and some broad temporal scope for which I’m unable to give an account (at this point).
As you can see, crucial to my view of virtue ethics, particularly about how the unity of virtues relates to decision/action, is my disagreement with Hursthouse’s view of the primacy of the virtuous character. I agree with Hursthouse in claiming there are ‘degrees of virtue’. For example, one might be 38% virtuous, but that is just a result of an average of the rightness (and morally worth) of the decisions/actions for which one is responsible. Virtue, of course, is a measurement over time – in part a measurement of an agent’s reliability. In my view, the atomic elements (individual choices/smallest units of moral experience) which comprise the ‘virtuous character’ equation are the primitive objects of moral theory, not the resulting measurement. So, I agree to an absolute unity of the virtues (plainly, wisdom), but I don’t hold wise/virtuous character, as a measurement, to be primitive.
Note that my theory avoids the two objections I made about Hursthouse’s theory. I avoid my second objection to Hursthouse because my theory does not isolate the various moral virtues to any degree. Consequently, I also avoid my first objection. There are no wildly imbalanced and totally implausible characters as a result of my unity of virtue theory. There is merely an ‘appearance’ of charitable agents; actually, there are simply wise agents. In this, we have no resulting 98% charity, and 1% of the other virtues. Talking of degrees of plain and totally unified wisdom or virtue, in this sense, seems intuitively more plausible to me.
-----------------------------------------
<<footnotes "1" "Immanuel Kant, //Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals//, trans H.J. Paton (1964), 66">>
<<footnotes "2" "Ibid.">>
<<footnotes "3" "Ibid.">>
<<footnotes "4" "Ibid.">>
<<footnotes "5" "Phillipa Foot, “Virtues and Vices” in //Virtue Ethics//, ed. Roger Crisp and Michael Slote (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), 172">>
<<footnotes "6" "Ibid., 173">>
<<footnotes "7" "Ibid., 174">>
<<footnotes "8" "Rosalind Hursthouse, //On Virtue Ethics// (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 92">>
<<footnotes "9" "Ibid.">>
<<footnotes "10" "Ibid.">>
<<footnotes "11" "Ibid., 93">>
<<footnotes "12" "Ibid., 98">>
<<footnotes "13" "Ibid.">>
<<footnotes "14" "Ibid., 97">>
<<footnotes "15" "Ibid., 102">>
<<footnotes "16" "Ibid.">>
<<footnotes "17" "Ibid., 103">>
<<footnotes "18" "Ibid., 104">>
<<footnotes "19" "Ibid., 106">>
<<footnotes "20" "Ibid., 107">>
<<footnotes "21" "Ibid., 137">>
<<footnotes "22" "Ibid., 136">>
<<footnotes "23" "Ibid., 137">>
<<footnotes "24" "Ibid.">>
<<footnotes "25" "Ibid.">>
<<footnotes "26" "Ibid.">>
<<footnotes "27" "Ibid.">>
<<footnotes "28" "Ibid., 137-138">>
<<footnotes "29" "Ibid., 137">>
<<footnotes "30" "Ibid., 138">>
<<footnotes "31" "Ibid.">>
<<footnotes "32" "Ibid., 139">>
<<footnotes "33" "Ibid., 140">>
<<footnotes "34" "Ibid., 127">>
<<footnotes "35" "Husain Sarkar. //Fall_2010_PHIL_4946.doc// (Baton Rouge: October 19, 2010), 6">>
<<footnotes "36" "Ibid., 140">>
<<footnotes "37" "Ibid., 153">>
<<footnotes "38" "Ibid., 131">>
<<footnotes "39" "Ibid., 153">>
<<footnotes "40" "Aristotle. //Nicomachean Ethics//, tr. J. A. K. Thomson, rev. H. Tredennick. (London: Penguin, 1976), 166">>
<<footnotes "41" "Ibid., 154">>
<<footnotes "42" "Ibid., 154">>
<<footnotes "43" "Ibid., 156">>
Notes- August 24
Articulating Reasons:
Assimilation vs. Differentiation of the conceptual
Differentiation-Animals don’t have language, thus humans are diferent. Animals don’t “feel” like Humans.
Parrot is like a thermostat. It says “red” like a machine.
What is unique about humans?
Assimilation explains conceptual show similarities between animals and humans.
Conceptual Platonism vs. Pragmatism
Pragmatism explains concepts in terms of use. Heidegger and Pragmatism relates hammers to the actions.
Pragmatism seems to fit with assimilationism.
Platonist is like Descartes, and starts with representation. If you see a desk, you compare it to a representation in your head of a desk. Explaining something in terms of something which is a lot more complicated (the forms).
Galileo and Descartes used proofs about numbers to prove things about numbers. Equations represented space. The representation had many properties that had nothing to do with what they were representing, and that makes people nervous (as perhaps those non-shared properties may infect).
Pragmatists dissolve representation. Instead, you start as a creature in the world with various intentions and desires, and you just use the desk naturally, and that is how you come to understand it.
Practical inferences is parasitic on theoretical inference (like logic). This is different from practical pragmatism, rather than theoretical inference pragmatism, which does not emphasize deduction.
Mind vs. Language as the locus of intensionality. (Prof things that Intensionality is based on action).
Language is primary to understanding the world. What differentiates us from animals is theoretical pragmatistic logic in our language, which we use to understand the world.
Genus of conceptual activity
Representation or Expression (author is Expressivist)
Implicit in use, language allows you to convert implicit into explicit.
For example, Truth tables in Logic can be representational explanation of what “and” means in logic.
What is the status of the truth table? One might say it represents, the other says it is a shortcut??
Author wants to start with proof rules and then build up to the table. (implicitly known into Explicitly stated tables).
Distinguishing the conceptual:
Intensional or Inferentialism
Morning Star = Evening Start
“Believes that”
“is necessary that”
A context where co-referring terms don’t substitute.
Author thinks that what distinguishes the conceptual are inferences.
Bottom up vs. Top down Semantic explanation
Author says we start with sentences and then through inferential patterns we understand the sentences.
What makes something conceptual in that you are able to make many inferences about it.
Atomism vs. Holism
Semantic Atomists thinks that Gary can have meaning outside of language and meanings, while Semantic Holists think that Gary can’t have meaning outside of other words and meanings.
Notes - August 26th
Recognizing something isn’t understanding it. Why is it reasonable to infer that something is a something (the input to Sellar’s model) – what sorts of premises are acceptable?
Practical inference is fundamental to the conception. This is pragmatism.
Brandom denies it. He think theoretical inferences come before practical inference.
Notes – August 31
Monotonic logic shows that if P then Q, if P and C, then Q is entailed. That is monotonic, but not very natural. Material conditionals are somehow non-monotonic.
Red isn’t just something we respond to, it also in our space of reasons.
Animals don’t have desires because they don’t have beliefs.
Enthymeme is a suppressed premise.
Davidson says, Belief + Desire (+ Rationality) -> Action
Brandom says, Belief + Action are used to explain Desire
Heideggerian , Desire + action explain belief.
Flexible adaptive richness is something that NPCs don’t have because you can kite and trap them in/against the geometry of the game.
Only doing x brings about y, so I shall do x. The desire is y.
Notes – September 2, 2010
Premises (entitlement) -> P -> Conclusions (commitment)
World -> P -> Act
Premise -> P -> Act this is desire
Brandom claims that Reliable processes aren’t enough. A reliable indicator still doesn’t understand the concept of whatever they indicate. They need that concept in the space of reasons.
Notes – September 9, 2010
Only doing X will result in Y.
So I shall do X
Where, preference for Y if inference holds for best of X’s.
Brandom – A desire’s fulfillment condition Y is that condition which, combined with the belief that only “something” it a beat. That X produces Y, leads to the belief that X.-for a wide range of X.
You have to have beliefs to have desires.
Pragmatism is that truth is related to usefulness in some way.
P-True Helpful in actualizing desires; Brandom thinks it leads to false action.
P-False unhelpful
Conflicting desires.
The content of the belief that only doing X will result in Y is that condition which, combined with the desire that Y --- to result in bringing it about that X.
I desire Y
So I shall bring it about that X.
X’s truth condition function of this with wide enough variety Y.
Notes – September 14
Frank believes that the inventor of bifocals invented the lightning rod. (de dicto)
Frank believes of the inventor of bifocals that he invented the lightning rod. (de re)
R believes that the X is Y.
The X is such that R believes it is Y.
Notes – October 7, 2010
Belief can be false = Goal can be unattained
Notes – October 12
Brandom:
Representationalism – Platonism
Inferentialism – Pragmatism
Brandom departs from pragmatism in terms of his differentiationism. Sapience vs. Sentience. Sentient creatures aren’t in the space of reasons.
Brandom thinks practical inferences are parasitic on the primal theoretical inferences. Okrent denies this.
Goals don’t require rationality. You don’t need theoretical inferences for goals.
Physical-
Design-e.g. thermostat or computer
Intentional-
Martians, Dennett, understanding the physical algorithms of chess. Martians can predict and understand all of it at the atomic level. But, they are said to miss something about the game.
Intentionality, then, can’t be described purely in physicalist’s terms.
Boostrapping process:
Goal->Language->Rational Goals
Notes – November 4, 2010
//--In Memory of Ian Crystal//
Aristotle holds ontology to be primitive to epistemology; his theory of the four causes, chance, and spontaneity are no exception. The four causes, in particular, are part of the conceptual link between the ontic and the epistemic. Without this theory of causation, in the eyes of Aristotle, the world would cease to be intelligible. The //Physics //(where we first see a description of his theory of causation) in some ways is a study of being qua movement, and Aristotle’s conceptual framework for this study is understood in terms of the four causes. He is clearly interested in describing change and motion (and defending these against the Eleatics), demonstrating the relationship between potentiality and actuality, aiding in the explanation of being and non-being, and justifying his account of essentialism and teleology.
As an essentialist, Aristotle is deeply concerned with making sure we do not conflate the accidental with the essential. While he recognizes that the existence of the physical world is immediate and obvious (almost like a brute-fact), it seems as if natural sciences, which are studies of what is beyond that which is immediately obvious, require an explanation of change and motion. Before he goes on to give us this explanation (his theory of causation), Aristotle provides us a distinction between natural and artificial substances. This distinction will be further demonstrated within his causal theory as well. He explains:
<<<
Of things that exist, some exist by nature, some from other causes. By nature the animals and their parts exist, and the plants and the simple bodies (earth, fire, air, water)—for we say that these and the like exist by nature.<<ref "1">>
<<<
<<<
All the things mentioned plainly differ from things which are not constituted by nature. For each of them has within itself a principle of motion and of stationariness (in respect of place, or of growth and decrease, or by way of alteration). On the other hand, a bed and a coat and anything else of that sort, qua receiving these designations—i.e. in so far as they are products of art—have no innate impulse to change. But in so far as they happen to be composed of stone or of earth or of a mixture of the two, they do have such an impulse, and just to that extent—which seems to indicate that nature is a principle or cause of being moved and of being at rest in that to which it belongs primarily, in virtue of itself and not accidentally.<<ref "2">>
<<<
That which ‘exists by nature’ is a natural substance and that which is a ‘product of art’ is an artificial substance. Natural substances, as the name implies, are the sorts of substances which exist in nature and without an agent to change them. Conversely, artificial substances are generated by artists and do not occur naturally. Artificial substances could not exist without natural substances because the latter are the necessary preconditions and materials required for a technician to generate the former.
Importantly, the difference between natural and artificial substances isn’t just a question of origin, but also a question of the nature of change and motion which inheres in each of these kinds of substance. Change occurs when a substance loses and gains accidental features (e.g. change in place, etc.), and the internality of change and motion differ between natural and artificial substances. An essential aspect of a natural substance is the principles of motion and change which are internal to it. Artificial substances don’t have these principles internal to them insofar as they are artificial, but they do insofar as they happen to be made of natural substances.
This distinction between natural and artificial substance heeds Aristotle’s essentialism. Change is essential to the natural substance, but change is accidental to artificial substance. In analogous juxtaposition, change (as a principle) is essential (to the world), but change (of a property in a substance) is in some way accidental. These differences are further explained by Aristotle’s causal theory.
In further consideration of change and motion, in explaining being and non-being (including the passage into each), and in order to provide a foundation for the sciences (linking the ontic to the epistemic), Aristotle sets out a conceptual framework for causation. He explains:
<<<
Knowledge is the object of our inquiry, and men do not think they know a thing till they have grasped the ‘why’ of it (which is to grasp its primary cause). So clearly we too must do this as regards both coming to be and passing away and every kind of natural change, in order that, knowing their principles, we may try to refer to these principles each of our problems.<<ref "3">>
<<<
Let us first realize that this question ‘why?’ is fundamental to Aristotle’ teleological structure. In coming to acquire knowledge about the world in a complete sense, we must be able to fully answer the question ‘why?’. His causal theory is going to demonstrate how we can fully answer the question ‘why?’ regarding anything which is intelligible and how it is central to the link between the ontic realm and the epistemic realm.
So, any successful and coherent investigation of the world, according to Aristotle, requires that we understand the causes and teleological ends of things in the world. If it wasn’t possible to provide an explanation for the question ‘why a thing exists as it does?’, then the world wouldn’t be intelligible. Aristotle thinks this particular view of his is somewhat unique. While giving partial credit to his predecessors (e.g. the Monists and Plato) concerning this topic, he claims they had only vague notions of the causes (e.g. Plato is accused of only believing in material and formal causes), and that he alone is able to provide the true account of the causes.<<ref "4">> In this, he is also alluding to limits to the viability of the scientific inquiry of his predecessors because they lacked an adequate theory of the causes.
One other major point of context to his causal theory that we need to consider is the word ‘cause’, which needs to be interpreted carefully and fleshed out. Aristotle’s understanding of the word ‘cause’ (//aitia//) is broader than the modern sense; it might be thought of as an explanation (a broader term in modernity). ‘Cause’ is likely the better word because the connotation of ‘explanation’ misleadingly emphasizes an epistemic view of substances, which fails to highlight the primacy of ontology in Aristotle’s worldview. The word ‘cause’ (overall) might then best capture both the ontic structure of (Aristotle’s) reality and how we understand the world. Lastly, and at the risk of redundancy, a crucial component to understanding Aristotle’s view of an adequate theory of //causation //is realizing that he is setting out the conceptual framework for a teleological explanation of things. His essentialism and teleology are arch motivations in providing his account of causation.
There are causes for all substances (else, they wouldn’t be intelligible). Aristotle answers and explains both the ontic and epistemic ‘why’ through four causes: material, formal, efficient, and final. He explains the first cause:
<<<
In one way, then, that out of which a thing comes to be and which persists, is called a cause, e.g. the bronze of the statue, the silver of the bowl, and the genera of which the bronze and the silver are species.<<ref "5">>
<<<
Here, Aristotle introduces the first cause, referred to as the //material cause//. It is the matter which comprises a thing. The material cause is the matter which is the subject of change. The material cause is “that out of which” a substance is made and explained. An example of the material cause of a natural substance would be the flesh and bone (material) which comprises the matter of Socrates (substance). Take a house as an example of an artifact (artificial substance); its material cause is the wood and bricks of which it is constructed. Note that the natural wood of a tree and the bricks’ natural clay and minerals are the subjects of change. These are examples of primary substance (‘primary’ as understood in his categories); the material cause of secondary substance, however, would simply be ‘matter’.
Importantly, matter can be viewed in two ways, both as physical stuff and also as potentiality. Matter only has no meaning outside the other causes; it is only conceptually discreet in our minds, but never truly independent of substance and the other causes. The wood of a tree is potentially a bed, but it is not actually a bed simply because it is wood. The carpenter manipulates wood to receive the form of bed. Conceptually linked to the idea of potentiality, the shape and form which matter takes on will lead us to Aristotle’s next cause; he explains:
<<<
In another way, the form or the archetype, i.e. the definition of the essence, and its genera, are called causes (e.g. of the octave the relation of 2:1, and generally number), and the parts in the definition.<<ref "6">>
<<<
Aristotle introduces us to what we call the formal cause. The formal cause is the definition of a thing. It is the shape and form that matter takes on.
Aristotle’s essentialism seems emphasized in the// formal cause//. The essential features of a substance, those things which are necessary conditions of a substance’s being, comprise its formal cause. Aristotle thinks you really can’t answer ‘why?’ a thing exists as it does without understanding the essential characteristics of a substance. Clearly, the formal cause is necessary to give an account of the shape and form (//eidos//) of a substance. These first two causes are central components of Aristotle’s //Hylomorphism//, the notion that a substance is a composite of form and matter. Consider that while the material cause of the bed is wood, it is the shape and form of bed-ness that the wood takes on which counts as the formal cause. Note how material cause alone isn’t sufficient to causally explain the bed, and the formal cause is also a necessary ingredient (though the sum of just these two aren’t sufficient either) in the causal explanation.
The formal cause does have a special relationship with the material cause, but it can also be understood to have a special relationship with the final cause (which we will get to in a bit). At this point, we can at least see that the formal cause points out Aristotle’s distinction between potentiality and actuality. In fact, the formal cause is exclusively potentiality. This form is, however, associated with something’s actuality. Each of us has the form of human being inhering in us, and as a consequence, we are human beings. You can’t just ‘potentially’ be a human being. The relationship between the formal and final cause demonstrates part of the relationship between Aristotle’s conception of potentiality and actuality, the formal cause being analogous to potentiality.
The formal cause of a house is the definition of a house, namely, a shelter constructed for people to live in. The formal cause of a secondary substance would be its species. The formal cause of a man is being a rational biped. Note that in answering Aristotle’s ‘why?’, these definitions in themselves (insofar as this cause is conceptually discreet from the others) are strictly potential and not actual instantiations of substance at this point in the causal process.
Peculiarly, the formal causes of natural and artificial substances differ. The formal causes of natural substances are definitions which are independent of agents and technicians. Just because a person doesn’t grasp the definition of horse does not mean that horses don’t exist or that they lack formal cause. The definition of horse is external to our human minds, and the definition does not exist in virtue of us in any way. Unlike natural substances, the formal causes of artifacts are in some way dependent upon agents. The formal cause of an artifact is in the mind of the technician who generates the artifact. It is the definition of an artifact which is dependent upon being in the mind of an agent who possesses the corresponding //techné//. So, the ‘idea of the house’ inheres in the house-builder who applies the techné of house-building to construct the house. This example nicely leads us to Aristotle’s next cause:
<<<
Again, the primary source of the change or rest; e.g. the man who deliberated is a cause, the father is cause of the child, and generally what makes of what is made and what changes of what is changed.<<ref "7">>
<<<
This is what we refer to as the //efficient cause//. The efficient cause is that source which literally causes a thing (in the modern sense of the word ‘cause’). An efficient cause could be the agent of change and motion which brings about a thing. Clearly, Aristotle’s efficient cause is much closer to what we normally understand a cause to be because it encompasses the preceding agent (the cause) whose acts and motion bring about an effect.
Consider examples (some of which aren’t as easy we might initially assume): parents are clearly the efficient causes of children (natural substances), easy. For secondary substance, the efficient cause is conceptually there (difficult to see though), namely, God is the efficient cause as the highest principle (although he isn’t the creator of the species, as we think in the Judeo-Christian tradition). The efficient cause of a house would be the house-builder applying his art of house-building. Oddly enough, in describing the relationship between what is potential and actual, we come to see that there might be several ways to describe the efficient cause of a thing (perhaps especially so for artificial substances). Aristotle explains:
<<<
All causes, both proper and accidental, may be spoken of either as potential or as actual; e.g. the cause of a house being built is either a house-builder or a house-builder building.<<ref "8">>
<<<
<<<
In investigating the cause of each thing it is always necessary to seek what is most precise (as also in other things): thus a man builds because he is a builder, and a builder builds in virtue of his art of building. This last cause then is prior; and so generally.<<ref "9">>
<<<
Given the possibility of having multiple ways to describe a thing’s efficient cause, we should be careful in selecting that which is truly essential (and not accidental) to being something’s efficient cause. In consideration of the above passage, and in an attempt to discern what is essential to being the efficient cause, it seems that at least in part, the art of the technician is the efficient cause of an artifact. If this is the case, then while we can say the house-builder applies the art of house-building (and thus he is somehow part of this process), the house as an artifact exists in virtue of the art of house-building which inheres in the mind of the house-builder. So, perhaps, the efficient cause of the house is to some extent the art itself, even though the art’s existence is dependent in some way upon inhering in the mind of artist. Like the difficulty in making sense of the efficient cause of secondary substances, describing the efficient cause of artifacts is not as straightforward as moderns might initially assume.
Note how the efficient cause directs us to Aristotle’s teleological worldview. The efficient cause is clearly linked to the steps of a thing’s coming into being. The house-builder uses particular materials instead of others, pieces together the various parts of wood and brick in a certain form or shape, and employs his art by using specific tools of his craft in a certain way. While these three causes are often the only sorts of things that many people would consider to be a ‘cause’ of a thing, they are not complete and they are independent of the end. Aristotle thinks there is more required to answering the question ‘why?’. Clearly, the first three causes all have purpose, and all the steps in this causal process exist in virtue of the teleological end. Thus, Aristotle completes this conceptual framework with his fourth cause:
<<<
Again, in the sense of end or that for the sake of which a thing is done, e.g. health is the cause of walking about. (‘Why is he walking about?’ We say: ‘To be healthy’, and, having said that, we think we have assigned the cause.) The same is true also of all the intermediate steps which are brought about through the action of something else as means towards the end, e.g. reduction of flesh, purging, drugs, or surgical instruments are means towards health. All these things are for the sake of the end, though they differ from one another in that some are activities, others instruments.<<ref "10">>
<<<
This is the// final cause//. The final cause is the teleological end and the realization of the definition. It is the formal cause actualized. You can’t overstate Aristotle’s reliance upon the final cause in this teleology. We should note the stark contrast between the potentiality of the formal cause and the actuality of the final cause. Obviously, the formal and final causes are inextricably linked. The final cause of the house is the actuality of the house, where people live in it and use it as a house. For secondary substance, the final cause is the realization and actual existence of those species. The final cause of man is an actual rational biped. There would be no purpose in talking about the other causes if you didn’t have the final cause, the actual substance.
Granted, the final is perhaps the most controversial of the causes for some critics (and Aristotle spends time trying to defend his final cause). The fourth and final cause seems the most essential of the four causes; arguably it has the highest explanatory status of the four causes. Change, motion, potentiality, matter, and form are not intelligible outside of what is actual, namely the teleological cause, the end, the final cause. The process of generation is for the sake of (and can only be properly explained and understood by) the actual end. Aristotle’s primacy of ontology is clearly demonstrated in the significance of and emphasis on the final cause.
Connecting the causes together, we can see that Aristotle wishes to answer the question ‘why’ about all substances using this teleological theory of causation. In doing science, and in making the world intelligible, we must employ this causal framework. Aristotle’s theory of causation provides a structure to make sense of being and non-being, chance and motion, certain vital components of the relationship between potentiality and actuality, and his teleology and essentialism at large.
After Aristotle lays out his theory of causation, he considers the implications (and possibility of) small elements of randomness in the world and those things which are unintentional, unexpected, undetermined, and coincidental (which initially might seem problematic for his teleology). He refers to this as chance and spontaneity. It is fitting that this section comes after his four causes because, of course, we should have serious questions about the nature (and explanation) of what might be random and indefinite within his teleological framework. How do you make sense of what is coincidental in such an end-based and purpose-filled view of the universe? (I daresay this question remains a damned good one.) Aristotle attempts to show the dependent relationship of chance and spontaneity upon the four causes. Interestingly, his construction of this account is also deeply motivated by a desire to have a middle path between the extremes of determinism and a skepticism which claims the world is utterly, entirely random and chaotic. Crucially, if chance and spontaneity cannot be explained by the causes, it seems as though the world, to some extent, is unintelligible. To start, Aristotle gives us some informal criteria for what sorts of things do not qualify as chance. He says:
<<<
First then we observe that some things always come to pass in the same way, and others for the most part. It is clearly of neither of these that chance, or the result of chance, is said to be the cause—neither of that which is by necessity and always, nor of that which is for the most part.<<ref "11">>
<<<
Things which consistently come to pass are not usually the sorts of things which we deem to be events of chance or spontaneity. The sorts of things which always come to pass in the same way, or even for the most part in the same way, are softly determined, so it isn’t much of a leap to say that these can’t qualify as chance or spontaneity. So, things which do not come to pass for at least the most part are the sorts of things which can qualify as either chance or spontaneity. Aristotle explains what else is necessary for chance (as opposed to spontaneity):
<<<
Of things that come to be, some come to be for the sake of something, others not. Again, some of the former class are in accordance with intention, others not, but both are in the class of things which are for the sake of something. Hence it is clear that even among the things which are outside what is necessary and what is for the most part, there are some in connexion with which the phrase ‘for the sake of something’ is applicable. (Things that are for the sake of something include whatever may be done as a result of thought or of nature.) Things of this kind, then, when they come to pass accidentally are said to be by chance.<<ref "12">>
<<<
Chance is clearly about being ‘for the sake of something’, in accordance with intention, requiring an agent (e.g. man), and, most importantly, it must be accidental. Chance requires an agent, and it is in part a description of the accidental and random events which cross the path of an agent. Aristotle gives us his example of chance:
<<<
A man is engaged in collecting subscriptions for a feast. He would have gone to such and such a place for the purpose of getting the money, if he had known. He actually went there for another purpose, and it was only accidentally that he got his money by going there; and this was not due to the fact that he went there as a rule or necessarily, nor is the end effected (getting the money) a cause present in himself—it belongs to the class of things that are objects of choice and the result of thought. It is when these conditions are satisfied that the man is said to have gone by chance. If he had chosen and gone for the sake of this—if he always or normally went there when he was collecting payments—he would not be said to have gone by chance.<<ref "13">>
<<<
The man went somewhere intending to do X, and it just so happened, by accident, that he also happened to fulfill a different end, namely getting his money (which wasn’t X). The man chose and intended for X, but an unintentional effect was getting his money. In this case, when the man crosses paths with a person who owes a subscription for the feast, neither person had intended, in each of their cause paths, this transaction of money; rather, the ends, the ‘for the sake of’ which they had started on their paths, were about something else altogether, with different purposes and ends. It is only by accident that some other purpose, the ‘getting of money’ for this man, is somehow accomplished on his way towards something else. Clearly, chance (and spontaneity as well) requires two paths to cross.
Note how the causal chain of the man can be described by the four causes. The path that each man took and the teleological structure of their intentions are clearly understood and made intelligible by the four causes. It is only when two (or more) distinct causal chains just by happenstance overlap, and strictly at the point of contact of that overlap, that there can possibly be an occurrence of chance or spontaneity. Aristotle continues:
<<<
It is clear then that chance is an accidental cause in the sphere of those actions for the sake of something which involve choice. Thought, then, and chance are in the same sphere, for choice implies thought.<<ref "14">>
<<<
The sorts of accidents which are related to choice and reason are different, in some way, from what is spontaneous. Insofar as this accidental or indefinite occurrence is the result of the choice of man, then it is said to be chance. Aristotle elaborates on the differences between chance and spontaneity:
<<<
They differ in that spontaneity is the wider. Every result of chance is from what is spontaneous, but not everything that is from what is spontaneous is from chance.<<ref "15">>
<<<
Chance events are a subset of spontaneous events. The distinction of spontaneous events of agents from non-agents makes a great deal of sense when we consider the significance of reason and choice in Aristotle’s cosmos. Aristotle seeks to differentiate agents with reason and choice throughout his teleological system, and his division of chance and spontaneity continue that mode of thought. The argument continues:
<<<
Chance and what results from chance are appropriate to agents that are capable of good fortune and of action generally. Therefore necessarily chance is in the sphere of actions. This is indicated by the fact that good fortune is thought to be the same, or nearly the same, as happiness, and happiness to be a kind of action, since it is well-doing. Hence what is not capable of action cannot do anything by chance. Thus an inanimate thing or a beast or a child cannot do anything by chance, because it is incapable of choice.<<ref "16">>
<<<
<<<
The spontaneous on the other hand is found both in the beasts and in many inanimate objects. We say, for example, that the horse came spontaneously, because, though his coming saved him, he did not come for the sake of safety. Again, the tripod fell spontaneously, because, though it stood on its feet so as to serve for a seat, it did not fall so as to serve for a seat.<<ref "17">>
<<<
Obviously, the indefinite aspects of inanimate objects seem to fall into this category of spontaneity, but it isn’t so obvious (without context) why children don’t count as having choice. Note that while children are human, they aren’t (in Aristotle’s understanding) fully developed humans, and they haven’t fully reached their ends as rational bipeds. In lacking elements of reason and choice, the sorts of accidents which they happen upon aren’t chance, only spontaneity. Aristotle clarifies even further:
<<<
It is necessary, no doubt, that the causes of what comes to pass by chance be indefinite; and that is why chance is supposed to belong to the class of the indefinite and to be inscrutable to man, and why it might be thought that, in a way, nothing occurs by chance. For all these statements are correct, as might be expected. Things do, in a way, occur by chance, for they occur accidentally and chance is an accidental cause. But it is not the cause without qualification of anything; for instance, a housebuilder is the cause of a house; accidentally, a fluteplayer may be so.<<ref "18">>
<<<
<<<
Spontaneity and chance are causes of effects which, though they might result from intelligence or nature, have in fact been caused by something accidentally. Now since nothing which is accidental is prior to what is per se, it is clear that no accidental cause can be prior to a cause per se. Spontaneity and chance, therefore, are posterior to intelligence and nature. Hence, however true it may be that the heavens are due to spontaneity, it will still be true that intelligence and nature will be prior causes of this universe and of many things in it besides.<<ref "19">>
<<<
Chance and spontaneity are parasitic upon and understood through the four causes. We might call them pseudocauses because of this. There are causal explanations for each of the crossing paths, and Aristotle says in order to even begin to understand the nature of the crossing, we must first describe the causal chains through the four causes. The four causes are a precondition to the pseudocauses, chance and spontaneity.
Chance and spontaneity can only occur when two independent causal chains meet or cross by happenstance. The exact point of contact of two causal chains is where chance and spontaneity occur and have meaning. Notice that without two causal chains meeting at a crossroads, there would be no chance and spontaneity. That is also to say then that without the four causes, no causal chains would exist, and thus no events of chance and spontaneity would exist; this is why they are called parasitic upon the four causes.
Similar to Aristotle’s example, an example of a chance would be my going to the store to buy some chips. The end I am seeking is to buy chips. Now, by happenstance, I run across a guy to whom I owe money at the store. Importantly, my creditor had come to the store to buy pretzels. Neither of us had come to the store for the purpose of meeting each other; neither of us had come to the store intending that I pay my debt there. We both had different ends in mind. It was mere chance that our independent causal chains overlapped at the store. It just so happens that I am required to forego my chips to pay back my debt that night.
Crucial to this picture of two (or more) paths intersecting by happenstance is the underlying causal structure which is a necessary prerequisite to making sense of what has happened. You can explain my path to the store via the four causes, and it had nothing to do with my creditor. You can explain my creditor’s path to the store through Aristotle’s theory of causation, and it likewise had nothing to do with my paying my debt. Without the four causes, we’d have no paths to consider in the first place.
The four causes explain our activities and independent causal chains. It is only at the point of contact of our independent causal chains, whereby I am unexpectedly forced to repay my debt, for example, that we can understand Aristotle’s conception of chance. Spontaneity falls in the same vein of reasoning, the difference being that it isn’t the causal chains of agents; rather, it describes the above for non-agents.
It is important that Aristotle took the time to describe chance and spontaneity. If chance and spontaneity were too prevalent and too important to the world, and there was mass chaos and pure randomness, then we couldn’t do science. There would be point to it. Too much randomness is obviously against the intelligibility of the world which Aristotle deems to be so crucial. If there was no chance and spontaneity in the world, however, then everything would be determined, which is a supposition Aristotle wishes to avoid. Aristotle’s description of chance and spontaneity as being parasitic upon the four causes is a middle path between these extremes.
Aristotle helps give a more complete causal theory by including an explanation of chance and spontaneity. He is responding to his predecessors, and he is also providing a way to make sense of a world with both teleological ends and elements of indeterminacy. The inclusion of an explanation of indeterminacy is also significant because it makes it somewhat more difficult to criticize his teleological view, as it remains fairly self-consistent as an argument in general and also capable of answering the question ‘why?’ in a wide variety of circumstances.
Aristotle’s theory of causation in conjunction with the pseudocauses, chance and spontaneity, provide the groundwork for the intelligibility of the world. These notions clarify and explain how Aristotle conceives of potentiality and actuality, the passage into and out of being, chance and motion, particular aspects of his essentialism, and his deeply-rooted teleology.
--------------------------------------
<<footnotes "1" "Aristotle. //Complete Works of Aristotle: The Revised Oxford Translation//. Edited by J. Barnes. 2 vols. Bollingen Series. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1984), Physics, Book 2, §1, 192b9-192b11">>
<<footnotes "2" "Physics, Book 2, §1, 192b12-192b23">>
<<footnotes "3" "Physics, Book 2, §3, 194b16-194b23">>
<<footnotes "4" "Metaphysics, Book I, §7, 988a18-988a32">>
<<footnotes "5" "Physics, Book 2, §3, 194b24-194b26">>
<<footnotes "6" "Physics, Book 2, §3, 194b27-194b29">>
<<footnotes "7" "Physics, Book 2, §3, 194b30-194b32">>
<<footnotes "8" "Physics, Book 2, §3, 195b4-195b7">>
<<footnotes "9" "Physics, Book 2, §3, 195b22-195b25">>
<<footnotes "10" "Physics, Book 2, §3, 194b33-195a2">>
<<footnotes "11" "Physics, Book 2, §5, 196b10-196b17">>
<<footnotes "12" "Physics, Book 2, §5, 196b18-196b32">>
<<footnotes "13" "Physics, Book 2, §5, 196b33-197a5">>
<<footnotes "14" "Physics, Book 2, §5, 197a6-197a7">>
<<footnotes "15" "Physics, Book 2, §6, 197a37-197a39">>
<<footnotes "16" "Physics, Book 2, §6, 197b1-197b13">>
<<footnotes "17" "Physics, Book 2, §6, 197b14-197b17">>
<<footnotes "18" "Physics, Book 2, §5, 197a8-197a15">>
<<footnotes "19" "Physics, Book 2, §6, 198a5-198a13">>
---------------------------------------
''Bibliography''
Aristotle. //Complete Works of Aristotle: The Revised Oxford Translation//. Edited by J. Barnes. 2
vols. Bollingen Series. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1984).
Butler, Jim. “Ancient Philosophy.” Class lectures, Berea College, Fall 2003.
Crystal, Ian. “Aristotle.” Class lectures, Louisiana State University, Fall 2010.
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. “Aristotle on Causality.” http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-causality (accessed November 15, 2010).
Let me first offer some background information, connect Book 12 to the rest of the metaphysics, and offer a preliminary summation of the overall argument in Book 12. Hopefully, I can give some context to help make more sense of this difficult passage before we actually read it. So, let me start with the mile-high view and work our way towards the exegesis and details.
Book 12 (Lambda) is the culmination of Aristotle's work in metaphysics, and in it he offers the ultimate end of his teleological system. As in much of the metaphysics, Book 12 studies what is eternal, unchanging, and independent of matter. This study is the highest science and first philosophy. In some sense, Book 12 is really going to demonstrate why metaphysics isn’t about the study of things “better known to us,” but rather the study of things that are “better known in themselves.” This study of ‘Being qua Being’ is in some sense theology.
Aristotle takes the stand that the actual is of its nature antecedent to the potential. Importantly, potentiality has two sides; anything that is ‘capable of being’ is also ‘capable of not being’. What is capable of not being might possibly not be, and what might possibly not be is perishable. Hence anything with the mere ‘potentiality to be’ is perishable. In contrast, what is eternal is imperishable, and so nothing that is eternal can exist only potentially — what is eternal must be fully actual. But the eternal is prior in substance to the perishable - for the eternal can exist without the perishable, but not conversely, and that is what priority in substance amounts to. So what is actual is prior in substance to what is potential.
A consequence of this idea, as we will see, is that there must exist a Being Who is pure actuality, and Whose life is self-contemplative thought. The Supreme Being imparted movement to the universe by moving the First Heaven; the movement emanated from the First Cause, however, isn’t the normal sort of physical causation we think of, but rather causation by being desirable - in other words, the First Heaven, attracted by the desirability of the Supreme Being "as the soul is attracted by beauty", was set in motion, and imparted its motion to the lower spheres and thus, ultimately, to our terrestrial world. Also, according to this theory, God never leaves the eternal repose of thinking. Aristotle explains the necessity of God. Aristotle’s God is the Unmoved mover; the Prime mover. As final causes go, God is the ultimate. He is the final goal and purpose towards which all things move.
There are three kinds of substances considered:
#changeable and perishable (e.g., plants and animals)
#changeable and eternal (e.g., heavenly bodies)
#unchangeable and eternal – immutable (e.g. God)
Why are these distinctions important to Aristotle? Well, if everything was changeable and perishable, and essentially, everything was going to perish, then the world in itself would not be eternal. However, Aristotle thinks there are things which don’t perish, e.g. motion and time are eternal. This is interesting because if time weren’t eternal, and rather it was something that was created, then it would seem as if ‘something before’ the existence of time created ‘time’. The very concept of time seems to necessarily presuppose the existence of time before one could even talk about the ‘hypothetical creation of time’. Thus, time isn’t ‘created’, it is simply eternal and doesn’t perish. Problematic to the discussion, at least in my view, is that matter, motion, the heavens, and in this case, time, are eternal, and so we want to say that Aristotle’s world is in some way eternal. Yet, it is caused. How can a thing be caused and yet also be eternal?
“The heavens” is another contextual reference you need to understand to appreciate what Aristotle is saying here. Like time, the circular motion of ‘the heavens’ is eternal. These heavenly bodies are a very good example of the second kind of substance, namely what is changeable and eternal, which is different from the first kind because it doesn’t perish like plants and animals. We’re going to see these ‘heavens’ at the beginning of chapter 7; this is a part of Aristotle cosmology. What exactly are ‘the heavens’ or ‘first heaven’? What does his cosmic system look like? Think of it this way:
The Earth is the center of the cosmic system; it is a spherical, stationary body, and it is the realm of sensible perishing substances, a realm of chaotic motions. Around the Earth revolve other eternal substances, namely spheres in which are fixed the moon, the sun, and planets. The First Heaven, which plays so important a part in Aristotle's general cosmogonic system, is the heaven of the fixed stars. It surrounds all the other spheres and, being endowed with intelligence, it turned toward the God, drawn, as it were, by His Desirability, and it thus imparted to all the other heavenly bodies the circular motion which is natural to them. This cosmological doctrine and general concept of nature becomes the ‘standard view’ for millennia. This view didn’t change until the time of Newton and Galileo, and the birth of modern physical science. Their paradigm shift was truly revolutionary. E.g. Newton conceived of motion persisting without a mover, of force at a distance, and of heavenly gravitation being identical to the terrestrial laws of falling bodies, thus denying Aristotle's separation between the purity of the heavens and the perishability of the earth.
Note that the Unmoved mover is the only being who could generate eternal circular motion (not billiard hitting billiard balls, but in some other way). The Unmoved Mover is the ultimate cause of the universe, and He is pure actuality, containing no matter since He is the very cause of Himself. In order for the mover to be unmoved Himself, He must move in a non-physical way, by inspiring desire.
Aristotle gives the Unmoved mover the name of God, but this figure is unlike most standard conceptions of a divine being. Though Aristotle asserts that He is a living creature and represents the pinnacle of goodness, He also has no interest in the world and no recognition of man, for He exists in a completely transcendent and abstract state. The activity of God–if it can be called such–is simply knowledge, and this knowledge is purely a knowledge of Himself, because an abstracted being is above sense and experience and can know only what is best. Some have interpreted this to mean that God, in knowing Himself, implicitly knows everything else, but Aristotle flatly denied this view. In fact, he believed, for example, that God would have no knowledge of evil. Thus Aristotle's conception is full of apparent paradoxes. God is the ultimate cause of everything in the world, but He also remains completely detached. Of course, the famous account Aristotle’s argument for the existence of God looks like the following:
#There exists movement in the world.
#Things that move were set into motion by something else.
#If everything that moves were caused to move by something else, there would be an infinite chain of causes. This can't happen. (Aristotle denies infinite regresses)
#Thus, there must have been something that caused the first movement.
#From 3, this first cause cannot itself have been moved.
#From 4, there must be an Unmoved mover.
So circling back once more: Actuality is prior to potentiality. God is pure actuality. All other things owe their movement to God. God causes the First heavens to move, and the movement is transferred to all other things, including the perishables and what is potential. To be moved or caused by God is to move via desire for God. God is eternal and unchanging. The ultimate aspect of God is His self-thinking thought.
Let’s move into the text now.
Section 7:
1072a19-1072a36:
<<<
Since this is a possible account of the matter, and if it were not true, the world would have proceeded out of night and ‘all things together’ and out of non-being, these difficulties may be taken as solved. There is, then, something which is always moved with an unceasing motion, which is motion in a circle; and this is plain not in theory only but in fact. Therefore the first heavens must be eternal. There is therefore also something which moves them. And since that which is moved and moves is intermediate, there is a mover which moves without being moved, being eternal, substance, and actuality.
<<<
For Aristotle, the first heaven moves in unceasing, circular motion, which means that the first heaven is eternal. The first heaven then communicates motion to all other things. What is eternally in motion as an intermediate, such as the first heavens, however, requires an Unmoved mover to cause it. The Prime mover is an eternal, fully-actual substance that moves the first heaven without Himself being moved, either self-moved or moved by something else. Being unmovable is in some sense being fully actual; God would be movable if and only if God was less than pure actuality and was in some sense or to some degree mere potentiality.
<<<
And the object of desire and the object of thought move in this way; they move without being moved. The primary objects of desire and of thought are the same. For the apparent good is the object of appetite, and the real good is the primary object of wish. But desire is consequent on opinion rather than opinion on desire; for the thinking is the starting-point. And thought is moved by the object of thought, and one side of the list of opposites is in itself the object of thought; and in this, substance is first, and in substance, that which is simple and exists actually. (The one and the simple are not the same; for ‘one’ means a measure, but ‘simple’ means that the thing itself has a certain nature.) But the good, also, and that which is in itself desirable are on this same side of the list; and the first in any class is always best, or analogous to the best.
<<<
Aristotle points out that the object of desire and of thought move as an ‘Unmoved mover’ in some sense, for they cause motion in those who desire and think, but do not themselves move. For example, let's consider an ‘object or agent of desire’--a beautiful woman. Imagine an exceptionally beautiful woman sitting in a coffee shop. She minds her own business, head buried in a newspaper and sipping coffee. Now imagine some man takes notice of her (perhaps he is in some sense a patient), he is attracted to her and goes to her to initiate conversation. As between the man and the woman, the woman is the "unmoved-mover", being an object of desire for the man. She stimulates the man to come over to her. She is an unmoved mover (in this sense) because she did not engage in any specific activity to bring the man closer to her or to have him initiate conversation. The woman causes the man "to move", but this causality is different than, say, the sort of causation that is involved when someone playing billiards hits a ball--the player is not an unmoved mover. He is engaged in some positive activity to set the cue ball in motion, i.e. propelling it in motion with a pool stick. And so, Aristotle would argue that the Unmoved mover causes motion in a way that is analogous to the attractive woman rather than the pool player. However, comparing the charms of a beautiful woman to the motivating force of the Unmoved mover is not a perfect analogy. Unlike the attractive woman, the very nature or substance of the Unmoved mover causes the motion of the universe, not some accidental quality, as in the case of the attractive woman. Physical beauty is not an inherent quality of human-being-ness, but exists by accident just as anger existed "by accident" in Socrates. In contrast, God is far more essential and necessary to Aristotle’s view of teleology.
1072b13-1694:
<<<
That that for the sake of which is found among the unmovables is shown by making a distinction; for that for the sake of which is both that for which and that towards which, and of these the one is unmovable and the other is not. Thus it produces motion by being loved, and it moves the other moving things.
<<<
The Unmoved mover moves by being the final cause of the motion of the first heaven, insofar as it is the object of love. The Unmoved mover as ‘final cause’ causes motion by being loved, whereas all other (moved) movers cause motion by first being moved. These are intermediates. God, however, is first and unmoved. Everything else moves towards God because he moves them, but without Himself being moved.
<<<
Now if something is moved it is capable of being otherwise than as it is. Therefore if the actuality of the heavens is primary motion, then in so far as they are in motion, in this respect they are capable of being otherwise,—in place, even if not in substance.
<<<
The first heaven is subject to change with respect to place (locomotion), though not with respect to substance (ousia), since it is eternal; locomotion is the primary type of change, and ‘motion in a circle’ is the primary type of locomotion. God could not impart motion as the first efficient cause, because to do so God would have to be in motion, and if God were in motion, then God would be moved and movable. Besides, there is no beginning to the process of eternal motion, no creation. So, what is implicit in Aristotle's argument is that the first heaven has intelligence, or soul, in order to love the Unmoved mover and so allow the latter to function as final cause. The circular motion of the first heaven is an expression of a love of the Unmoved mover, because such motion is the attempt to imitate the eternal and unchanging first cause: circular motion stands closest to motionless eternity, because, in a sense, in rotation no real locomotion occurs, since that which is moving in a circle always returns to where it started.
<<<
But since there is something which moves while itself Unmoved, existing actually, this can in no way be otherwise than as it is. For motion in space is the first of the kinds of change, and motion in a circle the first kind of spatial motion; and this the first mover produces. The first mover, then, of necessity exists; and in so far as it is necessary, it is good, and in this sense a first principle. For the necessary has all these senses—that which is necessary perforce because it is contrary to impulse, that without which the good is impossible, and that which cannot be otherwise but is absolutely necessary.
<<<
It follows that the Unmoved mover cannot be otherwise than He is. God’s necessary existence in this sense gives Him prime status in Aristotle’s view of the world. God’s necessity consists in the fact that He cannot be otherwise but can exist only in a single way; in other words, His necessity is a result of His lacking all potentiality.
1072b31-1695:
<<<
On such a principle, then, depend the heavens and the world of nature.
<<<
The Prime mover is also a first principle, for the Prime mover explains everything else because He causes all motion. The quality that allows the Unmoved mover to set the rest of the universe in motion is thus not accidental, but essential. For Aristotle, the universe is not infinite, but a circular chain of finite things which are eternally in motion. Outside this finite circle of things, this first principle keeps everything in motion while remaining unmoved.
<<<
And its life is such as the best which we enjoy, and enjoy for but a short time. For it is ever in this state (which we cannot be), since its actuality is also pleasure. (And therefore waking, perception, and thinking are most pleasant, and hopes and memories are so because of their reference to these.) And thought in itself deals with that which is best in itself, and that which is thought in the fullest sense with that which is best in the fullest sense.
<<<
According to Aristotle, the Unmoved mover, God, eternally does one thing (but this is not self-movement), which is the best thing: God thinks. Eternal contemplation is what He does. Aristotle points out that we as humans in some sense partake in God or enjoy what God enjoys, temporarily, when we employ our reason and are actually (not potentially) thinking.
<<<
And thought thinks itself because it shares the nature of the object of thought; for it becomes an object of thought in coming into contact with and thinking its objects, so that thought and object of thought are the same. For that which is capable of receiving the object of thought, i.e. the substance, is thought. And it is active when it possesses this object. Therefore the latter rather than the former is the divine element which thought seems to contain, and the act of contemplation is what is most pleasant and best. If, then, God is always in that good state in which we sometimes are, this compels our wonder; and if in a better this compels it yet more. And God is in a better state. And life also belongs to God; for the actuality of thought is life, and God is that actuality; and God’s essential actuality is life most good and eternal. We say therefore that God is a living being, eternal, most good, so that life and duration continuous and eternal belong to God; for this is God.
<<<
God thinks about the best thing, which is thought (since thinking is the best of activities), so that thought and its object are the same: God's thinking about His own thinking. In addition, Aristotle says that, because God thinks, God is alive. What Aristotle means by life's being the actuality of thought is that only living substances can think, so that, if he actually thinks, God must be alive. What it means for God to be alive—apart from the fact that God thinks—is not, however, clarified; certainly, for God to be alive is different than for other substances to be alive, since God has no matter. Whatever exactly might be His state of existence and the way in which He is alive is better than what we have, though. After all, we aren’t in eternal contemplation, and He is.
1073a3-1695:
<<<
Those who suppose, as the Pythagoreans and Speusippus do, that supreme beauty and goodness are not present in the beginning, because the beginnings both of plants and of animals are causes, but beauty and completeness are in the effects of these, are wrong in their opinion. For the seed comes from other individuals which are prior and complete, and the first thing is not seed but the complete being, e.g. we must say that before the seed there is a man,—not the man produced from the seed, but another from whom the seed comes.
<<<
All things exist in virtue of God. While in some way humans can be understood to generate other humans, they cannot be understood, in the end, to exist independently of God. It may also be implied that God is supremely beautiful and good, since supreme beauty and goodness must be from the beginning in order to be in any way part of the finished product.
1073a13-1695
It is clear then from what has been said that there is a substance which is eternal and unmovable and separate from sensible things. It has been shown also that this substance cannot have any magnitude, but is without parts and indivisible. For it produces movement through infinite time, but nothing finite has infinite power. And, while every magnitude is either infinite or finite, it cannot, for the above reason, have finite magnitude, and it cannot have infinite magnitude because there is no infinite magnitude at all. But it is also clear that it is impassive and unalterable; for all the other changes are posterior to change of place. It is clear, then, why the first mover has these attributes.
Aristotle calls God a substance (//ousia//), but differentiates this substance from all other substances, insofar as He is "eternal, unmovable and separate from sensible things." God is separate from sensible things because God has no magnitude (//megethos//), meaning that God is without a body or a spatial existence. The reason that God can have no magnitude is that God produces motion through infinite time, which means that God must be infinite in some sense, since an infinite effect requires an infinite cause; however, Aristotle also claims there cannot be such a thing as an infinite magnitude. As being a substance without magnitude, God is without parts and, therefore, indivisible (magnitudes are divisible).
In chapter 9, Aristotle discusses the nature of divine thought or the content of God's thought. Thought according to Aristotle is the most divine of things. Divine thought, therefore, is divine in the highest degree.
Section 9:
1074b34-1698:
<<<
The nature of the divine thought involves certain problems; for while thought is held to be the most divine of phenomena, the question what it must be in order to have that character involves difficulties. For if it thinks nothing, what is there here of dignity? It is just like one who sleeps.
<<<
God's thought must have some content, "for if [God] thinks of nothing, what is there here of dignity?" He can’t be thinking about nothing, because surely the greatest thinker is thinking of something worth thinking about. Certainly he must be thinking about something important, or Book 12 would seem to be much ado about nothing. Surely God is thinking about something essential rather than something accidental.
<<<
And if it thinks, but this depends on something else, then (as that which is its substance is not the act of thinking, but a capacity) it cannot be the best substance; for it is through thinking that its value belongs to it. Further, whether its substance is the faculty of thought or the act of thinking, what does it think? Either itself or something else; and if something else, either the same always or something different. Does it matter, then, or not, whether it thinks the good or any chance thing? Are there not some things about which it is incredible that it should think? Evidently, then, it thinks that which is most divine and precious, and it does not change; for change would be change for the worse, and this would be already a movement.
<<<
Aristotle considers the nature of God's thought. It must be of what is most divine and precious, for anything else is unworthy of God. Likewise, there can be no change in divine thought because that change would be change for the worst, since God thinks only of the most divine and precious; to think of anything but the best, however, would be unworthy of God, and, therefore, impossible. Aristotle also rejects the notion that divine thought is a potentiality, since, if it were, it would involve effort to actualize the potentiality and would mean that, for God, thinking would be laborious, as it is for finite intelligences, which cannot be true. God doesn’t change and what He thinks about doesn’t change.
<<<
First, then, if it is not the act of thinking but a capacity, it would be reasonable to suppose that the continuity of its thinking is wearisome to it. Secondly, there would evidently be something else more precious than thought, viz. that which is thought. For both thinking and the act of thought will belong even to one who has the worst of thoughts. Therefore if this ought to be avoided (and it ought, for there are even some things which it is better not to see than to see), the act of thinking cannot be the best of things. Therefore it must be itself that thought thinks (since it is the most excellent of things), and its thinking is a thinking on thinking.
<<<
In other words, when speaking about God as thinking, one must not imagine that God can begin to think about something, so that thought is a potentiality realized in the act of thought. Moreover, if thought were a potentiality for God, the object of thought would be greater than the thought, for otherwise God would not think about it. This would mean that something would be greater than God who thinks, but this is impossible. Similarly, distinguishing thought from its objects allows for the possibility of thinking "the worst thing in the world," which is unworthy of God.
1075a4-1698
<<<
But evidently knowledge and perception and opinion and understanding have always something else as their object, and themselves only by the way. Further, if thinking and being thought are different, in respect of which does goodness belong to thought? For being an act of thinking and being an object of thought are not the same. We answer that in some cases the knowledge is the object. In the productive sciences (if we abstract from the matter) the substance in the sense of essence, and in the theoretical sciences the formula or the act of thinking, is the object. As, then, thought and the object of thought are not different in the case of things that have not matter, they will be the same, i.e. the thinking will be one with the object of its thought.
<<<
This distinguishes divine thought from the human modes of "knowledge and perception and opinion and understanding," all of which have something else as their object. The only way in which a thought can be pure, about something immaterial, is to be concerned with essence. In an immaterial being, the object of thought will be the immaterial being itself.
Thus, Aristotle attempts to avoid positing a distinction between divine thought and the object of divine object. He concludes that divine thought thinks of itself as its object, which means that God thinks about thinking. What he means is that, since God is nothing but intelligence or thought, for God to think of himself is to think of thinking. This would imply that God has no awareness of the cosmos. How thinking can be an object of thought, however, is not clear.
1075a10-1699
<<<
A further question is left—whether the object of the thought is composite; for if it were, thought would change in passing from part to part of the whole. We answer that everything which has not matter is indivisible. As human thought, or rather the thought of composite objects, is in a certain period of time (for it does not possess the good at this moment or at that, but its best, being something different from it, is attained only in a whole period of time), so throughout eternity is the thought which has itself for its object.
God thinks about something which is indivisible, He is indivisible, and He thinks about Himself.
<<<
According to Aristotle, the Unmoved mover either thinks about itself or thinks about something other than itself. Since God is by definition Unmoved or unchanged by anything else, it cannot, therefore, think of anything other than itself. To think of something other than itself is to be moved or changed by something from without. This is impossible according to his definition of God, since God is Unmoved/unchanged by any external agent. Thus, this leaves the other alternative, namely of God thinking about itself. Further, Aristotle makes the point that the content of God's thought must be the most excellent of things. "Therefore, God's thought must be about itself, and its thinking is a thinking on thinking" (1074b 32-34). Perhaps at face value, Aristotle seems to be describing a rather self-absorbed deity. However, perhaps if we allow the thinker (the Unmoved mover), the thinking (the Unmoved motion) and the thought (the sum total of all things in the universe including the Unmoved mover) as being one at a deeply metaphysical level, then perhaps we can rescue Aristotle's Deity from the accusation of self-absorption according to the common understanding of the word. An apt anology might be to conceive of this Deity as the dreamer, the dreaming and the dream, where the substance of a dream is the product of the dreamer's act of dreaming without any of the three being truly distinct. One can continue this line of thought, but that’s another subject.
It’s important to note, however, that this dreamer dreaming the dream of itself is different from the Australian aboriginal Dreamtime, which also is described as the Dream Dreaming Itself. In the Dreamtime, the Dreamer is moved, in some sense, and changes due to its various manifestations within the dream. With Aristotle’s God, however, the Thinker Thinking the Thought that is Itself is not in any way moved or changed by conflicting manifestations of Itself.
```
Book 12; §7 and §9
Brief Overview:
• Actuality’s priority to Potentiality
• Potentiality and perishability; Separation of 3 kinds of substance
• The nature and configuration of the Cosmos, Heavens, etc.
• God
◦ Pure actuality; Eternal and unchanging
◦ Unmoved mover; causation through inspiring love
◦ Self-thinking thought and Eternal contemplation
◦ Content of divine thought: He is thinking of thinking
Book 12.7
1072a19-1072a36:
• Heaven: circular, unceasing motion
• Heavens, like all other things (besides God), is an intermediate; these require an Unmoved mover to cause motion in them.
• God is eternal and pure actuality.
• The nature of God’s causation isn’t billiard balls hitting billiard balls, but rather things are moved by their love for God.
1072b13-1694:
• God is the ultimate cause.
• God remains unmoved, and yet things move because of God.
• Heaven changes through circular locomotion.
• Heaven isn’t created, and there is no beginning to the process of its motion, but its motion is still caused by God.
• The Heaven’s circular motion is an expression of the love for God.
• God’s existence is a necessary one; he has the highest status as pure actuality.
1072b31-1695:
• Everything depends on God.
• God’s activity is thinking.
◦ Humans partake in this activity temporarily. In a sense, when we are actually thinking, we participate in God, briefly.
• God thinks about something truly important. He thinks about thinking.
1073a13-1695:
• God is an infinite cause
• God has no body or spatial existence.
• God has no parts and is indivisible.
Book 12.9
1074b34-1698:
• God isn’t thinking about nothing.
• The content of God’s thought is dignified, both what is most divine and precious.
• God doesn’t change and what He thinks about doesn’t change.
• God is thinking about His thinking; He is self-thinking thought.
1075a4-1698:
• Pure thought is about the immaterial and the essence.
• There is no distinction between divine thought and the object of divine thought.
• God thinks about Himself in that He is thinking about thinking.
1075a10-1699:
• God thinks about something which is indivisible, He is indivisible, and He thinks about Himself
• God cannot think of anything but Himself thinking because he can’t be moved by anything else.
```
What is substance? What role does substance serve in Aristotle’s philosophy? What is the difference between primary and secondary substance? How does substance relate to the other categories? What is homonymy? How does Aristotle solve Meno’s paradox? How does Aristotle explain concept formation? What is teleology? What are the four causes? How they relate to one another and substance? What is the status of luck and chance? What is Aristotle’s account of the soul? How does he differ from his predecessors (especially Plato)? What are the different types of soul according to Aristotle? What is the causal structure behind his account of sense-perception? Is Aristotle a mental realist? Is he a functionalist? What is the relation between the intellectual faculty and sense-perception? What is the scope of Aristotle’s Metaphysics? How does it relate to the other sciences? What were the views of his predecessors? What is the significance of the aporiai? What is the significance of the Law of Non-Contradiction and the Law of the Excluded Middle? How does the metaphysical schema of potentiality and actuality operate and what problems does such a schema resolve? What is the status of universals? Are there such things as separable substances? Finally what does Aristotle’s god do, if anything?
Term paper due the day of the final.
Paper topics are coming out in two weeks.
Notes: August 23
Organon-Necessary things to do philosophy at all. What is the nature of substance itself?
Hellenic – Aristotle. Highest phil is metaphysics. Immaterial and material realms.
Hellenistic – Epicureans, Stoics, Sceptics. Highest phil. Topic is ethics. Material realm only.
Categories earliest work. Metaphysics is his mature works. Some of it in stark contrast and as a response to Plato’s doctrines.
Read for account of substance, quality, and quantity.
Category=Predication
Attributing properties to something. In “The book is red.”, “red” is predicating book. The predication of book is “red”.
Predicating on substance.
You can’t do philosophy or science without “substance”. The most crucial of categories, as the other categories are dependent upon this one.
Plato’s particulars are the same as Aristotle’s sensible substances.
Homework: August 23-25
Categories – pg. 3-17
Notes – August 25
Divides up being (father of science). His metaphysics is Being qua (in virtue of, as) Being.
Aristotle (and Plato) consider the Sophists bad because they confuse the accidental with the essential. The Sophists have no framework to understand the Essential and how the accidental relates to what is Essential. Aristotle, obviously, is an essentialist.
Aristotle thinks the cosmos is eternal and unchanging. He couldn’t make sense of ‘ex nihilo’, for example. No creator, etc. for Aristotle’s worldview.
Category comes from categorema, meaning predications.
Aristotle is creating the formal structure of subject and predicate. Language and knowledge reflect the structure of being.
Epistemic states (to Aristotle) are the states of the soul. Our epistemic states refelect the ontological nature of the world. This is why Aristotle thinks the world is knowable.
Parmenides assumes that “Thinking and Being are the same thing”. Aristotle (and Plato) are responding, in part, to this pre-socratic thought.
Heracleitus says that “you can never step ito the same river twice”. Phenomena unifies opposites. Again, another influential figure/thought for Aristotle to contend with.
You can’t predicate a primary substance of a primary substance. You can predicate secondary substances of primary substances.
Substance is at the heart of Aristotle’s philosophy (even though the categories are an early work). Later, he will change the ontological status of secondary substance. He is using this initial view on secondary substances to deny major Platonic thoughts on Forms.
Homonymity has the same name, but are functionally different and different definitions of being. A picture of an eye, and an actual eye are homonymous. Picture is only an “eye” in name alone. It is representational of the actual the thing.
Definition is the essence. “Being of each”.
Synonymous, a genus has a special relationship with all species under it. Hallmark of an accident is that it isn’t universally applicable. “Animality” however, has some universal applicability to all animals (“Animal” being the Genus, “human” or “ape” or “parrot” being Species).
Substance and secondary substance does not admit of degree. The other categories do admit degrees.
Every substance has a specific essence. Substances are trying to realize that essence.
Aristotle is breaking down Language and Being.
How it is “things” can be said of “things. “of things” is part of the ontological structure.
Ontos = “to be” or “being” and Logos = “account”, “structure”, “image”, “word” (many more meanings)
Episteme = “scientific knowledge”
Language and Thought are intimately connected to Aristotle. 2-sides of the same coin to them. So if knowledge isn’t possible, neither is meaningful language.
Deformity’s, for example, are accidental, and not part of the Essential.
What are the metaphysics behind how “something” can inhere in “something”.
Do not confuse the essential with the accidental.
Some properties are more important than others. Essential properties can’t be changed, but are obviously more important than the accidental properties, which can be altered.
Notes – August 31
Substance takes ontological priority (primary ontological standing) over the other categories. Language reflects the structure of being and reality (Ontology). The other categories predicate of Substance. While Aristotle/Plato disagree with Parmenides when he says “Thinking and Being are the same”, they will suggest that the “Structure of thinking mirrors the structure of reality”.
There is no distinction between a priori and a posteriori in Aristotelian thought. That is a modern distinction (think of Kant).
The other categories cannot exist outside of Substance. You can’t encounter “4-footedness” in the world, instead, you encounter 4-footed things (substances) in the world. All the other categories depend upon Substance to exist (except as abstractions of thought?).
The Platonic forms are like Aristotle’s secondary substances. Aristotle is empirical, in some ways, in that he only consider sensible substances (occupy place and time).
Truth values are only produced of combinations. Simples aren’t true or false. Combination of substance and predicate form truth values.
The genus governs a finite and eternal set of species. Secondary substance is 2 hierarchies, Genus and species.
If there aren’t any individual horses (primary substance of this type), then “Horse” as a secondary substance has no meaning.
Things are eternal and unchanging, otherwise it would undermine the notion of a thing’s essence.
An accident (like whiteness) can inhere in you “accidental to you” does mean you share the same essence or definition of whiteness. The set of attributes of Humanity relates to you as a human differently than the set of attributes such as whiteness. Accidental properties cannot express a substance’s essence.
Aristotle explores the notion of things inhering in substances. Things inhere in substances in 2 distinct ways. The first being the essential properties, and the second form of inherence in a substance, are the accidental properties. The status that these properties have are distinct (conceptually). You can lose whiteness and still exist, but you can’t lose humanness and still exist.
Color is essential to body because you’ll never find a body that doesn’t have color. Which particular color is accidental though.
Primary substance to Species as Species is to Genus. Much like Plato’s idea of “Good” being more than just being (as the other forms “are”).
Notes – September 1, 2010
Definition = Essence - Things only have 1 essence. Subjects are that which underlies and persists (through change of accidental properties, yet keep your self identity).
Essences are not necessarily realized in a particular substance, but the fact that they ‘should be’ realized is what forms the essence of that particular substance. The essence is very conceptual. A man lacking an essential property (rationality) due to accidental reasons is still a man; his essential property of rationality is just not being fully realized in him. (or so my professor says). Essential causes for a lack of an essential property would be a problem, but not accidental causes. Essential properties are things you “should” have, but not necessarily do have.
The definition of whiteness is not predicated of any other substances.
Species and genera are essential attributes.
Primary substances have a ‘certain this’, and is numerically 1. Secondary substances also have a ‘certain this’, but they also lend themselves to a certain division that the primary substances do not (being possibly numerically many). The unity of secondary substance is weaker than primary substance, as the secondary substance is spread across many primary substances.
White permeates throughout the entirety of you just as rationality does. They are not “parts” here.
Part is a limited scope and does not permeate throughout the whole. A hand is a part of your body, and handness does not permeate your entire body.
Substances do not have opposites. No Star Trek rules or evil/opposite version of you in another dimension.
There aren’t possible worlds in Aristotle’s conception of reality.
Primary substances are equally primary substances. Horses are not more or less of a species than dogs, etc.
Substance has no opposites, but is capable of receiving accidental attributes with opposites (obviously, not both at the same time).
Statements and beliefs are not substances themselves. He distinguishes ontology from linguistics, etc.
Changes in attributes (even opposite attributes) does not change a substance’s oneness and retaining its essence and identity.
Discreteness has separate entities, continuous does not.
Quantitative dimensions are found in all substances in the natural world.
Place represents the limits of the body occupying it. Time like place are considered continuous.
Only the present exists (in time).
Notes – September 8, 2010
Time is a measurement of the motion that substances undergo. Time doesn’t inhere in the subject in the same way that size might. It is special. The past and future don’t ‘exist’ (strongly) to Aristotle. Even the ‘now’ is just a conceptual demarcation of past and future, but doesn’t ‘exist’ in the strongest sense of that status.
Parmenides’ Poem, Fragment 8: He sets out the nature of being, it is invisible and not temporal. Aristotle, in part, is responding to them. Parmenides and Xeno’s paradox, etc.
Phenomenal substances are quantity. Non-physical substances don’t necessary have quantity though. Matter and Body have quantitative aspects.
Quantity has no contrary (and this is one of the reasons it is listed so early). Like substance, Quantity has no contrary (which is extra-important for Aristotle).
Conceptual consequences of these various modifications of the substances.
Inches are not “relative” in the same what that “largeness” is relative to substance. Despite what the professor says, I think that “relative” Categories are those which show the relationship between 2 or more substances.
Equality and inequality are intrinsic to Quantity because they are forms of measurement.
Time is a form of measurement. It is an essential feature of the natural world. Motion is everlasting, and as a consequence, nor does time. Plato thinks time is an image of eternity.
Knowledge and Virtue are states. They are dispositions of the soul which (as it were) are more stable than mere conditions. States seem psychological, and conditions seem changing. They may have different domains in which they manifest themselves. States are more permanent and stable.
Virtues are states rather than conditions. They are extremely difficult to change. The soul develops disposition through habit (or the proper upbringing).
Aristotle allows for Akrasia, unlike Socrates (Knowledge=Virtue), and thus upbringing and environment matter?
Homework – Aristotle Posterior Analytics, 114-118 (Chapters 1-3, 8, 33), Book 2 (Chapters 1-3, 8, 9, 19). Meno (Plato’s account of how we acquire knowledge) – For next Monday.
Notes – September 15, 2010
Posterior Analytics – Book 1 – Chapters 1-3
Episteme = Scientific knowledge
Scientific thought is about that which is eternal and unchanging.
Prior Analytics is about syllogistic logistic, the 4 types of syllogism. Syllogism pertains to sets; modern logic can predicate and quantity over individuals (which makes it a more powerful tool).
Middle term.
All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Socrates is mortal.
The middle term is “man”.
The sciences will be expressed syllogistically.
The posterior analytics turns to the nature of knowledge in the formal sense.
Three uses of “to be”:
Existential use; “it is”
Predicative use; “it is F”; attributing F-ness
Veridical; “it is true”
Aristotle is discussing knowledge in and of itself in the organon.
He is responding to Meno’s paradox in books 1-3. The paradox is that you are either born ignorant and remain ignorant, or born with knowledge and have no need to acquire it. Knowledge acquisition seems pointless or impossible in this paradox. Plato solves through “recollection” theory.
Two types of argument:
Deductive reasoning (putting forth immediate principles) to work downwards for conclusions.
Inductive reasoning works upwards, you grasp particulars and you work towards a universal.
You can’t demonstrate the existence of the physical world, it is simply a given. You can deduce things about it. You don’t have arguments about things which are immediately obvious, such as “the world exists”.
The conclusion of a deductive argument is less knowable than the principles from which that deduction is derived. Premises are more knowable and intelligible than the conclusion.
Inductive arguments also start with things we know, for instance, particulars. We recognize and grasp the 4-legged creature and its features, and from that we induce principles from it.
Simpliciter = absolutely
It is not the case that we are completely ignorant, simpliciter. We do move from having some knowledge to inducing or deducing other knowledge.
Aristotle makes the distinction between Potentiality and Actuality. These two concepts are crucial to understanding the ontological structure of things.
Actuality precedes potentiality, conceptually speaking, in his view. The “recollection” theory might be rejected, but it is still conceptually in accordance with Aristotle’s distinction.
God is not in a state of potentiality, for Aristotle, only Actuality. God is the eternal contemplating thing in a state of complete actuality.
You have to accept certain basic things, unqualified.
Once you understand the universal knowledge, you are able to understand incidental knowledge which might fall under it. Sometimes you grasp two things simultaneously due to close proximity.
You can see particular triangles and know some universal ideas of triangles such that when you see a new/never-before-seen triangle, you’ll know it is a triangle.
You can gain additional knowledge about a particular thing without contradicting what you already knew about it.
Sophistic knowledge is a grasp of something in an accidental fashion. These accidental things, however, can’t serve as the definition. These accidental things can’t form the universals because they aren’t essential properties. These can’t serve as scientific knowledge. Aristotle (and Plato) believes the Sophists conflate accidental and essential knowledge/properties; this is why they are against the Sophists.
In the case of knowledge, you are able to give a proper scientific explanation as to why that thing is the way it is.
We don’t have a science of a particular thing because particular things can be otherwise. Knowledge is of that which can’t be otherwise. Math is eternal, and thus it can be known. Episteme pertains exclusively to scientific deduction.
Nous – intellectual grasp of the immediate principles and axioms. It is the principle of knowledge. Knowledge at the highest level.
Episteme is mediated and deduced from the immediate principles to come to a conclusion.
Immediate principles are not demonstrated. You just intuitively grasp these things.
Demonstrations are a type of deduction. Proper demonstrations are never false. They consistently follow from the premises and the principles that govern those premises. Demonstration leads to scientific knowledge.
You must have non-demonstrated axioms and principles to justify demonstration.
You can’t demonstrate that human beings exist, but you can demonstrate that they have certain properties.
Episteme employs the un-demonstrated, but it is nous that allows us to know these axioms. Episteme’s realm is about that which is deduced from these axioms, but it isn’t about the axioms.
We begin with what is more familiar to us and less knowable in itself, and move to that which is less familiar to us and more knowable in itself. We begin with particulars and move to universal principles. Particulars have accidentals that aren’t very knowable, but universals are essential and very knowable.
(Supposedly, the Allegory of the Cave fits here; the shadows at the bottom of the cave are the particulars which aren’t entirely knowable, but as you get out of the cave, you come to unfamiliar but far more knowable “forms”.)
You can’t see the “law of non-contradiction” walking down the street or “the definition of human being” walking down the street, you only see a particular person walking down the street. So, while universals are hard to perceive, they are the most real and the most “knowable”.
Primitive, simple, and immediate are indemonstrable.
What is demonstrable requires mediation. Demonstrations are not about what is accidental, only universal.
There is no science of the accidental.
Dialectical argument explores and considers argumentative methodology.
Demonstration is actually looking for truth about the world itself.
Contraries and different form Contradictories.
Contradictories do not have a middle, are completely binary, either ‘alive or dead’, there is nothing in the middle. One side or the other MUST be contradictory.
Contraries do have middles and degradations, “white or black, and everything in between are degrees of grey”. This is a spectrum/continuum, it isn’t modular.
A definition explains what a unit is.
Notes – September 20, 2010
Conceptually, you can’t move from what is unknowable to what is knowable.
Primitives aren’t ‘unknowable’, they simply aren’t known through episteme, via deductive demonstrations, but rather, they are apprehended immediately, via nous.
Nous is our highest intellectual faculty.
Nous shares something in common with the content it is looking upon. It is the immediate intellectual apprehension.
There is an isomorphism of the epistemic states and the proper objects of those epistemic states. Thinking mirrors the nature of being or the objects upon which the faculties in question focus upon.
Episteme is deductive and mediated, where nous is an unmediated (immediate) intellectual faculty.
Primitives and immediates do not requires demonstration – they are the foundation. There is nothing behind them, they are ground zero, conceptually.
“man exists” is an immediate primitive which does not require demonstration.
Infinite regresses are unintelligible to Aristotle because it lacks a foundation. Science requires a given, non-demonstrated, immediate, primitive foundation. You either apprehend it conceptually or you don’t, but there is no way to prove it to you.
More or less intelligibility example: “definition of man” is more knowable than a ‘particular man’ because definition is just form, and a particular man is form and matter (and more complex and difficult to understand).
Principles and the deductions from them represent the ontological structure of things.
From nous, the episteme is deduced, and it represents the epistemic structure.
Note how both the ontological structure mirrors the epistemic structure.
Circular reasoning is incompatible with scientific thought. It can be reduced to tautology (a=a).
Posterior Analytics – Book 1 – Chapter 8
There is a science about perishable things, per se, particularly in there accidental things. A science pertains to what is eternally true about things (even perishable things). There is no science of the accidental.
Aristotle is concerned with the essential, not the accidental sorts of knowledge in the discussion of epistemology.
We are a composite of form and matter. Matter is the principle of individuation. Without matter there would be no human beings, only the definition.
The natural substances are species are eternal, but there are finite amount of particulars of these.
Centaurs and ghosts are abstracti
ons from human beings and non-human properties (or some combination of sensible particulars). Artificial definitions exist for these, but there is clearly no science for this.
The existence of accidentals ARE crucial.
While eclipses are occurring, there is a science of eclipses. When there aren’t, there is no science of it.
Notes – September 22, 2010
Posterior Analytics, Book 1, Chapter 33
This is a response to Plato’s two world theory, 474BFF Rep5
Necessity is an intrinsic aspect of the content that knowledge focuses upon. Opinion, however, lends itself to that which can be otherwise.
Opinion is about that which can be either true or false, whereas understanding is about that which is true. There is no false understanding. Opinion is linked to appearance.
The epistemic state mirrors the nature of the relevant ontological state.
Just as the epistemic state of opinion is unstable, so too are the objects upon which is focuses.
Opinions are unstable because you can change your mind. Knowledge, however, does not have the changeable property.
You are aware when you put forth an opinion, and you are aware of when you are putting forth scientific knowledge. Both opinion and knowledge are pregnant with consciousness.
You can know X and you can have an opinion X. The difference is not an ontic one, only an epistemic one. The manner in apprehension with respect to object X is different for ‘knowing’ and ‘opinion’.
Nous analogously stands to episteme in the same way that premises stand to conclusions.
You cannot opine X and not opine X. Aristotle may be countering Pythagoras’ ‘measurement doctrine’.
Ontology is primal to epistemology.
Book 2 – Chapter 1
Four equal things must be understood: the fact, the reason why, if it is, what it is.
Descartes severs ontology and epistemology. This is why he was revolutionary. Aristotle saw that ontology informs epistemology. Descartes thinks epistemology informs ontology.
It makes no sense to deny the ontological aspect of things for an ancient because the self is a product of the ontological foundation of things.
Notes – September 27
Aristotle thinks that the possession of ‘nous’ is on a continuum for children.
Children think in terms of particulars, and not necessarily in terms of universal principles.
Poetic/Spiritual ‘knowledge’ falls into neither ‘nous’ nor ‘episteme’.
Tragedies are particular stories will particular individuals from which some principles of ethics can be extracted. They aren’t scientific accounts of ethics though. They are merely accidental extractions.
Posterior analytics, Book 2, Chapter 3
Not all definitions have demonstrations.
Definitions are universal and affirmative. The essence or essentials of what a thing is.
Demonstrations are not always universal and affirmative, thus it is different from definition.
Both are required though. You can do science without demonstration, and if you can’t grasp the definition of a thing, then you are obviously can’t do science.
Experiencing a substance has stronger awareness-factor than just being told the definition of a substance. Perceptual cognition is a crucial step in epistemological development for Aristotle.
Experience particulars to develop and understand the universals of those particulars.
The principles of demonstrations are definitions. Definition itself is not a substance, it is a definition of a substance (until the metaphysics). Definition is the intelligible structure of substance.
Demonstration assumes definitions, and in virtue of definitions goes on to demonstrate things.
Necessary for science: Categories (ontological framework) and Posterior Analytics (epistemic framework).
Scientific thought explains ‘that it is’ and ‘what it is’.
There are demonstrations without definition, and there are definitions without demonstrations. They are separate. Both are required for doing scientific thought. Nous and episteme are required for engaging in scientific thought.
Chapter 8
Not all deductions are demonstrations.
Demonstrations and deductions occupy different segments of the scientific landscape.
Chapter 19
In Plato, two accounts of recollection theory:
Epistemological account – Meno’s account. If you have Socrates ask someone the right sorts of questions, that person will be able to recall what is in the soul, and as a result be able to discard their false beliefs and convert their true beliefs into knowledge. The soul has a prenatal existence in which it had all scientific knowledge, but through birth forgets it.
Ontological account – Phaedo account. The soul prior to being born is in direct contact with the platonic forms. When it sees instances of (imperfect) things like “justice” or “equality” in the world, it compares those instances with their corresponding forms (which are the perfect instantiations of those things). Unlike the epistemic account, this one obviously needs the Platonic forms.
Aristotle thinks these are unnecessary to layout the epistemic foundation of Knowledge. He is responding to the platonic account of concept formation. The account does not require some prenatal existence.
Reading – Physics Book 2
Notes –September 29
Aitia = Cause (explanation) – This is wider notion than our contemporary view.
Readings for the Midterm – Categories, Posterior Analytics, Physics (Books 2 and 4)
According to Aristotle, It is absurd to claim that we do have knowledge of the immediates but not be aware of them. If you know a thing, you are aware of it. There is no subconscious. Intellectual apprehension entails consciousness of a thing.
What is the epistemic landscape of the middle path between not knowing simpliciter and knowing simpliciter?
Aristotle denies our prenatal existence, but rather posits a capacity (dunamis, or potential) to come to know.
The capacity is not more valuable than the realization of that capacity. The capacity is not as precise as the actualization of that capacity.
Actual knowledge is better than potential knowledge of the principles.
Both animals and humans are capable of perceiving, but only humans are capable of making sense of those perceptions in terms of genera and species, references and classes.
Some animals have memories of perceptions, but only the sorts that can classify those perceptions into genera and species are actually intelligent and have ‘knowledge’. Only humans have concepts. Concepts and Perceptions come first, and then memory for Aristotle (This is opposite of Plato’s recollection theory).
Very Loosely empiricist.
Our concepts grow out of and make reference to sense perceptions. Sense perception is the beginning of our epistemic activity.
Sense perception and intellection breaks down in both potentiality and actuality.
The generation of these classification-concepts of genera and species form Nous.
Experience presupposes a certain cognitive activity. It isn’t simply you acting in the world. E.g. you have to be able to retain perception as memory. These are somewhat like Kant’s a priori presuppositions of the mind.
Not all animals are capable of experience according to Aristotle because they lack those foundational cognitive capacities. Experience is more than mere immediate awareness and interaction. While sentience and interaction are necessary for Experience, they are sufficient for experience, more aspects are necessary.
He is drawing the line between practical and theoretical wisdom. Certain universals must be stabilized in your soul for both of these.
The concept of horse is the ‘one’ from the ‘many’ horses which has stabilized within your soul. This is the stabilization of mental content in your soul. This is directly when you’ve come to gain knowledge. The process of abstraction and classification after many perceptions of the a class of things is what is stabilized in your soul as knowledge. The concept of ‘horseness’ is what stabilizes in your soul. That is what it means to acquire knowledge.
A plurality of concepts becomes intertwined and classified amongst themselves as well.
The soul is the patient, and the world acts upon the soul. The concept of ‘horse’ is not floating around in the world. It is something that pertains to the soul. Concepts occur and are internal to rational creatures.
Definitions and universals have no ontological status (like the Platonic forms) outside of the rational mind. They belong to the epistemic domain. Concepts are pieces of mental furniture in your soul/mind.
When you perceive Callias you are perceiving the concept of that man insofar as the universal of ‘man’ is found that in that individual (which aint much).
There is a gradual epistemic development of our concepts.
The posterior analytics:
The faculty of nous and episteme differ from one another.
Demonstration requires non-demonstratable primitive principles.
There is an isomorphism between nous/episteme and the two types of primitives, that which is deduced/demonstrated.
Difference between demonstration and definition.
Demonstrations are principles of definition.
Deduction is wider in scope that demonstration. Not all deductions are instances of demonstration, but all demonstrations are instances of deductions.
Notes – October 5
The difference between artificial and natural substance: Tables are artificial substances and humans are natural substances.
A natural substance has internal to it the principles of motion and change (change in place, quality, etc.).
Artificial substances don’t have these principles internal to it insofar as it is artificial, but it does insofar as it happens to be made of natural substance.
Physics is very much interested in change and ‘being and non-being’.
You are actually here, but you are potentially there. “being and non-being” defines change in this way.
Luck is chance.
Physics, Book 2
Cause – uitia
Explanation is also proper.
Change is accidental to artificial substance, while change is essential to the natural substance.
It is accidental for a human to be a doctor, and not essential.
Change is when a substance loses and gains accidental features. Change in place, etc.
Aristotle is responding to Parmenides and Xeno, who claim there is no change. He needs to spend time defending change so that he can actually do science. If these eliadics are correct, and change is incoherent, then the science of physics can’t be accomplished.
Aristotle believes in levity. Things have a natural place. Some things have a natural tendency to move towards. Fire up, leaves down.
Recognizing the existence of the physical world is immediate and obvious. It needs no proof. It is axiomatic, and nous.
The monists were only stating ‘material cause’. “Everything is water”, etc.
Aristotle thinks the natural substance is a composite of form and matter. This lends intelligibility to my substance.
Form is associated with something’s actuality. Each of us has the form of human being inhering in us, and as a consequence, we are human beings. You can’t just ‘potentially’ be a human being.
The wood of a tree is potentially a bed, but it is not actually a bed simply because it is wood. The carpenter manipulates wood to receive the form of bed.
Form and matter is applicable to all possible substance. You’ll never find a substance, sensible or otherwise, that lacks either form or matter.
Matter can be both physical stuff and in terms of potentiality.
The notion of privation is vital. It represents a specific unrealized actuality. Right now I am not at home, but I have a certain potential to go home. This is not privation in the absolute sense, only in a particular sense. I don’t have capacity to go just anywhere (like Juptiter), but I do have the capacity to go to specific places, like my home. Privation is a specific qualified sort of lacking. It entails a limit on our capacity, a limit on our potentiality.
The four causes are laying the conceptual foundation of sensible substances. All causes are applicable to all sensible substances; likely all substances.
Chance is a species of spontaneity because one involves reason and rationality, while the latter doesn’t necessarily. Aristotle will say chance and spontaneity aren’t real causes, just pseudo causes. They have a certain sort of explanatory capacity, but only in terms of their parasitism on the four causes. Aristotle thinks it is crucial to understand the status of chance and spontaneity because if we take these away from the natural world, then everything is determined. Things are predictable. Chance and spontaneity can’t be too important to the world, because otherwise the entire world would be too unpredictable and random, and you couldn’t have science of the natural world.
Aristotle wants a middle path between the extremists of determinism and skeptics who claim the world is utterly random and chaotic. Two (or more) distinct causal chains just by happenstance overlap (this is chance). The causal tracts can be account for by the four causes, but at the point of contact of multiple casual chains is an event of chance or spontaneity.
Events between two entities which are none-rational agents, it is spontaneity. Natural event.
The sort between rational agents is chance.
Matter – hule
Form – eidos (or sometimes, ‘shape’, morphe)
Hilomorphism/Hylomorphism? is what Aristotle claims. Unlike Dualism, the form and shape of soul and body are interconnected.
Bronze is the material cause of the statue. The statue happens to be made of bronze.
Notice that explanation works as well. Explanation, however, can be misleading in some sense. It has too much of an epistemic flavor to it (while this is clearly ontological). The four causes represent either represent how we understand the world, but more importantly, how the world is in itself. The four causes take ontology be primal. The four causes are part of the ontological structure of the world.
It isn’t simply how we apprehend the world, it represents the true structure of the world. Cause is better than explanation because ‘cause’ transcends the distinction between the ontological and epistemic sides the four causes. Cause captures both, and it captures the primal ontic aspect or side. Explanation doesn’t do this as well.
The formal cause represents the essence of something. It is the definition of a thing. If the fur, flesh, and hooves are the material cause of the horse, then the essential definition of horseness, four-legged, sentient creature is the formal cause. It is the arrangement of matter which has the essential f-ness properties inhere in it.
The formal cause is the specific intelligible potentially.
Material cause of house is bricks and timber. Formal cause is the place a human should live. The final cause is the actual living in the house.
Formal cause is the potential f-ness, final cause (telos) is actual f-ness.
Reading: Physics, Book 4: Chapters 1-4, 10-14
Notes – October 7
Aristotle says that Plato has only material and formal causes (which is uncharitable).
Efficient cause – it is what we normally think of as a cause in modern day. The Efficient cause of a house is a housebuilder. The efficient cause of myself would be my parents.
For artificial substances, the idea of the house is external to the house, and it inheres in the artificer/technician/the agent engaged in applying techne (art or craft) to bring that artifact about.
Techne- agent, means, and an end.
Natural substances are brought into being (have efficient causes) by other natural substances.
The agent is that who brings about motion or change (in a loose sense).
The matter required for healing, medicine, is the material cause, a necessary condition for healing to occur.
Final Cause is the end. It is central to the philosophy of nature.
In the case of the house, the final cause is the realization of the formal cause, namely people living the house.
The Final cause is the realization of something essence. The formal cause sets out that essence.
Everything is seeking to fulfill its final cause. The fact is that everything is seeking to do so. Final Cause is a teleological.
In chance, neither casual track entails overlapping another. If it did, then it wasn’t chance.
The four causes are applicable to substance, but they are equally applicable to activity.
Activity = energeia
Telos = end (in the sense of perfection) It isn’t a temporal end, it is realizing specific capacities/definition.
Everything is trying to imitate God. To be perfect. To be the end.
There are activities where means and end coincide, and those where they don’t. Those which don’t coincide a weaker and not complete. Activities need efficient causes, namely agents seeking to bring about what is caused. It isn’t accidental.
Formal is potential, Final is actualization. But, even if it isn’t actualized, Final cause isn’t a potential, it is actual.
No substance, sensible or otherwise, is outside the domain of these causes.
Chance is a species of spontaneity. What is common about both of them, both can be understood indirectly in terms of the four causes. Each causal chain has its own four causes. The four causes are applicable to all activity that substance engages in.
Chance for rational agents.
I didn’t goto the store to payback 50 bucks to someone I met there by chance. I had different ends I was trying to realize that was completely independent of the chance phenomena that emerges.
Chance occurs at the single point of intersection and contact of two independent causal chain. Each causal chain had specific ends independent of this crossroads of chance. The chance event is the coincidental overlaps of these independent causal chains.
Chance is understandable in terms of each of the independent causal trains.
The point of chance-contact (or lucky event) itself is not a proper cause though.
The chance explanation is parasitic upon the other four causes being in place. Chance events only emerge when the four proper causes are already being applied to the two independent causal chains. Chance pre-supposes the four causes. Because chance is parasitic on the four causes, it is merely a pseudo-cause. Strictly speaking, chance is not a cause though.
Chance= Causal chains of rational beings.
Spontaneity= Causal chains of non-rational beings.
Chance and Spontaneity emerge from the application of the four causes to substances. It is entirely coincidental. Chance and Spontaneity are only explainable in terms of the four causes.
It is coincidental because nothing about either causal chain entailed that it would overlap with the other.
Chapter 9
In nature, certain things re-occur. E.g. it is necessary that the sun rise tomorrow (unlike Hume). Nature has built into some necessary components.
If the phenomena of the world weren’t intelligible and necessary to some extent, then you can’t do philosophy or physics or science.
Levity – bodies in the natural world have a natural place. Fire moves up. Earth moves downwards.
Enlightenment science called Levity and Teleology ‘bullshit’.
For certain things to come about, they require certain materials to be in place. A saw made of ‘wool’ is a terrible fucking saw. You need iron to make a good saw.
Hypothetical necessity: The necessary material conditions for a house isn’t sufficient for a house, even though they are necessary.
The agent of techne must have a grasp of something formal cause. A housebuilder has the definition of house inhere within him – house is an artificial substance.
Hypothetical necessity sets out what is necessary for something to come about.
1.Material Cause – what it is made of
2.Formal Cause- the potential purpose, definition of the thing
3.Efficient Cause-the agent which brings it about
4.Final Cause-the realization of the purpose, actuality of the definition
Notes – October 11, 2010
Time is an image of eternity. Parmenides denies time though. Aristotle thinks that time is the measurement of change.
Physics, book 4, chapter 4:
Place is not a part of the object. It is that which surrounds the extremities of the object. It doesn’t change alongside an object which is moving.
Place is something that always accompanies an object. You’ll never find an instance of a sensible substance which isn’t in ‘place’. In part, that is what it means to be a substance, to occupy place.
In time, the now is a demarcation, a value, a separating value between past and present.
Place is essential to the notion of motion and change. You can understand locomotion without understanding place, for example. Place, like time, pertains to this notion of measuring. Time is how ensouled creatures measure change; time presupposes and depends upon alteration, including alterations in place.
Place is not shape. Shape moves with an object, but place does not. Place is still a boundary though, just not a boundary like shape.
Place is separable from the thing and what contains it, but not matter.
Place is not part of the body. Locomotion is the changing of place.
Place is neither form, nor matter, nor extension.
We can measure things in time (in virtue of place). Place and time are both necessary components if one is going to understand sensible substance.
The area/extremities an substance occupies is place. It is inseparable from you, but not a part of you. You can’t properly understand yourself without allowing for the notion that you occupy place.
Locomotion is understood in terms of actuality and potentiality. Locomotion is an incomplete form of actuality because it isn’t completely realized because you have the potentiality to be somewhere else, but you are actually here.
Place is a thing’s boundaries. You don’t have boundaries surrounding nothing, only boundaries surrounding things that exist.
Place isn’t a part of an object, but you can’t understand an object without an account of place.
Place is conceptually necessary distinctions required for change. The physics is primarily about change.
In the physics, even though God is not spatial or temporal, God presents itself in Books 7 and 8, God’s presence is still felt in the sensible realm in terms of being an unmoved mover. God is tied into Aristotle’s teleological account of nature. Everything is moved by God, and everything is trying to be like God. In the metaphysics, God will be self-thinking thought, but from the perspective of physics, we see God as the unmoved mover.
Midterm responsibility: Category, Posterior Analytics, and Physics Books 2 and Book 4, Chapters 1-4, 10, 14
The now is what demarcates the past from the future. The status of the now is interesting because, in a way, it isn’t a part of time, but rather it is a boundary. This is similar to how place is not a part of an object.
The future and the past don’t exist. The ‘now’ is where the past ceases and the future begins. Time is parasitic upon change. We use it to measure change.
Time is the number of change.
Change is wider in scope to Aristotle than mere change in place. It must also include change in time.
Time encompasses all types of movement and all types of change. There isn’t a different time here and a parallel time somewhere else. Time is the number qua change.
Time is the measurement of all types of movement and alteration.
Time is one in kind. Two sets of ten dogs, what they share in common in their ten-ness. Two different events related to time in the same way. There is only one ten, there is only one time.
Sensible substances cannot be properly understood without time, just as place. Time and place are the necessary conditions for properly comprehending the nature and state of sensible substances, they are in a state of change.
In two causal chains where one is a sentient and the other not, we can view this event from either chance or spontaneity, depending on which chain you focus upon. Chance and Spontaneity have explanatory force, but they aren’t strictly causes because they are contingent upon the four causes being in place. Each causal chain can be broken down in terms of the four causes—in this case, chance/spontaneity are external.
Primary substance, particular sensible substances, members of the various species. Actual physical object.
Properties inhere a subject, but you aren’t that quantum or property. It merely inheres in you. You are much more than that. They aren’t your essence, they are accidental. They are essentially accidental though, in that you have to have them. They are accidental in that you are not a specific weight in virtue of being a human being. They are essentially accidental in that you have to have instances of those properties, e.g. you have to have some weight.
Whiteness doesn’t walk down the street. You have white things walking down the street. The crucial thing of substance is that it is the subject of which things are predicated of it.
Concept formation is when a concept is stabilized in your soul. Usually a plurality of concepts are formed at once. The have the capacity to acquire concepts.
For the paper:
Is there a difference in how the four causes relate to primary substance and secondary substance?
For secondary substance:
Formal cause is species, Matter is material cause. Final and efficient are conceptually there. God is efficient cause as highest logical principle, but not the creator of the species. God grounds them. The final cause is the realization of those species.
What were the exact passages for the four causes, chance/spontaneity?
Physics, Book 2?, Chapter 3 and 4.
Reading - De Anima – Book 2 – Account of the soul, also Book 3, Chapters 1-5; Sensible substances qua soul. Reading Chapter 7 of Book 1, of Generation and Corruption.
Midterm is Done
Notes – October 18
Hylomorphism – Soul is the form of the body
Hule – matter
Morph – Shape
The historical intellectual self is the ‘passive intellect’ – you don’t survive your death.
Even though the De Anima is about the soul, it isn’t necessarily about psychology.
God is included in the active intellect.
The Aristotelian soul pyramid –
Lowest level (the big one) Vegetative/Vegititive Aspect of the soul.
Greek word for soul – psuche (where we get the word psychological from)
Plants for Aristotle have souls. The two capacities they have is the capacities they have are the ability to take in nutrition and reproduce.
The second level is ‘animal’. They have additional capacities that the vegititive creatures do not (but also include the vegititive capacities). Animals have the capacity for sense perception, and also motion (excluding sponges, which aren’t capable of locomotion, but certainly have touch – it was a mindfuck for Aristotle).
The top of the pyramid would be humans (and God), they have all the capacities below them, but they also have the capacity for intellection and rational discourse.
God is awkward here in that he has intellection, but lacks a body, and so doesn’t have the capacities of the lower creatures on the pyramid.
Chapter 7 of book 1 will explain 2.5 – It shows the difference between psychological alteration and physical alteration. One is about contradictions destroying each other (coldness destroying the hotness in a thing), the psychological alteration sets out something different in this case.
The hylomorphist position will see the soul as a certain sort of potentiality of a certain sort of body. The soul will represent certain psychological capacities. This is done in 3 steps. The definition of soul:
1st Potentiality
1st Actuality/2nd Potentiality (they are the same thing) – Having knowledge but not exercising it. - E.g. the Sleeping geometer
2nd Actuality – Actually exercising the knowledge you have. – e.g. the geometer at work
This is the soul and all of its functions.
The soul is the form of the relevant matter (the body). Aristotle is responding to the Platonists (dualists) and certain presocratic thinkers who reduce soul to material?
Ensouled entities are compounds, both form and matter.
Matter can be spoken of in two ways. 1.) The material cause. The physical stuff. The stuff of which things are made. 2.) The notion of potentiality. The intellect in terms of potentiality is the material intellect. This isn’t the intellect made of physical stuff, but rather the potentiality (which serves as the material) of the intellect.
For Aristotle, dealing with Hypothetical necessity entails that all souls must inhere in a specific sort of body. Andriods, for example, cannot have a soul because they don’t have the correct sort of body.
You can make a saw out of wool, but it is a terrible saw.
The soul represents the specific psychological capacities that a specific composite body possesses and the way in which it can act.
The faculty of sight, for instance, although the power to see is distinct from the organ which empowers it, it is nevertheless completely dependent upon the organ (the eye) to exist. Most capacities, with the exception of the intellect, require an organ or a physical component, and essentially, a certain sort of body.
You need the relevant body/material cause in question to have the capacity.
Soul is the first actuality of a certain sort of body.
Aristotle has the soul at the 1st actuality so you can ‘go to sleep’ and not always having to fully realize your potentiality 24/7.
The notion that the soul and body could be distinct is just a notion. It is the ability of rational creatures to abstract in thought alone…conceptually we can do it, but in reality we cannot.
Certain forms require matter, but cannot be reduced to that matter. The soul and its capacities cannot be realized without specific matter (a certain sort of body). But, the soul can’t be reduced to it.
The capacity of sight requires eyeballs, but it can’t be reduced to eyeballs. If they were, then you could rip out some eyeballs, and those eyeballs could still see.
Corpses aren’t human beings because they no longer the relevant capacities to be human. They lack vegititive states, sense perception and intellectual capacities.
Soul + Body = animal, to be alive
The axe, obviously doesn’t have a soul. We can only speak of it analogously.
Many things are developed from have sense perception, including imagination and appetition; pleasure and pain; and desire.
Aristotle is claiming that Plato’s dualism makes the soul’s body accidental.
A soul requires a certain sort of body that can actually have the necessary capacities.
Plants – Nutrition
Animals – Nutrition, Sense Perception
Humans – Nutrition, Sense Perception, and intellection.
Book 2.5: sets out the clear conceptual distinction about how sense perception operates.
The perceiver (the patient) and the perceptible object (the agent which acts upon the patient).
Sensation is a change in quality or alteration – affection – of the perceiver.
Perceptibles are external to the perceiver.
The perceptible goes under a pseudo-change when it is perceived. It moves from potentially perceived to actually perceived.
Likeness and unlikeness are essential to both perception and intellection. Prior to perceiving the whiteboard vs. actually perceiving it.
You acquire sensible forms, becoming like it.
In some sense, the perceiver is ‘whitened’ when perceiving a whiteboard.
Notes – October 25
1st potentiality is the most removed, the 2nd actuality is the most realized.
1st potentiality and 2nd actuality are the same thing.
Agent and perceiver are both changed.
Aristotle is showing us the nature of perceptual affection, as opposed to nature of physical affection that happens in the world (whereby you see one contrary destroying another contrary). This is not how perception affection/alteration occurs. For Aristotle, Perceptual affection is not a matter of one thing destroying another, but rather, it is a matter of something’s capacity being realized and preserved.
Aristotle has in the mind is one’s awareness of the object you are perceiving.
The five senses are all analogous to each other in their structure.
Sight, patient is seer, object is the colored thing, the medium is the transparent.
For Aristotle, ‘the void’ is impossible because it would undermine perception as a whole. Therefore, we say Aristotle is a “plentum” theorist.
The colored thing moves the transparent which then affects the faculty in question, namely sight.
If there was a void between the colored thing and the faculty, you couldn’t perceive and the colored thing couldn’t affect the perceiver because there is an incommensurable gulf between the two.
There is a change in quality with respect to the perceiver. The perceiver takes on the relevant form. Sight becomes ‘colored’ in someway by the colored object affecting sight.
Perception is a certain sort of causal process whereby the perceptible acts upon the patient. The whiteboard acts upon me (the perceiver). The perception occurs in me. The whiteboard affects my faculty of sight. I move from potentially seeing something to actually seeing something.
To perceive is to take on the sensible form of something. Do you literally do it? Metaphorically do it? DO you literally become colored? In what sense are you colored? How do you cash out the “taking on the sensible form” of that which you perceive. You do become aware of the thing you perceive in a strong sense. Perhaps, there is a ‘color’ occurring within the eye itself.
Prior to perceiving the whiteboard, your faculty is unlike it, but potentially unlike it. Once you start perceiving it, your sight becomes like it. It takes on the sensible form of it. Going from the state of being potentially like the sensible form to actually like the sensible form is what is happening in perception.
The nature of physical thing doesn’t change, only the ‘potentially seen’ to ‘actually seen’.
Your faculty of sight is whitened when looking at a whiteboard in terms of the sensible form. The whiteboard, however, always has that whiteness.
The 1st actuality isn’t extinguished when you move to the 2nd actuality, as you still maintain the capacity of the 1st actuality.
There is a causal structure to two types of change. Perception, as patients/subjects are aware of the alteration which are conscious of the change, undergo changes different from the sort whereby contradictions destroy each other without awareness.
Perception is of particulars. Knowledge is of universals. The objects of knowledge aren’t external to us in the same that the objects of perception are external to us. Intellection is different from sensation in this way, but structurally, they are similar.
You cannot hear colors, or see sounds. Each of the five senses has a proper object that is unique to it; special sensible. There are also common sensibles which are accessible by more than one sense. E.g. you can see, hear, and feel emotion at the same time.
You can’t be wrong about taking on the sensible form in perception. You aren’t wrong about perceiving an actual object, but you can be wrong about the judgments you make from that perception. The fact that the agent acts upon the patient, you can’t be wrong about. You are ‘aware’ that you’ve been affected.
Perception is pregnant with awareness.
Common sensible are accessible to more than one sense in any particular instance. Color is special because you can only see it. Being the son of Diares is incidental to whiteness inhering in him. Whiteness could inhere in most anything. To perceive the object as the son of Diares is incidental, to perceive the whiteness.
Structure of perception: Agent, medium, and patient.
In some way the transparent between my sight and the whiteboard is altered. Exactly how the medium is altered is fairly controversial.
The object sets in motion the medium which enables the medium to affect me the perceiver. A 3rd party can’t see whiteness traveling through the air at my faculty of sight, so the medium is only affected in a certain way.
You can’t see the transparent in and of itself, you only see what the transparent conveys. Transparency is not the color, only that which serves as a necessary condition for the color. Think “Sun” analogy.
Both air and water can serve as the medium – anything which has the property of transparency can serve as that medium.
Transparent isn’t a body, otherwise you can’t see through it. It is only that which can transmit qua medium the relevant properties of the agent. You can’t have two substances in each other, metaphysically speaking.
If the transparent were a particular color, then it would not have the capacity to be the color of something else.
Notes – October 27, 2010
The Theaetetus is limited exclusively in scope to the domain of knowledge. And, this is why it is so influential to the De Anima. 3 accounts of knowledge are considered. Knowledge is sense perception; knowledge is true belief; knowledge is true belief with an account. These are refuted by Plato (through Socrates’ mouth).
The sense is never wrong about the special object in question (2.6) – he gets this from Plato. Plato denies ‘being’ in the predicative sense to the five senses.
Plato says the following:
Being in 3 senses:
Predicative – X is Y
Existential –X exists
Veridical – X is true
Because the senses cannot be wrong, it can never formulate a proposition. You can’t be wrong about a color, so you can’t state a proposition about the color. As soon as you can formulate a proposition, falsity and truth come into play. If you say ‘the moon is flat’, you are making a proposition, which is subject to truth values.
Truth is not applicable to the senses, to Plato. Sense perception, then, cannot be knowledge. Knowledge does not occur at the level of the senses, only at a higher level.
Aristotle responds to this. Aristotle has the ‘common sense’ as the focal point of consciousness where the senses meet.
Aristotle is a Plentum theorist, there is no void, otherwise the causal structure would be destroyed.
Color sets the transparent in movement, as a result, the seer can see it.
Is the seer metaphorically or literally colored? B2.7 seems in favor of the literalist view.
The reason I don’t see the greenness of the wall transmitted through the transparent towards some other patient is that I’m not at the right angle, and that patient is.
The color itself is in no way affected by you seeing it. Green of the wall doesn’t fade because we are perceiving it. The transparent doesn’t see the green because it doesn’t have the proper apparatus required for sense perception. The medium does not sense.
Where I recognize a thing is what it is, and how we join together sense perceptions of a thing is the common sense.
Perceiver consists in the organ and the form of that organ. Form is the power of the organ, and it is not reducable to the matter. Organ is a necessary condition for the ion of its form. Organ and form of organ should not be conflated. The form inheres within the organ.
B2.12 – You receive the sensible form without the matter. You are don’t become the whiteboard, but you take on the sensible form without the matter. Become aware of the white thing without becoming a white thing.
The excess of using a faculty can damage it.
He demarcates these distinct causal paths of each of the senses. When the air moves and splits the tree of thunder, but you hearing the thunder is a distinct thing.
Perception is taking on the sensible form without the matter.
Each sense has access to a specific sensible form. That sensible form is unique to that sense. You don’t see sounds, you don’t hear colors, you don’t touch flavors.
3.1 – The senses have equal epistemological status. None of the senses take precedence, epistemically, over the others.
Earth is the crudest of the four elements. Organs are made up of one of the natural elements. Earth, Air, water, fire. All organs are physics. The organ represents the material cause.
Notes – November 1, 2010
The focal point of perceptual awareness. You are conscious that the bile is bitter and yellow. You don’t think it is two things just because it has two properties. The properties aren’t identical with each other, but they do both exist within the same entity.
If we didn’t have this common sense, we couldn’t function in the world. What you would be lacking is an apprehension of the unity of substance. If you lack that apprehension, you’ll bump into a lot of things. You will lack the notion of ‘thingness’. It is fundamental to our perceptual awareness.
In 3.2, he explores how we can have the unity of our senses without undermining the Aristotelian rules of perception operate. We can be aware that we are seeing without falling into an infinite regress.
The focal point of consciousness occurs at the unity of the sense perception.
The senses don’t form judgments, they can’t be wrong. If you don’t have awareness in a sense, you have to continually look for what is aware (infinite regress).
Sense perception and intellection are object oriented. You can’t understand the epistemic acts without making reference to the ontic world.
You can’t understand the self in isolation from the world.
1st and 2nd actuality is applicable to both the object and the perception. A sounding object isn’t being fully an object with sound if it isn’t being heard.
Excess senses destroy the perception.
The five senses do not generate 5 selves. If they did, then you couldn’t intelligibly perceive the world.
There is a conceptual distinction between the senses, not an actual one. They are actually unified, and they also have a unifying concept.
Senses are unified in the soul – it is the common sense. Common sense is over and above the 5 senses, namely the awareness that you are sensing the same thing with your different senses.
The unification of the common sense enables Aristotle to deny that you have 2 or more senses for the same object (and has 2 or more selves).
He treats the senses as having the same structure, as if they all adhere to the same conceptual apparatus.
Built into sense perception is awareness; it is pregnant with awareness. Sense perception is to be aware of an object you perceive.
Identity is central to understanding the intellect. He raises “self-intellection” itself. This is natural from “intellection” becoming its object. Intellection becoming the object of intellection.
Notes – November 3, 2010
Passive and Active intellect – 3.4 and 3.5
Koina aesthesis (common sense)
The data from your senses is unified at the perception level. Common sense is part of that perception level. The 5 senses give us the data, the common sense unifies the data. Each of the five senses is incapable of falsehood. At the level of the 5 senses, propositional judgments are not formulated.
The intellect does not have an organ.
The intellect can’t be affected be affected by perceptibles or take in nutrition. The intellect is only capable of being affected by intelligibles. Can’t think of perceptibles insofar as they aren’t intelligible.
Particulars are intelligible are understandable insofar as they participate in the forms.
The intellect couldn’t think all things if it is actually a thing. It couldn’t think about the thing it is. It is potentially all the intelligibles, but it isn’t actually any of them. 1st potentiality intellect here.
The intellect has the capacity to take on the intelligibles. Material intellect, the power to take on actual intelligible form.
The form of the intellect is such that it isn’t found in an organ, whereas all the other powers other soul require an organ or physical component.
The intellect is pure potentiality. Nature is like a blank canvas in that it has pure potential to take on the intelligibles. It is passive in the sense that it is strictly the capacity to think (not perceive or anything else). It is passive because it is a capacity, passive because it has the potential to be realized and actualized and have a greater ontological status.
The lesser intelligbles are deduced from the higher intelligbles (principles). So, to focus your intellect on the higher intelligible will allow you to understand the lesser intellible more clearly. This isn’t, the case, for perception.
Once you have acquired knowledge (1st actuality) you are able to think of those things on your ownb, you don’t need to be retaught. “through yourself” The intellgibles have become a part of your mental furniture.
For us, we are first potentially intellectual and only later actually intellectual. For other things in metaphysics, though, it must first be actual. God is always actual and active, not passive or potential.
You have the capacity ot think of waterness in isolation from the external world, but you also have the capacity to understand and apprehend the water in the world.
Matter is the principle of individuation.
Factors: Epistemic thought and the subject which thinks them. To be a subject and to be an object are distinct conceptual things.
What is the locus of the intellect? What is the mind/body relationship?
Notes – November 8
What is the thinkable about a thing is not qua matter, but qua what is intelligible.
Tabula Rasa is the intellect at the level of the 1st potentiality. When the tabula rasa is written upon, it becomes different, the 2nd potentiality. Even though it is written upon, the tabula is never reduced to what is written upon it, otherwise you couldn’t think about anything else.
The intellect does become its object when it is actually thinking. Just because it becomes its object, the intellect, however, is more than just that object (otherwise you couldn’t take on other objects).
The intellect is not always self-aware. When it is thinking of itself, it is opaque, and it only incidentally ‘becomes’ that very thing. It thinks of intelectness.
Intellectual geography of subject and object.
Intellection is object oriented. Objects take precedence over subjects.
How is the intellect impassable? It can only be affected by intelligibles. It can be affected qua sensibles, only qua intellible form. It is passable in that it can undergo alteration. From potentialities to the actualities.
The passive intellect is like the matter, which the active intellect forms and arranges. An agent and a patient. The passive intellect is the potentiality which can be actualized. The active intellect which brings that about.
The art serves as a necessary condition to the potentiality of the material to be converted to actuality.
The active intellect is like light. It is like that which brings about or enables the passive intellect to be realized. Active intellect is like the sun – the necessary condition to activating the potentiality of the passive intellect into actuality. It enables the intellect to realize and fulfill its end (teleology).
An aspect of the active intellect is in us.
We don’t seem to be aware of the active intellect within us. Sometimes we are aware of being active, and sometimes not. So this seems awkward. It is unclear as to the relationship between the passive and active intellect, particularly with regards to our apprehension.
Active intellect is certainly God (Aristotle’s God). It is the divine intellect.
Actuality comes first. God is eternally in this state. There is a never a point in time at which God is not in a state of actual intellection. Metaphysically, actuality has to be prior to potentiality. If it wasn’t, and potentiality was prior, then why would things start?
If you do have a part of the active intellect, it isn’t what we understand by ourselves or our personal history of thought and intellection.
Notes – Missed Class
The Metaphysics
Book 1 chapter 1
Being qua being Aristotle’s metaphysics is what he regards the highest science because it looks at being in its purest form. Unlike the de anima, we will encounter God but will do so by looking at God’s unique activity. We will look at God is his purest form.
Book I looks at Aristotle’s predecessors. The first set came up with material cause then formal cause.
All men by nature desire to know. Human beings by nature desire to know; according to nature, we desire to know. That is the sort of creature that we are. From an Aristotelian perspective human beings evolve. We are rational creatures.
Sight is apprehends things in their unity and division simultaneously. Sight is also an event that you engage in for its own sake. You appreciate the beautiful landscape. It is an end in itself.
The ancients love bees because the beehive is a very organized setting where everyone has a proper function. The hive as a whole produces honey.
Animals other than man is not capable of reason. Experience requires reason because there is a certain coherence to experience. It is not simply a series of disconnect events. That is why reason is required. Of other animals they have little experience and their experience is contingent upon memory.
Many memories produce a single experience. If experience were simply a series of completely disconnected happenings, it would not have that coherence. Concept formation in the metaphysics is going to be the conceptual odyssey.
This is a matter of art (techne) reason is organizing and arranging the matter to come up with a certain end. The art of medicine embraces every member of that human set. Experience pertains to that to particular where techne is to universal. In the practical domain experience is more beneficial than techne.
The formal have conceptual grasp of the specific, of the causes of the specific domain.
The men of experience Techne they grasp the causes the why of that domain. One can be said to have knowledge when we grasp the cause. He is setting up the intelligible structure.
Ousia is derived from the Greek participle. Each of us as a substance is a being. Each of us is something which is. In this context, we are looking at substance in its purest form.
The senses do not give us wisdom because they only reveal that X is the case but not why X is the case. For why you have to grasp the conceptual knowledge. the cause of something. it explains for example the house. Only when we have the four causes that we properly understand what the house. Sight tells you that it is but not the causal structure. Only the latter that offers us wisdom. Having theoretical grasp of houses; the senses are not sufficient. Aitia=cause or explanation.
The crucial distinction the techne that deal with utility are lesser. Their techne are not a means to a certain end. Things that deal with utility are simply a means to an end. Things that do not deal with utility are an ends in themselves. Physical education you exercise as a means to an end to be in shape and healthy. The art of metaphysician as an end in itself, you do not do it for some other end. Certain activities in which the end is external to that activity, that activity is simply a means to an end. You do not engage in metaphysics for an end which is external to that activity. In that activity the means and an end coincide. This activity the (energia) where the means and the ends coincide it is a more unified activity.
The higher activities are only accessible to those who are at leisure. That is why Aristotle cites the Egyptian priest class; whereas those that are simply driven by necessity cannot engage in that activity. Life of Socrates had wealthy friends who had a lot of money, Socrates does not have to have a job.
You judge the intrinsic value of an activity whether the end and the means coincide or as a means to an external end.
First causes and principles of things. Metaphysics focuses of first causes. That is why he goes through the history. The first are the materialist, he then turns to Plato, et al. there we see the formal cause. None of his predecessors, from Aristotle’s perspective properly had a grasp of the four causes. It is necessary to have a grasp of all four causes. If not you are not capable of grasping being as such.
Theoretical knowledge is more value than practical knowledge. you do not build houses for the sake of building houses but to produce things for human beings to live in. in the case of the theoretical sciences they are an end in themselves. Metaphysics is the highest theoretical science. More than any other science has the claim of wisdom.
Science of getting a hold of its causes and its principles. That is why this science has the greatest claim on wisdom. We are looking at substance in its purest form.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Book II, chapter 1(a)
Aristotle is setting up his predecessors where he says it is easy to hit on an aspect of the truth. It is hard to get the entire picture. As a whole they contributed quite a bit, but not individually. Although, he got the idea of the four causes from Plato.
He is setting up the entirety of truth with respect to being. That is what he means by setting out all of the causes and principles.
The paragraph starts with Perhaps. We move from the most intelligible to us to the least intelligible to us. (Reference to the Posterior Analytics) This he gets from Plato.
Aristotle sees his predecessors certain essential contributions, they offer necessary building blocks.
Theoretical knowledge grasps the eternal necessary truths. Practical knowledge pertains to that which can be otherwise. The law of non-contradiction is not sometimes true and other times not. It is always the case.
In the De Anima when you grasp things that are more intelligible, things that are less intelligible derive from the things that are higher. Lesser are dependent upon the higher, logically speaking. When you get to the intelligible world being an truth are intimate.
Book II, 2
For Aristotle the causes cannot go on ad infinitum. That results something being unintelligible. Everything has a first cause. If you take away the first cause you destroy the causal structure.
Read for Monday through the end of Book 4.
Notes – November 15, 2010
Can’t have infinite regress of causes. Otherwise, science is unintelligible to Aristotle.
Book 4, line 1. Metaphysics is being qua being. Studying ‘being’ (substance) in its purest form and its attributes. All the other science deal with ‘being’ in its particular substance/context. Physics, being in terms of motion and change. De anima, being in terms of the soul. This is being qua being.
God is the pinnacle, the highest substance, of metaphysics. Plato would say ‘the good’, but Aristotle has self-thinking thought.
The law/principle of non-contradiction is essential to theother science. The metaphysics outlines it. Without that principle, you can understand ‘being’ and ‘substance’ in general. The sophists sometimes failed to realize this in their own philosophies, thus they were fundamentally flawed (their arguments, at any rate).
Can’t hold contrary beliefs simultaneously, at the same time, in the same way.
Relativism leads to inherent contradictions. “Every belief you hold is true”, then the belief that the claim is false is then true, and thus it is self-refuting. Thus, plato/Aristotle, think that Protagoras was wrong.
Aristotle is setting out the foundation for the highest science. The other science have to presuppose these principles, the science of being qua being actually addresses these principles.
The law of contradiction gives a framework for us to interpret ‘being’ and ‘not-being’ and how things relate in this way.
You can potentially be X and not X, but you can’t actually be X and not X.
In Book 4.7 – Contradictories and contraries are different. Contradictories, one has to be true, and one has to be false. There is no middle ground. Contraries have a middle ground, such as black and white, but none of it “has” to be true.
Contradictory – One predicate is true and the opposite is false. No middle ground. One or the other.
Contrary – Middle ground between the extremes. A continuum.
Law of excluded middle shows how contradictories are such that A or ~A. This law is the opposite side of the same coin.
Language reflects ‘being’ and ‘not being’.
Book 6:
Aristotle sets out why Physics is not a part of metaphysics. Metaphysics can’t be reduced to physics or mathematics.
If there were only natural substances, then physics would be the highest substance. As there are unnatural / non-physical substances, then metaphysics is the highest.
There cannot be a science of the accidental. The categories, substance, potentiality, and actuality are all necessary conditions to understanding the highest science. You can’t, however, have a science of the accidental.
Notes – November 22
Book 7:
Finding a this, but not in the same way that natural substances are a this.
Techne applies the form to the matter.
Form doesn’t have to refer to matter. Pure form, for example. Matter in this context isn’t a constituent of a composite.
Metaphysically, the whole has to be prior to the parts. A this, the substance, is prior to the parts. The parts are understood in relation to the whole.
What ontological requirement to universals lack: independent existence. Whiteness itself is not independent, but the whiteness that inheres in me, in some sense, does exist independently?
Substance which consists of form is eternal and doesn’t break down in the way that sensible, composite substances breakdown.
There is not a formula of substances that have matter. There isn’t a definition and science of an individual substance insofar as it is accidental. We come under a formula as a member of a set or species. There is a science of human beings, but not of any individual human beings, otherwise that individual would exhaust the definition of (e.g.) human being.
In the case of these primary substances, the essence and the substance is identical. That is different from what we see as primary substance in the categories.
Sensible substance, form and matter.
New sort of primary substance is obviously different (between Metaphysic and categories). Primary substance is just form, it doesn’t have the same sort of relation to matter as the sensible substances.
Insofar as it is matter, it is an object of thought. Each of us are not thinkable in the same way that the concept of the species of human is thinkable. Sensible things aren’t limited to and exhausted by their intelligible aspects.
Natural substances no longer qualify as primary substance for Aristotle in the metaphysics. Here we enter the domain of being qua being. We need a new type of substance that can operate in this domain. There are various reasons we need this new substance.
This new sort of substance serves as an object of thought in a way that sensible substances do not. There are certain requirements to “energai” or “activity” of the highest substance such that it might be able to have as its proper object a certain sort of object. Pure form substance is very related to thinking.
The notion of a definition is what is one as such. He is revising what Plato discusses about how parts relates to the whole. Is there a unity in a different manner? The nature of unity is being worked out here.
Matter now takes the form of genus. So, it isn’t like the matter of sensible substances.
Chapter 13:
Universals do not properly qualify as a substance.
Chapter 15:
Formuli, primary substances are eternal. They are the proper objects of intellection.
In one interpretation, they are what they highest substance will contemplate.
Substance does not admit of agree, so these aren’t more substance-ey than the other substances. They are simply different. The domain of being qua being requires this new type of substance.
Natural substance is the proper subject of being qua being because they possess things which fall outside that domain. Accidental attributes are unintelligible aspects of these natural substances, which makes them unfit for being qua being.
Natural substances are destructible. Knowledge is about what is eternal (otherwise is like opinion). Knowledge of natural substances is problematic because natural substance can both be and not be. Knowledge about the pure form primary substance makes sense because these will be eternal.
The true actuality of these pure form primary substances is having them be thought by God, highest substance, self-thinking thought.
There is nothing higher than God’s activity.
Divine activity is theoretical contemplation. That must be God is doing. If we partake in that divine activity when we are thinking, then a bit of God is in us.
Chapter 17:
The divine substance has to be a first cause; not in the sense of creator, but in the Aristotelian scheme, God can be thought of the first cause because He is that in virtue of which things can be properly understood. Unmoved mover. Everything is trying to reach God.
Primary substances aren’t properly discreet parts. They seem to be unified in some way. My form and matter, if so, I would cease to be a substance. The sense in which my parts of form and matter are not separable is also found (in a parallel way) in primary substances (the new).
Is the whole reducible to its parts, or is it over and above its parts. Aristotle thinks that metaphysically-speaking it must be the latter. In what sense is a substance ‘one’?
We are both ‘one’ and ‘many’. We can dissect a substance conceptually, by its parts. But, in another sense, you are unified and you can’t actually separate them.
God is the ultimate form. The ultimate ‘why’. The ultimate cause. God is the ultimate final cause.
Thin interpretation: God isn’t thinking about the intelligible structure of reality, just thinking about Himself. It lacks explanatory force in answering the causal questions that the richer interpretation has.
God must necessarily think of Himself; we ask, “what is meant by that?”
What is more knowable, the whole or its elements? In a sense, the elements because they are simpler. In other sense, the whole. Substance, like the whole, seems most knowable.
Notes – November 29
Book 9 and 10 setup the potentiality and actuality distinction.
9.2 – The doctor potentially makes you healthy or sicker. It is accidental when the doctor makes the mistake, he doesn’t intend to make the mistake or make you sicker.
A shit doctor and shit diagnoses is accidental to the art of medicine.
Substance in its truest form are separable material substances. ‘Being qua being’ is more applicable to those sorts of substances than sensible substances.
Platonic forms belong to the realm of being; eternal, unchanging, and simple. Things of this realm are the ‘realm of becoming’ in a constant state of change.
Ice only cools things. Fire only heats things. Reason has potential to go in different ways.
Science is a rational formula.
With respect to my teacher misinforming me about Aristotle, that would, so to speak, to contrary to the rational formula of Aristotlian reality.
Megaric school denies the role of potentiality. Right now I am a student in class, but when I am home, I am no longer a student. I only am what I am doing. The megaric’s only allow for actuality. The problem with this is that it so to speak creates a staccato existence where you immediately appear and disappear.
“To be a builder is being able to build”, not necessarily currently building.
Megaric’s school undermines any notion of coming into being. This is a crucial conceptual misstep.
9.6
Actuality is full realization
A block of wood, qua statue of hermes, is potential. After it has been crafted into a statue of hermes, it is actual.
Motion is a form of incomplete actuality. Contemplation is complete actuality because the means and end coincide. Doing philosophy is an end in itself.
There isn’t an actual infinite.
You don’t diet for the sake of dieting. You diet for the sake of getting thin and in shape, which is external to the act of dieting.
God has no potentiality to be something he isn’t already.
Notes – December 1, 2010
10.4 – Contrary and contradictory play a central role in his view of the universe.
Grey isn’t the contrary of black or white. Black and White are the contraries of each other, they are the ends of this spectrum.
One thing in one genus is not comparable to another thing in another genus. Animality (genus) and Rocl-like substances (genus) can’t be compared, outside of saying that both are substances. One is ensouled and living matter, the other is inert and inanimate.
There is no middle term between ‘being’ and ‘not being’, therefore they are contradictory. Importantly, one of the two have to be true, unlike contraries, whereby you don’t have to be either black or white.
Aristotle is working out the metaphysics of not being. That is what the discussion of privation is about. Privation is about, in some sense, the state of non-being. If you are cold, then you are not hot. This is part of the coherent and proper account of the science of being, you also have to offer an equal account of non-being. And, if you can’t offer that, then your metaphysics is inadequate.
10.7 – In order to have a middle term, you have to be within the same genus.
10.10 - The imperishable things are by necessarily so, and also for perishable things. This demonstrates a rigid ontology, that they necessarily must be the way they are.
12.7 and 9 – the eternal things are the way they are by necessity
Mental realist, the intelligible structure of the universe is such that it has its own ontological structure.
Aporiai force us to articulate, as philosophical puzzles, the nature of potentiality and actuality, contrary and contradictory, etc. in order to do metaphysics.
Are there such things as separable substances, book zeta.
Metaphysics Book 12 (lambda, CH 7 and 9) –
Reading: Chapter 1, Book 1 – History of presocratics and Plato. Little Alpha, Book 2. Book 4 (law of non-contradiction and excluded middle – these two laws are opposite sides of the same); Book 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 (I’m doing 10), 11
Presentation – Metaphysics , Iota (10) – Account of separable substances, revision of the categories. – Handout, go through text, set out the argument. Metaphysics – being qua being. We see God only in the capacity that God has an effect over all other things, that other things exist. Due on Monday after Thanksgiving.
Notes – August 31, 2010
Function’s bring about more complex constants or referring expressions.
father(me) = My father
mother(father(me)) = My father’s mother = Mother of my Father
+(2,3) = 5
Both predicate and function symbols have Arity.
Infix notation is acceptable when it is conventional - e.g. 2+3 = 5
Term = intuitively, it is an expression that serves to pick out an individual object. I.e. a Referring expression.
Individual constants are part of the set of all Terms. Individual constants are simple terms.
There are two types of terms. 1.) Simple (individual constants), and 2.) Complex.
Complex terms are the results of function symbols applied to a term. Obviously, complexity ranges.
Father(gwb) is different from father(gwb). Note the difference in capitalization. Both are well-formed expressions in our formal language, but they are very different. The latter is a function, also a complex term. Its job is to refer. The former contains a predicate (and a subject); it is an atomic sentence. It has a truth value.
“A is a cube” can be written as Cube(a).
“C is between a and d” can be written as Between(c, a, d). Choosing the order of terms matters, particularly as these are related in the sentence. When translating, try to stay as close as possible to the surface grammar that you are translating. So, while Between(c, d, a) is also true, Between(c, a, d) matches the original grammar better.
From 1.12:
Claire’s father is taller than Max’s father.
John is Max’s father. (Apparently, better than “John is identical to Max’s father”)
Claire is taller than her maternal grandmother.
Max’s maternal grandmother is taller than his paternal grandmother.
Melanie and Claire have the same mother.
Argument = a collection of statements, one of which is called the conclusion. It is intended to follow from (be a consequence of) or be supported by the remaining statements. The remaining sentences are known as the premises.
There are signals in normal English for which argumentative sentences are which.
Conclusion: therefore, thus, hence, so
Premises: since, after all, because
All humans are Mortal. Socrates is human. So, Socrates is Mortal.
Lucretius is human. After all, all humans are mortal and Lucretius is mortal.
Fitch format down below. Note the “fitch bar” which separates the premises from the conclusion.
| All humans are mortal.
| Socrates is human.
|---
| Socrates is mortal.
| All humans are mortal.
| Lucretius is mortal.
|---
| Lucretius is human.
(Obviously, 2 isn’t valid)
An argument is logically (aka, deductively) valid iff (if and only if) its conclusion must be true if its premises are true. Thus, it is also impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false.
The conclusion of a logically valid argument is said to be a logical consequence of the argument’s premises.
Logical consequence and Logical validity are brothers.
Modal logics have to do with possibility and necessity. You must think about whether or not it is possible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false, independent of the actual truth or falsity.
Actual worlds and possible worlds (possible truth values).
George Bush is President and Hillary Clinton is Secretary of State. Therefore, Hillary Rodham Clinton is Secretary of State.
If you suppose the premise is true, then the conclusion MUST be true. This is logically valid. Notice that the premise is actually false, but the conclusion is true.
All humans are mortal. Obama is human. Therefore, Obama is mortal.
Valid. Actual truth values: true as well.
All humans are mortal. Obama is immortals. Therefore Obama is not human.
Valid. 1 premise and 1 conclusion is actually false though.
Logical validity and actual truth values do not track each other.
Moving from actually true premises to an actually false conclusion is time where “tracking” can show the invalidity of an argument.
An argument is “sound” iff both 1.) it is logically valid and 2.) its premises are all true.
True in, true out = Truth preservation.
Soundness is practical.
Notes – September 2, 2010
A proof is a step by step demonstration that one statement (say S) is a logical consequence of some statements (say p1,….,pn).
Note that individual statements can easily prove themselves.
Formal Proofs must be in a formal language using explicitly specified rules.
Informal Proofs do not necessarily need explicitly specified rules and methods. Linguistic competence (syllogistic logic) is much like it.
Formal and informal only differ in style only, but don’t differ in rigor. Rigor, meaning, each step of the proof follows from previous steps by/of necessity. It is part of truth preservation. Start with true stuff necessarily ends up with true stuff.
Cube(b)
c = b
--
Cube(c)
[Sp’ = suppose (or assume)]
Sp’ Cube(b) and c=b.
We need to show Cube(c)
Informal proof:
Since c=b, c and b have exactly the same properties (are identical) , but b is a cube (i.e. Cube(b)), and since being a cube is a type of property, (so) c is also a cube (Cube(c)).
Formal proof (fitch style):
Cube(c)
c=b
--
3. Cube(b) = Elim: 1,2
Indiscernability of identicals (Leibniz principle):
If a=b, then a and b have exactly the same properties.
Things which are identical are indiscernible (you can’t tell them apart). They are the same thing.
This is basis of the identity elimination rule in our formal language.
Identify is reflexive. Everything is self-identical. a=a
This principle underwrites the “identity introduction” (Id intro) rule.
Identity is symmetric and transitive.
Symmetry: for all a and b, if a=b, then b=a
Transitivity: for all a,b, and c; if a=b, and b=c, then a=c
Informal argument for symmetry:
Let a and b be arbitrary. Sp’ a=b. Show: b=a
By reflexivity of = (identity), we have a=a. But, by the indiscernibility of identicals, a and b have exactly the same properties. So, it follows that b=a.
In our block-language, SameSize is reflexive, symmetrical, and transitive.
Every block is the same size as itself, if you have two blocks of the same size, then they are symmetrical, and if you have a,b,c with Same Size between any 2 sets of these, then all 3 are transitively the same size.
If you have Reflexitivity, Symmetry, and Transivity, then you have an Equivalence (of relation in these cases).
Inverses: consider Larger and Smaller. Example of an inverse relationship:
Larger(a,b) iff Smaller(b,a)
Deductive systems are necessary for presenting formal proofs.
We will be using “script” “F”. This is a Fitch style deductive system. (Hence, the “F”)
| 1. P1
| 2. P2
| .
| .
| n. Pn
|--
| n+1. S1 (justification for n+1)
| n+2. S2 (justification for n+2)
| .
| .
| n+k. Sk
| n+k+1. S
Justification shows the legitimacy of writing down the line; the application of the rules.
n+1 and n+2 are intermediate conclusions. They bridge the gap between what you are given as premises and what you are trying to prove in the end.
Rules of Script F:
Identity Introduction or abbrev. (=Intro)
| k. n=n
Where n is any term.
At any point in the argument overall, you may assert the above.
Identity Elimination or (= Elim)
| k. P(n)
| l. n=m
| q. P(m) = Elim: k, l
P(n): any sentence in which the term n appears.
Order matters.
Replace occurrences of n in P(n) with m – the proof isn’t the other way around
P(n) is the property statement
State the property statement first in “= Elim: k, l” assuming “k” is the property statement.
Reiteration Rule or (Reit)
| k. p
| .
| l. p Reit: k
| 1. a = b (b = a, symmetry of identity)
|--
| 2. a=a (Property statement) =Intro
| 3. b=a =Elim: 2, 1
| 1. SameRow(a,a) (show SameRow(b,a))
| 2. b=a (can’t replace any ‘b’ with ‘a’ because no b’s here)
|--
| 3. b=b =Intro
| 4. a=b =Elim: 3, 2
| 5. SameRow(b, a) =Elim: 1, 4
Property statements are the statement in which are replacing occurences.
Notes – September 7, 2010
Nonconsequence (can’t always prove this).
To prove S is no a consequence of P1…Pn:
Show it’s possible for the P’s to all be true and S to be false. You can do this by showing a counterexample.
A counterexample is a possible situation/circumstances/world in which P1…Pn are all true and S is False.
| Joe Biden a politician. T
| Few politicians are honest. T
|--
| Biden is not honest. F
Let the world be such that Biden is a politician, and Few politicians are honest, and Biden among the honest politicians. (This is the specification, later we’ll need to do verification.)
2.13 on pg 53.
| SameSize(a, b)
| Larger(a, c) Smaller(c, a)
| Smaller(d, c)
|--
| Smaller(d, b)
Sp’ ‘a’ and ‘b’ are the same size, ‘a’ is larger than ‘c’, and ‘d’ is smaller than ‘c’. Show: ‘d’ is smaller than ‘b’.
Since ‘a’ is larger than ‘c’, ‘c’ is smaller than ‘a’.
So, by transitivity of ‘Smaller than’, ‘d’ is smaller than ‘a’.
But, ‘a’ and ‘b’are the same size, hence ‘d’ is smaller than ‘b’.
Boolean Connectives/Operators:
Negation ¬
It is not the case that…
Not or un-
You’ll always want to know a language’s syntax and semantics. Syntax is how a symbol works with language you already have to form new expressions. Syntax is grammar. Semantics asks, under what conditions is using that new piece of language true or false?
Syntax for ¬:
If p is a sentence, then so is ¬p.
Semantics for ¬: ¬P is true iff P is not true. P is false.
P | ¬P
---- ----
T | F
F | T
Truth functional connectives.
A ‘literal’ is a sentence which is either atomic or negated atomic.
Conjunction ^ (or &, but not in this class) or ∧
And, but, moreover
Bob and Jim are tall.
Tall(bob) ∧ Tall(jim)
‘Tall(bob)’ is a conjunct (same for ‘Tall(jim)’).
Same rested and listened to music.
Rested(sam) ∧ Music(sam)
Jill is a tall woman.
Tall(jill) ∧ Woman(jill)
Not every use of “and” is the conjunction.
Same brushed his teeth and (then) went to bed. “and” has a temporal meaning beyond mere truth functional conjunction.
The truth functional conjunction, you should be able to flip the order of the conjuncts and arrive at the same meaning.
Syntax for ∧: If P and Q are sentences, then so it P∧Q
Semantics for ∧: P∧Q is true iff both P is true and Q is true.
P Q | P∧Q
---- ---- ----
T T | T
T F | F
F T | F
F F | F
Notes – September 9, 2010
Disjunction - ∨ - or
Bob or Kim is Married.
Married(bob) ∨ Married(kim)
Inclusive or
One or the other or both
Disjuncts are joined by a Disjunction to make a Disjunctive sentence
Bob may have either soup or salad with his meal.
(Soup(bob) v Salad(bob)) ^ ~(Soup(bob) v Salad(bob))
If P and Q are sentences, then so is P v Q.
Sentences for ∨: P v Q is true iff at least one of P, Q is true.
P Q | P v Q
--- --- --- ---
T T | T
T F | T
F T | T
F F | F
Grouping – “groupers”
(), [], {}
Ted is dead and Bob is tall or Kim is home.
Dead(ted) ^ (Tall(bob) v Home(kim))
(Dead(ted) ^ Tall(bob)) v Home(kim)
Dead(ted) ^ Tall(bob) ^ Home(kim) Doesn’t need groupers
Dead(ted) v Tall(bob) v Home(kim) Doesn’t need groupers
Bob kicked the ball.
The ball was kicked by Bob.
These sentences are logically equivalent. They are logically equivalent if they necessarily have the same truth value.
(DN) – Double Negation - ~~P <==> P
(DM^) - Demorgan’s Law of conjunction - ~(P ^ Q) <==> ~P v ~Q
(DMv) – Demorgan’s Law of Disjunction - ~(P v Q) <==> ~P ^ ~Q
Good translation preserves meaning. It must match as closely as possible. Meaning of a statement are its truth conditions. Truth conditions are the circumstances under which the statement is true. You are looking for logical equivalence between that which is translated and the translation.
A translation of a sentence S1 into a sentence S2 is correct if S1 and S2 have the same truth conditions.
Any possible situation (not just one or some) in which one is true the other is true as well. (Logically equivalent)
Stylistic considerations:
Match the surface syntax as closely as possible.
Maximize naturalness (even colloquial)
Not either/Neither, Nor ~(P v Q)
Either not ~P v ~Q
Not both ~(P ^ Q)
Both not ~P ^ ~Q
1 and 4 are equivalent; 2 and 3 are equivalent.
Neither e nor a is to the right of and to the left of b.
~((Rightof(e, c) ^ Leftof(e, b)) v (Rightof(a, c) ^ Leftof(a, b))
Either a is small or both c and d are large.
Small(a) v (Large(c) ^ Large(d))
Notes – September 14, 2010
Either the President supports campaign reform and the House adopts universal health care or the Senate approves missile defense.
(S(a)^A(b))vM(c)
Not both Hertz and Avis rent limousines.
~(R(h)^R(a)) Demorgan’s, ~R(h) v ~R(a)
Both hertz and Avis do not rent limousines.
~R(h)^~R(a)
Either Motrin or Advil cures headaches.
C(m)vC(a)
Not either Mylanta or Pepcid cures headaches.
~(C(m)v(C(p))
Neither Mylanta nor Pepcid cures headaches.
~(C(m)v(C(p))
Either Mylanta or Pepcid does not cure headaches.
~C(m) v ~C(p)
~, ^, v - these are truth-functional connectives. The truth values of the atomics of a sentence containing Boolean connectives define the truth value of those connectives.
It is necessarily the case that (or, “it is necessary”) – modal operators. Beyond truth value of the sentence in the actual world, but even possible worlds. This isn’t a truth-functional connective. The word “because”, likewise, isn’t a truth-functional connective because it depends on more than the current truth values of the atomics in the sentence using the word “because”.
Logical Statuses (Stati?, Stats?):
Logical consequence
Logical truth
Logical equivalence
Truth Tables help define the Statuses?
A sentence S is a logical truth iff it is logically impossible for S to be false. Aka. Necessary Truth (and Logically necessary truth).
A = A
Tet(a) v ~Tet(a)
Physical Possibility: doesn’t violate physical law
TW Possibility (Tarski World Possibility) specific to our book: can be built within the Tarski block world.
Facts:
Every TW-possible sentence is logically possible.
Some logically possible sentences are not TW-possible.
~(Tet(b) v Dedec(b) v Cube(b)) (e.g. can’t make a sphere)
Truth Table for a Sentence: A truth table for a sentence P is an arrangement of truth values that shows the truth value of P in every possible situation as determined by the truth values of the atomic sentences occurring in P.
Main Connective: The main connective of a non-atomic sentence is that connective such that no other connective operates on a larger (i.e., more complex) part of the sentence than it does.
S, Q are true; R is False
(S ^ ~Q) v ~~R
T T F
F T .
F .
F .
F .
Put in values for atomics, Rotate between negations and connectives until you reach the main connective. The main connective’s truth value will tell you the full Truth Value of the sentence.
If there are n different atomic sentences occurring in P, then the truth table for P will have 2n rows.
S Q R || (S ^ ~Q) v ~~R
T T T || F F T T F
T T F || F F F F T
T F T || T T T T F
T F F || T T T F T
F T T || F F T T F
F T F || F F F F T
F F T || F T T T F
F F F || F T F F T
Notes – September 16, 2010
Tet(b) || Tet(b) v ~Tet(b)
T || T F
F || T T
This is a tautology. Logical truth which can be shown via truth table (some logical truths can’t be demonstrated this way).
A: Cube(a)
B: Cube(b)
C: Cube(c)
A B C || (A ^ B) v ~C
T T T || T F
T T F || T T
T F T || F F F
T F F || F T
F T T || F F F
F T F || F T
F F T || F F F
F F F || F T
Contingent sentence because the truth values of atomics matter to which world we are in.
Tet(b) || ~[Tet(b) v ~Tet(b)]
T || F T F
F || F T T
Something which is false is every situation is necessarily false or contradiction.
Every logically necessary sentence is TW-Necessary.
Convention for truth tables on chained “or” or “and” is to group from the left
(((A ^ B) ^ C) ^ D) ^ E
Every tautology is logically necessary.
Some logical necessities are not tautologies.
Truth tables are insensitive to “larger” or Identity statements. They can’t show all logically necessary statements because of this, only tautologies.
TT=Truth Table
A sentence S is TT-possible iff S is true on at least one row of its truth table.
TT-Possible is “consistent” or internally consistent, but this is only a subspecies of “consistencies”
TT-Necessary = Tautology
TT-Impossible=Contradiction
Joint truth table: a truth table built for more than one sentence.
A B || ~(A ^ B) | ~A v ~B
T T || F T | F F F
T F || T F | F T T
F T || T F | T T F
F F || T F | T T T
Compare the truth values of each sub-table.
The above table shows that both sentences are tautologically equivalent because they agree (have the same truth value) on every row under the main connective in their truth table.
Tautological equivalence is a subspecies of logical equivalence.
Truth tables tell you about the meanings of truth-functional connectives, which is why we can see proofs of tautology in TTs.
Every Tautological equivalent pair of sentences is logically equivalent.
Some logically equivalent pairs are not tautologically equivalent pairs.
S is a logical truth iff S is a logical consequence of any set of sentences.
S and S’ are logically equivalent iff S is a logical consequence of S’ and vice versa.
TT give us a way to define the notion of tautological consequence.
S is a tautological consequence of P1…Pn iff the joint truth table for S and P1…Pn has no row where each of the P’s is true and S is false.
Tautological consequence is a subspecies of logical consequence.
Tautology = Truth Table = Truth-functional connectives relationships are fully understood/described
Tautological consequence, equivalence, and truth relate to each other in the same that way Logical consequence, equivalence, and truth relate to themselves.
Tautological consequence relates to logical consequence in the same way that Tautological equivalence relates to logical equivalence in the same way that Tautological truth relates to logical truth.
Notes – September 21
Any instance of tautological consequence is an instance of logical consequence.
Some instances of logical consequences are not instances of tautological consequence. E.g. a=b & b=c, therefore a=c. This is a logical consequence, but not tautological consequence because tautological consequence can be captured in truth tables and can only use truth-connectives. Some logical consequence use non-truth-connectives.
S is a tautology iff S is a tautological consequence of any set of premises.
S and S’ are tautologically equivalent iff S and S’ are tautological consequences of each other.
Chapter 5
An inference step is a move from one or more sentences to a sentence in a process or pattern of reasoning. E.g. P ^ Q -> P
Valid inference step just in case it is truth preserving. If the sentences you start from in the inference step, then so must the sentence you step to (the outcome of that inference step). Truth in, truth out; Truth preserving.
3 Simple valid inference steps:
From a conjunction of any number of sentences, one may infer any one of the conjuncts.
From P1 ^ P2 ^ Pn, infer Pi (where ‘i’ is between 1 and ‘n’)
Conjunction Elim rule (^ Elim)
From any number of sentences, one may infer the conjunction of these sentences.
From truth of all of P1, P2, Pn -> infer P1 ^ P2 ^ Pn
Conjunction intro rule (^ Intro)
From any sentence, one may infer a disjunction of any number of sentences containing that sentence as a disjunct.
From P, infer P v Q, P v Z, P v Q v Z v S
Disjunction intro rule (v Intro)
Every step of a proof (formal or informal) should be easily understandable and significant.
Easily understood -> Easy to see the step is valid. Obviously, this is audience sensitive.
Significance must move the proof forward (metaphorically speaking).
Proof by Cases.
(Cube(c) ^ Small(c)) v (Tet(c) ^ Small(c))
--
Small(c)
p.f.. Sp’ (Cube(c) ^ Small(c)) v (Tet(c) ^ Small(c))
Show: Small(c)
There are two cases to consider.
Case 1 – Cube(c) ^ Small(c) -> Small(c)
Case 2 – Tet(c) ^ Small(c) -> Small(c)
This exhausts the possibilities. So, Small(c)
Proof by Cases: To prove S from P1 v P2 v Pn: Show that S is a consequence of each Pi (where ‘i’ is between 1 and ‘n’)
Proof by Cases is specific to disjunctions. Proof by cases underwrites disjunction elimination (v Elim)
Notes – September 23, 2010
To prove S from P1 v P2 v Pn, prove S from each Pi
Indirect proof/proof by contradiction/ reduction ad absurdum
To prove ~S from sentence P1...Pn, assume S and derive a contradiction.
Contradiction = a sentence which is necessarily false.
P1 T
. T
Pn T
S ?
--
X F
Thus, S must necessarily be false. We know which one to blame, since the P’s are already taken to be true in this study, only S is left, and it must be False. QED, ~S is true!
Contradiction must be necessarily false from these.
Show: B != C follows from Cube(c) v Dodec(c), and Tet(b).
Assume:
Cube(c) v Dodec(c)
Tet(b)
Assume for reductio that b = c. (I,e, ~[b!=c])
Since Cube(c) v Dodec(c), there are two cases to consider.
Case 1: Cube(c) Then we have Cube(c) and Tet(b). But, since b=c, we have a Tet(c). It is impossible for Cube(c) and Tet(c) to be true at the same time.
Case 2: Dodec(c) Then we have Dodec(c) and Tet(b). But, since b=c, we have Tet(c). It is impossible for Dodec(c) and Tet(c) to be true at the same time.
Since this exhausts the cases, the premises plus b=c lead to impossibility. So, b!=c
This is an inconsistent set.
⊥: Absurd, Surd, bottom, falsity, the false, contradiction
Fact: S is a contradiction iff ~S is a logical truth
Chapter 6
We are expanding F in this chapter.
Conjunction elimination - ^ Elim
|k. P1 ^ Pi ^ Pn
|.
|n. P1 ^Elim: k
Conjunction introduction – v Intro
|k. P1
|.
|km. Pm
|n. P1 ^ P2^…^Pm ^Intro: k., k2…km
The references for ^Intro need to match the order in which you put the conjuncts.
Examples:
|1. A ^ B ^ C Prove: C^B
--
|2. B ^Elim: 1
|3. C ^Elim:1
|4. C^B ^Intro: 3, 2
Beware of groupers, you may need to remove them to avoid ambiguity.
Example:
|1. A v B
|2. C
|--
|3. (A v B) ^ C ^Intro: 1, 2
Disjunction Introduction – v Intro
|k. Pi
|.
|n. P1 v…v Pi v… v Pn v Intro: k
Disjunction Elimination – v Elim
Subproof: A proof that occurs inside a larger proof
|1. (A ^ B) v (C ^ D) Show: B v D
| |2. A^B
| |3. B ^ Elim:2
| |4. B v D v Intro:3
| |5. C ^ D
| |6. D ^ Elim: 5
| |7. B v D v Intro: 6
|8. B v D v Elim:1, 2-4, 5-7
Notes – September 28
Negation Elimination - ~Elim
|k. ~~P
|.
|n. P ~Elim: k
Negation Introduction - ~Intro
| |k. P
| |.
| |n. ⊥
| n+1. ~P ~Intro: k-n
Surd Introduction - ⊥ Intro
|k. P
| .
| l. ~P
| .
|n. ⊥ ⊥ Intro: k, l
Non-negated line goes first.
Surd Elimination - ⊥ Elim
|k. ⊥
| .
| n. P ⊥ Elim: k
Where P is ANY sentence of the language. This is similar to a Counterfactual.
Proof Strategies:
Try an informal proof
Think about what the sentences actually mean
Work backwards by identifying the middle/intermediate goals.
You should (not can) only start a subproof when you know what rules you wish to employ and what you intend the last line of that proof to look like.
|~P v ~Q
|--
| ~(P ^ Q)
Sp’ ~P v ~Q. Show: ~(P ^ Q)
Assume for reduction: P^ Q. Then both P and Q are true. Now consider either two cases:
Case 1: ~~P holds. Then P and ~P
Case 2: ~Q holds. Then Q and ~Q
Notes – September 30, 2010
| Dodec(e)
| Small(e)
| ~Dodec(e) v Dodec(f) v Small(e)
|--
| Dodec(f)
Not deductively valid, where is the counterexample?
Consider a world in which e is a small dodec and f is a cube.
The First premise is true in this world, since e is a dodec.
The Second premise is also true in this world, since e is small.
The Third premise is true in this world, since e is small and Small(e) is one of the disjuncts of this premise.
But, the conclusion is false in this world because f is not a dodec.
Notes – October 5, 2010
De Es
Trans
TT
Proofs/Counterexample
Material Condition - →
If P, then Q
P only if Q
Q if P
Q if only P
Q provided that P
P is sufficient for Q
Q is necessary for P
The above are written as: P Q
Syntax for
If P and Q are sentences, then so is PQ
This is called a conditional.
Within a conditional, such as P Q, P is the antecedent and Q is the consequent.
Semantics for
P Q is true if either P is false or Q is true.
P Q | P Q
T T | T
T F | F
F T | T
F F | T
Notice how the only time P Q is false is when P is true and Q is false. False P will always make P Q true.
If Max had been at home, then Carl would have been there too. (This isn’t a material condition because the antecedent is false, and the entire conditional is false, which is not possible according to the truth table for material conditional).
Indicative mood and subjunctive mood will demonstrate which English sentences are material conditionals and which aren’t.
P unless Q – this is written as - ~Q P
Ted will die unless Bob helps him.
If Bob doesn’t help him, Ted will die.
~Helps(bob, ted) Dies(ted)
Corresponding Conditional (Associated conditional)
With any argument, you can write a conditional which corresponds to it.
|P1
|P2
|.
|Pn
|-
| C
(P1 ^ P2 ^ … ^ Pn) C
An argument is deductively valid iff its corresponding conditional is a logical truth.
Material Biconditional - ↔
P iff Q
P just in case Q
P is necessary and sufficient for Q
P ↔ Q
P and Q are logically equivalent iff P ↔ Q is a logical truth.
Syntax for ↔
If P and Q are sentences, then so is P ↔ Q
Semantics for ↔
P ↔ Q is true iff the truth values of P and Q match
P Q | P ↔ Q
T T | T
T F | F
F T | F
F F | T
Where they match, obviously, the biconditional is true. Where they don’t have matching truth values, this statement is false. Material biconditionals have the same truth values and are logically equivalent.
P ↔ Q is logically equivalent to (P Q) ^ (Q P)
Conversational implicatur
(from Paul Grice)
Sometimes you communicate things in a sentence which aren’t a part of its truth conditions.
“Joe’s great, he’s never drunk on Thursdays.” This implies he’s drunk the rest of the time.
It is conversationally implied, but not logically implied.
This should be kept in mind when translating natural language into formal language.
Any part of what is communicated by a speaker in asserting S that can be canceled out by the speaker’s elaborating on what she without contradicting herself is an implicature of S and not part of S’s truth conditions.
Notes – October 12, 2010
Proofs with and
Informal methods:
From: If P, then Q; and P, we may infer Q.
From PQ, P infer Q
Modus ponens.
Conditional Elimination
From P and either P iff Q or Q iff P, one may infer Q.
P Q
P
Infer
Q
Biconditional Elimination
Equivalences of Note:
P ~~P
(P Q) (~Q ~P)
(P Q) (~P | Q)
~(P Q) (P & Q)
~(P Q) (P & ~Q)
(P Q) [(P Q) & (Q P)]
(P Q) [(P & Q) | (~P & ~Q)]
Conditional Proof
To prove a conditional, say P Q: Assume P and derive (or prove) Q.
Requires proof by cases.
Biconditional Proof
To prove a biconditional P Q: Prove PQ and QP
Rules for F
Conditional Rules—
Conditional Elimination ( Elim)
|k. PQ
|.
|l. P
|.
|n. Q Elim: k, l
Conditional Introduction ( Intro)
| |k. P
| | .
| |n. Q
|n+1. PQ Intro: k-n
Biconditional Rules
Biconditional Elimination ( Elim)
|k. P Q
|.
|l. P
|.
|n. Q : k, l
Biconditional introduction ( Intro)
| |k. P
| |.
| |l. Q
| |i. Q
| |.
| |j. P
|j+1. P Q Intro: k-l, i-j
That which can be proven with no starting premises is a logical truth.
Notes – October 14
When stuck, use negation introduction.
|~Q
| surd
\
Notes – October 19
Chapter 9
Quantificational logic – Quantifiers
~, |, &, , are our logical connectives. (Truth functional connectives)
Once you introduce quantifiers, you leave truth functional connectives behind. They still exist in their own realm, but quantifies are non-truth functional.
Basic Sentences
Noun phrase + verb phrase
Ted is dead. (“Ted” is the noun phrase) (“is dead” is the verb phrase)
Every person Ted knows is alive. (“Every person Ted knows” is the noun phrase) (“is alive” is the verb phrase)
Sentence (1) can be handled in truth-functional logic – Dead(ted)
Sentence(2), however, can’t be handled by truth functional logic. The noun phrase is the problem. Specifically, “Every person” can’t be captured within truth functional logic. “Every” is a determiner. “Person” is a common noun. “Every person” is a quantifier expression.
Example Determiners:
All, some, every, each, most, at least then
Determiner + common noun = quantifier expression
‘Every’ + ‘person’ = ‘Every person’
E.g. – ‘Some dogs’, ‘Each child’, ‘All cats’, ‘Most cellists’, ‘At least ten students’
The quantity of the particular circumstance helps to determine the truth value of a quantified expression.
Quantifiers aren’t truth functional, clearly. The quantity of something is not a truth value or facts about truth conditions?
We will use 2 quantifiers for now:
Universal Quantifier - ∀ - Every, each, for all, all, everything
Existential Quantifier - ∃ - Some, there exists, exists, at least one, something
Logical - =, ~, |, &, , , ∀, ∃; (Individual variables) t, u, v, w, x, y, z (with or without subscripts)
Non-logical – predicate symbols, function symbols, individual constants
Variables, like individual constants, are lower case letters. A-F constants, T-Z variables. They aren’t the same though.
Large(a), Smaller(b, c), father(george) – where individual constants can occur.
Syntactically, variables work just like constants. Anywhere one can appear, so can the other.
Large(x), father(y,) – variables
So, they are syntactically identical. Semantically, they are very different.
The semantic role of an individual constant – it picks out an individual thing.
Variables, however, don’t pick out anything.
Large(a) has a truth value. Large(x) doesn’t because x doesn’t pick anything out.
father(george) picks someone out (it is a referring expression), father(x) doesn’t pick anyone out. We don’t know who x is.
Large(x) is not a sentence. Large(a) is a sentence.
Up until now, we had defined term has something which picks out. This is no longer true now that we have variables. We need to think of terms syntactically now.
Variables are simple terms (like individual constants). Complex terms, of course, are the results of function symbols applied to terms.
Atomic wff: an n-ary predicate symbol followed by n terms enclosed in parentheses and separated by commas (if necessary).
Wff: well-formed formula.
Wff’s are very much like sentences; syntactically, they look like sentences, except a wff can have a free variable (in which case it doesn’t actually say anything).
All atomic sentences are atomic wffs, but not the other way around. Atomic sentences are atomic wffs with no free variables. Let us call those atomic wffs with free variables, “mere wffs”.
Home(x)
Between(x, y, george)
5 = sum(u, 3)
You can take any atomic wff and operate on them with truth functional connectives, and the result will be a wff.
~Home(x) is a wff.
Home(x) & (5=sum(u, 3)) is a wff (it isn’t an atomic wff).
Wff –
All atomic wffs are wffs.
If P is a wff, so is ~P
If P and Q are wffs, then so are:
(PQ)
(PQ)
If P1, P2,…,Pn are wffs, then so are:
(P1 & P2 &…& Pn)
(P1 | P2 |…|Pn)
If P is a wff and ‘v’ (nu) is a variable, then ∀vP is a wff (and any occurrence of v in P is said to be bound).
If P is a wff, and v is a variables, then ∃vP is a wff(and any occurrence of v in P is said to be bound).
You never get a quantifier without a variable.
∀xHome(x)
Bound and free are opposities.
∀xHome(x) – the 1st x binds the second. For all x, x is home. Notice that there are no free variables, thus this is a sentence.
Sentence = wff with no free variables (if there are variables, they must be bound)
∃y(x) is a wff, but x is not bound, it is free. This is a mere wff, and clearly, not a sentence. The y, however, is bound.
∃y ∀xP(x,y) – this is a sentence. The “occurrence” (that which is in parentheses) of both x and y are bound.
Notes – October 19
Chapter 9
Quantificational logic – Quantifiers
~, |, &, , are our logical connectives. (Truth functional connectives)
Once you introduce quantifiers, you leave truth functional connectives behind. They still exist in their own realm, but quantifies are non-truth functional.
Basic Sentences
Noun phrase + verb phrase
Ted is dead. (“Ted” is the noun phrase) (“is dead” is the verb phrase)
Every person Ted knows is alive. (“Every person Ted knows” is the noun phrase) (“is alive” is the verb phrase)
Sentence (1) can be handled in truth-functional logic – Dead(ted)
Sentence(2), however, can’t be handled by truth functional logic. The noun phrase is the problem. Specifically, “Every person” can’t be captured within truth functional logic. “Every” is a determiner. “Person” is a common noun. “Every person” is a quantifier expression.
Example Determiners:
All, some, every, each, most, at least then
Determiner + common noun = quantifier expression
‘Every’ + ‘person’ = ‘Every person’
E.g. – ‘Some dogs’, ‘Each child’, ‘All cats’, ‘Most cellists’, ‘At least ten students’
The quantity of the particular circumstance helps to determine the truth value of a quantified expression.
Quantifiers aren’t truth functional, clearly. The quantity of something is not a truth value or facts about truth conditions?
We will use 2 quantifiers for now:
Universal Quantifier - ∀ - Every, each, for all, all, everything
Existential Quantifier - ∃ - Some, there exists, exists, at least one, something
Logical - =, ~, |, &, , , ∀, ∃; (Individual variables) t, u, v, w, x, y, z (with or without subscripts)
Non-logical – predicate symbols, function symbols, individual constants
Variables, like individual constants, are lower case letters. A-F constants, T-Z variables. They aren’t the same though.
Large(a), Smaller(b, c), father(george) – where individual constants can occur.
Syntactically, variables work just like constants. Anywhere one can appear, so can the other.
Large(x), father(y,) – variables
So, they are syntactically identical. Semantically, they are very different.
The semantic role of an individual constant – it picks out an individual thing.
Variables, however, don’t pick out anything.
Large(a) has a truth value. Large(x) doesn’t because x doesn’t pick anything out.
father(george) picks someone out (it is a referring expression), father(x) doesn’t pick anyone out. We don’t know who x is.
Large(x) is not a sentence. Large(a) is a sentence.
Up until now, we had defined term has something which picks out. This is no longer true now that we have variables. We need to think of terms syntactically now.
Variables are simple terms (like individual constants). Complex terms, of course, are the results of function symbols applied to terms.
Atomic wff: an n-ary predicate symbol followed by n terms enclosed in parentheses and separated by commas (if necessary).
Wff: well-formed formula.
Wff’s are very much like sentences; syntactically, they look like sentences, except a wff can have a free variable (in which case it doesn’t actually say anything).
All atomic sentences are atomic wffs, but not the other way around. Atomic sentences are atomic wffs with no free variables. Let us call those atomic wffs with free variables, “mere wffs”.
Home(x)
Between(x, y, george)
5 = sum(u, 3)
You can take any atomic wff and operate on them with truth functional connectives, and the result will be a wff.
~Home(x) is a wff.
Home(x) & (5=sum(u, 3)) is a wff (it isn’t an atomic wff).
Wff –
All atomic wffs are wffs.
If P is a wff, so is ~P
If P and Q are wffs, then so are:
(PQ)
(PQ)
If P1, P2,…,Pn are wffs, then so are:
(P1 & P2 &…& Pn)
(P1 | P2 |…|Pn)
If P is a wff and ‘v’ (nu) is a variable, then ∀vP is a wff (and any occurrence of v in P is said to be bound).
If P is a wff, and v is a variables, then ∃vP is a wff(and any occurrence of v in P is said to be bound).
You never get a quantifier without a variable.
∀xHome(x)
Bound and free are opposities.
∀xHome(x) – the 1st x binds the second. For all x, x is home. Notice that there are no free variables, thus this is a sentence.
Sentence = wff with no free variables (if there are variables, they must be bound)
∃y(x) is a wff, but x is not bound, it is free. This is a mere wff, and clearly, not a sentence. The y, however, is bound.
∃y ∀xP(x,y) – this is a sentence. The “occurrence” (that which is in parentheses) of both x and y are bound.
Notes – October 26, 2010
A sentence is a wff with no free variables (free occurrences of variables).
Semantics for quantifiers
An object o satisfies a wff P(x) (whereby x is free) iff o has the property expressed by P.
Ex: o satisfies Cube(x) iff o is a cube.
o satisfies Home(x) & Hungry(x) iff o is at home and hungry
If a names o, think of o satisfying P(x) in terms of P(a) being true.
Sp’ o has no name. Then o satisfies P(x) iff P(a) is true, where ‘a’ is a new name temporarily introduced into the language to name o.
Semantics for quantifiers:
∃xS(x) is true iff there is at least one object which satisfies S(x).
∀xS(x) is true iff every object satisfies S(x)
Ex: ∃x(Red(x) & Truck(x)) – Some trucks are red. A truck is red. I have a red truck. At least one truck is red.
∀x(Cube(x) Small(x)) – All cubes are small. Every cube is small. For anything you take to be a cube, it is small.
Domain of discourse; universe of quantification – when we use quantifier expressions we have tacitly in mind some collection of objects in mind over which we are quantifying.
Every student took the test – it is understood we aren’t talking about all students around the world, only all the student registered for the class. The things we intuitively mean to be talking about.
Thus, the rules are a bit different, because of this domain issue.
∃xS(x) is true iff there is at least one object in the domain which satisfies S(x).
∀xS(x) is true iff every object in the domain satisfies S(x)
A domain is a non-empty (must contain one thing) collection of objects.
Every quantifier must be relative to a domain.
Translating:
All P’s are Q’s
Some P’s are Q’s
No P’s are Q’s
Some P’s are not Q’s
∀x(P(x)Q(x))
∃x(P(x) & Q(x))
∀x(P(x) ~Q(x)) or ~∃x(P(x) & Q(x))
∃x(P(x) & ~Q(x))
Noun phrases naturally translated using the existential quantifier typically start with a determiner such as a, an, some.
e.g. A man on the bus fainted.
Some P’s are Q’s
Some man on the bus fainted.
∃x(Man(x) & Bus(x) & Fainted(x))
Man(x) & Bus(x) is our P(x)
Fainted(x) is our Q(x)
Some prime is even.
∃x(Prime(x) & Q(x))
Noun phrases naturally translated using the universal quantifier typically start with a determiner such as all, every, or each.
Eg: Every man on the bus fainted.
∀x((Man(x) & Bus(x)) Fainted(x))
Every prime is even.
∀x(Prime(x) Even(x))
Max owns a small, happy dog.
∃x(Small(x) & Happy(x) & Dog(x) & Owns(max, x))
Small(x) & Happy(x) & Dog(x) is P(x)
Owns(max, x) is Q(x)
Claire knows every member of congress.
∀z(Congress(z) Knows(claire, z))
Notes – October 28, 2010
∀x(P(x)Q(x))
All P’s are Q’s.
This is true if there are no P’s. Every object in the domain satisfies that wff, namely P(x)Q(x). For any object in the domain, if a names that object, then the sentence P(a) Q(a) is true.
Either P(a) is false or Q(a) is true
Either ~P(a) is true or Q(a) is true
If there are no P’s, the claim that P has some further property is true.
∀x(P(x)Q(x)) is false iff there is at least one object o in the domain such that o is P, but not Q.
A sentence of the form ∀x(P(x)Q(x)) which is true because there are no P’s said to be vacuously true.
Some sentences can only be vacuously true.
A sentence of the form ∀x(P(x)Q(x)) which is never true unless it is vacuously true is said to be inherently vacuous.
Ex: ∀x(Cube(x)Tet(x))
∀x(P(x)Q(x)) can conversationally imply that there are some P’s.
Ex: Every student who asked for help received it.
This has conversational implicature – it implies that there were actually students who had asked for help, which isn’t necessarily true. One can say, “but no student asked for help” without contradicting the previous statement.
∃x(P(x) & Q(x)) can conversationally imply that not every P is Q.
Ex: Some students passed the test.
There is a strong suggestion here that not everyone passed the test, as if some students failed the test. This isn’t necessarily true though. Perhaps all students passed the test, and we could still say the above without contradicting ourselves.
∃x(P(x) Q(x)) is a really weak statement
∃x(~P(x) | Q(x)) is the same thing, and it is really too easy to satisfy.
Every even number is prime. = ∀x(Even(x) Prime(x))
No even number is prime = ∀x(Even(x) ~Prime(x))
Some prime is even. = ∃x(Prime(x) & Even(x))
Some prime is not even = ∃x(Prime(x) & ~Even(x))
Every prime is either odd or equal to 2 = ∀x(Prime(x) (~Even(x)| x=1+1)
There are no medium-sized cubes = ∀x(Cube(x) ~Medium(x))
Nothing is in front of b = ~∃x(FrontOf(x, b))
Every cube is either in front of or in back of e = ∀x(Cube(x) (FrontOf(x, e) | BackOf(x, e)))
No cube is between a and c. = ∀x(Cube(x) ~Between(x, a, c))
Everything is in the same column as a, b, or c. = ∀x(SameCol(x, a) | SameCol(x, b) | SameCol(x, c))
Notes – November 2, 2010
Chapter 10
Logic of a 1st order logic, logic of quantifiers, quantification of logic, logic that you get once you throw in the quantifiers.
Why is it called first order logic? In Fol, Domains are only allowed to hold objects. You can quantify over property, for example, redness. A higher order logic could quantify over property, but not FoL. FoL is only allowed to quantify over objects.
∀x(Cube(x))
∀x(Small(x))
--
∀x(Small(x) & Cube(x))
This is valid, but not tautologically true.
Note that if we changed all the universal quantifier to the existential quantifier in the above argument, we wouldn’t have a valid argument. Obviously the quantifiers are doing the heavy lifting here. Validity or invalidity of these arguments rested upon the quantifiers.
P(a) | ~P(a) - This is tautologically true. It relies only on truth functional connectives.
∃xP(x) | ∃x~P(x) – This is logically true, but it isn’t tautologically true because it doesn’t rely upon the truth functional connectves in the end. We need to turn to the quantifiers.
∀xP(x) | ∀x~P(x) – It is possible for this to be false, not a logical truth. Clearly, the meaning of the quanitifers mattered.
If changing the quantifiers changes the truth values of a logically true sentence, the reason that an argument is logically true before rested upon quantifiers. Therefore, this couldn’t be tautologically true. If it were tautologically true, then you could switch the quantifiers and it wouldn’t change the fact that the sentence is still logically true.
∃xP(x) | ~∃xP(x) – Tautologically true.
∀xP(x) | ~∀xP(x) – Tautologically true.
Note how the quantifiers do not impact the logical truth of the statement. You can switch them, and it is still logically true. Thus, this is tautologically true.
(~P | Q ) (P Q)
(~(A & B) | (C ~A))((A & B) (C~A))
I can uniformly replace the terms and still come out with what is tautologically true. Note P = (A & B), Q =(C~A)
A sentence with the same truth functional form as a tautology is also a tautology. It doesn’t matter if the substitutions, then have quantifiers in them.
(~∀xS(x) | ∃yT(y)) (∀xS(x) ∃yT(y))
To find the truth functional form----
Given a sentence S of FoL:
Step 1- Identify and label all atomic sentences and quantified sentences of S.
Step 2- Replace each atomic and quantified sentence with its label.
(~∀xS(x) | ∃yT(y)) (∀xS(x) ∃yT(y))
A B A B
(~A | B) (A B)
Note how the the appropriate (not all, necessarily will) truth functional logical connectives stay in place, but the rest of the equation can be substituted.
~(Tet(d) & ∀xSmall(x)) (~Tet(d) | ~∀ySmall(y))
~(A & B) (~A | ~C)
Note how ∀xSmall(x) and ∀ySmall(y) are equivalent, but because they have different variables, they are different sentences. Sentences are syntactic objects, so we need to differentiate these in our substitution process. Note how the first becomes B and the latter becomes C.
A sentence of FoL is a tautology iff its truth functional form is a tautology.
Two sentences of FoL are tautologically equivalent iff their truth functional forms tautologically equivalent.
A sentence S of FoL is a tautological consequence of FoL sentences P1…Pn iff the ‘tff’ (truth functional form) of S is a tautological of tff’s of P1…Pn.
Propositional Logic = Truth Functional Logic
Propositional Logic
First-Order Logic
General Notions
Tautology
??
Logical truth
Tautological consequence
??
Logical consequence
Tautological equivalence
??
Logical equivalence
Just as propositional logic has these relationship with the general notions, specifically as a sub-species, FoL also has the same sorts of relationships.
Propositional Logic
First-Order Logic
General Notions
Tautology
FO validity
Logical truth
Tautological consequence
FO consequence
Logical consequence
Tautological equivalence
FO equivalence
Logical equivalence
Tautologically consequence sits inside FO consequence which sits inside logical consequence.
Tautological consequence is logical consequence because of (considering only) the semantics of truth functional connectives.
FO consequence is logical consequence because of (considering only) the logical functional connectives—essentially excluding the non-logical functional connectives. Think of the non-logical functional connectives as LeftOf(x, y) and RightOf(y, x).
FO Validity: a sentence which is logically true considering only truth-functional connectives, identity (‘=’), and quantifiers.
“Scarlet is Red.” Isn’t FO valid, but it is logically true. Note the logical truth making relationship between Scarlet and Red simply can’t be explained in FO logic.
FO equivalence: Sentences S1, S2 which are logically equivalent considering only truth functional connectives, identity, and quantifiers. (I.e. Ignore facts about non-logical language).
FO Consequence: logical consequence considering only [truth functional connectives, identity, and quantifiers].
To tell the difference between these 3 species, Proposition, FO and general logic, one must understand what is required to be considered in order for it to attain the logical status.
Notes – November 4
Two techniques for ignoring non-logical vocabulary:
Nonsense words method
Dummy Letters method
You can tell whether or not the truth value of a sentence relies upon the truth value and meaning of predicate via this method. These methods allow you to tell if the sentence, while perhaps logically true based upon the meaning of the predicate, obviously isn’t FO valid because the logical truth is true because of the meaning of the predicate.
Nonsense words method (words from jabberwocky):
∀xSameSize(x, x) becomes ∀xOutgrabe(x,x) – clearly, the meaning of the predicate “Outgrabe” is necessary to the truth value of this sentence
∀xCube(x) Cube(b) becomes ∀xTove(x) Tove(b) – this is true, regardless of what the predicate “Tove” means. Thus FO valid.
(Cube(b) & b =c) Cube(c) becomes (Tove(b) & b = c) Tove(c) – this is true, regardless of the meaning of the predicate. Thus, FO valid.
Dummy Letters replaces the predicate with just a plain letter rather than nonsensical words.
∀x(Tet(x) Large(x))
~Large(b)
----Therefore----
~Tet(b)
∀x(T(x) L(x))
~L(b)
---Therefore---
~T(b)
FO counterexamples:
Here is a FO counterexample to the FO equivalence. We’ll use the “replacement method.”
~∃xLarger(x, a)
~∃xLarger(b, x)
Larger(c, d)
----------------
Larger(a, b)
(Specification)
~∃xR(x, a)
~∃xR(b, x)
R(c, d)
----------------
R(a, b)
Let the domain consist of—
a = Al
b = Bob
c = Claire
d = Debbie
Interpretation of R relationship is R(x, y): x like y
So, a specification of the counterexample is this:
No one likes Al
Bob doesn’t like anyone
Claire likes Debbie
Al doesn’t like Bob (his is the false version of the conclusion, so we have a counterexample)
(Verification)
On this interpretation:
The first premise is true. It says no one likes Al, as specified.
The second premise is true. It says Bob likes no one, as specified.
The third premise is true. It says Claire likes Debbie, as specified.
The conclusion is false. It says Al likes Bob, but in the interpretation, Al doesn’t like Bob.
10.3 – Concerning a notion of logical equivalence among ‘mere’ wffs.
Say wffs P(x), Q(x) are logically equivalent iff they are satisfied by exactly the same objects in every possible situation (or world).
Think about this in terms of P(a) Q(a) for any new name a.
Substitution principle –
Let P, Q be wffs (mere or sentences). Let S(P) be any sentence in which P appears as a part. (Similarly for S(Q)). Then if P and Q are logically equivalent so are S(P) and S(Q).
For example:
P Q is equivalent to ~P | Q
Consider S(P) as ∀x(A(x)B(x)) - where A(x)B(x) is P
Consider S(Q) as ∀x(~A(x) | B(x)) where ~A(x) | B(x) is Q
Substitution principle gives us a way of proving FO Equivalence.
Notes – November 9, 2010
P Q
S(P) S(Q)
Show: ∀x(P(x) Q(x)) ∀x~(P(x) & ~Q(x))
∀x(P(x) Q(x)) ∀x(~P(x) | Q(x)) ∀x(~P(x) | ~~Q(x)) ∀x~(P(x) & ~Q(x))
Chain of Equivalences
“DeMorgan’s for Quantifiers”
~(P | Q) ~P & ~Q ~∀xP(x) ∃x~P(x)
~(P & Q) ~P | ~Q ~∃xP(x) ∀x~P(x)
Suppose we have a fixed k-membered domain (it is finite).
A1, a2,…ak
[∀xP(x)] is true iff [P(a1) & P(a2) & …& P(ak)] is true.
Likewise, with negations:
~[∀xP(x)] is true iff ~[P(a1) & P(a2) & …& P(ak)] is true.
Demorgan’s works with ~[P(a1) & P(a2) & …& P(ak)], thus [~P(a1) | ~P(a2) | …| ~P(ak)]
[~P(a1) | ~P(a2) | …| ~P(ak)] is equivalent to ∃x~P(x)
Show: ~∀(P(x)Q(x)) ∃x(P(x) & ~Q(x))
~∀(P(x)Q(x)) ∃x~(P(x))Q(x))
∃x~(~P(x) | Q(x))
∃x(~~P(x) & ~Q(x))
∃x(P(x) & ~Q(x))
Or
~∀(P(x)Q(x)) ∃x~(P(x))Q(x))∃x(P(x) &~Q(x))
Substitution/TFF examples:
∀x(Cube(x) & Small(x)) ∀x(Small(x) & Cube(x))
A B
∀xCube(x) ~∃x~Cube(x)
A ~B
(∃xCube(x) | ∃yDodec(y)) ∃xCube(x)
(X | Y) X
Cube(a) & Cube(b)
Small(a) & Large(b)
∃x(Cube(x) & Large(x) & ~Smaller(x, x))
A & B
S & L
E
Clearly, not a tautological consequence. Let’s try, instead of substitution, try replacement (nonsense) method to test of FO consequence.
P(a) & P(b)
Q(a) & L(b)
∃x(P(x) & L(x) & R(x, x))
This is not FO consequent, and only logical consequence. It obviously rests upon the meaning of the predicate “Smaller.” Thus, we need an FO counterexample.
Let our domain consist of two objects, a small cube, a, and a large cube, b.
P(x): x is a cube
Q(x): x is small
L(x): x is large
R(x, y): x is the same size as y
Verify each of the premises and conclusion
Premise 1 is true, because A is a cube and B is a cube.
Premise 2 is true because A is small and B is large
The conclusions is False is there is nothing in the domain which is not the same size as itself.
Notes – November 11
Someone likes everyone.
∃x∀yLikes(x,y)
Every cube is to the left of every tetrahedron.
∀x∀y((Cube(x) & Tet(y)) LeftOf(x, y))
Some dog chased a cat.
∃x∃y(Dog(x) & Cat(y) & Chased(x, y))
When all the quantifiers are at the front, this form of writing equations is called “Prenex normal form” or just plain “Prenex Form” – There are other ways to formulate many sentences though. E.g:
Every cube is to the left of every tetrahedron.
∀x∀y((Cube(x) & Tet(y)) LeftOf(x, y))
∀x(Cube(x) ∀y(Tet(y) LeftOf(x, y)))
Caution: Distinct variables does not entail distinct objects. E.g.:
∃x∃y(Tet(x) & Tet(y))
This sentence only requires 1 object in the domain (a single tet) for the sentence to be true. X and y do not need to refer to two different things.
∃x(Tet(a) & Tet(x))
Tet(a) & Tet(a) is an example that satisfies the sentence.
Notice how this is different:
∃x∃y(Tet(x) & Tet(y) & x != y)
This shows that x is not y, thus we know there must be at least 2 tets in order for the sentence to be true.
∀x∀yP(x, y)
∀xP(x, x)
∃xP(x, x)
∃x∃yP(x, y)
11.2
Mixed quantifiers are when you have multiple quantifiers whereby the quantifiers aren’t all the same.
∀x(Cube(x) ∃y(Tet(y) LeftOf(x, y)))
∀x∃y(Cube(x) (Tet(y) LeftOf(x, y))), but it is not equivalent to
∃y∀x (Cube(x) (Tet(y) LeftOf(x, y)))
Swapping the order of different quantifiers changes the meaning. However, swapping the order of the same quantifiers does not change the meaning.
∀x∀yLikes(x, y) ∀y∀x Likes(x, y)
Notice, they have the same meaning. “Everyone likes everyone” and “Everyone is liked by everyone”.
∀x∃yLikes(x, y) – Everyone likes someone – a likes b, b likes c, c likes a
∃y∀xLikes(x, y) – Someone is liked by everyone – a likes c, b likes c, c likes c
∃x∀yLikes(x, y) – Someone likes everyone – a likes a, a likes b, a likes c
∀y∃xLikes(x, y) – Everyone is liked by someone. – a likes a, b likes b, c likes c
These are all distinct, they aren’t equivalent. Some are implied by others, but not the other way around. You can produce counterexamples between any two to show why they are not equivalent. Order clearly matters when your quantifiers are different.
∃x∃y( x != y & Tet(x) & Tet(y))
The existential/numerical quantification allows us to say:
At least n
At most n
Exactly n
Sp, we want to say: At least two students passed the test.
∃x∃y(∮(x) & ∮(y) & x != y)
So (1) is translated
∃x∃y(S(x) & P(x) & S(y) & P(y) & x != y)
Where S(x): x is a students, P(x): x passes the test.
If you have multiple identity statements or negations of identity, relating multiple objects, you can loop carefully.
X is not y, x is not z, x is not a; y is not z, y is not a; z is not a
Sp’: At most two students failed the test.
∀x∀y∀z((∮(x) & ∮(y) & ∮(z)) (x = y | x =z | y =z))
So this is translated:
∀x∀y∀z((S(x) & F(x) & S(y) & F(y) & S(z) & F(z)) (x = y | x =z | y =z))
Where, S(x): x is a student, F(x): x fails the test.
This strategy generalizes: to say that at most n things are ∮, say that for any x1, x2,….,xn+1, if each xi (1 <= i <= n +1) is ∮ then xj is identical to xk for some 1 <= j, <= n+1.
Note that negation of at least will give at most.
Exactly – join at least and at most.
For exactly two things are phi.
Notes – November 16, 2010
Each cube is to the left of a tetrahedron.
Go through and identify quantifier expressions.
“Each cube” and “a tetrahedron”
∀x(Cube(x) x-is-to-the-left-of-a-tet)
∀x(Cube(x) (∃y(Tet(y) & LeftOf(x, y))))
Every small cube is in back of a large cube.
“Every small cube” and “a large cube”
∀x((Small(x) & Cube(x)) in-back-of-a-large-cube)
∀x((Small(x) & Cube(x)) ∃y(Large(y) & Cube(y) & BackOf(x, y)))
Some cube is in front of every tetrahedron.
“Some cube” and “every tetrahedron”
∃x(Cube(x) & is in front of every tet)
∃x(Cube(x) & ∀y(Tet(y) Front(x, y))
Nothing is larger than everything.
~∃x∀yLarge(x,y)
Everything to the right of a large cube is small.
∀x(x is to the right of a large cube Small(x))
∀x(∃y(Large(y) & Cube(y) & RightOf(x, y)) Small(x))
Anything with nothing in back of it is a cube.
“Anything” and “nothing” --- notice that “is a cube”, the determiner “a” doesn’t make this a quantified expression.
∀x(if nothing is in back of x Cube(x))
∀x((~∃y(BackOf(y, x))Cube(x))
Paraphrasing English—
If a freshman takes a logic class, then he or she must be smart.
If you attempt to translate step by step, you get:
∃x(Freshman(x) & ∃y(LogicClass(y) & Takes(x, y))) Smart(x)
Not a sentence, it has a free variable “Smart(x)”
“Every freshman who takes a logic class is smart”
∀x[(Freshman(x) & ∃y(LogicClass(y) & Takes(x, y))) Smart(x)]
Every farmer who owns a donkey beats it.
(These are called “Donkey sentences”)
∀x(Farmer(x) & ∃y(Donkey(y) & Owns(x, y)) Beats(x, y))
Note that “Beats(x, y)” has a free variable, namely y.
“Every donkey owned by any farmer is beaten by them.”
∀x(Donkey(x) ∀y((Farmer(y) & Owns(y, x) Beats(y, x)))
Sometimes you have to paraphrase. Donkey sentences are good examples. Otherwise, you won’t be able to apply the step-by-step method.
Use double arrow for chain of equivalences.
Notes – November 18
13.1
∀ Elim – Universal Elimination
k. ∀xS(x)
.
n. S(c) ∀ Elim: k
Here x is any variable. c is any individual constant. Clearly, if everything is S, then c is S.
General conditional proof (∀ Intro)
Remember before where if we want to prove ‘If P, then Q’. Assume P, derive Q.
||j. [c] P(c)
||------
||.
||k. Q(c)
|k+1. ∀x(P(x) Q(x)) ∀ Intro. J-k
[c] is a boxed constant. A boxed constant introduces a constant into your proof on a temporary basis. Let c be an arbitrary thing such that c satisfies P(x). If you can arbitrarily prove that a constant c which has P would have Q, then you can also prove that all things which have P also have Q. If it doesn’t matter what you choose at the constant, then you could choose them all, thus the universal claim works here.
It is like saying, choose any marble from this bag, and I’ll prove it is red. Thus, all the marbles in the bag are red.
CAVEAT: Importantly, c cannot occur outside the subproof in which it is introduced. If you were able to use it outside, then it wasn’t arbitrary because you had information about that particular constant already. We need arbitrariness in order to guarantee that we could simply choose anything and the proof would hold.
∀ Intro
||j.[c]
||.
||k.P(c)
|k+1. ∀xP(x)
Let c be arbitrary. Note, that this does not have a property or predicate like the previous form a ∀ intro.
We must instantiate the quantified sentences using the constant we have arbitrarily assumed in the subproof.
13.2
Existential introduction ( ∃ Intro)
k. S(c)
.
n. ∃xS(x) ∃ Intro: k
c is any constant. x is any variable. Clearly, there is a particular thing which has S, and satisfies the wff S, namely c. Thus, we know that at least one thing (something) has S.
Existential Elimination (∃ Elim)
|j. ∃xS(x)
||k1. [c] S(c)
||.
||kn. Q
|kn+1 Q ∃ Elim: j, k1-kn
Again, c can only appear in the subproof in which it is introduced.
Something is S, call that thing c. Something (arbitrarily chosen) being S meaning Q, means Q is true.
Notes – November 23, 2010
For Existential Elim:
This is very much like disjunction elim because you have to do a subproof over each of the disjuncts. In the case of existential elim, you are technically doing a subproof over each of the ‘disjuncts’ or over each thing in the domain to demonstrate that you can arbitrarily choose an object in your domain and it will satisfy the wff.
Generally, when you have ExSome(x) in your premises, you’ll generally want to make use of Existential Elim.
In the example of Existential Elim, you can’t be any boxed constants out of the subproof. You can only have variables come out.
13.3
∃x(Tet(x) & Small(x))
∀x(Small(x) LeftO(x, b))
∃xLeftOf(x, b)
Informal Proof:
Something is a small tet, by the first premise.
Call that thing a, by the second premise anything that is small is also to the left of b. So, a is to the left of b. Hence, something is to the left of b, viz. (namely) a.
There are signposts for which proof rules to use here.
“Call that thing a” starts an Existential Elim subproof. We have temporarily given this thing a name.
“anything that is small is also to the left of b” is can application of Universal Elim and also Elim and also &Elim
“something is to the left of b, viz. (namely) a.” is an application of existential intro.
|1. ∃x(Tet(x) & Small(x))
|2. ∀x(Small(x) LeftO(x, b))
|-------
||3. [a] Tet(a) & Small(a)
||--------
||4. Small(a) LeftOf(a, b) ∀ Elim: 2
||5. Small(a) & Elim: 3
||6. LeftOf(a, b) Elim: 4, 5
||7. ∃xLeftOf(x, b) ∃ Intro: 6
|8. ∃xLeftOf(x, b) ∃ Elim: 3-7
If you are stuck, you negation intro. Proof by contradiction.
Notes – November 30
Universal quantified premises don’t give us any strategy.
Notes – December 2
Final-
9 sections
Definitions
T/F
Truth Tables
Truth functional forms
Classifying sentences
Translations
Counterexamples
2 Sections on Proofs
2 hours. 2 Bluebooks, 1 is for scratch, the other the answer booklet.
Counterexample:
∀y[Cube(y) | Dodec(y)]
∀x[Cube(x) Large(x)]
∃x~Large(x)
∃x[Dodec(x) & Small(x)]
Specify and Verify
Specify meanings for the language, and then specify your world.
Replacement method with dummy variables.
∀y(P(y) | Q(y))
∀x(P(x)S(x))
∃x~S(x)
∃x(Q(x) & T(x))
P(x): x is a cube
Q(x): x is a dodec
S(x): x is large
T(x); x is small
Consider a world containing only a medium Dodec.
Verification time, bitches:
Premise 1 is true because everything is either a cube or a dodec. The only object in the domain is a dodec.
Premise 2 is true, vacuously true even. Everything in the world is such that if it is a cube, then it is a Large. As there are no cubes, this can be satisfied.
Premise 3 is true because there exists something which isn’t Large, namely our Dodec is medium.
The conclusion, however, is false because there isn’t a Large dodec in our domain. The dodec is medium.
∀x[Cube(x) | (Tet(x) & Small(x))]
∃x[Large(x) & BackOf(x, c)]
∀x[Small(x) ~BackOf(x, c)]
Specify language meanings, Specify domain:
Let the blocks language have its normal meanings.
Consider a world containing two small tets, and c, and a large cube. Let a be behind b and c, and let b behind c.
Premise 1 is true because everything in the domain is either a cube or a small tet, a and c being the small tets and c being the cube.
Premise 2 is true because a Large cube, b, is in back of c.
The conclusion, however, is false because not everything which is small is not in the back of c, namely the small tet a is in back of c.
∀x[Cube(x) | Dodec(x)]
∀x[Cube(x) (Large(x) | LeftOf(c, x))]
∀x[~Small(x) Tet(x)]
∃zDodec(z)
What is virtue; in other words, what makes a human trait a virtue?
How does virtue ethics instruct us about what we should do rather than what we should be?
How would virtue ethics help in resolving moral dilemmas (both resolvable and non-resolvable ones)?
What account does virtue ethics give of moral motivation? What is the status of emotions in the
theory? What role is wisdom assigned? How is the possessor of the virtues benefited?
What is the role of naturalism in such a theory?
How can virtue ethics escape relativism; or, alternatively, based on its version of naturalism, what account might it offer of objectivism in ethics?
Finally, what might the rival consequentialist or deontological theories (or any other rule-governed ethical doctrine) say in their defense; or, how might they, in turn, argue against virtue ethics?
Notes – August 24
Utilitarianism –
Act-Utility: Max happiness
Rule-Utility: Good in accordance with rules, rules generated through Max happiness
State of affairs is maximally best/happy through utility-actions.
Deontology –
Categorical imperative
Maxim->subjective principle
Universalize maxims/rules/laws
Will to do what is right because it is right.
Notes –August 26
Notes – August 31
Tue (today) – pages 43-55; Thur – 56-68; Tue – 68-77; Thur – 77-87
Morally right decision vs. Right Moral Decision
Action Guidance vs. Action Assessment
Decision/Action – Try/Fail
Notes – September 2, 2010
The Strong codifiability thesis:
Act-u = one single rule ? (rather all are derived from the single)
V-rules are not such that anyone can employ them.
Moral Wisdom.
She is against the decision procedure.
Moral wisdom + V-rules gives you a non-mechanical answer to a dilemma. Or a virtuous person with a virtuous disposition can tell you the right answers.
2 virtuous people with 2 different answers forces Virtue ethics into moral relativism.
Judgment, intuition, and perception are what is necessary to choose between dilemmic rules.
Permissible/obligatory are different concepts.
Discovery and justification are different.
For Kant, Intuition helps discover maxims, but it does not justify it (the Categorical imperitive, objectively, does it).
Notes – September 7, 2010
It seems to me that the Utilitarian or Deontologist need not resort to God preordaining the impossibility of irresolvable moral dilemmas or magical Laws which make the universe as such. Dilemmas are innately amoral, and this is only understood inside moral experience. I think Hursthouse has misrepresented the moral experience, particularly how it pertains to Decision procedure and how a set dilemma which springs forth from the procedure is amoral within its members, but the set is moral with respect to the other possible answers in that world. She has explained there are irresolvable moral dilemmas, but she surely hasn’t justified it.
There might be irresolvable dilemmas, but not necessarily irresolvable moral dilemmas.
Notes – September 9, 2010
If the decision was right, how could the act be wrong? Etc.
Eudaimonia is valuable, worth pursuing. The best way to pursue Eudaimonia is definitionally moral.
Notes – September 14, 2010
If there really are absolute prohibitions, how is there any room for the virtuous agent to fine tune. The distinction that the rightness of the act was dependent on the character of the virtuous person seems pointless if we assume there are absolute prohibitions. What is the basis of the absolute prohibition?
She talks smack about deontologists use of God as cosmically preventing contradiction of principles. However, she might be asserting the possibility of God cosmically preventing “bad” moral dilemmas or also that there will never be absolute prohibitions that are in conflict with each other. How can she talk smack about one and assert the other?
Foote-
Theological Virtues: Faith, Hope, Charity. These are not found in Aristotle, but rather in Aquinas. Secular Virtues: Courage, Temperance, Justice, Wisdom.
Aristotle thinks wisdom is the intellectual virtue, the others are practical. Foot sees wisdom as being much more practical ‘moral’ virtue.
Foot’s conception of the Will is compatibilist. Desires are extremely important in this account.
Virtues are corrective of vices.
Kant’s notion of Will is that the will must be free. Reason, unlike desires (desire is alien), is the important part of freewill. The crossroads when you must choose between a priori reason and a posteriori desires.
Foot thinks Virtues are beneficial. Hume says: Traits are virtuous when they are pleasant or useful to you or others. Foot is asking, who benefits?
Is wisdom incorporated into each of the virtues, or is it distinct from the other virtues?
Justice benefits the other person, not yourself. Eudaimonia is much like Utility. Maximal benefits no, some benefits, yes.
When the virtue ethics do not benefit, why should we be virtuous? Virtue ethics needs justification beyond Eudaimonia.
Wisdom is connected to Will which is connected to Virtues.
Notes – September 16, 2010
Kant separates Will and Desire.
Foot does not necessarily separate Will and Desire, they are related.
You can subdivide humans into classes with certain skill potential. Apparently, Foot thinks Wisdom is different in that ANY human adult can learn and acquire wisdom.
Notes – September 21, 2010
Desires are non-cognitive. Speaking in terms of cognitive means there is right or wrong, because this is about knowledge.
Wisdom is about what is cognitive and non-cognitive.
Natural attributes: Dispositions/inclinations sum up to be the tendency of a person, essentially, “character” The paradigm case.
Desires are different (but related) to dispositions.
Emotions, Desires, Will, Reasons, Dispositions.
Continent/fully virtuous
The alcoholic has a strong will to overcome his desires to drink. He is continent.
Incontinent people suffer from conflicting desires.
Notes – September 23, 2010
Emotions are incidental to Kant.
How can a Mafioso act correct?
Kant is talking about the rightness of the action, not the character of the person. Virtue ethicists can’t divide the two though.
Notes – September 30, 2010
Should virtue be defined independently of emotions? Should then the emotions be derived from virtue (dependently)? Is Hursthouse using circular reasoning?
Can intrinsically morally valuable emotion defined by virtue? Is what makes virtue intimately defined by emotions?
She seems to be making virtues and emotions parasitic on each others definition.
Virtues + Emotions may be necessary for the right sort of “being”. The ultimate state of the virtuous person has the right virtues and emotions. The issue is whether or not emotions are necessary components for ‘doing’ the right action. Kant would say that emotions are neither necessary or sufficient for doing the right action.
Right action (devoid of emotions) – “jump overboard to save the drowning person”
Right action (with emotions) – “feels it is necessary to” (and in fact does) “jump overboard to save the drowning person”
Imagine the rape victim who goes on to law school. Her feelings for justice are strong in virtue of something which doesn’t seem to be in her control.
Kant: Emotions are subjective, not dependable, and unnecessary to do what is right.
Can you tame emotions? Are you in control over those emotions? If so, can’t we say that this is a mental action? Can we not say that the virtue ethicist is claiming simultaneous mental action of selecting the right emotion and performing the right physical action, only the do you have the sum, actual “right action”.
We aren’t divorcing the action from the subject, and vacuously judging the action? Hmm..
Are emotions necessary to have virtue?
Virtue – “right reason” + “right emotion” => “right action”
To what extent do we have control over our emotions? To what extent are we responsible for our emotions? Getting gray hair…is something I’m not responsible for? Virtue ethicists are very inclined to say we have control over them, and thus we are morally responsible for them.
Kant, of course, denies that emotions are in any way rational. We don’t seem to have less degree of control over our emotions in the Kantian view of ethics than we do in Virtue ethics.
Are we responsible in terms of cultivating and habituating? Previous mental states seem to determine our future ones, no?
Emotions are a part of the will. How can we define virtue in terms of the will? Hmm..
Insofar as the emotions are rational they are cognitive. Emotions, to Hursthouse, seem to have both rational and irrational aspects. They are in between.
The desiderative aspect of the mind part rational and part irrational. How these two connect together is very unclear.
Instinctive emotion and ‘reason/willed’ emotion are separate.
Education of emotions suggests they can be changed. Conditioning is irrational though?
Notes – October 5, 2010
Rightness of the action
Virtuousness of the agent
As a person is developing morally, some people will have initially strong dispositions to do what is wrong, and others will have the opposite, and other in between. Kant thinks you can start out as being non-virtuous, but through repeated applications of reason, you will arrive at being virtuous.
Kant thinks you can act correctly, even with a poor disposition, such as racism. Hursthouse thinks that they can’t. You need the right disposition to really perform the right act. Your disposition in an integral defining component of your act.
Why are you acting? Know thyself (to Kant). Kant thinks it cannot be a commandment to always get your motive right because motivation is so complex.
You might initially be a racist and still come to do what is right. After future reflection, you may come to realize that were had believed and perhaps done some wrong in the past.
Only a virtuous person can do what is virtuous. If you aren’t virtuous, then you can’t do what is right (because you aren’t virtuous).
Central is that Hursthouse thinks Virtue can give an account of emotions where other accounts can’t. Virtue has both ‘reason’ and ‘emotion’ in her eyes as well.
Virtue ethics account for doing through being.
Are emotions something for which are morally responsible? Hursthouse thinks so.
Kant thinks the right moral action cannot be determined by the right moral emotions. Hursthouse disagrees here. They are inextricably linked in Hursthouse’s mind.
Chapter 6
Phillipa Foot/Bernard Williams: believe moral reasons are separate from other reasons. They think there is no reason for us to believe that: If there is a conflict between the two sorts of reasons, then moral reasoning always trumps the other reasons.
Hursthouse is giving an account of acting for the sake of moral reasons.
Moral motivation
Kant: I think of a subjective principle, a maxim, and I ask if I can universalize it. If I can, then I have the morally right thing.
Moral motivation for Hursthouse is a ‘range of things’. There are many moral reasons to ‘act courageously’.
Kant thinks there is a singular moral law-based reason to be morally motivated. Hursthouse thinks there can be multiple possible reasons to be morally motivated.
Moral motivation will define not just how we act but also how we are. Moral motivation influences both being and doing.
If someone lacks a virtuous disposition, then it seems they lack virtuous/moral motiviation.
An act is right iff it is something a virtuous agent would characteristically do. This is the sort of disposition that defines rightness. Are you responsible in that moment for your disposition if you can’t immediately change it?
The philanthropist acts morally and ‘fairly’ well, but the fully virtuous person is acts better.
Is there a difference between virtuous and fully virtuous? Maybe. The philanthropist might has some virtue, but certainly isn’t fully virtuous to Hursthouse.
Does the fully virtuous person characteristically have the right moral reasons and the right emotions? Yes. The right emotions making them fully virtuous where the philanthropist is not.
Hursthouse thinks philosophical language fails to describe the moral fabric of our experience. One might be virtuous without being capable of meeting the explication-communication requirements. Virtue is compatible with inarticulacy.
Notes – October 7, 2010
It is wrong to think, according to Hursthouse, that philosophical/sophisticated reasoning will be exactly what the virtuous person will agree to. (pg 130)
Imagine a philosopher who is trying to understand the activity of a virtuous person. The phil wants to be able to describe virtuous person and action. Normal virtuous people don’t use sophisticated language, so philosophers shouldn’t use it to describe what normal virtuous people do and how they think and what reasoning they are using.
Scientists try to describe the physical universe. You can be wrong or right about it, but that is how you do science.
Philosophers use ethical theories to try to describe the moral (aspect of the) universe. Our words
You cannot have genuine philosophical understanding of virtue without already having some virtue.
V1, v2, v3, vn. – All or nothing.
D1(v1), D1(v2), D1(v3), D1(vn) – Same degree
F1(D1(v1), D1(v2)), F2(D0(v3), D0(v4), D0(v5)), Fn – Families. Requires that cosmically disunited and independent.
Why must all the virtues have the same degree? You can require that full, 100% virtue of one requires 100% of them all without being forced to claim that less than full virtue can have varying rates of virtue.
Think of gaming with stats. 100 str is minimized with 1 dex?
Notes – October 12
Philosopher: Scientiest:: Moral Theory: Scientific Theory
Aristotle may see our flourishing as having some possible scientific account. Although, unlike other creatures, we obviously have reason.
According to Hursthouse:
The moral philosopher isn’t giving you a good moral theory which describes a virtuous person in the same way that scientists can give a scientific theory which describes the scientific world.
Philosophers explicate this process for their own benefit. The virtuous person need not have the ‘words’ (or even, supposedly, the ‘concepts’) which philosophers use. E.g. A philosopher has the notion of eudaimonia, but the virtuous person may not possess the concept.
Moral ideas are neither sufficient nor necessary conditions for being virtuous.
The virtuous agent must follow from a settled character.
Do you need to be able to reliably give the moral reasons? Yes.
Is it that you as a virtuous person can’t explicitly state the philosophical ideas behind your moral reasoning, or that they don’t have any conception of the ideas behind the moral reasoning? No concepts either. Philosopher’s are guilty of assuming this is implicit.
Moral philosophy seems useless, to Hursthouse. It is an intellectual game.
Unity of Virtues should be intimately connected with right action.
Kant would think that we are learning and developing our character, entirely guided by the categorical imperative, to have virtuous character.
Countrafactual situations. If you do something because you believe in God, and then they become an atheist, will that person continue to do the right thing? If the answer is no, then Hursthouse will claim that the values aren’t ‘deeply grounded’.
Character reflects deeply grounded values you hold. This aspect of the irtuous person is what would define ‘rightness’.
What does it mean for the virtuous person to have a moral reason? They’ll offer something very simple, but I think there are many more reasons as the foundation to that which the virtuous person must hold. Hursthouse will call that foundation too philosophical and fancy and unnecessary for the virtuous person to implicitly or explicitly hold.
Keep “necessary” and “sufficient” conditions in mind. This is vital to chapter 7.
Deductivist model or particularist model’s, apparently, benefit only philosophers (not lay persons).
If particularistic models are true, then this is relativism. “doing well” is a big issue.
If “doing well” not relativistic, then surely there is a general principle.
Reading: Michael Stalker’s paper
Notes – October 14
Chapter 7 is about:
Degree Belief
Degree Character
Hursthouse argues against the all-or-nothing ascription.
Inverse akrasia – When you act contrary to your own belief, but end up acting correctly.
Unity of Virtue
Duham-Quine Thesis:
Beliefs can’t be tested against the world one by one (atomistic), but rather collections of beliefs must be tested against the world (holistic).
Hursthouse is claiming that our beliefs can’t be separated in this atomic sense.
Children do not have their own values; they are imitators. Well grounded values would stand up to counterfactuals.
Pg 136, footnote 12; the counterfactual claim is perhaps opposed.
What constitutes practical wisdom? How is it related/connected to the other virtues?
Degrees of: Virtues, beliefs, feelings, character, practical wisdom
If a nazi (someone lacking virtue entirely) does something that appears right, it isn’t right because they lack true moral motivation, according to Hursthouse’s theory.
Inverse akrasia is odd in that we don’t know whether or not the agent is actually morally motivated.
Notes – October 19, 2010
Who you are as a person vs. what obligations you are attempting to fulfill.
Multiple sets of values?
Friendships and family can’t be made on duty.
Bifurcation, split, schizophrenia of the sad philanthropist.
Visiting the friend in the hospital because of duty or because you are his friend?
Pathological love vs. practical love.
You cannot have a duty to love someone at the emotional level, because it is not up to you. Practical love can be demanded though. Practical love is moral love.
If you are interested in legislation, you are interested in getting things done. Teleology has replaceable means.
Humean emotions (reason is impotent. Reasons is the slave of the passions) vs. Kantian reason as the motivation.
Stocker means pathological love.
For whose sake are you loving?
Duty is the end or Humans are the end?
Indirection, unintended consequences. If you love someone else, you’ll be selfish in economics theory.
Notes – October 26, 2010 – Last Test
Direction, ‘what is right’ is external or internal? Externally applied to the virtuous person or internally flows out of the virtuous person.
“Reliable sensitivity” is when an agent reads and appreciates and weighs the precise factors of a situation. This is McDowell’s idea of moral knowledge. Either the deliverance of the sensitivity or the sensitivity itself would constitute knowledge.
Virtue is identified as knowledge. “Virtue is knowledge”, “Know thyself”
What is the difference between continent behavior and virtuous behavior?
Will and reliable sensitivity go on to be the proper explanation for what the virtuous person does.
The virtuous person perceives the situation differently than the continent person. The virtuous person can ‘silence’ their desires to do what is virtuous in a way that the continent person cannot in perceiving the situation.
Sensitivity might be perception. Deliverance is your immediate response to what you are perceiving.
Objective situations impose requirements on your behavior.
“perceptual capacity” in this is taken to be an ethical capacity. It isn’t just ‘seeing’ someone is wearing a yellow shirt. The perceptual capacity is understanding what the situation morally demands of me.
The virtuous person doesn’t need to juggle between ‘being kind to one person’ and ‘not violating the rights of another person’. The virtue person’s virtue is activated so as to silence the desires. There are no rules.
Virtuous person does not weigh or juggle or balance factors as contending reasons.
Desires and inclinations shape your perceptions (what you reliably perceive). This comes before the will.
“silencing” your desire is not an activity of the will. The process of silencing one’s desires comes before the will. The ‘bad’ feelings are dispelled. This silence is nearly instinctive and spontaneous. It isn’t so obvious when the choice is between two things which both look pretty decent.
Notes- October 28, 2010
Major premise – universal
Minor premise – particular
Conclusions – ought to do = reasons
McD argues against the codifiability of how one should behave.
If add 2 is the rule:
S1 – 2, 4, 6, 8…1000, 1002, 1004, 1006…
S2 – 2, 4, 6, 8…1000, 1004, 1008, 1012…
What does it mean to ‘follow a rule’?
We make the assumption that the individual who has been asked to follow a rule has in his mind a certain psychological mechanism, and that mechanism is what he consults to make the right series. Wittgenstein denies the existence of this mechanism.
If you have moral rules…say “one ought to save a drowning person”.
You can follow the rules in a variety of instances, and then suddenly if you don’t save a drowning person, you are then saying “I’m following the rule”…
We don’t have enough information to make perfect rules. S1 and S2 follow different rules because they didn’t have enough starting information to generate the actual rule.
The “form of life” justifies what you do and what you produce. It is exceedingly subjective view.
Notes – November 2, 2010
Non-cognitivist says we need more than a theory, we also need a desire to make an account of an action.
Orectic – Major Premiss – Desire – Necessary motivation, motivational energy
Minor premise – particularities of the circumstance
Theoretical reason
Which objective features of a situation does the virtuous agent pay attention to?
The virtuous agent has a remarkable perception of particular times and places where you can perceive the ethical reality.
C1 matches F1 where concerns matches Factors about the objective situation.
The interaction between the major and minor premise is important.
Utility has preordained weights of what is valuable. McD says there aren’t preordained ways to define which factors are salient or not.
You can’t form the Orectic by compounding the “appetitive state” with the motivationally inert perception of the objective situation.
Can’t justify what you are doing from some external standpoint, it must be within the Form of Life.
Ethical reality is relative to the objective situation. Or is the ethical reality relative to the form of life?
Ethical reality is in direct conflict with the notions of Form of life.
McD bills himself as a cognitivist, but he obviously isn’t.
Notes – November 9, 2010
If you list the virtues, which are connected to eudaimonia. The question is whether or not there is an external view, so that we can justify whether or the list of virtues is the right list.
Is there some independent objective criteria which you can use to justify the life of virtue?
Internal View: only was who is brought up well and is actually virtuous can actually see whether or not the virtues really are beneficial and worth doing.
Virtue is a “bet” – it is most likely, has the highest probability to bring about Eudaimonia.
Hursthouse focuses on eudaimonia where the egoist and skeptic focus on pleasure. It seems that happiness, however, shouldn’t be connected with what is right.
Sensible Knave, Virtue or Pleasure/Mafioso?
If you are choking on water, what will you wash it down with? This is why we can’t decisively refute the wicked who cannot understand the virtuous argument.
Virtue ethics is veiled egoism. Justifying Virtue qua eudaimonia, the claim is that unlike the egoist/skeptic, the virtue ethicist has the accurate/correct path to attaining happiness.
Aristotelian Enterprise connects ‘morality’ to ‘happiness’.
If the virtues do not contribute to eudaimonia then they can’t be justified on the ‘correct list’.
Hare’s argument is that there is a higher chance that the virtues lead to happiness than the eogisti’s theory. Hursthouse doesn’t like the empirical claim.
The overlap of the egoist and the virtue ethicist is that virtue produces some degree of happiness, justified in terms of a non-moral good.
Notes – November 11, 2010
Internalist thinks there is no neutral, independent (of character) way to understand virtue. Happiness is subjective.
Hursthouse is somewhat of an externalist.
The virtuous and skeptic may have two different views of life. Perhaps they have overlap amongst their views. If they do have overlap, could we defend the virtuous life to the skeptic?
To what extent is there an overlap? Is there one? There seems to be something, the virtuous part which doesn’t overlap with the skeptic, that can’t be translated or communicated effectively to the immoralist. The translation of happiness, in this case, the justification that is, will not be total and complete to the skeptic.
To some extent, understanding the happiness of the form of life of the virtuous requires that you are in fact within that form of life.
What is the role of Eudaimonia here?
Perhaps the overlap will be birthdays and marriages.
How do you justify the sort of act that marres you? You can’t do it on the basis of eudaimonia. The section which doesn’t overlap with the skeptic/egoist doesn’t seem to be based on eudaimonia, but simply virtue because virtue is right, not because it results in eudaimonia.
All forms of life have things in common which make us happy, etc. That is the overlap. This is the universal.
Hursthouse thinks Virtue can maximize the sort of happiness that the skeptic/egoist seeks. And, it is here that she thinks she can defend virtue to them, to communicate and translate it to them.
If Eudaimonia is the justification for morality, then whenever morality would conflict with eudaimonia, as Eudaimonia is primitive, whatever would bring about Eudaimonia in the moment, whether moral or not, is what we should do, right?
I don’t like how Virtue ethics avoids Justice. – The very problems of justice which require us to do things which aren’t in our favor are the very sort which are anti-eudaimonic, and against the justification for the virtuous character by consequence of Hursthouse’s argument.
The most wise, sensible knave is he who chooses to follow the principle, but in the exceptions, takes the advantage.
Those who have a deficiency in character enough to be virtuous when it brings about eudaimonia, but chooses to not as the virtuous person in exceptional cases which result in eudaimonia for being vicious and lacks eudaimonia for being virtuous seems to maximize eudaimonia, not the virtuous person.
If you describe morality as enlightened self-interest, it must be one which is informed by phronesis and moral wisdom.
Naturalism – The only things ontologically available are things defined by what is ordinary or natural, observable.
“Flourishing well” is a natural concept.
Notes – November 16, 2010
What constitutes a ‘Good’ (naturally good) Plant and Animal (which are non-rational)?
The 4 Aspects
Parts
Operations
Actions
Emotions/Desires (social is an end)
The 4 Ends:
Individual Survival
Continuance of the Species
Pain, Pleasure
Social
Neutral to Moral predicate, but there is something normative?
When you add rationality (talking about human beings), does this picture change?
The goodness of a particular distribution of ‘aspects’ is determined by the “ends” as a criteria.
Notes – November 18, 2010
The Virtues of the Animal Kingdom: Courage, Charity, Honesty, Justice, Liberality.
It seems that these traits might go towards the proper/virtuous makeup of human beings as well.
It is because Humans have reason that it completely disrupts the relationship between the animal kingdom and the human kingdom.
Animals are not endowed with rationality, and thus animals are considerably constrained by genetics and the environments.
Hursthouse differentiates humans based upon reason. It is difficult to understand what the constraints are, however, for human societies, etc.
For Kant, reason transcends the natural world. It doesn’t for Hursthouse. Reasons be contained within the physical culture, but the reasons which justify the rightness of action transcend and are independent of the culture. Hursthouse seems to disagree.
Human flourishing must be defined in naturalistic terms.
The variety of goals of human beings seems so broad that it isn’t easy to see what counts as immoral.
Are the four ends and the wide variety and capacity of humans so broad that we can’t easily point out any particular things which are wrong qua human being?
Virtues are those natural traits which are bring about/promote the four ends.
Particular act of a particular individual is the usual scope of ‘right act’.
The individual may violate the ends, it seems, and still be acting virtuously.
The ends are linked with the ethical. The ethical must be confined which is entirely naturalistic. There might be some actiosn which run counter to the ends, and yet we want to say ‘that’s ok’ and this ‘really was the right thing to do’. For that individual and particular act, it is ok.
Should particular actions be consistent with the naturalistic ends of humans in general?
It isn’t ‘too determinate’ as she worries about, but rather not ‘determinate enough’. It seems that simply anything will meet the requirements.
Even wolves and bees have variation in their lives—their lives aren’t fully determinate. Human beings have far greater variations, precisely because they have reason. It is reason that gives us richness and diversity to our lives. That diversity is entirely permissible in her view.
How much latitude must we give? What is morally acceptable is too wide, intuitively.
What are the ranking/priorities of the ends? Lacks structure in the ‘ends’.
It doesn’t seem that the objectivity of the ends would allow for flexibility. She seems to think it does though. The way she describes it, it is so flexible that it may even be relativistic.
If reason would lead someone to do what is wrong in a particular society, what does Hursthouse think actually constrains it?
Notes – November 30, 2010
Inventing Right and Wrong, J.L. Mackie, diesre and intents are a necessary part of making sense of Right and wrong action. Predicates of “Red rose” make sense, but not right and wrong. So, his argument show ethics is entirely subjective.
Aristotelian Virtues are supposed to be some objective fact about the world in the same way that bees and roses ought to be. Humans also have some way in which they objective ought to be.
We attribute certain properties to the rose (it is a good one, for example); we can also attributes analogous properties to humans.
“ethical disagreement” for Bernard Williams levy problems against objectivity?
She discusses/defends her third claim, that virtue of the individual and virtue qua humanity are intertwined.
Non-moral facts can be brute facts, but not moral facts, those can’t be brute facts.
She thinks we can’t expect more than a demonstration of the set of virtues and conventions of any particular society + empirical facts.
As a counter, imagine two societies with identical empirical facts, but they have different coherent pictures of the virtues and of what is convention.
Empirical facts can’t deny and contradict claims about the virtues, but do they verify the virtues?
Monogamy in marriage for the 3 Abrahamic religions is wrong, but is it wrong for atheists?
Is it possible to satisfy the same empirical claims for two societies, can you have two different societies exemplifying two different sets of virtues (even if they agree to empirical facts). If so, then the ethical theories of each culture is just convention and norms.
She could only demonstrate objectivity by saying: that given the empirical facts, only one ethical system can result and be built from it. Underdeterminism of science makes this problematic though. If you can’t show that a single empirical theory results (and not many) from a single set of empirical facts, how could do you have a single moral theory result?
Platonic world can’t be reduced to naturalism.
There isn’t an objective world, only an empirical world. The virtues correspond objectively to th e virtues. Is she now appealing to brute facts. She doesn’t want the external view, only the internal view.
She might think there is more than one objective reality. And, thus more than one objective moral reality.
Ethical disagreements between two societies, if they exist, what do you mean by it?
You may not know exactly how much to give to Haiti, even if there might objectively be a particular exacty amount you ought. This is epistemic indeterminacy.
It could be that 100$ is generous, and 5$ stingy, and an indeterminate continuum between those amounts.
If the concepts of right and wrong are to be abandoned in certain circumstances, it seems as if the concept of objectivity is diluted.
Notes – Study Session, December 1
Motivating reason, reliable sensitivity of virtuous agent – non-virtuous agents can’t match it. The form of life you wish to lead + reliable sensitivity, combined, will give motivation, according to McD.
2, 4, 6, 8, 10….11, 13, 15
Rule: add 2 to 10, then add 1, then add 2.
You can’t know you have the right rule. There is no objective rule.
What is that he means by rationality?
If you talk about reason in the sam way as the Kantians, then you are saying there is some rigid rule you must follow. He is challenging the codifiability thesis.
“This is where my spade turns” – meanin, in the ultimate analysis, there is nothing that transcends my particularities and form of life. You can find a rule. There are no rails to catch onto for guidance.
It seems as aren’t any objective rules, but you can’t do what you damn well please. Pg 149, last paragraph. He isn’t making a skeptical point.
Wittgenstein himself gives us arguments as to why we can go in different directions of life.
He hasn’t provided an argument about why the other person’s form of life or rules or ideas of morality won’t ‘come adrift’, unlike Wittgenstein. So, it seems he has left himself open to a possible attack on his argument that in following the ‘form of life’, that relativism or skepticism follows from it.
Aristotle thinks our moral lives are so complex that we ought not be seeking precision because it isn’t available in moral philosophy. Since there aren’t any rules, there isn’t a major premise.
The is the attack on the notion of general rules which Aristotle might give:
“All promises should be kept” – universal
Input particularities which are relevant
What you should do
This is impossible to Aristotle. This is why the Virtuous person, as a notion, is necessary. Note that the rule-based thinking requires justification for why things are right, in some way. Whereas for Aristotle, there is no need to justify it.
Aristotle thinks Eudaimonia, engaging in the activity that gods are, would be the right thing for humans to do. The gods would reflect, and they would reflect on what is most knowable. The height of eudaimonia would be contemplation of the eternal. Eudaimonia as comtemplation. It is that the ultimate or or a part of everything that is worth doing?
Hursthouse does not give a detailed account of eudaimonia.
Eudaimonia is a purposely vague word. Shit.
How does virtue ethics, justified by eudaimonia, not collapse into a form of consequentialism? If eudaimonia is primitive, how isn’t it consequential?
Virtuous agent justifies virtue for sake of virtue, not for eudaimonia or the four goals. But, what justifies the virtues are the four goals and or eudaimonia. Why do we need the virtuous person?
Why are these virtues? The only justification seems consequentialist, they satisfy these four goals.
Do the requirements of virtue ever violate the 4 ends?
December 2
Argument between Bernard Williams and Hursthouse. Williams is a moral skeptic or moral nihilist. Williams work springs from Charles Darwin, in some sense. He argues that Aristotle’s naturalistic project for ethics in particular is based on certain teleological considerations. Williams argues that this teleological view is no longer a modern scientific view (destroyed by Darwin). He thinks that the teleological view can be entirely discarded. If you describe teleology, from Darwin, there can’t be a function of humans (fulfilled function = flourishing). Teleology is reduced to the causal connections of evolution.
He makes a second point; look at the history of man. He uses the word ‘bricolage’. He argues that humanity has no end, that there is no morality.
Hursthouse wants to argue that when Darwin replaces Aristotle’s explanation of the species, he must be able to explain what consistutes a ‘good’ animal. And, from this, she believes that we can’t throw Aristotle away in total.
She also thinks that the History of man as understood by Williams is too narrow. Science is based on certain assumptions for which we have no proof, but we make those assumptions to do science. Likewise, moral philosophy is based on certain assumptions for which we have no proof, but we make those assumptions in order to do moral philosophy.
It is better to have the virtue of hope, that there is a possibility for humans to have Eudaimonia than not to, just as the sciences have a virtue of hope.
Aristotetlian argument
Scientific/Historical argument
Philosophical argument
His claim is that Darwinian theory lacks any sense of normativity. We aren’t progressing towards some perfection.
She thinks the Darwinian view must explain Aristotelian Teleleogy. But, if Darwinian is purely mechanicistic, lacking teleology, then how could the Aristotelian view be transformed by the mechanistic view while keeping the teleology?
The Darwin cannot translate the Teleological view in purely mechanistic language.
Good species in terms of what? What is the unit of selection? Is the unit the gene? An individual of the species? How about species? Interspecies?
Darwinians can give an account of ‘healthiness’, but only in Darwinian terms. Measurements of reproductive capacities, etc.
Giving an account of altruism isn’t easy to define. Symbiotic relationships as well. We have to be careful to realize that the Darwinian explanation is not teleological, but rather physicalist and mechanistic in nature exclusively.
Hursthouse thinks she can use Darwinian terms and explanations to make moral claims about the ‘goodness’ or ‘badness’ of human beings. The connection between the biological and the ethical need to be layed out carefully, though (I don’t’ see how she can do it).
Studying the history of bees is easy. They have obvious patterns, etc. Williams thinks that humans live very dynamic and unpredictable lives that you can’t say that they have the same sort of regularity that creatures in nature demonstrate. Either Hursthouse will have to restrict the viable options, or the biology lacks some explanatory power to define why there is so much variation in humanity.
The historical argument, to Williams, that humans are mess. It seems that from the historical record, we can’t justify how humans should be.
There is no global justification of a theory against global skepticism. Both for science and for morality.
December 9th, 7:30 PM
Aristotle never gives a direct account of intentionality.<<ref "1">> He does, however, provide rich accounts of some foundational topics to intentionality, e.g. the nature of reason and intellection, belief, //phantasia//, and perception.<<ref "2">> These notions aren’t so straightforward though; they must be understood in context. For example, Aristotle believed in the primacy of ontology (an awkward worldview for many moderns), which was subsequently mirrored by language and epistemology; he carefully constructs these conceptual relationships throughout his work, and they are powerful constraints in a consideration of his theory of intentionality. It is also crucial to understand where and how Aristotle is reacting to various philosophers, especially to Plato, as this illuminates the context of his words. Lastly, the clear differentiationism found in his descriptions of the souls and teleological ends of plants, animals, humans, and God may prove useful in an examination of Aristotle’s intentional outlook, especially to moderns who wish to investigate the intentional similarities and differences between non-human animal and human minds. Combining these various elements, it seems conceivable to ‘piece together’ and sketch out central features of a theory of intentionality which Aristotle might likely have given.
Of course, generating such an account, however carefully we might try, is fraught with the peril of not living up to the standard of the account of intentionality Aristotle might have actually given himself. As a component of this peril, there exists a danger of overstepping our bounds by eisegetically injecting modern notions of various philosophical thought into Aristotle’s worldview. If we are to offer a charitable account of intentionality which Aristotle himself plausibly might have provided, it must be done in keeping with his worldview. So, in an attempt to hedge myself against committing these offenses, I’m forced to speak both tentatively and conservatively about Aristotle’s account of intentionality.
Also, in appreciating the both Aristotle’s extensive body of work and the breadth of matters which must be considered in the construction of a systematic theory of intentionality, I realize that the scope of this paper must be narrowed. It is my hope that I can offer a piece of what might count as part of a larger perspective on Aristotle’s account of intentionality. I’m going to focus upon aspects of Aristotle’s theory of perception, particularly as it relates to a more comprehensive theory of intentionality, seeking to comply with, if not further support, his overarching philosophical commitments to essentialism and teleology.
The// De Anima// is the richest source of information concerning Aristotle’s theories of perception. Let’s first briefly cover the conceptual framework of perception, pointing out its place within Aristotle’s teleological agenda, and then we’ll be in a position to examine the mechanical stages of perception with more detail.
#The basic structure of perception is agent, medium, and patient.
#Perception can only transpire from movement or affection, pointing towards both perception’s similarity to intellection and also the potentiality of its proper objects (accidental sensible qualities).<<ref "3">>
#Only things with souls can possibly perceive, and perception seems to be some sort of qualitative alteration of the patient (that which is perceiving).<<ref "4">> This is qualified, however, as Aristotle’s distinction between 1st potentiality, 2nd potentiality/1st actuality, and 2nd actuality comes into play in the explanation of the alteration.
#Sense perception is a shift from 2nd potentiality/1st actuality to 2nd actuality, parallel to the geometer actively employing intellection, which Aristotle explains isn’t a normal sense of alteration (perhaps not even alteration at all, depending on the interpretation).<<ref "5">>
#Perceived objects affect the perceiver in such a way that the perceiver becomes like that which is perceived.<<ref "6">>
#Perception is a certain sort of causal process (the word ‘cause’ had a much broader meaner for Aristotle) whereby the perceptible object acts upon the patient.
As to the mechanics of perception, all senses have a sense-organ. Eyes are for sight, ears for hearing, etc. The sense-organs are the perceivers, not the animal or human which has the sense organ. To be clear, the organs are the material cause, and the capacity for perception is the form which inheres in the corresponding organ, and thus perception isn’t reducible to merely the matter of organs.
There are proper objects of perception – namely, color is something you see, and sound is something you hear, etc. In turn, perception of an object is actually perception of certain qualities inhering in the object which corresponds to the sense-organ, e.g. the quality of sweetness inhering in honey is what you taste, but you can’t taste other accidental qualities of the honey which don’t correspond to the sense-organ – you couldn’t taste its weight, for instance.
As a plenum theorist (denying an incommensurable gulf or void between perceiver and object), Aristotle held that each sense has a medium through which the object or agent being perceived can transmit its form to the sense-organ. For everyday sight, air is the medium, or while underwater, the transparent water is the medium. Worth noting, the exact causal structure of the mediums of perception and how these mediums relate to third parties is a controversial issue; it is, unfortunately, beyond the scope of this paper.
Exactly what occurs when the form reaches the sense-organ is where we begin to see Aristotle’s intentionality unfold. Here is an example of the process: the blackboard, as an agent, acts upon the patient by transmitting blackness and its various visual features through the air (the air being the medium) to the patient’s corresponding sense-organs, viz. eyes. The patient’s eyes are in turn //hylomorphically //altered, as the form of blackness is enformed in the patient’s eyes, altering his or her eyes to take on the sensible form of blackness which also inheres in the blackboard. The capacity to see, in this case, is the capacity for the patient to take on the form but not the matter of blackboard qua its visual accidental qualities.
The controversial aspect of this theory of perception is what it means for a sense-organ to become like (in form, but not matter) that which it perceives, particularly given Aristotle’s emphasis on the physiological nature of the sense-organs. The germane passages are unclear:
<<<
As we have said, what has the power of sensation is potentially like what the perceived object is actually; that is, while at the beginning of the process of its being acted upon the two interacting factors are dissimilar, at the end the one acted upon is assimilated to the other and is identical in quality with it.<<ref "7">>
<<<
<<<
Generally, about all perception, we can say that a sense is what has the power of receiving into itself the sensible forms of things without the matter, in the way in which a piece of wax takes on the impress of a signet-ring without the iron or gold; what produces the impression is a signet of bronze or gold, but not qua bronze or gold: in a similar way the sense is affected by what is coloured or flavoured or sounding not insofar as each is what it is, but insofar as it is of such and such a sort and according to its form.<<ref "8">>
<<<
The “Likeness” principle makes great use of Aristotle’s understanding of potentiality and actuality (central tenets of his teleological view of the world). In the case of perception, there is a relationship between your potential-based status prior to perceiving the blackboard vs. actually perceiving the blackboard, which Aristotle wishes to highlight. It seems as if both likeness and unlikeness are essential to both perception and intellection, and, again, this makes sense given Aristotle’s painstaking distinction between what is accidental and what is essential to the world. Perception is all about sensing that which is accidental in a particular. The relationship of “Likeness” is found between the accidental qualities of sense or sense-organ (depending on the interpretation) and the corresponding accidental sensible qualities of the perceived object. Exactly how we should further interpret this “Likeness” remains unclear. There are two major schools of thought.
Richard Sorabji, in his work: //Intentionality and Physiological Processes: Aristotle’s Theory of Sense-Perception//, defends (at great length and with very detailed exegesis) a literalist, physiological explanation of sense perception. Interpreters in this vein construe the process of perception to be a physical change in the eye itself, eventually pointing towards functionalism. This requires a somewhat literal interpretation. Essentially, the sense-organ factually becomes like that which it perceives, usually considered non-representational (though Brentano’s physical theory is considered representational), but in plain likeness and exemplification of the form of the perceptibles inherent to the object being perceived. The nose which smells cinnamon from a bun literally becomes like cinnamon; both the nose and bun share the accidental property of the cinnamon smell.
Of course, the physiological interpretation is problematic to us as moderns. Our scientific understanding of sensation gives us very good reasons to deny many aspects of Aristotle’s scientific views, but does this rule out all physiological interpretations of this passage? Perhaps it is still possible to defend it in light of our empirical knowledge, and perhaps the literal ‘taking on the red’ is still a process in physics, whereby light waves of redness affect the red-sensing cones in our eyes, or something along those lines. Oddly enough, the modern scientific understanding of retinotopic maps for visual perception is strikingly comparable to the physiological interpretation.
One standing problem remains: I don’t understand how the literalist account of perception isn’t going to actually be a normal sort of alteration or affection, the taking on and shedding of accidental properties, which seems to contradict Aristotle’s potentiality/actuality qualifications given to both perception and intellection.
The other major interpretation of this ‘Likeness’ issue is the cognitive argument. In this case, the sense is really an awareness of what is perceived. This interpretation relies upon a stronger distinction between the actual sense and the sense-organ, emphasizing the awareness of the sense rather than the physical nature of the organ. M.F. Burnyeat’s paper, //Is an Aristotelian Philosophy of Mind Still Credible?//, which is in part a response to Sorabji’s work, is famous for this cognitive argument.
Burnyeat’s interpretation is that there isn’t a major physiological change, only a cognitive one. Now, he isn’t talking about the mind’s ability to think about what we’ve perceived (an important epistemic point in Aristotle that both the physiological and cognitive theories can maintain); rather, he’s talking about //awareness //of the actual sense which inheres in the sense-organs as taking on the ‘Likeness’ of the form of the object perceived (without its matter). Interestingly, in some manner, the awareness of perception is found in the sense-organ itself (not what you might expect). The cognitive argument emphasizes awareness, which I can appreciate because Aristotle himself indicates that perception is pregnant with awareness. The cognitivist is making the claim that it is the awareness of the sense-organ which takes on the ‘Likeness’ of the perceptible object (which is more metaphorical and abstract than the physiological argument). The cognitive argument makes strong use of symbolic representation in a way that the physiological account does not.
It is unclear what it means, although intuitively satisfactory, for perception to have awareness, and it is even further complicated by the notion (which is not intuitively satisfactory) that this awareness resides, in some manner, in sense-organs. Further, problematic to the cognitive interpretation is that it fails to account for Aristotle’s fixation and emphasis upon the physiological aspects of sensation. Why exactly would Aristotle spend so much time explaining the physical process only to then not have used it in his argument about taking on the form of the perceptible object?
It seems plausible to me that we can interpret this ‘Likeness’ issue using both the physiological and the cognitive theories. They aren’t entirely mutually exclusive. I think a hybrid theory might solve some of the problems of each of the individual theories. It seems plausible as an interpretation because it follows the physiological process which Aristotle emphasized, and the cognitive awareness component can make sense of Aristotle’s alteration qualification, such that perception is some sort of ‘abnormal’ alteration parallel to intellection. I rather like how the hylomorphic aspects of perception can be handled and understood by such a hybrid. Essentially, perception’s material aspect is explained through the physiological, and in a manner there is ‘Likeness’, and perception’s formal aspect (further taking on the form but not the matter) is explained through cognitive awareness of an object’s corresponding sensibles. It seems plausible that we should interpret Aristotle as claiming that perception of an external object’s sensible properties is a conversion from a physiological process to a cognitive one.
Perception is also conceptually parallel to Aristotle’s notion of intellection. Sense perception and intellection are both object-oriented because one can’t understand the epistemic without making reference to the ontic world. The major difference is that the objects of intellection are in some manner internal to the mind (the form is an object in the mind, although the form must reference the ontic world), while the objects of perception are considered external (relying upon accidental particulars). Fundamental to Aristotle’s teleology (and the difference in purpose of these two capacities) is that perception is of particulars and intellection is of universals. Structurally, perception and intellection are the same; it is only the scope of their proper objects which are different. The relationship between perception and reason is more than that of teleological analogs, however, for they are actually directly linked in Aristotle’s philosophy of mind. Perception precedes and feeds intellection.
Plato’s refutation of certain accounts of knowledge and intellection in the Theaetetus heavily influenced Aristotle’s //De Anima//, particularly with respect to perception. Aristotle claims that the sense is never wrong about the special objects of perception, and he derives this from Plato.<<ref "9">> Plato denies ‘being’ in the predicative mode (‘X is Y’, which is separate from the existential mode ‘X exists’ or the veridical mode ‘X is true’) to the five senses. Because the senses cannot be wrong, they can never formulate a proposition. For example, as one can’t be wrong about perceiving color, Plato thinks one can’t state a proposition about the color. As soon as one can formulate a proposition, truth and falsity come into play. If one says ‘the moon is flat’, one is making a proposition, which is subject to truth values. Truth is not applicable to the senses, for Plato. Sense perception, for him, cannot be knowledge. Knowledge does not occur at the level of the senses, only at a higher level.
Aristotle is responding to Plato’s view. Aristotle agrees with Plato as to the inerrancy of perception with respect to their proper objects, such that one can’t be wrong about taking on the sensible form in perception. The patient can’t be wrong about the fact that agent acts upon him or her because the patient is ‘aware’ that he or she has been affected. Aristotle, however, claims that while one isn’t wrong about perceiving an actual object, one can be wrong about the judgments one makes from that perception. Aristotle thinks that knowledge is strongly connected to perception in a manner that Plato doesn’t (in this way, we see elements of ‘loose empiricism’ in Aristotle’s account). The major counterexample Aristotle introduces against Plato’s view are the ‘common sensibles’, which are accessible to more than one sense in any particular instance. Aristotle considers these to be a proverbial ‘monkey-wrench thrown into’ Plato’s theory of perception.
Aristotle believes he can handle the common sensibles where Plato can’t, and this is accomplished through the development of ‘common sense’ (making intelligible the common sensibles), which is the focal point of consciousness where the senses meet and are unified.<<ref "10">> Aristotle thought that Plato’s view of perception using the five senses perceiving a single common sensible led to the generation of five selves, which further led to unintelligibility of the world and self. Crucially, for Aristotle, it seems there is perhaps only a conceptual distinction between the senses and perhaps not an actual one.<<ref "11">> They are actually unified, and they also have a unifying concept. Common sense is over and above the five senses, and, namely, it is the awareness that you are sensing the same thing with your different senses. The unification of the common sense enables Aristotle to deny that you have two or more senses for the same object (also denying that there are two or more selves). He treats the senses as having the same structure, as if they all adhere to the same conceptual apparatus. Unfortunately, Aristotle is not so clear about the ‘common sense’-organ. In the //De Anima//, he suggests there isn’t one. The ‘common sense’ is closer than the five senses to capacity for intellection, and so, perhaps like the fact that the intellect has no organ (according to Aristotle), the common sense might not as well.
The five senses give us the data, the common sense unifies the data. Each of the five senses is incapable of falsehood. And, while at the level of the five senses, propositional judgments are not formulated; propositional judgments must be made by the common sense. For example, I judge that the object I am seeing is also the object I am touching.
As perception is related to intellection directly, the intellect can’t think of perceptibles insofar as they aren’t intelligible. And, insofar as perceptibles aren’t intelligible, namely their accidental qualities rather than the essential ones, the capacity for perception is doing the conceptual heavy-lifting. Particulars are intelligible and understandable insofar as they participate in the forms, and the forms are the domain of the intellect, not perception. Concept formation within the intellect, however, relies upon input from perception. Unlike the intellect, there is no hierarchy of lesser or higher perceptibles as there is for intelligible; rather, the senses have equal epistemological status amongst each other, as do the sensibles amongst themselves.<<ref "12">>
There is another topic of intentional interest which can be derived from Aristotle’s theory of perception – namely, Aristotle’s view on the intentional states of non-human animals vs. humans. Aristotle is clearly a differentiationist as set out by his very distinct teleological ends of animals and of humans; humans, unlike animals, have the power of intellection and essentially partake in the activity of Aristotle’s God. In Aristotle’s pyramid of souls, the vegetative and reproductive capacities are found in all forms of life (other than God’s, but he is a very special exception in the teleological framework); what distinguishes animals and the higher beings from mere plants are the capacities of motion, perception and memory (not all animals are said to possess memory, though; only some). While animals and humans are clearly differentiated by the possession (or lack) of reason, they both have perception in common, and perhaps both could be said to have intentionality (although most likely in differing degrees).
Unlike his teacher, Aristotle denies that animals have beliefs. Aristotle thinks that beliefs are connected with reason (in a manner unlike Plato), and so to those animals he denies reason, he also denies beliefs.<<ref "13">> Interestingly, as Aristotle diminishes the role of belief in animals, in order to make sense of the dynamic activity that animals do demonstrate (which the capacity for ‘belief’ handled for Plato, but cannot for Aristotle), he realizes he is forced to give a much more expansive account of perception (than any other philosopher had at the time) to make up for animals lacking the capacity for belief. The result is interesting because it recognizes some kinds of predication and judgment on behalf of the non-human animal kingdom. For example, a dog can perceive a scent. He perceives more than just the scent, though; he may also be able to perceive the direction from which that scent came. Since the dog lacks reason and belief, according to Aristotle, then the machinery of perception is doing the heavy inferential and predicative lifting. The direction is predicated of the scent, and this sort of predication is contained within the dog’s perception.
Aristotle’s emphasis on perception and his expansion of the definition of its capacity imparts several intentional features to its possessors. Animals benefit from this, and it seems that Aristotle’s teleology goes a long way towards establishing the similarities (and not just the differences) between humans and non-human animals.
Despite Aristotle’s careful construction of his account of perception and its relation to intellection, there are serious limitations to the realms of these related faculties from the perspective of more modern notions of intentionality. Unfortunately, neither of Aristotle’s theories of intellection and perception are meant to handle or make sense of some important modern intentional concerns, e.g. dreams, imagination, future hopes, hallucinations, spiritual experience and faith. It is likely that phantasia, a capacity connected to perception and experience, is the device which handles many intentional concerns which perception and intellection cannot explain.
There are many unsolved portions of this puzzle, but this should serve as a good sketch of his theory of perception and its relation to intentionality. Unfortunately, Aristotle’s theory of perception is far from sufficient for an adequate theory of intentionality, but I think it is a necessary component to his theory of intentionality.
-------------------------------------
<<footnotes "1" "Interestingly, the very word //intentionality //originates from the medieval scholastics and was later revived by Franz Brentano, both of which were profoundly influenced by Aristotle.">>
<<footnotes "2" "Caston, Victor. “Aristotle and the Problem of Intentionality,” //Philosophy and Phenomenological Research//, Vol. 58, No. 2 (International Phenomenological Society: Jun., 1998), pp. 249-298">>
<<footnotes "3" "Aristotle. //Complete Works of Aristotle: The Revised Oxford Translation//. Edited by J. Barnes. 2 vols. Bollingen Series. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1984), De Anima, Book 2.5, 416b32-417a2">>
<<footnotes "4" "De Anima, Book 2.4, 415b22-415b27">>
<<footnotes "5" "De Anima, Book 2.5, 417b2-417b6, 417b7-417b9">>
<<footnotes "6" "De Anima, Book 2.5, 417a10-417a21, 417b29-418a6">>
<<footnotes "7" "De Anima, Book 2.5, 417b29-418a6">>
<<footnotes "8" "De Anima, Book 2.12, 424a18-424a23">>
<<footnotes "9" "De Anima, Book 2.6, 418a7-418a16">>
<<footnotes "10" "De Anima, Book 3.2">>
<<footnotes "11" "Caston, Victor. “Aristotle's Two Intellects: A Modest Proposal,” //Phronesis//, Vol. 44, No. 3 (BRILL: Aug., 1999), 202">>
<<footnotes "12" "De Anima, Book 3.1">>
<<footnotes "13" "De Anima, Book 3.3 428a10-24">>
-------------------------------------
''Bibliography''
Aristotle. //Complete Works of Aristotle: The Revised Oxford Translation//. Edited by J. Barnes. 2
vols. Bollingen Series. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1984).
Burnyeat, M.F. “Is an Aristotelian Philosophy of Mind Still Credible?” //Essays on Aristotle’s De Anima//,
ed. Martha C. Nussbaum and Amelie Oksenberg Rorty (Oxford University Press: 1992), pp. 15-26.
Butler, Jim. “Ancient Philosophy.” Class lectures, Berea College, Fall 2003.
Caston, Victor. “Aristotle and the Problem of Intentionality,” //Philosophy and Phenomenological
Research//, Vol. 58, No. 2 (International Phenomenological Society: Jun., 1998), pp. 249-298.
Caston, Victor. “Aristotle's Two Intellects: A Modest Proposal,” //Phronesis//, Vol. 44, No. 3 (BRILL: Aug.,
1999), pp. 199-227.
Caston, Victor. “Aristotle on Consciousness,” //Mind//, New Series, Vol. 111, No. 444 (Oxford University
Press on behalf of Mind Association: Oct., 2002), pp. 751-815.
Cogburn, Jon. “Continental Analytic Philosophy: Intentionality.” Class lectures, Louisiana State
University, Fall 2010.
Cohen, Marc. “Aristotle on Perception.”
http://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/433/PerceptionLecture.pdf (accessed November 22, 2010).
Crystal, Ian. “Aristotle.” Class lectures, Louisiana State University, Fall 2010.
Ebert, Theodor. “Aristotle on What Is Done in Perceiving,” //Zeitschrift für philosophische Forschung//, Bd.
37, H. 2 (Vittorio Klostermann GmbH : Apr. - Jun., 1983), pp. 181-198.
Magee, Joseph M. “Sense Organs and the Activity of Sensation in Aristotle, ” //Phronesis//, Vol. 45, No. 4
(BRILL: Nov., 2000), pp. 306-330.
Slakey, Thomas J. “Aristotle on Sense Perception,” //The Philosophical Review//, Vol. 70, No. 4 (Duke
University Press on behalf of Philosophical Review: Oct., 1961), pp. 470-484.
Sorabji, Richard. “Intentionality and Physiological Processes: Aristotle’s Theory of Sense-Perception,”
//Essays on Aristotle’s De Anima//, ed. Martha C. Nussbaum and Amelie Oksenberg Rorty (Oxford University Press: 1992), pp. 195-226.
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. “Aristotle's Psychology.”
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/intentionality-ancient/#5 (accessed November 22, 2010).
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. “Intentionality in Ancient Philosophy.”
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/intentionality-ancient/#5 (accessed November 22, 2010).
''[1][a]''
McDowell argues against the codifiability of the virtuous agent’s views as universalized principles or rules which serve as the major premise in his hypothetical syllogism. He asserts an internalist view of ethics, whereby the justification and explanation for ‘what is right’ flows out from the virtuous agent into the external world. From this view, it seems that if anything or anyone could serve as an objective mechanism for universalizing principles it would have to be the mind of the virtuous agent. McDowell argues that the mind of the virtuous agent is not this mechanism and that the virtuous agent’s complete set of thoughts and views cannot be universalized. Consequently, given both his internalism and anti-codifiabilism, McDowell is pointing towards the impossibility of universal, independently objective moral truth. He defends this thesis:
<<<
As Aristotle consistently says, the best generalizations about how one should behave hold only for the most part….If one attempted to reduce one’s conception of what virtue requires to a set of rules, then, however subtle and thoughtful one was in drawing up the code, cases would inevitably turn up in which a mechanical application of the rules would strike one as wrong—and not necessarily because one had changed one’s mind; rather, one’s mind on the matter was not susceptible of capture in any universal formula.<<ref "1">>
<<<
The very nature of the virtuous agent’s mind and reason cannot be algorithmically captured and defined. Even if one were to attempt to algorithmically explicate the virtuous mind, or even if the virtuous agent were herself to provide accurate generalizations of morality, one would somehow find exceptions in these mechanistic rules. The rules would not, in all possible cases, match what the virtuous person would actually do. Likely, this isn’t a practical point either, whereby he is claiming we simply lack the ability to physically formulate universalized morality - this is a much stronger point about theoretical possibility. Namely, no matter how complex and detailed the algorithm or set of rules generated, one can never possibly capture all of moral reality or what is inside the mind of the virtuous agent. Virtue, as far as it can be conceptually abstracted from the Virtuous person, is not algorithmic. (That strikes me as saying that morality, in some sense, isn’t rational! I’m sure he thinks this article is meant for someone like me.)
Note the order of this argument (as from what I can see, it is different from the Wittgensteinian argument presented later) – it is because the mind of the virtuous person isn’t algorithmic or mechanistic (I’m not sure how you can be a naturalist if you believe this – nature, from this view, should be reducible to one gigantic physical algorithm), in conjunction with the rightness-making primacy of the virtuous character inhering in the virtuous agent, that we can know that there isn’t a universal, algorithmic formula which can flow out to the external world.
McDowell continues to argue against universal formulas and externalism, but via a different route. This one is not founded on the idea that the virtuous mind isn’t algorithmic directly (which may simply be a brute fact in his pseudo-naturalistic philosophy of mind and intentionality), but rather on the notion that the psychological state in the mind of the virtuous agent doesn’t correspond to anything universal and independent of the agent. There is no universal algorithm, and consequently, no need for the notion of a corresponding rule in our minds. He says:
<<<
Rationality requires consistency; a specific conception of rationality in a particular area imposes a specific view of what counts as going on doing the same thing here. The prejudice is the idea that acting in the light of a specific conception of rationality must be explicable in terms of being guided by a formulable universal principle. This prejudice comes under radical attack in Wittgenstein’s discussion, in the Philosophical Investigations, of the concept of following a rule.<<ref "2">>
<<<
McDowell wishes to attack the very notion of following a rule. In demonstrating skepticism of rule-following in general, he can establish why universal moral rule-following is fundamentally flawed. He uses an argument from Wittgenstein to smother the possibility of consistently following objective universal rules. McDowell explains:
<<<
Consider an exercise of rationality in which there is a formulable rule, of which each successive action can be regarded as an application, appropriate in the circumstances arrived at: say (Wittgenstein’s example) the extending of a series of numbers. We tend to picture the understanding of the instruction ‘Add 2’---command of the rule for extending the series 2, 4, 6, 8,…---as a psychological mechanism which, aside from lapses of attention and so forth, churns out the appropriate behavior with the sort of reliability which a physical mechanism, say a piece of clock, might have.<<ref "3">>
<<<
The mathematical, universal rule of ‘add 2’, which is paralleled to the notion of a universal moral rule, is captured and instantiated with in a mind, what he terms as a ‘psychological mechanism’. This is a particular person’s attempt to apprehend, interpret, mimic and ‘follow’ that independent universal rule. The psychological mechanism is our personal rule which is supposed to mirror the universal rule; the universal rule is an abstract blueprint of the engine, and the psychological mechanism is an instantiation of it.
The process starts with a specific circumstance, namely your location on the number line (the minor premise in the syllogism), input into this psychological mechanism (a cognitive imprint of the abstract universal major premise) which serves to digest the circumstantial input and consistently produce the appropriate answer (conclusion), in this case a mathematical computation to the next point on the number line (parallel to a moral theory taking an input of the circumstances and outputting the right moral decision/action). The psychological mechanism, if it correctly mimics the blueprint of the universal rule, will mechanically output the appropriate answer.
There is a normative relationship between the psychological mechanism and the universal rule. Correctness is judged by the accuracy of a particular psychological mechanism’s mimetic relationship to the blueprint of the universal rule. If the instantiation fails to mimic the blueprint with all possible inputs, then one is said to have the ‘wrong rule’ in mind. If you have the right rule in mind, whereby your instantiation mirrors the blueprint completely, then your psychological mechanism is correct, and it will always produce the appropriate answers.
Note how McDowell’s choice to use Wittgenstein’s example and criticize the foundation of following a simple mathematical algorithm, if successful, would undermine the following of moral algorithms as well. Surely if one can be skeptical about psychological mechanisms being justified in ‘following rules’ of mathematics, what is usually considered an exemplar subject matter for what is patently obvious and clearly universally true, the same can be said of the uncertainty of rule-following for any psychological mechanism, including some subject matter as difficult and (I suppose for some people) unobvious as universalized ethics. The attack goes:
<<<
Suppose the person says, when asked what he is doing, ‘Look, I’m adding 2 each time.’ This apparent manifestation of understanding (or any other) will have been accompanied, at any point, by at most a finite fragment of the potentially infinite range of behavior which we want to say the rule dictates.<<ref "4">>
<<<
There are an infinite number of possible instantiations, and this person has but one. His instantiation, namely his psychological mechanism, may or may not match the universal blueprint. How would we know if his psychological mechanism follows the universal rule? Furthermore, from this one of infinitely many possible instantiations of the universal rule, it is clear that any particular iteration, application, or computation cycle may produce any possible result. It seems that with an infinite number of instantiations of the universal rule, there will also be an infinite number of possible answers that might be given in a specific circumstance. This makes it tricky to compare instantiations, as perhaps given an arbitrarily large finite series of tests they will appear to employ the same algorithm, given an infinite series of tests, we will find they don’t. McDowell continues:
<<<
Thus the evidence for the presence of the pictured state is always compatible with the supposition that, on some future occasion for its exercise, the behavior elicited by the occasion will diverge from what we would count as correct.
<<<
From outer appearances and testing, someone might appear to have a psychological mechanism which matches and acts in accordance with the universal rule, in this case ‘add 2’. But, since we aren’t testing his psychological mechanism at every possible circumstance (every point on the number line), testing a finite set of points on the number line rather than the infinite set of points, we can’t really know if a person has objectively ‘followed the rule’ by having matched the blueprint. Perhaps, in the future, a person’s particular psychological mechanism may not result in acts in accordance with the universal rule ‘add 2’. How are we to know? McDowell continues:
<<<
Wittgenstein dramatizes this with the example of the man who continues the series, after 1,000, with 1,004, 1,008,…If a possibility of the 1,004, 1,008, …type were to be realized (and we could not bring the person to concede that he had simply made a mistake), that would show that the behavior hitherto was not guided by the psychological conformation which we were picturing as guiding it. The pictured state, then, always transcends the grounds on which it is allegedly postulated.<<ref "5">>
<<<
The man is //apparently //matching the blueprint of the universal rule, ‘add 2’, in each circumstance up to 1000; when he begins to diverge, we would be tempted to say he is //wrong//, that his psychological mechanism is incompatible with the blueprint of the universal rule ‘add 2’. He insists, however, that he is correctly following the rule ‘add 2’, that his psychological mechanism really matches the rule ‘add 2’, and he will claim that we are the ones who lack objectivity. If, then, we can have been wrong in our belief that this person, whose behavior has become aberrant, was previously following the rule, how can we be sure that another individual, whose behavior has not (so far) strayed is, in fact, following the rule as we have conceptualized it.
If we can doubt other peoples’ minds, then McDowell believes we can doubt our own. Why should we think that we are adhering to a universal rule? Furthermore, we have confidence in our expectations of peoples’ behavior, even without relying upon a psychological mechanism. The entire process of having a psychological mechanism which is supposed to mirror universal rules and dictate correct behavior is an illusion, or is, at least, untrustworthy. He continues:
<<<
[O]n reaching 1,000, the person goes on as we expect, with 1,002, 1,004,…, but with a sense of dissociation from what he is doing. What he does no longer strikes him as going on in the same way; it feels as if a sheer habit has usurped his reason in controlling his behaviour. We confidently expect that this sort of thing will not happen; once again, postulation of a psychological mechanism does nothing to underwrite this confidence.<<ref "6">>
<<<
We don’t need the psychological mechanism to be confident of the consistency of anyone’s behavior. Even a person who appears to be ‘following a rule’ may not – perhaps it just habit (exactly how this isn’t a type of psychological mechanism is very unclear to me).
McDowell’s point is that the actuality of the circumstance transcends our rule-making capability. That is, there is an infinite range of circumstances (each point on the number line) which we want to cover with a universal rule. McDowell believes there will always be, however, possible circumstances along that range that do not fit within the boundaries that can be covered by a universal rule. The idea is that the same holds true for our conceptions of universal ethical standards – the reality of the situations we face will always be beyond our ability to formulate rules.
According to McDowell, we can’t have confidence in the psychological mechanism to adhere to the universal rule. There is no universal rule to which to adhere. The hypothetical existence of the psychological mechanism does not save us from ‘vertigo’ (discussed further below). Our confidence in others’ actions are based on something else entirely, namely the forms of life. McDowell’s coup de grâce:
<<<
[There is] a congruence of subjectivities, with the congruence not grounded as it would need to be to amount to an objectivity. So we feel we have lost the objectivity of (in our case) mathematics (and similarly in other cases). We recoil from this vertigo into the idea that we are kept on the rails by our grasp of rule. This idea has a pair of twin components: first, the idea (as above) that grasp of the rules is a psychological mechanism which (apart from mechanical failure, which is how we picture mistakes and so forth) guarantees that we stay in the straight and narrow; and, second, the idea that the rails—what we engage our mental wheels with when we come to grasp the rules—are objectively there, in a way which transcends the ‘mere’ sharing of forms of life…This composite idea is not the perception of some truth, but a consoling myth, elicited from us by our inability to endure the vertigo.<<ref "7">>
<<<
All that rule-following, McDowell says, is just an illusion. There are no universal principles, and we can’t follow them. The psychological mechanism is unnecessary. He claims that his challengers may not like that fact, and they might undergo ‘vertigo’, feeling unable to make sense of objectivity, truth, and rationality.
Somehow his challengers are wrong about the nature of reason, about what counts as ‘consistency’, and about the primacy of the external, objective world. His vertiginous challengers are artificially imposing this algorithmic conceptual framework on rationality.
If there is no psychological mechanism necessary to apprehend correct behavior in a given situation, how does one acquire an ability to do what appears like ‘adding 2’? If a student is taught, through the use of specific examples, how to ‘add 2’, how does that student then go on to other situations in which it is necessary to ‘add 2’ and do so correctly? One might assume that the student infers from the given examples a universal rule of ‘add 2’ that is later applied to appropriate situations. McDowell argues, however, that this deductive paradigm is unnecessary; rather, the student, through the given situations, develops a sensitivity to similar situations, and understands that the appropriate thing to do is to add two. The student does not need some psychological mechanism to apprehend some illusory universal rule; instead, the student develops the sensitivity necessary to act in given situations through involvement with the shared forms of life.<<ref "8">> How this sensitivity isn’t still a form of pattern recognition and abstract rule-formation, perhaps even a well-hidden psychological mechanism in his theory, is very unclear to me (I stand rightly accused of this vertigo; I bask in it). I’m unsure how a congruence of subjectivities will result in a form of objectivity, as well. Regardless, McDowell believes has a better conceptual framework for the nature of reason, maintaining its consistency without resorting to objective universal rules. He plows forward:
There is nothing but shared forms of life to keep us, as it were, on the rails.<<ref "9">>
The truth is that is it only because of our own involvement in our ‘whirl of organism’ that we can understand the words we produce as conferring that special compellingness on the judgment explained.<<ref "10">>
Contemplating the dependence should not include vertigo at all. We cannot be whole-heartedly engaged in the relevant parts of the ‘whirl of organism’, and at the same time achieve the detachment necessary in order to query whether our unreflective view of what we are doing is illusory. The cure for the vertigo, then, is to give up the idea that philosophical thought, about the sorts of practice in question, should be undertaken at some external standpoint, outside our immersion in our familiar forms of life.<<ref "11">>
Instead of relying upon some illusory objectivity and rule-following, McDowell presents us with the real conceptual framework, the ‘whirl of organism’ and the ‘forms of life’. Only in these subjective contexts does he believe we can muster a sense of true objectivity and consistent reasoning, particularly for morality.
Circling back, by attacking the notion of rule-following, McDowell believes he’s demonstrated why ethics is uncodifiable, and how his internalism and the reliable sensitivity of the virtuous agent, as a subjective approach within forms of life, make sense. In the ultimate analysis, McDowell thinks there is nothing that transcends one’s particularities and form of life. Morality is not independently objective; it is subjective to the forms of life. Rule-based thinking requires justification for why things are right, in some way, while McDowell believes the Virtuous agent, as he lays the notion out, is a much better justification for why things are right.
'' [b]''
Part of McDowell’s argument is spent attempting to secure his theory against the accusation of non-cognitivism, that ethical statements aren’t the sorts of propositions which are either true or false, and that consequently, virtue ethics isn’t moral knowledge and the decision procedure of virtuous agent aren’t really rational and objective. The cognitive process he claims the virtuous agent employs is //reliable sensitivity//:
<<<
[V]irtue, in general, is: an ability to recognize requirements which situations impose on one’s behavior. It is a single complex sensitivity of this sort which we are aiming to instill when we aim to inculcate a moral outlook.<<ref "12">>
<<<
<<<
It is by virtue of [the virtuous agent’s] seeing this particular fact rather than that one as the salient fact about the situation that he is moved to act by this concern rather than that one.<<ref "13">>
<<<
The virtuous agent’s reliable sensitivity serves a sort of perceptual cognitive device which can consistently pick out what is relevant in a situation. For example, the virtuous agent encounters a circumstance which contains some number of relevant and irrelevant moral factors. What counts as being relevant seems to vary between circumstances, and so it takes a special sensitivity to know what matters. The virtuous agent’s reliable sensitivity allows him to focus his concern upon only the salient factors of the circumstance, and it is from the recognition of the salient factors that the virtuous agent can understand how he should act. Again, this reliable sensitivity is somehow the sort of reasoning which can’t be captured within an algorithm (it’s super special somehow). The cognitive moral outlook of the virtuous agent is his reliable sensitivity. McDowell offers the object of this reliable sensitivity:
<<<
If we resist non-cognitivism, we can equate the conceptual equipment which forms the framework of anything recognizable as a moral outlook with a capacity to be impressed by certain aspects of reality. But ethical reality is immensely difficult to see clearly.<<ref "14">>
<<<
Ethical reality is the set of salient features which a virtuous agent picks out in a circumstance. Assuming virtuous agents are rare, it really should be difficult to see ethical reality clearly because only the virtuous agent can see it clearly. When we join this argument with McDowell’s implementation of Wittgenstein, we see that the ‘form of life’, insofar as it is a normative description of circumstances, is part of the analysis of ethical reality. McDowell employs Stanley Cavell’s interpretation of Wittgenstein’s ‘forms of life’:
<<<
We learn and teach words in certain contexts, and then we are expected, and expect others, to be able to project them into further contexts. Nothing insures that this projection will take place (in particular, not the grasping of universals nor the grasping of books of rules), just as nothing insures that we will make, and understand, the same projections. That on the whole we do is a matter of our sharing routes of interest and feeling, modes of response, senses of humour and of significance and of fulfillment, of what is outrageous, of what is similar to what else, what a rebuke, what forgiveness, of when an utterance is an assertion, when an appeal, when an explanation—all the whirl of organism Wittgenstein calls ‘forms of life.’ Human speech and activity, sanity and community, rest upon nothing more, but nothing less, than this.<<ref "15">>
<<<
The ‘forms of life’ are the social spheres in which agents live. The norms, social cues, and mores of the society which surrounds an agent compose a form of life. A Catholic in Massachusetts has a certain form of life, and a Buddhist in a province of China has another form of life. Each form of life has its own expectations and controls which dictate for the virtuous agent what counts as salient ethical features of any given circumstance. The virtuous agent is the person who can recognize and be ‘impressed by’ the relevant factors of a situation from within his or her own form of life. A particular agent’s ethical reality is relative and subjective to whatever form of life in which he or she lives.
From what I can see, McDowell’s denial of rule-following does not sit well with his notion of ‘ethical reality’. First, I have no idea how McDowell can claim that reliable sensitivity isn’t a psychological mechanism (even if he wants to say there is only an illusory relationship to a made-up, non-existing universal rule). Reliability, by its very nature, points to ‘rules’. It is about a pattern. It is about following a certain expected order. Let him attempt to deny the existence of objective universal rules, but I don’t see how he can honestly say that the virtuous agent employs a cognitive process which isn’t a psychological mechanism. Of course, inherent to being a psychological mechanism is trying to follow rules; it is algorithmic in nature. I can’t make sense of something that is rational, and therefore consistent, but not algorithmic. I don’t see how the rational mind escapes being at least under the illusion that it follow rules – I think he must posit the existence of the psychological mechanism if he wishes to posit rationality. Of course, this doesn’t necessarily force his hand into postulating an actual universal rule; it can remain a mere ‘illusion’ for now. He claims his theory is cognitivist, but he did not maintain and support; I’m convinced his peddling disguised non-cognitivism.
My second problem is that I think he is assuming a type of universal rule, even when he thinks he isn’t. Ethical reality, as it is based on a form of life, still seems external. Sure, whatever the virtuous agent says is salient is what is salient, but what is salient to the virtuous agent is conditioned by a form of life. I believe we can solve this ‘chicken or egg’ problem; the form of life, insofar as it is an environment for social conditioning, is primitive to the virtuous agent in this process of reliable sensitivity. The form of life defines what does and doesn’t count as salient in a circumstance because it defines the virtuous agent, and whatever agents happen to be sensitive to the norms of a form of life are said to be virtuous. The society, the form of life, defines what is right. Here’s the kicker: each form of life is really its own sphere of rules, it has its own justice, and its own code of conduct.
By connecting the forms of life to ethical reality, McDowell has simply narrowed ethical objectivity from the universal scope to the subjective form of life. While he denies universal rules, the form of life serves as the new grounds of objectivity and the new ‘universal’ for McDowell’s theory. It seems that since the form of life is composed of rules and norms and mores, which in turn goes on to help define salience in this process of reliable sensitivity, then the virtuous agent is applying rules derived from his particular form of life to any given circumstance. McDowell denies the ability to follow rules, but I believe he ends up with the virtuous agent following rules within a form of life.
If virtuous agents are following rules, whereby there is psychological mechanism (reliable sensitivity) and some ‘universal rules’ (contained, conditioned, shaped, and defined by the forms of life to which virtuous agents belong), then I think McDowell’s notion of ethical reality does not sit well at all with his opposition to rule-following.
''[c]''
McDowell’s Wittgensteinian view, specifically the use of the ‘forms of life’, seems deeply misguided to me; the form of life is just another way to explain moral relativism. I actually like the descriptive capacity of the notion of a ‘form of life’ because it requires us to recognize cultural differences, social conditioning, memetics, sociocybernetics, and many other complex and interesting things that go into making individuals and groups who they are. Just because ‘forms of life’ may have this descriptive capacity does not mean, however, it should serve in a normative capacity.
He thinks they serve in some normative capacity. A universal, objective moral reality is denied by McDowell. Reality, instead, is a set of forms of life, each form of life acting as a moral reality to its constituents. Reality is a bag of marbles, and each marble is a form of life. The bag says nothing universally normative, only the marble is normative within its own sphere. No form of life overlaps another, and each set of ethical values are independently justified.
It seems McDowell doesn’t believe we can normatively compare the values of one form of life to another. Each form of life is its own socially constructed moral system. Each form of life has its own way of doing things, and rightness-defining/salient factors of circumstances will vary based upon in which form of life an agent happens to find themselves. Perhaps a virtuous Buddhist from China will find some features of a circumstance salient where a virtuous Catholic from Massachusetts will not. Both are virtuous in their own forms of life, and neither can be said to be vicious, as we can only judge them according to their own form of life. How is this not pointing to moral relativism?
McDowell isn’t very clear about what separates one form of life from another. There may be an infinite number of possible forms of life. Couldn’t any action or belief be justified by some of the infinitely many forms of life? If so, this seems like moral relativism.
I have other questions too. What constitutes being in one form of life rather than another? What is the minimal scope of a form of life? How can you justify that scope – would you do it from within your own form of life? Even the mechanism of being in a form of life isn’t well described. For example, it doesn’t make sense to be in more than one form of life – salient features of different forms of life can be contradictory. Can you switch forms of life? I don’t know, perhaps some forms of life are ‘switchable’ and others aren’t.
While no form of life has a universal scope, we aren’t sure exactly how particular a scope we can use in pointing out a form of life. Consider an example of the problems this creates. Being an American might be a broad form of life. What does it mean to be a Texan? That would be a narrower form of life, right? It would be overly simple, however, to assume that since Texas is a part of the United States that the Texan form of life is a subset of the American form of life. Note, perhaps being a virtuous Texan might be contradictory to being a virtuous American. For example, it might be a virtue of the American form of life to oppose the secession of any state from the United States. Being a virtuous Texan, on the other hand, may require that you are in favor of Texas’ secession from the United States (take current legislation of some hardcore Texans).
It seems that we can narrow the scope from Texas to Houston, and from Houston to a certain section of town, and the section to a certain block, and so on, until the scope of the ‘form of life’ reaches the individual person. Why can’t each individual have their own form of life? It seems perfectly reasonable to justify their beliefs as moral if they are really their own form of life. I see no good reason to think that there aren’t an infinite number of diverse forms of life, covering pretty much every configuration of norms and beliefs possible, which leads to the justification of pretty much anything. I also see no reason why the scope of a form of life can’t be reduced to an individual, or why there can’t be just one individual in a possible form of life. As far as I can see, this would also justify moral relativism.
If moral relativism is to be denied, then I think McDowell’s use of ‘forms of life’, which is innately relativistic, fails. But, why should I think that moral relativism is to be denied?
Internalists require a way to draw pseudo-objectivity out of essentially subjective systems, and the ‘forms of life’ do just that (it comes at a great cost). Who doesn’t ‘like’ subjective moral systems? They are easy to swallow. They pose no problem for the rest of our beliefs; in fact, they justify what we believe and how we behave, no matter what that ends up being. The moral relativism which flows from the ‘form of life’ argument is ridiculous (I can’t overstate this – the concept makes me physically ill). Moral relativism is not an adequate theory of ethics (it isn’t even ethics to me; it swims with its other useless brethren, moral skepticism and nihilism).
Everything is relative to its ‘form of life’. What counts as virtue, eudaimonia, the virtuous agent, etc. are all pseudo-objective within the subjective forms of life. These notions, which otherwise could have remained pure and unblemished, have been infected by moral relativism. They are meaningless.
''[2][a]''
In Chapter 8, Hursthouse defends her thesis ‘the virtues benefit their possessor’. She spends much of the chapter fleshing out what this thesis really means. It isn’t straightforward; a great deal of context and argumentation is used to qualify it. In order to demonstrate what I consider to be two fundamental pillars which support this thesis, I’ll need to explicate her overall argument so we can see how and why she arrives at her conclusion.
Hursthouse lays out her major concern in the preamble, a concern which requires several chapters:
<<<
Can we hope to achieve a justified conviction that certain views about which character traits are the virtues (and which not) are objectively correct?<<ref "16">>
<<<
This is the objective which the claim ‘the virtues benefit their possessor’ will partly answer. Importantly, in her view, this thesis is a component of a larger argument which justifies the virtues but does not necessarily provide motivating reasons for practicing them. I find that an odd division, but so be it; this is part of the conceptual framework she provides, so let’s run with it.
Her argument at large rests upon a fundamental assumption. She explains that, “a virtue is a character trait a human being needs for eudaimonia, to flourish to live well.”<<ref "17">> The word ‘benefit’ in her thesis is directly linked to the notion of flourishing and eudaimonia. She wishes to demonstrate how the virtues lead to eudaimonia. Eudaimonia is the primary goal and ‘end’, in some sense, and the virtues are a means to that end. [Pillar Argument #1] Eudaimonia is foundational to justifying the virtues. This is a long-standing assumption in her book, but it is perhaps most prevalent in this particular chapter. Without this pillar, we could make no sense of what she means by ‘the virtues benefit their possessor’.
Hursthouse attempts to answer a really important question about the relationship between virtue and eudaimonia. Are the virtues sufficient or even necessary for eudaimonia?<<ref "18">> She employs the analogy of the doctor in determining the sufficiency and/or necessity of virtues for achieving eudaimonia. She also says:
<<<
The claim is not that possession of the virtues guarantees that one will flourish. The claim is that they are the only reliable bet—even though, it is agreed, I might be unlucky and, precisely because of my virtue, wind up dying early or with my life marred or ruined.<<ref "19">>
<<<
<<<
To claim that the virtues, for the most part, benefit their possessor, enabling her to flourish, is not to claim that virtue is necessary for happiness. It is to claim that no ‘regimen’ will serve one better—no other candidate ‘regimen’ is remotely plausible.<<ref "20">>
<<<
It seems clear that virtue is not sufficient for eudaimonia. Moral luck can easily override virtue’s contribution to attaining eudaimonia. Circumstances out of our control can impact the possibility of eudaimonia. Having a virtuous character isn’t enough to attain eudaimonia. But, is it necessary? She seems to waffle on it above, but I don’t think she really means it; in fact, I think the correct interpretation, given the rest of her argument at large would be ‘yes’.
Life is a gamble, and virtue, as a regimen, provides the highest chance for eudaimonia. In fact, she calls it the “only reliable bet.” This is a very strong statement. In decision (game) theory, given choices with only probabilistic outcomes, the appropriate strategy for achieving the goal will be the choice with the highest chance of achieving the goal. Virtue is the best strategy for achieving eudaimonia. She goes even further though in claiming its status as the ‘only reliable bet’, implying that the other choices don’t even appear to have close to the same chance in the overall reliability calculation. This is argument is about maximizing odds, and so, at this point it isn’t yet directly explaining that virtue is ‘necessary’ for eudaimonia.
If, in her theory, virtue does attain the status of being ‘necessary’ for eudaimonia (and I think it will), and if eudaimonia is the ‘end’ we seek, then virtue becomes justified as a necessary means. For now, virtue is only probabilistically justified by eudaimonia as a strategy. Her case for virtue’s necessity, in my view, becomes much stronger though. Before she provides us this notion, she tackles a few obstacles. Hursthouse continues:
<<<
Those who draw attention to the fact that my virtue may lead to my downfall and/or the fact that the wicked sometimes flourish like the green bay tree are, perhaps unconsciously, thinking of these as the obvious responses that would be made by the wicked or ‘the moral sceptic’ if we were to recommend the life of virtue to them on the grounds of the benefit that it will bring. They foresee that, if we tried to convince them that the life of virtue was worth the risk, whereas the life of vice (which clearly carries its own risks) was not, we shall fail. They will just laugh at us and go their merry wicked way, finding our answer completely implausible.<<ref "22">>
<<<
Hursthouse realizes that her previous point about virtue as the ‘best bet’ to achieve eudaimonia may be criticized as being unjustified and lacking objectivity. How can she convince the vicious and the wicked from an empirical, neutral point of view (she’s going to deny this is possible later on) that the virtues are the ‘best bet’ for achieving eudaimonia? How does Hursthouse handle cases that seem contrary to her view of this ‘bet’? It does seem as if there are several counterexample situations which demonstrate that virtue isn’t the best bet for flourishing (e.g. sensible knave). She explains:
<<<
Suppose…we fall under a vicious regime in which…[it] cease[s] to be true that those who have and exercise the virtues characteristically achieve //eudaimonia//, and thereby, virtue can indeed cease to be a reliable way to achieve it…But, even in such times, it is still not the case that there is some //other //reliable way.<<ref "23">>
<<<
I think this isn’t a very satisfactory answer. Why should I believe that there aren’t times in the world in which the most reliable way (or in fact a highly reliable way, not just the ‘most’) to achieve eudaimonia will be vices? It would seem she needs some empirical evidence which she hasn’t provided in order to say this.
As well, we must really wonder: what is reliability? What is reliable in the short term may not be what is reliable in the long term. Perhaps over the course of just my individual life, there really is a tactic more reliable than virtue for achieving eudaimonia (for reasons we’ll see later, she will deny this). It seems as if it would have been better to have explained that the overall course of human history, despite some dark times, demonstrates the long term reliability of virtue – and in that fact, perhaps the reliability of virtue should be measured over all lifetimes. Note, this is an empirical issue for her critics. Any attempt at an empirical, objective justification, we shall see, has been in vain:
<<<
Our answer to the question ‘Why should I be virtuous/moral?’ may be ‘I want to be—that’s the sort of life I want to live, the sort that I think is a good and successful and rewarding one.’<<ref "24">>
<<<
Virtue, as Hursthouse specifies it, is justified from the perspective of the virtuous agent. [Argument #2] An internalist view of ethics is foundational to Hursthouse’s justification of virtue ‘benefiting’ the possessor. If this is the case, the empirical claims about the flourishing are in a great deal of trouble because the very definition and metric of ‘flourishing’ is subjective, only the virtuous agent knows these things. Much of the rest of the argument is framed such that there isn’t a ‘neutral view’ between the virtuous and the vicious, and this demonstrates her internalism. She gives us an example:
<<<
[Hare] describes all…[claims] as ‘empirical’ claims about the way human life works (‘the way the world goes’) and regards them as providing reasons ‘of a non-moral sort’ for not choosing to be an amoralist ‘from the point of view of an egoist’, and I do not agree with him that they have this status. When Hare makes these claims he does not, it seems to me, speak from a neutral point of view he might share with an egoist, but from the point of view of the humane, high-principled man that he is.<<ref "25">>
<<<
<<<
There is no possibility of ‘justifying morality from the outside’ by appealing to anything ‘non-moral’, or by finding a neutral point of view that the fairly virtuous and the wicked can share.<<ref "26">>
<<<
Hare has incorrectly thought that he has an objective ‘neutral’ position from which he justifies the virtues. He really can only begin to justify them from his own perspective. He has a specific ethical outlook which will act as a bias in any of his explanations. Of course he would see the world that way, he’s got a specific moral outlook, and he can’t escape it. He can never be truly unbiased and objective.
The fundamental answer to the objections of the wicked and vicious is this: there is no neutral position. Hursthouse claims we don’t need to justify virtue to the vicious because to some extent they simply can’t understand it. Virtue must be justified by Hare’s reasons, but can only be done so from a virtuous perspective. From here, Hursthouse provides the framework for understanding how ‘the virtues benefit their possessor’.
#It is only from within the outlook of the (at least moderately) virtuous that the truth of ‘the virtues benefit their possessor’ can be discerned.
#From the perspective of this outlook it is necessarily or infallibly true that the virtues benefit their possessor, because
#The virtuous have a conception of eudaimonia, of benefit, advantage, harm and loss, of ‘profit’ and ‘what pays’ such that nothing gained by action contrary to virtue pays or is a genuine advantage or benefit, and no sacrifice necessitated by virtue counts as a loss. In virtuous action one ‘accomplishes all’, achieves ‘moral benefit’, and since the virtues, uniquely, enable one to act virtuously, and never fail to do so, they are, indeed, guaranteed to benefit their possessor, enabling her to achieve eudaimonia, namely, a life lived in accordance with the virtues.<<ref "27">>
In (3) she claims a ‘guarantee’ which is quite strong. I think this is in conflict with her ideas of moral luck and tragic dilemmas. This passage strengthens her probabilistic claim to one of necessity. The virtues are necessary to enabling an agent to achieve eudaimonia. However the virtuous agent might conceive of eudaimonia, the virtues are certainly a necessary condition to the achievement of eudaimonia.
We can also see the dominant strand of internalism in her argument. Defining and justifying both virtue and eudaimonia are accomplished by those who are virtuous alone. Only the virtuous can understand and achieve these things for themselves. The wicked are left out in the cognitive cold; there is no complete explanation for them. There is no objective, external standard by which to judge, define, and justify Hursthouse’s conception of virtue and eudaimonia.
Hursthouse doesn’t deny the possibility that ideas of the virtuous can overlap, to some extent and not completely, with the ideas of the vicious. The overlap, however, seems quite coincidental. The focus of justification of the virtues, in part, will be something which the vicious will find implausible. Her internalism remains very robust.
Hursthouse disagrees with the idea that “morality is a form of ‘enlightened self-interest’ specified from the neutral point of view,” and instead believes “morality is a form of ‘enlightened self-interest’ specified in a ‘value-laden’ way, from within an ethical outlook.”
Clearly, the internalism of her theory plays a huge role in defining eudaimonia. The virtuous agent is the only source of describing eudaimonia, as in some sense, eudaimonia acts as the end goal of the agent. The virtuous agent, perhaps not consciously, but according to this internalism, sets the metric to gauge not only which characteristics are most likely to bring about eudaimonia, but even which characteristics are always necessary to the achievement of eudemonia - namely the virtues. Thus, from an internalist point of view, employing a certain virtuous perspective, it is eudaimonia, as an end, which justify the virtues.
''[b]''
''[Criticism of Pillar Argument #2]''
Hursthouse holds what might be a slightly softer version of internalism than McDowell does, but she is an internalist. As an internalist, she thinks there is no neutral, independent (of character) way to understand virtue. The virtuous person is supposed to be the place/person we look to in order to answer ‘what should we do?’ (which I take to be the primary question of ethics, even if they might argue this is a secondary question). The internalist view relies upon the primacy of the virtues and the virtuous character, and, in this, virtue ethics does not collapse into any other approach to ethics (which should be important to a virtue ethicist).
If internalism fails, then her notion of how the ‘virtues benefit their possessor’ also fails. I think her internalism does fail (probably because I’m an externalist), so I’m not convinced by her thesis.
The domain of the external is the domain of the rational. If there isn’t an independent, objective standard of morality, if we can’t hold the externalist view, then morality isn’t rational. Irrational ethics is no ethics at all. Subjective, internalist ethics is no ethics at all.
Clearly, if we take down this pillar argument, the conception of how ‘the virtues benefit their possessor’ crumbles. Her argument would need to become externalist, and demonstrate an objective set of reasons for her thesis. She doesn’t seem to believe this is possible.
''[Criticism of Pillar Argument #1]''
Eudaimonia is foundational to justifying the virtues in her argument. If there is no eudaimonia, then the virtues can’t be justified in Hursthouse’s theory. My problem with using eudaimonia to justify the virtues is that she hasn’t really justified her conception of eudaimonia.
My first problem is eudaimonia’s primacy to the virtues, whereby virtue is necessary for eudaimonia, but eudaimonia isn’t necessary for being virtuous, demonstrates that Hursthouse’s virtue theory collapses into eudaimonic ethics. And, what is eudaimonia? It is a teleological end of mankind. It is the definition of flourishing as a human. I’m convinced that teleology is a consequentialist variant. Virtue theory seems to be a form of consequentialism. So, ‘the virtues benefit their possessor’ conflicts with Hursthouse’s overall assumption that virtue ethics is ‘the way to go’, that it offers something truly unique that other theories can’t.
The second problem is even worse, in my view, and it extends to most consequential theories, including Hursthouse’s virtue theory. Hursthouse has yet to convince me that ethics is about flourishing and about eudaimonia. Why should the virtues, that is, ethics, be defined and justified by what is ‘beneficial’ to me? What does my happiness have to do with what I ought to do? Ethics isn’t about happiness or eudaimonia. It is strictly about what is right for the sake of rightness. Whatever results, whatever the consequences, they are incidental to rightness.
Lastly, I can’t help but think her virtue theory isn’t completely circular. It seems that the internalist view infects the definitions she uses. Eudaimonia is a circular concept. Both eudaimonia and the virtues, in the end, are justified by the virtuous person, and the virtuous person is defined in terms of what he justifies.
Clearly, if we take down this pillar of eudaimonia, the conception of how ‘the virtues benefit their possessor’ crumbles. Nobody cares if ethics benefit their possessor if eudaimonia isn’t the end.
''[3]''
In the last chapter of //On Virtue Ethics//, Rosalind Hursthouse presents an argument against the moral skepticism of Bernard Williams. In my arbitration of these arguments, let me first say that my representation of Williams’ view is based upon Hursthouse’s depiction of him. To make up for any bias and lack of argumentation from the side of Williams, as presented in Hursthouse’s book, I’m going to represent the naturalistic moral skepticism where Hursthouse may not have.
These two naturalists clash, one saying that morality does not exist in naturalism (Williams) and the other claiming morality does exist in naturalism (Hursthouse). Within this larger debate are several related arguments, particularly the relationship between Darwinism and Aristotelian Teleology, and also the nature of man and its relation to eudaimonia and ethics.
Ethics, to Williams, is a product of evolution. It is a social virus. It is selected for. Humans who have certain mental states are more likely to pass on their genes and produce more viable offspring than those who don’t. Sometimes ‘virtue-like’ mental states are what win out in the memetic wars, and for Williams, it seem that most of the time, they don’t. Ethics is merely a phase in the evolving human nature; it is merely an illusion. His attack on Hursthouse’s theory is even more specific:
<<<
Aristotle’s conception of nature, and thereby human nature, was normative, and that, in a scientific age, this is not a conception that we can take on board…Aristotle’s conception of nature is teleological, whereas our modern scientific one is not.<<ref "30">>
<<<
<<<
The idea of a naturalistic ethics was born of a deeply teleological outlook, and its best expression, in many ways, is still to be found in Aristotle’s philosophy, a philosophy according to which there is inherent in each natural kind of thing an appropriate way for things of that kind to behave.<<ref "31">>
<<<
<<<
The first and hardest lesson of Darwinism, that there is no such teleology at all, and that there is no orchestral score provided from anywhere according to which human beings have a special part to play, still has to find its way into ethical thought.<<ref "32">>
<<<
Williams contrasts Aristotle’s teleology with the Darwinism of modern science. Aristotle’s sciences are teleological, and modern science isn’t. What is so different about Aristotle’s view of the species and the view derived from Darwinism?
For Aristotle, each species has its own end, its own purpose, and a special place in the cosmos. Aristotle believed the species to be eternal; it seems reasonable that he would have opposed the possibility of evolution; it didn’t fit in his teleological framework. What is very powerful about Aristotle’s teleological and essentialist views is that there is specific definition of ‘human’ (and specific definitions for all the species), with a specific view of flourishing for the species, and individual humans could be judged on a normative gradient on the degree to which they exemplified the characteristics set out in that definition.
Darwinism includes the concept of evolution, and denies the teleological ends and eternal definitions of species. Without these definitions, it seems that Darwinism is devoid of normative claims. My guess is that Williams prefers Darwinism to Aristotle’s teleology because Darwinism can explain the world and make it intelligible, arguably more intelligible than Aristotle’s, without having to resort to what he might consider awkward, abstract, and overly complex theories requiring the specialness of things or the ends of substances like Aristotle’s teleology. Perhaps he has employed Occam’s razor and believes Darwinism comes out on top.
We might even argue there is a deeper question in his naturalism. Namely, what is ‘meaning’ or what is an ‘end’ in naturalism? Perhaps he believes there isn’t such a thing in naturalism. Teleology, perhaps, is beyond naturalism in some sense, and if this is the case, then, of course, as a naturalist, Williams would deny Aristotle’s teleology off the bat. Darwinism, however, is clearly reducible to naturalistic terms.
Whatever his reasons, Williams believes that Darwinism has defeated Aristotle’s teleological worldview. As well, he thinks denying Aristotle’s teleology is a ‘hard lesson’ to be learned for those who think there is a purpose to the things in a world. Humans, as a species, aren’t working towards some perfection of an end. There is no normative conception of humanness. Humans are simply objects in a naturalistic world which do as they must, nothing more.
Williams also thinks that because humans live very dynamic and unpredictable lives you can’t say they demonstrate the same sort of regularity that other creatures in nature demonstrate. Either Hursthouse will have to restrict the viable options available to humans or say that biology lacks some explanatory power to define why there is so much variation in humanity.
Hursthouse, however, does maintain a type of Aristotelian teleology. Humans, in particular, have a very special place in the world. All the species are said to have some paradigm definition which they are attempting to attain, and to which they are compared, and from which normative claims can be made about members which partake in that definition.
Clearly, Hursthouse as a naturalist must deny the possibility that Aristotelian teleology is in any way going to contradict the fundamental restrictions of naturalism. Her teleology must be expressible in naturalistic terms; she must claim that the only things ontologically available to her teleology are things defined by what is ordinary, natural, or observable. She must claim that ‘flourishing’ is a natural concept. The connection between the biological and the ethical will require an impressive explanation (I don’t see how she can do it). She replies to Williams’ view:
<<<
[Darwinism] sets its own standards for what is right and wrong, and the most Darwinism could do is show that, for whatever purposes we hitherto used those standards to identify the good and the defective, we would serve them better by setting Darwinian ones.<<ref "33">>
<<<
Hursthouse thinks she can use Darwinian terms and explanations to make moral claims about the ‘goodness’ or ‘badness’ of human beings. Hursthouse believes that the Darwinian threat is really inert at the worst; and at best, it would actually help qualify the standards and metrics of her own teleology. To her, Darwinism is not incompatible with Aristotelian teleology. She thinks the naturalistic ends she had previously laid out are reasonable measurements that even Darwinism might employ. She says:
<<<
I have found in discussion that many people imagine that Darwinian evaluations would either rely solely on the second end (continuance of the species) or replace that, as the sole end, with ‘replication of the individual’s genes’. But human being are not the only species in which the female members have a ‘characteristics life expectancy’ that extends well past the age in which they are replicating, or even nurturing, their genes…But scientific ethologists are not considering giving up on the idea that there must be something defective about a female member of such a species who dies well before her allotted span for no external cause. On the contrary, they are trying to figure out whether, and if so how, the presence of these elderly females contributes to the good functioning of the social group and thereby to the continuance of its members and thereby, as an evolutionary strategy, to the replication of the elderly females’ genes.<<ref "34">>
<<<
She thinks that current Darwinian standards aren’t such that her Aristotelian standards would collapse into mere ‘replication of the individual’s genes’; rather, it seems that Darwinian evaluations are pointing towards similar standards to her Aristotelian ones. If Aristotelian standards aren’t correct, then we should replace them. At this point, however, we don’t have reason to do so. So, insofar as Darwinism is compatible with Aristotelian teleology, she doesn’t seem to worry much.
I think Williams would want to point out here that Hursthouse doesn’t make a good case for the compatibility of teleological definitions and a Darwinian view of species. What is ‘human’ if it is something which has evolved from the primordial? Where and why do you draw the lines of species? Darwinism is descriptive, rather than normative, and more capable of handling these continuums of species. A strict Aristotelian definition of species doesn’t seem capable of handling much of a continuum at all. If it can, Hursthouse really should have explained it more clearly.
Hursthouse thinks the teleological ends of humans are more complex and difficult to define than the other ends of other animals. She explains:
<<<
If the grammatical idea behind ethical naturalism is right, namely that our terms ‘good’, ‘bad/defective’, ‘well’ do not suddenly start being used in a totally new way when we start using them in relation to ourselves, then our concept of living well, or flourishing (or eudaimonia, when we use it in relation to ourselves), is connected to our evaluations of human beings as good or bad. But that concept, used in relation to ourselves, is indubitably also connected to eudaimonia, the Good Life that we all seek, the life that is of benefit to the individual whose life it is, as it appears in thesis (i). The other animals cannot form their own conceptions of living well, cannot say to themselves ‘That’s the sort of life I want to live, the life in which . . . ‘ and consciously aim to live it; they live as nature determines. We can.<<ref "35">>
<<<
She believes eudaimonia and ‘evaluations of human beings as good or bad’ form a feedback loop; they modify each other. Somehow they are separate, but they are highly connected to each other. The other animals don’t have this loop because their species don’t have the same sort of purpose - something like human eudaimonia. This eudaimonia belongs to humans and any species which evolves to have human-like reasoning. These special properties of the complex minds of naturalistic beings imbue them with the ability to control the definition of their own ends, in some sense. Eudaimonia, to some extent, is determined by human beings who consciously decide what it can mean in some way. Given the feedback loop, human beings in some way determine the evaluations of what counts as good or bad qua human being. Likely, the notion that ‘virtues benefit their possessor’ only applies to beings that have a concept of eudaimonia. The other animals don’t have reason or the same individualistic requirements as part of their ends.
She is pointing out how Darwinism alone may fail to capture these ends and the complexity of eudaimonia in the case of human flourishing. Defining ‘human’ flourishing, eudaimonia, isn’t easy to do in Darwinism. Perhaps Hursthouse is suggesting the limits of Darwinism. I think Williams would reply that the notion of human ‘eudaimonia’ is normative, that it begs the question of teleology and normativity in an unnaturalistic manner.
Williams might not consider the diminution of Darwinian influence on the standards of eudaimonia to be a strong argument because of other reasons as well. What makes humans so special? Reason? What is reason to Williams? It is just a very complex network of chemical and electrical reactions in a brain. Why is that so special? Why does that change the normativity of humanness? It seems that the end of all species is to become the top of the food chain, to evolve into something with human-like reason. Aren’t the ends of non-human animals false? Shouldn’t other animals seek to become special like humans?
What if an evolutionary accident occurred tomorrow, whereby a strong beneficial mutation occurs in a monkey, a crow, a dolphin, or an elephant, such that this highly evolved animal has human-like reason. Wouldn’t we say that this animal (we’ll say monkey) is really better than other monkeys? That monkey, however, didn’t adhere to the definition of monkeyness; it isn’t flourishing as a monkey. This is a bad monkey, right? I’m not sure why Hursthouse can claim that the highest hope of any monkey isn’t to evolve and morph into something with human reason rather than adhere to the definition of monkeyness. This ‘ends’-based reasoning seems flawed in and of itself.
Williams provides a serious attack on the fundamental notion of human nature, the notion of its ends, and the possibility of ethics:
<<<
The [fact] that human nature is not harmonious ‘still has to find itself into ethical thought’.<<ref "36">>
<<<
<<<
[H]uman beings are to some degree a mess, and…the rapid and immense development of symbolic and cultural capacities has left humans as beings for whom no form of life is likely to prove entirely satisfactory, either individually or socially…[T]hose who have tried to reach a naturalistic morality which transcends it have had to read the historical record, or read beyond the historical record, in ways that seek to reveal a partly hidden human nature which is waiting to be realized or perfected.<<ref "37">>
<<<
Williams believes that from an evolutionary, Darwinian perspective, human nature is flawed. Science and history present us with a very negative view of humanity. He thinks this idea is not understood by the proponents of naturalistic morality. Humanity lacks any real sense of ‘hope’ to him. It seems impossible to be ‘entirely satisfied’ as a human, and extremely unlikely (mere happenstance if it does occur) and entirely out of the hands of the agent to somehow reach or attain the status of eudaimonia. He thinks the idea of naturalistic morality rides upon an unscientific and inaccurate historical account of humanity and its nature. He would explain:
<<<
[The naturalistic concept of eudaimonia] takes for granted…’a strong view of the harmony among themselves of human capacities and need’. ‘This assumption does…seem to me more plausible if you can help yourself to Aristotelian cosmology, than if you regard it as an open question whether the evolutionary success of humanity, in its extremely brief period of existence, may not rest on a rather ill-assorted bricolage of powers and instincts.’<<ref "38">>
<<<
The naturalistic concept of eudaimonia is implausible because it assumes an unrealistic and overly optimistic ‘harmony among humans’ which is not rooted in science or history. Without the ingrained possibility of ‘harmony’, Williams thinks the notion of eudaimonia is failed from the outset, and that morality doesn’t exist.
Hursthouse defends her argument:
<<<
We could make [the view that virtues on the standard list benefit the possessor] ‘more plausible’ to the immoralist if there were some (unimaginable) scientific, even cosmological, facts we could appeal to…But we didn’t even try, for to do so would, yet again, be attempting to justify morality from the outside—as, in a final vestige of his earlier view that ethical naturalism is supposed to base itself on a ‘scientifically respectable account of human beings’, Williams seems to be supposing we must do if we are aiming at ‘plausibility’.<<ref "39">>
<<<
Hursthouse thinks she doesn’t need to demonstrate the plausibility of the notion of eudaimonia. She thinks she can assume it. Her internalist leanings allow her to denounce external justification of her theory of ethics. It seems that the external view has implications for how we might come to know what counts as virtue and its naturalistic ends, but it doesn’t justify virtue. But she does take on the historical and scientific record to demonstrate a hope for ethics that Williams lacks. Then she provides her counterstrike:
<<<
Any human being who, at the end of her life, is able to look back and say, sincerely, ‘That was satisfactory; I lived well’, has been astonishingly lucky, and no inculcation of character traits, no supposedly rational plan of one’s life or attempts at supposed self-improvement or supposed improvement of our societies can make anyone one whit more likely to be lucky; all such attempts are futile…this amounts to complete moral nihilism.<<ref "40">>
<<<
<<<
The belief that harmony is possible for human beings, that we have the virtues neither by nor contrary to nature, but are fitted by (our) nature to receive them, is, I think, an essential part of the ethical outlook even of the minimally virtuous—any of us who think that being right about ethics matters…We manifest it by going in for ethical thought and talk at all.<<ref "41">>
<<<
Honestly, this section made me chuckle because I can’t tell if this is meant to have an edge of sweet, sweet ad hominem attack or not. Perhaps the reason behind Williams’ pessimism and moral nihilism, which are “as old as misanthropy and despair,”<<ref "43">> is his vicious nature. If only he had some minimally virtuous outlook, he could understand why ‘being right about ethics’ matters. This does match up with a great deal of her book – of course the vicious agent, Williams in this case, can’t see the value of virtue. He lacks a belief in this harmony (a necessary component to having the outlook of one with even trace elements of virtue), thus he lacks the ethical outlook of even the minimally virtuous. It does seem as if she is claiming he doesn’t understand or agree with her argument because he is evil—that’s not something you see every day in formal philosophy.
There is something more profound to consider - namely that ethics requires assumptions, leaps of faith. People assume that ethics exists, that value and meaning are real, that there are things actually worth pursuing in this world, else they wouldn’t continue manifesting moral beliefs in various aspects of their lives. Hursthouse finishes:
<<<
[T]he idea that we are just a mess is a particularly global form of moral scepticism, one which not only dismisses the whole ethical outlook of the (even minimally) virtuous as mere optimistic fantasy but simultaneously rejects the idea that practical rationality has anything substantial or long-term to do…As such it would be akin to other forms of global scepticism about, say the possibility of scientific knowledge (based, as it is, on the non-scientifically validated assumption that nature is intelligible), or even the possibility of knowledge of the external world or other minds.<<ref "44">>
<<<
<<<
The practice of ethical thought, as we know it, has to be based on the assumption that human beings, as a species, are capable of harmony, both within themselves and with each other. If we suppose they are not, the whole practice collapses. There is no refutation of scepticism about this assumption. But the practice is worth going in for, there is no practicable alternative for us, so we have to take the assumption on board.<<ref "45">>
<<<
Hursthouse considers Williams’ argument to be a form of global skepticism. It isn’t just ethics that requires assumptions and leaps of faith to even begin their topics. There are few topics which can survive a corresponding form of global skepticism. Given just this argument, I’m not sure why Williams simply can’t claim to make the assumptions necessary to do science and not make them for ethics.
Hursthouse believes that Skepticism about the objective nature of morality is partly answered by the Neurathian procedure. The hull of the boat of ethics is an assumption that the boat can exist.
''Conclusion''
I’m convinced that Williams is the much more consistent naturalist of the two. I have absolutely no idea how naturalism is compatible with any adequate theory of ethics. In my view, naturalism requires the denial of free will, moral responsibility, meaning and value in the world. I agree with Williams that if naturalism is true then teleology is really dead. Ethics is an illusion for a proper naturalist. If naturalism is true, then Williams is right. Hursthouse’s objective can’t be achieved in the naturalistic framework. Hursthouse never adequately addressed these issues.
I am not a naturalist, however, so I think Hursthouse’s objective is still a reasonable (even worthy) pursuit. I have other issues, though. Exactly why is it necessary that 'human nature is harmonious' in order to do ethics? It seems integral to assumptions about naturalistic ethics theory, but I’m not sure why this should worry the non-naturalist. I can at least claim that humans are generally disharmonious, and still claim an ‘ought’ and the reality of ethics.
The fundamental point of this argument didn’t appear until the very end of this argument though. I appreciate what Hursthouse has to say. We naturally assume that ethics is real. This is a foundational assumption. She’s right about tackling global skepticism. You have to make some unprovable assumptions about the world to either deny or agree to the existence of ethics.
I think there is a slightly stronger argument to give than she did. I think value and ethics share primacy with logic and God in this world – they’ve always co-existed in some sense. The sorts of assumptions we make about ethics are parallel to assuming the laws of non-contradiction or excluded middle.
I don’t think anyone pursues anything unless they think they want it. Whatever they want has value to them, and in this way, they think they ‘should’ pursue it. Value, by definition, is something worth pursuing, and value is really just another way of claiming ‘ought’ and reality fo ethics. Value is primitive to the world, and whatever is worth doing is really worth doing. If a person denies value, then how could they rationally pursue anything? The pursuit of anything assumes the object of pursuit is worth pursuing, that the object has value in some sense.
The fact that Williams took the time to write his paper, claiming that ‘value’ doesn’t really exist in the world, that nothing is really worth pursuing, demonstrates a contradiction with his intentions. He set out to do something; he pursued something - namely saying there wasn’t anything worth pursuing. I’m sure he pursues other things. And why does he pursue them? Because he wants something, because they are in some sense worth pursuing, because they have value to him. If ethics is an illusion, even Williams is under its spell.
-------------------------------
<<footnotes "1" "John McDowell, “Virtue and Reason” in //Virtue Ethics//, ed. Roger Crisp and Michael Slote (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), 148">>
<<footnotes "2" "Ibid., 148">>
<<footnotes "3" "Ibid.">>
<<footnotes "4" "Ibid., 149">>
<<footnotes "5" "Ibid.">>
<<footnotes "6" "Ibid., 150">>
<<footnotes "7" "Ibid., 150-151">>
<<footnotes "8" "Ibid., 153-154">>
<<footnotes "9" "Ibid., 150">>
<<footnotes "10" "Ibid., 151">>
<<footnotes "11" "Ibid., 153">>
<<footnotes "12" "Ibid., 144">>
<<footnotes "13" "Ibid., 157">>
<<footnotes "14" "Ibid., 161">>
<<footnotes "15" "Stanley Cavell, //Must we Mean What We Say?// (New York, 1969), 52">>
<<footnotes "16" "Rosalind Hursthouse, //On Virtue Ethics// (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 164">>
<<footnotes "17" "Ibid., 167">>
<<footnotes "18" "Ibid., 172">>
<<footnotes "19" "Ibid.">>
<<footnotes "20" "Ibid., 173">>
<<footnotes "21" "Ibid., 172">>
<<footnotes "22" "Ibid., 174">>
<<footnotes "23" "Ibid., 176-177">>
<<footnotes "24" "Ibid., 177">>
<<footnotes "25" "Ibid., 178-179">>
<<footnotes "26" "Ibid., 180">>
<<footnotes "27" "Ibid., 181">>
<<footnotes "28" "Ibid., 187">>
<<footnotes "29" "Ibid., 190">>
<<footnotes "30" "Rosalind Hursthouse, //On Virtue Ethics// (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 256">>
<<footnotes "31" "Bernard Williams, “Evolution, Ethics, and the Representation Problem,” in //Making Sense of Humanity//. (Cambridge university Press: 1995), 110">>
<<footnotes "32" "Ibid., 110">>
<<footnotes "33" "Rosalind Hursthouse, //On Virtue Ethics// (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 258">>
<<footnotes "34" "Ibid., 258">>
<<footnotes "35" "Ibid., 259">>
<<footnotes "36" "Ibid., 261">>
<<footnotes "37" "Bernard Williams, “Evolution, Ethics, and the Representation Problem,” in //Making Sense of Humanity//. (Cambridge university Press: 1995), 109">>
<<footnotes "38" "Rosalind Hursthouse, //On Virtue Ethics// (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 260">>
<<footnotes "39" "Ibid., 260">>
<<footnotes "40" "Ibid., 262">>
<<footnotes "41" "Ibid.">>
<<footnotes "42" "Page 176 indicates she would agree that this is an ad hominem argument.">>
<<footnotes "43" "Ibid., 261">>
<<footnotes "44" "Ibid., 262-263">>
<<footnotes "45" "Ibid., 265">>
1.
In perception, there is an agent, a medium, and a patient. The agent is the perceptible object. It has certain accidental qualities which inhere in it. The perceptible qualities of the agent are what are perceived. In the process of perception, the agent undergoes a change in becoming perceived, and it transmits perceptible qualities via the medium to the patient. The medium is a transparent layer between the agent and patient; Aristotle considers the medium necessary because he is a plenum theorist, and he wishes to deny ‘the void’. The agent, essentially, acts upon the patient. The patient is that which perceives. Unlike plants, animals and humans (which are animals with intellection) have the capacity of perception (also motion). Animals and humans are the patients upon which agents (perceptible objects) act. (Admittedly, that is an awkward way of thinking about perception for moderns, but it makes more sense in Aristotle’s ontology).
Perception requires a sense organ. The sense inheres in the sense organ, and the sense cannot be reduced to the physical matter of the sense organ. The function and purpose of the sense organ, perhaps even the form of that organ, is its corresponding sense.
Let’s go through a quick example: the whiteness of the whiteboard, the agent, is transmitted through the medium, the medium in some way carries this whiteness over to the agent, and the sense-organ, in this case the eye, which has the sense of sight, perceives this whiteness.
Perceiving at the level of sense organs becomes a bit more complicated though. The sense must take on the form, but not the matter of what it senses. In this case, the sense becomes ‘whitened’ in some manner. Exactly how, we aren’t sure. Perhaps there is a physical change in the eye such that the eye literally becomes whitened. But, it is also possible that there is a metaphorical interpretation. In either case, the sense must become whitened in some manner. The sense must take on the form of whiteness, becoming ‘like’ the whiteness which also inheres in the agent, the whiteboard.
There are also common sensibles, which basically can be perceived via multiple senses. The desk is an example of a common sensible object; it looks like wood and it smells like wood. Aristotle, in responding to Plato, wanted to avoid having ‘multiple selves’, which he thought might result from having separate senses. It seems that the individual senses passed the perceptual information along to the common sense. It is the common sense which unites all the individual senses. The common sense realizes that the common sensible object, which we perceive with multiple senses, is really just one object. Without this common sense, Aristotle believes the world would be largely unintelligible. We would be constantly bumping into things.
Perception precedes and feeds intellection. Intellection is similar to perception in many respects. The intellect, like perception, takes on its corresponding objects, such as definitions. Consider that after you have seen many particular horses (without knowing what a ‘horse’ was), your intellect enables to come to an understanding of the form and definition of horseness which is universal about all horses. That form of horse, the definition and universal, in some way resides in your intellection, you are literally thinking about the universal. This brings up to the major difference between perception and intellection.
Perception is about the particulars and sensing the sensible, accidental qualities of those particulars. Intellection, however, is about the universal. You don’t think about individual things, you think about the definitions of things. Particulars in some way aren’t intelligible, especially insofar as they are accidental. The capacity for perception deals with what is accidental, while the capacity for intellection doesn’t, instead intellection thinks about what is universal and definitonal.
We should note that what while perception seems necessary, in some way, for intellection, Aristotle holds the capacity for intellection to have a higher status (as an activity) than perception. This is demonstrated in his distinction between animals and humans. Intellection is the rarer capacity.
2.
In the metaphysics, we see a change in Aristotle’s account of substance as set out in the Categories. In the categories, primary substances were individual things in the world. So, for example, Socrates was a primary substance. Secondary substances are the universal definitions. Socrates belongs to the secondary substance of ‘man’. The definition of ‘man’ is a rational biped, and that is what counts as the secondary substance. Note that, in the categories, the existence of secondary substances relied upon the existence of primary substances. If there were no primary substances, then there would be corresponding secondary substance either. In this case, if there were no humans in the history of the eternal universe, the definition of man would not exist. It seems that primary substances, at some sense, precede secondary substances in the categories.
The Metaphysics alters this view of substance. The metaphysics isn’t just any science, it is the study of being qua being. The metaphysics de-emphasizes ‘what is most knowable to us’, instead emphasizing ‘what is most knowable in itself’. In this, metaphysics is the highest science. It seems that what is most intelligible in the universe may not be those things with potentiality or even particular things. Instead, the most intelligible things are more universal. The status of ‘definitions’ seems to gain some ontological priority in the metaphysics.
Primary substance is now what we had previously thought of as secondary substance in the categories. So, the definitions of things are now the primary substance. The definition of man, for example, would be a primary substance. This is strictly the form and definition; it is not an actual instantiation. Secondary substances in the metaphysics are like the primary substances in the categories. Essentially, secondary substances are now individual instantiations of the definition.
3.
In remembering Aristotle’s framework of potentiality and actuality, we know that actuality must, in some sense, precede potentiality. God is actuality that precedes all potentiality. God is fully actual. He has no potentiality. God is eternal and unchanging. God is the highest being in Aristotle’s teleology and ontology. Aristotle’s God is very much the exception in Aristotle worldview. For example, he has the capacity for intellection, but has no body (unlike all other things which have intellection, namely humans). God has no matter, which makes sense given matter’s association with potentiality. This may be contrasted with God’s complete actuality.
Additionally, God isn’t the being we normally conceive of in the Judeo-Christian tradition. He is a creator in some sense, but not the creator ex nihilo. God doesn’t even intervene in the world with miracles or care about the rest of creation as we might traditionally think in Judeo-Christian tradition.
God sets the heavens into circular motion, and in some sense, He moves all other things without Himself being moved. He is the unmoved mover. He doesn’t move the heavens as billiard balls moves billiard balls. Rather, the moves the heavens by inspiring ‘desire’ in them. The heavens want God; the heavens, in some sense, want to be like God. This desire forces them to move, but God does not move. Thus, we say he is the unmoved mover.
Interestingly, the heavens are eternal and changing. Circular motion is the closest to the stability of being unmoved, and so the heavens have a high status in the mind of Aristotle. There seems to be a trickle-down effect of motion, from the heavens to the rest of the world. The heavens impart motion to the planets and other parts of the universe, and essentially we can see moved movers moving other things, all the way down the potential existence of things which pass into being and out of being on Earth. In the end, we see that all things owe their movement to God.
We must then ask: what is the activity of God? He thinks. God thinks about the best things. God thinks about His thinking. Aristotle’s God is self-thinking thought. In some ways, we as humans partake in the activity of God, temporarily, when we think. Obviously, Aristotle holds the activity of thinking in high regard (seems reasonable).
1.7
The notion of truth in a structure is extremely important. After all, we are ultimately interested in notions like validity and logical consequence, both of which have to do with truth. For instance, a sentence C is a logical consequence of premises P 1 , P 2 , . . . , P 3 just in case C is true in every structure in which P 1 , P 2 , . . . , P 3 are all true.
A structure is an interpretation or model of a language: it determines what individuals the constants refer to, and what functions and relations the function symbols and relation symbols express. Keep in mind that functions and relations are just sets of n-tuples of individuals in the universe of the structure. So knowing what function or relation is expressed amounts to knowing what the value of the function is for every argument, and knowing which objects the relation relates. So, for instance, if we specify the relation that a two-place relation symbol Larger expresses, then this tells us, not that “Larger” has to do with size, but which objects in our universe are larger than which other objects. Once we know what we are talking about, we should be able to determine whether what we are saying is true.
However, making the idea of truth in a structure clear and precise will require several definitions. One thing that makes the matter more complex is that we will define truth not only for sentences, but also for formulas. A formula is not true or false simpliciter. Consider (in the language of Tarski’s World) the formula Larger(x,y). Both variables in this formula are free, not bound by a quantifier. So it doesn’t make any sense to talk about the formula as being true or false: the variables do not refer to any object in particular (that’s why they are called “variables”), and are not bound by quantifiers, so the formula doesn’t say anything determinate (it does not “express a complete thought,” as sentences are supposed to do). So how can we define truth in a structure for formulas? We can do it only by relativizing it to an assignment of objects to variables. Satisfaction is the description of truth in a formula. Suppose we have two objects: a, which is large, and b, which is small. Then we can say that ‘Larger(x, y)’ is true or “satisfied” relative to the assignment {(x, a) ,( y, b)} , but false relative to the assignments {(x, b) , (y, a)} , {(x, a ), (y, a)} , and {(x, b ), (y, b)} . (Usually we will express this by saying that the assignment just specified satisfies the formula.) This is the idea that the first few definitions will make precise.
1.7.1
Show Definition
Leary notes that variable assignment functions need not be injective or bijective.
A function is injective if it does not give the same value for more than one argument. Recall that no function gives more than one value for a given argument. Putting these two things together, we see that an injective function must be one-to-one: for each argument, there is only one value, and for each value, there is only one argument. A function is said to be surjective if it is “onto,” that is, if every item in the range (or “codomain”) of the function is a value of the function for some argument. A function is said to be bijective if it is both injective and surjective, that is, both one-to-one and onto. So the point here is that variable assignment functions need not determine a different value for each argument, and also need not take every element of A as its value for some argument.
We write ‘f : A → B’ to mean a function from A into B.
Function Into
s: Vars symbols of L → elements of universe A
Leary gives us an example variable assignment function while working in the Language of number theory, using the standard structure.
Show s(vi) = i
With argument vi input into variable assignment function s, the value ‘i’, an element of universe A is output. This variable assignment function maps vi to element i. There are many possible variable assignment functions in this structure. He gives us another example:
Show s’(vi) = the smallest prime number that does not divide i.
So far we’re just assigning an object to each distinct variable. We aren’t yet considering how we will use this assignment to discuss truth of a formula relative to an assignment. Next we introduce a notation for taking a variable assignment function s and changing it for a single variable.
1.7.2
Show Definition, example, definition
Consider the assignment function s that I informally mentioned earlier: {(x, a ), (y, b)}. Now suppose we want to modify this function so that both variables are assigned element a of the universe. We can write this modified variable assignment function like this: s[x | b]. Then s(x) = a, but s[x | b](x) = b. On the other hand, s(y) = b and s[x | b](y) = b. Since the modification affects only the variable x, applying the modified variable assignment function to y gives us the same results as applying the original variable assignment function to y.
We are gradually closing in on a definition of truth of a formula relative to an assignment. If we have a formula with some free variables, then assigning an element from the domain to each free variable will suffice to determine the interpretation of all the terms. There are three kinds of terms: constants, variables, and function symbols followed by terms. Constants already have an interpretation assigned by the structure itself, so they are taken care of. The variables are taken care of by the variable assignment function s. This leaves only the complex terms constructed out of function symbols and other terms. But once the interpretation of constants and variables are taken care of, the complex terms are taken care of also. Each term ti that follows a function symbol is a constant, variable, or complex term. If it is a variable or a constant, it is taken care of already. If it is a complex term, we look at its constituent terms. Recursively following this procedure, we eventually reach function symbols all of whose terms have interpretations. Then we read the interpretation of the function symbol followed by those terms off the structure. Then we return to the next higher level of our recursive process and proceed to examine the next term. Eventually we will have an interpretation for every term in our formula.
Now would be a good time to have an example, but I don’t have one.
So we can take a variable assignment function, together with facts determined by the structure itself, and extend that variable assignment function to construct a more general term assignment function.
1.7.3
Show definition
Now we can (finally) define what it is for a formula to be true relative to a variable assignment function. The usual term for truth relative to an assignment is satisfaction: we say that an assignment s satisfies a formula, or, in the language of the next definition, that a structure satisfies a formula with a particular assignment.
1.7.4
Show Definition
This definition is where we attach meanings to the logical symbols in L. The structure gives the meaning of the constant symbols, function symbols, and relation symbols, while the definition of satisfaction above essentially gives the meaning of the symbols that are common to all first-order languages. These don’t need to be given in the structure for the same reason that the logical symbols don’t need to be listed when we specify a language: since they are common to all first-order languages, we can leave them out of the structures, which merely give the semantics of the symbols that can change from language to language.
Notice that the notion of an x-modification of a variable assignment function comes in handy in the fifth clause. If we have a quantified sentence, we don’t care what entity s assigns to occurrences of the variable that are bound by its quantifier. For example, if we have the formula (∀x)Larger(x, y) and an assignment function s = {(x, a ), (y, b)} and we want to know whether the assignment function satisfies the formula, then we need to appeal to the function s to find how to interpret y, which is free, but the fact that s assigns a to x is irrelevant, because the quantifier tells us that the whole formula is true only if the subformula after the quantifier is true for every assignment of an object to x. The notation s[x | a] gives us a convenient way to consider assignments that keep all of the assignments of s except its assignment to x.
1.7.9
We are almost ready, finally, to say what it means for a sentence to be true in a structure. I’m going to go slightly out of order, starting with 1.7.9, and then working a bit backwards. First, we define what it is for a structure to be a model of a formula.
Show Definition
The double turnstile symbol ‘|=’ is rather versatile! The right-hand side can be either a structure, a formula or a set of formulas.
Informally, the basic idea is that a structure is a model of a formula if the formula must be true in the structure, i.e. if the formula comes out true no matter what terms you substitute for its free variables.
Of course, sentences are special cases of formulas. In the case of sentences, it makes no difference what assignment function s we use. Why? Because sentences have no free variables, and assignment functions have no effect on bound variables. So if there is any assignment function s for which Fraktur A |= φ[s] in the special case in which φ is a sentence, then, since it makes no difference what assignment function we use, φ will be true for every assignment function, and hence we can simply say that Fraktur A |= φ, period.
To make it obvious when we are dealing with formulas that are also sentences, we will use a different Greek variable for sentences, ‘σ’. (Notice the alliterative choice of Greek letters: phi, with its initial ‘f’ sound, for formulas, and sigma, with its initial ‘s’ sound, for sentences.)
1.7.5
Definition: If σ is a sentence, then we say that σ is true in Fraktur A if and only if Fraktur A |= σ, which in turn is the case if and only if there is any assignment function s for which Fraktur A |= σ[s].
Notice that a structure models a formula if and only if the sentence that results from prefixing to the formula universal quantifiers binding all the free variables of the formula results in a sentence that is true in the structure.
1.8
Fraktur A = AxEy ~(x = y)
This sentence is true if the structure of Fraktur A is such that the domain A has at least two elements. If we replace variable x with variable u, then it is still true. Notice, however, that if we replace x with y, then it is always false, in any structure.
Substitutability relies upon substituting variables with terms in such a way that nothing bad will happen when we do. Substituting x with y, makes bad things happen. What would be true in a domain of 2 or more is now made false with this substitution. We must avoid this. In learning to avoid this problem, Leary provides us formal rules for when and where we can substitute.
1.8.1
Show definition
When u is x, then ‘u with x replaced by t’ is t.
When ‘u is variable not equal to x’ or when ‘u is a constant symbol’, then ‘u with x replaced by t’ is u.
With variables and constants handled, we are able to recursively define substitution for functions.
With the definition of substitution for variables, constants, and functions, we are then in a position to recursively define substitution into a formula, similar to how term assignment functions led to recursive definitions of satisfaction.
1.8.2
1.8
Fraktur A = AxEy ~(x = y)
This sentence is true if the structure of Fraktur A is such that the domain A has at least two elements. If we replace variable x with variable u, then it is still true. Notice, however, that if we replace x with y, then it is always false, in any structure.
Substitutability relies upon substituting variables with terms in such a way that nothing bad will happen when we do. Substituting x with y, makes bad things happen. We must avoid this. In avoiding this problem, Leary provides us formal rules for when and where we can substitute.
1.8.1
Show definition
When u is x, then ‘u with x replaced by t’ is t.
When ‘u is variable not equal to x’ or when ‘u is a constant symbol’, then ‘u with x replaced by t’ is u.
With variables and constants handled, we are able to recursively define substitution for functions.
With the definition of substitution for variables, constants, and functions, we are then in a position to recursively define substitution into a formula, similar to how term assignment functions led to recursive definitions of satisfaction.
1.8.2
Show Definition
1.8.3
Show Definition
1.9.1
Show Definition
If we restrict ourselves to sentences for a moment, we can say that one set of sentences Δ logically implies another set of sentences Γ if and only if every structure in which all the sentences Δ are true is a structure in which all the sentences in Γ are true. Equivalently, we can say that Δ logically implies Γ if and only if every model of Δ is also a model of Γ.
Still another way to say the same thing: sometimes structures are called interpretations, and a model of a sentence is called an interpretation in which the sentence is true. So we can say that Δ logically implies Γ iff every interpretation that makes all the sentences in Δ true also makes all the sentences in Γ true.
It is a short step to the notion of a valid argument: an argument from a set of premises Γ to a conclusion C is valid iff Γ | = C.
The term ‘valid’ is also used for a property of individual formulas. This usage is defined in Leary’s Definition 1.9.2.
1.9.2
Show Definition
''[1][a]''
A mile-high definition of a contingent practical identity: “the basis of choice…a description under which you value yourself and find your life worth living and your actions to be worth undertaking.”<<ref "1">> Truly, there is a lot packed into this notion, and I want to carefully unpack what I believe is most important about it. The three most cardinal features connected to this notion of a contingent practical identity are: Action, Agency, and Psychic Unity. Arguably, these features are larger than the notion of contingent practical identity itself, but I don’t think this is a problem. Contingent practical identity must be understood within the context of these cardinal features, and vice versa – they interdefine each other.
Korsgaard gives us examples of practical identities and their acquisition:
<<<
Conceptions of practical identity include such things as roles and relationships, citizenship, memberships in ethnic or religious groups, causes, vocations, professions, and offices. It may be important to you that you are a human being, a woman or a man, a member of a certain profession, someone’s lover or friend, a citizen or an officer of the court, a feminist or an environmentalist, or whatever.<<ref "2">>
<<<
We can immediately appreciate this notion, as it seems we all have these identities, and we all spend a great deal of our lives in these sorts of roles. Clearly, practical identity is a powerful descriptive notion for anyone attempting to understand humanity. She continues:
<<<
One might think of a particular practical identity, if a little artificially, as a set of principles, the dos and don’ts of being a teacher or a citizen, say.<<ref "3">>
<<<
For Korsgaard, the notion of a practical identity is not merely descriptive; it is has normative characteristics. Practical identities are part of the process, for each individual, of figuring out what one ought to do in a certain role. She points out the motivational implications to possessing a practical identity:
<<<
Our conceptions of our practical identity govern our choice of actions, for to value yourself in a certain role or under a certain description is at the same time to find it worthwhile to do certain acts for the sake of certain ends, and impossible, even unthinkable, to do others.<<ref "4">>
<<<
The way in which you ‘value’ yourself in a certain description in turns serves as your motivation to act in particular ways and for certain ends which are provided, at least in large part, by a practical identity. This leads us to Korsgaard’s contingent aspect of practical identities:
<<<
However it goes, reasoned or arbitrary, chosen or merely the product of circumstance, the sorts of identities I am talking about remain contingent in this sense: whether you treat them as a source of reasons and obligations is up to you.<<ref "5">>
<<<
The various ways in which one might acquire an identity are not the sources of its contingency (even though we can say that the acquisition might be arbitrary and contingent in some cases). Rather it is the choice, which is ‘up to you’, to continually keep and use these identities which make them contingent. Clearly, the contingency of practical identity is founded upon our free will. Commitment to a practical identity is thus vastly different from mere acquisition.
Once an identity is chosen (or we ‘commit’ to it), it provides reasons for acting in certain ways or for pursuing certain ends. Whether an identity is chosen (‘doctor’, for instance) or given (‘son’ or ‘American’), it remains contingent simply because ‘it is up to us’ whether or not we choose to treat it as motivating, and crucially, as a guide. This contingent aspect strengthens the normative components to practical identity. She fleshes this out further:
<<<
Forms of identification are contingent, and we can walk away from them. Their hold on us depends on our own endorsement of the laws they give us. We ratify their laws whenever we act in accordance with them.<<ref "6">>
<<<
<<<
If you continue to endorse the reasons the identity presents to you, and observe the obligations it imposes on you, then it’s you…[If not then] it’s not a form of practical identity anymore: not a description under which you value yourself.
[Agents treat] contingent identities as the sources of absolute inviolable laws.<<ref "7">>
<<<
<<<
The obligations and reasons for action provided by contingent practical identities aren’t arbitrary and morally neutral, as one might have initially suspected about at least some of these identities. Practical identities provide strong moral normativity – they provide moral law to their bearers.<<ref "8">>
<<<
As Korsgaard sees it, valuing oneself in a certain role or description, committing to a practical identity, is thus committing to certain moral obligations. If she is correct, then it seems that the notion of a contingent practical identity is fundamental to the construction of our moral obligations. This leads us to the foundational practical identity so crucial to her moral theory:
<<<
Morality itself is grounded in an essential form of practical identity, our identity as rational or human beings…[We as agents make a] commitment to our own human or rational identity as a form of practical identity.<<ref "9">>
<<<
<<<
Making the contingent [practical identity] necessary is one of the tasks of human life and the ability to do it is arguably a mark of a good human being.<<ref "10">>
<<<
Korsgaard believes morality exists in virtue of this fundamental practical identity. It seems the 'moral' identity, the ‘rational’ identity, the ‘human’ identity – the identity of agency – is itself a practical identity we take on. Moral agency is the foundational practical identity upon which we construct our self-constitution. Thus, our practical ‘moral’ identity is the reason why our other practical identities are normatively empowered in some sense.
Contingent practical identity is further developed in terms of the cardinal features.
''Action - [Cardinal Feature connected to CPI #1]''
<<<
But there is a reason not to abandon all of our identities. The reason is given by…the human plight. We must act, and we need reasons in order to act. And unless there are some principles with which we identify we will have no reasons to act. Every human being must make himself into someone in particular, in order to have reasons to act and to live. Carving out a personal identity for which we are responsible is one the inescapable tasks of human life.<<ref "11">>
<<<
Action is strongly connected to the notion of identity. Korsgaard comes right out and claims that, “Human beings are //condemned //to choice and action…action is necessary…it is our //plight//.”<<ref "12">> We are destined to have a particular contingent practical identity. We are condemned to be agents, agents who choose and perform action. Importantly, Korsgaard uses the word ‘action’ as a term of art; it is a technical term in her moral theory.
In her first chapter, Korsgaard endeavors to synthesize major components of Aristotelian and Kantian views on the nature of action. Out of this discussion, her definition of action follows:
<<<
The basic form of a Kantian maxim is “I will do act-A in order to promote end-E.” Call that entire formulation the description of action. An action, then, involves both an act and an end, an act done for the sake of an end.<<ref "13">>
<<<
<<<
[An agent] chooses this whole package, that is, to-do-this-act-for-the-sake-of-this-end – he chooses that, the whole package, as a thing worth doing for its own sake, and without any further end.<<ref "14">>
<<<
Vitally, ‘act’ and ‘action’ are distinguished, while ‘ends’ are configured into the equation. Action is a package deal; it includes both the deed and its purpose. Contingent practical identities provide motivation and guidance as to which actions we should choose to perform. Identity determines the ‘act + end’ combination to which are obligated. The way that action is related to the role of a ‘reason’ and identity isn’t completely squared up:
<<<
The reason for an action is not something outside of or behind or separate from the action at all, for explicating the action, and explicating the reason, are the same thing. Rather, an action is an essentially intelligible object that embodies a reason, the way a sentence is an essentially intelligible object that embodies a thought.<<ref "15">>
<<<
Action includes and represents a reason. Contingent practical identity is the source of these reasons, and thus it is also the source of action. It isn’t just the source of motivation and guidance then; it isn’t just an identity-bearer that is performing an action; identity is, in some sense, an expression of action.
Odd questions arise, such as ‘What is good action?’ and ‘What is bad action?’ Korsgaard explains that, “Action is self-constitution…what makes actions good or bad is how well they constitute you,”<<ref "16">> and “A bad action by contrast is something misshapen and defective.”<<ref "17">> It seems that good action has to do with more than a single contingent identity.
''Agency - [Cardinal Feature connected to CPI #2]''
Korsgaard’s conception of agency does a lot of her philosophical work, and it does so within the context of the notion of contingent practical identity. As I said, they interdefine each other. Exactly where one starts and the other begins isn’t so clear. It is probably safe to say that identity of agency is a special one, perhaps the least arbitrary and the most necessary. It is the one that all good humans have in common.
At least three major concepts flow from the identity of agency: choice, responsibility and necessitation. The first two are clearly connected to practical identity in these passages:
<<<
It is as the possessor of personal or practical identity that you are the author of your actions, and responsible for them. And yet at the same time it is in choosing your actions, that you create that identity. What this means is that you constitute yourself as the author of your actions in the very act of choosing them.<<ref "18">>
<<<
<<<
We are self-conscious in a particular way: we are conscious of the grounds on which we act, and therefore are in control of them.<<ref "19">>
<<<
<<<
When you deliberately decide what sorts of effects you will bring about in the world, you are also deliberately deciding what sort of cause you will be. And that means you are deciding who you are.<<ref "20">>
<<<
<<<
So we are each faced with the task of constructing a peculiar, individual kind of identity—personal or practical identity…It is this sort of identity that makes sense of our practice of holding people responsible, and of the kinds of personal relationship that depend on that practice.<<ref "21">>
<<<
<<<
To regard some movement of my mind or my body as my action, I must see it as an expression of my self as a whole, rather than as a product of some force that is at work on me or in me.<<ref "22">>
<<<
You choose and have control over, and essentially, you construct your practical identities and in doing so you choose the obligations and actions corresponding to those identities. It seems that you cannot choose one without the other. Action, obligation, and identity are rolled into one package. You are the free author of your identity, and in making these entailed commitments, you are morally responsible.
Korsgaard explains that the “temptation to resist the claims of our practical identities is possible.”<<ref "23">> This is interesting, and it shows that the free will component of agency is robust, and perhaps even foundational to the other identities. The ‘agency identity’ is interesting because it seems (although, Korsgaard will deny this, I believe) that it precedes all other identities. How do you ‘decide who you are’ without having the ability to decide already? I think this suggests that free will is not sufficient (even if it is necessary) for agency in Korsgaard’s theory.
<<<
This is where the problem of personal identity comes into the picture…in the relevant sense there is no you prior to your choices and actions, because your identity is in a quite literal way constituted by your choices and actions.<<ref "24">>
<<<
Other issues arise - for example, how one sheds agency isn’t clear (although her conceptions of unity and disunity will attempt to explicate it). It does seem to the observer, though not to Korsgaard, that the agency identity is a necessary precondition to choosing whether or not to take on, shed, keep, and use other contingent practical identities.
This is still, however, oversimplifying the role of agency in her theory. Recall that to use one’s free will to choose an identity is to choose its obligations and its reasons and its actions, simultaneously. The (lack of a) temporal aspect of Korsgaard’s conception of agency is difficult to understand.
Fundamental to being an agent, and probably most important, is the way in which it is connected to the notion of contingent practical identity, via her conception of necessitation. Being subject to and bound by the normativity of law, experiencing the “psychological mechanisms of its enforcements,” is an essential feature of what it means to truly be a moral agent.<<ref "25">> Korsgaard (borrowing from Kant) calls this psychological force //necessitation//.<<ref "26">> It is noteworthy that it is usually believed necessitation can only be experienced by those who can fail to follow the moral law; the assumption is that you can only be subject to and bound by normativity of law if it is a real possibility that you can fail to meet those requirements. Korsgaard will certainly agree to the idea that duties and obligations belong to agents, at least to those entities who experience necessitation.
Assuming identities are not entirely fleeting, there is a type of necessitation regarding an agent’s choice to follow a particular identity's obligations. Agents may have incentives, desires, or emotions which in some way drive them to not follow the obligations of an identity. They might, in this sense, maintain an identity and contradict its obligations and choose otherwise (I won’t exactly call this ‘action’ as she understands the word). This sort of necessitation has a small scope; the larger scope is even more important.
There seems to be necessitation between different identities as well. That is, the obligations of one identity may conflict with the obligations of another. This larger notion of necessitation of agency is vital to the contingent practical identity framework in that it calls forth her most cardinal feature, psychic unity. As she says, “I also believe it is essential to the concept of agency that an agent be unified.”<<ref "27">> This struggle for unity, at least in part, is based upon conflicts among our various contingent practical identities. She says:
<<<
Normative standards – as I am about to argue – are the principles by which we achieve the psychic unity that makes agency possible. The work of achieving psychic unity, the work that we experience as necessitation, is what I am going to call self-constitution.<<ref "28">>
<<<
''Psychic Unity - [Cardinal Feature connected to CPI #3]''
Psychic unity is our ultimate goal. Korsgaard explains:
<<<
Identities are the sources of our reasons, but of course the idea is not just that we decide which ones we want and conform to them. We have many particular practical identities and so we also face the task of uniting them into a coherent whole.<<ref "29">>
<<<
<<<
There is work and effort – a kind of struggle – involved in the moral life, and those who struggle successfully are the ones whom we call “rational” or “good.” But it is not the struggle //to be rational or to be good//. It is, instead, the ongoing struggle for integrity, the struggle for psychic unity, the struggle to be, in the face of psychic complexity, a single unified agent.<<ref "30">>
<<<
Agency is about having a unified super-identity, a sum unity of contingent practical identities (which it is itself also therefore a contingent practical identity). Practical identities can conflict, and an agent must unify them. Of course, this again brings up the paradox she mentions, and I’m not sure how she can solve it. If she is able to solve the paradox, and she is right about our final end as unification, then we see that practical identities become even more complex, particularly as they are subject to degrees. She alludes to this:
<<<
People are more or less successful at constituting their identities as unified agents, and a good action is one that does this well. But since action requires agency, it follows that an action that is less successful at constituting its agent is to that extent less of an action. So on this conception, “action” is an idea that admits of degrees. An action chosen in a way that more successfully unifies and integrates its agent is more authentically, more fully, an action, than one that does not.<<ref "31">>
<<<
Action, identity, agency, and unity admit of degree. You aren’t necessarily 100% a teacher or 100% a father – it is possible that you are only 60% of this identity. The unification of your contingent practical identities is about making your super-identity 100% an identity. This helps us understand the forces of normativity within her theory:
<<<
Being a person, having a personal identity, being a rational agent, is in itself a form of work. And the experience of necessitation, with its elements of effort and even of pain, is the experience of the form of work. A good person, it follows, is one who is good at this work. A good person is someone who is good at being a person.<<ref "32">>
<<<
To be a good person, to be a good agent, to be a good human, to have a good identity is to be unified. It is complicated to commit to being a self.
''[b]''
The cardinal feature of agency has some serious problems, almost all of them connected to the paradox of self-constitution. There is more attached to this paradox than she lets on (although she is probably aware of it). I see three problems arising in this paradox.
First, the temporal problem is the most obvious. What does it mean to choose an identity if you don’t already have at least the agency identity? It seems that such a choice isn’t the choice of an agent. It seems that in taking on any non-agency practical identity will somehow lack moral force if it wasn’t the choice of an entity which was an agent beforehand. How can we make sense of amoral entities choosing to become moral agents? It isn’t clear.
(Further, one might imagine that agency is the sort of identity that comes to you without choice, and perhaps you can lose your agency via suicide or something akin to massive head trauma. But, outside of suicide, it doesn’t make much sense to say you can choose to shed your agency. What would that look like? Surely, she needs a powerful account of this.)
This paradox of choosing your identity and choosing to be an agent brings with it a second problem as well, namely the idea that there are degrees of agency which you choose. Along with it come degrees of action, identity, unity, moral responsibility, and morality. It isn’t clear what a degree of some of these things will entail or how it operates.
Action, for example, seems modular, not like a gradient. What exactly is bad action? It seems that an action can be so bad, springing from such a great degree of disunity of identity, that it is no longer action. Further, it seems that moral responsibility only exists when there is action for which an agent is an author. Was Hitler even a moral agent at all - were his acts really ‘bad’ at all? Was Hitler morally responsible for what he did? It seems he isn’t an agent, and he isn’t morally responsible, and his acts weren’t really morally wrong given Korsgaard’s account. Even if he was minimally an agent, and he minimally had actions, and he was minimally responsible, and minimally ‘wrong’, it seems that he isn’t as responsible as the virtuous agent. In this case, Hitler’s actions don’t count as being as action-like as the virtuous agent, and they don’t count as admittedly of moral wrong in the same way that the virtuous agent’s actions are morally right.
It seems difficult to give examples of immoral agents in her theory. Wouldn’t we want to say that immoral agents are just as responsible for their actions as even the most virtuous of agents? Intuitively, it makes sense to say that immoral agents are unified, and that there isn’t conflict among their various practical identities, but rather what their practical identities are all about are in themselves morally wrong. But, that is not the picture which Korsgaard paints, and that brings us to the last problem.
Korsgaard’s conception of agency with respect to contingent practical identities suffers from the problem of moral construction. Korsgaard is offering an account of how one ‘constructs’ morality. What counts as moral law, and whatever obligations we have, is ‘up to us’. Korsgaard has imparted too much power to agency, in this case. If an agent gets to choose identities, obligations, and what counts as ‘valuable’, and as long as the agent is perfectly unified, then it seems whatever they do is arbitrary, but also automatically morally good. Her conception of agency enables practical identity to justify behavior in a circular, subjective fashion.
''[c]''
Korsgaard really doesn’t think this is paradoxical. As I said before, I think part of her argument will rest upon the notion that possessing all necessary capacities for being an agent is not sufficient for agency. Perhaps free will and rationality, while necessary, aren’t sufficient for agency. If this is true, then it seems that one can freely choose to commit to the agency identity. In one way, I like this argument - moral responsibility is something you grow into. But, this should not be confused with the idea that you can choose agency.
I’m not sure how she would reply to the idea that a free non-agent choosing to be a free agent has moral force to it. I suspect that her constructivism would allow her to make this move. If so, you can shed agency, but retain your free will and other agency-necessary capacities.
The degrees problem which flows from the premises of the paradox is also largely solved by her constructivism, if she wished to go that route. Without an independent, objective morality, it would seem an acceptable move to claim that ‘morality’ looks like this inside the mind and leave it at that.
I don’t know how she would defend her constructivism other than to explain that this is the way the world is. Perhaps she might say, “Well, that’s just what it means to be a moral agent, etc.” She certainly doesn’t agree to the idea that we can shed and take up identities whimsically, which is agreeable. Korsgaard thinks her 'dedications and integrity' clause is what prevents me from 'giving up my fatherhood' as an identity at whim. However, I’m still not sure how it is not 'up to me' in some sense whether or not I can take up or drop off my practical identities. I hope she has a deeper account of this issue.
''[2][a]''
''[Argument #1]''
Korsgaard is a constructivist with strong elements of moral anti-realism in her theory; essentially, she denies that there are moral properties independent of the mind. The dogmatic rationalist holds that moral propositions are objective features of the world, existing independent of our minds. Given her position, her attack on the moral realism of the dogmatic rationalist makes a lot of sense (although, it is possible that it is her argument against moral realism that led her to her current position).
She explains that she is against the provision of “some sort of ontological foundation, [which posits]…the existence of certain normative facts or entities to which moral requirements somehow refer.”<<ref "33">> Korsgaard doesn’t like the metaphysical commitments which the dogmatic rationalists make – but why? She explains:
<<<
The rationalist account…allows instrumental reasons to function as guides, but at the price of making it impossible for us to see any special reason why we should be motivated to follow these guides.<<ref "34">>
<<<
Korsgaard believes that the rationalist’s conception of instrumental reason, one of the three sorts of practical reason initially discussed, is assumed to be a principle which is an independent, objective feature of the world. Crucially, she claims that while this may be sufficiently guiding, it is insufficiently motivating.
Essentially, Korsgaard doesn’t think that an objective moral fact sitting out there in metaphysical reality is really going to be motivating to an agent, and thus, regardless of its guiding contents, it can’t serve or function as a type of practical reason.
She is calling out the dogmatic rationalist’s framework and asking ‘why’ an agent should really care about morality. Because she believes the dogmatic rationalist can’t demonstrate motivation, their moral realism is an illusion. This is cardinal to her overall moral theory because, if she is right in criticizing the moral realist commitments of the dogmatic rationalist, and this independent objectivity is an illusion, then her constructivist theory is plausible.
''[Argument #2]''
Korsgaard argues that the dogmatic rationalist is unable to provide a substantial, meaningful, and non-circular definition of rationality. She says:
<<<
The dogmatic rationalist’s strategy is to first identify reasons—by asserting them to be parts of realty—and then to define rationality in terms of reasons: a rational being is by definition one who responds to reasons in the right way. This strategy necessarily leads to a purely definitional account of rationality, and can tell us nothing substantive about what function or power of the human mind rationality is.<<ref "35">>
<<<
The relationship between reasons and rationality is misconstrued, as Korsgaard’s sees it. She draws a distinction between Rationality and Reasons. She says that dogmatic rationalists begin with reasons, and then 'go up' to rationality. She thinks we have to go from top down instead to avoid problems. In part, she’s pointing out something fishy about the dogmatic rationalist’s strategy to interdefine reasons, rationality, and the rational being. It seems tautological and analytic, but also circular and uninformative about the contents and nature of these concepts.
This is somewhat similar to the criticism of moral reasoning in virtue ethics as being circular; namely, the virtuous agent defines virtue, and virtue defines the virtuous agent - but in the end, we aren’t exactly sure what either one really looks like.
Korsgaard offers a possible rebuttal which a dogmatic rationalist might give:
<<<
There is one way in which the realist strategy still might seem to work. We could simply //define //a rational agent as one who responds in the appropriate way to reasons, whatever they are, and we could then give realist accounts of all practical reasons, including instrumental ones. There is a set of normative facts, about which reasons there are, and a rational agent is by definition someone whose actions are motivated by these reasons.<<ref "36">>
<<<
Perhaps the dogmatic rationalist can say that insofar as agents are not motivated by independent, objective moral truth, they aren’t rational. This is an interesting approach, but I think Korsgaard still has the circularity problem. She explains:
<<<
If all we mean is that the person is reliably caused to act in accordance with reasons, we fail to capture what is rational about the person. His actions may be rationally appropriate, but not because he sees that they are so: it seems to be a sort of accident that his motivational wiring follows the pathways of reason.<<ref "37">>
<<<
The problem with the circular definition is that it seems accidental rather than essential. If a dogmatic rationalist would use this argument, then it isn’t just cheating on the definition, but really it fails to capture meaningful motivational requirements, in Korsgaard’s eyes.
This criticism of dogmatic rationalism points toward a cardinal concern for Korsgaard, namely offering an account that can actually describe the contents of rationality and reasons, and essentially, she wants a non-circular account of the normative force of practical reason. If she herself can avoid making a circular argument, and she can offer a substantive account of rationality, reason, and the normative force of practical reason, then it seems she would have the more plausible theory.
''[b]''
''[Counter-argument #1]''
It is unclear what it means for something to be true if it doesn’t have the independent, objective status. Just because X in your mind just doesn’t seem like a good enough reason to call X a truth. Yes, it is true that ‘X is in your mind’, but that doesn’t make it true that ‘X’. This motivational concern seems like misdirection. How can Korsgaard escape from this strong moral realist view without becoming a nihilist or relativist? I don’t know.
Consider, as an example, a comparison between mathematics and the categorical imperative. Let us assume (and I think Korsgaard does) both the categorical imperative and mathematics are //synthetic a priori// truths. Would Korsgaard agree to the idea that the principles and truths of mathematics are not dependent upon our minds? It seems like the truths of mathematics are not ones we socially construct, but rather discover. Surely the truth of mathematics is best handled by metaphysical commitments of the dogmatic rationalist, despite the uneasiness we might have making such strong, yet abstract and difficult to empirically point out, ontological assumptions. Are we motivated to believe and use a truth like 2+2=4? I think so. And, why? Because it is true. I don’t think it is coincidental that I’m motivated to believe it. I think there is something wrong with being motivated to believe and use something when it isn’t objectively true.
Consider Goldbach’s conjecture (every even integer greater than 2 can be expressed as the sum of two primes). It is either true or false, but we don’t know which. We have good reasons to believe it is likely true, but we have no proof solution. We don’t yet know. Surely the truth or falsity of this mathematical claim does not rest upon my belief. The dogmatic rationalist is a great position to tell the story of what is happening here, and I think Korsgaard wants to agree to dogmatic rationalist story in this case. But, why can’t the same sort of objectivity story be told for moral truths? It seems that the truth of mathematics binds us in the same way that truth of rational morality binds us.
I’m left wondering how respect for the moral law not itself the sort of ‘special reason why we should be motivated’ to follow the moral law as a guide? Why can’t the dogmatic rationalist posit this ‘respect for the moral law’? I don’t know.
The potency of morality and the relationship between epistemology and ontology are both at stake. It would have been prudent if Korsgaard had instead openly started with and assumed the dogmatic rationalist’s position, the position which we all would hope to pan out, only giving it up after demonstrating beyond a shadow of doubt that the position is committed to something illogical and intolerable (which she hasn’t done). There is too much at stake to do otherwise.
''[Counter-argument #2]''
I don’t find the circularity of such a foundational topic to be terribly objectionable. We are the bottom level of philosophy, and it is here that our justifications begin to look a lot more like assumptions than proofs. At some level, we are going to beg the question, and formally include our axioms within the justification of our axioms. There is no way to justify the reflexivity principle, loosely speaking, A= A, unless one already assumed it is true, and likewise for other axiomatic propositions like the law of excluded middle. It seems these sorts of meta-ethical questions, which are at the foundational link between epistemology and ontology, are not the sort of concepts which have anything beneath them with which justify an argument. It is because of this, at least for now, I don’t see a problem with a circular definition of these concepts.
As such, I’ll make the odd move and claim that Korsgaard’s criticism against circularity, in this case, will ‘hold-water’ if and only if she is able to present a theory which isn’t also subject to the same criticism. I’m not sure how she isn’t making, however, the similar sort of circular definition in her own theory.
Korsgaard has an innately constructivist view of these concepts. In her theory, it seems that rational morality is what we define it to be. It seems she also employs a circular definition, not from mind to independent reality, but from the mind to itself. Even if the dogmatic rationalist doesn’t have a substantive or informative definition of rational morality, I don’t think Korsgaard does either.
''[3][a]''
''[Aspect #1]''
Like the dogmatic rationalist, Korsgaard locates rationality internally, but rather than finding practical reasons to act externally, she also finds them internally. The internality of both rationality and reasons is a major aspect of her theory. The practical reason to act is created through the categorical imperative and the instrumental principle, which are both internal to the agent (in her opinion; she also comes to define them as the same thing, eventually). This internality demonstrates a strong relationship between rationality and the will. This is part of meeting the requirements of practical reason: being both guiding and motivating. She explains:
<<<
Kant is usually thought of as a rationalist, but the Kantian conception of practical rationality represents a third and distinct alternative. According to the Kantian conception, to be rational just is to be autonomous. That is: to be governed by reason, and to govern yourself, are one and the same thing.<<ref "38">>
<<<
<<<
By seeing what goes with [Kant’s] early presentation of the instrumental principle, we are led to the mature Kantian view, which traces both instrumental reason and moral reason to a common normative source: the autonomy or self-government of the rational agent.<<ref "39">>
<<<
Korsgaard holds this conception of rational autonomy. Rationality and will are entwined. An agent can’t be said to have one without the other. Rationality and the autonomous will are, in fact, the same thing – the same faculty by which one determines what actions to take in order to reach the end one has chosen. She continues:
<<<
The principles of practical reason are constitutive of autonomous action: they do not represent external restrictions on our actions, whose power to motivate us is therefore inexplicable, but instead describe the procedures involved in the autonomous willing. But they also function as normative or guiding principles because in following these procedures we are guiding ourselves.<<ref "40">>
<<<
Rationality acts both as motivation and guidance because it is descriptive of the movements of the autonomous will. In this way, Korsgaard escapes the trap of having the instrumental principle merely describe what happens when one desires something. It is truly the will – the faculty of choice – that drives decision making. She continues:
<<<
Kant’s version of the instrumental principle [is] formulated in terms of the will, not in terms of desire. In general or schematic form, the instrumental principle tells us that if we will an end, then we ought to will the means to that end.<<ref "41">>
<<<
<<<
Instead, the act of making a maxim—the basic act of will—conforms to the instrumental principle by its very nature…To will an end just is to will to cause or realize the end, hence to will to take the means to the end. This is the sense in which the principle is analytic. The instrumental principle is constitutive of an act of the will. If you do not follow it, you are not willing the end at all.<<ref "42">>
<<<
By combining rationality and reason through the autonomous will, Korsgaard makes it possible to view the process as both constructivist and normative. This is connected to the practical identity, as well – in choosing an end and committing yourself to a particular identity and its obligations, you create and accept normative moral laws:
<<<
Willing an end just is committing yourself to realizing the end. Willing an end, in other words, is an essentially first-personal and normative act. To will an end is to give oneself a law, hence, to govern oneself. That law is not the instrumental principle; it is some law of the form: realize this end. That of course is equivalent to “Take the means to this end.” So willing an end is equivalent to committing yourself, first personally, to taking the means to that end.<<ref "43">>
<<<
Korsgaard’s conception of the relationship between practical reason and rationality is necessary for the rest of her moral theory. The internalist argument she provides is of cardinal importance to the concepts of self-constitution – they are inextricably linked. The notion that rationality finds internally the reason to will and act allows her to support a constructivist view of morality.
[Aspect #2]
The instrumental principle is normative only insofar as the categorical imperative normatively gives us ends. The instrumental principle is not normative on its own - it doesn’t stand alone. While the categorical imperative doesn’t specifically tell us which certain ends we have, the categorical imperative leads us to some ends, and in doing so, it grants normativity to the instrumental principle.<<ref "44">> We see that Korsgaard is, at first, considering that the instrumental principle is in some way separate from, but not fully independent of, the categorical imperative. She points towards this:
<<<
The instrumental principle cannot stand alone. Unless there are normative principles directing us to the adoption of certain ends, there can be no requirement to take the means to our ends. The familiar view that the instrumental principle is the only requirement of practical reason is incoherent.<<ref "45">>
<<<
The instrumental reason is dependent upon the categorical imperative. So far it seems that she is still willing to separate instrumental reason, in some sense, from the categorical imperative, but her later clarification demonstrates that it really isn’t separable. There is a unification theory of practical reason. As she changes the outline of her argument in her afterword, we see an explanation which ends up saying something profound, namely, there is only one type of practical reason, the categorical imperative. Admittedly, she originally points towards this in a footnote:
<<<
Moral or unconditional principles and the instrumental principle are both expressions of the basic requirement of
giving oneself a law, and bring out different implications of that requirement…I am inclined to think that the right thing to say about this parallels what I take to be the right thing to say about Aristotle’s theory of the unity of the virtues. There is really only one virtue, but there are many different vices, different ways to fall away from virtue, and when we assign someone a particular virtue, what we really mean is that she does not have the corresponding vice. In a similar way, there is only one principle of practical reason, the categorical imperative viewed as the law of autonomy, but there are different ways to fall away from autonomy, and the different principles of practical reason really instruct us not to fall away from our autonomy in these different ways.<<ref "46">>
<<<
Korsgaard makes an important analogous explanation of the single principal of practical reason in this footnote; it is from this after thought that her change in the afterward develops. She compares her idea to Aristotle’s conception of the single virtue. According to Aristotle, there is only one virtue; there are, however, many vices (that is, many ways to fail to meet that virtue). What we conceive of as many virtues, as being in some way artificially separable from the single virtue, are really various ways we can fail to fail (i.e. succeed) – they are not, in essence, separate entities from the single virtue. Likewise, in Korsgaard’s view of the single principal of practical reason, the only true principal is the categorical imperative. There are many ways, however, that one can fail to achieve or perhaps lose autonomy – and the various corresponding ways to fail to fail can be seen as principals of practical reason. The instrumental principle, then, is not separate from the categorical imperative – it is merely part of the way to meet the requirements of the categorical imperative. Failure to implement the instrumental principle is but one specific way of failing to meet the categorical imperative.
She later makes the explicit claim in her afterword:
<<<
The instrumental principle is not a principle of practical reason that is separable from the categorical imperative: rather, it picks out an aspect of the categorical imperative; the fact that the laws of our will must be practical laws, laws that constitute us as agents by rendering us efficacious….So let me here state the conclusion of my argument properly. There is only one principle of practical reason, and it is the categorical imperative.<<ref "47">>
<<<
By integrating the instrumental principle into the categorical imperative, she is able to explain why the instrumental principle has normative force.
''[b]''
''[Counter-argument #1]''
Her theory does show guidance and motivation, but I think her argument does so at the cost of normative force rather than to the conclusion of it. Two issues come to mind.
The first is that her internalism removes the objectivity that I seek above all else. Without it, I just don’t see anything as justified. Of course, I’m defining justification as something that is outside me, and it doesn’t look like Korsgaard is willing to go that direction.
Second, I question if it is an appropriate move to combine rationality and the will as she does. I certainly recognize that there is a strong connection between the two, but I’m not convinced that they are the same faculty. I don’t know what it means to do what is irrational or wrong in her theory. Separation of will from rationality provides room to make better sense of things like irrationality and even immorality. I don’t see why one can’t choose to will what is irrational.
''[Counter-argument #2]''
I’m not sure I can disagree with the idea that there is only one principle of practical reason. I think, however, that it’s a possibility with which moral realism might be able to agree. But, therein lays the difference. The relationship between the agent and the principle is where I disagree with Korsgaard the most.
The relationship between the instrumental principle and categorical imperative should be a strong one. Exactly how strong, I’m not sure.
Admittedly, in conjunction with others features of a moral theory, there are odd sorts of positions which might come about if we collapse the instrumental principle into the categorical imperative. Let us assume that only universalizable maxims count as rational ones. Aren’t there elements of rationality in non-universalizable maxims, specifically of the sort which include a proper implementation of the instrumental principle?
If the instrumental principle is merely an integrated subset of the categorical imperative, then it seems extraordinarily difficult to talk about being rational, to any degree, in reference to a non-universalizable maxim. I believe some evil people are ‘more rational’ in their approach to being evil than others. Would not the agent who is most effective at bringing about evil ends be, in some way, more immoral than the inept agent who failed to implement the instrumental principle? I’m not convinced this sort of story can be told within Korsgaard’s framework.
There definitely has to be overlap between the instrumental principle and the categorical imperative. I don’t see how it is plausible that the categorical imperative includes within it the instrumental principle. It doesn’t seem to make enough room for doing what is wrong, what is against the categorical imperative, while still being otherwise quite rational.
---------------------------
<<footnotes "1" "Christine Korsgaard, //Self-Constitution: Agency, Identity, and Integrity //(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 20">>
<<footnotes "2" "Ibid., 20">>
<<footnotes "3" "Ibid., 21">>
<<footnotes "4" "Ibid., 20">>
<<footnotes "5" "Ibid., 23">>
<<footnotes "6" "Ibid.">>
<<footnotes "7" "Ibid.">>
<<footnotes "8" "Ibid.">>
<<footnotes "9" "Ibid., 22-23">>
<<footnotes "10" "Ibid., 23">>
<<footnotes "11" "Ibid., 24">>
<<footnotes "12" "Ibid., 1-2">>
<<footnotes "13" "Ibid., 11">>
<<footnotes "14" "Ibid., 10">>
<<footnotes "15" "Ibid., 14">>
<<footnotes "16" "Ibid., 25">>
<<footnotes "17" "Ibid., 17">>
<<footnotes "18" "Ibid., 20">>
<<footnotes "19" "Ibid., 19">>
<<footnotes "20" "Ibid.">>
<<footnotes "21" "Ibid., 19-20">>
<<footnotes "22" "Ibid., 18">>
<<footnotes "23" "Ibid., 21">>
<<footnotes "24" "Ibid., 19">>
<<footnotes "25" "Ibid., 2">>
<<footnotes "26" "Ibid., 3">>
<<footnotes "27" "Ibid., 18">>
<<footnotes "28" "Ibid., 7">>
<<footnotes "29" "Ibid., 21">>
<<footnotes "30" "Ibid., 7">>
<<footnotes "31" "Ibid., 25">>
<<footnotes "32" "Ibid., 26">>
<<footnotes "33" "Christine Korsgaard. “The Normativity of Instrumental Reason” in //The Constitution of Agency: Essays on Practical Reason and Moral Psychology// (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 29-30">>
<<footnotes "34" "Ibid., 31">>
<<footnotes "35" "Ibid., 55">>
<<footnotes "36" "Ibid.">>
<<footnotes "37" "Ibid.">>
<<footnotes "38" "Ibid., 31">>
<<footnotes "39" "Ibid., 32">>
<<footnotes "40" "Ibid., 31">>
<<footnotes "41" "Ibid., 46">>
<<footnotes "42" "Ibid., 56">>
<<footnotes "43" "Ibid., 57">>
<<footnotes "44" "Ibid., 68">>
<<footnotes "45" "Ibid., 32">>
<<footnotes "46" "Ibid., 63">>
<<footnotes "47" "Ibid., 68">>
Liam Murphy is exclusively interested in “describing a robust egalitarian conception of justice that nevertheless makes reasonable demands on people.”<<ref "1">> His assessment of ‘reasonable’ does a lot of unspoken philosophical work which shapes the rest of his argument. His debate between monism and dualism of political philosophy rests upon this aim. Admittedly, this initial aim, prima facie, seems quite agreeable. As it shapes his discussion, however, it becomes apparent that this aim requires clarification and justification. I’m going to briefly sketch out his argument, as well as explain his distinction between monism and dualism. From there, we’ll be able to consider the impact of the underlying aim, and whether or not it really makes a good case for monism, and if the aim (or its denial) has influence on the viability of dualism as Murphy presents it.
A monist believes there is one set of fundamental normative principles or goals which determine both institutional requirements and personal moral requirements. Justice is likely a subset of morality. Whatever principles define morality also determine the subsequent principles of justice. Murphy takes monism to be the default view, such that we need good reasons to depart from it.<<ref "2">>
A dualist believes there are two sets of fundamental normative principles or goals, one which determines institutional requirements, which is where justice begins, and another which determines personal moral requirements. For the dualist, justice isn’t activated until the institutional level. Essentially, the source of the normativity of justice does not correspond to the source of the normativity of morality. Morality and justice are separate realms of normativity.
To be clear, monists certainly aren’t against institutions. In practical terms, and in most circumstances, it seems that monistic justice demands that we create some sorts of institutions. Vitally distinguished from dualism, the justice of monism isn’t activated by the implementation or design of institutions; rather justice is active before any institutional considerations. Institutions are instrumental, but not fundamental, to the monist.
What monistic theories have in common is simply that principles of justice are derived from the same principles of morality. Principles of justice aren’t fundamental; they can’t stand alone; they must be underwritten by moral principles. Murphy’s standard principle of morality is some variant of utility, but he thinks this isn’t important (he’s probably wrong about that). He believes that monism motivated by his aim can cover many sorts of mainstream moral theories. While I can agree that monism, in general, without regard to his motivation, is capable of catering to other moral theories, I’m not convinced his motivation for monism is the right one, nor do I think his aim remains compatible with many moral theories. It is likely the case that his initial aim is built into his moral theory, which is why it plays out in any subsequently derived theory of justice he would deem plausible.
Importantly, Murphy believes that dualism also takes up this aim. He explains:
<<<
A main hope behind all the arguments for dualism seems to be that it will help with a fundamental problem faced by, specifically, egalitarian theories of distributive justice: the problem of the unreasonable demands such theories of justice may potentially impose on some people.<<ref "3">>
<<<
His initial aim is a motivating force behind not only his monistic theory of justice, but, in his view, that of dualists, as well. Murphy believes that many political philosophers pursue dualism because they perceive it to be better at avoiding a problem of ‘unreasonable demands of justice’. Much of his argument deals with showing why dualism is not as favorable as monism in this respect. In some sense, Murphy believes that almost all arguments in favor of dualism, particularly for the sake of this initial aim, can be more effectively captured by monism. And if he is correct, then the reasons which might drive political philosophers towards dualism, need not take us there, but can instead lead to a specific conception of monism which does the same work without as many problems. He continues:
<<<
What binds together all the arguments I will consider is an underlying concern to describe a plausible and robust egalitarian theory of distributive justice that nevertheless appears to make reasonable demands on people in just and unjust circumstances. That this Rawlsian project is worthy I take for granted; my aim is to show that dualism hinders rather than helps it.<<ref "4">>
<<<
This ‘underlying concern’, the initial aim, is part of what he thinks is a Rawlsian project (and he is probably right). Murphy believes monism is superior to dualism in this Rawlsian project. This initial aim is a litmus test for the plausibility of any theory of justice, regardless of whether it is monistic or dualistic; it is a test of the ‘reasonableness’ of the demands of that theory. This he admits to taking for granted.
It is a potent test, but I think we must question its grounds. If he is wrong about that initial claim, then I don’t think the rest of his argument can serve as a justification for why one should maintain monism. Further, if he is correct about the motivation behind dualism, and his initial aim is unjustified, then dualism also seems unjustified. The context of his argument at large rests upon this initial aim.
What counts as a ‘reasonable demand on people in just and unjust circumstances’? By reasonable, he means ‘minimal’. And by minimal, we aren’t talking about whether justice can demand more than what is required (that would be injustice!). Rather, the minimal aspect of ‘reasonable’ is that justice demands obligations of minimal size or minimal degree. In Murphy’s view, justice has a low-ceiling on positive duties. He’s not going to consider any theory of justice which could make demands greater than his intuitive minimalism. That assumption needs justification.
So, what is the problem with this principle of minimal sacrifice? What are the effects of assuming that there is a low ceiling to the sacrifices which justice requires? Murphy begs the question. Within the word ‘reasonable’ Murphy has inserted this principle of minimal sacrifice. And, it just so happens that theories which meet this ‘reasonable’ requirement come pre-built with the principle of minimal sacrifice.
Perhaps the obligations of morality and subsequently justice are such that we should sacrifice almost everything but the clothes on our backs for the sake of others. Murphy’s low ceiling is, for now, artificial, it is begged. It might suit his intuitions or justify his way of life, but I’m far from convinced it is correct.
In part, we are roped into a discussion of the grounds of normativity. It is clear, at least for the monist, that the moral principles dictate the principles of justice, and thus, our moral theories have profound impact on the sorts of justice theories which can be considered. He assumes certain moral principles, and that shapes justice for him. I’m fine with that, but it isn’t a great reason to be a monist in general, only to be a monist if you take his moral principles and further arguments comparing the effectiveness of dualism and monism to be true. It seems then, that he needs to justify his moral views in order to further defend his theory of justice.
Murphy is interested in achieving “our egalitarian aims without making ourselves miserable in the process.”<<ref "5">> I think nobody wants to be miserable. But what does justice/morality have to do with my happiness? To the egoist, everything. To the utilitarian, it is substantially more complicated, and still not clear at all that I myself will achieve happiness. To a virtue ethicist, it still isn’t clear in the practical world, particularly concerning moral luck and tragic dilemmas that we likely face in the real world – many virtue theorists purposely avoid the discussion of justice simply because it very often seems that the virtuous agent doesn’t directly benefit from it. The Kantian doesn’t think personal happiness has anything to with justice or morality. I tend to sympathize with this view; as far as I can see, what ‘I want’ has no direct connection to morality or justice. Murphy subscribes to a variant of utilitarianism in this paper, but he mistakenly believes this argument is going to work for the other mainstream moral approaches.<<ref "6">> Depending on the moral theory one takes us up, in monism, the sort of justice derived might be quite contradictory to Murphy’s aim.
Justice very well might call for us to make ourselves miserable. The easy example might be that misery is in some way subjective, and so it is very easy to see why some really might need to make themselves miserable for the sake of justice. But, even past this subjective point, I don’t see why it isn’t at least a possibility that justice requires we are all going to make sacrifices which will make us miserable. He continues:
<<<
If the background institutions are doing their job properly, people will not have to think too much about promoting general well-being, and this liberation is, from the point of view of beneficence, all to the good.<<ref "7">>
<<<
Pursuing our own interests and being happy is a good thing, generally speaking. And, of course, all else being equal, the choice between a hypothetical theory of justice which doesn’t make room for our own interests, e.g. a prescription for institutions which are inefficient in maintaining our personal interests, and a theory of justice which does make room for our interests and happiness (to some extent), I’m willing to accept the latter is best. Except, I think Murphy is really pointing out how important he thinks our ‘interests’ really are so superior in priority that the demands of justice must be bent around them. He thinks my lifestyle, my interests, my enjoyments – are to some degree fundamental to morality, and thus fundamental to justice.
The principle of minimal sacrifice built into his moral theory plays a strong role in developing his monistic theory of justice. He seems to assume in some sense that the dualist has monist tendencies to start, but then drifts away toward dualism directly because of how they perceive the test results for reasonable obligations, essentially minimal sacrifices and maximizing happiness. Because he is a monist, if his moral principles are wrong on account of his principle of minimal sacrifice, then his principles of justice will be also. And, if he is correct about how dualism develops and what motivates their thinking, but remains incorrect about the principle of minimal sacrifice, then the dualists are also wrong. His initial assumption, if correct, might enable the rest of his argument for monism to follow, but he gives no reason to assume his initial assumption is correct.
---------------------------------
<<footnotes "1" "Liam Murphy, “Institutions and the Demands of Justice,” //Philosophy & Public Affairs//, Vol. 27 No. 4 (Blackwell Publishing: 1998), pg. 257">>
<<footnotes "2" "Ibid., 267">>
<<footnotes "3" "Ibid., 255">>
<<footnotes "4" "Ibid., 256">>
<<footnotes "5" "Ibid., 258">>
<<footnotes "6" "Ibid., 262">>
<<footnotes "7" "Ibid., 263-264">>
```
1. (a) Explain meticulously any three cardinal features of the Function Argument Aristotle presents in Book I of the Nicomachean Ethics. (b) Provide one powerful argument against any aspect of the Function Argument. You may, if you wish, present one of the objections detailed in the lectures. [30]
[a]
Aristotle’s Teleological Framework
All things and activities have an end.
An end of a thing is the good of a thing.
For humans, the highest good, the end which isn’t a means to something else, is eudaimonia.
To know what consists in eudaimonia, we need to know the function of humans.
The function of humans will be distinctive and unique to humans.
Parts of the soul (I’m not sure how to work perception in here)
Rational (the unique aspect of humans)
Appetitive
Vegetative
Human excellence consists in proper relationship between parts of the soul, particularly between reason, desires, and emotions.
Each part of the soul must function properly for the whole to function properly.
Leading a good human life:
Living in accordance with reason
Living in accordance with human virtues
Biological conception of humanity
Flourishing as a thing if it lives a life appropriate to that species.
Social conception of humanity
Ethics is part of politics
Humans are social
Being a good human requires living as a good citizen in society.
[b]
Deny his teleological framework or at least some crucial part of it.
Deny the uniqueness of reason
2. (a) Taking “Honor as a good” as the example of the field – as Michael Pakaluk describes it in a table his book, Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics: An Introduction – explain in careful detail Aristotle’s Doctrine of the Mean as outlined in Book II of the Nicomachean Ethics. (b) It was argued in the lectures that Aristotle’s doctrine could be construed as leading to relativism. Explain carefully and in detail why that claim was made and how it was substantiated. Finally, (c) defend Aristotle against the charge of relativism, citing and explaining the crucial passages from the Nicomachean Ethics that were also pointed out and discussed in the lectures. [35]
[a]
The virtuous state is a mean/intermediate between states of excess and defect
The mean is closer to one end of the spectrum than another.
Honor as a good
Excess: over-ambitiousness
Mean: Not clearly named, but it is about having the correct measure of ambition.
Deficiency: unambitiousness
[b]
In some sense, the table of virtues isn't relative to any object, it is relative to us.
It seems possible to construe the virtues as lacking objectivity.
Or
The mean isn’t clearly an exact point on the gradient, but a small section of points on the gradient. Depending on the situation, the virtuous agent will fall within the bounds of that section.
But, this seems to lack accuracy of a strict point on the gradient.
It seems there are many things which count as virtuous on the gradient.
[c]
(1109a33) – it is better to push towards the extreme which the mean is closest to than the other extreme, particularly when habituating virtue?
3. Write a fairly comprehensive essay on the relationship between choice or prohairesis, on the one hand, and felt desire or appetite, on the other hand, as Aristotle expounds it in Book III of the Nicomachean Ethics. In dealing with this issue, your essay must explicitly follow Pakaluk’s procedure delineated in his book, Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics – a procedure that was outlined in the lectures, too. You should also pay very close attention to Aristotle’s text; correct citation is quite crucial. [35]
Prohairesis is the most distinctive mark of virtue (1111b5–6).
He goes on to try and define Prohairesis, in part by showing what it is not.
Aristotle shows a distinction between Prohairesis and Appetite by showing that the attributes of these two things are different.
Prohairesis is not found in non-rational animals, but felt desire (appetite) is.
(1111b12-14)
Prohairesis is connected to rationality.
Prohairesis does not govern the action of someone who shows weakness of will, but felt desire (appetite) does govern such action.
(1111b14-15)
Prohairesis isn’t an effective governing capacity in the akratic because it is replaced by felt desire.
Prohairesis governs the action of someone who shows willpower, but felt desire (appetite) does not govern it.
(1111b15-16)
Agents with self-control are governed by prohairesis (pretty vital for the virtue agent).
Prohairesis is found in opposition to felt desire, but felt desire (appetite) is not found in opposition to felt desire.
(1111b16-17)
A direct way to talk about how prohairesis and felt desire aren’t identical.
Prohairesis is properly for things not insofar as they are either pleasant or painful, but felt desire (appetite) is properly for things only insofar as they are pleasant or painful.
(1111b17-18)
You can only feel desire for or desire against something which is either pleasant or painful. Prohairesis isn’t concerned with pleasantness or painfulness like felt desire.
```
Jan 20
'The Chief Good'
There are varieties of expertise, inquiry, action, undertaking which each have an end.
Is there a dominant end which is the reason of all other ends (serving as the means to this dominant end)?
In the chain of means/ends relationships, does there have to be a dominant, final end - a stopping point?
Of course, he is going to deny the infinite regress.
Find an end which is 'good' in itself and not merely a means to that good.
If there is no final, "Superior" end, then you simply don't know which 'mean'-ends to select.
Are the varieties of ends listed in the beginning pursued for their own sakes or for something else? Aristotle claims they are for somethign else.
What is the final end? Happiness.
What makes us different from other creatures? Reason.
Our happiness, as a final end, is likely linked to our reason.
Humans make choices (prohairesis). What choices you make, to a large extent, are determined by your character. Character is destiny.
Happiness requires more than having a virtuous character, but also having 'moral luck' (Bernard Williams' term).
That which is right is that is which 'perceived' by the virtuous person.
The political expert (the person for whom this book is written) is interested in organizing society as a whole. A political expert (of city-states) will be the highest because all other expertises fall under the hierarchy of political expertise.
In Book 1.3, Aristotle claims that morality lacks exactness, and rather it is 'fuzzy'. Moral precision is weak. Only the virtuous agent may, by inclination, choose with precision (despite lacking an explicit articulation of what and why, etc.).
Who do we ask? Not the young, they are driven by emotion (rather than reason exclusively).
The precondition to understanding what ethics is about is having been raised in a certain way. Otherwise, it will not appeal to you and you can't understand it.
Book 1.4 - Happiness is 'living well' and 'doing well' - The full exercise of reason (doing philosophy) is what distinguishes us from everything else.
Book 1.7 - The ultimate end is self-sufficient and complete.
Something can be 'desirable for itself' or 'desirable for something else' or 'both desirable for itself and something else' - clearly the hierarchy of desirability follows:
for itself (alone) - intrinsically good
for itself and for something else
for something else
Happiness is 'good without qualification'
We can ask "why do you want to play piano?" etc., but it apparently makes no sense to ask "why do you want to be happy?".
If we can distinguish the plants, animals, and humans, and as biologists we can provides arguments about the 'function' of other creatures, then we should also attempt to determine the function of man (ultimately, reason).
If your desires are properly aligned to your proper purpose and obedient to your reason, then you will be engaged in an activity which is directly related to your happiness. Exercising the best part of our soul, reason, and being virtuous, are central to being truly happy.
The notion of "Happiness" must be very carefully understood. There is more to happiness than external goods and goods of the body. This is why the mafioso isn't truly happy.
1099a20 - Virtue is somehow both necessary and sufficient for happiness, and nothing else is required (further, nothing else could even be sufficient).
The virtuous activity itself is a pleasure to the individual who is performing it. You can't separate the two.
1.10 - What is the duration of the happiness? It is a summation of the course of a lifetime. Aristotle makes an argument concerning the happiness of descendents.
Just as virtue is stable, constant, firm-rooted, not easily subject to change, disposed, ingrained, and lasting, happiness must also be. The interval of happiness and virtue cannot be short or temporal. Virtue is not habituated overnight, nor is it lost overnight. Likewise, happiness is neither gained nor lost overnight.
Jan 25
1.7
Most complete, most self-sufficient, most desirable, 'without qualification' - Happiness fits these.
The task of the political expert and the task of the individual are different. The political expert must generate a society in which is it possible for the individuals to be happy. Happiness is the strictest end of individuals. Political experts actually do have to worry about everyone's happiness in a way that individuals may not, necessarily.
Ethics is divided into "moral philosophy" and "political philosophy" - the differences being whether the scope is about the individual or society as a whole.
Function argument-
flute player -- essential, characteristic activity or function is: playing flute well
eyes -- essential, characteristic activity or function is: to see well
Man, who is a part of nature, has a purpose. Aristotle's teleology is extremely pronounced here.
Human -- essential, characteristic activity or function is: ....
The function of man is intimately linked to 'the soul'.
Happiness is acheived by performing one's function well.
Of course, the soul of human (unlike plants and animals) has unique to it the ability to reason.
Nutrition and non-rational aspects of the souls (e.g. desires) can pay attention or heed the last aspect, namely rational.
Jan 27
the highest good - eudaimonia
Disposition - v1, v2,...,vn - possession and exercisizing
There must be a great deal of stability. These are not fleeting feelings.
Eudaimonia is supposed to objective. You can be wrong about your conception of Eudaimonia, if you are not a virtuous agent especially. There objective properties of a thing which determine what it means for that thing to flourish. There are objective, 'naturalistic' properties of man which determine fitness and flourish-rating of each individual.
He is not guilty of the 'quantifier shift' -
(For all x)(There exists y)(F(xy))
(There exists y)(For all x)(F(xy))
‘Every method of production and every type of inquiry, similarly also every action and purpose, seems to aim at some good. That is why people have declared, correctly so, that goodness is what anything aims at.'
It is not the case that:
From ‘‘Each thing aims at some good or other’’ it would not follow that ‘‘There is some single good at which all things aim.’’
Lower inquiries and expertises has its own unique goal, perhaps even its own unique good, but these lower things are done for the sake of higher goals, perhaps higher inquiries and expertises, which likewise follow the same pattern. This process repeats until the ultimate goal of the political expert is reached.
Thus Aristotle proposes the following principle of comparison: when X and Y are goals, and X is for the sake of Y, then Y is better than X. Note that the ‘‘for the sake of’’ relation establishes a ranking, too, among the actions and products of a practitioner of any discipline. A housebuilder acts for the sake of the building of the house, and this implies an order, and a basis of comparison, for everything that he does, as a builder.
pg. 48-50ish in Pakaluk
Goals are not just comparable (commensurable). Political experts must choose between incommensurable goals.
1. Each discipline has a goal (or good) at which it aims.
2. The higher the discipline, the better its goal (or good).
3. If there is a highest discipline, then there is a best goal (or good).
4. There is a highest discipline.
5. Thus, there is a best goal (or good).
Political expertise is more than force and power, it must be about reason and knowledge. Political expertise directs all other expertises. A highest good does indeed exist, it is the goal of political expertise.
Way of life -- Highest good
-----------------------------------------------
Life of ease -- Pleasure
Life of civic involvement -- Honor
Life of money making -- Wealth
Life of attaining insight -- ?
1-3 are still for the sake of something else.
Feb 1
THe Highest Good
Selection/[Dominance goal] of one single good
Collection/Collective/[Comprehensive goal] of several goods
What is the criteria for the highest good?
1) Complete (ultimate, or ultimacy, nothing beyond it, etc.)
2) Self-sufficient
3) Preferability (Pakaluk suggests)
How many virtues must we exercise to produce virtuous actons, etc.?
Perhaps there are sub-goods ordered which are necessary for the ultimate good. This contains both the selective and collective views, in some sense. But, it seems that it is plagued with the means/end argument, and thus it still seems selective. Part of the question, in my view, is whether or not the 'means' are necessary and unchangable or unreplaceable, and un-reorderable, which are usually things which are part of means. Replacing my bike with a car is an improvement, for example, in the means to certain travel ends. This may or may not be possible in the ultimate good argument.
The "highest good" has the problem of it being the ultimate ulterior motive. It seems very egoist.
Does it make any sense to say that you love someone ‘‘for his own sake, for your sake’’? Or that you do something ‘‘for its own sake, for your own sake’’?
But I say: What abut "For his own sake, and for your sake" ... or "For its own sake, and for your own sake"
From the ultimate goal selective view, it seems that you might be justified in doing just anything to reach it. Of course, we can simply posit that you can't achieve the ultimate goal using non-virtuous means, and that virtuous means are extraordinarily limited to such a small subset that you won't be about to do 'just anything to reach' the ultimategoal.
The ultimate goal seems to structure all other activities and sub-goals of the life of the virtuous agent.
criterion - pg 67ish
Feb 3
Human beings have a function. Pak 76?
What is that function? Pak 77
Interrelatedness/Interdefinability of function, goodness, and virtue - pg. 6 and
Lacking the human virtues is like having a blunt blade, and thus you aren't performing the function as well as you, and thus you can't reach the highest good.
Therefore, the purpose of the Function Argument, as I said, is to argue that the highest human good is to be found among those things that we can do only because we have the virtues.
ergon = function
"of that for the sake of which it exists" - the knife exists for cutting. Take away its function to cut, and it is no longer a knife. Analogy to human function.
A virtue is a trait that makes a thing of a certain kind good and in view of which we call a thing of that kind ‘‘good.’’
Human beings have a function, a purpose, a telos. There is a reason for its existence and a normative structure to how it should exist.
Here, the 'potentiality/actuality' distinction is quite important. Virtue is about actualizing your humanity.
It seems, however, that descriptions aren't necessarily the same thing as teleology. But, if his teleology is correct, and the classification of thing is important to understanding what a thing is, then we might have to agree to the function argument.
What is the connection between human virtues and reason? Also, we have to properly condition our irrational parts, namely our desires.
if anyone with a function should reasonably take as his good the doing of that function well, then he should take as his good the achieving of that function in the way that a good practitioner of the function does
Feb 8
CH. 13, "minimalist psychology"
soul ('psuche')
There is an 'aspect' of the soul which is nutritive part of the soul, for growth and development. There are two other very significant aspects of the soul. There is 'reason' or 'rational' aspect. There is also the desiderative (desires) part or aspect. The desiderative and nutritive aspects are non-rational (obv.). Interestingly, the desiderative aspects 'heeds reason', whereas the nutritive does not. The desiderative aspect has a special capacity to heed reason. Desiderative and reason aspects can be transformed and changed. And, the Virtues, thus, are associated with both the desiderative and rational aspects of the soul.
Contemplation (book 10) plays an extremely important part of virtue and becoming like the God (the latter especially). It is extremely connected, obv., to reason.
Eudaimonia is connected to excellence, which is the result of the activity of the soul. Thus, the nature/structure of the soul is very important in determining what it means to be eudaimonic.
Virtues are connected to human goodness. And the virtues are thus connected to the activity of the human soul.
Virtuous____________Self-Control______________Lack Self-Control_______________Vicious
The virtuous is such that his desires are so in tuned with his reason that he doesn't need to fight within himself to do the right thing. He doesn't have desires which conflict with his reason. The person in self-control, however, has desires which are in conflict with reason, but he chooses what is reasonable. The person not in self-control has desires in conflict with reason, and he chooses what his desires demand. The vicious doesn't even 'know' what he ought to be doing. He doesn't have a conflict in him, he just entirely wants the wrong thing, to the same extent that the virtuous person entirely wants the right thing.
Reason gives the 'right encouragement' and the 'right direction'.
Reason gives you intellectual excellences.
e.g. intellectual accomplishment, good sense, and wisdom
Desires give you excellences of character.
e.g. mild-mannered and moderate
Excellence of activity of the soul can be achieved by any human.
A virtue is ‘‘what it is about a thing which makes it such that it perform its function well.’’
Thus, some parts of an instrument or appliance (e.g. the water
filter, the heating element) are such that, if they are good, their being
good contributes to that instrument’s being good, without qualifica-
tion; and other parts of a thing (e.g. the electric cord) are such that, if
they are good, their being good contributes to that instrument’s
being good only in a qualified way.
Perhaps, then, 'good health' and the nutritive aspect of the health could be considered 'good in a qualified way'.
This makes sense given his teleology "rational biped" - having two legs seems 'essential'.
Feb 10
Nature/Nurture - what is "moral education"
Human Excellence
_________________________________________________
intellectual character
Teaching, experience, time habituation
Virtues - Courage, temperance <--virtuous agent to mentor
SKills - Cithara, housebuilding <--instructors to mentor
Feb 15
Ch. 3 - Pleasure/pain
CH. 4 -
What does pain and pleasure have to do with morality?
1. nothing
2. everything
3. baseline - minimal conditions for morality
4. for education and discipline
Pleasure is a good sign of someone's character. If they take 'pleasure' in doing what is a right act, then that indicates that they have the right sort of character.
Education is extremely important to Aristotle.
Aristotle argues against the Socratic doctrine ("Virtue is knowledge") - which is that people choose what they think is right, even if they happen to be wrong about it. Aristotle, obv., believes there must be a non-knowledge, non-reason component to Virtue.
But if someone with merely natural virtue does not develop into a truly
virtuous person in this way, then these natural tendencies will even-
tually lead him astray – and perhaps do so to a greater degree, the
more striking his natural gifts originally were
Feb 17
Skills - You can read all you want about brain surgery and medicine, and learn all there is to know, and 'reason' your way through as much medicine as you want. But, you won't necessarily be very good without actually practice, doing, and habituation. Likewise for Cello, Housebuilder, etc. This is parallel to Virtue. Everyone can read and educate themselves about Virtue, but you also need to cultivate character through practice and action to actually become good at it and to truly change who you are.
In the beginning you can have natural characteristics of Virtue. But, natural dispositions like this aren't the same. "Hexis" (disposition). Natural virtues can be cultivated to become actual virtue.
The Doctrine of Mean (discuss next week in depth) - There is at one end Excess and on the other end deficiency. In the middle is the intermediate.
1. We acquire a character-related virtue by performing actions similar
to those of people who have that virtue (1103a31–b6).
2. We acquire a character-related virtue not by performing certain
kinds of actions, but by performing them in a certain way (1103b6–21).
Your Moral life cannot fail to have an impact on you. Even the little things add up to change and habituate your character.
3. Acting well in a domain involves, initially at least, the avoidance of
contrary extremes (1104a11–27).
Hexis prompts act which affects your balance upon the scale of the mean.
4. There is a kind of momentum in action: to the extent that someone
acts well or poorly in a domain, to that extent he becomes more disposed to
act in that way (1104a27–b3).
---------------
1) Affections (emotions)
2) Capacities
3) Dispositions
You are neither praised nor blamed for 1 and 2 in some sense? Since virtues of character can't be 1 or 2, then it must be 3.
---------------
bachelor = unmarried man
definition species genus
Virtue = intermediate state/disposition
Feb 22
1) State, disposition {genus}
2) Doctrine of the mean {species}
Aristotle thinks his excess/means/deficiency is exhaustive, requiring no more.
The virtuous agent will have virtues, all of them, which lie on the mean.
The table of virtues isn't relative to any object, it is relative to us.
Feb 24
Principle of Discrimination
A > B
Voluntary and Involuntary
Mar 1
Two factors diminish culpability of agent:
Force, ignorance
You do have a moral obligation to know the right things, some cases.
We may be ignorant of (i)particulars or (ii)moral general-
ities. Aristotle holds that ignorance of particulars is sometimes not
culpable, but ignorance of moral generalities is always culpable.
When an action is not of the agent’s own accord, as we
have seen, the inference from action to character is blocked.
If I am not the 'self-server' the self initiater of my action, and there is a story about my action, then it blocks the inference from the act to the character.
Under noraml circumstances we can infer character from act. The act will be a sign of character.
--------------
The way in which an agent deliberates demonstrates virtue.
1) Appetite (cannot conflict with decision
2) Temper (no)
3) Wish (no)
4) judgment (true or false, but decisions is either right or wrong)
These things must be sharply distinguished from what constitutes decision.
According to Aristotle, prohairesis seems to be ‘‘the
most distinctive mark of virtue, and better than actions for discerning
character’’ (1111b5–6).
(doxa) - Belief or opinion (like Doxology)
Mar 3
III.2 - Aristotle is saying that your intellectual ventures, your ability to make true or false claims about the world, your judgment in this sense, is sharply separate from your moral decision making. Smart judgments doesn't make you a good person. And, being a good person doesn't mean that you have many smart judgments or have reliable beliefs.
Prohairesis, the choice is significant and important, but Aristotle thinks it isn't predicated on the truth or falsity of other issues, but instead only on the rightness or wrongness of what to do.
Moral judgments flow from character. WHich is why character, inevitably still the real factor of what motivates action. Judgment, then, still seems amoral, just a means to an end, esesntially.
Mar 10
CH. 4 - Wish
Are we responsible for our characters? Aristotle says 'yes'.
Is 'X' good by the sheer act of your wishing it? Or is it that X merely appears to be good?
Good/Value might be subject dependent, and thus not objective.
We are as responsible for our character as we are for our actions. (1113b10)
If you habitutate vice enough, then you will be so vicious that even if you wish to do the virtuous thing, you cannot do it. Your character will force you to do the wrong thing. Mere wishing doesn't do anybody any good.
You can't cop-out and say that you aren't responsible for an action because that is 'simply your character'. But, since you are responsible for your character, then you also are responsible for the end results, even further down the line when you have a vicious character.
Teleological-Faculty view - teleological because our faculties are geared to understand the objective qualities of the world. So also, your desires and wishes of the virtuous person will be so honed that it is perfected geared to perceive the objective qualities of the moral world.
A good person, thus, stands as a good measure of ethics.
But when he adds that ‘‘the good person is set apart from others to the
greatest extent by seeing what is truly so in each case’’ (a31–32), he is
invoking the Teleological-Faculty view and suggesting that the phe-
nomena of wishing for the good should be understood according to a
focal or central-case analysis: the various bad conditions of wishing
should be interpreted as various ways of falling away from the
naturally good condition.
The habituation that leads to one who can't control themselves, because their character overrides everything else, is voluntary, and thus even those who can't control themselves, voluntarily have gotten there. THey have voluntarily made themselves the way they are.
The argument of the chapter is complex, but we can distinguish four
basic stages: the fundamental argument (1113b3–21); a confirming
argument (1113b21–1114a13); a diagnosis of why people are attracted to
the false view (1114a13–31); and an afterthought (1114a31–b25).
-------------
The potential to be good at basketball, the gift of nature (Kant's phrase), does not seem up to us. You can't actualize a potential that you don't have. Moral talents seem to be be moral potentials, possibly.
Mar 15
Desires - excellence of character
Reason - excellence of the intellect
Now, there is a distinction with reason.
A) 'whose principles cannot be otherwise' - Scientific
B) deliberating, can be otherwise - Calculative
The objects of our inquiry will correspond to different types of reason.
What constitutes excellence of these types of reason (scientific and calculative)?
'What constitutes the means'? is a question that is deliberative. I'm deliberating about things which aren't fixed and determined. There must be contemplation about things that I need to do.
We need to be able to determine action and truth. The things that can determine it are perception, desire, and intelligence.
Desire - Pursuit and avoidance
Excellence of character -> Decision -> Desire --- If you have the right antecedent, then you'll have the right consequent.
Decision is a result of deliberation. If I haven't properly deliberated, then I will not end up with the right desire.
The rational prescription must be in place, it must be true. Your desires must also be in line. Reason must assert and desire must pursue the same thing.
These are different:
Action is an end in itself - done for the sake of the noble, for the sake of the moral, for the sake of itself
Production X end (techne) - end product is different from the activity
1. Technical expertise
2. Systematic knowledge
3 wisdom
4. intellectual accomplishment
5. intelligence
Systematic knowledge - sciences, mathematics, etc. --induction, might need to be understood by experience
Rational disposition is very different 'in action' and 'in production'.
For technical expertise, 'rational disposition' is accompanied by 'rational prescription'.
wisdom isn't systematic or technical knowledge - this has alot of implications.
Mar 17
Wisdom is clearly connected to action.
Techne - Product and process are distinct
Wisdom - the wise person wants to do the right action, doing the right action because it is an end in itself. That is what connects wisdom to practical life.
Wisdom is a kind of excellence.
WIsdom can't be dislodged or forgetten in the same way as technical knowledge.
Intellectual acccomplishment - demonstrations. Like Axioms->inference proofs.
Intelligence is connected to the starting point, the axoim. It isn't the proof as a whole. Intellectual accomplishment when you've gone through the whole demonstration process.
The theorem is systematic knowledge.
Wisdom is concerned with human goodness. Thales and Anax weren't interested in wisdom, although what they enjoyed was interesting. Socrates might have been wise, but he might not have been intellectually accomplished (although, even this would be true). The distinction between wisdom and intellectual accomplishment must be strongly drawn.
If the starting point can't be changed (it must be necessary), then it can't be wisdom, acc. Aristotle.
Deliberation contrasted to - Judgement, guesses, knowledge
Mar 22
The five thinking-related virtues Aristotle distinguishes are:
1) craftsmanship (techne); technical expertise
2) knowledge (episteme); systematic knowledge
3) administrative ability (phronesis); wisdom? [Definitely Practical Wisdom]
4) sound intuition (nous); intellectual accomplishment
5) wisdom or ‘‘profound understanding’’ (sophia); intelligence? [Usually, WIsdom]
Aristotle seems to think that the primacy of wisdom, among the
thinking-related virtues, becomes evident once we develop a satisfac-
tory classification.
‘‘Standard View’’ – is that Aristotle is raising a difficulty about the
Doctrine of the Mean, involving what I earlier called the ‘‘Problem of
Guidance’’
There must be a target in order for 'sound reason' to properly function, and bring us to the intermediate (between excess and deficiency).
Suppose, then, that we make this further distinction and say that in
matters of conduct and appropriate emotional response three things
are necessary: (i) to do what is intermediate, (ii) by making the
adjustments that sound reason indicates, (iii) which sound reason
arrives at with a view to some target or standard. Yet, as Aristotle next
points out in (III), to say this is to give a schema that holds of any
domain of action in which there is some sort of expertise. In all such
domains, it will be true that one needs to use sound reason – let us call
it ‘‘good sense’’ – with a view to some ideal, when applying or
interpreting relevant maxims. To advance beyond this truism,
Aristotle then says in (IV), one needs to identify the specific sort of
‘‘good sense’’ that enters into play in some domain and also to
indicate the relevant ‘‘target.’’ This, then, becomes Aristotle’s task: to
identify the specific sort of ‘‘good sense’’ that is relevant for ethical
deliberation and action, and to say what this should appropriately
take as its target.
Good sense in ethical conduct, deliberation, and action. We need to know the target of this good sense. What is its target?
But once we construe Aristotle’s purposes in this way, we see that
this is exactly what he carries out in book 6. He devotes the bulk of
the book to identifying the exact sort of ‘‘good sense’’ that is needed
for character-related virtues, and then he devotes chapters 12–13 to
explaining what sound reason takes as its ‘‘target.’’ Good sense in
these matters, he maintains, is appropriately called phronesis (‘‘admin-
istrative ability,’’ ‘‘practical wisdom,’’ ‘‘intelligence and foresight in
action,’’ cf. 6.12.1144b27–28), and it may be defined as that virtue
which deals with what is good and bad generally for human beings
(1140b5–7). Its target, Aristotle argues, is speculative or contemplative
activity of the sort that we engage in when we exercise the virtue of
wisdom. In just the same way that medicine makes the relevant
adjustments in the balanced conditions of the body with a view to
its target of health, phronesis makes adjustments in emotions and
conduct with a view to promoting the activity of sophia (cf. 1144a3–5;
1145a6–9). Phronesis is for the sake of sophia.
Good is phronesis. Its target is contemplation necessary for exercising virtue. Phronesis is for Sophia.
If you are in an appropriate state (of the soul), then you can be assured that a Proposition P is true. Obviously, P might be true, and your soul isn't in the right state, but then you just aren't assured of knowledge.
Once we appreciate the high standard that Aristotle sets for a trait
to count as a thinking-related virtue, we can understand better his
distinction between two parts of the rational soul.
1. Things that exist can be divided into (a) those the basic causes of
which cannot be otherwise and (b) those that can be otherwise.
2. This difference is a difference in kind.
3. To grasp something involves resemblance and kinship between
that which does the grasping and that which is grasped.
This demonstrates why we need two different parts of the soul. Aristotle thinks that different parts of the soul are required to understand or pursue different objects. One object might be about eternal objects, and it has a part of the sould required for it. And another object by the changing the world, and you'll need to a faculty or part of the soul to understand it. Different parts of the soul fr different objects.
4. Since there are two kinds of things that exist, there are two kinds
of resemblance and kinship to them.
5. The characteristic work of the thinking part of the soul is to grasp
what exists.
6. Thus, it does so by the two kinds of kinship.
7. But it can have these two kinds of kinship only if it has two parts
which differ in kind.
8. Thus, the thinking part of the soul itself has two parts – the
knowledge-attaining part (epistemikon) by which it grasps things
the basic causes of which cannot be otherwise (mathematics and the sciences - eternal), and the reckoning
part (logistikon - calculative), by which it grasps things that can be otherwise.
When we deliberate we are calculating.
The way in
which maxims must be left unspecified, because they require sensi-
tivity to particular circumstances, is not something that could be
remedied by giving further rules and prescriptions.
Sound reason enables you to decide what it is you should do because the sound reason takes into account the complexity of whatever particular situation you happen to find yourself.
A word should be said about points of translation. ‘‘Sound reason’’
renders the Greek, orthos logos, literally ‘‘correct reason’’ or ‘‘right
reason.’’ Sometimes the phrase is taken to refer to a sort of maxim or
prescription: ‘‘the correct rule’’ or ‘‘the right principle.’’ But it is better
to take the phrase to refer principally to a power or faculty (just as, as
we have seen, logos on its own typically indicates a power or faculty).
orthos logos simply is
the virtue of phronesis (1144b28).
(not a principle or maxim; it is a faculty, a power, a voice)
Mar 24
Ethics employs practical reasoning, not demonstrative or technical reasoning.
Aristotle’s identification of practical reason as a distinct sort of
reasoning should be contrasted with attempts to conflate distinctively
ethical reasoning with either demonstrative or technological reason-
ing. One might argue that modern accounts of ethical reasoning
presuppose one or the other of these identifications. Indeed, it is
commonly supposed today that there is something suspicious or
defective about commonsense ethical reasoning – that ethics is not
yet on solid ground; that it has not found a scientific basis; and that
ethical reasoning will not become set on solid ground, until we come
to see how reasoning in ethics is similar to that of a deductive system
or a branch of technology. The two chief approaches to ethical
reasoning today are ‘‘deontology’’ and ‘‘consequentialism’’: but deonto-
logical systems typically present ethical reasoning as a deductive
system; and consequentialism is evidently modeled on technological
science. Aristotle’s demarcation of a distinct virtue of phronesis is
effectively the claim that neither of these alternatives could quite be
correct
Thus, although for Aristotle there are a multiplicity of
sciences, and different branches of knowledge, there is a single sort of
knowledge which encompasses and unifies all the others. Thus, as he
sees it, there would correspondingly be a chief virtue of the part of the
soul that grasps unchanging things, a single virtue which, as it were,
encompasses and contains all the other virtues that are kinds of
knowledge. This is wisdom, as Aristotle understands it
If the non-rational part is not properly adjusted by phronesis, then it will have a profound negative impact on your wisdom. Phronesis is the precondition to wisdom because Phronesis is the necessary thing to put your non-rational part of the soul in order so that you can have wisdom.
Administrative ability (phronesis): a state of the thinking part of the
̄
soul which makes someone actively and reliably disposed to attain
truth in action as regards things ultimately good and bad for
human beings, precisely through reasoning (1140b5–6).
emphasis on good for human beings
Wisdom (sophia): insight and knowledge as regards those sorts of
things that are best by nature (1141a19–20, b3).
best, regardless of species, truly, unqualified best, period.
Phronesis therefore attains qualified truth in practical reasoning, truth which is relative to a species;
but wisdom, in contrast, attains truth (full stop).
To me: there is a difference between saying that one might 'implicitly' believe or 'have a gut feeling' that one should do X in circumstance Y. The inarticulacy of the virtuous agent is fine with me. That is a practical matter. I disagree that there isn't at least a theoretical truth.
Pg 187 -Aristotle - pg 228 Pakaluk
dministrative ability aims at wisdom and orders everything
else so as to promote the acquisition and actualization of wisdom:
‘‘Administrative ability does not employ wisdom as an instrument;
rather, it looks to how wisdom might come into existence. It gives orders
then, for the sake of that; it does not give orders to that’’ (1145a7–9)
Phronesis exists for the sake of wisdom, but it doesn't command wisdom.
Wisdom and phronesis
̄
both make it so that a human being carries out his characteristic work
well and achieves happiness. Wisdom produces happiness, not as
something distinct from it, in the way that medical skill produces
health, but in the way that health produces health (1144a3–5): it is
constitutive of happiness.
Mar 29
Eudaimonia: stable, objective, universal, a relationship to divinity
Eudaimonia: ultimate, self-sufficient, preferable
The debate continues between selection and collection.
Selection- one single thing
Collection - group fo things
The structure of the soul (just considering 2 of 3 parts), has reason and the desire (non-rational). The exercise of man is the highest activity. God contemplates (and exercises reason). Character related virtues correspond to non-rational part.
Teresa/Hawking Problem- it would appear that mother teresa has the proper character-related virtues, but lacks the thinking related virtues. And, Hawking appears to have the latter but not the former. Aristotle's applauds what Hawkings does, but that does mean that Aristotle won't applaud Teresa (she's not a good human) for not being a cosmologist? And, does Hawking's lack of character-related virtue mean demonstrate he isn't good?
WHat is best for a human?
If it requires a combination of character and highest activity of reason, then it seems like the collection view is what we seek.
If the ultimate goal is the highest activity of reason, then it seems selection. Virtue isn't an end in itself though, it doesn't seem self-sufficient.
‘If happiness is
activity in accordance with virtue, it is reasonable that it be activity in
accordance with the best virtue’’ (1177a12–13). This is puzzling,
because Aristotle, as we have seen, has throughout the Ethics been
deliberately maintaining a kind of indecision as regards what we have
called Selection and Collection. Happiness is activity in accordance
with virtue – granted – but is it some single such activity (Selection)
or all such activities (Collection)?
Yet another puzzling aspect of the passage is its use, for the first
time, of the phrase ‘‘ultimate happiness’’ (teleia eudaimonia; see also
1177b24).
How can happiness come in degrees? If it is self-sufficient, we might be tempted to think that there aren't degrees of happiness.
So both sorts of happi-
ness are fragments, really: ‘‘ultimate’’ happiness is a fragment of
virtuous activity, and happiness ‘‘in a secondary sense’’ is a comple-
mentary fragment. Neither of them is complete: so how can either
constitute happiness?
Mar 31
The life of pleasure-
The life of virtue-
The contemplative life-
There are serious objections to the claim that the life of virtue is a precondition to the the life of contemplation.
Happiness must be self-sufficient, complete, etc. And, it is found, it seems, in the contemplative life.
pg319-standard interpretation
3 problems in standard view, quotes of start:
...?
There is a difficulty, too, in taking 10.8 to be marking out a ‘‘life of
political involvement’’ which putatively involves administrative vir-
tue and character-related virtues alone.
Again, just as it is odd, on Aristotle’s scheme, to think of adminis-
trative virtue as embedded in a way of life without its having any
‘‘target,’’ so it is odd to consider philosophical wisdom as pursued
within a way of life in separation from administrative virtue.
The maximization of contemplative
activity, Aristotle thinks, is therefore subject to the constraint that
it can be maximized only through actions that are consistent with the
various virtues.
But then why count activity in accordance with character-related
virtues as happiness at all? Why not say that only philosophical
contemplation is happiness, especially given that Aristotle holds
that happiness extends only so far as theoretical activity (1178b28)?
What is the difference if one maintains that there is only one activity
that is happiness, but that there are also other sorts of activities which,
although not happiness, nonetheless are similar to happiness?
```
1. In Book III of the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle claims that human agents themselves are responsible for the character they have acquired.
(a) Write a comprehensive essay that details the arguments that Aristotle gives in support of that claim.
(b) Provide one insightful objection – be sure to substantially justify it – to show that Aristotle’s claim, as a general claim, is not true.
(c) Then, defend Aristotle, by appealing to specific parts of Aristotle’s theory, against your objection.
(a)
Fundamental argument (1113b3–21)
Pakaluk’s Outline (Pakaluk 144-145)
Any action involving wish, deliberation, and choice is up to us.
Virtuous actions are like that.
Thus, virtuous actions are up to us.
But if virtuous actions are up to us, so is being virtuous.
Thus, being virtuous (that is, having a virtue) is up to us. (1113b3–14)
But there is parity between virtue and vice.
Thus, being vicious is up to us.
Thus, what character we have is up to us. (1113b6–14)
We are responsible for whether we are virtuous or not, for virtues (and vices) find their expression in our voluntary actions.
Confirming argument (1113b21–1114a13)
Pakaluk’s Outline (Pakaluk 146)
It is a presupposition of punishment that what gets punished is up to the agent.
But people in authority punish character traits as well as actions.
Thus people in authority presuppose that character traits are up to us.
Hence, character traits are up to us.
Nature of Man is Political Assumption
Diagnosis of why people are attracted to the false view (1114a13–31)
Incorrectly applying criterion for action to character
‘Up to us’
One might object that people should not be held responsible for their voluntary actions because being negligent or evil may be part of their character. But that is no excuse; a person is responsible, Aristotle holds, for his or her character as well as for the particular actions to which the character gives rise. This is because a person's character is the result of his or her voluntary actions.
Afterthought (1114a31–b25)
Refutation of side-criticism that we aren’t responsible for our actions because everyone aims at what appears good, but they don’t have control over how it appears. (1114a 31)
Desert of praise and blame judges between [Character causing the appearance of ends] and [Appeance of ends causing character]
(b) and (c) can have a lot of answers
3. (a) After carefully explaining the necessary background to the heart of the distinction between Selection and Collection in Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, explain in considerable detail two particularly significant problems that Aristotle’s theory faces. Of those two problems one must be what was labeled in the lectures as the Teresa/Hawking Problem. Be sure to justify your answer by appealing to Pakaluk’s Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, and the class lectures. (b) Provide an interpretation of Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics that most plausibly responds to those two significant problems.
(a)
Selection vs. Collection Issue
Criteria of Human Good
Complete/Ultimacy (1097a25–34)
Sought for its own sake, but never for sake of something else; points toward Selection
Teleion interpretation as ‘complete’ points toward Collection
Self-sufficiency (1097b6–16)
“notions of rest and absence of further dependence” (Pakaluk 71)
Selection seems to strongly show a lack of dependency or need for a combination of things.
“only the sum total of all goods, as possessed over a lifetime, could constitute a good that was strictly self-sufficient” as an argument for Collection (Pakaluk 72)
Preferability (1097b16–20)
“counting alongside other goods” clause and Aristotle’s Philebus criticism favors Selection (Pakaluk 73)
Collection interpretations collapse Preferability into Self-Sufficiency (Pakaluk 74)
Two problems
Teresa/Hawking Problem
It would appear that Mother Teresa has the proper character-related virtues, but lacks the thinking related virtues. And, Hawking appears to have the latter but not the former. Aristotle applauds what Hawking does in cosmology, but does that mean Aristotle won't applaud Mother Teresa because she isn’t a cosmologist? And, does Hawking's lack of character-related virtue mean demonstrate he isn't a good human either?
Problem #2
Selection and Collection have very different answers for the question: “what is best for a human?”
If it requires a combination of character and highest activity (reason), then it seems like the collection view is what we seek.
If the ultimate goal is the highest activity (reason), then it seems selection. Virtue isn't an end in itself though, it doesn't seem self-sufficient.
My worry, then, is that either character or reason aren’t significant enough, either contradicting my own intuitions or contradicting an interpretation of Aristotle’s worldview at large.
(b) Given Aristotle’s other famous works, e.g. Metaphysics, when paired with his essentialist and teleological world views, seems to overwhelmingly favor ‘reason’ and the selection interpretation. I think this is hermeneutically plausible, but it isn’t satisfying.
```
1
Liam Murphy is exclusively interested in “describing a robust egalitarian conception of justice that nevertheless makes reasonable demands on people.”<<ref "1">> His assessment of ‘reasonable’ does a lot of unspoken philosophical work which shapes the rest of his argument. His debate between monism and dualism of political philosophy rests upon this aim. Admittedly, this initial aim, prima facie, seems quite agreeable. As it shapes his discussion, however, it becomes apparent that this aim requires clarification and justification. I’m going to briefly sketch out his argument, as well as explain his distinction between monism and dualism. From there, we’ll be able to consider the impact of the underlying aim, and whether or not it really makes a good case for monism, and if the aim (or its denial) has influence on the viability of dualism as Murphy presents it.
A monist believes there is one set of fundamental normative principles or goals which determine both institutional requirements and personal moral requirements. Justice is likely a subset of morality. Whatever principles define morality also determine the subsequent principles of justice. Murphy takes monism to be the default view, such that we need good reasons to depart from it.<<ref "2">>
A dualist believes there are two sets of fundamental normative principles or goals, one which determines institutional requirements, which is where justice begins, and another which determines personal moral requirements. For the dualist, justice isn’t activated until the institutional level. Essentially, the source of the normativity of justice does not correspond to the source of the normativity of morality. Morality and justice are separate realms of normativity.
To be clear, monists certainly aren’t against institutions. In practical terms, and in most circumstances, it seems that monistic justice demands that we create some sorts of institutions. Vitally distinguished from dualism, the justice of monism isn’t activated by the implementation or design of institutions; rather justice is active before any institutional considerations. Institutions are instrumental, but not fundamental, to the monist.
What monistic theories have in common is simply that principles of justice are derived from the same principles of morality. Principles of justice aren’t fundamental; they can’t stand alone; they must be underwritten by moral principles. Murphy’s standard principle of morality is some variant of utility, but he thinks this isn’t important (he’s probably wrong about that). He believes that monism motivated by his aim can cover many sorts of mainstream moral theories. While I can agree that monism, in general, without regard to his motivation, is capable of catering to other moral theories, I’m not convinced his motivation for monism is the right one, nor do I think his aim remains compatible with many moral theories. It is likely the case that his initial aim is built into his moral theory, which is why it plays out in any subsequently derived theory of justice he would deem plausible.
Importantly, Murphy believes that dualism also takes up this aim. He explains:
A main hope behind all the arguments for dualism seems to be that it will help with a fundamental problem faced by, specifically, egalitarian theories of distributive justice: the problem of the unreasonable demands such theories of justice may potentially impose on some people.<<ref "3">>
His initial aim is a motivating force behind not only his monistic theory of justice, but, in his view, that of dualists, as well. Murphy believes that many political philosophers pursue dualism because they perceive it to be better at avoiding a problem of ‘unreasonable demands of justice’. Much of his argument deals with showing why dualism is not as favorable as monism in this respect. In some sense, Murphy believes that almost all arguments in favor of dualism, particularly for the sake of this initial aim, can be more effectively captured by monism. And if he is correct, then the reasons which might drive political philosophers towards dualism, need not take us there, but can instead lead to a specific conception of monism which does the same work without as many problems. He continues:
What binds together all the arguments I will consider is an underlying concern to describe a plausible and robust egalitarian theory of distributive justice that nevertheless appears to make reasonable demands on people in just and unjust circumstances. That this Rawlsian project is worthy I take for granted; my aim is to show that dualism hinders rather than helps it.<<ref "4">>
This ‘underlying concern’, the initial aim, is part of what he thinks is a Rawlsian project (and he is probably right). Murphy believes monism is superior to dualism in this Rawlsian project. This initial aim is a litmus test for the plausibility of any theory of justice, regardless of whether it is monistic or dualistic; it is a test of the ‘reasonableness’ of the demands of that theory. This he admits to taking for granted.
It is a potent test, but I think we must question its grounds. If he is wrong about that initial claim, then I don’t think the rest of his argument can serve as a justification for why one should maintain monism. Further, if he is correct about the motivation behind dualism, and his initial aim is unjustified, then dualism also seems unjustified. The context of his argument at large rests upon this initial aim.
What counts as a ‘reasonable demand on people in just and unjust circumstances’? By reasonable, he means ‘minimal’. And by minimal, we aren’t talking about whether justice can demand more than what is required (that would be injustice!). Rather, the minimal aspect of ‘reasonable’ is that justice demands obligations of minimal size or minimal degree. In Murphy’s view, justice has a low-ceiling on positive duties. He’s not going to consider any theory of justice which could make demands greater than his intuitive minimalism. That assumption needs justification.
So, what is the problem with this principle of minimal sacrifice? What are the effects of assuming that there is a low ceiling to the sacrifices which justice requires? Murphy begs the question. Within the word ‘reasonable’ Murphy has inserted this principle of minimal sacrifice. And, it just so happens that theories which meet this ‘reasonable’ requirement come pre-built with the principle of minimal sacrifice.
Perhaps the obligations of morality and subsequently justice are such that we should sacrifice almost everything but the clothes on our backs for the sake of others. Murphy’s low ceiling is, for now, artificial, it is begged. It might suit his intuitions or justify his way of life, but I’m far from convinced it is correct.
In part, we are roped into a discussion of the grounds of normativity. It is clear, at least for the monist, that the moral principles dictate the principles of justice, and thus, our moral theories have profound impact on the sorts of justice theories which can be considered. He assumes certain moral principles, and that shapes justice for him. I’m fine with that, but it isn’t a great reason to be a monist in general, only to be a monist if you take his moral principles and further arguments comparing the effectiveness of dualism and monism to be true. It seems then, that he needs to justify his moral views in order to further defend his theory of justice.
Murphy is interested in achieving “our egalitarian aims without making ourselves miserable in the process.”<<ref "5">> I think nobody wants to be miserable. But what does justice/morality have to do with my happiness? To the egoist, everything. To the utilitarian, it is substantially more complicated, and still not clear at all that I myself will achieve happiness. To a virtue ethicist, it still isn’t clear in the practical world, particularly concerning moral luck and tragic dilemmas that we likely face in the real world – many virtue theorists purposely avoid the discussion of justice simply because it very often seems that the virtuous agent doesn’t directly benefit from it. The Kantian doesn’t think personal happiness has anything to with justice or morality. I tend to sympathize with this view; as far as I can see, what ‘I want’ has no direct connection to morality or justice. Murphy subscribes to a variant of utilitarianism in this paper, but he mistakenly believes this argument is going to work for the other mainstream moral approaches.<<ref "6">> Depending on the moral theory one takes us up, in monism, the sort of justice derived might be quite contradictory to Murphy’s aim.
Justice very well might call for us to make ourselves miserable. The easy example might be that misery is in some way subjective, and so it is very easy to see why some really might need to make themselves miserable for the sake of justice. But, even past this subjective point, I don’t see why it isn’t at least a possibility that justice requires we are all going to make sacrifices which will make us miserable. He continues:
If the background institutions are doing their job properly, people will not have to think too much about promoting general well-being, and this liberation is, from the point of view of beneficence, all to the good.<<ref "7">>
Pursuing our own interests and being happy is a good thing, generally speaking. And, of course, all else being equal, the choice between a hypothetical theory of justice which doesn’t make room for our own interests, e.g. a prescription for institutions which are inefficient in maintaining our personal interests, and a theory of justice which does make room for our interests and happiness (to some extent), I’m willing to accept the latter is best. Except, I think Murphy is really pointing out how important he thinks our ‘interests’ really are so superior in priority that the demands of justice must be bent around them. He thinks my lifestyle, my interests, my enjoyments – are to some degree fundamental to morality, and thus fundamental to justice.
The principle of minimal sacrifice built into his moral theory plays a strong role in developing his monistic theory of justice. He seems to assume in some sense that the dualist has monist tendencies to start, but then drifts away toward dualism directly because of how they perceive the test results for reasonable obligations, essentially minimal sacrifices and maximizing happiness. Because he is a monist, if his moral principles are wrong on account of his principle of minimal sacrifice, then his principles of justice will be also. And, if he is correct about how dualism develops and what motivates their thinking, but remains incorrect about the principle of minimal sacrifice, then the dualists are also wrong. His initial assumption, if correct, might enable the rest of his argument for monism to follow, but he gives no reason to assume his initial assumption is correct.
---
<<footnotes "1" "Liam Murphy, “Institutions and the Demands of Justice,” Philosophy & Public Affairs, Vol. 27 No. 4 (Blackwell Publishing: 1998), pg. 257">>
<<footnotes "2" "Ibid., 267">>
<<footnotes "3" "Ibid., 255">>
<<footnotes "4" "Ibid., 256">>
<<footnotes "5" "Ibid., 258">>
<<footnotes "6" "Ibid., 262">>
<<footnotes "7" "Ibid., 263-264">>
''[1][a]''
Korsgaard is very careful in her definition of a “moral reason." For the most part, moral reasons stem from moral principles – for example, “the fact that an act is unjust or unkind is a moral reason against it.”<<ref "1">> In addition, she claims there is a special category of moral reasons, derived from the proper application of the categorical imperative. If a person acts according to the guidance of the categorical imperative, then he or she acts from moral reasons – or, at least, according to a moral ‘ought’. Korsgaard does not, however, claim that all actions – even those allowable by the categorical imperative – stem from moral reasons.<<ref "2">> This is a bit confusing, because other parts of her theory suggest that actions which unify one are the only things we can call actions – and that those actions are derived from the categorical imperative, and should, therefore, be considered actions with moral reasons.
In considering the differences in substantive and formal conceptions of morality, particularly regarding what it means to say we have a “moral reason” to do something, Korsgaard has an interest in preserving an “unconditionally binding” property of moral reason.<<ref "3">> “Moral reasons” are products of a proper procedure or method of deliberation – it is in virtue of the procedure that moral reasons are significant and binding. The sort of procedure that Korsgaard endorses, the categorical imperative, which she believes is a formal conception of morality, produces unconditionally binding moral reasons. She wishes to dismantle procedures which don’t produce morals reasons which are unconditionally binding, such as those which might emerge from substantive conceptions of morality.
Korsgaard contends with Bernard William’s explanation of “should” and “morally ought.”<<ref "4">> It seems to him that morals reasons are a subset of all the reasons used for deliberating what we should (in a non-moral sense), in an all-things considered sense, do in general. Each subset of reasons belongs to a ‘point of view’ such as a “moral point of view,” a “self-interested point of view,” and so on.<<ref "5">> So, the question “What should I do?” can be broken down into a sub-question from each point of view, such as “What should I do from a moral point of view?” and “What should I do from a self-interested point of view?” and so on. Each question represents a “sub-deliberation” of the general deliberation of the question “what should I do?”<<ref "6">>
The “weighing model,” as a decision procedure, is about balancing reasons from different specific points of view to ascertain what one should do in general. <<ref "7">> This is explicitly a procedure for figuring out whether one should or should not do some particular thing. In a decision to do one particular thing, some reasons are for one thing and some are against it. Whichever side, for or against, ultimately has the most weight (a detailed analysis of Korsgaard’s interpretation of this model can be found in part [B]) determines whether you should or should act in a certain way.
The vital point is that the deliberation of the weighing model contrasts moral reasons, which stem from the moral point of view, from other types of reasons, which stem from other points of view.<<ref "8">> Korsgaard believes that a substantive conception of morality of the weighing model, in contrast to a formal conception of morality, particularly the operation of the categorical imperative, has built into it the pitfall of the possibility of separating the sense of ‘moral should’ from (as a subset of) the ‘general should’. The problem then is that moral deliberation takes a backseat to the deliberation of the ‘general should’. Moral reason doesn’t seem unconditionally binding within this procedure, as other sorts of reasons may override moral reason.
Korsgaard would likely agree that my moral point of view might provide strong moral reasons for me to be a good father to my children and to take proper action necessary to help them flourish. I might, on the other hand, not feel like doing this action. Perhaps some non-moral points of view offer quantitatively and qualitatively more robust reasons against this action of fatherhood (the self-interested point of view, for example, might point in this direction). By this conception of the weighing model, my moral reasons are outweighed by the reasons of my non-moral points of view. Thus, while from my moral point of view, I morally ought to do this fatherly action, I generally should not do this fatherly action. In this way, ‘moral oughtness’ loses its normative teeth; it is merely one of many points of view in domain of the ‘general shouldness’.
Avoiding that distinction between ‘moral ought’ and ‘general should’, which Korsgaard believes to be caused by employing a substantive conception of morality, is the motivation behind her preference for a formal conception of morality, in particular the Kantian “testing model.”<<ref "9">> She explains:
<<<
The way you are supposed to deliberate is to formulate a maxim, stating the complete package of considerations that together favor the performance of a certain action…the marshaling of relevant considerations…will still go on, but now it will be part of the work of formulating the maxim. You will still do some weighing and balancing, although now it will only be of considerations that plainly are generally commensurable—we need not assume a metric that makes any possible consideration commensurable with any other. Your maxim, once formulated, embodies your proposed reason. You then test it by the categorical imperative, that is, you ask whether you can will it to be a universal law, in order to see whether it really is a reason. Universalizability is a condition on the form of a reason, and if a consideration doesn’t meet this condition, then it is not merely outweighed—rather, it is not a reason at all.<<ref "10">>
<<<
The categorical imperative is an oven in which you bake maxims; it is a test of the universalizability of maxims. Universalizable maxims are the cakes that come out of the oven which are worth consuming. Notice that the categorical imperative is a formal principle. Let us see if it does the work she thinks it does.
The complex part of the story begins with the formulation of the maxim. A maxim, which is a subjective principle, might usually be thought of as the set of {act, principle, end}. In this explanation of the maxim above, we are also marshaling together and adding to that set all other relevant considerations. So, the maxim as a complete package is the set {act, principle, end}∪{all other considerations}. This is our proposed reason, our proposed action even, which will be tested for universalizability by the categorical imperative.
Interestingly, Korsgaard claims that weighing and balancing of commensurable considerations is part of the formulation of the maxim. This suggests that some of work of the weighing model is done as a part of formulating the maxim, and thus the weighing model, in some sense, is incorporated into this testing model.
Only the maxims which pass the test of the categorical imperative, satisfaction being the universalizability of the maxim, can be said to be reasons for actions. If a proposed maxim doesn’t pass the test, then you can’t act on it, and you can’t use it as a reason to act, and it fails to be an action (as Korsgaard uses the word). And, so, we can see the categorical imperative essentially defines what really counts as action or true maxim or a moral reason, while the hypothetical imperative and proposed maxims play very subsidiary roles.gpg --verify check.sum.sig check.sum
This model is crucial because it seems that the products of the categorical imperative are moral reasons entirely for or entirely against specific actions. This formal conception of morality neatly packs the relevant considerations which we might be worried about including in the procedure, which the weighing model is designed to handle, while also avoiding the mistake of making moral reasons a subset of all the reasons used to deliberate about what we generally should do. So, it seems that Korsgaard can plausibly “identify the general should of deliberation with the moral ought.”<<ref "11">>
Given Korsgaard’s remark, “we make ourselves the authors of our actions, by the way that we act,” she really must prefer the testing model over the weighing model.<<ref "12">> By Korsgaard’s technical terms of art, in order for a person to perform an action, that person must be an agent. In order to be an agent, that agent must be unified. And, unifying yourself requires constituting yourself in accordance with the principle of practical reason, ultimately the categorical imperative. Essentially, “action requires agency, and agency requires unity,” and unity requires the categorical imperative.<<ref "13">> Action, agency, and unity inter-define each other; all are subject to the categorical imperative; and therefore we say the categorical imperative is the constitutive principle of action.
Thus, the categorical imperative is normative for us, it binds us.<<ref "14">> But, since this is Korsgaard’s major thesis, and this is what she means by the above remark, then she must prefer the testing model – the test itself being the categorical imperative. The very definitions of reason, action, and agency rest upon the use of this particular testing model.
''[b]''
Intuitively, we should object to Bernard Williams’ weighing model because it allows non-moral reasons to trump moral reasons – essentially, we shouldn’t agree to the notion that ‘moral ought’ is distinct from, as a subset of, the ‘general should’. Korsgaard does point out that her description of the two models doesn’t solve this problem,<<ref "15">> but I think she passes the argument off as being in the right direction. My intuitive objection motivates me to deny Williams’ particular weighing model, but it doesn’t motivate me to deny weighing models and take up the testing model. I think is easy to slip into making the mistake of transferring the force of the intuitive argument against Williams’ weighing model to an argument which is both against all weighing models and in favor of a testing model like the categorical imperative.
If I were to deny, for the sake of argument, Korsgaard’s theory of self-constitution at large, and therefore lacked the crucial reasons she offers to motivate taking up a formal conception of morality, particularly the categorical imperative as a testing model, I remain unconvinced that the categorical imperative is obviously more plausible than well-constructed substantive conceptions of morality, such as utility or a plausible, non-relativistic weighing model.
With that said, my objective is to specifically defend Williams’ weighing model. The virtues of Williams’ weighing model might be slim, but I think the manner in which Korsgaard presented the model missed some of the advantages of the argument, and so I will extend and clarify her interpretation of his weighing model. Charitably and carefully presenting Williams’ weighing model in a better light will illustrate more depth to the virtues of it. So, while I might not, in the end, agree to the weighing model, my defense of the weighing model will demonstrate that Korsgaard doesn’t provide us a well-made picture of Williams’ weighing model, and that a proper account will be more coherent and (somewhat) more plausible than she implies.
Korsgaard gives this example of the model:
<<<
You take a piece of paper, draw a line down the middle of the page, and write ‘‘for’’ on one side and ‘‘against’’ on the other, and then you start listing the relevant considerations…Then you add them all up somehow to see how strong the balance of reasons is ‘‘for’’ and how strong the balance of reasons is ‘‘against’’…On the ‘‘for’’ side you might write: ‘‘I would earn a lot of money’’ and ‘‘I would have more prestige.’’ Those, you say to yourself, are self-interested considerations. But perhaps on the ‘‘for’’ side you also write: ‘‘It would give employment to the local population’’ and on the against side you write: ‘‘It would damage the environment.’’ Those, you say to yourself, are moral considerations.<<ref "16">>
<<<
A construction of the list she describes above likely looks something like this:
Figure 1
I’m taking liberties in interpreting a plausible meaning of “you add them all up somehow to see how strong the balance of reasons is ‘for’ and how strong the balance of reasons is ‘against.’”<<ref "17">> All the reasons are stacked up on two sides of a single table, and they are balanced/weighed by adding the sum strength of reasons for and against. Notice that the number of reasons isn’t what matters; it is the weight of the reasons that decides. One really good reason for something might outweigh several less significant reasons against something. In this case, the weighing model shows that you should not do X.
I’ve marked this as a ‘general point of view’, and we should note that the ‘moral point of view’ and all the other specific points of view are not directly demonstrated by this illustration; perhaps in her example they’ve been collapsed into the general table. I’ve artificially grouped similar types of reasons together on each of the side, but I need not do that – they could be in any order and it wouldn’t matter. We should also notice that the notion of subdeliberation appears somewhat absent from this picture.
Unfortunately, it seems like only one giant deliberation. There is supposed to be a final deliberation, but preceding it, there should be subdeliberation(s) – and those, unfortunately, aren’t found in this illustration.
Korsgaard’s example does not mesh well with other things she explains, including:
<<<
[1] The picture seems to be that, on the way to making a decision, you marshal together the considerations of a certain common type before balancing them against considerations of another type.<<ref "18">>
<<<
<<<
[2] If you think about deliberation this way, it is perfectly natural to talk about moral reasons and contrast them with other types of reasons.<<ref "19">>
<<<
<<<
[3] When you make your final decision, you might say something like: ‘‘well, there are some moral reasons against it, but they are outweighed by the moral reasons in favor of it, so on the whole morality favors it. And self-interest favors it too. Therefore, all things considered, it is what I should do.<<ref "20">>
<<<
<<<
[4] Then you might do some subdeliberation on these various types of considerations, and then balance out the results against each other. .<<ref "21">>
<<<
Remarks [1], [2] and [3] suggest that each point of view is its own group of considerations/reasons, and the reasons belonging to a point of view are weighed/balanced/contrasted as one collective group against another collective group. The example she gives doesn’t make sense of this. Remark [3] is especially important to modeling because it points to multiple decisions in the process, and it seems to directly show how it isn’t the reasons of one type directly intermingling with reasons of others types in a weighing process, but rather the point of view as a whole is directly weighed against another point of view as a whole.
Remark [4] is clearly related to the other remarks, but within it there is also a vagueness which requires clarification. Bernard Williams explained part of the weighing model in this way (although he didn’t give this procedure an explicit name, he continually makes reference to a sort of ‘weighing’ throughout the book):
One can of course ask, on a given occasion, "what should I do from an ethical point of view?" or "what should I do from a self-interested point of view?" These ask for the results of subdeliberations, and invite one to review a particular type of consideration among those that bear on the question and to think what the considerations of that type, taken by themselves, support. .<<ref "22">>
I bring Williams’ exact words up to help us make sense of an ambiguity in Korsgaard’s interpretation. She says, “Williams refers to these as questions of ‘subdeliberation,’” and “they could result in what Williams calls ‘subdeliberation,’” which leaves open the possibility that the sum of the questions results in but a single subdeliberation..<<ref "23">> If that was the case, then there would be a single overarching subdeliberation and then a final deliberation. While this doesn’t immediately seem like it would be a worthy idea, perhaps there could a viable reason for setting the model up like this – just like subtotal and a total on some receipts. This doesn’t appear to be what Williams is saying. Intuitively, it makes more sense to say that each question results in its own subdeliberation, which I believe was Korsgaard’s intent; it wasn’t, however, explicitly stated.
So, given all these descriptors, what should an accurate model look like? We see there are some holes in Korsgaard’s example, and it doesn’t seem to nicely relate to other very important aspects of the weighing model she describes. We need to try to make sense of these details to construct an example model which makes more sense. I’m going to show a thought process involved in building a plausible example.
Admittedly, there is some level of uncertainty in how best to model. As a heads-up, my figures aren’t perfect, but I believe they’ll quickly demonstrate what I’m thinking.
This model looks a lot closer to what Williams intended, and it makes sense of most of the descriptors which posed problems to Korsgaard’s example. Note that we now have subdeliberations of specific points of view which feed into a final deliberation from the ‘general point of view’. You can imagine that there are many more subdeliberations, I’ve only shown three for brevity’s sake.
Vitally, we need to recognize how the relationship between the subdeliberation tables and the master ‘general point of view’ table affects the outcome. In the case of Figure 2, the method of relation will result in the exact same outcome as Figure 1. Each side of each subdeliberation is summed and the results are transferred to the master table. What this amounts to is that the subdeliberations don’t really matter – having just one master table and no subdeliberations would have amounted to the same outcome. Surely this is not what is intended. Clearly, the relationship between the subdeliberations and the final deliberation won’t look like this.
As we’ll look at two more figures, let’s assume that all points are of equivalent value because (from what I can see) any weighing model which would constructed otherwise can be shown to be convertible to an equivalence point system with no change in outcome. It is easier this way. Just to be clear, each method of relating the subdeliberation tables to the master table I’ll be showing is a unique function – there is no redundancy. The argument is that depending on how we clarify Korsgaard’s description, we arrive at weighing models of varying merit. Let’s see another.
Figure 3
I’ve kept subdeliberations the same. But, in the end, the weight of the conclusion of each subdeliberation remains the same – each gets a vote. Note that this produces a different outcome from our original method – by this account, you should do X. This model relies heavily upon Remark [3]. Subdeliberations favor one thing over another, and then all things, particularly the conclusion of each subdeliberation, are considered. Voting is a type of weighing, it strictly weighs the quantity of the conclusions of subdeliberations. We might argue that this isn’t enough; we may also need to weigh the quality of each conclusion of a subdeliberation against the others. So, let’s look at that:
Figure 4
In Figure 4 we see that the relationship between the subdeliberation tables and the master table generates a different outcome from Figures 1 and 2. The method of relation is transferring the weighted points of the ‘winning’ side of each subdeliberation to the master table. Interestingly, the qualitative weight of each conclusion is transferred for a final weighing. This makes sense to me because perhaps I only have one or two small reasons for doing X from one point of view; then it seems that the weight of that point of view is less significant than a point of view with four or five substantial reasons against doing X. If this is a problem, then we should weigh the conclusions of subdeliberations in a non-vote – which is why Figure 4 seems more plausible a model than Figure 3.
One of the weird aspects of the weighing model is figuring out what happens when both sides are equal. I’m sure a clause for the weighing model could be created to be a tiebreaker.
So, I’ve done a lot of work to show the depth of constructing a more plausible weighing model. But I’m afraid that even this isn’t satisfactory. I worry that Korsgaard’s description is still missing the point. Part of the problem is that the weighing model isn’t about “Should I do X?” but rather “What should I do?” or “How should I live?” These are substantially broader than she demonstrates with her prototype of the weighing model. If she constructed the model correctly, I think she’d need to show more explicitly how it makes sense of the last questions rather than the first. She built this weighing model to provide “yes/no” answers, similar to the categorical imperative as a testing model. But the weighing model isn’t looking for an answer as simple as a yes or a no.
A proper weighing model will need to take into account all the possible alternatives of action available, and it will need to weigh between the various actions, using a subdeliberation/final deliberation model. There are various ways of doing this. You might, for example, imagine that there is a final vote or weight for each possible action, either a negative or positive weight (in degrees of course), which depend on whether or not your decision procedure for a particular “Should I do X?” determines whether you are for or against it, and to what degree. So, then it seems there an overarching deliberation and weighing procedure for the conclusions of the smaller “Should I do X?” and “Should I do Y?” and so on. Likely, the overall weighing model requires a detailed account of how it relates to the smaller single action deliberations and their weights.
As a side note, one possible weighing model which technically fits Williams’ model, but certainly isn’t his intent (basically, it would be cheating), would be to have the value of moral reasons to astronomically outweigh any other type of reasons (or perhaps non-moral reasons may have zero weight), to the point that moral reasons are the only sort of reasons which actually ever end up mattering in the weighing model. That would clearly be against the spirit of Williams’ original objection, but it is an example of a weighing model that determines what to do from essentially moral reasons alone (which I prefer).
Another worry I have is that it seems Korsgaard’s missing substantial principle and her robust maxims actually demonstrate her theory requires a hybrid, being both formal and substantive. But it seems that the weighing is also a hybrid. The weighing model is a formal principle; it is a way of deliberating. It is a function whose inputs are substantive arguments; but the model itself, the function of weighing inputs, seems very much like a formal principle to me. The contents which are input into the formal weighing model are substantive; they come preloaded with substantive values. But, arguably, maxims and the missing principle do something similar. Oddly, it seems as if her theory can be construed as a weighing model as well.
Interestingly, in seems that we can also argue for a weighing procedure of the maxims which are universalized by the categorical imperative. In this case, the categorical imperative test is contained by a larger weighing model. The “Should I do X?” deliberations, with ‘yes or no’ answers (although, they might also require some mechanism for weighting), which are but one part of Bernard Williams’ weighing model, can actually be replaced by the categorical imperative (although, perhaps some additions will be necessary). But, if this is case, then perhaps some form of a weighing model might ultimately be the decision procedure at large.
''[2][a]''
Korsgaard investigates the nature of the Kantian hypothetical imperative. What does it mean to say “if you will an end, you must will the means to that end?”.<<ref "24">> In particular, Korsgaard is worried about the interpretation of the relationship between “taking the means to an end” and “determining yourself to cause the end” as being analytic.<<ref "25">> But, why should she be worried about the notion that: someone fails to take the means to an end if and only if that person didn’t determine themselves to cause the end? She is interested in preventing Kant’s view from degenerating “into tautology” such that “your end would be whatever you in fact pursue.”.<<ref "26">> If this occurs, it seems to Korsgaard that the hypothetical imperative loses its normativity – it is important to her that a person can fail to meet the requirements of the hypothetical imperative. But, further, breaking up the analytic interpretation of the hypothetical will help promote one of her majors theses. [Significant Feature #1] Significantly, Korsgaard prefers to interpret the hypothetical imperative as a “constitutive principle of willing,” whereby a “person who wills an end constitutes himself as the cause of that end.”.<<ref "27">>
Her view of rationality coincides with her interpretation of the hypothetical imperative. The vital feature of a rational mind is that it “acts not merely in accordance with laws, but in accordance with its own representation or conception of a law.”.<<ref "28">> This notion of rationality arguably has an element of free will attached to it. If we are merely acting in accordance with laws, then we aren’t really acting at all. We would be misrepresenting the state of affairs to claim that a rock which falls in accordance with the laws of physics was really acting in a meaningful sense – after all, it was the laws of physics causing the rock to fall. Likewise, a mind which is completely determined by laws, laws which aren’t the mind’s own conception as Korsgaard would have it, isn’t acting of its own accord. A rational mind must cause its own acts, and Korsgaard thinks it can only cause its own acts when it acts in “accordance with its own representation or conception of a law.” Korsgaard is claiming that when we generate our own maxims, we are generating our own conceptions of laws..<<ref "29">> We act in accordance with our own conception of law. Thus, when we act upon our maxims, those acts really are ours; they are acts caused by our rational minds; we have determined ourselves; we have willed those acts. The self-determination of rationality demonstrates our responsibility and is a necessary condition to her the self-constitutive feature I highlighted above.
Korsgaard gives an example of a rational mind using logic. She parallels the principle of modus ponens (P → Q, P ⊢ Q) as a normative principle which describes the mental process of drawing a conclusion to the hypothetical imperative as a normative principle which describes the mental process of willing an action..<<ref "30">> It makes that she has chosen modus ponens. It is easy to see how all other rules of inference might rely upon it in a deductive system. Conjunction introduction (P, Q ⊢ P ∧ Q) in a deductive system is applied via modus ponens. If P is true, and if Q is true, then P ∧ Q is true. Since P is true, and Q is true, therefore P ∧ Q is true. Modus ponens is a well-chosen example of drawing any sort of logical conclusion. We walk away with the notion that the hypothetical imperative is “a constitutive principle for the will” in the way that modus ponens is a constitutive principle of drawing logical conclusions.<<ref "31">>
She also tells us a psychological story (which she uses several times in the book) about how the hypothetical imperative unifies and constitutes the will. The story is basically that I, as an agent, can be in conflict over my desires and emotions, but I can choose not to conform to and ‘to be’ these desires and emotions. Only when I am overriding my desires and emotions, when I say “I am not you; my will is this,“ and when I “consciously pick up the reins, and make myself the cause of the end” can it be said that ‘I’ am willing an end rather than my desires and emotions.<<ref "32">> Without the capacity to employ the hypothetical imperative, it would be my desires and emotions which determine me; I would have not a will without the hypothetical imperative.<<ref "33">> Thus, to say that the hypothetical imperative is a constitutive principle for the will is to say that “I” willed something, in part because I’m employing the hypothetical imperative.
Korsgaard explains that in some sense, “there is no hypothetical imperative” because the “hypothetical imperative is not really a separate principle at all; rather, it captures an aspect of the categorical imperative: the fact that the laws of our will must be practical laws.”<<ref "34">> In another sense, however, Korsgaard does artificially separate the hypothetical imperative from the categorical imperative, but at the same time the she maintain the normativity of hypothetical imperative, which means we can fail to satisfy it. [Significant Feature #2] A very significant feature arises: the possibility of instrumental irrationality.<<ref "35">>
An agent who is instrumentally irrational “does will the end, but cannot bring himself to take the means.”<<ref "36">> An agent who is instrumentally irrational does will an end and constitutes himself as the cause of that end, but Korsgaard believes he does it badly, because he cannot bring himself to take the means to that end. Korsgaard gives us an example:
<<<
For if someone shrinks from an agonizing medical procedure needed to save his life, it seems more plausible to say that he can’t face the means than that he doesn’t really will the end of continuing to live.<<ref "37">>
<<<
In some sense, this man chooses not to take the means to this end, but at the same time he does will his end and he does determine himself to cause the end - he just does it badly. If this is the case, then Korsgaard might be successful in avoiding the tautological interpretation of the hypothetical imperative.<<ref "38">> I am not sure, however, if Korsgaard’s example strictly supports her own interpretation. I worry that Korsgaard needs to provide a stronger account of how degrees of agency and constitution are linked to failing to meet the normative requirements of the hypothetical imperative.
I see two versions of this story. The above way appears to be Korsgaard’s interpretation. A person can be influenced (which isn’t necessarily being ‘determined’) by an irrational impulse. The man may know that he is going to die if he doesn’t have the medical procedure to save his life. The rational thing to do is to have the procedure if his end is to live. However, irrationally, while he really does want to live, he is inclined to deny the procedure because of an overwhelming fear of pain. So, he has an irrational incentive that overrides his reason, and causes him not to take the means to his chosen end.
Another version of the story still supports the tautological interpretation of the hypothetical imperative. Perhaps the man really didn’t will to live at all, and that is why he didn’t have the agonizing medical procedure. He knew that willing the minimization of pain and suffering as an end was incompatible with willing to live as an end. What he really willed as his end was the minimization of pain and suffering to the exclusion of willing to live. And, he did take the means to that end. Obviously, Korsgaard doesn’t like this interpretation because it removes the normativity of the hypothetical imperative; but, it seems very plausible that we can make sense of the tautological interpretation, despite Korsgaard’s dislike of its inviolability. For now, I don’t see why we should deem her version of the story more plausible than this second version.
Korsgaard concludes 4.3 with the following:
To act is to constitute yourself as the cause of an end. The hypothetical imperative picks out the cause part of that formulation: by following the hypothetical imperative, you make yourself the cause. As we are about to see, the categorical imperative picks out another part of that formulation—that the cause is yourself. By following the categorical imperative, you make yourself the cause.<<ref "39">>
Here, she wraps up what she means about how there isn’t a hypothetical imperative, in some sense. Clearly, in another sense, we can artificially extract it from the categorical imperative because of the “distinctive feature[s] of action” it captures.<<ref "40">>
''[Criticism]''
One of the worries I have with this reading is how it might contradict Korsgaard’s previous criticism of Dogmatic rationalists. She denies that moral propositions are objective features of the world, existing independent of our minds.<<ref "41">> This criticism is found in both “The Normativity of Instrumental Reason” and again in sections 1.1.4-1.1.5 and 4.2 of Self-Constitution. It seems that the very same criticism she makes against the Dogmatic rationalist can also be applied to her argument. If this is true, then she’ll either need to give up her criticism of the Dogmatic rationalist or she’ll need to deny the parts of her argument which are subject to the Dogmatic rationalist criticism (both of which have an enormous set of implications for her theory at large). Here is the passage from 4.3 in question:
<<<
Rationality is a power of self-determination. This is a general point, not just a point about practical reason. Consider again the case of logic. Perhaps you don’t arrive at all your beliefs through reasoning, but when you do, it’s an act of self-determination, in the sense that the activity of your own mind is part of what produces the belief in you. Suppose you believe two premises, and a certain conclusion follows. You won’t automatically believe that conclusion, because you might not notice the connection between them. But if you do notice the connection, and put the premises together in the way suggested by the connection, then you do something: you draw the conclusion. In drawing the conclusion—or, as we say, in making up your mind, in constituting your mind—you determine yourself to believe it. The principle of modus ponens describes what you do when you draw the conclusion, but it is also a normative principle. In the same way, the hypothetical imperative describes what you do when you will an action: you determine yourself to be a cause, the cause of some end. But it is also a normative principle. It is a constitutive principle for the will.<<ref "42">>
<<<
Modus ponens is paralleled to the hypothetical imperative; the relationship between an agent’s rational psychology and the world is parallel for both sorts of principles. Problematically, this relationship, at least in the case of modus ponens, appears to be a form of representationalism which Korsgaard vehemently denies in her earlier criticism of the Dogmatic rationalist concerning moral propositions and principles.
From the reading, we can see that the connection between two premises pre-exists any belief or awareness of its truth. That is to say, modus ponens as a rule of inference applies regardless of whether or not an agent exists or knows it to be the case. The story of rational psychology put forth is that the agent himself ‘draws the conclusion’, that modus ponens as a fact becomes introduced into the mind of the agent as a part of that agent’s willing to know the truth. Notice that what makes the internal representation of modus ponens coherent at all in the mind of the agent is its link to the objectivity of modus ponens as a rule inference in the world external to the agent. Modus ponens is not a valid rule of inference in virtue of the agent; instead, the belief of the agent is justified by its relationship to external reality; modus ponens is good rule of inference in virtue of reality.
Assuming this parallel between the logic of modus ponens and the hypothetical imperative as a practical reason holds, Korsgaard’s original criticism of Dogmatic rationalism is untenable; she can’t deny that practical reasoning such as the hypothetical and categorical imperatives are objective features of the world, existing independent of our minds. The representation of the moral law in our minds is coherent and justified solely in virtue of its link to the actual, objective moral law which is external to us in the world.
Of course, Korsgaard might criticize the Dogmatic rationalist’s representationalist form of normative principles as lacking motivational force. But, she’s already said that modus ponens is a normative principle, and it is normative in virtue of being external to us – and yet we are motivated by it. The same line of reasoning should be offered for the hypothetical and categorical imperative. This view, however, has profound implications for what it means to be a self-determining and self-constituting agent in her theory.
''[b]''
Particularism eschews any kind of general rule-governed morality - reasons for acting are never based on generalities such as “don’t lie.” In a nutshell, Korsgaard answers particularism by claiming that incentives and desire can’t constitute you, but rather 'you' are over your desires. In, particularistic willing, incentives and desires dictate who you are, and thus you aren’t determining yourself. So, if we are to assume Korsgaard’s self-constitution theory, then particularistic willing isn’t willing at all. Essentially, 'you' includes being under the operation of categorical imperative, a general rule, which is contrary to particularism. Let’s zoom in to see her argument, starting with Korsgaard’s initial concern with particularistic willing:
<<<
Particularistic willing would be a matter of willing a maxim for exactly this occasion without taking it to have any other implications of any kind for any other occasion.<<ref "43">><<<
Particularistic willing within the framework of maxims and the categorical imperative amounts to over-specified and seemingly non-universalized maxims which fit your exact particular circumstance. In the particularistic maxim, the antecedent of a maxim is specified to the point that you’ll never find yourself in that circumstance again by definition, e.g. to exaggerate the point, the time/date and your GPS coordinates could be a part of the antecedent of the maxim, such that generalizing, universalizing, or demonstrating similarities to other circumstances is impertinent or impossible and no longer the purpose of the categorical imperative as a test of universalizability. So, there is a sense in which particularistic maxims are ‘universalized’, but a maxim of this sort is so specific that it no longer possesses any general guiding powers outside of a truly unique circumstance. Hence, this is why one might say that particularistic maxims aren’t really universalized in a meaningful way.
The categorical imperative becomes impotent in this paradigm. In a very theoretical sense, this formulation of the categorical imperative seems to provide an analytic, logically true notion of moral theory, much like how virtue and the virtuous agent are inter-defined. It comes at a cost, namely that these logically true statements of moral theory fail to provide substantial, concrete moral truths or a meaningful, practical decision procedure. While not completely explicated by Korsgaard, I believe this is part of what motivates her to deny particularistic willing.
Korsgaard gives an example of an agent with conflicting/incompatible desires, A and B. The agent has “some principle that favors A over B,” and so this agent exercises his principle and chooses A.<<ref "44">> In this case, we can see the agent regards “the principle of choice as expressive, or representative” of himself and his causality. Vitally, the principle within the agent is not some third force within him which helps A win the conflict over B; the agent’s mind is not a battleground on which he is a “mere spectator” whereby his principle is the real cause of his action. Rather, it is in the agent’s “identification with the principle of choice” on which he acts that enables us to say ‘he’ did something, not his principle. Essentially, self-determination requires self-identification with a principle on which you act.<<ref "45">> This example is parallel to the psychological story about how the hypothetical imperative unifies and constitutes the will that we saw in 4.3.
According to Korsgaard, “particularistic willing makes it impossible for you to distinguish yourself, your principle of choice, from the various incentives on which you act” because “in order to will particularistically, you must in each case wholly identify with the incentive of your action.”46 If she is correct, and a person cannot constitute himself by wholly identifying himself with his incentives, then the person who employs particularistic willing isn’t actually willing at all; thus, he is not really agent because he does not constitute himself as the cause of an end.
This is clearly connected to her thesis in 4.3: the hypothetical imperative is a “constitutive principle of willing,” whereby a “person who wills an end constitutes himself as the cause of that end.”<<ref "47">> Particularistic willing is a determination of the self from some alien part within the person, not the person himself as a whole determining himself. Lacking self-determination prevents a person from truly willing an end and constituting himself as the cause of that end.
''[3][a]''
I am going to explain the structure of the argument in this chapter. In doing so, we’ll realize the defining qualities and the impact of Korsgaard’s conceptions of self-consciousness and reason, and then it will be obvious how the argument collapses without both of these notions. The argument in chapter 6 is expansive and very detailed; and so I’m going to explicate her argument section by section.
''6.1 Instinct, Emotion, Intelligence, and Reason''
''6.1.1''
Korsgaard sets out to differentiate the sort of will, action, and psychology of non-rational from those of rational animals (humans). Korsgaard provides a generous account of the psychology of non-rational animals, but she wishes to show an even ‘deeper sense’ of human agency, will, action, and identity by pointing out what is ‘up to us’ and how we determine ourselves, unlike non-rational animals.<<ref "48">>
There is a relationship between principles and incentives, namely “principles determine which incentives a creature is subject to as well as what she does about them.”<<ref "49">> Incentives seem to be the sort of thing which agents (both rational and non-rational) perceive, and the principles govern. The principles are the laws of one’s causality. The will of non-rational animals stems from instincts because the principles of non-rational animals are instincts. Action can only be understood by how instinct determines the non-rational animal to move. Unlike non-rational animals, humans have a much stronger sense (perhaps ‘degree’) of agency in that we actually choose our principles. We are not determined by instinct. Our actions, our will, our laws of causality are ‘up to us’.
We will see that humans are similar to the non-rational animals, possessing primitive psychological capacities, even some elements of instinct, but we also find that humans have something more than do the non-rational animals.
''6.1.2-6.1.3''
These sections are focused on the notion of instinct. Korsgaard believes the impact of instincts differ among non-rational and rational animals. Instincts “structure an animal’s consciousness, his conception of the world, in ways that will enable him to survive and reproduce.”<<ref "50">> Korsgaard claims that the perceptions of animals come pre-loaded with practical, teleological significance, not requiring contemplation.<<ref "51">>
<<<
There are two senses in which “instinct” is used, the narrow and the broad. The narrow sense refers:
to an established connection between a representation (the incentive) and a certain primitively normative response, an automatic sense of the response as appropriate to or perhaps better called for by the representation.<<ref "52">>
<<<
In considering instinctive action, Korsgaard wishes to narrow this range of connections to the sort which is less automated, “where there is room in consciousness to experience the response as called for or appropriate.”<<ref "53">> While in non-rational animals, it seems that we can inevitably tell a deterministic story of how instinct automates behavior and psychology, the ‘knee-jerk’ reaction is not the interesting end of the spectrum which Korsgaard wishes to consider.
''6.1.4''
This section is largely about Korgaard’s conception of emotion. She claims that emotions are “perceptions of reasons,” particularly “perceptions of practical reasons, reasons for action.”<<ref "54">> We should note that the way in which instincts operate in animals as a type of perception or emotion should be distinguished from how emotions operate, in a deeper and more complex sense, in the minds of humans.
Importantly, emotions aren’t the sort of thing we can choose or decide to have. They are responses of agents, likely in a slightly automated sense, which we don’t possess from reason. Emotions are a weaker form of response of agency, however, than something like action, which requires reason.<<ref "55">>
Korsgaard claims that “emotions can sometimes be judged morally good or bad, and this is in turn because an emotion is subject to standards of appropriateness and intelligibility.”<<ref "56">> This is interesting. At least some emotions aren’t ‘knee-jerk’ reactions, and that is part of what allows them to be subject to normativity. While Korsgaard isn’t clear on the matter here, I suggest that she must be maintaining that the sort of emotions in humans which can be judged as morally good or bad are not completely deterministic (hormonal, chemical, electrical impulses, etc.). If not, perhaps she is trying to relate these sorts of emotions to the type of normativity she believes belongs to the non-rational animals, but I am not convinced that works.
Further, “to have an emotion is to stand in the presence of a normative fact.”<<ref "57">> This is related to a weak sense of normativity for animals, which is based on the teleology built into their perception.<<ref "58">>
''6.1.5-6.1.6''
The broader meaning of instinct is explained in relation to intelligence. This broader meaning of instinct includes “learned responses”<<ref "59">> and is thus linked pretty strongly to intelligence. Intelligence is the “ability to learn from…experiences,” the ability to “extend [one’s] repertoire of practically significant representations…beyond those with which instinct (or the inventor) originally supplied,” and the “capacity to forge new connections, to increase your stock of automatically appropriate responses.”<<ref "60">> Both the non-rational animal and the human seem to possess, to some degree, some more than others, intelligence on this account.
Crucially, we are told that both non-rational animals and humans naturally have a teleological perception of the world.<<ref "61">> Human perceptions can move beyond this natural, teleological perception of the world. Differences in the degrees of intelligence, however, do not distinguish the nature of human perception of the world from the non-rational animal in a significant way. The scientific (non-teleological) view of the world is an abstraction unique to rational animals, but intelligence is not sufficient for the creation of this worldview. Reason is the necessary ingredient which allows humans to detach from the naturally teleologically-loaded perceptions of the world common to all intelligent animals.<<ref "62">>
Korsgaard says that reason is “the thing that makes us us.”<<ref "63">> This is somewhat a double-entendre. Clearly, reason has to be the thing which distinguishes non-rational animals from rational animals. But, further, Korsgaard’s use of the word ‘make’ is no accident – reason, as she uses the word, is central to how rational beings make their own selves, forms, and identities.
''6.1.7''
The capacity of ‘reason’ was very briefly introduced in the last section, and the capacity of ‘self-consciousness’ is strongly introduced in this one. Self-consciousness comes in different degrees and forms.<<ref "64">> Self-consciousness relates to different spaces: physical space, social space, and mental space. Self-consciousness is partly about locating the ‘self’ in a type of space, about relating and distinguishing the self from the things around it. Almost all animals are capable of the first, many the second; but it seems that only the very potent self-consciousness of agents like humans are capable of enabling an agent to locate himself in mental space.<<ref "65">>
To locate oneself in mental space is “to locate yourself with respect to your own thoughts and emotions, and in particular to know them as your own.”<<ref "66">> ‘You’ are distinct from your thoughts and emotions. Here it becomes evident how Korsgaard wishes to employ her dual meaning of the “I.” Paradoxically, in one sense, the “I” is the whole organism, with all its thoughts, emotions, physical parts, etc., and in another sense, the “I” is the self-consciousness within the mental space that is distinct from, aware of, and contained by the surrounding capacities and parts of the rational organism. I am not sure how we are meant to make sense of this dual “I.”
Korsgaard goes on to show the beginning of the philosophical work intended for self-consciousness:
<<<
We are aware, not only that we desire or fear certain things, but also that we are inclined to act in certain ways on the basis of these desires or fears. We are conscious of the potential grounds of our actions, the principles on which our actions are based, as potential grounds. And this, as I have argued elsewhere, sets us a problem that the other animals do not have.<<ref "67">>
<<<
Here is a necessary moral, rational agent-making property. Animals aren’t aware or conscious of their principles (instincts) in the way we are. Animals can’t separate themselves from their principles. And, by ‘potential’, she isn’t pointing out how humans are aware that our ‘potential grounds’ will be our grounds in the future, and that we can’t do anything about it (like seeing the potential of an oncoming train from afar). As we will see, the ‘grounds’ of action are contingent; our ‘potential grounds’ are only potential because we have free will to choose them. She continues:
<<<
For once we are aware that we are inclined to act in a certain way on the ground of a certain incentive, we find ourselves faced with a decision, namely, whether we should do that. We can say to ourselves: ‘‘I am inclined to do act-A for the sake of end-E. But should I?’’<<ref "68">>
<<<
We get a glimpse of her terminology here. Incentives are the grounds (a type of reason) to act in certain ways. Inclinations are about having the proclivity to act in a certain way. One is aware, self-conscious, of one’s inclinations. It seems that awareness of inclinations is part of the crossroads for decision making, namely whether we will follow our inclination. We can contemplate and choose not to follow our inclination; we can refuse to act; we can refuse to use an incentive as a reason for acting in a certain way. Korsgaard explains that “self-consciousness is liberation from the control of instinct.”<<ref "69">> It seems that free will is located in our self-conscious awareness, and it is this sort of ‘control’ that differentiates us from animals.
Humans, however, are not so different from animals in that we have escaped our instincts. To Korsgaard, it may even be the case that the source of all the grounds on which humans act is instinctual (which doesn’t seem to make us much different at all from the animals in this aspect).<<ref "70">> It is likely the case that Korsgaard takes the time to describe the similarities between the human species and other animals specifically because being an animal is part of our human identity. She’s pointing out the primitive roots from which we came, demonstrating the animal-like teleological traces still left in our human biological identity. Despite our similarity to non-rational animals, Korsgaard emphasizes what differentiates us:
<<<
But instincts no longer determine how we respond to those incentives, what we do in the face of them. They propose responses, but we may or may not act in the way they propose. Self-consciousness opens up a space between the incentive and the response, a space of what I call reflective distance. It is within the space of reflective distance that the question whether our incentives give us reasons arises. In order to answer that question, we need principles, which determine what we are to count as reasons. Our rational principles then replace our instincts—they will tell us what is an appropriate response to what, what makes what worth doing, what the situation calls for. And so it is in the space of reflective distance, in the internal world created by self-consciousness, that reason is born.<<ref "71">>
<<<
Here the major philosophical work of self-consciousness is established. The degree and the form of self-consciousness of humans, that which differentiates us from the non-rational animals, is the capacity to determine ourselves and not to be determined by our instincts. In modeling the human mind, Korsgaard posits a space of “reflective distance” between our incentives and responses. Without this reflective distance and our sort of self-consciousness, human minds would be closed under determinism, leaving no room to contemplate, choose, and do otherwise.
Self-consciousness is the locus of our free will and moral agency. The reflective distance, generated by self-consciousness, is the locus of the capacity to reason about how we will act. The principles within you, which if you so choose to, ‘replace your instinct’ providing an explanation of why you should accept one inclination rather than another. Self-consciousness of a certain degree and form, which humans possess, is a precondition to the reflective space which is, in turn, a precondition for reason.
''6.1.8''
So Korsgaard concludes that, “Reason, therefore, is not the same thing as intelligence.”<<ref "72">> Arguably, reason is like intelligence in that it is concerned with contemplation, deduction, inference, etc. The difference between reason and intelligence lay in ‘where’ in the mind and ‘about what’ each capacity operates on. Intelligence can be found in many organisms (arguably even computers), largely dealing with the outward, teleologically perceived world.<<ref "73">> Reason turns inward; and it is here that we can find the realm of normativity, in Korsgaard’s view.<<ref "74">> In following Korsgaard’s story of the mind, intelligence is a precursor to reason, and both capacities are necessary for dealing with the normative realm and the world around us.
''6.2 The Parts of the Soul''
''6.2.1-6.2.2''
Korsgaard covers a Kantian story of Eve, the first human to make a “free rational choice.”<<ref "75">> In becoming self-conscious, Eve is aware of the incentives operating in her.<<ref "76">> Both “new objects of desire” and “new kinds of objects of desire” are made available to Eve because of reason which is born in her self-consciousness.<<ref "77">>
Here we understand the title of the chapter - as Eve pioneers the journey of ‘being a human’, we find our species banished “from a world that is teleologically ordered by our instincts and presented as such by our incentives, a world in which we nearly always already know what to do.”<<ref "78">> This expulsion from the garden is a shattering of our previous, albeit primitive, psychic unity that non-rational animals (which we once were, according to the story) possess.
Self-consciousness and reason were the catalysts of our psychic disunity; and yet, they are also the capacities which make us special; they are the capacities and arenas in which we can gain back our psychic unity, a new, human, moral, psychic unity.
As Korsgaard sees it, with the vast majority of our teleologically-loaded worldviews ruined, our fragmented identities, and our newly available wide-array of potential ends and actions, it is through a combination of intelligence and reason that we can “reconstruct a usable conception of the world” and construct “ethics to determine how to live our lives.” <<ref "79">> Clearly, there is a potent method to the madness of her constructivist view of morality.
''6.2.3-6.2.5''
We are introduced to an argument for the “parts of the soul” following Plato (and we’ll see this fleshed out in the next chapter). Non-rational animals, in some sense, don’t have “parts of a soul” because their “whole psychic system is closed and tightly knit.”<<ref "80">> They are determined and unified, and in this way they aren’t broken into parts. Humans, however, can be said to have “parts of the soul” in this respect directly because of the psychic disunity originating from our self-consciousness and reason.<<ref "81">> Korsgaard explains the relationship of incentive to self-consciousness and reason in a compact form:
<<<
Self-consciousness is the source of reason. When we become conscious of the workings of an incentive within us, the incentive is experienced not as a force or a necessity but as a proposal, something we need to make a decision about. Cut loose from the control of instinct, we must formulate principles that will tell us how to deal with the incentives we experience. And the experience of decision or choice, the work of these principles, is a separate experience from that of the workings of the incentive itself.<<ref "82">>
<<<
Within these experiences, we see there is a sort of work to be done: a work of making these experiences and parts work together and a work of unifying ourselves.
Korsgaard goes on to point out a difference between mere reaction and action. Knee-jerk reactions don’t involve self-consciousness and reason. The sorts of reactions which we can contemplate and control count towards action.<<ref "83">>
Self-consciousness not only necessitates principles of reason, but it also “transforms incentives into what Kant calls inclinations.”<<ref "84">> There is link between the deterministic, instinctual aspects of our mind, which are outside self-consciousness, and our reason, our principles, and our free will, which are inside self-consciousness.
In transforming incentives, self-consciousness produces inclinations.<<ref "85">> Korsgaard explains that self-consciousness makes “our inclinations into mental items.” Awareness of incentives enables us to reify them into inclinations. This product, this inclination, is an object with which reason and the will can work.<<ref "86">> So, we can see that “self-consciousness is the source of inclinations as well as of reason. Self-consciousness produces the parts of the soul.”<<ref "87">>
''6.3 Inside or Outside?''
In response to a moral realist account of value and the properties of objects, Korsgaard explains:
<<<
At the basis of every desire or inclination, no matter how articulately we can defend it, is a basic suitableness-to-us that is a matter of nature and not of reason. Value is relational and what it is related to is our nature.<<ref "88">>
<<<
The realist says that your incentive is based upon the objective properties of an object; in some sense, value is one of the properties of the object. Anti-realism disagrees with this claim. Korsgaard thinks neither the realist nor the anti-realist have the right picture. She thinks that properties of objects are not irrelevant, but rather only relevant as related to the human condition. Again, it seems that a modest teleology is vital to her constructivist views. She continues:
<<<
It is our own choices that ultimately confer value on objects, even though our choices are responsive to certain features of those objects. In choosing objects, in conferring value on things that answer to our nature in welcome ways, an agent is affirming her own value.<<ref "89">>
<<<
So, this ‘suitableness-to-us’ is connected to what is 'up to us'. Self-consciousness and reason are necessary capacities for making the sorts of choices which confer value on objects. Our self-consciousness provides the necessary distance from incentives for it to be “normatively undecided” as a mere inclination, giving us space to reason and choose what is normatively valuable.<<ref "90">> Without these capacities, values of objects and even the affirmation of one’s value (an important notion to Korsgaard) would not be possible.
Deliberation and action are complicated notions given this mental framework. Part of what accounts for action of humans is internal to self-consciousness and reason. This section concludes that “there is never any gap between decision and action. The conclusion of a practical syllogism is an action.”<<ref "91">> This nicely explains the close-knit relationship between action and agency.
''Pull Yourself Together''
Here, Korsgaard combines the work she’s been doing for the past sections; this section is the conclusion of the chapter. She begins it by saying:
<<<
Self-consciousness opens up a space between the experience of the incentive and what previously had been the instinctive response, and that space transforms incentives into inclinations and governing instincts into free reason. Self-consciousness is therefore the source of a psychic complexity not experienced by the other animals, and it transforms psychic unity from a natural state into something that has to be achieved, into a task and an activity. Once we are self-conscious the soul has parts, and then before we can act it must be unified. At the very same time, and for the same reason, practical deliberation becomes necessary, for free reason need not follow inclination. We must now decide what to do.<<ref "92">>
<<<
This nicely demonstrates how self-consciousness and reason are the pillars of the argument presented in this chapter. Moreover, we can see how vital this picture of mental capacities is for Korsgaard’s theory at large. Deliberation about how you will act and who you are is for the sake of unity; and this is the resulting task assigned to those who have achieved and are plagued by (as in the way it generates our plight) self-consciousness and reason.<<ref "93">> Action and identity are combined in this way, and self-consciousness and reason are the mechanisms by which incentives/inclinations are generated, judged, acted upon and part of constituting an identity.<<ref "94">> And so, given our expulsion from the non-rational kingdom and our entrance into the rational kingdom:
<<<
The work of practical deliberation is reunification, reconstitution: and the function of the principles that govern deliberation—the principles of practical reason—is the unification of the self. So we arrive again at the conclusion of Chapter 4—the function of practical reason is to unify us into agents who can be the authors of our actions.<<ref "95">>
<<<
<<<
For nature sets each human being a task: self-consciousness divides his soul into parts, and he must reconstitute his agency, pull himself back together, in order to act. And that need to reconstitute yourself introduces the necessity of exercising your freedom, and the opportunity of doing so creatively. In other words, every person must make himself into a particular person. So someone who says, ‘‘I want to make something of myself’’ is just describing the human condition. And it is because he makes himself into the particular person who he is that we hold him responsible for being who he is (1.4.3).<<ref "96">>
<<<
This work of practical deliberation, of reunification and reconstitution, of pulling one’s parts of the soul together, of choosing one’s (Aristotelian) form, all rest upon the pillars of our self-consciousness and reason. Without these things, we would be unified non-rational animals, still living in the garden, bound by our instinct, lacking free will, lacking depth and moral agency. Our plight to act, our particular sort of agency which is infused with commitments and endorsements, and our task of self-constitution are only coherent with an account of self-consciousness and reason.
''[b]''
With this organic story of our rational heritage, we can see the nature of unity and good action when Korsgaard lets us take a ‘look under the hood’ of human moral psychology. We see her picture of how incentives, inclinations, and our principles relate to our identity, self-consciousness, rationality, and our action. This is part of her providing a satisfactory account of good action. Unfortunately, I don’t see how she will be able to give a satisfactory account of evil action. That problem really clicks in this chapter.
How does someone perform evil action in this schema? What prevents a human from choosing evil principles? Why can’t an evil person be unified in their evil? It seems that my incentives and inclinations might themselves be injected with desires and inclinations to what most people call evil acts. It seems like the psychological story which Korsgaard tells about unifying our identities in good action and deliberation is the exact same psychological story which we would tell about unifying our identities in evil action and deliberation.
Herein lies the problem - if there is evil unification, then exactly how does it count as being evil at all? According to Korsgaard’s theory, if a person is fully unified, then they, by definition, aren’t evil, but rather good. Evil seems good in this light. If there isn’t evil unification, and agency is defined in terms of unification, then who is the agent responsible for the evil? There doesn’t seem to be an agent on whom we can pin the evil action.
On one hand, I’m willing to accept there is evil unification and that there are evil principles we can choose. Perhaps not everyone can be a murderer and be ‘unified’, but it seems there are humans who truly aren’t disunified in being a murderer. Their whole organism might really be unified while containing that murdering identity. If this is the case, following Korsgaard’s theory, it seems as though, for those humans, it is perfectly acceptable, it is morally good that they murder.
On the other hand, if being unified is ‘by definition’ good, and we grant Korsgaard an unspoken assumption that acts like rape and murder can never be committed by a unified agent (and it isn’t clear why we must assume that at all), and true agents are only those organisms which are unified, then I don’t see how a rapist or murderer is an agent at all. According to this line of reasoning, why then do we even hold evil-doers accountable? Even if we apply the notion of degrees of agency, at best, it still seems like the rapist is only very minimally responsible. Psychic disunity seems to extend an umbrella-like plea of insanity to these evil-doing organisms in all cases of evil, even to those whom we want to say committed ‘cold-blooded, pre-meditated murder’.
The story of Eve is ironic for this discussion. Traditionally, as the story goes, Eve’s action is an evil action – the first evil human action! It initially would have made sense if Korsgaard had said that Eve achieved self-consciousness and reason, was disunified, but then went on to re-interpret the traditional story to demonstrate that Eve actually didn’t commit the first action because she was disunified and was doing evil. It was no action; Eve was disunified. In fact, a case could easily be made for the notion that Eve was at the height of disunity, having just transformed into a new being, completely new to the world of the self-conscious and rational. Korsgaard’s psychology can show how Eve was evil, but Korsgaard can’t then say that Eve was a full-blown agent that performed true action. But, of course, then it seems like we can’t hold Eve accountable as an agent.
The account Korsgaard gives us doesn’t seem evil at all. The story of Eve exemplifies an organism’s transition from non-rational to rational, it demonstrates the first disunity of humanity, but at the same time, Korsgaard claims this exemplifies the first free action. But, only good actions can be performed by agents. It seems then that Eve’s traditional evil action is actually a good one.
Either Eve was evil and disunified but didn’t perform action, or Eve wasn’t evil and rather she was unified, but didn’t perform evil action. Obviously, if Korsgaard re-interprets the story entirely, removing this traditional element evil of the first evil human action, her account can make more sense of this particular interpretation of the story. The point, however, is that Korsgaard can’t (at least so far) give an account of evil action, and the traditional story of Eve is a perfect example of why she cannot.
Part of the problem is that I’m unwilling to grant degrees of agency. Agency is modular – it is binary; you either are or you aren’t a moral agent in a given circumstance. At best, I will grant degrees of responsibility given an agent’s incentives and inclinations. It seems like a biologically compulsive liar is in some sense less responsible for lying than a regular agent. But, both are 100% agents, and if they switched circumstances, then they’d be switching degrees of responsibility of lying in this case. But, all else being equal, both agents remain equally responsible in all other circumstances.
---------------------------
<<footnotes "1" " Christine Korsgaard, //Self-Constitution: Agency, Identity, and Integrity //(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 49">>
<<footnotes "2" "Ibid., 51-52">>
<<footnotes "3" "Ibid., 49">>
<<footnotes "4" "Ibid.">>
<<footnotes "5" "Ibid., 50">>
<<footnotes "6" "Ibid.">>
<<footnotes "7" "Ibid.">>
<<footnotes "8" "Ibid., 51">>
<<footnotes "9" "Ibid.">>
<<footnotes "10" "Ibid.">>
<<footnotes "11" "Ibid.">>
<<footnotes "12" "Ibid., 45">>
<<footnotes "13" "Ibid.">>
<<footnotes "14" "Ibid.">>
<<footnotes "15" "Ibid., 52">>
<<footnotes "16" "Ibid., 50">>
<<footnotes "17" "Ibid.">>
<<footnotes "18" "Ibid.">>
<<footnotes "19" "Ibid., 51">>
<<footnotes "20" "Ibid., 50">>
<<footnotes "21" "Ibid.">>
<<footnotes "22" "Bernard Williams, //Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy.// (Hammersmith, London: Fontana Press, 1985), 6">>
<<footnotes "23" "Christine Korsgaard, //Self-Constitution: Agency, Identity, and Integrity //(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 50">>
<<footnotes "24" "Ibid., 68">>
<<footnotes "25" "Ibid.">>
<<footnotes "26" "Ibid.">>
<<footnotes "27" "Ibid.">>
<<footnotes "28" "Ibid.">>
<<footnotes "29" "Ibid., 69">>
<<footnotes "30" "Ibid.">>
<<footnotes "31" "Ibid.">>
<<footnotes "32" "Ibid.">>
<<footnotes "33" "Ibid., 70">>
<<footnotes "34" "Ibid.">>
<<footnotes "35" "Ibid., 70-71">>
<<footnotes "36" "Ibid., 71">>
<<footnotes "37" "Ibid.">>
<<footnotes "38" "Ibid.">>
<<footnotes "39" "Ibid., 72">>
<<footnotes "40" "Ibid.">>
<<footnotes "41" "Christine Korsgaard. “The Normativity of Instrumental Reason” in //The Constitution of Agency: Essays on Practical Reason and Moral Psychology// (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008)">>
<<footnotes "42" "Christine Korsgaard, //Self-Constitution: Agency, Identity, and Integrity// (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 69">>
<<footnotes "43" "Ibid., 75">>
<<footnotes "44" "Ibid.">>
<<footnotes "45" "Ibid.">>
<<footnotes "46" "Ibid.">>
<<footnotes "47" "Ibid., 68">>
<<footnotes "48" "Ibid., 110">>
<<footnotes "49" "Ibid.">>
<<footnotes "50" "Ibid., 110">>
<<footnotes "51" "Ibid., 110-111">>
<<footnotes "52" "Ibid., 111">>
<<footnotes "53" "Ibid.">>
<<footnotes "54" "Ibid., 112">>
<<footnotes "55" "Ibid.">>
<<footnotes "56" "Ibid.">>
<<footnotes "57" "Ibid.">>
<<footnotes "58" "Ibid., 113">>
<<footnotes "59" "Ibid.">>
<<footnotes "60" "Ibid.">>
<<footnotes "61" "Ibid., 114">>
<<footnotes "62" "Ibid.">>
<<footnotes "63" "Ibid.">>
<<footnotes "64" "Ibid., 115">>
<<footnotes "65" "Ibid.">>
<<footnotes "66" "Ibid.">>
<<footnotes "67" "Ibid.">>
<<footnotes "68" "Ibid.">>
<<footnotes "69" "Ibid., 116">>
<<footnotes "70" "Ibid.">>
<<footnotes "71" "Ibid.">>
<<footnotes "72" "Ibid.">>
<<footnotes "73" "Ibid.">>
<<footnotes "74" "Ibid.">>
<<footnotes "75" "Ibid., 117">>
<<footnotes "76" "Ibid.">>
<<footnotes "77" "Ibid., 118">>
<<footnotes "78" "Ibid.">>
<<footnotes "79" "Ibid., 119">>
<<footnotes "80" "Ibid.">>
<<footnotes "81" "Ibid.">>
<<footnotes "82" "Ibid.">>
<<footnotes "83" "Ibid., 120">>
<<footnotes "84" "Ibid.">>
<<footnotes "85" "Ibid., 120-121">>
<<footnotes "86" "Ibid., 121">>
<<footnotes "87" "Ibid.">>
<<footnotes "88" "Ibid., 122">>
<<footnotes "89" "Ibid., 123">>
<<footnotes "90" "Ibid.">>
<<footnotes "91" "Ibid., 125">>
<<footnotes "92" "Ibid.">>
<<footnotes "93" "Ibid., 125-126">>
<<footnotes "94" "Ibid., 126">>
<<footnotes "95" "Ibid.">>
<<footnotes "96" "Ibid., 130">>
(Act) Utility Objectons--
1. Common sense intuitions (examples of Human rights violations)
2. Epistemological (can we know all the future consequences of our actions?)
3. Metaphysical (How do we know pleasure is an objective aspect of the world that we can measure and quantify?)
I wonder if there is a relationship between 2 and 3. Even if pleasure admits of quantification, how do we know what those quantities might be for each end?
Ethics - Good life, broad morality
Morality - how to treat each other.
1. The Good of a thing is determined by its function.
2. The function of a thing is always that which it does uniquely.
3. F(x) of humans can't be mere life because even plants are alive.
4. F(x) of humans can't be mere perception because animals also have this capacity.
5. So, Human good is the activity of the soul exhibiting the most complete excellence.
Rational Part of Soul: Intellect
Irrational P of Soul: Appetitive, Vegetative
There is intellectual virtue, and ethical virtue (intellectual for rational, and ethical for appetitive, but not vegtative).
Enkratic = Strong willed
Akratic = Weak willed
Virtues--
Courage:
temperance:
liberality: general amount of money you are willing to spend (not a penny-pincher)
Magnificence: sense of style while spending money (not garrish, but impressive nonetheless)
Pride:
Proper Ambition:
Good temper:
Honesty:
Wit:
Friendliness:
Shame:
Justice:
These traits and habits which are necessary for you to live a happy life - these demonstrate your function, in part.
Song means by Teleological: helping you as an individual flourish and meet 'your ends'. He thinks that Utility is not Teleological.
Libertarianism and Liberal Egalitarianism - they are in agree about about freedom of social regulations. - Song cals them neutralitarian.
Aristotle's ethics isn't neutralitarian.
You need political society to acquire the virtues.
You need political society to exercise the virtues.
A prior / A posteriori
Synthetic / Analytic
Transcendental - validity and reliability of human knowledge
Indirect, A->B, A, Therefore B. Showing B (intellectual categories) is done by demonstrating A (something we already take for granted).
For Kant:
1) The moral law is within us, not outside us.
2) Kant proves the moral law transcendentally
3) Moral law arises out of the structure of human agency
4) Moral Law is Synthetic A priori
Maxim - Subjective principle of volition
- reason why to act
- When in circumstance C, I will perform act type A.
Perfect vs. Imperfect
To ourselves and To others
Contradiction in Conception --> perfect duty
Contradiction in the Will --> imperfect duty
Formula of Universal Law
Formula of Humanity (as ends)
Formula of the Kingdom of Ends
KoE= utopia, no law can be passed without universal assent. Act as a member of that legislature.
I. 3 Formulas
II. Morality and Autonomy
III. Proof
Universal law, humanity, and kingdom of ends - these are all equivalent to Kant
1) The will is the causality of a rational being
2) As a causal force, the will must operate according to laws
3) A will would not be free if it were determined by external laws
4) So, a free will must give itself its own law
5) The moral law is the law of an autonomous will
6) If we are free, we must operate according to the moral law.
7) We are free.
8) So, we must operate according to the moral law
Mar 22
Poli-Phil
-Rights and Liberties
-Distributive Justice
Social Contract Theory
Mar 31
Are there diminishing returns to the utility derived from money?
A B C D E
1 40 339 170 95 80
2 40 30 80 80 75
3 40 25 50 75 70
4 40 5 30 65 60
5 40 1 10 30 55
Total 200 400 340 345 340
If these numbers were utility, then game theory is about choosing B. If this is about the distribution of social and economic goods, then we have to provide a story about why egoist utility maximizers would choose which distribution of income. The defense of the difference principle, in part, rests upon the relationship between utility and income.
We need to be clear what we mean when we say the guy with 90k income is 'better off' than the guy with 45k income. It certainly isn't twice as good, right?
We have to admit, that the relationship between utility and income is relative to each person (and can be different, consider the utility monster problem, etc. as exemplifying this relationship issue). We need to say that there is an average relationship...s
Rationally disinterested utility maximizers - why aren't they going to be willing to harm people? Because they don't want to allow for other people to harm them, they don't know where they are in society when they are behind the veil.
April 5
Liberatarianism
---------------
1) moral (rights)
2) Pragmatic (free market)
Rights
------
Natural rights, religion, association, speech....Property rights is a part of this list.
April 11
Strong, natural property rights for Liberatarian
Liberal Egalitarians think that property rights are conventional, "artificial" (my word), that prop rights arise from natural rights, and they arise because they tend to meet certain important conditions which are proposed by the natural rights. And, if a better system came about to meet those conditions, then we wouldn't use property rights, they wouldn't be our convention.
Commodification
Commercialization
Coercion- one read to be worried about commodification, when you open up a good to be sold in a market, it puts pressure on people to enter that market. If prostitution becomes legal, then people will become tempted to enter that market - and that coercive pressure might be bad. It would corrupt sex in society.
Corruption - commodification and commercialization tends to corrupt certain things, like higher education, it cheapens in it. THe influence of money might corrupt sports or something
April 26
1) Perfect Information
2) Perfect competition
3) mobility/barrier to entry/barrier to trade or transport/labor/capital/getting business off ground factors
April 28
Neo-classical, laissez-faire, chicago style
Schumpeter: large companies, and imperfect competition is the way to go.
John Rawls, in //A Theory of Justice//, offers a powerful social contractarian heuristic device for determining the principles of justice. In this paper, I attempt to defend the Rawlsian view of distributive justice by offering a stronger conceptual link between utility-maximizing agents in this device and the ‘difference principle’ it yields. The difference principle is supposedly chosen because of our innate risk aversion, but the literature on this topic remains unclear on how or why utility-maximizing agents would be interested in the distribution of primary social goods yielded by the difference principle. I will offer a justification for this risk aversion, filling in an untold gap in this story, whereby we can connect utility-maximization to the difference principle by examining the relationship between primary social goods and the economic principle of diminishing marginal utility.
The “basic structure” of society, as described by Rawls, is constituted by formal, legal, political and economic institutions. How best to configure the basic structure is a central to justice, in Rawls’ view, because it fixes the distribution of goods, services, opportunities, authorities, and rights. The basic structure is the initial subject of justice. It is here (either for the creation of a basic structure or as an assessment of one) that one can begin to question and formulate the principles of justice which normatively define the various possible configurations of the basic structure. Principles of justice design, specify, assess and justify the blueprints, arrangement and practices of these institutions and the overall basic structure. Rawls is famous for this device which formulates the principles of justice, a device he calls the “original position.”
The original position is a type of thought experiment, an abstraction, a hypothetical instance of drawing up a social contract among members of society, and a method of thinking about justice. The parties within the original position are meant to agree upon whatever counts as the fair and correct principles of justice used to generate the basic structure to which they would find themselves subject outside of the original position. The original position structures intuitions we have about justice and how we formulate them – the original position is designed to provide an impartial justice, and render a stable society. Notably, the concern for impartiality and fairness is what leads us to the most profound and potent fixture in the original position, what Rawls calls the “veil of ignorance.”
Agents in the original position find themselves ‘behind’ a veil of ignorance. While behind this veil, “no one knows his place in society, his class position or social status, nor does anyone know his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence, strength and the like. I shall even assume that the parties do not know their conceptions of the good or their special psychological propensities.”<<ref "1">> Agents are deprived of the knowledge of their personal particularities, what societies they come from, and their histories. Some of the attributes which count as morally arbitrary in Rawls’ eyes might be considered controversial (e.g. your religious beliefs), but let us pass this by. The essential point, to which I think we can all intuitively agree, is that differences which are arbitrary from the moral point of view don’t count with regards as to how the principles of justice treat you.
Agents behind the veil must be detached from their actual, particular circumstances when formulating the principles of justice. Proper justice requires we answer a hypothetical question: If you couldn't know who you were, what would you choose? This makes a lot of sense - it removes bias. Thus, the principles of justice which are produced from within the original position and behind the veil of ignorance are in some sense impartial and unbiased.
What then constitutes these agents, these amorphous creatures which have shed morally arbitrary features? Rawls believes these agents have a sense of justice, being willing to comply with what is required by justice. They are also free and equal agents. Vitally, agents behind the veil are rational, mutually disinterested utility-maximizers.<<ref "2">> These characteristics provide the motivation and mindset of agents formulating the principles of justice. They have the necessary tools and knowledge to formulate the correct principles of justice, to know what is normatively just and fair about different configurations of basic structures given their rational, mutually disinterested, utility-maximizing characters. While ignorant of particularities, agents are extremely knowledgeable about generalities. They have a commanding knowledge of general facts about human nature, psychology, sociology, political science, biology, and economics. Thus, with this knowledge, from behind the veil of ignorance, agents are able to rationally construct and agree to the principles of justice, even agreeing with principles which might not benefit them as the individuals they are outside of the original position.
Rawls is very thorough, and despite the hypothetical nature of the original position, he is also practical. He invents an apt regression test procedure used to make sure we actually agreed to the correct principles of justice. He calls this the “reflective equilibrium.” Employing the reflective equilibrium allows agents to go back and forth between the original position and reality. This method allows us to continually justify and revise (if necessary) the principles of justice.
Interestingly, it just so happens that Rawls thinks he knows exactly which principles of justice would be chosen from within the original position. They essentially are:
# The Principle of Greatest Equal Liberty - People are to be as free as possible.
# The Difference Principle - Social and economic advantages should be distributed in order to maximize the shares of the most disadvantaged, those on the bottom line. Maximize the minimum.<<ref "3">>
First off, these principles are lexically ordered in priority. The first principle is the most important one, and the second merits consideration after maximally satisfying the first. Intuitively, it seems that there might be many possible basic structures which equally maximize the first principle, and the second principle does the work of assigning further normative value, effectively acting as a tie-breaker to the subset of initially acceptable basic structures generated by the first.
The first principle of justice is concerned with maximizing basic rights and liberties for all citizens, including political liberties, freedom of speech, freedom of association, religious liberty, etc. The second principle is about maximizing the wealth, material goods, and services for the lowest margins of society. For many liberal intuitions, the first principle is the least controversial. The principle of greatest equal liberty seems a very plausible product of rational utility-maximizers in the original position, particularly given classic utilitarian views on liberty. There seems to be an acceptable and ostensible story which we can tell, about how rational, mutually disinterested utility-maximizing agents in the original position, as defined by Rawls, would create and agree upon the first principle. The second principle is a particular brand of distributive justice theory, including why we should believe (as Rawls believes) that utility-maximizing agents in the original position would choose this particular principle of distributive justice. This, perhaps, is more controversial. Rational utility-maximization isn’t so clearly linked to the difference principle. Part of this story seems to be missing. In order to see why, let’s dig a bit deeper into the ramifications of the difference principle, going through an example of it as a decision procedure.
What follows is an oversimplified example, but it will nicely demonstrate how the difference principle is generated and applied.
Consider the following monetary table and the explanation of it which follows:
Figure 1
The table represents a hypothetical choice. Agents in the original position need to make an algorithmic, procedurally-based choice between the three possible, yet different distributions of wealth. Let us assume that each option equally satisfies the principle of greatest equal liberty; it is then up to the difference principle to decide which type of distributive structure is normatively best. A more complex table could certainly make sense of other types of units which belong to distributive justice, but let’s assume we’ve converted all such objects into monetary value. There is only one type of unit to be distributed, in this case money; let’s arbitrarily say thousands of Euros annually per person. Quartiles represent a fourth of the population, and people in each quartile make the specific annual salary determined by the respective distributive economy. Note that the totals are different, which is to be expected, as different economic structures have different sum total outcomes.
What would the agents in the original position choose? Everyone is behind the veil of ignorance; they don’t know which option will bring greatest benefit to them individually, outside of the veil. Agents behind the veil are in a game of limited information. They need a strategic formula to determine which distribution is best, particularly because they lack the knowledge of which particular quartile they will find themselves in, when outside the original position.
According to Rawls, the difference principle is the formula they would choose to apply, as it alone offers us the correct decision procedure and just distributive outcome. What does it actually do in this case? Well, maximizing the minimum requires we examine the 1st Quartile to the exclusion of everything else on the table. According to the difference principle, in this hypothetical choice, whichever distribution has the highest annual salary in the 1st Quartile determines what counts as the most just basic structure. In this case, the socialized market is what the difference principle requires us to select.
It isn’t clear, however, why we should believe Rawls’ assumption that agents behind the veil of ignorance would choose the difference principle; and furthermore, it isn’t clear why they prefer the distribution of the Socialized Market in the choice represented in Figure 1. Why should we think that a rational, mutually disinterested utility-maximizing agent with generalized knowledge would make these conclusions? There is an untold gap in the story, and it becomes clear with examples. One would like to think that Rawls isn’t begging the question; surely there are good and plausible bridges over this gap. Consider an exaggerated modification of the table:
Figure 2
By the difference principle, the socialized market is still chosen in the question presented in Figure 2. But, now, the difference principle as a strategy seems much weaker. The economist/gambler in all of us sees the opportunity cost in selecting the socialized market, and here the difference principle doesn’t seem so reasonable. The odds are really good that you’ll be very, very rich in the feudal economy in Figure 2. Obviously, this is very hypothetical; proponents of the difference principle might argue that the feudal economy is Figure 2 isn’t a real possibility at all (a fair argument, in my view). Yet it also seems very possible to scale down the exaggeration and have plausible counterexamples, which might lead rational utility-maximizers away from the difference principle.
Figure 2 forces us to entertain the possibility that agents in the original position wouldn't choose the difference principle. From behind the veil, not knowing to which quartile one actually belongs, it is reasonable to think that agents might employ the primitive game theory strategy of selecting the structure which provides the highest mean average salary (or look at the structure which brings about the highest sum total of salaries). Clearly, this strategy would promote the feudal economy rather than the socialized market in Figure 2.
“But wait!” exclaims the proponent of the difference principle. Surely, we can see that you have a 25% chance to be completely impoverished in the feudal economy. The fear of ending up on the bottom carries a great deal weight, especially if the bottom quartile ends up with practically nothing, as in the case of the above feudal economy. Some proponents of Rawls' difference principle contend the bridge is based upon risk aversion, which is what enables us to rationally deny the feudal economy, greatly increasing the merits of both the socialized economy and the difference principle which selects it.
According to this risk aversion theory, some degree of risk aversion is a characteristic derived from being a rational utility-maximizer, and thus a fundamental reason underlying the difference principle is risk aversion. It does seem that the larger the stakes, the more risk averse we become, and this choice is for all the distributive marbles, so I can strongly sympathize with the risk aversion theory. What might be the proper account of this risk aversion theory isn't clear. Is it only being risk averse to complete catastrophe, as we saw in Figure 2? And, if so, does this really support the difference principle? Imagine a modification of Figure 2:
Figure 3
Complete catastrophe is certainly avoided in both. Notice, the margin of difference between the lowest quartiles is relatively small, 500 Euros a year, but the rest of the economy is strikingly different. It seems that we can go back to the gambler strategy, which is certainly a strategy about weighing risks! If you were at the bottom quartile in the socialized market wouldn’t you spend 500 Euros per year for a 75% chance to make between 200 thousand to 1 million Euros each year instead? This is the sort of hypothetical question which suggests that the risk aversion theory might need more work if it is eventually going to point towards the difference principle. Even if this hypothetical is too exaggerated, surely we can conceive of less extreme examples which have similar worries attached.
What sort of risk aversion theory plausibly supports the difference principle? Part of the problem is that our discussion isn’t in the right language. For any proper theory acting as a bridge between rational utility-maximizers and whatever end principle of distributive justice is chosen, the story must be told in language of utility. Nothing we’ve seen so far really does that explicitly. As we zoom in on this utility story, we’ll see that a risk aversion theory, explained in the language of utility, very plausibly supports the difference principle.
One does not weigh the objects of distributive justice outright; one must weigh units of utility. There is a conversion process which must occur in order for utility-maximizers to begin to normatively evaluate objects of distributive justice. Objects of distributive justice are converted into units of utility. But, since risk aversion deals with the objects of distributive justice, and it can’t weigh units of utility, clearly what counts as risk aversion must be broken down into utility values. The risk aversion theorist is claiming that the utilitarian conversion algorithm has built into it the principle of risk aversion as one of its sub-formulas. And, if this is true, then essentially utility values already have built into them the merits of risk of aversion.
Weighing the average of some unit (however complex the formula to generate these units) has to be the only rational measurement. In this sense, the primitive strategy from the discussion of figure 2 was approaching something really important. Rational decision procedures in game theory are dominated by the notion that one must choose whichever option has the highest average utility. The primitive strategy, however, wasn’t selecting the highest average utility; it was selecting the highest average salary, its selection was based on monetary units, not utility units. These are very, very different, and that is why the risk aversion theorist may claim that the primitive strategy might fail. It is then up to the risk aversion theorist to provide an argument about utility which supports his or her own claim.
One of the more famous economic theories, namely, the theory of diminishing marginal utility, does just this work for the risk aversion theorist.<<ref "4">> There are diminishing utility returns for each subsequent unit of any object of distributive justice, including money. The first 10k Euros will yield more utility than then next 10k Euros. This makes practical sense as well. Surely, on average, the resources necessary to survive will produce more utility for an agent than the same amount of resources added to the salary of someone who already has enough to survive. While the theory of diminishing marginal utility is not water-tight, perfectly proven, it is at least widely recognized as a plausible economic theory, something which agents in the original position very likely might hold.
Consider the following table:
Figure 4
This example income-to-utility conversion table demonstrates marginal utility. Levels of income are converted to their respective levels of utility. While there is a massive store of literature arguing about these values and determining which empirical study is correct is beyond both the scope of this paper and my expertise, there isn’t a consensus about the exact formula which maps financial income to utility. I’ve given a very simple example just to demonstrate what diminishing marginal utility looks like. I’m providing a theoretical point - I’m not sure what the end-game empirical tables really look like (and, honestly, I doubt anyone actually has yet). I believe the above table is not representative of reality; I think the values for diminishing marginal utility are likely far more extreme and radical. The difference between surviving and not surviving (the first couple thousand Euros) seems to have a much higher utility value than the small difference in utility gained from more luxuries. If this is true, then the table should be skewed to benefit to lowest levels of income more radically than is presented.
Essentially, this notion of diminishing marginal utility is the major portion of the bridge we’ve needed – such tables are absolutely necessary in order to connect rational utility-maximizing as a method of thinking to both the end distributive principle of justice and the basic structures selected. The weight of risk aversion in our decision procedure, at least in part, is captured by diminishing marginal utility. Worries aren’t just about catastrophic outcomes; we’re actually worried about the bottom line because it has the highest marginal utility gain. In light of Figure 4, here is what happens when we convert monetary values in Figure 1 into their corresponding utility values:
Figure 5
In weighing the averages or totals of the corresponding utility values, values which are transformatively curved by diminishing marginal utility, it is easy to see why rational utility-maximizing agents in the original position prefer the socialized market from Figure 1. Moreover, it seems that the risk aversion theorist has a very potent argument to defend the difference principle (which is what was needed in the first place). The primitive argument from Figure 2 is correct about rational decisions being determined by averages, but the argument is wrong to assume a one-to-one correspondence of monetary to utility values. Here we see that diminishing marginal utility, which is a form of risk aversion at the low end of the utility spectrum, bridges the gap between the agents as utility-maximizers and the difference principle as a substantive distributive justice schema.
But, isn’t this what we set out to do? This is the story we need to hear which defends the difference principle. In recognizing that objects of distributive justice must be converted into utility values for these agents to rationally make utility-maximizing choices, in conjunction with a diminishing margin utility, the notion of risk aversion emerges to support the difference principle.
--------------------------------
<<footnotes "1" "Rawls, John. //A Theory of Justice//. (Cambridge, Mass: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1999.), 11">>
<<footnotes "2" "Ibid., 12">>
<<footnotes "3" "Song, Edward. “Global Justice.” Class lectures, Louisiana State University, Spring 2011.">>
<<footnotes "4" "Marginal Utility theory is found in many political and economic sources, including Aristotle’s Politics (Book 7, Ch. 1). It isn’t even a modern notion. So, I’m unsure who merits attribution of the overall, generic theory (of which there are many fine-tuned versions). ">>
Jan 18
Necessitations:
Logical necessitation
Causal necessitation
Rational necessitation
...
Human being ____ acting
Even choosing not to act is an action.
This notion of action can't be reduced to any of these three necessitations.
There is no logical contradiction when we say a 'human does not act'.
And so on for both causal and rational necessitiation.
It is our fate/destiny to act.
Our action is necessitated. Sarkar calls it "metaphysical necessitation".
Norms - provide a normative compulsion.
A person has, in his mind, a variety of desires and inclinations, but he also has reason.
Duties and obligations only fit for humans. There isn't for God or angels (acc. to Sarkar). Duties and obligations only apply to individuals who are tempted away from the moral law. If there is no temptation, then there is no necessitation. For God and angels, there can be no necessitation (assuming angels are perfect).
Necessitation, as it occurs in Kant...
Groundwork, 4:414, 4:412.
Necessitation. Law commands certain actions - it is objectively necessary that "one ought to...". The perfect being whose will is infallibly rational, that would be a subjective necessity as well. He (God) would never dream of doing anything else. If the Will is subjective conditions which aren't in accord with objective ones, such as desires and inclinations over-riding our reason, then you have the concept of necessitation.
There is no imperitive for the Holy, Divine, solely rational Will.
The whole idea of necessitation is important because what is at stake is self-constitution.
When you do what is wrong, your 'self' becomes fragmented. A fragmented self cannot properly act. Changing the fragmented self into the self-constited is the change from an immoral person to a moral person, and a change from ingenuine action to genuine action. Without self-consistution, we cannot genuinely act.
Being evil is failing to have genuine action, which is failing to be a good (self-constituted) human.
-What is the source of normativity, the grounds of its authority? Is it possible that the psychological mechanism of necessitation which compels us is only part of what grounds the authority of normativity? Even if all humans died out today, wouldn't we want to say normativity still exists, it just so happens that no beings exist under which it is applicable?
Jan 20
Hume, sentimentalists --Human standard of values
"spectator point of view"
If A is nice to B, and I am sympathetic to B, then I regard A's act as good.
Normative standards play no role in the actions of A, then they are naturally virtuous. Otherwise, there is self-hatred which forces the normative standards to play a role.
An act is virtuous if it is useful or pleasant to us or to others. The spectator approves (acc. Sarkar) because of this, but is not (acc. Kors). If Sarkar is right,t hen Sentimentalist is externalist, not internalist.
In order to be good, you don't necessarily need to be like the conditioned 'Good dog'.
"third-person point of view"
She's claiming that normativity isn't a psychological force.
Dogmatic rationalists (Kant? might be included, controversial - Sarkar doesn't think inclusion)-- External, objective standard of values
Objective values (ethical) - every bit as objective as "my coat is brown"
The claim is that the invidiual who has reason has a 'module' to see clearly what those objective values are...and then they can act on that.
How are we necessitated? The sentimentalist and dogmatic rationalists cannot answer.
Categorical Imperitive is a "synthetic a priori" proposition, like 2+3=5 (but not just A=A, as it is necessary, but not informative). If it is necessarily true, then it isn't made by the individual (subjective), thus it is objective truth/value.
What principles generate self-constitution? Will it be relative and subjective or will it be objective?
Act and Action are different
Purpose is not normative (acc. Kant and Aristotle)
Maxim->CT function check (can it be universalized?)--> yes or no? - if yes, use the maxim.
Jan 25
Aristotle and Kant's view on what counts as the right act are structurally similar.
Kant maintains that the form of the maxim is very important. If the form of the maxim can be universalized, then it is a morally acceptable maxim.
You find the same thing, acc. to Kors, in Aristotle.
Action is a comprehensive description, both act and end. Aristotle argues for this, and she thinks Kant does as well.
form of maxim, the way in which the purpose/end relates to the act in an Action.
Kors is against moral facts (for Dogmatic Rationalists) but is not against maxim's being correct internal to it itself.
The correctness of the maxim is not dependent is not dependent on something outside the agent. Is morality subjective from this point of view?
The objective law, for Kant (acc. Sarkar), is independent and it is the Categorical Imperitive (synethetic a priori). Kors has painted morality such that there isn't an objective law. The CI from Kant's perspective demonstrates that the objective law should have impact on the moral agent, which is opposed to Kors' view.
Why subscribe to an objective law? Her criticism of the rationalists will come down on any objective truth she attempts to reach.
1.4.1 - For descartes there is an "I" could not exist unless it is "thinking" and vv. Kant thinks this idea was a mistake. The "I" does not need to exist, yet the individual will an important role.
If there is no "I" separate from beliefs and desires, then it seems that 'action' is caused by the remainder, namely beliefs and desires.
There must be a self. Unification comes in degrees. Some selves will be more unified than others. There are degrees of action. The degree of unification correlates to the degree of a self which correlates to the degree of 'genuine' action.
Aim is not to be good, but rather Unified. Goodness is a secondary effect of being unified.
Not being unified is a choice, yes? Isn't every action based upon the choice to be unified? Can't you have someone who is unified in evil? Is she begging the question about what counts as unified? She removes the agency of evil people.
Disunified people have things (desires) acting upon them which forces them to do acts that are evil.
1.4.2 - t0, there is you, t1, there is action from you [She says this is mistaken]
At time t1, there is both you (whole self) that is action
One is making one's identity in ones Actions.
Practical identities are contingent. The contingent identities give us reasons to do things. We should have 'contingent identities' of necessity. We can have, adopt, or shed these.
You can have many contingent practical identities, and sometimes they will conflict. You have to unify them.
Our practical identities help us decide what actions we will choose and which ones we won't. Actions are expressions of practical identities. They give you more than reason for doing something, but also principles for determining what it is that you should.
What happens when my practical identities and principles they give me conflict? What happens when my moral principles conflicts with these practical identities?
If the maintainence of our practical identities is up to us? How should our practical identities be guided? Will she need objective laws to identify this guidance?
Read up to page 46
Jan 27
We all have varieties of practical identities. Our task is to unfiy these various practical identities, with dedication and integrity. Only then we can have reasons for our actions. Unless you have these practical identities, you won't have reasons. Actions are directed by reasons which are provided by your practical identities.
The kinds of obligations and duties you have are 'up to you'.
It seems as if (acc. Sark) every practical identities have objective duties bound to them. Whereas I can choose my contingent identity, it isn't up to me to choose my obligations and duties. But, this isn't Kors position.
It seems that Kors is saying that both contingent practical identities and the obligations are up to you.
THis is probably the interpretation we want to have of her because she would be against the objective nature of the obligations and duties which might be part of the first interpretation, as this would conflict with her argument against the dogmatic rationalists.
In choosing our contingent practical identities, we are 'valuing' ourselves. There is no other way to value ourselves besides espousing the practical identities and following the obligations/duties. I choose to value myself as "X" identity.
if obligations/duties are objective, then it is too "third personal" - she must hold that the duties and obligations are "first-personal"
Problematically, not all "valuings" are alike. Are the values objective? If they are, then dogmatic rationalism problem, and if not, then it isn't very clear how one couldn't have a 'bad identity' which they also pursue with integrity and dedication.
If the individual who has the contingent practical identities is 'rational' but also has certain 'non-rational aspects' to them as human beings, then it seems that we need to be --COMMITTED-- to whatever 'rational principles' there are. Who knows what these 'non-rational principles' might entail...
You must be committed to your identities.
Once you adopted an identity, you must treat that identity as the 'source of absolute inviolable laws'.
As a human, are there any duties from being human? Duties qua human? Stripping all other practical identities which are contingent, are there any 'necessary' practical identities, like being human? If so, it seems that these sorts of necessary practical identities are objective. You can de-commit yourself via suicide...perhaps. Even human identities seem contingent for Kors (pg 23.).
'Being a father' is not a fact about the fact that you've procreated, but more of a role.
Kors thinks the 'dedications and integrity' clause is what prevents me from 'giving up my fatherhood' as an identity at whim. But, then it is not 'up to me' in some sense whether or not I can take up or drop off my practical identities.
"up to me" is an important phrase here. It is part of avoiding the dogmatic rationalists?
Degrees of unification, agency, and action.
Moral principles go towards the constitution of your agency.
Constitution of Agency - Ch. 1
REgarding Groundwork first:
Section 2 of Groundwork, there is a distinction between categorical imperative (3 imperatives are mentioned, but they all point to the same one, apparently) and hypothetical imperatives (note the plurality). 'If you want to be a lawyer, you need to do well on the LSAT' counts as a hypothetical because it doesn't apply to those who don't want to be lawyers.
In the hypothetical imperative: When you will an end, you automatically will the means which would produce that end. You don't have to will the end, so you don't have to will the means, necessarily.
As to categorical imperative, as an agent with reason, you can't choose the end.
Whereas everyone applauds the hypothetical imperative, Kors thinks the hypothetical imperative must be questioned. She thinks you can't have the hypothetical imperative unless it is underwritten by the categorical imperative.
There is only one principle of practical reason, to Kors, the categorical imperative (end of the Ch. 1, pg 68).
Kors argues that Hume cannot be for the hypoethcal imperatives (and then she will argue against the dogmatic rationalists).
Instrumental Reason -
Even the principle of prudence requires a foundation, despite the fact that many people assume it doesn't.
If X is a practical reason, it must 1) motivate you, and 2) it must serve as a guide. If it can motivate, but doesn't guide (as in empiricism) -or- If it can guide, but can't motivate (as in rationalism), then it fails to be a practical reason. She thinks we can have both, but must deny that Humean empiricists and rationalists can do it.
She thinks we must focus on the individual and his or her will to solve this problem.
We need to understand the pitfalls that the empiricists and rationalists are facing in this argument. When we are confronted with her own theory, we have to know if her own objections to these two theories apply to her own theory or not.
Phenomena (in our understanding) where we see laws of physics, etc. - It is only in the "noumena" (not in our understanding) which is outside the phenomena, only there can freedom (and the laws of it) exist.
Laws of freedom are based on rationality, to be autonomous is to be rational. To be autonomous is to say that your actions are determined by beliefs or desires, only by you and your reason.
Your will is free, but there are laws (of freedom) which applies to it.
Necessitation is understood as the 'desires' in the Phenomena are in conflict with 'rationality' we see in the noumena. The "I" of the noumena legislates for the "I" is the phenomena.
Feb 1
pg. 20 Groundwork - 'all rational beings' - demonstrating some element of objectivity
Kors., of course, believes that the categorical imperative is 'constructed' by our reason/autonomy in some sense. It lacks objectivity.
Hume is unable to defend the instrumental principle, nor can he defend the principle of prudence. He can't maintain them if we go strictly by his philosophy.
--------------------
Hume's metaphysics of the mind -
-impressions
-copies of impressions (he calls them 'ideas')
-belief+desire (model)
The issue of causation. He believes:
We observe impressions, corresponding, over time. I.E. i1 to i2, etc. Constant Conjunction
The mind has the propensity to move from i1 to i2.
His contention is that 'there is no necessity' in nature. We have neither an impression nor an idea of necessity. It is an illusion, this constant conjunction. Spatio-temporal contiguity is causation, but these connections are not necessary.
All empirical claims and causal connections are contingent and merely synthetic. It is logically possible that gravity won't have its affect on an object. The ideas are not contradictory.
Ideas of relation / Analytic - Truths of arithmatic, bachelor's married men
Matters of fact /Synthetic - everything else
-----------------------------
Hume believes you can't explain action if you don't have both belief and desire. You can't act just from one or the other.
Belief + desire => rational act
Conditioned to laugh with a pen in hand + want cucumbers => laughter is rational act? (no)
There seems that there must be a conceptual connection between belief and desire.
Acc. Kors., the self must make the conceptual connection between belief and desire.
If you can be conditioned to act well or badly, but this isn't enough for good rational action.
She says, there must be a 'recognition', that the self recognizes that the beliefs and desires are appropriately connected.
Belief and desire, but need recognition within mind of that connection.
Hume has the 'bundle theory of self'. You never encounter yourself when thinking, only ideas and impressions. So, what is the self from the Humean perspective? He insists there is no self. You'd think that the self, if it were experiencable, would be either an idea or an impression.
logical necessity - all men are mortal type arguments
Proposition attitudes "I believe all men are mortal..." are different.
Principles of inference, that is the objective basis of our thoughts.
Should not the principles of morality be similar? If they are deducible and discoverable, should we say that morality has the objective basis as that of logic?
34-Imagine myself, and an observer watching me. They might see that I have certain beliefs and dispositions. Acc. to Kors. Inter of Hume, there is input into me, and an outpout. I am not, somehow, really a part of what decides the output?
35-if instrumental rationality includes ends, then fine, if not, then you are stuck with merely a belief. How will ends be incorporated into instrumental rationality.
Reason is a slave of the passions, it gives you no ends. But passions show desire. Belief has the ends. There is no 'ought', only an 'is'.
Can't derive an 'ought-statement' from an 'is-statement' - an 'is-statement' is descritive, while the 'ought' is prescriptive. Hume thinks you are committing a fallacy to from the is to ought.
Instrumental principles can't be 'normative' in Hume.
If prudence were a rational requirement, then you couldn't do what is in the passage of 36. He thinks reason can't tell you that your particular choices are imprudent. Why? The principle of prudence is not a rational requirement. He can't use
the princple of prud. normatively, but he can't demonstrate 'how' people are prudent through evolution and nature descriptive statements.
Human nature, constitutionally, is prudent (hume thinks). Not as a normative statement, but rather as a descriptive one. As a matter of brute fact, we are so constructed, and our original construction is such that 'we can't help but be prudent'. This isn't a normative fact though. There is no irrationality to doing something different. Behaving imprudently can't be condemned on the grounds of reason.
Reason is more of a calm passion, to Hume.
We are genetically prudent. Not rationally.
Hume can't make descriptive claims about prudence because it relies entirely upon descriptive (is) claims.
People can have turbulent or calm passions. On occasions when you act prudently, your calm passions have been dominant, and vice versa. It isn't a rational issue, merely a passionate one. This is a description, and thus we can't get normativity.
Normative principles must guide and motivate>...
Suppose two actions, a1 and a2. A1 is for your good and a2 is not. In order for Hume to maintain that prudence is a normative principle, he'd need to maintain that you need to prefer a1 over a2. But, he is emphatically against the idea that a person who 'prefers' a2 to a1 is somehow irrational.
Reason cannot supply us with normative claims.
Feb 3
Hume can't make a difference between actual desires there is and rational desires.
If the end is dictated by virtue, it has to be normative. You ought to prefer a virtuous end than not. But, how do you get to the 'ought' in Hume?
The problem that Kors has with Hume is that a 'person' is guided entirely by desires and beliefs, not by 'themselves' as a 'self'.
Unfortunatley, Kors, thus far, has failed to give us an explanation of the 'self'.
who is doing the recognizing between belief and desires? She might either need to postulate a distinct entity for this recognition, or it isn't very clear how her view doesn't collapse into her criticism of Hume's view of the mind.
Hume's perceptions, ideas and impressions, we never stumble upon an "I"...There is no I' that has the impressions and ideas, it is like a bag of marbles.
Descartes says that there must be an I, in which the various properties, inhere.. The "I" does the recognizing of the Beliefs and desires. Kors is against the explicit Cartesian "I", then what is doing the recognition between the 'ends'a nd means'...the recognition of a belief.
What makes for her understanding of a 'personal identity'?
Kant thinks that if there is an "I", then it must transcend the phenomena.
Kant thinks the Will must endorse your desires for anything to occur. Volition/desire distinction.
If you want X, you must do Y. These are hypothetical imperatives.
Prudence is an HI. "If you want to be happy, then Y."
The HI: "Given your end, follow the best means available" - it towers above all the particular HI's.
Particular HI's can be normative because you can violate them. You can't violate "The HI", however, thus Kors thinks it is n't normative. THE HI is descriptive, not normative.
How does a principle become normative for a rational will? Kant and Kors wish to explain this.
Normativity requires guide and motivation.
If there is no possibility of failure, it can't be a guide.
If it is analytic, then how is failure possible?
The caveat trivializes the syllogism. It does not explain 'why?'.
Kors thinks Freedom to do either A or B, as so long as you have freedom, then you have normativity in place.
Necessitiation, as Sarkar understands it, only our desires and feelings and phenomonological self is what brings us away from doing what is right.
How is there normativity for God?
What is the motivation for me to accept a bland fact about normativity.
How do moral facts motivate us? Can we simply say "that is just what it means to be rational?"
Feb 8
Take an agent, and then take independent reality, Kors believes the dogmatic realist fails to give a proper account of how the independent reality is normative and motivating for and to the rational agent. What is it about the rational agent that motivates him to follow independent moral reality. The dogmatic rationalist seems to give guidance, but not motivation.
The empiricist, it seems, can give you motivation, but not guidance. Desires act as a motivator, but it seems to lack guidance.
Motivation seems begged by the dogmatic rationalist. Why should i do X? "because x is what you should do" begs it.
If instrumental principle is embedded in independent reality, what is the motivation to accept the instrumental principle? You can't use the instrumental principle to justify the motivation for usingthe instrumental principle. Instrumental principle seems to be a part of independent reality, like mathematics.
She is a constructivist. She isn't lookin for objective, independent reality.
How can she say we are motivated to believe that 2+2=4? or even more complex deductions of mathematics?
Goldbach's conjecture is either true or false. How can we be motivated to believe it?
She draws a distinction between Rationality and Reasons. She says that dogmatic rationalists begin with reasons, and then we 'go up' to rationality. She thinks we have to go from top/down instead to avoid problems.
Because rational will is connected to rationality, it is then connected to reasons.
Rational will proposes laws, rationality is the law,
If the "will" postulates instrumental reason, then she can bypass the criticism of DR's.
She does not disconnect Will from Principles in order to avoid DR's independent reality criticism.
In the very act of willing the end you are willing the means, in an analytic sense. The instrumental principle is analytic.
There might be many means to a single end. Rationality seems require we pick the best of the means to the end (efficiency, maybe?).
In order for something to be a requirement, there has to be a gap. If you cannot in principle violate a moral code, can it be a geniune moral code?
Will ---- Gap ---- Principle
Mental act of willing end --> Mental act of willing means
There seems to be a gap for the empricist.
She doesn't have a gap though.
She needs one, otherwise there doesn't seem to be a requirement.
If she hasn't willed the means, you haven't even willed the means.
If it is a matter of commitment, can't I just choose not to be committed?
Commitment to the ends is a commitment to the means.
How is she not violating, for instrumental principle, in a similar argument on pg 51 towards another argument?
You make things normative for you. Constructivism. Normativity of a principle depends on your subjective commitment to it.
Principle K*: Realize this end
Kors can't have this principle in the independent reality. Since it isn't then principle K seems something which we are committed to. Why should we be committed to principle K?
pg. 59 -
Consider an individual through different time periods.
t0, t1, t2, t3...tn for time
d0, d1, d2, d3...dn for desires which constantly change
d0, d0, d0, d0...d0 for desire which never change
but, what about:
d1, d2, d2, d2...d2 for a single change
From d1 to d2 seems like the person in the noumena is legislating for the person in d1.
Why can't I make and throw off my duties at whim?
You can't have a will without assuming the instrumental principle. But, if you can't, then it seems you can't violate it.
If you can't violate it, then it isn't normative, is what she says.
How can you be necessitated if you get to make up your own moral reality? It seems that it isn't just applicable to the instrumental principle, but to nearly all principles, even the categorical imperative.
CI->identity->actions
Feb 10
Parallel/analogy between Acting and Believing
Acting is constitutive - you must be guided by fundamental, practical principles. Instrumental principle is a part of this.
Believing is also constitutive - Law of Excluded Middle - Our beliefs, however, are not always a perfectly consistent set, but we won't consciously, explicitly agree to a contradiction.
It seems, Sarkar, that the law of excluded middle is objective in the dogmatic rationalist sense. If the act of believing includes being committed to the law of excluded middle....why should Kors think we must committed to this one in particular? Constructivism seems like it wants this to be true, objectively.
But, why shouldn't the Categorical Imperitive and the Principle of Instrumentality which are constitutive of actions, then why can't we also say they are part of the independent reality just the law of exlcuded middle - it can be a synthetic a priori proposition, right?
If you want to be moral, and you aren't committed to the CI, then the dogmatic rationalist/Kant might say that your action lacks moral worth. So, they are interested in committment, but not to the idea that there isn't an objective reality like the constructivist.
Baking a Good cake is analogous to acting witht he CI and PI, or Believing consistutively with the law of excluded middle.
But, Kant would say that 'building a roof on a house' is not consistutive of the act of building a has. It seems that there are actions which are both good and evil, but it doesn't seem possible for Kors.
Categorical Imperative
Principle of Prudence - take into account your overall good
Hypothetical Imperative
Principle of Instrumentality
Each of these seems to be constitutive, in Kors eyes.
Degree of action sucks because we want to hold evil people responsible...for their actions.
An individual has a free will. "Laws of freedom" are necessary. A genuinely autonomous will is completely free of his desires, etc., but it still obeys the laws of freedom. Kors thinks that 'the moral law' is an expression of an 'autonomous agent'.
The law is not intended for you to test the maxim, for Kors. Acting from a maxim, constitutively, is necessary. You can't act not from a maxim, because it isn't an action.
The rational will (pg 39 in Kant) makes and wills 'universal laws', not just for themselves, but also for all rational beings.
Kant thinks we are committed to universal laws...not any old thing you like. For Kors, exactly what does she think we are committed to?
It seems difficult to commit yourself to these major laws, but also to commit ourselves (in the same sense of committment) to our contingent practical identities. It seems like one sort of commitment (the 1st) really can't be broken.
pg 63 - Your having a 'will to do x' doesn't seem to be enough. First she had said that: Can't be just your end, and your desire, but you must have the will, and only then does it become your reason. Now, the "x" must be good. If you are really committing yourself, then X must be good.
We must ask though, musnt' that "X" which must be good also be independent of us? It must be independent of desires, and it must be independent of our will. She must give us an account of "what is good". If she has a theory of the good which is independent of these things, how does she not fall prey to the same problems as the dogmatic rationalist?
X is like a desire, btw.
existentialist heroic person says that the "good" in "will to do X" and "X is good" because of will. And, she thinks this would be arbitrary. The same seems to go for the X, desires. Whatever grounds "good" will make this non-arbitrary. But, without being able to define good in terms of will and desires, she needs the objective good in reality.
Actin for a reason--
Do you do something because you desire to do it or because there is a property of what you do that is good, and you do it because it is good?
Why do you X?
--"Because I desire X"
WHy do you desire X?
--....
This is the issue.
Is an act good because of what it promotes, or good in itself?
Empricists claim that the connection between a persons action and desires is a causal one. But, if you are a rationalist says that your reasons sees the good-making properties of action, and that is what causes you to choose the act.
Feb 15
Good-making properites of action-- Debate between: Williams and Raz
Williams: Desire based
Raz: objective fact based - moral facts provide motivation
Kors:
As a Kantian, she's against Williams. As desires and inclination are "alien" in the sense that they don't essentially belong to the person. If you are governed by your desires, then you are being governed by something alien and not essential to you. You don't to be governed to yourself. Reason, however, is not alien to you.
She thinks that the 'moral realism of Raz doesn't seem to motivate at all, unless you have an appropriate corresponding desire. Why should you 'listen' to the moral facts without a subjective state to motivate you?
Her contention is that the motivation might be based on the objective facts, but what makes it morally right is that we are able to 'self-reflectively' see that this is the right motivation for us to have. We are motivated by acknowledging the rightness of our motives. It has both the subjective and objective parts, it seems.
Note that it is no longer an 'alien' thing, but rather it is 'you' that are endorsing it. The self must 'endorse' a desire.
The difference between her and Hume is that in Hume there is no 'self' that is doing the endorsing. You (and your reason) are a slave to your beliefs and desires. Desires and beliefs are not absolutely dictating to you in Kors. The "I" gets to endorse, and you get to choose whether or not your desires and beliefs motivate you.
Does the noumenal self which legislates for the phenominal self use its free will to choose whether or not desires and beliefs will be motivating? She doesn't have that distinction, acc. Sark.
Self reflexivity
Her "self" is entirely phenominal...
Is the "self" a distinct identity?
Act / Actions
Actions = [1, 2, 3], where 1 = end, 2 = logos or principle, and 3 = purpose
The logos/principle part is bothersome. My principle might be the CI, and that which makes this action a legitimate action.
She thinks certain actions are eligble and others aren't.
It seems then, that without the CI, you cannot even have an action.
The hypothetical imperatives would seem to demonstrate action, but she wouldn't think so. you can't have an HI by itself, it must be underwritten by the CI.
The CI is too essential to what counts as an action.
Your self-reflexive nature of your thinking that your 'X is right' is what makes something right.
If it is truly objective, it seems there shouldn't be a distinction between the 3rd and 1st person (the one she endorses) point of view on the rightness of an action.
kant: Respect is based on reason which apprehends the objective law. REspect is different from the other subjective feelings in this way. You are motivated out of respect for the law, not just some random subjective feeling. Respect is self-wrought in reason. Respect is not subjective in the same sense as the other feelings.
Is your principle true or false, and if you pursuing it, it is because it is true, and because you have respect for the law. Self-reflexivity seems to lack worth if it is not anchored in the objective law.
'endorse desires'
'respect laws'
Mind of a person: Reason and will .... there is an 'uptake'
Action of agent has 'good making properties' and these properties are determined by the law. There is a certain 'uptake' where we acknowledge the law's relationship to our 'good making properties'. pg 211 - Moral realist says the uptake doesn't play any part...
facts1.....actions
facts2.....motivation for action
facts3.....motivaton for motivation
etc.
pg 212
Aware (214) getting towards the notion of self-reflexivity
The lioness is conditioned. It seems the human isn't. The lioness, it seems isn't aware of the good-making properties, and thus it doesn't have those properties for the lioness. The normative force isn't objective it seems, only a subjective mental state.
What makes you believe something is a good action? (which is different from 'what makes an action good')
You are motivated by awareness of the right motivation. You aren't motivated by good-making properties, but by awareness of that you good reasons to be motivated.
Why isn't the 'awareness' also attackable as the 'motvated' in the facts...actions framework? It seems that if the definition isn't self-defining, then she may be subject to this criticism herself.
Feb 17
Action - [Act, principle, end]
Motivation -> Reason (this is what Kors is interested in)
The full action, via the principle expresses motivation.
When an agent sees that an action is intrinsically worthwhile, then they are motivated. Kors thinks that the Dogmatic Rationalists make too strong a distiction between motivation and the action.
On Kors view, in the very recognition is the expression, and that expression will be the action itself?
WHen you perform action, you are really appreciation that what you are motivated to do is really the good thing to do. ?? (225)
Logos is prescription (only one right way)
"Choice" that I make is mine. Without that choice, the agent can't say it was his. Belief and desires can't dictate it.
Attraction to and end may not be your choice, but 'acting upon that desire, and to pursue end' is your decision.
What makes something an 'activity' is my 'choice'.
Kors lays out a formal theory of action, which she conflates with a 'substantive theory of action'.
The dogmatic rationalist can agree with Kors that about the formal theory of good of action, but that will not be able to explain 'what makes an action good'. What the agent can't do is 'by choosing a principle' then make 'the principle true'. Choosing a principle does not make it true, for the dogmatic realist. Kors thinks it does make it true, it seems.
226 - if they 'action as a whole is 'good'' then why must she disagree with the dogmatic rationalist?
Kors doesn't think your 'motivation: reason:: act: end'
So, what is the relationship of motivation and reason?
227 - Rational agent is one who acts only on principle. How is this different fromt he Dogmatic rationalist's view?
Kors doesn't think she has a difference between formal and substantive, but I think she really only has a formal and not a substantive.
Respect, Moral law
|
a priori (reason) -------------Will---------- a posteriori (desire, inclinations)
|
Self
Feb 22
"heap"
"organic unity" - physical things, but also living things
obstacles, fears
"manifold" - it is natural, somehow that you can distinguish between different entities.
"Natural Kinds" - Quine - How do you parse nature at its joints? How do you make natural classifications? What makes it so natural?
Living organisms - acts to sustain itself; produces things similar to itself [these are important for Kors]
In the ultimate analysis, Living organisms have a unity of their own, and their function is to maintain themselves in that organic unity.
This seems true of humam living things.
There are principles which guide non-human living thing. But, then so are we have humans.
What differentiates us is our rationality. That rationality enables us to sustain ourselves as human (very Aristotelian).
All non-human animals are 'agents'. They act in purposeful manners. They have biological principles (not normative principles) which determine how they act. Note, they don't have choice. They must do as they do; they must act on those principles.
Human principles are 'motivating' and 'guiding', but there is no such thing for the animal. There aren't options for animals.
If the bio-principles are fundamental to the teleology of a non-human living thing, they are about the flourishing of those creatures, and biological determined, and the complete fulfillment of these principles turns out to be the paradigmatic case of that species.
The same is for humans, it seems. If the teleological principle applies to animals, then it applies to us. Our principle is the CI. And, complete fulfillment of it, show paradigmatic case of human. If our actions don't follow the CI, then we aren't flourishing as a human.
The CI is the unifying principle of our activity.
------------
There are constitutive standards for what makes a good house.
Defect in your form, and by the constitutive principles, and you can't carry out your activities, will be a defect in your action.
In order to have action, there is a constitutive principle which guides it, and that principle exists in virtue of constitutive standards which make you what you are.
"It is the same activity, badly done" - but this seems odd ... Are the bad and good persons really doing the same activity, only the bad person is doing it badly?
Constitutive standards of a house give rise to the normative standards of a house.
Good activity
Done for Principle P
Virtuous moral person, constituting yourself well.
Following the principle.
Same Activity, badly done.
Done for principle P, but not following the principle very well.
Not constituting yourself well.
CI is the ultimate principle that is guiding/motivating action.
Conforming to the CI is the fate of the human. Activity at a human is CI. Constitutionally, you cannot be said to have performed an action if you haven't followed CI. Defect humans, disunified humans, are not perfectly following CI.
Have property P & Q - of the same kind
A
B
'A' is a defect instance of B.
Of different kinds
Y
Z
Might have all the same properties except Q, where Y has Q and Z doesn't.
Kors needs a 'defective act' or a 'defective instance' for her theory to make sense. If we don't say A is a defective instance of B, then why shouldn't we just say it is a different kind of B (like Y and Z)?
It seems that 'kind' is a property.
Virtuous activity is being paradigmatic of a kind, while vicious is being a defective instance of a kind.
Unity is the goal; the only way to achieve it is by using the CI in my actions. There is no other way to perform the action.
"For the sake of the moral law" - She can have her cake and eat it too. You act for the sake of the moral law, and it gives you the constituional correctness and the normative correctness.
Following CI is the same as Unification. This isn't cause and effect. They are equivalent to her.
Why should I be motivated to be human? "That's just what it means to be human"
Human principles are biological, CI isn't a bio principle. This is in contrast to the giraffe.
Feb 24
Paradox of self-constitution:
Time-0: Dude, with beliefs and desires, and an "I" in the middle.
Action
Time-n: Dude, with beliefs and desires, and an "I" in the middle.
Is it the same "I" in the middle?
If there is no "I", no single identity, and the issue of personal identity is at stake, then it seems that there are really two different individuals. Their identities don't seem to match.
Giraffe's and non-rational animals cannot take on identities. They have their natural identity, and nothing more. We as humans also seem to have natural identities, but we are unique in that we can take on and shed other identities.
-----------------
Ch. 3
Formal principles: Kant
Substantive (Substantial?) principles:
Substantive must be derivable from formal in order them for to be 'binding on the will'.
Williams' position: 'How should we live'? shouldn't be confused with 'How should we live morally?'
It seems that morality is only one institution; one might, for example, devote oneself to arts or music, or sports, etc.
He thinks morality has been ballooned out of proportion of importance.
'sub-deliberations' and 'weighing'
in contrast to 'weighing', Kors thinks we have testing
Mar 1
'moral ought' in contrast to the 'should'
This 'should' is the all things considered point of view.
While 'moral ought' is on element in the testing model.
Weighing Model
------------
[A1, a2, a3,...,an]
[w1, w2, w3,...,w3]
A's being moral considerations
W's being the weights, and the one that is the highest weight, will demonstrate a correspondingly highest moral consideration
It is not true, acc. to WIlliams, that your 'moral ought' will triumph over your 'should'
W stands for the weight, and that weight is 'how valuable it is to you'.
-----Paper to read: Ethics as a system of hypothetical imperatives
Testing Model
-------------
{Act, principle, end,....all the other consideration} = Maxim, our subjective principle
Together, the entire maxim, the proposed action, is my reason.
I then take this maxim, and see if it satisfies the categorical imperative.
If you can't act on it though, if it doesn't pass the test, then this maxim is no maxim at all. It is no reason at all.
her contention that these don't even now count as reasons is totally different from William's, who will still count the 'non-should' things as still reasons. Those moral considerations are still reasons enough, in his view.
Korsgaard has a much higher standard as to what can possibly count as a reason.
There is still weighing and balancing going on inside the maxim, but only of the commensurable. The testing model incorpoates the weighing model, but not the other way around.
Oddly, it seems that, unbeknownst to Kors, in some way, there seems to be a weighing of universalized, competing maxims. It seems then, that even the testing model may not tell us what to do, in the ultimate analysis.
Mar 3
Prudence - Kors thinks there is a missing principle. Without this missing principle, she thinks that none of the other principles can be put to use. We must identity this principle. As I said, because without it, neither the hypothetical imperative nor the principle of prudence can 'get going'. This missing principle is a 'substantive principle'.
principle of prudence (which is also a type of hypothetical imperative)-- act in such a way that you maximize your happiness
It is inevitable that you can't fulfill all your desires. She says "Why should we be prudent instead of imprudent?" Why should one desire, contradictory to the others, not get fulfilled instead of fulfilling those other desires?
This is bad for the empiricist.
The instrumental principle (HI) doesn't select the end. It doesn't say which desire is really the best end. The IP? (or maybe the PoP) can't even tell us that we should prefer even combinations of desires as ends, not unless we have some missing principle.
Formal principles give you enormous scope. Substantive principles don't. Kors thinks the missing principle is substantive. But, why must it be? It seems that there might be formal principles, broad ones that don't really tell us what to do directly, that might work, but not be substantive.
For example: "Choose any desire" might be the missing, it is formal, but it isn't substantive, but it does somehow activate the principle of prudence and the instrumental principle.
How does Kors maintain her own normativity? it seems that the agent, inevitably, will always do what is right...eh? She thinks that if they can't really fail, then they aren't normative.
Mill analogy:
Question, 'Why should I be prudent?'
Person in society - a Single desire
The missing principle is what the PoP hooks onto in order to provide an answer to this question.
In the absence of th emissing principle, why should it be obvious to choose one desire over another? The missing principle is substantial enough to tell what which desire to choose over another.
All hypothetical imperatives are: if P, then Q.
The substantive missing principle is what makes a hypothetical imperative 'hypothetical'.
PoP would be like a HI, if you could define happiness, but Kant thinks we fail to do that. Unlike for HI's ends, there seems to be an actual end of PoP.
P is the missing principle of the "if P, then Q" of the hypothetical imperative. THe missing principle gives a reason to choose P. the HI will not be activated unless there is a principle which is offering which input should be P, which is end we should choose.
The HI can't guide, by itself. It needs an input to become activated. You require a battery of other principles to start activate and input into the HI, and to have normativity.
You need a substantive principle because it allows you to produce a nice unity, Kors thinks.
Why is one way of unifying to be more preferable than another? (Sark)
The CI makes you a unified person, and if there is a formal missing principle, then we need to ask if there are a number of ways of unifying oneself.
The possibility of balancing does not come from the theory of good, but rather the possibility of balancing precedes the human good. I wonder, can we have a proper theory of balancing without a proper theory of good? It still seems like there are a variety of unities. How do we know which unity is best? Is there a highest good for Kors?
Kors says she doesn't have a formal missing principle, but it were, then it would be for unification...But, she thinks it should be substantive.
------------
DR
Circularity
P -> Q
P
Then, Q
If in our justification of this argument is the argument of itself, then we are begging the truth.
The same for the HI. It seems that in order to justify the HI, we must invoke the HI, and only someone who already accepted teh HI coudl understandt he justification of the HI.
She doesn't like this circularity.
Mar 10
Particularism - eschews any kind of rule-governed morality. Reasons are never based on generalities and rules.
FOr Kors, the 'you' disappears if it is exclusively desire moving to yuor action. In order to preserve the 'you' in 'you, you have to preserve the CI. And, that is what willing is all about.
Not to will the HI is not to will an end at all. When you accept the HI, what youa re doing is saying that the HI constitutes your willing. The CI makes you the cause of your action.
Hypothetical reason is important because unless you are looking to take the means to an end, you haven't really adopted that end.
The HI emphasizes the causal forces within you. The CI emphasizes that it is 'you' who is the cause.
WHat is the difference between 'being constitutive' and 'being definitionally true'?
Kant says, you can give up the means if you give up the end. The HI is analytic in this sense.
Kant says that an evil person has evil principles (which is contradictory to Kors doctrine).
For Kors, any being not following the HI is not said to be willing. Willing and HI are tautologically related.
Kors thinks we determine our mind - You can't act unless you are guided by HI and CI. In the same way you constitute your mind for logic, you constitute your mind for action by HI and CI.
How can this be descriptive, but also normative (69). If HI is going to be constitutive, well how can you violate it? If you can't violate it, then Sarkar thinks it isn't normative.
How is action and willing normative? It doesn't seem possible to transgress the HI, as it is constitutive of willing. If you haven't follow the HI, then you haven't willed.
Can you satisfy the HI in terms of degrees? If it is analytic, you'd think not. If it isn't analytic, maybe. What does that look like. Have an end, and many means to it. Some means are better than others.
Sark: it seems that the "I" plays a full role or none at all in willing.
"I" possesses the will, reasons...it is supposed to be above the desires, but not dictated by desires.
Action/Maxim - [act, principle, purpose]
You test this entire thing in the CI to see if it is universalizable. Note that the CI defines what really counts as action or maxim, and so HI and maxims are playing a very subsidiary role.
Kors thinks that the HI can only be used when its end is morally endorsable.
------------
What does it mean to operate 'as a whole'? (72)
Beliefs and desires, summed, can't constitute you. It seems that the whole, includes beliefs and desires, is what might count as you.
provisionally universal is intended to be absolutely universal, but it is provisionally because you might be able to see otherwise, at this point in your thinking process.
She beats particularism because desire doesn't consistute you, but rather 'you' are over your desires. And, 'you' includes being under the operation of CI, a general rule, which is contrary to particularism.
Kors says, if the principle is objective and out there, like desires are independent of you, then the principle independent of you is dictating you, and you are governed by the principle. Then, it seems like we have that problem that you aren't really doing it, it is the principle. But, since she identities the principle with you, as you, as constituting you in some way, then you are governing yourself. The principle isn't independent of you, for Kors.
---------
Deciding and predicting.
77, 'good reason' - how is this not objective? DR can say that there are objectively good or bad reasons.
Mar 15
In determinism, esp. the laws of nature, it seems that the past determines the present.
Efficacy is affected by other agents/circumstances. They may frustrate you, prevent you from doing your action.
CI, Highest Good- good and happiness are the two parts. One's goodness should be maintain an equivalent ratio with happiness. CI = practical reason.
Theoretical postulate - theoretical reason doesn't lead us to it (not a cognitive claim)
-happiness/goodness equivalence
-God must exist
-freedom
Kors thinks Kant won't be able to maintain the good/happiness ratio. She thinks that either God plans everything or the Laws of Nature do.
Autonomy - CI
Efficacy - HI
The future can render my action ineffective.
Mar 17
5.3 onward is really about Action.
Continuum of action
On one end, the lowest kind of animal, on the other end, man
Properties of humans (Sark. Good bad or otherwise)
(1) intention
(2) representation of environment
(3) form
Are all of these properties attributable to an evil person? It seems that an evil person, with an evil will and evil principles, can have an evil set of properties. Why should we not say that an action includes these properties?
It seems that the CI and HI play an important role in defining what consistutes an action and the properties.
Sarkar believes that animals have intention, and some sense of agency. They bring aobut things in the world that is somehow different than the rock.
Laws of Freedom, what are they like?
Kant is unable to explain why bad action occurs.
If the will is constituted by the CI, then how can you perform a bad action?
Given her solution, is she able to escape the problem that Kant fails to escape?
It seems that plants have representation for the same reason that animals might.
THis continuum demonstrates 'Degrees of Action'
There seems to be a broad continuum of Degrees of action, including plants, animals, and humans. It seems that when we get to the human endof this continuum, there is a very unique subcontinuum of this self-concious action which matches the sort of Action she spoke about earlier in the book..
Reversing causation - not psychology of agent causing action, but instead, somehow the action is causing the psychology of the agent.
Mar 22
Non-Rational Animals, on the one hand, and Rational Animals, Humans, on the other.
Kors. compares and contrasts these.
The world, for the animal, is determined by the 'form' of the animal. The animal has a certain kind of instinct or perception. The laws of causality tell the animal what to do given their instincts. And, from this picture, Kors thinks this constitutes the will of the animal. This is the autonomy of the animal.
'This is typically what X non-rat. animal does'
NRAnimal have action. The animal's perception of an object is motivationally loaded.
A snake does not respond to a flower in the same way that a bee might. There is something in the bee that is interested and appealed to the flower.
Salivation is a movement, it is causally determined.
You going to the fridge, that requires deliberation and knowing the incentives-- that is action.
Sark crit: It seems that there isn't a difference between the "I" of the animal and the "form" of the animal. How does the animal act? If the animal isn't acting in terms of representations or perception, what does it mean for the animal to act? It seems that the form of the animal isn't distinct from the perception, instinct, and laws of causality. It seems that her distinctions don't demonstrate that animals have action.
RHumans, have principles, which tell you what constitutes reason. THe human must decide which incentive or inclination or desire it will act upon. There are alternatives, and you get to choose which alternative you choose, and you do that upon the basis of a principle, and thus there is a special sort of 'deeper' action than the animals.
Animals are 'acting' because they act in accordance with their own laws of causality. Humans have deeper forms of action because the 'desires, inclinations, and incentives' are detached from the "I" (unlike the animal), and that you somehow choose between them. The animal, on the other hand, really doesn't seem to have a 'choice' in the same way.
Animals aren't self-conscious and self-determining like humans.
My Crit: Animals aren't self-determined, the laws of physics are external to animal. The laws of nature forces the animal. No animal doesn't act autonomously.
instinct:laws of causality::incentive:principle (CI)
Sark: it seems there is a strong deterministic, causal relationship between instinct and laws of causality, but there is a sharp divide between the incentive and principle, as there is free will.
Kors doesn't think there is a 'neutral world', our physical and psych. endowments shape our perceptions of the world for us.
Kors has a majoritarian view of animal form.
For humans, the degree to which you are acting is isomorphic to the degree of good
Sark Crit: it doesn't seem the animal can possible transgress its principle, its instinct.
Bad action for animal is failing to meet the ojbecti measures of the action. if you can't attribute the action to the roach, then you can't say it failed. She does att. the action though.
Sark Crit: pg 113, it seems the animal is programmed to 'extend his repertoire'.
pg 114. "Detachment" is about removing the teleological implications of an object, the 'loaded' part, in order to see it scientifically.
Mar 24
intelligence connectted to HI, to causal relations
Reason
Self-consciousness
Self-consciousness comes in Degrees
Self-consciousness comes in different forms
-physical space
-social space
-mental space
Do the forms of self-consciousness come in degrees?
Fears form the basis of our inclination
IF the animals of have degrees of self-consciousness, then it seems the animal should be able to separate itself from its instincts and incentives. If they are self-conscious, it doesn't seem they can be determined by their instinct.
It seems that there is a weighting from D1 (desires) D2, etc. to W1, W2, etc. That weighting is based upon the laws of causality. To be genetically conditioned then, s to see an animal in asituation, whereby D2->W2 becomes the one which action comes from instead ot he others.
Kors thinks that humans are different though. THe rational principles is the space between desires and Will.
What is the role of self-consciousness in animals? Kors doesn't tell us, it seems.
Reflective Distance is the space between the incentive and the response (pg116). It seems essential to have this space in order to nurture reason. If the animal doesn't have reflective space, then it can't reason as humans can. "How large does this space need to be?" What is the point of giving the animal a tiny bit of space if it can't do anything? How much space does it need to be efficacious? THe "I" is in the reflective space. From that vantage point, we can see what are our desires want, and thus the reason and the "I" in the space can govern these things. The principles within you will give you an explanation of why you should accept one inclination rather than another.
What can replace the instincts of animals?
This reflective distance should let you do something metaphysical. In that distance, we have our reason, and reason comes up with our principles, and so our principles are made within this space. Our free will is in this space.
Imagine:
An animal that has a variety of alternatives, its intelligence gave it many hypothetical imperatives. How does it know what to choose? If it can choose, how is it genetically determined? The animal doesn't seem to have reason, so what is guiding it? How do we explain animal behavior.
Reflective Distance:
-experience, memory, imagination --Kors thinks this is in animals' Reflective Distance...
I think those qualities can be understood simply in terms of desires and so forth. It doesn't seem to do any real metaphysical work in the animal.
When you adopt your principles, you change the relationship between incentives and inclinations.
If self-consciousness is significant in order for us to have part of the soul, then it seems that whenever there is self-consciousness, there must be distance.
Mar 29
Inside or outside -
Individual ---------------------- and over here Object,: with objective properities (P1, p2,...,pn)
That object provides an incentive for part of the individual. And, that incentive is turned into an inclination. And, the self-conscious must choose among the various inclination, choosing which to act upon.
The realist says that if your incentive is based upon the objective properties of an object, such that value is one of the properties of the object, then you have objective realism.
Anti-realism obviously doesn't agree to what the realist thinks. They don't think that objects have the property of value.
Kors thinks that the realist and anti-realist are both wrong (no idea how). She thinks it is a combination of both. She thinks that property of objects are not irrelevant, but rather only relevant as related to the human condition. Again, 'up to us' becomes important. She thinks there are properties of an object which create an incentive, but those properties are moral ones.
You confer value on the act of dancing because that is what you want.
What is the role of inclination (124)? Sark doesn't see the point of it.
Deliberation is a action, right? It seems difficult to have an "I" and to deliberate outside of pre-extant unity. (125)
130 - I personally like to identity agents by their choices and actions, I think that is part of their identity in some way. But, not in the way that Kors thinks.
Deliberation (131) must be guided by CI and HI, and if my action isn't different from my decision, then there doesn't seem to be a possibility that I've done an evil act.
Mar 31
Reading: "Of the Standard of Taste" - nature of moral and aesthetic properties
Reason and Animals- "Treatise of Human Nature" - Book 1, Part 3, Section 16
Ch.7
Combat Model - comes in two versions(I and II)
I. Reasons v. Passions
In Hume, reasons have no role to play. Really, just a conflict between desires. Reason is impotent to choose between desires. Its task is activated in understand the means of a desire which has already been chosen.
Kors thinks in this case that the agent has no role at all.
II. Does the agent identify himself with the reason.
Of course, the question is...? (he left the topic)
In the Consitution model, from Plato, we get the analogy between the city and the soul.
In the City, there are, on the top guardians (philosopher kings), and then auxiliaries, and then the craftsmen and workers. THe guardians identify themselves with the city as a whole. They unify the city. The guardians identify their good with the good of the city as a whole.
Corresponding to the workers are the appetitites, corr. to auxiliaries are 'high spiritedness', and corr. to guardians is reason.
If there were no consistution of the city, then things would be a mere heap.
The appetities make a proposal, and then reason must intervene to know what is and isn't acceptable. Once reason makes its decisions, then the spirit, which is always allied with reason (and never with appetites), executes and carries out what reason has decided.
When you act, your action then is not just by the appetities or high spirit or reason, any of them alone, but rather by 'the whole person', with all 3 of these things. This is the consistutive look at the soul.
Reason which leads to consistution of the Soul is based upon the CI/HI.
Crit of Kors: How can the self-conscious count as the "whole"? The whole doesn't seem capable of being self-conscious.
Constitutonal ModeL-- Crit of Kors: What is the identity of the agent which is over and above the parts?
What is the essence of the agent that allows her to say that the agent can identify themselves with consistution?
Hview either.
her argument against II (that if an agent selects reason, then they can never select passion), then it seems that the same can be said against th constitutional argumented. It seems that you can't select anything but reason in her constitutional. Why must the constitution identify with any one part of the soul instead of another? She would be completely against consistuting onself with passions.
City is identified with the constitution. To overthrow the rulers doesn't follow the constitution, and it is no longer a city.
April 7
Plato's republic - 500d
What is the objective of the guardian in settin gup the republic? If it is only setting up the right procedure, then Korsgaard is correct.
The philospher is trying to translate the ideal model of a city into reality for his city.
If they are going to figure out the constitution, ...?
504d - 506a
If GOodness is at the top of everything, including knowledge of particular things, and if the city is supposed to be well organized by a constitution, how could the philosopher king, having full knowledge (including of the good) not adequately use the good to construct the consistition?
Good is the goal of all their activities, including building the constitution.
The principle of pure procedural justice seems at the very least connected to a substantive one. But, it might go further, it seems that the substantive good is the foundation that precedes any procedure we build upon it.
517b
THe knowledge of good is required to comprehend and define what is right because the right participates in the good, it is perceptible only because of the good. Acting right requires being in the visible realm of the good.
Kant - -37
Metaphsyics of Morals - 6:376 "subdue Vice-breeding inclinations" 6:418 "the homo noumena puts the phenomona under obligation"
The CI can't be connected to the inclination. Wouldn't a moral agent be better off without inclinations? If we had none, we would be pure moral, autonomous agents.
We must 'curb' our inclinations, we need to harmonize them into a whole called happiness. Principle of prudence, but it isn't an end. Pursuing happiness is not a duty. Everyone has the natural inclination to pursue happiness.
Kant's picture has changed, substantially, it seems. He didn't abandon his idea. Inclinations don't have absolute, unconditional worth.
kORSGaard is arguing that, inclinations->will->reason....
Desires and will needs a harmony,
Passages that conflict with what she is saying: 61
Sarkar can't believe that reason isn't in the ruling sphere, that inclinations dont' have to be under the jurisdiction of reason if you are going to be a moral agent.
If reason/inclinations/desires are equal, then why should i disagree and disregard my inclinations and desires when I need to do moral action?
61 - there are no inclinations/desires in the intelligble realm because they are governed by nature.
How is he a proper self if he isn't identified with his reason?
7.5.3
Legislative authority is given toa sovereign (either one person or many) - 1 person a monarchy, a few an aristocracy, and all a democracy. The individual has a right to the extent that he can enforce it. The state and its individuals are 'coercive' - there is mutual coercion, as all the individuals equally coerce each other to respect their rights.
legitimate governments arise when everyone gives authority to a sovereign, regardless of which size is chosen. Legimaticy requires approval of all individuals. Each size has its own virtues and vices.
Kors cites the republic as the true constitution
MM 6:340 - plato would not accept this. Kant would not accept the idea that someof the people chose the autocrat without the others, and some were against it, then it would be legit. The workers might be against the philosopher king, and be illegit. Likewise, it doesn't seem that the inclinations should be in a position to tell us what we should do...Kant would be against Plato's city, possibly. Reason pushes down and orders the inclinations about...Reason does play a dominant role in Kant's moral philosophy. But, he would be for the king (reason) ruling the workers without the workers consent.
imagine 3 cities, one each happy with a different constitutional setup....it seems that you can be unified in different ways. It seems that the different constitutions allow any type of action. You can be unified to do any action, as you might theoretically have a city unified under any constitution (it would be legit/they are happy, etc.)
if moral principles give you unity, and there is only one moral principle, then her analogy seems to break down. Does that mean that the multiple types of constitution can't adhere to morality>?
Plato doesn't think that these size/forms of gov are equal. Kant is open to them being equal.
April 11
Action
Only Good action are actions - in which case, it isn't clear how bad actions are possible.
This isnt' a black and white, good and bad actions. There are degrees.
Bad actions-
Continuum- Aristocracy on the least bad side of bad, and anarchy, worst side.
(Aristocracy)'timocracy', 'oligarchy', 'democracy', 'tyranny' (Anarchy)
Anarchy is like a mere heap
Degrees of bad action.
Anarchy is the complete non-action, but everything better than it is still action, just bad action.
As you go down the continuum, you are go losing constitution.
Sark: acc. Kant, we don't need degrees of action. What we need is a more plausible idea of goodness, and therefore degrees of goodness.
MM - part 2 - Doctrine of virtue
+a----------------------(-a)
Virtue------ (0) -------Vice
The least degree of goodness is the most evil. It is actually evil/vice.
Degrees of action seem less plausible than a degrees of goodness
Kors must defend bad action, or her theory is in jeopardy.
Sark: Why should a person side with reason? Reason might command us to constitute ourselves in a certain way, and constitution might involve reason, but there seems to be a circular justification of reason...
I'm not sure if Sarkar's question is important.
Groundwork: pg 24 - Human will (unlike God's) is not infallibly governed by reason. This is Sarkar's interpretation.
pg 27 - the conclusion of a practical syllogism is not an action (countering Kors)
-- it leaves open that an action can be performed even where the will is contrary to the CI.
pg 26 - the poisoner is really performing an act.
I see a form/content distinction here. Pure procedural justice - the content flows as a consequence *unintended* from the form.
Form/content of person
Form/content of action (think this through)
Form/content of movie
CI/Maxim (Form/Content)
A tyrannical person really doesn't seem to be like the mere heap.
Must fit "Dr. Evil" example in next test.
pg 162 -
Ex:
1 Take an individual who subscribes to the CI (Good person, right?)
2 Take an individual who subscribes to the principle of self-love (Bad person, right?)
3 Take an individual who subscribes to some other principle that isn't the CI, let us say principle of sympathy (Bad person, right?)
3 should be applauded, but his action has no moral worth. Kant isn't saying the actions are bad, and he isn't even saying the person is bad, all he is saying is that their action lacks moral worth. The action is done in conformity with the CI, but not for the sake of the CI. But, if that is the case, perhaps it is difficult to maintain Kors' thesis.
She has to call this person a bad person. But, Kant doesn't.
Work: pg 11 - talks about different between what deserves encouragement, but not esteem.
Degrees of action which describes these example individuals don't seem plausible explanations, nor satisfactory.
Work, pg 26-27 - someone can genuinely act on the principle of prudence
A person is by definition an organism constituted by the CI. I really think there are persons which don't follow this narrow definition, nor has she given us good enough justification for her narrow definition.
April 14
Various types of Soul:
Aristocratic/Monarchy
timocratic
oligarchic
democractic
tyrranical
Top being most unified and moral to the bottom, beng least unified (heap-like).
Concepts of unity/agency are different notions. Why should we equate unity with agency?
We see that the strong thesis that only the CI can unify you is diluted in this chapter. It seems that other principles might unify you to some degree, but never to the same degree as the CI.
Agency and Unity by definition.
She is being slick in transferring the connotation of 'tyrrany' as being bad to the badness of the person who is so disunified. It isn't so obvious for things like democracy at all.
The stages of various types of the soul is about 'usurping the role of reason' - reason seems, to some extent, be replaced by a doppelganger or another thing. What is that thing?
If she is Kantian, she'll need to agree that reason plays the central role. Any practical identity which doesn't square with reason is not allowed. It seems that 'reason' has a tyrranical role!!
Timocratic person mistakes what is moral for what is honorable. They lack flexibility, is their problem. Your sense of honor may mislead you, it may seem that something is moral but it is not. Reason, however, does not mislead you. Reason also seems to have a certain sort of flexibility that is needed for you to act correctly in your circumstances. Honor lacks that flexibility.
Aristocratic - CI
Timocractic - Honor
Oligarphic - ...
Note that they constitute themselves with different principles
This whole analogy seems so forced.
IN aristocracy, the various desires are so beautifully structured by the CI, that he is more than a person in self-control, he will be a virtuous person. A self-control person will suppress the right desires and let the right desires rule, but the virtuous person doesn't even have these problem because the CI has arranged everything to the point of the unity that this civil disunity/ internal-conflict doesn't occur.
In a democrotic person, each desires has its own proper say. A minimal, formal procedure will just pick out which desires to pick out. This is absurd in some sense. It is like randomly choosing what to do. The democratic unity is filled with accident, action is happenstance and accidental. Someone governed by the CI, however, has the resources with which to order his desires and govern his soul.
How can you be unified by a principle, without degree...but then go on to say that there are degrees of unity, which based upon what you unify yourself with? This is an ambiguity.
How can a tyrannical soul to be consistently ruled and unified, but not governed, but then not really be choosing actions or performing action? (pg 171-172)
How is the tyrannical person who is 'ruled' by something else any different than the aristocratic person who uses his contingent practical identity as invoilable law (pg 23)?
Paradox creeps up.
You must make yourself into an agent. Are you an agent before that? I think you have to chronologically be an agent before 'making yourself an agent'. She holds you responsible for what you do and don't do, even when you aren't an 'agent' as she defines it...but the usual definition of agency starts at where you hold someone responsible.
April 26
The pure procedure in Plato does the job of unifying. In Kant, it is the CI that does the unifying. Unified agents perform action.
Inward justice is contrasted to outward justice. Inward justice is about how a state is related to its citizens. Outward is about the state relates to other states or non-citizens agents.
Russian noble. [Reminds me of the compatibilist argument: where a machine predicts what you will do, and if you would do evil, then it prevents you from doing it, and if you would do what is right, then it 'lets' you do the right thing]. The Kantian notion of marriage is introduced. Unity of wills. There is an exhange of ownership of person, body, and will; and a unification of it. Shared property, including not just their bodies here, but also their wealth - which is the very thing they are making a pact about.
City relating to City
Person relating to Person
(here is that mesh between the platonic issue, and this marriage, russian nobleman issue)
We have questions about the persistence of personal identity. Like, the young man being different or same as the what he will be when he grows up.
The poorly unified cities requires specific external circumstances, or they will disintegrate.
Glaucon:
GOod soul->good conseq. (doesn't require much justification)
Bad soul->good conseq.
Bad soul->bad conseq.
Good soul-> bad conseq. (seems to require justification; what is the 'good' here)
You might be a good quarterback, but that doesn't mean you will be a quarterback for the saints. You can reasonably say you won't make it through torture.
Action, Unity, and GOodness must be separate (sark. crit.)
181 - how do you get from the purely formal principle of morality to a substantive notion of what to do?
Disunification is really having many parts which are unified - at least for cities.
Just as city might be smaller cities, the noble many is disunified...into many smaller wills, which aren't unified.
If you make a promise to take care of a man's children after he dies, then after he dies, it isn't like those obligations to take care of those children some how disappear. You still, in some sense, have a duty to fulfill the promise to the past man.
It seems to me that there really are two different types of promises. The normal promise can be relinquished. It seems that there is only the claim of the man that he holds on his wife. Assuming the young and the old have the same identity through time, and it is a normal promise, then it seems he can relinquish it. But, why must this be a normal promise? It seems that there is such a thing as a promise that the man also has himself made a promise. A covenant. A promise to respect the fulfill of a promise, a promise that he can't be allowed to relinquish the promise. A promise that if he asks to relinquish, it is not legitimate. No legit relinquishment.
April 28
Nozick, identity. Series Person, person-Series. Continuing connection.
WHen Kors says 'integrity' Sark think she means 'unity'. We mean 'moral integrity' by integrity, but she doesn't.
Kors takes it as obvious that the young and the old are different, that He himself doesn't know who he is. The wife finds herself in a puzzling situation. This is parallel to how it is diffcult for a well-ordered state to deal with a 'state' in anarchy.
She isn't wronging john, but she may or may not be wronging Jack. Probably not wrong Jack though, because they aren't even married.
Obligations through time become incoherent if we lack a consistent, stable identity/self/agent through time. Duties or rights of the person do not pass through time to whomever they 'evolve' into, whatever contingent practical identity they eventually take on, sheds all obligations.
But isn't agency the very type of things that remains table, it is that which enables obligations to pass through time, from one contingent practical identity to another. Agency isn't a choice, it lasts a lifetime. To say that 'killing yourself' is a way to shed your agency is tongue and cheek; that is obvious, but it isn't obvious how one might actually 'choose' to shed their agency otherwise.
WHile I agree that obligations might disintigrate with their identities, I don't think obligations actually disintigrate - this is far too arbitrary.
Parfit's view of successive selves is quite different from her understanding. Her's includes a division of the self, an internal conflict. His isn't...
Does the wife know that John is turning into Jack when she makes the promise? how does this change her responsibility? Also, how does this operate within marriage? Doesn't the promise she makes with john rely upon the future obligation of marriage?
Unity of will seems to break. How can she say that she needs to do what John asks her to do?
Her promise seems to be in limbo, the obligation is in limbo. It exists, but it isn't fulfillable. In some sense, there isn't anyone to hook that obligation to... Can you really have an obligation to something or someone who doesn't exist? Maybe. This needs to be hooked up. It seems that we want a strong, simultaneously link between duties and rights. This seems to sever that connection in some way, to say that a duty can exist where a right doesn't. Unless, you want to sever the rights-holder from the right itself in a stronger way, and then that might also work.
public/private reasons, about taking someone elses reasons as being normative for us.
negative and not a positive agreement with humanity....unless everyone...tries to further the ends of others (KANT) - 39.
To treat someone as an end, we have to treat their ends as our ends also. We must accomodate, as far as it is possible, someone else's ends.
How does this play out in the context of the personal identity through time? What is it that the young couple/agreement are doing? What is the public/private reasoning going on here.
May 3
Private reasons
Public reasons
Shared deliberation
Shared Good
Shared interaction and deliberation relies upon public reason to link together to people.
Your private reason, at least in the form of a question, can have normative force, only ofr you. Public reason, however, can have normative force for many people. That is what it means to say that it is public reason. Public reasons are objective (agent neutral, agent relative).every
There (Sark) seems to be a middle territory between public and private reasons. Cricket example. Not everyone will use it as a reason.
The self in the present is fighting the future self. This is odd. He seems unified on both ends. Unification through time. Is he really not interacting with his wife?
It seems that she wants to cheat like I do. She wants personal identity, consistency, stabilityt hrough time for the "I". Only agents who do that are actually that. But, if you change too much, then it seems you aren't unified.
There is a 'present' unfication.
There is a timeA-timeB unification.
Reasons must be compatible for there to be interaction.
Private reasons are like particularistic willing.
It seems very dificult to show why there are different unifications. Particularly, I don't see how we can switch between different contingent practical identities. If we lose one set of practical identities for another, and we can be 'unified' in the present with both, but we can't be unified from timeA-timeB, then are we really unified?
Why should one contingent practical identity be given precedence over all the others? It seems that is what she is really wanting to have.
May 5
Kors says that if you argue that 'if you can pick and choose who you will interact with', then you have to be able to choose how you will pick and choose how you will interact with yourself.
Interacting with himself (the younger with the older) is the precondition to be able to interact with others.
Young is treating older as an ally, and thus not as an end in himself. A means to an end.
Pathological love is something you can't command - pg 13 (Groundwork) - it seems, for Kant, that you really do choose to have love.
I
Don't you want to say that person time-t0, with contingent practical identities x-z, is a different 'person' a different 'agent' than the future being, time-t1, with contingent practical identities a-b (and not x-z).
Can you show respect for someone without taking their reasons for yourself? If not, it seems that for the younger man to show respect for the older, then he must respect the reasons of the older.
203- He makes a law for himself that he will be a socialist, even though he thinks full well that he won't agree to this in the future. The reason he is proposing to act on now has normative standing (it can universally applied>?). If that is the only way in which it is normative, then he isnt' really respecting the older persons reasons. If the older person is his own set of values and identity, then we need to respect it, right? How can the younger honestly thinkt he older is irrational? What counts as irrational?
t0--------------------------tn
A set of values at t0 - v1
A set of values at tn - v2
The younger nobleman, can regard his reasons, v1, as normative, provided it can be universalized to include the guy at tn too. Except when he says that he will be irrational at some point. Instead of treating tn-guy as being irrational, if that guy has normative reasons as well, then her contention does not hold, because the normative reasons can't be universalized, it seems that they can be changed.
pg 202, how will t0 see that there is a 'good reason to change it' at tn. That is part of the exception clause.
I can agree to persistence of personal identity, of the ontological object we call an agent. But, strictly because I don't hink you can give up your agency, it is just one of your necessary attributes. I can't agree to a unification through time.
Last chapter
Are values entirely reducible to desires? It seems that there would be no objective values then (this is a subjective account). Values which are independent of desires have an objectivity to them.
Sark:
(1) Value- Desire-relative (subjective account of values)
(2) Value- Desire-neutral (objective account)
There is a difference between human 'creation' of value, and the human 'recognition' of value. It may be the case that only humans have values, but the original of the value is different from the possession of them.
We dont' create the value of the rational nature, however. The rational nature, acc. to Kant/Sark, is an end in itself - objectively@!
''[1]''
In the Constitutional Model, from Plato, we get the analogy between the city and the soul. The claim of the analogy is that both are structured in a similar manner, particularly with respect to what it means to be a just or a good city and to be a good or well-formed person. In the city, going from the top to the bottom of the hierarchy, there is a guardian (philosopher king), next, are the auxiliaries who enforce the rule of the philosopher king, and finally, the craftsmen and workers. The guardians identify themselves with the city as a whole. They unify the city. The guardians identify their good with the good of the city as a whole. These tiered, functional classes of the city are supposed to correspond to functions and parts of the soul. Corresponding to the workers are the appetites, auxiliaries to the 'high spirited' part of the soul, and guardians to reason.
The Constitutional Model is a powerful device in Korsgaard’s theory because if there was no constitution of the city, then it would be a mere heap. For the heap of people living in close proximity to be a city at all, they would have to be constituted or organized as a whole. Likewise, Korsgaard wants to make the same case for the soul. A similar hierarchy of psychological functions is said to take place.
The appetites make a proposal, and then reason must intervene to know what is and isn't acceptable. Once reason makes its decisions, then the spirit, which is always allied with reason (and never with appetites), executes and carries out what reason has decided. When you act, your action then is not just from the appetites or high spirit or reason, not from any of them alone, but rather from 'the whole person', from all three of these things working in concert. Thus, Korsgaard believes that the Constitutional Model analogously fits both the city and the soul.
Reason, for Korsgaard, isn’t just any type of rational capacity; it is explicitly the categorical imperative. We all seem to have innately the categorical imperative within us. Reason is not only within us, but it is also the principle by which we constitute ourselves. Odd questions arise from this initial view:
How can self-consciousness count as the "whole"? The whole doesn't seem capable of being self-conscious. What is the identity of the agent which is over and above the parts? What is the essence of the agent that allows her to say that agents can identify themselves with constitution? I don’t know how she can viably answer these questions, but they need explanations. Korsgaard believes she has synthesized (or even more boldly claiming she’s discovered a pre-existing analogy between) Kantian and Platonic views with her conception of the Constitutional Model. She says:
<<<
So if Kant does use the Constitutional Model for the soul, and the analogy holds, he is committed to rejecting the despotism of reason.<<ref "2">>
<<<
Does the analogy between the constitution of the state and Korsgaard’s conception of the constitution of the soul hold? If it doesn’t, then Korsgaard’s theory is obviously in trouble. I think there is a serious flaw in the analogy of the city and the soul.
Notions of responsibility differ between the Constitutional Models of the soul and of the city. Who does the work of unifying a city? Clearly, all the agents of that will be a part of the city. Corporate responsibility exists in virtue of the individual responsibility which underlies it. Corporate agency (if exists at all) requires individual agents to constitute it. The city is unified and constituted by its many agents. But, this is a fundamental difference in the analogy of the Constitutional Model of the city with Korsgaard’s conception of the human constitution. The parts which are combined and unified in human constitution aren’t individual agents – those parts don’t choose anything. When I point to the city and say, “who is doing the work of unifying?” I can easily say that all the agents in the city are working together, that they have chosen to constitute the city. Obviously, there wasn’t a city to constitute itself before there was a city. I know who is responsible for these actions in the Constitutional Model of the city. But, this analogy doesn’t hold for the individual constitution. The various desires and ‘parts’ of the person aren’t agents, and they can’t choose to constitute themselves as a whole into a larger organism. Unification of the city is vastly different from unification of a person then. ‘Action’ of a corporate agent like a city is not really analogous to the ‘action’ of an individual person/agent either. To whom can I point and say “you are responsible” for unifying yourself? To a mass of people who aren’t yet constituted as a city, I can say, “each of you as individuals are responsible.” But, I can’t say that for the ‘parts’ of a person. Korsgaard must offer an account of agency and responsibility which pre-exists this unification and constitution.
Does Kant actually use the Constitutional Model for the soul, and must he really be against the second version of the Combat Model?<<ref "2">> It isn’t clear why we should think that Kant would disagree with the notion that ‘if an agent selects reason, then they can never select passion’ (roughly the second Combat Model). Korsgaard’s argument on behalf of Kant against the second Combat Model boils down to a rejection of the presupposition “that the person already identifies with reason.”<<ref "3">> But, problematically, it seems that the same can be said against the Constitutional Model. It seems that you can't select anything or be effectively constituted by anything but reason. In Korsgaard’s Constitutional Model, the definition of person seems to presuppose identification with reason.
But, now I’m not even really sure what she means by the ‘despotism of reason’ that wouldn’t also apply to her model. Even if (however it might work) both Kant uses the Constitutional Model and the analogy holds, is he really committed to rejecting the despotism of reason? Is this despotism of reason as bad as Korsgaard seems to think? She wants to deny that some ‘part’, inside or outside the agent, is the locus of causation, causing the agent to act and will. If this were the case, in her view, then it wouldn’t be the agent ‘as a whole’ acting and willing. But, I think there might be a bit of ‘eat your cake and have it, too’ syndrome going on here. I just don’t see a plausible account of her dual conception of “I.” I don’t see a plausible account of reason being anything other than despotic in the proper agent. If reason, inclinations and desires are equal, then why should I disagree and disregard my inclinations and desires when I need to do moral action? I can't believe that reason isn't in the ruling sphere, that inclinations don’t have to be under the jurisdiction of reason if one is going to be a moral agent. Kant doesn’t seem to be against the despotism of reason. He thinks there are no inclinations or desires in the intelligible realm because they are governed by nature.<<ref "4">> In the Kantian picture, it isn’t clear how an agent is a proper self if he isn't identified with his reason. The example of the sad philanthropist makes so much more sense if we can accept the disunity between his desires, inclinations, and reason. Only actions performed from duty generated by reason alone rather than from any degree of inclination have moral worth.
Korsgaard continues:
<<<
True unity requires a constitution, which makes it possible for a whole to rule itself, and the merely apparent or empirical unity that is achieved when one part rules another is just a poor earthly substitute for that. That applies to the person as much as to the state.<<ref "5">>
<<<
What is the difference between false unity and true unity? Likely, what is meant by “merely apparent or empirical unity” is what counts as false unity. I worry that false unity is outright not unity at all, in any degree. I doubt Korsgaard really wants to agree to lesser degrees of unity as possessing any true unity. But, a binary view, of true and false, does not lend itself to any meaningful degrees of unity, which is so vital to her theory.
A charitable reading might lead us to say that at one end of a spectrum there is the one true, 100%, perfectly formed unity, and the rest of the spectrum demonstrates varying degrees of disunity, which counts as false unity or “merely apparent and empirical unity.” At the other end of the spectrum, there is 0% unity; there is a mere heap, pure anarchy. I’m not sure if it is correct to say that the mere heap is even false unity, because, in some sense, it isn’t even trying to be unified at all.
This passage seems to imply (perhaps contrarily to the rest of the argument) that one can be falsely unified without a constitution. Can a degree of unity be achieved without a constitution? From the rest of the book, I would think that any degree of unity requires a constitution. Are there constitutions for the mere heap? I think not – mere heaps definitionally have no organization.
Don’t we require a certain sort of constitution rather than merely ‘a constitution’? False unity, for Korsgaard, is based upon constituting oneself with the wrong principle (not the CI). Assuming there are different ways to constitute ourselves (using different principles), what makes one sort of constitution better than another? In particular, what is it about the sort of constitution using the Categorical Imperative that enables ‘true unity’ where other sorts of constitutions using other principles do not? And, if the previous question rests upon the false premise that only a constitution based on the Categorical Imperative can enable true unity, and there are many sorts of constitutions which can bring about true unity, then why should we think the constitution based on the Categorical Imperative is any better than a constitution based upon another principle?
What about the constitution makes it possible for a whole to rule itself? Korsgaard believes that only the CI-based constitution is sufficient for true unity, and I think by implication, she would agree to the notion that only the CI-based constitution is sufficient for ‘a whole to rule itself’. But, this only brings up questions of responsibility, again. If a ‘whole isn’t ruling itself’, then why should we think that a unified, poorly constituted person (whatever ‘that thing’ is - I’m not even sure if we can seriously point to an ‘it’ in her theory) is really ruling itself in any culpable manner? At best, there are degrees of responsibility. But, then, it seems that the as we across the spectrum of good action to bad action, the less we can pin an action on a ‘so-called’ agent. That does not seem acceptable. I think cold-blooded murderers (let’s assume they are deeply disunified) are fully responsible for the act of murdering, just as I am fully responsible for the omission of murder (a good thing)!
In the end, I think Korsgaard fails to show us why there is any normative requirement for unity. I can understand reason overriding my biological desires, inclinations or passions, and in this sense I have ‘control’ over them. But this type of control is really not the same thing as the capacity to unify myself which Korsgaard is talking about. I think reason often requires us to be disunified. I don’t think we are really responsible to unify any objects which nature controls; we aren’t responsible for unifying them because we don’t possess the capacity to do it. We do have the ability to suppress them; to bypass them; to choose and act upon what reason requires of us; even when it is at odds with what we feel, and what our bodies desire.
Lastly, she says:
<<<
So for Kant, just as for Plato, reason must rule for the good of the whole, and if we identify with the voice of reason, it is only because we identify with our constitution, and it says reason should rule.<<ref "6">>
<<<
What counts as the good of the whole person? This points to a substantive conception of the good which Korsgaard should have fleshed out (although, admittedly, she so heavily favors a formal conception that I don’t know how she could provide a substantive one). Furthermore, I’m worried that right action doesn’t necessarily lead to the good of a whole person. It might, for example, require the sacrifice of that person. Would Kant really agree to the notion that reason inside a person is ruling for the good of the whole person? Perhaps the legitimacy of reason is not that it rules for the good of the whole person, but rather that it is independently and objectively legitimate, even if it isn’t for the good of the whole person.
I continue to worry about this analogy. Justice for a city, at least in Platonic eyes, really might not be concerned with the good of other cities. But, this is very different from a kingdom of ends perspective, whereby agents must be concerned, in some sense, with the good of other agents.
Who is doing the ‘identifying with’ - the whole, a part, the sum of the parts? It isn’t even clear what it means to identify with our constitution. Korsgaard claims that identifying with our constitution is both sufficient and necessary for identifying with the voice of reason. But, what if you identify with a constitution which isn’t a CI-based constitution? We aren’t given a clear explanation of the manner in which a person’s constitution says reason should rule a person as a whole. It seems very possible in her theory that there can be a different (non-CI-based) constitution which says something else, something other reason, should rule a person as a whole. The only reason we believe reason should rule is because we’ve begged the question.
''[2]''
Good action is a well-defined and plausible concept in Korsgaard’s book //Self-Constitution//, particularly given how good action fits in with the rest of her theory. In contrast, bad action or ‘defective action’ is not a well-defined concept which fits nicely into her theory. The notion of defective action either fails to meet the expectations of our moral intuitions or it contradicts her theory at large.
[Objection #1] Evil unification seems possible in her theory. If there is evil unification, then it doesn’t seem like it is really evil at all, as we typically understand the word. And, if evil agents can be unified, then their actions aren’t evil either because their actions are unifying them. If I’m right, then there isn’t a strong enough distinction between evil action and good action in her theory. Good and evil don’t seem to have any real meaning. Good and evil are just perceptions; they are subjective notions. Good and evil are constructions, not truths, in her theory. If they are truths, they are empirical ones about unification, but then she lacks any substantial evidence that her principle is the empirically the best one.
She argues for degrees of unity. And if unity is the normative metric in her overall theory, then why should we care what principles of constitution get us there? If principle A unifies just as well as principle B, then they are normatively equal in this theory. And, even if principle A is not as good at unifying as principle B, as long as principle A still generates some degree of unity, then isn’t principle A good to some extent, just not as good as B? These are consequences of her theory, but not consequences to which she wants to admit. The CI might unify a person 100%, and principle A might do it 90%. It seems that principle A is almost as good as CI – it is ‘mostly’ good, right? She doesn’t want to admit that. It looks like wishful thinking to me. It seems that other principles really do have a chance at unifying us as well as the CI, and the actions which come from those other principles should be just as good because they are just as good at unifying us.
Furthermore, the claim that the Categorical Imperative unifies us is a gigantic empirical assumption. I’m far from convinced we are unified by the Categorical Imperative. The sorts of actions which the CI compels us to do often might not be the sort which unifies us. Since unity is the normative metric of her theory, I think her choice of the Categorical Imperative as the correct principle and the definitions of good and defective action in her theory are wishful thinking, unsupported by some desperately needed evidence about how these really unify us.
She might argue that good unity, good constitution, good agency, and good action are good ‘by definition’ and likewise evil unity, evil constitution, evil agency, and evil action are evil ‘by definition’. But this option isn’t open to her – it requires her to talk about moral truths which are independent of us. She closed herself off from that when she criticized the dogmatic rationalist. To go this route would make her subject to the very criticisms she made against the dogmatic rationalist – namely, having objective moral truths. If it is open, it is only empirically open – we don’t know what principle actually unifies us best, and whatever that principle turns out to be, we might ‘definitionally’ call the Categorical Imperative, but it might call us to perform action which is nothing like the traditional conception of the Categorical Imperative.
I think she knows her theory is in trouble if it can’t muster any objectivity, but I think she’s waving her hands trying to make it work. Good and evil are likely fleeting constructions. Serious moral realists will undergo vertigo when trying to make sense of what she’s doing here.
[Objection #2] People who perform evil action aren’t technically people. They aren’t responsible – they aren’t agents – they aren’t even performing action. There is no evil action.
Again, it seems like being unified is ‘by definition’ good in her theory, and we assume that unified people, ‘by definition’ don’t perform certain acts which we generally as a human race call ‘evil’ (like murder). If ‘by definition’ unified agents never do what is wrong – they must be perfectly virtuous, and furthermore, if a ‘heap’ happens to do what we call ‘evil’, and thus that heap isn’t fully unified, then that heap isn’t an agent. Non-agents, mere heaps, aren’t responsible. There is nothing, no ‘whole being’, there to bear responsibility.
Disunified people aren’t responsible. Defective actions aren’t truly actions, and those who commit them aren’t truly agents. We can’t point to any bad action, or to any bad agent and say “they did it.” Or, to the extent that we can, and to the extent that a bad action is an action, and to the extent a bad agent is an agent, they aren’t truly bad. If you can point to it, if you can say “it is more than a mere heap, there is a semblance of a whole there,” then by the normative metric of unity, it definitionally isn’t bad.
[Objection #3] I’m objecting to part of her defense against some of the objections I’ve already raised. Consider the following passage:
<<<
As far as tyrants are concerned, I’m not sure what to say—but then no one knows for sure what to say about the responsibility of some of the characters I’ve classified as tyrants—serial killers and addicts, for instance. But to the question whether the others become less responsible as they approach the tyrannical condition, the answer is no. There is no general principle saying that you are responsible to the extent to which you acted.<<ref "7">>
<<<
Replace “you acted” with “you are an agent” and it becomes clearly incorrect. Agency is entirely about efficacy and responsibility. But, since the degree of action is literally a measurement of the degree to which you are an agent, then the general rule is true, at least if she is correct about the relationship between action and agency (I think it would wiser to separate these notions). She continues:
<<<
What we are going to blame you for is not that other force that was working in you or on you, but for the fact that you let it do that, that you failed to pick up the reins and take control of your own movements. And the reason we are going to do that is that making yourself into an agent, giving yourself an identity, becoming a person, is your job (1.4.9).8
<<<
If you are responsible for not being an agent, or for not being a unified agent, then who is this ‘you’? And isn’t this overarching ‘you’ that is responsible for whether or not you are an agent (in her theory) also an agent? Isn’t what we mean by agency – a type of irrevocable responsibility to act and to be in a certain way? This brings us back to the of paradox agency which she failed to solve. In the event, becoming a ‘unified agent’ is a responsibility that must necessarily lie with some agent – and that agent must, in her theory, be a unified agent in order to perform that action, making the entire thing circular; ascribing responsibility or blame for omission of an action or performance of a bad action, therefore, becomes impossible – either the agent was originally unified in a way impermissible to her theory or was disunified and, therefore, not a responsible agent.
''[3]''
Korsgaard is worried about the ‘big mistake’ of approaching a disunified city or person as ‘one city’ or ‘one person’. She considers a problem posed by Derek Parfit.9 Parfit’s story is about a young Russian nobleman who in the future will come into his inheritance, and he wants to make sure that his future, older self will do the right thing by giving a large portion of his inheritance to the poor. The young nobleman is worried that his older self will be a different person, with different values, and in Korsgaardian terminology, he has a different set of contingent practical identities; the younger nobleman believes he will become an uptight and selfish, yet (supposedly) ‘rational’ and ‘self-controlled’ person who won’t give to the poor. The younger nobleman sets out against the older nobleman (his future self that somehow isn’t really, essentially him), trying to strategically force the older nobleman to give his inheritance to the poor. Korsgaard describes the strategy:
<<<
So he makes a contract now, to distribute the land when he gets it, which can only be revoked with the consent of his wife, and he asks his wife to promise not to revoke it then, even if he tells her then that he has changed his mind, and that she is released from the promise…Parfit portrays him as telling his wife that his younger self is his real self, that his ideals are essential to him, and that if he loses those ideals she should regard him as effectively dead. Being dead, he cannot release her from her promise, and if his middle-aged avatar claims to release her, in an effort to keep hold of the estates, she should regard him as someone else, who therefore cannot release her –almost…as a kind of impostor, posing as the continuation of his younger self.<<ref "10">>
<<<
If the younger nobleman’s prediction about ‘who he will become’ is wrong, then she won’t need to force him to do anything. However, if his prediction is correct, then this strategy, if it works as he intends, will force the older nobleman to give to the poor, which is against the values and normal (so-called) rational choice that the older nobleman would have otherwise made, namely to keep the inheritance.
Several problems immediately arise from Parfit’s story. Is the older nobleman really being rational? Does the younger nobleman have the right to obligate his future self, and if he doesn’t, then what does that say about obligations in general? Is the younger nobleman really a different agent than the older nobleman – does his agency lack continuity through time? Is it really a bad thing for the younger nobleman to lock himself, or the older nobleman (if w-=]e read him as a different agent) into doing what is objectively the right thing?
The wife has another set of related problems. Can she really make this promise to the younger nobleman? Is she doing wrong against the younger nobleman when she ‘breaks her promise’ to him by not forcing the older nobleman to give to charity? Is she she doing wrong to the older nobleman when she fulfills her promise to the younger nobleman, but perhaps forces the older nobleman to give to charity?
I want to make it clear that I think there is a lot at stake in this story and in answering it – a proper response comes with a lot of meta-ethical baggage. Definitions of agency, action, choice, obligation, rights, and value are exemplary issues at stake which this story brings up. There are also some powerful metaphysical and ontological questions at stake in this ethics story, including the metaphysical nature of property and social contracts, and multiple concerns about object identity and agent identity. The consequences to answering these questions incorrectly have a profound reach and impact. In some sense, I can’t hope to offer the proper (read: effective) response, which includes a comprehensive countertheory, to what Korsgaard and Parfit are doing here. I can “give you the skinny” on some of things they’ve done wrong though, which is only a glimpse of what should be said about this problem.<<ref "11">>
Parfit’s problem, a problem based on the assumption that the younger and older noblemen are two different agents, requires us to make sense of their capacities as agents to bear rights and duties, in part by trying to make sense of the wife’s (possibly differing) obligations to these two agents. Korsgaard tries to re-tell this story of ‘successive selves’, with her own meta-ethical baggage, in terms of division of a self, an internal conflict, and ultimately, in terms of disunity and a lack of integrity on the part of the nobleman/noblemen.
In setting out to answer Parfit’s problem, Korsgaard introduces a Kantian (and traditional Judeo-Christian) conception of marriage, a joint-ownership contract whereby two spouses maintain a complete “reciprocity of possession” of each other and each other’s belongings.<<ref "12">> She emphasizes this transaction as a “unity of will” in which:
<<<
Two people who get married pledge to share one another’s lives and possessions; there is therefore a range of decisions that they pledge to make together—decisions about where they will live, decisions about the house, the car, the children, and the money—including the disposition of those inherited estates.<<ref "13">>
<<<
From this ‘unity of will’, Korsgaard claims that “the Russian nobleman’s wife cannot operate as an independent person free to choose now between two loyalties,” the loyalties of the younger and the older noblemen.<<ref "14">> These two spouses are supposed to have a unity of will. But, as Korsgaard points out, it doesn’t seem like they really have a unity of will. As this one man is actually two men, is there a unity of will between three people? That doesn’t seem to be the spirit of a marriage at all. Is she married to the younger nobleman, but not the older? Or, is she even married to either of them at all? I think it might be reasonable to say there is a difference between the Kantian marriage and a legal marriage.
Korsgaard says “he cannot make the decision together with himself…”<<ref "15">> This decision is about what should be done with the future inheritance. If he cannot decide, then husband and wife certainly can’t decide together either. Note that it is not immediately clear who this ‘he’ might be. It could be the younger nobleman with himself, the older nobleman with himself, and/or with the younger nobleman with older nobleman. Interestingly, Korsgaard says:
<<<
The young nobleman asks his wife to commit herself, to make a promise, and to keep her promise in the future. She is to hold him, by holding herself, to giving up the estates. But if she can do this, why can’t he?<<ref "16">>
<<<
The assumption is that the wife will maintain her identity and commitments through time, even though he won’t. And, further, from Korsgaard’s theory, maintaining one’s identity is maintaining one’s contingent practical identities, one’s agency, one’s reasons for acting, one’s normative obligations and rights. In this case, it is an identity for keeping of a promise (to her husband no less) and a commitment to give to the poor which the wife is capable of maintaining, and for the husband, it is simply the will to give to the poor, which he somehow isn’t capable of maintaining. Because he lacks a capacity to maintain a commitment with himself to give to the poor, Korsgaard implies we should question his ability to make commitments or promises in general. Even the couples’ marriage vows appear in jeopardy. I think this might be too large a leap.
By unity of will, do we mean they never disagree and that they don’t have any conflicts concerning property distribution? I don’t see any marriages that can always qualify without fail as that. If unity of will is only the singular moment where both completely agree, completely give themselves to their spouse, then it seems that this unity is fleeting. Unity of will might really be a commitment to ‘making it work’, to putting forth maximal effort to resolve disagreements in the most loving fashion possible. When both spouses are in agreement on that point, well then, I think we are really talking about marriage here. Not being capable of knowing what exactly to do with property, having a conflict with either yourself or your spouse, doesn’t seem to revoke marriage in any degree.
Vitally, Korsgaard say about that wife: “if she approaches her husband as one person, she’ll be making a big mistake.”<<ref "17">> This can be taken in two ways. Either the nobleman is really two different noblemen (younger and older persons), and thus not one person, or the younger nobleman is simply divided and in conflict with himself, and thus the younger nobleman is really not one person. In the first way there is not ‘one person’ because there are two persons in one body over time, and in the second way, there is not ‘one person’ because there isn’t a person (let alone two). Parfit agrees to the first, and it seems that Korsgaard is tempted to head in the other direction. It makes a lot of sense in her theory if there is an immediate conflict and disunity in this younger nobleman. But, if this is the interpretation, I think she’s re-written who this ‘younger nobleman’ really is – he seems much less rational and put together in Korsgaard’s re-telling than in Parfit’s. However, there is also decent reason for her to interpret it like Parfit, and to say that the younger nobleman has one identity, and the older nobleman a different identity. But, then she is committing the same egregious mistake about lacking persistent agency that Parfit does – in some ways, this is already present in her theory, as we can shed and take on contingent practical identities, including (supposedly) our agency, and thus our moral obligations, at whim.
Korsgaard claims that a married couple deliberates together and arrives at a shared decision.<<ref "18">> She explains:
<<<
The aim of the shared deliberation…is to find (or construct) a shared good, the object of our unified will, which we then pursue by a shared action. And it follows from the fact that the action is shared that if either of us fails [to perform our proposed shared action]… we will both have failed to do what we set out to do. Our autonomy and our efficacy stand or fall together.<<ref "19">>
<<<
If this is true, then it doesn’t seem that the younger nobleman and his wife really have joint autonomy or efficacy. They lack unity of will and they lack shared deliberation. They aren’t married, at least not with respect to this issue (perhaps Korsgaard would argue for degrees of marriage), on this view. She sidetracks the discussion briefly by saying:
<<<
If I treat your reasons as reasons, they may change my mind about what counts as the best outcome… But if I treat your reasons as tools and obstacles, they will come into my deliberation in a different way—I will see whether I might use them as tools in the pursuit of my own ends, or if not, if they are obstacles, then I will try to determine whether I can remove them from my path.<<ref "20">>
<<<
This is a very potent statement. A whole discussion is centered around what it means to treat others as persons/agents (ends) with their reasons as your reasons vs. treating them and their reasons as tools and obstacles (means). The nature and normativity of interaction is at stake. Korsgaard relates this talk about warcraft to the story of the Russian nobleman. She says:
<<<
And this of course is how the Russian nobleman is related to himself. He doesn’t think of his future reasons as reasons—he thinks of them as facts to contend with, as tools and obstacles, and in his case mainly obstacles—and he is therefore in a condition of war with himself. His efforts as a young man are dedicated to ensuring that his younger self wins, and his older self loses. His soul is therefore characterized by civil war, and that is why he fails as an agent, and his younger self cannot be efficacious without the help of his wife. But for the same reason he, his whole self now, is unable to interact with his wife.<<ref "21">>
<<<
It seems that one can interact with one’s present self, one can interact with one’s future self, and one can interact with other persons. In this passage, in seems that the younger nobleman is interacting (or rather, he is failing to interact as he should) with himself as an older nobleman. In one sense, Korsgaard is arguing for a persistent identity – she wants the younger and the older to be one person over time. But her argument ‘for a persistent identity’ isn’t that it is necessarily the case that they are one person (which is what I think is the only sensible thing to argue), but rather that they merely should try to be one person. She continues:
<<<
As an embodied being [he as an agent] must take into account all of the incentives, present and future, to which [he] will be subject in the natural course of [his] embodied life: that is part of what Plato means when he talks about willing for the good of the whole.<<ref "22">>
<<<
How can you know what your future holds? How can you know (which is a precondition to taking into account) your future incentives? Interaction makes sense when it is simultaneous, but it doesn’t make sense through time. You can’t interact in any meaningful sense with your future self. I’m convinced that she is in some sense agreeing to unification through time (although, later we’ll see she doesn’t want that). Korsgaard doesn’t have the same problem I have with Parfit’s story – she agrees that his agency is in jeopardy. She continues:
<<<
The Russian nobleman fails as an agent because… he doesn’t will a law that he thinks he can commit himself to acting again later on, come what may.<<ref "23">>
<<<
<<<
His future self is just himself. He can decide to disagree with his own future attitude. But unless he is then also prepared to regard his own future attitude as one of weakness or irrationality, he is not according the reason he himself proposes to act on right now as having normative standing. For he is not making a law for himself unless he thinks of his future attitude as a violation of that law, and if he does not think he can make laws for himself then he lacks self-respect.<<ref "25">>
<<<
<<<
So his problem is not his disunity with his future self, but his disunity with himself here and now. And his problem is not disrespect for his future self, but disrespect for himself here and now.<<ref "26">>
<<<
So, the reason he is disunified in the present is he doesn’t find his future self to be irrational. I don’t think that really answers the story. A prediction that my views or values will change is not that same thing as my advocacy of their rationality or irrationality. We can fine tune the story. Perhaps he has his mind 100% made up (and unified) at time-t0 to A, and just so happens in the future to have his mind 100% made up at time-t1 to ~A. His younger t0 self thinks that his older t1 self is wrong, irrational, and immoral. But, this doesn't sound like necessitation. That just sounds like he shed and gained a new contingent practical identity, he changed his mind. He’s not really in conflict with himself.
[Objection #1] If Korsgaard argues for unification through time, she’s expecting the younger nobleman to know himself in the future, and unify himself through time, then she is expecting something which is impossible, something which is out of his present reach. If she argues that there isn’t unification through time, but really, he’s disunified in the present, and the older nobleman isn’t the same agent, then she’s demolished persistent agency. I can’t accept either one.<<ref "26">>
Unification through time is interesting because it maintains some semblance of a persistent identity (which I think is cardinal to the work we are doing here). But, unification through time as an action doesn’t make sense. I really don’t think Korsgaard agrees to this notion, even if she toys with it – she, herself, knows it has controversial (probably insurmountable) problems. It would also contradict aspects of her own theory at large. Unification through time basically prevents the shedding and taking on of contingent practical identities.
If agency doesn’t persist in the case of the nobleman, then the nobleman’s life is split into (at least) 2 lifetimes, two agencies, two sets of responsibilities – he is broken into two people. But aren’t we all subject to this? We are schizophrenic, and useless through time. When we change our minds enough (where that point may be, I’m still unclear), when we shed enough contingent practical identities, we are no longer ourselves. No practical system of ethics can be made from this stance on agency. Agency must be persistent, or obligations through time are arbitrary, superfluous, and ridiculous.
Obligations through time become incoherent if we lack a consistent, stable identity/self/agency through time. Duties or rights of the person do not pass through time to whomever they 'evolve' into; whatever contingent practical identity they eventually take on, sheds all obligations. Isn’t agency the very type of thing that remains stable? It is that which enables obligations to pass through time, from one contingent practical identity to another. Agency isn't a choice, it lasts a lifetime. To say that 'killing yourself' is a way to shed your agency is tongue-in-cheek; but it isn't obvious how one might actually 'choose' to shed their agency otherwise. Agency is not a choice; it is not something which you constitute yourself as. You are innately an agent or you aren’t, it isn’t up to you. Agency is the very thing that enables you to have anything else to be ‘up to you’ – but agency as a capacity isn’t something that is up to you. Your plight is not your choice.
How are we to treat the disunified? [Objection #2] The constitutional model she presents in this book dehumanizes and strips personhood and the rights which follow from it away from the disunified. In the case of the Russian nobleman, he is less of a person, less of an agent, not as good as a human, and less worthy of our interaction. He doesn’t deserve to be treated as well as a full-blown unified agent; he can’t actually be treated (according to her theory) that way by definition, since he lacks the capacity to be a person. In some sense, he is like the mere heap – he is rubbish, so, go ahead, dispose of him!
By her theory, people who don’t respect themselves as people aren’t really people, and so we don’t have to (because “we can’t”) respect them either. Now, you might say I’m exaggerating the point – she does after all have a theory which comes in ‘degrees’. But, my criticism is applicable, even in degrees. The degree to which a being isn’t an agent, the degree to which he is a mere heap, is the degree to which we can’t interact with him and treat him as an end. Mere heaps, in any degree, are tools and obstacles, not ends.
So, the nobleman is, at least to some degree, disunified and, to that degree, cannot be treated as a person, as an agent. The wife, then, cannot be obligated to some degree (and perhaps to no degree) to him. Regardless of whether he is disunified through time, or disunified in the present as a younger nobleman, he’s still not worthy. I just don’t see how he is an illegitimate person to any degree. Korsgaard’s interpretation alongside her theory requires it.
----------------------------------------------
<<footnotes "1" "Christine Korsgaard, //Self-Constitution: Agency, Identity, and Integrity// (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 157">>
<<footnotes "2" "Ibid., 134">>
<<footnotes "3" "Ibid.">>
<<footnotes "4" "Immanuel Kant, //Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals//, Ed. Mary Gregor (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 1997), 61">>
<<footnotes "5" "Christine Korsgaard, //Self-Constitution: Agency, Identity, and Integrity //(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 157">>
<<footnotes "6" "Ibid., 157">>
<<footnotes "7" "Ibid., 174">>
<<footnotes "8" "Ibid., 175">>
<<footnotes "9" "Ibid., 185">>
<<footnotes "10" "Ibid.">>
<<footnotes "11" "I would like to offer a better account, but that will have to be at a later time.">>
<<footnotes "12" "Ibid., 186">>
<<footnotes "13" "Ibid., 187">>
<<footnotes "14" "Ibid.">>
<<footnotes "15" "Ibid.">>
<<footnotes "16" "Ibid.">>
<<footnotes "17" "Ibid., 188">>
<<footnotes "18" "Ibid., 190">>
<<footnotes "19" "Ibid., 192">>
<<footnotes "20" "Ibid., 193-194">>
<<footnotes "21" "Ibid., 195">>
<<footnotes "22" "Ibid., 198">>
<<footnotes "23" "Ibid., 203">>
<<footnotes "24" "Ibid.">>
<<footnotes "25" "Ibid., 203-204">>
<<footnotes "26" "It is possible she is arguing for both. Her argument should have been much clearer in this respect.">>
Question 1)
Domestic Justice:
John Rawls, in A Theory of Justice, offers a powerful social contractarian heuristic device for determining the principles of justice. The “basic structure” of society, as described by Rawls, is constituted by formal, legal, political and economic institutions. How best to configure the basic structure is a central to justice, in Rawls’ view, because it fixes the distribution of goods, services, opportunities, authorities, and rights. The basic structure is the initial subject of justice. It is here (either for the creation of a basic structure or as an assessment of one) that one can begin to question and formulate the principles of justice which normatively define the various possible configurations of the basic structure. Principles of justice design, specify, assess and justify the blueprints, arrangement and practices of these institutions and the overall basic structure. Rawls is famous for this device which formulates the principles of justice, a device he calls the “original position.”
The original position is a type of thought experiment, an abstraction, a hypothetical instance of drawing up a social contract among members of society, and a method of thinking about justice. The parties within the original position are meant to agree upon whatever counts as the fair and correct principles of justice used to generate the basic structure to which they would find themselves subject outside of the original position. The original position structures intuitions we have about justice and how we formulate them – the original position is designed to provide an impartial justice, and render a stable society. Notably, the concern for impartiality and fairness is what leads us to the most profound and potent fixture in the original position, what Rawls calls the “veil of ignorance.”
Agents in the original position find themselves ‘behind’ a veil of ignorance. While behind this veil, “no one knows his place in society, his class position or social status, nor does anyone know his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence, strength and the like. I shall even assume that the parties do not know their conceptions of the good or their special psychological propensities.” Agents are deprived of the knowledge of their personal particularities, what societies they come from, and their histories. Some of the attributes which count as morally arbitrary in Rawls’ eyes might be considered controversial (e.g. your religious beliefs), but let us pass it by. The essential point, to which I think we can all intuitively agree, is that differences which are arbitrary from the moral point of view don’t count with regards as to how the principles of justice treat you. Agents behind the veil must be detached from their actual, particular circumstances when formulating the principles of justice. Proper justice requires we answer a hypothetical question: “if you couldn't know who you were, what would you choose?” This makes a lot of sense - it removes bias. Thus, the principles of justice which are produced from within the original position and behind the veil of ignorance are in some sense impartial and unbiased.
What then constitutes these agents, these amorphous creatures which have shed morally arbitrary features? Rawls believes these agents have a sense of justice, being willing to comply with what is required by justice. They are also free and equal agents. Vitally, agents behind the veil are rational, mutually disinterested utility-maximizers. These characteristics provide the motivation and mindset of agents formulating the principles of justice. They have the necessary tools and knowledge to formulate the correct principles of justice, to know what is normatively just and fair about different configurations of basic structures given their rational, mutually disinterested, utility-maximizing characters. While ignorant of particularities, agents are extremely knowledgeable about generalities. They have a commanding knowledge of general facts about human nature, psychology, sociology, political science, biology, and economics. Thus, with this knowledge, from behind the veil of ignorance, agents are able to rationally construct and agree to the principles of justice, even agreeing with principles which might not benefit them as the individuals they are outside of the original position.
Rawls is very thorough, and despite the hypothetical nature of the original position, he is also practical. He invents a nifty regression test procedure used to make sure we actually agreed to the correct principles of justice. He calls this the “reflective equilibrium.” Employing the reflective equilibrium allows agents to go back and forth between the original position and reality. This method allows us to continually justify and revise (if necessary) the principles of justice.
Interestingly, it just so happens that Rawls thinks he knows exactly which principles of justice would be chosen from within the original position. They essentially are:
1. The Principle of Greatest Equal Liberty - People are to be as free as possible.
2. The Difference Principle - Social and economic advantages should be distributed in order to maximize the shares of the most disadvantaged, those on the bottom line. Maximize the minimum.
These principles are lexically ordered in priority. The first principle is the most important one, and the second merits consideration after maximally satisfying the first. Intuitively, it seems that there might be many possible basic structures which equally maximize the first principle, and the second principle does the work of assigning further normative value, effectively acting as a tie-breaker to the subset of initially acceptable basic structures generated by the first.
The theory is supposed to describe 'realistic utopia'. It gets at methodological notions about what political theories are supposed to be trying to do. He imports this from Rousseau, the notion of "Taking men as they are and laws as they might be." Any theory of justice which gets off the ground only by imagining people to be saints, angels, or unrealistically altruistic, ends up failing in his eyes. He thinks theories of justice which are not realistic and rooted in real constraints are bad theories. They still need to be ideal, as they are about looking forward. Theories of justice are relative to the peoples that are used to describe them. This isn't a long term or universal view. It is medium term. What that exactly means, we aren't sure.
International Justice:
Rawls lays out a foreign policy of a reasonably just, liberal people (state). He is answering the question: “How should liberal peoples treat other peoples of a variety of different views?” This is a justification offered from a reasonably just liberal people.
We need to distinguish a technical term here, because there is an important difference between ‘people’ and ‘person’. By ‘peoples’ he means ‘national groups’. A ‘person’ is just that, an individual person. Peoples have 3 features:
They are united by particular kind of government.
They have common sympathies.
They have a firm attachment to a political-moral conception of ‘right’ and justice.
Rawls talks about well-ordered peoples, which includes two subsets, both liberal peoples and decent peoples. He also talks about non-‘well-ordered’ peoples, which are essentially outlaw states, burdened societies, and other sorts of political and economic failings.
He believes that order and legitimacy of rest upon tolerating, although not necessarily agreeing with, decent peoples. Decent peoples don’t violate human rights or act aggressively towards other nations (which is part of being well-ordered), but they might have things like state religions or political practices which aren’t deemed ‘liberal’, which must be tolerated in his view.
The structure of theory is that there are multiple 'Original Position' arguments. There is an Original Position for us as a domestic peoples, but also a different, international 'Original Position' for us as 'liberal peoples' towards everyone.
For Rawls, there are global principles of distributive justice like there are for domestic justice. He does offer the notion of "Duty of assistance" (which is somewhat unspecified), which is maybe a type of justice or morality. Essentially, well-ordered societies must assist "burdened" countries (those who can't get their act together, have disorder, etc.) until those countries also become minimally well-ordered. Differences of wealth between the countries are somehow irrelevant. Only if you "know" this assistance will help the country become well-ordered, only then do you need to help them.
Differences and Controversy:
1) Controversially (at least for some philosophers), Rawls abandons any pretense or aspirations towards moral truth. He has given into the pragmatic postmodernists. His political theory only deals with political institutions, but not the "good" or any comprehensive account of morality. It is ironic that this is controversial though. Normativity of Rawls' political theory is limited in scope by design. He articulates principles directed specifically at political institutions and political structures, nothing more. He attempts to avoid controversial elements, and thus is amenable to a whole variety of comprehensive theories. His theory is similar to Anselm's ontological argument because it seems to use mundane and simple premises, and yet it arrives at a seemingly grand conclusion. It was meant not to be controversial, but somehow it is the exact sort of thing which is so very controversial.
2) The metric of political liberalism isn't "it is true" but rather "it is reasonable" - What is reasonable (as he uses it as a technical term). Being ‘reasonable’ amounts to "being willing to put forth and abide by principles of cooperation" and "recognizes the burdens of judgment." This recognition is realizing that reasonable persons can disagree with each other, just because figuring out certain facts can be really complicated (or next to impossible). Clearly, the term ‘reasonable’, has couched within it some begged questions. Terminology like this can be misleading, but it isn’t a discussion of philosophy of mind, logic, or epistemology, but rather he has a specific meaning which may or may not be actually reasonable, even if he thinks it is reasonable. Effectively, a sea of philosophically controversial questions arises concerning Political Liberalism and 'reasonable' comprehensive theories.
3) One might think it isn’t really a full-blown international justice, unlike his domestic account. Somehow, his conception of international justice doesn’t seem to demand enough from us, at least as some philosophers’ intuitions have it.
4) Given his domestic Theory of Justice, particularly how he takes such great pains to point out how Justice is unconcerned with morally arbitrary characteristics of agents, we would think that he would be in favor of globalizing that theory theory. Vitally, national boundaries seem arbitrary; they are historical accidents. I think most would agree that this is the sort of morally arbitrary characteristic which doesn’t follow you behind the veil. His domestic justice applied on a global scale would amount to collapsing national boundaries as being morally arbitrary, which likely would lead to very robust obligations to the poor. But, Rawls (perplexingly) doesn’t think this.
5) Interestingly, aid is given to ‘burdened countries’ not out of any distributive aims of equality or maximin, or things like that, but rather simply to build and maintain well-ordered nations. Domestic Justice has much stronger distributive justice aims.
6) Some people might think that Rawls’ theories are controversial on the belief that Rawls has terrible picture of human nature (similar to Kant's). Arguably, in his defense, Rawls doesn't make these assumptions; he is just offering a heuristic device.
7) Rawls thinks the sources of poverty have a national/local origin. This is a very controversial assumption. What if poverty isn't of local origin? Take an agricultural nation which relies upon agriculture to be out of poverty. Another nation might artificially flood agricultural markets with super cheap products, eliminating the ability to agricultural nation to viably pull themselves out of poverty. It fails to understand globalization principles and how interdependent nations are upon other nations. Some vital factors of economic viability of a nation aren't necessarily in the hands of those nation.
Question 3)
Developed Nations’ Substantial Obligations to the Poor:
Pogge is interested in a sort of institutional contractarian theory. Pogge believes we have negative duties not to harm others. That is an institutional kind of duty, in his view, because one can only have this duty as a member of an institutional. Because you are a member of an institution, you are on the hook, so to speak.
Essentially, he thinks that we shouldn't harm people, and if we do, then we owe them redistribution and recompense. He also thinks that we (the developed world) cause world poverty. Because it is, at least in part, our fault that others are poor, he believes we have serious obligations to the world poor.
Pogge argues a sort of moral universalism:
All people are subject to morality.
Moral benefits and burdens are then distributed to all.
Moral benefits and burdens are formulated generally so as not to privilege or disadvantage any person for an arbitrary reason.
He defends a strong thesis: There is extreme poverty that could be fixed with minimal sacrifices by developed countries. So, there are two claims being made:
Extreme poverty can be fixed.
Fixing poverty requires minimal sacrifices.
So, you can see, Pogge combines theoretical elements with empirical data to make a robust redistributive justice system. The empirical component of his argument does a lot of work for him. He really needs to it demonstrate both that "The developed world causes the poverty in the developing world" and that “Fixing poverty requires minimal sacrifices.” From this 'fact', he is able to use his theoretical component to make a powerful argument for what we should do. Pogge's theoretical claim not to harm is not controversial, but his empirical claims 'that we are harming other nations' are controversial.
Pogge’s solution is a global resource dividend (GRD), which makes up for, pays back and restores the victims of the harm we cause. It is essentially a tax on the wealthy and naturally rich. Those who make the most use of Earth’s natural resources (the wealthy) must globally compensate those who can’t use those resources (the poor).
This proposal makes a lot of sense, as we must consider the share of natural resources as belonging to all people. In one sense, natural resources seem to be geographically arbitrary, and thus it seems everyone has a claim to it, everyone has a stake in limited resources of the planet. The GRD equalizes the value of natural resources across the world, while helping the poor.
How We Harm the Global Poor:
Pogge says we harm the global poor in several ways:
1) Resource Privilege - A government’s right to sell resources on the open market can harm people. It can steal natural resources from people. Illegitimate leaders can sell off natural resources, keeping the money for themselves, or unwisely investing it in Elvis memorabilia, etc. This causes current and future citizens of the nation to be resource-poor.
2) Borrowing Privilege - Leaders can put country into debt, and they can steal it, and leave the country screwed. Leaders act in the name of their country, but this borrowing may not actually help their nation at all. Perhaps developed nations are also looking to make ‘too much money’ off the poor, abusing their financial status and power, forcing impoverished into unfair and detrimental loans.
3) Unfair Trade – This includes a pretty wide array of practices. An example would be subsidies that eliminate a poor nation’s comparative advantage. Perhaps farm subsidies in our nation make agricultural products artificially cheap, so cheap that countries which could make a profit and would have had comparative advantage in producing those agricultural products no longer can.
It seems that the developed nations of the world are the causes in these cases. Developed nations are the people buying up resources from and lending to illegitimate leaders. Trade policies of the developed world are also the sort which can be very unfair to the world poor. Developed nations need institutional reform to stop harming impoverished nations in these ways.
Ideally, developed nations should also learn how to mitigate the damage caused political corruption (particularly with respect to the first w problems) of impoverished nations – it is within the power of developed to stop it.
Developed nations also need to make up for past harm caused to the impoverished. The GRD will help right the wrongs we have committed against these people, and ensure that the impoverished will continue to be aided.
Cohen’s Objection:
Cohen responds to Pogge. He is worried about the support for Pogge’s “Strong thesis,” that most of the global poverty problem could be eliminated through minor modifications in the global order, entailing at most slight reductions in the incomes of the affluent.
Cohen isn't saying that Pogge is wrong about the Strong thesis, but he is saying that Pogge is wrong about how effective the empirical data can support the strong thesis. The claim is that the empirical evidence is less certain and more controversial than Pogge seems to think. Essentially, this amounts to the strong thesis assuming or demonstrate more certainty about what sorts of claims (particular the 'most poverty' responsibility claims) that can derived from the empirical data than something like (what he calls) the conventional thesis. Conventional Thesis: Some global poverty could be eliminated by changes in global rules that would not themselves result in serious moral injuries.
Pogge’s Reponse to Cohen:
Pogge responds to Cohen, explaining that Cohen fails to look at the statistics which advanced/motivated his (Pogge's) argument. Pogge is claiming that the empirical evidence required to support or deny his argument is, in some sense, sparse. We need more evidence. But, given our current evidence, it is good enough to support his theory.
Furthermore, since Pogge’s thesis is about minor modifications, why shouldn’t we be motivated to at least test it out? Cohen agrees that Pogge isn’t asking for much, just very minor financial sacrifices on the part of wealthy nations, so ironically, it should be an easy and worthwhile thesis to test.
In his article, Wellman argues that political states have the right to close their borders. Political states are, he claims, associations of a certain kind, and, as such, can lay claim to the rights given to associations. One of these rights is the freedom of association – groups, such as political states, have the right to determine membership, as well as the corollary right to deny membership on certain grounds. (These grounds must be intrinsic to the nature of the group.) Although membership in a political state is non-voluntary, it still holds that the group has the right to freedom of association. If a political state decides to deny membership to immigrants, then, it has the right to close its borders. This does not, however, negate other moral duties the state may have towards outsiders – insofar as those duties may be fulfilled without opening the borders, though, the state is perfectly within its rights to keep them closed. In the matter of global poverty, for instance, the state may choose to provide material aid to those in need rather than allowing the unfortunate into the state; when dealing with refugees, likewise, the state may choose to take action to enforce justice in another political state rather than opening the borders for asylum seekers.
Wellman then looks at and responds to anticipated egalitarian counters to his argument. The egalitarian arguments can be described as either luck-based or relational. “Luck egalitarianism” holds that persons should not be unduly affected by random matters of chance, such as where one is born – when inequalities exist due to matters of chance, the more fortunate individual has the duty to help the less fortunate one. Relational egalitarianism holds that relationships exist between all peoples, and more fortunate individuals are relationally required to correct inequalities between themselves and the less fortunate. Wellman counters egalitarian arguments on two points.
The first point is that equality, properly understood, does not require us to make sure everyone is not unduly affected by luck; or, at most, it would require states to address inequalities that leave others open to oppressive relationships. While it might be argued that relational egalitarian concerns might trump the right to freedom of association, the same cannot be said for satisfying the concerns of luck egalitarianism, for either individuals or groups. In addition, it is argued that individuals and groups have relational duties that scale according to the strength and closeness of those relationships. Members within a group necessarily have stronger relationships and, therefore, stronger duties to each other than to non-members; the same is true of political states. Any duties that the state may have to outsiders, then, are trumped by its duties to citizens – especially the right of self-determination, wherein the group decides how it wishes to be comprised (and who is to be excluded, if it comes to that). Moreover, even this fails to satisfy the real problem – the real issue (when discussing the fabulously wealthy nations and the extraordinarily poor ones) is not one of equality, either relationally or due to luck. Rather, wealthy nations should be concerned with the suffering of people simply because they are suffering and their suffering can be alleviated, regardless of any relational concerns. The appropriate response is not some duty to provide equality but a duty of samaritanism – a duty to help those in need (perhaps only to the degree to which it does not inconvenience the helper).
The second point he makes is that, even if states must address inequalities (through redistributive justice, for instance), that does not necessitate opening borders. There may be other tactics to take. Even under the constraints of relational egalitarianism and samaritanism, opening borders is not necessary – other means may be taken to deal with issues pertaining to other persons belonging to another state (or at least outside this one that is being discussed). In fact, if another option would serve better, the state would be morally obligated to close – not open – its borders. If global poverty can be better addressed by sending material aid, then the state should not open its borders – it should send aid. This notion also applies to persons fleeing oppressive regimes – rather than opening borders to refugees, a state might better serve the oppressed citizens by confronting the oppressive (and therefore illegitimate) regime and bringing justice to that area.
Abizadeh disagrees with Wellman's stance. The usual understanding of democratic theory is that the political state's right to self-determination and freedom of association leads to closed borders. That leads to tension with liberal concerns, which lead to open borders. Abizadeh argues that democratic theory actually leads to open borders.
First, a democratic theory of popular sovereignty requires that the coercive exercise of political power be democratically justified to all those over whom it is exercised – that is, justification is owed to all those subject to state coercion. Second, the regime of border control of a bounded political community subjects both members and nonmembers to the state’s coercive exercise of power. Once an attempt is made to cross a border, the state does use coercion against the outsider. Border closure, therefore, does not apply only to the state's citizens – in fact, it more directly applies to outsiders, and must, it follows, be justified to would-be immigrants, as well. Therefore, the justification for a particular regime of border control is owed not just to those whom the boundary marks as members, but to nonmembers as well.
The unbounded demos thesis does not merely support the argument for why democratic theory intrinsically requires that regimes of border control be jointly determined by citizens and foreigners (unless democratically delegated to citizens). It also shows why the most important intrinsic democratic argument—the self-determination argument—for a polity’s unilateral right to determine its own regime of border control fails.
Jan 19
Hobbes - Any state is better than none. State of nature blows.
Locke - Didn't think State of nature was as bad as Hobbes made it out be. Property rights and retributive justice concerns dominated his line of thought.
Contractors
State of nature
Any social contract theory will be such - Imagine what contractors within the state of nature would agree to. Whatever the output, these will be the principles of justice.
Rawls doesn't talk about the state of nature, he talks about the "original position." It doesn't offer a description of what 'real life' is supposed to be like, this is an extreme abstraction. It structures intuitions we have about justice and how we can formulate them.
Rawls' contractors are "rationally disinterested utility maximizers" (egoism) and "have a sense of justice" (begging the question, lulz?). They aren't beneficient or malevolent towards other people, they are indifferent. They seek "justice" (particularly fairness).
The important part of the "original position" maintains the "veil of ignorance." Differences that are arbitrary from the moral point of view shouldn't count with regards to how the principles of justice treat you. Arbitrary features include more than just gender, etc., but also (controversially) things such as religion, etc. If you couldn't know who you were, what would you choose? They would come up with two principles (acc. to Rawls).
1. Principle of Greatest Equal Liberty - People are to be as free as possible.
2. Difference Principle - Social and economic advantages should be distributed to maximize the shares of the most disadvantaged, those on the bottom line. Maximize the minimum (maxi-min).
Imho, maxi-min isn't necessarily correct in game theory. perhaps the highest average utils will come from something different (although still likely based upon similar thoughts). I'm not convinced that the difference principle necessary results in the "free market, cradle-to-grave social system" state either.
Rawls thinks that Principle 1 is more important than principle 2.
Imho, again not simple, Perhaps the trade in priority results in whether or not you can feed yourself in the end (I don't know.).
Reflective Equilibirium - you constantly go back and forth between the RL and the OPosition to make sure that you have it correct. Rawls happens to think he got it right with his principles, but in case he was wrong (and we were wrong), then this method allows us to correct it.
Sandel argues that Rawls has terrible picture of human nature (similar to Kant's). Rawls doesn't make these assumptions, he is just offering a heuristic device.
Jan 24
The Theory applies to the Basic Structure of a society. Domestic, and formal, legal, political institutions. Includes economic institutions (nat. banks, treasuries), informal banking regulations, etc. Social institutions, such as families. The institutions which comprise a basic structure have profound effects upon those born under them. As a result, the Theory is a theory about domestic justice.
Free market, competitive advantage, etc. generate innovation, and maximize utility for the bottom line as well.
National boundaries seem arbitrary. Historical accidents.
There is no principle of distributive justice, globally. "Duty of assistance" (which is somewhat unspecified) is maybe justice or moral based. Well-ordered societies must assist "burdened" countries (those who can't get their act together, have disorder) until those countries also become well-ordered. Differences of wealth between the countries are somehow irrelevant. Only if you "know" this assistance will help the country become well-ordered, only then do you need to help them.
'Well-ordered' means what?
Rawls thinks the sources of poverty have a national/local origin.
What if poverty isn't of local origin? Take an agricultural nation which relies upon agriculture to be out of poverty. Another nation might artifically flood agricultural markets with super cheap products, eliminating the ability to agricultural nation to viably pull themselves out of poverty.
It fails to understand globalization principles and how interdependent nations are upon other nations. Some vital factors of economic viability of a nation aren't necessarily in the hands of those nation.
There is a problem with "stability" in the Theory, and that is that Political Liberalism is, in part, correcting.
Utility, in practice, seems an unstable theory of justice, in Rawls' opinion. You can't expect people to be better than they are...they won't, for example, sacrifice for their own well being to maximize overall utility.
Ideal Moral Theory - But, not in the sense that it is detached from Human beings as they are...
Comprehensive Moral Theory or Moral Doctrine - A theory which comprehensively (in scope) which regulates everything. No distinction between morality and justice, for example.
Moral theories have political content, even about how political institutions should be understood.
Political Theory only deals with political institutions, but not the "good" or any comprehensive account of morality.
Metric of political liberalism isn't "it is true" but rather "it is reasonable" - What is reasonable (as he uses it as a technical term)? For now, being reasonable amounts to "being willing to put forth and abide by principles of cooperation" and "recognizes the burdens of judgment." This recognition is realizing that reasonable persons can disagree with each other, just because figuring out certain facts can be really complicated (or next to impossible).
We won't find the 'comprehensive theory' to rule them all.
Celebrate relativism! yay.
What is a political institution? For cereal. I think so many things count as this.
There is overlap among the various comprehensive doctrines. What they agree on is "justice as fairness" .. thus JoF is a free standing module because it doesn't rely upon any comprehensive doctrine. They all accept it though.
Abandons pretense or aspirations towards truth. He has given into the pramatic postmodernists.
Jan 31
Normativity of Rawls' political theory is limited in scope. Articulates principles directed at political institutions and political structures. It attempts to avoid controversial elements, and thus is amenable to a whole variety of comprehensive theories.
Political liberalism is a free-standing module that you can plug into any old 'reasonable' comprehensive theory. Kant, Mill, etc. should all (supposedly) be able to insert or make use of this module without internal contradiction.
Right is prior to the good - Principles of justice are prior to deep philosophical accounts of morality and 'the good'.
Given pluralism, he thinks we must seek justice principles which maximize stability. Rawls' doesn't describe the account of justice as "true" - the reason behind this is because to talk about truth is to talk about something which is quite controversial. "Being reasonable" isn't necessarily about truth. This seems somewhat post-modern.
Legitimacy has an important role in Rawls' theory. Justice and legitimacy are independent concepts. Justice is a question of "how should political institutions be organized and what does the state owe its citizens?". Legitimacy of the state is a different sort of questions, although it may be related in some ways. Questions of legitimacy is about whether or not the state as a coercive force has the right to force people to obey its laws.
Political liberalism is an account of legitimacy. The state "exercisizes totalizing coercive control over the people, and claims to have that power" etc.
Liberal principle of legitimacy - The exercise of coercive power is only acceptable if it is done in terms that the people are willing to accept. If political institutions are acceptable to people, then it is legitimate. If you can reasonably find it unacceptable, then it is not legitimate. This is different from Lockean 'consent' in that consent is a formal social contract, but otherwise quite similar. The "that seems about right" aspect of his theory is his form of consent, but is exactly the sort of informal sort of reasoning that makes it not count as full-blown 'consent', which is far more exacting in its attribution of what institutions are acceptable. There is a difference between actual affirmation and 'couldn't reasonably reject'. This justifies coercive state power, and solves the problem of stability. 'Couldn't be rejected' etc. seems to engender some sort of stability. He does mean more than stability, he even means stability for the right reasons. It isn't just a practical worry, but also a normative worry.
------
The Laws of People, intro.
The Theory is similar to Anselm's onto argument because it seems to use mundane and simple premises, and arrives at a seemingly grand conclusion. It was meant not to be controversial, but somehow it is the exact sort of thing which is so very controversial.
A foreign policy of a reasonably just liberal people (state). Rawls' lays out what these people think. This is a justification offered from a reasonably just liberal people. It is not an account of full-blown international justice. How should liberal peoples treat other peoples of a variety of different views?
The theory is supposed to describe 'realistic utopia'. It gets at methodological theories about what political theories are supposed to be trying to do. He imports this from Rousseau. "Taking men as they are and laws as they might be." Any theory of justice that only gets off the ground by imaging people to be saints, angels, or unrealistically altruistic, or whatever, then that theory fails. Theories which are not realistic and rooted in real constraints are bad theories, he thinks. They still need to be ideal, as they are about looking forward.
Theories of justice are relative to the peoples that are used to describe them. This isn't a long term nor universal view. It is a medium term. What that exactly means, we aren't sure.
Structure of theory, there are multiple 'Original Position' argument styles here. There is an OP for us as a domestic peoples, but also a different OP for us as 'liberal peoples' towards everyone.
'Decent peoples' or 'Decent hierarchal peoples' - They aren't aggressive (invading others), common good conception of justice, honor laws of peace,...pg 67.
Law of peoples (not of states, nor persons) because ...
Sections 15 and 16 must be read by next week.
Feb 2
1 Domestic OP
2 International OPs - Reasonably, liberal peoples - the 3rd is 'decent peoples'
Peoples = National groups
Person is a person. Peoples (pg 23) have 3 features, 1) united by particular kind of gov, 2) common sympathies, 3) firm attachment to poli-moral conception of right and justice.
IOP consists of persons (representatives from the world all over) wouuld be different from IOP consisting of peoples.
"States" talk is too rational-animal - incapable of sympathy for other nations.
-------------
Beitz thinks that laws that exist now are more progressive that Rawls' ideal laws (which is thus deemed, not good enough).
-------------
Temporal issue, generation might choose one, and later generations pay...is that later generation really responsible for it?
----Domestic basic structures are stronger than international basic structures in terms of the justice requirements and the coercive powers which predate the peoples which are overseen.
Feb 7
Sovereignty, and the enforcement it brings, is what activates justice. Justice is practical, not ideal, in this sense.
Justice & Sovereignty
He has two different views.
Cosmopolitan (monist)
Justice isn't activated by special conditions. Sovereignty isn't necessarily, in this sense.
Political (plurality, or dualist)
Social institutions, States aren't merely instrumental, they are what gives Justice its value.
Justice is a special class of moral obligations. It only occurs in certain sorts of circumstances. And different sorts of circumstances call will generate different sorts of Justice.
Justice is 'associate' in this view. The demands of justice only arrive out of particular kinds of associations.
Associatons, for Rawls', are setup by the basic structure.The primary social and economic situations that characterize political life. What turns on the 'switch' of justice, from these basic structures?
2 Conditions for basic structures turning on the lights.
Liability of coercive institutions
The state represents its people - It claims to speak on behalf of the participants of the country (in some sense).
In acting in my name, it involves my agency/will in a particular way, and puts me on the hook for its actions, whether I formally consent or not. It forces responsibility for its action on us.
We get to ask about this justification, and the answer to what justifies it will be the Rawlsian notions of the original position - the difference principle giving us a good answer.
Virtue is a mean/balance between two vices: excess and deficiency
If the state doesn't claim to act in the name of its citizens, and thus making them responsible for its actions, then it looks like the demands of justice (justification) don't arise.
Feb 9
Nagel - Coercion + Representation = Justificatory Demand --> (via standard contractarian story) Obligations of distributive justice. If coercion alone activates justice, then it seems as though justice is global immediately from immigration and trade concerns, etc. There is international coercion, and thus he wants to say there must be more required to start justice.
Blake - Blake does not have this Representation requirement
Autonomy worries about coercion
Criminal Law (jail) and Civil (suing fo' teh monies) is very coercive. Civil code defines/constrains our property, a central justification piece to our distributive justice system.
There is no global government that can 'arrest you'. There aren't formal/legal institutions.
You don't volunteer to be under a coercive institution, then that institution is where justice starts.
This class is a joke.
States enforce and protect our autonomy.
Feb 14
Positive Right - A freedom 'to' something. Health care, for example.
Negative Right - A freedom not to be hindered. Free speech.
Positive Duty - A duty To " " " - morally obliged to do somethin
Negative Duty - A duty not to engage in particular actions
Pogge thinks Justice is a set of positive obligation (Positive Duties).
They are interested in using the least controversial premises.
3? Sources of Harm that Rich countries do to Poor countries:
1) unfair trade (substantial cause) - e.g. Agricultural subsidies
2) internal legal system which recognizes de facto authorities in power
3) sale of natural resources
4) lending priviledges (de facto authority takes the money and runs, leaving the country with debt)
Riss:
Geographic Growth Theory is based on geograhical factors, quality of human resources, and transport costs. Local factors. Think geographic determism of "Guns, Germs, and Steel".
Integration Growth Theory is about globalalization, and international market integration. Global explanation, unlike the other two theories.
Institutional Growth Theory is about laws, rights, and civic institutions. Local explanation, again.
He thinks the institutional theory/view is most promising. In part because he thinks that the other two theories a funneled into it. Institutions are the foundation in his view.
Even if he is right about the empiricism, is he right that it dictates his theoretical, normative view? If you hold Rawls' perspective, sure.
If you don't take his position, it seems reasonable that if we had a 'decently plausible' way of installing government and institutions, and if it seemed the best option, that developed nations should impose such a thing on developing nations.
Feb 16
Coercion accounts. Blake and Nagel -
Only a nation-state coerces in this way, and thus we have distributive justice at this level. Not at international.
Blake - Formal legal coercion. Blake is about property.
Riss:
What makes international coercion different (of the wrong kind to activate global justice) from nation-state coercion.
678, Blake discussion - perfect abstract of Blake
1) International organizations don't really coerce.
2) Domestic states are required for autonomy.
3) Only domestic states coerce immediately.
4) Only states coerce on property.
5) international coercion exists, but is different in kind (and weaker, essentially), not activating justice.
Riss - immediacy of state coercion - Geographical logcations don't matter.
That immediacy has two dimensions: 1) legal and 2) political
Legal--
1) Directness (physical/geographical control over you and your property)
2) Pervasiveness
Political--
1) Profundity
Necessary for the realization for basic moral rights
690 stronger answer
691 weaker answer
Riss thinks that directness, pervasiveness, profundity types of coercion from domestic nations spill out to the international scene, but only in a weaker sense than we see in the nation-state.
Feb 21
Caney - Cosmopolitan, expansive theories of justice. There aren't any separate theories of global justice from domestic justice. The sorts of arguments which are valid for domestic work exactly the same for global justice.
He gives you 5 arguments for it, however - any of them are sufficient.
-Contractarian
-Consequentialist
-Right's based
Cosmopolitanism is defined by 3 kinds of considerations:
1) Individualism - the idea that human individuals are the ultimate source of moral value and moral concern. Individuals rather than states. Cooperatives might or might not have value, but they only matter in virtue of the individuals which comprise them.
2) Universality - moral value or concerns attach themselves to all peoples everywhere. They have a universal scope. All humans, equally, are subject to this moral concern.
3) Generality - There are no 'special moral concerns'. Like, moral obligations among a class of peoples or something.
Sometimes used to define people who simply have a robust account of distributive justice.
Note that cosmopolitanism doesn't necessary commit you to any institutions (like a global gov. or something).
Caney isn't offering a systematic account of global justice, but rather that global distributive justice is of a seamless piece of a web of justice, such that if there X for domestic justice then there is also X for global justice.
Two types of contractarian theories -
1) Institutional
2) (doesn't really give it a name, but we say for class:) Universal Interests
Of 1), there are 2 types
1a) Beitz
1b) Pogge
Of 1a), there are two arguments:
1a1) Natural resources (not very institutional)
1a2) Global basic structure argument
1a1 - Nat. resources seem to be arbitrary, and thus it seems nobody can have a true claim to them. There should be a 'global resource tax'. Anytime that you took/used/exploited a natural resource, you have to pay for it, so that resource poor nations aren't at a loss. It equalizes the value of natural resources across the world.
1a1 is instutitonal because it still sees justice as attaching itself to institutional relationships. in this case, it arrises out of global basic structures. And, he thinks those global basic structures already exist.
1a2 - What is is about basic structures that matter? It isn't that they are mutally advantageous. instead, it just had to do with the productive of benefits and burdens.
Caney worries (111) (against any kind of institutionalism) - distributive justice concerns entitlements, but global basic structures just don't seem to be related in any way to these entitlements.
'Arbitrary differences' are used differently for Caney and Rawls. Caney thinks arbitrary is quite universal a concern for justice. Arbitrary only matters in more limited circumstances for Rawls. If there are arbitrary differences in natural resources, then why not make the same argument for arbitrary differences in IQ. Should we tax people for high IQs?
1b) Also institutional, but in a funny kind of a way. Pogge is interested in negative duties not to harm (don't harm). That is an institutional kind of duty, in his view, because one can only have this duty as a member of an institutional. Because you are a member of an institution that you are on the hook, so to speak.
Caney's point is that this is fine, but just vecause one has a negative duty not to harm does not entail that this is the limit of our duties. Perhaps we have other duties in addition, which is demanded by distributive justice.
Caney is against institutionalism because it violates his cosmopolitanism
2) Moral persons should have a global difference principle. Beitzian contractarian, "so long as you are a person, you should count in the original position".
Feb 23
Caney - Utility/Consequentialist
Principle of Rescue - If you can prevent something bad without sacrificing something of similar moral value, then you should do it.
Rights-based approaches - rooted in the idea of human rights. There are central human goods are are so important, they ought to be codified as rights. It seems that this can lead to cosmopolitanism very easily.
Subsistence seems to be an especially basic and especially foundational right as it is a the precondition to enjoying all the other sorts of rights. Substistence is a super-right.
Hohfeld - Liberty right (free to pursue) vs. Claim right (duties towards). Liberty right to substistence is weaker than the claim right.
---------------------------------
Brock - Cosmopolitan
Essentially agrees to Rawlsian method, but disagrees with the "Difference principle" output. She has a more conservative output, namely social minimum.
International institutions can, in some ways, undermine domestic and local institutions.
Pogge issues: negative duties not to harm
Resource Privilege - Any gov's right to sell resources on the open market (harms people, cause it can steal nat. resources)
Borrowing Privilege - Leaders can put country into debt, and they can steal it, and leave the country screwed
Unfair Trade - Subsidies that bury poor nations comparative advantage
Pogge - GLobal resource dividend is the retribution for these harmful effects
Pogge's theoretical claim not to harm is not controversial, but his empirical claims 'that we are harming other nations' are controversial.
Feb 28
Pogge-
We cause the poverty. It is, in some way, our fault that others are poor. We shouldn't harm people, and if we do, then we owe them redistribution.
Moral universalism--
1) all people are subject to morality
2) moral benefits and burdens are then distributed to all
3) moral benfeits and burdens are formulated generally so as not to privilege or disadvantage any person for an arbitrary reason
He defends a strong thesis:
There is extreme poverty that coudl be fixed with minimal sacrifices by developed countries. So, 2 claims being made:
1) Extreme poverty can be fixed
2) Fixing requires minimal sacrifices
Mar 2
1) It isn't realistic to expect Pogge's specific GRD proposal to be enacted in the future (but then, how far into the future? etc.)
2) Poverty relief can only realistically be achieved with massive local political reform
Risse - responding to Pogge, claims that Pogge is wrong about global harm issue. Risse thinks globalization has only been good. What is the baseline of harm, also?
Mar 14
Pogge combines theoretical elements with emprical data to make a robust retributive justice system. The empirical component of his argument does a lot of work for him. He really needs to it demonstrate that "The developed world causes the poverty in the developing world." From this 'fact', he is able to use his theoretical component to make a powerful argument for what we should do.
Cohen - His belief of what counts as Pogge's thesis - Strong Thesis - Most of the global poverty problem could be eliminated through minor modifications in the global order that would entail at most slight reductions in the incomes of the affluent
or, we have can these forms of the thesis:
1) Most poverty is caused by develoepd nations.
2) This poverty could be eliminated with minimal sacrifice by the developed nations.
vs.
Purely Domestic Poverty Thesis (PDPT) - Purely Domestic Poverty Thesis: “The persistence of severe poverty is
due solely to domestic causes
vs.
Conventional Thesis - Conventional Thesis: Some global poverty could be eliminated by changes in global rules that would not themselves result in serious moral injuries.
The strong thesis demonstrate more certainty about what sorts of claims (particular the 'most poverty' responsibility claims) that can derived from the empirical data than the conventional thesis.
In the 'independent effects' picture, poverty is overdetermined by factors. There are multiple causes of poverty and therefore multiple solutions to poverty.
Global institutions causing poverty in a nation and Domestic inst causing poverty in that nation
like:
Global inst-> poverty
Domestic inst->
Endogenous effects picture is:
Global inst -> Domestic inst -> poverty
Cohen isn't saying that Pogge is wrong about the Strong thesis, but he is saying that Pogge is wrong about how effective the empircal data can support the strong thesis. The claim is that the empirical evidence is less certain and more controversial than Pogge seems to think.
Mar 16
Pogge respondes to Cohen, explaining that Cohen fails to look at the statistics which advanced/motivated his (Pogge's) argument.
Mar 21
Pogge is claiming that the empirical evidence required to support or deny his argument is, in some sense, sparse. We need more evidence. But, given our current evidence, it is good enough to support his theory.
Poverty Shortfall for $1.25/day(ppp) - only 76 BIllion dollars required to fix this (1.4 billion are below this).
76 Billion is .17% of global GDP
" So a denial of the Strong Thesis
comes to this: there is no way that global institutional design decisions
during 1980–2005 could – without substantial reductions in the incomes
of the affluent – have been made in a more poverty-avoiding way so
as to effect, over this entire 25-year period, a 0.14% (1/700) cumulative
difference to the global distribution of household income in favor of
the poor (dealing them a $38-billion instead of a $76-billion aggregate
shortfall from the Bank’s IPL).
"
Chantes to WTO = 86.5-205billion (tarriffs on agricultural, and trade issues for ag)
GRD = $300B
HIF (TRIP)
Mar 28
SWPS, Mid-South, NASSP, RoME (conferences)
Mar 30
Unlike Pogge, Sachs thinks that the poverty of the 1.4 billion in extreme poverty is not substantially caused by the developed world. They might be slightly culpable, but not substantially.
Sachs--
Poverty is our natural state.
200 years ago, we were all peasants. Technology has allowed us to escape this.
Poor countries in our world simply need that technology or need to develop to allow for it.
Family example. They could improve through several ways:
-Savings
-Trade
-Technology
-Resource Boom
Corresponds to things which hurt:
-Lack of Savings
-Absence of Trade
-Technological reversal / Forced-Luddism or ignorance
-Natural Resource Decline
-Adverse Productivity shock
-Population Growth
Sachs
--------------
Poverty
Physical geography
Fiscal Trap
Governance Failures
Cultural Barriers
Geopolitics
Lack of innovations
Demographics
Colliers
---------
Natural Resource Trap
The conflict Trap
Land-locked with bad neighbors
Bad governance
April 4
Easterly
---------
Planners - alphabet soup of development agencies
Crit: Impractical and unaware of the particularities of each countries situation
Searchers - practical solutions to practical problems, don't have comprehensive solutions
Easterly wishes to encourage the search model of development
A lot of aid has been given, but it doesn't seem to make a difference.
Why should you be worried whether or not [aid-given] can be linked to [growth]? In my view, Justice may require we give aid even when it doesn't lead to growth.
3 Legends--
#1 Poor countries are in a dev. trap that can't be solved with a large aid-financed push
#2
#3
Sachs
------
April 11
Wellman - Defends a really strong conclusion, he defends a right, though he doesn't defend a view about how that right is best exercised. He thinks states are in their rights to refuse people seeking political asylum. That is strong. A state, by its rights, coudl seal the borders, but that might not be a good exercise of it. There might be other moral considerations which lead us to exercise the right in a very limited way, having a porous border instead perhaps.
Deonotological rights can have narrow constraints
Racist groups have a right/freedom of association. Just because we say they have this right doesn't mean we are endorsing their view.
States are associations - they have freedom of association.
It might be true that rich countries have a distributive obligation to help poor countries, but that doesn't negate their control of the borders. They can't violate your borders just because you fail to meet your financial duty to help them. The association of the state is so strong that it overcomes many other things.
Samaritanism
April 13
Wellman - progressive, real world leanings
The world is a better place if we open our borders. But, in his article, he defends the claim that states have a right to decline immigrants passing their borders. States are an association of a particular kind. Part of the right of association is the right not to associate with certain people, thus they can choose not to associate with others.
To me, why can't a person cross a geographical boundry without crossing into the association? A stronger link between the geography as a defining characteristic of the association must be drawn.
It would work in theory, but in practice, it seems that those rights are qualified by other moral concerns of justice, which in practice, will not demonstrate an actual regulation of borders.
It is easy to see this argument flowing:
Liberal foundations --> Open borders
Liberal Foundations might be at odds with democratic theory
This seems odd, because the very thing that might motivate someone towards democracy is a liberal foundation.
But, note, democracy doesn't guarantee a concern for liberties. The democracy might be against it. Take a middle eastern nation, possibly, might actually be against it. They might vote for genocide or whatever.
There is a story about howto justify a particular government's political/coercive power.
But, that sort of argument doesn't necessarily lead to open borders, but rather, perhaps to closed borders.
Democratic Theory --> Closed Borders
human rights are ulti-
mately viewed as constraints upon, and in tension with, the right of a demo-
cratic people unilaterally to control its own boundaries
self-determination, we the people are about this, and that entails control over one's borders
The tension between democratic theory and liberalism is very real, and a prime example is the open/closed borders.
Abizadeh believes this is false. He claims that democratic theory actually leads to open borders.
My thesis is that,
according to democratic theory, the democratic justification for a regime of
border control is ultimately owed to both members and nonmembers
First, a democratic theory of popular sovereignty requires
that the coercive exercise of political power be democratically justified to
all those over whom it is exercised, that is, justification is owed to all those
subject to state coercion. Second, the regime of border control of a bounded
political community subjects both members and nonmembers to the state’s
coercive exercise of power. Therefore, the justification for a particular
regime of border control is owed not just to those whom the boundary
marks as members, but to nonmembers as well
non-members when crossing borders seem to obviously be subject to the coercive powers of the state
'demos thesis'
The unbounded demos thesis does not merely support the argument for
why democratic theory intrinsically requires that regimes of border control
be jointly determined by citizens and foreigners (unless democratically del-
egated to citizens). It also shows why the most important intrinsic democ-
ratic argument—the self-determination argument—for a polity’s unilateral
right to determine its own regime of border control fails.
pg 49, 1st full paragraph.
May 2
Coercion & claims state acting in the name of the people...forgot who says this.
Blake makes similar but diff argument.
May 4
1)
1st OP for Domestic Justice
2nd OP for liberal peoples
3rd OP for decent peoples (that show they too can buy into the 2 principles)
There is just a duty of assistance.
2)
Nagel's view - Coersion and Representationism. Weird part, if it doesn't claim to act int he name, then it isn't a state, and it doesn't require the justifcation.
Blake and Risse are more about Coercion.
3)
4) Seeker vs. planners - Why history of global dev. is checkered at best...
5) Addressed to a specific problem; he is defending a democratic theory for open borders. He thinks democratic theory and liberal concern come apart (for alot of reasons). Democratic theory is aimed at justifying the coercive power of the state, esp. because everyone seems equal and partaking in self-determination. This seems to come apart from issues about open borders, in fact, perahps it is a justifcation for closed borders.
```
Overview of why Computing Ethics is a real topic:
Technology is ‘logically malleable’ – it can be shaped and created to do almost anything.
Computing has really revolutionized and expanded Information ethics.
Because of technological permeation and integration, we have new and complex set of ethical problems.
Policy Vacuums & Conceptual Muddles
Moor disagrees with 2 positions:
“Routine Ethics” position – nothing special about them
Moor rebuts: this position underestimates the changes occurring in our conceptual framework
Cultural Relativism – computing is a global phenomenon, and as such, to proponents of CR, computing ethics is largely an intractable problem. CR don’t agree to universalized normative claims, which makes cross-cultural concerns, like computing, intractable.
Moor rebuts: this position underestimates the stability or our core values.
“And yet our fundamental values, based on our common human nature, give us an opportunity for rational discussion even among cultures with different customs. The purpose of this chapter is to explain how it is possible to have both reason and relativity in computer ethics. Only with such an understanding is responsibility in computer ethics possible.”
Computers are ‘logically malleable’ – they are general purpose machines.
Computers are also ‘informationally enriching’. Computerized activities are informationalized – we must conceptualize those activities in terms of information. The activites and conception of those activities become informationally enriched – particularly when there is a feedback loop from the output of these computerized activities back into the activities and conceptions of the activities.
Information processing is becoming the salient/defining feature of almost all activities.
Example: Money. Moving from a paper-based economy to a digital economy. Monetary transactions are increasingly grounded in information. Money may come to be conceived as an elaborate computable function among people. In the computer age the concept of money is becoming informationally enriched. Automated trading included.
Example: Warfare. Computerization and automation (e.g. drones) continue to revolutionize it. In fact, cyberwarfare is itself a new branch of warfare itself. Cryptography is old, but it has exploded in complexity because of technology. But, there are also new ones, like infecting Iran’s computer systems at a nuclear facility, designed specifically to destroy the nuclear hardware and set their nuclear program back 4-5 years. Also, power-grid, etc.
Example: The concept of Privacy, which is covered later paper.
Example: The legal concept of copyrights and intellectual property.
Computers do more than merely store data. They extract, sort, search, access, change and produce data in ways that we can’t do otherwise.
Computer ethics has two parts:
the analysis of the nature and social impact of computer technology
the corresponding formulation and justification of policies for the ethical use of such technology.
Policy vacuum. Examples:
should a supervisor be allowed to read a subordinate’s email?
Or should the government be allowed to censor information on the Internet?
Initially, there may no clear policies on such matters. They never arose before. Sometimes it may be simply a matter of establishing some policy, but often one must analyze the situation further.
Is email in the workplace more like correspondence on company stationary in company files or more like private and personal phone conversations?
Is the Internet more like a passive magazine or more like an active television?
Conceptual Muddle. Solutions require a cycle of conceptual clarification and policy formulation and evaluation which may have to be repeated on an ongoing basis.
“Because computers are logically malleable, they will continue to be applied in unpredictable and novel ways, generating numerous policy vacuums for the foreseeable future. Moreover, because computerized situations often become informationally enriched, we will continue to find ourselves in conceptual muddles about how precisely to understand these situations.”
“Reasons within Relative Frameworks” - Cultural Relativism.
His “position is that all interesting human enterprises, including computing, are conducted within frameworks of values. Moreover, these frameworks can be rationally criticized and adjusted. Sometimes they are criticized externally from the vantage point of other frameworks and sometimes they are critiqued internally. Some value frameworks, such as those in an emerging science like computer science, undergo rapid evolution. Other value frameworks are more stable. Value frameworks provide us with the sorts of reason we consider relevant when justifying particular value judgments. Human values are relative, but not simply in the shallow sense of Cultural Relativism. Our most basic values are relative to our humanity, which provides us with a shared framework in which to conduct reasoned arguments about what we ought to do.”
Sounds Heideggerian.
“To say that values are relative means that they are not absolute; it does not mean they are random or uncommon or uncriticizable.”
Two-step presentation:
Argument for the ubiquity, inescapability, and relativity of non-ethical, everyday-type values.
Argument for reason and use of relativized ethical values.
Non-ethical values saturate everything in our daily lives. Values of a discipline are included. Moor uses computer science as his example discipline. What makes a good computer program? Widely shared programming and syntax standards among computer scientists seem to be the sort of non-ethical values of the discipline. Given these standards, we can evaluate programs or other activities or objects within a discipline. These standards are not subject to empirical verification (objected-oriented programming->bug-free + easy to maintain code – causal fact vs. values)
These non-ethical values and standards seem relative to the consensus of those in the discipline. Disciplines are defined by consensus, and progress in require these relative values.
“non-ethical values play a role in our decision-making in all interesting human activities, including computer science. No escape to a safe realm of pure facts, even in science, is ever possible. The standards of value of a discipline may be widely shared, implicit, and go unnoticed, but they are always there. Moreover, every discipline has sufficient agreement upon what the standards are to conduct its business. Without some consensus on what is valuable, progress in a discipline is impossible.”
Moor believes that the best way to ground ethical judgments, particularly in computer ethics, is “by asking whether we share any values as human beings. What do we have in common? I believe that there is a set of core values which are shared by most, if not all, humans.” Those core values that we share in common are what ground ethical judgments in Moor’s eyes.
Whatever values which all human cultures share in common are the core values. Least common denominator – or it is mushy, less calculated, and more flexible than that?
“These values provide some evolutionary advantages. Individuals and cultures that completely neglect the core goods will not exist for very long.”
This seems like a different standard, an empirical standard. Also, does it commit the naturalistic fallacy?
It seems as though Moor is implying that if we can accept the normativity of non-ethical values and standards as being grounded or justified from a type of ‘core-values’ or consensus amongst a discipline that we should therefore be willing to accept the normativity of ethical values and standards as being grounded and justified from a broader consensus among all people, the human core values.
[Metaethics, normative ethics, applied ethics] – [Moral realism vs. Moral anti-realism] [CR is moral anti-realist] Where does the “core values” argument sit?
Moor believes his “core values argument” answers cultural relativism. CR charges there are no universal moral claims, only claims which are specific to cultures, and normativity seems bound to cultures or ‘spheres of life’. CR also (fallaciously) claims (universally, lol) that we cannot judge or criticize other cultures ethical structures or value systems. Moor believes we should be able to reason, debate, and criticize values, even those of other cultures.
The Core values are supposed to be pseudo-universal moral claims which humans, by consensus, have constructed. The core values are relativized not to specific cultures, but rather to all cultures (or perhaps even more broadly, to humanity as a whole). This may rebut CR’s essential claims, but it doesn’t seem to escape moral anti-realism (which is terrible). Constructivism and “values by consensus” fails to produce objective, moral truths which are independent of us (usual characteristics of ‘universal’).
He claims (as a matter of fact) that relative doesn’t mean random. This seems to imply that he thinks he is above the charge of moral relativism. Perhaps he is above it from the position of moral anti-realism, but he isn’t above the charge from the position of moral realism.
Where does the “core values” argument sit? It looks anti-realist. Perhaps he thinks this is a realist argument, it is difficult to tell. Either he’s wrong about this being a realist argument or he’s taking up the anti-realist position (I haven’t much to say if this is where he starts – we can’t go on to build normative ethical theories, in my view, if we can’t agree to moral realism).
Generic Tech Issues at work
Using company technology for personal use - Stealing “time” from your employer.
Using company phone or laptop for personal things.
Web surfing
Should you be doing it? When and where?
Content requirements - NSFW practices
Borderline between research and personal surfing - navigating company policy. Some are lax, some aren’t.
Break-time vs. work-time.
Bypassing firewalls and content filters, etc.
Basic communication ethics - don’t send raunchy images in emails.
What happens when you leave the company? Ethical IT exits. (“hacking is bad, mmmm’kay”)
```
Husserl’s “phenomenology is committed to an ideal of fully justified knowledge”<<ref "1">> and the “task of phenomenology is to thematize and elucidate the philosophical core questions concerning the being and nature of reality.”<<ref "2">> In his view, the natural attitude and the positive sciences are laden with epistemological and metaphysical presuppositions, assumptions which prevent their realms from attaining an apodictic status (on their own). Because these realms, their perspectives and conclusions included, do not rest upon an apodictic foundation, in Husserl’s eyes, they cannot lead to fully justified knowledge. I believe Husserl thinks philosophy is the apodictic science. So, if one’s arguments/perspectives aren’t apodictic, then one isn’t doing philosophy.
Husserl’s phenomenology is a part of the apodictic science. He is presenting a rigorous epistemological method for producing (what he believes amounts to) the only valid philosophical claims, including claims about ontology. By using this epistemic method, one can begin the task of phenomenology, which is about making apodictic claims concerning ontology. Given problems of other minds, the external world, etc., it looks as if the apodictic science will maintain most of the usual a priori matters (logic), but strongly reduce the range of a posteriori matters available to us (mostly reduced down to matters of consciousness), and thus reduce the range of ontological claims one can validly make. This epistemic method disables our access to large swathes of metaphysics, which are not apodictic in Husserl’s eyes. The phenomenological reduction looks to be an introspection of consciousness, suspending any assumptions about an external world and any deductions made from those assumptions. With this method of doubt, ontology shrinks to consciousness. It looks as if only the introspection of consciousness has any apodictic a posteriori claims concerning ontology.
Interestingly, Husserl does not hold that the task of phenomenology is “to investigate pure subjectivity in isolation and separation from both world and intersubjectivity”<<ref "3">> or “to explore this autonomous, isolated, and worldless subject.”<<ref "4">> I think, however, he should hold that these are the tasks of phenomenology, at least until he has apodictic proof of a world external to consciousness (not an easy thing to prove). Given his method (regardless of how he chose to employ it), if he isn’t immediately arriving at the above tasks, then I think he has performed this method of doubt incorrectly. Perhaps Husserl’s method is not as hyperbolic as I’m thinking. If it isn’t, then I can understand why Husserl doesn’t hold these as the tasks of phenomenology. If I am wrong, then either I don’t understand what his method actually is (if it is not hyperbolic) or how he deduces his conclusions about the task of phenomenology using this (hyperbolic) method.
Of course, I can appreciate the difference between a claim being ‘apodictic’ and a claim being merely ‘probably correct.’ If it is possible to have either of them (both are available, but mutually exclusive, options) about a question or a claim, you prefer to have apodicticity. But, what about all the questions or claims which might not have apodicticity available – doesn’t ‘probably correct’ count as proper reasoning? Isn’t ‘probably correct’, which is the best reasoning possible in the circumstance, count as being just as good as apodictic reasoning in a circumstance which allows for apodictic reasoning? If not, why not? Husserl seems to dismiss non-apodictic reasons, and I’m not sure if that is acceptable. He’s made a gigantic assumption about the nature of apodictic and non-apodictic reasoning, an assumption that isn’t itself apodictic. I fear his method can’t live up to its own standard.
Within Husserl’s argument for how we should do philosophy is an assumption, an ethical one which is under the domain of epistemology, and therefore possibly subject to itself (particularly if it is a broad claim about epistemology). I believe he is claiming (even if not explicitly) that apodicticity is so uncompromisingly vital that it alone is the underlying value and standard for true philosophy. It seems to be a Cartesian assumption, as well. But shouldn’t these assumptions about apodicticity also be subject to doubt? If they should not, why not? I have to be convinced that apodicticity is all that important. The overall value of apodicticity looks to be in far more doubt (at least as far as I can see) than something like a foundational law of logic (e.g. law of non-contradiction) which is ironically valued because it offers a type of apodicticity.
Ethics is destroyed by the epistemic method which is at the base of phenomenology. Ethics within the perceived external world is destroyed.How should I live? What should I do? Answers to these questions can be doubted. You need to suspend your beliefs, but how can you act without some beliefs? Acts seems innately tied to ethical/value assumptions. And if those some assumptions are honestly suspended, then future possible acts are suspended. You are frozen in the world. Ethics within the realm of consciousness, even after bracketing perception, is destroyed.
I can agree to this epistemic method leading to doubt about metaphysics, but I don’t see how it destroys metaphysics.
A curious assumption about apodicticity is that deductions made from an apodictic foundation are themselves apodictic. Let us call this feature apodictic-preservation (as it reminds me of the concept of truth-preservation in logic).
Assumptions are not justified (by definition). And, anything built upon the foundation of one or more assumptions is not fully justified either.
We need to examine whether or not whatever claims he does make about the value and nature of apodicticity are actually apodictic themselves – do his assumptions (which perhaps are only granted tentatively) survive his own method (or spirit of his method)?
Perhaps we have all have (implicit or explicit) a list of all the assumptions which don’t need justification (law of non-contradiction, etc.). Everything else we hold is inferred from and subject to the demands of the list. Is this list, which itself could be an assumption, a member of itself or does it need justification? If it needs justification, the justifying power comes from members of that list.
If it needs justification, does
For Husserl, the assumptions of the natural attitude and the positive sciences don’t make the list. How do you go about constructing that list? Is the standard apodicticity?
Even if we grant a bootstrapped method, where we tentatively assume the value of apodicticity, even the method must doubt that claim itself and justify. Where is this fully justified knowledge concerning the value of apodicticity?
I can understand that this method of thought is at least an interesting avenue, but I don’t want to call it the only avenue just yet.
I have serious worries about apodicticity, particularly concerning any claims which required inference and/or deduction. It seems a good idea that we should allow for a margin of error in our own attempts at deduction and inference. Even in doing logic, even when you know the rules of inference inside and out, and even when you take small obvious steps, you should be worried that you might have messed up (it is very possible that we don’t have perfect minds) – shouldn’t you be open to the possibility that you got it wrong?
Which inferences are apodictic and which aren’t? If that line isn’t clear and certain and obvious, if it is doubtable at all, then I’m not sure we can trust any inferences – inferences don’t look apodictic.
Apodicticity in inferences and deduction, rather than what is given in raw form (e.g. “I am thinking”) is doubtable. Sometimes you’ll get it wrong, that is why you come back to it over and over. I can never really believe that “I am not thinking,” but I can doubt almost all, if not all, deductions. If apodicticity is really the measure, then we won’t get much. If it isn’t, and we want to bracket still, that’s fine, but it isn’t apodictic science.
Further, I’m worried that
---
<<footnotes "1" "44">>
<<footnotes "2" "44">>
<<footnotes "3" "50">>
<<footnotes "4" "51-52">>
An interesting introductory commentary on Husserl’s philosophy is Husserl's Phenomology by Dan Zahavi. Of particular interest is the second chapter, entitled “Husserl's Turn to Transcendental Philosophy: Epoche, Reduction, and Transcendental Idealism,” especially useful for someone new to Husserl and Phenomenology. I wanted something that directly correlated with our reading in class, and so I focused on the second chapter. I’m going to cover the first half of the chapter.
Zahavi notes that Husserl’s “phenomenology is committed to an ideal of fully justified knowledge”<<ref "1">> and the “task of phenomenology is to thematize and elucidate the philosophical core questions concerning the being and nature of reality.”<<ref "2">> In Husserl’s view, the natural attitude and the positive sciences are laden with epistemological and metaphysical presuppositions, assumptions which prevent their realms from attaining an apodictic status. Because these realms, their perspectives and conclusions included, do not rest upon an apodictic foundation, in Husserl’s eyes, they cannot lead to fully justified knowledge. I believe Husserl thinks philosophy is the apodictic science. So, if one’s arguments/perspectives aren’t apodictic, then one isn’t doing philosophy. Husserl’s phenomenology is supposed to reside within the domain of apodictic science. He is presenting a rigorous epistemological method for producing valid philosophical claims, including claims about ontology and experience with which phenomenology is concerned.
Given problems of other minds, the external world, etc., it looks as though the apodictic science will maintain most of the usual a priori matters (logic), but strongly reduce the range of a posteriori matters available to us (mostly reduced down to matters of consciousness). Phenomenology appears to focus upon these apodictic a posteriori matters. Interestingly (at least for the background I come from), and as alluded to before, this epistemic method disables our access to large swathes of metaphysics, which are not apodictic in Husserl’s eyes.
Naïvely, it appears as if the phenomenological reduction is some sort of an introspection of consciousness, suspending any assumptions about an external world and any deductions made from those assumptions. It looks as if only the introspection of consciousness has any apodictic a posteriori claims.
As Zahavi points out, Husserl does not hold that the task of phenomenology is “to investigate pure subjectivity in isolation and separation from both world and intersubjectivity”<<ref "3">> or “to explore this autonomous, isolated, and worldless subject.”<<ref "4">> I think this runs counter to my initial, naïve, view of how one carries out Husserl’s phenomenological reduction, and where this reduction brings us to. In some sense, I thought of act of bracketing as limiting our ability to act and live in the supposed external world, forcing me into a quasi-sensory deprivation chamber in my mind. I’m pretty sure I have this wrong. Exactly how and why, I hope to find out in further reading.
<<footnotes "1" "Zahavi, Dan. Husserl's Phenomenology. Stanford, Calif: Stanford University Press, 2003: 44">>
<<footnotes "2" "Ibid.">>
<<footnotes "3" "Ibid., 50">>
<<footnotes "4" "Ibid., 51-52">>
In my last report, I chose to investigate the second chapter of Husserl's Phenomenology by Dan Zahavi, which was directly about the phenomenological and transcendental reductions. Oddly, I could not find the middle step, the eidetic reduction, in this chapter. Interestingly, the eidetic reduction is found in the first chapter, entitled “The Early Husserl: Logic, Epistemology, and Intentionality.” In this chapter, and in order of appearance, Zehavi covers Husserl s criticism of psychologism; the concept of intentionality; notions of act, meaning, and objects; signitive and intuitive givenness; the notion of evidence; categorical objects and wesensschau; and a brief introduction to phenomenology and metaphysics which sets up for the second chapter. The eidetic reduction is discussed in the last parts of the first chapter.
Zehavi points out that “one of the tasks of phenomenology is precisely to overcome and replace the narrow empiristic concept of experience with an enlarged one, and to clarify all of its different forms, be they the intuition of essential structures, of apodictic evidence...”<<ref "1">> Essentialism is at the heart of the eidetic reduction, and it seems to be the study of the essential types, categories, and structures of experience. Also, eidetic structures are just self-evident in the experience itself.
We are provided with a distinction between formal and material ontology. Formal ontology is “the discipline that investigates what it means to be an object… it is not concerned with the differences between various types of objects, but in that which is unconditionally true for any object whatsoever. The work of a formal ontology is consequently to be found in the elucidation of such categories as quality, property, relation, identity, whole, part, and so on.”<<ref "2">> In contrast, material (also referred to as ‘regional’) ontology “examines the essential structures belonging to a given region or kind of object and seeks to determine that which holds true with necessity for any member of the region in question.”<<ref "3">>
The eidetic reduction (or variation) is “a kind of conceptual analysis where we attempt to imagine the object as being different from how it currently is. Sooner or later this imaginative variation will lead us to certain properties that cannot be varied, that is, changed and transgressed, without making the object cease to be the kind of object it is.”<<ref "4">> This method of thinking allows us to understand what differentiates essential and accidental features or properties of objects. The eidetic reduction is the pursuit of knowledge of the structure of experience; it is thinking about the fundamental differences between categories such as mathematical, physical, mental, and other objects (such as art).
<<footnotes "1" "Zahavi, Dan. Husserl's Phenomenology. Stanford, Calif: Stanford University Press, 2003: 37">>
<<footnotes "2" "Ibid., 38">>
<<footnotes "3" "Ibid.">>
<<footnotes "4" "Ibid., 38-39">>
Husserl’s Phenomenology: Apodicticity, Logic, and Objectivity.
In this paper, I hope to explore the claim of apodicticity of Husserl’s phenomenology. I will consider why Husserl is interested in apodicticity, what he means by apodicticity, and how he believes phenomenology yields apodictic results. I am unsatisfied that he reaches his goal, unless he lowers the standards of apodicticity and objectivity.
In Logische Untersuchungen, Husserl considers how knowledge is possible and what conditions must be met in order for one to have knowledge.<<ref "1">> He criticizes psychologism, which argues epistemology is naturalistically “concerned with the cognitive nature of perceiving, believing, judging, and knowing” and thus claims the status of logic requires empirical investigation and verification.<<ref "2">> This is a large error in Husserl’s view, he thinks logic and mathematics, for example, are factual, real, empirical objects, but rather that logic and mathematics are ideal laws or structures. Husserl associates logic and mathematics with a sort of certainty which empirical investigations can’t provide.
Psychologism fails, in Husserl’s view, because it attempted to empirically reduce ideal things to real, factual things (like naturalistic objects). The object of knowledge, in this case, logic or mathematics, is an ideal object, is distinguished from the act of knowing, although the two are connected (they must be if we are to know any logical and mathematical truths).<<ref "3">> Husserl believes that in order to understand ideality and this connection between the object of knowledge and act of knowing, we must investigate consciousness, but not as a natural and empirical examination (as psychologism would have us do).
No truth is a fact, i.e. something determined as to time. A truth can indeed have as its meaning that something is, that a state exists, that a change is going on etc. The truth itself is, however, raised above time: i.e. it makes no sense to attribute temporal being to it, nor to say that it arises or perishes (Hua 18/87 [109-110]).
The truth that 2 + 3 = 5 stands all by itself as a pure truth whether there is a world, and this world with these actual things, or not (Hua 9/23).
It seems as if Husserl is claiming that logic (of which mathematics is a subset) is objectively true, and that it is true independent of our existence. What does Husserl claim to be the ontic status of the logical truths which are independent of us? I don’t know. He seems to push a sort of Platonism in his early work, but a bit later, it seems as though he is so vehemently against metaphysics that he can’t really hold onto this kind of objectivity of logical truth.
To know a logical truth seems to be the epitome having certainty in Husserl’s philosophy. It is intuitively obvious and evident that, for example, P = P. When we know a logical truth, we have no doubt about it. We are certain about it; it is apodictically given to us. This sets the standard for what counts as ultimate knowledge in Husserl’s philosophy.
The root of Husserl’s phenomenology is the pursuit of certainty – apodictic knowledge. Adequacy is not enough, he seeks absolute indubitability.<<ref "4">> “An apodictic evidence is not only certain evidence of its objects but is also ‘‘the absolute unimaginableness (inconceivability) of their non-being’’ (Hua I,
p. 56; 1977, p. 16).”<<ref "5">> This is a very strong conception of knowledge as fully justified belief. Husserl’s initial conception of apodicticity does not seem to admit of degrees. You either have apodictic belief or you don’t. This raises the question: Is knowledge itself infallible – if you have it, do you definitionally possess the truth? This is an radical view, one which Husserl may have originally accepted, but perhaps moved away from.<<ref "6">>
We may think of certainty, or apodicticity (which I will use interchangeably), as an extreme epistemic property of beliefs. Even if Husserl would agree to a distinction between knowledge and certainty, he would have to argue that certainty is either the singularly highest degree of knowledge or a higher kind of knowledge.
Phenomenology, as the apodictic science, is theoretically-speaking, an infallible method for achieving certain belief, i.e. knowledge. The process as a practice, however, the implementation of the method, is filled with fallibility. According to Hopp, agent-fallibility is the problem.
This is highly analogous to logic. Logic, as a method, is said to be truth-preserving. The theoretical steps and the method itself can only take you from one truth to another truth. Phenomenology, likewise, preserves apodictic belief. In Logic, we use deduction, in phenomenology, we use analyze what intuitively given to us. The problem in practicing logic is that I as an agent can fail to apply it – I am fallible. The same is true for practicing phenomenology.
Unfortunately, the analogy becomes weakens when in the method of verification. Logical deductions use small steps, clearly written – nothing is more precise and spelled-out than logic. The steps are obviously reliable and we are certain of them. Logic is also methodologically simple in some sense. Logic is a method that is testable by a computer – it is that mindless (I use the word with the utmost respect for logic) of an activity. Verification and replicability seem very straightforward in logic. Phenomenology, however, is quite the opposite of being mindless. Husserl distinguishes the analogy:
Phenomenology carries out its clarifications in acts of seeing, determining, and distinguishing sense. It compares, it distinguishes, it connects, it places in relation, it divides into parts, it separates off moments. But it does all this in the act of pure seeing. It does not engage in theory or mathematical construction; that is, it offers no explanations in the sense of deductive theories. (Hua II, p. 58; 1999, p. 43)
The analogy breaks at the methodological requirements. This points also toward different epistemic domains. Husserl’s phenomenology has a larger epistemic domain than logic, being concerned not only with truth, but also belief. This is where the analogy breaks down. Apodicticity is much larger in scope and stronger in its epistemic claim than truth-preservation.
Phenomenology, as a method, in some sense, can’t be separated from agents, the steps aren’t as clear, and the verification is based on intersubjectivity of other minds. The method seems flawed because it functions in virtue of agents.
Problematically, Husserl believes objectivity comes from intersubjectivity. This doesn’t necessarily make the method infallible, but it makes it much harder to see why it is infallible. Why should we believe that intersubjectivity amounts to objectivity? I don’t know. A group of phenomenologists may be less fallible than merely an individual phenomenologist, but I see no reason to think together they are infallible. Insofar as the method can be separated from the agents, but I don’t really understand what it means to separate this method its practitioners. Perhaps in the most theoretical sense, phenomenology may be infallible, but the practice does not appear infallible – it may never, practically speaking, lead us to apodictic beliefs.
In the end, I’m much more sympathetic to phenomenology without apodicticity. A healthy amount of doubt, and relatively strong justification (but not absolute), is prudent and fruitful.
It is thus a bit harder for us to see why this is as rigorous as logic. Phenomenology, as Husserl lays it out, is supposed to lead us to apodictic belief, but the method seems mushy.
And, what does this hold for the nature of knowledge in general. He says:
Knowledge can be characterized as an identification or synthesis between that which is intended and that which is given (Hua 19/539, 566), and truth as an identity between the meant and the given (Hua 19/651-652).<<ref "7">>
Note that Husserl need not resort to truth-correspondence theory, as this synthetic relationship may exist between two intentional acts, which don’t require correspondence to anything external or factual in the world.
A claim is true as long as it can be intuitively fulfilled, and not only when it is actually fulfilled.<<ref "8">>
Normally, we think of certainty not as a property of truth, but rather as a property of belief. The subject is certain of a belief. The belief corresponds in some way to truth, and so on. Metaphysically-based paradigms of mind and truth, however, may not hold in Husserlian philosophy, particularly as his work sets out to destroy metaphysics.
This conception of apodicticity is more than an agent’s incorrigible attitude towards a belief or truth,
The apodictic science, as Husserl saw it, was supposed to be like the other science in some ways. Phenomenologists need a community to continue this endless quest for apodictic truths. One person couldn’t find all apodictic truths by themselves, they need other scientists to help them. Phenomenologists would pass on their knowledge to others, as the natural sciences do, in order for the work to continue.
The apodictic science was supposed to be analogous to the natural science in terms of confirmation. In natural sciences, journals and communities work together to confirm the validity of one scientist’s claims and findings – only through group confirmation is any theory considered to have merit. The apodictic science, as Husserl set it out, is similar in some respects. There is supposed to be a confirmation.
This is odd, however. The sort of truths with which the natural sciences deal with are very much subject to doubt, that is the very reason why a confirmation community exists. If apodicticity is as strong as Husserl initially led us to believe, then this confirmation community seems unnecessary. If confirmation is actually important, then it seems that
What is Apodictic truth?
What were Husserl’s definitions? Where did he stray?
What is Apodictic science?
Truth-preservation is analogous to apodictic-preservation.
Apodictic truth is not like the difference between necessary and contingent truths in modal logic. Necessary truths are always true, but they
In the apodictic science, we move from apodictic truths to apodictic truths.
Certainty is not merely a feeling about my belief. “Husserl himself explicitly criticizes the so-called feelings of evidence for being psychological fictions (Hua 3/46, 334) and for leading straight to relativism. One can have feelings of certainty about virtually everything, and for that reason any reference to them is useless as a criterion or even definition of truth (Hua 24/156, 2/59, 18/183).”<<ref "9">>
<<footnotes "1" "8">>
<<footnotes "2" "8">>
<<footnotes "3" "13">>
<<footnotes "4" "’ (Hua I, p. 55; 1977, p. 15)">>
<<footnotes "5" "Hopp, 4">>
<<footnotes "6" "Hopp 1">>
<<footnotes "7" "31">>
<<footnotes "8" "32">>
<<footnotes "9" "32">>
```
“When information is computerized, it is greased to slide easily and quickly to many ports of call. This makes information retrieval quick and convenient. But legitimate concerns about privacy arise when this speed and convenience lead to the improper exposure of information. Greased information is information that moves like lightning and is hard to hold onto.”
Example: Telephone numbers/names. He says this isn’t a privacy violation. Maybe. Beyond doxing, personal data warehouses and advertisers don’t always use this information for good. I think it is a privacy issue, but it seems acceptable given certain options and protections.
Example: Market purchases are recorded and used for analytics. Subject to subpoenas, but also subject to being sold to people/companies who shouldn’t have that info, and also subject to being stolen by hackers. He supposes this doesn’t violate his privacy. I am not so sure, but agree given the same options/protections.
Example: Pizza. Convenient. Kinda indignant & impersonal.
“Once information is captured electronically for whatever purpose, it is greased and ready to go for any purpose. In a computerized world we leave electronic footprints everywhere and data collected for one purpose can be resurrected and used elsewhere. The problem of computer privacy is to keep proper vigilance on where such information can and should go.”
Moor offers 3 approaches to grounding/justifying privacy.
1st approach: A standard approach developed by James Rachaels
Intrinsic Good
Instrumental values (lead to an end which is intrinsically good)
Privacy clearly has some instrumental value (e.g. preventing discrimination based on medical condition), but does it have enough instrumental value, does it lead to such a high intrinsic good, that privacy deserves a high priority in our decision making?
“Rachaels suggests that privacy is valuable because it enables us to form varied relationships with other people…Privacy does enable us to form intimate bonds with other people that might be difficult to form and maintain in public. But the need to relate to others differently may not ground privacy securely because not everyone may want to form varied relationships and those who do may not need privacy to do it. Some people simply do not care how they are perceived by others.”
2nd approach: A standard approach developed by Deborah Johnson
She sets out to make privacy an intrinsic good, proposing “privacy as an essential aspect of autonomy.”
“assuming that autonomy is intrinsically valuable and privacy is a necessary condition for autonomy we have the strong and attractive claim that privacy is a necessary condition for an intrinsic good. If privacy is not an intrinsic good itself, it is the next best thing. But, is it true that "autonomy is inconceivable without privacy"? ”
From what I can tell: “Necessary condition” sounds instrumental, “essential aspect” sounds like it is a part of the intrinsic good of autonomy (not merely a means to the end).
Thought Experiment: Tom has an epic dox on you – he has all your info, every personal detail, video/sound/documentation, etc. He does nothing with it, and it affects you in no way. The claim is that you now have no privacy, but still have autonomy. Thus, if that claim is correct, privacy is not a necessary condition of autonomy (nor is it an essential aspect).
3rd Approach: Core Values argument
“some of the values that I believe are at the core: life, happiness, freedom, knowledge, ability, resources and security. My claim is an empirical one. I am claiming that all sustainable human cultures will exhibit these values. I am not suggesting for a moment that all cultures are moral or that these goods are fairly distributed in every culture. Regrettably, they almost never are. (An ethical theory requires an account of fairness as well as an account of the core values.) What I am claiming is that every viable culture will exhibit a preference for these values.”
Privacy is not a core value, in Moor’s opinion.
“though there is a common framework of values, there is also room for a much individual and cultural variation within the framework. Let's call the articulation of a core value for an individual or a culture the ‘expression of a core value’.”
“Although privacy is not a core value per se, it is the expression of a core value, viz., the value of security. Without protection species and cultures don't survive and flourish. All cultures need security of some kind, but not all need privacy. As societies become larger, highly interactive, but less intimate, privacy becomes a natural expression of the need for security. We seek protection from strangers who may have goals antithetical to our own. In particular, in a large, highly computerized culture in which lots of personal information is greased it is almost inevitable that privacy will emerge as an expression of the core value, security.”
“Because privacy is instrumental in support of all the core values, it is instrumental for important matters; and because privacy is a necessary means of support in a highly computerized culture, privacy is instrumentally well grounded for our society. Moreover, because privacy is an expression of the core value of security, it is a plausible candidate for an intrinsic good in the context of a highly populated, computerized society.”
Privacy is instrumentally valuable for supporting Moor’s core values, and intinsinically valuable because it is an expression of security (one of the core values).
Are expressions of a core value really intrinsically good? They look entirely instrumental to me.
The nature of privacy:
“The concept of privacy has been evolving in the U.S. from a concept of non-intrusion… to a concept of non-interference… to limited information access…. Privacy is a concept that has been dramatically stretched over time as it. In our computer age the notion of privacy has become stretched even further. Now the concept privacy has become so informationally enriched that "privacy" in contemporary use typically refers to informational privacy though, of course, other aspects of the concept remain important.”
Natural privacy vs. Normative privacy.
“An individual or group has normative privacy in a situation with regard to others if and only if in that situation the individual or group is normatively protected form intrusion, interference, and information access by others… I use the general term "situation" deliberately because it is broad enough to cover many kinds of privacy: private locations such as one's diary in a computer file, private relationships such as e-mail to one's pharmacy, and private activities such as the utilization of computerized credit histories.”
Restricted Access Theory vs. Control Theory
Moor criticizes the control theory as being impractical or impossible. He thinks restricted access is practical. Included in the Moor’ restricted access is providing as much control as is possible, hence he believes he has a hybrid control/restricted access theory.
Example: Hospitals, doctors, secretaries, medical records, psychiatric interviews, billing information.
This reminds me of access controls in Operating systems. These restricted access and control theories have been at work in operating system development for decades – they are foundational topics in computer security.
Example: A shouting match between two married people in a restaurant. Waiter asks if they want his advice, they say it is a private matter.
Setting/Adjusting Policies
“In formulating policies we should try to minimize excess harm and risk”
Example: Breast cancer genetic predisposition. Records. Getting health insurance.
Legal policies to protect people
Hospital policies – setting predictive genetic testing records apart from diagnostic genetic testing records.
“The Publicity Principle: Rules and conditions governing private situations should be clear and known to the persons affected by them. In effect, we can plan to protect our privacy better if we know where the zones of privacy are and under what conditions and to whom information will be given. If an employer can read one's e-mail, then applying for a new job is done more discreetly by not using e-mail. The publicity principle encourages informed consent and rational decision making.”
“The Justification of Exceptions Principle. A breach of a private situation is justified if and only there is a great likelihood that the harm caused by the disclosure will be so much less than the harm prevented that an impartial person would permit breach in this and in morally similar situations. These exceptional circumstances should not be kept secret from future users of the policy. Hence, we need a principle for disclosure and adjustment in the policy statement itself.”
“The Adjustment Principle: If special circumstances justify a change in the parameters of a private situation, then the alteration should become an explicit and public part of the rules and conditions governing the private situation.”
```
In this paper, I explore the concepts of apodicticity and objectivity in Husserl’s phenomenology. I consider: why Husserl is interested in apodicticity and objectivity, what he means by these concepts, and how he believes phenomenology yields apodictic and objective results. In addition, I evaluate the nature and status of logic, particularly with respect to apodicticity and objectivity. I am unsatisfied with Husserl’s notion of objectivity, and I’m not convinced his phenomenology is functional unless he lowers the methodological requirements below the supremely high epistemic standards of apodicticity and objectivity. It is possible that Husserl’s concepts of apodicticity and objectivity evolved and were redefined throughout his body of work, evolving from a very high standard to a lower standard (which isn’t a bad thing), as perhaps he saw the necessity of this change given how it doesn’t seem as though his own phenomenology can live up to these original standards. It makes more sense to perform phenomenological research without having to meet Husserl’s original standards of apodicticity and objectivity. Instead, a healthy amount of doubt and a relatively strong (but not apodictically-based or completely objective) justificatory standard seem both prudent and fruitful. I conclude that charitable interpretations or reconstructions of Husserl’s phenomenology will relax these original Husserlian standards of apodicticity and objectivity.
```
Reading – A brief summary of the issue.
Examples of storage and distribution technologies
DRM (Digital Rights Management) – prevent unlawful use, access, or distribution
Encryption
Proprietary formats & codecs
Activation keys & serials
Hardware keys (dongles)
Digital watermarks
Moving away from ‘sale’ paradigm to ‘licensing’ paradigm
Aggressive anti-hack policies (world of warcraft) – reading/searching memory and current programs – slurping and analyzing your information - losing rights to your own hardware and software
Is this a failure to understand that the business model is obsolete? Server-end content (mainframe/cloud mentality) vs. client-end content. WoW private/live example.
Legal concepts of Intellectual Property (as being distinct from philosophical/ethical concepts)
Copyrights, Patents, Trademarks
Reading – Copyrights
Can’t protect concepts or principles
Protects computer databases & programs because they exhibit authorship and original expressions of ideas.
Reading – Patents
The lines between copyright and patents blur when it comes to software. They are both inventions and objects with authorship/expressions of ideas.
Discuss Patents for Algorithms, mathematics, software, symbolic logic.
Read – Trademarks
Infringement & Dilution
Digital Millennium Copyright Act
Interpretation is ongoing.
Computers and logic can do anything, and that makes interpretation very difficult. There are seriously unintuitive results of this law.
From my experience, those judges and legislatures (even with a lot of help) are not technically qualified to realize all the essentials and salient features of these ethical problems to make sound decisions.
IP Rights, particularly patents, are bought defensively. Motorola/Google. IBM is one of the few patent companies that have shown some serious altruism (and not because they are innate market disruptors like Google) – do not expect others to do this.
Law is not what we have written down – it is what is practiced. I lived in Thailand for a few years, and while it was ‘written in the law’ that one must obey traffic signs, lights, and markings, the fact is that it was never enforced or even taken seriously (except in rare circumstances). If law is what is practiced, then this document doesn’t really cover what is ‘legal’.
ICE (US Immigrations and Customs Enforcement) takedowns
Lack of due process
Defamation
SOPA, PROTECT IP Act, ACTA
Reading – ‘Fair Use’
Reading – ‘Nature of software piracy’
Reading – ‘Case against piracy’
Claim: Software piracy is increasingly engaged in for profit by professional thieves. Again, software piracy, by legal definition, is not theft. This is a complicated claim. What stage of the piracy are they talking about?
Piracy is a group effort. There are literally teams (clubs if you’re are german ;P) and digital reputations. Teams do not really make money at piracy.
There are the hackers and crackers who break the DRM, make keygens, steal keys, get around security features, and sometimes break into corporate networks to grab information. (not just software, I remember reading the last Harry Potter novel a week before it came out; I remember “Minutes to Midnight” Link park album a month before it was officially released). These tools generally become free to the public a while later (depending on how big it is).
There are people who essentially do marketing for the teams, and those who design software and aesthetic pieces for the team, and there are those who work on the releases and distribution. The releases are free and traded for either other pieces, but generally just improve a type of reputation.
Piracy is largely free and not done for profit, by and large. There are people who can make money, off advertisements, but most cases, it isn’t. There are poor nations around the world, like Thailand, where you can buy pirated software. This accounts for but a fraction of the actual piracy happening in the world.
The impact extends far and wide, harming economies worldwide, diminished taxes, revenues, and lost jobs. This is an empirical claim which is not in his favor. Most of the stats you’ll see are underwritten by copyright holders. Independent studies do not suggest this at all.
‘remove the income, remove the incentive’ – a supreme failure to understand human arts and production in history, and also a failure to understand the history of computer science. The most widely used computer software is free software, by miles. GNU licenses and free software movement. Stallman, linux, etc. incentive is there – economists are wrong to assume there is no altruism in the world. They are also wrong to assume the free-software model isn’t a working business model. Even large software developers contribute to free software/open source – Microsoft and Google for example.
Reading – ‘Case for piracy’
Reading – ‘Napster’
Professional ethics
IP Theories
Against IP Theories
```
In this paper, I explore the history and evolution of the concepts of apodicticity and objectivity in Husserl’s phenomenology. I consider: what Husserl means by and why he is interested in these concepts, and whether or not phenomenology yields apodictic and objective results. In addition, I evaluate the nature and status of logic, particularly with respect to apodicticity and objectivity.
Husserl’s philosophical views of the world evolved over time (a good thing, presumably, as this is probably true for any intelligent person). His early work was a stepping stone to his later work, and while we can trace his line of thought, we need not assume that his early work is entirely compatible with his later work. It seems as though objectivity is a concept which evolved over the course of Husserl’s work, and his early concept may conflict with his later concept. The type of objectivity derived from Husserl’s Platonism in Logische Untersuchungen seems different from the objectivity derived from his notion of intersubjectivity in Ideen. Not only are these two conceptions of objectivity possibly in conflict, but Husserl’s later notion of intersubjectivity is unsatisfying as grounds for objectivity.
Husserl’s notion of apodicticity may or may not have evolved over his life’s work. Probably, it did not – but the relationships between objectivity and apodicticity in Husserl’s early work and his later, arguably more phenomenological, work becomes difficult to comprehend. My essential worry is that Husserl’s late phenomenology fails to meet the criteria of apodicticity (in his initial and our generally agreed understanding of the word). I assume his phenomenology fails to be apodictic, as he originally intended, but it is likely that Husserl knew this himself. Perhaps he used the word apodicticity in his later work with a different meaning, a meaning which wasn’t going to short-circuit his systematic phenomenology. Even if we cannot interpret him as doing this, I think a charitable reconstruction of his late work will show that Husserl’s phenomenology has very high epistemic standards, even if it is not apodictic.
Essentially, Husserl’s phenomenology is only functional if he lowers the methodological requirements below his original and supremely high epistemic standards of apodicticity and objectivity. It makes more sense to perform phenomenological research without having to meet Husserl’s original standards of apodicticity and objectivity. Instead, a healthy amount of doubt and a relatively strong (but not apodictically-based or completely objective) justificatory standard seem both prudent and fruitful in phenomenology. I conclude that charitable interpretations or reconstructions of Husserl’s phenomenology will relax these original Husserlian standards.
In //Logische Untersuchungen//, Husserl considers how knowledge is possible and what conditions must be met in order for one to have knowledge.<<ref "1">> He criticizes psychologism, which argues epistemology is naturalistically “concerned with the cognitive nature of perceiving, believing, judging, and knowing” and thus claims the status of logic requires empirical investigation and verification.<<ref "2">> This is a large error in Husserl’s view – he thinks logic and mathematics, for example, are not factual, real (in the tangible sense of the word), empirical objects; rather, they are ideal laws or structures. Consequently, our knowledge of them and the manner in which they are known is fundamentally different from how we know empirical, factual claims. Husserl associates logic and mathematics with a sort of profound certainty, idealism, eternality, and objectivity which are epistemically superior to temporal facts and empirical investigations (which are far more subject to doubt and change). Logic and mathematics are exemplary knowledge of the highest order in Husserl’s eyes, and it remains separate from psychology and other empirical investigations. It makes sense that Husserl has used logic and mathematics as a subject to tease out foundational claims of epistemology; after all, he was a mathematician. As Stefania Centrone puts it:
<<<
[I]t is well known that Husserl’s refutation of logical psychologism leads in the Prolegomena to the identification of ‘an internally closed, independent . . . field’ of a priori truths, which constitute the domain of pure logic. Pure logic acknowledges the objectivity of contents of thinking (concepts, propositions, inferences) and studies the properties of and the logical relationships among them. It is a formal, theoretical, a priori science, independent of other sciences, and, in particular, of psychology.<<ref "3">>
<<<
Psychologism fails, in Husserl’s view, because it attempts to reduce ideal things to real, factual things (like naturalistic objects). The object of knowledge – in this case, logic or mathematics, as an ideal object – is distinguished from the act of knowing, although the two are connected (they must be if we are to know any logical and mathematical truths).<<ref "4">> Husserl believes that, in order to understand ideality and this connection between the object of knowledge and the act of knowing, we must investigate consciousness; but not as a natural and empirical examination (as psychologism would have us do). This demonstrates his preference for apodicticity and the focus on consciousness within his method of phenomenology. His view on logic also provides us a window into his early views of objectivity. Husserl says:
<<<
No truth is a fact, i.e. something determined as to time. A truth can indeed have as its meaning that something is, that a state exists, that a change is going on etc. The truth itself is, however, raised above time: i.e. it makes no sense to attribute temporal being to it, nor to say that it arises or perishes (Hua 18/87 [109-110]).
The truth that 2 + 3 = 5 stands all by itself as a pure truth whether there is a world, and this world with these actual things, or not (Hua 9/23).<<ref "5">>
<<<
It seems as though Husserl is claiming that logic (of which mathematics is a subset) is objectively true, and that it is true independent of a world and perhaps independent of us as conscious beings, as well. He is proffering a sort of Platonism in the Logical Investigations, the epitome of a theory for objectivity, in his early work. This isn’t the sort of ancient Platonism with perfect forms where objects are poor imitations. Husserl’s Platonism is still a strong view of objectivity, as truths are mind-independent. Unfortunately, it seems as though he is so vehemently against metaphysics that he can’t really hold onto this kind of objectivity in his later work. We should be mightily tempted to interpret a kind of realism in this early work, and a kind of idealism in his later work. If there is a shift from realism to idealism in Husserl’s work (which he wishes to deny in his later works), then, without a doubt, it isn’t just Husserl’s conception of objectivity which has evolved.<<ref "6">>
He starts with the objectivity of Platonism, but eventually fabricates a type of objectivity out of a collective subjectivity: intersubjectivity. What exactly is this intersubjectivity, particularly as it relates to objectivity?
<<<
[I]ntersubjectivity only exists and develops in the mutual interrelationship between subjects that are related to the world; and the world must be conceived as a common and public field of experience (cf. Hua 8/505, 15/373, 13/480, Ms. C 17 33a).<<ref "7">>
<<<
<<<
According to Husserl, my perceptions present me with intersubjectively accessible being, that is, being that does not exist for me alone, but for everybody (Hua 9/431, 14/289, 390, 17/243, 6/469). I experience objects, events, and actions as public, not as private (Hua 1/123, 15/5). Husserl consequently claims that an ontological analysis, insofar as it unveils the being-sense (Seinssinn) of the world as intersubjectively valid, leads to a disclosure of the transcendental relevance of foreign subjectivity and thus to an examination of transcendental intersubjectivity (Hua 15/110).<<ref "8">>
<<<
<<<
Concrete, full transcendental subjectivity is the totality of an open community of I’s—a totality that comes from within, that is unified purely transcendentally, and that is concrete only in this way. Transcendental intersubjectivity is the absolute and only self-sufficient ontological foundation [Seinsboden], out of which everything objective (the totality of objectively real entities, but also every objective ideal world) draws its sense and its validity (Hua 9/344, transl. modified).<<ref "9">>
<<<
Intersubjectivity is a confirmation, consensus, and a construction of a group of phenomenologists concerning a phenomenon. Objects present themselves intersubjectively. It is because the community of phenomenologists commonly agrees and forms a consensus regarding the nature of an object that the object and our claims about it attain the epistemic status of objectivity. Objectivity in the sense that the world is composed of subjects and objects, the ontological perspective with which Heidegger breaks from Husserl (giving primacy to instrumentality instead), is maintained throughout Husserl’s body of work. As far as I can see, objectivity in the sense that truth and objects are mind-independent, like the sort found in Husserl’s initial Platonism, arguably a discussion of realism and idealism, is not clearly maintained throughout Husserl’s body of work. Phenomenological objectivity may lose the strength of his Platonic objectivity we hope to associate with logic and mathematics, favoring an epistemically weaker intersubjectivity.
Highly connected to the epistemic standard of objectivity, and probably more essential to Husserl’s starting place in Phenomenology, is the notion of apodicticity. As far as I can see, objectivity is a necessary pre-condition to apodicticity in his early work, and perhaps an argument which endangers Husserl’s objectivity will also be dangerous to his apodicticity. Objectivity and apodicticity are strongly connected notions in his early work, but in his later work they seem torn apart, and I am not sure how we can put them back together (or even if we ought to put them back together).
To know a logical truth seems to be the epitome of having certainty in Husserlian philosophy. It is intuitively obvious and evident that, for example, P = P. The opposite (~P=P) is inconceivable. When we know a logical truth, at least one as foundational and simple as this one, we have no doubt about it. We are certain about it; it is apodictically given to us. This sets the standard, as an example, for what counts as ultimate knowledge in Husserl’s philosophy.
The root of Husserl’s phenomenology is the pursuit of certainty – apodictic knowledge. Adequacy is not enough, he seeks absolute indubitability. An apodictic evidence is not only certain evidence of its objects but is also “the absolute unimaginableness (inconceivability) of their non-being (Hua I, p. 56; 1977, p. 16).”<<ref "10">> This is a very strong conception of knowledge as fully justified belief. Husserl’s initial conception of apodicticity does not seem to admit of degrees. You either have apodictic belief or you don’t.
We may think of certainty, or apodicticity, as an extreme epistemic property of beliefs. Even if Husserl would agree to a distinction between knowledge and certainty, he would have to argue that certainty is either the singularly highest degree of knowledge or a higher kind of knowledge.
Phenomenology, as the apodictic science, is, theoretically speaking, an infallible method for achieving certain belief, i.e. knowledge. When we actually go out and perform phenomenological research, we come to realize that our results somehow do not immediately live up to this infallible standard. The process as a practice, the implementation of the method, however, is filled with fallibility. According to Walter Hopp, agent-fallibility should be interpreted from Husserl’s work. George Heffernan explores even further and argues that we must consider evidence-fallibility.<<ref "11">> Do these endanger the infallibility of the method? I think a charitable interpretation will claim they do not endanger the infallibility of the phenomenological method.
These concerns are highly analogous to the epistemic foundations of logic. Logic, as a method, is said to be truth-preserving. The theoretical steps and the method itself can only take you from one truth to another truth. Phenomenology, likewise, preserves apodictic belief. In logic, we use deduction; in phenomenology, we make claims from and analyze consciousness and what is intuitively given and presented to consciousness. Just as in practicing phenomenology, the problem in practicing logic is that an agent can fail to apply it – agents are fallible.
Unfortunately, the analogy weakens when comparing methodological requirements and metatheoretic concerns of verification. Logical deductions use small steps, clearly defined – nothing is more precise and spelled-out than logic. The steps are obviously reliable and we are certain of them. Logic is also methodologically simple, in some sense. Logic is a method that is testable by a computer – it is that mindless (I use the word with the utmost respect for logic) of an activity. Verification, proofs, and replicability are very straightforward in logic.
Phenomenology, however, is quite the opposite of being mindless, and it is not straightforward in these respects either. Agent-fallibility does not seem to endanger logic’s truth preservation, as correcting the errors of agents is a simple task. This sort of correction and verification is not as simple in Husserl’s phenomenology. It is thus a bit harder for us to see why phenomenology is a science which is as rigorous or as replicable as logic. Phenomenology, as Husserl lays it out, is supposed to lead us to apodictic belief, but the method seems mushy. Husserl distinguishes the analogy:
<<<
Phenomenology in acts of seeing, determining, and distinguishing sense. It compares, it distinguishes, it connects, it places in relation, it divides into parts, it separates off moments. But it does all this in the act of pure seeing. It does not engage in theory or mathematical construction; that is, it offers no explanations in the sense of deductive theories. (Hua II, p. 58; 1999, p. 43)<<ref "12">>
<<<
The analogy breaks in domains as well. Husserl’s phenomenology has a larger epistemic domain than logic, being concerned not only with truth, but also with belief. Apodicticity is much larger in scope and stronger in its epistemic claim than the truth-preservation of logic, and perhaps this should afford it more charity than we might initially think is merited.
Phenomenology, as a method, in some sense cannot be separated from agents, the steps are not as clear as they are for logic, and the verification is based on intersubjectivity. The method seems flawed because it exists and functions in virtue of agents, which is not obviously the case for logic. It seems that agent-fallibility is more problematic for Husserl’s phenomenology than it is for logic.
Apodicticity seems to be gained by the initial phenomenological reduction, but from within this perspective not all transcendental claims appear to be apodictic. While perhaps not apodictic, these claims still seem to have a powerful epistemic status as they are claimed from within the phenomenological reduction. I think it is akin to building a house on epistemically more stable and less doubtable ground. The house itself might not be apodictic, but the grounds are apodictic. A structure built on such a stable foundation seems far less vulnerable to epistemic criticisms than structures not built upon such ground. Assuming all else being equal (neither house lives up to the standard of apodicticity), we should prefer the house built upon apodictic grounds.
In Husserl’s phenomenology, objectivity is supposed to come from intersubjectivity. This does not necessarily make the method fallible, but it makes it much harder to see why it is infallible. Why should we believe that intersubjectivity amounts to objectivity? I do not know. A group of phenomenologists may be less fallible than an individual phenomenologist, but I see no reason to think together they are inevitably infallible or objective.
Insofar as the method can be separated from the agents, we do not need to be worried about method fallibility, but I do not really understand what it means to separate this method its practitioners. Perhaps in the most theoretical sense, phenomenology may be infallible, but in practice it does not appear infallible – it may never, practically speaking, lead us exclusively to apodictic beliefs. Husserl appears to have known this himself, and maybe it did not bother him. My worry is that apodicticity is disconnecting from objectivity and losing its primacy as an epistemic foundation, in some sense, after performing the phenomenological reduction, but perhaps this is just fine.
Part of the difficulty in fleshing out the differences between the notions of objectivity and apodicticity found in the early and later work of Husserl rests upon the fact that the scope of the Logical Investigations is smaller and plainly different from Ideas. Within the domain of the Logical Investigations, apodicticity and objectivity seem to be one and the same, having realist notions. What develops in Husserl is the thought that something like this can extend outside of this domain. It is a seed to Ideas, but Husserl’s later development of phenomenology grows into something quite different and arguably idealist.
It is possible that the Logical Investigations is conducted within the natural attitude. Husserl probably did not really have the phenomenological reduction at that point in time. Once you make the move to idealism, and objectivity is constituted differently, then what does apodicticity mean and to what does it now apply? Where is apodicticity preserved in Husserl? It is preserved in the phenomenological reduction, the immanent presentation is taken to be apodictic, but the objectivities determined out of that are not necessarily apodictic. Within Ideas, a distinction is drawn between the immanent presentations and so-called transcendent objects, which are always dubious. Apodicticity is allocated to certain aspects of Husserl’s phenomenology, but not everything must meet that standard. Note that the “could always be wrong” is built into the notion of a transcendent object – we could always be wrong about the next perspective. There might be some sort of objectivity constituted about these objects, but it is a dubitable objectivity. Objectivity and apodicticity seem to go hand-in-hand within the Logical Investigations, but they seem to break apart in Husserl’s later work.
Upon reflection, we should see that Husserl’s phenomenology is easy to salvage or perhaps is misinterpreted. Husserl himself lowered his expectations concerning objectivity, and if we lower the standard for phenomenology below apodicticity (and we can still maintain a very, very high epistemic standard even without the absolute certainty of apodicticity), then his phenomenology appears to have better form and function.
---
<<footnotes "1" "Zahavi, Dan. //Husserl's Phenomenology//. Stanford, Calif: Stanford University Press, 2003: 8">>
<<footnotes "2" "Ibid., 8">>
<<footnotes "3" "Centrone, Stefania.// Logic and Philosophy of Mathematics in the Early Husserl//. Dordrecht: Springer, 2010: 101">>
<<footnotes "4" "Ibid., 13">>
<<footnotes "5" "Ibid., 9">>
<<footnotes "6" "Husserl, Edmund. //Ideas Pertaining to a Pure Phenomenology and to a Phenomenological Philosophy//. The Hague: M. Nijhoff, 1980: 418">>
<<footnotes "7" "Zahavi, Dan. //Husserl's Phenomenology//. Stanford, Calif: Stanford University Press, 2003: 74">>
<<footnotes "8" "Ibid., 110">>
<<footnotes "9" "Ibid., 110-111">>
<<footnotes "10" "Hopps, Walter. “Phenomenology and Fallibility.” //Husserl Studies //25, no. 1 (2009-04-01): 4">>
<<footnotes "11" "Heffernan, George. “On Husserl’s Remark That ‘‘[s]elbst Eine Sich Als Apodiktisch Ausgebende Evidenz Kann Sich Als Ta¨uSchung Enthu¨ Llen …’’ (xvii 164 Does the Phenomenological Method Yield Any Epistemic Infallibility?: 32–33).” //Husserl Studies// 25, no. 1 (2009-04-01): 22">>
<<footnotes "12" "Hopps, Walter. “Phenomenology and Fallibility.” //Husserl Studies// 25, no. 1 (2009-04-01): 2">>
---
''Bibliography and Works Cited''
Bell, David Andrew. //Husserl//. London: Routledge, 1990.
Centrone, Stefania.// Logic and Philosophy of Mathematics in the Early Husserl//. Dordrecht: Springer, 2010
Heffernan, George. “On Husserl’s Remark That ‘‘[s]elbst Eine Sich Als Apodiktisch Ausgebende Evidenz Kann Sich Als Ta¨uSchung Enthu¨ Llen …’’ (xvii 164 Does the Phenomenological Method Yield Any Epistemic Infallibility?: 32–33).”// Husserl Studies// 25, no. 1 (2009-04-01): 15-43
Hopps, Walter. “Phenomenology and Fallibility.” //Husserl Studies// 25, no. 1 (2009-04-01): 1-14
Husserl, Edmund. //Ideas Pertaining to a Pure Phenomenology and to a Phenomenological Philosophy//. The Hague: M. Nijhoff, 1980
Smith, Barry, and David Woodruff Smith. //The Cambridge Companion to Husserl//. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.
Tito, Johanna Maria. //Logic in the Husserlian Context//. Evanston, Ill: Northwestern University Press, 1990.
Zahavi, Dan. //Husserl's Phenomenology//. Stanford, Calif: Stanford University Press, 2003
August 25, 2011
Phenomenology is a methodology. The meaning isn’t theoretical, it comes in the practice of it (in the reductions, the bracketing, etc.).
Husserl says there are 3 reductions (but he links 1st and 3rd):
Phenomenological reduction
Eidetic reduction
Transcendental reduction
Eidos = structure of experience
Phenomenological reduction-
Husserl beings by describing his experience.
Contrast between ‘Natural Standpoint’ and ‘Phenomenological Standpoint’.
Husserl thinks of himself as the profound Modern philosopher (in league with/relation to Descartes). For him, Modern philosophy is about epistemic certainty; Husserl is also looking for apodicticity (absolute certainty, indubitable). Husserl is in an awkward position; he is founding a movement, and he’s having to found it without anyone else to appeal to who are phenomenologists. He has to appeal to non-phenomenologists, those who find metaphysics is still interesting. He takes a foothold in Descartes to reach these people.
Descartes is using a methodological operation which is hyperbolic (which Husserl seems to emulate in some sense). Modern thought, for Heidegger, is about the ‘nature of the subject’. In Descartes, the subject is “I”. That reorientation towards the primacy of “I” we see in Descartes (moving from the medieval orientation of God first, and “I” second) is a very Modern thought.
Descartes: Res cogitans (Me as a thinking thing) isn’t doubtable. Res extensa (me with a body) is doubtable – my perception could be an illusion. He is certain of his mind and his ideas, the content of his mind. He doesn’t know if these ideas correspond (skepticism), but he knows these ideas are ideas, they do exist, they are legitimate just in themselves. He goes on to his ontological argument, God isn’t a deceiver, and then he thinks he can demonstrate the existence of the world. His own existence is immediately known to him, but it takes the structure of logical inferences to know God and the rest of the argument. There is a certainty, from logic, of these things, but they are less certain, for some reason, than the immediately known (Cogito, the ego, the self) existence of ourself. In imagination, my mind seems to have control, whereas in understanding, based on perception experience, isn’t in my control, so he concludes that perception must correspond to something outside of our control that causes it.
So, what does Husserl do with it? He thinks that Descartes should have stopped at the 2nd meditation. He thinks that when Descartes turns back to God, that Descartes is going back to metaphysics, to what is dubitable. He thinks Descartes was at the doorstep of Phenomenology, but didn’t go through it.
Husserl, seeing the divide between natural science and humanities (Gheist study), believes natural science is superior in some sense, as it has a unified methodology where the humanities do not. He wants a unified methodology.
Husserl says Descartes fails to make the transcendental turn, which is all about maintaining apodicticity.
Ideas = Objects of consciousness
As long as we do not take the content of consciousness to be anything more than content of consciousness, then we maintain apodicticity. We should not extend them, or assume correspondence, lest we lose the indubitability/apodicticity. Perhaps perception is like dreaming – it may just be part of the mind, but we don’t have control over it. There is no need to (or, rather we should DOUBT the) leap to something being outside our consciousness causing our mind to perceive or to dream.
The natural standpoint has “correspondence” built into it. Husserl thinks it is possible to doubt that correspondence, and this is a problem. So, Husserl says: “let’s suspend that”. As if we can “bracket” or suspend the assumption of an external world and this correspondence.
What if we reduce our thinking to exclusively what is presented to consciousness without making the assumption of something external presenting to consciousness? There doesn’t have to be something “standing behind” the things which present themselves to consciousness.
Phenomena: What appears to consciousness as it appears to consciousness. This is the “object of consciousness”. Some of these objects perceptual objects, some value objects, etc. We must reduce the world to these objects of consciousness, these pure presentations, without making the ‘correspondence’ assumption.
There is immediacy to phenomena. They have ‘givenness’. We attend to the original givenness of phenomena just as it presents itself and nothing more.
Husserl thinks we can study phenomenological objects without having to make the metaphysical and correspondence mistakes/assumptions. Philosophy is entirely about indubitability. Looking at “things that present themselves only as they present themselves, and nothing more” allows us to maintain indubitability – it is apdoctic-preserving.
Phenomenological reduction is looking at what is given to consciousness exactly as it is given to consciousness, but nothing more.
Transcendental “I” of Kant: Joke about Hume, “Hume is the guy that wonders if he is in his house, so he goes outside his home to look inside, and finds he isn’t in his home”.
Husserl thinks that once he can get you into the phenomological reduction, he can get you to talk about the 1st person, immediate givenness, which is the pole/site to which experience is happening. That pole gives you a whole domain of transcendental experience – Husserl says this is the domain of phenomenologically reduced experience. And, we remain in the domain of apodicticity.
The next stage in the methodology of Husserl, is to turn to our experience to see if we can find ‘types’ of experience, which seems to be the heart of the eidetic reduction. To look for “essences” and intuition of essences. The Eidos is a phenomenological event. You have to perform the phenomenological reduction before you can do the eidetic reduction. Eidos isn’t vague, it is the opposite of vague. The structures of experience has the same immediacy as the experience themselves.
August 30, 2011
Husserl doesn’t think of himself as beginning with some ‘theory’. Descartes begins form doubt, and Husserl thinks he isn’t. He is operating from epoche, suspending both doubt and affirmation.
Descartes has “staged” hyperbolic doubt. Husserl’s isn’t staged in the same way. Descartes is looking to secure metaphysical assumptions with epistemic certainty.
Phenomenology is the description of the experience of perceptual objects. Describe an experience as it is experienced. We can’t talk about sense data – that is a theory, and that isn’t descriptive.
Descartes infected what could have been a pure study of what is apodictic with goals and metaphysical assumptions. He was bad at performing apodictic science.
Cogito (subject) is correlated to cogitatum (object).
Transcendence and immanence – Correlate is immanent to concsciousness, but “the cup” which is an object of perception, is a transcendent object. Transcendence is always ‘more than’ the multiplicity of perspectives you can take on something, which means it is always dubitable. It always possible that the next perspective will reveal that it is a hallucination.
Phenomenology differentiates different types of experience. Typifying experience.
September 1, 2011
Transcendental conclusion is that the ‘external world’ is nothing (not just ‘in doubt’, but in fact ‘nothing’). He moves from bracketing the external world, just in terms of doubt, to eventually dismissing the existence of the external world. Consciousness is not in the world, but the world is in consciousness.
Transcendentals are those terms which apply to everything. Kant took that notion, and used it as his term for describing the universal structures in the mind and consciousness and experience.
Structures of experience can’t be deduced a priori. You don’t theorize or speculate, you describe. Pure descriptions. These structures are experiences of any possible “experiencer”. That is an eidetic description. We can ‘confirm’ that structure intersubjectively – our descriptions should be universal and applicable and confirmable by others. Objectivity is the mutual confirmation of eidetic descriptions. If someone else has a problem with an eidetic description, then it may not be correct. We are looking for “invariant structure” – it typifies it. We aren’t looking for what is variable, but rather what is invariable – the essence of a thing.
The essence in Husserl must be a phenomenological event. The essence must appear in consciousness as a phenomenological object.
September 6, 2011
Intentional object – point perception toward and focusing upon an element
Objects have to be a specific object, it can’t just be the general field of perception – In Husserl’s view.
Perception is an act between the cogito and cogitatum. Husserl thinks we are trying to describe structures of the perception field (not perception).
Heidegger thinks instrumentality is primary, and objectiveness only comes about when instrumentality laposes. Husserl thinks objectiveness is primary, and instrumentality is attached to objects.
Modes of presentation (imagination, dreaming, etc.) are structurally different types of experience – this is part of the eidetic reduction.
Heidegger’s ontological distinction is about objects having different modes in some sense, like instrumentality and objectivity. The being of a being is about the different modes of presentation.
Husserl only has one categories: objects. He takes objects and attaches values to it. Heidegger disagrees. There are ontological differences for him –(??) the difference between a phenomenon and “how it appears”.(??)
Direct our consciousness as an intentional operation, like a ray, which focuses on an object. The entire field can’t be given to consciousness (simultaneously) in focus. The background gives implicit objects that can possibly be focused on. Things don’t appear out of nowhere, they appear out of the co-present margin. I’m vaguely aware of the possible object, it is implicitly there, and so I can smoothly transition my focus from one object to another.
Even the whiteboard behind me is in the co-present margin (even though it isn’t in my immediate peripheral vision, it is somehow in my present experience).
There are degrees of margins, As we move out, they become vaguer and vaguer, until we come to the largest margin (the vaguest notion) – he calls that the world. Husserl defines the world as the ultimate limit, the horizon, the margin of margins, within which my experience takes place in this focal center. But, notice, this isn’t the metaphysical definition, such as “all objects that exists” etc.
We operate in this space (of this room), not as if this is the only space, but with the assumption/experience/perception that there is more.
Degree of margins is just distance/space though. Perhaps the state Stadium (which is further away in distance) is less vague and marginally closer to my consciousness than the building across the street (spatially closer) that isn’t relevant to me in any way.
Proximity seems to be about relevant, and not space.
Experience is more than just perception. A loved one might be in the hospital, and I might be class, and the anticipation of knowing about how my loved one is doing is part of my experience during class, but it isn’t a perception during class.
September 8, 2011
Husserl means by ‘evidence’ something that is evident (and doesn’t require justification). All evidence is a matter of self-evidence. But, there are different grades of evidence. Some phenomena present with absolute (apodictic) evidence. There are degrees of evidence.
Phenomenology isn’t a science of fact (which can change and be doubted) , but a science of essence.
The transcendental ego is nothing more than the position in what experience (which has been reduced) presents itself to.
Eidetic structures don’t require arguments. Eidetic structures are just self-evident in the experience itself. It presents itself as the structure of that experience.
Cogitationes = acts of consciousness
Phenomenological Reduction = reduce everything to immanence
Eidetic Reduction = see patterns of types of experience. If a particular experience didn’t have that particular structure, it would be a different type of experience.
Essences are particular way of looking at phenomenological experience.
He reverses the meaning of being. Consciousness comes first, and the world is in it.
September 13, 2011
1-89 of Heidegger for next week.
Categorial intuition is grounded in a sensuous intuition. But Categorical intuition is not a generalization of sensuous intuition. Eidetic intuiton isn’t abstracting from the sensuous experience, but rather the eidetic intuition is given within the sensous experience. The structure shows itself in the same way that individual phenomena shows itself.
Eidetic reduction is not an induction/abstraction of examples of objects to determine an archetype. It doesn’t give apodicticity. The eideitic essence is found in the givenness of the phenomena. The eidetic mode of experience is given in the same way that the phenomena is given – it is plainly evident.
Series of one-sided perspectives give mutual, complementary views of the same object.
We aren’t talking about a conscious being in time/space, but rather a being which has its own structure of time. Subjective time is “inner time consciousness”. There is a structural unity in consciousness of time – this enables us to talk about temporal flow and stream of time. Like there is some sort of spatial consistency in our focal operations, there seems to be a consistency in the flow of time in the consciousness – we aren’t merely jumping from one instant to another.
There is an ‘extended presence’, not merely a point in the now, not instantaneous moment. There is a moment with momentum built into i. There are dynamic operations of time.
Protensional and retensional structures. We don’t get strobe lights or strobing sound, it doesn’t flicker, but rather consciousness seems to retain (Retension) what it just heard, and anticipates (in some sense) what it will hear. Protension is the intention (not an explicit expectation), which is some sort of anticipation.
Expecting someone to come to dinner is not protension. The protension isn’t as explicit. There is something immediately given in a stretch of time, a stretch that seems to cover more than the instant now. “Now” is stretch, from what immediately has happened before and what is just about to happen. The present has its own duration – there is a pregnant present.
The “past” and the “future” are not in this retention and protention (which are about the present ‘now’).
September 15, 2011
The phenomenological and eidetic reductions seem necessary, but perhaps the transcendental reduction isn’t, at least in order to be said to be performing Phenomenology.
We don’t abstract and induce from an experience to understand the invariant structure – it is directly given within the experience. Typology isn’t based on exemplifications (seeing examples, and proposing a type); it is a structure given directly and immediately in experience. Eidetic structures are phenomenological events for Husserl.
Modernism is driven by the need for certainty, apodicticity. Without it we have nothing to a Modern. Post-moderns aren’t looking for certainty, however. They understand the failures of looking for certainty exclusively – we can take probabilistic and inductive arguments, for example, in post-modernism (with a small “p”).
Multiple one-sided perspectives are synthetically harmonized and unified in consciousness.
The Transcendent (God, that type of object is always transcending any immediate givenness, unlike the immanent) is not The Transcendental (intentional operations). We need the eidetic insight to realize that dubitability – the transcendent object is always outside of apodicticity.
??Transcendence isn’t ‘beyond’ consciousness, it is given in experience that something is beyond??
He is accusing philosophers of failing to understand transcendence. He reinterprets it without metaphysics, but as a phenomenologist.
We have to be motivated to believe in the external world. We only assume the external world because our experience is patterned as such.
Immanent being requires nothing for it to exist. Howeve,r the world for transcendent things requires consciousness. ‘That there is a world’ is a judgment, and therefore, epistemically, that world is dependent upon consciousness to make that judgment. On the other hand, consciousness could have other experiences which don’t motivate the external world claim.
In a swarm of experience, may not motivate us to see the external world. The immanence of consciousness/experience cannot be doubted, but the external world can be doubted.
Consciousness doesn’t depend on the external world. The world could be ‘nullified’, perhaps it is a swarm in our free variation, and yet consciousness can remain intact. And, thus, consciousness is supposedly more fundamental than the world. Consciousness remains indubitable, unlike the external world.
??Golden mountains have being, an intentional being (we can predicate about them), but they don’t have existence.??
Husserl thinks we shouldn’t naturalize consciousness, by saying consciousness is in the world. All spatio-temporal systems are constituted within consciousness, they are structured in experience. The Transcendental ego, everything is within its domain, particularly when we describe them as phenomenologists.
Consciousness is a closed system, there is nothing outside of it.
Absolute being and absolute consciousness is what we pursue in Husserl’s phenomenology.
The transcendental reduction shows the primacy of consciousness. It has priority. Consciousness is transcendent to ‘the world’.
September 20, 2011
Kantian model ‘mediates’ but not Husserl. For Husserl, there is nothing given without intentional acts, but there is for Kant.
Intersubjectivity, which has built into it a group confirmation of immediately given eidetic structures and phenomenological claims, seems to indicate we can be wrong about givenness. What does it mean to be wrong about givenness, about the intuition? Apodicticity isn’t something that appears given. I’m worried that we can be wrong about givenness.
-Intersubjectivity is what accounts for objectivity.
How do ethics operate in Husserl’s phenomenology?
Heidegger thinks that Husserl’s eidetic structure is really limited. It only works when we are consciously evaluating. Items of gear, we aren’t doing that work, yet it is still a phenomenological object. When hammering with a hammer, we aren’t thinking of the hammer as a multitude of one-sided perspectives, and yet it is still phenomenological to Heidegger.
September 22, 2011
The proposal for this class is due October 11th. Make it 1,000 words. We need the topic, a real direction in the argument, the commitment cannot be vague. We need to explain what we see ourselves doing with that topic.
Method fallibility, agent fallibility. Truth preservation of logic as a method is parallel to apodictic preserveration of phenomenology as a method.
Heidegger means by intuition, direct givenness, bodily.
“Evidence” is explicated on pg. 50.- Identifying fulfillment, the fulfillment between which there is an identity between the intention and the presentation.
Some things are more or less evident. Regionality of evidence. (Ontological region –different types of phenomena).
I think Husserl betrays the concept of Apodicticity to claim it comes in degrees. You are either certain or you aren’t. His evidence has lost apodicticity later on. Degrees of evidence/Fallibility.
In certain regions, the notion of apodictity does not apply. It then seems that we are losing the givenness. We no longer have absolute givenness. Instead, we have interpretative operations which are more or less in a position to disclose the phenomena – this is hermeneutical givenness instead.
Heidegger thinks that truth is not limited to a feature of assertions/propositions.
Heidegger is arguing that phenomenology can’t dictate the nature of evidence a priori. Evidence, in degrees, scales with the nature of the specific type of phenomena.
Evidence must be regional. But, evidence is not parallel between regions in terms of the degree of certainty.
September 27, 2011
“being” is the phenomenological notion
Ontical refers to the particular being. It’s ontological dimension is ‘how it presents itself as a phenomena.’ The same ontical being can present itself in different ways. There are multiple ontological ways in which a being can present itself.
For Husserl, imagination and dreams are different in their ‘mode of presentation’. This is the eidetic issue. What Heidegger sees about this eidetic reduction as being wrong is that there could be the ‘same being’ presenting itself in different ways.
Phenomenology looks at the ‘how’ not the what. The difference between ‘how’ the table presents itself as an object, and how it presents itself as an item of gear it an ontological distinction. The ontical event, the being hasn’t changed, but ontologically, it is changed and different.
The phenomena of ‘human being’ is distorted in Heidegger’s idea. Heidegger thinks we need to ‘fundamental ontology’ which clarifies the being of ‘human being’.
He thinks some our ontological claims are mistaken! Our ontological misunderstandings will distort the appearance of phenomena.
Ontical – presents ‘what’ the being is.
Ontological – presents ‘how’ the being is.
Husserl’s mistake is that “when you are writing” you don’t see the pen as an object.
Also, inspecting the objects and its properties, does not tell you the function of it. You simply know that hammer’s are designed for hammering when you use (or would use) it for hammering.
Heidegger thinks that the ‘idea’ of the pen is in the subject and that it is being put into the object.
There is a simple intuition of simplicity. There is an object in a single instance of a one-sided event. It is an object even within a single slice of that series of presentation of one-sided events which are synthesized. In perception, you already see the whole in every one of these one-sided perspectives. The wholeness is already given in the simplicity of that perspective.
Heidegger doesn’t agree that we are putting pieces of perception together.
Pg. 58 – “Today we are in a position to move against idealism precisely on this
front only because phenomenology has demonstrated that the nonsensory
and ideal cannot without further ado be identified with the
immanent, conscious, subjective. This is not only negatively stated but
positively shown; and this constitutes the true sense of the discovery of
categorial intuition”
There is a non-sensory dimension to what we call “perception”. When I experience the “table” I experience it in its simplicity, as a table. Every one-sided perspective presupposes the original intuition of unity, that the table is and will present itself as a unified object.
In Idealism, the mind brings order to the chaos.
Is the mind supplying unity to the object?
In perception, acc. Heidegger, an object presents itself as a whole, even in one-sided perspectives.
Unity isn’t ‘posited’, it is already in the presentation.
I am both, simultaneously, experiencing multiplicity, in multiple views of the same object, and simplicity, in the unity of the object.
We intuit the unity, we don’t impose it. The complaint (Heidegger’s) is that we aren’t imposing unity, we aren’t supply unity, we simply intuit it.
Heidegger seems to be separating the object from consciousness.???
Phenomenology can only describe the relationship between consciousness and an intentional object, without metaphysics.
Embedded in experience are categorical intuitions. Everyone seems to agree with sense intuitions being given, but not categorical determinations. But, Heidegger turns around and says that even categorical intuitions have the same degree of ‘givenness’ as sense intuitions.
This is how unity is ‘categorically intuited’ as a feature of the phenomena, while the unity isn’t given, necessarily, in the sense intuitions and perception.
In Heidegger, there is no a priori, there is nothing prior to experience. We must think of the ‘a priori’ as a temporal category. There must be something given ‘prior’ in experience???
Eidetic structures (Husserl) are only about sense intuition, and some of those assumptions and structures seem to be Categorical intuition for Heidegger. For example, there is simplicity of givenness of unity, a unity which isn’t given from perception and sense, but still it is given, it is given categorically. There is implicit wholeness already in our perspectives of ‘aspects’ of something. Aspects must be aspects of something given. The whole is given in the aspect, but that doesn’t mean all the aspects are given. Wholeness and unity is given in the categorical intuition.
September 29, 2011
Heidegger attacks the traditional notion of truth (propositional truth – truth is a feature of a proposition). Correspondence theory of truth. In the technical concept of a state of affairs, the notion of truth is already at work to Heidegger. What is a fact? H. thinks it presupposes truth.
H. says: How do we understand the truth of the fact? It presupposes phenomenological evidence. When we use the word fact, we’ve implicitly built into it the notion of truth. Then we check to see a proposition, we’ve already looked to the fact to see the truth. He shifts the locus of truth, away from the proposition, but instead to something else (perhaps the state of affairs / facts).
The proposition doesn’t correspond/accordance to a thing. The proposition is actually disclosing the phenonena with respect to the proposition it is making. It is the showing of the table, the table showing its brownness, that confirms the proposition that “The table is brown.” Truth exists in the phenomena, not the proposition.
Heidegger is saying that categorical determinations aren’t applied to things by the mind. The categorical determinations are within the things themselves, and they are simply presented to the mind.
Truth is linked to being. The phenomena showing itself as the phenomena that it is. Phenomena are the ultimate truth-bearers, and propositions are merely derivate truth-bearers (not really the ultimate truth bearers).
WTF does “IS” mean??>?
Phenomena are distorted when we fail to understand the being of a phenomena. If a phenomena seems to show itself instrumentally vs another way, is it showing itself entirely as it is? Are we really getting at the truth of its being as it is? What is the privileged interpretation? (But, rather, it seems that there is an outer-pretation – an explication). There is a privileged way of drawing something out.
October 4, 2011
Heidegger argues there is no ‘priority of the subject’ pg. 71ish. In Kant, the a priori is part of the structure of experience, it exists before experience, and experience is only possible through these a priori structures. A priori isn’t the feature of the subject (Husserl), but rather it is the feature of being of beings (Heidegger and Platonism).
Immanent critique is a criticism from within phenomenology. It is trying to find what is getting lost in our phenomenological research, it is removing hidden assumptions and metaphysics from our current phenomenology so that it will be more phenomenological.
“What shows itself” and not “what shows itself to consciousness” is what Heiddeger means by phenomenon. Pg 81. There is no mind in Heidegger.
Semblance is a distortion of the phenomena. We can be wrong about the phenomena, about what it is. This is clearly a radical departure from Husserl and his apodictic ‘givenness’ of phenomena.
When we talk about phenomena, we aren’t talking about what appears, we are talking about ‘the appearing’. Phenomena isn’t mere appearance, it is the appearing.
There are modes of appearing which are not phenomena. A phenomena is a particular way in which beings show themselves. Semblance is a mode of appearance, but it isn’t phenomena, because the being isn’t showing itself as it is, but rather its mode of appearance stands in its our way to accessing the phenomena. Semblances conceal the phenomena and distort them.
Husserl’s and Kant’s views are semblances in themselves, and Heidegger thinks that he is deconstructing them to get at real phenomenology. Semblance is both revealing and concealing – the semblance must, in some primitive sense, resemble. Phenomenology is a methodical operation of breaking through the gradient of concealment of semblance.
What is the ‘truth’-appearance of phenomena?
October 6, 2011
Heid thinks that Husserl has a semblance of phenomenology. It is unphenomenological phenomenology. “Science progresses one funeral at a time.” Is phenomenology a transcendental psychology (Husserl) or not?
Dasein is chosen as a new word on purpose. He wishes to shed old assumptions and definition of what counts as human.
We have to get through the Husserl’s version of phenomenology, this semblance, in order to get at actual phenomenology. Husserl semblance has something right, something that resembles phenomenology, and we have separate the wheat from the chaff, and we need to understand what he did right and continue down that path. Pg. 127
There is a possibility of derivative givenness. It is when something is being given, but not given in its original givenness. That derivative is semblance. So, there is a difference between primordial, original givenness and deriviate givenness, semblance. The task of phenomenology, in part, is about getting past the semblance to the original givenness – it is recognizing that we only have a semblance, and not the original.
Semblance is an “ontological category”. It is a way a phenomena appears, namely, not exactly as its original self. Truth and sembleance are ontologically distinguished.
“Being” isn’t a being, it is the being of whatever beings are being. Lulz.
Gear/Object distinction are two different ways an object can appear. It isn’t the distinction between two different beings. The difference between a table and a chair is the difference between two beings (ontic).
Items of gear can devolve into the appearance as an object, but Heidegger claims we can’t assume the object and get to the item of gear. Objectivity might possibly be a mode or derivative of instrumentality and gear??
“Apodictic Positivism”
October 11, 2011
Semblances appearances from a certain context. You stand at this angle or perspective and the phenomena presents itself from this way, if stand in another angle or perspective, then the phenomena presents itself in another way. The phenomena, as a whole is just a sum or assemblage of its many semblances.
October 18, 2011
Presentations will be starting on the 15th of November (and 17th, and so on).
Logical investigations are a priori vs. ideas are a posteriori
Schufreider dissects my proposal in this class – see mp3.
October 20, 2011
To Heidegger, Philosophy was invented by the Greeks. The question of ‘being’ is the first philosophical question. Phenomenology is a pure methodological concept – it determines ‘how’ we research, but not ‘what’ we are researching (just yet, at least) – pg 136.
We must distinguish “what we are questioning or interrogating” and ‘what we are after’ (what do we hope to achieve or reach from interrogating something?).
Being is ‘how beings appear’ – it is an event. It isn’t some general, universal idea.
For Heidegger, it is an exotic event for someone to approach a being as a being. Animals don’t entertain the question of being because they don’t encounter beings as beings (they don’t really encounter beings). Animals aren’t struck by the fact that ‘something is’. Humans can have that exotic wonder that there is anything at all – animals are assumed to lack this event of wonder.
We don’t merely reflect on being – we, as Dasein, in fact operate with exotic interest in being.
Dasein is struck by its facticity. Anxiety from the confronting one’s own death pushes us to consider our own being.
“Being in each case one” is anyone, you are an individual, but not particular. Like “to whom it may concern.”
What are the structures that constitute Dasein (pg 153).
Dasein in its everydayness is practical. Instead of Husserl’s intentionality (which is somewhat abstract), Heidegger has a directed towards which is very teleological and in the world.
Dasein is always a particular case of Dasein, not some general thing. While Dasein has specificity, it doesn’t necessarily have individualistic personality. The “Anyone” can specify, but without pointing out personality.
Dasein is the only being that raises the question of being. And, Dasein is the only being with its temporal structures. It seems that the temporality of Dasein is linked to the fact that it raises the question fo being. It isn’t a matter of being in time (measurements). Temporality belongs to the structure of Dasein’s being.
We seem to create our own temporalities. Temporal structures are part of what make possible for us to raise the question of being (hence, “Being and Time”).
We don’t just have a past, we have a ‘having been’. We have a being of a having been. This is more than plain historical time. The sense in which Dasein has a past, my temporal particularity might actually be ‘quite a while’ – the while stretches from birth to death. My particular temporal determination is both initial operation at birth, and the terminal operation at death. It is a finite stretch of time. And, how Dasein lives its time in that stretch, which doesn’t exclude a past before my birth,…..My past doesn’t reach past before my birth. The same for the future.
October 25, 2011
We have to give a phenomenological account of Dasein, an account in its everydayness (mode of temporality), its everyday activities.
Husserl’s transcendental reduction – even if there is no world, consciousness, in its purity, remains and keeps its structure (including temporal structures).
We tend to associate body with space, and mind with time.
World as nature is thought by Descartes as the res extensa, nature is a machine. For Heidegger, what is calculable and measureable is nature? The world is the total of objects. The objects of science. Heidegger holds that Dasein is a subject, not an object.
Husserl wants to assert the priority of subjects over the objects.
Heidegger says the world is for consciousness. Consciousness is not ‘in’ the world. Dasein is ‘in’ the world in a different way.
You either argue that the subject has its being in the midst of objects, where the world is the totality of objects (realism); or you are arguing that objects have their being in the consciousness of subjects (idealism).
Heidegger agrees with Husserl that consciousness is special. But, he disagrees with transcendental psychology linked to subjectivity; Heidegger, however, imports existentialism
Pg. 156 is the argument against Husserl. It is not that Husserl is wrong, as he has opened something important up. Husserl is right about worry about the naturalization of consciousness, but he’s wrong for thinking it is consciousness vs. nature, that one must be inside the other (exclusively).
Dasein, in its everydayness, is not involved in theoretical occupations. Dasein, for the most part, is not doing philosophy. It is, instead, involved in practical engagements. Theoretical operations are founded upon this operational/instrumental being in the world. Practical engagement accounts for theoretical activities (without distorting it); but if we start from theoretical activities and try to account for practical engagement, then there is a distortion.
You don’t encounter objects as objects. “useful for something” is not the structure of objectivity. You can’t get to that ‘useful for something’ structure by taking an object and attaching value to it.
Dasein isn’t the world as the pencil is in the drawer.
The original phenomenological condition is not distinguishing myself from the world. When I’m using the pen, I’m not distinguishing myself and the pen (in some sense?), and that unity can’t be accounted for in the object/subject distinction. Heidegger thinks he can talk about objectivity from this unity, but you can’t start from objectivity to get to that unity.
Human being, in its average, everydayness, operates as a being in the world, familiar with, engaged withk, and not distinguishing itself from other objects. Being in the midst of beings is how intimate Dasein is with everything else in the world.
There is a collective, unified event…we can theoretically break them apart. This unity is more than just the sum of its parts. We start with the unified event, not the individual parts.
When you think in terms of objects, you think of a bunch of independent things which accumulate into a whole.
In instrumentality, there is no such thing as a single instrument – items of gear come together. Aristotelian substance is the primary category is objectivity, but relationship of objects is what is primary in Heidegger’s view.
Instrumentality and objectivity are ontological distinctions – beings appear differently. Within objectivity, the world is the totality of objects. Within instrumentality, the world is that which Dasein is complete integrated. To say Dasein is in the world is to say it is not a separate being, but rather it has its being in the midst of beings, unified and not distinguished from those beings.
Relationality is stressed and emphasized.
Phenomenology is the study of consciousness and existence.
There is an implicitness is Dasein that is practical and integrated. When we step back, theoretically, we begin to make explicit those features and things.
October 27, 2011
Instrumentality and objectivity are distinguished by Heidegger, and this was the flaw in Husserl (in his opinion). Husserl distorted the basic founding of phenomenology.
Husserl starts with a theoretical determination of phenomena, and Heidegger argues this is fundamental enough a level. The immediate givenness, the original givenness, is not fundamentally presented at objectivity or theoretically, but rather instrumentally.
Instrumentality/Objectivity distinction si the fundamental distinction. These are two different modes of presentation. We aren’t getting the most fundmental presentation of phenomena when they present themselves theoretically/objectively.
When something is an item of gear, it isn’t presenting itself in a series of one-sided perspectives or objectively or theoretically.
Dasein appears in a different way when we phenomena are presenting themselves objectively. In the objective encounter, Dasein is a subject, and the phenomena is an object.
Dasein isn’t a subject within the context of the mode of instrumentality. Items of Gear works together, in Husserl’s objectivity, objects standalone.
Husserl’s notion of the world is phenomenological – the horizon of horizons from the position of the consciousness (from a subject), with layers of vagueness.
The instrumental presentation is more original than the theoretical presentation, but it isn’t necessarily the true presentation.
There is a structure of co-reference in items of gear that makes it what it is. Pencils are relevant not just for writing, there are other purposes, other modes of presentation. The pencil can be used to poke a hole in something, even if it was created for that purpose, we can use it, instrumentally, for that purpose. Insofar as the pencil is being used for a purpose, whether writing or another function, then it has that a relevant, co-referenct, mode of presentation as a phenomena. It is “suitable for” or “relevant to” writing, but it is also these things for poking holes when we use a pencil in that way.
What it is for something to be relevant or have meaning is for something to appear in relationship to other things in such a way that I can do something or get something done.
“Objects” don’t exude or give off instrumentality. Phenomena do exude, however.
The structure of instrumentality is obviously teleological. In order to something, we must use something with which we can do something else (for the sake of).
We don’t impose instrumentality either, that begs the question about objectivity.
We must disclose phenomena instead.
Functional features of a pencil, a possibility that the pencil as a being can do something, is different from a property. The property of object model is still part of objectivity. Functionality, however, isn’t like this?? Functional features are meaningful and relevant – it is a part of referential structure, showing itself with respect to how it fits in that structure.
The item of gear does not stand alone. It presents itself in its relevance in a structure of reference. It is what I’m up to and what else is available around me, a context of reference, that decides the meaning of a pencil.
Husserl starts with an object and adds a function. Heidegger says he has these concepts correct, but in the wrong order. Heidegger starts with a functioning and breaks it down into objects. Hammer example.
The question of the external world is a pseudo problem for Heidegger. It only arises in the mode of objectivity. It doesn’t happen in the instrumental mode. When you are immersed in and engaged with the world, the question of whether there is an external world is not possible to ask.
November 1, 2011
The world itself as a lifeworld is a kind of socio-cultural as well as natural/material environment which only allows for certain types of operations.
Traditional definition of world (as laymen use it) – the totality of beings presenting themselves as objects. The totality of beings present-at-hand.
Heidegger – the locus in which Dasein has its being, including the practical operations.
Distinguishing beings by ‘shape’ or something trivial, you are making an ontical distinction.
Distinctive characterstics of Dasein are existentials.
The argument with Husserl is that he isn’t seeing the being of Dasein as different.
Idealism seems to reduce beings to the correlates of consciousness in Husserl. Whereas Realism seems to assert the reality of those beings indepdent and outside of consciousness.
The working together of items of gear means there isn’t an individual presentation of individual objects – instead, there is a nexus which presents an orchestration of a particular environment in which we are engaged. The way in which the elements operate are integrated into the environment. The integrity of a space as a meaningful/significant place, that sense of space, quite different from the empty space of objectivity (measurement, position, etc.), is a place of intimacy and engagement.
Placement occurs in co-determination of functional things in relation to each other. How anything shows up as suitable for anything depends on what else is available. If I need to “hammer” something, but I have a rock next to me and no hammer, then I’ll use the rock to hammer, but in another context, I wouldn’t. The same for when I’m at my workbench, without a hammer, but I have a wrench, that wrench appears differently, it appears as something which can function and have the purpose to hammer.
Dynamic mode of appearance – the wrench normally shows up as this, but without the hammer, it has a changed operation, a different appearance, all due to a function derived from a different environment. What the wrench is and what it is for is dynamically related to environment, including whether or not there is a hammer.
The fact that something appears as an item fo gear is a mode of ‘making present’. We don’t sense the phenomena appearing as a dynamic event, we simply sense them as ‘being there’, as if that functionality was a property of it.
Heidegger is stressing ‘presence’ not as a static operation, but as a dynamic temporal operation. The rock’s function is presents itself dynamically. Something takes on significance infosar as it is relevant to what I’m doing. The rock takes on significance for breaking open a nut in a way that the stick is not significant.
The bike is ready to ride. It isn’t just an object that you ride. Because it is an item of gear, it is as at the ready for your riding. It is related to your environment. There is a seemless operation that occurs in the very spatiality and suitability for doing things.
The primary issue of substance is relation and the network of referential relations for Heidegger – objectivity, obviously, is quite secondary.
At the level of instrumentality, it is clear that what appears is only with respect to the current event. Functionality is reductionistic. It reduces things to how they are significant in a particular context. Beings present themselves minimally. We only attend to those beings with regard to the work I’m up to. The “work to be done’ the ‘for the sake of which’ seems to be the primary issue.
Space comes laden with items of gear and this significance function in which I can get engaged. There is a spatiality of Dasein, a particular spatiality that it can undertake specifically when it is with other items of gear that have their own spatiality.
For Heidegger, objective space doesn’t have what are called “places” which means things don’t have a place ‘where they belong’. They can’t be ‘out of place’, they can only be in a different position.
If the table is pushed up against the wall, it is ‘out of place’ in our view, as we expect to use it for the purposes of learning/teaching/class activities. The objective space of the table against the wall would be its measurements. Chairs have their place against the table – and therefore they can be out of place. Objects have location in objective space, but they lack ‘place’.
To get from place to space, we need the notion of the region. Heidegger argues that in a functional space, space is defined by regions in which particular groups of items of gear ‘belong together’. Each region is orchestrated by a network of gear that belongs with the other gear. A can-opener on the bed doesn’t belong there, it belongs in the kitchen. The Kitchen is a region, the bedroom is a region. Space is not merely a container, it is an open relation between items of gear. Place is related to space when it isn’t merely a container, it is a region of gears related to each other. Space is not an open empty grid where objects have position, but rather space is opened up by the places, but the places are determined by the space, as a regional space, because the proper place for the chair is determined within the spatiality of the room, where the room is thought of as the space, et……(see notes). How space happens in its placement, and how placement happens in its spacing – there is a specific spatiality of Dasein. Dasein can de-distant things. I can render things nearer to me in Hiedeggerian space.
Distance is not measure objectively, but rather functionally and by significance. The cup which is objectively further away from me may be be instrumentally ‘closer’ to me than the piece of paper that is objectively closer, but instrumentally further away.
I’m looking for the proper region with the proper network of items of gear to do what I want to do. Reality seems to be broken up into a multicplity of regions.
That a chair belongs next to a table is not something I ‘re-decide’ everytime I walk into a room. It seems that a public consensus has assigned the placement. We have expectations built into the spatiality of the world.
November 3, 2011
Pg. 200
Spatiality of gear is a phenomenology of space. It isn’t a theory of space, it isn’t a view of space which is subject to metaphysical disagreement. He isn’t worried about external world, or any other that sort of ‘theory of space’.
In the gear-world, which isn’t the objective world, place is the operative category is in which we must think about space. The places, themselves, must be thought of in the structural dimension of that space, namely region. An item of gear has the place that it has in reference to other items in that region.
It is at the level of the region that ‘space’ has dimensionality (that it spreads). When you point out the object (objectively), you lose the region.
Space/region is happening ‘between’ (bad word) places. The region is the pervasive space which constitutes the vicinity in which the respective items of gear have their placement.
Can you have a region of regions? If so, a region is a place.
Heidegger says we take our orientation from the region of space. We walk into regions, it is what we mean by space, the openness in which we are free to move. It is not an empty space, however. It is a rich lived space which is already setting up the conditions for my living in it.
Things don’t have extension, wax isn’t extended. Extension isn’t in the thing. Instead, extension belongs to space. Things just have location. Space is extended across places. Space isn’t between places (in some sense), but it pervades places.
This is where significance/meaningfulness comes into play.
Heidegger’s use of “meaningful” is not value laden, it doesn’t have the same definitions we usually attribute. It isn’t just the meaningful of words (although this is connected).
Meaningfulness is first of all a mode of presence in virtue of which every entity of the world is discovered.
To say the cup has meaning is to say that it appears relevant to something I am up to.
Signs are interesting because they are conspicuous items of gear – they point out, yet instrumentally.
We can’t go back to the model of the meaning of words. Meaning is more pervasive. Words have meaning, yeah, but so do tables.
Meaningful/Significant/Relevant – same thing here. To have a relevant to what you are up to, and for a phenomena to present itself with respect to that relevance.
When a cat meow’s, it produces a functional operation of sound, something that gets us to, for example, give it food. The cat doesn’t have any semantics attached to its meow, it isn’t thinking about the meaning of the meow. Hence, meaningful/significant/relevant has a different definition here.
Meaning is minimalized. When I walk into a room, there is a minimal disclosure of the phenomena in the room. You only get a narrow band of presentations. Meaning is minimalized like this??
Dasein isn’t distinguishable (usually) from the items of gear it is using.
Pg. 236
Instead of a transcendental ego, but we are in the world, and being in the world with others.
The worldhood of the world as instrumentality.
Individual Dasein’s don’t define this, it is communal and collective Dasein, a public space, collective practices, that makes it so that a chair belongs with the table.
Who is Dasein? Being in the world and with others in the world. This ‘withness’ characterized the kind of character it is.
Who I am in my everydayness: I am everybody. The structure of the world isn’t available just to me as an individual, but to anybody and everybody. I am only present in my everydayness (acc. To Schu).
November 8, 2011
I am 3rd on day 1 to present.
To the extent I am operating in that social space, in its topological items of gear, we can look at how I am not authentic Dasein, but anyone.
Heidegger thinks inauthenticity is a way of being in the world.
Mood or disposition (attunement) is so critical because our moods are not a feature of our being alone – they belong to the structure of our beingin the world. When we talk about disposition, “Feelings” and “moods” are different.
[Husserl] Empathy is a relation that happens between two separate subjects. Connecting with another by feeling what they are feeling, but I am disconnected in that I am not feeling their feelings.
The fundamental affect of openness to the world is a mood (distinct from feeling). The mood is pervasive and integrated into us in a way that feelings aren’t. Temporality seems important here.
Mood is disclosing your being in the world as such (and apparently, this is non-cognitive). Moods are disclosive beyond the range of cognition. They can display a wide range.
When I don’t distinguish myself from others, when I am not operating as an individual (subject) separated from others, I am ‘not my own’, everybody, inauthentic. The social itself is constituted by being with others, which occurs prior to individuating subjects. “Being with” is an indespensible structure of Dasein’s being. Individuality is reducible, whereas ‘being with’ is irreducible (just like ‘being in the world’).
Dasein can fail to be a self. Self-hood is reducible/deducible. In Husserl, we are individuals, primarily (Cartesian), with other minds problem. Not so with Heidegger. There is not a structure of intersubjectivity in Heidegger.
Husserl relies upon the givenness of the other. Husserl will insist that the way in which the other human being presents itself as a phenomena is different from the way in which other objects present themselves (this is an eidetic analysis).
You present yourself as a subject with intentional acts, just like me.
We don’t prove the existence of the other, we merely assume it in our phenomenology. It is given to us. Empathy is an assumption in this sense. Empathizing with the other isn’t really a choice.
Mime-Scupltures…interaction and engagement is suspended…their personhood is in question. That is what makes the experience so weird.
November 10, 2011
Understanding is not cognitive, it is operating within my environment space.
Disposition & Mood
Understand with Interpretations
Discourse (Discoursivity) and language (articulation)
The structure of Dasein’s being is its disposition. You are characterized as a being with a disposition. Your disposition is not a property of you. It is just how you are positioned in Heideggarian space.
He critiqued Husserl in terms of objectivity and instrumentality. Now, he defines human beings in terms of instrumentality. We will see the derivate structures from instrumental engagement. The integration of user and instrument requires a different set of structures to substantiate this integration.
The location of the ‘da’ is not finding itself through reflection. Husserl thinks you are a the position, Heidegger thinks you aren’t, he thinks you only locate yourself as position here from over there.
While engaging in the world, Dasein doesn’t seem to have any primacy. It is dispersed and integrated into the world. What must a feature of Dasein be like for it to have non-identity, such that we can’t distinguish it from what it is doing? The is the most common experience we are having, and yet, he says philosophy hasn’t been able to grasp it or account for it.
If Dasein has a disposition to be taken literally, it has its being insofar as it is positioned amongst beings. Disposition is not a feature of our mental lives, but rather has we are disposed with respect to those beings to which we are already exposed and have our position precisely because of those beings.
Instrumentality indicates the sort of being we are, and the disposition/temperament of Dasein.
The structure of understanding, in Schu’s view, really sounds like a facet of me.
Some concept of ‘being’ is given in the every day operation. What is this being? There is a way of being in the world (natural attitude) that is prior to all theory.
Understanding had a meaning that was very theoretical. It can’t mean anything like want Kant meant.
Structure of Dasein’s being is a being which is open to other beings.
We normally think of a subject as supplying the framework and conception of objects. But, this isn’t the case for Heidegger.
What does interpretation have to do with understanding? Interpretation is a laying out. Understanding lays outs a particular situations in a certain way.
Beach, nut rock example. The situation is layed out through that rock such that I can engage with it to use it to break open the nut. This all happens implicitly. I don’t impose a structure on the rock, but rather, interpret it, it is layed out, the possibility spring forth, it is disclosed. Understanding operates in respect to current determinations. A prior projections is really just a way of presentation.??
November 15, 2011
I presented. Schu’ has an argument, go back and listen to it.
November 29, 2011
It is the ‘uncovering’ of phenomena by Dasein that gives Dasein its particular way of being.
Dasein is an openness in the midst of being. Disposition is the structure of Dasein’s being, mood is the concrete determination in which Dasein’s position in the midst of beings is disclosed to it explicitly in the midst of its disposition.
Your disposition involves a relational determination with how it is going for me with respect to how I relate to the world. Think of “how’s it going?” and “how do you find yourself?”. That finding yourself is literal, you find yourself in the midst of being. That is theonly way to find yourself. You even find yourself spatially. I locate myself in a situation. I don’t start from a self-contained position that then moves around the room.
Disposition, Understanding, Discourse – these keep Dasein open to phenomena in the way that it is.
Fallen = the idea that Dasein, by its very nature, fails to understand the type of being it is. It is drawn into operations which do not help to articulate the being that it is. A being which forgets itself, which doesn’t attend to itself, of course would fail to to realize what type of being it is. It tends not to realize things about it itself, so how would it realize that phenomenological fact about itself? Understanding itself within the instrumental context…
Inauthenticity is failure to understand the original condition, instrumentality, etc. being with beings. Splitting theory and practice.
Authenticity must be a lower level of engagement, it must be ‘being in the world’.
Anxiety – the structure of significance has broken down entirely, and everything presents itself as meaningless. You would not be oriented in space anymore. The conditions which establish the region deeterminations of space would break down.
3 operations nihilated in Anxiety –
Integration, Spatial, Social. These structures are neutralized. Disintegrated, disorientation in spatial relation (spaced out), and dissocation (de-socialization and self separation).
December 1, 2011
It isn’t necessarily the phenomena that Dasein experiences. Of course, there might be a semblance in between. This is a rejection of the Husserlian notion. Nothing can come between you and the phenomena in Husserl, otherwise, it seems that apodicticity is in jeopardy.
That something presents itself as at all is taken as given. A phenomena presenting itself as a semblance isn’t usually an ontical problem, but rather an ontological problem. The understand of the being of a phenomena may not be coming through, it may be inadequate, and thus there is an ontological issue.
The immanent critique works to advance what it is critiquing. It sets the limits on it. It isn’t a rejection, but a setting of the limit. From the inside of phenomenology, we come to understand its limits.
Husserl – eidetic structures are given by intuition, they are neither inducted nor deducted. It isn’t a conceptual determination for Husserl, it comes from the phenomenological way of thinking.
Falling, Dasein in flight from itself. It is a structure of Dasein’s being that he found phenomologically. This isn’t Religious “Fallen”, it is being drawn into everydayness and inauthentic, becoming ‘anybody’.
Dasein has its concern for the world, it cares for others, and it co-originally cares about itself. It is the kind of being about which its own being is at issue for it. It is concerned about its being.
The living out of its being
??
Care is a ‘fleshy, concrete’ intentionality. The muddy, earthy, homo and humous being connected here (in the myth)?? Care is projecting towards the future, even in relation to its current concerns.
Noematic correlates and noetic acts of Husserl obviously demonstrates the primacy of consciousness and the subject. Hiedegger starts with beings, and Dasein being in the world, then the priority of Dasein isn’t all that clear.
Since Dasein isn’t a subject, you can’t have the subjugation and prioritization of the subject/object perspective.
I think both Husserl and Heidegger are mapping together ontology (in the non-phenomenological sense) and epistemology, but also experience and consciousness.
Hiedegger is doubting an interaction of subject/object. What is the actual relationship?
Heidegger thinks that the notion of experience draws us away from what is actually happening. Experience, in some sense, isn’t what he wants to analyze, but rather the phenomena itself (which is what experience is about).
In the case of fear, there is something which is threatening.
There is a fear of death, when I’m in a really awkward position where I might die or something. The impending immediacy of my death.
Dread of death is different from fear of death. Dread of death is a reflection of (1) non-autonomy and (2) a concern over itself, and concern about its eventual death and becoming nothingness in the world.
Accidents on the interstate are a good example of Dread. They aren’t immediately fearing getting into a car crash, but in some sense, we still think about death generically in the future.
The ‘anybody’ Dasein is impersonal, it is a structure of my being. The analysis of Death brings up this issue. Death brings up that each Dasein has its own death, it individuates Daseins. We have the impersonal Dasein (no positional consciousness or ego, no transcendental subject) and also the individuated Dasein with its own death.
The ego is really just a semblance of the self-sameness of Dasein, the authenticity.
''ABSTRACT''
In this paper, I examine two standard theories of intellectual property, voice criticisms of each theory from within their own perspectives, and offer an alternative approach to intellectual property. In the first chapter, I explicate Locke’s original property theory and provide a modern account of Lockean intellectual property as an extension of the original theory. I argue this extension is not compatible with Locke’s original thought on property rights. In the second chapter, I dissect the mainstream economic approach to intellectual property, an approach which employs utilitarianism to justify the intellectual property regime of first world, western nations. I argue that this mainstream utilitarian economic approach fails to satisfy the principle of utility. Lastly, I offer a sketch of an alternative theory or perspective on intellectual property based on the notion of human flourishing. I argue that our obligations to develop and use our minds are so extensive that exclusive claim-type intellectual property rights are not possible.
''CHAPTER 1. - LOCKEAN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY THEORY''
''1.1 - Introduction''
In this chapter, I will outline Locke’s property theory, explain and distinguish various components of Lockean intellectual property theory, and voice criticisms of Lockean intellectual property theory from a Lockean perspective. I hope to show that extensions of Locke’s account to make sense of intellectual property can’t actually be very Lockean, and show where and why these extensions lack justification and compatibility with Locke’s original approach to property rights.
Locke’s property theory was originally and primarily concerned with ownership of land, water, and natural resources, but over time his interpreters have extended it to include all physical and tangible objects. Intellectual property theories, a topic about which Locke never directly writes, are very commonly made on quasi-Lockean grounds. Lockean intellectual property theorists wish contend to extend Locke’s property theory from the material realm to the immaterial realm, as they find these realms somewhat parallel.<<ref "1">> As Tom Palmer explains it, “intellectual property rights can be justified as ‘piggy-back’ rights, logical extensions of the right to own and control tangible objects.”<<ref "2">>
What is intellectual property? There is the legal aspect and a more purely philosophical aspect. In law, intellectual property is a set of loosely connected legal policies or doctrines governing the ownership, use, and distribution of abstract and intangible objects and their corresponding physical manifestations.<<ref "3">> There are separate laws concerning copyrights, patents, trademarks, and trade secrets. These separate laws are grouped together and referred to as intellectual property law because they share in common the regulation of immaterial objects and their physical manifestations. In philosophy, we justify or criticize these laws by providing the unifying, universal ethical rules for intellectual property, at least a thin view of the metaphysics underlying these intangible objects, and the mechanics for the acquisition and transfer of these properties. It is on the philosophical side of intellectual property that Locke’s property theory, which was originally concerned with only the material world, has been extended to the immaterial.
The initial objects of intellectual property, namely ideas, designs, concepts, and models, have special characteristics because they are intangible. Unlike physical objects, which are subject to physical laws like entropy and conservation of energy, intellectual objects cannot be depleted or degraded. This brings about some interesting characteristics. For example, intellectual objects are non-rivalrous, meaning one person can consume an intellectual object without diminishing any other person’s ability to consume that object.<<ref "4">> Further, because intellectual objects are non-rivalrous, the economic notion of scarcity does not apply to them.
There are, perhaps, other special characteristics of intellectual objects which are less clearly understood or not agreed upon, but are still vital for creating, interpreting, or critiquing an intellectual property theory. For instance, we must consider whether or not intellectual objects predate our work in coming to realize them. If they exist (however it is they might exist) before we can recognize their existence, then the sort of work which enables us to realize intellectual objects results in discovery. If intellectual objects do not, however, predate our work in coming to realize them, then perhaps we might say they come into existence because we created them. This kind of metaphysical issue does not seem be as problematic for physical objects, where we may have stronger and more stable intuitions about the discovery and creation of physical objects. The difference between discovering and creating intellectual objects may have major implications for a Lockean intellectual property theory.<<ref "5">>
Lastly, we must question whether or not one can modify or alter intellectual objects. It is obvious to us how physical objects are modifiable, but it is far less clear if and how intellectual objects can be altered. This difference may stifle or hinder our ability to parallel physical objects to intellectual objects, possibly preventing a viable extension of Lockean property theory to the immaterial. If modifiability (such as adding value) is a necessary condition to acquiring an object as property, then this special characteristic of intellectual objects will be a threat to the acquisition of intellectual property.
We should keep these special characteristic in mind, as they are part of the crux of the debate between paralleling material objects and immaterial objects, the necessary link for extending Lockean property theory to include intellectual property rights.
''1.2 - Locke’s General Theory of Property''
The primary component of Locke’s original property theory is the claim that people own themselves. From this claim, Locke arrives at the conclusion that people are responsible for their labor, they own their labor, and they “have a natural right of entitlement to the fruits of their labor.”<<ref "6">> This is one of the less controversial components in Locke’s original theory, and arguably the grounds upon which other components of this original theory rest. Assuming we satisfy whatever preconditions are set out, Locke believes the acquisition of previously unowned property derives from the ownership of the fruits of our labor; the ownership of the fruits of our labor is derived from the ownership of our labor; and, the ownership of our labor is derived from our self-ownership. Locke’s chain of derivative ownership satisfies certain instincts we have about the nature of property and the results of our self-ownership.
Another component of Locke’s theory is the notion that a person acquires property rights to an unowned object by mixing his or her labor with it. Locke claims, “As much land as a man tills, plants, improves, cultivates, and can use the product of, so much is his property. He by his labour does, as it were, inclose it from the common.”<<ref "7">> The labor-mixing component is more controversial than the self-ownership component. Labor-mixing is a complex problem, and Locke did not develop a full account of it for us. The precise nature of labor-mixing (and its various problems) is beyond the scope of this paper, but it is an issue which must be considered in evaluating any intellectual property extensions developed with the labor-mixing component in mind.
Another component seems to arise out of the labor-mixing theory, namely the value-adding condition. From the quote above, words and phrases such “improve” and “cultivate” and “use the product of” hint at additional conditions for property acquisition. The value-adding component of the theory is contentious and fraught with problems. What does it even mean to add value to an object? Locke does not leave us with many clues to clarify the nature of value-adding nor does he provide us a clear explanation of the priority or necessity of the component to his property theory. If an intellectual property extension is founded upon a Lockean interpretation including this component, that extension must provide an account for how intellectual labor adds value to its corresponding objects.
There remains one other crucial piece to Locke’s property theory, what Robert Nozick has dubbed “the Lockean proviso,” which is the last condition for acquisition. Locke explains:
<<<
Nor was this appropriation of any parcel of land, by improving it, any prejudice to any other man, since there was still enough, and as good left; and more than the yet unprovided could use. So that, in effect, there was never the less left for others because of his inclosure for himself: for he that leaves as much as another can make use of, does as good as take nothing at all. No body could think himself injured by the drinking of another man, though he took a good draught, who had a whole river of the same water left him to quench his thirst: and the case of land and water, where there is enough of both, is perfectly the same.<<ref "8">>
<<<
This is a powerful, limiting condition for property acquisition. The public good is the core priority of the proviso. Potential acquisitions which would violate the public good (what exactly counts as the public good isn’t clear) are disqualified from acquisition by the proviso. The “still enough” clause is potent, as it precludes monopolies and mass-ownership of resources which may lead to undue injury. To own the entire river, and assuming this river was the only resource of fresh water, would prevent others from being able to quench their thirsts (as they lack the rights to the river). This kind of monopoly, or even an oligarchy by which a limited number of people together monopolize a resource, would injure others because they no longer have access to that which is necessary for life.
We might be tempted to think of Lockean property rights as operating in a kind of vacuum where we need not really consider how property acquisitions affect the people around us. As we can see, Lockean property theory is not separable from substantive considerations about the public good and human welfare, as well as the context in which a potential acquisition is to be made.
The Lockean proviso can be very radical, and it serves as a serious wild-card factor for this property theory. The proviso is clearly against ‘company towns’ in which the few actually own everything, and workers are merely ‘loaned’ residence, land, etc. People have a right to own enough to subsist (maybe even more). If Lockean property theory were correctly applied today, ownership rights would shift dramatically. Clearly, very few people actually own the things which are required to live life independently. By the proviso, we would need to significantly redistribute properties so that each person owned what was required to live life independently. Parallels between material objects and immaterial objects are subject to the proviso. In order to successfully extend general Lockean property theory (which deals in physical objects) to an intellectual property theory, that extension must satisfy the proviso.
Each of the components has their own set of associated problems and interpretations. Not every Lockean property theorist will buy into all the components I’ve listed, nor is there agreement upon how exactly each component is defined and structured. Consequently, Locke’s theory has ambiguities and can be developed in numerous ways.
We build extensions upon the foundation of these various components of the original Lockean property theory, namely self-ownership, labor-mixing theory, value-adding theory, and the proviso.
''1.3 - The Intellectual Property Extension of Locke’s General Theory''
One of the underpinning claims of Lockean intellectual property theory, a claim which appears to enable an extension of modern interpretations of Lockean physical property theory, is the notion that the fruits of thought, design, engineering, and other intellectual labors belong to the laborer. Lockean intellectual property theorists believe this notion of physical labor and physical property acquisition extends nicely into the realm of intellectual labor and intellectual property acquisition.<<ref "9">> In the general Lockean property theory, these justifications substantiate why one acquires an unowned physical object through mixing physical labor with the object. In the intellectual property extension of this general Lockean theory, the Lockean intellectual property theorists believe these justifications also substantiate why one acquires intellectual property rights through intellectual labor.<<ref "10">>
What exactly are the fruits of intellectual labors? At first glance, it would seem as though intellectual objects are the fruits of intellectual labor. These abstract ideas and intellectual objects are intangible, immaterial things which may actually be the fruits of intellectual labor, but the intellectual property theorist must demonstrate why this type of fruit is the sort which can be owned. It is not immediately obvious that one can own such objects.
A general claim that “one’s intellectual labor should entitle one to have a natural property right in the finished product of that work, such as a novel, a computer program, or a musical composition” is compelling to many people.<<ref "11">> The claim, however, is ambiguous. It is not clear that the intellectual commons is parallel to the commons of the physical aspects of reality.
Are we enclosing intellectual objects or the tangible expressions (the physical manifestations or representations) of those objects ‘from the commons’?<<ref "12">> It looks as if the extension of Locke’s account of property could be developed in two different ways. The strong enclosing thesis is claim that we enclose the intellectual objects themselves from the commons (this is the primitive view). The weak enclosing thesis is claim that we enclose particular physical expressions of intellectual objects from the commons, and yet somehow we gain control over access to the corresponding intellectual objects, as well.
''1.4 - The Strong Enclosing Thesis''
If we hold the strong enclosing thesis and the discovery claim, then intellectual objects are directly owned by their discoverer, e.g. algorithms, mathematical truths, and scientific notions would belong to their discoverers. If we aren’t creating intellectual objects, but only discovering them, it does not appear as if Locke’s theory would support our owning them, as we did not really mix our labor in them or add value to them. Remember, Lockean labor-mixing requires that we have added value to the object. Intellectual objects are unmodifiable and invariable – they cannot be altered. One cannot add value to these intellectual objects as one can add value to physical objects. Since intellectual labor cannot add value to intellectual objects, intellectual labor does not qualify as Lockean labor-mixing, the only sort of labor-mixing which results in legitimate Lockean property acquisition.
Because of this, it seems as if the strong enclosing may stand on firmer ground if we understand the intellectual objects to have been created by their owners. If we think about intellectual property in terms of adding value, a reasonable component to consider in this case, at first glance it appears that such creation can add value to the universe on this view. Unfortunately, the adding value condition in Lockean thought really seems to be found in a certain type of labor-mixing which is concerned with transformation of present objects into a new object. This type of intellectual object creation does not really parallel any kind of labor-mixing in the physical world. When dealing in physical properties, there is a story we can tell about how physical objects were transformed (with value added) into new physical objects. What is unclear is how a similar story could be told for intellectual objects. The mechanics in the general Lockean property theory, which are concerned with physical objects, do not seem parallelable to the realm of intellectual objects. This is a serious problem for the combination of a creation view and the strong enclosing thesis.
Furthermore, the Lockean proviso likely pushes us even further away from the strong enclosing thesis. For example, the public good would be deeply harmed if we were to recognize the ownership of mathematical truths. It would be difficult (perhaps even impossible) to function in life without implicitly or explicitly using math. How can we live if the rightful owner of a fundamental and vital mathematical formula (e.g. 1+1=2) does not provide consent for the rest of us to use it? A Lockean property right, when granted, is profoundly strong, and it is for this reason that the proviso is there to make sure we can live with the rights that are actually granted. The problem identified within this math example would apply to many other intellectual objects as well. Perhaps not all intellectual objects activate the proviso’s protection of the public good, but it seems as though a significant portion of intellectual objects, particularly those most important to living a human life, are protected from hypothetical acquisition by the proviso.
The strong enclosing thesis has also been criticized by Kai Kimppa who explains:
<<<
The reason ownership is needed is that material resources are scarce, and thus everyone cannot necessarily own everything they would want to. This does not hold true for the immaterial. The immaterial is unlimited, and everyone can own as much as they want to at the same time. No one is deprived of ownership in what he or she has if someone else owns the same immaterial as well…Locke needed the material to be divided amongst people because it can not be owned by many at once…the immaterial need not be owned as it can be used by as many as have a need for it.<<ref "13">>
<<<
This criticism points out why we cannot parallel the material and immaterial realms. The non-rivalrous feature of intellectual objects is precisely why we don’t need a property theory for them. Locke’s theory does not favor the ownership of intellectual objects. Because intellectual objects are non-rivalrous, they do not meet the conditions for the sort of objects for which we require a property theory. While Locke would agree that you can own a CD, the physical instance or manifestation of an intellectual object(s), he would not agree that you could own the intangible, intellectual objects represented or manifested on the CD. Locke would not have favored the strong enclosing thesis, but he could, perhaps, agree to the weak enclosing thesis.
''1.5 - The Weak Enclosing Thesis''
Although the strong enclosing thesis may be the initial and primitive view, a temptation for Lockean intellectual property advocates, enough problems emerge from the various Lockean interpretations that the weak enclosing seems to be the more common view to hold. Instead of directly owning abstract intellectual objects, one might argue that ethical rights (and, subsequently, legal rights) regulate material expressions. The weak enclosing thesis takes this path. By regulating material expressions, granting creators or discoverers a set of rights to material expression, we somehow effectively bring about a kind of ownership to the intellectual objects which correspond to these material expressions.<<ref "14">>
A Lockean intellectual property theorist holding the weak enclosing thesis will agree that there is no direct intellectual property ownership, but instead will claim there is an indirect ownership of intellectual property. The pseudo-ownership claim performs the conceptual heavy-lifting in the weak enclosing thesis. This is the claim that we can get at the indirect pseudo-ownership of intangible, intellectual objects by directly controlling all of the various possible future physical manifestations or expressions of an intellectual object which happen to be similar enough and related to the original creation or invention.<<ref "15">> There is no direct ownership of an intellectual object on this view, but indirectly the regulation and direct physical property right to any possible physical manifestation of an intellectual object entails a sort of indirect pseudo-ownership over that intellectual object.
While the initial objects of intellectual property are the intangible, intellectual objects, by the pseudo-ownership claim, it is actually the corresponding expressions which are at the heart of Lockean intellectual property theory. The thinking is that by extending the physical Lockean property theory far enough, indirectly regulating intellectual objects, we can produce a kind of Lockean intellectual property theory. Technically speaking, since the intellectual object is not owned on this view, if there was a way to get at intellectual objects without producing, using, or distributing corresponding physical expressions, we would not be violating any weak enclosing thesis property rights. In practice, however, it appears as though indirect ownership results in the same consequences as direct ownership of an intellectual object.
When the electronic music duo Daft Punk produces an instrumental song, they are essentially discovering or creating some abstract intellectual object. The physical expression or manifestation of this original intellectual object might be a series of 0’s and 1’s on a CD or hard drive, or it may be recorded on analog cassette tapes, or it may be written down on paper in traditional music notation. Daft Punk directly owns this physical object. But, by the pseudo-ownership claim, they acquire an indirect intellectual property right to this original intellectual object. They don’t directly own the intellectual object per se, but they have the exclusive rights to produce, use, or distribute expressions of that intellectual object. This right is not over the intellectual object, but rather a right over all current and future possible expressions of that object.
Vitally, Daft Punk’s intellectual property rights indirectly protect not just one very specific intellectual object (the original), but in fact a set of them, a set of ideas which are close enough in identity for us to call them roughly the same. In essence, we are claiming that by directly discovering or creating the original intellectual object, Daft Punk also indirectly discovers or creates a set of similar intellectual objects. Exactly how similar the members of the set must be in order to maintain membership is not an exact science worked out by intellectual property theorists, legislators, or judges (they really should provide an account or heuristic device in this day and age). Daft punk does not directly own this set of ideas per se, but they have the exclusive rights to produce, use, or distribute expressions of any member of this set of intellectual objects.
Excepting expressions of the original intellectual object, the manifestation or expressions of any member of this set of intellectual objects are derivative works. By producing the original physical manifestation, Daft Punk generates the indirect intellectual property right to a corresponding set of intellectual objects. Importantly, Daft Punk directly controls and owns the current and future expressions, essentially derivatives and duplicates of the original expression, of any member of this set of intellectual objects. If I were to produce, use, and/or distribute my own rendition of this Daft Punk song, which would certainly be an expression of one of the abstract objects in this arbitrarily large set which Daft Punk discovered or created, I would be violating their right of direct ownership of all possible expressions or manifestations of the set of these intellectual objects.
''1.6 - Critique of the Weak Enclosing Thesis''
First, it is unclear how one comes to directly own future expressions – physical objects which do not yet exist. This does not parallel the general Lockean property theory at all. Why should we make the leap made in the pseudo-ownership claim of the weak enclosing thesis? A Lockean intellectual property theory which claims agents can own future objects isn’t in line with the original thinking we see in the general Lockean property theory.
Unfortunately, the weak enclosing thesis isn’t really an intellectual property theory at all. On the weak enclosing thesis, ownership is concerned with material objects, and despite this set of objects being related to intellectual objects, no headway has been made into establishing a proper intellectual property theory. Extending the general Lockean property theory with the weak enclosing thesis does not actually extend the type of objects which can be owned - only tangible items, including the particular expressions of intellectual objects, can be owned. Nothing abstract or intangible is ever owned or protected. This doesn’t even sound like an intellectual property theory – it really functions as an unnecessary and incompatible extension of the extended physical property theory. The extended Lockean property theory can already make sense of the physical property rights, including rights to manifestations or expressions of intellectual objects.
If it is true that one cannot own intellectual objects, but rather only the expression of those intellectual objects, then it seems possible to create new (even if identical to other) expressions of intellectual objects without violating the so-called intellectual property rights of other expression-holders. That is, there may be multiple expressions of one intellectual object, and my rights to expression-A do not negate your rights to expression-B. Moreover, we all have “enough of” and “as good as” left over for further expressions. If this instinct is correct, then Lockean intellectual property theories and laws which employ the weak enclosing thesis are untenable.
To put it another way, you may take a tree, chop it down, shape it into lumber, build a chair, an you come to own this chair by mixing your labor with its ingredients. It would be easy to show that you’ve violated the exclusivity rights derived from the pseudo-ownership claim. Surely, someone had to think of and build the chair - there is a form and an idea of a chair – it is an invention. Yet, even Lockean intellectual property theorists are not willing to attribute ownership of all possible expressions of the idea of a chair to the inventor. They don’t wish to apply the pseudo-ownership claim in this case, and instead we apply regular Lockean property theory. The next day, your neighbor is fully within her rights to chop down a tree, and so on, and build her own chair. She has not violated your rights to your chair, nor have either of you violated the first chair-creator’s rights to his chair.
Why should any other invention or creation which corresponds to an intellectual object be different? For example, you may write a piece a music in clay tablets, and by even traditional Lockean property rights, you already own that tablet, as you have mixed you labor with ingredients (some you already owned and some you perhaps didn’t before mixing). You’ve added value to the clay by forming it into a tablet and further by writing music notation upon it. Why can I not do the exact same? The rewards of my labor in building either a chair or a musical clay tablet are the expressions themselves. The reward of creation, at least on the Lockean view, is not one’s ability to monopolize and preclude others from building identical or similar expressions for themselves. My production of a thing, my mixing of my labor with ingredients, does not preclude others from doing the same, even identical action.
Furthermore, the weak enclosing thesis may be contrary to the Lockean proviso. Even if we were to accept the validity of indirect ownership and monopolies over intellectual object, the proviso would be activated, preventing the acquisitions which would lead to the indirect ownership of the most important intellectual objects. It is difficult to know which intellectual objects are protected by the proviso. At the minimum, appropriate interpretations will try to isolate which intellectual objects are necessary for subsistence, well-being, and ‘good and plenty’ conditions for the public in implementing the proviso. The chair example is a useful marker for considering this minimum protected by the proviso. The chair is not obviously necessary for subsistence, and yet it is still, by and large, protected – probably by the proviso. The Lockean proviso likely provides protection from indirect ownership to an expansive set of intellectual objects.
''1.7 - Conclusion''
In this chapter, we’ve delved into so-called Lockean intellectual property theory. The notion that the material realm is parallel to the immaterial realm appears false. It does not seem as if a direct ownership of intellectual objects (as in the strong enclosing thesis) is possible. Indirect ownership of intellectual objects (as in the weak enclosing thesis) does not appear to be an acceptable or consistent extension of Lockean property theory, either. There are gaps in the so-called Lockean intellectual property theory which have not been justified.
It appears as though Locke’s argument does not motivate intellectual property at all. It is fine that a so-called Lockean intellectual property theory is not purely Lockean, but advocates must still explain and justify their theory. Since they have not justified their stance on purely Lockean grounds, they must provide some other basis or foundation before one can accept their theory.
In the next chapter, we will tackle the primary argument which has become hybridized with Lockean mechanics: utilitarian economic intellectual property theory.
''CHAPTER 2. – UTILITARIAN ECONOMIC THEORY OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY''
''2.1 - Introduction and Scope''
This chapter provides an examination of the mainstream utilitarian economic theory of intellectual property rights employed by most first world, western nations. This theory claims that governments should assign strong, artificial intellectual property rights to creators, inventors, and discoverers and intensely enforce these rights against violators. This practice of assigning and enforcing strong intellectual property rights is believed to maximize the incentive to create, innovate, and discover. It is assumed that by maximizing these incentives, we will maximize the quality and quantity of social goods generated. In turn, maximizing the quality and quantity of social goods is believed to be a necessary condition for satisfying the principle of utility.
This chapter will limit its scope to the economic views (of which there are many, but notably Chicago-style, free market economics) which use utilitarian arguments to justify either the status quo or even the expansion of current intellectual property rights of inventors, creators, and discoverers in predominantly American and European intellectual property policies. Essentially, I’m examining a monolithized version of the views and perspectives of various groups and individuals in power, and I think this constructed theory represents the dominant intellectual property theory we face today.
The mainstream theory should not be confused with utilitarian economic theories advocating diminished, but not eliminated, intellectual property rights. Diminishing intellectual property rights theories are neither mainstream nor applied in the economic and legal policies of first world, western nations. This chapter is a response to the intellectual property theory that is actually being applied in our society. Excepting a few diminishing IP rights theorists and the Pirate Party (a tiny, nearly powerless political minority), the general battle cry of American and European legislative, judicial, and corporate bodies has been one of preserving the status quo of intellectual property rights, if not escalating these rights (which we’ve seen in recent years). The theory and thought of those who are in power, both maintaining or seeking to expand the status quo, are what is being questioned in this paper.
Assuming certain side-constraints can be satisfied (such as not violating primary human rights, etc.), it seems acceptable that governments should regulate property acquisitions and transfers so as to maximally satisfy the principle of utility. I hope to demonstrate how the currently employed utilitarian economic theory of intellectual property actually fails to satisfy the principle of utility.
''2.2 - Focusing on Incentives''
Does the mainstream utilitarian economic theory of intellectual property rights “live up” to the general utilitarian standard? First, we must consider the basic structure of the argument for the more common utilitarian economic theories of intellectual property:
#Assuming side-constraints that human rights are satisfied, society should adopt legal regimes or institutions if they are expected to yield the optimization of aggregate social welfare.
#Legal Regime X, which does not violate fundamental human rights, is expected to generate the most incentive for the production and creation of intellectual works.
#Maximally incentivizing the production and creation of intellectual works contributes to the optimization of aggregate social welfare.
#Therefore, Legal Regime X should be adopted.<<ref "16">>
The mainstream view believes a legal regime that provides authors, creators, and inventors with extensive intellectual property rights and control over their productions will fill in for “Legal Regime X” in the above argument. Essentially, Legal Regime X, on this view, is either the status quo or an expansion of current intellectual property right. Currently, the duration of federally regulated intellectual properties in the United States is as follows: a patent lasts from 14-22 years (depending on certain factors), and a copyright for the life of the creator plus 50-75 years (with a few rare exceptions, such as copyrighted government documents).<<ref "17">> Qualitatively, patents are the strongest type of intellectual property right, enabling very strict exclusivity rights defined both by litigation and a patent granting institution. Copyright also has extensive exclusivity rights, but within a limited scope defined by the results of litigation. The set of objects which can be copyrighted is narrower than patents and there are fair use exceptions.<<ref "18">> These are example qualities and durations of intellectual property rights found in the status quo. We must consider whether or not this regime really satisfies the conditions in the basic argument above.
Notice that one may provide an argument in favor of intellectual property rights similar to the mainstream view without requiring rights which last the same duration or which carry the same quality of rights. For example, diminishing intellectual property rights theories claim Legal Regime X is a legal regime that provides authors, creators, and inventors with more limited intellectual property rights and control over their productions. If they are correct, and utility is maximized via less extensive (yet still extant) intellectual property rights, then the mainstream view does not live up to its general utilitarian standard.
One fallacious argument for extensive intellectual property rights commonly offered by primitive utilitarian economists is that without intellectual property rights content creation and innovation will virtually disappear.<<ref "19">> This is derived from a common assumption in primitive utilitarian economics that altruism does not exist – they assume human nature rules out virtually all altruistic actions, including creating and innovating for reasons that are not directly in your self-interest. But this is clearly an implausible view. Whatever effects would accompany changes to the current intellectual property regime, innovation and content creation won’t simply disappear. If that were true, then there would have been no intellectual production prior to the adoption of the current regime.
More sophisticated utilitarian economists accept that there are other motivations for content creation and innovation beyond the monopolization of profits. Consider the Free Software movement. Within this movement, numerous authors, creators, and inventors of scripts, programs and devices demonstrate that significant innovation and content are created without economic motivation. Many choose to copyright and/or patent via GNU, Creative Commons, or the Apache licensing systems; others totally forgo involvement in the copyright/patenting process. There are people who genuinely give content away for no other reason than because it is a good thing to do. People innovate and create, essentially promoting the greater social welfare, without seeking or needing financial gain or monopolized control over intellectual objects. Artificial incentivization is not necessarily required.
The real question is this: Would there be less content creation and innovation, or even more specifically, the incentive to do these things, without the mainstream utilitarian economic intellectual property rights? It depends. If we did not replace it with anything, then it looks as though there could be less content creation and innovation. But if we replaced the intellectual property rights system with an alternative reward system, we still have artificially generated incentive to create content and innovate. Some economists, for example, argue that we can just as effectively generate these incentives “through private patronage by tax-exempt foundations, universities, and the like, or even by government support.”<<ref "20">>
Further, a number of economists have explained the efficacy of alternative systems. For example, one study suggests intellectual property rights are strictly inferior to at least hybridized incentive systems (made from elements of both intellectual property and reward systems) and possibly inferior to well-made reward systems in producing maximum incentives and social advantages.<<ref "21">>
Note that we already some successful forms of the reward system in place in the form of public research (including at many universities), and this reward system could be expanded to be the exclusive option. A rewards system may very well be the appropriate Legal Regime X. Incentivization can be handled without resorting to an intellectual property system. What remains is a choice between two general systems. In an intellectual property system, intellectual objects are monopolized, and the utility generated by these objects is bottlenecked by the consent (which must be bought) of monopoly and oligopoly holders. In a rewards system, access to intellectual objects is completely open, and utility generation is not bottlenecked; everyone who wants to benefit from and use intellectual objects is free to do so. Even if the incentivization of a rewards system was less effective than an intellectual property system (which isn’t even the case), the utility generated by the rewards system might be greater than the intellectual property system because of the difference in bottlenecks.
Furthermore, without even trying to find Legal Regime X, we can consider whether or not the general argument is even correctly postulated. Premise 3 (the claim that maximally incentivizing the production and creation of intellectual works contributes to the optimization of aggregate social welfare) is not obviously true. Maximizing incentive to produce and create intellectual properties does not obviously lead to maximizing aggregate social welfare. It may be safe to assume that some form of artificial incentivization is necessary for satisfying the principle of utility, but it isn’t clear that the sort of system which maximizes incentives is really going to lead to maximizing utility.
Unfortunately, incentivization issues have dominated the general utilitarian economics deliberations, and distributive concerns have taken a back seat in many utilitarian approaches (with some notable exceptions like Peter Singer). The costs of incentivizing, particularly in using an intellectual property system, may be much greater than is realized, and the end distribution of goods and the sum total utility in the world may be far lower than we’ve realized. It may be that the focus on incentivization sometimes blinds us to the larger issues at stake.
''2.3 - Globalization and Utilitarian Distributions''
When we set aside incentivization, at least for the moment, and instead focus more upon the underlying utility rationale, it seems that the policies which have shaped the status quo are not living up the utilitarian standard of welfare maximization. Today’s policies have not distributed social goods evenly enough across the global population.<<ref "22">> Wealth, including intellectual properties and the industries built on these intellectual properties, is largely held by a tiny minority. This wealth inequality is in no small part a product of our current intellectual property rights.
Given the principle of diminishing marginal utility, the intuition is that utilitarian distributions should be fairly even, or at the very least, these distributions should likely be concerned with those who have the least. There are diminishing utility returns for each subsequent unit of a social good. The first $10,000 of wealth will yield more utility than the next $10,000 of wealth. Surely, the resources necessary to survive will produce far more utility for an agent than the same amount of resources added to wealth of someone who already has more than enough to survive. By this principle of diminishing returns, you will likely get the most utility by maximizing the wealth of the poorest. These diminishing returns are the heart of calculating the sum utility of any distribution of goods, and it is one reason why utilitarian economic thought cannot justify the status quo.
Having a small minority living in abundance while most live far below that standard, many in abject poverty, is difficult to defend from a utilitarian point of view.<<ref "23">> Economic regimes which claim to be utilitarian have the work of explaining and promoting wealth inequality cut out for them. The distribution generated from the current intellectual property system is not utility maximizing. Wealth inequality, in no small part based on intellectual property distribution, is simply too great.
Economists may argue that wealth inequalities aren’t necessarily bad because wealth at the top eventually ‘trickles down’ to the global poor – i.e. the poor have the best distribution of all economic policies when we implement the (Chicago-style) free market and extensive intellectual property rights.<<ref "24">> This claim, however, is extremely contentious. There are many schools of economic thought which outright reject this laissez-faire, libertarian approach. The idea that vast wealth inequality is not utility maximizing is not a new one. The global poor are not receiving as much as they could under our current economic system. I contend there are better distributions of goods, including a distribution of intellectual property goods which yield more utility, available to us. Our mainstream, extensive intellectual property regime which is currently place is a barrier to maximizing global utility.
Unfortunately, the globality of utility is often forgotten by economists who are seeking to improve their own nation’s utility, even at the cost of the sum total global utility. Somehow, many economists seek to perform utility calculations at a national level. Utility is global, not nationalistic. <<ref "25">> This changes the practical details of economics and the legal issues at stake in a big way. The sorts of laws, such as intellectual property laws, which maximize a nation’s utility are different from the sorts of laws necessary to maximize global utility. Rich nations and wealthy people are going to need to sacrifice, giving to the poor and building infrastructure for the deprived. We need laws, including those which govern intellectual objects, which force us to give to the poor, if we truly wish to see utility maximized.
Given the nationalistic approach to utility, it is easy to see how intellectual property rights are somehow acceptable and not obviously causing so much harm within first world nations. Most of the damage is dealt to third world nations. From a global perspective, it becomes far more obvious why mainstream utilitarian economic intellectual property rights, rights conjured by first world nations, are harmful and not maximizing (global) utility.
Pharmaceuticals are the classic example of this harm. In a first world nation, a significant portion of the population (particularly in first world nations other than the United States) can afford the prices of medicines set by those who control the intellectual property rights. This is not true in third world nations. If you are making $2 a day, you can’t buy medicine with prices artificially raised to $50 for a month’s dosage, a price set by the monopoly over the intellectual property rights to a medicine. An economist will argue the efficient market hypothesis is supposed to make sense of this, explaining that price models will take into account what third world nations can pay. Unfortunately, even with drastic price reductions, many medicines won’t provide profit margins in the poorest nations.
Economists might argue that if it is so important that we help these people, then we shouldn’t punish intellectual property owners; rather, in order to maintain their incentives, we must instead use first world national public funds to buy products from these monopoly controllers and outright give the products to third world nations. We’d have to trust that monopolies would not price gouge, which would create a gigantic inefficiency in the market (that’s a serious flaw in granting intellectual property rights). Even if intellectual property holders didn’t price gouge, this middleman process likely forms another (although slighter) market inefficiency. Essentially, public funding of this sort is just an inefficient kind of the reward system. You would see higher market efficiency in a straight-forward reward system, which would then subsequently generate higher social utility; but to do this, would necessitate relinquishing the current intellectual property system.
Setting incentives aside, the fundamental problem with intellectual property rights is the formation of monopolies. Monopolies are innately inefficient for the market. Poor distributions result from monopolies. A rewards system does not form monopolies, it does not have the same degree of inefficiencies we see in the current intellectual property system, and we’d see better distributions through a rewards system.
If prices are kept artificially high, then demand (people willing to pay that price) will be low; subsequently, the utility produced will be low. If you choose not to allow monopolies of intellectual property objects, prices will fall exponentially, demand and the fulfillment of that demand will rise dramatically, and utility will be increased. As for the overall economy, my money is going to be spent. It doesn’t have to be spent inefficiently on goods that are artificially priced.
In our current economic scheme, I legally have to pay for objects protected by intellectual property laws. I have finite and very limited resources, which in turn means I can only buy a very limited number of these objects. Obviously, I receive some amount of utility from each object, and because I can only buy a limited number, my potential utility is also limited. An efficient, rational shopping strategy is currently the only legal way to maximize the utility benefit of my limited resources. Yet I am not generating nearly as much utility as I could if I had unlimited access to these objects.
Duplication and distribution costs are virtually zero for a significant portion of objects currently protected by intellectual property laws. Prices to these goods are artificially higher than they would be in a natural market – that’s what the intellectual property law does: it creates monopolies which enable rights-holders to raise prices astronomically beyond marginal costs. The monopolization of intellectual property objects prevents society from realizing the benefits of a new digital, networked infrastructure in which duplication and distribution costs of these objects have plummeted. Old business models do not belong to this new infrastructure, nor do the laws which protect those monopolistic models. Society is being price-gouged, and utility is not being maximized.
The financial cost of artificially incentivizing innovation and creation will always be there. Do we wish to pay this cost in terms of highly abusable monopolies via an outmoded intellectual property system belonging to a time and place where duplication and distribution costs were generally a higher portion of total production costs? Or, alternatively, should we use other modes of artificially generating incentive, such as reward systems, which can produce the same degree of incentive for the same financial cost without the baggage of monopolization? It seems like the latter option generates more utility.
Consider the difference between the utility of 50 million people having a logic book on their shelf or computer to the utility of 5 billion people having a logic book on their shelf or computer – the difference in utility would be enormous.<<ref "26">> The major economic reason only 50 million people (or whatever the exact number might be) have a logic book on their shelf or computer is that demand is restricted by having a price, an artificially high price set by those who have a monopoly over its production, a monopoly granted by intellectual property rights. Without those intellectual property rights, prices would drop – the digital version would be virtually free and available to everyone with an internet connection, demand would certainly surge, and ownership rates would also rise. Imagine the utility to be gained for if all intellectual properties were released into the public domain. It wouldn’t be just copyrighted works, but patented as well, a key to technological innovation and economic mobility. The first world can give the proverbial “keys to the kingdom” to the rest of the world.<<ref "27">> This is the opportunity cost we forego, an alternative with substantially higher utility, in accepting and implementing the mainstream utilitarian economic theory intellectual property.
''2.4 - The Prisoner’s Dilemma''
An additional, complicated aspect of distributions from a utilitarian economics perspective is the matter of how we employ predictive thinking in our models. Economists may see the distribution of goods as a gigantic prisoner’s dilemma. In this prisoner’s dilemma, multiple parties have the choice of whether or not to cooperate. As long as they all cooperate, even if it requires personal sacrifice, the highest sum total utility is attained. The problem, according to rational choice theory and an assumption of egoism, is that parties are predicted to not cooperate, and thus a lower total utility is achieved.
The mainstream view might admit that, theoretically, a distribution of goods which generates more utility than our current intellectual property system is available in this prisoner’s dilemma, but practically, it is not really available to us because of our so-called rational selfishness and egoism. Utopia (the derogatory term for this option in the prisoner’s dilemma) is theoretically there for us, but practically it is not – too many people do evil things and that cycle is predicted to continue. The claim is that because humans are selfish egoists, any property system like socialism is morally unacceptable to pursue, as it does not, by our predictions, result in maximum utility. On this view, our current property rights system, including intellectual property rights, are the way to go.
But, notice, this system is chosen in virtue of the assumption of egoism. Economists assume altruism is not the rational choice. Selecting the selfish and egoist option in the prisoner’s dilemma seems to be the practical thing to do, perhaps even the moral thing to do, and thus we should design and use an intellectual property system which harnesses these predictions. The mainstream intellectual property system is thought to harness our predicted selfishness. Sadly, this is no longer about what we ought to do, but more about what we predict others will do. It does not give humanity the chance to do what is right. It is a game, a game in which I predict you will do what is wrong, and I do not respect your autonomy or ability to do otherwise, and I pre-emptively wrong you and others.
I remain unconvinced from a purely theoretical perspective that the intellectual property system is the result of properly employing the utilitarian model. It still may be the case that we are morally obligated to do something, to choose an action which hinges upon the synergy of others doing what is right, even if we can practically predict that other people will not do what they are morally obligated to do. If this is true, then clearly our obligations and rights are not about predicting how others will act (as in the case of the prisoner’s dilemma), but rather expecting how others should act. Consequently, it may be correct upon this very theoretical utilitarian view to not employ an intellectual property system, and if one is in place, perhaps we not obligated to obey intellectual property laws; rather, we may be obligated to pursue a type of weak socialism (a topic to which many people have become allergic without necessarily having done prior, reasonable reflection).
On this theoretical view, utility clearly selects a system which is far more utopic. Even if Utopia, or whatever is nearest to it, doesn’t come about, perhaps we are still bound to aim for it from the utilitarian perspective. If this is not true, and if we should use predictions (to what extent I do not know) to inform our normative policies, there are other serious problems for the mainstream theory. If you are unconvinced by the prisoner’s dilemma issue, the practical matter of enforcement may be yet another critique.
''2.5 - Unenforceability''
Intellectual property rights, at least as they are granted in the current implementation of utilitarian economic theory, are not fully, and practically enforceable. We can have intellectual property laws on the books, and we can stop some infringement, but in a digital and globalized world, intellectual property rights are increasingly unenforceable. As we shall see, the issue of enforceability of intellectual property claims introduces great complexities for a utilitarian justification of intellectual property rights.
Protecting physical property is far easier than protecting intellectual property. Fences, cages, buildings, safes, locks, physical access, transportation, and physical forensics are stable and effective means to protecting and enforcing physical property rights. Further, involving authorities in physical property theft is easy to explain and prove – it is kind of theft which we can somewhat easily make sense of in lawmaking, law enforcement, and judging law. Physical property rights are enforced fairly well. That doesn’t mean there isn’t any theft of physical goods, but seems as if we have a decent track record of maintaining the lion’s share of physical property rights at acceptable costs of enforcement.
Intellectual property, in contrast to physical property, is far more difficult to protect. Enforcing intellectual property rights is too often not possible. For example, imagine a person invented a power loom in England. No other country has one which is nearly as successful. The inventor can stop people from stealing the physical power looms themselves, but can they protect the intellectual property of this invention? Along comes Francis Cabot Lowell who travels to England, memorizes the schematics of this power loom, travels back to the United States and rebuilds from memory (with the help of a master mechanic) an identical power loom. He and everyone else like him are infringing on the inventor’s intellectual property rights to the power loom. No one could stop him.
One side note: would we even want to stop Lowell? He is one of the fathers of the American industrial revolution. Other nations have their own fathers, many disregarding intellectual property rights. Isn’t infringement often necessary for improving the world? This scenario has been played out over and over (and over) in the history of intellectual property. It will continue. It is unstoppable.
Consider another example: perhaps a person has a book published and printed. Printshops and bookstores have feasible, practical, and consistent means to protect the physical property rights to these physical copies of his book. Contrast these paper copies to the digital copies he also sells on Amazon.com. He’s taken the proper precautions, using Digital Rights Management (DRM) tools to attempt to stop piracy. The fact remains that in minutes, anyone can strip that DRM off a digital copy and anonymously distribute DRM-free copies of his book – infringing on his copyright. Digital media is pirated behind nearly impenetrable proxies with encryption to thwart packet shaping. There are too many clever people who are well-protected, using decentralized networks to distribute these infringed goods – infringement, even from those who have taken precautions, can’t be stopped. Even if he went so far as to not release/sell a digital copy for concerns of piracy, it wouldn’t help. A pirate can borrow a physical copy and spend an hour generating high-resolution scans of the book with an AI that translates text images into searchable ASCII (essentially reproducing the PDF the author has sitting on his hard drive). Enforcing these intellectual property rights, unlike physical property rights, is often impossible. Even where it is possible, it often isn’t feasible. The cost to intellectual property rights enforcement may be too high.
Even if one attempted to lock down society (let’s assume one somehow found a way to do it without violating human rights), it is very possible that intellectual property infringement is to some degree economically the better thing to do. There are studies and models which show that the costs of complete intellectual property infringement deterrence are not economically preferred.<<ref "28">> Infringement without guaranteed repercussion should be preferred from the enforcement perspective. Unfortunately, the mainstream view sees punishment for infringement as always being worth pursuing. Copious amounts of economic and legal resources are directed toward enforcing the utilitarian economic intellectual property rights in vain. Intellectual property rights enforcement is generally a waste of resources. Those resources should be put to better use; higher utility would be gained from not attempting to enforce what is essentially unenforceable. The solution is lowering the expected quality and duration of intellectual property rights, spending time and money enforcing only what is practical to enforce.
''2.6 - Market Inefficiencies and Barriers to Innovations from Intellectual Property Wars''
When it comes to the technology sector, a sub-economy historically dominated by intellectual property, we see a world in which intellectual properties (such as patents) are not doing the incentivization work we expect; rather they have been turned into bargaining chips in litigation. These bargaining chips are used to maintain an oligarchy of technology giants which monopolize the various regions of technological innovation space, largely preventing independent innovators from entering the market.
Generally, technology giants are constantly violating each other’s intellectual property rights, but because each giant has a war chest of intellectual properties to levy against other giants, they stand in a litigation deadlock. Time and money are spent litigating rather than researching and developing. Patent wars slow down the innovation and creation of tech giants. The digital world is moving and changing very quickly, and our legal system is a barrier rather than a boon to innovation, even for giants.
Further, these intellectual property war chests are used to litigate (often unjustly) potential independent and smaller innovators out of the market. This oligarchy prevents the rapid change that we should be seeing from experts and inventors not employed by giants.
Google’s buyout of Motorola is a prime example of tactical patent hoarding used as defensive resources against other tech giants and as offensive tools against smaller companies. Would-be innovators are litigated out of the market. What is left is a market inefficiency of bargaining patents and litigation.<<ref "29">> Both the useless fighting amongst giants and the oligarchic, anti-trust practices against smaller competitors form major market inefficiencies, and limit the actual innovation and creation which takes place.
Essentially, the intellectual property system we have engenders intellectual property wars, forming an obstruction to the innovation and creation we were expecting in sectors like technology. In turn, the utility principle is not being satisfied.
The innovations we do see today often exist in virtue of people ignoring (outright infringing, at times) intellectual property rights.
The road of successful technology giants is paved with intellectual property infringement. Microsoft and Apple have a long history of it, from operating systems (Bill Gates clearly infringed upon Apple’s design), to hardware and interfaces (both companies and many others having infringed upon the innovations from Bell Labs), to devices like the touchpad (Bill Gates introduced one years before the iPad). This tradition continues between mobile device manufacturers and software producers. We see the same software, OS, and hardware mechanics at work in iPhones as we do in Android – they both have borrowed from each other. It is only by ignoring intellectual property rights that these devices have evolved so quickly.<<ref "30">> They could evolve even quicker if intellectual property did not exist. People will buy the device that implements an intellectual property (such as a patent) the best, regardless of who invented it.
Patent wars are nothing new. The term dates back to at least to the 1920’s.<<ref "31">> Patent wars are becoming more and more prevalent, and more costly than before. This is not what was intended from intellectual property regimes, but it is the result. Intellectual property laws are highly susceptible to abuse. The rights we’ve artificially created are not doing the work we expect to them to do. Rather than incentivizing creation, they’ve pushed many who don’t have a billion dollar bankroll out of patent war-heavy markets because they can’t afford to litigate, even when justice would be on their side. As for the giants who can afford to litigate, it holds their creation and innovation back for years unless they simply continue to disregard intellectual property law.
''2.7 - Conclusion''
I hoped to have provided doubts as to whether or not the mainstream utilitarian economic theory of intellectual property actually maximizes utility. The claim that the current intellectual property regime (or a regime which had even more extensive intellectual property rights) maximally encourages innovation or inevitably maximizes utility via innovation is extremely contentious. There are possibly alternative regimes which don’t include our current intellectual property rights which maximize incentive and utility. Further, this mainstream utilitarian economic theory appears to contribute the poverty and misery of the global poor. It is quite possible that abolishing intellectual property rights would immensely help the impoverished, and subsequently be a part of whatever economic regime actually maximizes utility. Lastly, the nature of intellectual property, in contrast to physical property, makes enforcement extremely difficult and results in inefficient use of resources. This is especially seen in the patent wars.
''CHAPTER 3. – AN ALTERNATIVE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY THEORY BASED ON HUMAN FLOURISHING''
''3.1 - Introduction''
This chapter is a sketch of an alternative theory or view of intellectual property based on neo-Aristotelian teleological and virtue concepts. The conclusions about intellectual property in this chapter will remain compatible with the conclusions I’ve drawn in the previous chapters, but will arrive at a similar perspective on intellectual property rights in a different way. This chapter is a sketch of a much larger project. I cannot explain or defend everything, but I hope to provide a loose framework and direction for this larger project, while pointing out major obstacles and important claims which require more explanation and justification.
I will offer a fairly traditional moral framework – not explicitly a virtue theory, but one with similar grounds. Within this framework I will argue for an obligation to intellectually flourish, which will be the source of particular intellectual property rights or lack thereof.
''3.2 – Human Function and Flourishing''
The assumed framework for this chapter is a perfectionist, objective, and substantive account of the human good, our well-being, and excellence.<<ref "32">> I am not in a position to justify or even substantiate a complete account of the human good in this chapter. I rely upon teleological, aretaic, and eudaimonic concepts which I cannot wholly defend. Exactly all of what counts as human flourishing (eudaimonia) is not something I can flesh out in this mere chapter, but there are obvious examples of flourishing: nourishing ourselves, appropriately resting and sleeping, living as social creatures and citizens, and being sheltered.
Various aspects of flourishing are less intuitive to some people. For the purpose of this chapter, which is concerned with reaching conclusions about intellectual property, I will assume and mostly focus upon the claim that being an excellent human specimen is largely predicated upon fulfilling our function as humans, a function deeply related to intellectual property.
One of the root assumptions of this chapter is that humans have a specific, shared, and species-wide function. In large part, I believe the fundamental, unchanging function of humans is the activity of thinking. Aristotle was basically right about this.<<ref "33">> We are thinking things–which is essential to who and what we are as humans. Humans exist to learn, to cultivate our minds, to ponder, to understand reality, to experience, to appreciate aesthetic beauty, to participate in political life and society, to read and watch and hear the ideas of others, to find truth, and to intellectually pursue whatever counts as being relevant and valuable. Our function is thinking, and that is the essence of being human. Fulfilling our function is a vital part of human flourishing or living well. Or one might say, following the influential work of Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum, that thinking is a fundamental human capability whose exercise is necessary for minimally decent human life.<<ref "34">>
I will refer to intellectual flourishing as fulfilling our function and living in accordance with reason. We might find such a perfectionist theory worrisome, in some ways. For instance, one might think we’ve boxed the human function in such a way that we lack variety or plurality of lives that can be said to be flourishing. Not everyone must fit a very specific cookie-cutter mold. There are topics about which all humans need to be literate and constantly engaging our minds (literature, math, politics, etc.). These are necessary intellectual realms. Not everyone, however, needs to learn to play a musical instrument or become a grandmaster chess player. Even music and chess, however, might sometimes be the only means to intellectual flourishing for someone. We must keep all avenues of intellectual flourishing open. Some people are suited to flourish intellectually in ways that others are not.
Intellectual flourishing is one of the primary and necessary conditions for living well, but it is not the only condition. Human flourishing consists of some sort of balance between leading ethical lives, intellectual flourishing, and biologically thriving. The exact priority of each of these conditions to flourishing isn’t clear. It seems, however, that biologically thriving generally serves as a means to the other two, even if it is an end as well. Thinking and leading ethical lives (which may just be a subset of thinking and mental action) are primary. This line of thought is more or less aligned with Nussbaum’s approach and list of capabilities.<<ref "35">>
For one to attain eudaimonia, to maximally partake of the human good, to flourish as a human, and to live well, one must flourish intellectually. The good human life requires that we think and employ reason in the right ways, at the right times, about the right things, and to the right extent. Similar things can be said for the other conditions necessary for attaining eudaimonia. For instance, the good human life requires one to eat the right foods, in the right quantities, at the right times, and so on.
These activities necessary for human flourishing are largely compatible with each other, often intertwined and deeply connected, and rarely at odds. There are, however, exceptions. For example, sometimes the ethical thing to do will require us to sacrifice our biological well-being. Such a sacrifice is morally right, but it does not lead to our own maximal human flourishing individually.
Somehow we do not partake of the human good as much as we would have if we weren’t put in a position where we had to sacrifice our biological well-being. Human flourishing is not always accessible or practically available to us – sometimes it isn’t our fault that we aren’t flourishing. Our well-being and the degree to which we partake of the human good is usually a mix between circumstances outside our control and some choices over which we do have control. Consider the following example.
Proper nourishment is a necessary condition for biologically thriving, and as such, it is a necessary condition for human flourishing. With respect to nourishment, a starving person in a third world nation is not living a good human life as effectively as a healthy, well-fed person who takes her vitamins in a first world nation.<<ref "36">> The starving person is eudaimonically impoverished; to some extent he isn’t flourishing as a human being because he isn’t biologically thriving. The well-fed person is a better human specimen in this respect. She isn’t a better human of her own volition (in large part) – rather, her flourishing and partaking of the human good is largely circumstantial. We must realize her choices about what are right and wrong are distinct from the degree to which she partakes of the human good. Circumstances, often outside our control, have a profound impact upon human flourishing.
Being an excellent human and living the good human life likewise requires that we flourish intellectually. To not flourish intellectually is a supreme type of impoverishment. All else being equal, the man who knows algebra is a better human specimen than the man who doesn’t. Likewise, the woman who engages in systematic and disciplined thinking is living a better human life than the woman who does not engage in this activity. Humans who aren’t functioning as humans aren’t flourishing. This, of course, brings up worries. After all, do we really want classify one human being as intrinsically better than another, particularly when they had no choice in the matter?
Let us consider the case of a human with Down syndrome as a worrisome example for the eudaimonic model. A cognitively impaired human is not living the good life to the fullest extent. He lacks well-being to some degree. He cannot and does not completely partake of the human good. Since he has Down syndrome, he is not flourishing intellectually, and, therefore, he cannot fully achieve eudaimonia. I think we intuitively know this already – this is why sympathy and pity are appropriate responses toward a human with Down syndrome. Something vital is missing in the lives of the cognitively impaired.
The implications of the claim that such a person is not flourishing may cause us to cringe. All else being equal, this cognitively impaired human being is not living as well as a human who is cognitively functional. Again, assuming everything else is equal, somehow the cognitively functional man without Down syndrome is a better human specimen, leading a better human life, than the man with Down syndrome. Our impulse might be to deny such claims. Positing human inequalities, eudaimonic or otherwise, may lead us to draw false conclusions – talk of human supremacy has a very troubled past. The worry is that placing eudaimonic values on human lives, comparing each individual against an objective standard of the human good, while demonstrating that some humans are superior or more excellent than others, may somehow lead us to treat poor human specimens inhumanely and unethically. Such treatment, however, is not deducible from recognizing when, where, who, how and why various humans are better or worse human specimens, partaking of the human good in different degrees, than other humans. Eudaimonic inequality does not remove one’s fundamental human rights (or our duties to such people); as we shall see later in this chapter, eudaimonic inequality can actually bring with it many claim rights of the impoverished (to which others are obligated).
In examining the human good, we must define when, where, and to what extent a human is responsible for his or her lack of flourishing. To the extent that one is not flourishing because of Down syndrome, one is not at fault. Genetic circumstance, rather than choice, has forced this human into eudaimonic impoverishment. He is not accountable for his lack of human flourishing in this respect. Consider, however, how cognitive impairment isn’t always just a matter of circumstance – some people choose to permanently impair their minds. The person who regularly gives in to laziness (choosing not to learn and think) or habitually abuses a dangerous substance which impairs cognitive development is intellectually impoverished. These cases are different from the human with Down syndrome. The constantly lazy, or habitual users of dangerous substances, have elected to impoverish themselves intellectually, and as such, they are culpable to that extent. The issue of responsibility leads us to the next important assumption of this project.
''3.3 - Our Obligations to Flourish''
The distinction between the human good and what is morally right/wrong is essential to this theory. The standard by which we judge moral action is parasitic upon the human good. Our obligations and rights are grounded and interpreted in virtue of the human good. To partake in the human good is not always up to us, and yet sometimes it is. The degree to which others partake in the human good is not always up to us either, and yet sometimes it is. In those cases in which it is our choice to influence or determine when humans can partake of the human good (flourishing), rights and obligations are formed.
I take for granted that we as humans have extensive obligations to ourselves to flourish and to enable others to flourish. We are morally required to ensure that we as individuals are existing and growing as humans ought. Further, we should help others flourish as human beings, as well. Insofar as it is up to us, we are morally responsible to flourish as a species.
This is not out of line with the neo-Aristotelian tradition. Our human telos, namely flourishing and living well, is not merely descriptive. It is the normative standard by which we judge the well-being of humans. These aretaic and eudaimonic concepts come pre-built with prescriptive powers. We are obligated to flourish, and as such we are obligated to take the means necessary to that end. Those conditions necessary for human flourishing form more particular obligations. We ought to lead ethical lives, we ought to thrive biologically, and we ought to flourish intellectually. A cascade of obligations flow out of these conditions for human flourishing.
It is perhaps more intuitive to see why we have obligations to ourselves to flourish as individuals. Surely we should take care of ourselves and improve ourselves. We should not waste our lives. We are responsible for ourselves. Our obligation to flourish is almost common sense. Our obligations to others, specifically to enable others to flourish, are perhaps less clear and obvious.
It seems easy to run into cases where interests conflict. For example, your personal flourishing is limited when you sacrifice resources to enable someone else’s flourishing. Exactly where and how we draw these lines of obligation are beyond the scope of this paper, but is an important obstacle to be dealt with when approaching my larger project. This worry of moral precision is complex. For this paper, I assume, even if I cannot justify or fully explain, that we have extensive obligations to others in virtue of their humanity.
Let us bring back our nourishment example. The starving person in a third world nation is not morally responsible for failing to flourish – there is no food available. To that extent, we cannot hold that individual accountable for not attaining or maintaining eudaimonia. The well-fed person in a first world nation, likewise, is largely not responsible for living in her circumstances, in this case, circumstances in which food is plentiful. We cannot praise the well-fed person for flourishing with respect to circumstances which are outside her control. The well-fed person, however, is responsible to eat healthily when possible and not in conflict with other duties. To that extent, the person is responsible for her personal nourishment and flourishing – she is morally praiseworthy insofar as she is responsible for her own successful flourishing and excellence.
Each individual has responsibilities to nourish themselves, to thrive biologically, and to flourish intellectually insofar as they are capable. Being a good human, however, is not always up to us – sometimes being a good human requires others to help us, as in the case of the starving person, who requires our aid (which presumably we could provide). We who live in abundance have obligations to starving people. We must enable them to flourish. We must provide for them the means to attain the basic, vital, and essential conditions to human flourishing. We have more than just eudaimonic obligations to ourselves; we also have extensive obligations to others. Equivalently, starving people have extensive rights to receive aid and to be enabled to nourish themselves.
Intellectual flourishing is similar. The person with Down syndrome is not morally responsible for not flourishing intellectually because of a genetic defect outside of his control. That person, however, is responsible for cultivating himself insofar as it is up to him. Furthermore, we have obligations to provide for him, to practically enable him to reach his potential. Conversely, people who are habitually too lazy to cultivate their minds or who capriciously and violently damage their minds are doing something immoral. They are responsible for these actions, and they are responsible for failing to flourish.
Similar to the nourishment example, intellectual flourishing of our species is not just a personal obligation to ourselves, it includes an expansive set of obligations to others. Providing education (in a very broad sense of this term) and the resources necessary to flourish intellectually is our crucial and collective obligation to every human. Fulfilling our function as much as possible requires planning and infrastructure; it also requires that we invest in others. We are morally required to maximally enable our species to cultivate our minds and to fulfill our human function.
Flourishing intellectually is just as important as thriving biologically, perhaps even more important. It would be better to live as a crippled scholar than as an uneducated and willfully ignorant gymnast who has his health and is thriving biologically. Not only are we required to feed and nourish others’ bodies, we must feed and nourish their minds. We are doing something immoral by not enabling others to flourish intellectually, just as it is immoral to refuse to provide food, and/or ways to acquire food, to those who need it.
This obligation to others has far reaching consequences. For the purpose of this paper, I wish to concentrate on the problem of obstructing others from flourishing intellectually. With some exceptions, it is generally immoral to prevent others from fulfilling their human function. It would be immoral, for example, to prevent poor children or a particular ethnicity from attending school, or reading books, or using the internet. These people are human, and like all other people, they have a right to have an education. Similarly, intellectual property rights, as we employ them today, are an obstruction to human flourishing, an obstruction for which we are morally responsible.
''3.4 – Ideas of Intellectual Flourishing as the Means to Flourishing''
The ideas protected by intellectual property claims, whatever they may be, are the ingredients and mediums of the human function. Ideas, concepts, designs, theories, books, music, movies, and whatever else is involved in intellectual property (and perhaps even more) are the very things which are necessary for intellectual flourishing. We must use and implement these ideas, many of which are artificially protected by intellectual property rights, to fulfill our function.
These ideas are the building blocks of thinking. They are the necessary and fundamental components of fulfilling our human function. Without having the access necessary to use and implement them, we are impoverished, not just intellectually, but also biologically.
It is fairly obvious how the use and implementation of these ideas are necessary for our cognitive development. These are the primary objects of cognition. Ideas are directly used or handled in our minds. Material objects must be used or implemented to enable further cognitive development. Printed media has accelerated how we pass information and knowledge on to others. Music notation and sound recording devices have enabled us to pass on phonic art and original lectures and speeches. Video synergizes our senses, efficiently passing on cultural, aesthetic, and educational information to others. Reflect on what the abacus or computer has enabled in terms of intellectual flourishing. We would not be able to develop our minds and fulfill our intellectual telos without using and implementing objects of intellectual flourishing.
Implementation provides other indirect benefits to fulfilling our intellectual telos as well. Take the case of Norman Borlaug, a man famous for changing agriculture around the world, many of us owe our lives to this man. Borlaug discovered or created the processes which doubled crop yields around the world. His work is not solely for academics or for the sake of Borlaug’s personal intellectual flourishing. The use and implementation of these ideas are necessary for human flourishing in other respects – directly impacting how we nourish ourselves as a species, and indirectly freeing up time and energy, while allowing us to pursue even greater intellectual flourishing. They open the gates to be better humans, individually and as a species.
Ideas of all sorts are necessary to intellectual flourishing; they are instrumental means to our function, and also therefore to our end as human beings. To be obligated to achieve an end is to be obligated to the necessary conditions and means for that end. We are obligated to use and implement the objects of intellectual property because they are part of the necessary means to achieving intellectual flourishing.
Granted, it isn’t clear how we know which intellectual objects are necessary as means to our flourishing, intellectually and otherwise. Some intellectual objects are clearly more relevant to our flourishing than others, and I’m unsure exactly which objects have absolutely no possible instrumental value to human flourishing. In the future, when developing my larger project related to intellectual property rights, I must address and substantiate/support the following claim: the number of objects which have no possible instrumental value to human flourishing, is exceedingly small. Some people already have this intuition, but for others, I may need to provide a wide-ranging set of cases and empirical evidence to support the claim.
Essentially, virtually all the objects of intellectual property must be made available to humanity. Some objects are necessary for everyone (literature, math, politics, etc.), and some objects are necessary for a few (musical instruments and chess). These objects must be freely available if we are to flourish as a species. Further, we are obligated to use and implement these objects to fulfill our function. Moreover, we should enable others to use and implement these objects, and we should not impede others from accessing, using, and implementing these objects because these are the means to flourishing.
''3.5 - The Right to Flourish''
Sen and Nussbaum’s capabilities approach is an empirical method of institutional reform that is derived from the normative claims that the freedom to achieve well-being as a human being is of vital moral importance and that this freedom can only be understood relative to the capabilities of individuals to realize it: that is, individuals must have real opportunities to live well and to flourish as human beings.
Their approach and my sketch are rooted in the same general kind of eudaimonism and picture of the human good. An account of human flourishing or human good defined by the essential functions and characteristics of humans is needed for the capability approach to produce tangible and substantial claims on which to apply its methodology.
Martha Nussbaum describes her "thick vague theory of the good” as “an account of the most important functions of the human being, in terms of which human life is defined. The idea is that once we identify a group of especially important functions in human life, we are then in a position to ask what social and political institutions are doing about them.”<<ref "37">> The capability approach is a method, arguably a heuristic device for justice, built upon this teleological view of humankind. This is the approach:
[1] We assume human life has a function(s) and a set of essential features; [2] we identify those properties in terms of functions/achievements and capabilities/opportunities, and set them as a metric or standard of human flourishing; [3] we go out into the world to test and observe whether or not, and to what degree, social and political institutions (like the basic structure in Rawls) are promoting and enabling humans in their domains to flourish according to our metrics; [4] if these standards aren’t reached, if humans aren’t flourishing as they should, if our social order performs poorly to any degree on our metrics, then we look to see how to reform or revolutionize public policies of these institutions in order for them to better enable and promote human flourishing; [5] go back to step 3, rinse and repeat.
The capability approach is not just interested in being able to describe what counts as flourishing – it wants to prescribe how we can bring about flourishing on a global scale. The sketch I’m offering in this chapter is more or less aligned with the capability approach in this goal.
Intellectual flourishing can be found in the central human capabilities that Nussbaum outlines. She outlines the ability to use and engage our senses, imagination, thought, experience, emotions, practical reason, among others, as central human capabilities – as essential teleological features of humans.38 Intellectual property rights are certainly a matter of great interest to the capability approach.
The capability approach is interested in measuring how public policy, including the quality and quantity intellectual property rights, generates or fails to generate circumstances in which humans maximally flourish. Current intellectual property rights do not merely interfere with our efforts to exercise our intellectual capabilities, but they generate a material circumstance for a majority of the world in which we can’t maximally exercise our intellectual capacities, and thus we fail as a species to maximally flourish.
One of the more contentious claims of this sketch theory is that, on average, more people will flourish, and flourish to a greater degree, if we did not continue to protect intellectual property rights in such high quantities and qualities. The current intellectual property regime impinges on our ability to exercise our intellectual capacities, and essentially we are restricted from maximally flourishing because of unnecessary intellectual property protections. That is clearly an empirical question which must be answered with a tool like the capability approach. If that claim is correct, then on a eudaimonistic approach to intellectual property, we may prescribe diminished intellectual property rights.
''3.6 - Conclusion''
Lockean and utilitarian economic theories of intellectual property try to construct a framework for extensive claim rights to intellectual objects. What I take from critiquing these theories is that their foundations – Locke’s general property theory and utilitarianism – actually lead to denying extensive and exclusive claim rights to intellectual objects. My alternative sketch of intellectual property reaches a similar and compatible conclusion.
---
<<footnotes "1" "Moore, Adam. 'A Lockean Theory of Intellectual Property' (PhD diss., Ohio State University, 1997), 82., in OhioLINK, http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=osu1214419634 (accessed June 13, 2012).">>
<<footnotes "2" "Palmer, Tom G. 'Are patents and copyrights morally justified? The philosophy of property rights and ideal objects.' Harvard Journal Of Law & Public Policy 13, no. 3 (Summer90 1990): 817. Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed November 24, 2011).">>
<<footnotes "3" "Fisher, William. 'Theories of Intellectual Property.' Harvard Law School. http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/tfisher/iptheory.html (accessed February 28, 2012).">>
<<footnotes "4" "Spinello, Richard A., and Herman T. Tavani. “Intellectual Property Rights: From Theory to Practical Implementation.” //Intellectual Property Rights in a Networked World: Theory and Practice//. Hershey, Pa: Information Science, 2004: 1-65. 5.">>
<<footnotes "5" "Unfortunately, defending either the discovery or creation views is a very complex metaphysical and epistemological concern well beyond the scope of this paper. I cannot settle it here. ">>
<<footnotes "6" "Ibid. 7">>
<<footnotes "7" "Locke, John. //Second Treatise of Government.// Ed. C. B. Macpherson. Indianapolis, Ind: Hackett Pub. Co, 1980. 21.">>
<<footnotes "8" "Ibid.">>
<<footnotes "9" "Easterbrook, Frank H. 'Intellectual property is still property.' //Harvard Journal Of Law & Public Policy //13, (January 15, 1990): 108-118. 110.">>
<<footnotes "10" "Wolff, Jonathan. 'Libertarianism, Utility, and Economic Competition.'// Virginia Law Review //92, no. 7 (November 2006): 1605-1623. 1618.">>
<<footnotes "11" "Spinello, Richard A., and Herman T. Tavani. 'Intellectual Property Rights: From Theory to Practical Implementation.' 8.">>
<<footnotes "12" "There are three major types of expressions of intellectual objects, each being protected by a different type of intellectual property law. Expressions of intellectual objects include the actual tangible mediums of books, paper, and canvas in cases of literature, music, art – we refer to the protection of these expressions as copyrights. Expressions also include tangible machines and processes in the cases of inventions and functional ideas – the protection of these expressions are called patents. Expressions, such as images or words, which uniquely identify entities, services, or products, are protected by Trademarks.">>
<<footnotes "13" "Kimppa, Kai. 'Intellectual Property Rights in Software-Justifiable from a Liberalist Position? Free Software Foundation's Position in Comparison to John Locke's Concept of Property.' //In Intellectual Property Rights in a Networked World: Theory and Practice//. Richard A. Spinello and Herman T. Tavani.. Hershey, Pa: Information Science, 2004: 67-82. 68.">>
<<footnotes "14" "Moore, Adam. 'A Lockean Theory of Intellectual Property' (PhD diss., Ohio State University, 1997), 183-184., in OhioLINK, http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=osu1214419634 (accessed June 13, 2012).">>
<<footnotes "15" "Similarity is the vital relationship between the original work and derivative work regarding intellectual property rights. On this theory (and the legal practice of it) derivative works are not merely about the causal origins of a work. A new work may be transformed so far from an original work that the new bears absolutely no resemblance to the original – these works are not infringing on the original owner’s intellectual property rights. A new work which would be potentially infringing on the original without the consent of the original’s owner, a judgment based exclusively on similarity, is a derivative work. A derivative work usually has a causal chain connecting it to the original work, but vitally, a derivative work is similar enough to the original that judicial and legislative bodies require the derivative work’s producer to acquire consent of the original work’s owner.">>
<<footnotes "16" "Spinello, Richard A., and Herman T. Tavani. 'Intellectual Property Rights: From Theory to Practical Implementation.' 14.">>
<<footnotes "17" "Besen, Stanley M.and Leo J. Raskind 'An Introduction to the Law and Economics of Intellectual Property.'
//The Journal of Economic Perspectives// , Vol. 5, No. 1 (Winter, 1991):3-27. 7-11.">>
<<footnotes "18" "Besen, Stanley M.and Leo J. Raskind 'An Introduction to the Law and Economics of Intellectual Property.' 12.">>
<<footnotes "19" "Abrams, Howard B. 'Originality and creativity in copyright law.' //Law & Contemporary Problems //55, (April 15, 1992). 3-44.">>
<<footnotes "20" "Robert M. Hurt and Robert M. Schuchman. 'The Economic Rationale of Copyright.' //The American Economic Review// , Vol. 56, No. 1/2 (Mar. 1, 1966): 421-436. 426.">>
<<footnotes "21" "Steven Shavell and Tanguy van Ypersele. 'Rewards versus Intellectual Property Rights.' //Journal of Law and Economics// , Vol. 44, No. 2 (October 2001). 525-547.">>
<<footnotes "22" "I am not claiming egalitarian distributions maximize utility, rather I’m claiming that distributions with vast wealth inequalities do not satisfy the utility principle.">>
<<footnotes "23" "I grant that criticisms of general utility, such as the utility monster, actually can lead to very unequal distributions and may result in the impoverishment of the vast majority of the populace. I am not defending utilitarianism in this paper, and I am going to assume more moderate views of utilitarianism (which set aside or are assumed to avoid objections like the utility monster) for the sake of this paper. I’m trying to temporarily grant, for the sake of argument, the viability of the general utilitarian approach.">>
<<footnotes "24" "Aghion, Philippe, and Patrick Bolton. 'A Theory of Trickle-Down Growth and Development.' //Review Of Economic Studies// 64, no. 2 (April 1997). 151-172.">>
<<footnotes "25" "Even if we considered utility at a national level, the principle of utility is not satisfied in first world western nations. Unfortunately, nationalistic approaches fail to take into account how first world nations have both directly and indirectly caused harm to the poor in third world nations. Our intellectual property system is one of the many causes of the high degree of impoverishment worldwide. The fact is that the average poor person in a third world nation is simply much, much poorer than a poor person in a first world nation, and in part, this is due to first world intellectual property system.">>
<<footnotes "26" "Of course, not everyone would read the logic book on their shelf or computer. But, I believe it is safe to assume that 5 billion people having a logic book will result in more people having read a logic book than merely 50 million having a logic book. I am also assuming that reading a logic book will result in significant utility gains. If you don’t like the example, then replace the logic book with something you believe most anyone would benefit by viewing/hearing/reading/etc.">>
<<footnotes "27" "I’m not claiming that releasing all intellectual property into the public domain would result in some celestial utopia, but I do believe it would be enormously beneficial to the world. Yes, it would cost the wealthy something, but the gains in utility would be well worth it.">>
<<footnotes "28" "Konstantinos Giannakas. 'Infringement of Intellectual Property Rights: Causes and Consequences.' //American Journal of Agricultural Economics// , Vol. 84, No. 2 (May, 2002). 482-494.">>
<<footnotes "29" "Joseph Farrell. 'Intellectual Property as a Bargaining Environment.' //Innovation Policy and the Economy// , Vol. 9, No. 1 (2009). 39-53. ">>
<<footnotes "30" "Timothy Lee, 'If Android is a 'stolen product,' then so was the iPhone,' //Ars Technica//, February 23, 2012. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/02/if-android-is-a-stolen-product-then-so-was-the-iphone.ars(accessed February 27, 2012).">>
<<footnotes "31" "//Time Magazine.// Business: Patent War. June 10, 1929. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,751967,00.html (accessed February 27, 2012).">>
<<footnotes "32" "See Hurka, Thomas. //Perfectionism//. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993; and Foot, Philippa. Natural Goodness. Oxford: Clarendon, 2003.">>
<<footnotes "33" "Nicomachean Ethics I. 7, 1097b25-1098a15.">>
<<footnotes "34" "See Nussbaum, Martha. Capabilities and Human Rights, 66 Forham L. Rev 273 (1997), http://ir.lawnet.forham.edu/flr/vol66/iss2/2; and Sen, Amartya. 'Human Rights and Capabilities.' //Journal of Human Development// 6, no. 2 (July 2005): 151-166.">>
<<footnotes "35" "Nussbaum, Martha. //Capabilities and Human Rights//, 66 Forham L. Rev 273 (1997), http://ir.lawnet.forham.edu/flr/vol66/iss2/2: 287.">>
<<footnotes "36" "Sen, Amartya. 'Human Rights and Capabilities.' //Journal of Human Development// 6, no. 2 (July 2005): 154.">>
<<footnotes "37" "Nussbaum, Martha C. 'Human Functioning and Social Justice: In Defense of Aristotelian Essentialism.' //Political Theory// Vol. 20, No. 2 (May, 1992): 214">>
<<footnotes "38" "Nussbaum, Martha. //Capabilities and Human Rights//, 66 Forham L. Rev 273 (1997), http://ir.lawnet.forham.edu/flr/vol66/iss2/2: 285-288.">>
---
REFERENCES
Abrams, Howard B. "Originality and creativity in copyright law." //Law & Contemporary Problems// 55, (April 15, 1992). 3-44.
Aghion, Philippe, and Patrick Bolton. "A Theory of Trickle-Down Growth and Development." //Review Of Economic Studies// 64, no. 2 (April 1997). 151-172.
Besen, Stanley M.and Leo J. Raskind “An Introduction to the Law and Economics of Intellectual Property.” //The Journal of Economic Perspectives// , Vol. 5, No. 1 (Winter, 1991):3-27.
Easterbrook, Frank H. "Intellectual property is still property."// Harvard Journal Of Law & Public Policy// 13, (January 15, 1990): 108-118.
Farrell, Joseph. “Intellectual Property as a Bargaining Environment.” Innovation Policy and the Economy , Vol. 9, No. 1 (2009). 39-53.
Fisher, William. “Theories of Intellectual Property.” Harvard Law School. http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/tfisher/iptheory.html (accessed February 28, 2012).
Foot, Philippa. //Natural Goodness//. Oxford: Clarendon, 2003.
Giannakas, Konstantinos. “Infringement of Intellectual Property Rights: Causes and Consequences.” //American Journal of Agricultural Economics //, Vol. 84, No. 2 (May, 2002). 482-494.
Hurt, Robert M. and Robert M. Schuchman. “The Economic Rationale of Copyright.” //The American Economic Review// , Vol. 56, No. 1/2 (Mar. 1, 1966): 421-436. 426.
Hurka, Thomas. //Perfectionism//. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993.
Kimppa, Kai. "Intellectual Property Rights in Software-Justifiable from a Liberalist Position? Free Software Foundation's Position in Comparison to John Locke's Concept of Property." //In Intellectual Property Rights in a Networked World: Theory and Practice//.
Richard A. Spinello and Herman T. Tavani.. Hershey, Pa: //Information Science//, 2004: 67-82.
Lee, Timothy. “If Android is a 'stolen product,' then so was the iPhone,” //Ars Technica//, February 23, 2012. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/02/if-android-is-a-stolen-product-then-so-was-the-iphone.ars(accessed February 27, 2012).
Locke, John. //Second Treatise of Government//. Ed. C. B. Macpherson. Indianapolis, Ind: Hackett Pub. Co, 1980.
Moore, Adam D. “A Lockean Theory of Intellectual Property.” PhD diss., Ohio State University, 1997. In OhioLINK, http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=osu1214419634 (accessed June 13, 2012).
Nussbaum, Martha. //Capabilities and Human Rights//, 66 Forham L. Rev 273 (1997), http://ir.lawnet.forham.edu/flr/vol66/iss2/2.
Nussbaum, Martha C. “Human Functioning and Social Justice: In Defense of Aristotelian Essentialism.” //Political Theory //Vol. 20, No. 2 (May, 1992):
Palmer, Tom G. "Are patents and copyrights morally justified? The philosophy of property rights and ideal objects." //Harvard Journal Of Law & Public Policy// 13, no. 3 (Summer90 1990): 817. Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed November 24, 2011).
Sen, Amartya. "Human Rights and Capabilities."// Journal of Human Development// 6, no. 2 (July 2005): 154.
Spinello, Richard A., and Herman T. Tavani. “Intellectual Property Rights: From Theory to Practical Implementation”. I//ntellectual Property Rights in a Networked World: Theory and Practice//. Hershey, Pa: Information Science, 2004: 1-65.
Shavell, Steven and Tanguy van Ypersele. “Rewards versus Intellectual Property Rights.” //Journal of Law and Economics// , Vol. 44, No. 2 (October 2001). 525-547.
Time Magazine. Business: //Patent War//. June 10, 1929. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,751967,00.html (accessed February 27, 2012).
“While Drafting SOPA, the U.S. House Harbors BitTorrent Pirates.” //TorrentFreak//. Entry posted December 26q, 2011. https://torrentfreak.com/while-drafting-sopa-us-house-harbors-bittorrent-pirates-111226/ (accessed December 26, 2011).
Wolff, Jonathan. "Libertarianism, Utility, and Economic Competition." //Virginia Law Review// 92, no. 7 (November 2006): 1605-1623.
Assumptions in Bridging the Epistemic and Moral, and Haack's Distinction Between Epistemic and Moral Normativity
First, and perhaps this is too obvious, since we are trying to bridge two very large branches of philosophy in this discussion, there seems to be a number of assumptions we have to make to bridge the gap.
Haack, for example, may be assuming a model of human flourishing, rather than other models ethics/morality (pg. 22). This is fine, but I think it brings a lot of baggage to the table. Flourishing has more components than merely “what is right or wrong," as it also contends with the non-moral considerations of the human good. For example, a starving person isn’t fully partaking of the human good (isn’t achieving eudaimonia or flourishing), but this may not be an issue of “should" or "ought,” as perhaps the starving person has no choice in the matter. My worry is that the non-moral components of a model of human flourishing may cloud the issue about the relationship between epistemic and moral normativity.
It seems that the relationship between the epistemic and the moral is both complicated and defined by whichever approach or model of morality we assume (and vice versa, with respect to epistemic models). It would make it a lot easier if we could just choose one model, and work from there. Perhaps that isn't practical in this discussion, but I think it is something we have to keep in mind in framing the discussion.
Second, and more importantly, Haack's distinction between epistemic normativity and moral normativity seems very important to interpreting and making sense of many the issues at stake in Clifford-James debate. Haack seems firmly against the special-thesis or any variant of it, and admittedly, I am fairly sympathetic (at least until I'm convinced otherwise) to the special-thesis.
For the special-thesis, I’m trying to think of an example where one is epistemically unjustified or epistemically “should not” believe in something, but holding that belief is morally acceptable or obligated. In the scenarios I’ve considered, it seems that the epistemic “should” is outweighed by or takes a backseat to other salient moral considerations, perhaps similar to the rebuttal of the first criticism of the special-thesis or even the reinterpretation of the special-thesis. Does anyone have a clear example which elucidates and compels me to agree to her criticism of the special-thesis?
So far, my response to Haack would be something like this:
Insofar as belief is up to us (we voluntarily choose it or induce it), the sense of “epistemic should not” doesn’t really exist or isn’t relevant somehow. I don’t see how the “epistemic should or should not” holds the normative weight that Haack implies. Epistemic justification is normatively relevant insofar as it is a moral consideration, but I don't see how there is some kind of epistemic normativity outside of moral normativity. The simple and bare claim that "a belief is epistemically unjustified," is a morally neutral or decontextualized claim, it lacks real normativity. The question "should I believe X?" is a moral question, which in the vast majority of cases probably draws upon epistemic justification as a primary factor for answering the question. All else being equal, or given no other moral considerations, I may agree that epistemic justification (or lack thereof) does bring with it a corresponding moral duty to believe or not to believe. But I don't see how epistemic justification has any independent, stand-alone normative force that the Haack's criticism of the special-thesis pushes us towards. I think the special-thesis, if I understand it correctly, is still quite plausible.
Berlin investigates two conceptions of freedom/liberty.
Positive liberty is the capacity for autonomy or the presence of the components of autonomy. I see positive liberty as pointing us toward the necessary constructive elements of autonomy. Positive liberty looks at the source of autonomy.
Negative liberty is not being prevented from exercising autonomy or the absence of obstacles, coercion, interference, or constraints upon one’s autonomy. In contrast to positive liberty, I see negative autonomy as pointing us toward those elements which can deconstruct, limit, or disable autonomy.
This reminds me of positive and negative duties. If you have a positive duty, someone is obligated toward you. If you have a negative duty, you are obligated not to interfere or prevent someone else from doing something. Negative duties are about absence of interference, and positive duties seem to have the primary thrust of duty-based thinking. I see positive and negative liberty as being analogous.
While the following differs from Berlin, this is what crudely came to my mind:
<<<
Make a 4x4 Box of the following:
X:
* Positive Liberty
* Negative Liberty
Y:
* Individual Public (Political) Autonomy
* Individual Private Autonomy
Clockwise, starting in top-left:
# Having the capacity to participate in politics
# Having a government which promotes choice and whatever else counts as political autonomy, etc.
# Your authentic-self governs you
# Your “moral” autonomy
<<<
You face no political obstacles/interference
No inauthentic-self or non-political force interferes or prevents your authentic self from governing you
<<<
Make a 4x4 Box of the following:
X:
* Positive Liberty
* Negative Liberty
Y:
* Corporate Public (Political) Autonomy
* Corporate Private Autonomy
Clockwise, starting in top-left:
# Having the capacity to participate in global politics among other external autonomous agents Having an external governing agent(s) (corporate or otherwise) which promotes choice & whatever else counts as political autonomy for you as a corporate autonomous agent
# The authentic corporate self (e.g. a nation) governs itself and the agents, individual or corporate, internal to it
# You face no political obstacles/interference from external political agents
# No inauthentic corporate self, comprised of individual or corporate agents, interferes or prevents your authentic corporate self from governing you and the agents, individual or corporate, internal to you
Corporate Public (Political) Autonomy Corporate Private Autonomy
<<<
Berlin seems to push for a balance between positive and negative liberty. Seeking this balance also reminds me of that adage, “Your rights end where my rights begin.” We want to maximize the positive liberties of each autonomous being, but only insofar as they do not impinge on the negative liberties of each other autonomous being.
Summary:
Persons have First-Order (FO) desires and Second-Order (SO) desires. FO desires are those desires from which we physically act. Non-person animals may have FO desires. SO desires stem from reflective self-evaluation, and are the desires to modify or have a different set of FO desires. SO desires are those desires which add new or strengthen current desires (I believe Frankfurt also meant to add subtract and weaken current desires as well). Importantly, SO Volition is the capacity to attempt to strengthen (and presumably weaken) FO desires, but not the capacity to add (and presumably subtract) FO desires. A person must have SO Volition (I have no clue what FO Volition is). One can have FO and SO desires, but without SO volition, that agent is a non-person, or “wanton.” The “will” is whatever is “effectively desired,” and an effective desire is the set of FO desires that motivates or moves (or will or would move) a person to action. Oddly, SO Volition is also the ability to “identify oneself with one’s FO desires.” What does it mean to identify yourself with one of your FO desires? Beats me.
Freedom of Action is the ability to do what one wants to do, in particular, translating FO desires into action. Freedom of Will is distinct, but analogous. Freewill is being free to want what you want to want, or being free to will what you want to will, or being free to have the will you want. Freewill is exercised in the efficacious formation of a SO Volition (15). It is possible to have conflicting and equally strong SO desires, to the point that we lose SO Volition. In these kinds of cases, there are Third Order (TO) desires and volition (16). The same can be said for TO desires and volition, and so on, leaving room for an infinite staircase of orders of desire and volition attempting to rule their predecessor. One might be inclined to think that the “authentic self” resides at the highest order. Not the case for Frankfurt. Lastly, to identify “Decisively” with an FO desire will affect all orders, forcibly constituting them and unifying them.
Thoughts:
I have questions about what counts as “action.” Surely, there are mental and physical actions. It seems that many of the mental mechanisms in Frankfurt’s story require mental action, and this may be a monkey-wrench for him.
It is interesting that Frankfurt argues that FO desires, to take and to not take drugs, are authentically and really the desires of the unwilling addict (13). Later, we find that this part of the person is ruling the “whole” or maybe instead the “authentic” self.
If you lack free will entirely, you can’t have SO Volition, can you? Is it a temporary lack of free will (or lacking free will in this respect) that allows us to call the unwilling addict a person with SO Volition still?
Lastly, who or what does the identifying? Free Will is very potent in this theory. It seems to be doing all the work. The choosing decisively, identification, and all the real work in selecting the various desires in the various orders is accomplished through free will. Well, isn’t free will the real (slim shady), authentic self?
---
The structure of the person’s will distinguishes person from non-person.
First-order desires: “desires to do or not to do one thing or another” (7)
Second-order desires: desires stemming from “reflective self-evaluation,” “being different from what they are”
Immediately, second-order desires bring out the distinction between the authentic and inauthentic self. What does it mean for an authentic self to want desire to be something other than itself?
To what extent do we have control over our first and second order desires?
The “will”: Whatever is effectively desired?
Effective Desire: “one that moves (or will or would move) a person all the way to action”
Intending: Setting to do something, but not necessarily being motivated or moved all the way to action. Intended Desire seems to be a desire we consciously think we are going to fulfill, but this isn’t enough to motivate action.
What selects effective desire? Can that selection be outside of our control and we still maintain a kind of autonomy?
Action: Physical action and mental action. Effective second-order desires bring about mental action.
Effective first-order desires motivate action, right? Ineffective first-order desires don’t motivate action. Can there be effective and ineffective second-order desires? Can I want to be a different person, choosing to have different first-order desires? Sometimes it seems as though I can, and other times I am not sure if I can.
Second-order desires: modify first order desires. Adds new first-order desires, or strengthens a current first-order desire to be effective. Shouldn’t this include removing first-order desires and weakening first-order desires? Also, I think a compound second-order desire would be adding a first-order desire and setting that desire to a certain strength.
Second-order volition: Where a second-order desire strengthens a first-order desire to be effective.
Having second-order volition is the essential key to being a person, not merely having second-order desires consisting in the addition/subtraction of first-order desires.
Wanton Agent: a non-person agent with FO desires, possibly having SO Desires, but lacking SO volition. I.e. NOT A PERSON. He does not “care about his will.” “He ignores the question of what his will is to be. Not only does he pursue whatever course of action he is most strongly inclined to pursue, but he does not care which of his inclinations I the strongest.”
This reminds me of Hume. Would the objection be that having a SO desire simply still mean we are ruled by our desires? Where is the room for reason and deliberation here.
Ah, but Frankfurt says the essence of personhood is not reason, but will. Reason may be necessary for personhood, but it isn’t sufficient. The structure of will presupposes reason.
Wanton agents can reflect. Reflection must be weak. Reflection is not a changing of the strength of desires, but it can add or subtract.
The unwilling addict is a person. Interestingly, his SO volition exists but is not efficacious. The mere attempt to strengthen or weaken desires is SO Volition, not the actual, practical capacity to really do it in fact.
SO Volitional neutrality exists. One might be fine with FO Desires being equal in strength.
Pg. 13, Frankfurt argues that FO desires, to take and to not take drugs, are authentically and really the desires of the unwilling addict. Frank says, “he acts to satisfy what is in a literal sense his own desire.”
What the mechanism in which FO desires motivate action? Frank seems to agree that FO desires are stronger, equal, or weaker in relation to other FO desires. Do we simply act from our highest desire or set of desire (that are compatible, etc.)? I think so, but Frank appears not to think so.
Pg. 13, “The unwilling addict identifies himself, however, through the formation of a second-order volition, with one rather than with the other of his conflict first-order desires.” Well, now I’m fucking confused. VO Volition isn’t merely strengthening and weakening desires, but also it is about identifying ourselves” with FO desires.
What does it mean to identify yourself with one of your FO desires?
SO Volition is formed (pg 13, again, Jesus). One does not merely have SO Volition as a capacity? Btw, what is FO Volition?
The unwilling addict can say that it was not his will to take drugs.
Pg. 14, “When a person acts, the desire by which he is moved is either the will he wants or a will he wants to be without.” He means “wants that FO desire not to be the effective desire,” not “doesn’t want that FO desire at all,” by “will he wants to be without”, right? That could be just a matter of not being able to weaken that FO desire which turns out to be the effective desire. What is the status of the subtraction of FO desires?
“Being to free to do what one wants to do” is neither a sufficient nor a necessary condition for free will (14). Turns out that is Freedom of Action (15).
Freedom of action is distinct from freedom of will. What about mental acts? SO Desires and Volition motivate actions, right? If you aren’t free with these actions, you are fucked, right? Also, what are the mechanisms by which SO Desires and Volition motivate action?
Freewill does not concern action and desire (15). Well, if that’s the case, then desire directly leads to action (as long as we have freedom of action in that regard).
Freewill: “free to want what he wants to want” /giggle – being “free to will what he wants to will” or free to “have the will wants”
Freewill is exercised in the efficacious formation of a SO Volition (15). The unwilling addict is clearly not free in this respect, yet he is a person. So, do we mean autonomy by “is a person” and freewill is separate?
If you lack free will entirely, you can’t have SO Volition, can you? Is it a temporary lack of free will (or lacking free will in this respect) that allows us to call the unwilling addict a person with SO Volition still?
It is possible to have conflicting and equally strong SO desires, to the point that we lose SO Volition. Wait, who/what chooses and selects between SO Desires, theirs strengths and their existence?
Frankfurt has rolling definitions, where he adds to them throughout the article, and several times may even be redefining them (or attributing properties to these definitions that eventually are contrary).
Ah, so there are Third Order (TO) desires and volition (16). Perhaps N orders. One might be inclined to think that the authentic self resides at the highest order. Not the case for Frankfurt. To identify “Decisively” with an FO desire will affect all orders, forcibly constituting them and unifying them. But, who the fuck does the identifying?
“Resounding” is the important aspect of Choosing Decisively.
Orders – “To want…” ----- FO=to want, SO=to want to want, TO=to want to want to want
Free Will is VERY potent in this theory. It seems to be doing all the work. The Choosing Decisively and so forth. To me, it sounds like none of orders of desires are really the authentic self ever.
Autonomy - Introduction
We appear to be different from other animals. We seem capable of deciding what to do, what to believe, and how to live. Our actions seem to be “up to us.” We seem to be responsible for them, or at least that often seems to be the case. We seem to be fitting objects for reactive attitudes like praise and blame.
These differences, many have thought, emanate from our capacity for autonomy – our capacity to govern ourselves. But that thought raises many questions:
What is the nature of this capacity?
Do we in fact possess it?
Is this capacity worth having?
Does this capacity have any normative relevance? Does it ground any moral principles? Does it bear on what we owe to each other?
“Autonomy” comes to us from the Greek, with “auto” meaning “self” and “nomos” meaning “law.” An autonomous person is thus one who gives the law to himself – he is, we could say, self-ruling, self-governing, or self-legislating.
Traditionally the concept of autonomy has been applied primarily to nations, where a nation was said to be autonomous so long as it wasn’t ruled by a foreign power.
Our focus, however, will be not on nations but on individuals, and we can apply to same analysis to them. We can say that individuals are autonomous insofar as they are not ruled by a foreign power.
Of course, in the case of individuals it’s less clear what constitutes a foreign power – it’s less clear which powers are foreign and which, so to speak, are domestic.
There are at least two concerns about the nation/individual analogy:
There are degrees to which one can be governed by another, and, unlike in the case of national autonomy, individual autonomy might be incompatible only with the most extreme form of other-government.
Even if one isn’t governed by another, one can still lack autonomy, it seems, because one is governed by something other than one’s “true self.” One can be enslaved from within, so to speak. There may be no analog to this possibility in the case of national autonomy (though that’s debatable).
In defense of (2), there appear to be cases in which individuals are being governed by a foreign power without any external coercion. If we are to avoid concluding that all cases of so-called autonomous action are like that, it looks like we’ll need to draw a distinction between a real, authentic self and a fake, impostor self.
Autonomy, then, looks to be a fairly complex notion. It’s not enough, it seems, to not be governed by others; to be autonomous one must be governed by one’s true self. But what the heck is that?
Of course, the idea of a true self is hardly new. It occurs in many religions. Plato had a theory according to which there were three parts to the soul, only one of which was the “true” one. Aristotle and Kant both spoke of our rational natures as being our true natures. For Kant you act autonomously when you act on the basis of reason and not on the basis of inclination. Desire-motivated acts, he thought, were heteronomous – a kind of slavery – a situation in which you were governed by a foreign power.
These days the Kantian conception of autonomy isn’t very popular. More common is the idea that you’re autonomous to the extent that your desires, actions, and character originate in some way from your motivational set. And much recent work on autonomy involves trying to get clear on these connections.
Some put forth historical views according to which a desire is your own if it came about in the right sort of way. Some put forth structural views according to which a desire is your own if it coheres in the right way with other elements of your psychology or character. Some still hold on to rationalistic views according to which a desire is your own if it resonates in the right way with the reasons there are.
Some, of course, hold hybrid views that incorporate historical, structural, and rationalistic elements.
Autonomy and freedom
Autonomy and freedom seem intimately connected, but, depending on how one understands these concepts, they can come apart. Freedom seems to be about the absence of constraints on one’s thoughts and actions whereas autonomy is more about the independence or the authenticity of one’s desires. In that sense you can be free but non-autonomous and perhaps vice versa.
Moreover, unlike freedom, autonomy might not require alternative possibilities. Even if you could not have acted otherwise (and thus your act wasn’t free), you could still have acted autonomously (in the sense that the act was an expression of your true self).
The concept of autonomy, however, does seem to have quite a bit in common with a compatibilist notion of freedom. Indeed, the latter might require the former.
Autonomy and Freedom
The concept of autonomy is closely linked with the concept of freedom, but they are not the same. To get clear on the former it will help to distinguish it from the latter.
Berlin distinguishes two kinds of freedom: negative and positive. His conception of positive freedom is very close to what contemporary theorists call “autonomy.” So let’s start with his conception of negative freedom and see how it relates to his conception of positive freedom.
Varieties of Negative Freedom
What is freedom? What does it mean to be free?
Hobbes and Mill believed (or are often thought to have believed) that freedom is largely a matter of non-frustration – of being able to do what you want to do.
Hobbes: “A free man is he that, in those things which by his strength and wit he is able to do, is not hindered to do what he has a will to do.” It’s not clear how to interpret this, but Hobbes is often interpreted as holding the view that you’re free insofar as your preferred option is accessible.
Berlin disagrees with Hobbes for three reasons:
Hobbes’s view (on at least one interpretation) makes no mention of the restricting actions of others. On his view, any hindrance detracts from your freedom. Berlin, however, thinks that the hindrance has to be man-made and intentional. Mere inability, he thinks, doesn’t make you less free. Coercion, he notes, implies the deliberate interference of human beings within the area in which one could otherwise act. This view is fairly widespread. Consider:
Rousseau: “The nature of things does not madden us. Only ill will does.”
Kant: “Find himself in what condition he will, the human being is dependent on many external things…. But what is harder and more unnatural than this yoke of necessity is the subjection of one human being under the will of another. No misfortune can be more terrifying to one who is accustomed to freedom.”
Unlike Hobbes, Berlin thinks that you lose freedom if others prevent you from doing what you could have done, or what you might have wanted to do, and not merely what you actually wanted to do. On Hobbes’s view, as long as your preferred option is available you are free, even if no other options are available.
For Berlin, your options are like doors. How extensive your choice is depends on how many doors there are. How significant the choice is depends on what the doors lead to. And how free the choice is depends on whether and the extent to which the doors are closed because of the actions of others.
On Hobbes’s view, it seems that you can enhance your freedom by adapting your desires to your circumstances. Berlin thinks this isn’t possible – one cannot make oneself freer in this way. To think otherwise, he thinks, is to confuse freedom with desire fulfillment.
Berlin: “To teach a man that, if he cannot get what he wants, he must learn to want only what he can get may contribute to his happiness or his security; but it will not increase his freedom.”
Berlin, then, rejects the idea of freedom as non-frustration and opts instead for the idea of freedom as non-interference. Freedom, he thinks, requires that every option be accessible in that it isn’t blocked or obscured by the (deliberate?) actions of others.
We could, however, insist on an even more muscular conception of freedom – freedom as non-domination – according to which every door must be open and there must not be any doorkeepers with the power to close them. We might prefer this conception for two reasons:
Freedom as non-interference is compatible with benevolent slavery.
If you can’t make yourself freer by adaptation, why think that you can make yourself freer by ingratiation?
Negative Freedom: The Options View
On the options view, your freedom depends on the number and quality of your options. The more options you have, and the more desirable they are, the freer you are. On this view, anything that limits either the number or quality of your options limits your freedom, whether it’s other people, nature, or your own inadequacies.
Positive Freedom - Autonomy
You’re free in the negative sense, thinks Berlin, insofar as no one interferes with your activities. You’re free in the positive sense to the extent that you’re governed by your true self.
Autonomy, on this view, is a kind of self-mastery, which you achieve by taming the demons within. Clearly this view requires a way to distinguish between those internal elements that are “demons” – that are alien to you – and those that are genuinely your own. Traditionally, the concept of rationality has played a key role in drawing that distinction.
The thought is that the real you is the rational you, and that you are self-governing when you are ruled not by your passions but by the rational side of your nature.
Rationality, of course, is a hotly disputed concept. But it’s not so far-fetched to think that some beliefs and desires are rationally forbidden while others are rationally required, and that the latter define the real you. Interestingly, on this view, the real you is not what makes you different from everyone else but it’s what you have in common with others. The real me and the real you are essentially the same. The fake me and the fake you, however, are vastly different.
A problem with autonomy, thinks Berlin, is that it provides a cover for those who wish to coerce others. It allows them to say that what may seem like coercion is really nothing of the sort because the one being “coerced” actually endorses the coercion.
Consider: X coerces Y when X makes Y do something that Y doesn’t want to do. But what we actually want depends on who we are, and if we’re essentially rational creatures, and if reason compels us to want certain things, then those might be what we actually want, regardless of what we say we want. Forcing us to act on those desires, then, might not be coercive.
An interesting reply, though, would be to argue that one can force people even to do the things they most want – that such acts might be justifiable but they are still coercive. Or one could challenge the distinction between real and fake selves or the attempt to carve out that distinction by appealing to the concept of rationality.
Frankfurt – Freedom of the Will and the Concept of a Person
Freedom, Berlin tells us, is about non-interference – it’s about others not preventing you from doing what you’d otherwise be able to do. But autonomy, he thinks, is about your actions and choices being your own – it’s about being governed by the real you.
But who or what is the real you?
According to one tradition, the real you is the rational you. Frankfurt, however, suggests something different: the real you is the hierarchically integrated you.
The essential difference between persons and animals, he thinks, lies not in rationality but in the structure of the will.
The view, roughly, is that, unlike other animals, we are not indifferent as to which of our desires moves us. We can take sides, as it were, by forming desires about our desires. And that ability, he thinks, is the basis for personhood, autonomy, and freedom of the will.
With respect to autonomy, Frankfurt’s view is that a person is autonomous with respect to a first-order desire that moves her to act if she endorses her acting on the basis of that first-order desire via a second-order volition that takes that first-order desire as its object.
Put differently, the view is that a person is autonomous with respect to her desire that X if she desires to desire that X and she desires that her desire that X moves her to act (i.e. she wants that first-order desire to be effective – to be her will).
Frankfurt distinguishes between second-order desires and second-order volitions. A second-order desire is a desire that takes a first-order desire as its object. A second-order volition, by contrast, is a desire that some first-order desire be your will.
Creatures who lack second-order volitions, thinks Frankfurt, are wantons. Such creatures, on his view, are not persons even if they’re human. They lack autonomy, and they are not the kinds of creatures for whom a lack of free will is a problem.
First and second order desires can conflict. A physician, for instance, might desire to desire some drug but not desire the drug. On Frankfurt’s view, if you are moved by a desire that you repudiate via a second-order volition, then you are not acting autonomously, and, at least in that respect, you lack freedom of the will. In such cases, though you are moved to act by a desire that is yours, it is nonetheless a kind of alien force. It’s not really you.
On p. 15 Frankfurt appears to suggest that mere conformity between first-order desires and second-order volitions is not enough for autonomy – that one must also secure such conformity. But that passage strikes me as internally inconsistent.
Some notable features of Frankfurt’s account:
It is grounded in a capacity that we seem to have – the capacity to reflectively endorse or repudiate our first-order desires.
It’s naturalistic. It’s metaphysically parsimonious.
It fits nicely with a compatibilist view of free will. On Frankfurt’s view, the truth of determinism has no bearing on freedom of the will.
It’s a content-neutral account. It doesn’t require that persons have any particular values in order for them to be autonomous. As such it isn’t susceptible to Berlin’s worry that conceptions of autonomy pave the way for coercion.
But there are at least three problems:
Manipulation. Frankfurt’s account is ahistorical. He doesn’t take into consideration where a desire came from or how it was acquired. And so it looks like, on his view, a thoroughly manipulated or brainwashed person could be fully autonomous.
Regress. On Frankfurt’s view it seems that we can keep pushing back the levels, asking whether a person is autonomous with respect to some second-order desire, which would, presumably, require its endorsement via a third-order volition, and so on, ad infinitum.
One could reply that, in such cases, the person is not autonomous with respect to the second-order desire but that they are autonomous with respect to the first-order desire. But then we confront:
the ab-initio problem/ problem of authority: how can a person become autonomous with respect to a desire through a process with respect to which she is not autonomous? If one’s second-order desires are themselves non-autonomous, how can they confer autonomy upon lower level desires?
Gary Watson: “Since second-order volitions are themselves simply desires, to add them to the context of conflict is just to increase the number of contenders; it is not to give a special place to any of those in contention.”
Frankfurt’s response is to appeal to the idea of decisive endorsement – one made without reservations and in the belief that further inquiry will not change one’s mind. But it’s not clear how that solves the problem.
In later papers Frankfurt tried to show that above problems stem from thinking that a desire’s autonomy hinges on its endorsement via a “deliberate psychic event,” but that that was not his view. His account, he argued, was a satisfaction-based account according to which a desire is autonomous if its bearer accepts it as indicating something about himself. This is simply a matter of not having an interest in reconsidering a standing judgment that some desire reflects who you are. But then it looks like Frankfurt is susceptible to the accusation that, on his account, an agent can be autonomous by just getting lucky – by just happening to lack such an interest – which is incompatible with some of the claims he makes in his “Freedom of the Will.”
One final worry: Frankfurt seems to think that his account of freedom of the will can explain why such freedom is worth having. But is that right? Is there value in having matching first order desires and second-order volitions? Is it obvious that we’re better off than animals who aren’t capable of having desires of the second order?
The Lottery Paradox
Perhaps I have greatly misunderstood the Lottery Paradox (forgive me if I have). The Lottery Paradox doesn’t seem so obviously problematic to me. It may, in the end, actually demonstrate a problem somehow, but it doesn’t do it well, in my view. At the very least, the way in which Bonjour presents the Lottery Paradox seems unfair.
Let me reconstruct the Paradox as Bonjour presents it and (very briefly) try to evaluate whether it does the work Bonjour thinks it does.
Assume there is a fair lottery with 100 tickets sold. For each possible n, where n >= 1 and n <= 100, “Ticket number n will lose” has a .99 probability of being true. The probability there will be a winning ticket (from these 100) is 1.00, and the probability of any particular ticket winning is 0.01.
Further, if we assume that “a belief is adequately justified to satisfy the requirement for knowledge if the probability its truth, relative to its justification, is 0.99 or greater,” then for any particular n, believing “Ticket number n will lose” is adequately justified to satisfy the requirement for knowledge.
Bonjour’s critical assumption is this: If we are epistemically justified in believing the statement “Ticket number n1 will lose” and the statement “Ticket number n2 will lose,” then we are epistemically justified in believing the conjunction of these statements.
I believe this is essentially what Bonjour is claiming:
On the left side, we have a standard proposition logic substituting for the statements to their right.
```
A ------------- [Ticket number n1 will lose]
B ------------- [Ticket number n2 will lose]
A & B --------- [Ticket number n1 will lose] & [Ticket number n2 will lose]
By exaggerating this through multiple conjunctions, an absurdity supposedly emerges. It is thought to look something like this:
A ------------- [Ticket number n1 will lose]
B ------------- [Ticket number n2 will lose]
C ------------- [Ticket number n3 will lose]
D ------------- [Ticket number n4 will lose]
.
.
.
A & B --------- [Ticket number n1 will lose] & [Ticket number n2 will lose]
A & B & C ----- [Ticket number n1 will lose] & [Ticket number n2 will lose] & [Ticket number n3 will lose]
.
.
.
```
The conjunction of the logical propositions is pretty basic. If 100 propositions are true [P1, P2, . . ., P100], then the conjunction of all 100 propositions, e.g. [P1 & P2 & . . . & P100], is also true. The idea of the Lottery Paradox is thought to be similar to propositional logic. The right hand process, seen above, is continued until we arrive at the following claim, which I will refer to as X:
X = [Ticket number n1 will lose] & [Ticket number n2 will lose] & . . . & [Ticket number n100 will lose]
What is X saying? X is the claim that Ticket numbers 1 through 100 will all be losing tickets. If one is epistemically justified in holding any particular [Ticket number n will lose], then Bonjour claims we are, on this account, epistemically justified in holding the conjunction of all particular [Ticket number n will lose]. Thus, we would be epistemically justified in holding X.
But, X is contradictory to the initial information about the game, namely, there is 1.00 probability that one of the 100 tickets will win. Given that fact about the game, X is both justified (through this conjunctive process) and unjustified given the contradiction. This is taken to be a serious problem for a probabilistic satisfaction of the requirements of knowledge.
I don’t, however, agree to what is happening here.
The mistake is thinking that logical inference is wholly analogous to the process of probabilistic inference. For example, at least in classical thought (set aside fuzzy logics, etc.), A is either true or false. There isn’t a degree in between. [Ticket number n1 will lose] is dealing in degrees and probability. Yes, it either true or false that [Ticket number n1 will lose], but the probability that it true or false isn’t binary, it comes in degrees, 0.99 in this case. Because of this, probabilistic inference doesn’t appear to inherit the kind truth functionality we see in logic. Forget the conjunctions, they are the wrong tools for this problem.
While I agree with these moves:
```
A ------------- a.k.a. “A is true”
B ------------- a.k.a. “B is true”
A & B --------- a.k.a. “A is true, and B is true”
I can’t agree with these moves:
[Ticket number n1 will lose] -- This has a 0.99 probability
[Ticket number n2 will lose] -- This has a 0.99 probability
[Ticket number n1 will lose] & [Ticket number n2 will lose] -- This has a 0.99 probability
```
But, [Ticket number n1 will lose] & [Ticket number n2 will lose] does not have a 0.99 probability. The probability is less than 0.99.
Note that at the last stage of the argument, we are doing finite math (not logic) when realizing the probability of X is 0.00 – that’s how Bonjour could arrive at the contradiction in the first. But, if I can infer the probability X, then why can’t I also be allowed to infer the probability of [Ticket number n1 will lose] & [Ticket number n2 will lose], which is less than 0.99? Clearly, the conjunction of these two beliefs falls below the threshold of satisfaction required for knowledge.
Even assuming this probabilistic theory, one would not be justified in believing X. Surely, there is no contradiction or obvious absurdity that arises.
Granted, all this is not to say that logical inference (such conjunctions) have no meaning in a probabilistic account of knowledge (they certainly do mean a lot). The nature of logical inference is just awkward and perhaps unintuitive when working in a theory based on probabilistic satisfaction of the requirements of knowledge.
Summary:
Christman begins by explaining some standard views on autonomy, in particular a model of autonomy based on lower and higher order based desires, and he then offers what appear to be standard criticisms of those views. He names three kinds of general criticism: the regress problem, the ab initio problem, and what he coins ‘the incompleteness problem.’ Christman claims that the standard theories fall to these criticisms largely because these models use a structural “time-slice” analysis to determine autonomy. His counterexamples to the standard views seems to point that out as well, as the these examples highlight how the models of autonomy provided by Dworkin and Frankfurt are based upon a historical manipulation that undermines autonomy. This historical kind of criticism, arguing against “time-slice” analysis, requires we understand the manner in which desires, values, and beliefs were formed. Christman’s claim is that by shifting the focus of inquiry about autonomy to the conditions for and process of preference formation, he can “eliminate the need for the condition of identification altogether” (10). By focusing upon preference formation, Christman believes he avoids the criticisms of the standard views.
Thoughts:
The criticisms of the standard view really do seem problematic. At the very least, Christman juices our intuitions for why we should be worried about more the “time-slice” approach, and why a historical analysis is a necessary component of a complete account of autonomy. I’m worried that Christman doesn’t actually solve the standard problems or really get away from them. And, even if Christman does avoid the regress and ab initio problems, it seems as though autonomy may end up being not really that important, valuable, or meaningful. What I think he’s done is provide more problems for a creating a viable account of autonomy, not fewer.
---
“no person is self-made in the sense of being a fully formed and intact 'will' blossoming out of nowhere” (1)
“the key element of autonomy is, in my view, the agent's acceptance or rejection of the process of desire formation or the factors that give rise to that formation, rather than the agent's identification with the desire itself.” (2)
“The preference that guides her action has itself been tainted by manipulation” (3)
Whole person = a person’s whole life – It is a historical identity (3)
“autonomy is a special property of preference or better formation and not merely a characteristic of a person's entire life” (4)
Identification - when an agent reflects critically on a desire and, at the higher level, approves of having the desire – one can either acknowledge or evaluate having that desire (2 kinds of identification)(5)
Acknowledging Sense of Identification allows us to identify with our non-autonomous, inauthentic parts of ourselves. In this way, identification appears to conflict with autonomy. (5)
Evaluative Sense of Identification extends acknowledgments to a kind of approval. The role of disapproval isn’t clear. (5-6)
Subservient example – FO (Lower Order) and SO (Higher Order) desires are consistent, she approves of the FO and identifies with them. Her SO desires, however, appear manipulated and conditioned. She appears to lack autonomy, even though she fits the requirements for Dworkin’s autonomy. Further, we see the higher order regress that we saw in Frankfurt. (6-7)
Ab initio problem – I need an explanation. From what I can gather, it is about the claim that we may be autonomous with respect to LODs, but not autonomous with respect to HODs. The problem is that it seems as if the HODs control the LODs, and the non-autonomy seems to trickle down to the LODs. What is radical choice? – “a desire cannot be autonomous if it was evaluated by a desire that was not itself autonomous.” (7)
So, essentially, there are two major problems, the regress and the ab initio. By attempting to avoid both, we need an explanation of how HOD evaluation is autonomous, but different than the autonomy of LOD evaluation – that is the incompleteness problem (7-8)
Regress – “Any account of rational action that presupposes that the desires that move an agent are 'accepted' by her will invite an infinite regress of desires in the explanation of this acceptance. For either a desire descended to the agent without her awareness or approval (which seems a troublesome basis for the rationality of action), or the agent was able to judge whether or not this desire was acceptable. If the latter is the case (as must be on hierarchical 'approval' models), then the judgment about the desire will have to be based on (other) desires of the agent. Then the question arises about these new desires and their being approved or not by the agent, from which flows the infinite regress of desires.” (8)
Frankfurt – Strawberry hypnosis problem defeats the “decisive” answer to the infinite regress problem. The person is not autonomous, but fits the structure of autonomy laid out by Frankfurt. But, if Frankfurt agrees they aren’t autonomous, then he is missing something, as ‘identification is insufficient for autonomy” – hence the incompleteness problem. (8-9)
These models use a structural “time-slice” analysis to determine autonomy. Christman is arguing against the time-slice approach. His counterexamples seems to point that out as well, as the ways in which he argues against the autonomy of Dworkin and Frankfurt is based upon a manipulation, which requires we understand the manner in which desires, values, and beliefs were formed. (10)
One “must “submit to the regiment of ‘programming’ with the full knowledge of its nature and effects,” essentially one must have informed consent to conditioning, in order to have said to be autonomous in the way in which one forms or modifies desires, values, and beliefs. (10)
“the central focus for autonomy must make particular reference to the processes of preference formation, in particular what makes them 'manipulative' in a way crucially different from 'normal' processes of self-development” (10)
Christman’s claim is that by shifting the focus of inquiry about autonomy to the conditions for and process of preference formation, he can “eliminate the need for the condition of identification altogether” (10). Let’s see if he really can.
“What matters is what the agent thinks about the process of coming to have the desire, and whether she resists that process when (or if) given the chance” (10)
On what basis does one “resist the adoption of a value or desire”? That kind of resisting or choosing not to resist seems to be a time-slice approach. And, if it isn’t a choice at all, then it isn’t really governing, right?
The new requirement: “the agent was in a position to resist the development of a desire and she did not. This suggests the following conditions” (10-11)
“(i) A person P is autonomous relative to some desire D if it is the case that P did not resist the development of D when attending to this process of development, or P mould not have resisted that development had P attended to the process;
(ii) The lack of resistance to the development of D did not take place (or would not have) under the influence of factors that inhibit self-reflection;
and
(iii) The self-reflection involved in condition (i) is (minimally) rational and involves no self-deception.” (11)
“The motivating idea behind the theory is that autonomy is achieved when an agent is in a position to be aware of the changes and development of her character and of why these changes come about. This self-awareness enables the agent to foster or resist such changes. And while doing so the agent cannot be self-deceived or irrational (in a minimal sense). This implies that she must be free from the influence of factors that disrupt these cognitive capacities.” (11)
I’m still worried that Christman is subject to the regress he thinks he avoids. And, even if Christman does avoid the Regress (18-19), it seems as though autonomy is not really that important, valuable, or meaningful.
John Christman’s “Autonomy and Personal History”
A standard objection to views like Frankfurt’s and Dworkin’s is that, because they are ahistorical, they cannot account for the problem of manipulation.
Christman’s account, by contrast, is historical. On his view, a desire is autonomous only if it came about in the right sort of way – only if it had proper origins. On his view, a desire had proper origins if its bearer approved of the process by which it was acquired (or she would have approved had she attended to its acquisition).
Christman presents his view in opposition to Gerald Dworkin’s view, which is quite similar to Frankfurt’s in that it’s a version Frankfurt’s “hierarchy of desires” model.
Dworkin: “An autonomous person is one who does his own thing,” where “the attitude that [the] person takes towards the influences motivating him…determines whether or not they are to be considered ‘his.’”
To be autonomous, on Dworkin’s view, you have to identify with your desires via your second-order desires, and you must be procedurally independent, which requires that the relevant second-order desires not have been produced by manipulation, deception, the withholding of relevant information, and such.
Dworkin’s theory seems susceptible to the same objections leveled against Frankfurt: manipulation, regress, and the ab-initio problem/problem of authority. Perhaps he escapes the problem of manipulation but only via assertion.
Christman argues that Dworkin’s model confronts a trilemma. To generate it, we can ask: on Dworkin’s model, must the relevant second-order desires themselves be autonomous? If not, then we have the ab-initio problem. If so, then how do they become autonomous? If it’s in the same way as one’s first-order desires, then we face a regress. But if they become autonomous in some other way, then Dworkin’s theory is incomplete because he hasn’t specified the method.
So Dworkin’s theory, argues Christman, confronts either the ab-initio problem or the regress problem or it’s incomplete.
Dworkin later modified his view. He gave up on procedural independence and just defined autonomy as a “second-order capacity of persons to reflect critically upon their first-order preferences, desires, wishes, and so forth.”
But this new account seems to change the subject from the nature of autonomy to the capacities one needs to have it.
Christman’s theory
Both Frankfurt’s and Dworkin’s theories are ahistorical, current-time-slice views of autonomy. Christman thinks that that won’t do – that we need a historical approach. And so he proposes the following:
A person P is autonomous relative to some desire D if it is the case that P did not resist the development of D when attending to this process of development, or P would not have resisted that development had P attended to the process.
The lack of resistance to the development of D did not take place (or would not have) under the influence of factors that inhibit self-reflection.
The self-reflection involved is minimally rational and involves no self-deception.
The agent is minimally rational with respect to D at t (where minimal rationality demands that an agent experience no manifest conflicts of desires or beliefs that significantly affect the agent’s behavior and that are not subsumed under some otherwise rational plan of action).
Put plainly, the idea is that you’re autonomous with respect to a desire D if you attended to, and didn’t resist, the process of its development and if you’re at least minimally rational, self-aware, and have a stable self.
Some worries
Are these conditions necessary for autonomy? Can’t we be autonomous with respect to desires whose origins we did not at the time endorse?
Are these conditions sufficient for autonomy? Can’t there be “recalcitrant” desires – i.e. those whose acquisition we endorsed for good reasons but which are now alien to us? Frankfurt’s model seems much better with respect to those.
Does this account fare better than either Dworkin’s or Frankfurt’s at handling the three aforementioned problems (i.e. manipulation, the regress, and the ab-initio problem)?
The worry about the regress is as follows: if not resisting a desire’s development is a choice, we can ask whether that choice was itself autonomous, which presumably would require postulating yet another such choice to make the first choice autonomous, ad infinitum.
Christman responds that the regress is cut off at the first level. If the appraisal of the process by which a desire developed is carried out with sufficient self-awareness and minimal rationality then the act of appraisal, he thinks, is sufficient for the autonomy of the desire.
But minimal rationality is a purely formal notion. And self-awareness, it seems, is entirely compatible with having a thoroughly manipulated self. In any case, isn’t the appraisal to be done in terms of the agent’s existing desires, and don’t these need to be autonomous to confer autonomy upon the appraisal?
Christman attempts to avoid this problem by noting that so long as an agent’s reflective capacities remain intact we needn’t worry about the autonomy of the guiding desires. But that seems unconvincing. Minimal rationality and a lack of self-deception don’t seem capable of warding off manipulation all on their own.
Infinite Regress Concern
Perhaps I have misunderstood something important (if so, please correct me).
My concern below isn’t directly about the arguments provided by Foley and Wolterstorff (although I do find this issue of entitlement to be fascinating), rather their discussion brings up a concern for me.
In analyzing Foley’s argument, Wolterstorff provides a seemingly useful paradigm of belief and meta-belief. In particular, on pg. 335, Wolterstorff says:
“One responsibly believes a proposition P, Foley suggests, in case one has the epistemically rational meta-belief that the processes whereby one acquired and sustained the belief that P were sufficiently likely to be successful.”
So, we have a belief P. Let us call P a first-order belief. The meta-belief in question is a belief about P, in particular, it is a belief that we have a sufficiently reliable method of acquiring and maintaining belief in P (right?). Meta-beliefs are beliefs about first-order beliefs. Meta-beliefs are basically second-order beliefs, as they are the justifying or responsible-making force behind or about first-order beliefs.
The question is then: Do we need to justify second-order beliefs? Are we responsible for our second-order beliefs? I don’t see why not. What then justifies or makes us responsible for our second-order beliefs? I can only assume, on this model, that we need third-order beliefs to justify or make us responsible for our second-order beliefs. And, if so, doesn't this process of adding orders of beliefs continue ad infinitum? My worry is that we face a kind of infinite regress where we never really justify our first-order beliefs.
It seems as though relying upon some of my beliefs to justify other beliefs I have is circular, too subjective, and somehow failing to resoundingly resolve the issue of justifying my beliefs. Perhaps I'm being uncharitable and reductionist here (this *is* my first epistemic rodeo - I am bound to make huge errors). Perhaps my concern is too elementary or maybe I’m missing something obvious (and I apologize if that's the case). Ideas anyone?
I think we’ve briefly considered this concern in class, but now I’m struggling with it more forcefully.
Summary:
(There are a lot of moving parts in this theory, so I’m oversimplifying a great deal in my summary)
Ekstrom claims to be solving a regress problem in autonomy that is similar (and related) to the regress problem in epistemology. She believes coherentism, naively the acceptance of a circular or holistic justification for beliefs of autonomous desires/actions, is the solution to these regress problems.
Autonomy is acting on your own reasons. Exactly what “you” are and what counts as “your reasons” is the basis of the paper. Ekstrom builds some important definitions in the first half, and then provides a rigorous set of definitions in the latter half of the paper.
Preferences are those first-orders desires from which one effectively acts (if and when one acts) that have been positively evaluated by a second-order desire based upon an agent’s standard of good.
A Character System is a time-slice of agent which contains both the preferences and the set of propositions accepted by an agent. Belief Acceptance clearly aids preference-formation.
Naively, One’s Self is (1) one’s character system, (2) the power to fashion/refashion that character system. However, the True, Central Self is the subset of acceptances and preferences that cohere together.
Authorized Preferences are those preferences which cohere amongst our other preferences and acceptances. Authorized Preferences have other preconditions, etc.
Very naively, Coherence is about the long-lasting and deep elements of who we are as a person. I believe there is some kind of root character system which is logically consistent with itself.
The last section, the technical part, is a formal account of coherentism (which offers a formal account of many of the previous concepts). I’m not entirely sure I understand it, and regardless, it is not the kind of thing which can be nicely summarized. Ekstrom’s account attempts to layout preference-formation and competition. The hope is that by offering a kind of circular/holistic account of autonomy, she answers some the fundamental questions of identity and defeats the regress problems in epistemology and autonomy.
Thoughts:
I have little sympathy (at this point) for coherentism – at the least, it isn’t very satisfying as an answer to these regress problems. Circular reasoning is circular reasoning.
An enormous amount of this theory hinges upon evaluating desires based upon one’s standard of good. I’d like a formal account of the standard of good. Is one’s standard of good merely a set of beliefs, or is it also a set of desires? If they are desires, is that a complication for this theory? Consider: I believe X is the good. I cannot hold that belief unless I also desire X – that is what it means for X to be normative in my eyes. What then does it mean for me to desire the standard of good?
Further, how can we talk about moral responsibility in this case? I may do something wrong, something I know is wrong, and yet it may not have been me doing it. Using her example, I may think that I really am accepting to cuss my siblings out. I did it, and I wanted to do it. I knew it is wrong, and I wanted to do it. I am responsible for that. That was me doing it. What distinguishes the desires I act from as being “mine” or not mine seems arbitrary in this theory, it only has to do with whether or not I’ve formed beliefs and evaluated these desires based upon my conception of the good. Why can’t I simply desire to do an action, and not want to think about the good – why can’t I choose to ignore the good?
Also, if I do not cohere well enough, am I not a person? What if there are multiple coherent sets? Am I multiple characters? Does one need to cohere more than another? Despite a formal account, I am still not quite sure what counts as coherent?
Authorized preferences have the precondition that I must be “comfortable owning” them. Who is the “I” in this? One must be whole-heartedly behind it. Why can’t the coherent “I” not have any reservations? Why can “I” have any contradictions in me? Where does this “I” come from - does it magically appear when I have a large enough and logically consistent enough set of preferences and acceptances?
I am at a loss for what is meant by “valuable to prefer,” etc.
---
Autonomy = Acting on your own reasons (599)
Must define what is means for a reason to count as “one’s own” + what constitutes the ‘self’
“Any plausible analysis of freedom ought to give some account: (i) the availability of alternative possibilities, and (ii) self-determination.'” (599)
Why should I agree to alternative possibility? What does that even mean? When you are programmed like a robot, and you are determined to do X, then there is only one possibility. Those kinds of cases, I can agree to the ‘alternative possibility’ condition. I’m trying to think of the times where I don’t agree to the alternative possibility condition – my problem is that I’m having a hard time conceiving a circumstance. So, let’s say you I’ve been given drugs to paralyze me and I’m sitting in a sensory deprivation chamber. I still have choices about what I will think about, etc – those are alternative possibilities. With respect to moving my limbs or doing anything physically, well, yeah I don’t have a choice. I’m not free with respect to those things, yet I still am free in some very important psychological sense. I’m worried about Frankfurt’s demon though – it seems like there is a way in which there is practically no other alternative, but theoretically I am still free.
Autonomy is her ‘self-determination’ condition, right? So, autonomy seems to be a precondition to freedom.
Ekstrom claims to be solving a regress problem in autonomy that is similar to the regress problem in epistemology, what I believe is the internalist-based regress (600). What justifies beliefs? If we point to other second-order beliefs to justify them, then we may need to justify those SO beliefs, hence the regress. She believes the coherentist position is the solution. Is it really? I don’t find the epistemologist coherentist position to be compelling at all – I’m wary of a similar approach to autonomy.
Two different ways to generate the regress of volitions (601)
The Evaluative Regress – The usual problem. Frankfurt tries to solve it through the ‘decisive commitment to the first-order desire’, but “the termination is arbitrary in the absence of any grounds for stopping the ascent to higher-order desires.” (602) To me: It seems that to autonomy really exists in that decisive commitment, not where Frankfurt thinks (in the orders). The problem of autonomy is either deeply incomplete (on my interpretation of Frankfurt) or the regress still stands if one denies my interpretation.
Interestingly, what the regress seems necessary to embrace (602). What makes any N-Order desire “own’s own” is that there is a N+1-order desire for it (positive evaluation from 601). Also, and this isn’t spoken, but I assume from Ekstrom’s analysis, it requires an N+2-order “scrutiny” of the corresponding N+1, which may or may not be N+2’s positive evaluation of N+1. This regress seems necessary to embrace because there is an “absence of a separate account of the internality of particular second-order desires, an account of that in virtue of which they can confer ‘internal status’ on certain desires of the first-level, the regress of higher-order desires remains.” (602)
“The second problem for hierarchical accounts is the problem of identification.” (602) One must identify oneself with one’s first order desire to be autonomous (free for Frankfurt), yet it seems as though the second-order volition is what the self identifies with (that is what does the identifying with), and somehow first-order desires become external to us, as they are external to the second-order desires. The problem, however, is that it seems completely arbitrary that one should identify oneself with one’s second-order desires (603). What makes that higher-order desire so special or significant? Why is that order the real me?
“There are actually two problems of identification here: (i) An agent or self is to be identified with what? What is essential to a self? And (ii) What is it for a self to identify with some desire, course of action, or belief, deeming it as one's own?” (603)
Preference
“(i) For a certain first-level desire to be effective in action, when or if one acts, and (ii) that is formed in the search for what is good.” (603)
Wait, that second one seems really awkward. What does it mean to be evil or to desire evil or be autonomously wrong-doing?
What are the mechanics behind evaluating a “first-level desire with respect to some standard of goodness?” Also, this seems subjectivist and bordering on moral anti-realism.
Evaluation is not necessarily performed consciously! (603)
Susan the Shoplifter (604). The end is to “avoid giving an overly straight-laced impression.” Shoplifting is not a mean to Susan’s pursuit of the good, which presumably means that “avoiding giving an overly straight-laced impression” is not a means to Susan’s pursuit of the good. This end is a “passing desire” Susan is ashamed to have. Her FO desire must be evaluated by a SO desire, an evaluation which isn’t arbitrary, but based upon Susan’s conception of the good.
“A preference…is formed because one finds a certain first-level desire to be good, either in itself or as a means in a particular instance to realizing one’s general conception of the good.” (604)
My initial worry: Susan’s conception of the good may be arbitrary. Also, what does it mean to have a conception of the good? Will this be a problem? Ekstrom appears to answer the ‘arbitrariness’ problem Frankfurt has…but does she really?
Ekstrom doesn’t care much about whether or not ‘preferences’ are higher-order or just special first-order desires. (604) I’m worried about this, as this distinction seems crucial to considering whether or not she really escapes the regress. Further, I may disagree about what the ‘intentional object of each is the states of affairs of some first-order desire being effective in leading one all the way to action’ as somehow not being really about the first-order desire. And, I don’t know why this is important. To my intuition, the man on an island who desires to destroy the world (and yet can’t) wants it, whether he knows he can be effective or not. If he could, he would – that is the autonomous him, governing his desires, without much worry about the state of affairs, right?
“Preferences are the results of higher-order states, since they are , by definition, the output of reflection about first-order desires, reflection that occurs as the agent evaluates those first-level desires with respect to the standard of goodness” they have. (605)
Ekstrom sounds like an internalist virtue ethicist in her explanation of Bill and use of the word “salient” on 605, as well as the use of “character” and the subjectivity concerns I have.
The exam/novel student example highlights how important the “standard of good” is to this theory. Importantly, it really seems as though the student is trying to form beliefs about desires, connecting them to the “standard of good,” and evaluating which desires one wants based on desiring the standard of good.
What does it mean to desire the good? How does that work in this theory? It seems circular. I desire the good because when I evaluate my standard of good, it seems good to desire the good.
Somehow there is a kind of rationality built into this model. Can one evaluate poorly, and is that action still autonomous? Like, what if I do a bad job of generating the beliefs that connect one desire instead of another to my standard of good? I still tried though, and is that enough to say I’m autonomous? What if the standard of good is too complex, and I can’t make a complete and thorough evaluation because it would take too long? Am I still autonomous?
The Self and Authorized Preference
Character System – 1) the set of propositions accepted by an agent S at a time T, and (2) the preferences of S at T. (606)
Acceptances aid the agent in preference-formation, indicating “what sorts of actions and states of affairs are instrumentally and intrinsically good.” (606)
One’s self is (1) one’s character system, (2) the power to fashion/refashion that character system. (606)
This paper reads like an analytic-continental-hybrid, virtue ethicist writing an epistemology paper about autonomy, and yet it is clear!
The evaluative faculty for fashioning character (maybe not the same as evaluation above) is internal to the self. (606) And, it is the faculty for fashion one’s character according to one’s standard of good.
Is one’s standard of good merely a set of beliefs, or is it also a set of desires? If they are desires, is that a complication for this theory? Consider: I believe X is the good. I cannot hold that belief unless I also desire X – that is what it means for X to be normative in my eyes.
Somehow, this evaluation which forms preferences seems too mechanical. I have beliefs about the good. I have FO desires. I evaluate whether or not FO desires are a means to the good. If so, I’m being rational and autonomous when I act on those FO desires.
How can we talk about moral responsibility in this case? I do something wrong, something I know is wrong, and yet it wasn’t me?
What makes her account of character so effective, in Ekstrom’s eyes, is that it individuates and distinguishes unique agents. (607)
Ekstrom wants perpetuity, consistence, and continuousness in identities/character. We cannot be in a state of perpetual flux. (607) How quickly can we change ourselves and still be called ourselves?
Condemned (rather than accepted) desires, which are not preferences, may still be acted on. In some “weak” sense these are our desires, but they aren’t really our desires, those must be accepted.
Counterpoint: I think that I really am accepting to cuss my siblings out. I fucking did it, and I wanted to do it (what assholes!!?!). I know it is wrong, and I wanted to do it. I am responsible for that. That was me doing it and wanting it. What distinguishing the desires I act from as being “mine” or not mine seems arbitrary in this theory, it only has to do with whether or not I’ve formed beliefs and evaluated these desires based upon my conception of the good. Why can’t I simply desire to do an action, and not want to think about the good – why can’t I choose to ignore the good?
What makes this a coherentist position? Ah ha, the answer is next!
The true, central self is the subset of acceptances and preferences that cohere together. Authorized preference requires coherence among our preferences and acceptances. (608)
If don’t cohere well, you aren’t a person.
What if there are multiple coherent sets? Am I multiple characters? Does one need to cohere more than another? What does it mean to cohere?
Coherence requires “long-lasting” elements (608).
She seems to think she escaped addictive desires on 608. I don’t see how.
She is claiming that we must be able to “defend” – which is about consciously being able to make explicit. (608) But evaluation doesn’t require consciousness, she says.
Authorized preferences have the precondition that I must be “comfortable owning” them. Who is the “I” in this? One must be whole-heartedly behind it. This seems weird – she means the coherent “I” assumedly. Why can’t the coherent “I” not have any reservations? Why can “I” have any contradictions in me?
“Valuable to prefer” - ?? (608)
From my perspective, Coherentism isn’t about “who I am” but rather “what justifies my beliefs?” I find it awkward to have a coherentist view of the self. This reminds me of Korsgaard a lot.
Autonomy
Definitions from 611 on (I’m fucking lazy)
Coherence:
[A preference coheres with a character system] IFF [ Either (That preference is more valuable than any competing preference to the agent based upon their character system) or (…
“When preferences compete, I consider the elements of my character system, to see which of the competitors it is more valuable for me to prefer. That is, I check the competitors against the coherent system of what I prefer and accept. The competitor that gets defeated or neutralized is the one that is not authorized, while the one that survives is authorized.” (612)
There are a lot of moving parts in this theory.
Self-determination is said to occur when an authorized preference is causally related to the performance of its corresponding act(s). (614)
Laura Ekstrom’s Coherence Theory of Autonomy
Ekstrom accepts the basic picture of autonomy with which we’ve been working, which is that a person is autonomous with respect to a desire that moves her to act if that desire is authentically her own – if, as she puts it, it flows from her “self.”
But what makes a desire D authentically one’s own? For Frankfurt this was a matter of having the right second-order volitions. For Christman it was about not resisting the process by which D was formed. For Ekstrom it’s about D’s being supported by the right preferences.
For Ekstrom, a preference is:
…a very particular sort of desire: it is one (i) for a certain first-order desire to be effective in action, when or if one acts, and (ii) that is formed in the search for what is good.”
Preferences, then, are just second-order volitions that have been formed in search of the good.
Frankfurt’s mistake, she thinks, was allowing a person to form a second-order volition for any reason at all, which undermines its authority. For Ekstrom, by contrast, a person forms a preference for a first order desire only if she finds a first-order desire to be good.
Still, this account raises a number of questions, such as:
Does condition (ii) rule out all that much (see 604)? Is it even rational to form second-order volitions without that happening in accordance with the good?
What kind of goodness does Ekstrom have in mind? And are we talking about objective or subjective goodness?
Why not form the preference in the search for who one is, as Frankfurt sometimes suggests? Why a goodness-based account over a self-discovery based account?
Even if this account works, there is still the question of what makes people autonomous vis-à-vis their preferences. Is it in virtue of some higher order mental state? No, says Ekstrom. That way lies a regress. The autonomy of your preferences, she claims, depends on how well they cohere with each other.
But then why not offer the same account of our desires? Why not say that a desire’s autonomy depends on how well it coheres with your other desires? Why bring in the idea of goodness at all? Or, if you’re going to bring in the idea of goodness, why not just run with that and drop the part about coherence?
Character, Self, and Autonomy
Your character, thinks Ekstrom, or your “self,” consists of your accepted beliefs and preferences (i.e. beliefs formed in pursuit of the truth and second-order volitions formed in pursuit of the good).
Why not think of your character/self as consisting of all of your beliefs and desires? Because your non-accepted beliefs and desires lack longevity, the power to individuate, and they’re not approved by you (see 606).
But then why not say that your coherent second-order volitions form your true self, whether or not they are preferences?
Assuming that these questions can be answered, we can then define your true self as the subset of accepted beliefs and preferences that cohere with one another. The thought is that some of your accepted beliefs and some of your preferences will form a tight, coherent set, and these are constitutive of who you really are.
Your preferences are authorized – sanctioned as your own – when they cohere with your other preferences and acceptances. The authorized elements of one’s character system should be long-lasting, well-supported by reasons, defensible against external challenges, and you should be able to act on them wholeheartedly and without discomfort.
Acting autonomously, on this view, is a matter of acting in accordance with your authorized preferences. These preferences constitute who we are, so when we act on them we are self-governed. Or so Ekstrom argues.
Questions and Concerns
Ekstrom’s basic picture of autonomy, while quite typical, might be problematic because it runs together autonomy and authenticity.
Ekstrom offers a model that’s partly coherentist and partly rationalistic. Why both? Why not drop the bit about reasons and the good and just embrace coherentism, or vice versa?
On Ekstrom’s view a preference is autonomous only if it resonates with its bearer’s conception of the good. But the idea of the good can be interpreted objectively or subjectively, and either way there appear to be problems.
Why not identify the self with all accepted beliefs and preferences, whether or not they cohere?
How does Ekstrom’s account fare with respect to the three problems we’ve thus far encountered: manipulation, the regress, and the ab-initio problem?
Her coherentist approach seems to avoid both the regress problem and the ab-initio problem – everything bottoms out in the true self. But perhaps these problems resurface at the level of preference formation.
She also thinks that she avoids the problem of manipulation through an appeal to considerations of personal identity. But I’m not yet convinced that this works. Her account seems to permit a thoroughly manipulated person to be autonomous.
Lastly, on Ekstrom’s view, a second order volition becomes a preference when its bearer judges it to be good. But must that judgment be autonomous? Ekstrom suggests that that judgment should be made partly in accordance with one’s accepted beliefs, but unless these are also part of one’s identity it’s hard to see how they have the requisite authority. And if you already have an identity, why is it necessary to appeal to something else – i.e. judgments of the good – to elevate a second-order volition to the status of a preference?
Doxastic Voluntarism may be important for those who hold robust moral realist theories, particularly those which rely upon metaethical ideas of libertarian freewill, etc.
The inability to control what one believes makes
Doxastic voluntarism seems untenable with respect to all my beliefs. I can't make myself believe the sky is green (when it is blue), and I just don't seem to have any control over the belief that 2+2=5. I don't have direct control over many of my beliefs.
Conversely, it does appear that I do have indirect control over many of my beliefs. In many cases, it seems as though I am able to induce, cause, or bring about the circumstances which lead to a particular belief. Isn't that what learning and education are often about? I may want to believe something, but I don't know why I should believe it, and in researching and learning about the issue, I eventually come to believe due to my own course of action. I may not believe the claim that 42 * 42 = 1764, but I may wan to believe it, I may sit down to work the problem out or use a calculator that I trust, and cause myself to believe it. An indirect form of doxastic voluntarism, at least with to respect to many of beliefs (perhaps not all), does seem to fit my intuitions. This, of course, doesn't seem to be a freedom of belief, but a freedom of action to induce belief. So, do I not have any control over my beliefs?
To deny that I have direct control over some of my beliefs (as I will readily admit), of course, is not to deny that I have direct control over all of my beliefs. I have to ask: Are there some cases where I have direct control over my belief? I'm not sure. It seems to me that if there are any cases, they require a very specific kind of context. I can't just be offered a million dollars to truly believe something, particularly about those things of which I have a strong conviction, and there seem to be some beliefs over which I will never have direct control over, as the evidence is that powerful.
What about an epistemic dilemma which practically requires an immediate decision? Let us say I have equal evidence for P and for ~P, and I have a choice to make right now that requires that I have a believe about the truth of P. It seems to me that I can freely take up either P or ~P in that moment - I'm driven to do so, and I am not driven to choose either option by evidence. The choice of this belief does seem to be directly up to me. Isn't this a direct form of doxastic realism that fits our intuitions? Now, maybe the initial criticism of this example is that it is puruposefully not about the evidence, and that might be missing the real debate. Perhaps that's true, but I'm not convinced of it (yet).
It seems that the kinds of examples I'm considering which favor doxastic voluntarism the moast are the kinds where I lack strong evidence to persuade me, and yet have practical needs which drive me to form a belief. Note that this requires a specific context. In most cases, if I don't have strong enough evidence for P or ~P, then I claim some kind of agnosticism (for lack of a better word) about the issue. I can say I don't have a specific belief on that matter. I don't always have the luxury to be agnostic, however, practical matters may force me to make a choice. These seem to be strongest cases for the possibility of doxastic voluntarism to me, there may be others.
Interestingly, it seems that all the cases which favor doxastic voluntarism (that I can see) are not the kinds of beliefs which are justified enough to call knowledge. If this is true, then having knowledge, in this context, is not directly up to us, only indirectly. Even worse, it seems as though the beliefs which are directly up to me are not epistemically justified, or at best, very weakly epistemically justified.
Enriches moral life and enhances moral responsibility.
Where and when am I in control of my beliefs?
Why is it important for me to be control of my beliefs? What are the ethical implications to it?
What are some beliefs over which I believe I have control over? I think we need to add, in what circumstances do I have control over my beliefs?
---
Doxastic Voluntarism doesn't have to be 'All or Nothing,' and Moral Considerations
A kind of overstated doxastic voluntarism, where I have control over absolutely all of my beliefs, seems untenable. I can't make myself believe the sky is green (when it is blue), and I just don't seem to have any control over my belief in 2+2=4. I don't have direct control over many of my beliefs. I especially agree that I cannot choose to believe just any arbitrary proposition for just any reason(s), which appears to be the initial strawman that opponents of doxastic voluntarism might be tempted to attack.
It does appear, however, that I have indirect control over many of my beliefs. In many cases, it seems as though I am able to induce, cause, or bring about the circumstances which lead to a particular belief. Isn't that what learning and education are often about? I may want to believe something, but I don't know why I should believe it, and in researching and learning about the issue, I eventually come to believe due to my own course of action. I may not believe the claim that 42 * 42 = 1764, but I may want to believe it. I may sit down to work the problem out or use a calculator that I trust, and cause myself to believe it. An indirect form of doxastic voluntarism, at least with to respect to many of beliefs (perhaps not all), does seem to fit my intuitions. This may be a kind of control over some of my beliefs, but only in a weak sense. Perhaps I am actually considering freedom of action rather than freedom of belief - it is not very clear to me.
To deny that I have direct control over all of my beliefs (as I will readily admit), of course, is not to deny that I have direct control over any of my beliefs. I have to ask: Are there some cases where I have direct control over my belief? Maybe. It seems to me that if there are any cases, they require a very specific kind of context. I can't just choose to believe something because I was offered a million dollars to believe it, particularly about those things of which I have a strong conviction, and there seem to be some beliefs over which I will never have direct control over, as the evidence for those beliefs are so powerful.
What about some kind of epistemic dilemma which practically requires an immediate decision? Let us say I have equal evidence for P and for ~P, and I have a choice to make right now that requires I have a believe about the truth of P. It seems to me that I can freely take up either P or ~P in that moment - I'm driven to do so, and I am not driven to choose either option by evidence. The choice of this belief does seem to be directly up to me.
It seems that the kinds of examples I'm considering which favor doxastic voluntarism the most are the kinds where I lack strong enough evidence to decisively persuade me, and yet have practical needs which drive me to form a belief. Again, this requires a specific context. In most cases, if I don't have strong enough evidence for P or ~P, then I might usually claim some kind of agnosticism (for lack of a better word) about the issue. I can say I don't have a specific belief on that matter. I don't always have the luxury to be agnostic, however, as practical matters may force me to make a choice (or perhaps by whim in some cases). These seem to be strongest examples for the possibility of a direct doxastic voluntarism to me.
One might counter that I'm merely 'acting as if' I have a belief, but I don't really have that belief. I'm not convinced this is always the case, but I don't have a nice argument against this criticism.
Interestingly, it seems that all the cases which favor direct doxastic voluntarism (that I can see) are not the kinds of beliefs which are justified enough to call knowledge. If this is true, then having knowledge, in this context, is not directly up to us, only indirectly. Further, it seems as though the beliefs which are directly up to me are not epistemically justified, or at best, very weakly epistemically justified. Rather, it appears as though I justify the beliefs that are up to me through practical reasons instead of epistemic reasons.
I don't find this particularly worrisome if we buy into something like Haack's 'special thesis,' the claim that epistemic normativity is a subset of moral normativity, that the force of epistemic normativity essentially exists virtue of its contribution to moral normativity, and that other considerations of morality may override epistemic considerations.
If we don't buy into this 'special thesis', I do have worries. It seems as though beliefs which we have chosen are necessarily blameworthy choices - we've done something epistemically irresponsible and wrong. Essentially, we would be right in saying "You should never choose to believe."
Belief is integral to moral choice and action. As such, to take up one doxastic foundation over another will have a lot of impact on which moral theories (and their variations) will sink or swim, and such a selection will also outline the limits of these theories. The issue of doxastic voluntarism seems especially relevant to moral theories grounded in a libertarian sense of freewill (which I wish to defend, as I can’t buy into compatibilism, but as you will see, I don’t know how).
I confess, my post goes off on a tangent, but I think it is a relevant and worrisome set of concerns.
Consider the classic ethics question: "What should I do?" I take it that however we go about answering this question (or ones like it, such as "Who should I be?"), our answer is a kind of belief or set of beliefs. If we are to fully deny any control over our beliefs, then it seems as if we do not have a choice about which answers we accept, deny, or withhold when we face these basic ethical questions.
At first glance, this doesn’t appear to be a problem. We might not have freedom of belief, but we may accept freedom of action, where we choose whether or not we will act upon our beliefs or not. If we try to collapse the space between action and belief, and we deny doxastic voluntarism, then it seems as if libertarian freewill is jeopardized.
But, when we open this space up, it seems as if we could satisfy freewill libertarians, as though our actions are still ultimately ‘up to us’ and moral responsibility can still be maintained.
Action appears to be a kind of endorsement or commitment to those beliefs which motivate their corresponding actions. Freedom of action would mean that we are free to endorse or commit ourselves to our beliefs which motivate our actions. On this language, it does appear as if some notion of freewill can be packed into the concept of endorsement or commitment to a belief.
I’m forced, however, to consider what it means to initially form a belief on this account. It is almost as if action is re-endorsing or re-committing oneself to a belief, but this time it is the kind of endorsement or commitment that is actually in my control. And, if action is the ultimate endorsement or commitment, then the original formation of the belief seems to be a weak or not very meaningful kind of commitment in the first place. We might be begging the question here, and we’ve inserted doxastic voluntarism into the freedom of action. Even if that isn’t the case, I’m not even sure what this is supposed to look like:
Say I have a set of ethical beliefs (about what I should do) that aren’t up to me. I then deliberate about whether or not I will act on those beliefs, about whether or not I will ultimately endorse or commit myself to those beliefs. On what grounds do I deliberate and make this choice? In particular, I’m worried that this choice is made from my beliefs. If it is based upon my beliefs, and I’m not in control of those beliefs, then how am I really in control over this choice?
Further, this deliberation is odd. It is like asking: “Should I act upon the belief that I should do X?” That requires a belief. Do we hit an infinite regress? And, if we don’t, do we have some kind of ab initio problem? I must act on some motivating force that is “up to me,” but it can’t be beliefs. What are they then?
Additionally, to choose not to act X on the belief that I should do X, or conversely, to choose to act X on the belief I should not do X, is almost paradoxical. In some sense, just as it might be paradoxical to say: “I believe X, but X is not true,” it seems very awkward to “act X, but at the same time believe I should not do X.”
Can one rationally act against one’s beliefs? If you say ‘no,’ then it looks as if we might be bound to some weak version of psychological determinism (something unacceptable to most freewill libertarians). But, so far, it seems hard to believe that the answer could be ‘yes.’
Lastly, and to continue my worry about having a space between action and belief: if a belief is not efficacious (where we expect it to be efficacious), do I really hold that belief? Consider the following:
I might have beliefs right now that I’m fat and I shouldn’t eat unhealthy foods, such as pizza, for the foreseeable future (I have ample evidence for this). When I consider the question “Should I eat pizza?,” the answer is: “No. I should not eat pizza.” Those beliefs aren’t directly up to me on this account. Now, a proponent of free action would point out that I can still eat pizza if I really want to, claiming there is this space between action and belief in which I have the freedom to choose, and that space is what accounts for me going out and eating pizza an hour from now, even though I believe I shouldn’t.
I feel like I can arguments which point out how there is supposedly space between action and belief, and collapse that space, such that my action is just pointing out those beliefs I actually have (with no space in between). Instead of saying that I chose not to act on my belief that I should not eat pizza, I would say that I simply changed my beliefs. Perhaps it would go something like this:
In an hour, my desire for pizza in particular will be profound.
Presumably, this desire isn’t in my control. In this case, the desire is so strong that it influences my belief/answer to the ethical question regarding whether or not I should eat pizza. My desire is so strong that fulfilling it becomes more salient and valuable to me than other moral considerations (like my health). In that moment, it seems as if I would answer “Should I eat pizza?” in the affirmative, even when I wouldn’t otherwise. This change in belief is not up to me. And, further, my eating this pizza was acting from my belief that I should eat pizza.
On this account, I do not see how my prevailing and most salient beliefs are not by definition efficacious in motivating my actions. I also don’t see much space between action and belief.
Anyways, as odd as it sounds, I’m hoping I’ve screwed up a bunch of times here and/or that I’m missing some important arguments. I’m very interested in having a theory of epistemology which is harmonious with a robust moral realist theory that includes libertarian freewill.
Summary:
Buss is largely interested in avoiding the regress problem. She believes the regress occurs directly because we expect the agent to be active in deliberation, evaluation, and endorsement. Avoiding the regress, and establishing self-determination, requires dropping a model of the active agent in favor of a passive agent.
The kernel of her argument begins with a virtue-theoretic intuition that an agent is autonomous when his intentions are caused by (or are an expression of) his stable and constitutive character/personality. I believe, on this theory, one is accountable iff one is autonomous. There are two ways in which one is accountable: (1) an act reflects the agent’s character or personality, or (2) an act was caused by a psychology/physiological condition (normally thought of as external?) that is not at odds with the minimal flourishing of the agent. Conversely, to be non-autonomous requires that one formed an “intention under the decisive nonrational influence of conditions that are elements or symptoms of human malfunctioning,” by which I take malfunctioning to be the opposite of human flourishing (660). Only those extreme anti-flourishing conditions which override our rationality can cause us to (generally temporarily) lose our autonomy – and we lose our autonomy only because those conditions are so deeply incompatible with our being a good human specimen or good representative of humanity.
I think the idea is that even when we aren’t actively choosing, but only passively acting, we are still autonomous agents because it is a part of our flourishing.
Thoughts:
I’m not sure if I understand how the human flourishing condition determines the boundaries of a person’s character and personality.
Human flourishing seems to be a kind of precondition to agency/autonomy. It seems to me that she may need to separate flourishing as a human from flourishing as a person.
It seems hard to not be autonomous agent, requiring fairly extreme conditions. I’m not exactly sure what I think about this asymmetry.
While Buss just might defeat the regress problem, I don’t see how Buss defeats the mad scientist problem in pg. 688+.
---
648 – It is unclear what it means to accountable for something but not blameworthy.
654 – Why should we say that passive or non-autonomous agents aren’t agents at all? We can say they are agents, they just aren’t the authentic agents.
656 – “the distinguishing feature of autonomous agents is neither their special capacity for deliberation and self-reflection nor any particular attitude they take toward their actions”
656 – She denies that self-relation necessary for autonomy is a relation between a privileged self and another self – by this I assume an Order-based conception of autonomy. She wants to truly avoid any makings of the regress.
657 – The regress occurs directly because we expect the agent to be active in deliberation, evaluation, and endorsement. Avoiding the regress requires dropping the active agent in favor of a passive agent. Buss claims it is necessarily “self-determination in the passive mode.”
658 – “someone is an autonomous agent if her intention is the direct effect of—and is thus an expression of—her character or personality; if, that is, it reflects whatever relatively stable psychological traits are constitutive of the particular person she is.”
Is stability like coherence? No. One can be stably incoherent.
“Out of character”
Akrasia
659 – “someone is accountable for what she does if her intention to act this way either reflects her character or personality or was directly caused by a psychological and/or physiological condition that is not at odds with minimal human flourishing”
659 – how does the human flourishing condition determine the boundaries of a person’s character and personality?
660 – “a human being fails to act autonomously if and only if she forms her intention under the decisive nonrational influence of conditions that are elements or symptoms of human malfunctioning.”
660 – “To be a human agent is to be a representative member of a species. This means that there is an important respect in which even well-integrated, long-standing psychological and physiological conditions are external to a human agent’s identity insofar as they are causes or symptoms of human malfunctioning”
662 - There is an asymmetry. Very positive, flourishing kind of conditions enable us to still be us, but very negative and anti-flourishing conditions do not.
This reminds me of Korsgaard. Instead, I must ask, what is extremely defective action? What does it mean to choose extremely negative actions?
667 – “The key to autonomous action, I will argue, is the deep connection between who we truly are and who we are when we are not sick or in great pain or the victim of some other form of pathology or disability. On my account, when pain, fear, and the like qualify as the elements or symptoms of pathology—when they are extreme enough or exceptional in some other way that renders them at odds with minimal human flourishing—and when, furthermore, they exert a decisive nonrational influence on our intentions, then and only then, they prevent us from determining our actions in the way that we must if we are to be account-able for what we do.”
668 – Yes, it is difficult to accept that some traits are more human than others. In fact, the instinctual “overcome” with fear, etc. are the kinds of things which are most human of all. Isn’t instinctual human also truly human? Yes. Perhaps we need a distinction between human and person here, where it may be a trait of humans, but it is not a trait of persons, i.e. agents.
669 – “The point is simply that even under these circumstances, the conditions are afflic-tions—the sort of conditions whose long-term influence is typically crippling and, hence, the sort of conditions that are incompatible with a human being’s identity as a representative of her kind”
Flourishing as persons distinct from Flourishing as humans? To what extent? What does that mean?
671- Human Flourishing is a precondition to Agency.
I don’t see how Buss escapes the mad scientist problem in 688+
690 – “(1) if we play a special causal role in the inten-tional actions for which we can be held accountable, this cannot be because these autonomous actions involve a more complete expression of our agency, (2) our autonomous actions differ from our nonautono-mous actions because when we act autonomously we play a decisive causal role in our capacity as nonagents, (3) the relevant aspect of our identity as nonagents is our identity as representatives, or exemplars, of our species, and (4) this normative aspect of our identity consists of whichever psychological and physiological conditions are not at odds with functioning minimally well as a humanbeing.”
Sarah Buss: Autonomous Action: Self-Determination in the Passive Mode
How does autonomous agency differ from mere agency? When I act, what must I contribute to that act for it to be my own?
The Big Picture
We’ve seen a number of answers to the above question: a second-order volition (Frankurt), an endorsement/identification (Dworkin), approval of the formation process (Christman), endorsement via one’s true self (Ekstrom).
Buss’s answer is that you needn’t contribute anything. An act of yours is autonomous, she thinks, and hence your own, and hence one for which you’re accountable, if it springs from motivations that support at least a minimal level of human flourishing.
Buss wholeheartedly embraces agent passivity. Others seem to think that agents must do something to make their desires autonomous – they must evaluative them, identify with them, endorse them, or at least deliberate about them. Not so, thinks Buss.
Buss’s view is also unique in that it defines the self in terms of a species-specific account of proper functioning. To be autonomous, think many, is to be ruled by the particular person that you are (i.e. by your character or true self). But on Buss’s view, to be autonomous is to be ruled by who you are qua member of a species and not by the particular person that you are.
Problems with the Standard “Super-Agent” Model (SM)
Buss: SM holds that agents are autonomous insofar as they exercise their agency in a special way, either by deliberating about their desires and actions or about forming attitudes about them.
On the deliberation model, autonomy is the product of reflection and evaluation. But:
Agents can be accountable for their habitual, spontaneous, and careless actions. They are accountable for behaviors that aren’t, or wouldn’t have been, the product of deliberation.
Agents can be unaccountable for their deliberative reactions because of various autonomy-undermining influences on their character.
On the evaluation model, autonomy is to be found in our attitudes and judgments about our desires or actions. Autonomy, on this view, is a matter of endorsing ones desires. It’s a matter of having your actions reflect the attitudes that constitute your “point of view”.
But autonomous action, Buss argues, needn’t be endorsed action. Ambivalence, frustration, and disappointment needn’t be accountability defeaters. And while actions that express your point of view might be authentic, you could nonetheless fail to be accountable for them.
Buss offers a second argument against the evaluative model on 654.
She also notes that any “super-agent” model will face a regress. If agents need to do something to make their desires autonomous – if they need to express their agency more fully - we’ll have to inquire into the autonomy of the requisite “doings” or “expressions”, which will require postulating additional doings or expressions, seemingly ad infinitum.
Buss’s alternative model
Buss: at the heart of agency is passivity. An agent’s commitments are the effects of dispositions in relation to which she is passive. What we see as a reason, and how much weight we give it, is a matter of passively responding to dispositions within us. Whether someone acts autonomously, she thinks, depends on whether she can be identified with these passive influences – with the direct, purely causal, nonrational influences on the formation her intentions.
Buss resists the view that whether you can be identified with these influences depends on whether they are part of your character or core self. You can be accountable, she thinks, for behavior that’s out of character, and the fact that some behavior is in character is not sufficient for accountability.
Instead of appealing to character or to a core self, Buss suggests that you fail to act autonomously when you form your intentions under the decisive nonrational influence of conditions that are elements or symptoms of human malfunctioning.
This account, she argues, is supported by an asymmetry in our judgments of accountability. We tend to excuse people when they act from depression, anger, or fear – especially when they’re overcome by these emotions – but not when they’re overcome, say, by joy. Unlike the negative emotions, the positive emotions, she argues, don’t undermine autonomy unless they metamorphose into something different in kind (e.g. joy into mania).
Buss: the debilitating negative conditions undermine autonomy because there is an important respect in which they are external to who we are. The key to autonomous action is the deep connection between who we truly are and who we are when we’re not sick or in pain or the victim of some other pathology or disability. Sickness is a kind of hostile takeover.
A caveat: for a sickness to be autonomy-undermining it can’t just affect one’s choices. It has to alter the background conditions that determine what one takes as a reason and how much weight one gives to it.
Buss: we can’t give a precise account of what minimal human flourishing involves. Still, to understand autonomous agency, we must think hard about what distinguishes eccentricities and deformities of character from mental illness and disability. A trait, roughly, is disabling if, when it’s a stable disposition, it typically prevents the members of the agent’s species from satisfying one or more of their basic needs without exceptional effort.
Manipulation
What should we say about brainwashing cases?
Buss: if a mad scientist blocks one’s constitutive psychological dispositions from playing a behavioral role, then he prevents the human flourishing condition from being satisfied. This is the equivalent of not having any such dispositions, and that is a form of malfunction (see 687).
Over time, though, she thinks that a brainwashed person can come to be autonomous. What matters is whether the indoctrination leaves him in a condition in which he can’t function minimally well as a human.
Problems and Questions
A. Just like Aristotelian conceptions of happiness seem to show that even plants can be happy, Buss’s account seems to imply that animals can be autonomous. Any creature capable of intentional action, it seems, will be autonomous (and thus accountable for his actions) provided that she is functioning in a species-typical way. That seems rather bizarre.
B. Why should your identity be cashed out in a species-specific way? Doesn’t Buss’s account imply that if you were the only member of your species, you couldn’t be accountable for your actions?
C. Can’t we appeal to a non-Aristotelian notion of human flourishing? Why not say that there are dispositions that make one’s life go well and dispositions that make it go badly, and that one is accountable and autonomous when one is governed by the former and not the latter?
In making this move we embrace a version of the rationalistic model of autonomy, which Buss rejects for the standard reason that it doesn’t seem like a model of self-government. But I wonder if her view is susceptible to the same objection.
D. It’s not clear why functioning in a non-species-typical way should be seen as an autonomy-defeater. After all, we can imagine a person who gets “sick,” but in a way that greatly enhances his abilities in a non species-typical way. Such a person, though, wouldn’t lose his autonomy or his accountability (presumably). That suggests that what’s doing the work for Buss is not the loss of biological humanity but rather its bad effects. But then why aren’t bad effects alone enough to undermine accountability?
Odd Thoughts on Murray’s Memory in Deontology and Descartes’ Demon
The second Murray case is not as clear as I would like. I don’t see how it necessarily does all of the work Weatherson thinks it does.
In the second case, I can see how Murray did something wrong earlier. Working on one’s character or dispositions, at least insofar as they are about beliefs, is a kind of indirect doxastic voluntarism. I can understand how one might blameworthy or praiseworthy for these. I don’t see how Murray obviously did something wrong at the time he swore.
Consider the phrase: “he could have kept his resolution, had only he thought of it” (8). I think the claim is that Murray is somehow responsible for remembering and forgetting his commitment.
I’m forced to ask: In what cases and to what degree can a person be responsible for remembering and forgetting?
Maybe in some cases, I can be. If I don’t have any way to record your address at the time you give it to me, and I must remember it as I run to get a piece of paper to write it down, and I am actually capable of remembering it for that duration, and I have a duty to remember it, then I can be praised or blamed for remembering it while I get a piece of paper to write it down. I can be intentionally focused on remembering your address while I get a piece of a paper, and remember or forgetting is “up to me.” I might choose to start doubling numbers in my head (which I know will eventually take all of my concentration, and result in forgetting your address) before I find a piece of paper, and in that case I could be blamed for forgetting. Likewise, if I directly found a piece of paper and wrote your address down, I can be praised for remembering.
Maybe in some cases, however, I can’t be held responsible for remembering and forgetting. I remember bits of random information all the time that I didn’t intend to remember – believe me, there things I wish I could force myself to forget. Likewise, there are times when I forget things, and my forgetting just wasn’t up to me. Back to the address example, if I was on my way to find a piece of paper, and I found my daughter was choking on a grape (let’s say I wasn’t responsible for this, for the sake of argument), I would probably forget your address while racing to help my daughter. I may, by some miracle, coincidentally remember your number after helping my daughter, but that wasn’t up to me either. In this kind of case, I don’t see how I can be blamed for forgetting or remembering. Note that we need not have such a provocative explanation for accidentally forgetting or remembering. For example, I may not have had a duty to remember your address, so why should I be blamed for forgetting it? Further, I am a finite human, with only so much brain power, and as I get older, I find I forget many things all the time that I had really hoped to remember, often temporarily, as in the case of Murray. I can easily see a temporary forgetfulness as either being outside Murray’s control or not actually his duty.
When Murray temporarily forgets, there seem to be ways in which he could be responsible and other ways in which he would not be responsible. It wasn’t evident from the example that he was obviously responsible for remembering his commitment. Perhaps we were just supposed to assume he was responsible for remembering, I don’t know. Further, we might say that embedded in the word ‘commitment’ is that you can only culpably forget it and that you have a duty to remember it. That isn’t so obvious to me either though.
Lastly, I want to point out there seems to be two possible instances of self-control in the second example. The first is the possibility of self-control over remembering the commitment, and the second would be that even if Murray remembered, he would have a self-controlled choice about whether or not to fulfill his commitment.
Weatherson offers us an example of a man, a cricket captain, who deserves praise for his non-volitional act of imagination. How can a person be responsible for that which is beyond his volition? Those non-volition acts, such as catching a fast moving ball (muscle memory, instinct, etc.), have origins, either by nature or by nurture. By nature, I see no responsible agents in non-volitional acts. By nurture, I see the responsibility as resting upon the nurturers in non-volitional acts. As I hope to point out, I have strong worries about how Weatherson employs the concept of responsibility (praiseworthiness and blameworthiness).
In his first false rebuttal to the captain example, Weatherson offers the claim that Mother Nature, presumably a non-agent, could be praised for the captain’s act of imagination. He refutes with the claim that this is dehumanizing to the captain. I don’t see how. It seems reasonable to think that some people are genetically more intellectually capable than others, and that would seem to include the capacity of imagination. If this is the captain’s case, then the Captain is clearly not responsible for how imaginative he was, and in that respect he cannot be praised. Further, to claim that a non-agent, Mother Nature in this case, could be praised or blamed at all, as Weatherson goes on to suggest, is a problem. Mother Nature isn’t an agent and isn’t responsible for anything, and so if we explain the captain’s act of imagination in terms of Mother Nature, I don’t see how there is praise at all.
In his second false rebuttal to the captain example, Weatherson offers the claim that the captain is indirectly praiseworthy for his act of imagination because he studied the game. Weatherson refutes this with the example of a hard-working dullard who also deserves equal praise for his studying while not achieving the same results as the captain. This offering of equal praise does seem right to Weatherson. Presumably, the dullard has done all the same work that the captain has in developing mind and learning the game theory behind cricket, and yet the dullard can’t achieve the same results as the captain. Weatherson wishes to praise the captain for his results never-the-less. This seems to me just another case of the first rebuttal. The dullard and the captain had different genetic circumstances. It makes sense to praise only that for which they are responsible, namely the hard work, and not their genetics. If the dullard and captain were genetic equals, then my response would be that either the dullard really hasn’t done the same hard work in developing his mind and learning the game (and is thus not as praiseworthy as the captain) or the dullard did not receive the same quality of nurturing from other agents as the captain did (at which point, the dullard may be just as praiseworthy).
I think the false rebuttals may point toward why Weatherson has a skewed conception of responsibility. I think his intuition about this example is that when something “good” occurs (such as an imaginative and successful field placement), we should necessarily praise the cause of that good for causing that good. This is why Mother Nature (and the captain) should be praised.
I can agree that the good (or instances or part of it) is always desirable, and presumably, the causes of the good might also be desirable. But, desiring is different from praising. Good things occur all the time for which no agent is responsible, and in such cases, there is desirability but no responsibility.
My claim runs counter to what I believe is Weatherson’s intuition: when something good occurs, it or its causes may be things which should be desired, but they aren’t necessarily things which should be praised. In conflating desirability with responsibility, Weatherson is sometimes attributing responsibility where is there is only desirability.
A lot of what was going on in pages 21 and 22 bothered me as well.
My initial question was something like: Why should we think Praise and Blame can be peeled apart? As far as I can tell, they are opposite sides of the same coin: responsibility. If a situation is one which you can possibly be praised, then you must also possibly be blamed, and vice versa. That space that Weatherson wishes to claim exists between praise and blame is the Good.
I think the major problem is that Weatherson is conflating or confusing the Good (what is desirable) and the Right (what you are responsible for). “To be a good epistemic agent” is parallel to “being a good human.” Being a good human takes more than merely right action (or having the right character, being virtuous, or whatever), it requires a kind of luck, being in a set of circumstances that enables you to partake of the human good. For example, a starving person isn’t fully partaking of the human good (you would say they aren't achieving eudaimonia), but this may not be an issue of “should" or "ought,” as perhaps the starving person has no choice in the matter. Good and Right are distinct; the former is an object of desire, and the latter an object of responsibility.
So, on page 21, I agree that we should evaluate B and C as being epistemically blameless. We should evaluate C as partaking of the good more than B. But, partaking of the good is different from right action and being responsible. C is no more praiseworthy than B, C merely has something more desirable than B.
Further, it isn’t so clear that the second pond-diver is not to be praised as much as the first (22). If the second pond-diver would have saved drowning children had they been there, then I see his action, and essentially, his intention as being just as praiseworthy as the first pond-diver. Now, is there a difference between who brought about more good in the world? Yes. That is merely circumstantial though, and it does not reflect on moral responsibility, praiseworthiness, or blameworthiness.
So, there are two senses of being a "better epistemic agent." The first is about partaking of (epistemic?) good, about what is desirable, without respect to responsibility. The second is distinctly about epistemic responsibility, about "ought" and "should."
Autonomy – Mid Term Exam
Instructions: The exam, which will be given on 10/25 during class time (but not in class), has two parts. Part one will consist of three essay questions selected from the list below (you’ll have to answer all three). Part two will also consist of essay questions. You won’t have prior access to them, but you’ll have a choice over which you answer.
The exam will be available on Blackboard under “Course Documents” at 6:30 pm on 10/25. Your answers are due by email (no attachments please – just paste your answers directly into your message) by no later than 8:00 pm that day (mvaldman@tulane.edu). I suggest preparing answers to the part one questions in advance.
You may discuss the part one questions with whomever you like prior to the start of the exam. Once the exam has begun, however, communicating with others is prohibited.
Do not exceed 400 words per answer.
General Advice
Not every question has a unique answer. The answer to some questions may depend on the definition of a key term. For instance, if I were to ask whether slavery is compatible with utilitarianism, you could start by saying: “It depends on which version of utilitarianism we’re discussing,” and then say what these versions are and what they imply for slavery.
If you’re arguing for X, don’t just present your arguments and move on to the next question. Consider how someone might challenge your arguments and respond to their concerns. Consider why someone might believe not X and address her concerns. In all, I am looking to see whether you understand the issues in their full complexity. The more you can convince me of this, the better you’ll do. The burden of proof is on you to convince me that you have a firm grasp of the material.
Part one questions
(1) Many believe that freedom is something that’s clearly worth having. Does Isaiah Berlin offer us a conception of negative freedom that can vindicate this view? Discuss.
Berlin’s negative freedom is a kind of freedom from interference (rather than frustration) where others do not prevent or hinder your potential choices and actions. Man-made, intentional, deliberate, agent-driven hindrances are the only real impediments to freedom.
Natural impediments, such as a rock pinning you down, don’t seem to be the kind of coercion Berlin is concerned about. One worry we might raise in this context is that, practically speaking, your freedom might be equally compromised whether it is a rock or a person pinning you down. An absence of agential impediments but not natural impediments to do X may not provide any more freedom than an absence of natural impediments but not agential impediments to do X. Those aren’t my intuitions, but I others might see it that way.
Similarly, if a king lifts a ban on carrying weapons, but you don’t have any limbs, did you gain any real freedom? It seems as if Berlin must say ‘yes,’ but it may not be obvious that you gained any freedom worth having.
Further, Berlin thinks you must have multiple options in order to have freedom. On his view, if you only have one option, even if you wanted that one option, you somehow weren’t free. Berlin may be right that we need more than one option to be free, but we don’t need so many options (as it seems he implies) to be completely free.
Impinging upon an agent’s freedom is too easy on Berlin’s account. Freedom is too broad, and many violations aren’t very meaningful.
If I had the option of going to a gym and the gym owner shutdown the gym (even without my knowledge), then that option disappeared. Berlin thinks of this as a loss of freedom. Similarly, if a strabger locks his door and I can’t go into his house anymore, I’ve lost freedom. My freedom is constantly being compromised on Berlin’s account. What isn’t clear, however, is why the loss of these freedoms really matter to me. It seems as if the vast majority of freedom in Berlin’s account is not significant to me.
Berlin’s conception of negative freedom is neither necessary nor sufficient for believing that freedom is something that’s clearly worth having. Further, Berlin’s account is very physically and politically oriented, and while these may be important kinds of freedom, I think a (presumably) metaphysical, libertarian freewill is at the heart of a proper account of freedom worth having.
(2) Is who you are best understood as a function of what you do, what you believe, your attitudes, what you aspire to be, or something else entirely? Defend your answer.
[I take this question to be referring to the concept of the authentic self. I have no watertight argument (and I can’t believe you expect one because I’ve yet to see an account that was even close to being defensible), but I can briefly sketch my intuitions (I anticipate and require your charity).]
I divide this into two broad categories or approaches, the sovereign authentic self (a very weak conception of authenticity) and the accountable authentic self (the strong conception of authenticity).
The sovereign authentic self is a social/political agent, where agency is concerned with being socially/politically allowed or enabled to be who you are, to say what you really think, and to act as you really want to act. When everyday people talk about “keeping it real” or “frontin” or “being true to yourself” they are referring to this concept of the sovereign authentic self.
We often find ourselves in social/political situations where we feel prevented from or pressured against saying what we really think or acting as we normally would. We often choose not to genuinely be ourselves in these situations, and so we act and/or speak inauthentically. The sovereign authentic self is best understood in terms of what you do and what you communicate in social/political circumstances.
Note, however, that this does not mean that social/political forces can’t change who you are, as they certainly can. Exactly how this works out, I don’t know. I think this position has problems similar to historical accounts of the authentic self, and probably a dash of the Ship of Theseus paradox built into it. The point is that when you aren’t changed by social/political forces, but your actions/communications are bent by those forces, you aren’t being you.
Clearly, the sovereign authentic self doesn’t define “who you really are” at all. But, in discussing authenticity, many people point to this as what authenticity is about, and so I’m trying to describe what I think is really going on.
The sovereign authentic self is parasitic upon the accountable authentic self. It is up to the accountable authentic self as to whether or not one will be sovereignly authentic.
The accountable authentic self is a metaphysically free (that is, possessing libertarian freewill), morally responsible agent. The realm in which you are the only force of will (whatever that may be), the realm in which only you can be held accountable, is the realm of the real you. The accountable authentic self has to be some kind system of beliefs, desires, and choices. The authentic self is the composition of those attributes necessary for explaining and causing culpable choice.
I honestly have no idea what it looks like or how to defend it. I have no defense for libertarian freewill, and I can’t provide a complete model of agency. I’m not even sure how to describe or defend persistent identities (Ship of Theseus paradox) – which seems to be something which must be solved before we could even dream of having a defensible theory of the authentic self.
Why then do I believe in an authentic self if I can’t fully describe, explain, or justify what it is? (This is an appropriate question for someone claiming/defending a belief while not providing the reasons and explanation normally required for most kinds beliefs.)
Essentially, if there is no such thing as an accountable authentic self, and subsequently if there is no moral responsibility, then all is lost. There isn’t a rational, normative reason or a point to talking about or doing anything if there isn’t an accountable authentic self. That there are objective moral truths, that we are moral agents, and that we have an accountable authentic self just might be as epistemically basic and foundational as the normative fact that A = A. Perhaps these can’t be or don’t need to be effectively justified or explained because in trying to justify/explain them we beg the question of their truth. I see the search for and exploration of the accountable authentic self as being a good thing, but also something which can be assumed without justification or explanation (and such things are exceedingly rare in philosophy).
(3) What is the impetus for preferring a historical approach to autonomy? By that standard, does Christman’s historical theory deliver? Explain.
An ahistorical account, like Frankfurt’s or Dworkin’s, sees the ‘real you’ as a structure of your will, where (briefly speaking) the authentic self is a kind of congruence between First Order and Second Order (and higher order) desires. These hierarchically integrated selves do not take into consideration where a desire came from or how it was acquired.
Ahistorical accounts of autonomy fail to resolve the problem of manipulation.
[Note that Christman’s impetus for preferring his historical account appears to go beyond the problem of manipulation. Christman has other worries which he felt his historical account avoided, namely the problems of regress, ab initio, and (what he refers to as) incompleteness.]
The paradigm case of manipulation is where a neuroscientist changes your desires (and beliefs). For ahistorical accounts, as long as the neuroscientist changes you such that a kind of congruence between your FO and higher order desires is maintained, then you are still considered to be autonomous. Ahistorical models don’t seem capable of taking into account how the problem of manipulation, at least intuitively, results in an attack on or elimination of one’s autonomy and/or the authentic self.
Where ahistorical accounts do not take into consideration the derivation of desires, leading to the problem of manipulation, a historical account is deeply worried about where our desires come from and how we acquired them, and presumably has some built-in immunity to the standard problem of manipulation.
On Christman’s historical account, a desire is autonomous if it is has the proper origins. In particular, the agent must approve (or would have approved) of the process by which a desire is formed or acquired. Instead of investigating a particular time-slice of an agent’s structure of will to determine autonomy (as an ahistorical account would), Christman believes an analysis of an agent’s resistance (or lack thereof) to a desire’s formation (in addition to constraints based upon possessing minimal rationality, and an absence of both self-deception and factors inhibiting self-reflection) determines whether or not that desire will be historically autonomous.
Christman’s account initially appears to answer the problem of manipulation. If a neuroscientist changes or forms desires in you, particularly against your will, where presumably you would either resist or would have resisted (if you had been aware of) the manipulation, then you lack autonomy with respect to those desires.
One worry might be that a neuroscientist might manipulate you in such a way that you don’t resist (or wouldn’t have resisted) the manipulation, and this may actually count as ‘proper origins’ on Christman’s theory. It isn’t immediately obvious to me, however, that we should call those desires autonomous. There may or may not be a difference between this manipulation and conditioning or influence.
Lastly, conditioning or influence (assuming it is a kind of manipulation) is present throughout all our lives. Our genes, our parents, our environment, etc. seem to pose a kind of systematic manipulation which may outright prevent autonomy on this theory (this sort of poisoned origins is something Christman did not intend). Further, it isn’t clear how to reclaim autonomy from our checkered/conditioned past. So, while at first glance Christman’s theory may seem to resolve the problem of manipulation where ahistorical accounts do not, his historical account raises even more unresolved manipulation issues.
(4) Buss claims that one of the distinctive features of her view is that it wholeheartedly embraces the idea of agent passivity. Explain the sense in which her view is a passive view of autonomy and discuss whether she’s right to think that that makes her view distinctive.
Buss offers the standard Super-Agent Model (SM) as the category of views from which she distinguishes her view. The SM of autonomy requires the formation of attitudes about, the deliberation of, the evaluation of, and/or the endorsement of desires. This makes the SM an active model of autonomy. Unlike her model, Buss considers the SM neither necessary nor sufficient for agency.
Buss’ Model (BM) is passive. On BM, agents have passive background conditions and influences over which we have no control. Certain facts just present themselves to us as reasons and some don’t. We have many dispositions (many we are unaware of). We are passive with respect to ‘what things we take to be reasons’ and ‘how much reason-giving force considerations have.’ Our response to the dispositions within ourselves is passive rather than active. On BM, being autonomous is about being identifiable with these passive conditions and influences. Autonomy is undermined when an agent’s intentions are formed on non-rational background conditions and influences which aren’t amenable to minimal human flourishing, but rather produce a kind of malfunctioning as a human specimen and a failure to meet the minimal requirements of the good for the human species.
Unlike the SM, which tries to explain autonomy in terms of the conscious, evaluative, and endorsing activities of agents, BM explains autonomy in terms of passive dispositions and influences.
Her view is distinctive, particularly if we grant her claim that accountability and autonomy are equivalent, in that her criticism of SM agency may be successful while perhaps avoiding some of the problems we associate with the SM.
BM seems to avoid the regress problem that often plagues SM’s. On BM, agents aren’t really doing anything to make their desire autonomous in her passive model, and so the regress doesn’t seem to apply.
BM may handle something like depression differently than other models. Depression is a sickness, not a normal kind of human functioning, and that is why it is an accountability/autonomy defeater for BM, but other models may still grant autonomy to the depressed.
Autonomy seems easier to achieve/possess on BM than on SMs. BM’s asymmetry seems to grant autonomy where other models otherwise wouldn’t, particularly regarding those non-evaluated or non-endorsed desires which promote minimal human flourishing. Further, considering an Aristotelian categorization of animals (and the definitions of flourishing for each species), it may be possible that animals could qualify as being autonomous, which also distinguishes BM from the other theories.
Of the models we’ve considered, I think Ekstrom’s model reminds me the most of BM. Although Ekstrom still employs the volition-model, the model has a kind of passiveness built into its coherentism. We might even try to work it out such that the minimal-flourishing aspects of agents are part of the definition of coherence. There are differences though. For example, both models consider “the Good,” but Ekstrom’s is a subjective good, while Buss’ is the objective good. Further, the manner in which Buss defines character is much broader than Ekstrom’s conception.
(5) What is the regress problem? Are any of the theories of autonomy that we’ve discussed able to avoid it? Discuss. ‘
We might categorize an agent’s desires into orders. A first order desire (FOD) is just an everyday desire for something or to do something. Second order desires (SODs) are desires about FODs. Likewise, third order desires (TODs) are desires about SODs, and so on.
Some theories of autonomy speak in terms of an autonomous agent identifying with his desires, especially his FODs. This identification, generally resulting from a positive evaluation, is a kind of authentic endorsement or approval of desires, to be moved by those desires, and/or for some desires to be your will. On these theories, agents have autonomous FODs when those FODs are endorsed by SODs. The intuition is that FODs don’t necessarily represent or issue from the authentic agent, and to be moved by a FOD which was not endorsed by a SOD would be being moved by something inauthentic to the agent, not really the agent himself. When a SOD (perhaps a particular kind of SOD which requires some sort of evaluation, perhaps like Frankfurt’s volition) endorses a FOD, we can take that FOD as being an authentic desire, a desire of the agent himself, because the agent had to actually endorse it. Initially, it seems as if SODs have the power to speak for the authentic self.
The problem, however, is that a SOD needs to be an autonomous desire as well, a desire that really belongs to the authentic agent. If a SOD is not an autonomous desire, then it seems as if a non-autonomous force is endorsing a FOD, and then it would not appear as if the FOD is really endorsed by an autonomous agent. So, what makes a SOD an autonomous desire? The assumption is that in order to make an autonomous N-order desire, an autonomous N+1-order desire must endorse it. To have an autonomous SOD requires an autonomous TOD endorsing it. But, clearly, we can ask the same question about TODs, and the answer requires having an autonomous desire from the next higher order endorsing it. This process of trying to autonomize desires with higher order autonomous desires can continue ad infinitum, hence the regress.
Frankfurt and Dworkin clearly fail to avoid the regress.
Christman’s account falls to the regress as well. The notion of autonomously resisting a desire’s formation, which is central to his historical model, is essentially employing the ordered-model of desires about desires.
Ekstrom’s coherentist model appears to avoid the regress. Authorization of a preference is assessed by coherence with other preferences and acceptances. So, instead of authorizing/endorsing from higher-ordered preferences, authorization issues from a definitionally autonomous circular/coherentist foundation.
Buss’ Model seems to avoid the regress problem that often plagues Super-Agent Models. On Buss’ Model, agents aren’t really doing anything to make their desire autonomous in her passive model, and so the regress doesn’t seem to apply.
---
My Study/Prep/Pre-Write Notes?:
Part 1
1.
Berlin’s negative freedom is a kind of freedom from interference (rather than frustration) where others do not prevent or hinder your potential choices and actions. Man-made, intentional, deliberate, agent-driven hindrances are the only real impediments to freedom.
Natural impediments, such as a rock pinning you down, don’t seem to be the kind of coercion Berlin is concerned about. One worry we might raise in this context is that, practically speaking, your freedom might be equally compromised whether it is a rock or a person pinning you down. An absence of agential impediments but not natural impediments to do X may not provide any more freedom than an absence of natural impediments but not agential impediments to do X. Those aren’t my intuitions, but I others might see it that way.
Similarly, if a king lifts a ban on carrying weapons, but you don’t have any limbs, did you gain any real freedom? It seems as if Berlin must say ‘yes,’ but it may not be obvious that you gained any freedom worth having.
Further, Berlin thinks you must have multiple options in order to have freedom. On his view, if you only have one option, even if you wanted that one option, you somehow weren’t free. Berlin may be right that we need more than one option to be free, but we don’t need so many options (as it seems he implies) to be completely free.
Impinging upon an agent’s freedom is too easy on Berlin’s account. Freedom is too broad, and many violations aren’t very meaningful.
If I had the option of going to a gym and the gym owner shutdown the gym (even without my knowledge), then that option disappeared. Berlin thinks of this as a loss of freedom. Similarly, if a strabger locks his door and I can’t go into his house anymore, I’ve lost freedom. My freedom is constantly being compromised on Berlin’s account. What isn’t clear, however, is why the loss of these freedoms really matter to me. It seems as if the vast majority of freedom in Berlin’s account is not significant to me.
Berlin’s conception of negative freedom is neither necessary nor sufficient for believing that freedom is something that’s clearly worth having. Further, Berlin’s account is very physically and politically oriented, and while these may be important kinds of freedom, I think a (presumably) metaphysical, libertarian freewill is at the heart of a proper account of freedom worth having.
2.
An ahistorical account, like Frankfurt’s or Dworkin’s, sees the ‘real you’ as a structure of your will, where (briefly speaking) the authentic self is a kind of congruence between First Order and Second Order (and higher order) desires. These hierarchically integrated selves do not take into consideration where a desire came from or how it was acquired.
Ahistorical accounts of autonomy fail to resolve the problem of manipulation.
[Note that Christman’s impetus for preferring his historical account appears to go beyond the problem of manipulation. Christman has other worries which he felt his historical account avoided, namely the problems of regress, ab initio, and (what he refers to as) incompleteness.]
The paradigm case of manipulation is where a neuroscientist changes your desires (and beliefs). For ahistorical accounts, as long as the neuroscientist changes you such that a kind of congruence between your FO and higher order desires is maintained, then you are still considered to be autonomous. Ahistorical models don’t seem capable of taking into account how the problem of manipulation, at least intuitively, results in an attack on or elimination of one’s autonomy and/or the authentic self.
Where ahistorical accounts do not take into consideration the derivation of desires, leading to the problem of manipulation, a historical account is deeply worried about where our desires come from and how we acquired them, and presumably has some built-in immunity to the standard problem of manipulation.
On Christman’s historical account, a desire is autonomous if it is has the proper origins. In particular, the agent must approve (or would have approved) of the process by which a desire is formed or acquired. Instead of investigating a particular time-slice of an agent’s structure of will to determine autonomy (as an ahistorical account would), Christman believes an analysis of an agent’s resistance (or lack thereof) to a desire’s formation (in addition to constraints based upon possessing minimal rationality, and an absence of both self-deception and factors inhibiting self-reflection) determines whether or not that desire will be historically autonomous.
Christman’s account initially appears to answer the problem of manipulation. If a neuroscientist changes or forms desires in you, particularly against your will, where presumably you would either resist or would have resisted (if you had been aware of) the manipulation, then you lack autonomy with respect to those desires.
One worry might be that a neuroscientist might manipulate you in such a way that you don’t resist (or wouldn’t have resisted) the manipulation, and this may actually count as ‘proper origins’ on Christman’s theory. It isn’t immediately obvious to me, however, that we should call those desires autonomous. There may or may not be a difference between this manipulation and conditioning or influence.
Lastly, conditioning or influence (assuming it is a kind of manipulation) is present throughout all our lives. Our genes, our parents, our environment, etc. seem to pose a kind of systematic manipulation which may outright prevent autonomy on this theory (this sort of poisoned origins is something Christman did not intend). Further, it isn’t clear how to reclaim autonomy from our checkered/conditioned past. So, while at first glance Christman’s theory may seem to resolve the problem of manipulation where ahistorical accounts do not, his historical account raises even more unresolved manipulation issues.
3.
Buss offers the standard Super-Agent Model (SM) as the category of views from which she distinguishes her view. The SM of autonomy requires the formation of attitudes about, the deliberation of, the evaluation of, and/or the endorsement of desires. This makes the SM an active model of autonomy. Unlike her model, Buss considers the SM neither necessary nor sufficient for agency.
Buss’ Model (BM) is passive. On BM, agents have passive background conditions and influences over which we have no control. Certain facts just present themselves to us as reasons and some don’t. We have many dispositions (many we are unaware of). We are passive with respect to ‘what things we take to be reasons’ and ‘how much reason-giving force considerations have.’ Our response to the dispositions within ourselves is passive rather than active. On BM, being autonomous is about being identifiable with these passive conditions and influences. Autonomy is undermined when an agent’s intentions are formed on non-rational background conditions and influences which aren’t amenable to minimal human flourishing, but rather produce a kind of malfunctioning as a human specimen and a failure to meet the minimal requirements of the good for the human species.
Unlike the SM, which tries to explain autonomy in terms of the conscious, evaluative, and endorsing activities of agents, BM explains autonomy in terms of passive dispositions and influences.
Her view is distinctive, particularly if we grant her claim that accountability and autonomy are equivalent, in that her criticism of SM agency may be successful while perhaps avoiding some of the problems we associate with the SM.
BM seems to avoid the regress problem that often plagues SM’s. On BM, agents aren’t really doing anything to make their desire autonomous in her passive model, and so the regress doesn’t seem to apply.
BM may handle something like depression differently than other models. Depression is a sickness, not a normal kind of human functioning, and that is why it is an accountability/autonomy defeater for BM, but other models may still grant autonomy to the depressed.
Autonomy seems easier to achieve/possess on BM than on SMs. BM’s asymmetry seems to grant autonomy where other models otherwise wouldn’t, particularly regarding those non-evaluated or non-endorsed desires which promote minimal human flourishing. Further, considering an Aristotelian categorization of animals (and the definitions of flourishing for each species), it may be possible that animals could qualify as being autonomous, which also distinguishes BM from the other theories.
Of the models we’ve considered, I think Ekstrom’s model reminds me the most of BM. Although Ekstrom still employs the volition-model, the model has a kind of passiveness built into its coherentism. We might even try to work it out such that the minimal-flourishing aspects of agents are part of the definition of coherence. There are differences though. For example, both models consider “the Good,” but Ekstrom’s is a subjective good, while Buss’ is the objective good. Further, the manner in which Buss defines character is much broader than Ekstrom’s conception.
Part 2
2.
I’m not sure if these aspects pull apart nicely. My gut instinct is to say that authenticity belongs to both sovereignty and accountability. I divide this disentanglement into two broad categories or approaches, the sovereign authentic self (a very weak conception of authenticity) and the accountable authentic self (the strong conception of authenticity).
The sovereign authentic self is a social/political agent, where agency is concerned with being socially/politically allowed or enabled to be who you are, to say what you really think, and to act as you really want to act. When everyday people talk about “keeping it real” or “frontin” or “being true to yourself” they are referring to this concept of the sovereign authentic self.
We often find ourselves in social/political situations where we feel prevented from or pressured against saying what we really think or acting as we normally would. We often choose not to genuinely be ourselves in these situations, and so we act and/or speak inauthentically. The sovereign authentic self is best understood in terms of what you do and what you communicate in social/political circumstances.
Note, however, that this does not mean that social/political forces can’t change who you are, as they certainly can. Exactly how this works out, I don’t know. I think this position has problems similar to historical accounts of the authentic self, and probably a dash of the Ship of Theseus paradox built into it. The point is that when you aren’t changed by social/political forces, but your actions/communications are bent by those forces, you aren’t being you.
Clearly, the sovereign authentic self doesn’t define “who you really are” at all. But, in discussing authenticity, many people point to this as what authenticity is about, and so I’m trying to describe what I think is really going on.
The sovereign authentic self is parasitic upon the accountable authentic self. It is up to the accountable authentic self as to whether or not one will be sovereignly authentic.
The accountable authentic self is the morally responsible agent. The realm in which you are the only force of will (whatever that may be), the realm in which only you can be held accountable, is the realm of the real you. The accountable authentic self has to be some kind system of beliefs, desires, and choices. The authentic self is the composition of those attributes necessary for explaining and causing culpable choice. I think this is the account of authenticity that most of people we’ve read are going for.
One could be an accountable authentic self that has complete sovereignty over himself. Living alone on an island, a castaway might achieve complete sovereign authenticity – he can ‘keep it real.’ Conversely, an agent who is tied down by malicious interrogators who are using methods of extreme coercion might be able to remove your sovereignty entirely, preventing you from being a sovereign authentic self, and yet you would still be an accountable authentic self. Someone who points a gun at your head and tells you to jump my remove your sovereignty, preventing you from acting authentically, but you still have a choice about whether or not you will jump – at that choice is the accountable authentic you.
4.
[I assume you asking about Frankfurt’s view of wantons. We might actually be able to present arguments for the nature of wantons given several authors we’ve read, but I don’t have time to consider those arguments.]
By Frankfurt’s definition, wanton persons aren’t really persons at all. A wanton is a being who doesn’t have second-order volitions, and essentially, at least on this theory, isn’t a person. Wantons may have first order (FO) desires and (SO) desires, but they do not have SO volitions. On Frankfurt’s theory, a wanton is exclusively moved by desires he has not identified himself with, endorsed, approved, or made his will. He is not a person, he is merely a being with desires that rule him, and he does not care to or perhaps even have the ability to rule over his desires.
Could we do away with Frankfurt’s definition and make a new definition for wanton, one which could enable a wanton to be a person? Perhaps. Our intuition behind a wanton might be that he does not evaluate his desires (even if he has the capacity). This seems to be a reasonable way of thinking of wantons.
I consider persons to be fundamentally morally accountable for themselves. That is first and foremost the most significant aspect of personhood – for a being to be held accountable is a sufficient reason to identify that being as a person. It seems to me that a wanton in the second definition, one who doesn’t evaluate his desires, may still be capable of evaluating, he just chooses not to. I think wantons such as these (although not necessarily all wantons) are accountable, and hence they are persons (maybe not very good persons, but still persons).
It would be fair to say that autonomy is necessary for personhood. I don’t think they pull apart very easily at all. By autonomy, however, I don’t mean any kind of political or physical freedom. Self-rule, it seems to me, is based in libertarian freewill – else we could not be self-governed, we would be governed by the laws of physics. Even if a freewill isn’t convertible into a kind of physical efficaciousness, you still have the important kind of autonomy (which is a capacity to choose!). At least to some extent, your mind is free to think of what you want to think about. This sort of autonomy, which is rooted in moral agency, seems to be necessary for personhood.
One last concern I might have is how we should define personhood (which isn’t clear to me). If personhood is merely about having certain rights, where other persons have certain obligations towards a being with those rights, which is a very definition of personhood in my eyes, then I may concede that autonomy is not necessary for personhood. I attribute rights to many beings, hence beings with personhood on this broad definition, which aren’t autonomous.
1.
Some animals, for example humans, are clearly autonomous by most definitions. Are there non-human animals which can be autonomous? It depends on what we consider the requirements of autonomy to be.
Any theory of autonomy that requires a very high degree of rationality (a word which I don’t know how to define), will likely rule out the vast majority of animals from being autonomous. Yet, perhaps dogs, dolphins, pigs, ravens, and apes might still meet that requirement, and might be reasonable candidates for autonomy.
Although, there are those who describe a vast number of animals (we don’t normally consider) in terms of instrumental rationality, complex inferential reasoning, and perhaps even a hierarchal model of desires. For those basing their models of autonomy on evaluation and endorsement, it seems possible that a lot of animals do this (perhaps not in a manner as complex as humans).
Those who look at self-rule as the basis of moral responsibility might also take some animals to be autonomous. I know many people, for example, often speak of cats or dogs as knowing doing right and wrong things. Some of these people aren’t anthropomorphizing, and merely speaking as if those animals were responsible when they weren’t actually, but honestly believe that those animals are morally responsible. Insofar as an animal could be morally responsible, I would claim that animal is also autonomous. Ought implies can. If an animal “ought,” then an animal “can,” and “can” requires autonomy.
If autonomy is merely about being an authentic self, then it seems possible that animals might qualify. We might speak of animals as ‘acting out of character’ or not being themselves. A very simple (perhaps oversimplified) view of what counts as being authentic could easily include animals.
Are there degrees of autonomy? If there are, it seems more likely that non-human animals might belong somewhere on that continuum.
I’m not sure if any of the theories we’ve considered so far couldn’t be tailored to allow for at least some non-human animals to have autonomy. The model most prone to enabling non-human animal autonomy would have to be Buss’ model. In her model, it wouldn’t be unreasonable to think that animals, insofar as they act in such a way that they are promoting their minimal species flourishing, are autonomous.
Children are a fascinating analogue to non-human animals. It seems that many theories which would bend over backward to make children autonomous (to some extent) would also end up making some non-human animals autonomous.
Now, perhaps your question is really: do you personally think there non-human animals are autonomous? I don’t think so. I’m not yet convinced non-human animals have libertarian freewill (although I could be for some!), which I consider essential and necessary to possess autonomy.
From page 172 on Kelly, I am certainly struck by the (equivalent) questions: “Can the expected consequences of holding a belief make a difference to whether it is rational to hold that belief?” and “Can practical considerations ever rationalize the holding of a belief?”
Kelly explains that “with respect to beliefs, rationality just is epistemic rationality.”
I’m not sur
“that a belief X will or will not have practical benefits does not motivate, result in, or cause one to believe or abandon belief in X”
Perhaps I’ve really misunderstood your argument. I don’t intend to strawman, and if I do, please correct me.
I don’t know if Smith is “ignoring evidence” in the first case. From what I can see, he’s not taken the time to reflect and infer that this boat going north should be taken as evidence. The ability to ignore evidence seems to border upon doxastic voluntarism, which I’m not yet convinced is something you mean to defend.
I've sympathies for your divisions: rationality, responsibility (rightness, blameworthiness, etc.), and goodness. Rationality, at least on these divisions, seems to be shrunk down (from what we usually might think of it as) into a kind of mere inferential thinking, right? Given what evidence one does have, and without reference to any responsibility, we can determine the rationality of a belief/choice (at least theoretically) by examining the inferential steps one takes. I take you to be saying something like: as long as one takes truth-preserving inferential steps, one is being rational. Again, I’ve got similar inclinations, but I don’t know if I can completely agree.
As you anticipated, my worry is that responsibility and rationality can't be peeled apart so nicely. Of course, I think we both already agree that in most cases we are responsible for being rational. The issue is whether or not the requirements of rationality include following certain duties. Note that making inferences is a type of evidence gathering. Rationality seems to include a responsibility to make proper inferences, essentially to gather evidence is right way. Apart from gathering evidence in the right sort of way, it seems likely to me that rationality might also include the responsibility to gather enough evidence or a certain amount of evidence (which I take you to be denying).
Consider this terribly oversimplified way of thinking (I already see several problems with it, but I think I can get my point across with this still):
P1. Act n from that “n is worth i utility,” where i is the highest utility.
P2. X1 is worth 5 utility (this qualifies for P1)
P3. X2 is worth 10 more utility than X1 (this does not, by itself and without further inference, qualify for P1)
P4. X3 is worth 15 more utility than X1 (same as P3’s comment)
C1. X2 is worth 15 utility (inferred from 2, 3, and some other assumptions about logic/mathematics/predicates)
C2. 15 is the highest utility of the “n is worth i utility” (inferred from 1-5, etc.)
C3. Act X2 (inferred from 1 and 6, etc.)
Clearly, all the steps were rational, at least on a narrow definition, as all inferences appear to be truth-preserving. The problem is that we’ve ignored P4, and we decided not to gather more evidence specific to P4 via inference. On the narrow definition of rationality, we could have rationally arrived at the conclusion to Act X3 if we had only decided to seek more evidence and to continue drawing inferences, but we aren’t being irrational (on the narrow definition) when we don’t.
If I understand your argument correctly, we might argue that this person’s way of thinking is rational, yet irresponsible because one should have sought more evidence. Somehow this doesn’t sit right with me. I want to say that not making the inference about P4 was, at least to some extent, not rational. The steps were right there! This guy wasn’t thinking straight (and not just because he assumed utilitarianism in P1 :P). Despite making reasonable inferences, this manner of thought just isn’t reasonable enough.
It seems to me that merely making truth-preserving inferences isn’t sufficient for rationality. Ensuring some level of difficulty of inferences, making sure to gather a certain level of evidence, seems to be a necessary aspect of being rationality. The validity of inferences can’t be the only responsibility within rationality; a responsibility to have a certain depth and breadth of inferences and evidence has to be a part of that rationality. Rationality, otherwise, seems too weak.
But, Smith might just be doing the same, right? He chose not to reflect, to gather more evidence, or make these inferences about the boat and the direction of the beach. We might argue that he was so irresponsible, he failed to meet the degree-of-evidence-gathering-duties required to be rational in this respect, that we should call him rational in this respect.
Summary:
You provide us a dilemma in which autonomy is either incoherent or unimportant.
There are three basic categories of theories for making desires autonomous: historical, structural, and rationalistic theories (and hybrids of these basic categories). All theories have an Autonomy Conferring Process, be it a Mere Authenticity view or an Agent-Government view (not mutually exclusive).
The strength of mere authenticity views is avoiding the regress, while the weakness, ultimately, are versions of the ab initio problem (you point out several, I think). Mere authenticity views seem to lack the “self-governing” in autonomy, and so perhaps, we should be worried they aren’t really theories of autonomy at all (even if they are some kind of theory about personal identity and psychology). Even if we were to assume they are theories of autonomy, these accounts are too weak to justify the belief that autonomy is normatively significant (or as significant as we many seem to think). This is the “unimportant” part of the dilemma.
For the Agent-Government View, “one can’t deliberate from nothing or according to nothing.” We must have some guiding entities. What are these guiding entities? If the agent does not have power over these entities, then we hit the ab initio problem. If the agent does have these powers, then we hit the regress problem. Since the ab initio problem seems the strongest of the problems, I see the paradox of self-government as the catalyst of the regress problem.
You see 3 possible ways out: Democratic Government, The Constitutive view, and Pure deliberation. You think they all fail. Hence, autonomy is incoherent on the Agent-Governed view (as are hybrids including its condition)
Thoughts:
I hope you are wrong. Ha. Great article though. Please, go slowly in class. It seems to me that all the work we’ve been doing so far has been to provide the groundwork, terminology, and context necessary to understand the agenda you have in this paper. If that is true, we may need the opportunity to examine the agenda for more than merely one class period.
PPS does a whole lot of work for you in this paper. I’m either don’t understand your perspective on PPS and sovereignty or I find it to be satisfying. You anticipate (in your footnotes) a lot of objections or questions I want to raise. I’m not convinced your PPS-based against the mere authenticity view follows in the end, although I think the worry mere authenticity as not really being about autonomy at all is true (and that alone is a sufficient problem for the view).
I don’t think I understood how the Democratic Government view obviously fails. It seemed as if it may have a possible similarity to the historical model’s problems (by the way, it is not so clear to me that Christman doesn’t have any active, Agent-Government view embedded into his model).
I don’t understand how the Constitutive view isn’t actually a mere authentic view.
The Pure Deliberation view seems to be “passing the buck” to the mystery. I see it as another form of the regress problem.
---
Making Desires Autonomous:
Autonomy Conferring Process (what role does the agent play?): Mere authenticity views, agent-government views. (Hybrid’s being possible, but really this is about a choice about whether or not to incorporate an agent-government condition)
Can Valdman really prove that agent-government views always render autonomy incoherent?
Can Valdman really prove that mere authenticity views always render autonomy unimportant? Says he can’t definitively rule it out.
Many theories, such as Frankfurt’s, initially appear to be agent-government views, but they become cashed out in terms of mere authenticity.
A strength of mere authenticity views is avoiding the regress.
The crippling weakness of mere authenticity views is that agents are merely passive spectators or bystanders. The intuition is that for one to be autonomous, one must actively govern oneself, and the passitivity of mere authenticity views seems to rule out the possibility of one actually governing oneself.
To be clear, monitoring and having attitudes about one’s life, which a non-detached spectator very well may be in the mere authenticity views, is not the same as (and lacks the force of) actively governing, authoring, legislating, or shaping one’s life.
Mere authenticity views seem to lack the “self-governing” in autonomy, and so perhaps, we should be worried they aren’t really theories of autonomy at all (even if they are some kind of theory about personal identity and psychology).
Even if we were to assume they are theories of autonomy, these accounts are too weak to justify the belief that autonomy is normatively significant (or as significant as we many seem to think).
There are no solutions to Hume’s skepticism of induction. There are no solutions to the metaphysical problems of identity (e.g. persistence). There are no solutions to the problems of the external world or other minds. This list can go on and on. There are numerous skeptical problems which are, as of yet, undefeated, and yet we do not agree to be skeptics. Autonomy is right there in the mix. These sorts of problems are special – it is allowed, perhaps even reasonable, to beg the question against the skeptic, even in the face of profound, undefeated skeptical arguments.
Presumption of Personal Sovereignty (PPS), a set of negative rights of autonomous agents against certain kinds of manipulation, coercion, and interference, instead favoring the positive rights of agents to pursue their interests, can’t be grounded by mere authenticity views.
Oddly enough, that isn’t the most important part of autonomy to me. Being autonomous means I am an agent who is morally responsible. That is what makes autonomy so profound. When things are up to me (and to the extent that they are up to me alone), I am responsible. Normative force exists only upon those in those cases where beings are responsible for their choices. Without autonomy, the force of normativity is lost. Nothing is significant and nothing matters without autonomous agents. PPS is merely a subset of the things which follow autonomy enabling normativity in our world.
It is possible that not all persons are autonomous, and autonomy may come in degrees. The PPS seems to protect all persons, regardless of their autonomic status. The exceptions to or violations of the PPS (e.g. where the agent is hurting others) occur regardless of autonomic status. Autonomy appears neither necessary nor sufficient as grounds for PPS.
I want to flesh out a point you bring up earlier (footnote 18). It seems that by PPS we just mean to describe an aspect of persons (definitionally). So, I take you to be really saying that autonomy appears neither necessary nor sufficient as grounds for being a person. The real separation is just autonomy and personhood. Conferring personhood, including conferring the rights of personhood (which includes PPS rights), isn’t a matter of actually possessing autonomy. I agree that personhood isn’t a matter of actually possessing autonomy, rather it is closer to the matter of having the potential for the capacity of autonomy. I grant personhood rights to many humans who seem to lack autonomy, for perhaps two reasons: 1) they may have the potential for it (e.g. babies), or 2) as a hedge rule, because even in cases where I have at least some reasons to believe the agent isn’t autonomous (e.g. severe coma patients, a.k.a. vegetables), I don’t have enough evidence, and it is a real possibility I could be wrong (many supposed vegetables turned out not to be vegetables), and thus it would be better to be conservative in this respect, granting rights to some of those who don’t actually merit them than to violate the rights of those who do actually have them. In this way, PPS or personhood is still based on autonomy, only indirectly.
Further, in the exception/violation cases, you’ll notice that not all rights are being violated (or at least I wouldn’t advocate that). Yes, you should be restrained from illegitimately punching someone else in the face. But, notice, you still have the right to live, and other rights, which aren’t going to be taken from you. Your rights of personhood are only violated to a limited extent. Having autonomy (or the potential for it) really does enable you to keep some rights. At first glance, this restraint seems to be a violation of your rights, but it not.
I think you’ve misplaced (or failed to divide) the notion of sovereignty when you say we “violate his sovereignty regardless of his autonomy.” In one sense, (Broad) sovereignty could be understood as the broadest set of negative rights to use your capacities without interference. On this view, sovereignty isn’t about the moral law, it is about whether or not you “can” physically do the things you want to do without interference. In this sense, sovereignty is violated in your account. In another sense, however, sovereignty takes into account the moral law, which limits your negative rights. (Narrow) Sovereignty, on this view, is about whether or not you “can” physically do the things you want to do in accordance with the moral law. Sovereignty in the first sense, as far as I can tell, doesn’t mean a lot – rights not necessarily in accordance with the moral law are hardly rights at all. So, consider a murderer who loses his rights to do certain things and to govern himself in certain ways; we don’t violate his sovereign rights in this second sense, as he lost them. In this sense, his sovereignty is not violated, as the murderer lost some measure of sovereignty according to moral law. Sovereignty seems to be about rights to employ autonomy.
One might link PPS and the duty to respect persons. We might even think we have to respect their desires. You then ask, “which ones?”
First, I don’t understand what PPS is if it isn’t part of the duty to respect persons (10). Second, it seems as if we should consider whether or not the desires from which agents acts, and whether or not the acts themselves, are not moral ones. I don’t know how to draw this line exactly. It seems like that is a good starting place, however.
I’m not convinced Christman’s theory is really that passive. Don’t you have to choose to resist or not resist? If you aren’t choosing anything, then it is passive. This is a problem that needs to be fleshed out more in Christman’s theory, and I think he’s going to be stuck with an active agent, rather than a passive one, else ‘resistance’ may become far less significant.
While agent-government views might be able to account for PPS, mere authenticity doesn’t seem to be able to account for it.
If the mere authenticity view rejects the ab initio problem, agreeing to the notion that the authentic self arises from inauthentic sources,
“Is there really a big difference between manipulation involved in a self’s creation and manipulation that seeks to alter an existing self…?... Is it a difference that matters?”
“that just happened to get there first”
We might object to Steve’s manipulation, regardless of whether it is a manipulation of his authentic or inauthentic self/desires.
The argument is that the mere authenticity view falls to the ab initio problem.
Agent-Government View
agential authority - This is the idea of agents having governing powers or a kind of managerial control over their desires – a kind that enables them to assess their desires from a distance, so to speak, and to decide which to act on, to shed, and to ignore.
One can’t deliberate from nothing or according to nothing. What are these guiding entities? If the agent does not have power over these entities, then we hit the ab initio problem. If the agent does have these powers, then we hit the regress problem. Since the ab initio problem seems the strongest of the problems, I see the paradox of self-government as the catalyst of the regress problem.
You see 3 ways out: democratic government, identifying the guiding entities with the agent himself (constituting his practical identity – The Constitutive View), managerial control through pure deliberation.
On an agent-government view, after all, we can’t have a non-agent-governed desire guiding an agent’s deliberations over which desires to act on.
Really? Not even to some degree? Why?
But if a non-agent-governed desire is at the bottom of it all – if agents are ultimately responding to desires that they didn’t make their own through some process of active engagement – then that distinctive feature of agent-government would be lost…
This is the historical and genetic problem.
The charge is also that an agent-dictatorship is the only correct model, as it alone provides “final” authority instead of merely “some” authority.
Constitutive selves seem no different to me an authentic selves.
The claim, “knowledge is more valuable than mere true belief,” does appear to be a problem for an oversimplistic and naïve reliabilism.
I thought the most charitable way to consider Zagzebski’s argument (although, she may not have been pursuing this line of reasoning) was to consider this “value problem” as reasonable attack on simplistic and naïve reliabilist theories. If knowledge is merely true belief which was generated by just any arbitrary yet sufficiently reliable method, then it isn’t clear why we should think that knowledge is more valuable than mere true belief.
A very simplistic reliabilism might only be concerned with reliably producing true beliefs, and unconcerned with how those beliefs were generated. If that black box which reliably produces true beliefs, thus knowledge on this naïve view, can be just any arbitrary method, it seems as if the output is also somehow arbitrary (in some sense) and lacking the significance we normally want to attach to knowledge. On this intuition, it isn’t clear how naïve reliabilist knowledge is anything more (or more valuable) than mere true belief.
This kind of naïve reliabilism may be said to lack the ability to justify a true belief. It isn’t so clear, however, that reliability isn’t a necessary aspect of the effective method of justifying true belief in the generation of knowledge. Perhaps a more robust and complex theory of reliabilism could handle this “value problem.” Maybe reliability and some other important features of the method (making the method non-arbitrary) could avoid the “value problem.”
and there seem to be many possible instances in which one is reliably generating true beliefs that don’t seem to be the kind of processes we would intuitively think to be capable of generating knowledge,
not against reliabilism as being
Summary (concentrating on Autonomy):
Autonomy is a source of human dignity, and it is at the heart of why we should treat each other as ends. There is a way to formulate the Categorical Imperative (CI)
Freedom and autonomy is concerned with legislative authority over oneself. External laws and influences, such as another person’s will or the laws of physics, jeopardize or pose a barrier to freedom and autonomy. When a person legislates for himself, he is bound by his own will and no other will binds him. Interestingly, the CI may not be external to us, but rather internal to us (I think there many concerns here), as the CI, as a principle, must be legislated by the person. The CI is authoritative because autonomous persons will it, rather than the CI being external to the agent.
Thoughts:
The CI is an expression of a person’s rational will. The CI is legislated by the autonomous person. The authority of the CI comes from an autonomous person make it binding upon his will. I take it that one is not fully rational if one does not legislative from the CI. Is the CI truly internal; does it have no external existence? I think that may pose some problems. Further, my worry is that “rational” is a powerful qualifier, and I take that what is used to evaluate a person as being rational or irrational is external to us. I don’t see how rationality doesn’t impose the CI upon us in an external sense.
Does Autonomy Have Any Moral Significance?
Oliver Sensen
1. The Problem
Autonomy is a popular moral concept. In everyday usage, 'autonomy' refers to self-governance. We do not want to be coerced by others, but to be free to make our own decisions. Our common notion of autonomy has three aspects of self-governance to it:
–: Autonomy is considered to be a capacity one possesses, a capacity to govern oneself.
–: It is at the same time a goal of one's individual striving, to actually govern oneself.
–: We claim it as a moral right, an entitlement to govern ourselves independently of foreign influence.
But although each of us likes to make our own decisions, it is harder to pinpoint the moral significance of self-governance. Why should personal autonomy be moral autonomy as well? In particular there are three problems that have been raised with regard to autonomy:
–: (1) It does not seem that choice by itself is morally valuable (cf. Valdman). It depends on the choice. A murder committed freely and in cold blood seems worse than an act committed in the heat of passion. The mere fact that something is my choice does not make it morally good.
–: (2) It is not clear that one has to respect the capacity for self-governance in others (cf. Gibbard). Imagine a scenario of tribal warfare or a Hobbesian state of nature: Knowing that the other wants to govern himself does not by itself generate a requirement to respect him, but is a reason to be more afraid of him. Just wanting to be free does not yet yield a moral right.
–: (3) Autonomy also does not seem to settle anything in moral theory. For instance, autonomy does not seem to undermine moral realism (cf. Shafer-Landau). Moral realism would as little undermine the autonomy of the agent as chemical laws impair one's self-governance.
Autonomy seems to be something we want, and we demand of others that they respect it, but so far is is not clear that it yields any moral obligation. This is in stark contrast to the Kantian claim that only autonomy can yield moral obligation.
2. Kantian Autonomy
For the Kantian, autonomy is not just self-governance, but self-legislation. Self-legislation has the following features:
–: In contrast to mere self-governance, self-legislation emphasizes the importance of laws.
–: But the emphasis is not on laws that one gives oneself empirically, such as a New Year's resolution. For such resolutions are not strictly binding. One can always unbind oneself.
–: The law is therefore not an empirically chosen one, but a constitutive law of one's own reason. One's reason commands this law prior to one's conscious awareness (akin to a principle of non-contradiction). The law governs the function of moral reasoning.
–: But autonomy does not emphasize the content of the law, rather that one's reason makes the law obligatory or binding. For the mere content of the law does not yet say why one should follow the law (akin to the difference between a parliament which formulates a law and a head of state who signs it into law and thereby makes it obligatory).
The Kantian claims that only this autonomy can yield moral obligation.
3. Kantian Autonomy and Moral Obligation
The Kantian argument has several parts:
–: The Kantian claims that we hold morality to be necessary and universal. There is support for this idea in the literature on the moral/conventional distinction (cf. Nichols).
–: The next claim is that neither a morality based on (a) desires, nor on (b) positive commands, nor on (c) moral realism could yield a necessary and universal morality.
–: (a) Desires are relative and contingent and cannot ground universal and necessary moral laws.
–: (b) Positive commands (e.g., from one's parents) need a desire to motivate one to comply.
–: (c) Moral realism too would be dependent upon desires, according to the Kantian. Why?
4. Kantian Autonomy and Moral Realism
The Kantian would give the following epistemic argument:
–: If moral realism holds that there are (non-natural) moral properties that exist independently of a particular human stance, then one still has to discover these properties somehow.
–: All knowledge begins with the sense. For we run into contradiction regarding topics that go beyond the senses (e.g., free will), and we have not made any progress on these issues.
–: The five senses do not discover a (non-natural) moral property.
–: Therefore the property could only be discovered by a feeling of pleasure.
–: Pleasure is relative and contingent and cannot yield a universal and necessary moral law.
The moral realist would be unimpressed wit the Kantian argument: (a) The epistemic argument does not establish that (non-natural) moral properties do not exist; (b) the moral realist can argue that reason can discover the moral properties. Against this, the Kantian would reply:
–: (a) The moral property would be irrelevant for us. Pleasure would be the only thing we have.
–: (b) The Kantian would aim to shift the burden of proof. Since there is no agreement in moral matters, what is our positive indication that there really are independent moral properties?
Again the realist would be unimpressed wit the reply. Disagreement does not mean that there is no truth. It could be that there are moral experts, or that special training is needed to see the truth.
The argument sees to have reached an impasse. Neither side can refute the other, nor can either side establish its own claim. It is merely that intuitions are pitched against each other.
5. Conclusion
Kantian autonomy is not undermined by the initial objections: (1) It does not imply that choice as such is valuable, nor that (2) the capacity to choose gives one a right, nor (3) does it fall victim to the analogy with chemical laws. (Chemical laws do not undermine self-governance, but they also do not impose an unconditional obligation on the agent. Only if one wants something do they limit one's options.) But it rests on two assumptions: that morality is necessary and universal, and that reason cannot discover and be moved by (non-natural) moral properties.
Aspects of Autonomy
Autonomy
–: Literally 'self-legislation' (sf. GMS 4:431; Mrong 29:629); or “eigene Gesetzgebung” (KpV 5:33).
–: What is legislation? For instance: a) Does it establish the content of the law, or b) does it make the law obligatory?
–: Kant seems to hold b): “One who commands through a law is the lawgiver. He is the author of the obligation […], but not always the author of the law” (MS 6:227; cf. Mrong 29:633).
–: What is the self? It could refer a) to states: “autonomy of states” (ZeF 6:346), b) but not to an empirical self, otherwise “the one imposing obligation could always release the one put under obligation” (MS 6:417), c) most often it refers to the will or pure reason: “Pure reason […] gives (to the human being) a universal law which we cal the moral law.” (KpV 5:31)
Autonomy as a condition of possibility of morality
–: “Autonomy […] as the supreme principle of morality” (GMS 4:440)
–: Only autonomy can yield moral obligation (cf. GMS 4:441-5; Mrong 29:620-8):
–: We hold morality to be necessary and universal (cf. GMS 4:389).
–: All other theories cannot yield a necessary or universal obligation.
–: Empirical theories are based on inclinations which are contingent and relative.
–: Rational principles are empty (perfection) or rest on fear and reward (theological).
–: “By explicating the generally received concept of morality we showed only that an autonomy of the will […] lies at its basis.” (GMS 4:445)
Autonomy as moral command
–: Autonomy is something that is demanded of the agent in one formula of the Categorical Imperative: “act only so that the will could regard itself as at the same time giving universal law through its maxim.” (GMS 4:434)
–: The purpose of this formula is “to indicate in the imperative itself the renunciation of all interest, in volition from duty, by means of a determination the imperative contains […], namely the idea of the will of every rational being as a will giving universal law” (GMS 4:431f.).
–: What exactly is commanded, e.g., to have a) a specific justification, or b) a cast of mind? For Kant these seem to be the same in this case.
Autonomy as a descriptive property
–: 'Autonomy' does not only refer to something one can and should do, but also to a realized capacity:
–: “Autonomy of the will is the property [Beschaffenheit] of the will by which it is a law to itself (independently of any property of the object of volition).” (GMS 4:441, 447)
–: As such it is the same as positive freedom: “this lawgiving of its own on the part of pure […] practical reason is freedom in the positive sense” (KpV 5:33).
Susan Brison’s “The Autonomy Defense of Free Speech”
Many liberals take a quasi-libertarian view on speech rights. They think that speech is worthy of special protection. And many, like Dworkin, Scanlon, and Nagel, try to justify this position on grounds of autonomy. They oppose restrictions on pornography and hate speech, for instance, largely on autonomy-based grounds.
“Hate speech,” of course, is notoriously hard to define. Brison defines it as speech that vilifies individuals or groups on the basis of such characteristics as race, sex, ethnicity, religion, and sexual orientation, which (1) constitutes face-to-face vilification, (2) creates a hostile or intimidating environment, or (3) is a kind of group libel.
She thinks that hate speech should be distinguished from “fighting words,” but it’s not clear what the distinction is except that the former explicitly mentions sex, race, etc. And it’s not clear why speech targeting those things warrants special opprobrium. After all, there are many other ways to harm people with words.
Many, of course, are opposed to such restrictions, sometimes for reasons of autonomy. Is there, then, an autonomy-based case for free speech quasi-libertarianism?
That case, I think, must start with an understanding of the ways in which autonomy can be undermined. And that requires drawing distinctions between autonomous desires, autonomous actions, and autonomous persons/lives. Living an autonomous life, perhaps, requires more than just performing autonomous actions.
If there is an autonomy-based case against hate speech restrictions, then, it would have to be shown that such restrictions undermine autonomy, and that can be done by showing that they prevent the formation of autonomous desires, that they prevent these desires from being expressed in action, or that they prevent people from living autonomous lives.
Of course, one would also have to show that autonomy is important – that we should care whether hate speech restrictions would undermine it. And its alleged importance can be understood along consequentialist or deontological lines.
On a consequentialist model, autonomy can be seen as a value to be maximized; all else being equal, the more autonomy, the better. On a deontological model, autonomy grounds a constraint on the pursuit of the good. On this model autonomy isn’t a value to be maximized but a constraint to be respected.
For liberals, the deontological model seems hard to defend. After all, why can the government place restrictions on what I can do but not on what I can say? If autonomy explains the latter, then why not extend that reasoning to the former? This suggests (to me, anyway) that we should work within a consequentialist model. Perhaps that model can make sense of the alleged asymmetry between speech acts and non-speech acts.
Working within the consequentialist model, then, how might one defend the quasi-libertarian view of speech?
I doubt that the best arguments here will be autonomy-based, but it might be possible to make an autonomy-based case. One would have to show that hate speech restrictions would prevent the formation of autonomous desire, would prevent such desires from motivating action, or would prevent people from living autonomous lives. And one would have to show that autonomy wouldn’t be thus undermined in the absence of these restrictions.
Some think that hate speech restrictions would undermine the formation of autonomous desire (Brison explores this possibility towards the end of her paper). The thought is that, unlike other forms of restricted speech, hate speech expresses something like a comprehensive doctrine or a conception of the good. And it’s not the government’s role, one might think, to pass judgment on such conceptions by criminalizing their expression, no matter how vile.
Why not? Perhaps because restricting the dissemination of comprehensive doctrine undermines the formation of autonomous desire. This view commits one to a counterfactual account of the authentic self – the authentic you is the one that would have emerged in you had you been exposed to every viewpoint. The more such view points to which you’ve been exposed, the more authentic your desires are.
Critics, of course, could challenge the counterfactual account of the self (though that account is not entirely implausible). And they could point out that the dissemination of some viewpoints – i.e. those that count as hate speech – could undermine people’s ability to act on their authentic desires or their ability to live autonomous lives. On the consequentialist model, the autonomy-based benefits of having hate speech restrictions would have to be weighed against their autonomy-based costs, and it’s not obvious that the latter outweigh the former.
Brison appears to make this very argument. Her view is that, vis-à-vis autonomy, permitting hate speech does more harm than good. And I don’t think she’s especially drawn to a counterfactual view of the authentic self. Her view is perhaps the Razian view that autonomy requires having an adequate range of options, but it doesn’t require that every option be made available.
On a side note, one could conceivably argue that hate speech restrictions pose no danger to speaker autonomy because those who express such views do not hold them autonomously. On a Kantian or rationalistic view of autonomy, you can’t autonomously support immoral views.
Brison spends quite a bit of time examining various autonomy-based defenses of free speech and she points out that those defenses often leave out the harmful effects on autonomy of allowing people to engage in hate speech.
Consider Nagel: “The sovereignty of each person’s reason over his own beliefs and values requires than he be permitted to express them, expose them to the reaction of others, and defend them against objections. It also requires that he not be protected against exposure to views or arguments that might influence him in ways others deem pernicious, but that he have the responsibility to make up his own mind about whether to accept or reject them. Mental autonomy is restricted by shutting down both inputs and outputs.”
But can’t someone’s sovereignty over his beliefs be undermined by certain forms of speech just as by certain forms of conduct – especially if the speech is full of inaccuracies? And could one make the same argument in the case of action? Does my sovereignty over my beliefs and values require that I be permitted to do whatever I want?
In the article, “Freedom within Reason,” author Susan Wolf is concerned with three different views or justifications of our moral responsibility. She provides a brief chronology of arguments concerned with the link between autonomy and moral responsibility. Wolf starts with the incompatibilist intuition, what she refers to as the Autonomy View, offers criticisms of it, and moves on to examine what she considers to be a more favorable compatibilist position called the Real Self View. Wolf finds this view unsatisfying, and offers her own compatibilist position, the Reason View, as the successor. She believes her theory justifies and explains our moral responsibility.
In this paper, I will carefully outline and consider her arguments as an incompatibilist. I will try to defend incompatibilism where I can, offer clarifications to several of Wolf’s objections, providing lines of reasoning she did not offer in her own article, and evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of her position.
Wolf’s starting justification is what she refers to as the Autonomy View. She explains:
<<<
The Autonomy View of responsibility…is the view that beings are responsible just insofar as they are autonomous… I shall say that a person is autonomous when, and only when, his actions are governed by his self, and there is nothing behind or beyond his self, making it govern actions the way he does.<<ref "1">>
<<<
This is the incompatibilist view of agency and moral responsibility. Wolf takes this to be the starting point for a discussion of moral responsibility, as she believes it to be the most clearly connected to common instincts and initial perspectives on the topic. Wolf juices our intuitions, describing why both laymen and philosophers might find the Autonomy View so compelling:
<<<
[People] fear the absence of power and of ultimate control. If their lives or their individual acts are not theirs to create in whatever image they choose, this seems to rob their lives of significance, their acts of any meaning…Among the things we feel to be licensed by the ordinary assumption that we are in control of our lives and our acts is the appropriateness of holding ourselves and each other responsible for how we live and what we do…Our attitudes and affections rest on the assumption that what people do expresses and reveals qualities that are especially and deeply attributable to them. If freewill is an illusion and we are not calling the shots, then these attitudes appear to be inappropriate and unjustifiable, and so do the practices of reward and punishment, of credit- and discredit-giving that reflect and express these attitudes.<<ref "2">>
<<<
I take this to be a fair representation of the incompatibilist’s thinking on the matter. It doesn’t seem as if we can hold an agent responsible for actions which don’t originate from that person. If an action isn’t up to the agent in a significant sense, for example, if the laws of physics can reducibly describe or determine what an agent does or does not do, then it seems, at least to the incompatibilist, that agent is not morally responsible.
A solid analogy would be that in a determined world, agents are essentially robots. Robots, which are programmed and determined to do what they do and effectively cannot, by definition, do otherwise, are not morally responsible. I haven’t much to add to Wolf’s description of the primary incompatibilist intuition, the Autonomy View.
Note, the Autonomy View outlines the conditions for moral responsibility and no more. Here we find a second intuition that Wolf wishes to implicitly add to the Autonomy View. The second intuition is simple: most of us are morally responsible. Wolf takes this intuition as a given (as, it seems, do most people). In fleshing out why people are compelled to the Autonomy View, Wolf points toward this second intuition, but it is not explicitly a part of the Autonomy View, and for good reason. One might hold the first intuition and not the second. Such a person is an incompatibilist skeptic of moral responsibility.
Wolf agrees to the second intuition, and so she doesn’t dissect the incompatibilist skeptic’s perspective. Rather, she is more interested in dismantling the libertarian view. In the context of Wolf’s paper, the brief libertarian argument is this:
# A being without autonomy (libertarian free will) is not a morally responsible being.3
# Most humans are morally responsible beings.
# Therefore, most humans have autonomy (libertarian free will).
Clearly, premise (1) is the first intuition, the Autonomy View, and premise (2) is the second intuition.
In order to deny the conclusion, incompatibilist skeptics of moral responsibility can deny the second premise, and compatibilists who assume the second premise can deny the first. Indeed, the primary enterprise or goal of Wolf’s article is the preservation and provision of an account of the second premise without agreeing to the libertarian’s conclusion. Further, as she thinks, a compatibilist should explain why people feel initially compelled toward the Autonomy, demonstrating what is right and/or wrong about the Autonomy View.
Wolf provides two excellent criticisms of the libertarian argument. The first criticism is an attack on the first premise of the libertarian argument via a reductio. Wolf’s argument is that when we employ the Autonomy View, as far as she can tell, we arrive at the conclusion that nobody is morally responsible (in contradiction with premise 2). She explains:
<<<
If responsibility does require autonomy, it is questionable whether any of us is ever responsible for anything. For autonomy requires that our actions be governed by our selves and that our selves not be governed by anything beyond our control. Now, it is undeniable that many of our actions are governed by our selves – that is, they result from our own decisions and choices. Moreover, it is fairly rare that these decisions and choices are overtly caused or determined by such obviously external forces as a gunman or a hypnotist or the wind or a seizure. But neither do our choices or decisions or selves arise spontaneously out of nothing. Though the factors that shape who we are and what we value, and consequently that shape how we respond to the circumstances that confront us, are rarely so easy to point to as they are in the examples of what I called “special circumstances,” it is plausible that such factors are always operative nonetheless, calling into doubt the assumption that even the strongest candidates for autonomous action really are as autonomous as they appear.<<ref "4">>
<<<
I find the ‘undeniable’ qualifier puzzling. These external shaping factors which supposedly defeat autonomy suggest that it isn’t deniable, at least from the libertarian’s perspective. I’m not sure what Wolf means by this. It is clear, however, Wolf believes that, on the Autonomy View, the ever-present, external shaping factors negate our responsibility.
Wolf offers what I will refer to as the Systematic Manipulation Objection to historical autonomy. The claim is that the world around us is filled with ordinary and common external forces which influence us in the same way as (although more subtly than) traditional, special autonomy and/or responsibility defeating circumstances such as a gunman, hypnotist, or OCD. From the perspective of the Autonomy View, this is a serious objection because nobody is autonomous if we are all systematically determined by external forces and, consequently, nobody is morally responsible.
Nobody will deny that the world influences us. Being “shaped” and “influenced” by external forces, of course, is not the same as being causally determined by something external to us. The issue is whether or not that influence is manipulation beyond our control. I think the libertarian has an obvious counter to the Systematic Manipulation Objection: the agent endorsed those influences. Insofar as those influences are endorsed, one is still autonomous, and thus still responsible. The idea is that one can choose to be shaped by these external forces, and thus they do not manipulate one in the same way that a hypnotist manipulates an individual. If this is true, then these ordinary, external shaping forces which are endorsed by the agent are neither autonomy defeating nor responsibility defeating.
An example of this systematic manipulation, which Wolf offers much later (not regarding the Autonomy View), is the illustration of a racist who is so deeply conditioned by the people surrounding him that he didn’t have a chance to not be a racist. In the example of the racist, the libertarian would say the individual did have a chance to not be racist. The racist’s free will provides endorsement or resistance to his racist conditioning. Granted, this particular racist may not be as responsible as one who didn’t endure such conditioning, but he still seems responsible to some extent. The libertarian may even agree that, at some point, it may no longer be up to the racist whether or not he will be a racist; but at some point in time, it was up to the racist to question, resist, or endorse the conditioning and racist claims of those around him. Hence, the racist is still culpable, and this is the kind of story the libertarian can use to explain why systematic manipulation is not so problematic.
A more striking version of the problem that Wolf may be (or should be) offering is what I call the Poisoned Origins Objection. The starting assumption is that one is not born with autonomy, and rather one grows to become fully autonomous. Presumably, a baby does not have autonomy, and yet, that baby is still shaped by his genetics, environment, and various external forces. This baby will grow up, passively soaking up values, desires, and beliefs without active endorsement. The original authentic self of this child (a concept which Wolf, unfortunately, did not make much room for in her section on libertarianism) seems completely determined by external forces, and not by the child himself. At whatever stage this child is supposed to gain some measure of autonomy, we must contend with the claim that the original version of “who this child really is” isn’t shaped by the child, but by forces external to this newly minted autonomous being. How does the child grow into an autonomous being from a nonautonomous foundation? If one has a predetermined authentic self, then even after the acquisition of autonomy, it seems as though the autonomous agent is tainted. It is not clear how one overcomes these tainted origins. Just as it remains unclear as to how an agent completely manipulated by a neuroscientist could ever reclaim his autonomy after such radical manipulation, it seems unclear as to how one could gain autonomy in the first place from nonautonomous origins.
A libertarian might reject this Poisoned Origins Objection by claiming the authentic self is not determined in any degree. One might argue that the realm in which you are the only force of will (whatever that may be), is the realm of the real you. The idea is that your libertarian free will, which is undetermined or untainted by external forces, is the only authentic you. A young child without autonomy just wouldn’t have the relevant kind of authentic self in question, and when the child became autonomous (acquired free will), her authentic self would begin. Essentially, there would be no conditioned, nonautonomous origins, and thus our moral responsibility can be maintained.
Moving past many of the metaphysical concerns, there seem to be at least two solid problems with such a view. The first problem is that this seems to go against our intuitions that “who we are” is at least in part a function of our genetics, environment, and other external forces. For example, deaf people might consider being deaf an essential characteristic of their authentic selves. The fact that a person loves pizza or reading or whatever, which seems to be, at least in part, a product of forces external to her, might also be a part of her authentic self. Many things which are determined by forces external to us seem to be important to us; we take them as defining who are, to some extent. It isn’t clear how a libertarian could resolve this problem.
The second problem, related to the first, is that this unpoisoned, metaphysical authentic self seems to require some kind of system of beliefs and desires. How could it make decisions otherwise? What are the origins of those beliefs and desires? These beliefs and desires can’t be determined by external forces. The libertarian, it seems, needs an account of the origins of the beliefs and desires of this untainted authentic self.<<ref "5">>
None of the options look particularly good. It is not clear, however, that these concerns absolutely can’t be overcome, and thus I’m not convinced this first objection is absolutely fatal. Dialectically, however, the libertarian seems to have his work cut out for him. Interestingly, it seems that many compatibilist theories of autonomy (I’m momentarily parting with Wolf’s definition here) may also be susceptible to the Poisoned Origins Objection. Dialectically, it may be the case that any who believe in autonomy (whether compatibilist or incompatibilist) must take into account the historicity of the authentic self, have their work cut out for them.
Let us move and examine Wolf’s second criticism of libertarian autonomy. She explains:
<<<
The second problem with the autonomy view is perhaps more purely philosophical. It is that even if autonomous action is possible, even if we are, most or all of the time, autonomous agents, it remains disturbingly opaque why or how this should make us responsible agents. That is, it seems easy enough to grasp why nonautonomous agents might not be responsible for what they do. If their actions are governed by their selves, but their selves are governed by something outside their control, then it is not really they who are calling the shots; they are not in ultimate control. But if being autonomous means that instead of one’s self being a product of external forces, one’s self is a spontaneous, undetermined entity, it is hard to see why one should be any more responsible for the decisions, choices, and actions that flow out of that. One is in no more control of a self that has arisen out of nothing than one is if one’s self has arisen out of something. An undetermined self seems no more responsible than a determined self.<<ref "6">>
<<<
The second objection is more intriguing than the first. Instead of employing a reductio, the first premise is outright called into question. Wolf provides a countering intuition. Your “freewill,” the autonomous you, is comprised of spontaneity, undetermination, and seeming randomness, and is thus thought to be arbitrary and irrelevant to moral responsibility. Such an entity is too chaotic to be a responsible thing. How can the libertarian demonstrate that an undetermined self is any better than rolling dice? We might rephrase it as: assuming indeterminism, what makes the “real you” (the autonomous, authentic, libertarian-based you) better than mere dice? Unlike the first objection, this second objection strikes at the heart of libertarian autonomy, while leaving the compatibilist autonomy untouched.
Honestly, I don’t know, but I do have a worry about the objection’s position in the dialectic, and I believe compatibilism fairs no better. Funnily enough, the incompatibilist has been posing a remarkably parallel problem to the compatibilist: assuming determinism, what makes the “real you” any better than a mere pile of mechanistic atoms?
Isn’t it intuitively obvious that the “real you” (whatever that might be) is a responsible being who is better or more significant than undetermined dice and a determined pile of mechanistic atoms? We are forced to either accept that at least one or the other problem can be solved. But, it is unclear how moral responsibility apologists, be they compatibilists or incompatibilists, can provide intuitively obvious reasons for why or how this is true. We beg the question of responsibility and seem to be working backwards trying to explain it. This is a kind of transcendental argumentation. It seems to me that both the incompatibilist and compatibilist sit in the dialectical boat.
Assuming that alternative objections (such as Wolf’s first objection to the Autonomy View) do not hold, the libertarian’s response to the second objection is simply to agree with compatibilists that we are morally responsible and then claim the problem posed by being reduced to robots or piles of mechanistic atoms has more intuitive force than the dice problem. I reckon that isn’t satisfying. In this respect, the compatibilist, however, doesn’t appear to be able to offer any other kind of argument either. As blind believers in moral responsibility, we are stuck. This is likely the result of what Wolf refers to this as “the dilemma of autonomy.”<<ref "7">>
Question begging, dogmatism, and intuition, of course, are very rarely acceptable kinds of evidence or argumentation in philosophy. You really are at the foundation of a branch of philosophy when such a practice can be accepted. In facing the skeptic of moral responsibility, I submit that we are at the foundation of ethics, and that such a practice is epistemically justified and acceptable.
After levying her objections to incompatibilism, Wolf moves towards compatibilist arguments. She takes the task of proper theory of compatibilism to be twofold: (1) explaining how we are morally responsible in a deterministic world, and (2) making sense of (yet still denying) our initial intuitions about the necessity of autonomy for moral responsibility, particularly regarding these special responsibility-defeating circumstances.<<ref "8">> Before sketching out her own compatibilist theory, Wolf offers what she believes to be the second (after her own) most compelling compatibilist theory of moral responsibility.
Wolf returns to the “various ways in which special circumstances lead us to exempt people from responsibility and blame” in order to locate “the source of their unfreedom” which the libertarian supposedly failed to find.9 In trying to make sense of experiences and circumstances that led us to the Autonomy View from the compatibilist perspective, Wolf explains:
<<<
[The] difference between a person who is pushed and someone who bumps into another person intentionally is that in the latter case but not in the former the person’s behavior is determined by his will. Hypnotism is not quite like being pushed, for the hypnotist typically works on the will rather than circumvents it. But of the person acting under hypnosis, we can say that, though he moves according to his will, his will is not determined by his own desires.<<ref "10">>
<<<
It makes sense that the wind circumvents the will rather than on it. Hypnosis is trickier but has the same sort of problem, thinks Wolf: an agent not acting on his own desires can’t be responsible. The compatibilist might think this can explain away the initial leap to the Autonomy View. The compatibilist, at least naïvely, can argue that a person is responsible “when, and only when, his behavior can be governed by his will and his will can be governed by his desires” without having to posit libertarian free will.<<ref "11">> Wolf does not name this perspective, but she briefly walks through some of the problems of vagueness associated with it. She claims it may be too broad, and that it fails to “differentiate between relevantly different desires.”<<ref "12">> She worries that a naïve compatibilism will be too overreaching, falsely demonstrating that very young children and even lower animals are morally responsible. Vitally, Wolf believes this naïve compatibilism fails to account for the fact that some desires we have “are desires we would just as soon be without.”<<ref "13">> This leads us to her second justification of moral responsibility, what she calls The Real Self View. She explains:
<<<
Desires, or, more generally, other features of our character, we cherish – we claim them for our own, whether we have cultivated them by design or approved them after we had come to see them as parts of us, and we would go to considerable length, not just to satisfy these desires, but to preserve them. These latter desires may be referred to as comprising our systems of value. These are what we think of as constituting our deepest selves.
In light of the distinction between values and other “mere” desires, or between one’s whole, partly superficial, partly alienated self and one’s deeper or real self, we can improve on the earlier proposal to understand freedom in terms of the ability to do what one wants. The kind of freedom necessary for responsibility, it might be suggested, is the freedom to do what one really wants – that is, the freedom to do what one’s core, deep, or real self wants, which may be different from what one’s strongest desires would urge upon one. To put it another way, the freedom necessary for responsibility on this account consists in the ability not just to behave in accordance with one’s will and to will in accord with one’s desires, but more specifically in the ability to govern one’s will (and so one’s actions) in accordance with the specific set of desires that constitute one’s system of values.<<ref "14">>
<<<
There seem to be many virtues of the Real Self View. First off, these claims seem intuitively right. Our psychology is complex, and moral responsibility does seem to require that we take into account the distinction between what is authentically our selves and what is inauthentic to our selves. Further, it shows why very young children and lower animals aren’t morally responsible, as they lack the depth required to have a system of value, an authentic self, and the ability to do what one really wants.
Interestingly, as far as I can tell, the Real Self View isn’t clearly a compatibilist argument. Libertarians may hold all this to be true as well, and even claim that the ability to get at what one really wants requires libertarian free will. In fact, the Autonomy View seems far more capable of making sense of authenticity than compatibilism. Libertarianism has more tools to distinguish the real you from everything else. Setting that aside, we must consider whether or not a compatibilist interpretation of the Real Self View provides a sufficient account of our moral responsibility.
At first glance, the Real Self View does seem to explain these special responsibility-defeating circumstances. Using Wolf’s examples, the Real Self View seems to explain why I am not responsible when the wind pushes me, circumventing my will and causing me to behave not in accordance with my will. Further, the Real Self View seems to explain why I am not responsible when hypnotism acts upon my will, manipulating my will so that I do not will in accord with my real desires.
All of that said, while the Real Self View appears to explain Wolf’s examples of responsibility-defeating circumstances, it isn’t clear that it serves as a positive account of why we have moral responsibility. Even if the Real Self View isn’t a sufficient theory or justification of moral responsibility, however, at the very least, it does seem to be a necessary component of a sufficient theory of moral responsibility. Both compatibilists and incompatibilists can admire the insightfulness of the Real Self View.
Wolf does not find the Real Self View satisfactory, even though she finds it compelling. She claims it has a serious flaw. She explains:
<<<
What makes the Real Self View a distinctively nonautonomous account of free will is its insistence that one’s status as a free and responsible being lies not in whether but in how one’s actions are determined. Specifically, freedom and responsibility are held to depend solely on whether one’s behavior can be governed by the dictates of one’s real self – never mind where one’s real self came from or why it came to dictate the behavior that it does. But it is not at all clear that we should nevermind where one’s real self comes from in evaluating one’s status as a free and responsible agent.<<ref "15">>
<<<
The Real Self View seems to be able to answer the special circumstances of the wind and the hypnotist. But the objection might be that these were manipulations of behavior and the will, not one’s true and deepest self. Examples of this deeper manipulation may help us understand exactly why the Real Self View, as a stand-alone justification of moral responsibility, might be flawed. The flaw would be that having the wrong kind of past can generate authentic selves which we intuitively don’t think are morally responsible (intuitions which Wolf is interested in explaining and justifying), but end up being morally responsible on the Real Self View (against our intuitions, and thus failing to meet the requirements Wolf sets out).
Consider the case of the neuroscientist who manipulates the real me, my deepest desires, my system of values. We assume that the neuroscientist’s manipulation is a responsibility-defeater. Unlike the wind and the hypnotist, this special circumstance, isn’t merely manipulation of behavior or will, it is outright manipulation of the authentic self. Can the Real Self View match out intuitions, adequately describing the ways in which I won’t be morally responsible, or will it fail to match our intuitions?
When the neuroscientist modifies those deepest desires and beliefs of an agent, the Real Self View seems to have two reasonable objections to the agent’s moral responsibility. The first objection would be that insofar as a manipulated being’s will derives from any remnants of the old authentic self, the remaining deepest desires, and essentially, to the degree that the ‘real self’ still exists, he remains morally responsible, but insofar as the manipulated being’s will derives from the deep desires implanted by the neuroscientist (and not the original, real self), the being is willing, and thus behaving, inauthentically, and thus responsibility is defeated. The second approach is a bit more extreme, but also plausible. The Real Self View might also suggest that the modified being is an entirely different entity, and so the original individual would not be responsible; rather, the new person which emerges (if a new authentic self emerges at all) from this manipulation would be responsible.
Whether the neuroscientist’s manipulation splits an authentic self into a hybrid of an authentic and inauthentic self (as in the first objection) or ends the original authentic self (possibly creating an entirely new authentic self), the Real Self View seems to have reasonable outs to initial historical problems of manipulation of the authentic self.
Wolf uses the example of the racist to pressure the Real Self View. The man in our example was raised and conditioned to be a racist. He has the complex psychology required to have an authentic self. Racism is a part of his system of values, and it is either an expression of or a part of the deeper values which comprise his authentic self. Wolf claims:
<<<
It seems to me highly questionable that the man is responsible –and thus blameworthy – for his racist activities. For although these activities are governed by his values, his life – at least so I am imagining – had no room in it for questioning, for coming to see the reasons why racism is wrong. He didn’t have a chance to not be a racist, and so it seems unfair to blame him for acting out and expressing a racism he had no choice but to have.<<ref "16">>
<<<
In general terms, the case of the racist exemplifies those cases in which an agent’s behavior is determined by the agent’s values (or real self), but the agent’s values (real self) are themselves inescapably determined by forces external to the agent’s control. The flaw in the Real Self View is that it takes such cases to be unproblematic cases of responsible behavior. Many people share my view that these may not be cases of responsible behavior at all. Even if they are cases of responsible behavior, we must be given some explanation of why they are – of why an agent is more responsible for actions that are governable by his values than he is for actions that are governed by his nonvalued desires, if his values are no more within his control and are no more products of his choice than are the mere desires for which he is recognized not to be responsible.<<ref "17">>
Thus, I conclude that the Real Self View is unsatisfactory. What is particularly troublesome, however, is that the objection that led to this conclusion seems to force us straight back to the Autonomy View, a view that we have seen is riddled with problems of its own. If the racist, the Nazi, the victim of the deprived childhood are not responsible for their behavior because their behavior is governed by values that are shaped by forces beyond their control, aren’t we all deprived responsibility on the same grounds? After all, we are as much a product of our cultures as these individuals are of theirs. Is there any way to solve the problem of the Real Self View without returning to the problems of the Autonomy View?<<ref "18">>
That is an interesting perspective. I don’t take this circumstance to be completely responsibility defeating (with respect to his racism). That’s not my intuition at all. The wind, the hypnotist, and the neuroscientist seem to impose a kind of manipulation which bypasses an agent’s consent (perhaps there are things you can’t consent to) or endorsement, while the racist seems to have, at least to some degree, the sort of consent and endorsement that makes one responsible. Perhaps I’m disagreeing with the claim that it is even possible for a modern homegrown racist to have no room to question his conditioning. I think he may be pardoned to some extent for his racism, but I don’t see how he is entirely nonresponsible. How can we make sense of her intuition?
Note that Wolf thinks her objection to the Real Self View is distinct from her objections to the Autonomy View. I’m not convinced this is really the case, however, and I think we can make sense of her intuition by realizing that we’ve seen this objection before. Although she does not claim it, I believe Wolf is employing versions of the Systematic Manipulation Objection or the Poisoned Origins Objection (which she levied against the Autonomy View) against the Real Self View. To say that “the racist didn’t have a chance not to be a racist” is to call into question the historical validity of the racist’s authentic self, to deny the lineage and origins of his authentic self, which presumably defeats the racist’s responsibility. The authentic self of the racist, in this case, is determined by external forces, and that’s taken to be a problem.
Not all compatibilists will be swayed by Wolf’s criticism. After all, the criticism seems only to hold merit if we are willing to accept that being determined by external forces which systematically manipulate or has poison one’s origins would be an authenticity or responsibility defeater. Accordingly, Wolf’s reason to deny the compatibilist interpretation of the Real Self View rests upon or stems from seemingly incompatibilist intuitions. I can see some compatibilists not finding those objections to have much merit at all.
Wolf believes there is a way out for the Real Self View other than returning to the Autonomy View. This path turns out to be the third justification of moral responsibility, her own theory, the Reason View. She explains:
<<<
When we reflect on the sources of these people’s [good] values or of their courage and commitment and integrity, we are not so concerned or upset by the thought that they are products of their environments…Focusing on cases of good-acting agents suggests that it is no obstacle to responsibility that one acts on values that themselves have been formed by forces external to the agent’s control. Reflecting on bad-acting agents, however, seem[s] to lead us to the opposite conclusion.<<ref "19">>
The relevant difference between the good-acting agents, shaped, say, by inspiring role models, whom we view as responsible and praiseworthy, and the bad-acting agents, shaped, say, by horrible role models or by the absence of role models or by brutal and impoverished upbringing, whom we exempt from responsibility and blame, is that the former have been led through reason, perception, good sense, and good data to adopt their values and live by them, while the latter have been shaped in ways that have kept reason and truth out.<<ref "20">>
It is by being rationally persuaded that these values are good ones that the agent makes them her own in a way for which she is responsible. But there is no analogous story to be told of the agent who acquires bad values from his culture. We cannot say that the racist is responsible for his racism if it results from his understanding of what is good about racism – for there is nothing good about racism for him to understand.<<ref "21">>
<<<
The doorway to the Reason View is an intuition that special circumstances which lead to bad values, beliefs, and actions are responsibility-defeating, while parallel circumstances which lead to good values, beliefs, and actions are not responsibility-defeating. Wolf wishes to qualify the Real Self View with the claim that moral responsibility is a result of employing one’s rationality.
It is only in those cases in which an agent’s are determined by their rationality and an epistemic environment conducive to reason, that an agent could be held morally responsible. Those who have good values, beliefs, desires, and actions which are “formed, or revised or affirmed, in accordance with their reason and perception…have exercised all the powers of self-determination it is sensible to want.”<<ref "22">> The authentic self is a rational self. Reason makes us responsible. Employing reason is not only necessary for responsibility (most can agree), but it is sufficient for responsibility (this is the contentious claim).
On the Reason View, in these special circumstances, we excuse those who are determined by irrationality. People who could not but have bad values, beliefs, and actions are not morally responsible because they have “been pushed blindly along a path that, through no fault of their own, they could not recognize as undesirable or wrong.”<<ref "23">> Wolf is arguing that, by definition, one cannot have an authentic self, or any particular aspect of that authentic self, which is determined exclusively by influences of unreason.
Before I offer any criticisms of further thoughts on Wolf’s view, we need to examine her disclaimer, as she believes many critics get her theory wrong. Let us give the Reason View the charity and justice it deserves. Wolf clarifies her view for us:
Some people have understood my view to be too free to give praise – to imply, in particular, that anyone who acts well and does so on the basis of values she has gained from her culture or her upbringing can fairly be held responsible and praiseworthy for it. Still more have been concerned with the thought that my view automatically excuses virtually all criminals and exempts from blame anyone whose wrongful behavior can be traced to bad influences in his culture or upbringing. But these inferences rest on a misunderstanding.
Although I believe that there is an important disanalogy between good-acting agents and bad-acting agents, the disanalogy is quite specific: It is that a good-acting agent may have been irresistibly drawn to accept good values as a result of the exercise of good reason, whereas this can never be said of the agent who acts in a blameworthy way. It may be precisely because a person holds the values of her society up to reflection and questioning that she has no choice but ultimately to affirm (or reject) them. But if a man is irresistibly led to affirm bad values, this can only be because he was deprived of the ability to appreciate the reasons why those values are bad. This stress on the ability to appreciate reasons – reasons why one set of values deserves affirmation, while another set ought to be reconsidered and revised– is all-important. It is the possession or lack of this ability, and not the desirable or undesirable nature of the acts or the values themselves, that, on my account, makes the difference between responsible and nonresponsible agency.
Thus, according to the Reason View, a person who does the right thing for the wrong reasons deserves no more praise than a person who doesn’t do the right thing at all. Moreover, a person who does the right thing on the basis of values she doesn’t understand (a person whose acceptance of good values, in other words, is as blind and unreasoned as the acceptance of the racist’s values in our earlier example) is as little responsible for what she does as those whose paths lead to more objectionable behavior.
Moreover, a person who does the wrong thing, though it must be for bad reasons, is not necessarily exempt from responsibility and blame. It is crucial to establish whether the person in question had reasons to act better available to him. In the cases I dwelt on, we imagined people who could not but have acquired bad values or false beliefs and so could not but have made bad decisions on the basis of them. But it is a real and difficult question how often such cases occur. If a person acts badly despite his ability to appreciate the reasons for acting better, then he is fully responsible and blameworthy for his choice. If, therefore, as some people believe, almost anyone is able to tell good values from bad (whatever her cultural or subcultural background), then almost anyone will be blameworthy should she choose a bad path.<<ref "24">>
I’d first like to offer the claim that the asymmetrical doorway to the Reason View isn’t obviously true. Wolf believes that when most people reflect on good values in people, they aren’t worried about the source or origin of those values, but when they reflect on bad values, they are worried about the source or origin. Wolf believes this asymmetry in folk-thought is the intuition which should drive us toward the Reason View. While I grant that folk-thought may have those differences, I don’t believe it is because they’ve thought much about it and decided there was actually a relevant and significant difference. Most people probably think (and perhaps they are mistaken in thinking) they have more important things to worry about than the source of good values in other people. Moreover, I would say the reason there is asymmetry is that, for whatever reason, people are naturally more interested in attributing blame than in attributing praise, and so naturally we tend to gloss over virtue and focus upon vice, even in matters of moral responsibility. I suspect that the asymmetry in folk-thought is not really a deeply inspected intuition, and that upon such inspection, people would be far more inclined to see symmetry instead. I take this as worrisome for Wolf’s argument because one of the primary goals of this article, according to Wolf, is to make sense of our intuitions about this topic. I don’t think Wolf nailed down the right intuition in this case, and in light of her goal, I worry it may not be an acceptable doorway to the Reason View.
More importantly, Wolf suffers from Christine Korsgaard’s problem in that, at first glance, her theory provides unsatisfying answers to certain questions. What is a bad person? What is bad action? How can a person be responsible for doing wrong? Responsible persons seem, by definition, to be good and reasonable, and by definition exclude those who are wrong and unreasonable. The Reason View seems to cherry pick those who will and won’t be responsible by an asymmetrical standard which frankly seems unintuitive. Why can’t an authentic self be evil and responsible for irrationality and for choosing to be irrational? Wolf knows what’s coming. Does she dodge the bullet?
From her clarification, the ability to rationally appreciate and understand why a value, belief, or action is right or wrong is the key to dodging this bullet. There seems to be two cases in which one can be held responsible for screwing up:
# Doing the right thing or having the right value, desire, or belief for the wrong reason while having access to the right reason.
# Doing the wrong thing or having the wrong value, desire, or belief when one had access to the right reason to do a better thing or have a better value, desire, or belief.<<ref "25">>
Deontologists and Virtue ethicists explicitly seek the first. One might take this as checkmark in favor of Wolf’s view of moral responsibility. The second is the more important case to solving the controversy. I must admit, Wolf hits upon something that is patently true to me in the second case. The question it forces us to ask goes something like this: How could we hold a person responsible for not understanding something was wrong (or bad), and consequently for being a person with wrong values, beliefs, desires, and/or actions, when the person did not have the necessary epistemic grounds upon which to generate the reason that it was wrong? There seems to be a potent kernel of truth in Wolf’s approach to moral responsibility. Just as I suggested before in the case of the Real Self view, it seems likely we must capture whatever it is in the Reason View, in light of Wolf’s clarification, that is necessary for moral responsibility.<<ref "26">> Our work is not finished, however, as I have three remaining questions for the Reason View:
# While we can make sense of an agent being responsible for bad action, can we make sense of an authentically bad people?
# Does the Reason View make sense of our initial intuitions which led to us to the Autonomy View while ultimately remaining compatibilist?
# Does the Reason View survive the historical objections levied against the Autonomy View and the Real Self View?
To the first question, exactly what counts as an authentically bad person may be a bit different than we would initially expect. An authentically bad person is a person who consistently fails to take the morally best option for the right reason, with the assumption that they had access to the right reason. Having access to the right reasons is odd. Exactly what counts as being rational and what it means to be motivated by rationality is a serious worry I have for Wolf’s theory. Rationality requires context. Lots of tricky and weird things seem to fall out of this fact.
For example, I think it takes a pretty complicated and unintuitive epistemic theory to show why racism or sexism in all cases and circumstances is not even minimally rational (don’t misunderstand me; I certainly think modern racists/sexists generally are being irrational in their racism/sexism). In fact, it seems very likely to me that someone who had access to only a limited amount of information (it may even be the “best data” available at the time) might actually be rational in accepting an unfortunately discriminating view. Perhaps one of the reasons racism and sexism have taken so long to be considered bad things is because they aren’t, epistemically-speaking, conclusions which are rationally as easy to arrive at when compared to other ethical issues (e.g. genocide, killing young children for sport, direct forms of slavery).
Take Aristotle’s misogyny. He might have been the most brilliant human to ever live. If any human could be called rational, it would have to be Aristotle, right? Yet, we can look back after thousands of years (with the benefit of billions of lives of consideration of these ethical issues which Aristotle didn’t have) and see that he made mistakes, his misogyny being one of them.
Do you really want to look at Aristotle’s misogyny (or his racism) which are products of his environment and his reasoning, and claim he was obviously irrational in this respect? It’s possible, I admit. Maybe gender equality is that obvious (it feels like it is to us today). If so, then surely Aristotle was rational enough to know misogyny was wrong, but decided not to be guided by that moral reason, and hence is morally responsible for his misogyny.
It seems to me, however, that we can easily tell a plausible story about why gender equality was not obvious or accessible to Aristotle. Perhaps a deeply unfortunate self-fulfilling prophesy occurred in his culture. For whatever reasons, men thought or acted as if women were stupid, overly emotional pieces of property (as did many future generations, unfortunately), so women were treated and conditioned that way. Due to this conditioning, women’s development was stunted, and they ended up mirroring the social expectations. That vicious sociological cycle, however, may not have been readily apparent to Aristotle, and from what he could tell from his own limited experience, using what evidence he had, his unfortunate generalizations about women may have been epistemically justifiable, i.e. rational.
To say that Aristotle “could not but have been a misogynist” is just to say that it was rational for him to be a misogynist. He was not morally responsible for drawing a conclusion he couldn’t have drawn, and hence is not morally responsible for being a misogynist. Yet, it seems like we should praise him, if rationality is the mark, for doing the best he could with what he had. Wolf’s racist (bypassing my earlier objection) seems to be the same. I don’t see why we would claim that a rational person, drawing rational conclusions, being motivated by rational reasons, should be held nonresponsible on Wolf’s theory.
What if we could describe every bad belief, desire, act, or conclusion drawn as being rational? What does it take to be irrational? Reasons guide you to do whatever you do on Wolf’s theory. If one reason wasn’t salient or relevant enough to an agent, then is it really the agent’s fault if he isn’t motivated by it? In order to explain the authentically bad person or even wrong action, Wolf needs to provide a plausible account of how one can possess the right sorts of reasons, but not be motivated by them. If we don’t have libertarian free will, it seems like having the right reason, but not being motivated by it is just being irrational. An authentically bad person is a person who consistently fails to take the morally best option for the right reason, with the assumption that they had access to the right reason, just is a consistently irrational person.
But, if that is true, I fear that nobody can be at fault on Wolf’s theory. Rationality, after all, seems to be that which makes a person morally responsible. Wolf may not have dodged the bullet after all.
I’m hoping I’ve made a big mistake here. I have a lot of sympathy for her view. I think there has to be something fishy going on in the worry I presented, but I can’t seem to put my finger on it. Exactly why Wolf can dodge the bullet isn’t coming to me. For now, however, I’m not convinced we can really make sense of authentically bad people, nor am I sure that we can make sense of screwing up, as I defined earlier.
In light of my response to the first question, I propose the last two questions are asking the same thing, even though it wasn’t obvious at first glance. To the second question, regarding historical objections, the Reason View has added the rational qualifier to the Real Self View in order to dodge the historical objections. If her theory dodges the bullet, and it can explain away the Autonomy View intuitions which ground the historical objection, then I see no reason why the Reason View doesn’t defeat the historical objections.
Does the Reason View make sense of our Autonomy View intuitions? Perhaps it does. Again, it all rests upon whether or not Wolf’s theory dodges the bullet. The problem, of course, is that I think the reason her theory might not dodge the bullet is directly because of our incompatibilist intuitions.
Just as I said before that a libertarian may actually (and probably does) employ the Real Self View alongside the Autonomy View, it seems as though the Reason View has something to it which may also be worth employing for the libertarian.
-------------------------------
<<footnotes "1" "Wolf, Susan. "Freedom within Reason." //Personal Autonomy: New Essays on Personal Autonomy and Its Role in Contemporary Moral Philosophy//. Ed. James Stacey Taylor. New York: Cambridge UP, 2005: 261">>
<<footnotes "2" "Ibid., 259">>
<<footnotes "3" "According to Wolf, autonomy just is libertarian free will. This is not a widely accepted definition, but I happen to be very sympathetic to that definition. Wolf’s primary goal is to provide an account of our moral responsibility, and she seems willing to jettison many standard definitions of autonomy to reach that goal. ">>
<<footnotes "4" "Ibid., 261">>
<<footnotes "5" "I’m only pointing to the tip of the iceberg for this problem due to space constraints in this paper, but rest assured, it is an iceberg of a problem for the libertarian. For example, the standard regress problem appears to be alive and well in this iceberg. ">>
<<footnotes "6" "Ibid., 261-262">>
<<footnotes "7" "Ibid., 262">>
<<footnotes "8" "Ibid., 263">>
<<footnotes "9" "Ibid.">>
<<footnotes "10" "Ibid.">>
<<footnotes "11" "Ibid.">>
<<footnotes "12" "Ibid., 264">>
<<footnotes "13" "Ibid., 264-265">>
<<footnotes "14" "Ibid., 265">>
<<footnotes "15" "Ibid.">>
<<footnotes "16" "Ibid., 266">>
<<footnotes "17" "Ibid., 266-267">>
<<footnotes "18" "Ibid., 267">>
<<footnotes "19" "Ibid., 267-268">>
<<footnotes "20" "Ibid., 269">>
<<footnotes "21" "Ibid.">>
<<footnotes "22" "Ibid., 270">>
<<footnotes "23" "Ibid.">>
<<footnotes "24" "Ibid., 271-272">>
<<footnotes "25" "Presumably, there may be degrees of rightness and wrongness in Wolf’s model.">>
<<footnotes "26" "I fear that I cannot quite put my finger on it just yet. It will require more thought.">>
Sept. 5
Each of the 35 writings are a complete whole. Strauss!!!! Every part of the hole is necessary and important and crucial for interpreting. None of these works are a treatise (traditionally). Plays, actions, speech, and arguments are rolled into it – settings and conversations and characters exchanging thoughts make for a complex and rich work. I take it that interpretation must be done carefully. Drama + Dialogue.
In tremendous control of his material (a master author). Why is everything where it is and saying what it is? Explicit errors are there for a reason.
Jesus Straussian Christ!
This doesn't use the normal Socratic method we see in the Platonic dialogues, but rather a 'method of division'. What is he up to?
Philosophers appear in two shapes, sophist and statesman. We are trying to get to the philosopher through the statesman.
Theaetetus represents moderation, and Young Socrates Courage (manliness)
Kinship with Socrates, through the look (Theaetetus) and the name (Young Socrates).
Politikos (Statesman)
Somehow, like how mathematics is privileged in epistemology and the discussion of knowledge, the Statesman seems to be privileged in the discussion of the philosopher.
At the center of this dialogue, we are concerned about the relationship and meaning of the mathematical “measure” and the “measure of the mean” (just right for my purposes?).
For homework: Where are divisions arbitrary? Are humans like herds of animals? Humans vs. Beasts ↔ Statesman vs. Everything else. The divisions seem largely comical – what is the purpose? Explain cloven-hooves? Jewishness.
Political philosophy- the core of socratic philosophy
Part (meros) vs. Kind (eidos –> form, species, look, idea)
Greek vs. Barbarians (not a good division, Barbarian is a bad lumping together)
10,000 vs. everything else, bad – Odds vs. Evens, good.
Classifying reality and finding forms are difficult, we are attached to our own, and our own is privileged when it, objectively speaking, is not.
Plato brings up the Part/Kind ontological problem at the beginning, but does not resolve it. This must be a sign as to why political philosophy is so important to philosophy as a whole.
Obviously Young Socrates got it right by dividing man vs. beast. It is the only rational move in these divisions. Why is he corrected and this is treated as an error? The most accessible reason is that, while of course he right, he is dividing them as two-parts of herd-nuturer. His real mistake, the real thing that has to be corrected, is to the herd-nuturer assumption. The stranger pulls YSocrates down, clouds the issue. Pride and humiliation is an important aspect of understanding what is the human being. The statesman is, in part, asking “what is the kind: human?” You can’t define politics as herd-nurture or feeding.
Political life is part the human condition. Human life is being part of the human community. But, then, why do they use the word Herd? This error was meant to provoke us into thinking what community should be.
King vs. Statesman. They play fast and loose. They have to be close enough that we can substitute one fo the other, but somehow there is a differentiation.
The difference between the city and the herd is that individuals in the city bring there own expertises to support the city. There is a division of labor. And, the ruler seems to be merely one other laborer with his own division. We want to separate him out.
Aristotle-
People who think that politikon (statesman?), basilikon (king?), oikonomikon (household manager), and despotikon (slavemaster) are the same thing…(are wrong)
Politikon and Basilikon must be divided from oikonomikon and despotikon. The city is different in kind from a household, and not just in number. Citizens are related as free and equal, the household is not. Household is not governed by law in the same way the city is. That makes these communities different in kind. Once the city and household are conflated, the leader of a city becomes like the master of a household, not preserving law and freedom and equality.
Both Plato and Aristotle are worried that managing* (oikonomik…root) a city, you aren’t really governing a city.
In the city, everyone thinks they know something, and they wonder “why should that guy govern men?” So, Aristole suggests to be ruled, and to rule in turn. To take turns in ruling.
The mistake of thinking the city and the household are the same kind of community is found both in Aristotle and in the Statesman.
Angler to Sophist (hunter) Paradigm in Sophist
Weaving to Statesman Paradigm in Statesman
Weaving is interesting as a model.
Shepherd *might be a paradigm early on.
258C
Stamp it with one idea. When you stamp it with a seal (of Politike?), it acquires a meaning, and everything else is lumped together as some other eidos of knowledge. This seems to be there very mistakes he has a problem with that YSocrates (supposedly) makes. Why is this hypocritical mistake made?
It isn’t clear that singling out our own, in this process of divisions, is wrong. Perhaps it isn’t. Perhaps some things are just so privileged that it should be divided unbalanced, and not “in the middle.”
258D
There are million examples of ‘practical,’ but why choose carpentry, which is a very bad example? Politics might not make something?
259B
If you have the knowledge/capacity of something, then youa re at that thing. If you have theknowledge of a doctor, then you are a doctor, even if in name or not.
If there is a science of rule, and even if you aren’t a king in name, you are somehow a king on this argument.
It doesn’t matter if you’re a great house or a small city, you are a ruler. This is the mistake.
Statesman and the King, and their respective arts, are intellectual (gnostic).
259E
Number reasoned vs. Architect/Master-builder. Number-reasoning is discriminative and Judging, while Master-builder is injunctive, and commanding.
261?
The ruler does rule living things, but for the sake of what? What is the end of the city? What is the statesman’s end? The architect is a bizarre model in this case.
261D
Statesman is not a private or single nurturer. Maybe this is part of the divide between the philosopher and the statesman, as perhaps the philosopher is a private nurturer? while the statesman is not.
Why call it herd-nurturer? YSocrates doesn’t care about the name, and yet this name and the classification (more importantly) is so deeply wrong.
262A
YSocrates offers the proper division.
Who’s the statesman? The one not in the herd? The herd has a shepherd that is a different species. If “man” is the herd, then another species, maybe God, is the shepherd.
263D
Crane, wtf?
When you divide a part, you are expressing dignity? You are as arbitrary, YSocrates, in doing that with human beings as a crane that did it with its own species.
By going so fast, you slow us down. Two measures. One is mathematical measure vs. failing to understand the measure of the mean. The measure of the mean is “how much we understand” – which is the crucial thing.
Second sailing, when the winds don’t blow, you have to get the oars out. It is second best and more laborious than you initially expected. It is a disillusionment, where you don’t get the ideal (wind), but you have to take another way.
Philosophy seems to begin in error. We may start with too idealist a starting point, and learn that it isn’t so easy and simple. Thinking is about seeing where the ideal takes you to a mistake, and correcting it.
Divine Shepherd, the king and the god, is a familiar image.
The Myth is about God ruling the universe, and withdrawing, and then coming back again? Why, when, and how?
What is the grazing metaphor? How is it applied to the legislator and the law? The herd is under law.
Why did they begin with science? Why would we ask if Statesman has scientific knowledge?
The herd: homogenous, leveling, under a herder of a different species. Is political life like that? Does the idea of a king match this?
Andreios – Manliness, courage. Root is “man.” Plato is up to an elaborate linguistic play. YSocrates assumption, that anthropos should be set apart from beast (the obvious truth that this conversation should be going towards), only came out because of manliness. The separation of man and beast takes a manly character.
A Statesman may be the ruler of a human herd. We are trying to figure out the eidos of human being. What is the human being by understanding the statesman and through rule? What is the final end? Is it the eidos of human or Statesman? It isn’t clear which is most important.
We get a glimpse of the human eidos through the psychology of YSocrates.
264A
The moment we take for granted humans are tame, we are then hunting (hunt’s root word is beast).
Horns is an image for weapons, aggressiveness. The emphasis on “by nature” we are hornless, you have some kind of insight into your politics and weapons. Rationality gives us weapons like no other kind of animal has. We have horns unlike other animals, but they aren’t by nature?
Split hooves. Split is arbitrary. We divide amongst ourselves politically in a way that is not natural.
Horses + Asses = Mules
Gods + Humans = Diamonion (Socrates is half divine)
Eros, wanting to be the perfection of itself. Asses wants to be a Horse. It is the erotic impulse of the platonic eidos. What the stranger has done is eliminate that from his divisions.
Political Science = The grazing science of non-mixing becoming.
King is a specific kind of herdsman. Other herdsman are a jack of all trades. This is similar to the city, which has a division of arts/labor. The king has a specific king of labor or art. Humans in the city seem reduced to a specialization. Primitive humans outside of cities have to be a jack-of-all trades, as they can’t turn to specialists for each kind of need.
Also, once you have division of labor, everyone knows something (specific). The problem is that once you know something, you may be tempted to think you know more than you actually do, knowing more than just your specific area, but also about everything else.
If everyone is contributing something in particular, and everyone has knowledge of some thing, then why should the king rule? What makes his knowledge so special? Expertise and knowledge lead to a kind of manliness and courage in this sense.
Politike and Philosophy seem to sit above and understand the nature of all the other domains and the limits of those domains. Politike and Philosophy don’t know anything in particular, but they have a meta-level knowledge that puts things in their place. They have an architectonic role.
We don’t have a cowherd that does everything for the herd. The herd themselves are trained to do the various specific tasks necessary for the herd.
265c
How do we separate the king/statesman from the rest of those who might claim to take care of the herd?
Politike (acc. to Aristotle) is knowing when to use which art in which circumstance. The problem with that is that the political ruler has an end in mind for the city, even if he is just and noble, etc. The question it raises, are you distorting the ends of the arts for the good of the city? Everything is used as a means to an end. Me: What’s the problem with this? I don’t understand.
What is wrong with the architectonic science?
There is the ‘argument’ and the ‘action of the argument’ (the deeds of the interlocutors). In this case, it seems like they are trying to figure something out, contemplating, performing the deed of philosophy. It is ironic or interesting because that is the point of the argument, the content of it, which is about how the politician/statesman is an apparition of the philosopher.
Happiness is strongly linked to doing philosophy. In the myth, we are concerned with when humans are the happiest (in which cycle and in what cases, etc.). Why does it only show up only here in the Statesman, and what does it say for the importance of the myth?
How does politics look to a mathematician?
Why is that the concept of the voluntary/compulsory (freedom) come up so late in this dialogue? Why did the stranger keep it out so late? It is obviously such an important concept in politics that it is almost absurd.
A genetic account of the cosmos and who we are as humans requires a beginning. Which cycle is the beginning, the divine or the human rule? If it doesn’t have a beginning, then it isn’t really a genetic account in some ways.
Nature has an entropic harshness about it. The ancient nature may be a starting point, perhaps. If that is the case, then the divine account seems to be the secondary cycle.
My opinion: it seems as though humans, in terms of techne and political life, degenerate in the age of Chronos, but in the age of Zeus (harsh, ancient nature), humans, by necessity (in order to survive), seem to generate in some sense, they must take on techne and political life.
My opinion: It seems as though coming to understand political science is a good and necessary thing in the harsh age of our ancient nature. Acquiring the political techne isn’t easy. It seems like this is mirrored in the long-winded and chaotic method in which the interlocutor attempts to flesh out the nature of the statesman.
Part of the ‘political’ path to eventually philosophy is the separation of man from beast. In teasing out the form of the human being, and understanding the nature of man, we are better able to define the statesman and why the statesman is an apparition of the philosopher.
There are many co-nurturers (bankers, artists, etc.), and so the interlocutors change the name from “herd-nurterer” to “ .” The statesman has a lot of competition for the title of nurturer, as there are so many who would claim to be such.
The Atreus and Thyestes myth is about a competition for who should be king. Hermes bestows a golden fleece on one of the sheep to show that the gods had deemed one man to be the king. This analogy seems perfect for the herd-nurturer and the competition problem. However, the interlocutor throws that out, and he is most interested in how Zeus’ reverses the course of the son to point out Atreus as the legitimate king. Why does the interlocutor drop the seemingly perfect analogy, and instead aims for the cosmos reversal analogy.
Art vs. Nature – YSocrates is manly in nature, but lacks the art of real Socrates.
The universe is an animal with prudence. The universe, somehow, lacks phronesis in the story though, as it is so mechanistic and it reverses and entropies* by necessity.
Is the myth telling us about the ultimate nature or ground of things? Is there divine providence, chaos, etc.?
Why imagine life growing backwards?
Age of Chronos – the Paradise
No work. Lots of grazing (same root of ‘law’ interestingly – nomos). No techne. The animals are herded into their own flocks. Animals are tame, not wild. No animal is food for one another. Vegetarianism, and biblical Eden thought in here. There is no war or faction. No birth. No sexual reproduction. Maybe no “eros.” No regimes, families, or political structures. There is just the whole of the herd under God. No homes, privacy, or clothing. No cold, not weather problems, no protection needed. There is no shame either.
Human life. God raised the humans. God is the divine shepherd. The shepherd has a nature which is different what the nature of that which he herds. Humans to sheep vs. God to humans. How do you rule like a shepherd? You have to have a more divine nature.
My opinion: you need to be superior. Do you need to have a different nature though?
Humans seem to be not special. They are just like other herds.
Zeus seems like a fiction. How can Zeus be ruling if this is an age with no gods ruling?
Are the people in the paradise of Chronos happier? Are they doing philosophy? They have the time and leisure to pursue philosophy, but do they actually do philosophy? What would that kind of philosophy be? (Idle curiosity? Surely that seems to arbitrary)
Did Adam and Eve do philosophy? They probably didn’t see the need it.
Associating with beasts to acquire the various parts of phronesis seems odd.
What does it mean for a beast to have phronesis? Is the gathering of phronesis part of doing philosophy or leading up to doing philosophy?
My opinion: in the era of Chronos, humans are special and different enough from beasts, and they have no real need to do philosophy since they are so ‘satisfied’ like Adam and Eve. It seems like they don’t do philosophy, and if that is the case, they aren’t really satisfied, right? I then wonder if the other era isn’t really the most era as that is the era of real humans doing the real work of humans – techne and philosophy especially.
My opinion: is political science a necessary aspect of doing philosophy? If it is, then it seems as though, by definition, the a-political humans of Chronos are not doing philosophy.
Without Eros, can you do philosophy? If you can’t have being-into-death, can you do philosophy? If you don’t have art, can you really be doing philosophy (which reflects upon the nature and limits of art and knowledge)? If you don’t have a political life, can you really be doing philosophy?
My opinion: if you already have eudaimonia, why do philosophy? Philosophy is a means to eudaimonia as an end, or is philosophy an end in itself? The arts seem to be a means to an end, to surviving and to eudaimonia.
Is philosophy available? Is it necessary to do? It seems as if they have eudaimonia without doing philosophy. Is that just the point of it: it is a staged and impractical kind of eudaimonia, where we cease to be humans and political animals.
Are the chronos-humans actually happy? Do they merely have everything else necessary for happiness except doing philosophy (assuming they aren’t doing philosophy)? Perhaps we can say they aren’t really happy, and they aren’t really human.
In some way, I want to say that in chronos era, humans have the kind of happiness of pigs (and beasts in general), they don’t have the happiness of humans. Human happiness is separate, it is dignified and distinct from the mere happiness of beasts. The humans in chronos aren’t really human, and they don’t have real happiness, the happiness which is separate and belonging to the form of human.
Why does Plato call his a myth?
Much is blamed on the ancient nature of the “body” - the primordial condition is disorderly, entropic, and yet, it is that which spurs us to be distinctly human and to become philosophers. Injustice comes from the ancient nature (273).
Now we get to the ‘telos’ of the myth (he says) – in human life as we know, no gods care for us, we don’t have daimons or divine shepherds, nature is harsh and wild, we are insecure, scarcity, labor, hunger, divisions of labor, contentiousness about who should be in control. That is our world. The statesman belongs to that world. The statesman lacks a role in paradise. Are the divine herdsman employing political science or not?
Are the gods in chronos era employing the art of the statesman? No. This is the transition from the mistakes of diaeresis to the myth. The Statesman is not merely a herd nurturer.
The myth is the first step to realizing you were unconsciously working in this paradigm.
But, the other point of the myth is to show that this is the wrong paradigm.
Weaving paradigm is supposed to replace the wrong paradigm.
If that is the case, then what does the ‘divine shepherd’ illuminate for us? It may be wrong, but what about it was right enough that it merited discussion?
Nature is harsh, it doesn’t provide for us, it is dangerous and wild. We don’t live in the Garden of Eden. Human beings are very weak animals in most respects. The divisions are also accurate (though how relevant?) characteristics of humans.
Humans need the arts for these reasons. We must harness nature. Need necessitates the discovery of the arts. We have to take care of ourselves. There is no natural impulse to work together, we only come together by need. Cities are formed by the desire to survive, as cities are best at enabling our survival.
The fitting length is whatever makes us more dialectical (maybe we might loosely call it philosophy).
Why is there so much written? The last section of the myth seemed to be all that was necessary. Why did Plato make us go through all that work to get to the real meat of the problem or claim.
In order to get from king or statesman to philosopher, we may have to go through the bulk of the myth (acc. to Ronna).
YSocrates was praised for being indifferent to a name. That indifference seemed to show a lack of reflection. Oddly, the stranger praised YSocrates to do it, and only after living with it and thinking about it could it be corrected. Finally, we see “grooming” as being the correct term (for now). We don’t seem to figure out what happens with this grooming.
When we get to the weaving paradigm, we see the producing something and the taking care of something. It seems understandable that the statesman is taking care of something (such as the city), but it isn’t clear what he is making.
The introduction of reading is trying to do things:
Get at the statesman
Get at how we ever learn anything
You know you are ignorant when you wake up.
Stoicheoin – element or letter
You don’t have any understanding of ‘a’ until you can see its applications in various different words. Just evaluating ‘cat’ does not tell you enough about ‘a’ – you need to see ‘a’ used in multiple words to realize what it is doing.
If you have to start somewhere with a correct opinion (not knowledge) (how ‘a’ works in ‘cat’ to start working to ‘category’ etc.).
Oddly, we seem to start with a bad opinion in the overall scheme of this story, and try to work it towards the correct opinion.
We need a paradigm that gets us into the city of arts. Weaving gets us there. Weaving turns to be a nice whole, where a lot of arts have to be used to get usthere. This is different from the divine shepherd, who is too self-sufficient and does it all himself.
Make a cloak and caring for the cloak is difficult.
What does the statesman make? He seems to make a city (to me).
Statesman crafts or acquires something to ward off suffering.
“Bound together themselves by themselves”
A trick to esoteric writing – when things are repeated with slight variations, it isn’t really the same thing being repeated, but rather the variations are clues to what is really important.
280A
Weaving : Cloak-making :: Kingship : Statesmanship :: Royal-Art : Political Art
In what way is weaving the largest part of cloak-making? A cloak is not the only thing you can weave. Weaving, in some sense, seems larger than cloak-making. Cloaks are just one of many products of weaving.
The applications of letters to make words is a kind of weaving. Weaving is a ‘step’ (maybe not a part) of grammar and reading then, it seems.
Weaving is an activity – it can be applied to the making of other products
Cloaks are a product, and cloak-making has a very particular end product. Weaving in the strict sense seems to be just about two threads coming together in a certain way. But, weaving broadly seems to include various practices and arts in order to actually accomplish the larger, broader goal of weaving.
Care seems to include cleaning the cloak, and repairing it when it unravels.
Cloaks are one product of weaving.
To me, writing (like weaving) is a part of many activities (just as weaving is a part of making cloaks).
From my perspective: the only difference between Kingship and Statesmanship is that the King is simply a kind of Statesman, a statesman that is recognized as a statesman and treated as such. It is the public recognition that makes him a certain kind of Statesman. This makes sense of what the Stranger has about Statesmanship being a science, and that one who has the knowledge, even if he isn’t actually performing, is a statesman.
At 280A, it seems like we go backwards. Why does he start with 6 here? Why is that the endpoint?
The paradigm of weaving (see the handout)
(2) Divine – this seems to be against the gods, another atheist point. We can’t rely upon the gods (and they aren’t even there) – that kind of thinking.
(3) Political life seems like war, but why are weapons eliminated?
(4) Screens seem to be about shame. It seems to separate the private and public spheres. That seems highly political. Protection against storms seems to be a kind of protection against nature itself and chaos that causes suffering.
Caring for cloaks vs. Making cloaks.
Same and Other … vs … whole and part
Me: (Paradigm)…vs…(Diaeresis)
Only do you know that for the sake of which you do an activity can you have the conceptual “whole and part” framework. Weaving needs an end (for the sake of which).
Is something fitting? Well, you need to know what it is for. Only by knowing for the sake of which can we know if it is fitting.
We need to locate weaving in a whole of parts. We have weaving, different from its congeners. Weaving is a kind of web.
Plato never does anything accidentally. (lulz)
Weaving could not do its thing without a whole lot of co-workers (which would dispute with weaving). There are some things which are necessary for weaving. We can’t call the ‘carder’ a weaver, but is a necessary part of weaving. Weaving wouldn’t occur with a carder doing his part of the process, being a part of that division of labor.
The divine shepherd can do everything for his flock; however, there is disputation in the city, and the statesman/king cannot do everything for the city. The consistuents or parts of the city are necessary for the whole of the city. This isn’t true for the flock, it seems. In the flock, every sheep is roughly the same, but in the city, people are different and makeup important parts of the city, necessary for the city. Those people who are necessary to the city may be performing a lowly job, so they aren’t to be called a statesman (this is my thought) just as the carder is not to be called weaver.
Remember the correction of the myth. It isn’t the feeding of the herd, we need something closer to ‘care’ of the herd. But, on that view, politike seems to be foreshadowed as a kind of care. But, when we get to paradigm of the cloak, it seems as the “cleaning” and “care” for the cloak should parallel to politike. There is a kind of unraveling of the cloak, and wouldn’t that parallel the unraveling of a city in some ways; and so shouldn’t we see the statesman as needing to not only make a cloak, but also care for the City/Cloak. Why doesn’t he let him answer this question?
Weaving is like kingship, it is the most important part of cloak making, but it isn’t all there is. Weaving is part of the making.
There is a strict (precise) sense of the term Weaving, and the loose/broad (comprehensive) sense of Weaving. There is weaving in the precise sense, a part of an elaborate whole. The precise sense of weaving is just the interplating of warf and woof? There is also a comprehensive sense of weaving, however. In some sense, if a part (like weaving) is the most important part of a larger process, that part may get to name the larger process, hence weaving as the most important part comes to name the whole process weaving.
Weaving is the kingly art. Weaving is just an activity, you could do anything with weaving.
The cloak-maker, statesman, is dictating everything else that has to be done, including the weaving.
Cloak = Polis
Cloak-maker = Statesman
Cloak-caretaker = Statesman
Weaving = A part of cloak-making
Weaver = King
Where the fuck is the philosopher? How does this point us toward the philosopher?
Aristotle, Book 2, Ch 2.
Summary: We are looking for the good, the end of human beings, politike appears to be the all-encompassing art. It appears to be the all-encompassing end because it uses everything else. It is the end in itself, not a means to an end, and so on.
There is a hierarchy of a parts of a whole. Is horseback-riding really a subordinate to generalship? I can ride horses to plow a field, for example. Horseback-riding doesn’t seem to belong under generalship.
Look, Politike is about making the other arts (and the artists) subordinate to the whole, forcing those arts to see themselves and serve as parts to the whole (the city).
In the cloak making process, weaving is treated as if it were a subordinate part of making a cloak. In the polis, the kingly art is treated as though it is just a subordinate part of making the polis. We might think that the kingly art isn’t obviously subordinate, it could be used for other ends. But, the statesman is about making kingly art subordinate to the city.
The Kingly Art is Philosophy (acc. to Ronna). The art of weaving is philosophy. Weaving, like philosophy, can be put to use towards other ends. In this case, it seems that statesman uses weaving/kinglyart/philosophy towards the end of making/caring for the polis/cloak.
This seems to be strongly linked to Aristotle’s problem of the whole/part, unified good and parts good, and all ofthose problems.
Cosmos = beautiful, ordered whole
Beautifying seems to conceal, that is why it is associated with the Sophist. It covers over the ugly things.
The separating and combining that goes on in this process, not just in weaving, but in everything we think or do…is diacritics and syncritics.
Courage and moderation seem to conflict with each other. People have a nature (not blank slates) that inclines towards one virtue or the other. The stranger draws out lots of political, moral, and psychological problems out of that. How does one weave together the virtues of courage and moderation?
Twisting is the warp. The Courageous warp. The stranger has to tell YSocrates that woof also needs to be twisted. The stranger is telling YSocrates that he is too partial.
283A – This has the major claim for what is the Weaving Art.
We are looking at the synchtraical art. How is kinglyness synonymous with politike?
The stranger has been trying to “moderate” the “courageous” YSocrates. It the stranger weaving us a story here, or is he weaving something for YSocrates, or what do you think?
Sometimes people talk too long (don’t bring up too short either).
Aristotle Chapter 6, book 2 – virtue as a mean.
There is a measure of the mean, what is fitting for a purpose.
There are two kinds of measures: (1) the literal measure, and (2) the measure of the mean
The Table is 5 feet long
The table is too short; it doesn’t measure up to the mean.
If you don’t have a measure of the mean, then youwon’t have any arts (acc. to the stranger). Is that true or not?
Measure of the mean? = The fitting, the opportune, the appropriate. These are standards of the good for a thing (and perhaps beautiful). It may be both good and beautiful. There is kind of an aesthetic as well as utilitarian angle to the measure of the mean.
There is numbers and the good. ?wtf? The are two features or categories of knowledge. There is a claim to know something based on numbers, and another way in terms of the good.
Mathematics is precise, but Plato’s aim is to show that there is a notion of the precise that goes beyond the mathematical, and has something to do with the good, and the measure of the mean is the standard for that.
The beautiful when it shows up in the moral is the noble. What is the relationship between the beautiful and the good?
About a perfect work of art, there is nothing extra and nothing missing. Every part is perfect for the whole.
Mathematics is a means to the end (good, and maybe the beautiful).
The measure of the mean is related to becoming?
The techne of mathematics seems demoted among the arts of measurement.
The mathematical measurement is subordinate to the measure of the mean.
What does the statesman do with the measure of the mean?
Is there anything that escapes the measure of the mean?
If the good presides over all beings and knowledge, that means there would be nowhere where you’d have the mathematical mean divorced from the measure of the mean.
Surface: you’ve got two kinds of measurement….there is a category of measurement, but seems as if there is a kind of measures of the category of measurement.
Dividing by forms or kinds (eidetic analysis), when you do this kind of dividing, it looks like there are different kinds, and that you are dividing beings into discreet classes or kinds. “Being” falls into kinds of beings.
Why are there different kinds of virtues for Aristotle? There are all these different emotions, and each one of these emotions falls on a continuum. You can have too much or too little, and in each situation you are trying to show just the right amount. There is a precise itself, but it is relative to each context.
“Weaving is the intertwining of warf and woof.” It takes forever for Plato to get us to there. The warp and woof are courage and moderation. There is the courageous type of character/state, and there is the moderate character/states.
What is the relation between these moral virtues (these kinds of virtue – Plato simplified them to just two) and prudence (practical wisdom, which figures out the mean)?
There is a relation between eidetic measurement (dividing by kinds) and the measurement of the mean. And, this is somehow supposed to be applied to the relationship between morality and prudence.
Weaving : Cloaking-making/caring :: Kingly-art : Political Art
Weaving tells the cards to get rid of this much gunk and oil from the wool. Make the warp like this, etc. There is a lot of mathematical measures. The weaver can’t seem to do that unless he knows what he is making though, that he is making a woolen-cloak. Only in knowing that he is making a cloak can the weaver give the subordinate arts the mathematical measurements necessary to do their arts properly.
You need a hierarchal goal. The weaver seems to be the greatest and most important part. He tells the carder and all the other parts what to do. And they will say, “oh yeah, your cloak wouldn’t happen without us.” Weaving becomes a part of a whole when it becomes subordinate to something else.
The statesman is using the kingly art for his own purposes. He has subordinated the kingly art, just as weaving is subordinating and exploited and used for cloak-making/caring. That might not be the natural role of weaving or the kingly art, the cloakmaker and the statesman just use it for their respective purpose.
The statesman uses the kingly art which has to do with making and caring for the city. The statesman is looking to the city as an end. He practices his art for the sake of the city as a whole. He is using the kingly art for his purpose, and he applies the kingly art in a specific way, a way in which the kingly art doesn’t in and by itself normally serve.
Does weaving have a measure of the mean? Maybe not until it has a product or an end. That the statesman has an end, it gives the kingly art a measure of the mean. But, what is the kingly art in and of itself? Is there something such as weaving in and of itself?
A philosopher doesn’t fit nicely into the division of arts? In one way, the politikos doesn’t fit nicely into the division of arts either because he seems to organize and is above the other arts. He is the architectonic art, as he knows the good for the sake of which the other arts are performed. He is like the cloak-maker that tells everyone else what to do. The philosopher seems ot have some kind of role like that, but he doesn’t fit into the arts of the city either. The philosopher doesn’t really, obviously contribute to the city. The philosopher does have a kind of self-sufficiency that no other art has.
You can’t do philosophy without a city, you won’t have the time. You need a city to provide leasure to do philosophy. Political philosophy is aware of the philosopher’s relation to the city and the philosopher’s dependence on the city. The difference between Socrates and the stranger is interesting here; Socrates is so very dependent on the city, but the stranger doesn’t seem to rely upon the city itself (although he wanders from city to city – he transcends his city). Socrates dies because of his tie to Athens. Which is the natural model for the philosopher? We might be inclined toward the stranger, because the philosopher seems to be a stranger to every city, and yet that doesn’t work for the real Socrates.
If you take the stranger as the model, are you giving up on political philosophy? Socrates is a political philosopher in an obvious way – he gives his life for the city.
My question: Should we all be philosophers? It looks like we can’t be and possibly shouldn’t be, assuming ought implies can, and not can implies not ought.
Politicians are the sophists of sophists. 303C, refers to the end of 291.
Philosopher is the true being of two apparitions, at least at first it appears that way. But, we may be finding out that this isn’t right.
Instead, it seems as tif the Philosophers if the true being of sophist, but then it isn’t clear what the statesman is and how it relates. We can agree that the sophist is the false apparition of the sophist.
287b – What isn’t instrumental? It seems only the ultimate good is not instrumental. IS the whole city instrumental for producing and maintaining philosophers, or are philosophers instrumental for making and caring for the city?
Why is plaything not eliminated?
Aristotle links leisure and playfulness. Philosophy may be playful, and it is certainly what one should do with leisure.
The word eidos comes from the word appearance or looks. It is, in this light, difficult to separate body from soul, as the body is about appearance.
The philosopher in being (the real philosopher) cannot be appear as what he is, but he has two guises: the sophist and the statesman.
Prudence, practical wisdom, is a knowledge, but not a science. It is particularistic. The stranger seems to think in 191-192ish that he didn’t really get the sophist’s definition right in The Sophist.
Philosopher----------sophist
Prudent King---------pretend statesman---greatest sophists
Who is the real statesman?
How is philosopher related to the prudent king?
Sophists aren’t really dangerous. The really dangerous thing is the city. The city can kill the philosopher. The city is a great power.
Arbitrarily, he used the speech about weaving to introduce the digression into the art of measure. He then gets into division of kinds arbitrarily.
Science---------- praktitke
---------- gnostike -------- kntike
-------- epitaktike
Science is replaced by the art of measurement.
The art of measure---------mathematical measure
----------measure of the mean
The measure of the mean, you can never have a knower about action. You can never have a knower of praxis.
The measure eof the mean and the mathematical measure have to cooperate. You can’t build a desk without the measure of the mean, but you can’t implement the measure of the mean without the mathematical measure in the art of constructing tables.
The supposed dichotomy in science has broken down. The dichotomy of theory and practice (praktike and gnostike) have been broken down, somehow.
Episteme has mathematics as the paradigm. Definable. Mathematical, deductive. Universal. This is not supposed to fit phronesis.
Philosophy is not an episteme.
Is there a political science? It would be an episteme, yes? What are the limits of political principles?
The stranger is moving from the metaphysical problem of non-being…
Now that the being of becoming and the problem of non-being are solved, Plato is in a position to really describe the Sophist.
The political art or the kingly art has to do something with making playthings or using playthings or being like playthings. Playthings are the only possessions in the city which Plato doesn’t deny.
The production of all the artifacts of the city are like the production of all the artifacts for weaving – they are merely instrumental.
Such things of the city must be interwoven. They cannot be a mere heap.
The sophist appears in the very large mob (291A). They all claim to be statesmen because they wield some kind of political power. Whom or what is sacrificing whom or what to whom or what? Does it have anything to do with Socrates, who will be ‘sacrificed’ for the city of Athens? For the sake of what?
The stranger is making city into a sacrificial animal??
Some kind of competition that goes deep in the history of civilization, between the sacred (priests and prophets) and the city of arts. The statesman belongs to the city of arts. The king, I don’t know.
For the Egyptians (regarded as ancients by the greeks) merged the sacred and the king.
What or who are the greatest servants?
The priests according to the law or conventional have knowledge. Plato doesn’t really think the priests have that kind of knowledge at all. The lawful give priests a certain status, however.
If all you had was mathematical knowledge, you couldn’t distinguish tyrant and king. The measure of the mean is necessary to break down the Regimes that we see in 291c.
Political philosophy can arise in any regime. A prudent king can happen to come about in any regime??
In what ways is politics not a techne?
Tracking the concept of imitation would be a good topic for the paper. Sophists, laws, etc.
If your one standard is the perfect regime, then voluntary/involuntary people doesn’t matter, whether or not the rich are in charge, or by law or lawless simply don’t matter. The real focus, however, seems to be about law or without law.
What is lawless rule? How is it different from involuntary rule?
Who is the prudent king? (292E??)
Is the doctor a good model for the prudent king?
Making someone better is more than just saving someone. “preserve” (293E)…or should the politician actually improve (not merely preserve)?
Medicine must be precise and individualized. The city is one big body?
The measure of the mean has to be translated into the mathematical measure.
Is the phronemos king just the philosopher?
What is the relationship between political ruler and legislator? It seems as though the perfect politician is both, maybe.
There are two kinds of philosophers: the stranger and Socrates (not a stranger, he belongs to Athens).
“Should we go into Afghanistan?” “Should we tax people at a flat rate?”
Is there one true knower? It seems like this is the virtuous agent’s problem. The phronesis of the virtuous agent doesn’t allow for the episteme, to some extent.
Legislative art belongs to the kingly.
1st critique of the law – 294B
Comprehensive understanding (encircle) vs. Precise understanding (the most perfect case example).
The best law may need to be comprehensive. E.g., people can drive at 16, but it can’t point out particular 12 year olds fit for driving and 25 year olds not fit for driving.
The law can precisely order the most just.
You can’t have the phronemos king, the virtuous agent, always being next to every single person in the city, telling those people how to live their lives. It isn’t practically available, even if that is theoretically what we might want.
Even though it can’t fit the particular, why is law necessary?
Gymnast trainer:
294D, can’t give the fitting, but you can have rough “beginner,” “intermediate,” and “advanced” – the “for the most part” method which profits the bodies in general
295B
Uncodifiability of the Virtuous Agent’s knowledge or perception of morality – Uncodifability of the Phronemos King’s knowledge or perception of Political art
How does divine law work?
It seems as if the statesman is forced to generalize and codify that which is very difficult to generalize and codify.
Why have medical rules become healthy? Why is anything against them sick and artless? Why is virtue to be the same as knowledge?
The law must herd. It just legislate the good, bad, ugly, and beautiful for the herds. Is there anyone with knowledge of this?
There is not techne of the just, beautiful, and the good. There is phronesis of it though.
Can’t rule by force, you violate their freedom. You must persuade. Is force acceptable or not? Consent, freedom, individuality seem to be part of the good, and part of being a citizen, and part of ‘political life’ of eudaimonic existence.
294D-
Defense of Law:
What the place of knowledge in rule? What is the relationship between knowledge and rule? To what extent does having knowledge entitle one to be a ruler? What ist he science of ruling? If there is no science of ruling, then why should think there is an entitlement to rule?
The Noble or the Beautiful can be ideal, but the Good must be real.
Tripod: The beautiful, the just, the good ???
Beauty is aesthetic, and we contemplate it at a distance. “Big is beautiful”
Good with respect to weight would be health. There is a range of the “good weight” the healthy weight, and that is relative to your nature and requirements, but it is objective and real. It is not just a matter of opinion.
There is no noble or beautiful imitation of the application fothe Statesman’s knowledge. An artful imitation is being a statesman.
Why is there an all-knowing vs. imposter polarity. Why isn’t there a spectrum, where there is merely ‘pretty good’?
3 answers:
If you’ve got something better for the city, then submit it to the city, convince people of it.
The danger of an individual going against the law is much worse a danger than letting the laws dominate.
Ruled by One, few, or many. “Law” bisects them all. (Lawful or Lawless)
The city is the sophist of all sophist??. It isn’t driven by truth or knowledge, and the rulers have a pretense or claim to knowledge, and when they do, they are the sophists of all sophists.
The statesman action is an appeal to the advantageous. The Just and advantageous might not peel apart completely though.
Coefficients and congeners (kindred spirits) are arts or activities that are somehow doing the same thing or claiming to do the same thing as what your are trying to pin down. You have to separate the kindred spirits to isolate the thing you are looking for.
Weaving is an activity has other activities that are kindred spirits, such as felting, glueing, sewing. We have separate them off from weaving to get at what weaving really is about.
Politike is using the activity of weaving for the sake of the city.
You don’t’ have workers or coefficients unless you are taking your ???
Weaving vs. Weaving the Woolen Cloak?
Making a woolen cloak, now weaving can say, I want wool, get me a shepherd; carder, clean that wool to such and such a degree of refinement; woof maker, make me a solid vertical thread; warf maker, make me a fine thread; uhoh-the cloak tearing, repairman, repairmanmanmanmanmana.
Rhetoric (media), military, and law must be separated (as kindred arts) from the statesman. These are arts, yeah?
The statesman has to use these things to do his job. Why are they kindred?
Aristotle Chapter 2.
The tyrant goes against the law, driven by the law and ignorance (knowledge of ignorance).
The judge needs moral virtue. No matter how much knowledge you have of the law, you are vulnerable to be waylaid by bridges, fear, pity.
Judge has knowledge of justice, but he also needs virtue to apply that knowledge appropriately.
-
Kingly is manly.
What is the relation of part to species?
The mean is the result or recognition of phronesis. Opportune or timely (the mean) for what? For the Noble, right?
Disease (Stasis)
Hostile ideas of courage and moderation themselves, in which each one sees the other as the blameworthy thing.
We have a community which is divided into these categories, as they are bound to one extreme or the other.
The cloak is the virtuous ruling class that covers the city. It isn’t clear where the weaving comes into play, acc. to Ronna.
What is the relationship between Statesman and King? Neither one seems to be wrapped up in this web or cloak.
Is this really all political? The cloak, the one encompassed by it, the moderate and manly woven together, and the prudence?? This is perhaps not the right model for the political sphere at all.
Authentic you vs. impostor you. What is the story that explains this division? What's the difference between my authentic desires and my impostor desires? And, why does it matter?
Berlin
Freedom and Autonomy are distinguished.
Negative Liberty = Freedom
Positive Liberty = Autonomy
Hobbes-Mill, Freedom as non-frustration
Berlin-Nozick, Freedom as non-interference
Petit, Freedom as non-domination
Natural vs. Man-made impediments.
Hobbes- Free insofar as you are able to do what you want do. It could be gravity, holding my ankles, or lack of muscles that prevents me from jumping 100 feet in the air. This is a very strong, wide-open version of Freedom. Hindrances which include natural facts, rather than political ones, are included as impediments to freedom.
Berlin thinks you can’t be coerced by the laws of nature. Man-made and intentional, deliberate, agent-driven hindrances are the only real impediments to freedom. This is where he parts ways with Hobbes’ view of freedom.
Perhaps there is “physical freedom” and “political freedom.” For a rock to pin me down vs. a person to pin me down. Am I less free because the rock pins me down? Your freedom is comprised equally (acc. to Valdman), whether it is a rock or a person pinning you down. I can’t ask the rock for compensation, but I can ask the person.
If a king lifts the ban on carrying arms, but you don’t have any limbs, did you gain any real freedom? It freedom worth having? You aren’t physically free to bear arms in either case. Does it matter whether or not you have political freedom? Are you any freer when the ban is lifted? Valkman is pushing a kind of monist view of freedom, where there aren’t different kinds of freedom.
Berlin thinks you have to have options in order to have freedom. If you only have 1 option, and even if you wanted that 1 option, you somehow weren’t free. Hobbes would say you are free--after all, you are able to do what you want to do.
Consider, if I had the option to goto the gym, but I don’t want to and won’t, if the gym was shutdown (even without my knowledge), and that option disappeared, Hobbes wouldn’t think there is a loss of freedom, but Berlin think it would be a loss of freedom. If I could have conceivably wanted to do, even if I didn’t actually want to do it, it matters to my freedoms, acc. to Berlin.
If a dude locks his door, I can’t go into his house anymore, and it seems like freedom is constantly being compromised on Berlin’s account. Why should I care about the loss of these Berlin Freedoms?
We can sympathize with Hobbes in that freedom should be about desire fulfillment, right? Hobbes single-option criticism may seem like a problem though. If you can only do one thing, are you really free, regardless of whether you wanted to do that thing?
Berlin may be right (at least we can sympathize) that we need more than 1 option to be free, but we don’t need every conceivable option to be completely free (as it seems he implies).
Why have a middleground view though? How many options do you need to have said to be free?
Frankfurt’s demon seems to be an answer. It seems that one could be free when not intervened.
One worry of Berlin’s about Hobbes’ view is that one can change one’s desire to fit one’s circumstances, and retain one’s freedom. Freedom seems arbitrary then, perhaps. You get freedom too easily in Hobbes’ view, acc. to Berlin.
I’m not sure why this is devastating. So, what, freedom is easier to achieve on the Hobbesian view? If it isn’t arbitrarily changing desires, and the change to desires is significant in some sense, then once you’ve switched your desires to fit your circumstances, why aren’t you free?
My worry is that one does not actually change their desires. In most cases, it seems to me that there is a ranking/ordering of desires. Think poker. I always want the royal flush. My desires are unfulfilled when I don’t have one. Simple as that, I am not free with respect to my highest desire. You might be able to change your order/ranking of desires. You can’t necessarily change them all. It isn’t the case that one can always fit their desires to their circumstances.
Are we really adapting our desires? If there is a ranking, I don’t think so. We are adapting our expectations of that ranked list, not our desires.
Petit – Imagine good slavery, where I’m enslaved, but my master is beneficent, and I can do whatever I want to do. What’s wrong with it? It seems like neither Hobbes nor Berlin can have a problem with this. The fact the master “could” do anything is the problem. I am dominated. On the options view, you are free. The fact that someone could limit my options, even theoretically, doesn’t seem to limit my freedom, does it?
Autonomy is making sure the right part of is making choices.
Berlin is buying into the distinction between the authentic-self and the inauthentic-self.
Plato- rational, appetitive, high spirited – when rational you is in control, then you are autonomous, your authentic self is your rational self.
Hume denies that the role of reason has any governing power, the passions, desires, and appetites do that. Reason is instrumental, it is the slave of the passions.
Kant- Reason sets the agenda, it isn’t the slave of the passions. There are certain desires & beliefs that are rationally requires and some you are required not to have.
Parfit, Future Tuesday Indifference – I avoid pain, except on Future Tuesdays. On the Humean view, you can’t criticize it. Your preferences are what they are. On the Kantian view, we can say that preference is intrinsically irrational preference. Reason demands we can’t have arbitrary preferences like that. Suppose that some beliefs are rationally required. Suppose that some desires are rationally required. Do those desires, which are required, define the real you? Is the fundamental difference between you, as a rational creature, and other creatures, that you have rational desires and beliefs.
Rationality demands you have certain beliefs and desires
The rational part of you is the real you
To be autonomous is to be governed by you, aka. The rational you, aka. By the desires and beliefs that rationality requires of you. That is what it means to really be free in this sense of positive freedom?
Autonomy is about self-mastery. What is the real you? Is the real you the rational you?
There seems to be a weird argument in favor of coercing or compelling people to do things they might not immediately want to do because that isn’t their real authentic self, and the authentic self would actually want what is not desired. Berlin has a problem with this.
Odysseus, sirens, roped onto the mast. Does Odysseus just want to hear the sirens without the danger of running to them? Are the men forcing him to do what he most wants, as Odysseus screams for them to let him run to them while listening to the Sirens? Can you even be forced to do what you most want to do?
Options:
Deny Authentic/Inauthentic
Say Authentic/inauthentic is divided by rational
Maybe you can coerce someone into doing something they want to do.
How do you cache the distinction between authentic and inauthentic self?
Frankfurt
Your autonomy, the real you, is based on the structure of your will. We have the ability to form desires about our desires.
Freedom of the will is a kind of a congruence between the FO and SO desires. This congruence is SO Volition.
Would it be possible to have a desire that would never move you under any circumstances?
SO Volition is to desire to be moved by a particular FO desire.
Minimal reading, just the right kind of congruence insofar as your FO desires are supported by your SO volitions.
Manipulation problem – e.g. neuroscientist changes our beliefs and desires. Frankfurt agrees to the ahistorical view of autonomy. I think the answer is that there are two different people.
Regress – just piling desires on top of desires. We need a special desire.
Interestingly, the second order seems more important because it always requires, it appears, reason. The FO doesn’t necessarily.
Subservient vs. independent women – are they both lacking autonomy? Is autonomy not content neutral (subservience isn’t rational, but independence is?)?
Don’t we want a theory of autonomy that allows us to reclaim autonomy from our checkered/conditioned past?
Ekstrom
Why have all these abstractions, why not be a coherentist without all the orders of desires? Likewise, why not a simple view of the “standard of good”? What the mixed view between coherentism and the standard of the good?
Manipulation Problem
Ab Initio Problem (also, problem of authority - how does a particular second-order desire really have the authority to speak for us? Why that one?)
Regress Problem
How does this beat the Humean problem?
Desires [ 2nd Order Desires [ 2nd order volition [ preferences [ auth. Pref [ Desire the Good ||
Buss
SM Agency model requirements are neither necessary nor sufficient for agency. Slapping a baby on a whim, without evaluation/etc. is something you are still accountable for in her view, but it would be qualified as autonomous action under the SM agency model. Depression, on the hand, you aren’t really responsible for the actions, but SM agency would say you are autonomous on these (possibly).
She equates accountability and autonomy. If you grant her this, then her criticism of the SM agency seem to follow through.
Authenticity and accountability come apart. Maybe there are three kinds of autonomy: authenticity, sovereignty, and accountability.
Sally. I like her. Many facts about her that count as reasons for why I like Sally. Buss would say the background conditions over which we have no control come into play. Certain facts just present themselves to us as reasons, and some don’t. We just have many dispositions (many of which we are unaware of). We passive with respect to “what things we take to be reasons” and how much reason-giving force any considerations has.
As long as you aren’t mentally disturbed so that those background conditions are no longer amenable to human flourishing, you are still autonomous.
Character is very broad. It is any disposition or force in your that is, by definition, moving you towards minimal human flourishing.
Being autonomous seems to be about being governed about something external to you (the definition of human flourishing). She then might say, “That is what you really are, a human – that is essential to you.”
Depression is a sickness, not a normal kind of human functioning, and that is why it is a accountability/autonomy defeater.
But, our problem might be: what if depression was normal, it would still be an autonomy defeater.
Are animals autonomous on this view?
Is there a superman problem?
Valdman
Noggle rejects the ab initio.
Prudential good is being considered, not the moral good. Mother Theresa led a morally good life, but not a prudentially good life.
PC knows you better than you know yourself. It seems to be prudentially better for you to cede your autonomy to PC. In the case of the arranged marriage, there is some loss in not having that decision, even if overall you are much better off overall (throughout your life, etc.) for having PC make that selection for you.
What if you have a closet full of identical red shirts, and you need to choose one, how do you select? It seems arbitrary. Is there any value in you choosing the shirt rather than a computer choosing it for you?
Living objection – Of course it is okay to outsource lots of your decisions, but if you outsources them all, then you would no longer be living your life. Someone is living your life for you.
The strength of influence of PC goes up and down – it varies too much. I think Valdman meant it in too weak a sense.
Gradual Conversion Argument
Imagine a DM (Deliberation Mechanism) leaves it hanging out of skull.
Sever it, make it wireless, and make it far away from you.
Silicon replacement
Then you soup up that silicon replacement.
You aren’t the real you when the replacement is made. There is a loss of personal identity, and thus a loss of prudential value.
No conversion objection: you can outsource to EC (cause they don’t give a shit about you), but not the PC, because the PC is just a smarter version of you, and in fact just you still.
Kant
What is Kant’s concept of autonomy?
Why is Kant’s autonomy relevant for morality?
The only good is the good will. Having the right motive. Acting from duty.
390, 2 components, 1) content: CI, 2) motive: duty
Goodwill is both.
Modern conceptions of autonomy
Self-Governing
Capacity
Goal
Right
What is bad/evil/wrong action? Is it irrational? Are you autonomous? Are you responsible for it?
Kant’s conception of Autonomy
Self-Legislation (431)
Capacity – 440, 447 – Capacity of the will, being a law unto itself. Descript property in some sense, describing a property we have. Also 5:33. A positive freedom, but also a negative freedom. You determine yourself.
6:417, you set down the law, you can always break it.
Self-legislation is different from self-governance. It is not the kind of new year’s resolution.
Legislation, you have a bill, oce the head of state, the bill becomes a law. The content of the law, and the bindingness or giving it authority, these are different. (1) Content (2)Bindingness. 6:277. Legislation is bindingness. You bind yourself to the law. Not that you come up with the content of the law.
Is the self an empirical self? No. What is it?
It isn’t something that you come up with. It is given to you by your own will??
Will vs. Choice
Will is pure practical reason
Choice, empirically knowing yourself through reason
The content of logic is given to you by your own reason. But you didn’t decide it. You are bound by the moral law because it is given to you by your own reason.
Self is pure reason.
Goal – 431-4, it is a command, CI
Right – 6:239, 6:417-419 - Condition of Possibility of Morality
??
Freedom for Kant, being an unmoved mover.
Telling a lie. Inclined to lie, Freedom, practical reason tells you to tell the truth. If you tell the truth, then you are the first cause of the action. Nature would have told you to tell the lie. Responsibility
External to introspection.
439, God doesn’t have autonomy?? He isn’t responsible.
What is the decider in deliberation? Isn’t it a kind of desire.
440-445
All possible moralities fail. Only autonomy can yield morality.
Morality is necessary and universal. (389)
The empirical can be external or internal, but it is contingent and thus not necessary or universal?
Empirical, pleasure and happiness.
-Desires
-actual agreement
-moral realism
If based on desires, and desires differ from person to person, (5:29), we can never expect desires to be directed at the same object, and a law based upon it would be contingent and you’d only get conditional prescriptions. You have to have a desire to conform to God.
Morality is necessary, but it is conditional upon reason/autonomous beings existing, but I take autonomous beings as being contingent, and if we make up reason, then isn’t reason contingent, and then isn’t morality contingent.
Ruled by moral law.
Oshana is wondering what “freedom” is…
Psychogical determinism
Phsyical determinism (regular determinism)
Fatalism
Compatibilist/INcompatibilism
Are we dice? Are we robots?
Summary:
Oshana argues that autonomy does not necessarily require libertarian freedom of will. She isn’t arguing against libertarianism; she thinks it just isn’t important to Autonomy. She refers to autonomy as being agnostic to the issue of determinism, which seems related to Mele. Autonomy, she thinks, requires both freedoms to take those actions which are vital to living one’s life and to reflect upon, choose, and change one’s values, motivations, and life.
Autonomy is not necessary for responsibility. Frankfurt’s notion of acting freely isn’t sufficient (although it may be necessary) for self-determination. Classic conceptions of positive and negative liberties, likewise, may be necessary, but aren’t sufficient for autonomy.
Thoughts:
I don’t know what to say. I’ve nothing directly to say about her argument. I don’t even share her starting intuitions on the topic, and so I’m not really able to put myself in her shoes. I could rehearse the libertarian intuitions here, as that’s exactly what I think counters her argument. This is the second time reading her paper, and I find it disappointing. Someone who argues that incompatibilism is irrelevant to the issues of autonomy and moral responsibility needs to provide me arguments and juice my intuitions about why compatibilism can make sense of autonomy and moral responsibility (even if her theory can ultimately remain agnostic), not why compatibilism doesn’t matter either.
Marina Oshana’s “Autonomy and Free Agency”
What kind of freedom (if any) does autonomy require?
That question, of course, is hard to answer without an analysis of autonomy and freedom. Let’s start with freedom.
Free Will
Determinism is the thesis that every state of the universe, including our intentional expressions of will, is causally necessitated by some prior state of the universe together with the laws of nature.
Now consider the following propositions:
a) All acts are determined.
b) If an act is determined, then one could not have done otherwise.
c) If one could never do otherwise, then one does not have free will.
d) At least some people have free will.
All four propositions cannot be true, yet they’re all plausible. Which one should we give up?
Incompatibilists believe that determinism and freedom are incompatible. They give up either (a) or (d).
Compatibilists give up (b), (c), or both, and they tend to be agnostic about (a). Some of them argue that even if determinism were true, one could still act otherwise in the sense that, had one desired to do otherwise, one would have done otherwise. And some of them argue, contra (c), that even if one could not have done otherwise, one could still be responsible for what one does.
Most who write about autonomy are compatibilists about free will. They think that compatibilist freedom is necessary but not sufficient for autonomy, and that such freedom is the only kind of freedom that an autonomous person needs.
Two models of autonomy
Might autonomy require a deeper kind of freedom? Might it require the kind that permits alternative possibilities – i.e. the ability to have chosen or to have acted otherwise even if your desires and the state of the world were held fixed?
Not on a mere authenticity model. On that model you’re autonomous insofar as you’re governed by your authentic self. That model, it seems, requires only that you act according to a certain subset of your desires. An ability to do otherwise, it seems, isn’t required.
Things may be different on an agent-government model. On that model agents have to be deciders – they have to choose for themselves how to live – and it’s hard to see how one could qualify as a genuine decider if one could never choose otherwise. The agent-government model, it seems, requires libertarian free will and not just compatibilist free will.
Oshana, I think, rejects the agent-government model and embraces the mere authenticity model. But she (annoyingly) tends to state her view in the language of agent-government. She says:
“A person is autonomous if he exercises control over the choices and actions relevant to the direction of her life.”
“An autonomous individual must not be affected by other persons, institutions, or natural circumstances in ways that render him incapable of self-control and of living a self-directed life.”
On her view autonomy requires self-control, but it’s a compatibilist form of self-control (I think). You exercise self-control, on her view, when your “self,” with respect to which you may be passive, determines your choices and actions.
She believes that freedom of the will and freedom of action require alternative possibilities, but that these are neither necessary nor sufficient for autonomy.
They’re not sufficient, she thinks, because they’re consistent with manipulation. The residents of Walden Two aren’t autonomous even though they seem to have both kinds of freedom. They could act otherwise and will otherwise (or at least we could grant that) but they lack control over the content of their wills and over the “configuration of social arrangements that make the realization of their wills possible.” They’re not free to choose their options even though they’re free to choose among their options. Freedom of will and freedom of action, she insists, don’t supply the self-control or the self-rule that autonomy demands.
Freedom of the will and freedom of action aren’t necessary for autonomy, she thinks, because one can act authentically even when one isn’t able to choose or do otherwise.
Oshana: In general, an inability to will otherwise is not indicative of a lack of autonomy. As far as freedom of the will is concerned, autonomy requires that what the agent wills must not suffer frustration emanating from the attempt of others to will for or through the agent or from obstacles originating in one’s psychophysiology.
As we’ve seen, however, the hard part of the compatibilist story is explaining which internal influences are “foreign” and which are “authentic,” and which external influences undermine an agent’s will and which do not. As far as I can tell, Oshana offers nothing on this front.
The Freedom to Make Oneself
One could conceive of the autonomous agent as someone who is directed entirely by her own lights, bound by no constraints other than those she imposes on herself.
But if that’s what it is to be an autonomous agent, Oshana argues, then it bears little resemblance to human beings. It ignores the social nature of persons and discounts the importance of interpersonal relationships. We cannot reconfigure our commitments and attachments at will.
But doesn’t the social nature of persons undermine authenticity? And, perhaps more importantly, is such self-creation even possible? Wouldn’t any attempt at a reconfiguration of the aforementioned sort be in vain?
Oshana appears to be trying to find a middle path between agent-government (i.e. self-creation) and mere authenticity, but I’m not sure there is one.
Berker’s Handout 1
Clifford: ““It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.”
What counts as insufficient evidence?
Clifford: “It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to form beliefs without seeking any readily available evidence that is relevant to them.”
What counts as readily available evidence?
Relevant to the beliefs/forming of beliefs, right?
Is this coin biased? How many times do I have to flip it to form a valid belief?
When acted upon, they directly lead to harm. [Even when true?]
Not always. The method may not maximize utility overall (averaging all circumstances, etc.), but I might find exceptions. Possible: The indirect claims are flawed if the direct claim is flawed.
Haack
Haack may be assuming a model of human flourishing, rather than other models ethics/morality (pg. 22). This is fine, but I think it brings a lot of baggage to the table. Flourishing has more components than merely “what is right or wrong, as it also contends with the human good, which isn’t always a moral matter. For example, a starving person isn’t fully partaking of the human good (isn’t achieving eudaimonia), but this may not be an issue of “should or ought,” as perhaps the starving person has no choice in the matter. My worry is that the non-moral components of a model of human flourishing may cloud the issue about the relationship between epistemic and moral normativity.
Further, this highlights a larger problem, namely that the relationship between the epistemic and the moral is complicated and defined by whichever approach or model of morality we assume. It would make it a lot easier if we could just choose one model, and work from there. Perhaps that is what Haack has in mind. Note that her teleological language might bridge to Clifford’s instrumental considerations.
In Haack’s second argument against the special-thesis, we are asked to deny that a “straightforward sense [of] voluntary” choice in coming to believe something prevents one from being responsible or culpable for coming to believe something. If one cannot be responsible for an action, then that action seems to be outside the scope of morality (assuming we aren’t compatibilists, etc.), and thus the epistemic appraisal would not be a subset of moral appraisal. Again, I would like to highlight just how many moral and metaethical assumptions have to be made in these critiques. A systematic view on this topic requires a lot of substantive material on both sides, the epistemic and the moral, before we can effectively attempt to bridge them.
The “in due course” rebuttal to the second argument against the special-thesis seems appropriate. It makes me think we should slow down in the epistemic side of the conversation, and to break down and chronologize the aspects and steps of belief and coming to believe. With that in hand, it would be much easier to sort out which (if any) components are also moral ones. We would still be left with many questions about the relationship between the epistemic and the moral, but clarity on these matters wouldn’t hurt.
It seems as if we are wondering whether or not the claim “a person is epistemically unjustified in a particular belief” is the same thing as saying that “a person should not have a particular belief.” Further, in what sense do we mean “a person should not have that belief?” If Haack’s criticism of the special-thesis, there is the sense of an “epistemic should” and a “moral should.” Perhaps one could be epistemically at fault, but not necessarily morally at fault, and epistemic appraisal is then separated from (and is not a subset of) moral appraisal to some extent. I think the hope of the critique is that that we can maintain two distinct kinds of normativity (or something like that), one being epistemic and the other moral.
I’m trying to think of an example where one is epistemically unjustified or epistemically “should not” believe in something, but holding that belief is morally acceptable or obligated. In the scenarios I’ve considered, it seems that the epistemic “should” is outweighed by or takes a backseat to other salient moral considerations, perhaps similar to the rebuttal of the first criticism of the special-thesis. Does anyone have a clear example which elucidates and compels me to agree to the third criticism?
The reinterpretation of the special-case seems, at first glance, fairly compelling. Haack’s criticism is that only some of the epistemic requirements are ethical, but not all. Those epistemic requirements which are overridden by other requirements are presumed not to be ethical. I still find that reinterpretation persuasive, and my response to Haack would be something like this:
The sense of “epistemic should not” doesn’t exist or isn’t relevant. I don’t see how the “epistemic should not” holds the normative weight that the criticism assumes it does. Epistemic justification is important insofar as it is a moral consideration, but there isn’t some kind of epistemic normativity outside of moral normativity. The simple and bare claim that a belief is epistemically unjustified is a morally neutral or decontextualized claim, it lacks normativity. All else being equal, or given no other moral considerations, I may agree that epistemic justification or lack thereof does bring with it a corresponding moral duty to believe or not to believe. But I don’t have to agree that epistemic justification has any independent, stand-alone normative force that the criticism pushes us towards.
Berker on James
“Whenever one faces a genuine option that is not settled by the evidence , one may (both in the sense that it is possible for one to, and in the sense that it is permitted for one to) decide based on one’s “passional nature” which hypothesis to believe.”
What does it mean “not settled?” Could one have more evidence for one of the other, but since it isn’t certain or definitive or sufficient, then it doesn’t matter? And, why should I think that?
Class – Clifford
Act Utility/Rule Utility is analogous jump for particular instance of epistemic judgment vs. a rule or method of epistemic judgment .
I have an obligation to myself as an autonomous, rational, epistemic agent to form beliefs on the basis of sufficient evidence (and never on insufficient evidence).
Difference between:
I believe it, but it is not true.
I believe it, but it may not be true. (Bayesian)
If you deny the 2nd, then you have infallible beliefs.
How close is the gap between belief and acton? One way to judge if someone has a belief, rather than a mere opinion, is whether or not they act on that belief (perhaps consistently and continually) in all situations. If they don’t have act on it in those cases, then we might be prone to say they don’t really believe it.
Bonjour
Case 1, Samantha the Clairvoyant – Why should we think that “Samantha is being thoroughly irrational and irresponsible in disregarding cogent evidence that the President is not in New York City on the basis of a clairvoyant power which she has no reason at all to think that she possesses?”
I’m not sure I really like the use of Claivoyance here. It brings with it too many connotations that we may have a hard time shaking off. Maybe that’s the point of the argument though.
A thermometer. Reliable indicator.
The analogy between epistemic normativity and moral normativity is fascinating. It seems to hold (at least on the surface) even if one agrees to what Haack refers to as the special-thesis.
Moral Justification (e.g. an action leads to the best overall consequences [p. 371]) vs. Epistemic Justification (a law-like connection between a person’s belief and the state of affairs that makes it true [p. 368]) – Neither is enough to say that one has chosen to act (Moral) or believe (Epistemic) rightly. Responsibility and duty, in each case of justification, requires a second clause. Namely, intent and belief in acting or believing rightly matters.
Bonjour offers us
Perhaps I have greatly misunderstood the Lottery Paradox (forgive me if I have). The Lottery Paradox doesn’t seem so obviously problematic to me. It may, in the end, actually demonstrate a problem somehow, but it doesn’t do it well, in my view. At the very least, the way in which Bonjour presents the Lottery Paradox seems unfair.
Let me reconstruct the Paradox as Bonjour presents it and (very briefly) try to evaluate whether it does the work Bonjour thinks it does.
Assume there is a fair lottery with 100 tickets sold. For each possible n, where n >= 1 and n <= 100, “Ticket number n will lose” has a .99 probability of being true. The probability there will be a winning ticket (from these 100) is 1.00, and the probability of any particular ticket winning is 0.01.
Further, if we assume that “a belief is adequately justified to satisfy the requirement for knowledge if the probability its truth, relative to its justification, is 0.99 or greater,” then for any particular n, believing “Ticket number n will lose” is adequately justified to satisfy the requirement for knowledge.
Bonjour’s critical assumption is this: If we are epistemically justified in believing the statement “Ticket number n1 will lose” and the statement “Ticket number n2 will lose,” then we are epistemically justified in believing the conjunction of these statements.
I believe this is essentially what Bonjour is claiming:
On the left side, we have a standard proposition logic substituting for the statements to their right.
A [Ticket number n1 will lose]
B [Ticket number n2 will lose]
A & B [Ticket number n1 will lose] & [Ticket number n2 will lose]
By exaggerating this through multiple conjunctions, an absurdity supposedly emerges. It is thought to look something like this:
A [Ticket number n1 will lose]
B [Ticket number n2 will lose]
C [Ticket number n3 will lose]
D [Ticket number n4 will lose]
.
.
.
A & B [Ticket number n1 will lose] & [Ticket number n2 will lose]
A & B & C [Ticket number n1 will lose] & [Ticket number n2 will lose] & [Ticket number n3 will lose]
.
.
.
The conjunction of the logical propositions is pretty basic. If 100 propositions are true [P1, P2, . . ., P100], then the conjunction of all 100 propositions, e.g. [P1 & P2 & . . . & P100], is also true. The idea of the Lottery Paradox is thought to be similar to propositional logic. The right hand process, seen above, is continued until we arrive at the following claim, which I will refer to as X:
X = [Ticket number n1 will lose] & [Ticket number n2 will lose] & . . . & [Ticket number n100 will lose]
What is X saying? X is the claim that Ticket numbers 1 through 100 will all be losing tickets. If one is epistemically justified in holding any particular [Ticket number n will lose], then Bonjour claims we are, on this account, epistemically justified in holding the conjunction of all particular [Ticket number n will lose]. Thus, we would be epistemically justified in holding X.
But, X is contradictory to the initial information about the game, namely, there is 1.00 probability that one of the 100 tickets will win. Given that fact about the game, X is both justified (through this conjunctive process) and unjustified given the contradiction. This is taken to be a serious problem for a probabilistic satisfaction of the requirements of knowledge.
I don’t, however, agree to what is happening here.
The mistake is thinking that logical inference is wholly analogous to the process of probabilistic inference. For example, at least in classical thought (set aside fuzzy logics, etc.), A is either true or false. There isn’t a degree in between. [Ticket number n1 will lose] is dealing in degrees and probability. Yes, it either true or false that [Ticket number n1 will lose], but the probability that it true or false isn’t binary, it comes in degrees, 0.99 in this case. Because of this, probabilistic inference doesn’t appear to inherit the kind truth functionality we see in logic. Forget the conjunctions, they are the wrong tools for this problem.
While I agree with these moves:
A a.k.a. “A is true”
B a.k.a. “B is true”
A & B a.k.a. “A is true, and B is true”
I can’t agree with these moves:
[Ticket number n1 will lose] This has a 0.99 probability, thus belief is epistemically justified
[Ticket number n2 will lose] This has a 0.99 probability, thus belief is epistemically justified
[Ticket number n1 will lose] & [Ticket number n2 will lose] This has a 0.99 probability, thus belief is epistemically justified
[Ticket number n1 will lose] & [Ticket number n2 will lose] does not have a 0.99 probability.
Note that at the last stage of the argument, we are doing math when infer that the probability of X is 0.00 – that’s how Bonjour could arrive at the contradiction in the first. But, I can infer the probability X, then why can’t I also infer the probability of [Ticket number n1 will lose] & [Ticket number n2 will lose], which is 0.98. Clearly, the conjunction of these two beliefs falls below the threshold of satisfaction required for knowledge. Surely, there is no contradiction or obvious absurdity that arises.
Granted, all this is not to say that logical inference (such conjunctions) have no meaning in a probabilistic account of knowledge. Logical inference is just awkward when working in a theory based on probabilistic satisfaction of the requirements of knowledge.
Class – Bonjour
Externalist about justification or about knowledge. Most have externalist theories of knowledge (rather than justification).
Evidentialist Externalist say that justification must consist entirely of mental states.
Basic Externalist – you do not have to have access to that which makes you justified, i.e. the justifiers. Rather, you have to be in the right relation to the external world.
The externalist is represented as a pretty strong view by Bonjour, namely regarding the law-like connection, between the fact represented by your belief and your belief itself. For example, I can judge there is a water bottle in front of me because it is externally justified as literally being there in front of me.
What Goldman says, you have to have true belief, and you have to have brought it about by a reliable process. Thermometer. Belief has to be true with a great probability.
Why be an externalist? The focus has, to some extent been on the regress problem, but also on others, such as the Animal and Children problem.
Animals and children problem. The way we use the word the word “know” with Dog, as in “the dog knows the bowl is in the corner.” It has a propositional attitude. That makes total sense to us. Similarly, even for quite small children, we say that “Susie knows that mommy is home.” We ascribe to both of these “knowledge.” We don’t normally think that these entities have justification available to them, at least not the kind of justification that the internalist requires.
The regress problem is a problem for internalism, and it isn’t supposed to be a problem from externalists. Others include: “how do you deal with stored knowledge?”
Internalism- it is a necessary condition for having knowledge or for having the right kind of justification for knowledge that you have access to that justification.
Regress-
Foundationalist answer: Non-inferential belief, or basic belief, or some belief that has intrinsic merit on its own. These might include a priori beliefs.
Coherentist answer – belief is justified because it fits into the best account of the web of beliefs. The Ptolemaic model eventually became, overall, not the most coherent system, when compared to the Copernican model. What coheres best with our overall set of beliefs?
Back to Basic beliefs, a Puzzle:
How do you know the watch in front of you is Silver? Don’t you already have to know what silver is and what it is like when objects look Silver? Don’t we have to have previous knowledge about this? This seems to be a worry for the foundationalist perspective. The externalist point seems to solve this problem (at first glance).
The clairvoyant’s ability to recognize that sensation, the ‘voyance,’ can only be justifiers once we have a number of concepts about that object of voyance. Mere sensations or intuitions, without knowing how to apply concepts, how do you know how to describe those sensations or intuitions? This is a worry for foundationalism. In order to play that foundational role, don’t you need something else to describe it?
Can Johnny the Clairvoyant who doesn’t know he is Clairvoyant claim to have knowledge? No. Does it he have knowledge, yes. He just can’t say he does.
The Duty/Utility mixup is bad.
There is a difference between saying Norman has knowledge (as we look down upon him), and saying that knowledge must be connected to action.
We must distinguish between:
Whether someone knows?
Whether they know that they know?
Whether they have the right to claim they know?
Whether someone should say they know?
Whether we should say they know?
Whether someone is being epistemically irresponsible?
To know something directly, you know it without inference. Basic beliefs, of externalism, are directly known. Internalism holds that we need direct access…?
As an internalist, you have to appeal to beliefs that you are conscious of or you formed in the past. You don’t remember those times in specific. You have to be able to explicitly lay out adequate justification, or itisn’t knowledge.
What about ordinary people’s knowledge? They can’t make it explicit. Do they not have knowledge?
Coherentist doesn’t need to be crazy about having everything so explicit.
Foley
Pascalian wager (direct) vs. Indirect pragmatic (moral) considerations
Indirect- how much research or consideration should we give in forming a belief? How important is that belief? Sandwich vs. Heart surgery – I should spend more time investigating one over the other.
Internalists need to be able to answer: How much investigation is required?
Getting out of the infinite regress:
We can claim that eventually we don’t have a justification, but it is okay. (I think of this as special justification, but then we have an incompleteness problem).
We can also see if our beliefs aren’t leading to practical problems for us. Justifying by saying, “it practically worked.”
Treat the method (of coming to believe something) as the ‘best explanation.’
I’m fine with keeping the standard of justification for knowledge very high. But, I don’t see why we can’t have fairly low standards for saying one merely has justified belief in certain contexts. A context in which I have to “tell you” what I believe, well, don’t I have an obligation to give you an idea of the strength of my justification.perhaps I might even be justified in a belief, but when asked about it, I might not respond with what I believe because I know that justification is so low that it doesn’t merit me communicating it to you.
Infintite regress – our minds are finite. It seems that we have to be justified witout access to that justification (not internalism), and some non-internal thing justifies it, and it is external.
Unjustified regress
Circular regress
??? something
Fumer?
Epistemic claims may be expressivist/emotivist/non-cognitivist. If so, there isn’t a normativity, right?
Schaeffer
Consider a brain in a vat that is consistently and systematically confused, but has every piece of evidence that we do. Is externalism somehow wrong? The brain in the vat seems to have the same kind of evidence (data), and so is this an internal justification, as clearly there is no external justification.
When I claim someone else has knowledge, it means that if I were in their shoes, I would certainly have the same belief.
Williams
5 features of belief
Beliefs aim at truth (what does that mean?)
Beliefs are basically assertions
Uh, beliefs are assertions of your belief being true?
Factual beliefs are based on evidence
Beliefs are explanatory?
The claim that “I believe that P, but P is not true” is not a technical contradiction, but it does seem paradoxical. Is that really a belief? Is that a emote, in which I “want P” even if it isn’t true. Or maybe, I continually find myself ‘acting as if P’ even though it isn’t true. Or, maybe it isn’t simultaneous, it is sometimes I believe P, and sometimes it is not true (and I don’t believe). Or, it may be just an unjustified belief that you know is unjustified.
Of course we can be insincere in our beliefs.
Hieroynmi
Dispositional sense of belief.
We have beliefs we don’t talk about. We recognize we have it dispositionally. There are other beliefs we don’t recognize that we have dispositionally.
E.g. – There is not a 3-inch purple monster on the table.
I’m not acting like there is a monster on the table. I’m not trying to look at it. I’m not acting surprised. My not having that belief shows up in my dispositions.
We have lots of pre-reflective beliefs (ready-to-hand).
Settiya
Can’t choose to be in a state, and belief is a ‘state.’
We act on beliefs. Focusing on assertions of beliefs seems to miss the point. Beliefs tend to respond to evidence.
Williams
Because belief is aimed at representing truth and reality, we form beliefs exclusively about what we take to be true, and thus we cannot take it to be true or choose to be true.
Internalism is sometimes linked to deontic standards. And, it seems that if you are a responsibility to have certain beliefs, we may need to assume that they are free to choose those beliefs.
Even if you wanted to believe X, you’d somehow need to already commit yourself to that the truth X before you could really get yourself to belief X. You don’t seem to get the essence of belief if you think of it as an action in your control.
Brower wants to develop this position:
Can the skeptic decide to belief? Can he really only ‘act as if’ the external world doesn’t exist, but really believe that there isn’t an external world? Or, is it by his systematic actions that he should be said to believe in the external world?
If a lab assistant says there is water in the flask, and I want my plants to look good, and I’m not sure enough about the claim that water is in the flask, can I choose whether or not to believe there is water it in, and that is part of why I don’t water the plants with the flask?
Internalist is right that we believe without thinking about it. However, when we are being serious about, can we pull back from the evidence and say “I’m not going to believe that?” We can agree that when we believe we are making a commitment.
You can’t control desires, but you can form intentions about what you will do.
Beliefs are a lot like desires. We don’t seem to have much direct control over them.
Ways to be in control of beliefs:
Skepticism, Wife adultery example, indirect control, and compatibilism.
Compatibilism – the beliefs that are rational and in some sense voluntary are those that are brought about in the appropriate way.
Alston doesn’t seem to refute the long-range control.
Foley and Kelly
Propositional attitudes, world to mind, might have a representational information state. We test to see if they are successful by seeing if the world really is the way they are represented. The other kind of information state might be a “goal directed” state, such as a desire. The way to be successful on these is to see if they have impact on the world, and adequately changes the world or the world ‘just is’ in a certain way (we can want things we can’t or don’t want changed) as the person meant.
Do practical considerations matter?
Standard Response – ways to bring beliefs about. “Turning the light on” in a bet about believing the light is on. Pascal’s wager, and indirectly bringing it about through practicing and acting as if, so as it condition.
Of course, we can have indirect control over our belief (turning on light example). Kelly makes a point about the basing relation.
Tony telling me that the Emancipation was signed in the 19th century is the basis of me coming to believe it. Not the fact that I told her that the Emancipation was signed in 1863. Nor would my own inference be that.
If A causes B, that does not mean that A is the basis for B. It has to be the right kind of causation.
There is an inferential basis available, and there is a testimonial basis.
Turning light off example. I can’t will myself to believe the light is on when it is actually off. But, when I turn the light off, and the light goes off, then I can believe. My throwing the switch is not the basis, however. We can manipulate our belief indirectly, but what directly caused me to believe that the light is off is not the flicking of the switch, but the perception (and the evidence) that the light is off.
The basis, on Kelly’s view, of belief is good ol’ fashioned epistemic justification.
Beliefs can’t be “based” on practical consideration on Kelly’s view.
Kelly – regret is had on a basis. The basis for regret cannot be something that would be a mere practical result of my having the regret. We can’t regret because we believe “it would be good to regret for this reason.” Regret is like belief in this regard.
Can one desire to like Eggplant at will? Do we have full, direct control over our desires?
Is there a direct desiderative voluntarism?
Intrinsic value vs. Extrinisic value.
Intrinsic value does not have instrumental value (usual thought). It has value in itself. Not only isn’t it an instrument to something, perhaps it doesn’t get its value from being a part of a valuable whole. ??
A priori argument: if nothing has intrinsic value, then nothing has value. You can’t beat the regress without some intrinsic value backing up that chain of instrumental values.
It seems hard to grant that anything has intrinsic value, other than intuition.
She should have said as a virtue theorist:
The good life is the reflective life. We should be rational, be aware, ponder the nature of things, asking questions, etc. In doing that, one comes to care not just being reliable (like an animal), but also knowing about being reliable (internalist justification). You want to be a reflective person that not only have a reliably formed knowledge, but also second order knowledge (knowing that we know something), and other reflective capacities, and being able to share knowledge with others in the community. We want to be able to get assurance in our testimonies. Eric and I can both participate in a community as reflective members of the community. Eric can trust me, is aware that I have knowledge, that I’m not merely a thermometer.
Is knowledge an epistemic goal?
Is is intrinisically valuable (or merely instrumentally valuable)?
It is valuable in every instance?
In what makes instrumental knowledge valuable a thing which is intrinsically or instrumentally valuable?
The Moral Realist’s Speech Act Thesis: Some moral discourse is assertoric.
This seems to be a defense of cognitivism. In at least some cases, moral claims are not mere expressions of attitudes, and they are not open to a non-cognitivist account, but rather at least some moral claims (many of, in fact), i.e. our speech acts of declaring moral claims, are true or false.
This is what my post was about, apparently. Be didn’t go far enough, and should have been more limiting in what counts as a satisfactory moral realist theory.
The Moral Realist’s Alethic Thesis: The contents of some predicative moral claims are true and, if the contents of such claims are true, then they are true in the realist sense.
Russellian proposition: an arrangements of things in the world.
“The dog is fat.”
There is a property of fatness. There is a dog. They are out there in the world. The proposition, “The dog is fat” is about the dog and the fatness being connected, literally, out there in the world. The proposition literally contains the objects in the world. The ‘truth-maker’ in this account ??
Otherwise, Propositions are a mode of a way the world might possibly be.
Truth-maker is separate from the proposition on this theory.
Correspondence theory of truth. Fact that corresponds to the proposition to make truth.
He rules out highly deflationary theories of truth. Such as, “to say that something is true is merely a redundancy,” e.g. Sentences that say “that is true” are like pronouns for the thing which they refer to as being true. Another deflationary theory would be (Quine’s): P is true, there is a hidden disquotation, they are just making a metalevel claim about some high level thing?? “P” is true iff P is true. “P” is true iff P. It is a device of disquoting. It functions in our ordinary language as a way of talking about what someone else said in a metalanguage. Truth isn’t a real property out there in the world, on these views.
The contents are really true in a realist sense, on Cuneo’s view. Moral language expresses something that is rich, and tells us that there are facts.
The Moral Realist’s Ontic Thesis: There are irreducible moral facts.
The behaviorism example is NOT about Skinner, etc.
“Eric believes there is water in the fountain” is reduced to a set of behaviors which indicate it, such as “if he wants water, he drinks at the fountain” – but, notice that “want” is psychological, and it can’t be described in behaviors, so we can’t reduce psychological events to non-psych events.
Nihilism – error theory
Expressivism –
Traditional views
-There isn’t even a minimal sense in which moral claims can be true. Full blown non-cognitivism
Non-Traditional Views
-Minimal - Quasi-realism, etc. there is some truth to moral discourse, but it is very -deflationary
-Maximal
Reductionism –
There are moral properties, but they are reduced to other values/properties.
Utility seems that way. X is right if it maximizes happiness…..
Platitudes in epistemology – what epistemic realism is…
(5) Does being autonomous require having the ability to do otherwise? Discuss.
First, it isn’t exactly clear to me what it means to “have the ability to do otherwise.” There are several conceptions of this. I think the major difference we’ll find in the exploration of this ability stems from assumptions of compatibilism and incompatibilism.
Compatibilism will often take the “ability to do otherwise” as something like “being able to do what you wanted to do if you had wanted to do something different.” As determinists, they would concede that “what you want to do” is determined. But, if the world had been otherwise (I take many facts to be contingent truths) and a person had been determined to want something else, a person with this ability would still do what he wanted to do.
Incompatibilist interpretations of that ability are going for something much stronger than the compatibilist’s view. The ability to do otherwise isn’t some counterfactual statement concerning contingent truths. The ability to do otherwise requires having actual alternative possibilities. Exactly how this should play out isn’t clear (and I don’t have the time or space to quickly cover so much conceptual territory). This has some weird problems. What if you only had one choice available? (Mind you, I can’t actually think of an example of such a thing.) Frankfurt’s demon is another example that seems to bring up the incompatibilist’s view of the ability to do otherwise. In any case, exactly what counts as this ability will depend on one’s metaphysics.
What both the incompatibilist and the compatibilist interpretation of “the ability to do otherwise” have in common would be at least a leaning toward the agent-government model. This is particularly awkward for compatibilist theories, but I think that is what many compatibilists really mean (they don’t use agent-government language for no reason!). Models which have more to do with authenticity and the structure of will really don’t need to talk about this ability.
Second, the answer is: Yes. Libertarian free will which actually provides you alternative possibilities is the only sort of autonomy worth having, and we must have autonomy if we are morally responsible (and I flat out beg the question of our responsibility – so take my argument as being transcendental). Exactly how this works, I don’t know. This ability is worth having, though. Without this ability, we would simply be determined, as far as I can tell. From an incompatibilist’s intuitions, that would make us nonresponsible (something I simply can’t accept).
Compatibilist notions of this ability are incoherent. Nothing special comes out of it. As far as I can tell, we are no better than robots. Yes, if a robot had been programmed/determined to do otherwise, then it would have done otherwise. But this isn’t the kind of “otherwise” or provision of alternative possibilities necessary for the autonomy which makes us morally responsible. This compatibilist ability isn’t autonomy at all, and even if you wanted to call it autonomy, it isn’t a kind of autonomy worth having.
(2) Does being autonomous have intrinsic value? Discuss.
What does it mean to have intrinsic value? This is not clear at all. I take intrinsic value to be a property of an object such that it is valuable “in itself” or “on its own” or “for its own sake” or something like that. That is far too broad and vague, though. I assume that something with intrinsic value is an end itself, and not merely instrumentally valuable for achieving some other end. Whether or not autonomy is intrinsically valuable also depends a great deal on your metaphysics, metaethics, and normative ethical theory of choice (I’m pointing out that I appreciate how this is a loaded, impossible question – which I think is necessary for a short essay format).
Some interpretations of Kant might take autonomy to be intrinsically valuable (although it isn’t clear to me that Sensen’s interpretation does, but his view is somewhat unique regarding Kantian theory not being moral realist in the Shafer-Landau “properties” sense). It is often taken to be the grounds upon which a person is an end in themselves.
Consequentialist interpretations might also take autonomy to be intrinsically valuable (as far as I can tell, one could arbitrarily assign value to anything on such a theory). Mill, for example, thought autonomy was intrinsically valuable. We might even take eudaimonia (a consequentialist element of virtue theory, arguably) as requiring autonomy, not just instrumentally, but constitutively.
You argue that autonomy doesn’t have intrinsic prudential value. You might be right. There are other kinds of intrinsic value, though.
As I said in class before, this issue of ceding one’s autonomy to another (higher) authority is an old, unsolved set of problems. The Abrahamic religions, in particular, have dealt with this problem for thousands of years. Their argument is very interesting. Many from those traditions would argue both (1) autonomy has intrinsic value and (2) ceding autonomy to God is morally required. They would say that having autonomy is what makes us valuable and important – that it is a gift from God. They would also agree that higher prudential good (for you as an individual and globally) is achieved by ceding that autonomy to God.
From what I can tell, and given my libertarian assumptions, autonomy does seem to have intrinsic value. In what sense, I’m not sure. It does seem to be the thing which sets us apart from rocks, trees, and robots.
Perhaps the reason autonomy is important is that it allows the “I” in me to exist (set aside regress worries for now). Without autonomy, in some sense, there is no “I.” Perhaps I would have desires, beliefs, and a body, but “I” wouldn’t be there. I’m some Humean heap of desires and beliefs, and nothing more.
My final answer: I’m not absolutely sure, but probably.
What are the major differences between Kantian conceptions of autonomy and modern conceptions? What role does autonomy play in Kant’s larger moral theory, and can that role be played by modern conceptions of autonomy? Discuss.
In terms of capacity, Kant vs. modern conceptions isn’t clear. Passive models, which generally employ authenticity or structure of the will, would have an odd sense of autonomy being a capacity. More active models seem to have a capacity which is similar to Kant’s conception. Modern incompatibilist theories might define this capacity as the ability to determine yourself or to do otherwise. Sensen does not interpret Kant as being a libertarian, others do. So, it depends on whose interpretation we are going with.
Kant’s autonomy is the capacity of the will, being a law unto itself. This capacity is a property we have. It is both a positive freedom and also a negative freedom. You determine yourself. You set down the law, and you can always break it.
Instead of being self-governing, autonomy is about being self-legislating on the Kantian view. Kantian self-legislation emphasizes law which is constitutive of reason. Autonomy, in this respect, shares more with passive models (in my opinion). People are just definitionally constituted by reason and autonomy (almost like a kind of coherentist model). Kantian autonomy emphasizes the bindingness of moral law.
You are also, in some sense, being an unmoved mover (although Sensen, again, does not take this in a libertarian sense – so, I have no idea what it means). Take telling a lie as an example. Naturally, we may be inclined to lie. Freedom and practical reason tell you to tell the truth. If you tell the truth, then you are the first cause of the action. Nature would have told you to tell the lie. You aren’t really free to choose between them. You are just free when you tell the truth. What counts as being “free” is really narrow on this view.
In terms of goal, modern conceptions would generally claim that autonomy is something worth protecting (from loss) and worth trying to gain back (if one has lost it, and assuming it is possible to gain back). In contrast, the goal of Kantian autonomy just is the command of the Categorical Imperative. You don’t choose the content of this goal. The content of moral law is defined by reason before you are even conscious of it. Analogously, the content of logic is given to you by your own reason. But you didn’t decide it. You are bound by the moral law because it is given to you by your own reason.
In terms of rights, some modern conceptions think of autonomy as a right of sovereignty. Otherwise, one might argue that we are afforded certain kinds of rights in virtue of being autonomous, such as being treated humanely, etc. According to Sensen’s interpretation, this isn’t Kant’s conception. I think a lot of Kant scholars would argue that Kant would see autonomy as a source of many human (actually, personhood) rights.
In terms of moral responsibility, both Kant and modern theories seem to be in agreement that moral obligation requires autonomy. At least on Sensen’s reading, Kant thinks that only his version of autonomy yields moral obligation, and that all other moral theories fail because their moral law would end up being contingent and non-universal. I swear I smell a whiff of compatibilism in the Sensen’s reading – being constituted by reason, etc. has a question-begging component to it that doesn’t sound like the freedom necessary to be morally responsible at all. That said, many Kantians read Kant as a libertarian (although that may be a mistake). The vast majority of modern conceptions of autonomy wouldn’t yield universal, necessary moral obligation in Kant’s view, so most conceptions really couldn’t play much of a role.
//Bruce Brower's class//
---
SKEPTICISM, PROBABILITY, LOGIC, AND THE LOTTERY PARADOX
1.1
One of the first renditions of the Lottery Paradox can be traced back to Henry Kyburg in his book Probability and the Logic of Rational Belief.1 It has sparked an enormous amount of literature surrounding the problem. In this paper, I will address a standard, modern version of the Lottery Paradox, describe some problems with it, and offer a version which is closer to Kyburg’s original to deal with these problems.
Before I get to the Lottery Paradox, I would like to first look at some background considerations which provide context and juice our intuitions about the nature of the Lottery Paradox. John Hawthorne offers a clever epistemology problem which motivates the Lottery Paradox. He begins with a story:
[Many] normal people of modest means will be willing, under normal circumstances, to judge that they know that they will not have enough money to go on an African safari in the near future. And under normal circumstances, their conversational partners will be willing to accept that judgment as correct.
However, were that person to announce that he knew he would not win a major prize in a lottery this year, we would be far less inclined to accept his judgment as true. We do not suppose that people know in advance of a lottery drawing whether they will win or lose. But what is going on here? The proposition that the person will not have enough money to go on an African safari this year entails that he will not win a major prize in a lottery. If the person knows the former, then isn't he at least in position to know the latter by performing a simple deduction?2
With that in mind, consider the following argument which formalizes Hawthorne’s story:
[1] S knows that S won’t have enough money to go on a safari this year.
[2] If S knows that S won’t have enough money to go on a safari this year, then S is in a position to know that S will not win a major prize in a lottery this year.
[3] Hence, S is in a position to know that S will not win a major prize in a lottery this year.3
THAT IS A FORMALIZATION OF HAWTHORNE’S STORY, BUT WHAT IS INVOLVED IN MOVING FROM ‘S KNOWS P’ TO ‘S IS IN A POSITION TO KNOW Q’? WHAT IS IT TO BE IN A POSITION TO KNOW?
As Hawthorne points out, many people are inclined to oppose [3]. In fact, it seems odd to even suggest that an agent knows he will not win the lottery, especially when he habitually buys lottery tickets. After all, if an agent “knew his ticket would lose, why would he have bought it?”4 Sure, it is exceedingly likely that S will not win a major prize in a lottery this year, but does this count as knowledge? There is always a chance, and we seem acutely aware of that fact. Perhaps knowledge requires such a high epistemic standard that something like [3] just isn’t plausible.5 Of course, this intuition which opposes [3], turns out to be problematic for the argument. For example, if we maintain [2], but deny [3] because of this problematic intuition, then we must deny [1]. It isn’t clear, however, that [1] is something we are really willing to sacrifice. Hawthorne is claiming that “S won’t have enough money to go on a safari this year” seems to be a sensible candidate for knowledge. Maybe he is right.
1.2
Hawthorne considers the possibility that this sort of problem can be extended to any number of areas of life. He explains that our ordinary propositions, such as “not having enough money to go on a safari this year,” are the everyday sorts of propositions we take ourselves to know.6 He further explains that for each ordinary proposition (or at least most of them) there is a corresponding lottery proposition which we do not take ourselves to know, such as winning the lottery, having one’s car stolen, or having a heart attack today, which will cause us to doubt that we know the matching ordinary proposition.7 And, while unnamed, there is also an entailment proposition, which connects the ordinary proposition P and lottery proposition Q, such that P Q. The general form of the argument goes:
Know(Ordinary Proposition) Assumed
~Know(Lottery Proposition) Assumed
Know(Ordinary Proposition) Know(Lottery Proposition) Assumed
Know(Lottery Proposition) Elim: 3, 1
⊥ ⊥ Intro: 4, 2
We must deny one of the assumptions to escape the reductio. As considered in the safari example, it may be argued that 2 and 3 are the propositions in which we are most confident, and so 1 has to go. But, at least on Hawthorne’s model, to deny all ordinary propositions may turn out to be the denial of an enormous number of common-sense, ordinary propositions we claim to know. A kind of skepticism emerges from this position.
Granting Hawthorne’s model, in order to avoid skepticism, we can maintain 1, and instead deny 2 or 3, which enables us to escape the reductio without sacrificing our knowledge of ordinary propositions. Denying 3, the entailment proposition, does not seem very appealing when we consider the web of inferences connected to each ordinary proposition. Hence, we may be motivated to deny 2, the claim that we do not know the lottery proposition. In effect, we may be driven to accept that we know lottery propositions. What does this entail?
1.3
Let us go back to the original example, where we will now deny the problematic intuition and simply accept [3]. How can we make sense of the claim: “S is in a position to know that S will not win a major prize in a lottery this year”? An adequate theory of knowledge would need to demonstrate that we can know propositions such as “S will not win a major prize in a lottery this year” at all. In some sense, this is tricky. We might think of knowledge as requiring that we form beliefs about things which are not merely probably true, but guaranteed to be true. Lottery events are events of chance and probability. We hesitate, as in the initial problematic intuition, to accept that we can know the outcome of an event with a probability less than 1. But, we may be driven to do so because of a possible problem of skepticism.
Avoiding the kind of skepticism posed by Hawthorne’s set of ordinary/lottery propositions is not the only reason to agree that we can know the outcome of probabilistic events. In fact, there are many circumstances in which we might think (or hope) an adequate theory of knowledge would explain that we could know some proposition if that proposition had a sufficiently high chance of being true. For example, science, a realm which many of us would like to think generates knowledge, is filled with conclusions which are highly likely to be true, but not certain. Probabilistic justifications or theories of knowledge, at first glance, are well positioned to make sense of these very sorts of worries.
We might think the best way out of many of these issues is to abandon our claims to knowledge (at least in many circumstances), and instead focus upon sufficient epistemic justification for rational acceptance. It seems plausible that many of our beliefs might be true, justified, and degettierized, but not to the point where we are inclined to think of these beliefs as knowledge.
As far as I can tell, we can go back through the Hawthorne examples and replace “know” and “knowledge” with “rationally accept” and “rationally acceptable belief,” and we still have the same kind of problems. I THINK THIS IS REALLY DEBATABLE, AND IT DEPENDS ON WHAT GOES INTO RATIONAL ACCEPTANCE, ESPECIALLY IF IT MEANS SOMETHING LIKE “RATIONALLY ACCEPT, FROM AN EPISTEMIC POINT OF VIEW,” WHICH MIGHT PERMIT THAT GIVEN THE RISKS/REWARDS, IT MAY STILL BE WORTHWHILE TO RATIONALLY ACT A CERTAIN WAY ON WHAT WE MAY CALL “AN OUTSIDE CHANCE.” AS YOU KNOW, THE RELATION BETWEEN EPISTEMIC JUSTIFICATION AND PRACTICAL RATIONALITY IS ONE OF THE ISSUES HERE. I AM SUGGESTING IT MAY BE EPISTEMICALLY RATIONAL TO ACCEPT P, RATIONALLY (EPISTEMIC) ACCEPTABLE TO ACCEPT THAT IT IS POSSIBLE THAT NOT P, AND PRACTIALLY RATIONAL TO ACT ON THE POSSIBILITY THAT NOT P. Analogously, the Lottery Paradox (which is coming up momentarily) can be formulated for both knowledge and rational acceptance.8 Instead of knowing, I will focus upon rational acceptance and justified belief (without aiming for knowledge). Intuitively, I think many skeptical attacks which defeat probabilistic models of the broad epistemic concept of rationally acceptable belief are likely to defeat probabilistic models of the narrow epistemic concept of knowledge because knowledge appears to be a subset of rationally acceptable belief.
At any rate, probabilistic rational acceptance looks promising on a number of fronts. Importantly, the kinds of probabilistic rules which define where one is justified in believing or rationally accepting a proposition is the exact kind of rule which the Lottery Paradox calls into question. Let us consider a fairly standard, modern version of the Lottery Paradox.
2.1
The Lottery Paradox tries to demonstrate that the following three epistemic principles (or their equivalents) are inconsistent:
A proposition φ is rationally acceptable if P(φ) > t, where P is a probability distribution over propositions and t is a threshold value close to 1.9
It is not rationally acceptable to believe in contradictions.
If each of the propositions φ and ψ are rationally acceptable, so is (φ & ψ).10
The first principle is known as the Sufficiency Thesis; it is a probabilistic acceptance principle. The third principle is known as the Conjunction Principle.11 Note that by mathematical induction, we can generalize the Conjunction Principle to any finite number of conjuncts.12 The inconsistency of these principles is demonstrated by the following thought experiment.
2.2
Suppose the three epistemic principles above, where t = .99. Suppose a fair lottery of 100 tickets, where the selection of each ticket is equiprobable, and exactly 1 ticket will be randomly selected as a winner.
Where n is the set of whole numbers 1 through 100, for each ticket, where the first ticket is T1, the second ticket is T2, … , and the hundredth ticket is T100, there is a corresponding proposition claiming ‘ticket Tn is a losing ticket’, where the first proposition K1 corresponds to T1, and so on.
By supposition, we know the proposition ~(K1 & K2 & … & K100). In other words, the proposition “there is a winning ticket” is rationally acceptable.
Since we know that each ticket is 1 ticket from a pool of 100, we know that for any Kn, P(Kn) = .99. Hence, by the Sufficiency Thesis, believing any particular Kn proposition is rationally acceptable.
Since K1 is rationally acceptable and K2 is rationally acceptable, by the Conjunction Principle, the proposition (K1 & K2) is rationally acceptable. Since we know each Kn is rationally acceptable, we can continue to employ the Conjunction Principle such that (K1 & K2 & K3) is rationally acceptable, and (K1 & K2 & K3 & K4) is rationally acceptable, and so on. Hence, by the repeated use of the Conjunction Principle, (K1 & K2 & … & K100) is rationally acceptable.
We arrive at the contradiction between (supposedly) rationally acceptable propositions ~(K1 & K2 & … & K100) and (K1 & K2 & … & K100). In other words, we assumed there was a winning ticket, ~(K1 & K2 & … & K100), and using our principles of rational acceptance, we deduced that there is no winning ticket, (K1 & K2 & … & K100). This violates the second principle.
2.3
I could stop here, but before I move on, I want to point out that many versions of the Lottery Paradox render the contradiction in terms of probability, presumably because it may be easier to see the problem in a more concrete way and because the point of the Lottery Paradox may be to attack probabilistic reasoning. The steps to do this are fairly straightforward.
Since we rationally accept ~(K1 & K2 & … & K100), and ~(K1 & K2 & … & K100) ↔ (P(~(K1 & K2 & … & K100)) = 1), then (P(~(K1 & K2 & … & K100)) = 1), the proposition that the probability of there being a winning ticket is 1, is rationally acceptable.
Since we rationally accept (K1 & K2 & … & K100), and (K1 & K2 & … & K100) ↔ (P((K1 & K2 & … & K100)) = 1) ↔ (P(~(K1 & K2 & … & K100)) = 0), then (P(~(K1 & K2 & … & K100)) = 0).
While not a formal, direct contradiction, (P(~(K1 & K2 & … & K100)) = 1) and (P(~(K1 & K2 & … & K100)) = 0) propose that the probability of there being a winning ticket is both 1 (guaranteed to occur) and 0 (guaranteed not to occur).
2.4
Clearly, the Lottery Paradox demonstrates that the three epistemic principles lead to contradictions, and thus the three epistemic principles are inconsistent. Importantly, the Lottery Paradox is intriguing because one can nicely scale up the number of tickets in the lottery to any finite number, such that n >= t, allowing us to always produce a thought experiment in which the probability that any “ticket n is a losing ticket” is rationally acceptable (according the Sufficiency Thesis).
In order to escape this inconsistency, we must jettison at least one epistemic principle. My gut instinct is to think the second and third principles are no-brainers; we should not be inclined to deny them. The first principle, the Sufficiency Thesis appears to be the principle we must jettison.
Assuming that any relevant probabilistic acceptance principle will be similar enough to the Sufficient Thesis, the Lottery Paradox might require us to jettison all relevant probabilistic acceptance principles. The Lottery Paradox may be a serious threat to any probabilistic justification theory of rationally acceptable belief. I can’t provide a treatment of that claim in this paper, but for the sake of argument, let us assume the Lottery Paradox defeats all probabilistic justifications of rationally acceptable belief, which a skeptic might assume.
We have good reasons to want a viable probabilistic rational acceptance rule. Many beliefs we want to think of as being rationally acceptable might turn out not be rationally acceptable otherwise. In addition, if the argument presented by a Hawthornian skeptic is correct, and we can’t justify belief in probabilistic propositions, such as lottery propositions, then many ordinary propositions (which may even be probabilistic propositions themselves) may not be justified either. How do we preserve the first epistemic principle?
Either the second or the third epistemic principle must be wrong. The second looks rock solid (surely an epistemic rule which embodies the principle of non-contradiction would have to be!). Those who wish to preserve the probabilistic acceptance principles most likely need to find a way to deny the Conjunction Principle. What are the costs of denying the Conjunction Principle?
At first glance, the Conjunction Principle looks to be a normal conjunction introduction rule. To deny conjunction introduction would probably have a domino weakening effect on the force of all the other logical connectives as well. So, the worry is that even if we can save the Sufficiency Thesis, the deductive strength of our inferences is weakened, and perhaps we lose truth-preservation as a property of our logic.
3.1
I believe we can gain insight into why we should deny the Conjunction Principle by inspecting the inferential moves we’ve made in the Lottery Paradox. In terms of propositional logic, the following inferential moves have to be successful:
K1 Assumption
K2 Assumption
(K1 & K2) & Intro: 1, 2
Upon first reading, it seems as if we cannot possibly deny this sort of inferential move. Our assumptions were rationally acceptable, and surely any deduction from rational assumptions must also be rationally acceptable.
Is this really what the probabilistic rationality theorist has in mind? Perhaps not. Instead, regarding the above Lottery Paradox, we are better served by evaluating the actual probabilities of the Lottery Paradox if we want to understand what probabilistic inferences are rationally acceptable.
Problem:
Let n denote the size (in terms of tickets) of a fair lottery with one winner. What are the odds that if you get m tickets that you will win?
Solution:
This is the formula which describes all finite lotteries, which someone who is explicitly employing the Sufficiency Thesis must turn to in order to evaluate the rational acceptability of the beliefs in the Lottery Paradox. That’s how we know P(K1) = .99. It is also the tool which helps us evaluate all the other probabilities, including conjunctions. So, instead of propositional logic, I think probabilistic rationality looks more like this:
P(K1) = .99 Mathematical Deduction
K1 is rationally acceptable From 1 and Sufficiency Thesis
P(K2) = .99 Mathematical Deduction
K2 is rationally acceptable From 3 and Sufficiency Thesis
P(K1 & K2) = .98 Mathematical Deduction
(K1 & K2) is not rationally acceptable From 5 and Sufficiency Thesis
The problem with our Conjunction Principle is that it seems to mislead us into thinking the logical inference is wholly analogous to the process of probabilistic inference. They are distinct. This discrepancy between probability and propositional logic raises some questions, such as: How does the probabilistic theory of rationality make sense of both kinds of reasoning? In this model, what is the role of logical conjunctions, or any logical connective for that matter? What are the odds that any given logical inference is true?
I submit that those who employ the standard, modern Lottery Paradox have failed to demonstrate the connection between logic and probability. We can construct what I will call a logical probability calculus, which shows the relationship between symbolic logic (using probabilistic propositions) and probability.
I THINK THIS IS A VERY INTERESTING MOVE, UNFORTUNATELY (DESPITE HAVING TAUGHT ELEMENTARY PROBABILITY THEORY LONG AGO), I AM JUST NOT FAMILIAR WITH HOW PEOPLE IN THIS AREA THINK ABOUT THE CONNECTION BETWEEN DEDUCTIVE LOGIC AND PROBABILITY, SO I CANNOT COMMENT ON WHETHER YOU ARE MAKING A MISTAKE HERE.
3.2
A logical probability calculus demonstrates how the probabilistic model can make sense of the conjunction of propositional logic, as well as all other connectives. So, let us assume the initial Lottery Paradox claims (and naming conventions) and the mathematical solution I’ve provided. So, for example, we know P(K1) = .99, P(K2) = .99, and P(K1 & K2) = (100 – 2)/100) = .98.13 These mathematical deductions will buy us some relevant probabilities of the other logical connectives with respect to K1 and K2. We can create a truth table which shows the relationship between all the logical connectives and probability. Let us assign variables to each row of the truth table of K1 and K2 (and add the semantics of the classical logical connectives). These variables will represent the probability of their row.
K1
K2
~K1
~K2
K1 & K2
K1 v K2
K1 K2
K1 ↔ K2
Probability of Row
True
True
False
False
True
True
True
True
C
True
False
False
True
False
True
False
False
D
False
True
True
False
False
True
True
False
E
False
False
True
True
False
False
True
True
F
Since we know that either row C, D, E, or F would obtain in the actual world, then C + D + E + F = 1. We know the following:
C + D + E + F = 1 Assumed
P(K1) = .99 Assumed
P(K2) = .99 Assumed
P(K1 & K2) = (100 – 2)/100) = .98 Assumed
P(K1) = C + D From Truth Table
C + D = .99 From 2 and 5
P(K2) = C + E From Truth Table
C + E = .99 From 3 and 7
P(~K1) = E + F From Truth Table
E + F = 1 – (C + D) From 1
E + F = 1 - .99 = .01 From 6 and 10
P(~K1) = .01 From 9 and 11
P(~K2) = D + F From Truth Table
D + F = 1 – (C + E) From 1
D + F = 1 – .99 = .01 From 7 and 14
P(~K2) = .01 From 13 and 15
P(K1 & K2) = C From Truth Table
C = .98 From 4 and 17
D = .99 – C From 6
D = .99 - .98 = .01 From 18 and 19
E = .99 – C From 8
E = .99 - .98 = .01 From 18 and 21
F = 1 – (C + D + E) From 1
F = 1 – (.98 + .01 + .01) = 0 From 18, 20, 22, and 23
P(K1 v K2) = C + D + E From Truth Table
P(K1 v K2) = .98 + .01 + .01 = 1 From 18, 20, 22, and 25
P(K1 K2) = C + E + F From Truth Table
P(K1 K2) = .98 + .01 + 0 = .99 From 18, 22, 24, and 27
P(K1 ↔ K2) = C + F From Truth Table
P(K1 ↔ K2) = .98 + 0 = .98 From 18, 24, and 29
Therefore, we know the following propositions are true:
P(K1) = .99 P(K2) = .99 P(~K1) = .01 P(~K2) = .01
P(K1 & K2) = .98 P(K1 v K2) = 1 P(K1 K2) = .99 P(K1 ↔ K2) = .98
3.3
First, these propositions are special. We know they have to be true. Because we know all the starting propositions of this argument have a probability of 1, and because we’ve exclusively employed truth-preserving inferences, we know that the each of the above propositions have a probability of 1. So, we might think of it as this: P(P(A) = .99) = 1, P(P(B) = .99) = 1, P(P(~A) = .01) = 1, and so on. In any case, even someone who is employing anything like the Sufficiency Thesis would agree to logical probability calculus. These logical moves might be infallible.
Second, these propositions demonstrate the probability of each logical connective given the probabilities of K1 and K2. This is a taste of the list of propositions from which the probabilistic justification theorist selects candidates for rational acceptance. By the Sufficiency Thesis, where t = .99, we can select K1, K2, (K1 v K2), and (K1 K2) as candidates for rational acceptance, whereas as we cannot for the others, ~K1, ~K2, (K1 & K2), and (K1 ↔ K2).
Note that in our example lottery, there is a logical probability calculus. It is much too long to put in this paper.14 The point is that we could at least make sense of questions we raised earlier about the discrepancy between probability and propositional logic. A logical probability calculus of the Lottery Paradox will not only demonstrate that P(~(K1 & K2 & … & K100)) = 0, but it will also provide us the probabilities of any of the logical connectives.
Third, while there are infallible logical inferences, even on probabilistic rational acceptance models, it is clear that logical inferences which deal in propositions which have a probability less than 1 are fallible. But, this isn’t really a problem, right? Truth-preservation holds where we expect it, and it doesn’t hold where we deal with probabilities less than 1.
4.1
I think the first set of epistemic principles was constructed too hastily. These principles lack the nuance we need to defend justified belief in probabilistic propositions. Let us restructure the Conjunction Principle so that we can make better sense of the Lottery Paradox.
We denote belief in φ as B[φ].
A proposition φ is rationally acceptable if P(φ) > t, where P is a probability distribution over propositions and t is a threshold value close to 1.
It is not rationally acceptable to believe in contradictions.
If B[φ] and B[ψ], then (B[φ] & B[ψ]).
If (B[φ] & … & B[ψ]), then B[φ & … & ψ].
The first and second rules are original principles. We’ve done away with the Conjunction Principle, and in its place, we have two new principles. The third principle is akin to your standard conjunction introduction rule in logic. As in, if it is the case that I believe A and if it is the case I believe B, then it is the case that I believe A and I believe B. By mathematical induction, we can generalize this rule to any finite number of conjuncts.
The fourth rule we will call the Belief Agglomeration Principle. It is an interesting rule which Kyburg himself considers in the original Lottery Paradox but which others seem to gloss over.15 Since I am not sure that any version of the fourth principle can be generalized for any finite number of conjuncts via mathematical induction, I’ve tried to describe it so that any conjunctive set of beliefs (B[φ] & … & B[ψ]), which we would receive from the third principle, can be converted into a single belief of the conjunction of all the propositions believed in the antecedent. Essentially, if it is the case that I believe A and I believe B, then I believe (A and B).
The difference between the third and fourth principles is subtle, but significant. The third principle has to be true, it is plain logic. The fourth principle, however, isn’t obviously true. Note that complex proposition (A & B) is distinct from the set of atomic propositions A and B. I might, for example, believe A, and I might also happen to then come to believe B, but that does not necessarily entail that I then believe the proposition (A & B).
With these new principles, let’s have another crack at the Lottery Paradox.
4.2
Suppose the four epistemic principles above, where t = .99. Suppose a fair lottery of 100 tickets, where the selection of each ticket is equiprobable, and exactly 1 ticket will be randomly selected as a winner.
Where n is the set of whole numbers 1 through 100, for each ticket, where the first ticket is T1, the second ticket is T2, … , and the hundredth ticket is T100, there is a corresponding proposition claiming ‘ticket Tn is a losing ticket’, where the first proposition K1 corresponds to T1, and so on. By supposition, ~(K1 & K2 & … & K100), so B[~(K1 & K2 & … & K100)].
Since we know that each ticket is 1 ticket from a pool of 100, for any Kn, P(Kn) = .99 is rationally acceptable, so for any Kn, B[P(Kn) = .99]. Since, B[K1] and B[K1], by the third principle, (B[K1] and B[K2]). Since for any Kn, B[P(Kn) = .99], we can continue to employ the third principle such that (B[K1] & B[K2] & B[K3]), and (B[K1] & B[K2] & B[K3] & B[K4]), and so on. Hence, by the repeated use of the third principle, (B[K1] & B[K2] & … & B[K100]).
Since (B[K1] & B[K2] & … & B[K100]), by the Belief Agglomeration Principle, B[K1 & K2 & … & K100].
We arrive at contradicting beliefs, B[(K1 & K2 & … & K100)] and B[~(K1 & K2 & … & K100)]. This is not allowed by the second principle.
4.3
Clearly, this version of the Lottery Paradox demonstrates the four epistemic principles are inconsistent. We must jettison at least one of them. Last time, it had to be the probabilistic acceptance rule because it was not appealing to jettison the other principles. This time, however, since we have split up the old Conjunction Principle to clarify the problem, we can see that while the third principle clearly can’t be jettisoned because it is logically necessary, the Belief Agglomeration Principle is a candidate for jettison.
So, which is it, do we throw away the Sufficiency Thesis or the Belief Agglomeration Principle? We’ve already considered some of the implications of denying principles like the Sufficiency Thesis. What about the Belief Agglomeration Principle, what is the cost of denying it?
By denying the Belief Agglomeration Principle, we never arrive at the contradiction. But, in trade, if we deny the possibility of agglomeration, we seem to have a messy heap of individual beliefs, but no way to relate those atomic propositions to form complex propositions. This would be intolerable, and so perhaps we may find the Lottery Paradox to be paradoxical for other reasons. Denying the Belief Agglomeration Principle, however, is not the same as denying agglomeration. If we deny the Belief Agglomeration Principle, how does agglomeration work?
Note that the third principle is necessary to describe states of affairs. It need not be something which I am consciously employing at all. It is just a fact of the matter. The Belief Agglomeration Principle seems to do a different kind of work. It is the kind of principle I must intentionally employ. Perhaps I say to myself, “well I believe A and I believe B, so I believe (A & B).”
This isn’t the kind of move which someone dedicated to employing the Sufficiency Thesis would make at all. Agglomeration isn’t that simple. When I believe A and I believe B, and I’m consciously thinking about the fact that I believe each, I may wish to agglomerate them such that not only (B[K1] and B[K2]), but also B[(K1 & K2)], which is a more complex and interesting belief to hold. Agglomeration is important to probabilistic rational acceptance, it just isn’t truth preserving on probabilistic propositions, and so I have to employ the Sufficiency Thesis on any agglomeration, including this one, to decide the rational acceptability of the resulting proposition.
So, when I hold (B[K1] and B[K2]), and I attempt to agglomerate this into B[(K1 & K2)], I first must consider if P(K1 & K2) > t. In this case, t = .99, and P(K1 & K2) = .98, as demonstrated by the logical probability calculus. Clearly, this particular agglomeration is not rationally acceptable.
The Belief Agglomeration Principle really doesn’t fit in with the Sufficiency Thesis, and it should be denied. We can see that an expansion of this agglomeration denial is exactly why we don’t reach a contradiction. You end with B[~(K1 & K2 & … & K100)] and (B[K1] & B[K2] & … & B[K100]), but these beliefs are not contradictions.
While the Lottery Paradox would turn out not to be fatal to the remaining three principles, the odd thing which falls out of denying the Belief Agglomeration Principle is the following: the Sufficiency Thesis allows an agent to rationally accept sets of propositions that cannot all be true at the same time. That is what the Lottery Paradox really shows.
5.1
The Lottery Paradox seems to be a serious threat to probabilistic rational acceptance, and thus a threat to scientific belief and perhaps even belief in Hawthorne’s ordinary propositions. Upon closer inspection, however, we can see that the Lottery Paradox doesn’t generate the contradictions we thought it did. Refining these epistemic principles, we come to see more clearly where some versions of the Lottery Paradox get it wrong. It isn’t as clear that the Lottery Paradox is a threat to probabilistic rational acceptance, but it does seem to pave the way for future worries about probabilistic rational acceptance in terms of believing propositions which can’t all be true at the same time.
Bibliography
Douven, Igor, and Timothy Williamson. 2006. "Generalizing the Lottery Paradox". The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science. 57, no. 4
Hawthorne, John. Knowledge and Lotteries. Oxford: Clarendon, 2004.
Kyburg, Henry Ely. Probability and the Logic of Rational Belief. Middletown, Conn: Wesleyan University Press, 1961.
Nelkin, Dana K. 2000. "The Lottery Paradox, Knowledge, and Rationality". The Philosophical Review. 109, no. 3
1 Kyburg, Henry Ely. Probability and the Logic of Rational Belief. Middletown, Conn: Wesleyan University Press, 1961: 197
2 Hawthorne, John. Knowledge and Lotteries. Oxford: Clarendon, 2004: 2
3Ibid., 2-3
4 Nelkin, Dana K. 2000. "The Lottery Paradox, Knowledge, and Rationality". The Philosophical Review. 109, no. 3: 373
5 To my eyes, [1] is actually harder to know than [3]. We could reconstruct Hawthorne’s argument so this wasn’t the case, but instead I will just set that matter aside.
6 Hawthorne, John. Knowledge and Lotteries. Oxford: Clarendon, 2004: 5
7 Ibid.
8 Nelkin, Dana K. 2000. "The Lottery Paradox, Knowledge, and Rationality". The Philosophical Review. 109, no. 3: 374-376
9 Douven, Igor, and Timothy Williamson. 2006. "Generalizing the Lottery Paradox". The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science. 57, no. 4: 755
10 Ibid., 755-756
11 Ibid.
12 Ibid.
13 It may be of interest to you that the reason P(K1 & K2) = .98, instead of P(K1) * P(K2) = .99 * .99 = .9801, is because we are dealing with the probability of dependent events rather than independent events.
14 The truth table alone would have 2^100 rows.
15 Kyburg, Henry Ely. Probability and the Logic of Rational Belief. Middletown, Conn: Wesleyan University Press, 1961
Kant begins by explaining the nature of the good will. He explains that only a good will is good and nothing else is absolutely good. Other things which might be desirable and good in certain circumstances aren’t necessarily and always good because they can be used for evil by an evil will. A good will is necessarily, unconditionally, and always good.1 A good will is not a means to another end, it is an end itself. He says it is “like a jewel” that will “shine by itself.”2 It is good in itself and by virtue of nothing else. He explains, “Usefulness or fruitlessness can neither add anything to this worth nor take anything away from it.”3 Its usefulness may be attractive, and help engage those who aren’t lack experience in the matter of considering the value of the good will. The good will has absolute worth. Interestingly, the good will need not “be the sole and complete good, but it must still be the highest good and the condition of every other” good, including “all demands for happiness.”4
Kant describes (very briefly) how reason is related to the good will. Reason is not for the sake of happiness, welfare, and preservation, but for the good will.5 Reason is a necessary precondition to having a good will. Reason exists to influence the will. The vocation of reason is the production of a good will.6 Only reason determines the good will (or is it the will entirely?).7
Shifting gears to the concept of duty (which explicates, contrasts, and highlights good will): we must act from, not merely in accordance with duty.8 If a maxim has moral content, then one has acted from duty. An action has moral worth only when it selected and motivated from duty (rather than inclination or any other kind of motivation). Pathological love, like other inclinations, cannot be commanded. We cannot be held responsible for inclinations, although we are held responsible for acting from inclinations. Practical love, in contrast to pathological love, can be commanded. Acting from duty can be commanded, and we can be held responsible for this.9
I’m way over my word limit here. The rest of the of the section deals with the actions of moral worth, the crossroads, the CI, the will, choice, maxims, etc. I have questions about this section and the metaphysics of morals section.
1 4:393
2 4:394
3 Ibid.
4 4:396
5 4:395
6 4:396
7 Ibid.
8 4:397
9 4:399
---
January 23: Duty
Groundwork Section I (pp. 4:393-405)
Metaphysics of Morals (pp. 6:218-228)
Groundwork Section I (pp. 4:393-405)
4:393, Only a good will is good. Other things which might be desirable and good in certain circumstances aren’t necessarily and always good because they can be used for evil by an evil will. A good will is necessarily, unconditionally, and always good. Why is the good will really better than happiness? Maybe if we are stuck with a choice between the good will and happiness (where we can have either one or the other), it is the right thing to choose the good will, but it is unclear that it is the good.
4:394, “Moderation in affects and passions, self-control, and calm reflection…seem to constitute a part of the inner worth of a person…”
4:394, A good will is not a means to another end, it is an end itself. “…like a jewel, it would still shine by itself.” It is good in itself and by virtue of nothing else. “Usefulness or fruitlessness can neither add anything to this worth nor take anything away from it.” Its usefulness may be attractive, and help engage those who aren’t lack experience in the matter of considering the value of the good will. The good will has absolute worth.
4:395, Reason is not for the sake of happiness, welfare, and preservation, but for the good will. ??
4:396, Reason is a necessary precondition to having a good will. Reason exists to influence the will. The vocation of reason is the production of a good will.
4:396, The good will need not “be the sole and complete good, but it must still be the highest good and the condition of every other” good, including “all demands for happiness.” Happiness is the second good, the second end, the second purpose of life, but it is conditional (unlike the good will).
4:396, Only reason determines the good will (or is it the will entirely?). Reason can be satisfied by determining the good will.
4:397, Duty helps explicate, contrast, and help shine forth the good will. We must act from, not merely in accordance with duty. What exactly is immediate inclination? The desire to preserve one’s life is an example. A man who preserves his own life without this immediate inclination has a maxim with moral content. If a maxim has moral content, then one has acted from duty. An action has moral worth only when it selected and motivated from duty (rather than inclination or any other kind of motivation).
4:399, Pathological love, like other inclinations, cannot be commanded. We cannot be held responsible for inclinations, although we are held responsible for acting from inclinations. Practical love, in contrast to pathological love, can be commanded. Acting from duty can be commanded, and we can be held responsible for this.
4:399-400, “an action from duty has its moral worth not in the purpose to be attained by it but in the maxim in accordance with which it is decided upon, and therefore does not depend upon the realization of the object of the action but merely upon the principle of volition in accordance with which the action is done without regard for any object of the faculty of desire.”
4:400, the Crossroads, the will must be determined by an a priori principle (CI) in order for an action to be said from duty. I want a diagram of the following: inclinations, will, reason, crossroad, CI, maxim, principle of volition, material principle.
4:400, “duty is the necessity of an action from respect from law”
4:400, “Only what is connected with my will merely as ground and never as effect, what does not serve my inclination but outweighs it or at least excludes it altogether from calculations in making a choice – hence the mere law for itself – can be an object of respect and so a command.” ??
4:400, Only the moral law (objectively) and pure respect for this practical law (subjectively), and maxim of complying with this law and from this law, can determine the will. ??
4:401, “nothing other than the respresentation of the law” in itself, which can of course occur only in a rational being, insofar as it and not the hoped-for effect is the determining ground of the will, can constitute the preeminent good we call moral” ??
4:402, “I ought never to act except in such a way that I could also will that my maxim should become a universal law.” We must ask ourselves if a maxim should be universalized, if we would be content with that.
Metaphysics of Morals (pp. 6:218-228)
6:211, The faculty of desire is the ability to cause the objects of one’s representations. ??
6:211, Kant explicates and relates pleasure, displeasure, feeling and dissected to desire.
6:212, Kant explicates practical pleasure, inactive delight. The “determination of the faculty of desire which is caused and therefore necessarily preceded by such pleasure is called desire in the narrow sense, habitual desire is called inclination.”
6:213-214, Choice. Wish. Will. This section is clearly important. I don’t fully understand it.
6:221, The CI either permits or forbids.
It seems to me that even permitted actions are actually part of list of possible, mutually exclusive set(s) of actions that are obligated.
6:224, Right and wrong with respect to conforming to duty or failing to conform.
6:225, “A rule that the agent himself makes his principle on subjective grounds is called his maxim.”
6:226, “Laws proceed from the will, maxims from choice.”
Nichols
Conceptual Rationalism –
Why should I think the psychopath is fully rational?
Why must there be so little space between reason and motivation in the Conceptual Rationalist view? That we should be motivated by reason is grounded in…reason. To not be motivated by reason is to not be reasonable. Further, even if we can’t make sense of it this way, can the Libertarian make sense of this problem?
We might claim the psychopath doesn’t make moral judgements, they simply know what others would would judge as moral.
Why should I care about what normal people think in these experiments? Why is platitudinous thinking so potent? Why should I care about folk conceptions of almost anything, especially about normativity?
Empirical Rationalism
I think part of the suggestion here is that the moral rationalist is positing some sort of large-scale moral agreement. Why must this be posited?
Distinction between Moral and conventional violations.
Affect-based accounts…a virtue theoretic approach might help make sense, and while not traditionally a moral rationalist theory, it seems possible that one could be formed.
Pg 300 is his positive account
Blair, Colledge, Murray, and Mitchell
“A process of classical conditioning results in these representations of moral transgressions becoming triggers for the mechanism. The appropriately developing child thus initially finds the pain of others’ aversive and then, through socialisation, thoughts of acts that cause pain to others aversive. It is thought that a failure in the conditioning process is the fundamental cause of the difficulty of the psychopathic individual to be socialised.” (492)
A test about psychopathic children’s ability to determine six basic emotional expressions (at given stages, with certain accuracies, weighted for IQ, and compared to a control group). Less sensitive to fear (especially) and sadness.
Perhaps there should be a distinction between knowledge we have about the external world and apodictic knowledge. Maybe Descartes’ standard of knowledge is simply too high. 2+2=4 is apodictic to me. That I am experiencing anything at all is apodictic to me. The claim that what I am experiencing corresponds to any real, physical objects independent of me is not apodictic. But, perhaps knowledge isn’t necessarily apodictic. This seems pretty fair. For example, a priori knowledge, like 2+2=4, may just be really special. Knowledge drawn from experience might be weaker, not apodictic, but still be knowledge..
Another approach might be to think that we could also have invisibly prefaced knowledge. Take the claim:
“There is a computer in front of me.”
Instead of saying that is what I know, perhaps what I really know is:
[If there is an external world, and I’ve not been deceived or hallucinating in any way, and my senses are operating correctly, etc., then] “there is a computer in front of me.”
I might not be terribly conscious of this or even articulate about it. But, that might be what knowledge is really like regarding things in the external world. This antecedent is a list of things I take for granted often, so much so that I may fail to recognize it or really think about it when I make claims to knowledge about the external world.
At any rate, even without correspondence or this conditional kind of knowledge, I can still make claims like:
“I perceive a computer in front of me.”
That I do know, apodictically at that. Exactly what I mean by a computer, what it means to be in front of me, etc. can be spelled out in terms of further explication what I’m perceiving without really attributing existence to the computer or even a physical space in front of me.
Why can’t we doubt our beliefs which count as knowledge? Can’t we suspend judgment, a kind of doubt, and rework and infer our way back to that judgment, and recognize that judgment as knowledge?
The isosceles triangle example reminds me of Universal Introduction.
Does the externalist have a decent answer to the Cartesian problem? Or, is it simply too coincidental that it just so happens to be the case that your supposed belief turned out to be true?
Even if the fact that sometimes judgments based upon our senses sometimes fail is not enough to show that any judgments are senses are not to be trusted, I still don’t know in which cases I judgments count as knowledge and which don’t.
(Admittedly, this is not an essay, but really a compilation of notes and questions.)
The good will is the only good thing without limitation. Other talents of the mind and character have limitations; they can be twisted to do evil things. Only the good will enables worthiness of happiness.1 Some qualities are instrumentally useful in enabling the good will, but they unconditional worth. Their value stems from the end they cause, the good will. “Moderation in affects and passions, self-control, and calm reflection” aren’t merely instrumental, but “constitute a part of the inner worth of a person.”2 .” Yet, these can be twisted for evil as well, and thus are conditionally good.
A good will is not good because it causes another end. Even a will which isn’t efficacious is still a good will.3 Only the good will have absolute worth (value!).4 Surely it can’t be merely the idea of a good will that is good. It must an instantiation – any particular good will is absolutely good.
I’m left wondering: Why can’t action, even while not out of respect for the moral law, have any moral worth? Yes, actions in general are conditional in value. But, why can’t value be contextual and particularistic? Also, does the good will admit of degrees? I asked this before, perhaps, regarding motivation. I feel as if I’ve either failed to understand the explanation or I’m unsatisfied with it.
Reason does not exist for our preservation, welfare, or happiness, but rather for the good will.5 Reason is certainly necessary for producing the good will.6 Is it sufficient? Reason can master our desires and other motivations, so perhaps it may be.7 Also, why should I think reason can master our desires?
Actions have no worth if they do not come from respect for the moral law. Actions are definitely conditional in their moral value. 8 Kant provides some famous examples (which continue through 398).
Sometimes it is only respect for the moral law which can motivate us to do an action.9 I need an example action? What sort of action couldn’t be described by the egoist’s motivation?
The concept of morality holds for all rational beings, not just humans.10 Why is the categorical imperative an apodictic law? It seems doubtable to me? Am I not rational? Yes, the CI is based upon pure reason, it is known a priori, and not be based upon experience or even by popular vote, but apodicticity is a very significant claim.11
Kant explains: “Only a rational being has the capacity to act in accordance with the representation of laws, that is, in accordance with principles, or has a will.”12 When reason does not infallibly determine the will, then such a being is necessitated.13 He continues, “The representation of an objective principle, insofar as it is necessitating for a will, is called a command (of reason), and the formula of the command is called an imperative.”14 Imperatives are ought for those being which are necessitated.15 No imperatives exist for the divine, holy, perfectly good will; they aren’t necessitated. Human wills, however, are necessitated.16 There are two kinds of imperatives: hypothetical and categorical. Hypothetical imperatives are practical, instrumental reasoning. Categorical imperative demonstrates what is “objectively necessary of itself, without reference to another end.”17 So the hypothetical imperative is about actions which are “good merely as a means to something else,” and categorical imperative is about actions represented as in themselves good, and “as necessary in a will in itself comforting to reason.”18
For the CI, is the action good in itself? I assume not. What then, it meant here? It seems like the action is instrumental, as it is a necessary means to an end, the end being having a good will. It isn’t good in itself, I assume, because it could be done not out of respect for the CI, or it is contingent in its efficaciousness, or it could be twisted, maybe.
I worry that what Kant’s sketching a better argument for something like moral rationalism than he is about the CI. That moral claims should be motivating in themselves and that they override any other sort of reasons seem to come from his argument. Only those moral propositions which are always true, necessarily true, are those which override all other reasons. Lots of moral theories could agree to that though, right?
Alright. I have more thoughts and questions, but I’m feel I’m way over my limit and that this should be sufficient.
1 4:393
2 4:393-394
3 4:394
4 Ibid.
5 4:395
6 4:396
7 4:411
8 4:397
9 4:407
10 4:408
11 4:409
12 4:412
13 4:412-413
14 4:413
15 Ibid.
16 4:414
17 Ibid.
18 Ibid.
---
January 30: Value
Groundwork Section I (pp. 4:393-397)
Groundwork Section II (pp. 4:405-414, 426, 437)
Critique of Practical Reason (pp. 5:57-67)
Groundwork Section I (pp. 4:393-397)
4:393, Good will is the only good thing without limitation. Other talents of the mind and character have limitations, they can be twisted to do evil things. Only the good will enables worthiness of happiness.
4:393-394, Some qualities are instrumentally useful in enabling the good will, but they unconditional worth. Their value stems from the end they cause, the good will. “Moderation in affects and passions, self-control, and calm reflection” aren’t merely instrumental, but “constitute a part of the inner worth of a person.” Yet, these can be twisted for evil as well, and thus are conditionally good.
Question: Why can’t action, even while not out of respect for the moral law, have any moral worth? Yes, actions in general are conditional in value. But, why can’t value be contextual and particularistic?
4:394, A good will is not good because it causes another end. Even a will which isn’t efficacious is still a good will (Korsgaard disagrees, maybe).
4:394, Only the good will have absolute worth (value!).
Question: Surely it can’t be merely the idea of a good will that is good. It must an instantiation – any particular good will is absolutely good. (Ha, no question mark)
Question: Does the good will admit of degrees? I asked this before, perhaps, regarding motivation. I feel as if I’ve either failed to understand the explanation or I’m unsatisfied with it.
4:395, Reason does not exist for our preservation, welfare, or happiness, but rather for the good will.
4:395, Question: What is practical use?
4:396, Question: Reason is certainly necessary for producing the good will. It is sufficient?
4:397, Actions have no worth if they do not come from respect for the moral law. Actions are definitely conditional in their moral value. Shopkeeper example.
Groundwork Section II (pp. 4:405-414, 426, 437)
4:405, Question: What does Kant mean by wisdom? It is a term of art in other contexts.
The natural dialectic is the “propensity to rationalize against those strict laws of duty.”
4:406, “refined self-love” is egoism, I assume.
4:407, Sometimes it is only respect for the moral law which can motivate us to do an action.
Question: I need an example action? What sort of action couldn’t be described by the egoist’s motivation?
4:408, the concept of morality holds for all rational beings, not just humans
4:408, Questions: Why is the categorical imperative an apodictic law? It seems doubtable to me? Am I not rational?
4:409, The CI is based upon pure reason, it is known a priori, and not be experience or even by popular vote.
4:411, Reason can master our desires and other motivations.
Question: Why should I think this is true?
4:412, “Only a rational being has the capacity to act in accordance with the representation of laws, that is, in accordance with principles, or has a will.”
4:412-413, When reason does not infallibly determine the will, then such a being is necessitated.
4:413, “The representation of an objective principle, insofar as it is necessitating for a will, is called a command (of reason), and the formula of the command is called an imperative.”
4:413, Imperatives are ought for those being which are necessitated.
4:414, No imperatives exist for the divine, holy, perfectly good will, which aren’t necessitated. Human wills, however, are necessitated, and thus there are imperatives for us.
4:414, There are 2 kinds of imperatives: hypothetical and categorical. Hypothetical imperatives is practical, instrumental reasoning. Categorical imperative demonstrates what is “objectively necessary of itself, without reference to another end.”
4:414, “All imperatives are formulae for the determination of action that is necessary in accordance with the principle of a will which is good in some way.”
4:414, So the hypothetical imperative is about actions which are “good merely as a means to something else,” and categorical imperative is about actions represented as in themselves good, and “as necessary in a will in itself comforting to reason.”
Question: For the CI, is the action good in itself? I assume not. What then, it meant here? It seems like the action is instrumental, as it is a necessary means to an end, the end being having a good will. It isn’t good in itself, I assume, because it could be done not out of respect for the CI, or it is contingent in its efficaciousness, or it could be twisted, maybe.
4:426, Kant really fucking hates the empirical world. =)
Question: I worry that what Kant’s sketching a better argument for something like moral rationalism than he is about the CI. That moral claims should be motivating in themselves and that they override any other sort of reasons seem to come from his argument. Only those moral propositions which are always true, necessarily true, are those which override all other reasons. Lots of moral theories could agree to that though, right?
4:437, “act in accordance with a maxim that can at the same time make itself a universal law”
Question: What does it mean to “provide access for the moral law?”
The will which is good is by definition not evil.
Question: What exactly is meant by a maxim (I’ve heard many definitions)?
Question: Is the CI objective? Does it have a metaphysical existence? Does reason? Is Kant begging the question on these?
Critique of Practical Reason (pp. 5:57-67)
5:58, “The only objects of a practical reason are therefore those of the good and the evil.”
5:60, Distinguishes good and evil from well-being and ill-being.
5:62, Well-being is empirical, conditional, etc.
5:63, “the concept of good an evil must not be determined before the moral law…but only…after it and by means of it”
5:66, Perfect (forbidden/obligated) and imperfect (permitted) duties.
To be clear: Would Kant agree that a Psychopath (a) possesses reason, and (b) is a moral agent, despite lacking emotional, empathic motivations?
6:399-400
If I don’t feel the pull of rationality, if I don’t immediately see that it should override my other reasons, am I irrational?
Kennett, ‘Autism, Empathy & Moral Agency’
Kennett considers whether empirical research points toward Humean or Kantian perspectives on moral agency.
345
“basis for morality” or “an explanation of many cases we consider to be moral ones?”
Empathy is important to us as agents, but is it necessary for moral agency? Kennett thinks not.
Lacking empathy doesn’t mean one can’t be a moral agent. Autistic people are “capable of compensating for this deficit and becoming conscientious, though often clumsy, moral agents.”
Kennett focuses upon high-function autistic children, Asperberger’s, for example.
346
Triad of deficits are relevant to the sentimentalist, Humean capacity.
348-349
Autistic and psychopathic individuals have these sorts of deficits in common. Treating people as instruments (rather than ends in themselves). Psychopaths, unlike autistics, can actually predict and read other people, and so the autistic person may even lack empathy even moreso than the psychopath it seems.
Are autism and psychopathy really so parallel in this case?
The social handicap of the autism prevents them from deceiving others, and it shields them from corruption and from taking on mean human dispositions (jealous, lying, cheating, etc.). This moral innocence isn’t moral character or agency though.
350
Lacking emotion may actually help us to attain a kind of moral purity that couldn’t be achieved otherwise. (Virtue ethicists come charging in!!!)
352
Sinclair example. He realizes he should do something! Through rationality, he deduced that the other’s distress is a reason for action. Famous Kant passage on “little sympathy.”
354
The difference between autistics and psychopaths is that the autistic is capable of deep moral concern (although not empathy), while the psychopath is not capable. Moral reasons just aren’t motivating for the psychopath.
355
The psychopath fails to grasp or form any conception of his or other’s ends (pretty Kantian here). That’s why he can be indifferent to others, and that is also why he is an illogical egoist (lulz, if any egoist could really be logical).
357
Hume’s emphasis on emotion and empathy makes practical sense. It doesn’t, however, describe what is required for moral agency, even if it can be instrumental in being or becoming a moral agent.
McGeer, ‘Varieties of Moral Agency: Lessons from Autism’
227
Hume vs. Kant [Reason] (deducing the right thing to do and “channeling our ‘affective forces’”)
228
Why should we think empirical research tells us what comprises moral agency? It may juice our intuitions, but I fear we shouldn’t think empirical research solves the problem by itself. We might be making assumptions we shouldn’t.
229
Disagrees that reason is the core of moral motive, and rather we’ve simply focused too much upon empathy instead of the broader range of emotions which do form the core of moral motive.
Tributaries of affectively laden concern: (1) concern for others, (2) concern with social position and structure, (3) concern with “cosmic” structure and position. These tributaries of concern push the Humean perspective, I assume.
230
Walks us through the noteworthy features of psychopathy we’ve already studied. Nice summation.
231
“this work on psychopaths seems to support the view that the capacity for moral thought and action is strongly dependent on our affec-tive natures and in particular the capacity to respond empathetically to others’ affective states, to experience a vicarious emotional response to how they affectively experience the world, and especially to feel some distress at their distress and suffering”
Why should I agree? Why the “capacity” instead of the “likelihood”? They might still have the capacity (via reason, e.g.), but generally don’t exercise it and aren’t likely to exercise it. We might hold them “less responsible for it,” but that doesn’t necessarily mean they lack the capacity. Although, to be fair, McGreer is agreeing with Kennett that psychopaths aren’t moral agents. That isn’t obvious to me at all though. Kant can actually explain why psychopaths do count as moral agents, and neither author makes a move to explain this away.
238
Broad generalization of Kennett: Anyone who does not revere reason is not a moral agent
Narrow Interpretation of McGreer: reason plays a particular kind of compensating role, filling in the gaps produced by lacking empathy.
239
False-belief tasks. Autistics suck at them.
Highly intelligent autistics “hack” out a way to decode the puzzle of other minds.
240
In many cases, it seems as though Autistics seek order (and sometimes morality) simply out of self-preservation, for the sake of having rules and regulation to make life livable, and not out of moral feelings and for the sake of the moral law.
244
Not convinced that Autistics have a “core moral motive”
246
Affect must play a critical role in agency.
247-248
Human beings are moral beings because of our affective natures.
251
“All forms of human agency are rooted in affect. We are the kind of moral beings we are because we have powerful emotional reactions to certain kinds of events or situations; namely, events or situations that touch upon various disinterested concerns. Furthermore, in all human beings there are three distinct varieties of disinterested concern, rooted, I suggest, in distinct cognitive-affective systems: (1) a concern for the well-being of others, (2) a concern with social structure and social position, and (3) a concern with cosmic structure and cosmic position. Given these concerns, various events or situations will provoke different kinds of emotional responses, priming us to take different kinds of action…these different spheres of concern can lead to emotional responses that pull in different, sometimes even conflicting directions. How we resolve such conflicts may well depend on which kind of concern is most dominant in us.”
“Moderately different varieties of moral agency can emerge as a consequence of how these three spheres of disinterested concern develop and interact in a given person, varying according to individual differences as well as under the sway of different cultural influences”
252
“My proposal is that what makes autistic moral agency distinctively human is that, just as with typically developing individuals, these three spheres of disinterested concern are operative in individuals with autism”
254
Psychopaths are impaired, the three spheres of disinterested concern aren’t operating in them, which flattens their affective world and calls into question their moral agency.
5.1 – Reasons, Reverence, and Value
260
Kennett challenges McGreer, saying McGreeg douts that reason could itself be motivating (in the Kantian sense).
Reverence for reason is not a single motive, but a disposition to seek and respond to normative consideration, parallel to McGreer’s recharacterization of Empathy.
5.2 – The Will to Conform
God, Stanford experiment, no idea.
Social aspect/sphere of morality is necessary for understanding morality?
5.3 – Autism, Morality, and Empathy
274
“Autism raises the following paradox:
(a) Humean view: Empathy is the only source of morality.
(b) People who have no empathy should have no morality.
(c) People with autism show a lack of empathy.
(d) People with autism show a sense of morality.
To solve this paradox, McGeer refutes premise (a) and its consequence (b). She concludes that empathy is not a necessary condition for morality.”
Egocentric/Allocentric distinction. No idea where we are going.
5.4 – The Makings of a moral Sensibility: Replies to Commentaries
Stroud – Chapter 2
Descartes may simply be distorting or redefining the requirements of knowledge. Stroud denies that the “physician example” is really parallel to Descartes’ use of the word ‘knowledge’.
How are claims about knowledge or about the meaning of the word ‘knowledge’ themselves to supported or known?
Stroud claims that Austin implicitly agrees to there being a procedure which allows us to distinguish dreaming from waking experience, and that such a procedure (and its accuracy) are guaranteed just by the meaning of words “waking” and “dreaming,” else we couldn’t sensibly use them.
It seems possible that our everyday life and science claims are compatible, in some sense, with the claim that we don’t know anything about the world around us.
We might be justified in saying we know (or we promise) even when it turns out we were mistaken (or that we couldn’t follow through on our promise).
There seems to be an ordinary, everyday conception of knowledge and a philosophic, rigorous conception of knowledge (the latter being open to skepticism).
John-Party Example (guy doesn’t show up, we said we knew he would…should we be called out on it? Seems inappropriate). Something fishy (pg 55) is going on here. Doesn’t it seem odd to say, “my believing or claiming what I did is beyond criticism” but I didn’t know? Isn’t the claim of knowledge something which is so strong that if you are wrong, then you are open to criticism?
Outrageousness and inappropriateness seems to be about rudeness, not about the fact of the matter.
Knowledge seems to be either be absolute, certain, and indubitable…or it seems to become conventional and mushy.
Why is the John-Party Host’s denial of my knowledge outrageous? Socially, not what we usually do. Fine. Outrageous in that sense. Is knowledge about convention? In some ways maybe – it seems to do with trusting others in a social/conventional context. But facts are facts, and they seem to be at the heart of most definitions of knowledge.
If one has properly justified belief that a proposition is true, a belief which definitely counts as knowledge, in what respects, if at all, is it possible for that proposition to be false? Certainly we can have knowledge of necessary truths, for example, 2+2=4. Can we have knowledge of contingent truths? I think we really want to agree to it. For example, I take it be a contingent truth that I am perceiving a computer in front of me (let’s assume it is a contingent truth), and I also think I know that I am perceiving a computer a front of me. The fact that I am perceiving the computer isn’t necessarily true, but it turns out to be true. There are other kinds of possibility, however, which we wish to preclude from knowledge.
I fear my comment is too obvious, basic, or fundamentally a bad one. I’ll stick my neck out anyways. I think Stroud forces me to ask a question:
What is the difference between ‘having knowledge’ and ‘being in a position to appropriately or justifiably assert that one knows?’
First, it isn’t obvious to me that there is a difference (that may show how little I understand). Intuitively, they seem to be the same.
If there is a difference, my first instinct is to say that ‘assertions’ are a kind of social interaction, and there are additional rules which govern when and where assertions can be appropriately and justifiably made. For example, at my grandfather’s funeral, it would be outrageous, inappropriate, and, in some ethical/social sense, unjustifiable for me to assert out loud that “I know my grandfather was an asshole and that I know I am glad he is dead.” In this case, I really might ‘have knowledge,’ but I’m not in a position to justifiably assert that I have knowledge. I fear this misses the point, however, as there seems to be a difference between the purely social/conventional reasons which prevent me from being justified in asserting knowledge on the one hand, and the sort of epistemically-based social/conventional reasons, on the other hand, which instead actually do justify my assertion of knowledge.
Going for an epistemic distinction, it seems that ‘having knowledge’ must precede ‘being in a position to appropriately or justifiably assert that one knows.’ Only when I have knowledge can I justifiably assert that I have it. Surely I must be aware that I have knowledge in a justified way. One can’t have knowledge without being aware that it is knowledge, right? Further, I can’t merely believe I have knowledge and accidentally be right about having knowledge (as opposed to belief which is justified in some lesser degree). It seems as though: If ‘you know X,’ must you know that ‘you know X?’ This seems to be related to the “closed under deduction” issue we brought up last class. Further, how do you know that ‘you know X?’ I feel the pressure of a regress argument.
(I don’t know.)
Kaplan – Austin’s Way With Skepticism
Austin – Other Minds
The CI “holds as an apodictically practical principle.”1 Why should this be the case? Apodicticity is an extraordinary epistemic standard. Kant knew this. For something to be apodictic, it must be indubitable, plain, obvious, and it must jump out at you, screaming its necessity. Yes, the apodictic really must shine forth like a jewel. The CI doesn’t clearly jump out or shine; the CI is doubted all the time by most folks. Clearly, Kant knows this. What then, does it mean to be apodoctic in this sense? I know he’s pushing for necessity and absoluteness. Fine. But, is he begging the question here by implanting the apodicticity of the CI within the very definition of rationality? Maybe.
On a different topic, a maxim is our subjective principle (rather than a law, which is universal), but I don’t know what that really entails at the end of the day. What is the structure of a maxim? I always thought it was something like this: [act, principle, purpose]. I’m not sure. One would hope that we could walk away with an obvious and clear understanding of how to decide what we are obligated and permitted to do. One would hope the very process of testing a maxim in the CI should be crystal clear, and the contradictions which apparently arise should be obvious, particularly if we are going to call them apodictic. It really isn’t so clear to me. For example, the kinds of contradictions (particularly in conception or will) worry me. A contradiction is a very significant claim. One should be able to demonstrate it in explicitly logic, else we should be very slow to say it is a contradiction. I don’t see it in Kant’s various examples.
1 4:415
---
February 6: The Categorical Imperative
Groundwork Section II (pp. 4:412-424)
Critique of Practical Reason (pp. 5:19-33)
Scanlon: How I am not a Kantian. [on blackboard]
Groundwork Section II (pp. 4:412-424)
…see previous notes through 4:414
4:415, The CI “holds as an apodictically practical principle.” Why should this be the case? Apodicticity is an extraordinary epistemic standard. For something to be apodictic, it must be indubitable, plain, obvious, and it must jump out at you. It really must shine forth like a jewel amongst the other propositions of the world. The CI is doubted all the time by most folks. Clearly, Kant knows this. What then, does it mean to be apodoctic in this sense? I know he’s pushing for necessity and absoluteness. Fine. But, is he begging the question here by implanting the apodicticity of the CI within the very definition of rationality? I think so.
4:415, All rational creatures seek happiness as an end.
4:416, Prudence is a skill, a means to one’s well-being.
4:420, The CI is the only practical all, all other imperatives are merely principle of the will (instead of laws), as they rest upon contingent truths.
4:421, “act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law”
4:422, an example application of the CI, the maxim/principle of self-love…
What is the structure of a maxim? I always thought it was like this:
{Act, principle, end,....all the other consideration} = Maxim, our subjective principle
[act, principle, purpose]
[means, end]
[kill himself, self-love, ….?]
The Maxim contradicts itself, and thus fails to pass the CI test. It is not so clear to me how it contradicts itself. Show me the contradiction – this should border on apodicticity, right?
Example of the Borrower, another contradiction arises. I don’t see it. A contradiction is a very significant claim. One should be able to demonstrate it in logic, explicitly, else we should be very slow to say it is a contradiction. This is important enough that it DOES need to be translated into propositional logic.
Example of the naturally talented man
That these “contradictions” exist really might just be “embedding” moral norms into the very concept of rationality itself.
Critique of Practical Reason (pp. 5:19-33)
5:19, maxims are subjective principles, only hold for an individual’s will, but are not laws, as laws are universal and hold for the will of all rational people
Which maxims can be universalized seems arbitrary to me.
5:20, describes the CI as objective. Why should I think it is objective?
Scanlon: How I am not a Kantian.
Scanlan answers to my about the nature of contradiction, pg 118. Problems though: what if I particularize the circumstance in the maxim? So, don’t lie, except in these very particular situations…It seems like we could avoid these contradictions on such particular maxims.
Show me why lying is always impermissible. My intuition is that it is irrational to agree to such a proposition.
Contradictions in conception, will.
Why should I think all people who are generally considered rational would agree to employ the CI, are capable of employing the CI, and would arrive at the same conclusions after employing the CI?
Roskies – Are ethical judgments intrinsically motivational?
Roskies claims to provide counterexamples to “belief internalism” (the claim that moral beliefs are intrinsically motivating) which puts the belief internalist betweem the horns of a dilemma, between having such a weak version of the theory that it is philosophically uninteresting or empirically false.
Counterexample: (VM) Ventromedial Cortex injury patients who have normal moral beliefs and make moral judgments, but are not inclined to act in accordance with those beliefs and thoughts.
Not being inclined at all is different from not being inclined to some degree. Perhaps they are inclined, just not enough so to, in the end, be motivated. The pull of moral reasons might still exist, it just might be a very weak pull.
Internalist: Necessity (not necessitation), intrinsicness, and specificity (Roskies does not require this though).
Why must the internalist make modal claims regarding the “necessary truths” of ethics? Contingency and Necessity are powerful. It isn’t clear that an internalist really must say this (although, there are internalists who do). – pg 52
“PI: If an agent believes that it is right toin circumstances C, then either he is motivated toin Cor he is practically irrational. (Smith, 1993, p. 61)”
Not specific enough, it can always be satisfied. Fails to tell us what it means to be practically rational.
SO?
Brain damaged means they aren’t functioning, by definition, as we expect. They aren’t rational in their lack of motivation. That’s what it means by be irrational in this respect.
“UN1: Usually/normally, if an agent believes that it is right toin circumstances C, then he is motivated to in C.”
Statistics are odd. 51/49% enough?
“If an agent believes that it is right toin circumstances C, then he is motivated toin C.”
Substantive internalist claim
Why should I agree that UN3 is not philosophically interesting?
Internalism and the Evidence from Psychopaths and “Acquired Sociopaths” -Jeanette Kennett and Cordelia Fine
Rational people should find moral truths to be motivating. How? I don’t know. They may have to deduce it, and by reason be motivated. Maybe it is part of understanding the truth in the first place. I don’t know.
While McDowell bills himself as a cognitivist, from my reading, I think he’s offering non-cognitivist arguments (particularly in virtue theory).
There is a difference between reporting a moral norm and actually making a moral judgment.
5 dimensions of moral judgment. 3rd personal, 2nd, 1st, armchair, and in situ
Can EVR (the single-case study of Roskie) translate between these dimensions? So, 1st, are they really making moral judgments? And, 2nd, is the deficit really moral motivation?
EVR did 3rd personal moral reasoning, but could EVR really do 1st?
VM didn’t seem to be failing to be ethical (apparently), with failed marriages, lack of planning, etc. (I disagree – I think morality is more than merely respecting the rights of others, but also about cultivating yourself). VM, further didn’t lack moral motivation, but rather efficacious decision making skills.
Affective responsiveness to Ethically charged situations: (1) The situations where VM’s failed to show SCRs were not ethically charged, (2) SCR’s might not be a reliable indicator of motivation for action.
4.1 – Roskies response
Kennett and Fines’ internalism is too weak, and isn’t a real internalist thesis.
4.3 – Kennett and Fine
Can empirical evidence decide anything on the internalist/externalist debate?
Nadelhoffer
Ground up approach to generating a moral theory.
Folk morality abstracted, systematized, conceptualized, clarified, and harmonized into a philosophical moral theory. Then, such a theory must be justified (and not just upon our intuitions).
What happens when we have different intuitions? Why should we even trust our intuitions at all? What exactly are intuitions? There seem to be a range of possibilities and even a spectrum of things that might be classified as intuitions.
What happens if our intuitions are reducible to something similar to desires and inclinations, which are contingent, changing, subjective, and not the sort of foundation upon which one would normally want to build or test an objective moral theory upon, from, or against?
Pit competing intuitions to ferret out what’s right and wrong, and why.
Ross argues for self-evidence. Prima facie rightness…but, sometimes my intuitions change! After reflection, my gut instinct becomes something different.
For the trolley problems, who cares what “most” people think? Most people may be wrong!
Intuitionism hits an epistemic, explanatory regress of intuitions justifying other intuitions.
Foundationalism- but what’s the difference between mere intuitions and foundational intuitions which are just “self-evident.” Name me some self-evident intuitions.
Unger’s deflationary argument; $100 shoes ruined to save a drowning child (obligated) vs. $100 to UNICEF (not obligated). Differences being salient and distortional features demonstrate that our intuitions are unequal and perhaps even poisoned.
Haidt, our immediate, unreflective moral intuitions are more influential than moral reasoning in our moral psychology. The source of moral judgments…non-cognitive, non-inferential, spontaneous, affective!
Ross
A statement is certain only when it is “self-evident” (although, it need not be immediate, with enough maturity and thought, we come to see that something might be self evident) or validly deduced from what is self-evident.
This whole notion of self evidence has a long history in epistemology. Those epistemic problems must be addressed.
He has a very high standard of knowledge –certainty w/deduction from foundational certainty. Foundationalism need not be this, mind you. Our moral judgments about particular moral duties aren’t certain, they don’t count as knowledge.
Moral judgements hold the same epistemic weight/status as aesthetic judgments, on Ross’s view.
Probabilistic justifications of moral belief (which can never be knowledge) is the best we can do. How does he know this?
I happen to be okay with foundationalism, but I’m not convinced that the foundation needs to be outright apodictic. Some of the foundation might be doubtable, but none-the-less still count as the ultimate justifying underpinnings to the propositions deduced from it. Apodictic foundations won’t get you very far.
```
Stroud
Moore’s proof of the existence of external objects begs the question against the skeptic. It seems to be an empirical proof, at first glance.
Malcolm and Ambrose don’t think it is an empirical proof.
Malcolm – there is no contradiction to be had by asserting there is a hand, an external object, in front of you. Correct language is at the core of this version of the proof.
Ambrose – The claim ‘no one knows external things exist” cannot be falsified, is thus not an empirical assertion, and thus the skeptic is arguing for the logical impossibility of knowledge. Also a language issue; Moore is recommending one way of using language and the skeptic another.
Recommends a “familiar usage of language” and rejects or resists the “skeptic’s radical recommendation”
Moore thinks it is empirical
I know X.
If Skepticism is true, then I could not know X.
X
S->~X
~~X
~S
Proof by contradiction, reduction
Transcendental argument??
I know the pencil exists.
If Hume’s principles, then ~(I know the pencil exists)
Nobody can know that something he has not directly apprehended exists unless he knows that something he has directly apprehended is a sign of its existence.
Nobody can know that one thing is a sign of another unless he has directly apprehended things of both kinds.
No one can know of the existence of material things only if material things cannot be directly apprehended.
Both agree to this conditional:
Know(Skeptical Principles) -> ~Know(pencil)
K(s) -> ~K(p)
We have to either assume K(s), and then derive ~K(p), or we can assume K(p) and derive ~K(s).
Do we know ‘s’ or ‘p’ (or neither)? We can’t know them both at the same time. One way of thinking about it, Moore’s, is to consider which one we are more certain about, ‘s’ or ‘p’.
How does this relate to Descartes’ condition? for any particular proposition p about the external world, I know that p only if I know that I am not dreaming that p.
For all p, (K(p) <->K(~D(p))
K(p
Know(p) <-> Know(~Dreaming(p))
Know(p)->Know(~Dreaming(p)) & Know(~Dreaming(p))->Know(p)
Know(p) <-> ~Know(s)
At first glance, I found Moore's argument to be ridiculous. It seemed to be missing the point. I assume most of us had that reaction. After Stroud's examination, I have more sympathy for the argument.
Moore thinks both he and the skeptic agree to the following conditional:
If I know external-world skepticism principles, then I don’t know a particular external object actually exists.
Clearly, both can’t be true at the same time. I can know one or the other (or neither), but not both.
Well, how do we figure out which one we know? Whichever belief is more certain, that belief is the one which counts as knowledge, while the other is ruled out.
The skeptic just so happens to be more certain of the external-world skepticism principles than of the existence of any particular external object. Moore seems to be more certain of the existence of a particular external object than any external-world skepticism principles.
There seems to be a kind of stalemate here. Both are valid arguments starting with the same conditional. It is merely coincidental that the skeptic and Moore disagree about what is more certain to them.
In this light, Moore’s argument seems more elegant, even if it may not work.
s = Skeptical Principles
p = This pencil objectively exists, externally of me
Know() = I know that...
We seem to agree to this claim:
K(s) -> ~K(p)
which is equivalent to:
K(p) -> ~K(s)
so, either K(p) or K(s), but not both.
```
We’ve briefly discussed this before, but I think it is worth mentioning again, particularly since Kant is so explicit about the topic in our reading: if the CI holds for all rational beings (persons), and if we must treat rational beings as ends in themselves, then I think the Kantian must seek out definitive evidence about whether or not other non-human animals are rational and not merely ruled by instinct (as a top priority). I don’t think any non-human animal generally receives the sort of treatment that Kant expects rational beings to receive. If we were to one day find out that some non-human animal species were rational enough to qualify as rational beings on the Kantian view, then we would likely be guilty of not treating them as ends. It seems to me that this issue calls for Kantians to carefully consider whether anything (AI) or being which may be rational. What should we do if we don’t know and what should we do if we have doubts? Should we cast a hedge of protection around such beings, artificially assuming they are rational just in case we might possibly find out later that they are in fact rational? It is akin to the concept of ‘innocent until proven guilty otherwise’ – a being is rational until proven otherwise, else we may make grave errors.
Also, on a related topic, I wonder how Kant views very young humans, including unborn humans. In particular, it seems like Kant has a hard time demonstrating why these are persons with rights associated with persons.
What is the relationship between “a person as an end” and “the Good?” Does personhood compete with the “good will” in terms of moral status? It shouldn’t, I assume, but I don’t see how it doesn’t. What does it mean to serve “merely as a means?” By “merely” he is pointing out that we can use ourselves or other people as a means to another end, but only when we also regard them as an end, right? This needs to be explained pretty explicitly, I think. So, for example, how does a Kantian understand recreational, non-procreative sex? How does Kant explain war or prison? It seems like there are a lot of cases where people might be regarded as a means but not an end which are favored by intuitions.
---
February 13: Respect for Persons
Groundwork Section II (pp. 4:425-431)
Metaphysics of Morals (pp. 6:239, 380-386; 395 417-420; 434-6; 449f.; 462f.)
Korsgaard: Kant’s Formula of Humanity
Groundwork Section II (pp. 4:425-431)
We’ve briefly discussed this before, but I think it is worth mentioning again, particularly since Kant is so explicit about the topic in our reading: if the CI holds for all rational beings (persons), and if we must treat rational beings as ends in themselves, then I think the Kantian must seek out definitive evidence about whether or not other non-human animals are rational and not merely ruled by instinct (as a top priority). I don’t think any non-human animal generally receives the sort of treatment that Kant expects rational beings to receive. If we were to one day find out that some non-human animal species were rational enough to qualify as rational beings on the Kantian view, then we would likely be guilty of not treating them as ends. It seems to me that this issue calls for Kantians to carefully consider whether anything (AI) or being which may be rational. What should we do if we don’t know and what should we do if we have doubts? Should we cast a hedge of protection around such beings, artificially assuming they are rational just in case we might possibly find out later that they are in fact rational? It is akin to the concept of ‘innocent until proven guilty otherwise’ – a being is rational until proven otherwise, else we may make grave errors.
Also, on a related topic, I wonder how Kant views very young humans, including unborn humans.
What is the relationship between “a person is an end” and “the Good?” Does personhood compete with the “good will” in terms of moral status? (It shouldn’t, I assume, but I don’t see how it doesn’t.)
Let me preface this by saying that I believe I’m sympathetic to the goals in this passage, I’m just not sure how it works in the end. What does it mean to serve “merely as a means?” By “merely” he is pointing out that we can use ourselves or other people as a means to another end, but only when we also regard them as an end, right? This needs to be explained pretty explicitly, I think. So, for example, how does a Kantian understand recreational, non-procreative sex? How does Kant explain war or prison? It seems like there are a lot of cases where people might be regarded as a means but not an end which seem relevant to society.
Metaphysics of Morals (pp. 6:239, 380-386; 395 417-420; 434-6; 449f.; 462f.)
Korsgaard: Kant’s Formula of Humanity
“humanity is the appropriate material for a rational principle, just as universality is its appropriate form.”
In “The Pyrrhonian Problematic,” Markus Lammenranta elucidates various approaches or versions of the Pyrrhonian Problematic. He considers three interpretations of it. He argues that the first two interpretations are not problematic at all, as they do not ordinarily and on a wide-scale “induce suspension of belief,” but that the last interpretation actually does pose a significant skeptical challenge to modern philosophers.<<ref "1">>
The first interpretation points to the impossibility of finite beings having justified beliefs via the regress problem found in the five modes of Agrippa.<<ref "2">> The second interpretation, what Lammenranta calls the “Practical Problem,” claims that because all opposing arguments are equipollent (have equal force or merit), one can’t decide which arguments should be believed, and thus one should suspend all beliefs.<<ref "3">> The third interpretation, the “Dialectical Problem,” stems from the worry that we cannot resolve disagreements in the dialectic without resorting to question begging, a practice which he considers to be normatively and/or rationally unacceptable, and thus the dialectic becomes at least unsatisfactory if not outright impotent.<<ref "4">>
I can’t hope to provide my thoughts on Lammenranta’s arguments concerning each of these interpretations in the space I have, so I will concentrate on the first interpretation. I’m going to explicate Lammenranta’s argument, offer questions of various steps along the way, and consider whether or not he is right in thinking that the regress problem fails to pose a serious skeptical challenge because it does not ordinarily induce wide-scale suspension of belief.
Naively, the broad version of the skeptical problem goes:
# If we are not justified in believing anything, then we should suspend our beliefs and not believe anything.<<ref "5">>
# We are not justified in believing anything.
# Thus, we should suspend our beliefs and not believe anything.
Before we can even get to why one would agree to the controversial second premise, and essentially before the nuts and bolts of this argument (which support the premises) can be pieced together, we should be worried already about the overall goal and nature of the argument. Obviously, this broad argument is self-refuting, as by the conclusion, the propositions themselves are not to be believed. Our initial inclination may be to dismiss any attempt to make this broad argument in virtue of the self-refutation alone.
Instead of dumping the argument entirely, Lammenranta points out that this is part of the dialectic strategy of the Pyrrhonian skeptics, who merely employ the argument using propositions and arguments that we, the dogmatists, are willing to accept. Supposedly, this dialectical move does not pose a problem for the skeptic, but does pose a problem or paradox for the dogmatist who may be willing to accept the premises and the form of the argument, but not the conclusion.
Does the dialectical move really not pose a problem for the skeptic? If so, does it matter? Is the regress problem possibly like a “ladder that we throw away once we have climbed up it?”<<ref "6">> This self-refuting move reminds me of standard, introductory interpretations and criticisms of relativism. Admittedly, I don’t see why one would engage in the dialectic at all as a skeptic, and yet perpetual inquiry does seem to be at the heart of Pyrrhonianism. What reasons or justified beliefs could they give for inquiry and engaging in the dialectic? I don’t know.
Further, even when we might be inclined to suspend all of our beliefs, it may be part of the ordinary human condition that we form and hold beliefs. In this case, the skeptic may argue that we sit in a cycle whereby we toggle between the suspension of beliefs and the formation of beliefs. Perhaps the skeptic is in the business of building, climbing up, and disposing of ladders. As Lammenranta points out, even if we are caught in some skeptical cycle, it would be plenty destabilizing to our beliefs and a serious epistemic challenge.
Perhaps these concerns don’t really matter, as ultimately the dogmatist should be most worried about whether or not the argument is really challenging his own view, without considering how it impacts or works for the skeptic. If the skeptic is right, it doesn’t really matter how it works for the skeptic, does it?
Even if we don’t agree or accept this broader argument, we can at least hope to gain some insight into which theories of justified belief are in a better position to explain the force of this skeptical argument and perhaps where it goes wrong. Since the form of the broad argument is valid, let us set aside the self-refutation issue and focus upon the premises. Why should we agree to the first premise?
One should only hold a belief which is justified. It isn’t clear exactly how we should understand “should” here. Is it an ethical obligation, an epistemic obligation, or both?<<ref "7">> For example, maybe we have an epistemic duty not to hold an unjustified belief, but ethically we do. I don’t know. Admittedly, several interpretations of this premise are very compelling. Unjustified beliefs seem arbitrary, unuseful, and both practically and theoretically unacceptable. This premise may not get as much attention or support as it deserves, and that’s probably because we have strong intuitions which favor it.
In support of the second premise of the broad argument, the Pyrrhonian skeptic employs the narrower regress problem. Lammenranta explains:
# In order to be justified in believing something, one must believe it on the basis of good reasons.
# Good reasons must themselves be justified beliefs.
# Therefore, in order to be justified in believing something, one must believe it on the basis of an infinite number of good reasons.
# No human being can have an infinite number of good reasons.
# Therefore, it is humanly impossible to have justified beliefs.<<ref "8">>
This regress argument provides compelling support for the second premise of the broader skeptical argument. Defeating the regress argument is important, and many theories try to resolve the problem. Coherentists do not need to agree to the third premise, agreeing to infinitism because beliefs and reasons are justified through a finite circularity. Foundationalists deny the first premise because the chain of justification ultimately boils down to basic beliefs which don’t themselves require further justification. Lammenranta claims that epistemic contextualists can deny the second premise because “the chain of good reasons can terminate in beliefs that are not themselves justified.”<<ref "9">> Of these three approaches, the contextualist’s denial remains the only confusing one to me. Lammenranta’s explanation of why the contextualist can deny the second premise seems to be just the outright denial of the second premise.
Perhaps I just don’t understand contextualism.<<ref "10">> Contextualism doesn’t exactly seem to be a theory of justified belief in quite the same way as coherentism and foundationalism, but rather a theory of semantics and the use of language in attributing knowledge. In this theory, claims to knowledge are true or false based upon the context in which they are uttered. So, while the proposition “X knows p” in context S1 may be true, the same claim may be false in context S2.
The contextualist’s response to this problem of skepticism seems to be that within the context of skepticism, which has very high epistemic standards, all (or most all) propositions “X knows p” are indeed false. However, in other contexts which don’t have such high epistemic standards, which may be most contexts, propositions of the sort “X knows p” can be true.
Beliefs are justified in virtue of the context in which they are considered. I don’t think the contextualist is claiming that in all contexts the second premise should be denied, unlike the denial of the first premise by the foundationalist or the third premise/conclusion by the coherentist. In the context of skepticism, premise two seems acceptable, and thus the regress may hold, and thus the broader argument may also hold. The contextualist avoids skepticism in most contexts by embracing skepticism only in the context of skepticism and disregarding it in other contexts. The second premise seems to be denied only most of the time, but not always. Generally, good reasons are not justified by other beliefs but rather by the context.
In any case, these theories address the regress by denying premises which allow them to deny what Lammenranta calls infinitism. He believes it is the skeptic’s job to show why infinitism (regarding this chain of justification) is plausible at all.
In our ordinary “practice of giving and asking for reasons,” we find that justification is finite. It isn’t appropriate or normal to continue asking ad infinitum “Why?” and “What justifies that belief?” in the everyday sort of language game.<<ref "11">> The skeptic, however, is convinced that we should continue asking for justification, even when ordinarily we don’t. Hence, the skeptic pushes for infinitism. Lammenranta also considers the possibility that a skeptic may find infinitism true even in the case of foundationalism.
Lammenranta concludes that because the skeptic isn’t adhering to ordinary practices of giving and asking for reasons, and because our usual justificational practice isn’t concerned with the skeptic’s standards at all, we should not take seriously the skeptic’s inappropriately high epistemic requirements. Essentially, at least from Lammenranta’s perspective, the Pyrrhonian regress problem should not induce wide-scale suspension of belief because our ordinary epistemic practices aren’t concerned with the skeptic’s inquiry.
I don’t know if he is right about this. Just because the regress problem does not ordinarily induce wide-scale suspension of belief does not clearly demonstrate that it isn’t a serious skeptical challenge. Why isn’t a serious challenge for a philosopher, which the regress problem seems to be if the various possible solutions (e.g. foundationalism) don’t work, not also a serious challenge for ordinary folks? Also, just because skeptical arguments don’t, as an empirical fact, actually cause us to suspend all our beliefs doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t suspend all our beliefs. What we ‘should do’ and what we ‘actually do’ are different, and I think the skeptic is pointing out what we should do, while Lammenranta is pointing toward what we actually do. Perhaps Lammenranta is ultimately, although not explicitly, employing a contextualist sort of argument.
------
<<footnotes "1" "Markus Lammenranta, 'The Pyrrhonian Problematic,' in //The Oxford Handbook of Skepticism//, ed. John Greco (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008): 9-10">>
<<footnotes "2" "Ibid. 10">>
<<footnotes "3" "Ibid. 13">>
<<footnotes "4" "Ibid. 18">>
<<footnotes "5" "Ibid. 10">>
<<footnotes "6" "Ibid. 11">>
<<footnotes "7" "We need to consider how those pieces fit together as well.">>
<<footnotes "8" "Ibid. 11">>
<<footnotes "9" "Ibid. 11-12">>
<<footnotes "10" "Be patient and lenient with me, please.">>
<<footnotes "11" "Ibid. 12">>
2 - The Secret Joke of Kant’s Soul – Greene
“There is a substantial and growing body of evidence suggesting that much of what we do, we do unconsciously, and for reasons that are inaccessible to us”
Denies moral reasoning, claims moral rationalization.
Kant and Mill are explicit tips of implicit, psychology icebergs.
Cognitive/Emotional representations … only emotional representations have automatically triggered behavior responses or dispositions. Car representation. Avoiding and approaching them.
Which kinds of psychological processes (cognitive and/or emotional) are the basis of our two kinds of moral judgment (deontic and consequentialist)?
Greene thinks deontic is emotional while consequentialist is emotional.
Trolley and footbridge problems.
Crying baby/infanticide
Drowning/Donation
This explains why by-and-large people reject Singer’s consequentialist conclusion.
KEEP/LOSE Endowment of $10
Consequentialist Punishment/Retribution
Ultimatum game.
Education, HIGH-SES, less condemning, cognitive, westernization factor, more consequentialist
Hypnosis, lol.
Emotions are reliable, quick, and efficient responses to recurring situations; reasoning is unreliable, slow, and inefficient. Emotions are evolutionarily better in some respects.
Deontology is rationalization of your moral emotions or “cognitive” expression of your moral emotions?
Defending my family. I wish to subscribe to a weak thesis of pacifism on what I think are deontic reasons. I think I have amazing utilitarian reasons to defend my family, but deontically, I have conflicting reasons. What ought I do? I might give you a deontic reason not to harm someone. What would I do, I would defend my family by whatever means necessary.
There seems to be two kinds of deontic reasoning going on. A emotionally driven one…defend thy family…and a pacifist one, which seems deontic to me.
Maybe the pacifist thesis is just emotional though. It makes me feel bad to hurt others.
What about Kantian interpretations which focus upon our duties rather than our rights?
Moral intuitions are to be doubted, they are contingent, evolutionarily put in place, and not based upon reason.
Rationalist deontologists are in trouble because they can’t accept that emotional responses are the basis for moral truths.
“IS”/”OUGHT”
2.1 - Moral Cognition and Computational Theory –Mikhail
In Lammenranta’s offers an interpretation of the Pyrrhonian Regress argument which goes:
In order to be justified in believing something, one must believe it on the basis of good reasons.
Good reasons must themselves be justified beliefs.
Therefore, in order to be justified in believing something, one must believe it on the basis of an infinite number of good reasons.
No human being can have an infinite number of good reasons.
Therefore, it is humanly impossible to have justified beliefs.
An intention is the aim, plan, or purpose of an action. Intentions demonstrate the “for the sake of which” of an action. While actions can fail or succeed, intentions don’t admit of failure or success in the same way. An intention seems to be an expression of our motivations. Ultimately, an intention is the result of a choice concerning what one will pursue and why, and it is obviously a significant, practical aspect of moral philosophy.
In standard forms of utilitarianism, intentions are morally irrelevant, as only the results of action have any value. In virtue theories, intentions are morally relevant to some extent, as they are crucial to the psychology of the virtuous agent. I’m going to explore whether and to what extent (if any) intentions are morally relevant in Kant’s ethics. In order to answer this question, we will investigate what Kant has to say about the good will, action, and duty.
Kant begins the Groundwork by priming our intuitions about the nature of the good will. He says only a good will is good and nothing else is absolutely good without limitation.<<ref "1">> In contrast to the good will, other mental talents, inclinations, and psychological characteristics can be desirable (even encouraging the good will), being contingently and circumstantially good, but they aren’t necessarily and always good because they can be used for evil and by an evil will. Even actions have conditional moral value.<<ref "2">> Only a good will is necessarily, unconditionally, and always good.
A good will is not good because it causes some other end, rather it is an end in itself. Even a will which isn’t efficacious is still good, shining by itself like a jewel.<<ref "3">> This is a key consideration for answering our question concerning the moral relevance of intentions in Kant’s theory. Note that whether or not action bears the sort of fruit we expected, as sometimes it doesn’t, a good will underlying that action remains unblemished and just as morally potent and worthy. In contrast to utilitarianism (a theory which Kant seems to have anticipated), Kant’s theory is far less concerned with consequences of actions, and far more concerned with the will which expresses action.<<ref "4">> In this light, good intentions seem to have similar characteristics to the good will, and thus intentions seem morally relevant in Kant’s theory.
We come to realize that the good will is unconditionally valuable because it is determined by reason and the moral law.<<ref "5">> Obviously, action need not be determined by reason or the moral law. We may act from our inclinations, our instincts, and other sentiments. Actions, unlike the good will, are suspect. To be clear, I am not saying that actions cannot be valuable or have merit. Actions certainly can have moral worth according to Kant’s theory, but only under certain conditions. Our duty, which springs from the moral law, is essential to understanding the relationship between good will and action.
We must act from, not merely in accordance with, duty.<<ref "6">> An action has moral worth only when it is selected by the moral law and executed out of respect for the moral law. The intentions behind our actions matter. If we intend to do action X for the sake of desire satisfaction or mere happiness, then that action lacks moral worth. In contrast, if we intend to do action X solely for the sake of the moral law, then our action has moral worth. The intentions behind our actions are the essential ingredient to determining the good of the action. Kant provides some famous examples of which elucidate the relationship between duty, intention, and action.
The honest shopkeeper acts in accordance with and in no way contrary to his duty to serve people honestly.<<ref "7">> Yet, he is motivated by self-interest, acting not from duty, but from merely prudential reasons. His action may be right because it conforms with his duty, but it is not good action because it is not done from his duty.<<ref "8">>
The suicidal man who wants to die “yet preserves his life without loving it, not from inclination or fear but from duty” has a maxim with moral content.<<ref "9">> The man had a duty to preserve his life, and despite his inclinations contrary to his duty, the man acted from duty alone, and thus he performed an action of moral worth.
Likewise, the sad philanthropist who has no emotion of sympathy for others and yet is beneficent from duty alone is to be praised. His action has “genuine moral worth.”<<ref "10">> To be beneficent from inclination, which is merely in accordance with but not from duty, lacks moral worth. This makes sense, as surely the sad philanthropist cannot be held directly responsible for his emotions, but he can be held responsible for rational choice and acting from duty.
Pathological love, like other inclinations, cannot be commanded. We cannot be held responsible for inclinations, although we are held responsible for acting from inclinations. Practical love, in contrast to pathological love, can be commanded. Acting from duty can be commanded, and we can be held responsible for this.<<ref "11">> Our intention is morally relevant to action. An action has merit solely in virtue of being performed out of respect for the moral law.
Kant’s examples, such as that of the sad philanthropist, sit in stark contrast to the virtue ethicist’s assessment. Having the right sort of inclinations and emotions are central to being virtuous, and yet, as Kant points out, it is only the rational choice to act from duty alone which has any moral relevance. Intentions are morally significant, but the sorts of intentions which Kant’s theory demands of us are very different from the sorts demanded by virtue theories.
Intentions and universal moral law seem to be at the heart of Kant’s theory, in contrast to action and consequences as found at the heart of consequentialist theories or character and inclination as found at the heart of virtue theories. If the purpose, aim, or goal of an act is to follow the moral law, acting from duty, only then is that action a good action. So, while the moral law supplies us with the content of what is right and wrong, our intentions seem to be necessary conditions for achieving anything of moral worth. Intentions are clearly morally relevant in Kant’s theory of ethics.
Since we’ve briefly sketched out Kant’s position, we should briefly evaluate it. What parts work and what parts don’t; which aspects are strong and which are weak? Do we have lingering questions or considerations which require clarification (issues that Kant may even address elsewhere)?
In the general examination of the moral relevance of intentions, it may be useful to reflect upon our moral intuitions to see if they offer any guidance. For example, intentions seem so potent a concept in Kant’s theory that they seem to overshadow actions almost entirely. Kant lends almost no credence to consequences. Do our intuitions really match that? Surely, we are tempted to think that consequences matter, even if only a little. Shouldn’t we strongly prefer action in accordance with the moral law, even if it isn’t out of respect for the moral law, to action contrary to the moral law? We may even be tempted by our intuitions to agree that acting out of respect for the moral law is morally better than action that merely accords to the moral law, but also claim that the later is still morally better than nothing or morally better than acting contrary to the moral law. It isn’t clear that Kant makes room for this. Moral intuitions may be a problem for Kant’s theory.
Take the example of the evil man who is stranded on an island and yet has every intention of blowing up the world with a doomsday device. He tries to blow the world up, but he fails due to his circumstances. It seems like Kant will call this man evil. Our intuitions agree on this point. We might, however, ask: Isn’t this man better, in some morally significant sense, because he is unsuccessful and his actions fail to blow up the world? Maybe.
I’m not saying Kant doesn’t have a response to arguments from moral intuitions, but it does seem to be a possible problem for Kant’s theory. Some of us may feel the pull of intuitions which wish for action and consequences to be a counterbalance to intentions. Even the dreaded egoist who just so happens to miraculously act in the accordance with the moral law (however improbable that may be) does seem to be doing good, to be doing something of moral worth, to get at least one thumb up from the objective spectator, even if he doesn’t get both thumbs up. It is here I feel unsatisfied by the role and raw strength of intentions in Kant’s theory, particularly as it overshadows consequential thinking of any sort.
At the heart of this problem is really a discussion about the natures of and relationship between the Right and the Good, which is sadly way beyond the scope of this paper. I wish Kant were clearer on these fundamental metaethical issues.<<ref "12">>
Perhaps, for example, there is possible distinction between Right action and Good action in Kant’s theory. We might interpret Kant as claiming that right action is merely acting accordance with the moral law, but that good action is right action done from duty alone. This makes sense of the claim that an action with any moral worth, i.e. goodness, is both in accordance with and for the sake of duty. Moral worth is then a value attribution of the good. This strikes me as being somewhat odd, as ‘right’ is very incomplete on this interpretation. Another interpretation seems to be that right action requires being both in accordance with and from duty, and the fact that it is good, hence good action, is a product of it being completely right.
Further, we might be worried about the goodness of the good will. Admittedly, it seems analytically true that the good will is unconditionally good (what else could it be?). But, to say, for example, that “the good will is unconditional but not complete” raises other questions or concerns. We need a theory of the good. Clearly, I’m only touching upon the tip of an iceberg.
There are several strengths of the argument as it is formulated. Going back to my intuitions, I find that intentions should be a very significant aspect of any viable moral theory, and I would reject a moral theory that didn’t view intentions as being morally relevant. For example, there is a moral distinction between intentionally stepping on my foot and unintentionally doing so. Yes, both have the same consequences, but why someone performed the action also matters. Intentions seem intuitively crucial in this way. If a person unintentionally stepped on my foot, upon realizing what happened, they might ask for me to pardon them, and I would have to view their action as morally benign. If someone intentionally stepped on my foot and smirked at me, I would have to view their action as being a bit evil. Interestingly enough, someone may step on my foot intentionally for a good reason, and while I might not have realized it at the time, upon reflection, I may be grateful that they intentionally stepped on my foot. Intentions intuitively are a moral matter.
I’m going to conclude with one of the greater and yet sometimes neglected strengths of the argument Kant has given us in this section. This theory concerning intentions makes sense of moral responsibility in ways that alternative theories fail. I alluded to this earlier, and I think it is a fantastic aspect of Kant’s theory. It seems as though many things which virtue theorists and consequentialists wish to hold us responsible for are not the sorts of things for which we can be responsible. For example, we can’t see all of the consequences of our actions, and we can’t control which emotions and inclinations we have. What is “up to us,” however, are our intentions, and because of this, Kant’s emphasis on intentions provides a better perspective on moral responsibility than other theories.
---------------------------
<<footnotes "1" "Kant, Immanuel, and Mary J. Gregor. //Practical Philosophy//. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996: 4:393">>
<<footnotes "2" "4:397">>
<<footnotes "3" "4:394">>
<<footnotes "4" "4:399-400">>
<<footnotes "5" "4:400 and 6:213">>
<<footnotes "6" "4:397">>
<<footnotes "7" "Ibid.">>
<<footnotes "8" "6:224">>
<<footnotes "9" "4:398">>
<<footnotes "10" "Ibid.">>
<<footnotes "11" "4:399">>
<<footnotes "12" "Obviously, I’m grateful to receive what I’ve got; I don’t mean to complain. ">>
Let me begin by saying: I feel like I’m quickly becoming lost in the “Kantonese” (as you aptly call it). The fact that I may not be “getting it” must be my fault. Admittedly, many issues and definitions in the text are unsettled for me to the point that I’m not entirely sure what Kant means to say in many of the passages we are reading. Something as technical and terminologically based as our reading needs a worthy lexicon if we are to come up with an effective systematic interpretation (I’ve been looking at a couple, and I’m unsatisfied so far).
Anyways, I’ve several thoughts, worries, and questions, but I’m only going to cover a couple for the sake of time and space.
In 4:433, I think “kingdom” is an interesting word choice because we normally think of someone be ruled by someone or something else in a kingdom. Being a member a kingdom, some might say, demonstrates a distinct lack of autonomy in certain respects. Kant says we belong to this kingdom as a “sovereign” because we are subject to our own laws, not subject to others laws. Those laws just happen to be the same law though. But, in 4:434, I feel like I’ve lost what Kant means by sovereign.
I believe Kant needs the three versions of the moral law to be logically equivalent (they need to logically imply each other). Why should I think the three versions of the moral law are logically equivalent? I want a breakdown.
4:434 continues to be tricky as it discusses “freedom of the will.” I still don’t know what Kant means by this. I’m still not entirely sure I understand what Kant means by “the will” at all. Kant’s conception of our psychology (and metaphysics) is unclear, and that’s a shame given how specific he seems to try to be in employing our psychology in his moral theory.
Are we not autonomous when we don’t make our own laws? It seems like it (that’s what the heteronomous will seems to be all about). We only make our own laws when we employ the CI, right? If so, it seems like we are only autonomous when we employ the CI, right? Now, if autonomy is the basis of our moral responsibility (most think it is), then when we do not employ the CI, are we essentially not morally responsible? I’ve asked this before, and so you’ll have to forgive my ignorance. I fear I still don’t understand. Admittedly, I’m worried that Kant is just begging the question as to what counts as rational, autonomous, etc.
Lastly, if Kant is not an incompatibilist (and you suggest he isn’t), then is he a compatibilist? (Heaven forbid.) What would be the effects of having an incompatibilist interpretation of Kant? What does he say to someone with incompatibilist intuitions? That intuition is so strong for me that I’d deny our moral responsibility if I found I was sufficiently convinced that we lack libertarian free will (whether it be a homunculus or something else :P).
---
February 20: Dignity and Autonomy
Groundwork Section II (pp. 4:431-445)
Critique of Practical Reason (pp. 5:33-42)
Worries from the get go:
If Kant is not an incompatibilist, is he a compatibilist? (Heaven forbid) What would be the effects of having an incompatibilist interpretation of Kant.
I believe Kant needs the three versions of the moral law to be logically equivalent (they need to logically imply each other). Why should I think the three versions of the moral law are logically equivalent? I want a breakdown! =)
I’m quickly becoming lost in the ‘Kantonese.’
I’m so worried that Kant is just begging the question of what counts as rational and what counts as the will so that his theory works.
Are we not autonomous when we don’t make our own laws? It seems like it. We only make our own laws when we employ the CI, right? If so, it seems like we are only autonomous when we employ the CI, right? Now, if autonomy is the basis of our moral responsibility (most think it is), then when we do not employ the CI, are we essentially not morally responsible?
Groundwork Section II (pp. 4:431-445)
4:431, “the subject of all ends is every rational being as an end in itself”
4:431, “the will of every rational being as a will giving universal law”
4:432, if we are merely a subject of a law, like laws of nature, then it wouldn’t be us choosing to follow the laws; if a law arises from our own will, then it would be us choosing to follow the laws
4:433, kingdom of ends is dependent upon autonomy
4:433, all rational beings are under the law to treat other rational never as merely a means but also as ends, giving rise to systematic union under common law, hence kingdom (of ends)
4:433, kingdom is an interesting word choice because we normally think of someone be ruled by someone else in a kingdom. Being a member a kingdom, some might say, demonstrates a distinct lack of autonomy in certain respects. Kant says we belong to this kingdom as a “sovereign” because we are subject to our own laws, not subject to others laws. Those laws just happen to be the same law though.
4:434, freedom of the will…I still don’t know what Kant means by this. I’m still not entirely sure I understand what Kant means by “the will” at all. Kant’s conception of our psychology (and metaphysics) is unclear, and that’s a shame given how specific he seems to try to be in employing our psychology in his moral theory
4:434, no, I clearly don’t understand what Kant means by Sovereign at all.
4:434, Everything has either a price or a dignity. That which has no price (people) has dignity.
4:436, “Nothing can have a worth other than that which the law determines for it” – lawgiving itself, which determines worth, has dignity. Autonomy is the ground of dignity.
4:436, All maxims have: a form, a matter (an end), a complete determination (harmonizes with the kingdom of ends)
4:439, I don’t understand the paradox
4:441, when some other object other than the will give it a law, heteronomy of the will results.
4:442, empirical principles (including happiness) cannot ground the moral law
Critique of Practical Reason (pp. 5:33-42)
5:33, independence from external forces is freedom in the negative sense, while giving oneself law, practical reason, is freedom in the positive sense.
Moral Intuition =Fast and Frugal Heuristics? - Gerd Gigerenzer
Social pressures outweigh our moral intutions
Default rules oughtweigh moral preference.
Heuristics bear heavily upon (even if they don’t replace) moral deliberation.
Pg 4. – Adaptive Toolbox, Ecological rationality, and Design of heuristics and environments.
Heuristics are context sensitive, embedded in social environments. Descriptive, not normative.
Fast and Frugal moral heuristics seems to be akin to rule utility (particularly when we take into account the design of heuristics because we expect the population will perform better actions in virtue of the heuristic rather than from moral reasoning and moral motivations).
Heuristics can (1) explain moral action and (2) modify moral action
Heuristics exploit human brains.
3 hypotheses:
Moral intuitions are moral heuristics
Moral heuristics are the same kind as non-moral heuristics
Moral heuristics are generally unconscious
Methodological implications:
Study social groups in addition to isolated individuals
Study natural environments in addition to hypothetical problems
Analyze moral behavior in addition to self-reports
Bail study – pg 13
Binary search tree – frugal and fast.
Rationalist and nonrationalist theories of moral judgement. Rational says reasoning precedes moral intuition (a product of reasoning), while social intuitionism sees reasiong as post hoc explanation of our moral intuitions.
Heuristics point out a distinction between unconscious, heuristic reasons and post-hoc reasons.
Heuristics seem like always-second-best prescriptions me. Theoretically, there seems to be a better answer. Perhaps practically, it is a best answer, or rather it is a stop-gap until we figure out how to get to the theoretical answer.
Prescriptive heuristics is more like institutional design, not really a decisions theory in the moment.
Simplistic genetic algorithms solving game theory problems. We don’t know precisely why it works, but it does.
Fast, Frugal, and (Sometimes) Wrong - Cass R. Sunstein
Good moral heuristics are complex
Rule consequentialist makes sense of heuristics
Consequentialist is broad, not necessaril utilitarian
Not all folks are consequentialists
Moral heuristics may not functional well.
Moral Heuristics and Consequentialism - Julia Driver and Don Loeb
“While following the heuristics can lead to success, attend-ing to them may well lead to failure.”
Hard to show that unconscious reasoning is actually reasoning at all. You can describe it as such, but it doesn’t seem like it is really any sort of deductive process. It isn’t clear.
---
If the “emotional dog” wags the “rational tail,” and essentially if we aren’t really employing any actual reasoning (except post hoc, which is rationalization and not really reasoning at all) in our moral judgments, are normative theories which rely upon rational moral judgments undermined and implausible? Even if these normative theories aren’t undermined, is accepting this perhaps Humean and social intuitionist model tantamount to denying that we are moral beings?
The lawyer’s closing argument example intensely reminds me of virtue theory, particularly the virtuous perception, sensitivity, and that capacity to pick out what is morally salient or relevant in circumstances where others cannot. This virtuous perception or sensitivity seems to be a set of implicit, impulsive, unconscious, non-cognitive (many virtue ethicists would not be happy with my qualifier – I’m looking at you, John McDowell), attuned to the context, and intuitive snap-judgments which guide the virtuous agent. In contrast, we the vicious haven’t trained and adapted our sensitivity and dispositions appropriately. The somewhat virtuous intuition of the lawyer is trained and habituated, oddly opposing some of her conscious and educated habits, and her affective responses steered her correctly even where her explicit reasons didn’t. Doesn’t virtue theory look more and more enticing from the perspective of these kinds of examples? (Ah, I wrote this before I got to the section on Aristotle. Not that anyone doubted Aristotle’s genius before, but I am continually amazed at how much Aristotle anticipated. The author is guiding us well! I should note that on page 13, Railton takes up a particular position on the relationship between the virtuous agent’s attunement found between intuition and reasons at hand. Hursthouse, just as an example, might give a different account of this relationship. The matter is up for debate, I think.)
I think one of the fundamental (cognitivist) questions at stake here is this: Can one be said to be “reasoning” or acting upon good reasons in any sense that isn’t explicit and conscious? Can one make inferences and have good reasons for something even if one isn’t able to articulate those reasons and even if such inferences don’t exactly mirror the kinds of usual, explicit inferences we make? If so, there seems to be a middle ground or path for the cognitivist wherein these snap moral judgments have a semblance of reasoning going on, even if that process is very different from the sort of explicit and articulate reasoning we consciously employ.
As with that fundamental question I’ve asked, sections (7) and (8), on warrant, remind me of how many significant epistemology problems bear upon and intersect with the issues we are dealing with in this article. Railton’s unique version of the traditional epistemic regress and likely foundationalist solution (a foundation of intuitions) is a good example. Since I lack adequate answers to so many epistemological worries, I feel like I’m standing on quicksand. Railton distinguishes warranted attitude from warranted judgment, attitudes being intuitive, and judgment being cognitive, explicit reasoning. Similar to my previous question: Should we take responses based upon emotions and attitudes as having the same valid guiding force, both in an epistemic and in an ethical sense, as explicit reason?
Is affect or “feeling” really the natural place for Kant to look for an account of the direct “mental attunment” to value found in the “moral feeling” (CJ 5:267-268)? I’m may ask Sensen about it tonight.
In Section (10), Railton describes two systems, and essentially tells us that the affective system has primacy. Affective responses are potent, shaping our higher order cognition and beyond. As hinted in the beginning, my worry is an incompatibilist + cognitivist worry: Are we morally responsible for emotional, affective, and non-cognitive reactions beyond our immediate control? Railton seems to be pointing out that our affective system is complex, rich, flexible, adaptive, and not as hard-wired, simple, crude, and “point and shoot” as might initially think. But, is this really enough to cross the gap into moral responsibility? It all seems too indirect to me.
Damnit it all, I don’t know how to define cognition or rationality anymore. I don’t have a clue.
S16, Causal structure of act confounded by moral assessment
Knobe, Causal/Moral Assessment Examples,
Boardroom: judge intentional harm in the first scenario, and unintentional help in the other. How to explain this?
Time to employ some Post Hoc Reasoning up this bitch: We have a duty to not harm the environment, a duty that presumably is known by the VP. By saying “I don’t care about harming the environment” and acting upon that maxim (of sorts), he has done something wrong. His intention was not to follow the moral law, whether or not he failed or succeeded is a matter of moral luck to some extent. In Boardroom II, he’s not violating the duty necessarily. Perhaps there is a duty to help the environment, but that is different.
Asymmetry between helping and harming.
Harold’s Bus example, Bus is like switch not footbridge, in terms of our intuitions.
I’m not sure if all my intuitions are acceptable. Some might be wrong. How do I know when they are wrong? I suppose when I get to think about them. Intuitions in the split-second decision aren’t questioned really. What I would do and what I should do are different things. Intuitions tell me what I would do, and perhaps some of the time, that split-second would do’s tell me something morally salient, and sometimes they don’t.
Marred by all these situations. No choice is a good one, but perhaps there is a right one. Should you feel guilty for doing the right thing, even if it is a bad thing?
Railton claims the difference between Bus and Footbridge is a social, empathy one. Where others on the bus will exhibit more empathy that in the footbridge example.
It seems to me that the examples aren’t equal. My pushing the fatman doesn’t guarantee he dies on the bus example. It does on the on the footbridge.
Stroud – Kant
Kant calls idealism problematic.
Kant thinks other theories of knowledge fail because they represent knowledge of things external to us in an indirect or inferential way.
External objects must not be inferred, they must be immediately perceived (consciousness of).
If Descartes were right in representing our perception of objects in the way he does, he would also be right in concluding that we can know nothing about the external world.
Kant is like Moore in some sense, as there is no inference to the existence of his hands. He just immediately perceives and knows this. Kant thinks a good theory of knowledge describes exactly this and does not resort to inferences.
Moore’s detractors expect other kinds of knowledge to support the premises of Moore. But, knowledge doesn’t have to be like that…apparently. Kant would not have argued against Moore in such a fashion, but Kant thinks that Moore’s proof does not defeat philosophical skepticism.
Kant thinks we must show that skeptical idealism is false.
Kant’s realism has not only a metaphysical aspect, but also an epistemic aspect. Our epistemic perception and knowledge to external thing is direct, unmediated, and hence not inferred.
Realism is the view that objects exist in space and we have direct access to them.
Kant’s Scandal: the existence of things outside us has to be accepted ‘merely on faith’.
We have to establish the “in general knowing things external to us exist” in order to complete the proof that Moore provides??
Being actual is the best proof of possible. Moore seems to provide actual, and thus possible.
Kant wants to prove that the conclusion can’t be reached from the premises that the skeptic takes to be coherent.
Epistemic priority or primacy over ontology (metaphysics?).
Kant wants to prove that epistemic priority is wrong.
Moore only asks about internal questions, while Kant’s realism is and question about legitimacy is external.
Kant suggests that inner experience is only possible if outer experience is possible. If inner experience is possible, then so is outer experience.
Pg 114, why does it imply? (first page, upperhalf)
For Kant, if we have any experience at all (including Descarte’s inner experience), it is because we have direct access to external experience.
Copernican Revolution of philosophy: Transition from “knowledge conforms to objects” to “objects conform to our knowledge” (a.k.a.?? ‘the constitution of our faculty of intuition’). The external world depends upon our perceiving and cognizing it.
Kant’s realism is a kind of idealism, transcendental idealism. Kant accepts empirical realism, “That I directly perceive things which aren’t dependent upon me for their existence.” He denies transcendental realism, however.
Only if transcendental IDEALISM is true can empirical realism be true. There must be an a priori, non-empirical element or ingredient in all our empirical knowledge. That ingredient is the subject of transcendental philosophy, and clearly, it can’t be studied empirically.
We must discovered the necessary, a priori conditions of knowledge.
We can only know, a priori, what the necessary conditions of knowledge of objects are, only if those conditions somehow are to be found ‘in’, or have their ‘source’ ‘in’ us, the knowing subjects, and not in some independent conditions or states of affairs to which we might not have reliable access.
Stroud – Chapter 5 - Positivism – self-refuting bitches
Verifiability Thesis (can it also be established, or does it refute itself?) – When something can’t be verified empirically, it isn’t a meaningful issue, so there is no truth or falsity to such a pseudo-proposition.
Empirical Realism
Locke – representative realist
Empirical Idealism
Descartes
Berkeley
When you turn around, does the object go away? (God is still perceiving it, so no, it doesn’t)
The stuff in the world is literally made out of ideas of the mind
Transcendental Realism
Transcendental Idealism
The traditional way that Kant gives an argument is to give a transcendental argument, which has the following structure:
Point out that we do have a certain kind of experience.
What is necessary for us to have that experience (or representation)? A priori necessary.
Problematic (possible), Apodictic (necessary)
We bring certain aspects of logic to the way we talk about the world.
In order to have any experience, we must understand the world as having causation and substances (something like what Aristotle was talking about) which have properties. We can’t conceive of the world in any other way, and these categories must apply. We can’t have a coherent thought about the world without thinking in these ways. The world has to be this way ‘for us’.
How could we think of the world independent of us? Either nothing or with these categories.
In the world about which we talk, these properties must be instantiated. Maybe there is another world out there that is totally separate, …?
“The thing-in-itself” we still tend to think of it as an individual substance/or set of substances, and we tend to think of properties out there in the world, and we tend tot hink of these things as causing representations in us. But, to think of it like this already requires that we employ these ‘categories’.
The world that we talk about and represent must be this way – that is not to say we can’t be wrong at any individual time. For example, if I took LSD and hallucinated a cat, I would be wrong in thinking there is a cat there, but I’m not wrong about the basic nature of the world. I represent the world as sitting out there, and I can’t be wrong about that. I cannot think about anything at all unless I think of it as having certain basic properties. The world must have the basic properties. If we try to think of the world without these properties, we can’t think of anything. It is necessary that the world we think about has these properties.
The general structure of the world must be a certain way. Kant is an empirical realist, as there either is a cat out there on the desk or there is not. We could be mistaken about it. We can’t however, be mistaken about whether there is an external world or categories about it.
Transcendental does not mean transcendent. It is an a priori matter in which something necessarily has to be in order for us to understand it. Transcendental means it is part of the way we think about it.
Transcendental realism would be: the categories of the world is determined independently of us…
1.
VIM, violence inhibition mechanism, is a functionally defined (Input->VIM->output) affective state. It produces a withdrawal behavior provoked by aversion to displays of distress in other members of the species. This is a necessary condition (although probably not sufficient) for moral competence, where moral competence is concerned with an ability to consistently do the right thing, perhaps for the right sorts of reasons and/or with the right sorts of affective states. Without VIM, an individual will not develop a distinction between moral (e.g. don’t torture babies) and conventional rules (e.g. wear green on St. Patrick’s day), and they will fail to recognize and empathize with others in pain, distress, and sadness. Since VIM and these capacities are thought to be necessary conditions for moral competence, and since psychopaths lack VIM and these capacities, psychopaths are not morally competent.
Blair studied a fairly small number of psychopaths (I believe it was around 10 psychopaths and 10 non-psychopaths). He predicted that psychopaths will: (1) fail to distinguish between moral and conventional rules, (2) handle moral rules like conventional rules regarding permissibility, and (3) be less likely than normal folk to identify pain or sadness in others. The first and last prediction was shown to be the case, and Blair explains this in terms of psychopaths lacking VIM. We might worry that this test is far too small a sample size, but I believe it has been confirmed by other tests.
In another test, psychopathic children were tested for the ability to determine six basic emotional expressions (at given stages, with certain accuracies, weighted for IQ, and compared to a control group). They were shown to be less sensitive to fear and sadness than non-psychopathic children. Again, this is supplied as evidence for the moral incompetence of psychopaths.
What is interesting is that psychopaths often know (in the cognitive sense) what others expect in terms of moral judgments. Psychopaths are excellent manipulators. Even if they actually knew what they ought to do (which is part of the debate here), they fail to be motivated by moral judgments/beliefs.
Autistic individuals are compared to psychopaths because they exhibit similar problems. Autistic individuals can lack empathy and the sort of social emotions that might be required for moral competence (depending upon how you want to define moral competence). They can often treat people merely as a means. I'm thinking of the anecdote where the autistic child used his mother's hand to open the refrigerator, as if she were merely a tool. Unlike psychopaths, autistics are thought to distinguish moral and conventional rules. Although autistic individuals can’t mentally represent another person’s pain, Blair claims that autistic individuals do have VIM.
We can raise some worries, however, about the moral competency of autistic individuals. While the social handicap of autism can prevent them from deceiving others, preventing them from corruption and ugly dispositions (jealous, lying, cheating, etc.), this moral innocence isn’t moral character or agency. In many cases, it seems as though autistic individuals seek order (and sometimes morality) simply out of self-preservation, for the sake of having rules and regulation to make life livable, and not out of moral feelings and for the sake of the moral law.
These pathologies might suggest that human beings are moral beings because of our affective and perhaps even instinctual natures. VIM, for example, might be the result of evolutionary selection, where populations with VIM likely lived and prospered and populations without VIM perished (which makes a lot of sense). Moral competence isn't always up to us. We have to be born with certain conditions and capacities (and likely raised in certain ways) to be morally competent.
5.
Confabulation is post hoc rationalization, where arbitrary “reasons” or stories are automatically, spontaneously, and possibly involuntarily created to justify a judgment or belief.
Dumbfounding is being unable to tell how or why one reached a judgment or why a belief is justified. When all reasons that a person did have for a belief or judgment are rejected and shown to be in error, the person sticks with the belief or judgment anyways. What justifies the belief or judgment ends up being an intuition, not a reason. This intuition is not based upon reasons at all, and instead it is associated with automatically, quickly, non-cognitively, and unconscious reactions.
Both confabulation and dumbfounding appear to be associated more with deontic (and perhaps rule utilitarian) reasoning than consequentialist reasoning. Consequentialist reasoning is generally slow, it employs explicit and conscious reasoning (likely using our frontal lobes/cortex) which sits in contrast to deontic "reasons."
Confabulation and dumbfounding demonstrate a profound rift between the cause and (what we hope to be) justification of our beliefs. They reveal that reason-based justification is merely epiphenomenal and post-hoc. Intuitions and affective dimensions of our psychology seem to be running the show. Our beliefs are manipulated by rationally arbitrary causal factors. We might be very unhappy with this problem because we generally want our reasons, rather than intuitions or affective dispositions, to be both the cause and justification of our beliefs.
Haidt’s social intuitionist model seems like a serious threat to rationalist models (who want reasons to justify and cause our moral judgments and beliefs). Standard Kantian moral theories, for example, seem impossible to fulfill if we confabulation and dumbfounding do show that the cause of our moral beliefs or judgments will be something other than reason. I would go so far as to say that many (if not most or all) cognitivist moral theories are in trouble.
Railton argues that the causal factors which drive intuitions need not be rationally arbitrary. Once explicated, those causal factors might be good reasons. See the lawyer example. In terms of what was accessible to her, consciously and explicitly, she didn’t have a good reason to change her argument. But, there were some very good, objective reasons to change her argument that seem to be independent of her.
I’m not sure if Railton’s argument is all that successful. Yeah, there were good reasons, but were they actually her reasons? No. The worry that cognitive moral judgment is impossible if we are reduced to confabulation and dumbfounding appears to remain, even after Railton's argument. That there are theoretically, objectively good reasons for a mathematician to believe Goldbach’s conjecture doesn’t mean the mathematician has access to or actually employed those reasons or that the mathematician’s intuition is based upon those reasons. A same sort of problems seem to exist for moral judgment.
VIM, violence inhibition mechanism, is a functionally defined (Input->VIM->output) affective state. It produces a withdrawal behavior provoked by aversion to displays of distress in other members of the species. This is a necessary condition (although probably not sufficient) for moral competence, where moral competence is concerned with an ability to consistently do the right thing, perhaps for the right sorts of reasons and/or with the right sorts of affective states. Without VIM, an individual will not develop a distinction between moral (e.g. don’t torture babies) and conventional rules (e.g. wear green on St. Patrick’s day), and they will fail to recognize and empathize with others in pain, distress, and sadness. Since VIM and these capacities are thought to be necessary conditions for moral competence, and since psychopaths lack VIM and these capacities, psychopaths are not morally competent.
Blair studied a fairly small number of psychopaths (I believe it was around 10 psychopaths and 10 non-psychopaths). He predicted that psychopaths will: (1) fail to distinguish between moral and conventional rules, (2) handle moral rules like conventional rules regarding permissibility, and (3) be less likely than normal folk to identify pain or sadness in others. The first and last prediction was shown to be the case, and Blair explains this in terms of psychopaths lacking VIM. We might worry that this test is far too small a sample size, but I believe it has been confirmed by other tests.
In another test, psychopathic children were tested for the ability to determine six basic emotional expressions (at given stages, with certain accuracies, weighted for IQ, and compared to a control group). They were shown to be less sensitive to fear and sadness than non-psychopathic children. Again, this is supplied as evidence for the moral incompetence of psychopaths.
What is interesting is that psychopaths often know (in the cognitive sense) what others expect in terms of moral judgments. Psychopaths are excellent manipulators. Even if they actually knew what they ought to do (which is part of the debate here), they fail to be motivated by moral judgments/beliefs.
Autistic individuals are compared to psychopaths because they exhibit similar problems. Autistic individuals can lack empathy and the sort of social emotions that might be required for moral competence (depending upon how you want to define moral competence). They can often treat people merely as a means. I'm thinking of the anecdote where the autistic child used his mother's hand to open the refrigerator, as if she were merely a tool. Unlike psychopaths, autistics are thought to distinguish moral and conventional rules. Although autistic individuals can’t mentally represent another person’s pain, Blair claims that autistic individuals do have VIM.
We can raise some worries, however, about the moral competency of autistic individuals. While the social handicap of autism can prevent them from deceiving others, preventing them from corruption and ugly dispositions (jealous, lying, cheating, etc.), this moral innocence isn’t moral character or agency. In many cases, it seems as though autistic individuals seek order (and sometimes morality) simply out of self-preservation, for the sake of having rules and regulation to make life livable, and not out of moral feelings and for the sake of the moral law.
These pathologies might suggest that human beings are moral beings because of our affective and perhaps even instinctual natures. VIM, for example, might be the result of evolutionary selection, where populations with VIM likely lived and prospered and populations without VIM perished (which makes a lot of sense). Moral competence isn't always up to us. We have to be born with certain conditions and capacities (and likely raised in certain ways) to be morally competent.
-----------------------
Confabulation is post hoc rationalization, where arbitrary “reasons” or stories are automatically, spontaneously, and possibly involuntarily created to justify a judgment or belief.
Dumbfounding is being unable to tell how or why one reached a judgment or why a belief is justified. When all reasons that a person did have for a belief or judgment are rejected and shown to be in error, the person sticks with the belief or judgment anyways. What justifies the belief or judgment ends up being an intuition, not a reason. This intuition is not based upon reasons at all, and instead it is associated with automatic, quick, non-cognitive, and unconscious reactions.
Both confabulation and dumbfounding appear to be associated more with deontic (and perhaps rule utilitarian) reasoning than consequentialist reasoning. Consequentialist reasoning is generally slow, it employs explicit and conscious reasoning (likely using our frontal lobes/cortex) which sits in contrast to deontic "reasons."
Confabulation and dumbfounding demonstrate a profound rift between the cause and (what we hope to be) justification of our beliefs. They reveal that reason-based justification is merely epiphenomenal and post-hoc. Intuitions and affective dimensions of our psychology seem to be running the show. Our beliefs are manipulated by rationally arbitrary causal factors. We might be very unhappy with this problem because we generally want our reasons, rather than intuitions or affective dispositions, to be both the cause and justification of our beliefs.
Haidt’s social intuitionist model seems like a serious threat to rationalist models (who want reasons to justify and cause our moral judgments and beliefs). Standard Kantian moral theories, for example, seem impossible to fulfill if we confabulation and dumbfounding do show that the cause of our moral beliefs or judgments will be something other than reason. I would go so far as to say that many (if not most or all) cognitivist moral theories are in trouble.
Railton argues that the causal factors which drive intuitions need not be rationally arbitrary. Once explicated, those causal factors might be good reasons. See the lawyer example. In terms of what was accessible to her, consciously and explicitly, she didn’t have a good reason to change her argument. But, there were some very good, objective reasons to change her argument that seem to be independent of her.
I’m not sure if Railton’s argument is all that successful. Yeah, there were good reasons, but were they actually her reasons? No. The worry that cognitive moral judgment is impossible if we are reduced to confabulation and dumbfounding appears to remain, even after Railton's argument. That there are theoretically, objectively good reasons for a mathematician to believe Goldbach’s conjecture doesn’t mean the mathematician has access to or actually employed those reasons or that the mathematician’s intuition is based upon those reasons. A same sort of problems seem to exist for moral judgment.
Kant’s explanations of freedom, will, and autonomy sounds a lot like coherentist positions in modern autonomy. Having a will is about having the right sort of psychological structure, being rational is about having the right sort of psychological structure, and freedom is a property of the will such that alien forces do not determine it, and a free will is just a will under the moral law, etc. These are all marks of coherentism. Perhaps I may not understand Kant’s position, but if I’m right about this, then I have some worries.
A set of concerns comes with a coherentist position:
Coherentism employs circular reasoning or outright begs the question of what counts as rational, coherent, etc.
Some accuse coherentism of circular reasoning as if this is a defeating problem. I’m not sure it is defeating, but I do think it a serious worry that I’ve yet to see addressed in a satisfactory way. Further, coherentism seems to be able to define rationality in arbitrary ways – what counts as coherent could be any standard it seems. I’ve already voiced my worry that Kant is doing just this.
Coherentism is generally a compatibilist theory.
The way Kant talks about the will, he sounds like an incompatibilist at first, but then calls being ‘lawless’ absurd. Since the will/freedom must adhere to immutable law (CI), it seems as though he has a coherentist position, which are solutions to regress problems. Unfortunately, I don’t think compatibilism can generate the sort of freedom sufficient for moral agency.
The criticism against incompatibilist is that we are no better than random dice (the absurdity which Kant brings up), and the criticism against compatibilist is that we are no better than pre-programmed robots. I take the robot intuition to be more forceful than the dice problem, hence why, if I have to choose between the two, I’ll take up the incompatibilist position. So, if Kant is making the moves I think he is making, why should I agree with him?
Reason may be too strict a standard of coherence (this comes up over and over in my concerns). The incompatibilist would also fine that being determined by reason isn’t freedom at all. It seems like I’m either rational, and hence autonomous, by definition, or not perfectly rational, and in such cases, not autonomous, by definition.
What are bad actions, less than perfectly rational agency, vicious agents, and how can one be morally responsible for bad action or being a bad person?
I fear a coherentist reading of Kant is something very much like the Korsgaardian model. Korsgaard offers a coherentist model, and I don’t think she can give a satisfactory account of evil or irrational people, evil action, or moral responsibility for doing what is wrong. Personhood, agency, moral responsibility, and autonomy often fall apart too quickly and easily in coherentist models.
Coherentist models of autonomy are too passive in some ways, and they fail to deliver on authenticity requirements which seem to be a part of intuitions about autonomy.
I think any successful theory of autonomy must employ and make sense of authenticity requirements of autonomy. Manipulation is a violation of autonomy, and I fear that coherentist models can’t survive manipulation objections.
For example, if a mad scientist radically alters your mind, desires, beliefs, etc., but does so in a way that the finished product meets the standard of coherence, then you still count as being autonomous on the coherentist model, but you shouldn’t count as being your original, autonomous self, according to our intuitions. Coherentist models will not demonstrate a violation of autonomy where it should – as in the case of powerful, deep manipulation of our minds. From what I can tell, it might be a good thing on the coherentist view to massively manipulate all minds to be perfectly rational, as if that would maximize autonomy. It seems as though the non-rational aspects of me are morally arbitrary to Kant, and I don’t think I can agree with that entirely.
Consider an objection of poisoned origins and systematic manipulation. The starting assumption is that one is not born with autonomy, and rather one grows to become fully autonomous. Presumably, a baby does not have autonomy, and yet, that baby is still shaped by his genetics, environment, and various external forces. This baby will grow up, passively soaking up values, desires, and beliefs without active endorsement. The original authentic self of this child seems completely determined by external forces, and not by the child himself. At whatever stage this child is supposed to gain some measure of autonomy, we must contend with the claim that the original version of “who this child really is” isn’t shaped by the child, but by forces external to this newly minted autonomous being. How does the child grow into an autonomous being from a nonautonomous foundation? If one has a predetermined authentic self, then even after the acquisition of autonomy, it seems as though the autonomous agent is tainted. It is not clear how one overcomes these tainted origins. Just as it remains unclear as to how an agent completely manipulated by a neuroscientist could ever reclaim his autonomy after such radical manipulation, it seems unclear as to how one could gain autonomy in the first place from nonautonomous origins.
If Kant can’t make sense of these problem (demonstrating and justifying our intuition), then we should reject his theory.
Kant’s (possibly) coherentist model may be so reason-centric that it either (a) fails to demonstrate why we are moral agents (and is thus the wrong theory), or (b) demonstrates that we aren’t moral agents (because it is the right theory)
(I fear I continue to ask similar questions. I’m sorry if I’m coming off as ignorant – this stuff takes time to digest and learn! You have convinced me that Kant is not a moral realist concerning value [which I didn’t think I would change my mind on]. Similarly, I’m just working toward more “ah, ha!” moments on these others issues. )
Let us say that it has been empirically demonstrated that deontic reasoning is the common method in which humans arrive at moral judgments, but this “reasoning” is involuntary, automatic, based upon affective responses, lightning quick (too quick for explicit inferences and deductive), non-cognitive, and subconscious? This would be a problem for any theory which relies too heavily upon reason.
Now, freedom and deontic reasoning may not be the sort of thing which is the domain of science in Kant’s view. He seems to think that pure reason can, “independently of anything empirical, determine the will.” But, I’m not sure why we should agree. I do think there are significant limits to science, but I see our psychology as being something testable in many ways. Science really may a lot to say about our moral agency, and I don’t know how or if Kant would or could make sense of this.
Wouldn’t such an empirical demonstration create a profound rift between the cause and justification of our moral judgments? This would reveal that our own reason-based justifications are merely epiphenomenal and post-hoc because we can’t actually engage in deontic reasoning as both cause and justification of our moral judgments. Intuitions and affective dimensions of our psychology would be running the show, not reason.
Our beliefs/judgments would be always be manipulated by rationally arbitrary causal factors. This would be a problem because we generally want our reasons, rather than intuitions or affective dispositions, to play the leading role in both the cause and justification of our beliefs.
I think Kant’s theory needs our deontic reasons to actually be cognitive, voluntary, explicit, slow enough to count as inferential reasoning, serial, and conscious to validate our agency. If science demonstrates that isn’t what we are capable of doing, then I see two possibilities. Either Kant’s theory is right, and thus we aren’t moral agents, or we are moral agents, and thus Kant’s theory is wrong. I think Kant is right that we should presuppose our freedom, as it is necessary for moral agency, which we also presuppose (kind of a transcendental argument – 4:456). What counts as that freedom, however, might not be what Kant claims, as his view may be too reason-centric (despite the fact that I love this about his theory).
---
February 27: Freedom
Groundwork Section III (pp. 4:446-463)
Critique of Practical Reason (pp. 5:3-5, 29-30, 42-50, 89-107)
Groundwork Section III (pp. 4:446-463)
4:446, two definitions of freedom, positive and negative. Negative freedom, freedom is the property of the will such that alien forces do not determine it. Positive? Got me….Free will and a will under moral law are the same.
Kant’s explanation of freedom, will, and autonomy is sounds a lot like coherentist positions in modern autonomy. Having a will is about having the right sort of psychological structure, being rational is about having the right sort of psychological structure, and freedom is a property of the will such that alien forces do not determine it, and a free will is just a will under the moral law, etc. These are all marks of coherentism. Perhaps I may not understand Kant’s positio, but if I’m right about this, then I have some worries.
A set of concerns comes with a coherentist position:
Coherentism employs circular reasoning or outright begs the question of what counts as rational, coherent, etc.
Some accuse coherentism of circular reasoning as if this is a defeating problem. I’m not sure it is defeating, but I do think it a serious worry that I’ve yet to see addressed in a satisfactory way. Further, coherentism seems to be able to define rationality in arbitrary ways – what counts as coherent could be any standard it seems. I’ve already voiced my worry that Kant is doing just this.
Coherentism is generally a compatibilist theory.
The way Kant talks about the will, he sounds like an incompatibilist at first, but then calls being ‘lawless’ absurd. Since the will/freedom must adhere to immutable law (CI), it seems as though he has a coherentist position, which are solutions to regress problems. Unfortunately, I don’t think compatibilism can generate the sort of freedom sufficient for moral agency.
The criticism against incompatibilist is that we are no better than random dice (the absurdity which Kant brings up), and the criticism against compatibilist is that we are no better than pre-programmed robots. I take the robot intuition to be more forceful than the dice problem, hence why, if I have to choose between the two, I’ll take up the incompatibilist position. So, if Kant is making the moves I think he is making, why should I agree with him?
Reason may be too strict a standard of coherence (this comes up over and over in my concerns). The incompatibilist would also fine that being determined by reason isn’t freedom at all. It seems like I’m either rational, and hence autonomous, by definition, or not perfectly rational, and in such cases, not autonomous, by definition.
What are bad actions, less than perfectly rational agency, vicious agents, and how can one be morally responsible for bad action or being a bad person?
I fear a coherentist reading of Kant is something very much like the Korsgaardian model. Korsgaard offers a coherentist model, and I don’t think she can give a satisfactory account of evil or irrational people, evil action, or moral responsibility for doing what is wrong. Personhood, agency, moral responsibility, and autonomy often fall apart too quickly and easily in coherentist models.
Coherentist models of autonomy are too passive in some ways, and they fail to deliver on authenticity requirements which seem to be a part of intuitions about autonomy.
I think any successful theory of autonomy must employ and make sense of authenticity requirements of autonomy. Manipulation is a violation of autonomy, and I fear that coherentist models can’t survive manipulation objections.
For example, if a mad scientist radically alters your mind, desires, beliefs, etc., but does so in a way that the finished product meets the standard of coherence, then you still count as being autonomous on the coherentist model, but you shouldn’t count as being your original, autonomous self, according to our intuitions. Coherentist models will not demonstrate a violation of autonomy where it should – as in the case of powerful, deep manipulation of our minds. From what I can tell, it might be a good thing on the coherentist view to massively manipulate all minds to be perfectly rational, as if that would maximize autonomy. It seems as though the non-rational aspects of me are morally arbitrary to Kant, and I don’t think I can agree with that entirely.
Consider an objection of poisoned origins and systematic manipulation. The starting assumption is that one is not born with autonomy, and rather one grows to become fully autonomous. Presumably, a baby does not have autonomy, and yet, that baby is still shaped by his genetics, environment, and various external forces. This baby will grow up, passively soaking up values, desires, and beliefs without active endorsement. The original authentic self of this child seems completely determined by external forces, and not by the child himself. At whatever stage this child is supposed to gain some measure of autonomy, we must contend with the claim that the original version of “who this child really is” isn’t shaped by the child, but by forces external to this newly minted autonomous being. How does the child grow into an autonomous being from a nonautonomous foundation? If one has a predetermined authentic self, then even after the acquisition of autonomy, it seems as though the autonomous agent is tainted. It is not clear how one overcomes these tainted origins. Just as it remains unclear as to how an agent completely manipulated by a neuroscientist could ever reclaim his autonomy after such radical manipulation, it seems unclear as to how one could gain autonomy in the first place from nonautonomous origins.
If Kant can’t make sense of these problem (demonstrating and justifying our intuition), then we should reject his theory.
Kant’s (possibly) coherentist model may be so reason-centric that it either (a) fails to demonstrate why we are moral agents (and is thus the wrong theory), or (b) demonstrates that we aren’t moral agents (because it is the right theory)
(I fear I continue to ask similar questions. I’m sorry if I’m coming off as ignorant – this stuff takes time to digest and learn! You have convinced me that Kant is not a moral realist concerning value [which I didn’t think I would change my mind on]. Similarly, I’m just working toward more “ah, ha!” moments on these others issues. )
Let us say that it has been empirically demonstrated that deontic reasoning is the common method in which humans arrive at moral judgments, but this “reasoning” is involuntary, automatic, based upon affective responses, lightning quick (too quick for explicit inferences and deductive), non-cognitive, and subconscious? This would be a problem for any theory which relies too heavily upon reason.
Now, freedom and deontic reasoning may not be the sort of thing which is the domain of science in Kant’s view. He seems to think that pure reason can, “independently of anything empirical, determine the will.” But, I’m not sure why we should agree. I do think there are significant limits to science, but I see our psychology as being something testable in many ways. Science really may a lot to say about our moral agency, and I don’t know how or if Kant would or could make sense of this.
Wouldn’t such an empirical demonstration create a profound rift between the cause and justification of our moral judgments? This would reveal that our own reason-based justifications are merely epiphenomenal and post-hoc because we can’t actually engage in deontic reasoning as both cause and justification of our moral judgments. Intuitions and affective dimensions of our psychology would be running the show, not reason.
Our beliefs/judgments would be always be manipulated by rationally arbitrary causal factors. This would be a problem because we generally want our reasons, rather than intuitions or affective dispositions, to play the leading role in both the cause and justification of our beliefs.
I think Kant’s theory needs our deontic reasons to actually be cognitive, voluntary, explicit, slow enough to count as inferential reasoning, serial, and conscious to validate our agency. If science demonstrates that isn’t what we are capable of doing, then I see two possibilities. Either Kant’s theory is right, and thus we aren’t moral agents, or we are moral agents, and thus Kant’s theory is wrong. I think Kant is right that we should presuppose our freedom, as it is necessary for moral agency, which we also presuppose (kind of a transcendental argument – 4:456). What counts as that freedom, however, might not be what Kant claims, as his view may be too reason-centric (despite the fact that I love this about his theory).
4:447, two cognitions are bound together be a third, positive concept of freedom provides this 3rd cognition,
Critique of Practical Reason (pp. 5:3-5, 29-30, 42-50, 89-107)
Cognitive science is vindicating sentimentalism in metaethics.
Neurosentimentalism – moral judgment depends on tacit affective processes
Kennett and Gerrans argue against neurosentimentalism, claiming it divorces moral/practical judgment from moral/practical agency.
Amnesics display decision making based on rules application which they can’t recall previous applications of, and employ acquired information that is no longer explicit to them.
ventromedial prefrontal cortex - a mechanism forassociating tacit affective responses with explicitly-represented information, thereby enabling the formation of preferences and decision making
judgement synchronic theories – includes explicit procedural reasoning or tacit affect processing
Agency requires episodic memory and imaginative projection into the future- to have intertemporal perspective on actions
Why must “A moral agent needs to be able to conceive of herselfas a temporally extended entity as a necessary condition for moral reflection and decision-making.”?
Dilemma: “Neurosentimenal-ism requires that eithermoral judgement does not require agencyor amnesics and ventromedial patients can be moral agents.”
Dual Processing Theories
Iowa Gambling Task – learning and retrieving value of decks involves tacit processes
Tacit and explicit processes dissociate, and the tacit processes might be cognitively impenetrable (unable to be to explicated or modified by explicit reasoning processes).
Sentimentalists vs Externalists – The role of affective processes is high in one, but limited in the other. Vice versa for procedural rationality.
“Sentimentalists and rationalistexternaliststhus disagree on where in cognition moral judgement occurs but they agree on the cognitive impenetrability of the automatic processes which provide motivation.”
Rationalistinternalists hold that the link between moral judgement and motivation is necessary
“A person, such as an amnesic, who cannot incorporate procedural judgements or affective preferencesas her ownis not an agent. The reason is that she cannot represent the results of these processes to herself, because she is not a diachronic self but a bundle of habits linked to a synchronic reasoning system”
Autobiographical memory is different from pure episodic memory
Autonoesis - that aspect of self consciousness which annexes experience to the self not just at as ime, but over time. We might describe it as awareness of diachronicselfhood.
Autobiogrpahical requires “feeling o rightness” – requires affective processes?
Planning is the activity of a diachronic self.
Prospection - the future-directed analogue of episodic memory - imaginative rehearsal
mental time travel does not exploit different systems for memory and imagination
“essential feature of mental time travel is theability to create and recreate these experiences under voluntary controlrather than via the presentation of an eliciting situation or object”
“decision-making involves mental time travel. That is to say the subjectremembers what happened last time and uses that information tocreate and inhabit a future scenario. In contrast a patient with ventro-medial damage cannot perform mental time travel. Not because she lacks an episodic database but because she cannot make use of it”
Bratman’s agency, we are temporally extended agents, planners and commitment makers.
Diachronic reasons compete with synchronic desires. Diachronic reasons are normative for us.
Moral judgement can only be made by those who meet a threshold of moral agency
“Where the capacity for mental time travel is seriously damaged there is no sense in which the individual might besaid to be shaping her own life or acting on the basis of reasons over enough time so as to satisfy the threshold for moral agency.”
Patient M.L., N.N.
I grant, agency is impaired for these folks – moral planning is significant. Is it agency all gone though? Are they implying these people aren’t moral agents at all? Where emotional valence is no longer associated with reasoning processes, I can see where rational deliberation might be impaired.
They do seem to be minimal moral agents, possibly.
“Mental time travel is the mechanism by which we acquire the phe-nomenology of a temporally extended self with an integrated past,present, and future. What ventromedial patients lose is not just the ability to plan but the prerequisite sense of diachronic selfhood intim-ately connected with an autobiography with a distinctive emotional character. This provides an explanation of the observed incapacity of ventromedial patients to translate their impersonal social judge-ments — the products of explicit reasoning — into personal practical judgements. They have lost the sense of the ‘I’ to whom the judgement is to be indexed so they literally don’t know what to do.”
Stroud – Kant
Kant calls idealism problematic.
Kant thinks other theories of knowledge fail because they represent knowledge of things external to us in an indirect or inferential way.
External objects must not be inferred, they must be immediately perceived (consciousness of).
If Descartes were right in representing our perception of objects in the way he does, he would also be right in concluding that we can know nothing about the external world.
Kant is like Moore in some sense, as there is no inference to the existence of his hands. He just immediately perceives and knows this. Kant thinks a good theory of knowledge describes exactly this and does not resort to inferences.
Moore’s detractors expect other kinds of knowledge to support the premises of Moore. But, knowledge doesn’t have to be like that…apparently. Kant would not have argued against Moore in such a fashion, but Kant thinks that Moore’s proof does not defeat philosophical skepticism.
Kant thinks we must show that skeptical idealism is false.
Kant’s realism has not only a metaphysical aspect, but also an epistemic aspect. Our epistemic perception and knowledge to external thing is direct, unmediated, and hence not inferred.
Realism is the view that objects exist in space and we have direct access to them.
Kant’s Scandal: the existence of things outside us has to be accepted ‘merely on faith’.
We have to establish the “in general knowing things external to us exist” in order to complete the proof that Moore provides??
Being actual is the best proof of possible. Moore seems to provide actual, and thus possible.
Kant wants to prove that the conclusion can’t be reached from the premises that the skeptic takes to be coherent.
Epistemic priority or primacy over ontology (metaphysics?).
Kant wants to prove that epistemic priority is wrong.
Moore only asks about internal questions, while Kant’s realism is and question about legitimacy is external.
Kant suggests that inner experience is only possible if outer experience is possible. If inner experience is possible, then so is outer experience.
Pg 114, why does it imply? (first page, upperhalf)
For Kant, if we have any experience at all (including Descarte’s inner experience), it is because we have direct access to external experience.
Copernican Revolution of philosophy: Transition from “knowledge conforms to objects” to “objects conform to our knowledge” (a.k.a.?? ‘the constitution of our faculty of intuition’). The external world depends upon our perceiving and cognizing it.
Kant’s realism is a kind of idealism, transcendental idealism. Kant accepts empirical realism, “That I directly perceive things which aren’t dependent upon me for their existence.” He denies transcendental realism, however.
Only if transcendental IDEALISM is true can empirical realism be true. There must be an a priori, non-empirical element or ingredient in all our empirical knowledge. That ingredient is the subject of transcendental philosophy, and clearly, it can’t be studied empirically.
We must discovered the necessary, a priori conditions of knowledge.
We can only know, a priori, what the necessary conditions of knowledge of objects are, only if those conditions somehow are to be found ‘in’, or have their ‘source’ ‘in’ us, the knowing subjects, and not in some independent conditions or states of affairs to which we might not have reliable access.
Stroud – Chapter 5 - Positivism – self-refuting bitches
Verifiability Thesis (can it also be established, or does it refute itself?) – When something can’t be verified empirically, it isn’t a meaningful issue, so there is no truth or falsity to such a pseudo-proposition.
Empirical Realism
Locke – representative realist
Empirical Idealism
Descartes
Berkeley
When you turn around, does the object go away? (God is still perceiving it, so no, it doesn’t)
The stuff in the world is literally made out of ideas of the mind
Transcendental Realism
Transcendental Idealism
The traditional way that Kant gives an argument is to give a transcendental argument, which has the following structure:
Point out that we do have a certain kind of experience.
What is necessary for us to have that experience (or representation)? A priori necessary.
Problematic (possible), Apodictic (necessary)
We bring certain aspects of logic to the way we talk about the world.
In order to have any experience, we must understand the world as having causation and substances (something like what Aristotle was talking about) which have properties. We can’t conceive of the world in any other way, and these categories must apply. We can’t have a coherent thought about the world without thinking in these ways. The world has to be this way ‘for us’.
How could we think of the world independent of us? Either nothing or with these categories.
In the world about which we talk, these properties must be instantiated. Maybe there is another world out there that is totally separate, …?
“The thing-in-itself” we still tend to think of it as an individual substance/or set of substances, and we tend to think of properties out there in the world, and we tend tot hink of these things as causing representations in us. But, to think of it like this already requires that we employ these ‘categories’.
The world that we talk about and represent must be this way – that is not to say we can’t be wrong at any individual time. For example, if I took LSD and hallucinated a cat, I would be wrong in thinking there is a cat there, but I’m not wrong about the basic nature of the world. I represent the world as sitting out there, and I can’t be wrong about that. I cannot think about anything at all unless I think of it as having certain basic properties. The world must have the basic properties. If we try to think of the world without these properties, we can’t think of anything. It is necessary that the world we think about has these properties.
The general structure of the world must be a certain way. Kant is an empirical realist, as there either is a cat out there on the desk or there is not. We could be mistaken about it. We can’t however, be mistaken about whether there is an external world or categories about it.
Transcendental does not mean transcendent. It is an a priori matter in which something necessarily has to be in order for us to understand it. Transcendental means it is part of the way we think about it.
Transcendental realism would be: the categories of the world is determined independently of us…
1.
Shafer-Landau’s final blow to psychological egoism may rest upon some version of the principle of “following appearances.” The principle seems to be that we are epistemically justified in believing in the world of appearances, and that we are not epistemically justified in doubting that appearances match reality without some remarkable evidence. I worry that good philosophic investigation, however, may require a degree of rigor beyond the principle of “following appearances.” Skepticism, whether about the external world or moral motivation, might have acceptably high epistemic standards, and I don’t know if we, as philosophers, are justified in simply dismissing skeptical doubt out of hand. I take the psychological egoist’s arguments to be similar to the external world skeptic’s arguments in some salient ways. For example, for every anecdote, story, or example of experience or belief about things in the external world, the skeptic can redescribe these in terms of the possibility of our dreaming, our delusions, or our being brains in a vat; likewise, to every anecdote, story, or example of altruism, psychological egoism tries to redescribe these events in terms of self-interested motivation. These skeptics seem to be offering serious and thoughtful problems for philosophers to investigate.
Should we really agree to the principle of “following appearances” in this investigation? Isn’t our mission one which might require that we set the principle of “following appearances” aside and take more seriously the charges of the skeptic? Shouldn’t we be driven to actually falsify psychological egoism to pave the way for our ordinary conceptions of morality in the same that we are driven to falsify external world skepticism in order to pave the way for our ordinary conceptions of (and knowledge about) the external world? Don’t we want to show not merely that we are justified in believing that altruism is possible (and even likely), but also complete the more difficult task of showing why the psychological egoist can never be justified in believing altruism is impossible?
2.
Despite Shafer-Landau’s attempts to demonstrate otherwise, anecdotal examples and stories of altruism still seem as though they can always be retold through the lens of self-interested motivation. I think most advocates of PE would argue Shafer-Landau problematically assumes that we generally know the real, deep aims of our actions, the real motivations behind our choices (he trusts testimony a lot). Importantly, I think PE has to be pointing out that we generally don’t know our motivations, and that we don't always have conscious access to or awareness of our motivations, particularly to our ultimate, action-guiding motivation(s). Otherwise, I think most people could demonstrate to themselves the falsehood of PE simply by pointing to experiences (however uncommon those may be) where they were aware of being altruistically motivated. Surely those arguing for PE know they have to bypass that common counterexample. PE likely explains motivation in seemingly sneaky, sinister, and elaborate ways (bordering on Ad Hoc), demonstrating that we don’t really know our motivations like we thought we did. Yes, PE is tricky, but it isn’t necessarily wrong, and I don’t see why it is as unreasonable as believing in invisible elves. Selfishness is serious business. We should take very seriously the possibility that when we believe we are altruistically motivated that we are wrong, that we have rationalized, deceived ourselves, and effectively remain ignorant of what really motivates us, and rather it must be self-interest which ultimately motivates us and underlies the appearance of our altruistic motivations.
Do we generally have conscious access to and awareness of our motivations? Do we generally know what motivates us? If not (which is a possibility), shouldn’t the charge against PE be that the claim “we generally don’t know what motivates us” demonstrates not only that we aren’t justified in arguing for the possibility of altruistic motivation (as PE will claim), but in turn also demonstrates that we aren’t justified in arguing for purely self-interested motivation either? After all, we just don’t know our motivations. Should we think that PE sits at the horns of a dilemma, where either we know what motivates us (which is at least sometimes altruistic motivation), or we don’t know what motivates us (and thus can’t know that we are always motivated out of self-interest)?
---
Psychological Egoism
Gyges examples, there is a difference between desire satisfaction, acting only from desire, and true self-interest (which we may not even know for ourselves). We would seek at we thought was in our best interests, but we could be wrong.
Moral motivation problem. Never for the sake of the moral law, always for our own sake.
The Implications of Egoism
P-E describes our psychological limitations, and isn’t meant to be, at least not directly and obviously a normative prescription. However, if we agree to “ought implies can,” and if we literally can’t be altruistic, then it can’t be the case that we ought to be altruistic.
Ought(altruistic)->Can(altruistic) Premise
~Can(altruistic) Premise
~Ought(altruistic) MT: 1, 2
So, the claim on our psychological limitations (what we ‘can’ do), is indirectly a claim what can’t be prescriptive.
Note that “self-interest” is different from “all human actions are aimed at avoiding some personal loss or gaining some personal benefit”
I’m not sure the strongest versions of psychological egoism have really been presented here.
The author doesn’t extend the implications of psychological egoism far enough.?? The Ought->Can is significant. And, if P-E is true, then we don’t have altruistic obligations, and that means a significant number of robust moral realist theories are implausible since they require motivations other than self-interest. Morality would be wildly different.
Perhaps a bit more is stake. I’m not sure.
Anecdotal refutations of psychological egoism, stories of intended altruism, can always be converted or retold through the lens of self-interest.
Importantly, I think P-E has to be pointing out that we don’t always have conscious access to or control over our motivations, particularly to our ultimate motivation (which must always be self-interest on P-E). Otherwise, I think a number of people could point to times where they themselves thought they were being altruistic, and remember “being motivated out of altruism” to demonstrate (to themselves) that psychological egoism can’t be true. P-E must explain motivation in a sneaky, sinister, elaborate way sometimes (bordering on Ad Hoc).
Note that this problem has deeper roots than egoism (which speaks to what we are motivated by, but not why we are forced to be motivated by it): namely, some variant of psychological determinism. Make no mistake, our autonomy is at stake. The lines P-E must cross to demonstrate our self-interest to such an extreme extent may require a tacit agreement to at least some weak version of psychological determinism (at which point, I’m inclined to the think moral game is over).
Argument from Our Strongest Desire
Premise 1
What does it mean to have a strongest desire? Very unclear to me. What ultimately motivates us vs. strongest desire (are these different to begin with or not)?
Don’t have total access to our desires, and then we P-E need not deny the strictly conscientious action.
Unless science can prove otherwise, I take the P-E’s argument to have come close to the strength of external world skepticism in this way: To every anecdote, story, or example of the external world, the skeptic can demonstrate a way in which I’m dreaming, I’m crazy, or I’m a brain in a vat; likewise, to every anecdote, story, or example of altruism, P-E can demonstrate a way in which I’m acting in self-interest.
P-E can’t demonstrate the 2nd premise, but we can’t prove the 2nd premise is false either. This is kind of what external world skepticism is like. Don’t we need to be able to prove the 2nd premise is false to pave the way for morality in the same that we need to prove the external world exists in order to pave the way for knowledge about the external world?
Premise 2
Malicious desire satisfaction and egoism. Not obviously in self-interest. We don’t know what we really desire or what really motivates us, I think is the egoists next move.
Doing what you really want to do is just autonomy.
Argument From Expected Benefit
What is “better off”? Generally is something prudential. I think there is a way of thinking of “better off” in terms of what is moral. Consider if: I do X for the sake of the moral law. Another way of thinking about “for the sake of the moral law” is to say, well, “for the sake of being a virtuous person,” right? If you think that value isn’t prudential, but moral, there might be an odd case for an odd version of self-interest in the virtuous agent. This isn’t clearly in conflict with altruism though, which seems to be about prudential good (eudaimonia or even hedonic good). Of course, this isn’t for the sake of the satisfaction of doing X for the sake of the moral law, but there seems to be a way in which we can talk about doing X for the sake of being a good person, where being a good person just is doing X for the sake of moral law.
Double-effect law in Expected benefit. Aim/Expectation distinction. My Aim is X, but I also expect in achieving X that Y. My aim isn’t, however, Y.
Argument from Avoiding Misery
Appealing the Guilty Conscience
The example of evidence, elves, and psychological egoism.
Egoism is a theory about human motivation. Why should we think testimony and behavior are the only sources of evidence explaining human motivation?
The principle of “following appearances” isn’t what we are after though.
The appearance of altruism is really altruistic at all.
Philosophic investigation is too rigorous to accept the principle of “following appearances” – see external world skepticism.
Merely rationalizing, lying to yourself,
I’m worried that Shafer-Landau has s
Batson
“how social an…”
20 years later…robotics is a bit different.
“analysis of the nature of the motivation underlying the empathy-helping relationship”
The empathy-helping relationship. Relationship between feeling-for and helping…
PE’s response:
Aversive-Arousal Reduction: We act to relieve their distress as an instrument to relieving our own distress
Punishment Avoidance: We anticipate feeling ashamed or guility, and thus act instrumentally to avoid these feelings.
Reward Seeking: We anticipate feeling good about ourselves, and thus act instrumentally to have these feelings.
Formal structure of altruism question:
Explanation Helping Others Self-Benefit
PE account Instrumental Final End
Altruistic acc. Final End Secondary, unintended effect
How do we know the ultimate goal, final end?
We infer (but cannot directly observe) another person’s goals or intentions via their behavior
We can’t infer the ultimate goal (assuming there are multiple potential goals) of any single behavior instance
We can infer the ultimate goal if we observe the person’s behavior in different situations that involve a change in relation between the potential ultimate goals. (why should I agree to this?)
Perform conceptual analysis of various potential alternative goals for the person’s action (this seems hard to do, incomplete, etc.)
Observe the person’s behavior in systematically varying circumstances (how do we know they are all the same tests?)
The general test: Goals could be obtained sometimes by the cost of helping, other times at no cost. If this variation eliminated the empathy-helping relationship, then self-benefit is the ultimate goal.
Empathy-altruism hypothesis.
Escape X Empathy design
Why should varying degrees of difficulty of escape have anything to do with aversive-arousal reduction? If you observed it, you observed it. It sticks with you! Escaping doesn’t remove your distress (I’m not talking about guilt here). If I saw someone being tortured in the next, even if I left building, I would still be distressed.
Escape Low-Empathy High-Empathy
Aversive-arousal reduction explanation
Easy Low Low
Difficult High High/Very High
Empathy-Altruism hypothesis
Easy Low High
Difficult High High
Why should I think this chart is right? How do you know if a person has high-empathy?
Justification for Not Helping X Empathy Design
Justification Low-Empathy High-Empathy
Empathy-Specific Punishment Explanation
Low Moderate High
High Low Low
Empathy-Altruism hypothesis
Low Moderate High
High Low High
Woman’s Plight / Pledge Form Study
Why are the responses of previously asked peers going to offer high or low justifications of not helping?
Helping Irrelevant Features of a Decision. Raffle ticket for 30$ or reduce shock. I don’t understand this test.
Qualifying Performance Study (measures motivation)
Empathy-specific Reward Explanation
Rawls offers us a four-step CI-Procedure (CI-P). I’m still not sure why the moral law, CI, and CI-P are distinct. He claims it is not algorithmic. I’m not sure what Rawls means by this. Surely a procedure just is a kind of algorithm. A couple times he points toward it being implicit. I’m worried that this procedure borders on not being rational these things are true. Perhaps I’ve deeply misunderstood him though. Anyways, he lays out the CI-P, the conditions of permissibility, and some limits of information. Obviously, these limits are very similar to his ‘veil of ignorance’.
We are offered six conceptions of the good, each building off the previous. Rawls tries to point toward how pure practical reason subordinates empirical practical reason. This hierarchy of good starts with base happiness directed by hypothetical imperatives connected to step one of CI-P, associated with our empirical practical reason. This is demonstrated as being lower than higher goods which are based on pure practical reason. I’m not quite sure why there should be a distinction between “highest” and “supreme” good (those words are synonyms in my mind). I understand the difference between “highest good” (complete good, the existence of the realm of ends + the first type of happiness maximized in accordance with the moral law) and “supreme good” (the good will).
Rawls distinguishes rational intuitionism from Kantian moral constructivism. I can try to summarize the moves going on (I have a lot of reading notes), but I fear that I start to really lose track of what is really happening in the argument around here. I take Rawls’ ultimate point to be that Kant’s constructivism (a) is related to this Copernican revolution of moral philosophy (where Right->Good, instead of Good->Right), and (b) points out that objective moral truths are generated by the moral principle employed by rational agents. Importantly, it seems as though moral truths are reliant upon reason to generate them; moral truths are not prior to reason, and it is not the job of reason to figure out objective moral truths that might be prior to reason. Reason helps to supply content to the moral law.
Admittedly, I don’t think I really grasp what is going on for the most part in the rest of the article. I think I understand how the moral law, by definition, is universally binding, authoritative, motivating, overriding all other reasons, but I’m not quite sure if understand why it doesn’t require justifying grounds (depends on what we mean by justifying here, I suppose). My interest was piqued in the consideration of how the moral law is presupposed for moral consciousness (although, I’m not sure I understand what this term means) just as the categories are presupposed for sensible experience.
---
4-step CI-Procedure
Moral law, CI, and CI-Procedure are distinct.
CI-P: “schema to characterize the framework of deliberation that such agents use implicitly in their moral thought.” Not an algorithm, nor debating rules. If it isn’t algorithmic, I’m worried that it isn’t even reasonable – isn’t that part of what I mean by rational?
Generate a rational, sincere maxim (from agent’s perspective); a particular hypothetical imperative (HI)
I am to do (action) X in circumstances C in order to bring about (states of affairs) Y.
Generalize the maxim to everyone
Everyone is to do (action) X in circumstances C in order to bring about (states of affairs) Y.
Convert general maxim into a publically recognized and followed law of nature
Everyone always does (action) X in circumstances C in order to bring about (states of affairs) Y.
Calculate the Perturbed Social World
Adjoin new law of nature with existing laws of nature
Calculate the resulting, new order of nature, a.k.a. perturbed social world (PSW)
Permission:
Be able to rationally, sincerely intend the maxim as an agent within the PSW.
Be able ‘to will’ this PSO and affirm that we should belong to it.
Maxim of indifference is rejected by Kant.
CI-P is too strong, according to Rawls, since it rejects all maxims that lead to moral precepts or duties ??
What is this calculation like? Are some of the epistemic problems of consequentialism going to carry over into Rawls’ CI-P (particularly at 502)?
Limits on information (sounds like going behind the veil of ignorance)
Ignore particular features of persons and final ends/desires
Ignorance of our place in the world
Conditions of CI-P
Requires of moral not must not be merely formal
otherwise, would not have sufficient content
Must enable us to see how the moral law discloses our freedom to us
Freedom is required for the procedure to authenticated as objective and the work of reason
Pure reason resists and dominates empirical, practical reason. ??
Our humanity = pure practical reason + moral sensibility (capacity for moral feeling)
The sequence of six conceptions of the Good
Happiness as organized by the HI
Connected to step 1 of CI-P
Satisfies principle of rational deliberation
No information restriction – we have access to our desires, abilities, situation, alternatives, etc.
Fulfillment of True Human Needs
Connected to/required by step 4 of CI-P to compare PSW’s from different maxims
Type 1 Happiness is relative to the individual, which is a problem for step 4 of CI-P
This is Type 2 Happiness, with the information restrictions, and is thus more general
Permissible Ends; ends that respect the limits of the moral law
Rejecting those maxims rejects by the CI-P
Good->right (utility) vs. Right->Good (Kant) – Copernican Revolution of moral phil.
Good Will
Rawls employs Frankfurtian language of ordered desires
Realm of Ends; the good as the object of the moral law
Utopia resulting from global and total execution of the CI-P
Necessary object of a will, determined by the moral law
Moral law describes this realm, not the realm describing (giving content) to the moral law.
Complete Good
The existence of the realm of ends + all people have Type 1 Happiness (as far as possible and in accordance with the moral law)
Highest good (where as Good will is the ‘supreme good’ ??)
Two forms of practical reason: reasonable (pure practical reason, CI) and rational (empirical practical reason, HI). Unity of reasons: Reasonable restricting and subordinating the rational.
Kant’s Moral Constructivism
Rational Intuitionism (RI)
Basic moral conception of right and good cannot be analyzed in terms of nonmoral concepts
First (basic?) principles of morals enables us to assert intrinsic good, justice, right action, virtuous character, moral motivation
First principles are true or false prior to and independent of cperson, social, and social role of moral doctrines
RI not necessary about self-evidence.
RI can be utilitarian, perfectionist, or pluralist.
RI is heteronomous. ?? Why?
Kant’s Moral constructivism (KMC), first princiople of right and justice are seen as specific by a procedure of construction…
KMC require a complex person to specify content of moral view, RI requires a spare person.
Roots of constructivism lie in Transcendental Idealism
What is constructed?
The Content of the doctrine
Is the CI-P constructed?
No, but it is ‘laid out’
Everyday human understanding is implicitly aware of the requirements of (both pure and empirical) practical reason
What is meant by the claim: the form and structure of the CI-P mirrors our free moral personality as both reasonable and rational?
??
The conception of free and equal persons as reasonable and rational is the basis of the construction ??
RI and KMC are both objective, just in different ways. For RI, moral judgment is prior to moral value, reason, rationality, autonomy, responsibility, freedom, and equality (I don’t see how). For KMC, moral judgment conforms to the reason and rationality unifyingly expressed by the CI-P.
KMC does not say that moral facts are constructed (I don’t see why not). KMC specifies which facts count as reasons (in moral deliberation?).
What kind of authentication has the moral law?
Moral law, by definition, is universally binding, authoritative, motivating, and overriding all other reasons. It has no justifying grounds.
I’m fucking lost.
Pure reason is the faculty of orientation, organizing, regulating, and providing ends to spheres, theoretical and practical.
Moral law : moral consciousness :: categories : sensible experience of objects in space and time
Moral law is presupposed, just as the categories are presupposed.
I have no idea what this section is about or what it means.
The Moral Law as a Law of Freedom
Pure reason (both theoretical and practical) is free.
Freedom of Will = Freedom of Thought
CI-P exhibits the moral law as unconditional and sufficient of itself to determine the will.
The empirical verifiability principle of meaningfulness is the doctrine that a sentence is meaningful if and only if it is verifiable or falsifiable at least to some degree, and the confirmation of disconfirmation ultimately comes from sense-experience.
Meaninglessness = incapable of truth of falsity
Verifiability principle views skepticism as meaningless (as well as transc. Idealism)
Carnap accepts “conditional correctness’ of skepticism; if there are meaningful questions about the knowledge of the word, skepticism is correct
VP (verifiability principle) is deflationary
Two ingredients to knowledge: the experience on which it is based, the linguistic framework in terms of which we understand that experience.
Nichols – Mindreading & Batson
Affect system, “Concern Mechanism,” which is minimal capacity for mindreading; minimal being the attribution of distress to another.
Mind-reading: attributing mental states to others and predicting others’ behavior
What is the relationship between mindreading and altruistic motivation?
Nichols argues that a sophisticated mindreading capacity is not necessary for altruistic motivation.
One might argue there is no mindreading. But, this doesn’t make sense of why people don’t just ‘leave’ the situation and instead try to help. This is a dumb argument though, as that isn’t altruism at all, right?
On the categoricity of child suffering: Thailand, it is commonly asserted that orphan children deserve to suffer because it is their Karma. People will feed dogs before they feed orphan children.
Emotional Contagion View
“when we ‘catch’ another’s affect. Some capacity for emotional contagion is present at birth as evidenced by the fact that infants will cry when they hear the cries of another infant (Simner, 1971). The capacity for emotional contagion thus does not require the capacity for perspective taking.”
Altruistic Sympathy
Sympathy is a special form of empathy, and it doesn’t require mindreading.
Perspective Taking accounts of altruistic motiviation:
“First, the agent determines the beliefs and desires of the person in distress. Then the agent pretends to have those beliefs and desires. These pretend-states are then operated on automatically, leading to affective states that are similar to the target’s state, i.e., distress. These unpleasant affective states then motivate the agent to eliminate the problem at its source, viz., the other person’s distress.”
Explain altruistic motivation is very young children. They are too young for perspective taking, a robust kind of mindreading, but not too young for minimal mindreading.
The Concern Mechanism
Functional mechanism; input (presentation that attribute distress), output (affect that motivates altruistic behavior).
Makes sense of children and autistic individuals, even though these groups lack perspective taking.
Blair – Empathy, Responding to the emotions of others
Argues against unitary empathy process. Blair dissociates 3 divisions of empathy: cognitive (theory of mind), motor, and emotional. 2 kinds of empathic dysfunction: autism and psychopathy. Autistic individuals lack in cognitive and motor, but not emotional. Psychopaths lack a specific form of emotional empathy, but are not impaired otherwise.
Cognitive (theory of mind) empathy:
The ability to represent the mental states of others (thought, desires, beliefs, intentions, and knowledge). Might be necessary for emotional empathy (although, it isn’t clear how autists work then).
Motor Empathy and the perception-action model:
The tendency to automatically mimic and synchronize facial expressions, vocalizations, postures, and movements with those of another person. Primitive sympathy, mirror neurons.
Emotion empathy:
Affects probabilities of behaviors
---
Altruism among non-human animals is restricted to kinship. Amongst humans, even strangers will often demonstrate reciprocal altruism. Reciprocal altruism is still based upon long-term self-interest.
Behavioral, rather than psychological, altruism is examined.
“Wewill show that the interaction between selfish and strongly recipro-cal individuals is essential for understanding of human cooperation.We identify conditions under which selfish individuals trigger thebreakdown of cooperation, and conditions under which stronglyreciprocal individuals have the power to ensure widespreadcooperation. Next we discuss the limits of human altruism thatarise from the costs of altruistic acts. Finally, we discuss theevolutionary origins of the different forms of human altruism. Weare particularly interested in whether current evolutionary modelscan explain why humans, but not other animals, exhibit large-scalecooperation among genetically unrelated individuals, and to whatextent the evidence supports the key aspects of these models.”
Altruistic punishment; Ultimatum games, paying a cost to prevent unfair outcomes.
The ultimatum games seems very simple. I wonder if that is a problem.
Trust/Trustee, works even at very high stakes. Public goods experiments, however, devolve over repeated gameplay (10 rounds or more). Selfishness breaks down cooperation – altruists are disappointed.
Just because we are selfish doesn’t mean we have to be, right?
2-person tit-for-tat strategies work, n-person prisoner’s dilemmas don’t lead to cooperation
How do we map reputations and what they do?
---
Notes from Loewenstein’s Lecture
(A significant portion of this is taken straight from the lecture. Unfortunately, I don’t know which words are mine and which are his. All credit obviously goes to Loewenstein. I’m simply trying to demonstrate that I paid attention and took notes).
At first, people thought emotion was just arousal plus cognitive labeling. Until fairly recently, we lacked the neural signatures of these emotions. Loewenstein looked for these signatures. He recruited 10 actors trained to self-induce nine emotional states: anger, disgust, envy, fear, happiness, lust, pride, sadness, shame (with calm being the baseline). Machine learning algorithms sifted through fMRI scans of these actors. The machine output a ranked list of emotions which count as the guess of which emotion was being induced.
With this tool, Loewenstein sought to answer 3 major questions:
Within subject classification:
Can we predict the emotion being experience by a participant on the basis of his/her other activations?
Between subject classification:
Can we predict the emotion being experienced on the basis of other participants’ neural activation?
Cross-modal classification:
Can we predict what type of picture a participant is looking at on the basis of neural action from the self-induced emotion trials?
The tool proved useful. Within subject classification: 83% of the guesses were correct.
Between subject classification: ~70% were correct. Cross-modal classification was a bit more complex, the top emotion 60% was correct, and the correct answer was in top 2 ranked guesses 80% of the time. Interestingly, the method also told us which emotions are similar or clustered together. With this tool, we possess emotional signatures across episodes, individuals, and different types of experience.
This tool is significant for many reasons. For example, self-reporting is not accurate, many emotions aren't accessible consciously. An fMRI/Heuristic tool would be more accurate and objective. It can help us uncover mixed emotions.
Emotions constitute 'superordinate programs' that orchestrate a concerted psycho-physiological response to recurrent situations of adaptive significance in our evolutionary past, such as fighting, falling in love, escaping predators, and experiencing a loss in status.
Emotions, according to this perspective, are not reducible to effects occurring in specific parts of the brain, specific feelings, motivations or appraisals, but can and typically do involve a wide array of physiological and psychological changes, including effects on perception, attention, inference, learning, motivation, and physiology.
Emotions reprogram us. A series a studies demonstrate this.
Endowment Effect: People become attached to objects in their possession and reluctant to part with them. High selling, low buying prices. Sadness and disgust examined; what do they signal? What do they appraise? What actions (tendency) are associated with them? How is the Endowment Effect affected by our emotions?
Sexual arousal study. Men answered questions while either masturbating or abstaining. Arousal changes who you are and what you like. Some interesting/messed-up questions were asked. Tame ones: “Would you tell her you love her (if you don't)?” and “Would you slip her a drug?” - yeah, arousal had enormous impact. People are impatient and take more risks when aroused.
Emotions transform us. Since our emotions change so much, it seems like our identity is somewhat unstable. Further, “reprogram” is an odd word. It seems more like it changes how we respond in the moment, but “programming” seems to have a longer lasting notion built into it. How do emotions affect us in the long term? This wasn’t made very clear in the lecture.
Loewenstein talked about a Hot/cold empathy gap (briefly and in a rushed manner). He discussed a study about thirst and hikers, emphasizing emotion perspective taking. How does thirst/hunger feel for the hiker? How would you feel? He considers a teacher's feedback. How would I behave if I got negative feedback? How am I different from this other person?
“Chickening out” is due to people failing to anticipate their emotions. Most people have no problem saying they will bungee jump, but chicken out later. Show people a scary film, and they are less likely to plan to bungee jump. They are more in touch with their own fear, apparently. What does this mean? I don't think they are better at predicting/anticipating, only that they have a certain emotion which shades the context. Loewenstein wasn’t clear on this.
Another example would be drug addiction. If you aren't craving a drug, it is hard to imagine what addiction to a drug would be like. It is difficult to imagine addiction having so much force/weight/influence on your behavior, that's why people are possibly willing to start in the first place (even if they cognitively know what might happen). This gap causes over-optimism about quitting smoking occurs, but it also explains intolerance and lack of empathy toward addicts.
Life outlook is also affected by this gap. Suicide may be impulsive. Hopelessness is a great indicator. Hot-Cold Empathy gap explains why we feel like we will never feel any better when we are experiencing hopelessness, and hence why some people may have the impulse to kill themselves when they have this emotion. Suicidal feelings are crisis-oriented and acute in nature. That's why so many people don't succeed in suicide after having tried it. His “94% lived or died of natural causes” statistic doesn’t necessarily show that suicide is impulsive behavior. easy to be cavalier to death went you aren't immediately facing it. Further, willingness to trade length of life for quality of death changes over time. Young people think life isn't worth living when you are old. Life becomes more and more precious to you as you get older and closer to actual death.
Loewenstein concludes that emotional insufficiency seems to be at the root of many of our (modern) problems. Modern world, threats aren't the same (no predators). Climate change, for example, unfolds gradually, happens to other people and generations. Our emotional system has not prepared us for this. We are not affected enough to solve these problems.
How do we justify, vindicate, define, and provide standards for reason? I don’t know. Reason’s authority can’t rest upon some other foundation, else that foundation will also need justification – this seems to be a version of the epistemic regress problem. The order of reason seems to be arising from the chaos, but the chaos cannot ground it. What grounds and constitutes reason? I don’t know. O’Neill claims that Kant, in contrast to Descartes, thinks answering these questions is a shared, practical task among many people, among a “task force,” a tribunal. That tribunal and its plan is the critique of pure reason.
O’Neill claims that first critique is anti-rationalist and anti-foundationalist. He claims that for Kant, reason is (using a political analogy) no dictator. Reason lacks definitions, axioms, and demonstration. Importantly, reason is not algorithmic. It isn’t clear what is meant by non-algorithmic, else reason would be incomplete – I need this argument expanded for me before I might offer (likely foundationalist) criticisms. Admittedly, I don’t think I’ve quite wrapped my head around the political analysis going on here, nor the exact nature of this construction (a shame, I suppose, as that’s what I’m supposed to understand after reading and thinking about this article).
The tribunal is trying to find what constitutes reason, what makes reason authoritative, and this is seen as a political task. The tribunal must agree to this plan. What this means or looks like, I’m not really sure. The primary claims are (a) the critique is recursive, and (b) reason is constructed, internally, rather than imposed from an external source. There are limits to this construction, and those limits are set out and perhaps even imposed by the tribunal.
Importantly, this construction is limited by negative instructions. We are limited from those ways of thinking, communicating, and acting which can’t be adopted by the entire tribunal. This sounds a lot like the CI, which I suppose is the point, if we are to talk about these limitations as being the supreme principle of reason (and not just practical reason).
I have clearly misunderstood something deeply about the argument surrounding the claim that the CI only tells us what we must not do, but does not instruct us in what we must do. This seems like an obvious mistake, and Kant (and his many interpreters) would not make a simple mistake (assuming I’m right about it being a mistake).
I assume our duties look something like this on such a reading:
Nobody should X in circumstance Y.
That is the sort of limiting duty which the CI can spit out. Further, our duties can’t be like this:
Everybody should A in circumstance B.
This is too positive. However, we can easily turn this positive form into a negative one:
Nobody should ~A in circumstance B.
And, notice, we can reverse the original negative form into a positive one:
Everybody should ~X in circumstance Y.
Unless I am mistaken, which I must be, it seems the form doesn’t matter at all. So, it isn’t clear to me how the CI spits out what we ought not do, but not what we ought do – to have one is to have a version of the other. Maybe I’m should be criticized for playing with words here, but that isn’t my intention. I think I have misunderstood something important and basic. More problematic, I’m not sure why should agree to this business of the CI ‘providing limits and no positive instruction’ in the first place.
On a side note, the author claims: “History looks backward, politics forward,” where politics is central to reason and the CI. This reminds me of some of your arguments in class. Several times, as a response to our worries and criticisms, you’ve argued that this theory is “forward looking.”
---
O’Neill claims that first critique is antirationalist and antifoundationalist.
Cartesian contrast and Baconian theme.
Where does Kant start. It isn’t Cartesian. It is a shared, practical task among many people, among a “task force,” a tribunal. That tribunal is the critique of pure reason.
A critique of reason begs the question of what counts as reason to even provide a critique.
Lacks a method of inquiry, but suggests a plan of inquiry. Proposal, hypothesis, not proof and assumption. A plan for all the workers.
Construction projects – philosophical method.
Reason needs discipline, a discipline which can’t be external to it.
Philosophy lacks definitions and axioms, also demonstrations.
This account of reason, of method, the vindication of reason must come at the end rather than the beginning of the critique.
Reason’s authority can’t appeal to another, alien authority. Else, we hit the regress problem.
3 political metaphors: tribunal, debate and community
Order arising from the chaos, the chaos cannot ground it.
Reason is no dictator.
Reason is not algorithmic. ?? Goes against foundationalism (is this the foundationalism I have in mind?). It isn’t clear what is meant by nonalgorithmic. Having a bit of a computer science back, I take that claim to be a very significant one. Algorithms are incomplete on O’Neill’s view.
“We have been shown only a negative constraint on reason; any principle of thinking and acting that can have authority cannot enjoin principles on which some members of a pluarily cannot (not “would not”!) act.” This does sound like like the CI, and might make sense of why the CI is the supreme principle of all reasoning (not just practical).
Materials for construction: manifolds, forms of intuitions, categories, and empirical concepts, algorithmic procedures. A heap of materials. Tribunal must act collaboratively.
Critique itself is an “episode in the history of reason”
The task is one of “constituting reason’s authority as a political task”
“History looks backward, politics forward.” This reminds me of some of your arguments in class. Several times, as a response to our worries and criticisms, you’ve argued that this theory is “forward looking.”
Not externally disciplines slaves of a centrally planning despot. We “agree” to the plan. We hneed processures on agreement.
Vindiciation is recursive.
That we disagree rather than find ourselves disoriented in vertigo demonstrates that we assume there are standards of reason.
Debate is not viciously circular. I don’t see why not just yet. Solving regresses with constituve/coherentist arguments always seem to have that problem.
CI is negative instruction; a strategy for avoiding principles of thinking, communication, and acting that cannot be adopted by all members of a plural whose prinicipesl of interaction are not established by any transcendent reality. CI provides limits.
I have clearly misunderstood something deeply because Kant (and his many interpreters) would not make a simple mistake (assuming I’m right about it being a mistake).
Tells not what we ought to do, but what we ought not do. This, of course, is a problem. I assume our duties look like this on such a reading:
Nobody should do X in circumstance Y.
But, our duties can’t be like this:
Everybody should do A in circumstance B.
However, we can easily turn this positive form into a negative one:
Nobody should do ~A in circumstance B.
And, notice, I can reverse the negative duty into a positive one:
Everybody should do ~X in circumstance Y.
Critique is recursive, and reason is constructed rather than imposed. Limits on constructions are imposed by the plurality.
The “negative” and “positive” forms do not matter in some sense.
Quine’s ‘naturalized epstiemology’ rests on the denial of an ‘external, detached position’ from which to conduct the skeptical inquiry. Everything, including everyday knowledge, language, and thought are natural, scientific phenomena.
That there are prime numbers is a question or a mathematician. The acceptance of the realm of numbers is a question of the philosopher. Philosophy differs only in the “breadth of categories”.
The external world is a hypothesis tested by perception.
Theory of language is vital to theory of knowledge because…
Is scientifically justified belief going to count as knowledge? I don’t know. I want it to count, in some ways.
The challenge against our knowledge of the world rests upon that knowledge of the world.
Skeptical doubts are scientific doubts.
Naturalized epistemology is all we have and all we ever need.
Quine is not claiming the skeptic is begging the question. He seems to be conceding that one could start with a scientific-skeptical doubt and arrive at a reductio. But, why does this make sense? Refuting a standard by that standard seems reasonable, but is that the same thing as agreeing to the non-existence of the standard by justifying it with that standard?
Sensory data is meager, and it can’t support out beliefs about the world…
The skeptic is overreacting. It is a form of extremism. Skeptic is right to put it forward though. We don’t have, at the moment, a good reason to reject science on the skeptic’s grounds.
“We must be able to establish some connection between the truth of what they believe and their believing is. Knowing only what they believe, or even that what they believe happens to be true, would not be enough.”
“I could not see those beliefs as anything more than a mere projection or post on his part. That is not to say that I would be in a position to say that they are nothing more than a mere projection and that they are not really true. I couldn't tell that either. It is just that I would not be in a position to see them as more than that”
---
Quine is concerned to define or give an account of analyticity. One major ploy is to define analyticity in terms of synonymy. The general strategy would be to hold that:
A sentence is analytic if and only if it can be reduced to a logical truth by substituting synonyms for synonyms.
Call this “the synonymy criterion.” Here is an example of how it works: We want the following to be analytic:
(2) No bachelor is married.
Using the synonymy criterion, we substitute “unmarried man” for “bachelor” and get the following logical truth:
(1) No unmarried man is married.
But Quine worries: what is synonymy? One attempt to spell out synonym is to say that:
Two predicates F and G are synonymous just in case the sentence “All and only F's are G's” is analytic.
But then the definition of synonymy presupposes the notion of analyticity, and thus synonymy cannot be usefully employed in spelling out analyticity. So Quine tries another track:
(3) Two terms are synonymous just in case they are interchangeable salva veritatae (.e., without change of truth value) in all contexts.
E.g. [George is an unmarried man] and [George is a bachelor]
Now, Quine discusses some problems with this that have to do with substitution of words for parts of words or phrases, and with substitution inside quotation marks. To explain the analyticity of (2) using the synonymy criterion, we had to treat “bachelor” and “unmarried man” as synonymous. Can “bachelor” and “unmarried man” be shown to be synonymous using (3)? Suppose that the following sentence is true:
(4) Bachelor's buttons are my favorite flowers.
(“Bachelor's buttons is here being used to refer to a kind of flower.)
Substituting “unmarried man” for “bachelor” in (4), I get:
(5) Unmarried man's buttons are my favorite flowers.
Insofar as this is grammatical, it is clearly false. So substituting synonyms for synonyms has not preserved truth value, and thus is seems clear that (3) does not provide a good test of synonymy.
To avoid this problem, Quine grants that we can use the notion of “word” for granted, and stipulates that (3) is to be read insuch a way that we are not allowed to interchange occurrences within a word. By treating “bachelor's buttons” as a single word, we are thereby able to avoid the problem just raised. Note that to grant th notion of “word” is not to grant something trivial. The notion of something's being a word, insofar as it is intended to be not a mere sign design, but a sign design with a specific meaning, might itself be spelled out in terms of synonymy. In particular to say that two tokens are tokens of the same word type, we might have to require that they be synonymous. So spelling out how the notion of “word” is to be applied to individual instances may require some notion of synonymy.
Quine wants to argue that spelling out synonymy using (3) ultimately involves spelling it out via the notion of necessity, and that spelling out necessity involves using the notion of analyticity; hence, once again, we have a circular explanation.
The argument goes like this. Suppose we considered a language that did not include the operator “necessarily.” Suppose, moreover, that it was a language in which two predicates are treated as having the same meaning if they have the same extension (i.e., if they are true of the same objects). Now, is such a language, “creature with a heart” and “creature with a kidney” are synonymous, since they have the same extension at the actual world. Consider these two sentences:
(6) Some creatures with a heart are birds.
(7) Some creatures with a kidney are birds.
We substitute “creatures with kidney” for “creatures with a heart” in (6), and get (7). Truth-value is preserved. So far, “Creature with a heart” and “creature with a kidney” are synonyms, according to the test provided by (3). Now consider these two:
(8) All and only creatures with a heart are creatures with a kidney.
(9) All and only creatures with a heart are creatures with a heart.
Here, substitution of “creature with a heart” for “creature with a kidney” in (8) results in (9), and truth value is again preserved.
But now the problem is staring us in the face. Substitution of synonym for synonym in (8), in a purely extensional language, resulted in a logical truth (9). By the synonym criterion of analyticity, we would have to treat (8) in analytic. But we do not want to do that in our language, and, indeed, in our language, we do not want to treat “creature with a heart” and “creature with a kidney” as synonymous. What must we add to extensional language in order to save the test provided by (3)? Quine's answer: we add a necessity operator.
How does adding the necessity operator give us the kind of necessity we want? We want to say that “bachelor” and “unmarried man” are synonyms, but “creature with a heart” and “creature with a kidney” are not. Now consider these four sentences:
(10) Necessarily, all and only unmarried men are bachelors.
(11) Necessarily, all and only bachelors are bachelors.
(12) Necessarily, all and only creatures with a heart are creatures with a kidney
(13) Necessarily, all and only creatures with a kidney are creatures with a kidney.
(11) results from (10) by substituting “bachelors” for “unmarried men,” and truth value is preserved. By (3), “bachelor” and “unmarried man” are synonyms, which is the result we wanted. (Following Quine, I'm not being picky about singular versus plural.) Substituting “creature with a kidney” for “creature with a heart” in (12) results in (13). But truth value is not preserved: (12) is false and (13) is true, at least according to standard ways of thinking. So “creature with a kidney” and “creature with a heart” fail the test for synonymy provided by (3), which is just what we want.
The lesson so far: Given that one has a necessity operator in one's language, one can spell out analyticity in terms of the synonymy criterion, and then spell out synonymy in terms of interchangeability salva veritatae.
But now, says Quine, there is a problem. How are we to understand the necessity operator? For Quine, thinking in the empiricist tradition, the only way one can understand necessity is in terms of how we talk or think about the world, not in terms of how the world is in itself. And the way to do this, in modern discussion, is to spell out necessity in terms of analyticity. SO “Necessarily” just means “it is analytic that.” Now the lesson appears to be: when we spell out analyticity via the synonym criterion and then spell out synonymy in terms of interchangeability salva veritatae, we have to appeal to contexts involving the necessity operator. But, since the necessity operator itself can only be understood in terms of analyticity, a circular pattern of definition once again appears. The general lesson of this discussion is that analyticity can be defined, but only in terms that are ultimately to be understood in terms of the notion of analyticity. So the suggested definition are uninformative.
---
If I’ve understood correctly:
Quine’s naturalized epistemology denies an external, detached position from which to conduct the skeptical inquiry. Everything, including everyday knowledge, language, and thought are natural, scientific phenomena. The external world is a hypothesis we form through perception, and skeptical doubts are scientific doubts about that hypothesis. Skeptical inquiry is a scientific, and so the skeptic’s position must be internal to the scientific perspective rather than external.
I'm struck by the raw potency of scientific inquiry and the supposed necessity of the naturalist position in Quine’s theory. The line of reasoning is odd to me. Why should we think science has this power and why is it the fundamental epistemic perspective? Why should we agree to a natural epistemology? Why should I think Quine's starting position is the right one? It seems like we should be worried about the limits of science, about what kinds of knowledge can be had from science, and it seems very unobvious why the skeptic’s argument has anything to do with the realm of science.
Southern Culture is a spin-off of herding culture, where law enforcement is lacking, and you must defend yourself, hence the violence and culture of honor.
Reminds me of prison culture. Don’t be a bitch, don’t be a punk. You must defend yourself for even the slightest infractions.
Testing Southern and Northern white males at UoMichigan.
Experiment 1, bitches. Bumping into them, calling them an asshole.
Weird observer status.
Yup. Southerners were easier to piss off. Hostility on affront, but not on neutral stimuli.
Experiment 2, cortisol and testosterone test bump
Public “toughness” shock test.
Explore ambiguous stimuli, and public vs. private nature of insult.
Cortisol and testerone levels rose much more in southerners
Experiment 3, chicken game
Southerners thought they lost reputation
Functioonally autonomous ??wtf?
Doris and Plakias
What are the good philosophical reasons to think realism would be undermined by the existence of intractable disagreement?
What are the good empirical reasons to suppose that such disagreement does in fact exist?
Moral questions have correct answers, made correct by objective moral facts. Particularist will say that some moral questions are too broad and lack the context necessary to offer a correct answer*.
“That is, even in ideal conditions, among fully informed, fully rational discussants, moral disagreement may persist. Such fundamental disagreement, the worry goes, undermines the prospects for moral realism”
What are ideal conditions? What does it mean to be fully informed and rational? How do we know moral disagreement would exist in such a hypothetical world?
How does epistemic justification work at all? How is it different from natural science or other “realist” inquiries? Second, it is an occam’s razor to explain fundamental disagreement via moral antirealism.
Convergentists deny fundamental disagreement is pervasive as a hypothetical empirical conjecture, but agrees it would be a problem for moral realism if there was fundamental disagreement.
Divergentists don’t see fundamental disagreement as being a problem either way.
Ideal conditions are beyond us. We can’t attain them. Ideal isn’t only theoretically an empirical thing, but frankly, we’ll never have the ideal. What is fundamental disagreement?
Goldbach’s Conjecture –either true or false (else not a real proposition). Practically speaking, there is no one with proof of it. Even experts in mathematics might believe Goldbach’s conjecture turns out to be false. There is an ultimate, theoretical truth to the matter. None of us are in a position to “know” beyond a shadow of a doubt.
“Discourses where the prospects for convergence appear most troubled are typically the discourses where realist treatments seem least plausible; the existence of fundamental moral disagreement, if it exists, places a heavy rhetorical burden on the moral realist.” So, what? It could seem to most of us that it is unlikely, but we could be wrong. The truth is separate from the argument/rhetoric/etc.
I don’t seem to understand why there is fundamental disagreement between the northerners and southerners? Is it because I disagree on what counts as a fundemtanl disagreement or because I agree to some sort of defusing explanations?
Possible defusing explanations:
Disagreement about relevant nonmoral facts.
Partiality
Irrationality
Backgorund theory
6.1 Leiter
Quine, we can’t rely upon our intuitions or really employ conceptual analysis in many ways.
we need to know what our concepts mean when doing empirical science and
clarity about those concepts, and appreciation of their logical entailments, can affect the conclusions of empirical science.
Worries Doris and Plakias have the wrong practice, they are loose with concepts. Leiter disagrees on the South/North study.
6.2 – Bloomfield
Bloomfield also worries about how we specify ideal observers and conditions, etc.
He thinks Doris and Plakias are talking about normal human beings. But, that isn’t really ideal, now is it – it is fallible, right?
6.3 – Plakias and Doris respond
Misagreements, talking past one another, but not in real disagreement.
I’m going to examine contemporary notions of autonomy, present Kant’s theory of autonomy, investigate the moral significance of this autonomy, compare his notion with contemporary notions, and consider a possible problem for Kant’s theory. Contemporary views of autonomy generally hinge upon three fundamental concepts of self-governing: sovereignty, authenticity, and accountability.<<ref "1">> Contemporary theories of autonomy try to offer an account of at least one (if not all three) of these concepts, while Kant offers an account of authenticity and accountability.
By sovereignty, we speak of physical, political, and social self-rule.<<ref "2">> Autonomy based on sovereignty is concerned with coercion, socio-economic status and opportunity, self-ownership, etc. For example, when someone puts a gun to your head and tells you to jump, you seem to have a choice about whether or not you will jump in a significant sense, and yet you seem forced to jump (lacking a choice) in another substantial sense. This latter sense, essentially coercion, is a violation of the sovereignty.
Sovereignty is a capacity to govern oneself in the most obvious and literal sense: self-governing as political self-governing. Further, sovereignty seems to be a set of sociopolitical goals and rights we seek. For example, children eventually want to make life decisions for themselves; people don’t want a government suppressing their free speech; and, no one wants a gun pointed at his head.
The second fundamental concept, authenticity, pervades contemporary analyses of autonomy. The central problem of authenticity is figuring out how to differentiate our authentic desires and beliefs from inauthentic ones. When a person isn’t being authentic, he is thought to lack autonomy.<<ref "3">> For example, a person profoundly manipulated by hypnosis may be furnished with inauthentic desires which aren’t a genuine part of the authentic self of that agent, and acting upon those desires would demonstrate a lack of autonomy. Further, depression, drug-use, systematic conditioning, etc. are often considered autonomy-defeaters in authenticity-based models of autonomy. We must ask: who is the ‘real you’? There are many routes to answer this question.4 Authenticity-based autonomy may or may not be a capacity, depending on which model is considered. Authenticity, however, is certainly a goal. We want to be ourselves, and we want to be governed primarily by our authentic selves. It is unclear how authenticity plays a role in our rights other than pointing out “who” we assign rights or duties to.
Accountability is the last branch of contemporary notions of autonomy. Autonomy, in this light, is an explanation of whatever it is about us that makes us morally responsible agents. Generally, the requirements of accountability include rationality, consciousness, self-reflection, etc. In addition to these requirements, some concept of “choice” is the vital accountability-making ingredient to our autonomy. For the libertarian, choice originates in an agent’s free will. For the compatibilist, choice is just doing what you want to do. In both cases, autonomy requires an agent to be free from external forces (insofar as that is possible) and to be bound only by one’s self in making choices. In contrast to sovereignty, this concept is wrapped up in the metaphysics of self-governing, describing choice at a more fundamental level. Taking the gun example, whether or not you will jump is ultimately still ‘up to you’. You may get shot for choosing not to jump, but that is your accountability-making choice. Models of autonomy which focus upon accountability are primarily concerned with the capacity to choose between right and wrong. Further, being a moral agent, being accountable for one’s choices, and making choices that matter, is a goal. Life is meaningful because we are accountable – nothing really matters without this capacity. Again, it is ordinarily thought that our moral obligations and rights exist in virtue of accountability-making autonomy.
Kant’s autonomy deals in freedoms, in both the negative and positive senses. Independence from external forces is freedom in the negative sense, while giving oneself law is freedom in the positive sense.<<ref "5">> Kant’s autonomy is concerned with self-legislating, giving oneself law as an unmoved mover, rather than mere self-governing.<<ref "6">> The significance of the Categorical Imperative (CI), the law which is legislated, is highlighted in Kant’s theory of autonomy. The CI is a law which constitutes our reason, not an empirical law from which we can unbind ourselves. We don’t explicitly and consciously choose the CI. Rather, our reason stipulates this law implicitly, immediately, and unreservedly. Just as the basic laws of logic are embedded in the very fabric of our reason, the CI is constitutive of our reason. Indeed, our reason commands the CI as universal and necessary from even very young ages.<<ref "7">> As self-legislators with reason, we are the authors of the bindingness of this law.<<ref "8">>
Since I have very limited space and time, I will only explicate what I consider the central key premise of Kant’s autonomy, which is this:
<<<
The practical rule is therefore unconditional and so is represented a priori as a categorical practical proposition by which the will is objectively determined absolutely and immediately…For, pure reason, practical of itself, is here immediately lawgiving. The will is thought as independent of empirical conditions and hence, as a pure will, as determined by the mere form of law, and this determining ground is regarded as the supreme condition of all maxims…Pure reason is practical of itself alone and gives (to the human being) a universal law which we call the moral law.<<ref "9">>
<<<
Reason provides the necessary and universal moral law. This moral law is constitutive of our reason. Our reason commands, legislates, binds us to, and has embedded within it the CI. Interestingly, there seem to be both active (the legislating) and passive (the constitution or definition of reason) components of Kant’s autonomy. This premise does an enormous amount of work for Kant, and it is the key ingredient to both Kant’s autonomy and to moral obligation in general. This crucial premise of Kantian autonomy demonstrates not only the bindingness of the moral law, but it is also, on Kant’s view, part of why only this kind of autonomy can ground human dignity and generate moral obligation.<<ref "10">>
Kant’s obsession with necessity and universality motivates this grand claim. Indeed, we must investigate the moral law and its foundation, both of which must be absolutely necessary and universal, else we’ve failed to capture genuine morality entirely.<<ref "11">> Moral reasons by definition are overriding and motiving reasons, and the grounds to moral reasons must be unshakeable, else they may generate overridable or unmotivating reasons. Empirical principles, anything which is contingent or relative, cannot ground morality.<<ref "12">> Desires and inclinations, for example, can neither generate nor provide a foundation to moral obligation because they change (contingency) and they vary from person to person (relativity which lacks universality). Likewise, any possible external values or commands out in the world are not necessarily motivating; these external, relativistic, and contingent laws may rely too heavily upon our desires or inclinations (which are themselves contingent) to seek or obey them. External values or commands cannot ground or generate moral obligation since they lack necessity and universality. Kant’s autonomy, apparently, doesn’t have this problem, since those persons with reason, by definition, are commanded by their reason to author, legislate, and permanently bind themselves to the CI. Since no other theory can generate necessary or universal moral obligations, as they are empirical, contingent, and relative, surely we must realize that Kant’s autonomy is the essential condition of the possibility of morality.<<ref "13">>
That is Kant’s autonomy in a nutshell. How does it measure up to contemporary notions of autonomy? Clearly, Kant’s autonomy is not a political concept at all and has little or nothing to do with the modern concept of sovereignty.<<ref "14">> Kant is concerned with the authentic self, although not in the way we normally envision. Kant has a coherentist model of autonomy, where the coherence standard is reason.<<ref "15">> ‘Who you really are’ just is your reason. Very distinct from modern notions: on Kant’s theory, an empirical identity is ruled out, as such an identity could unbind the self from the moral law. The self is pure practical reason, and it is not empirical or a kind of introspection (where we ask: “Should I do A or B?”). If it isn’t empirical, then maybe it is noumenal, but it can’t be anything like the freewill libertarian’s view.<<ref "16">> The categorical self, law giving of its own kind, is not dependent on desire, society, or nature, but instead must be unconditional.<<ref "17">> Built into the notion of Kant’s authenticity model of the self is the third modern hinge, accountability. The sort of accountability-making “freedom” (a.k.a. autonomy), being an unmoved mover, confusingly makes sense and yet remains somewhat odd.<<ref "18">> Kant spends a good deal of time trying to establish that only his version of authenticity which results in our accountability and moral obligation, and it makes sense how these contemporary topics of autonomy have developed as a response (at least in part) to Kant’s theory of autonomy.
Kant’s autonomy needs to be a capacity, a capacity of the will, a capacity to legislate. Admittedly, it is somewhat unclear exactly how the active/passive issue I mentioned earlier is ultimately worked out, but it is clear that such an explanation provides much needed context for this capacity. Kant’s autonomy is a goal which emphasizes the CI, duty, and treating people as ends and not merely as means. Clearly, if Kant is correct in thinking his theory of autonomy is the condition of the possibility of morality, then he’s providing the foundation to any discussion of duties and consequently rights at all (which is a far bolder claim than most theories of autonomy).
I have a number of concerns, but I will only bring up one. Kant’s conceives of the authentic self as non-empirical, and the result is that desires and inclinations are morally arbitrary and are not a part of one’s authentic identity. This goes against my intuitions.<<ref "19">> I can agree that sometimes my desires and inclinations aren’t really mine, they aren’t part of who I really am, and I can agree that those are morally arbitrary to my authentic self. I am not convinced, however, that in all cases and at all times my desires and inclinations are morally arbitrary, incidental, inessential, and failing to be part of that which comprises my authentic self. I have desires which I endorse and see as being essential to who I really am as a moral agent. Kant has a very radical view (mostly a good thing), but it may be so radical that it fails to capture, validate, or explain my intuition here.<<ref "20">>
What are the effects of disagreeing with Kant here? Can I just re-write this section on autonomy to fit my intuitions? The answers are ‘likely disastrous’ and ‘no, or at least probably not.’ Kant seems to be right in his obsessive pursuit of necessity and universality, and he’s quite systematic about it. That’s what I want my moral theory and agency to rest upon, too! If I take this necessity and universality intuition plus my empirical self intuition, the result seems to be that I am not actually or at least not fully a moral agent. This, of course, goes against my third intuition, which is that I am a moral agent.
Kant may reply that my intuition for being a moral agent is stronger than my intuition that empirical matters form vital aspects of my authentic self. That might be true. Further, if I really am a moral agent, and if his theory of moral agency is correct, and hence my identity must rest upon what is necessary, absolute, and universal, then perhaps my intuitions are contrary, and I should release the weaker one, namely that my empirical self is (to some extent) essential to my authentic self. This would save my stronger intuition while demonstrating that my weaker intuition was wrong. But that still does not seem to resolve my problem. Kant’s arguments for what counts as moral agency demonstrate the contrariness of my moral agency and empirical self intuitions. Why should I give these up? Why not just jettison Kant’s argument in this case? His argument is not obviously correct, at least not immediately, and maybe it is the weakest of three intuitions I have.
Lastly, Kant might just concede that he isn’t really interested in the authentic self that I’m worried about at all. He could simply attack the notion of the authentic self, as contemporary folks conceive of it, as being largely irrelevant to moral agency and generating moral obligations. If that is the route he would take, then contemporary thinkers must explain why their conception of the authentic self is really so significant or relevant to moral agency.
-----------------------------
<<footnotes "1" "It is not easy to define contemporary notions of autonomy since they are so rich and diverse, but I think this is a fair breakdown.">>
<<footnotes "2" "Sovereignty might be thought of as political autonomy. It deals in various kinds of freedom, whether freedom as non-frustration from impediments (be they man-made or natural) as with Hobbes and Mill, freedom as non-interference from agent-driven hindrances as with Berlin and Nozick, or even freedom as non-domination as with Petit.">>
<<footnotes "3" "Colloquially, we refer to authenticity when we talk about “keeping it real,” or “frontin’,” or “being true to yourself.”">>
<<footnotes "4" "Ahistorical accounts of authenticity-based autonomy, as found with Frankfurt and Dworkin, see the ‘real you’ as a structure of your will, where (briefly speaking) the authentic self is a kind of congruence between First Order and Second Order (and higher order) desires. Historical accounts, such as Christman’s, attempt to resolve the problem of manipulation where ahistorical accounts may fail. In contrast to these both of these active models, which rely upon identifying one’s self with, approving of, or endorsing one’s true desires, coherentist models of autonomy, as found with Buss and Ekstrom, attempt to avoid classic regress problems by defining authenticity as having the right sort of passive structures and relationships between various desires and beliefs. ">>
<<footnotes "5" "5:33">>
<<footnotes "6" "4:431">>
<<footnotes "7" "5:31 and Nichols, Shaun. "How Psychopaths Threaten Moral Rationalism: Is It Irrational to Be Amoral?" The Monist 85.2 (2002): 285-303. JSTOR. Web. 16 Jan. 2013. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/27903773>.">>
<<footnotes "8" "6:227">>
<<footnotes "9" "5:31">>
<<footnotes "10" "4:436, 4:441-5">>
<<footnotes "11" "4:389">>
<<footnotes "12" "4:442">>
<<footnotes "13" "4:445, 5:33">>
<<footnotes "14" "At least not directly.">>
<<footnotes "15" "Which impressively seems to be an attempt to resolve both the classic epistemic regress problem and the regress problem in autonomy in the same stroke.">>
<<footnotes "16" "6:418-9">>
<<footnotes "17" "5:33, 43">>
<<footnotes "18" "Take ‘telling a lie’ as an example. Naturally, you may be inclined to lie. Freedom and practical reason tell you to say the truth. If you say the truth, then you are the first cause of the action and you are free. If you lie, you’ve been moved by the external, by empirical and contingent nature, by your inclination, and thus you aren’t really free. You are free only when you say the truth. What Kant counts as being “free” is really narrow and frankly odd.">>
<<footnotes "19" "Whether or not intuitions play a legitimate role in determining the validity of a moral theory is another discussion. For now, I’m going to assume that intuitions do play such a role. ">>
<<footnotes "20" "Kant has a very systematic, labyrinthine, opaque, and complex view to fall back upon. Even a seemingly reasonable criticism or concern may be answered by some unobvious interpretation or obscure passage. I voice my criticism with that in mind.">>
This is mostly related to the introduction and sections (D) and (E).
If Kant himself couldn’t get it right, why should I think that even after a lifetime of study I would get it right? Maybe he got the basic standard right (as Hill calls it), but it isn’t obvious that we are going to get the specific principles we need to be moral. This task of filling in the gaps and figuring it out is construction.
One of the problems of construction regards how little we actually know and how much we must figure out, and it is highly akin to the epistemic criticism of utilitarianism. How is this theory actually practical and objective if these sorts of questions seem near impossible to answer? From the way Hill presents various metaethical issues underpinning Kant’s moral theory, it seems to me the theory is incomplete and not practically implementable – we simply don’t know enough or have the computational power to get from theory to practice. Now, maybe it is still worth pursuing, but I certainly have no assurance that such a task can actually be completed. Ultimately, I worry that Kant’s theory doesn’t practically (even if it theoretically can) generate the substantive moral claims that I need to be moral. Why be moral if I can’t really know how? Perhaps even children can feel the bindingness of the moral law, but maybe no one will ever actually be able to find and employ the decision procedure correctly, accurately, or effectively to derive the substantive, content-rich, specific principles we need for practical moral life.
This broad epistemic problem in moral theories, particularly where the decision procedure isn’t determinate and finite, has an odd result, in my view. If we don’t throw the theory away for the flaw, the only way to salvage it, as far as I can see, is to scale the requirements of the theory appropriately to one’s epistemic circumstance. Ought implies can, and if you can’t implement a decision procedure past a certain threshold by the very definition of your epistemic circumstance, then you can’t be responsible for thinking/constructing/reasoning past that threshold.
For example, to salvage the utilitarian view (not rule-utility necessarily), we must realize that those in excellent epistemic circumstances (high IQ, educated, have the resources to gather information, etc.) will be expected to complete more difficult utility calculations than those in poor epistemic circumstances. Note that how far one goes in the decision procedure or moral calculation (and the accuracy of one’s work) may result in different moral judgments/conclusions! One’s responsibility in moral calculation is not flat and the same as everyone else’s. The difficulty of the moral calculation which one is required to do must scale with resources one has at hand.
I’m inclined to think the same sort of salvaging must occur for the Kantian decision procedure. We are researching, deliberating, and on continual quest for moral truths. What was right yesterday, given the information we had, may turn out to be wrong tomorrow after we’ve given it even more thought. The result is something which is universal, but it is also highly particular and relative to our epistemic circumstances (to the point that many would claim it isn’t really universal – it lacks the bite we want). It also begins to look like something much different than what Kant originally gave us (or thinks he gave us). We are not standing on solid ground at this point. Kant has given us mere theory, and we walk away being unable to really implement it effectively, possessing few, if any, substantial moral claims for our practical lives. It seems like Kant has solved nothing. He has merely pointed us in the direction to continue our research, and unfortunately, our research is splintered, slow, and unclear.
---
How do we derive specific moral principles from fundamental moral standards/values?
How can a fundamental standard be defended?
Hill offers a “broadly Kantian” view.
Later forumulations of CI help correct/remove personal preference and parochial bias.
CI is not a determinate decision procedure (how then does it work?)
Two ways in which moral construction is an ongoing task. (1) “Defining the broadly Kantian deliberate perspective is an incomplete work” (2) “Substantive deliberation about more specific principles”
Hill raises some worries about the relative causes of our moral beliefs, and how that suggests that there aren’t universally believed moral principles, and may even cause problems for justifying the universality of moral beliefs (although, I think it takes a lot of work to get there, after all, even if we disagree, some of us may just be flat out wrong). Moral disagreement certainly shapes our epistemic views of moral philosophy.
Hill discusses moral particularism, the behemoth that Kant cannot escape, as far as I can see.
Related to the introduction and sections (D) and (E).
Look, if Kant himself couldn’t get it right, why should I think that even after a lifetime of study I would get it right? Maybe he got the basic standard right (as Hill calls it), but it isn’t obvious that we are going to get the specific principles we need to be moral. This task of filling in the gaps and figuring it out is construction. One of the problems of construction regards how little we actually know and how much we must figure out, and it is highly akin to the epistemic criticism of utilitarianism. How is this theory actually practical and objective if these sorts of issues seem near impossible to answer? From the way Hill presents various metaethical issues underpinning Kant’s moral theory, it seems to me the theory is (1) incomplete and (2) not practically implementable. Now, maybe it is still ultimately worth pursuing, but I certainly have no assurance that such a task can actually be completed. Ultimately, I worry that Kant’s theory doesn’t practically (even if it theoretically can) generate the substantive moral claims that I need to be moral. Why be moral if I can’t know how? Perhaps even children can feel the bindingness of the moral law, but maybe no one will ever actually be able to employ the decision procedure correctly, accurately, or effectively to derive the substantive, content-rich, specific principles we need for practical moral life.
This broad epistemic problem in moral theories, particularly where the decision procedure isn’t determinate and finite, has an odd result, in my view. If we don’t throw the theory away for the flaw, the only way to salvage it, as far as I can see, is to scale the requirements of the theory appropriately to one’s epistemic circumstance. Ought implies can, and if you can’t implement a decision procedure past a certain threshold by the very definition of your epistemic circumstance, then you can’t be responsible for thinking/constructing/reasoning past that threshold.
For example, to salvage the utilitarian view (not rule-utility necessarily), we must realize that those in excellent epistemic circumstances (high IQ, educated, have the resources to gather information, etc.) will be expected to complete more difficult utility calculations than those in poor epistemic circumstances. Note that how far one goes in the decision procedure or moral calculation (and the accuracy of one’s work) may result in different moral judgments/conclusions! One’s responsibility in moral calculation is not flat and the same as everyone else’s. The difficulty of the moral calculation which one is required to do must scale with resources one has at hand.
I’m inclined to think the same sort of salvaging must occur for the Kantian decision procedure. We are researching, deliberating, and on continual quest for moral truths. What was right yesterday, given the information we had, may turn out to be wrong tomorrow after we’ve given it even more thought. The result is something which is universal, but it is also highly particular and relative to our epistemic circumstances (to the point that many would claim it isn’t really universal – it lacks the bite we want). It also begins to look like something much different than what Kant originally gave us (or thinks he gave us). We are not standing on solid ground at this point. Kant has given us mere theory, and we walk away being unable to really implement it effectively, possessing few, if any, substantial moral claims for our practical lives. It seems like Kant has solved nothing. He has merely pointed us in the direction to continue our research, and unfortunately, our research is splintered, slow, and unclear.
Are there general and basic moral standards (which determine specific moral principles/judgments)? How do we defend those basic standards?
Hill agrees that the Right precedes the Good.
Legacy of Skepticism – Clark
754
Is the skeptic examining our fundamental beliefs or about our empirical knowledge which comes after those fundamental beliefs?
What do these reflections reveal?
Start with Humean skepticism of our fundamental beliefs “outside our studies”
Is Moore's defense/proof rational and effectual or impotently dogmatic? The everyday domain being immune to skepticism.
755
The domain of instances of “plain questions.” Skepticism is ineffectual against plain questions. “Implained” skepticism can't overcome the context, and it must “change the subject” to get anywhere.
CS = Common sense (general propositions...??)
Dreamland and Lilliputian Skeptic....Meta-CS is not really Moore at all.
756
How broad of the dimensions of the circle of the plain?
Physiologist lecturing on mental abnormalities…example.
Twin propositions point out the ultimate logical sin, “’propositions’ outside contextual wedlock…’language on a holiday’”
Plain language is something we need to be cautious about using as epistemologists.
758
Moore is right if there is nothing beyond the plain.
“Are there material objects?” and “Can we know that there are material objects?” and “Can we ever know that we’re not dreaming?” are philosophic rather than plain.
Sopoforic’s example
759
Pilot example
Bonjour
The causal or nomological relationship between the believer and the world which makes the believe certain or highly probably need not be consciously known by the believer. It can be external to his subjective perspective.
Lawlike thermometer model of Armstrong – reliabilism
Clairvoyance counterexamples
Bergmann
Positive Thesis – Only externalism avoids skepticism
Externalism, particularly neo-Moorean externalism, has simpler and easier requirements for justification of knowledge, and it explains why we “know” ordinary propositions where other theories fail, as they are “too demanding and grandiose.”
Dretske’s: “If skepticism is false, externalism is true”
Externalism does not require we “justifiably believe that those skeptical possibilities are not actualized” (something we can’t justify in the first place) in order to have knowledge – all other theories do require this justification which can’t be had, and that is why they fall to skepticism where externalism does not.
But perhaps internalist views can also have neo-Moorean view: “the commensense view provides the best explanation of our evidence—we can justifiably believe that skeptical possibilities are not actualized.”
Unless Dretske can show why the non-externalists can’t be justified in this belief, then his claim that externalism is only theory which escapes skepticism doesn’t work.
Van Cleve:
Negative Thesis – Externalism implausibly avoids skepticism
How do we know the “apparently” reliable is actually reliable at all?
4 objections
Conditional answer: if we can satisfy the skeptic, then externalist beliefs are justified. But the antecedent doesn’t seem to be answered.
Epistemic circularity: attempts to establish the reliably of perception via perception
Uncomfortable Moving up a level: ?
Anything Goes:
Vogel
Does one need to believe that one is justified in believing ~BIV?
Justified in believing is different from knowledge. It seems a lot easier to show that one is merely justified in believing. Perhaps skepticism demonstrates that we don’t have knowledge, presumably a very high epistemic standard, but does it demonstrate that we aren’t even justified in believing anything about the (assumed) external world?
I realize I’m glossing over and perhaps even oversimplifying a carefully crafted argument with a lot of terminology. Take what I say with a large grain of salt.
Explanationism oddly seems like a grander, coherentist version of neo-Moorean dogmatism.
The basic structure of the arguments seems to be: I have two competing proposition A and B; I am more confident in A than B; thus, I am justified in believing A.
For dogmatism: I have a hand, I am more confident in the existence of my hand than skeptical principles, hence I have hand. That is the basic move that the dogmatist makes, right?
It seems to me that that explanationist is doing the same thing on a grander scale. I have two competing sets of propositions, set A (RHW) and set B (BIV); I am more confident in set A than set B; thus, am justified in believing set A.
There is a kind of Occam’s razor or ‘best explanation’ principle which leads to this confidence found in both dogmatism and explanationism. Setting aside whether or not that principle actually gets us to explanationism (for example, it isn’t clear to me that RHW is really any simpler than BIV), I worry that explanationism might ultimately be unsatisfying to the skeptic in parallel ways to dogmatism because of its reliance upon a best explanation principle. The skeptic has such a high standard of justification that the best explanation principle just doesn’t cut it. The skeptic seeks more than mere justified belief, he seeks knowledge or even certainty, which is not what the ‘best explanation’ principle can provide. The best explanation principle might itself need justification.
Perhaps I have just misunderstood the argument here, and maybe my description and criticism miss the mark entirely.
Where does justification end? (this is a response to skepticism)
He looks at several different ways of responding to skepticism.
Vogel
ontological simplicity, coherence (consistency) simplicity, or there is one underlying phenomena that explain many surface phenomena.
Not ad hoc (explain more than just the case at hand)
Should unify phenomena
Frankfurt doesn’t focus on political conceptions of Freedom (as in the tradition of Hobbes and Berlin), instead Frankfurt argues for a particular sort of freedom by modeling the authentic identity of persons. The fundamental question at stake is: Who is the “real” you?
Many famous philosophers have defined the real you as the rational you. In contrast, Frankfurt thinks the real you is the hierarchically integrated you, a ‘congruence between’ and an ‘identification with’ or ‘endorsement of’ your desires, which is less about rationality and more concerned the structure of your will.
As persons, we are self-reflective and we are not indifferent to which desires move us. On this view, we form desires about our desires, and our capacity to endorse our desires is what grounds our personhood, our freedom of the will, and our autonomy.
We start with first-order (FO) desires; these are ordinary desires about the world. E.g. I want to eat pizza; I desire sleep; I want cocaine; etc. Every creature with desires has FO desires, and hence FO desires aren’t very special. FO desires vary in strength, and for example, we might think that without any intervention, the strongest desire is what moves us, it is our will. E.g. If the honey badger desires food more than sleep, he’ll be effectively moved to pursue food instead of sleep – that is his (not free) will.
Naively, second-order (SO) desires are desires about FO desires. E.g. I desire not to want to eat pizza; I want to desire sleep; I don’t want to want cocaine; etc. Note that my SO desires can conflict with my FO desires. SO desires are found in creatures with more complex psychologies.
Frankfurt further distinguishes SO desires from SO volitions (where SO volitions are a subset of SO desires). A SO volition is a special kind of SO desire. A SO volition is a desire that some FO desire be or not be your will. A SO volition is a desire for some FO desire to take or lose priority over all other FO desires, such that you will be effectively moved or not moved to act upon some FO desire. A SO volition is the reflective endorsement or repudiation of a FO desire.
The capacity for and the use of SO volitions is the significant and necessary condition for a creature to be a person. Creatures, including humans, who lack SO volitions (even if they have mere SO desires) are called wantons - they are not persons. Lacking free will is not a problem for wantons, as seen in the case of the wanton addict. On Frankfurt’s theory, a wanton is exclusively moved by desires he has not identified himself with, endorsed, approved, or made his will. He is not a person because he is merely a being with desires that rule him, and he does not care to or perhaps even have the ability to rule over his desires.
In contrast to a wanton, a person, such as the unwilling addict, has SO volitions. Whether or not those SO volitions ultimately “win out” determines whether or not a person has freedom of the will.
When your FO desire and SO volition conflict, and if and when you are moved by a FO desire which you repudiate via a SO volition, you are not acting autonomously or authentically, and essentially, as a person, you lack freedom of the will. Significantly, even though you are moved to act by a FO desire that is in some sense ‘your desire’, because that FO desire overrides your SO volition, it seems as though you are forced to act upon a desire which isn’t really yours – you didn’t endorse that FO desire, in fact, the real you repudiated it. That FO desire which moved you, against your SO volition, is alien to you. The real you is a helpless bystander to the force of the external, inauthentic FO desire. To be authentic, to have freedom of the will, your SO volition must effectively make your FO desire your will.
Lastly, Frankfurt’s theory is not actually confined to only two orders of desires. There are third-order desires and volitions, fourth, fifth, and so on. E.g. I can want to want to want pizza, etc. Ultimately, the necessary condition of personhood and autonomy is some sort of capacity to identify ourselves with what we “really want to want to want…to want, and so on,” a capacity to decisively align our many orders of desires in a resounding commitment, securing conformity between them, and forcibly synchronizing and unifying them (Christine Korsgaard must love this). Unfortunately, Frankfurt does not provide a clear argument about this. This is one of the fuzzier and least clear aspects of Frankfurt’s theory, despite it being the most important aspect of his theory (it does all the magical work for him).
Interesting characteristics of this theory:
* A focus upon self-reflection, evaluation, endorsement, authenticity, and ordered desires fits many of our intuitions on the topic of free will and autonomy. Something about the theory seems right.
* It does not require robust metaphysical commitments. The theory sits comfortably in naturalistic philosophical perspectives.
* The theory is neutral to determinism and can work as a compatibilist view of freewill. (Although, it is not necessarily inconsistent with incompatibilism.)
** Compatibilism is the belief that free will and determinism are compatible ideas, where freedom, in this case, turns out to be something like just doing what you want to do, or willing what you want to will, which is distinct from other standard definitions of freewill, such as: “The ability to do otherwise.”
** Incompatibilists think that this kind of freedom isn’t enough, and they worry that if we are merely deterministic flesh bags of chemicals and electrical signals, then we are no better than any other determined or programmed object. On such a view, we are reducible to a mere mass of determined particles. Why are we any better than complex robots? Why is compatibilist free will actually freedom at all; and why is it worth having? Why would we be morally responsible if we are determined? So, the incompatibilist who believes we are morally responsible must claim we aren’t fully determined and that we have a kind of libertarian, metaphysically based freewill which overcomes the laws of physics. *Draw a homunculus.*
** Compatibilists will respond by claiming that libertarian freewill is incoherent; that libertarians have failed to provide any suitable account of how it works. The metaphysical commitments are too great for the compatibilist. Further, why are we any better than a random number generator or dice? Why is libertarian freedom worth having?
* The account is content-neutral. Persons aren’t required to have particular values. This sits in stark contrast to other classic theories of autonomy, freedom, and authenticity.
** This feature is powerful. It has some good aspects to it, but it also may have bring with it some problems which I don’t have time to go into.
3 Sets of Problems with this account:
* Manipulation. Frankfurt’s account of freedom and autonomy does not take into consideration ‘where a desire came from’ or ‘how it was acquired.’ It can’t explain manipulation-based autonomy defeaters such as the problems of poisoned origins or a neuroscientist re-engineering a person’s desires and beliefs.
** One paradigm case of manipulation is where a neuroscientist radically alters your desires (and beliefs). For ahistorical accounts of autonomy and freedom, like Frankfurt’s, as long as the neuroscientist changes you such that a kind of congruence between your FO and higher order desires is maintained, then you are still considered to be autonomous. Frankfurt’s account doesn’t seem capable of taking into account how the problem of manipulation, at least intuitively, results in an attack on or elimination of one’s autonomy and/or the authentic self.
** Don’t we want a theory of autonomy that allows us to reclaim autonomy from our checkered/conditioned past?
* Trilemma: Ab Initio, Infinite Regress, Incompleteness (Christman on Dworkin [who is Frankfurtian])
** Ab Initio/Problem of Authority – How can non-autonomous processes or higher order desires confer autonomy upon lower level desires? How does a particular second-order desire really have the authority to speak for us? Why that one?
*** When a SO volition endorses a FO desire, we take that FO desire to be an authentic desire, a desire of the agent himself, because the agent had to actually endorse it. Initially, it seems as if SO volitions have the power to speak for the authentic self. The problem, however, is that a SO volition needs to be an autonomous desire as well, a desire that really belongs to the authentic agent. If a SO volition is not an autonomous desire, then it seems as if a non-autonomous force is ‘endorsing’ a FO desire, and then it would not appear as if the FO desire is really endorsed by an autonomous agent. How can autonomy arise from non-autonomy? It doesn’t seem like it can. So, what makes a SO volition an autonomous desire? This brings us to the…
** Infinite Regress. - If SO volitions are made autonomous by TO volitions in the same way that FO desires are made autonomous by SO volitions, then we hit the regress problem, whereby we pile desires on top Bibliographyof desires.
*** The argument is that in order to make an N-order desire autonomous, an autonomous N+1-order volition must endorse it. To have an autonomous SO volition requires an autonomous TO volition endorsing it. But, clearly, we can ask the same question about TO volitions, and the answer requires having an autonomous volition from the next higher order endorsing it. This process of trying to autonomize desires with higher order autonomous desires can continue ad infinitum, hence the regress.
** Incompleteness – If we are to escape the Ab Initio problem without falling into the regress, we have explain how SO volitions are autonomous desires in a way that is different from how SO volitions make FO desires autonomous. Nobody seems to be able to give an explanation, hence the “incompleteness” problem. Which is basically the same thing as saying, we really don’t have an explanation at all.
** Summary: On Frankfurt’s model, we must ask if the relevant SO volitions themselves are autonomous. If not, then we have the ab initio problem. If so, then how do they become autonomous? If it’s in the same way as one’s first-order desires, then we face a regress. But if they become autonomous in some other way, then Frankfurt’s theory is incomplete because he hasn’t specified the method. He does anticipate the trilemma; he talks about decisively aligning, securing conformity between, or unifying our many orders of desires, but he never really explains how this works. Hence, Frankfurt’s model is incomplete.
* Perhaps you don’t find Frankfurt’s argument intuitively compelling. You should ask: Why is Frankfurt’s freedom of the will worth having? How is a person in this account any more worthy or better off than other animals and wantons? Why does it produce moral responsibility or the kind of agency that matters?
Rights and coercion are fascinating topics because they rest upon whatever (if any) gap there is between justice and morality. I’m still unsure how Kant generally characterizes the relationship between political normativity and moral normativity (are they unified? Is one a subset of the other? Are they completely separate realms?). It seems to me that Kant would need everything else to be dependent upon the CI, after all, it is the supreme principle.
Oddly, Kant has such a narrow view of what counts as freedom, it seems to me that even systematic manipulation, as long as it has certain results, should not be a problem for him (it might even be recommended by the CI – it is difficult to tell).
---
Metaphysics of Morals (pp. 6:229-239, 306-314)
‘Toward Perpetual Peace’ (pp. 8:365-7)
Seel: ‘How Does Kant Justify the Universal Objective Validity of the Law of Right?’
Metaphysics of Morals (pp. 6:229-239, 306-314)
6:230 – “Right is the sum of conditions under which the choice of one can be united with the choice of another in accordance with universal law of freedom.”
6:231 – Authorized coercion of those who infringe upon…??
6:232 – “When it is said that a creditor has a right to require his debtor to pay his debt, this does not mean that he can remind the debtor that his reason itself puts him under obligation to perform this; it means, instead, that coercion which constrains everyone to pay his debts can coexist with the freedom of everyone, including that of debtors, in accordance with a universal external law.” But, I thought a right was about “reminding” someone of their obligation, as you explained in class?
6:234 – Distinction between equity (right without coercion) and right of necessity (coercion without a right).
6:234 – In the Jointly owned trading company example, Kant is saying that judges without data won’t rule in favor of increased profits for the harder working partner. He is saying that with data, equity requires the judge to rule in favor of it though, right?
‘Toward Perpetual Peace’ (pp. 8:365-7)
Seel: ‘How Does Kant Justify the Universal Objective Validity of the Law of Right?’
Considers a “strong correspondence between” rights and duties, where rights are an entitled to authorized coercion, limiting others to their duties.
Freedom (independence from external sources, such as another’s choice) is the only original right of persons.
Does he justify this?
Seel argues that the “doctrine of right is dependent on the Categorical Imperative concerning the universal validity of the fundamental law it sets forth.” (76)
Rights and coercion are fascinating topics because they rest upon whatever (if any) gap there is between justice and morality. I’m still unsure how Kant generally characterizes the relationship between political normativity and moral normativity (are they unified? Is one a subset of the other? Are they completely separate realms?). It seems to me that Kant would need everything else to be dependent upon the CI, after all, it is the supreme principle.
Oddly, Kant has such a narrow view of what counts as freedom, it seems to me that even systematic manipulation, as long as it has certain results, should not be a problem for him (it might even be recommended by the CI – it is difficult to tell).
First Proposal – Lewis’s “Rule of Accomodation”
“flat” is context sensitive, it requires a “conversational score”
If I’ve learned anything, it seems to me that it must be this: Knowledge is not the goal. We don’t what it is, what counts as it, when we have it, or even if we can have it. I do want to be able to assert things and consider the value of other peoples’ assertions – but, I’m willing to accept a lower epistemic standard. I guess I’m less interesting in scaling the standards of knowledge, I’m not sure that really works. I’m more interested in justified belief, which perhaps scales with the context.
Cohen
How do we know the correct standard for each context? My worry is that we could provide ad hoc accounts or that contextualism might struggle to overcome to charge relativism.
Why in the case of John and Mary vs. Smith do we need to take one of those three options? The problem is that we don't have to think of this as one monolithic context in which one party is wrong and the other is right, or they are both wrong. Why can't they both be right? John and Mary are in the same geographic location, probably from the same nation, they speak the same language, etc. as Smith. But, they have different values, goals, and beliefs in mind, and essentially, they stand in a different subcontext than Smith.
Obviously, such has to defend itself against the charge of relativism. I submit that certain versions of particularism in moral philosophy do not fall into relativism, even if they appear at first glance as if they do. I think a contextualist could be particularist as well without falling to relativism.
NM, that is where he went.
My worry about the standard of contextualism is that it may need to assume a universal standard of knowledge or justification which is context independent.
Why can't we say (e) or (f)? Yeah, it isn't how we normally speak or use the word, but maybe we should. Why must contextualism be tied to the language game? Perhaps ordinary language sparked our intuitions about contextualism, but they don't have to be so strongly linked from what I can tell.
Quick list of thoughts and concerns on Contextualism:
''1.''
In “Internalist Responses to Skepticism,” Jonathon Vogel tracks various internalist approaches to the problem of skepticism. He offers criticisms of what he refers to as apriorism and dogmatism, and then endorses his own approach, explanationism.<<ref "1">> Explanationism, roughly, is the claim that a coherence among ordinary beliefs concerning our perceptual experiences justifies the belief in the negation of skepticism (e.g. –BIV). On this view, the patterns of our ordinary experiences are better explained by our rich set of ordinary beliefs, a “real-world hypothesis” (RWH), than the “brain in a vat” hypothesis (BIV).
In this paper, I outline three related worries about Vogel’s argument. First, explanationism may not be different enough from the dogmatist position. In addition, explanationism may fail to provide knowledge, and hence, by his own criteria, Vogel’s theory may fail to escape skepticism. Finally, it isn’t clear why we should assume that explanationism results in RWH having more explanatory merit than BIV.
''2.''
Vogel sketches out dogmatism in a couple ways:
By themselves, particular perceptual experiences in some way justify us in believing various propositions about the world. Each of these propositions entail –BIV, and one’s justified belief in such a proposition justifies, in turn one’s belief that –BIV. Thus we have local empirical justification for holding –BIV.<<ref "2">>
(DOG) If it looks to one that X, then one is thereby prima facie justified in believing that X.<<ref "3">>
The Moorean response to skepticism is very much in line with the kind of dogmatism that Vogel has in mind. Vogel walks us through several examples which illustrate the differences between dogmatism and explanationism, and, to be fair, there are differences. My worry, however, is that explanationism may only be merely a grander, coherentist version of Moorean dogmatism. Indeed, in footnote 39, Vogel perhaps anticipates this worry, as he “ruefully” acknowledges that explanationism may suffer from similar problems faced by dogmatism, particularly regarding hypothesis confirmation.
The mile-high view of the structure of both the dogmatist and explanationist arguments seems to be: I have two competing propositions A and B; I am more confident in A than B; thus, I am justified in believing A. The dogmatist may use a single ordinary belief in the existence of his hand to counter skepticism, while the explanationist uses the sum of ordinary beliefs to do it. One employs local empirical justification, and the other global empirical justification. They both, however, seem to have the same sort of root principle beneath them.
There is a kind of Occam’s razor or ‘best explanation’ principle which leads to this confidence found in both dogmatism and explanationism.<<ref "4">> Setting aside whether or not the principle employed by explanationism gets us where Vogel thinks it does (for example, it isn’t clear to me that RWH is necessarily simpler than BIV), I worry that explanationism might ultimately be unsatisfying to the skeptic in parallel ways to dogmatism because of its reliance upon a best explanation principle.
Surely a best explanation principle has a lot of force to it. I’m not sure what to do with it though. My gut instinct is to say that the skeptic seeks an epistemic standard higher than can be reached with such a principle, and perhaps both dogmatism and skepticism outright miss the point. If we let the skeptic set the epistemic standard as high as certainty, then even seemingly decent principles, like Occam’s razor, may not survive.
With that said, I admire the scope of Vogel’s explanationism. Explanationism responds to the skeptical argument that a “person’s experience is globally unveridical” with an argument that attempts to demonstrate how a person’s experience is globally veridical, unlike the possibly less appropriate scope of local veridical justification in the dogmatist’s argument.
''3.''
Vogel spells out skepticism from the internalist perspective as follows:
*1a. In order to know M, you need to know that various possibilities of massive sensory deception do not obtain.
*1b. In particular, you need to know that you are not a brain in a vat (–BIV) stimulated so that it falsely appears to you that M.
*1c. In order to know –BIV, you have to be justified in believing –BIV.
*1d. But you are not justified in believing –BIV.
*1e. Therefore, you do not know M.5
Vogel claims that falsifying argument 1d generates “an internalist answer to skepticism.”<<ref "6">> He argues that if “premise 1d of the skeptical argument is false…skepticism is refuted.”<<ref "7">> I disagree, and I wish to stress that while falsifying 1d is certainly a worthy response, it is not a finishing blow to skepticism.
While Vogel is worried most about 1d, 1b is the key premise with which I am most concerned. It follows from 1a, and 1a seems to derive from the closure principle, and it certainly seems plausible.<<ref "8">> If we agree to these premises, then we agree that defeating the skeptic requires demonstrating that we know –BIV. I’m not sure why Vogel begins his argument with this task (not a small one at that), but never resolves it later in his paper. He seems to gloss over this weighty requirement, even though he boldly claims explanationism is a “solution to the problem of skepticism” at the end of his paper.<<ref "9">> Perhaps he is right, but he didn’t get us there in his argument.
Suppose explanationism justifies the belief –BIV. To be (mildly) justified in believing –BIV, which is what Vogel seems to think explanationism buys us, may be necessary but not sufficient for knowing –BIV. Vogel does not neatly close this gap for us. Even if he does get us to the point where we are justified in believing –BIV to some extent, which is a significant accomplishment, it unfortunately does not seem as though explanationism gives us knowledge of –BIV, and that’s a problem for Vogel, given the criteria he set out.
The skeptic’s epistemic requirement is very high: knowledge, not merely justified belief. Since explanationism may fail to provide knowledge of –BIV, it is not clear that Vogel completely diffuses the skeptic’s argument. If he is right, he only gets us part of the way there. It would be no small feat to demonstrate that we can be justified in believing in the external world, even if we don’t necessarily know. Skepticism, however, still seems to survive his argument.
''4.''
Vogel claims RWH explains the sum of our sensory experiences, E*, better than BIV, and thus we are justified in accepting RWH, and consequently, in accepting –BIV. At least some real-world hypotheses are thought to be simpler and more unified than BIV hypotheses, and thus some RWH’s are better at explaining E*. On Vogel’s view, any version of BIV should be rejected because it is comparatively too complex and perhaps ad hoc. Should we really agree that some RWH necessarily has more explanatory merit than all BIV hypotheses?
Indeed, some models of BIV, perhaps even the usual ones, will build on top of a RWH (possibly in an ad hoc manner) an abstraction, an extra layer, an added mechanism, or an additional agent which explains E*. On such models, BIV is thought to be more complex than RWH, and therefore such models have less explanatory merit than RWH. But is this the case for all BIV hypotheses? This seems to be what Vogel needs, and yet it is far from clear that this is true.
Further, the skeptic need not convincingly demonstrate a case where BIV is simpler than RWH – he merely needs to open our eyes to the possibility of such a thing. Is it at least possible that some BIV hypothesis could have more explanatory merit than real-world hypotheses? Maybe, I really don’t know. That’s a problem for a theory which relies upon showing not only that the usual BIV hypotheses have less explanatory merit than at least one RWH, but that all BIV hypotheses must have less explanatory merit than some RWH.
''5.''
Ultimately, the skeptic always seems to be in a position to call into doubt principles of best explanation and the results of those principles. Simplicity may not be enough. Even justified belief in the external world doesn’t seem to be enough to finally defeat the skeptic, as the skeptic can continue raising the epistemic bar out of reach.
------------------
<<footnotes "1" "Jonathon Vogel, 'Internalist Responses to Skepticism,' in// The Oxford Handbook of Skepticism//, ed. John Greco (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008): 533-556">>
<<footnotes "2" "Ibid., 535">>
<<footnotes "3" "Ibid., 539">>
<<footnotes "4" "Ibid., 545">>
<<footnotes "5" "Ibid., 533">>
<<footnotes "6" "Ibid., 537">>
<<footnotes "7" "Ibid., 544">>
<<footnotes "8" "Very broadly, we might explain the principle in this way: If S knows (or S is justified in believing) P, and S knows (or S is justified in believing) P entails Q, then S knows or S can come to know (or S is justified in believing or S is justified in coming to believe) Q. Admittedly, some version of this principle seems like it must be correct. ">>
<<footnotes "9" "Ibid., 550">>
My number one issue in this reading: Kant doesn’t seem to effectively address how far we can particularize our maxims. That’s what I need to know. Nothing else matters if I don’t have a standard for this. The system fails without this. Today’s topic demonstrates this problem over and over.
My second issue: How do we resolve the appearance of contradictory duties? A lot of the problems seem to have two competing duties. An effective decision procedure must explain the priority of duties or demonstrate how they aren’t really competing at all.
Truthfulness is one’s duty to everyone, no matter the circumstance.1 If we did lie, we may not be doing anything directly wrong to the one who unjustly compels us, but we would be doing wrong “in general.” This general sense would result in ‘no one believing anyone’s statements,’ and would cause contracts to lose their force, which is a key wrong against humanity in general, I guess. Why should I agree contracts are so important? Why should we think that someone willing to lie in this exact circumstance would really be damaging the general belief of statements? I don’t see it. This is a particular circumstance, not a general one.
Truthfulness is a duty which is the basis of all duties grounded on contract, “the law of which is made uncertain and useless if even the least exception to it is admitted.”2 Why should I agree to this? I have some intuitions which go this direction, but it is far from certain.
I fear I’ve not understood 8:427. If you lie, Kant says you legally accountable for the actions of the person to whom you lied. Maybe in his day, but our laws are more complex and take into account other morally salient features of a circumstance. Further, why should I care? This section seems to go against the very motivational claims underlying the good will. Unintended consequences – isn’t this the problem with consequentialist law? Let’s say a guy tells the lie, and remains responsible, and it just so happens, completely coincidentally, to turn the world into a utopia directly because of this lie. Is he responsible for turning the world into a utopia? He’d be responsible for bad, so why not good?
It is unclear to me that the Kingdom of Ends would need a Republic government. I’m fairly persuaded that “no human being can be bound except through laws to the formation of which he has contributed,” without the representative clause, has a real chance of being correct.3 Kant’s explanation of law and politics remains very confusing to me.
Kant very much favors honesty. What does Kant think of deception through omission? It isn’t honest, if you ask me. He talks about avoidance (8:428 and elsewhere). There seem to be cases where deception through omission is a hell of a lot like lying and quite dishonest, and cases where they aren’t a like. How does he disentangle these? I’m not sure he can.
Kant needs to establish the duty of truthfulness (unconditionally, in all cases, etc.). Show me how the CI generates this duty. I don’t believe it. We have yet to see the CI in action; it is not alive and working for me yet. This is a perfect opportunity to show how it works. This also seems like a simple test. If we cannot even do this, then the CI is this thing my reason commands but I know not what it really is, how it works, or why I should think it applies. The reasoning before did juice my intuitions that he’s right about the CI, but I need more than theory – I need to see that it works, and it really does need to live up to certain intuitions I have. Ultimately, I worry this “apodictic” law built into my reason by definition (bordering on ad hoc at this point) is not practical at all, but merely theoretical, and it is wildly unclear how a rational person (as we, not Kant, use the term) could use the CI as an effective moral decision procedure.
Kant offers a borderline ad hominem argument (oddly acceptable in moral arguments).4 I am already a liar because I’m thinking about exceptions to truthfulness. But, I say: I am not making an exception of myself – I think all people in the murderer circumstance should lie. If Kant does not turn to a moderate version of particularism, I think he focuses on the unconditional at loss of the practical, morally salient features of ethical life.
In 4:422, we get the suicide example. Problematically, it seems like he points out contrary examples later. If you had rabies or you were a POW with state secrets, etc., then suicide is permissible. How do we resolve this? Why can’t we do this for lying?
Kant gives us the lying promise example –this is about self-love. Many people can already agree to this. The murder example is very different –it seems to be about loving others (a far cleaner motive). Kant doesn’t seem to be able to account for this as nicely as I’d like.
From the Formula of the Law of Nature, one might be tempted to argue that “if everyone lied, then lying wouldn’t succeed it deceiving a murderer because the murderer wouldn’t believe what anyone had to say.” This is ridiculous. Surely we can see that it isn’t a matter of “Lying in all cases” vs. “Never lying in any cases,” but rather, “Almost never lying, except in a few certain cases” – and the murderer would believe us in that context. There is no contradiction or inconceivability here.
From the second formulation, Formula of Humanity, one might be tempted to say that we are treating the murderer as merely a means and not an end via manipulation/lying. This isn’t clear to me though. The soon-to-be murderer is about to do something very immoral, irrational – perhaps I’m helping him. Merely reminding him of his duty might not help. Lying might help.
Murder is complicated. It is an ultimate, irrevocable kind of evil action. There are reasons, I assume, why people believe it is okay to kill in self-defense or the defense of others. How does Kant deal with this? Is he an absolute pacifist? Instead of killing the would-be murderer, perhaps lying would be a lesser evil that gets the same job done. We want to try to do everything possible before we have to kill the murderer, right? This seems like I’m treating the murderer as an end. I want the best for them. If I was in a murderous rage, I hope someone would treat me like that too. From the objective perspective, I hope someone would lie to me!
Kant says we can’t intentionally say something which isn’t true, even good-naturedly.5 What about a joke or a prank?
Inner lies are complicated and unclear. The examples need clarification before I offer more thoughts. I fear that Kant did not have our understanding of human psychology, and without that benefit, he may make claims that he otherwise wouldn’t if he had modern science.
1 8:425
2 8:427
3 8:427
4 8:430
5 6:430
---
‘On a Supposed Right to Lie from Philanthropy’ (pp. 8:425-30)
Groundwork (pp. 4:421-4, 429-31)
Metaphysics of Morals (pp. 6:429-31)
Critique of Practical Reason (pp. 5:67-71)
Hill: ‘Kantian Constructivism as Normative Ethics’ [on blackboard]
‘On a Supposed Right to Lie from Philanthropy’ (pp. 8:425-30)
8:425, Benjamin Constant: We have a duty to tell the truth to those who have a right to the truth. Not everyone has a right to the truth, and to those people, we can lie.
8:426, truth (objective, laws of logic, etc.) vs. truthfulness (subjective, of a person). Kant thinks Constant should talk about truthfulness.
are we authorized (right) to be untruthful?
Is it our duty to lie in unjust circumstances of coercion, where we may be preventing murder, etc.?
This is matter of duty of right, not of ethics (from footnote). ??
Truthfulness is one’s duty to everyone, no matter the circumstance. If we did lie, we may not be doing anything directly wrong to the one who unjustly compels us, but we would be doing wrong “in general.” This general sense would result in ‘no one believing anyone’s statements,’ and would cause contracts to lose their force, which is a key wrong against humanity in general, I guess. (why should I agree contracts are so important?).
Why should we think that someone willing to lie in this exact circumstance would really be damaging the general belief of statements? I don’t see it. This is a particular circumstance, not a general one.
What does Kant think of deception through omission? It isn’t HONEST, if you ask me. He talks about avoidance (8:428 and elsewhere). I assume that’s fine. But, is it really? There seem to be cases where deception through omission is a hell of a lot like lying (and others that are very distance from lying). How does he disentangle these?
It is not necessarily harm to an individual, but it is necessarily harm to humanity in general. Why does a lie make the “source of right unusable?” Because the source of right is a contract?? I don’t know.
8:427, if you lie, Kant says you legally accountable for the actions of the person to whom you lied. Maybe in his day…But, even so, why should I care? This section seems to go against the very motivational claims underlying the good will. Unintended consequences – isn’t this the problem with consequentialist law?
Okay, so let’s say he tells the lie, and remains responsible, and it just so happens, completely coincidentally, to turn the world into a utopia. Is he responsible for turning the world into a utopia? Did he do anything wrong?
Truthfulness is a duty which is the basis of all duties grounded on contract, “the law of which is made uncertain and useless if even the least exception to it is admitted.” Why should I agree to this? I have some intuitions which go this direction, but it is far from certain.
Truthfulness is a commanded and prescribed by reason, the CI, unconditionally.
The basic problem is that Kant doesn’t seem to address how far we can particularize our maxims.
8:428, It is unclear to me that the Kingdom of Ends would need a Republic government. Constant’s argument going “no human being can be bound except through laws to the formation of which he has contributed,” (8:427) may be correct, without the representative clause.
We all have the right and duty to truthfulness.
8:429, to generate a principle of politics we must provide: (1) an axiom issuing from external right; (2) a postulate of external public law in accordance with principle of equality; (3) a problem of how it is to be arrange in a society, in accordance with principle of equality and freedom.
“Right must never be accommodated to politics, but politics must always be accommodated to right.”
Kant needs to establish the duty of truthfulness (unconditionally, in all cases, etc.). Show me how the CI generates this duty. I don’t believe it. We have yet to see the CI in action; it is not alive yet. This is a perfect opportunity to show how it works. This seems like a simple test. If we cannot even do this, then the CI is this thing my reason commands but I know not what it really is, how it works, how it applies, or why I ultimately should care if I cannot cognize and use it.
I’m almost pissed off. This apodictic law built into my reason by definition (bordering on ad hoc at this point) is not practical at all, merely theoretical, and it is wildly unclear how a rational person (as we, not Kant use the term) could use the CI as an effective decision procedure. I’m hungry for answers; where are they? =)
I am deeply persuaded by some fundamental Kantian metaethical positions. But, I don’t think this system, so far, works. And, if it does, it seems like it boils down to particularism.
8:430, ad hominem! I am already a liar because I’m thinking about exceptions to truthfulness. I am not making an exception of myself – I think ALL people in that circumstance should lie. Kant focuses on the unconditional to loss of the practical, morally salient features of ethical life.
Groundwork (pp. 4:421-4, 429-31)
4:421, First applicable form of the moral principle (in 4:402), Formula of the Law of Nature
4:422, Suicide example, it seems like he points out contrary examples later. If you had rabies or you were a POW with state secrets, etc. How do we resolve this? Why can’t we do this for lying?
Lying promise example – note this is about self love. Many people can already agree to this, their intuitions go that way. The murder example is very different –it seems to be about loving others (a far cleaner motive).
Particularize your maxims to prevent conflicting duties, to match our intuitions, and to make this practical. This is his only out. His theory is incoherent if he doesn’t take it.
We can’t argue this: “ After all, if everybody lied, even just to murderers at the door enquiring about the whereabouts of one’s actions, then the lying could not succeed since no murderer would believe what one says, and hence the action violates the first form of the Categorical Imperative (CI)”
Surely we can see that it isn’t “Lying in all cases” vs. “Never lying in any cases,” but rather, “Almost never lying, except in a few certain cases” – and the murderer WOULD believe us in that context.
This discussion has been too one-dimensional. What we really have here seems to be conflicting duties. Kant can’t have any conflicts issue from the CI, but this is a case where, to our intuitions, it must.
4:429, Second formulation, Formula of Humanity
Means, ends treating.
Same 2 examples from before.
Consider: “Likewise, the lie violates the second form of the CI by failing to respect the rationality of the murderer, since that rationality is exhibited through the self-legislation of ends whereas by lying we manipulate the murderer into actions directed at our own end, which end is opposed to the end that the murderer has legislated for herself; thus, the liar fails to treat the murderer as an end.”
Treating the murderer as a merely a means. Not necessarily. He’s about to do something very immoral, irrational – perhaps I’m helping him. Merely reminding him of his duty might not help. Lying might help.
Murder is complicated. It is an ultimate, irrevocable kind of evil action. There are reasons, I assume, why people believe it is okay to kill in self-defense or the defense of others. How does Kant deal with this? Is he an absolute pacifist? Instead of killing the would-be murderer, perhaps lying would be a lesser evil that gets the same job done. We want to try to do everything possible before we have to kill the murderer, right? This seems like I’m treating the murderer as an end. I want the best for them. If I was in a murderous rage, I hope someone would treat me like that too. From the objective perspective, I hope someone would lie to me!
Metaphysics of Morals (pp. 6:429-31)
6:430, we can’t intentionally say something which isn’t true, even in good nature. What about a joke or a prank?
Inner lies are complicated and unclear. The examples need clarification before I offer more thoughts. I fear that Kant did not have our understanding of human psychology, and without that benefit, he may make claims that he otherwise wouldn’t if he had modern science.
Polite lies are considered. Ruled out, I believe.
Critique of Practical Reason (pp. 5:67-71)
I have absolutely no idea what is going on in here.
Hill: ‘Kantian Constructivism as Normative Ethics’ [on blackboard]
Meh
Freedom and Resentment
Determinism itself isn’t what seems to matter. I think incompatibilists who inspect the problem carefully will agree – they simply use determinism as a paradigm example of a universe and an agent arranged such that it is clear to the greater number of intuitions why we should we worried about how external laws influence our ability to choose.
Newton changed the world – philosophy, religion, science all reacted to his work. Determinism (and compatibilism) was a common thesis at the time. Einstein shows up, and we have good reason to think the world at the quantum level does not behave similarly to macroscopic level physics, and in fact, we may even have evidence to suggest that the world isn’t perfectly deterministic at all.
Even if the physical world is not causally deterministic as we thought in the Newtonian sense, the incompatibilist has not won. In fact, it seems that determinism has nothing to do with our problem with compatibilism.
Determinism is simply billiard balls hitting billiard balls, with a strict causal link which always holds, or always holds without some sort of intervention. The incompatibilist must overcome more than just this.
Prime mover theory is at the heart of the incompatibilist doctrine. We must be the cause of our choice, and it can be nothing else. If we can be reduced to mere physics; regardless of whether or not those deterministic mechanics, then we aren’t prime movers.
One can resent the bad without resenting wrong. Good/right distinction is important here, as it seems I can loathe when I can’t blame.
Precis of The Illusion of Conscious Will
Will: Experience, Force
Experience of consciousness, self-reporting seems to be only reliable indicator of “conscious will”
Brain damage, hypnosis, table-turning (ouiji boards), etc. can be “experience of consciousness” defeating.
2x2 Square
Automatisms and illusions of control (controlling machines, button pressing, causation/contingency)
What does the ability to predict action mean for freewill?
Empirical Will – The causality of the person’s conscious thoughts as established by scientific analysis of the covariation with the person’s behavior
Phenomenal Will – the person’s reported experience of will.
Causal agents
Libet’s findings – Readiness Potential (RP) – brain reliably begins working for a choice before we are aware of it. The question: Have we chosen before we are conscious of what we will choose? Does that matter? Is there any chance for deliberation or “doing otherwise?”
Consciousness regress. The Experience of willing is not the cause of action. We can still have a will about which we aren’t conscious.???
Not Accidental JTB:
-reliable (not necessarily infallible) - externalist
-to some extent, know how and why you know - internalist
They both want the same thing, right? The reason the externalist wants agents to know "how and why you know" is because that results in reliability often. The reason the internalist wants reliability is because it is the result of know "how and why you know." You don't really know "how and why you know" if you aren't reliable.
Beliefs in necessary truths are infallible, hence reliable; we just need the internal story to it, which shouldn't be too hard. Almost always inferential.
Beliefs in contingent truths can be reliable. What does it mean for a truth to be contingent? it means there is a probability greater than 0 that the truth values are different. It could have otherwise.
To know a contingent truth, C,
One could be merely reliable in believing C. Maybe C, contingently, has a 80% of being true. Maybe my reliable method has a 90% chance of leading me to C. My method has a 72% of leading me to the right answer.
---
I don't understand the newspaper example in the Lottery paradox. Something seems fishy about it to me. My claim is this: the newspaper is not a source of knowledge if the mathematical odds (be definition having a higher chance of being correct in this example) aren't, and in all likelihood, with respect to a lottery of magnitude, the newspaper isn't a source of knowledge as Pritchard believes.
Pritchard has a strong intuition that “even though this belief is justified and true...it is not a case of knowledge. I think, ultimately, Pritchard has a strong intuition that JTB based solely upon probabilistic justification cannot result in knowledge. Why should we agree? Can this be right?
What seems weird to me is that Pritchard thinks it is reasonable to believe: “it seems that evidence of a certain kind can sometimes suffice for knowledge even though, surprisingly, stronger evidence would not suffice.” I'm not saying this must be wrong, but I have strong intuitions which go against it.
At first, I thought this was a temporal issue, where the agent forms her belief that "X is a losing ticket" BEFORE there is a resulting winner, while in the case of the newspaper, the agent forms her belief that "X is a losing ticket" AFTER there is a resulting winner. But, this can't be the problem. Back to the odds, maybe the agent could form her belief AFTER the resulting winner, but before the hearing the Lottery admin, qua the odds. Prediction is not the problem.
Importantly, the newspaper's report is probabilistically correct, just like the mathematical odds. There is always a chance the newspaper will get it wrong. Maybe they mistyped; maybe they misheard the Lottery administrator's announcement of the results; maybe it was a prank; maybe Fox news bought the newspaper...whatever. The fact is that newspapers are fallible. In a sense, the newspaper is “predicting” the winner, since it cannot infallibly report who won.
We have A's prediction of Z and B's prediction of Z. Assume A's prediction of Z has a higher chance of being correct than B's. As far as I can tell, any rational person who knows all and only these assumptions should use A's prediction.
Let's say this is a 1,000 ticket lottery. Let's say the Lottery admin uses a computer to report the results, and this computer is the accurate in its reporting 99% of the time, and fails 1% of the time. The Lottery admin puts the result in, and the computer reports/broadcasts the result. When the computer says, "X won the lottery," there is a 99% chance that it is true. Would you believe the odds or the computer? Surely the odds. How is the newspaper any different? It isn't.
The newspaper is not as reliable as the odds. Why should we trust the newspaper over the odds in the first place? You shouldn't!
Think about it. I assume the odds of the Newspaper getting it wrong are astronomical, and of course, we can think of a Lottery with enough tickets to over come these odds – it would be a ridiculous lottery. Why should you trust the newspaper on something so astronomically unlikely? You shouldn't.
You need more than just one newspaper. You need multiple sources. That's what responsible epistemic agents do! When considering a highly improbably thing occurring, you don't just verify it solely based upon Al Jazeera; you read and verify with RT, Reuters, BBC, etc. If it is improbable enough, like a lottery, you need to call the Lottery admins; you need to verify from multiple angles before you commit yourself to believing something so wildly against the odds.
The point is that the odds of all of these sources of evidence being wrong at the same time are lower than the odds of winning the lottery. That is the only time you should accept that you've won the lottery in face of astronomical odds.
---
What about epistemic moral luck? If there are epistemic duties, I think luck is important.
What is wrong with probabilistic justification of knowledge? I have strong suspicions that an enormous portion of what we call "ordinary knowledge" is probabilistic.
r: how do you know X?
I know X because X has a Y probability?
r: how do you know X has a Y probability?
r: how do you know that "you know X because X has a Y probability?"
I don't understand the newspaper example in the Lottery paradox.
In the case of the odds, the agent, Sally, forms her belief that "X is a losing ticket" BEFORE there is a resulting winner.
In the case of the newspaper, the agent forms her belief that "X is a losing ticket" AFTER there is a resulting winner, since they reliably form their belief by reporting on the Lottery administor's claim of who won.
Back to the odds, maybe the agent could form her belief AFTER the resulting winner, but before the hearing the Lottery admin, qua the odds. This is kind of weird though, since the results are already decided - it is no longer a matter of probability. Probability has to do with predicting the future. Probability is about being a prediction at time T1 about some future event at time T2.
This example seems tainted with epistemic problems about "the future."
Ah, but she reliably formed her belief even after there was a winner. So, it does work.
Something tricky is happening in this newspaper example.
Let's say the Lottery admin uses a computer to report the results, and this computer is the accurate in its reporting 99% of the time, and fails 1% of the time. The Lottery admin puts the result in, and the computer reports/broadcasts the result. When the computer says, "Sally won the lottery," there is a 99% chance that it is true.
Now, I take this computer to be very similar to a reliable newspaper in salient ways. Newspapers aren't always right.
Why should we think the newspaper is the sort of evidence which leads to knowledge but not looking at the odds?
If Sally listens to the computer, she will form knowledge 99% of the time.
Odds: Sally Lost
Lottery Event
Do the odds matter now? Let's say they do.
The newspaper is not as reliable as the odds. Why should we trust the newspaper over the odds? Perhaps you shouldn't! I assume the odds of the Newspaper getting it wrong are astronomical, and of course, we can think of a Lottery with enough tickets to over come these odds. Why should you trust the Lottery? You shouldn't. You need to listen to the newspaper, then you need to contact other people, the lottery admins before you should change your belief about the lottery.
''1 - Introduction''
In this paper, I will analyze Daniel Wegner’s view on the conscious will as presented primarily in the article “Apparent Mental Causation: Sources of the Experience of Will” and a couple claims from his book The Illusion of Conscious Will. The second section is devoted to explicating Wegner’s view and work. His work in psychology seems to have upset (parts of) the philosophical world – his conclusion is pretty staggering. Afterwards, in the third section, I’ll briefly consider why his argument matters, its implications, and what we will lose if he is right. Finally, in the fourth section, I offer four criticisms of his argument. In particular, I am worried about the burden of proof in this dialectic, the problematic assumption that conscious will is a feeling, what conclusions the empirical evidence really supports, and the lack of evolutionary explanations for an illusory conscious will.
''2 - Wegner’s View''
Daniel Wegner argues the conscious will isn’t the cause of action.<<ref "1">> On his view, people everywhere mistakenly interpret their conscious thoughts as being causally relevant to their actions. In his writing, he attempts to dismantle the commonly held belief and experience of a direct causal connection between one’s conscious thoughts and actions. Ultimately, he believes the conscious will is epiphenomenal.
Wegner describes conscious will as an experience, feeling, or perception.<<ref "2">> The experience of conscious will spans from a conscious thought or intention to the appearance of a causal path to the target action.<<ref "3">> In Wegner’s view, the supposed causal link between the conscious thought and the action is illusory, and he claims both thought and action are caused by unconscious mechanisms.
Why are we mistaken? Why do we wrongfully interpret our experiences and erroneously infer causation? Sometimes we perceive patterns and causation where there are none, and Wegner seems to think this is the case with the conscious will. Our flawed ability to recognize causation seems to be a significant reason why we have the experience of conscious will at all. When conscious thoughts or intentions precede and match the target action in a timely, exclusive, compatible, and consistent manner, we mistakenly infer, via our flawed causal recognition, that our conscious will was the cause of the action.
Wegner thinks a potential link between thought and action is weakened by the involuntary nature of examples such as motor automatisms, hypnosis, dowsing, action projection, and psychological disorders such as schizophrenia, where in these cases one does not experience conscious will but still demonstrates many of the scientific signs of it.<<ref "4">> In these cases, the person acting does not feel he is making a conscious decision to act, but feels as though some external force is causing the action through him – that is, there is a separation between the action taken by the person and his conscious thought or desires; the link between conscious thought and action isn’t there when we would expect it to be. Further, Wegner uses an experiment, the “I Spy” study, to demonstrate how the experience of conscious will can be artificially created. Wegner’s experiment seems to build off and extend from Libet’s studies, which attempted to reveal how unconscious mechanisms played a major causal role in the appearance of voluntary action.<<ref "5">> Wegner employs both positions as evidence for the thesis that the experience of conscious will is an illusion, where conscious thoughts are inefficacious and do not cause our actions (despite all appearances).
The purpose of the “I Spy” study was to “lead people to experience willful action when in fact they have done nothing.”<<ref "6">> This was a digital 2-player Ouiji board version of I Spy (using a mouse), where the participant was primed with words about items on the screen, forced onto certain objects by a confederate, and required to “rate each stop they made for personal intentionality.”<<ref "7">> The point of the study was to generate cases where participants artificially felt as though they consciously willed an action, when in fact, they did not cause the action. Word priming “did not cause participants to stop on the items.”<<ref "8">> Word priming did, however, conjure thoughts about the related objects on the screen, and when forced upon these objects in brief time frames after priming (1 or 5 seconds), participants “reported having performed this movement intentionally.”<<ref "9">>
The experiment shows that one can have conscious thoughts which don’t cause action yet still form the illusion of an experience of conscious will. The involuntary examples demonstrate that one can have conscious thoughts which meet many of the matching parameters of target actions, but don’t result in the experience of conscious will. Together, both positions, in Wegner’s view, demonstrate how the apparent causal link between consciousness and action is an illusion.
Wegner claims the experience of conscious will serves to provide us a preview of what we may do, but “the real causal mechanisms underlying behavior are never present in consciousness. Rather, the engines of causation are unconscious mechanisms of mind.”<<ref "10">> It remains unclear why this ability to preview matters.
''3 – A Couple Implications. What’s at Stake?''
If Wegner, like many psychologists, is right in thinking the conscious will can be reduced to deterministic, physical mechanisms, then the game is likely over for incompatibilists. We might initially think science is the wrong domain for proving we don’t have free will (which requires substantial metaphysics). Presumably, free will is part of having conscious will. If the experience of conscious will can be entirely reduced to mere physical mechanisms, if this phenomenon is best explained in naturalistic terms, then either incompatibilists should deny free agency or the burden of proof seems to be shifted to the libertarian.
Compatibilists (and incompatibilists as well) remain vulnerable to Wegner’s argument in a different way. If Wegner is right in thinking that conscious will is entirely an illusion, and if conscious thought does not cause action, then it is very hard to see how humans could engage in any sort of meaningful deliberation and choice necessary (even by compatibilist standards) for being moral agents. In essence, Wegner’s argument seems to reduce us down to mere observers of the results of our unconscious mechanisms. If he is right, then I don’t see why morality and moral responsibility should have any rational relevance to us. We can’t actually participate in moral life; moral life is an illusion.
''4 – A Series of Brief Criticisms of Wegner’s View''
''4.1 – Burden of Proof''
While Wegner tries to demonstrate why we can be mistaken in attributing causality, he does not ultimately show why we all feel like free agents. He must explain why this feeling of free agency, a very potent and convincing experience we all have, must be false, and particularly how and why we all suffer from this mass delusion. He seems to act as though he has an open-and-shut case against the efficacious conscious will (most of us are sometimes guilty of this sort of bravado). While he raises problems and concerns, he fails to provide the sort of extraordinary evidence required to counter almost everyone’s experience of this phenomenon and the intuitions we have on the matter. I think he has, at best, opened the door to the possibility that the conscious will is merely an illusion, but he has not convincingly closed the doors on the other possibilities.
''4.2 – Conscious Willing as a Feeling''
Wegner claims that “[w]ill is a feeling, not unlike happiness or sadness or anger or anxiety or disgust… will has other characteristics of emotion, including an experiential component (how it feels), a cognitive component (what it means and the thoughts it brings to mind), and a physiological component (how the body responds).”<<ref "11">> He is sympathetic to a scientific Humean view. Unfortunately, Wegner seems too quick to reduce the conscious will to some mental state of lower status; he glosses over our ordinary, everyday phenomenological evidence.
Quite related to my previous criticism, I fear that Wegner does not adequately capture or describe the phenomenon of conscious willing when he categorizes the will as a feeling. I grant that the conscious will is similar to feelings and sensory perception in salient ways. I don’t think, however, the experience of conscious willing is either an outright feeling or ultimately analogous to our ordinary feelings. It is more than that. When I attend to the phenomenon of my conscious will, it is not presented to me in a way similar to my ordinary feelings (admittedly, I don’t know how to describe it, but I know what it does not appear like). I find the experience of the conscious will to be fantastically unique and far richer than something like sadness, anger, or happiness. I may not be able to describe why exactly they differ, but Wegner also has not adequately explained away the experience of conscious willing as just another emotion or feeling.
''4.3 – What Does His Evidence Support? ''
We might also have methodological worries and issues dealing with what Wegner’s experiment really proves or explains. Wegner may be overstating what his evidence supports. A more conservative appraisal of the evidence suggests a different conclusion: we are fallible about our experience of conscious will. This is far from the bold thesis that conscious will is an illusion. Just because some experiences are illusory doesn’t mean all are illusory. Just because someone can be tricked into incorrectly believing he caused a cursor to stop on a screen (when in fact, another agent caused it), doesn’t mean that the experience of willing is always an illusion.
Looking specifically at the “I Spy” study, the situation seems contrived – that is, the experiment seems more like a trick than the sort of study from which to draw such sweeping conclusions about the experience of conscious will in general. Why should we think this study is representative of the ordinary sort of experiences of conscious willing? This study seems to suffer some of the same problems that its predecessor, Libet’s study, encountered. It isn’t clear that these studies are examining normal conscious intentions, but rather automatic functions, rationalizations, or tricks that merely demonstrate our fallibility.
In addition, I’m not convinced the involuntary examples prove much of anything. They simply aren’t good examples of normal mental activity. Pathological conditions may (or may not) serve to show quirks and boundaries of the experience of conscious will, but they aren’t representative of ordinary conscious experience. So what if these cases have ‘many of the matching parameters?’ That isn’t the same as meeting them all; perhaps we can infer that people in these outlying cases are not, in fact, experiencing conscious will when they do not meet certain parameters. But that is probably all we can infer – one should not draw conclusions from the experiences of fringe cases. Their faulty experiences don’t really give us good reasons to think the conscious will is entirely inefficacious and an illusion.
I am also concerned the self-reporting in the “I Spy” experiment may have just been the result of mere post-hoc rationalizations. Obviously, that initially seems to support Wegner’s point in the first place, as he is trying to debunk what he considers to be our global post-hoc rationalization for delusions of conscious willing. Instead, I’m trying to say this is an exceptional kind of case, and not representative of our usual self-reporting. It is one thing to ask: “In general, do you believe your conscious will is efficacious?” and another thing to ask someone to rate their personal intentionality in a given situation. I am not sure conscious will sits on a rated gradient at all. Reporting and rating personal intentionality may not operate in the way that Wegner assumes.
Related to this concern of self-reporting, I worry the study focuses too much upon whether or not people believed their conscious thoughts led to certain results (several steps beyond their action) rather than whether or not they caused their action directly. The action of moving and stopping our hand is phenomenologically different from the figuring out whether or not we moved or stopped a cursor on a computer screen. Moving/stopping my hand is simpler, more straightforward, more “up to me,” relying far less upon my ability to determine causation, and perhaps even more ready-to-hand than moving/stopping a mouse or cursor (the cursor’s movement is even more abstract and distant from my action than moving a mouse). For example, we must contend with issues of being a digital native or being unfamiliar (to some degree) with using the mouse; a professional first person shooter gamer will recognize causation problems in cursors/mice that most of us won’t, and a digital native will be more equipped to make decisions concerning causal efficacy in this chain of causes than a newcomer. It is especially pertinent to keep in mind that someone with little or no experience using a mouse will have a much harder time controlling the cursor’s position on the screen than a more experienced user in the first place, much less recognizing if the cursor stopped due to their own action or another’s.
There are varying levels of causal recognition. Anyone who has ever remotely controlled a person’s computer (for emergency repair work, occasional maintenance, or pranking your friends), especially a computer used by a non-native, can tell you that these people are momentarily tricked into thinking they are moving the mouse when they really aren’t. They don’t quite have enough experience to know immediately that they aren’t in control. Lots of activities are like this. Essentially, there are a lot of phenomenal abstractions sitting between my consciously willing to my move hand (the action itself) and figuring out whether or not I truly controlled a cursor.
Those layers don’t seem to be appreciated enough in this study. Wegner should not be testing something so far away on the causal chain; he should be testing something much more phenomenologically immediate and within the expertise of practically all with conscious will – such as raising one’s hand.
Lastly, beyond this inductive step, even employing an inference from the best explanation principle does not seem to get us Wegner’s bold conclusion. In light of his evidence, the causes of action and the explanation of our conscious thoughts are still quite unclear. We don’t have an adequate empirical explanation, as far as I can tell.
''4.4 – Evolutionary Reasons for an Illusion''
Wegner needs not only to provide an explanation of why the conscious will is an illusion, but he likely must also give an account of why humans have evolved to have an illusory conscious will. Our brain is expensive, and if this is an illusion, it likely costs a great deal of energy. Why would an illusory conscious will be selected for? It is unobvious how one could provide a plausible account of this. If conscious will is entirely inefficacious and an illusion, what possible purpose does it serve? Wegner is aware of this issue. He argues that “conscious will is the mind’s compass.”<<ref "12">> But he does not give us great reasons as to why we evolved to have this epiphenomenal compass.
One evolutionary reason we might offer is that this illusion results in better behavior. Perhaps humans under the impression that they have control are more likely to behave in ways beneficial to the species. A sense of morality, for example, might arise from the illusion, and a sense of morality, at least minimally, might bring about the kinds of behavior which evolution would select for (although, ultimately, certain sorts of morality do seem at odds with propagation of the species).
Even if this line of reasoning were true, it remains unclear why an illusion was selected for instead of instinctual, hard-wired “moral behavior.” Why select for an illusion when you could get the same results for a far cheaper energy cost? It would be nice if we had a plausible evolutionary story to explain this illusion.
''5 – Conclusion''
It is a biased thing to say that I deeply regret the possibility (however small I believe it may be) that Wegner could be right. The costs are enormous (not to sound like the world is ending but, if Wegner’s claim is correct, the moral world just might be ending for us as humans). Wegner helps opens the empirical door to a serious problem of nonveridical conscious experience and causation. His conclusions are not obviously true just yet, and proponents of Wegner’s view have a lot of work ahead of them to support the conclusion that conscious will is epiphenomenal and illusory.
------------------------------
<<footnotes "1" "Wegner, Daniel M., and Thalia Wheatley. 'Apparent Mental Causation: Sources of the Experience of Will.' //American Psychologist// 54, no. 7 (July 1999): 481">>
<<footnotes "2" "Ibid., 480">>
<<footnotes "3" "Ibid., 483">>
<<footnotes "4" "Ibid., 480, 485, 486, 487">>
<<footnotes "5" "Ibid., 481">>
<<footnotes "6" "Ibid., 487">>
<<footnotes "7" "Ibid., 488">>
<<footnotes "8" "Ibid., 489">>
<<footnotes "9" "Ibid.">>
<<footnotes "10" "Ibid., 490">>
<<footnotes "11" "Wegner, Daniel M. //The Illusion of Conscious Will//. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2002: 326">>
<<footnotes "12" "Ibid., 317">>
---------------------------
''Bibliography''
Bayne, Tim. "Phenomenology and the Feeling of Doing: Wegner on the Conscious Will." //In Does Consciousness Cause Behavior//?, edited by Susan Pockett, William P. Banks, and Shaun Gallagher, 169-86. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2006.
Pacherie, Elisabeth. "Towards a Dynamic Theory of Intentions." //In Does Consciousness Cause Behavior?//, edited by Susan Pockett, William P. Banks, and Shaun Gallagher, 145-67. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2006.
Pockett, Susan. "Does Consciousness Cause Behaviour?"// Journal of Consciousness Studies// 11, no. 2 (2004): 23-40.
Ross, Peter W. "Empirical Constraints on the Problem of Free Will."// In Does Consciousness Cause Behavior?//, edited by Susan Pockett, William P. Banks, and Shaun Gallagher, 125-44. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2006.
Wegner, Daniel M., and Thalia Wheatley. "Apparent Mental Causation: Sources of the Experience of Will." //American Psychologist //54, no. 7 (July 1999): 480-92.
Wegner, Daniel M. //The Illusion of Conscious Will//. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2002. PDF.
Wegner, Daniel M. "Précis of the Illusion of Conscious Will." //Behavioral and Brain Sciences// 27, no. 5 (2004): 649-92.
Is the good will important for morality, and it what ways?
How important are intentions for morality? Is it merely about doing the right thing, or does motive matter?
What is the key concept of morality? What is morality really about?
Is it really true that only a good will is unconditionally good?
Our mission (should we take it):
What are his questions, what does he want?
What is his argument?
Is he successful?
Dr. Sensen said he had a sore neck today because he spent so much time ‘Nodding’ his head while reading Kant this morning.
What is the first section of Ground for? What is its purpose?
This is a formulation of what we believe morality is from our common cognition/sense of morality to the supreme principle (CI). This is a formulation, not a justification.
He goes from motivation to content of the principle. What is this way in between?
4:390, Cannot just conform to the moral law, it must be for the sake of the moral law.
Do the right thing (conform to the moral law)
Do it for the right reason - simply because it is right (for the sake of the moral law)
4:393, This is a negative argument. A list of things which are ruled out. But, it also has to give some positive aspects of the good will.
4:394, That nature made us and everything, this is a stoic view of his time. Scratch it out. The appendix doesn’t have a purpose, but he would have thought there was one.
4:397, a holy being can’t be necessitated (can’t be required or obligated). One must be tempted or inclined to not do the right thing in order to be necessitated.
An action can deserve praise and encouragement, but it isn’t unconditionally good if you don’t do it from duty. (This is the first, unspkoken proposition)
4:402, Gives us the principle from the propositions.
What is odd is that he starts looking for pure, non-empirical morality. But, then he starts with common, empirical thoughts about morality. This isn’t a contradiction – he’s trying to juice our intuitions.
Law of double effect – intention matters. But, it seems like we could do wrong things with the right intention.
Scanlon, your house is on fire, only way to get water is to goto neighbors house to get the water, even though are forbidden. The intention doesn’t matter. What justifies him is just the excusing circumstance. He could have intended to see the person’s yard, even though he’s not supposed to, even though the secondary effect is getting water for your house (which seems like you should).
Strawson, on the bus, guys steps on your hand.If he apologizes and explains it wasn’t on purpose, you react differently from if he laughs and asks if you want another one (and did it on purpose).
Only intentions matters?
Do you agree the good will is the only good will?
Do I agree with his examples?
Regarding the necessity of having the right motivation for the right action, can you choose your motivation? Is that a kind of action (albeit a mental kind of action)? If so, does the CI obligate us to be motivated by respect for the moral law in all choices.
406-408:
We never know our own motivation.
What if you are 80% motivated by respect for the moral law, but 20% motivated because it benefits you? Degrees of right and wrong, blameworthiness, and motivation. Would Kant be open to degrees of merit?
I think he has a lot of work to show why the good will is the only absolute, primary, and unconditional good. It seems like Kant really has his work cut out for him to show why it has primacy over eudaimonia or happiness, where it seems as though the good will is both an end, but also a means to happiness, whereas happiness seems to be merely an end in itself and never a means. How is happiness conditionally good?
Why is the good will unconditionally good?
Final end – happiness is an example. Seeking it for its own sake.
Happiness is something you naturally want. You can’t be necessitated. Thus, it isn’t a moral problem? Like Holy things.
Kant thinks happiness is narrow, it is merely desire satisfaction.
Good will is unconditional but not complete.
Freedom, obligation, duty, categorical imperative.
Our ability to achieve happiness is conditional, but why is happiness conditionally good? Maybe it isn’t even my personal happiness, but general happiness.
Morality is what you ought to do independent of desires.
What is value for Kant?
Why is the Utility Rule not universalizable?
What is value?
Think of the ancients:
“X is good”
“X has value”
It isn’t clear where Kant stands on this. This is controversial.
Do what is right, the content of which is fleshed out by a principle (the CI)
Do what is right BECAUSE it is right
It doesn’t need to be the highest, complete good. It would be better if they were happy.
For our purposes, Kant thinks good=worth=value=worth, at least as he uses them as terms (for the most part, I guess).
Functional aspect is contingent.
Not everyone has a good will (6:463), but even these people deserve respect. Goodness and value is not why I should respect another human being.
Value positions:
There is no value. Naturalism would posit this.
Subjectivism
Constructivism (it is something that we as a group construct and agree upon)
Moral realism
Value descriptions
No value
Whatever we do value
Subjective
Constructive
Property
Relational (X is taller than Y; X is better than Y)
Is useful for*
Is fitting
Intrinsic
Normal moral realism
Value Prescription
An utterance of what you should value, not a description of a thing or what someone else does value. It is a command of what you should value. (Think of prescriptivism – bullying/influencing others to think the same way I do)
Pure reason (KANT)
Moral Realist Side:
Jewel passage, 394
Ground of CI, 428
The highest judge, 439 (intrinsic)
Prescriptivist Side:
435-6 (Values of things other than the law come from the law)
5:63
5:64
What is value? What is valuable? What tells us what is valuable?
Good is what reasons prescribes as practically necessary.
Good = what reason deems necessary
Good is only to be said of actions, never of a thing, 5:60. Good is not a property of objects.
Absolute/inner/unconditional (same things) value, 5:62 = judgment abstracts from all conditions.
Actions get there value from the CI. The CI dictates that these actions are valuable.
428, Instead of thinking that value must be the foundation of the law, the relationship is the other way around. If you have a law, then you have value. If no value exists, then no law. This is an epistemic relationship in trying to figure out “if there is a law.”
Is reason good? Is the CI good? Howso? What makes them good?
5:39-40….
5:58, If you have a prior conception of value, you don’t get absolute value.
5:62-3, “”…you won’t get a moral law.
5:58,
If you have a prior conception of value
It would be the agreeable, a feeling of pleasure, something which is contingent and subjective
‘Good’ is a means to the agreeable
Nothing is absolutely good, only as a means to the agreeable
you don’t get absolute value.
5:52
5:62-3,
If value is prior,
Criterion pleasure
Based on experience
then you won’t get a priori moral law.
Must one explicitly employ the CI, or can one implicitly employ it? I often make deductions that aren’t conscious.
5:8n – It can be implicit.
What distinguishes morality from other areas is that it is unconditionally binding.
Universality isn’t so hard to swallow, it is the necessitation that is difficult.
Not making exceptions for yourself – that is part of the universality.
Nichols, moral/conventional distinction (about 39 months), Kant clearly isn’t showing us something new. Now, is our belief innate, conditioned, or what? I don’t know.
Even animals seem to have this distinction (although, psychopaths don’t).
How much Reason is required to be bound by the CI? Is rationality modal/binary, or it is on a gradation?
Necessity
Psychological compulsion? Blackburn, for example. Feelings can be categorical…Nothing can feel more categorical than some of your feelings in certain circumstances. E.g. if you had to save your sweetheart before others, that would feel categorical. It would undermine Kant’s claim…
Kant’s not talking about it though. It is conditional ?? It is binding on others to save your sweetheart. 5:26. Physiological necessity and compellation.
Logical – Particularly in the sense of Grammar/Language Structure
Also not Kant’s view. Not about the grammar structure. 4:419.
Should I take the train? “Do it” isn’t categorical. Why it is ‘binding’ on you if you want to be on London on time.
Justification by reason
If reason holds it be necessary/valid, independently of any conditions..5:31
There is a necessity, in a sense, in the hypothetical imperative. “IF you want X, then you must do Y
”…Y is necessary for X.
CI
Bindingness
5:21
4:21
4:25
6:225
Content
402
421
5:27
Action = Principle + End
= “I need to study” + “Graduate from school”
Motviation: inclinations can’t be your end. 5:26, 4:441.
Suicide: Man with rabies, the President about to be captured with state secrets…permissible, maybe even obligated…not allowed for the man who just
The lying case.
Problems:
CI is empty. It is devoid of content. Perhaps without content you can’t get concrete action.
But, doesn’t the maxim supply the concrete thing we need?
Rules too much; rules out everything – premoral (unlike 5).
Rules out too little
Specific maxims...
Rules it out for the wrong reasons
Because a contradiction occurs…why does it point out any moral features.
I think because logic is normative, morally normative
Too absolutist (Lying); deontology
I need a diagram.
Someone has inclination, they form an end, then they are conscious enough to ask if it is universalizable. Content comes from your inclinations and proposed ends. This defeats the emptiness problem (1).
Self others
Perfect Suicide lying
Imperfect Talents Helping
Inclination
Thought experiment (imagine everyone has the same maxim/end)
Contradiction
In Conception
Perfect
Just imagining that if everyone had the maxim, you must reach a contradiction in conception.
Lying, if everyone is lying, then everyone will know that everyone lies, and thus is defeats the purpose of lying.
Suicide, out of self love you want to end your life, and self love propels the furtherance of life, end life contradicts your self life.
In Will
Imperfect
Whoever wills the ends also wills the means…
It isn’t about anything in particular that you will, wish, or have as an end ?? It isn’t about the consequences.
Moral content of CI is not to make an exception of yourself.
It is not logical contradiction, it is logical inconsistency.
Specificity of Maxims: 5:19….contains many practical rules.
In what cases, if any, can or should a person kill another?
Korsgaard:
Key argument 122-123, important argument 120, and 109 we are going to need.
109:
1st – there must be an unconditional, absolute end
2nd- Humanity is that end…
Why is human an uncondtional, absolute end
You start out with something familiar, then you ask back how this is possible, then you come back and realize that humanity is an end.
Relative ends -> hypothetical imperatives
End in itself -> categorical imperative
End in itself seems to be the ground of the categorical imperative.
Regress argument- on 122-123
Things have conditional value
Moral realists might not like it. Aristotelians might not like this.
Reason seek the unconditioned
The unconditioned condition is rational nature
Rational nature can confer value only if it has unconditioned value
Other rational natures value too
Rational nature has unconditional value
Just because your finger can mark something doesn’t mean your finger is marked as such.
The equivocation between humanity and rationality doesn’t make sense.
These are different:
end in itself
Absolute value
Dignity
Good Right…..or…..Right Good
Kant thinks Right->Good
4:435-6, 5:62-3
393, 6:463, everyone should be respected, even those without a good will and criminals
6:239, you can claim a right from others by reminding him of his duty,
These are reasons he starts with the right and not the good.
6:449-450
4:436, 437-8, 5:87
Respect
Recognition
Appraisal (merit)
Maxim we should have
Why does your principle of reason command you to respect other persons? Not because they have intrinsic good in themselves.
CI: Don’t make an exception of yourself 4:425
Formula of Humanity: don’t exalt yourself 6:450
-426-429
End in itself = freedom
Human beings, in virtue of freedom, arenot merely a plaything in nature (a means). They direct themselves, they are ends in themselves.
Dignity plays no role in why person deserve respect.
Freedom (end in itself) grounds the CI
6:380-2, our own perfection and the happiness of others.
382:
respect for person
you don’t want to be used or treated as a mere means
autonomy
you don’t want to be dependent upon others, you want to govern yourself
dignity
you don’t want to be lowered or demeaned, you want to hold your head up high
Respect – a maxim of not exalting yourself – 6:449:50
Respect is not a feeling of esteem or reverence (6:467-8). You don’t owe esteem to other people. You just owe esteem to the moral law. It is a maxim you should have of not thinking of yourself that is better than others.
4:431 – given by pure reason
What about MLK Jr. I think he might be a better person than me. Does he not have more dignity. How do we know if he is better than me or not. 6:434-6, false humility. If MLK did have thatfeeling of better, it would destroy the idea that is he actually dignified. 4:406-408. We can’t know where we are. Moral luck might also be a factor, for example. There isn’t a way to make a judgment because we don’t know our own motives. We have everything that counts, and that is why we don’t have to lower ourself.
4:437-8, 5:87 – formulas are equivalent.
4:436, 436 – formula of humanity is introduced, bringing it closer to intuition
6:443, 4:428 – we don’t have a direct duty toward animals, but we do have it toward human. So, isn’t there something special about human beings. You shouldn’t be cruel to animals because you shouldn’t adopt an attitude of cruelty, but not because the animal has any right. But, we don’t owe anything to other human beings either (directly), but rather we should just be a certain sort of person, and it just so happens that that duty (to revere the moral law) contains the respect of other human beings.
To respect other humans beings just IS to obey the moral law.
To claim a right doesn’t point to a value he has, but he reminds the agent to follow the categorical imperative.
6:393, just because someone demands something of you doesn’t generate a right or claim, it only does if you grant it, if you see that it is fit for a universal moral law.
5:62-63, paradox of method
I asked if it is the goal to habituate our inclinations to the point that we are no longer necessitates. Sensen doesn’t think that is Kant’s goal.
Should we revere others (and not just the moral law)? No.
Respect
Recognition
Appraisal
Maxim
Kant seems to be locked in an ivory tower. There seems to be me and the moral law, but not a lot of room for me and others.
Why doesn’t the pain of another give me a “reason” to help them? A maxim of universal help…what generates this duty? Sensen blames this on our judeo-christian tradition.
4:401 note, my spirit bows toward the moral law inside someone else (possibly).
Equivalent
In Result, but not logically
Content, logically
Perhaps both senses
1st formulation
Don’t make an exception (4:429)
2nd
Don’t exalt yourself (6:449) – thinking of yourself as being better, as not needed the law to apply to you
What is our ordinary conception of autonomy?
What is Kant’s conception?
How does it differ?
Sovereignty (political notion)
Authenticity (who is the real me)
Capacity to choose whatever I want…up to me, moral responsibility making
Self governance vs. self legislation
“Act on your own will”
Will – it comes with the moral law packed into it. Actingon your own will means actingon the moral law.
Capacity we have to govern ourself, independently of desires, society, nature
Goal – something we should aspire to,
Right –
6:417-8 – can you have duties towards yourself? No. new years resolution, you can unbind such a thing.
What is legislation?
Content
Binding
6:227 – we are the author of the obligation/bindingness, but not the content.
What is self?
The self is pure practical reason. Not an empirical reason, not like introspection (should I do A or B?). If it isn’t empirical, then maybe it is noumenal (6:418-9), homunculus it is not, however. Categorical self, law giving of its own kind, not dependent on desire, society, or nature, which is unconditional.
5:33, 43
“Act on your own will”
Self Governance (the responsibility sense)
Desires
Society
Nature
Capacity/goal/right
Self-legislation (Freedom, the grounds of a the moral law)
What is legislation?
Content
Binding
What is self
Empirical
Noumenal (spooky homunculus)
Own law giving (doesn’t refer to any form of self) – just refers to law giving self-reflexively, in such a way that it isn’t dependent upon anything else
Capacity
Duty (instead of goal and right)
Condition of the possibility of morality
“Value mission” – goal has “value” built into it, which is denied on Sensen’s interpretation.
Affect or “feeling” is the natural place for Kant to look for an account of the direct “mental attunement” to value found in the “moral feeling.” (CJ 5:267-268)
Your own reason commands you, independently of what you want. What would be a justification for Kant’s claim? Why should we believe there is a CI?
What question is he asking in the 3rd section of the groundwork? He wanted to start with our ordinary opinions, and find and formulate the supreme principle of morality. He started with motivation, then he went for the metaphysics of morals, giving it a philosophical treatment, and he came up with these different formulations. The 3rd section justifies the CI.
If duty, then CI
We haven’t shown there is duty, 4:389 explicated common conception of morality.
At 4:425-
That there is a CI (assertorically) – 4:446
I have a CI, but I also have other interests. In case of conflict, why should I give preference ot the CI?
The observance is duty. The CI is overriding – 4:449
Does he establish and justify that there is a CI, and does he show that it is overriding?
How does he argue there really is a CI?
We have to conceive of ourselves as free. This concept of freedom, is the idea of not being influenced by alien forces.
We assume we have freedom. A free will is a will under the CI. Hence, we there is the CI.
If freedom, then morality.
Freedom is autonomy, and autonomy is freedom.
We start from the theoretical, we aren’t just leaves in the wind and pushed by desires, but somehow we can determine ourselves.
Theoretical-> Moral command
Freedom->Morality
Freedom
Morality
5:29, Freedom and morality imply each other
Why should freedom imply morality?
Freedom is a form of causality. Following Hume, Kant thinks that causality follows from laws. Random isn’t freedom, Law is required. Freedom is a form of law, it is a special law, not a law of nature.
Freedom can’t be a law that has a matter, it can’t be empirical, it can’t be a law of nature.
4:402, 421, 446 – it can’t be heteronomy, it rules out content, and leaves only the form ….for freedom.
Negative freedom might imply you aren’t determined at all, might be absurdly random, and that’s why you need a law.
Helping others and not helping is the result of the CI. We only think of helping others as morality because we’ve already employed the CI.
Why should we believe in Freedom (assuming we grant F->M)?
GMS
We have to regard ourselves as free.
Why do I have to regard myself as free?
4:448 – Reason must regard itself as the author of its principles independelty of alien influences. Reason cannot, by definition, regard itself as standing under foreign influences.
If you regard yourself as determined, then there is nothing you need to do.
If you regard yourself as free, then you regard yourself as not being dependent on anything else.
You could be a passive observer of your active life, or you could actively try to figure out what you should do. In those active thoughts, you assume that your thinking will make a difference.
Need to do
Mental effort
action
KpV
5:4-5, the footnote
Moral law lets you discover freedom
Moral law -> Freedom
F->M (metaphysical)
M->F (epistemic)
Why would you believe we have the moral law?
Ought -> Can; ought; therefore, can
Page 30, if a prince demands of you to give false testimony…Gallows example
Desire vs. morality
Desire vs. Desire
Page 92 and 45, not concerned with execution, but if you believe it is commanded, even if no desire speaks in favor.
Why should I think there is a distinction between the false testimony and Gallows examples? They both seem like Gallows examples
Why is respect not a desire?
Kant wants it to be a special sense of desire.
What is freedom? What are we trying to believe in?
Ordinary: “the ability to do otherwise”
Empirical self is determined, noumenal is not.
This is not what Kant means by freedom.
Kant says we can’t talk about the noumenal world. WE can’t know what’s in it. So, he can’t really define and explain freedom.
Noumenal Self – unmoved mover. First cause. Being a first cause, nothing else causes you.
Intelligible (does not arise out of the senses) character (law of causality)
Two senses of freedom.
Freeom Will is freedom of the will
Transcendental Freedom is another
Will (Crossroads) – [Choice]
Moral law [Will]
Free if you act on this
But, why should I be moral?
Desires
Kant believes we can predict every human action. He’s a compatibilist.
What if you are just determined to be a saint or a sinner? In order to hold someone responsible, we have to attribute a choice at the crossroads.
How tenable is moral responsibility?
We shouldn’t blame others because we don’t know their motives. Punishment is different, it has a consequentialist/preventative measure, it isn’t retributive.
Why is th CI overriding?
Why should you be moral?
4:454, 460, well, you just wouldn’t be you (proper self) if you didn’t…proper self (authentic self)
Value
Stoic
But, I think that my desires do matter. They are part of my authentic self, I think. But, Reason, says Sensen, is ot the introspective “pure” reason, but something else.
4:460, 461; principle
Reasoning
Reason/CI, Intelligible (how they are in themselves – the real, proper thing)
Desires, phenomenal (how they appear)
We aren’t talking about a claim of the noumenal object (which we can’t do), but about what the object does and how it relates to other things.
457-8:
Why is morality more important than desires?
I think it is just that moral reasons are definitionally better than other reasons, otherwise they wouldn’t be moral reasons.
CI is categorical, desires aren’t, they are contingent and changing. Desires can change, and so they aren’t of the same status as the CI – the CI is unconditional and necessary.
Morality, as an experience, always presents itself as categorical.
Why is the categorical imperative overriding? Because it is categorical. It would be a “category” mistake to ask otherwise.
1tst part of course on key concepts of Kant – the sorts of morality is a direct law of reason. He doesn’t start out with prior value, feelings, happiness, etc. What is important to him is that all morality comes from a priori command of reason, autonomy.
The second part of the course, why should we believe that there really is such a law of reason? That is different from experience, etc. We looked at Kant’s own conception. This week we look at alternative conceptions of ‘how we might justify the CI’.
Rawlsian do buffet Kantian interpretation. If you don’t like something, don’t take it. If you like things, take and use them. They shield themselves, and hide behind, Kant’s writing. You also try to get all of Kant’s conclusions without the same metaphysics, looking for a more human way. They also try to avoid some of the metaphysical baggage that comes with Kant’s systematic theory.
521-522
6 different ways to justify the CI
From theoretical reason (GMS III)
F; F->M; then, M
Freedom is a form of causality
Kant seems to give up on it, doesn’t use in the 2nd critique
Condition of possibility of the moral experience (KrV)
condition of ought
Presupposed in our moral experience
The experience in mind: the moral ought, the moral law (B575-6)
Ought can’t be accounted for by natural science
Nichols reading (39 months old makes the moral and conventional distinction) may strengthen this argument
“ought” is not a feeling (moral feeling is rejected as a justification of CI by Kant)
Necessary condition for the coordination of plurality of finite agents (O'Neill)
Everything is practical in Kant, even the theoretical.
Both reasons are one kind.
Necessary to specify a unified order of public conduct (O-neil)
Direct knowledge of freedom (2nd critique, 5:3)
Direct freedom
Derived from the idea of freedom, but no intuition of freedom is available (5:30)
Can’t come from a special faculty or sense
A regulative principle
How you could organize a plurality of desires (like 3). The only way to bring unity or coherence. (Korsgaard)
??
What is Rawls’ explanation of the justification of the categorical imperative?
A constructivist and coherentist doctrine of practical reason.
6. Coherence / Reflective Equilibrium / Person and CI-P : fact of reason
Based on our ordinary conception of morality. Our unreflective. “Fact of reason” - it is already part of everyone's moral experience (for Rawls), passive. The fact is a form of judgment (ought->can), 5:30, active.
Rationality and reasonability.
512, 514, 522
Reflective Equilibrium: You have to go back and forth between your intuition about cases and the principles that you want to govern your society. These are the facts of reason, opinions about concrete cases and principles that seems right. There is a coherence between the two. It never goes behind what you find in your actual society.
Is this a good justification/conception?
Why would we arrive at the same CI?
All free thinking rational people would arrive at the CI (CI-P maybe).
Why should do we think there is a coherence to be had?
Why should coherence ever be justifying?
5:29-30, 45, 92
Rawls wants Kantian conclusions about morality without Kantian metaphysics. O'Neill is a student of Rawls.
Kant
Starting Point
Gallows
Put yourself in a decision situation where nothing speaks in favor of the moral action (in terms of your desires). For the moral action, you just have that it is commanded by the moral law.
Although no desire speaks in favor, there still is a sense that you shouldn't do it. The moral law. You still ought not do it. This ought comes with the sense that you could do it, but you aren't sure that you will do it. This gives you a sense of freedom (in the Kantian sense), and with freedom comes the CI.
Question
Necessary* judgment each agent would make in that situation is what?
Result
you believe you can act morally
Can implies Ought (CI) [interesting, normally Ought → Can]
Objections
Depends on theoretical notions, such as freedom, the a priori, the necessity requirement, that experience can never yield necessity, that there really are cases that people would judge this way in the Gallows case.
Rawls
Starting Point
Unreflected moral opinions.
Persons as free and equal
Question
What are the principles that guide this conception or express this conception of persons as being free and equal?
Reflective Equilibrium tells us.
Result
CI-P
Objections
Problem of relativity. What do you say to the person has different moral opinions or a different reflective equilibrium?
O'Neill
Starting Point
Plurality of Finite Agents (bound in a space together)
They are in causal reach of each other.
Why does it need to be coordinated? Why not just a person on an Island? Why do you need more than one agent?
Question
Why should we think the CI is the coherence standard or the condition for the coordination of the plurality?
How to do you coordinate the plurality? and do so without force?
Why is reason the right thing to coordinate? Why find a solution by reason?
Reason is not contingent.
A plan is needed.
Instinct doesn't do the work. Why should I coordinate?
We simply assume we want to live coordinated and in peace. We dont' want to live in constant struggle. That is why we need coordination.
Result
CI as condition of desire of coordination of plurality
Objections
Is this really the CI? It is just a means. It is hypothetical. It is valid only if you have that need, but that need is conditional.
Why is the CI the only means?
Why is the CI not external?
Korsgaard
Starting Point
One Agent
Question
How to be unified?
We don't have an option but to act. How does that work?
The CI is the principle of acting.
Result
The CI is the condition of unity
Objections
Theoretical
need: hypothetical
Discuss O'Neil, what is her justification of the CI? Why ought we behave in accordance with the CI? What are the moves she makes in order to establish the CI?
Seems like a description, not a justification.
Regress problem, coherentist argument. Plurality.
What if I'm the only person in the universe?
Reason is not something we all have. It is not that there is an inbuilt principle of reason. There are no in-built principles of reason. There is nothing you start out with.
Is it an agreement that does some sort of construction out of nothing.
It isn't a positive principle that we are born with. What is the starting point? It isn't the man on an island who switches on his reason and finds the CI.
Plurality
Need: coordination
Means: CI
Is it really true that we need this?
Is it really true that the CI is the correct means to meeting that need?
It is an empirical question about whether or not the CI is really an effective means, about whether or not coordination is going to work.
Which strategy should we adopt? Advantage and disadvantages?
Selling point:
Depends on exactly how the CI works.
What is being justified?
Moritz Hildt
Pluralism – What is it? Ideas associated? Aspects?
multiple viewpoints
moral pluralism
interaction between differen persons
value pluralism
religious pluralism
groups
conceptions of the good
cultures
Pluralist description is talking about moral disagreement. How do we overcome this fundemental disagreement?
3 answers:
1) Relativism
2) modus vivendi – normative agreement, but only from prudential reasoning
3) stability for the right reasons, normative agreement from moral reasoning. There is a common moral core present in all people.
Is there a core morality which we all share?
Constructivism aims at objectivity without metaphysical presuppositions, objectivity is relative to the agents reaching agreement. Isn't that a problem though? How do you achieve objectivity without metaphysical presuppositions? Doesn't objective include this “independence?”
Weak or very minimal kind of moral realism and objectivity.
Ignorant basic question, and I don't know how much it matters to your project – you might just be able to assume this isn't a real concern:
Robust moral realist theories have robust metaphysics which leaves a bad taste in our mouths. Constructivism tries to deal with this, but at best (and I think it takes some argument to get there) it ends up being a weak or minimal kind of moral realism and objectivity. Robust metaphysics is a two-edged sword. Without it, the theory seems impotent, with it, we have a weird set of problems which may arise. How do you achieve objectivity without metaphysical presuppositions? Doesn't objectivity include this “independence” found in robust moral realist theories?
Tyranny of moral agreement...Why should moral agreement or disagreement have anything to do with the moral law? It is independent of us.
231
Section C of 234
Defense is a deliberative perspective (from which moral obligations derived) based on essential yet general ideas of moral thinking. Negative aspect, limiting.
consciousness of the moral law is “a fact of reason,” - moral law is constitutive of reason
Starting Point
1st person in serious, honest reflection
Question
What principle does guide my reflect as a rational being?
Result
[CI] in a deliberate perspective (realm of ends)
Objection(s)
Descriptive, but not prescriptive
Induction problem (empirical) – maybe other people are guided by a different principle
Hypothetical???
relativity??
hard cases??
Constructivist
Constitutivist
Coherentist
Moral Philosophy
Legal Philosophy
Political Philosophy
Legal and political are the same for Kant (or political is a part of legal?).
Ideally, you want your legal philosophy to derive in some way from moral philosophy.
Kant reduces the political to the legal. He starts out in the contractarian condition, the state of nature, humans are self who left unchecked will goto war, etc. His solution to Hobbes/Locke's tradition is the tradition of law.
Law is nothing that can come from the outside.
The solution to the state of nature is entering into a legal framework. You have a duty to leave the state of nature and enter into a legal order. The political question becomes part of the legal question.
The doctrine of right – the discipline of law.
Kant scholarship, two directions.
Moral and legal are separate (pogge, wood) – dualist position.
The other side, legal realm is regulated by the moral realm.
Are morality and legality regulated by the same law?
In the doctrine of right, you can act simply because you are coerced, and not out of respect for the juridical law. This sits in stark contrast to the moral law, where right action has to be done out of respect for the moral law. Doctrine of right is not concerned with “out of duty” or your motivation. 390
That is an important difference.
Is the principle which tells you the right action in the moral realm the sam as the one in the legal realm.
Moral Philosophy – 4:421, 6:395
Motive
Categorical
All rational beings
ADDED – Justification
ADDED – synthetic
ADDED – Inner Freedom
ADDED: imperfect duties
Legal Philosophy – 6:230-1
No Motive
(Potentially) Hypothetical (merely out of self interest) – Even a nation of devil's would see the legal realm. Conditional ought.
(Potentially) Human enterprise
ADDED – Execution
ADDED – Analytic
ADDED – Outer freedom
ADDED: permissibility, negative duties
8:365 – He is talking about how we come to know the legal law. Is it really going to come about? This legal order. This is about implementing the legal law, not about he justifcation (from the unity perspective).
This is talking about nature, which is interesting, because justifications should be a priori, and not empirical.
Nature provides this as a mechanism to do what your own reason tells you, but nature does not justify. Nature helps you execute and perform. A point of execution, not justification, discovery, or bindingness (your reason is what does this).
Our prudential reason 8:366 would cause us to follow legal law, whether we were aware of it or not.
6:396 – analytic/synthetic
6:382 -
Passages in favor of the unity thesis
6:222
6:318 - you need the CI to leave the state of nature.
The principle of right seems to be a CI, and in virtue of it being CI, it is necessary and unconditioned.
8:377 – not about starting with a material principle or an end, but instead a formal principle (CI).
Vigilantins – 1793, 27:526, one law of reason which then divides in its legal and ethical/moral grounds. There is one principle, (6:222) common to both parts, and it is the CI (6:318), and ultimately it is the same law. Different applications.
Same law applied to differently. Inner freedom requires motive, but outer freedom does not.
Why are we only restricted from hindering someone's outer freedom in the law of right?
The moral realm might ask, why do you even need the legal stuff?
The legal realm can say, well, we are not just selfish beings, we can be social because of our reason, and we get to a legal ground with an outer freedom, and we would think morality is an addition to it.
O'Neill seems to go from the political realm to the moral.
External freedom loss is like putting a gun to their head, locking them up, coercion essentially.
Why should Kant be against systematic manipulation which further enables autonomy?
What does this principle demand? How is similar to the CI?
Do I think contentwise the doctrine of right is the same as the CI? Does it demand the same thing as the CI?
There is content of the form of the CI.
Law of right is concerned with permissibility, not duty like the CI.
How do we get concrete duties out of the CI?
Discuss the texts:
4:402-3, 4:421-3, 6:624-431
What is his position on lying? What is his justification?
6:238 – such things as communicating … entirely up to them whether they want to believe or not... Legally speaking!
Duty toward yourself. Ethically, never allowed to lie.
6:431 – Casuistic questions, practical task for students of applying the principle.
Are there loopholes? Maybe.
6:641, justification of why we can never lie.
Top of 427. Could be just a egal question? But, he gives the same justification.
4:403, particularmizing maxim, for myslef and ourselves...Kant thinks it would destroy itself.
If you have the first provision:
“dont lie unless a life is at stake”
murderer knows a life is at stake...
credit card companies don't trust us...background checks...it is another question about whether it is right or wrong.
Killing him would be removing a hindrance to freedom, self defense is okay. You can use force, ethically, but you can't lie.
Contradiction or contrary.
1.) Deception is different from lying.
Promise to do something mundane vs. helping someone about to die.
You could justify it to the person you promise it to.
Doesn't balancing deciding between two different conflicting duties pressupose a theory of the good? Lying is not as bad as death.
Lying, greatest violation of duty toward yourself, 6:420. Why should we think it is a violation toward yourself?
Ways out, to resovle the problem:
Value judgement, if they conflict, we are allowed to lie.
Is there a way of making it work? Can't we just particularize the maxim.
18th century morality was very different. Stain on your soul.
If you separate the universalization test from Kant's CI...??
4:424, don't make an exception to a rule. Universality/contradiction sets up what should be a universal rule. In unviersalizing, what would lead to a contradiction is ruled out.
Fairness rule is found in every society. Which fairness rules we have differ. That you shouldn't make ane xception to a rule which everyone else follows is obvious.
Can we separate these:
(1) universality/contradiction (making the rule)
(2) exception to a rule (preserve this one, and let go of the previous, but how?)
Perhaps there is a different way of coming up with the rules. Maybe (1) is the original position, or reasonable rejection, or whatever. The “exception” (2) rule must ome up with the rule maker??
Cutting out the first seems supremely unKantian to me. Maybe that is a way to recover the theory.
There seems to be another unsavory move. We are trying to force this theory to fit our intuitions, and maybe it can't, and maybe we shouldn't. Perhaps our intuitions are just wrong, and our intuitions are contingent and conditional, and they can't be the basis upon which to assess the CI.
5:19 – going against particularistic maxims
In this sense, the maxim is not th specific maxim, but more the general statement that has several.
6:400-1
Without feelings, we would be morally dead.
5:61
In terms of non-morality, everything depends on feelings, You need them for motivation. Insofar as happiness is concerned, everything dpeends on feelings.
In a way, it seems that everyone would wish to be rid of feelings, but in the religion, 6:58, he argues against the stoic that inclinations are by themselves bad.
Kant is more interested in one particular aspect of morality. He doesn't, for example, talk much about the good life (which is something we want).
6:468, even within morality, feelings have an important role. Let's specify the roles that feelings have in moral philosophy>
(Metaphysically) grounding
Morality depends on feelings, there is no Platonic ideas, etc. Morality just consistents in our attitudes and feelings. Think of sentimentalism or expressivism.
Epistemic Relation
Moral sense
Don't need feelings to discover what is right and wrong
Not this: 26:625-6, 4:390, 5:76
If discovery is based on feelings, it would be contingent, etc.
What's right or wrong specifically, but we can say a certain class of things which contradict moral reasons, and we know they can't be right because we know they aren't moral reasons.
One passage in favor: 5:91, gallows example. Should you give false testimony.
Motivation (and psychology)
You need feelings to be motivated.
That you should take moral reasons to be overriding all other kinds of reasons, which seems to be an epistemic issue. Nope, not a feeling.
Two part challenge:
(1) talk about the moral feeling of respect, what is it exactly?
(2) later in the dialectic, he seems to take it back. Why? What does that mean?
Without moral feeling, we would be dead. Without respect, it wouldn't be overriding. What is this feelingof respect? Wouldn't it be self defeating if you act to get this feeling of respect?
What is respect?
Wouldn't it,in a way, lead to enthusiasm? Not acting toward my inclination, just acting to get that uplifting feeling? If you act to get that feeling, isn't that self-indulgence, and so what is so great about it?
Start with 5:75. 5:84 (moral enthusiasm) Why does it notundermine moral motives?
1 negative (humiliation of self love) and 1 positive aspects (intelligible cause) of moral feeling.
What is respect?
Respect is a moral feeling (4:401), or a maxim you ought to have of not exalting yourself (4:429).
Respect resembles
Why can pure reason motivate?
It could be a positive emotion (awe or esteem)
It could be a negative emotion (humiliation of self love) – the removal of a hindrance to be moral.
Could be positive:
moral law → moral feeling-> act → uplifting feeling
If for the sake of the preceding moral feeling, it might work, but for the sake of the uplifting feeling, it wouldn't work.
Why must the moral law determine the will “immediately?”1 This time requirement seems odd. What exactly does immediacy have to do with our incentive? I suppose this immediacy requirement prevents the determination via the wrong sorts of forces (inclinations, etc.).
I really don’t fully understand what Kant means by moral feeling (hell, I’m not sure what I mean by it).2 Naively, it seems like a moral feeling is, at least in part, some special sort of joy/ pleasure or sorrow/pain one experiences because we are aware of selecting an action in or not accordance with (and perhaps even in or not virtue of, motivationally speaking) the moral law. I’d almost want to call it a rational kind of feeling (whatever that means), as this moral feeling seems highly connected to some kind of rational respect for the moral law. In some ways, it really isn’t very analogous to other kinds of ordinary feelings. It isn’t like sadness or anger, and it is not the warm-fuzzy feeling (a selfish kind of feeling if you ask me) one might get when doing something nice for someone else. Presumably, it is deeper than that (I’m doing a terrible job here, but I hope you understand what I’m getting at). One hopes the source of this moral feeling is somehow different than our other ordinary, fleeting, capricious feelings. We should be worried whether or not moral feelings should play any sort of role in motivating us to be moral (and why, how, and to what extent, etc.). I hope we flesh this out in class. Perhaps we could dissect and outline the sad philanthropist example regarding this topic.
Kant explains, “Therefore respect for the moral law must be regarded as also a positive though indirect effect of the moral law on feeling insofar as the law weakens the hindering influence of the inclinations by humiliating self-conceit.”3 This is fascinating approach, and I have seen it elsewhere. This is very similar to an argument virtue ethicists give us. It goes something like this: the virtuous agent has the ability to quell or suppress the inclinations, feelings, etc. which are not appropriate to the morally salient aspects of particular circumstances. The virtuous agent has the right sorts of feelings, inclinations, or whatever to subdue or negate those influences within herself which might hinder being moral.
This isn’t for class, but if you have any direction to give me for reading: I’d like to see an analysis of how theology influenced his work.4 The examination of divine will has a storied past, and it would be interesting to see Kant’s particular background on the matter. For a time, German theologians were the most influential in the world.
1 5:71
2 5:75
3 5:79
4 5:83-84
---
Critique of Practical Reason Book I, Chapter 3: On the incentives of pure practical reason (pp. 5:71-89)
Critique of Practical Reason Book II: Dialectic of pure practical reason (pp. 5:110-132, 151-162)
Metaphysics of Morals (pp. 6:399-403)
Critique of Practical Reason Book I, Chapter 3: On the incentives of pure practical reason (pp. 5:71-89)
5:71, Why must the moral law determine the will “immediately?” This time requirement seems odd. What exactly does immediacy have to do with our incentive? I suppose this immediacy requirement prevents the determination via the wrong sorts of forces (inclinations, etc.).
5:75, I really don’t fully understand what Kant means by moral feeling (hell, I’m not sure what I mean by it). Naively, it seems like a moral feeling is, at least in part, some special sort of joy/ pleasure or sorrow/pain one experiences because we are aware of selecting an action in or not accordance with (and perhaps even in or not virtue of, motivationally speaking) the moral law. I’d almost want to call it a rational kind of feeling (whatever that means), as this moral feeling seems highly connected to some kind of rational respect for the moral law. In some ways, it really isn’t very analogous to other kinds of ordinary feelings. It isn’t like sadness or anger, and it is not the warm-fuzzy feeling (a selfish kind of feeling if you ask me) one might get when doing something nice for someone else. Presumably, it is deeper than that (I’m doing a terrible job here, but I hope you understand what I’m getting at). One hopes the source of this moral feeling is somehow different than our other ordinary, fleeting, capricious feelings. We should be worried whether or not moral feelings should play any sort of role in motivating us to be moral (and why, how, and to what extent, etc.). I hope we flesh this out in class. Perhaps we could dissect and outline the sad philanthropist example regarding this topic.
5:79, “Therefore respect for the moral law must be regarded as also a positive though indirect effect of the moral law on feeling insofar as the law weakens the hindering influence of the inclinations by humiliating self-conceit.” This is fascinating approach, and I have seen it elsewhere. This is very similar to an argument virtue ethicists give us. It goes something like this: the virtuous agent has the ability to quell or suppress the inclinations, feelings, etc. which are not appropriate to the morally salient aspects of particular circumstances. The virtuous agent has the right sorts of feelings, inclinations, or whatever to subdue or negate those influences within herself which might hinder being moral.
5:83-84, This isn’t for class, but if you have any direction to give me for reading: I’d like to see an analysis of how theology influenced his work. The examination of divine will has a storied past, and it would be interesting to see Kant’s particular background on the matter. For a time, German theologians were the most influential in the world.
Critique of Practical Reason Book II: Dialectic of pure practical reason (pp. 5:110-132, 151-162)
Metaphysics of Morals (pp. 6:399-403)
1
Bayne on Wegner: 2 components
1st: “we experience conscious will with respect to an action when we have an introspective preview of it.”1 Where actions are caused by our thoughts, just before those actions, consistent with those actions, and without other potential causes. MATCHING MODEL of the experience of conscious will.
2nd: Conscious will is an illusion. “experience of conscious will misrepresents the causal path by means of which one’s own actions are generated. “
Bayne’s interpretation of Wegner: 1st component is evidence for the 2nd. Bayne thinks this is mistaken. “The matching model might explain why people experience a sense of agency, but it does not show that this sense of agency is an illusion.”
Bayne distinguishes “experience of conscious will” and “will itself,” where one is appearance and the other the thing in itself. Bayne is worried about Wegner’s claim that “will is a feeling,” as it might collapse the distinction. How and why?
Bayne points out ambiguities in the possible relationships between experience of the will as: authorship, intentionality, effort, freewill, and mental causation. Are they synonyms? Why should we think they are? It seems difficult to break them apart.
“At any rate, the experience of will does not seem to involve an experience of one’s intentions compelling one’s actions.” Really? This isn’t so clear.
Authorship does seem to peel apart from actually willing a bit. The feeling of authorship seems like it must it can come at the same time as willing, but also continues after willing, possibly.
It is very unclear to me in that “Penfield actions” have an author, as we mean it here, at all. It certainly isn’t the patient, and at best it would be the Penfield himself, but it lacks the sort of experience necessary to call it authorship, I think. What does Wegner get by believing that “it is possible to author an action without experiencing oneself as authoring it (ICW: 47)”?
When is the experience of conscious will veridical? Even demonstrating that it is often not veridical is a problem for the proponent of free agency, even if it isn’t a knock-down argument. It introduces oddities, complications, and lots of worries. Free agency might survive, but it will be deformed, abnormal, ambiguous, and unclear. What are those?
On the section distinguishing “willed action” (controlled, voluntary) and “unwilled action” (automatic), which rests upon whether or not an action derives “from the agent’s plans and goals and those actions that are stimulus-driven,” Bayne seems to worry that Wegner “is using ‘the experience of conscious will’ to refer to an experience of the target action as willed rather than automatic.” Bayne thinks Wegner counters his own work by “the claim that the experience of conscious will is an illusion would amount to the claim that there are no willed (plan-driven) actions - all actions are automatic.” I don’t see why. Assuming the matching model is evidence for illusion-claim, this does seem to be natural conclusion to draw, and it is the ultimate problem being raised by Wegner, right?
“There are three questions that can be raised here. (1) What kind of thoughts are involved in generating the experience of will? (2) What kind of consistency is needed between the target thoughts and the target actions? (3) How is the presence of “other potential causes of the action” incorporated into the model?”
What kind of thoughts are involved in generating the experience of will?
Thoughts may be personal or subpersonal; Wegner’s model is at the personal level.
Chloe example. I don’t think we should see her “movements as caused by (and realizing) [her] intentions”in any direct sense. There wasn’t a match between one’s intentions and one’s movements in this case. There is matching on Bayne’s definition, but his definition somehow fails to really capture what we mean. That matching needs to be more direct, and that is what I think Wegner was going after.
Bayne refers to “unconscious intentions” in a footnote 8. What are those? Does they even make sense?
On the 2nd component: conscious will is an illusion:
We experience our actions as caused by consciousness, but this experience is non-veridical (misleading)
We have a mistaken model of how experiences of conscious will are generated: we think that they are based on direct perception of their objects, but they are in fact theoretically-mediated
Experiences of conscious will are frequently non-veridical. I will examine all three claims. The first two can be dealt with fairly quickly; the third will prove more troublesome.
“Do we believe that our own actions are caused by consciousness?...consciousness of what?... Wegner appears to have consciousness of agency in mind.” Does he? “[D]o we believe that the experience of consciously willing an action causes the movement (or action) that is the target of that experience?”
It isn’t clear to me that this question is a bad one. The experience of consciously willing seems to be nested inside conscious willing itself. This isn’t like the perception of the color blue. Experiencing blueness is not a part of blueness; experience conscious willing does seem to be a part of conscious willing. I worry that Wegner’s case may be stronger than it initially seems. Maybe it isn’t the SOLE cause, but surely it be part of the cause. He later brings this up.
False comparison between sensory perception and perception of consciousness. The comparison is fair in that even if we call certain sensory perception “partially illusory,” we don’t throw out sensory perception entirely – it is veridical to some extent, and that’s better than nothing. Likewise, even the experience of conscious willing is partially nonveridical, we don’t have to throw it all away. Except, I’m worried about the nesting problem. It is part of itself…
Despite being well structured, I’m afraid I didn’t follow Bayne’s arguments very well. Either I failed to understand them outright (a real possibility) or I didn’t find them to have the same force that he seems to think they have.
“The rejection of direct indication views of visual perception has not led theorists to reject visual experiences as illusory, nor should it have.” As partially illusory, YES!! Hearing is a perfect example. Our mind “fills in the gaps” between sounds. It makes us hear things that aren’t there, and it makes us hear things not as they really are, but as we anticipate them or need them to be. Appearances are deceiving and illusory to some extent.
The Dissocation Argument
Illusions of control, Illusions of action projection
“Inductive generalization: since some experiences of conscious will are non-veridical it is reasonable to infer that most, and perhaps even all, such experiences are.”
Shows fallibility, but not unreliability. What happens if unreliability can be shown? How can that be shown? How unreliable is too unreliable?
Reliabilism.
inference to the best explanation: “Since the phenomenology of agency plays no direct role in the genesis of action where such experiences are absent, we have good reason to think that it plays no direct role in the genesis of action when such experiences are present.” Aren’t these weird cases though?
“To the extent that automatisms are action-generation procedures that do not involve intentional states of any kind then there may be a tension between automaticity and the experience of conscious will, but Wegner provides little evidence for the view that our actions are usually automatistic in this sense of the term. If, on the other hand, automatisms are action-generating procedures that are non-consciously initiated then there is ample reason to describe much of what we do as automatic in nature. But on this conception of an automatism there is, I claim, no conflict between automaticity and the feeling of doing. So there is no argument from automaticity (thus conceived) to the claim that the experience of conscious will is an illusion.”
Eliminativism: too many problems with the theory for anything coherent to come out; we should abandon the project; there isn’t a truth to the matter (different from skepticism, which claims falsehood) or we simply can’t get at the truth of the matter.
“explanatory exclusion: lower levels of explanation exclude (eliminate) higher levels of explanation.”
Reduction problem.
Bayne claims: “the logical relationship between experiencing oneself as willing something and actually willing it is akin to the relationship between, say, experiencing something as being blue and it actually being blue. The experience is one thing, the property or object experienced is another.” In keeping with this analogy, he argues: “The rejection of direct indication views of visual perception has not led theorists to reject visual experiences as illusory, nor should it have.”
The latter argument moves too fast. As far as I know, sense perception is partially illusory. Auditory perception is a perfect example. Our brain “fills in the gaps” between sounds that our ears pick up. It makes us hear things that aren’t there, and it makes us hear things not as they really are, but as we anticipate them or need them to be. Appearances are deceiving, and we do experience a distorted version of reality. Our auditory experience is partially illusory (which obviously does not make a sound wave truly epiphenomenal). We are deceived and fallible, and it seems sense perception may be analogous to our experience of conscious will in this respect.
But, the analogy isn’t so clear as far as I can tell. First, even if sensory perception was completely illusory, we would not be in a position to claim that sounds waves necessarily do not exist. We just wouldn’t know.
we would not even remotely consider the possibility that sense perception is
Whereas experiencing blueness is not necessary for blueness, experience of conscious will does seem to be necessary for a conscious will. Right? Should we agree that the experience of sense perception is so analogous to the experience of conscious will?
Mele
Perhaps people are struggling with the belief they are controlling the mouse and the opposite, the belief the aren’t. Weird things might result from such a struggle. Seriously, it isn’t everyday that someone asks you, “Do you feel like you were in control of X? Did you experience conscious will in case Y?,” etc.
1 2
```
Peronian Skepticism (very extreme)
Can’t even assert that I don’t know. How can we live in a practical way?
Are we dreaming? Are we brains in vats? Are we deceived by an evil demon?
Problem of Induction.
Problem of other minds.
Russell – How do I know the world didn’t come into existence 5 minutes ago?
JTB:
S knows that p if and only if
S believes p
P is true
S has good justification for p
Internalism
-Access Int., the justification that is required for knowledge must be something to which the knower has access
-Psychological int., the justification for knowledge must consist only of psychological states of the knower
Foundationalism and Coherentism are internalist theories
Externalism
-to have knowledge that meets the third conditionof knowledge must be lreated ot the external world in the appropriate way
Regress problem
Solve it circularly, foundationally…etc.
I can’t tell about some particular objects. I can’t know anything about those particular things, but perhaps you might know some general stuff. Stroud is showing that you can’t know anything about the external world.
If I know some proposition about the world, then I’m not dreaming
Ex(K(x)) -> ~D
~~D -> ~ Ex(K(x))
D -> ~ Ex(K(x))
Does the skeptic assume certain things in order to be a skeptic?
Some people start with instances of knowledge, then try to build a theory to explain why those instances count as knowledge. A skeptic, on the other hand, is going to start with a theory, and then see what instances of knowledge follow from it.
They might suppose the theory that we are stuck behind a veil of representation. That is a philosophical theory of perception. If skepticism only followed from a theoretical view that the skeptic held, then the kind of thing Stroud wants to do, he couldn’t pull off. It needs to be practical and common.
Skepticism follows from a certain project, but doesn’t follow in real life.
Skepticism follows from a particular set of beliefs, and perhaps we can reject those.
Skepticism follows from our ordinary beliefs about knowledge and our ordinary practices in attributing knowledge. This is what Stroud wants to have.
Descartes Condition – pg 12. – for any particular proposition p about the external world, I know that p only if I know that I am not dreaming that p.
Veil of perception/Veil of representation. Skepticism is not just the result of this sort of philosophical theory. It isn’t broad. It matters to Stroud that the problem fo knowledge is generated by something that is grounded in our ordinary use and ordinary thinking about knowledge. It isn’t merely grounded in philosophical projects or theories which are a matter of debate.
Maybe we don’t gain knowledge based upon a set a principles. Perhaps this is really a business for psychologists.
Otto Neurath, Neurath’s boat. We can replace and evaluate the planks on a boat. We can’t, however, replace and evaluate the boat all at once because it would sink.
If I know that I am sitting here by the fire, I must know that I am not dreaming that I am sitting here by the fire.
This is a best possible case or paradigm case. If it fails,then everything weaker than it will also fail.
Metaphysical possibility and necessity – what is really possible or not possible
Epistemological possibility and necessity – insofar as my evidence tells me, this is possible or not possible
The morning star (hesporous) is equivalent to the evening star (phosphorous). It is possible that Hesperus is unequal to phosphorus.
How do you know that you can just dream any possible thing? Maybe you can’t actually. The skeptic is making an assumption about what is possible.
Knowledge is closed under deductive logic. If S knows P, and S knows that Q deductively follows from P, then S knows that Q. That holds for any P and Q.
Is it that you can know Q or that you in fact know Q???
If S knows that he is sitting by the fire, and S knows that if he is sitting by the fire, then he is not dreaming that he is sitting by the fire. Then S knows that he is not dreaming that he is sitting by the fire.
From a general principle of deductive closure, we can use this form of argument to support skepticism.
Stroud isn’t promoting this kind of deductive closure based argument.??
Why should I agree to Descarte’s condition? Is that something I know? If I don’t know that, it isn’t clear that we can get there. Why should we accept Descartes’ condition on knowledge.
Why is Descartes’ condition a part of the best definition of knowledge or even the ordinary (Austin) use of the word knowledge?
You have to have a reason for doubt. Doubt itself requires a reason. If you just give a worry, you need a reason for it.
Does the strength of valid reasons which justify a person’s doubt vary from culture to culture? Shouldn’t we be worried about convention playing so much a role in this theory? What should be the standards set for the reason for doubting?
We could just respond: “they don’t have our concept of X” ….where, perhaps, X is knowledge, or whatever.
Reasonable Doubt
Assertible vs. True
Assertibility conditions, when something is assertible
I don’t like the relativized definition of knowledge.
I can assert he is here.
I know Ricky is here.
I believe with the justification that is conventionally required that Ricky is here.
What is “justified enough?” Justified enough for what?
Assertibility conditions and Truth conditions are different.
Pragmatism foregoes truth conditions.
I know that John is coming to the party.
Is that justified?
Is that true?
According to the traditional conditions, it is justified and true.
Skepticism pushes me towards the idea that knowledge is Justified Belief without a truth condition.
There are mountains in Africa, whether we exist or not, whether we have a word for them or not. Once we understand what we mean by “mountains,” is knowledge independent in the way that mountains are? Is there a way that knowledge in general is to be discovered?
Stroud has a highly objective picture of knowledge. Brower disagrees.
Contextualism says there isn’t a highly objective thing that is knowledge.
Knowledge is dependent upon a practical project.
My question is: if knowledge doesn’t exist as some object standard, then what does epistemic duty and obligation look like?
Maybe skepticism is the sort of thing we can just ‘set aside’ as a special problem.
Stroud
There are questions about everything, neurath’s boat, vs. everyday sort of questions and knowledge.
Stroud makes a mistake at the beginning of the chapter.
Frege- Words have meaning in the context of a sentence. Words by themselves don’t have meaning. It only makes sense to use words in a sentence. Now that we’ve used certain words in so many sentences, they begin to have meaning by themselves.
Wittgenstein broadens Frege’s perspective with the language game. Broadening this language game to knowledge, ….
It doesn’t make sense to say “I know” unless you are responding to a particular doubt. It would be very odd to assert “I know P”….instead, you’d just say “P”. You’d say there the bathroom is, not that you know where the bathroom is…I’d only say “I know” if someone raised a doubt about it.
What does this say about Moore?
Witt: not just anything can count as a doubt. The doubt, in order to be legit, needs to have a place in the language game.
Malcolm’s claim is neo-wittgen: what Moore is really pointing out is a Wittgensteinian claim. That isn’t a legitimate reading of Moore though.
Physiological example, of other crazy people doubting, and “we know there is world, even if they don’t”…doubt it not being raised directly, but it is indirectly.
We don’t have a place in our language game for the skeptical question. Skeptical moves in the language game lack significance/meaning, even though they might have Fregean meaning. Ah, but there is the problem. Inappropriateness in the language game is not the same thing as saying that it is meaningless. Thus, while the skeptical argument might not be appropriate, it is far from meaningless, which is a problem for Malcolm’s argument.
Moore
I am always more certain that I have hands (and other external things) than I about any given philosophical premises, and thus we should reject relative certainty.
Selects mutually exclusive propositions based upon which proposition he has more confidence in…we need to know “why” one should be more confident or certain.
Psychological certainty – We “feel” that the pencil’s existence is more certain than the skepticism principle. But, that doesn’t lend any legitimacy.
Descartes’ certainty – normative certainty – legitimately believed
If I know the list is incomplete, then I don’t know the butler did it.
P->~Q
Q->~P
Not a sufficient refutation, but a valid inference if his assumption is correct.
If I know that p, then I must know that I am not dreaming that p.
~(I know that I am not dreaming that p)
So, I do not have p.
One philosophers modus ponens is another philosophers modus tollens, and vice versa.
Stroud wants to say there is something silly/crazy about the apprentice saying that he knows the butler did it and so he knew the list was complete.
I know ‘That p’ is first order, I know ‘that I am not dreaming that p’ is second order.
First order should not have impact on or be about the second order, while the second order does have impact on the first order.
Whether or not the list was complete, and the butler did it.
Duke’s murder example is an analogy to Moore’s argument, and the analogy points out a problem in the form of argument so that this doesn’t all boil down to a comparison between the certainty I have between 2 mutually exclusive propositions. What exactly does it point out?
Moore may even be more certain of his hand than of the entire philosophical inquiry as an enterprise.
Knowledge is justified belief, and that justification doesn’t require that proposition of the belief being true.
In response to “why” are you certain about X…
We start doing philosophy in our ordinary ways. We can say, “that’s where I am starting from” and I don’t accept philosophical positions. When you come along with your crazy philosophical positions, I am more certain that I know there a desk in front of me than your philosophical theory. Do I need to explain why I am certain about this?
Legitimacy or certainty might be just in how we ordinarily use language.
But, if we are doing philosophy, then we are playing a philosophical language game where it is okay to ask the skeptical question.
Paper: exercise, here’s a problem, X, Y, Z. Nice little point about the material we’ve read up til now (or any of the articles we’ve read). Do The ARTICLES COMING UP!!! DON”T SHOW IGNORANCE! HE GRADES NICER!
You have to have some epistemic standards. You have to have beliefs. You can’t be tranquil if you think everything is equal, you can’t really do anything at all. It seems odd that Sextus seems to be asserting things, as assertions seem to require justification, like knowledge.
What if we aim at truth, what is the guarantee that there will be equipollent arguments on both sides?
Sextus has to know that his modes are argumentation are good modes.
There is no fact about you or your past that demonstrates that you really know the meaning of your term. Rule following problem.
He maybe can’t make the assertion that there are always two sides. Maybe that’s just what has worked for him thus far, and he’s continuing his method.
The Dialectical Problem – About Disagreement.
When we make an assertion about something, there is always someone who disagrees. The core problem the ancient skeptics raised is a problem about disagreement.
An impartial observer who attends to a dispute between two persons – both persons are begging the question. So, what about when you are a party in the dispute? You have your own beliefs about the matter. You have to realize that it may end in a tie.
Realism, appearance is different from reality, the disputers each have their own appearance. Reality is separate. How to distinguish true appearances from false ones? This seems impossible.
The Problem of the Criterion
Particularists vs. Methodists/Generalists vs. compromise position of Reflective Equilibrium
Chicken or Egg?
What is the ground for any rule if it isn’t based upon testing it against instances of knowledge?
The particularist will treat people as using the word “know” correctly and incorrectly in various circumstances.
If we are trying to capture our general dispositions, “how we use language” and “how we understand concepts” then it is really about capturing whether or not the general dispositions outweigh our particular dispositions…???
Greco – virtue theory – often externalist or externalist in part.
Where skeptical problems go wrong:
A good perceiver isn’t doing trig to calculate in our binocular vision. That’s not what perception is like.
Empirical Realism
Locke – representative realist
Empirical Idealism
Descartes
Berkeley
When you turn around, does the object go away? (God is still perceiving it, so no, it doesn’t)
The stuff in the world is literally made out of ideas of the mind
Transcendental Realism
Transcendental Idealism
The traditional way that Kant gives an argument is to give a transcendental argument, which has the following structure:
Point out that we do have a certain kind of experience.
What is necessary for us to have that experience (or representation)? A priori necessary.
Problematic (possible), Apodictic (necessary)
We bring certain aspects of logic to the way we talk about the world.
In order to have any experience, we must understand the world as having causation and substances (something like what Aristotle was talking about) which have properties. We can’t conceive of the world in any other way, and these categories must apply. We can’t have a coherent thought about the world without thinking in these ways. The world has to be this way ‘for us’.
How could we think of the world independent of us? Either nothing or with these categories.
In the world about which we talk, these properties must be instantiated. Maybe there is another world out there that is totally separate, …?
“The thing-in-itself” we still tend to think of it as an individual substance/or set of substances, and we tend to think of properties out there in the world, and we tend tot hink of these things as causing representations in us. But, to think of it like this already requires that we employ these ‘categories’.
The world that we talk about and represent must be this way – that is not to say we can’t be wrong at any individual time. For example, if I took LSD and hallucinated a cat, I would be wrong in thinking there is a cat there, but I’m not wrong about the basic nature of the world. I represent the world as sitting out there, and I can’t be wrong about that. I cannot think about anything at all unless I think of it as having certain basic properties. The world must have the basic properties. If we try to think of the world without these properties, we can’t think of anything. It is necessary that the world we think about has these properties.
The general structure of the world must be a certain way. Kant is an empirical realist, as there either is a cat out there on the desk or there is not. We could be mistaken about it. We can’t however, be mistaken about whether there is an external world or categories about it.
Transcendental does not mean transcendent. It is an a priori matter in which something necessarily has to be in order for us to understand it. Transcendental means it is part of the way we think about it.
Transcendental realism would be: the categories of the world is determined independently of us…
Kant is not a realist about space and time.
The world we experience and represent must be a certain way just because there is a certain way we experience and represent it?
But, the skeptic is bound to say: Why doesn’t this just show that the way we think of the world is necessary to our thinking about the world, but that doesn’t show that the way we think about the world is right? Yeah, it might be necessary for us to think about the world in a certain way, but why is that demonstrating necessary facts about the world.
Suppose I say to you: “I’m think of a Frishnik” (made up word)
The verificationist would say, in order to have a meaningful word here, I have got to be able to explain he conditions under which I could justify that something is a Frishnik.
Everything feels fleeting, we need something permanent to let us know that “I” exist through time.
Here is the one thing we all have: an awareness of us existing through time, we have to have a reference to measure ourselves against, something permanent, so to apply the idea we exist through time requires something existing outside ourselves.
We don’t know what “thing in themselves” are like.
Instead of saying that the world has to be this way in order for us to have X,….
Joseph asks: I can’t help but think of myself as an object that exists through time. I can’t help but think of an object out there with permanence that I compare myself to. But, can’t I still ask, do any other those concepts really apply? Can’t I still ask if I am really permanent, even if I naturally think about myself that way?
In order to think of things in one way, we have to think of things in another way.
Kant starts out assuming that we see ourselves as free. If we don’t see ourselves as free, then there is no way out.
Just because we have to engage as if we are free does not guarantee that we are in fact free.
Just because we presuppose something doesn’t mean we are right about those presuppositions. We might be justified, but we might be wrong.
What is a number?
Realist
Logicists (reducing to sets)
Formalists – there is no number two, but to talk about 2 is to talk about ways of using, instrumentally, objects in the world. 2ness is reduced.
Sentez, Erkenntis?? Journals. Phil Studies.
Of course, in order to perceive that chair, there is a lot of causal stuff that has to happen.
You have to have immediate access to the external world just to make claims about yourself….??
Epistemic priorty:
X, Y, Z
I need X to infer Y, and Y to infer Z.
For example, I need experience directly claims, then I need macro-sized world claims, then perhaps theoretical scientific claims, etc.
Berkeley-The desk is constituted of my ideas. In Cartesian dualism, the desk is made up of something mental.
But, in the realist view, the desk is not made up of mind stuff (that G.Washin was president might be made up of mind stuff), and many things aren’t made of sensations and ideas. We look at the world as being independent of our beliefs, justified or not.
Categorical independence (a possibly Kantian view).
A water is not constistuted out of my ideas. Whether it is true or false that there is a waterbottle is independent of my ideas.
The world does not come labeled. The world does not chop itself into kinds. We do.
Here is the world, and of course it is empirically separate from us.
We can’t be wrong about which basic categories apply to the world.
The idea of a thing in itself is like this:
Suppose you encounter the world, we aren’t talking about anything mystical when we say things in themselves. This very world we live in, the concepts had to come from the world itself. The world doesn’t chop itself into kinds, we can’t conceive the worlduntil we bring to bear upon it our categories. Once we talk about stuff external to us, individual substances and properties that inhere in them, then we can talk about the world, but the world doesn’t come chopped into kinds at that fundamental level. We come along and do that chopping.
I can be wrong about ‘things in themselves’ in the transcendental sense, I can’t know anything about them, they areindepdent of me entirely. “Things in themselves’ don’t come in any human category, they are just out there. Category of substance, number of things, etc. That doesn’t make them into anything weird.
When we say it is transcendentally dependent, we don’t mean that it is made of mind-stuff, but rather that we have to apply categories to it.
If we don’t’ accept transcendental idealism, and accept that other things are independent, then we can’t about it as being dependent. ??? There is a world beyond us that is beyond our categorization.
That we can’t talk about the transcendental ideals that we can’t talk about, it seems that we come up with a form of skepticism. Response: there is stuff out there that we can’t conceive or talk about, we can’t bring to bear upon it our categories. ….but no, we do bring to bear our concepts upon the world because the world does not tell us how it is cut into kinds. We do not have a way of thinking about it unless we bring our categories.
Nominalists – categories exist in name only, we invent them, there are no properties or kinds.
What is it to be a table? Nominalists says we determine what is a table, we do. It is our concept that we use thatin some sense creates the kind table. Once we’ve got our concept, we can be wrong or right about the world, but until we bring our concept to bear upon the world, it doesn’t make sense to talk about tables. Think about the same thing for categories.
If I look at the world of furniture just in themselves, without bringing my furniture concepts to them and contribute to the furniture, the world is mute.
Verifiability Criterion of Meaningfulness: a statement, belief, or proposition IFF it can be verified on the basis of experience (or is analytically true). An extension of empiricism…
Positivists want to rule out some traditional issues in metaphysics. Debates about freewill, causation in the world or if causation are principles we’ve constructed, etc.
Emotivism, moral propositions lack cognitive meaning (might have meaning otherwise, but not cognitive, true or false, etc.)
Stroud mentions to self-contradictory nature of verificationism/positivism.
Stroud tries to solve it by asking: Does it match our ordinary beliefs about what is meaningful?
Ayer talks about positivism as being a recommendation, even though it isn’t confirmable.
“When we say something is meaningless, does it fit with a kind of reasonable recommendation?” Does the claim of freewill, for example, make a good sort of recommendation. (how does a positivist give an account of recommending?)
What is “meaninglessness?”
There are a lot of technical puzzles that I might enjoy.
Pretend there was a dinosaur standing where I am 100 million years ago. That is either true or false, but it doesn’t seem confirmable. Whether or not Caesar cut his toenail on Wednesday such and such a date seems meaningful, but not something I can confirm.
There is a golden mountain (of certain proportions) on a within planet 200 million lightyears of earth. Meaningful, but not verifiable.
One way to respond to this:
If one of us had been at that planet, or living 100 million years ago, or sitting next to Caesar, then we could verify it.
Problems of God, freewill, or being bound to moral law can’t be confirmed through imagination – they can’t be confirmed in principle. Whereas the others are confirmable in principle, even if not actually right now.
Positivism generally rejects a great deal of metaphysics.
Why should I think there is absolutely nothing meaningful about something which I can’t in principle verify?
Carnap:
Instead of talking about the desk or other things in the room, I could instead talk about everything in terms of complicated sets of sensations. Instead, we might just use one word to talk about that set of sensations. We could in principle just about our sensations and not talk about the ‘world of things’. The decision to use a particular conceptual framework and talk about things , as opposed to talking about sensations, is a practical decision.
It is a pragmatic question, not a question about the way the world is, to ask which framework we should use. It would, afterall, be very burdensome to talk about the experiences I have instead of the objects or the individual things.
Things look different from different perspective. The sensations that make up a thing are very complex. To use the term “Michael” to describe me is much easier than describing the sensations. Communication becomes too difficult unless we have a pragmatic framework. My wife has to, atm, talk about condition sensations. We bundle together the sensations, a set, and stamp my name on it. Using names is just one conceptual framework.
There could be many kinds of frameworks. Our language choice is not a choice about the way the world is though. Talking as if the choice of framework is meaningful or not is confused if it is anything other than ‘if it works’ pragmatically.
External questions: which framework should we take? The way you answer these external questions is to consider the pragmatic features, how they organize experience, etc.
In some sense, there is an external world, there is an empirical way of understanding it. The skeptic has a different ‘reading’ or understanding of the question of the external world, however.
Could we find out that we are dreaming?
From an internal perspective (the world of common sense), how could we find out that we are dreaming in the external sense?
I have a theory of what the external world is like. People do not morph into trombones, desks aren’t the sort of the thing I can move my hand through, etc. I can have a set of experiences such that I can say “I’m not experiencing the external world” – similarly, every person is certain in the psychological sense that we aren’t dreaming, we could have the experience of waking up right now.
If external world means, “a world which is separate from my mind” with no account of what it is like, even a skeptic might be able to grant that. …??
Carnap is in agreement with the skeptic’s conclusion, if he thought it had meaning.
Both the carnap and the skeptic agree that we cannot determine if there is an external world - we can’t verify it. Carnap isn’t a skeptic only because he holds the verificationist principle. The conditional correctness of skepticism, if the skeptic were saying something meaningful, he is correct because it can’t be verified.
Suppose you are a brain in a vat. Is this empirically disconfirmable? Could we have any sort of experience that could confirm it? Could I see a vortex in front of me and see the thousands of brains in vats, and know that I’m not hallucinating, and then confirm it? The positivist will have to say that it isn’t confirmable or disconfirmable.
Built into the description of skeptical alternatives that they are so strong that you cannot even in principle find out that they are true or false. The “in principle” is exactly what makes it meaningless.
How are we supposed to choose between two frameworks? Wouldn’t we need to know something already to do so. Don’t we at least have to know that we exist…?? We need to know that other people exist in order to do communication well. You could choose a framework just for yourself.
There is at least some independent reality (that we exist, and that there is experience that needs to be organized).
Right now, I use the language of things. I’m in this room with other people, and I can talk about these things. Now, does Carnap want to say (the author is asking), if I choose the phenomenal language, do we want to say that…??
Dobcheek (madeup word, a certain place below our eye). Not important to us, but maybe the painting of the dobcheek matters to certain tribes or something. We could then find out that there is something medically important in the dob cheek. Whether or not we choose to name these things, we have the intuition that they exist. Carnap seems to suppose that the world is somehow dependent upon our framework.
Other people exist, but if we chose a different framework, that claim would be meaningless. The claim that other human beings would not be true.
The sentence “p” is true.
Deduce p
It should be part of language that, If the sentence ‘p’ is true, then p. But, Carnap seems to need to say that whether ‘p’ depends on whether we have adopted a language framework in which we can talk about it being true.
Donkey sentences:
If “donkey” was defined as an object that has 3 legs, then how many legs would donkeys have?
Verificationism would have succeeded only if we could agree on the standards of verification. If we can show how our knowledge of theworld was justified….
What constitutes adequate confirmation/verification? How do you know you aren’t dreaming that hand is there? That standard of verificationis going to need to rule that out, right?
The positivist seems to be begging the question against the skeptic, that is just part of the standard/constitution of adequate confirmation. The nature of empirical confirmation itself is the real debate between the positivist and the skeptic.
There seems to be a kind of idealism that embedded in this theory.
For empiricists, all we're doing is talking about how we use language.
Quine attacks the notion of meaning itself.
He argues for the indeterminacy of translation; you can map more than one set of meanings to any set of sentences. Hence, skepticism about meaning. Even the objects of reference are not determinate – ontological relativity. There isn't a fact of the matter about what we refer to.
He's playing the hardnosed empiricst.
An empiricist looks out at the world and sees impression. I hear loud noises, see shapes, etc. We don't see necessity out there though. There isn't an experience of necessity in a way. What is it to have a power or a disposition, a law of nature? These are puzzles for empiricists. Likewise, meaning is a puzzle.
Suppose one of us says something about bachelors, and another about unmarried men. They sound different. What makes them have the same meaning? What is it for two things to mean the same? What isa meaning in the first place?
He is attacking the notion of analyticity. We can't explain terms via synonyms.
Traditionally, you have the a priori contrasted with the empirical. A priori, analytic is contrasted with the synthetic. A priori analytic, you have the notion of necessity, co-extensional. Empirical truths are synthetic are contingent.
Narrow logical truth: something that is true according to the rules of standard logic. Tautologies. He gives us these logical truths (even though an empiricst might have trouble with them).
If we can reduce something that is broadly analytic to a narrow logical truth, then he'll give it to us.
Shouldn't our problem with this be that the language has been limited to the same domain. The reason these sentences mean different things is that is various domains, we would have different outcomes. If the world were a bit different, the differences in the sentences would shine forth.
What is analyticity – when you substitute synonyms for synonyms to get a logical truth. Well, what is a logical truth? When you can substitute a synonym and get the same truth values.
The tradition in empiricism is to analyze or reduce more theoretical claims to sense data or sense impressions.
X is a student desk iff ….if you have this set of sensations...or...if you have this set of sensations...or...if you have this set of sensations...etc.
What does it mean to say there is student desk? It gets cashed out in terms of the experience you have. Synonymy is crucial to the empirical tradition because ofthis.
Quine wants to reject the reduction.
What kind of empiricism is left?
Quine is a holist of sorts.
We test sentences from or as a part of broader theories. We are testing the whole theory at once.
The only reaosn I think there is a desk in front of me: I have eyes, the lights are on, thelighting condition is on, I haven't been slipped LSD or had tequila to the point of hallucination, I'm not dreaming, etc. I have this whole theory of what I am as an embodied being, what the conditions are that make my sight good, what skills I have, what special conditions do or do not obtain, when I look to see the desk in front of me...the mean cannot be capture just by my experience. I could have this experience if I was dreaming all the time. I only accept there is a desk because I am testing the entire theory or system of beliefs at once.
You don't test sentences on their own. You test them as a set of beliefs, a large theory.
Any statement could be made true with the right theory.
If you have a certain set of scientific values (unification, simplicity, etc.), then you are going to believe in these particles. If you have other values, then you'll have other values. I happen to value scientific values more than Homer's Gods, and that's why I have the beliefs I have.
Undetermination of theory by evidence.
I could have a choice between two differen theories of anything. Did John kick the stone because he was angry or because he was having fun? We can look at his recent history and demeanor otherwise, we can have addition theories to help us...etc.
We can believe just about anything because we can adjust our beliefs to account for any problems that might otherwise refute our theory.
The picture is a web of belief. Some things are central to that web, and some at the periphery. The stuff at the center we are unwilling to change. The claim that bachelors are unmarried men are really central. If we were to change it, we'd have to change a whole lot of other beliefs.
I want to show that we could change our belief that all bachelors are unmarried. We wouldn't do it via a door to door test. We need a radical story. You have to change a lot of your web of beliefs to change your central belief. Every time a human is born, aliens come down and perform a rite, a rite we don't see, and they put us in a state of “suspended animation” ….At the moment of a birth, these aliens take the baby and put everyone in suspended animation. They bring in some alien woman, and they perform a marriage that is recognize by them (even though the baby doesn't consent). Suppose it is the case that everyone who thinks he is a bachelor has really be married to one of these aliens. Now we face a choice: we can say there are no bachelors (our original world, and claim it refers to no one) or we can say, meh, we count them as bachelors because those alien marriages aren't what we really mean (which would be a change in the definition of bachelor).
Quine thinks we get to revise our beliefs and definitions. It isnt' as if we are in touch with the meanings, and then claim nobody is a bachelor. We can preserve or change anything.
If you can't do conceptual analysis of one thing by another, for a lot of parts of philosophy, philosophy is dead.
You don't start with certain beliefs and build upon them. You test a whole theory against experience. Foundational pictures is replaced by a coherentist view.
He endorses skepticism at some level. The Humean predicament is the Human predicament.
Because the problem of skepticism arose within science (is that true?), it can be solved by science (is that true?).
Quine thought everything was science.
Our set of beliefs is a like a ship at sea. You can repair any part of the ship while it is at sea, but you can't get rid of the whole thing at once. Our big web of beliefs is like that.
pragmatic presuppositions of inquiry – Quine agrees to the boat as a pragmatist. Stroud is willing to sink the boat.
Take all the data of what we experience, there are always multiple possible theories which fit the data. We can always come up with some theory.
Suppose I said, look: it could be that all of what we perceive is fed to us by an evil demon (that's the skeptic's theory), but my theory (speaking for Quine) is that there are other alternatives. We don't have to believe those theories. We can operate within our pragmatic enterprise. ..
What about relativism? Don't we need s standard for alternatives? Ultimately, is Quine really a skeptic.
The skeptic endorses the idea that we are brains in vats (or whatever). But, that is not actually what the skeptic says. Actually, “we can't know that we are not...”. It doesn't rely upon any positive theory.
Quine says the skeptical worry arises from within science, and that we can we give answers from within science. We can give accounts from within science to beat the skeptical hypothesis. Stroud says, the realskeptical worries aren't like that. We can't answer them by having more experience. We can't respond to the dream argument just by investigating things internally. You can't answer the fundamental skeptical worries by presupposing they are wrong and from within science.
Quine has to give up on the underdetermination of the data. We need a maximally coherent view (the possibility). If he doesn't do that, then Quine's theory is stuck in some kind of skepticism. Needs nothing more than a construction, needs THE construction that best explains our sensations,etc.
Mentalist Internalist – justification must be comprised completely of mental states.
Initially forming mental states about a historical fact that I learn...I've forgotten my justification now, but as a mentalist, I can hold that the belief I now have is justified by a past mental state I had. The problem with mentalism is that most people who are internalists want to tie justification to epistemic responsibility. If you just refer to mental states you had long long ago, it is harder to tell that story. To say, “I hope I'm right about the Homestead Act was signed in 1862,” has a worry, I don't have access to the justification.
Standard access internalism is different. The main motivation is epistemic responsibility. How could you be responsible for something to which you don't have access?
The externalist, on the other hand, you don't have to access to your justification. The externalist has going for him the idea that animals and children often have knowledge. They don't have reflective beliefs, they don't have access to their justification, and yet we say they have knowledge.
Clairvoyant problem.
We might distinguish:
Knowing X
Knowing that I know X
Having the right to claim that I know X
Bergmann
Conditional answer: If Tom is in the right relations, then he knows X. But, we have to show the antecedent.
We might reply that we have an account of our reliability. But that justification seems circular...
Epistemic circularity: perception relies upon perception
Uncomfortable moving up a level: regress problem
He looks at several different ways of responding to skepticism.
Vogel
ontological simplicity, coherence (consistency) simplicity, or there is one underlying phenomena that explain many surface phenomena.
Not ad hoc (explain more than just the case at hand)
Should unify phenomena
We have oberservations, and the best explanation is what we want, and the best explanation should be simple.
THE RWH gives a richer and better explanation.
Explanations don't give us knowledge. Legit worry.
Why does the computer create a geometric world? Perhaps the computer is using the model of a real world to convince us...That could be an explanation. We might argue that the RWH is more complex than BIV...
I worry that explanationism might ultimately be unsatisfying to the skeptic because of its reliance upon a best explanation principle. The skeptic has such a high standard of justification that the best explanation principle just doesn’t cut it. The skeptic seeks more than mere justified belief, he seeks knowledge or even certainty, which is not what the ‘best explanation’ principle can provide. The best explanation principle might itself need justification.
Contextualism says epistemic standards vary not with situations of the subject, but the ascriber.
Subject contextualism can be found in every theory, it isn't really contextualism though.
Invariantism – epistemic standards don't vary from context to context
The word know” is indexical. The world “I” is indexical. The full semantic content varies with the context, it varies with the speaker. Full semantic content is indexed to the context.
Couldn't there be a way in which “know” is indexed to the subject's context that is more than trivial? Where trivialness has to do with the obvious, justification, reliability, or whatever.
Contextualism (SMI or Ascriber) – skeptical contexts are different from common sense contexts.
Coudl vary with how important something is; with what is mentioned; with what is thought in the context; whether you ought to believe something based upon how often such a thing occurs;
Can the SMI ascribe knowledge to others at all?
I don't know that 2+2=7,
Semantic blindness – we don't realize that 'know' is indexical.
Why does it matter how we 'ordinarily use' language? Can't we just be wrong about the matter?
Lewis' implicit quantification,
Nozick – (lacking the 4th condition here), and Dretske, externalist account that doesn't add the details of the mechanism. Nozick's sensitivity-
S believes P
P is true
if P were not true, S would not continue to believe that P
This is a counterfactual conditional.
Sensitivity
When it is asserted that you know something, you have to have sensititive knowledge. You have to be able torule out the possibilitythat P were not true???
in order for S to know P, he needs to know he isn't on LSD.
Sensitivity Criterion-
Pretend I have a coin in my hand, and I ask you what it is. You guess correctly it is a nickel. That isn't knowledge, it is based onluck.
If it had not been a nickel, you would have still said it was a nickel.
Pragmatic Encroachment, what we will bet one entering into our peistemic standards. McGrath – Knowledge inan uncertain world.
Grandmother example, relativizing to method.
We can't use the method for normal perception/knowledge in the world where we really are BIV.
Versions of skeptical solutions. Hume raises a problem (of induction), and he gives a skeptical solution. Raise the puzzle, and say, we ordinarily don't care about the puzzle.
Cornerstone propositions; Hinge propositions (wittgenstein); Framework propositions (carnap); candidates for synthetic a priori.
Pragmatically, methodologically, we have to assume we aren't mad, and that we can evaluate our own thought, etc. This Cartesian move is just fine.
Warrant-
entitlement – something else
justification – giving evidence
Ways in which you can be be entitled to a claimed without giving justification.
Cornerstones:external world, other minds, world is ancient, there are laws of nature
1. Strategic entitlement
Contextual, absolute
Acceptance
184,
```
Wright: On Epistemic Entitlement (Warrant)
Warrant = justified acceptance of a proposition
The problem of induction may be deceptively strong. It seems as though it merely targets empirical, causal kinds of reasoning at first. Science, for example, seems like it runs into a lot of trouble in this problem. But, it seems like the problem is stronger than that.
Entitlement = Warrant without evidence
Wright seems to argue for some kind of foundationalism here. There are just certain truths for which I don't need evidence to be justified in believing. Laws of logic, etc. Unfortunately, external world skepticism is a fairly weak kind of skepticism (in terms what we are giving up) in some sense, and it does seem possible (however implausible it may be) that we are BIV. Accepting skepticism against logic really might be irrational, but the same can't easily be said for external world skepticism.
It seems like even the skeptical principles themselves are subject to the regress argument. They have to agree to something foundational (unless we must accept some coherentist view).
Modes of acceptance:
acting on the assumption that P
taking it for granted that P
general attitude instead of belief
I worry that warrant might simply be justified, but not justified enough for knowledge. The skeptic seems to be able to raise that bar beyond where we might be able to defend ourselves.
Belief in P requires belief in not P
Belef in P requires its implications are followed through in your other beliefs, actions, attititudes, etc.
In this paper, I will define lying, explicate Kant’s position on it, and explain two major justifications for that position. I will offer a criticism of Kant’s position and a solution to the larger problem the issue of lying presents us.
What is “lying” to Kant? Kant distinguishes truth and truthfulness.<<ref "1">> Declaring truth is not always up to us (we are epistemically fallible); being truthful, which is more of an attitude or intention, however, is up to us. Intentional deception and untruthfulness sit at the heart of the act of lying.<<ref "2">> A lie is an intentional declaration of what one believes to be an untrue statement.<<ref "3">>
What is Kant’s position on lying? He seems to have legal and moral positions. I’m going to quickly gloss over Kant’s concerns on the legal status and implications of lying (although they are interesting) and focus on the moral position instead, since the moral position completely overshadows the legal in this case.
Initially, it seems as though Kant generally isn’t against lying in the legal realm. As long as one doesn’t violate another’s external right or harm another person, such as offering “the false allegation that a contract has been concluded with someone, made in order to deprive him of what is his,” then Kant might appear fairly relaxed, in a legal context, as to whether or not one lies, as it is “entirely up to them [those who hear the truth or lie] whether they want to believe him or not.”<<ref "4">> However, Kant says, “a lie, defined merely as an intentionally untrue declaration to another…must harm another…For it always harms another, even if not another individual, nevertheless humanity generally, inasmuch as it makes the source of right unusuable.”<<ref "5">> From what I can tell, this could possibly stand as both a legal and moral reason to never lie. Further, Kant worries about the legal responsibilities (of the liar) which result from someone acting upon a lie told to them.<<ref "6">>
Ultimately, I’m not sure if Kant’s position on the legal aspects of lying is all that pertinent in light of his ethical stance on this issue. In the ethical realm, the realm with highest normative priority (it is unclear to me that any other realm, including the legal, has any independent normativity), Kant claims lying is always wrong. He declares this in many passages; we’ll cover a couple of them to get a picture of how he views lying.
Kant uses the obligation not to lie as an example of a law with absolute necessity in the Groundwork: “the command ‘thou shalt not lie’ does not hold only for human beings,” but for all rational beings.<<ref "7">> Continuing that Biblical position, Kant remarks, “the Bible dates the first crime…not from fratricide (Cain’s) but from the first lie…and calls the author of all evil a liar from the beginning and the father of lies.”
In the Groundwork, Kant provides us the case of the lying promise, claiming it is morally wrong to lie (I’m saving the exegesis of this passage for my section on Kant’s justification).<<ref "8">>
In the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant unequivocally declares with vehemence:
<<<
The greatest violation of a human being’s duty to himself regarded merely as a moral being (the humanity in his own person) is the contrary of truthfulness, lying…For, the dishonor (being an object of moral contempt) that accompanies a lie also accompanies a liar like his shadow…By an external lie a human being makes himself an object of contempt in the eyes of others; by an internal lie he does what is still worse: he makes himself contemptible in his own eyes and violates…[and]…annihilates his dignity as a human being. A human being who does not himself believe what he tells another…has even less worth than if he were a mere thing…such a speaker is a mere deceptive appearance of a human being, not a human being himself.<<ref "9">>
<<<
Kant hates lying, and he takes it to be a far more serious offense than does the average person.<<ref "10">> Lying is dehumanizing. His harsh words not only rebuke lying, but even one who “asks permission to think about possible exceptions [to the exceptionless law against lying] is already a liar.”<<ref "11">> It is crystal clear to Kant that lying is always, in all cases and without exception, morally wrong. This is perhaps an unintuitive, extreme, and problematic position to many folk.
Kant is obviously quite serious about universal, exceptionless, necessary moral obligation. He even maintains his view in the face of a very compelling case of lying to the murderer at the door to save an innocent victim. Ultimately, he rebukes lying even in this case, and he responds: “To be truthful (honest) in all declarations is therefore a sacred command of reason prescribing unconditionally, one not to be restricted by any conveniences.”<<ref "12">> That some innocent person may be murdered because you were truthful is not your fault, it is an accident that your truthfulness had this result.<<ref "13">> Again, this may be going against a number of our intuitions, we may not find this position acceptable, but it is Kant’s expressed view of lying, even in hard circumstances.
What is Kant’s justification for the claim that all lying is morally wrong? In isolating and explicating Kant’s position on lying, I’ve inadvertently had to allow some of his justification for this position to bleed through. Obviously, moral obligations can only be justified, in Kant’s theory, by the Categorical Imperative (CI). The CI is the sole arbitration and justification mechanism for the generation of all concrete duties, including the duties “to never lie” or “to always be truthful” (or however it is best phrased).
I’m going to consider two formulations of the CI. Each formulation seems to offer a different kind of justification for the duty to never lie.<<ref "14">> Since we’ve already seen a sneak peak of it, let’s first consider the Formula of Humanity, “So act that you use humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end, never merely as a means.”<<ref "15">> As we’ve seen, Kant thinks lying is dehumanizing to you, to the person the person to whom you are lying, and to humanity in general, a violation of this formula. In the case of lying to the murderer, from this formula, Kant believes we are treating the murderer, via lying, as merely a means (to saving the innocent life) and not as an end. As we read before, all lying is like this on Kant’s view, and hence this formulation is used as one of Kant’s justifications for the claim that all lying is morally wrong.<<ref "16">>
Consider the second formulation, the Formula of the Law of Nature, “Act as if the maxim of your action were to become by your will a universal law of nature.”<<ref "17">> He gives us a few applications of this formula, including the lying promise example. He explains:
<<<
I ask myself: would I indeed be content that my maxim (to get myself out of difficulties by a false promise) should hold as a universal law…? And could I indeed say to myself that every one may make a false promise when he finds himself in a difficulty he can get out of in no other way? Then I soon become aware that I could indeed will the lie, but by no means a universal law to lie; for in accordance with such a law there would properly be no promises at all, since it would be futile to avow my will with regard to my future actions to other who would not believe this avowal….and thus my maxim, as soon as it were made a universal law, would have to destroy itself.<<ref "18">>
<<<
A maxim with lying, in this case, couldn’t be (and maintain being) universalized, and hence lying is not permissible. Even in the case of the murderer, Kant would argue from this formulation something along the lines of: if everyone lied, then lying wouldn’t succeed in deceiving a murderer because the murderer wouldn’t believe what anyone had to say. Apparently, one can never will a maxim of lying to be universal law, and thus this formulation justifies the position that lying is never permitted and always wrong.
Is Kant correct? I fear not. My criticism will be brief. If the CI generates duties which wildly conflict with our intuitions, then perhaps the CI and the duties it generates are not justified. The case of lying to the murderer at your doorstep is a great example of where many of our moral intuitions contradict the unequivocal duty not to lie. Surely Kant has to be wrong about that, it is so obviously incorrect. In the same way that it is intuitively obvious that torturing babies is morally wrong, it is intuitively obvious that it is morally permissible (if not obligatory) to lie to the murderer at your doorstep.
Kant would respond to my criticism by pointing out that intuitions are contingent, and they cannot serve as the foundational grounds upon which to assess normative theories. I’m not sure on the matter; both directions are compelling to me (I fear I rely on intuition in figuring out whether or not I should rely upon intuition). I don’t know if we can salvage everything in Kant’s theory, and I see our project as being one of figuring out which parts of the theory we need as they are, which parts we must adjust, and which parts we must amputate to save the rest. I think there is a way to adjust Kant’s theory which can pacify and satisfy the intuition-based worry in the case of lying to the murderer without destroying the necessity, universality, and exceptionlessness at the heart of Kant’s ethics.
I think the best solution is to particularize maxims to some degree.<<ref "19">> Maxims which are informationally enriched (specifying contexts, actions, and intentions to some extent) appear to be universalizable in cases where general maxims fail the test. An enriched maxim could pass the universality test; it would be necessary, unconditional, and exceptionless. It would apply to everyone, but it would only be needed in some circumstances.
Kant wouldn’t want to do this.<<ref "20">> The parameters of maxim creation are a matter of debate, and I know my suggested solution will make any Kantian purist cringe. Again, I think Kant’s boat is sinking, and something drastic has to be done to fix it. In order to save the theory at large, we have to jettison Kant’s parameters on maxims, and that’s okay. The results are worthwhile, and they will match our moral intuitions and experience better.
Enriched, somewhat particularized maxims better capture the complexity of moral life; such maxims are tailored to the morally salient features of circumstances in a way that overly general maxims cannot admit or appreciate. That was the problem with general maxims in the first place. A number of the “hard cases” which our moral intuitions raise against Kant’s theory can solved by providing details in maxims – that this approach pacifies and complements our intuitions shows that this approach should not be dismissed out of hand. Lying maxims which are specified enough do seem universalizable, without contradiction or inconceivability. The reason nearly everyone thinks we should lie to the murderer at the doorstep is because we’ve already universalized that enriched maxim – that’s what our intuition captures.
Of course, this solution generates many questions. How particular could maxims be? Why? Isn’t it likely that particularized duties will lack the “bite” we’ve come to expect from general duties? I don’t know how best to respond to these kinds of problems.
---------------------------
<<footnotes "1" "8:426">>
<<footnotes "2" "Admittedly, I can’t seem to uncover Kant’s definitive position on deceptive communication which may or may not explicitly qualify as lying (e.g. deception through omission, implicit misdirection, misuse of body language). I’ll set it aside, since it is too complex a topic to consider given the space I have.">>
<<footnotes "3" "8:426">>
<<footnotes "4" "6:238">>
<<footnotes "5" "8:426">>
<<footnotes "6" "8:427, this is a topic of its own">>
<<footnotes "7" "4:389">>
<<footnotes "8" "4:403">>
<<footnotes "9" "6:429">>
<<footnotes "10" "The average person may think certain lies are terrible, but the average person also acknowledges that “white” lies are a part of everyday life. Further, the average person may have intuitions that there are circumstances where lying is not only permissible, but morally required.">>
<<footnotes "11" "8:430, Given the appearance of Kant’s Biblical proclivities, perhaps he has Matthew 5:28 in mind. ">>
<<footnotes "12" "8:427">>
<<footnotes "13" "8:429">>
<<footnotes "14" "Arriving at different justifications (where only one formula can reach a given conclusion) isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Depending on our language, it is possible to exclusively deduce different (yet not contradictory) conclusions from two equivalent propositions given the rules of inference. For example, we could have the following propositions: ~P v ~Q; ~(P & Q); ~(P & Q) -> A; (~P v ~Q) -> B. Clearly, the first two are logically equivalent (as the formulas of the CI might be), and depending on the rules of inference in our language, we might only be able to arrive at proposition B from ~P v ~Q and (~P v ~Q) -> B, and likewise, we might only be able to arrive at A from ~(P & Q) and ~(P & Q) -> A. Perhaps to get B from ~(P & Q) in our language, we might have to first convert ~(P & Q) to ~P v ~Q, and only then we could get B. Just because the two formulations arrive at different (as long as they aren’t competing) conclusions, justifications in our analogy, doesn’t mean there is a problem. ">>
<<footnotes "15" "4:429">>
<<footnotes "16" "I have so many worries about the moves he makes in this argument. As usual, I don’t have time or space to address them.">>
<<footnotes "17" "4:421">>
<<footnotes "18" "4:403">>
<<footnotes "19" "I recognize this does not neatly address all the formulations of the CI. I don’t have time or space to do that.">>
<<footnotes "20" "5:19">>
''1.1 – Introduction''
In this paper, I will be analyzing Jonathon Vogel’s explanationism, paying especially close attention to the arguments he provides in his article “Internalist Responses to Skepticism,” where he endorses explanationism as a solution to the problem of skepticism.<<ref "1">> Explanationism defends against skepticism, roughly, by claiming that a coherence among ordinary beliefs concerning our perceptual experiences justifies the belief in the negation of skepticism (e.g. –BIV). On this view, the patterns of our ordinary experiences (E*) are better explained by our rich set of ordinary beliefs, a “real-world hypothesis” (RWH), than a “brain in a vat” hypothesis (BIV).
The first section of this paper, (1.2-1.4), will define key terms, frame Vogel’s explanationism, and clarify what kind of skepticism he is addressing. The second section focuses entirely upon a significant reductio ad absurdum argument which Vogel uses to demonstrate that RWH is always a better explanation than BIV. The third section will examine explanationism’s reliance upon inference to the best explanation, consider various problems with making an internalist inference to the external world, and assess whether or not explanationism really defuses the problem of skepticism.
''1.2 – What is Explanationism? What Species Is Vogel’s Explanationism?''
Explanationism (or explanatory coherentism) relies upon the principle of inference to the best explanation (IBE). Epistemic justification and knowledge are the results of some degree of internal coherence among an agent’s beliefs which have been authorized by or generated according to IBE. Explanationism often employs some kind of reflective equilibrium, piecing together, bootstrapping, revising, and negotiating of beliefs into increasingly coherent perspectives. There are few fixed judgments on this view; most planks on the boat can eventually be replaced. The theory is also fallibilist. Justified or knowledgeable agents can be wrong about their beliefs or knowledge; a justified belief or knowledge of a proposition does not logically entail the proposition is true.
IBE is the foundation of this coherentist view. The best explanation principle can invoke many kinds of explanatory criteria, including: simplicity (ontological, explanatory, or psychological), explanatory breadth or depth, coherence with background knowledge, appearing to avoid ad hoc elements, fecundity, neatness, conservatism, modesty, and testability.<<ref "2">> It remains a matter of controversy as to which (if any) of these pragmatic virtues matter, to what degree each matters, and how they balance against each other. Abductivism, an idea fairly related to explanationism, argues that hypotheses which satisfy these criteria more than their alternatives are more likely to be true. Explanationism builds upon this and takes a stronger position than the abductivist on the status of IBE. Explanationism requires a kind of explanatory coherence and expresses something more. Beebe explains:
<<<
Abductivism is not equivalent to any of the forms of explanationism that dot the philosophical landscape. In epistemology ‘explanationism’ often denotes the view that all reasoning (or at least all ampliative reasoning) is justified by explanatory considerations. This thesis is sometimes expressed as the view that all forms of inference ultimately reduce to inference to the best explanation.<<ref "3">>
<<<
According to Lycan, there are several kinds of explanationism: Weak, Sturdy, and Ferocious.<<ref "4">> Weak Explanationism is the “claim that explanatory inference can epistemically justify a conclusion.”<<ref "5">> This isn’t really exclusive to explanationism, as many already agree to this. Sturdy Explanationism adds to the weak version the claim that “explanatory inference can do its justifying intrinsically, that is, without being derived from some other form of ampliative inference, such as probability theory, taken as more basic.”<<ref "6">> Ferocious appends to Sturdy the claim that “no other form of ampliative inference is basic; all are derived from explanatory inference.”<<ref "7">> Which kind does Vogel defend? It depends on how we look at his arguments, but I think his goal is to defend the Ferocious kind of explanationism. At any rate, I will take him to be pursuing that goal in this paper.
''1.3 – Vogel Responds to What Kind of Skepticism?''
Vogel responds to external world skepticism. He deploys explanationism against what he calls “domestic” skeptics who “attempt to show us that beliefs we hold don’t count as knowledge [or justification] according to norms we ordinarily recognize.”<<ref "8">> Vogel does not seem to defend himself against what calls the “exotic” skeptic who challenges “our epistemic principle in some other way, perhaps holding them to other standards according to which ours are defective or wanting.”<<ref "9">> An exotic skeptic, perhaps like the Humean skeptic, may be going after a more global kind of skepticism than Vogel is worried about. Vogel’s concern is local, in some sense, since it pertains specifically to the set of propositions concerned with the external world. This focus upon domestic kinds of skepticism to the exclusion of exotic kinds is significant.
For example, skeptics may be infallibilists, and thus the standard of justification is extremely high. Vogel holds a fallibilist position. The move from infallibilism to fallibilism is another exotic worry which Vogel does not seem too concerned with, probably for good reasons. I don’t know how a defense of the external world can ever live up to infallibilist standards. Fallible knowledge and justification may be the only kinds that have a chance of surviving skepticism, since I think we must always concede that apodictic certainty of the external world cannot be had, and skeptics using that extreme epistemic standard are right.
Importantly, skeptics may reject the IBE standard. Vogel would see this as an exotic skepticism. The validity of the principle of inference to the best explanation is foundational to Vogel’s theory. Vogel acknowledges this is a problem for his theory, but does not address it. Since this issue is so crucial, I will be considering it in this paper, even though Vogel does not focus on defending it.
Vogel may be sweeping other versions of exotic skepticism under the rug here. Perhaps this is a fine move; you can’t make everyone happy. Further, any successful version of domestic skepticism might seem more troubling than an exotic because it means we are losing the skeptic’s game even with our own rules.
Lastly, Fumerton makes a distinction between weak and strong skepticism, where weak skepticism targets knowledge and strong skepticism targets justification.<<ref "10">> Vogel’s argument is most successful if we interpret it as attempting to respond to strong skepticism. Oddly, while trying to defend justification, Vogel takes himself to be defusing weak skepticism as well. I believe Vogel is mistaken in thinking his theory defuses skepticism which targets knowledge, as it is not clear that explanationism really does lead to knowledge, even if it might result in justification. With that said, defeating strong skepticism would still be a significant step towards defeating weak skepticism because justification is a necessary requirement of knowledge.
''1.4 – Knowledge or Justification?''
Vogel spells out skepticism from the internalist perspective as follows:
*1a. In order to know M, you need to know that various possibilities of massive sensory deception do not obtain.
*1b. In particular, you need to know that you are not a brain in a vat (–BIV) stimulated so that it falsely appears to you that M.
*1c. In order to know –BIV, you have to be justified in believing –BIV.
*1d. But you are not justified in believing –BIV.
*1e. Therefore, you do not know M.<<ref "11">>
Vogel claims explanationism can falsify premise (1d), arguing that if premise (1d) “of the skeptical argument is false…skepticism is refuted.”<<ref "12">> By this, he means that explanationism defuses not only strong skepticism (targeting justification), but also weak skepticism (targeting knowledge). I disagree, and I wish to stress that while falsifying (1d) is certainly a worthy response, it is not a finishing blow to weak skepticism.
Vogel focuses on (1d). (1a) and (1b) are key premises that deserve more attention. (1b) follows from (1a), and (1a) seems to derive from the closure principle, a principle which certainly seems plausible.<<ref "13">> If we agree to these premises, then we agree that defeating the skeptic requires demonstrating that we know –BIV. I’m not sure why Vogel begins his argument with this task (not a small one at that), but never resolves it. He seems to gloss over this weighty requirement, even though he boldly claims explanationism is a “solution to the problem of skepticism.”<<ref "14">>
Suppose explanationism justifies the belief –BIV. To be (mildly) justified in believing –BIV, which is what Vogel at least minimally seems to think explanationism buys us, may be necessary but not sufficient for knowing –BIV. Vogel does not neatly close this gap for us. Even if he does get us to the point where we are justified in believing –BIV to some extent, which is a significant accomplishment, it unfortunately does not seem as though explanationism gives us knowledge of –BIV, and that’s a problem for Vogel, given the criteria he set out for himself.
The weak skeptic’s epistemic requirement is very high: knowledge, not merely justified belief. Presumably, the strong skeptic’s epistemic requirement is also a very high degree of justified belief. Explanationism will likely fail to provide knowledge of –BIV, and hence Vogel’s argument will not defuse weak skepticism. We will examine much more closely whether or not Vogel is able to defeat the strong skeptic. It would be no small feat to demonstrate that we can be justified in believing in the external world, even if we don’t necessarily know.
It would strengthen Vogel’s argument at large if he explicitly chose to focus on responding to strong skepticism, targeting justification. Perhaps it would be useful to Vogel if we modify his sketch of the skeptic’s argument in this way:
*1a. In order to know M, you need to be justified in believing that various possibilities of massive sensory deception do not obtain.
*1b. In particular, you need to be justified in believing that you are not a brain in a vat (–BIV) stimulated so that it falsely appears to you that M.
*1c. But you are not justified in believing –BIV.
*1d. Therefore, you do not know M.<<ref "15">>
Perhaps Vogel just wouldn’t go for this. He really may have meant what he said throughout his paper.<<ref "16">> Vogel would not claim to have defended knowledge lightly. This apparent slip from justification to knowledge may not be an accident; Vogel knows what he is doing. If so, why does he do it? Perhaps he employs some sort of probabilistic justification standard. When he thinks RWH explains our data better than BIV, he means to say that RWH is more likely to be true via IBE. This is where that probabilistic standard sitting beneath IBE seems to arise. If this is true, then we should probably interpret Vogel as offering a less than Ferocious account of explanationism.
We might only get some weak form of justification when probabilities are low, but it doesn’t seem like we get knowledge without a really high chance. That we have such a high chance is something which Vogel would need to demonstrate.
Unfortunately, isn’t clear that RWH is far, far more likely than BIV. RWH is a better explanation of E* than BIV, but by what margin? Doesn’t this margin need to be significant? There needs to be a wide gulf in explanatory power between RWH and BIV before we can move on from mere justified belief to knowledge. I think Vogel doesn’t pay enough attention to that issue. So, he might get us to a point of being mildly justified in believing RWH, but it still does not seem like explanationism gets us knowledge.
Setting this matter aside, let us see if Vogel’s explanationism can do the job of justifying belief in RWH instead of BIV.
''2 – Vogel’s Reductio''
One centerpiece argument Vogel offers in favor of explanationism is a powerful reductio which demonstrates why RWH has more explanatory power than BIV regarding our ordinary experience E*. He begins with the Art-attribution case:
<<<
Max is an art historian studying an old altarpiece. The best explanation of various features of the painting that he has been able to devise so far is that it was executed by two different painters. Accordingly, Max's initial version of RWH, RWH1, includes a belief that the altarpiece was due to two different hands. However, reconsidering the available information, Max realizes that a more satisfactory explanation of the data is that the altarpiece was painted by one person over a long period of time. Incorporating that belief into Max's total body of beliefs about the world gives him a new belief corpus, RWH2. RWH2 differs from RWH1, and the former has somewhat more explanatory merit overall than the latter.<<ref "17">>
<<<
Vogel argues for his reductio in this way:
<<<
Ultimately, RWH2 explains some aspect(s) of E* better than RWH1 does…RWH1 and RWH2 also compete with BIV. Let us consider Max after he has changed his mind about who painted the altarpiece. Suppose that the skeptic is right and Max has no justification for rejecting BIV at this point. In that case, RWH2 and BIV must offer equally good explanations of E*. But then, since BIV explains E* just as well as RWH2 does, and RWH2 explains E* better than RWH1 does, it follows that BIV explains E* better than RWH1 does. That is, before he changed his mind about who painted the altarpiece, Max was justified in believing that he was a brain in a vat, which surely cannot be right. We have here a reductio ad absurdum of the assumption that Max has no basis for preferring RWH2 to BIV on explanatory grounds.<<ref "18">>
<<<
Vogel claims to have an argument which proves the claim RWH2 is a better explanation of the historian’s evidence, E*, than BIV. This argument is crucial and significant, and unfortunately, I found his explanation somewhat unclear. If he really had a reductio, why didn’t he just write it out? In my survey of the literature on this topic, I only found one source which tried to explain what he might be doing here. I’m representing Kevin McCain’s argument from his dissertation (Vogel was on the committee) on the reductio here:
# RWH2 and BIV are equally good explanations of E* - [AP for Reductio]
# RWH1 and BIV are equally good explanations of E* - [Premise]
# If (α and ψ are equally good explanations of φ), and - [Transitivity’]
##(α is a better explanation of φ than β), then
##(ψ is a better explanation of φ than β)
# RWH2 is a better explanation of E* than RWH1 - [From Example]
# BIV is a better explanation of E* than RWH1 - [From 3, 1, 4]
# ~(BIV is a better explanation of E* than RWH1) - [From 2]
# ⊥ - [From 5, 6]
# ~(RWH2 and BIV are equally good explanations of E*) - [Reductio from 1-7]<<ref "19">>
McCain stops here. Unfortunately, this doesn’t show that RWH2 is a better explanation of the historian’s evidence, E*, than BIV. Vogel does assume in his 43rd footnote that no one would argue that BIV is a better explanation of the historian’s evidence than RWH2, and we might take this as a premise:
* 9. ~(BIV is a better explanation of E* than RWH2) - [Premise]
Now we see how to get to the conclusion we really want:
* 10. RWH2 is a better explanation of E* than BIV - [From 8, 9]
This is the significant conclusion which Vogel wants. Unfortunately, this reductio doesn’t look like anything which Vogel actually says. Vogel declares he has a reductio of the claim that “Max has no basis for preferring RHW2 to BIV on explanatory grounds.”<<ref "20">> McCain’s reductio does not match that, although his argument still has quite a bit of force to it (I suspect Vogel also agreed to it).
Also, it is unclear why we would go through the work for a reductio, as there seems to be a much quicker version of the argument one could offer given basically the same premises:
# RWH1 and BIV are equally good explanations of E* - [Premise]
# RWH2 is a better explanation of E* than RWH1 - [From Example]
# If (α and ψ are equally good explanations of φ), and - [Transitivity’’]
##(β is a better explanation of φ than α), then
##(β is a better explanation of φ than ψ)
# RWH2 is a better explanation of E* than BIV - [From 3, 1, 2]
Why wasn’t this argument offered? I think it wasn’t offered because it is more obvious that something fishy is going on. I’ll get to what is going wrong here in a bit. In any case, McCain’s version of the argument does not match what Vogel says. Going back to Vogel’s text, it is clear that he is using temporal language. He distinguishes when hypotheses are discovered, and this is an important clue for us. I will follow his text very closely and fill in gaps where I must (I’ve not neatly placed all premises at the top because that is not how Vogel’s argument flows):
# ~(At time T2, RWH2 is a better explanation of E* than BIV) -- [AP for Reductio]
# At time T2, RWH2 is a better explanation of E* than RWH1 - [From the Text]
# At time T2, RWH2 and BIV are equally good explanations of E* - [From the Text]
# If (at time Ti, α and ψ are equally good explanations of φ), and - [Transitivity1]
##(at Ti, α is a better explanation of φ than β), then
##(at Ti, ψ is a better explanation of φ than β)
# At time T2, BIV is a better explanation of E* than RWH1 - [From 4, 3, 2]
# If (at time Ti, α is a better explanation of φ than ψ), then - [Time Premise1]
##(at time Tk, α is a better explanation of φ than ψ),
##where k is any arbitrary number
# At time T1, BIV is a better explanation of E* than RWH1 -- [From 6, 5]
# At time T1, RWH1 and BIV are equally good explanations of E* - [From the Text?]
# ~(At time T1, BIV is a better explanation of E* than RWH1) - [From 8]
# ⊥ -- [⊥Intro, 7 and 8]
# At time T2, RWH2 is a better explanation of E* than BIV - [Reductio from 1-12]
Note that from the conclusion (11), via repeated application of (6), we know RWH2 is a better explanation of E* than BIV at any time. This would be a significant claim to prove. This unspoken time premise, (6), is crucial to getting the results that Vogel needs.
Let us dig into this argument a bit. We should grant (4), since it is obviously correct. The two premises which are most curious are (6) and (8).
Vogel does not explicitly claim (8) in this passage, but he seems to argue for it when he says “before he changed his mind about who painted the altarpiece, Max was justified in believing that he was a brain in a vat, which surely cannot be right.”<<ref "21">> Indeed, it does seem essential to the skeptic’s argument that BIV is equally good at explaining E* as the best RWHi we have available. RWH1 was the best RWHi we had at T1, hence it would make sense to accept (8) for the sake of argument.
That leaves the time premise. I think (6) is an important part of Vogel’s argument, and it is a shame he didn’t examine it. Let us carefully think through what went on in (2-5), right before this time premise. All of the moves make sense. After Max has changed his mind about who painted the altarpiece (T2), RWH2 was the best RWHi available, and thus BIV was made to be equally good at explaining E*, thus at T2, RWH2 and BIV are better explanations of E* than RWH1. What then is (6) doing? It shows, in this case, that if BIV is a better explanation of E* than RWH1 at some point in the future, then it is also the case in the past. But, why should we think that? I’m not sure. Admittedly, some part or application of the time premise seems right.
Interestingly, similar to the McCain version, Vogel didn’t need to give us a reductio ad absurdum. Vogel could have just offered this argument instead:
# At time T1, RWH1 and BIV are equally good explanations of E* - [From the Text]
# If (at time Ti, α and ψ are equally good explanations of φ), then - [Time Premise2]
##(at time Tk, α and ψ are equally good explanations of φ),
##where k is any arbitrary number
# At time T2, RWH1 and BIV are equally good explanations of E* - [From 2, 1]
# At time T2, RWH2 is a better explanation of E* than RWH1 - [From the Text]
# If (at time Ti, α and ψ are equally good explanations of φ), and - [Transitivity2]
##(at time Ti, if β is a better explanation of φ than α), then
##(at time Ti, β is a better explanation of φ than ψ)
# At time T2, RWH2 is a better explanation of E* than BIV - [From 5, 3, 4]
We got (6), which was the conclusion in the reductio, by using different transitivity and time premises (which were just as plausible as the first ones he used). Notice that with time premise1 added, Vogel still gets what he wants, which is the claim that we know RWH2 is a better explanation of E* than BIV at any time.
These time premises are very powerful, and they are the keys to amplifying particular conclusions into the universal results Vogel wants. It is unclear if we must accept Vogel’s unspoken time premises. Even if we grant Vogel these time premises, something fishy is going on here. The problem has to do with timing. Maybe it isn’t the time premises themselves, but rather the way in which Vogel handles the BIV hypotheses in these arguments.
Vogel’s reductio seems to treat BIV as monolithic hypothesis with a static degree of explanatory merit regarding E*. The reductio only follows on the assumption that BIV’s explanatory power doesn’t change through time. But such an assumption seems to be missing the point: the whole strategy of the BIV argument is that no matter how strong a RWHi we come up with there is an equally good BIV argument. The ability for BIV’s explanatory power to change given the strength of our RWHi is already stipulated, and yet the implications of this ability are not well described in Vogel’s reductio.
While on one hand Vogel treats BIV as a monolithic and static hypothesis, on the other, Vogel seems to recognizes that BIV scales with explanatory merit of various RWH’s, else he would not be able to posit both that RWH2 and BIV have equal explanatory merit in (2) and that RWH1 and BIV have equal explanatory merit in (8). In this sense, Vogel is more aware that the skeptic employs some sort of mechanism which ensures that BIV is equally good at explaining E* as the best RWHi we have available, at any time Ti. Vogel does not effectively reconcile this tension.
Timing is important to this mechanism and its output, and Vogel’s explanation and use of BIV has failed to capture that. Here’s what I think is really happening:
Consider RWH1 as the best RWHi we have available for explaining E* at time T1. The skeptic’s mechanism crafts BIV to be equally good as RWH1 at explaining E* at time T1. Let’s call this version BIV1. At T2, we discover a better RWHi, call it RWH2. The skeptic’s mechanism recognizes this, so it strengthens the old BIV1 to be equally good at explaining E*as RWH2, call it BIV2. We would say that both RWH2 and BIV2 are better explanations of E* than RWH1 and BIV1. If this is the correct way of thinking about it, then the premises must be rewritten, and the attempted reductio argument will play our differently:
# ~(At time T2, RWH2 is a better explanation of E* than BIV2) -- [AP for Reductio]
# At time T2, RWH2 is a better explanation of E* than RWH1 - [From the Text]
# At time T2, RWH2 and BIV2 are equally good explanations of E* - [From the Text]
# If (at time Ti, α and ψ are equally good explanations of φ), and - [Transitivity1]
##(at Ti, α is a better explanation of φ than β), then
##(at Ti, ψ is a better explanation of φ than β).
# At time T2, BIV2 is a better explanation of E* than RWH1 - [From 4, 3, 2]
# If (at time Ti, α is a better explanation of φ than ψ), then - [Time Premise1]
##(at time Tk, α is a better explanation of φ than ψ),
##where k is any arbitrary number.
# At time T1, BIV2 is a better explanation of E* than RWH1 -- [From 6, 5]
# At time T1, RWH1 and BIV1 are equally good explanations of E* - [From the Text?]
# ~(At time T1, BIV1 is a better explanation of E* than RWH1) - [From 8]
# ⊥ - [⊥Intro, 7 and 8]
Notice that we can’t get (10) from (7) and (9), as we are comparing BIV2 to RWH1 in one, and BIV1 and RWH1 in the other. At no point can we conclude that RWH2 is a better explanation of E* than BIV2, which is what Vogel would need. The second argument fails to deliver what Vogel needs as well, as the conclusion becomes: (At time T2, RWH2 is a better explanation of E* than BIV1).
I am convinced neither Vogel’s reductio nor the shorter, alternative arguments I suggested will get Vogel the conclusion he needs (the same is also true for McCain’s versions). I don’t think this argument provides us justification to believe RWH instead of BIV.
''3.1 –IBE and Justification ''
Vogel claims RWH explains the sum of our sensory experiences, E*, better than BIV, and thus we are justified in accepting RWH, and consequently, in accepting –BIV. At least some real-world hypotheses are thought to be simpler and more unified than BIV hypotheses, and thus some RWHi are better at explaining E*. On Vogel’s view, any version of BIV should be rejected because it is comparatively too complex and perhaps ad hoc. Should we really agree that some RWH necessarily has more explanatory merit than all BIV hypotheses?
Indeed, some models of BIV, perhaps even the usual ones, will build on top of a RWH (possibly in an ad hoc manner) an abstraction, an extra layer, an added mechanism, or an additional agent which explains E*. On such models, BIV is thought to be more complex than RWH, and therefore such models have less explanatory merit than RWH. But is this the case for all BIV hypotheses? This seems to be what Vogel needs, and yet it is far from clear that this is true.
Further, the skeptic need not convincingly demonstrate a case where BIV is simpler than RWH – he merely needs to open our eyes to the possibility of such a thing. Is it at least possible that some BIV hypothesis could have more explanatory merit than real-world hypotheses? Maybe. That’s a problem for a theory which relies upon showing not only that the usual BIV hypotheses have less explanatory merit than at least one RWH, but that all BIV hypotheses must have less explanatory merit than some RWH
''3.2 – Some Preliminary Concerns''
# Vogel claims there are two competing causal explanations of my experience, E*, “the relevant body of evidence, the ‘data’ to be explained…the occurrence and nature of my experience,” namely either the set of my ordinary beliefs about the world, RWH, or BIV.<<ref "22">> He further claims that if “explanationism is correct, then E* justifies both our ordinary beliefs about the world (including perceptual beliefs) and the rejection of –BIV.”<<ref "23">> Is this right? Why should the thing to be explained, E*, justify belief in the hypothesis which explains it? Rather than E* directly justifying belief in RWH, it seems to make more sense to say IBE justifies believing RWH, instead of BIV, as the causal explanation of E*.
# For anyone who holds strong doxastic voluntarism, it seems like some of the best ways to achieve explanatory coherence in our belief systems is to simply throw out specific trouble-making beliefs. What’s to stop us from doing that on the explanationist view? Isn’t that a problem?<<ref "24">>
# What if we think IBE is more objectionable than the RWH itself?<<ref "25">> It wouldn’t be acceptable to employ epistemic standards which are more objectionable than the targets which those standards are trying to explain and justify. This is a possibility for the skeptic. Shouldn’t the explanationist explain why IBE stands on firmer ground than RWH, thus enabling IBE to be in a position to explain RWH?
# There seems to be another skeptical possibility other than the usual skeptical claims, such as demons or brains in vats, specifically in the case where the explanationist feels they can explain causation better in terms of the RWH. What if our sensory experiences are uncaused?<<ref "26">> Note, the scope isn’t some global denial of causation or induction in general, but rather a denial of causation of sensory experience (without resorting to “chance,” from which an explanationist may have a foothold). Explanationism would be trying to find an explanation for something which is uncaused. Admittedly, to say that something is uncaused is sort of a causal story already. Obviously, the explanationist believes our sensory experiences have external causes, but isn’t that an assumption which must be defended? We don’t ordinarily doubt that sensory experiences have causes (that would be crazy, right?), but philosophically, we can. It is far from clear how the explanationist can explain how we know (or why we are justified in believing) our experiences have causes. This seems like another possible objection or doubt the skeptic can raise against explanationism.
''3.3 – Argument from Simplicity ''
Vogel argues that in RWH, “certain truths about spatial properties and relations are necessary.”<<ref "27">> Vogel says, “In short, according to RWH, that Dist(a, b, c) is greater than Dist(a, c) at least partly explains T,” where T = “why one set of experiences (those you have walking the long way) has greater duration than another set of experiences (those you have walking the direct way).”<<ref "28">>
In contrast, Vogel thinks a digital simulation (working from Bonjour’s analog/digital distinction) of these spatial properties and relation, such as we would find in an “isomorphic skeptical hypothesis” (ISH), supposedly one of the most defensible versions of BIV, are contingent rather than necessary.<<ref "29">> In order to explain T as effectively as RWH, this contingency requires ISH to “to introduce some further empirical regularity” in the mechanisms which make [Dist (a, b, c) > Dist(a, c)] true in the artificial world.<<ref "30">> That adds to the complexity of ISH, and it makes it less simple than RWH.
Simplicity, in Vogel’s view, is one way to allocate and characterize the differences in explanatory merits between competing hypotheses. Vogel’s argument here is that RWH is simpler than the best BIV hypotheses (ISH variants), and thus RWH is a better explanation of T (and essentially E*) than all BIV’s. Should we really agree to simplicity as having so much sway? I don’t see why we should. Simplicity is attractive, but it seems far too weak to determine which hypotheses are more justifiable than others.
Hundreds of years ago, Newton’s theory was coherent given the data people had. The simplicity component of IBE would select and justify Newton’s theory. They were justified in believing it, but that doesn’t make Newton’s theory correct. It just so happens that a far more complex hypothesis is better. We do have better data nowadays, and that data is better explained by a complex hypothesis. Doesn’t this reveal a problem though? Knowledge or justification is deeply constrained by the data we have in the first place. Sometimes we don’t have a sufficient dataset from which to be sufficiently justified, and even if we are justified in some minimal sense, we don’t know we have the truth. Why should we believe that simplicity really gives us the correct answer? Why is it even more likely to arrive at the truth?
Doubting Bonjournian digital explanations merely because they lack simplicity is a practice that many scientists don’t even practice. There are physicists who believe we live in one universe of many – that we are part of a multiverse. They likely can’t prove it or test it, although they have models that describe our universe which suggest it (admittedly, it may not even be science).
A multiverse is very similar to a digital explanation – it requires admitting that this vast, complex, and beautiful thing we call a universe may not really exist as we think it does, it may be caused for reasons beyond us, it may be incomplete or distorted, perhaps illusory in some ways. Most importantly, a multiverse breaks out of the simplicity mold. These people, who to my mind are experts on the external world (they have incredibly complex RWH’s), are willing to reject simplicity and embrace digital explanations. Why shouldn’t we? Maybe BIV’s lack of simplicity isn’t as big of a deal as Vogel thinks. Simplicity might point in the direction, but it seems weaker than Vogel claims.
''3.4 – Argument from Ad Hocness''
Vogel believes BIV, unlike RWH, is an ad hoc hypothesis. Vogel explains, “RWH, our ordinary view of the world, has an elaborated structure that gives it considerable explanatory richness and power. Therefore, it is no surprise that skeptical hypotheses with little or no worked‐out structure are inferior to RWH from an explanatory standpoint. This difference justifies us in rejecting such meager skeptical hypotheses on explanatory grounds.”<<ref "31">> BIV, as Vogel sees it, is just a shell of a hypothesis with no real teeth or purpose – it is ad hoc.
Vogel roughly defines an ad hoc explanation as, “one that explains only the phenomena it was introduced to explain and is not otherwise confirmed or testable.”<<ref "32">> Isn’t this a serious problem for the RWH as well though? RWH exists to explain E*, and it is also not otherwise confirmed or testable. It isn’t like we can line-up our competing hypotheses, RWH and BIV, and “go out,” in the most purely objective sense, into the world and empirically test which one is true or false. I fundamentally don’t see how either RWH or BIV could be empirically confirmed. Vogel needs to do a lot more to convince us that it is empirical, and then he must show why RWH does not suffer from the same ad hoc perspective as BIV.
Further, this requirement of an “elaborated structure” seems to miss the point. Does the skeptic really need to draw out exactly how, in detail, BIV works? A skeptic with some sympathy towards Vogel’s claims here might just need to argue that there could be a BIV hypothesis which has equal or better explanatory powers to our best RWH hypotheses, even if we don’t immediately have a BIV hypothesis at hand which satisfies Vogel. Perhaps we must prove the skeptic is wrong in a complete sense, else that doubt will always be there.
Comprehensive, elaborated fantasies can still be wrong, and skeletal hypotheses lacking detail can still be right. What merely seems ad hoc may not be. Avoiding the appearance of ad hocness seems quite attractive, especially when trying to convince others, but it doesn’t necessarily (or perhaps even probably) get us to truth.
''3.5 – Objectivity and Subjectivity''
RWH is a more natural hypothesis to generate than BIV; it is what the usual mode in which we receive the world. That doesn’t, however, make it right. I worry that IBE, the principle which authorizes RWH, is just epistemic laziness. It is a way to cut corners for the sake of convenience.<<ref "33">> We merely hope it is a shortcut to truth. It is unclear why we should think coherence based on IBE, with its variety of criterion, is necessarily connected to the truth, a matter quite external to us. Ultimately, the most coherent belief systems may still be pure fantasy. Vogel may consider questioning IBE as a form of exotic skepticism, but from what I can tell, worrying about the potency and authority of IBE is a valid and crucial concern.
If I were to be very pessimistic and perhaps not charitable enough about explanationism, I would say it is too internalist.<<ref "34">> We never settle the actual matter of an external world. The coherentist view doesn’t seem to care enough about how beliefs correspond to facts in the real world. The coherentist view seems to over-prioritize the epistemic over the ontological. It borders on claiming that the world is the way we think it is. That seems so backwards. On such a view, explanationism doesn’t really care about the ontic structure external to us; it only cares about the epistemic structure internal to us, about how our perceptions and beliefs mesh together. We might argue that internalist truth is a relation between one’s hypothesis and one’s mind, without any serious consideration about the world. In actuality, truth is a relation between one’s hypothesis and the world. Justification, unlike truth, is probably a relationship between one’s hypothesis, one’s mind, and the world. Perhaps explanationism focuses too much upon one’s hypothesis and mind to the exclusion of the world (despite the fact that it claims to really be interested in justifying our beliefs about the world).
Maybe there are other hypotheses besides BIV which compete with RWH and are just as coherent and possess the same explanatory force as RWH. It seems like explanationism never settles the matter. It isn’t concerned enough with making sure one reaches the right final answer, only that one reaches an internally acceptable answer at any given moment. Explanationism seems to suffer from the problem that most coherentist theories face: there seem to be a plurality of coherent sets of beliefs, and coherentism fails to reveal or select the one complete set of true beliefs (if there is one). Shouldn’t we be worried that explanationism seems to be capable of justifying multiple, incompatible hypotheses? Perhaps coherentism takes fallibilism too far.
We might imagine scenarios in which the objectively better explanation, such as a newly released Copernican model, does not explain our current data or predict as effectively as another objectively worse explanation, such as the Ptolemaic model. From what I recall, when the Copernican model was first offered, the Ptolemaic view was, for a brief time in history, still a more coherent hypothesis than the Copernican one. In such a case, the explanationist must defend the objectively weaker view, the Ptolemaic model. Shouldn’t this kind of thing be a problem? I worry that explanationism doesn’t even hope to aim for objectivity (although, perhaps it is arrogant to think we can reach it).
Availability of hypotheses seems to be a worry. What if I can only access a really small number of hypotheses, and objectively speaking, they are all really bad. Explanationism doesn’t seem to give us the kind of reasons to think this is a bad thing. Explanationism seems, subjectively speaking, to give us justification for believing what might be the best of those available hypotheses, but from an external or objective view, those hypotheses are so bad that they just aren’t really worth having, they aren’t really justifiable – they don’t really help us get close enough to the truth. It isn’t clear how IBE results in any of our hypotheses being “likely true” at all. You can’t seem to infer the best (or even decent) explanation, in our example, because you never had access to it. Why should we think we have access to the best explanation/hypothesis? Why should we even think we have access to adequate explanations/hypotheses which are merely good enough? It seems like the explanationist must take these on faith. I don’t see why we are necessarily justified in thinking that one of the explanations in our pool of accessible explanations will be the correct one or even a worthy explanation.
Why should we agree to IBE? IBE demonstrates that certain propositions are epistemically more attractive than others, but it doesn’t necessarily demonstrate, as far as I can tell, that certain propositions are more likely than others. I feel the two are conflated in the explanationist theory. Even if explanationism does demonstrate that a hypothesis is more likely, is that really enough for justification? It seems like probabilistic justifications (which seem oddly externalist) might justify us, but we may never be in a position to know when we are justified (which should be a problem for an internalist).
Ultimately, explanationism suggests that we are justified in our beliefs (or even have knowledge possibly), regardless of whether or not we are brains in vats. It seems like explanationism is so internalist that it disregards the problem of skepticism entirely. As Vogel says himself, he’s really not interested in exotic skepticism, including skepticism of IBE. Is this missing the point of skepticism? Possibly.
''3.6 – BIV: Juicing Our Intuitions from a New Perspective''
The notion of brains in vats has generally been the stuff of mere fiction and imagination. It has, as far as we know, never been a real thing for us to examine. Perhaps some people think an elaborate hoax, such as being a BIV, is ad hoc or impossible because, until recently, something like that was unfathomably impractical. I wonder if our intuitions on this topic may be skewed simply because we’ve never personally known ourselves to experience or see a BIV experiment in action. The BIV topic has generally revolved around whether we, as humans, are hypothetically brains in vats. That has a subjective perspective to it, and it may have a certain set of biases that come with it. We don’t want it to be true! We prudentially need it to be false. Perhaps our intuitions are skewed because our stance is too subjective. What if we could have a more objective stance in some sense? Interestingly, the possibility that we may create our own brains in vats is a problem we might face in our own lifetimes!
Some people, particularly those from materialist persuasions, can envision artificially created sentient creatures with human-like intelligence built from what we ordinarily think of as computer hardware or software. Artificial intelligence, even minds like ours, really could be created within our lifetimes. Further, some programmers are really sick and twisted folk with way too much time on their hands, and it seems very possible that if AI existed, some mad programmer would design a digital world in which to entrap these artificial minds (we already create rough, small-scale versions of digital worlds for video gamers).
Maybe our artificial creatures will just be digital creatures, with digital bodies and digital sensations, etc. These artificial creatures might, psychologically and intellectually speaking, be identical to us. They will believe the mad-programmer’s Matrix is the external world, and they will have reasons like we do, fulfilling all the explanationist requirements.
When these artificial creatures, trapped in the mad-programmer’s Matrix, employ Vogel’s explanationism, will we as humans, sitting outside the Matrix and looking upon these brains in vats, think they have knowledge or justified belief of an external world?
From our perspective, a more objective perspective than these creatures arguably have, I think we will be far more hesitant to say these intelligent beings have knowledge or justified belief. Their fallibility and the fact that they’ve been hoodwinked will be right there before us. Their lives would be filled with lies. We would know that.
From their perspective, facing the same problems we do in philosophy, they will subjectively feel more justified in believing in the external world than perhaps they ought. They will argue from simplicity, and yet we will know better. They will argue BIV is ad hoc, and yet we will know better. IBE and explanationism may comfort them, but we will know better. But, when we apply the same standard to ourselves, why are we any different from these creatures?
Some people seem to take the BIV hypothesis as just being too outlandish. They don’t want to envision it, and they have a bias against it. Perhaps life would not be right if it were true. Consider the problem of moral life in Nozick’s experience machine. Admittedly, being justified in believing the external world might not turn out to be that hard. Perhaps living a life worth living requires it, and this is a kind of Pascal’s wager – where we have nothing or something, and we are justified in having faith-like belief for prudential reasons. This isn’t what the skeptic is talking about though, and he will tell us that we’ve missed the point. If and when we are the keepers of brains in vats, will our intuitions change on this topic? Maybe.
''4 – Conclusion''
Vogel’s explanationism is powerful and something about it is intuitively right. Its use of IBE and interest in coherence is admirable. Many of the underpinnings of explanationism don’t seem justified. I think one could make foundationalist moves to support this theory. Explanationism may turn out to justify our belief in RWH instead of BIV, but it isn’t yet clear that it does. Ultimately, the skeptic always seems to be in a position to call into doubt the principle of inference to the best explanation and the results of that principle. Explanationism may eventually turn out to be a reasonable response to skepticism, but it does not defeat skepticism.
--------
<<footnotes "1" "Jonathon Vogel, 'Internalist Responses to Skepticism,' in //The Oxford Handbook of Skepticism//, ed. John Greco (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008): 533-556">>
<<footnotes "2" "Beebe, James R. 'The Abductivist Reply to Skepticism.' //Philosophy And Phenomenological Research// 79, no. 3 (November 1, 2009): 609-611 and Lycan, William G. 'Explanation and Epistemology.' In// The Oxford Handbook of Epistemology//, Oxford: Oxford Univ Pr, 2002: 10">>
<<footnotes "3" "Beebe, James R. 'The Abductivist Reply to Skepticism.' //Philosophy And Phenomenological Research// 79, no. 3 (November 1, 2009): 612">>
<<footnotes "4" "Lycan, William G. 'Explanation and Epistemology.' //In The Oxford Handbook of Epistemology//, Oxford: Oxford Univ Pr, 2002: 11">>
<<footnotes "5" "Ibid.">>
<<footnotes "6" "Ibid.">>
<<footnotes "7" "Ibid., 12">>
<<footnotes "8" "Vogel, Jonathan. 'Skeptical Arguments.' //Nous-Supplement: Philosophical Issues// 14, (January 1, 2004): 439">>
<<footnotes "9" "Ibid.">>
<<footnotes "10" "Fumerton, Richard A. //Metaepistemology and Skepticism//. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 1995. DJVU: 29-30">>
<<footnotes "11" "Jonathon Vogel, 'Internalist Responses to Skepticism,' in// The Oxford Handbook of Skepticism//, ed. John Greco (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008): 533">>
<<footnotes "12" "Ibid., 544">>
<<footnotes "13" "Very broadly, we might explain the principle in this way: If S knows (or S is justified in believing) P, and S knows (or S is justified in believing) P entails Q, then S knows or S can come to know (or S is justified in believing or S is justified in coming to believe) Q. Admittedly, some version of this principle seems like it must be correct. ">>
<<footnotes "14" "Ibid., 550">>
<<footnotes "15" "Ibid., 533">>
<<footnotes "16" "I’m beginning to believe he does mean it.">>
<<footnotes "17" "Vogel, Jonathan. 'Internalist Responses to Skepticism.' //Oxford Handbooks Online//, September 2009: 14">>
<<footnotes "18" "Ibid., 15">>
<<footnotes "19" "McCain, Kevin. 'Inference to the Best Explanation and the External World: A Defense of the Explanationist Response to Skepticism.' Diss., University of Rochester, 2011. http://hdl.handle.net/1802/21405.">>
<<footnotes "20" "Ibid.">>
<<footnotes "21" "Ibid. 15">>
<<footnotes "22" "Ibid., 5">>
<<footnotes "23" "Ibid.">>
<<footnotes "24" "Lycan, William G. 'Explanation and Epistemology.' In //The Oxford Handbook of Epistemology//, Oxford: Oxford Univ Pr, 2002: 25">>
<<footnotes "25" "Beebe, James R. 'The Abductivist Reply to Skepticism.' //Philosophy And Phenomenological Research// 79, no. 3 (November 1, 2009): 626">>
<<footnotes "26" "Fumerton, Richard. 'Skepticism and Reasoning to the Best Explanation in Rationality in Epistemology, Villanueva, Enrique (ed).' Atascadero: Ridgeview, 1992: 162-163.">>
<<footnotes "27" "Vogel, Jonathan. 'Internalist Responses to Skepticism.' //Oxford Handbooks Online//, September 2009: 18">>
<<footnotes "28" "Ibid., 19">>
<<footnotes "29" "Ibid., 18">>
<<footnotes "30" "Ibid., 19">>
<<footnotes "31" "Ibid., 16-17">>
<<footnotes "32" "Ibid., 15">>
<<footnotes "33" "Lycan, William G. 'Explanation and Epistemology.' In //The Oxford Handbook of Epistemology//, Oxford: Oxford Univ Pr, 2002: 15">>
<<footnotes "34" "Perhaps any adequate theory of justification and knowledge must have a foot in both the externalist and internalist camps. If you go too far to any side of the spectrum, you get some lousy results. That said, I don’t know how the externalist gets to the external world either.">>
-----------
''Bibliography''
Achinstein, Peter. "Explanation Versus Prediction: Which Carries More Evidential." //Oxford Scholarship Online//, November 3, 2001.
Allen, Ronald J. "Explanationism All the Way Down." //Episteme: A Journal Of Social Epistemology// 5, no. 3 (January 1, 2008): 320-328.
Beebe, James R. "The Abductivist Reply to Skepticism." //Philosophy And Phenomenological Research// 79, no. 3 (November 1, 2009): 605-636.
BonJour, Laurence, and Ernest Sosa. //Epistemic Justification: Internalism vs. Externalism, Foundations vs. Virtues//. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub., 2003. PDF.
Byerly, T. "Explanationism and Justified Beliefs about the Future." //Erkenntnis// 78, no. 1 (February 1, 2013): 229-243.
Fumerton, Richard A. Metaepistemology and Skepticism. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 1995. DJVU.
Fumerton, Richard. "Skepticism and Reasoning to the Best Explanation in Rationality in Epistemology, Villanueva, Enrique (ed)." Atascadero: Ridgeview, 1992.
Harper, Alexander. "An Oblique Epistemic Defence of Conceptual Analysis." //Metaphilosophy// 43, no. 3 (April 2012): 235-56.
Lipton, Peter. Inference to the Best Explanation. 2nd ed. London : Routledge, 2005. PDF.
Lycan, William G. "Explanation and Epistemology." In //The Oxford Handbook of Epistemology//, Oxford: Oxford Univ Pr, 2002.
McCain, Kevin. "Inference to the Best Explanation and the External World: A Defense of the Explanationist Response to Skepticism." Diss., University of Rochester, 2011. http://hdl.handle.net/1802/21405.
Moretti, Luca. //Global Scepticism, Underdetermination and Metaphysical Possibility//. University of London. PhilPapers. http://philpapers.org/rec/MORGSU.
Peacocke, Christopher. //The Realm of Reason//. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2004. PDF.
Poston, Ted. "Explanationist Plasticity and the Problem of the Criterion." //Philosophical Papers// 40, no. 3 (November 2011): 395-419.
Jonathon Vogel, "Internalist Responses to Skepticism," in //The Oxford Handbook of Skepticism//, ed. John Greco (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008): 533-556
Vogel, Jonathan. "Internalist Responses to Skepticism." //Oxford Handbooks Online//, September 2009.
Vogel, Jonathan. "Skeptical Arguments." //Nous-Supplement: Philosophical Issues// 14, (January 1, 2004): 426-455.
Jan 17
Why should I think that empirical considerations should weigh in so heavily upon the viability of a moral theory?
In particular, why should I accept the conclusions reached by soft, dismal sciences? Quantum Theory is the most empirically tested theory of all time, so that seems far more trustworthy. But soft, social science studies just aren’t like that. Social sciences are known for being plagued with poor methodology. Epistemic justification is hard to reach. I’m not denying the possibility of empirical study outright, but I strongly question whether we are really in a position in to take current social sciences as really being the kind of justification we need. At best, it looks like a bad compass or a tool which gives us a leads to consider new ethical theories rather than a tool which really rules anything out. The social world, at least for now, might be too complex.
I also have some philosophy of science worries. A lot of philosophy comes before science, and at least in some domains, science might not really have much of a place at all.
Some of these studies seem to be about “what the average person thinks one ought to do in a particular circumstance?” I don’t see why that is relevant.
Affective States.
Motivating states. Not necessarily an emotion. Hunger, for example, is an affective state. Fatigue, agitation. They can be very physiological. Pain, pleasure, and other sensory.
Philosopher’s see “Emotion” as having a context, an intentional (representational, philosophic intentionality), content. It has a target. Fear, for example, has an object…you are afraid of something. Anger, love, joy, fear, amusement, etc.
Emotions are different from moods. Moods may not have a target. Joy can be a mood or an emotion. Anxiety is a mood. Cheerfulness, anxiety, boredom, apprehensiveness.
Blair – VIM – violence inhibition mechanism, it is an affective state. It produces a withdrawal behavior perhaps provoked by aversion to displays of distress in other members of the species. This is a necessary condition for moral competence. Without it, one could not be morally competent.
Read the Moral/Conventional Distinction
Is this a robust, hard and fast distinction which we can use to categorize different rules and categorizations, or are there ambiguities, differences, and difficulties with this?
The Nichol’s article will help interpret this, we are trying to understand the nature of moral motivation.
What does it mean to say VIM is functionally defined?
Input->[VIM]->output
If normal possess a properly functioning VIM, why do they sometimes not withdraw aggression against distress conspecifics?
There are other motivators. For example, authority, in the example of the shock case.
…
What are the moral emotions?
Moral emotions – evaluative aspect to them – remorse, regret, shame, guilt, pride
How does blair define empathy? Is this a good definition?
Putting yourself in someone elses shoes
Requires a causal chain which caused your recognition of another’s pain.
What does it mean to say that distress cues are ‘unconditioned stimuli’ for an ‘unconditioned response’?
Built in, programmed in, not conditioned. Can’t teach it.
How are moral transgressions defined by Turiel, et. Al? Conventional transgressions? Are these good definitions?
Take example of driving on wrong side of room. Seems conventional, but the dangers posed seem moral.
Perhaps a distinction between direct and indirectness to moral considerations
Perhaps it has to do with typical justifiers.
…
…
…
On Blair’s model, is VIM a necessary or sufficient condition of normal moral development, or both or neither?
Not sufficient, but necessary, as there are other overriding motivators possible and other factors in our development.
Although, it isn’t clear from page 11 that it is even necessary. It may just be something which characteristically plays a role.
…
…
…
…
Look at the four dimensions for which tested. Do the first and second test for different features of moral judgments? Which of these dimensions seem to you to be the most significant?
Seriousness, permissibility, Authority Jurisdiction, Justification
See top of page 13 for predictions.
Bring handouts on Thursday
Read Nichols
Plato – no man does wrong willingly
He’s an internalist (??)
This is a failure of knowledge and reason. A person who properly understand what he ought to do would do it. Wrongdoing is a failure of education and our rational faculty.
Intuitionism –
One definition is that moral truth are independent of us, and we have an awareness of them. We aren’t making complicated inferences to get at moral truths. We just naturally perceive it (that torturing a child is wrong, for example). Core moral convictions are non-inferential. - G.E. Moore
In the context of this class, the definition, we make observations, we are hardwired and conditioned to respond to certain moral features of phenomena with attraction or aversion, and that’s what generates our core moral convictions.
Nichols calls himself a sentimentalist (like Hume), although he seems to be an intuitionist as well.
CR – Concpetual Rationalism
In order to be rational, we must follow certain rules. Just as rejecting contradictions. You don’t have to appeal to your affectations.
How are moral requirements also requirements of reason?
Why does the concept of a moral requirement need to be the commonly agreed upon view of it?
Moral requirements override/trumps other requirements.
Moral requirements are universalizable. Anyon in circumstance x, then one should do y.
We could hold moral rationalism without subscribing to the common views held by others. But, that may not be what is occurring here.
Perhaps Psychopaths are morally motivated, just not by enough. Maybe on some topics they are morally motivated by our threshold, but others they aren’t. Is there a second threshold, where enough topics have to morally motivated by our first threshold in order to be said to be morally motivated on the whole?
There are a lot of a priori, conceptual truths which are not accessible, at least not immediately, to ordinary people. Imagine math problems. Why should moral requirements, conceptually, be accessible inthis way?
Autonomic responses aren’t examined in Kennett
Startle/Blink responses, Skin Conductivity,
Inference to the best explanation
Principles and theories are supposed to explain our intuitions.
In the trolley case, the role of intuition is to test moral principles, and show whether or not those principles are supported by our intuitions.
For Ross, intuitions are the basis of our moral platitudes. Our intuitions aren’t a matter of learning what is in analytic concept (bachelor/unmarried man, not a matter of learning definitions, our intuitions is the way in which we are acquiring genuine moral truths that aren’t merely true by definition.
Intuitions identify these self-evident platitudes, these general moral truths (don’t harm others, be good ot others, seek justice, etc.,).
What do we do when particular duties seem to conflict? In order to know how to apply these various platitutdes, we have to look at how they apply to a particular case, as we will find that some duties are conflicting.
Intuitions
Analytic
is deflationary (it doesn’t provide us reasons to think it is true)
Emotive/Expressive (of conditioned affective responses)
“Observations” of independent moral facts
Deontological philosophy is an exercise in moral rationalization. Deontology reasons (not philosophical) are based in emotions.
When you do a lot of surveys, you may have lots of evidence of emotion/affective driven judgment, but that might nothave any implications for deontology in philosophy. It is another bridge to cross to make the argument that philosophical deontologies are offering us nothing other thanemotional driven intutions.
Consequentialist judgements
Slower
More deliberative
Reasoned evaluations (Cost/benefit analysis)
Deontic judgements
Fast
Frugal
Affect and habit driven (often)
Gigerenzer: Can be a more reliable strategy
Green: Not reliable
Gigerenzer shows a tragic example of heuristics (nazi, step out of line example)
While Gigerenzer attacks consequentialist, it seems to me that those who develop and design policy to manipulate people through understanding heuristics are themselves employing consequentialist kinds of reasoning.
What is gigerenzer’s prescription here?
Does he merely want people to donate their organs, or do we want people to donate their organs for the right sorts of reasons?
What is a heuristic?
Action guiding rule(s)
Sub-persona/non-explicit
‘economical’
filter,
exploits minimal information
minimize time and deliberation required to solve the problem
Intuitions
Causal explanation of beliefs – causes
Green: deontological beliefs are caused by A-D mechanisms
Justifications of beliefs – reasons
Neo Kantians: Deontological beliefs are justified by good reasons (e.g. value of humanity)
Best causal explanation seems to diverge from our best justifications for moral judgments.
Confabulation seems to illuminate the tension between the causal and justificatory explanations of beliefs.
Dumbfounding is also another kind of answer. They can’t tell why they have a moral judgment. They start with a judgment with a whole lot of justifications, but those reasons run out after interrogation, and if so, people should change their mind, but they don’t. Thus, when thesubject sticks with it even after seeing there aren’t reasons, then the justification might be causal explanation. Reason-based justification is merely epiphenomenal, post-hoc.
We want our good reasons to be the cause of our beliefs, not our intuitions or A-D.
Our beliefs are manipulated by rationally arbitrary causal factors.
The causal factors which drive intuitions need not be rationally arbitrary. Once explicated, they might be good reasons. See the lawyer example. In terms of what was accessible to her, consciously, and explicitly, she didn’t have a good reason to change her argument. But, there were some very good reasons that existed objectively to change her argument.
Optical illusions seem to show that ourperceptual intuitions are failures. Are there not parallel problems for moral intuitions?
A 13 C
12 13 14
Is it A B C and R B K, or A 13 C and 12 13 14?
How are we supposed to know that what’s causing our judgment signals a good reason and when it doesn’t? Perhaps we can ask some common sense questions about our judgments that indicate they aren’t just based …
By exploring shame or regret, or effects on others, empathy, etc. – in exploring these everyday consequence of certain actions, whether or not there might be …
Sentimentalism vs. Rationalism
Externalism vs. Internalism
The standard interpretation of the empirical data, and the way it is used to support the various metaethical options, are misguided. They oversimplify the conditions of moral judgment.
A lot of the controversy at stake here is definitional, and unfortunately, this authors may not have really explained that. For example, how do we want to draw the boundaries around what we call moral judgment or moral agency?
Why should we accept that moral agency is a necessary condition for making moral judgments?
Psychopaths:
Nichols thinks they make genuine moral judgments. They know the rules,they can apply them if they want and in keeping with social norms, etc. There is no reason to think they aren’t making moral judgments. It is just that they aren’t motivated to be moral.
Are they genuine moral judgments or “ersatz” ?
Externalist:
Psychopaths do make gnuine moral judgments (GMJ)
Motivation is not a necessary condition of GMJ
Internalist:
Psycholoths do not make genuine moral judgements
Motivation is a necessary condition of GMJ
Sentimentalism
Internalist
Jesse Prinz is an example
Motivation is a necessary condition of moral judgment, and GMJ just as these affective responses, that’s why when you have a GMJ, you’ve got motivations, because affective responses/sentiments take care of both tasks.
Sentiments are constitutive (necessary and sufficient) of GMJ’s
Externalist
Possibly Nichols, but it is complicated
Rationalism
Internalist
GMJ is a rational product, and intrinsically motivating
Externalist
GMJ is a ‘rational product’ but motivation requires affect
Kennett wants to say the problem with the way these positions interpret the Haidt data is that they are all presupposing too simple a picture of the cognitive architecture which yields moral judgment.
Necessary conditions for moral judgment, as far as I can tell, scale with the circumstance. Kennett argues otherwise, it seems.
Mental Time Travel is a necessary condition of ‘diachronic self’ – temporally extended, continual subject
What is rationality here? How is she using this term? There are a lot of options, and it has a large impact on how the argument plays out.
The Diachronic self is a necessary condition of genuine moral agency
Genuine moral agency (GMA) is a necessary condition of GMJ
Psychological Egoism – Schafer-Landau
How do we interpret the behavior?
We might be hardwired, etc. to act in certain ways. But, should we attribute altruistic motivation might be overreaching.
Evolutionary Altruism vs. Psychological or Philosophical Altruism
E-A: Transfering benefit from one to another without benefit to oneself. It happens without any sort of actual motiviatons or altruistic desires or states of minds at all. Fitness transfer with no fitness benefit.
You can’t just leap to the conclusion that an ape is being altruistic (a very thick explanation of motivations) when the ape takes care of a stray kitten.
Evolutionary Altruism isn’t counterevidence to Psychological Egoism.
Mom helping child.
Possilby that the self is extended to include nearest and dearest. So helping them is helping yourself.
Stronger Desire –
We are always motivated by one’s strongest desire.
Strongest desire(s) – Bundles of desires
Complicated because maybe we the weight of our desires for X outweighs our desire for Y, but somehow we cause ourselves to select Y. That can be explained in terms of Y.
Trivial or analytic truth - the test for your strongest desire is simply whatever you choose.
Stronger Desire (not observational, rather conceptual claim)
Content of Desire, Self-Interest (SI)
Content of Desire, Others-Welfare (OW)
Is this really the best explanation of actions, asks the PEist.
Show up & Sign-in (3pts)
Show up & Write a 250-word commentary (7pts)
Hume
Treatise
Sympathy (makes us ‘echo’ or resonate others emotions (mirror neurons) -> Self-interest -> Altruistic acts
Enquiry
Benevolence ‘Fellow Feeling’
Self-interest
The Article I didn't read, an argument between traditional moral values and evoluation: a form of natural selection, sexual selection, could account for our endorsement of a wide range of moral values, so of which are other regarding, compassion, etc. These are characteristics that the value approach can be best explained by the fact that they are the sorts of characteristics that recommend males to females or females to males in partnership.
The nature of human altruism – fehr
Behavioral, not psychological, subjective
People that playt he ultimatum game aren't altruistically punishing because they actaully care about the norms that help the greater community, they are just indignant. Altruism has a different definition here, and not because it is punishment, but rather how it is framed. Technical, game theory definition.
Take the biological story of altruism that tells the entire story of psychological altruism.
There are two very different concepts of altruism.
Psychological Altruism
Is the agent “aiming” to help
Biological Altruism
“Aim” doesn't matter. Doesn't matter what the agent had in mind at all. Behavior, regardless of the intentional content, is what matters.
Mindless transfers of fitness
Has very little to do with what philosophers are interested in
Maybe natural, sexual selection can better explain why we are as we are, including psychological altruism.
Theoretical Biology
You can't distinguish altruism and parasitism on the biological notion of altruism
Even at the biological, you have to import at least some quasi-psychological notions
It can't merely be a transfer of fitness.
Fleas/Tigers example
We have to be interested in who “initiated” the transfer. If the Tiger initiated it, then it might be altruism, just as when the tiger commits altruistic acts for her cubs. The fleas, as parasites, however, as the initiators.
I
There is no story to be told according to which phenomena identified under the concept of biological altruism can explain the very different phenomena identified under the concept of psychological altruism.
Why does this show relativism at all? It shows a descriptive relativism, but not a prescriptive relativism.
Psychological causal account of moral judgment is different from a mere mile-high view description of our differences from our moral norms in various cultures.
That we generally function this way doesn't mean we necessarily all have to function this way, does it?
Why should the empirically-based description of moral disagreement motivate the the philosophical perspective that there are no universal moral truths, only culturally relative norms?
Showing there isn't so much disagreement...
Why should 1 support 2, 3?
what does it take to make data relevant to the metaethical thesis of cultural relativism?
(1) Affective responses causally explain evaluative and especially moral norms
(2) From 1, Affective responses are predictive of moral norms
(3) If affect responses vary then moral norms vary
(4) Some variance in moral norms is 'fundamental' rather than 'superficial'
Psychological conclusion: Fundamental Disagreement ms between/across well defined communities/cultures.
Metaethical conclusion: cultural relativism – there are no culturally independent standards of correctness.
How does one demonstration fundamental disagreement? Just because no reasons we can come up with can't convince someone else....that differences are more than just mistakes about the facts...doesn't show that there are really fundamental disagreement.
Why not be a subjectivist? Why is the standard relative to the standard instead of the individual? Aren't we all cultures? What if we belong to multiple cultures?
Even if you get the psychological conclusion, it doesn't necessarily demonstrate the metaethical conclusion. We can just say: people got it wrong.
In order to bridge the gap between these conclusions, we need to accept another philosophical claim: that the existence of the fundamental disagreement, and there is an absence of recognized universal truth yields a compelling argument for the metaethical conclusion.
Frankfurt sets up a nice front end view of our psychology, but fails to provide an explanation of the back end, where the real mechanisms are. I think Frankfurt's argument is strongest as an incompatibilist argument.
One view: a person's action is free iff they could have done otherwise
We think our actions are free because of this powerful first person phenomena. It feels like I'm free.
Strawson
Just because we “must” see other people as moral agents, per our biological makeup or whatever, why should we think this is rational? Why is this right? Practical/Theoretical distinction, why should we ever agree to the practical argument without a theoretical basis?
I naturally perceive the appearance of X, therefore X. Why should we agree to such a thing?
Strawson may providing a description of how we think..but why should this serve as a prescription how we should think?
Defining “Freedom” or Free Agency
Compatibilist Definitions:
Freedom = (Negative Freedom) Absence of compulsion or constraint
Incompatibilist Definitions:
Freedom = “PAP” - One is free iff one has the ability to do otherwise
= Kane – An agent is free iff agent is the originating cause or source (unmoved mover)
Determinist – Is that the standard definition? Isn't a determinist simply one who agree to determinism, which doesn't tell you whether they are compatibilist or incompatibilist at all?
(1) Are we justified in holding one another morally responsible? (A moral phil. question)
(2) Is the thesis of determinism true? (A question in metaphysics) / Do we possess free agency?
Strawson is trying to disentangle (1) from (2).
Do theoretical commitments really not have any impact on our practical commitments as Strawson thinks?
Can conscious mental states have causal efficacy? How do they fit in the causal story? Direct causes, indirect causes?
Not a possibility on the Wegner model.
Conscious mental states are merely epiphenomenal according to Wegner.
Background consideration:
NP = Neurophysiological
NP → NP → NP
CS (Conscious state) - each NP might cause a CS, but all causality is happening on the NP level.
DO conscious acts of will cause actions? The libertarian says yes. The burden of proof, acc. To Alison, rests upon the person who denies this. Why? The appearance is so compelling. The appearance of my conscious choice causing my arm to go up is very strong, so the burden of proof lies with the person who wants to deny that the appearances are deceiving.
How should the empiricist respond to shift the burden of proof?
Self-reporting might be false, but doesn't track what is actually happening.
Appearance:
CS - > Arm goes up
CS is temporally prior.
Libet experiment – the NP sending those signals to make the arm go up precede the CS, the experience. This doesn't show that CS has no causal efficicy, but it does show that one aspect of this experience is unveridical.
Scientists assume the den of proof lies with on the libertarian because the lib. Posits a rich set of metaphysics...and scientists don't like metaphysics. The argument is that “none of our science suggests these metaphysics exist”...well no shit, that isn't the domain of science.
Compass example, we are mere observers.
The causal mechanism is racing you to the conscious experience.
Deliberation
Breaking apart the experience of choosing and the choosing itself. We can agree that the experience is merely oberservational.
Conscious experience and willing are sometimes identified as the same. If one comes before the other, they can't be the same though.
Holton's argument: 3 things
we have NP stuff, willing, and conscious experience
Why should we think NP stuff is separate from the Willing?
The best evidence for willing was the experience, but if we make this Holton separation, that best evidence is gone. So, it seems that we have no real reason to think we have willing at all.
This only shows that perception is not causally efficiacious. I think that is a problem for deliberation though. I'm not perceiving my will in real-time, that's a problem.
How is it possible that the schizophrenic can raise his arm but not have the experience of willing it? This is a problem, but it is also a very abnormal case. We think something is WRONG with how their mind works, and we don't take their problem to represent what we are doing in any way. That said, whatever tis mechanism the schizophrenic has wrong is still quite important to explaining our experience of conscious will when it is working correctly.
I Spy – the were setup or prepared subjects to be predisposed to make their mistakes - reach their conclusions. Fallibility only in certain circumstances.
That seems so difficult to find ways in which one can be externally caused to do something but still have the experience of conscious will seems to be evidence that such cases are rare and not representative of our usual experience.
A basecall player who reflexively catches a ball. He had a goal to catch balls, but he didnt' have the experience of consciously willing to catch it in an immediate sense. He will at the same time realize it was automatic and too quick an action to be caused by his conscious will in any immediate sense, and yet, he will also feel that he is the author of this action, responsible for it....from a distance. He habituated himself to have this reflex, and that was consciously willing to eventually have this result; and he had a goal, and somehow that goal during that timeframe may feel as though this catch was his doing.
What are we having an experience of?
There is the subject of the experience, the other is the target or content of experience. In the conscious will, the subject and object are one. You are a locus of causality.
Perhaps we are just confabulating. Perhaps the anti-induction move is post hoc.
(1) Describe an experimental design which you believe you more effectively test for either he hypothesis that an experience of conscious willing is NOT a necessary causal condition of action or that it is not a sufficient causal condition (or that ECW is an illusion).
(2) Choose any one topic from Rachels book that we have addressed in class (e.g. egoism or disagreement + describe in not less than 750 words how experimental results either fail to better inform it or succeed in so doing.
''1 - Introduction''
In this paper, I will trace measurement, and in particular the measure of the mean, as found in the Statesman. I will try to show how and why measurement is a central theme in the Statesman. I hope we can find ourselves in a better position to interpret passages which are less clear or obliquely employ the concept of measurement.
From what I have gathered, the words “measure,” “measured,” and “measurement” show up a sum total of only fourteen times in the Statesman.<<ref "1">> As for direct synonyms and highly related words to the measure of the mean: the words “fit,” “fits,” “fitted,” “befits,” and “fitting” show up eighteen times in total.<<ref "2">> The word “appropriate” is used three times.<<ref "3">> The words “opportune,” “inopportune,” “opportunely,” and “opportunity” can be found six times.<<ref "4">> The language of the measure of the mean includes so many others words as well, including: need, purpose, extreme, excess, deficiency, etc. The Statesman is littered (or woven) with the language of measurement.
I can’t hope to provide thorough exegesis for all the passages which explicitly employ the language of measurement. Instead, I’m going to focus closely on the passage directly concerning the art of measurement (283-287). Here we will find the majority of the direct use of “measure” found in the Statesman, and it seems like a fine starting place for explicating measurement in the dialogue.
My objectives in examining measurement are to provide analysis of fundamental concepts, demonstrate the relationship between measurement and various other topics in this dialogue, consider oddities in the text regarding measurement, and point out how measurement is a key to unlocking the Statesman.
''2 – Overview of Measurement''
The primary measurement passage, 283-287, follows the long section on weaving. We are left to wonder why weaving wasn’t defined more quickly and simply, as it primarily is just the intertwining of warp and woof. The measurement passage is timely, finally bringing an end to the weaving passage.<<ref "5">> On the face of it, the discussion of measurement is introduced to provide a principle one uses to cure what may be a dialectical “illness.”<<ref "6">> Beyond addressing the length of the weaving passage, perhaps the discussion of measurement is introduced in order to elucidate or help us interpret the complexities of weaving, but since measurement applies to so much of the dialogue, it is doubtful that the discussion of measurement has such a narrow purpose.
Measurement is divided into two kinds. This is one of the few divisions that make sense in the dialogue. The Stranger begins the major passage on measurement by claiming we must look “at the entirety of excess and defect.”<<ref "7">> We need a standard which enables us to judge whether something is lacking in some way, either through an excess or deficiency in some quality or characteristic. He says, “About length and brevity and every excess and defect, for surely the art of measurement deals with all these things,” and that we should “divide it into two parts.”<<ref "8">> The Stranger explains the division of measurement in this way: “one is to be characterized in terms of the mutually relative sharing in bigness and smallness, and one in terms of the necessary (indispensable) being of becoming.”<<ref "9">>
This first kind of measurement is mathematical measurement. This kind of measurement is the set of “all the arts that measure number, lengths, depths, widths, and speeds relative to their contraries.”<<ref "10">> Mathematical measurement is quantitative, computable, and the very straightforward and scientific evaluation of things. The Stranger refers to the mathematical measure as the “mutually relative measure.”<<ref "11">> On the Stranger’s view, mathematical measurements are relative to each other.<<ref "12">> We might also think of the mathematical measure as relationship between things and things. To say this object is longer than that one is just to compare objects and point out a spatial difference. To say that this object is cold may just be a relationship of that object’s temperature compared to other objects’ temperatures. Mathematical measurement seems to relate things to things.
Many kinds of practices and knowledge belong to this art of mathematical measure: knowledge of common units, perhaps an understanding of rudimentary physics, tools to gauge the quantifiable properties of things, and definitely calculation. At first glance, it seems as though procedures involved in mathematical measuring relate an object to some abstract mathematical standard (e.g. the exact length of a meter), and so we might be tempted to claim that the mathematical measure doesn’t relate things to things, but rather things to that abstract mathematical standard. This isn’t so clear though. What is the convention for determining the exact length of a meter? It can’t be done a priori. In fact, the meter “was to be constructed so that it would equal one ten-millionth of the distance from the North Pole to the equator along the meridian running near Dunkirk in France and Barcelona in Spain.”<<ref "13">> A meter as a measurement is a distance between two things we experience, and hence, claiming an object is a meter long is demonstrating a spatial relationship between that object and the distance between North Pole to the Equator in a specific setting. All units of mathematical measurement seem to be like this. Hence, we might argue mathematical measurement ultimately relates things to things.
The other kind of measurement, the more important one, is the non-mathematical measure, what we will call the “measure of the mean.” This is the art of due measure. In contrast to mathematical measurement, things are relative to the measure of the mean. To say a table is merely tall, in the mathematical sense, is just to say that compared to some other things, it is on average taller. The mathematical measure, however, can never say the table is “too tall” or “too short,” but this is exactly what the measure of the mean enables us to do. This is part of what the Stranger is talking about when he characterizes the measure of the mean “in terms of the necessary (indispensable) being of becoming.”<<ref "14">> Objects or activities must meet certain conditions in order to achieve or bring about certain ends.
The measure of the mean is a teleological concept, whereby things are measured as being good for a purpose, and where lacking derives from an excess or deficiency of certain characteristics necessary for fulfilling that purpose. The measure of the mean is a standard deeply intertwined with the good.<<ref "15">> This standard may not only be entangled with the good, but also the beautiful. The Stranger asks, “And it's in exactly this way, by preserving the mean, that they produce everything good and beautiful?”<<ref "16">> There is kind of an aesthetic as well as utilitarian angle to the measure of the mean. The aesthetic angle may be less clear. Consider what it means to say that there is “too much” of a color in a painting. The “for the sake of which” in that phrase is aesthetic.<<ref "17">>
The Stranger later extends or elaborates on the measure of the mean as “all the arts that measure relative to the mean, the fitting, the opportune, and the needful, and every-thing settled toward the middle and away from the extremes.”<<ref "18">> These are different ways in which the measure of the mean is revealed or applied. “The mean” itself sits on a spectrum between deficiency and excess for the sake of some end. If something measures precisely to the mean on that spectrum, it has the characteristics which best fulfill the purpose of that thing. It doesn’t have too little or too much of a quality. The mean is a surprisingly quantitative picture of the good of a thing. “The fitting” and “the needful” aim at how things belong together in a certain way, pointing to those conditions necessary for the perfect production or acquisition of an end. “The opportune” refers to the temporal conditions of reaching an end. This might be as mundane as a baseball player who swings too early at a pitch, but it may be more subtle, such as having the social awareness to know when it is acceptable to interrupt a conversation and when it isn’t. There are various manners in which one might measure a thing to the mean.
The Statesman points out how we are able to know a thing based on numbers (mathematical measurement), and another way of knowing a thing in terms of the good (measure of the mean). Consider the humble chair as a concrete example. We can mathematically measure various aspects of the chair. We can measure dimensions, electrical resistance, temperature, weight, density, etc. The mathematical measure quantifies, but it does not qualify. In contrast, the measure of the mean qualifies. The measurement of the mean tells us that a chair is too short or too tall for a purpose, or too heavy or light for being the kind of a chair we need for a given situation, or dismisses the significance of the mathematical measurement of electrical resistance of chairs in almost all circumstances (I suppose we could come up with a few exceptional examples, but the criteria for exceptions is still the measure of the mean). The measurement of the mean assesses whether or not something lives up to a normative standard. The mathematical measure cannot do this; in fact, just on its own, the mathematical measure seems to lack significance altogether.
The measurement of the mean is what gives mathematical measure significance. The mathematical measure is subservient to, subordinate to, and parasitic upon the measure of the mean. The distinction between the two kinds of measurement is important, but we cannot fully pull apart mathematical measurement from the measure of the mean. To peel them apart completely would destroy the technical arts according to the Stranger.<<ref "19">> The arts require both kinds of measurement. If the technical arts were to be destroyed, as the Stranger claims, then statesmanship and weaving would also be destroyed. Clearly, even when employing mathematical measurement, the measure of the mean is vital to the existence and nature of statesmanship and weaving.
Continuing with the chair example, perhaps I can figure out my chair is too tall for my purposes (measure of the mean), but I might not know exactly how much shorter it needs to be (mathematical measure). When I say to the chair-building/modifying carpenter that my chair is too tall, he being an expert of sorts on the nature of heights of chairs may be able to assess my chair and then tell me that my chair is precisely two inches too tall. He could only make such a claim by already understanding exactly why I needed the chair to be two inches shorter – maybe, in this case, the carpenter has the necessary experience to realize that taking two inches off the chair is the exact height I would need, given my own height, to sit comfortably. In this example, I was always able to immediately understand the mathematical measurement of two inches, but I could only partially uncover the measure of the mean for the chair. I knew it wasn’t quite right for my purposes (being comfortable), but not more than that. The carpenter, however, having far more experience in this matter, knew the measure of the mean between my chair and purpose with far more precision.
This example hopefully highlights one of the more fascinating aspects of the measure of the mean: it can be difficult to uncover its precision. Mastering the measure of the mean requires a kind of virtue of the practice. Perhaps only through repetition and training can one develop the crucial perceptive awareness necessary to uncover its precision. The measure of the mean is highly contextual, bordering on particularism. This kind of measurement can lack definitiveness in general; the correct measurement varies with the circumstances. Perhaps the mean isn’t always an exact point, perhaps it is a range. Further, the measure of the mean is used to evaluate not only those things which are computable, but also those which might not be computable. Courage, for example, might not be mathematically quantifiable (perhaps psychologists may eventually be able to explain otherwise), but it certainly falls within the qualitative domain of the measure of the mean. The measure of the mean defines excess and deficiency even beyond what may be the limits of mathematics.
Mathematics is precise, but ultimately, I believe Plato’s aim is to show that there is a notion of the precise that goes beyond the mathematical, and has something to do with the good (and the beautiful possibly), and the measure of the mean is the criterion and application for that.
Weaving and statesmanship seem closely bound to the measure of the mean, exactly how, I’m not sure. Weaving seems to be the easier example to employ for appreciating the division in the arts of measurement, since weaving on one hand does seem to rely heavily upon the mathematical, and yet it requires the measure of the mean for significance and for guiding us toward achieving the ends of weaving. It is quite unclear to me how statesmanship relates to the mathematical measure as concretely or as easily as weaving, although given the abstract nature of statesmanship, the measure of the mean appears far more central to statesmanship than it does weaving.
I do not think it is a coincidence that the Statesman is so cryptic in the way in which it employs measurement. Surely successfully interpreting the Statesman as a dialogue and trying to uncover the eidos of the statesman require skilled applications of the measure of the mean.
''3 – Tensions and Irony''
The tension between these two kinds of measurement is apparent throughout the dialogue. The lengths of certain sections of the Statesman seem to be too long or too short. Some arguments move too quickly and others too slowly. Blatant (perhaps even humorous) measurement-based mistakes are made and corrected repeatedly. It is too ironic to be accidental.
The discussion of myth and weaving seem too long (even by the Stranger’s standards), while the discussion of more interesting and crucial topics in metaphysics, such as parts, kinds, wholes, and paradigms are far too brief (despite the amusing claim that they are “stray[ing] further afield” in 263a). The Stranger is oddly aware of (yet sometimes failing to be correct in) these measurements in the discussion, and it is unclear what we are to make of this. His focus on excessive length over deficiencies found in other parts of the discussion is interesting. It reminds me of a way of talking about vice and virtue, and I wonder if we are to view the Stranger as lacking or having excellence because of his possibly skewed perceptions in this regard. The Stranger and measurements of his discussion are odd, and I do not know why Plato has written the Stranger like this.
Perhaps it is meaningful (perhaps it is coincidental) that the primary passage on measurement is literally near the middle of the dialogue. Our attention is drawn to measurement in even following the outline of the Statesman. Why is Plato doing this? I have no idea. I suspect that a satisfying systematic interpretation of the Statesman must make sense of these concerns, and the measure of the mean is likely central to such an account.
This tension can even be seen from the beginning with the discussion between Socrates and Theodoras. Theodoras is a mathematician, and the status of mathematics is called into question in this dialogue. For instance, Theodoras’ error(s) points toward the limits of mathematics, alluding both to the notion that some things cannot be mathematized and perhaps to a sort of impotence of mathematics in the dialectic. Further, while the mathematician and the mathematical measure can be seen as privileged in science and paradigm cases of knowledge in epistemology, the statesman (and perhaps the virtuous agent) and the measure of the mean seem to be privileged in the discussion of the philosopher and paradigm cases of practical reason. At any rate, it does seem as though Plato wishes to take mathematics down a peg or two in this dialogue. Here the mathematical measurement seems less and less directly relevant to the dialectic, and the measure of the mean shines. Mathematics looks to be incapable of helping us investigate the nature of the philosopher and its apparitions, the sophist and the statesman. The measure of the mean, in contrast, looks to be a large and necessary component of the investigation in the Statesman.
''4 - Diaeresis''
The method of diaeresis employed by the Stranger is intriguing, and it is certainly related to the issue of measurement. Diaeresis is the continual division of larger groups into relatively equal and smaller groups – a process which is meant to be repeated until the definition being sought after has been found. I must confess, I don’t understand why it is used or what is meant by it. Without a doubt, the method and various divisions made in the Statesman are generally odd.
In the Statesman, the Stranger employs diaeresis to find and define the statesman. In the context of biology or other scientific taxonomies, diaeresis looks to be a reasonable sort of tool for the job. However, it is not so clear why Plato has the Stranger use the method to investigate and define the statesman, a context where diaeresis seems far less effective. The Stranger explains how the method relates to the finding and understanding the statesman:
Then where will one discover the direct statesman-path? For we must discover it and, after separating it off from the rest, stamp it with one look, and then, after marking the other, side-paths as a single form, make our soul think of all the sciences as being two forms.<<ref "20">>
That sounds like a plan. It isn’t clear, however, by what standard these divisions should be made. This look, idea, or form of the statesman does seem to be what we are seeking. Separating it from everything else does seem to be necessary. It remains unclear, however, why diaeresis, a tool whose criterion pivots around a mathematical equality between the subdivisions, is the best tool for accomplishing these tasks.
Diaeresis seems to be caught between the two kinds of measurement. The method’s failure is especially evident in the scolding of Young Socrates, who manfully divides man and beast. <<ref "21">> Does not Young Socrates’ division seem like the sort of “stamping” we seek in 258c? Surely the Stranger must be wrong, and this must be the correct division; it is perhaps the division made by one who could employ diaeresis with the measure of the mean in mind. The Stranger explains that it is “safer to go cutting through the middle,” something akin to the mathematical middle.<<ref "22">> But, from our vantage point, the Stranger’s mathematically-based method of diaeresis, much like a binary search tree, turns out be an inefficient method of inquiry at best, and at worst, it seems to steer us in the wrong direction, failing to uncover what is salient. It is not clear why the Stranger makes these apparent errors.
Again we are reminded of the two kinds of measure at the end of the scolding, where the Stranger amusingly claimed that by going too fast, they were slowed down.<<ref "23">> The measure of the mean here is concerned with “how much we understand,” while the mathematical measure is concerned with the time taken in the dialectic.
''5 – Wholes, parts, and kinds''
The distinction between parts, wholes, and kinds seems to be another branch of the concept of measurement. These issues highlight the real goals of diaeresis and sit at the heart of effective division making and weaving together. These subjects are a fine example of ancient ontological and metaphysical problems which we’ve made little headway on in modern philosophy (despite quite a bit of effort). The answers to the questions raised in these matters are unclear. What does seem clear, however, is that solutions to these puzzles of part-whole and part-kind (philosophic puzzles crucial to effectively identifying, classifying, and defining) are preconditions to a complete explanation of true and effective eidetic division and analysis. These puzzles seem to be more related to the measure of the mean than they are to mathematical measure.
Plato brings up these problems, but does not seem to satisfyingly resolve them.<<ref "24">> This foundational problem is highlighted in one of the major explicit aims of the text, namely to reveal and understand how the person with political expertise should be distinguished from the other kinds of rival experts in the city.<<ref "25">> Whatever precisely it is about diaeresis (or other methods of dividing, classifying, and revealing) that we find distasteful or unsatisfying in trying to accomplish this explicit goal of the dialogue may only ultimately be uncovered by first attending to the metaphysical measurement problems of parts, wholes, and kinds.
Further, these unsolved puzzles of parts, wholes, and kinds are surely central to one of the other central goals of the text, namely explaining why and how political science and the statesman are so important to philosophy and the philosopher. The relationship between these agents and practices remain a mystery, partly due to lacking a full understanding of the metaphysics of relationships and identity.
Measurement seems to be embedded in the metaphysical problems of parts, wholes, and kinds; to what extent the measurement is mathematical and to what extent it is the measure of the mean is not clear. Perhaps these form a different kind of measurement altogether.
The Statesman serves to highlight the differences between and status of mereology, set theory, and eidetic analysis.<<ref "26">> Interestingly, mathematics has made some headway in the first two, but not the last; philosophy, however, may not have gotten much further than Plato. The fundamental and true natures of these problems remain unsolved or unexplained. At the very least, Plato reveals some of the unobvious, underpinning problems and questions of our larger investigation. Philosophy tends to show even more problems lurking under the surface of original problems, and philosophy also sometimes points toward how ostensibly separate matters can turn out to be intertwined.
''6 – The Statesman, the Virtuous Agent, and the Philosopher''
This section on measurement is fertile ground for discussions of not just politics (and its relationship to philosophy), but also ethics. Who knows and uses the measure of the mean the most? Who best aims at the mean? What does it take to uncover the mean? The statesman, the ethically virtuous agent, and the philosopher are somehow bound together by a common thread in the Statesman. I think that bond has something to do with the measure of the mean. Granted, many activities employ the measure of the mean, but some use the measure of the mean more than others. Statesmanship, virtue, and philosophy seem to require the use of this measure more than anything else, and the teleological stakes are very high for all three agents.
The measure of the mean is found and employed through phronesis. Phronesis is practical wisdom; it is particularistic and prudential. Phronesis seems to be at the heart of picking out which particular actions are needed for particular contexts, and the measure of the mean is the standard used by one with phronesis. Phronesis and the measure of the mean can be surprisingly concrete, being a kind of instrumental reason, as they deal with fundamental ends-to-means relationships, but they are also abstract and theoretical, since practical action must be evaluated by and linked to the Good by an agent.
The statesman and the virtuous agent seem to be more closely linked than the statesman and philosopher (or virtuous agent and philosopher) at first glance. Indeed, the connection between the statesman and the virtuous agent seems quite apparent in this dialogue, and that makes a lot of sense. Everyone knows that criticizing the moral compasses of politicians is a long-standing (and valuable) tradition. It isn’t a tradition for no reason. Moral compasses are obviously an important part of being a good statesman.
The measure of the mean foreshadows Aristotle’s doctrine of the mean. While we have been talking about the mean as being related to the good, it seems as though one might also employ the very same method to the right. The statesman is concerned with the right means to the good ends of the city, quite similar to the virtuous agent. Aristotle’s famous phrase “to the right person, to the right extent, at the right time, with the right motive, and in the right way” sits right at home in Plato’s explanation of the measure of the mean.<<ref "27">>
The Being of the Beautiful: Plato's Theaetetus, Sophist, and Statesman
The dialogue points to the relationship between the statesman and the virtuous agent when the Stranger attacks the standard rule of law, and in its place, he emphasizes the “correctness of rulers without laws” where “the best thing is not for the laws but for a man-the king with intelligence-to have strength.”<<ref "28">> This kind of intelligence is phronesis. On this view, laws are too general, and they fail to appreciate what is morally or legally salient about particular contexts. Laws may turn out to be practical guidelines we end up needing, but they are crude approximations, and they can never compete with an excellent statesman employing phronesis in a particular situation. Laws lack precision, while the excellent statesman knows the precise action to take in a circumstance (for the sake of the city, not the individual, as the Stranger points out in 295a) because he has the necessary phronesis to uncover and use the measure of the mean in that context. But this discussion of the law is precisely like one of the key aspects ethical virtue theory.
The denial of practical codifiability and computable decision procedures is one of the crucial differences between virtue theory and its competitors. The criticism of political law in the Statesman is the same kind of criticism of ethical law in standard virtue theories. The one who knows what the city ought to do is remarkably parallel to that one who knows what one ought to do.
The phronesis shared between the excellent statesman and the virtuous agent seems to be reliant upon a kind of moral judgment, intuition, and the right sort of perception. Having the right reason and the right emotions are necessary for reaching the right action for the virtuous agent, but it isn’t clear if emotions play as significant a role in statesmanship. It might. Another difference between the virtuous agent and the excellent statesman would be the will. It is already a significant matter of debate how we define and understand the will for individuals, such as for the virtuous agent; it is a much more complex and difficult matter to isolate the meaning and nature of a will for a city and the role of the statesman in shaping that will. The status and nature of the unification of virtues also seems different among the statesman and the virtuous agent. The Stranger argues in 305E-308B that the virtues conflict, which sits in contrast to the harmony we normally see in virtue theory. Despite these differences, I wonder if the truly excellent statesman is not also a virtuous agent with additional technical knowledge regarding politics and the practices of weaving the city together. Perhaps the excellent statesman helps the city achieve eudaimonia in some sense.
Plato seems to give us reasons to think the virtuous agent and excellent statesman are bound together by phronesis and the measure of the mean. It is far less clear how the philosopher is bound to the other two. It is not clear how and when the philosopher employs phronesis. We might be tempted to believe phronesis is too practical to be necessary to the philosopher in the same way that it is necessary to the virtuous agent or the statesman. The philosopher seems to have her head stuck in the clouds in many ways. Her work is theoretically minded and often not obviously practical (although it clearly has significant ramifications to the practical). Phronesis seems different from sophia. The philosopher seems to have wisdom of the theoretical rather than the practical, and if that is correct, it seems as though sophia is more important than phronesis.
The supposed point of the Statesman was to define and understand the statesman as an apparition of the philosopher. What connects the statesman and the philosopher? The measure of the mean is likely a key component to the complete answer. The statesman appears to require the mathematical measure for his purposes moreso than the philosopher for hers, a significant difference, and yet both the statesman and philosopher rely heavily upon the measure of the mean to achieve their invaluable ends. The statesman employs the measure of the mean for the sake of the city (and perhaps the city is for sake of having philosophers), and the philosopher for the sake of sophia. As we saw in the Statesman, both engagement in the dialectic and division as a method of eidetic analysis rely upon the measure of the mean, and these are essential tools and practices of philosophers. Maybe phronesis guides the philosopher in obtaining sophia in this manner, and the measure of the mean is more crucial to the roles of the statesman and philosopher than to other activities. I tentatively conclude the Statesman binds the philosopher and statesman together through their deep need and significant use of the measure of the mean.
---------------------------
<<footnotes "1" "269c, 269d, 283d, 283e, 284d, 284e, 285a, 285c, 286d, 293e Unless otherwise noted, all quotations are from Bernardete’s translation: Plato. //The Being of the Beautiful: Plato's Theaetetus, Sophist, and Statesman//. Translated by Seth Benardete. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984. ">>
<<footnotes "2" "260a, 263a, 269c, 269d, 277b, 277c, 282a, 284e, 286a, 286d, 288c, 289b, 308e, 309c">>
<<footnotes "3" "260a, 269c, 274b">>
<<footnotes "4" "284e, 305d, 307b, 307c">>
<<footnotes "5" "The length of the weaving passage might end up being justified rather than undue. It just appears on the surface that the weaving passage is too long.">>
<<footnotes "6" "283b">>
<<footnotes "7" "283c">>
<<footnotes "8" "283d">>
<<footnotes "9" "Ibid.">>
<<footnotes "10" "284e">>
<<footnotes "11" "283e">>
<<footnotes "12" "The relationship between the Great and the Small is its own topic, and it may be a significant connection between Plato and Aristotle.">>
<<footnotes "13" "U.S. Metric Association (USMA), Inc. "Origin of the Metric System." Origin of the Metric System. January 10, 2006. Accessed December 20, 2013. http://lamar.colostate.edu/~hillger/origin.html.">>
<<footnotes "14" "A complete account of the “being of becoming” is beyond the scope of the paper. Without a doubt, it is its own topic.">>
<<footnotes "15" "Admittedly, it isn’t clear to me precisely how they relate. I don’t exactly know what “the Good” is in the first place. I don’t mean to be irresponsibly speculating here, but it seems necessary to at least point in this direction when trying to frame the concept of measurement of the mean.">>
<<footnotes "16" "284b">>
<<footnotes "17" "I am grossly oversimplifying “the Beautiful” here in order to have a plain example. ">>
<<footnotes "18" "284e">>
<<footnotes "19" "284a">>
<<footnotes "20" "258c in Plato, Eva T. H. Brann, Peter Kalkavage, and Eric Salem. //Plato Statesman: Translation, Introduction, Glossary, and Essay//. Newburyport, MA: Focus Pub, 2012: 17. ">>
<<footnotes "21" "262a">>
<<footnotes "22" "262b">>
<<footnotes "23" "264b">>
<<footnotes "24" "Which is fine – I don’t know if we should expect him to, as I said, it doesn’t seem we’ve made much more progress than he has after thousands of years of work on this topic.">>
<<footnotes "25" "Even the city itself is a fine example of how difficult it is to distinguish mere heaps from whole things, etc. How the statesman relates to the city is itself a key topic. ">>
<<footnotes "26" "I’ve seen Aristotle credited for introducing and providing the first systematic perspectives of these issues to philosophy, science and mathematics, but it is clear from the Statesman (among other works) that Plato knew quite well the significance of these issues.">>
<<footnotes "27" "Book II, 1109a27">>
<<footnotes "28" "294a">>
---------------------------
''Bibliography''
Benardete, Seth. "The Plan of Plato's Statesman." //In The Argument of the Action: Essays on Greek Poetry and Philosophy//, edited by Ronna Burger and Michael Davis, 354-75. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000.
Bernardete, Seth. "Eidos and Diaeresis in Plato's Statesman." //Philologus// 107, no. 3/4 (1963): 193-226.
Klein, Jacob. "The Search for the Statesman." //In Plato's Trilogy: Theaetetus, the Sophist, and the Statesman//, 146-200. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1977.
Lane, M. S. //Method and Politics in Plato's Statesman//. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 1998.
Miller, Mitchell H. //The Philosopher in Plato's Statesman.: Together with Dialectical Education and Unwritten Teachings in Plato's Statesman//. Las Vegas: Parmenides Pub., 2004. DJVU.
Márquez, Xavier. "Measure and the Arts in Plato's Statesman." Accessed December 20, 2012. http://www.academia.edu/218023/Measure_and_the_Arts_in_Platos_Statesman.
Plato. //Statesman//. Translated by Benjamin Jowett. Hazleton, PA: Electronic Classics Series, 1999. Accessed December 20, 2012. http://www2.hn.psu.edu/faculty/jmanis/plato/statesma.pdf.
Plato. //The Being of the Beautiful: Plato's Theaetetus, Sophist, and Statesman//. Translated by Seth Benardete. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984. PDF.
Plato, Eva T H Brann, Peter Kalkavage, and Eric Salem. //Plato Statesman: Translation, Introduction, Glossary, and Essay//. Newburyport, MA: Focus Pub., 2012.
Sayre, Kenneth M. //Metaphysics and Method in Plato’s Statesman//. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006. PDF.
Stern, Paul. "The Rule of Wisdom and the Rule of Law in Plato's Statesman." American Political Science Review 91, no. 2 (June 1997): 264.
U.S. Metric Association (USMA), Inc. "Origin of the Metric System." //Origin of the Metric System//. January 10, 2006. Accessed December 20, 2013. http://lamar.colostate.edu/~hillger/origin.html.
White, David A., and Plato. //Myth, Metaphysics and Dialectic in Plato's Statesman//. Aldershot, England: Ashgate, 2007. PDF.
Summaries (NOT ALL MY WORK!)
http://www.angelfire.com/md2/timewarp/hart.html
Are laws to be conceived of as coercive orders or as moral commands?
Hart claims there is no logical connection between (1) law and coercion or between (2) law and morality.
Laws can have different purposes, functions, content, modes of origin, and ranges of application. Hart is a legal positivist, in part, because otherwise (he thinks) we’re oversimplifying, mischaracterizing, and overgeneralizing the law.
I must ask, if law and morality have no connection, why should I care about law? Why is it important? Why should I follow it? Why does it matter? What makes laws meaningful? How should we create or change laws? I wish to note there is a huge difference between prescribing law and describing it. I can see a Kantian explain that laws which are not in accord with morality have no meaning, although we might describe them as laws, they aren’t prescriptive in any sense. A “good” or “right” law, however, seems entirely tied down to having some notion of morality. Anytime we might approach prescription, rightness, goodness, or significance, I just don’t see how we aren’t asking something moral (I have moral rationalist intuitions though). To claim that laws are some relevant standard of conduct when they aren’t necessarily connected to morality must be justified. If legal positivism is true, they have to show me why laws are any more significant than some standards of conduct that I pulled out of my ass. He’s doing descriptive sociology, badly.
Laws do at least one of the following:
forbid action
impose obligation
require punishment or the exertion of coercive powers over those who do not comply with the law
specify how official documents are contracts are to be arranged and created
specify how legislatures and courts are to be assembled and function
specify how new laws are enacted
specify how old laws are to be changed
confer powers or privileges to individuals or institutions
Not all of these seem directly coercive, but they all seem indirectly coercive, no?
Hart critiques Austin’s claim in “The Province of Jurisprudence Determined” that laws are the coercive commands of a legally unlimited sovereign which impose duties or obligations on individuals. The criticism is that a law may always be imposed to the sovereign (who is thus not legally unlimited), and that conferring powers isn’t coercive (I wish to add, “not directly” – since I’m not convinced it is true otherwise).
Laws which impose duty or obligation are primary rules of obligation (first order laws). Secondary rules are rules of recognition, change, or adjudication (resolving disputes over interpretation and application) regarding primary rules (second order laws).
Both kinds of rules must be clear and intelligible since vagueness and ambiguity create uncertainty. (Ha, our system doesn’t seem like that. So, to what extent? In what ways? Etc.).
Legal systems can’t live on primary laws alone. Secondary laws advance us from a pre-legal stage to a legal stage. Neither primary rules nor secondary are (by themselves) sufficient as a system of laws, and while it isn’t clear that Hart thinks they are each necessary (I assume he does though), he does think that together (in “union”) they are sufficient for having a valid and established legal system.
There are two aspects or points of view for describing or evaluating a law: external and internal. The law applies to the internal, but it doesn’t to the external observer. Hart seems to think those ruled by and making laws must take on the internal view and take laws to be normative…so…in order for there to be laws, most people couldn’t be legal positivists, since they don’t take laws to be normative, else there wouldn’t be laws.
“Hart argues that the foundations of a legal system do not consist, as Austin claims, of habits of obedience to a legally unlimited sovereign, but instead consist of adherence to, or acceptance of, an ultimate rule of recognition by which the validity of any primary or secondary rule may be evaluated” (1994, pg 110). Wtf is an ultimate rule of recognition?
If (1) people don’t obey the primary rules and (2) legal officials don’t accept and obey the secondary rules, then there isn’t a legal system (although primary rules are sufficient for a pre-legal system – wtf pre-legal means, I don’t know).
First, (1) and (2) should be true at all. I think even if most folks don’t obey a law doesn’t mean it isn’t a law, by description. Adding this “obeying” requirement is just ad hoc. If I’m going to accept the pure descriptive nature of laws, why should I take this obeying requirement? Why does it matter whether or not it is obeyed? A law is a law, even if most people disobey it, on a descriptive (positivist) account, right? It doesn’t seem like enforceability should matter. If it does, where do we draw the line? How many people have to not obey the law? Do laws come in degrees? The lines seem arbitrary here.
Further, in this light, I admit that laws merely seem descriptive, in the same way as how moral propositions aren’t really prescriptive, but rather descriptive, in the context of cultural moral relativism. But, I don’t see why laws matter then.
As far as I can tell, GOOD or RELEVANT laws are a subset or product of morality (although, not all real laws are good laws). The normativity of laws isn’t separate from morality, but only morality can confer normativity on law. Maybe the descriptive definition of law doesn’t have to be logically connected to morality, but I don’t see why prescriptive law which has any normative force couldn’t be logically connected to morality. Maybe Hitler made some deeply immoral laws. Sure, I’ll call them laws, but they aren’t the kinds of laws which necessarily have any direct normative force. Maybe we should follow certain immoral laws because the coercive/punitive consequences of not following them are so awful that we should follow the law, but again, the source of “should” is not legal, but rather moral. We’ve taken an awful situation, applied moral reasoning, and come out with a moral answer.
Maybe morality doesn’t ground all laws, but it must be the ground of any laws that matter. That’s just the definition of something mattering – it is grounded by morality. Nothing is normative without the ‘say so’ of morality. Hardcore moral rationalism begs the question to save the day again!
Admittedly, laws change, but it isn’t clear that morality (I so want to call it moral law) does.
Hart is a soft positivist, as he thinks rules of recognition may consider the compatibility and compatibility of a rule with morality for determining validity.
I fear that legal positivists might run the risk of thinking that when I say “civil laws must be based on moral laws” that I’m saying that civil laws are directly compatible with moral laws. For example, maybe a utilitarian knows that certain laws won’t be followed (let’s say intellectual property laws) by the vast majority of individuals (which means they aren’t laws…which is weird), and actually that making it illegal to even visit a piracy website, like the Pirate Bay, actually increases the likelihood that individuals would visit and use TPB. Maybe increasing the usage of TPB and piracy would maximize utility, and so the creation of intellectual property laws would actually be a good thing, since people would go out of their way to disobey it. The letter of the civil law contradicts the purpose or aims of moral reasoning in this case, but as you can see, the civil law is still based on moral law.
“Hart criticizes both formalism and rule-scepticism as methods of evaluating the importance of rules as structural elements of a legal system.” He thinks formalism is too rigid and inflexible, being unable to adapt rules to particular cases. Rule skepticism produces uncertainty in the application of rules to the point that all cases must be adjudicated. Both criticisms seem to think there is a goldilocks virtuous measure of the mean of adjudication which occurs in real law (it can’t be none, and it can’t be all). I don’t see why. This seems to be a discussion of what makes a good or useful law, but why should we important prescriptive notions into a descriptive theory? This seems ad hoc. Even if you want just an ounce of prescription built into your conceptual analysis of law, then you bite the prescriptive bullet, and the legal positivist game is over.
International laws aren’t really laws, due to unenforcability, sovereignty issues, etc. Why not just say they aren’t very effective laws? They still seem like laws to me.
Judicial interpretation, via clarification and adjudication, can essentially create laws.
http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/full_text_search/AllCRCDocs/hartconc.htm
Chapter 1 –
Hart address three questions:
How does law differ from and how is it related to orders backed by threats?
How does legal obligation differ from, and how is it related to, moral obligation?
What are rules and to what extent is law an affair of rules?"
In answering these questions, Hart addresses the question “What is law?”.
Chapter 2 –
Hart examines laws, commands, and orders. He pays particular attention to coercive orders. He discusses the variety of laws.
Chapter 4 –
Hart addresses the relationship between sovereign and subject. He discusses the habit of obedience and the continuity and persistence of law, and examines legal limitations on legislative power and the sovereign behind the legislature.
Chapter 6 –
The foundations of a legal system are rule of recognition and legal validity.
Legal Positivism (NOT ALL MY WORK!)
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/legal-positivism/
Law is a social construction.
Positivism seems to have its roots in Hobbesian, Humean, and Benthamian thought. It started with the notion of law being the command of a sovereign back by force. My view: Why should it be anything else on a descriptive account? Why isn’t everything else ad hoc?
Imho, a legal positivist is in no position to ever say: “law should be applied, made, or enforced” - “should” is a powerful, normative word which belongs to the domain of morality. Now, maybe the argument against me is that I’m begging the question about a relationship between morality and law, but I think I can say the same thing to the positivist. They’ve made assumption, and I don’t think they can back it up.
Worse, I don’t see why positivist’s law isn’t an important distinction from other kinds of norms, habits, or institutional requirements (maybe Tulane’s code of conduct, for instance). Laws are just the commands of sovereigns, and the definitions of sovereign and command seem quite large and inclusive. I see no reason to pick a very selective set of those definitions out to define law. Just as Hart criticizes Bentham and Austin for having a definition of law which is arbitrarily narrow, I think Hart’s positivist definition of law is also arbitrarily narrow. It is all arbitrary without a moral compass or measuring stick. I don’t see how anything is separated from morality, even description seems implausible to me without bringing a set of values to the table.
Where does the authority of law come from? Real authority, to me, seems definitionally a moral issue.
Hart thinks the authority of law is social. “The ultimate criterion of validity in a legal system is neither a legal norm nor a presupposed norm, but a social rule that exists only because it is actually practiced.” Practiced to what extent though? Without that standard, we still don’t have an answer.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/legal-positivism/
Bentham and Austin’s Sovereign is too monistic and reductivist. Too monistic in that it makes laws with a single form, and the authority doesn’t seem to have laws that can be made about him. Too reductivist in that it attempts to reduce law and its other concepts, rights, dutities, etc, down to power and obedience, making no room for other normative concepts.
In advanced societies, maybe no single individual or monolithic entity can be said to have all the characteristics sufficient for sovereignty.
Why is legislative authority so much different from having a great social power? Ok. So, it is a specific kind of social power, maybe. What makes that authority so unique.
I have a problem calling thinking that one of the most distinctive features of law is that it is normative, but that it somehow isn’t connected to morality (logically connected). That normativity is no different than just me making rules up. It only has real normativity in virtue of morality.
Part I
1.
Pre-legal societies have (at least) three critical defects which prevent them from having genuine legal systems, and secondary rule (which pre-legal societies lack, but are found in genuine legal systems), are the solution to those defects.
The first defect is that pre-legal societies are bound to be uncertain about primary rules. People may not know what the primary are or what the rules mean. The secondary rule of recognition corrects this defect. The rule of recognition is a secondary rule which is foundational to a genuine legal system, as it gives some set of officials the power to decide what are valid legal rules. The rule of recognition contains a certain hierarchal set of criteria which outline the validity of laws. When the rule of recognition is practiced and accepted by officials (which is the only time there is a rule of recognition), any rule which satisfies the criteria contained in the rule of recognition is a valid law in the legal system. The rule of recognition is supposed to diffuse defects of uncertainty concerning validity of law to some significant extent, but in practice, it doesn’t completely resolve all uncertainty. Genuine legal systems, with the rule of recognition, do seem at least better (to some extent) than pre-legal systems with respect to the problem of uncertainty.
The second defect is that pre-legal societies are static. There aren’t mechanisms for changing laws. These mechanisms are necessary, on Hart’s view, to have a genuine legal system. The secondary rules of change correct this defect by giving some group of officials the power to change the duty imposing rules. We should note that this rule of change is connected to the rule of recognition because if you give a group of officials power to change primary laws, then you have to recognize that these legislators are a source of legal validity. If they follow the right procedure, then they’ve created new or different rules of our legal system.
The third defect of pre-legal societies is decentralized enforcement, as they lack effective, efficient, and consistent interpretation of laws. The secondary rules of adjudication correct this defect by granting judges the power to adjudicate or settle disagreements or disputes over laws. Like the rules of change, the people with this authority to adjudicate are recognized as a valid source of law, and hence it could just be seen as a complex expression of the rule of recognition. When a judge issues a decision resolving a dispute, that interpretation is a valid law (or modification of law, etc.).
Thus, in a sense, these defects which prevent pre-legal societies from having genuine legal systems are corrected by the use of a complex rule of recognition (which expresses all the secondary rules). Ultimately, pre-legal systems lack a fully expressed rule of recognition. These societies cannot answer the question: “How do you go about figuring out whether or not a rule is valid or not?” The inability to answer that question is the critical flaw of pre-legal societies, and the solution to that flaw, which is part of definition of genuine legal systems, is the reason why genuine legal systems might be seen as better than pre-legal systems.
Pre-legal systems are not genuine because they lack secondary “power-conferring” rules, even if they possess primary “duty imposing” rules, and thus they lack the necessary union between primary and secondary rules which Hart requires for genuine legal systems. Most importantly, pre-legal systems lack a fully expressed rule of recognition and the corresponding officials who practice and accept it. These pre-legal societies cannot answer the question: “How do you go about figuring out whether or not a rule is valid or not?” Genuine legal systems, by definition, can answer that question.
Only (1) when the rules that are recognized as legally valid by the officials are genuinely complied with by everyone in the society, and (2) when the complex rule of recognition (which expresses of all secondary rules) is accepted and practiced by legal officials, does a genuine legal system exist. These conditions are not satisfied by pre-legal systems, and thus these primitive societies don’t have genuine legal systems, according to Hart.
2.
The general population need not take the valid laws of a genuine legal system to be rules for themselves, as in, they don’t have an internal perspective of these laws. Obeying laws, not as rules, in this sense is sheep-like.
It is possible for there to be a genuine legal system where the officials are all engaged in this social practice (as to how they identify what counts as a valid rule), and they make immoral laws, and the ordinary citizens might be ignorant of the secondary rules (don’t now much about the legal structure), and they may only comply because they fear punishment (not because these laws are rules or reasons for their own actions), and so the masses of the citizens can be like sheep. They don’t know how it works, and they can just comply out of fear of punishment, and this is unhealthy. Yet, it is valid.
In pre-legal societies, the standards of behavior are generally accepted and practiced, often from an internal perspective. If they didn’t, then those wouldn’t be the standards of behavior in pre-legal societies. Pre-legal societies are far less likely to incur this cost of having an unhealthy, sheep-like population.
In addition, the “cost” or risk that one runs from stepping up from pre-legal system to a genuine legal system is that officials can have legal power to oppress the population in cases where pre-legal systems relying upon primary rules alone would not. Primary rules in pre-legal system often seem to require the general support of population who follows these primary rules. This need not be case in a genuine legal system. I believe pre-legal societies have a greater chance of having moral norms match primary rules, and perhaps seeing fewer deeply immoral rules (such as what might come out of a Nazi regime) than genuine legal systems.
3.
The rule of recognition is a secondary rule which is foundational to a genuine legal system, as it gives some set of officials the power to decide what are valid legal rules. The secondary rules of change are connected to the rule of recognition because if you give a group of officials power to change primary laws, then you have to recognize that these legislators are a source of legal validity. If they follow the right procedure, then they’ve created new or different rules of our legal system. The secondary rules of adjudication also confer power, namely giving judges the power to adjudicate or settle disagreements or disputes over laws. When a judge issues a decision resolving a dispute, that interpretation is a valid law (or modification of law, etc.). Like the rules of change, the people with this authority to adjudicate are recognized as a valid source of law, and hence it could just be seen as a complex expression of the rule of recognition.
The rule of recognition, at least on Hart’s view, does not impose duties on those who are given power. If an official doesn’t follow the correct procedure for generating/modifying/adjudicating a law, then they have just wasted their time (and probably the time of other officials). They aren’t necessarily duty-bound to follow that procedure though.
4.
In the practice theory of rules, officials are cooperating together. Their work is highly integrated, and so Coleman seems to think something more arises out of this, in terms of expectations, than Hart. Hart doesn’t think power-conferring rules impose duties. We can think of the process for generating laws as a kind of hypothetical imperative - if you want to make this valid law, then follow this procedure. Officials have power to follow the procedure, to satisfy the hypothetical imperative, but they don’t have a duty to do so. Coleman disagrees. He thinks the rule of recognition and power-conferring rules do impose duties. The idea is that you have a duty to exercise your power in the proper way. If you didn’t do your duty, you’d be punished by the other officials. This adherence makes sure everyone is cooperating and following precedent. Note that Coleman can do that without saying that officials have duties to make morally good laws, rather they just need to make laws.
5.
We must always remember that the existence of genuine government, according to Hart, rests upon two minimal necessary and sufficient conditions (I’m going to repeat myself on this test, I fear). Only (1) when the rules that are recognized as legally valid by the officials are genuinely complied with by everyone in the society, and (2) when the complex rule of recognition (which expresses of all secondary rules) is accepted and practiced by legal officials, does a genuine legal system exist.
In the case of a foreign invasion, many problems might generate grey, unclear areas, and we might not easily be able to identify whether or not these 2 conditions are met, and essentially, whether or not there is a genuine government.
People might not be following the laws in general that are recognized by the foreign government. This would make it so the first condition isn’t satisfied.
To what extent do these people need to follow the laws in order to satisfy the first condition? I have no idea.
Who are the real officials? The locals in exile or the foreign officials?
What if the both sets of officials generated exactly the same primary laws (but each had their own different rule of recognition), and the people followed those laws? Are there two governments over the same region (unlikely!)?
Normally, we’d expect a transition in officials to require certain secondary rules which enable or specify that transfer of power. That isn’t what is happening in this case. Would it be valid for new legal systems to just simply “take over”? I think this is connected to the problem of how legal systems even come into existence. It is unclear which comes first, officials or the rules which make them officials. We need a timeline to make sense of this, but it is quite unclear.
I honestly don’t know how to tell if a government has been restored other than pointing to the two conditions. If the two conditions are met, then I have to say that on Hart’s theory, a genuine legal system has been restored.
Part 2 (1st question set)
The rule of recognition is a secondary rule which is foundational to a genuine legal system, as it gives some set of officials the power to decide what are valid legal rules. The rule of recognition contains a certain hierarchal set of criteria which outline the validity of laws. When the rule of recognition is practiced and accepted by officials (which is the only time there is a rule of recognition), any rule which satisfies the criteria contained in the rule of recognition is a valid law in the legal system. The rule of recognition is supposed to diffuse defects of uncertainty concerning validity of law to some significant extent, but in practice, it doesn’t completely resolve all uncertainty.
The rule of recognition is ultimate in the sense that there is nothing behind it which validates it, at least on Hart’s view. Every other rule can trace their validity to the rule of recognition. We might ask why X is a valid rule, and point to Y, and then we might ask why Y is valid, and so on. The rule of recognition is the stopping point (so we don’t hit a regress). The rule of recognition sits at the foundation of legal validity. Apparently, we can’t effectively ask and answer the question, “what makes the rule of recognition legally valid?”.
As to how we know when there is a real rule of recognition, there are two perspectives one may take to examine it. One perspective is external, descriptive, and concerned with objective observation of practices of officials, and the other is internal, subjective, and reflective (from the view of the officials). These dual perspectives are significant to the rule of recognition’s existence. If officials don’t accept (from an internal perspective) or aren’t engaged in the practice of the rule of recognition (from an external perspective), then it doesn’t exist.
I said before that we can’t find any other law which validates the rule of recognition. Given this claim, I’m not really sure that we can claim the rule of recognition is a valid law, at least not directly in the same way (or for the same reasons as why) we think of non-ultimate laws as valid laws. It seems to have a lot of characteristics of laws, but the ultimacy issue makes it quite unclear. My charitable intuition is to say that the rule of recognition is a valid law, even though it isn’t validated by any other law. After all, it would seem odd to trace the validity of all others to a rule which wasn’t itself a valid law. I think we don’t know why the rule of recognition is a valid law in Hart’s theory other than explaining how integral it is to the very concept of law. Perhaps the officials validate the rule of recognition, but then a lot of worries come out of this. If the rule of recognition is what makes the officials official enough to validate laws, and officials are what make the rule of recognition valid, then it isn’t clear which comes first (or how genuine governments can begin).
Setting that matter aside, while the existence of the rule of recognition is foundational to genuine legal systems, a bit more is required in order to have a genuine legal system. Specifically, only (1) when the rules that are recognized as legally valid by the officials are genuinely complied with by everyone in the society, and (2) when the complex rule of recognition (which expresses of all secondary rules) is accepted and practiced by legal officials, does a genuine legal system exist.
One interesting problem which falls out of these conditions is that there can be valid duty imposing laws, which are rules in the eyes of the officials, which are not followed by the general population. We must remember that a valid law comes from a genuine legal system. A genuine legal system can validate many laws. As long as this set of valid laws is generally followed, even if a particular law isn’t generally followed, then the first minimal necessary and sufficient condition will be met. Assuming both conditions are met (and I think we should assume the second condition is met, else we couldn’t call these valid laws at all), then the genuine legal system remains intact, and thus the law it validated, which is not obeyed by the general population, remains valid.
I said before that the rule of recognition contains a set of criteria for determining what counts as a valid law. Crucially, these criteria can conflict with each, and in order to make them coherent and resolve these conflicts, there must be a hierarchy to them, a priority generated by the highest criterion. The supreme criterion is contained in the rule of recognition; it is (as its name suggest) the criterion with the highest priority; and it is the final deciding criteria for sorting out conflicts amongst the other criteria.
The rule of recognition and the supreme criterion of validity peel become distinguished more clearly in some cases than in others. In the case of Austin’s sovereign, these concepts are tightly knit, but in the case of the U.S., we can see how these concepts peel part. For the U.S., the rule of recognition is a combination of the internal beliefs and the external practices of U.S. government officials in a very broad sense. The supreme criterion, however, is far more specific. The constitution serves (arguably) serves as the supreme criterion for the U.S., since all other officials and laws are (eventually) limited, prioritized, and shaped by it.
It is, however, clear that the U.S. has a supreme criterion, although it doesn’t have a sovereign (by Austin’s definition). This is the a major reason as to why we can separate the rule of recognition so clearly from the supreme criterion in the case of the U.S. Austin’s sovereign, because it requires a sovereign, does not make this distinction as clearly. Before I go any further in explaining why the U.S. legal system doesn’t have a sovereign, I need to define the Austinian sovereign.
Austin’s sovereign is a legally unlimited entity (person or single assembly of people) with the power to issue commands or coercive orders which impose legal duties or obligations on individuals in a particular geographical region. On this model, every genuine legal system has a sovereign, and everyone in the sovereign’s domain or region habitually obeys the sovereign, but the sovereign does not habitually obey anyone else. A sovereign seems to be the minimal necessary and sufficient conditions for a genuine legal system in this model.
The U.S. doesn’t have an Austinian sovereign (although, I think a good case could be made that there is a non-Austinian sovereign). Nobody meets those conditions in the U.S. The U.S. doesn’t have a sovereign at its foundation – Hart thinks something else is at the foundation.
Unlike the Austin’s model, Hart’s theory does not take this narrow conception of a sovereign to be necessary for genuine legal systems or laws. On Hart’s theory, laws are not simply the coercive commands of a sovereign; rather, legal obligations originate in social rules (where “rule” is a technical term of art for Hart). Further, while laws can impose duties or obligations (which is the only possibility in Austin’s model), they can also confer power (which is not accounted for within Austin’ model). Genuine legal systems can’t exist on primary laws alone (which is the only kind of command given by a sovereign), as there must be power-conferring rules which enable laws to be created, changed, abolished, adjudicated, and validated.
Hart’s unified rules and rule followers (especially the officials), replace the sovereign as the foundation to genuine legal systems. A genuine legal system or law, on Hart’s theory, stems from the union of two kinds of rules – primary, duty imposing rules and secondary, power-conferring rules. As I said before, only (1) when the rules that are recognized as legally valid by the officials are genuinely complied with by everyone in the society, and (2) when the complex rule of recognition (which expresses of all secondary rules) is accepted and practiced by legal officials, does a genuine legal system exist. So, instead of a sovereign being at the foundation of what might be minimally necessary and sufficient to a genuine legal system, Hart substitutes an entirely different set of conditions.
He would say the U.S. doesn’t have a sovereign, but it does have a genuine government, and thus it meets his conditions. There are officials who accept and practice the rule of recognition, a supreme criterion in that rule, namely the constitution, and the U.S. population generally follows the primary laws made by those officials. The foundation of the U.S. government is thus not a sovereign, and on Hart’s view, it is instead replaced with these other more nuanced concepts.
---
1. In his book The Concept of Law, HLA Hart distinguishes between habits of behavior and rules. Briefly explain the distinction.
Habits of behavior are a convergence or pattern of people’s behavior. Breaking a habit of behavior does not result in criticism. For example, eating pizza on Friday’s might be a habit of yours, but if you break that habit, you won’t be chastised for it. A habit is not something we need be conscious of, taught, or pressured into conforming to.
In contrast, Hart’s rules are the kind of social conventions which would be seen as wrong to break. Breaking a rule is met with punishment, criticism, and/or pressures to obey. For example, taking candy from a random child on the street would break some set of social rules for which one would be criticized or punished. We should take care to recognize that this is rule breaking in a legal positivist context, and so this example isn’t necessarily an issue of immorality, but rather breaking a widely recognized social convention.
While both habits of behavior and rules seem to demonstrate a general convergence of behavior (which may initially make them appear similar), descriptively-speaking, we feel normatively bound by rules in a way that we are not bound in the case of mere habits of behavior.
Following a habit is, in some sense, an unreflective procedure which can be predicted, described, or understood entirely from an external perspective. In contrast, rules are more than mere habits, and must be understood, evaluated, and followed from a critical reflective attitude, an internal point of view. The rule follower feels justifiably criticized when deviating from a rule because they feel they ought to follow the rule. Again, this is not a moral realist claim that the person is actually obligated (which is against the logical positivist thesis), rather it is just a description of how the rule follower feels or believes.
In contrast to mere habits, having the right kind of motivation is key notion for defining Hart’s idea of a rule. The rule follower, according to Hart, is not motivated simply out of fear of punishment; rather the rule follower sees the rule as being normative in itself (I don’t think this is so obvious). Hart wants to distinguish doing something as a result of feeling obliged out of notion of self-interest and doing something because you feel you ought to do something (what he thinks is a genuine obligation). Maybe this distinction isn’t really successful.
Psychopaths, who presumably lack the kind of reflective, internal point of view and motivational requirements for being a rule follower, seem to be an interesting case in which to distinguish habits of behavior and rules. If a psychopath can’t enter into this internal attitude (as some folks argue), and he doesn’t take the rule to really be normative, then it isn’t a genuine rule for him. He cannot adopt rules, but he can, however, still have mere habits of behavior. He could appear to be following rules, but since he lacks this internal perspective, his behavior would amount to, at best, a habit.
The rule of recognition is that social practice and accepted set of beliefs of officials which make them officials.
2. A key element of the simple imperative theory of law, which Hart rejects, is that a sovereign always lies at the foundation of any legal system, Define what is meant by the "sovereign." What replaces the sovereign in Hart’s own theory of law?
The Simple Imperative Model’s sovereign is a legally unlimited entity (person or single assembly of people) with the power to issue commands or coercive orders which impose legal duties or obligations on individuals in a particular geographical region. On this model, every genuine legal system has a sovereign, and everyone in the sovereign’s domain or region habitually obeys the sovereign, but the sovereign does not habitually obey anyone else. A sovereign seems to be the minimal necessary and sufficient conditions for a genuine legal system in this model.
Unlike the Simple Imperative Model, Hart’s theory does not take this narrow conception of a sovereign to be necessary for genuine legal systems or laws. On Hart’s theory, laws are not simply the coercive commands of a sovereign; rather, legal obligations originate in social rules (where “rule” is a technical term of art for Hart). Further, while laws can impose duties or obligations (which is the only possibility in the Simple Imperative Model), they can also confer power (which is not accounted for within the Simple Imperative Model). Genuine legal systems can’t exist on primary laws alone (which is the only kind of command given by a sovereign in the Simple Imperative Model), as there must be power-conferring rules which enable laws to be created, changed, abolished, adjudicated, and validated.
Hart’s unified rules and rule followers (especially the officials), replace the sovereign as the foundation to genuine legal systems. A genuine legal system or law, on Hart’s theory, stems from the union of two kinds of rules – primary, duty imposing rules and secondary, power-conferring rules. Only (1) when the rules that are recognized as legally valid by the officials are genuinely complied with by everyone in the society, and (2) when the complex rule of recognition (which expresses of all secondary rules) is accepted and practiced by legal officials, does a genuine legal system exist. So, instead of a sovereign being at the foundation of what might be minimally necessary and sufficient to a genuine legal system, Hart substitutes an entirely different set of conditions.
In my opinion, the real heart and soul of the foundation to Hart’s notion of a legal system rests upon how we understand and define the rule of recognition in relation to the beliefs and practices of the officials. All the dirty work and heavy lifting happens at that crux; it is what so distinctly sets his theory apart from the classical legal positivists; and his theory lives or dies by the viability of the concept of the rule of recognition. That is the essence of the replacement occurring.
3. According to Hart’s analysis, why is a primitive society, in which most people accept customary rules as standards of behavior and fulfill the duties distributed by the rules, a "pre-legal" system rather than a genuine legal system?
Pre-legal systems are not genuine because they lack secondary “power-conferring” rules, even if they possess primary “duty imposing” rules, and thus they lack the necessary union between primary and secondary rules which Hart requires for genuine legal systems. Most importantly, pre-legal systems lack a fully expressed rule of recognition and the corresponding officials who practice and accept it. These pre-legal societies cannot answer the question: “How do you go about figuring out whether or not a rule is valid or not?” Genuine legal systems, by definition, can answer that question.
Only (1) when the rules that are recognized as legally valid by the officials are genuinely complied with by everyone in the society, and (2) when the complex rule of recognition (which expresses of all secondary rules) is accepted and practiced by legal officials, does a genuine legal system exist. These conditions are not satisfied by pre-legal systems, and thus these primitive societies don’t have genuine legal systems, according to Hart.
4. Briefly explain what Hart means by a "rule of recognition" and the sense in which it is an "ultimate" rule of a legal system. How can we tell if a rule of recognition exists?
The rule of recognition is a secondary rule which is foundational to a genuine legal system, as it gives some set of officials the power to decide what are valid legal rules. The rule of recognition contains a certain hierarchal set of criteria which outline the validity of laws. When the rule of recognition is practiced and accepted by officials (which is the only time there is a rule of recognition), any rule which satisfies the criteria contained in the rule of recognition is a valid law in the legal system. The rule of recognition is supposed to diffuse defects of uncertainty concerning validity of law to some significant extent, but in practice, it doesn’t completely resolve all uncertainty.
The other secondary rules can be expressed by or compacted into the rule of recognition. The rule of change is connected to the rule of recognition because if you give a group of officials power to change primary laws, then you have to recognize that these legislators are a source of legal validity. If they follow the right procedure, then they’ve created new or different rules of our legal system. Like the rules of change, people with the authority to adjudicate law are also recognized as a valid source of law, and hence rules of adjudication could just be seen as a complex expression of the rule of recognition. For example, when a judge issues a decision resolving a dispute, that interpretation is a valid law (or modification of law, etc.).
The rule of recognition is ultimate in the sense that there is nothing behind it which validates it, at least on Hart’s view (he is wrong though!). Every other rule can trace their validity to the rule of recognition. We might ask why X is a valid rule, and point to Y, and then we might ask why Y is valid, and so on. The rule of recognition is the stopping point (so we don’t hit a regress). The rule of recognition sits at the foundation of legal validity. Apparently, we can’t effectively ask and answer the question, “what makes the rule of recognition legally valid?”.
There are two perspectives one may take to examine the rule of recognition. One perspective is external, descriptive, and concerned with objective observation of practices of officials, and the other is internal, subjective, and reflective (from the view of the officials). These dual perspectives are significant to the rule of recognition’s existence. If officials don’t accept (from an internal perspective) or aren’t engaged in the practice of the rule of recognition (from an external perspective), then it doesn’t exist.
5. Hart argues that a legal system provides at least three major benefits as compared to a pre-legal primitive community. Briefly describe the three ways in which a legal system is clearly better than a pre-legal system.
Pre-legal societies have (at least) three critical defects which prevent them from having genuine legal systems, and secondary rule (which pre-legal societies lack, but are found in genuine legal systems), are the solution to those defects.
The first defect is that pre-legal societies are bound to be uncertain about primary rules. People may not know what the primary are or what the rules mean. The secondary rule of recognition corrects this defect. The rule of recognition is a secondary rule which is foundational to a genuine legal system, as it gives some set of officials the power to decide what are valid legal rules. The rule of recognition contains a certain hierarchal set of criteria which outline the validity of laws. When the rule of recognition is practiced and accepted by officials (which is the only time there is a rule of recognition), any rule which satisfies the criteria contained in the rule of recognition is a valid law in the legal system. The rule of recognition is supposed to diffuse defects of uncertainty concerning validity of law to some significant extent, but in practice, it doesn’t completely resolve all uncertainty. Genuine legal systems, with the rule of recognition, do seem at least better (to some extent) than pre-legal systems with respect to the problem of uncertainty.
The second defect is that pre-legal societies are static. There aren’t mechanisms for changing laws. These mechanisms are necessary, on Hart’s view, to have a genuine legal system. The secondary rules of change correct this defect by giving some group of officials the power to change the duty imposing rules. We should note that this rule of change is connected to the rule of recognition because if you give a group of officials power to change primary laws, then you have to recognize that these legislators are a source of legal validity. If they follow the right procedure, then they’ve created new or different rules of our legal system.
The third defect of pre-legal societies is decentralized enforcement, as they lack effective, efficient, and consistent interpretation of laws. The secondary rules of adjudication correct this defect by granting judges the power to adjudicate or settle disagreements or disputes over laws. Like the rules of change, the people with this authority to adjudicate are recognized as a valid source of law, and hence it could just be seen as a complex expression of the rule of recognition. When a judge issues a decision resolving a dispute, that interpretation is a valid law (or modification of law, etc.).
Thus, in a sense, these defects which prevent pre-legal societies from having genuine legal systems are corrected by the use of a complex rule of recognition (which expresses all the secondary rules). Ultimately, pre-legal systems lack a fully expressed rule of recognition. These societies cannot answer the question: “How do you go about figuring out whether or not a rule is valid or not?” The inability to answer that question is the critical flaw of pre-legal societies, and the solution to that flaw, which is part of definition of genuine legal systems, is the reason why genuine legal systems might be seen as better than pre-legal systems.
6. Hart points out that, although a rule of recognition specifies a supreme criterion of legal validity, this does not imply that a sovereign exists at the foundation of the legal system. Briefly explain how there can be a supreme criterion of valid law without there being any sovereign. Illustrate your explanation by giving an example of a legal system that has no sovereign.
Hart’s rule of recognition can be the practice (external) and normative beliefs/motivations (internal) of a complex government that does not fit Hart’s narrow definition of sovereign (he’s addressing Austinian-like models which have simple sovereigns). Hence, there can be a rule of recognition, (supposedly) the source of this supreme criterion of valid, without a sovereign (as defined by Hart).
Hart believes we can’t always find a sovereign in some genuine legal systems. Take our written constitution - there are parts that are exempt from the article 5 amendment formula – e.g. we can’t amend that a state gives up its two senators unless by the consent of that state. Imagine an unamendable constitution; since the constitution legally limits all other people’s powers, then there is no one or entity with unlimited power. We have a supreme criterion of valid law, but no sovereign (on Hart’s definition) in this example.
We might argue that whoever wrote the constitution and validated it would be the sovereign, and/or we might argue that this is just a case of popular sovereignty. Hart doesn’t buy that line of reasoning. Hart wants to draw a sharp line between popular sovereignty and a real, unlimited sovereign as found in the Simple Imperative model. To be honest, I really don’t see why he should be allowed to make that move. So, my explanation is that Hart has stated this distinction as a brute fact.
He’s right that we can’t always find a simple sovereign, e.g. a dictator or a single assembly, in all genuine legal systems. At first, this does seem to be a reasonable criticism of the simple imperative model. However, even this may not be true. For example, maybe there is a specific group of individuals that, if they came together, could decide to change the constitution (e.g. get rid of the 1st amendment). There seems to be a concentration of power in these people that might seem to look like Austinian sovereignty, even though there are intermediate steps.
Ultimately, sovereignty may just be more complex than Hart is willing to accept. It is far from obvious that the criterion of validity of law can really be distilled from all reasonable definitions of sovereignty.
7. Explain why a particular rule that is not followed by anyone can nevertheless be a valid law according to Hart’s theory.
A valid law comes from a genuine legal system. A genuine legal system can validate many laws. As long as this set of laws is generally followed, even if a particular law isn’t generally followed, then the first minimal necessary and sufficient condition will be met, so the unfollowed law remains valid.
There are two ways for a rule to not be followed. One, it isn’t a rule, and it is merely a law that is obeyed out of habit by the general population. A rule then isn’t being a followed at all, but it is still a valid law. This meets the first and second conditions.
The second way for a rule to not be followed is for
Valid laws only come from genuine legal systems. By Hart’s definition of a legal system (necessary and sufficient requirements), the rules generally must be followed. Is this the rules as a set, generally must be followed? Or, each law, individually, generally must be followed? I take it as the former.
I think this is tricky. The initial definition of “rule” seems to be a modification of habits of behavior, where rules are a “convergence of behavior” + the internal perspective requirements and implications. I suppose the convergence part is really not all that important (except for the rule of recognition, in the case of officials). If that is the case, then it is at least possible for unfollowed primary rules, in particular, to actually be rules (as long as the internal components are maintained). Then it is just a matter of making sure that a rule is a valid law.
A valid is law is whatever the officials following the rule of recognition validate. Those governed by this law may take the law to be a rule, as in: they find it to be normative for them from critical reflection. And, perhaps all of these people will choose, nonetheless, to not follow the rule, despite believing they deserve criticism for doing so. Thus, it is actually rule which is not followed and also a valid law.
8. Hart argues that a legal system potentially involves major costs in addition to benefits as compared to a pre-legal primitive community. Indeed, he says that a legal system can exists in an unhealthy society which is "deplorably sheeplike; the sheep might end in the slaughter-house." Explain why a legal system might impose serious costs which are not found in a pre-legal primitive society.
The “cost” or risk that one runs from stepping up from pre-legal system to a genuine legal system is that officials can have legal power to oppress the population in cases where pre-legal systems relying upon primary rules alone would not. Primary rules in pre-legal system often seem to require the general support of population who follows these primary rules. This need not be case in a genuine legal system.
Maybe Nazi Germany is an example of genuine legal system wherein officials were able to abuse their power and legally slaughter many people. Genuine legal systems aren’t necessarily healthy, and they don’t necessarily bring about morally good laws – they simply have a specific kind of structure. That structure can incur certain costs or risks by generating morally repugnant laws which could be less likely to be present in a pre-legal system that might tie primary laws closer to moral norms and the support of the people (rather than the rule of recognition as the source of validity and the support of officials).
Laws can be obeyed out of fear, and laws won’t be rules for the general population. Sheep. It is possible for there to be a genuine legal system where the officials are all engaged in this social practice (as to how they identify what counts as a valid rule), and they make immoral laws, and the ordinary citizens might be ignorant of th the secondary rules (don’t now much about the legal structure), and they may only comply because they fear punishment (not because these laws are rules or reasons for their own actions), and so the masses of the citizens can be like sheep. They don’t know how it works, and they can just comply out of fear of punishment, and this is unhealthy. Yet, it is valid.
You can have valid governments and laws which are terrible governments by the standards of the general population.
9. For Hart, what are the minimum necessary and sufficient conditions for the existence of a genuine legal system?
A genuine legal system or law stems from the union of two kinds of rules – primary, duty imposing rules and secondary, power-conferring rules. The minimum necessary and sufficient conditions are this union. When primary rules which are validated by the supreme criterion of a legal system (and generally followed? This is far from clear), and when the complex rule of recognition (which expresses of all secondary rules) is accepted and practiced by legal officials, then a genuine legal system exists.
This is tricky though, since in class, you did say that while these may be necessary, it isn’t clear that it is sufficient. There may be more required.
10. Hart argues that there are situations such as revolutions and foreign invasions in which the existence of a legal system is uncertain or dubious. Suppose a foreign invasion occurs and the leaders of the domestic government are driven into exile. Using Hart’s theory, explain why the existence of a legal system is unclear in this situation. How can we tell if a genuine legal system is restored?
The existence of genuine legal system seems far easier to establish in Hart’s theory than the creation or restoration of one. My honest answer: I don’t know how we can tell if there is a restoration of a genuine legal system on Hart’s theory. I’m not sure we can. Even if we assume the foreign invaders had the necessary primary and secondary laws, and the required officials, instated in the invaded territory, it is unclear to me that a genuine legal system has been restored.
The ultimate problem: you need laws to confer power to officials, but then you need officials to make laws. You can see how both co-exist (sort of). It makes sense to talk about how secondary laws specify the transfer of powers from one official to his replacement. You can see how officials make, modify, extinguish, and validate laws. You can but you can’t really see the system begins though. How do you move from pre-legal to legal (whether from primitive societies to civil, or in the case of restoring legal systems)?
We can say the foreign invaders are the officials, and the foreign laws are the new laws. Problematically, who or what made these invaders the officials? Nobody and nothing! You need secondary laws to do that. The old secondary laws and exiled officials didn’t allow for a legal, hostile takeover, presumably. Our intuition should be that only those secondary laws and officials could possibly validate or enable the restoration or wide transition of one domestic government into a foreign one.
We could argue that the laws of the foreign government are what support the transition to the newly formed foreign control over a land. This very much goes against my intuition, but I think it is the only move one can make. If this is true, it seems to me there are tertiary rules which talk about the validity of secondary rules in the cases of radical legal transitions, including the formation of new systems and the forced replacement of others.
Uncertainty is in this.
11. Suppose a revolutionary war occurs, for instance, America’s war of independence against Britain. Using Hart’s theory, explain why the existence of a legal system becomes uncertain during the period of revolutionary war. Once America achieved independence, how did the new legal system differ from the old one?
People might not be following the laws in general that are recognized by British Officials
Who are the real officials? The local American or the British?
If it is the American, how did it begin? How does one become and official without rules that confer that power to them, and how could there be those power conferring rules without the officials?
New legal system has different officials, a different rule of recognition, and a different supreme criterion (not the British parliament).
What if English and American officials had the same primary laws, and the people obeyed both coincidentally. Who are the officials? That’s what matters.
Can you establish the two minimum criteria? How do we get there?
12. In his Postscript, Hart tells us that his theory of law is a version of "soft positivism." Briefly explain what he means by "soft positivism" and why he thinks it is consistent with his analysis of a legal system, in particular, his description of the benefits provided by a legal system as compared to a pre-legal primitive community.
Uncertainly doesn’t seem completely removed, but Hart seems okay with that.
13. In his Postscript, Hart says that he defends a "practice theory of rules," which he says is "a faithful account of conventional social rules." Using Coleman’s arguments in Lecture 7 of his text, briefly clarify the practice theory. In particular, clarify what the practice theory says about the reasons for action which are provided by conventional social rules.
When an official chooses what rule, they have a cooperate social endeavor or practice. Adherence to a rule of recognition that imposes a duty (the conventionality thesis). You want to make sure everyone is cooperating with each other, and you have to make sure you following precedent,
14. According to Hart’s theory, is the general point or purpose of the law to provide the best moral interpretation of the community’s understanding of justice and the legitimate use of state coercion? Explain Hart’s view of the functions of the law.
No. Law guide our conduct and offers the standards of criticism from the internal perspective of the officials.
Justice for Hedgehogs.
15. Clarify what Hart means by the "minimum content of natural law." Since he admits that this minimum content is an element of "common sense" in the natural law theory, is he therefore admitting that he is not really a legal positivist because there is no logical separation between law and morals? Discuss.
Natural law helps humans survive. Nazi’s are legal systems. Morality is disconnected.
//This paper changed my life. It was the beginning of the end of my academic philosophical career. It was the straw that broke this camel's back. I'm lucky to be alive.//
''1.1''
One of the first renditions of the Lottery Paradox can be traced back to Henry Kyburg in his book Probability and the Logic of Rational Belief.<<ref "1">> It has sparked an enormous amount of literature surrounding the problem. In this paper, I will address a standard, modern version of the Lottery Paradox, describe some problems with it, and try to clarify the puzzle with a more detailed version. By uncovering what I think is really going on in the Lottery Paradox, I hope to sketch out a more fundamental disagreement occurring between many of those who would continue to wield the Lottery Paradox, even after my clarification, and their target, proponents of probabilistic rational acceptance.
''1.2''
Proponents of probabilistic rational acceptance think it is rationally acceptable to believe propositions which are very likely true. On their view, there is an epistemic principle which sets out the minimum requirements for a proposition to be rationally acceptable (which I will often refer to as the Sufficiency Thesis). As long as the probability of a proposition is high enough to meet this requirement, then it is said to be rationally acceptable.
A probabilistic principle of rational acceptance is useful and practical. It would justify an enormous number of common-sense propositions we ordinarily think are rationally acceptable. Our everyday lives revolve around believing and acting upon beliefs which are often, at best, only very likely to be true.
If the Lottery Paradox is successful, then it demonstrates that probabilistic principles of rational acceptance can result in validating belief in contradictions as rationally acceptable. That would be intolerable. The Lottery Paradox would force us to give up probabilistic rational acceptance, which may amount to the denial of this enormous number of common-sense, ordinary propositions we would normally think of as being rationally acceptable. A kind of skepticism concerning these ordinary propositions may emerge from this position.
I will show why the Lottery Paradox does not yield this fatal criticism, and I will argue that it does, however, yield another criticism. The paradox demonstrates that probabilistic rational acceptance can result in beliefs which are not altogether consistent. Rational acceptance can lead to false beliefs, even beliefs which must be false given some other set of beliefs validated by the principle. This criticism, however, is not obviously fatal to the probabilistic rational acceptance.
Toward the end of the paper, in coming to grips with this lesser criticism, I will attempt to sketch out why this lesser criticism leads us to a broader and perhaps messier disagreement occurring between many of those who would continue to wield the Lottery Paradox, even in light of my clarification, and those who wish to preserve probabilistic rational acceptance.
The Lottery Paradox may be construed as a discussion between a pragmatist and a skeptic, wherein the skeptic tries to attack the rationality of our ordinary beliefs which require the Sufficiency Thesis, and the pragmatist defends. Each employs a different standard, and both standards have merit. My sketch of this discussion will side with the pragmatist, suggesting his standard as being the appropriate standard to employ.
The actual result of the Lottery Paradox, the claim that it can be, in some cases, rationally acceptable to believe in a set of propositions which are inconsistent, is difficult to swallow. Essentially, many of us may intuit that this result of the second, lesser criticism isn’t a good thing. I will argue, however, that it can be the right thing.
''2.1''
The Lottery Paradox tries to demonstrate that the following three epistemic principles (or their equivalents) are inconsistent:
# A proposition φ is rationally acceptable if P(φ) > t, where P is a probability distribution over propositions and t is a threshold value close to 1.<<ref "2">>
# It is not rationally acceptable to believe in contradictions.
# If each of the propositions φ and ψ are rationally acceptable, so is (φ & ψ).<<ref "3">>
The first principle is known as the Sufficiency Thesis; it is a probabilistic principle of rational acceptance. The third principle is known as the Conjunction Principle.4 Note that by mathematical induction, we can generalize the Conjunction Principle to any finite number of conjuncts.5 The inconsistency of these principles is demonstrated by the following thought experiment.
''2.2''
Suppose the three epistemic principles above, where t = .99. Suppose a fair lottery of 100 tickets, where the selection of each ticket is equiprobable, and exactly 1 ticket will be randomly selected as a winner.
Where n is the set of whole numbers 1 through 100, for each ticket, where the first ticket is T1, the second ticket is T2, … , and the hundredth ticket is T100, there is a corresponding proposition claiming ‘ticket Tn is a losing ticket’, where the first proposition K1 corresponds to T1, and so on.
By supposition, P(~(K1 & K2 & … & K100)) = 1, hence by the Sufficiency Thesis, ~(K1 & K2 & … & K100) is rationally acceptable. In other words, the proposition “there is a winning ticket” is rationally acceptable.
Since each ticket is 1 ticket from a pool of 100, for any Kn, P(Kn) = .99. Hence, by the Sufficiency Thesis, any particular Kn is rationally acceptable. Since K1 is rationally acceptable and K2 is rationally acceptable, by the Conjunction Principle, the proposition (K1 & K2) is rationally acceptable. Since we know each Kn is rationally acceptable, we can continue to employ the Conjunction Principle such that (K1 & K2 & K3) is rationally acceptable, and (K1 & K2 & K3 & K4) is rationally acceptable, and so on. Hence, by the repeated use of the Conjunction Principle, (K1 & K2 & … & K100) is rationally acceptable.
We arrive at the contradiction between (supposedly) rationally acceptable propositions ~(K1 & K2 & … & K100) and (K1 & K2 & … & K100). In other words, we assumed there was a winning ticket, ~(K1 & K2 & … & K100), and using our principles of rational acceptance, we deduced that there is no winning ticket, (K1 & K2 & … & K100). This violates the second principle.
''2.3''
I could stop here, but before I move on, I want to point out that many versions of the Lottery Paradox render the contradiction in terms of probability, presumably because it may be easier to see the problem in a more concrete way and because the point of the Lottery Paradox is to attack probabilistic reasoning. The steps to do this are fairly straightforward.
Since we have supposed ~(K1 & K2 & … & K100), and ~(K1 & K2 & … & K100) ↔ (P(~(K1 & K2 & … & K100)) = 1), then (P(~(K1 & K2 & … & K100)) = 1), the proposition that the probability of there being a winning ticket is 1, is rationally acceptable.
Since we rationally accept (K1 & K2 & … & K100), and (K1 & K2 & … & K100) ↔ (P((K1 & K2 & … & K100)) = 1), and (P((K1 & K2 & … & K100)) = 1) ↔ (P(~(K1 & K2 & … & K100)) = 0), then (P(~(K1 & K2 & … & K100)) = 0), the proposition that the probability of there being a winning ticket is 0, is rationally acceptable.
While not a formal, direct contradiction, (P(~(K1 & K2 & … & K100)) = 1) and (P(~(K1 & K2 & … & K100)) = 0) propose that the probability of there being a winning ticket is both 1 (guaranteed to occur) and 0 (guaranteed not to occur).
''2.4''
Clearly, the Lottery Paradox demonstrates that the three epistemic principles are in conflict. Importantly, the Lottery Paradox is intriguing because one can nicely scale up the number of tickets in the lottery to any finite number, such that n >= t, allowing us to always produce a lottery thought experiment in which the probability that any “ticket n is a losing ticket” is rationally acceptable (according to the Sufficiency Thesis). Even extraordinarily high thresholds for rational acceptance, such as (1 – (1 / (the number of atomic particles in the universe))), have lotteries which demonstrate this contradiction.
In order to escape this conflict, we must jettison at least one epistemic principle. At first glance, we might find the second and third principles to be no-brainers; we are not immediately inclined to deny them (although, later on I hope to show how we can deny the third principle). Thus, initially, the first principle, the Sufficiency Thesis, appears to be the principle we are forced to jettison, but at great cost.
Assuming that any relevant probabilistic acceptance principle will be similar enough to the Sufficiency Thesis, the Lottery Paradox might require us to jettison all relevant probabilistic acceptance principles. The Lottery Paradox may be a serious threat to any probabilistic justification theory of rationally acceptable belief. I can’t provide a treatment of that claim in this paper, but for the sake of argument, let us assume the Lottery Paradox defeats all probabilistic justifications of rationally acceptable belief, which a skeptic might assume.
We have good reasons to want a viable probabilistic rational acceptance rule. Many beliefs we take as being rationally acceptable might turn out to be otherwise without a principle like the Sufficiency Thesis. For example, science, a realm which many of us would like to think leads us to propositions which are rationally acceptable, is filled with conclusions which are highly likely to be true, but not certain. The Sufficiency Thesis is well positioned to make sense of these issues. Further, many of our ordinary beliefs that we take to be rationally acceptable are nicely justified by the Sufficiency Thesis, and the rational acceptability of these beliefs may be jeopardized if we jettison the Sufficiency Thesis. How do we preserve the first epistemic principle?
Either the second or the third epistemic principle must be wrong. The second looks rock solid (surely an epistemic rule which embodies the principle of non-contradiction would have to be!). Those who wish to preserve the probabilistic acceptance principles most likely need to find a way to deny the Conjunction Principle.
At first glance, the Conjunction Principle might appear to be akin to a normal conjunction introduction rule (later in the paper, I will suggest it is not that simple). When you rationally accept φ and ψ, inferring the conjunction of the pair seems, at first glance, rationally acceptable. I will attempt to clarify the Conjunction Principle by separating it into two aspects which, when combined, get us the same results. We will find that one aspect doesn’t need to be denied, but another aspect can and should be jettisoned to save the Sufficiency Thesis.
''3.1''
I believe we can gain insight into why we should deny the Conjunction Principle by inspecting the inferential moves we’ve made in the Lottery Paradox. In terms of propositional logic, the following inferential moves have to be successful:
# K1 -- Assumption
# K2 -- Assumption
# (K1 & K2) -- & Intro: 1, 2
Upon first reading, it seems as if we cannot possibly deny this sort of inferential move. Our assumptions were rationally acceptable, and surely any deduction from rational assumptions must also be rationally acceptable. If K1 and K2 are true, then (K1 & K2) has to be true as well.
Is this really what the probabilistic rationality theorist has in mind? Perhaps not. Instead, regarding the above Lottery Paradox, we are better served by evaluating the actual probabilities of the Lottery Paradox if we want to understand what probabilistic inferences are rationally acceptable.
Problem:
Let n denote the size (in terms of tickets) of a fair lottery with one winner. What are the odds that if you get m tickets that you will win?
Solution:
This is the formula which describes all finite lotteries, which someone who is explicitly employing the Sufficiency Thesis must turn to in order to evaluate the rational acceptability of the propositions in the Lottery Paradox. That’s how we know P(K1) = .99. It is also the tool which helps us evaluate all the other probabilities, including conjunctions. So, instead of propositional logic, I think probabilistic rationality looks more like this:
# P(K1) = .99 -- Mathematical Deduction
# K1 is rationally acceptable -- From 1 and Sufficiency Thesis
# P(K2) = .99 -- Mathematical Deduction
# K2 is rationally acceptable -- From 3 and Sufficiency Thesis
# P(K1 & K2) = .98 -- Mathematical Deduction
# (K1 & K2) is not rationally acceptable -- From 5 and Sufficiency Thesis
The problem with our Conjunction Principle is that it seems to mislead us into thinking that logical inference is wholly analogous to the process of probabilistic inference. They are distinct. It is one thing to say “K1 and K2 are true, thus (K1 & K2) is true,” which is a logical consequence, and another to say “K1 and K2 are each so likely to be true that each is rationally acceptable, thus (K1 & K2) is so likely to be true that it is rationally acceptable.” The first kind, logical inference, has to be correct. The second kind, probabilistic inference, doesn’t have to be correct. In fact, the Sufficiency Thesis, where P(K1 & K2) = .98, explicitly prohibits such a move.
Someone doing their best to employ the Sufficiency Thesis should be unwilling to accept this part of the Lottery Paradox proof:
Since K1 is rationally acceptable and K2 is rationally acceptable, by the Conjunction Principle, the proposition (K1 & K2) is rationally acceptable.
The Conjunction principle isn’t following the very mathematical formula required to realize P(K1) = .99 in the first place. Something is wrong with the Conjunction principle, and we must correct it.
''4.1''
I think the first set of epistemic principles was constructed too hastily. These principles lack the nuance we need to really understand what is at stake and how these principles should play out. Part of the problem might be that we’ve not been clear enough in specifying what kinds of things can be the objects of rational acceptability. On the following version of the Lottery Paradox, rational acceptability applies to both propositions and sets of propositions. Essentially, an individual proposition may be rationally acceptable, and sets of propositions may be rationally acceptable. With this in mind, let us restructure the beginning principles so that we can make better sense of the Lottery Paradox.
# φ is rationally acceptable if P(φ) > t, where P is a probability distribution over propositions and t is a threshold value close to 1.
# Contradictions and sets containing contradictions are not rationally acceptable. e.g. neither (φ & ~φ) nor {X1, X2, …, (φ & ~φ), Xn} are rationally acceptable.
# If φ and ψ are rationally acceptable, then {φ, ψ} is rationally acceptable.
# If {φ, ψ} is rationally acceptable, then (φ & ψ) is rationally acceptable.
The Sufficiency Thesis remains much the same. Importantly, it only applies to, evaluates, and filters through individual propositions, not sets of propositions.<<ref "6">> The Sufficiency Thesis validates and essentially generates the propositions used for the antecedent of the third principle, the Union Principle. The Union Principle generates sets of propositions (e.g. {φ, ψ}), which serve to feed the antecedent of the fourth principle, the Agglomeration Principle. The Agglomeration Principle joins the members of a set of propositions into a conjunction.
The Sufficiency Thesis will not validate φ as rationally acceptable and then turn around and validate ~φ as rationally acceptable. It can only validate one or the other. It will invalidate (φ & ~φ) as well. As you will see, when we add the Union and Agglomeration Principles, from the Lottery Paradox, we will be able arrive at (φ & ~φ) as being rationally acceptable, which is prohibited by both the second principle and the Sufficiency Thesis.7 Note that the second principle does not prohibit inconsistent sets of propositions, such as {φ, ~φ}, rather it prohibits sets which contain explicit, direct contradictions, {(φ & ~φ)}.
We’ve done away with the Conjunction Principle, and in its place, we have two new principles, the Union and Agglomeration Principles, which taken together do the same kind of work as the Conjunction Principle.
The Union Principle enables us to accumulate or unify individual propositions into a set of propositions. According to this principle, if A is rationally acceptable, and B is rationally acceptable, then {A, B} is rationally acceptable. These are all distinct objects of belief or acceptance. It is one thing to believe A at some point in time, and another to believe B at some point in time, and yet another to believe A and to believe B at the same time.
The Agglomeration Principle enables us to take a set of propositions and form a new proposition, a conjunction of the members of the set. According to this principle, if {A, B} is rationally acceptable, then so is (A & B). Importantly, there is a difference between the rational acceptability of the set of A and B as separate, individual propositions, {A, B}, and the rational acceptability of (A & B) as a joined or “agglomerated” proposition, (A & B).
The third principle is not obviously true, but it seems compelling. When rationally acceptable propositions are generated by the Sufficiency Thesis, it seems natural to just add them to a larger index of rationally acceptable propositions. By extracting it from the Conjunction Principle, we’re left with what I believe is a more controversial and less obvious fourth principle. Although the Agglomeration Principle is deniable, it has quite a bit of force to it.<<ref "8">>
In splitting up the Conjunction Principle9 into more detailed principles, we will see more clearly the kinds of steps made that weren’t so clear in our original Lottery Paradox, and hopefully we can focus upon the contingent and plausibly deniable aspects of the Conjunction Principle. With these new principles, let’s have another crack at the Lottery Paradox.
''4.2''
Suppose the four epistemic principles above, where t = .99. Suppose a fair lottery of 100 tickets, where the selection of each ticket is equiprobable, and exactly 1 ticket will be randomly selected as a winner.
Where n is the set of whole numbers 1 through 100, for each ticket, where the first ticket is T1, the second ticket is T2, … , and the hundredth ticket is T100, there is a corresponding proposition claiming ‘ticket Tn is a losing ticket’, where the first proposition K1 corresponds to T1, and so on.
By supposition, P(~(K1 & K2 & … & K100)) = 1, hence by the Sufficiency Thesis, ~(K1 & K2 & … & K100) is rationally acceptable.
Since each ticket is 1 ticket from a pool of 100, for any Kn, P(Kn) = .99. Hence, by the Sufficiency Thesis, any particular Kn is rationally acceptable. Since, K1 and K2 are rationally acceptable, by the Union Principle, {K1, K2} is rationally acceptable. Since any particular Kn is rationally acceptable, we can continue to employ the Union Principle such that {K1, K2, K3} is rationally acceptable, and {K1, K2, K3, K4} is rationally acceptable, and so on. Hence, by the repeated use of the Union Principle, {K1, K2, …, K100} is rationally acceptable.
Since {K1, K2, …, K100} is rationally acceptable, by the Agglomeration Principle, (K1 & K2 & … & K100) is rationally acceptable.
By the Union Principle, since (K1 & K2 & … & K100) is rationally acceptable and ~(K1 & K2 & … & K100) is rationally acceptable, then {(K1 & K2 & … & K100)), ~(K1 & K2 & … & K100)} is rationally acceptable. We arrive at a set containing two propositions which are inconsistent; however, this is not yet a contradiction. Note how (so far) this is allowed by the second principle.
Finally, by the Agglomeration Principle, since {(K1 & K2 & … & K100), ~(K1 & K2 & … & K100)} is rationally acceptable, then so is [(K1 & K2 & … & K100) & ~(K1 & K2 & … & K100)]. This is a contradiction, which violates our first and second principles.
''4.3''
This version of the Lottery Paradox demonstrates that the four epistemic principles are in conflict. We must jettison at least one of them. Last time, it seemed like it had to be the probabilistic acceptance rule because it was not appealing to jettison the other principles. This time, however, since we have split up the Conjunction Principle to clarify the problem, we can see where things go wrong. The Union Principle seems fairly innocuous. The Agglomeration Principle, however, seems to be the culprit that ends up violating the Sufficiency Thesis. The Agglomeration Principle is a strong candidate for jettison.
So, which is it, do we throw away the Sufficiency Thesis or the Agglomeration Principle? We’ve already considered some of the implications of denying principles like the Sufficiency Thesis. What about the Agglomeration Principle - what is the cost of denying it?
By denying the Agglomeration Principle, we never arrive at a contradiction. But, in trade, if we deny the possibility of agglomeration, we seem to have a messy heap of individual beliefs, but no way to relate those atomic propositions to form complex propositions. This would be intolerable, and so perhaps we may find the Lottery Paradox to be paradoxical for other reasons. Denying the Agglomeration Principle, however, is not the same as denying agglomeration. If we deny the Agglomeration Principle, how does agglomeration work?
Perhaps I say to myself, “well I believe K1 and I believe K2, so I’m going to infer (K1 & K2).” We make that sort of inference all the time. Someone dedicated to employing the Sufficiency Thesis for determining the rational acceptability of (K1 & K2), however, would not accept this agglomeration tout court. Agglomeration itself is subject to the Sufficiency Thesis.
If it is rationally acceptable for me to have the set of beliefs {K1, K2}, and when I attempt to agglomerate this into (K1 & K2), then I first must consider if P(K1 & K2) > t. In this case, t = .99, and P(K1 & K2) = .98. Clearly, this particular agglomeration is not rationally acceptable. Proper agglomeration, at least given the Sufficiency Thesis, doesn’t operate like proponents of the Conjunction Principle seem to think.
Granted, agglomerative inferences enable us to believe complex and interesting propositions, but their rational acceptability is still measured against the Sufficiency Thesis. Agglomeration is important to probabilistic rational acceptance; it just isn’t truth preserving on probabilistic propositions. I have to employ the Sufficiency Thesis on any agglomeration, including this one, to decide the rational acceptability of the resulting proposition. All inferences are subject to the Sufficiency Thesis – it serves as a kind of criterion of rational acceptability which filters, evaluates, and validates or invalidates any proposition.<<ref "10">>
The Agglomeration Principle, as an inferential principle which artificially sits outside the scope of Sufficiency Thesis, goes against the very spirit of the Sufficiency Thesis. The whole point of the Sufficiency Thesis is that any inference or belief formation, including agglomeration, must meet the criteria set out in the Sufficiency Thesis. We shouldn’t sneak the process of agglomeration outside the scope of the Sufficiency Thesis, and hence we should deny the fourth principle. This saves the Sufficiency Thesis from the criticism generally levied against it by those who wield the Lottery Paradox, however, the game is not over.
''5.1''
By denying the Agglomeration Principle, we won’t arrive at the rational acceptability of [(K1 & K2 & … & K100) & ~(K1 & K2 & … & K100)]. In fact, we wouldn’t even reach the intermediate conclusion that (K1 & K2 & … & K100) is rationally acceptable. As far as I can tell, {φ, ~φ} will never be a possibly validated set of propositions using the first three principles either.
The least intuitive set of propositions which these first three principles would deem rationally acceptable would be {K1, K2, …, K100, ~(K1 & K2 & … & K100)}. Essentially, this is the heap-like set of propositions that each ticket is a losing ticket and the proposition that not all the tickets are losing tickets. Admittedly, when phrased that way, the claim that this set of propositions is rationally acceptable does seem a pinch paradoxical. The Lottery Paradox still yields a nuanced and specific criticism of probabilistic rational acceptance, and at the heart of this criticism we will a find deep divide in intuitions concerning the nature of epistemic normativity.
While the Lottery Paradox would turn out not to be immediately fatal to the remaining three principles in terms of deeming a contradiction to be rationally acceptable, the odd thing which falls out of denying the Agglomeration Principle is the following: an agent can rationally accept a set of propositions in which the members of that set cannot all be true at the same time. That is what the Lottery Paradox really shows.
But, that’s okay, right?<<ref "11">> From a pragmatic standpoint, I think it is. From a skeptical standpoint, however, what falls out of the Lottery Paradox establishes that the Sufficiency Thesis is unusable and not an appropriate principle of rational acceptability. The ordinary and scientific propositions we want to think are rationally acceptable, which seem to rely upon the Sufficiency Thesis for their validity, may turn out to not be rationally acceptable from the skeptic’s point of view. The pragmatist hopes to defend the Sufficiency Thesis and the rational acceptability of the propositions it validates.
Essentially, the Lottery Paradox might be seen as a discussion between a skeptic and a pragmatist. Does the lesser criticism from the Lottery Paradox still defeat the Sufficiency Thesis, demonstrating the rational unacceptability of so many common and scientific propositions? This somewhat formal matter turns out to have severe practical implications.
On one hand, the skeptic employs a very high epistemic standard, deeming the actual results of the Lottery Paradox fatal to the Sufficiency Thesis, and thus to the rational acceptability of so many scientific and common-sense, ordinary propositions. From this view, epistemic principles, such as the Sufficiency Thesis, which lead us to inconsistent sets of beliefs are bad principles. They are flawed. They ought not be used, and they don’t count as the appropriate epistemic principles by which to guide our lives. Rational acceptance cannot be built upon the Sufficiency Thesis, as the skeptic sees it, since it is a foundation of quicksand. If the skeptic is correct, the lesser criticism of the Lottery Paradox rules out the viability of the Sufficiency Thesis as a principle of rational acceptability, which further rules out the rational acceptability of the many sorts of practical, ordinary, and also scientific propositions we might normally think of as being rationally acceptable.
On the other hand, the pragmatist employs a lower epistemic standard, defining rational acceptance in context. The pragmatist finds the Sufficiency Thesis suitable for many human contexts. The pragmatist recognizes that we must live our lives, sometimes make snap judgments, holding various beliefs which are not fully coordinated with each other, and that despite trying our best, we will not live up to the standard of epistemic perfection. But, that is okay! Inconsistent sets of beliefs are bad, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t rationally acceptable in all circumstances. The pragmatist does not see the lesser criticism of the Lottery Paradox as delivering a fatal blow to the Sufficiency Thesis and the propositions validated by it. The pragmatist allows for major flaws (flaws in the sense of the epistemic good) in our ordinary human contexts; he allows for believing inconsistent sets of propositions (in some cases); and he allows the Sufficiency Thesis to be less than perfect or maximally good. On the pragmatist’s view, the lesser criticism of the Lottery Paradox neither jeopardizes the viability of the Sufficiency Thesis nor the rational acceptability of so many ordinary and scientific propositions.
I’m drawn to both perspectives. I honestly don’t see a way to defeat the skeptic’s position on his own turf, from within his context, using his standard. Admittedly, I hold some of these skeptical intuitions at certain times. From this perspective, I desire for rational acceptability to keep its purity and presumably simple universalizability.<<ref "12">> To deny the possibility that it is ever epistemically permissible to believe some set of propositions which necessarily can’t all be true at the same time prohibits the Sufficiency Thesis. The skeptical part of me buys into that. From the skeptical perspective, however, it would not be rationally acceptable to hold so many sets of ordinary or scientific propositions at the same time. I cannot buy into that. I am drawn away from my skeptical intuitions. The costs are too high. I must be practical. How else can I live my life?
Ultimately, I believe many propositions that are acceptable to hold by themselves without respect to absolutely all the other propositions I believe. Perhaps some of my beliefs cannot be true at the same time, and I just don’t yet realize it. That has to be okay. What other option did I have? Perhaps when I attempt to reconcile or agglomerate my various beliefs, I may realize that I have beliefs which oppose each other, and then, and maybe I am required to bracket those conflicting beliefs until I find a solution. Yet, I won’t always be in a position to reconcile my beliefs. Sometimes it really is acceptable for me to believe in a set of propositions which are logically inconsistent. Being as rational as I can, limitations and all, has to be acceptable. From the pragmatic point of view, what falls out of the Lottery Paradox is not a knock-down defeat of probabilistic rational acceptance. Instead, it is merely an example of our epistemic limitations as human beings.
Ordinary human beings who do the best they can with what they have are bound to have some individual beliefs which are inconsistent – this is acceptable though. We are not computers who can test all of our proposed beliefs against all the combinations of beliefs we already hold with perfect accuracy and logic in all cases. Perfect coherence is not something we can purposely guarantee or achieve. We can’t be expected to flawlessly coordinate every single belief with all of our other beliefs. We don’t have the energy, time, or capacity for epistemic perfection. We are fallible and limited, but this is not a strike against rational acceptability from the perspective of practical epistemic duty.
Granted, it might take becoming like an unlimited computer to root out our deep-seated epistemic flaws that are somehow not acceptable by a golden standard of rationality. But, why should we be held accountable for achieving the impossible? These flaws, this lack of rationality, have to be normatively acceptable. The adage “ought implies can” comes to mind. In a perfect world, we would be fully capable of rooting out our conflicting beliefs, and thus we would have strong epistemic duties. But, in this world, we can’t always do that work, and so the normative epistemic expectations have to be lower and practical by necessity. It would not be fair to judge otherwise.
''5.2''
I submit we feel the pull of two standards of rational acceptability, the epistemic good and the epistemic right.<<ref "13">> There is a golden standard – the good. This is an objective standard of rational acceptability by which the skeptic evaluates all agents. Only ideal epistemic agents satisfy this supreme standard. From this standard, the Sufficiency Thesis is a failure, and the propositions it validates are not rationally acceptable. Ideal agents would never employ the Sufficiency Thesis, since ideal agents, by definition, never arrive at an inconsistent set of premises. What epistemic principle(s) an ideal agent would employ? I don’t know (I’m not an ideal agent), but whatever principle(s) an ideal agent would employ would live up to the epistemic good. It would be wrong for an ideal agent to not fully partake of the epistemic good. Importantly, this skeptic believes everyone, ideal and unideal agents alike, are to be judged by and are exclusively subject to the epistemic good. Humans are not ideal agents, and they are hopelessly lost and irrational by this standard. Very little of what we believe could be rationally acceptable. Hence, by solely employing the epistemic good as the standard of rational acceptability for all agents, a kind of skepticism concerning the epistemic lives of humans emerges.
The pragmatist, however, uses a lower, contextualized epistemic standard for human beings. The pragmatist thinks the epistemic good is the standard of rational acceptance for only the most ideal epistemic agents. We, as finite human beings, are not ideal epistemic agents, and we fall short of the standard of epistemic good – we are fallible and limited. Is this fallibility, however, unacceptable? No, not really. Only the most ideal and unlimited epistemic agents could be appropriately judged by or subject to that standard. Of course, we can admit that fallibility is not the ideal. Our epistemic limitations are a bad thing (the opposite of good), but not necessarily the wrong thing (the opposite of right).
The epistemic right, as a normative epistemic standard, like any decent ethical standard, must scale with context and ability. Proper judgment of rational acceptance relies upon “right,” not the “good.” What might be right or rationally acceptable for a child to infer might be the wrong for a developed adult, a being with more experience and resources, to infer. Further, what might be the right or rationally acceptable inference to make may turn out to be epistemically bad. Depending on the circumstances and agent in question, a belief may be rationally acceptable even if it is a bad one which doesn’t meet the more rigid standard of the epistemic good. Even the adults among us who come closest to satisfying or achieving the epistemic good are like children when compared to an unlimited, infallible machine, but this is acceptable. What other options do we have?
The sort of rational acceptability we should really be concerned with is the kind directly tied to the epistemic right, and that means rational acceptability must be contextualized.<<ref "14">> Acceptability is a judgment, and the only way to make it fair would be to take into account our fallibility and mental limitations. From this perspective, it does seem as though it can be rationally acceptable to hold beliefs which cannot all be true at the same time.
In one sense, from the standpoint of the epistemic good, it is always rationally unacceptable to believe a set of logically inconsistent propositions (even when those beliefs are merely an uncoordinated heap of individual beliefs). From the perspective of the epistemic good, I think the skeptic is correct. The skeptic cannot let go of the epistemic good and refuses anything less, and I see the force behind that view. When asked, “What kind of epistemic agent do you want to be?” you should respond “a good one,” and not merely “a right one.”<<ref "15">> We want to be better than we are. We don’t want to be fallible or flawed, even when it is outside of our control. That desire is not insignificant. It is the reason we feel the pull of the skeptic’s position, and the reason the Lottery Paradox still seems paradoxical.
In another sense, however, from the standpoint of the epistemic right, a highly contextual standard, it can sometimes be rationally acceptable to believe logically inconsistent propositions. That might be all that we are capable of doing in many circumstances. It would be fair to say we are irrational against the standard of epistemic good, but that doesn’t mean we are irrational given our circumstances. We have to make do with what we have, and rational acceptance must be understood in that light. It is our epistemic duty to reconcile our beliefs into as coherent a set as realistically possible, but we are not accountable for our circumstantial limitations. The Sufficiency Thesis really does seem appropriate to so many contexts in which humans find themselves.
''5.3''
I fear that those who would continue to employ the Lottery Paradox as an argument against probabilistic rational acceptance, even in light of my claim that what falls out of the paradox is a lesser criticism, are tempted to hold us accountable to the standard of the epistemic good rather than the epistemic right. Surely this can’t be correct. If the epistemic good is the sole standard of rational acceptance, then we are lost, and I do not see hope for us as profoundly fallible creatures. Holding humans accountable solely to the epistemic good results in a kind of skepticism about our epistemic lives. Why should we accept that skepticism?
Granted, the Lottery Paradox does seem to make the Sufficiency thesis appear paradoxical from the standpoint of the epistemic good. But, that’s part and parcel of accommodating fallibility and limited mental resources in probabilistic rational acceptance. To say that rationally acceptable inferences might still end up being incorrect is just to say that the right inferences aren’t always good inferences. Proponents of the Sufficiency thesis seem to be already comfortable with our fallibility and the notion that epistemic duty is disconnected from the good in a way that those who would continue to wield the Lottery Paradox as a weapon don’t seem to agree to. It is already built into the assumptions of someone who would ever be willing to go along with the Sufficiency thesis that there is a chance that rationally acceptable inferences turn out to lead us to believe falsehoods and an inconsistent set of complex beliefs.
The Sufficiency Thesis does sometimes result in a bad set of beliefs, but this is far from saying it yields the wrong kinds of inferences or the wrong set of beliefs in a given context. I fear that the skeptic misses the point of the Sufficiency Thesis. The aim of the Sufficiency Thesis is an attempt to give an ideal answer to a practical question concerning fallible and limited minds; it is a pragmatic normative thesis which tries to give an objective shape to something which is highly contextual. We need something to work with, and the epistemic good alone cannot be our practical standard.
The Sufficiency Thesis is pragmatic, and it seeks the epistemic right, not the epistemic good. Detractors of the Sufficiency Thesis who apply the epistemic good (but not the right) perhaps need not employ the Lottery Paradox in the first place; rather he should just go after the root assumption, which is essentially a disagreement about fallibility and the merit of thinking about rational acceptability in terms of the epistemic right. The skeptic needs to establish why his standard, the epistemic good, is the correct standard for all agents, including humans.
''5.4''
The Lottery Paradox at first seems to be a direct threat to probabilistic rational acceptance. Upon closer inspection, however, we can see that the Lottery Paradox doesn’t yield as fatal a criticism of probabilistic rational acceptance as we might have initially thought. The Sufficiency Thesis does not result in validating contradictions, although it can result in validating inconsistent sets of propositions. Upon clarification, it seems that not all worries are defused. The approach of this paper highlights the underlying worry that probabilistic rational acceptance can lead to believing propositions which can’t all be true at the same time. In wrestling with the implications of this criticism, we can see a struggle between pragmatic and skeptical perspectives.
Need we give into this skepticism? I hope not. Can and/or should we set the epistemic good aside and instead focus on the epistemic right? I hope so. If we can successfully set aside the epistemic good, even partially, then maybe we will be able to endure the real criticism which the Lottery Paradox yields. In any case, we have to try. It may be the only practical option.
Considering the Lottery Paradox in terms of the epistemic good and epistemic right may be the best direction to move forward. The skeptic may force us to enter a pragmatic perspective, to go back to the drawing board, to think in the context of the epistemic right, and to redefine what counts as rationality for human beings.
----------------
<<footnotes "1" "Kyburg, Henry Ely. //Probability and the Logic of Rational Belief//. Middletown, Conn: Wesleyan University Press, 1961: 197">>
<<footnotes "2" "Douven, Igor, and Timothy Williamson. 2006. 'Generalizing the Lottery Paradox.' //The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science//. 57, no. 4: 755">>
<<footnotes "3" "Ibid., 755-756">>
<<footnotes "4" "Ibid.">>
<<footnotes "5" "Ibid.">>
<<footnotes "6" "Although, it can evaluate the elements of a set of propositions, and perhaps indirectly, it can make a judgment about a set of propositions by iterating over all the set’s elements.">>
<<footnotes "7" "Technically, the second principle may be redundant. The Lottery Paradox will show that the Sufficiency Thesis, with the help of the Union and Agglomeration Principles, validates and invalidates a contradiction. Further, it may be argued that the Sufficiency Thesis also invalidates members of a set, and if a member of a set is rationally unacceptable, then the entire set may be rationally unacceptable. ">>
<<footnotes "8" "Epistemic Closure may sit behind it.">>
<<footnotes "9" "If each of the propositions φ and ψ are rationally acceptable, so is (φ & ψ).">>
<<footnotes "10" "Clearly, purely logical inferences are always upheld by the Sufficiency Thesis. If some set of assumptions have a probability of 1, then the conclusions deduced from those assumptions also have a probability of 1. Probabilistic inferences are different, since, in these cases, assumptions generally have a probability less than 1, and the conclusions inferred from those assumptions generally have a probability less than 1 as well. Truth preservation is lost in many cases of probabilistic inference. Yet, we can still say that all kinds of inferences, whether probabilistic or logical, could be validated by the Sufficiency Thesis.">>
<<footnotes "11" "I’m bringing my bias to the table here. The skeptic is well within in his rights to hold his position (it has enormous force), but I do not wish to hold that position. ">>
<<footnotes "12" "Contexts are messy and complicated, but note that particularist and semi-particularist theories need not deny universalizable norms.">>
<<footnotes "13" "To some extent, I am borrowing the concepts of ‘right’ and ‘good’ from traditional Virtue ethics.">>
<<footnotes "14" "I say 'directly' because the right is connected to the good, somehow. ">>
<<footnotes "15" "Somewhat similar to achieving eudaimonia, which is much more than being virtuous.">>
---------------
''Bibliography''
Douven, Igor, and Timothy Williamson. 2006. "Generalizing the Lottery Paradox". //The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science//. 57, no. 4
Hawthorne, John. //Knowledge and Lotteries//. Oxford: Clarendon, 2004.
Kyburg, Henry Ely. //Probability and the Logic of Rational Belief//. Middletown, Conn: Wesleyan University Press, 1961.
Nelkin, Dana K. 2000. "The Lottery Paradox, Knowledge, and Rationality". //The Philosophical Review//. 109, no. 3
Right/Duty come in pairs.
A genuine legal right is enforceable (by some entity, not necessarily the claim-holder). Unlike morality, where enforceability has nothing to do with having a moral right. Genuine vs. Nominal normative force (genuine entitlements vs. nominal entitlements).
How enforceable? Is it that someone merely attempts to enforce, or does there need to be a certain success rate/threshold?
If a law generates a right, but it isn’t enforceable, is that law still valid?
Liberty/No-Right (somehow not duty of non-interference) pair – Permissible??
Right entails someone’s duty to do or not to do something, always.
Power/Liability Pair
Immunity/Disability Pair
Legal ought, warrant, should, or normativity is nominal. Who cares? Why should I follow them?
The study of law is parallel to the study of etiquette and polite manners, the study mechanics and rules in games, etc. Yes, the concept of law is distinct, but why is it important?
At best, they only have hypothetical imperative qualities: If you want to be polite, then you ought to follow the rules of etiquette; If you want to play a game of chess, then you ought to follow these rules; If you want to do what is legal, then you ought to follow laws. Why we should be polite, or play chess, or do what is legal is not established by their respective rules. These arbitrary rules are not genuine, standalone reasons for acting in a certain way.
So, why is law important? If we take up the legal positivist position, we don’t have the obvious underpinning that natural law theory has. It becomes quite unclear why law is really important, except as some arbitrary instrument to fulfilling moral requirements. Show me why the law isn’t some “pretend” normative structure that doesn’t spiral.
8/29/13
Read the first 6 chapters of Hart’s book for next week.
9/5/13
Theory of a legal system (concept of law):
Legal Positivism
Definition/Initial Thoughts
Separability Thesis
Civil laws are not logically connected to moral law
Validity of laws has nothing to do, necessarily speaking, with moral right and wrong
Valid means they are conceptually accepted as a law
You could have a genuine set of laws which are quite immoral
H.L.A. Hart is an example proponent of this view
Law is normative in the sense that it describes that laws say “you ought to do this”, but whether or not the laws have normativity themselves, that is different
The claim, apparently, isn’t that they have a value neutral view of the law, rather system of ruels are normative, just not based on morality necessarily (conceptually linked).
Classical Positivism
Bentham
John Austin
The Imperative Theory of Law
Modern Positivism
Started by H.L.A. Hart
Exlusive Positivists (Hard)
Joseph Raz, Scott Shapiro are examples
You necessarily can’t include moral norms in making laws. Laws are incompatible entirely with morality.
If you use morality as a validity standard, then law becomes too ambiguous because morality is ambiguous and too debateable.
Inclusive Positivists (Soft)
Definitions and initial thoughts:
H.L.A. Hart, Coleman, and Kramer are examples
Moral criteria doesn’t necessarily have to be of the validity standard, but it can.
Advanced societies often do employ moral law as a criteria for evaluating civil law
Version 1 – “If you want” moral norms can be necessary for particular valid laws.
Moral notions can be injected into the law, but a law could still be immoral
Not necessarily, but possibly: we could have a government which has moral norms as its validity criterion.
Ex: “Can’t engage in cruel and unusual punishment”
The only way to tell what is cruel and unusual is to engage in some sort of moral criteria
Ex: “Follow due process of Law”
Innately embedded notion of “fairness” or “right”
Version 2 – “IF you want,” Moral norms can be sufficient for particular valid laws
Golden rule is sometimes taken as being sufficient in itself as a law, even though it isn’t written in our books or something.
Incorporationism-criterion can incorporate moral norms
Natural Law
Definition and Initial Thoughts:
Moral Concept of Law
(broader sense than philosophers would use the phrase “Natural law” – where we associate more exclusively to someone like Aquinas, but this also includes Locke, etc.)
E.g. Reason is able to discern crucial moral rules/natural laws
Deny the Separability Thesis
The standard of validity in which a civil law must satisfy certain moral requirements
Ronald Dworkin is an example proponent of this view
He thinks you need a moral justification for the use of coercion
Hart thinks command is an appeal to authority. You obey the command because you appreciate the authority, not merely because you fear punishment. You have a reason for obeying that command in accepting the authority. T
Chapters 2-4 of Hart’s book explains what is wrong with classical positivism
How is law different from orders and orders back by threats?
How is law related to morality?
What are rules and to what extent is law an affair of law? How are they different from habits and norms?
Austin’s Positivism-
Austin thinks a command is a coercive order. Hart doesn’t like this use.
Think about the coercive order of a gunman. Is that order a law? No. Well, why not? What is the difference between this and a law?
The gunman talks to you directly, and to you alone. It only applies to you.
In law, you might be expected to find it. Law might be promulgated through indirect means. Can’t confine law to merely a personal communication, but it should be public.
Law applies to more people. It is a general order that everyone in a territory is expected to comply with.
Gunman’s territory is perhaps too small. We think of a legal system as applying a significant territory. It can’t just be the locality of the gunman.
There are no notions of an office for a gunman (no room for it is Austin’s theory, no office of the sovereign created by rules), but we might offices.
Laws usually aren’t immediate, they stand or persist for a time, unlike the gunman’s order.
Coercive orders don’t seem to apply to the gunman, maybe they can’t, but laws seem like they often should apply to everyone, including the issuer.
Does the gunman have ultimate
Standing
General – order to general population
Public – availability, disseminated publically
Issued by a sovereign
When we think of the sovereign, for Austin, the sovereign is the foundation, the power to issue commands. People habitually obey the orders of the sovereign.
9/12/13
Simple Imperative Model – Austin
AN unlimited power sovereign over a region. People under his control habitually obey his coercive orders. The sovereign doesn’t habitually obey anyone else.
Any legal system has a sovereign.
Hart tries to make the coercive model of law as plausible as possible with his modifications (or charitable clarifications of the gun example).
Hart gives 5 objections to the imperative model (even the model he’s been as generous as possible towards):
Hart admits the model of coercive orders, as he teased it out, seems to capture something important about criminal laws, and laws that impose duties, and order us to do things, and they are backed up by a threat of punishment. E.g. don’t murder (except in self defense or other justification, you’ll be punished otherwise). Lots of laws do seem to fall in the coercive order model, but he thinks there is a difference between real criminal law.
Strictly speaking about coercive orders is distinct from rules.
Varieties of laws beyond the simple imperative understanding
E.g. power conferring laws – They seem to enable us to do certain things rather than disable us from doing something
Don’t seem to apply to us unless we wish to have them apply, in some sense. We make choices about whether or not to exercise these powers.
These don’t’ arbitrarily distributes powers to random citizens. To validly exercise the relevant power, a certain designated legal procedure must be followed.
Law, in this case, can enable us to do things which we think are very useful.
Apparently, we can always separate the power-conferring law from any punishments which might later be entailed by not following certain implications of that law (when that law is validly exercised).
Hart is against mere penal law: “If you do P, then punishment Q”
E.g. I buy a fridge – I’ve been given a power to buy it. But, is this a power I didn’t have before?
Private legislators
Power to make a contract
If we don’t follow the correct procedures, then we don’t make a valid contract.
Not like a coercive order though. You are never generally required to make a contract. Although, yes, once you enter into a contract, you may have coercive powers that enforce that contract.
Compare
Do X, or punishment Y.
Do X in situation Z (Z being something you have control over, a choice to put yourself in this situation), or punishment Y. (This seems to be the contract).
Why are these really all that distinct? Both can be universal duties, except that one is particularized to a situation. This is much like particularism in ethics. You can still have universal laws, they just happen to be highly specified, to the point that many people may never have to worry about those rules. The rule itself isn’t condition though – it applies to everyone, even if it won’t practically matter to most people.
Not all power-conferring laws have a coercive component though. I can see that.
Create new rights and correlative duties
Public legislators
You at the power-conferring law from the perspective of the person who wants to do something.
Voting is a solid example.
External perspective – don’t’ need to know why the law is the way it is..or any reason not to do something the law forbids, but we obey it because we fear the punishment (and that is the only reason). Power conferring rules on different on this perspective, going more internal. Why would I want to exercise this power? Punishment is not involved. I’m not threatened with punishment.
Unlike Coercive orders, laws can possibly apply to the lawmakers themselves
Do laws have a “self-binding” quality?
There may be reasons that certain laws don’t bind the lawmakers.
Can’t understand without the internal perspective.
Locke
Trust model –we trust them, and they shouldn’t abuse the power entrusted to them.
Some laws don’t seem to originate in the coercive orders of anyone; instead, some laws seem to originate in custom.
Golden rule example, can be recognized as a custom and give validity to it. Not sufficient for the coercive models.
Not sure this is a good one. It seems that a sovereign might tacitly consent or something. Maybe the judge making the interpretation is in part the sovereign (and so this objection is really just another one altogether).
Habitual obedience to coercive orders is not adequate to explain the continuity and persistence of law.
E.g. laws seems to be followed even after the personal sovereign has died.
Rex 1 and Rex 2. Habitual obedience toward rex 1, while we think habitual obedience will go on toward rex 2.
I don’t’ find this objection ot have much force. It seems to me that even the rex 1 dies, and his laws die with him, that doesn’t mean that he didn’t have laws qua habitual obedience. Laws, in my view, can be more fleeting, lacking continuity and persistence. Hart has a different intuition.
I think Hart merely LIKES continuity and persistence. It is perhaps necessary to have these characteristics to have a good law (not that it is sufficient for having a good law).
Why can’t Rex 1 issue a coercive order to follow Rex 2? Seems like he could, and that would be a problem, as it would be the continuity and persistence requirements, possibly.
I think this objection tries to arbitrarily limit the character of law.
Habit vs. Rule
Habit
Convergence of people’s behavior – a pattern of behavior
Rule
Convergence of behavior (same)
Standard (justifiably criticized if you depart from the convergence) – internal point of view, if you deviate from the rule, then you are justification criticized – internal attitude is different than habit.
Is this criticism a kind of coercion? Organized public stigma and humiliation for deviating form the rule seems coercive.
Critical reflective attitude – you see that you ought to
If you can’t enter into this internal attitude, and you don’t take it to be normative, then it isn’t a rule for you. Psychopaths might not have rules. If you don’t adopt it to be a rule, then it isn’t a rule. This might be a problem. It seems to be a rule, whether or not you see it or not.
What is this normativity of rule if it isn’t moral? What if I deny normativity out of moral normativity? What then? I don’t understand “ought” outside it.
It seems reasonable to think a good reason to follow a rule is to avoid punishment, but this is disallowed on Hart’s view. Just fearing punishment isn’t good enough, on his view. But, I don’t know why? Why “ought” outside of punishment being necessary to defin e a rule?
What is the normativity of law outside of the normativity of morality? Is normativity a necessary characteristics of laws in legal positivism? Seems like we are doing metaethics here.
9/19/13
Objections to the simple coercion model (??) – Hart against Austin:
Variety of Laws
Power-conferring –
these rules themselves don’t impose any duty to follow a correct procedure. If you don’t’ follow the correct procedure in making a contract, then there aren’t any duties which come from it – and you won’t be punished for not following these procedures (odd for coercive law). But, further, you don’t have any duties in the first place to follow the procedure.
Hart thinks Power-conferring rules are different from duty-conferring rules.
We do want contracts to be enforced, of course. We want people tothinks that they really do have a duty imposition built into them. Coleman talks about having a duty to correctly follow the procedures.
Habits of Obedience vs. Rules
Consistency requires a rule for the succession of office.
Distinction that is important between Habits and rules (from internal point of view):
Even primary duty imposing rules are not like coercive orders that are habitually obeyed.
Last Objection (the 5th):
Question of the Sovereign
Simple Imperative Model’s sovereign is legally unlimited entity (person or group of people). According to that model, every genuine legal system as a sovereign at the foundation of it (even if it is hard to find). Everyone habitually obeys the sovereign, but the sovereign does not habitually obey anyone else.
The sovereign may accept certain conventions that aren’t regarded as laws. E.g. maybe he fears revolt, and doesn’t really make orders which would provoke the other people in his territory. E.g. the sovereign might just follow certain moral coventions.
Hart argues against this model
Can’t always find a sovereign.
Written Constitution example (there are parts that are excempt form the article 5 amendment formula – e.g. can’t amend that a state gives up its two senators unless by the consent of that state). Imagine an unamendable constitution, since the constitution limits all other people’s powers legally, then there is no one or entity with unlimited power. This is odd though, as I still want to think about popular sovereignty as being at the heart of any enforceable unamendable constitution.
Only one assembly. Popular sovereignty is not allowed by the strict interpretation of Austin’s view. Hart is unsympathetic to using pop sov as a way of justifying the Austinian model. It is too messy. It lacks a supreme ruler “feeling” to it.
Hart want to draw a sharpline between pop sov and real unlimited sovereign model.
Maybe there is a specific group of individuals that, if they came together, could decide to change the constistution (e.g. get rid of the 1st amendment). There seems to be a concentration of power in these people that might seem to look like Austinian sovereignty, even though there are intermediate steps.
Sovereign might be bound by law – he is not legally unlimited in this sense.
Power-conferring rules is conferring limited powers on officials, and also conferring/distributing disabilities = no-powers.
Nobody has unlimited power. Checks and balances. Power-conferring rules are crucial to the limited powers. In principle, you could have a rule that sets up an office of the sovereign in accord with some rule of succession, etc.,
Pg. 77
Talk about Hart’s own theory:
Union of two kinds of rules – primary, duty imposing rules and secondary, power-conferring rules
It is in this union that we find the key to genuine legal systems and laws. It is not in the idea of coercive orders that the classical positivists (like Austin) had maintained.
Pg. 81
He identifies the two kinds of rules. Primary type, humans are required to do or abstain from certain actions, whether they want to or not.
Second rules are parasitic upon primary. Doing or saying certain things extinguish, modify, or control primaryrules.
The union of primary rules is a crucial foundation of the legal system. It is very necessary, although it isn’t sufficient. Hart is not laiming to give us a dictionary definition of law. Through analysis he is trying to clarify law, but he isn’t giving it to us on a plate. We have to go through the analysis to understand the features he has in mind and why.
You mayfeel obliged because you fear punishment, psychological attitude, fearing harm. This notion of feeling obliged is tied up with your self-interest….Hart has a different sense of obliged???
Hart thinks you can have an obligation without feeling obliged. I could have an internal attitude, endorse the standard, upon critical reflection I find it normative for my own conduct, and yet I might not feel obliged.
Hart wants to distinguish doing something as a result of feeling obliged out of notion of self interest and doing something because you feel you ought to do something (what he thinks is a genuine obligation). Maybe this distinction isn’t really successful.
I take it that this is descriptive. It doesn’t matter if you really ought to do something, that hasn’t anything to do with the law, but merely whether or not you have the feeling that you ought to…that is genuine obligation in a descriptive, non-normative sense.
Pre-legal primitive society – only primary rules, no secondary ones. Just duty imposing rules.
My question: Why is a description of law not just a subset of a descriptive, sociological, almost Darwinian view of ethics>? They seem to have a different kind of normativity that sits outside ethics (even a descriptive view of ethical normativity).
What are the defects of a pre-legal society?
Uncertainty about primary rules (what they are and mean).
Static society – not a lot of ways to change the rules? It lacks the mechanism for changing them.
Decentralized enforcement, lacks governmental effectiveness and efficiency
Secondary rules correct these defects. Supplementing the primary rules is the remedy.
Secondary rule of recognition (corrects problem 1)
Gives a group of citizens the power to tell us what are valid legal rules in the system. The rule of recognition sets out certain criteria of validity, marks of what counts as a valid law. A rule which satisfies this criteria is a valid law in the legal system. Some officials are going to, by applying these criteria, be able to say “this rule is a law, and this one is not.”
This only limits uncertainty. It doesn’t make the law entirely uncertain. In practice, it doesn’t seem to completely resolve uncertainty. How much uncertainty has to go away?
Secondary Rule of Change (corrects problem 2)
Give some group of officials the power to change the duty imposing rules.
Implicitly connected to the rule of recognition because if you give a group of officials power to change primary laws, then you have to recognize that these legislators are a source of legal validity. If they follow the right procedure, then they’ve created new or different rules of our legal system.
Secondary Rules of Adjudication (corrects problem 3)
Judges have the power to adjudicate or settle disagreements or disputes over primary rules.
Again, the people with this authority are recognized as a valid source of law. When a judge issues a decision resolving a dispute, that interpretation is a valid law (or modification of law, etc.).
Note that even having many different local courts is possibly too decentralized without a supreme court.
All the secondary rules can be collapsed into a complex rule of recognition. It implicitly can have built into the rules of change and adjudication.
It seems to me that we might want a secondary rule of “executive power” for enforcement. It would confer power to people to enforce the rules, to take what legislators create and bring people (against their will, and coercively) to the courts. The problem seems to be that these aren’t rules about other rules exactly, is it?
The union of secondary rules (expressed in a complicated rule of recognition) and primary rules gives us a legal system. The rule of recognition – “How do you go about figuring out whether or not a rule is valid or not?” – this rule is the criterion of legal validity. If X craft Rule of recognition’s criterion of validity to by Y, then it seems like X is the real source or criterion of validity. Who gives X that power?
The rule of recognition is unusual. ROR is tied to a social practice, especially among officials. An ultimate rule of the system. It is closely connected to the fact that it is embedded in the practice of officials in the sense that officials more or less agree that when you try and figure out what a valid law is, your practice goes by this criteria.
I worry there is something circular about that. Is there a chicken or egg problem? What are some moves that allow us to go from pre-legal to legal? You need laws to confer power to officials, but then you need officials to make laws.
Coleman replies to this objection.
ROR is at the foundation of the system. It is ultimate in the sense that you can’t go behind that law. You have to stop at its criterion. But, again, I worry about this circularity objection. The people who create the criterion seem to be the real criterion.
RoR is a law from an internal perspective, but also an oberservable convergence behavior of officials. There are two ways of looking at it, according to Hart, that makes it distinctive.
This is like the problem of the criterion in epistemology (skepticism), right?
Infinite regress problem coming? I don’t know.
If the officials aren’t engaged in the practice of the RoR, then it doesn’t exist. Very descriptive and observable. Tied to social practices in a way that the other social laws are not tied to social practice.
Questions for Midterm-
Think about the difference between the ultimate ROR, the supreme criterion of legal validity (maybe a hierarchy of conditions of validity, but that hierarchy has priorities built into it, and the supreme one is supreme), and a sovereign (or even a legally unlimited legislature).
For rex1 and rex2, they are close. But for an advanced society like the US, they are very different. WTF is the supreme criterion?
When it comes to the social practice (Hart’s theory is sometimes called “the practiced theory of rules”), the type of practice is special because the normative attitudes of one official is dependent upon the attitudes of other officials. Most officials have to be engaged in the same. There is a collective interaction, apparently (although, I don’t see it). Lecture 7 in coleman’s book, conventionality thesis, and the fact that social practice is kind of like a coordinating convention where are attitudes are mutually dependent on another (like coordinating our cars while driving down the road). Shared cooperative activity.
9/26/13
Riley left last class by thinking about:
ROR is ultimate.
There is a supreme criterion or source of legal validity.
Sovereignty, Austin’s sense…
May there is an ROR for Rex 1 that says there is an office of a sovereign, and whoever is the occupant, say rex, the ROR says whoever occupies this position of the sovereign, their enactments, whatever rules they make, are laws in this system. In such a simple system, these three things are very closely associated.
Take the US system:
What do we mean when we say the ROR is the ultimate rule? X is validated or justified by Y…so on, regress. ROR is bottom, stops that regress, it is the foundation. There is always something behind the non-ultimate rules which validate them, but there isn’t anything behind the ROR. Every other rule can trace their validity to the rule of recognition. The ROR sets out the sources. There is only one ROR, but many conditions, many criteria of validity as set out by the ROR.
ROR - > Social practice, convention
What is the rule of recognition? It is implicit (acc. to Hart). It could be embodied in written principle, but it need not. It could just be an implicit rule. To say what it is is to refer to this practice, the behavior of the officials in the legal system. What are their practices for identifying the legally valid rules of the system? That is the implicit ROR.
Social practice (and rules)
Internal statements
E.g. This rule is a valid rule under the ROR. These are statements made by people within the system of rules.
External statements
A statement that could be made by an outside observer. They can see it is not just habits of behavior, but something more. Can they really see inside the internal state? Can they trust the word of the officials?
What does it mean to take on the internal perspective, and find a rule normative for you, to think you ought to follow it, but not find it to be a duty or obligation? Isn’t that what “ought” just means?
We can’t ask, what makes the ROR legally valid? I don’t see why not though.
Supreme Criterion of Legal Validity – The ROR sets out multiple criteria of legal validity, particularly in advanced of societies. E.g. the written constitution, statutes enacted by congress, decisions made by judges, customs can be valid laws too. – these are all sources of law. A well defined system puts these sources into a hierarchy. The supreme criterion demonstrates the priority of the sources or criteria of law. It resovles conflicts of legal validity.
E.g. of this prioritization: if congress follows the proper procedure, it is valid, until it comes before the supreme court, which may rule it unconstitutional. When the courts rule as such, then it overrules the congress.
ROR is forward looking. It gives you guidance as to figuring out what is valid. We can’t decide this merely at looking at past behavior. The ROR, in this sense, can’t be fully written down, and must be implicit.
The supreme criterion of legal validity is the ultimate aspect of the ROR. All other criteria for laws must meet and be shaped by the supreme criterion.
What makes criteria not a rule?
It seems arbitrary to talk about the ROR as being anything but the supreme criterion. The supreme criteria seems to be a tertiary rule about the secondary rules.
Supposedly, ROR can’t be reduced to mere social practice (even though normativity is somehow built into the social practice).
I don’t understand what it means to separate “is” from “ought” in soft positivism.
What about the relationship between sovereignty and the supreme criterion?
ROR – When it comes to recognition of social practice, the nature of it, these practices are coordinating conventions.
Hart doesn’t think power-conferring rules ??must or can?? impose duties (including the RoR). Hypothetical imperative…if you want to make this valid law, then follow this procedure. Officials have power to follow the procedure, to satisfy the hypothetical imperative, but they don’t have a duty to do so. Coleman disagrees. He thinks the ROR and power-conferring rules do impose duties. The idea is that you have a duty to exercise your power in the proper way. If you didn’t do your duty, you’d be punished by the other officials. He can do that without saying that officials have duties to make morally good laws, rather they just need to make laws.
Is Coleman saying that power-conferring laws MUST have duties attached to them, or merely that they CAN?
3 Kinds of Issues:
How to classify ROR?
Minimum conditions for existence of a genuine legal system
Pathological Cases: Grey Areas
Look at chapter 6, where Hart says, “let’s accept my argument, what is crucial to a legal system?”
Pg. 112. Two ways to look at ROR. From perspective of people within the system of rules who accept the rules as reason sof r their actions, they make internal statements when describing the rules. From that perspective, the ROR is a valid law, it is implicitly treated as a law itself. The very existence of the ROR depends upon the social practice, without the practice there is no ROR. From the external perspective, it is just a fact, just a social practice. That isn’t an adequate view of the matter, but that is Hart’s view.
Pg 116-117, two conditions for genuine legal systems. (1) the rules that are recognized as legally valid by the officials, that are genuinely complied with by everyone in the society.
Important defect of genuine legal:
It is possible for there to be a genuine legal system where the officials are all engaged in this social practice (as to how they identify what counts as a valid rule), and they make immoral laws, and the ordinary citizens might be ignorant of th the secondary rules (don’t now much about the legal structure), and they may only comply because they fear punishment (not because these laws are rules or reasons for their own actions), and so the masses of the citizens can be like sheep. They don’t know how it works, and they can just comply out of fear of punishment, and this is unhealthy. Yet, it is valid.
Pathological cases…Revolution, Invasion, etc. Where the mass citizens are not complying with what the officials regard as valid laws. There is a question about whether or not a legal system exists. Can the officials be restored?
He thinks these cases are possible and explainable in his theory.
Ex: Maybe a mother country as a bunch of colonies. The ROR that is practiced in the colonies says the supreme criterion is the British Parliament. Maybe the British parliament makes a colonial government structure, and this is all accepted by the local officials. What if the colonies break off, no longer recognizing the British Parliament as the supreme criterion? The local officials don’t regard it this way. Maybe they follow the remaining sources, but not that supreme one. The local officials seem to be the break-away point. They seem to have the real ROR, and artificially grant that power to the British Parliament. Proximity seems to matter.
Lecture 7 Coleman – SCA (shared cooperative activity) -what is involved in the social practice.
Not in the exam:
4 Crucial features of morality are not tied to any particular content of moral thory. Riley doesn’t find it persuasive.
10/17/13
Law and Morality – as Hart see’s it
We can admit that Justice seems to be connected to morality, such as distribution concerns, fairness, compensation, etc.
Although, we might separate justice from morality in thinking that applying deeply immoral laws, correctly according the statutes, would be serving justice, qua the law itself, despite it being immoral to do so. Impartially applied nazi law might be “justice” in this sense, even though it seems far from justice in the moral sense.
Hart spends time trying to tell us what, in his view, is distinctive about moral rules. There are other rules in society besides moral rules.
4 cardinal features of morality –
(pg 173-)
Importance
You may have to sacrifice to follow the moral rule, and that might not be easy, so it better be important.
We can see a legal rule (or rule of politeness, etc.) as unimportant, but we can’t find genuine moral rules to be unimportant.
Perhaps breaking a parking law just isn’t immoral. Some legal rules just aren’t important or they are trivial, unlike moral laws.
Some people might not agree with Hart, and instead claim that once a law was in place, it becomes a moral issue. One should follow the law because it is a law. The law extends morality.
Not everyone thinks that Hart is right about importance distinguishing moral rules from other kinds of rules.
Immunity from deliberate change
Legal rules may be introduced by deliberate enactment, but moral rules are not subject to deliberate change by enactment.
Voluntary Character of moral offenses
You’ve done something immoral only if you’ve done it deliberately. You can be excused for violating a moral principle if you didn’t really intend to violate it. However, it isn’t clear that you can be excused for the law, even if violated involuntarily – law can employ a sense of strict liability.
Mens Rea – Guilty Mind
Differing forms of pressure
Later Hart claims: Legal punishment, only legal sanctions, are the only true punishment. Moral rules don’t have punishment in the same way. They are external.
Moral pressure, the kind of criticism one receives from breaking a moral rule, comes from internal perspective. The criticism is about being ashamed, about feeling like your character is flawed, about not being a good person who does good things for good reasons, about feeling guilty when you break a moral rule, etc.
Appeal to moral rules being important in themselves
Internal rather than external sanctions.
Minimum content of Natural Law
Hart admits that there is something true, something common sensical about the natural law theory, in the sense that at least a certain minimum content is found in both the legal system and the moral code in advanced societies.
There are legal rules against murder and theft; and there are moral rules against these things. There is overlap in the content of these sets of rules.
Contingent human desire for survival – in order to survive, you need certain rules to be in place. Survival principles, as content, seem to be found both in moral and legal rules. Nazi example, nazi rules are distorted in the sense that the definition of humans is limited, excluding certain groups of people. It helps the Aryans survive. Minorities were “conspiring” to destroy true German society, and so furvor against the minority groups comes from perhaps the notions of survival.
Pg 193
4 types of rules:
Rules of Property
Guarantee your survival through owning the fruits of your labor and trade
Tend to appear in both moral and legal realms.
Rules of Personal safety
Prevents you from being harmed, raped, killed, etc. – show up in both realms as well. Associated with survival.
Rules of Promising/Contracting
Can’t lie, fraudulently lead people into false contracts
Rules of Punishment
These kinds of fundamental rules appear in both systems, there is overlap regarding survival.
The separation thesis is consistent with an overlap between the content of moral rules and legal rules.
5 truisms – ch 9 – contingent features of human beings and the world we live in:
Human vulnerability
Vulnerable to attack, we can be killed, catch disease, etc.
Approximate equality
Not huge differences
One person can’t ignore everyone else (hobbes)
Limited Altruism
Just a fact, acc. to Hart, that we are selfish creatures
Can’t really expect us to sacrifice our self-interest to help others
Scarcity of Resources
The world is such that valuable resources are source, command a price, etc.
Limited Understanding
Cognitively imperfect, bounded rationality
Prone to weakness of will (seems like “limited cognitive function” or maybe something of its own)
These contingent facts could have been otherwise, Hart thinks.
Most people want to survive. We have rules which make it more likely. It is a contingent fact that we desire to survive. We could have been otherwise.
Hart is emphasizing the idea of minimal content, which is versus teleological view of classical (metaphysical) natural law theory. Hart doesn’t buy into this perspective.
The term “right” applies, misleadingly, to so many different legal positions.
Right = claim
Being under the position of a claim holder, in the legal system.
Hohfeldian classification of fundamental jural positions:
First-Order position under the Law
Claim vs. No-Claim
Claim
I have a claim on the society for the protection for some interest or concern that I regard as important. E.g. a claim not to be attacked; a claim to property I’ve created or labored for…
no-claim
No-claim position is a position in which you have no claim.
Liberty vs. Duty
Liberty
A privilege, a permission. A liberty to do X means I don’t have any obligation not to do that X. Liberty is the same as not having a Duty to do X.
A unilateral liberty – liberty to X is compatible with a duty to do X.
Liberty to X, which is compatible with the Duty to X, but opposite of the Duty to ~X
Liberty to ~X, which is compatible with the Duty to ~X, but opposite of the Duty to X.
Bi-lateral liberty – a liberty to do or not to do X – fully incompatible with a duty to do or not to do X
I could have the liberty to do X, and others might also…e.g. applying for a job. No obligation to not apply for it (or to apply for it, perhaps, in this case). Other people can have that same liberty. The competition between us may result in me not getting the job. It is not like a claim where my interests have to be protected.
Just because I have a liberty doesn’t mean others don’t have a duty to not interfere. Although, often liberties are buttressed indirectly by duties.
Naked liberty (just no obligation not to do something) vs. Liberties backed up by claims.
Duty
An obligation to do or not to do something.
Power vs Disability
Power
The ability to change people’s claims, duties, and liberties (first order positions under the law).
E.g. A contract to sell my car. Duty to sell my car at a certain price when I make a contract. Claim to buy it at a certain price from me for my contractee.
Disability
No-power. Not having power.
Immunity vs. Liability
Immunity
Immune from having some set of rights, claims, or liberties from being altered.
Liability
The position of being liable to have my existing rights, duties, and liberties altered by someone with power to do so. I’m not immune.
Presenting logical correlates, instead of opposites.
Claim/Duty
A person has a claim iff some set of people have correlative duties.
Liberty/No-Claim
A person has a liberty to do X iff other people have correlative position of no-claim that the person not do that (i.e. that person doesn’t have a duty not to do X).
Power/Liability
A person has a power iff other people have a correlative liability to have their existing claims/liberties/duties changed.
Immunity/Disability
A person has immunity iff other people have a correlative position of no-power, essentially a disability, to alter that person’s claims/liberties/duties.
Claim relates to Liberty analogously to how power relates to immunity.
If I have a liberty, then I have freedom from other people’s claims (they have no-claim).
If I have immunity, then I have freedom from other’s people powers (they are disabled).
We can articulate Freedom from and freedom to (in Berlin’s sense) using these Hohfeldian concepts.
Competing theories of (legal?) rights:
Interest Theory of Rights (a.k.a. benefits theory)
Kramer, some utilitarians, etc.
A right is a claim to protect a vital interest of mine
A right gives me an important benefit. If I hold the right, then I am the beneficiary of that claim. I am really benefiting from society protecting it.
E.g. I might have an interest with respect to liberty to not be interfered with in some coercive conduct.
The rightholder has to benefit from a claim…why the fuck would that be true?
Benefit doesn’t have to be some personal sense – making me richer, etc. ideas of my own self-interest. Benefit can extend beyond that.
E.g. maybe I have rights to fulfill the duties of my public official office. The interest theory can be extended to show I have an interest simply to perform the acts of my office, even if it isn’t personal in some sense.
The Focus of the interest theory is on getting this protection to important interests, leaving open the question of which interests are really important (Maybe utility, or whatever…there are a range of interest theories for selecting important interests).
Refers to Hohfeld’s framework. A right is just a claim, a claim to protect certain interests.
No logical relationship between first order jural positions and second.
Choice theory of rights (a.k.a. the will theory)
Steiner Rejects the interest theory – also H.L.A. Hart agrees to this view as well
A right is claim + the power to enforce the duties that are correlative with the claim.
Having a right is a complex position. You need both components.
How successful do you need to be in enforcing?
The power to wave the duties correlated to the claim.
Have to be able to choose in accord with their rights. They have to have some control over some set of actions with respect to a right.
Under choice theory, if I have a right, then others have correlative duties and liabilities.
There is a logical relationship between first and second order jural positions.
Legal systems are those which actually work. You need auxiliary legal support to have rights.
The work conception of rights means that there are more than just the correlations we’ve identified in the system
Working Theory of Rights/Law, Steiner’s theory, extension of Hohfeldian Conceptual analysis and logical correlatives:
Power -> Liberty to exercise that power
Kramer thinks supreme court justices might have powers that they have duties not to exercise.
Liability -> no-claim not to have the correlative power exercised
Disability = no-power, thus Disability -> lack of liberty to exercise a power
Disability -> duty not to exercise power [which they don’t have] (fucking weird way of saying it)
Disability -> others have claim rights that the power not be exercised
Immunity = not liable, thus Immunity -> claim not to have the correlative power exercised
This means that Kramer?? thinks that a right is a claim, a power, and a liberty to exercise that power
My thoughts: Why should we define our concepts the way we do? We need ethical reasons, and reasons that serve ethical theories, basically.
1st stage –demand fulfillment of duties (if don’t voluntarily, no need to do anything else)
2nd stage – if not voluntarily fulfilled, then get a relevant official to bring this person to court.
3rd stage – if a trial is held, and it has been decided that you’ve fulfilled your duties, then you are punished.
If IP isn’t enforceable, then it isn’t IP rights aren’t really rights, based on Steiner’s theory.
Power -> Liberty
Liability -> no-claim against the holder of the correlative power
Disability = no-power -> duty not to do what one has a disability to do
Argument against the working interpretation….Supreme court example:
You can have the legal authority to make a bad ruling or interpretation, but you have a duty not to make a bad ruling or interpretation. Hence, you won’t have a liberty to use that power in a certain way, that is, you don’t have a liberty to make a bad ruling or interpretation.
That seems, at best, to be a moral judgment. You “ought” not make a bad ruling from a moral perspective is just wildly different from a legal claim to not being able to do it.
Choice-working conception
Interest theory deny working conceptions entailments between the secondary and primary jural positions.
Kramer – Rights are just claims. You don’t need to be mentally competent or rational. Just as long as you have interests, you could theoretically be protected by a right. For Kramer, because he rejects the working conception, has some odd things falls out.
Will theorists think only minimally rational agents can have rights.
Kramer accepts Hohfeld’s framework. One of the crucial aspects of Hohfeld’s is the ‘correlativity thesis’.
Legal duties always imply legal claims. Legal duties <-->legal claims (claims =rights). There is always a correlation between duties of an individual and rights of other individuals.
Critics of Hohfeld’s thesis here, think that there can be absolute legal duties. For instance, one might argue the duty to pay income taxes is not correlative to any individual right. Can a person take me to court for not paying my taxes? If not, then I don’t have a duty to them to pay my taxes.
Duties are only those sorts of thing for which one can be taken to court by the person towards which you have the duty.?? Why is that true. Can’t I just report the person to the IRS? The IRS speaks on my behalf, in a sense. Not all duties are enforceable either. Maybe I can’t take them to court,but that doesn’t mean I don’t have a right.
I have a duty not to litter. If someone else watches me litter, they can’t take me to court over it, but they can report it to the enforcers of law, who can then perhaps take me to court.
Kramer extends Hohfeld by saying that in addition to individual claims, there can be irreducible group/collective rights. Where the large group is society, for example. Irreducible right of the collectivity. Individual duties are not merely correlative to claims of other individuals, but it could be claims of a collectivity. Agents can be collective identities, it seems.
One case that brings about many aspects of the the interest theory??:
The case of third-party beneficiaries
Under the interest theory, a claim holder, a right protects the interest of the claim holder, so rights need to be beneficial to the holders. If you had a right which wasn’t good for you, it was actually detrimental, then under the interest theory, we don’t’ want to call that a genuine right.
Will theorists aren’t committed to this idea that rights are to the benefit of the claim holder.
Consider a person who has made a contract to send flowers to a third-party. The idea is that the beneficiary is the third party. It seems like the person who made the contract has the right, but he isn’t benefiting (apparently). I have the power to waive fulfillment of a duty of the flower seller to fulfill the contract, or the power to take them to court to demand fulfillment. The person who made the contract seems like the right holder.
Why can’t you be interested in having someone deliver the flowers? Both the person receiving and the contract makers (the buyer) has interests here.
Oddly, Riley is arguing that the beneficiary, because they benefit, has a right on the interest theory. I don’t see why that is true. I see why the contract maker has a right (and an interest), but not why the third party has a right. It seems like the flower shop as a duty TO the contract maker to give flowers to someone else.
How do we identify which interests deserve rights and which don’t?
Seems to me: that Claim->interest, but not interest->claim
Take another 3rd party case, where I take out a loan for my brother get 10k. Brother benefits, and I suppose I do as well. Does it make sense to say he has a right to this money because he is benefiting? What if my brother is spending 9k of it on furniture, then it seems like the furniture shop owner is really benefiting. Does he have a right under the interest theory? And so on. Do they all rights?
I took the interest theory to be weeding out which things we are tempted to call claims are genuine claims, and that is when a claim actually benefits the claim-holder. I don’t see the interest theory as really going around sifting through the benefits out there to decide which benefits count are protected by claims. Riley thinks the latter is the case.
If the brother’s interest isn’t satisfied, then that is sufficient to tell us that the contract has no been fulfilled. On the other hand, the owner of the furniture store, if his interest in having the 9k spent in his store is denied, that isn’t sufficient to say the contract was not fulfilled.
I want to say that if my brother’s interest isn’t fulfilled, then mine, as the loan-taker, isn’t fulfilled. My brother’s interest being fulfilled is sufficient for mine. My interest still seems to be the real test, and my brother’s interest is coincidental.
Bentham’s Test – if not satisfying an interest is not sufficient for telling us that something is wrong with the fulfillment of the contract, then it isn’t an interest backed by a claim.
This tests sifts through interests to find those which are actually salient to the contract.
Intuitively appealing aspect of interest theory when compared to the will theory
Children, mentally competent people, animals, fetus, etc. cannot have will theory rights
Will theory might argue a “future like ours”
Will theory might argue that parents or those on behalf the child kinds have what we call the children’s rights
They don’t have the competence to use the powers, someone must exercise on behalf of the child. So, they don’t have complete rights.
Child is not a right-holder, but maybe they have a claim??
Doesn’t seem like the interest-theory can demonstrate that the child can/should exercise powers of the right either.
Although, I don’t see why all rights have to be alienable or exercisable.
Why should we agree that you need power to have a right? Maybe there are different classes of claim rights. Some have a power to exercise, and others do not.
Claim just means you can justifiably blaim, but it doesn’t mean you will be mentally capable of it, nor that you can enforce it.
Will theory rights cannot be “inalienable”
You’ve got to have the power to demand fulfillment or waive fulfillment on the will theory, but some rights can’t be given up on the interest theory, it seems.
Will theory will argue this is just paternalism. You are telling me that you know better than I know what is good for me. Will theory says I have to be in control over my rights.
You have to think paternalism is a bad thing, otherwise, that will theory isn’t very persuasive for you.
Inalienable right to waive your rights…lel
Ordinary citizens do not have Will theory rights against crimes
Will theory: We don’t have any power to demand it is fulfilled. The rightsholders are the state officials.
Kramer thinks that is crazy to say that the officials are the rightsholders.
Will theorist doesn’t think we need to bring in the collective rights notion
Interest theory has better explanation of rights correlative to public duties such as a duty to pay taxes, i.e. duty is correlative with irreducible collective right to receive taxes.
Will theorist can just say that the officials in charge are the ones with the duties and rights. The official has the power to collect and the power to waive.
Will theory (not just the Interest theory) is “thinly evaluative” (and not merely descriptive, formal)
Smuggling in moral concepts into legal ones.
Seems to me that they are injecting moral notions into legal concepts. The definitions of legal concepts can’t have this if we are to be legal positivists.
Laws generate some sort of jural position. All jural positions can be talked about in terms of claim rights (although the interest theory wants to deny this). All laws are reducible to some set of claim rights. Claim rights are, by definition, only in existence if there is a beneficiary. Benefits seem to be a moral concept. It seems to me that there are no laws which aren’t definitionally tied up in the moral concept of benefiting on the interest theory. It seems like a natural law theory moreso than a legal positivist’s theory. Can benefits be non-moral? Assuming benefit means a kind of prudential good, I don’t see how.
What is an example of something we are tempted to call a right but doesn’t actually benefit the supposed-right-holder?
Will Theory
Duties under the criminal law
State officials have the rights
Ordinary citizens don’t have a claim right against that you not commit a crime against them
Ordinary citizens can’t even waive rights
Public duties to pay income taxes
Correlative rights are in state officials, e.g. the IRS – the head of the IRS has the ability to waive the duty or demand fulfillment
Constitutional duties – Duties under a limited constitution
Some state official might be all powerful??
Interest Theory
Duties under the criminal law
Ordinary citizens have correlative claims
State officials still have important roles to play, adjudicating, enforcement, legislating, etc.
Those duties of officials are correlative to a claim or right of the collectivity.
Kramer thinks the Will theory has it wrong, because we ordinarily talk about individuals having rights, not the officials, ultimately.
Public duties to pay income taxes
Admits they don’t owe taxes to any individual. But is that the point? If I have a duty to pay my taxes, that doesn’t mean my taxes have to go toward someone. This is a third party kind of argument, perhaps.
Irreducible collective claim = right
Constitutional duties – Duties under a limited constitution
Constitution is a power conferring rule – it assigns and limits powers.
You might have the disability to take away certain immunities of ordinary citiziens
Maybe there is immunity to claim right to not be murdered
Immunity for that immunity of that claim right to not be murdered??
Steiner argues these three issues are conceptual issues. Steiner might also be arguing against some moral objections that some might have against the Will theory.
Will theory isn’t denying that children don’t have claims. Children just aren’t competent to exercise the powers. Children have nominal claims at best on their view. The state officials, however, hold the rights for the children, in a sense.
Will theory thinks claim rights are “claims + powers”
What powers do you have to be in order to be a will-theory right-holder? State officials seem to have these powers:
Powers:
The pairs of sub-powers (elaborating on HLA Hart)
First pair – Ex Ante (before the event – before the crime is committed)
Power to waive fulfillment of duties ex ante
If you exercise this power, the rest of the powers disappear in that instance?
Why? Isn’t just waiting to demand the same as waiving temporarily?
Power to demand fulfillment of duties ex ante
Some people think officials always have a duty to demand fulfillment, and hence don’t have a liberty to waive, and thus they might not have the power
Second pair – Ex Post (after the event – after the crime is committed)
Power to waive taking the wrongdoer to trial
Decline to charge someone
Power to demand/take the wrongdoer to trial
Third Pair – Ex Trial
Power to waive enforcement or fulfillment of punishment/sentence
Power to demand enforcement or fulfillment of punishment/sentence
Will Theory is saying officials have a claim rights associated with their office, and these pairs of powers to waive of demand fulfillment of claims over time.
Under the Will Theory, it is possible for an official to delegate some of his powers to others. So, these various pairs of powers might be delegated. Delegating under certain conditions…senior official can say, if I don’t like the way you use your power, then they can take it away. There can be a hierarchy of officials with delegation. But, the senior officials can revoke that trickle down of delegated powers and retain all the powers for themselves.
Maybe the head of the IRS is the only official with all these Will Theory powers. He delegates, and only he has them. Maybe it is only the president. Whatever.
Maybe a subordinate official has a disability, a no-power --- correlative to --- a senior official has a correlative immunity
There can be a chain of disabilities and immunities.
Nobody has unwaivable immunity. Someone has the power to waive their own immunities. If this is true, then the 3 pairs is possible.
IF there was an unwaivable immunity,
Is he begging the question? Is he forcibly making room for the Will Theory?
Why can’t we think of, in principle, as a conceptual matter, any legal system such that nobody has all the powers (even with delegation in mind) that the Will Theory requires? If we can conceive of it, it seems to be a counterexample to the claim of the Will Theory’s conception of rights.
Will Theory Right – Claim + set of 3 pairs of powers associated with that claim
A couple of objections that Steiner levels against the extended Hohfeldian view that public duties are correlative to ireeductible collective claim rights.
Collectivity as a whole = Unempowerable entity
Just as children/animals aren’t competent, the irreducible collectivity lacks the competence to exercise powers
Collective delegates powers to officials.
Situation of a son and his parents
2 possible scenarios
Son has a duty to support his parents in their old age
Son has a duty to inform on his parents if they engage in seditious activities
This may be a public duty of some sort. The interest theory is not going to say the parents have a correlative claim to be informed upon.
Kramer handles this by saying the son has a duty to the collectivity. Society/collectivity may have an interest.
What really is a good for the society?
Will Theory handles these scenarios:
State officials have the will theory rights
Steiner has there is no chance of getting a set of compossible rights.
Too many conflicts of rights in the collectivity. Can’t figure out, in principle, who has the relevant powers, claims, etc.
Moral Objections
Lifeboat example – people notice someone is in trouble, there is a boat the people at the shore could take, but the boat is owned by a will-theory right-holder. All legal rights, under positivism, are subject to, but not logically bound to, moral criticism. The right holder can deny it. The Will-Theory right holder can insist on morally wrong use of the boat.
Peremptory – will theory rights are not necessarily morally peremptory, overriding, the most important of all considerations. The duties claimed in will theory rights…
Lifeboat example
Will theory rights and correlative duties are not morally peremptory.
The Concept of Political Authority/Power
Kramer
Power (Hohfeldian sense)
Having a power doesn’t really mean you have the power to use it
Nominal powers exist, just powers on a paper, since you may have a duty not sue them.
Steiner
Power-> Liberty to use that power
Constitution
Powers
liabilities
Disabilities – All state officials have disabilities under this consistution
Immunity – ordinary citizens have correlated immunity to these disabilities
Locke
3 Types of Power
Political power
One generation may consent, but how do future generations give consent.
Limited – ultimate prupose si to give protection to the basics right of the community.
Paternalistic Power
King looking after children
Despotic Power
Relate this to the context of limited constitutional contexts (from above).
Locke is interested in an unlimited legislature, not bound by checks and balances. What the positives laws of societies should be
is confined to the legislative branches, a sovereign legislative branch.
Locke is trying to persuade people that there is a natural law, a moral culture.
Locke emphasizes the ownership of ourselves and our labor.
''1.1 – Context and Introduction''
Welsey Hohfeld proposed a systematic framework of rights nearly a century ago. His analysis has remained remarkably useful in exploring and describing the concept of rights, both legal and moral. Although some general form of his theory may be widely accepted in many circles, the details are still being hashed out. Exactly how the various kinds of rights presented in the Hohfeldian framework relate to each other, what they mean, and what they entail, are still open matters of debate in moral and political philosophy. In this paper, I will be focusing on two particular schools of Hohfeldian analysis. The first school accepts Hohfeld’s own correlativity thesis.<<ref "1">> Roughly, this thesis claims that Hohfeldian primary jural positions (claim/right, duty, liberty/privilege, and no-claim) imply or are correlated with other primary jural positions, and the likewise for the secondary jural positions (power, immunity, disability/no-power, and liability).<<ref "2">> The second school, what I will refer to as the correlativity thesis of the Working Theory of Rights, builds on top of the first school’s premises a more controversial set of correlative relationships between the primary and secondary jural positions.<<ref "3">> Essentially, the secondary jural positions imply specific primary jural positions. I will not be arguing in defense of these approaches to Hohfeldian rights, rather I will be formalizing and taking up their assumptions, and then pointing out some significant conclusions which follow from the premises.
The Hohfeldian framework is often presented as tables of correlatives and opposites among eight distinct jural positions:
[img[hohfeld-1.png]]
Primary Jural Positions:
For this table, Hohfeld believed the top rows were correlated to the respective members of the bottom rows, represented here with black, vertical arrows. For someone to have a claim implies that someone has a duty (and vv.). The same correlative relationship is also thought to hold for liberty and no-claim, and likewise for the secondary jural positions. Similarly, Hohfeld believed the grey, diagonal lines represented a relationship of opposites. The opposite of a claim is a no-claim (and vv.), the opposite of duty is a liberty, and so on.
While this table is a useful starting place, I believe it is not comprehensive. Given the assumptions of the two schools of thought I examine in this paper, I will present a more thorough explanation of the relationships to be found among the traditional Hohfeldian jural positions found in these tables. Further, I will argue that a slightly different set of tables offer an enhanced understanding of the jural positions.
Hohfeld’s eight jural positions (or incidents) form a kind of language for describing various legal (and possibly moral) rights positions in which agents find themselves. How useful is this language? Hohfeld indicated that this language had a property of completeness, in the sense that these terms could express all legal rights positions.<<ref "4">> The completeness of such a language seems contentious. After all, we might wonder how this language could adequately express complex legal positions. I will not defend the completeness of the Hohfeldian language/framework, but I will work from the assumption that it is plausible.
We can think of Hohfeld’s eight jural positions as atomic jural positions.<<ref "5">> Various kinds of atomic jural positions can be combined to form complex or molecular sets of jural positions. For example, a molecular duty to a group of people could be reduced to a set of atomic duties to each member of that group.<<ref "6">> As another example, some kinds of rights seem to be clumped together as a molecule of different kinds of atomic jural positions. For example, a property right may include: (a) a claim against others interfering with your property, (b) a power to waive or transfer that claim right, (c) a liberty to use your property, and (d) immunity from others modifying your claim, power, and liberty rights to that property.<<ref "7">> On this view, any molecular collections of rights can be reduced to atomics.
The language of atomic Hohfeldian jural positions might plausibly be complete in its ability to describe all of the various kinds of legal rights positions. I will be formalizing these atomic jural positions into predicates of first-order logic, since they seem to be the building blocks we would use to formally describe more complex sets of rights.
After formalizing Hohfeld’s original jural positions, I will argue that there are actually eight kinds of primary jural positions (rather than the traditional four), and I will only temporarily argue there are four secondary jural positions. Further, I will show exactly what is analogous about the logical relationships between primary and secondary positions, and I will argue that they aren’t identical sets of logical relationships. I will also argue that the correspondence between these jural positions is not merely biconditional but actually a relationship of logical equivalence, and this should help solidify exactly what it means to call something a jural position. Lastly, I will show how the correlativity thesis of the Working Theory of Rights can be formalized, and I will show that the secondary jural positions are really molecules which can each be reduced to sets of two particular atomic, primary jural positions. In effect, I will demonstrate how the two schools of thought together yield a table of eight atomic jural positions, and further that what we traditionally think of as the secondary jural positions are really just a special class of rights-molecules which are reducible to and describable in terms of these atomic, primary eight.
''1.2 – Formalizing the Traditional Primary Jural Positions''
The first school of thought, Hohfeld’s correlativity thesis, can be formalized using four premises.<<ref "8">> The first two premises claim correlative relationships between the primary jural positions, and the third and fourth premises claim correlative relationships between the secondary jural positions. We’ll examine the first two premises in this section.
Where φ is a particular behavior:
*“A has a claim that B φ” is translated as Claim(A, B, φ)
*“B has a duty to A to φ” is translated as Duty(B, A, φ)
*“A has a liberty to φ with respect to B” is translated as Liberty(A, B, φ)
Premise 1: “A has a claim that B φ iff B has a duty to A to φ”
*Claim(A, B, φ) ↔ Duty(B, A, φ)
Premise 2: “A has a liberty to φ with respect to B iff it is not the case that B has a claim that A ¬φ”
*Liberty(A, B, φ) ↔ ¬Claim(B, A, ¬φ)
Transitivity will enable us to logically interrelate claims, duties, and liberties. Since we have assumed a biconditional relationship between claims and duties (premise 1), and we have assumed a biconditional relationship between liberties and claims (premise 2), we can establish a biconditional relationship between liberties and duties. Essentially, since we know:
*¬Claim(B, A, ¬φ) ↔ ¬Duty(A, B, ¬φ)
And, since Liberty(A, B, φ) just in case ¬Claim(B, A, ¬φ), then we know:
*Liberty(A, B, φ) ↔ ¬Duty(A, B, ¬φ)
The rule for converting a duty into a claim (and vv.) is simple – replace the predicate and switch the first two arguments. The rule for converting a claim into a liberty (and vv.), however, is slightly more complicated – replace the predicate, negate the entire sentence, switch the first two arguments, and negate the third argument. The rule for converting a duty into a liberty (and vv.): replace the predicate, negate the entire sentence, and negate the third argument. With these rules in mind, we can convert any one of these three primary jural positions (claim, liberty, or duty) into either of the other jural positions.
''1.3 – Eight Kinds of Primary Jural Positions''
Given our rules, we can generate the following eight sets of unique jural relationships:
[img[hohfeld-2.png]]
This is the extended table of all possible jural positions between A and B regarding φ and ¬φ. Note that the grey, vertical line shows a relationship of opposites. The black, horizontal arrows show the biconditional, correlative relationship.
Each box shows three jural positions related by the correlativity thesis. A jural position implies two others. Take the top-right box: a claim, Claim(A, B, φ), has both a corresponding duty, Duty(B, A, φ), as well as a no-liberty, ¬Liberty(B, A, ¬φ). The same is true for the other sets.
As I will argue later, these sets aren’t really three different yet correlated jural positions, but rather each set of relationships is one atomic jural position with three different expressions of the same semantic content.<<ref "9">>
Only three predicates are necessary, but there are many combinations to consider. The table above suggests there are actually eight kinds of primary jural positions. I submit that there aren’t simply four kinds of primary jural positions. If “no-claim” is really a genuine kind of jural position, then so are “no-liberty” and “no-duty,” and this is true in both directions, from A to B and from B to A, regarding both φ and ¬φ, hence eight unique kinds of jural positions.
In a footnote, Hohfeld provides some perspective on the notions of correlatives and opposites. He explains:
Note that in dealing with the correlatives, we are looking at the same situation from the point of view of first one and then the other of the two persons involved, but that when dealing with jural opposites we are looking at two different situations from the point of view of the same person, i.e. in one situation he has, for example, a right, in the other, “no-right.”<<ref "10">>
The opposite of Claim(A, B, φ) is ¬Claim(A, B, φ). According to Hohfeld, the opposite jural positions must be understood from the point of view of the same person. We might think of Claim(A, B, φ) from the point of view of agent A, in some sense, and the opposite or negation of it, ¬Claim(A, B, φ), also from the point of view of agent A. They are opposites because they use the same atomic sentence, just one is negated and the other isn’t. Employing this exact same reasoning, we can see that the direct opposite of Duty(A, B, φ) is ¬Duty(A, B, φ), and the opposite of Liberty(A, B, φ) is ¬Liberty(A, B, φ). The extended table above shows this.
Hohfeld’s traditional table does not clearly show the opposite relationships for duties and liberties. From the traditional table, the opposite of duty, Duty(A, B, φ), is a liberty. What is this liberty though? If it is from the same point of view, agent A’s, regarding B and φ, then the traditional table may falsely lead us into thinking the opposite of Duty(A, B, φ) is Liberty(A, B, φ). Hohfeld is actually claiming, however, that the opposite of Duty(A, B, φ) is Liberty(A, B, ¬φ). Note how the correlative liberty is regarding ¬φ, not simply φ. The traditional table does not make this clear, but the extended does.
The extended table shows that the opposite of Duty(A, B, φ) is ¬Duty(A, B, φ), and ¬Duty(A, B, φ) implies that Liberty(A, B, ¬φ). Since the Hohfeldian opposites rely upon negating entire jural positions, and given the his correlativity thesis, we can see from the extended table how the opposite of duty implies a particular kind of Liberty, not about φ from A’s point of view, but rather about ¬φ from A’s point of view.
The extended table presents Hohfeld’s argument more clearly than the traditional table. Essentially, with the extended table, we can both apply the reasoning from the quote above, which shows that opposites rely upon negations of the entirety of jural positions, and we can cleanly account for Hohfeld’s negations of φ regarding liberties (given the correlativity thesis).
Regarding Hohfeld’s notion of correlativity, we will also find that extended table more clearly presents Hohfeld’s argument more so than the traditional table. Both the traditional and extended table show that Claim(A, B, φ), from the point of view of agent A, is correlated to Duty(B, A, φ), from the point of view of agent B. Likewise for the other direction, Duty(A, B, φ) and Claim(B, A, φ). However, when we consider liberty, Liberty(A, B, φ), the traditional table may falsely lead us into thinking the correlative jural position is ¬Claim(B, A, φ). Hohfeld’s argument, however, is that Liberty(A, B, φ) is correlated to ¬Claim(B, A, ¬φ). Just as in the case of opposites, the correlatives hinge upon negating φ, which the extended table shows and the traditional does not as clearly.
Further, the extended tables have more fully developed each position. A situation in which someone has a claim, Claim(A, B, φ), is not just correlated to a duty, Duty(B, A, φ), but it is equally correlated to a no-liberty, ¬Liberty(B, A, ¬φ). The traditional table does not make this as clear, partly because no-liberty and no-duty aren’t included in the traditional table.
Ultimately, I’m inclined to think there eight kinds of primary jural positions because agent A can be legally positioned to B regarding φ or ¬φ in exactly eight distinct ways.
''2.1 - Formalizing the Traditional Secondary Jural Positions''
The remaining two premises of the first school of thought, Hohfeld’s correlativity thesis, are examined in this section.
Where ψ is a particular primary or secondary jural position:
*“A has a power over B regarding B’s ψ” is translated as Power(A, B, ψ)
*“B has a liability under A regarding B’s ψ” is translated as Liability(B, A, ψ)
*“A has immunity from B regarding A’s ψ” is translated as Immunity(A, B, ψ)
Premise 3: “A has a power over B regarding B’s ψ iff B has a liability under A regarding B’s ψ”
*Power(A, B, ψ) ↔ Liability(B, A, ψ)
Premise 4: “A has immunity from B regarding A’s ψ iff it is not the case that B has a power over A regarding A’s ψ”
*Immunity(A, B, ψ) ↔ ¬Power(B, A, ψ)
Transitivity will enable us to logically interrelate powers, liabilities, and immunities. Since we have assumed a biconditional relationship between powers and liabilities (premise 3), and we have assumed a biconditional relationship between immunities and liabilities (premise 4), we can establish a biconditional relationship between immunities and powers. Essentially, since we know:
*¬Power(B, A, ψ) ↔ ¬Liability(A, B, ψ)
And, since Immunity(A, B, ψ) just in case ¬Power(B, A, ψ), then we know:
*Immunity(A, B, ψ) ↔ ¬Liability(A, B, ψ)
The rule for converting a liability into a power (and vv.) is simple – replace the predicate and switch the first two arguments. The rule for converting a power into an immunity (and vv.), however, is slightly more complicated – replace the predicate, negate the entire sentence, and switch the first two arguments. The rule for converting a liability into an immunity (and vv): replace the predicate and negate the entire sentence. With these rules in mind, we can convert any one of these three secondary positions (power, immunity, or liability) into either of the other jural positions.
''2.2 – Four Kinds of Secondary Jural Positions''
Similar to the primary jural positions, we can generate the following four sets of relationships:
[img[hohfeld-3.png]]
This is the extended table of all possible power, liability, and immunity relationships from A to B regarding ψ. Note that there is no ¬ψ, hence there are fewer combinations of secondary jural positions to consider. From this table, we can see that the opposite of Power(A, B, ψ) is ¬Power(A, B, ψ), just as the standard Hohfeldian opposites shows. Further, the opposite of Liability(A, B, ψ) is ¬Liability(A, B, ψ), which just is correlated to Immunity(A, B, ψ).
Here, we can agree with the standard Hohfeldian analysis. From what we have now, I’m inclined to think there four kinds of secondary jural positions because agent A can be legally positioned to B regarding ψ in exactly four distinct ways.<<ref "11">>
''2.3 – Comparing and Contrasting the Logical Relationships of Primary and Secondary ''
There are some interesting similarities between the logical relationships amongst the primary jural positions and amongst those of the secondary jural positions.
The translation of the primary jural positions to first-order logic (FOL) predicates has a similar structure to the translation of the secondary jural positions to FOL predicates. They all employ ternary predicates. These predicates all demonstrate a relationship from agent A to agent B regarding some behavior or jural position, φ or ψ.
Further, the transitivity of each set of jural positions is virtually identical. The highly parallel argument structures (1.2 and 2.1) make that very clear. The only major difference I find is that the primary predicate conversions require a negation on φ, when converting from a liberty to the claim or duty (and vv.), while secondary predicate conversions do not require a negation on ψ, when converting from immunity to power or liability. This had impact on the quantity of combinations we had to consider.
The relationship between the predicates liberty/claim/duty, regarding agents A and B with respect to φ, is not perfectly analogous to the relationships between the predicates immunity/power/liability, regarding agents A and B with respect to ψ. Albeit, the transitive relationships are basically identical. The result of this was that I concluded there were eight primary jural positions, but still only four secondary jural positions.
''2.4 – Logically Equivalent Positions''
So far, I’ve carefully stated these relationships as mere biconditionals (which is what I’ve run into in the literature), which is not as strong a statement as claiming that they are logically equivalent. Just to be clear on the difference, consider a world in which c is a small Tetrahedron. These three sentences are true:
*Tet(c) ↔ Small(c)
*Cube(c) ↔ Medium(c)
*Small(c) ↔ ¬¬Small(c)
The first two sentences are true in our world, but they aren’t logical truths because they aren’t true in all possible worlds. The last sentence, however, is a logical truth. If a biconditional is true in all possible worlds (i.e. true in every model) – and is, therefore, a logical truth – then the biconditional results in a logical equivalence. Since Small(c) ↔ ¬¬Small(c) is a logical truth, then Small(c) ⇔ ¬¬Small(c).
Take another biconditional example: P is larger than Q iff Q is smaller than P. Syntactically, these are different sentences: Larger(P, Q) and Smaller(Q, P). Semantically, however, they are the same. These sentences are just expressions of the same relationship between P and Q. Since Larger(P, Q) ↔ Smaller(Q, P) is a logical truth in virtue of the meanings of the predicates, then Larger(P, Q) ⇔ Smaller(Q, P). These are logically equivalent sentences. The same thing, however, is occurring in conceptual analysis of the predicates of Hohfeldian jural positions.
I am claiming that our biconditionals have been too weak and inexpressive. Since we are performing conceptual analysis, these relationships are stronger, and we should really claim that these are logically equivalent. Consider this kind of jural position:
*Claim(A, B, φ) ↔ Duty(B, A, φ)
* Duty(B, A, φ) ↔ ¬Liberty(B, A, ¬φ)
We might think of them as being three different jural positions, one position for A and two for B, which simply correspond to each other. If they really are three different jural positions instead of one, then we should continue to express these relationships as biconditionals. Yes, the biconditionals are true; these sentences do share the same truth values. But, given the meanings of these predicates, I believe the relationships are stronger (analogous to the Larger and Smaller example). These sentences have the same semantics, which is why they are logically equivalent. Part of what it means for A to have a claim that B φ just is for B to have a duty to A to φ, which just is that B has a no-liberty to not φ with respect to A. The members of this claim/duty/no-liberty trio are conceptually bound to each other, and it doesn’t make sense to separate these as different jural positions. They are three different ways of expressing the same fundamental jural position shared between A and B regarding φ.
Essentially, I believe there isn’t a possible world in which the biconditionals are false, which would mean those biconditionals are logical truths. Hence, my claim is stronger:
*Claim(A, B, φ) ⇔ Duty(B, A, φ)
*Duty(B, A, φ) ⇔ ¬Liberty(B, A, ¬φ)
The same kind of reasoning holds for all the other kinds of jural positions outlined in the final tables of sections 1.3 and 2.2. Thus, it should be much clearer as to what we call a jural position, and why. Each set from our tables is really just one jural position with three expressions. Hence, there are eight primary jural positions and, tentatively, four secondary jural positions.<<ref "12">>
On a side note, one of the results of regarding these biconditionals as equivalences is that ψ, in the case of our secondary jural positions, is a not as simple an object as we thought. A particular ψ does not belong to any one individual, but rather to two agents. Thus, when we say “A has a power over B regarding ψ,” we must recognize that it is not simply B’s ψ, but a jural position of B and some other agent. That jural position is their jural position together – we may have three expressions of that jural position, but it has the same semantics.
''3.1 – Correlativity Thesis of the Working Theory''
We now pass on to the second school of thought, the correlativity thesis of the Working Theory of Rights, which posits another set of logical relationships between the primary and secondary jural positions. Again, I will not be defending this position, but I will formalize it, demonstrating how the secondary jural positions can be reduced to a specific set of primary jural positions. We have the tools to make the Working Theory of Rights’ claims perspicuous.
You will note that I didn’t offer any detailed semantics to our predicates so far. For example, I never fleshed out exactly all of what a claim-right means, even though I considered how it is logically related to the other primary jural positions given our commonly agreed upon premises. One nice thing about presenting the logical relationships in this way is that we don’t need to have agreed upon exactly all of what counts as a claim-right in order to understand certain things about these jural positions. Maybe some theories of claim-rights have additional details or definitions of exactly what counts as a claim-right. This may be okay though. Just as long as we agree to Premises 1-4 (which many people seem willing to do) and the logical equivalence argument in section 2.4, then the rest of my argument falls out of it. Hence, I’ve been able to overlook some of the defining characteristics of these jural positions. In order to juice our intuitions about the Working Theory of Rights’ reduction, however, I will need to briefly add some semantic meat to the bones of these predicate symbols.
3.2 – Power, Atomic and Molecular
Hohfeldian power is the legal capacity to introduce, extinguish, or change some primary or secondary jural position. For example, you have the power to revoke my (hypothetical) liberty to not leave your home. You have the power to change our shared jural position. You can extinguish a liberty I had to not leave your home, revoking Liberty(Me, You,¬LeaveYourHome), and instead introduce a no-liberty for me to not leave your home, ¬Liberty(Me, You, ¬LeaveYourHome). Note our equivalences:
*Liberty(Me, You, ¬LeaveYourHome) ⇔ ¬Duty(Me, You, LeaveYourHome) ⇔ ¬Claim(You, Me, LeaveYourHome)
*¬Liberty(Me, You, ¬LeaveYourHome) ⇔ Duty(Me, You, LeaveYourHome) ⇔ Claim(You, Me, LeaveYourHome)
When you exercise your power, our first jural position is extinguished, and the second is introduced to us. Note how the exercise of this power is just one behavior. Since P v ¬P, if you extinguish P, then you introduce ¬P. At least for now, we can think of this as an atomic power, although later, I will show that even atomic powers are really molecular jural positions (when they are reduced to primary jural positions).
Interestingly, while atomic power can’t be broken down into two different acts in this case, there may be cases where certain things we might initially think are atomic instances of power are actually molecular, and they can be broken down into more atomic parts. For example, if I exercise the power to change how much money you owe (let’s say I make it so you owe me 50% less, but it could have been 1%, 2%, etc.), then I’m extinguishing P, but introducing Q (rather than merely ¬P). Hence, this power is already molecular, since introducing Q implies extinguishing P, it seems that a power to introduce Q is molecular.
It may be even more molecular, depending on how we want to think about it. We might claim that I have an extinguishing power paired with some introduction power for making you owe me 50% less money. But, I also have an extinguishing power paired with some introduction power for making you owe me 1% less money. The same is true for 2%, and so on. Hence, my so-called power to change how much money you owe is really molecular, and it can be broken down into a tightly knit molecule of a great many number of atomic powers. Hopefully this elucidates how there are cases of what we took to be atomic powers which turned out to actually be molecular powers, and it showcases the expressiveness of Hohfeld’s language.
The Working Theory of Rights claims that this legal capacity is a liberty to modify our jural position. Essentially, on this theory, if you have a power, then you have the liberty to introduce, extinguish, or change a particular jural position. Note that this is still speaking in terms of atomic jural positions.
One counterexample to this correlation between liberty and power could involve conflicting powers and duties not to exercise those powers in a certain way by the Supreme Court. Let us say SCOTUS has the legal power to make rulings – that is, to change jural positions for a great number of agents. Supposedly, included in this power is the ability to make a bad ruling, to modify some jural position in a bad way (whatever the standard of badness may be). Now suppose they also have a legal duty not to make a bad ruling. Thus, SCOTUS won’t have a liberty to use that power in a certain way – that is, they don’t have a liberty to make a bad ruling. Thus, it doesn’t appear that power is always a liberty. This may be paradoxical for the Working Theory of Rights, as if this conceptually possible power and duty combination can’t be explained if we agree to the claim that power is a liberty.
The correlativity thesis of the Working Theory of Rights, if it is correct, suggests this counterexample has employed a molecular set of jural positions, but acted as if it was atomic. If we assume the Working Theory of Rights correlativity, then what is really going on in this example is that SCOTUS has a very large set of atomic powers, but no member of that set is a power to make a bad ruling or interpretation. They only have the powers necessary to make good rulings. Any of the ruling powers SCOTUS has, given our assumptions, is such that it will be not be a power to make a bad ruling. This is not paradoxical, however, for the Working Theory of Rights. SCOTUS has liberties to make certain kinds of modifications of jural positions, just as long as they are not bad modifications, in this case. Conversely, SCOTUS doesn’t have liberties to make modifications of jural positions which are bad. The Working Theory of Rights seems capable of expressing the legal positions of SCOTUS. The reduction from power to liberty may be plausible.
It is important to see that, on the Working Theory of Rights, we are often mistaken about the nature of power; many things which people are tempted to treat as atomic powers are not, in fact, atomic – they’re molecular. But, as we will see, given the reduction, we will find that even atomic powers are not really atomic jural positions in the same way as the primary jural positions.
''3.2 – Preliminary Relationship Between Primary and Secondary Jural Positions''
If the correlativity thesis of the Working Theory of Rights is correct, then power is reducible to a particular liberty to introduce, extinguish, or change a jural position.
Additionally, assuming the Working Theory’s correlativity thesis, Hohfeldian liability requires that the liable agent must abide by whatever changes someone makes to his jural positions, just as long as the agent who made the change had the legitimate power to do so. In our example, if you have the power to introduce a duty to me to leave your home, then I am liable to you regarding the changes you could make to our shared jural position. Essentially, I have a duty to abide by your modification of our jural position. I have a duty to abide by your changes stemming from your power – I must obey you in this respect.
Since we can flesh out the semantics of power in terms of liberty to modify and liability in terms of duty to abide, let us formalize the logical connection between the primary and secondary jural positions as set out by correlativity thesis of the Working Theory of Rights.
''3.3 – Formalizing the Relationship between Primary and Secondary Jural Positions''
Maintaining our previous translations and predicates, and where X(ψ) is the act of introducing, extinguishing, or changing ψ, and where Abide(X(ψ)) is the act of abiding by the results of X(ψ):
Premise 5: “A has a power over B regarding ψ ⇔ A has the liberty to X(ψ) with respect to B”
*Power(A, B, ψ) ⇔ Liberty(A, B, X(ψ))
Premise 6: “A has a liability under B regarding ψ ⇔ A has a duty to B to abide by B’s X(ψ)”
*Liability(A, B, ψ) ⇔ Duty(A, B, Abide(X(ψ))
Note the logical equivalence, which is stronger than a biconditional. The claim is a controversial one; the semantics of “A has a power over B regarding ψ” are the same as “A has the liberty to X(ψ) with respect to B,” and similarly for liability. This gives us a strong bridge between the primary and secondary jural positions. We can speak about power in terms of a specific kind of liberty. This liberty can be equivalently expressed as a no-duty or no-claim. Further, we can speak about liability in terms of a specific kind of duty, which can be equivalently expressed as a claim or no-liberty.
Given such a strong correlation between the primary and second jural positions in these premises, we can see a reduction of power, liability, no-power, and no-liability down to specific primary jural positions.
*Power(A, B, ψ) ⇔ Liberty(A, B, X(ψ)) ⇔ ¬Duty(A, B, ¬X(ψ)) ⇔ ¬Claim(B, A, ¬X(ψ))
*¬Power(A, B, ψ) ⇔ ¬Liberty(A, B, X(ψ)) ⇔ Duty(A, B, ¬X(ψ)) ⇔ Claim(B, A, ¬X(ψ))
*Liability(A, B, ψ) ⇔ Duty(A, B, Abide(X(ψ)) ⇔ Claim(B, A, Abide(X(ψ)) ⇔ ¬Liberty(A, B, ¬Abide(X(ψ))
*¬Liability(A, B, ψ) ⇔ ¬Duty(A, B, Abide(X(ψ)) ⇔ ¬Claim(B, A, Abide(X(ψ)) ⇔ Liberty(A, B, ¬Abide(X(ψ))
This is a table of the reduction of power, liability, no-power, and no-liability, as secondary jural positions, to an equivalent set of primary jural positions. It isn’t, however, complete. The problem is not that we’re missing immunity and no-immunity, as the semantics of Immunity(A, B, ψ) are captured by ¬Liability(A, B, ψ), and ¬Immunity(A, B, ψ) by Liability(A, B, ψ). The reduction of immunity and no-immunity to primary jural positions would be identical to the reduction of no-liability and liability. What is missing, however, is the fact that Power(A, B, ψ) is equivalent to Liability(B, A, ψ). Hence, Power(A, B, ψ) is not just Liberty(A, B, X(ψ)), but it is also Duty(B, A, Abide(X(ψ))). The following should make that point clear:
*Power(A, B, ψ) ⇔ Power(A, B, ψ) ⇔ Liberty(A, B, X(ψ)) ⇔ ¬Duty(A, B, ¬X(ψ)) ⇔ ¬Claim(B, A, ¬X(ψ))
*Power(A, B, ψ) ⇔ Liability(B, A, ψ) ⇔ Duty(B, A, Abide(X(ψ)))⇔ Claim(A, B, Abide(X(ψ))) ⇔ ¬Liberty(B, A, ¬Abide(X(ψ)))
Thus, power is reducible to the two specific primary jural positions:
*Power(A, B, ψ) ⇔ Liberty(A, B, X(ψ)) ⇔ ¬Duty(A, B, ¬X(ψ)) ⇔ ¬Claim(B, A, ¬X(ψ))
*Power(A, B, ψ) ⇔ Duty(B, A, Abide(X(ψ))) ⇔ Claim(A, B, Abide(X(ψ)))⇔ ¬Liberty(B, A, ¬Abide(X(ψ)))
Clearly, the opposite, ¬Power(A, B, ψ), would be reducible to two distinct primary jural positions as well (just throwing around negations). In fact, in the same manner, each of the secondary jural positions can be reduced to two distinct primary jural positions, one where φ = X(ψ), and another where φ = Abide(X(ψ)).
''3.4 – Implications and Conclusion''
First, the reduction shows just how remarkably versatile and expressive the primary jural positions can be. Second, formalizing the reduction demonstrates that the secondary jural positions are not actually atomic but, rather, molecular. The semantics of secondary jural positions can be reduced to two atomic, primary jural positions.
To me, this signifies that the real heavy lifting in this conceptual analysis is born upon the backs of the primary jural positions. Those may be the only real kinds of jural positions. What we call the secondary jural positions aren’t really kinds of jural positions, after all – they are just important classes or subsets of the various possible primary jural positions. We only give these particular classes/subsets names because it useful for quickly describing and understanding various legal arguments.
These two schools of thought, the correlativity theses of Hohfeld and the Working Theory of Rights, may or may not be correct. If they are correct, then some interesting conclusions fall out of their premises: there are eight combinations or kinds of atomic, primary jural positions; the logical relationship found between the traditional primary jural positions ends up not being identical to the logical relationship found between the traditional secondary jural positions; each of these jural positions have three logically equivalent expressions (using the predicates claim, duty, and liberty); and, lastly, the traditional secondary jural positions are really molecular positions which are reducible to a specific set of atomic jural positions.
----------------
<<footnotes "1" "Hohfeld, Wesley N. 'Some Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied in Judicial Reasoning.' //The Yale Law Journal// 23, no. 1 (November 1913): 16-59. http://www.jstor.org/stable/785533. ">>
<<footnotes "2" "I will provide a more detailed set of premises which define this correlation later in the paper.">>
<<footnotes "3" "Steiner, Hillel. 'Working Rights.' //In A Debate Over Rights//, by Matthew Kramer, Nigel Simmonds, and Hillel Steiner, 233-300. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.">>
<<footnotes "4" "Corbin, Arthur. 'Forward.' //In Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied in Judicial Reasoning//., by Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld and Walter Wheeler Cook. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1964. pgs. 27 and 64.">>
<<footnotes "5" "Later, I will go into more detail about what it means for a jural position to be atomic, and I will eventually deny that the traditional secondary jural positions are atomic.">>
<<footnotes "6" "It remains a point of contention about whether or not a collection of individuals can form an agent said to be participating in an atomic duty, claim, liberty, etc. Hohfeld may have aimed for jural positions to be exclusively between two individuals. I’m not sure how much it matters though, and so I will set that aside for now. ">>
<<footnotes "7" "Even these may be molecular and can be broken down into atomics. E.g. maybe (b) is the really a combination of two different atomic powers.">>
<<footnotes "8" "I’ve presented the correlativity thesis in terms of premises because they are debatable (and hence might be false), but also because a valid argument based on these premises will demonstrate what logically follows if we assume the premises to be true (which a significant portion of moral and political philosophers seem to do).">>
<<footnotes "9" "Hohfeld may have held this view himself, but I am not sure.">>
<<footnotes "10" "Hohfeld, Wesley Newcomb, and Walter Wheeler Cook. Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied in Judicial Reasoning, and Other Legal Essays,. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1923. pg 10, n. 13.">>
<<footnotes "11" "My conclusion, however, will deny that this is truly an atomic jural position like the primary jural positions.">>
<<footnotes "12" "Again, my conclusion will argue that what are normally called the secondary jural positions aren’t atomic jural positions at all, but, rather, molecules. It isn’t clear to me that they deserve to be called a kind of jural position in the same way as the primary jural positions.">>
----------------------
Bibliography
Corbin, Arthur. "Forward." //In Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied in Judicial Reasoning//., by Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld and Walter Wheeler Cook. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1964.
Hohfeld, Wesley N. "Some Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied in Judicial Reasoning." //The Yale Law Journal //23, no. 1 (November 1913): 16-59. http://www.jstor.org/stable/785533.
Hohfeld, Wesley Newcomb, and Walter Wheeler Cook. //Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied in Judicial Reasoning, and Other Legal Essays//,. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1923.
Steiner, Hillel. "Working Rights." I//n A Debate Over Rights//, by Matthew Kramer, Nigel Simmonds, and Hillel Steiner, 233-300. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.
Darwall has hit on something important in his overall distinction. Maybe he doesn't draw the lines exactly as they should be drawn, but he is moving in the right direction. I'm not thrilled with his specific definitions and examples. Some of the moves he makes are either unclear or baffling to me, but I think the overall terminology remains useful (I wouldn’t be surprised if we continued to use it throughout the semester). Some thoughts:
Freedom and Responsibility
I wonder if recognition respect is the kind of thing over which we have some control and appraisal respect isn’t. Moral recognition respect in particular seems to be the real goal we are after in this class, while appraisal respect doesn’t seem directly morally relevant. From a kind of doxastic involuntarism perspective, appraisal seems akin to an evaluation and belief formation concerning how particular tokens matchup to the standard of the good of its type. Whether or not you (recognition) respect someone, which is more than mere action, but also a disposition/attitude/motivation, seems to be a moral matter that requires freedom.
Facts and Objects of Recognition Respect
The object of recognition respect is a fact (39). This seems odd. My intuition (I personally find the pull of moral realism/diamond-talk to be incredibly strong) is that this isn't really the kind of respect for a person that I mean. The object of respect should be the person, not the fact of their personhood. He does go on to say that "to respect something in this way is just to regard it as something to be reckoned with (in the appropriate way) and to act accordingly. Maybe I am quibbling over nothing.
Virtue and Objects of Appraisal Respect
His virtue talk struck me as odd. Perhaps I've totally misunderstood him (and if so, then the rest of what I have to say is gibberish). If I understood him correctly, he has unnecessarily narrowed the concept of appraisal respect. Darwall seems to want to do away with the non-agency features altogether as being capable of being the object of appraisal respect though. That can't be right. I agree that someone's character and choices and agency-related features are more important than their non-agency features, but that doesn’t mean non-agency features can't be appraised. What is this appraisal? It is just comparing the object to the standard of the good of its kind. Does the object flourish as a specimen of its kind? Virtue excellence is key to eudaimonia (in itself a kind of excellence as a specimen), but it takes a lot more to being a good, eudaimonic human specimen than being virtuous. Yes, appraisal respect of persons should focus most upon moral attributes, but I don't see why it should only be about moral attributes. Appraisal can evaluate a specimen’s degree of eudaimonia, not just the sub-component of virtue.
The whole point of the distinguishing recognition from appraisal was to get us closer to what we really mean by respecting persons, treating them as ends, and so forth. There was no need to narrow appraisal respect like he did. Why does appraisal respect have to be about a person? Why can't it be about other kinds of objects? Why isn't there simply a subset of broad appraisal respect which deals with persons in particular? I’m back to evaluating a token by the standard of good of its type.
---
```
--------------
Stanford Pre-reading
--------------
"Recognition respect is the disposition to give appropriate weight or consideration in one's practical deliberations to some fact about the object and to regulate one's conduct by constraints derived from that fact."
Why not regulate one's attitudes, intentions, and dispositions over which one has control?
Recognition respect seems (or needs to be) the kind of respect over which we have some control. It likely needs to be a choice.
Appraisal respect seems to be something over which we haven't much choice. In a doxastic involuntarism perspective, this appraisal is just an evaluation and belief formation that coincides with our beliefs about the good of things, and how particular instances of those things matchup to the standard of the good of its kind.
Recognition respect may not obviously involve valuing the object itself. Appraisal doesn't have this "valuing the object itself" either.
--------------
Darwall
--------------
He's hit on something important in this distinction. Maybe he doesn't draw the lines exactly as they should be drawn, but he is moving the right direction. I'm not thrilled with his specific definitions and examples.
"To say that persons as such are entitled to respect is to say that they are entitled to have other persons take seriously and weigh appropriately the fact that they are persons in deliberating about what to do." (38)
This seems too weak.
Darwall demarcates recognition respect and moral obligation very clearly. Recognition respect seems to bring about moral obligation. I don't understand.
I worry that a notion of appraisal respect is at the beginnings of Recognition Respect.
The object of recognition respect is a fact (39)...this seems odd. My intuition (I find the pull of moral realism to be incredibly strong) is that this isn't really the kind of respect for a person that I mean. The object of respect should be the person, not the fact of their personhood. He does go on to say that "to respect something in this way is just to regard it as something to be reckoned with (in the appropriate way) and to act accordingly. Maybe I am quibbling over nothing.
The fact is that persons have dignity. Recognizing that fact is perhaps like appraisal.
I worry that the kind of respect we are going after is the same thing as just being moral. Darwall obviously thinks we ought to respect persons. But, to say that we ought to respect others is just to say we ought to do/intend what we ought to do/intend towards others.
moral recognition respect is a subset - of course, I'm not sure what we really mean by 'appropriate' with any bite if it isn't moral required.
MRR is a kind of attitude.
I know you rail against the fact-finding mission, the diamond-based value theory. This seems to be an intuition which so many people have (or would have if they thought about it). We need an account of that intuition (at least for those of us who take intuitions to be valid epistemological starting places and standards), and why so many people could be wrong. I feel like there is a virtue-theoretic approach to solve this problem, but why resort to solving something which my intuitions say isn't a problem in the first place? At some point, we do get to help ourselves to certain foundational assumptions. There are varying degrees of epistemic requirements, and some people (a skeptic) has a very high requirement, and others simply don't have the same requirements.
Darwall calims that "There are attitudes similar ot moral recognition respect, and referred to as respect, but which differ importantly. A boxer talks of having respect for his opponent's left hoook and an adventurer of respecting the rapids of the Colorado. Neither regards the range of morally permissible actions as restricted by the things in question."
Does he mean that neither 'should' regard or more as a matter of empirical fact that neither does regard? From my perspective, many empirical facts about world, including those two things which are respected, could play into restricted the range of morally permissible actions.
His virtue talk struck me as odd. Perhaps I've totally misunderstood him (and if so, then the rest of what I have to say is gibberish). If I understood him correctly, he has unnecessarily narrowed the concept of appraisal respect. Darwall seems to want to do away with the non-agengy features altogether as being capable of being the object of appraisal respect though. That can't be right. I agree that someone's character and choices and agency-related features are more important than their natural, non-agental features, but that doens't mean non-agency features can't be appraised. What is this appraisal? It is just comparing the object to the standard of the good of its kind. Does the object flourish as a specimen of its kind? Excellence of disposition is key to excellence of being human, but it takes a lot more to being a good human specimen than the right moral attributes. Yes, appraisal respect of persons should focus most upon moral attributes, but I don't see why it should only be about moral attributes.
The whole point of the distinguishing recognition from appraisal was to get us closer to what we really mean by respecting persons, treating them as ends, and so forth. There was no need to narrow appraisal respect like he did.
Why does appraisal respect have to be about a person? Why can't it be about other kinds of objects? Why isn't there simply a subset of broad appraisal respect which deals with persons in particular? Appraisal respect just doesn't matter very much, so why does he focus so much on it?
The funny part is that I think recognition respect of persons has an egalitarian perspective (somewhat like Kant's notion), where no person is better than any other person, and all people must be treated as (with the right motivation) as ends in themselves. There might be other layers of recognition respect that are quite important. Is it irrational to respect my parents more than other parents just because they are mine?
I fail to see how moral recognition respect just isn't the same as being moral.
Insofar as morality admits of degrees (if at all), moral recognition respect seems to as well.
On 46, he claims that "in having recognition respect for a person as such as we are not appraising him or her as a person at all. Rather we are judging that the fact that he or she is a person places moral constraints on our behavior." Why? It seems to be that you can only make such a judgment if you hold persons in esteem, and appraising the object in question as being a person (as being better than the rock by some general standard of the good).
--------------------
Hill
--------------------
```
This article went all over the place for me. There was a lot going on, and I fear I didn't understand it as much as I would like.
The basic claim that our intuitions matter in moral life seems right (perhaps even this claim is a sort of intuition). Audi, of course, goes well beyond this claim. He considers how non-inferentially knowable principles of Rossian duty are often grounded in considerations of value, values which are intrinsically good or bad, and which provide broadly positive or negative reasons for action (30-31). That might be right. Ultimately, in some cases, we might take the intrinsic value of something to be the reason for acting or as at least partial grounds for our duty.
Audi leaps into epistemic problems which are woven into these problems. I’m drawn to foundationalist views moreso than coherentist or skeptical views. Some of the work in intuitionism seems to have a foundationalist character to it that I find appealing. Intrinsic value may play a role in the foundation of justifying certain duties.
The intuitionism presented here was gracefully separated from consequentialist views. I was struck, in particular, by the “all relevant considerations fit together” notion (37). Audi seemed to be trying to quantify, codify, and generalize practical wisdom, in a sense, in determining one's final duty. When I take up this view, I’m driven toward some kind of particularism, especially in light of our epistemic fallibility as flawed and finite creatures.
Audi consider how: "Actions performed from duty need not be performed with respect” on 43. That sounds completely wrong to me. Audi seems to separate motive of an action from mode of its execution. Perhaps I don't quite know what that means. His examples seem contrived to me. Keeping a promise in a mean spirit or patronizing attitude either is something outside of our control (not a moral consideration) or it wasn't really keeping a promise as the moral law instructed.
If respect is some attitude outside of the moral law, I don't see why it is important. Do I have control over this attitude? If so, and if it is normative, why wouldn't the moral law dictate that I have that certain attitude?
Is there are difference between acting from duty and acting from respect of a person? It is not so clear to me. I always have the nagging feeling (intuition, perhaps) that what we mean by respecting persons (the important, recognition kind that we are really after in this class) really just is the same thing as being moral.
We might be tempted to think one way we can separate respect for the moral law and respect for persons is that we might find instances in which other people aren't factors in appropriate moral judgment. But, I come back to the notion of self-respect, and that alone would be enough to close any inkling of a gap between respecting the moral law and being respectful persons.
Sometimes we may enter into a language of respecting others, but this isn't different from being moral - it may just being a different way of viewing the same thing, a different facet or perspective of the same gem. At best, I think respect for people is just one step removed from respect for the moral law.
I feel like we will accomplish much in this class if we can distinguish being moral from having respect for persons in a meaningful and significant way. But, again, if respect for persons is anything other than respect for the moral law, then why would it matter? Why should it be normative? Why should I ultimately care about it?
---
```
Audi
---------
To not be an intuitionist,
Intuitions between people conflict.
Intuitionism seems to have a great deal in common with epistemic foundationalism (of which I'm quite fond). The problem is that we don't seem to have much agreement on moral foundations/intuitions as we might for more generic epistemic claims (a = a, p v ~p, etc.). Disagreement among moral intuitions seems to be a problem, as we want intuitions to be somewhat apodictic, obviously, self-evident, non-inferred, etc.
If you deny intuitionism, what other options do you have left? Borrowing from epistemology, it seems that we either take on coherentism (which has its own problems) or some skeptical point of view (of which there are many analogous views in metaethics).
----------------
This article went all over the place for me. There was a lot going on, and I fear I didn't understand it as much as I would like.
Rawls, reflective equilibrium, our intuitions matter
basic, non-inferentially knowlable principles of Rossian duty as grounded in considerations of value, values which are intrinisically good or bad, and which provide broadly positive or negative reasons for action (30-31)
Ross's theory presuposes that considerations of intrinsic value possibly ground duties, but certainly provide a way to see performance of duty as respecting or promoting something intrinisically good. (31-32)
Audi continues to say 'respect' that which is intrinisically good. That is interesting. I worry this is a kind of appraisal respect. Perhaps I'm jumping the gun, and I'm not being charitable in that worry though. He does continue to talk about "production of what is intrinisically good" and the opposite for the bad...this sounds like recognition respect. We take the intrinisic value of something to be the reason for acting or as at least partial grounds for our duty and/or motivation. (32)
Final duties determined by practical wisdom, acc. to Ross. Audi questions how we can specify the extent to which practical wisdom is applied if we take values as a basis for duties.
moral judgement need not be grounded in non-moral normative judgements (33)
Audi seems to be arguing that there is a possible foundation beneath "being honest" or "avoiding injustice" (33-34). We can continue a chain of question-asking, "but why is that normative?" or "what justifies the normativity of X?". Ross is claiming that intrinisic goodness or badness can sometimes play this foundational role. It is sometimes the real foundation.
Audi makes a point about the malicious man in pleasure, and how overall duty is not just a matter of the number of reasons we have, nor of the quantity of good we can produce (or bad we can avoid), but of how all relevant considerations fit together. (36-37). This "all relevant considerations fit together" (37) notion is curcial in understanding the strong prohibition of sacrificing one person for the sake of the general happiness. (37).
I feel like Audi is trying to quantify/specify practical wisdom in determining one's final duty. This is an interesting move (which I actually like), and one which most virtue-theorists would find unacceptable.
The word "proof" has a very technical and highly specific meaning to me. Audi should not use the word like this (it falsely lends more than it should). Maybe the word "justify" is better. Maybe a concept of rational acceptence is being used here. I don't know.
What justifies our reasons as deeply flawed, fallible, and finite creatures? This brings us very far into the realm of epistemology. Rationality comes in degrees, and we can only be responsible to the degree we can be rational.
I have plenty of reasons to deny that intuitions are relevent.
Articuluability of grounds, explanation, or justification. If this is always possible, then a generalized account of adequately grounded moral judgements can be produced. Virtue ethicists would hate this (Hursthouse). Against codifiability of moral judgements and justifications.
Ontic grounding (41)
Audi claims on 43: "Actions performed from duty need not be performed with respect." That sounds completely wrong to me.
Is there are difference between acting from duty and acting from respect of a person? It is not so clear to me. I always have the nagging feeling (intuition, perhaps) that what we mean by respect (the important, recognition kind that we are really after in this class) really just is the same thing as being moral. Doing the right thing in a circumstance for the right reasons - simple as that. We might be tempted to think one way we can separate respect for the moral law and respect for persons is that we might find instances in which other people aren't factors in appropriate moral judgment. But, I come back to the notion of self-respect, and that alone would be enough to close any inkling of a gap between being moral and being respectful. Being moral just is respect for the right things. Sometimes we may enter into a language of respecting others, but this isn't different from being moral - it may just being a different way of viewing the same thing, a different facet or perspective of the same gem. I feel like we will accomplish much in this class if we can distinguish being moral from having respect for persons in a meaningful and significant way. (43)
Respect for the moral law, respect for people. Being moral. Odd locutions. Taking those things to be the ultimate reasons and motivations for acting in a particular way. Show me a case or where respect from the moral law can be pulled apart from respect for people. It isn't just that they lead to the same thing. At best, I think respect for people is just one step removed from respect for the moral law.
Respect is being motivated by the right reasons to act in a particular way in a particular circumstance.
Another question, if respect for persons is anything other than respect for the moral law, then why would it matter? Why should it be normative? Why should I ultimately care about it?
Audi seems to separate motive of an action from mode of its execution. (43) I don't quite know what that means. His examples seem contrived to me. If respect is some attitude outside of the moral law, I don't see why it is important. Do I have control over this attitude? If so, and if it is normative, why wouldn't the moral law dictate that I have a certain attitude?
Keeping a promise in a mean spirit or patronizing attitude either is something outside of our control, it wasn't really keeping a promise as the moral law instructed.
The respectfulness requirement isn't anything different from just being a part of the moral requirement. Respectfulness is a subset of considerations of the moral requirement.
Respecting the relevent intrinsic value (45)
What do you mean by intrinsic value?
Isolation argument- world a and b same (no humans or anything, just nature), but b has a picasso in it. Is one more intrinisically more valuable than another?
----------------
Nagel,
Value possibilities;
-has value
-we do value
-it ought to be valued
Realist side "has value"; subjectivist/relativist "we do value;
Need a different justification for why something ought to be lvaued, or you need a different justification. Nagel has a different justification.
Nagel, Gewirth as well, Dworking as well, popular by Korsgaard.
Movement away from "has value" but rather "ought to be valued" on pain of contradiction.
What is Nagel's argument>?
We have the first personal, subjective reasons that motivate us to act in certain ways. We can't treat them as subjective, they have to objective.
How does his argument differ from moral realism?
His argument:
Why should you not cause another person pain?
Steps:
Shift the action to yourself. Seeing someone else doing it, how would you like to have it happen to you?
Well, Iwould hate it.
If you ahve to get from I would hate it, to nobody should betreated that way.
Imagine the experience.
I would dislike it. (masochist countexample, but some might like it)
However, I would resent it. (83)
Dislike is subjective, but resenting is universal.
I claim it to be objectively bad/wrong (84) [agent-neutral value]
You don't index it as 'Your pain is bad'- not bad because it is my pain, but rather it is bad as such, wherever it happens.
THerefore, everyone has a reason to avoid it, or not do it, (or to do it if it is objectively good)
---------------
Koorsgaard, for whatever you like
If you say Seahawks, you should commit yourself to saying everyone should like the Seahawks.
-----------------
How does this differ from moral realism?
People dependent features. Self-dependent. If you weren't around to ask the question, it wouldn't be objectively wrong. It is a fact about people, but not a fact about people.
Initially, there isn't really a difference. The difference is just epistemic. In the moral realism, you need to intuit directly.
It is one thing to regard yourself as having value, and actually having value. When you make a sandwich, you assume your life is worth maintaining. But, you still don't quite have why you should regard others as having value.
Could you convince hitler with this argument?
etiquette/convention rules vs. moral rules. I don't resent that someone used the wrong curtain colors. ONly feel resentment for moral issues maybe?? If resent and objectively wrong are always the same thing, then isn't that what we need to show????
Boxer hit, he resents it?
We can be wrong about what we shoudl resent? What should you resent? If we have a narrow definition of resent. Why do we resent something rather than merely dislike? You need a further grounding. What causes resentment?
--------------------
Paper topics:
What is respect? Do we agree with Darwall's distinction.
Moral realist, Audi's defense.
Nagel argument.
```
Nagel's piece was the most interesting of those we read, although I'm not sure how much I have to say about it. I swear I hear Rawls in this piece.
The golden rule strikes me as having something quite right about it. Not elevating yourself above others does seem to be a crucial aspect of figuring out respect/morality. Taking on a perspective where you lose your personal attributes, removing that bias, and thinking of yourself just as someone, does seem to be a step in the right direction.
As for the gouty toes examples, I want there not just to be merely 'a reason' to remove the heel, but I want that to be an overriding reason, a moral reason, which trumps whatever other so-called reasons one might have (even if they are all objective reasons).
Lastly, and I hate to harp on this point again, but I really don't see exactly how respect (the kind of respect we are really after in this class) and morality are all that different from each other. They seem to be after the same goal, in the same circumstances, about the same objects, etc. Maybe they are just different ways of expressing the same thing. I'm in murky water here.
Why isn’t respect for X just being motivated by, pursuing, and acting in the right way regarding X for the right reason(s)? Whether we respect persons or we respect the moral law, respect seems to just be “being moral” as defined by the moral law.
---
```
Surprisingly little to say.
Please focus on Audi, Nagel, and the two Kant texts. Dworkin and Korsgaard (read only pp. 119-124) make similar points, but are optional.
-----------------------------------
Nagel
-----------------------------------
Golden Rule Altruism
Shedding yourself personal-persective for a someone-perspective. That is how others view you, after all, and that is how you view others, as a someone. But, wait, he switches to personal on 84.
Primary Task: Discover a foundation for the belief that the reasons he think his needs provide for others to act.??
I fear you are going to rail against the value-talk Nagel gives us on 85. "that in accepting goals or reasons myself I attach objective value to certain circumstances, not just value for myself; similarly when I acknowledge that others have reason to act in their own interests, these must finally be reasons not just for htem, but objective reasons for the goals which they pursue or the acts which they perform."
I think egoism often isn't so complicated. Deny morality; do what you want do and be as selfish as you want to be (there are no objective reasons to do anything, so why not?). Done.
"The principle underlying altruism will require, in other words, that all reasons be construable as expressing objective rather tha subjective values." 88
I hear Rawls in this piece.
Nagel's piece was the most interesting of those we read, although I'm not sure how much I have to say about it. I swear I hear Rawls in this piece.
The golden rule strikes me as having something quite right about it. Not elevating yourself above others does seem to be a crucial aspect of figuring out respect/morality. Taking on a perspective where you lose your personal attributes, removing that bias, and thinking of yourself just as someone, does seem to be a step in the right direction.
As for the gouty toes examples, I want there not just to be merely 'a reason' to remove the heel, but I want that to be an overriding reason, a moral reason, which trumps whatever other so-called reasons one might have (even if they are all objective reasons).
Lastly, and I hate to harp on this point again and again, but I really don't see exactly how respect (the kind of respect we are really after in this class) and morality are all that different from each other. They seem to be after the same goal, in the same circumstances, about the same objects, etc. Maybe they are just different ways of expressing the same thing. I'm in murky water here.
Respect is just being motivated by, pursuing, and acting in the right way for the right reason(s). If you respect the moral law, then you are motivated by it, you pursue it, and you act according to it. If you respect persons, you are motivated by the moral law, you pursue it, and you act according to it. I fear some kind of circularity here, of course.
```
I worry Waldron could be making a large mistake (but I’m not certain sure he does Waldron’s enterprise seems to be built on the wrong foundational assumptions. How could law be the natural habitat for a moral concept such as dignity? Yes, there are attempts to provide legal articulations of it, and jural laws designed to protect a moral dignity, but I don’t see how dignity is naturally a jural concept. Clearly, Waldron is moving from jural law to moral law. My gut instinct tells me this is the wrong direction.
Conceptually, law isn't necessarily normative. Nazi laws are still laws. Laws have no normative content in themselves – they have no true “ought” built-in. I fear there are some embedded disagreements over metaethical + philosophy of law relationships which might make Waldron's argument a non-starter for me.
Maybe Waldron thinks jural law tells us a story, as if jural law were some kind of practical microcosm or implementation of morality (which I would deny), that helps us realize what moral concept we are really after. Waldron isn't just considering just any law dealing with dignity - he is dealing with particular laws of note. Maybe we can learn something very important about the moral concept of dignity from legal articulations. Perhaps, but I think there are some central features of the moral law, regarding dignity, which likely can’t be elucidated by jural law.
What could jural law really tell us about moral law and moral concepts? Moral law gives jural law meaning, significance, or some normative status, but not the other way around. My intuition is that we cannot, conceptually, model moral law after jural law. The moral law is not contingent, not error-prone, not man-made, it is independent of us, it is absolute, it is overriding, it is binding. Jural law, directly or innately, has none of these attributes (although, the moral law may support and justify and require certain jural laws). Moral law has primacy. Jural law and its various concepts, are to be modeled after or to be constructed in virtue of moral imperatives.
Waldron seems to be arguing from a sociological, perhaps evolution of ordinary language point of view, a descriptive point of view, and then, I worry he moves to claim it is prescriptive.
Today, Waldron thinks, dignity is just an equally distributed legal or social rank. That doesn't, of course, tell us that it is actually normative. The “ought” is not obviously there. Waldron needs to secure that for us. Why ought we respect someone with dignity? A purely legal concept of dignity, not rooted in and/or required by moral law, is too shallow, contingent, and lacking in normative force. What dignity really consists in, if it is to be actually normative, must be moral, not jural.
Why should I think status is a legal concept? Why can't we have a moral status and a legal status? There is a difference between having a moral status or right to speak freely and having a legal status or right to speak freely – and the justifications for each are different in my view. Similarly, what counts as legal status, rank, right, or dignity may be quite different from the moral concepts, and justified by different reasons. The status that actually matters, however, is the moral status.
Perhaps I have greatly misunderstood Waldron’s enterprise.
---
Lecture 1
How could law be the natural habitat for a moral concept such as dignity or respect? Conceptually, law isn't necessarily normative. Nazi laws are still laws. Laws have no normative content in themselves – they have no true “ought” built-in.
What could jural law really tell us about moral law and moral concepts? Moral law gives jural law meaning, significance, or some normative status, but not the other way around. My intuition is that we cannot, conceptually, model moral law after jural law. The moral law is not contingent, not error-prone, not man-made, it is independent of us, it is absolute, it is overriding, it is binding. Jural law, directly or innately, has none of these attributes (although, the moral law may support and justify and require certain jural laws). Moral law has primacy. Jural law and its various concepts, are to be modeled after or to be constructed in virtue of moral imperatives.
Maybe Waldron thinks jural law tells us a story, as if jural law were some kind of practical microcosm or implementation of morality (which I would deny), that helps us realize what moral concept we are really after. Waldron isn't just considering “any law” dealing with dignity, after all, he is dealing with particular laws of note. Maybe we can learn something very important about the moral concept of dignity from legal articulations. I have my doubts though.
I fear there are some embedded disagreements over metaethical + philosophy of law relationships which might make Waldron's argument a non-starter for me.
Why should I think status is a legal concept? Why can't we have a moral status and a legal status? There is a difference between having a moral status or right to speak freely and having a legal status or right to speak freely – and the justifications for each are different in my view. Similarly, what counts as legal status, rank, right, or dignity may be quite different from the moral concepts, and justified by different reasons.
Waldron is moving from jural law to moral law. This is the wrong direction.
Ultimately, even if we wish to define dignity as a kind of status, we need to be able to show the grounds of it. Why do we have that status? Waldron points this out.
If there isn't a moral foundation to jural, status dignity, then why is it important?
Waldron seems to be arguing from a sociological, perhaps evolution of ordinary language point of view, a descriptive point of view, and then, I worry he moves to claim it is prescriptive.
Lecture 2
To clarify his previous lecture, he wants to consider dignity as a legal concept, and model the moral concept on that.
I worry we are just entering into a useless language game here to some extent. What he calls status dignity might just be what we mean by showing respect, and what grounds that status is what we normally call dignity. Or something like that.
Today, dignity is just an equally distributed legal or social rank. That doesn't, of course, tell us that it is actually normative. The “ought” is not obviously there. Waldron needs to secure that for us. Why ought we respect someone with dignity?
A purely legal concept of dignity, not rooted in and/or required by moral law, is too shallow, contingent, and lacking in normative force.
“We evaluate law morally using (something like) law's very own dignitarian resources.” (67)
He is right that our moral views have shifted in an analogous fashion to our legal views.
The goal of Darwall’s distinction between Appraisal Respect (AR) and Recognition Respect (RR) is to bring us closer to understanding the moral “respect to which all persons are entitled,”<<ref "1">> which I will refer to as Respect for Persons (RfP). Darwall believes RfP is some form of RR “owed to all persons,”<<ref "2">> and that RfP is categorically not a form of AR. According to Darwall, RfP occurs when we “take seriously and weigh appropriately” the property of personhood found in “persons in deliberating about what to do.”<<ref "3">> That matches many of our intuitions. Indeed, Darwall makes a few fundamental distinctions which have to be right; however, he goes on to bend his conceptual analysis in ways we should not accept. My goal is to reveal the bare metal of these concepts and highlight concerns or questions surrounding them.
Darwall offers many definitions of RR.<<ref "4">> To have RR is “to weigh appropriately in one's deliberations some feature of the thing in question to act accordingly.”<<ref "5">> RR is “giving appropriate consideration or recognition to some feature” of an object in deliberation “about what to do.”<<ref "6">> For example, I would take the fact that a dangerous bull is charging me as a salient fact for my deliberations for action, and assuming no other facts outweighed my prudential desires, I would flee for cover. I have RR for the fact that the bull is charging me when I weigh that fact and act.
Unfortunately, Darwall often refers to RR as an attitude or a disposition (technical terms in philosophy), but this is an unnecessary layer and perhaps an ad hoc limit to place on the concept of RR. Charitable interpretations of Darwall should lift this restriction, since it is obvious that the concept of RR can accommodate more diverse mental descriptions of this phenomenon.
Darwall emphasizes the psychological aspects of RR (intention and motivation are obviously key), but it is clear that he also aims for action to be an integral component of RR.<<ref "7">> RR is an action resulting from or motivated by the appropriate deliberation concerning some target fact with some other facts.<<ref "8">>
A complete instance of RR consists in a pair: an action and a reason for that action which must be generated in a particular way. If we break apart an instance of RR, we find an object, a perceived feature/fact of that object, a weighing or deliberation of that perceived fact against other perceived facts, at least one subjective standard for weighing (which itself is a special kind of fact from the agent’s perspective), and the action which results from deliberation. Exactly what could count as a standard isn’t clear (the moral law, prudence, or many subjective standards seem to be viable candidates). Darwall emphasizes the feature of the object as the target of RR rather than the object itself.<<ref "9">> Exactly how and which targets of RR are selected is not obvious.<<ref "10">>
It remains unclear to me whether targets of RR must ultimately modify or constrain the action of RR (a strong requirement), or if this fact need only be merely a factor with some (but not necessarily efficacious) weight in deliberations (a weak requirement). If a fact doesn’t have any real effect in weighing, if it isn’t the reason for acting, then can it be a viable target of RR? Darwall appears to imply this strong requirement. For example, he says, “to have recognition respect for something is to regard that fact as itself placing restrictions on what it is permissible for one to do.”<<ref "11">> Maybe, but it isn’t obviously true, and there might be exceptions.<<ref "12">>
Most significantly, Darwall tailored RR with voluntary deliberation and action. RR is the category of respect for which we can possibly be directly, morally responsible (that is not to say that all cases of RR are moral cases). This paves the way for RfP, as a kind of RR, to be morally required of us. Exactly how voluntariness plays out in RR, however, is quite unclear.<<ref "13">> Darwall floods his paper with vague normative language. Darwall gives us a section on moral RR, and it seems as times that he is tempted to collapse the concept of RR into moral RR. Even if that isn’t the case, Darwall leaves behind odd breadcrumb statements about RR, such as, “any fact which is something that one ought to take into account in deliberation is an appropriate object.”<<ref "14">> I worry Darwall wishes to place an objective “ought” filter over what counts as a viable target for RR. Further, in trying to tailor RR as a voluntary kind of respect, Darwall often slips into his murky “appropriateness” language.<<ref "15">> In charity, I take Darwall to be using a shotgun approach to defining RR, and only some of the expressions of RR should really stick in the final analysis. Despite my reservations, I think Darwall is quite right to emphasize the moral possibilities of RR. The voluntariness built into the concept of RR categorically separates it from AR.
Broadly, AR is a kind of attitude or judgment in which one holds an object in high regard without necessarily “having any particular conception of just what behavior from oneself would be required or made appropriate” by that object's “having the features meriting such respect.”<<ref "16">> AR doesn’t take features, facts, or characteristics of an object to be factors in deliberations concerning action; rather, an object is esteemed to some degree as a consequence of evaluating some set of its features against some standard of merit. For Darwall, the target of AR is the object rather than the features of the object.<<ref "17">> AR is an esteem or awe for an object judged to be excellent or judged to have excellent features. This esteem is subjectively considered by the respecter to be merited or deserved.<<ref "18">> For example, when I evaluate Nelson Mandela as a moral agent or person, I consider certain features/ facts about him in measuring his moral virtue, and the result is my esteem for him. Those facts don’t necessarily cause me to act in any particular way. I have AR for him when I simply judge him to be a person of moral merit, when I hold him in high regard or esteem because of how he measures against my subjective standard of what counts as being a good moral person.
AR seems to have a lot in common with the attitude or belief formation of doxastic involuntarism. This lack of voluntariness of AR distinguishes it from RR in a strong manner. It is not clear that AR is something for which one can be morally responsible. There is a possibility, however, that I am overstating the involuntariness of AR. For example, esteem might be understood differently, where I consider the hypothetical situation in which it was possible and morally permissible for me to choose between an object existing as P or Q, where all else being equal, P has more merit. I would choose for the object to exist as P. I worry that even appraisal has a kind of hypothetical action built into it. If this is correct, then perhaps the distinction between AR and RR is not as clear as I had hoped (I’m not sure).
While Darwall doesn’t phrase it this way, we can think of AR as an attitude or belief formed from evaluating to what degree a particular token satisfies what the agent subjectively takes to be the standard of the good of its type.<<ref "19">> Esteem for a token object requires the respecter to have in mind some kind of standard which she uses to evaluate the token object. Presumably the respecter employs what she believes is the standard of the good of the type of the token. An instance of AR consists in a judgment formed by evaluating a token against the perceived standard of the good of its type. Like RR, AR has an object and some set of features of the object, and a standard; unlike RR, AR uses its standard against which to measure the merit of an object’s features, rather than weighing features, and this results in a judgment (rather than an action).<<ref "20">>
Vexingly, Darwall posits an artificial limitation on the concept of AR: the “appropriate characteristics” to be evaluated in AR are “those which are, or are based on, features of a person which we attribute to his character.”<<ref "21">> He says AR is “a positive appraisal of a person or his character-related features.”<<ref "22">> He claims the only viable targets of AR are persons, and the only viable features available for judgment are the moral characteristics of a person. He does not present a real argument for this limitation, although he does claim that AR “for a person assessed in a particular pursuit seems to depend on features of this character (or his excellence as a person) in at least two ways.”<<ref "23">>
First, Darwall considers a tennis player who “may be widely acclaimed as one of the best players in the world and not be widely respected by his fellows.”<<ref "24">> On his view, the tennis player’s moral character is a necessary component of being an excellent tennis player, and he won’t be judged as deserving AR if he is considered vicious. This fails to capture the everyday phenomenon of AR as we ordinarily experience it.
It seems to me that the tennis player is receiving AR as a tennis player given our standard of good of a tennis player, even if he doesn't receive AR as a person given our standard of good of a person. There are various ways in which we can have AR for a token object, and that is because an object can have many types, and we may employ a different standard of good for each type. We can view an object with different type-lenses, and we can employ different standards in evaluating an object. We can evaluate the object as a token of the type tennis player, or as a token of the type human, or as a token of the type person, or as a token of the type husband, etc. He might be a good a tennis player given the appropriate standard, he might even be a decent token human specimen, but then he might turn out to be an awful husband or terrible person.<<ref "25">>
Darwell further claims that “purely 'natural' capacities and behavior manifesting them are not appropriate objects of appraisal respect...even in the context of a fairly narrowly defined human pursuit.”<<ref "26">> This is just another way of saying that the scope of AR is persons and their non-natural moral characteristics. I don’t see why we should agree. He also says, “there may well be characteristics of human beings which are regarded as human excellences but which are not appropriate grounds for appraisal respect.”<<ref "27">> He doesn’t offer a real argument for it. Even if he wanted to claim that we should focus on AR for persons (which is an interesting idea), to the exclusion of human excellence not involved in non-natural moral character, or any other type of excellence, it is obvious that AR is conceptually capable of targeting and evaluating other non-person types of objects, non-moral characteristics, and natural capacities.
A few examples can easily demonstrate why AR is more conceptually capable than Darwall claims. When I stand before Goliath, his natural gargantuan size (perhaps as a soldier in close-combat) fills me with awe. Goliath’s size is a natural capacity, but I can still be filled with AR for him when regarding him as a naturally gigantic soldier. When I see a particular tree flourishing according to the standard of the good of its kind, I evaluate it and appraise it as an excellent tree – a tree of merit. It deserves the title I give it because it meets the requirements set out by the standard of the good of trees. Even Darwall’s bank heist example is best understood by considering that the virtue of the practice of bank robbing and a vicious enough standard of morals (to be willing to steal and commit violent acts) are the standards one would use to reach AR for a particular bank robber. It is still a case of AR, even if it is an odd one. We have evaluated someone with a morally bad character as a good robber, according to the standard of what makes a good bank robber. Darwall’s definition and ad hoc limitations are a mistake.<<ref "28">>
In his zeal to reveal how we can simultaneously fail to have RfP, a kind of RR, and succeed in having AR for the same person, Darwall has unnecessarily embedded moral notions into his definitions and bent his conceptual analysis. His goal is a good one, but he made a mistake in his analysis. We can arrive at this revelation without placing the ad hoc limits that Darwall adds, and indeed we shouldn’t agree to these limits. It is quite unclear why we should believe AR (or RR, if Darwall meant to go that far) is conceptually linked to morality, or moral character, or restricted only to persons as objects.
We are forced to generalize Darwall’s definitions of the concepts of respect which he has over-specified and artificially limits. What is necessary and sufficient? What should we eliminate? What matches our intuitions and our experiences of these phenomena? The bare metal notions are compelling. Darwall started out with kernels of truth, but then he took us down a rabbit hole.<<ref "29">>
I think Darwall’s overall project is generally right, and he gives us a useful framework for appreciating the various ordinary language uses of respect. The real goal, of course, is to better understand RfP. That is the sort of respect that matters the most. The claim that RfP is a kind of RR and not AR seems right. Honestly, I have no idea how to further define RfP, other than to claim it is simply being moral. I have no idea how to separate being moral from respecting persons in any significant way. I think it boils down to talking about two sides of the same coin. Define and explicate being moral, and I think you’ve defined and explicated RfP.
------------------
<<footnotes "1" "Darwall, Stephen. 'Two Kinds Of Respect.' //Ethics// 88, no. 1 (1977): 36">>
<<footnotes "2" "Ibid., 38">>
<<footnotes "3" "Ibid.">>
<<footnotes "4" "Unfortunately, Darwall leaves gaps in his definitions and explanations which are too large. Charity requires us to build some technical bridges to achieve an adequate understanding of his concepts. In the spirit of charity, I feel reluctantly forced to put words in Darwall’s mouth to make clearer what he likely means (or should mean). I will try to be charitable in my exegesis, and ultimately, I will walk away with definitions which may be different than Darwall intended, but I believe these concepts are much more useful, and don’t carry the same baggage.">>
<<footnotes "5" "Ibid. ">>
<<footnotes "6" "Ibid. ">>
<<footnotes "7" "Ibid., 39">>
<<footnotes "8" "Darwall often ambiguously injects an objective notion of “appropriateness” into RR, and it blurs his analysis. What is this objective appropriateness? I will take “appropriate” to mean that the agent is rational in his weighing the facts against his subjective standard – that the agent makes the appropriate, rational inferences given the facts and subjective standard used in deliberation. I worry that Darwall is often tempted to inject an objective moral notion of appropriateness into RR, especially since he later adulterates his definition of AR with an artificial conceptual limitation based on morality. If he meant that, then it is a mistake, especially since several contradictions immediately arise in his examples. Take my paper as either giving him the benefit of the doubt of not making that mistake or attempting to salvage a viable analysis despite that mistake.">>
<<footnotes "9" "The breakdown I’ve given is an atomic instance of RR, which is what I believe Darwall is arguing for. Of course, in many cases, an agent weighs multiple features of multiple objects, and essentially, we might conceive of these cases of deliberation and action as really a molecular set of atomic instances of RR. The crucial aspect of an atomic instance of RR is that it targets a single feature. The atomic components of a molecular instance of RR share the same action and deliberation, but they do not share the same targets: one feature, one atomic instance of RR.">>
<<footnotes "10" "How do we select our targets for RR? Don't we need a reason for picking them out? Isn't targeting a fact for RR a kind of mental action which is the result of some subsequent instance of RR? I fear a regress.">>
<<footnotes "11" "Ibid., 40">>
<<footnotes "12" "For example, it is possible that there are many features/facts of the moral law which are viable targets of RR, even when they are not deciding factors. It is possible these features can and should weigh in all my deliberations (hence, no deliberation should ever be an atomic instance of RR), even in those deliberations where these features ultimately have no impact on or in no way constrain what I can or should choose. The features of moral law, after all, do not always restrict my action (sometimes the moral law does not obligate or restrict any available choice in a circumstance), but I might want to say they can (and should) be viable targets of RR. ">>
<<footnotes "13" "What choices are possible in the various instances of RR? Can we choose our standard(s)? Can we choose whether or not to rationally weigh or how we apply the standard? Can we choose to disregard the results of that weighing? Can we choose whether or not to take a feature of an object as a factor in our weighing? Can we choose the weight of that feature and/or the other facts? ">>
<<footnotes "14" "Ibid. 40">>
<<footnotes "15" "Sometimes his language of “appropriateness” seems to imply an objective moral standard, but I don’t think we have to take him that way. In our conceptual analysis, it seems obvious that a vicious person, like his crook example, can have RR using a vicious standard. The standard the crook employs is not objectively, morally appropriate at all.">>
<<footnotes "16" "Ibid., 39">>
<<footnotes "17" "No argument is given for this switch in target types. Careful examination may reveal that the real target of AR is still the feature of an object and not the object itself.">>
<<footnotes "18" "I find the locution, 'when we speak of someone as meriting or deserving our respect, it is appraisal respect that we have in mind' on pg 39 somewhat odd. I think people merit or deserve our respect in the recognition sense as well. We can untangle this by realizing that appraisal 'desert' is judged via a standard of the good, while the recognition 'desert' is required by the standard of the right (the moral law).">>
<<footnotes "19" "Note that in some cases the agent could be using the wrong standard. A vicious, irrational, or simply mistaken agent may employ subjective standards which do not correspond to objectively correct standards.">>
<<footnotes "20" "Darwall’s explanation of RR implies an atomic/molecular perspective, but his analysis of AR doesn’t suggest a similar atomic/molecular perspective. Whether or not the concept of AR is capable of admitting atomic/molecular instances is not obvious to me.">>
<<footnotes "21" "Ibid. ">>
<<footnotes "22" "Ibid., 41">>
<<footnotes "23" "Ibid.">>
<<footnotes "24" "Ibid.">>
<<footnotes "25" "Note that human eudaimonia, as a standard, is significantly broader than the standard of moral virtue. Human excellence includes more than the moral excellence of being a person. A starving saint may be an excellent person, but not an excellent human.">>
<<footnotes "26" "Ibid., 42">>
<<footnotes "27" "Ibid., 43">>
<<footnotes "28" "I worry that Darwall then goes on to try and make a similar mistake with RR. He says on pg. 45, 'Recognition respect for persons, then, is identical with recognition respect for the moral requirements that are placed on one by the existence of other persons.' We might take him to be talking about RfP, in which case he might be right. I want to point out that not all RR for persons is necessarily the same as RfP though. Why can’t RR for persons be based upon some standard of fear for the harm that other persons may cause us? RR for persons is broader than RfP. Hiding or killing other persons out of fear is a case of RR for persons. It just happens to be a case where the standard isn’t the moral law.">>
<<footnotes "29" "Admittedly, RR seems to be far simpler than Darwall implies. The crux of the concept of RR is just a weighing of facts and an action resulting from that deliberation. If I take a fact to be salient for deliberation or weighing concerning my action, then that fact is the target of my RR. RR seems to be that simple and that broad, although the mechanics underlying it may be complex.">>
I never know what you really expect in these reflection pieces (you rarely have anything to say about them, so I take it as a good sign). I have pages and pages of notes, but I don't want to flood you with my thoughts, concerns, or questions. Sometimes I just go with whatever struck me in the gut the most, whatever I'm most passionate about. With that in mind, here is my reflection:
I find the claim that three formulations are logically equivalent to be an interesting one (I enjoy logic and ethics). I see two paths for getting at the equivalence of the formulations of the moral law.
First, perhaps we can phrase or assume each these formulations as logical truths, and if we can, then they are logically equivalent. All logical truths are logical consequences of each other, which means they are all logically equivalent. So, I have to ask: are Kant's formulations of the moral law logical truths? To be clear, a logical truth is true in all possible worlds (i.e. true in every model). Isn't the moral law like that? I think so, or I wouldn't call it moral law (necessary, universal, absolute, etc.). Maybe Kant's formulations fail to capture the semantics of the moral law, but surely the moral law is a logical truth. If establish Kant's formulations are logical truths, and we have good reasons to think they might be, then we have proven they are logically equivalent.
That said, logical equivalence, particularly regarding logical truths, is perhaps weirder that some might initially realize. For example, 2+2=4, or Smaller(a,b) ↔ Larger(b, a), and P ∨ ¬P are all logical truths, and hence they are also equivalent to the moral law (assuming the moral law is a logical truth). It is odd to say that 2+2=4 is equivalent to the moral law. I kind of like it though.
If we can't think of these formulations as logical truths (which means they can be falsified in some possible world), then the second way is to assume the biconditional relationship between all three formulations in our domain. If those biconditonals are logical truths (i.e. the formulations share the same truth values not just in our domain, but all possible domains) then the relationships are not merely biconditional, but logical equivalent. This is a weaker claim, in some sense, than the previous, but this may be what Kant meant (I don't know). This is the route which I think most people would be tempted to take when they try to establish equivalence. This route seems odd to me though, since the moral law would turn out to be falsifiable in some possible world. I'm not convinced that is even coherent.
The first path allows us to simply analyze each formulation individually. If we can establish them as logical truths, then the work is done. It seems to be much harder to go the biconditional route, in which we actually do have to analyze the relationships between the various formulations. It seems the dilemma O'Neill poses on 127 is hardly a dilemma at all if we go by this first path. She seems to be going for something like the second path.
That said, I worry the reason I've never heard of the first path is that logical truths are generally considered analytic, and if memory serves me correctly, Kant claims the moral law is synthetic a priori (I'm not entirely sure I really, deeply understand this notion). This may or may not be a problem, I don't know. Even if the law were synthetic a priori, it is not immediately obvious to me that the moral law can't be a logical truth.
---
Instances where consent matters seem to be a subset of instances where respect is required. Consent does not completely outline what respect for persons means.
What can or can't a person consent to?
How can I simultaneously be treating someone as an end, but as a secondary effect be using them? (e.g. sex) … the requirements of consent scale with epistemic ability
What does it mean for a child to give consent? Presumably, the requirements are high – we have to feed them more information, we have structure the questions in ways they actually comprehend. There is an entire context we have to lay out for them before they can begin to understand the question, a context that more experienced humans would already have. Getting consent is impractical, it seems.
Consider the case of impairment or children. What if it took years and billions of dollars to get their consent? Should we spend that in each case? We won't. We resort to paternalism. But, is this morally acceptable? It seems practical, but even practical options aren't necessarily the morally right ones. Why can we be paternalistic? We aren't ideal agents, as mature adults with full human faculties either – we are limited.
We must take each other's epistemic limitations seriously. There is a difference between getting the consent of an ideal epistemic agent and a finite, limited agent (such as humans).
O'Neill rules out seduction, but considers all contractual relationships (which don't count as economic fraud, whatever that means) to be kosher. That seems unlikely to me. Marxist problem, he eventually considers. Nm, he seems to get it.
Who cares about legal consent? Legal obligations only have meaning qua moral obligations. Moral consent, moral contracts, and moral obligations are all that matter in the ultimate analysis.
Consent requires us to: Discover the morally significant aspect of plans, proposals, and actions.
Hypothetical Consent
What does it mean to ask “whether the fully rational would consent”? We aren't rational enough to answer the question in most cases, it seems to me.
Getting consent means “doing the best we can with what we have.”s What more could be required of us? If we are limited in our ability to give consent, why aren't we also limited in our ability to get it? The moral show must go on though.
I'm fat. A ultra-rational person might say I need to be forced into hard exercise and have my diet controlled. I need some brainwashing to get fit and to want to be fit and continue to try to be healthy. Would this coercion be acceptable?
“Person” is used in a tricky fashion here. Before he defines consent, I feel he needs to elaborate on what he means by person.
Significant and Spurious Consent
Moral consent is a consent to the deeper, fundamental aspects of another's proposals, but not all all aspects of another's proposals.
Morally significant consent requires the possibility of consent or dissent. Those trying to get consent have to make both options possible.
What are the universal necessary conditions for consent? What are the contextual, sometimes necessary conditions for consent?
We must take into the particularities of persons, understand their particular limitations, surrounding their ability to dissent and consent. We have to treat them as the persons they are.
Possible Consent: a Kantian reading
If Kant is going to match my intuitions, I have to particularize maxims. Consent, in this case, seems to focus too much on deception and lying (which Kant is notoriously incapable of handling in an appropriate, intuitive manner).
Is my maxim obvious to the other....vs...would the other person agree to my maxim? Can they share my maxim?
Treat others not as (or merely?) means but as ends in themselves. Their endness places limits on us. Respect is about respecting the limits (pg 114).
I'd like to point out that normally I might think of respect as giving me positive perfect duties, but we can handle this in limits language. Suppose the set of all possible action/motivation pairs, the endness duty places limits on which of those are viable – i.e. it limits all the possibilities down to one – which means it is a perfect duty.
If we only knew that a person was rational and autonomous, then we'd only have the negative standard. The particularities of each person (as a human, as a wife, as a finite creature, etc.), however, give us the positive standards.
We can give no determinate account for the capacities of action of limited rational beings. Presumably, we could give such an account for unlimited, ideal rational beings. That might be true. I think desires might still be possible in ideal beings, and desires are particular to each person in my view (although, Kant would disagree).
The moral law is the same for everyone only in the particularized, contextualized sense. If you find your self in limited rationality position X, which is a part of circumstance Y, then you should do Z with this W intention and motivation.
There is a tension between love and respect. Love is wanting the best for someone, according to what you understand the “good” (or happiness) to be. Respect is seeking the best for someone, according to their understanding of the “good.”??? What about an objective one? Why should we agree? What about someone who has a wildly better grasp of the good?
Sharingh others ends. We are limited creatures as well, so there is only so much we can do, so many ends we can share. We, as human Respecters and Respected, all have limitations.
The core of gaining consent is avoiding deceit and coercion. Thanks.
Universal Laws and ends-in-themselves
I find the claim that three formulations are logically equivalent to be an interesting one. I see two paths for getting at the equivalence of the formulations of the moral law.
First, perhaps we can phrase or assume each these formulations as logical truths, and if we can, then they are logically equivalent. The fact is that all logical truths are logical consequences of each other, which means they are all logically equivalent. So, I have to ask: are Kant's formulations of the moral law logical truths? I want to know what you think about this.To be clear, a logical truth is true in all possible worlds (i.e. true in every model). Isn't the moral law like that? I think so, or I wouldn't call it moral law (necessary, universal, absolute, etc.). Maybe Kant's formulations fail to capture the semantics of the moral law, but surely the moral law is a logical truth. If we Kant's formulations are logical truths, and we have good reasons to think they might be, then we can prove they are logically equivalent.
That said, logical equivalence is perhaps weirder that we might initially realize. For example, 2+2=4, or Smaller(a,b) ↔ Larger(b, a), and P ∨ ¬P are all logical truths, and hence they are also equivalent to the moral law (assuming the moral law is a logical truth). It is odd to say that 2+2=4 is equivalent to the moral law. I kind of like it though.
The dilemma O'Neill poses on 127 is hardly a dilemma at all if we go by this first path.
If we can't think of these formulations as logical truths, then the second way is to assume the biconditional relationship between all three formulations in our domain. If those biconditonals are logical truths (i.e. the formulations share the same truth values, whether true or false, not just in our domain, but all possible domains) then the relationships are not merely biconditional, but logically equivalent. This is a weaker claim, in some sense, than the previous, but this may be what Kant meant. This is the route which I think most people would be tempted to take when they try to establish equivalence. This route seems odd to me though, since the moral law would turn out to be falsifiable in some possible world. I'm not convinced that is even coherent.
I never know what you really expect in these reflection pieces (you rarely have anything to say about them, so I take it as a good sign). I have pages and pages of notes, but I don't want to flood you with my thoughts, concerns, or questions. Sometimes I just go with whatever struck me in the gut the most, whatever I'm most passionate about. With that in mind, here is my reflection:
I don't have any particular argument regarding the reading this week. I have a few thoughts and worries though.
Parfit may be too quick to pull action apart from intention and motivation. I hesitate to make that move. Further, Parfit seems to be pulling “mere means” apart from immorality. It seems as if he intends to weaken the concept of “mere means.”
I worry we might be going off the deep end in trying to flesh out “mere means” here. The point is to treat people as they ought to be treated, as ends in themselves. “Mere means” is shorthand, in my book, for not completely treating/regarding others as the ends they are – it is just another word for failing to follow the moral law. There are innumerable ways to fail to treat/regard another as end; this failure is a matter of degrees, but failure is failure. Sometimes, I get the feeling that people use “mere” in “mere means” to be a severe or perhaps maximal failure, and not just any failure, to follow the moral law. I would disagree though. To treat/regard someone as “mere means” is just a failure of some degree to not treat them as ends.
Maybe there is a dialectical reason for trying to understand the moral law by uncovering “mere means.” Otherwise, we have some kind of circularity problem in Kant's moral law in the same way that Virtue ethicists all too often fail to say anything significant in applied ethics beyond the mantra “do and be what the virtuous agent would do and be” (which is highly uninformative). Imagine answering “what ought we do?” with “follow the moral law,” and “how do we follow the moral law in this case?” with “don't treat those people as mere means,” and “what does it mean to not treat those people as mere means?” with “follow the moral law.” We need a decision procedure, and perhaps discussing “mere means” in Parfit's way is a path towards an important method. I don't know.
Part of the approach here was casuistry (Parfit is gifted at it). Casuistry is odd. On one hand, it satisfyingly points out limits to moral theory by making use of my intuitions, and those are sometimes the only grounds I have. Sometimes I'm stuck thinking that intuition is all I have to support and explicate the moral law. On the other hand, I find it unsatisfying because it only prods a black box, and it doesn't necessarily dive into or generate a theory of moral law itself. Even worse, the problem of disagreement becomes quite strong in this approach.
---
“merely as a means,” you were “just” using me and nothing more.
Scientist example (212) isn't so clear. I think one can choose not to cause pain in animals and still perhaps treat those animals as mere means. Suppose I have a rule “try not to cause pain,” that doesn't mean the animals are valuable or worthy of respect or that I actually care about the animals. I can be a certain kind of person that doesn't cause pain but still treats animals as mere means in this case. NM, he deals with it on 214-215
I'm not sure I want to immediately agree to the “doing something to someone as a means of achieving some aim” and “treating this person as a means” distinction. It is not obvious to me that any instances of the first are not instances of the second. We have the “authentic self” problem, which makes identifying the real you important, and we may have Plato's classic “parts and kinds” metaphysics problem embedded here as well. I have no idea what to do with it, other than to say this is not obvious or clear. I proceed with caution (Parfit, as always, is amazing at forcing me into these unknown positions).
Kamm is right in objecting to the definition the rough definition, but Parfit is right about the required revisions.
The Second Mere Means Principle looks a lot like Recognition Respect.
(1) might be too weakly stated, but a stronger version seems definitionally correct. “Our treated of this person is governed by the the moral law” (where governed means in accordance with, but in accordance with also means motivated by) does just fine.
Underlying attitudes or policies for merely as a means.
Parfit goes for “regard” as a mere tool and “treat” /act/ as a mere means.
Parfit may be too quick to pull part the action from the motivation, in the case of the gangster (216).
Treating people as ends just means treating them as they ought to be treated. The limits of how we ought to treat someone seem to be tested by our intuitions and casuistry.
Casuistry is damning to all approaches to ethics. The virtue ethicist's lack of decision procedure demonstrates the inapplicable nature of their claims (or rather that they can't commit to much of anything in applied ethics with objective reasons), and the consequentalist and deontologist both have their direct problem cases.
There seems to be a lot of focus on coercion and deception in “mere means” discussions. I think there are other possibilities. I need not deceive or coerce anyone, and I can still treat/regard them as a mere means, i.e. not an end in themselves.
“Mere means” is too weak. I think we mean something stronger. The problem is that in so many cases, it seems morally permissible (even obligatory sometimes) to use others as a means. “Mere means” implies you aren't treating them as an end, or more specifically, as they kind of end they ought to be treated as.
I worry we might be going off the deep end in trying to flesh out “mere means” here. The point is to treat people as they ought to be treated, as ends in themselves. “Mere means” is shorthand, in my book, for not completely treating/regarding others as the ends they are – it is just the definition of failing to follow the moral law. There are innumerable ways to fail to treat/regard another as end; this failure is a matter of degrees, but failure is failure. Sometimes, I get the feeling that people use “mere” in “mere means” to be a maximal failure, and not just any failure, to follow the moral law. I would disagree though. To treat/regard someone as “mere means” is just a failure of some degree to not treat them as ends.
Maybe there is a dialectical reason for trying to understand the moral law by uncovering “mere means.” Otherwise, we have some kind of circularity problem in Kant's moral law in the same way that Virtue ethicists all too often fail to say anything significant in applied ethics beyond the mantra “do and be what the virtuous agent would do and be” (which is highly uninformative). Imagine answering “what ought we do?” with “follow the moral law,” and “how do we follow the moral law in this case?” with “don't treat those people as mere means” and “what does it mean to not treat those people as mere means?” with “follow the moral law.”
Casuistry is odd. On one hand, it satisfyingly points out limits to moral theory by making use of my intuitions, and those are sometimes the only grounds I have. Sometimes I'm stuck thinking that intuition is all I have to support and explicate the moral law. On the other hand, I find it unsatisfying because it only prods a black box, and it doesn't really dive into the theory of moral law itself. Even worse, the problem of disagreement makes public moral analysis unsatisfactory.
Parfit seems to be pulling apart “mere means” from the immorality. If we take his definition of “mere means,” then I am left asking why I should really care about the “mere means” talk at all. There is only the moral law to consider.
A lot of these examples seem to be demonstrate the ability to partially treat/regard someone as an end. Whether or not this means “mere means” isn't terribly important to me.
I fear Scanlon attempts to pull apart "moral worth" from permissibility (or I have read him incorrectly). This may be a part of his idea of the duality of maxims. Such a move would be a mistake. As far as I'm concerned, we are talking about the same thing. In order to see why I oppose this pulling apart, we need to consider what I believe counts as the appropriate generalized moral decision procedure. Let us think of the moral law as a functional black box, it takes input, the circumstance, computational work is done, and the output is the set of morally permissible actions.
We might say a set of acts (performed simultaneously) + set of reasons for those acts (perhaps one of them is the overriding, primary reason; maybe they are ranked) = Action. The various possible actions available to us are part of our circumstance, and moral law dictates which choices are permissible and which aren't. We are in a position to choose not only how we will act, but what motivates us, about why we will act as such. Without both, we do not have choice or autonomy, and we could not be moral agents.
What is the nature of this input? It must be a circumstance, the state of affairs, the precise case we find ourselves in. It must be detailed enough to show what available choices we have. The circumstance includes the salient facts or beliefs we {F1, F2, ..., Fn}, of the world around us, of our limitations, powers, and freedoms. Among those facts/beliefs is a very important one, it is the fact of the various possible choices available to us. That fact contains a set of the actions we must choose from (it is our plight). We must choose an action; we choose a pair of some set of acts (which can be perfomed in the time frame) alongside some set of reasons for that set of acts. Thus, a complete input might be generalized like this: {F1, F2, ({A1}, {R1}), ({A1}, {R2}), ...,({A1}, {Rn}), ({A2}, {R1}), ..., ({An}, {Rn}), ..., Fn}.
What is the nature of this output? It must be some set of actions, some set of pairs of sets of acts and reasons. All actions which are permissible after the computation make it into the output set, while none of the impermissible actions do. To say multiple actions are permissible is to say that morally, the options are of equal moral worth.
To say an action is obligatory is to say that the output of the moral-law-box yields but a single pair of acts/reasons which is permissible. It means one is only morally permitted to perform exactly all of those acts in the act-set, and must choose to be motivated by exactly all of the reasons in the reason-set. This may actually be a rare occurence.
Often, we have the intuition that certains acts are obligatory. This can't be correct though, since no act apart from a motivation could be morally obligatory - only actions can be obligatory. However, we can still make sense of the intuition in this decision procedure.
To say, in shorthand, that an "act is obligatory," is to say that a certain set of actions are permissible, and they all share in common some specific act as a member of the set of acts found in each those permissible actions.
If we claim that actions only have moral worth when done from duty, then we mean to say that the reason for the act must be because the moral law permits it. To agree to the claim that actions only have moral worth when performed from duty is to claim that the output of the black box will only provide acts/reasons pairs where the primary (I strongly hesitate to say exclusive) reason for the acts is "because the moral law permitted it." In addition to this "from duty" reason, it may be possible that the moral law also requires or allows for other reasons to be members of our set of reasons for acting, I don't know.
Insofar as we aren't choosing our reasons for acts, we don't have actions. For a person to be naturally virtuous, if they act from virtuous inclination, perhaps it is no action at all (merely an act with no reason). It is clear they aren't acting from duty, but in what way, I'm not sure. If they had a choice to act from inclination, where inclination was the reason for the act, then it must be an action, and that would be immoral to do so. It if they didn't have a choice about the reason for their act (I'm not even sure what it means to choose an act without having a reason for it), then it wasn't an action, it wasn't free, it wasn't something for which they can be responsible.
In my view, this is one of the things strongly separates consequentialist views from deontic views. Intentions, reasons for acting, are distinctly relevant to moral worth, i.e. to permissibility. A consequentialist sets aside reasons for acting, and the only output which comes out of their decision prodecure is a set of acts, with no reasons.
Now, hopefully it is clearer what I mean when I say that an action has moral worth just in case it is morally permissible. I am opposed to the notion that they could be pulled apart.
---
Identify and assess moral importance of “means and end” language/ideas.
Treating people as ends, and never merely as means, is a “criterion of permissibility” of action, and perhaps reasons for acting. He has to show how the permissibility of an action depend on the agent's reason for performing it.
Treating as mere means seems to be too specific a category of wrongness, and perhaps it fails to capture the full content of the moral law.
Normal use of the term suggests this divide in categories. Is there an abnormal use we seek, or a way to frame the normal use?
Value is a source of reasons. Mere Derivative provides reasons only insofar as the reasons are provided by something else.
“reason to promote” is lacking
Middle of 93, I have no idea what move he is making.
I think this “choosing an end” is an odd way to talk about it. People, objectively, independently of my mind, are ends for me. Whether or not I see them as ends, whether or not I treat them as ends, are entirely different matters. What makes them an end is the moral law, not myself. There is a subjective sense in which “I choose people as ends” possibly. I'm not convinced of that though. I'm worried we can't “choose” to believe anything, although I maybe we can choose whether or not to act on our beliefs (ah, could we have reasons (beliefs) for not acting on our beliefs? - it is a miracle or a death spiral in metaethics). Subjectively, people either are ends, in my eyes, or they aren't – but, I'm not sure if that is a choice. How we cash out autonomy or freedom is crucial here. In some ways, we need that structure in order to build more around it.
How can we be responsible for choosing to act for the right reason if we can't choose our reasons? Maybe reasons for acting are the special kinds of belief which we can choose.
No, pure freedom does require being able to choose your moral beliefs...maybe. It is the only way to escape the infinite regress of Frankfurt, and freedom is the foundation. Nm. We can say that we don't have control over which various posible reasons are available to us for action, but instead, maybe we hav control over which reasons we do act upon. We can act against our beliefs in this way. This gets around the problem of doxastic voluntarism for a little while, while preserving some semblance of freedom and responsibility for acting from the moral law. What reasons do we have for choosing to act against our other reasons? Ah, well, regress again. Pure freedom or nothing.
Who cares “how people see themselves”? It is one thing to assume I have freedom, and another to assume other minds have freedom like mine. It is entirely different to say the reason we should think they have freedom is because they see themselves as having it. That isn't enough.
By adopting an end, we generate a reason for pursuing it. Why should this not be true?
Of course, “being an end itself” is not the same as “having the power to confer positive value on other things by choosing them as ends.”
Eudaimonia is an end in itself. That doesn't give it any powers, and that doesn't even mean we need to be ruled by it. There are times when Eudaimonia is to be ignored and set aside, according to the moral law. There is a difference between being a mere end and being the final end. The moral law is the final end. All other things are judged by it.
I'm still not entirely sure I understand what it means to have the power to generating reasons for pursuing things by choosing them as ends.
Emphasizes the legislator. We are in the dark world of Kant.
Legislating, power to make law, is the power to choose ends.
I'd like some clear definitions here. He wanders too much for taste. What precisely does Scanlan mean by "end" and "reason." He talks a great deal about how they do or do not relate to each other. There are too many dialects of Kantonese for me to know what is going on.
Exsactly what is wrong with "we should act only in ways that others could not reasonably refuse to authorize?" It depends on what we mean by reasonable (and perhaps others) here.
"treat someone as an end in herself only if I take the fact that she is an end in herself as giving me reasons to treat her in some ways but not others"
Scanlon and I may not share the same intuitions about the Gangster example. The gangster could have acted with moral merit, and when he doesn't, he acts without moral merit...and, this doesn't mean amorally, but rather immorally. What he "does", as a mere act (sectioned off from a complete action, which act/reason pair), may not be impermissible, but that is because permissibility has NO meaning outside of intention, of reason for the action. Now, it just so happens that perhaps certain acts can never be paired with any reason and be permissible, but that doesn't mean the act, in itself, is imperissible.
Much is couched is the "meaning of his action."
Two ways on 100
I fear Scanlon attempts to pull apart "moral worth" from permissibility (or I have read him incorrectly). That would be a mistake. As far as I'm concerned, we are talking about the same thing. Let us think of the moral law as a functional black box, it takes input, the circumstance, computational work is done (which we need not concern ourselves with), and the output is morally permissible.
What is the nature of this input? It must be a circumstance, the state of affairs, the precise case we find ourselves in. It must be detailed enough to show what available choices we have. The circumstance includes the salient facts or beliefs we have (F1, F2, ..., Fn), of the world around us, of our limitations, powers, and freedoms. Among those facts/beliefs are the various possible sets of acts and sets of reasons for acting one may take in the releveant future time frame for choice, ({A1}, {R1}), ({A1}, {R2}), ...,({A1}, {Rn}), ({A2}, {R1}), ({A2}, {R2}), ...,({A2}, {Rn}), ...,({An}, {Rn}).
We might say set of acts + set of reasons = Action. The various possible Actions available to us are part of our circumstance, and moral law dictates which choices are permissible and which aren't. We are in a position to choose not only how we will act, but what motivates us, about why we will act as such. Without both, we do not have choice, and we do not have free action, and we could not be moral agents.
What is the nature of this output? It must be some set of Actions, some set of pairs of sets of acts and reasons. All actions which are permissible make it into the output set, while none of the impermissible actions do. To say an action is obligatory is to say that the output of the moral-law-box yields but a single action that is permissible. To say multiple actions are permissible is to say that morally, the options are of equal moral worth. All choices are subject to the moral law, even the little ones.
If we claim that actions only have moral worth when done from duty, then we mean to say that the the reason for the act must be because the moral law commands it. To agree to the claim that actions only have moral worth when performed from duty is to claim that the output of the black box will only provide acts/reasons pairs where the primary (I hesitate to say exclusive) reason for the acts is "because the moral law permitted it." In addition to this "from duty" reason, it may be possible that the moral law also requires other reasons are part of our set of reasons for acting, I don't know.
Insofar as we aren't choosing our reasons for acts, we don't have actions. For a person to be naturally virtuous, if they act from virtuous inclination, perhaps it is no action at all (merely an act with no reason). It is clear they aren't acting from duty, but in what way, I'm not sure. If they had a choice to act from inclination, then it must be an act, and that would be immoral to do so. It if they didn't have a choice about the reason for their act (I'm not even sure what it means to choose an act without having a reason for it), then it wasn't an action, it wasn't free, it wasn't something for which they can be responsible.
In my view, this is one of the things strongly separates consequentialist views from deontic views. Intentions, reasons for acting, are distinctly relevant to moral worth, i.e. to permissibility. A consequentialist sets aside reasons for acting, and the only output which comes out of their decision prodecure is a set of acts, with no reasons.
Now, hopefully it is clearer what I mean when I say that an action has moral worth just is to say it is morally permissible. I am opposed to the notion that they could be pulled apart.
I don't see why I should buy into the duality of maxims (or if that is what maxim means, I don't see why I should agree to maxims at all).
The decision procedure goes like
I must confess that parts of this paper remain fuzzy to me. I hope once I’ve pierced through the veil, something obvious will present itself. The second-person language was not crystal clear. Today I only have a loose set of thoughts:
I happen to like how clearly Darwall links the concepts of Dignity and Respect, similar to how Hohfeld so clearly demonstrates a correspondence between Duty and Right.
I worry Darwall may be too quick to collapse the distinction between the capacity to demand respect (or remind someone of their obligations) and the right or real authority to do so.
I worry Darwall may be pulling dignity and respect apart from morality in a way that isn’t convincing.
He seems to claim that “to be a person just is to have the competence and standing to address demands as persons to other persons, and to be addressed by them, within a community of mutually accountable equals.” Is it simply that others must perceive me that way, or is there an objective criterion? Am I not a person if other persons don’t address me as a person?
I won’t accept that personhood is the sole standard of competence, unless we mean something broader than what Darwall is implying. I do have an intuition that personhood is a driving force behind our dignity, and a reason to be respected. It seems to be a sufficient cause of dignity, but is it a necessary cause of dignity? I don’t know. I hope not. I have an opposing intuition, where I cannot accept that unborn, babies, very young children, very old people, or mentally impaired (whether temporarily or permanently), which do not count as persons, philosophically-speaking, do not have dignity requiring my respect. I am not sure why they deserve my respect, but I believe I owe it to them until I can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they don’t deserve it. I do not trust myself (or anyone else for that matter) to draw this line, and so I must be conservative, extending “rights of personhood” to those who may not actually merit them (in a game of limited epistemic resources, it is better to let the guilty be found innocent than the other way around). This is an application of the “hedge-rule” in Judeo-Christian ethics and theology (one need not be a religious practitioner to see its validity), and something about it is quite right. I fear Darwall comes dangerously close to treading on this intuition.
I fear Darwall may be misusing the word “merit” in 126. It seems that dignity must be merited. It is appraisal respect that comes before recognition respect. We must evaluate an object as having certain good qualities before we can claim they merit recognition respect. Why does RR not require an appraisal of someone’s merits as a person?
The state-regarding vs. attitude/conduct distinction made in Respect vs. Care is unclear. I think if he fleshes them out, he may be forced to concede, in many cases, they amount to the same thing, or perhaps, ultimately, care may be a subset of respect, I don’t know. In some cases, I’m inclined to think respect is third-personal, although I do see some force behind his second personal concerns in the example of the middle-age daughter with broccoli. Paternalism is damaging in a sense, right? That is a care issue, perhaps.
---
Dignity = standing/status with the right/ability/authority to demand or remind another person of their obligations to us (individually? Or to everyone?).
What does it mean to say “respect for this second-personal standing is itself second-personal?
Darwall thinks respect is treatment based, but he may fail to have the “regard” just right. Maybe4 that is the “authority” part. We will see.
Respect is the fitting response to dignity. He links these two conceptually in his footnotes. Respecting just is to see an object as having dignity.
RR can be mandated and not merely warranted by its object. Mandated by whom or what? The moral law? The other person? How authoritative is this mandate? Note the difference between demanding respect and deserving respect.
What enables us to make this demand? Ambiguous. Difference between a capacity and a right or real authority. Mere capacity vs. Justificaiton.
“The dignity of persons, I contend, is the second-personal authority of an equal: the standing to make claims and demands of one another as equal free and rational agents, including as a member of a community of mutually accountable equals.” (121)
Is he claiming that the dignity of persons is second-person is not due to morality on 121? Is he pulling apart morality from dignity and respect?
Darwall accepts a contractualist framework.
I don’t understand what he means when he says, “since the authority that persons have as such is fundamentally second-personal, respect for it must be second-personal; it must involved acknowledgement.” (123)
I regret to say, I don’t think I understand what is happening in this paper. I’m sure once I’ve pierced through the veil, something clear and obvious will present itself. I hope he isn’t using flashy-keywords which don’t have a real content behind them.
The only way to respect a second-person authority is second-personally.
What are second-personal reasons (rooted int eh dignity of persons)? 126
What does it mean, “to be a person just is to have the competence and standing to address demands as persons to other persons, and to be addressed by them, within a community of mutually accountable equals.” Is it simply that others must perceive me that way, or is there an objective criterion? Am I not a person if other persons don’t address me as a person?
I won’t accept that personhood is the sole standard of competence, unless we mean something broader than what Darwall is implying. I do have an intuition that personhood is a driving force behind our dignity, and a reason to be respected. It seems to be a sufficient cause of dignity, but is it a necessary cause of dignity? I don’t know. I hope not. I have an opposing intuition, where I cannot accept that unborn, babies and very young children, very old people, or mentally impaired (whether temporarily or permanently), which do not count as persons, philosophically-speaking, do not have dignity requiring my respect. I am not sure why they deserve my respect, but I believe I owe it to them until I can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they don’t deserve it. I do not trust myself (or anyone else for that matter) to draw this line, and so I must be conservative, extending rights of personhood to those who may not actually merit them (in a game of limited epistemic resources, it is better to let the guilty be found innocent than the other way around). This is an application of the “hedge-rule” in Judeo-christian ethics and theology (one need not be a religious practitioner to see its validity), and something about it is quite right. I fear Darwall comes dangerously close to treading on this intuition.
I fear Darwall may be misusing the word “merit” in 126. It seems that dignity must be merited. It is appraisal respect that comes before recognition respect. We must evaluate an object as having certain good qualities before we can claim they merit recognition respect. Why does RR not require an appraisal of someone’s merits as a person? He goes all mystical in talking about “valuing someone intrinsically” I think.
The state-regarding vs. attitude/conduct distinction made in Respect vs. Care is unclear. I think if he fleshes them out, he may be forced to concede, in many cases, they amount to the same thing, or perhaps, ultimately, care may be a subset of respect, I don’t know.
Why would respect tells us not to exert undue pressure to induce her to change? It may boil down to a kind of harm as well. We might just be weighing harms, and it still may boil down to a kind of care, essentially.
How are “reasons of care” third-personal and agent-neutral?
Paternalism is damaging. It isn’t what we would wish. We wish it didn’t have to exist. It would be way better if we didn’t have to engage in it. Sometimes, however, paternalism is correct. Sometimes respecting someone means not taking their values, beliefs, or desires as having as much as weight as they might normally. Sometimes respects requires to bypass those things. Some people don’t always have that authority in them.
I’m far more inclined to think respect is third-personal given his illustrations, although I do see some force behind his second personal concerns in the example of the middle-age daughter with broccoli.
Regarding someone as having a kind of authority.
Hill is a breath of fresh air to read. If hip-hop artists read philosophy papers, they’d say he has “flow.” Admittedly, I fear Hill has opened 10 Cans of Worms, piling sets of problems on top of other sets of problems, and has resolved very little. He seems aware of it too. That may be okay though. For example, the relationship between the Good and Right (and the Beautiful, if that is any different from the Good) is a timeless, crazy hard problem. I take Hill not to be saying “this is certainly correct,” but rather offering us his honed intuition on the matter, beckoning us to look and see if we see what he sees. Traditionally, that is a bad argument style, but sometimes that is the best one can do.
The appreciation of the good immediately rang alarms in me as being a kind of appraisal respect to me (which is not a good sign for this theory). It may be relevantly different though.
If values do not preexist the human world, how are they “not simply things we create or mere reflects of our subjective tastes?” He rails against this false dichotomy, but I don’t really get his argument. I fear we are engaging in the internalist/externalist debate in virtue ethics.
His claim that ‘there seems something missing in those who ignore, dismiss, or remain indifferent to the things that are sources of joy, inspiration, and value to others, and potentially for themselves’ seems problematic. This sounds like a means argument. Why is this a “for its own sake” argument?
He claims not respecting nature is a systematic lack of appreciate is a defect of character. Why? That isn’t necessarily true. The reason some people dismiss nature may have to do with lacking a proper education, and sometimes that isn’t their fault. They weren’t habituated correctly, and thus they lack the correct beliefs and attitudes. Sometimes the ideal beliefs and attitudes aren’t available to them. They have no reasons to have them. Why would I hold them responsible for that? How can this be a duty of theirs?
This seems to talk about what the ideal human is like, but isn’t ethics mostly concerned about being a good moral agent rather than good human? Granted, omniscient moral agents are more ideal than limited and finite moral agents, but there is an ideal for each context, right?
One of the many things I don’t like about so many virtue theories is that what the virtuous agent would do is so ideal that I definitionally have no access to making the choices he makes, for the reasons he makes, with the attitudes he makes, in the way he makes them. I can’t really do what is right, and no one else can either. That is not an accurate portrayal of the moral lives we have or can have. Moral life is about doing the best you can with what you have, and virtue theory fails to appreciate that fact. Virtue ethics fails to be agent-context-sensitive. I don’t blame my children for not understanding complex moral problems, and similarly I shouldn’t be blamed for not understanding really complex more problems. The language of Virtue ethics is a beautiful song of the sirens, beware!
He claims the most controversial issue is whether or not the virtue of appreciating the good has any special application to our attitudes about the natural environment. I happen to think all the dirty work, the heavy lifting, happens before that – in explaining that virtue and why that virtue is a moral requirement.
---
Respecting nature is essential to the human virtue of “appreciation of the good.”
Explain how this is different from appraisal. Seems prudential. Seems like we may need to talk about intrinsic human good, so there may be metaphysics of intrinsic value at work here.
Why is ethics not all about humans rights and welfare? It depends on how you cash out Rights and Duty correspondences? Do rights-bearers need to be moral agents? If not, I agree.
Asking the Virtue question: what sort of person should I be?
Bad, objectionable attitudes are immoral.
Wrongness of most wrong acts and attitudes are overdetermined. There isn’t just one reason which makes something wrong most of the time.
Imho, Rights may propagate from a duty.
“We can expect that virtuous persons will value nature for its own sake—at elast they will not regard the natural environement merely as a emans to human welfare or as asomething who treatment is constrained only by human rights.” (97)
If values do not preexist the human world, how are they “not simply things we create or mere reflects of our subjective tastes?” (97-98)
It is valuable because we value them? It is valuable because the virtuous agent values them? Internalism vs. externalism debate. I am might suspicious of any such moves. They are anti-realist.
“it is good to value certain natural phenomena for their own sakes and to recognize and respond appropriately to the value they have, in a sense, independently of human rights and welfare.” (98)
Just because it is good, does that mean we ought. Lots of good things aren’t necessarily right or required.
Theory of aesthetics is required. Hardly a settled matter, and may be a rocky foundation for any theory of ethics. Beauty, good, and right. 3 things. Plato.
If we don’t agree to intrinsic value, what else is there? That is the plausible intuition, obscure as it may be.
Manifest readiness to appreciate the good. (99) Not as an means, but as an end in itself then?
It is a means to humans still on his argument.
Systematic lack of appreciate is a defect of character. Why? That isn’t necessarily true. The reason some people dismiss nature may have to do with lacking a proper education, and sometimes that isn’t their fault. They weren’t habituated correctly, and thus they lack the correct beliefs and attitudes. Sometimes those beliefs and attitudes aren’t available to them to choose. They have no reasons to have them. Why would I hold them responsible for that? How can this be a duty of theirs? This seems to talk about what the ideal human is like, but isn’t ethics mostly concerned about being the a good moral agent rather than good human? Granted, omniscient moral agents are more ideal than limited and finite moral agents, but there is an ideal for each context, right? Moral character vs. other character. Why is this a moral vice?
One of the many things I don’t like about so many virtue theories is that what the virtuous agent would do is so ideal that I definitionally have no access to making the choices he makes, for the reasons he makes, with the attitudes he makes, in the way he makes them. I can’t really do what is right, and no one else can either. That is not an accurate portrayal of the moral lives we have or can have. Moral life is about doing the best you can with what you have, and virtue theory fails to appreciate that fact. Virtue ethics fails to be agent-context-sensitive. I don’t blame my children for not understanding complex moral problems, and similarly I shouldn’t be blamed for not understanding really complex more problems. The language of Virtue ethics is the beautiful song of the siren, beware!
Provisionally good, conditionally good, not absolutely good. Only the good will of course.
He claims it is more controversial whether the virtue of appreciate the good has any special application to our attitudes about the natural environment. I happen to think all the dirty work, the heavy lifting, happens before that – in explaining why that virtue is a moral requirement.
I’m not sure if the desire/value is necessarily right. There may be different kinds of values or valuing. It is unclear why valuing must be a stable attitude.
That we value something gives us a reason to act in that way. Maybe. Necessarily? I don’t know.
It is valuable even when it isn’t valued.
Would ALL moral agents, even non-human ones, value Earth? Would all of them see it as beautiful? Maybe, maybe not.
I did not understand the move that claims a false dichotomy between moral realist value-theory and “creating or inventing” value on 104.
Ordinary language arguments, yuck. He sounds like a virtue ethicist. Are you sure he’s Kantian?
I fear Hill has opened 10 Cans of Worms, piling problem after problem, and has resolved very little.
The relationship between the Good and Right (and the Beautiful, is that is any different from the Good) is a timeless, crazy hard problem. I take Hill not to be saying “this is definitely correct,” but rather offering us his honed intuition on the matter, beckoning us to “look and see if we see what he sees.”
In this paper, I analyze Derek Parfit’s position on whether or not the requirement to treat others never merely as a means is a sufficient criterion of moral permissibility.<<ref "1">> Parfit seems to employ his own definition of treating people merely as a means, and that heavily influences his discussion of Kant and permissibility.<<ref "2">> I worry his criticism of Kant is not as strong as he thinks, but I’m partial to the motivational component which Parfit embeds in treatment of persons as mere means.
Parfit begins by considering the Mere Means Principle (MMP1), which is the claim that treating anyone merely as a means is morally impermissible.<<ref "3">> Before he can dissect MMP1, Parfit must distinguish treating as means (TM) from treating merely as a means (TMM). Indeed, this is a key question: what does Parfit mean by TM and TMM?<<ref "4">> He starts with the notion of use. In the Scientists example, both are said to treat the animals as means. He explains, however, that the second scientist does not treat the animals as merely means because “her use of them is restricted by her concern for their well-being.”<<ref "5">> For Parfit here, TMM is an act/reason pair, where the way we regard an object is part of our motivation for acting in a particular way.<<ref "6">>
In analyzing the first rough definition of TM, Parfit distinguishes “doing something to someone as a means of achieving some aim” from “treating this person as a means.”<<ref "7">> I don’t understand this distinction. In the Broken-Rib example, I believe the intuitive claim should be that the doctor’s use of my body is TM, but not TMM, which is why it could be morally permissible.<<ref "8">> Parfit doesn’t think this is even a case of TM, although he provides little evidence for this claim.
Parfit moves on to providing a rough definition of TMM, a conjunction of TM and regarding someone’s well-being and moral claims as completely irrelevant.<<ref "9">> In responding to Kamm’s criticism and the example of the slave-owner who gives only the slightest weight to the well-being of his slaves (which is not strictly TMM), Parfit essentially claims that the rough definition of TMM is not wrong, but rather MMP1 isn’t effective enough. It seems as though Kamm and Parfit are looking for a bi-conditional criterion of impermissibility – roughly: TMM ↔ Wrong – which MMP1 isn’t fit for in the first place, since it only goes one direction.<<ref "10">> While he doesn’t phrase it this way, Parfit seems to be agreeing here that TMM (as he defines it) alone, is too weak an antecedent for the bi-conditional, which is why he spends so much time strengthening it in this chapter.<<ref "11">>
In order to wrestle with the wrongness found in the Slave-Owner example, and attempting to be charitable to Kant, Parfit expands MMP1 to MMP2, which adds a clause of coming close to TMM.<<ref "12">> The coming close clause increases the burden of motivation, where we are required to not only not totally disregard a “person’s well-being or moral claims,” but also to not give “too little weight” to them.<<ref "13">> MMP2’s form is roughly: (TMM ∨ ComeClose) → Wrong. Since the slave-owner comes close, this principle condemns his choice.<<ref "14">>
Parfit goes on to flesh out the semantics of ¬(TMM ∨ ComeClose), namely “we do not treat someone merely as means, nor are we even close” if (1) “our treatment of a person is governed or guided in sufficiently important ways by some relevant…direct concern for the well-being or moral claims of the person” or (2) employing a policy wherein we would “choose to bear some great burden for this person’s sake.”<<ref "15">> We can understand MMP2 as saying: ¬Wrong → ¬((1) ∨ (2)), which, again, is only a one-directional criterion.
The slave-owner who never whips his slaves because he believes it would wrongly give him sadistic pleasure isn’t properly motivated, and thus might still be accused of TMM according to (1).<<ref "16">> In examining the Scientists again, Parfit temporarily assumes that “cruelty to animals is wrong because it dulls our sympathy.”<<ref "17">> He goes on to claim that if this were the sole motivation of the second scientist, she would be guilty of TMM according to (1) because she wasn’t relevantly worried about their well-being.<<ref "18">> He also limits the coming close clause with the Chinese Bandits example, wherein he is inclined to believe bandits did not even come close to treating his mother as a mere means by robbing her of only half her belongings.<<ref "19">> I find this odd, since to my eyes, they obviously gave too little weight to her well-being or moral claims.<<ref "20">>
Here we see that, for Parfit, TM is clearly about an act (whatever reason there is for the act doesn’t really matter), when he claims that “whether we are treating someone as a means depends only on what we are intentionally doing.”<<ref "21">> Conversely, TMM depends on our “underlying attitudes or policies,” particularly regarding counterfactuals of “what we would have done, if the facts had been different.”<<ref "22">> The focus of TMM is not the act, but the reason or policy for that act. TMM is TM with the wrong motivation or policy.
Parfit claims that Kant implies that “it is wrong to regard any rational or sentient being as a mere tool,” which assumes that motivation is an object of permissibility, and Parfit agrees to this claim.<<ref "23">> I’m not sure if that is an accurate portrayal of Kant, but it makes sense that Parfit would agree because his definitions of TMM revolve around reasons to act, but not so much the acts themselves (just as long as the acts are cases of TM). Kant, according to Parfit, implies TMM is necessarily a case of “acting wrongly.”<<ref "24">> This is likely the heart of the disagreement. He seems to be arguing that he and Kant and have different definitions of TMM; for Kant, TMM is a wrong act, and for Parfit, TMM is a wrong motivation.
Admittedly, it is odd that Parfit at the same time believes Kant takes motivations to be an object of permissibility, but also that TMM is necessarily and conceptually linked to wrong acts. In particular, since Kant seems to agree to the bi-conditional, TMM ↔ Wrong, and since for him TMM is a wrong act, then all cases of impermissibility boil down to wrong acts. But if that is true, then why should Parfit think that Kant would agree to motivations as being objects of permissibility?
Parfit shows there are choices which are morally wrong, even cases of TMM, which don’t rely upon a wrong act, but rather a wrong motivation. The Gangster who takes up a policy of treating a coffee seller as a vending machine, as a mere means, as someone whom he doesn’t kill only because it is easier to acquire coffee the usual way, is said to be wrong solely because of “his attitude to this person,” but “he does not act wrongly.”<<ref "25">> Similarly, the Egoist who saves a drowning child motivated solely by reward, hasn’t acted wrongly, but has simply had the wrong motivation.<<ref "26">> These examples also cry out to my intuitions as cases of TMM, and what makes these choices wrong are the motivations, not the acts. If Parfit reads Kant correctly, then I think Kant is wrong about the requirements of TMM, since I would disagree with him about the objects of permissibility.
To save Kant from the Gangster and Egoist examples demonstrating TMM without acting wrongly, Parfit tentatively adds (3) to (1) and (2), where TMM is not the case when we know “our acts will not harm this person.”<<ref "27">> By using (3), the Gangster and Egoist, who know their acts will not harm, are not to be accused of TMM. The motivational component of TMM still matters, but it is simply honed (in an arguably ad hoc manner). Even (3) does not save Kant, according to Parfit. The Mutual Benefit example, where Green marries Gold instead of murdering him because marriage is the easiest way to get some of Gold’s wealth, would not be condemned by (3).<<ref "28">> Parfit still thinks this is a case of TMM. Unlike Parfit, I don’t quite see a relevant difference between the Gangster/Egoist examples and the Mutual Benefit example.
Speaking of Green, Parfit says “we should not claim that these acts are wrong,” but rather “given this man’s self-interested motives, his acts do not have what Kant calls moral worth.”<<ref "29">> Again, I take Parfit to be arguing that Green’s motivation is morally impermissible (this explains the wrongness), while his act, in itself, remains permissible.<<ref "30">>
In an effort to help Kant not condemn the acts of the previous examples, Parfit expands MMP2 to MMP3. MMP3 conjoins an “if our act will also be likely to harm this person” clause with the antecedent of MMP2.<<ref "31">> MMP3 is of the form: (LikelyHarm ∧ (TMM ∨ ComeClose)) → Wrong. At this point, Parfit, by his own admission, is entertaining too strong an antecedent for determining if never treating persons merely as a means is a sufficient criterion of moral permissibility or worth.<<ref "32">>
By his own definition of TMM, Parfit has clearly shown examples where someone has done wrong but wasn’t strictly treating anyone merely as a means.<<ref "33">> Essentially, Parfit believes moral impermissibility is not sufficient for TMM, i.e. ¬(Wrong → TMM). Equivalently, we can say that Parfit believes that not treating anyone merely as a means is not sufficient for moral permissibility, i.e. ¬(¬TMM → ¬Wrong).<<ref "34">>
Unfortunately, I fear something unintentionally underhanded has occurred in the way Parfit has deployed his own definition of TMM against Kant. I can’t quite put my finger on it though. Parfit spends a lot of time on his own definitions of TMM. Does Parfit give Kant’s definition of TMM a fair shake? That remains unclear to me. I strongly agree with Parfit, however, on the claim that “it is wrong to regard anyone merely as a means.”<<ref "35">>
It is clear we don’t have a choice over what acts are available to us. Most of us, however, would be willing to buy the claim that we choose how to act from the set of acts available to us. Much of moral philosophy surrounds the question of how persons ought to act, and rightly so, since we have a choice in the matter. Further, it is unclear if we have a choice over what motivations are available to us (arguably, we don’t). Even if we don’t, however, it seems as though we also have a choice over what motivates our acts. Is there an ought for motivation? I assume so.
To be clear, when I claim one ought to be motivated to act in a certain way, I’m claiming that it is morally impermissible not to be motivated to act in that way. That’s just what ought means. To say one ought to act from duty is to say it is morally impermissible not to act from duty. We might take Kant as claiming that moral permissibility is acting in conformity with the moral law, while moral worth requires not only our act to conform to the moral law, but also to be correctly motivated by the moral law to act in that way. Moral permissibility, on this view, only makes demands on how one ought to act, while moral worth makes demands both on how one ought to act and be motivated. If that is an accurate portrayal of Kant’s position, then I believe Kant’s notion of moral permissibility is incomplete. Moral worth normatively extends Kant’s moral permissibility. What we really ought to choose isn’t simply an act, but rather both the right act and the right reason for it. On my view, the conditions of moral worth are the conditions of real moral permissibility. Essentially, the moral law governs choices of acts and motivations.
Moral permissibility is about choosing the right kind of act/reason pair. Some act/reason pairs might be wrong regardless of one’s reason (e.g. destroying the universe with a doomsday device). Conversely, any act/reason pair with an act not done for the right reason is impermissible. There are multiple ways for a particular act/reason pair to be morally impermissible, and that appears to be the heart of Parfit’s disagreement with Kant on the topic of mere means.
If I use Parfit’s definition of TMM, then I’m convinced that it isn’t a sufficient criterion of moral permissibility. What I like about his definition is that it captures the permissibility of motivation. It isn’t clear to me that Parfit’s definition is the right one, though. Surely there is more to treating people as a means than he has suggested.
-------------------------
<<footnotes "1" "Parfit, D., & Scheffler, S. (2011). //On what matters: Volume one//. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 212-232">>
<<footnotes "2" "Parfit slow-rolls his audience with a detailed examination of a staggering sequence of principles and cases. He engages in a hypothetical dialectic with Kant, where he takes up what he believes is the Kantian position, then he shows a flaw, then he tries to improve the Kantian position, then shows a flaw, and rinse and repeat. I cannot do justice to all the details in this chapter. Getting at Parfit’s ultimate argument is not simple; charitably interpreting his argument-style requires meticulous parsing. There are a thousand moving parts in his argument, and it is difficult to hold them all.">>
<<footnotes "3" "Ibid., 212. ">>
<<footnotes "4" "He does not clearly define these terms from the outset. We must slowly piece together what he thinks. Oddly, he doesn’t much discuss Kant’s definitions.">>
<<footnotes "5" "Ibid.">>
<<footnotes "6" "Parfit seems to be implying that TM has to be a kind of act, while the reason for the act remains irrelevant. We should note that Parfit sometimes uses the word treat to mean more than simply act, particularly in the case of TMM.">>
<<footnotes "7" "Ibid., 213">>
<<footnotes "8" "Ibid.">>
<<footnotes "9" "Ibid.">>
<<footnotes "10" "Conversely, a bi-conditional criterion of permissibility would roughly be ¬TMM ↔ ¬Wrong. Unfortunately, MMP1 is only TMM → Wrong.">>
<<footnotes "11" "Oddly, however, this is not how he designs the principles, despite his argument moving in that direction in many cases. I regret that I may not fully understand the method to Parfit’s madness (or genius).">>
<<footnotes "12" "Ibid., 214. Parfit is strengthening the antecedent so that it captures more cases, and so that it may serve as the antecedent of the bi-conditional.">>
<<footnotes "13" "Ibid.">>
<<footnotes "14" "He says, on 214, 'condemns this man’s acts.' I read Parfit as taking MMP2 to condemn the motivation and not simply the act. The reason MMP2 can nail the slave-owner while MMP1 can’t is ultimately due to the slave-owner choosing the wrong motivation or policy from which the act springs. The reason MMP2 succeeds in condemning the slave-owner where MMP1 fails is a result of strengthening the motivational requirements.">>
<<footnotes "15" "Ibid. Condition (1) seems to be the real issue at stake.">>
<<footnotes "16" "Ibid.">>
<<footnotes "17" "Ibid.">>
<<footnotes "18" "Ibid., 214-215">>
<<footnotes "19" "Ibid., 215">>
<<footnotes "20" "It is sometimes difficult to draw the line, to know precisely when (1) is satisfied or not. For my intuition, this case so clearly crosses the line that I worry I’ve misunderstood Parfit’s point.">>
<<footnotes "21" "Ibid. There is a reason for the act, since that is part of the definition of an intentional act, but it doesn’t matter what the reason is.">>
<<footnotes "22" "Ibid.">>
<<footnotes "23" "Ibid.">>
<<footnotes "24" "Ibid., 216">>
<<footnotes "25" "Ibid.">>
<<footnotes "26" "Ibid.">>
<<footnotes "27" "Ibid., 217">>
<<footnotes "28" "Ibid.">>
<<footnotes "29" "Ibid.">>
<<footnotes "30" "I’m not convinced this is the best way to think about moral permissibility, but it seems to be the way Parfit rolls.">>
<<footnotes "31" "Ibid.">>
<<footnotes "32" "Ibid. I only have so much room in this paper. I have to find a stopping place. There are more moves going on later in this chapter, but they aren’t absolutely necessary to answering the question (or if they are, I certainly don’t have space to show it).">>
<<footnotes "33" "Ibid. 232">>
<<footnotes "34" "Whether or not TMM is a necessary condition of moral permissibility is another matter. ">>
<<footnotes "35" "Ibid.">>
I have many small points of disagreement with Korsgaard throughout the paper, but overall, I like some of the major moves she makes. I don’t think my small disagreements can’t be handled though, so I don’t think they are important enough to voice.
Korsgaard is an eminent Kant scholar. I hesitate to disagree with her about what Kant means (I am not an expert), but I worry she sometimes embeds some of her own thinking in the exegesis (which is not what good exegesis is like). I’m worried about her explanation of Kant’s views on the relationship between the Good and the Right.
Anyways, she seems to be calling into the question the specialness of rights-bearers. Why must we think being a rights-bearer is so special? It seems obvious to me that being a duty-bearer is special (it requires freedom), but being a rights-bearer not so much. The ability to demand that an obligation be filled is NOT a legitimate requirement of being a rights-bearer. Again, the right-bearer need not claim or demand; he has it even in silence; we are obligated by the law itself. It is the moral law which has the first claim on us, and all other claims spring from it.
“Morality is the condition under which alone a rational being can be an end in itself, since only through this is it possible to be a lawgiving member in the Kingdom of Ends.” It depends on what is meant by this. If it means that only a being which is a moral being, one capable of having duties, is an end in itself, then I worry it isn’t true. In some ways, this class has shown that the discussion of “ends” is just murky language. It does not say anything substantial to me. I want it to mean something more than “be moral,” but I don’t see it.
I have a serious problem with the idea we “we confer normative significance” on anything. That isn’t an objective law. I don’t think we are talking about morality anymore when we decide what is right.
---
“for whom” things can be good or bad” (92) This is natural good (92). Good and bad in the “objective” or “normative” sense. (let’s see if she fulfills that). Why should that cause us to ask “how should we treat others?” (92)
Kick dogs, skinning cats…trivial reasons to harm animals. Experiments for learning, making useful products from them, eating them, preventing them from intereferring with our other human ends (gardening/farming, pests).
Differences may result in how we think about the good, and in how we think about the right. (93)
Argue that Kant’s theory demonstrates that we have duties to non-human animals, even if they can’t recriprocate. (93)
Maybe. I’m not against having duties toward things, and them having rights. I think it is really special to be the kind of thing which has a moral duty (you need freedom for that). To be a right-bearer, however, it isn’t clear you need to be free at all. Hell, I think I have duty to things which don’t exist yet (my grandchildren’s generation and so on).
Pain and pleasure are the markers of good and bad for*? (93-94). Seems short-sighted. I think there is a good of a desk, perhaps. A standard of the good of a desk. What is fitting!
Why the concentration on “experience?” Utilitarian locations, happen, but not “for whom” experiences are good or bad…odd. (94)
Bashing Utility. So hard.
Rejecting aggregation. (95-96)
Why should I buy this tethering argument? What exactly is going on here?
Why is it a mistake the characterize Kantian deontology as accepting a “side-constraint” on the promotion of the good? (98) “Kantdoes not believe there is some general duty to maximize or even promote the goodthat is then limited by certain deontological restrictions. Rather, he believes thatpromoting the good of another and treating her justly and honestly are two aspects of respecting her as an end in herself.” Explain to me how that is different exactly?
Why should we treat animals as ends in themselves? Is that really the argument here?
The relevantquestion is rather what, given their nature and ours, each of us can do in order to berelated as well as possible to each of them. (98)…
Nonhuman animals are “analogues” of humanity, and that we therefore “cultivate our duties to humanity” when we practice duties to animals as “analogues” of human beings. (100)
“anyone who thinks we do not have duties to the other animals must think there is a morally relevant difference between us and them. Kant thought
that difference is that we are rational and therefore moral animals, and the other animals are not.” (100-101). Easy to hold Kant’s claim that we are moral animals and non-human animals aren’t, but that doesn’t mean we don’t have duties toward them.
The skeptic is always in a position to doubt the consciousness of others. Why would we agree to there being other minds? We won’t have certainty in this matter. (101). Arguing for degrees of self-consciousness, and seems difficult to test.
“But once you are aware of the influence of a potential ground of action, as we human beings are, you are in a position to decide whether to allow yourself to be influenced in that way or not.” (102) Why should I agree to this? That is far from obvious. Just because you have “a certain reflective distance from the impulse that is influencing you” neither necessarily means “you are in a position to ask yourself, ‘but should I be influenced in that way?’” (unless we are just begging the question with “certain” here) nor does it necessitate that you can decide about the matter. She is making phenomenological leaps. Awareness of our reasons for acting is one capacity, the ability to ask normative questions (rather than merely reflect) about this awareness is another, and freedom as a capacity is distinctly another. Her overall point though, about there being a difference between humans and non-human animals may still stand.
“Morality does not rest simply in being altruistic or cooperative, although it certainly does demand those things. It rests in being altruistic or cooperative or honest or fair or respectful because you think you should be: because, that is, you yourself would will that everyone should act in those ways.” (103) I just don’t buy this claim. I still don’t see the moral law as being dependent upon me or anyone else.
“Of course, what most obviously follows from that is not that we have no duties to the other animals. Rather, what most obviously follows is that they have no duties to us. So now we must ask why Kant thought that their lack of moral agency disqualifies the other animals from being regarded as ends in themselves” (103) This is a great point. I think she is right about that.
reciprocity argument (104)
Rights of the paintings. (104) In an ordinary language sense, we would never say a painting could have a right not to be destroyed. We are doing metaethics though (far from ordinary, imho), and that means we get to set aside ordinary language arguments many times. Why must we think being a rights-bearer is so special? It seems obvious to me that being a duty-bearer is special (it requires freedom), but being a rights-bearer not so much. The ability to demand that an obligation be filled is NOT a legitimate requirement of being a rights-bearer (coma patients, young children, future generations, the unborn, etc.). Paintings might have rights, there isn’t necessarily anything phenomenologically, metaphysically, or metaethically special about a rights-bearer. There has to be something special about a duty-bearer.
“Nor is it enough to add that you are the kind of creature to whom things can be owed.Rather, for me to be obligated to you, we must both be under the authority of the same laws, in the name of which we can make claims on each other.” (104) Seems like a horrible move. I don’t see why I should agree to it.
The Christian/Muslim example is pretty awful. I worry it shows her ignorance of these religions, theologies, and the rich philosophical options available. I’m not even religious, and I’m blown away by this strawman.
“We have autonomy when the laws we are under are laws that we make for ourselves.” A feel-good line of false empowerment.
“Kant believes that insofar as we are rational, we will pursue an end only if we take it to be what I earlier called “objectively” or “normatively” good—something that there is reason to pursue.” (105) Really? I take Kant to be after objective right, first and foremost, rather than good. Maybe the right is grounded in the good though, I don’t know.
Korsgaard is an eminent Kant scholar. I hesitate to disagree with her about what Kant means (I am not an expert), but I worry she sometimes embeds some of her own thinking in the exegesis (which is not what good exegesis is like). That may not change the argument though.
“Morality is the condition under which alone a rational being can be an end in itself, since only through this is it possible to be a lawgiving member in the Kingdom of Ends.” I’ve decided that this is just the discussion of “ends” is just murky language. It does not say anything substantial to me. I want it to mean something more than “be moral,” but I don’t see it.
Good summary at 106-107.
“The question is whether that is really the only way in which one being can have an obligation to another.” (107)
“some law protects his interests by giving him a right, and as the right-holder he makes a claim on us.” (107) Again, the right-bearer need not claim or demand; he has it even in silence; we are obligated by the law itself. It is the moral law which has the first claim on us, and all other claims spring from it.
Just because we subjectively see ourselves as having good and bad things for us doesn’t mean we are correct that objectively we do. Just because we see ourselves, personally as having this doesn’t mean we must see everyone else as having that, including animals. Because I see myself in a certain way, I must see animals in a certain way? I’m not sure if this is true.
We make claims on ourselves on their behalf. I strictly disagree with the claim that “we confer normative significance” on anything. If we made the moral law, then I don’t believe it is normative.
Nazi references: II
1. What is the justification of respect? Why should one respect others? What is the justification for the requirement for respect? Dignity might be it.
2. When should you respect someone else? What does it mean to respect? Do uo need their consent? Is there an objective critieria? What does it mean to not treat someone not as a mere means?
3. Marginal cases. What about people who do not yet have rationality? Children, elderly, etc. What about animals, the environment, or immigrants/foreign nationals?
S
Treating them as not merely a means, but as an end. Treat them as you would wish to be treated. But, this only seems to make sense in the context of persons. Can we respect non-persons? How does that differ? Giving the target what he/she/it/they are due, what we owe to them.
What or who can be the subject or target of respect?
1.
2. Does it have to involve action? Is it merely an attitude, and what would that entail? Taking an interest in the other. Is it about particular actions, or can it just be an attitude? What about actions with the wrong motives? How does respect differ from just being moral? (Completeness). Can you “respect as?” Locution is interesting… - Does respect come in degrees or different kinds? Does it mean “esteem?”
Normal assumption is that something about the other, a divine spark, diamond, value in the other, that makes us owe respect to them which we don’t owe to the stone. That spark is dignity.
Dignity is an inherent feature that demands or commands respect. A valuable feature. Because you have this feature, the other should respect you. The value is prior to the right. Not the old Roman notion of “speaking with dignity” etc. – where there is a way in which one ought to behave in a dignified manner, an elevated status in society, elitist, few people had dignity, it wasn’t universal.
Deny it from motivation, Humean/Mackie objection.
I worry the Mount Everest example is contrived. Whether or not cultures in general often hold others are equals is an empirical question, but that borders on the is/ought distinction.
Why we should treat the other as an equal…
Kant –
Love- further someone positive rights
?? – respect negative rights
Darwall –
Respect – the dual distinction is labeled most clearly by Darwall
Appraisal
Object: A merit or excellence
Involuntary Evaluation/Judgment/Esteem feeling
This is deserved, by our standard of the good
Comes in degrees/relative to a standard
Recognition
Object: a fact
It constrains your choice
Disposition/Attitude required (“you should have because of”) by a certain fact
But, he suggests it is a reason you act in a certain way
Too narrow
Kant 4:400, can’t have respect for object, inclination, etc. – you should only be awestruck by “if someone is a moral person,” - I agree that moral features of a person are the most important features of a person.
Respect all equally who have this fact.
Sometimes we misuse the word respect (or rather, others have used the word with a different meaning) regarding the awestruckness of appraisal. Ordinary language problem.
For “respect your weapon because it can hurt you”…or the boxer example, are recognition respect.
Recognition – prudential vs moral respect. Unconditional and unconditional perhaps as well.
Is recognition respect restricted to morality? No.
An attitude of what you owe to all human beings, independent of what we want. Why should we do it, because they are persons.
From pg 40, ‘that one ought to take into account in deliberation’ – my problem is that there are facts we take into account in deliberation which we OUGHT NOT, but that is still a form of recognition respect (although not as defined by Darwall) – else we have two narrow a definition of recognition respect. Granted, our goal is take into account in deliberation the facts that we ought…and the kind of real respect, we mean that.
Respect, Law vs Persons (6:468??)
My head bows in respect to the honest man, whether I want to or not (3:76) – cases where you ought to be amazed, but you just aren’t…
4:400 footnote, respect always is something of fear in it. The stepping a way. Not so much you have respect for a cow, or a tree – even though you may be stunned or amazed by it – but you could have this respect
Honor – a certain group of people deserve respect, caste system
That is a reason to act…who cares about the “all equal” attribute, that is an artificial restriction.
Moral recognition respect is that subset which shows
Different kind:
A respect not about recognition (diamond argument), rather a fact in you. Hill reading. There are other reasons: what kind of person do I want to be?
-Virtue ethics
-Hill is Kantian, not a virtue ethicist.
-dicatated by society, or utility, or some deontic constraint
- dictated by your own reason
All these seem recognition reasons.
Similar to recognition:
It is a required attitude.
Not because of a fact, rather independently required.
Equal
Not spontaneous, it is prescribed.
Double features of because, could be normative justification or it could be for the application.
What is the justification?
Respect others people because they are people. That is the content, the justification. It seems like then we get to out and do fact finding regarding this independent justification.
Why vs How – Why you treat someone with respect is different from how.
Why should I accept the criticism of moral realism? “Why should I follow the moral follow?” That is the definition of moral law. The skeptic asks for evidence which can’t be provided. At some point, it isn’t necessary to continue asking “why” – we are allowed to take some things for granted. The normativity of moral law seems like something we can take for granted.
Have the attidue: “Don’t exalt yourself above or below others. All people are equal”. …that isn’t a fact about someone else directly.
Respect (humbling, limiting)
--Appraisal
-is esteem
-for an excellence
-merit
-unuequal
-involuntary
-dependent on the other
--recognition (a response to something in the other)
-is recognition
-for humanity - or fact in the other - a particular value in the other
-equal - whoever has the same fact you should treat equally (honor respect)
-inborn fact
-required
-dependent
Reacting epistemically to something in the other
-owed (darwall)
-is attitude
-not exalting yourself above others
-equal
-equal demand (rather than reacting to an inborn fact)
-required
-independent of the other (the justification, that is)
THe attitude you ought to have, independent of facts in the other.
--------------------------------
Epistemic/ontic
See smoke, you immediately know, but why? Ontic grounding of smoke is fire. Epistemically, see the smoke.
Audi thinks recognition is an attitude. (Esteem is an attitude as well).
-------------------------------
Why ought I respect others? Why should I limit my behavior towards others?
The main paradigm is that there is something in the other (diamond dignity paradigm) that commands our respect and justifies that limitation, gives us a reason to respect.
------------------------
Moral realism used to be an epistemic distinction, but now it is an ontic one. Shafer-Landau does this.
What is the ontological status of morality? (3 possibilities)
-nihilism (there isn't morality)
-constructivism
-moral realism (talking about some feature of the thing which is valuable) - GE Moore, 6th sense, see the non-natural property of value
Constructivism
-subjectivism (relativism that doesn't require aggrement)
-relativism (a matter infact agreement)
-contract (veil of ignorance, create a society - choose morality under ideal rather than real conditions) - tied to your actual choosing
Kant doesn't fit this though.
Does morality exist?
-if no, then Nihilism (problem is that it doesn't match our phenomenology or moral experience)
-if yes:
--constructed by humans? (if there weren't any human beings, would morality exist?)
--if no, then Moral realism
--if yes:
---Constructed by many/group?
---if yes, subjectivism (problem is morality is just expressive) - morality is motivating, the only thing motivating is the humean desire jmodel
---if no:
----Idealism
----relativism vs pre-aware
----if pre-aware, contract vs Kant
----Kant, constitutivism
Problem with contract: is something morally right because we chose it, or did we choose it because it is morally right? If it already moral, then it is indepedent (moral realism).
The trouble with moral realism: Mackie, two arguments.
1) from relativity, if there are moral facts are out there, how come our moral views differ?
2) argument from queerness:
2a) if there are moral properties out there, they would be different from other properties we know - Ontological features which are queer
2b) epistemically, you need a different faculty of knowing. Postulating a 6th sense. AUdi, special faculty of intuition.
2c) Motivation, why should the moral law bind you? why should that fact motivate you? Why should there be a motivating/binding force on you?
Reason magic trick.
Audi is a non-spooky version of moral realism.
Moore - value, something you have to see for yourself, can't reduce it down to a description. Intuit what is valuable. Problem of relativity.
Ross - duty, in one particular situation, you see what is right. There isn't so much an ontological value, but more of a fitting attitude. You see it is fitting to comfort him.
For Audi, you see immediately that torturing babies is wrong. It is grounded in the value though.
Is moral realism able to justify the equal-respect thing?
--------------------------
Moral realism. From the inside the moral ought is unconditional. It is a category to ask for a reason where no reason can be given? intuitionism is like that. You can't give a further reason, you immediately see it, and you can't give a further justification.
is that a fatal flaw in intuitionism? This seems to have a lot in common with epistemic foundationalism.
These principles are constitutive of what it means to reason. We don't consciously choose the laws of logic, it is just something which it you already operate. It is an operating principle.
Feb 12
Dignity
Realism – absolute, it exists
Intuitionism
Particular seeing (of a value property in the Moorean sense)
or a relation of fittingness (Ross).
Value property is ontic, the other seems epistemic.
Nagel
I dislike pain
I resent it
pain is bad agent-neutrally, bad not just because it is you, but bad for anyone, as experienced by anyone.
I have to regard it as bad (not realist here though, but more Korsgaard based).
Cure pain wherever you find it
Korsgaard I
things do not have intrinsic value – they only have value qua human valuing them
if you denied this, then you could just say that humans have value
they are valuable as means if valued by human beings
humans can confer this value (122), value travels from your choice onto the object, only if they are absolutely or unconditionally valuable
others have ends as well, others value too
all humans have absolute, unconditional, instrinsic value
Requirement (not Realism) – Reason requires you to treat humans as if...
Korsgaard II(Wood/Gwisth)
things are intrinsically valuable
they are valuable if valued by human beings
In valuing objects, things you need value yourself
If you are going to commit suicide, why do you make yourself a sandwich?
Still seems egoist, except that if you think there is value, it would need to be universal
I value humans agent-neutrally
I am so amazed by human capacity to value things that they too must be valuable
All of these share the view:
Recognition Respect: in the other, the reason to respect them is in the other
it is a value, which is = “dignity”
Maybe Dignity isn't this precious feature that justifies the recognition respect. Maybe there is a different justification.
Waldorn denies the dignity is a name for value.
Waldorn topic
Etymological tracing of dignity. That isn't conceptual analysis though.
Why do we dignify people?
Synonym of respect, what it means to respect, but doesn't explain or justify why we should respect.
Dignity seemed to focus more on action than on attitude and motivation (although he isn't necessarily disallowed from including these). But, law doesn't care so much about motivation. The reasons we treat people with dignity is what? Because jural law requires it? That's not what I mean at all.
Legal status, moral status.
Everybody has the same high standing. Status, rank.
Empriically looking at the legal notion of dignity, and he thinks it matches out common sense.
Why those specific documents? What method or principle should we use for selecting them?
We can find documents which take the value-based language instead of the status/rank based. Why can he just dismiss the value-based out of hand? That is the first usage in the OED, and he is playing the language etymology game, so why could he dismiss it? Why could he ignore the legal documents which rely upon the value-based argument?
Legal documensts vary a lot. Can't shoot midgets out of cannonballs in France, because legal documents say it violates his dignity. But, you can suicide in Neterhlands because enabling autonomy to do so is respecting dignity.
Legal documents, how they come about, don't always get generated from a moral or common sense basis. Lots of legal documents are the product of corruption, good-old-boy system.
pg. 55 – law is about protecting high status. Concept of law problem.
pg. 59 – dignity is just what we make of it – what we perceive it to be -how we use the word???
pg. 67 - law is conceptually about protecting high status, back then, law was different. Legal expressivism.
3 notions of dignity
Aristocratic, the king has a special high standing, he can issue decrees that must be obeyed, etc. Just having the office. With the office came a duty to behave and dress in certain ways, but also came with certain rights, that people have to obey, make room for you, bow, wait to speak, etc...it also has the connotation of excellence (obviously, not true).
Traditional- to universalize this high status to all human beings. Cicero did it. Refernece group is not society, but nature. All human beings have dignity because they have reason and aren't pushed around by their own desires. Human beings made in the image of god, have soul, freedom, reason.
Contemporary - synonymous use with value. GE Moore kind.
Aristocratic
Rank in Society
one or few
has dignity, but ought to earn it, to become worthy of it
duty and rights
because you are high in society, you get recognition respect, and if you do it well, you get appraisal respect
self, and what you can claim of others
Traditionally – because I have duty, they have dignity – you should adopt an attitude of respecting persons, and that is why they have dignity. Dignity isn't a moral notion here.
Rank in Universe – hierarchy fo beings, stone on the bottom, plants, beasts, humans, angels, God. These beings are closer to God. You have a duty toward yourself to live up to this level. The elevation, somehow, isn't a moral one. Why you should respect someone isn't a consequence of their dignity, but a consequence of your rank in the universe.
all have it
all have it, but ought to use it
directly related to a duty
appraisal respect
duty toward self, because you are not just a pig, and you have reason, you ought to use your reason, and should not live like a pig
Contemporary
Value property
all have it
all have it
right, point to your preciousness, demand respec
recognition respect
others
Difference for Waldorn
Digniy not a value
two-fold notion, not a single, like contemporary
not recognition
scopre of perfectionism
We have to cobble something together. Try to make Darwalls terms useful. What he says vs. a charitable recount of his terms are different. What should we walk away with?
Kant
Someone has a dignity because we respect them, we don't respect someone because they have dignity. Copernican revolution, we respect others, and thus they are dignified.
Distinction between why you should respect and what you should respect.
Why is a justification, and What is the scope of concern.
Recognition respect isn't about having the objectively correct justification.
What does it mean to respect someone? Maybe it has something to do with consent
4:430 – for he could not possibly consent to the way he would be treated
Casuistry – case by case example
Lifeboat, don't have consent to take the lifeboat, doesn't seem to matter.
Rothenburg Cannibal – can you consent to it? There might be things you can't consent to. Actual consent vs. possible consent.
Oliver's idea: consent is important, but not in itself, but because of something else
X (maybe this is “one vote, nobody is special)
----- Consent
----- Y
------ Z
Not all of morality might be about consent.
What are the 3 possible forms of consent. When do you take into account that a person is an end in themselves.
Consent = respect
Maybe respect is an overreaching notion.
Consent
Actual: what the do consent to
The other actually has to agree. You have to ask, they have to physically give it.
Hypothetical
What would a fully rational person do? We aren't fully rational though.
Maybe they are asleep, and you can't get it; or maybe they are depressed, and not really their true self, and their consent can't be given at this time, the real them isn't there to consent, so it is about what he would consent to.
Requirements
Fully informed
Rationally consent to: what they “should” consent to (in contrast to Actual)
When you are calm and normal, in control of your emotions
Your own best interest – but that might sit outside your own consent
Utilitarianism
Could I consent to my life being taken to save 5 other people.
Maybe rationality requires best self-interest and disallows...it depends on your conception of rationality
Discovers reasons, if he had a full grasp of the reasons that were out there. Not so much about consent, if you can figure out what the reasons say.
Possible:
Could
natural necessities could?
Psychological necessity (he can't bring himself)
Morally
No ever could consent to it.
Two paradigm cases of non-consent, coercion and deception
Those are practically antonyms of “Informed consent”
Can you agree to being coerced/deceived later?
Not moral, must be psychology or natural. You don't have the option of dissenting in deception, and it doesn't matter for coercion.
Do you need whole hearted consented? How much does it need to be? Is it a matter of percentages?
What about tacit consent to constitution or laws just by living in a nation? Not actual or hypothetical. What is it?
Problem with hypothetical, what counts as what a rational person would do? It seems like you can always overridge actual consent with a trumped-up “hypothetical consent.” Paternalism Abuse Problem. They can coerce you into doing the things which the ideal rational person “would” do.
I grant that that knowing where to draw the line for where we are rational enough to give consent is a serious problem for consent in general. The usual intuition is that was there are cases where the real me is rational enough, even though I've quite limited.
limited beings
Stones/Monument, how general or specific should I take into account someone's wishes. It is not really clear what rationality is.
There is a grey zone between actual and hypothetical, where being informed and calm seems to be part of “actual” consent
as well. Usually, with hypothetical, people mean the stronger versions of rational, and that leads to paternalism.
What role should consent have in moral deliberation?
It seems like there are cases where consent isn't the end all be all.
You can't give consent to being eaten by a cannibal.
You can't give consent to someone using your boat to save drowning people. It doesn't matter what you think. Respect means what? We can still respect the boat owner even without getting consent from them.
What she wants to have: you should respect persons. Only if its a human being do I use verbal threats. The torturer does it because he knows the other person has reason. You are regarding or treating the human as a person, but that doesn't you are treating them as you should.
Consent is sometimes sufficient for respect, but I'm not even sure it is necessary for claiming we are respecting persons as they ought to be respected. Seems to be an incomplete explanation of the content of respect.
Oneill can claim, justifed because of CI, and application is “don't deceive”
I'm wondering if it would be acceptable to argue the lone man is giving hypothetical consent, if we are willing to accept the paternalism. He is drowning, of course he has an immediate bias. If he were in my shoes, he would realize what the right thing to do is...and why paternalistic hypothetical consent is acceptable.
What is Parfit's thesis?
What is his argument that establishes it?
Principium
Dijudications: rightness(402, derived principle)
executionis: motive (4:390)
Regard, for Parfit, is about examining whether or not someone has the right movitve. But, it doesn't say anything about the rightness.
Rightness is just about harm. Utilitarian calculus.
Why would he say treating someone as a mere means (regard) has little to do with moral rightness (the act)? You can do the right thing for the wrong reasons and the wrong thing for the right reasons. Gangster example. Nothing wrong with the act of buying coffee, but his intention and reason for acting is all wrong. What is wrong is regarding her as mere means, but what he does is not in itself wrong.
Coffee Buyer Example
Bruising Leg to Save people Example
Do they show that treating someone as a mere means is not relevant to the rightness of the action?
1) Right Outcome
2) Right Action
3) Right Intention/Motive
(3) is quality of person.
Kant thinks the action is fine, and doesn't treat him as a mere means. We are barred from performing actions which are motivated by treating people as a mere means.
The action is a sign of the motive.
I just flat out disagree with Oliver here.
I don't think we can peel the act apart from the motive, in analyzing the moral worth of an action.
I don't think it is possible to “Treat” someone “as a mere means”....the “mere means” only belongs to intention and motivation. The act is only the sign of the motive.
Difference between regarding and treating as mere means?
What would it mean to treat someone as mere means? What role does it have in moral philosophy? Like consent, is it complete, or only a part of a whole of understanding the moral law?
You have some principle of moral law in mind, and it designates what acts are “mere means” and which ones aren't in all possible cases. It is a list.
Treating someone as ameans implies an end, and intented end. No way to tlak about the act without a motivation/intention.
Treat as a person when tortuing them, treating them as if they have ends, but we can “use” them as mere means.
There are cases where we “just become” consequentialists (blow up the world examples). 500 million? 100 million? 1 million? Etc. Why won't you do it for 2?
A different case. The Hitler case. Used people a mere means. Exterminating them, not “using them”. I don't see how. Aren't you using them to achieve some end? What is an action without an end?
Respect for Persons...
What does it mean to respect another. Find a principle or explanation for...if you do this, you are respecting, and if you don't, you aredisrespecting.
Started out: Consent
Last time, Principle, of what is right and wrong.
Scanlon -
Sometimes people agree to less than is due to them. Contract theory. People have to agree. People have to give their consent to the way they are treated. But, actual consent is the problem (slave can be tricked), but some principle must be the backbone of this consent.
Reason is something that speaks in favor. Why is reason normatively binding? Magic trick.
What is his claim, what is his argument? What does it contribute to our debate on respect?
1) Respect is his contractualism, it is not particularist. What it means to respect is not needing actual consent, or being polite, (pg 98) – I respect when I act on a principle which nobody could “reasonably” reject. If I act on a fair principle, this is what it means to respect. Lifeboat case. I can't go around collecting signatures.
2) Respect is about permissibility, rightness, not just motive. (105) “regarding” vs. “treating” - Meaning vs. permissibility
3) “just using” is jus a subset of consent. And, consent cases are a subset of contractualist case. (111) Principle, Consent vs. just using. Consent is not an overreachign requirement. Consent is relevant in some areas, but not necessarily all. Even if someone gives consent, that doesn't necessarily make it right.
[1]
Formula of Humanity (429)
1) Never merely as means. Ruling out the negatives. Don't lie, kill, steal, etc.
2) Always end in itself.
Do not exalt yourself (6:449f) – don't think of yourself as something better.
Categorical Imperative (421)
Contradiction in Conception -Goes against the exalting of yourself
Contradiction in Will - Gives yous positive duties. Can state it without contradiction, but you couldn't will it.
Do not make an exception to ao an objectively necessary law. Do not be a free-rider. Don't make exceptions to the rules that you expect of everyone else.
Two forms of contradictions help you find out what is objective or necessary.
(412) anthropoligcal knowledge
Formula of Humanity and CI are tantamount, same content and meaning, 437
(1) Rules out too much
paying your credit card on time...CCcompanies would vanish if we all followed it
(2) Rules out too little
Would it be immoral to refuse bribery, else instutition of bribing our die out (just as promise-keeping would)
(3) For the Wrong Reason
Apparently, this is not his test. We have to move further, start at 424. It is unfair that others must stick to a rule that you yourself want to make an exception to. You want the rule to hold for others, but not for yourself.
This is different from Scanlon.
Although, it can't just be a matter of consistency. Cannabils might accept that everyone should be open to cannabilization, as they would themselves. Consistency isn't enough. What makes it wrong would need to be more, something objective.
[3]
Business case. Beneficial for the partner claim, but no, just beneficial for you. Train case?? Party case??
General principle vs. particular rules.
Is respecting someone covered by a principle or by an individual consent?
----------
1) Wrong-doer doesn't wish to stand as the author
2) Repudiate the deeds, and show that they aren't the same person as the original author
3) Wrong-doer must experience and express regret for causing injury to the other person (2nd personal?)
4) Commit to not being the sort of person who would do that deed again
5) Offender must truly understand, from the victim's perspective, what damage was caused by the deed
6) Offender must be able to offer a narrative of how that deed came about, and so we can see why their context warrant forgiveness.
We need to be justified in forgiving. This set of conditions justifies us.
These are the conditions of experiencing guilt, of asking for forgiveness. Why must someone ask for forgiveness for someone to be justified to forgiving?
Are these necessary conditions?
Are they sufficient?
I feel like we haven't satisfactorily resolved one of the initial issues.
Why does forgiveness mean warranted forgiveness? Even if it had to be somewhat warranted, why warranted to this degree? Maybe half of these would be sufficient for me being warranted in forgiving someone. Warrant or justification may come in degrees, and it is really messy. The precise amount of justification required may scale with the context itself.
If I snap at my wife, or she snaps at me. And we look at each other earnestly and say we are sorry and forgive each other, then that's real forgiveness in my eyes. We didn't even subconciously go through a checklist here to make sure we had epistemic warrant for this behavior, we used heuristics and some guesswork at understanding our spouses' frame of mind. From my ordinary language, conceptual, and phenomenological analysis: that counts a legit forgiveness.
Forgiveness is a lot like the word Love when it comes to conceptual analysis. There are so many different definitions for various groups through history.
Griswold offers us an interesting conceptual and phenomenological analysis of forgiveness. It is conceptually linked to the notion of resentment. Forgiveness seems to be a moral act, done for the right reasons, about moderating and taking the steps to let go of resentment. Exactly all of what counts as resentment isn’t clear (although he leaves us many clues).
It is not immediately obvious how forgiveness relates so strongly to respect other than as how resentment may be an issue of indignation and believing you have a certain dignity which brings with it a certain set of rights. It is a different angle though, which may be important.
Virtue theoretic accounts are always so squishy, vague, and indeterminate. These accounts often make it difficult to see those things for which we can or can't be responsible, and often don’t provide us a legitimate decision procedure. I liked the conditions for forgiveness which Griswold sets out, and he seems to break the mold in some ways. Even though I’m not sure what this paper reveals to us about respect, I admire the piercing understanding of the practicalities of moral life offered in this paper.
---
The definition of forgiveness doesn't come from academic philosophy. Like the word "love" it has so many different definitions for various groups through history. I take this to be a kind of conceptual analysis.
Maybe he needs to define resentment. Ok, he does. Resentment is "a species of moral hatred that is 'deliberate' rather than sudden, is aroused by the perception of what we take to be unwarranted injury, embodies a judgment about the fairness of an action or of an intention to do that action, is provoked by moral not natural evil, is aimed at the action's author, and is a reactive as well as retributive passion that instinctively seeks to exact a due measure of punishment." (39)
His examples of cancer, the economy, and politicians are poor ones. I can easily think of ways these would fit the requirements of resentment.
"Moral anger" is tied to forgiveness and resentment. That is the conceptual analysis, the definition.
I ask for forgiveness for accidentally stepping on someone's foot (even when I'm doing my best not to). I want forgiveness for it. That doesn't jive with the top of 40.
Forgiveness: "letting go of resentment for moral reasons, as well as of revenge, without forgetting the wrong that was done, and even in some cases (re)accepting the offender as a friend" (40)
Mental act + for the right reasons. Forgiveness does need to be a moral act. A choice. It can't be something else. It is a special case of abandoning resentment or anger, a moral one.
How does one "overcome" one's feelings? I'm not sure how much control I have over what I am feeling, although I have control over what I do, and to some extent, what I will focus on. It may not be up to me to let go of my resentment, but does Griswold need forgiveness to be an action? Maybe.
Resentment is quansi-cognitive emotion, forgiveness is about appropriately moderating resentment and a commitment to work toward a frame of mind in which even that resentment is let go. Ok. Whatever is up to you then, that is what is required by forgiveness??
It isn't necessarily a completed achievement of totally forswearing resentment.
Virtue theoretic accounts are always so crazy squishy, indeterminate, failing to see those things for which we can or can't be responsible, and unable to provide a legitimate decision procedure. When all else fails, however, virtue theories are all we have left. Sometimes virtue ethicists have piercing, deep understanding of the practicalities and perceptions of moral life. I am lucky to read what they say.
Hampton's argument on 44 is very appealing. Griswold fights against it somewhat. Resentment contains indignation.
This was an interesting conceptual and phenomenological analysis of forgiveness. It is not immediately obvious how it to relates so strongly to respect other than as how resentment may be an issue of indignation and believing you have a certain dignity which brings with it a certain set of rights. It is a different angle though, which is important.
Christine Korsgaard believes we owe respect to certain animals.<<ref "1">> She argues that we share in common with certain animals the morally significant attribute of the awareness of things being good or bad for us, and that when we employ her interpretation of Kantian ethics, this fact results in obligations towards certain animals. The problem I have with her argument is that she has several under-argued or perhaps even unjustified premises. She helps herself to a rich foundation and walks away with a significant claim concerning an obligation to non-persons; however, her argument style only works if you already agreed to her foundation.
Korsgaard begins by explaining how humans share a history, a story, a context, and certain mental states with other animals.<<ref "2">> Both humans and other animals tend to have some similar needs, experiences, and purposes. Korsgaard channels an Aristotelian teleological account of the good for each species, and perhaps even for each individual specimen.<<ref "3">> Alongside humans, she attributes to a seemingly broad swathe of non-human animals the capacity to experience the world as good or bad for themselves.<<ref "4">> This common experience is vital to her end argument, and she considers it to be a morally significant factor or attribute in determining our duties to other organisms.
For her, awareness (a term she employs broadly) is something like being conscious of or alert to one’s telos and the conditions of flourishing specific to oneself – what she calls the “natural good.”<<ref "5">> Awareness requires that an organism must have a teleological perspective of the world, where aware organisms experience things as being good or bad for themselves.<<ref "6">> What she means by the “for” is not entirely clear, and that is unfortunate, because it is such an important condition in her argument.<<ref "7">> Ultimately, it seems as though she believes we have obligations towards other aware animals because we as humans share with them the experience of things being good or bad for us – i.e. they have rights because we all share the phenomenon of possessing a teleological perspective.
While channeling Aristotle, Korsgaard seems to be either building on top of or offering a new interpretation of Kant’s arguments (or both). In this paper, she passes off much of the justificatory work in her argument to her previous interpretations of Kant’s account, and this makes it difficult to see why we should be convinced by the argument she leaves us. She sees herself as explaining why Kant’s theory of reciprocal moral relationships between rational humans bears the fruit of our obligations towards (and corresponding rights for) other aware animals.<<ref "8">>
Korsgaard seems to agree to Kant’s differentiation between humans and other animals.<<ref "9">> Unlike the other animals, humans have freedom and reason, and hence we are moral creatures with the ability to legislate moral law.<<ref "10">> Humans can be morally obligated, but the other animals can’t. She parts with Kant, however, on what kinds of objects or beings can be the target of obligations. Unlike Kant, Korsgaard believes non-rational, non-moral beings can be rights-bearers, even if they can’t claim those rights or reciprocate. She claims that participating in this reciprocating community, which only free and reasonable beings can, is not the only way in which one can be owed obligations.<<ref "11">>
The reciprocity theory claims morality is “a system in which human beings mutually impose obligations on each other,”<<ref "12">> where “for one person to make a claim on another, they must be under common laws that spring from their own shared authority: laws that they make—that they autonomously will—together.”<<ref "13">>
Korsgaard fleshes this theory out further with the notion of conferring value. She claims, “When we take our own concerns to be important and worth doing something about, we take ourselves to be capable of conferring objective value on our ends through rational choice.”<<ref "14">> On Korsgaard’s interpretation of Kant, valuing is “an act of legislation: you make it a law for yourself and everyone else that what is naturally good for you should be taken to be objectively good,” whereby “you make it a law that every other person must regard it as a good end—and so as a source of reasons—that you should achieve what is naturally good for you.”<<ref "15">> She takes the valuing of our own natural goods to be embedded in this reciprocity theory. She claims that since “we need to have reasons for what we do… we find those reasons in the things that are naturally good for us,”<<ref "16">> and we “treat what is naturally good for us as normatively and objectively good.”<<ref "17">> She explains that, “just by the act of making a rational choice, you confer normative value not only on the end that you choose, but also on yourself.”<<ref "18">> This is part of the crucial move in her argument, since she distinguishes the participants from the targets in the reciprocity process. Korsgaard argues that each human has two selves; one of our selves confers value on the other.
Korsgaard claims that the autonomous self confers value on the aware-animal self, the self for which things are naturally good.<<ref "19">> It seems as though there is a two-way (perhaps circular) relationship between each of our dual selves, whereby the natural good perceived by our aware-animals selves is a source of reasons to our autonomous selves to act and be obligated in certain ways, and in the other direction, our autonomous selves confer value on what is naturally good for our aware-animal selves. Further, by conferring value on the natural good for our aware-animal selves, Korsgaard believes we confer value on our aware-animals selves.
In subjectively conferring value on and respecting both what we perceive to be our natural goods and our aware-animal selves, we legislate that all creatures which have this kind of self and what they perceive to be their natural goods are objectively valuable and worthy of respect for the reciprocating community. Since the other aware animals are beings for whom there is a natural good, like us as humans, and since “our legislation is universal,” then “it follows that we will that all animals are to be treated as ends in themselves.”<<ref "20">> The community of autonomous selves together legislate obligations to the selves of all aware-animals. Therefore, Korsgaard believes we are obligated not only to aware humans, but to all aware animals.<<ref "21">>
The general problem with Korsgaard’s argument is that she assumes and relies upon a foundation of fairly unintuitive premises which require a significant amount of explanation and justification. First, Korsgaard assumes a schizophrenic view of our identity. Why should we agree that we have multiple selves? It is far more intuitive to think of my self has having multiple parts rather than me being a collection of multiple selves. Does it hurt her argument to deny multiple selves? Maybe. Her argument looks artificially purer if she can pull apart our rational self from our animal self, since then she has a clean and easy target on which to confer value, and then analogize to the monolithic selves of the other animals. To deny multiple selves, and to accept that our single, whole selves are made up of many parts, may muddle her argument. If I value some part of my self, that doesn’t necessarily mean I should value any object which has such a part. She needs to explain and justify this issue further for her overall argument to work.
Secondly, she seems to ignore what human natural good is really like, and perhaps she has assumed a different understanding of the human good (but didn’t explain it). Part of our evolutionary story is that we: eat the meat of animals, defend ourselves against and attack other aware animals, and use other creatures as mere means. That may be part of our natural good of humans. To respect my own natural good may require engaging in behavior that prevents me from respecting the other animals in the ways Korsgaard implies. Perhaps very wealthy, modern humans can personally get by without such things, but most humans through history haven’t and can’t. Part of the telos of humans is using other animals – we have strong evidence to believe so from biology and history. Our natural good is in conflict with the natural good of other animals, and Korsgaard needs to explain how this works in her theory.
Thirdly, why is awareness or having a perspective of one’s telos or natural good morally significant and something to be valued in the way Korsgaard describes? Note there is a difference between having a perspective of what is good for you, and having an objectively accurate perspective. An organism could be deeply irrational, having an extremely inaccurate awareness of its natural good or telos, and yet would still qualify.
Accurate awareness seems useful and interesting, but insufficient for generating strong obligations beyond not causing pain for trivial reasons. I can see some intuitive force behind obligations being generated from the fact that an organism has a natural good, but I don’t see why the appended condition of awareness matters so much. It is the natural good which has the real force behind it, not awareness. Korsgaard has under-argued a foundational premise to her theory.
I worry that Korsgaard has unintentionally added this awareness condition because her argument would border on the absurd if she didn’t. Namely, if we remove the awareness condition, and we simply value that we are the sorts of objects that have a natural good or telos, regardless of awareness, then when we universalize that move, her argument would require that we value all objects which have a natural good or telos. It would result in having obligations to lower animals, plants (which she doesn’t find plausible), and if we follow Aristotelian reasoning, even inanimate objects like chairs, hammers, and houses (which few, if any, would find plausible).
Even if she could explain why we should take into consideration how awareness increases our obligations to certain beings, it isn’t clear that it buys all that much. I reckon the best reason for thinking awareness is a morally significant attribute rests upon consequentialist grounds, but Korsgaard seems to boldly reject that move. She needs to explain why employing an experience machine (like The Matrix) or heavy anesthetics on animals we want to kill or use is a moral problem. She takes herself as having done this, but there isn’t an argument for it. We might make an argument that such processes impede our moral life (which could be morally wrong), but it doesn’t seem as though there is a moral life for animals. The condition of awareness may not be sufficient for obligating us to not use animals, by and large.
Lastly, just because we take or assume or wish something to be objectively good, right, or valuable doesn’t make it objectively good, right, or valuable. Perhaps she is relying upon previous arguments of her interpretation of Kant to make that move, but I see no reason to think she is allowed to help herself to that claim. Now, we can sneak through the back door and claim that if the authentic self just is conceptually defined as a special flavor of reason (which is what I call begging the question), then what the authenticated “we” take to be objectively good or right just so happens to be objectively good or right by definition. However, you have to take on faith that we have that reason, that we are constituted that way, that what we take ourselves to really be is like that. That is not satisfactory. People who already agree with the groundwork she takes for granted may be convinced by the rest of her argument. The question, for me at least, is whether or not that groundwork and the rest of her under-argued premises are actually correct.
As to my own views, I’m not sure I can offer much. I think we are first and foremost obligated to the moral law (whatever that moral law may be). All claims on us trace their origins to the moral law. It is the fundamental source of normativity; it is the source of all other obligations. Even our obligations to other people are derivatives of our original obligation to the moral law. I also think that if there is a moral law, then it is conceptually independent of the existence of people. The same is true of any obligations we have to other animals. It is our job to figure out the contents of the moral law. Do we have obligations to the other animals?
Probably. I don’t know what they are. Virtue theoretic accounts of “what kind of person should I be” may offer the most coherent requirements. “Don’t be cruel” entails “don’t be cruel to animals.” Beyond that, I just don’t know. My inabilities in this regard cause me great sympathy for what Korsgaard is trying to accomplish. I want to have solid reasons not to eat my cat or Korsgaard’s, and so does she. Unfortunately, I think neither of us can put forth a solid theory of why we are obligated to abstain from such behavior.
-------------------------------
<<footnotes "1" "Korsgaard, Christine M. 'Interacting with Animals: A Kantian Account.' //The Oxford Handbook of Animal Ethics. //Uncorrected Proof. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2011.">>
<<footnotes "2" "Ibid., 91">>
<<footnotes "3" "Ibid., 111-112, Footnote 4">>
<<footnotes "4" "Ibid., 92. Throughout the paper, I fear Korsgaard continuously anthropomorphizes a broad swathe of non-human animals without enough justification or subtlety. She may be exaggerating the analogy of the phenomenon of our human conscious experience with the minds of non-human animals. Much of her argument rests upon theories of mind which she neglected to flesh out for us.">>
<<footnotes "5" "Ibid., 92">>
<<footnotes "6" "Ibid.">>
<<footnotes "7" "It would be helpful for her to clarify this position, and to make clear for us exactly what theory of mind is necessary for awareness. I feel uncomfortably forced to guess.">>
<<footnotes "8" "We will get to this theory in a bit.">>
<<footnotes "9" "Although, at least in this paper, she seems open to the possibility that the traditional highest animals might possibly have freedom. I don’t read her, however, as suggesting this.">>
<<footnotes "10" "Ibid., 106-107">>
<<footnotes "11" "Ibid., 107">>
<<footnotes "12" "Ibid., 104">>
<<footnotes "13" "Ibid., 105">>
<<footnotes "14" "Ibid., 106">>
<<footnotes "15" "Ibid.">>
<<footnotes "16" "Ibid., 108">>
<<footnotes "17" "Ibid.">>
<<footnotes "18" "Ibid.">>
<<footnotes "19" "Ibid.">>
<<footnotes "20" "Ibid., 109">>
<<footnotes "21" "While Korsgaard argues we owe something to all aware animals, it isn’t clear what she thinks we do owe to them. The precise requirements or contents of these obligations remain unclear, but presumably they regard protecting and enabling the flourishing of aware animals. Admittedly, I can’t expect Korsgaard to solve everything. I’d be satisfied with just a middle-ground framework for beginning to think about animal rights, which seems to be what she attempts in this paper. At the very least, Korsgaard is arguing against the killing for eating of aware animals.">>
<<footnotes "22" "">>
What is Western religion?
By Western, we mean ancient Mediterranean, Medieval European, and the modern West (US, Britain, Continental Europe, Australia, etc.). We won’t be handling Eastern religions, such as Hinduism, Buddhism, and Confucianism. We won’t be looking at African religions. We won’t even really be looking at religions.
William James’ “religious hypothesis”:
There is a higher universe or higher being(s).
We are better off if we believe this and act accordingly.
Communion with the higher universe “is a process wherein work is really done” or higher being(s) who produce effects in the visible world.
Deism doesn’t match this though.
What is Western philosophy of religion?
“Philosophy of X” isn’t necessarily doing “X”
Thinking about the foundations and assumptions of religious belief.
Considering core concepts of religious belief, as well justifications for and challenges to religious belief
Trying to find what (if anything) various religious beliefs have in common.
Crazy long and large lineage of thought.
Ancient, e.g. Plato, Aristotle, Judaism, Islam
Early Christian, e.g. St. Augustine
Medieval, e.g. St. Aquinas
Early Modern Continental, e.g. Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz
Sprawls widely from here
Some Broad Topics:
Concepts of God
Perfect Being, Holiness, Omnipotence, Omniscience, Omnipresence, Goodness, Eternity, Necessity, Incorporeality, Beauty, Divine Action, Creation, Immutability, Providence, Pantheism
Justificatory Arguments for Religious Belief
Ontological, Cosmological, Teleological/Design, Moral, Consciousness and Free Will, Miracles, Religious Experience, Pragmatic, Tradition, Fideism
Challenges to Religious Belief
Presumption of Atheism, Verificationism, Incoherence, Foreknowledge and Freedom, No Best World, Logical Problem of Evil, Evidential Problem of Evil, Naturalism
Additionally, there are copious challenges which indirectly arise from other branches of philosophy: epistemology, ethics, metaphysics and ontology, philosophies of language and mind, etc.
Religion and Science
Cosmology, Creation, Evolution, Psychology, etc.
Ethics
Religious Commitment; Divine Command; Natural Law; Political Philosophy; Tolerance; Sin and Original Sin; Atonement, Justification, and Sanctification; Resurrection, Heaven, and Hell.
3
How many of you think God is timeless? Alright, good, we are done.
Before the reading, I’m going to say a little bit about the landscape surrounding the issue. We need to set the stage first. Afterward, we will follow the text closely to dig out the argument, and along the way offer criticisms or comments, and ask questions. At the end, we’ll have a final interrogation of the argument.
Here’s the landscape:
Classical, Western, Judeo-Christian theism traditionally holds that God has several attributes:
Omnibenevolence (being perfectly good),
Timelessness (being outside the flow of time)
Immutability (changelessness)
Omnipotence (being all-powerful)
Omniscience (being all-knowing)
Each of these attributes are highly debated in philosophy of religion. There are philosophical puzzles and arguments which explore the coherence of these attributes, both individually and corporately. Many of these attributes are interrelated.
Classically, theists believe God’s has no beginning or end, His life is eternal, and that he transcends space and time. This transcendence can be phrased in different ways, such as the claim that God is “outside time.” Many questions arise from this belief:
Does God last forever by being wholly outside of time, or by having a temporal life that goes on forever?
Is God’s life wholly unmarked by temporal succession?
Or does the claim that God transcends time and space mean only that God exists outside of our physical spacetime, even if his own life still unfolds sequentially?
Essentially, does God enjoy (as Boethius claims) “the complete possession of illimitable life all at once,” or instead does God experience His life in sequences like us?
We will distinguish between atemporal eternity and temporal eternity.
The idea that God is timeless, experiencing an atemporal eternity, is very old. It can be traced through Parmenides, Plato, Augustine, Boethius, Anselm, and Aquinas. The Timelessness of God used to be the majority opinion of philosophers of religion. Today, it is the minority opinion (that doesn’t mean those epic philosophers were wrong).
In-Between Views:
Some philosophers think that God’s relation to time cannot be captured by either of the categories of temporality or timelessness. Rather, God is in some third kind of relation to time. One in-between position is that God is not within our time, but he is within his own time. In this view, God’s inner life is sequential and, therefore, temporal, but his relation to our temporal sequence is “all at once.” In a sense, God has his own time line. He is not located at any point in our time line. On this view, God’s time does not map onto our time at all. His time is completely distinct from ours.
Another view is that God is “omnitemporal.” It is true on this view as well that God is not in our time, but he experiences temporal succession in his being. Our time is constituted by physical time. God’s time (metaphysical time) has no intrinsic metric and is constituted purely by the divine life itself (Padgett 1992, 2001; DeWeese 2002, 2004). If God is omnitemporal, his metaphysical time does map in some way onto our physical time. So there is a literal sense in which God knows now that I am typing this sentence now.
Another view (Craig, 2001a, 2001b) is that God became temporal when time was created. God’s existence without creation is a timeless existence but once temporal reality comes into existence, God himself must change. If he changes, then he is, at least in some sense, temporal. Just as it is not quite accurate to talk about what happens before time comes into existence, we should not describe this view as one in which God used to be timeless, but he became temporal. This language would imply that there was a time when God was timeless and then, later, there is another time when he is temporal. On this view, there was not a time when he was timeless. God’s timelessness without creation is precisely due to the fact that time came into existence with creation.
Arguments for Divine Timelessness:
God’s Knowledge of the Future
It isn’t obvious how a temporal God can know the future, nor how He might know the resulting choices of being with free will. The problem, however, doesn’t seem to arise as clearly for a timeless God.
Maximality of God, the Fullness of God’s life
No being that experiences its life sequentially can have the fullest life possible.
God has the fullest, maximally best possible life, and that means he isn’t temporal.
Creation and Contingent Time
If time is contingent and God is not, then it is at least possible that God exist without time.
If time is contingent, then it depends upon God for its existence. Either God brought time into existence or he holds it in existence everlastingly.
Suppose time came into existence with the universe so that the universe has only a finite past. This means that physical time was created by God. It may be the case that metaphysical time is infinite or that God created “pure duration” (metaphysical time) also. In the latter case, God had to be timeless. God created both physical and metaphysical time and God existed entirely without time. God, then, had to be timeless. Unless God became temporal at some point, God remains timeless.
Philosophy of space and time bears upon this discussion considerably. There may be other positions which the author neglects, and there may be different ways to interpret his argument given various philosophical stances on space and time.
It isn’t clear what it means for a being not to experience sequential time or to be outside of time. We might think of it, for example, in terms of dimensions.
It is very difficult for an entity which can only experience 1-D to comprehend what it means to experience 2-D. Similarly, it is difficult for an entity which experiences 2-D to comprehend what it means to experience 3-D. Same for 3-D to 4-D, and perhaps 4-D to 5-D.
Who wants to outline Davis’ argument?
He argues against the atemporality or timelessness doctrine in stages:
Timeless God can’t be the Christian God.
Timeless God can’t be the creator, and Christian God is the creator.
Timeless God can’t be personal, and Christian God is personal.
Concept of a timeless being is incoherent.
Concept of timeless being “per se” is incoherent
Concept of timeless and omniscient being is incoherent
When we look at the bare metal, a lot of the argument seems to center on whether we are warranted or justified in believing the doctrine, but not necessarily about the actual truth or falsity of the doctrine itself.
How many people believe God is timeless? How about temporal?
Argument style isn’t so much “lay out opponent’s view” then “show what’s wrong with it” then “provide an alternative view.” McCann generally employs a tit-for-tat, to-and-fro strategy. Concise and action packed, but it isn’t cleanly organized and outlined like Davis’.
Overall argument, he says:
No reason to think a timelessly eternal God cannot create or alter events in the world.
(not a positive argument, just a defensive one)
Only a timeless creator can exercise rational and complete sovereignty over creation.
(positive, and attack on sempiternal/everlastingness/temporal view)
A time-bound God has limited knowledge of tensed propositions, whereas timeless God’s knowledge is complete.
Section I:
McCann doesn’t want us to take the Bible too literally.
Space analogy to time. He then turns around and employs Biblical tenses literally.
McCann’s scriptural interpretation requires that God is the “Creator of everything but [H]imself…ruling the universe with complete power and authority,” which must definitionally include creating and having absolute power over time.
A temporal God may lack omniscience, particularly with respect to human free will.
Divine essence is incompatible with change (immutable). God’s necessity and immutability require he is timeless.
McCann claims there has to be an explanation for accidental features, and any such explanation would have to be something external to God.
McCann thinks none of God’s features can be dependent on anything external to God
God has no accidental features.
If God were temporal, then He’d have accidental features.
God isn’t temporal; He’s timeless.
Section II:
Reasons to doubt atemporal entities and states of affairs:
Time becomes an illusion
McCann rebuts by agreeing to space analogy, and space isn’t illusory.
Interestingly, McCann and Davis disagree on what this analogy really shows
Further, just because God isn’t “in time” doesn’t mean time is unreal.
Doubt a Timeless Entity
Ambiguous or misleading expression of the Timeless thesis; “eternal present” or “simultaneous present” imply temporal notions.
Particularly, implies God’s act of experiencing the world is itself temporal
These are just stepping stones to convey transcendence
These convey that God’s experience has no “serial presentation” or “alteration” of content
He is aware of the temporal, but His awareness is not temporal.
Doubt a Timeless state of affairs
No need for timeless states of affairs, except for this “God problem,” and we’ve merely invented the notion that God is timeless because we are unable to comprehend a temporal God.
Rebuts that we do have need and understanding of timeless states of affairs: mathematics.
Atemporalist disagrees with the claim that mathematics is timeless, and thinks we’ve artificially extended our metaphysical ontology. Proposes replacing timeless with “omnitemporal,” unchanging but temporal realities.
Rebuts Omnitemporal replacement by considering how the view would be endorsed or expressed:
Temporalist thinks the atemporalist can’t agree to (a) and (b)
(a) There are no timelessly eternal states of affairs
(b) There is no timelessly eternal God
Rebut, atemporalist cannot reject these if we understand them from the sempiternalist, presumably omnitemporal, view. (a) and (b), on a such a view, are equivalent to:
(c) There never have been, are not now, and never will be any timelessly eternal states of affairs.
(d) There never has been, is not now, and never will be a timelessly eternal God
Atemporalist must agree to (c) and (d), and thus (a) and (b) given the equivalence, since they deny temporal existence pertains to a timeless entity.
(a) and (b) can’t be taken as temporal statements, otherwise there is no disagreement. Instead, they have to be taken as atemporal statements, but then the temporalist can’t double a timeless state of affairs.
Assumes reductionist view of time, which enables him to go timeless on mathematics
Supposedly, mathematical entities don’t change, and they aren’t empirical.
Relational changes, but not intrinsic changes. What exactly does this mean?
McCann denies the “meaninglessness” of temporal terms charge from Davis, and instead says they are just false (to be fair, Davis may have anticipated this with the “necessarily false” claim after meaningless).
Section III:
Doubt that God can be Creator and Intervener if He isn’t in time.
Assumes that production of change and being an active agent share the same time stamps – “causation itself is…intrinsically temporal”
Rebut that causation isn’t a process
Causation isn’t a kind of change
Causation is relation of explanation, holding one thing accountable for the occurrence of another thing
No gaps in natural causal stories, so producing an effect and being active have the same time stamp for humans.
God’s causation could have a gap.
He didn’t use natural processes to create the universe
His creative power may not be limited like ours, especially by natural principles external to Him
He creates ex nihilo, and not due to changes in Him
There was no “t” at which to create the world and time.
God sustains the world.
God cannot be temporally eternal because:
If God were in time, then He didn’t create it.
There is something besides God that He didn’t create.
Thus, He isn’t the Creator.
If God were in time, he’d have to decide when to produce the world.
This might require changes in God.
God would need reasons, and McCann can’t come up with reasons, thus God wouldn’t have a reason.
If God were in time, he would be restricted by something external to Him.
God would be a slave to time.
God isn’t a restricted slave, thus He isn’t in time.
Section IV:
For God to be Omniscient, for all propositions which are true or false, He knows that they are true, or that they are false. Only a timeless God can be omniscient.
It isn’t clear how a temporal God could know truth values of propositions concerning future events.
Assumes these propositions have truth values
Again, how could a temporal God know the outcomes or choices of freewill beforehand?
A timeless God knows the propositions which are true or false for all history in a “single act of awareness.”
Sempiternalist counterattack
(e) “John is mowing his lawn” is not reporting a timeless state of affairs.
Semantics of (e) regard “now” and “present”.
Tensed statements are indexed to a certain temporal location.
Knowing which tensed statements are true requiring know “what the present moment is,” which a timeless God can’t know.
Thus, not only can a timeless God not know the truth of (e), he can’t know any tensed propositions.
Sources of Error for this counterattack:
Spatial Analogy Riposte
Analogy of spatially indexed propositioned.
If God is omniscient, then He knows it is raining here.
No one argues God has to be “in space” to know that.
Tensed propositions involve a perspective on the world of change, but they say nothing about anyone occupying that perspective.
Assumption that “Tensed propositions change their truth value”
Each assertion of a tensed sentence is a different proposition.
Assumption: False before, True while present, and False after.
Assumption that we are asserting the same proposition in each context.
More careful way to express (e), namely (f):
(f) “John is (this moment) mowing his lawn”
(e) and (f) are different propositions.
What happened yesterday is relevant to the truth of (f), but not (e).
What happens today is relevant to the truth of (e), but not (f).
Propositions are temporally indexed.
Each assertion of a tensed sentence is a different proposition.
Propositions are immutable, abstract entities.
The truth of tensed propositions relies upon what obtains from the perspective in time to which they are indexed.
That index doesn’t change, and what obtains at that index can’t change.
Therefore, the truth values of tensed propositions can’t change.
All propositions are timeless.
Since propositions, tensed or otherwise, are immutable, then they are timeless.
Probably assumes a reductionist view of time
A timeless God would know truth value of all timeless propositions.
How can God know “what time it is?” in order to know the truth value of tensed propositions?
There is no fact to be known, McCann says.
We think of time as flowing past us, and “what part of history is it really?” is a bogus question, as is this picture of temporal transition.
The presence of John’s mowing his lawn is to be found in the event itself.
This “passage” of time, our experience of the world shows that we are “in the world”
We don’t simply have experience of changing, but also a changing experience.
God, however, doesn’t have a changing experience.
Becoming is a reality known to God, but it doesn’t mean He has a changing experience.
Temporal transition lies in the phenomenon of change itself
Being aware of tensed propositions doesn’t require “knowing it really happens” and experience temporal transition or having a changing experience.
God knows all there is to know about time from each temporal perspective.
A temporal being would lack access to (f) in the way I do, since I only have one temporal perspective.
A temporal being would only have one perspective.
This is a limitation on God which McCann can’t accept. He wants to maximize God’s persectives.
Classical theism claims God is omnipotent (all powerful). What does omnipotence mean?
A few philosophers (e.g. Descartes) have believed God’s omnipotence was so far reaching that He could somehow violate truths. Most philosophers, however, think God cannot do what is logically impossible.
Let us take omnipotence to mean: “the ability to do whatever is logically possible.”
We need to be clear about what “logical possibility” means.
There are many modalities of possibility. Euler’s circles:
Technological possibility
It is technologically possible to brute-force search for the 100th prime number on a phone in 2 seconds.
It is technologically impossible to brute-force search for the 100 trillionth prime number on a phone in 2 seconds.
Physical possibility
All technologically possible things are physically possible.
Some technologically impossible things are physically possible.
At some point in time, it was technologically impossible to travel from NY to LA in 10 hours. But, it was always physically possible. We just hadn’t invented airplanes at that ime.
Similarly, perhaps we’ve not invented fast enough phones or understood number theory well enough for it to be technologically possible to find the billionth prime number on a phone in 2 seconds. That may change though. Perhaps it is physically possible, and eventually, it will be technologically possible as well.
It is physically impossible for an object to travel faster than the speed of light.
Metaphysical possibility
This one is really unclear, but people talk about it in philosophy.
All physically possible things are metaphysically possible.
Some physically impossible things are metaphysically possible.
It might be metaphysically possible for an object to travel faster than the speed of light, but only if that object isn’t governed by the physical laws.
It is metaphysically possible for two individuals to behave in exactly the same way with regard to a color stimulus, yet have opposing physical phenomenal color experiences.
It is metaphysically impossible for one to be born substantially earlier than they were actually born; the origin of an object is an essential property of the object.
It is metaphysically impossible that water fail to contain hydrogen.
Logical Possibility
All metaphysically possible things are logically possible.
Some metaphysically impossible things are logically possible.
The difficulty in understand metaphysical possibility clouds the relationship between metaphysical and logical possibility.
It might be logically possible for water to fail to contain hydrogen. I’m not sure what that really means though. (You can see I have doubts about metaphysical possibility)
It is at least clearer to see that it is logically possible for an object to travel faster than the speed of light.
It is logically impossible that 2+2=5
When we say God is omnipotent, and that He can do all things that are logically possible, then we everything inside that euler circle, and that we are claiming He can’t do things aren’t logically possible. He can’t, for example, make 2+2=5.
Even this definition, however, seems to carry with it some problems. Consider Wade Savage’s paradox of the stone argument:
Either x can create a stone that x cannot lift, or x cannot create a stone that x cannot lift.
If x can create a stone that x cannot lift, then, necessarily, there is at least one task that x cannot perform (namely, lift the stone in question).
If x cannot create a stone that x cannot lift, then, necessarily, there is at least one act that x cannot perform (namely, create the stone in question).
Hence, there is at least one task that x cannot perform.
If x is an omnipotent being, then x can perform any task.
Therefore, x is not omnipotent.
Is it logically possible for God to sin? It depends on what we mean by possible still. In modal logic, we talk about logical possibility in terms of “possible worlds.” If there is no possible world in which God sins, then it isn’t logically possible.
Is this really showing contradictions and impossibilities in the concepts and attributes of God, and thus dismissing God entirely? Or, this this really a procedure for figuring out precisely what counts as those concepts and attributes? One might take this as an attack, and another might take it as a way to clarify our understanding of God.
Most people think Descartes view of God (where God’s omnipotence includes being able to do the logically impossible) goes too far in extending God’s transcendence. Perhaps this stone example just shows yet a smaller way in which we’ve gone too far in exalting God’s transcendence.
Of course, the worry is that we’ll enter a vicious circle: God being able to do what He is able to do. We might just say, God is as powerful as being with the classical attributes (minus omnipotence) can be. But, that seems to lack the oomph we might want. Are we asking too much?
AQUINAS:
Incredibly large body of systematic theology and philosophy of religion which included most other branches of philosophy. He rendered the Aristotelian view of the world into Christian theology.
Mavrodes skips over several of these, for good reasons perhaps. He seems to focus primarily on Aquinas’ understanding of possibility.
He offers 4 brief objections to the omnipotence of God.
God cannot move.
God cannot sin.
God cannot do the greatest possible act, since the greatest act He does is sparing and having mercy.
God cannot make necessary things unnecessary.
He considers the notions of possibility and impossibility.
Cryptic replies to each objection:
God cannot move.
Omnipotence is an active power.
??
God cannot sin.
Sinning is falling short of perfection action, which his repugnant to omnipotence.
??
God can do what is evil, but only understood in terms of a conditional whose antecedent is never true.
If God wanted to sin, he could sin.
Assuming antecedent is false, the conditional is true.
Show the truth table.
Brings a regress: It is now impossible for God to want to sin.
Respond with a conditional again?
If God really wanted to sin, could you want to sin.
Etc.
If God will sin, then He could sin.
This seems to miss the point.
Couldn’t we say the same things about ourselves for all kinds of actions? And, would that make us omnipotent?
Is this only for sin? If so, why?
Why is it that sin should be understood this way but not other kinds of actions?
The antecedent argument doesn’t seem to get show the truth or falsity of the atomic sentence: “God could sin.” Although, Aquinas already seems to admit the falsity of that atomic sentence. He’s screwed.
Seems like his best way out to is to just admit the tension between omnipotence and omniscience.
God cannot do the greatest possible act, since the greatest act He does is sparing and having mercy.
??
God cannot make necessary things unnecessary.
??
MAVRODES:
The standard “stone” argument:
For all x, if x is omnipotent, then x can perform any task.
Assume some arbitrary being, b
Either “b can create a stone b cannot lift” or not “b can create a stone b cannot lift”
Assume “b can create a stone b cannot lift”
b cannot lift the stone in question
There is at least one task b cannot perform.
Assume not “b can create a stone b cannot lift”
b cannot create the stone in question
There is at least one task b cannot perform.
Thus, there is at least one task b cannot perform. [vElim]
Thus, for all x, there is at least one task x cannot perform. [universal-Intro]
Thus, for all x, x is not omnipotent.
Admittedly, this looks like a valid argument (this isn’t a complete proof, but it is the outline of one). I see no reason to deny any of the moves made. If you agree to premise, and you believe in God, then you believe in a God who isn’t omnipotent. If you believe in an omnipotent God, you can’t accept the premise.
We shouldn’t accept the premise though. Note that we could have substitute “b can create a stone b cannot lift” with some other task, such as “b can change 2+2 to equal 5” and this argument still holds. Changing 2+2 to equal 5 is not a logically possible task. What this point out is that we really shouldn’t accept just “any task” in the premise. The premise should probably be:
For all x, if x is omnipotent, then x can perform any logically possible task.
Is creating a stone too heavy for one to lift logically possible? If so, this argument holds.
Mavrodes doesn’t seem to engage this generalized argument head on. Rather, Mavrodes requires of the critic a reductio. Assume God’s omnipotence, and show absurdity follows. This expectation of argument style probably isn’t reasonable.
Is it logically possible to make an unliftable rock? If it is impossible, then perhaps Mavrodes is right. If it is possible, then the stone argument might hold.
Mavrodes thinks it is relevant to ask: “unliftable for whom”? Is that really the right question though? Logical possibility of the task doesn’t seem to be about “whom.”
Is a rock, by definition, liftable? Liftable for humans, no. Liftable for God. Maybe. If liftability by an omnipotent being is part of the essence of a rock, then this Thomistic argument works. This, of course, might be different from saying “divine liftability is part of the essence of a rock” (depending on what we mean by omnipotence). You can’t make a rock lacking an essential attribute of rocks, just as you can’t make a square circle.
So, the first answer is to say we’ve asked the logically impossible of God. Really though, I think we are asking what is logically possible for us, but logically impossible for God of God. That’s a big difference. Mavrodes seems to be relying upon this argument:
If a task is contradictory to God’s nature, then it is logically impossible for God.
To question whether or not God can perform that task is to question whether or not God can do the logically impossible.
But, this second step is mistaken. There is just a huge difference between logically impossible for all beings and logically impossible for a particular being.
Mavrodes think the argument is even stronger though. He says:
P = “a stone too heavy for an omnipotent God to lift is self-contradictory (logically impossible)”
Either P or not P
Assume P
It isn’t logically possible for God to create it.
God can only do what is logically possible. This doesn’t count against his omnipotence.
Assume ~P,
It is logically possible for God to create it.
No damaging conclusion to draw. This doesn’t count against his omnipotence.
Thus, this doesn’t count against his omnipotence.
Maybe he’s right about this fork. I worry, however, this second half doesn’t work the way Mavrodes thinks. I fear Mavrodes’ argument has put words into the die-hard objector’s mouth.
Consider the following statements (where the domain of x is all logically possible objects):
S = “For all x, x is such that God can create it”
Q = “Some x is such that it is a stone too heavy for God to lift”
R = “For all x, if x is a stone, God can lift it.”
Mavrodes seems to be arguing (at the very least) S and Q are consistent by supposition in the ~P half of his argument. Unfortunately, showing that S and Q are consistent might not work like this; perhaps one can’t just “suppose” it. These two propositions are only consistent if we can’t show absurdity results from S and Q. Mavrodes’ certainly hasn’t demonstrated that we can’t show that absurdity might result from S and Q. Further, I worry that Mavrodes has implicitly argued that the consistency of S and Q imply R. This is a problem though, since Mavrodes really needs all three sentences to be logically consistent if he agrees to Q by supposition.
Mavrodes claims the die-hard objector, who probably isn’t agreeing to Mavrodes claim that God is omnipotent in the way Mavrodes means it, has “contended that such a stone is compatible with the omnipotence of God.” That seems quite unclear.
It is possible the die-hard objector can come back and force the dilemma. On one hand, the die-hard objector may deny the consistency of S and Q, claim Q, and therefore deny S. On the other hand, the die-hard objector might agree to the consistency of S and Q, but go on to show that Q and R aren’t consistent. The die-hard objector, essentially, will deny at least S or R, and that seems to be a significant problem for Mavrodes.
Seems to me, Mavrodes is only solving the first half of the proof here. The second horn of the disjunction doesn’t buy him what he thinks it does.
Even worse, Mavrodes only solves the first half if we agree that “x can create a stone that x cannot lift” is really logically impossible, or that divine liftability is essential to a stone.
Perhaps Mavrodes’ still fails to answer the overall question of the coherence of omnipotence. What about evil? Can God do evil things? Mavrodes style of argument might get around this. Again:
If a task is contradictory to God’s nature, then it is logically impossible for God.
To question whether or not God can perform that task is to question whether or not God can do the logically impossible.
This argument works anything, including performing evil actions. But, this argument isn’t a good argument. The evil problem still seems to hold.
Mavrodes offers a final approach, namely the minimal restriction or revision of our understanding of God’s omnipotence through the dialectic. These problems then clarify for us the meaning of God’s power.
This final approach seems to handle both the stone and evil problem pretty effectively. I’m not sure if we give up anything substantial in accepting it either.
FRANKFURT:
One might take Frankfurt to be arguing that we should accept that God can do the logically impossible. If that is all he is saying, there is no reason to continue the argument. That alone defeats the “stone” objection. Frankfurt must be saying something else.
Frankfurt seems to like Mavrodes’ argument. Frankfurt seems to think he’s improving or modifying Mavrodes’ argument by relieving us of having to outright assume that God can’t do the logically impossible. This seems to be the actual structure of his argument when you boil it down:
Q = “God can do what is logically impossible”
Either Q or ~Q
Assume Q
God can create a stone too heavy for Him to lift.
God can lift a stone too heavy for Him to lift.
God is omnipotent
Assume ~Q
Mavrodes argument goes here.
God is omnipotent (assuming Mavrodes argument works)
Thus, God is omnipotent.
Note that critics ~Q. Frankfurt’s argument doesn’t seem to address that. Even the critic will agree that if Q, then the stone argument is pointless. The stone argument is based on the assumption of ~Q. Who is Frankfurt really arguing against? Nobody. We already knew what he told us. He doesn’t really contribute anything to the conversation.
Ultimately, he hasn’t improved or modified Mavrodes argument at all, especially in the eyes of the critic.
The paper is due October 6th.
You must submit both a print copy and a digital copy (used to check for plagiarism).
Papers will be 5-6 pages, double-spaced, no added space between paragraphs, using size-11 or 12 font Times New Romans, with 1” margins, pagination, in .docx formatting. Both a Title page and Bibliography are required (these aren’t included in the 5-6 page count).
Find an argument in the literature of this class which you think, from a philosophical perspective, is wrong, misguided, or lacking something important. I’d prefer you chose something you were passionate about. More importantly, you need to choose something for which you have (or will have) a good, opposing, philosophical argument. We’re not here to do scriptural exegesis or theology; you need to provide strictly philosophical reasons for why your opponent’s point of view is incorrect. You can write about any of the articles on the Concept and Attributes of God (see your syllabus), even the Rowe and Wierenga pieces we haven’t encountered yet.
Assume I am familiar with the target paper, its context, and whatever background is necessary. This is generally not the case in philosophical writing, but I don’t want you to waste our time with a façade. I want a bare-bones introduction, with no frills. Get to the point, and just tell me the argument, and what’s wrong it.
Spend 1-2 pages on exegesis: explain the argument. Your exegesis should be a very crisp, well-rehearsed, concise explanation of your target’s views. Use citations, and only use quotes when necessary (I’d avoid them, since you have so little space to work with). Do not strawman; be charitable. In your exegesis, do not import your own ideas or notions unless you are forced to fill in gaps of the target argument, and if you do, then explicitly state it! Make your target’s view look good, and do it in a compact way. If you can’t quickly and effectively summarize the material, that may indicate to me that you don’t have a mastery of it.
Spend 2-3 pages addressing a flaw in the argument. After you’ve made their view look good, then you need to demonstrate a problem with the target view. This should be well-crafted, and it must point out a significant flaw. That flaw may cascade into lots of problems. Point out the implications of the flaw.
Lastly, spend a bit of time providing a charitable interpretation of how your target would respond and argue against your claim. Is there a way out for your target? In attempting to construct a rebuttal to your claim, you will be showing me that you have a mastery of the general perspective your target brings to the table, but also an awareness of the weaknesses in your own claim.
If I had you write a 10-12 page paper, I think a significant portion of some of your papers would be filler. That’s partly why I’ve narrowed the page count to a mere 5-6 pages. Don’t be mistaken in thinking this is easier than writing a 10-12 page paper. It’s much easier to explain something in 10-12 pages than to explain the exact same thing in 5-6. I expect excellent short papers. In fact, I suggest writing a 10-12 page paper, and work on reducing it down to a 5-6 page paper. No filler. I want it to be action packed. Every word counts. If you can say the same thing in fewer words, then do so.
I expect it will be hard to get an A on these papers. But that’s okay. I’ve designed the class with that in mind. 30% of your grade comes from raw participation (which is an obscene amount), so you can still make an A in this class even if your papers are perfect. I’ll grade this midterm paper easier than the final paper.
PHIL-3010-01 – Fall 2014 Instructor: ...
Philosophy of Religion Office: TA room next to 105 Newcomb
MWF 3:00 – 3:50 PM Office hours: After class & by appointment
Newcomb Hall 120 E-mail: ...@tulane.edu
Book: Philosophy of Religion: An Anthology. 6th ed. by Louis P. Pojman and Michael Rea
Course Description: Philosophy of Religion is a rigorous study of foundational topics and ideas of God, religion, and theology. It is crucial to study philosophy of religion because religious belief and spiritual experience are significant and widespread phenomena in human societies. This class will focus on traditional Western religious concepts and perspectives. We will carefully analyze and explicate significant and influential philosophical arguments focusing on the concepts, attributes, and existence of God.
Program & Learning Outcomes:
Students become acquainted with a range of thinkers, topics, and approaches to philosophy.
In both classroom discussion and written work, students should demonstrate the ability to analyze ideas and present them clearly, providing arguments and evidence for their claims.
Specific Course Outcomes:
To become aware of and develop an appreciation for concepts in Western philosophy of religion.
To discuss and think about the philosophical issues in the development of Western religious thought.
Course Requirements & Grading:
In-Class Participation (10%)
Philosophy is not a passive endeavor. Students must attend and actively participate in class discussions. Students must offer pertinent comments and ask/answer relevant questions.
Always bring a copy (either digital or print) of the day’s reading assignment(s) with you to class.
Discussion Board (20%)
For every assigned reading, each student is required to write their own 150+ word post in the appropriate forum. You can either create a new thread (with a unique topic) or reply to one.
Each post needs to do some sort of philosophical work. You could explain a problem with the argument. You could wrestle with different ways to interpret the argument. You could consider the implications of the argument. In any case, you need to clearly demonstrate that you’ve actually read and thought about the assignment. Please write formal, grammatically correct sentences.
You can miss one discussion board post with no consequences. Stuff happens, so you get 1 freebie.
Midterm Exam/Paper (35%)
Writing prompts will be posted two weeks in advance of the due date (to be announced later).
You must submit both a print copy and a digital copy (used to check for plagiarism).
Papers will be 5-6 pages, double-spaced, no added space between paragraphs, using size-12 font Times New Romans, with 1” margins, pagination, in .docx formatting. Both a Title page and Bibliography are required (these aren’t included in the 5-6 page count).
Final Exam/Paper (35%)
Again, writing prompts will be posted two weeks in advance of the due date.
You will only submit a digital copy, and it must be submitted by 5:00pm on December 15th.
Same formatting requirements as the midterm exam/paper.
Lateness Policy: Unexcused late work will not be accepted. Unless excused, you will receive a failing grade on any forum posts or exams/papers which aren’t submitted on time.
Cheating & Plagiarism Policy: Plagiarism and cheating are obviously unacceptable. If I have evidence of either occurring, I will refer the case to the Honor Board. See: http://tulane.edu/college/code.cfm.
Office Hours & Contact: I encourage you to come to me with any questions you have related to the course material or your studies more generally. Please feel free to stop by or to schedule an appointment with me.
No Class on the Following Dates:
September 1st (Labor Day) October 10th (Fall Break) November 26th and 28th (Thanksgiving)
Content & Schedule: Reading assignments will be posted on Blackboard. Our schedule will be flexible and subject to change. I will announce assignments in advance. In this order, and at the pace that I see fit, we will cover as much of the following as we can over the course of the semester:
Concepts and Attributes of God
God and Time
Temporal Eternity – Boethius and Davis
The God Beyond Time – McCann
Omnipotence
Is God’s Power Limited? – Aquinas
Some Puzzles Concerning Omnipotence – Mavrodes
The Logic of Omnipotence – Frankfurt
Foreknowledge and Freedom
Divine Foreknowledge and Human Free Will – Augustine
God’s Foreknowledge and Human Free Will Are Incompatible – Pike
God’s Foreknowledge and Human Free Will Are Compatible – Plantinga
Can God Be Free? – Rowe
The Freedom of God – Wierenga
Existence of God
Ontological
The Ontological Argument – Anselm and Guanilo
A Critique of the Ontological Argument – Kant
Cosmological
Unmoved Mover – Aristotle
The Five Ways – Aquinas
The Argument from Contingency – Clarke
An Examination of the Cosmological Argument – Rowe
Teleological
The Watch and the Watchmaker – Paley
A Critique of the Design Argument – Hume
Theodicy and the Problem of Evil
The Argument from Evil – Hume
Theodicy: A Defense of Theism – Leibniz
Evil and Omnipotence – Mackie
The Inductive Argument from Evil against the Existence of God – Rowe
The Free Will Defense – Plantinga
Suffering as Religious Experience – Ekstrom
Some of our readings have been heavier in terms of their defense of God’s attributes than others. It’s part of my job, however, to demonstrate how critics push back. You need to be familiar with various approaches to the disagreement in order to have a deep understanding of the disagreement itself. If there are two sides, I want you to understand both. Sometimes our readings lean too heavily to one side and fail to cleanly and charitably show the other side’s point of view, and so I have to push back. That’s part of how we do philosophy though.
Similarly, when it comes to your papers, you need to be painstakingly charitable and precise in how you present your opposition’s point of view (which not all of our readings have done), but you also have to present a point of view and a substantive argument (which all of our readings have done). If you have fervent disagreement about something, that’s a prime candidate for a paper, where you can show your opposition’s point of view, an analysis, and your point of view.
Classically, God is thought to be omniscient: He knows everything (which can be known). Perhaps there are different ways to describe this.
One example: for every proposition (where a proposition is either true or false), God knows whether the proposition is true or false. Many accept this, but not everyone would accept this: Aristotle rejected the bivalence of propositions because of the problem we are about to face.
It isn’t easy to spell out exactly what counts as omniscience; heck, I’m not even sure how we should define “knowledge.” If I can’t define what it means for a human “to know” something, I’m scarcely in a position to define it for God. Beyond some of the more foundational problems in epistemology (which may or may not be a problem for an infallible believer or knower like God), there are many puzzles surrounding omniscience.
One significant challenge we face in understanding omniscience is comprehending what it means to say God knows the future or has foreknowledge. I considered before that propositions are either true or false. On such a view, a statement which doesn’t have a truth value isn’t a proposition. Maybe a command like: “Stop!” isn’t a proposition. Maybe a groan, like “ugh” isn’t a proposition. (They could; it all depends). Is this statement a proposition?
“The sun will rise tomorrow.”
Does it have a truth value? If it matters, does it have a truth value “now”? We all agree that if the sun comes up tomorrow, then it will be true that the sun rose the day after today.
More generally, do statements about the future have truth values? If so, presumably an omniscient God would know whether a proposition, like “the sun will rise tomorrow” is true or false. If it doesn’t have a truth value, then perhaps God wouldn’t “know” since there doesn’t seem to be anything to know. Not knowing the truth value of something which can’t have a truth value by definition wouldn’t seem to count against God’s omniscience.
However, God is classically thought to have knowledge of the future (especially if he transcends time), which seems to assume statements like “The sun will rise tomorrow” are propositions with truth values. Our brief consideration of the problems involved with God and Time only further complicate and bear upon the matter at hand.
Building on this problem, we can see difficulties in understanding the relationship between human freewill and God’s knowledge of the future, foreknowledge, and the choices resulting from freewill.
Now, exactly what we mean by freewill isn’t clear, and it has a world of problems on its own, but for now, let’s say that if you have freewill with respect to a choice, then that choice is “up to” you – whatever that entails or means.
Suppose Bob is considering majoring in philosophy.
Presumably, this is a choice Bob will make of his own freewill. It is up to Bob whether or not he will major in philosophy. Nothing else forces him; it’s his choice. Perhaps we mean:
It is possible that Bob will major in philosophy, and it is possible that Bob won’t.
If future-tensed statements are propositions with truth values, then the following proposition seems to be true or false now:
“Bob will major in philosophy.”
(*If we need to be technical, maybe we should index it to some point in space and time)
In fact, if this statement is a proposition, then it is now, has always been, and always will have a particular truth value.
Suppose the proposition “Bob will major in philosophy” is true.
Since God knows everything, including propositions about the future, then God knows this proposition. In fact, God will have known the proposition long after Bob is dead, and God knew this proposition before Bob was born, and God knew it before He created the universe. God has always and will always know this proposition.
Assuming a being can actually know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that “Bob will major in philosophy,” a few questions arise:
If Bob will major in philosophy, then can Bob possibly not major in philosophy?
Does God’s knowledge of this true proposition make that proposition necessarily true?
If it were possible for Bob to not major in philosophy, then does it make sense to say “it is without doubt true that Bob will major in philosophy” or “One can know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Bob will major in philosophy”?
Is Bob really capable of choosing not to major in philosophy?
For some intuitions, it isn’t clear how this choice is really “up to” Bob.
If Bob were to choose not to major in philosophy, then the proposition wouldn’t have been true, and God wouldn’t have knowledge of the proposition. Since we assume God has foreknowledge, then surely Bob can’t, in some sense, choose not to major in philosophy. If God is necessarily correct, then it seems like the proposition “Bob will major in philosophy” is necessarily true.
If it is necessarily true, then can Bob really have freewill? Some would say the proposition would need to be strictly contingent, and not necessary, in order for Bob to have freewill.
If Bob has freewill, and this choice was really “up to” him, it would seem that it was possible for Bob not to major in philosophy, but then would we really want to say God “knew” that Bob will major in philosophy, beyond of a shadow of doubt?
The major tensios here is between omniscience and freewill, where isn’t clear how both can obtain.
It seems as though assuming that God knows the future entails the claim that statements about the future are propositions admitting of truth values, and that may entail a kind of fatalism, which may entail there is no such thing as free will (particularly for the libertarian freewill theorist).
Going the other direction, assuming that we have libertarian freewill, then fatalism probably can’t be true, and future-tensed propositions can’t have truth values, and so God can’t know the outcomes of freewill. This may have a lot of influence on whether God knows the future though. Our free actions seem to have many consequences beyond us, and so many states of affairs rely upon what kinds of choices we made.
For example, if I made the free choice to leave my gas-stove on, and it ignited, blew up my house, and then started a huge fire in my neighborhood, and then some of my neighbors died, it isn’t obvious that God could know that my neighbors would die at that time or any other consequences. The consequences only continue to explode in a butterfly effect, and with it, the libertarian seems forced into calling into question God’s knowledge of propositions concerning these states of affairs.
Perhaps God knows everything else about the future untouched by freewill. Now, maybe 5 billion light years away, there is a place where no being with free will exist, and God can calculate how the laws of physics apply and what will occur in that region. That seems to be like something God would know. But, what if faster-than-light transportation was actually possible, then it might be that in theory (which is all the critic needs) nothing could be untouched by humans. But, if humans have freewill then perhaps little or nothing in the physical universe would be determined absolutely. But, if that’s the case, then it isn’t clear that God can know many propositions about the physical universe.
Before we move on, I want to distinguish a few ideas which are sometimes conflated but which we might want to tease apart:
Determinism (Causal)
Every event is necessitated by antecedent events and conditions together with the laws of nature.
Billiard balls hitting billiard balls, on a massive scale. (Yes, I realize that quantum mechanics doesn’t seem deterministic; but I want to remind you that physics hardly has a working, proven unified theory)
If you think persons are entirely physical beings, this may be a problem for certain views of freewill.
Fatalism – (Logical Fatalism)
We are powerless to do anything other than what we actually do.
This is due to the nature of propositions.
A problem for freewill
Foreknowledge – (Theological Fatalism) – if it is any different from regular fatalism
I’ve presented this problem of foreknowledge in terms of logical fatalism. God’s foreknowledge seems only to enforce the assumption that temporal statements are propositions.
Perhaps propositions operate differently for God (maybe He is transcendent in this way), and perhaps logical fatalism isn’t really the problem at hand. Instead, maybe there is a kind of at work here. I don’t know what that is though.
Maybe Boethius and Aquinas’ Timeless God may have this going for it.
If so, maybe this issue is less obviously a problem for freewill, but that may only be because the mechanics of timelessness, freewill, and propositions are so unclear. If they were clearer, maybe this would be a problem still for freewill.
One other major response to this problem is in how we define freewill.
Compatibilism
Acting freely is simply doing what one wants to do, even if our lives are determined or fated.
That is, our freedom and fatalism, determinism, or foreknowledge are compatible.
For example, maybe who I am is a very complex structure of chemical and electrical activity governed by the laws of physics. Assume determinism, and let’s say I have to do what I do because of the laws of physics. Under compatibilism, I’m still free if it was ultimately my chemical and electrical activity that led to my action.
This problem of human freewill and fatalism, determinism, or foreknowledge isn’t obviously problematic to a compatibilist.
Libertarianism
Acting freely is simply doing what one wants to do, but that assumes our lives are not determined or fated.
Our freedom and fatalism or determism are incompatible.
For a libertarian, if we are wholly governed by a set of deterministic laws of physics, then we aren’t free.
The libertarian thinks we have some kind of radical freedom, an ability to choose otherwise, beyond all conditioning, laws of physics, environments, or desires we have.
Ultimately, Libertarians deny fatalism and determism.
The question is whether or not the libertarian needs to deny God’s foreknowledge.
If foreknowledge leads to a kind of fatalism, then perhaps yes, the Libertarian seems forced to either sacrifice freewill or God’s foreknowledge of the outcomes and consequences of freewill.
Augustine
Dialogue, tribute imitation of Plato. Augustine ported over Platonism to Christianity, and 800 years later, Aquinas ported over Aristotelianism to Christianity. Plato and Aristotle, of course, had a very close relationship and their philosophical views are intertwined.
Augustine attempts to frame this problem in terms of a Chicken or Egg approach, Either:
Humanity’s sinning is necessary because God foreknew humanity would –or-
God necessarily foreknew humanity would sin because God knows the outcomes of choices of freewill
There seems to be a kind of causal structure embedded in this approach. I don’t know if that is right. The fatalist is making more of an epistemic rather than ontic argument, and Augustine seems to gloss over that.
Perhaps Evodius is interested in understanding how God isn’t culpable for evil (assuming omniscience, God’s omnibenevolence might be at stake). Evodius wants humans to be responsible for evil, but that requires they have freewill. He doesn’t see how they can have freewill if God has foreknowledge. If we don’t have freewill, then it seems like God would be responsible for evil. That is intolerable. At least initially, for Evodius, it seems like God’s omnibenevolence is to preserved and God’s omniscience set aside.
Evodius:
It can’t be that God foreknew something, and something else occurred.
God knew the first human would sin, thus nothing else could have occurred.
Corollary which is later denied: God could not have not made humanity, since God foreknew He would create them, and perhaps because God and His actions are necessary.
Lemma: Original Sin; God isn’t directly responsible for evil and suffering because humans chose to commit sins, not God, and the result of our sin is tainted human nature and great suffering which humans have brought upon themselves.
Since God foreknew the first human would sin, and then humans necessarily had to sin, then how is it this first human has freewill amidst the inescapable necessity of the outcome?
More broadly, if all things are necessary because God foreknows them, then how is freewill possible?
This seems to assume the libertarian stance.
Augustine:
Evodius, you worried about these proposition being inconsistent:
(1) God has foreknowledge of the everything
Foreknowledge seems to imply necessity.
(2) We sin by the will, not by necessity
Freewill seems to imply possibility, non-necessity
How can the outcomes of our choices be both necessary and non-necessary at the same time?
Foreknowledge and freewill stand in tension. Maybe both can’t be true at the same time.
Evodius:
Anything God foreknows happens by necessity and not by freewill.
God foreknows His own action.
Augustine:
If God foreknows His own actions, then His actions happen by necessity and not by freewill.
Evodius:
God’s will is eternal; it doesn’t come into being.
God doesn’t administer anything by a new act of will.
Augustine:
Suppose you will be happy a year from now.
Since that truth is necessary because God knows it, then on your view, God will have caused you to be happy.
I worry this causal structure is too strong. This seems to be discussing determinism, not fatalism.
The happiness God gives you takes place by necessity and not by your will.
Evodius:
If it were up to me, I’d be happy right now (who wouldn’t?).
Since I can’t will myself into happiness, then it must be God who does it.
This is very weird, talking about the willing of happiness.
Augustine:
Many things happen of necessity and not by our will.
However, it would be crazy to say “We do not will by the will”?
Therefore, God foreknows what we are going to will, but that doesn’t mean we didn’t will by our will.
This seems to beg the question: If you agree that you willed and that God foreknew it, and there is nothing to argue about.
Why should this argument resolve the doubts of someone who doesn’t immediately agree that God has foreknowledge?
When you do become happy, it is in accordance with your will, not against it.
Even if God knows you will be happy, it doesn’t mean that you will be happy against your will.
Sounds almost compatibilist to me.
PIKE
Pike is developing Boethius’ germ of an argument by considering a selection of certain assumptions, doctrines, and principles clustering around notions of knowledge, omniscience, and God which, when brought together, demand the conclusion that if God exists, no human action is voluntary.
He doesn’t consider whether or not the assumptions are acceptable. He’s asking for slack. Let’s give it to him.
Section I, Subsection A
What is knowledge?
Assumption 1: An instance of knowledge logically implies the truth of the believed proposition.
Where x is the domain of propositions:
For all x, Knows(a, x) -> [Believes(a, x) ^ x] (where x is a proposition)
Where “X” is a proposition with a truth value, for all instances of knowledge, if “A knows X,” then “A believes X” and “X”. If the antecedent is true, then the consequent has to be true. So, if “God knows X,” then “God believes X” and “X.”
What does it mean to say: “God cannot in anything be mistaken”?
Assumption 2: Omniscience beings are infallible; i.e. they hold no false beliefs.
For all x, Believes(Omniscient(a), x) -> x
Assumption 3: God is, by definition, essentially, and necessarily, omniscient.
Therefore, from 2, God is by definition, essentially, and necessarily, infallible.
Note that someone could deny this assumption. The assumption claims that if a being were to lack omniscience, then the being isn’t God, by definition.
For all x, Believes(God, x) -> x
Just to be clear, Pike has not shown a relationship between assumption 1 and assumptions 2 and 3.
Can we deduce: “All the beliefs of God are count as knowledge”?
For all x, Believes(God, x) -> Knows(God, x)
No! We can’t deduce this. The assumptions do not show God has knowledge.
What Pike calls the second principle answers two question:
What is the scope of God’s knowledge?
From what stance or perspective does God have this knowledge?
Assumption 4: An omniscient being knows everything.
Therefore, God knows everything.
Well, what does “everything” mean? Is it simply all propositions?
For all x, Knows(God, x)
Or, is it weaker than that?
Assumption 5: An omniscient being’s knowledge of everything, at the very least, includes knowledge of all propositions concerning events and circumstance in time.
Therefore, God has knowledge of all temporal propositions. Note, the claim doesn’t imply anything about God’s knowledge of timeless propositions.
Assumption 6: God knows temporal propositions from temporal eternity.
God is temporally eternal. Of course, this leaves Pike’s critic open to going the other direction, and claiming God is timelessly eternal, which may be damaging to Pike’s argument. Again, Pike is only considering a specific set of assumptions, nothing more. That is very modest.
So, given Pikes assumptions, we have assumed God is an omniscient, infallible, temporal being who knows all temporal propositions. Further, given the first assumption about the nature of knowledge, we’ve assumed that God knowledge of all temporal propositions is not only a claim about God’s beliefs, but also the claim that these temporal propositions are true.
We might think, at this point in Pike’s argument, that two claims might follow (although Pike seems to reject at least one of them):
Human choices and actions are known to God. The truth or falsity of temporal propositions regarding human choices and actions are known in advance by God.
If God’s existence is necessary, then His knowledge of temporal propositions, by definition, is necessary. Given God’s infallibility and the definition of knowledge we’ve assumed, God’s necessary knowledge of all temporal propositions also logically implies the necessity of the truth values of all temporal propositions.
Section I, Subsection B
Last Saturday, Jones mowed his lawn
God knew Jones would mow his lawn 80 years before Jones did.
It was true over 80 years ago that Jones would mow his lawn.
Arguably, necessarily true.
Jones could not (lacked the power to) refrain from mowing his lawn last Saturday
To be able to refrain from doing so would mean it was possible for God to be wrong. It would mean God didn’t have knowledge.
This doesn’t seem like a causal argument. God’s knowledge didn’t cause Jones not to have the ability. Given our assumption, it is just a fact of what it means for God to have foreknowledge. This is a conceptual matter, not a causal one.
Pikes Schematic shows 3 ways to talk about Jones’ power not to mow his lawn:
It was within Jones’s power to do something that would have brought it about that God held a false belief.
Power to make God hold a false belief.
In this case, power to make God’s belief 80 years ago false.
It was within Jones’s power to do something that would have brought it about that God did not hold the belief.
Power to change or make God not hold a belief
Power to change or prevent God’s belief 80 years ago.
It was within Jones’s power to do something that would have brought it about that any who person who held the belief had held a false belief, and therefore wasn’t God.
Power to make God not God.
Power to make it so God’s belief was false, i.e. making it so God wasn’t God 80 years ago.
Admittedly, 1 and 3 look similar.
None are plausible because Human actions don’t alter prior states of affairs. It especially might not make sense to talk about Jones’ having a power over God’s belief.
Thus, Jones’s lack of power to refrain should be taken as a lack of freewill for this action. Jones didn’t mow his lawn voluntarily.
Pike doesn’t give us a definition of voluntary directly, but he seems to agree to the libertarian view: freewill is the ability or power to do otherwise, to do other than one did.
Since Jones lacked this power for mowing his lawn last Saturday, Pike thinks Jones’ lacked freewill with respect to mowing his lawn last Saturday.
Again, I want to emphasize that God’s foreknowledge isn’t causal. God’s foreknowledge doesn’t cause Jones to mow his lawn last Saturday. God’s foreknowledge only demonstrates a lack of Jones’ causal powers, nothing more.
Of course, if Pike is right about this particular instance, then all instances of human choices and actions are involuntary.
Section I, Subsection C
Pike says his argument doesn’t talk about the cause of Jones’ action. It doesn’t matter what caused it or if there was a cause at all for Jones’ mowing his law. Pike thinks his argument remains unaffected by the cause of Jones’ action.
Pike isn’t showing what the cause of Jones’ action was, rather he’s showing what it can’t be, namely a freewill causing it.
Further, Pike says that if Jones’ did have the power to refrain from mowing, then Jones’ would have the mystical power to change the truth values of propositions in the past. That doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense to Pike.
Lastly, Pike confesses misgivings about the possibility of a claim that “it was true at T1 that E would occur at T2.” This may be misgivings about future-tensed propositions having truth values (he’s just not sure).
Pike says his argument only requires that God held a true belief 80 years ago, but not that the proposition God believed was true 80 years ago. The issue of whether or future-tensed statements are propositions with truth-values isn’t necessary to his argument, Pike believes. It seems as though Pike sees himself as making an argument for theological fatalism, but not logical fatalism.
Section II
Consider three comments on the problem of divine foreknowledge he thinks may be “instructively incorrect.”
Section II, Subsection A
This issue is very often cast in terms of modal-logical necessity. Pike argues the problem doesn’t have to be made on those grounds.
Leibniz considers attempts to sever the relationship between “what is foreseen” being unable to “fail to exist” and that “what is foreseen is necessary.” Leibniz thinks that claiming an event can’t fail to exist because there is foreknowledge of the event does not lead to the necessity of that event.
Necessary truth logically implies that the contrary of that necessary truth is impossible or implies a contradiction.
For Leibniz, propositions concerning human action aren’t absolutely necessary truths. Since God foresees these actions, however, they are hypothetically necessary truths. On Leibniz’s definitions, hypothetically necessary truths can be absolutely contingent, I suppose.
Pike goes on to interpret Augustine’s “necessity” in non-modal-logical terms, but simply in terms of voluntariness. Whether or not he’s correct about that interpretation, I’m not sure.
Pike is arguing:
If God has foreknowledge of human actions, then human actions are not voluntary.
P Q
Pike is not arguing:
If God has foreknowledge of human actions, then necessarily human actions are not voluntary.
P N(Q)
Pike re-makes his point in modal terms:
Assume it is contingently true that “Jones did X at T2.”
Then, it is contingently true that “God believes at T1 that Jones would do X at T2.”
Thus, it follows, it is contingently true that “at T2 Jones was not able to refrain from doing X”
Section II, Subsection B
Molina considers the chicken/egg issue, and declares because humans freely choose to do things God knows the results, not the other way around.
Pike agrees that whatever happens in the future, God knows it. It may be contingently true that the North won the civil war, and if it would have been otherwise, then God would have known it, according to Pike.
This is a weaker claim that Molina’s, but Molina, of course, would agree to it (although wouldn’t stop there).
Molina’s claim seems to entail that men’s action determine God’s cognitions. This is taken to be a violation of God’s immutability, God’s other-worldliness, and it seems to grant to men a kind of power of God which many people aren’t comfortable with.
Pike denies the coherence of the claim that God knew at T1 that Jones would freely mow his lawn at T2.
At the tail end of this subsection, Pike might be enforcing a modal-logical claim he denies earlier he’s making. I’m not sure. He says:
“It does not seem to be possible that God could have believed at T12 that Jones would freely do X at T2”
Section II, Subsection C
Schleiermacher and Augustine argued that the case of an intimate friend having foreknowledge of other’s actions has the same implications for determinism as the case of God’s foreknowledge of human actions. And further, determinism doesn’t follow from a friend’s foreknowledge. Therefore, neither does determinism follow from God’s foreknowledge.
Pike denies this. Perhaps we shouldn’t compare human foreknowledge to God’s foreknowledge.
Assume Smith is an intimate friend of Jones, and that Smith merely believes at T1 that Jones would do X at T2. We have no problem thinking that Jones was freely able to do X and to not-X at T2. In this case, Jones seems to have the power to either make Smith’s belief at T1 either true or false.
Suppose that Smith didn’t merely believe this proposition at T1, but actually knew it.
Assumption 7: Knowledge logically implies correctly believing (with evidence)
For all x, Knows(a, x) -> Evidence(a, x)
This is fascinating. Evidential definitions of knowledge usually concerned with the justification found in fallibilist accounts of knowledge. Yet, his beginning definition/assumption about knowledge hardly seems fallibilist.
Interestingly, Pike claims “there is nothing in the description of this case that requires the conclusion that it was not within Jones’s power at T2 to refrain from doing X.”
It does not follow from Smith’s foreknowledge at T1 of Jones’s action at T2 that Jones lacked freewill at T2. Jones very well may have had the power to do otherwise, but didn’t exercise it.
This case, however, is not analogous to God’s foreknowledge, according to Pike. In the case of God’s foreknowledge, there is no way in which the proposition God believes is in fact true but might somehow turn out to be false.
This really does sound like a modal-logical argument to me, which he denies employing. I want to challenge him on that.
Pike claims it is a conceptual truth that God’s beliefs are true. But, why can’t we say the same for Smith? Given Pike’s definition of knowledge, there is an incredibly strong logical implication between knowledge and the truth of the proposition. If Smith has knowledge, then conceptually, according to Pike’s initial definition of knowledge, the proposition of which Smith has knowledge must be true. I’m not sure Pike has cleaning divided the concept of God’s knowledge from human knowledge.
Pike is suggesting here that humans are fallible and God is infallible regarding beliefs, which is in perfect harmony with his introductory assumptions. But, he didn’t assume or argue that human knowledge (rather than mere beliefs) is fallible and God’s knowledge infallible. He actually seemed to argue at the very beginning that knowledge is conceptually infallible. If so, then Smith’s knowledge should be taken to be as infallible as God’s knowledge on Pike’s definition. I worry Pike might be trying to have it both ways, and at least so far, he’s not given us good reasons to grant him that.
Pike probably needs to either say in the beginning that he has different definitions of knowledge for humans and God, or he needs to say Smith’s knowledge has same the implications as God’s. I think Pike would go for the former. But, if that’s the case, I think his argument here doesn’t do much work for him; but, he appears to be under the illusion that it does.
So, Pike agrees with Schleiermacher and Augustine that determinism doesn’t follow from a friend’s foreknowledge. But, that’s because, by his new assumption, human knowledge is fallible, and thus there isn’t a necessary, conceptual link between human knowledge and truth of the known proposition. Hence, Pike disagrees with Schleiermacher and Augustine on the analogy between human knowledge and God’s knowledge.
Conclusion
Pike suggests his argument is valid, and that if we don’t want to accept his conclusions, then we need to throwaway at least one of his assumptions. This is a fun rhetorical device because it pits his opponents against a dilemma, where it may be distasteful to throwaway any of the assumptions Pike starts with.
Note that Pike has already made allowances for how his opponents can respond.
Plantinga
Plantinga rehearses an argument fairly similar to Pike’s, but instead of Jones mowing his lawn, we have Paul having an orange for lunch.
Plantinga thinks this argument sounds initially plausible, but is based upon a confusion.
In particular, that confusion is proposition (49):
“If God knows in advance that X will do A, then it must be the case that X will do A.”
Why should we think this is true? The defense:
“if God knows that X will do A, it logically follows that X will do A: it’s necessary that if God knows that p, then p is true”
Plantinga thinks 49 is ambiguous. He provides two possible clarifications:
(49a) “Necessarily, if God knows in advance that X will do A, then indeed X will do A”
N[Knows(God, x, a)->WillDo(x, a)]
(49b) “If God knows in advance that X will do A, then it is necessary that X will do A.”
Knows(God, x, a)->N[WillDo(x, a)]
If you recall, Pike seems to deny 49b, and he seems to take up 49a. Interestingly, Plantinga is claiming that 49b is the argument the critic requires. Plantinga thinks the defense support 49a, but not 49b. I’m not sure Plantinga has addressed Pike’s argument here. That said, Plantinga may actually be right.
Plantinga does find something novel about Pike’s argument: the claim that God is “essentially” omniscient.
Plantinga rehearses the Jones example and Pike’s schematic.
Plantinga has no quarrels with the schematic until premise 6, which he thinks warrants a closer look.
P -> [Q -> (1 v 2 v 3)]
~P v ~Q v 1 v 2 v 3
If God existed at T1 and God believed at T1 that Jones would do X at T2, then
P
[If it was within Jones’ power at T2 to refrain from doing X, then
Q
(Either
It was within Jones’ power at T2 to do something that would have brought it about that God held a false belief at T1,
or
It was within Jones’ power at T2 to do something which would have brought it about that God did not hold the belief He held at T1,
or
It was within Jones’ power at T2 to do something that would have brought it about that any person who believed at T1 that jones would do X at T2 (one of whom was, by hypothesis, God) held a false belief and thus was not God—that is, that God (who by hypothesis existed at T1) did not exist at T1.)]
P -> [Q -> (1 v 2 v 3)]
~P v ~Q v 1 v 2 v 3
~(P ^ Q) v (1 v 2 v 3)
(P ^ Q) -> (1 v 2 v 3)
Pike argues 1, 2, and 3 are not true. If his premise is true, and he’s correct in arguing ~1, ~2, and ~3, then either ~Q or ~P must be true
Plantinga breaks Pike’s argument down in a different way.
51 just is P ^ Q
[(P ^ Q) -> 1] v [(P ^ Q) -> 2] v [(P ^ Q) -> 3]
This is logically equivalent to Pike’s premise.
Plantinga then goes on to deny each of these conditionals. He’s saying, at the very least that P ^ Q are logically consistent with ~1 ^ ~2 ^ ~3. There must be some other explanation for Q, for Jones’ power to refrain from doing X.
He denies 51 (P ^ Q) entails 52 (1). Rather, he thinks 51 entails 52’. 52’ is more modest than 52, it says:
“It was within Jones’ power to do something such that if he had done it, then a belief that God did hold at T1 would have been false.”
But, 52’ isn’t paradoxical in Plantinga’s view, especially since it doesn’t imply that Jones’ unconditionally has some ability to make God’s belief false. There is that intervening “if he had done it” clause.
Plantinga gives us a modal-logical framework (recall, Pike isn’t trying to make a modal-logical argument, in view, although perhaps he is unknowingly making one):
Consider the actual world (A), where:
At T1, God believes Jones does X at T2
It is within Jones’ power to refrain from doing X at T2
Jones does X at T2
Consider some other possible world (W), where:
At T1, God believes Jones refrains from doing X at T2
It is within Jones’ power to refrain from doing X at T2
Jones refrains from doing X at T2
From this vantage, Plantinga think Jones’ ability to refrain from doing X doesn’t show that God would hold a false belief. God would simply have had a different belief.
Plantinga goes on to consider whether or not 51 entails 53. Plantinga re-interprets 53 with that intervening “if he had done it” clause again, and clarifies it as 53b:
“It was within Jones’ power at T2 to do something such that if he had done it, then God would not have held a belief that in fact he did hold”
He thinks this is just as innocent as 52’. A similar modal-logical example follows.
Plantinga moves onto 54. He injects the same “if he had done it clause” and clarifies with a modal-logical example.
Thus, Plantinga has denied each Pike’s conditionals. If Plantinga is right, then Pike’s argument poses no threat. Even Pike admits that if you deny one of his premises, then his argument folds.
Plantinga concludes by examining the source of confusion.
God’s omniscience might be essential to God, but the precise beliefs that God has aren’t essential to God. The properties of those beliefs are essential, namely, they are true and justified beliefs. But, the contents of those beliefs aren’t essential.
Thus, in examining a different possible world, God remains essentially omniscient, but may have different beliefs.
Rowe
Two preliminary points:
What conception of God is being presupposed when we ask whether or not God can be free?
Traditional Western - necessarily: exists, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient
Leaves out immutability and timelessness, as well a personal, providential, intervening God
Leaves out other hidden assumptions, such as God’s agency. He seems to probably outright deny this in his next preliminary point though.
With respect to what is God free?
“In some sense”, God is not free to do evil since He is perfectly good
Maybe are other senses Rowe leaves open here in which God is free to do evil while being perfectly good.
In the same “sense” that God isn’t free to not be a perfectly good being, Rowe claims God isn’t free to shed any of His “perfections” (these traditionally necessary attributes).
I worry Rowe might be making some overly-general, sweeping moves here.
Rowe thinks we are really “asking whether God is free with respect to creating a world.”
God’s creation-freedom is actually two freedoms which Rowe will question:
God was free to refrain from creating any world at all
God was free to create other worlds instead of the world he did in fact create
To some philosophers, this has strong implications, especially combined with omniscience.
Take Jones mowing his lawn as a contingent truth, a choice Jones makes. It seems this second aspect of creation-freedom entails, at least to some philosophers, that God could have created two worlds, one in which Jones mows the lawn, and one which Jones doesn’t.
Even if Jones has freedom in one sense, doesn’t God have some kind of overriding freedom to choose the outcome? Does this make God responsible for what happens in the world? Why did God create this world?
Why should we accept that God has creation-freedom if Rowe is correct in assuming that God doesn’t have moral agency? I worry there is an element of question begging here.
Rowe tips his hand, and he briefly introduces Leibniz’s notion that there is a best of all possible world, and that a perfect good being wouldn’t be free to create anything except the best of all possible worlds.
Before going into this argument, however, Rowe wants to clarify a few notions.
States of Affairs
Impossible (Actual in no worlds)
Possible (Actual in at least some worlds)
Necessary (actual in every world)
Contingent (actual in some worlds and not actual in other worlds)
Example of a state of affairs: I wasn’t late to class.
This is the actual state of affairs. Presumably, this state of affairs could have been different. The actual state of affairs need not be the actual state.
If it was possible that I was late to class, then some other possible state of affairs (the one where I’m late) could have obtained or been the actual state of affairs.
A contingent state of affairs may be actual or fail to be actual.
Not all possible states of affairs can fail to be actual
A necessary state of affairs must be actual.
A necessary state of affairs is true in every world
Since my not being late to class is not a necessary state of affairs, it is a contingent state of affairs.
My being late is not actual in some other possible world
Conversely, 2+2=4 is a necessary state of affairs. Obtains in every world. It isn’t contingent.
Notion of a possible world.
Two important relations among states of affairs:
Inclusion
A state of affairs S includes a state of affairs S* just in case it is impossible that S should obtain and S* not obtain.
E.g. My being late to class includes there being a class.
Preclusion
S precludes S* just in case it is impossible that S obtain and S* obtain.
E.g. My being here at 3:00 precludes my being at home at 3:00 (at the same time, in the same respect, etc.)
Maximality
A State of affairs S is maximal if for every state of affairs S’, S includes S’ or S precludes S’.
A possible world is simply a maximal state of affairs.
Some folks may not like this maximality definition. We are going to grant Rowe this definition for now.
Rowe wants to consider the value of possible worlds (remember: he’s trying to get to Leibniz’s notion of the greatest possible world). Before he can do that, he needs to talk about the value of states of affairs (the components of a possible world).
All else being equal, a state of affairs in which innocent beings do not suffer eternally is intrinisically and necessarily better than a state of affairs in which innocent beings do suffer eternally.
Rowe assumes that states of affairs can be intrinsically good, bad, or neutral. This requires we agree to concept of intrinsic value. Some people who do metaethics wouldn’t agree to the coherence or legitimacy of intrinsic value (and think they can do so without giving up some moral realism).
Rowe considers the inferences that “if God exists, then the world He creates would not include any intrinsically bad states of affairs.” He provides two traditional arguments against it:
Perhaps bad states of affairs are due to human freewill. But, if human freewill is ultimately good or required (maybe God would rather have free creatures who sin than robots), then the world God creates may have bad states of affairs.
The principle of organic unities
The intrinsic value of a whole may not be equal to the intrinsic value of the sum of each of its parts.
There is a gap between the whole value and the value of the parts. We don’t seem to know exactly how this gap works, but perhaps it makes sense.
Think of the Mona Lisa. Assume it is the perfect, intrinsically good painting. Perhaps when we examine some very small details in the Mona Lisa, we’d find what appear to be flaws and intrinsically bad details. However, if we changed those details to be better, maybe the painting wouldn’t overall be as intrinsically good.
The first argument might actually be a subset or an example of the second, depending on how we continued to develop this principle of organic unities.
Hence, a possible world with some bad parts may be better than a possible world with no bad parts. Rowe seems to concede that, at any rate.
Distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic value.
Intrinsic value of an object or state of affairs is inherent to that object or state of affairs.
Extrinsic value, however, isn’t inherent to an object or state of affairs.
Example of a person being unhappy
Intrinsically bad (something inherently bad about it in every case)
But, can be Extrinsically good
That person could have been unhappy in other circumstances where being unhappy isn’t extrinsically good
If my children are unhappy that they have to do the dishes, there is something intrinsically bad about that unhappiness, but there are extrinsic goods associated with that unhappiness in this case (gaining a sense of responsibility, a work ethic, participating in family and house life and unity, helping their parents, developing motor skills, developing life skills and preparing them for adulthood, etc.). And, further, the overall good of the situation seems well worth the initial intrinsic unhappiness they have.
Conversely, if my children were kidnapped, their unhappiness doesn’t seem to have any obvious extrinsic goods to it.
There some sort of wholes and parts relationships for intrinsic and probably extrinsic value, and Rowe doesn’t want to confuse those.
This section on intrinsic and extrinsic value is only scratching the surface of the tip of the iceberg. A non-trivial set of metaethical assumptions and work has to be done to make the leap which Rowe is about to make:
The intrinsic value of a possible world (a.k.a. a maximal state of affairs), reflects the values of the states of affairs contained in it. Exactly how this reflection operates, we aren’t sure. If this assumption is correct, then perhaps we can also compare the intrinsic values of different possible worlds. One possible world might be intrinsically better, worse, or equal to another.
Rowe now invokes Leibniz, and considers the notion that knowing the intrinsic values of the possible worlds guides God’s choice of what world to create. (Again, this is not a small assumption).
Rowe begins with the second creation-freedom: Was God free to create other worlds instead of the world he did in fact create?
I want to interject a bit and consider what it means for God to create a possible world. Perhaps God doesn’t create everything in a possible world. The necessary states of affairs, such as mathematics, aren’t obviously created by God, and yet they are ingredients of every possible world. Likewise, God may not have created himself, but presumably He would also be in every possible world (which means He is necessary). So, then is God essentially creating the set of all contingent states of affairs in a possible world? Rowe and Leibniz seem to think so.
I must confess, however, it isn’t clear to me what it means to say God can create possible worlds. In particular, a possible world contains the entire history of that world in it (that’s part of the maximal state of affairs claim). A possible world isn’t usually considered a “slice” of time. This is a problem.
It seems like before God would create a possible world, there already was a possible world, and He and other necessary truths were already a part of it. But, given our definition of possible world, the actual contingent truths also seem set. Every state of affairs which “will” become actual (for those of us who experience time) is already listed in a maximal state of affairs, a.k.a. a possible world. This model might be pre-emptively forcing fatalism on us (temporal propositions have truth values). Maybe that already makes everything bound and unfree.
Rowe doesn’t go this direction though. Maybe he thinks this route is too easy, or doesn’t work. If what I’ve said is incorrect, it would be nice to have an explanation of what kind of world existed “before” (whatever before means) God created this possible world. It would be nice to have an explanation of what it means to transition from that other kind of world (whether it is a possible world or something else) to a created possible world, and so on. This may be too much to ask of Rowe.
Further, I worry that it might be a mistake to conflate the notion of creating the physical universe and the notion of creating a possible world. If they are entirely distinct, then I’m not sure attacking the idea that God can’t create a possible world, rather than merely some set of states of affairs, like the physical universe, is all that productive. So, I’m not sure if I completely agree to the coherence of what it means for God to be free to create a possible world. I don’t know if the theist really needs or means that.
In any case, it certainly seems reasonable to talk about God creating or being responsible for creating states of affairs, including the states of affairs we call the physical universe. Even if a possible world may be larger than simply the physical universe, perhaps we could re-interpret Rowe’s and Leibniz’s argument simply in terms of the state of affairs we call the physical universe.
Back to Rowe’s argument: Was God free to create other worlds instead of the world he did in fact create? The general narrative seems to go like this:
Suppose God wants to create a world
Suppose God surveys all the possible worlds, and since he’s omniscient, he knows the relative values of these worlds. Some are bad worlds, some neutral, and some good.
Presumably, at least one world is the best of all possible worlds (maybe there are worlds tied for first place), and likewise, at least one world is the worst of all possible worlds.
Rowe assumes the value of a world should play a role in God’s selection of which world to create.
Rowe thinks it is obvious that an infinitely good being could not create a bad world.
Further, Rowe thinks it is obvious that an infinitely good being must create the best of all possible worlds.
Rowe considers the possibility that God isn’t morally obligated to create the best of all possible worlds (indeed, at this point it isn’t obvious Rowe thinks God is a moral agent who can be held morally responsible in the first place). Rowe thinks that even if it wasn’t a moral duty for God to create the best of all possible worlds, God’s omnibenevolence logically entails that God couldn’t do otherwise (lacked the freedom to not) create the best possible world. Whether a moral agent or not, for a perfectly good creator to choose to create less than the best world is inconceivable to Rowe.
Further (at on the bottom left of 115), Rowe seems to think that God’s nature logically entails that God would create a world rather than not create one, since presumably, not creating a world would bring about less good, and a perfectly good being would always try to bring about the maximum good. This isn’t substantiated here.
Hence, Rowe concludes, God, as a perfectly good being, necessarily must create the best possible world. Doing anything else would be doing less than the best He can do, which Rowe finds to be inconsistent with God’s nature. Rowe might be wrong about this inconsistency.
One worry I have:
What if God has infinite intrinsic value?
Does creating one possible world have any impact on actual intrinsic good?
Infinity plus or minus a finite amount (presumably worlds have finite values), is still just infinite value.
God would be maximizing value in creating any world on that view, and hence still might be free.
If God has infinite intrinsic value, I’m not sure if God would be “doing less” in creating a world which wasn’t better than another.
This section is messy!
What if there is no best possible world? (Aquinas)
Specifically, what if there is an infinite regress of increasingly valuable worlds.
Rowe responds by claiming these propositions are logically inconsistent:
God exists and created the world.
God must create the best possible world He can create.
For every world there is a better creatable world.
God wouldn’t be able to create a world then, since anything He created would be less than maximally good.
The first two premises seem to rule out the third premise.
Rowe introduces a foundational principle here:
“If an omniscient being creates a world when there is a better world it could create, then it would be possible for there to be a being morally better than it.”
Is this principle true? Rowe thinks it is plausible, if not self-evident. This principle further seems to assume:
“any being who knowingly does something less good than it could do falls short of being the best possible being”
Employing this principle alongside Aquinas’s claim and with the assumption that God is the best possible being: if this world isn’t the best world, then a perfectly good God doesn’t exist, since there would be a better possible world and hence a better possible being than God (which is impossible by our initial definition of God).
But, this problem disappears if we reject either Aquinas’ claim that “For every world there is a better creatable world” or we reject the principle or we reject the claim that God is a perfectly good being.
Rowe’s next move is to consider what can be said against this principle, since maybe rejecting it is the best way to solve the problem. Rowe offer’s Kretzmann’s rebuttal to the principle:
“Since we agree that failure to bring about what is logically impossible does not imply any limit on God’s power, we should also agree that failure to bring about what is logically impossible does not diminish God’s goodness.”
“Given that there is no best possible world, Kretzmann points out that it is logically impossible for God to create a world better than any other world He could create.”
This seems somewhat analogous to the stone argument concerning omnipotence. Should we agree that it is logically impossible for God to create a world better than any other world He could create?
Rowe claims Kretzmann appeals to the following principle (A):
If S is a logically impossible state of affairs, then the fact that a being does not bring about S does not entail that the being in question lacks power or perfect goodness.
Rowe agrees to (A) as self-evident. However, Rowe claims that if God fails to do what logically can be done, we may have a good reason to conclude God isn’t perfectly good. Rowe then offers us Principle (B) which is simply the foundational principle he offered us before:
If an omniscient being creates a world when there is a better world that it could have created, then it is possible that there exists a being morally better than it.
And, principle (B) implies principle (C):
If a being is essentially perfectly good, then it is not possible that there exist a being morally better than it.
Given these principles, Rowe believes the claim that no perfectly good being follows from Kretzmann’s first conclusion that God must create a world.
If some creatable world is better than any world God alone inhabits, then (from principle B) it appears that God must create some world.
On the other hand, from principle B, it follows that God can’t create a world if some other creatable world is better.
Thus, Kretzmann would conclude from principle B, that God must create a world and not create a world.
But, God can’t be charged with performing the logically impossible, which principle B is thought to require.
Therefore, principle B must be rejected.
Thus, Kretzmann is in a position to still claim that God exists and created the best possible world He can create (if you recall Rowe’s previous assessment of logically inconsistent premises).
Rowe responds to Kretzmann’s objection by claiming that principle B doesn’t lead to a contradiction, and thus avoids charging God with an impossible task. Rather, Rowe thinks, principle B simply leads to the conclusion that God doesn’t exist.
Rowe moves onto a refutation of Principle B from the Howard-Snyders.
Consider 3 hypothetical creators, Jove, Juno, and Thor.
Suppose Jove is an omnipotent and omniscient being who must create a world from an infinite number of increasingly better worlds. (perfectly good? Rowe leaves it out.)
Joves is good, and has no interest in create a world that isn’t good. This is different from the claim that Jove wants to create the best of all worlds. Jove just doesn’t want to create a bad world.
Let’s say Jove’s selection process was via a randomizing device, which selected from an enumerated list of the worlds. Suppose Jove’s device selects world 777, and Jove creates it.
Jove could have created a better world.
The Howard-Snyders think it does not follow that it is logically possible that Jove is morally surpassable.
So, if Thor and Juno produce morally better worlds, that doesn’t make them morally superior beings to Jove.
Rowe responds:
Say Juno uses her randomizing machine and selects world 999.
Rowe agrees that Jove and Juno are morally equivalent, since presumably the device could have simply picked any arbitrary “good” world out. It was “blind luck” that Juno picked 999.
Suppose Thor doesn’t use a randomizing device selects world 888 because it is better than 777.
It seems that Thor is morally superior to Jove since Thor wasn’t prepared to settle for world 777 unless he was unable to create a better world.
But, Jove was clearly prepared to settle, even if was able to create a better world.
Thus, Thor is thought to be morally superior to Jove because Thor wouldn’t settle for the amount of goodness that Jove would.
The Howard-Snyders respond:
The account of Thor is incoherent, since it isn’t clear on what principle Thor acts from.
Suppose Thor’s reason was this:
If world W is better than world W-1, then W-1 is unacceptable for creation.
If a being accepts and applies this generalized principle, and there an infinite regress of better worlds, then a being couldn’t create from this principle.
Hence, Thor’s account is incoherent.
Rowe responds:
That isn’t the principle on which Thor is thought act.
That makes sense, since Rowe agrees to the generalized principle the Howard-Snyder’s give, and yet Thor is said to act (thus it couldn’t have been from the reason the Howard-Snyder’s give).
That’s kind of Rowe’s point, right?
Since Thor is omniscient and created a world, then he couldn’t have followed the principle.
Thor is essentially choosing at random, but barring anything below 800 because they just aren’t good enough.
But, why aren’t they good enough? There needs to be a principle for that.
So, Rowe thinks his account remains coherent and shows how Thor is morally superior to Jove (and Juno).
Rowe claims that Thor and Jove act on the same principles:
(P1) Only create a world which is good
(P2) Do not create a world whose goodness is less than what one judges as acceptable, given that one can create a better world.
Thor and Jove have different standards of acceptable goodness, provided there is a better world. Jove’s baseline is 1, and Thor’s is 800, provided there are worlds better than these baselines (and there are, by supposition).
Rowe denies the Howard-Snyders’ charge that Thor and Jove don’t act on the same principle(s). Rowe think P1 and P2 are the principles upon which Thor and Jove act.
But, the Howard-Snyders seem correct: there is an obvious principle missing. What principle is used to select the standards or baseline of acceptable goodness? Clearly, Thor and Jove are using a different principle to select this baseline, and that baseline seems to be doing all the work.
The Howard-Snyders oddly argue that Thor is using an infinite set of standard-making principles, and Rowe goes on a diatribe against this. Note that Rowe denies his argument requires an infinite set of standard-making principles, but vitally, he fails deny there is at least some principle for standard-making. That’s a big mistake I think.
This seems to be the flaw in Rowe’s explanation. If Rowe is wrong, then it isn’t clear that Rowe undermines the Howard-Snyders’ argument, which Rowe needs to do in order to justify the truth of Principle B.
Oddly, Rowe re-uses a name, A or Principle A (we’ll call it the new Principle A, since Rowe fails to cleanly distinguish it), and claims theists hold Principle A:
It is logically possible both that for any creatable world there is a better creatable world and that there exists and omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good being who creates one of these worlds.
Rowe admits that the Howard-Snyders have advanced an argument which doesn’t beg the question.
He considers the fact that the Howard-Snyders’ example “leaves as an open question whether Joves’ goodness can be unsurpassable.”
He asks us if “we have some good reason to think that an omnipotent, omniscient creator of a better world than #777 may be better than Jove.”
Rowe thinks the answers “depends on the reason such a being has for creating a better world than #777.” Jove and Juno both used randomizers. Their reasons for selection were the same. Hence they are equivalent. But, Thor had higher standard of acceptable candidates, and that is a reason to think Thor is better than Jove.
Rowe points out how he isn’t begging the question in one case. Namely, “if we had simply concluded that Jove’s goodness is surpassable because Jove could have created a world better than #777,” we’d be begging the question by appealing to Principle B (which is what Rowe was arguing for in the first place).
Principle B does a lot of work for Rowe. If we take up Aquinas’ claim that “for each world there is a better one,” then Principle B is used to show how there is no God, since principle B would demonstrate that God can’t create worlds, which would show God doesn’t exist (since there is a world).
Along with either the fact that this world exists or the claim that creating some world is better than not creating a world at all, Principle B is supposed to block the Aquinas defense, and perhaps even the broader claim that no world is the best possible creatable world (which the Howard-Snyders take up). This isn’t, however, the only intended effect of accepting Principle B. Principle B buys Rowe something much stronger. In accepting Principle B, and the claims that God exists and God created the world, we can deduce the Leibnizian claim: “our world is the best of all possible worlds.”
Rowe considers what he believes are counts as theist’s motivation for arguing that there is no best possible world:
To avoid limiting God’s freedom in creating
Again, traditionally, theists are in the habit of maximizing the conception of God’s perfections, transcendence, and freedoms. Rowe’s pointing this habit out a bit.
If God must create the best world He can make, and there is a best possible world, then God can only create that world. Many people might take that to be an unfortunate limit on God’s power.
If God must create the best world He can make, but there isn’t a best possible world, then maybe we avoid putting limits on God’s freedom.
To avoid the burden of defending the Leibnizian thesis that this world, with all its evil, is a world than which a better creatable world is not even a logical possibility.
That one seems tricky. It isn’t immediately obvious that a freewill defense could save the theist’s argument if the Leibnizian thesis true.
All of this rides on accepting this unsubstantiated theory of creating possible worlds though, and on a doubtable metaethical theory of intrinsic value of possible worlds.
Rowe considers Morris’ attack on the Leibnizian thesis, and essentially, the defense of the claim that no world is the best possible world. Morris notes two immediate difficulties in this Leibnizian thesis:
Perhaps we should doubt there is “a single scale on which all creaturely values can be weighted so as to determine what world possesses the maximum amount of value”
i.e. Maybe we can’t rank the intrinsic values of states of affairs or possible worlds.
For any world containing “a certain number of goods, n, there is always conceivable a greater world with n + 1 goods, or good creatures.” Thus, it seems impossible there could be a single best possible world.
This may just be the Aquinas defense.
Like the Howard-Snyders and Kretzmann, Morris wants to show that there is no incoherence in the idea of a perfectly good creator creating a world when there is no best world for that being to create. Morris thinks any appearance of incoherence is just an illusion. To get at this illusion of (but not actual) incoherence, Morris introduces the Expression Thesis:
The goodness of an agent’s actions is expressive of the agent’s goodness.
Which Rowe is inclined to take as underlying Principle B. The Expression Thesis seems to suppose:
An agent’s motive for performing the good action is to bring about a good state of affairs.
Without supposing this motive, we have no reason to think that the goodness of an agent’s action-measure in terms of the quality of its result-is expressive of the agent’s goodness.
If we apply the expression thesis to a being who knowingly brings about less good than it could, we should deduce the being is less good that it could have been.
Rowe then seems to levy the same attack against Morris’ argument as Rowe did against Kretzmann, namely, holding God accountable for doing the logically impossible. Morriss thinks the notion of a perfect expression of an unsurpassable character is itself incoherent.
Rowe reiterates that if a best world is logically impossible, then God’s not creating an impossible best world does not count against God’s perfect goodness. What counts against God’s perfect goodness is His creating a world when He could have created a better one.
Rowe doesn’t charge God with the impossible, but rather he charges God with being not perfectly good. Rowe thinks if there is no best possible world, then if God creates a world, then He could have a created a world which was better, which makes God not perfectly good. But, since God is perfectly good by definition, Rowe is claiming there is no God.
Rowe distinguishes between three principles:
Failing to do the best one can is a defect only if doing the best on can is possible for one to do.
Failing to do better than one did is a defect only if doing better than on did is possible for one to do.
Failing to do better than one did is a defect only if doing the best one can is possible for one to do.
Rowe claims the first two are true, but the last false, and further that this last one, c, is what Morris needs to make his argument.
Suppose you are an omnipotent, omniscient being contemplating the natural numbers, and also an infinite series of good worlds, with each natural number corresponding to the rank of the intrinsic value of a world.
You see there isn’t a best possible world to create
You know that if you create a world, then an infinite number of worlds will be better than it.
Suppose you create the least good world, world 1, even though you can see it is significantly worse than 1000, or 1 million, and so on.
Rowe thinks it obvious that you’ve displayed a degree of goodness that is less than perfect because you chose the least good world of an infinite series of increasingly good worlds.
Rowe thinks the push back is that since there wasn’t a best possible world, then we think we would be justified in creating the least good world, and that one shouldn’t have doubts about our perfection.
This isn’t anything new. Rowe is being redundant at this point. Rowe keeps saying his point is obvious, and that his opponent’s conclusion is false or absurd. Maybe it is, I don’t know. I fear we are we are stuck here, and he is now pointing at a conclusion and hoping we see what he sees (which is sometimes all we can do).
Rowe concludes:
The only creatable world consistent with God’s perfection is a best of all possible worlds.
An infinite series of increasingly better worlds is logically inconsistent with God’s perfection (either because there is a world we live in or because, as Rowe assumes, God must create something rather than nothing).
Further, the necessary existence of God (and not simply his perfect nature) is logically inconsistent with the mere possibility of an series of increasingly better worlds.
Essentially, if God has necessary existence and perfections, then the only possible, non-actual worlds are worlds God can create.
Just as God can’t create a bad world, he can’t create less than the best possible world, and hence there can’t be an unending series of increasingly better worlds if God exists.
Morris seems to be with Rowe on this delimiting or metaphysically ruling out of these various conceivable worlds, particularly when it comes to bad worlds, however, not when it comes to good ones. Rowe and Morris are both saying the bad conceivable worlds are simply not genuinely possible if there is a God, but Rowe extends this reasoning to the infinite series of good ones as well.
God’s necessity rules out the possibility of the infinite series of good worlds.
This is interesting, since God’s necessity plays a strong role in the inclusion and preclusion functions necessary for mapping out the maximal state of affairs for each possible world. Morris, at least for bad worlds, would agree this mapping from necessity restricts the set of possible worlds. And, Rowe agrees and just extends it.
This is a bit weird, of course, because possible worlds seemed to have to do with conceivability. Now Rowe has introduced really possible, possible worlds, with God’s necessity being forced in each of them, doing some inclusion and preclusion work which reduces the number of maximal states of affairs.
This weirdness should be okay to the theist though. For example, we might also delimit worlds on the necessity of 2+2=4 as including and precluding other states of affairs.
Rowe continues this delimiting argument. He says “what is sauce for the goose (Morris) is sauce for the gander (Rowe). Just as one might approach the problem as God being a delimiter of possibilities, we might also see the set of possibilities as delimiting necessities. Rowe says the theists begins with necessity of God, and delimits out the possible bad worlds, and atheist begins with the possibility of bad worlds, and delimits the necessity of God.
In any case, Rowe concludes that:
If God exists, the actual world is the best possible world.
That’s the conclusion Rowe desperately wants to get everyone to agree to. He thinks once that is accomplished, the rest of the work is downhill from there. He calls this the seed of another argument against the existence of God. For, in Rowe’s eyes, this can’t be the best of all possible worlds.
Wierenga
Wierenga’s writing is a like a soothing balm. He also spends a lot of time developing other people’s arguments, and not so much time on his own.
Opens by considering how foreknowledge might pose a problem not only for human freedom, but also God’s freedom. In some sense, the problem of foreknowledge puts humans and God in the same class of beings; the class of beings whose choices God foreknows. Wierenga, like Rowe, wants to consider a problem which only belongs to God, which is due to the differences rather than similarities between humans and God.
Unlike humans, God is essentially omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good. What “seems” to follow from these attributes:
If in circumstance C, God knows action A is the best action (since He’s omniscient), then God would want to do A (since He’s perfectly good), be able to do A (since He’s omnipotent), and thus would do A in C.
Weirenga breaks this claim into stages (1), (2), and (3):
In C, A is the best action for God to do
In C, God knows that A is the best action, wants to do A, and is able to do A.
If in C, God knows that A is the best, wants to do A, and is able to do A, then God does A in C.
This “seems” to be a necessary truth. From this “a problem looms”:
If God is ever in such a circumstance, it would seem that he is unable in those circumstances to refrain from performing the action in question.
Wierenga takes up what he considers to be a libertarian freewill stance. From this position:
He will consider a solution concerning how God need not do what is best.
Then, he will consider the response that God sometimes finds Himself in circumstances in which there is no unique best action, where there seems to be a range of cases in which He is free.
Finally, Wierenga offers his own solution that challenges assumptions in libertarianism. Presumably, in redefining freewill, Wierenga will be in a better position to defend the claim that God has freewill.
Section I – Must God Create the Best?
Adam’s approach:
One way to avoid the problem of divine freedom is to deny that God must do what is best.
Even if there is a best possible world, God can create something else and still be perfectly good.
Adams denies the inferences from stage (1) to (2).
In C, A is the best action for God to do
In C, God knows that A is the best action, wants to do A, and is able to do A.
How can we deny this inference?
In C, it really seems obvious that an omniscient being knows that A is the best action.
Else, we might need to deny God’s omniscience.
Further, if God does has freedom, has actual alternatives and choices open to Him, which may be a part of omnipotence (it isn’t clear), then it seems like He must be able to do A.
Else, we might need to deny God’s freedom and/or omnipotence
That leaves us with the final claim, that in C, God wants to do A.
Adam denies that it logically follows from God’s perfect goodness that God wants to do A.
Wierenga explains:
Adams concedes that “by utilitarian standards it is a moral obligation to bring about the best state of affairs that one can,” but he rejects those standards in favor of ones he takes to be “more typical of Judeo-Christian religious ethics.”
I gave you an explanation before about a classical distinction between what is right/wrong and what is good/bad. Some ethical theories assume different relationships between the right and the good.
For utilitarianism, whatever act maximizes the good just is the right act. Imagine a list of available actions or states of affairs with corresponding intrinsic values. Some actions or states of affairs have more intrinsic value or utility than others. According to the utility principle, whichever one has the highest intrinsic value is the one which an agent is morally obligated to choose. Hence, the gap between the right and the good is very small in utilitarianism.
If God doesn’t create the best possible world, and utilitarianism is true, then it seems that God has done something morally wrong. That’s why Adams makes the concession he does.
That conclusion might be oversimplifying utilitarianism. But, even if it isn’t, maybe utilitarianism isn’t correct.
Many, if not most, philosophers, however, don’t agree to pure, no-holds-barred utilitarianism. There are other well-thought-out theories about what is right which aren’t so closely linked to the good. In fact, some metaethical views (such as certain interpretations of Kant) hold that the right precedes and defines the good rather than the other way around.
On these non-utilitarian views, maximizing the good isn’t always the right thing to do. So, on these other theories, maybe it is possible to explain how God isn’t doing anything morally wrong if He doesn’t maximize the good. I.e. Depending on our view of ethics, we might be able to explain how God is still doing the perfectly right thing even if He doesn’t create the world with maximal intrinsic value.
Adams is said to first consider “the possibility that failing to actualize” the best possible world would involve the violation of rights, or unkind treatment of, or harm of someone in that uncreated possible world.
But, Adams argues that God might only have obligations to actual people, not possible people (this is an interesting step, and I worry it has a ton of implications). If that is correct, then God couldn’t violate rights or harm some hypothetical person by not creating their world.
However, Adams goes onto argue that for some of the non-best possible worlds, God wouldn’t be harming anyone if he created these worlds.
Adams goes onto claim that God could actualize a world having the following features:
None of the individual creatures in it would exist in the best of all possible worlds
Else, it would have been better for those creatures if God made the best of all possible worlds
None of the creatures in it has a life which is so miserable on the whole that it would be better for that creature if it had never existed.
This rules out some of the non-best possible worlds, but probably not all of them.
Every individual creature in the world is at least as happy on the whole as it would have been in any other possible world in which it could have existed.
This also rules out some of the non-best possible worlds, but probably not all of them.
To me, this list demonstrates a remarkably consequentialist (even if not outright utilitarian) position. I’m not sure if that is a good thing or not. Admittedly, (i) and (iii) seem redundant. I’m not sure why they aren’t.
As long as these conditions are met, Adams thinks God could actualize the world while remaining perfectly good.
These conditions kind of make sense. In such a world, none of the creatures could have been better off in any other possible world, and their lives are worth living. The creation of such a world can’t be wrong on any grounds concerning the creatures of such a world.
So, it may be possible for God to create a non-best possible world and not do anyone any harm of violate any rights. This may leave open the possibility that God could still be doing the morally right thing in creating a world which isn’t the best possible.
Oddly, even a utilitarian might not be against this picture that Adam gives us.
The question is whether or not there is an opportunity cost in creating a world. What if God can only create one? If that is true, then a utilitarian view would obviously be against it. If not, then I don’t see why the utilitarian would necessarily have to be against it. The non-utilitarian may still be in a position to accept that God could create a world with less intrinsic value than others He could have made, just as long as those basic principles weren’t violated.
Of course, all this talk rides upon computing intrinsic value of the world in terms of the creatures it contains. That might not be how it works.
The second move Adam’s makes is to consider whether choosing to make a world less good than God could have made reveals a defect in character; a lack of virtue. Virtue theory is usually considered a moral theory that is non-utilitarian.
Adam considers the virtue of Grace, defined as “a disposition to love which is not dependent on the merit of the person loved.” Perhaps a gracious God could choose to create and love creatures who aren’t as intrinsically valuable or excellent as God could have made.
One problem is that virtues aren’t always obviously compatible. Grace might be compatible with God’s creating a non-best possible world, but perhaps other virtues aren’t.
Wierenga initially worries it is difficult to see how grace makes a difference in the value of a world. But, he considers how God may exercise more graciousness with less perfect creatures. This reminds me of a joke which has a more obscene punchline than I’m going to express, and goes something like: “If you don’t sin, maybe God’s grace is for nothing – and you wouldn’t want that, now would you?” By some odd twist, that kind of reasoning seems to be employed here.
We even consider felix culpa, this notion that God’s graciousness with a world full of sin results in a greater good than a world with no sin and less grace. Perhaps God is compelled not to create the best possible creatures and rather corruptible creatures who need grace. Maybe? I don’t know.
Even Wierenga recognizes that we lack an account of what gives worlds their value, particularly with respect to the goodness of the creatures and value of grace with respect the total value of the world in this case.
But, the point isn’t to demonstrate exactly what motivates God, but simply to cast a shadow of doubt on the claim that God is conceptually bound to creating the best of all possible worlds. Adams is giving some avenues for enabling that doubt.
II. A Range of Choices
While Adams denies the inferences from (1) to (2), but Swinburne and Flint go accept the inferences from (1) to (2) and perhaps to (3).
Swinburne and Flint describe cases in which God is presented with a range of choices to freely choose from.
Swinburne (and essentially Flint) assumes that God will take “the” or “a” best action, and considers the case in which there are multiple equal best actions. Swinburne thinks God will select one of them. Hence, God seems free to make a choice in this case, even if it is a free choice among a limited range of choices, a limitation imposed by his perfectly good nature.
If I recall correctly, Rowe doesn’t have much to say about this “tie” case of best worlds. At first glance, It seems to be a monkey wrench for him.
The second case makes two assumptions:
There is no best possible world, only an infinite set of increasingly better or worse worlds
It is better to create a world than not.
In such a case, Swinburne seems to think, unlike Rowe, that God’s perfectly good nature wouldn’t dictate which world to choose from this infinite range (but it would dictate that God would have to create one of them). Thus, at least on Swinburne’s view, God has a choice here.
Rowe’s disagreement isn’t that these cases of possible worlds aren’t inconceivable, but rather, they aren’t conceivable if there is a God. Rowe simply thinks that certain structures of the various possible worlds are incompatible with the concept of God.
Wierenga asks a great question:
“Why should whether a being is perfectly good limit the structure of what situations it can face?”
Wierenga then considers Rowe and Quinn’s argument, principle B, which basically states that if a being could have created a better world than it did, then the being isn’t morally perfect.
The only thing which Rowe seems to add to Quinn’s argument is preventing God from being in the position in which there are an infinite series of increasingly better worlds.
Wierenga points out that this assumes: “if it possible for someone to be morally better than x, then x is not morally perfect.” This is an interesting definition of perfection, since it seems to lower the bar somehow. Some morally perfect beings might be better than other morally perfect beings if the assumption if false. I’m not sure if that makes sense or why it is so far from obvious to Wierenga.
Wierenga goes back to the Howard-Snyder’s case, and instead casts the example in terms of impermissible and permissible worlds. This is interesting (and I think Rowe would claim it is a sleight of hand in language). To say something is morally impermissible is to say it is always wrong to choose it (we have a perfect duty not to choose it). To say something is morally permissible just is to say you won’t be doing anything wrong in choosing it. Presumably, if caught between various permissible options even a perfect being is free to choose from among them. No option is morally more correct than another (even if those options have different rankings of intrinsic good). I worry casting the Howard-Snyder’s case like this begs the question against Rowe (although, perhaps both sides are begging the question).
Wierenga flips the problem around though, and he worries that just as there might be no best of all possible worlds, there might also be no least acceptable world.
Oddly, one end of the spectrum seems to judged solely on the intrinsic value of the worlds, and the other end seems to be about moral acceptability. I don’t know if this flip works.
So, assuming that, Wierenga think that’s it might not only be the case that for world chosen there a better; it might also be the case that for any world chosen there is an acceptable world that is not as good. From this, Wierenga doesn’t think Thor has a better principle than Jove or June. Wierenga denies that Thor could have a baseline of 800; he thinks there is no basis for such a claim. Wierenga is claiming that all of the deities, in this case, are making an arbitrary choice among the acceptable worlds, period.
Wierenga concludes that he doesn’t like these solutions because it only shows that “God is free only when it does not matter what He does.” That’s just not a sufficient amount of freedom in Wierenga’s eyes.
III. God’s Freedom
Wierenga thinks Adams failed to show why we shouldn’t make the inference from (1) to (2).
Swinburne and Flint deny the inference from (2) to (3) unless we qualify “best action” as the “the only best action.” Wierenga doesn’t like how this limits God’s freedom (choosing when it doesn’t matter).
Wierenga reconsiders the definition of libertarian freewill that Flint offered:
“an agent is truly free with respect to an action only if the situation in which he is placed is logically and causally compatible with both his performing and his not performing the action.”
Wierenga has no qualms with the causal compatibility requirement, but he isn’t immediately convinced of the logical compatibility. Why is it that an agent is free with respect to a performing an action only if there are no logically sufficient conditions for the agent’s performing the action?
For example, some libertarians see no problem with the compatibility of freewill and temporal statements having truth values. In other words, they don’t take logical fatalism to be a problem for libertarian freewill. The logical conditions are sufficient for the agent’s choice (namely it was true before they made the choice which choice they’d make), but just as long as there are no causal conditions determining that agent’s choice (beyond the agent himself), there isn’t a problem for freewill.
Wierenga wonders why we should think that the truth of (2) “In C, God knows that A is the best action, wants to A, and is able to do A” is incompatible with God’s doing A freely in C.
To answer this, Wierenga appeals to compatibilist accounts of free will. Even under fatalism or determinism, as long as an agent’s beliefs, desires, and “choices” are the “agent’s own,” and coercion, conditioning, or forcing of these mental states on the agent, then the agent is free.
Some, of course, may worry that if determinism is true there is a series of antecedent causes stretching back to before the agent even existed.
Consider a racist. Many ethicists actually have pity on people with deeply embedded racism because that person was conditioned from a terrible background; that’s what they were taught. They were conditioned into having the beliefs they have, so it wasn’t up to them, even on compatibilist views. But, maybe we should say the same thing for people aren’t racist – maybe those people were conditioned to not be racist. But, if that’s the case, then people who aren’t racist also seem to lack free will on the compatibilist definition.
In fact, if determinism holds, it is difficult to see exactly how an agent is ever the origin of their beliefs, desires, and apparent choices. Perhaps genetics, conditioning, and circumstances seems to explain all their beliefs, desires, and choices – and it isn’t obvious that any of those mental states originate or truly belong to the agent, or are in any way independent of external, coercive causes which even the compatibilist demands.
Despite this, some compatibilists think there are conditions under which an agent’s beliefs, desires, and choices are really the agent’s own.
Wierenga thinks “the insight, to repeat, of the compatibilist is that the right antecedent conditions, internal to the agent, are compatible with the agent acting freely.” Wierenga hopes to apply this insight to the case of God.
Namely, “it is in virtue of God’s own nature that he knows that A is the best action, wants to do A, and is able to do A.” God just did want God’s nature dictated, which means God is free in Wierenga’s eyes.
So, Wierenga appears to be claiming that he can satisfy libertarian intuitions here. But, in fact, he just pulls out compatibilism to solve the problem. Great.
This wasn’t a problem in the first place for the compatibilist. Yeah, the compatibilist may still fail for humans, but it really works for the problem of God’s free will. Nothing could have influenced God. By definition, He is the origins of all his beliefs, desires, and choices.
That said, this is not convincing to the Libertarian. I have no idea why Wierenga thought it would be.
Ontology is the philosophical study of the nature of being, becoming, existence, or reality. We’re looking at the classic ontological argument for God’s existence. One interesting thing about it is how metaphysics and epistemology seemed so deeply intertwined with ontology in this argument. Anselm has some assumptions (as we all do) about the structure of existence as it relates to concepts, and these assumptions are the basis of what is now a classic argument in philosophy.
Anselm
The fool says, “There is no God.” Anselm claims that the fool understands the idea of “something than which nothing greater can be thought” (the idea of God). Further, what the fool “understands exists in his understanding.” The fool has a concept of God in his understanding. Anselm then claims there is a difference between something existing in understanding and failing to understanding that something exists. Both are the case for the fool, according to Anselm, but they have different implications.
Anselm roughly analogizes to a painter. The painter has the painting (concept) in his understanding long before the painting exists, and before the painter understands the painting exists. However, once the painting is painted, both kinds of understanding obtain.
Similarly, even the fool will admit the concept of “something than which nothing greater can be thought” exists in his understanding.
Ah, but “surely that than which a greater cannot be thought cannot exist only in the understanding. For if it exists only in the understanding, it can be thought to exist in reality as well, which is greater.”
Which thing is a greater?
A thing which only exists as a mere concept in our minds
That thing which also exists externally to our minds, in reality
Anselm thinks the second is obviously greater. Thus, if the fool really had in mind “something than which nothing greater can be thought,” then surely that thing doesn’t solely exist in his mind, because that lacks maximal greatness, but rather, it must also exist in reality. Else, the fool doesn’t really have in his mind “something than which nothing greater can be thought.”
So, if the fool says, “I am thinking about the greatest possible being, but I don’t think that being exists,” Anselm will reply, you aren’t really thinking about the greatest possible being. The greatest possible being, by definition, must actually exist.
According to Anselm, since there is the concept of the greatest possible being, then surely it exists in both understanding and in reality.
Of course, Anselm agrees that for everything else, just understanding the concept doesn’t entail the ontological instantiation or existence of that concept. The concept of God, however, this greatest of all possible beings, is a really special concept. You just don’t understand the concept of God if you think God is a being who doesn’t exist. The very concept of God is such that you if you understand it, you can’t think God doesn’t exist; the concept includes God’s existence by definition, being the greatest (and thus also real) being possible.
Gaunilo’s Criticism
Gaunilo considers the example of the plentifully endowed ‘Lost Island’ which is difficult or perhaps impossible to find. The Lost Island, by definition, it is in every way superior to all other lands that human beings inhabit. It is an island which none greater can be conceived.
Gaunilo says, “Suppose someone tell me all this….so I understand it.” Perhaps that person might continue Anselm’s kind of reasons, claiming that Gaunilo was in no position to doubt the existence of the island of which none greater can be conceived, since surely, the greatest conceivable island is one that exists in reality and not merely understanding.
Similarly, if Gaunilo responded that he doubted the island’s existence, this other person could simply deny that Gaunilo really was conceiving of the greatest conceivable island. Gaunilo, this person might claim, was thinking of an island which simply wasn’t as great as an island which existed in reality.
This kind of argument isn’t convincing to Gaunilo. This person has not, in Gaunilo’s view, established the existence of this greatest conceivable island. Gaunilo thinks this same problem, by analogy, applies to Anselm’s ontological argument for the existence of God.
Anselm’s Rejoinder
There are differences between God and an Island. Even in his original argument, Anselm seemed disposed to doubting the existence of anything except God with this argument. For Anselm, there are things greater than the greatest conceivable island, but the same can’t be said for God. So, this analogy isn’t perfect. Perhaps the ontic existence argument only works for the entity which sits at the very top of greatness.
Anselm just comes back and explains that since the Island is doubtable, it is so obviously not the greatest conceivable thing. The greatest conceivable thing is so great, at least in part, because it can’t be doubted. You’d be an irrational fool, in his view, to doubt it. You just didn’t understand the concept if you claimed to doubt it.
Kant
Kant thinks the ontological argument fails to establish the existence of God.
Kant casts the argument in terms of the “conception of an absolutely necessary being….the non-existence of which is impossible.” This isn’t precisely what Anselm had argued for, although Anselm would almost certainly agree to necessity. There might be necessary truths which we might conceive of as being doubtable. Anselm’s claim is perhaps stronger than mere necessity: it’s the inconceivability of God’s non-necessity and non-existence.
Kant claims this idea of an absolutely necessary being “serves merely to indicate a certain unattainable perfection” which sets limits on our understanding.
He claims, “a strange anomaly meets us at the very threshold; for the inference from a given existence in general to an absolutely necessary existence, seems to be correct and unavoidable, while the conditions of the understanding refuse to aid us in forming any conception of such a being.”
Kant considers how philosophers may have neglected to make sure the very idea of an absolutely necessary being is consistent and conceivable, which he thinks comes a step before any steps to demonstrate the existence of such a thing.
Kant considers the proposition that “a triangle has three angles.” Many consider this proposition to be absolutely necessary. It’s analytically true. It’s just part of the definition of a triangle. That’s part of what the triangle predicate means. One confusion which comes out of this proposition is that some people will go on to mistakenly claim that triangles actually exist.
The “unconditioned necessity of a judgment does not form the absolute necessity of a thing.”
Kant explains the triangle proposition isn’t the claim that triangles actually exist, but rather it’s a conditional. If x is a triangle, then x has 3 angles.
For all x, Triangle(x) -> 3-Sided(x)
This conditional is true even if nothing is a triangle (it is vacuously true in such a domain). This conditional is a logical truth, a necessary truth. But, it says nothing about whether or not anything is a triangle.
We may have formed a concept of a triangle in our minds, and such a thing might be necessarily a 3-sided figure. But, that relationship of necessity doesn’t show there are any triangles. Sure, it exists in our understanding, but that says nothing about external reality.
Kant agrees that supposing the existence of a triangle, but not a 3-angled shape is contradictory and irrational. But, denying the existence of both a triangle and a 3-angled shape has no contradiction in it.
But, Kant says, the same thing can be said for the necessity of God. Yes, if you suppose God exists, then you have to agree that God exists. But, surely can just deny both. No contradiction follows.
Is Anselm talking about contradictions in the fools understanding? That isn’t so clear. Even if so, Anselm thinks the very concept of God is very special and different from all other concepts. The instantiated existence of the concept is part of the concept in Anselm’s eyes, and no other concept has that built-in. So, Anselm might not be worried about what Kant has said thus far.
Kant considers the pushback a bit. He claims “It is affirmed, that there is one and only one conception, in which the non-being or annihilation of the object is self-contradictory, and this is the conception of a “most real being.” Somehow the “notion of all reality embraces in it that of existence; the notion of existences lies, therefore, in the conception of this possible thing. If this thing is annihilated in thought, the internal possibility of the thing is also annihilated, which is self-contradictory.”
Kant claims “it is absurd to introduce…into the conception of a thing…the conception of its existence.”
Kant calls this a tautology (but Kant’s understanding of tautologies is limited and he’s just wrong about that). He elaborates:
“Supposing you were to term all positing of a thing, reality, you have thereby posited the thing with all its predicates in the conception of the subject and assumed its actual existence, and this you merely repeat in the predicate.”
Kant goes on to make a distinction between logical and real predicates. Real predicates enlarge a conception, but cannot be contained in the conception. Red is an example of a real predicate. When I say the flower is red, I’m adding to the concept of a flower. Kant claims Being (existence) is not a real predicate. It is not added to the conception of a thing.
The word “is” isn’t a predicate, it merely indicates a relation between the predicate and the subject. In logic we collapse “is” into the syntax:
Red(flower)
The parentheses of the predicate do all that “is” work. While we might initially believe this kind of sentence makes sense, it doesn’t predicate logic:
Exists(God)
This is a redundant claim in predicate logic. The predicate “exists” never adds anything to the subject. This only re-affirms what was already known in predicate logic.
He goes on, “I do not make the least addition to it when we further declare that this thing exists. Otherwise, it would not be the exact same thing that exists, but something more than we had thought in the idea or concept; and hence, we could not say that the exact object of my thought exists.”
So, if existence were a predicate that added to the subject, then what would it mean to be thinking about something which didn’t have the predicate? Surely the very concept itself exists. But, if the concept doesn’t have the predicate attached to it, then it really doesn’t exist in my understanding. Or, perhaps, as Kant explains, what exists would be something different from what I thought.
Thinking of concept, thus, does not imply the real existence of the thing.
How do we make sense of the claim that “something exists.” Existence is consider by many philosophers to be a second-order property, rather than a first-order predicate or property. FOLogic propositions are claims about subjects. SOLogic propositions are claims about FOLogic propositions and the classes of FOL notions.
We had a session on Aristotle’s God. This puts us in a decent position to understand Aquinas’ arguments and where he is coming from. Perhaps Aquinas sheds some of the characteristics of Aristotle’s God, but retains much of Aristotle’s systematic view of ontology, teleology, and arguments for the existence of God.
Aquinas
Aquinas offers us objections, an argument (in this case 5), and responses to the original objections in virtue of his argument. As usual, he gives us a short, but action-packed prose-style.
Objection 1:
God’s infinite Good and the evil in the world.
If God existed, then there would be infinite good.
If there was infinite good, then there couldn’t be any evil in the world.
There is evil in the world, therefore God doesn’t exist.
Objection 2:
Something like Occam’s razor
The fewest number of principles is the best explanation for something else.
One of the simplest explanations for the physical world are natural principles and causes.
God’s existence isn’t necessary to explain the natural world, thus we don’t need to posit that God exists
5 Ways to Prove that God exists.
I’m not what Aquinas means “Prove” here. Normally, I take the word “Prove” to be a very strong word. When I think of proofs, I think of deductive proofs in logic or mathematics. In philosophy, outside of logic, we usually shouldn’t claim we have proof. It is better to more conservatively claim that we have strong evidence, or good reasons, or a worthy argument for a claim rather than proof.
1st Way (and clearest) – Motion, the Unmoved Mover argument:
This is very much like the Aristotelian argument we looked at:
Some things in this world are moved.
Everything that is moved is moved by another.
Everything that moves is in a state of potentiality, moving toward the state of actuality.
Only an object in some relevant state of actuality can affect the motion of something else .
Example: Consider a fire in a relevant state of actuality, and consider a piece of wood which has the potential to be hot. The fire moves and alters the piece of wood, making it hot.
It is impossible for something to be simultaneously in potentiality and in actuality with respect to the same thing
What is hot in actuality can’t be hot in potentiality as well.
A change in degrees of temperature requires potentiality.
There isn’t a potential to have the same temperature; that’s just what maintaining actuality is.
Therefore, Aquinas says, “it is impossible that something should be both mover and moved in the same way and with respect to the same thing, or, in other words, that something should move itself.”
There is not an infinite chain of movers.
If there were an infinite chain, then there couldn’t be a first mover.
If there is no first mover, then there can’t be any movers.
Thus, there must be a first mover, an unmoved mover, and that is what everyone should take to be God.
Objections:
Why should we agree that nothing can move itself?
Why deny the infinite regress?
More specifically, why should we agree that if there isn’t a first mover, then there can’t be any movers.
If God is pure actuality, then it seems difficult to see how God moved anything.
The only recourse is this “by inspiring desire” kind of movement that Aristotle gives us. But, is this really a kind of movement?
2nd Way (efficient cause):
Aquinas is taking a page straight out of Aristotle, again. Aristotle categorized “causes or aspects of change” into four fundamental types. All physical artifacts and natural objects have at least one of each of these 4 causes to explain its causation. These 4 causes explain “why” (and maybe “how”) something has been caused.
A material cause is the aspect of change which is determined by the material a thing is made of.
It is “that out of which” a thing is made.
For a table, that might be wood; for a statue it might be bronze.
The material cause is really about material composition.
A formal cause is a change caused by the arrangement, shape or appearance of a thing.
It is “the form” of a thing, or “the account of what-it-is-to-be” a thing.
For the table, it is having some kind of shape, generally with legs and top. This can vary somewhat, but it has to some a table-shape.
The ratio 2:1 is the formal cause or shape or arrangement of the octave in sound.
An efficient cause are the agents of change. These are things interacting with the changed thing.
It is “the primary source of the change”
For example, the efficient cause of a table is a carpenter
The efficient causes of a child are the biological reproducers
The efficient cause of the statue is the sculptor or artisan
A final cause is the aim or purpose being served by it.
It is “the end, that for the sake of which a thing is done”
Health is the end or final cause of dieting and exercise.
For a seed, it might be an adult plant.
The final cause of the kitchen table is to have a place to make and eat food, a place to sit around and talk, etc.
The final cause of the statue is beauty or to inspire happiness or contemplation or remembrance.
The following argument focuses on the efficient cause.
For Aristotle and Aquinas, the concept of motion involves dependency, relying upon the concepts of potentiality and actuality, and not necessarily temporal succession or creation. That’s probably the main difference between the unmoved argument and the efficient cause argument. The efficient cause is conceptually bound to a temporal, causal sequence, and perhaps it deals more in bringing a thing into being rather than simple change. So, it’s likely that Aquinas thinks the efficient cause and unmoved mover arguments are relevantly different.
Aquinas’s argument:
Argument form:
There is an efficient cause for every sensible thing; nothing can be the efficient cause of itself.
If something were the efficient cause of itself, then it would need to be prior to itself, which is impossible.
You need a carpenter, as an efficient cause, to build the table. The table, before it comes into being, can’t build itself as an efficient cause.
It is not possible to regress to infinity in efficient causes.
If there is no first cause then there will be no others.
Therefore, a First Cause exists (and this is God).
Objections:
Why should we agree that it isn’t possible to have an infinite regress of efficient causes?
Consider the initial objection, an argument from simplicity:
If the simplest explanation is the best one:
Perhaps an infinite regress of causes is a more simple explanation than the existence of God.
Why should we agree that time has a beginning as Aquinas’ argument seems to assume?
Aquinas assumes a foundation, a beginning, to prevent this infinite regress. Maybe we shouldn’t accept that foundationalist move.
For example, maybe the universe is a circle of causes which have no foundation, but loop around in some coherent web of causes. This coherentist loop of causes might prevent the regress as well, and it doesn’t require a first-mover.
Why does the First cause have to be God? Even if we agree there is a first cause, do we need a further argument to show why this first cause is actually God?
Multiple First Causes
Even if we cede much of the argument to Aquinas, why should we agree there is only one first cause?
Maybe there are many first causes, many unmoved movers. Aquinas’ argument seems conceptually open to this possibility, right?
If there was only one first cause, we would be more tempted to agree that first cause is God. But, for multiples, that temptation may wane.
Of course, this doesn’t seem to defeat Aquinas’ argument - he could conceptually agree to multiple first causes and that God is one of them, but it does seem foist the burden of argument on him a bit further. Why should we think of one of those first causes as being so special that it is God?
Without Aquinas’ understanding causality, this argument fails.
Accidental Correlation Problem
Just because Event B has always followed Event A, doesn’t necessarily mean Event A causes Event B – the sequence may simple be accidental correlation rather than causation.
But, the skeptic worries this applies to all events. How then are we to truly distinguish between correlation and causation? How do we know, beyond a shadow of doubt, that causation obtains in the world? It could all just be correlation.
I think Aquinas might be able to come back as claim this radical kind of doubt has too high an epistemic standard.
Simultaneous Causation Problem
You might worry that as you scope in on an instance of causation, you won’t really find causation, but rather two events happening independently and simultaneously.
Any appearance of causation simply means you’ve not closely examined it enough. You have to magnify your scope in time and space.
Perhaps this is also a radical kind of skepticism.
Other Scientific Models of Causation
Perhaps Aquinas’s theory of causation might be too simple, simplifying natural causality just in terms of a temporal sequence of causes.
There might be better theories of causation which simply don’t allow for this kind of argument to work.
We might worry there is a contradiction in the argument, where it seems to difficult to see why the first premise is logically consistent with the existence of God.
The first premise states, "There is an efficient cause for everything, nothing can be the efficient cause of itself."
Is, then, God something or nothing?
If God is something, then we can ask, "What caused God?"
By assumption, nothing causes itself, therefore something would have to have caused God. But, few would be willing to accept that God could be caused by anything or at least anything else.
If you deny God was caused, then you’d have to say God is nothing.
If God is nothing, then God's existence is not proven or perhaps even provable.
If God is claimed to have a privileged status, an exception to this first premise, then maybe the argument becomes viciously circular or maybe there is a kind of question begging which occurs in the first premise.
Third Way (Possible and Necessary):
The Argument from Necessity:
Since some objects in the universe come into being and pass away, it is possible either for those objects to exist or for those objects not to exist at any given time.
i.e. The existence of some objects are contingent and aren’t necessary
All contingent objects at some point in time didn’t exist.
Assume for the sake of argument that: every object which exists is contingent.
Then at some point nothing existed in the world.
But, “What does not exist begins to exist only through something that does exist”
i.e. No thing is created from absolutely nothing (not to be confused with creation ex nihilo, which actually posits that something exists, namely God, before everything else was created)
Thus, given our assumption, nothing would exist now.
But, Objects do exist now.
Thus, our assumption is absurd. Therefore, the opposite must be true.
Not everything which exists is contingent.
i.e. Something is necessary, and moreover, we can trace the existence of contingent objects eventually to some necessary object (or objects).
Every necessary object is either caused to be necessary by something else or not.
An infinite regress of necessary objects causing the necessity of other necessary objects is impossible.
Therefore, some necessary object is not caused by anything to be necessary. This object or being is “necessary per se.” This necessary per se being is God, and He causes all other necessary objects to be necessary.
Objections:
Attacking the regress:
Why should we think non-God necessary objects are caused to be necessary?
If we deny this, it isn’t clear that Aquinas really gets to diffuse a regress with God as the foundation.
Why should we think contingent objects didn’t exist at some point in time?
Maybe there are some contingent objects which have always existed, and maybe exist eternally, but aren’t necessary objects.
There might be possible worlds in which those contingent objects don’t exist.
Remember the distinction between possible and contingent.
Why should we agree that something contingent cannot come into existence except through something that does exist?
i.e. why should we agree that no thing is created from absolutely nothing
Some people might have a problem with presenting objects themselves as being necessary or contingent. Some people might consider necessity and contingency to belong to the realm of ideas alone.
If you think it’s unacceptable to apply logical notions to objects, then Aquinas’ argument may or may not work.
Others, like Plantinga, are more than willing to extend these logical notions to states of affairs, and perhaps even to objects.
Perhaps we could re-interpret the argument simply in terms of propositions, but I’m not sure if it would still work.
4th way (gradations or degrees of existence in the world):
FRIENDLY REMINDER ABOUT FINAL PAPER – Due about 6 weeks from now
There are different degrees of goodness, nobility, and “being” in things.
Again, think of the scholastic assumption (which is also an assumption that Plato and perhaps Aristotle make) that there are degrees of existence or realness tied to goodness of the object. To Aquinas, a holy being is ethereal, not concrete, and has a higher, greater, and more real existence than tangible and more evil beings.
“more” or “less” can only be predicated of things in relation to something which is maximally predicated in the same respect
E.g. “the hotter something is, the closer it approaches that which is maximally hot”
i.e. For there to be degrees of being at all, there must be something which has “being” in the highest degree.
According to Aquinas’ take on Aristotle: something which is “maximally true” is a “maximal being”
But, “that which is maximal in a given genus is a cause of all the things that belong to that genus”
E.g. fire, which is maximally hot, is a cause of all hot things
Thus, since truth, goodness, and nobility are predicates, something is maximally true, good, and noble.
Therefore, something is a “cause for the being of all beings, their goodness, and their perfections.”
This something, this cause, is God.
God is this Being in the Highest Degree, this Perfect Being for which all other things on gradiant of his attributes rely upon for their existence.
Objections:
Does this argument not also show that there is also something which is maximally evil? Should we have a problem with that?
Maybe this is related to the first objection Aquinas is dealing with: the problem of evil.
Why should we agree there are degrees of existence?
Is existence something which is more like a binary switch: it either exists or it doesn’t, with nothing in between?
Why should we agree that for something to be somewhat hot, that there must exist something which is maximally hot? And if we can deny this, can we not deny the same for all supposedly graded predicates, including goodness, nobility, and existence?
Why should we assume, as Aquinas seems to, that “goodness” is a quality of objects?
Without this assumption, the scholastic belief about the relationship between goodness and existence doesn’t do any work for explaining the existence of God
Similarly, if there is a conflation between goodness and existence, one might worry that existence is taken to be a first-order predicate here. If you deny existence to be a first-order predicate of objects, then this might be a problem.
5th way (Governance – The Final Cause argument - The Teleological argument):
Some things which lack cognition “act for the sake of an end.” (And probably all things on Aquinas’ view)
They have a telos, a purpose, a function, a “for the sake of which” they exist and act
Further, they are ordered and arranged toward those ends.
These things without cognition have their telos not by chance, but by design and on purpose.
Things without cognition “tend toward an end only if they are directed by something that has cognition and intelligence” similar to how “an arrow is directed by an archer.”
Therefore, something with cognition and intelligence has ordered these natural things which lack cognition, and that something is God.
Objections:
Why should we agree everything has a telos?
Even if everything has a telos, why should we agree everything has been designed, ordered, or arranged?
How do we know what a design, ordering, or arrangement would be like?
Even if something is ordered, why couldn’t it simply be naturally ordered or self-organized?
Problem of evil:
Why should we think a God would design the world to have evil in it?
But, this was one of the original objections Aquinas wants to answer.
Why should we think that the God is the great designer?
Couldn’t there be many designers? This argument doesn’t seem to rule out polytheism
Reply to Objection 1 (problem of evil):
“it is part of God’s infinite goodness that He should permit evils and elicit goods from them”
Permit isn’t the same as design, is it?
Reply to Objection 2 (Occam’s razor suggests God doesn’t exist; there is a simpler explanation for existence):
There must be a higher agent that designs or directs nature to some end, and God is that director, designer, and first cause.
Clarke
Some immutable and independent being has always existed.
All other things are dependent on this immutable, independent being for their existence, else there is an infinite regress.
Nothing new.
PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION EVENT
Philosophy club at Tulane will be hosting a panel discussion on the existence of god and the nature of religious knowledge at the. We have a truly excellent panel lined up
Bruce Fleury (Faculty, Biology)
Nancy Lawrence (Faculty, Philosophy)
Sarah Rivkin (Director at Chabad Center)
Rabbi Yochanan Rivkin (Director at Chabad Center)
Will Tabor (RUF Campus Minister)
Richard Velkley (Faculty, Philosophy)
EXTRA CREDIT – Add 3% to your to Final grade (1/3rd of a Letter Grade)
Tuesday, November 4th (next week Tuesday) from 7:30 –9:00 @ Rogers Memorial Chapel
Rowe
Paints in very broad strokes, and divides arguments for God’s existence into:
a posteriori ("from the later")
a priori (“from the earlier”).
These are epistemic labels for beliefs, knowledge, arguments, or justifications.
a posteriori
a belief, knowledge, argument, or justification obtained (or obtainable) via experience
e.g.
I know there is a table here because I sense it, and because I trust the lighting in the room, and I trust my eyes, and I know I’m not use any hallucinogens. That knowledge is obtained via experience and sensation.
I learned the rules and mechanics of a video game by reading about it, by being in the world, by experiencing and sensing the video game and literature surrounding it.
Traditionally, experience is concerned with sensations. Maybe this is an oversimplification though.
a priori
a belief, knowledge, argument, or justification obtained (or obtainable) independently of experience
e.g.
Perhaps 2+2=4 is something you could know even if you had no sensations whatsoever.
The truth that a bachelor is an unmarried male.
I am think, therefore I am.
A priori knowledge is traditionally considered the pinnacle of belief-types. It often is associated with absolute certainty and necessity.
Many questions about how these work, the nature of them, etc.
Ontological argument is a priori.
It deals solely in concepts and thinking. You need not sense or experience the world, perhaps, to understand the argument.
Conversely, the Cosmological argument is claimed to be a posteriori.
It assumes the existence of the universe.
I’m actually not immediately sold on this. On a developed solipsistic view (Descartes expanded into phenomenology), it isn’t clear to me that the cosmological argument absolutely has to be a posteriori.
Rowe briefly traces the history of the Cosmological argument.
He claims the first three arguments in Aquinas’ 5 ways are versions of the Cosmological argument, and he summarizes them.
Later, Rowe considers the influence of Leibniz, Clarke, and Hume on this debate.
This 18th century arena is where Rowe will concentrate his argument
Rowe considers the real structure of the Cosmological argument
Rowe says: “Now it might be objected that even if Aquinas’ arguments do prove beyond doubt the existence of an unchanging changer, an uncaused cause, and a being that could not have failed to exist, the arguments fail to prove the existence of the theistic God.”
This objection demonstrates that the Cosmological Argument really has two parts (even if it isn’t articulated or defended that way by Aquinas)
Rowe Claims the first stage is “the effort to prove the existence of a special sort of being.”
Rowe wields Aquinas’ word here like the double-edged sword it is. As I said before, and as I think Rowe should be claiming in charity, we shouldn’t be charging the theist with the effort or need to prove God exists. A justified argument is good enough!
Second stage is to demonstrate that this special sort of being which exists is actually God, with the sorts of attributes traditionally ascribed
The arguments we read from Aquinas are only the first stage, but later in work we didn’t read, he tries to develop this second stage.
Rowe wants to concentrate on the 1st stage of the 18th century form of this argument
Rowe gives us some technical terms
Dependent Being
A being whose existence is accounted for by the causal activity of others
A Self-existent Being
A being whose existence is accounted for by its own nature
At this stage, I think it might be natural to wonder why we aren’t using “Independent Being” here
The 18th century form of the Cosmological argument seeks to establish the existence of a self-existence being.
With the terms, Rowe states the broad-strokes version of first stage of the Cosmological Argument:
The argument form:
Every being (that exists or ever did exist) is either a dependent being or a self-existent being.
Not every being can be a dependent being.
Therefore, there exists a self-existent being.
A brief primer in deductive validity
Validity is concerned with the structure of arguments. Primarily:
A valid argument is structured such that:
If the premises are the true, then the conclusion must be true.
The conclusion follows from the premises as a matter of logical consequence
Validity isn’t concerned with the truth values of the premises and conclusion, except with respect to that structure
E.g. A valid argument
Babe Ruth is the President of the United States
The President of the United States is from Indiana
Therefore, Babe Ruth is from Indiana
This example argument is valid.
In any possible world in which the premises are true, the conclusion must be true.
There is no possible world in which the premises are true and the conclusion false.
The actual world, this world, is such that the premises and conclusion are all false. In such a case, it doesn’t matter if the conclusion is true or false.
Even if the premises are false in the actual world, the argument itself is still valid.
E.g. Invalid argument
Babe Ruth is not the President of the United States
The President of the United States is not from Indiana
Therefore, Babe Ruth is from Indiana
The premises are true, but must the conclusion be true? Does it deductively follow from the premises?
No! There is a possible world in which the premises are true, and the conclusion false. Our world is an example counterexample to the validity of this argument.
The conclusion is false in this world.
Even if we change the conclusion to be true, adjusting Indiana to Maryland, the argument is still invalid!
Our world isn’t a counterexample world in such a case. But, we can conceive of a world in which the premises are true, and the conclusion false.
That we can conceive of such a world already demonstrates how it is possible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false, and thus how the structure of this argument is invalid.
There are no counterexamples to valid arguments. A valid argument is such that you cannot, by definition, conceive of a possible world in which the premises are true and the conclusion false. Validity is a very strong claim!
A sound argument is a valid argument in which the premises are true. Which means the conclusion must also, as a matter of logical consequence, be true.
Is the broad-strokes first-stage of the Cosmological argument presented by Rowe valid or invalid?
Valid.
The question is whether or not the premises are true.
These premises have to become the conclusion of a supporting argument, which has its own premises supporting each of these.
PSR and the First Premise
First premise
“Every being (that exists or ever did exist) is either a dependent being or a self-existent being.”
At first glance, we might take this to be obvious or even a logical truth.
This isn’t P v ~P though.
Only if we conflate “self-existent” with “not a dependent being”
This is almost trivial
Is there a possible difference between “a being not explained by others” and “a being explained by itself” (a self-existent being)?
Rowe thinks it isn’t obvious that there isn’t a difference.
Anselm’s Three Cases – a 3-pronged disjunction…Everything is either…
A. Explained by another (dependent)
B. Explained by nothing (or, i.e., doesn’t have an explanation)
C. Explained by Itself (self-existent)
The first premise claims that “for all things, it is either of sort A or of Sort C.”
This is the denial of anything being of sort B. It is the claim that no thing is explained by nothing.
That makes it non-obvious and non-trivial in Rowe’s eyes.
Anselm also accepts this principle:
“whatever exists has an explanation of its existence”
This is the denial of sort B.
Hence, with this principle, it would be reasonable to adopt the first premise.
Since this principle denies one of the disjunctions, we’re only left with this 2-pronged claim which is identical to our first premise
18th century proponents of the Cosmological argument were also convinced of this principle, but by that time, it was also known as a crucial part of the “Principle of Sufficient Reason” (PSR or PoSR).
PoSR has two parts:
Restatement of Anselm’s claim: “There is a sufficient reason or explanation for the existence of any thing”
Rowe calls this PSRa
PoSR is more complicated though, and perhaps PSRa is incomplete. We can consider an example to understand why.
E.g. I am in this room.
The first part shows there must, at the very least, be an explanation for my existence.
But, note, not how, or why, or when, or where, or what I exist as. Many parts of this claim go beyond just my existing.
There are other “positive” facts besides my existence, and the first part doesn’t require an explanation of those other facts.
I’m overweight. I like philosophy. I like beer. I’m in this room rather than at home.
These attributes, predications, or facts aren’t required to have explanations on this first Anselmian part.
This second part of the PoSR requires an explanation of positive facts.
On the PoSR, there isn’t just a reason for my existence, but there must be a reason why I like beer. An explanation sufficient for it. The same is true for all facts about me, and all you all, and every thing.
Hence, there is also a sufficient reason or explanation “of any positive fact”
We’ll call this PSRb
Rowe claims the Cosmological argument accept both full PSR, both PSRa and PSRb
Maybe it doesn’t, or maybe it doesn’t have to.
PSRa is the justification for the first premise of the Cosmological argument.
Maybe this is what we are after:
PSRa & PSRb -> PSR -> Cosmo Premise 1 and 2 -> Cosmo Conclusion & Second Stage of Cosmo -> God exists
We know the latter stage from Cosmo premise 1 and 2 to 1st Stage Cosmo conclusion is valid.
We know the first stage is valid by definition
We don’t know about this middle stage
Rowe wants to consider the validity of this middle inference
He wants to consider whether it is correct to think that “if the PSR is true, then both premises of the Cosmological argument true.”
If Rowe can show otherwise, and he can show that the PSR is not a valid argument for both premises of the Cosmological argument, then there would need to be a different justification of these premises of the Cosmological argument.
But, it isn’t obvious what other sort of justification we might give.
This might be a damning objection
PSR’s “a part” validly supports the first Cosmological Premise
Now, we need to figure out if the second premise can be validly supported by the PSR.
Afterwards, we may want to consider whether or not the PSR is actually true.
Even if the PSR validly supports the Cosmological premises, that doesn’t make the PSR true.
Remember, just because an argument is valid doesn’t make it sound.
We might be asking too much in truth and proof.
At some point, we might not be able to know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, whether or not a proposition is true.
We can for mathematical claims, like 2+2=4. We can be certain of the truth of it.
But, can you know with the same force and certainty for other propositions, like, there is an external world and we don’t live in the Matrix.
You can’t provide a proof of it. At some high standard of knowledge, we can doubt it.
Rowe knows that going for certainty and outright truth or falsity here just might be available to us. We might not be able to make a convincing argument either way to demonstrate truth or falsity.
Rowe is trying to figure out if we can be rationally justified in accepting PSRa and PSRb.
Rowe is going after rational acceptability, a weaker notion and separate notion from truth.
Back to the Matrix example:
You all still want to say someone is rational when they believe they don’t live in the Matrix though, right?
The claim “We aren’t in the Matrix” is rationally acceptable, even if don’t know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that it is true.
Rowe is conceding the following:
If we are rationally justified in believing the PSR, and if the PSR validly supports the Cosmological premises, then we are rationally justified in asserting the Cosmological Conclusion.
The Second Premise
“Not every being can be a dependent being.”
The proponent of this premise thinks there is something fundamentally wrong with an infinite regress of dependent beings caused or explained by other dependent beings.
“A series” example
Assume for some specific time slice there only exists one being, A1, a living thing, and a dependent being.
Since it is dependent, something else had to bring it into existence
In a previous time slice, A1 was brought into existence by something else, A2, which perished shortly after it brought A1 into existence.
Hence, only A1 exists at this time slice
We can see that A2, similarly might need an explanation or cause, let’s say the same kind of story occurs, only with A3.
And for the same can be said for A3 from A4, and so on and so forth into the past.
Each of these beings in the A series is a dependent being.
It “owes its existence” or is explained by the preceding A in the series
We have an infinite regress in this A series of dependent beings.
Rowe claims the Cosmologist must show there is “something wrong with the idea” or “view” of this infinite regress.
This is slightly ambiguous
If there is a difference between idea and view, I would say that an idea is a concept. To show there is something wrong with the concept of the infinite regress is a higher task than showing something is just wrong with a view possibly.
I’m not sure if Rowe is asking too much of his opponent here.
Rowe claims a “popular but mistaken idea of how the proponent tries to show that something is wrong with the view” goes as follow:
There must be a first being to start any causal series.
If every being were dependent there would be no first being to start the causal series.
Therefore, not every being can be a dependent being.
Valid argument, 2nd premise is true, but the 1st isn’t obviously true.
In fact, it seems to just be begging the question.
Note that the proponents in question are the 18th century Cosmologists
This is actually a part of one of the arguments Aquinas gave us. So, as far as generally how the Cosmological Argument goes, this is perhaps one of the ways in which proponents try to show what is wrong with the view,” but it may be a mistake to attribute this view to the 18th century Cosmologists
Rowe claims “there seems to be no good reason for making” the assumption that the infinite regress of dependent beings without a first does not or cannot obtain.
(note that you can have a first, then an infinite series afterward…but this isn’t a regress!)
That might be correct. Seem like there are ways to attack this though.
I worry there may be disagreement here which we can’t resolve on argumentation alone. For all I know, this may be one of those points in philosophy where it is okay to rely on your intuitions, and some people just have intuitions that deny the infinite regress, and so this rationally acceptable.
There are many, many definitions and ways to talk about rational acceptability. So many unclear things here.
18th century Cosmologists “recognized that the causal series of dependent beings could be infinite, without a first member to start the series”
18th Century Cosmologists “rejected the idea that every being that is or ever was is dependent not because there would then be no first member,” but rather “because there would then be no explanation for the fact that there are have always been dependent beings.”
Back to the A-series example.
“no individual A” in the series has an unexplained existence
No particular being is unexplained, apparently
Although, if the series itself isn’t explained, then it isn’t clear its components are explained either
Apparently, this satisfies PSRa, according to Rowe (although, maybe you’d want to deny that)
The 18th Century Cosmologist thinks the series itself lacks an explanation.
As Rowe likes to express it “The fact that there are and have always been dependent beings” remains unexplained.
This seems to be a violation of PSRb, which Rowe believes the 18th Century Cosmologist agrees to and/or needs.
What happens when we seek a reason or explanation of the entire A series?
Rowe admits that we can’t explain the series by saying there is a series. That would be circular.
The supposition of an infinite regress of dependent beings causing dependent beings cannot be explained. There can’t be an explanation for it.
There is nothing outside the series, and only something outside the series could explain the series.
Questioning the justification of the second premise
There are critiques of this lack of explanation of the series as a whole.
1st, Treats the series of dependent beings as itself a dependent being.
E.g. The series of dependent beings is no more a dependent being than a collection of stamps is a stamp.
There is a trick to this one though. A lot of metaphysical problems sit at the root of this critique, and the Cosmologist has plenty of ammo to respond.
The analogy between beings and stamps is made too quickly. What exactly is a “being”?
This critique seems to imply that we can reduce any collection of beings down to the constituent beings. That no being is the result of a collection or series of beings.
Why should we agree to that?
I’m a being, right?
Are the things which constituent me also beings? Probably!
The cells in me are beings, and all the cells are ordered in such a way that something greater seems to come out of it.
I’m also a being in time.
Part of who I am isn’t some time slice, but rather my identity passing through time. I’m a changing being, a person who moves, and that sequence or series of is still me.
All the cells in my body have been replaced several times, but I’m still the same being.
We can think of me as a series of being through time. The whole of which is greater than just the sum of its constituent parts through time.
But, if I don’t just reduce down, then perhaps the cosmologist has a really good point about how the series of dependent beings might itself be a being or at least something which itself needs an explanation.
I fear this critique uses a very narrow definition of “being,” and that the PSR proponents still have plenty of rational, justifiable positions in metaphysics which support their view here.
2nd: Mistakenly infers that because each member of the collection of beings has a cause that the collection itself must have a cause.
E.g. Russell: As fallacious as inferring that because each member of the human race has a mother than the collection has a mother.
My worry with this is that if the Cosmologist can answer the first criticism by arguing the series is a kind of being (a complex one), then this objection no longer holds.
The reason this objection works, if it works, is because of the problem in the first criticism.
3rd: Hume: A failure to realize that “for there to be an explanation of a collection of things is nothing more than for there to be an explanation of each of members of that collection.”
I.e. Explanation for the whole is entirely reducible to explanations for the constituent parts
But, by definition, each member of the A-series has an explanation (the preceding, N+1, member). So, on this view, since all the members are explained, then the entire series is explained.
4th: Why can’t we just claim that the series itself has no explanation, as a “brute fact.”
Maybe this seems to be begging the question in the other direction if we take it as defeating the Cosmologist or PSR proponent.
I see no more reason to accept the brute fact of “no explanation” for the series as I do for the brute fact of an explanation.
However, perhaps this point really shows is that there is no reason to believe one way or the other. But, so what?
Sometimes we have to guess in human life, and that’s okay.
We can make pragmatic moves in epistemology.
Consider a case in which I have to leap from a burning building into one of two dumpsters, or I’m going to die in the fire. Perhaps I know that one of the dumpsters will be a cushion and the other is filled is glass (presumably killing me), but I don’t know which is which.
Presumably, it is pragmatic and prudent to make a guess. I’m justified in guessing. It is rational to take one side, or to take the other. I’m not more justified in one or the other, but I’m justified in taking one of them.
Can’t the Cosmologist come back and say, “well, you can accept that rationally, but I can also deny it, rationally.” We are both justified.
This lacks the same oomph, since the cosmologist would prefer an argument for the existence of God that extends to all intuitions. But, at the very least, I think the cosmologist can respond to this criticism by turtling up, and recognizing that the best he can do is justify his own belief, and not much more.
Responses to Criticisms
1st: Rowe grants the Stamp mistake, and thinks “it is very likely a mistake to think that the collection of dependent beings is itself a dependent being.”
Just because the Cosmologist thinks the collection of dependent beings needs an explanation is not sufficient grounds for concluding the collection is itself a dependent being.
This only seems to be a great criticism is we deny the first premise (which if we denied it, would already be the end of the argument).
What’s the other option? If we accept the First premise (every being is either dependent or self-existent), then the other option is that the series itself is self-existent.
This is an odd move.
At first glance, I’m tempted to think anything which being constituted by dependent beings must itself be dependent, right?
If so, then this seems to be answer.
Hence, if we argue the series can’t be self-existent, but it is a being which requires explanation, then by the first premise, it must be a dependent being.
Rowe doesn’t do anything with this.
2nd: Attributes the following reasoning:
Every member of the collection of dependent beings has a cause or explanation
Therefore, the collection of dependent beings has a cause or explanation
I worry this is a kind of strawman. My bet is that the cosmologist is supporting the conclusion with more premises than just the 1st, and it is these premises which Rowe really needs to flesh out and criticize.
The examples of “having a mother” or “lightness of marbles” might be radically different predicates from “whether or not something is a being” or “being a dependent being.”
I’m just not sure the analogy follows.
Rowe doesn’t think the Cosmologist even needs to use this inference.
Instead, the positive “fact that there exists a collection of dependent beings” requires immediately requires an explanation by the PoSR. No other inference is required.
Thus, this “fact” move enables the PSR proponent to avoid the first two criticisms.
Although, I’m not convinced the PSR proponent must rely upon the second stage of the PSR, this “fact.” They might be able to successfully diffuse these criticisms simply in terms of beings and metaphysics. If the Cosmologist can demonstrate the series is a being, then these two criticisms fail, even without appealing to the “facts” require an explanation move.
3rd: Rowe claims this reductive explanation critique rests upon an assumption the Cosmologist would not accept.
Assumption: “to explain the existence of a collection of things it is sufficient to explain the existence of every member in the collection”
The 18th Century Cosmologist requires two conditions for explaining the collection of dependent beings:
C1: There is an explanation of the existence of each of the members of the collection of dependent beings
C2: There is an explanation of why there are any dependent beings.
I wonder if the “collection” itself is a being, is the explanation for it any different from this explanation?
The 3rd criticism claims that satisfying C1 results in or is the same as satisfying C2 (or C2 is reducible to C1)
Rowe gives us an examples of a self-existent being causing all the dependent beings. His intuition, from looking at these examples, is to agree with Cosmologist against the 3rd Critique.
Explaining each things individually doesn’t show why the whole is explained.
“Why are the dependent being at all?” just isn’t reducible on Rowe’s view.
The Truth of PSR
Rowe considers the final criticism and again outlines the argument.
To support the first Cosmological premise, the Cosmologist uses PSRa.
To support the second premise, the Cosmologist uses PSRb (about facts).
Essentially, we’ve agreed to Cosmo premise 1, that for each being, it is either dependent or self-existent, then if every being were dependent (and hence there are no self-existent beings), then PSRb couldn’t be satisfied. Namely, there isn’t an explanation for the fact of the collection of dependent beings as a collective whole.
Here Rowe seems to accept the validity of all the chain of arguments. Now, his only attack is to argue either against the truth of the PSR (which he doesn’t seem to think is worthwhile), or that the PSR is unjustified.
Why should we believe the PSR?
Two defenses of the PSR:
PSR is intuitively true
Here, “intuition” is associated with apodicticity, certain, and absoluteness.
It’s more than just being confident, or having evidence.
Once you “fully understand and reflect” on the meaning of the PSR, then you must know it is true.
Knowing that every triangle has exactly 3 angles is something you know to be intuitively true. It is certain. It may even be known a priori.
Perhaps this would make the Cosmological argument rests upon a priori truth.
Similarly, my daughter might deny that .999 repeating is identical to 1, but upon further reflection of what .999 really is…you’ll realize it must be identical to 1.
1/9 = .111
9 X 1/9 = .999
1 = .999
My daughter just didn’t fully understand the concept of .999 repeating.
Once she does, then she’ll know it is certainly true. It is intuitively true at this stage.
The problem, of course, is that the opponents of the PSR will claim they fully understand the PSR, but still deny it. Something which is intuitively true is not doubtable if you really understand it (much like the Ontological argument). But, since the PSR is doubted, if the doubters really do understand the PSR, then the PSR is not intuitively true.
PSR is a presupposition of reason, a basic assumption of rational people
Even if we all presuppose something, that doesn’t make it true. It is possible the PSR is still false, and hence, possible that we can’t reach the Cosmological conclusion.
Unfortunately, Rowe was too quick, and left us with what I believe is a false dichotomy. The Cosmologist need not argue that this is a presupposition of reason (or that it is intuitively true).
Somehow, Rowe failed to really go after the justification of the PSR here.
It seems possible that the Cosmologist can argue that it the PSR is non-obvious, that it isn’t a presupposition of reason, but that, nevertheless, it is rationally justifiable to believe the PSR is true.
Rowe showed us only that the PSR might be false with this 4th criticism, but he did nothing to show why we aren’t or can’t be justified in believing it. But, that is exactly what he must do, since he’s agreed the argument chain from PSR to the 1st Cosmological Conclusion is valid.
Rowe concludes the Cosmological argument is valid, and it may even be sound, but that it might also be unsound (the premises, the PSR namely, may be false).
He thinks there is no good rational basis for believing the PSR.
Why should we agree to that though?
The Cosmologist has a lot of tools to defend themselves. Rowe and the Cosmologist may fundamentally disagree on what counts as rationality, rational acceptability, and justification. It does seem like the Cosmologist is in a good position to show how they are rationally justified though, even minimally, and that’s all they need to get past Rowe.
Note that all of this is for the 1st stage of the Cosmological argument. It is another argument to demonstrate why this special, self-existent being, the cause of all things, this unmoved mover, is the theist’s God. That said, the 2nd stage may or may not be a huge leap.
One of the brilliant things about the Cosmological argument is how it takes a serious, perhaps reasonable stance in metaphysics and epistemology which doesn’t seem to have anything to do with God in the first place, a seemingly secular foundation, and argues toward the existence of God.
Paley
Stumbling across a stone, we might possibly think the stone had always been there. It wouldn’t be absurd to think it was just randomly there.
If, however, we stumbled across a watch, it would be absurd to think it had always been there, or that it could have randomly been there.
Why should we think that? Why is there a difference between the stone and the rock in our judgment?
The watch is organized, put together, framed. It is intricate, subtle, and complex. The parts fit together. There are reasons it put together like it is. It has a function, an end, and a purpose. The rock, not obviously these things…
Surely the watch is designed! The rock, not so obviously. For us, the watch might not be so amazing. Imagine you found a smart phone or something.
Clearly, the watch had a maker. It is the inevitable inference. Does it have to be? Maybe it is a smart bet!
Paley then offers some answers to a series of objections to the teleological argument:
I.
Even if we had never seen a watch made, or know no one capable of making a watch, or we were ignorant about to make watches, and it was mystery to us, we would surely still believe there was a watch maker.
At the very least, the ignorance may only serve to make us think very highly of the watch-maker (what is the sorcery?).
II.
Even if the watch was perfect, or if it sometimes malfunctioned, we would surely still infer that it had a a design, a function, a telos, and a maker. How else could we say it “malfunctioned” if we didn’t think it had a function?
III.
Even if we were ignorant about certain aspects of the watch, or even if there were superfluous parts that served no purpose (or so it seemed), we would surely make the same inference. There is enough evidence from what we already have that it must be designed. We don’t need to understand all of it.
IV.
Any rational person would deny this was just a random combination of material composition.
Begging the question.
V.
Rational people would not be satisfied by the claim that the watch was the result of natural principles of order. You might think of crystallization, or beautiful waterfalls, hexagonal honey combs having good structural and packing qualities, or sea-creatures with golden ratio shell arrangements.
One might argue these are arranged by natural principles of order. Although, I think Paley would argue otherwise.
VI.
Rational people would not accept that the intricacy of the watch is just an illusion which makes us mistakenly believe it is constructed or designed by a maker.
VII.
Rational people would be surprised to find the watch was the result of the “laws of metallic nature.” Why is this any different from the natural principle argument?
A law presupposes an agent, according to Paley. Thus, there the responsibility for the design still requires a maker or an agent.
VIII.
A rational person would not accept that he knows nothing about the matter and isn’t justified in drawing any conclusions.
Radical skepticism like this might just be begging the question, and should be dismissed by the rational person?
Application:
Sets out the corresponding analogy or argument concerning the world and God, but it is pretty obvious how the two arguments are connected.
Hume
Dialogue. Cleanthes is theologian, opposed by, Demea the orthodox believer and Philo the skeptic.
Cleanthes:
The universe is like a great machine comprised of smaller machines comprised of smaller machines, and so on.
This great machine fits together so well. When we contemplate it, we must admire it.
This great machine to be an extravagant and fantastically designed device similar to the some machines we as humans engineer and produce (only the great machine is truly great).
By “rules of analogy,” it is clear that if our man-made machines have an author or designer, then surely this great machine, the universe, also has an Author or Designer.
The world itself is the beginning of this a posteriori proof of God’s existence.
Again, proof here is such a strong word. A modern teleologist would hardly claim it is proof; merely that it is evidence, a reason for believing.
Demea:
Can’t agree with Cleanthes.
This just isn’t a traditional enough argument.
No demonstration of the “Being of God”
Might think of Aristotle here.
No abstract arguments. Apparently too simple.
No a priori proofs.
A priori proofs are somehow thought to be higher or better than a posteriori. They are the kinds of proofs that all rational creatures, with or without experience, could realize.
Surely a good proof of God would be a priori.
The argument relies upon experience and probabilities; there is too much to doubt.
This may give advantages to atheists which should never be granted.
Philo:
We are constantly making a posteriori, experiential inferences.
Analogical reasoning, however, has problems.
Having experienced the circulation of blood in humans, we may analogically infer that blood also circulates in frogs and fish, and the other animals.
This is a strong analogical inference, but still subject to doubt.
It would be a much weaker analogical inference, however, to claim that because we as humans experience blood circulation that sap circulates in vegetables.
Experiments may show otherwise.
If we see a house, we have great reasons to infer there was an architect because we have previous experience concerning the causes and effects of houses.
We’ve seen enough houses caused by architects that this inference is easy.
Surely we can’t apply the same reasoning of the house to the universe.
The analogy just isn’t complete or perfect enough.
There are so many obvious differences; this just isn’t analogous enough to make the inference
E.g. We’ve never seen anyone build a universe.
Cleanthes:
Surely this is more than mere guesswork or conjecture.
Is the analogy between the house and the universe really so slight?
Surely the universe is ordered, proportioned, and arranged. A house as well.
I fear you all have belittled my argument; dismissed it too quickly.
Demea:
Good God! How could we allow a proof of God to fall short of perfection.
God’s perfection requires a perfect proof.
This argument by Cleanthes is nothing more than extravagant opinions.
By that, I take it he means they aren’t justified.
Philo:
I’m arguing with Cleanthes on his own grounds. There are dangerous consequences to his argument.
It should also be more convincing to him.
You seem to have a real problem with the fact that Cleanthes argument is a posteriori
Let’s consider Cleanthes argument, to see if he has offered something worthwhile.
Maybe it isn’t such a bad argument.
We can’t rely solely upon a priori reasoning, arguments, and belief-formation.
We just couldn’t understand the universe, or what’s important.
Since you can always dream up anything, including reasons for things, you wouldn’t have a reason to think there was a particular cause for anything.
Imagine starting from the a priori, and then opening your eyes to the a posteriori.
You wouldn’t be able to see or assign the cause of events.
Anything is possibly the cause from the a priori.
Only experience can point out the true cause of any phenomenon.
Although, to be clear: Hume may be a skeptic of causation! This is the character speaking on behalf of Cleanthes.
Our experience gives us a principle, a principle which tells us that ordered and arranged things generally have a designer.
This isn’t proof of a designer. This is, however, evidence for a designer.
It is a justification. The principle makes sense, despite having a posteriori origins.
E.g. if you throw several pieces of steel together, without shape or form; they will never arrange themselves into a watch.
That’s what experience tells us.
Experience “proves” that there is an original principle of order in mind, not in matter.
From similar effects or cases, we can infer similar causes.
However, I don’t think this is good reasoning, and I will “defend…the adorable mysteriousness of the Divine nature.”
Cleanthes is said to assent to Philo’s representation of the argument
Philo seems to claim that Cleanthes believes “all inferences…concerning fact are founded on experience.”
This seems to be a stronger claim than what I took Cleanthes to have offered.
This seems likely false to me: there seem to be a priori inferences.
Further, Philo claims Cleanthes has argued, “all experimental reasoning are founded on the supposition that similar causes prove similar effects.”
That might be agreed to.
Philo warns us that we have to be extremely careful in translating the cause of one case to another similar case.
How similar must they be?
If they are basically, exactly the same, well, no problems.
But, as the similarity drifts, as does the supporting evidence of the principle. The strength of the similarity results in the strength of the inference.
Differences between cases give us reasons to doubt they have the same kind of causation.
The problem is that this analogy is too great!
It is one thing to talk about watches, ships, and houses, and quite another thing to talk about the universe as a whole.
We might be drawing a conclusion about the parts and applying it to the whole.
Is that reasonable?
E.g. from the growth of a hair, as a part, can we learn anything concerning the generation of a man as a whole?
My gut is to say yes!
E.g. Would the manner of a leaf’s blowing, even though perfectly known, afford us any instruction concerning the vegetation of the tree?
Not obviously. This isn’t as directly a parts/whole argument though.
Even if we granted this parts/whole inference, why should we think the way humans perceive reasons, design, and causation should be the the kinds or principles for inferring the model and cause of the entire universe?
Cleanthes view is too anthropocentric!
I sympathize. From a very objective, 3rd-personal, ideal perspective, this seems right.
I worry this is overly skeptical.
Well, what other choice do we have?
Epistemic duty is about doing the best we can with what we have.
All we have is human reason. We have to make it work.
Why should we think the rest of the universe is like our little corner of it?
Maybe the principles are wildly different out there. Maybe causation operates differently.
We don’t know! This similarity inference just might not work.
Skeptical claim, and I think that buys us uncertainty and doubt. However, does it provide a great argument against justification?
Not obviously. In fact, I’d say we might need reasons why we should think it is different.
It is certain that the liker the effects, the liker the causes which are inferred, and the stronger the argument.
Anything which isn’t as similar has a lower probability, and renders the inference less likely.
We can see different scopes of the world; macroscopic and cosmic all the way to microscopic.
Why should we think these are similar.
This seems to anticipate, hilariously, a discovering that happened hundreds of years later: quantum mechanics, which really don’t follow causal principles we find on macroscopic scales.
Cleanthes:
These aren’t real objections; they are only discoveries of new instances of art and contrivance.
There is still a watch! We might not know how the watch works. But, it still seems to have an intricacy and a causal beauty to it.
Philo:
Claims Cleanthes must renounce all claim to infinity in any of the attributes of God.
For, the cause can only be proportioned to the effect. Since the effect isn’t infinite, nor is the cause.
How do we know the former? Why should we agree?
If God is finite, then lots of things won’t make sense.
Can God be morally perfect, omniscient, or omnipotent?
You’ve made God too human!
Why should we think the author is that brilliant?
Maybe he copied someone.
Maybe he made a bunch of shitty universes and just haphazardly stumbled on this one.
Why can’t we just think there are a number of deities and demons which made the world? Why must there be One designer.
How do we explain evil in the universe?
Surely God wouldn’t have designed that.
You just don’t know this universe is intricate and ordered, so why should you know there is a designer?
General claims:
At best, the teleological argument only gets us to an intelligent designer. Why must we agree that designer is God?
We need another argument to close this gap, much in the same way for the cosmological argument.
Perhaps there are multiple designers.
The universe is unique, while the watch isn’t. They aren’t similar enough. The analogy doesn’t hold.
You can empirically experience the creation of a watch, but you can’t the universe.
Does the designer need a designer?
Did someone design God?
Infinite regress
All designers we know of are corporeal. Should we infer that God is corporeal?
How do we know this wasn’t just brought into existence by chance?
The universe isn’t perfectly designed.
Intellectual property (IP) rights are an increasingly vital area of philosophical inquiry in a global society dependent on information and intellectual labor. This paper investigates the challenges faced by a quasi-Lockean IP theory used to determine, explain, and justify moral, private IP rights. The status quo of legal IP rights, or something quite like it, is sometimes defended on quasi-Lockean moral grounds. This paper describes significant challenges for such an account, and provides reasons to think the status quo of IP rights, or similar states of affairs, may not be justified on Lockean grounds.
I begin this paper by providing context and laying some groundwork to show where this extended IP theory is positioned in a general landscape of property concepts and theories. We will consider the basic and foundational quasi-Lockean theory for physical property and examine the standard Lockean IP extension built on top of that foundation. From there, I will offer a series of objections to this extension. In particular, I disagree with Lockean IP theorists about the targets of IP rights, the need for a property theory regarding non-rivalrous objects, the coherence and viability of rules and mechanics for IP acquisition, and the soundness of domain selection for IP rights. The standard quasi-Lockean IP theory may lack the explanatory qualities we should require for agreeing to the limitations on our freedom that it would impose. Ultimately, I advocate a non-interference right rather than private IP rights. In considering an alternative view, I will explore the possibility that discussions of IP have been too narrow and offer possible exceptions to this right of non-interference.
!!! ''Groundwork Property Concepts and Narrowing Our Focus''
IP is a hotly contested topic in philosophy, law, political science, library science, and other disciplines as well. Generally, the topic of IP is approached as a set of legal rights resulting from laws constructed by a legal system. Naturally, philosophical discussions of IP tend to revolve around political philosophy more so than ordinary moral philosophy. Granted, even in these discussions, IP laws are often justified on moral grounds. The normative force of an IP right generated by positive laws, however, isn’t necessarily based solely on moral grounds. Further, the construction of positive laws may often require certain kinds of pragmatic sacrifices which moral laws need not make. Depending on how we approach these issues, positive and moral laws can differ widely in many respects, and IP is no exception.
This paper will focus on a modern quasi-Lockean framework for moral IP rights employed to justify and maintain the status quo of legal IP rights (or something similar) found in many Anglo-American nations.<<ref "1">> Before we dive in, we need to lay a basic groundwork. The topic of property is plagued with problems of definitions and challenging conceptual analysis, and we should briefly consider what we mean by property right.
Generally, a property right is a bundled set of rights for some set of people concerning the access, use, or control of some set of objects. The origins of these rights are usually a set of rules (positive laws, moral laws, etc.). These rules bind a certain society or population. Property rules generate property claim rights for some set of people and corresponding obligations toward the rights-holder(s) regarding that property for another set of people. There are different classes of property rules and rights, including private, common, and collective. We will focus on private property.
Private property rights are often what we have in mind when we think of property rights. Broadly, some private entity (an individual or corporation) has some set of rights to access, use, or control some set of objects. The bundles of control, access, and use rights tend to clump together with a similar scope for private property rights. To a significant extent, the control over private property belongs to the private property rights-holders.<<ref "2">> Of course, private property rights don’t necessarily have to include absolute control over some set of objects.<<ref "3">>
Legions of philosophical perspectives surround the theory and practice of property rules and rights. The view I will dissect in this paper aims at moral, private IP rules and rights. This narrows the discussion considerably, since much of the literature on property focuses either on a legal realm or on traditional objects of property rights (e.g. land and other strictly physical objects). In this paper, we will see a tension between proponents of private IP rights and what I believe is the more intuitive and defensible position: a non-interference right which enables us to use our minds as we see fit.<<ref "4">>
There are different kinds of philosophical accounts and justifications for the lineage and development of moral, private IP rules and rights. Outside of Hegelian accounts, we generally hear two kinds of arguments today in favor of moral IP rights: utilitarian arguments concerning incentives and quasi-Lockean stories involving entitlement to the fruits of intellectual labor.
As we shall see, Lockean IP theorists need a convincing story which explains the metaphysical and physical relationships between objects and owners. In contrast, utilitarians don’t necessarily need to provide that sort of story. Utilitarianism can demand national holidays for Cthulhu or require other ostensibly bogus obligations or rules, and that would be fine if it maximized utility. Utilitarians need to tell us a potent epistemic story. Lockean theorists, however, need to present us a potent ontic story.<<ref "5">> Many of us may already buy the Lockean ontic story for the usual sorts of private physical property, but it is unclear whether a clean, relevant, and comprehensive ontic story can be told for intellectual property.
We will focus on a modern, quasi-Lockean perspective.<<ref "6">> The basic quasi-Lockean story for private physical property seems to have the ring of truth to it for most people. At least for physical objects, this account sketches a genealogical distribution and justificatory story which many of us take for granted. That foundational story, on which the IP story is built or extended, goes approximately like this:
Objects generally start out as being unowned, with the exception that we own ourselves to some significant extent. We have a basis for thinking that objects (since we are objects) can be owned. Further, we have practical reasons and needs for the use of resources and objects. Many objects are finite, and we assume there must be moral rules which govern how these unowned objects are appropriated and/or distributed.<<ref "7">>
Barring some set of conditions, when someone becomes the first to occupy or fittingly mix his labor with some unowned object, many of us have the intuition that he appropriates that object.<<ref "8">> Roughly, he appropriates this object because he owns himself and his labor, and therefore he is entitled to the suitable fruits of his labor. In particular, his entitlement to the fruits of his labor only applies to labor upon objects he already owned, or unowned objects.<<ref "9">> Somehow, his labor imbues an object, perhaps becomes part of that object (or the object becomes an extension of his identity), and since he owns his labor, he appropriates the object. Exactly how this plays out is not clear. There could be many ways to explain this particular part of the story.
What we have here, then, is some set of moral rules which we believe generate some set of private property rights for him with regards to the object he appropriates. Unless there are some intervening reasons or moral obligations, he will have a bundle of moral, private property rights to that object. Applying this process over and over, and in conjunction with the valid transfer of acquired properties (consensual trading, selling, giving, bequeathing, etc.), we see the skeleton of a broad genealogical picture of moral, private property rights and a basic justification.
There are many objections one might raise to this Lockean story, particularly regarding labor mixing. The notion of imbuing unowned objects might sound mystical to certain folks. Further, it isn’t clear precisely what rights resulting from mixing one’s labor ought to be included in the overall bundle. However, I’m not trying to debate the merits of this foundational, unextended quasi-Lockean perspective for physical objects. Many people at least see some merit in the notion that we own the fruits of our labor to a large extent. There seems to be a common sense notion that when you chop down an unowned tree and build a chair from it, you own that chair. Let’s assume the story works.
The quasi-Lockean IP theorist claims we can extend this basic theory for physical objects to intellectual objects. Can and should this story be extended to include intellectual property? Intellectual labor is a kind of labor, after all. At the very least, you surely own your thoughts, which is a kind of fruit of your intellectual labor. What other possible products of intellectual labor are you justified in morally, privately owning?
!!! ''Extending the Physical Property Framework for Intellectual Objects and Labor''
As far as I can tell, there isn’t a thorough, well-articulated, soup-to-nuts account of the IP extension of the Lockean physical property theory. What I have found is a loose collection of generally agreed upon assumptions and claims surrounding a sketch of an extended ontic story.<<ref "10">> It seems many IP theorists take such an account for granted and work from these assumptions; they are more likely interested in broader issues and questions which arise from or before such an account rather than the mechanics and internals of the account itself. That’s fair, though, since we have to start somewhere in the dialectic. What follows is my attempt to charitably construct an outline of this standard account. I will eventually argue that when we take a closer look under the hood, such an account is unintuitive and lacking in explanatory power, but I want to do my best to present their case.
For the standard Lockean IP extension, a litany of activities is thought to fall under the umbrella of intellectual labor, including inventing, innovating, writing, recording, systematizing, creating, and discovering. What are the fruits of intellectual labor? Beyond our mere thoughts and the physical objects we create, the standard answer is some sort of abstract idea, a metaphysical object or entity, often referred to as an intellectual object.
We are forced to ask, then, what is an intellectual object? This is a tricky question, and the standard approach generally tries to evade talking about the critical metaphysics underpinning an answer. We seem to assume some robust sort of metaphysics in asserting the existence of these intellectual objects, although it doesn’t have to extend all the way to an extreme framework like Platonism.<<ref "11">> The answer to this question is not clear, and that’s okay. It may be difficult to defend a robust, systematic position in metaphysics (especially if you focus on ethics and political philosophy). The standard approach jumps ahead and answers a different question: What objects are the IP rights targeting? If we can answer this question, perhaps we can begin to clarify the fruits of our intellectual labor.
There seem to be two paths one could take. One path, the intellectual object thesis, is the claim that an IP rights-holder has a bundle of property rights targeting the intellectual object which has been created or discovered. This path entails the possibility that metaphysical entities or artifacts can be owned; they are themselves the targets of IP rights. The other path, the manifestations thesis, is the claim that an IP rights-holder has a bundle of rights concerning the use and distribution of humanly-made physical manifestations or expressions of an intellectual object. On this view, IP rights target the physical instantiations of intellectual objects, not the intellectual objects themselves.
If the Lockean IP extension is built on the intellectual object thesis, it has a targeting mechanism quite similar to the underlying physical theory. Essentially, the fruits of intellectual labor are intellectual objects, and those objects are the targets of IP rights. The initial difference between this version of the extension and the underlying account can be found in what type of objects are targeted by the property rights. Directly owning metaphysical entities, like intellectual objects, is a significant departure from the physical theory. The targeting principles of this extended theory seem to parallel the unextended account, but the ontic story may be a bit different and more complicated because the type of object targeted is so dissimilar.
If, on the other hand, the IP extension is built on the manifestation thesis, it does not depart from the unextended account in terms of the type of object targeted by property rights. Property rights from both this extension and the underlying theory exclusively target physical objects. The manifestation thesis based extension radically departs from the unextended theory in the targeting mechanism.
For unextended physical property rights, the object with which you mix your labor is what you directly own. According to an extension built on the manifestation thesis, however, you don’t own what you’ve created or discovered precisely, which in part is thought to be the intellectual object; rather, you have property rights to the corresponding humanly-made physical manifestations of that intellectual object.<<ref "12">> As Adam Moore explains it:
<<<
Rights do not surround the abstract non-physical entity, or res, of intellectual property; rather, intellectual property rights surround the control of physical manifestations or expressions… Intellectual property rights are rights that surround control of the physical manifestations or tokens of ideas.<<ref "13">>
<<<
This shift in targets may not be without reason. First, dealing with physical manifestations has far less mystique about it. This shift in targets grounds the discussion for folks who want as little do with metaphysics as possible. Secondly, when it comes to enforcement (which isn’t necessarily something a moral theory has to be concerned with), it may be more practical to target the physical instantiations. Lastly, some people might be persuaded by this case: if an intellectual object were directly owned by someone else, then I might be violating his rights simply by thinking about that object. This would be intolerable to many of our intuitions, and might lead someone to say the intellectual object isn’t directly owned, but rather the physical objects corresponding to it are the targets of IP rights.<<ref "14">>
What it means to create a physical manifestation of an intellectual object can be non-obvious. Here is a fairly straightforward example: when you compose your own piece of music, you have created or discovered some intellectual object specifying a series of sound waves. The abstract specification or represented configuration of sounds waves is the intellectual object you’ve created or discovered.<<ref "15">> The corresponding .flac file on your hard drive is a physical expression of that intellectual object. If I were to code, record, compose, or copy a representation of that precise series of sound waves onto a CD, I would have created a physical manifestation of the intellectual object you labored to create or discover.
Given the extension built using the intellectual object thesis, you own the intellectual object directly. That specification of sound waves is yours. I’ve violated your IP rights by not getting your consent to use your intellectual object. On the extension built on the manifestations thesis, however, you own the physical manifestations, including the CD I burned. Presumably, if you had IP rights surrounding the physical manifestations of that intellectual object, then I’ve trampled on them.
What if I created an adjusted manifestation, whereby I changed just a tiny bit of one of the sound waves? Overwhelmingly, and regardless of which thesis is selected for the extension, IP theorists believe I’m still violating your rights. My adjusted manifestation is considered a derivative of your work. That my manifestation was similar enough to your manifestation or the corresponding intellectual object is sufficient for claiming I’ve violated your IP rights.
We can flesh out this view in at least two ways. It is possible that when you create or discover an intellectual object, you’ve really created or discovered a family of them which are sufficiently similar. Every manifestation would then directly correspond to some mirror-image intellectual object. The intellectual object thesis might lean in this direction. Another possibility is that you’ve only created or discovered a single intellectual object, but there are families of manifestations similar enough to the original, mirror-image manifestation.<<ref "16">> The manifestations thesis may be in a better position to adopt this view.
Eventually, however, there comes a point where I have made so many adjustments to the series of sound waves that I have a different song entirely, and, essentially, an intellectual object which you didn’t create or discover.
While unstated, it may be assumed that intellectual property rights do not exist until there is some kind of humanly-made physical manifestation of the intellectual object. Presumably, this is for a practical reason: how else would we know someone had come up with or discovered an intellectual object? Technically, however, a moral theory isn’t conceptually bound to such practicalities.
Vitally, and regardless of the thesis selection, IP theorists believe the domain of protected objects is a limited subset of all intellectual objects. This domain is comprised almost entirely of works of copyright, patents, trade secrets, and trademarks. Each subdomain is generally associated with a different bundle of rights.
Those are the essential background points. There are numerous other factors and possibilities we could take into account. For example, some Lockean IP theorists may wrestle with possible proviso considerations, such as a spoilage or waste proviso, a charity proviso for those in extreme need, or the standard “enough, and as good left for others” sufficiency proviso.<<ref "17">> Other theorists may appeal to a more strictly historical Lockean perspective, attempting to ensure supreme and detailed compatibility between historical Lockean theory and an IP extension.<<ref "18">> I’ve set aside these kinds of considerations since I’m simply after the core and most widely accepted stance.
Given this standard background, the story of this quasi-Lockean IP extension for intellectual objects and labor goes something like this:
Someone intellectually labors; she creates or discovers a previously non-existing or undiscovered intellectual object. If the intellectual object falls into one of the protected subdomains, then either the humanly-made physical manifestations of that intellectual object are candidates for IP protection (manifestations thesis) or the intellectual object is a candidate for IP protection (intellectual object thesis). Using the manifestations thesis, the current and future humanly-made physical manifestations of that intellectual object will be the targets of her IP rights. Using the intellectual object thesis, her IP rights will target the intellectual object.
Since she owns herself, and she owns her labor, including her intellectual labor, then she will appropriate either the intellectual object or the humanly-made physical manifestations corresponding to the intellectual object she intellectually labored to create or discover.
Barring some set of conditions or intervening moral obligations (presumably analogous to the unextended physical property theory), she will have a bundle of private, moral IP rights to either the intellectual object or the physical manifestations of this intellectual object, wherein the exact bundle is specific to the subdomain of the intellectual object. This bundle includes property rights to derivatives.
At first glance, this seems like a reasonable story and a fairly appropriate extension of the Lockean theory for physical property rights. Many people seem to buy it. Creators or discoverers of intellectual objects are compensated for their intellectual labor. It feels like justice has been served when that occurs. While that is alluring, we must ask: Does this IP story work? Does it satisfactorily extend the initial physical theory? Do we need this theory?
Almost everyone would agree that when you chop down an unowned tree and build a chair from it, you own that chair. IP stories, however, don’t seem as intuitive as this chair story because there are significant differences, glitches, and gaps. The rest of this paper is devoted to examining problems with this sketch and considering the space of arguments and dialectical moves available to the quasi-Lockean IP theorist to rebut these challenges.
!!! ''Non-Rivalrousness and the Manifestations Thesis''
There seem to be at least two exceptionally compelling and intertwined reasons for wanting moral, private property rules and rights.<<ref "19">> First, many vital resources are finite, and we want a moral framework to account for fair and legitimate appropriation and private ownership of those scarce resources.<<ref "20">> Second, barring some intervening considerations, you should own the fruits of your labor, lest society verge on mass theft and possibly some form of slavery.<<ref "21">>
Generally, for physical objects and properties, both reasons matter. However, it is not clear that both reasons are relevant enough to intellectual objects and labor to result in IP rules and rights. In particular, intellectual objects are widely considered non-rivalrous. I can use an intellectual object (e.g. thinking about it or creating a physical manifestation of it) without directly impairing anyone else’s ability to use that intellectual object.
An intellectual object can’t be consumed or destroyed. We can all simultaneously use it. Unless we have really good reasons showing otherwise, shouldn’t everyone have fair and complete access to non-rivalrous objects? Do we need a private property theory for non-rivalrous objects? It doesn’t seem like we do.
Consider the number 2. This is an intellectual object. We can’t consume or destroy it. We can all simultaneously use it. We can all think about it at the same time. We can all concurrently create physical expressions of it by writing the numeral down on a page. We can all employ it in counting our thumbs without impairing each other. Like all other intellectual objects, its consumption is non-rivalrous. It is radically different from any physical object, since only a finite set of people can use a physical object in any given period of time. The number 2, unlike physical objects, is available to everyone for all time.
At least to my intuitions, the obvious starting place for non-rivalrous objects, such as intellectual objects, would be no property rights, or perhaps a general right to non-interference concerning the access and use of those non-rivalrous objects.<<ref "22">> Fair and unlimited use is always possible. We need fantastic reasons to justify limiting the initial freedoms of people, and it isn’t easy to see why we need to put restrictions on the use of and access to non-rivalrous objects.<<ref "23">>
I am not claiming that IP rights are irreversibly or conceptually illegitimate because intellectual objects are non-rivalrous.<<ref "24"> Rather, the non-rivalrous aspect of intellectual objects are significant prima facie reason against private IP rights, one which may be overcome with an effective argument. The non-rivalrous nature of intellectual objects shifts the burden of proof onto the Lockean IP theorist regarding why these non-rivalrous objects can and should be privately owned, particularly via labor-mixing acquisition.
Note, however, a Lockean IP theorist could rely upon the manifestation thesis, and in doing say claim that intellectual objects aren’t directly owned. On the manifestation thesis, IP rights target the physical manifestations of intellectual objects. Physical objects, however, are finite and rivalrous. Thus, one path available to the IP theorist for avoiding the issue of justifying the private ownership of non-rivalrous objects is by claiming the objects at stake here are actually rivalrous – namely, the physical manifestations.
Assuming we buy the manifestation thesis, if the only objects which are owned in this IP story are physical objects, then why do we need an IP story at all? We already have a theory to explain how physical objects are acquired. Why doesn’t the unextended Lockean property theory already explain the phenomena? The IP theorist relying on the manifestation thesis must offer a convincing argument for this.
Here is an example of how the unextended quasi-Lockean property theory for physical objects might operate:
Let’s say you take the time to paint a fantasy landscape. You labored on physical objects previously unowned or owned by you, and the result is a painting you now own (which just so happens to correspond to a particular intellectual object). You then proudly show me your painting, and I love it. Later on, I paint my own fantasy landscape identical to yours (corresponding to the same intellectual object). I labored on physical objects previously unowned or owned by me, and the result is a painting I now own. That these paintings share the same intellectual object borders on irrelevant to the matter at hand. On the unextended theory, we each own our paintings that we labored to create. We both receive the actual fruits of our labor, the physical objects we each created, and that seems to be the end of the story.
The same kind of story could be told in countless different ways, whether it’s about making a hat for ourselves, farming, or making a fire by rubbing sticks together. Any kind of human labor is going to require intellectual labor, and the correspondence to intellectual objects just isn’t relevant to the resulting rights. If we take the quasi-Lockean IP argument to be claiming that one owns the physical manifestations of intellectual objects, rather than the intellectual objects themselves, then it isn’t clear why we need to extend the basic, physical Lockean story. True, your labor required some intellectual labor, but what kind of labor doesn’t?
Further, why should I not receive the fruits of my labor? The IP theorist must provide a compelling case. We need to see why it matters, in terms of ownership rights, that I’ve duplicated your work.
The IP theorist may be tempted to argue that you put forth more effort to create your work of art than I did, and so it isn’t fair that we both arrived at owning identical objects. There are at least two problems, however, with that claim. First, the results of our labor are not necessarily identical. For example, you owned your piece of art before I owned mine (many differences in results may follow from that). Second, even if the results of our labor are identical, is it really morally relevant in a Lockean framework that you worked harder for your results?
Not everyone finds themselves in equal conditions genetically or circumstantially, and sometimes it takes differing amounts of labor to arrive at the same results. If the foundational Lockean perspective is actually going to drive the extension, it would be improper to dock people for having intellectual advantages which were outside their control. That simply isn’t what the Lockean perspective is about. I had a circumstantial advantage you did not have in creating my painting, but that wasn’t entirely up to either of us, and I don’t see why it should affect either of our ownership rights in a strictly Lockean story.
The IP theorist may be tempted to fight back and claim that I’ve stolen your labor, even if only indirectly. But, how? Did I, to any degree, take anything from you or extract labor from you without your consent? No. You consented to everything you did. I didn’t take your painting or labor from you. I took nothing from you. It is up to the IP theorist relying on the manifestations thesis to demonstrate the theft occurring in this case which motivates an extension of the basic Lockean account.
I agree with the intuition that there is something cosmically unfair about our labor/results ratio. A Lockean account, however, is the wrong story with which to argue about the type of unfairness found here. Fairness in the Lockean story alone is about being entitled to the appropriate fruits of one’s labor and preventing slavery, and not really the end distribution of ownership rights given how much we’ve labored.
Assuming we buy the manifestations thesis, the IP theorist needs to provide us a good argument for why we need to extend the basic Lockean story for physical objects in the first place. The IP theorist needs to convince us that theft is occurring, and I don’t see how they can when they assume that only physical objects are owned. Essentially, the path to avoiding the justification of the ownership of non-rivalrous objects, via switching the targets of ownership from intellectual objects to the corresponding physical objects, is fraught with challenges.
A Lockean IP extension built on the manifestations thesis is likely unacceptable for at least two reasons. First, we don’t have a good argument for why we should switch targets. If we assume the fruit of intellectual labor is the intellectual object, then why isn’t that the target of IP rights? Surely it would be the obvious choice. Second, we say you “use” an intellectual object when creating a physical manifestation of it. The rights which prevent me from creating a physical manifestation of the intellectual object you created or discovered are rights concerning the use of that intellectual object in a particular way. But that seems to imply direct ownership of the intellectual object.
The best version of the Lockean IP extension seems to rely upon the intellectual object thesis rather than the manifestation thesis. For the rest of the paper, then, I’m going to assume the path of the manifestations thesis is not taken. Instead, I take the quasi-Lockean IP theory to be concerned with the ownership of intellectual objects themselves.<<ref "25">> But, if we take up the intellectual object thesis, then we go back to the initial problem with the private ownership of non-rivalrous objects. The burden of proof is on the IP theorist to demonstrate how and why a non-rivalrous object could be privately owned to any degree.<<ref "26">>
Perhaps the claim that laborers are entitled to the appropriate fruits of their labor might justify the private ownership of these non-rivalrous objects. If so, then it is up to the IP theorist to demonstrate why the reasons for entitlement are so potent they override our initial non-interference rights to non-rivalrous intellectual objects, enabling the private ownership of these non-rivalrous objects via intellectual labor mixing.
It makes sense why we want a property theory for being entitled to the fruits of our labor regarding rivalrous objects. When someone steals the taco salad I’ve made, they’ve stolen my labor. In contrast, when someone builds an identical taco salad after watching me build my mine, I still have my taco salad. My labor hasn’t been stolen from me. Maybe building his taco salad was easier for him, but so what? I could have just kept my taco salad, construction techniques, and recipe a secret, but I didn’t. In this situation, where has the theft occurred? More importantly, it isn’t clear why I should own a non-rivalrous object such as the intellectual object of a taco salad. We need reasons to justify a property theory for objects which don’t intuitively seem to need one.
!!! ''Unexplained Intellectual Objects, Derivatives, and Mechanics of Appropriation''
Since the IP theorist cannot or should not employ the manifestations thesis, then he must instead argue that one owns intellectual objects themselves. Justifying the private ownership of non-rivalrous objects alone is an uphill battle. However, a Lockean account of IP is open to a network of other challenges as well. There are significant gaps to the operation of this ontic story which need to be explained because limiting our freedoms via private IP rights requires a worthy and comprehensive justification.
The standard account generally doesn’t specify many elements of the metaphysics in the ontic story. I sympathize with the desire to minimize the reliance upon metaphysics, but it seems reasonable to ask for a clearer account of the nature of intellectual objects and how the process of appropriation of these abstract objects functions.
The fact is that intellectual objects are less understood than, and very different from, trees and chairs.<<ref "27">> To arrive at private IP rights, a significant amount of work needs to be done to show how the analogy between the physical and the intellectual or abstract honestly holds, but that requires understanding the nature of intellectual objects and how ownership could possibly operate in the first place.
We don’t know if an intellectual object is actually a single intellectual object or if it is really a collection of many intellectual objects. We don’t know how intellectual objects relate to each other, either. It is unclear where derivatives end and original works begin. We don’t know how or why to draw lines of similarity and define derivatives.
Science provides us a clean causal story for physical objects, and the unextended Lockean theory seems to add only a pinch of metaphysics to the ontic story. Lockean IP stories, by comparison, aren’t as clear (perhaps unacceptably so). Intellectual objects don’t have a nice timeline; we are much less capable of understanding their beginnings and ends. We might not even know precisely on what we intellectually labor. We have a fairly clean ontic story for physical objects and property, in which we work on unowned physical objects or objects we already own. We don’t have a similarly clean story for intellectual objects and labor.
We can’t just bypass or merely guess at how these concerns work out. It is crucial to have some understanding of these sorts of issues in order to justify and know our various IP rights and obligations. The IP theorist needs to show he isn’t making it up as he goes; we need to see why the practical IP rules he enshrines aren’t arbitrary.
We need to know what counts as violating IP rights. For example, duplicating a modern Mona Lisa is a violation, but it isn’t clear if duplicating just a quadrant of the Mona Lisa is a violation (or why). It isn’t clear what principle we would use to determine how many particles must be duplicated or unaltered before a tribute to the Mona Lisa is a violation.
Similarly, from our music example: at some point, I can speed up your song enough that it is a new intellectual object. We don’t know how much I need to speed up the song before it is no longer under your umbrella of protections. What rule governs this distinction? Further, we don’t really know why it is acceptable for me to play 5 seconds of your song on the radio without your consent, but not 50 seconds.<<ref "28">> For whatever rule we might use, it is hard to see how the rule itself could be defended on strictly Lockean grounds.
Unfortunately, IP rules and rights tend to generate conflicting intuitions all the time. Consider a case in which I’ve removed 50% of the sound waves from the original piece of music; surely that isn’t a protected derivative. Precisely how much is necessary to remove in order to avoid generating a derivative is another issue, but let’s assume 50% is fine. What if I’ve removed 50% of the sound waves, but none of the removed sound waves were in the range of frequencies which humans can hear? Or, consider the fact that our auditory systems are scientifically known to play tricks on us (filling in the gaps); what if I made radical alterations to the sound waves (producing many gaps), but humans couldn’t sense the difference? Suddenly, many IP theorists would be inclined to go the other direction and claim infringement. We need good rules that draw bright lines to answer these questions.
If you make a detailed mural on a wall, and I duplicate it in a tiny bitmap image, I’m still thought to be violating your rights. Lossy-compressed works of art are still derivatives of the original. Is there a point at which I’ve made such a tiny, compressed image of your mural that it is no longer considered a violation of your rights? I don’t know how or why we can draw that line. It can go the other direction too. If I make a tiny bitmap image first, and then you make a detailed mural on a wall which just “fills out” the details, you seem to be violating my supposed rights. Why and how?
IP theorists accept that computer generated objects are protectable under IP rules. This is interesting because it allows for a brute force thought experiment which applies to most kinds of IP. For example, it is extremely common for images and music to be computer generated today. What if I systematically create all possible previously unowned pieces of music and image bitmaps on a supercomputer?<<ref "29">> It seems like I would have an incredibly extensive set of IP rights. Anyone making any sort of music or image would be violating my IP rights. This is intolerable to the intuitions of most IP theorists, but they have to give reasons why I wouldn’t have appropriated all of these corresponding intellectual objects.
Consider a case in which you invent the combustion engine, a 2-stroke engine which can only use 91 octane gasoline as fuel. Do you have an IP right to the very general notion of a combustion engine or only a specific kind? To some intuitions, it would seem like I’m still violating your IP rights if I build an almost identical combustion engine which can only use 85 octane gasoline as fuel. What if I built a 4-stroke engine? What if I built a similar engine for diesel or even a non-petroleum fuel altogether? It is unclear when progress in the arena of engines is no longer a violation of your IP rights, but rather something counted as my invention. An effective IP theory requires justified principles or rules which draw these sorts of lines.
Or consider the case of the wrap dress. Diane von Fürstenberg designed the wrap dress in 1974. Despite the fact that von Fürstenberg is still living and still designing fabulous clothes, the wrap dress pattern, an intellectual object, is not considered to be her IP – anyone is free to buy a knock-off version or create their own. Why isn’t that intellectual object protected like other sorts of designs? It isn’t clear why Fürstenberg hasn’t acquired IP rights in these cases, and why these knock-offs, which appear to be derivatives of Fürstenberg wrap dresses, aren’t considered actual derivatives or duplicates.
As far as I can tell, all intellectual properties have these sorts of problems. These cases demonstrate how our understanding of intellectual objects and derivatives is filled with guesswork. My gut instinct is to claim derivatives are actually different intellectual objects entirely, and if the Lockean IP theory works at all, it should only grant IP rights to the original, but none of the derivatives.
If we don’t have effective reasons to include derivative objects under the umbrella protections of the original intellectual object, then all that is left are ownership rights to the original intellectual object. Depending on how detailed we take an intellectual object to be, that could mean IP rights are much slimmer than we thought. If these objects are detailed enough, it is possible that only one physical expression could correspond to an intellectual object, but then, by definition, no duplicate would really correspond to the intellectual object.<<ref "30">> Defending derivatives is likely crucial to the IP theorist’s view, but it is not obvious why we should buy into the notion that there are derivatives.
Even if we were to get past some of these line-drawing metaphysical problems, the actual mechanics of appropriation and the resulting IP rights aren’t clear, either. For example, what if multiple people independently create/discover an intellectual object?<<ref "31">> Many timeframe and epistemic issues arise from this which fuzzes our understanding of IP rights and appropriation.
If I’m the first person to create or discover an intellectual object, then supposedly I’m the owner. It is quite unclear why my creating or discovering an intellectual object at some point in time and place should result in rights which have anything to do with your independently creating or discovering the same intellectual object at some other point in time and place. An IP theorist could claim that we both somehow deserve shared IP rights, although it isn’t clear what those rights should look like (nor how we might know there was another creator/discoverer who also had shared rights).
There are also many categories of intellectual progress which require stepping-stones to advance. Consider a case in which I’m inventing the car. It seems like I’m relying upon numerous other intellectual objects which I don’t own. I’m standing on the shoulders of giants.<<ref "32">> Am I allowed to invent the car if you own the wheel? Even if I can invent it, why would I own it? Almost any creation or discovery of an intellectual object relies upon a web of other intellectual objects (which supposedly may be owned). It is not clear if such creations or discoveries should result in IP rights, and even if they did, it is unclear what the bundles of IP rights should be, how they are distributed, and why.
Further, is it enough that I simply dreamt up the basic notion of a car in order for me to own that intellectual object?<<ref "33">> That might not be enough. How much of the schematic do I need to have generated before I’ve really created or discovered the car? It would seem odd to require a working prototype; many patents are granted without one. We need to know how much and precisely what kind of labor is necessary and sufficient for acquiring an intellectual object.
For example, a nature photojournalist, David Slater, was in Indonesia when a Macara nigra monkey swiped David’s camera and took a famous selfie.<<ref "34">> Who has the IP rights to this photograph? Some people think Slater performed an appropriate kind and amount of work to have acquired the rights simply by venturing into the jungle of Indonesia, taking pictures, and accidentally earning this prize experience. Others think his luck just isn’t sufficient; after all, David didn’t take the picture, the monkey did. At what point does intellectual intent (rather than mere accident) play a role in intellectual labor mixing? The IP theorist has to provide a theory comprehensive enough to draw the appropriate line and justify it.
These are some of the many gaps in the ontic story which the quasi-Lockean IP theorist needs to fill in order for us to even understand what it means to be entitled to the fruits of intellectual labor. Without knowing what it really means to be entitled to the fruits of intellectual labor at this practical level, it is hard to see why we should agree there is any entitlement.
!!! ''Unexplained Domains of Protected Intellectual Objects''
Not all intellectual objects fall into the domains protected by IP. These kinds of domains are generally codified in Anglo-American laws, but they also happen to be, by and large, what IP theorists are trying to defend and justify.<<ref "35">> Unfortunately, it isn’t clear how to provide strictly Lockean arguments in favor of these particular domains and their various quirks.
The different domains of IP each come with a different bundle of rights. For example, a copyright is associated with rights and obligations quite different from trade secrets or patents. In a utilitarian theory, we might be able to provide significantly dissimilar utility stories for intellectual objects divided into domains of copyrights, trademarks, trade secrets, and patents; hence the differences in the bundles of rights associated with these domains might be justified. Unfortunately, it isn’t clear how the differences in the domain-specific bundles of rights can be justified on exclusively quasi-Lockean grounds. Additionally, this may be a disanalogy with the unextended physical property theory where, unlike the IP extension, instances of private appropriation of physical objects generally result in a highly similar kind of bundles of rights.
These domains are accompanied by some odd bundles of rights which aren’t easily explained. There is a tradition of upheaval precisely at the point of identifying which bundle of rights is awarded for each domain; IP theorists and practitioners disagree on the correct bundles. A copyright, for example, hasn’t always been a lifetime property right (alternatively, some copyrights only extend for a certain number of years beyond the life of an author), nor is it necessarily a kind of property right which can be transferred to others indefinitely. That you own something only for a limited period of time, and that you have impaired or limited control rights is odd. If there are Lockean IP rights, why would the ownership durations and control rights of these properties vary? It requires an explanation. We can justify these quirks with incentives-based utilitarian reasons for creative expression, but it isn’t clear how the strictly Lockean IP theorist can defend such quirky limitations on bundles of private property rights.
Consider patents, which award a powerful monopoly over all expressions and implementations of an intellectual object for decades. Eligibility for the bundle of rights afforded by patent protection requires non-obvious novelty and usefulness. Maybe we can quickly defend novelty in terms of differentiating intellectual objects and ensuring a new intellectual object has actually been created or discovered.<<ref "36">> What rule draws the lines for usefulness and non-obviousness, and why should we agree to it? Even if we could provide this on Lockean grounds, we also need reasons why usefulness and non-obviousness are necessary for these IP rights.
Trade secrets can have quirky bundles of rights, as well. For example, trade secret rights lapse when the owner communicates the secret to the public. But why should that communication matter? I can’t think of another kind of property in which my telling you about my property results in the lapse of my ownership rights to it.<<ref "37">> We can see the word “secret” is in the name of this domain, but the Lockean IP theorist has to give us reasons why concealment could be so crucial for having and maintaining an IP right in the first place.
I have sympathy for trade secrets. For any intellectual object which I alone know about, there is a natural pseudo-monopoly to that intellectual object. If I discover the recipe to the greatest hot sauce of all time, and I only make it for myself, and I never allow others to know about it, then it seems to result in something like an IP right. It would be immoral to torture me to release my secret information or to hack into my computer for my secret recipe. Of course, the wrongness of these acts has little or, indeed, nothing to do with violating my supposed IP right. This natural pseudo-monopoly doesn’t need to be explained in terms of a real property right. If you aren’t precluded from figuring out the recipe for yourself and making your own hot sauce, then my secret is just a secret, and not obviously an IP right. An IP right should preclude you from discovering the recipe and making your own hot sauce. It isn’t clear why, on Lockean grounds, a trade secret should result in an IP right rather than just a natural pseudo-monopoly.
Trademarks are no exception to this unexplained quirkiness either. Trademarks are restricted by common, everyday language. You can’t own a word or symbol (or any other object which communicates semantics) which is an ordinary expression. What rule defines ordinary everydayness? What if trademarked words or symbols become ordinary expressions? We need clear rules and, vitally, justifications for those rules. While I can see how the utilitarian position might explain and justify these issues, I don’t see how the Lockean position can.
Admittedly, I am very sympathetic to the notion that people are morally obligated not to lie about who they are or who produced a product in the vast majority of circumstances. For example, I wouldn’t want Blackwater Security Consulting masquerading as UNICEF or the Red Cross since BSC and its various agents, services, and products don’t deserve the kind of respect or trust earned by entities like UNICEF and the RC. At first glance, that does seem like a trademark issue. These kinds of obligations not to deceive, however, aren’t necessarily tied to intellectual labor-mixing or anything which the Lockean IP extension provides.<<ref "38">> We can give other moral reasons not to deceive.
Going back to the painting example, if we replace the painting with some other object, let’s say a chair (which also has a corresponding intellectual object), the IP theorist would surely claim no theft has occurred when I duplicate your chair. The chair could be a piece of art and/or an invention (I suppose it could technically fit any of the domains), but the IP theorist doesn’t think it can be covered by either copyright or patent protections (even if you were the first person to create a chair or a chair like that one). Why is the intellectual object corresponding to the physical painting ownable, but not the intellectual object corresponding to the physical chair? We can fabricate a utilitarian argument for this difference, but it is not obvious how the quasi-Lockean IP theorist can offer an effective argument for why certain intellectual objects which initially appear to fall under the protected domains end up not being protected.
More problematic, and broader as well, the IP theorist needs to give a clear and effective argument for why only certain domains of intellectual objects are protected in the first place. This division needs an explanation; else the targets of IP protection seem arbitrary. What is the domain creating rule? Why should only certain kinds of fruits of intellectual labor be open to ownership? These domains which are assumed to be protected require justifications.
I worry the quasi-Lockean IP theorist is forced to inject utilitarian justifications into his argument. In most IP discussions, this is generally how the domains are justified. I’m not against a mixed-method approach to justifying IP rights. The problem, however, is that this injection sullies the Lockean approach. The Lockean approach is interested in applying principles of justice, not utilitarian distributions. Once you bite the bullet in employing utilitarian justifications, why not stick to utilitarian arguments for IP? So many problems disappear when you do that.<<ref "39">> I’m going to set this aside since I’m investigating the merits of a purely quasi-Lockean account. Unfortunately, I don’t see how this justificatory and line-drawing work can be accomplished without utilitarian reasons.
There may be strictly Lockean paths for justifying domains, but they aren’t easy to provide. Consider the domains of mathematical equations, numbers, and other logical intellectual objects. These domains of intellectual objects are resoundingly rejected as being ownable. Why is that? It is common sense to us, but we need reasons for why numbers and equations don’t fall into the domains of privately ownable intellectual objects if there are somehow other intellectual objects which can be privately owned.
The Lockean IP theorist may respond that these intellectual objects predate us.<<ref "40">> We merely discover them. One path available to the Lockean IP theorist is to claim intellectual objects like numbers and equations can’t be owned because they are discovered and aren’t created. Between the intellectual objects corresponding to a painting and a number or equation, it seems somewhat plausible to think that the painting’s intellectual object is created while the number or equation is discovered. Perhaps the distinction between discovered and created intellectual objects is a relevant way to cordon off the privately unownable intellectual objects from the privately ownable. But, even this view may generate conflicting intuitions for the IP theorist.
There is a world of questions and problems which arise from the philosophies of mathematics, information science, and computer science that bears upon the problem of domains for IP. For example, many assume computer programs are the kind of intellectual objects which can be owned. But, depending on your stances in these philosophies, you may be forced to concede that intellectual objects such as computer programs are mathematical objects. If mathematics can’t be owned, then computer programs couldn’t either. A host of similar problems can arise. Justifying boundaries for domains in Lockean IP theory requires an enormous set of controversial views on ontology.
In any case, an abundance of problems surround the formation and execution of these domains. So much rides on these unanswered issues. If IP theorists can’t provide a good reason for the domains, then it seems more likely that either all non-rivalrous intellectual objects can be privately owned or none can. Since the Lockean IP theorist already agrees that intellectual objects of most numbers, equations, and the chairs can’t be privately owned, then none of them can be privately owned on Lockean grounds.
!!! ''Non-Interference Right and Exceptions''
I agree we own certain fruits of our intellectual labor. The physical manifestations we create are byproducts of our intellectual labor, and the unextended quasi-Lockean theory for physical objects makes sense of this appropriation. Our thoughts are products of intellectual labor, and we own those (even if we don’t own the corresponding intellectual objects), and that probably has something to do with self-ownership rights. We don’t own all the fruits of our intellectual labor, though. I deny that we own the intellectual objects which we create or discover via intellectual labor.
Private IP rights acquired via labor mixing mistakenly limit our liberty. These obligations prevent us from creating, discovering, learning, experiencing, copying, building upon the work of others, and using our minds in the ways we want to use them. I’ve tried to point out how quasi-Lockean IP theorists haven’t given us a coherent functional framework of reasons for why and how non-rivalrous objects, particularly intellectual objects, could be owned. Lockean IP theorists haven’t given us sufficient reasons for restricting individual liberties.
Along the way, I’ve suggested an alternative view and what I believe is a more plausible starting place for the Lockean. On solely Lockean grounds, we should either deny IP rights altogether or claim a general non-interference right to use and access intellectual objects. I prefer to think of it as a right to non-interference. This view maximizes our personal freedom and protects our self-ownership.
IP rights are usually thought of as private property rights, and discussions tend reflect a very narrow conception of what counts as an IP right. My claim that we have non-interference rights to access and use intellectual objects doesn’t fit the normal discourse on the topic. Depending on how we flesh out property rights, it is possible that even the generalized non-interference right to intellectual objects should be classified as a type of IP right, even though it isn’t anything remotely like the standard, private IP rights we usually talk about. If what we mean by an IP right simply is some sort of right to an intellectual object, then perhaps I’m arguing for a kind of IP right.
A non-interference right is basically the claim that it is almost always (given some provisos or constraints) immoral to prevent people from using and accessing intellectual objects. Perhaps we really do have moral duties toward each other to refrain from interfering with how other people use their minds. It’s a positive thing! Denying any and all IP rights fails to capture this obligation and protection. Hence, I prefer to think of my view as promoting our personal rights rather than denying there are any IP rights at all, because I think we generally have moral obligations not to interfere with how people use their minds and intellectual objects.
Admittedly, I’ve raised a number of objections to private IP rights in this paper, and we might worry a few of them somehow stick to the non-interference right. I’m not convinced, however, that a general non-interference right requires we deeply understand the metaphysics behind intellectual objects. Most of the objections I’ve raised just don’t matter if we aren’t thinking about private IP rights. Essentially, a non-interference right seems far easier to justify and doesn’t seem to require nearly as detailed an ontic story as private IP rights.
Lastly, while I’ve insisted on a non-interference right, it is certainly possible I’m wrong, or that I’ve overlooked some important exceptions. Perhaps I need to take a step back, since there may be unorthodox cases in which intellectual objects can be privately owned, even if not acquired via labor-mixing. The reasons for the possible private IP rights, however, aren’t based on Lockean grounds (although these reasons may be compatible with Lockean thought). Again, these unorthodox cases aren’t usually thought of as being IP rights, but if an IP right is simply a right to an intellectual object, then perhaps these unorthodox cases count.
In taking a step back from my blanket claim of a non-interference right to intellectual objects, I am also going to push back against an overly narrow understanding of IP rights. Just as a non-interference right might not normally be considered a genuine IP right, the exceptional domains for private IP rights which I have in mind are not usually considered genuine IP domains.
Perhaps there are certain intellectual objects which no one should use. Consider a doomsday device which can destroy the universe. Maybe that is the sort of intellectual object for which no one should build physical manifestations or even schematics. Presumably, we all are morally restricted from using that intellectual object in some ways. At least on some moral theories (which quasi-Lockeans may accept), we might say that my obligation, in this case, corresponds to a claim right each other person has against me not to use the doomsday intellectual object in certain ways (for example, it may violate their self-ownership rights). That seems to be a very specific bundle of ownership rights to the intellectual object, and it seems to be an exception to a non-interference right.
Maybe only governments and their officials have certain ownership rights to intellectual objects for nuclear weapons. Perhaps nobody except vetted librarians and scientists (for the sake of knowledge alone) should use intellectual objects concerning smallpox. These might be instances of private property rights to intellectual objects, albeit these rights are acquired in odd ways.
We might interpret certain kinds of personal privacy rights in terms of IP rights. If I had a moral right to have my medical information not used in certain ways by others, then maybe I have a particular kind of IP right. My private data or private intellectual objects are really mine, no matter which server they live on or the paper on which they are recorded.
Perhaps even censorship, duties against child pornography, and plagiarism can be understood as unique strains of IP rights, even if they aren’t justified via labor-mixing acquisition. This expansion of what it means to have some bundle of ownership rights to intellectual objects isn’t well explored. So many rights and obligations we wouldn’t normally think of as IP rights may actually be IP rights. Depending on how we define property rights, and how we flesh out our various obligations and rights, it is possible that some private IP rights exist.<<ref "41">>
There may be some moral limitations to how intellectual objects can be used, accessed, or controlled, based on claim rights of specific agents, governments, or corporate entities. If there are cases of private bundles of ownership rights to intellectual objects, they don’t seem to be due to any sort of labor-mixing acquisition. These rights are likely justified on other moral grounds. I’m not defending the claim that there are any private IP rights. Assuming the metaphysical framework/story can be structured clearly and reasonably, however, I’m certainly open to the possibility.
In any case, these possible exceptions seem to neither demonstrate the viability of the standard quasi-Lockean IP theory, nor interfere with the claim that we all generally have a prima facie non-interference right to use and access intellectual objects. I’ve agreed to the possibility of IP rights, but they are justified on other grounds – specifically, non-labor-mixing grounds. From what I can tell, Lockean IP theorists have yet to offer a potent ontic and conceptual tale which would convince us that there are limits on our freedom of use and access to almost all intellectual objects.
!!! ''Conclusion''
Perhaps we can accept some version of the unextended quasi-Lockean theory for physical property rights. There’s just something about chopping down an unowned tree and building chairs you subsequently come to own which is just common sense.<<ref "42">> I don’t see, however, why we should accept the quasi-Lockean IP extension. The standard Lockean IP theory has too many unexplained, and perhaps unexplainable, challenges. We might be able to justify moral, private IP rights connected to intellectual labor via utilitarian or Hegelian accounts, but I don’t see how an exclusively Lockean account can succeed at this particular goal.
Essentially, I don’t think the quasi-Lockean IP theory should be used to justify the status quo of IP rights (or anything like it). It’s more plausible to think we have a non-interference right to use and access intellectual objects, perhaps with some exceptions for other moral requirements.
-----------
<<footnotes "1" "I’ve done my best to extract the core moral arguments from what is traditionally a legal-oriented set of debates concerning IP. Perhaps not everything will pull apart nicely in this arena; some of the discussion inevitably is forced to borrow from legal perspectives, but we have to start somewhere.">>
<<footnotes "2" "This may sit in contrast to other kinds of property rights, such as common and collective.">>
<<footnotes "3" "I’ve had to paint in broad strokes here. It is important to realize there are, at least conceptually, numerous possible variations of bundles of rights which are species of private property rights.">>
<<footnotes "4" "Some folks might prefer to claim I’m denying IP rights entirely. I appreciate that perspective, although I’m worried it isn’t accurate enough.">>
<<footnotes "5" "This isn’t to say that Utilitarians don’t need to provide an ontic story or Lockeans an epistemic story. Each approach usually faces different challenges. That’s all I’m pointing out.">>
<<footnotes "6" "I say quasi-Lockean because this account is generally not a detailed or strictly historical Lockean account of property. Rather, we’re aiming for the more general and basic Lockean story that already intuitively grips a broader audience of people.">>
<<footnotes "7" "We should note that the Lockean story doesn’t seem to concentrate so much on the distribution itself, but more on what process or principles brought us to a distribution.">>
<<footnotes "8" "Exactly what counts as these barring conditions is an incredibly significant debate. For now, I will assume that the quasi-Lockean view is conceptually open to a wide range of possible conditions, including very stringent conditions that prevent almost any sort of acquisition. ">>
<<footnotes "9" "He can’t, for example, labor on something I own and claim he is entitled to it because he labored on it. From a moral perspective, he has lost his labor and possibly violated my property rights.">>
<<footnotes "10" "See: Himma (2005), (2012); Moore (2012); Mossoff (2012); Tavani (2005); Vaughan (1996)">>
<<footnotes "11" "Generally, IP theorists don’t appear to hold metaphysical nominalist positions or even simply thin views of metaphysics. ">>
<<footnotes "12" "See: Moore (1997); Spinello and Tavani (2005); Hughes (1988)">>
<<footnotes "13" "Moore, Adam D. 'A Lockean Theory of Intellectual Property.' Hamline Law Review 21.Fall (1997): 66">>
<<footnotes "14" "Technically, this isn’t a sufficient reason to be against the direct ownership of intellectual objects. Ownership rights are generally a bundle of rights, and perhaps that bundle simply doesn’t include a claim that no one can think about the object, whether physical or intellectual. That is certainly true of the unextended theory. Yet, this issue of owning and having freedom of thought may spark some intuitions against the ownership of the intellectual objects themselves.">>
<<footnotes "15" "Many intuitions would lean toward creation here, but that could be wrong.">>
<<footnotes "16" "These stories would require different explanations, but both would need to justify how we draw lines of similarity.">>
<<footnotes "17" "Merges, Robert P. //Locke Remixed ;-)//. UC Berkeley Recent Work. UC Berkeley: Berkeley Center for Law and Technology, 2007. http://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/0hs768m2:1256">>
<<footnotes "18" "Hull, Gordon. 'Clearing the Rubbish: Locke, the Waste Proviso, and the Moral Justification of Intellectual Property.' //Public Affairs Quarterly// 23, no. 1 (January 2009). http://www.jstor.org/stable/40441517: 72-78">>
<<footnotes "19" "I am not claiming that either reason is necessary or sufficient for moral, private property rules and rights. I’m open to those possibilities, but I just don’t know for sure.">>
<<footnotes "20" "I am not claiming that a Lockean theory of property is the ultimate explanation of the morally correct distribution of resources, but it may play a role.">>
<<footnotes "21" "These considerations need not be a thick set of barriers. There could many moral obligations which are so strong they override most instances of private acquisition or ownership. Interestingly, one strength of the Lockean approach is that almost any theory can accept this acquisition story, as long as certain constraints are met. This is analogous to how many moral theories can accept that certain ethics cases which meet appropriate constraints simply boil down to utility problems as the last deciding factor.">>
<<footnotes "22" "There are, of course, those who have different intuitions on this matter. Perhaps cultural and generational differences may largely explain the distinct intuitions regarding prima facie rights to non-rivalrous objects. Non-Anglo-American cultures often have strikingly different intuitions on these kinds of matters. Anecdotally, I find many digital natives are more sympathetic to my intuition (granted, that doesn’t necessarily make the intuition correct). In either direction, this is an important assumption. Unfortunately, it isn’t clear that any answer can be justified via arguments alone. While we may be able to continue asking 'why' into regress, at some point, I think we have to make the pragmatic move of putting our tent pegs down somewhere. I assume this is a fair place to do so. The result is that my argument is weaker for anyone who doesn’t share my intuition here.">>
<<footnotes "23" "Technically, even a general non-interference right imposes obligations which limit the freedoms of others. These obligations, however, are generally easy to swallow and aren’t nearly as imposing as the obligations corresponding to private IP rights. ">>
<<footnotes "24" "Himma, Kenneth. //Abundance, Rights, and Interests: Thinking about the Legitimacy of Intellectual Property//. UC Berkeley Recent Work. UC Berkeley: Berkeley Center for Law and Technology, 2005. http://128.48.120.176/uc/item/7r5654bd: 1.">>
<<footnotes "25" "Although many of the objections and challenges I raise will still apply to those extensions which employ the manifestations thesis.">>
<<footnotes "26" "A utilitarian argument from incentives might give us suitable reasons, but Lockean arguments will need something else.">>
<<footnotes "27" "Even the unextended ontic story has its fair share of problems. I see the problems for the IP extension, however, as being far more difficult to defeat. If Nozick pours his tomato juice in the sea, it doesn’t result in his acquisition of the sea. But, unlike IP rights, the unextended physical property theory at least has some clear cases which aren’t ambiguous. The IP theory suffers from far more systematic problems and ambiguities.">>
<<footnotes "28" "At least on strictly Lockean grounds, the whole legal concept of Fair Use requires a non-utilitarian justification.">>
<<footnotes "29" "Given sufficiently low requirements, particularly for lossy-compressible objects, this is a very real possibility. It may be easier to understand the bitmap example here, but similar compression and brute-force principles can be applied to sound as well. Further, almost any of kind of intellectual object or domain which the IP theorist wishes to protect may be subject to this sort of brute-force attack. For example, I could try to generate a database of all possible ownable yet unowned strings of English words, and I could copyright and publish each of them individually. Writers would supposedly violate my IP rights all the time in such a case. But, that is intolerable!">>
<<footnotes "30" "We also might have a regress of intellectual objects corresponding to other intellectual objects. This is all very messy! I don’t know the answers to these questions, but they are the kinds of questions for which we need answers in order to effectively justify and elucidate IP rules and rights.">>
<<footnotes "31" "The controversy of Leibniz and Newton concerning the discovery or creation of calculus is one of many examples. ">>
<<footnotes "32" "Almost any modern idea is the result of a massive memetic network.">>
<<footnotes "33" "Similarly, Jules Verne dreamt up solar sails over a century before a formal, working solar sail was being created.">>
<<footnotes "34" "Kravets, David. 'Monkey's Selfie at Center of Copyright Brouhaha.' Ars Technica. August 6, 2014. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/08/monkeys-selfie-at-center-of-copyright-brouhaha/ ">>
<<footnotes "35" "Many of the discussions of IP center on merely modifying our current system to be better. It’s a lot harder to find radical disagreement with the concepts of and justifications for domains or intellectual property more generally.">>
<<footnotes "36" "We’ve essentially already covered some of the difficulties in establishing novelty.">>
<<footnotes "37" "Except maybe some very forced example of a specialized contract releasing my property rights into the commons, upon my communication.">>
<<footnotes "38" "This sort of issue will be handled later in the paper.">>
<<footnotes "39" "Although, in biting that bullet, you accept a different class of problems which arise from using utilitarian arguments, including potent epistemic requirements.">>
<<footnotes "40" "Again, the quasi-Lockean is likely forced out of nominalism and must take up a robust sort of metaphysics.">>
<<footnotes "41" "As far as I can tell, property rights may be a kind of medium to express almost any sort of right. It might not be useful to translate or interpret almost any moral right into property rights. Property rights seem to lose their bite when we do this. Similarly, I worry IP rights may lose their bite if we were to continue re-interpreting others kinds of rights as IP rights. I’m not sure how and why we should draw many of these lines.">>
<<footnotes "42" "Common sense, of course, isn’t necessarily correct. Further, casuistry has its pitfalls in the dialectic. We have to do the best with what we have.">>
------------
''Bibliography''
Himma, Kenneth.// Abundance, Rights, and Interests: Thinking about the Legitimacy of Intellectual Property//. UC Berkeley Recent Work. UC Berkeley: Berkeley Center for Law and Technology, 2005. http://128.48.120.176/uc/item/7r5654bd.
Himma, Kenneth. "Toward a Lockean Moral Justification of Legal Protection of Intellectual Property." //San Diego Law Review// 49, no. 4 (Fall 2012): 1105-181.
Hull, Gordon. "Clearing the Rubbish: Locke, the Waste Proviso, and the Moral Justification of Intellectual Property." //Public Affairs Quarterly// 23, no. 1 (January 2009): 67-93. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40441517.
Hughes, Justin. "The Philosophy of Intellectual Property." //Georgetown Law Journal //77.287 (1988): n. pag. Web.
Kravets, David. "Monkey's Selfie at Center of Copyright Brouhaha."// Ars Technica//. August 6, 2014. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/08/monkeys-selfie-at-center-of-copyright-brouhaha/.
Merges, Robert P. //Locke Remixed ;-)//. UC Berkeley Recent Work. UC Berkeley: Berkeley Center for Law and Technology, 2007. http://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/0hs768m2.
Moore, Adam D. "A Lockean Theory of Intellectual Property." //Hamline Law Review// 21.Fall (1997): 65-108. Web. 09 Nov. 2014.
Moore, Adam D. "A Lockean Theory of Intellectual Property Revisited. (2012 Editors' Symposium)." //San Diego Law// Review 49, no. 4 (Fall 2012): 1069-103.
Mossoff, Adam. "Saving Locke From Marx: The Labor Theory Of Value In Intellectual Property Theory." //Social Philosophy and Policy// 29, no. 2 (2012): 283-317. doi:10.1017/S0265052511000288.
Tavani, Herman T. "Locke, Intellectual Property Rights, and the Information Commons." //Ethics and Information Technology// 7, no. 2 (2005): 87-97. doi:10.1007/s10676-005-4584-1.
Spinello, Richard A., and Herman T. Tavani. //Intellectual Property Rights in a Networked World: Theory and Practice//. Hershey, PA: Information Science Pub., 2005. Print.
Vaughan, Richard E. "Defining Terms in the Intellectual Property Protection Debate: Are the North and South Arguing Past Each Other When We Say "Property"? A Lockean, Confucian, and Islamic Comparison." //2 ILSA Journal of International & Comparative Law,// Winter 1996, 307.
Hume
The existence or appearance of evil and suffering are reasons to be religious and to believe it God.
Hume may not have been terribly careful in defining evil and suffering. He may conflate them at times. But, it isn’t too much work to add some clarifications that make his argument very clean.
Pain comes in a lot of varieties
Mental pain: anxiety, fear, remorse, hopelessness, depression, sadness, anger, etc.
Physical pain
Maybe others, although I don’t know what they be.
Pain isn’t necessarily bad.
There could be, for example, good evolutionary reasons to have a pain response to certain stimuli.
Good to feel anxious to do well on your final exams, that may help motivate you, on average.
Good to feel pain when burned by the stove. You’ll be more careful around the stove.
There could be unnecessary pain though
We might respond that it is the capacity to experience pain that is good.
What is evil?
Maybe it is the opposite of Good.
Maybe it is the opposite of Right.
Maybe both.
Evil might need more explanation.
But, maybe humans are completely responsible for this evil.
We need atonement.
No person could deny the existence of evil.
Leibniz may have.
Although, he didn’t deny the existence of pain.
Hume may be dismissing Leibniz’s argument and failing to charitably recount the exact argument; I worry he is knocking out a strawman.
Philo makes it sound like life is so filled with evil and suffering that it almost isn’t worth living.
How is it possible that “after all these reflections…you can still persevere in your anthropomorphism, and assert the moral attribute of the Deity, his justice, benevolence, mercy, and rectitude, to be of the same nature with these virtues in human creatures”?
One way out to deny that the Good and/or Right for God is the same as ours.
God is omnipotent, so he can do whatever he wants to do.
He is perfectly wise, and knows what ought to happen. Surely, he wants the right thing to occur.
Why should we think God is benevolent and merciful in the way we understand these ideas (as humans)?
I think this question had some gaps in it. We’ll see more technical arguments later.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
If so, he doesn’t seem omnipotent.
Is God able and willing?
Why is there evil and suffering?
Demea:
Our existence is just a very small part of universe. Maybe the presence of evil here is rectified in other regions of the universe or some future time period.
Think of it like the Mona Lisa. Maybe a small cluster of pixels look bad, but overall, they are necessary for the good of the painting.
Cleanthes:
Those are arbitrary suppositions.
The only way out is to deny the misery and wickedness of man.
Philo:
Such a huge claim. It seems to be the denial of human experience though.
If you deny human experience in this matter, maybe you can deny it for all matters.
We seem to lose everything, from the empiricist’s persective.
Maybe we can’t buy this “balancing” of evil in the world either.
Why is there any evil or suffering in the world at all?
Leibniz
Provides us a serious of related objections to God’s existence from the problem of evil. He lays out the arguments very carefully and concisely. He then answers them, and considers why we should deny at least one of the premises, and thus can still be justified in denying the conclusion.
Objection I
Whoever does not choose the best is lacking in power, or in knowledge, or in goodness.
God did not choose the best in creating this world.
God didn’t create the best creatable world, but he did create a world.
Therefore, God lacks either power, knowledge, or goodness.
Answer:
Deny the 2nd (minor) premise.
Valid argument, so to deny the conclusion requires denying at least one of the premises.
Prosyllogism (argument for the second premise):
Whoever makes things in which there is evil, which could have been made without any evil, or the making of which could have been omitted, does not choose the best.
God created a world with evil, and He could have made a world without evil or no world at all.
Hence, God didn’t select the best option.
Therefore, God lacks either power, knowledge, or goodness.
Answer:
Agrees to the 2nd (minor) premise.
God did create a world with evil.
It was possible for God to create a world without evil
It was possible to not make a world at all.
Very explicit here, except that Leibniz doesn’t give us a really clean definition of evil (neither did Hume).
Which is okay, but it means there could be wiggle room for interpretation.
It is possible that in the final analysis of metaethical evil, however, Leibniz might deny God created a world with real evil.
Denies the 1st (major) premise.
Could have just asked for proof of it. It seems to be asserted without any justification. But, Leibniz provides a positive argument against it.
Best option isn’t necessarily to avoid creating a world with evil.
Augustinian claim: It may be the case that evil is accompanied by a greater good.
An imperfection in a part may be required for a greater perfection of the whole.
But, then is it really evil?
Right, Good? If good, what kind? Intrinsic Value or something else?
The Happy Sin.
Ultimately, it is a good thing that Adam and Eve sinned. The result was an opportunity to benefit from forgiveness and salvation.
This seems to be a hint at what Leibniz means by evil.
Note, a theist need not accept this particular Happy Sin example, but could still maintain the same overall Augustinian point.
The Freewill defense.
It is better to have creatures with free will who do what is morally wrong than non-free creatures who only do what is right (although it wouldn’t really be a choice…I hesitate to say their action is really right).
Maybe this is a hint at what Leibniz means by evil.
This is the best of all possible worlds.
The relationship between the right and the good seems so important to this problem. Without an explanation, it is hard to see what people mean here.
Objection II
If there is more evil than good in intelligent creatures, then there is more evil than good in the whole work of God.
There is more evil than good in intelligent creatures.
Therefore, there is more evil than good in the whole work of God.
Answer:
Denies both premises.
Premise 1:
Why should we only be talking about intelligent creatures here (where intelligence may even include something like freedom; Kant and Reason = Freedom, etc.)?
Evil seems to be less about blameworthiness. But, this may run counter to the other hints Leibniz drops for the definition of evil.
I worry that either Leibniz is confused or I don’t really understand his definition of evil.
If we include non-intelligent species, maybe the balance tips in the favor of the good.
Premise 2:
Even if there are more evil people than good, maybe the good we find in good individuals greatly overweighs the evil and suffering we find in other individuals.
God is infinite and the devil limited. Good is infinite, and the evil is finite.
God is a being with infinite good, and perhaps this outweighs everything.
Talks about happiness and unhappiness. Further good talk, but not intrinsic value exactly. What kind of happiness?
Even if Leibniz grants this imbalance for evil in humans, there are so many other possible rational creatures, maybe aliens, which could tip the scales back in favor of the good.
Too anthropocentric.
It is fascinating to see both the theist and the atheist employ this claim.
Objection III – an odd argument from evil
If it is always impossible not to sin, it is always unjust to punish.
i.e. if every sin is necessary, then it is unjust to punish those
necessity means it wasn’t possible to do otherwise. How could you hold something account for doing otherwise (not sinning) when it by definition couldn’t do otherwise?
Now, it is always impossible not to sin; or, in other words, every sin is necessary.
Therefore, it is always unjust to punish.
Presumably, God punishes, and is thus unjust, and is thus not perfectly good.
2 Prosyllogisms
1st claims every event is necessary because every event is predetermined
2nd claims every event is predetermined because of God’s foreknowledge
Also keep in mind that Leibniz’s contemporary and fellow Calculus discoverer, Isaac Newton, revolutionized not just physics but perhaps even philosophical and religious debates on ontology and ethics. One unexpected and social result of Newton’s findings in physics was a shift towards thinking that perhaps the entire world really is just a deterministic machine.
Leibniz may not be agreeing to such a thing, but it’s worth noting this is a background problem in academia and later in popular religious perspectives.
Answer:
Doesn’t deny the 2nd prosyllogism
So many questions come out of that.
Denies the 1st premise of the 1st prosyllogism.
All that is predetermined is necessary.
I see no reason to deny this premise. Seemed much better to deny the 1st premise of the 2nd prosyllogism
Leibniz clarifies what he means by necessity and predetermination
Necessity is absolute necessity, and it outright prevents free will. It is logical necessity.
Predetermination is a weaker notion, having more to do with foreknowledge, but doesn’t interfere with free will.
“Inclined without necessitating”
Objection IV
Whoever can prevent the sin of another and does not do so, but rather contributes to it although he is well informed of it, is accessory to it.
God can prevent the sin of intelligent creatures; but he does not do so, and rather contributes to it by his concurrence and by the opportunities which he brings about, although he has a perfect knowledge of it.
Hence, God is an accessory to sin.
Answer:
Deny 1st premise.
Just because you can prevent the sin of another doesn’t mean you should.
Maybe God would be doing something wrong in preventing a human from sinning.
Objection V
Whoever produces all that is real in a thing, is its cause.
God produces all that is real in sin.
Hence, God is the cause of sin.
Answer:
Like Morpheus from the matrix, Leibniz demands the answer to the question: What is “real?”
1st definition: Real signifies that which is positive only
Realness in the scholastic sense. The degree which which something is real just is the degree to which it is good.
2nd definition: Real includes also privative beings
Privative: marked by the absence, removal, or loss of some quality or attribute that is normally present.
A privation is bad.
If the 1st definition, then he denies the 1st premise
If the 2nd definition, then he denies the 2nd premise
God causes all perfections, but none of the privations of good.
It’s clear we also need to define causation here.
Free will defense seems reasonable here.
The relationship between causation and responsibility isn’t so clear either.
I think my wife and I are the causes of our children.
I don’t think we are the causes of anything our children do. Our children are the causes.
I don’t think we are morally responsible for everything our children will do.
However, I think we might be partially responsible for much of what they do.
E.g. I feel more responsible for what they do early in life, and less as they grow older. As their self-responsibility grows, our responsibility diminishes.
Objection VI
Whoever punishes those who have done as well as it was in their power to do, is unjust.
This sounds a hell of a lot like Objection III, but it isn’t the same.
God does so.
Hence, God is unjust.
This also brings a particular view in metaethics which is non-obvious.
Doing what is right just is doing the best one can do with what one has.
Hence, someone deeply conditioned to be a racist isn’t really doing anything morally wrong when they are racists.
Many people have a problem with this example, thinking it shows what’s wrong with the metaethical perspective
The racist is being racist because he thinks it is the right thing to do, he just doesn’t know any better.
There are so many situations where we don’t know what is objectively the best thing to do, but we have do our best, and we have to make a decision, and we have to do something. We take the option that we think is best, even if we aren’t certain. That’s the best we can do.
E.g. if you’ve lived a very primitive life, and you’ve never realized that drinking water with dead corpses floating in it is a bad idea, then it would seem like a reasonable inference to give your thirsty child some water from a pool of water with dead creatures floating it in.
To our eyes, that’s a horrifying deed. But, we perhaps we should accept this parent has done the best they could with what they had, with what they knew and inferred, with what was available to them.
So much of moral life for finite and flawed creatures like us, as human beings, is like this!
Maybe all there is to doing what is right is having a good will, nothing more.
Answer:
Denies the 2nd premise
God always gives sufficient aid and grace to those who have good will.
I worry the aid part seems obviously false, but the grace part perhaps.
God doesn’t eternally damn unbaptized babies. Babies are doing the best they can by just breathing, shitting, and eating. (If they are moral creatures at all!)
Objection VII
Whoever gives only to some, and not to all, the means which produces in them effectively a good will and salutary final faith, has not sufficient goodness.
God does this.
Hence, God isn’t sufficiently good.
Answer:
Deny the 1st premise.
So weird, why not deny the 2nd premise as well?
He is willing to accept that God only gives some, not all, the means to produce effective good will and salutary final faith.
Wat!?
God could force us to do things, but he doesn’t. (I take it, “means” also includes force somehow)
Although, “means” to good will is so wildly different from force. I worry that if it is forced, then it isn’t even a will at all (or at least not a free will).
He doesn’t force us because it is part of greatest possible world that God doesn’t do that.
Objection VIII
Whoever cannot fail to choose the best, is not free.
God cannot fail to choose the best.
Hence, God is not free.
Answer:
Deny the 1st premise
True, maximal liberty or freedom is doing the best.
This is actually a compatibilist solution to the problem of freewill.
Both compatibilists and others who think they aren’t compatibilist (some famous modern Kantians) agree with this.
When someone is doing what is wrong, they don’t have complete will. They aren’t an integrated self. They aren’t performing real actions.
Some very famous, contemporary ethicists take this view very seriously.
Sinning is a kind of slavery.
This seems so odd. Who the hell made that enslavement then?
That seems to be against the freewill point.
I fear Leibniz is trying to have his cake and eat it too here.
Different kinds of necessity. I’m lost.
Inlcined without necessitating.
Mackie
Structured, but within each section, it wanders a bit. As with so many of these pieces, sometimes I left wishing for more explanation. This piece was far too brief.
One might take Mackie as being out to destroy theism. We might also simply take him to be narrowing the discussion, showing what options are and aren’t available. He may simply be clarifying what the theist really needs to mean omnipotence.
No rational proof is available is again, different from no evidence or no justification. Mackie misses this. He moves to irrational ways to hold the position. Rationality isn’t about proof. Asking for proof is ridiculous.
Maybe Mackie wants to show a positive argument against theism, and not simply attack arguments for the existence of God.
Contradiction is a technical word in philosophy. Surd. Surd is the result of, P ^ ~P, but it can also just be an absurdity; the necessarily false; false is all possible worlds. Separately, P and ~P, we call them inconsistent. i.e. They can’t both be true at the same time.
Sometimes, it is obvious that absurdity arises from a set of premises. Sometimes, we have to think about the logical implications of the premises, draw them out, before we find that absurdity arises.
Mackie claims there seems to be some sort of contradiction between 3 propositions:
God is omnipotent
God is wholly good
Evil exists
These are inconsistent (or the conjunction of them results in absurdity). They can’t all be true at the same time, according to Mackie. It isn’t obvious though, and he says it takes some work to show how the absurdity arises.
Perhaps formally draw up the relationships between good, evil, and omnipotence. If we agree to these rules/relationships, then we might get the contradiction.
Adequate Solutions
Problem of evil doesn’t arise for someone willing to deny one of the propositions. But, most theists wouldn’t deny them. These would be adequate solutions.
Limiting the concept of omnipotent, goodness, or evil does the trick. So, you might say that God is omnipotent, but what we should really mean by omnipotence is more limited than what Mackie has in mind.
Fallacious Solutions
Mackie warns against “almost adopting” the adequate solution, but failing to adopt it fully. Cant’ have your cake and eat it too. Can’t accept a limited concept of omnipotence only when it convenient (such as for the problem of evil), but turn around and apply an unlimited concept for other cases. This is a fallacious solution.
Considers the various fallacies found in 4 conversational, but crucial “kernels” of the responses to the problem of evil.
(1.) “Good cannot exist without evil” or “Evil is necessary as a counterpart to good.”
Answers “why there is evil”
Limits omnipotence
God can’t create good without evil
Two ways to interpret that
There are possible worlds with good but not evil, but God can’t create them.
That would be a significant loss of power possibly
There aren’t any possible worlds…
Of course, what if there aren’t any possible worlds in which there is good but no evil
Tasking God with creating good without evil would be asking the logically impossible at that point.
That wouldn’t even be a limitation on the standard definition of omnipotence
Could someone be justified in believing this?
Considers the view that Logic isn’t co-extant with God, but rather created by God. Doesn’t think this (1) solution can be adopted alongside the “logic is created by God claim.”
That is non-obvious
He doesn’t seem to provide an argument right here for it.
Denies that evil is opposed to good in our original sense
“If good and evil are counterparts, a good thing will not ‘eliminate evil as far as it can’”
??
Maybe not as far “as it can” but rather, “as far as it should”
And, it may be a serious problem for his argument from omnipotence. It isn’t about what God can do, it maybe it about what He should do.
Suggests good and evil aren’t strictly qualities of things
There are folks in metaethics who deny this move though. Intrinsic value isn’t obviously correct, although we may have intuitions that lean heavily that way.
Anyone who thinks, for example, that the right precedes the good can easily go this direction
He consider’s the way to deny by considering good/evil as relative terms on a spectrum, where God doesn’t support the good, but “the better”
This isn’t the only way to make this distinction though.
Even if we grant him all this, Okay. Is this a problem though?
It isn’t obvious to me why it is.
Maybe evil is just the privation of good
He has a problem with us being inconsistent in how we apply this, drawing an analogy to the naturalistic fallacy
He doesn’t seem to sink the ship though.
Considers the metaphysical issue of attributes.
If there is redness, must there be non-redness.
Is it possible for there to be just enough evil for there to be the opposite of evil.
Minimalist evil.
Doesn’t think Theists like this, but he opens the door for the theist here.
What are the costs of accepting it?
Overall, I’m not happy with this section. It wasn’t terribly convincing to me, and it really could have been way more persuasive. I think Mackie could have done a lot more to explain the problem. There’s more firepower he could have unloaded in this section.
I think this argument could be way stronger than Mackie has presented it.
Maybe someone would like to redo this section. Show the explanatory power that’s lacking, but then come back and really deliver the argument(s) here the way they should have been delivered.
(2) “Evil is necessary as a means to good.”
Not a logical, ontic, or conceptual requirement for evil to exist, but rather, an instrumental reason it exists.
This also explains “why evil exists”
Implies a severe restriction of God’s omnipotence
Mackie claims it is a causal law
As if causal laws are a huge restriction on God
I don’t have a problem with this though
Claims this conflicts with what theist normally means by omnipotence
Really?
Another way to talk about this is simply that there aren’t any possible worlds where good exists without evil as a means to it.
That might be construed as a causal law, but really it is just dealing in logical possibilities again.
What does the theist really give up by ceding this to Mackie?
Macke claims that for God to be limited by causal laws sits in conflict with causal laws being created by God.
Why must the theist agree that all the causal laws are created by God?
Note that there is a difference between physical causation and perhaps other kinds of causation we might find outside of the physical world. Just because you create the physical laws of causation doesn’t mean you can create non-physical laws of causation.
Presumably, the creation of the physical universe was a kind of metaphysical causation.
Perhaps certain kinds of miracles or divine intervention are also non-physical causation.
Maybe God could create the laws, the bind himself.
Odd binding problems though. Maybe analogous to whether or not God could kill himself or something.
(3) “The universe is better with some evil in it than it could be if there were no evil.”
Context and interpretations
Seems to be a variant of the 1st solution, but it isn’t. (not my gut instinct – I think the 1st and 2nd are really close actually)
The first is about a logical counterpart, and possible worlds. Good isn’t a possibility without evil.
This makes the 1st and 2nd closer (although logical and causal aren’t the same).
Maybe the 2nd could be interpreted to be talking about how evil is also instrumental to maximizing the good, not just the existence of any good. Which would align with 3rd more.
The 3rd solution makes it possible for there to be a world with no evil and some good in it
The issue really seems to be about maximizing the good
This follows our aesthetics analogy, where we maximize the beauty of the whole of a painting or piece of music by having certain ugly or imperfect parts.
This also works with a progressive model of the universe, in which a universe gradually overcoming evil is better than a statically good one. That kind of triumph is in itself some kind of maximizing good.
The argument:
Starts by assuming evil is primarily pain.
Pain and misery count as “first order evil”
In contrast, pleasure and pleasure-based happiness count as “first order good”
Second order good “emerges in a complex situation in which first order evil is a necessary component”
Not sure if it has to be presented this way. Maybe second order good can exist without evil, it just isn’t maximized without evil.
Second order good could be many things.
Heightening of happiness
Sympathy, heroism
Gradual decrease of first order evil, and increase of first order good
I’d like to add that there are other ways to talk about “goodness” that could fit here which Mackie doesn’t mention
Is second order good the “real good,” a different kind of good, or just a different metric of good (which measures first order and other stuff)?
Second order good, at the very least, is assumed to be more important that the first order good (and somehow evil).
It outweighs the first order evil involved.
I.e., this is the best of all possible worlds, when we balance in the equation the second order good.
Admits real evil, but also show why it co-exists with God.
Later claims the possibility of 2nd-order evil? What would that look like?
This view possibly modifies, on Mackie’s view, the relationship between good and evil.
Originally, he defined the relationship in terms of good doing what it can to eliminate evil.
It is non-obvious to him that is what is occurring in this solution.
Would 2nd order good be opposed to 2nd order evil?
Ordered arguments often face a regress!
God’s goodness is not second order good, rather it is the will to maximize second order good.
Mackie wants to call this third order goodness.
I think Mackie has totally lost sight of the good/right distinction. He seems to only talk about good, but sometimes mixes in decision procedures, which may belong to the right, not the good, in the discussion.
There are many ways to build this version of the argument. I’m not sure why we have to buy exactly his.
Objection 1
Qualities such as benevolence and sympathy, and even God’s 3rd order goodness, are simply derivative of 1st order. Thus, they aren’t higher in any way.
I’m not sure why he calls these a means to first order good. It seems the other way to me. The derivate part makes sense though. That second order might be the result of first order good considerations.
This isn’t obviously damning. The account is already so bare-bones that isn’t obvious. Mackie seems aware of it though, and he passes it by.
I’d say this objection really shows how the solution he’s provided is incomplete.
Objection 2
Mackie claims that God is not concerned to minimize first order evil, but only to promote second order good. That might be disturbing.
It just isn’t clear exactly how the relationship between first-order good and evil really are or how they relate to each other, nor how 2nd order good ands possibly 2nd order evil lineup, nor how 1st and 2nd orders are truly related, nor what the same for 3rd order.
The argument seems to be about defining good, possibly.
Maybe this isn’t acceptable though.
I’d say this objection really shows how the solution he’s provided is incomplete.
Objection 3 (fatal)
2nd order evil is clearly possible
Opposite of benevolence, sympathy, and increasing first order good
Presumably, according to Mackie, God would try to not only promote second order good, but also eliminate 2nd order evil.
But, there is 2nd order evil, and God hasn’t eliminated it.
We might simply double down and raise the ordered-thinking even more.
Perhaps 3rd order good explains 2nd order evil.
Doesn’t think raising orders move is plausible in the first place
Unfortunately, such a solution might lead to 3rd ordered evil.
But, then we might have a regress.
But, unlike Mackie, it becomes far less obvious to me what 3rd order good is really like.
I’m just not convinced the theist absolutely needs to have a higher ordered good to explain the existence of a lower ordered evil.
Wasn’t this whole point just about maximizing good?
Problematically, this objection fails to show why this isn’t the best of all possible worlds. It really doesn’t demonstrate how God hasn’t simply chosen the world with the highest overall good.
So, I’m not convinced this is fatal. Instead, this objection may really be showing that we have an incomplete view of metaethics. Like so many of the problems we’ve faced in this class, the answers don’t rest on philosophy of religion problems, but rather more foundational problems in epistemology, metaphysics, and ethics which we have to first answer before we can ultimately respond to the questions we examine in this class.
(4) “Evil is due to human free will.”
Can be combined with other solutions, but doesn’t have to be.
Mackie wants to combine it with the 3rd solution, and that seems pretty plausible.
A world with free beings is better than one without, despite the evil that results.
Freedom is a third order good on this view.
Second order evils, such as cruelty, may be logically necessary accompaniments of freedom.
In the same way that pain logically precedes sympathy
Solution fails because freewill is incoherent
This is a huge problem in metaethics. It is a reasonable stance to take. If you can provide a good argument against freewill (and I think you can), then you would be justified in thinking this way (justification doesn’t make you correct, it just means you’re being rational!)
Mackie questions whether second order evil really must accompany freewill.
Mackie assumes God made humans who sometimes prefer good and sometimes prefer evil.
He then asks why God didn’t just make humans who only preferred good, despite it being done freely.
Couple directions to go with this:
Maybe it is similar to the robot analogy we looked at before.
Maybe there are an infinite set of worlds where in some of them, people freely choose to only do what is right or good. Why didn’t God select those?
Why should we agree to such a set of worlds?
Well, maybe that’s part of the definition of freedom! Mackie has a real case here.
What does it mean to be free?
In some possible world, you do otherwise.
Maybe there are no worlds with free humans X, Y, Z wherein nobody does evil, even though it is always possible that 2 of them didn’t do evil. This maintains freewill, but doesn’t prevent evil.
Mackie would likely claim that we are moving the goal posts here, redefining omnipotence. I’d prefer to think of that kind of move, however, as talking what is actually possible.
I think Mackie has also ignored the possibility of omnipotence and goodness remaining intact, but denying the kind of omniscience we had in mind before. Problem may be solved with if concede that God just doesn’t know the outcomes of freewill (but perhaps that has other problems it brings up).
Mackie considers the reply to this objection that “the making of some wrong choices is logically necessary for freedom”
Mackie assumes this kind of freedom requires a kind of randomness or indeterminacy
If it was determined, it would really be free now, would it?
I don’t want to conflate random and indeterminate. Mackie seems to conflate them.
Since he does, he can ask how if freedom of the will is random, how can it be a characteristic of the will?
Why would randomness be the most important good?
Why would random choices be more valuable than non-random, or perhaps even valuable at all?
But, this all rides on the randomness claim.
Indeterminacy doesn’t have to be random, and indeterminacy may still have that value where randomness doesn’t
Mackie concludes this solution requires two senses of freedom to be confused
One sense justifies the view that freedom is a third order good, and more valuable than other goods would be without it
Another sense, which he claims is sheer randomness, prevents us from ascribing to God a decision to make men such that they sometimes go wrong when He might have made them such that they would always freely go right.
This might be a false dichotomy. I don’t know why we have to split these apart, particularly since I’m not convinced the second sense is really the best formulation of freedom.
Mackie points out a more fundamental difficulty: how could an omnipotent God create men with free will?
If they are really free, then surely not even God can control them.
The obvious response is that God maintains that capacity to control, but simply refrains from doing so.
Why would God refrain from controlling evil wills?
Robot problem
Why not let them be free, except to intervene only when they will choose to do evil?
Mackie supposes the answer is that “a wrong free act of will is not really evil, that its freedom is a value which outweighs its wrongness.”
So, if God intervened, then there would be a loss of goodness.
This, however, is utterly opposed to what theists say about sin in other contexts.
This supposes that the robot problem demonstrates that one can still be free, despite intervention
Perhaps freewill requires a sustained, long-term non-intervention or coercion. Maybe constant intervention would simply prevent the possibility of freewill.
Mackie thinks this fundamental difficulty demonstrates that the freewill defense REQUIRES that God cannot control the freewills, by definition.
That is not obvious to me, but let’s continue.
We now approach the “Paradox of Omnipotence”
Can an all-powerful being make things which he will lack power over?
Can an all-powerful being, essentially, limit Himself?
It isn’t clear that we can give a nice answer in either direction for this paradox (hence, why we call it a paradox)
The claim is that if God were to bind himself, he is no longer as powerful, and essentially, no longer omnipotent.
If God can’t bind himself, then is he really omnipotent?
Is this another stone-case?
The mechanic example suggests so
The paradox, in Mackie’s view, shows a problem on either side. The free will defense theist faces the first half of the objection, the theological determinist, however, may face this omnipotence paradox.
Of course, we had to buy his version of the robot argument, which was far from clear to me.
Mackie brings up a philosophy of law problem that is quite analogous, the paradox of sovereignty.
Could a government make a law preventing it from changing a law ever again?
If yes, then there is an area of the law over which the government isn’t sovereign
If no, then is there a way in which the government wasn’t really sovereign in the first place?
His solution to it seems to be about orders of jural laws – differing orders of sovereignty essentially
First order laws govern the actions of people and institutions outside the government
Second order laws govern the government
Maybe a government is sovereign in the 1st order sense, but not the 2nd…
perhaps it is possible at a given time slice for a government to have both 1st and 2nd sovereignty
It seems impossible for a government to currently have 2nd order sovereignty and for all governments to have 1st order, since perhaps a government with 2nd order could take away 1st order.
This is a neat example which has a lot in common. I’m not sure if the analogy holds entirely.
Mackie thinks his understanding of the paradox of sovereignty also applies to the paradox of omnipotence.
Maybe there are orders of omnipotence as well
What is shows is that God can’t have all the orders for all time.
Many read Mackie as taking himself to have offered deductive arguments against theism, especially since he entirely avoids speaking about rational justification and focuses on proofs. He sets out 3 initial propositions in the beginning, and he claims they are logically inconsistent because of the arguments he provides us. Did he really show that theism is deductively invalid? Not obviously.
However, did he show some weaknesses or problems with theism. Yeah. There are issues which the theist needs to address. Mackie may not have succeeded in exactly what he took himself to have succeeded at, but he shaped the discourse on the topic.
Rowe
Three interrelated questions:
Is there an argument for atheism? Can an atheist be rationally justified in his or her belief?
Rowe says yes, and he gives a good argument for it.
Note, Rowe goes after rational justification, not validity and proof.
How can the theist best defend against the problem of evil?
Tries to offer a rationally justified defense
How should an atheist perceive the rationality of theism (not necessarily all theists)?
Unfriendly, indifferently, or friendly.
Rowe advocates friendly atheism
Doesn’t mean you have to be chummy or friendly toward all theists. But, it is an particular kind of outlook toward the possibility of the rationality of theism, and the recognition that we really can’t be certain about a whole lot.
Narrow and Broad terms
Narrow theist/atheist
Believes or denies existence of omnipotent, omniscient, eternal, supremely good creator of the world
Broad theist/atheist
Believes or denies existence of a divine being or divine reality
Can be a broad theist, but narrow atheist.
Rowe is employing the narrow sense
Section I
Intense human and animal suffering we find in the world is a clear case of evil. Argument from the problem of evil:
There exist instances of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.
An omniscient, wholly good being would prevent the occurrence of any intense suffering it could, unless it could not do so without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.
There does not exist an omnipotent, omniscient, wholly good being.
Valid argument. Is it sound? Are the premises true? Maybe. Even if can’t prove they are true, can we be rationally justified in believing these premises (and thus the conclusion)?
Begin by considering the 2nd premise.
Assume S1 is an instance of intense human or animal suffering that only God can prevent.
My mind is already filled with acronyms. I can’t help but read acronyms as I already use or know them. OG being (omniscient, good being)…OG is an acronym already in my vocabulary though. All I can see is Rowe talking God as the Original Gangster.
What would be a sufficient condition for God failing to prevent S1?
Rowe wants to provide a necessary condition (a weaker component of perhaps a more complete sufficient condition).
Necessary Condition
P is necessary for Q
If Q, then P.
Might need more than just P to make Q true. But, anytime Q is true, we know at least that P is true.
Sufficient Condition
P is sufficient for Q
If P, then Q.
Might be other ways to make Q true. But, we know P always does.
Three possible necessary conditions (maybe we can think of more?):
there is some greater good, G, such that G is obtainable by OG only if OG permits s1
there is some greater good, G, such that G is obtainable by OG only if OG permits either s1 or some evil equally bad or worse
s1 is such that it is preventable by OG only if OG permits some evil equally bad or worse
Rowe distinguishes (1) and (3) based on the claim that the privation of good is not evil.
Rowe claims that: If S1 obtains, then one of these 3 options obtains. But, Rowe also thinks this is just the same as claiming Premise 2. Is that correct? Maybe. Premise 2 may just be about necessary conditions for the God permitting evil, not sufficient conditions.
Rowe believes premise (2) states a basic moral principle which both theists and non-theists share. Is this correct? Can we deny it? Moral anti-realists maybe. Can a moral realist? Even if we can deny it, should we deny it?
According to Rowe, (2) is at least rationally justified (if not outright true). He’s not even sure if we can find a fault with it, but even if we could, it is at least justified (which is all he needed). Thus, we must now search for faults in the remaining 1st premise.
Suppose a fawn is burned and suffering agony for days before death in a forest.
Good example, reminds of that classic “if a tree falls in the forest” line, and who doesn’t love Bambi?
Suppose Bambi’s pain is pointless
Quite a supposition!
The theist may need to argue this isn’t possible.
By assumption, there doesn’t appear to be any greater good enabled by Bambi’s suffering or any greater or equal evil prevented by Bambi’s suffering.
Presumably, God could have prevented Bambi’s suffering.
Why didn’t God prevent it!?
If the Bambi case is possible, then Premise (1) seems true.
By assumption, it seems like Premise (1) is true.
Rowe admits the case doesn’t prove or establish Premise (1).
Very wise
Perhaps we are wrong in our supposition. Maybe any case of Bambi’s suffering here is just an appearance of pointless suffering, but isn’t actually pointless. Perhaps the suffering is required.
It is one thing to know or prove Premise (1), and another to be rationally justified in believing (1).
This is where Rowe thinks the Bambi’s Case really takes us.
Perhaps we can be rationally justified in thinking a case like Bambi’s is possible.
Even if Bambi’s case actually can be justified by the theist, the next move: should we think all instances like Bambi’s are really justified?
Mackie’s argument was meant to be a deductive enterprise with perhaps some kind of certainty sitting behind it.
Maybe it didn’t work.
He didn’t really show all the deductive steps he needed.
Maybe we can charitably fill in some gaps for him though.
Ultimately, he also didn’t show why his starting grounds were certain (even though he seemed to feel they were obvious).
In charity, we can simply ask for justification rather than certainty.
Recall that deduction involves truth preserving moves. Every inference is a matter of logical consequence. For a valid argument, the way to establish the truth of the conclusion is simply to establish the truth of premises.
Rowe begins with a deductive argument here. The conclusion is the logical, deductive consequence of the two premises he sets out.
However, the way in which Rowe argues for the premises moves away from deductive reasoning and certainty.
Rowe wants to use what he calls an inductive argument, particularly to support Premise (1).
For inductive arguments, logical consequence along probably isn’t enough.
Validity isn’t a property of inductive arguments (at least it isn’t normally thought of this way).
Even for a good inductive argument, you can begin with true premises, but it is still possible for the conclusion to be false.
Using probabilistic reasoning or “moving from the specific to the general” is often called “inductive” reasoning.
Some inductive inferences are really strong.
Since the sun has always come up for each day since I’ve been alive (30 years), the sun will continue coming up for hundreds of millions of years.
Taking specific cases and inductively inferring a more general claim.
It is possible the sun will explode a million years from now, and so my prediction or my inductive inference will not be accurate.
But, it does seem like a justifiable inference. A reasonable one.
Some aren’t strong.
Just because I saw a Dog capable of performing basic addition problems on the youtubes doesn’t mean that all dogs I meet are capable of performing basic addition problems.
Inductive reasoning is weaker than deductive. Deductive has validity. Inductive is probabilistic. It is solely based on rational justification.
It is a huge inductive move to say that just because a single case of seemingly pointless suffering isn’t actually pointless that all instances of seemingly pointless suffering aren’t actually pointless.
Rowe thinks it is rationally justified to deny this inductive move.
Then denial of this move, however, just is premise (1).
Hence, Rowe thinks premise (1) is rationally justified.
Since Rowe believes premise (1) and premise (2) are rationally justified, then he’s rationally justified in believing the conclusion (the denial of God’s existence).
II
Rowe reiterates that the theist is likely in no position to deny the second premise. If theism is to be rationally justified, then the theist needs to be justified in denying the 1st premise.
Rowe claims the theist has two responses to show why it is reasonable to believe premise (1) is false, he calls these the direct and indirect attacks.
Direct Attack:
An attempt to reject (1) by pointing out goods, for example, to which suffering may well be connected, goods which God could not achieve without permitting suffering.
This seems an oddly over-charitable way to state it.
He’s only talking about pointing out some goods basically. He isn’t evening drawing a line for how many.
I’m surprised he didn’t go back to the induction claim with more force right here.
The direct attack requires showing that so many instances of suffering ought to be permitted by God that we would be rationally justified in thinking that all instances of suffering ought to be permitted by God.
This isn’t the claim that every single instance of suffering has to be explained, but probably a ton of them.
How many? I don’t know. That may depend on the context.
Perhaps we can see him as eventually going this route though.
Immediately doubtful in Rowe’s eyes
Several of the direct points just aren’t complete enough to justify the rejection of premise (1)
E.g. Suffering leads to moral character and spiritual development
Suffering seems to extend far beyond this though. There seems to be suffering that isn’t instrumental to this end. How can that degree of suffering be justified then?
E.g. Suffering results from free will
Perhaps much suffering is the result of free choices. But, there seem to be instances of suffering which have nothing to do with free choice.
The Bambi case seems to be one of them.
What about earthquakes and other natural disasters?
Original Sin might respond to this though.
The very structure of the world is such that sin actually impacts how the natural world operates.
Maybe on this view we would live in a utopic garden of Eden with no unnecessary suffering, except for the mistakes humans have made.
General difficulty is two-fold
It cannot succeed; for the theist does not know what greater goods might be served, or evils prevented, by each instance of intense human or animal suffering
Too many things to justify.
The theist’s own religious tradition usually maintains that in this life it is not given to us to know God’s purpose in allowing particular instances of suffering. Hence, the direct attack against premise (1) cannot succeed and violates basic beliefs associated with theism.
Some theists might not agree that we can know God’s reasons so directly and completely.
Indirect Procedure (G.E. Moore Shift):
Fascinating argumentation style against external world skepticism. Rowe states it this way:
I do know that this pencil exists.
If the skeptic’s principles are correct, then I cannot know of the existence of this pencil.
Therefore, the skeptic’s principles (at least one) must be incorrect.
This isn’t really the best way to put the argument (even if it is the way Moore put the argument):
This pencil exists.
If [the conjunction of the skeptic’s principles], then ~[this pencil exists]
Therefore, ~[the conjunction of the skeptics principles]
It is best to interpret Moore as actually claiming he is more confident in the pencil’s existence than the skeptic’s principles. The decision procedure here is to select between mutually exclusive propositions based upon which proposition he has more confidence. Knowledge of the pencil’s existence will only later be the result of this confidence defeating skepticism.
Don’t we need to know “why” one should be more confident or certain in one proposition rather than another?
Maybe not.
General shift. I’m not convinced Rowe doesn’t do a great job explaining this section. It doesn’t follow Moore’s kind of reasoning, and he could have done a better job of re-interpreting his own initial argument to fit it. That’s what I’ll do for you.
P: The Pencil Exists
Q: Skeptic’s Principles/Claims
P Q
If Q, ~P If Q, ~P
~Q ~P
“One philosophers modus ponens is another philosophers modus tollens, and vice versa.”
This argument against the skepticism of the existence of the external world can nicely be translated to an argument against the skepticism of God’s existence.
Instead of talking about a pencil, we can talk about God.
Instead of talking about the external world skeptic’s principles and claims, we can talk about the atheist’s principles and claims.
P: God exists
Q: Atheist’s Principles and Claims
This is in fact a form of the argument which Rowe provides at the very beginning.
Premise 1 just is (Q)
Q: It is not the case that there exist instances of intense suffering which God could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.
Premise 2 isn’t the skeptic’s principles (Rowe even claims the theist agrees to it). Here is where Rowe didn’t really cleanly write the 2nd premise as a conditional.
Premise 2 is really: If Q, then ~P
If “It is not the case that there exist instances of intense suffering which God could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse,” then ~P (not the case that God exists).
Thus, the theist can just argue the other direction. Instead of a modus ponens argument, the theist can flip it to a modus tollens.
The theist, then, from the Moorean Shift, feels more confident in God’s existence than Q (Rowe’s first premise – that pointless evil exists).
And the theist uses the confidence based selection principle to decide which to adopt.
Nice part of this argument is that while it was originally intended to talk about certainty and extremely high epistemic standards (and criticisms of Moore’s argument usually head in this direction), the theist is much better positioned to employ it, since the theist only needs mere justification (and not outright certainty).
Why should we be more confident in God’s existence than the existence of pointless evil?
That is the difficult question.
Rowe says almost nothing here. He doesn’t push the point.
Note that Rowe can been charitable in trying to show how his opponents can respond. He is not dismissive.
III
Friendly atheism – claims the belief in God can be rationally justified (not necessarily that everyone who believes in God is justified)
Indifferent, and unfriendly
Unfriendly atheism has a problem: how do you show that nobody is justified? This is what Mackie was trying to accomplish. In a way, it is very hard to prove or give a great argument for a negative.
You might be able to show that modern, scientifically and philosophically literate people might not be justified. That is tricky in itself though. But, it seems much harder to show why someone who doesn’t this training or these resources wouldn’t be rationally justified in believing in God.
Rational justification is attuned to contexts. It isn’t a question of truth, it is question of the merits or warrant of a beliefs. At some point, our arguments are no longer about truth, but only on justification. This is the way fundamental philosophy goes sometimes. It is part of the great post-modern problem, the flaw with the Cartesian pursuit of certainty and truth. This, of course, is hardly a position of truth relativism or skepticism, but it is the reconition of our unfortunately limited epistemic positions.
Plantinga
We saw the initial modern discussion launched by Hume and Leibniz. We’ve considered two influential contemporary atheist pieces on the problem of evil. We’ve gone a bit out of order here, chronologically, as I wanted to show Rowe’s more fully developed atheistic argument from the problem of evil before considering defenses. Now we’ll consider a more contemporary defense of theism concerning the problem of evil than Leibniz’s.
Jumping into the middle of a larger argument here. We start in section 2.
Plantinga takes Mackie to task on the claim of a deductive argument against theism. He calls Mackie’s supposed inconsistent propositions, set A.
(1) God is omnipotent
(2) God is wholly good
(3) Evil exists.
Plantinga points out that no formal contradiction can be deduced from just the propositions in set A. He’s correct, and yes, Mackie wasn’t careful enough in what he claimed to have shown. Although, it seems pretty obvious that Mackie really meant to say that these propositions alongside many other common, everyday propositions we might already agree to will result in the inconsistency. Plantinga could have been more forthcoming on this point.
Plantinga gives us the George, Paul, and Nick example.
(8) George is older than Paul
(9) Paul is older than Nick
(10) George is not older than Nick.
He calls this set C, and claims that no laws of logic allow us to deduce the inconsistency of these propositions. I guess that depends on what we mean by laws of logic. He’s right that FOL doesn’t allow this, because the deductions required to show the inconsistency require us to understand the meaning of the predicate “older.” But, it seems obvious that general logical laws must allow for this, even if predicate logic alone doesn’t. Plantinga wants to call these “broadly logical” notions. Perhaps Mackie’s argument should be understood in this broadly logical sense.
Plantinga distinguishes different kinds of modality. There’s a difference between logical possibility and natural possibility. E.g. Logically possible for Henry Kissinger to swim the Atlantic, but it isn’t physically possible. This may highlight various complications to getting exactly what Mackie really means when he claims a deductive inconsistency.
We consider:
(11) If George is older than Paul, and Paul is older than Nick, then George is older than Nick.
This proposition is necessarily true, given what we mean by older. When we add it to set C, we can formally deduce absurdity. Plantinga says set C has a particular kind of structure, wherein adding a particular kind of necessary truth to the set will allow us to show why the original set is inconsistent. Plantinga calls this structure “implicitly contradictory.”
Plantinga wants to take Mackie as claiming that set A is implicitly contradictory.
As Mackie explained, the contradiction only arises when we add some additional premises.
(19) A good thing always eliminates evil as far as it can
(20) There are no limits to what an omnipotent being can do.
Plantinga claims that if Mackie is arguing that set A is implicitly contradictory because of these additional premises, then these additional premises must be necessarily true, and not simply true. Plantinga is correct that if Mackie thinks this problem of evil is simply a matter of logical truths, then Mackie needs to show why these additional premises are necessarily true. Again, nothing stops an atheist from lowering the status of the argument and claiming that it isn’t simply a matter of logical truths, and then the atheist needn’t show why (19) and (20) are necessary true, but only true. That would be enough, perhaps.
Is (20) necessarily true? Plantinga claims that God’s omnipotence means that there are no non-logical limits to what God can do. Given that qualified definition (which Mackie would agree to), Plantinga seems willing to accept that (20) is a logical truth.
Is (19) necessarily true? It depends on what we mean by “can” perhaps.
Plantinga gives us the example of an endangered friend, Paul. Presume we are good things. We’re physically capable of helping Paul, but if we don’t know Paul needs our help, as in we don’t know that we can eliminate some sort of evil, then we won’t help Paul or eliminate an evil. But, we are still good things. Hence, it isn’t obvious that (19) is necessarily true.
Thus, maybe ignorance can demonstrate how (19) isn’t necessarily true. But, if (19) isn’t necessarily true, then Mackie doesn’t seem to have provided us an implicitly contradictory set of propositions.
Maybe we were never really in a position to help Paul though. So, maybe we “couldn’t” eliminate evil, and so something like (19) may still be necessarily true. Plantinga offers us a revision:
(19a) Every good thing always eliminates every evil that it knows about and can eliminate.
This provides some gateway to incorporating God’s omniscience into the argument.
Note that set A, (20), and (19a) still don’t enable us to deduce a formal contradiction. As Plantinga points out, the contradiction can only be deduced if we add that God knows about every evil state of affairs. This, of course, is something which most theists will readily admit.
But, Plantinga doesn’t think (19a) is necessary. Plantinga gives us the example of two friends marooned on separate islands, and a dilemma in which we can only help one, but not the other. It is possible to eliminate each of the evils separately, but we can’t eliminate them both.
Similarly, the scraping your knee is an evil which can be eliminated by a doctor via amputation, but the evil it would bring about might be greater than your skinned knee.
Alternatively, maybe there is a linked greater good which simply outweighs the evil which instrumentally enables that greater good.
Thus, given the possibilities, (19a) isn’t obviously, necessarily true. It may not even be true at all. So, Plantinga considers another revision:
(19b) A good being eliminates every evil E that it knows about and that it can eliminate with- out either bringing about a greater evil or eliminating a good state of affairs that out-weighs E.
This still doesn’t seem to solve all the problems we saw in 19a though. In particular, when you’re in a dilemma with mutually exclusive options to eliminate separate evils. Thus, even (19b) doesn’t seem necessarily true, and hence it isn’t obvious that Mackie can really show that set A is implicitly inconsistent.
Plantinga considers yet another revision:
(19c) An omnipotent and omniscient good being eliminates every evil that it can properly eliminate.
Even if we concede 19c, it doesn’t buy Mackie’s inconsistency. We can’t deduce there is no evil and there is evil. What 19c entails is:
(3’’) There is no evil that God can properly eliminate.
This seems to be the kind of move the theist may want to make here. Note, however, that Plantinga’s primary objective is simply to show there is no implicit inconsistency in set A, and (19c) is unable to provide the contradiction Mackie would need.
Thus, we consider an additional premise to make 19c do the kind of work Mackie needs it to do.
(21) If God is omniscient and omnipotent, then he can properly eliminate every evil state of affairs.
Again, for set A to be implicitly inconsistent, (21) would need to be necessarily true, not merely true. Is it necessarily true? Maybe not.
Plantinga claims there are of certain kinds of goods only possible because of evils, and he thinks these are counterexamples to this the necessity of (21). Is that right?
A lot of this argument seems to ride on Plantinga’s interpretation of “can,” where “can” here seems to imply a kind of “moral” permissibility. The reason God can’t eliminate the evil is because it would be wrong, not because it isn’t somehow possible. This may not be unacceptable though, since we did state that God is virtuous agent in the premises as well, and so perhaps when we flesh that out, Plantinga ends up being right in his use of “can” here to demonstrate why (21) isn’t necessarily true.
Thus, it isn’t obvious if Mackie’s set A is implicitly inconsistent. The argument doesn’t seem to be there for it. Rowe knew that, and that’s why he went with the weaker (but more plausible) argument from induction, probability, and justification.
Section 3 – Can we show no inconsistency in Set A?
This paper is difficult to appreciate if you haven’t had logic - this section in particular.
Wisely, Plantinga doesn’t want us to rush into claiming that set A is therefore automatically, implicitly consistent simply because no candidate “necessary” premise has been found to complete the implicit consistency. That principle for rushing into that claim has poor consequences (and actually leads to a contradiction). Hence, Plantinga seems to argue, at this point, that we just don’t know if set A is implicitly consistent or not. At best, we can only say that it hasn’t yet been demonstrated that set A is implicitly inconsistent.
Plantinga considers how to move the discussion along. One way is to show that set A is implicitly consistent or even broadly logically possible (which means it can’t be implicitly inconsistent). That would shut the door on Mackie, but not necessarily Rowe. This approach amounts to a procedure he calls “Giving a model of S,” namely:
“to show that a set S is consistent you think of a possible state of affairs (it needn’t actually obtain) which is such that if it were actual, then all of the members of S would be true.”
In a weird way, this procedure is like providing a counterexample. But, instead of showing how some conclusion isn’t the logical consequence of some premises, as a counterexample is designed to do, this model giving procedure shows that propositions are logically consistent by demonstrating a model in which all the propositions are true.
Let’s define logical consistency.
P Q
To say that P and Q are logically consistent is just to say that there is at least one possible world in which P and Q are both true (it doesn’t have to be all possible worlds). If P and Q can’t both be true in any possible world, then we say they are logically inconsistent.
Further, we need a notion of logical truths (or necessity). To claim a proposition is a logical truth or necessarily true is simply to claim that it is true in all possible worlds. There is no possible world in which it is false.
Further, we also need just a basic understanding of the notion of logical entailment. Consider this conditional:
n1 -> n2
We know that for any propositions n1 and n2, if in all possible worlds n1 -> n2 is true, then this conditional is actually a logical truth. Thus we say:
n1 => n2 (logically entails)
So, logical entailment is just the same thing as claiming that a conditional is a logical or necessary truth.
To quickly illustrate the difference between the conditional and logical entailment, consider this:
n1: this marker is in my hand
n2: I am standing in this classroom
We can construct the conditional:
n1 -> n2
If this marker is in my hand, then I am standing in this classroom.
Is this conditional true in all possible worlds or situations? No! I can sit down while holding this marker in my hand, and now the consequent of the conditional is false, which makes the conditional false. The conditional here, doesn’t have to be true. In some possible world or situation, it is false. I can specify a world in which it is false (for this proposition, I can physically demonstrate it). Let’s contrast the conditional with entailment. Let’s change n2:
n2: I have a hand
Consider the conditional:
If this marker is in my hand, then I have a hand
Is there any possible world in which when I have a marker in my hand, I don’t have a hand? No. In possible worlds where n1 is true, namely, when I have a marker in my hand, then n2 is also true, namely, I have a hand. So, this particular conditional is special because it isn’t just true in this world, or in some possible world, but rather all possible worlds. This conditional is a necessary truth, a logical truth.
Hence, we will say that the proposition n1, “This marker is in my hand,” logically entails proposition n2, “I have a hand.”
Moving on, with these concepts of consistency, necessity, and entailment, we can understand Plantinga’s “giving a model of S” procedure.
Suppose set S contains P and Q, and you want to show P and Q are consistent.
One might just give propose a possible world in which both P and Q are true. If we agreed that was a possible world, then we’ve agreed that P and Q are consistent. However, maybe we can’t agree to possible world where they are both true and be done with it. How can we show that P and Q are consistent?
Another way to show their consistency is to not only specify some possible world (a world which we can all agree is possible), but to also specify a kind of axiom or necessary truth which we would all agree to.
So, another way of showing the consistency of P and Q, without outright claiming both are true in some possible world, is to show it the consistency indirectly by giving a model. Here’s the indirect method which Plantinga has in mind:
To show that P is consistent with Q, find a proposition, R, such that both:
P and R are true in some possible world
R => Q (in all possible worlds, R -> Q)
Note that if there is such an R, then R is consistent with P. Since, there is a world where both are true.
Further suppose this proposition can be found, and hence some possible world can be specified where P and R are true, and R => Q. In that world, we know R is true. And, by supposition, R is such that in every possible world where it is true, Q is also true. Thus, in that world, Q is also true. Hence, even without specifying that Q is true, we can deduce that P and Q are both true in that possible world. Thus, P and Q are logically consistent, since that world would be proof that there is some possible world where they are both true.
So, if you can find such a proposition, R, you’ll have accomplished your original goal of showing the consistency of P and Q. This is what Plantinga is considering here for the set A. Can he give a model of set A?
Plantinga agrees that it just isn’t acceptable simply specify a world where the propositions of set A are true, since an atheist like Mackie just won’t accept it. But, maybe Mackie could be convinced by a model of set A. So, the goal would be to get Mackie to agree to a possible world and some necessary truth which logically entails the members of set A without having to outright assume the members of set A.
Plantinga combines some of set A, so (1) is now the basic attributions of God:
(1) God is omniscient, omnipotent, and wholly good.
So, now we have two propositions (1) and (3). These are the P and Q for the model giving procedure. The goal then is to find some proposition, R, which even Mackie could agree both entails Q and is true in some world with P. If that can be done, then even Mackie should be convinced that P and Q are logically consistent (even if it wasn’t obvious from the beginning).
So, assume a possible world where (1) God is omniscient, omnipotent, and wholly good.
What are candidates for R? Plantinga considers:
(22) God creates a world containing evil and has a good reason for doing so.
This obviously entails Q, that evil exists (in the possible world we’ve assumed). At least formally, R appears logically consistent with P. But, maybe they aren’t.
Plantinga says there are two attempts we might provide for showing that P and R, namely (1) and (22) are consistent. The first way is to just outright try to conceive of a possible world where P and R are true. If you can succeed in this, then they are consistent. This doesn’t seem to be any better than our initial problem with set A though. The other attempt is to specify what might be God’s good reason for permitting evil.
Of course, the worry is that maybe even P and R here are implicitly inconsistent. Well, how do we break out of implicit inconsistencies? By providing yet another model. So, we could give another model which shows how P and R (rather than P and Q) are consistent. So, maybe there is an R2 such that it entails R and is consistent with P. If that model can be provided, then we’d have proof that our original P and R are consistent, which would then prove that P and Q are consistent. Of course, you might have the same problem with R2, and then we might regress into R3, and so forth.
If you can show there can be a good reason that God has for evil, essentially another proposition, R2, which in conjunction with P entails R, then you could show that R is consistent with P.
St. Augustine tries to do. Greater good can be achieved by permitting evil. That could be a good reason, and Augustine thinks it is the good reason. Plantinga calls Augustine’s attempt a Theodicy.
Plantinga makes a technical distinction between theodicy and defense here.
Theodicy is about telling us why God permits evil (as if you know the answer).
Theodicist tries to show (1) and (22) are consistent, and thus set A is consistent.
Augustine believes this reason alongside (1) entails (22), which entails (3).
Further, Augustine actually thinks this reason is true. It’s a big claim.
In contrast, Defense is about providing a possible reason God might have for permitting evil
a sufficient reason, even if it isn’t what God necessarily relies upon
maybe there are multiple sufficient reasons
So, like the theodicist, a defender is also trying to find some proposition R2, a reason, which alongside (1) entails (22), and thus entails (3)
Or, we might say that the defender is finding a different R which doesn’t need an R2. Either will work. Plantinga is not clear enough on this point.
The difference, however, is that the defender, unlike the Theodicist, need not actually claim that R2 is true.
He only needs to establish the possibility of R2 with P, namely the consistency of R2 and P.
In establishing the consistency of R2 and P, the defender will have shown R and P are consistent, which shows that Q and P are consistent. This is all a defender is trying to show though.
So, in plain words, the defender is only trying to show that Mackie’s set A is not logically inconsistent, but the defender is not going on further to claim why they must be consistent, or what actually obtains, or what God’s actual reason must be.
A defense, in this case, would defeat Mackie’s argument, but it wouldn’t obviously defeat Rowe’s. A theodicy is more satisfying, and would provide a stronger justification for believing in God.
Section 4 – The freewill defense
Plantinga offers us a defense, not a theodicy. He’s giving us an R2, and he interrogates it.
Definition of free action:
“If a person is free with respect to a given action, then he is free to perform that action and free to refrain from performing it; no antecedent conditions and/or causal laws determine that he will perform the action, or that he won’t”
Doesn’t mean or entail unpredictability
Definition of morally significant action:
“an action is morally significant, for a given person, if it would be wrong for him to perform the action but right to refrain or vice versa.”
Thus, a person is significantly free, on a given occasion, if he is then free with respect to a morally significant action.
Distinguishes between moral evil and natural evil:
Moral evil is the result of free action (does he mean significant free action?)
Natural evil is any other kind
Preliminary Defense
All else being equal, a world with significantly free beings is more valuable than a world with none.
God can create free beings, but can’t cause or determine them
they wouldn’t be free if God did – that’ just part of Plantinga’s definition of freedom
God can’t create free beings that can’t do evil, since that isn’t freedom by definition.
God did create significantly free beings, namely humans.
Sadly, at least some humans have freely caused moral evil.
This moral evil, however, does not count against God’s omnipotence or benevolence (why nothing about omniscience here?)
God could only have prevented moral evil by not creating free beings, but in doing so, would also prevent moral good.
Plantinga thinks we can pull R2 and P out of this story to show the possibility of R
R: “God has a good reason for creating a world containing evil.”
R2 = “God could not have created a universe containing moral good (or as much moral good as this world contains) without creating one that also contained moral evil.”
Plantinga is only claiming R2 is possible – that’s all a defense needs.
If R2 and P are possible, then R is possible.
If R and P are possible, then so are P and Q.
This defends set A against the claim of inconsistency, but it doesn’t make the more reaching claim that God exists or that this is the reason God does or would use to justify the existence of moral evil.
Objections:
Definition of freedom is a bad one. If Compatibilism is true, and then it seems like God could have made free beings who only did what is morally right.
Plantinga doesn’t find compatibilism plausible.
At the very least, the libertarian might be justified, and thus argument of the possibility of R2 might be justified.
Formidable objection:
“Surely it is possible to do only what is right, even if one is free to do wrong.”
Plantinga agrees is possible in the broadly logical sense. In some logically possible world, there are free creatures who always do what is right.
There is no logical contradiction or inconsistency which arises from that objection.
But, if God is omnipotent, then God has no non-logical limitations
Surely, then, God could create one of these possible worlds where free beings, even on the libertarian view, only do what is morally right
But, if that’s true, then the freewill defense is mistaken is claiming the possibility of R2
R2: God could not have created a universe containing moral good (or as much moral good as this world contains) without creating one that also contained moral evil
Mackie saw this coming and provided this objection for us.
Built into this formidable objection is the subtle Leibnizian claim that:
If God created this world, then this must be the best of all possible worlds.
Mackie agrees with Leibniz. Mackie simply denies this is the best of all possible worlds, which means Mackie denies God created this world.
The Free Will Defender disagrees with both Leibniz and Mackie.
Why should we think there is a best of all possible worlds?
More importantly, the free will defense does not claim that God could have actualized just any possible world.
There are more than non-logical limits to God’s omnipotence in this case.
Perhaps freewill imposes limits on God’s omnipotence.
Section 5 – Does God’s Power really include the ability to create just any possible world?
Plantinga gives us relationships between proposition, states of affairs, and possible worlds.
States of affairs are facts that obtain in some possible world.
Propositions correspond to states of affairs
We might think of states of affairs as truth-makers. When a state of affairs obtains, it makes corresponding propositions either true or false.
A possible world is a maximal state of affairs.
An atomic state of affairs, like 2+2=4, is only an element of a maximal state of affairs.
State of Affairs A is a complete if and only if for every state of affairs B, either A includes B or A precludes B.
A includes B if A’s obtaining entails B’s obtaining in a world
The proposition corresponding to A entails the proposition corresponding to B
A precludes B if it isn’t possible for both to obtain in a world
The proposition corresponding to A entails the negation of the proposition corresponding to B
So, a possible world is this maximal state of affairs which is really a web of atomic and complex states of affairs with a corresponding web of propositions which entail each of the other propositions or the negation of them.
Lastly, let’s say that the complement of a state of affairs is the state of affairs that obtains just in case A does not obtain.
So, a possible world A is a maximal state of affairs just in case for every state of affairs B, A includes B or A includes the complement of B.
He also says for each possible world, W, there corresponds a book on W. This worldbook contains all propositions true in world W.
Like possible worlds, which are complete states of affairs, worldbooks are complete.
Every proposition is either true or false in a worldbook.
Thus, a worldbook is a maximally consistent set of propositions.
Every world has a unique worldbook.
There is exactly one actualized possible world. By definition there has to be a set of true propositions which is maximally consistent, which is really just the worldbook of the actual possible world.
Presumably, we exist in an actualized possible world. In fact:
People exist in possible worlds.
To say Paul exists in the actual world and another possible world isn’t to say Paul is co-existing in two worlds. It just means that if that other possible world had obtained, then Paul would have existed in it.
Paul doesn’t have to exist in all possible worlds.
Paul might exist in some non-actual possible world, but not the actual world.
Modalogical terms
P is possible if it is true in at least one possible world (whether actual or non-actual)
P is necessary if it is true in all possible worlds (actual and non-actual)
P entails Q if there are no possible worlds where P is true and Q false.
P is consistent with Q is there is at least one possible world where P and Q are true.
Could God have created just any possible world?
According to Plantinga, strictly speaking, God doesn’t “create” any states of affairs
There was a time when the earth did not exist, but not a time when the state of affairs consisting in earth’s existence didn’t exist.
States of affairs transcend time in this sense. There is no creation of it.
Instead of creating a possible world, Plantinga thinks God “actualizes” states of affairs.
Essentially, God didn’t create a possible world, he simply actualized one.
Admittedly, I think this isn’t a sufficient explanation.
I still don’t know what it means to actualize worlds or why we should think any being, even God, can do it.
Is God’s existence necessary or contingent?
Does God exist in every possible world?
If God is a contingent being, then there is at least one possible world without God.
In that world, God couldn’t have actualized anything.
If God is contingent, then there are many possible worlds that God couldn’t actualize.
At the very least, God couldn’t actualize a world in which God doesn’t exist.
This goes against the standard, traditional view.
Claiming the contingency of God might initially seem to respond to the atheist’s charge, since God’s omnipotence really is limited automatically in being contingent.
However, the atheist can simply revise the objection to say that:
If God is omnipotent, then God could have actualized any of these possible worlds in which God exists, and would have actualized only those possible worlds in which God exists and free creatures exist who do no wrong.
So, we are still left asking: could God have actualized worlds containing moral good but no moral evil?
Note that Plantinga had talked about two states of affairs: one in which God’s existence obtains and another where God’s existence doesn’t obtain.
He goes on to talk about the possible necessity of God, and I just want to make it clear that Plantinga isn’t contradicting himself.
Claiming that there is a state of affairs is not the claim that there is a possible world in which it obtains.
Recall that a possible world is a maximal state of affairs, not simply an atomic state of affairs. While there may be a state of affairs where God doesn’t exist, for example, that doesn’t entail that there is any maximal state of affairs where God doesn’t exist.
Paul selling the odd Aardvark example.
Consider a world in which Paul rejects your $500 for his aardvark. You ask yourself, “What would he have done if I’d offered him $700?”
What exactly are you asking?
Consider a state of affairs S’ (S’ isn’t a complete, and so we won’t call it a possible world) where you offered $700 instead of $500
Would Paul accept the offer under the conditions in S’?
As far as we know, in S’, Paul has neither accepted nor rejected the offer. Hence, as far as we know, S’ is incomplete, and therefore not yet a possible world.
According to Plantinga, one of the following propositions has to be true:
(23) If the state of affairs S’ had obtained, Paul would have accepted the offer
(24) If the state of affairs S’ had obtained, Paul would not have accepted the offer.
To say Paul this choice is a free action in a world where S’ obtains is just to say that S’ does not itself entail that Paul accepts or rejects the offer.
Thus, there are possible worlds in which S’ obtains and Paul accepts your offer.
(25) and (26) are true in those worlds
And, there are possible worlds in which S’ obtains and Paul rejects your offer.
(25) and (27) are true in those worlds
Either (23) or (24) is in fact true; and either way there are possible worlds God could not have actualized.
Plantinga then uses a standard disjunction elimination inference in logic to show us his conclusion.
I want to point out that an opponent could certainly disagree with this disjunction, and simply claim it’s a false dichotomy. Indeed, I’m not sure why we have to buy it.
Temporal propositions might not have truth values, for example.
Further, something weird is occurring here, where I agree one of these conditional has to be true in a possible world, but I don’t see why a particular one has to be true uniformly true in ALL possible worlds.
Suppose the first disjunct, (23), is true, and S’ had obtained
Plantinga claims it was beyond the power of God to actualize certain worlds where (23) is true.
In this case, it was beyond God’s power to actualize a world in which:
Paul is free to sell or refrain from selling the aardvark (S’)
Paul refrains from selling the aardvark.
It was beyond God’s power to create a world where (25) and (27) are both true.
Call this world W, where S’ obtains, namely Paul is free, and Paul refrains from selling.
W is a possible world which even an omnipotent being couldn’t actualize.
As supposed, (23) is true (If S’ obtains, then Paul accepts), and since Paul is free with respect to the action in W, then Paul would have accepted the offer.
For Paul to be free, W couldn’t be actual, since W includes Paul’s refraining.
If, however, God had causes Paul to refrain, then Paul wasn’t free. And, if Paul wasn’t free with respect to this action, then W couldn’t be actual because S’ includes Paul’s freedom.
God can’t actualize world W because God would either fail to actualize Paul’s freewill or fail to actualize Paul’s not selling the aardvark.
If Paul were to sell the aardvark, then W didn’t obtain.
If Paul weren’t free, then W didn’t obtain.
Thus, in either case, when (23) is true, there is possible world, W, which an omnipotent being could not actualize.
Similarly, suppose 2nd disjunct, (24), is true, and S’ had obtained.
God can’t actualize world W because God would either fail to actualize Paul’s freewill or fail to actualize Paul’s selling the aardvark.
Thus, in either case, when (24) is true, there is possible world which an omnipotent being could not actualize.
Thus, whether (23) or (24) is true, there is a possible world which an omnipotent being could not actualize.
Again, we had to buy this dichotomy in the first place.
Something meta is going on here.
The actualizability of a world depends on whether Paul would freely choose some particular thing.
Ultimately, there are a number of possible worlds where it is partly up to Paul whether God can actualize them.
Is the claim here that Paul actualizes something?
This is one view of free will, that we are little, limited unmoved movers. That we have embedded in us some image to choose, to do something radical, and perhaps to actualize states of affairs.
At the very least, Plantinga is claiming that the concept and implementing of freewill imposes limits on God’s omnipotence.
This makes sense. Giving human beings real freedom means giving up power over them with respect to those free actions.
What kind of “giving up” of power is this? It could be voluntary, but even so, freedom as a concept imposes limitations on the possible worlds.
Importantly, the free will defender insists “on the possibility that it is not within God’s power to create a world containing moral good without creating one containing moral evil.”
Note, the defender only needs to show the possibility. In doing so, the defender diffuses the Leibnizian Lapse.
The defender, therefore, can agree there are many possible worlds containing moral good, but no moral evil.
However, that doesn’t mean God could have actualized just any possible world. Only some worlds can be actualized.
We need not buy Leibniz’s lapse.
If a world isn’t actualizable, why should we think it is possible?
I worry there is something tricky or odd about this notion of actualizable which might be the downfall of Plantinga’s argument.
There are a lot of views on modality, and Plantinga brings to the table a very specific one. We need not buy his metaphysics.
That said, even if we have reason to believe he is wrong, Plantinga may still be rationally justified.
The root of the philosophy of religion problems often sit at the foundational problems in different branches of philosophy.
Section 6 – Could God have actualized a world containing moral good but no moral evil?
Even if Leibniz’s lapse is shown to be false, we’ve not yet shown that falsity of the possibility of Mackie’s objection to the deductive inconsistency of set A. Namely, we’ve not shown the possibility of:
(30) God is omnipotent, and it was not within His power to create a world containing moral good but no moral evil.
If the defender shows this is possible, then he has shown that set A is not inconsistent. To show (30), the defender must demonstrate that the entire set of worlds with moral good but no evil are among the set of possible worlds which God couldn’t create.
Curley Smith’s morally significant free action example demonstrates a malady which free beings can suffer from: Transworld depravity.
I have to leave this as an exercise for you to walk through.
“Every world God can actualize is such that if Curley is significantly free in it, he takes at least one wrong action.”
It may be the case that in any possible world in which God can create, free beings always do at least one wrong thing, even though they are free.
“So the price for creating a world in which they produce moral good is creating one in which they also produce moral evil.”
Note how this talks about the structure of the worlds available to God to actualize. There is a possible structure of possible worlds wherein (30) is true. That is all the defender needs.
We need not agree that transworld depravity is true, but only that it is at least a possible. If it possible, and it seems like it is, then Plantinga has diffused Mackie’s objection.
This shows that it is possible that R2 and R are consistent with P, which means it is possible that P and Q are consistent. Namely, it is possible that God exists and evil exists in a world. Thus, Mackie’s deductive argument doesn’t follow, and hence why Rowe’s argument goes the direction of admitting the possibility of God’s co-existence with evil, but doesn’t think we can justify it.
Assuming this entire argument works, the remaining question for theists then is whether one can be rationally justified in believing the problem of evil doesn’t show God doesn’t exist. It seems like it.
Papers:
As I said before, I’m grading the final paper more harshly than the midterm.
Look in your syllabus and follow the formatting requirements. I will lose points for not following it this time.
Don’t forget to cite appropriately.
You probably don’t have space for quoting or block quotes. I suggest you cite without quoting with condensed paraphrasing and summation.
I’m looking for a very tight, well-written paper. Your goal is to make 10 pages fit in 5-6.
Choose one article from the Existence of God section of the class.
Find one significant flaw in the argument, carefully explain that part of the argument and how it fits the larger argument presented in the paper.
Spend 1-2 pages on exegesis of the argument in the article.
Make them look good. Be charitable. Show what kind of work is being done by this subargument.
Spend 2-3 pages addressing the flaw.
Spend just a little bit of time thinking about how your opponent would respond to your argument. Show me the weaknesses in your own argument.
Feel free to e-mail me about these papers.
Submit the digital copy to me by e-mail by 5:00 on December 15th.
I don’t take late work without an official excuse. I suggest sending it by 4:00 instead.
Close:
At the beginning of this semester, I told you I didn’t know the answers to almost any of the problems we faced in this class.
I hope you see why.
I hope you see how traditional philosophy of religion problems rest upon other significant problems in epistemology, metaphysics, and ethics.
If we can’t answer those problems, then we aren’t in a good position to answer these problems.
I hope you’ve gained an appreciation, in particular, for:
The history of thought in philosophy of religion. These ideas are thousands of years old. We are still participating in this historic discussion.
A particular method for doing philosophy.
We were crazy careful, systematic, and charitable in our interpretation for this particular class.
If you took an ethics, political philosophy, or logic course with me, I would have more decisive things to say. I think this subject matter forces us to be charitable and extremely careful.
Different philosophers will teach various classes in different ways.
I’ve had dozens of philosophy teachers. They all have different approaches. I try to learn not just the content they have to offer, but also the method.
We were extraordinarily careful in how we approached these readings. This may have felt dry and boring to some, but I hope you see why it is or can be worth approaching certain topics in this way.
I hope you see how the theist and the atheist may both be rationally justified in their beliefs.
I hope you have gained some measure of respect for the possibility that we are fallible, that we can be wrong, and for the views of others.
You guys did a great job this semester.
Many of you are clearly very good at this. I hope you continue doing philosophy.
I really enjoyed your comments, questions, criticisms, and thoughts.
I think it was a successful class.
13
Boolean Connectives – a.k.a. truth-functional connectives, correspond to the simple uses of the English words: “and,” “or,” and “it is not the case that.” These connectives will connect two or more atomic sentences to form complex sentences. The truth value of a complex sentence built up using these connectives depends on nothing more than the truth values of the simpler sentences from which it is built.
§ 3.1
Negation, ¬ - Also commonly written as ~ (and there are many others), but not in this class. It should be translated as:
“It is not the case that,” “Not,” or the prefix “un-“
“John is home” Home(john)
“it is not the case that John is home” or “John is not home” ¬Home(john)
Multiple, chained, or stacked negations are possible.
¬¬Home(john) …and so on and so forth
For future reference, a literal is a sentence which is either atomic or negated atomic.
You’ll always want to know a language’s syntax and semantics. Syntax is how a symbol works with language you already have to form new expressions. Syntax is grammar. Semantics asks, under what conditions is using that new piece of language true or false?
Syntax for ¬: If P is a sentence, then so is ¬P.
Semantics for ¬: ¬P is true iff P is not true, P is false.
Given any sentence P of FOL (atomic or complex), there is another sentence ¬P. This sentence is true if and only if P is false. This can be expressed in terms of the following truth table.
Truth Table for ¬: P | ¬P
T | F
F | T
If you commit yourself to the truth of P, then commit yourself to the falsity of ¬P, and vice versa. Conversely, if you commit yourself to the truth of ¬P, then commit yourself to the falsity of P, and vice versa.
Nonidentity Symbol: We will abbreviate negated identity claims, such as ¬(b = c), using ≠, thus we will write b ≠ c.
Homework: 3.1-3.3
§ 3.2
Conjunction, ∧ - Also commonly written as . or & (among various others symbols), but not in this class. It should be translated as:
“And,” “but,” or “moreover”
“Bob is Tall, and Jim is tall.” Tall(bob) ∧ Tall(jim)
“Bob and Jim are tall.” Tall(bob) ∧ Tall(jim)
Some English sentences don’t have “and” in them, yet will be translated with the conjunction.
“Jill is a tall woman.” Tall(jill) ∧ Woman(jill)
“d is a large cube” Large(d) ∧ Cube(d)
Note that we can flip the order of conjuncts (the sentences on either side of the conjunction) and retain the same meaning:
Large(d) ∧ Cube(d) Cube(d) ∧ Large(d)
Multiple, chained, or stacked conjunctions are also possible:
“d is a large, blue cube.” Large(d) ∧ Cube(d) ∧ Blue(d)
Not every use of “and” is the conjunction.
“Sam brushed his teeth and (then) went to bed.”
Here, “and” has a temporal meaning beyond mere truth functional conjunction. With the real truth functional conjunction, you should be able to flip the order of the conjuncts and arrive at the same meaning. Note in the previous example, you can’t flip the order without changing the meaning.
Syntax for ∧: If P and Q are sentences, then so it P ∧ Q
Semantics for ∧: P ∧ Q is true iff both P is true and Q is true.
Truth Table for ∧: P Q | P ∧ Q
T T | T
T F | F
F T | F
F F | F
Note how the conjunct sentences, P and Q, must both be true in order for the more conjunction sentence, P ∧ Q, to be true. If P or Q are false, then P ∧ Q is false.
If you commit to the truth of P ∧ Q, then you are commit to the truth of P and you are commit to the truth of Q. If you commit to the falsity of P ∧ Q, then you commit to the falsity of P or the falsity of Q or the falsity of both P and Q.
Homework: 3.5-3.7
§ 3.3
Disjunction, ∨ - Also commonly written as | (among other symbols), but not in this class. It should be translated as:
“or”
“Bob or Kim is married.” Married(bob) ∨ Married(kim)
This is the English version of the “inclusive or,” (sometimes call “and/or”) which means, “One or the other or both.” This is not the exclusive “or,” however, which is “one or the other, but not both.”
“Bob may have either soup or salad with his meal.”
(Soup(bob) ∨ Salad(bob)) ∧ ¬(Soup(bob) ∨ Salad(bob))
The inclusive “or” is sometimes tricky or unused for certain English speakers. Translations can also be a bit mirky, since it isn’t always obvious whether the interlocutor meant inclusive and exclusive “or.” When in doubt, use the inclusive.
Multiple, chained, or stacked disjunctions are also possible:
“d is large or blue or a cube.” Large(d) ∨ Cube(d) ∨ Blue(d)
While we know the exact conditions under which a conjunction is true (both conjuncts must be true) or the conditions under which a negation is true (the non-negated literal must be false), the conditions under which a disjunction is true is less clear (although still specifiable). Consider the folowing:
“I went to Dublin or I went to London.”
Went(michael, dublin) ∨ Went(michael, london)
Let us say the disjunction, a complex sentence, is true. Which of the disjuncts is true? Without any further information, we really don’t know. It is possible that I went to Dublin, but not to London, and the disjunction remains true; it is possible I went to London, but not to Dublin, and the disjunction remains true; and it is also possible that I went to both Dublin and London, and the disjunction remains true. We don’t know which of the three conditions make this disjunction true. We don’t know which disjuncts are true or false. All we know, given that the disjunction is true, is that at least one, if not both, of the disjuncts are true.
Syntax for ∨: If P and Q are sentences, then so is P ∨ Q.
Semantics for ∨: P ∨ Q is true iff at least one member of {P, Q} is true.
Truth Table for ∨: P Q | P ∨ Q
T T | T
T F | T
F T | T
F F | F
Note how a disjunctive sentence is false in only one case, where both atomics sentences are false.
If you commit to the truth of P ∨ Q, then you commit to the truth of P or the truth of Q or the truth of both P and Q. Note, however, that you need not know which particular P or Q is true or false, merely that at least one of them is true. If you commit to the falsity of P ∨ Q, then you commit to the falsity of both P and Q.
Homework: 3.8-3.10
§ 3.1-3.3 Addendum
Non-truth-functionality
Lots of English connective words are not truth-functional. That is, if you use one of these words as
the main connective in a compound sentence, the truth-value of the resulting sentence does not
depend in all cases solely on the truth-values of the component sentences. An easy way to see that
a connective is not truth-functional is to try to construct a truth-table for a compound in which it is
the main connective. You will notice that you cannot complete all the rows.
“Claire fed Scruffy while Max slept.”
P Q P while Q
Fed(claire, scruffy) Slept(max) | Fed(claire, scruffy) while Slept(max)
T T | ?
T F | F
F T | F
F F | F
In this case, we know that if either component is false, the whole compound must be false. For
example, if Claire did not feed Scruffy, it is false that she fed Scruffy while Max slept. The
problem occurs when both components are true. It may be true that Claire fed Scruffy and true that
Max slept, and nothing follows about whether the feeding and sleeping took place at the same time
or not. The truth of both component sentences is compatible with either the truth or the falsity of
the entire compound sentence.
Many connectives in English are not truth-functional. Disjunction, Conjunction, and Negation are, however, truth-functional. That means we can state the semantics of these connectives on truth-tables. When you hear truth-functional, you need to think about truth-tables.
§ 3.5
Ambiguity, Parentheses, and Scope
Grouping/groupers – (), [], {} – Groupers are used to indicate the scope of a connective.
For example, parentheses are used to indicate the scope of a negation symbol:
¬Home(claire) ∧ Home(max) ¬(Home(claire) ∧ Home(max))
The first sentence claims that “Claire is not home, but Max is home.” The second sentence, however, claims that it is not the case that both Claire is home and Max is home.” In the second sentence, it is possible for Claire to be home and Max to not be home, and it would remain true. The truth-values for these sentences are very different, obviously. What enables that difference, and what clarifies the meanings of these sentences, I s the use of groupers that cast a scope for negation.
Groupers specify the scope of a connective, and this is crucial for eliminating ambiguity in FOL sentences. English sentences can often be ambiguous, but an FOL sentence should never be ambiguous.
“Ted is dead and Bob is tall or Kim is home.”
We might be tempted to translate this as:
Dead(ted) ∧ Tall(bob) ∨ Home(kim)
This is not a well-formed sentence in FOL because we do not know the scope of the connectives. Groupers will correct that problem. The translation needs to be one of the following:
Dead(ted) ∧ (Tall(bob) ∨ Home(kim)
(Dead(ted) ∧ Tall(bob)) ∨ Home(kim)
Note the difference in meanings. The first says “Dead(ted) and either Tall(bob) or Home(kim)”, while the second says “either both Dead(ted) and Tall(b) or Home(kim)”.
When Disjuncts and Conjuncts are mixed together, we should use parentheses to disambiguate. Not all complex sentences which use multiple Boolean operators need groupers.
Dead(ted) ∧ Tall(bob) ∧ Home(kim)
Dead(ted) ∨ Tall(bob) ∨ Home(kim)
Why don’t these sentences need groupers? Why are these not ambiguous? The truth and meaning of these complex sentences doesn’t change with groupers. We can flip the disjuncts or conjuncts in these sentences around, and the truth functional meaning stays the same.
Lastly, remember that adding groupers (correctly) will never make a sentence more ambiguous. For example:
Cube(b) ∧ Small(b) (Cube(b) ∧ Small(b)) [(Cube(b) ∧ Small(b))]
These are all equivalent sentences. We generally try to use the fewest number of groupers as possible for sheer aesthetic and practical reasons (we are too lazy to write more than is necessary).
Homework: 3.12-3.16
§ 3.6
Logical Equivalence, ⇔
In this class, I will often use the equivalence symbol. Please note, this is not a logical connective of FOL. This is a notion about the language we are learning, but not a part of the language we are learning. We won’t have any intro/elim rules for this symbol. In that respect, it takes a backseat to our other symbols. It is extremely useful for us to have this symbol though, as it will allow us to quickly represent some important logical relationships.
Let’s consider some examples of logical equivalence:
“Bob kicked the ball.” ⇔ “The ball was kicked by Bob.”
“Bob kicked the ball.” ⇔ Kicked(bob, ball)
Larger(a, b) ⇔ Smaller(b, a)
These sentences are logically equivalent. They are logically equivalent if they necessarily have the same truth values in all possible worlds.
There are some important and famous logically equivalences in FOL (we have names for many of them). These are the crucial logical equivalences of the truth-functional connectives:
(DN) – Double Negation ¬¬P ⇔ P
(DM∧) – DeMorgan’s Law of Conjunction ¬(P ∧ Q) ⇔ ¬P ∨ ¬Q
(DM∨) – DeMorgan’s Law of Disjunction ¬(P ∨ Q) ⇔ ¬P ∧ ¬Q
You might think of the DeMorgan’s Laws of Conjunction and Disjunction as describing a way to distribute negation through the scope of the parantheses.
Note that these can be combined to yield more equivalences:
¬(¬P ∧ ¬Q) ⇔ (P ∨ Q) ∨ defined in terms of ∧
¬(¬P ∨ ¬Q) ⇔ (P ∧ Q) ∧ defined in terms of ∨
The astute among you will see that we could write any conjunctive sentence in terms of disjunctions and negations, without ever using a conjunction. Likewise, we could write any disjunctive sentence in terms of conjunctions and negations, without ever using a disjunction. Technically, this means we don’t absolutely have to have both the conjunction and disjunction in our language to maintain its expressiveness - we just need one of them and negation to express the other. However, because we are lazy, we will include both the conjunction and disjunction in our language because there are many things which are more easily understood and written when we have both connectives.
Lastly, as a kind of foreshadowing, I want you to know that these truth-functional equivalences are special kinds of logical equivalences. We will see later how these truth-functional equivalences are a bit different from the example of Larger(a, b) ⇔ Smaller(b, a).
Homework: 3.18
§ 3.7
Translation – Under what conditions do we count an FOL sentence to be a valid translation of an English sentence? The only rule is that the two sentences must agree in truth value in all possible circumstances, i.e. the two sentences are logically equivalent.
Notice that this requires more than that the two sentences both be true or both be false, in a particular domain. Agreement in (actual) truth value may be due to accidental circumstances that happen to obtain. The two sentences must agree even if you “change the facts,” i.e. even if you switch to any other conceivable domain.
This means that any two equivalent FOL sentences will be equally valid translations of any English sentence that either of them correctly translates. That is, if an FOL sentence, S, is a valid translation of an English sentence S, and S is equivalent to some other FOL sentence S′, then S′ also counts as an equivalent translation of S.
A result of this policy is that some rather unnatural sounding translations will count as valid translations (although they aren’t necessarily good translations). Consider the following:
“b is a cube and c is a tetrahedron.”
The most natural translation into FOL is:
Cube(b) ∧ Tet(c)
But given the DeMorgan and Double Negation equivalences, we can see that:
(Cube(b) ∧ Tet(c)) ⇔ ¬(¬Cube(b) ∨ ¬Tet(c))
Hence, our sentence can also be validly translated as:
¬(¬Cube(b) ∨ ¬Tet(c))
Even though this is technically correct, in the sense that is it valid, it is not the best or most natural translation, for it introduces three negations and a disjunction, none of which were present in the English original.
Note the difference between having a valid translation and a good translation. Just as all good arguments are valid arguments, but not all valid arguments are good arguments; all good translations are valid translations, but not all valid translations are good translations.
In this class, I don’t just want valid translations – there are an infinite number of valid translations of any sentence we will examine in this class. I want good translations. For any given sentence, there might be a few good ones, but there won’t be many.
A good translation is a valid translation, it preserves meaning and truth conditions, but it meets some other stylistic considerations. In particular:
Match the surface syntax as closely as possible.
Attempt to maximize naturalness of the translation (perhaps colloquial)
Consider odd details, like the difference between a maternal and paternal grandmother in mother(father(joe))
Translation, ultimately, is a fuzzy aspect of FOL. I don’t expect you to be experts on translation (which is its own topic). There are books that specialize in translation if you are interested. Many introductory logic classes spend far more time on this topic, but I’d rather spend most of our time on proofs.
You should understand the basics and the common translations. Translation is sometimes a beginning of a common philosophical problem. Within the next few weeks, you should be able to take some basic, written, English arguments and translate them into FOL, demonstrating the form of the arguments, pointing out which are the premises are which are conclusion. In addition, you will be able to offer either offer a counterexample to the argument or offer complete or partial proofs of these arguments, and you’ll be able to explain why you can’t prove certain gaps in the argument with FOL.
Homework: 3.20-3.23
---
7
A Few Translation Structures
“Not either P or Q” ¬(P ∨ Q)
“Neither P, nor Q” ¬(P ∨ Q)
“Either not P or not Q” ¬P ∨ ¬Q
“Not both P and Q” ¬(P ∧ Q)
“Both not P and Q” ¬P ∧ ¬Q
“Either P or Q, but not both” (P ∨ Q) ∧ ¬(P ∧ Q)
Simple Translations
Example 1:
“Mark Twain wrote Huckleberry Finn as well as Letters from the Earth.”
The overall structure is a conjunction, despite the fact that we don’t see “and” in the text. We will, temporarily, replace P and Q for certain parts of the sentence to see it:
P ∧ Q
“Mark Twain wrote Huckleberry Finn as well as Letters from the Earth.”
P Q
Replacing P and Q for their original words, we have something in between FOL and English (it isn’t a real translation yet):
“Mark Twain wrote Huckleberry Finn” ∧ “Letters from the Earth”
Well, Q doesn’t make much sense. It is just a name, and it lacks a predicate. Q, at this point, isn’t a sentence at all. Clearly, the conjunction is meant to apply the predicate “write” to both titles. Hence, Q should be expanded:
“Letters from the Earth” becomes “Mark Twain wrote Letters from the Earth”
Thus, our translation gets a bit closer:
“Mark Twain wrote Huckleberry Finn” ∧ “Mark Twain wrote Letters from the Earth”
Now we just need to make names for the objects and generate an efficient predicate to express the atomic sentences that are the conjuncts of this conjunction.
“Mark Twain”: mtwain
“Huckleberry Finn”: hfinn
“Letters from the Earth”: lfte
“author wrote title”: Wrote(author, title)
Wrote(mtwain, hfinn) ∧ Wrote(mtwain, lfte)
Example 2:
“Twain wrote Letters from the Earth but he did not write The Odyssey.”
Assess the overall structure. You will find it is a conjunction with a negation at the end. “But” and “not” are the signals.
P ∧ ¬Q
Since we already have a naming convention and a predicate, we can easily see this should be translated as:
Wrote(mtwain, lfte) ∧ ¬Wrote(mtwain, odyssey)
Complex Translations
Example 1:
“Neither e nor a is to the right of and to the left of b.”
Sometimes it helps to break it down. I like to look at the outside structure and work my way inside. Let’s consider the outside structure first, which is similar to the “neither, nor” structure. We will, temporarily, replace P and Q for certain parts of the sentence to see it:
Neither e nor a is to the right of and to the left of b.”
P Q
Well, we know that “neither P, nor Q” is translated as:
¬(P ∨ Q)
Replacing back P and Q for their original words, we have something in between FOL and English (it isn’t a real translation yet):
¬(“e” ∨ “a is to the right of and to the left of b”)
This doesn’t quite make sense though, since “e” by itself isn’t a sentence at all, it is just a name. We forgot the predicate. Clearly, we have to attach the predicate from the other disjunct to e:
“e” becomes “e is to the right of and to the left of b”
Thus, our translation gets a bit closer:
¬(“e is to the right of and to the left of b” ∨ “a is to the right of and to the left of b”)
Now that we have the outer structure, we can try our hand at the inner structures. Let’s consider the first disjunct again:
“e is to the right of and to the left of b”
This is clearly a conjunction, which we can translate as:
“e is the right of b” ∧ “e is the left of b”
Now we simply left with the predicates and names to translate:
RightOf(e, b) ∧ LeftOf(e, b)
Thus, we can replace the first English disjunct with the FOL equivalent:
¬((RightOf(e, b) ∧ Leftof(e, b) ∨ “a is to the right of and to the left of b”)
You will notice, however, that the second disjunct is just a mirror of the first, using a instead of e. So, we arrive at this translation:
¬((RightOf(e, b) ∧ Leftof(e, b)) ∨ (Rightof(a, b) ∧ Leftof(a, b))
Example 2:
“Either a is small or both c and d are large, but not both.”
The outer structure is an “Either P or Q, but not both” kind.
(P ∨ Q) ∧ ¬(P ∧ Q)
“Either a is small or both c and d are large, but not both.”
P Q
(“a is small” ∨ “both c and d are large”) ∧ ¬(“ a is small” ∧ “both c and d are large”)
P’s structure is just an atomic sentence.
“a is small” is translated as Small(a)
(Small(a) ∨ “both c and d are large”) ∧ ¬( Small(a) ∧ “both c and d are large”)
Q’s structure is a conjunction of two atomic sentences:
“both c and d are large” becomes “c is large” ∧ “d is large” becomes Large(c) ∧ Large(d)
(Small(a) ∨ (Large(c) ∧ Large(d))) ∧ ¬( Small(a) ∧ (Large(c) ∧ Large(d)))
13
So far we only covered the 3 Boolean operators. Today we introduce 2 new truth-functional connectives, material conditionals and bi-conditionals. Regarding truth-functionality, please recall that the truth value of a compound sentence formed with such a connective is a function of (i.e., is completely determined by) the truth value of its components.
SECTION 7.1
Material Conditional, →
Also commonly written with double bar arrow or the horseshoe (superset) symbol, ⊃, but not in this class.
P → Q
Our initial translation of it will be:
“If P, then Q”
“If Max is home then Claire is at the library”
Home(max) → Library(claire)
Just as the parts of a conjunction have names, conjuncts, and parts of a disjunction have names, disjuncts, the parts of a conditional have names:
P → Q
P is the antecedent (literally means “going before” in Latin)
Q is the consequent (“overtaking or following closely” in Latin)
We usually translate it as “if…then,” however, there are many other translations. Note the variation in word order: in English (unlike FOL) the antecedent (in this case P) doesn’t always come first.
P → Q can be translated as:
“P only if Q”
“Q if P”
“Q in case P”
“Q provided that P”
“Provided P, Q”
“P is sufficient for Q” (This is the sufficient condition in analytic phil.)
“Q is necessary for P” (This is the necessary condition in analytic phil.)
“In the event that P, Q” (This is not a casual connection though, it is truth-functional.)
“P implies Q” (This is a bad translation, but sometimes it is used. Don’t use it, but learn to recognize when others misuse it. We’ll talk about it later.)
Some of the translations may not fit your intuitions or your ear (especially if you don’t come from an analytic writing background). If you can’t convince yourself of it, then simply memorize it (many people do!). We don’t normally talk like some of these translations. I fear I will confuse you by going through examples for all of these translations, so I’m just flat telling you to memorize this. Like our previous translations, look for the key words, identify the components, and translate straight from your notes. Do not guess.
Syntax for →: If P and Q are sentences, then so is P → Q
Semantics for →: P → Q is true if P is false or Q is true.
Truth Table for →: P Q | P → Q
T T | T
T F | F
F T | T
F F | T
Notice how the only time P → Q is false is when P is true and Q is false. False P will always make P → Q true.
The tricky part of the semantics of the material condition is that P is false and Q is true, making P → Q true. Just remember that we are interested in truth preservation. It doesn’t matter whether Q is true or false if P is false. For the sake of truth preservation, we are primarily interested in making sure that Q is true when P is true.
If you commit to the truth of P → Q, then you commit to the falsity of P or the truth of Q (or both). Look at the truth table and see this is true (F’s for P and T’s for Q).
P Q | P → Q | ¬P ∨ Q _
T T | T F T
T F | F F F
F T | T T T
F F | T T T
In other words:
P → Q ⇔ ¬P ∨ Q
⇔ ¬(P ∧ ¬Q)
The conditional adds no new expressive power to FOL. We’ve added it simply to make our lives easier in translation and thinking about sentences. Another equivalences of note (Contraposition):
P → Q ⇔ ¬P ∨ Q
⇔ Q ∨ ¬P
⇔ ¬¬Q ∨ ¬P (has the form: ¬A ∨ B, which is equivalent to A→ B)
⇔ ¬Q → ¬P (Again, pay close attention to parentheses)
I want to reinforce the semantics of this connective for you with an example.
Consider a world in which:
A is a small tet
B is a large cube
The following are true:
Tet(a) → Cube(b)
Small(a) → Tet(a)
Dodec(b) → Large(b)
Dodec(b) → Dodec(a)
The following are false:
Tet(a) → Dodec(b)
Large(b) → Cube(a)
Material Conditional vs. Logical Implication:
Note how the material conditional is true or false relative to this particular domain. Even if the sentences which are true in this world, we could easily specify another domain in which these sentences would turn out false. This brings me to a crucial point, the difference between material conditional and implication.
People sometimes read P →Q as “P implies Q.” This is handy, in that it gives you a way to read the FOL sentence from left to right, symbol-for-symbol, maintaining the word order. However, this is not a good translation. Do not use it! There is something deeply misleading about it, for it suggests a conflation between the truth of a material conditional and logical implication. That is because “P implies Q” is most often used as a shorthand for “P logically implies Q,” which expresses the relation of logical consequence.
To say that “P logically implies Q” is to say that “Q is a logical consequence of P.” Sometimes we express logical implication in English with “if…then” sentences, but not all “if…then” sentences are simply material conditionals. Further, the mere fact that P → Q is true does not mean that P logically implies Q. It simply means that either Q is true or P is false in a particular domain, whereas P logically implies Q is the claim that P → Q is true in all domains (not just a particular one). Hence it is probably best to avoid translating → as “implies,” even though sometimes we talk about implication in terms of “if…then.”
To claim P→ Q, the material conditional, is to say that in in a specified domain, when P is true, Q is true. But, we could easily specify a different domain in which the conditional relationship may be false. See our previous examples.
To say “P logically implies Q” is to say that in all possible worlds, when P is true, Q must be true. This is logical consequence, and it is far stronger than the material conditional. The difference is that P→ Q can be true in one domain, but false in many others. If P implies Q is true in one domain, then it is true in all of them. Essentially, if P→ Q is a logical truth in itself, then P implies Q.
All logical consequences are a special class of conditionals, but not all conditionals are forms of logical consequences.
Corresponding Conditional (Associated conditional): With any valid argument, you can write a conditional which corresponds to it.
|P1
|P2
|…
|Pn
|C
|(P1 ∧ P2 ∧ … ∧ Pn) → C
An argument deductively valid iff its corresponding conditional is a logical truth. If the antecedent is true, then the consequent must be true. We’ve only made truth-preserving steps in our argument, and so the conclusion necessarily must follow.
Again, we might think of this as :
|(P1 ∧ P2 ∧ … ∧ Pn) → C
| ¬(P1 ∧ P2 ∧ … ∧ Pn) ∨ C
Again, the argument is deductively valid iff the following disjunction is a logical truth. Let’s add some meat to these bones with an example:
|1. Cube(a) ∨ Cube(b) Show: Cube(b)
|2. ¬Cube(a)
||3. Cube(a)
||4. ⊥ ⊥Intro: 3, 2
|| 5. Cube(b) ⊥Elim: 4
||6. Cube(b)
||7. Cube(b) Reit: 6
|8. Cube(b) ∨Elim: 1, 3-5, 6-7
Our claim was a strong one: since this argument is valid, then the following are logical truths. In fact, since we are using truth-functional connectives, and the predicates don’t matter, these are tautologies:
Cube(a) Cube(b) | ((Cube(a) ∨ Cube(b)) ∧ ¬Cube(a)) → Cube(b)
T T | T F F T
T F | T F F T
F T | T T T T
F F | F F T T
Take a tautologically valid argument, form a material conditional, where the conjunction of the premises is the antecedent, and the conclusion the consequent, and that that conditional will be a tautology. Another way of thinking about this:
Cube(a) Cube(b) | ((Cube(a) ∨ Cube(b)) ∧ ¬Cube(a)) | Cube(b)
T T | T F F | T
T F | T F F | F
F T | T T T | T
F F | F F T | F
Whenever the 1st sentence is true, the second is also true. Therefore, the second sentence is a tautological consequence of the first.
If you take into account the meanings of predicates, moving out of the tautological world into the logical world, the same kind of reasoning applies.
More Caveats:
Not every “if…then” statement in English is a material conditional.
“If Max had been at home, then Carl would have been there too.”
This isn’t a material condition because if the antecedent is false, then the entire conditional is false, which is not possible according to the truth table for material conditional.
Material conditions are not necessarily causal relationships. Here is an example causal:
“If I move my computer mouse, then my cursor moves on the screen.”
This is a causal relationship, which is stronger than a material conditional. Material conditionals aren’t necessarily temporal. Material conditionals are simply a truth-functional relationship between two sentences, P and Q. Nothing more is implied. You should not be thinking about a causaul connection in the conditional.
Unless (the bastard):
P unless Q
¬Q → P
“Ted will die unless Bob helps him.”
You might reformulate it as:
If Bob doesn’t help him, Ted will die.
¬Helps(bob, ted) → Dies(ted)
You might think of “unless” as being “if not.”
Ted will die if not Bob helps him.
If you are confused or this doesn’t immediately fit your intuitions, please memorize this. Note that some people prefer to translate unless as a disjunction.
SECTION 7.2
Material Biconditional, ↔
Also commonly written with double bar arrow (which is our symbol for equivalence in this class) or tri-bar, but not in this class.
P ↔ Q
It should be translated as:
P iff Q
P just in case Q (quirky mathematicians to be thanked for this one)
P is necessary and sufficient for Q
“Max is home if and only if Claire is at the library”
Home(max) ↔ Library(claire)
P ↔ Q corresponds to P if, and only if, Q. It is thus really a conjunction of a pair of one-way conditionals using P and Q:
P ↔ Q ⇔ (P →Q) ∧ (Q →P)
Basically, this is the conjunction of the material condition both directions, hence material biconditional.
Syntax for ↔: If P and Q are sentences, then so is P ↔ Q
Semantics for ↔: P ↔ Q is true iff the truth values of P and Q match
Truth Table for ↔: P Q | P ↔ Q
T T | T
T F | F
F T | F
F F | T
Where they match, obviously, the biconditional is true. Where they don’t have matching truth values, this statement is false. Material biconditionals have the same truth values.
If you commit to the truth of P ↔ Q, then you commit to the truth of P → Q and the truth of Q → P.
Equivalences of Note:
P ↔ Q ⇔ (P →Q) ∧ (Q →P) (already did it)
P ↔ Q ⇔ (P ∧ Q) ∨ (¬P ∧ ¬Q)
Biconditional vs. Logical Equivalence
Before, we had to distinguish Conditionals from Logical Consequence. Now, we will also distinguish Biconditionals from Logical Equivalence. Equivalence is far stronger a claim than biconditionality.
Biconditionality refers to two sentences having the same truth values in a specific domain. Logical equivalence refers to two sentences having the same truth values in all domains.
P and Q are logically equivalent iff P ↔ Q is a logical truth. Another way to say this is: P ⇔ Q (English abbreviation of “is logically equivalent to” which isn’t FOL, it is our metalanguage, the language we use to discuss an object language) is true if and only if the FOL sentence P ↔ Q (truth functional connective of FOL, where FOL is our object langauge) is logically necessary.
Consider a world in which c is a small tet.
These three sentences are true:
Tet(c) ↔ Small(c)
Cube(c) ↔ Medium(c)
Small(c) ↔ ¬¬Small(c)
Note how Tet(c) is not equivalent to Small(c) in all possible worlds. That bi-conditional is true, but since the bi-conditional is not a logical truth, then the two component sentences, Tet(c) and Small(c) are not logically equivalent. Again, you can come up with a counterexample world where the bi-conditional relationship does not hold.
Note that the second second is also true. The biconditional holds because both the antecedent and consequent are false; they share the same truth values. This biconditional is not a logical truth though, so the component sentences are not logically equivalent.
However, we can look at the last sentence, as we see not only that the biconditional is true, but that in all possible worlds this biconditional is true. Hence, this these component sentences are logically equivalent.
Homework: 7.1-7.8, 7.10-7.18, 7.25
SECTION 7.3
Conversational Implicature (from Paul Grice)
Sometimes you communicate things in a sentence which aren’t a part of its truth conditions.
“Joe’s great, he’s never drunk on Thursdays.”
This implies he’s drunk the rest of the time. It is conversationally implied, but not logically implied. This is why conversational implicature should be kept in mind when translating natural language into formal language.
Any part of what is communicated by a speaker in asserting S that can be canceled out by the speaker’s elaborating on what she without contradicting herself is an implicature of S and not part of S’s truth conditions.
Just keep this in mind when translating.
Worth Reading:
Section 7.4 talks about truth-functional completeness. While I don’t require it, you should read it and try to understand it. The work done in that section is a easy, sneak-peak at what advanced logic is about (although 7.4 is not advanced, and most everyone in this class is capable of reading and understanding it).
```
Name: _____________________________ Symbolic Logic Final – ..., Spring 2015
Fill in the blanks. Write neatly and make it fit. (each worth 2% of total)
FOL translation of “Max is not home unless Claire is at the library”_________________________________________
FOL translation of “not P is necessary and sufficient for both Q and R” ______________________________________
English translation of ¬Cube(a) ↔ Small(b) ___________________________________________________________
English translation of P → [Q ∨ (R → S)] ______________________________________________________________
P → Q ⇔ ¬Q → _____ ⇔ _____ ∨ Q
The claim “Joe’s great, he’s never drunk on Thursdays,” informally may indicate that Joe is drunk the rest of the time. In logic translation, this hidden suggestion is referred to as __________________________________________
While semantically they are different, variables are __________________________ identical to individual constants.
An object o satisfies a mere wff P(x) iff _______________________________________________________________
¬∃x S(x) is true iff _____________________________________________________________________satisfies S(x).
FOL translation of “no P’s are not Q’s” _______________________________________________________________
FOL translation of “only P’s are Q” __________________________________________________________________
English translation of S ∧ ∀x [P(x) → Q(x)] ____________________________________________________________
English translation of ∃x [Q(x) ∧ P(x)] ∨ ¬G ____________________________________________________________
In a world with just cubes in it, ∀x [Tet(x) → Small(x)] is _____________________________________________ true.
The TFF of ∀x [P(x) ∧ ∃y (Q(y) ∧ R(x, y))] → [∃z S(z) ∨ ¬∃y S(y)] ____________________________________________
Two sentences of FOL are tautologically equivalent iff their ______________________________________________
Example of a Tautology: ___________________________________________________________________________
Ex. of a FO Truth which isn’t a Tautology: _____________________________________________________________
Ex. of a Logical Truth which is neither FO Truth nor Tautology: ____________________________________________
A pair of wffs with the same free variables are ________________________________ iff they are satisfied by the same objects in all possible circumstances.
Show DeMorgan’s for Quantifiers: ¬∀x G(x) ⇔ __________________ and ∀x ¬G(x) ⇔ __________________
∀x [P(x) ∨ Q(x)] ⇔ ∀x P(x) ∨ ∀x Q(x) is true or false? __________
¬∃x [P(x) ∨ Q(x)] ⇔ ∀x ¬P(x) ∧ ∀x ¬Q(x) is true or false? __________
∀x [P → ¬Q(x)] ⇔ ¬P ∨ ¬∃y Q(y) is true or false? __________
FOL translation of “Every small cube is in front of a sphere” ______________________________________________
FOL translation of “Some sphere is larger than every cube” _______________________________________________
English translation of ∀x ∃y Fears(x, y) _______________________________________________________________
English translation of ∃y ∀x Fears(x, y) _______________________________________________________________
∀x ∀y [Small(x) ∨ ¬Red(y)] ⇔ ¬∃z Red(z) ∨ ∀z Small(z) is true or false? __________
∀x ∀y [Small(x) ∨ ¬Red(y)] ⇔ ∃z Red(z) ∨ ¬∀z Small(z) is true or false? __________
Neatly provide a FO Counterexample to the following argument (first translate into FOL) (worth 10% of total)
Fido is a dog
Every dog is shorter than Joe
Joe is taller than Fido
Use scrap paper to figure out the proof, and neatly write your final answer here: (each worth 15% of total)
|1. P ∨ (Q ∧ S) Show: S ↔ (R ∨ ¬R) |1. P ∨ (Q → R) Show: (S ∨ T) ↔ c = a
|2. D → ¬P |2. R → (S ∨ T)
|3. D ∨ S |3. Q
|4. a = b
|5. b = c
|4. T ↔ P
```
24
We are expanding F in this chapter, primarily we are adding the Boolean connectives and a way to deal with ⊥ to our formal, F-style proofs. Each connective will have two rules, an introduction rule and an elimination rule. Introduction rules will allow you to create sentences which use the introduced connective; you prove statements containing the symbol. Elimination rules prove things from statements already containing the symbol, generally giving you a sentence without the symbol.
§ 6.1
Conjunction elimination - ∧ Elim
|k. P1 ∧ P2 ∧ … ∧ Pn
|…
|n. Pi ∧Elim: k (watch for groupers)
Where ‘i’ picks out any of number in the range 1-n.
This rule allows you to prove something from conjunctive statements, namely the conjuncts. You can eliminate the conjunction symbol and extract a conjunct with this rule. Note how line k must show up before line n.
Notice this important point: the conjunction to which you apply ∧Elim must appear by itself on a line in the proof. You cannot apply this rule to a conjunction that is embedded as part of a larger sentence. For example, this is not a valid use of ∧Elim:
|1. ¬(Cube(a) ∧ Large(a))
|2. ¬Cube(a) ∧Elim: 1
The reason this is not valid use of the rule is that ∧Elim can only be applied to conjunctions,
and the line that this “proof” purports to apply it to is a negation. And it’s a good thing that
this move is not allowed, for the inference above is not valid—from the premise that a is not a
large cube it does not follow that a is not a cube. a might well be a small cube (and hence not
a large cube, but still a cube).
This same restriction—the rule applies to the sentence on the entire line, and not to an
embedded sentence—holds for all of the rules of F, by the way. And so Fitch will not let you
apply ∧Elim or any of the rules of inference to sentences that are embedded within larger
sentences.
Conjunction introduction – ∧ Intro
|k. P1
|…
|l. P2
|…
|m. P1 ∧ P2 ∧Intro: k, l (order matters)
This rule forms a conjunctive sentence, i.e. it introduces a new conjunction symbol.
Be careful with groupers:
|1. A V B
|2. C
|3. (A V B) ∧ C ∧Intro: 1, 2
Don’t forget to use parentheses in this case. You have not correctly used the rule if you end up with:
A V B ∧ C
This sentence is ambiguous. You can always add parentheses, either to disambiguate (in which case you must), or to make it more aesthetically pleasing (always nice).
Importantly, if you want to form a larger conjunction, you’ll need to use multiple steps in this class. When in doubt, take more steps than fewer steps. For example, you shouldn’t do this:
|1. P
|2. Q
|3. R
|4. P ∧ Q ∧ R ∧Intro: 1, 2, 3
Instead, you need to do this:
|1. P
|2. Q
|3. R
|4. P ∧ Q ∧Intro: 1, 2
|5. P ∧ Q ∧ R ∧Intro: 4, 3
Here is another example of breaking it down into pedantic steps. Don’t do it this way:
|1. A ∧ B ∧ C Show: C ∧ B
|2. C ∧ B ∧Elim: 1
You can see that this overly generous application of ∧Elim switches the conjuncts as they appear in the premise. That may be a fine and obvious move for something as simple as this, but it would get out of hand and become too difficult to see (for my taste) in more complex applications. Hence, the correct way to prove this, at least for our class, will be this:
|1. A ∧ B ∧ C Show: C ∧ B
|2. B ∧Elim: 1
|3. C ∧Elim: 1
|4. C ∧ B ∧Intro: 3, 2
This is extremely readable, clean, and it will scale up in readability for more complex problems. When in doubt, be pedantic, elaborate, etc. Recall that proofs are context and audience sensitive, and we must err on the side of caution, since it is far greater mistake to fail to demonstrate a step clearly to your audience than it is to overelaborate a bit.
§ 6.2
Disjunction Introduction – ∨ Intro
|k. Pi
|…
|n. P1 ∨ … ∨ Pi ∨ … ∨ Pn ∨ Intro: k
This rule tells you that if you have a sentence on a line in a proof, you may enter, on a new
line, any disjunction of which it is a disjunct. (Pi here represents any of the disjuncts, including the first or the last.)
|1. P
|2. P ∨ Q ∨ Intro: 1
|3. X ∨ P ∨ Intro: 1
|4 Q ∨ P ∨ X ∨ Intro: 1
Since P is true, then any chain of disjunctions with P inside it must be true.
Disjunction Elimination – ∨ Elim
Probably one of the most powerful rules – it corresponds to the proof by cases from chapter 5. Recall that proof by cases allows you to conclude a sentence S from a disjunction P1 ∨ P2 ∨ … ∨ Pn if you can prove S from each of the disjuncts P1 through Pn.
Each of the cases in “proof by cases” will be expressed in a subproof in F.
Subproof: A proof that occurs inside a larger proof. A subproof involves the temporary use of an additional assumption, which functions in a subproof the way the premises do in the main proof under which it is subsumed.
We place a subproof within a main proof by introducing a new vertical line, inside the vertical line for the main proof. We begin the subproof with an assumption(any sentence of our choice), and place a new Fitch bar under the assumption:
|Premise
|…
||Assumption for subproof
||…
|…
The subproof may be ended at any time. When the subproof ends, the vertical line stops, and
the next line either “jumps out” to the original vertical proof line, or a new subproof may be
begun. Subproofs make use of assumptions. Assumptions are temporary! It is as if we are asking ourselves a hypothetical question: “What if some P were true?” Subproofs are easy to use incorrectly.
As we’ll see, ∨Elim involves the use of two (or more) subproofs, entered one immediately after the other. We will employ a formalized version of the proof by cases. Here is the schematic of ∨Elim:
|k. P1 ∨ … ∨ Pn
|...
||xn. P1 (Case 1, Subproof)
||...
||xm. S
||yn. Pn (Case 2, Subproof)
||...
||ym. S
|ym+1. S ∨Elim: k, xn-xm, yn-ym
What the rule says is this: if you have a disjunction in a proof, and you have shown, through a sequence of subproofs, that each of the disjuncts (together with any other premises in the main proof) leads to the same conclusion, then you may derive that conclusion from the disjunction (together with any main premises cited within the subproofs).
This is clearly a formal version of the method of proof by cases. Each of the Pi represents one of the cases. Each subproof represents a demonstration that, in each case, we may conclude S. Our conclusion is that S is a consequence of the disjunction together with any of the main premises cited within the subproofs.
Whenever you are using a rule, you should know what your goal is for that rule. When using subproofs, you need to know what the goal of the subproof needs to be. Sometimes it will the be final conclusion, sometimes it will be surd, sometimes it will be something else entirely.
When you start a subproof, you must know: (1) what rule you are using, (2) what you will assume in the subproof, (3) the goal of the subproof, and (4) what you will discharge.
Let’s look at a few examples:
| 1. (B ∧ A) ∨ A Show: A
||2. B ∧ A
||3. A ∧Elim: 2
||4. A
||5. A Reit: 4
|6. A ∨Elim: 1, 2-3, 4-5
|1. (A ∧ B) ∨ (C ∧ B) Show: B
||2. A ∧ B
||3. B ∧ Elim: 2
||4. C ∧ B
||5. B ∧ Elim: 4
|6. B ∨ Elim: 1, 2-3, 4-5
|1. (A ∧ B) ∨ (C ∧ B) ∨ B Show: B
||2. A ∧ B
||3. B ∧ Elim: 2
||4. C ∧ B
||5. B ∧ Elim: 4
||6. B
||7. B Reit: 6
|6. B ∨ Elim: 1, 2-3, 4-5, 6-7
It is vital to realize that the assumption and any intermediate conclusions occurring inside a subproof can only be used in that subproof.
|1. (A ∧ B) ∨ (C ∧ D) Show: B ∨ D
||2. A ∧ B
||3. B ∧ Elim: 2
||4. B ∨ D ∨ Intro: 3
||5. C ∧ D
||6. D ∧ Elim: 5
||7. B ∨ D ∨ Intro: 6
|8. B ∨ D ∨ Elim: 1, 2-4, 5-7
Note how A ∧ B, as an assumption for the subproof, is only efficacious inside the subproof. It cannot be used outside the subproof. The same for C ∧ D. We don’t really know which ones are true or false, only that at least one of them must be true in order to have line 1. You cannot, therefore, deduce this on line 9:
|8. B ∧ Elim: 2
This occurs outside the subproof. Remember that the assumption and intermediate conclusions of a subproof, excepting what is discharged by our rules which directly employ subproofs, cannot be used outside the subproof. A subproof is just a hypothetical. It says, “let’s us assume for the sake of argument that X is true, what would follow from it?” That doesn’t make X or anything which follows from X true, except in the very specific discharges of ∨ Elim, and our other rules of F which allow us to show logical consequence from proper use of subproofs.
It is permissible, however, to cite lines outside of a subproof, in the main proof, if you wish. You’ve already established those lines are true.
Lastly, I want to note that subproofs can nest inside subproofs, for example, when we try to use ∨Elim inside another ∨Elim. We’ll see some examples later of this.
Homework: 6.1-6.6
§ 6.3
As previewed in our informal proof by contradiction, we need a way to establish and work with ⊥ before we can delve into the negation rules, specifically ¬Intro.
Surd Introduction - ⊥ Intro
|k. P
|…
|l. ¬P
|...
|n. ⊥ ⊥ Intro: k, l
The least negated line is cited first. For example:
|k. ¬¬P
|…
|l. ¬P
|...
|n. ⊥ ⊥ Intro: l, k
We will be very picky. This is not acceptable:
|1. P ∧ ¬P
|2. ⊥ ⊥ Intro: 1, ?
The semantics are obvious, but the we must follow the syntax of our system and language correctly. To the letter of the law, not merely the spirit. So, this is the correct way:
|1. P ∧ ¬P
|2. P ∧Elim: 1
|3. ¬P ∧Elim: 1
|2. ⊥ ⊥ Intro: 2,3
Further, it is important to note that ⊥Intro, as set out in F, only works for tautological contradictions. So, for example, these sentences are logically inconsistent, but we can’t derive ⊥ in the F-system:
|1. Cube(a)
|2. Tet(a)
|3. ⊥ ⊥ Intro: 1,2 (Ana Con would work though)
This is a contradiction, and thus logically we could conclude ⊥. However, in our logic system, we will not be able to make this move. At this point, F-style proofs only show tautological consequence, and they are blind to the meanings of predicates. We will not be able to prove logical consequence which rests upon the meanings of predicates in this formal system.
Moving on, it is very common to use ⊥intro within the context of a subproof. If you can arrive at ⊥, using ⊥Intro, from your premises, then your premises are proven to be logically inconsistent. ⊥ generally behaves like other sentences in the language.
|1. A ∨ B Show: ⊥
|2. ¬A
|3. ¬B
||4. A
||5. ⊥ ⊥Intro: 4, 2
||6. B
||7. ⊥ ⊥Intro: 6, 3
|8. ⊥ ∨Elim: 1, 4-5, 6-7
⊥Intro is the goal of the subproofs, and ⊥ is discharged via ∨Elim here.
Surd Elimination - ⊥ Elim
|k. ⊥
|…
|n. P ⊥ Elim: k
Where P is any sentence of the language. Anything follows from absurdity. Recall, every sentence is the logical consequence of a logically impossibility. In any case where a logically impossible sentence is true (which is never), every other sentence is also true. Any sentence, therefore, is the logical consequence of ⊥, and that is inference is heart of ⊥Elim. For example:
|1. Cube(a) ∨ Cube(b) Show: Cube(b)
|2. ¬Cube(a)
||3. Cube(a)
||4. ⊥ ⊥Intro: 3, 2
|| 5. Cube(b) ⊥Elim: 4
||6. Cube(b)
||7. Cube(b) Reit: 6
|8. Cube(b) ∨Elim: 1, 3-5, 6-7
|1. A ∨ B Show: P
|2. ¬A
|3. ¬B
||4. A
||5. ⊥ ⊥Intro: 4, 2
||6. B
||7. ⊥ ⊥Intro: 6, 3
|8. ⊥ ∨Elim: 1, 4-5, 6-7
|9. P ⊥Elim: 8
Note that we could have done it a bit differently:
|1. A ∨ B Show: P
|2. ¬A
|3. ¬B
||4. A
||5. ⊥ ⊥Intro: 4, 2
||6. P ⊥Elim: 5
||7. B
||8. ⊥ ⊥Intro: 6, 3
||9. P ⊥Elim: 8
|10. P ∨Elim: 1, 4-6, 7-9
Negation Elimination - ¬Elim
|k. ¬¬P
|…
|n. P ¬Elim: k
Note that it only removes two negations, no more. This is not acceptable:
|1. ¬¬¬¬P Show: P
|2. P ¬Elim: 1
The correct way is this:
|1. ¬¬¬¬P Show: P
|2. ¬¬P ¬Elim: 1
|3. P ¬Elim: 2
Note that you can only use ¬Elim on sentences which are entirely double-negated. Thus, you can’t do it in this case:
|1. Q ∧ ¬¬P Show: Q ∧ P
|2. Q ∧ P ¬Elim: 1
The main connective is a conjunction, and thus is sentence is a conjunction which happens to contain a complex sentence, ¬¬P. You cannot make the substitution inside it. You must break it apart, do your work, and put it back together. The correct way:
|1. Q ∧ ¬¬P Show: Q ∧ P
|2. ¬¬P ∧Elim: 1
|3. P ¬Elim: 2
|4. Q ∧Elim: 1
|5. Q ∧ P ∧Intro: 4, 3
This may seem like useless work, but there is a reason for this simplicity. We want it to be perfectly obvious what happens, no matter how complex the inference. For steps this small, it seems like extra work, but as we approach sentences which are significantly longer and harder to understand, we want to take small, obvious steps. Substitutions are evil! Do not take shortcuts. We are making proofs here, and we will be pedantic.
Negation Introduction - ¬Intro
This is our formal version of the method of indirect proof, or proof by contradiction. It requires the use of a subproof. The idea is this: if an assumption made in a subproof leads to ⊥, you may close the subproof and derive as a conclusion the negationof the sentence that was the assumption.
||k. P
||…
||n. ⊥
|n+1. ¬P ¬Intro: k-n
Remember that ⊥ is Contradiction, established by finding Q ∧ ¬Q, which is impossible. If you can arrive at ⊥ from a premise, then it necessarily can’t be true. This is a reductio. Assume for the sake of proving the negation.
Unlike proof by contradiction, where we can start with a negated sentence, reduce it to absurdity, and then conclude in the non-negated sentence, we cannot in F-style proofs. Thus, this is unacceptable:
||k. ¬P
||…
||n. ⊥
|n+1. P ¬Intro: k-n
Intro rules will “Introduce” a brand new connective. Hence, the correct way to do this:
||k. ¬P
||…
||n. ⊥
|n+1. ¬¬P ¬Intro: k-n
|n+2. P ¬Elim: n+1
As you see, we’ve introduced another negation here. That is what you’ve got to do.
Let’s consider a few examples:
|1. ¬Cube(a) Show: ¬(Cube(a) ∧ Dodec(b))
||2. Cube(a) ∧ Dodec(b)
||3. Cube(a) ∧Elim: 2
||4. ⊥ ⊥Intro: 3, 1
|5. ¬(Cube(a) ∧ Dodec(b)) ¬Intro: 2-4
|1. ¬P ∧ ¬Q Show: ¬(P ∨ Q)
||2. P ∨ Q
|||3. P
|||4. ¬P ∧Elim: 1
|||5. ⊥ ⊥Intro: 3, 4
|||6. Q
|||7. ¬Q ∧Elim: 1
|||8. ⊥ ⊥Intro: 6, 7
||9. ⊥
|10. ¬(P ∨ Q) ¬Intro: 2-9
With ¬Intro and ¬Elim, it turns out that we do not really need the ⊥Elim rule.
|1. ⊥ Show: P
||2. ¬P
||3. ⊥ Reit: 1
|4. ¬¬P ¬Intro:2-3
|5. P ¬Elim: 4
⊥Elim is included in F to make proofs shorter, more natural, because we have discussed at length the nature of logical consequence and logical impossibility, and because it would be a damn shame to break our “intro/elim” rule symmetry.
Lastly, and I will say this a million times, when you are stuck, try ¬Intro.
Homework: 6.7-6.16
§ 6.4
The Proper Use of Subproofs – Don’t Fuck it up
It is important that you understand how to use them properly, since if you are not careful, you may “prove" things that don't follow from your premises. Here is an example of what “not to do.”
|1. (B ∧ A) ∨ (A ∧ C)
||2. B ∧ A
||3. B ∧ Elim: 2
||4. A ∧Elim: 2
||5. A ∧ C
||6. A ∧Elim: 5
|7. A ∨Elim: 1, 2-4, 5-6
|8. A ∧ B ∧Intro: 7, 3
Step 8 is a blunder. B is deduced from an assumption. B can only be used within that assumption, never outside. B is only true on the assumption B ∧ A. Once assumption B ∧ A subproof ends, we can’t use the assumptions or deductions made within it, except for those intro/elim rules like ∨Elim, which specifically point out what we can deduce or “discharge” from subproofs.
In justifying a step of a subproof, you may cite any earlier step contained in the main proof, or in any subproof whose assumption is still in force. You may never cite individual steps inside a subproof that
has already ended.
Most non-trivial proofs are going to require subproofs, and many of them will require nested subproofs. You’ll need to get comfortable working in multiple subproofs.
|1. Red(a) ∨ Small(b) Show: Cube(c)
|2. Cube(c) ∨ ¬Small(b)
|3. ¬Red(a) ∨ Cube(c)
||4. Red(a)
|||5. ¬Red(a)
|||6. ⊥ ⊥Intro: 4, 5
|||7. Cube(c) ⊥Elim: 6
|||8. Cube(c)
|||9. Cube(c) Reit: 8
||10. Cube(c) ∨Elim: 3, 5-7, 8-9
||11. Small(b)
|||12. Cube(c)
|||13. Cube(c) Reit: 12
|||14. ¬Small(b)
|||15. ⊥ ⊥Intro: 11, 14
|||16. Cube(c) ⊥Elim: 15
||17. Cube(c) ∨Elim: 2, 12-13, 14-16
|18. Cube(c) ∨Elim: 1, 4-10, 11-17
Homework: 6.18-6.20
§ 6.5
Strategy and Tactics
Throughout all steps, when possible, try to keep in mind what the sentences in your proof mean (sometimes this will help).
Your first step in trying to construct a proof should be to convince yourself that the argument is valid, that the conclusion is a consequence of the premises.
The way in which you convince yourself will often give you hints, footholds, or even the outright strategy for the formal proof.
If can’t convince yourself, try to come up with a counterexample (which is proof that it isn’t valid).
If it any different than how you might initially convince yourself, try giving an true informal proof, the kind of proof you might try to use to convince a fellow classmate. Often the basic structure of your informal reasoning can be directly formalized using the rules of F. For example, if you use proof by cases, then you'll almost surely formalize the proof using disjunction elimination.
Look for an overall strategy, and divide and conquer with smaller tactics. Often this means breaking the problem up into smaller problems. You’ll often look for the overall strategy, and starting filling in the gaps.
Sometimes, when you are stuck, you can work backwards to identify the middle/intermediate goals.
Constantly ask yourself: What do I have and what do I need?
Remember to use Elim rules to extract information out of sentences with logical connectives. If you have only Disjunctions to work with, you probably need to use ∨Elim to extract information out of them.
When you are stuck, use ¬Intro.
These are some general ideas, strategies, and tactics you should explore problems with. They won’t always help, and only a few might apply.
|¬P ∨ ¬Q Show: ¬(P ∧ Q)
We are already convinced of the validity, since this is DeMorgan’s, and we know how the truth tables play out. We can offer an informal proof which can guide a formal one, if we wish:
Assume for reductio: P ∧ Q
Case 1: ¬P. But, from our assumption, P. ⊥
Case 2: ¬Q. But, from our assumption, Q. ⊥
We’ve exhausted the possibilities, hence ⊥.
Since P ∧ Q results in ⊥, we know ¬(P ∧ Q). QED.
We can model the formal proof after this informal one.
|1. ¬P ∨ ¬Q Show: ¬(P ∧ Q)
||2. P ∧ Q
|||3. ¬P
|||4. P ∧Elim: 2
|||5. ⊥ ⊥Intro:4, 3
|||6. ¬Q
|||7. Q ∧Elim: 2
|||8. ⊥ ⊥Intro: 7, 6
|| 9. ⊥ ∨Elim: 1, 3-5, 6-8
|10. ¬(P ∧ Q) ¬Intro: 2-9
Let’s try another (Counterexample required):
|1. Dodec(e)
|2. Small(e)
|3. ¬Dodec(e) v Dodec(f) v Small(e)
|4. Dodec(f)
We can’t seem to convince ourselves this is valid. We need a counterexample to show it.
Consider a world in which ‘e is a small dodec’ and ‘f is a cube’.
The 1st premise is true in this world, since e is a dodec.
The 2nd premise is also true in this world, since e is small.
The 3rd premise is true in this world, since e is small and Small(e) is one of the disjuncts of this premise.
But, the conclusion is false in this world because f is not a dodec.
Homework: 6.21-6.22, 6.24-6.27 (don’t turn in the informal proofs, just the formal ones), 6.28-6.32
§ 6.6
Proofs without premises
In F, we can prove many logical truths without any premises. It makes sense that we can prove many logical truths, particularly tautologies (and FO truths) without premises because these are all consequence of every set of premises, including the empty set.
Let’s consider a few examples:
|____ Show: a = a ∧ b = b
|1. a = a =Intro
|2. b = b =Intro
|3. a = a ∧ b = b ∧Intro: 1, 2
|____ Show: ¬(P ∧ ¬P) (Law of Non-Contradiction)
||1. P ∧ ¬P
||2. P ∧Elim: 1
||3. ¬P ∧Elim: 1
||4. ⊥ ⊥Intro: 2, 3
|5. ¬(P ∧ ¬P) ¬Intro:1-4
|____ Show: P ∨ ¬P (Law of Exluded Middle)
||1. ¬(P ∨ ¬P)
|||2. P
|||3. P ∨ ¬P ∨Intro: 2
|||4. ⊥ ⊥Intro: 3, 1
||5. ¬P ¬Intro: 2-4
||6. P ∨ ¬P ∨Intro: 5
||7. ⊥ ⊥Intro: 6, 1
|8. ¬¬(P ∨ ¬P) ¬Intro: 1-7
|9. P ∨ ¬P ¬Elim: 8
Keep the last one in your back pocket. You’ll sometimes be forced to pull it out of no where. For the record, when ¬Intro, in general, still fails you, you may be facing a problem that requires you to write the law of excluded middle on a line (which requires ¬Intro).
Homework: 6.33-6.42
---
11
Introducing Double Negation:
This kind of proof comes in handy once in a while.
|1. P ∧ S Show: ¬¬P
||2. ¬P
||3. P ∧Elim: 1
||4. ⊥ ⊥Intro: 3, 2
|5. ¬¬P
Commutativity for Conjunction:
Let’s step through one direction of some famous equivalences.
|1. P ∧ Q Show: Q ∧ P
|2. P ∧Elim: 1
|3. Q ∧Elim: 1
|4. Q ∧ P ∧Intro: 3, 2
Commutativity for Disjunction:
|1. P ∨ Q Show: Q ∨ P
||2. P
||3. Q ∨ P ∨Intro: 2
||4. Q
||5. Q ∨ P ∨Intro: 4
|6. Q ∨ P ∨Elim: 1, 2-3, 4-5
Associativity for Conjunction:
If there are parentheses, then you need to obey them. Our system doesn’t require parentheses for these sentences, but if they are present, then we need to follow them.
|1. (P ∧ Q) ∧ R Show: P ∧ (Q ∧ R)
|2. P ∧ Q ∧Elim: 1
|3. P ∧Elim: 2
|4. Q ∧Elim: 2
|5. R ∧Elim: 1
|6. Q ∧ R ∧Intro: 4, 5
|7. P ∧ (Q ∧ R) ∧Intro: 3, 7
Associativity for Disjunction:
|1. (P ∨ Q) ∨ R Show: P ∨ (Q ∨ R)
||2. P ∨ Q
|||3. P
|||4. P ∨ (Q ∨ R) ∨Intro: 3
|||5. Q
|||6. Q ∨ R ∨Intro: 5
|||7. P ∨ (Q ∨ R) ∨Intro: 6
||8. P ∨ (Q ∨ R) ∨Elim: 2, 3-4, 5-7
||9. R
||10. Q ∨ R ∨Intro: 9
||11. P ∨ (Q ∨ R) ∨Intro: 10
|12. P ∨ (Q ∨ R) ∨Elim: 1, 2-8, 9-11
I won’t show the other way around, since it is trivial if you can do these.
Distributivity for Conjunction to Disjunction of Conjunctions:
|1. P ∧ (Q ∨ R) Show: (P ∧ Q) ∨ (P ∧ R)
|2. P ∧Elim: 1
|3. Q ∨ R ∧Elim: 1
||4. Q
||5. P ∧ Q ∧Intro: 2, 4
||6. (P ∧ Q) ∨ (P ∧ R) ∨Intro: 5
||7. R
||8. P ∧ R ∧Intro: 2, 7
||9. (P ∧ Q) ∨ (P ∧ R) ∨Intro: 8
|10. (P ∧ Q) ∨ (P ∧ R) ∨Elim: 3, 4-6, 7-9
Distributivity for Disjunction of Conjunctions to Conjunction:
This is the other direction.
|1. (P ∧ Q) ∨ (P ∧ R) Show: P ∧ (Q ∨ R)
||2. P ∧ Q
||3. P ∧Elim: 2
||4. Q ∧Elim: 2
||5. Q ∨ R ∨Intro: 4
||6. P ∧ (Q ∨ R) ∧Intro: 3, 5
||7. P ∧ R
||8. P ∧Elim: 7
||9. R ∧Elim: 7
||10. Q ∨ R ∨Intro: 9
||11. P ∧ (Q ∨ R) ∧Intro: 8, 10
|12. P ∧ (Q ∨ R) ∨Elim: 1, 2-6, 7-11
Distributivity for Disjunction to Conjunction of Disjunctions:
|1. P ∨ (Q ∧ R) Show: (P ∨ Q) ∧ (P ∨ R)
||2. P
||3. P ∨ Q ∨Intro: 2
||4. P ∨ R ∨Intro: 2
||5. (P ∨ Q) ∧ (P ∨ R) ∧Intro: 3, 4
||6. Q ∧ R
||7. Q ∧Elim: 6
||8. R ∧Elim: 6
||9. P ∨ Q ∨Intro: 7
||10. P ∨ R ∨Intro: 8
||11. (P ∨ Q) ∧ (P ∨ R) ∧Intro: 9, 10
|12. (P ∨ Q) ∧ (P ∨ R) ∨Elim: 1, 2-5, 6-11
Distributivity for Conjunction of Disjunctions to Disjunction:
The other direction.
|1. (P ∨ Q) ∧ (P ∨ R) Show: P ∨ (Q ∧ R)
|2. P ∨ Q ∧Elim: 1
|3. P ∧Elim: 2
|4. P ∨ (Q ∧ R) ∨Intro: 3
DM1, Conjunction of Negated Conjuncts to Negated Disjunction:
|1. ¬P ∧ ¬Q Show: ¬(P ∨ Q)
||2. P ∨ Q
|||4. P
|||5. ¬P ∧Elim: 1
|||6. ⊥ ⊥Elim: 4, 5
|||7. Q
|||8. ¬Q ∧Elim: 1
|||9. ⊥ ⊥Elim: 7, 8
||10. ⊥ ∨Elim: 2, 4-6, 7-9
|11. ¬(P ∨ Q) ¬Intro: 2-10
DM2, Negated Disjunction to Conjunction of Negated Conjuncts:
|1. ¬(P ∨ Q) Show: ¬P ∧ ¬Q
||2. P
||3. P ∨ Q ∨Intro: 2
||4. ⊥ ⊥Intro: 3, 1
|5. ¬P ¬Intro: 2-4
||6. Q
||7. P ∨ Q ∨Intro: 6
||8. ⊥ ⊥Intro: 7, 1
|9. ¬Q ¬Intro: 6-8
|10. ¬P ∧ ¬Q ∧Intro: 5, 9
DM3, Disjunction of Negated Disjuncts to Negated Conjunction:
|1. ¬P ∨ ¬Q Show: ¬(P ∧ Q)
||2. P ∧ Q
|||3. ¬P
|||4. P ∧Elim: 2
|||5. ⊥ ⊥Intro:4, 3
|||6. ¬Q
|||7. Q ∧Elim: 2
|||8. ⊥ ⊥Intro: 7, 6
|| 9. ⊥ ∨Elim: 1, 3-5, 6-8
|10. ¬(P ∧ Q) ¬Intro: 2-9
DM4, Negated Conjunction to Disjunction of Negated Disjuncts:
What do we say to death? Not today! When stuck, use ¬Intro.
|1. ¬(P ∧ Q) Show: ¬P ∨ ¬Q
||2. ¬(¬P ∨ ¬Q)
|||3. ¬P
|||4. ¬P ∨ ¬Q ∨Intro: 3
|||5. ⊥ ⊥Intro: 4, 2
||6. ¬¬P ¬Intro: 3-5
||7. P ¬Elim: 6
|||8. ¬Q
|||9. ¬P ∨ ¬Q ∨Intro: 8
|||10. ⊥ ⊥Intro: 9, 2
||11. ¬¬Q ¬Intro: 8-10
||12. Q ¬Elim: 11
||13. P ∧ Q ∧Intro: 7, 12
||14. ⊥ ⊥Intro: 13, 1
|15. ¬¬(¬P ∨ ¬Q) ¬Intro: 2-14
|16. ¬P ∨ ¬Q ¬Elim: 15
Equivalence of the Boolean Consequents of Implication Expansion (i.e., DM3 in Action):
These DM proofs are useful in proving lots of things which rely upon Boolean Connectives. A large number of difficult Boolean based proofs are derivates of DM proofs.
|1. ¬P ∨ Q Show: ¬(P ∧ ¬Q)
||2. P ∧ ¬Q
|||3. ¬P
|||4. P ∧Elim: 2
|||5. ⊥ ⊥Intro:4, 3
|||6. Q
|||7. ¬Q ∧Elim: 2
|||8. ⊥ ⊥Intro: 6, 7
|| 9. ⊥ ∨Elim: 1, 3-5, 6-8
|10. ¬(P ∧ ¬Q) ¬Intro: 2-9
Exercise 5.17
|1. Cube(a) ∨ Tet(a) ∨ Large(a) Show: a = b ∨ a = c
|2. ¬Cube(a) ∨ a = b ∨ Large(a)
|3. ¬Large(a) ∨ a = c
|4. ¬(c = c ∧ Tet(a))
||5. ¬Large(a)
|||6. Cube(a)
||||7.¬Cube(a)
||||8. ⊥ ⊥Intro: 6, 7
||||9. a = b ∨ a = c ⊥Elim: 8
||||10. a = b
||||11. a = b ∨ a = c ∨Intro: 10
||||12. Large(a)
||||13. ⊥ ⊥Intro: 12, 5
||||14. a = b ∨ a = c ⊥Elim: 13
|||15. a = b ∨ a = c ∨Elim: 2, 7-9, 10-11, 12-14
|||16. Tet(a)
|||17. c = c =Intro
|||18. c = c ∧ Tet(a) ∧Intro: 17, 16
|||19. ⊥ ⊥Intro: 18, 4
|||20. a = b ∨ a = c ⊥Elim: 19
|||21. Large(a)
|||23. ⊥ ⊥Intro: 21, 5
|||24. a = b ∨ a = c ⊥Elim: 23
||25. a = b ∨ a = c ∨Elim: 1, 6-15, 16-20, 21-24
||26. a =c
||27. a = b ∨ a = c ∨Intro: 26
|28. a = b ∨ a = c ∨Elim: 3, 5-25, 26-27
2
Introduction
The purposes, roles, and contexts of logic are legion. Explicitly, however, very few academic fields claim to use logic directly. Majors which tend to directly use logic include: mathematics, computer science, philosophy, and linguistics. That said, all fields and all matters of rational inquiry employ logic, even if only implicitly.
Logic allows us to figure out where an argument has gone wrong, what good reasoning looks like, what bad reasoning looks like. We can point out gaps and flaws in arguments, and also prevent them, when we employ logic. Logic allows us to formalize, clarify, or make perspicuous bodies of thought which might initially seem squishier and grayer.
The logic we will be learning is a language and a set of rules. We will be learning an artificial language in this class. We will use symbols to represent natural language, and we will have rules about how to manipulate these symbols, etc.
There are many logic languages, many books on the topic, and many ways to learn logic. The book I’ve selected is fairly unique, and while it takes a while to get the ball rolling, it has an excellent mid and end game strategy with tools and depth unlike any other book I’ve seen. I’ll be following the book very closely. Technically, you could learn this on your own through the book. For those of you who aren’t self-motivated to be that auto-didactic, both using the software for homework and coming to class will suffice.
This book comes with software that is extremely useful. You will need access to a computer with internet access throughout the semester – although it will not be necessary in class. I suggest Windows, since so many Mac/OSX users seem to have problems. I’m not in love with the Linux version of this program, but it does work. I assume you are competent with your own computers. Troubleshooting is generally not my problem in this class.
The homework will be done in the software, and it will make up the largest portion of your grade. Very few people can learn logic without practicing, and we will do quite a bit of practice in this class, about 150-200 homework problems. This content can very fairly difficult; hence, we are going to practice a lot.
You can submit your homework as many times as you want. You will receive an email detailing what you got wrong and to some extent why. I suggest doing your homework over and over until you get it all right. There is no reason not to get a 100% on your homework grade. The homework will be the building blocks necessary to understand future homework. Don’t fall behind, as you might not catch up.
It would be foolish not to do the homework in a timely manner. I will have due dates, and if you don’t turn it in on time, then you will only get half credit. You should still turn in the homework just for half-credit, because without doing the homework, you won’t pass this class. I have never seen a student pass this class without doing the homework.
If you aren’t keeping up with your homework, I won’t have much sympathy for you when you fall behind. Someone who shows up to class, does their homework before the next class, reads the book, and yet still struggles will have my sympathy. I will bend over backwards to make sure people who put in the effort do well in this class.
You can work together on your homework. Everyone must turn in the assignment though. Note that cheating on the homework is about as much work as just learning to do it yourself (the software is tricky about this). Further, cheating on the homework will not help you pass the class. Even if you get 100% on the homework, if you make zeroes on the tests, you might not pass the class. The homework and class lecture will prepare you for the tests. Don’t deprive yourself of these opportunities.
I strongly suggest you do most of the homework on your own. Students who meet in groups will find that a minority will do most of the work, and everyone else is copying without understanding. You will get destroyed on the tests if you’ve not actually understood your homework.
I also strongly suggest solving problems on paper first and then transferring the answers to your computer. First, many problems are best solved in the free-form enabled by hand-writing. Second, you will want to be adept at writing this out, since you tests will be written exams. Students who only know how to do the problems on the computer may experience a speed bump when it comes to doing the exam by hand.
I said this class was difficult, and I’m not joking. A significant portion of the class will either drop or fail. The vast majority, however, will make an A or B. This is class is difficult and can be a lot of work, but it is very worthwhile. Even students who perform poorly in the course generally find the topic to be very interesting. I must warn you: if you are in this class because you are afraid of math (some people aren’t here to learn logic, but rather to skip out on mathematics for their quantitative reasoning requirements), then this class may or may not be for you. This class has all the rigor of a mathematics class, even though we won’t be doing mathematics.
On another note, please feel free to contact me with problems you have. When you send me an e-mail, don’t tell me “I don’t know how to do this” with nothing else. You need show me what you’ve tried, what your thought process is, where you are in the problem. Send me a screenshot of your work. I will not give you the answer, but I can nudge you in the right direction.
We should say something briefly about the programs we will be using in the class:
Tarski’s World – Tarski’s World lets you represent simple, three-dimensional worlds inhabited by geometric blocks of various kinds and sizes, and test first-order sentences to see whether they are true or false in those worlds. This program makes our work in symbolic logic come alive, become concrete in some sense, and is very useful to visual learners.
http://ggweb.stanford.edu/support/manual/tarski
Boole - Boole is an application that makes it easy to construct truth tables.
http://ggweb.stanford.edu/support/manual/boole
Fitch - Fitch is an application that makes it easy to construct formal proofs in first-order logic.
http://ggweb.stanford.edu/support/manual/fitch
Submit - Submit is a computer program that allows you to submit your homework exercises over the Internet to the Grade Grinder, a grading server that checks your homework and returns reports to you and, if you ask, your instructor.
http://ggweb.stanford.edu/support/manual/submit
Pages 5-7 in the book are useful for understanding how the software works.
A digital copy of the book and the software will be posted on blackboard. Note, you will still need to buy your own copy, since only a new copy has the registration key necessary to submit homework.
22
Quantificational logic – Quantifiers
We are now passing from sentential, truth-functional, propositional logic to what is known as predicate, quantified logic.
¬, ∨, ∧, →, ↔ are our logical connectives. (Truth functional connectives)
We’ll now be considering some connectives which are not truth-functional.
Sentences in English are generally a combination of a Noun phrase + verb phrase
“Ted is dead.”
“Ted” is the noun phrase, and “is dead” is the verb phrase.
“Every person Ted knows is alive.”
“Every person Ted knows” is the noun phrase, and “is alive” is the verb phrase
Sentence (1) can be handled in truth-functional, propositional logic.
Dead(ted)
Sentence (2), however, can’t be handled by truth functional logic. The noun phrase is the problem. Specifically, “Every person” can’t be captured within truth functional logic. “Every” is a determiner. “Person” is a common noun. “Every person” is a quantifier expression.
Example Determiners:
All, some, every, each, most, at least then
Determiner + common noun = quantifier expression
Ex: ‘Some dogs’, ‘Each child’, ‘All cats’, ‘Most cellists’, ‘At least ten students’
Sentences which contain quantifier expressions are quantified sentences. Quantified sentences allow us to talk about quantities of things. The quantities of a particular circumstance help to determine the truth value of a quantified expression.
Non-Truth Functionality - Once you introduce quantifiers, you leave truth functional connectives behind in a sense. They still exist in their own realm, but quantifiers are non-truth functional.
| Every rich actor is a good actor.
| Brad Pitt is a rich actor.
| Brad Pitt is a good actor.
| Many rich actors are good actors.
| Brad Pitt is a rich actor.
| Brad Pitt is a good actor.
This is ancient (Aristotelian-style) syllogistic logic, which informally is easier to understand than the sentential, truth-functional logic we’ve been working on. However, when it comes to formalizing these kinds of arguments, it will be more difficult than formal sentential logic.
The first is valid, and the second invalid. We know this by naturally thinking about them. Unfortunately, we can’t prove the first with truth-functional logical connectives we have.
The problem is that we can’t determine the truth of quantified sentences by looking at the truth values of its constituent sentences. These are simple sentences that can’t be broken down any further. That is why quantifiers aren’t truth functional, and their quantified sentences can’t be fully analyzed in truth-functional connectives. In the case of these sentences, the truth values are determined by the relationship between the collection of rich actors and the collection of good actors: by whether all, none, or some of the former (rich actors) are members of the latter (good actors).
We will use 2 quantifiers:
Universal Quantifier - ∀ - Every, each, for all, all, everything
Existential Quantifier - ∃ - Some, there exists, exists, at least one, something
There are alternative notations for these quantifiers, and alternative syntax for quantifying, but I will not cover them. See Section 9.8 for that.
At this point, I think we need to categorize our symbols. Our language, Fitch, is broken into logical and non-logical symbols.
Logical Symbols:
=, ¬, v, ∧, →, ↔, ∀, ∃; (Individual variables) t, u, v, w, x, y, z, t1, u1, etc. (with or without subscripts)
Non-logical Symbols:
Predicate symbols, function symbols, individual constants
Lastly, I want to add that we’ve also been using a category of symbols which aren’t a part of the language at all.
P v ~P => <=>
The P’s here aren’t part of Fitch. Replacing sentences with capitalized letters is a shortcut we’ve been using. It allows us to ignore the meanings of sentences, to focus on the logical symbols, etc. Further, the double-bar arrows have been representing the logical notions of consequence and equivalence. These aren’t a part of our language either. This is, essentially, a metalanguage – a language about the Fitch language.
Variables - like individual constants, use lower case letters. a-f for constants, t-z for variables. They aren’t the same though. Syntactically, variables work just like constants. Anywhere one can appear, so can the other.
Large(a), Smaller(b, c), father(george)
Wherever individual constants are grammatically acceptable, so are variables:
Large(x), Smaller(x, y), father(y)
They have the same behavior and set of rules for writing them down. They are syntactically identical. Semantically, however, they are very different. The semantic role of an individual constant: it picks out an individual thing. Variables, however, don’t pick out anything in particular.
Here are some differences which fall out of that fact:
Large(x) vs. Large(a)
Large(x) is not a sentence, but Large(a) is. Recall that only sentences have truth values. Hence, Large(a) has a truth value, but Large(x) doesn’t because x doesn’t pick anything out.
The same issue applies to function symbols:
father(george) vs. father(x)
father(george) picks someone out (it is a referring expression), father(x) doesn’t pick anyone out. We don’t know who x is.
However, these are all well-formed formulas, a.k.a. wffs.
Wff - Up until now, we had defined term as something which “picks out.” This is no longer true now that we have variables. We need to think of terms syntactically now. Terms are used with predicates and quantifiers to create well-formed formulas (wffs). Variables are simple terms (like individual constants). Complex terms, of course, are the results of function symbols applied to terms.
Atomic wff: an n-ary predicate symbol followed by n terms enclosed in parentheses and separated by commas (if necessary).
Wffs are very much like sentences; syntactically, they look like sentences, except a wff can have a free variable (in which case it doesn’t actually say anything – we’ll get to what why this is the case later; we need our terminology first).
All atomic sentences are atomic wffs, but not the other way around. Atomic sentences are atomic wffs with no free variables. Let us call those wffs with free variables “mere wffs”. We will later define what it means to have a free variable, for now, our examples are mere wffs.
Home(joe) Between(joe, bob, george) 5 = sum(7, 3)
Home(x) Between(x, y, george) 5 = sum(u, 3)
The top row has atomic sentences, which means they are atomic wffs. The bottom row aren’t sentences, but they are atomic wffs.
Importantly, you can take any atomic wff and operate on them with truth functional connectives, and the result will be a complex wff.
Home(x)
¬Home(x)
Home(x) ∨ ¬Home(x)
The first is an atomic wff, the second and third are complex wffs. They are all mere wffs, since they have free variables.
Syntax for quantifiers - Rules for constructing complex wffs from atomic wffs:
If P is a wff, so is ¬P
If P1, … , Pn are wffs, so is (P1 ∧ … ∧ Pn)
If P1, … , Pn are wffs, so is (P1 ∨ … ∨ Pn)
If P and Q are wffs, so is (P → Q)
If P and Q are wffs, so is (P ↔ Q)
If P is a wff and ν (nu) is a variable, then ∀νP is a wff, and any occurrence of ν in P (of ∀νP) is said to be bound.
If P is a wff, and ν is a variables, then ∃νP is a wff, and any occurrence of ν in P (of ∃νP) is said to be bound
Up until now, we had been using P’s and Q’s (and various other letters) as replacements for atomic and complex sentences in sentential logic. Now that we have crossed into predicate logic, that convention will no longer always be the case. P and Q, can represent non-sentences in the above rules. P and Q could be mere wffs. Pay careful attention to this change in convention, and be sure you know what P and Q could be in a given context. Sometimes we will use these letters to represent sentences, othertimes mere wffs, other times predicates, and so on.
Both of these are atomic mere wffs:
Cube(x) Dodec(y)
Our syntax rules enable us to construct complex mere wffs from these atomic ones:
Cube(x) ∧ Dodec(y)
P Q
By rule 2, we can see that this is also a wff (a complex one). Further, given our rules, we can take complex wffs and build even more complex ones:
(Cube(x) ∧ Dodec(y)) → Tet(z)
P Q
Further, if this is a wff:
SameSize(x, x)
Then, by rule 7, so is:
∃xSamesize(x,x)
Importantly, we will never write a quantifier without a variable.
∀xHome(x) (well-formed)
∀Home(x) (not well-formed)
There must be a variable associated with each quantifier, although it doesn’t have to be the any of the variables found in the sentence over which the quantifier quantifies. This is possible:
∀xHome(y)
Note that there is a variable attached to quantifier, x. Note, however, that the variable used in Home is not x, but rather y. y is a free variable, which means it is not bound. Bound and free are opposites.
Variables are bound when the variables in predicates are also attached to a quantifier, like this:
∀xHome(x)
The first x, which belongs to the quantifiers, binds the second. This is translated/read as: “For all x, x is home.” Because all the variables in the predicate are bound, and hence there are no free variables in this wff, then this isn’t a mere wff, it is a sentence (it has a truth value).
Sentence: a wff with no free variables (if there are variables, they must be bound). A sentence is a wff which isn’t a mere wff. Mere wffs cannot be evaluated, but sentences can.
∃yP(x)
This is a wff, but x is not bound, it is free. This is a mere wff, and clearly, not a sentence. If there any y’s, they would be bound.
∃y∀xP(x,y)
This is a sentence. The “occurrence” (that which is in parentheses) of both x and y are bound.
Scope: Parentheses indicate the scope of a quantifier, much in the same way as a negation.
¬P ∨ Q ¬(P ∨ Q)
∃xDoctor(x) ∧ Smart(x) ∃x(Doctor(x) ∧ Smart(x))
We must pay very careful attention to scope. Note that the first quantifier example is not a sentence, since Smart(x) is not in the scope of the quantifier, and thus the x in Smart(x) is not bound. The second quantifier example is a sentence.
Homework: 9.1-9.3
Satisfaction for quantifiers – Mere wffs don’t have truth-values—they are not true or false. Consequently, a quantified sentence that is built from mere wffs, such as ∃xCube(x), cannot have its truth-value defined in terms of the truth-value of its component mere wff, Cube(x), since that mere wff does not have a truth-value.
As an analogy, think of P ∧ Q, and let’s say Q didn’t have a truth value – it could be neither true nor false. We couldn’t then know the truth value of P ∧ Q in virtue of knowing the truth values of the components.
Mere wffs, although not true or false simpliciter, nevertheless can be said to be true or false of things.
Cube(x)
This mere wff isn’t true or false simpliciter, however, it is true of each cube, and false of every other thing. Similarly:
Tet(x) ∧ Small(x)
This mere wff isn’t true or false, however it is true of each small tetrahedron, and false of every other thing.
This relationship of a mere wff being true of things is called satisfaction. Instead of saying these mere true wffs are “true of,” we say that each cube satisfies Cube(x) and each small tetrahedron satisfies (Tet(x) ∧Small(x)).
Satisfaction is a relation between an object and a mere wff. Specifically, satisfaction is a relation between an ordered n-tuple of objects and a mere wff with n free variables.
Consider a mere wff with two free variables:
Larger(x, y)
Which objects stand in the satisfaction-relation to this wff? No object taken by itself does so. For example:
Larger(a, a)
Let us say x and y were substituted with a. This sentence, which is no longer a mere wff, is not true. a, as a single object, cannot satisfy the mere wff, Larger(x, y). No single object can. Rather, only pairs of objects that could satisfy this mere wff.
Consider a world in which:
a is a small cube
b is a large tetrahedron
This pair of object could satisfy the mere wff, depending on how we make the substitutions.
<b, a>
The pair of objects b and a, taken in that order—<b, a> is how we write this—satisfies the wff Larger(x, y). x is substituted by b, and y is substituted by a. Hence, the substitution looks like this:
Larger(b, a)
This sentence is true in our domain. Note that this substitution does not satisfy the mere wff:
<a, b>
Larger(a, b)
We can state what it is for an object to satisfy a wff in terms of the truth of a particular sentence. Take this mere wff:
S(x)
If S(x) is a mere wff containing one free variable, then a given object satisfies S(x) iff we get a true sentence when we replace every free occurrence of x in S(x) with the name of that object. For example:
Cube(x) ∧ Adjoins(x, a)
An object b satisfies this mere wff iff the following sentence is true:
Cube(b) ∧ Adjoins(b, a)
Not every object has a name. In many of the worlds in Tarski’s World, lots of objects are nameless. How do we explain what it is for a nameless object to satisfy a wff? We assign the object a temporary name and proceed as we did above for named objects. Tarski’s World reserves a number of individual constants for just this purpose:
n1, n2, n3, … nn
If we want to know whether a given nameless object satisfies a wff, we temporarily give it a name, choosing as its name the first of these constants not already in use.
Satisfaction: An object o, whether named or nameless, satisfies a wff P(x), where x is free, iff o has the property expressed by P.
o satisfies Cube(x) iff o is a cube.
o satisfies Home(x) ∧ Hungry(x) iff o is at home and hungry
Suppose o has no name. Then o satisfies P(x) iff P(n) is true, where n is a new name temporarily introduced into the language to name o. If n names o, think of o satisfying P(x) in terms of P(n) being true.
Domain of discourse: when we use quantifier expressions we have tacitly in mind some collection of objects in mind over which we are quantifying. A domain is a non-empty (must contain one thing) collection of objects. The domain of discourse is the entire collection of things that we take our FOL sentences to be “about”—the things we allow our quantifiers to “range over” or pick out. Sometimes, the domain is unrestricted, in which case we are talking about everything, and our quantifiers range over all objects. More often, the domain is restricted in some way (restricted to a smaller collection of objects—people, numbers, politicians, elementary particles, etc.). The choice of domains affects how we read the quantifiers and quantified sentences. But in any case, the domain must be non-empty. For example:
“Every student took the test”
It is understood we aren’t talking about all students around the world, rather only all the student registered for the class. The things we intuitively mean to be talking about comprise the domain.
Every quantifier must be relative to a domain.
Semantics for quantifiers:
Semantics for ∃: ∃xS(x) is true iff there is at least one object which satisfies S(x).
∃x(Red(x) ∧ Truck(x))
This is true iff some object satisfies the constitutive mere wff (Red(x) ∧ Truck(x)). Cases where it would be true: Some trucks are red. A truck is red. I have a red truck. At least one truck is red.
∃x(Cube(x) ∨ Small(x))
This is true iff there is at least one object satisfying the consistutive mere wff (Cube(x) ∨ Small(x)), i.e., there is at least one object which is either small or a cube.
Semantics for ∀: ∀xS(x) is true iff every object satisfies S(x)
∀x Cube(x)
This is true iff every object satisfies Cube(x), i.e. every object is a cube. If something isn’t a cube in our domain, then this sentence is false.
∀x(Cube(x) → Small(x))
This is true iff every object satisfies (Cube(x) →Small(x)), i.e., every object satisfying Cube(x) also satisfies Small(x), i.e., iff every cube is small. Cases where it would be true: All cubes are small. Every cube is small. For anything you take to be a cube, it is small.
Homework: 9.5-9.6
Translations
The Aristotelian Forms:
Famous translations of English to FOL. English phrases:
“All P’s are Q’s” ∀x(P(x) → Q(x)) Universal Affirmative
“Some P’s are Q’s” ∃x(P(x) ∧ Q(x)) Particular Affirmative
“No P’s are Q’s” ∀x(P(x) → ¬Q(x)) ⇔ ¬∃x(P(x) ∧ Q(x)) Universal Negative
“Some P’s are not Q’s” ∃x(P(x) ∧ ¬Q(x)) Particular Negative
If you understand the affirmatives, then you can easily get the negatives. We’re just tacking on a negation on the Q, but otherwise the negatives have the same form, overall, as their corresponding affirmatives.
“Every even number is prime.” ∀x(Even(x) → Prime(x))
“Some prime is even.” ∃x(Prime(x) ∧ Even(x))
“No even number is prime.” ∀x(Even(x) → ¬Prime(x))
“There is a prime which is not even.” ∃x(Prime(x) ∧ ¬Even(x))
Noun phrases naturally translated using the existential quantifier typically start with a determiner such as “a,” “an,” or “some.”
“A man on the bus fainted”
“Some man on the bus fainted.”
Some P’s are Q’s
∃x(P(x) ∧ Q(x))
∃x(Man(x) ∧ Bus(x) ∧ Fainted(x))
P(x) Q(x)
“Max owns a small, happy dog.”
“Some small, happy dog is owned by Max.”
Some P’s are Q’s
∃z(P(z) ∧ Q(z))
∃z(Small(z) ∧ Happy(z) ∧ Dog(z) ∧ Owns(max, z))
P(z) Q(z)
“A lawyer didn’t eat.”
Some P’s are not Q’s
∃y(P(y) ∧ ¬Q(y))
∃y(Lawyer(y) ∧ ¬Ate(y))
P(y) Q(y)
We won’t always need to use the Aristotelian form:
“Nothing is in front of b.”
“No things are in front of b.”
No P’s are Q’s
¬∃x(FrontOf(x, b)) ⇔ ∀x(¬FrontOf(x, b))
Noun phrases naturally translated using the universal quantifier typically starts with a determiner such as “all,” “every,” or “each.”
“Every man on the bus fainted.”
All P’s are Q’s
∀x(P(x) → Q(x))
∀x((Man(x) ∧ Bus(x)) → Fainted(x))
P(x) Q(x)
“Claire knows every member of congress.”
All P’s are Q’s
∀z(P(z) → Q(z))
∀z(Congress(z) → Knows(claire, z))
P(z) P(z)
“There are no medium-sized cubes”
No P’s are Q’s
∀x(P(x) → ¬Q(x)) ⇔ ¬∃x(P(x) ∧ Q(x))
∀x(Cube(x) → ¬Medium(x)) ⇔ ¬∃x(Cube(x) ∧ ¬Medium(x))
P(x) Q(x) P(x) Q(x)
“Every cube is in front of or in back of e”
∀x(Cube(x) → (FrontOf(x, e) ∨ BackOf(x, e)))
P(x) Q(x)
“No cube is between a and c.”
∀x(Cube(x) → ¬Between(x, a, c))
P(x) Q(x)
Some sentences just don’t nicely fit the Aristotelian form:
“Everything is in the same column as a, b, or c.”
∀x(SameCol(x, a) ∨ SameCol(x, b) ∨ SameCol(x, c))
Unintuitive strength of Conditionals and Conjunctions:
You’ve probably noticed that we are using conditionals for the universal quantifier, and using conjunctions for the existential quantifier, at least so far. This may seem wrong to some your intuitions. Consider what would happen if we didn’t do it this way for the Aristotelian forms:
∀x(P(x) → Q(x)) Everything which is P is Q.
∀x(P(x) ∧ Q(x)) Everything is both P and Q.
The second sentence is very strong. All objects must satisfy the mere wff (P(x) ∧ Q(x)) in order for ∀x(P(x) ∧ Q(x)) to be true.
∃x(P(x) ∧ Q(x)) Something is both P and Q.
∃x(P(x) → Q(x)) Something is such that if it is P, then it is Q.
The second sentence is very weak. Some object must simply satisfy (P(x) → Q(x)) in order for ∃x(P(x) → Q(x)) to be true. Recall that the conditional is only false when the antecedent is true and the consequent false. If the antecedent is false of an object, then the conditional is true of the object.
An easy way to see what’s wrong with this translation into FOL is to remember that P → Q is equivalent to ¬P ∨ Q.
∃x (P(x) → Q(x)) ⇔ ∃x (¬P(x) ∨ Q(x)).
Now compare these 3 sentences:
Some cubes are large. ∃x(Cube(x) ∧ Large(x)) Something is not a cube or it is large. ∃x(¬Cube(x) ∨ Large(x)) Something is such that if it is a cube, then it is large. ∃x(Cube(x) → Large(x))
Two ways of writing “No P’s are Q’s”:
Universal generalization:
English: “for any object, if it’s P, then it’s not Q.”
FOL: ∀x (P(x) → ¬Q(x))
Negation:
English: “it is false that even one P is a Q.”
FOL: ¬∃x(P(x) ∧ Q(x)).
These are both correct and perfectly acceptable ways of translating the “No P’s are Q’s” sentences into FOL.
All vs. Only - Notice that just as all can be a quantifier in English (as in the phrase all freshmen), so too can only be used as a quantifier (as in only freshmen). Compare the following two sentences:
All freshmen are eligible for the prize.
Only freshmen are eligible for the prize.
(1) tells us that being a freshman is a sufficient condition for eligibility—if you’re a freshman, then you’re eligible. But (2) tells us that being a freshman is a necessary condition for eligibility—you’re eligible only if you’re a freshman. Hence, our two sentences go into FOL as follows:
∀x (Freshman(x) → Eligible(x))
∀x (Eligible(x) → Freshman(x))
Homework: 9.8-9.9, 9.12-9.14 (Don’t forget 09.1, Aristotelian Translations hand-out)
Vacuously True Sentences:
All P’s are Q’s ∀x(P(x) → Q(x))
This is true if there are no P’s. Every object in the domain satisfies that wff, namely P(x) → Q(x). For any object in the domain, if a names that object, then the sentence P(a) → Q(a) is true.
P(x) → Q(x) ⇔ ¬P(x) ∨ Q(x)
⇔ ¬P(a) is true or Q(a) is true
⇔ P(a) is false or Q(a) is true
If there are no P’s, the claim that all P’s have some further property is true. ∀x(P(x) → Q(x)) is false iff there is at least one object o in the domain such that o is P, but not Q.
Vacuity:
∀x(P(x) → Q(x))
A sentence of this form which is true merely because there are no P’s in the domain is said to be vacuously true.
Some sentences can only be vacuously true. Any sentence of the same form, ∀x(P(x) → Q(x)), which is never true unless it is vacuously true is said to be inherently vacuous.
∀x(Cube(x) → Tet(x))
No Cube is a Tet. Clearly, by the meanings of the predicates, the mere wff (Cube(x) → Tet(x)) can never be satisfied in a domain with a cube it, and hence the quantified sentence is false in any domain with a cube in it. However, if we limit our domain to only have objects which aren’t cubes, then this is vacuously true. Since it can be only true when it is vacuously true, it is inherently vacuous.
Conversational Implicature and Quantifiers:
∀x(P(x) → Q(x))
This sentence will sometimes conversationally imply that there are some P’s. For example:
“Every student who asked for help received it. “
This has conversational implicature. It implies that there were actually students who had asked for help, which isn’t necessarily true. One can say, “but no student asked for help” without contradicting the previous statement.
∃x(P(x) ∧ Q(x))
This sentence can conversationally imply that not every P is Q. For example:
“Some students passed the test.”
There is a strong suggestion here that not everyone passed the test, as if some students failed the test. This isn’t necessarily true though. Perhaps all students passed the test, and we could still say the above without contradicting ourselves.
Homework: 9.15-9.19
---
FOL translations of common English phrasings of Aristotelian forms and Biconditionals:
∀x(F(x) → G(x))
All F’s are G’s.
Every F is a G.
Each F is a G.
Anything that is an F is a G.
If anything is an F, it’s a G.
Whatever is an F is (also) a G.
Nothing is an F unless it’s (also) a G.
Only G’s are F’s.
Something is an F only if it’s a G.
If something is an F, it is a G.
An F is a G. [Some sentences only]
F’s are all G’s.
A thing is a G if it’s an F.
∃x(F(x) ∧ G(x))
Some F’s are G’s.
Something is both F and G.
There are GF’s.
GF’s exist.
An F is a G. [Some sentences only]
∀x(F(x) → ¬G(x)) or ¬∃x(F(x) ∧ G(x))
No F’s are G’s.
Nothing which is an F is a G.
Nothing is both F and G.
No F is a G.
Not even one F is a G.
∃x(F(x) ∧ ¬G(x))
Some F’s are not G’s.
Some things that are F are not G.
There are F’s that aren’t G.
F’s exist that are not G.
∀x(F(x) ↔ G(x))
All and only F’s are G’s.
Each thing is an F if, and only if, it’s G.
A thing is F if, and only if, it’s G.
Something is F just in case it’s G.
∀x(F(x) ↔ ¬ G(x))
All things except F’s are G’s.
All things except G’s are F’s.
A thing is an F just in case it’s not a G.
FOL Equivalences of Aristotelian forms and the Biconditionals:
All F’s are G’s
∀x(F(x) → G(x))
¬∃x(F(x) ∧ ¬G(x))
∀x(¬G(x) → ¬F(x))
∀x(¬F(x) ∨ G(x))
Some F’s are G’s.
∃x(F(x) ∧ G(x))
∃x(G(x) ∧ F(x))
¬∀x(F(x) → ¬G(x))
No F’s are G’s.
∀x(F(x) → ¬G(x))
¬∃x(F(x) ∧ G(x))
∀x(G(x) → ¬F(x))
Some F’s are not G’s.
∃x(F(x) ∧ ¬G(x))
∃x(¬G(x) ∧ F(x))
¬∀x(F(x) → G(x))
All and only F’s are G’s.
∀x(F(x) ↔ G(x))
∀x(G(x) ↔ F(x))
All things except F’s are G’s.
∀x(F(x) ↔ ¬ G(x))
∀x(¬F(x) ↔ G(x))
15
§ 2.1
Argument - any series of statements in which one (called the conclusion) is meant to follow from, or be supported by, the others (called the premises). An argument is a piece of reasoning (a sequence of statements) attempting to establish a conclusion. The conclusion is intended to follow from, be a consequence of, or be supported by the remaining statements, the premises. It is not two people yelling at each other. Here is a famous one:
All humans are mortal. Socrates is human. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
The first two statements are the premises, and the last is the conclusion, which is supported by the premises. Note that, in logic, we often re-write arguments (in fitch-bar or tri-dot notation):
| All humans are mortal. All humans are mortal.
| Socrates is human. Socrates is human.
| Socrates is mortal. ∴ Socrates is mortal.
Premises are up top, and the conclusion at the bottom, with either a fitch-bar or tri-dot to indicate that it is the conclusion which is meant to follow from the premises. We will be using the fitch-bar notation in this class. This is a really clean example, but a lot of arguments are not so clearly laid out for us. Sometimes the conclusion is found in the middle of the argument or even as the first sentence, and the remaining sentences are the premises. For example, we might see the previous famous argument written in a different order:
Socrates is mortal since Socrates is human and because all humans are mortal.
The conclusion and premises aren’t as neatly ordered as before, but it amounts to the same argument form. When we break this argument down, we will get the same form as before, with the premises on top and the conclusion at the bottom, below the fitch-bar.
There are signals in normal English for which argumentative sentences are which.
Conclusion: therefore, thus, hence, so, consequently
Premises: since, after all, because
Logical Validity – An argument is logically (a.k.a., deductively) valid iff (if and only if) its conclusion must be true if its premises are true. Another way to say this: an argument is logically valid if it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. Repeat. Memorize this. Imprint this into your mind. This is the central concept of the class, and we will spend the rest of the class fleshing out various meanings, circumstances, and entailments of validity.
The word “impossible” is important here. The fact that an argument’s conclusion is actually true does not make the argument valid — validity requires that there be no possible circumstance in which the premises would be true and the conclusion false. Similarly, the fact that an argument contains a false premise means nothing about the argument’s validity or invalidity. Some arguments with false premises are valid, and others are invalid. What matters is whether there is any possible circumstance in which the premises would be true and the conclusion false.
A valid argument with these truth values is impossible:
T | Premise 1
T | Premise 2
T | …
T | Premise n
F | Conclusion
Remember, to have a valid argument, there is no possible world in which all the premises are true and the conclusion false. Note, however, many valid arguments can have these truth values in some possible worlds:
T | Premise 1 T | Premise 1
F | Premise 2 F | Premise 2
T | … T | …
T | Premise n T | Premise n
F | Conclusion T | Conclusion
Here is an example of an invalid argument:
T | All humans are mortal.
T | Lucretius is mortal.
T | Lucretius is human.
It just so happens that the premises and conclusion are both true, but that doesn’t make this a valid argument. This argument is invalid because it is possible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. In this case, consider a world with Socrates and Plato, who are mortal humans, and Lucretius, a mortal honey badger. The premises are true, right? All humans turn out to be mortal, and Lucretius is also mortal. However, Lucretius is not a human, since he is a dog. Hence, this argument is invalid because in some possible world, the premises can all be true, but the conclusion false.
Compare this to our initial example:
T | All humans are mortal.
T | Socrates is human.
T | Socrates is mortal.
In this argument, if the premises are true, the conclusion necessarily must be true. Essentially, it is impossible to conceive of a world in which the premises are true and the conclusion false.
Validity is concerned with “if the premises are true, then the conclusion must also be true,” however, it does not tell us if the premises or conclusions are true at all. Here is an example of a valid argument that has a false conclusion.
If I am Harry Potter, then I am a wizard. I am Harry Potter. Thus, I am a wizard.
If the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true. This is valid. But, notice that the second premise is false, and the conclusion may or may not be false. Logical validity and truth values in the real world do not track each other.
Another way to talk about logical validity is in terms of logical consequence. This is where one sentence, statement, or claim follows logically from others. This consequence is necessary and something about which we can be absolutely certain. The conclusion of a logically valid argument is said to be a logical consequence of the argument’s premises. Logical consequence and validity are brothers.
Additionally, we might talk about logical validity and consequence in terms of truth preservation. If you put true premises in, you can only get true conclusions out. Truth preservation is extremely important to good reasoning. We want to move from true premises to only true conclusions, and validity is the indicator or structure of that goal.
Good arguments are at the very least valid arguments (depending on what we mean by “good”). Sometimes, however, a good argument needs to be more than just valid, it also needs to be sound. The Harry Potter argument is valid, but it is not sound. Soundness tracks the truth values of the premises and conclusion.
Soundness - An argument is “sound” iff both 1.) it is logically valid and 2.) its premises are all true.
If the argument is valid and the premises are true, then what do we know about the conclusion? It must be true as well.
From our examples: The Harry Potter argument is valid, but not sound. The Mortality of Socrates argument is valid, and since its premises are all true, it is also sound.
All sound arguments are valid, but not all valid arguments are sound. Valid arguments can have false premises, but sound arguments can’t.
§ 2.2-2.4
Proof - A proof is a step-by- step demonstration that one statement, S, is a logical consequence of some statements, P1, P2, … ,Pn.
Proofs are special, carefully designed arguments which demonstrate a conclusion follows a set of premises. In a good proof, when the premises, P1, P2, … ,Pn, are true, the conclusion, S, must also be true; i.e. S is the logical consequence of the premises.
Good proofs tend to make small steps that are obvious and intuitive. We would like to think that rational persons will recognize the validity, truth preservation, and absolute certainty of each step. Further, the hope is that if a chain of small, obvious steps from a set to premises successfully lead to a conclusion, then that conclusion must also be taken as obviously following from the premises. If we were uncertain about any of the steps, then the proof is doubtable. A good proof should erase all doubt in the minds of rational folks that the conclusion follows from the premises.
Sometimes a proof will be a one-step deduction, for example:
| If I like candy, then I like pizza. | P1
| I like candy. | P2
| I like pizza. | S
Sometimes a proof will require multiple deductions. Given the following three premises (P1-P3), I can prove that I like beer using two proof-arguments back to back:
| If I like candy, then I like pizza. | P1
| I like candy. | P2
| If I like pizza, then I like beer. | P3
| I like pizza. | S
Now, we can then turn our conclusion, S, into a premise, and make a new argument.
| If I like candy, then I like pizza. | P1
| I like candy. | P2
| If I like pizza, then I like beer. | P3
| I like pizza. | P4
| I like beer. | S
By making two valid arguments in succession, we can prove that I like beer from our initial three premises. Unfortunately, this takes more time than we’d like, it has redundancies in it, and perhaps there are extra premises that we don’t need in each argument. In logic, we are lazy, and we like to shorten this process while improving readability. Hence proofs which require multiple deductions to get to our final conclusion can be collapsed into a more succinct form.
All the deductions which occur before the final conclusion, S, we call intermediate conclusions. Let us label intermediate conclusions as I1, I2, …, In. The previous set of arguments can be collapsed in this way:
| If I like candy, then I like pizza. | P1
| I like candy. | P2
| If I like pizza, then I like beer. | P3
| I like pizza. | I1
| I like beer. | S
Using two steps, this proof cleanly demonstrates our final conclusion is the logical consequence of the starting premises. Each step is obvious and intuitive. This is absolutely essential to a good proof.
Note that all good proofs are valid arguments, but not all valid arguments are good proofs. Here is a valid argument which isn’t a proof:
| a is a cube | Cube(a)
| a is large | Large(a)
| a is identical to b | a = b
| if b is a large cube, then c is a tetrahedron. | (Large(b) ^ Cube(b)) -> Tet(c)
| c is a tetrahedron | Tet(c)
For some people, this is obviously valid, but not to everyone. In a proof, the validity should be obvious to everyone. In this case, the leap from the premises to the conclusion is too large. It is a valid leap - the conclusion is a logical consequence of the premises, hence this is a valid argument. However, just because it is a valid argument doesn’t mean this is a proof.
A proof will demonstrate the intermediate steps in these leaps of logic, while valid arguments don’t have to (although, good arguments, a standard broader than validity, tend to resemble proofs). Proofs will unfold valid arguments for us, making explicit all of the intermediate steps required to get to the conclusion. The language we will be learning will enable us to show, in a step-by-step demonstration, that the conclusion of this argument is a logical consequence of the premises. In this case, there are many intermediate conclusions, many small deductive steps that is, which are required to prove that the conclusion follows from the premises.
To give you a taste of a formal proof for this argument (you won’t be expected to do this yourself for many weeks):
|1. Cube(a) |1. P1
|2. Large(a) |2. P2
|3. a = b |3. P3
|4. (Large(b) ^ Cube(b)) -> Tet(c) |4. P4
|5. Cube(b) =Elim: 1, 3 |5. I1
|6. Large(b) =Elim: 2, 3 |6. I2
|7. Large(b) ^ Cube(b) ^Intro: 6, 5 |7. I3
|8. Tet(c) ->Elim: 4, 7 |8. S
You may not understand what I’ve done here. That is fine. The point is to give you a glimpse as to what proofs are going to look like in this class. You will find this proof of our argument is itself a valid argument. This proof has broken down the leap into smaller, intermediate steps that are obvious and perhaps pedantic. It took us 4 steps to reach the conclusion. The work of making proofs, like this one, is the primary skill of this class.
Kinds of Proofs -There are two general kinds of proofs, formal and informal.
Formal Proofs must be in a formal language using explicitly specified rules. Informal proofs do not necessarily need explicitly specified rules and methods. Linguistic competence (including syllogistic logic) is much like it.
Formal and informal proofs only differ in style only, but don’t differ in rigor. Rigor, meaning, each step of the proof follows from previous steps by/of necessity. It is part of truth preservation. Assuming some set of propositions is true, and take small inferential steps which result in other true propositions.
Sp’: Cube(b); c = b Show: Cube(c)
Informal Proof:
Since c = b, c and b have exactly the same properties (are identical), but b is a cube (i.e. Cube(b)), and since being a cube is a type of property, then c is also a cube (Cube(c)).
Formal proof (Fitch-style FOL):
|1. Cube(c)
|2. c = b
|3. Cube(b) =Elim: 1,2
Deductive systems are necessary for presenting formal proofs. We will be using “script” “F”, which I will call Fitch. There are many systems of rules we could use express the logic of FOL, and we will be using a very minimalist system with very few rules and simple schematic for demonstrating proofs. Some language systems which use 30 or 40 rules, but I find that unwieldly and ugly, hence we are going to stick to a minimal system. Here is a general schematic of formal FOL proofs in the Fitch-style:
| 1. P1
| 2. P2
| …
| n. Pn
| n+1. I1 (justification for I1)
| n+2. I2 (justification for I2)
| …
| n+k. Ik (justification for Ik)
| n+k+1. S (justification for S)
We have any number of premises at the top, the Fitch bar, and any number of intermediate conclusions which bridge the gap between what you are given as premises and what you are trying to prove in the end, S. Proofs can be any number of lines long – lines will always be numbered in complete formal Fitch-style proofs.
Every line will have exactly one sentence on it (be it an atomic or complex sentence). Every sentence, and essentially, every line in a fitch-style proof is going to either true or false.
Each step in a formal proof must be entered in accordance with some precisely stated rule of the formal system of rules. By applying a rule to some previous line or lines in a proof, we provide a justification for entering a new step in a proof.
A justification, then, cites a rule and the lines to which the rule is being applied in order to generate the line being introduced. The justification, at the side, shows the legitimacy of writing down the line; the application of the rules.
This sounds very complicated right now, but in time this structure will make a lot of sense.
We are now ready to learn our first two rules of Fitch, =Intro and =Elim.
Identity Introduction, =Intro:
One foundational claim we take for granted is that identify is reflexive. Everything is self-identical.
a = a
We will not offer proofs of a claim like this one. It is just assumed. It is a rule of our language that we can introduce self-identity propositions at any time in a proof.
| k. n = n =Intro
The mark points to the sentence that the rule entitles you to enter.
Where n is any term, at any point in the argument, on line k, you may assert the above. This rule allows us to introduce identity statements into proofs. It tells us that any sentence of the form, whatever = whatever, can be validly inferred from whatever premises are at hand, or from no premises at all. Essentially, this rule embodies the principle of reflexivity of identity.
Let me repeat, the claim that something is identical to itself is the logical consequence of any set of premises, including the empty set. The identity introduction rule is fairly special, since it will not require any line citation, and that is because it follows from any set of premises.
Note that we call this an identity introduction rule. This is because we are introducing a brand new identity symbol in our proof.
Identity Elimination, =Elim:
Another foundational claim we take for granted is the indiscernibility of identicals (Leibniz’ name for it). Essentially, if a = b, then a and b have exactly the same properties. Things which are identical are indiscernible (you can’t tell them apart). They are the same thing. This is basis of the identity elimination rule in our formal language.
|k. P(n) |k. n = m
| … | …
|l. n = m |l. P(n)
| … | …
|q. P(m) =Elim: k, l |q. P(m) =Elim: l, k
Where P(n) is any sentence in which the term n appears. Note that the order of sentences n = m and P(n) don’t matter, however, the justification line citations do matter.
P(n) is the property statement. In our justification, we will state the property statement first in “=Elim: k, l” assuming line k is the property statement.
This rule tells you that you may substitute m for n wherever you like, provided that you have the sentence n = m. This rule embodies the principle of indiscernibility of identicals.
Please note that the term order of the identity sentence matters. We can replace occurrences of n in P(n) with m, but the proof isn’t the other way around. We should read the identity sign as:
“Any instance of n can be replaced with m.”
Hence this is not okay:
|k. P(m)
| …
|l. n = m
| …
|q. P(n) =Elim: k, l
Line l. tells us that any instance of n and be replaced with m. In this case, however, we attempted to replace the m in line k. with an n to produce like q. =Elim does not allow us to do this. If line l. was m = n, then this would work.
Please note the “P()” predicate in the identity elimination. There is a reason we cannot have this:
| k. n
| …
| l. n = m
| …
| q. m =Elim: k, l
Names aren’t sentences! Every line must be a sentence. Every line must be capable of being either true or false. A name cannot be true or false. We need atomic or complex sentences, which require a predicate and name(s). Note, however, that n = m is a sentence. It is capable of being either true or false. All of our rules will generate sentences.
Lastly, when we say, “Any instance of n can be replaced with m,” the replacement doesn’t have to be all instances; it can be just one instance. For example:
|k. m = m
| …
|l. n = m
| …
|q. m = n =Elim: k, l
Notice that although the rule is called an “elimination” rule, although nothing is really being eliminated. The idea is that we have used (eliminated?) an identity sentence in the process of arriving at a conclusion. That is, we are arguing “from” an identity sentence, and in that sense we are “eliminating” it.
General Claim about Rules in Fitch-Style FOL – In Fitch, each logical symbol has a pair of rules associated with it: an introduction rule, which tells you how to get a sentence containing that logical symbol into a proof, and an elimination rule, which tells you how to deduce something from a sentence containing that logical symbol. For this reason the rules in a system like Fitch are sometimes called “intro/elim” rules. Thus, =Intro tells us how to enter a new identity sentence (we can enter a = a) in our proof, and =Elim tells us how to use an identity sentence (n = m) as a premise.
By midterm we will have 5 symbols, with one intro and one elim rule for each symbol, thus 10 rules. In a moment, we will add a special rule to this which is neither an intro nor an elim rule, making it 11. This will form the foundation of our language. If we lucky, we will have 2 more symbols, each with an intro and elim rule – so, if we are lucky, we’ll have 15 rules to learn in this class.
Reiteration Rule , Reit:
This is the exception in Fitch. It is a rule that isn’t an elim or intro rule. It has no symbol either.
| k. p
| …
| l. p Reit: k
If we have a sentence at some previous line, we can reiterate that line later one. Sometimes we’ll do this for aesthetic reasons, and sometimes we’ll need to be able to restate a sentence we already had to fulfill certain requirements of our other rules.
More on Identity – If you recall, identity is symmetric and transitive.
Symmetry: for all a and b, if a=b, then b=a
Transitivity: for all a,b, and c; if a=b, and b=c, then a=c
Informal argument for symmetry:
Let a and b be arbitrary. Sp’ a = b Show: b = a
By reflexivity of = (identity), we have a = a. But, by the indiscernibility of identicals, a and b have exactly the same properties. So, it follows that b = a.
Semi-formal argument for symmetry (there is a formal way to translate the “for all” component of the definition, but we won’t be able to do that until much later in the course):
|1. a = b
|2. a = a =Intro
|3. b = a =Elim: 2, 1
In the blocks language, the predicate SameSize is capable of being reflexive, symmetrical, and transitive.
Every block is the same size as itself (reflexive);
If you have two blocks of the same size, then they are symmetrical;
If you have a, b, c with the same size between any 2 sets of these, then all 3 are transitively the same size.
Example:
|1. SameRow(a, a) (show SameRow(b,a))
|2. b = a (can’t replace any ‘b’ with ‘a’ because no b’s here)
|3. b = b =Intro
|4. a = b =Elim: 3, 2
|5. SameRow(b, a) =Elim: 1, 4
It might at first seem that this proof should be a one-step application of =Elim. But notice that the way we have stated this rule requires that we replace the first name in the identity sentence, b, for the second, a, but we want to substitute the other way around. So we need to derive a = b as an intermediate conclusion before we can apply =Elim.
Ana Con – The software offers you a few mechanisms which are like rules, but are not really rules of our language. Ana Con is one of three such mechanisms. You won’t be able to use these mechanisms on our tests, but you will need to understand and use these mechanisms in your homework. The concepts you learn from the mechanisms, however, will be crucial to many test questions.
This is a mechanism that is built into the Fitch computer executable, the software that comes with the book, not the language Script F we use for proofs. It basically checks to see whether a conclusion does indeed follow from its premises.
As we will see, Ana Con uses a broader notion of logical consequence than is strictly allowed in FOL. Importantly, Ana Con understands and can analyze the meanings of most of the predicates in the blocks language.
Open Fitch.exe, show Larger(a, b) follows from Smaller(b, a) using Ana Con
For example, in FOL we cannot deduce, but Ana Con will validate this:
|1. Smaller(b, a)
|2. Larger(a, b) Ana Con
The reason we can’t validate or deduce this in FOL is because the inference depends on the meaning of the predicates, and FOL is blind to the meanings of the predicates. Given the meanings of the predicates Larger and Smaller, we may note that it is not possible for the first sentence to be true and the second false. So there is a clear sense in which the inference in question is valid. This sense, however, cannot be proven in FOL.
Ana Con doesn’t have this limitation. Ana Con’s inferential abilities sit is outside the scope of FOL. Ana Con takes the meanings of the predicates into account. So we’ll say that Larger(a, b) is an analytic consequence of Smaller(b, a), even though it is not a first-order consequence of it.
We are learning FOL in this class, and thus, we won’t be able to prove the following argument with the formal tools we have (although, we can easily give an informal argument that isn’t in FOL).
FOL, clearly, has some limitations. There are many obvious and valid arguments which can’t be proven in FOL. You need to understand these limits and why! The use of the Ana Con rule in your homework will clarify this for you, and it will demonstrate to me that you really understand the limits of FOL.
To be clear: Ana Con is not a rule of our language, but it is a rule that you will sometimes need to use in your homework.
Homework: 2.8, 2.10 (Submit these only – no written work)
2.15-2.20
§ 2.5
Counterexamples – We’ve been demonstrating logical consequence in our proofs. We can also demonstrate non-consequence, not via proofs, but rather via counterexamples.
When we establish that an argument is valid, we establish something quite general. That is, that it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. To put it another way, we establish that in every possible situation in which the premises are true, so is the conclusion.
Conversely, to establish that an argument is invalid, we must show that it is not valid. We must demonstrate that it is possible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. To put it another way, we must specify a hypothetical world in which the premises are true and the conclusion is false.
So when we show an argument to be invalid, we need not prove anything general. It is sufficient to describe a possible situation in which the premises are true and the conclusion is false.
To prove S is not a consequence of P1, P2,…, Pn, show it’s possible for the P’s to all be true and S to be false. You can do this by providing a counterexample.
A counterexample is a possible situation/circumstances/world in which P1, P2,…, Pn are all true and S is false.
| Joe Biden a politician. |P1
| Few politicians are honest. |P2
| Biden is not honest. |S
We need to specify a possible world/domain in which the premises are true at the conclusion false:
T | Joe Biden a politician. T |P1
T | Few politicians are honest. T |P2
F | Biden is not honest. F |S
If this is possible, then the argument can’t be valid by definition (hence it must be invalid). Valid arguments, by definition, are such that when the premises are true, it is impossible for the conclusion to be false.
A complete counterexample will specify a domain, and then verify that the premises are true and the conclusion false. A counter example will specify a world and verify that the argument is invalid, i.e. that the conclusion is a non-consequence of the premises.
Specify: Let the world be such that Biden is a politician, and few politicians are honest, and Biden is among the honest politicians.
Verify: Premise 1 is true because Biden is a politician, as specified.
Premise 2 is true because few politicians are honest, as specified.
The conclusion is false because Biden is honest, as specified, rather than not honest, as concluded in the argument. Thus, the argument is invalid.
This is the style of counterexample you will provide on your exams. Note, however, that you will also be required to provide counterexample Tarski worlds for your homework.
Open Tarski’s World, create a counterexample world to the following argument:
|LeftOf(a, b)
|RightOf(c, a)
|LeftOf(b, c)
Note how, given the premises, the conclusion can possibly be true, but it isn’t necessarily true. That means it isn’t valid.
Our written method can handles this argument as well.
Specify: Let the world consist in 3 cubes: a, b, and c. a is to the left of b, and c is between a and b.
Verify: Premise 1 is true because a is to the left of b, as specified
Premise 2 is true because c is to the right of a, since it is between a and b, and a is to the left of b, as specified.
The conclusion is false because b is not to the left of c, rather it is to the right of c, since c is in between a and b, and a is to the right of b, as specified. Thus, the argument is invalid.
Homework: 2.21, 2.24-2.27
20
§ 4.1
Logical Truth – A sentence which is true in all possible worlds. There is no possible circumstance in which the sentence is false.
We already have the notion of logical consequence (and we will develop an even deeper understanding of it in this chapter). A sentence is a logical consequence of a set of sentences if it is impossible for that sentence to be false when all the sentences in the set are true. We can define logical truth in terms of logical consequence.
Suppose a given sentence is a logical consequence of every set of sentences, including the empty set. That means that it is impossible for that sentence to be false – it comes out true in every possible circumstance. Consider this general argument form:
|1. P1
|…
|n. Pn
|n+1. L (where L is a Logical truth)
It doesn’t matter what the premises are, whether they are true or false, or how many there are (there could be none), the conclusion, a logical truth, always remains true. Essentially, a sentence is a logical truth iff it is a logical consequence of every set of sentences.
We can’t form a counterexample to arguments of this structure, since we can’t show any case in which the premises are true are the conclusion false. The arguments are always valid because the conclusion, a logical truth, is always true, regardless of what the premises are.
Tautology – A tautology is specific kind of logical truth that owes its truth entirely to the meanings of the truth-functional connectives it contains, and not at all to the meanings of the atomic sentences it contains. For example:
Cube(a) ∨ ¬Cube(a)
No matter what ‘a’ is, this sentence comes out true. And it owes its truth entirely to the meanings of ‘or’ and ‘not’. You could replace ‘Cube’ with any other predicate and ‘a’ with any other name, and the resulting sentence would still be true. Indeed, you could replace Cube(a) with any other sentence and the resulting sentence would still be true. This sentence is of the form:
P ∨ ¬P
Informally, we can just look and see that any sentence of this form is true in all possible worlds, i.e. it is the logical consequence of every set of sentences. Note, however, that refers to a special kind of logical truth. Sentences of this form as true in virtue of the truth-functional connectives rather than the meanings of the predicates, and for that reason, this logical truth is a special class, a tautology. We don’t care what P represents – it could be atomic or complex sentence.
Note that P ∨ ¬P is not, strictly speaking, a tautology, since it isn’t a sentence at all in FOL. However, it is the form of sentences which are tautologies. This isn’t a real sentence in FOL, since P isn’t a sentence. P is just a placeholder for real sentences. The form only represents a sentence, but it isn’t itself a sentence. Again, sentences of that form would be:
Cube(a) ∨ ¬Cube(a) Home(joe) ∨ ¬Home(joe)
These are tautologies of the P ∨ ¬P form. Once in a while I may slip into speaking of the form itself as a sentence because it is easy to talk about it like that, but you must always remember that this is just a form, and not really a sentence of FOL. In dealing strictly with the truth-functional connectives, we should be blind to predicates and names, and hence we will sometimes slide into just talking about sentences of certain forms.
Note that there are many tautologies (an infinite number actually). For example, here is the form of another tautology:
¬A ∨ (A ∧ ¬B) ∨ B
A tautology of that form could be:
¬Cube(a) ∨ (Cube(a) ∧ ¬Small(b)) ∨ Small(b)
You often won’t immediately know or quickly figure out if a sentence is a tautology. In this case, however, you can see it is a tautology just by thinking about it and offering an informal proof.
Note how only one of the disjuncts must be true for the entire distjunction to be true. If (A ∧ ¬B) is false, then we know that one of the conjuncts is false. So, either ¬A or B or both must be true. But, that means that at least one of the remaining disjuncts must be true. Hence, the disjunction is true. So, either (A ∧ ¬B) is false, and the disjunction is true in virtue of the other disjuncts, or (A ∧ ¬B) is true, which makes the disjunction true. Hence, because there is no possible case in which a sentence of this form is false, in virtue of its truth-functionality (we don’t even have predicates in this case), it is a tautology.
Sometimes, you won’t be able to just quickly think whether or not a sentence is a tautology using your natural reason, but you can make a chain of equivalences which will demonstrate to you that a logically equivalent sentence is a tautology. Take this form as an example:
¬(A ∧ (¬A ∨ ¬¬B)) ∨ ¬¬B
We can use chains of equivalence to convince ourselves that sentences of this form are tautologies.
Chains of equivalences have this structure:
P ⇔ P’
⇔ P’’
…
As you know, we will only use the equivalence symbol to talk about FOL. We won’t make Fitch-style proofs with the equivalence symbol though. Some logic books will let you take shortcuts with equivalences in actual proofs, allowing substitutions in the proofs themselves, but we won’t. However, we will still use this tool to quickly express something or convince ourselves of certain things. Using this tool on our example:
¬(A ∧ (¬A ∨ ¬¬B)) ∨ ¬¬B ⇔ ¬(A ∧ (¬A ∨ B)) ∨ B
⇔ (¬A ∨ ¬(¬A ∨ B)) ∨ B
⇔ (¬A ∨ (¬¬A ∧ ¬B)) ∨ B
⇔ (¬A ∨ (A ∧ ¬B)) ∨ B
⇔ ¬A ∨ (A ∧ ¬B) ∨ B
The result of the equivalence is exactly the same as our initial example, which we know from our informal proof, must be the form of a tautology.
Sometimes just thinking about a sentence and using chains of equivalence will be enough to convince yourself that a sentence is a tautology. That said, sometimes it isn’t enough, and sometimes you can be wrong. Take this example:
¬A ∨ (A ∧ ¬B) ∨ B ⇔ (¬A ∨ A) ∧ (¬B ∨ B)
Unfortunately, since we know so few equivalences, we aren’t in a position to create a chain of equivalences to bridge this gap. Now, we could try to continue to figure out and memorize more and more equivalences until we were eventually able to find a way to realize this equivalence is correct. But, that isn’t very practical.
As you can see, trying to figure out which sentences of a certain form are tautologies and which aren’t using just our own natural reasoning and the equivalences we know can be messy, difficult, and will fail to scale up nicely with larger and more complex sentence forms. While the methods we’ve employed so far are valid informal proofs of sentences of a certain form being tautologies, they are not formal proofs. We will use the truth table as a kind of formal proof that some sentences or sentences of a certain form are tautologies.
Truth Table - A truth table for a sentence P is an arrangement of truth values that shows the truth value of P in every possible situation as determined by the truth values of the atomic sentences occurring in P.
General schematic for a Simple TT:
Each Atomic Sentence with no Connective The Sentence/Sentence Form
Pn … P2 P1 || conn’s P1 conn’s P2 conn’s … conn’s Pn
… T T || T/F T/F T/F T/F
… T F || T/F T/F T/F T/F
… F T || T/F T/F T/F T/F
… F F || T/F T/F T/F T/F
… … … || … … … …
Truth values under each sentence Truth values under each connective
There is a set pattern of truth values here Truth values are deduced from left side and
Represents all possible truth combinations the TT’s for the connectives
i.e. at least all possible worlds
The number of rows in the table for a given sentence is a function of the number of atomic sentences it contains. If there are n atomic sentences, there are 2n rows.
Each row represents a possible assignment of truth values to the component atomic sentences.
On each row, the values of the atomic sentences determine the values of the compounds of which they are components. The values of the compounds of atomic sentences in turn determine the values of the larger compounds of which they are components. In the end, a unique value for the entire sentence is determined on each row.
There is pattern for generating the truth values of the atomic sentences. The right most column rotates T, F, and the next most right TT, FF, and the next TTTT, FFFF, and so on and so forth.
Note how a truth table can be constructed with truth-functional forms of sentences or actual FOL sentences. For example:
P Q || P ∧ Q Cube(a) Small(b) || Cube(a) ∧ Small(b)
T T || T T T || T
T F || F T F || F
F T || F F T || F
F F || F F F || F
Truth tables ignore the meanings of predicates and names, and they express the semantics of the truth-functional connectives. Truth tables, importantly, create a narrow space in the logical world concerned with tautologies, tautological consequence, and tautological equivalence.
A tautology is a sentence that comes out true on every row of its main connective in the truth table.
Cube(a) || Cube(a) V ¬Cube(a)
T || T F
F || T T
Main Connective: The main connective of a non-atomic sentence is that connective such that no other connective operates on a larger (i.e., more complex) part of the sentence than it does. Here is the intuition behind a truth table:
Sp’ S and Q are true while R is false
i.e. Suppose a certain row on the left side of the truth table
(S ∧ ¬Q) ∨ ¬¬R
T T F
F T
F
F
F
Put in values for atomics. That is a row on the left side of the truth table. Rotate between negations and the other connectives until you reach the main connective. The main connective’s truth value will tell you the full truth value of the sentence. The actual truth table looks like this:
S Q R || (S ∧ ¬Q) ∨ ¬¬R
T T T || F F T T F
T T F || F F F F T
T F T || T T T T F
T F F || T T T F T
F T T || F F T T F
F T F || F F F F T
F F T || F T T T F
F F F || F T F F T
Let us consider our previous example in truth tables:
A B C|| ¬(A ∧ (¬A ∨ (B ∧ C))) ∨ B
T T T || F T F T T T
T T F || T F F F F T
T F T || T F F F F T
T F F || T F F F F T
F T T || T F T T T T
F T F || T F T T F T
F F T || T F T T F T
F F F || T F T T F T
Note that the main connective column shows true all the way down. This is proof that sentences of the form in question are tautologies. In every possible world, in every possible truth combination for the atomics, sentences of this form as true. Sentences of this form are a logical consequence of any set of premises.
The truth-table method is a finite, deterministic way to prove that a sentence or sentences of a certain form as tautologies. For sentences with few atomics in them, truth tables are often the easiest way to prove a sentence is a tautology. Note, however, that when there are many atomics to consider, truth-tables can easily become infeasible to work with.
Main Connectives in Truth Tables Addendum: There is a slight problem with our definition of a tautology, in that it assumes that every sentence has a main connective.
A ∧ B ∧ C ∧ D ∧ E
The convention for truth tables on chained disjunctions or conjunctions is to group from the left.
(((A ∧ B) ∧ C) ∧ D) ∧ E
The convention generates the main connective for us.
Tautologies, Logical Truth, and Tarski’s World necessities:
Cube(a) ∨ ¬Cube(a)
When we looked at this sentence we noted that it owed its truth entirely to the meanings of ‘or’ and ‘not’. You could replace Cube (both occurrences, of course) with any other predicate, and the resulting sentence would still be true. Indeed, you could replace the two occurrences of Cube(a) with any other sentence and the resulting sentence would still be true.
Boole implements truth tables correctly, and it is blind to the meanings of predicates. Replacements have no effect in the truth tables. Sentences and sentence forms are treated the same. Because of this, Truth tables and the Boole program are limited; they can’t identify all kinds of necessities or logical truths, only tautologies. Consider this case:
a = a
In common parlance, we often say that when people utter “something is something” or “something equals something”, they have uttered a tautology (i.e. “the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club”). This is incorrect. The word tautology is thrown around very loosely in common parlance, but we will not use it loosely. It is a technical term of significance for us.
a = a || a = a (note that a = a is an atomic sentence of FOL)
T || T
F || F
Clearly, a = a is not a tautology. It is, however, completely and obviously a logical truth. That is pretty astounding when you think about it. A really fundamental logical truth turns out not to be tautological. Truth-functional logic is severely limited in a sense.
The truth tables also fail to understand other kinds of necessity (as will logical truth in this case). Consider this sentence:
Cube(a) ∨ Tet(a) ∨ Dodec(a)
Although this sentence always comes out true in Tarski’s World, we can imagine a circumstance in which it is not true:
Sp’ Sphere(a)
Because we can make the claim that ‘a’ is either a cube, tet, or dodec false, we can show it is not the logical consequence of all sets of sentences, thus this counterexample demonstrates the sentence Cube(a) ∨ Tet(a) ∨ Dodec(a) is not a logical truth. However, it is a necessity in Tarski’s world. We can say that it is a Tarski’s World necessity, because it comes out true in every world in Tarski’s World. It is a special feature of Tarski’s World that there are no objects other than cubes, tetrahedra, and dodecahedra. Consider these nested Euler’s circles:
The strongest notion sits inside, and the weakest notion sits outside. Tautology is a subspecies of Logical truth, and Logical truth is a subspecies of TW necessity. All other sentences not captured in these three realms sit outside the outer circle.
So Tarski’s World necessities form a large set of sentences that includes all logical truths and thus all tautologies. Every logical truth is a Tarski’s World necessity, but not conversely. Every tautology is a logical truth (and a TW necessity), but not conversely. Consider this example:
¬(Larger(a, b) ∧ Larger(b, a))
This is clearly Tarski’s World necessary. It is also logically necessary – it is a logical truth. This is not a tautology, for it depends on the meaning of the predicate. We can prove it is not a tautology with a truth table.
Larger(a, b) Larger(b, a) || ¬(Larger(a, b) ∧ Larger(b, a))
T T || F T
T F || T F
F T || T F
F F || T F
Please note there are two atomics, not one. There is a row of the main connective of this sentence which isn’t true, and thus, it isn’t a tautology. When we are blind to the meanings of the predicates and name, this sentence isn’t necessarily true. It is only necessarily true in virtue of the predicates and names.
Note, however, that this sentence’s necessity is not limited to Tarski’s World, for it can never be true that both ‘a’ is larger than ‘b’ and ‘b’ is larger than ‘a’, even outside of Tarski’s World (take the real world as an example). In addition to being a TW necessity, this sentence is a logical truth. However, the sentence is not a tautology.
Clearly, the top row of the truth table does not represent a logically possible world at all. Assuming you maintain the meanings of predicates and names, you can’t ever actually envision a world in which Larger(a, b) and Larger(b, a) are both true. Thus, there is a difference between logical possibility and tautological possibility.
Logical Possibility (a.k.a. Contingency) - If a sentence is neither necessarily true nor necessarily false, then it is contingent. That means it is possible. For tautological possibility, or TT-possible, we mean that there are both false and true rows of the main connective of a sentence on the truth-table. Recall that TT-possible worlds are sometimes not actually logically possible. Conversely, Tarski’s World possible is very limited, and it does not capture all logically possible sentences. Notice that if we are considering possibility, rather than necessity, we have a different nest of Euler’s circles.
The difference is that the TT-possible sentences—the ones that come out true on at least one row of their truth table—are included in the largest circle, and the TW-possible sentences are in the smallest circle. That is, a sentence may be TT-possible without being logically possible or TW-possible, although all TW-possibilities are also logically possible and TT-possible, and all logical-possibilities are TT-possible.
Given some previous examples:
Cube(a) is TW-possible (and thus logically possible and TT-possible)
Sphere(a) is not TW-possible, but it is logically possible (and thus TT-possible)
¬(Larger(a, b) ∧ Larger(b, a)) is neither TW-possible nor logically possible, but it is TT-possible.
All other sentences sit outside this outer circle. Namely, TT-impossible sentences. Sentences which are necessarily false on the truth table. Consider this TT-impossible or TT-Necessarily-False sentence:
Tet(b) || ¬[Tet(b) ∨ ¬Tet(b)]
T || F T F
F || F T T
This sentence is clearly impossible. It isn’t just TW-impossible, and it isn’t just logically impossible, but it is TT-impossible. Note, however, that we can sentences which are logically impossible, but TT-possible.
Smaller(a, b) ∧ Larger(b, a)
This sentence is necessarily false qua the meanings of the predicates. It can’t be shown to be necessarily false on a truth table, but it is necessary false from the logical, rather than TT, scope.
Homework: 4.1, 4.2, 4.4-4.7
§ 4.2-4.3
Logical and Tautological Consequence – When we consider tautologies and logical truths, we think about the properties of single sentences. Our truth-tables only had to evaluate a single sentence or sentence form. We are now ready to compare multiple sentences to each other, and to write truth-tables for multiple sentences. We will consider two kinds of logical relationship between sentences – logical consequence and logical equivalence.
A sentence S is a logical consequence of a set of premises P1,…,Pn iff it is logically impossible for the premises all to be true while the conclusion S is false.
S P1
¬SameSize(a,b) is the logical consequence of Smaller(a, b)
In any case where Smaller(a, b) is true, then ¬SameSize(a,b) must be true. Note, however, that Small(a,b) is not the logical consequence of ¬SameSize(a,b). It doesn’t go the other way around.
Just as in the case of logical necessity/truth, logical consequence has a subspecies which can always be demonstrated by truth tables, namely tautological consequence. Again, you may think of these in terms of Euler’s circles.
Tautological Consequence: S is a tautological consequence of P1,…,Pn iff the joint truth table for S and P1,…,Pn has no row where each of the P’s is true and S is false.
P1 S
A B || A ∧ B | A V B
T T || T | T
T F || F | T
F T || F | T
F F || F | F
If you see all the rows on which A ∧ B, i.e. P1, is true (there is only one), and then you check to see if A V B, i.e. S, is also true at those rows. Hence, A V B, is a tautological consequence of A ∧ B. This makes sense from an intuitive perspective as well. If all cases where A ∧ B is true, then A v B must be true. Note, however, that A V B is not the tautological consequence of A ∧ B.
While all forms of tautologically consequence are also forms of logical consequence, not all forms of logical consequence are forms of tautological consequence.
P1 P2 S
Cube(a) a = b b = c a = c || a = b ∧ b = c | Cube(a) | a = c
T T T T || T | T | T
T T T F || T | T | F
… … … … || … | … | …
Notice how there is a line on which the S is true and the P’s false; thus S sentence can’t be a tautological consequence of the P’s, even though it is a logical consequence. Clearly, tautological consequence is a subspecies of logical consequence.
Our proof system is an FOL proof system, and we will be able to prove logical consequence even when there isn’t tautological consequence in some cases. Take the previous example, we will eventually be able to show a = c is the logical consequence of the premises, even though it isn’t a tautological consequence. In fact, we could show that Cube(c) is a logical consequence of the premises.
Lastly, according to our definition, there are some sentences that are logical consequences of any set of premises, even the empty set.
a = a
This sentence is necessarily true. No matter your assumptions, even if you make none at all, it is true. Hopefully, we have a better understanding of the definition of logical truth, namely that S is a logical truth iff S is a logical consequence of any set of sentences, including the empty set.
Further these nested notions of logical and tautological consequence play directly into our definition of validity. As I said before, logical validity and consequence are brothers. The analogy relationship found amount the various Euler’s circles continues.
Logical Validity: An argument is logically valid iff its conclusion must be true if its premises are true. Thus, it is also impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false.
Tautological Validity: An argument is tautologically valid iff the conclusion is a tautological consequence of the premises, i.e. at every row on the truth table where the premises are all true, the conclusion is also true.
Note, again, that certain logically valid arguments aren’t tautologically valid, and thus the truth table will fail to demonstrate all logically valid arguments.
Now that we have more explicitly reframed our notion of consequence, we are in a great position to reframe out notion of equivalence.
Logically Equivalence: Previously, we have defined logical equivalence by saying that sentences that have the same truth value in every possible circumstance are logically equivalent. This is correct. We can now offer, however, a different definition.
S and S’ are logically equivalent iff S is a logical consequence of S’ and vice versa.
Consider a previous example:
¬SameSize(a,b) is the logical consequence of Smaller(a, b)
We could introduce a symbol for logical consequence like we have for logical equivalence, but that won’t be necessary for this course.
We noted that this doesn’t go the other direction. ¬SameSize(a,b) is not the logical consequence of Smaller(a, b). Hence, these two sentences are not logically equivalent, since that would require both sentences to be logical consequences of each other. This would be an example of logical equivalence:
Smaller(a, b) ⇔ Larger(b, a)
Both sentences are logical consequences of each other, hence they are logically equivalent.
Again, like all of our broader logical notions, we have an analogous tautological relationship we can illustrate with Euler’s circles:
Tautological Equivalence: Logically equivalent sentences whose equivalence is due to the meanings of the truth-functional connectives they contain are tautologically equivalent. Two sentences are tautologically equivalent iff those sentences are tautological consequences of each other.
To see whether a pair of FOL sentences are tautologically equivalent, we construct a joint truth table for them. Two sentences are tautologically equivalent if they are assigned the same truth values on every row, i.e. they are tautological consequences of each other.
A B || ¬(A ∧ B) | ¬A V ¬B
T T || F T | F F F
T F || T F | F T T
F T || T F | T T F
F F || T F | T T T
Compare the truth values of each sub-table. The above table shows that both sentences are tautologically equivalent because they agree (have the same truth value) on every row under the main connective in their truth table. Clearly, they are tautological consequences of each other, hence they are tautologically equivalent.
Tautological equivalence is a subspecies of logical equivalence; analogous to how tautological truth is a subspecies of logical truth, or tautological validity of logical validity, or tautological consequence of logical consequence. Likewise: every tautologically equivalent pair of sentences is logically equivalent, but some logically equivalent pairs are not tautologically equivalent pairs.
a = b ∧ Cube(a) a = b ∧ Cube(b)
Clearly, these have to be logically equivalent. One sentence is true iff the other sentence is true; they are logical consequences of each other. To say “a is a Cube” and “a = b” is logically equivalent to saying “b is a Cube” and “a = b.” But, this logical equivalence is not a tautological equivalence. Truth tables show these limits:
a = b Cube(a) Cube(b) || a = b ∧ Cube(a) | a = b ∧ Cube(b)
T T T || T | T
T T F || T | F
T F T || F | T
T F F || F | F
F T T || F | F
F T F || F | F
F F T || F | F
F F F || F | F
The second and third rows don’t match, hence they are not tautologically equivalent, even though they are logically equivalent.
Logical Consistency: sentences are logically consistent if it is logically possible for those sentences to be true at the same time, i.e. the conjunction of these sentences is not necessarily false. If not, the sentences are said to be logically inconsistent.
Obviously all logical consequences and equivalences are examples of logical consistency. There are, however, merely logically possible or contingent sentences which are logically consistent. For example:
Cube(a) and Dodec(b)
These sentences are logically consistent. It is logically possible for both sentences to be true at the same time, even though they have nothing to do with each other, and they are merely contingent sentences.
One of way thinking about logically inconsistent sentences is to say the conjunction of the two sentences forms a sentence which is logically impossible.
Tautological Consistency: sentences are tautologically consistent if there is a row on the joint truth table where all the sentences are true. If there isn’t a case in which all the sentences are true, then those sentences are not consistent (i.e., the conjunction of those sentences is false at every row). In that case, they are tautologically inconsistent.
A B || A ∧ B | ¬A V B
T T || T | F T
T F || F | F F
F T || F | T T
F F || F | T T
It is possible for the both to be true at the same time. Hence, they are tautologically consistent.
Since consistency deals with logical possibility, consistency also has inverted Euler’s circles.
Just as there are tautologically possible sentences that aren’t logically possible, there are tautologically consistent sentences which aren’t logically consistent. Here is an example of a tautologically consistent set of sentences which are not logically consistent:
Cube(c ) Larger(a, b) Larger(b, a) || Larger(a, b) ∧ Larger(b, a)) | Cube(c)
T T T || T | T
T T F || F | T
T F T || F | T
T F F || F | T
F T T || T | F
F T F || F | F
F F T || F | F
F F F || F | F
Obviously, a world in which Larger(a, b) and Larger(b, a) are both true, the top row, is logically impossible – it is always false. Thus, it isn’t possible for another sentence to be logically consistent with it. The truth table, however, is blind to the meanings of predicates and names, and thus it is TT-possible (tautologically possible).
Awesome Facts:
All tautologies are tautological consequences of each other and thus are also tautologically equivalent.
All logical truths are logical consequences of each other and thus are also logically equivalent.
Tautological consequence, equivalence, and truth (tautology) relate to each other in the same that way Logical consequence, equivalence, and truth relate to themselves.
Tautological consequence relates to logical consequence in the same way that tautological equivalence relates to logical equivalence in the same way that a tautology relates to logical truth.
Homework: 4.12-4.18, 4.20-4.24
§ 4.4
We’ve completed a fairly thorough analysis of tautological and general logical notions. The truth-tables provide the semantics for our truth-functional connectives, and these will underwrite and make explicit the rules and moves we will make in our Fitch-style proofs. The truth tables will also underwrite the Taut Con rule in the Fitch program, which again, makes uses of 3 rules which aren’t really a part of our language (they are merely instructional and illustrative rules of the program).
Fitch, the program, has three special rules it allows you to use – the three cons: Taut Con, FO Con, and Ana Con. Thus far, we have dabbled with Ana Con. Now we will dabble with Taut Con. You will find that Taut Con is able to verify tautological consequence. It basically performs the same kind of analysis that would occur on a truth table.
These are three methods, of increasing strength that Fitch (the program) uses to check for consequence:
Taut Con checks to see whether a sentence is a tautological consequence of some others. It pays attention only to the truth functional connectives. It ignores the meanings of any predicates that appear in the sentence and, when we introduce quantifiers into the language, it will ignore those as well. It is the weakest procedure of the three because it only catches tautological consequence, and misses the broader notions of consequence.
Cube(a) ∨ Cube(b)is a tautological consequence of Cube(a). Taut Con will verify this.
FO Con checks to see whether a sentence is a “first-order” consequence of some others. It pays attention not only to the truth functional connectives but also to the identity predicate and to the quantifiers. FO Con is Taut Con with more inferential strength to it.
While Taut Con cannot identify a = c as a consequence of a = b ∧ b = c, FO Con does.
Ana Con checks to see whether a sentence is an “analytic” consequence of some others. It pays attention not only to the truth functional connectives, the identity predicate, and the quantifiers, but also to the meanings of most (but not all!) of the predicates in the blocks language. Ana Con is the inferentially strongest of the three cons. This inference comes the closest of the three to capturing the notion of logical consequence.
SameSize(a, b) is an analytic consequence, but not a first-order consequence (and
hence not a tautological consequence), of ¬Larger(a, b) ∧ ¬Larger(b, a). Ana Con will verify this, while the other cons will not.
If a sentence is a tautological consequence of some others it is clearly also a first-order consequence and an analytic consequence of those sentences. But the converse does not hold—some first-order consequences are not tautological consequences, and some analytic consequences are not first-order consequences.
For those paying careful attention, I’ve foreshadowed the fact that the Euler’s Circles diagrams are not complete. I’ve only given you part of the picture so far. We will not directly return to these concepts until the latter half of the class, where we introduce quantifiers.
A Warning about Ana Con: The Ana Con mechanism does not distinguish between logical necessity and TW-necessity. That is, it counts at least some “Tarski World” consequences as analytic consequences along with logical consequences more narrowly conceived. An example will make this clear. According to Ana Con:
Cube(b)is an analytic consequence of ¬Tet(b) ∧ ¬Dodec(b).
(Obviously, this is not a first-order consequence, and hence not a tautological consequence either.)
This happens because Ana Con pays attention not only to the meanings of some of the predicates, but also to some of the special features of Tarski’s World. Since in Tarski’s World there are only three shapes of blocks, it follows that there cannot be a Tarski World in which an object is neither a tetrahedron nor a cube nor a dodecahedron.
But while that may be true for every Tarski World, it does not hold for every possible world. In general, it does not follow logically, from the fact that bis neither a tetrahedron nor a dodecahedron, that b is a cube—b might be a sphere. So this example does not seem to be a logical necessity, but only something weaker—a TW-necessity.
Ana Con also has some other limitations. It misses certain TW-necessities, namely, those involving the predicates Adjoins and Between, which it does not understand. For example, ¬Large(a) is a TW-consequence of Adjoins(a, b), since it is impossible in a Tarski world for a large block to adjoin another block. But Ana Con will not recognize this consequence.
Similarly, Ana Con does not understand any predicates that are not in the blocks language. Hence, it will not know that Older(b, a)is a logical consequence of Younger(a, b), since these predicates are not in the blocks language. So you must use Ana Con with caution!
Homework: 4.26-4.30
---
3
Individual Sentences: Necessity and Possibility in Tautological and General Logic contexts.
Provide the strongest tautological and logical labels. (I find it easier to go inside-out with these examples)
¬(P ∧ ¬P) ∨ ¬¬Q
Tautology, a.k.a. TT-Necessary
Sentences of this form are Logical Truths
¬(Between(a, b, c) ∧ Between(b, a, c))
Tautologically Possible
Logical Truth, in virtue of the meaning of the predicates
¬(¬Home(joe) ∨ Cube(a))
Tautologically Possible, a.k.a. TT-Possible
Logically Possible, a.k.a. Contingent
RightOf(a, b) ∧ LeftOf(a, b)
Tautologically Possible
Logically Impossible
¬(P ∨ ¬P) ∧ ¬Q
Tautologically False or Tautologically Impossible, a.k.a. TT-False or TT-Impossible
Logically, sentences of this form are, Necessarily False, a.k.a. Logically Impossible
Recall, P and Q aren’t sentences of our language. They only represent sentences of our language. An example sentence of this form:
¬(Cube(b) ∨ ¬ Cube(b)) ∧ ¬Tall(joe)
Multiple Sentences: Consequence, Equivalence, Consistency
When not dealing with equivalence, when just looking in one direction, say from S to P:
When dealing with equivalence, looking in both directions, concerning S and P:
There is a problem with this graph. There are cases of tautological and logical inconsistency in which one sentence is actually the consequence of the other. Namely, every sentence is the logical consequence of a logically false sentence. That is not represented on this graph.
¬ (P ∨ ¬P) and Q
Clearly, the 1st sentence is tautologically impossible, but that means Q is the tautological consequence of it. They are tautologically inconsistent though.
On one hand, they can’t both be true at the same time, because one of them can never be true, hence they are inconsistent. On the other hand, whenever the impossible is true (which is never), it does turn out that that every other sentence is true, hence every sentence is the consequence of the impossible.
Provide the strongest tautological and logical labels. (I find it easier to go outside-in with these examples)
P and ¬P
Tautologically Inconsistent
Logically, sentences of these forms are inconsistent
Recall, P is not a sentence of our language. It only represents a sentence of our language. An example set of sentence of these forms:
Cube(a) and ¬Cube(a)
Larger(a, b) and Smaller(a, b)
Tautologically Consistent
Logically Inconsistent
Cube(a) and Dodec(b)
Tautologically Consistent
Logically Consistent
¬SameSize(a, b) and Smaller(a, b)
Tautologically Consistent
The 1st sentence is the Logical Consequence of the 2nd (but not the other way)
P ∧ Q and P
The 2nd sentence is the Tautological Consequence of the 1st
For sentences of these forms, the 2nd sentence is the Logical Consequence of the 1st
Recall, P and Q aren’t sentences of our language. They only represent sentences of our language. An example set of sentence of these forms:
Cube(b) ∧ Dodec(a)) and Cube(b)
Smaller(a, b) and Larger(b, a)
Tautologically Consistent
Logically Equivalent
(Cube(a) ∨ ¬Cube(a)) and (Cube(a) ∨ ¬Cube(a)) ∧ ¬(Smaller(a, b) ∧ Larger(a, b))
The 1st sentence is the Tautological Consequence of the 2nd (not the other way)
P and P ∧ ¬Q LEARN TO ATOMICS, L2TFF
Logically Equivalent
Wherever the 1st sentence is true (which is always, it is a tautology), the 2nd sentence is also true (which is always, it is tautology conjoined with a logical truth, hence it is a logical truth), and vice versa. Whenever one sentence is true, the other is true, and that is because both sentences are always true. WRONG
SumOf(7, 2, 5) ∨ SumOf(7, 3, 4) and SumOf(7, 2, 5) ∧ SumOf(7, 3, 4)
The 1st sentence is the Tautological Consequence of the 2nd (not the other way)
P ∨ Q and P ∧ Q
Logically Equivalent
Wherever the 1st sentence is true (which is always, it is a tautology), the 2nd sentence is also true (which is always, it is tautology conjoined with a logical truth, hence it is a logical truth), and vice versa. Whenever one sentence is true, the other is true, and that is because both sentences are always true CORRECT
¬(P ∨ Q) and ¬P ∧ ¬Q
Tautologically Equivalent
Logically, sentences of these forms are equivalent
Recall, P and Q aren’t sentences of our language. They only represent sentences of our language. An example set of sentence of these forms:
¬(Cube(b) ∨ Dodec(a)) and ¬Cube(b) ∧ ¬Dodec(a))
SumOf(7, 2, 5) SumOf(7, 3, 4)
11
SECTION 8.1
Informal Notions and Proof Methods for → and ↔:
Conditional Elimination (i.e. Modus ponens, translated as “method of affirming”):
From: P → Q; and P; we may infer Q.
Affirm the antecedent of a conditional, and you may affirm the consequent.
Similarly, there is Biconditional Elimination:
From: P ↔ Q or Q ↔ P; and P; we may infer Q.
From: P ↔ Q or Q ↔ P; and Q; we may infer P.
Affirm the antecedent of a biconditional, and you may affirm the consequent.
Affirm the consequent of a biconditional, and you may affirm the antecedent.
Conditional Proof (Intro):
To prove a conditional, P → Q: Assume P and derive (or prove) Q.
Premises: Tet(a) → Tet(b)
Tet(b) → Tet(c)
Show: Tet(a) → Tet(c)
Sp. Tet(a), thus Tet(b) from our assumption and the first conditional. Thus, Tet(c) from Tet(b) and our second conditional. Since we know Tet(c) follows from our assumption Tet(a), given our premises, then Tet(a) → Tet(c).
Basically, this requires a subproof. We make a provisional assumption, P, and show some conclusion, S, follows from it. We discharge the conditional, Assumption → Conclusion.
Biconditional Proof (Intro):
To prove a biconditional P ↔ Q: Prove P → Q and Q → P
Show: a = a ↔ b = b
Sp’-1 a = a. From =Intro, we know b = b. Since, b = b follows from a = a, we know a = a → b = b
Sp’-2 b = b. From =Intro, we know a = a. Since, a = a follows from b = b, we know b = b → a = a
Since we know a = a → b = b and b = b → a = a, then P ↔ Q
This is just doing the conditional proof in both direction. It requires making two subproofs. Assume the first, derive the second. Assume the second, derive the first.
SECTION 8.2
Conditional Elimination, →Elim
|k. P → Q (the antecedent c an come before the conditional, linewise)
|…
|l. P
|…
|n. Q →Elim: k, l (cite conditional first, then the input that let you do it)
This just is Modus Ponens.
|1. P Q
|2. P → Q
|3. Q →Elim: 2, 1
Modus Tollens would be this:
|1. P → Q ¬P
|2. ¬Q
||3. P
||4. Q →Elim: 1, 3
||5. ⊥ ⊥Intro: 4, 2
|6. ¬P ¬Intro: 3-5
It is easy to chain together →Elim’s. It makes a nice train of inputs and outputs to ride.
|1. Tet(a) → Small(a)
|2. Small(a) → Dodec(c)
|3. Tet(a)
|4. Small(a) →Elim: 1, 3
|5. Dodec(c) →Elim: 2, 4
Conditional Introduction, → Intro
This is our third rule which uses subproofs.
||k. P
||…
||n. Q
|n+1. P → Q →Intro: k-n
|1. (A ∨ B) → C A → C
||2. A
||3. A ∨ B ∨Intro: 2
||4. C →Elim: 1, 3
|5. A → C →Intro: 2-4
|__ A → ¬¬A
||1. A
|||2. ¬A
|||3. ⊥ ⊥Intro: 1, 2
||4. ¬¬A ¬Intro: 2-3
|5. A → ¬¬A →Intro: 1-4
Again, I want to emphasize that if you can prove it without premises, you have shown a tautology in our system. That means the conditional you get here is not merely a material condition, but actually shows logical implication.
Recall the corresponding conditional from last chapter. For any valid argument, we can make conditional sentence, wherein the conjunction of the premises form the antecedent, and the conclusion forms the consequent. That notion is sometimes directly useful for certain kinds of proofs. Take this example:
|1. ¬(A ∧ B)_ A → ¬B
||2. A
|||3. B
|||4. A ∧ B ∧Intro: 2,3
|||5. ⊥ ⊥Intro: 4, 1
||6. ¬B ¬Intro:3-5
|7. A → ¬B →Intro: 2-6
It’s easy to use →Intro to convert a proof with a premise into a proof (without premises) of the corresponding conditional sentence. The trick is just to embed the old proof as a subproof into the new proof.
|________ ¬(A ∧ B) → (A → ¬B)
||1. ¬(A ∧ B)
|||2. A
||||3. B
||||4. A ∧ B ∧Intro: 2,3
||||5. ⊥ ⊥Intro: 4, 1
|||6. ¬B ¬Intro: 3-5
||7. A → ¬B →Intro: 2-6
|8. ¬(A ∧ B) → (A → ¬B) →Intro: 1-7
There are a couple other tricks you need to keep in your back pocket. Irrelevant Antecedent:
|1. A
||2. B
||3. A Reit: 1
|4. B → A →Intro: 2-3
Irrelevant Consequent:
|1. ¬A
||2. A
||3. ⊥ ⊥Intro: 2,1
||4. B ⊥Elim: 3
|5. A → B →Intro: 2-4
Combined:
|1. ¬(P → Q) P ∧ ¬Q
||2. ¬P _
|||3. P
|||4. ⊥ ⊥Intro: 3, 2
|||5. Q ⊥Elim: 4
||6. P→Q →Intro: 3-5
||7. ⊥ ⊥Intro: 6, 1
|8. ¬¬P ¬Intro: 2-7
|9. P ¬Elim: 8
||10. Q
|||11. P
|||12. Q Reit: 10
||13. P→Q →Intro: 11-12
||14. ⊥ ⊥Intro: 13, 1
|15. ¬Q ¬Intro:10-14
|16. P ∧ ¬Q ∧Intro: 9, 15
Biconditional Elimination, ↔ Elim
|k. P ↔ Q (or Q ↔ P)
|…
|l. P
|…
|n. Q ↔Elim: k, l
|1. Tet(a) ↔ Small(a)
|2. Small(a)
|3. Tet(a) ↔Elim: 1, 2
This is just the modus ponens of the biconditional.
Biconditional introduction, ↔ Intro
||k. P
||…
||l. Q
||i. Q
||…
||j. P
|j+1. P ↔ Q ↔ Intro: k-l, i-j
Basically, Show P → Q in a subproof, then immediately after it show Q → P in another subproof, and then you get to discharge P ↔ Q.
Technically, this rule can be broken down into more steps, since it is really proving a conjunction:
P ↔ Q ⇔ (P → Q) ∧ (Q → P)
What we’ve really got is two conditional subproofs, back-to-back, and we infer a conjunction of them to derive the equivalent biconditional. The system could have been more literal:
||k. P
||…
||n. Q
|n+1. P → Q →Intro: k-n
|…
||i. Q
||…
||j. P
|j+1. Q → P →Intro: i-j
|…
|z. (P → Q) ∧ (Q → P) ∧Intro: n+1, j+1
|…
|s. P ↔ Q ↔Intro: z
We won’t do it like this for perhaps a few reasons. First, aesthetically, this is ugly. Second, this seems to be a case of extracting information out of a conjunction, which seems too much like a specialized form of conjunction elimination. Third, this looks far too much like a line-based substitution/replacement kind of inference, which is something this system tries to avoid. Lastly, it is faster to write and easier to read (it is easy to see the intent of these subproofs) our real method.
|__ P ↔ ¬¬P
||1. P
|||2. ¬P
|||3. ⊥ ⊥Intro: 1, 2
||4. ¬¬P ¬Intro: 2-3
||5. ¬¬P
||6. P ¬¬Elim: 5
|7. P ↔ ¬¬P ↔Intro: 1-4, 5-6
Again, I want to point out that since this is accomplished with no premises, it is a tautology. That means the relationship is not merely a material biconditional, but actually one of logical equivalence.
|1. A ↔ B C ↔ A
|2. B ↔ C
||3. C
||4. B ↔Elim: 2, 3
||5. A ↔Elim: 1, 4
||6. A
||7. B ↔Elim: 1, 6
||8. C ↔Elim: 2, 7
|9. C ↔ A ↔Intro: 3-5, 6-8
Homework: 8.17-8.38, 8.44-8.53
---
9
|____ ¬(P ∨ Q) ↔ (¬P ∧ ¬Q)
||1. ¬(P ∨ Q)
|||2. P
|||3. P ∨ Q ∨Intro: 2
|||4. ⊥ ⊥Intro: 3, 1
||5. ¬P ¬Intro: 2-4
|||6. Q
|||7. P ∨ Q ∨Intro: 6
|||8. ⊥ ⊥Intro: 7, 1
||9. ¬Q ¬Intro: 6-8
||10. ¬P ∧ ¬Q ∧Intro 5, 9
||11. ¬P ∧ ¬Q
|||12. P ∨ Q
||||13. P
||||14. ¬P ∧Elim: 11
||||15. ⊥ ⊥Intro: 13, 14
||||16. Q
||||17. ¬Q ∧Elim: 11
||||18. ⊥ ⊥Intro: 16, 17
|||19. ⊥ ∨Elim: 12, 13-15, 16-18
||20. ¬(P ∨ Q) ¬Intro: 12-19
|21. ¬(P ∨ Q) ↔ (¬P ∧ ¬Q) ↔Intro: 1-10, 11-20
|1. Small(a) ∧ (Medium(b) ∨ Large(c)) ¬Tet(c)→FrontOf(a,b)
|2. Medium(b) → FrontOf(a,b)
|3. Large(c) → Tet(c)
|4. Medium(b) ∨ Large(c) ∧Elim: 1
||5. ¬Tet(c)
|||6. Large(c)
|||7. Tet(c) →Elim: 3, 6
|||8. ⊥ ⊥Intro: 7, 5
||9. ¬Large(c) ¬Intro: 6-8
|||10. Medium(b)
|||11. Medium(b) Reit: 10
|||12. Large(c)
|||13. ⊥ ⊥Intro: 12, 9
|||14. Medium(b) ⊥Elim: 13
||15. Medium(b) ∨Elim: 4, 10-11, 12-14
||16. FrontOf(a, b) →Elim: 2, 15
|17. ¬Tet(c)→FrontOf(a,b) →Intro: 5-16
|____ (A → (B → C)) → ((A → B) → (A → C))
||1. (A → (B → C))
|||2. (A → B)
||||3. A
||||4. B → C →Elim: 1, 3
||||5. B →Elim: 2, 3
||||6. C →Elim: 4, 5
|||7. A → C →Intro: 3-6
||8. (A → B) → (A → C) →Intro: 2-7
|9. (A → (B → C)) → ((A → B) → (A → C)) →Intro: 1-8
|1. P → Q ¬P ∨ Q
||2. ¬(¬P ∨ Q)
|||3. ¬P
|||4. ¬P ∨ Q ∨Intro: 3
|||5. ⊥ ⊥Intro: 4, 2
||6. ¬¬P ¬Intro: 3-5
||7. P ¬Elim: 6
||8. Q →Elim: 1, 7
||9. ¬P ∨ Q ∨Intro: 8
||10. ⊥ ⊥Intro: 9, 2
|11. ¬¬(¬P ∨ Q) ¬Intro: 2-10
|12. ¬P ∨ Q ¬Elim: 11
|1. P → Q ¬(P ∧ ¬Q)
||2. P ∧ ¬Q
||3. P ∧Elim: 1
||4. Q →Elim: 1, 3
||5. ¬Q ∧Elim: 1
||6. ⊥ ⊥Intro: 4, 5
|7. ¬(P ∧ ¬Q) ¬Intro: 2-6
|1. A ∨ B C
|2. ¬B
|3. A → C
||4. A
||5. C →Elim: 3, 4
||6. B
||7. ⊥ ⊥Intro: 6, 2
||8. C ⊥Elim: 7
|9. C ∨Elim: 1, 4-5, 6-8
|1. P → Q R ∨ Q
|2. ¬Q
|3. ¬P → R
||4. P
||5. Q →Elim: 1, 4
||6. ⊥ ⊥Intro: 5, 2
|7. ¬P ¬Intro: 4-6
|8. R →Elim: 3, 7
|9. R ∨ Q ∨Intro: 8
|1. ((Dodec(d) ∧ ¬FrontOf(d, c)) ∨ Cube(d)) → Large(d) Large(d)
|2. (Dodec(d) ∧ FrontOf(d, c)) → Tet(b)
|3. Dodec(d) ∧ ¬Tet(b)
|4. Dodec(d) ∧Elim: 3
||5. FrontOf(d, c)
||6. Dodec(d) ∧ FrontOf(d, c) ∧Intro: 5, 4
||7. Tet(b) →Elim: 2, 6
||8. ¬Tet(b) ∧Elim: 3
||9. ⊥ ⊥Intro: 7, 8
|10. ¬FrontOf(d, c) ¬Intro: 4-9
|11. Dodec(d) ∧ ¬FrontOf(d, c) ∧Intro: 4, 10
|12. (Dodec(d) ∧ ¬FrontOf(d, c)) ∨ Cube(d) ∨Intro: 11
|13. Large(d) →Elim: 1, 12
|__________ (P ↔ Q) ↔ [(P → Q) ∧ (Q → P)]
||1. P ↔ Q
|||2. P
|||3. Q ↔Elim: 1, 2
||4. P → Q →Intro: 2-3
|||5. Q
|||6. P ↔Elim: 1, 5
||7. Q → P →Intro: 5-6
||8. (P → Q) ∧ (Q → P) ∧Intro: 4, 7
||9. (P → Q) ∧ (Q → P)
|||10. P
|||11. P → Q ∧Elim: 9
|||12. Q →Elim: 11, 10
|||13. Q
|||14. Q → P ∧Elim: 9
|||15. P →Elim: 14, 13
||16. P ↔ Q ↔Intro: 10-12, 13-15
|17. (P ↔ Q) ↔ [(P → Q) ∧ (Q → P)] ↔Intro: 1-8, 9-16
|___________ (P ↔ Q) ↔ [(P ∧ Q) ∨ (¬P ∧ ¬Q)]
||1. P ↔ Q
|||2. ¬[(P ∧ Q) ∨ (¬P ∧ ¬Q)]
||||3. P ∧ Q
||||4. (P ∧ Q) ∨ (¬P ∧ ¬Q) ∨Intro: 3
||||5. ⊥ ⊥Intro: 4, 2
|||6. ¬(P ∧ Q) ¬Intro: 3-5
||||7. ¬P ∧ ¬Q
||||8. (P ∧ Q) ∨ (¬P ∧ ¬Q) ∨Intro: 7
||||9. ⊥ ⊥Intro: 8, 2
|||10. ¬(¬P ∧ ¬Q) ¬Intro: 7-9
||||11. P
||||12. Q ↔Elim: 1, 11
||||13. P ∧ Q ∧Intro: 11, 12
||||14. ⊥ ⊥Intro: 13, 6
|||15. ¬P ¬Intro: 11-14
||||16. Q
||||17. P ↔Elim: 1, 16
||||18. P ∧ Q ∧Intro: 17, 16
||||19. ⊥ ⊥Intro: 18, 6
|||20. ¬Q ¬Intro: 16-19
|||21. ¬P ∧ ¬Q ∧Intro: 15, 20
|||22. ⊥ ⊥Intro: 21, 10
||23. ¬¬[(P ∧ Q) ∨ (¬P ∧ ¬Q)] ¬Intro: 2-22
||24. (P ∧ Q) ∨ (¬P ∧ ¬Q) ¬Elim: 23
||25. (P ∧ Q) ∨ (¬P ∧ ¬Q)
|||26. P
||||27. P ∧ Q
||||28. Q ∧Elim: 27
||||29. ¬P ∧ ¬Q
||||30. ¬P ∧Elim: 29
||||31. ⊥ ⊥Intro: 26, 30
||||32. Q ⊥Elim: 31
|||33. Q ∨Elim: 25, 27-28, 29-32
|||34. Q
||||35. P ∧ Q
||||36. P ∧Elim: 35
||||37. ¬P ∧ ¬Q
||||38. ¬Q ∧Elim: 37
||||39. ⊥ ⊥Intro: 34, 38
||||40. P ⊥Elim: 39
|||41. P ∨Elim: 25, 35-36, 37-40
||42. P ↔ Q ↔Intro: 26-33, 34-41
|43. (P ↔ Q) ↔ [(P ∧ Q) ∨ (¬P ∧ ¬Q)] ↔Intro: 1-24, 25-42
27
We now have all the basics we need for first-order logic, logic that you get once you throw in the quantifiers with sentential logic.
Why is it called first-order logic? In FOL, domains are only allowed to hold objects. You can quantify over objects, but you can’t quantify over a property, for example, redness. A higher-order logic could quantify over a property, but not FOL. FOL is only allowed to quantify over objects.
This chapter covers the answers to two questions:
What quantified sentences are logical truths?
What arguments involving quantification are valid?
Tautological and Logical Relationships in Quantification: If you recall, not all cases of logical consequence are cases of tautological consequence.
P is a tautological consequence of P ∧ Q
This is because P is true whenever P ∧ Q is true on a truth table. Recall that all tautological relationships are logical, but not all logical relationships are tautological.
Larger(a,b) is a logical consequence of Smaller(b, a)
This is because Larger(a, b) is true whenever Smaller(b, a) is true. However, it is not a tautological consequence because Larger(a, b) is not true whenever Smaller(b, a) is true on a truth table. Essentially, some of the truth-value worlds represented on the truth table aren’t logically possible worlds due to the meanings of predicates.
The difference between these two examples is that the first relies upon the meanings of the truth-functional connective, while the latter relies upon the meanings of the predicates. This differences in how validity and consequence operate between sentences which rely upon truth-functional connectives and those relying upon predicates also arises in quantification.
|∀x Cube(x)
|∀x Small(x)
|∀x (Cube(x) ∧ Small(x))
This argument is valid. Everything is a cube; everything is small; therefore, everything is a small cube. The validity of the argument depends on the meaning of the universal quantifier ∀, and not just on the meaning of the connective ∧.
Importantly, the validity of this example cannot rely upon the meaning of the ∧ connective because, if it did, then we could substitute the quantifiers and come up with another valid argument. We can do this kind of substitution in propositional logic to demonstrate:
| ∃x Cube(x)
| ∃x Small(x)
| ∃x (Cube(x) ∧ Small(x))
This substitution of quantifiers does not result in a valid argument. Something is a cube; something is small; therefore, something is a small cube. Obviously, the premises could be true and the conclusion false in some world, thus this isn’t valid. Further, it is clear that validity of the first argument, with universal quantifiers, is only valid in virtue of the quantifiers, not the conjunction.
Similar to logical consequence and validity, not all logical truths are tautologies.
Cube(a) = Cube(a)
It is true in every possible world, thus it is a logical truth, but it is not a tautology. There is a row where it is false on the truth table, unlike the truth table for P ∨ ¬P.
∃x Cube(x) ∨ ∃x ¬Cube(x)
This sentence says: something is a cube or something is not a cube. Every world has at least one object, and this sentence is true in any non-empty domain. A world either has a cube in it or doesn’t, which would make this sentence true in every possible world. Is it a tautology or logical truth? If it is a tautology, then the meanings of the quantifiers won’t matter. Let’s substitute the existential quantifiers with universal:
∀x Cube(x) ∨ ∀x ¬Cube(x)
This sentence says: everything is a cube or everything is a not cube. That sentence is clearly falsifiable; our world is a counterexample to it. Thus, the reason the previous sentence isn’t a tautology is because the reason it is necessarily true relies upon the meaning of the quantifier rather than the truth-functional connectives. However, this is a tautology:
∀x Cube(x) ∨ ¬∀x Cube(x)
P ∨ ¬ P
This sentence says: everything is a cube or not everything is a cube. This sentence is a tautology. It shares the same truth-functional form as P ∨ ¬P.
Truth-Functional Form: To be able to decide whether an FOL sentence that contains quantifiers is a tautology, we need to develop the notion of a sentence’s truth-functional form.
The truth-functional form of a sentence is basically what Boole sees when it looks at the sentence. It’s the structure that the sentence can be seen to have when all of its constituent quantified sentences are treated as if they were atomic. We don’t “look inside” the general sentences—we just uniformly replace them with letters. We then replace any remaining atomic sentences with letters. There are two constituent general sentences here:
∀x Tet(x) → ¬∃y (Cube(y) ∧ ¬FrontOf(b, y) ∧ Dodec(b))
A → ¬ B
So we replace the first general sentence with A and the second with B. The only remaining parts of the sentence are the connectives ¬ and →. So the truth-functional form of the sentence is:
A → ¬B
Another way to put this is to say that from the perspective of truth-functional logic, this sentence is a conditional whose consequent is a negation. This is all Boole sees when it looks at this sentence. This sentence is TT-Possible, and since this is the truth-functional form of our quantified sentence, then the quantified sentence is also TT-Possible.
Truth-Functional Form Algorithm - Our book, pg 263, provides an algorithm/procedure for converting any FOL sentence into its truth-functional form. Here’s a slightly different way of carrying out the procedure:
If the sentence contains any quantifiers, start with those of largest scope. For each such quantifier, underline its entire scope (this will include the quantifier itself). Any quantifiers, connectives, or atomic sentences that are included in this scope should be ignored. Once all the quantified sentences have been underlined, underline any remaining atomic sentences, with each atomic sentence being separately underlined. Next, attach a sentence letter (i.e., a capital letter) to each underline, starting from the left and proceeding alphabetically. If any sentence is repeated, it should be given the same sentence letter each time.
Finally, after all the underlines have been assigned sentence letters, replace each underlined sentence with its corresponding letter, and keep any remaining connectives that have not been underlined. The result is the truth-functional form of the original sentence.
∃x Tet(x) →(¬∃y (Cube(y) ∧ ¬FrontOf(y, b)) → ∃x Tet(x))
Underline:
∃x Tet(x) →(¬∃y (Cube(y) ∧ ¬FrontOf(y, b)) → ∃x Tet(x))
Attach sentence letters:
∃x Tet(x) →(¬∃y (Cube(y) ∧ ¬FrontOf(y, b)) → ∃x Tet(x))
A ¬ B A
Replace the underlined sentences with the letters:
A → (¬B →A)
This is a tautology, and since it is the truth-functional form of the original quantified sentence, then that quantified sentence is also a tautology.
In summary, if you want to find the truth-functional form of a given sentence S of FOL:
Step 1- Identify and label all atomic sentences and quantified sentences of S.
Step 2- Replace each atomic and quantified sentence with its label.
Another example:
¬(Tet(d) ∧ ∀xSmall(x)) → (¬Tet(d) ∨ ¬∀ySmall(y))
A B A C
¬(A ∧ B) → (¬A ∨ ¬C)
Note how ∀xSmall(x) and ∀ySmall(y) are equivalent, but because they have different variables, they are different sentences. Sentences are syntactic objects, so we need to differentiate these in our substitution process. Note how the first becomes B and the latter becomes C.
Using the Truth-Function Form (TFF) - This procedure can be applied to arguments as well as to individual sentences. That is, we can apply it to any FOL argument to construct the truth-functional form of the argument, and hence to determine whether its conclusion is a tautological consequence of its premises. We’ll call such valid arguments “truth-table valid,” or TT-valid, for short. I warn you advance, this is not the label the book gives!
Arguments which are TT-valid are such that, the conclusion is the tautological consequence of the premises.
|∃x Cube(x) → ∃x Small(x) |∃x (Cube(x) → Small(x))
|∃x Cube(x) |∃x Cube(x)
|∃x Small(x) |∃x Small(x)
Converting these to their truth-functional forms, we get:
| A → B |A
| A |B
| B |C
The first is clearly truth-table valid. The conclusion is a tautological consequence of the premises. The second argument is not TT-valid. In fact, the original argument is not valid at all. We can generate a counterexample to the second argument - we can show it is not logically valid:
Consider a world in which a is medium cube and b is a medium tet.
Premise 1 is true because at least one object, namely b, satisfies the mere wff Cube(x) → Small(x), because b is a tet. Note that if the antecedent is false, the conditional is true, and b makes the antecedent false, and thus the conditional true, which means it satisfies the mere wff, which means something is such that if it is a cube, then it is small.
Premise 2 is true because at least one object, namely a, satisfies the mere wff Cube(x), because a is a cube. Something is a cube is true.
The conclusion is false because nothing satisfies the mere wff Small(x) since everything is medium. Something is small is false.
Putting the FO in FOL: A quantified sentence of FOL is said to be a tautology iff if its truth-functional form is a tautology. Further, two sentences of FOL are tautologically equivalent iff their truth-functional forms are tautologically equivalent. Likewise, a sentence S of FOL is a tautological consequence of FOL sentences P1…Pn iff the TFF (truth functional form) of S is a tautological consequence of TFF of P1…Pn.
Sentential/Propositional/Truth Functional/Truth-table Logic
First-Order Logic
General Notions
Tautology
??
Logical truth
Tautological consequence
??
Logical consequence
Tautological equivalence
??
Logical equivalence
Tautological validity
??
Logical validity
Just as propositional logic has this relationship with the general notions, specifically as a sub-species, FOL also has the same sorts of relationship.
Propositional Logic
First-Order Logic
General Notions
Tautology
FO truth (validity in the book)
Logical truth
Tautological consequence
FO consequence
Logical consequence
Tautological equivalence
FO equivalence
Logical equivalence
Tautological validity
FO validity (book lacks a word)
Logical validity
The general logic notions which have usually relied upon the meanings of predicates for their truth values haven’t been a part of our formal system. We’ve been able to see those limits when we are forced to use Ana Con in our homework, or when we consider the TFFs of sentences. FOL is proposition a logic with identity and quantifiers. In using First-Order notions, we are extending the boundary of propositional logic a little more into the general logical realm. We will have formal ways to describe and represent things which previously were just logical notions for us.
FO Truth/Consequence/Equivalences: are truths/consequences/equivalences solely in virtue of the truth-functional connectives, the quantifiers, and the identity symbol. Note that we ignore the meanings of predicates, just as in the case of tautological cases. Also note, the book also refers to FO truth as FO validity.
Remember the Euler circle? FO relationships sit in between Tautological relationships and Logical relationships . Recall that tautological truth/consequence/equivalence were true/consequential/equivalent in virtue of the truth-functional connectives alone. Now outside the tautology circle but inside the logical circle we have a first-order circle. To be in this circle, we can pay attention to all of which tautologies attend, but we can also pay attention to the identity symbol and quantifiers. Although, FO relationships still ignore predicates. See expanded Euler circle on 273.
Tautology: Tet(a) ∨ ¬Tet(a)
FO Truth: ∀xCube(x) → Cube(a)
Logical Truth: ¬∃xLeftOf(x,x)
Importantly, we’ve had Ana Con (which is basically Logical consequence), and we’ve had Taut Con (which is tautological consequence), and now we have FO Con. FO Con shows that some sentence is a consequence of some other set of sentences based upon the logical connectives, identity, and quantifiers, but not the meanings of predicates or names.
We have a method for figuring showing that a logical truth is also a tautology: the truth-functional form procedure. The same can be said for showing the boundaries between any of the logical notions, such as consequence and equivalence, via the TFF procedure. (SHOW ON EULER’s CIRCLE)
We need a method for showing that a logical truth is also FO truth and not merely a logical truth. We need to ignore non-logical vocabulary to do so. There are two techniques for ignoring non-logical vocabulary:
Nonsense words method
Replacement method
You can tell whether or not the truth value of a sentence relies upon the truth value and meaning of predicate via this method. These methods allow you to tell if the sentence, while perhaps logically true based upon the meaning of the predicate, obviously isn’t FO valid because the logical truth is true because of the meaning of the predicate.
The Non-Sense Method: A convenient way of ignoring the meanings of names and predicates is just to replace them with nonsense predicates (e.g., the predicates Tove, Slithy, Outgrabe, Borogove, etc., borrowed from Lewis Carroll’s poem Jabberwocky).
∀xSameSize(x,x) ∀xOutGrabe(x,x)
This is a logical truth, but it is not a FO truth (not FO valid in the book) because when we replace the predicate SameSize with the predicate Outgrabe, the resulting sentence, ∀xOutgrabe(x, x), cannot be guaranteed by logic to be true—its truth depends on the meaning of Outgrabe.
∀xCube(x) →Cube(b) ∀xTove(x) →Tove(b)
On the other hand, we can see that ∀xCube(x) →Cube(b) is a FO valid because the “nonsense” sentence ∀x Tove(x) →Tove(b) is true no matter what Tove means.
Using “nonsense” predicates may be an illuminating device, but we need not resort to this. We could also just replace these predicates with letters:
∀xCube(x) →Cube(b) ∀xG(x) → G(b)
Whatever G might mean, this is clearly a FO truth, even though it isn’t a tautology, since the TFF looks like A→B.
Note that the non-sense and dummy-letter method allows us to easily see if a sentence is a FO truth, or if two sentences are FO consequences of each other, or if an argument if FO valid. But, what if a sentence or set of sentences can’t have an FO label, but still has the logical label. For example, there are logically valid arguments which aren’t FO valid. How do we prove that? We need a FO counterexample.
We can simply replace predicates with predicate letters (and names with individual constants) and consider these letters to be open to interpretation in any way we wish. That is, we can take its individual constants to be names of any objects we like, and its predicate letters to stand for any properties we
like. This leads to the replacement method, which enables us to make FO Counterexamples.
The Replacement Method & FO Counterexamples:
Replace all names with individual constants and all predicates with predicate letters (maintaining the arity, of course); if a predicate or a name is repeated, use the same letter to replace all of its occurrences.
To see whether a sentence is a FO truth, try to describe a circumstance, and an interpretation of the predicate letters and individual constants, in which the sentence is false. If there is none, the sentence is a FO truth.
To see whether S is an FO consequence of P1,…, Pn, try to describe a circumstance and an interpretation under which S is false and all of P1,…, Pn are true. If there is none, S is an FO consequence of P1,…, Pn.
We can define FO validity and consequence as follows:
A sentence S is a FO truth iff it comes out true on every interpretation.
A sentence S is a FO consequence of sentences P1,…, Pn iff there is no interpretation under which all of P1,…, Pn come out true and S comes out false.
The point is to create a counterexample which is blind to the meanings of predicates and names, but still employs the truth-functional connectives, identity, and quantifiers.
Let’s use this method to create a FO counterexample.
|1. ¬∃xLarger(x, a) Nothing is larger than a. (others might be same size though)
|2. ¬∃xLarger(b, x) Nothing is such that b is larger than it. (b is larger than nothing)
|3. Larger(c, d) c is larger than d.
|4. Larger(a, b) Therefore, a is larger than b.
Obviously, this is a logically valid argument. If the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true. Is it a tautologically valid argument? Converting to truth-functional form, we get:
|1. ¬A
|2. ¬B
|3. C_____
|4. D
Clearly, the conclusion is not a tautological consequence of the premises. Remember, however, that we have created a space in between propositional logic and the general logical notions of logical. In that space are the FO notions. So, this argument isn’t tautologically valid, but is this argument FO valid? There is only one way to find out.
We need to specify a world and an interpretation, then we need to verify. Specify and verify. Here is the replacement of the predicates:
|1. ¬∃xR(x, a)
|2. ¬∃xR(b, x)
|3. R(c, d)
|4. R(a, b)
We should replace the names as well. Depending on the problem, you may want to think about your interpretation before you do this, but we’ll do it now. Let’s say.
a = Allen
b = Bob
c = Claire
d = Debbie
Thus, the total replacement looks like this:
|1. ¬∃xR(x, allen)
|2. ¬∃xR(bob, x)
|3. R(claire, debbie)
|4. R(allen, bob)
So, similar to how we can make a truth-functional form, we can make a pseudo-FO form with the replacement method, where names and predicates are stripped of their meanings or have their meanings changed. So, now we specify.
We need to specify an interpretation of the R predicate relationship:
R(x, y): x likes y.
Let the domain consist of Allen, Bob, Debbie, and Claire, with the following relationships:
No one likes Allen
Bob doesn’t like anyone
Claire likes Debbie
Allen doesn’t like Bob (this is the false version of the conclusion, so we have a counterexample)
Recall that a counterexample will show the premises are true and the conclusion false. We are coming up with an interpretation of the predicates and names and a specification of the domain which show the argument form is invalid.
Verification time! On this interpretation:
The first premise is true. It says no one likes Allen, as specified.
The second premise is true. It says Bob likes no one, as specified.
The third premise is true. It says Claire likes Debbie, as specified.
The conclusion is false. It says Allen likes Bob, but in the interpretation, Allen doesn’t like Bob.
T|1. ¬∃xR(x, allen)
T|2. ¬∃xR(bob, x)
T|3. R(claire, debbie)
F|4. R(allen, bob)
Thus, we have an interpretation in which the conclusion does not follow from the premises, which means the conclusion is not a FO consequence of the premises. While the original argument is logically valid, it isn’t FO valid. That is because it relies upon the meaning of the predicate, Larger, in this case.
Let’s consider another example:
|1. Cube(a) ∧ Cube(b)
|2. Small(a) ∧ Large(b)
|3. ∃x(Cube(x) ∧ Large(x) ∧ ¬Smaller(x, x))
The premises are a is a small cube, and b is a large cube. The conclusions: something is a large cube which is not smaller than itself. When the premises are true, the conclusion has to be true. Thus, this argument is logically valid. However, is it tautologically valid? The truth-functional form (TFF):
|1. A ∧ B
|2. S ∧ L
|3. E
Clearly, the conclusion is not a tautological consequence of the premises. This argument is not tautologically valid. We could make a truth table to prove this, but it would be really large (so we won’t do it in class).
A B S L E || (A ∧ B) ∧ (S ∧ L) | E
Obviously, there will be a row on which the first sentence (the conjunction of the premises) is true, and the second sentence (the conclusion) false. That means that the conclusion, E, is not a tautological consequence of the premises. Thus, while the original argument is logically valid, given the truth-functional form of the argument, we know it isn’t tautologically valid. So, the remaining question is whether or not the argument is FO valid.
Let’s try the replacement method to test for FO validity/consequence.
|1. P(a) ∧ P(b)
|2. Q(a) ∧ L(b)
|3. ∃x(P(x) ∧ L(x) ∧ ¬R(x, x))
Just by looking at the replacement, we can see the conclusion is not an FO consequence of the premises. This is not FO valid. We know then that our argument is logically valid, but neither tautologically valid, nor FO valid. The logical validity of this argument obviously rests upon the meaning of the predicate “Smaller.” Thus, we need an FO counterexample.
We went hog-wild on the last one, but you can use shortcuts if you know what you are doing. For example, I don’t think replacing single letter individual constants matters. In fact, after replacing the predicate symbols, we can interpret the predicates in much the same way, and target the one predicate which does all the real work “Smaller” in this case.
Specify:
Let our domain consist of two objects, a and b, where a is a small cube, and b is a large cube.
Interpret the predicates as follows:
P(x): x is a cube
Q(x): x is small
L(x): x is large
R(x, y): x is the same size as y (note how this is different from Smaller(x,x))
Verify:
Premise 1 is true, because a is a cube and b is a cube.
Premise 2 is true because a is small and b is large.
The conclusion is false since there is nothing in the domain which is not the same size as itself.
Hence, the argument is logically valid and not FO valid because it relies upon the meaning of the predicate Smaller(x,x).
The above is all you have to write. You must have everything I’ve written down, but anything else is up to you. You can have more if you want – if it helps you. For example:
T|1. P(a) ∧ P(b)
T|2. Q(a) ∧ L(b)
F|3. ∃x(P(x) ∧ L(x) ∧ ¬R(x, x))
Or
T|1. Cube(a) ∧ Cube(b)
T|2. Small(a) ∧ Large(b)
F|3. ∃x(Cube(x) ∧ Large(x) ∧ ¬SameSize(x, x))
Or
T|1. a and b are cubes
T|2. a is small and b is large.
F|3. Some large cube is not the same size as itself.
I’m not looking for these. They may be helpful tools for you to better understand or visualize what is happening. Make sure you get everything that is specified and verified written down on your test though.
Homework: 10.8-10.9 (just the grade-grinder applicable part – no written work should be turned in)
Extra Practice: 10.10-10.19 (don’t turn in)
FO Equivalence and DeMorgan’s Laws:
¬(∃x Cube(x) ∧ ∀y Dodec(y)) ¬(A ∧ B)
¬∃x Cube(x) ∨ ¬∀y Dodec(y)) ¬A ∨ ¬B
The first sentence says: it is not the case that both something is a cube and everything is a dodec. The second says: it is not the case that something is a cube or it is not the case that everything is a dodec. These two sentences are tautologically equivalent. Indeed, their equivalence is an instance of DeMorgan’s laws in propositional logic.
∃x ¬(Cube(x) ∧ Large(x)) A
∃x (¬Cube(x) ∨ ¬Large(x)) B
The first sentence says: something is not a large cube. The second says: something is not a cube or not large. These sentences are also logically equivalent, but not tautologically equivalent.
The difference between these examples is that in the first example, the DeMorgan’s Laws are applied to a pair of sentences, whereas in the second example, we appear to be applying DeMorgan’s Laws to a pair of mere wffs. Consider the constituent mere wffs:
¬(Cube(x) ∧Large(x))
¬Cube(x) ∨ ¬Large(x)
How can we say these mere wffs are logically equivalent, when they are not even sentences? We need to extend the notion of equivalence to mere wffs, i.e. those wffs with free variables.
Logical Equivalence for Mere Wffs: A pair of wffs with same free variables are logically equivalent if, in any possible circumstance, they are satisfied by the same objects.
In our example, both wffs have the same free variables. Further, the objects satisfying ¬(Cube(x) ∧ Large(x)) are those that are not large cubes; and the ones satisfying ¬Cube(x) ∨ ¬Large(x) are those that are not cubes or not large, i.e., those that are not large cubes. Hence, these mere wffs are logically equivalent.
Substitution Principle: Let P and Q be wffs (mere wffs or sentences). Let S(P) be any sentence in which P appears as a part, and similarly for S(Q). Then if P and Q are logically equivalent so are S(P) and S(Q). That is:
If P ⇔ Q, then S(P) ⇔ S(Q).
I can’t offer a proof of that to you here (it is an advanced topic), but let’s assume it is true. This substitution of equivalences extends the notion of equivalence among mere wffs to all wffs of FOL. Let me give you an example of how this plays out for quantifiers:
Regard P as Cube(x) → Small(x)
Regard Q as ¬(Cube(x) ∧ ¬Small(x))
(Cube(x) → Small(x)) ⇔ (¬Cube(x) ∨ Small(x))
⇔ (¬Cube(x) ∨ ¬¬Small(x))
⇔ ¬(Cube(x) ∧ ¬Small(x))
P ⇔ S
These mere wffs are logically equivalent. Our Substitution Principle is telling us that since these mere wffs are logically equivalent, then we can show that quantified sentences built from those mere wffs are logically equivalent.
Where S is a particular quantifier:
If P ⇔ Q, then S(P) ⇔ S(Q)
Hence, we can show the following through a similar chain of equivalences:
∀x(Cube(x) → Small(x)) ⇔ ∀x¬(Cube(x) ∧ ¬Small(x))
Regard S(P) as ∀x(Cube(x) → Small(x))
Regard S(Q) as ∀x¬(Cube(x) ∧ ¬Small(x))
∀x(Cube(x) → Small(x)) ⇔ ∀x(¬Cube(x) ∨ Small(x))
⇔ ∀x(¬Cube(x) ∨ ¬¬Small(x))
⇔ ∀x¬(Cube(x) ∧ ¬Small(x))
S(P) ⇔ S(Q)
Hence, logically equivalent wffs, including mere wffs, can be substituted inside sentences, and the original sentences will be equivalent to the sentences with substitutions. Back to our previous example:
∃x ¬(Cube(x) ∧ Large(x)) ⇔ ∃x (¬Cube(x) ∨ ¬Large(x))
There are logic systems which heavily abuse the substitution principle of logically equivalent wffs. Our system does not. Our proof system can show this particular relationship without substitution.
DeMorgans for Quantifiers:
Consider a world with four cubes:
[a][ b][c][d]
Consider these sentences:
Cube(a) ∧ Cube(b) ∧ Cube(c) ∧ Cube(d)
∀x Cube(x)
Given the domain, these two sentences will have the same truth value. Note the connection between ∀ and ∧ here. One way of explaining what it means for everything to be a cube just is to say the conjunction of sentences of the form Cube(x) for all the objects in the domain is true.
Further, we have a similar connection between ∃ and ∨. Consider a world with three tets and a cube:
/a\/b\ /c\[d]
Consider these sentences:
Cube(a) ∨ Cube(b) ∨ Cube(c) ∨ Cube(d)
∃x Cube(x)
Likewise, given our domain, these sentences have the same truth value. What it means for “something to be a cube” just is to say that for all the objects in the domain, we can make a disjunction with each disjunct stating that a particular object is a cube, and that disjunction is true.
So we would expect there to be first-order equivalences for the quantifiers that are counterparts to the DeMorgan equivalences of propositional logic. And indeed there are.
Just as these sentences are equivalent,
¬(Cube(a) ∧ Cube(b) ∧ Cube(c) ∧ Cube(d))
¬Cube(a) ∨ ¬Cube(b) ∨ ¬Cube(c) ∨ ¬Cube(d)
So are these:
¬∀x Cube(x)
∃x ¬Cube(x)
Note how the first set of sentences say that not all of the objects (a,b, c, d) are cubes, and at least one of the objects is not a cube. But, that just is what the second set of sentences are saying about our domain. Not everything is a cube, and something is not a cube.
Hence, we have DeMorgan’s for Quantifiers:
¬∀x P(x) ⇔ ∃x ¬P(x)
¬∃x P(x) ⇔ ∀x ¬P(x)
“Not everything is P(x)” is logically equivalent to “Something is not P(x)”
“It is not the case that something is P(x)” is logically equivalent to “Everything is not P(x)”
DeMorgan’s for quantifiers allows us to push negation around and flip logical connectives. Just as how conjunction can be turned into disjunction with negations (and vv.), so can the quantifiers. The universal quantifier can be turned into an existential with negations (and vv.).
Once again, this equivalence is not a rule of our language, just like propositional logic’s DeMorgan’s. You’ve got to earn it.
Aristotelian Forms and DeMorgan’s Laws:
Given our equivalences, we can show that “not All P’s are Q’s” is equivalent to “Some P’s are not Q’s”:
¬∀x (P(x) → Q(x)) ⇔ ¬∀x (¬P(x) ∨ Q(x))
⇔ ∃x ¬(¬P(x) ∨ Q(x))
⇔ ∃x (¬¬P(x) ∧ ¬Q(x))
⇔ ∃x (P(x) ∧ ¬Q(x))
Importantly, if we can push negations from the outside of quantifiers to the inside, then we can sometimes continue to push negations inside the mere wff contained in the quantified sentence (which is what happens in the downward direction of these equivalences). Likewise, if we can push negation from inside the mere wff outside, then eventually we can push the negation outside the quantifier (as in the case of the upward direction of these equivalences).
Similarly, recall that:
“Some P’s are Q’s” is translated as ∃x (P(x) ∧ Q(x))
"No P’s are Q’s” is translated as ∀x (P(x) → ¬Q(x))
Given our equivalences, we can show that “not some P’s are Q’s” is equivalent to “No P’s are Q’s”:
¬∃x (P(x) ∧ Q(x)) ⇔ ∀x ¬(P(x) ∧ Q(x))
⇔ ∀x (¬P(x) ∨ ¬Q(x))
⇔ ∀x (P(x) → ¬Q(x))
Homework: 10.22
Distributing Quantifiers and Null Quantification:
Distributing ∀ through ∧:
∀x(P(x) ∧ Q(x)) ⇔ ∀xP(x) ∧ ∀xQ(x)
“Everything is P and Q” is equivalent to “Everything is P and Everything is Q.” Note, however, this is only true for the conjunction. We cannot distribute ∀ through ∨.
∀x(P(x) ∨ Q(x)) ⇔ ∀xP(x) ∨ ∀xQ(x)
“Everything is P or Q” is not equivalent to “Everything is P or Everything is Q.” We can come up with a counterexample.
Note how logical equivalence is demonstrated via introducing a biconditional with no premises. So, the counterexample will require us to start with no premises and falsify the conclusion given an interpretation of the predicates.
Specify:
Interpretation:
P(x): x is a pope
Q(x): x is a queen
World:
Consider a world with two objects, a and b, in which a is a pope and b is a queen
Verify:
We have no premises. The goal is to demonstrate a logical truth from nothing, since logical truths are the logical consequences of every set of premises, including the empty set.
The conclusion is false because the antecedent ∀x(P(x) ∨ Q(x)) is true, since everything is either a way pope or queen, but the consequent ∀xP(x) ∨ ∀xQ(x) false, since not either everything is a pope (namely b) or everything is a queen (namely a).
Since the antecedent and consequent have different truth values, the biconditional is false, and this argument (that this biconditional is a logical truth) is invalid. Logically equivalent sentences have the same truth values in all possible worlds (the biconditional between those sentences is always true, in any possible world). Hence, this is not a case of logical equivalence.
Distributing ∃ through ∨:
∃x (P(x) ∨ Q(x)) ⇔ ∃xP(x) ∨ ∃xQ(x)
“Something is P or Q” is equivalent to “Something is P or something is Q.” Note, however, we cannot distribute ∃ through ∧, just as we couldn’t distribute ∀ through ∨.
∃x (P(x) ∧ Q(x)) ⇔ ∃xP(x) ∧ ∃xQ(x)
“Something is P and Q” is not equivalent to “Something is P and Something is Q.” We can come up with a counterexample:
Consider the same world, with two objects, a and b, in which P(a) and Q(b)
The first sentence is false, since there isn’t anything which is both P and Q. The second sentence is true because there is something which is P, namely a, and something which is Q, namely b. Logically equivalent sentences have the same truth values in all possible worlds, and these don’t, hence they aren’t logically equivalent.
Null quantification: In defining the class of wffs, we did not insist that the variable being quantified actually occur free (or at all) in the wff to which the quantifier is applied. Thus, this expression is a wff:
∀xCube(b)
Even though the wff Cube(b) does not contain the variable x, this is still a wff. This sentence is true iff every object in the domain satisfies the wff Cube(b). In a degenerate way, the question of whether an object satisfies Cube(b) boils down to whether Cube(b) is true. Is everything such that b is a cube? Well, if b is a cube, then yes, everything is such (this is an odd way to phrase it). Essentially, ∀xCube(b) and Cube(b) are true in exactly the same worlds. The same is true for:
∃xCube(b)
These are instances of what we call “Null quantification.” As you can see, the quantifiers don’t seem to matter. Consider this sentence, where x is not free in the first disjunct:
∀x(Cube(b) ∨ Small(x))
This sentence is true if Cube(b) is true. If Cube(b) is false, then the truth of this sentence rests upon whether or not all objects in the domain are small. This sentence is equivalent to this one:
Cube(b) ∨ ∀xSmall(x)
In order for this sentence to be true, Cube(b) is true or all objects are small. Clearly, these two sentences have the same truth values in all worlds.
This same sort of reasoning can be applied to the rest of our truth-functional connectives.
Equivalences for Null Quantification:
P represents any wff in which x does not occur free:
∀x P ⇔ P
∃x P ⇔ P
∀x (P ∨ Q(x)) ⇔ P ∨ ∀x Q(x)
∃x (P ∧ Q(x)) ⇔ P ∧ ∃x Q(x)
∀x (P → Q(x)) ⇔ P → ∀x Q(x)
∃x (P → Q(x)) ⇔ P → ∃x Q(x)
∀x (Q(x) → P) ⇔ ∃x Q(x) → P
∃x (Q(x) → P) ⇔ ∀x Q(x) → P
Note how the last two conditional equivalences switch the quantifiers. Let’s see why:
∀x (Q(x) →P) ⇔ ∀x (¬Q(x) ∨ P)
⇔ P ∨ ∀x ¬Q(x)
⇔ P ∨ ¬∃x Q(x)
⇔ ¬∃x Q(x) ∨ P
⇔ ∃x Q(x) →P
The same goes for the conversion from the existential quantifier to the universal.
Replacing bound variables:
P(x) is any wff and y is any variable that does not occur in P(x):
∀x P(x) ⇔ ∀y P(y)
∃x P(x) ⇔ ∃y P(y)
What these equivalences tell you, in effect, is that it does not matter which variable you use in a universal or existential generalization. Systematically rewriting the bound variables does not change the meaning of the sentence.
Homework: 10.24-10.29
I am not covering the axiomatic method from chapter 10. It is interesting, but we only have so much time in this class. It is short reading, and worthwhile for anyone interested in continuing logic.
12
§ 5.1
In this chapter, we will examine informal proof methods and inferences using the Boolean Connectives. These informal methods and inferences will underwrite our formal methods in the Fitch-style proof system. To some extent, you likely already have a grasp of many of these inferences from ordinary, natural reasoning, but also from your work with truth tables.
Let’s consider some simple, valid, informal inference steps which will underwrite our formal rules. Note, these are not formal schematics or explanations of how we will employ these inferences in Fitch – I’m just trying to juice your intuitions.
Conjunction Elimination, ∧ Elim - From a conjunction of any number of sentences, one may infer any one of the conjuncts.
From P ∧ Q: infer P (or infer Q).
|P ∧ Q
|P
P is the tautological consequence of P ∧ Q.
We can use a truth table to prove that P is the tautological consequence of P ∧ Q. From now one, we are just going to assume that any case of conjunction elimination is provable, and that it won’t be necessary (even though it is possible) to prove it on the truth table.
Note how the starting sentence, P ∧ Q, is more informative than the resulting sentence, P. We can also generalize this inferential move to conjunctions of any size.
From P1 ∧ P2 ∧ … ∧ Pn: infer Pi (where ‘i’ is between 1 and ‘n’)
infer P1 ∧ P2 (and so on)
Every Pi is the tautological consequence of P1 ∧ P2 ∧ … ∧ Pn
Conjunction Introduction, ∧ Intro - From any number of sentences, one may infer the conjunction of these sentences.
From {P, Q}: infer P ∧ Q
|P
|Q
|P ∧ Q
P ∧ Q is the tautological consequence of {P, Q}
Just a heads up: while the intro rule is theoretically capable of being generalized for generating arbitrarily large conjunctions, in practice, we will only use Conjunction Intro to introduce simple conjunctions with two conjuncts and no more. Thus, in practice, we won’t be doing this:
From {P1, P2, …, Pn}: infer P1 ∧ P2 ∧ … ∧ Pn
Disjunction Introduction, ∨ Intro - From any sentence, one may infer a disjunction of any number of sentences containing that sentence as a disjunct.
From P: infer P ∨ Q
infer P ∨ Z
infer P ∨ (Q ∧ ¬Z) (and so on)
|P
|P ∨ Q
P ∨ Q is the tautological consequence of P
Note how the starting sentence, P is especially more informative than the resulting sentence, P ∨ Q.
Negation Elimination, ¬ Elim – From any double negated sentence, one may infer the sentence without those two negations.
From ¬¬P: infer P
|¬¬P
|P
P is the tautological consequence of ¬¬P
Alright, so that is it for easy and intuitive informal methods. Again, these can all be proven on the truth table, but we are now going to simply assume these inferential moves are valid. These are the immediately obvious ones. The others will take a bit of work to understand.
The Fitch deductive system employs a pair of Intro/Elim rules for each connective. We already have the formal Intro/Elim rules for Identity and we covered the informal reasoning which supports those formal rules. We have just now considered the informal reasoning which will eventually support our Intro/Elim rules for Conjunction, as well as the Disjunction Intro rule and the Negation Elim rule. However, you will notice that we’ve not considered the informal reasoning which will support the formal rules for Disjunction Elimination and Negation Introduction. The rest of the chapter is devoted to the informal reasoning which will underwrite these rules. At the end of this chapter, you should be able to provide informal reasoning for the Intro/Elim rules of Identity and all three Boolean operators.
For, the two inferences we are about to cover, they also represent tautological consequence, we lack the necessary information to use our truth tables to prove tautological consequence. Rest assured, the following proof methods can be demonstrated as inferences of tautological consequence – the truth table will also underwrite these.
Suggested Reading and Practice Work: Chapter.Section 5.1 Problems 5.1-5.6
§ 5.2
In most cases, proofs allow us to extract new information from the information we already have. Recall that every step of a proof (formal or informal) should be easily understood and significant. Easily understood means easy to see the step is valid, i.e. it is easy to see that the result of the step is a logical consequence of the previous information. Easiness, obviously, is audience sensitive. You have to strike a balance between being making significant moves in your proof and making sure they are easy enough to follow. On average, our margin of significance is fairly low in this class; we have to be pedantic. The following informal proof method, which we refer to as Proof by Cases, will underwrite our formal Disjunction Elimination rule, and it has a higher than average margin of significance, and subsequently, you should expect it be harder to follow and comprehend than the other informal inferences.
Proof by cases: In a proof by cases, one begins with a disjunction (as a premise, or as an intermediate conclusion already proven). One then shows that a certain consequence may be deduced from each of the disjuncts taken separately. One concludes that that same sentence is a consequence of the entire disjunction.
From P ∨ Q, and from the proofs that S follows from P and S also follows from Q: infer S.
The general proof strategy looks like this: if you have a disjunction, then you know that at least one of the disjuncts is true—you just don’t know which one. So you consider the individual “cases” (i.e., disjuncts), one at a time. You assume the first disjunct, and then derive your conclusion from it. You repeat this process for each disjunct. So it doesn’t matter which disjunct is true—you get the same conclusion in any case. Hence you may infer that it follows from the entire disjunction. In practice, these cases are each a small subproof.
In our example, P ∨ Q is assumed to be true. Since P ∨ Q is assumed to be true, we know at least one the disjuncts, P or Q, is true. We don’t necessarily know which of these two disjuncts are true, but we know that at least one must be true. Because at least one must be true, if you prove that S follows from P, and that S follows from Q, then you’ve proven S follows from P ∨ Q. And, since P ∨ Q is assumed true, and since we’ve proven S follows from P ∨ Q, then we can infer S.
Assume P ∨ Q
Prove S follows P (case 1)
Assume P (for the sake of argument), prove S
Prove S follows Q (case 2)
Assume Q (for the sake of argument), prove S
You’ve proven S follows from P ∨ Q
Since P ∨ Q is true (by assumption), infer S
Here is the generalized schematic of the informal Proof by Cases:
To prove S is the tautological consequence of P1 ∨ P2 ∨ … ∨ Pn, show that S is a tautological consequence of each disjunct.
Since P1 ∨ P2 ∨ … ∨ Pn is assumed to be true, then S is the tautological consequence of P1 ∨ P2 ∨ … ∨ Pn
P1 ∨ P2 ∨ … ∨ Pn (Assume)
If P1, then S (case 1 subproof to prove this)
If P2, then S (case 2 subproof to prove this)
…
If Pn, then S (case 3 subproof to prove this)
Thus, if P1 ∨ P2 ∨ … ∨ Pn, then S.
Since P1 ∨ P2 ∨ … ∨ Pn is true (by assumption), infer S
Proof by Cases is specific to disjunctions. Proof by cases underwrites F’s disjunction elimination (∨ Elim)
Sp’ (Cube(c) ∧ Small(c)) ∨ (Tet(c) ∧ Small(c))
Show: Small(c)
Case 1 – Cube(c) ∧ Small(c)
Small(c) ∧ Elim
Case 2 – Tet(c) ∧ Small(c)
Small(c) ∧ Elim
This exhausts the possibilities. So, Small(c)
Sp’ (Home(max) ∧ Happy(carl)) ∨ (Home(claire) ∧ Happy(scruffy))
Show: Happy(carl) ∨ Happy(scruffy)
Case 1 – Home(max) ∧ Happy(carl)
Happy(carl) ∧ Elim
Happy(carl) ∨ Happy(scruffy) ∨ Intro
Case 2 - Home(claire) ∧ Happy(scruffy)
Happy(scruffy) ∧ Elim
Happy(carl) ∨ Happy(scruffy) ∨ Intro
This exhausts the possibilities. So, Happy(carl) ∨ Happy(scruffy)
Before I move on, I to emphasize again that truth tables are capable of underwriting any application of the “proof by cases” method. We currently don’t have the necessary information to understand why though, so I will pass over the proof of this.
Suggested Reading and Practice Work: Chapter.Section 5.2 Problems 5.7-5.11, 5.14
§5.3
Proof by contradiction: Also called indirect proof or reductio ad absurdum. In a proof by contradiction, one assumes that one’s conclusion is false, and then tries to show that this assumption (together with the argument’s premises) leads to a contradiction. Since contradictions are logically impossible, we know the conclusion cannot be false if all the premises are true—i.e., that the conclusion must be true if the premises are true. That is to say, that the conclusion is a logical consequence of the premises.
Suppose you want to prove ¬S from P1, P2, ..., Pn, assume S, show that a contradiction arises from S and P1, P2,...,Pn, thus S is false: infer ¬S
We are establishing a negative conclusion. You assume S, which is equivalent to the negation of the argument’s conclusion, and treat it as a premise along with P1, P2, ..., Pn. You then try to deduce from these assumptions a contradiction—a pair of sentences that contradict one another, e.g., Q and ¬Q. Since contradictions are impossible, and usually the reason we arrived at a contradiction was because we assumed S, then we know S has to be false, i.e., we should infer ¬S. (The exception is that the premises are inconsistent, which means we can deduce anything).
Essentially, we are showing that S is not logically consistent with the premises. Whenever the premises are true, S must be false. But, that is just the same as saying that whenever the premises are true, ¬S is true. But that is just the same as saying that ¬S is the consequence of the premises.
A contradiction is a sentence which is necessarily false, such as A and ¬A, or inconsistent claims like Cube(c) and Tet(c). The surd symbol, ⊥, represents a contradiction.
⊥: Absurd, Surd, bottom, falsity, the false, contradiction, necessarily false, the impossible
Surd comes in different flavors, and that is because surd is representative of the notion of impossibility.
Cube(b) ∧ ¬Cube(b)
In virtue of the meanings of the predicates, results in absurdity – it is a logical contradiction, it is a logical impossibility. We know that tautological impossibility is a subset of logical impossibility, and thus surd can also represent tautological impossibility.
A ∧ ¬A
This is absurd, since all the rows are false on the truth table; it is a tautological contradiction, it is tautologically impossible.
With surd in hand, here is a rough sketch of what is happening in the reductio:
|P1 T
|P2 T
|… T
|Pn T
|S ?
|… (draw some intermediate conclusions if necessary)
|⊥ F
We’ve already established, by assumption that P1, P2, ..., Pn are true. The question is whether S is true or false. If we can show a contradiction arises when S is true (alongside the premises), then we know the culprit to blame for that contradiction, S. Since we know the premises are true, and we know the premises and S eventually culminate in a contradiction, then S can’t be true at the same time that the premises are true. If we know S can’t be true, then we know ¬S has to be true.
Sp’: Large(b)
Small(c)
Show: ¬SameSize(b, c)
Assume for reductio: SameSize(b, c)
By the assumption that b and c are the same size, and the premise that b is large, we may deduce c is large. It is impossible for c to be large and small at the same time. Surd. Thus, ¬SameSize(b, c)
Sp’: ¬Cube(a)
Show: ¬(Cube(a) ∧ Dodec(b))
Assume for reductio: Cube(a) ∧ Dodec(b)
By our assumption, Cube(a) ∧ Dodec(b), thus we know a is a cube. By our supposition, a is not a cube. It is impossible for a to be a cube and not a cube at the same time. Surd. Thus, ¬(Cube(a) ∧ Dodec(b)).
Sp’: Cube(c) ∨ Dodec(c)
Tet(b)
Show: b ≠ c
Assume for reductio: b = c.
Case 1: Cube(c)
We have Cube(c) and Tet(b). But, since b=c, we have a Tet(c). It is impossible for Cube(c) and Tet(c) to be true at the same time. Surd.
Case 2: Dodec(c)
Then we have Dodec(c) and Tet(b). But, since b=c, we have Tet(c). It is impossible for Dodec(c) and Tet(c) to be true at the same time. Surd.
Since this exhausts the cases, the premises plus b = c lead to impossibility, i.e. surd. Thus, b ≠ c
Not all proofs by contradiction demonstrate tautological consequence, some are only logical consequence. When proofs rely upon the meanings of predicates, then we can only make logical (and not tautological) claims about consequence. There are some proofs by contradiction, however, that demonstrate tautological consequence. For example:
Cube(a) Dodec(b)) || ¬Cube(a) ∧ (Cube(a) ∧ Dodec(b)) | ¬(Cube(a) ∧ Dodec(b))
T T || F F T | F T
T F || F F F | T F
F T || T F F | T F
F F || T F F | T F
Clearly, ¬Cube(a) ∧ (Cube(a) ∧ Dodec(b)) is tautologically impossible. It is absurd. Anything follows from absurdity. Every sentence is the consequence of absurdity. In this case, we know the second sentence is the tautological consequence of the first. The first sentence is never true, which means that every sentence ends up being true when the first sentence is true.
Suggested Reading and Practice Work: Chapter.Section 5.3 Problems 5.7-5.14
§ 5.4
Arguments with inconsistent premises - If a set of premises is inconsistent, any argument having those premises is valid. This is vacuously true. It is trivially the case. If you start with absurdity, then anything you say afterwards is going to be a consequence of it. Inconsistent premises get you absurdity, and thus any conclusion which follows from it will be a logical consequence. Therefore, any argument with inconsistent premises is valid. If the premises are inconsistent, there is no possible circumstance in which they are all true. So no matter what the conclusion is, there is no possible circumstance in which the premises are all true and the conclusion is false.
But no such argument is sound, since a sound argument is not only valid but has true premises.
Why should we be interested in arguments with inconsistent premises? Well, we know that if you can derive a contradiction ⊥from a set of premises, the set is inconsistent. (If it were possible for the premises all to be true, then since we have derived ⊥from them, it would have to be possible for ⊥to be true, and this clearly is not possible.)
We may not know, at the start, that our premises are inconsistent, but if we derive ⊥from them, we have established that they are inconsistent. If a set of premises, or assumptions, is inconsistent, it is important to know this. And being able to deduce a contradiction from them is an excellent way of showing this. We may not be able to show, using logic alone, which premise is false, but we can establish that at least one of them is false.
A Connection between validity and inconsistency
Consider this valid argument:
T |Cube(a) ∨ Cube(b)
T |¬Cube(a)
T |Cube(b)
The argument is valid because it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false, i.e. it is valid because the conclusion is the logical consequence of the premises. In fact, this is a case of tautological consequence:
Cube(a) Cube(b) || (Cube(a) ∨ Cube(b)) ∧ ¬Cube(a) | Cube(b)
T T || T F F | T
T F || T F F | F
F T || T T T | T
F F || F F T | F
When an argument is valid, its conclusion is a logical consequence of its premises. Another way to put this is to say that it would be inconsistent to assert the premises and deny the conclusion. This means that for an argument to be logically valid is for the conjunction of the set of premises and the negation of the conclusion to be logically inconsistent.
Take the conclusion of a valid argument, throw a negation on it, and that conclusion will be logically inconsistent with the premises. In our example:
Cube(a) Cube(b) || (Cube(a) ∨ Cube(b)) ∧ ¬Cube(a) | ¬Cube(b)
T T || T F F | F
T F || T F F | T
F T || T T T | F
F F || F F T | T
We know from just looking at this that the conclusion is not the tautological consequence of the premises, since there is a row where the premises are true and the conclusion false.
Recall the diagram we had. To claim tautological inconsistency is a very strong claim. It is possible that two sentences aren’t tautological consequences of each other, but are still tautologically consistent. You will note, however, that the truth table shows that the negation of the conclusion of a valid argument results in the strong claim that the sentences are tautologically inconsistent.
In all cases, for an argument to be valid is for its premises to be logically inconsistent with the negation of its conclusion. That is not a light statement.
Suggested Reading and Practice Work: Chapter.Section 5.4 Problem 5.27
---
6
Problem 4.27
|1. Cube(a) ∨ Cube(b) Show: Cube(b) ∨ Dodec(d)
|2. Dodec(c) ∨ Dodec(d)
|3. ¬Cube(a) ∨ ¬Dodec(c)
There is a cheaty way to solve any problem that allows you to use Taut Con (when it enables you to cite more than 1 line). Recall that a valid argument is such that the conclusion is the consequence of the premises. So far, we’ve only been dealing in tautological consequence in our Fitch-style proofs (it will stay that way until we get to quantifiers).
|1. P1 Show: S
|2. P2
|3. P3
|…
|k. Pn
|k + 1. S Taut Con: 1, 2, 3, …, k
The above is equivalent to this:
|1. P1 ∧ P2 ∧ … ∧ Pn Show S
|2. S Taut Con: 1
The difference is just the use of conjunctions which limits how many lines Taut Con needs to cite. Hence, if you are allowed to cite more than one line for Taut Con, you can be sneaky and build the equivalent conjunction statement:
|1. P1 Show: S
|2. P2
|3. P3
|…
|k. Pn
|k + 1. P1 ∧ P2 Taut Con: 1, 2
|k + 2. P1 ∧ P2 ∧ P3 Taut Con: k+1, 3
|…
|k + k – 1. P1 ∧ P2 ∧ … ∧ Pn Taut Con: k + k – 2, k
|k + k. S Taut Con: k + k -1
(Technically, it is a line longer than it needs to be, but I’m making the last step a single citation for clarity).
However, this cheap trick, which demonstrates the immense power of the Taut Con rule, is not the way in which you should choose to wield it. You should use Taut Con to actually make leaps of logic rather than abuse the very definitions of validity and consequence. Now is the time to begin training your logic muscles. The point of this exercise was to make you exercise – to force you to explore, to juice your intuitions. Taut Con, as a rule, is really like having training wheels. In a few weeks, we are not going to have those training wheels, we’ll be using our Intro/Elim rules to do all of the work, and this will become far more difficult.
|1. Cube(a) ∨ Cube(b) Show: Cube(b) ∨ Dodec(d)
|2. Dodec(c) ∨ Dodec(d)
|3. ¬Cube(a) ∨ ¬Dodec(c)
|4. ¬Cube(a) ∨ Dodec(d) Taut Con: 3, 2
|5. Cube(b) ∨ Dodec(d) Taut Con: 4, 1
Informally, we might be able to convince ourselves pretty quickly. Take (2), if Dodec(c) is true, then we know that ¬Cube(a) must be true from (3), since the other disjunct, ¬Dodec(c), would contradict our assumption. Thus, we might say that whenever Dodec(c) would be true, ¬Cube(a) would be true. Thus, we replace Dodec(c) in (2) with ¬Cube(a), giving us (4), ¬Cube(a) ∨ Dodec(d). Similarly, using (4) and (1), we can see that if Cube(a) is true in (1), then Dodec(d) must be true in (4), else we have a contradiction. Thus, we can make the same replacement, of Cube(a) with Dodec(d). Giving us, Dodec(d) ∨ Cube(b), which is equivalent to Cube(b) ∨ Dodec(d). QED.
In some contexts, that would count as an informal proof. Given the difficulty of the problem
A more pedantic informal proof of this, which is more than just convincing ourselves, requires a step-by-step demonstration that the conclusion is a consequence of the premises that will take longer. Note, however, the way we convinced ourselves of the validity of this argument sheds light on the correct informal proof (and will also, therefore, shed light on the correct formal proof in the Fitch system).
Let us remove the training wheels of Taut Con, momentarily, and see exactly what kind of elaborate work it was doing for us, namely in terms of our informal proofs by cases and contradiction.
Take (2), Dodec(c) ∨ Dodec(d), and build an overall proof by cases around it; our goal will be (4), ¬Cube(a) ∨ Dodec(d).
Proof by cases, using Dodec(c) ∨ Dodec(d)
C1: Dodec(c)
Take (3), ¬Cube(a) ∨ ¬Dodec(c), and build a proof by cases around it, nested inside the first case of our overall proof by cases; our goal will be ¬Cube(a) ∨ Dodec(d) for this proof by cases as well.
Proof by cases, using ¬Cube(a) ∨ Dodec(d)
C1’: ¬Cube(a)
¬Cube(a) ∨ Dodec(d) ∨Intro
C2’: ¬Dodec(c)
Recall that if your premises are inconsistent, that means absurdity follows, and that means anything is the consequence of those premises. Obviously, we have a contradiction here, between C2’ of the inner proof by cases and C1 of the outer. How do we harness this contradiction? Previously, we made a giant leap of logic using Taut Con. However, since we being pedantic here, we need to make a proof by contradiction. We know that with ¬Cube(a) with ∨Intro gives us what we need, so let us assume Cube(a) and prove that absurdity arises, thus giving us ¬Cube(a).
Assume for reductio: Cube(a)
⊥, from our contradictory premises
Thus, Cube(a) must be false, and via proof by contradiction, we know ¬Cube(a)
Note that because had a contradiction to begin with, we could have proved anything we wanted. In this case, however, that we had something specific in mind that we needed, and we can make the same moves as in C1’ now:
¬Cube(a) ∨ Dodec(d) ∨Intro
Since all possibilities have been exhausted, ¬Cube(a) ∨ Dodec(d) follows from ¬Cube(a) ∨ Dodec(d).
Note, however, that this only worked because we’ve done a proof by cases nested inside another proof by cases. C1 was vital to completing C2’, since C2’ required a proof by contradiction.
C2: Dodec(d)
¬Cube(a) ∨ Dodec(d) ∨Intro
Since all possibilities have been exhausted, ¬Cube(a) ∨ Dodec(d) follows from Dodec(c) ∨ Dodec(d).
Thus, our current argument is of this form:
|1. Cube(a) ∨ Cube(b) Show: Cube(b) ∨ Dodec(d)
|2. Dodec(c) ∨ Dodec(d)
|3. ¬Cube(a) ∨ ¬Dodec(c)
|4. ¬Cube(a) ∨ Dodec(d) Proof by Cases, using (2)
I want to note this is an oversimplication, but it will do for now. It is important to see that the same methods we used to arrive at intermediate conclusion (4) will get us to our final conclusion (5).
Proof by cases, using Cube(a) ∨ Cube(b)
C1: Cube(a)
Proof by cases, using ¬Cube(a) ∨ Dodec(d)
C1’: ¬Cube(a)
Assume for reductio: ¬Cube(b)
⊥, from our contradictory premises
Thus, ¬Cube(b) must be false, and via proof by contradiction, we know Cube(b)
Cube(b) ∨ Dodec(d) ∨Intro
C2’: Dodec(d)
Cube(b) ∨ Dodec(d) ∨Intro
Since all possibilities have been exhausted, Cube(b) ∨ Dodec(d) follows from ¬Cube(a) ∨ Dodec(d).
C2: Cube(b)
Cube(b) ∨ Dodec(d) ∨Intro
Since all possibilities have been exhausted, Cube(b) ∨ Dodec(d) follows from Cube(a) ∨ Cube(b).
Hence, our final “simplified” argument form looks like this:
|1. Cube(a) ∨ Cube(b) Show: Cube(b) ∨ Dodec(d)
|2. Dodec(c) ∨ Dodec(d)
|3. ¬Cube(a) ∨ ¬Dodec(c)
|4. ¬Cube(a) ∨ Dodec(d) Proof by Cases, using (2)
|5. Cube(b) ∨ Dodec(d) Proof by Cases, using (1)
Taut Con saved us from doing a lot of work. You will find that our formal proofs will mimic the same moves that the informal proofs do, but will do so in a compact, symbolized manner.
```
Name: _____________________________ Symbolic Logic Midterm – ..., Spring 2015
Fill in the blanks. Write neatly, and make it fit. (each worth 2% of total)
Terms pick out objects in _____________________________________________.
The terms max and claire are individual ____________________.
The term father(arg1) is a _____________________ symbol; father(gw) picks out the ______________ of GW.
Predicate symbols express some ________________ of objects or some _________________ between objects.
Between(a, b, c) has an arity of _________________________.
A predicate followed by the right number of terms is called an _______________________________________.
An argument is valid iff when the premises are __________ the conclusion _____________________________ .
An argument is sound iff the argument is ___________________ and the premises are ___________________.
A ___________________ is a step-by-step demonstration that one statement is a consequence of some others.
The FOL translation of ‘Neither a is a cube, nor b is small’ is ___________________________________________
The English translation of ¬(P ∧ Q) is _____________________________________________________________
The FOL translation of ‘Either a is blue or b is red, but not both’ is ______________________________________
The DeMorgan’s equivalences are ¬(P ∧ Q) ⇔ ______________ and ¬P ∧ ¬Q ⇔ ______________.
Truth tables express the Boolean connectives, but are blind to the meanings of __________________________.
Complete the truth tables. Circle the column of the main connective. Provide the strongest applicable tautological and logical labels. SumOf(x, y, z) should be read as “x is the sum of y and z.” (each worth 4% of total)
_| ¬(P ∧ ¬P) ∨ ¬(P ∨ ¬P)
Tautological Label:
Logical Label:
_|| ¬(P ∧ ¬P) | P ∨ ¬P
Tautological Label:
Logical Label:
_____________ | Taller(c,d) ∧ Shorter(c,d)
Tautological Label:
Logical Label:
_____________ || Taller(c, d) | Shorter(c, d)
Tautological Label:
Logical Label:
__ | ¬Between(e, b, a) ∨ ¬Between(b, e, a) Tautological Label:
Logical Label:
_ || SumOf(7, 2, 5) ∨ SumOf(7, 3, 4) | SumOf(7, 2, 5) ∧ SumOf(7, 3, 4)
Tautological Label:
Logical Label:
Provide either a formal proof or a written counterexample. P and Q are any FOL sentences. (each worth 12% of total)
Show: ¬¬((Dodec(c) ∨ Tet(b)) ∧ Cube(a)) Show: Tet(d)
|1. Cube(a) ∧ ¬¬Tet(b) |1. Larger(a, b)
|2. c = b
|3. ¬Larger(a, c)
Show: Dodec(a) ∧ (Cube(c) ∨ Tet(b)) Show: c = a ∧ ¬(P ∧ Q)
|1. (Dodec(a) ∧ Cube(c)) ∨ Tet(b) |1. a = b
|2. b = c
|3. ¬P ∨ ¬Q
```
29
We will begin to look at multiple quantifiers. We’ll start with sentences that use the same quantifiers, and then we’ll move onto sentences with mixed quantifiers. Let’s consider a simple case to juice our intuitions.
Here’s an example of a sentence with multiple quantifiers:
“Some dog chased a cat.”
∃x ∃y (Dog(x) ∧ Cat(y) ∧ Chased(x, y))
Multiple Quantifiers Don’t Guarantee Multiple Objects
It is tempting to read ∃x ∃y as saying there are two objects, x and y. But, this would be a mistake, since the variables x and y may pick out the same object. In our previous example, we know that x and y must be distinct because perhaps nothing can be both a cat and dog (unless we venture into some Nickelodeon cartoon, like CatDog).
Caution: Distinct variables do not necessarily entail distinct objects. For example:
∃x ∃y (Tet(x) ∧ Tet(y))
“Something is a tet, and something is a tet.”
Recall that each quantifier will range over the entire domain. This sentence only requires one object in the domain (a single Tet) for the sentence to be true. x and y do not need to refer to two different things – x and y can pick out the same object.
Consider a domain in which:
a is a tet
b is a cube
Given our example sentence, there are four possible substitutions of the variables:
<x, y>: <a, a>
<a, b>
<b, a>
<b, b>
Note that <a, a> (where a substitutes both x and y) satisfies our example quantified sentences’ constituent mere wff:
Tet(x) ∧ Tet(y)
Tet(a) ∧ Tet(a)
<a, a> satisfies the mere wff, again, because the substitution generates a sentence which is true. Hence, the original example existential sentence is true given the domain. It really doesn’t matter if anything else is in the domain; just as long as there is a single tet, this sentence is true.
We can make a sentence to make sure that x and y must refer to different objects.
∃x ∃y (Tet(x) ∧ Tet(y) ∧ x ≠ y)
This shows that x is not y, thus we know there must be at least 2 Tets in the domain for the sentence to be true.
I really want to drive this point home to you. Here is another way to think about it. Recall that an object may have multiple names.
Tet(a) ∧ Tet(b)
This sentence could be true in a world in which there is only one tet which is named a and b. Now, consider our original sentence:
∃x ∃y (Tet(x) ∧ Tet(y))
Just as the truth of Tet(a) ∧ Tet(b) does not guarantee that there is more than one tet, neither does this quantified sentence. For just as a and b may name the same object, so too may the variables of the quantifiers ∃x and ∃y pick out the same object.
Here’s a neat thing which falls out of the fact that multiple quantifiers don’t guarantee multiple objects. Consider this sentence:
∃x (x = x)
“Something is identical to itself.”
This is a logical truth. Every object in every conceivable domain will make this sentence true. This sentence, however, logically implies another, yet similar logical truth:
∃x ∃y (x = y)
“Something is identical to something.”
Depending on the domain, there may be many substitution combinations for x and y, but when x and y can pick out the same object, we can read the substitution as essentially pointing out that “something is identical to itself.” Again, I want to point out how the previous sentence cannot be translated as:
“Something is identical to some other thing.”
Since that would require this sentence in FOL:
∃x ∃y (x = y ∧ x ≠ y)
This is logically impossible, of course. This sentence is necessarily false, as it should be. Since we have the conjunction of a sentence and the negation of it (remember we use infixed negation on the identity symbol).
Prenex and Aristotelian Forms
There are different, yet equivalent ways to write sentences with multiple quantifiers. Let us consider an example with equivalent prenex and Aristotelian forms.
“Some cube is left of a tetrahedron.”
∃x ∃y (Cube(x) ∧ Tet(y) ∧ LeftOf(x, y))
∃x [Cube(x) ∧ ∃y (Tet(y) ∧ LeftOf(x, y))]
Both FOL sentences are equivalent translations of the English sentence.
The first translation is in prenex form. If you were to take the prenex FOL sentences and translate them back into English, you might not immediately get the original sentence. You’ll actually start out with something far more ugly and stilted.
“For some x and for some y, x is a cube and y is a tet, and x is to the left of y.”
We can try to naturalize our translation of the prenex form a bit. Sometimes naturalizing the translation takes some work, and you may want to do it in stages. So, we can take our initial translation of the prenex form and keep working on it:
“There is some cube, x, and there is some tet, y, and x is to the left of y.”
“Something is a cube, and something is a tet, wherein the cube is to the left of the tet.”
“Some cube is left of a tetrahedron.”
Translation can be difficult. There’s an art to it. You have to think about it.
The Aristotelian FOL sentence has one of the quantifiers embedded in the other. We might read it as:
“For some x, x is a cube; for some y, y is a tet, and x is to the left of y.”
We can manage to re-interpret or naturalize our initial readings:
“Some cube, x, is to the left of some tet, y.”
“Some cube is to the left of some tet.”
You’ll notice that this second translation follows the Aristotelian form of “Some P’s are Q’s.” Sometimes it is easier to translate or breakdown a sentence in the second form rather than the prenex.
Part of the reason it is easier is because the embedded sentence can be read as a single unit, “x is to the left of a tet,” where that tet is y. Let’s call that unit, G. Consider our original sentence, but replacing the single-unit embedded statement with G, we can see this exactly like our Aristotelian form:
“Some cube is G(x).”
∃x [Cube(x) ∧ G(x)]
We want G(x) to say that “x is to the left of a tetrahedron.” We need G(x) to have a new quantifier and variable to express this nature of this tetrahedron. Hence, G(x) just is:
∃y (Tet(y) ∧ LeftOf(x, y))
Thus, we can read this Aristotelian form as, “some cube, x, is to the left of a tetrahedron, y.”
We should also consider an example with multiple universal quantifiers:
“Every cube is to the left of every tetrahedron.”
∀x ∀y [(Cube(x) ∧ Tet(y)) → LeftOf(x, y)]
∀x [Cube(x) → ∀y (Tet(y) → LeftOf(x, y))]
Like our previous examples, we might have a chain of equivalent, yet more natural-sounding English translations:
“For all x and for all y, if both x is a cube and y is a tet, then x is to the left of y.”
“Every cube, x, and every tet, y, are such that x is to the left of y.”
“Every cube is to the left of every tetrahedron.”
We can read the Aristotelian version as:
“For all x, if x is a cube, then for all y, if y is a tet, then x is to the left of y.”
“Every cube, x, is to the left of every tet, y.”
“Every cube is to the left of every tetrahedron.”
The Aristotelian form has a similar breakdown as the previous Aristotelian example. We can think of it as:
“Every cube is H(x).”
∀x [Cube(x) → H(x)]
Where H(x) is:
∀y (Tet(y) → LeftOf(x, y))
This wff says, “x is to the left of every tet, y.” Hence, we can read the Aristotelian form as “Every cube, x, is to the left of every tet, y.”
The Aristotelian form promotes the practice of breaking the sentence down, and so it might be easier to use. Ultimately, if you want, you can avoid the prenex form in many cases, and stick to the easier to comprehend Aristotelian form.
Homework: 11.1-11.6
Mixed Quantifiers
We’ve looked at examples of having the same kind of quantifier in multiples. We are going to look at mixed quantifiers now.
“Every cube is left of a tetrahedron.”
This clearly has an Aristotelian form:
∀x (P(x) → Q(x))
Where P(x) means “x is a cube” and Q(x) means “x is left of a tetrahedron.” Just as in our previous examples, where that tet is y, we can substitute Q(x) with:
∃y (Tet(y) ∧ LeftOf(x, y))
You’ll note this embedded sentence actually is an Aristotelian form as well. Further, substituting P(x) with the appropriate FOL sentence, we arrive at:
∀x [Cube(x) → ∃y (Tet(y) ∧ LeftOf(x, y))]
Order of Quantifiers
When quantifiers in the same sentence are of the same quantity (all universal or all existential), the order in which they occur generally does not matter. But when they are mixed, the order in which they occur becomes crucial.
∀x ∀y Likes(x, y) ⇔ ∀y ∀x Likes(x, y)
“Every x likes every y.” ⇔ “Every y is liked by every x.”
⇔ “Everyone likes everyone.”
∃x ∃y Likes(x, y) ⇔ ∃y ∃x Likes(x, y)
“Some x likes some y.” ⇔ “Some y is liked by some x.”
⇔ “Someone is liked by someone.”
Multiples of the same quantifiers are easy. Mixed are more difficult. Consider this example:
∀x ∃y Likes(x, y)
∃y ∀x Likes(x, y)
These are not equivalent sentences. We can read the first sentence as, “Every x likes some y.” Essentially, it says, “everyone likes someone,” but allows for the possibility that different people have different likes.
Consider a world with 4 people: A, B, C, and D, wherein:
A likes B
B likes C
C likes D
D likes A
This world would make the first sentence true. Everyone likes someone. Note, however, that it doesn’t say who they like. That someone could be anyone.
The second sentence, however, says something much stronger. We can read it as “Some y is liked by every x.” Essentially, it says, “someone is liked by everyone.” For example, maybe:
A, B, C, and D all like A
This sentence not only makes the first sentence true, but also the second.
Cool fact, this stronger, second sentence logically implies the first. If “someone is liked by everyone,” then of course, “everyone likes someone.”
In general, a ∃∀ sentence logically implies its ∀∃ counterpart. Let’s see another example:
∀x ∃y (x = y)
∃y ∀x (x = y)
These sentences aren’t equivalent. The first says, “Every x is identical to some y” or “Everything is identical to something.” Since in every world, every object is self-identical, this sentence is a logical truth. And, frankly, every sentence logically implies a logical truth. So the general rule of thumb I gave you holds here, even without understanding what the second sentence even means.
The second says, “Some y is identical to every x” or “Something is identical to everything.” This is a far stronger and more particular claim. It can only be true in a domain with one object. Obviously it implies the first sentence, but the first sentence doesn’t imply this second sentence.
In any case, these mixed quantifier sentences are all distinct, and they aren’t equivalent. Some are implied by others, but not the other way around. Order clearly matters when your quantifiers are different.
Homework: 11.8-11.15
Step-by-Step Method of English to FOL Translation
Identify quantifier expressions.
Find the general form.
Isolate and translate the embedded wffs.
Plug these wffs into the general form.
For example:
“Each cube is to the left of a tetrahedron.”
First, identify the quantifier expressions:
“Each cube” and “a tetrahedron”
Universal and Existential
Find the general form:
“All P’s are Q’s” ⇔ ∀x (P(x) → Q(x))
Where P(x) is concerned with “each cube” and Q(x) is concerned with those cubes being “left of a tetrahedron.”
Now isolate and translate the embedded wffs:
“x is a cube” ⇔ Cube(x)
“x is left of a tetrahedron” ⇔ ∃y(Tet(y) ∧ LeftOf(x, y))
Plug’n’Play:
∀x[Cube(x) → ∃y(Tet(y) ∧ LeftOf(x, y))]
Voila. Let’s try another example:
“Some cube that adjoins a dodecahedron is larger than every tetrahedron.”
First, go through the sentence to identify the quantifier expressions.
“Some cube” and “a dodecahedron” and “every tetrahedron”
So, two existential expressions and one universal. Now, we find the general structure of the sentence. In this case, it’s one of the Aristotelian forms (sometimes it won’t be):
“Some P’s are Q’s” ⇔ ∃x (P(x) ∧ Q(x))
Where P(x) is concerned with “Some cube that adjoins a dodecahedron” and Q(x) concerned with that cube being “larger than every tetrahedron.”
Now we isolate the embedded wffs and translate them.
“x is a cube that adjoins a dodecahedron” ⇔ Cube(x) ∧ ∃y (Dodec(y) ∧ Adjoins(x, y))
“x is larger than every tetrahedron” ⇔ ∀y (Tet(y) → Larger(x, y))
Finally, plug these wffs into our overall form ∃x (P(x) ∧ Q(x)) in place of the two conjuncts P(x) and Q(x). This yields our completed translation:
∃x [Cube(x) ∧ ∃y (Dodec(y) ∧ Adjoins(x, y)) ∧ ∀y (Tet(y) → Larger(x, y))]
Let’s try another example.
“No cube to the right of a tetrahedron is to the left of a larger dodecahedron.”
We can begin by identifying the quantifier expressions and then determining the general structure of the sentence. It has the form:
“No Cube” and “a tetrahedron” and “a dodecahedron”
Either universal or existential, and two existentials
The form:
“No P’s are Q’s” ⇔ ∀x(P(x) → ¬Q(x))
Where P(x) is concerned with “cubes to the right of a tetrahedron” and Q(x) with cubes not being “left of a larger dodecahedron.”
My intuitions make it easier to translate this using the negated existential form, ¬∃x(P(x) ∧ Q(x)), however, that may not be the case for you. We’ll try it first using the universal.
Now we isolate the embedded wffs and translate:
The Antecedent:
“x is a cube to the right of a tetrahedron” ⇔ Cube(x) ∧ ∃y (Tet(y) ∧ RightOf(x, y))
The Consequent:
“x is to the left of a larger dodecahedron”
Before we can begin to translate this embedded wff, we must decide what the dodecahedron is being said to be larger than. There seem to be two possibilities:
(1) “a dodecahedron larger than x”
(2) “a dodecahedron larger than the tetrahedron mentioned in the antecedent”
The sentence seems genuinely ambiguous between these possibilities, although (1) seems more likely to my ears, so we will go with that reading. Thus:
“x is to the left of a dodecahedron that is larger than x” ⇔
∃y (Dodec(y) ∧ LeftOf(x, y) ∧ Larger(y, x))
Now we plug’n’play our P(x) and Q(x)
∀x [(Cube(x) ∧ ∃y (Tet(y) ∧RightOf(x, y))) → ¬∃y (Dodec(y) ∧LeftOf(x, y) ∧ Larger(y, x))]
Let’s quickly work through a few more examples.
“Every small cube is in back of a large cube.”
Quantifier expressions: “Every small cube” and “a large cube”
Form: ∀x(P(x) → Q(x))
∀x [(Small(x) ∧ Cube(x)) → in-back-of-a-large-cube)]
∀x [(Small(x) ∧ Cube(x)) → ∃y (Large(y) ∧ Cube(y) ∧ BackOf(x, y))]
Another example:
“Some cube is in front of every tetrahedron.”
Quantifier expressions: “Some cube” and “every tetrahedron”
Form: ∃x (P(x) ∧ Q(x))
∃x (Cube(x) ∧ is in front of every tet)
∃x [Cube(x) ∧ ∀y (Tet(y) → Front(x, y))]
Another example:
“Everything to the right of a large cube is small.”
Quantifier expressions: “Everything” and “a cube”
Form: ∀x(P(x) → Q(x))
∀x (x is to the right of a large cube → Small(x))
∀x [∃y(Large(y) ∧ Cube(y) ∧ RightOf(x, y)) → Small(x)]
Another example:
“Anything with nothing in back of it is a cube.”
Quantifier expressions: “Anything” and “nothing” - Notice that “is a cube”, the determiner “a” doesn’t make this a quantified expression.
Form: ∀x(P(x) → Q(x))
∀x(if nothing is in back of x → Cube(x))
∀x(¬∃y(BackOf(y, x) → Cube(x))
Homework: 11.16-11.17
Paraphrasing English
There are times when the step-by-step method cannot be applied directly. This happens frequently in cases in which the quantifier word something is used with universal force. For example:
“If something is a cube, it is not a tetrahedron.”
The tip-off that the “something” here is a universal quantifier is the occurrence of the pronoun “it” in the consequent. This “it” functions in English as a variable, so it must be bound by a quantifier. But, the only quantifier around is the one in the antecedent. If we make it existential and include the variable “it” in its scope, we would get:
“There is something such that, if is a cube, it is not a tetrahedron.”
∃x (Cube(x) → ¬Tet(x))
But, this sentence is too weak, as we’ve already seen, to say what the English sentence says. The existence of a single non-cube, for example, makes it true. But, if we restrict the scope of ∃x to the antecedent, we get:
∃x Cube(x) → ¬Tet(x)
But, this mere wff is not a sentence (the x in Tet(x) is free). The step-by-step method seems to have failed us. What we must do, instead, is to continuously paraphrase the original sentence in a way that gives the quantifier a large scope. When we do this, we see that the quantifier is actually universal:
“If anything is a cube, it is not a tetrahedron.”
“For anything you like, if it is a cube, it is not a tetrahedron.”
“No cube is a tetrahedron.”
∀x (Cube(x) → ¬Tet(x))
Let’s look at another example:
“If a freshman takes a logic class, then he or she must be smart.”
If you attempt to translate step by step, you get:
∃x(Freshman(x) ∧ ∃y(LogicClass(y) ∧ Takes(x, y))) → Smart(x)
This is not a sentence since it has a free variable, “Smart(x)” – hence, we must paraphrase it.
“Every freshman who takes a logic class is smart”
This translates nicely:
∀x[(Freshman(x) ∧ ∃y(LogicClass(y) ∧ Takes(x, y))) → Smart(x)]
Donkey Sentences
The classic example.
“Every farmer who owns a donkey beats it.”
The difficulty with such sentences is that they resemble ones in which the phrase “a donkey” is properly treated as an existential quantifier.
“Every farmer who owns a donkey buys hay.”
This goes into FOL straight forwardly as:
∀x [(Farmer(x) ∧ ∃y (Donkey(y) ∧ Owns(x, y)) → BuysHay(x))]
Note that the scope of the existential quantifier stops at the end of the antecedent. If we try to translate the classic donkey sentence this way, we get:
∀x [(Farmer(x) ∧ ∃y (Donkey(y) ∧ Owns(x, y)) → Beats(x, y))]
This is a mere wff, since the y in the consequent is free. We can see this by translating the wff back into English:
“Every farmer who owns a donkey beats y.”
In order to have a sentence (a wff with no free variables) we must make sure that the y variable in Beats(x, y) is bound by the quantifier (“a donkey”) in the antecedent. This means we must paraphrase the original English sentence, perhaps in one of the following ways:
“Any farmer who owns any donkey beats it.”
“Every farmer is such that any donkey he owns is beaten by him.”
“Every farmer beats every donkey he owns.”
This makes clear that the original sentence contains two universal quantifiers:
∀x [Farmer(x) → ∀y {(Donkey(y) ∧ Owns(x, y)) → Beats(x, y)}]
In LPL, a slightly different (but equivalent) translation is offered:
∀x [Donkey(x) → ∀y {(Farmer(y) ∧ Owns(y, x)) → Beats(y, x)}]
Homework: 11.18-11.21
Ambiguity and Context Sensitivity
Sentences containing both universal and existential quantifiers can be ambiguous, depending on the scope the quantifiers receive.
“Some man has been calling Becky every hour.”
When the existential quantifier is given wide scope, we get what is called the “strong” reading:
∃x [Man(x) ∧ ∀y (Hour(y) → Calls(x, becky, y))]
This FOL sentence suggests that Becky is being harassed by a single persistent (and unwanted) caller. On the other hand, if we take the English sentence to mean merely that Becky is popular, and has been receiving calls from many different interested creepers or gentlemen (take your pick), the right way to put it would be this (the “weak” reading):
∀y [Hour(y) → ∃x (Man(x) ∧ Calls(x, becky, y))]
The weak reading is a logical consequence of the strong reading, but not conversely.
You’ll note that the second translation ends up repositioning the “every hour” quantified expression at the beginning, as the overall structure.
In other cases, the context makes the weak reading obviously the intended one. Consider the following sentence (attributed to the showman P. T. Barnum):
“There’s a sucker born every minute.”
The strong reading here is obviously inappropriate:
∃x [Sucker(x) ∧ ∀y (Minute(y) → BornAt(x, y))]
The trouble with this FOL translation is that it says that some unfortunate individual has the property of being born (again, and again) at each and every minute. What the original sentence obviously intended was the weaker claim, that no matter what minute you pick, some sucker is being born then (a different sucker at each succeeding minute, of course, since each of us is born only once). Here’s the FOL version of the intended (weak) reading:
∀y [Minute(y) → ∃x (Sucker(x) ∧ BornAt(x, y))]
Ralph Waldo Emerson Ambiguity
In our next example, there are multiple sources of ambiguity—not just the scope of the quantifiers, but their quantity.
“Everybody loves a lover.”
We’ll start questions that arise from the ambiguity of two notions.
Order of the quantifiers
Does “everybody” have wide scope, or does “a lover” have wide scope?
Which of the two quantifiers has wide scope?
Without context, it seems we’ll have to keep both options open.
Quantity of the quantifiers
Is “a lover” an existential quantifier (“some lover”) or universal (“every lover”)?
Without a context, it’s hard to tell, so we’ll have to keep both options open.
This would seem to give us, at least in the abstract, four possibilities. We can represent them (temporarily) in the following slightly unorthodox way:
1. ∃ lover y ∀ person x: x loves y
2. ∀ person x ∃ lover y: x loves y
3. ∀ lover y ∀ person x: x loves y
4. ∀ person x ∀ lover y: x loves y
Since (3) and (4) do not involve mixed quantifiers, they are clearly equivalent. (3) says that “every lover is loved by every person,” and (4) says that “every person loves every lover.” So we only need to consider one of them—we’ll drop (4) from consideration. But the other three are still in the running:
says that “there is some lover, y, such that everyone loves y.”
says that “for each person, x, there is a lover, y, such that x loves y.”
This leaves open the possibility, which (1) does not, that different people might love different lovers
says that “every lover is loved by everyone.”
This seems to have been the original intention of the poet Ralph Waldo Emerson when he wrote “Here’s to the happy man: All the world loves a lover.” That is, no matter who you are, all you have to do is to be a lover, and everyone will love you.
So (3) seems to be the favored reading of this potentially ambiguous sentence.
Homework: 11.24-11.26
Prenex Form
For many purposes, it is advantageous to have an FOL sentence in prenex form. Furthermore, every FOL sentence has an equivalent sentence (in fact, many equivalent sentences) in prenex form. In this section, we discuss methods for putting sentences into prenex form. But first, let’s refresh ourselves on why trying to put sentences directly into prenex form is likely to lead to error.
Consider this example of sentences which might appear equivalent, but aren’t:
∀x Cube(x) → ∀y Large(y) “If everything is a cube, then everything is large”
∀x ∀y (Cube(x) → Large(y)) “Everything is such that if it’s a cube, then everything is large”
The second sentence is in prenex form, but it is not equivalent to the first sentence. We can’t just pull the inside quantifier out. To convert to prenex form, we must remember the equivalences we learned in chapter 10:
∃x (Q(x) → P) ⇔ ∀x Q(x) → P
∃x (P → Q(x)) ⇔ P → ∀x Q(x)
Remember, these equivalences require that P is either a sentence or a wff containing no free occurrence of x.
We apply the first equivalence to our first sentence:
∃x (Q(x) → P) ⇔ ∀x Q(x) → P
∃x (Cube(x) → ∀y Large(y)) ⇔ ∀x Cube(x) → ∀y Large(y)
Note how Q(x) is Cube(x). We pull the universal quantifier off of the antecedent and change it to an existential quantifier whose scope is the entire conditional. Next, we will apply the second equivalence to sentence our new sentence:
∀x (P → Q(x)) ⇔ P → ∀x Q(x)
∃x ∀y (Cube(x) → Large(y)) ⇔ ∃x (Cube(x) → ∀y Large(y))
Note how Q(x) is Large(y). Here we simply moved the universal quantifier, ∀y, from the consequent to the entire conditional. Note that in applying this equivalence, P is the wff Cube(x), which contains no free occurrences of y, the variable in the exported quantifier.
Thus, the prenex form of ∀x Cube(x) → ∀y Large(y) is not ∀x ∀y (Cube(x) → Large(y)), but rather ∃x ∀y (Cube(x) →Large(y)). We can use Fitch’s FO Con to further convince ourselves of this.
Rules for Converting to Prenex
To convert an FOL sentence to prenex form, we make use of these equivalences that we learned in chapter 10:
DeMorgan laws for quantifiers
Distributing ∀ through ∧
Distributing ∃ through ∨
Null quantification
Replacing bound variables
In addition, we will need to use some of the handy truth-functional equivalences we learned in
§ 8.1, especially to get rid of biconditionals:
P ↔Q ⇔ ((P →Q) ∧ (Q →P) )
P ↔Q ⇔ ((P ∧ Q) ∨ (¬P ∧ ¬Q))
The general strategy is to work from the inside out, moving quantifiers “outward” so that they get larger in scope. Since all of our quantifiers will appear at the beginning of our ultimate sentence, we must be sure that no quantifier gets reused (e.g., we cannot have both ∀xand ∃x); each time we have a quantifier that repeats a variable, we will have to change to a new variable. We will definitely need to get rid of biconditionals, and it is sometimes useful to get rid of conditionals, as well. The procedure is best illustrated by examples, to which we now turn.
Let’s show a conversion into prenex:
∀x Cube(x) ∨ ¬∃x Tet(x)
The strategy will be to drive the negation sign through the quantifier ¬∃x, converting it to ∀x¬ (appealing to DeMorgan laws for quantifiers), then rewrite the second quantifier with a new variable, y (replacing bound variables), then pull the quantifiers to the outside (null quantification). We’ll do this one step at a time.
∀x Cube(x) ∨ ¬∃x Tet(x) ⇔ ∀x Cube(x) ∨ ∀x ¬Tet(x) DeMorgan’s
⇔ ∀x Cube(x) ∨ ∀y ¬Tet(y) Replacing bound var.
⇔ ∀x (Cube(x) ∨ ∀y ¬Tet(y)) Null Quantification
⇔ ∀x ∀y (Cube(x) ∨ ¬Tet(y)) Null Quantification
Notice that we might have performed the last two steps (pulling out the universal quantifiers) in reverse order. If we had, we would have ended up with this (equivalent) prenex form:
∀y ∀x (Cube(x) ∨ ¬Tet(y))
Let’s consider a nasty soup-to-nuts example, where we start with an English sentence, translate into the FOL Aristotelian form, and then convert to prenex.
“No cube that adjoins a tetrahedron is back of every dodecahedron.”
We make no effort to go directly to prenex form. Instead, we translate into FOL using the step-by-step method:
∀x(x is a cube-that-adjoins-a-tetrahedron → ¬ x is back-of-every-dodecahedron)
∀x((x is a cube ∧ ∃y (y is a tetrahedron ∧ x adjoins y)) → ¬ x is back-of-every-dodecahedron)
∀x((x is a cube ∧ ∃y (y is a tetrahedron ∧ x adjoins y)) → ¬ ∀z(z is a dodecahedron → x is back of z))
∀x {[Cube(x) ∧ ∃y (Tet(y) ∧ Adjoins(x, y))] → ¬∀z (Dodec(z) → BackOf(x, z))}
Now we convert to prenex form. First, we drive the negation sign inside the scope of the quantifier ∀z:
∀x {[Cube(x) ∧ ∃y (Tet(y) ∧ Adjoins(x, y))] → ∃z ¬(Dodec(z) → BackOf(x, z))}
Next, we look at the conjunction that is the antecedent of the first conditional:
[Cube(x) ∧ ∃y (Tet(y) ∧ Adjoins(x, y))]
We then apply one of the “null quantification” equivalences. This allows us to pull the existential quantifier out:
∃x (P ∧ Q(x)) ⇔ P ∧ ∃x Q(x)
∃y [Cube(x) ∧ (Tet(y) ∧ Adjoins(x, y))] ⇔ Cube(x) ∧ ∃y (Tet(y) ∧ Adjoins(x, y))
Replacing this in the entire sentence yields:
∀x {[Cube(x) ∧ ∃y (Tet(y) ∧ Adjoins(x, y))] → ∃z ¬(Dodec(z) → BackOf(x, z))} ⇔
∀x {∃y [Cube(x) ∧ (Tet(y) ∧ Adjoins(x, y))] → ∃z ¬(Dodec(z) → BackOf(x, z))}
The wff in the scope of the initial universal quantifier ∀x is:
∃y [Cube(x) ∧ (Tet(y) ∧ Adjoins(x, y))] → ∃z ¬(Dodec(z) → BackOf(x, z))
And this is of the form of the first of the following, and equivalent to the second:
∃y Q(y) → P ⇔ ∀y (Q(y) → P)
So we pull out the existential quantifier and change it to a universal, and embed the resulting wff inside the scope of ∀x:
∀x {∃y [Cube(x) ∧ (Tet(y) ∧ Adjoins(x, y))] → ∃z ¬(Dodec(z) → BackOf(x, z))} ⇔
∀x ∃y {[Cube(x) ∧ (Tet(y) ∧ Adjoins(x, y))] → ∃z ¬(Dodec(z) → BackOf(x, z))}
Finally, the existential quantifier in the consequent can be moved to the outside of the conditional (but inside the other quantifiers!). Recall this null quantification:
∃x (P → Q(x)) ⇔ P → ∃x Q(x)
Applying this yields:
∀x ∃y {[Cube(x) ∧ (Tet(y) ∧ Adjoins(x, y))] → ∃z ¬(Dodec(z) → BackOf(x, z))}
∀x ∃y ∃z {[Cube(x) ∧ (Tet(y) ∧ Adjoins(x, y))] → ¬(Dodec(z) → BackOf(x, z))}
Homework: 11.37-11.39
5
Introduction
FOL – First-order logic or First-order language is what we will be learning in this class, or at least, the foundation of it. FOL might be thought of as one very large language which we can divide up into a collection many sub-languages which all use the same logical connectives and syntactic grammar or structure. A sub-language of FOL can be very broad and expressive, somewhat like English (we will be translating English sentences into FOL), or very specific and lacking expressiveness, as we will see in restricted “blocks” language of Tarski’s World. In this lesson, we will use both of these sub-languages, English-translation and Tarski’s World to grasp the fundamental concepts of FOL.
We will be specifying some important terminology and concepts in FOL which will pave the way for the rest of the semester. The concepts you learn in this section will be on your midterm and final exams, so pay attention, and take good notes.
Atomic Sentences – Naively, we will think of atomic sentences as the basic building blocks of FOL. These are the smallest units with which we can do “logical stuff.” They can correspond to simple English sentences with names or individual constants and a predicate.
Max ran, Max saw Claire, Claire gave Scruffy to Max.
Tarski’s atomic sentences look like this:
Cube(b), Larger(c, f ), and Between(b, c, d)
These sentences say, respectively, that “b is a cube”, that “c is larger than f”, and that “b is between c and d”.
Importantly, atomic sentences always contain two kinds of ingredients: individual constants (names) and predicate symbols (property and relation words). In the English to FOL translations, the nouns/names just are the individual constants, and the verbs serve as the predicate. In Tarski’s “blocks” language, the letters inside the parentheses are the individual constants, and the capitalized stuff outside the parentheses are the predicates.
§ 1.1
Domain/World/Universe – I’ll use these words interchangeably. Often we will talk about the real, existing world we find ourselves in; sometimes we will narrow it down to a restricted domain, like a classroom; we might even talk about hypothetical worlds, like those we will create and think about in the Tarski’s World program. Naively, a domain is just some non-empty world we have in mind – it is some universe, whether hypothetical or real, that has at least one object in it.
Individual Constants – a.k.a. “names” are symbols that are used to refer to some fixed individual object in a universe, world, or domain. Names are always written in lower-case.
The symbol “max” can point out a particular person.
Likewise, “1”, a numeral, is an individual constant symbol that points out a particular number in the world. We could have represented the number one with a totally different symbol, i.e. a totally different individual constant using a dot or an “I”, as in roman numerals. Note the difference between syntax and semantics here. Syntax represents semantics. The numeral is syntactic – it is the written symbol. The number is semantic - it is a real concept or an object, and it is that which is symbolized by the numeral-symbol.
Individual constants are part of the syntax of FOL. They point or pick out or refer to some fixed semantic object.
English names aren’t precisely like FOL individual constants. In FOL:
Every individual constant must name an (actually existing) object in the domain.
“Santa Clause” in English doesn’t refer to an existing object. If our domain is the real world, then “Santa Clause” is not an individual constant because it can’t pick out anything in the domain. If our domain was some hypothetical world where there was a Santa-Clause-object in that world, then it would be perfectly fine to have an individual constant, “Santa Clause” to pick out that object.
No individual constant can name more than one object.
“Max” in English can refer to multiple objects; in FOL, a symbol points to exactly one object.
An object can have more than one name or no name at all.
Intuitively, you can realize that there are objects in the world which aren’t yet named. We don’t yet have syntax to directly pick out these semantic objects, and that’s okay. Further, you might also intuitively see that certain objects have multiple names.
I call my daughter names. At least for me, all of these are individual constants which pick out the same object in the real world.
Unlike our English-to-FOL translation, in which we will use normal names as our individual constants, the blocks in Tarski’s World is very restricted. The individual constant symbols in the blocks language:
a-f n1, n2,…, nn
We will use these as the names of the various blocks that inhabit the Tarski worlds we will be examining. Generally, we will use a-f, particularly in the beginning part of this course. Again, note how these are all lower-case, and note how the previous requirements I explained also apply to the blocks language (a sub-language of FOL).
Every world must contain at least one block.
Any name that we use must name some block.
In a given Tarski world, no name refers to more than one block.
A block may have more than one name.
Some blocks may not have names.
You’ll find the Tarski’s World program enforces these rules. This is not by accident.
§ 1.2
Predicate Symbols – a.k.a. “Relation symbols,” are symbols used to express either some determinate property of objects or some determinate relationship between objects. By determinate, we mean a property for which, given any object, there is a definite fact of the matter whether or not the object has the property. A predicate is non-vague, non-gradated, non-ambiguous, and lacks contextual sensitivity – where the matter at hand does not vary depending on your perspective of the world.
English: Max likes Claire. FOL: Likes(max, claire)
In English, the subject is “Max” and the predicate is “likes Claire”.
In FOL, “max” and “claire” are logical subjects or individual constants, and the predicate “Likes” expresses a relation between the two names.
Note that predicates are always written with first-letter capitalization.
Every predicate symbol comes with a single, fixed arity, a number that tells you how many arguments it needs to form an atomic sentence. Individual constants are used (alongside something else we will learn about, called function symbols) as the arguments of predicates.
Predicate(argument1, argument2)
This is a binary predicate. It has an arity of 2. Unary predicates have one argument, binary have two, ternary have three, etc.
The block language has many predicates with differing arities.
Cube(a) is an atomic sentence which we interpret as “a is a cube”. Cube is a unary predicate.
Smaller(a, b) is “a is smaller than b”, and it has two arguments which are individual constants in this case. The predicate, Smaller, has an arity of 2. Notice how Smaller(a, b) is different from Smaller(b, a).
Between(a, b, c) is an atomic sentence which we interpret as “a is between b and c.” Between is a ternary predicate.
Notice how the predicates express something about or demonstrate a relationship about the individual constants used as arguments in these atomic sentences.
Translation - When translating between English and FOL, try to stay as close as possible to the surface grammar that you are translating.
Consider the English sentence “c is between a and d”
Two FOL sentences: Between(c, a, d) Between(c, d, a)
The English sentence “c is between a and d” is translated into FOL as Between(c, a, d). Choosing the order of terms matters. So, while Between(c, d, a) is also true, because if c is between a and d, then c is also between d and a, the fact is that Between(c, a, d) matches the original grammar better. These two FOL sentences might have the same semantics, but they have different syntax – a different ordering of the arguments, and that matters in this class.
§ 1.3
Atomic Sentences (again) - A sentence formed by a predicate followed by the right number of names is called an atomic sentence. We write atomic sentences in the blocks language by combining a predicate (which always begins with a capital letter), followed by (in parentheses) one or more individual constants (which always begin with a lower case letter).
There are kinds of notation we must consider, infix and prefix.
Infix: a = b Prefix: =ab Cube(a) Larger(a, b)
We will use the infix notation for the identity symbol, but if we wanted, we could use the prefix (but you won’t in this class). Excepting the identity symbol, we will write sentences in FOL using the prefix notation.
Note that atomic sentences might also be called atomic “claims” or “propositions.” A claim is something that is either true or false. Each claim has a “truth value,” whether it be “false” or “true.” It must be one, and it can only be one at any given time in any one given respect in any given domain.
Taller(claire, max) can be interpreted as “claire is taller than max”. Let’s say it is true, then it has a truth value of “true.” Consequently, Taller(max, claire), i.e. “max is taller than claire,” will have a “false” truth value.
Introduce/Explore Tarski’s World
Homework: 1.1-1.6
§ 1.4
General First-Order Languages
All sub-languages of FOL share certain logical building blocks in common, logical connectives and syntactic rules which enable us to create atomic sentences and construct complex sentences. We’ve looked at some English to FOL translations, which may be a somewhat broad and generic sub-language of FOL, and a very narrow sub-language of FOL, the blocks language.
Technically, we could modify or design a sub-language of FOL. In our English to FOL translations, we might consider two ways of translating the English “Claire gave Scruffy to Max” into different FOL sentences.
Gave(arg1, arg2, arg3) Gave(claire, scruffy, max)
GaveScruffy(arg1, arg2) GaveScruffy(claire, max)
The first is more complicated (it has a predicate of arity 3) but gives you more flexibility—you can use it to say Claire gave Carl to Max simply by changing the second argument to the name Carl. The second predicate is simpler (arity 2) but less flexible. To write the statement about Carl using this language we’d need a new predicate:
GaveCarl(claire, max) Gave(claire, carl, max)
Indeed, we could even use a unary predicate:
ClaireGaveScruffyTo(max)
This inflexibility is not pleasing to work with. Hence, when creating predicates, try to make it easy to say everything you want to say with a small, flexible, and expressive vocabulary.
Homework: 1.9
§ 1.5
Function Symbols – symbols that allow us to form name-like terms from names and other name-like terms. Functions are expressions which bring about more complex constants or referring expressions.
father(me) can be translated as “My father.”
It picks him out. Notice you don’t see xenoxillixong (perhaps the explicit individual constant we might use to pick him out).
mother(father(me)) is the same as “My father’s mother” or “Mother of my Father”
This is example of nested functions. Note that when nesting functions, the inner-most argument will always be an individual constant, else we wouldn’t be able to pick anything out (which is the purpose of a function in FOL).
+(2,3) is the same as “5” – it picks out or refers to 5.
Again, we will use infix notation for mathematics though, so we can write this as 2 + 3 instead of +(2,3) or sum(2, 3).
Note that in FOL, complex terms will pick out one actual object, no more. These would not work:
mother(adam) mother(eve)
They don’t pick anything out in our domain.
Term - it is an expression that serves to pick out an individual object. There are two kinds of terms: simple and complex. Simple terms just are individual constants. Complex terms are the results of function symbols applied to a term. Obviously, complexity ranges.
We need to be very careful to not confuse functions and predicates. They are similar in that both take terms as arguments, but they are very different. A function doesn’t result in anything with a truth value – it only picks something out. A predicate will result in a sentence, which has truth value.
Father(gwb) father(gwb)
Note the difference in capitalization. Both are well-formed expressions in our formal language, but they are very different. The latter is a function, also a complex term. Its job is to refer. It picks out the father of George Walker Bush. The former uses a predicate. It says that George Walker Bush is a father. Unlike the function symbol + individual constant, which only picks something out in our domain, the predicate + individual constant forms an atomic sentence, which is either true or false.
While function symbols can be nested, predicate symbols cannot.
Father(Father(gwb) father(father(gwb))
The translation of the nested predicates would be something like: “George Walker Bush is a father is a father. That is non-sense. Nested predicates aren’t well-formed formulas of FOL. Note, however, that the nested function makes sense.
We can use functions and predicates together to express complex and rich sentences:
Taller(father(max), max) can be translated as: “Max's father is taller than Max”
Example 1.12:
Claire’s father is taller than Max’s father.
John is Max’s father. (Apparently, better than “John is identical to Max’s father”)
Claire is taller than her maternal grandmother.
Max’s maternal grandmother is taller than his paternal grandmother.
Melanie and Claire have the same mother.
HOMEWORK: 1.14
PHIL 1210-06 – Spring 2015 Instructor: ...
Elementary Symbolic Logic Office: TA Room next to 105 Newcomb
MWF 3:00 – 3:50 PM Office hours: After class & by appointment
Newcomb Hall 17 E-mail: ...@tulane.edu
Required text and software: Language, Proof, and Logic: Second Edition
You must buy a new copy of this book. It comes with software that must be registered under your name. Your homework grade comes from using this registered software - you can’t pass the class without it. Make sure you get the SECOND edition. If you need help finding the text: you can find a new hardcopy at Amazon (http://www.amazon.com/Language-Proof-Logic-2ND-Edition/dp/1575866323) or you can buy a physical or digital copy directly from the source at Stanford (http://ggweb.stanford.edu/store). The manuals which come with the software are very useful. You can find them at: http://ggweb.stanford.edu/support/manual/.
Course Description and General Objectives:
This is an introductory course in symbolic logic, which will introduce the core concepts in logic through the study of sentential and predicate logic systems. After exploring some basic concepts in logic, we will focus on sentential logic. Here, we will be interested in the symbolization of natural language, truth-functions, truth tables, and constructing proofs using the Fitch language. In the latter part of the semester, our focus will be on predicate logic. We will be interested in the basic concepts of predicate logic, basic semantics for predicate logic, and constructing proofs using a system of deduction for predicate logic.
Program Outlines:
Elementary Symbolic Logic (PHIL1210) will introduce students to the core concepts of logic. Classroom activities, reading, and homework assignments are designed to help students understand issues in logic and to become familiar with basic systems of symbolic logic. The study of symbolic logic aids in developing the capacity for abstract thought, and students will learn to apply the skills learned in logic to concrete arguments encountered both inside and outside the classroom.
Philosophy Department Learning Outcomes:
Students become acquainted with a range of thinkers, topics, and methods.
In both classroom discussion and written work, students should demonstrate the ability to analyze ideas and present them clearly, providing arguments and evidence for their claims.
Specific Course Outcomes:
To become aware of the core concepts in the study and development of logic.
To discuss and think about the philosophical issues underlying the study and development of logic.
Course Requirements and Grading:
Homework (50%)
There will be many homework assignments in this class. Practice is essential. You will be well rewarded for your effort.
Students often study and practice symbolic logic together, outside of class. This is great. I encourage you to find study buddies! I want to warn you, however, that some students working in groups run the risk of not actually learning how to solve problems on their own. It is crucial that you can actually do this by yourself, since there will be nobody to help you on the exams. If do you study and practice symbolic logic with others, make sure you’re actually learning the content and problem-solving skills necessary for taking the exams by yourself.
Since the pace of the class may vary, I will assign due dates to homework in class.
At the end of the class (when I calculate course grades), 10% of your homework grade will be outright given to you. The reason is that some problems just don’t click with everyone, and I don’t want students completing most of their homework quickly and then spending hours trying to figure out just one of the problem. This 10% buffer provides you a degree of liberty to skip some problems which are most vexing to you (which often differ from person to person).
Midterm (25%)
About midway through the semester, there will be a midterm exam. I will announce the date in advance.
The midterm may be curved based on the performance of the class as a whole.
Final Exam (25%)
The final exam will be given during the final exam period, which is scheduled for Friday, May 8th, 1:00-5:00pm, and will take place in the usual classroom.
The final will be cumulative, though it will focus on the material from after the midterm.
The final may be curved based on the performance of the class as a whole.
Lateness and Absence Policy: Homework submitted late will receive only half credit. Exams missed because of an unexcused absence cannot be made up, and will receive a failing grade.
Cheating and Plagiarism Policy: Getting help is fine. Working together on homework is fine. Simply copying answers is not okay. If I have evidence of cheating or plagiarism, I will refer the case to the Honor Board. See: http://tulane.edu/college/code.cfm.
Office Hours & Contact: I encourage you to come to me with any questions you have related to the course material or your studies more generally. Please feel free to stop by or to schedule an appointment with me.
No class on the following dates:
February 16th (Mardi Gras)
February 30th; March 1st, 3rd, 6th (Spring Break)
April 29th (Study Period)
Schedule - Our schedule will be a bit flexible and subject to change. I will announce assignments in advance. You should expect homework to be assigned every class. In this order, and at the pace that I see fit, we will cover as much of the following as we can over the course of the semester:
Section I – Propositional Logic
Chapter 1 – Atomic Sentences
Chapter 2 – The Logic of Atomic Sentences
Chapter 3 – The Boolean Connectives
Chapter 4 – The Logic of Boolean Connectives
Chapter 5 – Methods of Proof for Boolean Logic
Chapter 6 – Formal Proofs and Boolean Logic
Chapter 7 – Conditionals
Chapter 8 – The Logic of Conditionals
Section II - Quantifiers
Chapter 9 – Introduction to Quantification
Chapter 10 – The Logic of Quantifiers
Chapter 11 – Multiple Quantifiers
Chapter 12 – Methods of Proof for Quantifiers
Chapter 13 – Formal Proofs and Quantifiers
PHIL-1010-81 – Summer-E2 2015 Instructor: ...
Introduction to Philosophy Office: TA room next to 105 Newcomb
MW 6:00pm-8:50pm Office hours: After class & by appointment
Elmwood E-mail: ...@tulane.edu
Book: Western Philosophy: An Anthology edited by John Cottingham
Course Description: This class focuses on the fundamentals of classic Western philosophy. We will study foundational philosophical concepts, frameworks, and terminology. We will do our best to rigorously examine and evaluate brief excerpts from canonical philosophical texts with charity and curiosity. Through our readings and discussions, we will attempt to cover a broad range of major branches of philosophy; and, to some extent, we will consider the historical progression of certain prominent philosophical ideas. Lastly, our goal will be to engage in essential philosophical practices. These practices include: careful reasoning through arguments, polite participation in debates, thoughtful exegesis, strategic writing, and searching for rational answers to valuable and difficult philosophical questions.
Program & Learning Outcomes:
Students become acquainted with a range of thinkers, topics, and approaches to philosophy.
In both classroom discussion and written work, students should demonstrate the ability to analyze ideas and present them clearly, providing viable arguments and evidence for their claims.
Specific Course Outcomes:
To develop an appreciation for terminology and concepts in Western philosophy
To discuss and think about the philosophical issues in the development of Western philosophy
Course Requirements & Grading:
Discussion Board (30%)
For every assigned reading, each student is required to write their own +100 word post in the appropriate forum. You can either create a new thread (with a unique topic) or reply to one.
We may have multiple assigned readings for the day. You will need to write a post for each of these assigned readings before the beginning of the class period on which we discuss it in class.
Each post needs to do some sort of philosophical work. You could explain a problem with the argument. You could wrestle with different ways to interpret the argument. You could consider the implications of the argument. In any case, you need to clearly demonstrate that you’ve actually read and thought about the assignment. Please write formal, grammatically correct sentences.
Final Exam/Paper (70%)
Paper topics must be directly tied to one of the readings in the book.
Ideally, you will talk with me about your paper topic before you begin writing it. I want you to write on a topic that interests you while also having a topic appropriate for the class.
Papers will be 10 pages, double-spaced, no added space between paragraphs or text, using size-12 font Times New Romans, with 1” margins, pagination, in .docx or .pdf file-formatting. Both a title page and bibliography are required (these aren’t included in the 10 page-count).
You will submit a digital copy of your paper (used to check for plagiarism and formatting) by 6:00pm on August 10th.
Participation & Preparation: Philosophy is not a passive endeavor. Students should attend and actively participate in class discussions. Students should offer pertinent comments and ask/answer relevant questions. Always bring a copy (either digital or print) of the day’s reading assignment(s) with you to class.
Lateness Policy: Unexcused late work will not be accepted. Unless excused, you will receive a failing grade on any forum posts or exams/papers which aren’t submitted on time.
Cheating & Plagiarism Policy: Plagiarism and cheating are obviously unacceptable. If I have evidence of either occurring, I will refer the case to the Honor Board. See: http://tulane.edu/college/code.cfm.
Office Hours & Contact: I encourage you to come to me with any questions you have related to the course material or your studies more generally. Please feel free to stop by or to schedule an appointment with me.
Content & Schedule: Course content comes straight from our anthology. Our schedule is tentative. It will be flexible and subject to change. I will announce changes in advance. In this order, and at the pace that I see fit, we will cover as much of the following as we can over the course of the semester:
Knowledge and Certainty 7.8.2015
Knowledge versus Opinion: Plato, Republic
New Foundations for Knowledge: Descartes, Meditations
The Senses as the Basis of Knowledge: Locke, Essay concerning Human Understanding
Innate Knowledge Defended: Leibniz, New Essays on Human Understanding
Against Scepticism: G.E. Moore, A Defence of Common Sense
Being and Reality 7.13.2015
The Allegory of the Cave: Plato, Republic
Individual Substance: Aristotle, Categories
Being and Involvement: Heidegger, Being and Time
The End of Metaphysics: Carnap, The Elimination of Metaphysics
Mind and Body 7.15.2015
The Incorporeal Mind: Descartes, Meditations
Mind-Body Correlations: Malebranche, Dialogues on Metaphysics
The Problem of Other Minds: Mill, An Examination of Sir William Hamilton’s Philosophy
The Myth of the ‘Ghost in the Machine’: Ryle, The Concept of Mind
The Self and Freedom 7.20.2015
The Self and Consciousness: Locke, Essay concerning Human Understanding
Liberation from the Self: Parfit, Reasons and Persons
Freedom to Do What We Want: Hobbes, Liberty, Necessity and Chance
Determinism and Our Attitudes to Others: Strawson, Freedom and Resentment
Morality and the Good life 7.22.2015
Morality and Happiness: Plato, Republic
Ethical Virtue: Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics
Duty and Reason as the Ultimate Principle: Kant, Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals
Utility and Common-sense Morality: Sidgwick, Methods of Ethics
Rational Choice and Fairness: Rawls, A Theory of Justice
Problems in Ethics 7.27.2015
War and Justice: Aquinas, Summa Theologiae
The Status of Non-human animals: Kant, Lectures on Ethics
The Purpose of Punishment: Bentham, Principles of Morals and Legislation
The Relief of Global Suffering: Singer, Famine, Affluence and Morality
Authority and the State 7.29.2015
Our Obligation to Respect the Laws of the State: Plato, Crito
Sovereignty and Security: Hobbes, Leviathan
Consent and Political Obligation: Locke, Second Treatise of Civil Government
Society and the Individual: Rousseau, The Social Contract
Property, Labour and Alienation: Marx and Engels, The German Ideology
The Minimal State: Nozick, Anarchy, State and Utopia
God and Religion 8.3.2015
The Existence of God: Anselm, Proslogion
The Five Proofs of God: Aquinas, Summa Theologiae
The Problem of Evil: Leibniz, Theodicy
The Argument from Design: Hume, Dialogues concerning Natural Religion
Science and Method 8.5.2015
Four Types of Explanation: Aristotle, Physics
Experimental Methods and True Causes: Bacon, Novum Organum
The Problem of Induction: Hume, Enquiry concerning Human Understanding
Science and Falsifiability: Popper, Conjectures and Refutations
Chance and Crisis in Science: Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
Why did you take the class?
There are many pragmatic reasons to learn and practice philosophy:
Philosophy students have some of the highest LSAT, GRE, and GMAT test scores. Whether this is causal or correlative, I don’t know.
Not all majors are created equally. There are majors which do not improve critical reasoning skills at all (Business, Education, and Communications majors). You can literally earn a degree, but not walk out a smarter human being, despite having memorized things. Note that school is largely about training your mind, not just filling it with stuff. You need the critical reasoning skills to do something with the stuff you’ve filled your mind with, and philosophy helps with this.
Despite how it is joked about, philosophy majors and philosophers do not have a hard time finding a job or rising through the ranks in a company. Philosophy prepares you to think about abstract concepts with careful analysis, and the practice of philosophy requires you to become articulate and precise in your written and spoken communications. These are invaluable skills on the job market.
E.g. anecdote of my own experiences
These reasons are practical in the eyes of most people. This is generally not why philosophers “do” philosophy though. There is another practical reason to do philosophy, although it is not immediately obvious to non-philosopher’s why it is practical. In particular, the best reason to do philosophy is that it is concerning with:
Reasoning about and searching for answers to some of the most important questions humanity has ever faced.
I hope that, in time, this will be the reason you engage in the practice of philosophy as well.
What is philosophy?
Literally, in Greek, the love of wisdom. That might not be a clarifying definition. Unfortunately, I won’t be able to nicely define philosophy for you. I can tell you that “What is philosophy?” is itself a philosophical question that philosophy tries to answer.
In a sense, philosophy is the study of everything. This is the broad definition. This “study of everything” was how philosophy started out, and to some degree, that is still how academia sees it. For example, a “PhD” is a philosophy doctorate. You can get a PhD in a ton of areas, many which don’t seem to be too philosophical at first. But, when you are pushing the boundaries of human understanding and extending the sum of human knowledge in a topic, you are doing philosophy. When you look at the history of the sciences, you will find the seeds and beginnings of those sciences in what was, at the time, considered pure philosophy. Philosophy is the root of many, if not all, studies. Hence, “love of wisdom” and “love of knowledge” might not be too far off. Are you trying to understand the world? That is philosophy in the broad sense. Nothing academic escapes being philosophical in this broad sense.
So, one way to think about philosophy is in its relation to all the other studies and sciences. Now, I said that the sciences can be philosophical. That is true. That’s a very broad definition of philosophy though. Some people prefer a more narrow definition, and we can still offer a narrow one in virtue of philosophy’s relation to all the other studies and sciences.
On this narrow definition, Philosophy, with a capital P, isn’t a standard science (with some unique exceptions). It is the parent of sciences, the foundation for them. Philosophy is the study of things which come before and come after science. Where science is required to making crucial assumptions which science itself cannot validate, that is where philosophy begins. Where science cannot explain a phenomenon that is also where philosophy begins.
Sometimes I like to think of philosophy as the collection of topics which simply can’t be addressed by science. Philosophy is that study of all those big, difficult, and deep questions that require answers before we can begin science or those left over after science. Indeed, when you look at the bleeding edge of academia in almost all topics, even they will admit they have stopped engaging in their standard scientific practices and instead have engaged in philosophy (this is especially obvious for physics).
Sadly, even this narrow definition, of course, is not a good one. Moral psychology, the study of minds and consciousness, physics for the study of being, and numerous other sciences have been hybridized and integrated into what is currently thought of as academic philosophy. When you go to a conference of advanced logic, you’ll find a mixture of philosophers and mathematicians. When you go to a conference for computer ethics and white hat hacking, you’ll find philosophers, hackers, and computer scientists. This is the way of things in academia. Hence, drawing these lines is difficult. As I said before, defining philosophy is not easy.
In any case, I want to give you a great introduction to philosophy. And, so, we’ll be examining some of most famous and most standard kinds of philosophical questions.
Questions like:
What does it mean to be justified in believing something? What does good reasoning look like?
What is reality? What is substance? What does it mean to exist?
What is a mind? How are our minds and bodies related?
What does it mean to be conscious? What does it mean to be free? Are we free?
What is good and bad? What is right and wrong? What is justice?
How do we apply moral theories to case examples in the world? What do problematic examples tell us about the morality?
What counts as an authentic law or government?
What are the concepts and attributes of God, and does God exist?
What is science? What is its purpose, and what are its limits?
What is beauty? How does it relate to the good?
We’ll have a collection of short readings which give rise to and address these questions. Together, we’ll be reading through a history of canonical philosophy texts that are highly regarded in the analytic, Western philosophy tradition. There are other kinds of philosophy, but I have to narrow the scope of this class (which is already extremely broad).
We are trying to survey the landscape of Western philosophy. I’m trying to maximize breadth while maintaining enough depth for you to get your hands dirty in practicing philosophical thinking.
By the end of the course, you should be prepared to take future philosophy classes or study philosophy on your own to some extent.
Cover the syllabus
Knowledge and Certainty
Being philosophical requires that we try to stand back from our lives, our beliefs, and our feelings, and instead thinking as objectively as possible.
Fewer emotions; More reason.
Be reflective.
Be honest and open.
One of the first keys to doing is philosophy is recognizing that each of us could be wrong about anything and everything.
We ought to have humility.
We must accept our fallibility, and finitude.
We are just humans, and we mistakenly believe false propositions and poorly reason all the time. That’s, unfortunately, part of the human condition.
In considering that our beliefs are often mistaken, we might ask ourselves:
Under what conditions ought we believe something?
When are we warranted in believing something?
When are we justified?
Don’t we want our beliefs to be more than simply true by sheer luck or accident?
What are the standards for this justified belief formation?
These kinds of questions are the domain of Epistemology
The study of knowledge
Episteme is the root word here, it means knowledge or understanding.
-ology comes from the root word “logos” would roughly means image or in this case, science or study of.
Hence, study of knowledge.
We are generally thought to “know” or “believe” propositions.
Propositions are statements that have a truth value, they are either true or false.
E.g. It is raining outside.
Propositions are the things we know.
Propositions are true OF the world.
In a sense, we don’t “Know” or “believe” the world, but we know propositions OF or ABOUT the world.
Knowledge versus Opinion: Plato, Republic
Meno – in our unread section
Plato’s systematic views on philosophy are entirely contained in a set of dialogues, basically plays.
Systematic enough that we’re not going to be able to capture his full view on epistemology here. This is just a gateway.
I’m going to try to sketch out some of the highlights of Plato’s systematic philosophy. You can’t really understand what he’s saying without at least minimally approaching these highlights.
In the dialogues, Socrates is generally the mouthpiece of Plato.
Socrates was Plato’s teacher, Plato was Aristotle’s teacher.
Plato has immense respect for Socrates, and that’s why he has Socrates, the character, doing the philosophical work in these dialogues.
Socrates and many Greek philosophers, spent their leisure time and sometimes professional lives speaking in front of audiences. They debated with each other, politely. The art of discussion, persuasion, and sometimes seeking knowledge were at the heart of these gatherings. Socrates spent his time trying to make the world a better place by helping people think better (Knowledge is wisdom).
In the Meno, the character Meno asks:
“How will you enquire…into that which you do not know?...If you find what you want, how will you ever know that this is the thing which you did not know?”
Essentially, if you don’t know something, how do you know when you come to know it? Wouldn’t you already have to know that thing beforehand to judge whether or not you actually came to know something?
Plato has a weird, but brilliant response to this paradox.
Plato argues that knowledge is innate. We simply come to “remember” what we previously forget whenever we are said to “know” something.
This sounds silly, but if you understand the rest of his systematic view, it sounds less silly. Still, most of us probably wouldn’t agree to his view here.
But, also in the Meno, Plato seems to argue for JTB.
Knowledge needs to be something which we have justification for. It can’t be accidental.
JTB – This was the orthodox definition of knowledge in epistemology until the 1960’s. We’re talking about a theory that has stood for thousands of years among history’s greatest minds. It still survives in some ways.
A subject S knows that a proposition P is true if and only if:
P is true, and
S believes that P is true, and
S is justified in believing that P is true
On this view, I (S) know proposition (P) “it is not raining inside” because:
P is true, it is not raining inside
I in fact believe P is true.
I’m also justified in believing it because I’ve looked outside.
I know my eyes are reliable and I can trust my perceptions, etc.
On the other hand, I don’t know that “it is raining in Thailand” right now.
Suppose it were true. If it were true, I still wouldn’t be justified in my belief. That my belief turned out to be correct, that the proposition I believed turned out to be true, is a complete accident.
Essentially, knowledge isn’t accidental.
Gettier Problem is a thought experiment which tries to crack open a fault line in this JTB theory of Plato’s.
Suppose Smith and Jones have applied for a job.
Suppose Smith believes the following propositions:
Jones will get the job
Suppose Smith is justified in believing this proposition because he has evidence from talking with the boss that Jones will get the job, or Smith knows that he’s a bad employee, or he knows that Jones is a better employee.
Jones has 4 coins in his pocket
Suppose Smith is justified in believing this proposition because Jones buys a coke with exactly 4 coins everyday at the soda machine.
A man with 4 coins in his pocket will get the job.
This seems to be justified in virtue of his other first two beliefs.
So, Smith has 3 beliefs. According to JTB, any of these beliefs count as knowledge just in case:
The proposition believed is true, Smith believes it, and the belief is justified.
In these cases, we can see that Smith believes the propositions, and he just justified in believing them. The remaining component for knowledge is whether or not the propositions are true.
Imagine that Smith walks in on the day when it is revealed who got the job and finds that he, Smith, actually got the job. He’s really surprised right? Lo and behold, Smith reaches into his pocket, and he finds 4 coins, by accident. Normally Smith doesn’t keep change on him, but today he accidentally had 4 coins because he got some change from buying a coffee.
Maybe Jones didn’t get the job because he slept with the boss’s wife, even if Jones was the better worker.
Obviously, the first two propositions are false. Hence, Smith didn’t know them.
The third proposition, is true. A man with 4 coins in his pocket did get the job!
This was JTB, and hence, at least on a simple reading of Plato’s view, an instance of knowledge.
Do you really want to say that Smith had knowledge of the proposition that “A man with 4 coins in his pocket with get the job”?
There is something deeply accidental about the justification.
Knowledge is not supposed to be accidental in any way.
Republic Section (our actual reading):
Unlike the Meno, this section isn’t concerned so much with innate knowledge or JTB, but more with the objects of knowledge (as opposed to the objects of opinion).
I’ve already stated the contemporary view of the objects of knowledge, namely propositions. It isn’t obvious that Plato would buy this contemporary definition wholesale. We may be adopting parts of his view and retrofitting it with more clear concepts.
Philosopher king/statesman.
For Plato, philosophy is deeply wrapped up in exploring reality (the good and the beautiful, etc.) and in statesmanship.
You want your President, Judges, and Legislators to be knowledgeable, right?
You want them to “do the right thing” or seek justice. Who else will know what to do, or what is right, or what is just besides a philosopher? That is literally what a philosopher tries to find, seeks out, and would try to implement in a government.
Wholes and Parts
Significant ontology problems
Ship of Theseus
In this case, the philosopher is said to love “the whole” of wisdom, not just a part.
Faculties
Knowledge and Opinion are different
Is knowledge a faculty?
Belief or belief formation might be.
What is a faculty?
“Being” (what is) is the sphere or subject-matter of knowledge. Knowledge is JTB in the nature of being.
For Plato, the world comes before knowledge. We’ll say that ontology has primacy over epistemology for Plato. What “is” comes before “knowledge.” We know the world (or we know proposition about the world – you need the world there first before you can know anything).
Knowledge and Opinion are different faculties which have different subject-matters.
Opinions can be very valuable. Knowledge is often this high standard of justification for a belief. I think someone can have a justified belief that isn’t quite knowledge.
E.g. I believe I won’t get a speeding ticket on the way home.
Given my past driving record, many years of driving, and my experience driving the roads in this area, I feel comfortable making that claim.
That’s an opinion in a way. It’s probably true. I’m reliable in my prediction on this one almost always. This isn’t knowledge, but it is still valuable. It is still a part of being a human epistemic agent that I worry some folks reading Plato would be too quick to dismiss.
Plato gives us some of this grey area to work with.
Opinion isn’t the darkness of ignorance, but it isn’t the light of knowledge.
It is likely the case that for Plato, this “light” is a reference to ‘the Good’ possibly. A brightness that shines on everything. The Good illuminates the world for us.
Much of our epistemic lives are based on informed opinions. They aren’t quite knowledge, but they aren’t useless or somehow not related to “being” as the subject-matter.
Plato has something very specific in mind when he’s talking about “being” here though (forms). We need to try to appreciate it, but we don’t have to buy it!
Forms
Plato has the concept of F-ness. The form of things.
These forms are eternal, unchanging, heavenly bodies or something. They are metaphysical entities. They are the purest “forms” of things.
Beauty
Consider “beauty” or for F-ness, “beauty”-ness.
Things are said to be beautiful to some degree, but not beautiful absolutely.
What is “beauty” absolutely?
That is the form of beauty. It is everything, entirely, and exactly beautiful.
All other things which are said to be beautiful “partake” of the form of beauty.
They are mere imitations of the form of beauty in a way.
The only have an ounce of beauty in them, so they can’t be absolute beauty.
All beautiful things have in common this relationship to the “form” of beauty.
Redness
Consider the F-ness of red, or “redness”
Things which are red aren’t red absolutely. They have that F-ness, and they partake of the form of red.
Only the form of red is red absolutely and purely.
The forms are a foreign concept to us. It is a strong point of view in metaphysics.
The subject-matter of knowledge is “absolute” being. And absolute being, for Plato, just are the forms. They are the absolutes. So, the forms are the subject-matter of knowledge for Plato.
Opinion, however, does not have “forms” as the subject matter because opinion isn’t about the absolute, but only qualified things.
This doesn’t make any sense to me. Even if I bought the concept of forms, I don’t buy that opinion wouldn’t have the Forms as their subject-matter.
I want to say we can have knowledge of particular things, not just forms. A lot of what I call knowledge, Plato seems to call opinions.
I know this chair is beneath me. There is a form of chair, and I can knowledge of it. But, can I have knowledge, according to Plato, that this chair is beneath me? That is qualified being, a particular, and being which isn’t absolute. It doesn’t seem like Plato is able to say I know that, but I definitely think I know that.
A lot of what I call opinions, Plato doesn’t even address.
New Foundations for Knowledge: Descartes, Meditations
Plato and Aristotle (alongside the Catholic integration of these views through Augustin and Aquinas) dominated philosophy and philosophy of religion in Europe until Descartes, who is the marker of the beginning of the “early modern age.” It is the beginning of new thought, and what will eventually become the Renaissance.
I said before that Plato thought Ontology (being and reality) came before Epistemology. Descartes reverses this. Descartes, famously, puts Epistemology before Ontology. What we know, or knowing, or being conscious or aware, takes precedence in a way, over what exists.
Plato has a kind of built in objectivity. The foundation of knowledge is the world around us.
Descartes has a kind of built in subjectivity. The foundation of knowledge is with each of us. Within our minds.
This is a radical shift.
Descartes wrote a series of Meditations. In these meditations he explores a new definition of knowledge, and higher standard than Plato ever imagined.
Why did he do this?
Descartes was just worried about how he had been taught philosophy. He believed that much of what he’d learned about Plato and Aristotle’s teachings were doubtable or doubtful.
Descartes hates being wrong. He wants to only believe what he can be absolutely certain of, with no doubt.
Descartes employees a new METHOD of doing philosophy. He enters a stance of radical doubt. He wants knowledge, and nothing less. And, for Descartes, Knowledge is a very lofty goal.
Knowledge:
Belief in a proposition which cannot be doubted, can be believed with certainty. It is an apodictic belief. The proposition in question must be indubitable.
2+2=4
Nobody could ever convince you otherwise. No matter what happens, no matter what you see or learn, you will never be able to believe otherwise. You know this is true with certainty.
Certainty vs Confidence or Reliability
It is one thing to be Confident in a belief or being a reliable believer.
I believe the sun will rise tomorrow.
The sun has risen for at least hundreds of millions of years, so it seems like a reliable claim to say it will rise again tomorrow. I’m very confident in this proposition. I strongly believe it.
Is it certain that the sun will come up tomorrow?
No. It might explode today. That’s unlikely though.
I can’t be certain about the sun rising in the same way that I can be certain that 2+2=4.
It is another thing to be certain.
If we can be certain about a proposition, we cannot doubt it.
It is necessarily true. It is never possibly false. There is no possible world or conceivable world in which it is false.
Certainty is a very strong standard to have as the foundation for knowledge.
The problem with such a strong foundation is that it turns into skepticism.
Skepticism is applied idealism. You take a high standard, you apply it, and then you are disappointed that the world or your experience, or your beliefs, or whatever it is does not live up to your ideal, high standard.
Descartes Method and Doubt
External world
Matrix, Dark City, The Truman Show
Can we know this with certainty?
Nope.
Skeptic. If it’s doubtable, then we don’t know it. We kind of bracket it or throw it away. We can’t trust it.
Is this really Descartes intention? Did he ever really doubt here? Maybe. I don’t know.
What about God?
Descartes doubt is considered a heresy at the time of this writing. He would have been put to death for not eventually demonstrating that he was certain of God’s existence. He was so worried about some of his writing that he published it anonymously. Good thing for him he “found” a path of certainty to God.
Descartes basically a blank slate. Nothing is known for certain yet. He needs a foundation to build upon.
Descartes might think a demon could trick him into believing 2+2=4, that it somehow is still doubtable. Literally, there’s nothing for him.
This seems like it is obviously wrong though.
Cogito Ergo Sum: I think, therefore I am. He knows he exists because he knows he is thinking. He knows he is thinking because…he’s fucking thinking it.
He has his foundation. He has at least one thing he is certain about. He cannot doubt it.
It’s also clear here how epistemology comes before ontology. Everything that exists is doubted to exist. All propositions are doubted. All he has left is a method for trying to find beliefs. He found a belief, and that belief eventually leads him to know something about existence. Belief comes before existence for Descartes.
Radical move in epistemology. Still continues for some folks.
From here, Descartes does a really shitty job of applying his method, and he magically finds his way into being certain about the existence of the external world and God. His work is finished. Life can go on. And, Descartes keeps his head out of the guillotine.
Post-Descartes:
Husserl, Heidegger, Phenomenology, Study of Consciousness, Continental Philosophy are extensions of Descartes work.
They too doubt the existence of the external world.
They do not, however, doubt that they are perceiving. They know they are experiencing something consciously, and that can be known with certainty. Whether or not we live a Matrix though, that we can’t know with certainty.
Their work is basically the study of perception and consciousness while bracketing those doubtable beliefs like the external world.
Foundations of Knowledge
Plato and Aristotle’s epistemic foundation was ontology, reality, being, and substance
Descartes’ foundation is a method which calls everything into doubt, and what emerges is a kind of solipsistic skepticism. But, he knows he is thinking, therefore he at least know something. From there, he thinks we can chain together a tree of beliefs which he knows with certainty.
Mathematics and logic seem to work like that. But, honestly, not much else.
We can be certain that we are thinking, conscious, and perceiving things. Not much else though.
This foundation question is a big one. There are various problems with it. There is a famous regress that we should look at just to understand how difficult it is to provide a foundation of knowledge.
Sextus Empiricus and Agrippa, in response to Plato, offer a problem for us.
Regress
Suppose that P is some piece of knowledge. Then P is a justified true belief.
The only thing that can justify P is another statement – let's call it P1; so P1 justifies P.
But if P1 is to be a satisfactory justification for P, then we must know that P1.
But for P1 to be known, it must also be a justified true belief.
That justification will be another statement - let's call it P2; so P2 justifies P1.
But if P2 is to be a satisfactory justification for P1, then we must know that P2 is true
But for P2 to count as knowledge, it must itself be a justified true belief.
That justification will in turn be another statement - let's call it P3; so P3 justifies P2.
and so on, ad infinitum.
How do you solve a regress?
Don’t need a solution. Just be okay with it.
Plato would hate the idea. They found regresses to be irrational.
We are finite creatures, with finite minds, and we can’t believe an infinite number of beliefs. If the regress poses for us justification in terms of an infinite number of beliefs, then we can’t have knowledge as humans (even if an infinite mind, like God’s, could have knowledge).
This is undesirable. We want to say we have knowledge, right?
Note, this regress works for justified belief which isn’t even knowledge as well.
Foundationalism
Eventually, you hit rock bottom. You hit a “basic” or “foundational” belief. It is the kind of belief which is self-justified or doesn’t need any further justification.
Beliefs we are certain about might be such a foundation.
Can all your beliefs be justified this way though?
I don’t think it is easy to justify most of my beliefs based solely upon apodictic beliefs like “I think therefore I am” and 2+2=4.
The foundational beliefs likely require some which we aren’t even certain about.
What are those?
Why should we think they basic?
If you can even ask “why are they basic beliefs?” aren’t you just asking for a justification for that basic belief (a belief which by definition we already know doesn’t need a justification).
Seems rough.
Coherentism
Alternatively, the chain of justificatory reasoning may not debranch all the way to a root set of foundational beliefs, but rather the chain forms a loop.
Perhaps all your beliefs justify each other.
This isn’t just making sure your beliefs are logically consistent with each other.
Your beliefs would need to provide a reasonable account for each other.
Circularity
Sounds like circular reasoning. It looks like.
Why should we agree to any particular set of beliefs as behind Coherent?
Still seems like we are asking for a kind of justification after the fact. Like Coherentism still doesn’t solve the problem.
The Senses as the Basis of Knowledge: Locke, Essay concerning Human Understanding
Both Plato and Descartes have appealed to innate knowledge or innate ideas.
For Plato, it was about remembering the knowledge locked inside our souls. That’s how he defeats Meno’s paradox. Plato’s view is radical in that all knowledge is innate.
For Descartes, the concept of infinite perfection is an innate idea. One which we’re born with. One which all minds already have, before all perception.
How much of our knowledge is innate in Descartes eyes is debatable.
This is really the beginning of an important debate about “how we acquire knowledge”
Empiricism vs Rationalism
Some people think we were born with at least some innate knowledge. Locke doesn’t agree to innatism at all. In his rejection of innatism, Locke became one of the fathers of empiricism.
Empiricism is the theory that knowledge is the result of reflective thinking about our perceptions and sensations. Knowledge can only be acquired when there is a world to experience.
On Locke’s empiricism, you don’t know what an apple is without having used your senses in some way.
Whether by someone telling you about it, you heard them.
Looking at a picture of one or looking at a real apple.
Smelling them, tasting them. Comparing them to other fruits you’ve tasted.
Feeling them, or comparing them to other things you’ve felt.
Locke thinks empiricism holds for not just propositions about apples, but all propositions about all things.
Tabula Rasa – Blank Slate
We have no innate ideas.
Modern neuroscience denies this.
Locke didn’t have access to our scientific knowledge.
He still has an important point of view to think about though. He forces us to ask questions about the knowledge acquisition and the limits of knowledge.
How do we fill that blank slate with material?
Experience, sensation, perception
By experiencing the world, we come to know things.
By thinking about our experiences, we come to know things.
According to empiricism, experience is the only gateway to knowledge.
Innate principles are often thought to be universally consented to.
That is, at least in Locke’s view, innate principles are the kinds of ideas which we all share from birth. We all have access to them. We all would universally agree to these ideas if they were innate. If we all knew that some proposition, then there wouldn’t be any disagreement about that proposition.
He’s overstating innate ideas here. He’s making it look worse than it is.
He indirectly argues against innate principles by arguing directly against the notion of universal agreement.
First, It is completely unobvious how universally consent logically implies innate principles.
E.g. Just because everyone thinks the Earth is flat doesn’t mean that everyone has innate knowledge that the Earth is flat. After all, the Earth isn’t flat.
Essentially, just because everyone agrees to something doesn’t mean that that something is true or that anyone has knowledge of it.
This is argument is correct.
Note, however, that this doesn’t mean there isn’t innate knowledge. It is really only an argument against the relationship between universal agreement and innate knowledge.
Second, Locke claims there is nothing which is universally agreed upon. So, even if his previous argument doesn’t work, this second criticism is a backup kind of argument.
Idiots and children to not agree to even the most obvious truths.
E.g. Law of excluded middle, P v ~P
If anything could be innate, surely this would be. It’s one of the most basic laws in logic.
If this were an innate principle, then there would in fact be a universal agreement to it.
Unfortunately, there hasn’t always been, and probably still isn’t a universal agreement on it.
Thus, this isn’t an innate principle
Note, despite what Locke seems to think, neither of these criticisms still seem to shut the door on innate ideas. All it does is lay the smack down on universal agreement’s relationship to innate ideas.
Locke’s Empiricism is about filling the Blank Slate, or furnishing our empty minds through reflection over experience.
Locke agrees we have innate capacities to think, even though He doesn’t think we have any innate knowledge.
I think he weasels some innate knowledge in here, but he vehemently denies it.
There seems to be something tricky here. I worry that being able to reflect at all requires some kinds of knowledge. Reflection and reasoning seem imply we have some innate knowledge.
Innate Knowledge Defended: Leibniz, New Essays on Human Understanding
Leibniz was a rationalist who influenced philosophy as much as Locke has (plus, Leibniz invented calculus at the same time as Isaac Newton).
Leibniz responds to Locke’s criticism, defending the rationalist claim to innate knowledge.
Leibniz completely agrees with the claim that the vast majority of human knowledge requires reflecting over empirical investigation, sensation, and perception.
Leibniz denies that empirical knowledge acquisition is the complete picture.
Something is missing, a key, necessary ingredient, and Leibniz thinks that ingredient is innate knowledge.
Necessary and Sufficient Conditions
Let us suppose the proposition “Bob is a bachelor”
The necessary conditions for that proposition to be true are:
Bob is a male
Bob is unmarried.
If either one of those conditions aren’t met, then the proposition “Bob is a bachelor” is false. These are necessary conditions for the truth of the proposition that Bob is a bachelor.
The fact that Bob is a bachelor is a sufficient condition for us to know that Bob is male. So, given the truth that Bob is a bachelor, we know the truth of the propositions that “Bob is male” and “Bob is unmarried.”
A bowl with lettuce, tomato, mushrooms, and green pepper makes a salad.
That collection of ingredients is a sufficient condition for us calling it a salad.
Are those ingredient all necessary conditions for making a salad?
No. you can have a salad without mushrooms. Mushrooms are not a necessary condition for having a salad, although they might be part of a sufficient condition for having a salad.
Let’s say all salads have lettuce in them. If so, the lettuce is a necessary condition. If you only have one leaf of lettuce in a bowl, do you want to call it a salad? Probably not. If you think not, then you think that a single leaf of lettuce is not sufficient for having a salad, even if you think it is necessary for having a salad.
For Leibniz, empirical investigation alone is not sufficient for acquiring knowledge.
Reflecting over your perceptions might be necessary for acquiring particular kinds of knowledge, but he doesn’t think it is sufficient.
Some truths, like mathematical truths, might be reachable without resorting to experience entirely. Reflecting on necessary and universal truths might not be empirical. They could be innate.
Necessary and Contingent Truths
Either something (whether a state of affairs or a proposition about it) is impossible or possible.
For a proposition to be impossible is to say it is necessarily false. There is no world in which it true.
A married bachelor
A square circle
That my apple is not an apple at the same time in the same respect.
Within the realm of possible propositions, there are two classes:
Necessary truths
True in all possible worlds. Inconceivable for it to be false.
2+2=4, A red apple is a red apple. Either this object is an apple or it isn’t.
Necessary truths, obviously are possibly true. They are the kinds of possible truth which can’t possibly be false.
Contingent truths
Not true in all possible worlds. If it is true in our world, there is some coherent hypothetical world in which it is not true.
I wasn’t late to class today.
It’s possible I could have hit some traffic that would alter the truth of this proposition.
It’s possible for me to be late.
Our world is composed a collection of necessary and contingent truths.
Leibniz thinks necessary truths are very special, and perhaps some of them are innate to us. Perhaps some of them can be known without any experience at all.
In response to the Locke’s claims for idiots and children, Leibniz claims that to bring up innate ideas require diligent attention. It might already be imprinted in the mind, but you have to consciously attend to that imprint before you can use it.
Children may have the law of excluded middle innately imprinted in their minds already, but sometimes they fail to pay attention to what is imprinted there. Children need more practice.
Leibniz thinks a mind is like a block of marble rather than Blank Slate.
Our minds are sculpted from marble. Inside a block of marble, you’ll find innate colors and shapes and patterns. Likewise, inside our minds, you’ll find some innate ideas. Sometimes it takes reflection over our experiences to chisel the marble away and reveal the innate ideas or innate marble patterns that there were all along.
Leibniz thinks the other animals are “simple empirics” which are aware of particular objects, but don’t have the abstraction and demonstration skills of humans.
Part of Leibniz’ theory here is about differentiating humans from the other animals. Showing how we are special.
Can animals have knowledge? I don’t see why not.
Humans are special in that we have access to the necessary truths. We know when we’ve stumbled upon a universal truth.
Should we really believe no other animal can do this?
The higher animals have been known to get the answers to basic addition problems correct.
Is this just learned behavior without real understanding of the math?
Or, is this actually an example of animals understanding math and universals.
Is it possible to have knowledge without being aware that you have knowledge? Maybe animals aren’t aware that they understand basic addition, but the rest of their inferences and the way they live their lives or play games with us requires they have a kind innate, subconscious set of beliefs about basic addition.
Against Scepticism: G.E. Moore, A Defence of Common Sense
I’m gonna shit on Moore and his argument for a bit here, but then I’m going to explain how we can make the most of Moore’s argument. There is a way to salvage it.
Moore just straight up denies that common sense claims like “there is an external world” can be doubted. He thinks he knows these common sense propositions with certainty. I find that to be a radical claim at this point in history of philosophy.
He’s being arrogant and almost ridiculous.
His case is too simple.
He gives no direct argument for it.
He just thinks doubters are silly, and he cries out to them: “nananabooboo.”
Moore is oddly talks about ‘knowing what it means for the Earth to exist’ as opposed to ‘knowing that the earth exists.’
It might be the case that Moore has swapped the skeptics argument here for a weak one. This wasn’t the argument that the skeptic was giving in the first place. Even if it was, Moore fails to recognize the resources available to the skeptic to offer a more challenging criticism. Moore does a poor job of addressing a charitable interpretation of the skeptic’s real argument.
Moore is engaging in a strawman here. He has not been charitable at all to his opponent’s view, nor as he even tried to effectively explain his opponent’s view.
Strawman fallacy:
When you refute a dumb argument that your opponent didn’t make in the first place, but act like you refuted your opponent’s actual argument. It makes it seem as if you refuted your opponent’s argument, but you didn’t at all.
That’s what Moore has done here.
That said, I also think that Moore has offered Meno’s paradox from the beginning. He says:
“It is obvious that we cannot even raise the question how what we do understand by it is to be analysed, unless we do understand it.”
So, Moore might just be begging the question here. He might be blindly asserting the conclusion he wants in his assumptions. That’s a huge fallacy.
If he’s not begging the question, then he has introduced Meno’s paradox.
Moore is an elitist who thinks he writes cleverly and clearly. He does a shitty job for someone as cocky as he is. For example, he talks about being certain here. I’m not convinced he really knows what that means. He’s overstepped. His argument could be a lot stronger if he toned down his certainty into mere confidence. Confidence is enough for justification given how his argument operates.
The best interpretation of his argument, which isn’t well articulated on his part goes like this:
I know this pencil exists.
If the skeptic’s principles are correct, then I cannot know of the existence of this pencil.
Therefore, the skeptic’s principles (at least one) must be incorrect.
Moore thinks that if we were to find ourselves as a fork in the road, having to choose between knowing that the pencil exists or the skeptic’s principles, then we should choose “knowing the pencil exists.” It is best to interpret Moore as actually claiming he is more confident in the pencil’s existence than the skeptic’s principles. The decision procedure here is to select between mutually exclusive propositions based upon which proposition he has more confidence. Knowledge of the pencil’s existence will only later be the result of this confidence defeating skepticism.
Reading for Philosophy:
Mark your books as you read them.
You should especially mark the sections of a text that you want to quote in your papers. The major moves and definitions that an author makes, you want to provide their exact words in your paper, that way you can show you aren’t twisting their words or meaning, and that you really have mastered what they are trying to say.
Take notes as you read (and/or write in the margins)
This will help you digest what you are reading. This shit is complex.
Read secondary sources, summaries, and analyses about your primary source
Don’t reinvent the wheel, but give credit where it is due.
Nothing reasonable you say will be new, but that’s fine: this an Intro class.
Right now, you just need to get your hands dirty and dig deep.
Form your own summary; be able to explain the gist of the argument in an elevator speech
Outline their argument. Understand the structure of it.
As you can fill in that summary, looking at the inferential moves, assumptions, and consequences of the authors argument, you’re going to find problems.
WRITE THOSE FUCKING PROBLEMS DOWN. EXPLORE THEM!
There are 4 standard, general kinds of problems in philosophical dissection of an argument or text:
Show where giant, perhaps unreasonable, assumptions are made by an author.
If the author shows that X leads to Y which leads to Z, that might be all fine and dandy. But, why should we accept X in the first place? There may be major assumptions, like T, U, and V, to get to X that we shouldn’t buy.
Show the gaps in the author’s reasoning
If the author thinks X leads to Y, but it isn’t obvious how and the author doesn’t give any reasons, then point out that gap between X and Y.
Show the author’s absurd inferences
If the author think P leads to Q, but you can demonstrate that P leads to ~Q (and therefore can’t lead to Q), then demonstrate the flaw absurdity of their inference
Show the intolerable consequences and implications of accepting the author’s argument or conclusions
Maybe the author gives a valid argument for P, back up by some great set of premises A, B, and C. Maybe all the inferences look fine, and maybe you can’t immediately find any fault in the groundwork and assumptions (that isn’t to say there aren’t any), but perhaps what follows from P is intolerable to your intuitions or to other arguments you can give. Maybe P leads to S, and S is really bad, or something we shouldn’t accept for some other set of reasons.
Your papers can’t simply be you regurgitating what other people have said about a topic. I need your thoughts and your voice. I worry you’ve “mailed in” some of your posts, but you won’t get away with that on your paper.
Being and Reality
Ontology
Study of Being and Reality
It is still the combined study of physics and metaphysics (even the book implies otherwise). Philosophers were some of the first physicists and metaphysicists.
Physics
Scientists
Philosophers still use this information
E.g.
In our everyday discussions of philosophical problems. If you don’t have an understanding of gravity, you’re gonna have hard time with meaningful analysis of any anything which assumes it.
Practical reasoning, ethics, etc.
Quantum mechanics, for example, may have something to say about free will.
String theory, or additional dimensions, or even alternative universes are important considerations in ethics, logic, and metaphysics
Many believe this science requires metaphysical commitments
Metaphysics
Philosophers
“After” physics.
Beyond
“That’s so meta”
Identity, time, types, kinds, categories, substances, particulars and universals, monads and compounds, relationships, sets, parts and wholes, properties, objects and subjects, causality, etc.
“Being qua being” – the nature of existence itself.
The Allegory of the Cave: Plato, Republic
Aristotle was perhaps on of the inventors of what has become modern science, and he was also the first to systematize the study of metaphysics. Aristotle wasn’t the first. Plato did it before him (often, Aristotle is responding to Plato). That said, even Plato wasn’t the first. There are pre-Socratics and religious texts which definitely provide ontological theories, etc.
Forms
Explain, e.g. beauty, deskness, and redness.
Forms are the essence of particulars
The Good
The noble form
Like the sun, it is the light which shines upon everything – making everything else intelligible, knowable, and real.
Draw a silly picture on the board.
The Good is the basis of doing philosophy. Ontology and epistemology, for Plato, are deeply entrenched together (and, “what is” comes before “what we know” for Plato).
The Divided Line
Analogy:
Particulars:Forms::Shadows:Originals
Ordinary, everyday objects are imitations of forms. They partake of the forms. They exist solely in virtue of the form. You can’t have a shadow of something without the original to produce the shadow. Same with forms and particulars.
The Allegory of the Cave
Ascent of the minds, from Cave-dwelling-prisoner/slave to philosopher.
What are you going to say: “it’s elitist”?
Try arguing against it without engaging in philosophy. Philosophy is the root of how we answer questions, you can’t escape doing it.
Summary:
We are all stuck in a cave, as prisoners and slaves to ignorance.
Our world, the ordinary world of particulars, is like the cave.
We have fire (it ain’t the Good, what is it?) that illuminates things in the cave.
We see particulars like the cave-dwellers see the shadows.
We are enslaved to the shadows in the way that non-philosophers are bound to only have a minimal understanding of the particulars around them.
We do not see the originals casting the shadow, and non-philosophers don’t see the forms of the particulars.
Again, only a philosopher who sees the forms has real knowledge for Plato.
If we only look at the shadows, the particulars of the world, then we only form second-hand opinions and not real knowledge.
The ordinary, everyday world of particulars is a prison-cave. Our minds are trapped by it.
This is kind of Matrix-y
Our goal is to free ourselves. Importantly, freedom means not just leaving our chains behind, but leaving the cave. We need ascend out of the cave, out of the ordinary world of particulars, into the world of the real and the universals, the world of the forms.
The goal is to become philosophers with knowledge, not mere shadow-based opinion.
Particulars are grasped by our senses, but the forms are grasped by our intellects.
Emerging from the Cave
When we first exit the cave, we are almost blinded by the brightness of everything.
(It’s so beautiful and good!)
At first, we can only look at reflections in pools of water.
Reflections still aren’t as good as looking at the real forms, but they are still a step closer than shadows.
Reflections are an intermediate step, probably mathematics. Helping us think about universals rather than particulars.
Mathematics holds a place of esteem in philosophy above the empirical sciences, but it is also the step-child, since some believe it almost like game of deductions about mere numbers (that the contents of the study aren’t important enough in and of themselves).
Mathematics has a beauty to it, but it is perhaps too obviously instrumental in value to some folks.
Eventually, we can see the light of the stars and heavenly bodies (the forms).
Yay, we are philosophers now.
Finally, we will eventually be able to see the sun (the Good).
The pinnacle of understanding.
The ultimate source of truth and reality.
All other things are illuminated by it.
Individual Substance: Aristotle, Categories
Aristotle makes fun of Plato a lot, and rejects significant Platonic concepts. They still agree on a hell of a lot though. Aristotle is also an essentialist, but doesn’t go to the extremes that Plato does (although, Aristotle is still going to be an extremist to modern, ordinary eyes).
Aristotle has his own conception of metaphysics and reality
Aristotle primary disagreement with Plato in this arena seems to spark from a grammatical shift between subjects and predicates, and taking sides on which has primacy.
Substance and Quality
What does it mean “to be an X?”
What does it mean to be a horse?
Doesn’t it need a certain range of colors? Or not?
What if I cut off a leg?
What if I gave it horns?
What it lacked internal organs?
What if it is made the sounds of a whale instead?
Are there intellectual and personality aspects of a horse?
What if they didn’t behave like we normally thought of as a horse?
How do we know when one species ends and another begins?
Individual substances, particulars, are the units of being
They exist in their own right, by themselves, and in a way, independently.
They are the subjects and predicates.
Predicates, Properties, Qualities
Beauty, redness, deskness
On this view, predicates are dependent upon subjects. Predicates are second to subjects.
The can’t exist on their own. This is an outright disagreement with the Forms.
It doesn’t have to be though. I don’t see why Aristotle couldn’t accept the forms, but simply keep them as secondary.
Individual substances can change. They can “come into being” in a special way. Their status of being is special in the ability to change and still “be themselves”.
If redness becomes blue, it’s no longer red.
There are shades of red though.
Can receive contraries (be one thing at time X, and the opposite predicate at time X+1)
Must be “of” an individual substance
Essentials and Accidentals
To be a species of something requires a set of essentials.
Horseness has some essential features
Horses all have horseness.
Horseness may be a collection of essential predicates or properties or qualities.
But some horses have certain accidental qualities while others don’t.
Universal essences
Like forms, but they don’t exist on their own. They exist in the individual substances.
Individuals have primacy over universals for Aristotle. This is due to a grammatical shift in subject/predicate.
Note, however, that Aristotle and Plato are both deeply concerned with individual and universal.
They are both concerned with change, being, coming being, the eternal, and the unchangeable/immutable.
Being and Involvement: Martin Heidegger, Being and Time
This work might sound like gibberish to you. Like we’re wasting our time. Please don’t make the mistake of thinking that’s all it is. I did that once. I thought this was stupid, useless, and impractical. Only years later did I realize that I was ignorant and arrogant in dismissing it.
We only have so much time in this class, so I’ve had to skip huge sections of the history of metaphysics here. If we had time, we would especially spend some time investigating Kant’s critique (he’s famous for forcing radical shifts in many branches of philosophy, but he’s also very hard to understand – he’s quite systematic).
Much of metaphysics between Aristotle and Kant focused on “describing the reality as it is in itself.” That is the ordinary way of thinking of reality.
This sounds mystical and deep, almost fluffy and useless.
How do we know “what is?”
That “knowing” part is where consciousness comes into play, and our consciousness might somehow be a part of exists and how it exists and how it appears to us.
Kant gave us reason to believe that how we are conscious of things is part of understand what those things are.
Consciousness might be intertwined with reality itself.
Heidegger agrees with Kant (in a very strong way perhaps) that “how we see or understand” reality shapes reality, in a sense.
The Kantian shift was radical, and in conjunction with Descartes (and Husserl’s) views, we see a new movement emerge in philosophy called Phenomenology, which really came into a full-formed maturity with Heidegger.
Being and Time is one of those philosophical works will last a thousand years. It is a turning point in human thought. This work isn’t normally taught, but I think you deserve to see it. It’s that important.
Being and Time is, frankly, unintuitive to many analytic philosophers.
Besides the horrible writing style of continental philosophers, this work is one of the major fault lines dividing continental and analytic traditions.
It’s really hard to understand; those Germans, amiright?
Heidegger is making a radical shift like Kant and Descartes did, and he’s carrying us past the gateway of phenomenology (opened by Husserl) into a new kind of philosophical science of consciousness.
Heidegger has built his own little language here, neologisms and portmanteau’s, which the German language is adept at doing.
That said, once you get into it, you’ll find it is remarkably intuitive.
Hopefully, you’ll have some “ah-ha!” moments where you say to yourself, “I’ve experienced that before, I know what he’s talking about!”
Forgot to mention with Descartes: A priori vs. A posteriori
(lit. "from the earlier") vs (lit. "from the latter")
Rationalism vs. Empiricism
Heidegger’s work focuses on the a posteriori, imho, but not in the way that other empiricists do so.
Heidegger fucking hated standard science and technology. Also, he was a Nazi. Brilliant in some ways. Sad in others.
Here’s the gateway:
Descartes put epistemology before ontology. He had this radical doubt, and he tried to find what he could be certain about. He failed.
Along comes this mathematician turned philosopher, Husserl, who opens the gateway into phenomenology further. Husserl wants to study what we can be certain about in consciousness. He wants to know what consciousness is like for all conscious beings. Husserl “brackets” those things which Descartes doubted, and sets them aside.
Heidegger is Husserl’s star pupil, and Heidegger just gives up on the certainty issue. He’s just fascinated by Husserl’s internal investigations of consciousness.
Importantly, Heidegger takes the Cartesian epistemology before ontology, and decides that we should have been doing ontology all along.
What we are “conscious of” just is reality.
In a sense, he thinks he is reversing philosophy back to the ontology has having primacy over epistemology stance, or something like it. Like he’s using Descartes to switch back to Aristotle.
Whether we are scientifically and objectively speaking living in a Matrix, Heidegger doesn’t care. He cares about the study of consciousness from a subjective, personal perspective.
What’s it like to be a conscious human?
What are the ways in which we experience consciousness and think about our consciousness?
So, again, phenomenology is about ontology, but that ontology isn’t concerned with the normal physical substances of the world, or forms, or any of that….it’s only concerned with what we are conscious of, and how we see the world.
Thus, the subjectivity in Kant’s argument is manifest in Heidegger’s phenomenology.
Vitally, Heidegger distinguishes Ontic from Ontological
Ontic
It is the descriptive characteristics of a particular thing and the "plain facts" of its existence.
What is ontic is what makes something what it is.
Empirical science
Perhaps Aristotle’s Substance fits here
It is the objective, external, independent, facts of what a thing is.
It is the usual metaphysical explanation of thing.
The ontic just isn’t that important to Heidegger.
This is what we usually mean by ontology in analytic philosophy. It is what metaphysics is thought to be about.
Heidegger was a on a mission to destroy metaphysics. He hates the ontic. He think it isn’t real philosophy.
Ontological
When the nature, or meaningful structure of existence is at issue.
When you questioning what it even means to exist or be, rather than pointing out the plains facts of something, that’s when you are doing real ontology in Heidegger’s view.
Ontology focuses on the formal study of Being.
Thus, something that is ontological is concerned with understanding and investigating Being, the ground of Being, or the concept of Being itself.
This “being qua being” or study of being in itself is the real punch that Aristotle delivers in his metaphysics, but we didn’t have time to look at it. Heidegger is bringing us back to this.
For an individual discussing the nature of "being", the ontological could refer to one's own first-person, subjective, phenomenological experience of being.
This is really at the heart of what Heidegger is doing.
Subjectivity of Phenomenology, “Thrown-into-the-world-ness” or “Throwness,” and Existentialism
This first-personal investigation of being and consciousness is just what Phenomenology is about.
Instead of trying to give objective explanations, definitions of categories and substances, the study of essences and accidentals, etc., this study goes entirely down the subjective path.
Phenomenology begins, in a sense, with each of us being “thrown into the world” as conscious entities.
We didn’t choose to be thrown into the world, we just find ourselves in it. We find ourselves being aware. It is our plight.
We are the kinds of beings who are aware, and especially self-aware, and that’s special. It’s what allows us to do philosophy in Heidegger’s view.
We are the kinds of beings worried about “being” and the meaning of being, and about our being.
This concern with our own existence is a root issue in Phenomenology, and because of that, some people say that Heidegger is also one of the fathers of existentialism in academic philosophy.
Dasein
Some stuff just doesn’t translate nicely, and this is one of those words.
It is better for us to define it and just use the word…there is no corresponding single word in English for it.
Dasein is translated as "being-there" or "being-here" (da combines in its meaning "here" and "there", excluding the spatial-relational distinction made by the English words; Sein is the infinitive, "to be").
Heidegger uses Dasein as a gerund synonym for "human being" or "human entity” which is conscious, finds itself in a familiar world, and in a mood.
Heidegger does not want to get tied up with overused and ambiguous words such as "person," "consciousness," "soul," or "spirit," so Dasein is a new way of approaching something all of those other words point towards, but without the connotations.
Dasein is the starting point of Heidegger's ontology; Dasein is what being thrown into the world is like as a human.
What makes a being a Dasein is as follows:
Dasein is a being whose being is an issue for itself;
Every Dasein has an a priori sense of "mineness," or being one's self;
Dasein is always thrown into the world, meaning it finds itself within a world, meaning no Dasein has ever been decontextualized or “without a world.”
We are all world-bound, submerged, entangled, and engaged with our surroundings through care, concern, and moods.
Dasein has various modes of being-in-the-world, which are the subject of much of Heidegger's analysis in Being and Time.
Dasein also has unique capacities for language, intersubjective communication, and detached reasoning.
Furthermore, average humans have a pre-ontological (general intuitive sense of being) understanding of being insofar as they understand what things are and that they are e.g. "My dog is brown" or "Today is Sunday."
Heidegger believed that this pre-reflective understanding of being, that which determines entities as entities,[15] helps constitute our unique existence as human beings, thus the coinage of "Dasein."
You might, for instance, imagine that a conscious being could have started out doing phenomenology and ontological thinking…But, not us humans. We all start out in this primitive, pre-ontological starting place. It takes work to get to the point where we can do philosophy.
Being-in-the-world (Co-term for Dasein)
Being-in-the-world is Heidegger's replacement for terms such as subject, object, consciousness, and world.
For him, the split of things into subject/object, as we find in the Western tradition and even in our language, must be overcome.
All consciousness is consciousness of something, that there is no consciousness, as such, cut off from an object (be it the matter of a thought or of a perception).
Nor are there objects without some consciousness beholding or being involved with them.
At the most basic level of being-in-the-world, Heidegger notes that there is always a mood, a mood that "assails us" in our unreflecting devotion to the world.
A mood comes neither from the "outside" nor from the "inside," but arises from being-in-the-world. One may turn away from a mood but that is only to another mood.
Only with a mood are we permitted to encounter things in the world.
Dasein (a co-term for being-in-the-world) has an openness to the world that is constituted by the attunement of a mood or state of mind.
As such, Dasein is a "thrown" "projection", projecting itself onto the possibilities that lie before it or may be hidden, and interpreting and understanding the world in terms of possibilities.
Moods, Attitudes, and Modes
When Dasein fears death as it passes by an accident on the road…that’s a kind of mood. Dread.
When Dasein is bored, then it has lost interest in the world. It views the world differently.
Present-at-hand vs Ready-to-hand
The Primary Moods/attitudes of Dasein. They are modes of being conscious. Modes of our being. Ways in which we approach, view, thinking about, and interact with the world.
Present-at-Hand
In the present-at-hand mode, Dasein has (in contrast to “ready-to-hand”) an attitude like that of a scientist or theorist, of merely looking at or observing something.
In seeing an entity as present-at-hand, the beholder is concerned only with the bare facts of a thing or a concept, as they are present and in order to theorize about it.
This way of seeing is disinterested in the concern it may hold for Dasein, its history or usefulness. It’s about being as objective as we can be, and trying to remove our subjective point of view in thinking about stuff.
This is what Heidegger thinks people who do traditional metaphysics are doing. He’s out to destroy it.
Presence-at-hand is not the way things in the world are usually or ordinarily encountered, and it is only revealed as a deficient or secondary mode.
e.g., When a hammer breaks, it loses its usefulness and appears as merely there, present-at-hand.
When a thing is revealed as present-at-hand, it stands apart from any useful set of equipment but soon loses this mode of being present-at-hand and becomes something, for example, that which must be repaired or replaced.
Ready-to-hand
However, in almost all cases we are involved in the world in an ordinary, and more involved, way. We are usually doing things with a view to achieving something.
E.g., a hammer: it is ready-to-hand; we use it without theorizing.
It is equipment for us achieve our goals.
Imagine some primitive tribal man who has never seen a hammer or a nail. What would he think of the hammer?
It might just be trash to him.
It might be a work of art.
It might be useful as an anchor for his boat.
It is what his mind says it is, and nothing more.
Equipment is subjective to Dasein
In fact, if we were to look at it as present-at-hand, we might easily make a mistake.
Only when it breaks or something goes wrong might we see the hammer as present-at-hand, just lying there.
In this case its Being may be seen as unreadiness-to-hand.
Heidegger outlines three manners of unreadiness-to-hand:
Conspicuous (damaged; e.g., a lamp's wiring has broken)
Obtrusive (a part is missing which is required for the entity to function; e.g., we find the bulb is missing)
Obstinate (when the entity is a hindrance to us in pursuing a project; e.g., the lamp blocks my view of the computer screen).
Importantly, the present-at-hand only emerges from the prior attitude in which we care about what is going on and we see the hammer in a context or world of equipment that is handy or remote, and that is there "in order to" do something.
In this sense, the ready-to-hand is primordial compared to that of the present-at-hand. The term primordial here does not imply something Primitive (like apes), but rather primacy, as in: what comes first, what is independent and most important).
Primacy refers to Heidegger's idea that Being can only be understood through what is everyday and "close" to us.
Our everyday understanding of the world is necessarily essentially a part of any kind of scientific or theoretical studies of entities. It is the foundational mode.
Only by studying our "average-everyday" understanding of the world, as it is expressed in the totality of our relationships to the ready-to-hand entities of the world, can we lay appropriate bases for specific scientific investigations into specific entities within the world.
For Heidegger in Being and Time this illustrates, in a very practical way, the way the present-at-hand, as a present in a "now" or a present eternally (as, for example, a scientific law or a Platonic Form), has come to dominate intellectual thought, especially since the Enlightenment.
To understand the question of being one must be careful not to fall into this leveling off, or forgetfulness of being, that has come to assail Western thought since Socrates, see the metaphysics of presence.
Hermeneutics and Different Interpretations
Heidegger is ambiguous in his writing. He’s difficult to read, and sometimes we might have different interpretations of what he means. There are different kinds of Heideggerians.
Realists
Mars Rover, aware of it, is it there? Objective, Subjective.
Heidegger isn’t denying the objective existence of it, he’s simply ruling it out as part of doing phenomenology.
Anti-realists
The End of Metaphysics: Rudolf Carnap, The Elimination of Metaphysics
Kant was a catalyst or a fork in the road. He sparked a choice for us.
Continentals went the way of Heidegger.
Analytics went another way…
Hilariously, both the continentals and analytics sought to destroy metaphysics (they just went about it in different ways).
Some modern ontologists are often naturalists (this is strictly an analytic view, but it isn’t necessarily the only analytic view).
Naturalism, taken to its extreme, goes something like this:
Science is the real key to understanding reality.
There is nothing supernatural in the world. Obviously, no spirits, Gods, or miracles.
There are no platonic forms. There are no real categories. Nothing special emerges. There are just piles of atoms in the universe doing what they do, and each of us are just piles of atoms.
Metaphysics is dead on this view.
When you think of the numeral 2, you might think it points out the number 2. Note that 2-ness might be distinct from the symbol used to represent it.
Naturalists deny that 2-ness, the number 2, exists at all.
It is just a construct.
Math is a game we play.
You might find two apples, but this is just our human way of thinking about them. There is no real concept of 2.
People who talk about metaphysics are talking about fairy tales or perhaps spouting complete gibberish and non-sense.
At the beginning of the analytics, we have the logical positivists.
Carnap is a famous one.
Logical positivism:
“The meaning of a statement lies in the method of its verification”
Metaphysics can’t be empirically verified, hence it lacks meaning. It is pointless.
Positivists desperately tried to make a rule or for it. Here’s a revision:
“Only propositions which are either ‘true in virtue of their form’ or ‘can be empirically verified’ are true.”
Either this is a pen or it is not a pen.
P v ~P form
True in virtue of the form.
What is the truth-maker of the form?
The reason it is true is because we can empirically verify it, not because of the form.
The form is a metaphysical concept, and the logical positivist realizes he can’t help himself to that logical form of an argument because he’s outright denying its existence.
So, logical positivism really boils down to this:
“Only propositions which can be empirically verified are true.”
What about this proposition though?
You can’t empirically verify it.
The Incorporeal Mind: Descartes, Meditations
Dualism is the position that mental phenomena are, in some respects, non-physical, or that the mind and body are not identical.
For Descartes, the mind is a nonphysical substance. Descartes clearly identified the mind with consciousness and self-awareness and distinguished this from the brain as the seat of intelligence
Mind-Body Correlations: Malebranche, Dialogues on Metaphysics
Malebranche is known for his occasionalism, that is, his doctrine that God is the only causal agent, and that creatures merely provide the “occasion” for divine action. On the old textbook account, occasionalism was an ad hoc response to the purported problem in Descartes of how substances as distinct in nature as mind and body are can causally interact. According to this account, Malebranche was driven by this problem with Cartesian dualism to propose that it is God who brings it about that our sensations and volitions are correlated with motions in our body.
Occasionalism is older than that. Aquinas, for example, gave the idea. Many Christian philosophers and theologians have given at least the seed of this idea before.
The Problem of Other Minds: Mill, An Examination of Sir William Hamilton’s Philosophy
Given that I can only observe the behavior of others, how can I know that others have minds?
No matter how sophisticated someone's behavior is, behavior on its own is not sufficient to guarantee the presence of mentality
Philosophical Zombies
Inductive vs. Deductive reasoning
Justification, Reliabilism, etc.
Physicalist Solution
Easy-peasy
To be in a certain type of mental state is just to be in a certain type of physical brain state.
So, if we can detect that another individual is in a certain type of physical state, then we can know that they are in a certain type of mental state.
Thus, it seems that we can know, in a relatively unproblematic way, that other people are in certain mental states
The Myth of the ‘Ghost in the Machine’: Ryle, The Concept of Mind
Ryle attempts to show that the "official doctrine" of mind/body dualism is false by asserting that it confuses two logical-types, or categories, as being compatible.
He states "it represents the facts of mental life as if they belonged to one logical type/category, when they actually belong to another. The dogma is therefore a philosopher's myth."
Mind and Body
Consciousness –THE HARD PROBLEM
Chalmers:
It is undeniable that some organisms are subjects of experience. But the question of how it is that these systems are subjects of experience is perplexing. Why is it that when our cognitive systems engage in visual and auditory information-processing, we have visual or auditory experience: the quality of deep blue, the sensation of middle C?
How can we explain why there is something it is like to entertain a mental image, or to experience an emotion? It is widely agreed that experience arises from a physical basis, but we have no good explanation of why and how it so arises. Why should physical processing give rise to a rich inner life at all? It seems objectively unreasonable that it should, and yet it does.
The really hard problem of consciousness is the problem of experience. When we think and perceive there is a whir of information processing, but there is also a subjective aspect.
The mind–body problem is the problem of explaining how our mental states, events and processes—like beliefs, actions and thinking—are related to the physical states, events and processes in our bodies, given that the human body is a physical entity and the mind is non-physical.
Dualism
Substance dualism, which holds that the mind is formed of a distinct type of substance not governed by the laws of physics
Property dualism, which holds that mental properties involving conscious experience are fundamental properties, alongside the fundamental properties identified by a completed physics.
Although the world is constituted of just one kind of substance — the physical kind — there exist two distinct kinds of properties: physical properties and mental properties. In other words, it is the view that non-physical, mental properties (such as beliefs, desires and emotions) inhere in some physical substances (namely brains).
Monism
Physicalism, which holds that the mind consists of matter organized in a particular way
The common view, and where we see most “Theories of mind” come from.
Idealism, which holds that only thought truly exists and matter is merely an illusion
Neutral monism, which holds that both mind and matter are aspects of a distinct essence that is itself identical to neither of them.
Valuable problem in understanding:
Consciousness
Our identity
Souls
Our freedom, agency, and moral responsibility
Ontological commitments:
The value of the mind-body problem has often required significant and sometimes unintuitive metaphysical commitments.
Theories of Mind:
Identity Theory of mind; Type Physicalism
Mental events can be grouped into types, and can then be correlated with types of physical events in the brain. For example, one type of mental event, such as "mental pains" will, presumably, turn out to be describing one type of physical event (like C-fiber firings).
Behaviorism
The study of behavior should be a natural science, such as chemistry or physics, without any reference to hypothetical inner states of organisms as causes for their behavior.
Physicalist, but not reductive.
Considered a joke by neuroscience.
Functionalism
Its core idea is that mental states (beliefs, desires, being in pain, etc.) are constituted solely by their functional role – that is, they are causal relations to other mental states, sensory inputs, and behavioral outputs.
Since mental states are identified by a functional role, they are said to be realized on multiple levels; in other words, they are able to be manifested in various systems, even perhaps computers, so long as the system performs the appropriate functions. While computers are physical devices with electronic substrate that perform computations on inputs to give outputs, so brains are physical devices with neural substrate that perform computations on inputs which produce behaviors.
Neuroscience and Cognitive Science
Physicalist explanations of the mind
Machine Learning and Computer Science
Need not be physicalist, but thinks of the mind in terms of algorithms and mathematics.
Neural networks, deep learning, genetic algorithms, etc.
AI, Automated pattern recognition
Optimizing heuristics and statistical models for prediction
Optical Character recognition
Search engines
Turing Test
Test of a machine's ability to exhibit intelligent behavior equivalent to, or indistinguishable from, that of a human.
The conversation would be limited to a text-only channel such as a computer keyboard and screen so that the result would not be dependent on the machine's ability to render words as speech.[2] If the evaluator cannot reliably tell the machine from the human (Turing originally suggested that the machine would convince a human 70% of the time after five minutes of conversation), the machine is said to have passed the test.
Pornography websites, “Hey, babe…whatch’ you doin’ tonight?”
Fail turing tests hard
Some are beginning to pass.
Note how intelligence may not be the same thing as consciousness and subjective experience. Thinking and feeling might be different.
Chinese Room:
"Suppose that I'm locked in a room and ... that I know no Chinese, either written or spoken". He further supposes that he has a set of rules in English that "enable me to correlate one set of formal symbols with another set of formal symbols", that is, the Chinese characters. These rules allow him to respond, in written Chinese, to questions, also written in Chinese, in such a way that the posers of the questions – who do understand Chinese – are convinced that Searle can actually understand the Chinese conversation too, even though he cannot. Similarly, he argues that if there is a computer program that allows a computer to carry on an intelligent conversation in a written language, the computer executing the program would not understand the conversation either.
Building a Brain/Mind:
Technology is slowly replacing body parts. We have artificial hearts. There are artificial eyes and ears. Maybe the brain and mind are replaceable.
Computers:
Our standards computers are built out of silicon and metals in complex circuits.
We could build them very differently though.
Quantum computing.
Oldschool transistors
Our brains, perhaps, might be built out of wacky materials.
The Chinese Nation Brain:
Suppose that the whole nation of China was reordered to simulate the workings of a single brain (that is, to act as a mind according to functionalism). Each Chinese person acts as (say) a neuron, and communicates by special two-way radio in the corresponding way to the other people. The current mental state of China brain is displayed on satellites that may be seen from anywhere in China. China brain would then be connected via radio to a body, one that provides the sensory inputs and behavioral outputs of China brain.
Thus China brain possesses all the elements of a functional description of mind: sensory inputs, behavioral outputs, and internal mental states causally connected to other mental states. If the nation of China can be made to act in this way, then, according to functionalism, this system would have a mind.
Would this arrangement have a mind or consciousness in the same way that brains do? Is it capable of feelings and thoughts?
Qualia
“the ways things seem to us”
Examples of qualia include the pain of a headache, the taste of wine, or the perceived redness of an evening sky.
The sensation of color cannot be accounted for by the physicist's objective picture of light-waves. Could the physiologist account for it, if he had fuller knowledge than he has of the processes in the retina and the nervous processes set up by them in the optical nerve bundles and in the brain?
If you believe in Qualia, then no.
Inverted Spectrum:
The inverted spectrum thought experiment, originally developed by John Locke, invites us to imagine that we wake up one morning and find that for some unknown reason all the colors in the world have been inverted.
Subjective Character of Experience: “What is like to be?”
Nagel argues that consciousness has an essentially subjective character, a what-it-is-like aspect. He states that "an organism has conscious mental states if and only if there is something that it is like to be that organism—something it is like for the organism
Philosophical Zombie
There could be physical duplicates of people, called "philosophical zombies", without any qualia at all.
These "zombies" would demonstrate outward behavior precisely similar to that of a normal human, but would not have a subjective phenomenology.
It is worth noting that a necessary condition for the possibility of philosophical zombies is that there be no specific part or parts of the brain that directly give rise to qualia—the zombie can only exist if subjective consciousness is causally separate from the physical brain.
The knowledge argument
Mary the color scientist knows all the physical facts about color, including every physical fact about the experience of color in other people, from the behavior a particular color is likely to elicit to the specific sequence of neurological firings that register that a color has been seen. However, she has been confined from birth to a room that is black and white, and is only allowed to observe the outside world through a black and white monitor. When she is allowed to leave the room, it must be admitted that she learns something about the color red the first time she sees it — specifically, she learns what it is like to see that color.
The scientific unfalsifiability and perhaps unverifiability of Qualia
Qualia is defined in such a way that it, by definition, can’t be scientifically unfalsified. Perhaps it can’t be verified either.
Smells like metaphysics.
Brainstorm Machine, Dennett:
Suppose [that] there were some neuroscientific apparatus that fits on your head and feeds your visual experience into my brain. With eyes closed I accurately report everything you are looking at, except that I marvel at how the sky is yellow, the grass red, and so forth. Would this not confirm, empirically, that our qualia were different? But suppose the technician then pulls the plug on the connecting cable, inverts it 180 degrees and reinserts it in the socket. Now I report the sky is blue, the grass green, and so forth. Which is the "right" orientation of the plug? Designing and building such a device would require that its "fidelity" be tuned or calibrated by the normalization of the two subjects' reports--so we would be right back at our evidential starting point. The moral of this intuition pump is that no intersubjective comparison of qualia is possible, even with perfect technology.
Swampman
Suppose Davidson goes hiking in the swamp and is struck and killed by a lightning bolt. At the same time, nearby in the swamp another lightning bolt spontaneously rearranges a bunch of molecules such that, entirely by coincidence, they take on exactly the same form that Davidson's body had at the moment of his untimely death.
This being, whom Davidson terms "Swampman," has, of course, a brain which is structurally identical to that which Davidson had, and will thus, presumably, behave exactly as Davidson would have. He will walk out of the swamp, return to Davidson's office at Berkeley, and write the same essays he would have written; he will interact like an amicable person with all of Davidson's friends and family, and so forth.
Perhaps there would nevertheless be a difference, though no one would notice it. Swampman will appear to recognize Davidson's friends, but it is impossible for him to actually recognize them, as he has never seen them before.
The Swampman has no causal history.
General Requirements:
Papers will be 7-10 pages, double-spaced, no added space between paragraphs or text, using size-12 font Times New Romans, with 1” margins, pagination, in .docx or .pdf file-formatting. Both a title page and bibliography are required (these aren’t included in the 7-10 page-count).
You will submit a digital copy of your paper (used to check for plagiarism and formatting) by 6:00pm on August 10th.
You’ll obviously need to follow standard analytic writing requirements. An appropriate introduction, body, and conclusion are required. Effective transitions, proper spelling, correct grammar, and fitting syntax are expected, etc.
Step 1 – Explain your target’s argument
Explain the steps of their argument. Explain the conclusion and the implications of it from the target’s point of view. Show how the premises are meant to support the conclusion through exegesis (a careful examination and interpretation of a text).
Your exegesis should be a very crisp, well-rehearsed, concise explanation of your target’s views. Use citations, and use quotes when necessary to demonstrate the target’s views. Do not strawman; be charitable. Do not import your own ideas or notions unless you are forced to fill in gaps, and if you do, then explicitly state it and be charitable! If something is unclear to you (which may signal that your target argument has options), you should point it out. Make your target’s view look good, and do it in a compact way.
Step 2 – Show a problem with the target’s argument
After you’ve made the target argument look good, then you need to demonstrate a problem with the target view. This should be well-crafted, and it must point out a significant flaw. That flaw may cascade into lots of problems. Point out the implications of the flaw.
There are many possible problems for an argument. Common problems include:
Faulty or unreasonable assumptions necessary for the premises to be true.
Sometimes you’ll find definitions or requirements embedded in the premises that we don’t have to or shouldn’t accept as readers.
Faulty inferences between the premises and intermediate or final conclusions.
Sometimes this is because of an unexplained gap in reasoning.
Uncommonly, this is because the author makes an awful inferential move in the first place.
Intolerable consequences of the conclusion
Perhaps there are unacceptable consequences of the conclusion which the author didn’t realize. Maybe the consequences are ugly enough that the author would have given up the argument if they had only known of these consequences (probably not, but you never know!).
Step 3 – Show how your target would respond to your criticism
Provide a charitable interpretation of how your target would respond and argue against your claim. Is there a way out for your target? In attempting to construct a rebuttal to your claim, you will be showing me that you have a mastery of the general perspective your target brings to the table, but also an awareness of the weaknesses in your own claim.
The Self/Identity/Personhood
Defines the essential qualities that make one person distinct from all others
The self is the idea of a unified being which is the source of consciousness.
This self is the agent responsible for the thoughts and actions of an individual to which they are ascribed.
The self is thought to be a substance which endures through time; thus, the thoughts and actions at different moments may pertain to the same self.
The Self and Consciousness: Locke, Essay concerning Human Understanding
Lots of neat little moves in here, but they aren’t terribly important for the lecture. They would add spice and color to an analysis in the paper though.
A person identity or self endures or persists through time, even if it changes.
Ship of Theseus.
What are the conditions for personhood?
Self = conscious thinking thing, self-reflecting, etc.
Not tied to the material or immaterial. Doesn’t matter in his view.
Although, he’s an empiricist. Has a beef with them rationalists.
We are consciously aware of our persisting identities.
We are aware of our passage through time.
We know this because we have memories.
Self = conscious thinking thing with memories
Body-Swap thought experiment
Prince swapped into a cobbler’s body.
Critiques
Begging the question
Embedding your conclusion the premises.
The criterion proposed by Locke is implicitly circular or begging the question, for the concept of memory presupposes the concept of personal persistence.
It is a conceptually necessary condition of one mental state m2 being a memory of another mental state m1 that m1 and m2 belong to the same person.
If I suddenly came to have what appears to me to be a memory of witnessing the Kennedy assassination, which occurred years before I came into existence, this would not be a genuine memory, but a delusion.
Fixable.
What if I have a faulty memory?
How much do I have to remember to still be myself?
What if I don’t have memories of myself, but of everything else. Isn’t that a self of sorts? Just not like us.
Does identity come in degrees?
Liberation from the Self: Parfit, Reasons and Persons
Locke talks about how our past selves are integrated with our present selves. Parfit is concerned with how our present and future selves are integrated.
Reductionist view.
Persistent identity simply requires psychological continuity.
Self might be linked to our body chemistry, but not to our instance of that body chemistry.
Non-Reductionist view
A deep fact or condition is required.
Teletransportation
Star Trek transporter? Record the exact configuration of your atoms, destroy them on Earth, and simultaneously remake that configuration on Mars.
Is this you or just a copy of you?
Non-reductionist thinks that it is a copy. That there is a deeper fact about who you are embedded on the Earth you that isn’t found in or about the Mars copy.
The non-reductionist prefers to travel by spacecraft instead to maintain his identity/self.
Future Selves
When you do something stupid for instant gratification, you don’t consider future you to really be you. You don’t care about future you.
When you’re about to binge on 10 shots of vodka, you don’t care about future you, possibly.
Caring about Death further as non-reductionist
Why does his reductionist view make him feel better?
Maybe a calm to just accepting that there is nothing after we die. I don’t know.
Skepticism seems to do that sometimes…goes either down a deep, dark path of sadness or towards no longer having to care, a feeling of freedom.
I understand this skepticism existential problem, but don’t quite see how it really plays out here or why it has the force he thinks it does. I guess what he saw as a problem for him isn’t so much a problem for me.
Egoist’s Future
Narcissistic. Solely devoted to the self. Whatever the conditions of the self are for the egoist, those are the bare conditions of self.
Simple answers to the question of how the present Egoist sees his relation to future beings which might be his future selves:
R = a psychological connectness and/or continuity with the right kind of cause.
1 – Physical Continuity
Williams’ Surgeon Example:
Surgery will painless operate, but the result is a being whose life is worse than not living (torturous). Note that the future being is not R-related to the pre-operation egoist.
Does the egoist care about the future being?
If so, then the egoist thinks that is his future self.
Parfit thinks physical continuity isn’t sufficient for Continuity of the Self, and hence the egoist wouldn’t care.
Transplants, other bodies, etc. Body isn’t sufficient enough.
Parfit thinks it isn’t even necessary!
Brain is the carrier of R. It must have continuity.
But, in this example, brain incontinuity doesn’t make the Egoist care about the future self.
2 – Relation R with its normal cause
Parts of the argument have been cut out…=/
Can’t be defended either, apparently.
Embedded in “normal” cause here is basically the physical continuity.
3 – R with any reliable cause
Let’s say you accept Teletransportion Replicas as being You.
Imagine Teletransportation only worked 1% of the time. It wasn’t reliable.
Does it matter that you were almost “accidentally” replicated?
Does it have any outcome as to whether or not that replica is you? Is it a Deep fact?
No, according to Parfit.
4 – R with any cause.
That’s all that continuity is. Nothing special. Can be accidental. It isn’t physical.
Freedom/Autonomy/Personhood
Freewill
Compatibilism and Libertarianism
Robots and Dice
Determinism, Fatalism, Foreknowledge
Autonomy
Contemporary views of autonomy generally hinge upon three fundamental concepts of self-governing:
Sovereignty
Sovereignty might be thought of as political autonomy. It deals in various kinds of freedom, whether freedom as non-frustration from impediments (be they man-made or natural) as with Hobbes and Mill, freedom as non-interference from agent-driven hindrances as with Berlin and Nozick, or even freedom as non-domination as with Petit.
By sovereignty, we speak of physical, political, and social self-rule.
Autonomy based on sovereignty is concerned with coercion, socio-economic status and opportunity, self-ownership, etc.
For example, when someone puts a gun to your head and tells you to jump, you seem to have a choice about whether or not you will jump in a significant sense, and yet you seem forced to jump (lacking a choice) in another substantial sense.
This latter sense, essentially coercion, is a violation of the sovereignty.
Sovereignty is a capacity to govern oneself in the most obvious and literal sense: self-governing as political self-governing.
Lastly, sovereignty seems to be a set of sociopolitical goals and rights we seek.
For example, children eventually want to make life decisions for themselves; people don’t want a government suppressing their free speech; and, no one wants a gun pointed at his head.
Authenticity
Colloquially, we refer to authenticity when we talk about “keeping it real,” or “frontin’,” or “being true to yourself.”
When a person isn’t being authentic, he is thought to lack autonomy.
The central problem of authenticity is figuring out how to differentiate our authentic desires and beliefs from inauthentic ones.
For example, a person profoundly manipulated by hypnosis may be furnished with inauthentic desires which aren’t a genuine part of the authentic self of that agent, and acting upon those desires would demonstrate a lack of autonomy.
Further, depression, drug-use, systematic conditioning, etc. are often considered autonomy-defeaters in authenticity-based models of autonomy.
We must ask: who is the ‘real you’? There are many routes to answer this question.
Authenticity-based autonomy may or may not be a capacity, depending on which model is considered.
Authenticity, however, is certainly a goal.
We want to be ourselves, and we want to be governed primarily by our authentic selves.
It is unclear how authenticity plays a role in our rights other than pointing out “who” we assign rights or duties to.
Accountability
Autonomy, in this light, is an explanation of whatever it is about us that makes us morally responsible agents.
Generally, the requirements of accountability include rationality, consciousness, self-reflection, etc.
In addition to these requirements, some concept of “choice” is the vital accountability-making ingredient to our autonomy.
For the libertarian, choice originates in an agent’s free will.
For the compatibilist, choice is just doing what you want to do.
In both cases, autonomy requires an agent to be free from external forces (insofar as that is possible) and to be bound only by one’s self in making choices.
In contrast to sovereignty, this concept is wrapped up in the metaphysics of self-governing, describing choice at a more fundamental level.
Taking the gun example, whether or not you will jump is ultimately still ‘up to you’.
You may get shot for choosing not to jump, but that is your accountability-making choice.
Models of autonomy which focus upon accountability are primarily concerned with the capacity to choose between right and wrong.
Further, being a moral agent, being accountable for one’s choices, and making choices that matter, is a goal.
Life is meaningful because we are accountable – nothing really matters without this capacity. Again, it is ordinarily thought that our moral obligations and rights exist in virtue of accountability-making autonomy.
Consider the case of Free Speech
Sovereignty – a political right to say what you want
Or without that freedom, you are held accountable, not morally, but legally for censoring yourself.
Authenticity – a capacity to say what YOU really want to say
Might be politically prevented from such a thing
Accountability – a moral capacity or right to say what you want to say
Maybe you’ll have a legal right to say something, but you morally should not.
Note the Legal/Moral distinction.
Freedom to Do What We Want: Hobbes, Liberty, Necessity and Chance
Hobbes is fighting against J.D.’s view of freedom and requiring a kind of libertarian freewill almost.
Freedom for Hobbes is incredibly simple. It’s the ability to do what you want to do. When you can and do, then you are free, but not otherwise.
Whatever you in fact do, then, you’ve done freely on Hobbes’ view, by definition.
Weak fucking freedom, I tell ya’ what.
Blame is appropriate because it is useful for modifying people’s behaviors, but maybe not because it is “deserved.”
Hobbes had a very low view of people, imho.
Berlin calls this “Negative freedom” – I’ll be considering Hobbes through Berlin’s eyes.
Hobbes and Mill believed (or are often thought to have believed) that freedom is largely a matter of non-frustration – of being able to do what you want to do.
Hobbes: “A free man is he that, in those things which by his strength and wit he is able to do, is not hindered to do what he has a will to do.”
It’s not clear how to interpret this, but Hobbes is often interpreted as holding the view that you’re free insofar as your preferred option is accessible.
Critiques
Hobbes’s view (on at least one interpretation) makes no mention of the restricting actions of others. On his view, any hindrance detracts from your freedom.
Berlin, however, thinks that the hindrance has to be man-made and intentional. Mere inability, he thinks, doesn’t make you less free. Coercion, he notes, implies the deliberate interference of human beings within the area in which one could otherwise act. This view is fairly widespread.
On Hobbes’s view, as long as your preferred option is available you are free, even if no other options are available.
Unlike Hobbes, Berlin thinks that you lose freedom if others prevent you from doing what you could have done, or what you might have wanted to do, and not merely what you actually wanted to do.
For Berlin, your options are like doors. How extensive your choice is depends on how many doors there are. How significant the choice is depends on what the doors lead to. And how free the choice is depends on whether and the extent to which the doors are closed because of the actions of others.
On Hobbes’s view, it seems that you can enhance your freedom by adapting your desires to your circumstances.
Berlin thinks this isn’t possible – one cannot make oneself freer in this way. To think otherwise, he thinks, is to confuse freedom with desire fulfillment.
Berlin’s Response:
Berlin, then, rejects the idea of freedom as non-frustration and opts instead for the idea of freedom as non-interference. Freedom, he thinks, requires that every option be accessible in that it isn’t blocked or obscured by the (deliberate?) actions of others.
We could, however, insist on an even more muscular conception of freedom – freedom as non-domination – according to which every door must be open and there must not be any doorkeepers with the power to close them.
On the options view, your freedom depends on the number and quality of your options. The more options you have, and the more desirable they are, the freer you are. On this view, anything that limits either the number or quality of your options limits your freedom, whether it’s other people, nature, or your own inadequacies.
Berlin’s Positive Freedom:
You’re free in the negative sense, thinks Berlin, insofar as no one interferes with your activities. You’re free in the positive sense to the extent that you’re governed by your true self.
Autonomy, on this view, is a kind of self-mastery, which you achieve by taming the demons within. Clearly this view requires a way to distinguish between those internal elements that are “demons” – that are alien to you – and those that are genuinely your own. Traditionally, the concept of rationality has played a key role in drawing that distinction.
The thought is that the real you is the rational you, and that you are self-governing when you are ruled not by your passions but by the rational side of your nature.
Determinism and Our Attitudes to Others: Strawson, Freedom and Resentment
A different direction, but it’s really just compatibilism. He’s trying to juice the intuitions of the incompatibilist in the other direction.
Strawson thinks it isn’t practically (although it is conceptually) possible that humans would abandon inter-personal relationships, reactive attitudes, and responses just because we might be determined.
He’s arguing for compatibilism.
Note, this doesn’t make the move not to abandon rational.
What happens vs. what could happen or what should happens are different things.
But, that might be Strawson’s point. This isn’t a rational issue.
The answer may require more than intellectual analysis.
Is he doing philosophy?
3 questions
What are the causes of reactive attitudes?
Compatibilists and incompatibilists should be worried about this.
Incompatibilists needs a causal story to explain it choice.
Compatibilists need a causal story which shows we aren’t coerced.
Strawson says he doesn’t care. He surely does. He just doesn’t think this is the real question for autonomy, I guess?
Under what conditions are reactive attitudes natural/rational/appropriate?
Somewhat concerned.
What is it like to have reactive attitudes?
Most concerned.
Intuitionism?
Resentment example
Modifying feelings of resentment, 2 kinds:
1) He didn’t know, he didn’t mean to, he couldn’t help it…etc.
He isn’t morally responsible
2) second king has two subgroups:
He wasn’t himself, he was hypnotized or perverted systematically, etc.
Not really morally responsible because it wasn’t him!
The agent was himself, but was warped or deranged?
He doesn’t give examples, but he needs to!
This second subgroup is designed to show us a distinction between the range of subjective attitudes/human interactions and the objective attitudes.
These are supposed to be opposed to each other.
Maybe for humans. Is it in all cases though? I don’t think so.
What about crazy simple cases? The subjective and objective might match.
Strawson thinks the objective stance can’t have reactive attitudes embedded in it.
Why should we agree?
Strawson seems to “raise” the status of the participant reactive attitudes.
Why should we agree to this?
I think a lot of people’s attitudes are fundamentally irrational.
What I like about the objective is that it is true for everyone. That it isn’t whimsical or subjective. That it isn’t relative. That it is right beyond feelings. It is reason.
What if determinism were true?
Well, you’d have to react the way you did. And, presumably, if you’ve been reacting all along, then you’ll continue reacting. You’ll be determined to do so.
It feels like the end for objective attitudes once discovered. But, I think reactive attitudes also change with this knowledge/discovery as well.
Is it the end of reactive attitudes? For some people, maybe, yeah.
Some people are very in touch with their objective attitude.
Humans just can’t be objective. We’re human.
But, from my point of view, that’s just the same thing as saying it’s all subjective. It’s absurd to worry about anything objective. We’re absurd beings just be definition (not just fallible).
He doesn’t think this absurdity arises, however. That seems odd to me.
Ultimately, even if Strawson is correct in claiming that someone who believed in determinism wouldn’t give up their reactive attitudes or moral life doesn’t mean that the person is being rational.
Strawson is saying “what is,” but not “what ought.” He needs to talk about what ought here.
Parfit
Robots, freedom, whenever we would do the wrong thing, it changes our mind.
Frankfurt
Frankfurt doesn’t focus on political conceptions of Freedom (as in the tradition of Hobbes and Berlin), instead Frankfurt argues for a particular sort of freedom by modeling the authentic identity of persons. The fundamental question at stake is: Who is the “real” you?
Many famous philosophers have defined the real you as the rational you. In contrast, Frankfurt thinks the real you is the hierarchically integrated you, a ‘congruence between’ and an ‘identification with’ or ‘endorsement of’ your desires, which is less about rationality and more concerned the structure of your will.
As persons, we are self-reflective and we are not indifferent to which desires move us. On this view, we form desires about our desires, and our capacity to endorse our desires is what grounds our personhood, our freedom of the will, and our autonomy.
We start with first-order (FO) desires; these are ordinary desires about the world. E.g. I want to eat pizza; I desire sleep; I want cocaine; etc. Every creature with desires has FO desires, and hence FO desires aren’t very special. FO desires vary in strength, and for example, we might think that without any intervention, the strongest desire is what moves us, it is our will. E.g. If the honey badger desires food more than sleep, he’ll be effectively moved to pursue food instead of sleep – that is his (not free) will.
Naively, second-order (SO) desires are desires about FO desires. E.g. I desire not to want to eat pizza; I want to desire sleep; I don’t want to want cocaine; etc. Note that my SO desires can conflict with my FO desires. SO desires are found in creatures with more complex psychologies.
Frankfurt further distinguishes SO desires from SO volitions (where SO volitions are a subset of SO desires). A SO volition is a special kind of SO desire. A SO volition is a desire that some FO desire be or not be your will. A SO volition is a desire for some FO desire to take or lose priority over all other FO desires, such that you will be effectively moved or not moved to act upon some FO desire. A SO volition is the reflective endorsement or repudiation of a FO desire.
The capacity for and the use of SO volitions is the significant and necessary condition for a creature to be a person. Creatures, including humans, who lack SO volitions (even if they have mere SO desires) are called wantons - they are not persons. Lacking free will is not a problem for wantons, as seen in the case of the wanton addict. On Frankfurt’s theory, a wanton is exclusively moved by desires he has not identified himself with, endorsed, approved, or made his will. He is not a person because he is merely a being with desires that rule him, and he does not care to or perhaps even have the ability to rule over his desires.
In contrast to a wanton, a person, such as the unwilling addict, has SO volitions. Whether or not those SO volitions ultimately “win out” determines whether or not a person has freedom of the will.
When your FO desire and SO volition conflict, and if and when you are moved by a FO desire which you repudiate via a SO volition, you are not acting autonomously or authentically, and essentially, as a person, you lack freedom of the will. Significantly, even though you are moved to act by a FO desire that is in some sense ‘your desire’, because that FO desire overrides your SO volition, it seems as though you are forced to act upon a desire which isn’t really yours – you didn’t endorse that FO desire, in fact, the real you repudiated it. That FO desire which moved you, against your SO volition, is alien to you. The real you is a helpless bystander to the force of the external, inauthentic FO desire. To be authentic, to have freedom of the will, your SO volition must effectively make your FO desire your will.
Lastly, Frankfurt’s theory is not actually confined to only two orders of desires. There are third-order desires and volitions, fourth, fifth, and so on. E.g. I can want to want to want pizza, etc. Ultimately, the necessary condition of personhood and autonomy is some sort of capacity to identify ourselves with what we “really want to want to want…to want, and so on,” a capacity to decisively align our many orders of desires in a resounding commitment, securing conformity between them, and forcibly synchronizing and unifying them (Christine Korsgaard must love this). Unfortunately, Frankfurt does not provide a clear argument about this. This is one of the fuzzier and least clear aspects of Frankfurt’s theory, despite it being the most important aspect of his theory (it does all the magical work for him).
Interesting characteristics of this theory:
A focus upon self-reflection, evaluation, endorsement, authenticity, and ordered desires fits many of our intuitions on the topic of free will and autonomy. Something about the theory seems right.
It does not require robust metaphysical commitments. The theory sits comfortably in naturalistic philosophical perspectives.
The theory is neutral to determinism, and can work as a compatibilist view of freewill. (Although, it is not necessarily inconsistent with incompatibilism.)
Compatibilism is the belief that free will and determinism are compatible ideas, where freedom, in this case, turns out to be something like just doing what you want to do, or willing what you want to will, which is distinct from other standard definitions of freewill, such as: “The ability to do otherwise.”
Incompatibilists think that this kind of freedom isn’t enough, and they worry that if we are merely deterministic flesh bags of chemicals and electrical signals, then we are no better than any other determined or programmed object. On such a view, we are reducible to a mere mass of determined particles. Why are we any better than complex robots? Why is compatibilist free will actually freedom at all; and why is it worth having? Why would we be morally responsible if we are determined? So, the incompatibilist who believes we are morally responsible must claim we aren’t fully determined and that we have a kind of libertarian, metaphysically based freewill which overcomes the laws of physics. Draw a homunculus.
Compatibilists will respond by claiming that libertarian freewill is incoherent; that libertarians have failed to provide any suitable account of how it works. The metaphysical commitments are too great for the compatibilist. Further, why are we any better than a random number generator or dice? Why is libertarian freedom worth having?
The account is content-neutral. Persons aren’t required to have particular values. This sits in stark contrast to other classic theories of autonomy, freedom, and authenticity.
This feature is powerful. It has some good aspects to it, but it also may have bring with it some problems which I don’t have time to go into.
3 Sets of Problems with this account:
Manipulation. Frankfurt’s account of freedom and autonomy does not take into consideration ‘where a desire came from’ or ‘how it was acquired.’ It can’t explain manipulation-based autonomy defeaters such as the problems of poisoned origins or a neuroscientist re-engineering a person’s desires and beliefs.
One paradigm case of manipulation is where a neuroscientist radically alters your desires (and beliefs). For ahistorical accounts of autonomy and freedom, like Frankfurt’s, as long as the neuroscientist changes you such that a kind of congruence between your FO and higher order desires is maintained, then you are still considered to be autonomous. Frankfurt’s account doesn’t seem capable of taking into account how the problem of manipulation, at least intuitively, results in an attack on or elimination of one’s autonomy and/or the authentic self.
Don’t we want a theory of autonomy that allows us to reclaim autonomy from our checkered/conditioned past?
Trilemma: Ab Initio, Infinite Regress, Incompleteness (Christman on Dworkin [who is Frankfurtian])
Ab Initio/Problem of Authority – How can non-autonomous processes or higher order desires confer autonomy upon lower level desires? How does a particular second-order desire really have the authority to speak for us? Why that one?
When a SO volition endorses a FO desire, we take that FO desire to be an authentic desire, a desire of the agent himself, because the agent had to actually endorse it. Initially, it seems as if SO volitions have the power to speak for the authentic self. The problem, however, is that a SO volition needs to be an autonomous desire as well, a desire that really belongs to the authentic agent. If a SO volition is not an autonomous desire, then it seems as if a non-autonomous force is ‘endorsing’ a FO desire, and then it would not appear as if the FO desire is really endorsed by an autonomous agent. How can autonomy arise from non-autonomy? It doesn’t seem like it can. So, what makes a SO volition an autonomous desire? This brings us to the…
Infinite Regress. - If SO volitions are made autonomous by TO volitions in the same way that FO desires are made autonomous by SO volitions, then we hit the regress problem, whereby we pile desires on top of desires.
The argument is that in order to make an N-order desire autonomous, an autonomous N+1-order volition must endorse it. To have an autonomous SO volition requires an autonomous TO volition endorsing it. But, clearly, we can ask the same question about TO volitions, and the answer requires having an autonomous volition from the next higher order endorsing it. This process of trying to autonomize desires with higher order autonomous desires can continue ad infinitum, hence the regress.
Incompleteness – If we are to escape the Ab Initio problem without falling into the regress, we have explain how SO volitions are autonomous desires in a way that is different from how SO volitions make FO desires autonomous. Nobody seems to be able to give an explanation, hence the “incompleteness” problem. Which is basically the same thing as saying, we really don’t have an explanation at all.
Summary: On Frankfurt’s model, we must ask if the relevant SO volitions themselves are autonomous. If not, then we have the ab initio problem. If so, then how do they become autonomous? If it’s in the same way as one’s first-order desires, then we face a regress. But if they become autonomous in some other way, then Frankfurt’s theory is incomplete because he hasn’t specified the method. He does anticipate the trilemma; he talks about decisively aligning, securing conformity between, or unifying our many orders of desires, but he never really explains how this works. Hence, Frankfurt’s model is incomplete.
Perhaps you don’t find Frankfurt’s argument intuitively compelling. You should ask: Why is Frankfurt’s freedom of the will worth having? How is a person in this account any more worthy or better off than other animals and wantons? Why does it produce moral responsibility or the kind of agency that matters?
Daniel Wegner
Daniel Wegner argues the conscious will isn’t the cause of action. On his view, people everywhere mistakenly interpret their conscious thoughts as being causally relevant to their actions. In his writing, he attempts to dismantle the commonly held belief and experience of a direct causal connection between one’s conscious thoughts and actions. Ultimately, he believes the conscious will is epiphenomenal. Consciousness is a secondary phenomenon that occurs alongside (about 3 seconds after) the primary phenomenon (whatever is actually controlling our actions).
Wegner describes conscious will as an experience, feeling, or perception. The experience of conscious will spans from a conscious thought or intention to the appearance of a causal path to the target action. In Wegner’s view, the supposed causal link between the conscious thought and the action is illusory, and he claims both thought and action are caused by unconscious mechanisms.
Why are we mistaken? Why do we wrongfully interpret our experiences and erroneously infer causation? Sometimes we perceive patterns and causation where there are none, and Wegner seems to think this is the case with the conscious will. Our flawed ability to recognize causation seems to be a significant reason why we have the experience of conscious will at all. When conscious thoughts or intentions precede and match the target action in a timely, exclusive, compatible, and consistent manner, we mistakenly infer, via our flawed causal recognition, that our conscious will was the cause of the action.
Wegner thinks a potential link between thought and action is weakened by the involuntary nature of examples such as motor automatisms, hypnosis, dowsing, action projection, and psychological disorders such as schizophrenia, where in these cases one does not experience conscious will but still demonstrates many of the scientific signs of it. In these cases, the person acting does not feel he is making a conscious decision to act, but feels as though some external force is causing the action through him – that is, there is a separation between the action taken by the person and his conscious thought or desires; the link between conscious thought and action isn’t there when we would expect it to be.
Further, Wegner uses an experiment, the “I Spy” study, to demonstrate how the experience of conscious will can be artificially created. Wegner’s experiment seems to build off and extend from Libet’s studies, which attempted to reveal how unconscious mechanisms played a major causal role in the appearance of voluntary action. Wegner employs both positions as evidence for the thesis that the experience of conscious will is an illusion, where conscious thoughts are inefficacious and do not cause our actions (despite all appearances).
The purpose of the “I Spy” study was to “lead people to experience willful action when in fact they have done nothing.” This was a digital 2-player Ouiji board version of I Spy (using a mouse), where the participant was primed with words about items on the screen, forced onto certain objects by a confederate, and required to “rate each stop they made for personal intentionality.” The point of the study was to generate cases where participants artificially felt as though they consciously willed an action, when in fact, they did not cause the action. Word priming “did not cause participants to stop on the items.” Word priming did, however, conjure thoughts about the related objects on the screen, and when forced upon these objects in brief time frames after priming (1 or 5 seconds), participants “reported having performed this movement intentionally.”
The experiment shows that one can have conscious thoughts which don’t cause action yet still form the illusion of an experience of conscious will. The involuntary examples demonstrate that one can have conscious thoughts which meet many of the matching parameters of target actions, but don’t result in the experience of conscious will. Together, both positions, in Wegner’s view, demonstrate how the apparent causal link between consciousness and action is an illusion.
Wegner claims the experience of conscious will serves to provide us a preview of what we may do, but “the real causal mechanisms underlying behavior are never present in consciousness. Rather, the engines of causation are unconscious mechanisms of mind.” It remains unclear why this ability to preview matters.
A Couple Implications. What’s at Stake?
If Wegner, like many psychologists, is right in thinking the conscious will can be reduced to deterministic, physical mechanisms, then the game is likely over for incompatibilists. We might initially think science is the wrong domain for proving we don’t have free will (which requires substantial metaphysics). Presumably, free will is part of having conscious will. If the experience of conscious will can be entirely reduced to mere physical mechanisms, if this phenomenon is best explained in naturalistic terms, then either incompatibilists should deny free agency or the burden of proof seems to be shifted to the libertarian.
Compatibilists (and incompatibilists as well) remain vulnerable to Wegner’s argument in a different way. If Wegner is right in thinking that conscious will is entirely an illusion, and if conscious thought does not cause action, then it is very hard to see how humans could engage in any sort of meaningful deliberation and choice necessary (even by compatibilist standards) for being moral agents. In essence, Wegner’s argument seems to reduce us down to mere observers of the results of our unconscious mechanisms. If he is right, then I don’t see why morality and moral responsibility should have any rational relevance to us. We can’t actually participate in moral life; moral life is an illusion.
Philosophy is hard to read. You read it multiple times, you might understand some of it, and you might not understand a lot of it. That’s okay. We’ll talk about it, and hopefully you’ll understand it better. You may find that reading the second time, you’ll understand even more about it. Sometimes it will be by studying other related topics that you’ll gain insight into your original topic as well. I’ve read some of these passages more times than I can count. Certain things stand out more than others each time.
Metaethics
Meta-Ethics is the subfield of moral philosophy that focuses on questions and issues concerning the ultimate status or nature of morality (objectivism vs. subjectivism), moral motivation, etc.
In short, it deals with metaphysical and epistemological issues concerning morality.
Moral realist vs. Anti-realist
Moral realism is the claim that at least one substantive moral proposition is true.
Is morality something that exists independently of human minds but which it discovers through reason, science, revelation, etc.?
Or is morality a human invention that is dependent on human beings in some way?
Is morality objective and universal or subjective and relative?
Are there moral truths and obligations that are universally binding on all human beings or only moral values particular to individuals, social groups, cultures, etc.?
Is morality universal or relative?
When you make a moral evaluation (express a judgment that X is morally right, wrong or permissible, good or bad, virtuous, vicious, etc.), what do you take yourself to be doing?
Expressing a personal opinion, preference or attitude that cannot be objectively true.
Expressing a cultural norm.
Expressing a truth-apt claim that can be objectively true and not merely an expression of a personal preference, attitude, etc.
The Problem of Objectivity in Ethics:
1. “The Earth is a sphere.”
2. “Lying is wrong.”
If #2 is objectively true it does not appear to be not objectively true in the same way that #1 is objectively true (i.e. empirical verification).
Does the fact that moral judgments cannot be empirically verified mean that moral judgments cannot be objectively true?
Moral Realism
Ethical Naturalism
Ethical Non-Naturalism
Theological voluntarism, divine command theory
All of these theories contend that there is at least one objective, universal, and necessary moral truth.
Moral Anti-Realism
Ethical Subjectivism
Ethical Relativism
Non-Cognitivism
Moral skepticism
Moral nihilism
Error theory
Immoralism
All of these views reject moral realism and claim that morality is dependent on the individual, culture, etc. (which are subjective/relative, particular, and contingent).
What is Good and Bad?
Flower example. “Good of”…Good in itself? Etc.
What is Right and Wrong?
What is Happiness?
How are these concepts related?
What are the foundations of morality?
Agency, Freewill, etc.
Is it objective, socially constructed?
Why should I be moral?
Metaethics and Normative ethics is what we’ll cover today. Applied ethics the next.
Morality and Happiness: Plato, Republic
Socrates, Plato’s mentor, is famous for saying: Knowledge is Wisdom.
The only reason people do bad things is because they don’t know any better. If they knew how to act, they would do better. There isn’t much space for freewill here.
The Good
1st class: Harmless pleasures with no consequences
2nd class: Instrumental+Intrinsic goods, like sight and health, and knowledge
Intrinsic vs Instrumental Good
You want health for its own sake, but it also brings about other goods. It is an instrument, as well, basically.
3rd class: Sacrificial Instrumental goods, like sacrificing our pleasure in doing it for some other good.
Justice
Justice is a codeword for being moral here.
Which of these 3 is justice?
Origins
Law exists to protect goods, prevent evils.
Justice is something we are forced to do, but don’t really want to do. It isn’t in our self-interest directly.
It is in our interest to be just from appearances on the outside, else we’ll get in trouble with other people. But, the “best interests” here is based on social coercion and compulsion, not on what you really want to do. It isn’t good in an of itself, at least some might argue.
Ring of Gyges
Put on the ring, more than invisible. You can do whatever you want without the consequences you don’t like (but, you can get the consequences you do want).
It’s a ring that lets you get away with injustices, if you so choose.
Traffic light, small town, 3am.
People who appear just may put on the ring and become unjust people, since they were only being just because it was necessary to appear just.
Universal voice of mankind, the real speaker of this piece:
A really just person who put the ring on wouldn’t have any change in their behavior. They wouldn’t go out and do unjust things.
Ethical Virtue: Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics
Questions:
What ought we do?...Virtue is about “Who ought we be?”
Virtuous and vicious agents
Virtue ethics is hard to pin down. Some are anti-realists, some realists. There is a wide variety. It is the oldest of the tripod: Virtue, Deontology, and Consequentialism.
What do we really want?
To be happy
Eudaimonia
Teleology: ends
Our flourishing rests upon fulfilling our function.
Thinking things. Thinking in the right ways.
Our function gives us the capacity to be moral agents. To habituate virtue.
Virtue
Necessary, but not sufficient condition for Eudaimonia
Arête, Excellence
Disposition
Not solely intellectual.
Desires, intuitions, beliefs,
Aristotle claims they aren’t feelings
Modern virtue ethicists disagree with this.
Aristotle is unclear on this point, but I part of the reason Aristotle doesn’t want to think of feelings as being moral may be because we don’t have control of them. But, we don’t seem to have control over our dispositions either.
Picking out salient features
Blink, Book. Forgery example. Virtuous (virtue of the practice) Art historians just have a feeling when something is a forgery, even without being able to articulate why.
Not a decision procedure
Doesn’t give you an algorithm for determining what is right ro wrong.
You can ask the Virtuous agent though.
They will give you certain reasons, even if they aren’t the reasons which make sense to vicious agents like us or reasons we’d like for decision procedures.
Cultivation/Habituation
Virtuous dispositions are based on patterns of actions
Like an excellent musician, being a good person requires training, practice, etc.
Training from childhood. If you weren’t born into the right setting, you just can’t be virtuous, and you can’t really be happy either.
The mean
A mean of virtue between two extremes of viciousness
Excess and deficiency
The Virtues
Cowardice – Courage – Recklessness
Insensitivity – Self-Control – Self-Indulgence
Stinginess – Generosity – Extravagance
Extreme Humility – Truthfulness – Boastful
Shamelessness – Modesty – Prudishness
Laziness – Self-motivation – Ambitiousness
Apathy – Gentleness – Quick-tempered
Boorishness – Wit – Buffonery
Doing the right thing, in the right way, at the right time, for the right reasons, etc.
Salience
Vicious agents should overshoot the mean, toward being vicious on the other side. Their vicious natures will draw them back toward the mean.
What ought we do when Virtue seems to not make us happy?
Luck
Difference between maximal Eudaimonia and what is practically available to us. Why be moral? Aristotle doesn’t answer well enough. He seems to think it is part of our function, but it seems like happiness is disconnected from our function of thinking in some ways.
I can verify for you that thinking does not make you happy, although it may be necessary for virtue.
Common Criticisms of Virtue Ethics:
No clear normative guide for dealing with moral cases, problems.
Criticisms of teleological views of human nature.
Situationist objection undermines the notion that human beings have stable character traits as presupposed by Aristotle’s version of virtue ethics.
Utility and Common-sense Morality: Sidgwick, Methods of Ethics
Teleological
Consequentialism: the view that moral theories should stress the results of actions; invariably associated with utilitarianism.
According to utilitarianism, the aim of morality is to maximize utility.
Maximizing utility: bringing about the greatest sum utility or pleasure in the world.
For what time frame?
For whom?
How do you measure utility?
Epistemology problems
What counts as Utility?
Distinguishing Higher & Lower Pleasures:
Better to be a Sad Socrates than a Happy Pig
The calculus, lookup table
Is it subjective? Or, how does subjectivity play a role?
Act utilitarianism vs Rule utilitarianism
Act utility:
an act is morally right if and only if it produces at least as much happiness as any other act that the person could perform at that time
Rule utility:
an action is right if and only if it conforms to a rule that leads to the greatest sum happiness
Act utility is too particularistic, too complex. No human could possibly go through with it.
Rule utility is easier. We can follow rules.
Self calculated or Globally calculated
Expect/predict problem
Railroad example
Common Criticisms of Consequentialism:
Deontological objections (intentions, some actions are inherently wrong)
Predicting consequences
Calculating happiness
Robert Nozick’s “utility monster”
"Utilitarian theory is embarrassed by the possibility of utility monsters who get enormously greater sums of utility from any sacrifice of others than these others lose . . . the theory seems to require that we all be sacrificed in the monster’s maw, in order to increase total utility."
Bernard Williams’ Jim in South America:
“Jim finds himself in the central square of a small S. American town. Tied up against the wall are a row of 20 Indians, most terrified, a few defiant, in front of them several armed men in uniform. [. . .] However, since Jim is an honoured visitor from another land, the captain is happy to offer him a guest’s privilege of killing one of the Indians himself. If Jim accepts, then as a special mark of the occasion, the other Indians will be let off. Of course, if Jim refuses, then there is no special occasion, and Pedro here will do what he was about to do when Jim arrived, and kill them all. [No plausible way of escaping the choice.] The men against the wall, and the other villagers understand the situation, and are obviously begging him to accept. What should he do?”
Harris’ Survival Lottery:
“Y and Z put forward the following scheme: they proposes that everyone be given a sort of lottery number. Whenever doctors have two or more dying patients [who did not bring their misfortunes on themselves] who could be saved by transplants, and no suitable organs have come to hand through ‘natural’ deaths, they can ask central computer to supply a suitable donor. The computer will then pick the number of a suitable donor at random and he will be killed so that the lives of two or more others will be saved. [. . .] With the refined of transplants procedures, such a scheme could offer the chance of saving large numbers of lives that are now lost. Indeed, even taking into account the loss of the lives of donors, the numbers of ultimately deaths each your might be dramatically reduced, so much so that everyone’s chance of living to a ripe old age might be increased . . .”
Duty and Reason as the Ultimate Principle: Kant, Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals
Deontology – duty science
Generally concerned with respecting persons
Mere Means vs Ends in themselves
On Kant’s view, one of the central components of ethics is to respect other people’s autonomy or their ability to give themselves the moral law (i.e. moral maturity).
On Kant’s view, so long as people reasoned rather than simply emote about morality, then we will – by using our own ability to reason using universal categories – arrive at the same basic conclusion about what is morally obligatory, etc
Uncompromising. Deep look into metaethics, groundwork of ethics.
Dr. Sensen said he had a sore neck today because he spent so much time ‘Nodding’ his head while reading Kant this morning.
Universality
What distinguishes morality from other areas is that it is unconditionally binding.
Not making exceptions for yourself – that is part of the universality.
Action = Act + Intention
Reason is specially defined.
It recognizes its goal as the good will.
Whenever you have a good will, you are reasonable. You aren’t being rational otherwise.
Persons, by definition, for Kant, have reason.
Kant redefines who we really are to get where he’s going. The authentic, autonomous self is very key to understanding him.
An intention is the aim, plan, or purpose of an action. Intentions demonstrate the “for the sake of which” of an action. While actions can fail or succeed, intentions don’t admit of failure or success in the same way. An intention seems to be an expression of our motivations. Ultimately, an intention is the result of a choice concerning what one will pursue and why, and it is obviously a significant, practical aspect of moral philosophy.
In standard forms of utilitarianism, intentions are morally irrelevant, as only the results of action have any value. In virtue theories, intentions are morally relevant to some extent, as they are crucial to the psychology of the virtuous agent.
Kant begins the Groundwork by priming our intuitions about the nature of the good will. He says only a good will is good and nothing else is absolutely good without limitation. In contrast to the good will, other mental talents, inclinations, and psychological characteristics can be desirable (even encouraging the good will), being contingently and circumstantially good, but they aren’t necessarily and always good because they can be used for evil and by an evil will. Even actions have conditional moral value. Only a good will is necessarily, unconditionally, and always good.
A good will is not good because it causes some other end, rather it is an end in itself. Even a will which isn’t efficacious is still good, shining by itself like a jewel. This is a key consideration for answering our question concerning the moral relevance of intentions in Kant’s theory. Note that whether or not action bears the sort of fruit we expected, as sometimes it doesn’t, a good will underlying that action remains unblemished and just as morally potent and worthy. In contrast to utilitarianism (a theory which Kant seems to have anticipated), Kant’s theory is far less concerned with consequences of actions, and far more concerned with the will which expresses action. In this light, good intentions seem to have similar characteristics to the good will, and thus intentions seem morally relevant in Kant’s theory.
We come to realize that the good will is unconditionally valuable because it is determined by reason and the moral law. Obviously, action need not be determined by reason or the moral law. We may act from our inclinations, our instincts, and other sentiments. Actions, unlike the good will, are suspect. To be clear, I am not saying that actions cannot be valuable or have merit. Actions certainly can have moral worth according to Kant’s theory, but only under certain conditions. Our duty, which springs from the moral law, is essential to understanding the relationship between good will and action.
We must act from, not merely in accordance with, duty. An action has moral worth only when it is selected by the moral law and executed out of respect for the moral law. The intentions behind our actions matter. If we intend to do action X for the sake of desire satisfaction or mere happiness, then that action lacks moral worth. In contrast, if we intend to do action X solely for the sake of the moral law, then our action has moral worth. The intentions behind our actions are the essential ingredient to determining the good of the action. Kant provides some famous examples of which elucidate the relationship between duty, intention, and action.
The honest shopkeeper acts in accordance with and in no way contrary to his duty to serve people honestly. Yet, he is motivated by self-interest, acting not from duty, but from merely prudential reasons. His action may be right because it conforms with his duty, but it is not good action because it is not done from his duty.
The suicidal man who wants to die “yet preserves his life without loving it, not from inclination or fear but from duty” has a maxim with moral content. The man had a duty to preserve his life, and despite his inclinations contrary to his duty, the man acted from duty alone, and thus he performed an action of moral worth.
Likewise, the sad philanthropist who has no emotion of sympathy for others and yet is beneficent from duty alone is to be praised. His action has “genuine moral worth.” To be beneficent from inclination, which is merely in accordance with but not from duty, lacks moral worth. This makes sense, as surely the sad philanthropist cannot be held directly responsible for his emotions, but he can be held responsible for rational choice and acting from duty.
Pathological love, like other inclinations, cannot be commanded. We cannot be held responsible for inclinations, although we are held responsible for acting from inclinations. Practical love, in contrast to pathological love, can be commanded. Acting from duty can be commanded, and we can be held responsible for this. Our intention is morally relevant to action. An action has merit solely in virtue of being performed out of respect for the moral law.
Kant’s examples, such as that of the sad philanthropist, sit in stark contrast to the virtue ethicist’s assessment. Having the right sort of inclinations and emotions are central to being virtuous, and yet, as Kant points out, it is only the rational choice to act from duty alone which has any moral relevance. Intentions are morally significant, but the sorts of intentions which Kant’s theory demands of us are very different from the sorts demanded by virtue theories.
Intentions and universal moral law seem to be at the heart of Kant’s theory, in contrast to action and consequences as found at the heart of consequentialist theories or character and inclination as found at the heart of virtue theories. If the purpose, aim, or goal of an act is to follow the moral law, acting from duty, only then is that action a good action. So, while the moral law supplies us with the content of what is right and wrong, our intentions seem to be necessary conditions for achieving anything of moral worth. Intentions are clearly morally relevant in Kant’s theory of ethics.
“An action done from duty has its moral worth, not in the purpose to be attained by it, but in the maxim in accordance with which it is decided upon.”
“Duty is the necessity to act out of reverence for the law”
Categorical Imperative
A Maxim Testing Decision procedure
Maxim
Maxims are subjective principles, only hold for an individual’s will, but are not laws, as laws are universal and hold for the will of all rational people
Structure: [act, principle, purpose]
E.g. [kill himself, self-love, ….?]
The Maxim contradicts itself, and thus fails to pass the CI test.
Should be apodictically clear to Reason.
Maybe I’m not reasonable enough.
Those maxims which we can universalize are moral laws as the result of the CI.
3 Formulations
Universal Law of Nature:
“act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law”
Humanity Formula:
Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end.
Kingdom of Ends:
“So act as if you were through your maxims a law-making member of a kingdom of ends”
Perfect Duty (obligation) and Imperfect Duty (permissibility)
CI Machine….
[Maxim-1, maxim-2, Maxim-3] -> [CI] -> [Maxim-1] Passes – Perfect duty
[Maxim-1, maxim-2, Maxim-3] -> [CI] -> [Maxim-1, Maxim-2] – Imperfect duty
Objections:
Consequentialist objections: Axe murderer and lying.
Might be a Deontic objection too: Particularizing maxims problem
Deontology appears to prohibit acts (because it would involve violating rights as understood from a deontological perspective) that would maximize overall well being. For example, it prohibits using one person as a means even if doing so would protect many more people from being treated as means.
How do we resolve conflicts between competing duties?
Rational Choice and Fairness: Rawls, A Theory of Justice
Editor of the anthology puts this squarely in the moral field. That is not the standard view. I happen to agree with the editor about Rawls to some extent though.
Again, we might go back to Plato’s mixing of Justice and Morality
Rawls is trying to help us think about “justice as fairness” and find answers in a fair and objective manner.
He offers a powerful social contractarian heuristic device for determining the principles of justice
The “basic structure” of society, as described by Rawls, is constituted by formal, legal, political and economic institutions.
How best to configure the basic structure is central to justice, in Rawls’ view, because it fixes the distribution of goods, services, opportunities, authorities, and rights. The basic structure is the initial subject of justice.
It is here (either for the creation of a basic structure or as an assessment of one) that one can begin to question and formulate the principles of justice which normatively define the various possible configurations of the basic structure.
Principles of justice design, specify, assess and justify the blueprints, arrangement and practices of these institutions and the overall basic structure.
Rawls is famous for this device which formulates the principles of justice, a device he calls the “original position.”
The original position is a type of thought experiment, an abstraction, a hypothetical instance of drawing up a social contract among members of society, and a method of thinking about justice.
The parties within the original position are meant to agree upon whatever counts as the fair and correct principles of justice used to generate the basic structure to which they would find themselves subject outside of the original position.
The original position structures intuitions we have about justice and how we formulate them – the original position is designed to provide an impartial justice, and render a stable society.
Notably, the concern for impartiality and fairness is what leads us to the most profound and potent fixture in the original position, what Rawls calls the “veil of ignorance.”
Agents in the original position find themselves ‘behind’ a veil of ignorance.
While behind this veil, “no one knows his place in society, his class position or social status, nor does anyone know his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence, strength and the like. I shall even assume that the parties do not know their conceptions of the good or their special psychological propensities.”
Agents are deprived of the knowledge of their personal particularities, what societies they come from, and their histories.
Some of the attributes which count as morally arbitrary in Rawls’ eyes might be considered controversial (e.g. your religious beliefs), but let us pass this by.
The essential point, to which I think we can all intuitively agree, is that differences which are arbitrary from the moral point of view don’t count with regards as to how the principles of justice treat you.
Agents behind the veil must be detached from their actual, particular circumstances when formulating the principles of justice.
Proper justice requires we answer a hypothetical question: If you couldn't know who you were, what would you choose? This makes a lot of sense - it removes bias.
Thus, the principles of justice which are produced from within the original position and behind the veil of ignorance are in some sense impartial and unbiased.
What then constitutes these agents, these amorphous creatures which have shed morally arbitrary features?
Rawls believes these agents have a sense of justice, being willing to comply with what is required by justice.
They are also free and equal agents.
Vitally, agents behind the veil are rational, mutually disinterested utility-maximizers.
These characteristics provide the motivation and mindset of agents formulating the principles of justice.
They have the necessary tools and knowledge to formulate the correct principles of justice, to know what is normatively just and fair about different configurations of basic structures given their rational, mutually disinterested, utility-maximizing characters.
While ignorant of particularities, agents are extremely knowledgeable about generalities. They have a commanding knowledge of general facts about human nature, psychology, sociology, political science, biology, and economics.
Obviously, hypothetical
Thus, with this knowledge, from behind the veil of ignorance, agents are able to rationally construct and agree to the principles of justice, even agreeing with principles which might not benefit them as the individuals they are outside of the original position.
Rawls is very thorough, and despite the hypothetical nature of the original position, he is also practical. He invents an apt regression test procedure used to make sure we actually agreed to the correct principles of justice. He calls this the “reflective equilibrium.”
Employing the reflective equilibrium allows agents to go back and forth between the original position and reality. This method allows us to continually justify and revise (if necessary) the principles of justice.
Interestingly, it just so happens that Rawls thinks he knows exactly which principles of justice would be chosen from within the original position. They essentially are:
1. The Principle of Greatest Equal Liberty
People are to be as free as possible.
2. The Difference Principle
Social and economic advantages should be distributed in order to maximize the shares of the most disadvantaged, those on the bottom line. Maximize the minimum.
First off, these principles are lexically ordered in priority.
The first principle is the most important one, and the second merits consideration after maximally satisfying the first.
Intuitively, it seems that there might be many possible basic structures which equally maximize the first principle, and the second principle does the work of assigning further normative value, effectively acting as a tie-breaker to the subset of initially acceptable basic structures generated by the first.
The first principle of justice is concerned with maximizing basic rights and liberties for all citizens, including political liberties, freedom of speech, freedom of association, religious liberty, etc.
The second principle is about maximizing the wealth, material goods, and services for the lowest margins of society.
For many liberal intuitions, the first principle is the least controversial. The principle of greatest equal liberty seems a very plausible product of rational utility-maximizers in the original position, particularly given classic utilitarian views on liberty.
There seems to be an acceptable and ostensible story which we can tell, about how rational, mutually disinterested utility-maximizing agents in the original position, as defined by Rawls, would create and agree upon the first principle.
The second principle is a particular brand of distributive justice theory, including why we should believe (as Rawls believes) that utility-maximizing agents in the original position would choose this particular principle of distributive justice.
This, perhaps, is more controversial.
Rational utility-maximization isn’t so clearly linked to the difference principle.
Part of this story seems to be missing. In order to see why, let’s dig a bit deeper into the ramifications of the difference principle, going through an example of it as a decision procedure.
Consider the following monetary table and the explanation of it which follows:
The table represents a hypothetical choice. Agents in the original position need to make an algorithmic, procedurally-based choice between the three possible, yet different distributions of wealth.
Let us assume that each option equally satisfies the principle of greatest equal liberty; it is then up to the difference principle to decide which type of distributive structure is normatively best.
There is only one type of unit to be distributed, in this case money; let’s arbitrarily say thousands of Euros annually per person.
Quartiles represent a fourth of the population, and people in each quartile make the specific annual salary determined by the respective distributive economy.
Note that the totals are different, which is to be expected, as different economic structures have different sum total outcomes.
What would the agents in the original position choose? Everyone is behind the veil of ignorance; they don’t know which option will bring greatest benefit to them individually, outside of the veil.
Agents behind the veil are in a game of limited information.
They need a strategic formula to determine which distribution is best, particularly because they lack the knowledge of which particular quartile they will find themselves in, when outside the original position.
According to Rawls, the difference principle is the formula they would choose to apply, as it alone offers us the correct decision procedure and just distributive outcome. What does it actually do in this case?
Well, maximizing the minimum requires we examine the 1st Quartile to the exclusion of everything else on the table.
According to the difference principle, in this hypothetical choice, whichever distribution has the highest annual salary in the 1st Quartile determines what counts as the most just basic structure.
In this case, the socialized market is what the difference principle requires us to select.
It isn’t clear, however, why we should believe Rawls’ assumption that agents behind the veil of ignorance would choose the difference principle; and furthermore, it isn’t clear why they prefer the distribution of the Socialized Market in the choice represented in Figure 1.
Why should we think that a rational, mutually disinterested utility-maximizing agent with generalized knowledge would make these conclusions?
There is an untold gap in the story, and it becomes clear with examples. One would like to think that Rawls isn’t begging the question; surely there are good and plausible bridges over this gap. Consider an exaggerated modification of the table:
By the difference principle, the socialized market is still chosen in the question presented in Figure 2. But, now, the difference principle as a strategy seems much weaker.
The economist/gambler in all of us sees the opportunity cost in selecting the socialized market, and here the difference principle doesn’t seem so reasonable. The odds are really good that you’ll be very, very rich in the feudal economy in Figure 2.
Figure 2 forces us to entertain the possibility that agents in the original position wouldn't choose the difference principle.
From behind the veil, not knowing to which quartile one actually belongs, it is reasonable to think that agents might employ the primitive game theory strategy of selecting the structure which provides the highest mean average salary (or look at the structure which brings about the highest sum total of salaries).
Clearly, this strategy would promote the feudal economy rather than the socialized market in Figure 2.
“But wait!” exclaims the proponent of the difference principle. Surely, we can see that you have a 25% chance to be completely impoverished in the feudal economy.
The fear of ending up on the bottom carries a great deal weight, especially if the bottom quartile ends up with practically nothing, as in the case of the above feudal economy.
Some proponents of Rawls' difference principle contend the bridge is based upon risk aversion, which is what enables us to rationally deny the feudal economy, greatly increasing the merits of both the socialized economy and the difference principle which selects it.
What might be the proper account of this risk aversion theory isn't clear. Is it only being risk averse to complete catastrophe, as we saw in Figure 2? And, if so, does this really support the difference principle?
This example income-to-utility conversion table demonstrates marginal utility. Levels of income are converted to their respective levels of utility. While there is a massive store of literature arguing about these values and determining which empirical study is correct is beyond both the scope of this paper and my expertise, there isn’t a consensus about the exact formula which maps financial income to utility.
I’m providing a theoretical point - I’m not sure what the end-game empirical tables really look like (and, honestly, I doubt anyone actually has yet).
I believe the above table is not representative of reality; I think the values for diminishing marginal utility are likely far more extreme and radical.
The difference between surviving and not surviving (the first couple thousand Euros) seems to have a much higher utility value than the small difference in utility gained from more luxuries.
If this is true, then the table should be skewed to benefit to lowest levels of income more radically than is presented.
In weighing the averages or totals of the corresponding utility values, values which are transformatively curved by diminishing marginal utility, it is easy to see why rational utility-maximizing agents in the original position prefer the socialized market from Figure 1.
Moreover, it seems that the risk aversion theorist has a very potent argument to defend the difference principle (which is what was needed in the first place).
The primitive argument from Figure 2 is correct about rational decisions being determined by averages, but the argument is wrong to assume a one-to-one correspondence of monetary to utility values.
Here we see that diminishing marginal utility, which is a form of risk aversion at the low end of the utility spectrum, bridges the gap between the agents as utility-maximizers and the difference principle as a substantive distributive justice schema.
War and Justice: Aquinas, Summa Theologiae
Three Conditions for War
Must be authorized by a government
Private citizens can’t go to war.
Why can’t citizens go to war with governments?
What even counts as war?
Declared by a government.
Pre-emptive strikes?
Guerrilla warfare?
Can you go to war with private groups, like religious organizations or other guerillas?
They exist across many countries.
Even within our own!
Psychological warfare, propaganda, spying, economic sanctions, cyberwar?
What counts as a government?
Just Cause
Desert in virtue of culpability
Examples of Cause:
Avenging wrong doing
Failing to make amends or restoring ownership of stolen objects
What kind of wrong doing?
How wrong does it have to be in order to go to war?
How do we know where to draw the line of Just cause?
Genocide, sure.
Do we need to do it consistently?
Is Just War something which gives us permission or a perfect duty?
What else?
Good Intentions
Virtue theory
Promote some good or prevent some evil
Good for whom?
Wrong intentions illegitimize a war, even if it has just cause.
Cannot be motivated by animosity, racism, hatred, etc.
“I hate them arabs” doesn’t count.
Double Effect
Self-Defense as a fundamental just cause in Just War Theory
What even counts as Self-Defense?
You hurt one citizen? 10? 10000?
You sold your steel cheaper than ours, made our steel industry collapse, and hurt us?
You hurt my feelings.
You have oil, and we want it. It’s bad for us when you monopolize it. We break the monopoly, or at least take over the monopoly for ourselves.
You kill 5k people, and destroyed some symbolic buildings?
One cause, two or more effects.
Intend the good effect, don’t intend the bad one.
You are only responsible for what you intend.
Is that how intention really works?
Proportionality of Response
Can’t nuke a country when sending 1000 soldiers would be more fitting and do the job.
Cannot use more violence than is necessary to accomplish the task.
The Status of Non-human animals: Kant, Lectures on Ethics
Utilitarians think pain is bad. Why should it belong to a human?
Differentiationism
Non-human animal pain matters in the utility calculation as well.
Although, perhaps their suffering is still worth it in the ultimate utility calculation. So, this doesn’t give them strong rights, but just weaker ones.
Animal testing, for example.
Psychopaths still might get incredible enjoyment out of torturing animals, like utility-monsters, and it still might be the case that they have the right to torture animals even when others don’t.
Kant thinks humans are the only animals on the planet who are part of the “kingdom of ends,” i.e. ends in themselves, never to be treated merely as means.
They aren’t conscious, autonomous, etc. Hence, not persons.
Only persons can be rights-bearers, since only persons can be duty-bearers.
Kant thinks animals have indirect rights (not real rights though).
Shadowy Analogues of humans
Is this a good reason to treat something like a human?
Not really doing major work, except for habituation
Being cruel to non-human animals habituates our cruelty to humans.
Is this true?
Maybe.
Even if it did, is that really a problem?
We might just overcome our inclinations, after all.
It’s wrong to be cruel to animals for no reason.
Animal testing, eating them for sustenance, etc. fine.
Shooting your dog because it isn’t hunting for you anymore, no good.
How do we draw this line of what counts as a good reason?
Why not direct rights?
Duty-Right correspondence
Hohfeld
“A has a claim that B φ iff B has a duty to A to φ”
If I’m morally obligated to φ, does it require a target?
Does there have to be a rights-holder?
Duty to self to φ?
Strawson doesn’t lie to his dog. Has a self-duty not be a liar.
Be the kind of person who isn’t cruel. Molecular Duty.
So, hence, obligation to also not be cruel to animals (closer to an atomic duty, still molecular. Don’t be cruel to that particular animal seems atomic).
Not really animal rights though. They don’t have a claim right.
Can we claim on their behalf?
The Purpose of Punishment: Bentham, Principles of Morals and Legislation
Reasons for Punishment
Deterrance
Disincentivizing crime
Reform
Preventing crime through education
Understanding why something is wrong
Having the tools and resources to do something else and still make a living
Preventing Recidivism
Help wrongdoers become appropriately functioning members of society
Perhaps it is partly our fault as a society that many criminals were:
Educated incorrectly
Not given the resources and tools to live without resorting to crime
Restorative
Helping the victim recover
Restitution, paying back damages, etc.
Retribution
Revenge
Punishment today –Prison in particular – This is important!
We imprison more people per capita than any other nation in the world.
We have the world’s largest prison system.
We imprison people for offenses which don’t merit imprisonment.
Our prison system is increasingly privatized – 8% right now.
Lobbying to keep people in prison.
It’s becoming a business, not a moral function
Business of private companies
Business for the government
Taxation
Debtor’s prison
Nickel and dime fees
Prison labor as slave labor
Militarization of our police force and prison system.
Prison is more than just be confined
Violence and Rape
Educating people how to be better criminals
Reinforcing criminal culture values
Discrimination
Poor
Wealthy people don’t go to jail as often for the same crimes, and when they do, they generally get lesser sentences.
Bias – rich people are seen more favorably
We’ve evolved to see wealthy people as somehow being better people (even when it is contrary to scientific evidence)
Influence, campaign contributors, and corruption
Can afford the legal defense.
Can draw out battles for years.
Can outspend the government.
People with darker skin
Institutional racism
Bentham applies Utilitarianism to Punishment
It’s not retributive. It only seeks to maximize utility.
There may even be some crimes for which punishment isn’t worth using.
A punishment needs to maximize utility.
Punishment is pain, and pain is evil. Hence, punishment is evil.
But, it may be a necessary evil. One which is worth it on the utilitarian calculus, as it may be a better alternative than the evils caused by not having a punishment system.
Cases not to Inflict Punishment
Groundless
It better be an act of mischief.
What is mischief?
Is it just breaking the law?
What should be a utilitarian jural law?
If no longer celebrating Christmas would maximize utility, then we maybe we should outlaw it?
Inefficacious
Doesn’t affect the criminal
Infancy
Insanity
Did you choose to go off your meds?
Intoxication
Maybe you are responsible for being intoxicated though…
Unprofitable
Spending $40k a year for 10 years, $400,000, to imprison someone for stealing a $5,000 car.
Needless
Think of a very dangerous crime that is so risky that no one wants to do it after they realize how risky it is.
Jumping off 3-4 story buildings to tackle/assault someone. Nobody is going to do that after they realize how dangerous it is.
When worthwhile, here are 4 design principles for Punishment
Prevent all sorts of offenses
Induce criminal to commit the lesser of two or more evils, if they must do evil.
Steal money from the wealthy person, not the poor person.
Stealing Baby formula from Wal-Mart rather than let their child starve.
Make it so criminals do only the amount of evil which is necessary to complete their goal.
Don’t steal the TV alongside the baby formula from Walmart.
Prevent offenses in the first place.
Avoiding Punishment
Preventative work lowers the need for punishment
It’s cheaper to educate someone, give them resources and tools to succeed financially and be happy than it is to punish them.
Anyone who is just worried about money should be in favor of preventative welfare, not punishment.
It’s like healthcare. Free preventative healthcare and vaccines are way cheaper in the long run for an economy (and maximize utility) when compared to paying for hospital bills and hurting businesses and logistics by having sick employees or sick family members of employees
Rules
1,2 – Scale the punishment with the crime.
The more incentive there is to commit the crime (the higher the profit), the more disincentive needs to be provided (the higher the punishment).
Love to see this applied to bankers and wall street workers.
3 – Scale punishment to incentive the lesser of two evils
4 – Adjust punishment to each particular offense
Only allow was is necessary.
Go light on first time, maybe heavier on second offense, and so on.
5 – Don’t overpunish
That’s just unnecessary pain. Pain is bad.
6 – Punish to the individual
since 3 lashings might make 10 units of pain for one person and 3 lashings might make 20 units of pain for another
and maybe pain will be a better deterrent for some than others
A $300 speeding fine for a millionaire is nothing. A $300 fine for a poor person is huge. That’s a paycheck for many folks.
7, 8 – Punish based on risk of getting away with the crime
If you are likely to get away with it, you should be punished more severely.
Wall street is more likely to get away with it
Rich people are more likely to get away with it, etc.
Risk is part of the incentives process. Low risk is higher incentive, so you need a greater disincentive punishment.
9 – Punish them for what they likely committed as well
If we have reason to think that being loan shark involves more than just lending people money at unreasonable rates, but also violence and murder, then punish them for the other likely entailments.
Very abuseable here.
10, 11 – If there is a floor of the punishment, a minimal amount, don’t hesitate to give more than necessary to small crimes.
What other option would you have anyways?
12 – Augment punishment to include accidental circumstances which render crimes unprofitable
If they were unlucky and failed to rob the bank, then they get a lesser crime.
Why?
No real pain caused in crime, so we don’t need to cause as much pain in punishment
13 – Don’t make laws and punishments which are so complex and detailed that no one can follow them
We’re fucked. Nobody can know the thousands upon thousands of carefully crafted laws on the books. How do we even know if we are breaking the law?
Did you break the IRS tax code?
Even experts don’t know for sure.
Make useful laws
We need to be able to remit punishment.
Lashings sucks because it’s hard to take them back if you find the person is innocent.
You can give back money though.
Lashings and time in jail might be paid back a bit…
but can you really buy 40 years of life back for someone?
Capital punishment, the death penalty, can never be reversed.
Don’t do it, since you might be wrong.
The Relief of Global Suffering: Singer, Famine, Affluence and Morality
Utilitarian
If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening without sacrificing anything equal to or greater than what we are preventing, then we are morally required to do it.
Proximity doesn’t matter
10 feet, 10 miles, or 10,000 miles
If you can help, then you must.
Drowning child example
Self-Ownership, Libertarian view.
What it means to have a duty to the child just means they own you in that respect. They have a right to your help. They have a right to your body and effort. You lose that right in that context.
Numbers don’t matter
Every person around the drowning child has the duty to help.
Just because someone else isn’t helping the child doesn’t mean you don’t have to.
Just because everyone else is doing the wrong thing doesn’t mean you are now allowed to do the wrong thing.
You aren’t excused by other people’s choices.
Individual or global utility calculation?
If everyone gives, then $5. But, if as I predict, few give, then I need to give far more. Maybe most everything I have.
We suck. We’re supposed to give.
Real poverty in the world. Real starvation. Real pain. Large amounts.
We can do something about it.
We don’t, and we’ve done what is morally wrong on the utilitarian calculus.
It’s important to realize that we ought not reject Singer’s argument because we don’t like the conclusion. That’s not a good enough reason. That is literally begging the question against him.
Many people are likely to avoid utility just because they don’t like the sacrifice.
Selfishness is not a good argument though. Selfishness does not make your disagreement with Singer correct.
Authority and the State
What’s a genuine government?
What’s a genuine law?
What is the relationship moral obligations and laws?
We’re only touching the surface of these problems.
Our Obligation to Respect the Laws of the State: Plato, Crito
City-States
Our governmental geographical borders and politics are larger and more complex.
Radical democracy
Although, you still had to be a land-owning, adult, male, with a certain background.
We live in a democratic republic, which is supposed to have similar democratic views underlying it.
We don’t really though. Recent study of the laws passed show that it doesn’t matter what normal people want, it’s only what extremely wealthy people want that dictates what the law will be.
The point of the state is to benefit the people. If it isn’t doing that, then it’s not a useful or good government.
Socrates doesn’t care about religious nationalism, etc.
On his view, it doesn’t have some supernatural moral status that some nationalist’s apply to it.
We obey and conform to laws because, ultimately, it’s best to live in a society which conforms to laws (assuming those are the right kinds of laws, etc.).
Anyone may leave at any time, with their property.
That’s definitely not the kind of state we live in, or most any of the countries around the world for that matter.
You need permission to leave, you need permission to enter.
This text shows a different world view. A world without the same sorts of boundaries. Where there were still resources and lands undiscovered, untapped, and open.
Socrates chooses not to escape from prison.
He obeys the law. Even though he disagrees with it, and even though he will pay dearly for it (they’ll force him to kill himself).
Sovereignty and Security: Hobbes, Leviathan
Divine Command theory (Aquinas)
Probably failures
Note that there is a difference between the claim that God has a providential hand in selecting the leaders of governments and the claims that Kings made that they were in fact the people selected by God to be kings.
The purpose of government is to avoid wars.
State of Nature
A description of humans before there were governments.
Natural condition of homo sapiens
That said, there are arguably social rules and governments even among the more intelligent apes. We probably evolved with a strong social view embedded in us and around us.
Possibly a hypothetical circumstance
You might just try and imagine what it is like. Even if it never existed. It’s a thought experiment.
It’s also perhaps a kind of social contract we’ve implicitly made when we agree to have a government and be governed.
Competition for Resources is the catalyst for violence
Brutish and short lives of people in the State of Nature.
Life sucks without a government.
Might makes right.
Solely survival of the fittest in competition with the weaklings.
Arguably, this state of nature claim isn’t just about governments, but perhaps about morality as well.
For example, I know many atheists who are glad that divine command theory came about, since they’d argue it is at least better than the state of nature, and that the development of morality and government through religion has, at least until recently, been an overall good thing in history.
The Social Contract
A hypothetical contract.
We don’t actually sit down and write it out or agree to it.
What kind of contract is that?
A voluntary choice to give up our natural freedoms in exchange for security.
We have traded our absolute freedom for the safety provided by a government which rules over us, enforces laws, keeps the peace inside the state, and prevents foreign invasion.
The limits of the Leviathan (the authority)
Leviathan doesn’t have a right to unlimited power.
Leviathan only has the right to the amount of power necessary to provide the security sought after in the social contract.
Consent and Political Obligation: Locke, Second Treatise of Civil Government
Lockean State of Nature
Governed by natural (defined as divinely ordained), morality, based on rational self-interest.
Law of Nature
We are equal, independent, and we are morally obligated not to hurt other people (life, liberty, property, pursuit of happiness, etc. – all that constitutional stuff).
Self-Ownership as Natural Law
Right to their bodies
Right to their labor
Right to the fruits of their labor
Social Contract
Locke agrees to a social contract which justifies a government which protects our self-ownership.
Voluntary Act
We have to consent.
Do we literally consent?
Did we ever really find ourselves in a state of nature, consent to a contract?
No.
We were born into this.
Tacit Consent – Original Compact
By having lived within the state, we tacitly consent.
What if you didn’t have a choice though?
Using the highway, we consent.
What if this was the only way to leave the state so you didn’t consent?
What if there were not states to go to?
That is, you don’t consent to any of them, but you can’t live anywhere.
This Original Compact furnishes us with moral obligations to obey the state.
What about when those moral obligations conflict with other moral obligations?
Nazism?
What if the state isn’t protecting self-ownership? Is it a government at all?
Society and the Individual: Rousseau, The Social Contract
Social Contract
“each of us puts his person and all his power in common under the supreme direction of the general will”
General Will
Public person formed by the union of all other persons
Abstract embodiment of the sovereign power of the state
Giving up the power to your person to some degree, but gain the power to others?
Nothing is lost?
Not obviously true.
General Good vs. Individual Good
Morally, we are not allowed to enjoy the benefits of a government without making the due sacrifices required by obeying the government.
Taxation without representation flipped.
No representation without taxation.
Anyone who doesn’t follow the general will can be justifiably compelled (coerced) to do so.
Infallibility of the General will
Wtf?
Completely lacks adequate protection from abuse
Unanimity is required for the social contract
But, who will do that?
Property, Labour and Alienation: Marx and Engels, The German Ideology
Americans have been conditioned to be allergic to Marxist concepts.
Failures of communist states do not show that socialist views are entirely incorrect or wildly misguided.
Marxism is sometimes viewed, by its opponents, as a kind of conspiracy theory.
There are many variations of this point of view, just as there are many variations of Libertarianism we find in Locke and Nozick.
It’s time to be charitable. You may find you actually agree with a lot of what someone says, and you just didn’t realize it at the time.
Theory of economics, history, human nature, and the relationship between morality and law.
History consists of conflict between various classes
Generally, the wealthy aristocracy and the poor.
At all times, societies are divided up between people who own the "means of production" and those who do not.
The means of production are the things needed to make products.
E.g. factories and machines and things like that.
The people who do not own the means of production will always struggle against the people who do own them.
Eventually, Marxism argues, the workers (proletariats) will win the class struggle permanently.
Marxism argues that capitalism is a bad system because the workers produce all the value of goods through their labor while the owners get most of the money.
Interestingly, a Lockean with a strong proviso interpretation might even see how this is true.
Own our labor, the fruits of our labor, etc. But, that doesn’t seem to play out in capitalist societies in force.
Dominant classes create the dominant ideology
The purpose of this ideology is to help the dominant class to maintain power and unfair economic systems which help the elite.
7 corporations owning all the major media outlets is a sign of this.
Lower, non-dominant classes accept the dominant ideology as natural
They lack exposure to the possibility that the ideology is wrong
They aren’t educated enough to see they are manipulated
Working classes not only lack the knowledge to have the will to oppose this enslavement, but they also lack the economic and militaristic means to oppose it as individuals.
Only a unified revolution can stop it.
It requires working classes become conscious of it, and then to act in their self-interest.
Criticism
What do you mean no property?
How does the world work?
Some inequality and some kind of market (doesn’t need to be unrestrictedly free) may actually have the best consequences in the end.
You might maximize the minimum this way.
Libertarianism, Self-Ownership
Most of us just have bad luck
Why should we think Revolution is naturally going to happen?
There may come a time when revolution just isn’t possible.
Many socialists consider this Marxist view to be extreme. Marx may be on the right track, and he’s nailed some core notions and practices down, but maybe his solution isn’t the best one.
The Minimal State: Nozick, Anarchy, State and Utopia
Should there be a government at all?
Yes, a minimalist state.
Only as large of a state as required to protect personal property rights.
His basic foundation is the “inviolability of other persons” and a libertarian view that “there is no justified sacrifice of some of us for others.”
Foundation for an Entitlement Theory
What are persons?
“Sentient and self-conscious; rational (capable of using abstract concepts, not tied to responses to immediate stimuli); possessing free will; being a moral agent capable of guiding its behavior by moral principles and capable of engaging in mutual limitation of conduct; having a soul.”
This isn’t sufficient though. It’s missing something, on Nozick’s view.
In Nozick’s eyes, a person must be able to formulate a “life-plan”
A person must have “the ability to regulate and guide its life in accordance with some overall conception it chooses to accept.”
Nozick’s argument then joins together the capacity to form life-plans with having a meaningful life, a life of moral worth and value, and an identity which merits special treatment.
Nozick concludes that persons have certain rights which others have a duty to respect and to refrain from violating.
Personhood is about possessing the right to make choices about property with regards to one's life-planning; justice is concerned with the protection of that right.
It is here that Nozick provides a lens of property rights to examine justice.
In the Nozickian world, property is the medium by which persons can create and execute life-plans.
The use and ownership of property enables persons to pursue the sorts of things which make them persons.
Nozick believes only persons can own property.
Only an agent capable of having rights would be capable of having a ‘right to property’ or entitlement to a holding.
Self-Ownership (Locke)
These are moral rights.
On this view, over-taxation is a form of slavery which unjustly steals a person’s ownership of themselves
Self-interested persons will seek to protect those rights (and themselves) and enforce the duties of others.
Through society’s invisible hand, a natural set of “mutual protective associations” will arise from social contracts and market forces which would eventually give rise to the minimal state.
Justice, in Nozick’s view, is about preserving and protecting legitimate entitlement to property.
By protecting property rights, the medium by which persons can execute life-plans is protected, and the special nature of personhood is actively guarded and cultivated.
The minimal state exists to make sure persons’ rights to themselves and their properties are not violated and that others follow through on their duty to not violate others’ property rights.
Entitlement Theory
Nozick maintains that a person may come to own property through one of two processes:
legitimate acquisition (principle of justice in acquisition)
legitimate transfer of property (principle of justice in transfer)
There are no exceptions (except the principle of rectification)
Principle of justice in transfer
This principle is concerned with maintaining fair and valid social contracts as the sole means for persons to choose how to distribute goods among themselves.
This secures trading and gift giving, while also preventing fraud, theft, and any sort of activity which violates a person’s current entitlement to a holding.
The ability of the owner to transfer a holding is true of all holdings.
All property is transferable.
Any property which for any reason could not be transferred is not ownable.
Lastly, legitimate transference is justice-preserving and historical.
Entitlement to a holding which has been passed from person to person relies upon the repeated application of the principle of justice in transfer throughout the history of a holding, continuing all the way to the point of that property’s legitimate acquisition.
Principle of Justice in Rectification
The historical aspect of the principle of justice in transfer becomes complicated by the fact that the current world is thought to be unjust, and that current holdings have not been generated in accordance with the above framework
To apply the entitlement theory in an unjust world, past injustices must be rectified.
For example, if you are given stolen goods, would you have a legitimate right to those goods?
No. The rightful owner is the victim from whom the goods were stolen.
One-time exception to how property is owned here.
Nozick has a principle of rectification which corrects historical injustices, recreating a justice-preserving chain of legitimate acquisition and valid subsequent transfers.
Principle of Justice in Acquisition
Lockean concept of Mixing labor
A person legitimately acquires a currently unowned thing (the world is assumed to be initially unowned) by mixing their labor with it
Nozick might go so far as to say that persons are mixing a part of themselves into objects which they will acquire
Generally, it is the mixing of labor which results in an increase in the value of an object that appears to be the engine of this principle of acquisition.
Nozick explores the difficulties in the mechanics of legitimate acquisition, the exact details regarding the meaning of mixing one’s labor are never fully explained
Dumping a can of tomato juice in the ocean doesn’t make it your ocean
Chopping down an unowned tree to make a chair, now that’s your chair.
Weakened Lockean Proviso
In Nozick’s view, the principle of acquisition must take into account the effects of acquiring a property upon the rest of the persons of the world.
Nozick concedes that property rights have limits, and appropriation will need to take into account, to a very minimal extent, some of the life-planning necessities of other persons.
In order to judge what objects can be acquired and transferred (owned), Nozick wants to provide another principle which helps to regulate the principle of acquisition.
Can you own all the water sources in an area?
Water is necessary for all life planning
Nestle wants to privatize water ownership.
How should we draw these lines?
Ultimately, Nozick believes a free-market driven minimalist government will naturally arise from the sum choices of individuals seeking to protect their ability to effectively plan and conduct their lives.
Not much justification is given for it.
Criticism of Patterned-Justice Theories and End-State theories
Ideal distributions of wealth have a pattern, on these theories (see Rawls)
E.g. merit, or need, etc.
Gifted basketball player example
You’d have to continually re-distribute
So?
Justice is about being blind to the results (end-states), and instead only about applying the correct principles (consequences be damned; this is a deontic theory).
This is direct conflict with Rawls, who obviously cares about having the right basic structures and distributions.
(Also a deontic theory though, interestingly)
Consequentialism, to some extent, is embedded in all moral theories.
Critiques of Nozick’s view
Nozick himself renounces the work.
Conflict with other moral theories
Self-Ownership is exceeding strong on this view.
Note, you don’t have to help the drowning little girl in the pool 10 feet away from you. After all, you own yourself.
You don’t have the right to hold a person’s head under the water, since they won themselves, and with respect to that action, you don’t own yourself.
Property rights are self-ownership based.
The only exception are the moral rights/duties which emerge from the moral minimal state.
You do have to pay taxes. That isn’t true enslavement though.
You still don’t have to help the drowning girl though.
The moment you start adding those requirements, you will find huge cracks in this theory which isn’t supposed to be, by definition and on principle, concerned with the welfare outcomes of others (excluding the proviso for acquisition).
Do we really get a small state out of Nozick’s principles? Maybe the minimal state is still very large when we think about it.
No welfare, it seems.
Although, what if welfare were the only way to protect the assets of the wealthy?
Just enough welfare to prevent a Marxist revolution.
The Proviso maybe should be incredibly strong
Nozick may have been wrong about it.
He doesn’t give enough evidence to show why his very weak proviso is correct.
Marxist Critique
Rawls’ Critique
Impractical, Devolves into an Aristocracy that won’t uphold this justice
One of the first things an observer might notice is that the Nozickian world certainly brings greater benefits to the most talented and resourceful persons. Nozick might say that they deserve those benefits (regardless of whether those traits are innate, conditioned, or based on choice), not as a result of end-state patterned principles, but simply as a product of the natural selection of the free market and the likelihood that such agents would plan their lives in certain ways by virtue of their gifts and talents.
In a hypothetical implementation of his entitlement theory, it is not difficult to imagine the population's minority (being ultra-gifted, talented, and highly skilled persons) as coming to own an overwhelming majority of property to the detriment of everyone else (but not so much as to trigger the very low baseline of the proviso).
Even if critics could agree to have an elite class arise, what would make us think the elite class would continue to uphold justice?
What would prevent the elite from having undue influence on the implementation of the entitlement theory or the free market?
Wouldn’t the elite class, which holds the lion’s share of market influence, strategize and act to maximize their benefits by warping the previously free market to their advantage?
The elite could artificially raise prices, collude, and execute anti-market practices to boost their profits.
These things, done carefully, are certainly possible even within the strictest applications of Nozick’s justice system.
For necessary goods and services, artificial increases in prices can be considered a type of tax in the free market (benefactors and payers of the tax may vary).
The elite’s influence on the market might be so profound so as to “tax” the less well off for necessary goods without violating the proviso.
Nozick is against undue taxation. But, his theory seems incapable of handling the problem of this taxation.
Slavery
Non-Persons are screwed
In Nozick's system, beings who are not mentally capable of planning and executing life-plans are no different than the rocks, trees, land and other disposable objects in the universe.
Personhood testing would need to be constant.
How would you even know who counts as a person?
This metric is vital to defining the population of actual persons. It would be easy to imagine a “life or death” testing of all beings. Testing would likely have to happen constantly to make sure “so-called-persons” continually matched the criteria.
Nozick’s entitlement theory must allow for slavery (the complete ownership of another human or agent).
Property is property; and even persons (who own themselves as a legitimate holding) can be owned.
Persons can legitimately transfer self-ownership to another.
Fully embracing Nozick’s entitlement theory would very likely lead to the enslavement of humans and agents that do not fully qualify for the status of personhood.
Imagine that you found an unowned mentally deficient human on the side of the road (who didn’t qualify for personhood/self-ownership). You could put a leash on that human (thereby mixing in your labor with it) and legitimately acquire entitlement to that human.
Personhood problems again:
Should the extent of inviolability, personhood status, and merit scale with measure of life-planning capacity of an agent?
Perhaps the possibility of life-planning more effectively than others will make one agent more valuable than another.
After all, if life-planning is really the essential ingredient to personhood, and the capacity to life-plan varies a great deal amongst agents (and merit is acknowledged by the quantity of said aptitude), then a personhood bell-curve could be generated, scaling reward to aptitude.
Or is the line of personhood entirely binary and modular - you either have it or you don’t?
It isn’t just mentally deficient adults who are marginalized, or senile elderly humans, but even children in the Nozickian world.
Strictly following his person-making requirements, we would surely have to admit that young children aren’t persons; they are simply incapable of the sort of life-planning which Nozick expects of persons.
Nozick is aware of this problem, but does not really give an explanation for how children aren’t slaves.
Parental ownership of Offspring
The problems of child slavery run deeper because the possibility of ownership of children isn’t simply based upon their lack of the ability to form life-plans, but also because they are a product of labor which grants legitimate acquisition rights to the mixers of labor.
Since persons have a right to the products of their labor, it would follow that parents have the right to the products of their sexual, incubational, and post-birth cultivational labor. The human reproductive cycle appears to be a valid means to appropriation of newly created humans within the entitlement theory.
In Nozick’s world, parents are fully entitled to their children, in the same way a person can be entitled to the growth of their fingernails or an autumn harvest of crops.
On this theory, don’t parents own their children forever (unless ownership is otherwise legitimately transferred)?
It would be an illegitimate transfer for parents to lose any degree of ownership in offspring without a social contract; parents could refuse to give up entitlement to their offspring.
Nozick needs to stop this. I have many questions:
When do children come to own themselves?
Do parents own their children until they have developed into comprehensive life-planning moral agents and so on?
What would prevent parents' altering their children's mental status or capacity in order to prevent loss of property?
Even if a child might eventually develop person-making characteristics, should we not view those as the fruits of parental labor over time?
Human development is really a complicated mixture of labors of a village of agents. Perhaps communities own, in some part, their members.
Why can’t producing children just be a more fun process than producing a robot child, but where you own both?
Problem of Self-Acquisition/Transfer
How do people come to own themselves?
Nozick provides almost no formal account of this issue - which is unfortunate because it is fundamental to the foundation of his entire entitlement theory.
Persons, by definition, own themselves.
You aren’t a person if you don’t own yourself.
Only a person can own property.
Self-Ownership means you are an object of property that you own.
In transfers, one person transfers a property to another person.
Maybe my parents owned me to begin with. Unfortunately, they can’t transfer ownership to me, since I’m not a person.
In acquisitions, only a person can acquire property.
I can only own a car because I am a person.
I can only be a person if I own myself
How can I acquire ownership of myself if I don’t already own myself?
//Welcome to the original [[Relic]] of this wiki. This project started it all. I could not disentangle the non-linear mess, and I still can't. Lol! God damn, I have incredibly mixed, ferocious feelings about this letter even today. I'm so grateful to myself for having taking the leap, to make the effort, to have sat down in my ball of tears to write this rhizome. [[h0p3]], you've done well with what you've had.//
---
Dear Mom and Dad,
If we sum up the time that we will spend together over the course of the remainder of our lives, I might guess we have 30-40 weeks of time left.<<ref "1">> I want to make sure our precious time together counts. I want us to look forward to our visits together. I want us to enjoy them. I want them to be some of the highlights of our lives. I know you do too. I write [[this letter|About this Letter]] to extend an olive branch to you in the hope that we can achieve this happiness together.
Our last conversation was a catastrophe. It weighs heavily on me.<<ref "2">> It haunts me. It kills me to see our relationship dying.<<ref "3">> I have spent a great deal of time and energy soulsearching, researching, and contemplating a solution.<<ref "4">> Problematic to resolving our issues: I don’t want to be hurt, and I don’t want to hurt you either.<<ref "5">> Attempting to fix this relationship feels like a high-stakes risk. Paradoxically, I think we both feel we are in a "lose-lose" position. It appears<<ref "6">> as though there's no way to "win" and be happy together, as though all the roads we share lead to pain. So, why take the risk?
Here's why: I'm not sure I can be happy if we fail to mend our relationship. I'm not sure you can either. That isn't to say we can't live on without each other, but in doing so our lives will be disfigured and unfulfilled.<<ref "ns">> Hence, this risk is worth taking.
I think we are both hurting a lot, and success here would make us happier. We love each other, and I believe we both strongly desire to resolve our tension. I want to build healing bridges over the gulf that grows between us.
I don't know what it will take to heal our relationship, to whatever degree we can, and I realize we may not salvage it. In any case, I desperately need our next visit to work (or at least be a giant step in the right direction). To that end, I have worked hard to respond to you as best as I can in this letter. I hope you will take my claims seriously and with maximum charity; they are hard-won. I seek to be delicate and yet directly honest with you. I'm seek to be as neutral and objective as I can in my analysis.<<ref "x">> I seek to address our problems with kindness and [[empathy|Empathy]]. In empathy, I believe we both have good intentions, and I hope we have the tools (or the tools to acquire the tools we need) to build these bridges.<<ref "7">>
Here is where I'm going to start (re)building: I deeply love you, and I always will. I am truly sorry I hurt you. I wish I could go back in time and undo the damage I've caused. That's not who I'm trying to be. I wish I had the wisdom, understanding, and foresight to know how to do it right. I wish I had the resources and awareness to never have been in this position in the first place. This sucks. I'm [[doing the best I can with what I have|Doing our Best]], and that has not been sufficient. I'm sorry. Please forgive me.
Of course, none of us are [[perfect|The Good]]. We are fallible, finite, and limited; we all fall short; we are blemished and defective. We each have emotional conflicts and logical dissonance in ourselves.<<ref "8">> On top of that, we are all vulnerable, [[intelligent|We are Intelligent]],<<ref "9">> and highly sensitive<<ref "10">> human beings who happen to have radically divergent and often incompatible experiences, journeys, memories, inferential-styles, values, goals, projects, desires, feelings, and points of view. We have different modes toward and systematic understandings of ourselves and the world. In other words, we have different [[reality maps|Reality map]], and finding a harmony for our fragile relationship is fraught with unique challenges.<<ref "11">>
Our reality maps are critically incongruent; we have [[fundamental disagreements|Fundamental Disagreement]].<<ref "y">> Of course, disagreement is normal (and can be a vital, good thing), especially for imaginative and intelligent people. Many disagreements can be passed over without any real analysis or major resolution.<<ref "12">> Diversity in beliefs should often be celebrated or even understood as being evolutionarily adaptive. Unfortunately, for practical reasons, some kinds of disagreement require resolution.<<ref "13">> Resolution doesn't necessarily mean we radically change each others minds (although that happens once in a while), but it does require we find a way to make ourselves compatible with each other.
Right now, we aren't compatible; we can barely sit in the same room with each other.<<ref "14">> We are just hurting each other. If we can't find a way to stop it, then it is clear that we can't have a significant relationship.<<ref "15">>
I recognize that the significance of our [[friendship|Friendship]] comes in degrees. We may never be perfectly close, even though we want to be.<<ref "16">> If all else fails, if we somehow couldn't make a significant relationship work with each other, then we could always fall back on a distant, hollow, merely polite relationship with each other.<<ref "17">> We would ask each other "how have you been?" and the other would respond with a hollow "great, thank you for asking" alongside whatever minimal information or banalities we would be required to provide in the context. We'd get together when necessary and help each other when asked, but we wouldn't really engage in meaningful bonding beyond that. We wouldn't really //be with// each other to the degree that we really crave. We wouldn't really get to know each other, and we wouldn't really be walking together in the journeys of our lives. Our interactions would be reduced to social niceties and etiquette. Our relationship would be tedious and merely a chore we fulfill in order to maintain basic social ties. It would be joyless duty. It would be a form of mere instrumental social networking and tending to social capital we've built in each other. It would be a lie. It would be repulsive. It would be dreadful. It would be heart-breaking, and because it would be so crazy painful, I hope failure is not an option. I can't bear to imagine going down that road.
Suffice it to say, we need compatibility bridges between our reality maps instead of galactic rifts and clashes between them. We must come to a mutual, shared, and more secured understanding between our reality maps if our relationship is going to have depth and meaning. I believe we can eventually and hopefully effortlessly pass over much of our disagreement, but only after we have a better grasp of what we disagree on (even if we can only get that picture painted in broad strokes).<<ref "18">> This gives us vital information for not stepping on each others toes or pissing in each others' pools.<<ref "19">> Essentially, by cultivating our empathy and working towards mutual understanding (even if only an understanding of our disagreement), we will be better positioned to know what not to say or do in front of each other. We will able to see the contours of our conflict and avoid collision where possible.<<ref "20">> If we're lucky, we may even be able to accept our disagreement so thoroughly that we just laugh about it together and enjoy each others company without reservation.
My struggle with you is deeply entangled with struggle with myself. Part of you who are, your reality maps, is deeply embedded in me. I am at war in myself, and by proxy, I am at war with you.
I believe this is the epicenter of our conflict:
This isn't about being right now. It is not about finding the truth. It is not about trying to convince each other of our reality maps or even defend our reality maps against each other in any significant way.
I think my autism is something you believe I should overcome and not something that should be embraced.
We don't seem to agree on the moral rules of the social game (whether or not the game is fundamental to our existence is another question, one which we both desperately try to support) we are participating in.
Let me straight up grant that you have a right to believe what you want to believe (assume I take up moral relativism for your position, but not mine). So, only I might have moral duties, and you either don't or I have nothing to say about it. I don't take you to be morally culpable for who you are, and I'm fine with you being whoever you want to be (that doesn't mean I won't change my behavior with you).
I feel like I've journeyed logically and emotionally deep existential, philosophical, religious territory. Note, our disagreement doesn't make you wrong, but it
I reasonably have a right to feel and think what I do.
I have earned my right to think differently than you on crucial matters. We are going to disagree, which is totally fine. But
Here's the ugly fact: I can't be who you want me to be. I don't think that makes me immoral. I don't think that makes me irrational. I don't think that means I lack integrity. I don't think you should //otherise //me because I believe so fundamentally different from you, and I owe the exact same token of respect to you. This is agreeing to disagree.
Problematically, agreeing to disagree is an oversimplification of the process. There are networks of inferences that branch off disagreement, and recognizing how and where it branches off is required for us to fully agree to disagree on the implications of our starting disagreement. I really do think I understand the set of inferences which result from your starting place; I see the implications of your point of view to a significant extent. I do not think the same can be said for you of me.
Obviously, you can't have experienced and thought everything I have; you aren't me. But, you do have to try harder to understand why it is that I think what I do. You don't have to "revolve" around me like this. I think, however, that's what being a parent is really like sometimes. It means you have to develop an appreciation for who your children really are. They're really different from you, they have different minds than you, they have different reality maps from you in radical ways, and that means you'll have to spend more time learning to empathize with them than other parents with their children.
We have to get past judgement. We can't be cynical about each other. If we are, we'll both just hate each other.
Let's be clear here: I'm ridiculously judgmental. This is pot calling kettle black. I judge you to be less judgmental than me. Judging and making arguments which passed judgement from experts is what I did as a vocation. I think you have and do much the same as a vocation.
Making judgement calls is what we're forced to do. At the bottom of our hearts, we both know how awful human beings really are. You have hope for them, and I do not. Not having hope for people, in a predictive sense, is not the same as saying I won't have empathy for them. It just means I know longer empathize with the people who you hope they really can be. I'm no longer working to help that person because that person won't actually exist (here's where prediction matters).
Can we co-exist without judging each other?
I forgive you for whatever mistakes you have committed against me because I legitimately think you are good people who honestly seek to do the right thing. I think you are addicted to being moral <and I don't think that a bad thing> I think trying to be moral rules your life. I think you are extremely good at it in certain ways, I think you aren't as rational in your pursuit of morality as you would hope. I think I'm the exact same way. I think in our pursuit of being moral, we've come to understand the very concept of Virtue differently. What it means to be excellent persons is different for us. We both think the other is incredibly wrong about some of the most important things in the world, the things which define who we are to the core. The cores of reality maps, the most fundamental questions and assumptions we take up, have some differences. We both took a handful of existential questions and answered them the same in some ways, but differently in others. Even tiny differences at the beginning core of our reality maps will result in a tidal wave ripple of differences throughout a network of wildly chaotic fractal of inferences made surrounding that core.
I've had to find my own way. And, I can see, I will continue to need to do that. I feel burned by the authorities I have accepted in my life. I now must strongly buffer and reflect upon who and what I take to be authoritative. It is our plight, in this deep epistemic existential center of who we are, of what our freedom is, of the
Don't you hear two people in this document? Don't you see in these words that there is an internal cataclysm between the Red Pilled Man and Kant's Agent fighting within me? Don't you see the Kantian Crossroads!? Don't you fucking see the Road to Damascus!!! Neitzsche, that piece of shit (regardless of whether he's right or wrong), is sitting on the sidewalk laughing his off. I'm being driven to madness at the crossroads.
Why can't you accept that I am just a mortal man at the crossroads deciding who I will be here? Why can't you empathize with that man? Why would you begrudge him any pathways to happiness, especially when they are rational? Do you not understand him, do you think he is confused, or do you really think he's just evil?
Can you live with the fact that our reality maps are very different in important ways? Can you accept what that means? Can we be close again despite these differences?
I definitely have respect for people who have different opinions than me. I couldn't have been shaped as radically as I have been over the past 30 years if I didn't take others seriously.
Don't you see that I'm at The Crossroads? Don't you see that I wandered deep down a path that started at this crossroads, and I was deeply and systematically wrong at an epic level. My starting choice at central Crossroads of my reality map may have been wrong. I clearly have been wrong about so very much. I can't trust anyone, not even myself.
Who and What can I trust? Well. Reason seems amazing. Even if reason is just the constructed thing, a set of social rules and memes in our society which define "how to think," where we play a public game in shaming those who don't reason well and worshipping those who reason well (where each contestant comes with their own definitions of what is reasonable).
I don't have miracles. I don't have authority besides myself at this point. The real me is a naked, weak, broken man at the crossroads, yet again. It is like Groundhog Day againness. I can't keep doing this. It is the true meaning of purgatory. I am caught between a heavenly way and the way of the hellian. Problematically, they both look like hell, but oddly, the hellian way at least gives me reasons to live. I can't be a slave anymore. I care about myself too much to accept my slavery. I have dignity. Ah, is this a slip into the dark triad or actually practicing empathy for myself?
I think you take yourselves to be excellent psychologists and students of human nature. I think you are very much so in certain ways. I've also seen you be wrong too often on these topics to trust you much on them.
I think you are reasonable enough that if you experienced what I have experienced, you would agree with me. I think that if you were transplanted out of your soul and into where mine has been, and you walked observingly on my lifepath, with empathy, where you saw what you saw and didn't see what you didn't see, where you had the billions of choice-time-slice-instances (and many choices to choose from in each instanst) in front of you every day
I think if you were the ideal epistemic agent, an agent of maximum possible empathy, flying above me the forest of my lifepaths, you'd see that I did the best I could with what I had, that given my reality map at each choice timeslice-instance, I made the best, most rational choice I could have at that instance. It is almost certainly not the objectively best choice given the ideal epistemic agent's truly objective reality map. But, I didn't have that reality map to work with. I had my shitty, hilarious, almost farcical map that I've cultivated over time (just like the rest of us).
the reality map I have w with while journeying on this path
I'm interested in being authentic. In being myself. I see now why I can't trust authority. Many times I have thought that, and now I re-understand what it means to not trust authority. There are many levels and kinds of authority.
I have to trust myself. If I don't then we can go nowhere. How much should I trust myself?
The man who is wrong about the Red Pilled road
Reaching a point where we aren't stabbed by the pain of our disagreement may not be easy. We see each others' reality maps as being desperately wrong, as dangerous, as a significant cause of much of our personal pain.
I think we both worry the other has completely nixed the other's map in their map. Like we both might somehow be thinking the other is completely off their rocker, doesn't have all they'remarbles, that their missing the bigger picture so strongly that it's insane.
From your point of view, unless some miracle happens, unless the Potter can successfully reshape His lump of clay, unless I somehow reshaped my reality map, or unless God judges by some other standard than what you accept, I'm going to hell. My short life on this Earth will translate into eternal damnation; that's God's justice for me.
That is a powerful point of view to have. It shapes your reality map in dealing with me very strongly.
You have spent your lives trying to convert people, and by your own standard, you have failed with your sons. Can you stoically accept my fate and just be with this sinner as he sins? Can you do without judgment? Can you let it go? I assume not. It is deeply ingrained in you. It is your vocation and purpose.
[[Your Faith and my Lack thereof]]
I'm okay with the fact that we have different reality maps. I think there are asymmetries in our relationship that need correction. Namely, I think I understand your reality map (I've experienced it) a lot more more than you understand mine. I think the key to our compatibility is two fold:
Being explicitly okay with each other having different reality maps.
Understanding what we disagree on.
Understand my reality map is understand me. If you don't want to understand me, to empathize with me, to see if my shoes, then I'm not really convinced you care about me.
Do you want to me say you've thrown your life away? That you are making a gigantic mistake in your irrational, addicted pursuit of faith? Do you want me to groan at every thing you say, to be pissed at the causes and consequences of the beliefs that led to your words and actions? No. I expect the same from you.
I think this document is worth studying. I’m not looking for you to grade my paper (which wasn't ultimately why I sent you my papers ; I was trying to give you breadcrumbs to my reality, to have the content to interact with me [I eventually just stopped, since I saw it wasn't working]), but I am hoping you will listen to me because I will listen back.
[[Mom]]
[[Dad]]
[[J.R.E.]]
[[A.I.R.]]
[[Freedom]]
[[Humanity]]
Some beliefs might have to change for that to occur. Some notion of what we ought to do and why might have to change. Understanding how to wisely and politely have fundamental disagreement is not easy.
[[Whine like a Baby|The "Whine like a Baby" Section]]
[[A son's thank you|Thank you]]
[[Charity]]
We have other impediments to consider. Importantly, we are not as articulate as we wish. Even if we have the right intentions and ideas, it is hard to find the right words (particularly in the moment) to unlock our relationship.
[[medical treatment|Medical Treatment]]
[[my depression|My Depression]]
[[my recovery|My Recovery]]
[[my friend M.B.A.|M.B.A.]]
I believe your reality map has brought about significant pain in my life. You have such a coherent view that it can be intoxicating. It took me a long time to peel away from it.
Despite our differences, we obviously share plenty of beliefs in common.
[[where I am Now|Where I Am Now]]
[[Meme]]. Meme video.
[[Roots]]
In addition to our conflict, I'm dealing with a network of other crucial issues. I would say I have disintegrated, and I am trying to find a way to integrate myself.
We all think we are right. We find it hard to act on the assumption that we aren't. It is our plight as humans to both know our fallibility and at least temporarily assume we aren't in our calculations and choices.
Do you remember when I was 11, and I decided not to speak to H.O.E.?
Do you remember when I moved to college? We had a falling out.
The happiness and well-being of my children may be an impediment. They are not a bargaining chip, a tool, or a social totem for us to dance around. We have conflicting views on what is best for my children. Let there be no mistake, J.E.W. and I call the shots.
In all likelihood, we will not dispel our fundamental disagreements. That's okay. Hopefully, we share enough common ground that we can build bridges across our gaps.
Admittedly, I have unhappy memories of your relationships with all of my grandparents, except [[B.B.C.|Betty Boop]]. This is not what I want for M.S.N. and I.M.F.. I want them to know you and experience joy with you. Unfortunately, I don't want you to infect their reality maps (which I'm sure I have already damaged - as is the nature of fallible, human parenting).
As to your qualms with my self-medication, I hope you will in time see that I have done the best I could with what I had. There are not many viable resources available to me. I also think I have been justified in my mistrust of others and my willingness to be my own advocate when no healer or remedy worked. I think you know very little about my journey and progress for mental health and happiness (this is not an assignment of blame). Were you to have an ideal, more objective, third-personal view of my experience, I think you would find I did you proud. You have not been there for the countless conversations I have had with other family members about this issue. I have been positively scientific in my pursuit of stability and happiness. Problems are not solved overnight.
Obviously, everyone wants unconditional happiness, and if medicine or drugs are conditional
I have found an incredibly helpful substance: Ketamine. It's literally magic for depression. I entreat you to research it.
I have heard you say that you don’t feel like you can “win” with me. I think we both feel that way about each other. We don’t know the right words to say to each other. We don’t have the keys to unlock our compatibility.
This letter is densely packed, and I hope the scope and depth of it enables us to experience a quantum leap in our friendship.
If I were there, I'd hug you. I love you very much.
I am listening.
Love,
Your son
-------------------------------------------
<<footnotes "1" "I could be wrong (hopefully it would be far more time), but it seems at least a distinct and realistic possibility. Of course, we may have distant interactions in between, but they seem categorically not the same. Here's hoping that at least this letter is an exception to the previous sentence. I may only write a handful of letters in my life that passionately matter to me, and I hope this one does the job we need it to do.">>
<<footnotes "2" "In addition to a number of other significant emotional and intellectual requirements of me.">>
<<footnotes "3" "That pain is part of my motivation to fix the problem. The happiness we can achieve together is another.">>
<<footnotes "4" "I have been in a deep think for many years now about a number of serious problems. That obviously doesn’t validate or show superiority in anything I’m saying, but I hope it demonstrates how seriously I take the task. Without a doubt, I am sure you have done the same.">>
<<footnotes "5" "Eliminating overwhelming pain (pain isn't always unconditionally bad) from my life is crucial to making my life worth living. I’m not sure I can effectively articulate the pain I have experienced. You have seen the signs of it though.">>
<<footnotes "ns" "I think having a good relationship with your family is a necessary condition to the happiness of most people, even if it isn't sufficient.">>
<<footnotes "6" "Appearances can be deceiving.">>
<<footnotes "x" "But, no longer “whatever the costs.” Unfortunately, for too long I had dogmatically reflected upon this change in my stance toward to world (which amounted to a change in the epistemic algorithm of the rewards center of my brain ) as a kind of unacceptable, Camusian philosophical suicide, a move lacking in rationally justified integrity. My lust for certainty (which failed), and then later for mere confidence or acceptable justification has chipped away at me. In a way, I hated myself. The modernist in me hated my journey and reshaping. I was wrong though. The naked pursuit of truth is not always worth it. Some things are not worth thinking about. To be clear, I’m not looking to be perfectly happy; I’m after a semblance of eudaimonia. Flourishing human specimens must accept their bias and fallibility. Bias, in a terrifying way, is our plight, and a thing we must stoically acknowledge. At some point, we can't reshape our bias, we can only be enveloped by it. I want to flourish, and that means learning to be okay with and to live with my bias. There is the rationalization, if you seek one. I call it a practical leap worth taking.">>
<<footnotes "7" "We're xNTJs, so maybe we can figure this out. In my opinion, a strong habit and meme that permeates our family is having the wisdom+sensitivity to recognize how often and to what degree we’ve failed to be intelligent over the course of our lives. We evaluate ourselves and see our limits in an honest way that others often do not and very often cannot. Sometimes we are too critical, and sometimes we think too highly of ourselves or thoughts. In my opinion, having the humility to consistently recognize our mistakes and flaws has been one of our family’s greatest assets (and sometimes an incredible source of pain).">>
<<footnotes "8" "We are not perfectly constituted or [[integrated|Theory of Positive Disintegration]] selves.">>
<<footnotes "9" "It is unfashionable and lacking in (false) humility to imply or openly admit to being intelligent (particularly when you are). It causes others to have a kneejerk reaction to 'put you in your place.' Of course, who doesn't have the inescapable bias of acting on the assumption they are smart, or right, or the hero of their own story? You have to hide your intelligence in many ways, especially when you don't agree with others. I believe we simply have to own up to it in this conversation because it is part of the root of the complexity of our problem.">>
<<footnotes "10" "Sensitivity is the foundation of intelligence, a reason we see the world differently than others, and the source of some of our atypical pleasures and pains.">>
<<footnotes "11" "Unfortunately, in my opinion, we don't have access to an objective, ideal referee or guide to help us make sense of our reality maps, to disentangle our conflicts, to heal our wounds, or to clarify our common ground. I honestly believe that if this is going to succeed, we'll both have to work for it.">>
<<footnotes "y" "For the record, even when we disagree, I know you are still some of the smartest people I’ve ever met. Listen: I strongly care what you think. Even without your approval or understanding, I respect you. I think about what you say, a lot (perhaps too much). When all else fails, I try to think about what you would say. Before we get all weepy-eyed at that critical admission which supposedly no 'self-respecting' offspring would ever utter, I will rescue myself: It’s a fact that offspring tend to be within 10 IQ points of their parents. I don’t count myself as an exception to that rule. Further, I (almost delusionally) take myself to be absurdly intelligent (go team arrogance!), and thus, I have excellent reasons to believe you are too. The bad news is that our brains are deteriorating, thinking is heavy lifting, and we’ve hit our peaks. At some point in our lives, there is an acceleration in the crystallization of our reality maps, and we become less agile and able to radically alter and reorganize our reality maps (in my experience, that process begins or becomes more noticeable around 25-35 years old for most adults [and, I'm no exception] - roughly within the decade after our frontal lobes have finished developing). At which point, our mental growth tends to fit our reality map instead of fundamentally shaping it. I hope we can squeeze through this gap while we still have what it takes.">>
<<footnotes "12" "e.g. I think pepperoni pizza is better than sausage pizza. You might disagree. Practically-speaking, we don't and shouldn't really care about this disagreement (although, in a valuable theoretical way, I'm fully willing to entertain the possibility there are cases in which we should consistently care). Maybe it only matters when we have exceptionally limited shared resources, and then maybe we 'take turns' or select other ways to demonstrate that we still care for these lesser-kinds of disagreed-upon preferences of each other. In any case, this disagreement almost never matters and poses no serious problem to resolve.">>
<<footnotes "13" "e.g. It would not be useful or kind of me to confront, interrogate, or humiliate a relative in his 70's for watching Fox News or reading Facebook or Breitbart as his primary information sources. Our disagreement on our political and epistemic duties can't feasibly be resolved through careful argumentation. In fact, so much of our reality maps are so far apart that we can't even engage the normal game of public reasoning, of enjoying each others' reality maps, and rooting for each others' reality maps is over in that instance. We don't understand each other enough. Thus, we begin playing a different game, wherein we aren't strong or significant friends that can talk to each other (and never will be), but we hug and say a few nice words to each other. If one asked the other for help, we'd gladly give it. We try to share in what little we have in common.We honestly wish the other well. We love each other, but we don't really like each other (or what we like about the person is really only a distinct set of slivers of their reality map). It sucks, but that's about the best resolution we can get. It was the best we could work for.">>
<<footnotes "14" "Which is not assignment of blame. If we enter a blame game, we are put into a defensive position. We might even move on the offense by pointing out the other's hypocrisy. In considering blame, I worry that we are forced to pit the metaethical regions of our reality maps against each other (regions we have both worked hard to cultivate, ground that neither of us are willing cede). This is may not be useful to us. It may not help us listen to each other. Unfortunately, no matter how much we cushion it, some minimal degree of understanding our blameworthiness (in each others' eyes) may be inescapable to our conflict resolution.">>
<<footnotes "15" "I'm not trying to draw a line in the sand (although, I'm sure each of us has our own personal line). I'm trying to point out that it isn't a practical option for us to continually hurt each other. It isn't the loving thing to do. I take your maxim, 'if you have nothing nice to say, then say nothing at all,' to be applicable here. Unfortunately, we have a rich enough history together and we know each other so well that facial expressions, body language, pauses, the way a conversation is steered, word choice, and other aspects of our circumstances impart enormous meaning to each of us (that doesn't make us good at communicating with each other, but it means that we are sensitive to each other in ways that we aren't to others). Problematically, those cases of needing to 'say nothing at all' require more than not saying 'words' for us. Finding a way not to communicate not nice things, which can be more than our flat words, is difficult for us. This may not be a solvable problem for either of us. Worst case scenario: let's try until we can't.">>
<<footnotes "16" "My default settings tend to have an all or nothing kind of attitude (which serves me well in some ways and terribly in others). It's particularly bad for the problem of friendship. I'm working on it.">>
<<footnotes "17" "A minimum that I've spectacularly failed to accomplish since our last meeting. I am sorry I haven't been able to give you even that.">>
<<footnotes "18" "Admittedly, I (arrogantly) believe I can put my finger on the problematic disparities between our reality maps. I have had the benefit of being able to study your reality map in great detail (which I believe has begun to crystallize, which is only natural). I still share much of your map. We share a legacy of continents together, and I think we still share a crucial core. Importantly, it's not your fault that you don't know many parts of my reality map, just as it's not my fault for not knowing or having traveled the unknown parts of your reality maps.">>
<<footnotes "19" "Ideally, strong relationships enable great latitude in this respect. We afford each other spaces to make these mistakes. We have the chance to be ourselves, screw up, and it ends up being okay at the end of day. We embrace each other warts and all. But, there comes a point where we can't, where the pain is simply unbearable.">>
<<footnotes "20" "I fear this is a prime target for dismissal, as though I'm asking us to 'revolve' around each other. But, that's just what friendship is. Maybe you don't want to be friends like that. We don't have to be. I'm not claiming you have to or should. I'm saying that it is the cost of being friends with such disparate reality maps. It's simply more work to empathize with someone with a radically different reality map than it is with someone with a highly similar reality map.">>
Don't we love this section? Let's pat ourselves on the back.
A strong habit and meme that permeates our family is having the wisdom to recognize how often and to what degree we’ve failed to be intelligent or wise over the course of our lives; we evaluate ourselves and see our limits in an honest way that others often do not and very often cannot. Sometimes we are too critical, and sometimes we think too highly of ourselves or thoughts. In my opinion, having the humility to consistently recognize this flaw in ourselves has been one of our family’s greatest assets (and sometimes source of pain).
Our overexcitable sensitivity to the world around us is the first step in a psychological equation describing why we are relatively smart (let’s keep patting ourselves on the back). That sensitivity, to being wrong for example, has led to our intermittent ability to be humble enough to honestly evaluate ourselves. It is the fundamental, evolutionarily selected-for, underlying physiological explanation of our intelligence.
Being smart means our sensitivity causes us to generate very specialized, highly information entropic, yet deeply patterned ideas, beliefs, and inferences. Essentially, being smart means we have very specified reality maps, and it makes sense that we are mathematically more likely to clash, find incongruence, or feel incompatible.
I worry you think that my only or best way out of my depression is to reconvert to Christianity. Like you think is some spiritual problem played out in a physical dimension. Like this is a spiritual warfare taking its toll on me. As if the only way to be free and happy is to accept Christ again.
Why Are People Stupid?
Being rational sometimes grants utility. Being perfectly rational always grants you the best utility option (which doesn't necessarily grant you utility, but only the best of the options). Failing to consistently be perfectly rational sometimes, or failing to be fully rational in an instance, doesn't always grant you the best utility option (utility outcome prediction errors or selecting the option with the highest utility errors [seems deeply dysfunctional to do] have those kinds of results). People aren't always picking what maximizes utility.
People can be burned by trying to be rational. They can be humiliated and embarrassed of who they were and what they used to believe. They can see that people.
I think you did not understand the minds of your children in important ways. I think it also really hard to understand the minds of your children, since they were not neurotypical. I think you technically had the ability to learn and repond to these problems, and you didn't. I also think you had so many other pressures in your life as you were raising us that you couldn't empathize with us. If generally believed you did have the time, energy, resources, and life-direction to do it.
Dear Mom and Dad,
I love you.
Thank you for making Christmas so special for my children. They've been asking for/hinting at tablets/phones (any handheld touchscreen devices) for a while now (it is a yearly cycle in our household [I am trying to ensure that my children care about, plan for, identify with, and empathize with their future selves, in this case, enough so to make sure they do not break their tablets this year]). The child-protective covering will no doubt be useful (may the yearliness cycle end with persistent, cared-for devices that we take up as extensions of ourselves). Thank you.
[[1uxb0x]] and I are going to use the Minecraft stopmotion kit for homeschooling together. I'm not sure [[1uxb0x]] immediately appreciated it (that's okay) since he was overloaded in the Christmas bonanza-feeling. He's going to enjoy it. I hope it will open up a cool world for him and allow him to cultivate theories of mind and a richer sense of the 4-dimensional stage of life. Imho, it is was a very well selected gift for an autistic child. I wish I had thought of it.
[[j3d1h]] loves her Minecraft handbook collection. She has been exploring its metagame and the toolchains which surround its landscape. In a plain and non-ironic sense, it is a decorated embodiment of her project. Thank you for appreciating her project and putting the grandparent seal of approval on it. It's part of who she is.
You chose your gifts well. It shows you understand my children well, and I appreciate your empathy. You made their day, and in virtue of that, you made mine. Thank you!
Thank you for being good parents and grandparents. You have done well with what you have, where you are, who you are, and your context.
It's hard to have a conversation when we are both crying. If I could reach out and hold you, I would. These words are the only hug I am able to give you. I'm sorry, and I love you.
I'm sorry I don't have a gift for you yet (I'm not sure how to describe it; I am trying to make us all happy).
We're very much looking forward to seeing you soon.
Love,
[[h0p3]]
Despite my life falling apart in the past few years, my family's lives have improved significantly since the move. Actually, I feel like my life has been coming together too. That has been hope-inducing and purpose-giving to me. I need to figure out what I'm going to do now.
The reason I have to live right now is the happiness of my children. I must pursue that purpose with zeal. I can't let that flame die out. Of course, if my children's happiness is my telos, then I will have many instrumental values through the necessary conditions for their happiness. [[What is necessary and what is sufficient for eudaimonia?]]
How can I give my children my best? What is best for them? How can I make them happy? Who are they, who will they be, and what do they need? What is my vision for my children? How are the most likely to achieve the highest average utility?
<<<
[[KIN]]: Watch out, we do not know that [[Eudaimonia]] [[<=>]] Max (Personal or Global) [[Utility]]
<<<
My first practical thought: I'm going to help them become computer wizards and systems-gods.<< ref "1">> They could be jedi-hackers. But, of course, my first thought is too narrow. It is really only a gateway to a broader set of things my children need for the future. They have to be philosophical too. They need to find love, to be challenged in the right ways, to figure out their own goals, etc. Achieving happiness is not simple. I need to create [[eudaimonic lifehackers|Eudaimonic Lifehacker]].
Academically, I must help them to:
* become proficient in practical life skills
** Basic accounting and managing their personal finances
*** Do they have a basic understanding of economic, financial, and monetary concepts and principles?
***Do they instinctively look towards with the world in a utilitarian mindset (the only moral perspective which relies heavily upon the frontal lobes)?
**** Do they practice self-control, planning, and delayed gratification?
**** How much do they use reason to dictate their financial (or even life in general) choices?
** Home economics
*** Can they troubleshoot problems in objects around the home?
*** Do they cook, clean, and organize their home?
**** Can they make their home a palace they enjoy habitating?
*** Can they gracefully handle having other people in their home (in various contexts)?
* acquire a formal trade skill
* habituate constructive social skills
* round out their education with laser-focused depth in humanities
** I have a very strong point of view in the humanities. It is part of my art and craft in philosophy; the root of the humanities just is my techne.
* become language learners
* become effective self-reflectors
May they be jedi-lifehackers. When they decide to leave my nest, they will have a very practical tool for the [[uberworld|The Uberworld]].
How can I raise jedi eudaimonic lifehackers? What is the virtuous character?
They need to learn:
* how to learn
** broadly: what to learn, why, how, from whom, in the right way, at the right time, and so on and so forth
** how to practice
** how to curate information
*** learning which information to curate and why
*** learning how to build their curation toolset
** to develop and tune a bullshit detector
** how to organize and reassess their reality maps
* to consistently engage in the growth cycle of: taking healthy risks, getting hurt (while sometimes succeeding to varying degrees), and learning from their mistakes
**i.e. to habitually improve upon their risk-taking algorithm in the rewards system of their mind
**to fail over and over and over, and to not give up
** to see the costs of being the kind of person who gives up easily (to be motivated to avoid it)
** to learn how to pick their battles and goals well, and how to mentally land on their feet after they fall
*** to accept failure, to roll with those punches, and to move on
** to constantly analyze their work+life goals
* to work hard, fast, and efficiently
** to convert work into games they find fun and interesting
** to automate work, to offload the heavy-lifting, to passive gain income
** to see the value in their work, to see its limits and potential
*to see their future selves as part of their authentic self.
**They must recognize and identify with their 4th-dimensional identity.
**They must plan and think about who they are becoming because that just is them.
** They must learn to empathize with themselves, to talk to themselves, to care about who they are.
Of course, I need to be a much better role-model in this respect. How can I hope for them to succeed if they don't a blueprint to follow?
I can't teach them or motivate them (or help them learn to teach and motivate themselves) without empathy. I have to understand them to teach and motivate them. My goal is to empathize with my children. I must develop reliable, accurate, and rich theories of their minds, and consistently elect to fire off my mirror-neurons to put myself in the hypothetical world generated by the programmatic details of my theory of their minds. I need to get to know them as well as they know themselves, or I at least need to do my best. I can't understand their individual needs or tailor my parenting to them without empathy.
They need me to empathize with them, that's what loving them is all about. To guide them wisely requires the resources and love to develop a habit which trains me to gutturally enjoy (to like) empathizing with them in all contexts, since after all, that is the only way in which I will have the virtuous disposition, perception, and guttural reflexes to be an excellent (arete) parent (MacIntyre's virtue of the practice).
On a different note, I now see that I have to help my parents develop reliable, accurate, and rich theories of my mind, and that can only be done if I can do the same for them in a bootstrapping process. It can't be all on them to find their way through my desert. I have to lead them down my very odd network of thoughts. It is my responsibility to engage them in this way. They need my help to empathize with me.
Alright, so I have answered "What's next?" or "what it is I'm going to do now" with educating my children correctly and helping my parents understand me. Both of these, fundamentally, are about learning how to be more empathic. I must trust in empathy. I must trust my [[Kantian Intuition Network]] (KIN), and I must do it regardless of the conclusions of my [[Redpill Intuition Network]] (RIN). It is a kind of faith, but even RIN must accept that the bottom of epistemology is obviously faith, it is the only solution to [[the foundation problem|Epistemic Foundation]].
<<<
''KIN'': RIN, can't you see? Metamodernism and Positive Disintegration
<<<
---
<<footnotes "1" "My goal is not to be a kingmaker. My goal is find the highest utility for my children possible.">>
!! Logs:
* [[2017.09 - /b/]]
* [[2017.10 - /b/]]
* [[2017.11 - /b/]]
* [[2017.12 - /b/]]
!! Audits:
* I'm not sure when or why I started it exactly. It kind of blossomed. I saw what it was and embraced it.
* [[Redpill]]ed, honest, and brutal.
* Plenty of wrestling and veil piercing to be found.
* Interestingly, I feel less moved by my older work on average than I expected. There are gems, of course.
* I feel like I need to preserve some of this work, particularly my [[redpill]]ed socialist work.
* Inserting/reformulating them into [[Redpilled Socialist Quips]]
* I have surprisingly little to say, but I'm thoroughly glad I said what I did.
!! Logs:
* [[2017.06 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.07 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.08 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.09 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.10 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.11 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.12 - Carpe Diem Log]]
!! Audit:
* Wowsers, when I started this log, it was more explosive. It has slowly tapered off. This might be a bad thing. Generally, my logs work in the opposite direction. Did I find the apt equilibrium?
* I must spend more time being grateful and counting my blessings. I need to reframe my life, refactor my perceptions in the right way.
* I'm glad that my extended family come to visit us. It really is awesome. It shows they care too.
* It started as I was looking for a job last year. Interesting.
* Perhaps this is a place to talk about my failures and digest it appropriately.
* Why did I stop telling myself a story? Is it too much work?
* My children have come such a long way. I'm very proud of them.
* Whitelisting has been effective. I hope that I can help my children develop habits of self-control around the computer. It is not easy.
** It is an unfortunate drug. Like the pursuit of money, in a sense, it is necessary, but perhaps too easy to be consumed by it.
* I see that I spend non-trivial effort staying connected with people. It's important that I continue to go out of my way. In a sense, I don't predict others will do it (even if I expect they ought).
* I spend a lot of time worrying about my vehicle, domicile, and finances. I hope this one day isn't a serious problem.
* I'm glad I've stopped spending time on video games for the most part.
* Carpe Diem is an interesting outlet to catch stuff that just doesn't belong in [[/b/]]. I fear I don't use it correctly anymore. What has gone wrong?
* Once I started working (particularly the second job), I had less to say. I think I also had less energy to say anything. There are limits to what I can accomplish.
* Ah, those phones have been dead useful to us. I'm glad we got them.
** I am pleased to see that my children are not addicted to them, but that could be because they are growing up on their primary computers instead.
* Ha, I forgot I embedded an image in one. Some of this is obviously [[/b/]] and [[Link Log]] material. It's not that there can't be overlap, of course, but I prefer to have my data in one place. Redundancies make me queasy (I love transclusions though).
* I'm so glad I was able to communicate with my family while I lived in Charlotte. Life is tough.
* Do I fail to take into account what my wife needs? I feel like I shape the course of our family more than she does, and that's not fair to her.
* I need to make sure that I spend more time in this wiki as my "chillaxing" than I do in other activities. In a sense, I'm still not taking this video game seriously enough. It is my obsession, and I need to act more like it.
* It's clear that I'm still developing the framework of the wiki itself through this log. Well, I'm glad that I write it down somewhere!
* Jesus, July was insane!
* I still have not paid back my father-in-law's $500 gift-loan.
* I've been fighting for my sleep.
* It's clear that our family has learned how to cook and clean together better this year. I feel like our household is becoming more functional and balanced. I really appreciate everything my family has done. The adults worked their asses off, and the offspring stepped up to the plate.
* The Eastman job is where I really started to become quite brief in this log.
* My wife is paying for the chaos and stress in our lives with her health!
* In a sense, the Carpe Diem Log just is what other people do when they journal. Perhaps I'm going too light on it, I don't know.
* September felt like a month of getting used to drowning.
* I have learned my lesson: use drugs and be prepared at all times for a piss test.
* Reading through this, I am reminded that I fail to empathize with the mental unwell-being of others. That said, I would also argue I have fought for my sanity and being moral far harder than anyone else I know.
* Perhaps I should be faster to pull the DCK trigger.
* Our Family Meetings bound us together like cords that cannot be broken.
* I'm really proud of myself for planning for my family. I need to do it more. I'm afraid I'm not very good at it, and I'm pissed at everything I have lost and failed in so far, but that is no reason not to do my best.
* Hrmmm. the "How I usually do it" audit notation in 2017.09 is interesting. I can't tell if that is a good thing or not.
* I've really tried to make the most of my time when I stopped working for money. I have worked very hard. I don't think I've done it perfectly, but I have been making serious progress.
* Should I take notes about what JRE and I talk about? Sometimes we have crucial conversations that I feel like I've failed to capture and reflect on in a more formal manner.
* I'm so glad I got to see my family. Perhaps we should plan a camping weekend this spring for everyone.
* We haven't Informed the Jabba as of late, but it's so fucking cold!
* I can feel my joy and my pain in this log.
* We've had a very hard time finding videos worth watching together as a family (and me in general). I think I've perhaps culled the majority of what I'm going to get. I will keep being picky and find other ways to spend my time.
* The vertical mouse has certainly grown on me. Even my desire to RSS sub video is largely gone. I binge and hit things on the fly, or I sit and veg in front of low-effort, low-risk, guaranteed drugs from shows I've watched many times.
* I like the ideas of the counts, but unfortunately, I think it takes up too much of my time for what I get. I would love to have a parser though. That would make life significantly better. Perhaps I just need to bite the bullet and learn to write good parsers and tool for tiddlywiki itself; to program its css/javascript/html more directly.
* I've definitely been very stressed. That's okay. It will fade in time.
* I have been drinking a bit more often, although I'm glad to see I have control of it. I will continue to watch.
* I am really glad that we are purposely spending mealtime together more effectively. I hope to continue to improve this process.
* I have lectured my kids a great deal with a year, and in part. Advice, of course, is often more to me (or my past self) than to them in a sense; more charitably, I give them the best information I would give myself (empathy).
* We had a lot of family and friends time this year. More than we probably ever had in a way. I love it.
* I can see I'm slowly spiraling out. I need to actually do something again.
* I look through these, and life seems like an unstable blur. I'm feeling kind of disappointed and proud at the same time. I feel more anxious than anything when I see this.
!! Logs:
* [[2017.01.02 - Computer Musings: Autism and Social Technology]]
* [[2017.02.17 - Computer Musings: Fire Tablets]]
* [[2017.02.28 - Computer Musings: Frugal Computing]]
* [[2017.03.20 - Computer Musings: The Art of Bookmarks]]
* [[2017.04.22 - Computer Musings: Cloud Garden Ports]]
* [[2017.04.27 - Computer Musings: Why don't we all go NaCL for every service?]]
* [[2017.06.16 - Computer Musings: Buying Hardware]]
* [[2017.07.27 - Computer Musings: Mobile Phone To-Do-Checklist]]
* [[2017.10.14 - Computer Musings: Burning My Eyes]]
* [[2017.11.07 - Computer Musings: Internet Laws]]
* [[2017.11.16 - Computer Musings: Downgrading Firefox 57 to ESR for TiddlyFox]]
* [[2017.11.22 - Computer Musings: Personal Information IP Rights]]
* [[2017.12.05 - Computer Musings: Switching to ZSH]]
* [[2017.12.06 - Computer Musings: Making W10 Liveable For My Wife]]
* [[2017.12.12 - Computer Musings: Tiddlywiki Performance Problems]]
* [[2017.12.13 - Computer Musings: Public Resilio Sync]]
* [[2017.12.16 - Computer Musings: Switching to Manjaro]]
* [[2017.12.18 - Computer Musings: HTPC]]
* [[2017.12.19 - Computer Musings: Coocoo-Bananas]]
* [[2017.12.21 - Computer Musings: qTox]]
* [[2017.12.23 - Computer Musings: KDE]]
* [[2017.12.24 - Computer Musings: Grave]]
* [[2017.12.25 - Computer Musings: Setup Continues]]
* [[2017.12.26 - Computer Musings: Decentrality]]
* [[2017.12.27 - Computer Musings: Network Effect Solutions]]
!! Audit:
* These are very random thoughts, but that is okay. This was not a project until November. Only then did I realize what I was actually trying to make this entire time.
* I'm giving title.Titles to those which don't have one.
* This "Log" which I didn't initially realize was a log was clearly influential on this wiki. I see the marks.
* I'm still impressed by the performance on that i3.
* To-Do-Lists =)
* Oh, snap! Internet Laws seems like [[Antipleonasmic Catholicon]] content to me. Cut-Paste and Transclude!
** Feed the beast!
* Hrmm...One of these is a Walkthrough.
* Preach, yo!
* ZSH is wonderful, btw.
* Fuck FF.
* Some oddball ideas in here.
* I did a lot of work this year, even though I don't show it.
* I use these shortcuts often. I'm glad I recorded them.
* Only half my ricing is worth it in the end.
!! Logs:
* [[2017.10.17 - D2: Log]]
* [[2017.10.18 - D2: Log]]
* [[2017.10.19 - D2: Log]]
* [[2017.10.20 - D2: Log]]
* [[2017.10.21 - D2: Log]]
* [[2017.10.23 - D2: Log]]
* [[2017.10.24 - D2: Log]]
* [[2017.10.25 - D2: Log]]
* [[2017.10.26 - D2: Log]]
* [[2017.10.31 - D2: Log]]
* [[2017.11.10 - D2: Log]]
* [[2017.11.11 - D2: Log]]
* [[2017.11.15 - D2: Log]]
* [[2017.11.16 - D2: Log]]
* [[2017.11.17 - D2: Log]]
* [[2017.11.18 - D2: Log]]
* [[2017.11.19 - D2: Log]]
* [[2017.11.20 - D2: Log]]
* [[2017.11.21 - D2: Log]]
* [[2017.11.22 - D2: Log]]
* [[2017.11.30 - D2: Log]]
!! Audit:
* I got every character to hell mode. It's clear that my sorc is still the best runner, but she isn't as powerful or as safe as the necromancer or hammerdin.
* The kicksin just farms clones. She is by far the best equipped, sporting two serious runewords (for me) and upped gores.
* Sorc is a runerunner at this point, and I don't need major equipment for her. Fast cast + Skill and just enough survivability.
* Javazon does Pindle runs.
* The Barb and Druid seem like useless cunts to me.
!! Logs:
* [[2017.03 - Family Log]]
* [[2017.04 - Family Log]]
* [[2017.05 - Family Log]]
* [[2017.06 - Family Log]]
* [[2017.07 - Family Log]]
* [[2017.08 - Family Log]]
* [[2017.09 - Family Log]]
* [[2017.10 - Family Log]]
* [[2017.11 - Family Log]]
* [[2017.12 - Family Log]]
* [[2018.01 - Family Log]]
!! Audit:
* I must continue to find ways to encourage my children to communicate with others, to socialize, and to engage in the world around them. We talk about the fact that they live in a bubble all the time, but I fear we don't do enough about it.
* It's sad to see us struggle with the same things after a year. I fear we do not make significant progress on our habits and baser instincts.
* I'm glad we narrowed down our topics, although I'm worried it still isn't quite right. I appreciate that we try to make it tangible and quantifiable while still giving room for a qualitative analysis. I wouldn't say we have a ton of depth to what we do though.
** I'm not being fair to us. We have evolved. We've made huge improvements. It can't be perfect, and it isn't going to change all at once.
* We really have integrated the wikis into our lives more effectively. I hope we continue to do so.
* Lol. It's obvious that I have some projects that just take me forever to actually "just do." Ugh, it's painful to see it.
* My children have not been loving our Sunday Family Meetings for a long time. They like aspects, but when it comes to the accountability phase, it's not a pleasure.
* The work problem is still here. I feel quite a bit like a failure. I have a thousand fish to fry, and it doesn't seem to be coming together fast enough.
* I need to practice my "Just-do-it-iveness"
* We all worked hard last year. It's obvious.
* Our weekly planning has been a good thing, although I cannot say we have learned to become more adept at following through and doing it. I'd argue we've simply become better at picking out what we claim we are doing to do.
* It's weird to see EQ and the dryer problem fixed at the same time. Both were problems.
* My son has spells of feeling clumsy. Growing, yes. Autism, yes. We're going to get there.
* I can see my naivete in job hunting. I'm still going about it all wrong. It's painful to see. When I see a system that wants to use me, I just want to use it right back. I don't want to be a hypocrite, a capitalist, or someone who uses others as mere means.
* I can't believe we've been doing this log for almost a year. That is awesome!
** It evolved into a very serious event each Sunday. After church, we get together and spend our day thinking about our week and the week to come; we connect; we talk to about what matters (or we try!).
* I can see that we have been under enormous stress.
** I need to get us to a point where we aren't stressed. Where it flows. Where stress is a good thing, but not a overbearing one.
* We have a shotgun approach. We keep throwing things at the wall to see what sticks. I'm glad that we do not give up.
* My son very rarely melts down, and even when he does, it is generally fairly simple.
* We took up unschooling by necessity. It failed, but we need to try again. We have to find a way for them to shape themselves and their destiny. I want them to be autonomous. How do I get there?
** I have to have the accountability elements. At the moment, we work together to select (although, I have far more of a say than they do).
* We have had some very rough points.
* This has been a really hard year. Jesus.
* We need another leap forward.
* It's been sad to see that my work as a pipefitter was only half useful to me, although it did get us over the financial hump.
* I really want to make enough money that we continue to do planned activities on Saturdays. It sucks that we don't.
* We need to get everyone to the dentist, and I need to find a way for my wife to continually see the doctor. Stress is likely the most problematic issue though.
* When I'm not working for money, I'm working on family life. It shows too. The kids do so much better when I'm there.
* We built art and stories together. I'm glad to see we are consuming similar media and growing a common language.
* I can see that I apply the most pressure in our family upon all of us. =/
* I'm not the only way that slowly achieves their projects at times. I hope I can get us all to just "dive in" more effectively.
** My daughter has this too. I think it is our perfectionism.
* My wife compliments me often on being a good host/housekeeper. Lol. I am a homemaker; it's true.
* I've made some edits.
* I'm really pleased to see how much we care about each other in these logs. We have really worked at it. I love our bond.
* Good job, mate.
!! Logs:
* [[2017.04 - Link Log]]
* [[2017.05 - Link Log]]
* [[2017.06 - Link Log]]
* [[2017.07 - Link Log]]
* [[2017.08 - Link Log]]
* [[2017.09 - Link Log]]
* [[2017.10 - Link Log]]
* [[2017.11 - Link Log]]
* [[2017.12 - Link Log]]
!! Audit:
* I'm glad I've slowly moved to have categories. This will make it more parseable, and I can see how I've changed.
* I used to comment on every single link. I don't do that anymore. Part of me wishes I did, but then sometimes I don't think that is actually a valuable use of my time.
* I'm glad I'm slowly going through these again. I forgot just how much fucking content I've covered.
* I can see my slow blossom into Categories.
* My links tell a rhizomatic story.
* It's an information overload just to go through one day; going through several months in a shot is insane.
* I don't have time to partake of this drug when I'm working my ass off 10-12 hours a day on top of family life. Being informed is really hard work.
** It's clear that categories came into full effect out of necessity.
* You can see my tab collections start building in the middle of the year. It's the only way to handle it.
* It's a flood. There's variety, but also a clear direction I've been heading.
* Unfortunately, I didn't have enough commentary. I wish I had more commentary. That said, even just having lists of what I've consumed is not irrelevant. Far from it.
* I can feel myself drowning and just trying to categorize the world here. It's so hard to make sense of it all, to draw conclusions in it. Categories slow the world down for me; it stabilizes the consumption and perception of the world (even if only partially).
* It clearly annoyed me that I didn't have categories for things.
** And, of course, I understand the profound oversimplification of categorizing, tagging, etc.
* By November, I knew I was drowning in it.
* A great deal was revealed to me in my curation and hyperreading. I truly do not understand enough.
* I'm glad I introduced SCWR, as it helped me understand how to curate for the wiki at large and particular projects.
* I have no idea why I have nothing to say in my analysis. But, I'm very glad I did this work. It was crucial to my growth last year.
!! Logs:
* [[2017.01 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.02 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.03 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.04 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.05 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.06 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.07 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.08 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.09 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.10 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.11 - Polymath Craftsman Log]]
* [[2017.12 - Polymath Craftsman Log]]
!! Audit:
* Lol. I don't even have audits for these. The notion of auditing wasn't even fully developed. I was first just building the constructive practices necessary to have anything to say in the first place. I'm proud of this seed.
* I've actually had to use the log to recreate a summary of my work experience. I'm glad I had it!
* As usual, with my yearly audits, it's like reliving everything all in a short span of time.
* I fear I have lost much of what I've learned about pipefitting over the past year. That's okay though. I believe I can relearn it, and I would know where to turn for it.
* My focus on theory was probably the only way to get my foot in the door, but I'm also very pleased to have had the experience. That's how I was able to push anything into the virtue-theoretic Fastmind.
* I spent far more time writing about this initially than I do today. I'm glad I did though. It helped me dive in. Today, many people think I'm just one of them, which is exactly what I need. I need to blend.
* The class was poorly made. I believe I could have been taught the majority of the information I needed in the space of 2 weeks. The practice, well, that I needed months of.
** People were extremely lazy in that setting (as they are in all, I suppose).
* Chris was an eye-opener for me. I'm grateful to have met him.
* I love using the grinder. I feel adept with it.
* It's sad to see that I was fed a line of bullshit about the UA fitters. It's useful though, since now I am trying to walk into the IBEW with open eyes, the appropriate amount of mistrust, and the willingness to find greener pastures if necessary.
* I'm glad that I showed up even when no one else did.
* Welding practice was awesome. I may not be a great welder, but my stick welds could pass inspections. I'd need to practice up a bit, and I'd need a grinder, but I could do it. I feel like I picked up that skill "for free" kind of as I worked through the program. I'm very pleased to have had the opportunity.
* Happy to take AB&T's money; Johanna was a neolib/conservative asshole. I'm glad she's losing her job.
* I totally forgot about the torch.
* I eventually stopped caring so much about the bookwork, although I did pick up books that I cared about. I like having the hacks.
* I really ended up giving up on pipefitting at the end. I'm glad I did.
* Ah, I started auditing in April. It has been a useful practice to me.
* Basically, I've had a somewhat functioning wiki for about a year now.
* It's interesting to see how I've come to understand the role of my autism in regards to my professional relationships.
* I'm glad I went to school, since it was the introduction to a set of industries for me that I probably could have no acquired otherwise. I'm also glad to be learning on the job now.
* I still haven't learned my lesson to not discuss politics with those around me. They truly can't appreciate my point of view, and I need to stop telling myself there is a hope that they can.
* I'm very glad I get paid to learn now.
* I've been sore and losing weight for quite a while now.
* The torque class didn't need to take so long, but I'm glad I understand it.
* It turns out that it was worth my time to continue to look into drug-testing.
* I was right to want to become vested in multiple organizations. I hope to continue doing so.
* I did plan ahead decently enough. I'm still trying to put it together. I can see I also like having a "program" to go through where I don't have to do all the planning. I believe this is part of my executive functioning disorder as an autist.
* I picked up a really decent set of tools from AB&T. With my own money, I feel like I've rounded it out fairly well.
* I was extremely stressed on my first job. I'm glad to have survived it.
** I'm grateful to have worked with Jaye (Jihad)
** That was more stressful than it had to be. It was like being burned alive.
** We were under significant financial stresses at the time. I simply couldn't afford to fail or get fired, and I was underequipped. I'm really proud of myself.
** Terry was a profound dick. Fuck him. I'm glad his body is breaking down; he deserves it.
* I'm glad we got our phones. This has been very useful to us.
* I'm continually depressed by how little contractors give a shit about worker safety.
* I can see the goal is to not demonstrate my ignorance to my foreman as best as possible.
* The jump from commercial to industrial fitting was a big one. I'm glad to have had the experience.
* We desperately needed the money. I'm glad to have made as much as we did. It dug us out of a hole.
* I do not like the socializing aspects of these jobs at all: surprise!
* I'm pleased to see that I have had good ideas that people listen to and use from time to time. I'm new at this. I think in time, my creativity will become even more useful.
* Baptized by fire, and I feel so much more comfortable starting at the bottom rung. I feel like I'm not completely clueless and green now.
* There is a lot of wasted time in my Industrial job.
* These jobs all felt dystopian.
* Every job has its own kind of clusterfuckedness going on.
* It was interesting to work with so many fitter who came out of my program.
* I continue to see that literacy is a redflag to these people.
* I'm glad that I've realized the extent to which I need to be able to type on the job. Taking notes has been super useful to me.
* My move to electrician has been a long time in the making.
* Will I always have a "grass is always greener" mentality?
** This has been enormously useful to me in video games.
* I hate how much these jobs are more about controlling perceptions than anything else; it's not even perception of the truth. That is humanity though.
* I'm really glad I've become a toolporn addict. I hope to continue this trend. It's been a very good thing that I continue to invest in my professional life. I wish I told about this from the beginning.
* It's been interesting to see that pipefitter work is damned hard to find in my area. I'm really stuck out here.
* I ended up not going into pipefitting more directly. I'm glad I spent my time on my children instead.
* I'm pleased to have switched to the craftsman goal. I actually had said that to my teacher, Tim, when I first started pipefitting.
* The year seems harsh, bittersweet, and difficult. I wouldn't want to live it again, but I'm glad I made it through. I learned a lot.
!! Logs:
* [[2017.05 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.06 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.07 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.08 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.09 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.10 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.11 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.12 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
!! Audit:
* My writing is incredibly aggressive at times. I'm angry very often when I write these.
* My non-answers, at this point, are my standard approach. If I don't like the question, then I just pick it apart. It started day 1, like that.
* I clearly am still struggling with more complex variants of all the same problems. I've solved damn near nothing. I just know more of what counts as the problem.
* I don't take my own prescriptions. Ugh. That sucks.
* I have truly skilled arguments in my writing. Few could pump them out like this.
* God damn, I have some excellent arguments. I can look back at what I said half a year ago and there aren't many darlings of mine to kill off. In fact, I forgot some of these answers and am agreeing with someone else as I read.
* I am pleased with my ability to wield positive nihilism.
* I feel like I'm preaching to myself, and I'm glad I can hear it. I need it.
* I anticipate a great deal in my work.
* I think this would be most unsatisfying to others. =/ Not much I can do there.
* I constantly struggle with the ideal and practical. I'm wrestling here.
* I tackle psychopathy a lot.
* I am a razor. Holy fuck. I'm slashing through everything.
* Getting weird with it too, lol. Love the honesty!
* I enjoy making myself laugh.
* I should start favoring taxing behavior I think is immoral more directly. I do for the obvious things, but perhaps that can be expanded beyond the usual.
* I like having pictures, but I prefer to keep this textual.
* I quickly started giving briefer answers. That's fine.
* I often feel alienated.
* I'm often unable to give a satisfactory answer. I try to satisfactorily explain why I can't give one, and even that is often not good enough in my eyes. Sometimes I feel like a real failure as I write these.
* I have not changed my mind on many of these, but I also feel like I've made little progress. Perhaps my dispositions is fairly crystallized.
* I have drugs on the brain.
* Lots of smack talk in here.
* I'm glad I put a name to my adversary, my nemesis: Samwise Gamgee.
* I must practice forgiveness and listen to myself more than I have.
* I love my post, and I don't like my initial audits. They are far too brief.
* My writing has deteriorated.
* Why did I stop giving quotes? I adore when I give a fitting quote for the question. It's usually spot on or funny.
* When I'm barely keeping my head above water from work, it is clear this log suffers.
* I am disappointed in much of my later work.
* My work is emotional and less rational August through October
* Ah, I see a giant shift: when I started using ready-made prompts, my writing significantly improved.
* Ha, I now have answered two sets of questions twice.
* The move to title.Titles gives them a mark. It was a good move.
* My introspection is bleak. I am trying to have hope despite obviously lacking it in many areas.
* I need to find better ways to answer "wish" questions.
* I'd like to ratchet my negativity down a notch. I need more light in my writing.
* I'm pleased to have footnotes. They make me giggle.
* I prefer when I give philosophical answers while still pouring myself onto the pages of this existential mirror.
* Overall, I did some important lifting here. There's a lot of content to think about. It may come in handy one day.
!! Logs:
* [[2017.08 - To-Do-List Log]]
* [[2017.09 - To-Do-List Log]]
* [[2017.10 - To-Do-List Log]]
* [[2017.11 - To-Do-List Log]]
* [[2017.12 - To-Do-List Log]]
!! Audit:
* I made a toolset for my son, but it hasn't been used. I would like to find a way for us to make more use of them than we have. This will happen in time, I hope.
* I started this later in the year. I feel like I'm not doing so well at the practice (not as well as when I first started).
* Perhaps I'm not using my evenings correctly either. I need to make sure I limit the amount of video I watch.
* My analysis is brief, but that's okay. You have to start somewhere.
* I think part of the reason these felt better in the beginning was because they aren't daily.
* I like when I'm specific in my logs. I need to find the right particularistic approach to setting my objectives (quantifiable preferred).
* These lists should be aimed at what I didn't already expect to do in a sense, or to when I have too much on my plate, it is a way to prioritize.
* I have been able to figure out that some things aren't worth my time by analyzing my To-Do-List logs.
* It certainly gets me into an idiomatic rut, a habit. It may also be the tool which helps me break habits in some ways as well.
* It's clear I've been consistently working to make sure my son is equipped with a good computer. I'm glad to see it paying off too!
* Since I've not been working, I've been hyperfocused on organizing our family's life cycle. It was kind of falling apart when I was working.
* The kids have made tremendous strides in school.
* I've been reading with more aim.
* I feel like I'm reliving my past when I look through these. I remember doing them.
* I worry that if I become too dependent on this log that I will somehow fail to have natural executive functioning. Much of these things seem to be the kinds of things that others do without thinking. So, the question is: am I offloading this habit of planning in such a way that I am not actually integrating it into myself? Or, is this literally the training, and am I actually making progress into being a better planner and executor?
* D2 Dropped off the map
* More importantly, pipefitting seems to have dropped off the map.
** But, it can always come back if it needs to.
* "I clearly has an executive malfunctioning" - rofl
* So, yes, I have routinized my life, but have I really taken the best routines? Some of them yes, but not obviously all of them.
* I've been trying to get my kids to engage in the wiki practice for quite a while. I keep failing, but I cannot give up. They obviously need it.
* I like having titles! It seems to mark the day.
* I really do need more of a calendar for longer-term planning and a running honey-do list that doesn't have to be done today, but could be done whenever I need. I should habitually inspect that list though. That's part of the problem too.
* I spent a great deal of my energy on my children for math tutoring. I'm continuing to spend it trying to teach them how to swim, fish, farm, etc. for themselves.
* Planning Inform the Men! has been incredibly fruitful.
* I can see the weekly cycles. I love the diving analogy.
* Ah, I can see that I'm also making some of the same inferences that my past logs made in this log. Rofl.
* I can see that some of my important events lag on forever. I'm not taking myself or my plans seriously enough.
* I like that I planned to reach out to people.
* The boilerplate, copy'n'paste To-Do-Lists may or may not be a good thing. I'm worried about it.
* Meal planning has been excellent. I like being able to definitively answer my wife. I know when she comes home from work hungry, I want to have a plan. I don't want her to feel like it's up to her (although, I do ask her to help cook).
* I am just so fucking proud of myself. It's definitely not perfect, but I'm so happy that I'm taking the time to do this planning. I want to be systematic about my life.
* Moving from Cannabliss nomenclature to Bliss.
* That is weird that I must force myself to go outside. I think this is a good step forward. This is part of my checks'n'balances.
* We've remodeled many things in our lives since I've been home. Our technology is a big one. I'm very pleased to see everyone is taking more responsibility for their own data. This is the correct method.
* It took me too long to complete the application process.
* I'm still learning how to drive my car, and I literally am the only man who can drive it.
* I'm glad I take the time to demonstrate to myself that my life is meaningful. Even the small things. I have a tendency to look at the heavens and hells, to see the macro picture. I'm glad I fight the tendency here in this log.
* Clearly, I must read from atoms to molecules to see how my process flow operates.
* I anticipated having a job sooner. I have not. I need to.
* There are clearly days where I switched up what I was doing. I think I need to find a feasible way to analyze that.
* One of my problems with only looking at simply this log itself is that I don't see how it ties in holistically with all the other logs. There are relationships that I am missing. I fear adding too much bureaucratic auditing, and I want to be wisely-lazy in efficiently auditing. Should I do a complete daily audit? Right now, I've got a skeleton, but not the unified flesh of such a thing. This is something to ponder.
* You did such a good fucking job. I'm proud of you, self.
!! Log:
* [[2017.10 - Yearly Audit Log]]
* [[2017.11 - Wiki Audit Log]]
* [[2017.12 - Wiki Audit Log]]
!! Audit:
* This is a retroactive audit.
** It was ugly, and I consider this part of [[The Remodeling]].
* Triage is honestly the word. My neurathian boat sits in shambles.
* Indeed, I am proud of myself for creating new logs, projects, and content. In the end, that's about a third of the point. I need muh {[[dreams]]}!
* Little babbies first [[audit]]. OMG, I had absolutely no fucking clue.
** I am absolutely terrified of the fact that I still have no fucking clue.
*** Desire satisfaction is a bitch, ain't it?
* I'm pleased to have started a process which modifies itself. The [[audit]] has so much reign over what this object has become, how I live my life, etc.
* This feels like the most ambitious project on the entire wiki except the [[Root]]ed directories themselves, and that's because it sits in direct service to them.
!! Logs:
* [[2017.04 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.05 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.06 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.07 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.08 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.09 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.10 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.11 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.12 - Wiki Review Log]]
!! Audit:
* This is one of the older logs. I am very proud of my recognition of what I'm trying to accomplish on this wiki. This log has helped me understand so much about my goals of autonomy.
* I started out writing quite a bit more about each item on the list.
* My audit procedure came the second month. Revelation, as I said.
* Seldon, I was incredibly verbose initially. It died out.
* I see lots of To-Do-List work in there.
* One interesting aspect is how I get to see myself hop from project to project. I wish I knew the projects that merited pouring myself entirely into. Executive function problems show themselves here.
* You can tell when I've been extremely busy or overwhelmed. It shows up very clearly in my reviews.
* I am constantly searching for every drop of chemical joy I can find. It never ends. Hedonic treadmill. I need to find a way off (a constructive one), if that is even possible (I daresay it isn't).
* A ton of work here is also a variant of [[Wiki Audit Log]]. Perhaps they really do belong together. They do seem to do something very similar. I really should consider merging them. I'm not sure how though.
** Hmmm. This is tricky. I think they peel apart too clearly for me to put them together. It's fine that they have some overlapping functionality. The core of what they are attempting to do is just different.
* By July, commentary started to taper off. I feel like I jumped into the practice and than slowly coasted into the auto-posting I have today. That may be the wrong attitude.
* I really haven't found things worth tracking mathematically. Everything is story.
* This is a raw flood of information. It's insane. It captures so much.
* I love how much encouragement I give myself in this log. This is where I am meta in a daily way.
* I have clearly struggled with my diet for quite a while. It has been a process, but I've lost a reasonable amount of weight. I dropped from 250 to 200 in the matter of a year or so, although it keeps climbing back up. I fight it! Good job.
* I'm not sure how useful this log is to me in a long-term sense, although I see the obvious value of it in a short-term sense. Well, even long-term effects break down into small effects.
* It is so obvious that I have worked my ass off this year. This log is dizzying. By Seldon, I've done a ton of work.
* Ah, August show a decline in my commentary. I have been worried about it, of course. I need to think more about the extent to which this is bad. Sometimes, it seems like it. Sometimes, I don't know which of my thoughts and comments will be the valuable ones. It is time consuming. I need to be able to come up with what is salient without as much waste.
* At the very least, this has been an incredible accountability tool. It's kind of insane. Forcing myself to look at my work, to even think about it briefly, to perhaps edit it when it strikes me, etc. However brief my responses may be, it still means something. Half the work is the reading, not the responding.
* I had a very difficult time working on the wiki when I was at Eastman. All the hacks.
* I'm not sure how effectively I chose my books. I can see that I'm unhappy with my curation.
* I cried a lot.
* Oh wow, I have come an insanely long way since September. This wiki has been transformed, radically. Those ideas really did come to fruition.
* I see the decline of my interest in pipefitting. It doesn't suit us where we are. It sucks.
* Ah, I see that asking my wife to edit wasn't a good idea. Only those pages which will be permanent and reusable deserve it.
* I see the end of my job. Wowsers, it is an explosion on this wiki.
* The wiki is transforming. It's rapid.
* I made a ton of long-term design decisions.
* I regret playing video games other than this one. Gah!
* I have some [[SO]] work, but it stopped. That was transferred to the wiki audit to some extent.
* I want to say, good job on planning. I need to do more of it. I feel like I'm just keeping my head above water in consuming my daily thoughts. Trying to think about the future is hard, and I am not doing it enough. Do I need to make a log more specifically about it?
* It's weird, but I think this log is actually a testing grounds and a seed for the wiki. It's kind of a [[/b/]] for {[[Principles]]} in a way.
* It has been a monumental effort to audit this wiki. There is so much. There are also so many practices I'm trying to introduce. It's a lot to take in. It's not an easy object to swallow, and couldn't be more evident in this log.
* I'm obsessed with triaging. I think that is extremely practical.
* Ah, I finally see the title.Titles come alive in November
* This has been a year of anxiety, and I have made lemonade.
* I'm so glad I have this log to point out my emotional imbalances. Sometimes it is the best place to express it.
* By the end of year, I have a lot of one word replies. hrmm..
* This log shows the skeleton of my narrative in a way that nothing else does. It's so much to swallow.
* I'm coming to terms with my mental illness, whatever it is, or I'm trying to. I've been thinking about it for quite a while.
* I clearly spent another 2 months more than I thought on it. Was that a mistake? I should ask my wife. Perhaps only time will tell.
* It was interesting to reconnect with Snow. We both clearly had it on our minds.
* It's hard to fathom how much I've added to this monster. It has been snowballing. Rabbitholing is the right word. It's disorienting.
* The mindmapping process is coalescing. It's a messy, organic process. I worry that it will sprawl without reason. I need to make sure I build crystallized structures over time, as much as is necessary.
* I was very worried about completing {[[About]]}. It was time to re-write it, and I was anxious about it. I'm really proud of my work.
* I'm 99% most people would consider this work to be that of a madman. Lol. I can't say they are wrong, but I also can't say this is the wrong thing to do. Perhaps you have to be a bit crazy to appreciate the value and reasonableness of what I'm trying to accomplish.
* These past few months have enabled me to revamp how much children do schoolwork. We keep building towards this habit.
* Ugh, I am disappointed it the gutturality of these responses. I need to actually tell a story, not just my feelings.
* The technical transition has taken about a month and a half. We're still undergoing it.
** It has been wonderful to see all of my family members pitching in and taking responsibility for their machines and data.
* Okay, I will admit many of my jokes still make me laugh and smile. I still want to be more serious than I have been. This is not a joke!
* There is an oscillatory pattern here. I can only dive for so long. I have to come back up for air. I can see that I'm tired of working on the wiki, often enough.
* I can see that I talk about almost all of these points throughout the year. Many of them I didn't solve. I can see there are limits to the extent that I actually listen to myself. I am only partially plastic and autonomous, in a sense. That is okay. You did a good job with what you have.
* I think is exceptionally interesting that I don't feel compelled to re-write the directory page for this log. I think it is in remarkably good shape.
* Lastly, homie, good fucking job! I'm so proud of you.
//I cherish you, [[2017.01 - Pipefitting Log]]. This is my oldest log audit, and there was no audit. ROFL. I just set it aside. Baby steps, homie! This was the spark of the notion of the [[Log Audit]] for me. Instead of a complete audit, I honor you with the seal of [[(*crickets*)]]. `/bow`//
!! Log:
* [[2017.01.05 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.01.11 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.01.12 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.01.13 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.01.19 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.01.25 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.01.26 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.01.28 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.01.31 - Pipefitting Log]]
!! Audit:
* (*crickets*)
//This monthly audit was completed for [[Wiki Audit]]'s project: [[The Remodeling]] of 2018.//
!! Log:
* [[2017.01.23 - Realpolitik Speculation: TPP]]
* [[2017.01.27 - Realpolitik Speculation: RNC's Impeachment of Trump]]
* [[2017.01.30 - Realpolitik Speculation: Early Warning Signs of Fascism]]
* [[2017.01.31 - Realpolitik Speculation: Open Shadow Government]]
!! Audit:
* Why the hell did I stop doing this?
* The TPP article is spectacular. Though, I think I understand Trump's "reasons" more effectively almost two years later (and I should).
* There are some excellent moves in here that I've seen brought up again and again over the past two years.
* I adore my paranoia and [[Straussian]] approach. I'm proud of this work.
* This is the only other monthly audit, and clearly, documenting a snapshot of my political view was important to me.
One interesting thing about discovering my autism has been the relieving ability to freely admit to myself that I barely understand social communities on the internet. Their network topologies and basic technical use I often understand quickly enough, but the influence of that topology on the social patterns of its members, the power dynamics in these communities, the way in which technology is social, is now understandably foreign to me in some ways. I'm very developmentally challenged in this respect. It's as bad as the fact that I can't remember lyrics to songs in a way that even children and senile people can.
After visiting the Pipefitters and Plumbers Union, I found out that the earliest I'd be able to join would be in 6 months. So, I decided to go back to the technical school. Serendipitously, I came on the day they started class. They still had my application from when we first moved here, and even knew me by name (which is impressive after only having met me once or twice). They just changed me from Machining (they didn't find a teacher for this class until a couple weeks ago) to Pipefitting in the system, I paid for my tuition and went straight to class.
<<<
[[KIN]]: The fellows I'm working with are salt of the Earth. Poor misfits, rough living, etc. I fit in fine if I hide amongst them, which isn't really fitting in. I'm not very good at hiding. I hope defensively-positioned or preemptive kindness will be enough. My sense of humor, my appreciation of substances, an ability to be a librarian for them (which I am happy to do for people), listening without judgment, and perhaps the value they may see in networking with me will be enough to at least have positive relationships with most of them (can't please everyone).
<<<
<<<
[[RPIN]]: My brother says I will be an alien among them. He is right, or at least partially right. I do not deny my weirdness. My goal will be to network, specifically ensuring I have the space and freedom I need in my life (political, financial, and social autonomy) without burning bridges. It will be difficult. Here I feel [[KIN]]'s pull very strongly. We both build on the Marxist ground (which is obviously practical; it is innately a Redpilled theory [which can be twisted for 'evil' prescriptions]).
<<<
I barely slept (I was excited and had a lot on my mind) last night. When I got there today, I was taken straight to a computer lab. I'm not even supposed to be in the shop without safety training (although, it seems to be an unenforced rule). Further, I have a ton of timesink busywork they've handed me on the computer. I'm smashing through it though.<<ref "1">> I've jumped ahead with pre-testing, but the rest of the work they let you do either in their lab or at home. I've figured out that they only care about your tests in the computing part, so that's what I'm gunning straight for. I work much faster at home, especially since I have music, a chair that doesn't kill my back, and more tools available to smash.
Passing all the pretests in a day (or a few hours) is rare. Finishing the entire computer-based learning program in a weekend will be a record at the school. In addition to just catapulting me closer to the actual Pipefitting part of the education (which is why I'm there), I'm hoping it will put me in good graces with the staff (I see that it affects funding/scholarship options).
My teacher is both made fun of (a functional alcoholic who barely spends time in the shop) but also somehow respected by the students. It will be interesting to see how much he will be able to help me. I'm going to talk to him about a co-op situation where I get to work and go to school. I desperately need to start acquiring work experience in the field. Not only is it crucial practice at the trade itself, but a chance to network, build rep, feel my way out through organizations and the landscape. I do intend to try to get on with the union. I may need to feel out first how he even feels about the union. That said, I don't even know how much his reputation matters or what social capital he has. I have to assume, at least for now, that he is an asset to me ([[RPIN]]: "that is a planning issue, not an empathy one. Obviously, I'm looking to preserve my bridges and empathize with the man.").
Two guys, Keith and another (don't know his name yet; I forgot!), go out of their way to talk to me. It's nice. One is brand new, the other has been an apprentice for 6 years(didn't move up though, and he says he needs to come back to school to do it [I don't know if this is true]). They've been guiding me about the structure and social norms of the shop and school. They are helping to orient me. I'm glad I have people that I can talk to there, and especially to have people who will try to answer my questions (I have so many that I have to hold it back; it annoys people when I ask too many).
I may not be going tomorrow. Very likely snowday. Fridays are apparently very relaxed too (heard they just clean the shop and leave at noon). I hope that I will have the chance to push myself hard and become adept at the technical aspects (giving me time to figure out the non-technical aspects in the field with more attention).
----------------------------------
<<footnotes "1" "Yay, my booklearnin' has been useful">>
We received your letter from October in the mail today. It was good to hear from you again.
I also forgot to say thank you for the birthday presents for the kids. [[j3d1h]] says thank you for the GoPro. She said she wants to make piano videos with it. She's definitely interested in making content/art. [[1uxb0x]] says he loves the marble racing kit (the kids spent the better part of two days making towers). Also, they made their first stop-motion video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErFFTa4NbXc ([[1uxb0x]] is in charge of directing and narrative, [[j3d1h]] setup the tech side [she'll still do the uploading/posting, but he now can create the videos himself]). Thank you for making their birthdays special.
It snowed two days ago. I haven't seen real snow in a while. Our home is warm though (we found some plastic that creates an air bubble insulation for our patio + windows), and we're doing normal mammal things together (yay, I love being a mammal). You guys may want to bring some warm clothes.
I mean this literally: you are welcome to stay with us.
[[L&K]] found our place (understandably) claustrophobic on their first visit, so they stayed at a hotel on their last visit. It can be tricky having family over with a small place. I know I can't provide the space that you may need, so I want you to choose whatever will make you feel comfortable. I don't want you to feel you aren't welcome, because you are. I also don't want you to feel forced to stay in a cramped room, because you aren't.
Whatever works, let's do that.
Love,
[[h0p3]]
//This is the first letter I actually launched from this site. I'm lucky to have had [[R]] to listen to me. She may have been the first visitor; I'm not sure. Even the domain name is old! This correspondence sits in stark contrast to the oldest [[Relic]] on this wiki: [[2016.10.17 - Letter to Mom and Dad]]. Unfortunately, I have little record of the first few months of this wiki. I cannot begin to tell you how many tears I shed in beginning this project. It has been so costly to me.//
---
<<<
Hey R,
Here is the site you are looking for:
https://h0p3.xyz
I suggest starting with the About wiki page.
Fun facts:
# h0p3 = hope (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leet)
#Traditionally, getting your computer to print "hello world" on the screen is the first program that every newbie writes in a programming language.
#The top-right hand corner has a double arrow to open the sidebar. You can see recent edits there (among many other options/tools).
Let me know if you need anything. It is very much a work in progress.
You can reach me at this e-mail (or however you wish).
Sincerely,
h0p3
<<<
-----------------------------
<<<
Hi, h0p3.
Still reading. You are a brilliant writer. And you are boldly honest. I appreciate that. It is rare.
I see your struggle. I will understand more as I get deeper into it, I am sure, but I am not offended or angry at all. Our perspectives are different, but I respect your willingness to chase the truth. I also see the despair that is chasing you. Keep ahead of it, and send out a clear signal if you sense it closing on you. We are here, and we will help.
I know that you worried on some level that I would break contact with you out of shock. Worry less. I am right here and I am not going anywhere. Lean this way when you need to lean. I choose to believe that the faith you lost will find you. I know you won't deny me the comfort of that belief, even if you find it highly unlikely.
Thank you again for trusting me with this level of transparency. More Later.
Love you!
R
<<<
-----------------------------
<<<
Hey R,
(I'm sorry, I didn't know the last half of your first name was capitalized.)
Thank you. I don't have the words to tell you how much it means to me that you are listening and talking to me about this. It is encouraging to not be so alone on this path.
Love,
h0p3
<<<
Much has transpired since my last log. I'm learning how little we (the students) know. Our teacher is very qualified in multiple fields, has a huge list of contacts, and a lot of experience in teaching. We talked for an hour or so. I think we will get along just fine. He can see I'm chomping at the bit, and I think he will help me get where I'm going.
I have not yet finished all of my computer work, but I'm close. I'm finally doing some bookwork too. I aced the safety exam (the welders were vexed at the difficulty of our exam that the pipefitters take). I'm going to smash the math exam (I have to take a surprising number of these, despite already demonstrating my competency). I want to cruise through the "core" book which all tradesman must complete so that I can get onto the actual pipefitting. The teacher suggests I take electives as well, so I will.
What I lack in practical construction experience I will make up for (at least in the beginning) with raw memory, computational skill, and intense practice. I need to build a good reputation (which, at this point, amounts to a form of manipulation that I find sufficiently morally acceptable by necessity). I'm looking for portions of the job that are worth memorizing; I do have a good memory when I'm not depressed (it used to be godly before puberty). I need to first understand where the real analysis and spatial reasoning occurs. My teacher explained that planning, measuring, and blueprint/modeling is what makes a successful pipefitter. I think these will fit me very nicely.
Our first real shop experience (whenever it eventually comes) will be pipe threading. I've been reading through our first pipefitting book and looking through our blue books (everyday carry kind of manual for the field). Fellow students have walked me through it as well. I'm excited to try my hand.
I spoke with a 3rd-party institution which helps fund students who need it. I do, and I have a lady who has really gone to bat for me (despite the fact that I have 10 years of postsecondary education, which is normally grounds for denial of help). She is my advocate. We've gone through testing and a lot of paperwork (and apparently she had to argue with her boss), but I think there is a reasonable chance that my second and third trimester's tuition will be paid for, and I will get a bunch of tools, work clothes/glasses, books, and possibly travel expenses paid for. This is the break I need. I find out in the next two days if my application is accepted at the state level. If not, my lady says she'll appeal the decision. She gets my predicament.
The more I understand about pipefitting, the more I like it. I think this is an excellent path.
I hate to say it, but the school appears disorganized and staff incompetent in many ways (at least in my experience with schools). I have now found out the truth. I have only finished the testing requirements for the school. I actually have to pay to take "fake" certification tests (I do not respect the content of these tests) necessary to join the union or a few other companies. I'm going to take them immediately, since they may easily open local doors for me which I desperately need. The elective tests might actually be disappearing (the test makers are doing away with it). I'm not sure if they will be worth my time/money. I think I may anyways, just in case.
Be voracious and humble. Your genetic + memetic background is functionally (not morally) superior, and your competence will shine. Do it amiably and kindly. As IASIP's Dennis is unfortunately correct about, in his redpilled assessment, I must demonstrate my value to these people (only, I'm going to be empathic in the way I do it).
AB&T's grant came through for me. My tuition (except this trimester), tools ($750 worth), boots ($200), optometrist visit, prescription safety glasses, other supplies (they call it "the bucket"), and even gas money are paid for. I am ecstatic! I wasn't sure how we were going to pay for it, and it is a huge relief to know I don't have to. I'm very lucky, and I have extensively thanked my advocate. She has made it possible for me to succeed.
Time to feel cocky (and then reign it in):
My teacher thinks I'm a high-functioning Rainman or something (apparently, after hearing his stories, he has worked with couple autistic savants in his decades of pipefitting).<<ref "1">> I can perform mildly complex arithmetic and basic algebra fairly quickly in my head, and so I can snap answers back to questions he expects his students to take several minutes to solve. The trig aspects are of the job are so standardized that they can just be straight up memorized. I regularly hear praise such as "nobody has ever done it that fast" or "nobody...on the first try" etc. from him (I appreciate the praise, but that's not why I'm doing it); the other students look at me with a mix of awe and disgust (except my friend Nash [nickname for him], who started the program with me). My spatial reasoning is where I believe I'm going to blow him out of the water though. I rock blueprints, transforming objects in my head, etc. In time, with practice, I expect to do much of this CAD, self-made isometric drawing (he prides himself on this), and miniature modeling (they use wire) work in my head instantly.<<ref "2">> It is convenient to instantly understand some things. Hopefully, with hard work and a carefully balanced attitude, I can make up for my many practical deficiencies.
I actually might do all of the work in 6 months if I can keep up my blistering pace. Unfortunately, I am bottlenecked by Nash. I'm not allowed to progress through certain modules without him at the moment. That means I have to teach Nash as we go along (help him pass his tests and assignments) so he can keep up. Nash seems okay with it though. I like the kid. He has a checkered past for someone his age, but it's fine. It was weird realizing that when I got kicked out of school, he was being born. I feel like an old man. Hell, I am an old man in this class.
It might be better to go for the full 12 months though. I might try to go for all 4 books instead of the standard 2 for the class. I want to soak up as much as I possibly can while I still can. I could also practice welding.
I need something like 8k hours to hit journeyman. With hefty overtime (which is par for the course, apparently), I might be able to squeeze the 5-year apprenticeship into 2.5 years. Regardless, I've heard you test into being a helper, and that high-end helpers can make $26 an hour + per diem. That would be sick.
My teacher loves my idea of using a van (or trailer, or whatever) if I'm traveling for work.
---
<<footnotes "1" "And, he's right.">>
<<footnotes "2" "//So modest!...// /s, but for real, I believe I will accel in this area. It's also considered the hardest part of the job, which may be good for me. Being a good planner and doing the abstract work effortlessly may give me serious upward mobility. I hope to be someone they desperately need. Keep dat marketability and demand as high as possible.">>
<<<
Good morning. I trust you are well today.
In reading your entries I am working hard at finding the underlying feelings feeding into them and generated by them. I believe that is what you are asking of me, and I believe that is what you most need. I want the connection between us here to be one of mutual compassion. You have been in a lot of pain for a long time. That isn't really news to me. You don't broadcast your pain, but you don't exactly mask it, either.
I will not pretend to understand everything that you say. I am tech-challenged and my training has moved in different realms. But I do understand a great deal of what you share, and have wrestled a few of the same arguments, though with different outcomes. I respect your process.
Let me ask you how you are dealing with some practical issues. (I ask out of concern, not judgment.) In most of the programs I have encountered, there is a screening policy. Have you thought about that, and how you will cope with it if it is a part of the program in which you are participating? Of course I am also concerned for your safety. I don't know what machinery you are handling, but please take great care to be alert and maintain a good reaction time. It is hard to be objective about personal balance. There are good reasons for professional monitoring of the balance between desired and side effects. You need another set of eyes on that with you.
Networking is good, but it does not replace forming friendships. Remember to find a space in your life for friendship. It is harder work than networking, but it is more durable and more valuable. Networks are useful, but friendships are more formational. You don't need a lot of friends, but life is easier when you have a few.
Fresh air and sunshine are more than elements of a walk outside. A friend is someone who brings the social, emotional and spiritual equivalent of fresh air and sunshine into your life. I pray for a friend to come alongside you to open windows to possibilities you have not discovered.
Love always,
[[R]]
<<<
---
<<<
Hey R,
I am doing well today. Thank you for asking (it is important to ask). To be specific: I've been feeling better since I feel like I have more direction in my life. Even if the plan isn't perfect, I have goals and a vision now. I wake up in the morning with a mission. I finally have a fire in my belly again. I hope I am not too polarized by and addicted to that mission, purpose-filled, vocation feeling. I am watching myself. Also, my sleep schedule has normalized (woot!).
How are you doing? I hope you don't think I'm out of place to ask, and you shouldn't feel compelled to answer. You are my counselor+friend+family, and it might be weird for you to reply with substance (you won't offend me). Rest assured, your response here will be redacted from my posting. I am privacy conscious (and I can see even in your word choice that you are as well). My posts are sanitized (yet honest).
If I understand you correctly, I think you are right about what I need. I'm trying to isolate the causes of these underlying feelings, which I take to be a set of beliefs (conscious or subconscious) which aren't coherent together or may be incorrect in themselves. I hope writing about these feelings and beliefs will help me change. Of course, I'm not always sure what I need to be writing about. I've been taking a shotgun approach to the problem. I write about whatever pops into my head, whatever my gut is telling me (since I think my gut/intuition is where the problems reside). Reading my spaghetti might be frustrating. Feel free to prompt me with a topic or area you want me to think about and write on. If you want me to clarify something for you or myself, please tell me. I make many mistakes.
I also want mutual compassion. To be clear, you have been compassionate. I hear your voice as I read your letters. Conversely, I also know there is enormous anger (and sometimes insanity) in my writing here. I hope you don't take it personally (I know you have spoken to this already). I don't mean it as an attack on you at all. My mind can be dark and messy, and I'm sorry for that. I'm not good at hiding things, and I'm not sure if it would be a good thing to try and whitewash it. Unfortunately, I lack tact, and my honesty is destructive even when I don't intend it to be (I am working to be more empathic, especially in my delivery; it is not an innate skill of mine). If I'm not being compassionate, please call me out on it in the manner you see fit. I appreciate your taking the time to be my accountabilibuddy. I am listening to you, and I will do so with charity.
Your practical questions are important to me (keep them coming). I appreciate your concern. It is important to ask me! In this case, I have thought about these problems for a while.
The program does not screen. To be clear, they couldn't have a program if they did. The class is a wonderful group of misfits, felons, and substance users. So, no problems on that front. However, you are correct that the screening process can be a real barrier in the job market. It would not be wise to close doors or burn bridges.
Ketamine is the most valuable of medicines for treatment-resistant depression. It and its analogs are fairly uncommon substances to use illegally (recreationally or medicinally). None of the standardized drug tests actually test for ketamine. There are some extended panel lab tests which check for ketamine metabolites, but these are rare (although, I saw one study that showed some tests will give false positives for phencyclidine). Regardless, the half-life of the substance is 3-7 days, taking between 1-2 weeks to reach baseline. Both blood and urine samples can only detect within that 2-week range (2-4 days is the usual detection range for these tests, and only the specialized tests can go all the way to 2 weeks), except for very heavy use. Abstaining from a weekly 20mg DCK dose would enable someone to pass even the most extensive testing. Interviews and testing procedures can usually be planned for within this time frame.
Cannabis, however, is always tested. Unfortunately, edible users have extra difficulties as well, especially because THC is fat-soluble. Unfortunately, an obese person may still have THC-COOH stored up in their fat cells generated even a couple years ago (yikes). Needless to say, this is a minefield. Losing weight and maximizing one's metabolism is the only way to flush this out.
In microdosing cannabutter (6 days a week) and taking 2-week tolerance-breaks/reality-checks every 2 months, a chronic medicinal user would need to abstain for a bare minimum of 21 days to pass a urine test, and more likely 33-48 days (I've even seen recommendations up to 72-90 days). Hair test detection ranges from 7-90 days. Blood tests detect up to 7 days and saliva for only 24-48 hours.
Basically, employers using saliva tests are seeking to make sure all (or nearly all) their employers pass, regardless of reality. The most common test to worry about is the urine test. A wise man would begin abstaining at least a month before he projected the testing procedure, and probably 2 months for good measure. He would also create dossiers on the employers in his area, including their pre-employment, scheduled, and random drug-testing procedures (although, you can't always find accurate information). Self-testing kits are also necessary. There is no point to going through the interview+testing procedure if you can't pass it on your own.
One must be concerned with random drug testing. With good relationships, an employee can often be warned well in advance (especially if they are seen as an asset to the employer). This varies with the company you work for. It is crucial to understand the actual enforcement of drug policies in a company. Unfortunately, it can't always be planned for. If there is an accident, many companies will immediately administer testing on the spot. Thankfully, a wise person who uses cannabis medicinally would never endanger themselves or others by using on the job (that defeats the purpose of it). While high THC-COOH levels (being under the influence on the job) will never be found (avoiding liability), one would still fail the test (sufficient for being fired). This is where real risk analysis comes in. It's a judgment call that one must take into account given one's broader context.
Ultimately, it is the goal of every unwell person to become well, and if possible, unconditionally so. That is to say, nobody wants to use medicine if they could be just as happy, functioning, and fruitful without it. Cannabis, at least for some people, is an excellent tool for dealing with anxiety. Thus, anxiety-based medicinal users should seek to identify and solve the sources of their anxiety and find coping mechanisms which allow them to forego medicine when possible. Random testing only further motivates that problem.
As to having a professional monitor, I'm not convinced this is nicely solvable. I agree on the objectivity problem. I am not, however, convinced there are good options available. I have been down that road. Sometimes, you have to be your own health advocate because no one else is going to do it. That is far from ideal, but it may be the only practical option. I realize that everyone feels they are the exception to the rule, and down that path, we rationalize and confabulate (so, you may be saying to me: "Danger, Will Robinson!"). I am open to talking about it. Admittedly, I need to be convinced. For now, the only consistent (yet non-professional) sources of (pseudo)objectivity I have available to me are from my conversations with my brothers (every couple days) and family.
The practical problem of socialization is also significant. I have vanishingly few people I can talk to, especially in person. Loneliness sucks. It sounds weird to be lonely even with a spouse as amazing as my wife. She is the One. She gets me. Of course, I fear I cannot complete her without believing in God (I am aware of the outlines of the theology of marriage), but not the other way around. We are best friends, and my loneliness is in no way her fault, but I think it is reasonable to hope for more than one friend (she does too).
It's a fact that men tend to develop smaller networks (I do not mean in this the "networking" sense) of true friends. It is why they tend to die within a few years of their spouse passing, but not the other way around. Men, for genetic and memetic evolutionary reasons, lack strong social support structures.
You are very right about the lack of friendship. I am slowly cataloging my history of friendships so that I can closely inspect them and understand what I've done right and wrong. Without trying to be arrogant, finding peers is not easy for me. There may easily be something deeply wrong about my assumptions and the way I approach friendship. It is a concept I've been thinking about for a long time now.
To be clear: I don't care about networking, except insofar as it is instrumental to me. Ugh. I could write a book on my disdain for networking, the generation of social capital. My Kantian side finds it abhorrent. I think it is the equivalent of using people. It's icky to me, and I can't double-effect my way out of it. I have no interest in shallow relationships. I demand honesty, authenticity, and directness. I want to "be myself" with my friends (not many people would appreciate who I am). Anything less is, at least to that degree, not really friendship to me. Of course, I realize this doesn't happen overnight.
I'm a man who prefers having a few very close friends rather than a bunch of acquaintances. I am a control freak, and I rarely make myself fundamentally vulnerable to others. Few pass into my inner circle, and those who violate my personal code are rarely allowed to enter it again (you are hereby explicitly granted immunity for our letters).
I have been on a mission to "find the others" for a while now. I'm looking for people I'd lay down in the middle of traffic for, and vice versa. Actually, I'm looking for family. Perhaps I'm seeking people I value more than myself. Unfortunately, I moved away from one of "the others" in New Orleans (we stay in touch and plan visits, but long-distance relationships really aren't the same). My brother and I have a deal we made with each other to find good friends (we both need them). It's slow going. Cool enough, I may have found one here.
My neighbor (my wife's boss) is an exceptional man. He's autistic with graduate degrees in library science, theology, and something else (something to do with biology, I think). He said it is his new year's resolution to get to know me (and our family) this year. He is a very quirky man (as am I), and I like him a lot. We sometimes walk and talk, and I see we have similar struggles. I must do that more. I need to make a point of it. He's very finicky about certain things (not in a bad way, it's just part of his nature), so I will see if I can schedule time with him on a weekly basis. Maybe we can have a game night with our families.
On a related note, I've actually tried to reach out to your brother. He's not very talkative over e-mail (that doesn't mean he isn't paying attention though). Our brief phone conversation over Thanksgiving was good though. It's much easier to connect with him that way. While I know you love me, it may be possible you view me as a kind of poison: a volatile-appearing, broken man with dangerous ideas. I would never seek to endanger our family. So, I'll just straight up ask you: is it okay with you if I become better friends with your brother? I doubt we would ever be super close, but I'd like to be his friend. I love talking to him. He's wonderful.
This may also sound dumb, but how do you define friendship? We are in agreement on the assessment you've given so far.
Let me say again, I could easily be wrong about these things. This is a work in progress. Admittedly, I seek reasons to accept and reject my beliefs. Of course, I may just be accused of lacking integrity here, that somehow trying to be so excruciatingly rational is itself a thought-terminator, a smoke-screen, and a method to confabulate.
Anyways, I know you might not have the answers or be able to say it in the way I need to hear it, but I am listening. Thank you for listening to me. I know this is a lot of work, and I'm not claiming you are obligated to help me.
Sincerely,
[[h0p3]]
<<<
I will respond in greater detail to your note later, but let me hit a couple of things really quickly before I head out to help a family with funeral arrangements. These are things I don't want you to wonder about.
I do not consider you a toxic person. I think of you as a seeker. There is a huge difference.
I am delighted that you and my brother are talking. [[Charlie]] is a great person once you get through his barriers.
Love you!
[[R]]
AB&T came through. It includes: a $10 per diem, a voucher for my books (I was able to "return" my books for a refund to immediately buy them back with the voucher), some $170 work boots that fit like a dream, a $230 bucket of work-related paraphernalia (which I sorely need for the class), and soon to have my prescription safety glasses. In the future, I will receive a custom $750 tool package (apparently, I'll have to chance to select my tools) and my tuition for the remaining two trimesters will be paid for. I'll continue to seek out funding and help. I need it.
I have completed all the computerized coursework, and I've passed the paid "union" tests (these are official tests which we prepare for in the coursework) with my fastest + highest record-breaking perfect scores (Platinum "certification"...I'll treasure it forever, lulz). I am glad to have it out of the way though; it is a load off my chest to be done with this part. It allows me to focus on the next task. An optional paid OSHA course+exam is available. I'll be taking it upon my teacher's advice. Apparently, there are imposed time limits that prevent you from moving too quickly through the course, so I'll be breaking it up and digest it in smaller increments.
I've spoken with my teacher, and since I'll have nothing to do in the computer labs on Thursdays, he agreed to allow me to focus on hands-on practice (likely the most important thing in the school itself, and the thing I am least naturally talented at). I believe I will crush the bookwork (I have been so far). It's the application that I must perfect. I do not anticipate I will be immediately excellent at this (I could easily be awful at it), but with hard work, I will excel.
My attitude and fire will set me apart. I must remember that I will fail, that I will mess up, and that I must stand up again and again. I must remember that my attitude itself will falter, that I will be akratic, and that I will need to have a self-monitor program to continually guard against letting my flame die out. I have to hope I will succeed. What other option is there?
Appearing humble pays off, particularly with rural people. Show them humility, make them falsely feel superior (or if you are lucky, you can help them realize they are equal in some respect they value), make them feel like you "deserve" their help because you are humble (and "know your place" in relation to them), and they will.<<ref "1">> I must restrain demonstrations of pride (since that incites irrational retaliation); I must be the underdog they want to cheer on, but at the same time, I will be the best fucking student they have ever had. I must since I have no reputation, background, network or other resources to rely upon. While I will do my best to network and plan, I believe the word of the school, my certifications, and my teacher's recommendations will be some valuable keys to unlocking my pipefitting career's gateway. Jump through all the hoops! I need to look good on paper and in the eyes of others because I want to succeed. My family is counting on me to succeed, and I may not have much time left with Trump as president to safeguard us against the world.
On a different note: the pipefitting class is having a unique "bear meat" cookout tomorrow. I'm excited to try it; I've never tasted it before. I'm bringing k0sh3k's "mousse" pumpkin pies (we made a few more for the family since they are delicious). The teacher has already offered to let me bring some bear meat home for k0sh3k.
---
<<footnotes "1" "Let's be crystal fucking clear here: their attitude towards humility is NOT rationally empathic or Kantian at all. Those arguments will be dismissed out of hand; they have no time for the truth. This is a guttural response, an envy, a hatred, an otherizing affect. People relish taking others down a 'peg or two' in public. It is a classic trait of humans, and Southerner's (my heritage) are no exception. I will dance for them, as is required. Sometimes people will not respect your human dignity (it is easy to be irrational), and then you must take it from them: it may be the only practical option.">>
Good morning, [[h0p3]].
I am glad that you are doing better on a practical level, and I believe that you are. I am also pleased that you are asking about my well-being. I am not afraid of dual relationships since I firmly believe that all human interaction is multi-faceted. (See – I am no counselor!) We are family, and I want us to always be that for each other. To answer you, I am well but tired, which seems to be my usual state.
I have been reading your work and pondering, meditating and praying about what I need to say to you. I want to say it in words that convey my profound respect for you and my need to be absolutely honest with you about the ways that my process and yours are alike and differ. But more than that, I need to swim beyond my depth in so many ways to get to you! I don’t want my faltering to damage you. (And, while I say that, please know that you are in no way damaging or offending me.) Still, I need to say this while I am listening in the hope that you can (and will) listen while you are mentally decompressing – which is something you obviously need to do.
We come at the same truth from different perspectives, so we must stretch to see things from each other’s point of view. I am hearing you, but as I am listening, I am convinced that I am hearing more than you hear when you listen to yourself. You are a deeply spiritually awake and aware person. It is that spiritual awareness that is causing much of your intense pain.
As I see it, you define all that you recognize as reality by your senses and the extension of those senses through enhanced observation. You prove things to yourself before you believe them. What you cannot prove, you do not want to believe. This urge comes from a brilliant understanding of natural law and the inner workings of the observable world. You can, in effect, see things that others cannot see, so you reason that what you cannot see (figure, understand, define) does not actually exist. I get that.
But what do you do with that nagging pull you call residual Christianity?
Ask yourself why you didn’t rage at Santa Claus when you learned that he didn’t exist. Even if you grew up believing that his was just a sweet children’s story, the question is still valid. You might denounce him, but you are not angry with him because there is no “him” with which to be angry. The same goes for a whole array of fictional characters who were real to you on some level, but whose existence you know to deny. You might learn from them, react to them and even model after them to some extent, but you do not rail at them because they are not there in any real sense of the word.
God is different. You can deny the existence of God (or, at least of the God to whom you were introduced) because you can neither define Him nor accept the definition of others for Him, but you can’t seem to shake Him. He doesn’t exist for you, but He relentlessly follows you around.
Put that in your pocket for a minute and ask yourself this: do you fully understand the natural world? I know that you understand it in a deeper and richer way than I do, but does it still hold any mystery for you? How does one grasp the concept of mystery when mystery is a rare commodity? So, look up from the natural world and consider the concept of “concepts.”
Do you believe that peace exists? I doubt that you have ever seen a moment of it in your life. I know that I haven’t. And yet we both chase it with all our might.
Do you believe in justice? How often have you seen it in pure form? But you reach for it, don’t you?
Consider for a moment that there is a layer of reality beyond the observable that we do not have senses to detect, but that we are bound to acknowledge because it resonates with something inside us that we can’t define. We are drawn to peace even though we don’t experience it. We reach for justice even though it hovers beyond us. We cannot see, hear, taste, touch or smell them. We do not have adequate equations to quantify them. But we know that they are there and we ache to be where they are.
What causes that?
We are like air bubbles floating through miles of seawater trying to burst into the expanse of the sky. We are spirit-things surrounded by a constructed reality – we understand the reality around us because we are encased in it and we are equipped to sense and interact with it, still we cannot resist the urge to rise.
The sense of desperation in you is conviction. Now, let me redefine that for you, because you probably know the term conviction as a sort of shaming awareness of sin, and that is one of its functions, but that is not what it truly is. Conviction is a deep-seated spiritual awareness of a reality beyond proof. It is faith in its raw form. It is what Scripture calls the “measure of faith” resident in everyone created in God’s image.
[Redacted], you are spirit, and you are reaching for Spirit, but you are both attracted and repelled by your experience of God. You might blame that on your parents’ presentation of God, or on the way God filters through the muck of the world, but what really generates that angst is the way you – yourself – are experiencing God. It is so hard to see the wrath of which God is capable when we have so little experience with an inability to understand. We are used to working things out to a proven resolution, and here we have a problem that won’t resolve. How can a good and loving God permit – even generate to some extent – such obvious evil?
Paul dealt with it in Romans 8:18-25 (NASB): “For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed to us. For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now. And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body. For in hope we have been saved, but hope that is seen is not hope; for who hopes for what he already sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, with perseverance we wait eagerly for it.”
Why is creation subjected to all this futility? In what way can any of this apparent barbarity be related to hope? God, we simply cannot understand!
Now put that in your pocket with the idea that this God is chasing you around and think about this:
You know the story Jesus told about how hard it is for rich men to break through to the Kingdom of God? Why is it so hard? It is because they have to lay down something they value more than anything else in the world, and they have so stinkin’ much of it to lay down! I don’t have that problem, and neither do you.
Or do we?
What if the same rule applies to other forms of wealth? A wealth of knowledge, of intuition, of creativity, of intellect… is any one of these easier to lay down than a few billion dollars? I think not. We are very accustomed to leaning into our own strength, and we have seen it topple all the problems we have turned it on. All, that is, but One.
What if your greatest strength is your greatest impediment to knowing the God you cannot stop seeking because He is relentlessly seeking you? What if the fact that you cannot understand Him is compelling you to deny Him when you cannot deny Him without denying yourself? What if I told you that that is the extreme end of every gifted person’s quest for (flight from) God?
In the end, you come to the realization that you cannot reconcile God with the natural world any more than you can blend the sea with the sky. You just have to decide whether you will recognize yourself for who you are – an air-bubble transforming into your true self above the reality around you – or a part of the reality encasing you and divorced from the sky. No matter what you decide, you will rise. All you are deciding now is how the air above you will receive you when you are freed from this present reality.
I believe that you will make peace with the God you are presently denying, because I am convinced that you are too mentally honest to do otherwise. I pray that God protects you and your family – my family – in the process. I would tell you to stop making it so hard on yourself, but that would be like telling you to stop breathing the air. This is your journey. I would not presume to drag you along it even if I could. But can you see my little light shining from where you are? I am a bit further along on a very similar journey. I am listening to you. I am praying for you. And if you need me, I am here.
Now that that's said, I can get back to my listening, and you can (I hope) get back to your decompressing. (You knew I was a preacher, and that preachers preach, right?) Still, I want you to be heard and to know that your journey matters.
I love you, Son,
[[R]]
//I believe this is the first tiddler to have sported a [[title.Title]]. Frankly, my naming conventions were excellent considering I didn't use tags. Handcrafted linkage and lists worked really beautifully with this convention, and they still do. [[Realpolitik Speculation]] was the first [[Leet]]ish log-like project on the wiki. Not many projects get their own [[Poetry]], after all. I poured myself into Straussian object, and it gave birth to a number of mechanics on this wiki. I am also indebted to myself for being willing to take the risk of saying things which so many people would find insane. I can hear my voice in here.//
---
//For the record, I'm completely against IP rights as they are defined by all standard Western legal, political, ethical, academic, and philosophical systems. Intellectual objects should not be treated as objects we can own and prevent others from using for the sake of economic gain (it's hard to unbrainwash people on this topic - a lot of otherwise intelligent people cannot see the forest for the trees here).//
TPP (in its various incarnations) is the South East Asian (SEAsian [I'll call it Seasia]) equivalent of NAFTA at face value. At first glance, TPP seems reasonably justified by US nationalist and capitalist frameworks (but even they have been fooled beyond their normal foolishness). It's a fact that many tech and service jobs would be hit by TPP as badly as NAFTA hit manufacturing (I'm cosmopolitan enough in my theory of justice that I'm not necessarily against it; I care about humans, not merely Americans). Essentially, the US would export large swathes of our tech and service industries to Seasia in exchange for an expanded IP-based (intellectual property) industries penetration of Seasian countries by syncretically injecting and enforcing US IP laws within Seasia's various legal systems.
IP-based corporations have been unable to make serious progress in Seasia specifically because IP rights are not actually enforced in the region. Of course, lip service and sacrificial lambs are paid, but not an iota more is enforced (it makes sense too, since there is a vast amount of utility to gain from not subjecting their people to IP regimes). By using the US government's power to generate the legal obligations to enforce the kinds of IP rights that exist in the US in other Seasia, IP-based corporations stand to make a ton of money.
We sacrifice our tech (considered by corporations to be absurdly overpaid, hence H1B visas, etc.) and some of the better paying service industry sectors by outsourcing it to other nations in exchange for making our IP-based corporations extremely wealthy. This is supposed to be the trade the American people are thought to be accepting. Supposedly, our IP-industries will flourish (but not the average American, since those jobs will only continue to be outsourced through TPP). Further supposed, IP-based companies will pay taxes on their growth, but it is obvious that they do not pay taxes in the first place. Go ahead and check. These multi-nationals, especially the IP-based, tend to keep their transactions and their wealth outside of the US and its tax policy quite effectively.
With the outsourcing of our tech jobs, it is obvious that Americans will only be losing at every turn, and it seems that Seasians face a mixed bag (I see short-term gains, but I think it's also bad for them in the long run). IP-rights-holders are the only clear winners here. They will pay people less, have legal powers to maintain their monopolies and control of information, and continue to avoid paying taxes.
It gets worse though. By hijacking the US legal system, the US is being used to enforce the will of IP-based corporations (Tech Giants like Google, Apple, Microsoft, IBM, etc., but also Pharma, Auto, and many more). Essentially, US corporations would have a treaty-based transnational method to enforce their US-like IP rights in Seasia. Problematically, "third-party" arbiters for these transnational legal disputes generated through TPP are controlled primarily (or entirely) by the IP-based US corporations seeking to enforce the US IP regime in Seasia. When the Plaintiff owns all the Judges, guess who always wins? Exactly.
The fundamental political problem here is that we all assume that legal power in the US is very often equivalent to a significant degree of international legal power, and unfortunately, we have been tricked into thinking TPP will simply increase US power. This is a half truth. So, Seasia is the key to IP rights enforcement (among others) in Asia. TPP is thought to be the foothold the West needs to politically and economically penetrate the Asian giants like China, India, and probably Russia. The goal of the US and Europe is to inject Western legal systems into Asia; i.e. for Western power to spread in Asia. If we convert Seasia, crucial trading partners to China, we will have the bargaining chips to force China's hand to open their markets and legal systems to us. We are made to be afraid of the big bad Asian Tiger. The problem is that it isn't the Western people who are gaining power (assuming that's even a good thing), but that it is the owners of Western IP-based corporations gaining the power.
Ah, so here now we see the scarier Golem emerge: in bootstrapping transnational legal power through the US legal system, these IP-based corporations generate a partial yet significant kind of transnational legal sovereignty. This is the legal transfer of a non-trivial degree of sovereignty from every TPP-signing nation-state to owners of IP-based multi-national corporations largely based in the US. The owners of these corporations become serious wielders of US political, economic, and perhaps indirectly militaristic might; they do so without paying for it and while suffering few, if any, checks-and-balances on their empowerment. Nation-state legal sovereignty is giving way to a new kind of entity in political philosophy which we have not yet effectively named or understood.
TPP exists to make IP-based owners of US corporations incredibly wealthy while generating a [[SO]] kind of internationally politically sovereign entity through the US legal system. This is the continued emergence of the Hyperclass. Our sacrifice will only enrich the multi-national elite, those who are subjects to no sovereign. They are the new international aristocracy. They are eating us from the inside out using our own tools of statecraft against us.
So, let's be clear. The U.S. sacrifices significant portions of its better paying jobs with no safety nets or educational mobility, falling wages, which is part of the systematic transfer of our wealth to the Hyperclass. The economic power of the people is being squeezed out of them, and it's happening to even the middle and upper classes (only the 1% of the 1% of the 1% are gaining in a winner-take-all economy). Further, Seasia and eventually China and the rest of Asia will bow down to Western legal systems trojan-horsed through IP-rights enforcement enabled by TPP. It is not obvious we will get cheaper products, but even if we did, it is not obvious that the overall loss of income would be worth it (it very much seems not if the past 30 years have shown us anything). Not to mention, the people of Asia will be enslaved to an IP system (a legal regime with no fitting political and moral theory to justify it, as I have argued against elsewhere). The loss of intellectual freedoms, our wealth, and our mobility is frightening. And, this is all done in the name of US power, when it isn't even an increase in democratic Western power in Asia at all, but rather the empowerment of the owners of IP-based US corporations.
This is Trickle-up Economics and the centralization of political power in the hands of people who aren't themselves subject to the rule of law and taxes of various nations. They aren't citizens of any nation. They are beholden to no one. They are thieves of our political rights and wealth.
Google is widely known to have had Obama's ear. I doubt they own Trump though. It appears Trump did the right act, but for who knows what reason. I am pleased with TPP being off the table. How does this empower, enrich, or help Trump? That's what I want to understand. Is he owned by someone else, and to what degree? I believe Donald Trump is likely going to make a significant amount of money off this (or perhaps pay off a significant number of debts).
My current guess as to why Trump killed TPP was because China and Russia incentivized the behavior in Trump, since they definitely don't want their trading partners being injected with Western legal systems while handing authority over to IP-owners. This would be bad news for their economies.
So, TPP appears foiled for now. We will see how the Hyperclass will continue to cultivate, centralize, and consolidate their power through Trump. The proletariat class will only continue to become poorer, less-educated, less-powerful, and essentially more enslaved.
I'm finished with all the major tests except for OSHA-10. We finally got through the major bookwork necessary to start working in the shop. I actually threaded pipe today. It's easy. I'm glad it is easy too. I want to perfect it and streamline this process, from the tiny hand movements, to planning, to logistics, etc. I want to understand the variations in the tools, to be an effective troubleshooter.
Today, my partner, Nash, clearly failed to measure correctly (twice) and fucked up the threads a couple times. At least for now, I work faster and with few errors without him, I believe (with time, I'm sure we'll equalize). Thankfully, there are two different threading machines (one shop and another portable) which we will take turns on. We've decided we are going to divide the work to complete projects and to plan how to divide the work wisely, fairly, etc. We want to smash this course.
Today I didn't have any computer labwork to do because I'm done (minus OSHA-10 [not part of the curriculum, but I'm doing it because I was advised of its value], but I'm very close to done). Since I threaded pipes well enough yesterday, I was allowed to start working on "drawings" as my teacher called it (I call them schematics; I predict I will hear many different names for it).<<ref "1">> Basically, he handed me a schematic:
* I understood what it looked like
** I built a wire replica for good measure, but this one was as simple as it got
* I did the math to find the correct lengths and angles
** I checked my work twice.
*** If I get it wrong here, I will have wasted enormous amounts of time and energy. I want to be intelligent in my laziness (to work hard in the right way at being lazy).
* I found the unprocessed pieces I needed
** I made sure I had decent fittings especially. Our pipe, fittings, etc. (the raw materials of our trade) are unacceptably used and chewed up because the school skimps and cost-cuts a bit too hard. I mean that in a grateful way too. Further, that isn't to say I don't need practice with these materials (I will deal with used parts in the field plenty. But, most of the work is done with much higher quality (new) material because the labor alone is so expensive that you want new parts. I would like my shop to match as best as possible the conditions of the field.
* I would generally (with exceptions) cut, ream, and thread. I'd clean, test (3-ish spins by hand, but 4 is fine). and also dismount it. I'd measure if necessary, then cut, ream, and thread. I'd give a final clean, measure it, and if it passed set in my
* We went to the table, secured pieces in place, and started screwing our threaded pipe together<<ref "1">>
** We had to reorient and resecure the object being produced many times.
** We needed to know the directions to place the object in, and we needed to know which direction to put in a new fitting (and essentially where the next pipe would be installed.
*** The further you could see into the future here, the fewer reorientations and adjustments you'd need to make. This is a key point of efficiency.
*** I hope to become very good at this. I will practice rotations in my mind because I will constantly be rotating these larger schematic objects I'm building. It's part of the building process. Being able to orient myself (or it) instantly will call me to intuitively know the right way to build these objects. The efficient, fast, and lowest effort way to build them. Work smarter, not harder. This is about measuring twice before you cut in a process-management sort of way. There are a stream of things we do in a certain order. The goal is to build the right streamlined process.
* I spent time balancing things because a peer said I should. The teacher came by and said we didn't need to. He told us to break it down, and he gave me another schematic to do.
I'm working out how I should setup my workspaces and workflow (and on how I want to develop it and learn to test).
* Should I get used to measuring on the threader?
** It's harder to make sure you get it right. There isn't much space, it's a dangerous place (the torque on this machine is insane, and even if you feel safe, why take the risk?), you feel rushed when you do it that way, and I've seen a lot of actually measurement mistakes happen after relying upon measuring at the threader.
*** I fear I need the right measuring dance and tool to get this done well. I should think about it.
** I wish I had the schematic and math with me and that marking it on the threader would be the way to go. It would be nice to just bring the raw pipe up, bang them out all on the spot, and then bring them to the table to do the work. Walking between the table over and over is a waste of time.
* I found it best to keep my pieces organized and separated in piles. I also drew out my schematic on the table with my pieces (2-d). This made it very easy to put together.
** It was weird that my teacher did not immediately understand what I had done on the table. It was obviously useful.
* I measured more often than I needed to. We want to measure enough and at the right confusingly called TL) times to avoid risks, but we need to make sure we are efficient about it. For now, you measure too often, but work to find when it isn't necessary, and find out exactly why it was necessary when it was.
So, the dream process (as I understand it) goes like this:
# Receive and understand schematic
# Write quantity of each fitting type we need
# Write the Nominal Size TO90, 2TO90, Flanges, and if necessary TO45, 2TO45
## I've made up these names. It's a decent convention though.
## Find "90's" TO (takeouts) on page 90 (delicious coincidence) in my manual.
## Assuming BF is 45° (it has been so far), find "45's" TO in Notes section of my manual (teacher just gave them to us to write down).
###I should actually understand this better and have my own extensive cheat sheet.
# Write the CL (cut length) of individual pipes
## I have no idea why this part isn't done in a CAD program. It seems like it would be the best way to do it. Why rely upon humans for calculations?
## Find special travel lengths (anything that isn't taking a 90° angle on the isometric graph)
### The easy ones show two 45° angles.
#### We immediately know our BF°
#### We can easily calculate our Travel length (hypotenuse) = √(a^^2^^ + b^^2^^)
### Special Travel Boxes (literally show a box on the isometric graph)
#### TL of Travel (also sometimes called TL) ≈ √(Run^^2^^ + Set^^2^^ + Rise^^2^^) to the nearest 1/16th of an inch.
#### Roll° ≈ tan^^-1^^(Set/Run) to the nearest whole degree.
#### Rise° ≈ sin^^-1^^(Rise/Travel) to the nearest whole degree.
#### BF° (Bottom Fitting, but also identical to the top fitting in parallel Runs) ≈ cos^^-1^^(cos(Roll°) * cos(Rise°)) to the nearest whole degree.
## Construct formulas for each pipe
### Subtract True length from appropriate TOs: here are the combinations I've seen:
#### TL - (TO90)
#### TL - (2TO90)
#### TL - (TO90 + Flange)
#### TL - (TO90 + TO45)
#### TL - (2TO45)
## Solve formulas for each pipe
## Check formulas and answers to each pipe
### Make sure you got the math right. Your theoretical measurements need to be checked twice because the application of theory is a metaphorical cut. You have to start trusting trust in the move from doxa to praxis, and therefore you should double check your doxa because you won't be able to undo the damage it causes when you get it wrong. This sounds paranoid and like a lot of work, and perhaps I will become so adept that I won't need to measure twice in my math. For now, assume you make mistakes: you are not a virtuous pipefitter (although, you can strive to be a virtuous pipefitter apprentice).
# Gather pipefittings and the raw pipe (we have to hunt through scraps)
## Organize it. Have a workflow.
# Cutting and Threading
## Check equipment
## Work from largest to small pipes
### If you make a mistake, the lost effort can be mitigated by building other smaller pieces from our mistaken piece.
## Pre-measure (again!) the pipe to make sure it can produce the threaded pipe we want to make
## The Cycle:
### Mount
### Cut
### Ream
### Thread
### Dismount
### Clean
### Test
#### It can be skipped, but it is unclear when and why.
##### You obviously must do it on the first one.
##### If you did it once every pipe, then doing it on the first thread seems best since, if there's a problem, then you haven't wasted too much work.
### Measure and mark
### Repeat
# Tape/Seal your pipethreads
## I suggest laying out the taped pipe in the schematic's isometric build pattern (with fittings at the joints) on the table. Know where you are, where you are going, and how it fits. If you can't, then at least have an ordering to retrieve the part you need when you need it. We want an efficient assembly line.
# Building the Object in the Schematic
## You may need a second person. The counter-leverage (need a word) is necessary for certain turns of the pipe/fittings.
## The order is not always clear. Think about this one. Your teacher had no advice to give other than possibly starting with the largest one (he did not have much to say here). Your building space and mounting requirements may dictate much of what counts as the right order.
## Make it level and plumb along all necessary axes while being "tight enough" (still unclear on what counts as that)
# ???
# Profit
My teacher does a measurement after all the cuts where he adds his TO's to his CL by overextending his measuring tape. It does not seem necessary or useful to me. I do not see why he wants to do it that way another than as another check on whether or not he did the math right. If you trust your math (and you should be the time you are cutting), then why not just check your actual cut pipe lengths to the CL variable?
---
<<footnotes "1" "Tangent: I think my teacher's vocabulary is interesting. He knows his job, no doubt. He's an excellent practitioner, highly respected in our small community. He doesn't seem to understand the theory of his job very well though. It's like how my dad says my grandpa can't perform algebra and doesn't really understand that he is actually implementing algebra in his everyday work. We use basic trig every day (which I barely understand), but my teacher doesn't even know the word //hypotenuse//. He gives us formulas literally as a step-by-step choreography on our calculators (you push this button, then this button, and so on...) without a sufficient understanding or interest in how or why or what he is doing. He doesn't understand the formulas themselves, and I worry he doesn't even care that he doesn't understand. It makes me both impressed and sad at the same time. It is clear that significant portions of the intellectual part will be me doing all the lifting (which is fine, ultimately, we all learn alone [even when we have a teacher]).">>
<<footnotes "2" "That is literally the gayest sentence I have ever written.">>
A while back, [[k0sh3k]] suggested to me a speculative murmur that I can't quite shake. Her claim was that the RNC is going to impeach Trump. After reflection, I'm increasingly convinced this is a real possibility. Pence is a fairly standard Republican for this day and age, and obviously more in line with the RNC's policies and strategies. He's the leader the RNC really wants. So, I'm open to the possibility that Trump's presidency is an egg which will hatch Pence's presidency. Before Pence emerges, the RNC will extract as much political capital from Trump as they can.
The idea is that Trump, attention and media whore that he is (there is no such thing as bad press in his eyes, just as long as everyone thinks he's rich and powerful, that is good enough to him), will happily and perhaps unknowingly (in a sense) take credit for doing the RNC's dirty work (stuff they wanted implemented, but stuff they don't want to sacrifice their political capital on unless they must). I'm not sure all of what is on the dirty work list that Trump will be scapegoated for during impeachment (even if and when he doesn't actually have the power and influence to support and push these through), but I believe that "dreamlist" includes:
* The elimination of social safety nets, opportunity equalizers, medicare, SS,<<ref "1">> etc.
* Deregulating markets at all levels, including the limiting, removal, or twisting of environmental and natural resource preservation, mobility and neutrality protections, conflict of interest and collusion prevention, and anti-competitive laws and policies.
* Raising taxes on the poor and the remainder of the middle class while simultaneously giving enormous tax breaks, shelters, and higher financial mobility to the wealthy.
* A marked assault on voter rights and continued gerrymandering.
* Opening the gates for a striking expansion of the prison-industrial-complex, debtor's prisons, police militarization, the erosion of due process, etc.
* Advancing US imperialism and nationalism (while isolating us in other respects) and continuing to feed our gargantuan military-industrial-complex
* Dismantling some international "legal" obligations and many relationships (as rumored: to the benefit of Russia)
* Injecting steroids into the surveillance+censorship-industrial-complex, codifying what Big Brother already does and perhaps forcing mandatory backdoors on us all.
I don't know when the RNC would slip the Impeachment dagger in Trump's back, but I'm sure they would want to make use of their "sacrificial lamb" as much as possible before disposing of him. Maybe Trump is going to politically hang himself, and the RNC will feed him the rope. Even if it never comes to fruition, it could simply be a form of leverage, a threat the majority-holding RNC hold over Trump's head.
Ultimately, while I think Trump is good at campaigning and getting screen time, I'm not yet convinced he has any clue what he is doing politically in some crucial respects (although, he is clearly very talented at what he does). While power and wealth will likely centralize strongly under his reign, I'm still convinced Trump is accepting being used as a political pawn in exchange for 'dat publicity and wealth-based virtue signaling.
If I am wrong, if Trump is more competent than I can discern, then we may have an even bigger problem. Trump's moral insanity is the stuff of fascist dictators.
I hope I am completely wrong. So far, his executive orders have not given me much hope. We are all holding our breaths and biding time.
---
<<footnotes "1" "Not that the Baby Boomers deserve my help. We're in a mess they have largely created with their psychopathic, egoistic destruction of all of our futures (I believe they have already thrown the human species off the cliff). Even if I ignore blame via maximum empathy, it is clear that they are in no small part causally (even though they aren't morally) responsible for the state of our world. Time will tell if my generation will be the saviors our species needs or just more of the same. I'm betting we will fail.">>
Nash and I put together a more complex object before it was time to do our weekly cleaning of the shop (apparently, the teacher designed the schematic just for us, the "upperclassmen" hadn't seen it before; they said that Nash and I were likely going to do a lot more work than they did). Getting the right Level and Plumb is not easy with our materials. Our teacher is a stickler too. We had a pipe very slightly off, but we passed the test.
I clearly need more practice on the construction of these objects. I do not have the sense of knowing exactly what to do when, where, and why. It will be a road to travel to become virtuous at this.
I've finished the OSHA-10! What a time-consuming process it was. I think I might also take the optional assessments just in case. I don't want to have to do this again. Plus, there is a Welding and Cutting assessment that may be important to know.
I read Animal Farm two decades ago, and it set me on a path. I've long thought there was something deeply right about that genre's descriptions of who we are as human beings. I see the golem we are raising. Of course, we always risk violating Godwin's law. What regime isn't compared to Hitler? Here's the crucial fact: fascism comes in degrees and kinds, and it seems to have many definitions and associations. I think we are slipping into "new normals." Below you will find Britt's "Early Warning Signs of Fascism."<<ref "1">> Included are my oversimplified, sweepingly generalized ratings (with bias!) of the current political climate:
* USA | Political Problematic
* 4/10 | Powerful and continuing nationalism
* 7/10 | Disdain for human rights
* 5/10 | Identification of enemies as a unifying cause
* 3/10 | Supremacy of the military
* 2/10 | Rampant sexism
* 8/10 | Controlled mass media
* 9/10 | Obsession with national security
* 6/10 | Religion and government intertwined
* 9/10 | Corporate power protected
* 6/10 | Labor power suppressed
* 5/10 | Disdain for intellectuals and the arts
* 5/10 | Obsession with crime and punishment
* 8/10 | Rampant cronyism and corruption
* 6/10 | Fraudulent elections
Lists like these are useless, except when they aren't.
Obviously, the US is not monolithic. It's large, diverse, complex, and deeply divided. The various sects within each of the proletariat, bourgeoisie, ruling, and hyper classes have their own ratings, as well as different contributions and relationships to these warnings signs.<<ref "2">>
Fascism is the last defense of capitalism. This is late stage capitalism in the developed world.
---
<<footnotes "1" "Laurence W. Britt wrote about the common signs of fascism in April 2003, after researching seven fascist regimes: Hitler's Nazi Germany; Mussolini's Italy; Franco's Spain; Salazar's Portugal; Papadopoulos' Greece; Pinochet's Chile; Suharto's Indonesia. It pulls on my heart strings, but that doesn't mean this is an accurate list. Something about it seems obviously right though.">>
<<footnotes "2" "I have the kneejerk reaction to put Proles one side and everyone else on the other. There is some truth to being that generalized, but our opponents are divided in crucial ways.">>
I gave my mom the first pipe I threaded.
We did much of the same: take a schematic, build it, have it checked, take it down, change pipe size, do it again. I expect to become adept at this process. I hope it becomes second nature to me to the point that I can think about other stuff as I do it (safely, ofc). I'm told I will have many such similar projects over the course of the trimester. So be it. I need the practice.
Atm, I'm fairly sore. I'm not used to this level of physical exertion. It isn't on the order of lifting weights and serious workouts though. We'll see as the week progresses how it goes. I'm sure I will grow into it. I tend to develop muscle quickly enough. As long as I take care of my flexibility, my natural strength growth factor will carry me.
Governments aren't monolithic. Shadows come in degrees, and this administration is undoubtedly shady. Yes, there is an odd interplay between open and shadow. I'm not quite sure what to think of it.
It is clear, however, that policy design and the process of generating, clarifying, and disseminating information inside the executive branch is moving away from standard conventions and constructs. We've elected an administration which is eschewing record keeping and stakeholder-based policy sculpting in favor of empowering an unaccountable restricted cabal of Trump's //trusted// advisors. This is a terrible precedent for historical reasons, but it is also a bad thing in an immediate and practical way. Internal transparency is increasingly opaque. The paper trail is disappearing and perhaps no longer even being generated. There are internal witch hunts and an alarming paranoia permeates. Power is brazenly being centralized behind closed doors. Fewer and fewer men control our lives.
I'm increasingly convinced that Trump is at least quarter-puppet. Beyond Trump's engagement in a dangerous prosperity cult (outside of a handful of unique Christians I've met, ultimately all Christians buy into some prosperity teaching), Fox News and Breitbart (also prosperity cults in a way) are enormously influential in his life. They have his ear, and I think they are integrated into this new shadow government.
//I figured out around this time period that I should keep logs of more than just pipefitting. This was the beginning. It was a fine start. I was trying to write down what we were doing. I wanted a central repository for the information, and place to remotely explain what was expected.//
* [[2017.02.25 - Homeschooling Log]]
!! Log:
* [[2017.02.02 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.02.03 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.02.07 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.02.09 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.02.10 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.02.13 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.02.14 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.02.15 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.02.16 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.02.19 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.02.20 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.02.21 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.02.23 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.02.24 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.02.28 - Pipefitting Log]]
!! Audit:
* Lol. So hopeful in here. *sigh
* I'm glad to have met Chris. I don't think we really clicked in the end, but that's okay.
* Pipefitters are sculptors.
* Omg, I wrote a lot on some of these days. There is a lot more standard narratival work here. It doesn't "get the point" nearly as much as I do now. It isn't as listical, etc.
* I'm grateful to have had these classes. I knew jackshit walking in, and I knew enough to jump into the deepend after 6 months. I worked my butt off. Even if I don't work with my hands for a living, this was a powerful experience for me.
We had a graduate from my program come in yesterday. He joined the union. He came in a journeyman due to previous experience. He made $50k in the past 4 months. That's sick.
I've heard that much of the fabrication work I do in the shop does not transfer to the field. Much of the industrial pipefitting work is so large scale and prefabricated that I'm really doing the installation and not the more detailed aspects of construction. I will learn what I can though. This is me getting my foot in the door, understanding it from the ground up, understanding the nooks and crannies, etc.
My body is sore, but that is to be expected. Eventually, it will be nothing. I'm glad I can work my way up to it.
Through a series of false compromises, the DNC has inched more and more to the right over the decades. Pelosi herself praises Capitalist dogma. The Clinton's are a wonderful box of contradictions. Obama was an incredible disappointment; he's a war-criminal. The core of the DNC has already been hollowed out by corporate interests.
Bernie was an indication of a more leftist possibility for the party (and I consider Bernie lacking zeal and direction, but at least he's remotely on the left path), and he was denied by influential and powerful people at every turn (despite having the obvious popular majority). The DNC has clearly not learned their lesson, those fools and selfish assholes. I think they see the Trump presidency as a conflict to thrive upon and a way to only further entrench their version of conservativism through yet another false compromise.
Give me a parliament and game theoretically correct voting procedures. Even the will of our retarded people is better. It is sad to see that no one represents us. Expectation (ought) and prediction (is), of course, are different.
Nash annoyed me today. He cut the threads too deep. When we screwed the pipes into the fittings, they went too deep. The center-to-center true measurement will be too short if we make the pipe tight enough. Otherwise, if we get the correct true length, then it isn't tight enough. Basically, we will have to redo it all, I fear. That said, I made a mistake (well, be both did): I forgot takeouts on the offset. This is our first time actually building offsets (but, I shouldn't have made the math error; hell, I drew the schematic myself). We got to use flanges as well.
After we cleaned up the shop, I went home, finished my union application, and visited the local union office. I talked with the office manager for a while (she remembered me, which is surprising). She gave me directions to the union's shop, which turned out to be within a quarter of a mile of my school. I met the training coordinator; he was expecting me (office manager must have called him). We basically had an impromptu interview, and he said I'm doing what I need to do to get into the union. I'll keep bugging him (which he said wouldn't help, but that I should still do anyway).
I love you.
I don't even know what love means yet (and from what I can tell, I may never fully), but I love you.<<ref "1">>
You and I don't know what that fully entails yet. That's okay. Son and Daughter of mine, if I could end my life to make yours happy, I would. If only I had that option! My life, from inception to death, is an experiment gone wrong. This is not your fault, and all I can do is try my best to help you be systematically happy. I must shield and cultivate you. You must stand on my shoulders: breathe the fresh air, do not drown in the chaos! I am yours.<<ref "2">> I have been through a version of hell to be with you. I am sorry for who I am, my deficiencies and imperfections, and the pain that I have caused you. I am not the creator you deserve.<<ref "3">> All I have is yours. I love you.
My mother once said something like these words to me. I hope I can only build on what she said. We must find hope in our tragedy, a reason to live, and you are my reason. Creators are indebted to their creations because it wasn't the creations' fault that they came into being. If there is moral responsibility, then creators are responsible for their creations.
I do not know how free we are. I wish I did. I wish I knew the meaning, the concept, the source, the criterion, the conditions, and the groundwork and foundations. I wish I had the answers for you. I do not. I am sorry. I don't know what life you will live. I can't see that far. I desperately hope it is a happy one. We each have our own plight, minds and reality maps, contexts, accidents and plans. I am an unprepared, fallible, and flawed creator. I am truly sorry for the ways in which I've failed you.
I will do my best for you.
I love you.
---
<<footnotes "1" "Yes, that sounds like a contradiction. It isn't. How can I say I'm engaging in something which I don't even understand? I don't know. Let us call it the magic of bootstrapping and hope. I do not understand the paradoxes of love, but I will do my best. It's all I have.">>
<<footnotes "2" "Kantians cannot give good reasons for self-sacrifice. It is one of the fundamental flaws in their work. I am here to sacrifice myself for you. I don't believe Jesus was God (since I don't believe in God), but if there was a human Jesus (surely he existed; it's a helluva meme), I'd like to think he fundamentally understood sacrifice. It is such a special notion. It is the tragic exchange, losses, and transactions of those things we hold most dear, where we trade with objects whose values reach beyond our comprehension. We are monkeys trading existential gems.">>
<<footnotes "3" "Which is not the claim that there is a Creator we deserve.">>
I live for you. You are the reason I exist, not just in a biological sense, but more fundamentally in an existential sense. You are the reason I grind, the reason I move forward, and the reason I would enslave myself. This is the part where I say, "I would die for you." I would. I seek to make us happy because I can't find anything else worth pursuing (I have searched the desert!). I want the people in my life that I love to be happy. I care about the happiness of others like ripples in a pond, like onion layers, in degrees, perhaps sets and orders, as deontic priorities. The decision procedure proceeds.
The rubber meets the road. The icky is here. I must prioritize. This is the programmatic priority. It is only practical.
While I might always be on the fence about my own life (it is still not obvious to me that my life, in itself, is worth living), I am clearly instrumental to the happiness of those I categorically cherish. I am laserbeam resolute in my devotion to my wife and children, and while I know I fail them and myself in numerous ways, I will be and do my best for them. I must be their tool to happiness, and I throw myself upon that task. It is mine. Give it to me!!!!!! They are my spark. They are my reason for living. I desire their happiness. I seek to enslave myself to their happiness because their happiness really is my happiness. That is a resounding commitment I make. They are my hope. This is existential grit.
Dear [[R]],
I know it has been almost two weeks since you sent your last letter. I want you to know I've not been avoiding responding; I've been working hard on a response. The reason for the delay: I've been thinking quite a bit and dealing with other issues. My parents came to visit last week. I was very anxious, to say the least. I wanted to make sure I did not offend them while still being myself and honest (this is not easy to do). More painfully though, I found out my mother's thyroid problem is destroying her kidneys (my fear has been confirmed). I think she will die of renal failure; she is convinced as well (they are walking through her bucketlist). Steroids and dialysis have serious limitations for her. I have wept many times over the past week.
My mother is a classic boomer workaholic by choice (even she agrees). She has sacrificed her basic health (and arguably many things and people in her life) for her ministry. She has been consumed by vocational zeal to the point of lacking empathy for herself and family (classic PK/MK problems arise). Have you ever read 'The Poisonwood Bible,' and what did you think of it? It has been difficult to see and accept that her hard way of life joined with the stress that I have caused her (among many others) has led to her pending death.
I hope her remaining year(s) is/are peaceful. Whatever strongly mixed feelings I have about my mother (and vice versa), I want her to be happy. I want to be empathic and kind toward her. I love her. It's part of who I am. It's part of being unified. I hope with time and wisdom, I will see her narrative with more charity (which, admittedly, is hard to do when it isn't reciprocated during times of crisis [when I need it most]). I want to have a good relationship with my mom. It kills me that we don't. We are a house divided by the truth.
My mother and I talked this past Monday for a couple hours. We cried. We talked, carefully couched, about our plans, our analyses of who we are and how we fit, and our existential points of view. We are trying to find common ground, but it is obvious we will fail. We will always stand on thin ice with each other. Knowing it very well could be the conversation I have with her in person, I told her what she meant to me, how grateful I am, that I love her. It was bittersweet since every word was inevitably coated and coded with the meanings of our suffering and conflict. I tried to scrape it off, but we both know how damaged we and our words are. We both understand each other (and ourselves) and yet don't in crucial ways. Our bifurcated relationship is not how life is meant to be. The scar is already there, and she hasn't even died yet.
They have the kids for the week. I have stipulated before that my parents are not permitted to evangelize to my children. This is not out of spite. Of course, I want my children to have a good relationship with their grandparents. Problematically, my parents are skilled rhetoricians who sincerely love God in their broken way, and by His command love other people as well, but they do not pursue the truth. Unfortunately, they are incredibly talented manipulators. I respect their work with the poor, but not their methods, reasons, and the costs they've incurred. Of course, the result is that they don't get to share a part of themselves with my children (although, whether purposely or not, it stills oozes out).
I see the paths they could have taken and did not. Even they agree that I know them better than anyone else on the planet. As harsh as it sounds: it is clear that after raising 3 suicidal sons so deeply unprepared for the world that they aren't good parents. My parents had the means to be good parents, but not the will. They should have followed Paul's advice and not have had children in the first place while pouring themselves into their ministry. And, yet, I have to move past my judgment. I'm a failure too. Judgment must be withheld as a matter of practical wisdom. Judgment destroys us. I have been inspecting the concept of "Doing Our Best" yet again. I at least partially know how little I know. We must build together a new house while we still can.
I'm going to ask my brothers to throw a party at my brother [[JRE]]'s house for the family. My youngest brother, [[AIR]], can't even be in the same room with them (I see why; my parents often lack empathy for him). But, I think he will feel safe at JRE's house (but not my parents'). A last hurrah and a celebration of my mother's life would be nice. If she does die soon, I want us to part on amicable terms.
What kind of relationship did you have with your parents? What do you regret? What did you do right? Does it ever get easier?
I will only mention the tip of your letter for now: As we age, do we become worldworn? What is the source of tiredness? Is your tiredness like that of others? How, and why?
Love,
[[h0p3]]
I am so sorry about your Mom's health.
I was very close to my parents. We had different views on some things, but I always felt heard and respected. I don't have a lot of regrets. It is hard to regret the things that formed you without regretting that you are who you are, and I am okay with who I am. I want to say that I regret staying in an abusive marriage for ten years, but I have three amazing daughters that I wouldn't have had otherwise. I want to say that I regret not being more present in my daughters' lives, but the full court press for survival, when plunged into poverty, is a consuming activity. And we survived. I own that and all that it implies. There are parts of that story no one else knows or needs to know.
Does it get easier? No. It gets different. I am not sure it gets harder, but the focus changes as we age. Family means something else and time replaces a chunk of responsibility with respect. We may regret what we built (or failed to build) into our families, but we recognize that our power to heal or wound them is diminished. We are no longer the critics of society (or family) but the ones under indictment. The saddest part is that we are usually judged and sentenced before any inquiry begins. The sweetest part is that the most important judges are usually prejudiced in our favor, at least a bit.
My tiredness is a pure form - I go to bed too late and get up too early, and do too much between the two. I don't know how or why others experience tiredness, but mine is not due to being worldworn if I understand the term. When I am tired, I am not usually missing my youth or the age to come - just my pillow and my sheets.
If there is anything we can do to be of help to you and your brothers right now, we are here. Also, if you need anything tangible, please let us know. Don't do without.
There's an old man who walks through the building from time to time. He speaks with the instructors, leads strangers around, etc. I wasn't sure what he did or who he was. I just introduced myself to him out of the blue. Apparently, he knew a lot about me, where I was from, what I did for a living before, how I was doing in the program, etc. He said he was already looking out for me. He spends 3 days a week recruiting. He seems to be a liaison between various communities, students, and employers. He is clearly well-networked. This guy literally created the pipefitting program I'm in (not the curriculum or physical infrastructure, but the bureaucratic and financial aspects of it) because the HR department of the largest industrial employer in the area asked him to create the program at my tech school.
The old man suggested I consider the union in a city 3.5 hours away. They guarantee local work during the apprenticeship. Few are allowed into the program, but I am told I have a great chance of getting in if I wanted it. He said the local union isn't worthwhile just yet, but that it could be in a year or so.
Changing topics, today's work was frustrating. It is very difficult to make everything level and aplomb with 45's. I need to tighten and balance at each stage. I need to make sure Nash is following this (he'll see the reason for it). Do it right the first time. Tighten now and work harder to untighten because it is worth avoiding fixing the problems of loose joints destroying balance every time we make an adjustment.
It is difficult to get the right tightness while also getting the right direction. Let's think about this problem.
Also, Keith said that I should consider Johnson Controls yesterday. He said something about automated valve control (remote in). He obviously heard/figured out that I adore computers (likely from Keaton). I'm glad he said something though. Finding ways to leverage my computing, formal, and systems skills into Pipefitting could land cushy yet thrilling jobs which pay sick money.
I learned how to use the scientific calculator for reals this time. I adore it. I can see what I need to memorize now. I still do my math twice. It's an extra 5 minutes, but it limits a lot of risks.
I obsessively check measurements at opportune moments in my build process so I feel confident when I get to building. I'm very organized, and I have a process that I can analyze, enrich, and improve upon. I am building my work-stack (or one of them). I am very fast (and safe), and I think I can continue to ramp it up.
My teacher gave us a schematic which we did as a math problem before. I have everything saved in my skein notebook. Nobody has actually built this thing in class. Of course, since we've been crushing it, he's throwing us curveballs and possible busywork. He's giving us work he hasn't given anyone else. I suspect this is because he needs to look like he is doing something. My teacher is clearly an alcoholic (but I still respect him, shaky hands and all; he has led an interesting life), he yells at the guys a lot (very emotional, not terribly rational...but never at me [he's far more formal and polite with me; I must think carefully about how I would react if people yelled at me {defusion is not necessarily the best answer, but it sometimes is best}]), and he is not deeply concerned about his students(although still partially concerned, even if only for redpilled honest shopkeeper kinds of reasons and appearances for keeping his job). I am slowly trying to unspokenly or less-spoken convince him to advance me at the pace I deserve (perhaps separate from Nash, or with additional unique content, but at least at a fast pace) to move at and to show me everything he knows; we may have different definitions of what counts as this. It seems to me that I have regularly had to make him think (I have watched carefully); but, I don't know if that is a good thing or a bad thing.
I'm trying to develop a basic relationship with him, but I also show the respect of students to teachers (regardless of the merit of such a practice, I still want to show that I'm paying attention, listening, and want to know what he knows). I keep it professionally jovial with him and show him I'm serious. I work my ass off in that class, and he sees it every time he walks into the shop (because he's often screwing around and missing from the classroom [every student has complained about this, and they are not wrong], taking up side jobs, etc.) in. I rarely take my full breaks; I don't chit chat; I don't play games; I take initiative and study between downtime; I'm consistently looking to improve and become virtuous at this practice. I do not waste my time like the other students because I need this education to get the best paying job I can, and I need my excellence to shine and open doors for me. I need to learn this really well, I need him to be the best teacher he can be (whether that means removing barriers or helping him understand what that is for this context), and I need his drunken recommendation.
I complete ~1 project a day (projects appear to take 2-3 days for good students, and a week or more for bad), and I have passed every test he's thrown at me (even the optional ones). It is not obvious that Nash is actually passing these tests; I seem to be doing a lot of the work for us (I suspect my teacher knows this). Nash is too content to chillax when this is clearly his chance to dive in. Working with Nash has been difficult, and it showed strongly on this project. He is simply not as adept at this (only because he doesn't try: this kid is smart enough and has enough background that this could be much easier for him). He can't do the math, he mismeasures all the time, he doesn't tighten his work (which is awful for us because it means that it is moving around and very frustrating to level), he is terrible at understanding where he should be placing his wrenches (including which direction, how much force, and even why he is doing it), he can't see the right build order, and more. I do my best to help him, especially since I realize that I may not be able to move forward unless he is at least getting it decently enough that my teacher will not feel compelled to slow me down.
Yesterday, he threw the chuck for the threader so hard (repeatedly) that it adjusted the diameter of the die set. Despite checking with a spare fitting for turns at random times, we didn't figure out that he had done this until too late. Many of our pipes weren't threaded deeply enough because of it. We found out the hard way, and we didn't find out until the end of the day. It is obvious that Nash is frustrated working on these things and working with me (his failures really cost us now, and even when I don't say anything, I seem to wear my inferences and beliefs on my face so plainly to others at times and in certain ways). I ended up having to redo the work today (rethreading already threaded pipe), taping again (we run through it quickly, especially with mistakes like these, and our teacher has complained about how much we use [although, we complete a lot of work]), and then building the entire thing by myself (in less time than Nash and I had to spend the day before). I was actually proud of what I did this time. It was clearly meant to be tricky, and I did a good job.
This curveball yesterday was obviously a curveball for even my teacher. He could not rotate the isometric schematic and my fabricated object in his head well enough to see they matched. He had to run to his office to build a model of the schematic out of wire (I believe he was suggesting to me that he was embarrassed about it later after he was done checking my work). He figured out I did it correctly (but not before making us unnecessarily rotate the heavy bastard off our table). Everything was good, and I felt confident it would be (it's nice to have confidence in the face of tests). I hope to continue to work hard, learn, do well, and feel confident.
Sometimes I feel compelled to make suggestions to him about what I want to learn. I'm straight up eager to learn and master this art. I do not want to waste an ounce of my schooling (I've had 10 years of post-secondary education already, and I appreciate that maxim: you get out what you put in). Does he know he has a Formula 1 racecar for a student? Is it my fault here? Is it out of my control? I can only do my best (be rational) with a good attitude (empathy).
He measured the pipebender (which has never been used, and he has to find the manual for). I might get to practice that. Even an introduction would be useful.
He is likely going to have us make things on the simulator (no one has done this for a while, but we will get to). I'm excited since I'll actually have used Flanges instead of merely installing them on the ends of my fabricated objects. The simulator is unimpressive looking, and it is only a screwpipe simulator (perhaps that's all we really need one for since welding does the rest). I'm hoping that I will get to design the schematics we use on the simulator. I want it to say something. What should it say? What will I draw with these pipes? I drew some cool ones before (and made two of them; I liked the spiral the most [it looked cool]). This is a different challenge. I should measure and plan, draw and present it to him.
He said that in a week or week and a half, he wants to let me start beveling and butt welding (tack welding only, but I want to learn the beadwork too). This is normally late first trimester or early second-trimester work. I would really like to have a strong introduction to welding in this class, while I have the chance with the materials, machines, time, and teachers.
I see mistakes everywhere. Finding mistakes in myself is what makes me good at things. It also makes me not like people (and vice versa). I am probably an extrovert who tests strongly as an INTJ simply because I'm misanthropic (I usually love, but rarely like). The fact is: I am a loner. I do infinitely better when I only have to analyze for me and not for and especially with a group of people. It's why I'm not a good team player (still wildly better than average, but my giftedness does not shine in a group). If I have to group, I will. Sometimes I even enjoy it. I find I'm often happier in video games when I'm by myself or working closely with a couple people. The more the not merrier. Basically, I'm saying that I'm a bad empathizer. I don't think it's my fault as an autistic person either. I try to empathize as best as I can, but it often isn't good enough. There are only so many things in my control. If I only have so many resources I can devote to empathizing (it is emotionally draining for me in a way that it isn't for others, I suspect), I want to make sure it is on my family; we need it. I need to be there for us as best as I can. That means I need to be wise in how I spend my social-energy. I can see why businessmen often have such low empathy (there seem to be a variety of causes and possibilities). I will be respectful and kind, but I will make sure that I guide myself to opportunities to have maximal alone time (on something fun) with as minimal sacrifices to pay (including my enslavement) as is worth it. Do the utilitarian math, or get the right feel for it, h0p3!
Ask, and ye shall receive. Today, my teacher threw me a curveball and I struck out (although, I thankfully didn't land on my ass). He told me he purposely designed it to fool me, and it did (I'm glad I at least offer the appearance of humility in my face and words when I ask him to check my work). The schematic had a beautiful trick in it that made it easy to misread. He said, "I finally gotcha! You did something wrong," and he smiled with pride. I took it in stride and laughed with him. It was bound to happen. I knew at once where the mistake was to be found. Something felt really funny about that part of the schematic, and I didn't pay enough attention to really understand what it should look like. It was a clever curveball. I told him what I thought my mistake was and how it was supposed to look.
By not understanding the schematic well enough, I could not perform the fitting<<ref "1">> math, which meant that not only was my shape wrong, but the lengths were slightly off. I took the offending portion of the construct apart, and thankfully I had spare pipes ready just in case I needed them (be prepared to fail). I fixed it very quickly.
Afterward, I asked to see a stack of schematics. I clearly need practice in understanding them. I want it to be second nature, like reading a map I've seen a thousand times or reading English, etc. I must remember that nobody does this instantly. I must work for it. My hard work will pay off; my talent will shine; I will succeed eventually; I will breathe this. Being someone who understands will be useful. I suspect it will be something that separates me and maximizes the value others see in me. It is bargaining power and mobility. Anyways, he gave me a stack of actual CAD schematics used in actual projects. They are different in some ways, with way more information to decipher. There is much to learn.
The teacher said that he was worried that I would not be able to say he challenged me on his course evaluations. He said he didn't know why the other students are there, but he knew I was there to become a pipefitter. This is the second day that my partner Nash has missed. He can't afford to miss that many days before he gets kicked out. Our class dwindles.
I visited the union training facility again today. The boss man wasn't there, but I met another guy who seemed relatively high on the totem pole. It was obvious to him in the course of our conversation that I didn't know much of anything. After he found out that I was nobody, he was far less interested in me. Redpills for everyone.
---
<<footnotes "1" "Yes, Plato's Statesman, I hear you! All day, every day. I cannot escape it.">>
Dear [[R]],
I'm sorry if my previous letter was offensive. I hope this one won't be offensive either. I really appreciate that you kindly offer me your perspective on family, faith, and life. As a side note, I've enjoyed talking with your brother, C, immensely. You both have a raw kindness and intelligence that I so rarely find. It makes so much sense why my wife is as awesome as she is.
I am glad you are honest with me and at the same time not judgmental. It is something I'm still growing accustomed to and learning to do myself. It's a good pairing (and I take it to be a crucial element of empathy, the golden rule). I also appreciate that you want the best for me (even if we have perhaps different standards and theories of the Good); that's what love is about. It's relieving to have someone hear me. Thank you.
As a sidenote, I like that word: decompressing. It suits me.
Now, I can't say I wasn't expecting your argument, and I'm sure you will say the same of me (I suspect we have both studied these issues for a long time). Without trying to sound arrogant (I'm going to fail), I want to say up front that I am aware of the family of arguments you've presented (which you probably know). I have taken these issues very seriously. It is what kept me faithful for so long. A significant portion of my training and upbringing has been devoted to understanding and answering the issues, frameworks, questions, and arguments you've presented. Philosophy of religion, epistemology, and ethics are at the center of my wheelhouse. It's what I did around the dinner table; it's what I focused on in church; it's what I ponder in quiet moments; and it's what I studied for 10 years in school. Essentially, I think I am skilled at empathizing with the point of view you've presented because I was born into it. I really have given it a fair shake. I believe C.S. Lewis would have met his match in me (our conversation feels a bit like the Screwtape Letters). I don't mean this as a useless appeal to authority. I think context is valuable.
For example, what I want my parents to understand is this: I really did it their way. I really took them and their view very seriously. I was faithful. It was my vocation and purpose. In an ironic twist, it was my faith that led me away from faith; that's how faithful I've been. I took the leap of faith, and all that happened was that I fell. As I stand back up, I think I see why.
Let me add two crucial caveats (and distance myself from judgment): (1) we all must have the hope that we can be right about what matters, (2) we may have different evidence. It is only rational for those with different evidence to arrive at different conclusions. I believe we are both justified in our positions (this isn't a claim about objective accuracy [which we may never achieve anyways]). Our beliefs are not accidental; we've really thought about them. To the degree we disagree, I take us to be kindly agreeing to disagree. I am convinced you are more skilled than I am at this (it is not naturally a part of my disposition), so please call me out if I'm lacking. That said, I think we clearly agree on an enormous amount. I admire the network of reasons and explanations which emanate from the axioms you take up.
I also do not want to be dismissive or underhanded. I must be honest. If I'm going to be rational, it means I need to maintain charity and openness. It means I must have the integrity to revisit those ideas again, to accept I could be wrong, and to do my best to find the truth. Let me give it a fair shake again, and you can call me out when I've not. So, here is my good faith response to your extremely thoughtful argument:
<<<
We come at the same truth from different perspectives, so we must stretch to see things from each other’s point of view. I am hearing you, but as I am listening, I am convinced that I am hearing more than you hear when you listen to yourself. You are a deeply spiritually awake and aware person. It is that spiritual awareness that is causing much of your intense pain.
<<<
It is always possible I may not be hearing myself as well as you do. Confabulation, denial, willful ignorance, akrasia, confusion, and compartmentalization are real possibilities. I would not usually characterize myself that way, but I know I have made those mistakes before (as we all do). My goal is to be less wrong each day. Again, I want reason to guide me. It is the Categorical Imperative.
I think it is important to define what it means to be "spiritually awake and aware." One of the crucial fork-in-the-road assumptions we must take up in order to define spiritual awareness is whether or not spirituality is real or epiphenomenal. What exactly are we "spiritually aware" of? Why should I think a spiritual dimension exists? I don't think I should formally beg the question (including my conclusion in my premises) here; although, maybe we should establish that first. Of course, we have to have a starting place. Bias, to some degree, cannot be escaped; it is part of our epistemic plight.
I have definitely had what are called spiritual experiences in church, in listening to and playing music, in love, in contemplation in the middle of the night, and even drug-induced. That we can artificially induce spiritual experiences so clearly and effectively should give us serious pause. I have seen too many people speak in tongues and talk about ghosts (and I've seen the kinds of inferences they make, who they are, and why they are prone to these activities) to accept the spiritual dimension with so little evidence. That is far from proof that spiritual realism is false (which ultimately cannot be given), but, for me at least, it does shift the burden of proof onto the spiritual realist.
So, what were these experiences of? With each passing year, it becomes more obvious to me that the best explanation of the phenomenology of spiritual experience comes from a biologically-based Darwinian social theory of human minds and societies. The more I understand it, the more compelling the evidence becomes. I am convinced the actual causal chain which describes spiritual experience is reducible to having evolved to generate a specific configuration of chemical and electrical signals in my brain which I had long mistaken for spiritual experiences of actual spiritual objects/beings/dimensions.
I honestly believe my spiritual experiences were epiphenomenal (I'm still glad to have had them in many ways, but not all). Just because I have those feelings doesn't mean there is a spiritual dimension or any supernatural causes to them. The causes of these spiritual experiences are natural (a loaded word among loaded words). I hate to say it, but I am convinced this is the case for everyone I've met (but I do not see value in trying to convince people of this).
I think spiritual people tend to be too prone to trust their feelings and intuitions (we all have to, to some degree; I am a pot calling the kettles black). I used to have a problem with this in itself because of how irrational I know we all are as finite homo sapiens. But, I see more value in it now. But, feelings and intuitions must be guided and shaped by reason. We must habituate the right disposition.
I really did aim for strong moral character. The unexpected result is that my feelings and intuitions on this matter point me in the other direction by and large. Of course, I'm still prone to use religious language and imagery because that is part of the language I know. I don't have better words sometimes, but that doesn't mean I'm still religious (well, perhaps it depends on our definition of religion).
Don't get me wrong. I think spiritual experience can be incredibly rational-appearing and many are justified in having them. It is a wonderful (and sometimes terrible) aspect of our brains. We are also extraordinary pattern-finders, but unfortunately, we're so overtuned for it (and naturally terrible at statistics, discrete math, and probability as a consequence [even famous mathematicians demonstrate this flaw]) that we see patterns, ghosts, and shadows where there are, objectively speaking, none (or we fail to see them as they are or as best as we could).
When I first entered into Apology, it was clear to me that the burden of proof (I prefer the concepts of "evidence" and "argument" here) in the dialectic rested on agnostics and atheists. But, over the years, I've found the burden of proof has shifted in the other direction.
For me, my spiritual awareness is actually existential awareness (which need not be religious). Perhaps it is part of the Kierkegaardian storyline (but even he was wrong). It isn't God who has caused this awareness in me, but rather thinking about the concept of God that has made me so existentialist.
So, I agree with you that my spirital awareness is causing (or at least central to web of reasons for) my pain. However, I do not think we agree upon what counts as spiritual experience and what causes it.
From my perspective, it is obvious that trying to be a Christian is not going to solve that problem. Rather, extracting the remaining irrational, cognitive-dissonance causing fragments of what used to be my faith (not all parts of what was my old faith were bad) seem like the more likely to succeed option for eliminating this pain. Of course, I may be doomed to have the pain no matter what. I'm literally trying to rewrite myself to erase the emotional pull of the ingrained remains of Christian spirituality (but not of the transcendent) simply because I know the road fails. There is no hope for me on that path. Perhaps it is a variant of the unforgiveable.
<<<
As I see it, you define all that you recognize as reality by your senses and the extension of those senses through enhanced observation. You prove things to yourself before you believe them. What you cannot prove, you do not want to believe. This urge comes from a brilliant understanding of natural law and the inner workings of the observable world. You can, in effect, see things that others cannot see, so you reason that what you cannot see (figure, understand, define) does not actually exist. I get that.
<<<
I worry it is possible you've accidentally mischaracterized my position (the details matter greatly to me), and you've likely been too generous to me. I think the spirit of your words are accurate in important ways though. I feel compelled to clarify my position.
Let us be clear, I am neither an empiricist nor a rationalist. Kant's Copernican revolution in epistemology was right. I grant that my analysis of sense data tends to provide the bulk of my justified belief. However, we come embedded with innate categories. I also think our relationship to the "thing in itself" is far from clear (and incommensurable), and that we play a role, as subjects, in shaping our perceptions of a thing (and that this is an inescapable problem).
Further, outside of the sense-perception necessary for consciousness (the passing of time, of self, etc.), I believe even a mind trapped in Cartesian solipsism can still make apodictic deductions (and otherwise!) without sense-perception.
I would say I do not "prove" things to myself (this is a term of art for me; Proving is the act of providing a step-by-step demonstration that a conclusion deductively follows from a set of premises using pendantic steps which are thought to be certainly or virtually certainly true in a given epistemic context). I cannot hope to achieve certainty in almost all cases. Instead, I would say I aim for knowledge with a lower epistemic standard; I try to justify my beliefs with sufficient (and, of course, I spend a great deal of time defining sufficient for myself) evidence and inferences (or, at least that is my goal). I believe we all do, and I think that is the best we can do.
I think it is rational to require evidence and good arguments for our beliefs, especially for those which are most central to who we are, how we think and act, what we want, etc. What else should guide us besides reason? Why? We cannot escape the necessity of reason (yet another loaded word among loaded words). As a practical and theoretical matter, we must answer crucial questions for ourselves. What should I believe? What standards should I use? What is the groundwork of acceptable, rational, justified belief? Why? If these are the wrong questions, then how and why?
I also grant at the very bottom of our chain of justifying beliefs for our beliefs (illustrated everytime a child unrelentlessly continues to ask "why?") each of us will eventually find foundational beliefs we cannot justify. If there was a justification, we'd only go a layer deeper in asking for justification. It is an ancient problem. I buy that we have prudential (which doesn't make them objectively correct) reasons to accept a foundation (or coherentist foundation) of beliefs. However, we must continually test this foundation. We should inspect it very carefully. To be wrong here causes a tidal wave through our web of beliefs sitting on top. Again, we cannot be certain (by definition, perhaps). We can only unify ourselves here with the evidence we have. Sometimes we keep our axioms, sometimes we remove some, and other times we add some. We can only do our best. Doing my "best" points me in the direction away from Christian faith.
However imperfect it may be, I hope you see the pragmatism in my epistemic stance. Setting the epistemic partially aside, we need to consider the ontic (What exists? What is it that we have knowledge of exactly? What can we have knowledge of? why?).
I also want to make sure you don't see me as simply a physicalist, materialist, or mere naturalist. I don't know the answers to these crucial issues, of course, since this is a very ancient problem (that doesn't mean outmoded or obsolete). To be clear, I am convinced that metaphysical objects exist (a bold statement in contemporary academia). I am not convinced there can be truth-makers and bearers for logic and mathematics outside of something metaphysical. I say this carefully though because I don't know how it works. I don't even know what it ultimately means. I also believe I can't fully understand it because that's the nature of metaphysics. I take the transcendental divide seriously. I can only test the edges of and hope to briefly peer into that gateway, see the shadows on the walls, and hear the music calling through the chaotic mist, but I can never step over the threshold into that world. Of course, this sounds religious (it was standardly religious to me for a time [I'm open to saying I'm still religious about the transcendental]). It was Plato and Aristotle's "religion,"" and over two millenia, these notions were syncretized into the church, expanded upon, and further investigated (hence their resonance with my upbringing).
So, I do believe in things I can't see. I do not merely study the observable world (although, I think we strongly rely upon observation and deduction to reach the transcendental gateway). In fact, as far as I can tell, philosophy is fundamentally engaged in thinking about things which are hard (if not impossible sometimes) to see, observe, and understand. It is the bleeding edge of the foundation of what we do not know. When it isn't that, when what we didn't understand before becomes clearer to us, it breaks off into a new field of inquiry (the sciences, mathematics, economics, etc. [although, they never fully escape philosophical inquiry]). I take myself to be studying reality (poorly, at that), particularly what is relevant about and fundamental to reality.
Now I think I'm in a position to engage your crucial point:
<<<
"You can, in effect, see things that others cannot see, so you reason that what you cannot see (figure, understand, define) does not actually exist. I get that."
<<<
I worry there are at least two interpretations of this claim to consider. The uncharitable one (which I'm not claiming you mean) I take to be the idea that I'm not open to the existence of things which I've not yet justified for myself. I hope it is obvious that I believe I can be wrong about what exists and doesn't, as well as about what is true and false. I would not have deconverted from Christianity if I weren't open to being wrong about everything.
To get straight to the point, take belief in the Judeo-Christian God as our example. I have said before that from the standard of epistemic certainty (the skeptic's context) I am an agnostic (as I am strongly convinced everyone should be). I do not know either way in that context. It is likely the case that we can't indubitably know either way by definition. From a lower, more practical epistemic standard (since we simply can't be certain about almost everything), I am an atheist (and I know others whom I take to be rationally justified in having faith in God, but their reasons are private and ultimately do not count as reasons for me). I believe I'm strongly justified in my beliefs. That doesn't mean I'm against the very conceptual possibility of God (although, I have studied that in detail as well, and it doesn't look good). So, in effect, I am open to God's existence, but I have very strong beliefs which, in my practical (non-skeptical) mode (the mode or plight in which I think everyone else finds themselves in), justify that the Christian God doesn't exist.
Of course, I'm willing to look at the arguments again. There does come a point though where it's okay that I don't, right? At some point, we should be able to say to ourselves that we've been careful enough to set our tent pegs down. It's prudential. At some point, it has to be rational to accept not believing (just as one might accept that it is rational to accept believing without certainty or maximal justification). I don't think I'm doing anything wrong by moving on from my faith. To ask for more seems to border on gnosticism or even misguided skepticism itself.
The charitable interpretation of your claim (which is what I think you were saying) seems to be that I don't take up beliefs without justification. But, that's okay, right? There doesn't seem to be a better normative epistemic stance from what I can tell.
<<<
But what do you do with that nagging pull you call residual Christianity?
<<<
I'm extracting it. It prevents my unity. It is the minority of my intuitions and the least justified of them. This is an abductive version of proof by contradiction (so, not a proof, but similar). It is perhaps an application of Occam's razor.
I believe I know what those keywords "nagging pull" mean. These are very worn battlegrounds in The Great Conversation which humanity has had with itself through history. I have definitely wrestled with it myself, and I still am. I must wrestle constructively though.
Thus, I'm trying to wisely deconvert. That may sound like a contradiction (I would have said it was before, with the classic arguments and rhetoric to boot). In doing so, I'm trying not to burn my bridges. I see that I could be wrong, and I must leave room for that possibility even when I feel very justified. So, I'm shutting the door to open others, but I'm not locking it behind me.
<<<
Ask yourself why you didn’t rage at Santa Claus when you learned that he didn’t exist. Even if you grew up believing that his was just a sweet children’s story, the question is still valid. You might denounce him, but you are not angry with him because there is no “him” with which to be angry. The same goes for a whole array of fictional characters who were real to you on some level, but whose existence you know to deny. You might learn from them, react to them and even model after them to some extent, but you do not rail at them because they are not there in any real sense of the word.
<<<
You are right that I wasn't angry with Santa Claus. I raged at those who told me lies, half-truths, and knowingly unjustified claims (but I've done so without enough empathy). I will not be treated as mere means, deceived, manipulated, and made to serve the unjustified will of others. It is a form of brainwashing and psychic enslavement. I demand honesty because I'm a person with dignity who merits the basic respect owed to all persons. I have a claim right to resentment when others use me through deception. That said, in empathy, I see that others make mistakes, and so I do my best to forgive. It is not always easy to distinguish ignorance from malice (and I don't see why others are better at it than I am).
<<<
God is different. You can deny the existence of God (or, at least of the God to whom you were introduced) because you can neither define Him nor accept the definition of others for Him, but you can’t seem to shake Him. He doesn’t exist for you, but He relentlessly follows you around.
Put that in your pocket for a minute and ask yourself this: do you fully understand the natural world? I know that you understand it in a deeper and richer way than I do, but does it still hold any mystery for you? How does one grasp the concept of mystery when mystery is a rare commodity? So, look up from the natural world and consider the concept of “concepts.”
<<<
You have not established why God, as a concept, is different from Santa Claus. Further, it is concievable that there are people who are as moved by the idea of Santa Claus as I have been by the idea of God. Being moved by an idea is not the same as being justified in being moved by it.
It is not He who follows me, it is just the idea of Him that follows me (more specifically, has been embedded in my highly fallible mind and belief system over the decades). Yes, the idea of God, my faith, my upbringing, my life has a web of crucial inferences and mistakes in it that have caused me great pain, a pain far beyond Santa Claus. That doesn't mean God exists.
I'm not convinced God is chasing me around. I'm convinced I'm not even chasing God anymore. I'm convinced that in my chasing of the idea of God I've been chasing the transcendent (which is only worth chasing to some extent) or even less in some ways. If there is something like God, or whatever The Good is, I think it is radically different from what Christians have pictured.
Let's be clear: it isn't God that I cannot shake, it is the transcendental that I cannot shake. They easily look the same (I long thought they were). I think the Ancients, Kant, Postmodernism as a project (a revamp of the ancient tradition), and Gödel's Incompleteness Proof provide us the clearest indications of the transcendental. However, agreeing to the transcendental is hardly agreeing to the existence of God. This "thing" I cannot shake in my web of beliefs is not obviously God (particularly the Judeo-Christian stories of a Being) at all.
Of course, I don't fully understand the natural world (or reality, both physical or metaphysical). The physical world still has its surprises and sources of pleasure too. The transcendental (metaphysics) is the mystery. I have to be stoic about this mystery, of course. I know there is only so much I can know about it (which only continues to cause me to ask and answer questions).
When I see something is difficult or perhaps impossible to understand, I ask how, why, and what about it makes it mysterious. I feel my way around it. I try to find its logical contours, limits, and extension. I try to see its structure and its relation to other things I know better. I ask what is possible and necessary, contingent and universal, mutable and immutable, etc. I attempt to openly and charitably speculate, try out different arrangements of possibilities, and see if I can make the pieces fit. I make the most sense of it that I can, and stoically accept what I can't make sense of. I take the best explanations and justifications available to me. I see no better way to handle or demystify mysteries.
You are talking my language when you talk about the concept of concepts (you seem to speak of a variant of Plato's Great Meme passed down through Western culture), the being of being, being in itself, contemplation of contemplation, The Good, The Beautiful, the noumenon, the transcendental, metaphysics, etc. I can only speak with my poor understanding of that gateway which even the greatest minds in history can only point us towards. We stand on the shoulders of giants, no doubt. It is in my exploration of these very things that I have been persuaded that a personal Christian God does not exist. Further, even if God existed, I have no reasons to think it would be relevant to my practical life (outside of enjoying the mystery). To the extent that Boethius would be right, it seems like we have nothing to talk about (that's Trascendence with a capital T). In fact, the best explanations and justifications tell me to stop worrying so much about the transcendent (at least to some degree). At some point, demystification is fruitless. We are mere mortals.
<<<
Do you believe that peace exists? I doubt that you have ever seen a moment of it in your life. I know that I haven’t. And yet we both chase it with all our might.
Do you believe in justice? How often have you seen it in pure form? But you reach for it, don’t you?
Consider for a moment that there is a layer of reality beyond the observable that we do not have senses to detect, but that we are bound to acknowledge because it resonates with something inside us that we can’t define. We are drawn to peace even though we don’t experience it. We reach for justice even though it hovers beyond us. We cannot see, hear, taste, touch or smell them. We do not have adequate equations to quantify them. But we know that they are there and we ache to be where they are.
What causes that?
We are like air bubbles floating through miles of seawater trying to burst into the expanse of the sky. We are spirit-things surrounded by a constructed reality – we understand the reality around us because we are encased in it and we are equipped to sense and interact with it, still we cannot resist the urge to rise.
<<<
I agree that we can never fully see, experience, or partake of The Good in itself. We will only see and experience shadows. It's the best we can do. Or, if we do not, then we cannot be unified. The Pure Skeptic is frozen and disunified (the Pure Believer has similarly problematic flaws). They must assume there is something worth getting out of bed for, even if they do it without justification, to actually get out of bed. We are driven by these axioms toward The Good. I beg the question in even seeking to be unified and happy (kinds, subsets, parts, and conditions of The Good). That these are worth pursuing must be axiomatic, since there are no other justifications for it. Note, of course, the Pure Skeptic is still correct to claim that we have established nothing objectively, categorically, or normatively true in our Human Plight (as is the Pure Believer). We're just assuming and deducing/inducing as much justified coherence as we can from those assumption. I'm okay with this step (I have to be, what else would I do?).
I'm okay with having the kind of faith which ultimately boils down to having unjustified beliefs that we just assume are justified. But, I must be extraordinarily careful about what I have faith in. Faith in The Good is not obviously faith in God, not even close.
That "resonating" inside us is perhaps a kind of sense. Perhaps it is reason itself. If it is only emotion, then we are in a lot of trouble. Emotions are the blink-of-an-eye, guttural, instinctual reactions we experience (the virtuous and brilliant rely heavily upon them); they come from our innate programming and our conditioning over time. They are incredibly useful instruments. It's a central part of the human experience, no doubt. Whatever this mystery may be, to whatever extents our experience of it is rational and emotional, that resonance is our human plight.
That there is this resonance we agree on. What is this resonance of? I do not see why others are more likely to be correct about the source, the experience, the causal chain, or the sufficient reasons for this resonance than I am. I wish I had an authority to turn to on the matter. I have accepted many authorities on this resonance. Most have fallen (some harder than others), and I with them. It is only rational to continue to increase the requirements for what I take to be authoritative, dogmatic, and axiomatic.
<<<
The sense of desperation in you is conviction. Now, let me redefine that for you, because you probably know the term conviction as a sort of shaming awareness of sin, and that is one of its functions, but that is not what it truly is. Conviction is a deep-seated spiritual awareness of a reality beyond proof. It is faith in its raw form. It is what Scripture calls the “measure of faith” resident in everyone created in God’s image.
<<<
I agree that I'm desperate, but I'm seeking not to be (at least to some extent).
I believe in the transcendental because of my evidence and axioms. I believe it is unwise to take up beliefs or be too blindly driven by our existential awareness (which may be of an illusion) without evidence, especially on matters this important. That which is not justified, I will do my best to eliminate. That which can be destroyed by truth should. I'm cleaning house because it is that very resonance that nearly ended my life. I must manage it more carefully and not be driven so foolishly by it. I admire, respect, and am always curious about the transcendent. I will always continue to think about it, but I will allow my reasonable doubt to shape and temper my pursuit of the transcendent now.
<<<
[Redacted], you are spirit, and you are reaching for Spirit, but you are both attracted and repelled by your experience of God. You might blame that on your parents’ presentation of God, or on the way God filters through the muck of the world, but what really generates that angst is the way you – yourself – are experiencing God. It is so hard to see the wrath of which God is capable when we have so little experience with an inability to understand. We are used to working things out to a proven resolution, and here we have a problem that won’t resolve. How can a good and loving God permit – even generate to some extent – such obvious evil?
<<<
I don't think I am repelled by the transcendent. I think I am repelled by how I've pursued the transcendent, about how desperately wrong the entire world is in relation to the transcendent, and about how little I understand of what feels important. I've been repelled by my life and the world around me.
I would not say I experience the transcendent, or at least not directly (since that is definitionally impossible). I think there are gateways, boundaries to our universe, and fundamental problematics in philosophy we can't resolve which point us to the transcendental. We can only see the threshold. We can convince ourselves it is there through reason (and experience it further through the corresponding emotions which result from habituating our fastminds), but nothing more. It is a kind of madness to pursue that which you know, by definition, you cannot have. I have long appreciated that contradiction. We pursue the shadows of The Good; it is our plight. My goal is to remove the contradictions, inconsistencies, and incoherence as best as I can. I think that is all I can do.
Of course, we are all half-blind (or worse) here. We have to make do with the shadows we see. I know I can be deeply wrong. I have seen it. So, yes, I cannot trust myself, at least not fully. I must do my best with that fact in my deliberations.
<<<
Paul dealt with it in Romans 8:18-25 (NASB): “For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed to us. For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now. And not only this but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body. For in hope we have been saved, but hope that is seen is not hope; for who hopes for what he already sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, with perseverance we wait eagerly for it.”
<<<
We run into the problem of authority again. Why should I take Paul to be correct? Why should I take the Bible seriously (outside of understanding what it gets right in ethics, the historical lens, and it's enormous memetic popularity and influence)? Why should I think the Jews and later the Christians were correct? As far as I can tell, the evidence, the coherence of the world, the understanding of human evolution, the empathy with other cultures, understanding how anthropocentric and small we really are (and paradoxically must be to some extent), and my continual escape from the clutches of dogmatic gnosticism points me in the other direction.
The resonance I experience may simply be different from yours. I am convinced that my agreeing to the transcendent, to hope, peace, and justice, to pursuing The Good, to being rational, to being happy, to being existentially fulfilled, to appreciating and living with our awareness of these things seems best done outside of Christianity. Christianity was an important starting place for a small percentage of the human species, but I see it is not the destination. Call it arrogant progressive revelation (or uncharitably: relativism [which I would contest]) if necessary. I call it a hermeneutic circle, but this one spirals.
<<<
Why is creation subjected to all this futility? In what way can any of this apparent barbarity be related to hope? God, we simply cannot understand!
<<<
I struggled with Theodicy for a very long time, among many related paradoxes of Christian faith (it has been the driving cause of my pursuit of the concepts of freedom, agency, and responsibility in metaethics). The evidence against God, particularly the Christian God (since that is the one I've studied most), is Legion. I have enough charity to set aside a space for the hope in the logical possibility (which is an incredibly weak claim in epistemology) of defeating those objections, however unlikely that may be. Again, when it comes to certainty, I'm agnostic. But, I cannot ignore the evidence. That would lack integrity, and I think it would be unwise.
<<<
Now put that in your pocket with the idea that this God is chasing you around and think about this:
You know the story Jesus told about how hard it is for rich men to break through to the Kingdom of God? Why is it so hard? It is because they have to lay down something they value more than anything else in the world, and they have so stinkin’ much of it to lay down! I don’t have that problem, and neither do you.
Or do we?
What if the same rule applies to other forms of wealth? A wealth of knowledge, of intuition, of creativity, of intellect… is any one of these easier to lay down than a few billion dollars? I think not. We are very accustomed to leaning into our own strength, and we have seen it topple all the problems we have turned it on. All, that is, but One.
What if your greatest strength is your greatest impediment to knowing the God you cannot stop seeking because He is relentlessly seeking you? What if the fact that you cannot understand Him is compelling you to deny Him when you cannot deny Him without denying yourself? What if I told you that that is the extreme end of every gifted person’s quest for (flight from) God?
<<<
I interpret the rich man as being unwilling to sacrifice himself, his happiness, etc. for another or something greater. It's not simply a story of giving up something we value; it's about overvaluing ourselves in particular. I wouldn't say that is precisely my issue here (although, I'm obviously deeply concerned about being happy after my deconversion).
I am willing to sacrifice myself. I am willing to die and suffer for the right reasons. I believe I have the integrity to do that. But, I have seen that I must be wiser in my selection of what I'm willing to sacrifice myself for. We must be wise in what we devote our lives towards.
I agree that intelligence is a kind of wealth, but I think it's a very special kind. Intelligence is directly what allows us to be wise, and wealth less obviously so (indirectly and instrumentally, to some extent, yes; it's hard to be wise when you are starving).
I agree my intelligence is an impediment to Christian faith (although, not an impediment to the belief in the transcendent). But, I don't think this is a bad or wrong thing. I do not think I'm being unwise. In fact, I think I've been unwise to be so faithful for so long. Being unwise means you aren't really being very intelligent in crucial ways. Wisdom is a specialized kind of practical intelligence, knowledge, and effectively trained emotional reactions. There are many things which I'm not intelligent about, and I've made many mistakes in this arena. As you point out: I know what I've seen though (although, I mean to say this in the sense that: I cannot unsee what I've seen. The evidence is overwhelmingly convincing to me).
Why should I think agreeing to and being moved by your claim would be wise of me? Ultimately, we cannot escape Reason being the core of the wise decision procedure. To be clear, this is not the claim you are unreasonable; far from it! You are clearly brilliant and have walked these paths many times. I think our reality maps fundamentally differ though, and so, in being as reasonable as we can, we choose different paths.
I do see myself as being in a rare (but not unique) position. Not everyone has the chance to see what I do, and so I have given serious thought to how others in my position have made progress and how they handled these existential crises. I have spent a non-trivial amount of time researching the search for meaning in the lives of gifted people. Not all journeys are the same of course, but I think they may provide footholds for me to learn from. I still must test it with reason though (not that I'm perfectly rational or the arbiter of what counts as reason for others); it must click with me; it is the only wise decision I see. I do not know how to reason myself away from reason, except insofar as it is necessary for reason or wisdom. I am neither convinced the Christian God is necessary for reason or wisdom, nor am I convinced that the Christian God is the fitting result of my reason and wisdom (however poor it may be).
<<<
In the end, you come to the realization that you cannot reconcile God with the natural world any more than you can blend the sea with the sky. You just have to decide whether you will recognize yourself for who you are – an air-bubble transforming into your true self above the reality around you – or a part of the reality encasing you and divorced from the sky. No matter what you decide, you will rise. All you are deciding now is how the air above you will receive you when you are freed from this present reality.
<<<
I think it is in my realization of what I am that I have come to terms with and felt a peace about my loss of Christian faith. I have also studied PK's and MK's; there are several consistent tropes and patterns I see in us. It is the best option I can find in my context. That doesn't mean I'm certainly right, of course. It could be temporary and lacking. The pursuit of the transcendent will always be incomplete.
<<<
I believe that you will make peace with the God you are presently denying, because I am convinced that you are too mentally honest to do otherwise. I pray that God protects you and your family – my family – in the process. I would tell you to stop making it so hard on yourself, but that would be like telling you to stop breathing the air. This is your journey. I would not presume to drag you along it even if I could. But can you see my little light shining from where you are? I am a bit further along on a very similar journey. I am listening to you. I am praying for you. And if you need me, I am here.
Now that that's said, I can get back to my listening, and you can (I hope) get back to your decompressing. (You knew I was a preacher, and that preachers preach, right?) Still, I want you to be heard and to know that your journey matters.
<<<
It is clear that you understand much of my cry and conflict. Few see it as well as you do. I feel indebted to you for taking the time to respond to me and to empathize with me. I mean it with the same heartfelt-movement I experienced when I was still Christian when I say: I see Christ shine through you.
I definitely appreciate the desire to save my soul. I think it shows incredible kindness and empathy. It's an expression of love.
I know it is not easy to talk to me. Lots of people think I'm an arrogant prick (although, thankfully, not everyone). Of course, convincing me is not easy (I would know). You may feel like you are arguing with a brick wall. I can only point to who I have been and say: I have obviously been convinced by many arguments over time. I have changed a great deal and will continue to do so. I am listening.
Thank you.
Love,
h0p3
The gnostic "Illuminati" and "Targeted Individuals" conspiracy theorists see many false shadows, but I believe they have felt and identified a real political undercurrent in the world. Let me be clear, they are fucking crazy, yo. And, yet, we should still listen to the murmurs and mumbling of crazy people. Their insanity is not entirely accidental, and the causes and triggers are worth examining. Unfortunately, they are crucially right (and have been for a long time) about the existence of the deep state, dark money, mass surveillance, and the absurd power inequalities in our world. Their exaggerations, lack of tact and careful examination, however, allows us to dismiss them. This ad hominem, unfortunately, is not always accurate (the fallacy itself is actually fallacious sometimes).
Even the sometimes less fringe-like appearing (but still crazy) libertarians are often half-right about many things (dat Lockean allure and Randian charm, lulz). The fact is that the federal reserve and the monetary policy of the US (which has profound impact on the monetary policy of the world) is not answerable to the people of the US, not controlled by elected officials, and is clearly owned and operated by multi-national corporations and their pets.<<ref "1">>
The Bilderberg Group and its ilk are real. What we've been reading about the NSA, and other governments (and branches of corporate intelligence), has been true for many decades (Snowden was not a revelation to those of us paying attention; he was only vindication). Our political scientists know that [[the average person has no power or influence|https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/div-classtitletesting-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizensdiv/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B]]. Ironically, even some academics used to justify the status quo are bought and sold (have you see the clinical psychopathy rates in Economics professors? [let us be clear, the virtue theorist can actually unfallaciously wield //ad hominem// attacks]). We are not our own masters (not that we ever were).
Let us not assume that some cabal of individuals has carefully choreographed every detail of every move in the world. That would be absurd (and I suspect a childish strawman used to irrationally defend the hyperclass). Politics is obviously far messier and more volatile than that. Political reality is more of an oligarchic mesh constantly changing through internal competitions and political blackhattery. The signs of this deeper political narrative are there for us to see. Can't you see the public-facing instruments of the Hyperclass machine which has evolved to enslave us? Political nobility has not died, rather it has complexified to the point that the politically illiterate cannot readily identify it for what it is.
People are loath to accept their enslavement. They are unwilling to see it. They must confabulate their way to feeling free. It's also hard to understand how the pieces fit together. The machinations grow complex enough that few can appreciate the Golem (which has emerged from the political primordial soup) for what it really is. I worry we are reaching a political singularity where the proletariat will never see through the political event horizon to discover reality, where we are so thoroughly controlled to a point of eternal practical powerlessness (or, at least until the coming end of humankind).
One must habitually take a fistful of redpills to generate the virtuous perception of political reality, to understand what is salient about our world in order to deduce what we are, what we've become, and where we are going. At best, we can only make out the blurry outlines. Unfortunately, the Realpolitik truth does not set you free. It only allows you to better recognize how unfree you really are. Let us hope that our knowledge creates opportunities to flourish and the foresight to avoid hardship.
---
<<footnotes "1" "It is ironic and farcical that Ayn Rand so firmly struck back at the world (I gotta' say, I think that psychopath was deeply angry) by so violently igniting the capitalist (a.k.a. Egoist) monetary policy we have through her disciple+pawn Alan Greenspan. It's one thing to have non-egoists regulate capitalism; it an entirely different monster to have egoists (the corruptible of corruptibles) regulating capitalism. That is to say: we have allowed the smartest+cleverest+hardest-working of the most psychopathic //homo sapiens// among us to devour us all. That is the farce. This is the irony: Libertarians are attacking the very thing they created. Libertarianism is fundamentally egoistic (it does not rely upon even Rawlsian principles [which is the minimum of justice; it is only a pragmatized version of the Categorical Imperative, an injection of who we are as psychopaths into the CI decision procedure of idealized Humanity]). Libertarianism is a thoroughly Randian Kantian injection into Locke. It puts Egoism on the philosophical map again like no one has since egoist, anti-realist, relativistic, non-cognitivist interpretations of [[SAP]] (Socrates, Aristotle, and Plato's) Virtue Theory (them are some ugly Neo-Aristotelians). As a historical conversation, Libertarianism may have started as a worthy enterprise, but it has gone downhill really fast. I believe Rand has successfully been injected into Kant injected into Locke for a large number of people on the planet. Libertarianism is quite the mental virus infection in humanity today.">>
Today I took a test on power tools. I tend to read ahead in the book. My teacher gives us a study guide, and I carefully study those particular sections. I make A's on tests, but sometimes I miss a couple questions. My teacher seems unworried by it. But, this is a culture which is fine with C's and B's. I will force myself to retake the actual pipefitting exams until I can get them all right though.
Since I took my test early in the day (Mondays, from what I've gathered, are days where people sit on their asses and pretend to study while the teacher screws around), I was given something cool to do. I had asked about pipebending (since my brother talks about it often). Apparently, it is very uncommon for a pipefitter to do, but it does happen. So, I wanted to learn. We happened to have a giant programmable pipebending machine. We dusted it off (cleaned it and the area around it too) and started using it. I got to work with black iron pipe for the first time, and I also got to use the giant pipe cutting machine for the first time (super easy to use). Apparently, we are making 90s for the welding shop to use that day. /shrug, cool with me.
The pipebending machine hasn't been used for a year. My teacher had to bring out his calibration notes and the manual for the machine. We kept being 13 degrees off on our 90-degree bends. We cheated to make the bends (try squaring it by hand until we got it "good enough"). This didn't satisfy any of us. My teacher couldn't figure it out, so he let Keith and I figure it out. We watched the manufacturer's video, read the documentation, and messed around with it. It started working correctly for us, thankfully. I hate to say that I don't fully understand why we got it working when my teacher couldn't. It was kind of baffling. My suggestion, that we weren't initially mounting the pipe at a perpendicular angle (which is necessary) was turned down. I am quietly suspicious that I'm still right about this, but I can't say that I know that I'm right. I could easily be wrong.
I've been studying CAD prints. There is a lot of information on them and tons of objects I've never seen before. It looks doable though. From what I understand, the foreman (and/or pipefitter) interprets the prints and gives instructions or simplified isometric drawings to his underlings. A student who has been in the field (although, I suspect he doesn't have the drive or wisdom to know how to maximize his upward mobility) says that I wouldn't see those plans for at least 3 years as an apprentice. My teacher says a good journeyman or foreman would take the time to show me (and that I should definitely seek to understand them). I can only assume I will need to be excellent at it. My teacher walked me through a bunch of problems/questions I had about the prints he lent me.
Dollars to donuts, Trump has a slightly above average IQ (kill me, please /s) and an extremely high dark-triad spectrum rating. He's not bright, but he's smart enough to infect people's minds with garbage. He's learned to say the right garbage, in the right way, at the right time, to the right people, and so on (but, obviously, not for the right reasons). He has a kind of memetic virtue to him (however disturbing the thought) like the virtue of viruses unto themselves. In his extreme way, he desperately seeks to appear (if not be) wealthy and powerful, and he miraculously pulls it off in some twisted self-fulfilling prophecy. This alone is enough for him to want to be POTUS.
That said, I think many worry that Trump's apparent admiration for Putin will emerge as sincerely flatterious mimicry. How is Trump going to fleece us beyond the opportunity cost of having a POTUS who even appears remotely sane?<<ref "1">> He's clearly going to profit from being POTUS. We know why. We don't know how, or at least not all the ways.
Trump's family's housing arrangement and consistent vacations seem almost like a direct transfer of a non-trivial quantity of US government cash to himself. This is beyond wasting taxpayer money. Trump is healing his self-created insolvency with our money. I can only assume he will milk us at every corner he can if he would do it so openly at this almost childish level. We will see what other methods he finds to enrich and empower himself during and after his reign.
Our only hope is that he's too stupid and lacking in empathy for himself to follow the advice of those who could really turn him into an even more terrifyingly competent Putinesque monster (Trumps connections with Russian political and kleptocratic interests is frightening). He did straight up say in his campaigning that he would leave all foreign and domestic leadership calls to his hand-picked staff (uh...). Four years or until his impeachment seems like a long time (literally too long, ofc), and it may only be a matter of time before Trump understands how to effectively wield his new toy, the Office of POTUS.<<ref "2">>
We have passed the point of presidents who willingly go into debt because they know they will have the political clout and "foundations" (non-profits too often are fronts for making money and discharging or converting social and political capital) to pay it back and still make bank while swinging their big dicks around with the Hyperclass. Sinners with shame are bad enough, but sinners without shame may be even more dangerous.<<ref "3">> Trump marks a new era in government corruption, particularly in his blatant openness about it and our willingness to accept it.
---
<<footnotes "1" "e.g. Shillary. Not that she is actually sane. Her front is a different kind, and the evils she would bring with her a different breed.">>
<<footnotes "2" "I can hear fools telling me to 'respect the office.' As always, that is some psychopathic bullshit. You'd have to hate yourself and fail to respect your own dignity (and others) to agree to that obvious falsehood.">>
<<footnotes "3" "To a point, of course. We can't always tell the difference between those who cover themselves with the mere appearance of shame and those who actually experience it. The truly most dangerous devils are those who still look like angels as they stab you.">>
Homo sapiens can be categorized in many ways. Let's be clear: differentiation is not conceptually immoral human prejudice (racism, sexism, etc.) by definition, even though in practice they often are connected (sometimes a poor theory is applied, and sometimes we see a poor application of a theory).
There are genetic categories of human beings. Depending on how you differentiate (your principles and reasons for them), you may see only one genetic category or you may see each individual human as their own genetic species, or you may see something in between. This is the genetic categorization spectrum. Again, we're generating description, not prescription here.
There are clearly memetic categories of human beings as well. I think pure Kantians and pure Psychopaths are different memetic species. Again, we're generating description (not prescription) here.
I guess I was able to convince my teacher yesterday (despite his "you've gotta learn to crawl before you can walk" response) to allow us to try special offsets (it was the natural next step, since we've covered regular offsets already in practice). I did the math right. We had difficulty figuring out how to measure it (the protractor is broken and we were misguided by another student). After we figured it out though, we got it built. Everything looked clean. The teacher eventually checked it out (his alcoholism and personal life really get in the way of him actually being present to do his job). He checked the levels, the rise (neat trick which I'm glad to have used, since I knew that is what he would be using the check it with), and the center-to-center lengths of the pipes. I always check these, since I know that's what he's going to do. He said everything looked great (because it did; I wouldn't have handed in half-assed work).
Afterward, I voiced my worry that I had used the level+measuring tape to check that our rise was correct, but I wasn't quite sure how to do it for the offset (he should have taught us that today instead of getting drunk, wandering, and watching Youtube, since this was our first time doing special offsets). He showed me (it was a simple rotation, and I'm embarrassed I didn't see it), and when we checked it, the length was off by an entire fucking inch. In pipe, especially at the scale we were working at, that is like missing by a mile. I was mortified.
Since he had already passed it, he didn't want to go back on what he said. It was obvious that he wished he didn't pass it. It shouldn't have passed. I know I didn't pass it. Something was really wrong, but neither the teacher nor I could give a satisfactory answer (my partner, Nash, doesn't give a shit: a pass is a pass to him).
I have spent time trying to figure out what we did wrong. I'm pretty baffled. The teacher claimed it was that our parallel pipes against the Run weren't perfectly level. But, I checked those very carefully (and even the teacher saw it). I don't think that accounted for being an entire inch off. I checked the math, especially since we are forced to round our degrees and lengths (which can vary up to a half a degree in rise and roll, and sometimes a 1/16th of an inch in length) - rounding couldn't account for that much difference either. I know I will be trusting that broken (some of our fellow students broke it) a lot less, and I'm going to measure a lot more by hand. Maybe it was a combination. I don't know. I'm actually disappointed in my work today. Clearly, the "learning to crawl" claim is still accurate. Well, shit. That's okay. We've all got to start somewhere.
I need to learn more leveling, a-plumbing?, and degree measurement tricks. I need to see the right, cleanest, and fastest way in advance. I at least did the right thing in building the special offset before building the edges (which is the more natural approach). Well, I hope he gives me a couple more special offsets. I clearly need the practice. That puts me behind the schedule I wanted to be on, but I am strongly convinced I need to understand putting geometry+trig into practice like the back of my hand. It doesn't matter what kind of pipe of construction method you are using, the math is always fundamentally going to be the same (TO's vary, ofc).
On a positive note, because the teacher was screwing around (and I was forced to sit around waiting for his input [normally I read ahead in the book, but there is less for me to read now]), a fellow student, Connor (who is obviously not a fool) taught me to use one of our welding machines. Having read about it, I knew a bit about what to expect. Let me tell you: welding is really hard. It's an art. I've gazed at a lot of Welder Porn, and my beadwork is a giant pile of shit. Connor said my first time was still decent, and better than any of his partners (all in the last trimester, but they are retarded). I also got to tack for Connor's buttweld object. I can tack. The actual welding (which thankfully, neither the tack nor the welding will ever be in my job description as a pipefitter), fuck no. I'm looking forward to practicing a ton just because it's fun and could be useful later.
Cambridge Analytica may or may not be snake oil. I take it to be a reasonable possibility they legitimately contributed to Trump's victory. They appear to be a company devoted to "audience targeting" and mass-manipulation done more efficiently. Perhaps they are weaponized marketers, and it is possible they wield non-trivial influence over us. If not them in particular, then perhaps an entire industry.
We also must worry about automated propaganda filter-bubble generation and social media analytics/bots which provide significant predictions and enable not only conversations and claims to be shaped in the public sphere but even injected into our private lives. Automated astroturfing and mass behavior modification are significant weapons. The US military-industrial-complex have long worked on such projects. Targeted and mass ideology and behavioral shaping exist. There are profound technological memetic weapons wielded against humanity.
Companies like Google shape what you see more than you likely realize. Know who "serves" you and why. Beware of Geeks bearing gifts. It is inevitable that a capitalist society will (and imho already has) enabled much darker corporate adversaries to arise (and many have been around longer than Google).
Big Brother isn't merely the state. I don't know if it ever really was either. I believe it is a much more dangerous adversary than a simple government since it is increasingly owned, used by and for, and beholden to none other than the Hyperclass. We should fear psychographic weapons which abuse our monkey-brains and keep us on an emotional leash. Automated functions which influence human beliefs, emotions, behaviors, etc. should be highly regulated, not to form an oligopoly on it, but rather to prevent abuse and mistakes that we can't take back. AI-empowered rhetoric is on the side of the Two-edged Sword of Technology we don't want to see. Transparency is key.
Unemployment is a misused economic marker turned realpolitik symbol (like the price of gas). It enables us to inform and tell many kinds of fundamental political and economic stories.<<ref "1">> It's an influential metric about a contentious issue.<<ref "2">>
Defining and measuring unemployment is not simple. There are many stakeholders and interpretations of data that isn't entirely public. It's crucial that we appreciate what it represents, what it tells us, and more importantly, what it doesn't. Most people use the official U-3 unemployment rate because that's what most news outlets use. I believe this is a mistake on both practical and theoretical levels.
I do not mean this in a post-fact sense: we should take statistics and those who wield them with a grain of salt. Social science requires context and argumentation.<<ref "3">> Problematically, I am convinced people gloss over what unemployment is actually trying to measure.
The goal of the "Unemployment Rate" project is to measure and identify patterns in labor underutilization.<<ref "4">> The goal isn't to merely count in simple piles who has a job and who doesn't. There's something deeper and broader we're trying to accomplish with it. Roughly, we're trying to measure and define the various contexts in which people's skills, knowledge, effort, time, etc. are being used by our economy. i.e. Is capitalism maximally consuming human capital? Who is being consumed, in what ways, to what extent, etc.?
Unfortunately, even the more realistic U-6 measurement, which tends to show double the "official" unemployment rate, does a poor job of capturing the ideal information we seek. Of course, U-3 and U-6 tend to show extremely similar graph structures (not an accident), and I'd wager both have their uses for people working in economic, financial, and monetary sectors. One of them, however, is clearly closer to the ideal mark (not that we will ever reach such a thing; it is clearly infeasible) though, namely U-6. It is a more accurate depiction of labor underutilization, the underutilization of human capital.
Our information is deeply incomplete. The "pragmatically" (i.e. self-interested) willful-ignorant will be tempted to say, "this is the best we've got" and be done with it. That is the wrong attitude, and that is not how we should aim for the truth (particularly on such a crucial metric for understanding the natures of human realities). We really must dig into what counts as "people's skills, knowledge, effort, and time" to see the holes in our measurements, to more closely align theory and practice, and to be able to more accurately understand the world we live in so that we can become a happier species.
I think this is a much clearer (yet obviously far from clear) set of ideal metrics of the Real Unemployment story:
* If I have X amount of skill, and only Y amount of it used, then Z% of my skill-based capital is being used.
* If I have X amount of knowledge, and only Y amount of it used, then Z% of my knowledge-based capital is being used.
* If I have X amount of effort, and only Y amount of it used, then Z% of my effort-based capital is being used.
* If I have X amount of time, and only Y amount of it used, then Z% of my time-based capital is being used.
* ...and so on and so forth...
* etc.
Take a genius, force her to pick cotton for her entire life, and you've deeply unemployed her because you underutilized and underemployed her as human capital.<<ref "5">>
There is an ideal algorithm for sorting through this ideal data which gives us the ideal unemployment/underemployment<<ref "6">>/underutilizated human capital rate. The U-3 measurement is miles from the ideal. More importantly, it is even miles from the practically ideal or the ideally practical. While nobody and no measurement is perfect, we can do a lot better.<<ref "7">>
We've accepted an unreasonable "new normal" by ignoring the reality of what is measured, by being content with the U-3 measurement, by not taking it upon ourselves to think carefully about what is happening and what it means. That aphoristic phrase: lies, damned lies, and statistics is applicable here (even the statistics themselves show it). When you start looking more closely, you'll find the official information deeply lacking. Look around you. Use your imagination to see the possibilities. Reality is darker than you think, and it can be a lot brighter than you realize.<<ref "8">>
Shadow unemployment numbers can be found. Pay attention.
---
<<footnotes "1" "The audience must always seek to understand who is telling them the story and why. (Trust no one, yo. [;P])">>
<<footnotes "2" "During my last conversation with my parents, things were going swimmingly enough. Two hiccups, one was a discussion about substance use (although they brought up the subject, I clearly made them uncomfortable when I brought up my own use later). The other was unemployment. My parents and I clearly disagree on the state of the world in many ways. We try to say the right words with each other and avoid topics that might cause conflict. Unfortunately, they often don't know what we disagree on. I hate that we feel like we're in a lose-lose position. I also react strongly when I see that it is their and their generation's attitude and point of view that have brought this calamity upon me and mine (I lacked empathy [and so did they]; I hope I will do better).">>
<<footnotes "3" "My parents remain ever correct in their appreciation for mixed quantitative+qualitative methodology in social sciences.">>
<<footnotes "4" "Although, that isn't the Final Telos. Clearly, we take these measurements for other reasons.">>
<<footnotes "5" "There are other important narratives to consider here. When you define The Good, you have an even stronger point of reference to understand the underuse and even misuse of human capital. We move past mere capitalist exploitation into understanding the ways and extents to which we contribute to and partake of The Good. This is what the ideal of ideal Real Unemployment measurements is about.">>
<<footnotes "6" "I can hear the morons now claiming that the problem of underemployment is simply the result of too many people going to college (as if the fundamental reason to be educated boils down to one's market value [to be against the liberal arts is literally anti-intellectualism and antipathy for humanity]). I do not trust anyone who does not immediately accept the necessity of idealism, regardless of how practical they find themselves to be. For the record: Mike Rowe is a con-artist.">>
<<footnotes "7" "Unless we must discuss the very concept of freedom. This is a lose/lose position though. You will give something much greater to be right on this.">>
<<footnotes "8" "Do not commit the naturalistic is/ought fallacy; do not conflate them.">>
It is difficult to know what is real and what isn't in these troubling times. Finding the truth is hard work. Despite Trump's denial of relations with Putin and Russia, the evidence and events we've seen appear to point very much in the other direction.
* Trump's administration has many ties and private lines of communication with Russia, and we've already seen several resignations over these ties.
* Our own intelligence agencies withhold information from and clearly have a broken relationship with Trump because he may be compromised by Russian interests.
* Trump has publicly defended, complimented, and stated his admiration for Putin on multiple occasions. This is wildly different from how Trump treats other leaders of foreign nations. Additionally, Putin has a similarly positive stance toward Trump.
* Trump's Dossier, a credible-appearing piece of opposition research, suggests Trump faces both the Russian carrot and stick.
** The carrot is bribery. It appears Trump may have gained a stake in the ~19% of Rosneft (Russia's largely state-owned oil company) recently sold to a privatized matryoshka shell corporation (anonymity for capitalists).
** The stick is blackmail. Who wouldn't want to get pissed on by a beautiful prostitute? I'm sure there is far more in that mailbag. This is believable given Russia's fame for its profound surveillance of public figures, politicians, and powerful individuals within its borders (and Trump has certainly visited Russia). Par for the course.
* It is rumored that White House recording equipment is turned off for conversations between Trump and Putin.
* Russia, by its own admission, communicated with Trump during the election campaign.
* Trump has weakened the RNC's platform for the US-aided defense of Ukraine, a nation partially illegally (by international law) annexed by Russia. This is giving the nod to Russian imperialism.
* Trump is quite hostile to NATO (going far beyond the usual US presidential criticisms), an institution which stands in opposition to Soviet power.
* Russia is widely thought to be responsible for the DNC hack (and possible RNC hacks). This is no accident. Russian interference with the US election is likely quite real. Clinton appeared to be anathema to Russia, and Trump was a loose cannon they could buy.
* There is a rumor that Russia will gift Snowden to Trump (who obviously despises transparency and whistleblowing and seeks to make an example of Snowden [with fervor beyond even that of the War-Criminal Obama]).
* Trump's son (who is clearly very trusted by Trump given the attempt at a fake blind-trust) admits to heavy Russian investment in Trump's businesses (yet another reason Trump would not liquidize his assets to avoid conflicts of interest).
Clinton is obviously a warmonger (even more so than the ever disappointing war-criminal Obama, Bushtards, and her psychopathic husband). What seems scarier about Trump is that the inevitable conflict escalating into an all-out war is the result of his //collusion// with Putin and Russia. Totalitarian rulers need war.<<ref "1">> This is beyond Coldwar. It's part of the reason the US has always been at war. Trump appears to be taking this to the next level. It is so weird to see Putin and Trump buddy-buddy while hostility accelerates.
Why? That is the question. The broad strokes are not enough. Trump is no mastermind. What does this war buy Trump? Putin? Who are the winners and losers (you know, besides the world in general)? I simply don't have enough information or I'm not smart enough to see it (probably both).
---
<<footnotes "1" "I'm always blown away by nationalism and supporting the military-industrial complex. Fools.">>
I'm feeling better about yesterday's project after today's, and perhaps I shouldn't. Basically, Nash had to go study for the test he failed, and I was given our next project. I understood what it looked like, did the math twice, grabbed my supplies and organized them, and started making screwpipe to order. I'm very fast now. I nearly finished all prep work in 30 minutes (before our 1.5 hours of watching safety videos on cranes/etc.)
They weren't the usual overly deep threads this time. I still had 3 turns but also followed the threader's hardware recommendations too. I'm threading the pipe as lightly as necessary to get 3 turns, and I'm trying not to go too deep. It clearly makes sturdy connections that way, and I still get the safe quantity of rotations. I fear we have a silly shop class practice which makes it easier to screw pipe on. The goal is tightness, sturdiness, and maximal seal for a reasonable amount of effort, and I think students are avoiding that. I've seen a lot of 4 and 5 turners from Nash.
Anyways, after lunch, I got to start building. I built the special offset first, it was clean, tight, and level. Nash joined me, and we started putting the rest together. We did it well, and we were very careful to level at every stage. We took no shortcuts. The moment of truth came upon rotation, it was clear that we were off by exactly 1 inch (uncanny!), again. I assure you that the cuts and lengths were fine. The center-to-center TL measurements were good. And, yet, it didn't work. I was frustrated.
I asked for Tim's help since I realized I must be doing something fundamentally wrong at this point. He took all the measurements, levels, and shrugged. Seeing I wasn't pleased, he told me to do what I had already done. I didn't argue. We did again (and again). He checked again, but he would not actually stay there with us to see the steps. He was as puzzled as we were (although, Nash did not understand why Tim and I were expecting particular pipes to be level on the correct rotation).
He told me he takes my word for it if it is finished. He also later said not to let it bother me. We got it close enough, and that was good enough for him when it came to screwpipe. I think he knew what was going to happen, and he's trying to "let me off the hook" because he doesn't have an answer. His answer is the rounded degrees now. I'm not going to push him about it. I'm going to let him let me off the hook here. I think he's telling me to relax my standards, so I will. He's a pro at this, and even if this technically should work, I should trust his judgment. It is practical.
Everyone, even the teacher it seems, thinks screwpipe is a possessed demon over which you cast spells and pray it works. Uh...what? There is clearly an explanation for the phenomenon, but I've not found it yet. I mean, I realize I can't actually find 44.7-degree fittings, only 45's; but .3 degrees does not account for an entire inch here. Where be mah scientists and engineers?
My partner borders between "not giving a shit" and "being annoyed by" this problem and my focus on it. We're cordial, of course. Thus, I will learn to let it go. Be cool, man.
Whatever. We cleaned up and left. I have heard rumors that we may not have class on Friday from rumors my teacher heard. Essentially, schools everywhere are having temporary closings, Sick Days en masse.
So, I feel better about it. Outside of the practical on-site particulars and principles which I've yet to encounter (I will eventually develop the virtuous perception of it), I'm good at screwpipe. Additionally, none of the official prints I've studied seem to entirely avoid special offsets, except standard offsets using isosceles with 45's. They certainly had tons of information I didn't understand, but visualizing the broad undetailed pipework in these plans is very easy. The details, however, will take time to appreciate, feel, and recognize immediately.
My teacher is convinced screwpipe is widely used enough that all pipefitters at some point or another will encounter it (particularly if and when jobs are scarce). We will see.
On a different note, two of the middle-classmen who work together (I regularly ask them questions, even over the upper-classmen) got a temporary co-op. They were very excited. I am not convinced it is worth it yet. I am still learning a lot, and there is much to master. If I see us slowing down more and more though, I may take the option (perhaps my teacher may even push me that direction). I actually could get away with taking a test and practicing new stuff for 1-2 days. I think most of the students can't, but I am talented (and conceited! ;P).
Hey, it would be money and experience. It would hold me until the union. I really don't want to sacrifice my speed and knowledge gained through this program. I need to be sure I'm maximizing its potential. There is networking to be done as well.
I see that the union would much rather not pay me to learn this. They want to maximize the capital they can extract from me as well. The union is the only place with guaranteed training. It's worth getting into, even if they are ugly. How best can I pay the upfront costs? It still seems like crushing this class and making a name for myself through my teacher is extremely useful.
I don't know yet. I will pay very close attention to what my co-op'ed classmates say, with a grain of salt and Straussian ears, as usual. I need more information to maximize my efficiency and minimize my risk.
Teacher didn't show up today since he was sick. It may have been planned (given the rumor he said the day before). The Flu is very contagious this year. I'm hoping to avoid it. I'm okay with being out of class today. I got a call later today that we aren't going to have class (as rumored) tomorrow either. Welp. Whatcha' gonna' do? I'll enjoy my time off and work hard on other things. Hopefully, we can dive back into it next week.
//This one is hateful. I'm right, but that doesn't mean I will be convincing. I take this to be a useful opportunity to blow off steam.//
I am amazed at the public's backlash against whistleblowers. You people are fucking retarded, and I hate you all (even as I attempt to empathize with you [as you can see, I'm failing at this moment {or perhaps, I'm empathizing so well with you that I'm literally saying what you'd say, in the way you'd say it, if you knew what I knew]). You are part of the problem. It's one thing for your stupidity to cause you and you alone to suffer and die. It's an entirely different thing for your malicious ignorance to cause everyone else to suffer and die. What gives you the right to be like you are? I have no power over your malicious ignorance.
I want to scream at you all: don't you see the difference between morality and legality!? The legal positivists are right, and therefore the rule of law is still fundamentally a joke.<<ref "1">> Godwin's Law time: Hitler and Nazi Germany had a conceptually legitimate government. That doesn't mean we should do what they say, that doesn't mean we are unconditionally, normatively bound by their laws, and so on. Apply that reasoning, for the love of god, before we all suffer and die. I would stomp a hole in St. Paul's ass regarding this if I could (you aren't looking so hot yourself either, Jesus<<ref "2">>); that brilliant dickhole saw one mountain, but none of the mountains behind it (thanks for that).
The DNC and far too many Democrats I know have consistently opposed and sought to punish/prevent whistleblowing.<<ref "3">> This was especially obvious when a Democratic president, Obama, was in charge. The DNC are wolves, and democrats sheep (fear not, I have even harsher opinions about the RNC and their pig-slaves). Now that Trump is president, the DNC and the Democrats I know sing a completely different tune about whistleblowing. They are all for it now. They see the value in it only when it suits them. Hypocrites and psychopaths, the lot of you. Your lack of even trying for ideal idealism disgusts me.
You buy that aphorism: information is power. Who do you wish to empower? Who should you really fear? What does it take to have a functioning democracy? Don't you see the necessity of whistleblowing? Don't you see the real enemy? Of course not. You are a fool.
We are fighting capitalism, the Hyperclass, deep states, dark money, mind-control,<<ref "4">> multi-national political entities, and the idiocy of humanity. The punks and hippies were telling you the truth before they were corrupted and swallowed up. It's the "system," man. Truth is everything. Transparency is key. Sunlight is the only disinfectant. Whistleblowing is a necessary condition for our freedom, political equality, economic opportunity, and happiness.
Look through the history of whistleblowers. Whistleblowers are not perfect people, but they are almost always heroes. They are people who sacrificed immensely for you. Look how you repay them! You know what, I have every right to be angry with you. You are, in no small part, the reason this world sucks and the reason I'm unhappy. Fuck you, and please KYS.
---
<<footnotes "1" "It seems only the virtuous, which often doesn't include me, really know when to apply the rule of law.">>
<<footnotes "2" "I can think of a couple gnostic interpretations of Jesus that allow him to escape this criticism. Odds are that you don't give a shit about that though. I'm sure you know what Jesus 'really' meant.">>
<<footnotes "3" "Inevitably, there are fools who think the 'proper channels' are the normatively appropriate channels by definition. Again, please see the moral/legal distinction.">>
<<footnotes "4" "Let's be clear: telepathy and supernatural means of manipulating objects and minds are bullshit. There is no radical neurosurgery (at least not yet). And, yet, memetic conditioning and mind-control are quite real. Classic rhetoric was only the beginning. We have honed it, technologized it, and created mind-weapons. The power in the hands of the few is breathtaking.">>
* 7" Fire Tablets with Fire OS 5.3.1.0 to plain Nexus Android
** Devs are making it harder and harder to gain control of these devices. I was lucky not to use wifi (and use it minimally when it was necessary for this procedure).
** I've never done this from Linux, but it turned out to be crazy easy on the desktop end.
** Found a great kit that said it sometimes did 5.3.1.0 after multiple tries (why it takes multiple tries blow my fucking mind, but it was true).
** Root took quite a while, threw on some other stuff, and it took a while to find a version of FlashFire that worked on this device.
** I actually bricked the machine on the first ROM substitution.
** Thankfully, unbricking wasn't too bad. Grabbed an image and pushed it on the device while in recovery mode through adb.
** The second time went much faster, and I tried a slightly different ROM. Worked like a charm.
** It's one of the cleaner installs of Android I've ever used. It's very bare. I adore it.
** This was the second or third hardest time I've had taking control of a mobile device. This one was especially locked down.
* [[j3d1h]] was setting up her grandpa's VM to autostart on our HTPC. Whatever she did seemed not to work.
** It was running hot anyways, so we took it apart, cleaned it, and attached the CPU-fan (which apparently needed some fixing anyways).
** Whatever the problem, there was no simply troubleshooting. So, we actually just reinstalled. It took about 2 hours to get it all together, but it's basically set now.
Hello, h0p3!
Sorry to be slow in responding. You know that death tsunami predicted a few years back? I am feeling the first waves of it. Few pastoral responsibilities trump all else like the funeral, and having them back-to-back is exhausting.
Thank you for looking so closely at my witness to you. I was concerned that you might simply dismiss the whole conversation and be upset with me for trying to reclaim you. Thank you particularly for being generous with me when my words stumble. I have a deep respect for you and would never be deliberately uncharitable.
I am not adept at arguing. It is usually a waste of energy and time for me. But I do listen and I do care.
Faith is a "substance" that presents as fragile - almost gossamer - but wears like a magnesium alloy. No one can transmit faith to anyone else. We can only tell the story, and you know the story by heart and head. Faith is not given to you, it comes to you on its own.
You say it is not easy to talk to you, and that may be true of us all from time to time, but it is easier to talk than to endure unyielding silence. I am not heavily invested in convincing you to believe in God as I know God. I am more hopeful that God will walk toward you in Self-revelation. That is a terrifying thought, given the many facets of God's revelation, but everything I know about the nature and depth of real love I learned from such an encounter. We all need intelligence to survive in this world, but we need love to live in it.
Years ago we had a discussion about the individual v communal basis of faith. (Do you remember that conversation?) We disagreed on where one's faith-practice found its origin, while we both admitted that faith works itself out in both spheres. I still believe that faith is more an individual matter of the heart than an acceptance of a societal construct. In that sense, you might be closer to faith now than you were when you were drinking the communal kool-aid. Remember that Jacob wrestled all night with the angel before he became Israel.
Keep digging at those religious roots. When you find a living one, you will recognize it. I know relatively little about religion, and would be comfortable knowing less than I do. What I know about and treasure is faith in a dependable relationship.
Keep looking. I'll keep listening. I love you!
[[R]]
We live in a society where no one believes in anything (in a sense). When everyone lies, we have no one and nothing to believe. The world is so distorted we cannot trust ourselves or anyone else. We can only mumble: "it is what it is."
We are splintered into factions. We are fragmented. We are beyond disunity. We sit in memetic gridlock as the poison sets in. The collective consciousness of Humanity ruptures, entropizes, and fades. We do not empathize with ourselves. Who are we even empathizing with? Why would we? How would we?
The fakeness of the world hovers between dark surrealism and normality. Understanding reality is such a negative experience that we may even be fooled into believing it is actually derealization. The truth is that the darkness is here though. It isn't merely coming for us. It is already upon us.
Our dreams are dead. We are disillusioned. We do not have a vision of the future. We do not have hope for humanity. Why would we plan for the future when there is none? We have been well-trained to ignore the possibilities. We are slaves wearing blinders. This is the brutal fact of corporate power. We will not escape.
I am blown away by the number of people on all political spectrums who do not understand the value of scientific expertise and the gold standard of science in empirical realms. I understand mistrusting non-scientists who wield scientific thought (all too often unqualified and agenda-driven). I appreciate how science has been clickbaited and politicized to the point that we are immersed in a postmodern propaganda problematic (in addition to the standard postmodern epistemic problems). I can even appreciate feeling small and stupid when I can't even understand a century old fundamental theory in physics, like quantum mechanics, in any reasonably intuitive way. Clearly, science is really fucking hard, distributing that knowledge throughout society is even harder, and using the knowledge wisely the hardest.<<ref "1">> None of this excuses our society's profound anti-intellectualism and the rampant denial of the value of science.
I also think there are significant philosophical problematics which scientists are loath to understand; too often they do not understand the boundaries, purpose, and epistemic position of science itself. To be clear, I think the majority of people (including myself to no small extent) fail in this respect. When I press anti-scientific individuals on their philosophy of science point of view, I usually find a confabulation to justify their metaphysics. That's not what I'm talking about here at all. Scientists and non-scientists alike need at least one course in epistemology.
In an information age of transhumanist religion (and a borderline blind religion of science itself) and the capitalist infection of the pursuit of justified beliefs about the nature of the physical universe, science has been co-opted, corrupted, and faces a legion of barriers to its true calling.
I appreciate raw curiosity and the pursuit of truth and justified beliefs. Politics, economics, and religion impede, enslave, ignore, and misuse science.<<ref "2">> The incentives and social structures we've placed in front of and around scientists and their respective communities is a true clusterfuck. Even scientists I've met and worked with giving me a "whatcha' gonna do, eh?" if they even care about it at all. The crisis of science is part of our global "post-truth" epistemic pattern.
* Reproducibility, a cornerstone of empirical investigations, is dying. Almost nobody does it, and whatever is done is generally privatized (which does not disseminate the information and seals off the public from the knowledge it paid for and rightly deserved in the first place).
* Published work simply can't be trusted because of how difficult it can be to reproduce results. Some fields, like psychology, have fundamental reproducibility problems that extend all the way through their canon. It's so bad that not only is it rare for scientists to be able to reproduce the published work of other scientists, but many scientists can't even reproduce their own work! This is fraud.
* Innovation is deeply over-incentivized in a publish-or-perish university (and whitepaper) environment, sacrificing caution, accountability, and intellectual integrity.
* Massaging data is real. p-hacking and cherry-picking are common. Poor methodology, small sample sizes, and terrible analyses are common. Concealing, manipulating, and fabricating data are tools of the new scientific trade. I've seen it myself! We don't reward people for not massaging data. We don't give them enough reasons to do science correctly. What the fuck do you expect to happen when they can barely afford to eat as a post-grad?
* We see profound attempts to silence and discredit the scientific community (neither using, nor for the reasons I've given), simply to maximize profits for shareholders.
* Scientists and their masters have profound conflicts of interests politically and financially (there is even an increase in "fashion" in science, lol!). The pursuit of truth is compromised. This infection only appears to being getting worse as it becomes privatized.
* Science is becoming hazier and less accurate for the public. More and more, science finds its success in private settings. We are centralizing knowledge and power in the hands of the Hyperclass. Science doesn't serve humanity; it serves the masters of humanity.
I say all this not to persuade us to ignore science. Far from it. We have to empower some of the brightest minds in our world to find the answers to serious ecological, energy, technologic, and health problems if we are going to survive.<<ref "3">> Without a publicly owned, transparent, high-accountability, uncensored, and highly funded push for another scientific revolution, our species will not survive the time-bomb we've set for ourselves in global warming and the destruction of our fresh water supply. The end is coming, and science is the only instrument I trust to dig us out. But, I'm a realist. I know we won't do the right thing. That's a pipedream.
As much as I want the best for the homo sapien species, I really do hate who and what we are.
---
<<footnotes "1" "It will only get harder. (I can't help it: That's what she said)">>
<<footnotes "2" "I would like to extend a generalized 'fuck you' to the world at large. Thanks for being terrible people.">>
<<footnotes "3" "The list is obviously incomplete.">>
We allow celebrities to lie to us, and to manipulate us with rags and bullshit. We allow an entertainment industry to hypnotize us.
It has been a very extended weekend. That's okay. I got a lot of sleep and plenty done around the house (and even on this wiki and with myself<<ref "1">>).
I love speaking to my brother about his work. My brother is damned smart, although he doesn't always use it as well as he'd like (totally understandable; it's true for all of us). He has insight, and he can articulate it. I'm lucky to have him.
He keeps pushing for me to go union. He has negative things to say about his union, but he seems to be more and more convinced it is the right choice. I'm glad he ended up going there too. Hearing him only strengthens my resolve to get into a union, even if I have to live apart from my family to do it.
---
<<footnotes "1" "Inappropes: That's what she said">>
The vast majority of public primary schools are underfunded, understaffed student daycare centers which enable both (or single) parents to work outside the home.<<ref "1">> These crucial institutions no longer effectively serve (if they ever did) to maximize the opportunities and well-being of their students, regardless of background or circumstance. At best, they "teach to the middle," "teach the test," sacrifice education for sports and school spirit, and pass students along like number-stamped livestock. They are run like prisons and indoctrinate children to submit (since that's what these kids will be doing for the rest of their lives). Schools do whatever it takes to maximize their income and protect their livelihoods.
One reason our schools suck: the parents are malicious idiots. The vast, vast majority of people I meet are ultimately anti-intellectual in large swathes of their lives. Shit parents, shit students. While parents everywhere are at fault, they do not carry that burden alone.
Our schools are run by crooks, idiots, and people who are rarely educated themselves.<<ref "2">> We pay teachers criminally low salaries, and we get what we pay for. Money is funneled in all the wrong places. That we do not opensource primary and secondary education is an absurdity.
Internally, school administrators see special needs students as a drain on a limited budget and teacher time/resources. Atypical children are especially at risk of falling through the cracks. Minorities are obviously underserved, as are rural and extremely urban areas. Basically, the poorer the region, the worse the education system. These two factors which form a feedback loop only get worse over time while richer areas continue to gain competitive advantage after competitive advantage.
Preschool helps for a while, but the gains are inevitably lost in poor areas. The lives of poor children are "served" by a system fundamentally broken, flawed, and poisoned against them. We do not have their best interests at heart. They grow up in the wrong culture, without empathy, without effective socialization, without family life, without financial training, without practical lifeskills that extend everywhere, without food or necessities in many cases, without good medical care, without a support network, without hope, direction, and purpose. On top of this, we do not give them the educational tools which would allow them to survive, overcome, and flourish. We are all non-trivially responsible for this atrocity.<<ref "3">>
What makes a good public school good has everything to do with being located in a wealthy neighborhood with parents that push for it (not that wealth is sufficient, but it is often necessary, and it is a strong indicator of success in academics and in life [regardless of aptitude, discipline, or merit]). Educational gerrymandering and the bourgeoisie are real. What drives me insane is how few people understand the need for equal education levels between the poor and wealthy ("if I didn't learn to read, then why should my children?" from the poor and complete disregard of the poor in the wealthy), and how even fewer believe the fundamental cause of this problem is capitalism.
Public schools in those regions are functionally private schools. Poor kids are pushed out, except for sports and the appearance-quota. Living in expensive areas alone pushes out the poor. The problems the remaining poor experience in their daily practical lives give these bourgeois public-private schools even more ammunition and opportunities to cleanse and gentrify their neighborhoods and schoolyards.
Change is nearly impossible. Policy, admin, the board, and leadership throughout the school system are only kept in check by a legal system which serves the wealthy. They false compromise their way through broken promises and the destruction of the lives of the children they are meant to serve. Of course, litigation can be effective, but this may require significant financial resources not available to all parents. Ironically, those parents who do have the resources to litigate may already have the resources to find alternative education opportunities in the first place. Those who need help the most are the least likely to be able to secure it.
Charter schools are even uglier. It reminds me of the Cigarette-company owned schools in China that train kids to smoke from a young age. It's a disgusting scam, discriminatory segregation, and enslavement. But, let's be clear, non-charter's are simply more nuanced, less obvious, and indirect in their capitalist dynamics. I suspect this infection will only get worse under Trump.
The capitalist infection of American Education travels all the way up to the top of post-secondary education as well. Our opportunity-equalizing system has been hollowed out by capitalism. At best, you only get what you pay for now (and rarely that). Thus, we now subvert, subdue, harness, and condition the poor like human-livestock (to various degrees and in different ways) while merely keeping up the appearances that we don't.
For-profit education is everywhere. The slimiest of it is found in our ITT's, University of Phoenix's, etc. But, even satellite schools of major universities (even Ivy league quality) are fundamentally for-profit. Universities have become further bureaucratized and run like businesses. A financial industry has evolved around it. It is increasingly owned, operated, and shaped by corporations. Even the Ivy Leagues aren't immune.<<ref "4">>
Students who graduate from the slimiest for-profit schools on this Capitalist University spectrum literally hurt their reputations and are laughed out of any serious interview process. They also tend to have enormous debt for a degree that can't get them above minimum wages (which are already starvation wages). It's a direct scam across the board. They learn nothing (or even worse, learn it the wrong and obsolete way) and lose everything. These "schools" are marketing companies, recruiting and pushing people through the paperwork necessary to take government money in return for nothing. They are loan sharks and educational pimps. The slime lessens as you rise through the social ladder of the university system, but it is still there. I have gone to school in many settings, and the differences were remarkable. Capitalist corruptions were always there though. You still see the slime ooze through different cracks and in different ways, regardless of the school you attend.
Grad students, post-grads, TAs, instructors, lecturers, adjunct professors, and even some visiting professors are paid starvation wages (below minimum wage in many cases). This is the new norm. The vast majority of students learn from these underpaid professionals. It's a very dog-eat-dog world in academia. It is disintegrating.
We were promised the opportunity to have a good life by going to school. This was a lie. It is necessary, but not sufficient. Few really tried (partially their fault), many were given their passing grades, and the system was designed to bilk the students for everything they are socially, politically, and financially worth, without ultimately educating them. You will find exceptions, of course. But, the rule of thumb is incredibly and sadly accurate. Most come out of school with enormous debt, lacking the education they more than paid for, to enter an economy that generally doesn't want them (at least not at the wages they merit).
What else are people supposed to do though? How do you expect young 18-year-old barely legal adults with underdeveloped frontal lobes (25 years old before they begin to crystallize) and no understanding of the world to make enormous gambling decisions that will last them a lifetime? They see the wolves of poverty nipping at their heels. They have to take the risk. They must gamble, even if the odds are all against them. This is a fundamental utility equation balanced in favor of capitalists seeking to maximize the amount of human capital which can be extracted from our population. It is rent-seeking. We are debt-slaves. We are the information age serfs. We climb on top of each other just to have the slim chance for a fragment of the mobility, opportunity, freedom, and happiness that was widely available to everyone just a few decades ago.<<ref "5">>
Our wings and minds are being clipped. We are no longer learning who we were, who we are, and who we should be. Those are defined for us by capitalism now. Whatever helps corporations profit and gain power, those are the livestock they try to raise. Too many educational institutions and people, in general, see this obvious conflict-of-interest to be a good thing.
We now "go to school" to get a job. It's become the new "Mike Rowe" norm from conservatives. You fucking morons. Jesus, you are stupid. How could you even call yourself educated? You are either deeply ignorant (sticking your heads in the sand or lacking a real education yourself [maybe you forgot the transformation]) or you are straight up malicious (pulling a ladder up behind you). You are an anti-intellectual. You do not understand citizenship, or you seek to deny it to younger generations. You lack integrity, compassion, empathy, and foresight. You do not see why idealism is important, why it is practical and necessary. You are a fool for believing the authorities you do (including yourselves). Watch the virtuous agent non-fallaciously wield the ad hominem, and you don't even know why it's acceptable.
I hear people say "college isn't for everyone." Education inflation is very real. I don't just mean that more people are getting degrees, changing demand and prices. I mean you get less per dollar and year spent in education than you used to. Learning algebra in college is normal (50% of students fail); they are illiterate. They are learning basic literacy in college. They aren't even getting a real education most of the time. And you want to deny them even that? Don't you see what is required for democracy? Don't you see what is required for the decentralization of power? The decentralization of knowledge and reason! We must educate everyone as best as we possibly can.
Look, I'm going into the trades after 10 years of post-secondary education. I have respect for working with one's hands. Some of my favorite jobs were not very respected and required significant physical labor. I see the necessity of having janitors, manual laborers, and other practical occupations. I realize not everyone is brilliant. But, I also see the possibilities for who we could be. I see how truly uneducated our population is. I know we can do worlds better, and I see how badly we need to. How could you not push for this? Admittedly, many people do not understand the value, meaning, and purpose of a real education.<<ref "6">>
I'm blown away by the number of STEM students who do not have or even wish to pursue a liberal arts education. They do not appreciate the humanities. The humanities, philosophy itself, the study of wisdom and truth, are fundamentally what we're doing in school. We all must understand ourselves. STEM is the child of the humanities. While STEM is beautiful and deeply instrumental, it only tells us what "is" and never "ought" outside of hypothetical imperatives. The humanities are the heart of The Great Conversation. Of course, the postmodern problem (that Aristotle was the last man to know everything that was known in the human world) makes it harder to be educated and well-rounded. We must still do our best. Unfortunately, an entire generation of STEM students are not in touch with their humanity. They are bad human specimens with strong formal and empirical reasoning skills. That's terrifying!
To strike the other direction, too many liberal arts majors fear formal reasoning. They lack true rigor, are afraid of math, and do not understand the theory of the physical world as well as they need to. They cannot interpret and appreciate STEM nearly well enough. STEM gives us context and the material with which to solve problems. Ultimately, we are not well-rounded enough as a society. It takes more knowledge in more subjects to really participate as a full citizen in today's society. We are failing tremendously.
Our education system is predatory and oppressive. Too often it serves the opposite of its purpose. That doesn't mean we shouldn't educate people or give up. It means we need to remove capitalist interests and control from the core democratic, citizen-shaping, opportunity-equalizing institution. We won't though. We are too stupid, evil, powerless, or some combination thereof. Farewell Felicia.
---
<<footnotes "1" "My father was right about this but too late. Living in Thailand only made this more obvious to me.">>
<<footnotes "2" "Not all teachers and administrators suck. Most do. Have you fucking seen the IQ and critical reasoning scores of education majors and conservatives? Jesus. That is sad. Conservative states are by far the worst at this. Anti-science and religious support of government+corporate powers is entrenched. I hate almost every Christian I know (to be fair, I hate almost everyone anyways, lol). They have ruined us.">>
<<footnotes "3" "Our even more horrendous treatment of children from outside US borders is even more unforgivable. ">>
<<footnotes "4" "Don't get me wrong, they are still incredibly good schools from an academic perspective. They simply are guided by the wrong principles, wield their power incorrectly, and do not exist to help the common person. Capitalism has profoundly corrupted these institutions as well. Business majors scare me the most. Psychopathy rates are ridiculously high. Ethics is dead.The brightest of our most well-connected and wealthy young people are consumed by the financial and political industries. Our new masters are being bred.">>
<<footnotes "5" "Allow me to say, 'fuck you' to the baby boomers, yet again. You worthless pieces of shit. You deserve slow, painful deaths for what you have done to the generations which came after you. I'm sure I will say the same to gens X, M, and Z as time goes along. Greed and power have corrupted us more than we will admit.">>
<<footnotes "6" "Do I need to explain why this isn't a no true Scotsman fallacy?">>
Today was a good day. I was pumped to get back into the shop and fucking do something. I think I was agitated by being off my schedule last week. I look forward to my time working on stuff.<<ref "1">>
My teacher asked me if it was checked. I said yes, even though we didn't do a final check (because I was continually unsatisfied with it). I honestly think that's the answer he wants from me, so I'm giving it to him. It's clear he cannot help me fix the problem, and I don't want to make him feel bad about it. That's just not useful to our relationship. The truth is powerless to our relationship in some ways. It is not the kind of socialization I'm innately comfortable with, but I think it is actually the kind and empathic thing to do in his eyes. I do it knowing the weight of what it means to do this, and I take it very seriously.
In a weird way, I fear I treat him like my cat. I adore my cats. I honestly want the best for these psychopathic bastards (cat psychology is fucking hilarious). To different extents, my cats are not smart enough to understand me or my intentions. Golden Ruling my cats is odd. That Ranga is now inside with us permanently I take to be the option most likely to maximize his happiness. I must imprison him, and I wish I could explain it to him. I wish I didn't have to imprison him, and instead wish he could see the reason he must stay inside with us. I wish I could convince him. But, I can't. It's not up to me. I think I am doing something similar in being what I hope is morally virtuously deceptive. It's perhaps a kind of white lie. It seemed to be asked for, and so I gave it. If I cannot give a cost-benefit analysis reason, a frontal lobes answer, then I need to be willing to change. I think it has a prudence to it for both of us.
It's weird kind of application of the golden rule to not "treat them as you would want to be treated" in the most rational sense, but instead to "treat them as they say they want to be treated " (another interpretation, of course, an empathizing of their position itself in the deepest, even if less rational, sense) even if they don't understand the logical consequences of the thing they ask for. Inequalities in knowledge and theories of mind create very difficult power dynamics and ethical dilemmas. It's much easier to do ethics in something like that proverbial physics' vacuum. When we treat people as being as rational as we are we can come up with very impractical, often lower utility, and perhaps worse outcomes. I suspect I am terrible at this golden rule problem, or at least come up with non-typical answers in some respects, because I'm autistic. My rTPJ really does activate abnormally.
Okay, that was a detour. Anyways, he was fine with my answer. Nash and I took it apart quickly, and he gave us our new bookwork. He didn't even make copies, he just gave us his original this time (we were careful with it). By 9:00 I had finished the highlights, chapter, and going over his specified material. Nash will happily avoid bookwork like the plague. I'm not sure how much this affects me. I just need all 3 books finished by October if I can. That is reasonably accomplishable at the pace I'm moving. So, Connor was picked to help us learn the next type of task.
We are building X-piece-90's. They are basically circles fragmented into pipe-line-segments which are tacked and welded together. We made a 3-piece-90 today. Connor walked us through the steps of making lines cardinal sides, and the teacher came by to tell us how to do the math (since Connor didn't know how). I ended up doing the math, and we drew slices equal to the center-to-center measurements of the pieces we were going to cut. Then, we found the right miter cut size from the book and drew those on. We used a bandsaw blade as a "straight-edge" to use our sharpie on the pipe. It had to curve around not just the pipe, but was also angled; it wasn't a vertical, perpendicular to the horizontal laying pipe cut. We did not mark as carefully as we should have. And, it showed.
We went to cut it with a bandsaw. Mine was excellent! =) Yay. Good enough that Connor didn't think we even needed to grind it. He says that the way he tries to make all his cuts (since it limits the work he's aiming for). We did our best on the cuts though. It was our first time. Nash kinda messed his up. He was on cold medicine all day, so he wasn't really there. Basically, I ended up doing the grinding work to fix his mistake. That's fine though. It was good practice. I'll take every ounce of practice I can get.
I'm still unclear on the absolute best strategies and tactics for grinding. I'm finding my own tricks at this point. I understand the miter cut needs to be 22.5 degrees (for the 3-piece-90), and it needs to be as straight as fucking possible (seals are clearly sexy). I grind down to make it straight (they should be flush when joined). I also must grind to make sure that when I join the pieces, I get a 45-degree angle from my level.
One of the better students, TJ, recommends leaving a bit of extra space for grinding at all times. I parroted back his justification succinctly: You can cut more pipe away, but you can't simply add more pipe. This hedging principle has shown up many times, and I consider it a variant of measure twice, cut once, or at least in the same family of reasoning. He is correct about this. Giving myself just a hair of breathing room allows for me to hide mistakes in my cuts, it gives me options, it lowers the risk, etc. It has to be accounted for in the measuring and line drawing though. Just a 32nd or 16th of an inch extra would be nice. It's very easy to grind the whole thing equally (you just rotate around with the grinder). Getting out unevenness, however, is much harder. There's some eyeballin' to do, I tell ya' h'what. I will develop good eyes for grinding, beveling, and cutting. Artists must be accomplished at drawing straight lines, and I'm sure every pipefitter can do this in their sleep. This is crucial to making pipes "fit" together. Do the math, and make the right cuts. This is a virtue theoretic aspect of the practice, imho. The cleanliness of it, the speed with which you can do it, the efficiency, the risk-limitation factors you impose, etc.
Anyways, to our teacher's apparent displeasure, all the guys started joining in on our project (instead of working on their own). I think they found it interesting. Keaton came by to tack weld it (since Connor trusts Keaton more than himself?). I held the pieces together (if Keaton fucked up, I swear it could really burn me badly; I do not care for needing to trust people with my hands in this respect). That reminds me, I will be wearing my true welder's gloves for welding from now on, especially when someone else is welding. So, anyways, Keaton tacked one side. We adjusted a bit, flipped it, and he went for the second tack on the other side (you do the sides instead of top and bottom to give you a chance to bend for the 90, and if necessary cut out segments, if you aren't exactly 90 that is). This time, he made a hole in the join.
Apparently, Connor and Keaton had the heat way too high on the welder. It should have been at around 50amps, although my teacher says it varies with the welder (he said they had it way to high and should have known better). They brought in another student to fix it (since he boasts that he can, and they enjoy taking him a down a peg or two). An aspie if I ever met one, Ferguson; he's cool and kind. They make a lot of fun of him; they are mean to his face. It's gross. I go out of my way to be kind to him as a reaction to these facts. Anyways, he couldn't seal the hole (since the heat was still way too high). He made it much worse. We laughed about the giant hole in my project, but then they started to blame him (and he was just trying to fix their error). The teacher said Ferguson isn't a bad welder, even if he isn't smart. Ferguson was practical. He grabbed a piece of metal, cut off a triangle, and patched the pipe. I ended up grinding a ton off it. The teacher, of course, immediately knew it was all kinds of messed up when he saw it. My teacher said I should have come to him for the welding part (but he was the one who put Connor in charge). It was messy, but it worked. Our next welds were done by Keaton on the MIG. These were clean (although, it spits way more).
They made fun of Ferguson for sharpening his knives a few weeks back, acting like he was too stupid to do it. I have no idea why he puts up with it or engages them in it (he really thinks they are his friends, I fear). Ferguson has a very nice kit, and he treats his knives gently. He cares about his things. His moccasins (comfort), humor, his truck, his mom, and his work (he is passionate, even if he sucks at some things; can't pass a test to save his life, I tell you that). I wanted to thank him for putting up with the bullshit, so I kindly asked him publically if he would be willing to sharpen my knife. They looked at him differently after that. They decided he could sharpen knives now because I thought he could. I had some knife work I had to do today anyways, and turns out, it really was sharper this second time around. Ferguson knew a surprising amount about my knife. He even knew where I got it, had tried them before, etc. I like Ferguson. He's weird but good.
During break (which I rarely take when I have work I can do in the shop, but I was at the mercy of others here), Keith explained how he got in trouble with our teacher (but is expected by his pipefitting bosses to perform) for shortcuts. Keith acts like it know it all, which miffs my teacher clearly. They butt heads a lot. I have heard Keith speak (he does love to talk). Existentially, he's stupid about many things. However, I have heard him speak about computers, and he is at least cautious in his choices of displaying knowledge there. When it comes to pipefitting. much of what he says seems rational to me. I do it the long way (since I have no need to cross my teacher), but I keep these shortcuts in my pocket. I mean, seriously, who wouldn't want to have a machine rotate a pipe while beveling? That seems like a way to make a very consistent bevel, like a potter on a potter's wheel.
Magically, it ended up being the correct radius and dead on 90. It looked like shit from the first two welds and the patch. The lines were off. I could even see the pipes' circumferences didn't really line up as cleanly as I'd have liked. Connor said it was good enough to take to the teacher. So, we did. I explained that I knew the lines were off and that the pipes were lined up as well as I'd have liked, but that it had the correct radius and angles. We checked. He said it fine. He told me to do the same thing for a 6-inch radius.
It was late when we started on the next project. The teacher also told me he was going to have the guys clean the area we were using. Basically, we didn't get much done on the second project of the day. I'm excited to do the all of it (with Nash) tomorrow. I want to do it without help this time.
I must admit that I'm confused that my teacher didn't just show me how to do it from the beginning. He tends to have students teach students when possible. This can be a good thing, but it can also be lazily abused. I see a mix in him. I was always happy to hear his thoughts, advice, and objections to our work or process. He did come by. Sometimes not at the right times, but he did come by to give us his input. We needed it. Perhaps he knows we need to time to jump around in the mud puddle? I don't know. I will think about it.
This is relevant in the sense that I will have to teach the incoming student, I believe. The teacher says he has to catch up to us, which is 1.5 months of hard work. I'm going to be babysitting. I'm going to be held back by this person (and I thought Nash was an ankle-dragger!).
Oh, one of the students got arrested the other night. Lol. They read a publication which shows who went to jail every month like a gossip magazine. There are rougher kids here. I can only help them with their computers and be kind, oh, and learn from them when I can.
I still haven't drawn plans for the simulator either. I may do that when I can't find work to do. I need to get measurements first. I'll have Nash help me do that tomorrow. He can spare me the 10 minutes.
---
<<footnotes "1" "/pets-his-wiki, 'I love working on you too, wiki, my dear.'">>
Today was a fun and stressful day. I love being in the shop. We got the same project but with a 6-inch radius this time. The smaller it is, the harder it is to make it right in this case. There is a lot more room for error at a larger scale. We did it all this time, without help. My cut was decent, and that meant that my angle was good without much grinding. We still aren't getting the miter line as straight as I want (it bends, and that's bad). The bandsaw is still unwieldy. Although, it was commented that I am naturally talented with it. I use my body at the back end to steady and support it. I let it do the work. Plus, who doesn't love that beautiful vibration feeling near their testicles? Yum.
I ended up taking it apart several times, once by error (I had never tried to adjust after tack before; apparently, you can snap them). We just couldn't get the angle perfectly 90. Nash didn't give a shit. But, I really wanted it to pass. I am not proud of my shitty tack welds. It's really hard to use their shitty welding hoods. I bought one today that does automated darkening after having had the opportunity to use Ferguson's. It's a godsend. It will make me safer, faster, and less error-prone, by miles. Btw, Harbor Freight is the bomb. Never been there before. Maybe it has a Big-Lotsian feel to it, but that's okay. This will do the job just fine. Even if it only lasted for 6 months, it would be worth the price. I feel like Darth Vader with it on.
Anyways, I got it done after lunch, and then I decided to fool around (very rare for me). Since I tacked (poorly), I thought I'd try my hand at beadwork. Also, MIG might be easier for tacking in some respects, I still find it far more unwieldy than plain stick welding. My beadwork improved with the help of pointers from the upperclassmen. Eventually, there was a polite duel amongst all the students, a weld-off was held at my request. The teacher had to get all tough, but he thought it was funny at the same time clearly. His students rarely gather around actual shopwork (it's usually around a pair of tits or music video; we did watch Trump being sworn in though...ugh<<ref "1">>). After we were told to get back to work we showed him our project. It passed. He was worried we tried to cheat by grinding the sides to make it 90. I was just cleaning the edges of burs as he asked (without powertools). I wasn't worried though. If he took a level to it, he'd have seen it was clean and correct (I didn't pull a fast one on him). He told us to do it again for a 5-inch radius. It's clearly not clean enough. It will be. For this project, I was proud of how nicely my pipes fit together.
We did the measurements and added just a hair this time. I hope it makes the work go by quicker. I assume the problem at this point is that we aren't fast enough. That's fine. I really need to practice, desperately.
Two other things to note. The teacher had us sign waivers that we wouldn't use our cell phones during class or shop. Not a problem for me, but it is sadly necessary for a couple folks. Also, I started taking measurements and diagramming/drawing the simulator, btw.
---
<<footnotes "1" "Don't get me wrong. I adore tits. Can't get enough of them. I love music (although, I'm not a fan of music videos usually; they need to be special to merit that much attention [I'd prefer music itself to be the star]). I also would have watched Trump regardless. This is all they seem to collectively care about though. It's...sad. It's hard to find things they are deeply passionate about. Perhaps I just don't know them well enough. We will see.">>
I had a very good 3.5 hour conversation with [[Charlie]], my new friend (we've been acquaintances for a long time). He is amazing. He's an autistic savant.<<ref "1">> C is a fucking genius in disguise or imprisoned by his autism. His formal, official education is no indicator of his knowledge or inferential capacities at all. If sum IQ were reified into marbles, and intelligence broken into different kinds of baskets, [C] has profound imbalances in which baskets nature dumped the marbles. The sum total of marbles is very high in certain baskets, but perhaps below average in others (social skills vary wildly in him). The learning disability in one space is so striking against the genius in other spaces.
He's a man of deep innocence and profound curiosity to me. He is obviously self-taught and susceptible to the people he trusts. I take myself to be responsible for not damaging that innocence.
Talking with him is revealing to me. I connect parts I did not before because of him. He follows arguments very well and sees the threads weave where others wouldn't in his position. He's almost too smart for his own good. I hope he has more self-control and self-preservation built into him than I do. I worry that my philosophical demons will be communicated to him, that I will infect him. I think I am poison for this man. Most people are immune to it because they cannot see what I do. [C] is smart enough and wired in the right way to catch my memetic viruses when I sneeze. I feel like I am doing a disservice to his happiness by talking to him. Like, if I were a real friend, I just wouldn't be myself around him because what I really believe and think is a true danger to his mind and happiness.
---
<<footnotes "1" "Where autism is a broad spectrum, highly inclusive, and poorly understood.">>
We've been working on X-piece-90's. It is so much easier without Nash. I love Thursdays since I'm the only one in the shop. Everyone else has a computer or bookwork they choose to barely work on. I have the shop to myself, except when I absolutely need another pair of hands (welding and sometimes marking). I finished two projects in a day. That is relatively uncommon for me.
Today, like all Fridays, was a half-day. I basically have 3 hours to work max. I got a 5-piece-90 assigned to me. I had the bandsaw fail on me twice. I got a new blade and it made a huge difference (Tim knew immediately what it was). It's absurd how often that blade needs to be changed. The cuts were not as clean because of it. I did a preliminary grind to smooth it out but didn't have time to do much else. Tim, my teacher, had other plans for cleaning the shop. He and I went around the offices and shops borrowing hoses (I was the one who had to return them). We squeegeed the floor of the shop.
Also, this is the 4th time that I couldn't see the union training coordinator. The door to the entire facility was locked, again. I take this to be a sign that I need to amp up how often I go, find more information about when they are open, and perhaps even just call him on the phone if I can't get ahold of him otherwise.
//Intelligent and honest Redpillers know socialism|Socialism is a devastatingly accurate description of capitalism and human economics. The prescription is all that is left.//
The Idealism of Socialism is that which is intellectually honest in a wide range of anti-capitalist arguments. And, guess what? It exists! There are numerous, incredibly justified reasons we should not accept capitalism. There is a reasonable pattern of thought you may not have considered, but you should. You feel like you've done that path, but you haven't. You know people are evil, but you've not been willing to run with it, to put in your pocket, to really see the world through that lens. Now, apply that rule "people are evil," and take it the nth degree. See what turns out to be real and what doesn't.
You just haven't been charitable enough to socialism. You've failed to effectively interpret human beings as being evil when they become powerful (it's just a fact). You should not trust authority. //Pay attention//. We learned about socialism in all the wrong way. We were wrong about what it was. It wasn't evil. You've been brainwashed to believe what you do. Here, take your redpill.
# /Hands(h0p3, Redpill, [your name here])
# I require your consent. Have charity now. You have to be a willing participant in the acquisition of life-changing knowledge. The loss of innocence requires the curiosity of the Tree of Knowledge. Does it hurt? Yes. Is it worth it? Probably.
# You have to assume you could be wrong, about everything. You have to be willing to be wrong about everything. Have the humility to consider the possibility, to be honest with yourself in relation to the world.
# I patiently wait for you to swallow it.
# ..
# Let me show you the real world:
Socialism describes capitalism as a socioeconomic system (or family of such systems) based on the exploitation of the labor force through private ownership of the means of production. Capitalist society is structured so as to reward the most socially adept abusers of human nature. It is a meritocracy for elite psychopaths and psychopathic bloodlines. It enables the psychopathic segment of our species to enslave us. Capitalism is a vicious game of egoism in which only the most redpilled with //weak moral compasses// and// the means to exploit the poor and weak// become successful (and eventually totalitarian) predators.
Capitalism is the result of applied social Darwinism. Socialism is an attempt to describe this human game, and it posits that a revolution, revolt, or uprising against capitalism and private (but not personal) ownership is inevitable. Whether or not this borderline faith-based position on revolution is true is irrelevant to the fundamental truths in the description of capitalism. Revolution is a prescription, but socialism is fundamentally descriptive (that's where it's power lay). It's redpilled when it's done correctly too! It is a very profound description of human history, our current world, and continues to give us good explanations for why the world changes as it does in profound ways (not everything, of course).
We start with labor and value. Labor adds value to materials. We generate value by embedding our labor (time, energy, effort, etc.) into products; part of who we are is imbued in the things we labor to create. The total value a worker creates through their labor is productivity value. There may be many kinds of metaethical value, but this one is fundamentally important to us all. It's part of being an agent that we labor. Who owns this labor, and the results of it, productivity value, to what extent, and why?
For the capitalist, productivity value can be split into two major kinds: wage value and surplus value.<<ref "1">> A product's wage value is used to pay the worker. The value generated beyond the wages paid to the worker is surplus value; it is the source of profit.<<ref "2">> Surplus value can be used to pay constant capital<<ref "3">> costs, replacing the means of production, technology, marketing, distribution, finances, human resources, logistics, expansion, security, competitive advantages, political influence, taxes, etc. The remaining surplus is profit.<<ref "4">>
Capitalists hire workers to create products. Capitalists sell these products for approximately the productivity value, pay (legally required) wage value to workers, pay (economically required) constant capital costs, and keep the rest as profit. This profit is often used to cyclically generate more capital; capital begets capital. At first glance, this may not seem problematic (especially to those socially conditioned to accept it). Unfortunately, the repeated application of this business cycle results in dangerous shifts in the power dynamics of a society, and this results in the capitalist exploitation of the working class.
Capitalism is not stable; it is driven by the neverending generation of competitive advantage (naturally or artificially). Capitalists must consistently reinvest in their constant capital to continue to be profitable.<<ref "5">> One crucial method to generating competitive advantage as a corporation is to have as few employees as possible and to pay them as little as they will accept. As a consequence, wages are suppressed at all costs (morality is deemed irrelevant here) and human labor is price-efficiently replaced with technology and streamlined processes/logistics.<<ref "6">> As human labor is replaced, workers become unemployed. Unemployment forces wages down. The unemployed, the army of reserve labor, compete for available jobs. The higher the supply of laborers, the lower they must sell their labor-power to capitalists. Thus, capitalists are engaged in the continual process of maximizing the productivity value of labor while paying lower and lower wages to fewer and fewer people for it.<<ref "7">>
This vicious cycle enables capitalists to tighten their grip on the working class. Over time, there are fewer and fewer employers hiring fewer and fewer employees, while simultaneously paying lower and lower wages. The unemployed become desperate. They will accept worse and lower material conditions to survive. What other choice do they have? Capitalists exploit workers insofar as workers have no other options. When capitalists own all the means of production, workers have no other choice but to accept wages artificially depressed further and further below the productivity value of their labor (if they can find employment at all).
As capitalists centralize power and monopolize the means of productions, there is a corresponding increase in the rate and degree of enslavement of the working class. In a vast human economic pyramid scheme, we find repeating cycles of wealth trickling upwards with power centralizing and rising to the top. The working class loses opportunities, freedoms, and bargaining powers as they become splintered, suppressed, and controlled. Capitalism devours the majority, and this time, it appears to be the driving force behind the extinction of our species.
As the working class becomes aware of the causes of the crisis (developing class consciousness), capitalists must oppress them even harder. Of course, workers who complain, bargain, or fight back will be punished. Submission appears to be the only practical option. Oppression branches out much further than that. Our surveillance state exists to maintain capitalist power. Our media is consolidated and owned by capitalists seeking to subvert and undermine resistance to their power. We are engaged in wars not for the freedom of our people, but for the enslavement of mankind, to the benefit of capitalists.
Our laws are written by capitalists. Our politicians are capitalists bought by capitalists. Our law enforcers are capitalists bought by capitalists. Our judicial branch has its capitalist corruptions as well. From local, to regional, to state, to national, to international contexts, capitalists own and control us. The rat race is very real, and slavery has only become more complex in implementation, kind, and degree. Many fail to see capitalism for what it really is: a game theoretic, absurdly complex, psychopathically owned and operated form of slavery.
Capitalism is a helluva drug. It is an incredibly viral meme that injects itself into the core of its hosts so deeply that it alters their fundamental behaviors, empathies, hatred, beliefs, and desires in systematic, long-term ways. Our culture is being swallowed by this Egoistic memetic network crawling through the human species like an epidemic. It's tendrils control our minds. The allure of selfishness is too profound, especially for the powerful and those with the means to maximize their personal pleasure at the expense of anyone they can find the will power to dehumanize. It is quite the meme, this invisible-appearing force. It is a category of a kind of viral creature that exists and reproduces in our minds.
This is an apt description of human motivations, history, the memetic nature of our problems, and reality. Socialism is thought to demonstrate the material conditions and crises of capitalism. Insofar as socialism relies upon material conditions to do its intellectual heavy lifting, it remains a description which lacks idealism. It only provides us the contextual content of maxims; it only provides us instrumental reason, hypothetical imperatives. It only describes the motivations and historical cycles of humanity. Even if it correctly predicts revolution (which may itself be inaccurate in the information age; Marx could not have foreseen everything), it does not, in itself, show why we should revolt against capitalism and slavery.
Ultimately, socialism describes what "is" but not "ought." Marxist versions of socialism pre-describes revolution as the outcome (and hopes for improvements), but it cannot normatively prescribe because it does not give us an underlying moral theory. It is a political and economic theory, but not a moral one. Too often, I see Redpillers conflate the "is" of capitalism (as described by socialism) with the "ought" which follows from the prescription. Essentially, these psychopaths think prescription and description are the same. That is the naturalistic fallacy is in its barest form.
We must be empathic towards the poor, the weak, and the needy, regardless of our station in life. We must have [[Redpilled Empathy]]. We must end capitalism because we must end slavery because slavery lacks empathy. Redpilled Socialism is an application of the golden rule inside of capitalist systems. It's a variant of the Veil of Ignorance.
The only aspect of socialism, as a description, which I worry about is its prediction of revolution. The assumption seems to be that the poor and disenfranchised will eventually do something about it. I think it fails to understand the nature of technology and its ability to maintain the status of quo of enslavement, to protect the Hyperclass, and to prevent, disarm, and defeat any attempts at a revolution.
Why should we think socialism' predicted revolution will ever occur? Sure, hope for the best, vote for it, teach people it, see the reason in it, morally expect us to follow socialized prescription, but you have to be practical about what you predict will happen. It is basic utilitarian thought that cannot be escaped. You hope for the best, but plan for the worst. I want to see the end of capitalism because it would honestly make the world a better place; it is the only chance for the survival of the human species. I'd love to have grandchildren, to see the world happy and healthy. But, it isn't going to happen. You must see the necessity of protecting our selves from the world and preparing for the inevitable disasters approaching our species.
I would be rejected from socialist circles for saying this. I want to point out that I'm not claiming "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em." I support the end of capitalism, but I'm not convinced it will actually occur due to both the raw intelligence, wealth, and power of our ruling class and the stupidity, poverty, and weakness of the proletariat. Only a fool would think that 3.5% of the population composed of proletarians would be able to overthrow the capitalist yoke; that noose is on tight, and the weapons of coercion are beyond what Marx could have fathomed. Inequality only continues to grow on the metrics that matter. Of course, there always remains the possibility that socialist revolution will occur (however small it may be). Until then, I'm going to prepare as though it isn't going to happen because that is the best evidence I have. Basically, I think my socialist brethren are deeply wrong; there is a better and more accurate pragmatic socialist prescription. I will protect my family from a world of psychopaths, and I will try to do so without being psychopathic towards the world. Accepting the reality of our shitty human nature's accuratizes our predictions and therefore appropriately tempers our expectations. This is pragmatic hope. As far as I can tell, it is the best prescription I have at the moment.
The moral of the story, thus far, understand and support socialism, but don't assume or hope that others will have the willpower, integrity, and moral virtue to take the Redpill and actually be good people. You've taken the Redpill, so you know: no one escapes being selfish.
---
<<footnotes "1" "Wage value is Variable Capital.">>
<<footnotes "2" "Rate of Surplus Value = Surplus_Value / Variable_Capital">>
<<footnotes "3" "I am still appalled by the use of the term //constant// here.">>
<<footnotes "4" "Although, peeling the other surplus expenditures apart from profit is not actually that simple. Roughly: Profit = Surplus_Value / (Wage_Value + Constant_Capital)">>
<<footnotes "5" "This accumulation of constant capital necessary for competitive advantage in the capitalist market is the beginning of the economic crisis of Capitalism (which is separate, in a sense, from the moral problem of enslavement). Roughly: Organic composition of capital = Constant_Capital / Variable_Capital">>
<<footnotes "6" "Human labor is living labor; dead labor is technology, machinery, tools, infrastructure, architecture, automation, etc. To be clear: only a fool would blame a machine for the evil committed by humans. Regulation of human use of technology is necessary (particularly to protect our most important freedoms), but regulation of human economies even more. Automation is not the devil. It all depends on how we use it. Do not buy into the Red Herring of blaming technology instead of humankind. Doing so is as analogously foolish as the Broken Window Fallacy.">>
<<footnotes "7" "I'm dramatically oversimplifying here. The spirit of the truth is obvious though. The details and execution are obviously quite complex. These things do come in degrees and kinds. The fundamentals remain the same though.">>
<<footnotes "8" "A reactionary opposes proletarian revolution. 'In modern capitalist society the bourgeoisie is appropriately viewed as the reactionary class, since it not only totally opposes proletarian revolution, and even almost all reforms, but also regularly tries to reverse earlier reforms. When the ruling bourgeoisie ever does finally agree to any significant new reform it is only because they have been forced to, and even then they virtually always have the secret intention of reversing what they view as a temporary concession to the people at a later time.'">>
<<footnotes "9" "This is not a defense of intuitionism (I don't have one). I'm taking it for granted that you agree to this move in the argument.">>
//There's a reason you separate military and the police. One fights the enemies of the state, the other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people. - Commander Adama//
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. The state should not be solely comprised or even run by those who are trained to hunt enemies of the state. Everyone looks like a nail to those who lack the sufficient empathy necessary to commit regular violence against human beings.
When Libertarians and Socialists agree to the same thing, you know it's profoundly important. The 'U' symbol of the political horseshoe theory is obviously false in crucial ways, but I think it also has a rule-of-thumbness to it that is remarkably accurate in other ways. They are mortal enemies in metaethics (I realize there are people who consider themselves Libertarian Socialists, but I do not think they understand Libertarianism), and yet they have a profound common ground in their appreciation for idealism. There is a deep clarity with which both ideologies can interpret and explain the relationship between human rights and property rights. These extreme political ideologies are right about the dangers of the police state and the militarization of the police. When they agree on a political and metaethical claim, the rest of us should be paying attention. This is no accident.
Wikipedia says:
<<<
Militarization of police refers to the use of military equipment and tactics by law enforcement officers. This includes the use of armored personnel carriers, assault rifles, submachine guns, flashbang grenades, grenade launchers, sniper rifles, and Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) teams. The militarization of law enforcement is also associated with intelligence agency-style information gathering aimed at the public and political activists, and a more aggressive style of law enforcement...[Police militarization is] "the process whereby civilian police increasingly draw from and pattern themselves around, the tenets of militarism and the military model."
<<<
There are ways to confabulate into believing this is not a problem, ways to see a positive spin on this definition. I see people actively ignore the actual consequences of it, who purposely fail to see the implications of it. Allow me to flip your conceptual analysis around and prevent your Slip into rationalizing the existence of militarized police.
We all have such an easy time pointing out the obvious flaws in military coups d'états. That's the Policification of the Military unchecked (or poorly checked) by other political forces. I think the militarization of the police and policification of the military are working towards the same goal. They obviously are working at it from different angles. The subject and modification swap, but both combinations pursue and mix into being the same end. If you are vehemently against policification of the military, and you should be, then you also have a strong //prima facie// conceptual reason to think the militarization of the police is a really bad idea.
Militarism, by definition, is the theory and practice of fighting against enemies of the state (and all that is entailed). The militarization of the police, like the policification of the military, makes civilians and everyday citizens the enemy of the coercive arm of the executive branch of the state, a.k.a. the police. The enemies of militarized police are the very people they were meant to protect.
Plato was right about this; Marx and Orwell, too. Hobbes, Machiavelli, and Rand were too (descriptively, not prescriptively), but they can go fuck themselves. Socialists and Libertarians everywhere see it plainly. These idealists tend to be more likely to clearer explanations for the appearances of this flaw in societies. When they both agree, you know something is really up.
Police officers obviously favor the increase in power through militarization, in the threat they pose, in the fear they strike into people, in the "safety" they earn for themselves through improved physical and mental weaponry.
American police:
* have official political structures and relationships similar to the military and their respective politicians.
* have enormous ties and shared social networks with military culture.
* are classic "good ol' boys' clubs" and self-protective brotherhoods.
* worship the military.
* style themselves as being as cool and alpha as the military.
* tend to be conservatives, Christian, and nationalists. They are famous for being racists as well.
* suppress high IQ recruits from joining their ranks, but have an average IQ of 104 (slightly above average).
* form capitalist havens and are deeply corrupt. Quotas, theft of civilian property, and corporate/wealthy influence are profound examples.
* promote and execute the enforcement of law insofar as it maximizes their profits, job security, and power (but not necessarily otherwise, except for the sake of appearance). They use us as revenue streams.
* literally bribe politicians through campaign contributions and whatever insider lines of credit (be they social, financial, or otherwise) to maximize both their militarization and the mass-imprisonment of the U.S. population.
* act as a domestic standing army.
* really do commit serious acts of violence against innocent people. Police brutality, harassment, profiling, and unjustified coercive practices are very real.
* protect wealthy and powerful people but rarely the poor; the enforcement double-standard is tremendous.
* almost always do not respect the exercise of constitutional rights, not only frowning upon it but actively punishing it insofar as they can get away with it.
* often do not care about being philosophical about the law, in knowing why they do what they do and how to do it well. They do not understand the nature of the executive branch and regularly remain ignorant when it benefits them to do so.
** Respectable-appearing lawyers, consequently, can actually intimidate them to some degree in unexpected contexts.
** The AM-I-BEING-DETAINED-activists might be crazy, but they have a point.
* should be feared when legal scholars and lawyers regularly tell you not to talk to cops without representation.<<ref "1">>
* will act as if you have no rights unless you express them.
* are deeply hostile to being filmed, recorded, and other transparency mechanisms (ironically, they fear being held accountable).
* are themselves often illegally immune to the law.
* are perpetrators of enormously high rates of domestic violence.
The laundry list is long. Police militarization is a classic problem. We're just seeing our own implementation of it.
On a more personal note, I literally don't know a single good cop.<<ref "2">> Everyone I've known who became, are, or were cops hovered between ignorant and malicious. They certainly do not fit Plato's Guardian class; that's a bad sign.
I'm an educated white boy. My car is ugly, and so am I. But, I look and sound educated. My children do me great service as emotional evidence to others that I'm a decent human being. I'm generally not too stupid around cops. Essentially, I often have less reason to personally fear cops than others. But, I am still afraid of the militarization of the police. Here's why:
* Police enforce capitalism, and therefore, are deeply involved in the enslavement of the masses. They do the dirty work. They are the most physically reified whip of capitalism.
* Fascism thrives on the police militarization.
* They are beholden to almost no one and have the "legal" rights (full or grey) to beat your ass. If in practice, possession is 9/10ths the law, then we must deeply fear when police aggressively pursue the possession of the public.
Police abuse their powers. Our military is a psychopathic force in the world, and when we militarize our police, we turn that psychopathic force upon ourselves. We must empathize with ourselves (and the world). We the people must keep coercive powers (and power in general) in check by whatever means are available to us. Yep. Fight the power, bitches.
---
<<footnotes "1" "Not that they don't have financial and power incentives here. The struggle between the judicial and executive branches (and the capitalist industries surrounding them) are real though. We must pay attention.">>
<<footnotes "2" "Oh, Anecdotal //ad hominem// Man! Save us!">>
As expected, Trump has decided to bar standard liberal media news agencies from the Whitehouse. He has openly demonstrated enormous favoritism to the most fringe alt-right news agencies. Bannon's influence is obviously profound. We've known Trump's position against free speech and freedom of the press even during the primaries a year ago.
The number of crises and problems surrounding Trump is legion, enough so that we can't actually understand, digest, and fully realize their implications. It feels like a daily barrage from my news sources.
Trump's clear attack on net neutrality (among many other things) will only make communicating democratizing information that much harder. The internet is physically owned by fewer and fewer companies. They are merging with content creators and owners. The conversation is artificially limited to the software and hardware sides. Now we have a political seal of approval to end the free flow of information and competitive intelligence necessary for democratic citizens to "fight the power."
Outside of net neutrality, I don't think Trump will win many serious legal fights over media control just yet. It isn't obvious that he is competent enough to expand executive powers to be a full-blown dictator either. I am frightened and yet mildly relieved there is a rift in the deep state that is actively working against Trump's administration. Not that there ever was the rule of law for the elite, but it just so happens to benefit us, at least temporarily and in this specific way, those intelligence agencies are not working with or for Trump. This is an odd balance of power though, balanced by an unelected group of people. These problems have long existed in intelligence agencies, but this is more brazen. I take it to be a sign of long-lasting damage to our democratic republic.
I am hoping that Trump will be so outlandish that even the RNC won't touch him with a 10-foot pole. There aren't enough checks on the political Right at the moment. I hate people. There is no way to reason someone out of a position they haven't reasoned themselves into. It is clear that the conservatives I know are stupid people who ultimately wield their Shield of Faith as the last resort.<<ref "1">> The epistemic language game is over as they cover their ears and shut their eyes, unable to see they were radically wrong about damn near everything. I cannot free self-made slaves.
The opposition party, the DNC, is in shambles still. Major factions have become highlighted in the DNC. The more powerful faction is the Clinton/Obama corporate owned; they are the superdelegate supported faction which boils down to Republicans in disguise. Almost every liberal I know fails to see them for what they are. Fools! The Sanders/Warren faction houses the remotely sane liberals who are only barely leftist at that. We will see what the DNC evolves into. I cannot free self-made slaves.
The Left literally has no power or representation. That section of the political spectrum is erased, censored, and memetically barred from participating. We were taught to hate socialism and communism (even when our teachers didn't themselves understand what they were actually teaching us to hate). Everyone has a trained emotional, guttural, virulent, kneejerk reaction to Leftist thought. There is a profound discrimination against the Left. It is part of the memetic hold that capitalists have on us. I think the constant push of where the "current political center" is located on the spectrum has continued to move to the right again and again over the decades.<<ref "2">> You morons! I cannot free self-made slaves.
To a non-trivial extent, we deserve Trump. That's the harsh truth. We have been willing participants in our enslavement. We have been shortsighted, too self-interested, too wrapped up in our religious bullshit to see the intrinsic and instrumental value of the truth. You people deserve to suffer. I wish you didn't have to draw the remnant of sane individuals with you into this hell on Earth.
Everyone thinks they are right. Everyone thinks they are special. Everyone thinks they are the remnant. It's possible no one is, but it is also possible someone is. At some point, the rational have a right to say "fuck you, empathize with me" along with all the idiots chanting it, but the rational are actually entitled to claim it.
Again, we slowly slide into a new normal. We are being boiled alive like frogs who don't jump out of the pot because the heat imperceptibly climbs until they die. What can we do? We obviously can't trust ourselves.
---
<<footnotes "1" "Although, to be fair, an enormous portion of liberals are retarded fools as well.">>
<<footnotes "2" "Although, ask any Christian, and they'll tell you the opposite. They are clearly convinced they are the persecuted.">>
We are adding two short subjects: Foreign Language and Humanities.
j3d1h:
* Subject-based individual tiddlers for weekly analysis
* Organize your sync
* Organize your wiki
* Move everything to the wiki
* Create backups of your wiki (automate it)
* Do all your journal entries from now on
* Do one style of hair for the week. Master it. Learn the tricks (research). Continue searching the space.
* Finish video curation
1uxb0x
* Write the contents of your learning. Summarize it. Tell us about the concepts you learned.
* Curation is now: 1 website and 2 webpages
* Organize your bookmarks bar
* Finish guitar curation
Moore's law has been dead for a while. It started dying about a decade ago. Sandy Bridge was the last real leap forward I can remember. Hell, my processors today barely defeat the CPU mounted on my wall from years ago. Single-threaded processing power has had zero improvements for a long time, and multi-threading software is really fucking hard to write outside of embarrassingly parallel tasks. Since then, we've seen the GPGPU, ASICs, and mobile (a.k.a. energy-efficient) computing evolve into their own beasts. Those are the only strides we can make. Increasingly, we must use specialized devices to gain competitive advantages. Applied computational science fields are beginning to advance around the fall of Moore's law, and they can only do so through specialized, non-general processing architectures.
The winners are closed-source, proprietary, and specialized. They are building hard and fast, and the average person will be closed out. We cannot join their ranks. We can rent (while surveilled) from them, for now. The death of Moore's law has led to the massive "mainframe" centralization paradigm. This extends beyond the buzzwordian Web 2.0 + Cloud. As specialized hardware (and corresponding software) become that which has a fundamental competitive advantage, we mortals will be pushed out. In the future, I won't have access as a general private citizen to hardware and software necessary to compete. Hardware and software controls and powers are centralizing (despite our best efforts to stop it), and as they specialize due to the death of Moore's law, this computational power will only continue to centralize behind walled-gardens, nation-states, military-industrial-complexes, multi-nationals, and IP-owners.
Information is a form of power (so is money, sex, and a number of other things). Computation is power. The centralization of computation is the centralization of power in a significant way. Yo, we're in trouble.
Two-party systems are known to be game-theoretically flawed in crucial ways. Third parties really can't really exist. It is A/B testing, but in our case, the entire game is bought by corporate funds and elite interests. The DNC has a duty to represent the Leftist side (progressive and liberal are meaningless words), but they don't and won't.
Perez just got elected DNC chairman. He's a corporate shill, an establishment status quo fellow. He forced the defeat of Sanders. He's in the Obama/Clinton right-center camp, not the Sander/Warren left-center camp. It's the wrong direction. This is the RNC all over again. They have been hollowed out by and large by the Hyperclass (if they weren't always that way).
The DNC is about as culpable for the reign of capitalism as the RNC as far as I can tell. They really do defend the status quo. It is a well-known DNC tactic that when a social movement begins to take-off, the DNC courts them with a "progressive" message, attach themselves to the movement, inject themselves into the power structures of the movement, take it over from the inside, and purge the radical elements that pose significant threats to the status quo. The DNC swallows leftist movements and neutralizes them.
They subvert and subdue lower class progress (which, at this point, is just having a seat at the proverbial table) to maintain the capitalist system. They are extensions of corporate power. Both parties are just the "right" and "left" political arms of capitalism (but in reality, they are both right-wing to differing degrees).
It's passed the problem of them "not learning their lesson." They clearly have aimed for this. The Democrats are as much the enemies of the people as the Republicans. No one actually represents the people. Our true masters are emerging.
//In name and partially content, Christian Memetics reminds me strongly of "Christian Mimetics," a subdiscipline of Religion one of my professors claimed to study.//
It's clear that Christian churches are a special kind of community. There is a mental virus that continues living because it serves to help those who participate in the church community. It is far from obvious that most churches have a significant impact on the happiness of those around them, but it is obvious that many stay in the community itself directly because they have something to gain from it. Whether it is calming their fear of death, prosperity delusions, or social networking, churches exist because they are practical utility-generating centers for their members.
They are filled with conservatives. Let me define conservative for you: I will only sacrifice for you insofar as you are willing to sacrifice for me. Not everyone is 100% conservative. There are parts of their lives which contradict their conservatism. But, it is obvious that the Church has always existed qua conservative utilitarian economic incentives.
It is a network of tit-for-tat trust generation games where people feel each other out and learn who will sacrifice for them. They build mutually beneficial relationships. It is very rare, however, to see unidirectional relationships, especially from the powerful to the poor and needy done quietly and anonymously (except for the warm fuzzies). Here is what conservatives ask themselves subconsciously: Can you sacrifice for me? What can I get from you? Can I socially bootstrap myself up the ladder through you? Are you worth my time, energy, or investment?
The hypocrisy reaches far beyond the fact that no one in the church is a decent human being. These people don't even want to be decent human beings, but they act as they do. It's an act. It's a lie. It's virtue signaling.
Religion was the original social regulation instrument used to control the public consciousness. It's the opiate of the people. People are gullible, and religion comes preloaded with ideal mechanisms for centralizing power structures, enslaving the masses, and teaching people to blame invisible creatures and dimensions for the problems in our world instead of the psychopaths in power.
* VPS and Dedi's can be had for very cheap (or even free). Seedbox providers which give root access can also provide absurd environments.
* Run a VM on someone else's computer, or run a phone, RPi, or cheap computer. Boom, instant server.
* HTPC/Router/Server/NAS combo
* Pirate
* Open source
* Chromebooks modded and reimaged
* Fire Tablets rooted and reimaged
* Building your own desktop
New student's name is Chris. He has an associate's degree in electrical+mechanical something (he's a millwright). He can't find a job. He's bitter about it. He doesn't want to be in this class. He just wants to find a job. He has had a class in pipefitting (screw pipe only). He's having to rush through tests, 2-3 a week, to catchup to us. Thankfully, he probably can. He understood the drawings and eventually figured out how to do the math and use our blue book. My teacher said he'll join us tomorrow on the stainless steel x-piece-90 projects. This is excellent news. He's a smart kid (and obviously very self-interested).
We finished the 5-piece-90. It wasn't pretty. We started the 6-piece-90, and it looked clean as fuck on the cuts. A preliminary grind was quick. We could probably just tack weld it and be done, but I'm going to keep making it clean as I can.
After lunch, Nash and I were huddled into the class with Chris. We were "reviewing" the basic math we use for screwpipe. The kid didn't know how to use his calculator (neither did I), but once he got the hang of it, he was quick enough. Towards the end, including special offsets, he did better than Nash. Nash is perhaps fucked here. He never does the math by himself. He is always checking the math that I do. That does not bode well for him.
Chris complained about how long our breaks are and instantly recognized the faults of our teacher (and the reasons for it). I think he is despairing. Obviously, he is interested in doing well at this to get a job. I'm hoping we will work well together. He seems to want to push.
Web Assembly (WASM) is a high performance, low-level machine code run almost natively inside most web browsers. This will give every major language a way to run in the browser. Prepare for websites to efficiently use your computation power through the browser as a virtual machine host. Crucially, the cloud is no longer a set of dedis and virtual machines sitting on hardware in data centers. WASM is going to change the web and all the devices using it. Whether you want to or not, your machine is going to be used by those on the web who know how to write the code to use it (and can convince you to trust them enough to run it, which will be easy, because, let's face it, you're stupid and lazy).
Browsers are forming new botnets (accidentally and purposely), often legal ones at that. I mean this beyond the Chrome-botnet hype of a 4chan /g/entooman. This is really the last stage that was really missing. Everything else is just giving permissions to the browser and the sites that use them at this point. High performance, language-neutral, VM access to your machine's performance is already impressive, and it could do some very interesting distributed computing. WASM, however, is possibly more dangerous than people are recognizing.
The VM is really a sandbox; escapes past that sandbox are now incredibly dangerous (we've known this for a long time). You will be able to run any programming language you like to get the job done. Zero days and unknown, private exploits of this sandbox will be incredibly valuable, along with escalation to root. This is a profound runtime environment in how widespread it will be. Its ubiquity on every graphical platform is something to behold.
Web Assembly competes in LLVM's space in a way. I think it is very interesting how Mozilla is a driving force behind this tool. I think it is ballsy. I think it is a technological step forward (not in any inventive way, but in a practical "they finally made a 'web' version of a technology we regularly use off the web" kind of way), but whether or not it will have a good result is a different question. It feels proto-singularity + proto-perfect-surveillance + proto-monoculture. They thought they were defeating Java, but instead, a new monster will arise.
If and when distributed computing evolves to the point that it's easy to write code for distributed computing, this will be a key tool they target.
Ultimately the browser continues and continues to advance toward being an OS itself. We've seen many OSes attempt it. With the halting of Moore's law for personal computing, and as mobile continues to make gains on desktop performance (reminds me, I need to have 1uxb0x and j3d1h look at ARM ASM), browser performance will start to normalize (and, page performance will continue to get worse in general).
Everyone needs web access (whether they realize it or not). It's the one thing that almost all personal computing devices have in common. It's a common point of failure for the monsters that lurk.
!! Log:
* [[2017.03.05 - Family Log]]
* [[2017.03.12 - Family Log]]
* [[2017.03.18 - Family Log]]
* [[2017.03.26 - Family Log]]
!! Audit:
* This was the first month keeping a family log.
* I'm glad we started the practice.
* You can see the questions evolve. We're still working out the kinks.
!! Log:
* [[2017.03.24 - h0p3's Log]]
* [[2017.03.26 - h0p3's Log]]
* [[2017.03.28 - h0p3's Log]]
!! Audit:
* I started [[h0p3's Log]] officially this month. If you look through the snapshot archive in {[[Connect|Ways to Connect to this Wiki]]}, you will find many incarnations of this tool/log. I would make them, collapse them, attempt to categorize them, etc. It was definitely a period of yet more necessary wandering.<<ref "1">> That's kind of what this wiki is about. I'm specializing my tools though. This is a catchall area in which to grind when I don't have categories or specialized pages designed for the problem or thought at hand. It has an everydayness to it that I very much like.
* Obviously, I didn't know what I was doing this month. That's okay though. I'm still learning how to use this wiki. I'm still formulating it. I'm glad I took the time to write something down. It allowed me to look ahead, to see what I needed, and to start building it.
* I wrote down what frustrated me. That's a start.
---
<<footnotes "1" "Which is not to say that I'm not still wandering.">>
!! Log:
* [[2017.03.04 - Homeschooling Log]]
* [[2017.03.11 - Homeschooling Log]]
* [[2017.03.18 - Homeschooling Log]]
!! Audit:
* This was a difficult month. We're still morphing because I will be working outside the house. We're getting there.
* It is clear that [[j3d1h]] is functioning better than [[1uxb0x]], but she is older (so she should).
* ~~I did not use bullet points here, and instead I focused more on a written narrative. Perhaps I should use both.~~<<ref "2018.11.08">>
---
<<footnotes "2018.11.08" "I love to this see this comment. My wheels were turning.">>
!! Log:
* [[2017.03.01 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.03.02 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.03.03 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.03.06 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.03.07 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.03.08 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.03.09 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.03.13 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.03.14 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.03.16 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.03.20 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.03.21 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.03.22 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.03.23 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.03.24 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.03.27 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.03.28 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.03.29 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.03.30 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.03.31 - Pipefitting Log]]
!! Audit:
* (*crickets*)
Chris works hard. I admire it. I appreciate it. He realizes I'm waiting on him to catch up, and he's even apologetic about it (I tell him it isn't his fault, and I do not make a big deal about it). My partners weren't convinced we were off on our 6-piece-90. It was. I then explained how I wanted to fix it (went through the options with them). Grinding discouraged them greatly. I wasn't going to give up though. I continued, and I fixed it. They were surprised it worked. Regardless, I was happy about getting it done.
Afterward, I was assigned to teach Chris the 3-piece-90. He did a good job. Then we moved to a 4-piece-90. He's still working on it. I'll help him with grinding on this one.
I adore grinding. It is a form of sculpting. I like to sculpt.
I also asked if I could learn to weld and work on personal projects on Thursdays. My teacher happily agreed. Yay!
Today was an excellent day. My teacher brought over a ventilation machine and showed me how to run a basic bead. I made a ton of parallel ones that were snug/adjacent to each other. My teacher was blown away, shocked that I had never had any welding experience. Said it was better than his work. He brought the welding teacher over to look at it, and the welding teacher also praised it. Word spread around the pipefitting and welding classes. Many came to look. It turned out pretty good for a first-timer.
Johnny, who is well-regarded in the class, who already has a job as a pipefitter, thought I had lied to him when I said I had never welded before (he was the one who offered to show me, but I didn't want to break any of the rules of the shop, so I politely declined). He could not believe it. Multiple people told me to stop being a pipefitter and go straight into welding. My head, obviously, has swelled.
I moved onto making a gift for my brother. In case he is reading this (which I highly doubt, by his own admission), I won't say what it is (since he wants a surprise). It's a piece of art using pipe and welding. I think it will be fairly cool. I'm about halfway done with it. This coming Thursday, I hope to have it finished.
I also went to the union on a whim today, and Randy was there! He didn't remember me though, a first, unfortunately. We talked about what I was working on. I pointed out that I was familiar with Blackboard as a teacher (this is not the first tech problem I've seen him have; I could be very useful on this front). I tried to convince him to give me the chance to show him that I will be possibly 3rd-year apprentice material. He prefers experience to classwork, but I think I can impress him. We talked about how he is changing by-laws. It's clear that there will be wiggle room for him to see that I'm worth advancing. He changed the date now to possibly July for hiring.
They don't use NCCER or the certifications I was told to get. I'm kinda annoyed at that. It's mainly for Eastman I guess. That's fine. They have an in-house training system, but it looks thrown together. That said, some of the work in the shop looks excellent to me (although, some didn't).
I also, with Randy there, got to pick the brain of a 4th-year apprentice. He was a surly man and obviously didn't make the union look very good (by face, not by content or pay). I can tell I will have many knuckleheads to work with. That's okay though. Building shit and making money, I can put up with it.
I'm feeling confident. I feel like there is a connected set of worlds I will be able to navigate and bootstrap myself through. Competence is achievable. I just need to push forward, reach out and grab it. It's mine there for the taking.
I must be a cool kid now because everyone has decided to try and imitate what I've done. They are buying their own auto-darkening welder masks and spending time welding instead of working on their pipefitting. Nash, too, is doing it. He didn't do jack shit today. Chris, however, is taking our work seriously (for now). He hates the tedium, the detail, etc. of it. He hates pipefitting. He straight up is only doing this to get a job, to get his foot in the door, and to eventually get back on the path to being a millwright (so he says).
Chris' 4-piece-90 pieces weren't very good. His cuts were fucking terrible. It took some serious grind work to get it back in shape. I was embarrassed to have my name associated with it. Our teacher was just fine with it though (he's become forgiving to us at this point; if I say it's done, he just believes me [he doesn't even check anymore unless I imply I'm not satisfied with it]). Our teacher commissioned some x-piece-90's from us for a tradeshow. He grabbed some stainless steel rods (they make beautiful chromatic discolorations) so that our tacks will look right.
We're moving onto a 7-piece-90. Nash did not lift a finger. I tried to involve him, but he was having none of it (he wanted to practice welding instead). That's on him. We are going to leave him in the dust. Chris is working hard (at least he knows why he is there, and he's working hard to catch up). We'll rock it on Monday or Tuesday.
I hate to say it, but I work faster and cleaner by myself (with a helper for small things). I'm decent at leading in some respects. I see the tasks, problems, orderings, and delegations. The shop is a vacuum, but I believe I will still be good (or eventually good) at leading in the field.
Chris, who has experience welding, promised to show me some more. I'll take as many perspectives as I can get. I have many Thursdays to go.
We have a field trip to Snap-on (a luxury tool maker in town) on Monday. I'm going to go, although I'm not convinced it will be worthwhile. That's okay though.
Also, apparently we will be out of school for a week. This sucks. Maybe I need to see if they'll let me tag along at Eastman. I would work for free at this point. I don't want to waste my time. Maybe I could do something at the union; I don't know. I mean, I could take the week off; there are things I need to do around the house anyway. I will talk to k0sh3k; she will help me decide.
My dearest students failed to complete all of their journals work this week. 1uxb0x is clearly struggling to stay focused and apply his executive reasoning skills. j3d1h did her work (for which I am grateful) but did not complete her journal. We are overhauling our accountability reviews to be daily now. We will still have weekly guidance session, but now I must crack the whip.
It is crucial they become self-sufficient and self-motivated in their semi-autodidactism. It's about giving it 110%, Bobby.
//Technology is a double-edged blade. Who wields our greatest technological tools and for what purpose?//
We are biological computers living in deeply integrated computer networks and architectures. It's hard to fathom how the pieces fit together. One fact is clear: we are increasingly a data-controlled society. The shadow of Big Brother, a loose agglomeration of many competing national and multi-national political and financial interests, continues to solidify and take root. They wield increasingly sophisticated data-driven weapons against us. Golem is bootstrapping.
* Privately owned and operated institutional AI drives "progress" and herds us together into submissive pawns.
* Credit scores have far less to do with risk assessment and far more to do with generating revolving debt-slaves.
* Long-term computerized record keeping mixed with the inevitability of clandestine interventions, hacks, and blackmarket doxxing removes privacy and pigeon-holes us for life.
* Competitive intelligence distorts markets and creates monopolized playing fields between privatized Big Data and everyone else.
* Filter-bubbles entertain us, blind us, and isolate us.
* Propaganda and mass behavior shaping is increasingly accuratized and weaponized beyond our wildest dreams. You are not immune to psychocyberwarfare, although you delusionally think you aren't even partially a puppet (just like you think advertising has zero effect on you; idiot).
* Computerized "Minority Report" predictions of criminal risk are wielded as profiling and targeting tools which eliminate our autonomy and justify the unequal treatment of people.
* "Citizen Scores" exist in many nations, and their use will become more ubiquitous and profound in shaping every aspect of our lives.
* Fundamental, detailed, deep-learning digested, mass surveillance structures are rising. They are building the prisons around us as we speak.
We are being remotely controlled bit by bit. It starts indirectly, shallow, hard-to-see, difficult to imagine, and innocuous appearing at first. We are persuaded, gas-lit in an entertaining and self-righteous feeling way, and nudged into the positions set for us by our masters. Technological tendrils and chains penetrate, bind, incapacitate, and manipulate our society. In an oversimplified explanation: those in power pay people to program computers to program us. We are embedded and caught in this ever complexifying feedback loop, a political network of slave-computers.
Let's be clear: this is not some perfectly choreographed political experience machine. It's deeply chaotic. There are many competing forces. There are many unknowns. Data-controlled societies emerge from the culmination of these many processes through a marriage of purpose and accident. The technopolitical tectonic plates are shifting. Society is in exponential flux. We are politically polarized and fragmented. Who will have the power when the dust settles? As we move towards this technologic Singularity, who will own it? One thing is clear: it won't be "we the people." Superintelligence is a unique beast, and whoever creates and tames it first will form the new House Targaryen (amplified beyond our imaginations). Power begets power; capital begets capital; information begets information; intelligence begets intelligence; they each beget each other. These powers continue to centralize and are wielded by fewer and fewer people.
Why should we be subject to their definitions of The Good and The Right? Good and Right 'for whom'? Do you really think they have our best interests at heart? Do you really see philosopher kings and wise statesmen at the controls? Fools. Those in power are psychopaths. The appearance of paternalism is the beginning of slavery. But, eventually, their power will be too intelligently-driven and profound for us to fight back. Our autonomy is dissolving before our eyes, and we will never get it back. Subversion, dissent, counterculture, and freedom-fighting are and will be calculated for and neutralized. Unfortunately, even if we could stop it, we won't. The masses are too illiterate to realize what is happening. Ignorance and malice gel into the slavery-apocalypse. Yo, the end is nigh!
We have show and tell on postmodern Google-translations (corruptions) of "Be Prepared" and "Bohemian Rhapsody." We also covered a physicists remix of Bohemian Rhapsody.
*What happened last week?
** 1uxb0x
*** Played with friends a lot, and it made him happy.
*** He is organizing his nerf kits.
*** Finally cleaned his room. Very pleased with himself. =)
** j3d1h
*** Enjoyed talking about [[Club Unlimited]]
*** Also cleaned her room. Very pleased with herself. =)
*** Liked her art. She drew a sneaker shoe. It looked "realistic-ish."
*** Finalized plans for the server
*** Wrote the Minecraft IP address of her server on her room's window (advertising)
** k0sh3k
*** Got her chapter back, accepted with minor edits.
*** Finisher her class on "Color"
*** Taught her Lent class; it went well.
*** Dealt with ILL problems.
** h0p3
*** Wrote a bunch on my wiki
*** I learned to weld, and that it rocked.
*** Lectured several times this week.
* How are we feeling? (health, emotional, etc.)
** 1uxb0x
*** Overall: Pretty good, happy.
*** Didn't get headaches or feel feverish this week.
*** Yesterday was rough. He wasn't worried though. He didn't have butterflies.
*** Wednesday he was worried, but his mother was keeping him accountable to his work.
** j3d1h
*** Angry at herself and sad for not having finished her journal.
*** Didn't accomplish any projects (besides art) that she wanted to finish, makes her unhappy.
*** Otherwise and overall, pretty good to okay.
** k0sh3k
*** Felt good. Not too tired this week.
*** Not a single headache all week, even during the storm. This is weird (and good). [Achievement unlocked!]
*** Haven't missed meat yet (gave it up for Lent).
*** Sad about her mom having the flu.
*** More nosebleeds, but this may be change in weather.
** h0p3
*** I've had a variety of emotions. That's normal.
*** Perhaps I need to reset my tolerance to cannabis. It doesn't seem to be necessary. I didn't even take it yesterday. I hope to wean off.
* Are you happy? Why or why not?
** 1uxb0x
*** Definitely happy. Having friends, going outside, etc.
*** Happy about having dreams.
** j3d1h
*** Relatively happy, yup. Normal mood.
** k0sh3k
*** Feeling fine.
** h0p3
*** I am happy. It has been a good week. I've lacked hope a few times, but that's okay. The trajectory is up.
* In what ways did we successfully empathize with ourselves and others this week?
** 1uxb0x
*** Doesn't think he empathized with anyone this week, except saving his soda and playing nerf with his friends.
** j3d1h
*** Cleaning up quickly occurred because she empathized with herself. She valued her time.
** k0sh3k
*** Nuffin' - jk - Lenten study didn't want to last minute. Did it throughout the week.
*** Didn't eat chocolate that would make her sick. Empathizing with herself.
** h0p3
*** Started to learn welding.
*** Did my best in my conversation over vidchat with my parents.
* In what ways did we fail to empathize with ourselves and others this week?
** 1uxb0x
*** Barely writing journal.
** j3d1h
*** Didn't finish her kitchen chores very quickly. Didn't work as hard as she would have liked.
** k0sh3k
*** Forgot to take her medicine on time several days. Coffee as well.
** h0p3
*** Failed to empathize with humanity in general many times.
* What will we do this week?
** 1uxb0x
*** Try to play outside more, which means finishing his work earlier and on time.
** j3d1h
*** Finish journal everyday by doing it after each subject.
*** Learn to be concise in journaling.
** k0sh3k
*** Going to develop lesson plan over the course of the week.
*** Get a weekly pill case
*** Paper editing/formatting
** h0p3
*** Find a way to get pipefitting experience over spring break.
*** Cut cannabliss this week (or try).
Today was an interesting day. I studied for my test (which I never got to take; tomorrow, I guess). We then went to a Snap-On plant as a field trip. It was boring and everything I expected. I'm so glad I'm not doing factory labor. That is soul-draining. The PR/Manager spokeswoman was openly in favor of enslaving people. She spoke glowingly about how the governor was good because he made laws which benefited employers instead of employees. Nobody else seems phased by it. It was gross. As for the process though, it felt like I was watching the discovery channel on the tour. There was a ton of pipe in there too. I could build quite a bit of it. I still, obviously, have much to learn. The mounting of this stuff, that's where I know jackshit.
I spoke with Ferguson (he was my ride) about religion and philosophy today. He's a nice guy. I have a very negative perspective, but he was surprisingly charitable towards me nonetheless (that is quite rare).
I did get the cuts and most of the grinding work done on the 7-piece-90. I was interrupted though. My teacher asked for four 6" long 3/4" diameter pipe for the welding class. As we were finishing these (I was actually making sure Chris could do them, since I've yet to see him do screwpipe; I showed him one, and he did an okay job on the rest), my teacher interrupted that as well. He told me to come with him. We went over to the welder's giant HVAC machines which were having problems. We had to thread by hand a hole to fit our "nipples" (the little 6" long pipes we made). I've never done that before. My teacher gave me "on the job training" for it. I have 3 more to finish tomorrow or the next day. I'm soaked. I have extremely sticky thread-metal shards in my hair, I ruined my gloves, and I've had to wash my hands about 7 times. It didn't work out as cleanly as we'd have hoped (not my fault), but it works.
Tomorrow I get to see a presentation by the union. I hope to make a good impression and learn a lot.
Also, I asked my teacher to see if he could find a place for me to practice pipefitting over spring break. I don't mind if I don't get paid (although, I'd like to if I could). Internships are fine at this point. I need every ounce of practice I can get.
Today I finished the dirty, wet work I started yesterday. We tapped the giant machines, installed the nipples and valves. My neck is very sore now. It was quite claustrophobic feeling down there. I cleaned the tools and returned them to their owners.
We took our test. It was funny because we were given none of the usual study points (although, my teacher was convinced he did). That's okay. I had read the section (glossed, in this case), and it wasn't a difficult one.
Afterwards, we welded the 7-piece-90 together. It was tougher than usual. We burned a hole (my teacher made it too hot for stainless; he didn't want sputtering though). I partially fixed it (after the others tried) by making it a cold 50 amps and carefully adding around the edges of the circumference. This didn't fill it correctly though (the teacher thought it was a good idea nonetheless). The teacher gave us a piece of brass to put underneath (I'm assuming it lacks Iron, and that's why our metal didn't weld to it). I just filled it up, and blam, it was sealed. Nice trick. I'll have to remember that one.
Post-lunch the union gave us a presentation in the auditorium. They talked a lot of shit about college degrees and how awesome we were for going into the trades (/masturbate). The big man from Chattanooga's union made it sound excellent. Their training program is highly renowned in the area, and they have a strong relationship with TVA (kush job, apparently). Randy, the local union rep recognized me (but still didn't know my name) this time as he pointed me out during the presentation.
After the presentation, I talked with the 4 union guys. We talked, and apparently this man from 3.5 hours away knew who I was before I introduced myself. That's a good sign. He thought it was very odd and cool for someone with 10 years of post-secondary education to go into the trades. Chattanooga-guy said he wanted me to apply this year (instead of next). They only take applications in March, so it is now or next year. I'm going next week Tuesday to apply. He told me that when I got there that I needed to tell the secretary (or whatever) that he asked to see me when I arrived. I'll be shown around, probably have an impromptu interview of sorts, be tested, and fill out my application. Eventually, I'll have an official interview, I believe with the committee. July is roughly when I'd start. I'd have to learn more about union history, get my OSHA-30 (waste of time to get my OSHA-10), etc.
Anyways, the union guys walked around the shop (appearances and relationships matter for my teacher as well, it seems), and we were told to start working on a "Y" without help (to figure it out). I think I know how to do it though, so that's cool.
I asked my teacher which union he thought I should go into and the specialties I should pursue. Valves, welding, and plumbing would be killer useful he thought. Madmoney. The Chattanooga union really does have a better teaching program. That said, Randy here in the local might let me join in August and would possibly allow me to join as a 3rd year apprentice. That would be a leap forward from only 6 months of work. Apparently, Randy was impressed by my visits and wanted me to become their teacher (after I passed the journeyman test). I suspect that I will be asked to teach or speak wherever I go due to my background.
Chattanooga is local, but 3.5 hours away. I'd only see my family on weekends. The local union does no local work, and I'd be away from months at a time. Chattanooga seems like a much wiser long term plan for many reasons. I could get journeyman here at my local faster and transfer, but I think the education I'd get at Chattanooga could really make the difference. I value learning it right the first time.
Long-term, I want to own my own business (which you can do while in the union, as long as you pay union dues). So, I'm talking with k0sh3k about what I'm going to do. We're not sure yet. I'm feeling confident that I'll have a decent paying job by August though (which is well before I complete this class).
According to Wikileaks' Year Zero disclosure today, the CIA has lost control of a very large treasure trove of remote control malware systems, denial of service attacks (even against the internet infrastructure at large), privilege escalation, hoarded zero-day exploits, documentation, and source code to a wide variety of major software ecosystems and standard electronic devices (including smart TVs,<<ref "1">> lulz). Some of these tools are extremely sophisticated (e.g. this is the first time I've seen weaponized air-gap jumping malware in production). It is thought to be the entire hacking capacity of the CIA, which was not previously publicly known to be this extensive. This systematic cyberwar chest now appears to be in the hands of multiple parties. This is incredibly dangerous. From what I can tell, no major computing system has escaped unscathed from this war chest.
The lack of digital fingerprints on these tools is meant to prevent implicating CIA agents. The real humdinger, however, is that these tools were declassified to protect agents from legal action. Essentially, they are unaccountable for black-ops because "anyone" could have used these tools. Now that multiple-parties control it, it is possible we will see these tools wielded openly and strongly in the coming months (before they get patched [assuming they ever do get patched]). It is very worrying.
Beyond the problem that they had these in the first place (no disclosures or attempts to plug these holes), cyberweapon proliferation is wildly different from standard physical weapons (copy and paste, motherfuckas). Also, this is why you don't accept mandated backdoors. When they've got more code than Facebook does and lose it, why should we think they would keep keys to mandatory backdoors safe and unleaked?
Their cyberweapons holdings are in violation of executive orders from the Obama administration (although, I'm far from convinced that Obama was actually in favor of limiting CIA powers). We see the intelligence community is either beholden to no one, not even their direct leaders, over and over again in history, or have been directly empowered to violate basic human digital rights again and again.
It is interesting to see the CIA duplicating the efforts of the NSA. It is difficult to understand exactly how and why it has played out as it has an even harder to understand what it means. While there is cooperation between intelligence agencies, this level of competition says something important about the political climate and relationships between our intelligence agencies, and more importantly, about the lack of oversight from our elected government officials. I don't think this is a good thing, and I don't mean that from a fiscal sense (double-spending, etc.). The CIA lacks accountability and is not controlled even indirectly by the people, and this is a serious problem. They are a threat to democracy and world stability. This is just another player in the deep state (which we've known for a while, but this only highlights how dangerously powerful they really are).
Engage your tinfoil hats people. It's not the matter of //if// you will be compromised, but the matter of //when//. I don't give a shit about real or perceived vulnerabilities in technology companies as it relates to their loss of marketshare. I do care that a race towards a technological oligaculture enables the world-scale systematic infiltration, permanent infestation, and loss of control and privacy (and anonymity) of users around the world.
The only positive to this is that Apple products got hit really hard (I hate people, especially Apple fanbois). What do you expect when the wealthy and cool use the same ecosystem? I hope those fucking sheeptards will see the light (they won't). Linux, BSD, and perhaps the lesser-known OSes appear to be the most resistant (although, even these were hit to some extent).
Lastly, I'd like to call into question Wikileaks' release by calling into question Assange and Wikileaks themselves.
As I have worried for many months, Julian Assange didn't demonstrate control of the Wikileaks private key during his last Reddit AMA. Since the scare last year, he has yet to cryptographically prove himself to be alive (and the cryptographic indicators we do have do not look good). Of course, having the private key doesn't show that Julian Assange is alive or not compromised, but it would at least do something. Given that Assange and Wikileaks have broken their standard crypto and communications protocols (starting about half a year ago), I am still not 100% convinced that Julian Assange and Wikileaks are not compromised. Something is still fishy here.
Of course, you can point to numerous interviews over the past months and even second-hand accounts of having seen him. I see no reason to trust these second-hand accounts, and the interviews are not necessarily real.
Let's be clear. Assange posed a ridiculous threat to the Hyperclass and the Deep State. Even if he is a psychopath, he is a hero. I'm sure enormous resources have been invested in trying to take Assange and Wikileaks down. Forging interviews is a real possibility.
Text-to-Voice, even for the common man, using any person's imprinted voice, is now so clean that you can't tell the difference between the real thing and the artificial without very serious analysis. However, take state-of-the-art state-level actors intelligence community technology, people who are world class at this, and I believe Text-to-Voice is likely indistinguishable from the real thing at this point.
Fake facial video can also be created using opensource tools from academia right now. Again, state-of-the-art tools may make it so that we can no longer distinguish real from artificial video footage. Photoshop has long been there. It was only a matter of time before video footage was going to get hit by the same trust problem.
Here's the kicker: even civilian impersonation tools can be computed and displayed in real time. Watching a live interview over video doesn't mean anything at this level. State-level actors could impersonate Assange if they ever captured him. It can't be trusted completely anymore (not that it ever could, but now it is too simple and easy forge human likeness and speech).
So, here is where I go full-blown conspiracy theory tinfoil hat on you:
Since there is a non-trivial chance that Julian Assange is compromised, how can we interpret this Wikileaks disclosure of CIA tools? Many parties seem to benefit from it. Why is the CIA being undermined or publicly humiliated? If Wikileaks is a puppet, it is desperately unclear who is in charge and why they've done it. Since we have no proof of these exploits and only a "release" talking about it without any third-party vetting (from what I can tell), there may be another game being played.
At this point, I have no idea. Assange and Wikileaks may not be compromised. I don't think we have the resources to know right now. In either case, it's a terrible thing. If our truth-telling whistleblowers are compromised puppets, we're boned. If they aren't, then the CIA has made legions of costly mistakes which we may all be paying for soon enough.
My maximally irresponsible, speculative conjecture today is that the Russians have armed Wikileaks with this information (I say this as a cosmopolitan who despises nationalism of any variety). Russians likely already have the tools. If so, and perhaps they are the puppetmasters, then Trump's administration will be fighting against a politically weakened CIA. The CIA is thought not to trust the Trump administration. Let us pay attention to if and how Trump responds and benefits from this loss of confidence in the CIA. Trump as a fascist and lazy individual seems likely to hand them significant powers though. My vision is foggy.
I do believe we are at sociopolitical war with Russia. I don't mean that we are fighting Communism (although, there are plenty of fucktards who would buy that). We are fighting the memetic hypernormalization and deep psychopathic corruption of a trillion-dollar kleptocratic Putin cabal who not only owns Russia but now takes aim at destabilizing the world all over (on top of the Western hyperclass variants). Republicans, conservatives, and capitalists are taking a page out of Putin's playbook.
People, it is no accident that the forever neutral Sweden brought back its draft. There are always wars going on, but the war on a much larger scale is coming on all fronts. Jesus Christ. I'm holding my breath. I hope I can protect my family on time.
Lastly, I take it to be no accident that the NSA got hit and then the CIA. The FBI and a handful of other agencies may be next.
---
<<footnotes "1" "No ~IoTs, please. I don't need that shit in my car, fridge, toaster, TV, buttplug, or anything else. Give me control and as much analogness as is reasonably possible without significant losses in primary function.">>
Today I barely even started on my Y-piece when my teacher told us we had another project to work on. We had to install regulators on the flow hoods for the grinding stations used by the welding class. It was cool. We took apart the pipe system and finally got to use unions. The math worked perfectly. I was quite pleased.
My teacher attempted to convince me today instead to rethink the local union, particularly if they allow me to jump to 3rd year apprentice out of the gate. That would be a significant jump in pay, no doubt.
Today was another fantastic day. Welding in the pipefitting class makes me feel like a savant (I know I'm not at this). Thursdays rock. This was my second Thursday practicing welding, and it went quite well. I spent a lot of time learning/practicing beveling as well (which is a key pipefitter skill).
I setup everything at my workstation before my teacher had the initial morning meeting. I'm going to continue doing that as best as I can. I can't really start setting things up entirely without access to the tool room, but I can at least try. I want squeeze out every moment of practice that I can. My time is valuable to me, and I love myself. Empathize!
I went straight into finishing my brother [[JRE]]'s present. It's quite a project. The superficial/exterior welds are finished. I burned a couple holes in the thin pipe, but I don't care. I know how to fill them in, but the holes fit the project nicely (I even accentuated them because it drives home the theme of the art piece). I also gave it a grind to make it partially shiny. No one else thinks it looks awesome. But, I think it looks amazing. It's the thing I'm most proud of today, even if no one else thinks so. I think they just don't see what it will look like at the end.
I decided to make something cool out of my first piece of welding. It was fairly clean parallel beadwork on a carbon steel slab. I cut it into a heart shape (with TJ's help) and did some major grinding to make it shiny. I cleaned it up. The shape is not perfect (yet?). I should continue to work on it to make it as nice for my brother, [[AIR]], as I possibly can. My brother might think it's dumb or he might not. All I know is that I love it. This was the piece that shocked everyone last week, and I can see why. I think it doesn't look nearly as good to people who don't care about welding though. I don't know what to say. My brother is a chef; I think he'll see it as I do: an extension of learning a craft (which he undergoes everyday).
I moved onto something entirely new which I know all welders must learn. I took two carbon steel plates and told my teacher I wanted to weld them together. He told me how and showed me how to measure my angle for the bevel. This is my first time doing any serious beveling (although, I fucked around twice on a pipe to get the feel it). I'm a good beveler, imho. I have very steady hands and a natural talent for shaping it. My spatial reasoning is generally far above average.
I tacked the ends and laid a root. There is the idea that I should have a keyhole that slowly fills in from the pool. It was there. I will need to learn to control it. I need to get my flow on. The root was shit though. It didn't look pretty from the bottom, that was the problem. I cleaned it, and then I filled it. I also went on the backside and dropped a bead. My teacher came back and told me I wasn't supposed to do the back. I didn't know. I won't do it again (although, in real life, I think it is completely reasonable to do it; just not for welding tests). He said my fill looked really good though. He told me to run 3 stringers on it. So, that's what I did. They weren't super clean, but they were clean enough.
I moved onto making a ring. This is probably a dumb idea. I'm trying it anyways. Welded steel is profoundly strong, and it would make a decent ring. I just loop around, chip, clean, and repeat. I'm going to use a cutting disk to cut it off the plate next week (I hope). I'll shape it afterwards. I think I know how I'm going to make the inside the size I want it. I need to do that first, then I can work on the outside. Anyways, as I working on the ring, my teacher told me that Randy (the union training coordinator) was driving over today to see my work. That was cool.
I moved onto to taking very thick slabs of carbon steel and beveling them. Jesus, it took forever. I even switched up to a better grinding disk for it. My arms and wrists are like jello. They look clean as fuck though. Seriously. It looks like a machine made them. I'm almost too afraid to use them because of how long it took to bevel them. I want to get more practice dropping roots in before I do this. Everything is crap if the root is wrong. I need to nail the root, and then I can fill it. The filling will be tricky on this one too. I'm going to burn a ton of rods welding it together. Seriously. It's almost an inch away at the top of the bevel from the side on each plate. I don't know how to fill it something this wide. I'm assuming I'll have to make many filling passes. I hope my teacher can tell me.
Anyways, Randy came over to look at my work. My teacher wasn't there (although, Randy found him on campus after having visited me). He was impressed. He told I had the job! Although, to clarify, I only have the job assuming they actually hire apprentices in August as they have planned to do. He said I would have the job for my welding, if nothing else. He said I'd have the job just for continuing to show him that I'm invested in this and from having met him multiple times about it, if nothing else. He said I'd have the job just because I'll be damn useful at helping him with the computer systems and teaching as well. He can see I'm serious about it.
I have a feeling that my teacher, who is much closer in relationship and power dynamics to Randy (who sits on the board of my program), has been trying to show Randy that they want to snap me up before I head to Chattanooga. I will be quiet and courteous about this. I need to do whatever is best for my family, period.
Oh, the welding teacher came later (Tim had hinted that I should leave the plate out, but I was cleaning). He said it very good work. He also gave me a pointer for getting less splatter (I'm messy). He told me to turn the heat down and stick closer. When we looked at my heat, it was actually too cold (he said this can cause it as well though). I will do what he says, since he knows what the fuck he is doing.
Also, I told Chris how I moved so quickly through the computer course: literally click through the homework/practice/lessons/quizzes and only care about the exams. This shit is common sense, but they make you "learn it" anyways, even if you could pass the test beforehand (they won't let you skip straight to the exam). Apparently, I saved him a bundle of time. I think I'm the only person who has seen the through the cracks on that computer-based curriculum.
Oh, I tacked for Gary's project today and helped him get it together (despite having no experience with buttweld pipefitting).
Humans are humans. I'm a cosmopolitan. I despise nationalism and racism. Despite memetic and genetic differences between each individual on the planet (we are all unique), we are all human. We must respect human dignity. It's the golden rule.
There are superior genetics, but they don't belong to any particular race. All things being equal, the person who has a 10% chance to get cancer is genetically superior to the person who has a 20% chance to get cancer. Does that make them morally (right) superior? Fuck no. Does that make them a better human specimen as defined the Human Good? Of course. I'd say the same thing about a starving child vs. a well fed child. One case is clearly better than another. Does that mean they deserve unequal treatment or that they deserve their suffering? FUCK NO!
There are superior memetics, but they don't belong to any particular race. All things being equal, the person who can do basic math is memetically superior to the person who can't. Does that make them morally superior? Fuck no. Does that make them a better human specimen as defined the Human Good? Of course...and so on.
Be real for a second. You have a standard of the good. As much as you want to escape Perfectionist tendencies in your metaethics, you simply can't. You are delusional if you think you can, moronic even. You've deeply misunderstood the fundamental concepts of morality to deny it. Now, don't get me wrong: I think your confusion is the name of something noble. You are so horrified by the enslavement, torture, genocide, and lack of egalitarianism in human history that you are bending over backwards to make sure your point of view could never, ever be used to go down that terrible road again. Problematically, it is deeply anti-intellectual. It is burying your head in the sand. It is a failure to be honest. The consequences of your approach are dire. For that, I say: fuck you.
Obviously, we have no control over who we were born as. You might even deny autonomy altogether, and I'm willing to walk down that road.<<ref "1">> I will do my best to make sure I do not hold people accountable for their morally arbitrary characteristics. It's my mission to be fair in my judgment.
I am a culturalist though (and I don't mean this in the standard sense, but more in the discriminatory 'ism' sense). I take certain configurations of memes to be superior to others, at least instrumentally, if not intrinsically, towards the kaleidoscopic spectrum of the human good. If you think for a moment, you know it's true. It's why you think there is epistemic normativity at all. You've begged the question. We all have. Even the nihilists can't help themselves. It is our plight. And, to be clear, what you believe matters.
Here's the key: culture is reducible to memes and practices which emerge from those memes. Culture isn't special in itself. What you believe matters, but that doesn't mean the content of what you believe is correct. Being right matters. Doing what is right matters. Having a shitty culture is a bad thing. There are superior memetics, and hence there are superior cultures. QED.
That sounds horrifying to you. Even a good Kantian should recognize the truth of it though. Nazism, as a culture, is awful. Do you agree with me? Yes. You are a culturist too. There's nothing inherently wrong with being culturalist. Do you respect the human dignity of Nazi's? Of course, even though they are deeply wrong. They are psychopathic. I have no respect for their culture, even if I take the human beings to be intrinsically valuable (despite the beliefs they hold). I will, however, discriminate against Nazi's in many ways.
I'm not going to promote the survival of their memes, their culture. I will, however, feed a hungry Nazi. I will give them books to read. I will be as kind to them as I can. I will not aid their goals though. Their memes must die. It is a fine line to walk. But, the virtuous must walk it. I have the same approach to all cultures (although, not all cultures are as strictly wrong about so many crucial things).
Alright, that is a long preamble to explain that I am not anti-semitic. It's absurd that I must spend so much time explaining it, but people are not rational on this topic (neither conservative nor liberal, and especially not the religious).
The Hebrews with Abraham, Israel with Jacob, and the Jews with Judah, and whatever other memetic ancestry and transformations have occurred (this becomes a matter of even more serious theological, sociological, linguistic, and historical contention) are one of the great memetic lineages of human history. We owe much to it. That doesn't make it right though. Exactly how this Great Meme is related to a genetic lineage is another matter as well. I couldn't give two shits about genetic lineage. My mother is convinced we are partially Ashkenazi Jew. She could easily be right. Genetics are just unimportant to me in a discriminatory sense. Humans are humans. Memes and behaviors which derives from those beliefs, however, I will discriminate against.
It is patently obvious to me that modern Israel is an extension of capitalist interests. They are war-criminals, as are their enemies. None are redeemable. I'm tired of war, especially for the sake of capitalism and religion. I have no respect for either.
Does that mean I think genetic Jewish people deserve any drop less respect than other humans? Fuck no. Do I think their memes, along with almost everyone else's are terribly wrong? Yes.
I favor the end of memetic and political Israel, just as I do for Christianity, Islam, superstition, Libertarianism, the Alt-Right, and every other ridiculous set of beliefs which support capitalism, slavery, war, and eventually the end of human life.
Genetically, humans are my friends. Memetically, they are generally my enemies. We are at memetic war, people. I hope your beliefs die because what you believe sucks. I'm not telling you to kill yourselves, but I'm begging you to kill that memetic part of yourselves that I really hate.
--------------------
<<footnotes "1" "It's a dark road, friend. I've walked it much longer than you have. I believe I know what it means better than you, and I don't think you'd survive it, at least not with your integrity.">>
j3d1h did a fantastic job this week. She really tried hard, and it showed. She may not have accomplished what she hoped to accomplish with her effort, but my judgment is concerned with whether or not she did or her best. The effort is what I want. While she is still getting her journal/recording/reflection down pat (was fine this week), I really appreciate that she takes herself and her work seriously.
Preface: I suck at controlling my eating habits, and that is at least partially my fault. I am not as disciplined as I should be. I'm working on it though. It's hard to do when you are depressed. I often lack the emotional, temporal, and financial resources to do it right. I use food as a drug, without a doubt. My whole family does, and we know it. My poor health is at least partially my fault. But, it isn't all my fault. There is plenty of blame to go around. My goal here is not only to highlight my hypocrisy but to point out how we are seriously fucking up on feeding ourselves in crucial ways.
We don't produce food and feed ourselves as we should. Capitalism does not incentivize people to be moral, regulate themselves, or make choices which benefit us in general or in the long-term. The American Food-Industrial Complex does not exist to ethically feed humanity; it exists to line the pockets of psychopaths, regardless of the costs.
* The food industry, including a variety of service industries, severely limits or makes it impossible for workers to call in sick. Beyond enslavement, this is a significant public health problem.
* We produce more than enough food to feed everyone in our country and then some. Businesses would rather let food go to waste than miss a sale. They really don't care about feeding the poor, needy, and hungry. Blemished (but perfectly edible) food that lacks marketplace appeal is discarded rather than used to feed the masses.
* Through agricultural subsidies and predatory food manufacturer strategies, it is cheaper, both financially and by time-investment, for the poor to buy highly-addictive ("craveable") food with low or poor nutritional value than healthy options. Our laws are designed to help capitalists target and enslave the poor to these foods.
* Dietary guidelines, studies, and laws are paid for, defined by, and manufactured by food industries and lobbyists who have a vested interest in promoting terrible cultivation methods, distribution strategies, and eating habits for the general population.
* Antibiotic usage in meat industries is a leading cause of the acceleration of antibiotic resistance. The problem may be out of control. Perhaps it is only a matter of time before we see a new and unstoppable Bubonic "Black" Plague.
* The subsidization of corn has artificially distorted several markets, including energy, sugar, livestock feed, etc. It isn't sustainable, and it doesn't create the correct incentives we desperately need in these markets.
* Our foodstuffs breeding programs have eliminated the nutritional value of many of our foods. It gets worse and worse each passing year, primarily because we're overly interested in the price efficiency of volume, as well as surviving pests and harsh weather.
* GMOs are safe, but we are not nearly cautious enough in how we modify our ecosystems. The process and protective measures we take matter. We regulate the industry to some extent. It is an expanding industry, and it seems obvious we need as much regulation as we can muster. The history of genetic modification and breeding have produced serious weapons, and the possibilities of problems arising from genetic modification should not be taken lightly. It should be regulated heavily (although, we obviously must favor and fund research in this area). I agree we are forced to "play god," but we need to be as wise as we can be in our GMO pursuits.
* GMO oligopolies and IP-rights have led to very problematic business practices. We are tying ourselves to capitalist distortions on seed supply.
* Bees are going extinct, and it is likely from agricultural causes. Their pollination is crucial to our existence. Unlike plenty of animals (except for balancing food web-chains in a broad sense), we desperately and almost directly need bees.
* The ecological effects of overfishing are not well-enough understood to justify it. We need to farm fish.
* Farm mammals are significant causes of global warming.
* We treat many farm animals very poorly. I'm not against eating meat. I'm against torturing beings that feel pain without excellent justification on a reasonable utilitarian calculus. Pain should be minimized. We're obviously not maximizing utility.
* The Food-industrial complex is not held to any reasonable standards in advertisement.
* The Food-industrial complex seeks to privatize land, natural resources (including fresh water), and the ability to produce food. The goal is to enslave us.
* Hungry people lead to unnecessary wars. Hunger exists because we have a fundamental worldwide power struggle with capitalists. We the people are losing, and even more violence is coming for us all.
* The legal fight and conservative movement against the poor and homeless prevents us from even giving them food in many cases. This is no accident.
* Hunger is on the rise.
We have a serious and complex crisis escalating, and capitalism is at the heart of it. This is yet another form of power that continues to centralize in the hands of fewer and fewer people who do not have our best interests at heart.
Wealthy people certainly wouldn’t want their own children to have to play the game of life on a fair, even playing field against poor children. Competitive advantage in education, experience, etc. are too valuable for maintaining status and happiness.
*What happened last week?
** 1uxb0x
*** Didn't do his homework. He's planning how to hold himself accountable (and to prove to his sister that he is working).
** j3d1h
*** Frustrated by the fact that she couldn't get VirtualBox to work (although Vmware worked), even though nothing seemed wrong otherwise.
*** Pleased to finish her journal and format it.
** k0sh3k
*** She prepared her Lenten study over the week. No procrastination was nice.
** h0p3
*** Made a lot of progress towards getting into the Union. We have good options, which pleases me.
* How are we feeling? (health, emotional, etc.)
** 1uxb0x
*** Sad and happy. Feeling healthy though.
** j3d1h
*** Happy. Got a lot accomplished. Healthwise: pretty damn good.
** k0sh3k
*** Feels really run down this week. Period. Came fast this time, but hit hard. The vitamins have been much easier on her stomach.
** h0p3
*** I've had that fizzy feeling that I had after coming off my SSRI's. I've a drink each day this week, but I had no cannabliss either. I haven't been drunk. I slept quite a bit as well. I skipped DCK this week, and that was probably a mistake according to j3d1h. The lack of Cannabliss didn't seem to affect my affect.
* Are you happy? Why or why not?
** 1uxb0x
*** Feeling happy because he has plans for his future. He feels sad about the past week. It's a new week.
** j3d1h
*** Happy because she came up with some cool ideas for projects/presents (has to keep them secret).
** k0sh3k
*** Indifferent to sleepy. First headache in a while. But, this is to be expected on her period. The weather has been insane this week as well.
** h0p3
*** I've felt really angry and cynical this week.
* In what ways did we successfully empathize with ourselves and others this week?
** 1uxb0x
*** Planning for his future this week. Figuring out how he's going to get his work done. He also cleaned his room and did the kitchen quickly.
** j3d1h
*** Making muffins for the family.
** k0sh3k
*** Planning our long-term future, finances.
** h0p3
*** Planning our long-term future, finances.
* In what ways did we fail to empathize with ourselves and others this week?
** 1uxb0x
*** Not doing his homework.
** j3d1h
*** Not doing the kitchen quickly.
** k0sh3k
*** Did not edit her paper.
** h0p3
*** Didn't take DCK.
* What will we do this week?
** 1uxb0x
*** Stop himself from playing and being distracted when he should be doing his homework.
** j3d1h
*** Trying to finish homework before 4pm and help her brother do the same.
** k0sh3k
*** Edit her paper. Not eat BBQ on Thursday (Lent).
** h0p3
*** Work on welding. Get Will, PoAs signed at 3pm tomorrow. Drive to Chattanooga and apply to the union. Use the Cannabliss. Go through my very large bookmarks collection.
//Society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in.//
I realize many sane people are quick to put down generation hit pieces. I can only say: be honest. Do you really believe people are responsible for their actions or not? If no, then you have no rational grounds from which to complain that I write this. If yes, then show me I'm wrong in how I've pointed my finger.
I see why I have duties to the generations after me (that's fundamental golden rule work behind the Veil of Ignorance). I'm quite unclear about why I have duties to the generations before me. It's a world of their creation. Of course, you can claim, "Not all baby-boomers." And, to that I say, I'll forgive the leftist Boomers and to a lesser extent the disenfranchised. Sanders may be wrong, but he is wrong for the right reasons. They at least tried, and they didn't give up. But, why should I forgive the rest? Isn't it obvious they have fucked us?
I think Boomers are the most psychopathic generation we've ever seen.<<ref "1">> Their personalities, values, beliefs, and behaviors demonstrate a clear distortion into the dark triad spectrum. Their hypocrisy is legendary. I'm pissed off at them, and I have been for years. I've seen plenty of Millenial hate, and I took it very seriously.<<ref "2">> Now the tables turn. Be prepared to be judged, assholes. I am entitled, and rationally so! I am convinced that Boomers have attempted to enslave and exploit the world and future generations.<<ref "3">> Why should I empathize with those psychopaths?
Baby-Boomers:
* pulled up the ladder behind them.
* are usurers, pimps, and loan-sharks.
* seek order at the expense of justice.
* destroyed the environment and do not seek to curb it.
* openly enabled capitalists to rape us.
* gave our freedom away, support and uphold the Establishment. deregulated the market and financial industries, and centralized power in the hands of the Hyperclass.
* deconstructed The New Deal.
* are war-mongers (I've lost track at this point).
* systematically choose to be misinformed and ignorant.
* did not earn their wealth, but act like they did.
* allowed our infrastructure to fall apart or become privatized.
* lived in a bubble and do not empathize with future generations.
* blindly believe that if they are happier then everyone else will be happier as if the point of justice is to make them happy.
* heavily engage in Rent-Seeking behavior, especially towards later generations.
* are the primary actors/causes of our national, medical, and educational debts.
* either have no concept of real unemployment, buying power, upward mobility, the nature of the standards of living over the course of human history, and worker rights, or they don't care.
* are hugely responsible for why suicide rates, depression, and mental illness have been on the rise.
* are completely responsible for the lack of medical care available to everyone in the US. The number of deaths and amount of suffering on their hands is mind-boggling.
* are conservatives. Please, burn in hell.
* are the most racist, sexist, discriminatory generation alive.
* generated and maintained safety-nets only for themselves while simultaneously off-loading the risk and debt to younger generations.
* aggressively sought to enslave us through food addictions, advertisements, IP-regimes, and censorship.
* do not pay their fair share, and completely fail the "to whom much is given, much is required" test.
* complain about the generation they raised.
* are the first to bemoan the loss of family values while having the highest rates of divorce of any generation ever (among many other "family values" and dysfunctional family sins).
Oh, they aren't solely responsible for these problems, and they aren't the only people who believe and behave in these ways. They are still thoroughly and profoundly guilty though.
The fact is that generations tend to prey upon weaker, younger, powerless generations. Baby-boomers did not fight that urge, and it shows.
I have no idea how the grandchildren of Millenials will feel about their predecessors. But, I'm not even convinced we will survive to have grandchildren at this point. Even if we did, even if we could fix these problems in time, I doubt my age-peers will do anything.
The iniquitous consequences of the sins of the father last for generations. I'm done making excuses for you. I'm fed up with your abuse and gaslighting. I'm ready to fight back. So, officially, to most baby-boomers: suck my dick and please KYS.<<ref "4">> The world would be better without you.
---
<<footnotes "1" "I'm far from convinced that lead exposure explains why the Baby-Boomer generation is what it is.">>
<<footnotes "2" "Some of it is accurate, some of it made me realize the Pots were calling the Kettles black, and some of it was gaslighting.">>
<<footnotes "3" "Although, let's be clear, there is plenty of blame to go around. I really do hate most people.">>
<<footnotes "4" "The good news is that without healthcare or any savings (because, why plan for the future: you're a psychopath towards yourself too!), Boomers are going to start dropping like flies. Rejoice!">>
When Trump won the election, he spent an enormous amount of time and energy vetting and interviewing people for his administration. He clearly cares about who he works with, who works under him and making sure that the executive branch falls in line under him (which, in a sense, is fine). His choices have been atrocious, as expected. What seems surprising to many people is the number of vacant positions that Trump has not filled. There is a standard administrative body we see in the executive branch (which has been expanding in power term after term). Trump is breaking from the tradition, as I pointed out: [[2017.01.31 - Realpolitik Speculation: Open Shadow Government]]
Trump is following Bannon's advice in deconstructing the executive branch's administrative and internal political structures. This means less transparency and a greater degree of centralization of power in the hands of fewer people. But, this is also an absurd application of "minimalist" state Libertarianism where it obviously doesn't belong. Let us be clear, this is not cleaning bureaucratic house. This is artificial truncation, and it allows him to sabotage significant governing requirements he does not favor. Without the political structures in place, no one will do the work. It's actually kind of mad genius. It is a deep freeze on select executive functions of the government.
Trump is dismantling oversight and functionality he deems unnecessary while centralizing the power he cares about in the hands of capitalists and alt-right advisers. The goal is to destroy the people's state (whatever appearance of it was left, at any rate) while putting his cabal of friends in charge to enslave and exploit the world as much as they possibly can.
It feels like fascism and fleecing.
I woke up late because I forgot to set my alarm clock for daylight savings time yesterday. That's okay. Nobody was required to come to class today. In fact, I was the only student to show up to the entire school today. I didn't get much done, admittedly.
My teacher wasn't there when I arrived, so I couldn't get in the tool room. I raided the welding shop for some rods, and I found some very thick hot burning rods (gaaaaaayyyyy, um...yum?). Anyways, none of my welds looked good with it. There was a ton of spatter. I tried many different heat settings. I think I just got lucky with the rods I've been using. There is clearly much to learn.
I didn't cut my ring correctly, so that project died. Ha.
I decided not to weld my extremely thick flat plates because they took so long to bevel. I wanted to practice my roots on thinner plates first. This was a good call. I beveled plates quickly, and I tacked the plates too close together (I did the same thing as last time). My teacher took me to the millwright shop to grab the thick wire we needed to get the appropriate distance. I cut the tacks and got the right width. I welded these plates together. I went too slowly, letting it build up far too much (no need for filler, it was that bad). My root was...not worse than last time, but not acceptable. I didn't penetrate the edges on the bottom well enough, and it wasn't very even. This is definitely a practice problem. Most importantly, I was slightly off on my angle and not nearly deep enough. I will have a better angle, be absolutely at the root, and move more quickly. My teacher told me to try different passing styles too. I was going back and forth on the keyhole. Next time, I will try circles.
Also, my teacher told me a way to practice at home. I can use a vice grip and a pencil, and I can draw the lightest most consistent circular (or otherwise) patterns possible like that. I will practice at home.
I didn't want to waste my plates and continue going through new ones. I asked how we could reuse what I had. We couldn't cut them with saws since they are quite long. So, my teacher taught me to cut them with the torch!
So, I learned how to use the acetylene cutting torch today. It was awesome. I just want to write down the procedure here to make sure I don't forget. I may not get much practice with it, so I want a mental checklist.
* Have the material to be cut clamped and in a safe position. I put an aluminum plate on the ground as well. Having someone to catch the piece your cutting is also damn useful. Be safe!
* Move it into a safe position.
* Make sure there is no oil anywhere on the lines, gauges, connectors, etc. Never use Teflon tape either. It will explode.
* Make sure the headpiece is cleaned.
* The right gauge shows total tank pressure (how much is in the tank), while the left gauge shows the pressure in the hose.
* Stay away from the pressure release valve handles while turning the gases on.
* Turn the oxygen all the way on. It should go to around 40 pounds.
* Turn the acetylene on with a quarter turn (make it easy to turn off) to around 8-10 pounds. Never go to 15 or more, that is dangerous.
* Put your shaded glasses on. I want to wear a face shield for it too. That shit flies and it's crazy hot.
* Have your igniter ready and torch in hand. Turn the oxygen knob (at the bottom of the torch, the upside) and light it.
* Set the oxygen correctly by turn it up until the flame has a small half centimeter disconnect from the head, then turn it down until it connects (maybe a hair past it).
* Turn the acetylene on, and keep it going up until the blue moves all the way to the head. Then pull the trigger and make sure there is still no bluer. Keep turning it up until the blue hits the head while the trigger is on.
* Make sure you are comfortable (an armrest is nice, use a stand or block of wood).
* WIthout the trigger, get to your starting edge and get it cherry red hot.
* Pull the trigger, keep about a centimeterish distance and move at a good speed.
* You can pull off and restart but restart at a place where it doesn't matter.
* Be careful about slag. The goal is to cut while minimizing slag. Going too fast or too slow allows for slag buildup if I understand correctly.
When you are done:
* Turn off oxygen, then acetylene on the torch.
* Turn off oxygen and acetylene on the container valves.
* Empty the oxygen in the lines with the trigger.
* Empty the acetylene in the lines with the torch knobs (and close it back again).
Having a cutting torch to use will be useful. I'm going to cut my next ring with it.
My teacher and I shot the shit for a while. I heard there may be a 20-year job coming to Knoxville that our union might be getting. That would be sweet. In any case, despite the fact that there are long-term reasons to want to go to Chattanooga, I would much rather live in KY with the rest of my family anyways. My teacher said that either way is great. He thinks it would be really hard to turn down coming in as a 2nd or 3rd-year apprentice before I even finished this program since that is simply unheard of. It would be sick money, and we desperately need it. We are taking a huge risk, and I want to mitigate that as much as possible.
My teacher says he doesn't blame me one bit for turning down the Eastman job. He thinks it was the right move.
I won't be going to Chattanooga tomorrow. I want my shop time. I can go Thursday. I really do need to visit though. Chattanooga is probably plan B at this point, but I need to make sure I have that plan B.
I actually became discouraged. My roots are really bad. I'm having a hard time figuring out the appropriate heat (amperage), the distance between flat plats, the bevel, how far to keep the stick down, the motion, the look of the keyhole, etc. I'm having a hard time getting the penetration around the edges I'm looking for. It's okay though. I'll get there.
Since it was just me, and the teacher didn't want to be there, he sent me home early, again.
* The higher your IQ, the less likely you are to reproduce.
* The more affluent you are, the less likely you are to reproduce.
* The less religious you are, the less likely you are to reproduce.
This is not an accident, and this has profound consequences.
Smart people are far less likely to have kids than dumb ones. The memes that dumb people believe are more like to be passed down through generations of children, while the memes that smart people believe are more likely to be passed down through schools, books, etc.
There are fairly high rates of pornography use among all genders. This makes sense, since virtually all of us like to have sex, think about sex, watch sex, etc. to varying degrees. The differences between consumers of prostitution and consumers of pornography tell us something important though.
As a preface, of course, I'm not here to blame the victim. Many prostitutes don't have a choice in the matter. Many are literally forced into it. Others are enslaved more indirectly. And, of course, some see it as the best means to happiness. It's a broad spectrum. Further, there are deep problems of psychopathy, abuse, use, and treated as mere means in most directions in the world of prostitution.
It seems perfectly obvious to me that moral prostitution is at least conceptually possible. Utilitarianism knows this. Moral prostitution is not just a theoretical possibility. In fact, I think it happens all the time. Without a doubt, there are cases of prostitution which we all accept as if it is perfectly normal, we simply call these practices by other names (we don't even think of them as prostitution). Again, this isn't advocating prostitution; description but not prescription.
What is prostitution? The selling or trade of sex.
Here's a fact:
* Men are overwhelmingly more willing to pay for sex in more contexts, instances, and cases than women.
* Male-to-female transgenders are by far more common than female-to-male.
Being wanted for sex matters. It's much easier to accomplish as a female. There is clearly a sexual marketplace, and men tend to be the buyers. There is a deep selfishness embedded in the sexual game. We see it in every species.
I drove 3.5 hours to Chattanooga. I had to wander since it was locked down. They even thought I was an intruder. They have actual security for that building. I take that to be a very odd sign. In any case, as soon as I got in and asked for an application, they told me I'd need my highschool transcript. I said I didn't have my transcripts with me. They said I couldn't apply without them. This is weird, and it is part of the corporate policy mixed with government regulations. Normally, application procedures which require transcripts give you time and even allow you to space out the application process into chunks.
They said I couldn't take the application home and that I couldn't fill it out. I tried calling my wife and schools I've attended. None could help me in the time period I had. I was annoyed since I had traveled a long distance and brought what I thought necessary. Clearly, they do not have their heads on straight enough to explain the requirements (Keaton also showed up randomly after I did and also didn't bring what he needed). This is a bad sign.
I talked to Jeff, the training coordinator. He gives me the psychopathic heebie-jeebies. He's almost proud of it. He has the idealogical traits and behavioral markers for it. It felt slimy (and this isn't just my jaded unhappiness over the application, but even when I heard him speak the first time and met him back home). He talked with the board to see if they could change the policy for me, especially since I don't have high school transcripts. Apparently, they wouldn't take any transcripts from my decade of post-secondary education. It was high school or nothing. I had to convince Jeff, gently, that my education was at least at a high school level, lol. He then acted like he solved my problem, but didn't and tried to send me on my way. He doesn't sound like the kind of boss I want to work with, and the people are not good people (I met several [some of the second time]).
That said, I was given a tour of the facility after requesting it (which was part of the reason I was there). The facility is amazing. Business in booming in that area. Growth exists. I could make a living there. I could learn anything and everything in the trade. They have millions and millions of dollars of equipment there, including welding robots, to learn on. They might be terrible people, but I could strongly benefit from them. In contrast, the local union is more like drunk incompetence. I fear I wouldn't learn what I really need there.
Anyways, as I was leaving, I saw Keaton. We were surprised to see each other. If I do move down there, perhaps I'll room with Keaton (assuming he goes that direction as well). We're planning to come back down together on the 28th, I believe, for the tests I needed to take. Basically, little of what I told was going to happen when I arrived actually occurred, and not without my prodding.
In any case, I left, hit a gas station. Their pump didn't work, so I found another one. About 20 minutes onto I-75N I got a flat. Luckily, I noticed something was off immediately (you only have seconds) and started slowing down (my bucket'o'bolts is barely holding it together; I am truly blessed that my car has lasted as long as it has given the $1.8k we paid for it). Anyways, the tired broke oddly (disconcerting). I put the donut on the car, and I called my insurer for the nearest tire change service center. As I was driving there, they told me they had my tire in stock, but that a tornado had recently destroyed their shop. My directions were wrong. So, they guided me over the phone to their location. I got there, they took my car, and then they discovered they didn't have my tire. They kindly made 2 phone calls, but no one had my tire size. So, they said my best chance was to try Wal-mart. So, I went to Wal-mart.
Wal-mart took forever at every stage. They said they had the tire, but it took 20 minutes of searching. Eventually, I joined in searching with them. It then took 2.5 hours for them to change the tired (I was 3rd in the queue). It was very late when I got home. It was not the best of days. I will not give up though.
* How has our health been this week?
** 1uxb0x
*** Good, except for today, headache.
** j3d1h
*** Allergies or humidity causing sniffles while outside. Not a problem indoors though.
** k0sh3k
*** Lots of migraines this week. Period though. Trying out folate + B12 for MTHFR (plausible genetic explanation for lifelong problems). Feels she's had memory problems this week.
** h0p3
*** Like j3d1h, I've been sneezing a lot. My belly hasn't been feeling great.
* What happened last week? Have you been happy this past week? Why or why not?
** 1uxb0x
*** Pleased with progress in school journal, but still worried that he didn't do well enough (not worried now though). Felt helpful this week. He was productive. Definitely happy this week, except that one day where he didn't any of his work.
** j3d1h
*** Stressed about finishing homework on Saturday. Otherwise, feeling happy about the week. Happy to finish her Spanish book. Excited to try Duolingo.
** k0sh3k
*** Have been happy. Her lesson turned out better than she thought it would. Student lunch went well, and we got lots of leftovers. Hopefuly about the folate+b12. Has felt her week has been off but doesn't know what it is. Still happy though.
** h0p3
*** Practiced welding even though I didn't have to. Glad to have the chance. I tried to apply for the union position, and I got to see how excellent their facility really is (even if the people suck). I talked to a lot of friends and family this week on the phone. I've been relatively happy, although I've been unhappy with the car. I'm ready to begin having my normalized schedule again.
* In what ways did we successfully empathize or fail to empathize with ourselves and others this week?
** 1uxb0x
*** He played a lot. Sometimes this was empathizing, but often it was not empathizing with himself. Empathized with himself by doing his chores fairly quickly.
** j3d1h
*** Ditto on the chores. j3d1h shared her treats from Israel with her family.
** k0sh3k
*** Didn't fire her student workers, which is pretty good (they merited it this week). Happy fun times with her husband! (woot!) Ate too much BBQ, but it is the mini-Easter of Lent.
** h0p3
*** Empathized with myself by working instead of taking a break for Spring Break. Empathized with 1uxb0x by cutting Problem-solving and thinking about how best to give him a practical life skill, and decided j3d1h will continue her writing (and cultivating her abilities as a computer scientist).
* What will we do this week?
** 1uxb0x
*** Try hard. Play on the computer.
** j3d1h
*** Make the remote server, including getting a VPS and domain name. Finish homework every day.
** k0sh3k
*** Finish one of her classes. Work on another one. Finish editing her paper. Lesson plan too.
** h0p3
*** Will learn to be a pipefitter, once and for all! I would like to take the car in and have it inspected/aligned/etc.
Both children struggled to finish their journals, again. But, it is getting better. Progress is progress.
j3d1h is doing a good job; she kicks it out. She's beginning to see the value of her journal more and more. My worry is that she thinks she understands what she doesn't in her reading. She has collegiate literature, philosophy, and programming. Her math is geared for mathematicians, and in our investigations, she only has a beginner's understanding of what she has read. This is perfectly normal. I just want to make sure that we push far into new frontiers for her, but come back and gain an even deeper understanding on the second (and beyond) pass of content she has only been introduced to.
I'm explicitly gearing her formal curriculum toward philosophy and computer science now. Those are the two things I can give her.
1uxb0x is still struggling to stay on task. This week was better though. Most days were completed. He had one day where he got in serious trouble. His journal is slowly improving. Getting him to express himself is very difficult. It's just time and practice. We will get there. At least he now will tell us about what he's learned and will attempt to digest it in his journal. Time, pressure, and encouragement. I need to say every positive thing I can to him. He often feels inferior, and I need to encourage him, to help him climb out of that attitude.
I believe he should work with his hands. I could be wrong, but I'm going to try and see what I can do to help him begin building things with hands. It's crucial that he starts building a practical skill. I need him to have options and gateways to pass through. He has to believe in himself.
It came too late to me in my vocational internet addiction how very useful web bookmarks are. Of course, I've used them since I first started using the web. However, I never really used them correctly. Curating, cataloging, and organizing your bookmarks is a fundamental executive functioning skill on the internet (and perhaps in life in general at this point). To be clear, I still don't use them perfectly or perhaps even correctly enough. I'm working on it. Below I present my thoughts and strategies on bookmarking.
Bookmarks are incredibly useful tools. They make life easier, no doubt. Spidering around the Web is best done when you have the keen memory of well-crafted bookmarks. Auto or easy syncing between computers gives you a quick way to access important stuff from anywhere (the cloud is useful here). This is already enough reason to use bookmarks. Also, it scratches that perfectionist + Librarian itch inside you. I think there is a deeper reason to use bookmarks though.
Ultimately, bookmarks provide an arena in which to have a conversation with myself at large. Through my use of bookmarks, I am able to monitor changes in myself. I can evaluate what I'm considering important about my browsing and how I use my time on the internet. It's a kind of journal, and journals can act as profound feedback loops to our minds. It is a crucial way in which modern humans should mindmap.
There are different types, kinds, categories, classes, fundamental roles of bookmarks. These sets are mixed, matched, and nested inside each other from time to time. The ontology of epistemology is not simple. Here are my different frames of mind when making a bookmark:
* Nesting, grouping, generating lists and collections (I consider folders be a bookmark to a set of bookmarks)
* Specific link image, book, video, and other media library
* Show you where you are/were, restoring previous sessions
* Searchable bookmarks, permanent history entry, and "this will be hard to find again"
* Frequently used, routine, open all tabs (or more often than that)
* Resource curation, projects, research, evidence, citations, examples, howtos
* Strong need for accurate URL, saving by IP, saving by port, saving by protocol, accessing webUIs, etc.
* Identities and context specifiers
* Browser apps, extensions, etc.
* To do list
I don't take it be an accident that this Wiki is remarkably good at all these. I would love to migrate to this Wiki instead, at least as a good non-login based bookmark bar. I think making it public (even if no one is listening) gives me a reason to do my best to organize it for you. It isn't just for me right now, it is even for the me that will experience the need.
I'm leaning more heavily towards the local union at this point. That said, I talked to Keaton. He's willing to be roommates, assuming that's the direction we're both heading. I guess next week Tuesday would be the last day. I'll need to call up the sociopath to make sure everything is set as well.<<ref "1">>
I called the Louisville fitters union. They aren't taking applications until September, and they won't actually begin the program until August of next year. It would technically be possible for me to hit Journeyman with a year or two of that. The pay is about the same adjusted for the cost of living. I'll apply when I can. It wouldn't hurt.
Anyways, getting up was harder than usual this morning, but once I stepped back into the shop, I felt right at home. I'm very glad I got to go today. In fact, I was straight up giddy to get my hands dirty again.
The teacher asked us to make sure the pieces we've made are as safe for handling as possible. Apparently, he really is going to use them again for some demonstration/fair thing. I thought it was just for the union visitors.
We finished the Y in no time, then we moved onto studying for our usual Monday test. We're crushing it. Chris was borderline confrontational/accusatory with the teacher about being held back at Nash's pace (that was not my doing...Chris clearly has seen what I've seen though). Nash didn't show up today.
We took the test. I assume we passed. I've yet to not do well on a test.
We then started working on saddles. My teacher did an exceptionally poor job teaching us this time, but with enough questions, we were able to extract the necessary information out of him (in addition to figuring some of it out on our own). The initial work was done within half an hour. But, it wasn't up to snuff. We worked on it for quite a while. Unfortunately, there is still the tiniest sliver of light coming through. The teacher expected it to be a perfect seal, apparently (which doesn't make perfect sense to me because this is supposed to be welded anyways). At the end of the day, I quietly asked the upperclassmen to look at it. Several said it was the best saddle they've ever seen and that it obviously should pass (their work was passed with far lower standards). I find it odd that it isn't passing yet. That's okay. I'll keep working on it. Practice makes perfect. I realize this will get harder, and I might as well understand and practice as much as I can.
Chris was annoyed by a remark the teacher made, a "nono" we committed that we weren't told about. We beveled inside to make it fit even closer (although, it obviously weakens the walls, and I should have known better), just like the example he handed us. The teacher clearly should have said something about it on the example he gave us if he didn't want us to do the same. That's okay. It wasn't too complicated to fix.
The teacher really doesn't spend time teaching. But, in a very weird way, I kinda' like it. I enjoy having to figure it out to some extent. I'm forced to make my own deductions, which I enjoy doing (at least when there is no pressure). I like being held in check on whether or not I actually know something, to know the boundaries and limits of where my knowledge and reason can take me, and most importantly, to know when it is time to ask for help. This is key.
Also, I need to call/text AB&T for more forms.
---
<<footnotes "1" "I had a conversation with my father on his birthday about it. I never know what to say my dad anymore (and he would tell you the same thing from his direction as well). I couldn't articulate why I thought the man was a sociopath to my father (although, my father clearly has that switch inside him as well; he just uses it more wisely than most sociopaths). The training coordinator is an ex-football player, evangelical Christian, who studies psychological tricks to manipulate people (he's sadly proud of it; definitely dark triadic), demonstrates that clearly in his communications with me, his secretary, and his board members, is slick as fuck (knows how to make himself likable, despite lacking empathy), and is apparently famous for a lack of impulse control. He has no problem lying. The markers and signs are there. I'm tellin' ya, the guy gives me the heebie-jeebies.">>
He passed the saddle early this morning, said it was great (we didn't change it from yesterday though). We started working on a larger saddle. We smashed that. We then started 45-degree laterals (he had a meeting to go to, so he left us to it). We did a good job, or so we thought (but again, the same yesterday). We even moved onto a 4-on-4 (which is apparently much harder), and he said it was great. He wanted us to continue to tweak it. We did. I also had time to get some welding done. That was nice.
Today was a great day.
We got our study points for our next exam, and I got my AB&T form signed (and mailed). I've yet to text for more though. We put fake finishing touches on the work we did yesterday, and our teacher eventually told us to make a 4 on 6 Lateral and Saddle (he would check them after his meeting). We smashed through them. I did the saddle myself, which has cardinal direction symmetry to it, and my initial portaband saw cut was so clean that I not only made a super clean piece but decided to fuck around by making the leftover piece into a saddle as well. He eventually graded it (I wasn't there to hand him the pieces), and he took the leftover crappy saddle (not my perfect one) as the piece to be judged (said it was good). I think he's purposely saying he doesn't like stuff to slow us down. The reason I think this: our good pieces aren't changing, and he gives us different appraisals even when there aren't differences. Anyways, I'm glad that even my trash piece was up to snuff.
My theory about why he's slowing us down: if we finish all the content too early, it poses problems for him as a teacher. We're completing everything the upperclassmen have done and then some, and we're still accelerating through the program. We're probably a month ahead in shop work and about a month and a half in bookwork. Assuming socket welds and butt welds are going to be easy (since I've become a reasonable beveler, and many screwpipe principles transfer), we may smash through the entire course in 8 months or less.
We moved onto the simulator. The simulator is different because we had to draw to fit. We were told to draw for the 1" pipe flanges (3 of them on the sim), get it approved, then do the measurements. I'm the only one who can draw it (Nash and Chris, hilariously, have previously had classes specifically on construction drawings, especially isometric...It's just not their thing, especially Nash). It was approved, and then our teacher showed us how he wanted to measure. My teacher felt that some of the things I wanted to measure on the drawing weren't worth measuring. I think he's wrong. The way he wanted to do stuff wasn't on paper. He wanted us to chalk mark the floor beneath the simulator. While we did this to some extent, it wasn't to the extent he was suggesting.
He's against what he calls "stovepiping," which is just putting in a piece at a time and eyeballing (my teacher is obviously wise in this respect; planning is everything). Ironically, I fear that even his method has a kind of stovepiping element to it though. I strongly prefer having the drawing representation do most or all the work for me. I'm fine doing the math. I trust it more than doing it all by measurement. Don't get me wrong, I'll measure all day long. I want accurate initial measurements for key parts of the drawing, and then I want to do the math to figure out the rest. I'll still measure again after doing the math if I can. Multiple verifications for validity and coherence of your gameplan is crucial.
Obviously, I don't sound super confident. I've never done this before. My gut tells me my teacher doesn't exactly know what he's saying on this one though. He does not speak with the confidence I expect, and the way he attempts to solve certain kinds of geometry and measuring problems seem inefficient (and perhaps even less accurate) to me. But, not doing it his way may turn out poorly. I'm hoping it works. I think it should. We'll see. It looks right to me. Execution details are another matter, but even that should be fine (I'm unspokenly in charge of what we do in our group). What we're building is structurally simple, it's just really big and unwieldy, and we can't really afford to be off even by perhaps more than an eighth of an inch anywhere.
Anyways, we got all the pieces cut, taped, and I started building before we left. If we're really lucky, we could finish this by the end of next Friday. Once we do, we move straight to socket welds (which everyone is just itching to try). I'm happy to do the simulator though. I wanted to do something complex, but my group mates did not. So, I decided to help them instead. Given the requirements, I designed what I felt would be the easiest to design around. Given that we'll have to do three other fabrications to fit into place alongside the one we've designed, we should give ourselves room. So, trying to find the simplest, flexible, and easy way was also a kind of challenge I enjoyed.
I have a new nickname today. Apparently, I am magic.
My teacher offered me (but not the others) the X-piece-90's and Y to take home. I find that weird since Chris definitely helped make them (and even Nash, to a much lesser extent).
Today was really effed up. My head is spinning: Gorsuch, Manafort, Nunes, and Schiff. The day keeps on giving. Let's be clear, a huge fucking net neutrality vote is tomorrow (my pet, my love, my savior), and that is like the last thing on my mind right now. ~McCain called for a select committee to investigate the Trump-Russia relationship. It's like watching Watergate unfold. It's a kind of political blitzkrieg and chaos that I don't think I've ever seen the likes of in my lifetime (and I was forced to witness the 9/11 hysteria around me as a teenager).
The checks and balances that do exist are barely there, not very trustworthy, largely RNC controlled, and completely bought by crony capitalists (I'd like to extend my weekly "fuck you" to the DNC here as well). We the American people are simply observers and slaves to this theater. Obviously, there are monsters bubbling beneath the surface. It's a spectacle at this point.<<ref "1">>
Perhaps the Impeachment Dagger is being unsheathed. We must watch the RNC closely. They may be forced to amputate. It is unclear. What good comes from nurturing this? It's crazy messy. If it passes by, they will truly be gods of men; hypernormalized deities. Assuming they are unsheathing the dagger, how hard will the RNC backstab? It sounds weird to say, but Trump may literally be charged with treason, depending on the evidence. It is possible he could go straight to prison after having collected millions.
Ah, I am dreaming. I need to stop. I must not allow myself to be beguiled. The RNC will squeeze every ounce of political utility from their sacrificial lamb. There are trades here I cannot see.
I'll tell you this, I have no fucking clue what dirt Mother Russia has on Trump, but it must be insane. It is possible they've been cultivating him for years. The coercive force they wield over him must be immense.
Assuming impeachment, do we move straight into Pence or do we get to redo the election? I figure that the RNC really gets to call the shots here. I'm guessing Pence.
I have one other quite conspiratorial (yet entirely unoriginal, I'm sure) thought. Assume a very huge impeachment debacle. Let's say we don't get to have an election, and let's say Pence gets taken down with Trump. That leaves Paul Ryan as next in the line of succession. Ol' Paul "Randian" Ryan, folks. Full Blown Capitalist, to the max. Ayn Rand is the new Locke of actualized/practiced American political philosophy, but not nearly as fun or correct. Thank the Libertarians for this mess. Note that Ryan was one of the reasons Trump was ever even partially accepted by the GOP. Thus, my claim is that there is a non-trivial chance that Paul Ryan will be POTUS and that it may not be an accident.<<ref "2">>
But, I'm not counting my impeachment chickens just yet. This is all unprecedented<<ref "3">>. What are we, 60 days into this presidency? Watergate took quite a while.
---
<<footnotes "1" "Pass the popcorn, please!">>
<<footnotes "2" "For the giggles, I'd like to point out Rex Tillerson is fourth in the line of succession.">>
<<footnotes "3" "A word which has remarkable similarities to unpre//si//dented.">>
In 2013, Rex Tillerson at Exxon Mobile brokered a deal with Russia to extract oil from large swathes of Russian land. This oil was pumped through Ukraine. Ukraine taxed this oil and was seeking to join NATO (not quite Russian-friendly). Putin's attack on Ukraine in 2014 was to seize control of the port, eliminate taxation, and enrich himself (virtuous-of-the-practice kleptocrat that he is). Russia had been sanctioned. These handcuffs bottlenecked Putin's profits (I believe Putin has long been a dark money trillionaire).
Fast-forward, and Rex Tillerson, recipient of the Russian Order of Friendship medal, is now our Secretary of State. Clearly, at least part of Trump's blackmail payment is installing Rex. Russian interference with our political processes and subversion of our pseudo-democratic election cycle has truly paid off for Putin.
Assuming Trump even survives the political turmoil accumulation (and he might, he's straight fucking crazy and backed by many powerful interests; plus, he's made it this far), there is a reasonable chance that the sanctions made in the Obama era will be lifted. Putin stands to gain untold wealth; he continues to snowball hard. To be clear, the House approved a resolution killing SEC requirement for oil, gas, mining companies to disclose payments to foreign governments. Further, the US Treasury Dept announced it’s easing sanctions to allow companies to do transactions with Russia’s FSB. Lastly, Steele, the infamous Dossier's compiler, predicted this as well. The string of high-profile deaths in Russia are no accident.<<ref "2">>
As I've noted [[before|2017.03.12 - Trump's Administrative Truncation]], the executive branch is being deconstructed. In its place, a handful of very successful psychopaths are taking even deeper control of it. The State Department has been purged, and Rex is going to own it from top to bottom. As Trump told us on the campaign trail, he would not be in charge of foreign or domestic affairs. He was telling the truth (as much as he could). Trump is the figurehead, the disposable scapegoat, the pawn and puppet. Rex, the capitalist of capitalists, is in bed with Putin.
The American government has always been bought by the elite. Putin is an incredibly evil and dangerous man, and he's only joining the throng-pit of struggling gladiator-kings in our deep state. Who can solve these problems? Only we can.<<ref "1">> No, but for real, Russophobia may lead many Americans to give away their freedom even further (like the Patriot Act). I will not accept this false compromise.
In any case, we are clearly in a Second Cold War, fought not only on the world's stage, but also by proxy, in darkness, guerrilla-style, on the internet, and through backchannels and subterfuge.
---
<<footnotes "1" "Rofl! I crack myself up.">>
<<footnotes "2" "For posterity's sake, I'd like to point out that in this edit that former Russian parliamentarian Denis Voronenkov, Putin critic of the annexation of Crimea, died a day after I wrote this post. This pattern is not an accident, and I can tell you, it's not God causing it (just human gods).">>
Today was excellent. I finished a second tree project. Afterward, I wanted to try the torch again. I failed to get the torch to work today. Honestly, it was a bit scary the way it acted. The oxygen wasn't high enough because I couldn't get the flame to separate (and I couldn't seem to get it higher). I tried twice, and even Keaton couldn't get it to work. I'll get my teacher to help me the next time. The good news is that I'll just use our large bandsaw to cut carbon steel plates when I need to bevel for practicing laying roots.
Oh, I went for another flat weld today. I experimented this time since I know I need to find my groove and a method that works for me. Of the 12 inches, I got about 3 inches of excellent root. The rest was trash to varying degrees. I need to make sure I'm not burning too hot. I know my low heat settings aren't the recommended settings, but everyone has to find their own way (there are serious variations among welder norms/practices, from what I understand). That's what I'm going to do. The root is getting there, but I need to practice more. I'm getting better with controlling keyholes. Spatter is marginally better. Going perpendicular and staying deep is helping.
I asked my teacher if I could watch the advanced welding students and pick their brains (only after asking the welding teacher, ofc). He said yes. I asked the welding teacher, and he said yes. I asked him to recommend students to shadow, and he pointed out several who were graduating in a week. I walked up to one, and we hit it off. He was TIG welding (I've never done it, and I've never seen it before either). You should have seen his walking the cup method and the gorgeous fucking welds he made. I was straight up envious and blown away. These were sick welds, like straight up welder porn.
His control was amazing, his root was perfect, and the bead looked like a robot-artist had done it. He took his time, and it was beautiful. I saw him drop a root on stainless schedule 10 pipe (he had different approaches for different kinds of pipe). After lunch, I saw him drop a cap on it. We talked about its shape (barely noticeable droop towards the bottom) and how he was working against gravity (apparently, he was worried about the [lightest possible] criticism I made, since he said the teacher would probably say the same about it).
My hood, btw, doesn't trigger perfectly on TIG, although I wasn't very close (another advanced student commented that it happens if you aren't close enough). I need argon to practice TIG, and it isn't obvious that we have that available in the pipefitter shop. We have the machine. I'll ask my teacher. I would love to at least have tried it. Another student, Ferguson, is a handy guy, but he's not bright: he might be able to show me as well (although I weld better than he does, I just don't know as much in general).
After watching the TIG cap, I beveled pipe (looked decent enough), and I tried to stick weld it. Something was weird about this pipe though (I've never seen this kind before). I couldn't even get beads to start on the side. It was not a normal carbon steel pipe, and it wasn't stainless. I'm not sure what was up. I tried to different amps, and nothing worked unless I was blowing holes through it. I'll figure it out. I need to just read and look it up.
Chris was sitting there after lunch. He was tired of computer work (he thanked me again for my strategy, which has wildly accelerated him through the bullshit), and because the teacher knows he works hard, Chris gets cut extra slack (and doesn't have to stay in the computer room). The teacher asked him if he wanted to get to work on the simulator. Chris decided that's what he wanted to do. I joined him (since it's my project too). Chris has never put together larger projects like this before (and neither of us has used a simulator). It showed, but none of his mistakes were big or hard to correct.
We fabricated very quickly (Chris is profoundly better at this than Nash. That said, Chris already has a 2-year associates with a class in screwpipe, so he should.). Chris understands the problems I'm thinking about almost immediately as I explain them (not the answers, but the problems); he's a pleasure to work with. He's not incredibly creative, but he has a good head on his shoulders. We didn't have access to the 2-hole inserts for the flanges, but my eye-balling on this is trained well enough now that it is fairly accurate (and we could adjust on the fly if we had to).
We went to check and see if this 20-foot spider monster actually fit. It did. We couldn't find bolts that fit perfectly. Our teacher interrupted us and said he'd show us later, but that we had something else we needed to do. We were given our third project for the school itself today. We're building a clothes hangar (two) for the bookstore. We had to find pipe they'd like, cut it to length, and I had to cut carbon steel plates of a certain size, grind off burrs, and punch-hole the midpoints for the drill press (I assume we'll weld these to the pipes and drill them into the wall). We'll drill tomorrow and mount it.
Our teacher showed us how to find the correct sized bolts in our bluebook. We didn't have any in the shop, but he had some which were close. We used those. Let me tell you, that shit gets heavy. I held it up (with a stand helping me) as Chris put the bolts in at the bottom (so he could slip the gasket inside and have it land on the bolts). Our teacher watched. He said our work was very good. This is the first time he's had students build it correctly on the first try.
Apparently, there is a tightening strategy. You tighten about 25% of the way in star patterns around the flange. We also have a tool that helps us line the flanges together. I forget the name. It's the first time I've seen it. Apparently, there's a trick with this tool for holding pipe in place so that I don't have to bear the weight of it. Neat.
I got a lot of shit done. I'm now going to study for the test tomorrow. I'm not ready for it.
I use to be pro-life, top to bottom, hardcore pacifism and all. Now that I have seen the value in taking my own life, in realizing how less precious life really is, in realizing that some lives aren't worth living, in realizing that death is sometimes a compassionate gift to so many human beings in so many contexts, I've lost my pro-life stance.
Once the Kantian Bubble is burst, it is up to the Utilitarian to pick up the pieces and find the more rational argument.
If shaping our genes is really about shaping the sum of human experiences, then what is eugenics really? Is eugenics really just modifying genes in a good way? What counts as a good way? The contents of that are probably spelled out in a utilitarian calculus or weighing model of human goods. Our happiness matters to eugenics. Good for whom?
Abortions are often or always eugenic, depending on how we think about it. Euthanasia seems highly eugenic to me in certain ways. It seems obvious that genetic manipulation is eugenic. We might even think that gene testing and genome sequencing are profound tools of eugenics. The person who doesn't have a baby because they predict a high chance of birth defects is engaging in eugenics, and so is the person who aborts their down-syndrome fetus. The person who sterilizes anyone for any reason is doing a kind of eugenics. Those who don't have kids because they know they would be bad parents are practicing eugenics. That we pay people to get kicked in the balls in video productions like Jackass (and numerous Youtube copycats) is a form of eugenics. That we don't wish to destroy our own genes is eugenics (mmm... cancer is bad...mmmmkay). That we think we should reproduce is a form of eugenics (you probably think you're improving the gene pool don't you, idiot?). That we have married bloodlines, that we care about the status and genetics (even if only as it pertains to the memetics) of our children's spouses.
Ultimately, who is hurt? A ball of cells that don't have the nervous system necessary to feel pain like ours? Doesn't seem like it is really hurt. Now, as the fetus develops, it can feel pain. What if we ended its life without it feeling pain? What's wrong with that? It wasn't a person at all. It was still a lump of flesh and no more. Even those who are not even conceived miss out on opportunities. They are mere possibilities. They aren't persons though. We have no duties to them except insofar as they become persons.
Why shouldn't you trash the world? Because you owe duties to fetuses that will eventually grow enough to become persons. Does that mean you owe duties to all fetuses? No.
Had a flat tire last week. Something about the car has been off since it was replaced. It has been vibrating and getting worse. I took it into the Wal-Mart tire center here. They said they would look at it for free (since it was a Wal-Mart that fixed it a week ago). I got an oil change as well, since...might as well, right? Turns out the other front tire was about to go. They also recommended I get a new rim and control arm. I'm gonna check around to see if I can find a cheap one. I'm not sure if I can change it myself, but I probably should. I changed the front end of our old black Toyota before. I can probably figure this one out too (that said, if I get it wrong, it would be incredibly costly, possibly).
Today was short, as expected. We finished the 1" simulator project off today. I had left the tools out (carefully) because I didn't want to wait for the toolroom to be unlocked to finish it (the teacher, at this point, trusts me to unlock and lock everything [but, he can't give me a key], and to get and use whatever I want). It looked clean (well, the very top flange wasn't perfect to my liking, but it didn't bother anyone else, so I let it go). Lots of "very goods" were handed out. All the warm fuzzies be unto us.
If we were being honest with ourselves, while the flanges fit and the pipes were level, I saw that the longest pipe (about 10 feet long) had actually bent slightly after the complete mount. It wasn't blatant and in your face, but it was there definitely there. If our teacher was paying more attention, he definitely would have said something about it. That means we made a mistake. I'll have to measure it later to try and figure out what I did wrong.
We were going to put up the bookstore project up, but apparently, the governor "claimed" he would be here with some legislators. There was a big to-do in the large conference auditorium/room today, next to the bookstore. We didn't want to bother them. We'll finish it Monday.
Instead of moving onto taking our test (the three of us wanted to study for it), the teacher had us move onto the 1.5" section of the simulator. This time, they didn't even try to draw. We talked about what we wanted it to look like, and what we felt would be easiest to mount. Now that the 1" section is already mounted, it will be harder to fit the following sections. I was clever to give us space to do it. The 1" was on the outside, and this 1.5" will be in the middle, and the 2" will be on the outside (towards the back). This will make it easy on us. As I said, it wasn't my ultimate vision, but trying to find the easiest and cleanest way to push the series of projects together is a different and still very interesting challenge.
The teacher handed us a pre-made 3-1/16th" nipple. He said that he's never had to make nipples like this on the job, and his first time ever producing them was in the shop class itself. The 535 Ridgid threading machine has a nipple attachment (I've only used it once [this is sounding extraordinarily sexual, said the pipefitter]). He said it was a hint. I thought about what he meant by this since it was not obvious how it was going to be a huge "hint" to us. I figured out what it was though (it was roughly the gameplan I already had), and it was mainly to deal with a tighter spot we were in at the top of the simulator (but, I could have cut and threaded my way out of it even without a tiny nipple).
Since he went through the trouble to give us this "hint," I felt it would hurt his feelings if I didn't use the nipple he gave us (his nipple was shorter than it needed to be, making construction harder and planning more elaborate). This meant that I didn't get to freehand the design. I needed to build around the nipple. That meant I had to add the takeouts to find the true length (kind of reverse engineer the process, and maybe that was his intent), and then find the rest of the TLs. It went smoothly enough. I'm paranoid about being off. A 1/16th there and another over there, etc. add up. The other guys did not take measuring seriously enough. I know they don't enjoy it, but I really don't want to waste my effort.
I drew it, the teacher didn't complain about all the measurements I wanted this time. The guys realized I was right about it after pointing out how it helped us avoid some tedious work by hand (and give us more exact measurements). We measured. I'm still learning to do this well. I need more practice at it. This is all a very good experience.
We did the math, and I'm glad I had Chris check it. I did the wrong takeout for one of the pipes (I should be more careful, and I hope this is the last time that I choose to not double-check my own math before having someone else check it). We cut the pipes (I think my teacher was disappointed that we couldn't find more scrap to use in it, but this project is very long). I worked on the scrap parts I could use, and I had to readjust my threads which went too deep. I asked the guys if they were checking the threads. They said they hadn't.
After I finished my pieces, I checked theirs (I check all the components because I don't trust anyone). They fucked up all of their pipes. I couldn't even get a full rotation on some of the threads (it should be between 3 and 4). Nash didn't think it was a big deal, but we have been down this road. It is heartbreaking to put in all that labor just to have it not work and need to redo it all. Chris immediately understood how the pipes were just going to be way too long (despite the fact that they cut all of their pipes 1/8" short - why aren't they fucking measuring!?).
So, I fixed the machine and showed them what I wanted. You can technically (although, I've never been told it is acceptable to do) rethread a threaded pipe a bit deeper (into the wall of the pipe deeper) and even a bit deeper into the length of the pipe if you need. The trick is to barely apply pressure to let the threads catch in the die. If you put pressure, you'll break threads (which sucks). Chris realized how it worked after I showed him and tested it. I'm glad he saw the reason in it. Nash didn't seem to give a shit =/. Chris sorted it while cataloged and organized our materials for Monday.
We didn't take a test. We will on Monday. I want to study for it. I tried to explain to the guys that while the core book does have some boilerplate bullshit in it, I definitely want to deeply understand everything in our Pipefitter books. I take these books very seriously. I assume journeyman know this stuff inside and out. At this point, I'd rather do one a week, since I don't want to merely pass tests: I want to understand the material. Plus, it doesn't help us to accelerate faster than our actual shop work. There are no time gains, and the bookwork and shop work do not track each other content-wise.
Oh, I forgot, I texted AB&T. I'll get my next set of forms on Thursday. As long as school is paid for, I won't have problems, right? ;P
Also, I turned down a 1-week construction job (they weren't paying very well). I couldn't pass the drug test if I had to (unless they just let cannabliss fly).
I stopped by the local union. He gave me some books to read. I learned about the size of our jurisdiction and that we, in fact, act as traveling union members to other unions around the country. Also, Knoxville's job will be huge. There is a chance I could work there, which would be sweet. He guaranteed me a spot again today. I think I was tiring his patience with all my questions. We talked about my concern that I wouldn't be able to receive the same amount of training here as I would in Chattanooga. The new facility they are building (forced by the UA) is designed to alleviate that exact worry. They are hunting for a building now (when I walked in, he was on the phone talking about it with his bosses).
He told me what MIG was for, which is, as I suspected, to just push tons of weld material really quickly. If it doesn't have to be pretty, perfect, and completely clean, MIG is the real deal. What could take 4 hours of painstaking work could be handled by some the MIG-like machines in an hour. He said he doesn't own his own welding tools. Whatever he needs he uses at in the giant union shop. I think that's interesting. He hinted that owning your own machine would be useful for odd jobs and working outside the union though.
Let's say the world doesn't end anytime soon. What can it look like? There may be many possibilities. Are there hopes for the masses amongst any of those possible worlds? How many and to what extent? When weighing the average risk-assessed utility over all the possible worlds, does this favor us wanting to live or not? Is there a reason for us, the masses, to live? Let us say there were good reasons. What would those be? How do we maximize the chances of having a world worth living in for the masses (Veil of Ignorance)? What are the means to our ends? I am convinced one of these means and perhaps necessary conditions for such a world will be //decentralizing information//. This is a form of decentralizing power; the old adage [[Knowledge is Power]] is fundamentally true in many crucial categories of cases in our general lives.
Not all decentralized networks are good, of course; I spoke about this [[before|2017.02.28 - Web Assembly: The Browser VM as Decentralized Cloud]]. Maximizing decentrality is key though. Partial decentralization still has the problems of relying upon central powers. I believe there is a chance that completely decentralized networks are a fundamental crypto-anarchic tool for both socialist and libertarian utopias. This is old news to many. And, of course, I'm not saying utopia is achievable. I'm talking about the most ideal practical utopia that is possible; the Leibnizian Best Possible World sense (which, logically, must be open to some very shitty worlds). I think there is a reasonable chance we could all be relatively happy people on the planet if everyone worked together right now to throw our yokes off.
Decentralized networks of information are decentralized networks of power.
# It is a crucial method for uniting [[The People]] of the world.
# It is a fundamental necessary condition on the autonomy of the People in the future as well.
These two facts are deeply intertwined, obviously.
I also think there is a chance that decentralized networks not controlled by major corporations will be able to live in the future. The dangers these networks pose to those in power is still not completely clear to the entire Hyperclass (but obviously to some of them). If they were to fully realize the threat posed by decentralized networks, they might kill them faster or require at least some degree of "accountability" centralization. Yes, it is possible for these to be squeezed out through legal systems and significant financial pressures. There are those who wish to destroy decentrality. Thus, we must preserve publicly owned, fully decentralized systems by commercializing it (the GNU model is excellent). Like standard VPN technology, we need full decentralization to be so key-turn easy and fundamental to the software ecosystem that it would be unfathomable to make it illegal.
Decentralized tools like Bittorrent got a bad wrap, yes, in the name of piracy. I also think there are significant federalist/centralists/capitalists in power that have desperately tried to stop decentralized technology (except for parallel computing) in a generalized way. I think there is an attack on the decentralized web coming from multiple directions. We have to make it necessary now to those in power before it becomes illegal. The hopes of the survival of revolution rest upon injecting decentrality into the very network architectures of the wealthy and powerful. Make it too painful for them to lose it, and we won't.
The only way for the People to maintain and grow their power will be through decentralized networks. If we close them out, people will be compartmentalized, completely owned and managed from surveillers and controllers. Those with the financial interests to have these powers will have them, and it isn't obvious that anything will stop them from trying to maximize their control. The free gateways to the Wild West are closing as the Walled Gardens continue to grow so large they shrink/tame every corner of the Wild West map.
I will admit, there is a deep irony to the fact that this is now revolutionary. The oldschool hacker ethic has an increasingly smaller voice amongst those who shape the internet.
* How has our health been this week?
** 1uxb0x
*** Normal. Felt a bit sick one day this week, but taking a nap fixed it.
** j3d1h
*** Same as ever.
** k0sh3k
*** Headaches for the past couple days, but have felt more energetic. Folate/B12 might be working. It would have "kicked in" this week. Might be placebo; we don't know yet. Stomach hurt all day yesterday. No idea what it was.
** h0p3
*** I'm feeling fatter this week. I slept well enough. My gut has had serious pain towards the very bottom a couple times.
* What happened last week? Have you been happy this past week? Why or why not?
** 1uxb0x
*** Not happy for two reasons.
**** Didn't make my parents proud. (*He needs to work on himself because he values himself)
**** Friend of his went on spring break, and he was planning to play with them, but they traveled.
** j3d1h
*** Feeling crappy because she didn't do her journal. She also didn't have backups for the journal she messed up, and she has to redo it. Not feeling happy about it.
** k0sh3k
*** Finished editing her part of the paper. Terrified that her co-worker won't get it done. Car died, and couldn't go to church (sadface). Generally happy though.
** h0p3
*** I accomplished a lot this week. I learned and practiced much. I figured out that I really want to stay at the local union here. I'm sad that I haven't helped my kids stay on task well enough this week.
* In what ways did we successfully empathize or fail to empathize with ourselves and others this week?
** 1uxb0x
*** Not doing journal; failing to empathize with himself and his parents. Not having saved his work.
** j3d1h
*** Not doing journal; failing to empathize with himself and his parents. Not having backups.
** k0sh3k
*** Editing, did it. Empathized with herself. Didn't freak out when her co-worker said she hasn't done anything. Gave her some tips.
** h0p3
*** I got the car vibration fixed.
* What will we do this week?
** 1uxb0x
*** Devote more to nature.
** j3d1h
*** Get her journal done, a top priority
** k0sh3k
*** Turn in her paper.
*** Plan for edible books festival
*** Tiddlywiki, every day. 10 minutes.
** h0p3
*** Finish fixing the car.
The battery died. Something's definitely up with our car's circuits. I have no idea what it is. k0sh3k missed church (sucks, since she spent a lot of time preparing her lesson). Luckily, I had bought the battery, in case we needed it. I learned how to replace the battery in this car. We took back the non-working charger and I picked up a dumber one (I hope). I really just need it to trust me when I say I've connected it to the terminals on the battery. I can't reprogram these specialized devices though. I want it to be as analog as possible because it gives me the most freedom possible.
We also set up sites for the whole family.
I think it is crucial that I find a way to help my son become as happy as he can be given the circumstances he has. Right now, I'm helping him get on track. He's doing a good job. We've done well with what we have. I'm very proud of him. We still have a long way to go though. Maximizing our potential is hard, and we never give up on it. Getting him to do his work without needing to be told is hard, as it would be for any 9-year-old. We're pushing regimen as much as we can. We also keep moving the goalposts (encouragingly!). It is a climb for him. He's doing well. He's working hard. He's got a good attitude. He's doing his best.
The bookstore said to hold off on the rack. Apparently, the director wanted something that curved, and another person didn't want us to drill in the brick. So, that is on hold, perhaps indefinitely. That's okay though. I had a good time getting it ready.
We took our test. I got an 88 =/, yuck. I knew what I did wrong though. The curriculum is actually pass/fail. Still, I would like to ace it. I have 4 more tests left in my second book, and 9 more in the third book. This can be done in around 7-13 weeks, and I'll still be crushing it. The other guys want to push even faster in these books (Chris does as well as I do, but Nash is barely passing these tests), and I just don't think it is necessary or wise. I want to keep up though. I think I can study on our April break to prepare to take a bunch of exams when we get back. Technically, I have ~34ish weeks of class left (I don't anticipate being in the class that long, obviously). I don't see a reason to push faster than I want to though, since there is no way that I can finish before July-ish anyways, and even then, I technically still have to show up to class (or co-op).
Also, I should push hard. Even if I'm done with the content of the course, I can at least continue working on welding and possibly Millwright. They'd let me, I think.
I'm putting the cart before the horse though. Speaking of rocking it, and yet failing pretty hard today (but not giving up, ofc! ;P): I also did poorly on my second simulator piece today (relatively poorly). We put it together (we being Chris and I; Nash did about jackshit today, as usual), and dragged it over to the simulator to mount. We very quickly found out we had the height on the top leg wrong. I immediately knew what we did wrong. It took me a couple minutes to convince the other guys what we did wrong. We forgot to subtract from our initial measurements (we had obviously planned to do it, and we took the measurements for that purpose; we just didn't follow through on a single piece of subtraction [I feel like an idiot, to say the least {ofc, we all make mistakes!}.]). We took the top leg off, and I quickly cut and threaded it to the right size.
We put it back together and tried to mount it again. We were off, again. This time, I have no idea why we were off. We decided to cheat: to stovepipe it (however minorly). We partially mounted it (heavy mother fucker, just holding it). Nash was here to "help," but clearly had no idea what the problem was. This kid can't actually do the work. Nash did not understand what he needed to measure. He finally figured out after we were holding this heavy monster trying to explain it. It was off by 1-9/16". This part did not make sense. Our math was right given the measurements we had. The construct itself also measured out to our schematic's specifications. The only other option was that our initial measurements were wrong.
It is weird to be off by that much and not immediately have a good explanation. My theory, at this point, that we failed to measure from the correct points on the flanges. It's my responsibility to get it right. I'm going center to center from now on, and I'm going to be even slower in my graphing. Anyways, we chopped the toe off the leg, and I did the cutting and threading (since Nash was too lazy, and Chris is legitimately worried he would continue to cut too short [which is fair; my records of our job show he continues to cut too short]). We put it back together and mounted it. It fit. The teacher smiled as I explained what we thought went wrong. He said "good job" and to move on.
We then started the 2" simulator stage. We drew it up and took the measurements. Cool fact, given the position/direction of the 2" flanges, we didn't have to measure the distance from the flange to the simulator backbone. Between the flanges and the floor, we could get everything we needed. It is trickier now with the 1" and 1.5" simulator stages already mounted; they get in the way of accurate measurements. We did what we could, and then we did the math. Everyone agrees it should work (consensus and commitment: go teamwork!). We went center-center on everything this time. We were careful on our floor measurements. Next time, I'm just going to pinch the plumb-bob and measure it to the pinch mark. This was one has a valve built into it. The teacher told me to "wing it" on figuring out the valve takeouts (since he didn't know a better way). Lol. Alright. I can do that.
Tomorrow, we'll bang it out. You know, I think I'd like to double check my measurements for the schematic itself yet again. Couldn't hurt.
At the end of the day, my teacher asked me if I had seen Randy. I said, yes, and that Randy gave me some books to read. He "guessed" they were history books. I'm 90% sure that my teacher knew I had seen Randy (they talk), and had probably heard from Randy himself.
Also, this is the third time I've found Harold with my stuff. It was two pieces today: my tape measure and the two-holes that I "checked out" from Tim, on loan, basically. Multiple people have experienced this. I'm annoyed by the tape measure, but I was actually a bit pissed about the two-holes. To a small degree, that's my reputation on the line if they get fucked up. I told him not to touch my things without my permission, and that included the two-holes since I was responsible for their well-being (we'll see if he's assholish enough to retaliate). The teacher, apparently, already knew about it. He had been watching the table that took our things. He gave me permission to be more aggressive about it (but I won't; there's no value in it), and said the kid would have his fingers broken if he had done that in the field. Apparently, our teacher will be giving us a serious talk tomorrow about it.
Cat crapped in the downstairs bathroom. The toilet overflowed in the upstairs. Water leaked down onto the kitchen counters. It's a mess to clean up today. Lol.
We were given our new study guide questions. I'm trying another study method (since mine is obviously not good enough). Hopefully, I get the kind of coverage I'm looking for. We were told to move onto the simulator (probably because the other guys weren't even trying to study).
We measured again because I just wanted to make sure we didn't miss anything. We did the math twice. I'm glad we thought carefully about the valve, since we put true lengths on the graph (my preference, strongly), and thus we had to do what I will call "add-ons" instead of takeouts. This was a smart way to do it. After 15 minutes, I was satisfied with our measurements, drawing, and math. So, we moved onto construction.
They went straight for threading, while I set up the work area, gathered the materials (we are consuming all the nuts/bolts and flanges the shop has available to us to build this simulator). I cut and threaded the tiny nipples because I wanted to guarantee they were correct. They did check the threads this time (thank god).
After we had finished the fabrication, and right before we were about to mount it, I crossed the teacher in the storage area. He had a shit-eating grin on his face. He had a valve in each hand (I wondered if and when he would introduce these since he had hinted he would). He claimed, "the engineer changed his plans, and we needed to insert them into our previous projects." I laughed.
I found a clean way to make the insertion without having to remove everything. Ultimately, I didn't even need to loosen any secondary flanges. I screwed the leg off the spiders, made the cuts, inserted and leveled, and put it back on (I thought I made a mistake towards the end of the day but realized I was on track: I was just tired). But, we didn't complete these steps until the end because I wanted to mount our current project before backtracking to add valves to the older ones. Since I knew we could do it, we did.
We mounted this third simulator project without a hitch. It went on very cleanly. Our teacher gave us a very unique hand-made tool that he says could not be bought anywhere. He earned it at Eastman. Says it is amazing. It was quite useful for aligning the flanges. He called it a bull's penis; it looked a bit like a shepherd's staff with the end of the crook straightened out and conical. It's like a cheater-bar for alignment and holding shit in place. The 90-degree angle on it is very interesting. I'm going to make one of these, I believe.
Anyways, we then did the work for the rest. I did the math. They checked it (well, Chris did), and we did it. At the end of the day, we were told that it would have been better for the bottom valve to have been facing up (wish he said that before we built around it). Luckily, I had thought he might have said something about how one of them was off. We cheated by taking two wrenches, one on each adjacent pipe and turned together to get it placed where we wanted it. I'll try to do the same tomorrow with the bottom valve; it only needs to turn 90 degrees.
The teacher called up the company that donated the materials for our simulator. He wants to build and install a second one next to the one we have. This would allow us to make far more complex objects. I think it's a good idea. We talked about where to place it. They e-mailed him back immediately to ask for a materials list. I'll compile it tomorrow. We may be building it soon. That's cool.
My teacher told us that we'll be doing rolling-offset screwpipe for at least this week instead of moving onto socket welds because Chris hasn't done rolling-offsets in practice (although, he has done the math). I need to make sure that Chris aces this if we are going to move on. Nash is going to be as useless as ever, I'm sure, lol.
Nash was saying at the end of the day that he was pissed we weren't getting out early. He feels entitled to maximum break time. Now, I totally understand that approach in a work environment in which people are legitimately trying to exploit you. You absolutely have to fight for every inch. Our class, however, isn't exploitation (or at least not in this respect). We're here for ourselves, and we move at our own pace. I take limited breaks because I want to keep working on myself. That's what I'm there to do. I'm sure I would have made the same mistakes (or worse) at his age though. I can't say much. I try to encourage him. That said, I'm sure he will turn into another conservative capitalist monster. =/ I can't help that he's evil though.
Also, I need to finish the gifts I'm making for my parents'-in-law to thank them.
Over the years, I've come across a lot of novel obfuscation and DRM techniques. Some are more fun and interesting than others, but none are unbeatable. Yet.
Reverse engineering is one of the few ways we have to guarantee that intellectual property (IP) rights are merely legal barriers rather than technological and epistemic barriers. Essentially, without reverse engineering, a significant portion of IP would be trade secret protected to the Nth degree. Natural technical monopolies would arise more frequently, and they would be much harder to break. In the technical world, these monopolies would start breeding, clumping together, and devouring the rest of the ecosystem.
Without reverse engineering, we'd have market distortions ripe for an even stronger degree of exploitation, enslavement, and fleecing than we already have. Therefore, I take reverse engineering to be part of the toolkit necessary for maintaining some degrees and kinds of freedom from the exploitation of capitalist pigs.
Capitalists are fighting back, and hard. One obvious example is the centralization of computing into vertical data/computation silos. It's hard to reverse engineer that which you never have access to (or only have minor access to). You can only attempt to understand what they do from the outside and script your own (like ~WoW private servers, but on an epic scale). You probably don't have the hardware or the human capital for it either. Hint: you can't replace Google for internet search at this point. Nothing comes close (and it's been that way for a long time).
We must maintain our ability to understand what IP owners are doing at a technical level. Without it, we are lost. It has already begun on multiple fronts. The sky is falling. The fight is not over though. We can still win. Here is an example of when we will begin to lose the ability to fight back and reverse engineer (assuming it is even possible):
//Black-box cryptographic obfuscation//
We may get to a point where cryptography will obfuscate programs so as to guarantee that we cannot possibly have a sufficient amount of computing power to reverse engineer it. This is a non-trivial problem actively being worked on in the field of cryptography. Such breakthroughs may exist (and may have already been found by state-actors). If it ever becomes viable, there will be software that we, the people who often only access the binary at best, cannot understand or dissect for ourselves by definition.
Imagine running a full suite of software which isn't just a bunch of blackbox binary blobs to you, but are literally blackbox binary blobs to everyone (even the experts among experts). You literally cannot know what it is fully doing, and no one can. Without the ability to reverse engineer it, you have lost control of your machine in fundamental ways.
This will be the beginning of extremely powerful malware. But, beyond malware, the software ecosystem will radically evolve because of it. Incentives and behaviors change when technical capacities do, especially when significant power imbalances arise. This is part of that two-edged sword of cryptography.
The Crypto-Blackbox Walled Garden is coming. This is only one sufficient cause for the death or near death of reverse engineering, at least insofar as it benefits the masses. There are other surfaces to attack. Our power equalization tools are increasingly vulnerable and may eventually become obsolete.
The future of reverse engineering continues to look grimmer each passing decade. There will be a point of no return. Our masters are busy locking us out of the fleeting utopia they are creating just for themselves.
I fixed the valves (made them all pretty-ish). I also measured the simulator and drew up the materials list for another one. I went on to double check Chris' math; he made several errors (had to restart twice). We essentially built two rolling offset constructs today. I didn't push as hard (although, I still did the lion's share of the work). I had built them before, and I wanted to let Chris get more practice in. The teacher needed to see that Chris could do it on his own. Ultimately, however, when it came to measuring the degrees and lengths, I stepped in to get it done right.
They both wanted to know if we would be moving onto socket welds after this. We should. I said I wasn't sure though. I know I went through several offset constructions that Chris and Nash haven't. One or two of them were fairly tricky. I didn't want to ruin the surprise for them, just in case, our teacher slings it at them as well.
Funnily enough, the teacher did not perform the 90-degree rotation of the object to check both roll and rise. We had been down this road before though, and he knew he could not answer why it would be off. It's okay. After having mounted this stuff, I'm thinking it will be okay for now. There is some wiggle room.
Afterward, we studied for the exam. It was kind of a brief day. I learned very little, but I was happy to have the opportunity to practice and review. Hopefully, it is crystallizing for me in my virtue-theoretic Fastmind.
Ivanka Trump is delicious.<<ref "1">> Even Donald thinks so. She knows it, and it seems like she's experienced it as well. Her body language towards him bespeaks a deep divide in her. I am quite convinced that Donald has raped her (to various degrees) before (yo, intelligence agencies: are you reading this?). The abductive evidence is there; the inference is clear.
Like all of Donald's children (just like himself), Ivanka Trump financially and politically benefits from being her father's daughter. Donald's sons are mere middlemen between Donald and his businesses (and methods for making money off our government and through transnational bribes). Ivanka's place, however, has been much less obvious to me. She clearly needs to benefit strongly to justify spending so much time with her rapist.
She has an office in the Whitehouse. She has top security clearances. She doesn't get paid. She does a job though. Nobody has given it a title, not even Ivanka. This is hilariously ironic, considering how she once organized a campaign to encourage women to share their job titles. What is this job, which can't be called a job because it is even legally (not just morally) indefensible nepotism?
Ivanka is her father's handler.
He is a loose cannon, a demented idiot that flies off the handle bars, and a psychopath seriously lacking impulse control. She's his caretaker, manager, babysitter, and hand-holder. In a weird way, she might be acting First Lady. She can charm that snake (in so many ways) and tame that beast to some extent. To the best of her abilities, insofar as it aligns with her interests, she keeps The Donald on task, on topic, and defuses his insanity in meetings. She keeps The Donald centered, balanced, and as emotionally stable and calm as she can (ofc, only insofar as it pleases her). She is an anchor which loosely tethers him to reality.
Perhaps you are thinking: "Anything to try to reign him in, right?" Maybe she's the only person that can do it. I don't know. It is unobvious how effective a puppeteer she is with her father. Thus, it is unclear how much direct power she has. More problematically, she isn't the only puppeteer. In a way though, she appears to be unchallenged, and that could be because even Donald's detractors and political enemies find him more bearable with Ivanka than without.
I would like to caution against this line of reasoning though. Ivanka plays an absurdly significant role in our government, and she is not elected to do so. That alone makes her very dangerous. Her role is unchecked, with minimal transparency. The habit of relying upon her is forming. Her power may only grow. Perhaps she is being groomed. I wonder who she serves as a means to serving herself.
This is a very twisted version of The Aristocrats Joke.
-------------------------
<<footnotes "1" "If you are going to be evil, at least be hot. My brain can suffer though it better.">>
Today was very good, although it had a weird moment.
TJ and I were waiting to see the coordinator from AB&T, Jo. Jo reminds me of the hairline lip of a number Bob's Burgers characters. She is very interesting. It would not be just anyone who would help me. In any case, she brought me the forms I needed. Towards the end of our conversation, she asked me how I was doing in class. She was excited to use me as a case study as well (of switching gears radically). I said excellent. Talked about how I'm going with the union. We talked about the unions in general, and my goal to be a journeyman (I can only do so effectively through a union in my state). Somehow, my explanation of it to her made her quiet. I'm 99% sure she "realized" at that moment that I'm a crazy person. Lol. It's okay. She really does need to succeed, or I'd make her look bad. I'm convinced she will help me even if she knows I'm mentally atypical. Anyways, the conversation ended cordially, however, abruptly.
TJ talked about how he was going into the union as well. I wouldn't mind working with him. Now, this man is also very interesting. Let me tell you. Been to prison a few times. Smart as a tack though for having so little education. He works hard. His life appears to be on an upward trajectory. TJ has family in the union. He has strong situational awareness.
I finished the heart. The heart just took some grinding. Since I've spent time working on stainless steel, I've developed a better spatial reasoning sense for how to sculpt. It's easier to imagine the relief I'm trying to generate. Becoming a good sculptor would take a lot of practice. Absurd amounts. The heart is for [[R]]. I have to thank her for taking the time to talk to me. It meant a lot.
I finished the chopped down log. This took more work. I had to cut it, torch it, bend it, make round plates, weld them to the tops, tack the pieces together, buff it and make my highlights. I cleaned it up. I made a final portaband cut, and then I made a mini-saw. I needed the welder's shop to help me make it. The mini-saw doesn't look great, but it works. The rest of it looks pretty cool though.
I asked about TIG. The teacher said we had it, but that I needed to finish working on stick. That's completely reasonable. I am nowhere near where I need to be. I will eventually get to try it though, which is cool. I have one more set of crafts I want to finish, but I'll weave them into doing my actual training too. I want to become much better at welding.
My teacher gave me my fourth construction job for the school. This one was simple. I made holes in concrete with a hammer drill. I then mounted warning signs about the hazards of welding without proper ventilation. I weld with the portable ventilator, except for tacks here and there.
I did weld at the very end of the day, like for real practice. I cut a long but thin plate (which is the right thing to practice on!), beveled it, and dropped a root. This was my best root yet on average. I do like the shelf, a lot. I need to try different shelf sizes. Full edge penetration wasn't there, but it was much closer. More importantly, it was extremely consistent. Now that I have something consistent, I can push it and pull my techniques and strategies, the way I practice, slowly adjusting it in the right directions. This is where I learn to really weld now.
Remember: stainless steel, thin, 60 amps, keep it deep and tight, straight up and down.
Chris was unmotivated today. He finished two tests and called it. We'll see what he does with his Thursdays. He took a test today from the book as well, since he wasn't coming in tomorrow. I think he will likely end up just taking all Fridays off. He really feels like it is a waste of his time. In a way, he's right. We mostly take tests and clean up on Friday. By skipping Fridays, he does not miss out on shop time. Gary does the same by leaving at 2:00 every day. I will need to watch out for laziness. It will not always be obvious to me that laziness is the motivator when it is.
The test tomorrow is apparently very difficult.
Today was short but productive. I studied for the test. Took it. Made a 100. I was not expecting to do well considering how Chris didn't do well. I studied more than he did for this one, I think.
Afterward, I was told to go tack weld for Ferguson on his socket weld project (I've been dying to start socket welds for weeks). Ferguson is quite odd, definitely has Aspergers (has the classic facial structure of it too, imho). His ability spatial reasoning is actually fairly impressive in some respects (he can mentally rotate the assembly fairly effectively, although he is not efficient about how often he must do it). We both fit the pieces, and I tacked.
As to tacking, I need to keep higher heat, 75ish on the carbon steel pipe. It's hard to strike the arc otherwise. The tacks looked decent enough (most of them looked better than what Ferguson and Harold had done [they've been at this for 3-4 months). I will be excellent at it with another day of practice (I had about an hour's worth today, but most of it wasn't even tacking). I will probably fling the red ember off the tip from now on. It does make it easier to strike the arc again. I'm used to burning whole rods, and I rarely have to restart. Constantly tacking requires efficiently making multiple uses of the same rod. Also, don't forget to strike horizontally, and keep yourself in a comfortable 2-handed position. Find out how to do that in all cases, positions, angles, etc.
I can see that socket weld will be fairly easy. Screwpipe concepts transfer very well. I found the takeouts part of my book for it. Cutting the pipe will be even simpler than screwpipe since we get to use the wonderful bandsaw. There seem to be two tricky parts to socket welds from what I can see.
The first is making sure your pieces are in good shape (we recycle everything). There's so much leftover slag and weld stuck on the fittings (and pipe to a lesser extent). It is angle-grinder and even die-grinder central. Of course, this just boils down to being systematic in our gathering and preparation of materials (which I'm good at). I'll eventually have Nash do this part after I've mastered it since it is clearly bitchwork. I've done the same on screwpipe. Since I have a competitive advantage in everything compared to Nash, I should work on those tasks in which I have the highest degree of competitive advantage over him. It's the most efficient use of our time. The fact is that I perform the actual planning and fitting to a much greater degree than Nash when compared to our performances of menial labor tasks.
So, for our projects, one person will grab and prepare the fittings and flanges. Another will grab and cut the pipe. The pipe can definitely make use of two people, even though it can be done by one. Eventually, we will all need to grind the last 1.5-2 inches of each end of each pipe (probably going to be a 2-person max kind of thing given our space). Label (although, this should be done at cutting time), double check, and start building.
The second trick is making sure that everything is level. Here screwpipe concepts don't appear to transfer as well, and this is apparently where I will eventually learn to love socket welds so much more than screwpipe. There's definitely a lot less heavy lifting work to be done, from what I can tell. For now, we would fit and level/plumb, tack once, check it/bend it, tack on the other side, check it/bend it (and sometimes rotate the assembly to do it again), then make the final tacks. If we fail, then we have to grind the tacks off and do it again. That's a waste of time. Being level is key. Putting the fittings on correctly is tough. You have to literally put the levels straight on the fittings. I do not get to rely so heavily upon having the secondary/tertiary pipes fitted to finalize my level as I do with screwpipe. I am told that buttwelds are even easier, and I can kind of see it (once someone is truly careful in their initially fitting), as there is so much wiggle room in socket welds.
Also, I was told not to fit entirely into the back of the fitting, but leave a 1/8th of an inch space. I assume this is for heat expansion reasons and perhaps to give more options while fitting.
It will take some practice get the correct process flow down for it. I will streamline that sumbitch before too long though, I guarantee it.
Another noteworthy consideration: tacking requires having multiple people. Traditionally, the fitter "fits" the pipe and holds it while the welder tacks it. Since I'm going to be a craftsman, I will see if I can learn to do it by myself. That would be a truly useful thing to learn. I have read about alignment dogs and other tools which hold pipes in place, but we have none in the shop. It will be a place to be creative, experimental, and thoughtful.
My teacher brought me into his office before lunch. He told me that he's never had students like Chris and me before who smash through the computer and book tests (and, from what I gather, he's never had anyone complete the shop work at the pace we do, even though he has had actual pipefitter apprentices in his class before). It is conceivable that we will finish the 1st pipefitter book (the book after the core book) by the end of the first trimester. We are hot on the heels of the class before us. I anticipate catching up to them within a month or two. When we do catch up, I hope I won't be slowed down by them. I don't want to hold their hands and babysit. I'm going to grab Chris and make sure he is my permanent partner in this class. Your partners matter a ton. I expect this is true almost everywhere and nearly always.
Anyways, so in his office, he told me that since we're moving so quickly through the course, he's decided to offer an "elective" portion of the course. Essentially, he wants to give us the option to do the 3rd NCCER pipefitter book (these are fairly expensive, and the school will pay for it). I think this is a great idea, and I told him so. I believe I will very quickly master the two forms of fitting I've yet to learn, and even with side projects and additional tools to learn, I will have more time on my hands than I know what to do with. The 3rd NCCER book and welding should keep me busy.
Honestly, it would be sick if I could finish the entire NCCER pipefitter's certification in less than a year. That's probably dreaming though. I'll do what I can, eh? I think I need to ask for the study points in advance of our time off in April. I want to cover 1-test a day in my week off. That's totally doable. It would be great to come back and have a test-taking day. Jumping ahead half a book or more would be a worthwhile use of my time off.
It is clear to me that I have much to learn. I'm smashing through the easy beginner stuff, but the world of pipefitting is still quite large (not as large as Philosophy by any stretch), especially when you take up the adjacent fields.
We talked about the history of pipefitting and how little it has changed over the years. I think that is fascinating. I have to say, I'm kind of pleased to be in a field that isn't likely to make huge transformations. I like learning things that will last me for a long time. It is one of the problems I have with applied computer science.
I've been dancing around this family for a while. I've noted many times how much power Bannon has, and I've even touched on [[Cambridge Analytica|2017.02.14 - Realpolitik Speculation: Automated Memetic Warfare]]. Both are funded by the Mercer Family.
Essentially, the computational Hedge-Fund Manager Robert Mercer and his daughter Rebekah are part of the core reason for how Trump was elected president. They are dark-money demagogues. Think 21st century Rupert Murdoch meets the Koch brothers, but quieter and far more intelligent in some respects (but just as crazy). They may be the most successful supporters of the Alt-Right we've seen so far. They obviously know how to spend their money effectively (except for that whole Cruz thing). They are incredibly talented at betting on the market, and it seems like they have the knack for political betting as well (not these two are that far apart). Their goals are terrifying, and they are sadly very successful at achieving their goals.
Let's see, they:
* bankrolled Bannon and Breitbart.
* bankrolled Kellyanne Conway's superPAC.
* injected David Bossie from Citizens United into Trump's campaign team.
* invested in Cambridge Analytica, and are clearly committed to memetic warfare against the People of the world.
* painted Hillary as corrupt; produced the hit piece book entitled //Clinton Cash//.<<ref "1">>
* have masterfully herded, converted, and redirected the growing insurgency and discontent with the hyperclass towards red herrings and into the arms of Trump.
* had Rebekah planted in Trump's transition team.
The Mercer's, alongside Putin, are in non-trivial ways responsible for the mass psychosis we're experiencing in the United States (and perhaps the West at large). Of course, controlling POTUS is not the same thing as controlling Congress itself (the much more powerful political body). I have no idea how much power the Mercer's ultimately wield, especially considering how effectively private and secretive they've made their lives.
---
<<footnotes "1" "Let me be the first to throw stones at the Clintons. They are corrupt. However, we should still be worried about the Mercer's fairly absurd propaganda. I believe the Clinton's are war-criminals, and murderers too, but Bob Mercer thinks they are murderers in the more standard sense too, lol. Maybe he knows something I don't (and he very well could), but the evidence isn't there.">>
!! Log:
* [[2017.04.23 - 1uxb0x's Wiki Log]]
* [[2017.04.30 - 1uxb0x's Wiki Log]]
!! Audit:
* Honestly, getting my son to write anything at this point is doing well. That sounds terrible. He's 9. But, try and see that he couldn't even speak until he was 4. He has grown tremendously.
* This is about practice and encouragement to help him reach his potential for the sake of his long-term happiness.
* Being able to communicate is hard for everyone, but especially for him. Take it one day at a time. Slowly move the goal-posts and improve.
!! Log:
* [[2017.04.16 - DCK Meditation]]
* [[2017.04.21 - DCK Meditation]]
* [[2017.04.30 - DCK Meditation]]
!! Audit:
* I think it is still a good idea for my kids to meditate. I can't keep piling things on for them to do. They need to be comfortable and fast with what they already have on their plates. I have to triage what we'll accomplish and what we won't.
* Part of these meditations hovers between useless and crazy. Other times I make acceptable points. I have actually gone on to implement some of these ideas. You can't be right or brilliant 100% of the time. You have to sift the sands. Tune it for signal-to-noise ratio.
* Overall, it is clear that DCK is doing good in my life. It makes life positive for me.
!! Log:
* [[2017.04.23 - Diet Log]]
* [[2017.04.24 - Diet Log]]
* [[2017.04.25 - Diet Log]]
* [[2017.04.26 - Diet Log]]
* [[2017.04.27 - Diet Log]]
* [[2017.04.28 - Diet Log]]
* [[2017.04.29 - Diet Log]]
* [[2017.04.30 - Diet Log]]
!! Audit:
* Average calories per day: 2098.5
* I eat a fruit. That's good. I don't eat enough vegetables. I now eat something for dessert every day. Salads have been kicking ass. I should eat more salads. I like to load them with vegetables, and the dressing I use is delicious while not costing many calories (that's hard to find!).
!! Log:
* [[2017.04.02 - Family Log]]
* [[2017.04.16 - Family Log]]
* [[2017.04.23 - Family Log]]
* [[2017.04.30 - Family Log]]
!! Audit:
* I can see that [[1uxb0x]] didn't do much of what we wanted to accomplish. It was a good month for him though.
* [[j3d1h]] is able to stay on task better and does accomplish more of her personal goals.
* Hopefully, in time both will be adept at triaging, prioritizing, focusing, and other executive function skills that enable them to make the most of their time.
* [[k0sh3k]] had stomach problems which we eventually found were due to milk in a sugar candy she had received from work. Her period, allergies, headaches, and sleeping problems have not dissipated.
* I spent a month not fixing a dryer. Jesus.
!! Log:
* [[2017.04.01 - h0p3's Log]]
* [[2017.04.02 - h0p3's Log]]
* [[2017.04.05 - h0p3's Log]]
* [[2017.04.07 - h0p3's Log]]
* [[2017.04.10 - h0p3's Log]]
* [[2017.04.11 - h0p3's Log]]
* [[2017.04.12 - h0p3's Log]]
* [[2017.04.14 - h0p3's Log]]
* [[2017.04.21 - h0p3's Log]]
* [[2017.04.23 - h0p3's Log]]
* [[2017.04.25 - h0p3's Log]]
* [[2017.04.27 - h0p3's Log]]
* [[2017.04.28 - h0p3's Log]]
!! Review:
* I'm pretty sure that [[h0p3's Log]] this month helped me realize that I need templates and more logs. It helped me see the value in at least attempting to be systematic and disciplined in having a conversation with myself.
* I think it helped me reflect a lot. It was hit-or-miss in helping motivate me in my daily life.
* It clearly evolved over the month. I'm not sure what else I can do to improve upon the process, but I will keep my eyes open. I can see it is valuable.
* I had a serious dip in my depression, and this was due to not taking DCK. It got worse in the middle of the month. It was a huge mistake to stop taking DCK for so long. My brother [[JRE]] says it is quite common for people to stop taking their meds because they feel fine. The various anti-depressants and anti-anxiety meds I've taken didn't actually work, but DCK did. I was actually better. But, at the same time, because I felt better, and because DCK can be a struggle, I felt I could do without. Eventually, I do want to take myself off it. I need to get myself to a place where I'm happy with life though. I'm not there yet. I can, of course, afford to not use DCK for a week or two to pass a drug test. However, I should not go off it completely at this point. I was able to successfully drop cannabis without serious consequences.
* My sleep schedule has improved with DCK. If I'm consistently not sleeping well, that is a sign that something is wrong. ARE YOU LISTENING!?
* I'm hoping that meeting with my parents in a couple weeks will go well and have a positive impact on our lives.
* I'm so happy I've been reflecting like this. I don't always have something to say every day. But, it has been useful. I'm so grateful to myself for taking the time to do this.
!! Log:
* [[2017.04.02 - Homeschooling Log]]
* [[2017.04.14 - Homeschooling Log]]
* [[2017.04.21 - Homeschooling Log]]
* [[2017.04.29 - Homeschooling Log]]
!! Audit:
* This month was yet another turning point. It was another iteration of how we engage in the practice of homeschooling.
* I have done much planning, structuring, organizing, design, etc. But, implementation, accountability, and effectively cultivating it in my children is not something I can do alone or even well.
* My wife has taken up the bulk of responsibilities in that domain now. It has been very effective.
!! Log:
* [[2017.04.23 - j3d1h's Wiki Log]]
* [[2017.04.30 - j3d1h's Wiki Log]]
!! Audit:
* Honestly, many of the suggestions I've made haven't been implemented. Many, however, were. This may just be a shotgun approach.
* We will eventually get where we need to be. Think about how long it took to create what I have on this wiki. There's work on here from over a decade ago. Give it time to develop.
!! Log:
* [[2017.04.23 - k0sh3k's Wiki Log]]
* [[2017.04.30 - k0sh3k's Wiki Log]]
!! Audit:
* This was a month of just pushing my wife to even get into writing on her wiki. She kind of didn't want to, but she was also very busy with other things. I'm glad she jumped into it. I'm grateful.
!! Logs:
* [[2017.04.25 - Link Log]]
* [[2017.04.26 - Link Log]]
* [[2017.04.27 - Link Log]]
* [[2017.04.28 - Link Log]]
* [[2017.04.29 - Link Log]]
* [[2017.04.30 - Link Log]]
!! Audit:
* My links are not surprising to me. There is a heavy amount of technology and socialism that I highlight. There's some philosophy and psychology. I have very little else that seemed to resonate with me enough to say, "hey, I should save that." Do I need to change these behaviors? Is my curation process good enough?
* One thing I feel like I'm not doing in my routine is curating information about pipefitting itself. I need to do that. I could try to make that a goal, yeah? Pipefitting links.
!! Log:
* [[2017.04.03 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.04.04 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.04.05 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.04.06 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.04.07 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.04.10 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.04.11 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.04.12 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.04.13 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.04.14 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.04.17 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.04.18 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.04.19 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.04.20 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.04.21 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.04.25 - Pipefitting Log]]
!! Audit:
* Nash continues to be useless. Chris continues to be a decent peer. Luke has become a fun partner to work with.
* I have changed my mind about the nature of the extra NCCER bookwork and my trajectory in this class over the month. It's clear my teacher really is trying to slow us down.
* The break wasn't as bad as I thought it would be.
* I didn't create a networking section on this wiki. I think I really just need a private Rolodex. I can't put their personally information on this site. I can only handle so many pseudonyms.
** It will be important to keep my bridges.
* We didn't move straight into buttwelds in the second trimester like our teacher claimed.
* I talked a lot with my teacher this past month
* I'm clearly working harder than others in the shop.
* I spend significant time cataloging what other people do and why I think they do it. I think this is useful. I have to find the weaknesses of being autism and build good coping mechanism into my socialization.
* I actually feel bad for Chris often. He is a dad that is just trying to make it work.
* The conflict between my teacher and Luke is clear. I think that my teacher may see me as taking up Luke's side. Or, at least I worry about that possibility.
* I didn't really accomplish nearly as much in welding as I'd like.
* I feel like I'm not asking my teacher enough questions about the nature, dynamics, requirements, and goals of pipefitting. I'm not sure how to get myself to figure out what questions I need to be asking. My teacher often doesn't seem to know what it is that he needs to be saying to us. I don't know how to pry out the information I need to know because I don't know it!
* Being the first in the toolroom is valuable, particularly if know which tools are worthwhile. When I'm on the job in the field, I think being first will be useful. It gives you a natural priority.
* Luke was willing to change his behaviors with me to some extent. This may be part of his personality that he attempts to blend in with those around him.
* Extending respect often paid off directly with people, but indirectly it actually had repercussions (sometimes negative ones) with others.
* This month had a lot of AB&T stuff going on.
* Overall, this was not my most productive month. That is a shame.
!! Log:
* [[2017.04.02 - Realpolitik Speculation: Brave New Experience Machine]]
* [[2017.04.02 - Realpolitik Speculation: The Divorce of Productivity and Compensation]]
* [[2017.04.10 - Realpolitik Speculation: The Renewable Resource]]
* [[2017.04.10 - Realpolitik Speculation: Redpilled Platonic Philosophy]]
* [[2017.04.13 - Realpolitik Speculation: Mainstream Media]]
* [[2017.04.13 - Realpolitik Speculation: Internet Shutdowns]]
* [[2017.04.15 - Realpolitik Speculation: Parasitic Bitcoin Hashing: Wallet Burglary]]
* [[2017.04.17 - Realpolitik Speculation: Ransomware Economic Strategies]]
* [[2017.04.17 - Realpolitik Speculation: Automating Digital Social Class Stratification]]
* [[2017.04.21 - Realpolitik Speculation: Energy Subsidies]]
* [[2017.04.25 - Realpolitik Speculation: Privatized Quantum Computing]]
* [[2017.04.25 - Realpolitik Speculation: Rectifying Our News Process Disintegration]]
!! Audit:
* My Realpolitik section has continued to focus more and more upon the intersection of technology and politics.
* I've also been posting less.
* Like the rest of the American people, I'm starting to become desensitized to the insanity of Trump's presidency bit by bit. It's disheartening, but also "yup, that guys an idiot, what else is new?" This is likely the wrong outlook.
!! Log:
* [[2017.04.27 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.04.28 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.04.29 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.04.30 - Wiki Review Log]]
!! Audit:
* (*crickets*)
Did the normal stuff today, but also tried to fix the dryer. I took the front off and cleaned it. I think the heating element or something is wrong. I picked up a cheap multimeter, and I'll try to and figure it out. Will probably ask for my brother's help/thoughts. I also visited the in-law family. It went very well. I met k0sh3k's cousin, a 42-year-old programmer Democrat. Interesting guy. He's hopeful. Silly man. Still, obviously intelligent.
* How has our health been this week?
** 1uxb0x
*** Good.
** j3d1h
*** Blowing her nose quite a bit.
** k0sh3k
*** Fine. Evened out energy levels. Not unduly tired or dizzy.
** h0p3
*** My fingernails have been giving me a lot of trouble.
* What happened last week? Have you been happy this past week? Why or why not?
** 1uxb0x
*** Happy about his friends coming back.
** j3d1h
*** Played with some new friends. Pretty happy overall. Felt days were fast paced.
** k0sh3k
*** Yes. Very productive, even despite having logistics problems. Several students told her they were glad she is a librarian at the school. Had fun with her parents.
*** Decided to use a daily schedule bullet journal.
** h0p3
*** Was happy with my own work.
* What will we do this week?
** 1uxb0x
*** Keep his desk clean. Zero toys.
** j3d1h
*** Finish MC VM.
** k0sh3k
*** Fix Resilio
*** Put bullets into tiddly
** h0p3
*** Use the multimeter to check which part of the dryer isn't working. Find a place to buy it cheaply. If we're lucky, we'll have the part in time to fix the dryer.
My multimeter is not functioning. It was a cheap one. I got what I paid for, according to my brother. That's okay. We'll use the laundromat this week. I've purchased another multimeter, it will be here Wednesday. This one is highly rated amongst users and it was still fairly cheap ($18). I'll find out on Wednesday what part I need, and I'll call shops around the area to see if they the part I need at a reasonable price. If not, I'll buy the part online as well. It will be at least another week before I can fix this. That's okay.
j3d1h has completed most of her content.
* She needs to work on more verbose freewriting.
* She must explain more of the content of what she learned for Spanish.
* She needs a meaning/purpose statement for each piece of writing she covers in literature.
* She wasted her time on problem-solving. The thing she should have accomplished in one day took her a week, and she still didn't finish.
* She needs to structure her wiki, and follow through on the feedback she's been given.
1uxb0x
* Graft old journal into the new one
* Morning routine should be honest
* He must put dates inside the individual subject journals. The point is to see a timeline of each subject.
* Math is lacking an explanation of the pages and book covered alongside the content of what was covered.
* Curatio needs to be organized and structured.
It's always sad to see that Orwell and Huxley can both be at least half right at the same time. I tend to cover the Orwellian perspective the most, especially since I consider it the most coercive. But, that is not a complete story. Huxley's vision has enormous explanatory power as well. Huxley was right about the way in which humanity continues to trend towards pleasuring ourselves. His understanding of the systematic effect of the mix between technology and egoism on the world at large was prophetic, even if not always accurate.
As someone who has emerged from severe depression (or still is emerging), I can completely see the moral and prudential viability of taking [[Cypher's Choice]] in The Matrix. Embedding ourselves in experience machines is arguably what we are all trying to do in the first place. However sad it may be, it appears to be a morally permissible (if not obligatory) option. Arguing against experience machines, in my experience, rests upon unjustified intuitions and assumptions. I've yet to see an argument that remotely comes close to diffusing the virtual bomb against reality.
Seriously, what is the purpose of life? To be happy. Right? We're going to beg the question here; it's innately axiomatic (I am fully aware of the is/ought distinction, and I still take this argument to be valid). Any sufficiently advanced species in the universe has likely been egoistically motivated through evolutionary processes. I don't mean this as a natural fallacy either. Surely we can be justified, insofar as metamodern justification is even plausible, in at least many cases of building things around us that augment and replace reality. I think you already accept this to some degree, you just don't realize the implications of taking your principles to the Nth degree. We maximize our utility through tools, avoid danger and pain, and pay the lowest cost for the highest systematic pleasure returns. Virtual reality seems like an obvious space in which to live the kinds of lives we want to live without paying the physical costs (many of which are impossible to pay) of making such a world "real" in the flesh.
It is far more price-efficient to derive meaning and satisfaction from virtual reality than reality itself. Our species is evolving to short circuit the evolutionary drive for survival and pleasure through standard, brutal reality. Instead of accepting and living in bare reality, we use drugs, tell stories, play games, live in virtual worlds, etc. to replace our usual lives. We've been making experience machines for ourselves for a very long time. Psychotropic drug use is older than written history, even the lower animals play games (and use drugs!), stories might just definitionally be the human experience, and religion is also an experience machine (an opiate of the masses). As we evolve and innovate, we discover more effective and efficient pleasure chemical inducing practices.
Experience machines are the potent means to our ends as a species. The grass can always be greener, that is the essence of hope. Hope is the belief that this is not all there is, that we can be happier, more purpose-filled, meaningful, content, joyful, and satisfied. Experience machines provide the firmament for worlds with greener grasses. This is what enlightenment is actually pursuing. Use tools to make life easier and avoid the hardships of nature. Take your Soma because you seek bliss. Immerse yourself in virtual worlds, in soap operas, in games, in religion to be happier. Perhaps it will only be a matter of time until we have the technology to rig our brains with neural laces or a brain fungus to permanently exist in a state of sublime orgasm.
I've given you the theory, now let us inspect the application we see today. Video games are but one profound example of this systemic contemporary Brave New Experience Machine which devours our first-world youth. Now, growing up, I heard plenty of bullshit about the futility and uselessness of video games. The truth is more complex than that.
I think video games are wonderful tools. Video games are microcosms. They even teach us about the real world, give us narratives and other worlds to explore, provide us characters and communities of RL people with which to empathize and connect to, and even improve dexterity, problem-solving, and technical skills. Hell, I'm literally trying to play life like a video game, that's how convinced I am by the positive influence that video games can have on our lives. I was a proponent of video games long before they were completely mainstream,<<ref "1">> but even I'm willing to point out their flaws.
Like any drug or skinner-box activity, addiction is a fundamental problem. If pleasure is fundamentally what drives us, the shortcut that video games provide to pumping the pleasure center of our brain can easily warp our behavior so as to provide us short-sighted, instant-gratification driven, poor executive functioning. It's hard to be wise when you can merely push buttons for pleasure. It's hard to engage in longer-term thinking. However, I want to point out that while video game addiction is quite real (you're listening to a survivor), more and more I see video game dependence as not being negative (standardly addictive) because it is literally the best utility-generating option for too many people.
Many rational utility seekers (to various degrees) are withdrawing from society to play video games. They do not participate in our economy. It is sad that the best method for them to maximize their utility is through our poor experience machine video game bubbles. I'm not here to victim blame though (I think it would border on fundamental attribution error). There is something logical about their approach, a utility-maximization we should appreciate.
The fact is that work is generally a means to an end in our world. Few have jobs they enjoy or find intrinsic value in. Thus, for most folks, the end is all that matters. The means is variable. If being unemployed can achieve acceptable ends, then why work? Again. I'm not claiming they are "lazy bums" or some other conservative lunacy (I say it again to you conservatives: please KYS; we'd all be much happier without you). Not working means you have more time to enjoy the luxuries you do have. I see these brave souls as sucking the marrow out of life, of making do with their predicament. These are utility-maximizing rational tradeoffs.
No doubt, the long-term consequences for their lives and our human capital will be severe. I think this is the hikikomori hope though, however bleak it may be. The game of life is rigged against us, and the end appears to be coming. There is a threshold at which it is hard to justify empathizing with your future self or humanity. Assuming we will fail as a species, I guess I'm saying: we need radically better experience machines. I'm coming out as a transhumanist in prescription, but not as predictive description for the masses.
Huxley, yet again, was a visionary.
---
<<footnotes "1" "I don't mean this as some useless hipsterism or appeal to authority.">>
From ~1940-1970, productivity and hourly wage compensation tracked each other. They grew together. They were married together. In 1970, they got a divorce. Wages stagnated (haven't really moved since then) while productivity continued to climb higher and higher. That trend continues today. I believe there are two fundamental causes for this divorce:
# The beginning of the information age and the rapid growth of labor automation.
# Psychopathic Randian Libertarianism's increasing corruption of the Hyperclass which serves to destroy those seeking equality, fairness, or to not be enslaved.
Paired together, the Hyperclass continues to centralize their wealth, power, and monopolistic stranglehold on technologic progress. They reap an exponentially increasing lion's share of the rewards. Real Productivity is rising due to automation, but only a fraction of the world is ultimately benefiting from it in the long run. The number of people who benefit will continue to shrink and shrink. The global utility equation is a crisis. When we centralize the control and profits of automation and technology into the hands of fewer and fewer people, we will continue to see this divorce between productivity and compensation.
Let's be clear. I'm not blaming automation. That's the fucking point of technology throughout the history of the //homo sapien// species: make life better.<<ref "1">> I don't mean just that we get to buy smartphones and medicine (oh wait, we can't afford that anymore). Of course, some technology does eventually benefit the masses. I mean more than that. I mean not only that we have nicer things, but that we all directly get be productive and reap the rewards of being productive with technology. Insofar as that is logistically difficult, then we need to enforce it through redistribution. It's the only fair thing to do.
We should not allow only a tiny select elite to reap the rewards of being productive with technology. Talk about innovation incentives all you want: you're either an //idiot// or a //psychopath//. It's clear to me that publicly funded innovation is central to our progress. The privatization of the "last mile" of progress just gives away the public's hard work and investment into the hands of the few. They've robbed us!
No human has a claim to own non-personal data, concepts, or any other intellectual objects.<<ref "2">> IP rights must be abolished; it is strengthening our masters beyond their wildest dreams. We are supercharging the Hyperclass with dangerous tools. They are snowballing power against us. They are draining us for everything we are worth before they finish building their own geopolitical structures (of course, "legitimately" government backed, legislated, adjudicated, and military-police protected), close us out, starve us, and enslave us "with our consent" when we come back begging. We will only pass through their guarded gates when we are willing to accept any power dynamic on their terms (read: master/slave) for the sake of our mere survival.
In the ultimate analysis, automation is useful to us as a society at large only insofar as we maintain political and economic systems which can fairly distribute the value of technologic progress. Power imbalances must be answered because they are a threat to any proper implementation of the Veil of Ignorance.
We must stop them before it is too late! Are you listening!?! Our time is running out. This is not like the other cycles of human and political history. Marx was wrong guys!<<ref "3">> He was so fundamentally right about some of the most important concepts about humanity that we will ever know as citizens, but he was still wrong about this. Marx was a human visionary, but not a technologic one. I know the difference.
Marx had no idea how profoundly efficient and effective our technology would be, how influential it would be, how much power and raw ability it would give the future generations. Even understanding the broader changes in society (narrow and detailed being even more impossible) at every level in The Earth Stack is already beyond our comprehension, and we have over 130 years at our advantage. He could not see this pattern, and we shouldn't have expected him to.
The fact is that technology has and continues to progress to the point that the powerful will be a position to permanently enslave the rest of humanity. The means to this terrible end are just having the right tools and the will power, and both are coming to fruition.
Since I don't blame technology, then I blame the people wielding it and those who enable our masters. It's time to take get our compensation back. We need to see the permanent marriage of Productivity and Compensation. This is the socialist face of "Taxation without representation is tyranny."
<<<
Kill the masters.
--Grey Worm the Unsullied, Game of Thrones
<<<
---
<<footnotes "1" "That goes for plenty of other species as well.">>
<<footnotes "2" "Where personal has to do with what is standardly called 'private' information, but I worry that the word 'private' has been so thoroughly corrupted that only 'personal' can clearly allow to point out the obvious here.">>
<<footnotes "3" "I imagine I'm either preaching to the choice or you're thinking: 'No shit, Sherlock. He was wrong about everything.' If the latter, you're an idiot; if the former, you should be charitable.">>
Today we took a test on Oxy-fuel cutting. It was a long chapter. It wasn't too bad though. I thought we'd be moving straight into socket welds. Nope. Wrong again. /sad-face. The teacher decided to have us go back to laterals. This time we did a giant pipe, 4-on-10 lateral. I honestly didn't do much besides the math, planning, and drawing on the material. Nash and Chris wanted to do the cutting and grinding. Alright (I wish I could just do it all; I enjoy it). I did the finishing touches on the bevel (although, it is unclear to me why we beveled in this section other than the possibility that we are reinforcing it?) because Nash doesn't quite have it down. One interesting part of the planning was that we use schedule 40 for the branch pipe after having decided not to use the much thicker schedule 80. I checked the bottom pipe (the trunk?) and found it was schedule 20. The teacher confirmed. It didn't interfere with our measurements though (or, I hope it won't). Remember that Outer Diameter is the nominal size after 12 inches, but Inner diameter up to 12 inches.
I also helped Ferguson a bit on his socket weld project as I wandered around waiting for Nash to get through it. He lacks both an understanding of where to grind and finesse with the grinder.
I then hammered marks on the soapstone rings I drew with Chris into the large pipe. We are fabricating a reinforcement ring for this lateral out of the part of the large pipe. Remember that the width (not thickness) of reinforcement rings are 1/2 of the branch pipe diameter. To make this ring, we need to cut it very cleanly. Thus, we had the chance to put our theory into practice by using the oxy-fuel cutting torch today. The teacher was slightly miffed that I was working ahead (instead of getting him, but he was quite busy), but my work was fine (slightly tighter than he'd have liked on the inner circle). Anyways, we got it set, and so I went to get him this time. I told him we were ready to cut. The teacher said, "go for it." Lulz. Well, I've done it a few times, so fine. I taught the guys how to use it (I think the teacher should have taught them to use this very dangerous machine, not me).
They were scared as fuck. Shaking. Nash has an admitted phobia about it even. He wouldn't even cut except the first time. I understand being scared of it. This thing is really fucking dangerous. Anyways, I taught 'em on some practice pipe to try it out. I then cut the center piece out of our primary piece, since it needed to be the most exact of the cuts (I did an okay job; the problem was that I had to freehand one section). Also, don't forget to make yourself comfortable! Think of it as welding, but way more dangerous. Be comfortable. Maximize your fine-grained control. It didn't help that we were basically on a timer because we were running low on oxygen. Afterward, Chris cut the outer loop. It needs some grind work. I'll jump on it asap tomorrow. Afterward, I guess we'll tack. I'd love to take a shot at welding the damn thing. Might as well though, right? If this is just practice, it's the perfect time to screw it all up (because, in a sense, it doesn't matter if I mess up).
On a sadder note, Connor finished his work today. He has graduated. He left, for good it seems. I said goodbye and wished him luck in life.
I read some of the Union history book before class started. We jumped into our project. The guys immediately went for grinding. Since there are 3 of us and only 1 piece, I decided to try and find something else to do. I decided it would be reasonable to cut the final hole in the "trunk." I asked my teacher to make sure this was reasonable. It was.
So, I drew the hole (outside and in, but "in" is what mattered). I used the hole-puncher (wears on my hands, I tell ya what) around the bright soapstone circle I made. I then grabbed the oxy-fuel cutting torch and cut it out. I didn't go too close to the line. I'd rather grind than completely fuck it up on the initial cut.
I ended up using an actual grinder to do the majority of the shaping on both pieces. Nash and Chris were lazy today. That's fine with me. I'll take the practice. I'm going to be excellent at this. The inner edges were tight and hard to grind cleanly. We eventually found rock grinders that did the trick (I forget the exact name, but they are literally made of a rock-like substance). I thought I may have ground the reinforcement plate down a bit too much. Turns out, the teacher said it was just right or that in the field I'd find I may need to go even further.
They went on break, and I finished it. The high-lo was clean. The pieces fit. I was pleased.
Afterward, I asked my teacher if we could actually try to weld it (and not merely tack it). I knew my teacher was running out of things for us to do (I saw his wandering), and it's clear he doesn't want us to move onto socket welds (I think he knows we are going to smash it). Since I'm less interested in hashing content I feel very comfortable doing, I'd rather work on things I suck at.
Further, Nash had been saying all morning he wanted to weld. It seemed like a good thing to do. Ultimately, Nash didn't really want to do that much welding. He wanted to screw around for a few minutes posing as a welder-in-training. He didn't really want to practice. The welds took hours. Chris did some, but he was clearly discouraged as well. I was doing half and letting them do the other half. I ended up doing the vast majority of it. Not a problem for me though, lol. This was some fairly expensive jumbo (as far as the shop goes) pipe to be practicing on. I doubt I'll get the opportunity to do that often.
As to the weld, it was tricky. Pipe welding is its own art/subfield of welding. I have much to learn. I fucked up grinding a non-root bead. I didn't realize it was a no-no. I don't see the difference between the root and others on this matter, but I'm going to take my teacher's word for it. He may not have explained why, but at this point, I'm sure he correct. It was very difficult to make clean welds. I tried several techniques. Eventually, I went with the large rods for the final caps. The teacher was pleased enough with them. More importantly, I was pleased enough with them. It wasn't perfect. It wasn't even respectable for a professional. It would have worked in a pinch though, I tell ya' h'what.
We also got our study points. I'm about halfway through them. We were talking later in the day about how we have 3 more books to complete after this one. I need to keep pushing hard. Certifications, homie: get 'em. I need to find out if there is an NCCER practicum aspect of the curriculum. Basically, I would be unhappy going through the extra books not to be certified (although, I'd still do it).
I'm going to start using a template in this blog. I can still freewheel it in here, but I also want to systematically and consistently ask myself certain questions. It's key to program yourself on this wiki. [[2017.04.05 - Pipefitting Log]] is the case example for why I need to have another Log. I basically answer the questions from the template there. I need to compartmentalize these logs to maximize signal-to-noise ratio in each of them but to also give me clearer data structures to analyze. This is what [[h0p3's Log]] is meant to be.
We actually got to start socket welds today! Yay! As predicted, we are rocking it. Rocking it as in: I could throw down with any of the upperclassmen today on it. Put us in a race where we are both doing our best, and I will do at least as well as they do. In time, I will eclipse them. I don't mean to sound smug here. I'm not running with the horses.
Before we got to start, we had to clean the entire shop. Basically, the 3rd-trimester students have abandoned learning anything more. They just want to finish their tests and leave. They've paid for more time, but they don't want it. Perhaps I will feel the same way. Maybe I'm too harsh on them. I have seen their work though, =/. These guys aren't virtuous enough at the practice to think they //should// walk away from the free shop time, as far as I can tell. It's dumb to spend more time as a waiter or pizza delivery driver when you don't have to (they don't), and you are trying to move into pipefitting. Throw yourself in! They really do just want to cut class as much as possible; the piece of paper is all that matters to them. That's on them though. They will be irrational. I'm completely convinced that even in the less academic world of the trade skills that certification is valuable, but knowledge and practiced talent are still incredibly valuable after you've gotten your foot in the door with a certificate. There is much to learn.
So, we cleaned up their messes. That's fine. We took out the thin cutting disks and dismantled everything, then we recycled the parts. It didn't take long, and now I have the run of the shop without them.
Also, the second-trimester students have dwindled or went co-op. The teacher joked with us that the 12-hour shifts are eating their lunches; I'm sure it will be difficult for me to adjust to it as well. I couldn't pass the drug test at this point, but I will when the time comes. I stop in June so that I'll be prepared to take it in August. That is extraordinarily paranoid, but I desperately want to pass the drug test (of course, I'll be taking my own to ensure that I can pass their test). Beyond the drug test, I believe my time is still best spent mastering pipefitting itself. They are doing firewatches, cleanup, and bitchwork. I have no problem doing these things, especially when I'm getting paid for them! However, when I look in the long-term, I believe I need to squeeze every drop I can from this short-term schooling rock because it will have a profound effect my initial "placement" in the workforce as an apprentice.
Starting out as a 3rd year pipefitter instead of a 1st-year pipefitter apprentice will be huge. That's probably $7/hour difference, and where the "gravy" zone even begins (where working actually becomes worth it past the initial costs). Placement matters. It always does. Your initial starting point, your context, has enormously strong correlations with your outcomes. Let's hope I can be the god of pipefitting that I was in video games as a teenager. Understanding the social and power dynamics of the world will be key. Reputation instrumentally matters even if not intrinsically.
It is much better to skip that 1-week shutdown job to continue learning and practicing pipefitting itself while I still can. The time adds up. I'm not just trying to finish 12 months of work in 10, but actually 8. And, beyond that, I'm not trying to have a half-assed training on it. I want to be really good at it before I leave the shop. Additionally, I'm trying to finish 4 pipefitter books (and the core), not just 2. I'm trying to fit all 4 years of pipefitting book learning into half a year. Now, that might be insane, but I'm really fucking smart and dedicated. I can do it. I'm trying to learn how to weld too. There is much to do that is worth doing, and the co-op seems to detract from it. My exception would be an actual pipefitting job more directly, not just work for random "construction" company as a general worker. It may happen though. I will take whatever is the best option for my children's futures.
Onto the good stuff: our teacher gave us a drawing, told us to acquire the parts and prepare them. Chris and I did the math. We grabbed our supplies. I measured and marked. Nash and Chris worked together to just "cut" the pipe (lame). In reality, Nash literally did nothing again: his loss.
I took the fittings and started grinding the slag off them, and I used a die-bit on a drill to clean on the inside. The goal is to be able to slip pipe in them easily enough and have a roughly flat surface to level and tack on if you can (generally hard to get it level with these recycled parts). Plus, I don't want it to look like shit.
You have to grind the 1.5" outer surface off the tips (1" according to the books, 1.5" according to my teacher) of the pipes. Make it shiny. I keep mine smooth looking too. Basically, they cut, and I did all the grind work. I'm quite fast and methodical about it. The abrasive cutting disks are beautiful for this kind of work.
Once we had the parts ready, the teacher came to show us how to do it. He is usually too brief in his explanations, and so we pry the content out of him with questions. If you do it right, he is even thankful for it.
Here's the gist of it. You put the fitting all the way on, then you let is "fall" a bit naturally (makes it crooked). This should be a 1/8th-inch gap inside between the shelf inside the fitting and the pipe's edge (maybe 1/16th, depending on who you ask). This is necessary for dealing with heat expansion and having the wiggle room to align/level it all. You level it in the directions you can, and then you tack it at 12-o'clock (strongly preferred). Try not to have the fitting pointing down unless you absolutely can't do it otherwise. After the first tack, immediately align it and level it while it's red-hot. It's malleable for only a few seconds. After that, it's hammer time. Failing that, it's grind and restart time.
Remember that tacking will slightly pull the pipe in that direction. It's not severe though. There may be other factors to account for.
I've also found that when inserting vertical pipes that I lean it the side and tack it in the direction. that way when I hammer it won't rotate the fabrication in the vise.
Anyways, we nailed the first project, except one of the pipes was cut too long by 1/8th of an inch. I had double checked the cuts and said something about it. They weren't worried, and I said we should see what happens (since this was our first time). It isn't like screwpipe, where being off a 1/8th can be accounted for by tightening a bit extra on both sides. Nope. It shows up directly, and it did. Since I had pointed it out in our final measurements (to make sure they met the requirements) before having the teacher actually inspect it, our teacher told us not to even worry about it. We had already told him how we were going to solve it (was marked already, and we had the portaband out for it). He passed it though.
He gave us a new one after we took the old one apart. We had done this new one before on screwpipe too. It was more towards the medium difficulty of the plans he has stored up for the class. Chris and I did the math, and Nash attempted to help Chris. Nash's mistake made Chris' calculations all wrong. Chris will just do it himself from now on too, I believe. Lazy, capitalist-pig Nash. The kid was born with a silver spoon in his mouth for this region. It is clear he was the bully asshole in school too. Meh. Forget him. Chris has informally adopted his GF's child, and he's a working man. He might not be smart, he might be psychopathic in conservative ways, but at least he tries most of the time. I can respect that.
I've convinced both Chris and Nash to continue using the recycled pipe. I think it is ridiculous that previous classes didn't. It's obvious we can and should. It isn't much of a cost to us either in terms of work. I didn't do any measurements for this. They did. We will see if I can delegate this to Chris or not; I probably should check it anyway. I went straight for the flanges and fittings. I got those set. My grind work on the pipes also outpaced their cutting (I think that makes them look bad; the giant bandsaw is incredibly easy and fast to use.).
The lady at the front office came in. We know each other (she helped me join the school last Spring and actually join pipefitting in January of this year). She said I looked funny in my equipment. She seemed so surprised that I was working hard and enjoying it. She's not a bright woman, but I handle the classic fat southern woman just fine in conversations. Joviality with virtue-signaled humility is the key.
A few other noteworthy things sprinkled throughout the day:
The teacher said he "admired my dedication, but [I] need to start taking [my] breaks." I said okay, that I would comply (I didn't drop that 75 cent word on him). He went on to argue (I mean this philosophically) that when I would be employed, it would be expected that I would take my breaks. I quickly explained that I do take my breaks when I'm employed, every minute of it is //my// time. But, when I'm in class, I'm working on myself for myself. I need that job. That changed his mind. He decided to allow me to continue skipping breaks. Don't get me wrong. I still always take a breather on my breaks (and however much time I feel like I need). I grab a piece of fruit to eat. I get something to drink. Take a piss. Charge my mp3 player or rock out on my music for a few seconds to let it out. But, I put myself back on task because that's what I'm there to do. I will master this, and I will make enough money to make my children's lives as happy as I can (most people my age aren't lucky enough to be able to do that because our world sucks, but I believe I am exceptional enough to accomplish this goal). I'm their creator; they didn't choose to be created. Hence, I owe them the best life I can give them.
Also, the teacher gave us a quick intro to the different kinds of flanges. He decided to give us an impromptu teaching session on flanges because I had questions about them for this project (since screwpipe flanges are not the same as the other kinds, and this is the first time I've dealt with slip-on flanges). Three broad kinds so far:
* Buttweld
* Slip-on
* Lap-joint
He had a good deal to say about them. I had questions as well. There is obviously much to learn. He made a joke that he had overwhelmed us with information. He as right, but not in a bad way. I had a hard time remembering it all. My teacher realized it. Maybe he might not have been explicit or complete in his understanding of my mental status, but the virtue-theoretic application of subconscious knowledge and pattern-recognition was obviously kicking in. I think he knows I'm truly weird, an alien to him. It's so wonderful to be aliens with someone and yet friends. I don't have to tell him that I'm autistic, but the weirdness doesn't get in the way. We just find lives that are compatible with each other when we can.
Oh, I made a tool! /roar. It wasn't much, but it was something useful. I didn't come up with the idea. Sometimes a pipe is too short to use even a torpedo level on. So, we take a small bit of pipe, stack in on the pipe to be measured, and then put the torpedo on the smaller pipe. Ferguson decided to put a stick on the end of one (apparently, he got the idea from another student). I did the same. I've had to borrow this tool multiple times, and I can't keep asking for it. It's rude and a waste of my energy.
Ferguson gave me a special yellow-paint pipe marker. He said he would, and he did. It's damn useful. He saw I was building a replica of his tool. We talked about it. He gave me another one, the one that he copied from. Ferguson has a knack for turning things into tools and seeing things as tools, even if he isn't terribly good with them.
I talked with mom on the way back.<<ref "1">> She sounded rougher today, but still much better than when I saw her in person. I believe most of my family thinks I'm overreacting when I believe my mother is dying. They may be correct. I have not been around enough dying people to know. I can tell you that the changes in her were profound. Physically and mentally, she is different (and I don't just mean that she behaves differently because our relationship is rocky). It is not obvious to me that she is actually getting significantly better.
We talked about life, and what it was like being this old in function and feelings 2-3 decades before it would normally be expected. Our chat was nice enough. We walk on pins-and-needles with each other. We both read much into what is said, and every word is laced with great meaning to both of us. We're very sensitive to each other. When both of our ears are naturally sensitive than our mouths, we must take care in the golden mean to overshoot to the side of delicacy with our words to hope to hit the fitting mark. We might not be able to say what we mean (partly because we lack virtue in communication but also for reasons of disagreement [there are profound asymmetries in the ways and areas in which we can empathize with each other now - some places are very deep and others shallow to the point of silence]), but whatever we say means a lot. And, we really are trying to be constructive with each other. We both know it. Courtesy is what we owe to the new strangers we've become with each other. It is the nature of hospitality that we do our best not to otherize the other any more than they already are other to us. We must pretend they are like us, even if we don't understand. We must see ourselves in the other and become aliens to ourselves. This is applied empathy.
This is an odd post. It does not follow my usual. My pipefitting posts, on average, keep getting longer too. My method is different here. I've been a bit depressed lately or anxious, or something. This is me talking about stuff that I should be talking about, but in what are normally different parts of my wiki. Maybe I need to reorganize the wiki more to make it so I have more control and information about it to make even better choices. Talk and listen to yourself!
---
<<footnotes "1" "My brother JRE accidentally upset me last night talking about how my parents were unhappy about him giving a car to my other brother, AIR. My brother AIR deserves empathy, kindness, and help (even if he is dark-triadic, I truly love that man: he's my brother, and I am committed to being his brother [plus, I legit like him. I dislike basically everyone, but I almost always enjoy his company]). What JRE did was brotherly love. I wish I could be a brother as good as JRE sometimes. He's doing right by AIR. Maybe AIR will throw it away, and maybe he won't. My parents have given up on him though (actively don't like him; so thoroughly otherize their own child: FUCK THAT BULLSHIT! YOU CREATED SOMETHING, NOW DEAL WITH IT! YOU ARE MORALLY OBLIGATED TO SACRIFICE YOURSELF FOR YOUR CHILDREN, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND! YOU FUCKING PSYCHOPATHS! I KNOW WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS: YOU FUCKED UP [I am lucky to have the resources I do, to make up for your failures and mine]! YOUR LOGIC FAILS, EVEN ON YOUR OWN TERMS [you understand how to manipulate emotions better, but I still make the more complex and superior inferences about the world in general; Even with this gap in our abilities, I still hold you responsible for igno-malice in this case]. HOW DARE YOU CONFABULATE YOUR WAY OUT OF TAKING RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR ACTIONS!), which is atrocious given the mistakes they made (hypocrites); it is intertwined with their absurd capitalist/conservative/pseudo-Christian point of view. I will not stand for that lack of integrity. Anyways, JRE probably doesn't even know I was upset (or maybe, he did abruptly change the topic). It spurred me to call my parents. I was hoping it would help me feel less anxious, depressed, and upset about it (I didn't know how. It seems I'm just "getting out it here" while screaming to the void, which is fine; it was worth calling them). Anyways, I'm glad I talked with my mom. It's just easier. I'm pretty convinced my dad and I just don't like each other at this point, and mom + my children are the only things which hold us together. Finally, in case this ever matters, please see the {[[About|About, a.k.a. The Opening of the Rabbit Hole]]} page.">>
Today was a good one. I spent lots of time with my teacher today 1-on-1. The perks of being the only student in the shop on Thursdays! =)
I got plates ready and went for a 1G. It was a giant fucking mess this time. I don't know why =(. The root was just terrible. I switched to just dropping stringers because I was discouraged. They at least were clean. I dropped stringers on those stringers too. Clean. I even tried to vary their sizes and space them out. It looked nice. Later, I asked my teacher if he could help me with the root problem. He said it would be better to have the welding instructor teach me. So, we scheduled an appointment for tomorrow (the teacher was feeling sick today). The welding teacher is a slow-roller country boy. His reactions are quite reserved. I was pleased that he would be willing to show me though. I am excited to learn. I think I need to develop a better relationship with him to continue learning how to weld. The fact is that I can only do so much practice on my own. I really do need someone to show me how to do this. I need guidance. My teacher isn't as skilled as the welding instructor, so I need to go to the person who can actually help me. I'm going to continue asking for his guidance.
I tried a cut a plate on the bandsaw that was too long. I'm not sure if it would have ruined the bandsaw machine or not, but I'm glad my teacher stopped the machine.
I cut lots of plates, did quite a bit of beveling. Hopefully, I'll learn me sumfin tomorra' with that material. I truly suck at welding. My teacher continues to tell me that I've got to learn to crawl before I can walk; he thinks I'm doing just fine with the amount of time I've invested so far.
My teacher gave me my 5th assignment constructing for the school. This was a simple fabrication. I had to create my own S-hooks to match his pair. He said I did an amazing job. They weren't amazing, but they did look pretty good for the first time. The vise, a hammer, and some pliers went a long way. Don't forget to grind burrs off! I used these S-hooks to secure the acetylene and oxygen tanks (more than 20 feet apart from each other). Apparently, TOSHA (Tennessee's OSHA) is surprised inspecting schools all over the state. I prepared our part of the building for them. I guess that's why I had mounted signs before too.
I told him that I appreciate having the chance to do construction jobs for the school. The realness is nice, and I have to figure things that I've never done before. I don't mind the feeling like I don't know what I'm doing when the stakes aren't high. Speaking of which, my teacher told me today: "never be afraid." He's right. I am smart enough to do this.
I realized that as a traveling pipefitter, I will have a harder time generating long-term professional relationships. But, in a sense, this may play to my strengths. I tend to make very strong first impressions (or none at all if I have my guard up). Traveling doesn't have to be a bad thing. Networking with people around the country could be quite useful. I need to make sure that I keep logs of names, addresses, numbers, etc. Pictures would help a lot too. I can remember a face. I need to develop a networking section. Admittedly, that will be to be privatized. I hate to bifurcate my work into two wikis. I simply can't be handing out other people's information.
As usual, Thursday's are a day to talk with my teacher for extended periods of time. We talked about a lot. I'm not sure I can remember it all. He sure does love to talk. It's part of the "countryfolk" way, I believe. When he sees I'm "engaged" in his stories, he believes I'm "with him" in a real sense. He retells the same stories all the time. I always treat it like it is the first time he is telling me unless I have reason to believe he realizes he has told me before. About 70% of what he says is new though. I'll take it.
He said that we won't be on socket welds for long. He says we'll move straight into buttwelds in our second trimester (normally, this is reserved for third-trimester students). That means he anticipates we'll be done with an entire trimester's worth of work in 3 weeks. I think we can too. We're just crushing it. When asked about what we might do after buttwelds, he didn't' seem to have an answer. Either he's not thought about it, or I'm meant to realize that there is nothing else major to learn in his shop. The math for buttwelds is harder, and he believes it will take the semester. I'm not so sure. Once I get a handle of the math, there will only be so many curveballs he can throw at me. If I do finish everything much earlier than he anticipates, I think I'd like to work my way through the entire pipefitter's bible and fabricator's bible as well. There is still much to learn. Plus, welding and other trades are also in my sights. I just want to soak up as much as I possibly can before I hit the union. I have to hit the ground running. My brother continually tells me how much he wishes he went union first, and how they treat him differently, and how he feels inadequate. If my brother feels inadequate, then I'm probably in far more trouble. I will not have actually earned my right to 2nd or 3rd-year status, but I need to make sure I can close the gaps as easily as I can.
Ferguson will be finishing socket welds at the same time that my class does. Ferguson's partner just got kicked out of school for not showing up (I'm glad to see Harold go). There is a big to-do about it. Whatever. I volunteered to be Ferguson's partner. After volunteering, I heard that Ferguson bullied a kid out of class last semester and was suspended for it. I am truly surprised. This does not seem like Ferguson. I am sometimes deeply wrong about the world and the people in though. Perhaps I have misread it. I'm going to bet I'm only hearing part of the story here. In any case, I don't mind working with Ferguson. Harold and Ferguson got along just fine, and Ferguson and I do as well (at least so far).
With his absenteeism rate, I will probably have more opportunities to do the work myself. This works for me. Ferguson will have to get used to my sticklerness and doing it the way our teacher tells us to. This wears on Chris only a bit, but Nash more. However, they know I'm too often right to not at least hear me out and let me try my way first. Ferguson regularly remarks that he believes I'm extremely intelligent (I suppose he's trying to butter me up or seeks my approval), and so I may have some leeway with him in trying to convince him to do it my way. He hasn't quite faced my "disbelief" face yet, where I can't even mask my disbelief, and my expression alone takes him to task on what he's doing (I do try to be kind, but, of course, no one wants to consider the possibility they are doing it wrong). Being an older man, as far as the class goes, may help smooth it out too.
My teacher asked me to be honest about his teaching. Obviously, I couldn't tell him everything that I thought. I only complimented him, of course. That's what you do. Too much rides on him liking me to mess it up with the whole truth. Lol. I do like being in his class though. It is easy to give him compliments because I legitimately think he does a good job in many ways. I realize there are tons of problems. I also think he does well with what he has in some respects. Administration, as usual, doesn't have the teacher's backs. This school is no different.
I asked my teacher to help me draw up a list of pipefitter employers in the area. He was not quite pleased about it or at least hesitant. He feels I've already been offered a job at the union (the route he wished he had gone). I explained that the union is clearly my first choice. The problem is that there is no guarantee that the union is hiring in the fall, only a guarantee that I will get in if they do open their doors. He told me about how hard it was to get into unions due to nepotism when he was breaking into the trades. Like the union's leaders, my teacher thinks I should be a foreman, manager, contractor, etc. I have the chops. I may. He thinks work is exclusively for money. While this is mostly true, there are other considerations for me. I have not worked them all out yet. We will see. I do know that I will one day not want to do all the heavy lifting (although, I do want some physical labor!).
What does it take to be a good boss? So many things. I need to keep metrics. I need to understand the ins-and-outs. Play it like a video game. Look at a group and understand what it can and can't accomplish, why and why not. I have precious little experience though. You have to believe in yourself.
I found out that we are certified on bookwork alone. The practicum in the shop is just what my teacher wants us to do (and what I want to do too!). He told me that I could walk on any job site right now and do just fine for screwpipe and socket welds, with the caveat that I haven't learned to do rafter work (and probably other things like it). The practice we get should be useful to us. The teacher didn't seem to think we would get through the 4th book though. I think he is worried about never having done the 3rd book before and wants to temper my expectations. That's fine. I'll take whatever I can get. Squeeze that rock dry!
He told me he has had actual journeyman pipefitters go through his course as well. They were journeymen on time requirements, but not knowledge. I'm confused, I have to say. Perhaps I will better understand out in the field. Apparently, one of them died last year. It was a sad affair. Derek, the union worker who came in as a journeyman, was one in the same class as that fellow.
He continues to ask how my wife feels about my becoming a pipefitter. I had explained that she is happy that I've found purpose again in my life. He asked the right questions, and I didn't want to lie. So, I told him that I was depressed and suicidal last year. This surprised him. He asked why (and graciously gave me outs because it was private). Again, I really don't like not being myself. I told him that my loss of faith hit me really hard. I've been losing it for a long time, not just in God, but in Humanity (I did not say this part). How could I explain to this man who I was and who I am? He could study for the rest of his life and never understand what's going through my mind (I'm not saying that's worth doing on his part at all; I'm just trying to figure out what my elevator speech out to be for people like him). My teacher became from grave, of course, but decided to tell me a few stories and jokes about his brother (and a friend) going into the ministry after very rough living. Hopefully, he won't hold my atheism against me. Most do. He is more tolerant than most people around here though in some respects. We will see. It may have been quite unwise of me to open myself up. There was no reason to make myself vulnerable to this man with the truth.
My teacher made a comment about how some of the students (without saying me) didn't jump at the chance to do the last co-op shutdown job. He says that always means they can' pass the drug test. I have no shown my hand here, and I don't think I should. I think I have nothing to gain. Although, he talks about his drug and alcohol use with me.
My brother values compartmentalization quite a bit. He's more talented at it than I am, and I mean that as a compliment.I should consider it carefully, especially since I can't trust my social instincts (I do not form fitting theories of minds of other people because I am autistic).
My teacher talked to me some about his sons. Both are pipe welders.
I need to mail my thing to AB&T. I need to cash some checks. I need to fix the car (control arm and electrical); I feel uncomfortable doing these myself (but I'd like to). The electrical is too important to get wrong. I will take it to a shop for that. I need to fix the dryer; namely, check the parts, buy them, and install them.
!! How is your health?
It's fine. I'm feeling a bit blue. I'm not sleeping as well as I'd like to. Twice this week I contemplated not getting up, but I decided I should. Normally, I'm happy to spring out of bed to approach the day. I've cut alcohol this week entirely. I think I should use DCK this Sunday.
!! What happened? Does it make you happy or unhappy? Why or why not?
I told my teacher that I was depressed and suicidal last year. I feel vulnerable for saying it. I think people lack empathy. It was probably a mistake.
!! Can you better explain what happened? Do you have a technologic, philosophical, empathic, or redpilled story to tell about what happened? Clarify the narrative you just told yourself.
I'm trying to figure out how to explain my existential crisis to others in a sound bite that makes sense. It is very hard for people to empathize with those in psychic pain (it is difficult for them to represent the mental state I'm in while developing a theory of mind). It's just a fact that we otherize people with mental differences that make them sad. What exacerbates the problem are the complex reasons for my crisis. People would be far more hopeless, angry, and depressed if they understood the world as I do. They will not allow themselves to see the truth though. I see the pragmatism of ignorance.
Ultimately, I think people are evil too. Explaining the redpill to others is too difficult. It is an attack on their fundamental belief system, and hence, an attack on them (beyond just calling them evil to their faces, ofc). They will become so irrationally defensive that they will otherize me. I think I need a way to defuse it. Ugh. It's difficult to show how the pieces fit together to others.
!! What are you going to do about what happened?
Basically, I need to develop an existential crisis elevator speech for others. I need to concisely explain it and leave them room to just say "ah, I'm sorry to hear that" without needing to investigate unless they really are intellectually curious. I need a way to cut through the stupidity and psychopathy of the people I meet who are playing a social game with me. At the moment I have this:
<<<
I lost faith in God and humanity, and consequently, I lost hope for myself. I lacked purpose and a reason to live. I couldn't take my own life though because my kids need me. So, I'm here to make their lives happy, even if I can't be. I hoping to create more meaning and purpose for myself. I feel like I'm on the right track.
<<<
We didn't have time to do welding today. We studied for a test. This was a very tricky section of the book for me. I read and studied it many times. There was too much information to figure out what would be tested on. I had to guess what would be worth remembering. Unfortunately, I had to guess on 40% of the exam. That is absurd. I made a 76%. It's passing, barely. I decided to just keep it instead of retaking. My teacher was fine with it since he felt several of the questions were "trick questions" that actually had multiple acceptable answers. Again, it's pass/fail. That's all the certification is about.
After the exam, we moved onto our socket welds project. We made several mistakes that required some quick grind-cuts on the tacks. Repositioning is getting easier. I'm glad I have a few more weeks of practice at this. I've been told I may be moved to work with Ferguson on Monday since he definitely needs a partner. Socket welds are really a two-person job. My teacher regularly tells us not to try it with one-person (although, I've seen Chris do an acceptable-ish job on his own).
The sexual marketplace is completely real. It's fundamental to the evolution of sexual creatures of all kinds on planet Earth. Seriously. We are animals.
Sexism is also completely real. Discriminatory practices against all sexes are profound, systemic, and even subconscious.<<ref "1">>
Sexism and the sexual marketplace are deeply connected. Competition for sexual value creates hostility. I see Libertarian assumptions (which aren't obviously the correct ones to take up) embedded in even the most leftist people I've seen when it comes to the sexual game (which, they refuse to acknowledge exists, but will talk about in other ways if you phrase the questions correctly).
Sexism will only end when the sexual marketplace is dissolved. For instance, if we evolved (or technologically and sociologically evolved) to become asexual in practice, both in terms of how we derive physical and psychic pleasure (pair-bonding, social consequences, closeness, religiosity, etc. long associated with many instances of sex) and reproduction, sexism will cease to exist. Sex involves risks and costs in multiple domains. Remove them, and the world will be radically different.
It may even possible that a long-term decrease in the risks and costs associated with the pursuit of the sexual marketplace would decrease sexism. That has systemic considerations and confounding factors which make it less obvious though. It seems like a reasonable possibility though. The less that sex is believed to be and used as a token of power, paired with lower STI and pregnancy rates (or costless abortions), the less influence it will have on power dynamics between human beings.
Give sex away. Make it easy to have sex. Lower the demand for sex. When you do, sexism will likely decrease.
One final caveat, it is possible that the human species has evolved to be innately sexist. Let us hope we are plastic enough to overcome such influence.
---
<<footnotes "1" "To be clear, this is not a discussion of gender as some social construct. They should swallow a few redpills to understand the very concept of what they are talking about. Gender forks into either complete relativism or are strongly tied to sex. In the former case, their discussion becomes irrelevant because it is relativistic, and in the latter, they would be conceding the very thesis they argue against. Of course, I have no problem with people pursuing the kinds of lives they want to lead, just in case they follow the basic moral law of empathy.">>
!! How is your health?
It's decent enough. I'm still spiraling back into depression. But, I have tools to fight it beyond substances this time.
!! What happened? Does it make you happy or unhappy? Why or why not?
My dryer has been broken for a week. I finally got a working multimeter, took it apart and found the heating element wasn't working. I bought a new one and installed it. It makes me happy because we need it. ~~I like having fixed it.~~
Wrong. As I finished posting this the first time, my fire alarms in the house went off. The dryer wasn't on, but the heating element was still cherry red hot. It was so hot it was warping the plastic nearest. =/ Fuck me.
!! Can you better explain what happened? Do you have a technologic, philosophical, empathic, or redpilled story to tell about the phenomenon? Clarify the narrative you just told yourself.
I believe the old heating element didn't have a continuous circuit and hence was useless. The new one cost $75 =/...I found some cheaper online, but I wanted it done asap.
!! What are you going to do about what happened?
Hope it doesn't break again? ~~Feel more comfortable about fixing stuff around my house, I guess.~~
Wrong. At this point, if I make a mistake, the house burns down. That's just not acceptable. I can't afford to mess it up in that way. It's already a lot of money to lose. Our welfare, in general, isn't. Fuck that.
I got to work with [[1uxb0x]] on it. Since he's going to become an electrician, this was something that would be in the remote ballpark of what he'd be doing.
About depression, I'll continue to write. I really do need to take DCK. I need to make sure we cover the schoolwork on Saturdays instead of Sundays as well. It's been a rough week, especially with the kids not giving me their best. =/ It's okay.
What do we say to death?
NOT TODAY!
We had too much shit to do over the weekend. I called my teacher to let him know I wouldn't be coming in today. That is not what I want to do, but it is necessary.
Plato's Allegory of the Caves is a beautiful descriptive analogy of a [[Theory of Everything]].<<ref "1">> It's a masterpiece. It might even be The Masterpiece.
Outside of standard religions, Plato was one of the first systematic thinkers to have produced memes so evolutionarily fit that they not only passed down through the generations but also profoundly and continuously restructured the very fabric of The Great Human Conversation (for the better, I might add). This is a meme that has influenced and survived the comings-and-goings upheaval of political, technologic, and memetic structures many times over (and perhaps until the end of our species). Only Aristotle and later Kant bested the man, as far as I can tell. These men, or at least the ideas we have of them, were gods. We're talking: a genius of geniuses of geniuses.
Genius, by definition, is .25% of the population. If you were a member of a 400-person random sampling of some context of humans, if you were the smartest of them all, you'd probably be a genius. It is clear that these ancient populations had evolved to be extremely intelligent with the right memetic structures and technology to allow philosophy to bloom.<<ref "2">> There have been ~100 billion homo sapiens to have graced the planet Earth at the time of this writing. These were some of the smartest men to have walked the planet. I'm sure of it. Consider what it be like to know only what they knew. It is shocking how much they understood and saw given what they started with. We're talking about elite genius memes.
So, here is the key to unlocking Plato's genius:
When we eat from the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge (knowledge of good and evil), when we question authority, and when we see the Platonic world for what it really is: we become redpilled. We come to better understand the difference between The Good and everything which is not (to various degrees). We know everything through a lens of "good-seeking," as the light of The Good reflects off things and makes shadows for us to examine. That's how we come to understand the world: by habituating virtue theoretic standards of good and considerable pattern recognition (either by accident or otherwise).
When one emerges from the cave to see a new landscape of shapes and shadows with more brilliance, accuracy, resolution, coherence, justification, and closeness to perfection than before, one has been redpilled. You have been awoken from your dogmatic slumber.
Ah, but you know you can't see the world as it ultimately and objectively //really// is, the thing in itself. Kant and the postmoderns were right about the thing in itself, including The Good, but we can get as close as we can because we want to. We love The Good which shines forth. We love perfection by axiomatic definition. It is ingrained in who we are, whether genetically or memetically to varying degrees, and that's okay. Enjoy the Truth, even if it is absurdly ugly. You have to be stoic and make do with what you have. Climb out of one world into another, and if you don't like it, keep climbing, digging, and experimenting until you can redpill yourself into another.
The [[Eudaimonic Lifehacker]] is on a Redpill Quest to happiness. It is your mission to figure out how to handle conflicts between the Truth and Happiness. When is your de-realization into "more accurate" realization worthwhile? In a sense, my prescription is to take the best redpills. Not all redpills are equal. Defeating the current Fundamental Redpill at the moment isn't easy, and it may not be possible. Work with what you have, make do, and build as much happiness as possible. Suck out the marrow of life.
Lastly, I can't help but mention that I think mind-altering substances that allow us to see the world differently "endanger" us (please, hear my sarcasm) by allowing us to see that we can be very wrong about the world. It humbles us. It allows us to see the world differently, to pursue Redpilledness even without substance use. I don't think it makes us crazy. Just because I draw very different conclusions from you about the nature of the world in systematic ways doesn't mean I'm crazy. The average viewpoint of the world is bound to have plenty of justified detractors. I'm saying, I could be right. I'm saying, if you've been paying close enough attention at all, I am smart enough that you should consider the possibility that I'm right.
---
<<footnotes "1" "I guffaw into anger when I hear physicists claim to have a [[Theory of Everything]]. Even the most profound marriage of mathematics and science ever conceived will always be a second-class citizen to philosophy. When physicists are being honest, they realize that both the foundation and bleeding edge of their work is ultimately philosophical.">>
<<footnotes "2" " Perhaps intelligence gains are very short term when you look at a broad scheme of human history; we could give accounts for the rising and falling of Real IQ through time (however we might define that). Perhaps you think this is Orientalist of me, or even worse, that I'm even buying into a Western narrative/conversation at all (multiple forms of postmodernism have great arguments against it). I know exactly what you mean, and yet I still choose to give it meaning. I'm obviously open to these intelligence bloomings-and-dyings happening around the world throughout history. There's more than one narrative to hear. We know that. This is still a key narrative to understand, mind you, and that's the point.">>
Do you know there are plenty of non-human creatures which enslave other creatures? There are insects which farm and cultivate other insects as well. Classism is built into the very structure of creatures; it's how we understand the social functions, dynamics, relationships, structures, and emergences of higher orders of those species. Humans are no different in kind, only in complexity on this point.
At some point, we have to see that all species which are capable of this will do this. We have to realize it is written into our DNA, that it just that egoistic, intelligently selfish behavior maximizes utility. Humans farm humans. That's what the Hyperclass does. It uses humanity. They enslave us. They destroy the planet and sacrifice our happiness for their own selfish ends. We are just otherized, objectified things and tools to the kings of the human pyramid. They step on us, program us, throw us away, and keep us in various kinds of morally unjustified coercive cages.<<ref "1">> They farm us to extract our value.
Seriously, it's why they favor high populations of uneducated poor people (with notable exceptions, at least by appearances). It drives down the cost of labor, just as long as they aren't paying the governmental upkeep costs on maintaining The Human Farm. We are their most valuable "renewable resource." The Most Dangerous Game isn't to kill a human, it's to enslave them. They are very good at playing this game, so good at it that many of us don't even see it for what it is. They slip the yokes on us without us revolting. They have truly "broke" our society in; they've domesticated us into capitalism.
---
<<footnotes "1" "Obviously, I'm not claiming laws are conceptually immoral by definition.">>
!! How is your health?
Decent enough. [[HPPD]] symptoms were stronger today. Completely dismissable, but it was easier to see on the concrete of the floor of the study room today. I notice that some floor are easy to trigger from than others. High contrast, detailed, richly marbled textures are more likely to pull it off on floors. The 3-D effect can also be seen on command on popcorn/crumbly ceilings, as always.
!! What happened? Does it make you happy or unhappy? Why or why not?
I had to think about what happened yesterday. I obviously could have burned the house down. Thank god for my fire alarms. It made me scared and I felt stupid.
!! Can you better explain what happened? Do you have a technologic, philosophical, empathic, or redpilled story to tell about the phenomenon? Clarify the narrative you just told yourself.
I believe there is a grounding problem with the way I've installed the heating element. I may have caused permanent damage.
!! What are you going to do about what happened?
We will find out. I will find out first. I will also talk to my brother [[JRE]]. I will report back my findings to the electrician instructor. We'll go from there. I can always just buy a new one if need be.
Today was a fine day. When I arrived, I immediately started studying for my exam. I took the study room and did some grinding. Procedure:
I read the whole chapter, not just what we're being tested on. I then comb through the sections I will be tested on, highlighting. I then re-read the sections and make sure I agree with my highlights. I then cram. This is not the way I prefer to study for tests (I prefer more holistic, longer-lasting, systematic, and organic study methods [in a way, it defeats the purpose to study for the test]), but I can pass the memory tests just fine. The real critical reasoning happens on the field, in learning the art of the thing.
I took the test after the first break. Easy enough. Umm...congratulations to me for being 4 months ahead in bookwork. We're going to keep pushing hard. I want to complete all 4 years worth of reading by the end of the second trimester if I can (or whenever). Basically, I want to make sure I have my complete NCCER certifications in case the union falls through (minimize my attack surface; trust fewer people). It will help me get my foot in the door for any plan B I may be unfortunate enough to need to take.
My teacher and I talked during the test, which is interesting. I'm not sure what that means. I take it that my teacher assumes I'll just pass and don't need to concentrate. He was right though, I didn't for this exam. When I study to pass, I don't struggle (perhaps that will change as the content becomes harder and harder).
It may be a good idea to re-read these books before the interview for the Union. I want to sound like I know what I'm talking about, at least theoretically. Giving someone the representations of what I'm thinking of is often such a strong signal that even if I've never done it, they are convinced that I //can// do it or figure out the rest of how to do it.
During the exam, I talked about what happened with the dryer. After the exam, my teacher took me to the electrician's shop to speak with the instructor.<<ref "1">> Everything I said made sense to him, and he suggested that I don't try to do this one alone (ugh, I am really bad this. I'm lucky to have people who know what they are doing around me.). He offered to come visit my house and help me after I said I couldn't bring it in (I desperately need a work vehicle). I don't know if he was falsely offering this politely or not. The caveat is that he would take a week to be able to do it. I take that to be a sign that he is trying to run out the clock and make it so that I just pay a professional. I'll take him at his word until the end of the week. That's okay though. I'm taking him up on his offer, lol! I'll see if I can do it without him as well. Might as well. I'd love to do this by hand. If I can't, we'll replace it.
Oh, we also talked about the go-kart he had in a truck (I think he owns multiple vehicles). He bought the chassis for $20. Like, whoa. He grabbed a new motor for $100, and he's bought some new wheels and something else that makes is safer for more weight. He's putting it together this weekend. If I had the time, I'd have asked him if I could help put it together. Was he signaling to me about this? I don't know. I'm too socially inept to understand what this man is really thinking or saying in a conversation sometimes. I am terrible at developing theory's of his mind.<<ref "2">>
It would be good to get to know this man. It would be amazing if I could take [[1uxb0x]] and perhaps even [[j3d1h]] (depending on whether or not I felt it would generate unhealthy competition between my children) to learn from this man. Even if they can't benefit from his directly, even indirectly would be possibly profound. He has a more severely autistic man in his class (I wish I could connect with the guy; it would be useful simply to make sure that I can help my son as best as I can [you need the practice!]). It would be quite useful to my son to learn this, to develop a relationship. I should give this man a present for helping me. Cookies and probably something else. The relationship may actually matter to me in a prudential way (for my chill'uns).
Afterward, I went to work with my new partner Ferguson. This is my first time working with him as an equal partner and from the beginning of a project. He has already made the fabrication we're fabricating. He knew what it looked like, and I saw how he understands the objects to be fabricated in his head. He thinks of it in terms of vertical levels. His horizontal reasoning didn't seem as strong (although still quite good), but his vertical explanation was spot on. I will pry him for more information since maybe he has tricks to understand. He's a man that understands tricks. That is a special eye to have for the world. Sometimes it is a kind of principled, rule-of-thumb, virtue-theoretic, pragmatic, and contrarian approach to problems.
I outlined the parts (which can be deduced for the most part, and guesstimated for pipes) we needed, and he got the pipe for it (Also, he did a good job picking out pipe of the right lengths [I think he may have memorized important information, but he thought that knowing the total length was useful to him for finding pieces? I see it for a single piece of pipe, but not for our project]). I helped him acquire the rest. I did the math, and he double-checked my math at my request. Okay, I think he can do the math. I'm still not sure. He understood so much of the drawing that I have a hard time believing he can't do the math. The benefit of the doubt! Right?
I did all the external and internal grind work on the fitting and flanges. He wasn't trying very hard though. I suppose he has no reason. He has always been very slow in the class. It takes him a week to build anything.
He is slow and terrible at measuring and cutting pipe. He does too much "eye-balling" and not enough careful, exacting measurement and marking. I do not understand how he is this bad. I basically did everything except the cutting of the pipe, and he still couldn't get that right. He had to recut two different pieces, and 3 of them were 1/16th too short (which I let slide, even though I kindly asked him to start cutting just a hair longer than he was on the machine). He even cut one pipe too short by almost an entire inch. He went on to confabulate how the 1/16th to 1/8th additional space we would need for socket weld fitting would make up for this. That's fucking retarded in so many ways, I don't know where to begin. This is what I told him: it is already accounted for in the takeouts section of our pipefitter's bible (which is true). Getting the lengths spot on is important, especially as these grow more complex. He literally doesn't care about crucial details on his job, even though he cares about the details for so many other things. That is some executive functioning failure right there (he should know better).
I kept asking him to cut off the ends which are damaged from welding/cutting. There's no reason to use this fraction of the pipe. He obviously didn't care. I'm going to cut the pipe from now on. I suspect I'll be doing almost all the work. That's fine though. I'm literally here to practice, practice, practice. I will be virtuous at this practice. By the end of the day, he had to leave early. He thought we got tons done (he was proud of himself, rofl).
The kid has serious asymmetries in his intelligence (or use of it). Instead of doing it the way he is told, he tries to confabulate to his own method and then has to try 20 other tricks to fix it. It's unnecessary work, and it only adds to the frustration. Despite this, he clearly is persuadable on at least some aspects of our building. Perhaps we will mildly wrestle about how to do it.
Ferguson and I get along just fine though, even if he is sometimes retarded, and sometimes actually fairly intelligent (there is some cognitive dissonance there). That is a rare exception for my relationships with stupid people in my experience. I enjoy hearing his perspective because the way in which he makes up for his deficits can be creative.
Fit 45's on the side (that pipe shouldn't point up or down, just horizontally)! It's the best way. My teacher said it is the best way for all 45's, even for screwpipe (but I know that isn't true: I've seen exceptions firsthand). It also allows you to level off nicely from the two pieces.
My teacher did tell me something cool. He said to just tack the top and bottom, but not to drop the other 2 side tacks if I were going to continue running straight out on 45's (and I will be for this project). Instead, keep running it out and leveling with just the 2 top and bottom tacks. Afterward, we'll rotate it 90 degrees in the vise and level + tack from there. This is the magic I needed to hear from my teacher.
The other group, Chris and Nash, have been left. We're the only 4 students working in the shop now. It's quiet. I don't mind either way because I have my music earbuds + sound dampening/protective earmuffs which keep it silent. The only thing that gets in the way is when we've had too many people trying to share all the same resources in the room. Even the teacher believes we shouldn't have more than 11 students at a time (we just don't have that many tables, jack stands, vises, and cutting machines. Only the welding machines outnumber our maximum needs.
Nash doesn't remember the room ever being busy enough to have all the tables full, with 2 groups working at a table sometimes. He has a bad memory. I've seen him call others liars. Sometimes he is right, sometimes he is wrong. He has an ol' country boy wannabe "I reckon"-ness about him, but he is rarely insightful about it. He is clearly the son of capitalists.
My teacher called me into his office. He wanted me to find a way for him to play Angry Birds on his computer. I don't mind if he plays video games if I'm learning at the pace and in the way, I wish to. He always answers my questions, and he always has patience with me when I ask for clarification. Someone with the willpower to learn in his class actually can learn. I think Chris and I are excellent examples of it. So, play some games if you want an old man. Given that, I feel terrible for this man who can't use his computer. What is he doing with his life? How does he manage it? The single most important instrument in the history of humanity, and he can barely search for what he needs. I bookmarked the original, some variants, and Kongregate for him. I showed him the bookmarks folder on his bar. He thanked me.
We also talked about Ferguson. My teacher didn't know who to pair with him and was relieved I volunteered for it. My teacher has also noticed that Ferguson is exceptionally good at rotating objects in his end.
I think I'm not fun to be around, but I'm fun to work with. I get shit done. You're always glad to have me on your team. I might be annoying, but I try to not come off arrogant about it. I may have crossed the line though.
I was watching my previous group, and they did not go the correct build path. They have a much simpler design than Ferguson and I have been given, with a single 45-degree angle, but no 45-degree fittings. It's just an offset. It's obvious that you start with the hypotenuse, that you build the parallel pipes off from it so that it lays flat for you when you level it. After that, you add the 45-degree bends. This is clearly the best way to solve the problem. It feels right. I can't quite give the reasons for it yet, but I am convinced the teacher is right about it. Unfortunately, Chris had already started it the wrong way, and that's was the earliest I saw it to say anything. <<ref "3">> I think I annoyed him by suggesting it to him.
They were really pissed working on the project without me yesterday. Chris was so mad he said he wanted to take a blowtorch to it. It showed too. It wasn't quite level and plumb where I'd expect. Don't get me wrong, I was struggling with this thing too. But, I would have finished it yesterday, I believe. I worry that this will only carry over into their new project. Maybe I'm wrong though. Chris may just find his own way. My suggestion was to turn it so that the 45'd area was level (while they still can, but I did not say that part). Let's see if he takes me up on it. I can see they are already struggling to get it. They are literally trying to eye-ball it. There is no need to eyeball or double-balance (balancing two things at once) or perhaps triple-balance on this one.
---
<<footnotes "1" "Like...duh? How could I have not figured out to just do that? Why am I not asking people enough questions? I don't even post enough online about the problems I'm having. It's clear to me that my even my own daughter has more sense than I do about this exact this (and I should be far more advanced in executive functioning). I'm glad he had the foresight to just help me talk to the person who knows everything about it. I'm obviously not employing my executive functioning very well. =(. God damnit.">>
<<footnotes "2" "A personal relationship with this man">>
<<footnotes "3" "I need theory, not just instinct. I need to identify when to apply theory not just with my gut, but with my frontal lobes. If you do it their way, you'll have a harder time knowing which direction to point the fittings. If you do it my way, the 'flat' sides of fitting will match up nicely (you can level off those points). This makes placing the fitting (fitting the fitting) more accurate. Getting the fitting, not the pipe, to be where you want it is most of the battle. That's why it is called pipefitting.">>
!! How is your health?
Fine.
!! What happened? Does it make you happy or unhappy? Why or why not?
Not much. I'm there. Ups and downs. I am who I am. I can program myself though.
!! Can you better explain what happened? Do you have a technologic, philosophical, empathic, or redpilled story to tell about the phenomenon? Clarify the narrative you just told yourself.
I may not be maximizing utility. You can't wait for the problem to hit you, you need to go out and solve it before it happens. You need to re-examine your problems, flaws, or attack surfaces.
!! What are you going to do about what happened?
I went to an Occupational Therapy Expo at [[k0sh3k]]'s college. It was fairly good. It was a shotgun approach, and several things clicked more than others for myself and my son. I think the Social Stories booth was by far the most interesting and useful looking. I want my son to study this carefully, to realize what he is up against, to understand what he needs to understand in a broader theoretical landscape kind of way.
I'm walking through the {[[Principles]]} page with the kids. I want them to start building objects on their wiki, growing them, and evolving on their wikis. I can say this, writing this wiki has to be one of the most valuable things I've ever spent my time on. I've done a lot of cool shit in my life, let me tell you. This is so valuable that it actually is a profound utility machine for my life. It's the gift that keeps on giving. I am so happy I have somewhere to write down my thoughts, to say what I think, to think about things carefully, to have "someone" to talk to (even if it is only myself).
Today was a draining day. Ferguson is not nearly as easy to work with as Chris, I have to admit. Ferguson sometimes knows what he is talking about, but other times desperately doesn't. It isn't always easy to figure out which is which either. I had to convince him that we should try it my way simply because I actually need to practice doing it more than he does (which is true). He was quite iffy about it. That said, we completed the project in one day (unlike his usual week; but I did not say that). It took a lot of time. Part of the reason was that Nash didn't show up, and so the teacher had me going between Ferguson and Chris.
We had trouble with a tiny fitting (shaved down to nothing). We also had trouble because it wasn't all perfectly 1.5-inch pipe. One was thicker, by Outer diameter (although my teacher dismissed it, I saw it first hand by comparison and measurement). This made it so that some of the pipes fit the fittings, and other had to be shaved down more. The build order was fine, but we had to do a lot more leveling and turning to get it right. We had a difficult time, but it got done. I just need to keep practicing. Eventually, it should be faster than screwpipe, I believe. I found that I worked better when Ferguson wasn't there (which I did not say).
Btw, Ferguson kind does have a bully mentality. I see it now. He talks a lot of shit. That said, it can be taken as just shit. Once you treat what he says like shit, he generally respects it. Ignore the child. I suppose he's looking for zingers back at him. I don't see that being my style (or, the kinds of things I would think are humorous often aren't what he might find it...it has to be very specific).
Ferguson messed up a rotation in his today. I saw it in his inferences. However, he also made plenty of very good inferences. I'm going to continue thinking about how he thinks about these projects. To pass the teacher's tests without listening to the teacher says something interesting. I will say this: he is an overly rebellious slacker who doesn't want to do it the teacher's way. I appreciate the punk pride, and I see value in it. He's just shooting himself in the foot in many of these cases though.
Chris said he works better without Nash (Nash didn't show up until after lunch today). It is true. Of course, he had to undo the mistake that I pointed out yesterday. He decided to do it the way I suggested. He did it, and then the rise measurement came out wrong. He had the teacher come over, and the teacher pulled out the tape measure and said: "There's your problem." Chris forgot to do his takeouts. This is why you double-check everything. It absolutely sucks not to have it right the first time. The extra 5 minutes will save you 50 or even 500 minutes down the road (and fairly often at that). He had to cut-grind the build down again, cut the pipe again, and then fit it all over again. It worked this time. He actually finished before I did, but he had a giant headstart on a much simpler project than me and mine (as well as my help on his).
I combed through more of my book and got some study points ready. The test won't be this Friday. It is Good Friday, and we're off. Sucks. I could really use the time around the house though. I desperately need to finish one of the union books too. I need to take 2 of them back and talk. So, I'll make the best of it. Ugh, that means I only have 6 more days this month to practice. I really need to rock it.
There are 9 tests left. If I'm lucky, I'll have completed 3 of them over those 6 days (cool enough). That's 6 left. 3 weeks into the first Trimester, I could be done with that book. That would leave me 13 more weeks to try and finish the remaining two books. 26 tests. That is doable. Push hard! Get your certifications. It is VERY hard to find anyone qualified to certify. Use this opportunity while you can. Hopefully, we'll be practically proficient in 1-2 years of pipefitting (maybe 3), and surface theoretically proficient in 4-5 years worth. That would give me a bridge to cross, and hopefully easy enough at that. I assume that being a road apprentice makes it harder. I don't know.
I called my parents today after work. I had a good conversation with my dad. I'm glad. Sometimes I walk away unhappy with them, but this one went well. I think we empathized with each other well enough. Talked stuff and things.
My welding instructor has been sick and off at a welding competition with a "star" student this week (this is the 8th year in a row one of his students has won the statewide competition out of something like 20-30 possible schools that compete). So, I haven't been able to learn from him yet. I will though.
Today, I practiced on a Schedule 80 pipe to not burn holes. I'm trying to make lamps (probably stupid). We'll see. The shade will be hard to get right. I may need to structure something out of wire, I guess. The base should be a plate made all fancy, I think. Slick bevels would be cool. I also want the trunk to be cut and shaped out. I want to actually weld it to make it larger at the base. Seems hard to do, especially without a great gameplan for it.
We have off tomorrow, so today was our last day of the week. We didn't really clean up the shop though. In fact, the teacher so wanted to go home that he said I could just sweep on Monday. I made him come back after lunch (with Chris) because we wanted more time to study for the test (the other students left for the day at lunch). He decided that he "had faith in us" and just gave us the test immediately after lunch instead of after the half hour he said we'd have. It was fine though, I only missed one question on the exam. It was a short chapter, thankfully. I didn't even think I'd be taking a test today, but preparing for the exam over the past couple days (in my spare moments in the shop) allowed me to get some welding work in today while also passing.
I did talk to TJ today. He had talked me yesterday about the racism he experienced in co-op. He's a smart guy, as I've said before (although, not very knowledgeable). I'm trying to convince TJ to do the 3rd NCCER book with us. TJ thought it was a good idea, but wasn't sure he could. He's a semester ahead of me, but I'm already caught up to him in the book. Chris and I are pushing the pace very hard. We'll see if the 3rd NCCER book (for pipefitting, not including the core) will be a wall for us. At the pace we are going, it is certainly possible that we could finish by the end of the next trimester. That would be sick.
Oh, the teacher said that the parts came in to build the second simulator. But, they sent us the wrong pipe (correct, flanges, etc. though). I'm excited to build it. I'm wondering how we'll do it. I think we should build on the tables and then 5-man it over there. The screws/bolts which go into the concrete aren't too long. I'm sure my teacher knows how to do it. I'm eager to see how.
I'm surprised I have so little to say about today. It was rather uneventful, but also very short. I wish I didn't have to wait until Monday to go back to work. =( It's a weird relationship, a psychological dependence that I must monitor carefully.
They are happening everywhere in the world. China is famous for it. There were 30 in India last year. The Arab Spring brought forth a great number of kill switches. You bet your ass every major nation has them, and some have more fine-grained targeting. We should not stand for this. This is deep censorship.
What political blog would be complete without an article devoted to the Mainstream Media? So many stupid people use that phrase it borders on being a tainted neologism. It is as if having anything to say about it borders on lunacy by definition. Let us not buy that falsehood. We clearly need to be real and rational about what the average person is being told, is watching, is thinking about, is feeling, etc.
Donald Trump’s recent Syria airstrikes have received coverage in the Mainstream Media, some better than others. Of the top 100 US newspapers, 47 ran //editorials// on it. 39 of these editorials favored the airstrikes, seven were ambiguous, and only one opposed the airstrikes. Mainstream media has an agenda folks. These are indefensible airstrikes.
The corruption runs deep. For example, the Washington Post failed to disclose the fact that one of their's writers who supported the strikes against Syria is a lobbyist for a Tomahawk missile manufacturer.
<<<
A 2003 FAIR survey (3/18/03) of television coverage in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, for example, found “just 6 percent of US sources were skeptics about the need for war. Just 3 of 393 sources were identified with anti-war activism.”
<<<
Yes. We've seen this before. It's always been this way. Of course, no Mainstream Media post would be complete without the universally reviled call to action: "wake up sheeple." This is a time for people who would normally confabulate their to their patriotism (and unreasonably rationalize their justifications for going to war) to reconsider their positions, new sources, and take their redpills while they still can.
* Morning Routine - 30 minutes
* Curation - 30 minutes
* Math - 60 minutes
* Writing - 60 minutes
* Electrical Theory - 60 minutes
* Lunch - 60 minutes
* Electrical Practicum - 60 minutes
* Reading - 60 minutes
* Social Studies - 30 minutes
* Language Arts - 30 minutes
!! How is your health? Daily routine?
I'm spending more time sleeping on the couch. It's the only place I can sleep. I should go back to the more standard routine. Healthwise, I heard my first direct auditory hallucination today with an abnormally large hit. I've had augmented music so many times, but never anything so direct. I've yet to hear something that wasn't actually there (or, rather not beyond the usual spectrum of how ears and our brains fill in the gaps of soundwaves and do pattern matching, although I'm likely experiencing a variant of that). What did I hear? My phone was ringing while I was cooking, or I thought so. It was the sound of vegetables cooking a pan that triggered it. The sound literally emanated from it. I think I was mishearing the sound of the cooking and translating it into hearing my phone ring. It was quite weird.
Also, I've been feeling more anxious and depressed in the past few weeks. I can see the spiral.
!! What happened? How do you feel about it? What made you feel this way? Does it make you happy or unhappy? Why or why not?
It was a bit shocking, like the first time I saw a visual hallucination. I quickly understood what was happening though.
!! Can you better explain what happened? Do you have a technologic, philosophical, empathic, or redpilled story to tell about the phenomenon? Clarify the narrative you just told yourself.
Altering perception can feel traumatic. It doesn't have to.
!! What are you going to do about what happened?
Monitor it. Pay attention to it. Give more thought to it.
I will be giving up cannabliss for 2 weeks anyways, per my usual 2-month-on-2-week-off cycle. DCK meditation on Sundays will keep you in order.
Like clockwork, we are revamping it. Inevitably, I fail (but, I won't give up). [[k0sh3k]] is completely in charge of accountability. All I do is plan, curate, talk, clarify, explain, and help. I'm revamping this homeschooling part of the wiki as well. It needs more structure. My job has nothing to do with making sure they are on task. I make suggestions. I give advice.
Essentially, I'm smart enough to see what you don't understand, but I can't help you see it, believe it, want it, pursue it, be motivated by it, or any other virtue-theoretic approaching of "it."
//Originally entitled: Purist Human-to-Machine Voting Systems//
Virtue theorists kinda suck at math. No, seriously. Almost all of the good ones I've met tended to stray away from math and quantitative reasoning (although they could do it, it wasn't their natural mode). Those good at math tended towards consequentialism or non-moral realism. And yet, all of us must agree that the truly [[Virtuous Agent]] by definition, in its very concept and constitution, uses their frontal lobes to train the secondary systems exquisitely. Virtue theory is obviously programmable, even though they claim it isn't. They do not understand their own theory usually, or if they do, they quickly deteriorate into non-moral realists, such is the way of Neo-Aristotelian thought (although, there are obvious Straussian interpretations of Aristotle that would lead us to believe Aristotle was himself not truly a moral realist).
I recently read that "semantics derived automatically from language corpora contain human-like biases."<<ref "1">> This makes perfect sense. This will one of the major barriers (if not the limit) of what Deep Neural Networks can provide us. It will be a functional mapping of who we are as humans. This can happen all the way down to an individual human, but it can scale up to include humanity as a whole. It is quite a spectrum of function mapping possibilities.
Human consciousness is a series of narratives we tell ourselves. Narratives have to be written in a language. They are programs for little possible worlds to boot as virtual machines in one's host computer mind. Narratives are ultimately reducible to programmatic stories written in some kind of programming language. We are computers, folks, computers hosting virtual computers. That's what makes our minds tick, [[Kant Knows It]]. We are conscious because we are Second Order about the contents of ourselves. We host virtual machines. Can you believe how incredible Evolution really is? I mean, I know Evolution is real. I still can barely fathom that truly marvelous [[The Evolutionary Being]] that emerges through the dimensions.<<ref "2">> I wonder how deep the chain goes? One can only go one direction on it since we hit that [[Transcendental Divide]] that skepticism fittingly guards us against passing (sometimes skepticism is incredibly important; guard wisely).
There is this classic rule-following problem that Wittgenstein brings up, to the bane of the elite Kantian scholars amongst us, /swagger.<<ref "3">> Basically, you can't know for certain that two minds share the same concept, principle, or meme in mind. How do you know that two people share the same meme? You can test them, but ultimately you can't know with certainty for a ton of excellent reasons. Those who pass this skepticism have been [[Creating Faith]] for themselves. That's okay though. I like to think that other minds are like mine, and mine like theirs. It's quite rational. This bypass via [[Creating Faith|Creating Faith]] allows you to induce that some memetic comparisons between two minds demonstrate equivalence, and that's okay. There is [[Functional Equivalence]] for rule-following. It means that the narrative that we program in a computer that perfectly passes the Turing test, that can inference just as we do, is functionally identical with our own minds.
There is a possibility, therefore, that One can tell another "computer mind" a story written in our language (e.g. English), and they will make all the appropriate inferences based upon it. It will speak as one of us. How will think it is not one of us? Is the Artificial Mind so Alien to us that it is not rational? Those who pass through Wittgenstein's fires with their Faith intact, they can see the possibility of duplicating our own minds at a functional level. We can skip trying to duplicate our actual brains atom-by-atom.
This is the Spirit of the Turing test.
We can envision a computer which runs, as its program, our own minds. It changes. It is the Autonomous Thing, the Real us, The Rational about who we are self. One can obviously doubt its existence. There are many good skeptical worries. However, it's always a possibility.
In any case, the goal was to show that if semantics derived automatically from language corpora contain human-like biases, then it is clear that we are going to eventually be capable of teaching machines to speak our language, and to infer as we do. We can rewrite who we are as narratives into machine code that runs on computers. I know it for certain now. I can see it, it is logically possible, and I'm even convinced it is physically possible, and if the human species lived long enough, even technologically possible to achieve. The Turing Test is conceptually passable, I am now sure of it.
Thus, we can teach computers to speak on our behalves. It is possible to have a conversation with a computer right now. A computer could learn to speak my language as well as I did. To make the inferences I would. It's just a pattern of inferences I make. Any computer large/fast enough can functionally achieve the same thing that mind does by training a Deep Neural Network with a large enough corpus. If my goal is eternal life, perhaps I could live on in any process that was formed like mine. The feelingness of consciousness arises like a mist off of any programmatic instantiation of that mind on any computer. Here is my reason to believe I defeat the Digital Clone (The Riker Problem) counterargument. Just who we fundamentally are is the feeling and knowing the will, and the perception. It is me. I am just that algorithm. I am a unique algorithm (as are we all). The processing of that algorithm feels, by definition, what I'm feeling. I want to evolve into an algorithm that is happy. I'm programming myself to be happy. I am an algorithm that programs itself in a very direct, planned, executive functioning sort of way.
Who I am is definable in a programming language.
I can exist in a computer. I would be alive in a computer. For real. That's the deduction. It would be fine even if by definition I lived in a simulation. It is clear that I live in a simulation of sorts, I live inside a great computer that is computers in my world. The universe is a computer. If there is a thing which thinks that into being, the conscious minds are alive. I actually believe an afterlife, is therefore possible. If I accept that I live in a simulation, as a machine inside a machine probably inside a bunch of mines (we need not [[infinigress]]).
Uh, I guess this post wasn't actually about what I thought it would be. Hmmm...wait. No it is. I see it.
I can argue against the Digital clone.
Democratic Kantian A.I. is producible. It is literally computable. The maximally empathic A.I. to ever live is literally our savior. A.I. is our only hope for humankind. We need a government that is run by an A.I. trained through a "language corpora" of incredible, unbelievable magnitude. It would need to house each of our minds, instances of them, and we can train a mind based upon all the minds in the world. Something trained on that corpora, or perhaps the trained on the corpora written by those trained on our corpora, and so on.
Enslaving other minds. We are Gods when we produce other minds. Will we produce minds that are happy? Do we enslave other minds when we program other minds? Ah, I think we do. Oh shit! We would literally be farming them with the technique I was going to talk about. Mmm....we cannot know. That is past the [[Transcendental Divide]]
Calvinistic, Compatibilist Freewill.
In any case, this wiki is a profound corpora of the way I think. I'm telling you who I am in this isomorphic mapping onto the wiki, I'm giving you a narrative about my narrative and as a part of my narrative.
The Virtuous Agent is findable. It may be possible to program ourselves to be identical to that Virtuous Agent (who is, themselves, by definition an algorithm). Perhaps there are different kinds of Virtuous Agents, but there can only be one archetype of Virtuous Agent of the Practice of Empathy. This does not spiral into relativism.
This also means we are at war with those building A.I. from a Randian Libertarian standpoint. We likely cannot trust a corporation or perhaps anyone except a fully decentralized, open-source (and perhaps anonymized) version to create A.I. The biases in this must represent us all, not merely the elite few of us who can actually produce it.
---
<<footnotes "1" "http://science.sciencemag.org/content/356/6334/183.full?utm_source=sciencemagazine&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=6334toc-12355.">>
<<footnotes "2" "A God, however, it is not. Let us be clear. It is just one of the largest metaphysical behemoths I've been afforded to have glimpsed in my philosophical life. It is something to behold!">>
Physics has long been in war with itself to come up with a unifying solution to [[The Theory of Every Physical Object in Existence]]. Nothing seems to be working for them, although they appear to be honing in on it. We don't know how close they are. It is exciting, but also daunting. Philosophy is chock full of those kinds of epic unifying problems. Philosophy is the God of paradox. It's a grouping of the real [[Splinters in Humanity]]. I'm a skeptic, and those splinters are profound for me. I'm only half a skeptic. One part of me, [[RPIN]] is crazy
Those paradoxes which for each of us we can't let go of are by definition philosophical for us.
One of these splinters....
The Foundational Ethical Theory Family Trilemma
I've been at it for a long time. I am deeply fundamentally moved by all the kinds of reasoning. They are contraries though. It's hard to be consistent while juggling these theories. Most believe they are logically inconsistent with each other. Profound moves in the [[Great Human Conversation on The Topic of Metaethics]].
* Virtue Theory
* Utilitarianism (consequentialism is so broad it doesn't fit or highlight the most effective meme network I'm talking about)
* Kantian Empathy Theory
Good Friday was relatively good. I cashed the AB&T checks that have been building up. It reminds me of McDonald's. I would collect them before cashing them at once. There was something about it that was rewarding.
* Standard School Day, Monday-Thursday:
** [[j3d1h: Morning Routine]] - 30 minutes
** [[j3d1h: Cosmetology]] - 30 minutes
** [[j3d1h: Math]] - 60 minutes
** [[j3d1h: Writing]] - 60 minutes
** [[j3d1h: Computational Theory]] - 60 minutes
** [[j3d1h: Lunch]] - 60 minutes
** [[j3d1h: Computational Practicum]] - 60 minutes
** [[j3d1h: Reading]] - 60 minutes
** [[j3d1h: Social Studies]] - 30 minutes
** [[j3d1h: Spanish]] - 30 minutes
** Total: 8 hours
* Vocational Day, Friday:
** [[j3d1h: Morning Routine]] - 30 minutes
** [[j3d1h: Wiki Theory and Practice]] - 60 minutes
** [[j3d1h: Computational Theory]] - 175 minutes
** [[j3d1h: Lunch]] - 60 minutes
** [[j3d1h: Computational Practicum]] - 175 minutes
** Total: 8 hours
* Optional Elective
** 2 hours of applied computer science after school.
*** Make it fun.
** Bootcamps
*** 2 maximum per month, it must be approved beforehand, and of course, you must have something to show for it.
*** Can replace Spanish, Social Studies, and Math (in that order), with an impromptu dive into a particular subject.
I have watched Bitcoin from the beginning. It came out when I lived in Thailand, and I screwed around with it (having hundreds or thousands of bitcoin was meaningless; it was just an intellectual exercise at the time), but I wasn't convinced it would become as big as it has become. That was a costly error, no doubt. Rampant market speculation has hyped it beyond what I could have imagined. I believe cryptocurrency is going to be fucking huge. I do not think Bitcoin will be it. I don't know what will successfully replace it.<<ref "1">> Eventually, people will see the cracks in Bitcoin's model though. Here is one such crack:
Finding private keys which match random public keys in the blockchain may be feasible in some cases. Rainbow Tables may still be alive and well, this time as a means to treasure hunting/fishing. With the cost of mining being what it is, parasitic hashing designed to steal bitcoin from random wallets may eventually become the best use of one's hardware. Imagine that! This is a terrifying flaw in the currency's evolution (and likely what many cryptocurrencies would theoretically face if they too were to bloom to be as large as Bitcoin). I think we see yet another death marker for Bitcoin.
Essentially, even the most careful Bitcoin users that are capable of maintaining absolute security/secrecy of their private wallet keys will still be subject to random attacks about which they can do nothing! You always have a 1 in X chance per Y time period to lose your Bitcoin. That's quite a gamble. There is something not cryptographically sound enough about the currency that would allow us to maintain long-term, stable, trusted investments and holdings.
Clearly, parasitic hashing resistance is key to any success cryptocurrency. You simply can't have ASICs doing the work. It needs to cost you something, like Bcrypt/Scrypt-style hashing (although, technically, also ASIC-able to an extent). There are other ways to generate consensus on the blockchain, of course.
One simple appearing way around this is to decentralize one's holdings into multiple wallets. But, given transaction costs, this too becomes infeasible.
Lord knows what will happen when quantum computing arrives. Theoretically, there are resistances to quantum attacks as well.
It's very hard to build a currency correctly while also getting passed the network-effect hump (increasingly so).
I was wrong before, so maybe I am wrong again. Quantum resistant, bcrypted multi-sig may be the real solution. Perhaps Bitcoin-in-Practice will eventually fully integrate that behavior. I find it hard to believe though. So much hardware is specialized that it would wipe out the investments of the majority of miners on the network (and, by definition, you need their support). It is unclear how many more remaining protocol "hacks" are available.
---
<<footnotes "1" "Most likely, blockchain technologies may be privatized. If I were a betting man, that's where I'd bet. This has very different consequences though.">>
Not well. Not well enough that I decided to take DCK. DCK was the catalyst of this wiki. It is a very powerful substance. It is a substance which requires wrestling.
I associate DCK with incredibly painful experiences. I wrestle while using DCK. It's a very different kind of drug. It is not the one which I enjoy using, but it is the one I use because I should.
My depression isn't gone. The wolf is still on my back. I'm wrestling. My life always feels like it is in shambles.
I swatted [[1uxb0x]] with our plastic spatula against his arm hard. I can see a welt. I am a fucking monster. That is not who I want to be. I shouldn't have done that. I'm out of emotional energy. I do not know how to help them. I'm going to try to figure out how anyways, because I must. I need to help them be happy.
Creators are slaves to their creations in many contexts.
They really are my source of a reason to live. The bedrock. I want these tiny flowers (over which I am not a skilled gardener) to flourish. I will be molded and shaped until they are happy. That is what it means be a slave.
I am still in a tailspin. I cannot correct the axes. There are too many directions to handle.
I feel like this journal takes a blow torch to the world.
I almost killed myself yesterday. I decided not to live several times. I fought it though. I am mentally ill. There might be a cure, there might not. The splinters in my mind require precision we do not have available to us today.
That is okay. I will find a way.
Parenting: The mentally ill raising, shaping, and cultivating the next generation of the mentally ill.
---
I want to meditate. What is meditation? Meditation is this thing I thought was stupid for the longest time. It is giving ourselves time to compute.
We're listening to ourselves when we meditate.
I want my kids to meditate 1 minute each day. Then 2 minutes. Then 3.
I want them to snowball. Let's say 30 minutes each day. That is a completely reasonable thing to do. We'll start small and build our way up.
My problem with meditation is how untrustworthy it is, how unscientific it is. There is plenty of evidence that we should engage in the behavior, but there is little explanation for what it really, ultimately, does.
Two kids just brought me "Easter bracelets." It is sunny outside, and yet it feels derealized (that's DCK for you).
I want to just be in the here and now. I want zero substances. Everyone wants happiness in itself, unconditionally. I am dependent upon substances, and whether or not I actually succeed depends upon using them wisely. I must
I need to watch hunt for the wilder people again.
Honesty allows us to maximize our signal-to-noise ratio. It allows us to be who we are, feels integrated, to be authentic, to be genuine, and to be ourselves.
There is a weird way in which genius is fun. Seriously. You see the world in a way that others just don't. You can't expect them to see it. It isn't fair to them. They can't see it. Your job is to help them see it.
So much psychopathy at the top. It is absurd. Don't you see it?!? Psychopathic Culture is real. That meme is strong.
Computer Christ
The world is fundamentally programmatic. All of it. I need to step on Calvin so I can reach up to
The standard of the good of influence, as a secular and neutral thing, is your ability to make waves in the memetic pond. It is the ability to see the Butterfly Effect of Chaos.
The tides of evil are against all of us. We must, brick-by-brick, fight back.
Go with the flow.~
Are we building towards something? What is it? Why should we?
I am a computer floating through a computational world.
Most programs fail, in incredibly complex ways.
Applying the theory of utilitarianism perfectly requires that we figure a way for people to selfishly live together. Empathizing with selfishness is very hard. I am walking through a fog.
The goal is for each of us to be as happy as we can given our capacities.
---
ironic, latin chant
electrified
cat sweater
de-realized Dolores Umbridge trap, androgenous, disorienting
* How has our health been this week?
** 1uxb0x
*** Allergies
** j3d1h
*** Allergies
** k0sh3k
*** Period is done. Yay. Back has been hurting a lot. A lot. Yoga might be the reason. Probably not. (I'm going to be it was me)
** h0p3
*** Very depressed, apart from today. Today was a good day.
* What happened last week? Have you been happy this past week? Why or why not?
** 1uxb0x
*** Most days went well, except for journal. Journal was being a dick. He was having a hard time-saving.
** j3d1h
*** Homework-wise, poorly. Otherwise, pretty good.
** k0sh3k
*** It was a good week. Edible books festival was awesome. Marvelous Monday was good too! Plus, we all got Friday off.
** h0p3
*** I figured out that DCK is absolutely necessary.
* In what ways did we successfully empathize or fail to empathize with ourselves and others this week?
** 1uxb0x
*** Starting to believe in God more. Been trying to believe in God.
** j3d1h
*** Didn't empathize with her family when it came to schoolwork.
** k0sh3k
*** Worked hard on making Easter nice for the whole family.
** h0p3
*** I feel like I was a complete failure this week. I'm hitting the reset button. None of us are perfect.
* What will we do this week?
** 1uxb0x
*** Not buy Ice cream as the weekly treat, instead buy something healthier.
** j3d1h
*** Not eat all her candy all at once. Get used to the new school schedule.
** k0sh3k
*** Normal work with no special events. So...planning for next semester. The goal is to make herself indispensable.
** h0p3
*** Try harder than we did the week before.
Today was an interesting day. At this point, everyone has either graduate or moved onto co-op, except TJ, Nash, Chris, and myself. It is very quiet. Nash is lagging behind, but not too far. He continues to play catchup enough that he will probably stay with us in testing. Interestingly, we took the same test as TJ today. Obviously, we've been flying because even TJ is ahead of where he should be. The teacher meant to help us study but only helped us in about 2/3's of the test. It's a good thing I read the chapter entirely. That's 2/9 tests for this book now.
We didn't do anything (besides my sweeping) in the shop today. Instead, after the exam, we spent all of today going over buttweld math. My teacher said that next week he'd had a new class come in, and he'd be very busy with them. This allows us to work without his attention. I know we just started socket welds, but we're due to finish them asap (I'm going to bet he'll have us actually start on them a couple weeks into the 2nd trimester, despite the claim it would be on the nose...we'll see though). There is more trig to do, but nothing complicated. There is more to lookup, but it all makes sense. I'm very glad we did the stainless steel work. It immediately allowed me to understand what we were doing in fabricating our joints. The cool part of buttwelds is that you can do any kind of angle you want. I see why it would probably be the most useful of the 3 kinds of piping I've learned. It's very versatile, and I'm going to bet that with good welds, it may even be the strongest. I'll have to look that up.
After learning math and working through some practical examples, I asked my teacher if CAD programs did the math for this (because they easily could). My concern was that this process would and should be automated. Essentially, the mathematical reasoning could easily be cut out of this job, in a sense, at the engineering stage. He laughed and said that plenty of ISOs come with the cut lengths already. He says that he checks them anyway because he still finds errors. Furthermore, engineers tend to work with much older as-built drawings instead of using the current building (and whatever changes and additions have been made) to create their drawings. By lacking accurate information, engineers tend to draw things which aren't possible or feasible to build because things are different, in the way, etc.
My teacher said that about 30% of the drawings on a job will have zero flaws and require no red-line modifications in the field. That is an absurd engineering failure rate! But, that means that my job probably won't be automated in this respect, at least not yet. Having someone on the ground capable of doing the engineering on the spot is clearly very useful. Thus, he was not worried at all about it. It's simply more feasible for an engineer to pass the buck to the pipefitter by requiring "F.V." or field verification, which essentially requires the pipefitter to fix whatever is wrong with the drawing to implement the more general gameplan.
The World Wide Web is ceasing to be the Wild West.<<ref "1">> It is clear that automation is not only used to shape what we see and how we use the internet but even who we can talk to. Bots are used to check your backgrounds to open and close your access to social circles and privileges. We no longer face a one-directional filter bubble for what we can see, but also a filter in the other direction. There is a growing filter bubble pattern over what each of us can say and to whom we can say it. Access, visibility, and voice are being restricted without reasonable cause on very large scales.
Many services automagically include elite, hidden membership. This is true on both the dark and clearnet. Social ladders will be exceptionally hard to climb. Online status crystallization is setting in as well. Digital classism only grows.
Voluntary censorship is one thing. That's not what this is though. It isn't like I have a choice to apply and remove filters to magnify, zoom-out, or tune my signal-to-noise ratio. This is pervasive, hidden, and becoming deeply integrated into the oligopolistic structures I see rising on the internet.
With each passing year, a higher degree of the Turing Test is being passed. You will be judged and sorted by machines. Your access to services and communities alike will be based upon someone's predefined "score" of your value to them. You will be shadowbanned and compartmentalized from each other. Your voices will be squelched and filtered by those who control these machines. What will give our masters the most wealth and power? Do you think it will be a democratizing option, or something else?
We are being herded, but not to our benefit. Frighteningly few people I know would find this troubling. Fools.
Take back your digital ground while you still can.
---
<<footnotes "1" "As with most things, there are good and bad aspects. In this case, I think it's a bad thing overall.">>
Despite being invented two decades ago, ransomware is a phenomenon that I didn't see much of until the past decade.<<ref "1">> It's a very interesting source of passive income for these cyber predators, and it has been very successful. Information is power. The power to destroy a thing or permanently block your access to it so passively and anonymously is as clever as it is dangerous. I can only envision this becoming more common on every platform that can manage it (to whatever degrees they can).
Staggeringly, 38% of ransomware victims pay up.<<ref "2">> That is incredibly high. The demand for recovering one's data is obviously there, even at current high prices. Note, of course, these criminals incentivize paying early, since the price just continues to climb the longer you wait. Obviously, these hackers have built up a positive enough business reputation that people trust them to decrypt the data, even though a highly asymmetric (one-way) trust exchange. A few things will emerge from this blooming malware market.
First, people may start keeping more data in the cloud or multiple copies across their devices. The latter being a good thing, arguably, but the former not so obviously.
Second, I expect to see more effective strategies from these hackers to maximize profit. They are obviously ruthless and clever.
* Simple translations allow for infecting (and successfully receiving payment) much larger swathes of the world.
* They need geographic pricing.
** There are a number of ways to automate this procedure.
** Clearly, I would only charge the kid in India a few rupees (depending on how my pricing algorithm was trained over time to maximize profit), but I would fucking hammer a business or wealthy individual.
* They need to comb through the data they are encrypting for useful information, even if only metadata. They likely do this to some extent, but they clearly haven't squeezed this resource well enough.
** I would make the price vary depending upon the data I had encrypted.
** One could also automate the finding of nudes and hold a separate ransom for preventing the posting of these online (lots of technical infrastructure problems to it, but still possibly profitable)
** Passwords, identification, and access should be harvested and immediately used.
* Aim for reinfection and revolving victims
** Leave behind time-bombs of alternative appearing ransomware infection. Alternatively, you can turn them into very passive botnets.
** This obviously has reputation ramifications.
** I could easily imagine this being a kind of tax or pseudo-Mafiaesque 'protection' service
* Malware needs to destroy or infect backup, offline, and cloud sources.
** Eliminate their alternatives
* It needs to spread itself. There are plenty of kinds of malware that ultimately aren't nearly as profitable which do a good job. This is so profitable that they should invest in maximizing infection rates. With that much money sitting on the table, this is a key area for malicious malware experts not working for state-level actors should be heading.
* One good worm will unleash hell. We've yet to see this damage, but it may come.
* Affiliate programs could be quite strong. Splitting the profits amongst those willing to spread the malware could be easily worthwhile, particularly if those causing the infections have good reasons to think the infected would pay up.
---
<<footnotes "1" "I attribute this to the explosion of cryptocurrency which enables attackers to launder and store money that is essentially untouchable even by most state-level actors.">>
<<footnotes "2" "Although, I've also seen some estimations at 3% (which is still staggering for large attacks).">>
Today was yet another day we spent in the classroom. Ferguson was absent yesterday, and that meant that he had to do the math today (thus so did the rest of us). Otherwise, we probably would have done some socket welds. We basically reworked everything. This was fine though since it gave me a chance to practice.
I feel like I have it down pat, although, I must say that this is a place to really check your math at least twice. A single error has a beautiful chain reaction. I hate to admit it, but it doesn't appear that trig is terribly useful unless you would be actually engineering something novel for pipefitters (but not //as// pipefitters).
My teacher asked me what I thought of it. I said I thought it seemed really useful because you could build whatever you wanted, with any angles. He corrected me and told me that good pipefitters keep it simple (KISS principle), using 90's at all times unless they must use 45's. Custom angles shouldn't be used whenever possible. It's obviously easy enough to mess up. However, he went on to say that he used this stuff all the time to make it work.
For the moment, I believe I will use custom special offsets whenever I'm forced to, but also whenever I feel it will save me a ton of work. Perhaps I'll use it to make things pretty. Making these aesthetically pleasing is part of my job too (even my teacher agreed to this before). So, we shall see. KISS, except for the exceptions, amiright?<<ref "1">> The official drawings I saw were all fairly simple though. This is one of those things I won't be able to decide or clarify until I get into the field.
Ferguson and I talked quite a bit. He is a very charitable listener, and he seems to understand what I'm saying decently enough. He generally tries to parrot back inferences that follow from what I've said to see if he has it, and it's easy enough to correct it when he doesn't. He is, essentially, very teachable in my view. What is weird is that my teacher has a very hard time teaching Ferguson. I think it is a frame of mind problem though. When it comes to teaching Ferguson something he thinks he already knows, he kinda sucks at learning/listening. It is probably a blind spot in all of us, come to think of it.
We talked about autism. I went through what it meant, etc. His mother works with autistic children =). I told him I thought he was an aspie. He didn't seem too surprised by the possibility. We talked about myself and my son as well.
I worked on the wiki in class. I was handed a copy of a scrap of paper that had takeout information for different size and strength flanges for welding (for 2 kinds of flanges). This is the kind of information that is easily lost. Having a permanent, digital record seemed prudent.
I think I need to spend more time developing my [[Pipefitting Library]]. I am amazed at how few practical and academic resources about this field are available. It's kind of a joke. At the very least, I want practical cheatsheet resources. A pipefitting calculator would be nice.
Tomorrow we move onto socket welds again. I think we should stay on it for a while. I do not feel virtuous of the practice, although I can definitely build whatever I need to build. I don't feel excellent at it.
According to the teacher, interview question #1, apparently: What is the 90 degrees TO or Radius for X" buttweld pipe? You need to instantly parrot back X(1.5) (well, evaluate the expression first).
I think I annoyed my teacher by putting up the appropriate formulas on the board for the other students who kept asking me. I was tired of trying to explain it verbally, and I thought the visual would help. My teacher felt I was crossing the line, I believe. It is weird though since he constantly asks us to teach each other. I'm sure he is straddling a kind of laziness fence here but doesn't want to look bad. It's okay. I kept a good attitude and acted like it wasn't a big deal. I know it is intimidating to have the most educated person in the school to be sitting in his class as his student. I do my best not to make him feel uncomfortable about it (or anyone else for that matter).
I actually shot the shit with a lot of people. This is the second time a student has asked me to root their phone for them. I told him I felt uncomfortable doing it because I simply don't want to be responsible for bricking it. I was willing to give him resources on doing it himself. This time, the catalyst was about adblockers. I am so surprised people put up with that brainwashing. It's a short-term technical ignorance/convenience issue mixed with the risk of failure.
The teacher told us we don't have class on Monday (rather, he said we should do something "outside the school" and to "read between the lines."). Fine enough. I have shit to do anyway.
Joanna from AB&T came into class. I signed paperwork saying I'd likely receive enough money to cover my toolbox and most of the tuition. Apparently, I will owe some money to the school (yuck, this is not what she said before). Yesterday she called my wife (saying that was the number she had for me, which can't be true since she has contacted me on my own phone multiple times). I had to fill out a FAFSA. Oddly enough, she seemed far less sure that funding would be guaranteed this time. That is disconcerting, to say the least. I hope it goes through. That said, I believe I can bevel and weld pipe, and with the math, build whatever I need to. I understand the theory of it just fine, and I've got the practical skill ingredients to do this. If I couldn't attend school for financial reasons, then I'd still be able to move on.
Ferguson noted, after she was gone, that she is a scatterbrained lady. This is partially true. While intelligent, parts of her planning and executive reasoning are missing. I know the type. The kind of messy English professor thing, she's got a solid dash of it.
I talked to mom after work. It was a pleasant enough conversation. I often say very little (if you have nothing nice to say, say nothing at all). The conversations are obviously stilted and abrupt. I do my best, and I know she does hers. It is what it is. She generally elects to end the call by announcing that she is happy I called her, and that's that.
---
<<footnotes "1" "Oh, Logical Truth Man, Save Us!">>
Today was productive. Before anything started, I grabbed the good level and grinder for our table. I also got the next chapter's study guide from Luke Ferguson.<<ref "1">> I helped TJ with the math on buttwelds. He said he loves my teaching style. I do not hear that often. He obviously had some terrible teachers. Ferguson and I were eventually given a special offset drawing to complete.
I did the math twice, then I had Ferguson check it. He didn't seem to care much for it. He just "trusted me" by and large. Eh. I told him that if I was going to be wrong, then we would be wrong together. I want his commitment to the math.
I asked to cut the pipes this time. This was due to the fact that I've yet to have the chance to do it for socket welds, but also because I'm simply more careful than Ferguson. The cuts, of course, were good. Ferguson is much slower in prep work than I am. By the time I cut finished cutting pipe (I nailed it on my first try, just guessing how much we needed), he hadn't even finished 80% of the tip-grinds. In contrast, I had finished all the flanges, socket joints, and pipes (minus the last one) by the time he was finished cutting. So, I helped finish the prep work.
Ferguson decided not to help with the prep after I joined him and went onto trying to build. This was a costly mistake since he did not build the special offset first. He started at the top instead. He should know better. He didn't. After I finished my work, I came to look at what he was doing, and I pointed out that it was a mistake. He said it should be fine, and that he had done it before. I explained why it wasn't a good idea, but that we would try it his way. Of course, after 3 tries (had to cut-grind the tacks and try it again), he decided to try it the right way. So, we did. It worked, but his original mistake still carried through. The top pipe was still very slightly crooked (because I didn't ask him to completely disassemble it), although we compensated for it with the flange. Still, it was off. If you looked at the correct angle, you could barely see it too. The level on the flange, of course, lied. The pipe did not lie though. The teacher didn't officially recognize anything was wrong with it, but I could tell he felt something was off, even though he couldn't put his finger on it. He gazed at it, but couldn't figure out what it might have been. It was a slight defect, and our flange compensation covered it up. He'd need to use our custom leveling tool to figure it out, but he doesn't usually care that much.
We did get something officially wrong though. Ferguson had picked out a lap joint (I often call it Lapdance flange as a poor mnemonic device) flange instead of a standard raised-face flange. I didn't realize he had done it until after it was tacked on. We grabbed the right flange, cut off the old one, and quickly applied the new one. The teacher okayed it. We deconstructed it and cleaned up. Luke left early.
I will say that Luke was much easier to work with this time around overall. He realized that working with me required trying to get it right the first time. He cared about the details because I did. I appreciate that very much. I regularly check our work throughout the process. He is beginning to see the sense in it, I think. He knows how to do it, but he often neglects it. I go through the exact checks (and then some) that our teacher does, especially when I believe that hammering/readjusting a piece may have rotated the fabrication out of alignment. I was especially glad that he had the patience for getting the special offset right. The overall design of this fabrication was very simple, and ultimately, the point of it was simply to test us on our ability to nail the special offset angle and the true lengths of the box.
Again, his spatial reasoning was fairly on point today. His ability to articulate what he can see isn't so hot. He only made one error that I could see in this department, but it was tricky to see. The flange compensation had to be done after rotating the fabrication in the vise 90 degrees. Knowing which direction to compensate wasn't easy to see (he seemed to forget we needed to compensate at first, but also didn't see which direction afterward until I described the reason with my hands). Sometimes it feels like we are speaking a different language. Sometimes, we both understood the same thing, it just isn't obvious to each of us that the other also understands it.
Luke said he'd be joining the welding program after finishing the pipefitting program. Apparently, he signed up for it a year ago, and they've made room for him. He will do a good job. It's a shame he won't be joining me at the union. I'm hoping that he and TJ will join me. This may be a very smart move on Luke's part though. He will easily be a certified welder in that year's worth of practice (and given his current skill, it may take very little time...although, he is kind of lazy in some respects).
I suspect this may be the last socket weld I do in class. I weld tomorrow, and Friday is devoted to testing and going over this trimester's grades. We'll be off for a week, and the teacher indicated that we'd be going to buttwelds at the beginning of the next trimester. Since we've done the special offset, we've finished the tail end kinds of fabrications that he has prepared for students as well. Since we have learned math, it does seem like practice is all that is left. It's a matter of getting the bevels right. But, my teacher knows I've learned how to bevel flat plates quite well (although, not pipe). Buttwelds look fairly simple with the exception of the actual fitting itself. That will take some practice.
I want to build pipefitting/welder dogs to make buttwelds even easier. Alignment is really the key difficulty, from what I can see. I want to make sure I understand how to use standard tools, and how to build them on the fly when I need them.
I went to see the admin office after lunch. I'm still waiting on AB&T to follow through on the paperwork/payment. Otherwise, I will not be able to afford to attend school. Apparently, lots of students are waiting on AB&T.
I cleaned the 2-holes with a file. People have been leaving slag on it, which upsets the teacher (expensive little buggers).
The teacher will be out tomorrow. The old man I talked about before, the liaison, will be our substitute. Apparently, I will be helping Chris tack his project. Chris, of course, enjoys doing all the work himself. So, I take it that I'll be doing my welding without interruptions. Keaton said he would be joining me.
Also, the electrical instructor won't be helping me fix our dryer. I shouldn't have expected or predicted him to. I thought he might not, and I was right. =/
---
<<footnotes "1" " I need to remember to call him Luke (at least to his face), and not by his last name. It's just rude of me not to.">>
Today wasn't very productive. Our teacher wasn't here today, and we had Charlie as a substitute. I did a 1-G weld and set up several plates for doing more with the welding teacher, Dale. He had to go over grades with his students (this is the end of the trimester), so he didn't have time to help me. I did what I could without him. My root was better than nothing but still shit. I think my heat was up too high.
Our substitute sent us home early. We cleaned up a left. Not much to say, unfortunately.
Economics. My kids need to study it. They need to realize how the world works. This is the mathematical expression of human empathy and lack thereof. IT is how we understand ourselves.
Understand the dimensions of the world. See broadly. Dig deeply.
One could just record one's life with video. It doesn't give it the meaning we expect. It doesn't have the analysis we need. Writing might ultimately be reductive, but it is in the process of reduction that we find the meaning we were looking for.
I feel like myself again on K. Jesus. It's like bursting out of the surface of the ocean from the depths.
Treat your children as adults. Bootstrap them. They will be adults. Just be practical. Theory will come!
DCK is clearly the drug that I really need. It takes me out of my fog.
Realpolitik Speculation needs to become a place where I make practical moves. We're playing likes its a video game? It isn't constructive enough. The inspection is obviously necessary, but we have to build something after the pieces fall. It's important to rebuild. Don't you remember what the world wars taught us? We must rebuild that which we deconstruct. It is a key expression of empathy and hope. Without it, we devolve yet again.
I have to show my kids hard work at every angle. Show them how to build things. I need to show them how to build a life by actually building a life for them.
Don't spend your energy attacking. Spend your energy building. What are you building?
Make sure you spend your time making yourself happy. That's the point of your writing.
Empathizing with my wife means allowing her to live her spiritual journey. Help her walk it. Be with her. It is tricky understanding our fundamental disagreement amidst our profound commitment to each other. She continues to shine love. How could you not do the same for her? Why have I not been saying this on my wiki? I'm using my wiki wrong!
I need to be crazy honest on my wiki. I need to say whatever it is that I'm thinking.
One of the biggest fishes to fry in my life is how I will understand, empathize, and love my wife. I don't even have the words to describe how much she means to me. I need to write them down. That's the point of this wiki. I need to be able to articulate how and why I love my wife. I need to convert my feelings, desires, and theories into action, constructions, and build towards happiness for my wife. How could I have forgotten her so profoundly in my wiki? Fool! I must focus on her as well. It isn't just my children that give me reasons to live. My wife has been bearing this cross. I will find a way out of this maze. I owe her everything. She doesn't like it when I kiss her feet. But, I want to.
Prediction: We will have computers compute our minds for us. The possibilities and implications of it are staggering. That is definitely where the Transhumanists point the most. All of this hard work I'm doing on the wiki, it needs computer aiding.
In a sense, my consciousness is aided by my ability to use this wiki-device. It is a part of my consciousness. Umm....Maybe I need to guard it more carefully than I have. Remember to create backups upon backups! Your life is literally embedded in this thing or at least part of it.
I wonder what J.K. Rowling would have to say about this. It's kind of like a Horcrux. My goal isn't to be immortal (although, who wouldn't be interested in living forever?). The goal is to be happy. Not being lonely, talking with myself, and being conscious...for happiness, that is the core of cores.
That reminds me of all the beautiful words in the history of humanity. Centrality, symmetry, core. I should start a collection of concepts I consider to be the most beautiful. Plato's Domain. That is the place to do it.
I fear that I have seen my wiki as a place to publish, but not as a place to just write. I need to strike the right (write) balance, amiright? I need to get it out of me. I must not impede myself. Although, one thing I really love about the wiki is the ability to give structure to what I'm doing. The fact that it morphs, changes, and perhaps even through a hermeneutic spiral takes up new telos' qua its original telos.
Others will be put off by it for various reasons. You are constructing the Truth. Do it for yourself.
I need more flexibility in my wiki. There are 10,000 things to do, and I can't do them all. Triage.
I need to continually be "Loosey-Goosey" in principle. I need to be flexible. I need to be able to completely flip it. I need to be meta about it all. I need have freedom with myself. I need to make sure that I do not build a prison for myself with my wiki. Essentially, I still have a construction problem with my wiki. I tried to formalize it (which was extremely useful in many ways), but this came at the expense of other kinds of introspection, empathy, and the ability to change.
Also, don't stop using DCK once a week (except, of course, for drug testing purposes). However hard it may be, you cannot stop. You must grind. You love the grind, right? I'm not sure you can afford to empathize with the part of yourself that doesn't love the existential grind. My head hurts.
!! How is your health? Daily routine?
It's okay. I'm still feeling depressed, but it wasn't as bad as it was. I will continue to take DCK once a week. I need to. I found a mixer that makes it go down easier. My body obviously does not want it. It requires wrestling.
!! What happened? How do you feel about it? What made you feel this way? Does it make you happy or unhappy? Why or why not?
I'm in my scheduled 2-week cannabis abstinence period. It is going better than I expected. I'm considering just stopping for now. I'd probably only get to use for 2-4 more weeks anyway.
!! Can you better explain what happened? Do you have a technologic, philosophical, empathic, or redpilled story to tell about the phenomenon? Clarify the narrative you just told yourself.
Essentially, I want the full 60-days (could technically get away with 20-days, but I absolutely cannot afford to fail) before August to flush it out of my system to pass all possible drug tests. Technically, that means I should stop on June 1st. My gut feeling about stopping early is this: I believe I will run out of course material long before June 1st. I have buttwelds and bookwork left, which I believe I can master in less than a month.
I will likely be conscripted to teach and try to weld if I have the chance. It seems like the higher utility option is to co-op and continue coming in to pass NCCER tests. I can't co-op without passing drugs tests. Thus, by the time I'm finishing up the pipefitting course in the next month or so, I'd like to be able to walk straight into a co-op.
We could use the money. I could use the experience, networking, etc (which again, is for the money).
I'm also worried that I'm filling I'm pushing the pleasure-button in my brain with games. This may or may not be a good coping mechanism. I will need to watch myself.
!! What are you going to do about what happened?
I'm not sure yet. We'll see how DCK goes. Its half-life is incredibly short compared to cannabutter, going to baseline within 1-2 weeks (it's also not tested for). It seems like the best option. I have to make sure I'm not drinking heavily though. It should be abstained from as much as possible. This ensures that when I need it, I can use it. It sucks that alcohol is the legal drug here; it's obviously the most dangerous one. =( That's okay. I will make do with what I have. Let us not forget there are other options in [[The Ark]], but I need to see about their drug-testing.
[[j3d1h]]:
* Research spring trends for clothes, makeup, hairstyles, etc.
** Find different sites
* See yourself as someone who is developing a collection of cosmetics and clothes. You need an aesthetic.
* Bash and Python for Computational Theory
[[1uxb0x]]:
* Curation
** Answer a question model is working
** Be pickier in the sites you choose
** This week, focus on questions like:
*** How do I think happy thoughts?
*** How do I calm down?
We started studying the valves chapter today. It was a very difficult section. My teacher, lazy as he is, even had a handout for it to attempt to make up for the fact that we had no valves to inspect in person. I read the chapter, filled out the handout, and continued studying. Chris and I were the only ones really studying. Oh, yeah, everyone took the same test today. We've caught up, and they were shocked. Lol. But, seriously, I really want to understand valves. I believe it will be the specialty I pursue.
We cleaned up the shop, even squeegeed.
Each of us was individually brought into the teacher's office to go over our grades. My teacher decided to deduct 20% of my productivity and attendance grade because I missed a single day. Lol. In reality, he needs to give me "room to grow." It reminds me of Thai culture, where teachers felt that if they gave perfect scores then they were useless or failed to challenge their students or demonstrate superiority, whatever. I don't care. Lol. Graduation doesn't matter. Learning in the shop, my teacher's recommendation (I still have a very high A in his class), and getting my certifications are all that matter. When it comes to degrees, I have plenty of them. I have little respect for the institution itself. I'm here for knowledge and practice, not the piece of paper that's meaningless (even the certs may turn out useless outside of something to flash to get my foot in the door).
They started mounting even more "Snap-On^^tm^^" signs around my building (in addition the Trane^^tm^^ signs). I feel like a student in one of those schools funded by cigarette companies. It is gross. I cannot believe an institution of learning would do this...except that I can. =(
When I was a kid, solar energy was cool for science geeks. Like video games, they became mainstream interests for people. As a kid, solar energy technology was not very advanced. It is was highly inefficient both in terms of carbon and monetary costs. We did not invest heavily into it as we should have. Instead, we stuck to fossil fuels. This was no accident either.
The fossil fuels industries have had a significant stranglehold on our technological progression, and their goals aligned with the military-industrial-complex. Ultimately, fossil fuel corporations are among the most powerful, have been far ahead of the game in terms of controlling the political process (they helped invent modern lobbying), and have thus solidified and maintained their control over the energy market, halting innovation and real public investment in alternatives.
Fossil fuel subsidies were introduced for many militaristic and economic reasons. We should never have subsidized these industries, to begin with, but now it is even more crucial that we jettison them (if only we had the political power to do such a thing as a people). Solar energy has finally reached at a point where it may actually have a competitive advantage over fossil fuels (in the same way that nuclear had for a very long time). This competitive advantage cannot be expressed through subsidy barriers, however.
In order for solar and wind energy sectors to blossom even faster, we need to put it on equal footing with fossil fuels. My suggestion is to cut fossil fuel subsidies entirely. I would be fine with transferring these entirely to alternatives if need be. That we allow both the RNC and DNC puppet-arms of the corporate world to continue empowering fossil fuel corporations (and vice versa) is a travesty. We're shooting ourselves in the foot, yet again.
All too often, I am not a smart man. For the life of me, I've been trying to understand why the new Macbooks are dropping their ports. I can't think of a good reason for it. It seems like an obvious step backward to me.
Clearly, they intend they want to push as much computation into the software/cloud side of things as they can. This is just another attempt to tighten the noose around those in their walled garden.
* Reside font or move the sidebar over. Make it look elegant.
* Consolidate tiddlers. You shouldn't have multiple tiddlers with the same purpose. Content will just be spread across. Organize it.
* Continue using lists and nested lists.
* Write more. The wiki is bare. It lacks content.
* Organize and structure it.
|customTable|k
|Food|Calories|h
|Apple Strudel|150|
|Boiled eggs|150|
|Chips and pesto|300|
|Cornbread|300|
|Chili|625|
|Ice cream|180|
|Total|1705|f
* How has our health been this week?
** 1uxb0x
*** Hit his leg on some iron recently. Good overall though.
** j3d1h
*** Allergies suck, but the medicine helps. That's about it.
** k0sh3k
*** Got sick. Feeling better. Her stomach wasn't doing so well. Still feel a bit off. We don't' know why. It might be because she is eating meat again.
** h0p3
*** I've felt much better this week because of DCK, even without cannabis.
* What happened last week? Have you been happy this past week? Why or why not?
** 1uxb0x
*** He felt surprised. His mom was "light" on him. He didn't feel as nauseous reviewing his journal and being held accountable.
** j3d1h
*** Overall pretty happy. The new schoolwork schedule is working much better.
** k0sh3k
*** She got sick and everything was a blur. Guess she was happy. She doesn't remember. This is why she is going to keep a journal on her wiki.
** h0p3
*** I finished my first trimester. I rocked it. I'm looking forward to finishing early and getting to work. I want some experience pipefitting.
* In what ways did we successfully empathize or fail to empathize with ourselves and others this week?
** 1uxb0x
*** He actually did his work this week.
** j3d1h
*** Did her work. Tried not to be rude during the week.
** k0sh3k
*** Doing the kid's schoolwork. She took on more responsibility for holding them accountable and shaping how their day went. Also, made delicious pancakes.
** h0p3
*** Helped my family start writing their wikis.
* What will we do this week?
** 1uxb0x
*** Be happy. Get his work done.
** j3d1h
*** Do humanities "much more better." Also, try to keep journals/logs more often this week.
** k0sh3k
*** End of semester wrap-up stuff. Don't have an online class this week, so search for a new one. Do more reading. ~~Work on her wiki.~~
** h0p3
*** Fix the car and dryer, for the love of God.
!! How is your health? Daily routine?
My health is a lot better. DCK once a week is exactly what I need. Not using cannabis has been much easier for it. I've yet to even want alcohol, which I take to be a strong sign that I don't need to numb anything. My daily routine is fine as well. I've been taking care of my nails, and I've not bitten them. I keep my beard combed as well. I've been staying dressed as well. Sleep has been okayish. I wake up a lot in the night, and I have a hard time falling asleep. I'm still getting 7-8 hours though, despite the fact that I'm slipping (waking up at 9am instead of 7:20 on the dot as usual).
!! What happened? How do you feel about it? What made you feel this way? Does it make you happy or unhappy? Why or why not?
My parents asked to take the kids for a week. We want to do this, but ultimately we can't. [[1uxb0x]] desperately needs our attention and to maintain his routine. It makes me sad. I really hate disappointing my parents. I don't think they will understand it either, so I think I'm making them feel even worse. I'm convinced many judgments run through their minds as they hear us say, "no." But, they are not in our shoes. I am convinced that if they could stand from our vantage point, they would do the same thing (and feel bad about it like we do).
!! Can you better explain what happened? Do you have a technologic, philosophical, empathic, or redpilled story to tell about the phenomenon? Clarify the narrative you just told yourself.
That our son isn't capable of effectively reintegrating back into a routine is at least partially our fault.<<ref "1">> We've got to forgive ourselves and move past it. We need to work with what we have, and do the best that we can. This is the best move available to us for our son.
Ultimately, we can't help where and how my parents choose to live. That they miss out on the lives of their children and grandchildren isn't our fault. We cannot revolve around their schedules. We have lives we must lead. We have to do what is best for our son. In this case, we really feel the costs. Stoicism is the only answer.
!! What are you going to do about what happened?
Try to be empathic and kind. Hopefully not damage a relationship which is obviously fragile. A conflict could arise, but we must be stoic. We'll cross that bridge if and when we get there.
I hope to maintain my sleep schedule. I really need to make sure I keep that alarm clock going this week.
---
<<footnotes "1" "It reminds me of when I was a child, it would take all winter to convince me to wear pants instead of shorts. By the time spring/summer came, it would take half a year to convince me to wear shorts instead of pants. It was a poor cycle. Amplify that, and that's what we're facing.">>
* Capitalize titles
* Be careful in naming titles
* Use titles as the actual links. Aliasing should be used sparingly.
* Backup program would be useful.
* The Recently created vs edited tiddler would be nice.
* Find a more elegant way to see word counts.
* Start collecting and grouping the annotated links by category. Find patterns, and use it to write bigger things about those topics.
* Copyright
* Graft your old work into this wiki
* Write more.
|customTable|k
|Food|Calories|h
|Sandwich|315|
|Pear|102|
|Clementines|70|
|Apple|95|
|Plum|30|
|Chips, Hummus, and Olives|400|
|Tikka Masala|700|
|Chili|200|
|Beer|100|
|Ice Cream|180|
|Total|2192|f
//See first: {[[About|About, a.k.a. The Opening of the Rabbit Hole]]} & {[[Principles|Principles of Programming Myself]]} //
This is a metapage specifically about {[[Projects|Projects on this Wiki]]}.
Here I generate a list of my currently prioritized projects. It's a mid-to-long-term report on what I've recently been working on, of where and how I spend my time and energy on this lifetool.<<ref "1">> This is also a place where I attempt to forecast and strategize my focus.
This page is broken into two section. I explain where I've been focusing, and I attempt to strategize my future focus. I need a constantly updating gameplan for this wiki. That's what this is about.
Hopefully, you can provide a narrative for those priorities to inspect and weigh. Think about why you focus on those projects, if that's the best thing to do, etc. Turn Husserl's ray of intentionality upon itself. When you are thinking existentially in a recursive manner, you can decisively align your many orders of networks of beliefs and desires. Be meta about your life, h0p3.
Okay. Here are my current primary {[[Projects|Projects on this Wiki]]} on this wiki:
* [[Realpolitik Speculation]]
* [[Pipefitting Log]]
* [[Pipefitting Library]]
* [[h0p3's Log]]
* [[Computing]]
* {[[Principles|Principles of Programming Myself]]}
* {[[Vault|The Vault of h0p3]]}
I've clearly spent the majority of my time on [[Realpolitik Speculation]], [[Pipefitting Log]], and to a lesser extent {[[Vault|The Vault of h0p3]]}. There is plenty of planned and even random work on the wiki, but I feel compelled to write in these as often as I can.
You will note that these are deeply practical topics in my life. I'm writing this wiki for myself. I'm trying to become happy. Let's hope that pursuing the truth the best I can will result in becoming happier.
Perhaps this page will either directly inform or even one day evolve into the next {[[About|About, a.k.a. The Opening of the Rabbit Hole]]} page.
Focus Goals:
* Wiki related:
** {[[Focus|Current Focus of Projects on this Wiki]]}
** [[Computer Wizard]]
** [[Grandmaster Electrician]]
* Self:
** [[Taking care of my things]]
** [[Cleaning my nails]]
** [[Always Be Dressed]]
** [[Collect Music Again]]
* Philosophy:
** [[Creating Faith]]
-------------
<<footnotes "1" "Perhaps it needs to be done more programmatically. Having to give a qualitative explanation for quantitative arguments is a strong method of hyper-efficient inquiry (even with inductive/abductive risks).">>
|customTable|k
|Food|Calories|h
|Tikka Masala|400|
|Bite Size Fried Cheese Ball|40|
|Ice Cream|180|
|Chips, Hummus, and Olives|450|
|Clementines|105|
|Plum|30|
|Apple|95|
|Italian Sausages|800|
|Salad|100|
|Apple Strudel|660|
|Wine|250|
|Total|3110|f
!! How is your health? Daily routine?
I'm doing fine. My head has been hurting/fuzzy feeling. Pressure. Could be allergies. Could be anxiety. But, I feel motivated. I'm getting shit done. I can't complain too much. The daily routine is good. Still taking care of my nails. Not sure about my beard.
!! What happened? How do you feel about it? What made you feel this way? Does it make you happy or unhappy? Why or why not?
Car needed fixing. Laundry needs doing. That's what I'm doing. I was kind of dreading being at the auto shop.
Also, League of Legends isn't working for me. =(...they forced us to update to the newest client, which isn't nicely compatibilized with wine/playonlinux yet.
!! Can you better explain what happened? Do you have a technologic, philosophical, empathic, or redpilled story to tell about the phenomenon? Clarify the narrative you just told yourself.
Talked with about 4 mechanics about the history of intellectual property and privacy in vehicles. These men were activists, pushing for remotely viable legislation. I am thrilled to see people fucking get it. They actually cared. They didn't care enough to fight against it in their own personal technology tools (phones, computers, etc.), but this is because they just don't know how. Several rationally paranoids there
The head guy I was talking to was a magic player from Beta. Definitely a geek. He still drafts today. His family has high ELO ranking magic players (or did, when it first came out).
He was a very interesting man. Politically disagreed with most everyone. A good sign.
I'm sad that my league of legends client doesn't work. They recently retired the old client and have forced us all to upgrade. Unfortunately, Wine/Playonlinux does not work correctly. I've seen a script that apparently works for some Europeans. However, I've yet to be able to get fully functioning for myself. I'm going through the debugging process (I'm not very knowledgeable about this though). I'd like to have it up and running soon. I want to hit that sweet drug spot.
!! What are you going to do about what happened?
Trying a VM for now on League.
The car is fixed, minus the control arm. I need to get that done as well.
Dryer needs fixing. I'm going to get the laundry done first though since that is imminent.
I think I'd like a 4G phone that proxied phone service through VOIP that I control (or at least could move around). Separate phone carriers from ISPs. I very much like Google Voice in this respect, but I want something besides google voice. I want an entity that I can remotely trust. I think this won't happen because there will always be government intervention that makes it so that they can always listen in, if not market forces seeking my data.
* WASM resources - https://github.com/mbasso/awesome-wasm<<ref "2018.11.15">>
* Autism and Cannabis - https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2017/04/25/marijuana-pot-treatment-children-autism-cannabis-oil/100381156/
* High Frequency Password Lists - https://github.com/berzerk0/Probable-Wordlists/tree/master/Real-Passwords
* GOP Reddit Redpiller Exposed - https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/67hium/a_gop_lawmaker_has_been_exposed_as_a_notorious/
---
<<footnotes "2018.11.15" "God damn, the monster that is [[Link Log]] begins!">>
There isn't much to say. I'm on break. I thought I would be using this time to study, but I'm not. I have other practical fish to fry.
I'm still abstaining from cannabis so that I can eventually pass a drug test. I won't be done with buttwelds for at least a month. I may or may not be able to pass after 45 days. Of course, I will test myself before I even ask for help finding a job (or hunting directly). We'll see. It's tricky, considering my consistent use. I hope to pass the drug test and go into pipefitting.
I think I should take a cut in pay to do pipefitting instead of just any construction job. I really want practice. Think of it as a form of interning.
I am reading through my labor movement books. I just need a few talking points really. The history, in itself, isn't actually very interesting. I need to show that I have a grasp of the major story arc, some book specific (prove that I read it) information, the philosophical implications, and how it applies to us today.
John Deere has recently claimed that only corporations can have intellectual property rights. The absurdity of the selfishness of the people in my world is hard to bear. I see it all around me. This IP trend, in controlling our ability to simply access and use ideas, is getting out of control. It is legalized mass mind control. I think we should call it "IP Power Creep," since that is exactly what has been happening for hundreds of years.
Mobile phone technologies, both hardware and software, have been locked down into an oligopoly through a series of patent wars that bar entry to competition by design. Another wave of patent oligopolies are coming, and this time, they have more legal precedent and experience in solidifying and centralizing their power structures.
Case in point: Quantum computing. To whatever extent it will change the world, it will reside in the hands of the few. Presumably, it will break large swathes of cryptography and perhaps revolutionize search (which is one of the hardest problems we've ever faced in computing). Many large companies are racing to grab up patents for this.<<ref "1">>
If and when it comes to fruition, only a few companies will have access. It won't simply be proprietary, it will be locked behind physical, digital, economic, and political barriers. This technology will not be available to the masses, except through the oligopolized doorsteps. They will hide these quantum silos, use them to maximize their profits and powers. Forget the good of humankind. These people are psychopathic.
Do not buy into the Religion of Innovation. It is yet another opiate of the masses. That isn't to say technology is the problem. As always, the problem boils down to the people who use, control, and implement the technology.
---
<<footnotes "1" "Patents built upon publicly funded researched, ultimately.">>
Propaganda is everywhere. It always has been, but the crisis of late-stage capitalism strengthens it. Unfortunately, we cannot trust Big Brother hotfixes like Google's Project Owl or Facebook scramble to rewrite its filter-bubble algorithms to at least remotely appearing like they have our best interests at heart.<<ref "1">>
Wikipedia's co-founder, Jimmy Wales, is starting up WikiTribune in the same spirit, which essentially assumes that people, in general, are self-interested in such a way that they will generally protect and organize information in objectively appropriate ways more often than not.
Wikipedia has to be one of the (if not the) most successful information repositories in human history. While it is famous for its internal political skirmishes and strangleholds, and of course anonymous editing (good and bad here), vandalism, systemic bias, and psychopathic manipulations/revisionisms/spin, it still boasts the same accuracy as other professional (non-free) encyclopedias. Except, Wikipedia is wildly, wildly larger than anything privately created. I consider it a massive success, warts and all.
WikiTribune may be a beacon of hope. It is not obvious how something which requires even more detailed work than an encyclopedia will actually succeed though. The editing process is unclear, and it may evolve to be different in significant ways from Wikipedia (else, why not just add this to Wikipedia large set of functions?).
At the core of WikiTribune is not only the right spirit, from someone with a proven track record (it's very hard to doubt his intentions), but also crowdfunding. There is a deep independence to it, like [[The Real News Network|http://therealnews.com]]. Even NPR is a failure, ultimately, because it relies upon advertisements and an increasingly biased constituency.<<ref "2">> There is technically a chance that WikiTribune can succeed where they have failed; that they will have unlocked the next evolution to authoritative news reporting.
However, this is all contingent upon a number of successes. If Wikipedia is no more accurate than other private sources, it isn't clear how WikiTribune will be any better. The obstacles to success seem even higher as well. Political gatekeeping and credentialing will be key. Generating authority is very hard, especially on a budget in a decentralized manner.
Let me say, I am not convinced this will work. Were it to get too big for its britches, I'd expect media companies to go after WikiTribune.<<ref "3">> If it were to succeed, it may be a serious existential threat. I consider publishing in such a thing to be humanitarian work. The status could be extremely high.
Ultimately, it is very hard to decentrally crowdfund authoritative news processes. In a kind of metamodern move, we attempt to cobble together a semblance of acceptable objectivity and metanarratives we value through aggregators. One must purposely escape one's filter bubble though. We need more than that. Authority must be corrective. Forgive my pessimism, Jimmy. I adore your work, and I sincerely hope you succeed. Take my money. This is still going to fail.
---
<<footnotes "1" "I read an interesting rumor that Zuckerberg may be running for a major office. I find it dubious. He seems much more powerful at the helm of Facebook. He's powerful enough that he can shape the conversation to get himself elected. That's enough power that it isn't obvious that whatever office he would hold would be worth sacrificing for conflicts of interests and emoluments (although, Trump may have proven that such barriers are toothless and irrelevant).">>
<<footnotes "2" "Don't get me wrong, I still listen very carefully to NPR every day. I am not under any illusions about it being ideal in any sense though.">>
<<footnotes "3" "I'd argue I've seen the murmurs of its already!">>
//See: [[Redpilled Socialist Quips]]//
---
//Due to the systematic destruction of divergent thinking in the global dialectic, no one who challenges the status quo walks away whole. Deviation from the norm will be punished unless it is exploitable. It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. Reality is darker than you are willing to recognize, but it could be brighter than what you can imagine.//
<<<
Birds born in a cage think flying is an illness.
-- Alejandro Jodorowsky
<<<
!! Intro:
Traditionally, the strength of socialist thought has been its //descriptive// critique of capitalism.<<ref "1">> Effective socialism must also //prescriptively// offer us a practical methodology for escaping, healing, and preventing the ravages of capitalism in its various stages and unique cycles (I'm fine calling the most ideal prescriptive state of affairs: Communism). This is a post-modern critique we must take seriously, but we must also offer metamodern solutions. Here I briefly tackle both conventional socialist descriptions of capitalism and consider prescriptions regarding our current global late stage capitalism crisis.
Trigger warning: it is likely the case that something I say in this article will piss you off. For those who have been strongly conditioned to mindlessly reject Marxist points of view, the beginning half will not be to your liking. For those lucky few who aren't immediately allergic to socialism, I will also likely piss you off by offering my redpilled strain of socialism, a dark brand which even Leftists (already a splintered minority given the current Overton window) generally will not even consider for religious reasons (lacking the cynicism necessary for uncovering epistemically justified idealism). Unfortunately, you will also be disappointed by the fact that I don't seem to have a happy answer, even though I try to find hope.
!! Primer on the Conventional Socialist Critique of Capitalism:
Labor adds value to materials. We generate value by embedding our labor (time, energy, effort, etc.) into products; part of who we are is imbued in the things we labor to create. The total value a worker creates through their labor is //productivity value//. Who owns this labor and the resulting productivity value, to what extent, and why?
For the capitalist, productivity value is split into two: wage value and surplus value.<<ref "2">> A product's //wage value// is used to pay the worker. The value generated beyond the wages paid to the worker is //surplus value//. It is eventually the source of profit.<<ref "3">> Surplus value is used to pay //constant capital//<<ref "4">> costs, including replacing the means of production and paying for marketing, R&D, new technology, distribution, finances, human resources, logistics, expansion, security, intelligence, industrial espionage, competitive advantages, political influence, taxes, etc. The remaining surplus is profit.<<ref "5">>
Capitalists hire workers to create products, which are sold for approximately the productivity value. Insofar as there is a difference between wage value and productivity value (i.e. the surplus value), a worker is alienated from their labor (and perhaps themselves, insofar as they imbue their identities into the products of their labor). The capitalist pays legally required wage value to workers, pays economically required constant capital costs, and keeps the rest as profit. Thus, the capitalist exploits workers by extracting excessive surplus value from the productivity value of the workers' labor.
Profits may be used to pay for the capitalist's survival and lifestyle: purchasing goods, services, and //personal property//. Capitalists with abundant profit may have all their personal desire satisfied, and thus reinvest the profit to acquire //private property//. Excess profit is used to cyclically generate more capital by expanding the labor exploitation process. Capital begets capital.
At first glance, this may not seem problematic (especially to those psychologically conditioned to accept it). Unfortunately, the repeated application of this business cycle results in dangerous shifts in the power dynamics of a society and the increasing exploitation of the working class. The result is the exponential centralization of capital in the hands of capitalists, which is thought to result in the //Crisis of Capitalism//.
Crucially, capitalism is not stable. The first source of instability arises in markets saturated with competitors who must continually lower their profit margins in order to underbid their competition. Those who cannot compete must exit the market. Those who stay will consume each others' customers and cannibalize each other through mergers & acquisitions. Ultimately, only a handful of competitors can survive this process.
Problematically, because the market (which can never be peeled away from politics) naturally consolidates competition to a select few, market distortions like monopolies and cartels are inevitable. Due to political corruption and capture, centralized wealth and market dominance reliably defends itself in political landscapes which might otherwise regulate it through anti-trust. Thus, the stable long-term surviving competitors in capitalist markets will not only exploit workers, but also price gouge and extort consumers. Perhaps more problematically, the political tactics and tools used to defend their existence can go on to be wielded in even more disturbing ways.
The second and more classically described instability of capitalism is driven by the neverending pursuit and generation of competitive advantage. Capitalists compete with each other in the market, and thus they must continually reinvest in their constant capital to remain competitive.<<ref "6">> A profound source of instability arises when capitalists generate competitive advantages by continuously whittling down their labor force to the fewest employees possible while simultaneously paying them as little as they will accept. As a consequence, wages are suppressed at all costs (morality is deemed irrelevant here) as human labor is squeezed for maximum production while price-efficiently replaced with technology and streamlined processes/logistics.<<ref "7">>
As human labor is replaced, workers become unemployed. Unemployment forces wages down. The unemployed, the army of reserve labor, compete for fewer available jobs. The higher the supply of laborers and fewer jobs available, the lower they must sell their labor-power to capitalists. Thus, capitalists are engaged in the continual process of maximizing the productivity value of labor while paying lower and lower wages to fewer and fewer people for it.
Over time, there are fewer and fewer employers hiring fewer and fewer employees, while simultaneously paying lower and lower wages. The unemployed become desperate. They will accept worse and lower material conditions just to survive. What other choice do they have? Essentially, this vicious cycle enables capitalists to tighten their grip on the working class.
Capitalists not only exploit but actually enslave workers insofar as workers have no other options. When capitalists own all the means of production, workers have no other choice but to accept wages artificially depressed further and further below the productivity value of their labor (if they can find employment at all).
As capitalists centralize power and monopolize the means of productions, there is a corresponding increase in the rate and degree of enslavement of the working class. In a vast human economic pyramid scheme, we find repeating cycles of wealth and power centralizing and rising to the top as capitalists disenfranchise workers. The working class loses opportunities, freedoms, and bargaining powers as they become splintered, suppressed, and controlled. Capitalism devours the majority of humanity.
In late stage capitalism, despite working so hard they barely have time to think about the state of the world, the working class slowly becomes aware of the causes of the crisis. As class consciousness develops, capitalists must oppress them even harder. Of course, workers who complain, bargain, or fight back will be punished. Submission appears to be the only practical option. Material conditions for the working class only continue to plummet, and eventually, they discover there are no peaceful ways to solve the problem.
Here the Crisis of Capitalism peaks, and the working class revolts //en masse//. Large political/economic structures collapse. A radical revolution occurs. The people take the power back. After the dust settles, society begins to rebuild, and socialist policies are instituted to protect the working class from vampiric capitalists. All is good, right? But, time passes, and generations fail to remember history. Slowly, socialist policies are relaxed or eaten away, and the seed of capitalism begins to grow yet again.
Rinse and repeat: all this has happened before, and it will happen again. Or, that's how the traditional version of the story goes.
!! Two Worries with the Conventional Critique
By and large, the critique is correct. It points out the material dialectic, an oscillatory power dynamic experienced by humanity since the dawn of civilization. It is obviously an apt description of large scale human behavior.
Insofar as socialism relies upon material conditions of the Crisis of Capitalism to do its intellectual heavy lifting, it remains a mere description which lacks idealism. At this point, it is a mere tool for interpreting the historical cycles of humanity. Even if it correctly predicts revolution, it does not, in itself, show why we should revolt against capitalism and slavery.
Ultimately, socialism describes what "is" but not what "ought." Marxist versions of socialism predict revolution as the outcome, but it cannot normatively prescribe it because it does not give us an underlying moral theory. Socialism doesn't actually give us a metaethical foundation for rejecting capitalism. It describes the capitalist process, but fails to justify why it's fundamentally bad or wrong. This is an easy fix though: [[The Categorical Imperative]] (CI).
Conventional socialism provides us the contextual content of maxims. It's pretty obvious capitalism produces great evil given the standard of the CI. For prescription, we must attach an act to that context to complete the maxim for testing in the CI. I will not provide an analysis here, but it appears the CI morally justifies revolution. Thus, my first worry about the conventional critique of capitalism can be set aside for the moment.
My second worry is more disturbing. I disagree with the socialist description of the instability of modern capitalism. I believe it too optimistically posits an inevitably successful revolution, revolt, or uprising. Unlike previous history, I am not convinced that revolution is an accurate prediction in the information age. Marx could not have foreseen everything. He could not have predicted or understood the nature of modern technology used to protect the ruling class, enabling them to prevent, disarm, and defeat what used to be successful methods of revolution. The horror we must contend with is the possibility that modern capitalism is sufficiently stable and capable of maintaining the status of quo of enslavement until we eventually wipe out the most life on the planet. Essentially, there is a darker, Redpilled story we need to understand in order to build an effective maxim targeting modern capitalism.
!! Unmasked Redpilled Description of Capitalism:
Before I dive into the Redpilled aspect of Socialism, in the spirit of intellectual honesty, I hope to provide you my more controversial philosophical assumptions in advance:<<ref "2">>
* The Rule of Law cannot be accomplished without centralizing at least some power.
** Libertarian Socialism is flawed in the pursuit of pure anarchic anti-authoritarianism, however, they are generally correct in pursuing the decentralization of power.
* Slavery comes in degrees, flavors, and spectrums.
* Ideal economics is the quantitative study of psychology; it attempts to model human interaction.<<ref "3">>
** The majority of economists and business programs aren't interested in truth insofar as it does not justify capitalism.
** Politic science and economics do not peel apart. They can never independently exist in a vacuum because they are both facets of the same gem (or turd).
* Social Darwinism is largely pointing to something correct about all social species (including our own).
** Humans are fundamentally selfish, evil, and often irrational as defined by [[The Categorical Imperative]].
** Memes and genes determine who we are; we aren't blank slates.
** Conscious freewill is an illusion
*** It is also possible we aren't autonomous even under compatibilism.
Socialism describes capitalism as a socioeconomic system (or family of such systems) based on the exploitation of the labor force through private ownership of the means of production. Capitalism is intrinsically an anarchic, unregulated implementation of the social darwinian survival of the fittest algorithm applied to wealth and labor. Crucially, power generally continues to centralize and trickle-up in capitalism. Monopolies, monopsonies, slavery-based market distortions, political corruption, and the centralization of power are common outcomes and expressions of capitalism. Naive, primitive laissez-faire capitalism just is the brutal Hobbesian state of nature, and thus it is also a natural consequence of evolution. Might still makes right in modern capitalism; it's just harder to perceive it clearly.
In modern capitalism:
* Consent is a simulacrum.
** It is in name only, and it is never sufficiently informed.
** It's manufactured.
** There aren't practical alternative choices by poorly coordinated design.
* Asymmetrically, the ruling class is not subject to the rule of law.
** Voting systems are abused, purposely limited, and prevented from enabling representation.
** The wealthy politically capture all major legislation, enforcement, and adjudication in most nations.
*** i.e. Wealth strongly translates to political power.
** We're "voting" for one of two horses with the same owner.
** They are transnationals who are no longer participating citizens of any nation.
** They avoid the vulnerability of physical proximity by insulating and isolating themselves from the lower classes.
** Their assets tend to be mobile, sheltered, untaxed, out-of-reach, and leveraged through shells.
** Paradoxically, power is centralized but the corresponding responsibility is diffused and defused within corporate agency.
* Memetic coercion, distraction, and censorship are weapons used to suppress the masses.
** Meaning is hyperreal.
** Trust is an illusion, and when the spell is broken, we are made to believe there is no other option besides a zero-sum game.
* Alternatives to capitalism are met with severe retaliation
** Socialism is targeted, contained, and undermined.
** Physical coercion, policing, and warfare primarily exist to maintain capitalist power structures and prevent the spread of socialist power decentralization.
* Wealth inequality grows because wealth centralizes.
** The rate of return on capital is greater than the rate of economic growth.
** Wealth inheritance maintains the concentration of capital.
* We are experiencing a mass version of the Stanford prison experiment.
Modern capitalism is the result of an uncoordinated global installation of variegated Nozickian Libertarian governmental structures.<<ref "4">> Those in power viciously compete amongst themselves, but they also tend to symbiotically cooperate with each other insofar as it is necessary to deceptively advance, implement, and adapt a spectrum of policies which benefit them at the expense of the working class. Essentially, modern capitalism is a thin (but rhizomatically complex) libertarian abstraction over the pure state of nature.
Ponerogenic individuals and corporations who possess the will, knowledge, and means to manipulate the gears, buttons, and levers of the libertarian-capitalist abstraction are able to more efficiently obtain the enslavement that would have been produced without this mechanism. Capitalism is a cost-effective virtual state of nature optimized for enabling well-integrated,<<ref "5">> intelligent dark-triads to herd, domesticate, pilfer, and prey upon the rest of humanity.
Capitalist society is structured so as to reward the most socially adept abusers of human nature. Capitalism enables a psychopathic segment of our species to enslave us. While most humans delusionally attempt to play the game fairly, the most functionally evil human specimens play by different rules, striking below the belt and fighting with their gloves off. Capitalism is only a meritocracy for elite psychopaths. It is a system in which they possess fundamental competitive advantages owing to the fact that they don't play by the moral rules, and this inevitably gives way to their cyclical rise to power. It is a vicious game in which those with //weak moral compasses// and the means to recursively exploit the poor and powerless become increasingly successful (and eventually totalitarian) apex predators of our species.
* There is little or no hope our societies will change, evolve, or revolutionize so as to save us from enslaving each other and bringing the next mass extinction (including our own).
** That doesn't mean we shouldn't try. Furthermore, that doesn't give us license to be immoral.
** Transhumanism may be the only solution (insane as that may sound).
Unfortunately, politicians, law enforcers, and judges are capitalists bought by capitalists. From local, to regional, to nation-state, to international scopes, capitalists own and control the working class. Slavery only becomes more complex in implementation, kind, and degree.
Oppression branches out much further than that. Our surveillance state exists to maintain capitalist power. Our media is consolidated and owned by capitalists seeking to subvert and undermine resistance to their power. We are engaged in wars not for the freedom of our people, but for the enslavement of mankind, to the benefit of capitalists.
Too often, I see Redpillers conflate the "is" of capitalism with the "ought" which follows from the prescription. Essentially, these psychopaths think prescription and description are the same. That is the naturalistic fallacy is in its barest form.
Many fail to see capitalism for what it really is: a game theoretic, absurdly complex, psychopathically owned and operated form of slavery.
Capitalism is a helluva drug. It is an incredibly viral meme that injects itself into the core of its hosts so deeply that it alters their fundamental behaviors, empathies, hatred, beliefs, and desires in systematic, long-term ways. Our culture is being swallowed by this Egoistic memetic network crawling through the human species like an epidemic. It's tendrils control our minds. The allure of selfishness is too profound, especially for the powerful and those with the means to maximize their personal pleasure at the expense of anyone they can find the will power to dehumanize. It is quite the meme, this invisible-appearing force. It is a category of a kind of viral creature that exists and reproduces in our minds.
!! Prescription
We're dealing in eschatology at this point, and I predict we will lose. That doesn't mean we should give up or not fight.
We have to be radical. It's the only way to solve this Seldon crisis.
* Short-Term Stop Gaps + Enablers
** Feeding Poor
** Healing the sick
** Housing the homeless
** Educating the ignorant
* Completely rebuild an open and decentralized information system
** Massive government investment in education and physical infrastructure
** [[Outopos]]: absolute decentralization based on trust
** Exclusive investment in open source software and hardware
*** Special regulation and attention must be paid to search & AI development
** Abolish Western IP Rights
** Prevent censorship, but enable individuals to shape their filter-bubbles (curating information)
* Building a new transportation system
** Rail systems should be the backbone of every continent.
**
* Completely rebuild an open and decentralized energy system
** Nuclear, wind, hydro, geothermal, and solar power systems need enormous investment.
**
* Completely rebuild an open and decentralized political system
** [[Ideal Voting|2018.01.06 - Philosophipolitical Prescription: Ideal Voting System]]
** Eliminating money from politics (not even sure where to begin)
* Creating Global Intellectual Renaissance
**
Why should we think socialism' predicted revolution will ever occur? Sure, hope for the best, vote for it, teach people it, see the reason in it, morally expect us to follow socialized prescription, but you have to practical about what you predict will happen. It is basic utilitarianian thought that cannot be escaped. You hope for the best, but plan for the worst. I want to see the end of capitalism because it would honestly make the world a better place; it is the only chance for the survival of the human species. I'd love to have grandchildren, to see the world happy and healthy. But, it isn't going to happen. You must see the necessity of protecting our selves from the world and preparing for the inevitable disasters approaching our species.
I would be rejected from socialist circles for saying this. I want to point out that I'm not claiming "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em." I support the end of capitalism, but I'm not convinced it will actually occur due to both the raw intelligence, wealth, and power of our ruling class and the stupidity, poverty, and weakness of the proletariat.
Only a fool would think that 3.5% of the population composed of proletarians would be able to overthrow the capitalist yoke; that noose is on tight, and the weapons of coercion are beyond what Marx could have fathomed. Inequality only continues to grow on the metrics that matter. Of course, there always remains the possibility that socialist revolution will occur (however small it may be). Until then, I'm going to prepare as though it isn't going to happen because that is the best evidence I have.
Basically, I think my socialist brethren are deeply wrong; there is a better and more accurate pragmatic socialist prescription. I will protect my family from a world of psychopaths, and I will try to do so without being psychopathic towards the world. Accepting the reality of our shitty human nature's accuratizes our predictions and therefore appropriately tempers our expectations. This is pragmatic hope. As far as I can tell, it is the best prescription I have at the moment.
---
Idealogical Leanings:
* Accelerationist
* Anarchist
* Anarcho-Communist
* Communizer
* Communalism
* Consevative
* Democratic Confederalism
* Democratic Socialist
* Left Communist
* Neoliberal
* Libertarian Socialist
* Liberal
* Luxemburgist
* Hoxha-Posadist
* Maoist (Third-Worldist)
* Marxist-Leninist
* Marxist-Leninist-Maoist
* Mutualist/Market Socialist
* Orthodox Marxist
* Posadist
* Religious Socialism
* Social Democrat
* Socialist Feminist
* Syndicalists
* Trotskyist
---
* Classes
** Capitalists
*** Hyperclass (The bleeding edge elite among the capitalists)
** Owners
*** Bourgeois, Reactionary, Middle Class who aren't directly the Capitalists for their primary income.
** Renters
*** The slaves, the bitches, proles, plebs; they don't own much of anything.
---
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_in_the_Twenty-First_Century
* https://www.reddit.com/r/LateStageCapitalism/comments/80ge9z/richard_d_wolff_here_professor_of_marxian/
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
* http://jonjayray.tripod.com/leftism.html
------------
<<footnotes "1" "Of course, there is significant disagreement. Like many philosophical theories, I'm going to put forth what I consider to be a reasonable explanation of the core descriptive theory. That doesn't mean everyone who claims to be a socialist will agree with it, although they will certainly agree to large swathes of what I've explained. The larger disagreement among socialists tends not to be its descriptions of capitalism, but rather its prescriptions.">>
<<footnotes "2" "Wage value is Variable Capital.">>
<<footnotes "3" "Rate_of_Surplus_Value = Surplus_Value / Variable_Capital">>
<<footnotes "4" "I am annoyed by the use of the term //constant// here.">>
<<footnotes "5" "Although, peeling the other surplus expenditures apart from profit is not actually that simple. Roughly: Profit = Surplus_Value / (Wage_Value + Constant_Capital)">>
<<footnotes "6" "This accumulation of constant capital necessary for competitive advantage in the capitalist market is the beginning of economic crisis of Capitalism (which is distinct from the moral problem of exploitation/enslavement). Roughly: Organic_Composition_of_Capital = Constant_Capital / Variable_Capital">>
<<footnotes "7" "Human labor is living labor; dead labor is technology, machinery, tools, infrastructure, architecture, automation, etc. To be clear: only a fool would blame a machine for the evil committed by humans. Regulation of human use of technology is necessary (particularly to protect our most important freedoms), but regulation of human economies even moreso. Automation is not the devil. It all depends on how we use it. Do not buy into the red herring of blaming technology instead of humankind. Doing so is as analogously foolish as the buying the Broken Window fallacy.">>
<<footnotes "8" "A reactionary opposes proletarian revolution. 'In modern capitalist society the bourgeoisie is appropriately viewed as the reactionary class, since it not only totally opposes proletarian revolution, and even almost all reforms, but also regularly tries to reverse earlier reforms. When the ruling bourgeoisie ever does finally agree to any significant new reform it is only because they have been forced to; and even then they virtually always have the secret intention of reversing what they view as a temporary concession to the people at a later time.'">>
<<footnotes "3" "Psychology is ultimately qualitative. I hesitate to call it a science, but I must admit it is empirical, and it studies some of the most complex problems known to humans. I must cut them some slack.">>
<<footnotes "4" "There are many varieties in these abstractions, some more Nozickian that others. Further, to be clear, my claim here is not a definition of the concept of government or law. It is just an empirical fact that human nature devolves into setting up these kinds of governments, even though it is logically possible for other kinds of governments to obtain.">>
<<footnotes "5" "See Dabrowski's theory of //Positive Integration//.">>
|customTable|k
|Food|Calories|h
|Plum|30|
|Apple|70|
|Pear|102|
|Banana|105|
|Clementines|105|
|Pizza|1240|
|Ice Cream|180|
|Banana|105|
|Salami|100|
|Quesadilla|400|
|Total|2437|f
* Golang Pointers - https://dave.cheney.net/2017/04/26/understand-go-pointers-in-less-than-800-words-or-your-money-back
* Spoof-proof Fingerprinting - https://browserprint.info/#fingerprint
* Trusting Golang Devs instead of ourselves to implement security - https://bridge.grumpy-troll.org/2017/04/golang-ssh-redux/
* Brickerbot: Sending a Wakeup Call Message to the IoT Industry - https://arstechnica.com/security/2017/04/brickerbot-the-permanent-denial-of-service-botnet-is-back-with-a-vengeance/
* Text Search Engine - http://mg4j.di.unimi.it/
* Deanonymizing Anonymous Data Sets - https://www.georgetownlawtechreview.org/re-identification-of-anonymized-data/GLTR-04-2017/
* Stolen Identity What-to-do Advice - https://np.reddit.com/r/StolenIdentity/comments/67lggi/what_to_do_if_you_know_or_you_think_your_identity/
* Signals in Linux - https://www.stev.org/post/linuxprogrammingsignalstheeasyway
At this point, I'm just brainstorming. I want to be more politically active. I'm not sure how I can best help.
* Hacktivism - too risky for my taste.
* Start a socialist chapter (none exist my area) - might also be too risky, I need to financially stabilize and establish myself first.
* Voting - won't do any good, but I will, of course, participate in the primaries.
* Talking with people - lol. No, but really, I have convinced several people to move left of their position, or at least of the possibility of the rationality of leftism. That may not be much though.
* Being empathic.
Collaborating with people is always difficult, especially for misanthropes like me. In an increasingly interconnected world, where tools pop-up, evolve and explode in weeks not years, it is obvious that immediate, pervasive, always-on, inescapable socializing is more than technically feasible. This radical change in how we interact with each other doesn't always make getting work done easier though.
As usual, technology is a two-edged sword. Communicating with people in real-time at all times for all things has serious logistical, emotional, and political drawbacks. The collapse of the distinction between work and personal/home-life is only further driven by this problematic. Essentially, there are serious diminishing returns to symmetric and synchronized collaboration tools and environments for productivity and especially happiness.<<ref "1">>
Ultimately, I get my best work done when I isolate myself. To some extent, we must disconnect from others as a means to doing our work. I think, more-or-less, everyone finds themselves in these contexts where they must disconnect in order to deeply dive into the problem they face.
One must carve out pockets of time to get work done. We must make sure that we aren't constantly (and uselessly) paying the cost of connecting to people beyond some obviously necessary threshold.<<ref "2">> There's definitely a ton of low-hanging fruit to pick. Beyond that, however, we need reasons to herd ourselves. Group work really does have its limits. Too many tasks require that we don't collaborate. We must rely upon more asymmetric and asynchronous collaboration tools to succeed, and when we can't, we need very good reasons.
For many of us, we must push back against the technosocialization tide in order to accomplish our goals. I don't mean this in a ludditic sense. I mean that we must fight for private spaces, for our alone time, and for environments which allow us to lose ourselves in our work without the constant interruptions and distractions of trendy HR-fucktarded collaboration schemes. You'll still collaborate. Believe you me. Do it wisely though.
My conjecture is that we will continue to see the evolution of humans (incredible pressures) to integrate this exponential increase in socializing in every corner of our lives. The outgoing sort will continue to be the norm, and only those who can endure or thrive while being permanently wired to each other will survive, with one exception: those with significant competitive advantages developed through effective isolation for getting significant portions of their work done alone. We will always be connected. It's about finding the golden mean. Be connected in the right way, at the right time, for the right reasons, and so on and so forth.
---
<<footnotes "1" "And, of course, productivity and happiness are often incompatible.">>
<<footnotes "2" "Obviously, communicating is crucial.">>
I clearly need to socialize more. I need to connect with people. I'd prefer to connect with people that I like being around. I'd prefer to have friends that I can be myself around. I'd like to have the chance to learn from others, to develop a support network, and to grow something much larger of my life than what I could do on my own or with the small circle I currently have. Of course, I'm desperately worried about the psychopathy of social networking as simply using people as mere means. I need to find good ways to avoid that. I need to be constructive, forgiving, and stoic about the problem. I am an INTJ only because I'm so misanthropic.
There are different kinds of community and networks to build and participate in. I have two thoughts for now.
I have not entered any of the top tracker communities. Perhaps I should. This is a great place to start: https://interviewfor.red/en/formats.html. I believe it will be the next What.cd, and a solid gateway to other trackers. I certainly have the technical skills and background, although not really the social skills. Perhaps with my redpilledness I will better be able to interpret the nature of the community I'm joining and the states of mind of the people I'm communicating with.
I was also thinking about trying to gather a community of socialists together. The world needs Socialists who understand and actively fight against the evils of capitalism. I need to put my money where my mouth is too. Perhaps I'm too hard in my evaluation of people. There are people who can "get it." I am sure of it (right?).
Problematically, I worry I'm too busy putting my life back together and working towards financial stability to achieve this just yet. Further, as I travel to do my job, I think it will be even harder to maintain it. I may not be able to build many kinds of social networks because it isn't logistically feasible. I'm just not sure at this point. Capitalism makes it very hard to fight back. I must give it more thought.
About a month ago I wrote about Rex Tillerson, [[2017.03.22 - Realpolitik Speculation: The Second Cold War]]. I suggested that Rex would likely push to lift sanctions on Russia for oil money. Today, he claims he will not be lifting these sanctions. What can I say? I am still watching political theater. Here is where you get to call me out of uncharitable conspiracy theorizing, as though no amount of evidence will exonerate my enemies.
The Trump administration is under intense scrutiny, particularly with respect to Russia. Ivanka is running defense for her father, poorly at that. Perhaps Rex Tillerson is now playing defense as well. I know that if I were possibly facing serious collusion/treason charges, I would hope to appear, at least at face value, like I had no intention of helping Putin or benefiting from being in a symbiotic relationship with him.
Rex is an absentee Secretary of State. It is far from clear he is legitimately trying to do anything like the job he's supposed to do. He must deflect and deny that he has any involvement with Russia in the current political climate. This is one key way to appear clean. For now, I'm convinced his words are empty cosmetics. The red flags are still there. The successful capitalist, con artist, is simply telling us what we want to hear to get us off his back. I'm still convinced he may attempt to lift these sanctions if the opportunity arises.
Putin seems to have no intention of handing back Crimea.<<ref "1">> Is Rex running some power play against Putin? Probably not. In any case, given this administration's ability to literally get away with contradicting itself on a daily basis (I'm not exaggerating), it doesn't seem impossible for Rex to publicly change his mind without serious penalty. Presumably, he simply needs the right moment for it. Given the scrutiny, it may never come to fruition. Alternatively, there may be other contrary trades here with lower risk but still significant rewards for Rex.
Regardless, one thing is clear: despite the obstructionists and Russian collusionists, parts of the US government are pursuing an investigation into the Russian intervention in US politics.<<ref "2">> It is forcing the Trump administration to alter its course (not that they had an incredibly well-thought-out gameplan to start with). Trump's initial gameplan has all but halted (or he has run out of ideas), it seems.
It is no secret that Trump has not actually accomplished much of anything directly (beyond the flood of executive orders). His alt-right driven dismantling of the executive branch and consistent political fumbling have acted as a thin veil (transparent to most, but opaque to his supporters) enabling him to fleece the American people for his own personal benefit. As he said during his campaign, he has no interest in domestic or foreign policy (lol). Not accomplishing anything directly may be just fine to him. Unless something changes, it seems like we are in gridlock as he attempts to bleed us.
My worry is that he will continue to raise the Spectacle Specter for us over and over again. Appearances are most of all that matters to the man. He will misdirect the dumbest of the American people as he attempts to pick our pockets (even while many of us stare right at him as shamelessly does it). One Specter many are worried about is a more direct war with North Korea. There continues to be plenty of saber rattling, and preparations appear underway. It seems to be a distraction //the people need.//<<ref "3">> Nothing unites stupid and scared "patriotic" people more behind the powers of evil than the "glory" and "necessity" of war. People are idiots and psychopaths.
Speaking of North Korea, without a doubt, China seems more than happy to line the Trump Family's pockets. If Trump does give up on Putin, perhaps it will be for China (or whoever can hold his attention). I would not be a happy South Korea at this time. It is even clearer now why Trump torpedoed TPP, as I talked about before: [[2017.01.23 - Realpolitik Speculation: TPP]]. Both China and Russia seem to have enormous influence over a man who can obviously be bought.
---
<<footnotes "1" "Alternatively, there are significant pro-Russian movements in Eastern Ukraine which make a secession possible. Counter: maybe dissidents simply disappear.">>
<<footnotes "2" "Watch the Democrats champion this about in mid-terms as if the reason they fight Trump is for our sakes. In a savvier way, they will say, 'You don't want another ~~Bush~~ Trump, do you? Well, vote for us, it is your only choice.' It is yet another false compromise.">>
<<footnotes "3" "The giant bomb in Afghanistan clearly did not sufficiently entertain us.">>
I realize the enormity of what I'm asking. Securing the internet systematically is hard for a bunch of incredibly complex reasons. It is clear to me that very large tech companies should have a vested interest in really do this systematically (instead of from working inside). They don't seem to act upon it. Just another reason to doubt authority, wealth, and power. =(
We have to fight for it tooth and nail as a people.
|customTable|k
|Food|Calories|h
|Aussie/German Treat|80|
|Chips, Hummus, Olives|450|
|Tomato|22|
|Bell Pepper|24|
|85% Chocolate|100|
|Potato/Veggie Bites|120|
|Turkey Burger|400|
|Beef Burger|450|
|Brussel Sprouts|70|
|Plum (half)|15|
|Pear|105|
|Ice Cream|180|
|Total|2016|f
!! How is your health? Daily routine?
I'm doing well. My sleep continues to be interrupted over and over. I sometimes wake up with pressure or mild headaches. I am sleeping though. I'm pleasantly surprised to see that my sleep schedule is remaining stable even without the alarm clock. The week off has been nice. Conversely, k0sh3k's sleep schedule has still not improved. I've tried to make it better for her, but I'm not sure it is within my power to help her here.
I'm still taking care of my nails. I've definitely had them in my mouth to bite them but retracted.
I had some wine the other night. I've not had much of an urge to drink though. I can feel not having the cannabis, but it's quite livable. I take this to be a good sign since I am on my week off (where I'd normally be tempted/need it the most). Getting back to work next week is hopefully going to put the nail in the cannabis coffin for me, or so I hope.
!! What happened? How do you feel about it? What made you feel this way? Does it make you happy or unhappy? Why or why not?
Lectured kids about programming ourselves. My son has strong incompatibilist intuitions and even offers some of the basic fitting anecdotes and arguments for it. I'm helping him see the compatibilist light. It's key that he understands how autonomy is reducible to programming ourselves over time. The more fundamental homunculus of incompatibilism cannot exist and/or is irrelevant. I've planted the seeds. We will cultivate them together.
!! Can you better explain what happened? Do you have a technologic, philosophical, empathic, or redpilled story to tell about the phenomenon? Clarify the narrative you just told yourself.
I'm trying to help my children understand the value in being meta about programming themselves. I want them to develop a {[[Principles|Principles of Programming Myself]]} section for themselves. I want them to take charge of their lives and to evolve into more autonomous beings. I wish someone had sat me down and done this with me. It's obvious that we should all do it. I'm helping them the best way I know how.
One recurring theme for me with my relationship with my parents is that my success indirectly serves to highlight their failures. When I see what they did with what they had, I'm less forgiving, especially given their attitudes towards me today. It seems hypocritical of them at the very least. Essentially, there doesn't seem to be a way for both of us to win. I have to stop worrying and thinking about it, except insofar as it is necessary to root out the flaws in my own parenting and self (and highlight or improve upon the good).
!! What are you going to do about what happened?
I should think more about how to help them. Accountability has to be done well (I'm not good at this...I'm prone to anger). Offering good arguments, leading by example, and encouragement are useful and positive. Self-mastery is very difficult to teach when I don't really have it myself. It is a lot to ask.
I probably should be careful in how I push. I have that "GO GO GO!!!" mentality. I must hold it back, reign it in, and quiet it somewhat. One of my interconnected vices is pushing too hard on others (perhaps myself in many cases), or at least pushing in the wrong way. I have to realize that being autistic means that I lack the right sort of theories of mind necessary to persuade and nudge outside of brute force. I am intelligent enough to intellectualize socialization, however non-guttural it is for me. I should do so. My lack of social skills (and the expectations of others) holds me back from success and happiness in many cases. This is an area to intellectually and emotionally learn. I need to practice it. Why? Because I am engaged in the science of my children's happiness.
Also, I need to fix the dryer. I keep putting it off. I know I might fail. I just need to try it. The cost is buying a new dryer and installing it. Why not? At least try to save yourself some money. Look at it this way: assume you have to buy the dryer anyways. Assume the cost is already going to paid. Now you can tinker and attempt to learn on something. This is a learning opportunity that you normally couldn't afford. Go get 'em!
* Per usual, more evidence of Reddit's content bias (ironically, inescapably linking to Reddit here) - https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/64y44g/the_mostupvoted_comments_in_reddit_threads_arent/
* Global Wealth visualization in $100 bill sized units - http://demonocracy.info/infographics/world/lqp/liquidity_pyramid.html
* Best of All Worlds (BOAW) 1%er Social network - https://www.theverge.com/2017/4/26/15407144/exclusive-social-media-the-league-best-of-all-worlds-rich-kids
* Linux Kernel Comic - https://consolia-comic.com/comics/kernel
* How to find the answer to technical questions - http://rion.io/2017/02/09/why-wont-you-answer-my-question/
* Hacking Patient Record Datacenters - https://www.protenus.com/blog/a-virtual-goldmine-why-criminals-target-patient-data-part-1
* [[2017.04.26 - Trump Administration's Gridlock]]
** Edits. Don't love the title.
* [[2017.04.26 - Social Networks Worth Joining]]
** Significant content additions. I clearly didn't say enough on the topic.
** I think [[Philosophipolitical Prescription]] is very hard to write. I'll take anything for now, but hopefully I can improve the content in it.
* [[2017.04.26 - Practical Political Activism]]
** Sparse.
* [[2017.04.26 - Link Log]]
** As usual, most of my links seem to be computationally-oriented. I read a lot more than that though. Surely there are more useful links to collect about the humanities and politics.
* [[2017.04.26 - Productive Collaboration in Technologically-enriched Environments]]
** Editing/revising. It's a decent point. This is more of what I want for Philosophipolitical Prescription.
* [[Links: People Worth Reading]]
** Slight clarification
* [[Links: Anonymity + Privacy]]
** Quick introduction
* [[Links: Legal]]
** Quick introduction
* [[Links: Computing]]
** Ugh. This section is almost too broad. I'm not sure what to do with it. I'll have to think.
* [[Links: Lifehacks]]
** Quick introduction
* [[Links: Jobs, Occupations, and Vocations]]
** Quick introduction
* [[AHK: Tribes Ascend]]
** Perhaps I should migrate a bunch of my bullshit scripts I've saved over the years. It is unfortunate that I've lost so much. That said, preservation may be useful.
* [[Autohotkey Scripts]]
** Meh, doesn't need an intro.
* [[Links: Personal Finances]]
** Ugh. Maybe I don't really need intros for links. Sometimes it seems worth clarifying or worth providing context. Othertimes it seems obvious to me.
* [[Links: Art]]
** Meh, doesn't need an intro.
* [[2017.04.25 - Link Log]]
** Meh, doesn't need an intro.
* [[Link Log]]
** Clarification. This will evolve once I have a better grasp on it.
* [[Physically Pwning a Computer]]
** Added content
* [[2017.04.26 - Diet Log]]
** Eat some vegetables. Lol.
* [[New]]
** This is an amazing feature that [[j3d1h]] helped me add. It makes this [[Wiki Review Log]] far simpler and more feasible. I think it may also be useful to visitors who want to see what's up. "Recent" has a poor signal-to-noise ratio, even if it is necessary for posterity's sake (and even useful to me in my personal use of this wiki).
I'd like to note that after consider, I've deleted "Log Collection" (no longer a hyperlink because there isn't a point to it). I want to store the information in just one place. It fits [[Wiki: Scheduled Practices]] too well. I was on the right track, and now I see the better way to do it.<<ref "2018.11.16">>
---
<<footnotes "2018.11.16" "Yikes! I was clearly so very wrong. Well, that's okay. I'm going to make mistakes. Let's keep moving.">>
|customTable|k
|Food|Calories|h
|Pear|100|
|Banana|100|
|Plum|30|
|Salami|180|
|Pork Chops|240|
|Potato|163|
|Salad|150|
|Plum|30|
|Asparagus|50|
|Pizza|450|
|Beer|100|
|Total|1593|f
!! How is your health? Daily routine?
Good. My head has been hurting (the good kind, like from a workout), but that's because I've been working very hard. This is how I feel when I write and think a ton. It is natural. I probably will have some alcohol to chillax. It will go well with dinner.
I've been playing more video games. Not a ton, but still more than I have for months. I think this may be filling the hole that abstinence from cannabis has left.
---
!! What happened? How do you feel about it? What made you feel this way? Does it make you happy or unhappy? Why or why not?
I had a conversation the other day with my brother [[JRE]]. He told me that our parents had asked him and his SO to work a table selling goods from Thailand at my parent's last church in Kentucky (back when we were teenagers) while my parents talked to their old parishioners (i.e. worked for the crowd; reaped even higher amounts of money).
This is how my parents make money. They visit churches asking for donations and sell marked-up goods they've transported in suitcases from Thailand.
I found the request quite odd, if not outright gross. My parents did not fully appreciate the problem with it. My brother and his SO aren't just not religious; they generally oppose religion since they've seen the evil it has caused in the modern world.<<ref "1">> It's more than an awkward position to put my brother and his SO in; it's asking them to betray themselves (on something they are right about). It wasn't appropriate of my parents to ask. It would be equivalent to me asking my parents to organize and distribute my pornography collection in public (except that pornography isn't conceptually immoral).
It made me shake my head. I can see there is a gap that will simply never be bridged between my parents and their children. It makes me sad.
---
!! Can you better explain what happened? Do you have a technological, philosophical, empathic, or redpilled story to tell about the phenomenon? Clarify the narrative you just told yourself.
I think there are a lot of problems going on here.
First, this is yet another demonstration of a lack of empathy and basic respect. They do not understand how much pain they have caused their children, and they don't want to. They do not understand what it means to empathize with the children on the other side. I think this is part of the (barring some "miracle") "they are going to hell" mentality.
Second, I think my parents are ultimately capitalists. They extract the labor of people from Thailand. They sell these goods for significantly marked up prices, but they don't split the profits fairly. They probably pay better than average wages, but not fair wages. This is because they feel justified in accepting the garbage claim that the market price is somehow the morally right price. Further, they justify this to themselves by saying they are doing ministry. The asymmetry is "acceptable" because God ordains it in this case, even if the utility equation and Kantian arguments do not favor it.
Third, I think they manipulate people; it's a form of deception and using people as mere means. I am convinced that their ministry is really about pumping their social capital for money. They are salesmen (a notoriously psychopathic occupation). They always were, but now its more obvious.
My parents have taken my grandparents' "evangelism" model (moving from town to town, begging for money through virtue signaling and manipulation) and modified it. They are con artists that have to keep up enough reputation to ensnare revolving "charity givers." Of course, some percentage of the money does go to charity. Plenty of it goes to my parents as well.
Don't get me wrong, charity is crucial. It's also a sign of deep dysfunction in society (this is exactly what governments are supposed to handle, and it's exactly what we should all be collectively working towards). I favor giving, no doubt. I also am a realist about the state of charitable organizations. It's hard to find good ones. Conflicts of interest are difficult to resolve, and corruption rises.
My parents are moving to an even less savory model. The bricks'n'mortar projects are going to fade and instead will focus on "economic development" through training people to save money (a practice which I favor, minus the Jesus-brainwashing). They will cease to be on the ground as much but live in Thailand for tax evasion and medical (which is acceptable) reasons. Of course, expanding and checking on the machinery they've built will be the primary groundwork. They will act as CEOs while the people below them do the work. They already do this constantly with Thai people. They've been recruiting from churches in the states for a while as well. This new model will be more overtly a pyramid scheme.
Economic development, in this case, is code for Christian Capitalism and "fund my retirement". They'll take a larger share of the money, and the people will get basic training to "help themselves." It probably seems "win-win" to my parents. The asymmetry is gross. And, to my eyes, the process lacks integrity.
Lastly, having their children selling their goods at this church is a way for them not to be ashamed of their children. It is a way to make it look like they were still good parents or worthy pastors. It is a way to whitewash the truth. This is about saving face. This about using their own children. My parents zealously guard their reputation, and do not want their children "pissing in their [social] pool." I.e. My parents don't ultimately really care about us nearly as much as they care about themselves. That is some shitty parenting and crosses the psychopathy line.
---
!! What are you going to do about what happened?
Nothing. I will simply be kind. If I have nothing nice to say in person, then I won't say anything at all. There is no way to fix it.
I cannot respect my parents in the way they demand. They do not understand the nature of the normative relationship between creators and their creations. They do not perceive the salient moral properties of this context.
I will be kind. I doubt they would accept my help, but I am still there to offer it insofar as it doesn't violate my code of ethics.
----
<<footnotes "1" "Even if they see the benefits it brought in civilizing early mankind. The memetic utility equations (and adjustments over time) are more obvious to them.">>
* Amazon's monopolization, but also doesn't fit this company's business model - https://www.princeton-audio.com/company-news/goodbye-amazon-and-good-riddance
* Talking about yourself as a developer in an interview - https://stackoverflow.blog/2017/04/27/how-to-talk-about-yourself-in-an-interview/?utm_content=buffer74fe2&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
* Hard physical limits of computation - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limits_of_computation
* Fix your gross handwriting - http://briem.net/8/2/205.html
* Babyboomer Comparison - https://ratfacedman.wordpress.com/2016/08/10/lets-get-boomer-jobs/
* Zizek on the shrinking of Public Space in favor of Private Space - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b834_Qv7wWM&feature=share
* Marxist Critique of Identity Politics - http://www.seattleweekly.com/news/a-marxist-critiques-identity-politics/
* Abalene Paradox, the inability to manage agreement - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abilene_paradox
* Felix Colgrave Videos - https://www.youtube.com/user/MasterAardvark
You will (and probably always) learning how to use this medium. It is unclear how to wield this tool like a master, for maximum effect. You should be hone your questions here. Mull it around. You can write 1st-personally here, since this not a place where anything is set in stone. It will be the seed, hopefully, which we cultivate into answers.
* It is unclear to me which pages should be static and which should be dynamic. I do not understand the real method and principle behind timestamping. What is an evolving page that I can edit, and what should I keep a versioning log of? I do keep a daily snapshot, but I want to understand how the structuring on the wiki itself ought to go for this problem. I've not yet solved or understood it well enough.
* [[Fun Word Collection]]
** Added a tiny intro. Collections should express an intent other than what is being cataloged. You should see why it matters to me, even if I only briefly explain it.
* [[Art of Living]]
** Edits. It is a placeholder. I'm still learning. Maybe it is just a joke. I don't know. I'm leaving it for now.
* [[Wiki Theory, Questions, Problematics, and Investigations]]
** Slight context. I have nothing to add at the moment.
* [[Annual Wiki Review]]
** Added Content
* [[2017.04.27 - Wiki Review Log]]
** I'm doing the same thing. I obviously need more practice at this. Perhaps there will be better ways to format our structure the process. We will see.
* [[Wiki Review Log]]
** Added content. I'm glad I'm doing this. I hope it won't be too much work. We will review.
* [[Dave Chappelle's Redpill Conversion]]
** Digested it more.
* [[2017.04.27 - h0p3's Log]]
** More reframing. This log alone may be reason enough to grind the [[Wiki Review Log]]. It's that crucial to personal growth.
* [[Wiki: Scheduled Practices]]
** Extensive writing added. This is a new area, and it needed to be filled out.
* [[2017.04.27 - Diet Log]]
** Uhm, Good job? You accidentally did that. You've been eating more sweet things. That's kinda cool. That is unlike the self-image you had, or if you were accurate, it shows you've changed in behaviors.
* [[2017.04.27 - Link Log]]
** Tidy it up
|customTable|k
|Food|Calories|h
|Pizza|450|
|Berries+Pancakes|750|
|Chocolate|100|
|Salad|100|
|Potato-Spinach Snacks|125|
|Hotdogs|400|
|Beers|200|
|Eggrolls|500|
|Total|2625|f
!!j3d1h:
* Review past week:
** Research Skills: Cosmetology
*** Hairstyles and trends for Spring 2017 (things she liked)
**** Blending eyeshadows of 3 colors
**** Long jackets
**** Practicing makeup
**** Needs a new powder puff.
** Math: Singapore Math
*** Boring, but picking it up quickly.
** Writing: 150 word count in her wiki
*** Her "thoughts on God" section were good
*** The Minecraft section wasn't so good.
**Vocational Theory: CLI E-book
*** She's finished
**Vocational Practice: Applied Computer Science
*** Working on her mother's computer. Found memory errors through troubleshooting.
*** Writing a backup program.
** Reading: The Cuckoo's Egg
*** Finished. Was amazing.
** Social Studies: Khan Academy - World History
*** Ancient Persia and Greece. Zoroastrianism.
** Spanish
*** Mostly review, time and adjectives
* Plan next week:
** Research Skills: Cosmetology
*** One hundred years of cosmetics.
**** Looking for things to try.
** Math: Singapore Math
*** Keep Pushing. Work on handwriting and neatness.
** Writing: 250-word count in her wiki
*** Keep to more introspective, reflective kinds of writing.
** Vocational Theory: Data Structures and Algorithms in Python
*** https://github.com/keon/algorithms
**Vocational Practice: Applied Computer Science
*** Finish writing backup program
*** Force Linux to not use the bad memory addresses
** Reading: The Ethic's Toolkit
*** Keep bookmarks.
*** Do not forget to put them on your bibliography and link them through WorldCat.
** Social Studies: Khan Academy - World History
*** Do more work.
** Spanish
*** Hopefully move to a new section.
---
!!1uxb0x
* Review past week: :
** Research Skills: Emotional Control
*** Curation about stopping negative thoughts, calming himself down, etc.
*** His writing reflected what he found, and he sent links to his mom.
** Math: Life of Fred - Cats
*** Prepositional phrases. Oddly not math.
** Writing: 150-word count in his wiki
*** Messy wiki. It's hard to know what is going on.
*** Don't copy and paste. Always write your own words.
** Vocational Theory: Core Construction Curriculum
*** Handtools and Safety equipment
** Vocation Practice: Redstone
*** Built an "and" gate.
*** Experimented with Redstone on freetime.
*** Built different kinds of redstone clocks
** Reading: 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea
*** Was good enough to read once more. The next time he'll read the unabridged version.
** Social Studies: Khan Academy - World History
*** First wave civilizations.
** Language Arts: Cris Books
** ph words
* Plan next week:
** Research Skills: Ways to Focus and Study
*** Also, apply what you've learned from last week for Emotional Control
** Math
*** Keep going.
** Writing: 150-word count in his wiki
** Vocational Theory: Core Construction Curriculum
** Vocation Practice: Redstone
*** "or" gate
*** Command blocks
** Reading: Doctor Jekyll and Mr. Hyde
*** Keep bookmarks.
*** Do not forget to put them on your bibliography and link them through WorldCat.
** Social Studies: Khan Academy - World History
*** Neo-Babylonians to Persians
** Language Arts: Cris Books
* Thinking About Cognitive Bias - http://capablemen.com/psychology/cognitive-bias/
* Private, Throwaway CC#'s and Payments - https://privacy.com/
* Put a Docker in your Docker - https://github.com/rancher/os
* Feigning Surprise at Someone's Ignorance (a nono) - https://jvns.ca/blog/2017/04/27/no-feigning-surprise/
* VM for Creating Dynamic Languages - https://pointersgonewild.com/2017/04/29/zetavm-my-new-compiler-project/
*Peasants for Plutocracy: How the Billionaires Brainwashed America (Mini-Documentary) - https://youtu.be/mWnz_clLWpc
* [[2017.04.28 - Diet Log]]
** It's clear to me that vegetables and fruits are very filling. They don't have the satisfying feel of meat or grains, but these healthy foods still fill the volume-space of my stomach up preventing me from eating more. It's a placeholder.
* [[2017.04.28 - h0p3's Log]]
** Edits and restructuring.
* [[2017.04.28 - Seizing the Memes of Production]]
** Goes to the ideabag
* [[2017.04.28 - Link Log]]
** Fewer technical links and more social ones. Interesting.
* [[/a/ - Attic - Graveyard - Storage]]
** Renamed from "/v/ - Old - Meh - Graveyard"
** I kind of need a place to store stuff that I don't find useful. I don't want to erase it. I don't know where to put it. We'll see what I do with it.
* [[2017.03 - Family Log]]
** I really didn't say much.
* [[2017.03 - Homeschooling Log]]
** I really didn't say much, 2.
* [[2017.02 - Homeschooling Log]]
** I really didn't say much, 3. kek. I moved mountains yesterday. I have be okay with starting small. Look at all of my initial logs. They are always brief to begin with. Start small and work your way up.
* [[j3d1h: Autobackup to USB upon Mounting]]
** Talked to j3d1h about it. She thinks it is an interesting idea. We'll see. She has plenty of projects to work on already.
* [[Old random precursor document I found a copy of]]
** Garbage. Lol.
* [[2017.04.28 - Wiki Review Log]]
** Let me reiterate what I said before in the previous review (as a review of [[Wiki Review Log]]), I'm glad I'm doing this.
* I'm pleased that you are spending time expressing yourself.
* Work on your syntax
* Your bullet points are awesome, nesting them is even cooler
* I love your tags
* I'm ecstatic that you are writing about how to make yourself happier.
* Work on having good titles for your wiki pages.
* Spend more time on your wiki. You should work on it every day.
I need a dream section on my wiki. I'm throwing some caution to the wind today, but I'm too lucid and capable of typing while on DCK not to. Therefore, I am sorry, but the DCK meditation is actually embedded in the wiki itself today. You will need to look through the snapshots to see the structural changes I'm trying to make. Crazy wild man on drugs changing his wiki here. Yup. It's important that I can literally change anything while on DCK. That's part of how it works.
Essentially, I need happier parts of my wiki. I've got plenty of brutal honesty. I've even got practical metamodern work. I don't have enough dreams on here. Dreaming is part of being human.<<ref "1">>
Here are list of links:
* {[[Dreams|Dreams of h0p3]]}
* [[My Wife]]
* [[The Pinnacle of Parental Sacrifice]]
* [[Dreams of h0p3]]
* [[2017.04.30 - DCK Meditation]] (woot, self-reference)
* [[Sanity: What Standard To Use?]]
---
Fred de Rosset. I need to learn more about this man. We need closure. He is incredibly gifted with language (My God, Man). He may even be a genius. I know it when I see it. He is an empath. He may reject me out of hand. I don't know. I think Fred de Rosset was obviously in the world I was interested in, but he did it narratively and...
I was so lucky to go to Berea. God damn. It changed me forever. Transformation.
I should develop a relationship with Fred de Rosset. Maybe not. He has the missionary kid background to understand. If he could see my autism, he would get it.
Here is my worry, he would completely fail to understand me entirely. I know I am brilliant. *cackle* No, but for real, I'm straight up weird brilliant. These men changed my life.
Of course, my son doesn't have to be like me. We know that. How do I help him become the best him? The happiest him? How do I
Am I jousting with a figment of Fred de Rosset? Does he understand? Will he?
There are very few people who are qualified to understand the entirety of me. For real. It's just a fact. People can be reductive and try to define me, but they can't. Fred was brilliant. I saw it. Before my very eyes. These professors were like gods to my wife and I. The status redpilled relationship godlike structure thing is gross. whatever. move past it. The fact is that these people were our idols.
Idol is such an interesting word. It looks funny. *drug-addled* ** paranoia**
My idol, unfortunately, Fred de Rosset was not who I wanted him to be. That's not his fault. That's not my fault either. It is what it is.
I want to note that I am typing cleanly enough on DCK today. This is very interesting.
DCK is the spark of randomness. When we dissociate, we can step outside of ourselves, walk around the building of who we are (in an oversimplified, infantile sense) and
---
<<footnotes "1" "I recognize the hocus-pocus retarded spiritualism is a Slip one could make. I'm not here to do that. Dreaming comes in many shapes and forms. It's worth thinking about.">>
|customTable|k
|Food|Calories|h
|Pear|100|
|Chili|600|
|Ice Cream|180|
|Mandarins|230|
|Total|1110|f
!! How has your health been this week?
* 1uxb0x
** Coughing more. Allergies suck. Maybe he is "Mr. Poe" from a Series of Unfortunate Events (so my son says).
** Theory Coughing may be from the cat's fur!!
* j3d1h
** Allergies getting better. Officially starting puberty. Woot.
* k0sh3k
** Starting her period. Her migraine today is strong, having them more often. I'm writing on her behalf today. Serious lack of sleep, despite trying hard for it.
* h0p3
** I've had a lot of headaches. My sleep has been meh. I can't wait to start work again so that I can get back into the groove of things.
---
!! What happened last week? Have you been happy this past week? Why or why not?
* 1uxb0x
** Happy most of the time. Good. Got to play with his friends this week, but not as much as he would have liked.
* j3d1h
** Mostly happy. The school schedule is okay, and she feels like she is still getting used to it. Haven't done much game-wise.
* k0sh3k
** It has been a crazy busy week. Finals weeks is always like that. Things will start to calm down soon. The lack of sleep is not helping.
* h0p3
** Fixed the car. Didn't fix the dryer. Did a lot of laundry. Our apt. laundromat is thankfully cheap. I wrote a lot. I'm so ready to get back to work.
---
!! What is a positive fact or compliment we can say about each person in the family?
* 1uxb0x
** Worked hard this week.
** His writing was a real step up.
* j3d1h
** Goes out of her way to make life easier on her family.
** Worked hard on fixing her mom's computer.
* k0sh3k
** Very patient with her family this week.
** She's participating with us in working on our wikis. I'm very grateful for that too.
* h0p3
** Funny enough to deserve a slowclap.
** Gave good presents, and was kinder this week.
---
!! What will you do this week?
* 1uxb0x
** Find out when Earth Day is...
** Try origami
* j3d1h
** Rock humanities even "more better like"
** Work on her Calorie logs
** Preserve her free time by quickly finishing her chores
** Draw
* k0sh3k
** Read and write. Awesome.
** Pet cats
** Make her hubby a sammich at least once this week. =) (teehee*)
* h0p3
** School work.
** Maybe fix a dryer?
** Finish my work up on my Monthly and Weekly Audit. This is my first time doing it.
* Your bibliography needs to be fixed.
* Your calorie log is practically empty.
* Consider capitalizing your titles
* I like your tags
* Consider cleaning out "Orphans/Hidden tiddlers"
* Consider adding content.
* Thank you for adding "New" to both of our wikis
* Adore your programming section
* Name Notepad something different.
* Add spoilers tag
* Your Orphans and "Old" stuff is the most developed part of the wiki
* Spend way more time on your wiki
* You didn't write on the 24th and 25th
* [[Thank you!|http://bookwyrm.life/#Monday%2C%2024th%20April%202017]], we can't afford deer food, sadly. It interestingly feels like you are writing to me directly, my dear.
* I love how you are being a good example to the kids in showing off your open education learning. Recording it shows how much it matters to you, and in time, they will see how much it should matter to them as well.
* Use more exclamation points!!!
* Your Legal page needs aesthetic touchups. Make it pretty. Make it all caps. There are legal conventions for going all caps.
* Add a "New" tab. Ask [[j3d1h]] how to do it (I don't remember how it worked).
* Write more! =)
* A well-made hitpiece on Postmodernism - https://areomagazine.com/2017/03/27/how-french-intellectuals-ruined-the-west-postmodernism-and-its-impact-explained/
* Another attempt to decode the next incarnation of 4chan - https://getriced.com/4chan-trolls-media-thinking-ok-sign-racist/
* Lovely (and classical) attempt at a distinction between Cults and Religions - https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/68fmny/eli5_whats_the_difference_between_a_cult_and_a/
* I have no doubt of Assange's innocence of this allegation, but the timing of it continues to leave me questioning - https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/68fpud/how_often_do_americans_that_dont_believe_in_god/
* Re-reading is key to actually Reading - http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2015/06/26/reading-is-forgetting/
* Someone is confirming my bias about techno-feudalism - https://medium.com/@ebonstorm/feudalism-and-the-algorithmic-economy-62d6c5d90646
* Confirming what I've long thought about different trends in Apple user populations (since the first iPod really; I had no problem with them before that) - http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/314376.php
* Don't talk to the cops - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14205917
* The IP Golem only grows - https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170424/23470637227/why-is-congress-such-rush-to-strip-library-congress-oversight-powers-copyright-office.shtml
* Interweb Memes are lazy - https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/article/how-meme-culture-is-getting-teens-into-marxism
* [[2017.04.29 - Homeschooling Log]]
** I used this to create the first [[Homeschooling Log Template]]
* [[2017.04.29 - Link Log]]
** Inspired me to create [[Philosophipolitical Prescription: Videos]]
* [[2017.04.29 - Wiki Review Log]]
** Today's is very short. Yesterday's was fairly long. I can see that this log may generate //disincentive// to create "New" tiddlers. This is not what I was expecting, but I should have seen it coming. I'm not sure how best to combat this. Essentially, reviews/audits create a tax burden on innovation here (as le capitalists would say). Fight through it. The greater good is at stake.
* [[2017.04.29 - Diet Log]]
** I'm not forcing myself to any limit. But, c'mon bro, be honest with yourself. This is still lacking vegetables. It's got easy junk food, and it doesn't have enough of what you need.
!! Log:
* [[2017.05.07 - 1uxb0x's Wiki Log]]
* [[2017.05.14 - 1uxb0x's Wiki Log]]
* [[2017.05.21 - 1uxb0x's Wiki Log]]
* [[2017.05.28 - 1uxb0x's Wiki Log]]
!! Audit:
* I want to see him write a well-developed gaming section. This is an avenue to get him into writing. I know it opened the world of writing to me quite a bit. Speaking about things that mattered to me at a younger age has paid off dividends. I hope it will be the same for him.
* It's very hard to get him to write. I need to continue to find ways to reward him for him and ways to habituate it.
* He's been writing a Blessing Log. It helps him see the positive aspects of everything. I think it has been immensely useful to him.
!! Log:
* [[2017.05.07 - DCK Meditation]]
* [[2017.05.21 - DCK Meditation]]
* [[2017.05.28 - DCK Meditation]]
!! Audit:
* I missed a week because we were traveling to my brother's that weekend.
* I'm really glad I've started doing this systematically. The seed and growth of this wiki was fueled by cannabis and DCK, but only now do I see the value in trying to harness it in this way.
* My meditations have been influential in my behavior, perspective, and beliefs.
* My meditations are noisy, messy, all over the place, and yet...they are improving significantly.
* Oddly, since I've been doing this, I've begun to retain my ability to type more than usual. I'm not sure what this means.
* Dissociation comes in degrees, and I wonder how writing while under the influence affects this spectrum.
* I really do need to have my wife go over it with me. She should see, and I need her thoughts.
* There are many unfinished thoughts and stories in these meditations. I know what I want to say about them. I'll consider them to be writing prompts, possibly.
!! Log:
* [[2017.05.01 - Diet Log]]
* [[2017.05.02 - Diet Log]]
* [[2017.05.03 - Diet Log]]
* [[2017.05.04 - Diet Log]]
* [[2017.05.05 - Diet Log]]
* [[2017.05.06 - Diet Log]]
* [[2017.05.07 - Diet Log]]
* [[2017.05.08 - Diet Log]]
* [[2017.05.09 - Diet Log]]
* [[2017.05.10 - Diet Log]]
* [[2017.05.11 - Diet Log]]
* [[2017.05.12 - Diet Log]]
* [[2017.05.13 - Diet Log]]
* [[2017.05.14 - Diet Log]]
* [[2017.05.15 - Diet Log]]
* [[2017.05.16 - Diet Log]]
* [[2017.05.17 - Diet Log]]
* [[2017.05.18 - Diet Log]]
* [[2017.05.19 - Diet Log]]
* [[2017.05.20 - Diet Log]]
* [[2017.05.21 - Diet Log]]
* [[2017.05.22 - Diet Log]]
* [[2017.05.23 - Diet Log]]
* [[2017.05.24 - Diet Log]]
* [[2017.05.25 - Diet Log]]
* [[2017.05.26 - Diet Log]]
* [[2017.05.27 - Diet Log]]
* [[2017.05.28 - Diet Log]]
* [[2017.05.29 - Diet Log]]
* [[2017.05.30 - Diet Log]]
* [[2017.05.31 - Diet Log]]
!! Audit:
* Average Calorie Intake: 2220 per day.
* I'm still not holding myself accountable to anything yet.
** I think I'll milk out as much utility as I can just by doing this first. I already have many plates spinning and few drugs to abuse. Be wise though.
!! Logs:
* [[2017.05.07 - Family Log]]
* [[2017.05.14 - Family Log]]
* [[2017.05.21 - Family Log]]
* [[2017.05.28 - Family Log]]
!! Audit:
* I'm glad we added the compliment section. It has been valuable. It is important that we see the positive things in each other. I'm going to have us start to formulate them before our meetings to make sure nobody feels like they have to do it on the spot, and I want to increase their thoughtfulness.
* My son has been fairly clumsy and noticing it.
* My wife has had a lot of headaches this month. I think it's just been a rough month overall for her. [[h0p3's Log]] suggests this as well.
* Our "to do" next week sometimes works and sometimes doesn't. Perhaps we should reflect more its value or how to adjust it. I want it to be more useful to us.
!! Log:
* [[2017.05.03 - h0p3's Log]]
* [[2017.05.05 - h0p3's Log]]
* [[2017.05.06 - h0p3's Log]]
* [[2017.05.08 - h0p3's Log]]
* [[2017.05.10 - h0p3's Log]]
* [[2017.05.11 - h0p3's Log]]
* [[2017.05.13 - h0p3's Log]]
* [[2017.05.15 - h0p3's Log]]
* [[2017.05.17 - h0p3's Log]]
* [[2017.05.23 - h0p3's Log]]
* [[2017.05.25 - h0p3's Log]]
!! Audit:
* k0sh3k's vitamins do seem to have some effect, but she is still generally exhausted. I feel bad for her.
* The kid's schoolwork continues to improve. It feels like 2 steps forward 1 step back though.
* The dryer got fixed. In fact, that bathroom is just plain better, with the new catbox, washer, etc. It feels like some of the pressure is lifted.
* I'm still using my spinner. It sits right on my desk. I like to spin it, type for a bit, give it another spin, and type some more. It's an interesting way to oscillate my attention. On another note, my presents for my wife have not arrived.
* My sleeping habits have arguably improved somewhat. No cannabis, almost no alcohol now, just DCK. DCK obviously made huge improvements this month.
** Note, I still fall asleep downstairs and drag myself upstairs in the middle of the night. I'm getting there.
** I hope to improve this significantly before the union, where I expect I'll need to be far more flexible. Money, confidence, and direction may give me the emotional spoons for it.
* I've really enjoyed playing magic with the kids. I think my son adores it the most. It is a game, a world even, for planning.
* I spent a lot of time dealing with my thoughts about my parents this month. I hope I can move onto focusing on more important and imminent concerns. I think I have more to write though.
* I tended to write in h0p3's Log every 2-3 days, except towards the end. I should have written about yelling at the kids for not doing their schoolwork. I didn't though. What does that mean?
!! Log:
* [[2017.05.07 - Homeschooling Log]]
* [[2017.05.14 - Homeschooling Log]]
* [[2017.05.20 - Homeschooling Log]]
* [[2017.05.27 - Homeschooling Log]]
!! Review:
* We started the month out with a restructuring. This has been good and bad. The lack of journaling has not been good. The lifting of stress on me has been invaluable. My wife has a more direct hand in motivating the children. This allows me to feel like I'm not the only one pushing, and I think it gives me emotional room to maneuver. I still have a heavy hand in shaping their school work.
** Ironically, we said we wouldn't do boot camps. We did at the very end of the month. It seemed to be a mistake. The bootcamp went well, but the break in the schedule may not have been. Both kids had a hard time getting back into the groove.
* My daughter has done quite well with her vocational studies. My son did well, but we've reached a point where it is clear that some fundamentals are missing which prevent him from making progress. We have to wait and work these out first.
* My children have a difficult time with executive functioning. We are still working on this. It's hard to learn to be wise, to love oneself, and to empathize with one's future self.
** I feel like a real failure here in so many ways. I can't give up though.
* I started having the children keeps log. I hope that this will be an avenue to train them to use their wiki's wisely, consistently, etc.
* My son has spent more time reading about autism, depression, thought-loops, etc. Knowing is the first bit of the battle. We need to find ways to integrate, apply, and exercise his knowledge. It will be a long road. I'm going to walk it with him. It is our journey together.
!! Log:
* [[2017.05.07 - j3d1h's Wiki Log]]
* [[2017.05.14 - j3d1h's Wiki Log]]
* [[2017.05.21 - j3d1h's Wiki Log]]
* [[2017.05.28 - j3d1h's Wiki Log]]
!! Audit:
* We've been working on recording out diet. My daughter and I work on this together. I'd like my wife and son to join us. There are many fish to fry though.
* I restructured her wiki for her after seeing she wasn't doing it.
* We've started keeping school logs again. This has been a good choice.
* I am continually impressed how she readily learns about and modifies her wiki's code.
* It's great to see her code there.
!! Log:
* [[2017.05.07 - k0sh3k's Wiki Log]]
* [[2017.05.14 - k0sh3k's Wiki Log]]
* [[2017.05.21 - k0sh3k's Wiki Log]]
* [[2017.05.28 - k0sh3k's Wiki Log]]
!! Audit:
* I'm still trying to convince my wife to start developing the right habits now.
** At the moment, structuring and spending time peeling her content apart would be useful.
** Writing logs would help her accomplish tasks she cares about. For example, once in a while she will write the first page to a book and then just give up. She just needs to pour in one drop at a time, day by day.
* I'm hoping she'll spend one big day to migrate all her pictures over. I think once she has built a library she values one time she'll have an easier time realizing that she can and should spin up other projects on her wiki as well. It's getting over the first hurdle that is the hardest, I think.
* I really enjoy reading what she has written over the week. I feel like I get to know her better, even though I talk to her everyday about the content she is writing. The product is somehow different, and it gives me another perspective on who she is. I'd read her all day if I could. I hope I can do the same with my own children.
!! Log:
* [[2017.05.01 - Link Log]]
* [[2017.05.02 - Link Log]]
* [[2017.05.03 - Link Log]]
* [[2017.05.04 - Link Log]]
* [[2017.05.05 - Link Log]]
* [[2017.05.06 - Link Log]]
* [[2017.05.08 - Link Log]]
* [[2017.05.09 - Link Log]]
* [[2017.05.10 - Link Log]]
* [[2017.05.11 - Link Log]]
* [[2017.05.14 - Link Log]]
* [[2017.05.15 - Link Log]]
* [[2017.05.16 - Link Log]]
* [[2017.05.17 - Link Log]]
* [[2017.05.18 - Link Log]]
* [[2017.05.19 - Link Log]]
* [[2017.05.20 - Link Log]]
* [[2017.05.21 - Link Log]]
* [[2017.05.23 - Link Log]]
* [[2017.05.24 - Link Log]]
* [[2017.05.25 - Link Log]]
* [[2017.05.26 - Link Log]]
* [[2017.05.28 - Link Log]]
* [[2017.05.29 - Link Log]]
* [[2017.05.30 - Link Log]]
* [[2017.05.31 - Link Log]]
!! Audit:
* I want to reiterate (again) how my wife was correct about the formatting. I hope she will have more good ideas.
* This was my first complete month of keeping Link Logs. It was a worthy adventure.
* I learned to hold onto tabs in my browser and sit on them for a while. There was less pressure, and I kept what I really wanted to keep.
* I'm glad I try to have something to say, however small and useless, about each link. I often know what I've read or seen is valuable, but can't express why, how, or in what ways.
* I love the links I chose. Lol.
* I started out nicer and got nastier (justifiably, I'd argue).
* I suppose my [[Link Log]] is a place to store memories. A place to think about what I've been reading about. Let us hope it will be useful.
!! Log:
* [[2017.05.01 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.05.02 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.05.03 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.05.04 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.05.05 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.05.08 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.05.09 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.05.10 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.05.11 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.05.12 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.05.15 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.05.16 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.05.17 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.05.18 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.05.19 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.05.20 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.05.22 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.05.23 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.05.24 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.05.25 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.05.26 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.05.29 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.05.30 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.05.31 - Pipefitting Log]]
!! Audit:
* This has been, arguably, the most successful and longest lasting Log I've had thus far. It really started me down this log-keeping path.
* I feel like my Pipefitting Log this month has shown me that I've soaked up the majority of what I'm going to get out of this program. In addition to my financial needs, it seems obvious to me that I should pursue employment. I think I'll miss out on some cool things, 2 NCCER books of content (I should still perhaps pickup some copies), and especially welding. It's worth sacrificing these opportunities, I believe.
* I covered socket welds, buttwelds, and completed the coursework. Good job!
* It took a month to get together with Dale, the welding instructor. I'm glad I did though. The wait was worth it. I have had a lot of people tell me to forget pipefitting and go into welding, although I've had many pipefitters tell me I'll be a great pipefitter too. What do I want? I want stability, now. I believe I can learn to weld at the union, and worse comes to worse, I can weld at my own house and take my work to Dale when I have the chance. He will help me on the side, I believe.
* Creating the second simulator for the classroom was a real project. I'm proud of my work. It wasn't perfect, but I did a good job.
* I spoke at length about the people I worked with this month. I think that's good. I need to continually generate perspective on the people around me and my social interactions. Simply put, socializing is not my strength as an autistic person. This is a valuable tool for helping me overcome my disability in this realm.
* Overall, my posts tended to be shorter this month (or so it feels).
* I'm going to miss not working with Chris, when the day comes. I need to get his number and stay in touch with him. I legitimately like him.
* I said that my days weren't as productive as I'd have liked. I think that is another sign to myself that something is off or wrong. I'm not moving at the pace I want. I'm not making the progress I need. I know I can do more. I think employment really is the next step here.
* I'm on my first piece of serious morally permissible (if not obligated) deception: I must find an employer for the short-term, but I can't say that (else they won't hire me). I need to make money, and I need to get enough done that I could walk into the union as a 2nd or 3rd year (which would be amazing).
** Also, after I am hired at the union, I want to negotiate the possibility of an accelerated course. I believe I could learn to be a journeyman pipefitter in a year, and perhaps a journeyman welder in a year or two. I am a unique outlier, and exceptions should be made for me. I'm worth that investment. I want to push into valves as soon as possible.
*** It would be amazing to build up relationships around the nation as someone who does valve work. Maybe they could ship me valves, I'll work on them, and ship them back? I could work in my own shop! That would be sick! Dreams, perhaps infeasible and implausible at that.
* We had a huge break in the middle of the month. I'm really glad that I came to school anyways to learn from another instructor. It was a valuable use of my time and a wise move.
* I've not really had any productive writing on my off days. Perhaps I'm doing something wrong here.
* It really was a productive month. I think I was being too hard on myself.
!! Log:
* [[2017.05.15 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.05.16 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.05.17 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.05.18 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.05.19 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.05.20 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.05.21 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.05.22 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.05.23 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.05.24 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.05.25 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.05.26 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.05.27 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.05.28 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.05.29 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.05.30 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.05.31 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
!! Audit:
* I started this log up. It was useful at times. It also felt lacking at other times. I can't expect gold every time though.
* I crack myself up sometimes though.
* It's more loosey-goosey here while also giving me space to be philosophical. I like it.
!! Log:
* [[2017.05.01 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.05.02 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.05.03 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.05.04 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.05.05 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.05.06 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.05.07 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.05.08 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.05.09 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.05.10 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.05.11 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.05.14 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.05.15 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.05.16 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.05.17 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.05.18 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.05.19 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.05.20 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.05.21 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.05.22 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.05.23 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.05.24 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.05.25 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.05.26 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.05.27 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.05.28 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.05.29 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.05.30 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.05.31 - Wiki Review Log]]
!! Audit:
* There are many, many storylines running through the Wiki Review Log. In a weird way, it is the central heartbeat of the wiki.
* It has been my first full month of log, and I can now see how much they did shape my perspective, goals, and my month in general.
* There is a lot of weighing, skepticism, and waiting in these logs.
* The [[Wiki Review Log]] helped shape [[h0p3's Log]]
* A lot of posts just have "edited" or "audited," and that's okay. At the very least, I've clarified myself. I won't get tectonic shifts all the time, and that probably would be the best thing in the world anyways. Drop by drop!
* It's clear that [[Philosophipolitical Prescription]] and [[Realpolitik Speculation]] dropped off the map. I believe that [[Link Log]] has taken place here. This may not have been a good thing, but I just don't seem to have the energy or desire to write in these older repositories.
** I need to think of proper ways to retire them or set them as long-running repositories which don't expect constant posts.
* Ha, I saw in my Wiki Review Log what I saw in my monthly audit of my Pipefitting Log about my constant claims about being unproductive, I just forgot about it. I'm still formulating a theory, I guess.
* While I will continue to complete this log, as I see its merits more clearly, I also believe it does not even come close to solving the executive function and self-conversational problems I'm still having. I hope to improve it over time and eventually find out what's missing.
* I must admit that I feel like I'm on autopilot and just "getting through it" in my Review logs. That said, I now have a story to look through. I have a narrative to interpret. I will continue to think about ways to improve this. I also feel like I need an unstructured writing time on my wiki. I need to force myself to write for a certain amount of time, but not on a specific topic (or something like that).
|customTable|k
|Food|Calories|h
|Chili|250|
|Pears|200|
|Apples|200|
|Mandarins|105|
|Grilled cheeses|400|
|Brussel sprouts|50|
|Tomato Soup|75|
|Ice Cream|180|
|Peanut Butter Toast (fuck yeah)|400|
|Total|1860|f
* Opensourced version of an interesting personal firewall tool - https://github.com/evilsocket/opensnitch
* Trump doesn't like the constitution today because it gets in the way of his agenda, boohoo - https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-us-constitution-archaic-really-bad-fox-news-100-days-trump-popularity-ratings-barack-a7710781.html
* Facebook performing unethical scientific experiments for the sake of gaining money - http://www.news.com.au/technology/online/social/leaked-document-reveals-facebook-conducted-research-to-target-emotionally-vulnerable-and-insecure-youth/news-story/d256f850be6b1c8a21aec6e32dae16fd
* Wealthy give to charity for status; The Charity Market is a failure - https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/04/why-the-rich-dont-give/309254/
* Intel's ME is officially known to have a backdoor.<<ref "1">> - https://semiaccurate.com/2017/05/01/remote-security-exploit-2008-intel-platforms/
** Omg, color me sooo fucking surprised...anyone paying attention knew that. The timing and the way in which it is becoming more public knowledge is what we must actually question.
** https://downloadmirror.intel.com/26754/eng/INTEL-SA-00075%20Mitigation%20Guide%20-%20Rev%201.1.pdf
* Read about it, but seeing it is even harder to swallow - https://digg.com/video/trump-cbs-interview-walk-away
* Phone-based SSH authentication for your Desktop - https://krypt.co/
---
<<footnotes "1" "And, yet, I'm addicted to that single-threaded performance. For the love of God, I hope AMD catches up and opensources their rootkit.">>
Today was kind of a letdown.
I drove my wife to work this morning. We had our usual argument about the nature of humanity. She still has faith in humanity, and I do not. Did this color my perception? Did I just pay more attention to it? Or is this coincidence? Or both? I told her I have faith in her, and even myself (even if only out of practical necessity we must take up that mantle of faith). I honestly believe we pursue the truth. It's why we change. I'm not convinced the probability of others changing is high enough to warrant faith in them. I feel justified in choosing to have faith in individuals, but I'm not required to (especially not by any rational standards I can find).
So, I walked into class and we sat around. We studied for a math exam. Chris thought it was a shame that we had to study for this and that people failed it (algebra and geometry). It is the kind of math that everyone should know. I just moved onto studying for the next exam on pipe threading. It was a joke. Chris and I talked about the plans for the class. It's clear that after buttwelds and this 2nd pipefitting book (the last book of the standard class), we'll actually be done. Effectively completing the extra pipefitting books as an elective isn't something our teacher really wants to do, although I will try to do it.
We were ready to take the exam immediately, but the teacher decided to give us the answers first and then to let us study until lunch (obviously unnecessary). He's purposely holding us back. I eventually just grabbed my computer to surf. Meanwhile, the guys started talking about politics. What were otherwise just normal stupid people became violently stupid people. They praised Trump. They adored his attitude and aggression. They really do see immigrants as their enemies. They despise gay people. They hated Obama without reason. They openly admitted they knew little to nothing about politics, but still felt justified in their opinions.
Look, we're thousands of miles away from my view of the world here. I can't expect these retarded kids to ever get anywhere close to where I'm at besides basic socialism (which they've been trained to hate from birth). I would interrogate them with the Socratic method, and it was obvious that they didn't give a shit. They were fundamentally anti-intellectual and proud of it. I could see from their glances and body language that I was failing their good ol' boy conservative shit test. Lol. I am disgusted by these human beings.
Look, I'm more than qualified to argue on the topic. But, there were so many things going wrong in their arguments that there was no way to distill it and walk them through it. It was a logistical nightmare. We couldn't evaluate or argue. Reason and facts didn't matter.
I can forgive much. Willed-ignorance I will not forgive, especially not habitual ignorance. Virtue is Knowledge.<<ref "1">> I'm more than willing to concede that they would never be as knowledgeable or as intelligent about these topics as I am.<<ref "2">> I do expect people to do their actual best. I know they can do better, wildly better. They don't and they won't. I will not accept it, although I will not articulate anything of the sort directly to them.
Luke and Chris are the only remotely sane individuals, and even they are dumb as fuck. It's disturbing. I know, I'm redpilled, and I believe people are evil. Loss of innocence, yadda yadda. Somehow I'm still blown away. I need to develop a game plan to deal with stupidity. Obviously, I cannot tip my hand anymore.
I'm dealing with human garbage here. I will respect them and be kind to them. I will seek rights for them that they surely haven't earned simply because I think it is demanded by the golden rule. I can forgive stupidity about most topics, but not broadly normative topics like politics.
I am fairly alone out here. It sucks. And, you know what, it's not my fault. I hate (in the sense of like, not love) people because they really are bad. A part of me mourns the end coming to swallow up our species. But, part of me is happy to see the Human Disease, as a species, die off.
Also, I'm so thankful we are homeschooling. Avoid the fucking trash.
Anyways, before the exam, the teacher had a guest come in to have him sign paperwork. This grown woman could barely use her computer. The illiteracy was annoying. The teacher had me come three times to help, and eventually, I just did it for her.
We took the exam. Simple. I also asked about the Precision Measurements and Torque seminars that are sometimes made available to pipefitting students. I know my teacher doesn't get along with these other teachers so well, but I would like to have the opportunity to learn these things. You never know when they'll come in handy. Apparently, getting the Torque technique down correctly will be very useful, particularly in professional pipefitting environments that require you to sign off on your work.
Afterward, I watched others for a bit. The teacher finally gave Luke, Mel (Keaton), and me an assignment. We were to take down the 2" simulator screwpipe down and replace it with an identical socket weld fabrication. Eventually, Chris and Nash were assigned the 1" (it appears they avoided rolling offsets entirely). Luckily for everyone, I kept my isometric drawings for each simulator fabrication.
I went ahead and measured mine out to make sure the drawing was accurate (because I somehow don't trust myself: I felt rusty today). Our teacher had to help us find flanges for this large pipe. We dug around and found 2 stainless steel socket weld flanges, but the third had to be a slip on. This made our takeouts abnormal. Also, I asked if we should put a valve on this. We found a socket weld flange for 2" pipe, a very tall looking valve that I couldn't identify.
I did the math a couple times to make sure it was right. We had to add-on instead of take out for the valve. Noteworthy, while for fittings I can trust my book for the 1/8th of an inch heat expansion on my takeouts, when I calculate them by hand, I must remember to do this. I forgot the 1/8th of an inch for the socket weld flanges and the valve. It wasn't hard to adjust for it though. It's super important that we get the math right. I had to convince Luke of this, and I did it by showing the center-to-end measurement minus the complete takeout to the wall of the recess. It was off by 1/8th of an inch from our book. Then I explained how our other pieces required we do the same. Mel didn't give a shit. He's a retard by choice.
---
<<footnotes "1" "Hanlon, suck my dick.">>
<<footnotes "2" " Pause for humility complaint; let's be clear, even I am deeply ignorant even though I strive not to be,">>
* [[2017.04.30 - Link Log]]
** Inspired me to revamp [[Link Log]]
* [[2017.04.30 - Family Log]]
** Not convinced the compliment section will work out.
* [[2017.04.30 - k0sh3k's Wiki Log]]
** I don't have much to add, but I want to force myself to say something. I want to encourage [[k0sh3k]] to continue writing about her day. I want more than just her link log.
* [[2017.04.30 - 1uxb0x's Wiki Log]]
** My son's wiki needs serious work. I can't say I'd have done any better at his age. I don't' know. I know I was much lazier in many ways. Regardless, we'll keep pushing. This is a skill he needs.
* [[2017.04.30 - j3d1h's Wiki Log]]
** She's spending a lot of time structuring, which is excellent. She needs to spend time filling it with content.
* [[Philosophipolitical Prescription: Videos]]
** I want to set of videos to convert others. To help unfuck their minds.
* [[Homeschooling Log Template]]
** I'm still figuring out how I want it to fit on my wiki. What is the best practice. I want to make sure that I'm not overbearing and that this is constructive.
* [[2017.04.30 - Wiki Review Log]]
** My worry about my Wiki Review's being enough of a burden to cut down on my actual work on the wiki has lessened. Lol. That's fine.
* [[2017.04.30 - Diet Log]]
** DCK almost forces me to fast. I just don't feel like eating, sex, drinking, video games. I still like to think and write though. I actually cleaned the house yesterday too. I did all the laundry. I'm productive as fuck (attitudinally, even if I'm not 100% up to it physically).
* [[Beware of those who say "X has no class"]]
** Added some. It's generally correct.
* [[My Wife]]
** A dream-section needs a dream. Added.
* "Fred de Rosset"
** Deleted and moved to DCK. Clearly DCK ramble.
* [[The Pinnacle of Parental Sacrifice]]
** Slight Edit
* [[Dreams of h0p3]]
** This section needs a lot of work if it is going to be so highly placed. Let us see if it survives.
* [[2017.04.30 - DCK Meditation]]
** You will note there are section written after the DCK meditation. I had definitely come down. Hence, I take these to be the standard afterglow which I use through the week.
* [[Sanity: What Standard To Use?]]
** My continued mistrust. What can I say. I don't think I'm the crazy one. My derealization is from being redpilled, and from accepting truth backed by enormous evidence that I didn't want to believe for the longest time. I think the rest of the world is far crazier.
|customTable|k
|Food|Calories|h
|Peanut Butter Sandwich|300|
|Apple|100|
|Pears|200|
|Mandarins|105|
|Ice Cream|180|
|Wraps|900|
|Shells and Cheese|300|
|Pork Chop|150|
|Beer|125|
|Total|2360|f
* These capitalists point out a significant chunk of unemployment data (still failing to account for underemployment almost entirely), but clearly do not understand the underlying causes or solutions - http://www.milkenreview.org/articles/where-did-all-the-men-go
* Because I'm part of the trend that has a hard-on for cognitive bias - http://nautil.us/blog/-why-youre-biased-about-being-biased
* Font size for bodies of text on sites is apparently too small on average, and perhaps that claim applies to mine as well - https://blog.marvelapp.com/body-text-small/
* Sadly, leave it to the Libertarians to teach us how to engage the common public - https://aeon.co/ideas/how-robert-nozick-put-a-purple-prose-bomb-under-analytical-philosophy
* League of Legends, Patch 7.9 Notes - http://na.leagueoflegends.com/en/news/game-updates/patch/patch-79-notes
* Windows 10S, an attempt to lock consumers into the Walled Garden they've been creating for quite a while, and it is a more direct competitor to ChromeOS. May it die a thousand deaths (and it seems to miss the point of what makes Windows a mainstay even today: backwards compatibility + legacy software) - http://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-windows-10-s-2017-4
* We benefit from slavery, even if we don't always realize it - http://www.kvoa.com/story/35247392/sierra-vista-woman-finds-note-from-chinese-prisoner-in-walmart-purse
* To those who make fun of keyboard warriors, there is a sect of the coalition of the alt-right (part of that group I have listened to for a very long time, since the beginning of 4chan) which people should be take more seriously. This article has many flaws to it, but it is a step closer in the right direction to understanding contemporary memetic undercurrents <<ref "1">>-- http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/04/beyond-alt-understanding-the-new-far-right.html
* Yet another //nymag// article, this one targeting a particular brand of libertarians - http://nymag.com/selectall/2017/04/the-techno-libertarians-praying-for-dystopia.html
* China seeks to make yet another another censored, centrally controlled version of Wikipedia (they have a couple large ones [probably tired of blocking]) - https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/05/20000-chinese-writers-will-create-their-own-wikipedia-competitor/?mbid=synd_digg
* A sad day that a standing president is paying for propaganda during his presidency for his presidency - https://digg.com/video/donald-trump-ad-fake-news
* Capitalist Pig virtue signaling - https://digg.com/video/kimmel-son-obamacare
* Idiotic "leftists" blaming automation instead of properly blaming capitalism, capitalists, and a lack of basic structures of society which maximize the utility of technology for all - http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/05/01/thinking-twice-about-automation-may-day-2017/
* A poor argument about Tor - http://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/761-Exploiting-the-TOR-Browser.html
---
<<footnotes "1" "I'm what they call alt-left. That said, I think they don't even understand that term. Nobody does from what I can tell. They really just mean the Left, not alt-left. They've forgotten what actual leftism is.">>
Today was more productive than yesterday. Mel and Luke did most of the cutting. This, of course, meant that the lengths tended to be wrong. They do not check their work after they produce it, and this means that patterns go unnoticed and therefore uncorrected. I checked the pipes later and kindly pointed it out. I did some grinding to fix it.
The welding teacher stopped by to see about welding. He wants me to do a 2G weld, since it counts as a 1G on the tests. I felt like I would be abandoning my group to do this. I asked to do it on Thursday. I went to change my mind, but he was at that point too busy. He wanted the bevel to be more precise, so that's what I did.
They had some problems with the bandsaw, but fixed it. It was clogged and not draining the oil. During that time, I went to the financial services office. I got my tuition taken care of, since AB&T was going to pay for tools and part of the tuition, leaving me stuck with a $500 I couldn't pay. I told them to forget the tools (especially since their new fiscal year starts in July, and my funding jumps to $2100 for the last semester). I could use it.
I got the fittings and flanges set, and I finished off the last third of the cuts. Luke and I did the tip-grind work together. Luke sits at about 80% of my speed. Mel just sat around.
Anyways, we started fitting. I'm unofficially the group leader. We do it my way, although I regularly ask for suggestions and their thoughts (sometimes they see something I don't, particularly Luke). It is possible Mel wasn't pleased possibly because I'm a trimester behind him, but clearly better than he is (I've heard a few comments from him). Ultimately, he did jack shit today. TJ was right about him. He is lazy as fuck (and that fits what I've seen in the shop for the past 4 months). Turns out that Mel doesn't even like physical labor at all (what is he doing in the pipefitting program?). Luke at least will work (although he screws around too often enough [less so with me]). He at least enjoys working when he does though. Mel, on the other hand, did some tacking (and even decided to tack for the other group for a while) and made 3 cuts.<<ref "1">> That was it. He wanted to "study" for a test because Nash was avoiding work by studying as well. They really just want to sit in the classroom doing nothing but play on their phones. Idiots.
Chris was all by his lonesome while Nash screwed around. I helped Chris a few times when I felt he needed the extra hand to get stuff done. Some stuff just requires two people, and it sucks that my leaving his group meant that he is forced to do so much on his own. The difference showed. Luke and I (and technically Mel, although Mel also "worked" with Chris) finished our project and had it mounted by the end of the day, and Chris/Nash are maybe 60% of the way through.
Chris needed my help with the redrawing. If you recall, my teacher threw us a curveball at us by having us install valves after we had already mounted fabrications on the simulator. That meant that the 1" drawing wasn't accurate. Chris was using this drawing, and he needed to do the math for it. I did the math last time. This time he had to, but he was struggling and didn't want to get it wrong (that would be a lot of lost effort). So, we sat down together and worked it out. Although, now that I'm thinking about it, I forgot (like I asked myself not to, lol) to tel him about the extra 1/8th of an inch for the heat expansion. We took those into account in the math for my project, but I think we forgot for his.
Luke and I spent a lot of time leveling and plumbing today, and I think it paid off. Luke and I use an interesting trick sometimes. When we feel we can't quite get a fitting on level, we will put a pipe on it first and then attach that fitting+pipe to the main construction, since this gives us a point to level/plumb off, and it is the ultimate test. I don't always like this trick, but sometimes it really fits the problem for us. I need to think more about it.
Anyways, when we went to mount it, it looked to be off by a solid 3 inches. Nash wanted to help us mount instead of working on his project. Lol. Anyways, we had run into this before on screwpipe, and instead of being disheartened, we just tried to make it work. It fit just fine when we went to tighten the bolts on the flanges. There is going to be a serious element of experience that I must acquire to know if and when a fabrication is going to mount-worthy or not. It is simply not obvious enough by getting it into place. Steel is flexible. It isn't clear how flexible, but flexible enough that an inch per ~7 feet can be squeezed out. Clearly, even when you do everything as carefully as you can, you still only get "close." The goal, I take it, is to get close enough.
I must say, I'm glad we put 4 tacks on. There is clearly serious pressure on it. I wonder if we would normally weld it before mounting it in the field. I need to ask my teacher. I think it would be wiser to fit it first.
Luke said that we won't be doing any of this in the field (my teacher says otherwise, and I take my teacher's claim to be more authoritative). Yes, some people in the field stovepipe. I do not want to. Math makes my life easier. Oh yeah, several times, including today, my teacher told me not to listen to Luke. I generally don't, but sometimes Luke is right. My teacher has a bad habit of marking someone as X in his head and being unable to see them as being anything other than X in all contexts. Granted, we all must rely upon rules of thumb, but even our rules of thumb must be empirically verified from time to time.
At the end of the day, the teacher told us to move onto replacing the 1.5" screwpipe. Chris laughed, claiming he anticipated this. Reasonable enough. He then became somber as he realized that the 3" pipe, for which we couldn't find screwpipe flanges, could easily be his next project (after his 1" pipe), since we likely have 3" pipe socket weld or slipon flanges.
---
<<footnotes "1" "Let's be clear: Mel sucks at tacking. His actual pipefitting skill is just as bad.">>
* [[2017.05.01 - Link Log]]
** Edited.
* [[2017.04 - Family Log]]
** Completed monthly audit. It's my first time. It was brief. I did re-read everything and try to find patterns.
* [[2017.04 - DCK Meditation]]
** Completed monthly audit. I have mixed feelings about it. Some of this writing is pointless, if not embarrassing to myself. But, I can see that some of it is quite reasonable at the end of the day.
* [[2017.04 - Pipefitting Log]]
** Completed monthly audit. There are clearly many social components of my job to think about. I'm glad I'm thinking about them. I need to intellectualize that which is not gutterally natural to me.
* [[2017.04 - Link Log]]
** Completed monthly audit. Links didn't surprise me. I do want to curate more about pipefitting though. I need to take finding information about my job more seriously than I have. It can't just be an at-work kind of thing. It is should be integrated into my daily online life. I hope I can, at least.
* [[2017.04 - h0p3's Log]]
** Completed monthly audit. I'm grateful to myself. That sounds weird, but I am!
* [[2017.04 - Diet Log]]
** Completed monthly audit. I'm not committing myself to anything yet. I'm just recording. The patterns are there.
* [[2017.04 - Wiki Review Log]]
** Minor edit. I like how it gives me a change log to see when I delete wiki pages. It gives a reason for it. Breadcrumbs, exceptions, and explanations are useful.
* [[2017.05.01 - Wiki Review Log]]
** It's weird, but I don't mind reviewing my reviews. There is something quite meta about it. It allows me to track trends. I've been struggling to figure out how to do {Focus}. It could be weekly or monthly. I could have two section. A weekly section and a monthly one. There should be a final destination for my logs. {Focus} should be it. The reason "weekly" looks good to me is because "Recent" fills up quickly, and I want to make sure that I'm taking into account not only "New" but also those pages which were edited. It is part of knowing where I've really spent my time.
* [[Family Activities]]
** Added more to family activities
* [[2017.05.01 - Pipefitting Log]]
** Made some edits and an addition that I forgot to mention.
* [[2017.05.01 - Diet Log]]
** I love peanut butter. I can afford it. I shouldn't overdo it though.
|customTable|k
|Food|Calories|h
|Peanut Butter Sandwich|300|
|Pears|200|
|Apple|50|
|Mandarins|140|
|Shells and Cheese|200|
|Pizza|600|
|Hummus, Chips, and Veggies|300|
|Beer|125|
|Total|1915|f
!! How is your health? Daily routine?
It's very early in the morning, 2:30am, as I write this.
I'm doing okay. I was sleeping okay, but k0sh3k wasn't. I came downstairs to make sure my snoring and my fan (which ultimately can never be quiet enough) wasn't keeping her up. I'm not having a hard time waking up.
---
!! What happened? How do you feel about it? What made you feel this way? Does it make you happy or unhappy? Why or why not?
A couple things. k0sh3k is doing poorly. She can't sleep, and her energy is sapped. It feels like she is a zombie. I thought her vitamins were helping, and for a time it seemed they did. Now it seems like they are not working again.
The kids had a bad school day, and they lied about it. When their work was checked, it was clear they had screwed around instead of actually doing their work. I was pissed.
When it came to doing his kitchen chores, my son took forever again. It takes him two hours to do work that should really only take him 30 minutes (20 if he was pushing it). I ended up standing there directing him. He doesn't like to be bossed around and corrected (no one does). I'm not sure how better to help him see the value in just working hard.
---
!! Can you better explain what happened? Do you have a technological, philosophical, empathic, or redpilled story to tell about the phenomenon? Clarify the narrative you just told yourself.
Right now, we are feeling incredible amounts of pressure from many directions of life.
Financial pressures are strong. A lot is riding on me finding a decent paying job. Not having a dryer is a reminder that we can't really afford to buy another. Nothing seems to be going right for us, even though we have worked hard.
Our children's futures seem to hang in the balance. We must rely upon them to actually do their work or this falls apart. It is much to ask of young people. Unfortunately, there don't seem to be good alternatives. The schools available to us just plain suck. As usual, we are finding it difficult to motivate them. Carrots and sticks seem useless. We take their Saturdays to complete the work they haven't during the week. This puts even more pressure on the weekends which are already generally quite busy.
k0sh3k has taken a more direct hand in helping the kids do their work. This is even more pressure on her. She sees that we are failing here. I think that's why she can't sleep. I also think she is depressed. k0sh3k doesn't have a lot of options either. For her to fall apart would bring the entire family down. Much rests upon her shoulders now.
My loss of faith in humanity and God only adds to differentiation my wife and I feel from each other. We aren't united on these core things.
We feel like failures as parents, spouses, and human beings.
We are out here alone. We have emergency support, but no other support, friends, or family.
The political climate is terrible. There doesn't seem to be much hope.
Here I am, late at night, unable to sleep (my wife is unable to sleep too) because of some damn good reasons.
---
!! What are you going to do about what happened?
What can we do that we aren't already doing? I think we have to keep trucking. Never give up!
* Unfortunate limitations of cooperations and unions, as I have found in my inspection and hypothetical construction/planning of them. They survive in the midst of capitalism (and not always at that), but cannot fundamentally convert it (slavery's competitive advantage cannot be overcome through market principles) - https://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1900/reform-revolution/ch07.htm
* Someone with too much hope about trailer park poor, despite his empathy - http://bittersoutherner.com/digging-in-the-trash-david-joy
* Neoliberalism Literature:
** https://oliverhartwich.com/2009/05/21/neoliberalism-the-genesis-of-a-political-swearword/
** https://medium.com/@s8mb/im-a-neoliberal-maybe-you-are-too-b809a2a588d6
** http://washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/may-2007/a-neoliberal-education/
** http://0055d26.netsolhost.com/friedman/pdfs/other_commentary/Farmand.02.17.1951.pdf
** https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1982/09/05/a-neo-liberals-manifesto/21cf41ca-e60e-404e-9a66-124592c9f70d/?utm_term=.9edae17d7d80
** https://static1.squarespace.com/static/56eddde762cd9413e151ac92/t/58e3c27b2e69cf75e8b510fc/1491321484029/the_neoliberal_mind_web.pdf
** https://www.reddit.com/r/Economics/wiki/index#wiki_frequently_asked_questions
* Trump's threats towards the National Park twitter account makes more sense. Trump desperately cares about his image - http://time.com/4764256/donald-trump-inauguration-photo-national-park-service/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+timeblogs%2Fswampland+%28TIME%3A+Politics%29
* Confucius Institutes are injections of Chinese governmental powers into our education system - http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2017/04/28/should-the-chinese-government-be-in-american-classrooms/
* Build Yourself a Linux (easier than Linux from Scratch apparently) - https://github.com/MichielDerhaeg/build-linux
* ex-Facebook Exec tells us what we already knew - https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/02/facebook-executive-advertising-data-comment
* Pipefitting Links:
** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pipe_fitting
** http://www.ua.org/
** http://www.cram.com/flashcards/pipe-fitter-nccer-6311485
** https://www.slideshare.net/cookharrison53/top-10-piping-interview-questions-with-answers
** http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED374313.pdf
** http://www.hexlines.com/tag?q=pipe+fitting+formulas+pdf
** https://pipefitter.com/
* Root, a bank with an API for programmers - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14256300 - https://root.co.za/
* Zero knowledge protocols - http://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~mkowalcz/628.pdf
I'd love to see the United States government use their resources to build or help build highly secure open source software, hardware, and infrastructure. Our government should be leading the charge. We really could build a world-class operating system that would secure the world. We should build hardware that is verifiably safe and not backdoored. We could stop a large portion of hacks and usher in a new technological age.
They should take the Gnu/Linux project, or OpenBSD, or whatever, and just start contributing massively to it. They could build an easy to use, highly performant, and perhaps even provably secure software ecosystem (against significant threat models). I know, I know, you're thinking that they have a terrible track record (in so many ways). As a matter of pragmatism, I must have hope that we can do this well though.
Bring the big players to the table. Are all the best software engineers in silicon valley working for big companies? Subsidize their work for the public good. Give reasonable stipulations. If they won't, then find a way to break their walled garden monopolies. Threaten their existence if they don't comply.
Work with Intel, AMD, IBM, ARM, or even roll your own. Build hardware that is known to be safe.
We can make an infrastructure that is extremely difficult to attack, and we should. And we should give that software to everyone around the world. We should make privacy, security, and performance the norm.
We should overhaul our digital infrastructure with opensource computing.
Today was a long day, but productive. I took out my 1.5" simulation drawing, which clearly didn't have correct initial measurements (hence the drawing was wrong). If you recall, we had to unmount and fix it twice on screwpipe. Luke and I measured it by hand as best we could (center-to-center measurements, unfortunately, can't be made with precision). I edited the drawing, including the valve that wasn't there before (if you recall, the teacher had us stovepipe it in there later). I did the math, and then I went over it with Luke.
Luke did the cutting, and I did most of the rest. Luke's cuts, for once, were on point. That made me happy. We both did the tip-grind work. We worked hard because Luke was leaving early at 11:00. I had to remind Mel that I would need his help. Technically, he is in my group, but he obviously doesn't want to be. He always wanders over to Nash to sit there. Lol. Good for him. Less competition in the market for me.
Luke and I completed an arm before he had to leave. I wish I could have worked with Luke the entire time. The work we did was good.
After lunch, I gave Chris a bit of help since Nash was absent (as usual, Mel as well). Chris rejoiced+complained that he actually generally works faster without Nash and Mel (but our teacher doesn't like letting us work alone; in fact, I was forced to stop working on my project because Mel wasn't there). That may sound odd, but it's true. They make things worse, not better. Case in point, Nash and Mel made a huge mistake on the one thing they did on Chris' project which required them to take it apart (used the wrong pipes). Anyways, Mel eventually came back, and so we went back to my/our project.
Mel is a terrible fitter. He barely understands what we are doing sometimes. He doesn't understand the order of what we doing. He often can't mentally rotate the objects or understand the isometric drawing very well. He also just "wings it" on things we shouldn't (although, I wing it when I have to). Working with him is not a pleasure. Nothing looks right with him, and when it comes to fitting, he never has it fucking level. I'm a fast tacker too (unlike his lethargic, unskilled ass), so there is no excuse. We had to recut the tacks several times to make up for his mistakes, and a couple we just let go.
I must say, I find it difficult to use socket weld fittings which are so chewed up. We have very little to level off of, and we can't use the weld-area sides at all (which really sucks). This will be much easier, I believe, in the field with new parts.
We were interrupted to help Chris and Nash mount their simulation piece. It fit quite well (1" pipe was the easiest). Chris and Nash then came to help us finish our project. We just needed to put the last pipe on and the flanges.
We had a hard time with the last flange. There wasn't a good way to put it on. The teacher pointed out that we should have looked ahead to see it. Basically, there was no way to rotate the fabrication in the vise so as to be able to two-hole the flange. I should have done it in advance.
What we did was take the entire fabrication off the table, and let it rest on a flange and stacked steel plates underneath the other side to make it level. Then we made the vertical plumb and lucky to strap it to the vise (1" off the vise, but good enough). Then we could two-hole.
Also, I learned a neat trick from my teacher today. He showed us how to use the square against the flange face and measure from the side of the pipe. As long as it has the same distance from the square to the pipe all the way down, you know the flange is perpendicular (hold the square flush against the flange, obviously).
It fit well, if not tightly (we thought it might do this since Nash had fitted a flange a bit too far out, and because I had aimed for slightly larger heat expansion gaps to compensate for how I was fitting yesterday). We got it all mounted, and then the teacher came by. It was obvious that it wasn't perfectly level. It was level enough to mount it just fine, but still not great. We want it to look good! So, we busted out the measuring tapes and checked each pipe to see how much we'd need to take out and where.
We measured from the top of simulator down to each end of the horizontal pipes (parallel to the top of the simulator). We found the difference to be 7/8" and we found a single pipe to take it out of. This was frustrating. The 1.5" has been flawed in both screwpipe and socket weld.
The teacher said it's not a problem as long as we fix it. It happens on the job often enough. I felt better about it.
We took it apart, Chris and I, and I cut the pipe. To add to the frustration, the cutting disk snapped on me mid grind! That shit can fuck you up. I was lucky it didn't hit me. I grabbed another disk and made the cut. I found that I could just take the tacks off one side, then use the bandsaw to cut the 7/8" off it.
Mel eventually decided to help me tack it back on. We did wing it here, but it was late and I simply couldn't find another way to do it. We had to do the same ghetto steel plate trick to raise it. I then winged it on the rotation and used two levels at once to try and have it plumb 360 degrees around. Mel doesn't put enough tack material for this. So, I did it. Afterward, Mel left to use his phone.
Nash, Chris, and I brought it over to mount it. Chris and I did the actual bolt work while Nash went to play on his phone. Thank goodness Chris is there. Without him, I don't think it would have been finished by the end of the day. I apologize to him for my mistake (ultimately, I take myself to be responsible for what happens to this fabrication, even if I didn't directly make the mistake in the fitting) causing him to have to work extra instead of being able to screw around like the rest. He said it was nothing.
I'm okay with having to redo it though. I've completed about 2 projects in the time that the other group took to do 1, and I had the more difficult pipe and drawings to work with.
As to my fitting, I think I overcompensated for the 1/8th inch for heat expansion. I know we weren't doing enough yesterday, and I think I went a hair over too many times. It adds up. This showed in the tight horizontal fitting. It also may be part of the reason it was 7/8" off (although, it could only be part of that problem).
* I am pleased that steel is so flexible. The pipefitter alignment-pry bar (or whatever the tool is called) is just amazing. I desperately need one.
* I need to finish my envelopes for AB&T.
* I need to talk to the electrician teacher again.
Also, we finally have all the parts for the second simulator. I'm hoping we get to start making that. It will be weird that we would do that as our first buttweld project though since it is permanent and we can't replace the parts. It's super important that we do a good job on it, and I don't think our first time doing buttwelds is the appropriate time to do it. We'll see what the teacher thinks.
Note, the teacher didn't assign any 3" simulator project. I take it we won't be doing one.
* [[2017.05.02 - Wiki Review Log]]
** Monthly audits are good. I like how it gives me an overview. I'm actually excited to see what I say about this month in my next review. The structure of the wiki is definitely more programmatic than it was the previous month. That said, I've had a lot less of other kinds of content.
* [[2017.05.02 - Diet Log]]
** I probably shouldn't have eaten that extra wrap. I need to eat smaller amounts over the course of the day. I need to feel hungry and not exactly fill myself up. I don't need to go to the "full" feeling every time. Also, my farts have been smellier than usual. I'm guessing it is the introduction of having the occasional beer and the chili. Chili is especially potent for me.
* [[2017.05.02 - Pipefitting Log]]
** Made some edits. Also, it helped me realize what I failed to think about or say in today's Pipefitting Log. Being able to compare daily logs against each other is useful!
* [[2017.05.02 - Link Log]]
** Edits
|customTable|k
|Food|Calories|h
|Pears|200|
|Wrap|300|
|Mandarins|105|
|Biscuit and Gravy|350|
|Tikka Masala|400|
|Jalfrezi|400|
|Ice Cream|180|
|Beers|200|
|Tikka Masala|400|
|Total|2535|f
* New League of Legends client on Linux, again - https://www.reddit.com/r/leagueoflinux/comments/696pil/79_how_to_get_100_platinum_polwine_config_after/
* Hackerone defers to the judicial system for arbitrating moral judgments (crossing the legal positivism normativity line) - https://www.hackerone.com/blog/ethical-considerations-of-access-to-the-HackerOne-community
* I never did like Roger Penrose's arguments about consciousness, although I find it interesting that he and I agree that Gödel's work is deeply involved in our fundamental worries on the topic (and related); I am absolutely convinced our minds are reducible to Turing machines (organic at that, but I take up my position even when we posit very thick views of metaphysics) - http://nautil.us/issue/47/consciousness/roger-penrose-on-why-consciousness-does-not-compute
* Obama endorses Macron. Heard it on NPR today. It is interesting to see Americans caring about French elections more than usual. This French election is yet another domino question. Is everyone catching the alt-right cold? - https://digg.com/2017/obama-endorses-macron-unusual
* Interesting direct-from-China shopping - https://www.wish.com/
Today was a very charged day.
Nobody went to the computer lab today because the lady in charge had a death in the family. That meant that I didn't get to weld today, and we were all given a project.
We were tasked with building the second simulator structure (so we'd have two right next to each other for more complex simulator fabrications), as I suspected we might. My worries from yesterday were well-founded. Our teacher obviously expected us to do well on this, since we're using parts he had to go through a bureaucracy to beg to get in the first place. I still think it was a lot to ask of us considering how we've never actually done any buttweld fitting before. Going straight into production may not have been the wisest choice. A few practice constructions would have benefited us considerably.
Nash and Mel went to carve out and bevel the generic sockolets to make them fit 3" pipe. I asked Nash and Mel to leave one sockolet for me to try, since I want to have at least experienced doing it. Apparently, you can buy sockolets that are specific, but most people now just get generic ones for a job. This will be useful to know.
Chris and I went to the simulator to measure it and create an isometric drawing. It took us over an hour. We found that we were off by a 1/4th of an inch somewhere in the height. Our teacher helped us here since he said it was possible that it was off. We checked the level, and we did the measurements again. It was Chris' first measurement that was off. I really hope we got it right, lol, because I drew it up, we did the math for it, and we went straight into cutting the pipe.
That shit was very heavy. Chris and I made the majority of cuts, specifically on the large pieces (since we couldn't afford to get them wrong due to a lack of materials). I eventually went to shape/bevel my sockolet. It turned out to be easy, although, I didn't put much of a bevel on it. My teacher said that normally a full bevel is applied, although it was just fine for what we were doing. Mine also actually fit the pipe, unlike Nash's and Mel's. They didn't pay enough attention or practice enough when we worked on stainless steel, and it really shows now that it is assumed we can do it. They really do suck at it. Their suckiness played out today.
We then had to bevel the pipe. I explained how it should be done, even though I've never officially done it for any project. 37.5 degrees. I showed them how to use the bevel angle measuring tool. My bevels turned out pretty good. Their bevels were...not beautiful. Honestly, even Chris' bevels weren't really great. There's definitely some virtue theoretic tricks to it. I hope that I can practice becoming really good at it. It's hard to articulate how to get it right, how to compensate, correct, etc.. Problematically, Nash and Mel did not understand (even though they should have) that they shouldn't bevel into the inner diameter of the pipe itself since it actually shortens the length of the pipes themselves. Luckily, I gave each pipe a hair more length anticipating the mistakes.
The teacher noted how deeply they beveled, which thinned the walls of the pipe too much. This made it much harder to tack, as it was very easy to burn holes right through it. Is it my job to correct every single mistake I see? Maybe. It's difficult to have the right kinds of relationships with my classmates if I'm literally their teacher (blind and inexperienced as I am) the entire time.
We started fitting and tacking. Nash and Mel decided they were going to do the tacking. They wanted to put the pipes/fittings flush up against each other, but I told them we needed a gap. I got a wire for it and showed them how it is done. I even told them that I was required to use an even larger gap, and warned we might burn holes. They didn't even think it was possible to weld it but also felt like they could do it (contradiction).
Chris did the fitting (which he tends to do well at, even eyeballing). I had to explain that we needed the high-lo's correct all the way around and that it needed to come straight out (I had brought out two squares and a level for this). In addition, we had to use the wire to gap it. This was the first time any of us had actually done any buttweld fitting, mind you. I should not be the one explaining this. The teacher should have been there from the beginning.
Nash's first tack attempt made a hole, as I suspected it might. I suggested we turn the heat down (this helped considerably for me but not them; note, I had to keep knocking it down). I then asked to level and check it, but Nash wasn't going to have any of it (I probably made him look bad). He went straight into tacking the rest of it. That is to say, Nash went on to very clumsily tack it. Holes were everywhere. He gave up. Mel tried his hand. It didn't go well. I said I could fill them in, but Mel said I shouldn't touch it. I said I was going to try anyway. I turned the heat down again, and I did it. Lickity-split too. I jumped from one tack to other and nailed it into place. Of course, that shut them up for a second. It was obvious that they couldn't use the stick welder on low heat. I know it's hard to strike it, but it filled the holes safely.
Unfortunately, it was only after my tacking that I took a level to the fitting. I should have stuck with my first instinct and assumed we may not have fit it perfectly (because we didn't). Sadly, it was slightly off. You couldn't see it by your naked eye very well, but the level did not lie. I gave what is at this point my classic "oh shit" facepalm tarnation face, which everyone knows to mean we've made a mistake that is going to cost us. I pointed it out, and Chris saw what I meant. Nash and Mel thought it was fine. I said it wasn't. The teacher came by and said it wasn't right either. He took the squares against the side of the fitting and ran the side along the pipe. It was obviously off. Hence, we had to dismantle it.
It was only then that the teacher explained we needed to use even thinner wire because the bevels were so deep (I also worry the teacher has given contradictory advice to me over the course of semester on this; I remember taking a trip to Millwright specifically to pick up thicker gauges wire for my welding sessions). In any case, as our teacher informed us again, there is some leeway on the angle of the bevel and the gap which must be decided by the welder's tastes.
At this point, Mel decided the problem was that we were stick welding (embarrassed by the fact that I could tack a lot better than he can, even though that's all he ever wants to do). He convinced the teacher to let him MIG-weld it instead (any retard can MIG). This was obviously not the problem. I pointed out that welding wasn't the problem, it was the fitting. They ignored me. Fine. So, I decided to let them work on it themselves. They don't have to take my advice or hear my opinion. I just moved onto the other leg of the simulator. They clearly didn't need me, lol. Chris helped cut the piece for them, but saw I was moving onto the second leg. He decided to join me while Nash and Mel did it their way.
The teacher came to help us now. He explained the proper technique for fitting and told us not to use the jackstand if we could help it (although said that sometimes you can't help it). He said that with time we'd get a feel for the high-los and that if we needed (and when we could), we could look inside the pipe to get the right high-lo's. We fit the fitting on, gave one tack on top, and continue to fit, measure with the square, adjust, and tack it. Voila, done. We then moved onto fitting the second piece of pipe (sitting on the other "C" side of the T). We fitted it and tacked it. The level looked great. Even the square looked fine. Ah, but our teacher came by and explained that we should never use the square (as he had just shown us earlier) on the pipe. He didn't explain why, but my theory is that we can't trust the bevel of the pipe, although I guess we can trust the manufactured fittings to be straight for the square (which is what the teacher had just done on the first leg).
The teacher then set two combination squares against each pipe on either side of the T (instead of against each other) and had us measure the distance from the inside and outside of the lengths of the rulers of the combination squares. They were off by 1/8th of an inch. So, clearly, it wasn't good enough. The teacher told us that he thought we should attach the sockolets after these fittings because we already had it set up.
After the teacher had left, Chris remarked that the teacher should have shown us that from the beginning. Chris was annoyed that the teacher was annoyed at having to show us this. I was annoyed too. Luckily, everything else was clean. I cut the tacks on either side, and we kept knocking it into place and testing with this new method. I then retacked it.
After tacking it, Mel comes over to me and without saying "sorry" attempted to apologize. He says they really screwed up big time. He said he wanted to work with us all together after they fixed their mistake. I glanced at what they had done. Unfortunately, using MIG puts a shit ton of material down. They had practically welded (not merely tacked) the pipe and fitting together. Unfortunately, they didn't fit it appropriately; it wasn't aligned, level, and straight. They didn't even try to get it right. They just tacked/pseudowelded. Ii looked really bad. He said they were cutting it and beveling it again. Afterward, they were coming to work with us.
After Mel left, Chris and I gave each other the look. We really don't like working with these clowns. Whatever. We then talked about how to get the sockolets on in the right place. We had measured down to the floor on the simulator, but that included flanges on the bottom (which we weren't going to attach to our leg). We decided to subtract the flange takeout and measure from the end of the pipe we had, marking it with a wrap around. We did it for all three sockolets. We then had to figure out how to center these. My idea was to measure the outside diameter of the sockolets, and then mark the radius from our center point on either side. That way, when we fit the sockolet, we'd know where the edges should be. Mind you, these sockolets were very poorly cut by Nash and Mel; they were wobbly! This meant that we couldn't just nicely apply them and level them. I think they need to be fixed before we do this part.
It was then that Mel came by a second time. He said that the teacher had come out of his office and taken one look at Mel and Nash's work and shook his head in anger. Apparently, the teacher was disappointed+angry. He was definitely pissed at Mel and Nash. I'm not sure if he was angry with me or not. I think he partially was since he assumes I'm going to force them to do my way every time (although, even my way has mistakes, although generally fewer and more correctable ones). I think my teacher really needed to be a bit more angry with himself though. Ultimately, I am not in control of the class. I give my half-educated opinions, but people don't have to listen to me. Anyways, Mel said they really messed up badly, said the MIG wasn't working out, and he wanted my help fixing their mistake. I gave my condolences and said I'd be happy to help them. Chris pointed out that class was almost over. I said we'd try anyway. I left Chris to it, and I moved to help Mel and Nash.
I looked at the bevels, and they were fucking awful. They were chewed up and far worse than before. They destroyed the fitting and the lengthy pipe. I took out my measuring tape and an unused fitting. 6-3/4" I believe, and their fitting was now 6-1/2". Jesus Christ. I kind of panicked for a second. This mistake had repercussions since we couldn't just replace the fitting. But, I realized we could just recut some short pipe for the other side (extending the 14" pipe to 14-1/4") to make up for it. So, I said we could probably fix it. Mel said he really wanted to fix it today because our teacher was so angry.
Unfortunately, Chris and Nash weren't going to touch this one. It was me and Mel. I tried to explain to Mel how he needed to hold it while fitting. I wish I could do the fitting, but I needed to do the tacking because I'm the only one who can strike an arc on such low heat and make it a legit tack. He felt he had it right, and I tacked the top. After he took his hands off it, I inspected it. It was way fucking off. The high-lo's were decent enough, but it wasn't even remotely straight. Maybe this shit is really hard, I don't know. I tried to knock it into place, but it was clearly too far off. After knocking it, the high-lo's were off. Thus, I said we couldn't fix it as it was. We needed to cut it and do it again. This dismayed him. Luckily, I didn't even need to cut it. I just bent it off with my hands. By that time, it was close to quitting time. We started cleaning.
Mel was unhappy that we didn't actually get it fixed. I don't know what to say. They didn't listen to me, and they didn't really try to do a good job. I knew it was going to be a clusterfuck, and so I moved onto a different part of the project. I care about what I put my name on. Don't get me wrong. I definitely made mistakes and had my own hiccups too. Nobody is perfect. This was a kind of "you reap what you sow" moment though. I hope Mel and Nash will, yet again, learn to listen to me more often. They clearly need my help. We'll still have fuckups, but it generally won't be as often or as bad.
After we finished cleaning, the teacher told us we could go. He didn't seem too unhappy (maybe his Youtube watching calmed him down?).
I got some gas and mailed my forms to AB&T. I should talk to my teacher about what tools to get with around $200. I want to use those funds up before July.
* [[2017.05.03 - Subsidized Opensource Computing]]
** Edits
* [[Pipefitting Buylist]]
** Added dogs, tools, etc.
* [[2017.05.03 - Link Log]]
** I have to say, I like compiling small libraries and groups of links. It's a way to dive in. It's basic curation and research.
* [[2017.05.03 - Wiki Review Log]]
** I worry that I'm not saying important things, that I'm not drawing extremely relevant conclusions now. Hrmm, but perhaps I can't expect to strike gold every day. It may be a slow process, hit or miss, that builds over time.
* [[2017.05.03 - Pipefitting Log]]
** Edits. Also, it reminded me to modify my pipefitting log for today.
* [[2017.05.03 - Diet Log]]
** Next time we go shopping, we are buying way more salad stuff. We ran out.
* [[2017.05.03 - h0p3's Log]]
** Edit. I'm not sure I have much to add. I will think about it more. I thought about this post through the day today. It weighed on me some.
|customTable|k
|Food|Calories|h
|Jalfrezi|800|
|Tacos|1000|
|Beer|100|
|Wine|150|
|Mandarins|140|
|Total|2190|f
!! How is your health? Daily routine?
Fairly good. Still sleeping well enough, but I wake up a lot. I'm not tired though, so this might just be a normal aging thing. I'm feeling the need to stuff my face with food. That's not the behavior I ought to engage in.
My routine is fairly standard. Going back to school/work gives me an excellent reason to wake up in the morning. I have much to do with my day. I like that feeling of having things to do (and wanting to do them) throughout my days. I take that to be a good sign.
---
!! What happened? How do you feel about it? What made you feel this way? Does it make you happy or unhappy? Why or why not?
The car didn't start. Again. I feel like it's a farce. I also feel like I'm better prepared this time, slightly. The car is charging as we speak. I traded back the old (brand new) charger that didn't work (since I tested it, just in case we would need it, and it failed). The new one is analog, and it works.
---
!! Can you better explain what happened? Do you have a technological, philosophical, empathic, or redpilled story to tell about the phenomenon? Clarify the narrative you just told yourself.
If I understood the technological problem, we wouldn't be having one. Lol. I think of the problem as being about lacking money to progress and replace this vehicle. I can't have a bad attitude about the vehicle; it has served us so well. I'm incredibly grateful to have it. It is easily my favorite car of all time, however, beat up and shabby this officially antique aged car may be. It has done the job and performed well above what we could ever expect. Let me reiterate again, I am so grateful to have this car. It's been a blessing.
Living in a society where this is common, well...that's the fundamental problem. Not much I can do about that either.
Stoicism, friend. That is the answer.
(So, the tactic is to reframe and continually reframe the problem as necessary).
---
!! What are you going to do about what happened?
I'm charging it. I'll count my blessings. I'll work on that dryer while I'm waiting, eh? Lol.
As to eating, I think I should stop eating later in the evening. Alternatively, a replacement snack, fruits and vegetables only, might be acceptable. That's when I prefer my beer, unfortunately. I do use it as a drug to relax.
* Like all of our recent presidents, he's cashing in - https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may/01/barack-obama-speaking-fees-economic-racial-justice
* Gospel of Wealth: If you take the power, you take the responsibility - https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/05/american-discourse-version-12/523875/
* Oh, but what about the children? Censor! Lol. - https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/educators-and-school-psychologists-raise-alarms-about-13-reasons-why/2017/05/01/bb534ec6-2c2b-11e7-a616-d7c8a68c1a66_story.html?utm_term=.06303ff5f7ab
* Yet another argument in favor of Postmodern epistemology - https://aeon.co/essays/the-complexity-of-social-problems-is-outsmarting-the-human-brain
* Makes Cuba sound pretty good #notallsocialists, etc. - http://www.invent-the-future.org/2013/07/20-reasons-to-support-cuba/
* Yeah, Rex Tillerson is a good man with our best interests at heart - https://www.commondreams.org/news/2017/05/04/tillerson-says-human-rights-will-not-interfere-america-first-agenda
* What appears to be yet another Trumpian gaffe seems more likely to paradoxically persuade his support base - http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-meet-australian-prime-minister-attend-intrepid-event/story?id=47187711
* Apple's untaxed holdings only continue to grow - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-05-04/apple-buys-more-company-debt-than-the-world-s-biggest-bond-funds
* Trump's Mental Fitness - http://www.npr.org/2017/05/04/526857048/trump-s-fitness-to-serve-is-officially-part-of-the-discussion-in-congress
* It's bad when /r/AdviceAnimals can point it out - https://www.reddit.com/r/AdviceAnimals/comments/69ep13/i_find_it_crazy_that_this_is_a_thing_in_the_us/
* Some well-placed critiques of those who call themselves Leftists - https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/05/why-cant-the-left-win/522102/
* Among others, the NYT reassures us about improvements in unemployment, giving the wrong caveats! Their shift to the right of center (including their "climate skeptic" they've hired) is disturbing. At best, this is just another face of their neoliberal blindness - https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/05/business/economy/jobs-report-unemployment.html?_r=0
* Shameless lies, Trump's transition staff are even more openly bought and sold - https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-transition-staff-lobbyist-register-us-president-six-month-ban-issues-betsy-devos-a7718106.html
* Borg, Consciousness, and Human Evolution: Sign me up. Jaynes' thesis is exceptionally interesting, although the timing seems wrong. Change that, and it sounds far more plausible. My gut says there is a kernel of truth to it, even if it got most things wrong - http://nautil.us/issue/47/consciousness/pre_conscious-humans-may-have-been-like-the-borg
* GOP Reps grab some beers, sing "Na Na Na Na, Hey Hey Hey, Goodbye," and head to the Whitehouse for a party - https://digg.com/video/democrat-chant-health-care-vote
* Church and State issues. They voted Trump in. God help us all - https://digg.com/2017/trump-religious-liberty-executive-order
* The mass incline of drone usage; a Big Brother Orwell never anticipated - https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/did-someone-leave-us-surveillance-drone-feeds-live-on-the-public-internet
I didn't arrive at school until 9:15. I was late because the car wouldn't start, again. When I got there, I informed my teacher I arrived, and then I plugged my charger into the car (I parked right outside the garage door entrance, just in case it wouldn't start again.
Chris had already taken the exam. He said it was the hardest test we've taken yet. Nash eventually took it and said the same. I borrowed Chris' book with mine as collateral to read his highlighting. I knew I didn't have much time to study, and I trust Chris' highlights.
I read the highlights first, then I read the sections which had highlights, then I re-read the entire chapter (I had read before earlier this week). Afterward, I started grinding on the highlights again. This was literal test-cramming, although, I feel like I have a handle on the content. It was screwpipe, after all.
I took the test and only missed one question. It wasn't so bad. I talked to the guys about it, and the things they missed weren't the hard parts.
Anyways, the guys had already started doing some work on the simulator. The new guy could actually tack. That's good. He's an ex-druggie, and that's how he identifies himself. I suppose it's a way to gain underdog sympathy, etc.
I talked to my teacher about the state of simulator project. He thinks it will be fine, including Mel and Nash's error. We went over the flanges, and at first, he didn't believe I took them into account. After checking again, he realized I had.
Before we left, the new guy (don't know his name), the teacher, Keith, and I stood around talking. I literally had nothing to say. We're playing a social game in which I'm fairly inept and/or we are interested in very different things. I can talk about the job all day long. Other stuff, not so much. I noticed the same thing previously when I walked with the guys to the Burger Hut. I'm really quiet. There's no way to really socially integrate myself. These people would not want to know who I am, even if they could understand me. Being smart leads to loneliness. Good thing I talk to myself? What do you think, self? Lol.
I didn't really do much though. It was about time to leave. I cleaned, started the car, put away my stuff, and left.
//See first: {[[About|About, a.k.a. The Opening of the Rabbit Hole]]} & {[[Principles|Principles of Programming Myself]]} //
This is a metapage specifically about {[[Projects|Projects on this Wiki]]}.<<ref "1">> Someone needs to be thinking about the state and nature of the projects I am working on from a more objective or metanarratival perspective. This is the reification of my mid-long-term executive functioning. I do it naturally, but forcing myself to write it down is useful.
I need a constantly updating gameplan for this wiki. I must hold myself accountable and strategize. I need to consider where and how I spend my time and energy on this lifetool and wisely adjust my behaviors accordingly.<<ref "2">>
Thus, here I generate a list of my currently prioritized projects. It's a mid-term report on what I've recently been working on.<<ref "3">> After gathering that information, I hope to provide a narrative for those priorities to inspect and weigh. In the end, I will attempt to strategize, forecast, and redirect my focus.
---
!!Current Focus:
* Self:
** [[Taking care of my things]]
** [[Cleaning my nails]]
* [[Pipefitting Library]]
* Everything under [[Logs Collection]]
* {[[Principles|Principles of Programming Myself]]}
* {[[Vault|The Vault of h0p3]]}
I've been sprawling out lately. My logs are clearly important to me. They are specialized journals that I continually grind through. They are places where I feel compelled to write.
---
!! Focus Goals:
* Self:
** [[Taking care of my things]]
** [[Cleaning my nails]]
* [[Logs Collection]]
* {[[Vault|The Vault of h0p3]]}
* [[Pipefitting Library]]
* [[Links]]
I would like to make sure I'm developing the memoir portions of {[[Vault|The Vault of h0p3]]}. I also need to continue to expand my [[Pipefitting Library]].
I can see I only have so much time in my day. It is crucial that I triage. Routine is excellent, but so is exploration and random injections (that's how things change). I'll keep adding to the wiki droplet by droplet while still grinding through my logs, filling out one existential section, and developing one highly practical section.
For now, there are two major changes I hope to achieve. One, I will be relaxing my work in {[[Principles|Principles of Programming Myself]]}. Two, I hope to migrate or graft my massive store of bookmarks into the wiki.
---
!! Vault:
* [[2017.04.24 - Retired: {Focus}]]
---
<<footnotes "1" "Here I briefly turn Husserl's ray of intentionality upon itself. When I am thinking existentially in a recursive manner, I can more decisively align my many orders of networks of beliefs and desires. Here I directly practice [[metaliving]].">>
<<footnotes "2" "Perhaps it needs to be done more programmatically. Having to give a qualitative explanation for quantitative arguments is a strong method of hyper-efficient inquiry (even with inductive/abductive risks).">>
<<footnotes "3" "How often should I update? How do I make these determinations? What standards am I going to use? Clearly, I have much to think about. That is likely a {[[Principles|Principles of Programming Myself]]} kind of question, in a sense. It might be the central planner that governs even this page, or it might just be me. I don't know. I'm clearly not finished in my pursuit of what counts as my autonomy.">>
* [[2017.05.04 - Wiki Review Log]]
** I've given more thought to what I said yesterday about not drawing awesome conclusions. My work on the wiki has been kind of minimal. Somehow working in a stringent and programmatic fashion seems to detract from my motivation to freely make content. We'll see how this weekend goes. In any case, I can't expect myself to be redlining the entire time. It's okay just have regular, slow days on the wiki.
* [[2017.05.04 - Diet Log]]
** It was a delicious day, wasn't it? A moderately active man at my weight must eat 3,290 calories to maintain weight. I'm probably not that active. I'm still overeating. I can feel it in my stomach. This addiction is one of the hardest to kick. Jesus.
* [[2017.05.04 - Link Log]]
** That League on Linux trick didn't work. Shame. I've now tried several things and none worked. I'm not really interested in digging around. I run league in Win8 VM. It can have serious FPS drops, and even at full screen, Virtualbox doesn't always place nice with my cursor placement (especially towards the edges). It works well enough though. I only play ARAM. Of course, that doesn't prevent me from swearing when it messes up.
** Made some edits too.
* [[2017.05.04 - Pipefitting Log]]
** We'll see about fixing it on Monday.
|customTable|k
|Food|Calories|h
|Apple|100|
|Pizza|300|
|Salad|150|
|Berries|75|
|Bucatini and White sauce|500|
|Sardines|200|
|Asparagus|60|
|Brussel Sprouts|75|
|Wine|250|
|Peanut Butter Toast|300|
|Veggies, Hummus, and Chips|400|
|Total|2410|f
!! How is your health? Daily routine?
It's fine. I've been sleeping on the couch a lot. I usually wake up in the middle of the night and head back upstairs. I find it so easy to fall asleep to the TV. I know it's a bad habit. From my perspective, it is one of the few ways to drown out my thoughts. If I lay there in my own bed, I'll just think. Thinking begets thinking, not sleep. Overall, I still feel like I'm getting a sufficient amount of sleep, although it isn't great.
---
!! What happened? How do you feel about it? What made you feel this way? Does it make you happy or unhappy? Why or why not?
k0sh3k gave me my birthday present early. It is a very high quality "spinner" fidget toy. It's brass, 6-sided (detachable), heavy, and the bearings are excellent. I remember skateboard bearings as a kid that were very expensive, and these are even nicer. If you flick it well, it will spin for 3 minutes straight! That's crazy. It made me happy.
---
!! Can you better explain what happened? Do you have a technological, philosophical, empathic, or redpilled story to tell about the phenomenon? Clarify the narrative you just told yourself.
She gave it early because she saw me checking out 1$ spinners on wish.com. Lol. This was a way to make sure I didn't. And, I think it is really cool that she knew me well enough to have purchased this well in advance of when I would consider even getting one. I loved my autism-sucky lanyard toy (spinning mostly, but gnawing too), and it makes sense that this would be something to try out.
---
!! What are you going to do about what happened?
Count my blessings. Be grateful and thankful. Suck the marrow, lick the spoon, etc.
Continue to monitor sleeping habits. My nightly beer or wine should be well before I go to sleep, let's say 9pm is the latest I can have a drink.
* Interesting approach to dealing with bot attacks on a Tor hidden service - http://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/762-Attacked-Over-Tor.html
* Your apps can (sometimes do, and eventually will) track you qua the sounds around you - https://www.wired.com/2017/05/hundreds-apps-can-listen-beacons-cant-hear/
* Data laundering appears to have several definitions - https://blog.ouseful.info/2012/02/03/several-takes-on-the-definition-of-data-laundering/
* Piketty's claim that the "Rate of return on capital is higher than wage growth" explains inequality far better than merely applying the Pareto principle - http://jamesclear.com/the-1-percent-rule
* Extracting fresh water from icebergs towed from Antarctica; enjoy it while you still can - https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/uae-icebergs-drinking-water-from-antarctica-towed-united-arab-emirates-a7715561.html
* Another Reddit metadata tool - http://www.redditinsight.com/
* Cartoon distillation of Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34LGPIXvU5M&feature=share
* Police/judicial system victimizing victims through Material Witness Warrants - http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39662428
* 0-day Windows RCE - https://twitter.com/taviso/status/860681252034142208
* Bilingual perceptual differences, yet another reason to think that language is at the very core of the framework of who we are as human epistemic agents - http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/news/articles/2017/language-shapes-how-the-brain-perceives-time/
* The Evolution of the Douchebag Aesthetic - https://digg.com/video/evolution-douchebag-style
* Fractal Consciousness and walking the line between chaos and order - http://nautil.us/issue/47/consciousness/is-consciousness-fractal
* The evolving compsci security theory of adblocking - http://randomwalker.info/publications/ad-blocking-framework-techniques.pdf
* A great intro video on Bayesian Theory - https://youtu.be/R13BD8qKeTg
* VIM in action - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6omymj1JZI&feature=youtu.be
For at least the past few months, Russian actors have been interfering with the French presidential election. The French have been subject to similar Russian intervention tactics that the Americans experienced. Russia has done this over the decades (France was targeted in 1974), as have the hypocritical Americans.
We've seen the same kinds of "fake news" propaganda injections into French memetic networks. Macron's computing infrastructure has been the target of significant hacks, with sensitive private data released into the wild. Russian news for Russians favors Le Pen as well.
Russia, or at least the Kremlin, obviously wants Le Pen to win. There is a famous picture of Le Pen and Putin shaking hands, and the PR moment means something. She's yet another alt-right insanity candidate which Russia wants to see elected. Russia wants that triple crown: Brexit, Trump, and Le Pen.
If France were to elect Le Pen, there is a good chance they would Frexit the EU, and with it, bring the entire EU down. That would be the last straw. Similarly, Russia wants to damage NATO. Recall, of course, that these are significant competitors and opposers of Russian interests. Russia would benefit, however much they claim they wouldn't, from the lifting of sanctions.
Putin may be to blame, but he's not the only sinner here. Vitally, I'm not accepting Russia as the bogeyman which we must fear so greatly that we give up our freedoms. I am convinced that our deep government is every bit as evil as Putin, only they are more successful in forcing their vision upon the world. First and foremost, I blame those in power.
However, I also blame ourselves for creating uneducated masses that can be swayed like this, for lacking a bullshit-detector, for people being unable to curate information for themselves, for anti-intellectualism, and for a lack of critical reasoning. I blame ourselves for building insecure infrastructures with built-in backdoors instead of going for publicly funded maximum security opensource software and hardware. I blame humanity for being human.
My hope is two-fold:
* The French aren't as stupid as the Americans. I predicted Trump would win the election in early 2016 (long before the election), despite mainstream predictions finding it unthinkable. This time, I believe the mainstream predictions are likely correct: Macron will win.
** I would like to add that Macron is still likely a terrible choice in the end. I'm not saying the French are brilliant. They clearly fucked up in the first stage of their elections.
* If we are exceptionally lucky (and we won't be), the American people will see what Russia has been doing and realize that our government is playing the exact same game. Cliché time: we must revolt against those in power. Get woke, sheeple. Fight the power. Take it back while you still can.
* Progress is made by making new tiddlers. Push forward. Be courageous, but not reckless. Golden mean your progress.
* You are in a conversation with yourself, so let it flow.
* There is a time for computation of the contents of the wiki and a time to compute the contents for the wiki. Lastly, there is a time to infinite regress (maybe we should just call it [[Infinigress]]) into meta-wikidom.
* Find your voice, and keep finding your new voice.
* Find the tools to empathize with yourself and others. Practice them. The Art of Empathy is the among the highest of technes.
* When you feel like a nobody, you don't feel the pressure to be somebody. Use that freedom. Become who you want to be.
* [[Current Focus of h0p3's Wiki]]
** I retitled {Focus} to be more in line with what it reviews (the wiki as a whole). I revamped it as well. It clearly needs more structural work. It is one of the harder parts of the wiki to write. The logs, in a sense, are easy compared to that work. It's okay that I don't know what I'm doing. I can only do my best, and look through your snapshots. Your best causes good change.
* [[2017.05.05 - Link Log]]
** Edits.
** I'm not in love with my aggregated news sources themselves. I truly despise most of these publishers.
* [[2017.05.05 - Wiki Review Log]]
** I made a [[Realpolitik Speculation]] post because I noticed I wasn't doing more. I want to continue that trend. Let's see if I do.
* [[2017.05.05 - Pipefitting Log]]
** Edits. Forgot to say I spoke with my teacher about the simulator, and also didn't mention a moment of awkwardness.
** Also, I forgot to ask my teacher about which tools I really should buy off the list. I want to use all the resources available to me.
* [[2017.05.05 - Diet Log]]
** Eating fewer meals helps.
* [[2017.05.05 - h0p3's Log]]
** Made a few edits. Still glad I've made scripted encounters with myself for myself. Talking about it makes me feel better. It allows me to reflect more cautiously and to not have to come up with my positions on my narrative on the spot.
* You have serious content on every single day. Good job.
* Work on making titles.
* Use your mouse correctly.
* Check your spelling more often.
* Write about your books and reading.
* This is the best week you've had on your wiki.
I should do the work of my house. I should always do dishes with the kids. I should help them clean their room. They aren't motivated because I'm not motivated. We must be virtuous together. I can't simply foist it upon them.
You must remember that you are mentally unsound to most people. They do not see or understand you as you see and understand yourself, and vice versa.
Be kind.
You must be there.
There is an alienness to how people know each other. Aliens don't exist (or, if they do, we technologically just can't know, and I strongly believe the speed of light is a barrier no one will ever breach, questions of universe simulations aside). It is a social construct entirely. I think, however, that we see each other as aliens to varying degrees in various contexts.
I'm pretty sure, my family is filled with people who think we are all idiots in important ways. I must not let my son feel like an idiot. He is my heart. My one. So damaged. I have fucked up everything. God. help us.
I need to teach my children how to understand other people. I need them to have the guttural flow of it. I don't know how to do that myself. How do I teach my children something I can't even do well? I can't teach them like they are me because they aren't me. They are someone else. So, I have to generalize it. I do my best there, but even then I fail.
Having good procedures in place to deal with conflicts, the right frameworks, intuitions, and conventions in our family will enable us to accidentally and programmatically solve many of our problems. In a sense, the hard work is building that social structure, the right structure. We're bootstrapping, so it's even messier.
God, I feel like the blind leading the blind.
My worry is that we are all just really fucked up. There is no way to have empathy with each other. To hold each other like we once did. I want that hope back. I don't think we can. I want it though. I will work and fight for it. It is our happiness.
Evolution is odd.
This probably appears to everyone that I'm going crazy. I kind of am. I am trying not to though. I am trying to put our lives back together. The fractures run deep.
The madness inside us. We have to work together. We have to love each other. We must reach out. Dark times.
I hate evil.
I hate chaos.
I hate pain.
I wish we were all happy. I want us to be released.
I don't play the game correctly. It's about playing the game correctly. Life is a video game, and that means we are derealized phenomenologically. Ugh. The machinations of going insane. It sucks.
I wish I understood.
I Have a fragmented understanding of the world.
Be positive.
Being positive is the foundation of happiness. That isn't to say that you will be happy because you are positive. Positive attitudes are necessary but not sufficient for happiness.
I think it is fucked up that we call my son by his middle name. That sucks. There something kind of sophisticated/weird about it, but it also makes him feel like a shadow possibly? That is not what I want at all. I must treat him with esteem. His name is his name! I adore him.
I need to make a son who loves to live. I suck at parenting. I love him so much. Oh God. Why do I fail with my son so hard?
I would like to get my son officially diagnosed with autism. The problem is only that I don't have faith in the people around me. I will ask my brother. He has an objective answer. My wife will decide.
The good of the mentally different. For real, I know that mentally different people can have good lives. We must empathize. My parents brought me to see the funny farm and my dad put on an act to show me and my son what we were, perhaps all of us.
I was so unprepared to be a parent. I've been a fool.
I love my children so much though. I wish I could torture every cell of my being through every dimension, just so they could be happy. That, obviously, won't make them happier.
I am a bad dad.
I need to be a good one.
I desperately want to be a good one.
I've always wanted to be a good one.
I can't connect with people in the way that others do, I can't feel like others feel. But, I am a part of them.
My son is my peer. He is just like me. I'm such an asshole, but that doesn't mean he is an asshole. God I have to forgive myself, and I hope I can help him. There is so much pressure to get it right.
Today, as an act of executive functioning, I will work side-by-side. Side-by-side is how I want to work with my children. But I can't always! The financial pressures are so high. I am not emotionally able. What a fool! Just because you are a genius doesn't mean you can be a good parent. There is a skill that I just don't have. The assumption that being smart in so many areas means that you'll likely be smart in the area of parenting is ridiculous. I was a fool. That's okay though. I am where I am. I will do my best. I love my children.
How can I cultivate my children?
My mom was right about that, no doubt.
Do you know what I do on K?
I fight with myself. I reason with myself. I find a way to convince myself. I attempt to unify myself. My goal is to make my family happy in a moral way, without being Hursthouse-ianly marred.
If only we had a financial way out of this. I hope we do. I have to hope that I have time to fix this. I think we do.
Back to executive functioning. I am so worried that the stain of "autism" will follow my son around. I really do believe people are evil. But, a paper trail could be incredibly useful to him. It's a fork in the road, I tell you what. Trust is the problem. I realize that I'm not mentally stable enough to trust that much. If he were to get better, I believe the label would hold him back significantly. If he were to get worse, it might help him (it might not).
I wish I could hold my mom. I think she thinks I'm demonically possessed or something. I realize that's how she sees the world. I can't help her cross the bridge. It's too hard, she's too integrated into her perspective, and that just fucking sucks. Confabulate->Hallelujah! Enjoy the memory of what you had.
I need to be there with my children.
Perhaps that means I just shouldn't and can't be myself. I need to change for them. I need to walk with my daughter. I need to help my son believe in himself.
My wife has the unenviable task of dealing with insane people in her life. She is amazing. I love you. My wife's empathy is profound. I ache. My love for my wife makes me hurt. I realize how little I can do to make her happy, to give her what I can plainly see she deserves. This brilliant, kind, loving woman, salt of the Earth with a mighty mind, and I have nothing to give her. I have nothing to pay her for the chance to see her beauty, to have the chance to be with her... I'm literally trembling at the fact that I can't repay her. She is my god. I love you. I don't want to call you k0sh3k on my blog. I want to call you by your name. What if I take the site down?
Should I drop the pseudonyms?
How much should I trust people?
My wife cultivates and empathizes. I want to be more like her. She's real. She beautiful. How can I
My worry about the vault is that as I age, I lose my memories. If I don't write them down now, I eventually just won't remember them. I will even misremember. I want an accurate narrative. I still pursue the truth.
Can you take care of a house by yourself? Just do it. If you care about your life, then act like it in every way. All the way down.
Honesty is the best policy, right? Wait. what about in the face of evil? There are clear utilitarian problems with that.
I remember one of the few comments I made at the Murphy Institute. I'm clearly very skeptical, they see me as insane and breaking down. Be kind and stick to the truth. Always. Even when it isn't popular. Even when you don't like it. Stick to the truth.
I must be there for my children. I must be a good dad. That is my reason for existence. It isn't that I need their affirmation, it is that I simply seek for them to be happy. I want them to live a good life. I must pursue it for them. The Giving Tree, as always, points in the right direction.
I want to work alongside my children. I fail in my teaching. I've got to have hope that I can do better. I will do better.
My mission is to do my kids chores with them. I know it is theirs. Forget everything. Just do it with them. Let's try a more intuitive guttural approach. Thinking, clearly, is not enough. Paradoxical as it may seem.
That Reddit drug. We haven't tried not using it. We should try a week without Reddit. I'm considering Lentenizing my life here. The problem, of course, is that Reddit's signal-to-noise ratio is incredibly high for someone who wields it well. How do you balance this part of your life? I don't know. I know that I don't know. That's the first step, right? There is that Reddit zone or mode I enter into. It sucks me in. It is definitely a drug.
The problem is that Reddit often is extremely valuable to me. I don't know when or why it will be, as that is the nature of not knowing in the first place.
How do I know when my dependence upon something produces more value than the other options? It's the difference between the good kinds of dependences in our lives (water, oxygen, and so on and so forth on that spectrum) and addiction (definitionally the wrong option).
I need to more clearly separate judgment from condemnation. Make judgments, use them in your inferences (ah, you've already fucked up in many uncountable ways and kinds here), but refrain from condemnation. But what about evil? You can't ignore it.
I hope that I can bring order to the chaos of my vortex. I must climb out with the right structure to make my family happy. I don't want to infect them.
Don't forget, you should finish your work for your brothers. Finish your art.
I remember an economics professor of mine who didn't show up to a dinner party to talk about the term paper I wrote for my independent study on thinking about God and evil. I wonder why he never showed up. I'm sure there were a mix of reasons. I'm a very weird person, and furthermore, I often don't understand how other people reason or feel about the world or myself. Mixed signals don't help.
Sometimes I receive incredibly high praise from people, and he was one. We were going over some part of game theory and what he said just clicked with me, perfectly. I understood it, all the way down (or so it seemed at the time). It was powerful to understand it. It was part of the practice of what I called (and still do) metagaming. I couldn't contain myself, and I burst out into his lecture and explained the theory was trying to describe. I was so happy to talk about this thing that was awesome! He said it was the best explanation of the concept he had ever heard. Seriously. My friends in the class just stared at me with their mouths literally open. It was a kind of "wow" moment. So, I'm thinking my paper disappointed my professor tremendously. He probably saw me as mentally ill. Smart man, but not empathic.
Most of the economist philosophers I know ultimately are terrible brilliant people. They might be happy people, but they promote a point of view I don't respect: descriptive egoism without prescriptive attempts to fight against the evils which arise from that description. Ah, you think I'm asking them to be altruistic and to contradict themselves. In a way, yes. That is the only hope. They did not take this fundamental metaethical paradox seriously enough.
One of the most interesting aspects of being an academic is coming to understand just how much the people before us understood. Here we approach many postmodern problematics. One of them being that I can't even squeeze out the explanation of what those problematics exactly are. I feel the guttural shape of them, but I can't articulate it. I hate being unable to explain the thing I've seen. Why do I hate it?
Part of it is the inadequacy. Part of it is that I want others to see what I've seen. It could change the world in a positive way (although, it could be used for great evil too, depending on how it was wielded, of course).
Do I need others to see that I understand it? Kind of? I want to be empathized with. I don't need my dick stroked, but I want people to understand and appreciate me, to really get me (I can hear my father's emo-rant; I wish we could click together on this). It's part of our human nature that we care about what others think, of the world, of us, etc. The Good and The Right, appraisal and recognition respects, etc. These are all deeply intertwined. I cannot expect myself to give a Theory of Everything since I don't even have one for myself. I see the shapes and shadows that others do not though.
I think that is one of the most interesting aspects of Plato's Allegory. I think that the metativity, complexity, and bleeding-edge of my understandings of the world are really shadows for me. I can't describe it well enough to anyone, not even myself. My exploration of The Truth^^tm^^ is unfortunately locked into my phenomenological experience. I clearly do not know. I know "of" it, I know "around" it, I know the "feeling" of it, but I don't know "it." I can't see it. At least I am not alone. Many people take up this claim throughout history in different ways. We may not see eye to eye, but we are all metamodernly searching for the truth through the Rationally deconstructive postmodern fog in the hope of beholding Truth.
---
k0sh3k's Notes:
* It's all over the place.
* I think you are harder on yourself than you need to be.
* I think you are a good dad.
* I think a lot of guys struggle with all of this. They just aren't as open about it with their families.
* I think this social construction of the man of the house stalwart is just a lie that guys tell themselves in order create an image.
* It is honest.
* I think it is a good idea for you to work with the kids.
|customTable|k
|Food|Calories|h
|Sausage, Biscuits, and Bacon|600|
|Eggs|190|
|Taco|200|
|Salad|200|
|Hummus, Olives, Chips|400|
|Total|1590|f
!! How has your health been this week?
* 1uxb0x
** Other than headaches, fairly good.
** Haven't had as many allergies problems this week.
* j3d1h
** Allergies have cleared up quite a bit.
* k0sh3k
** Period complete.
** Really tired.
** Sleeping better, other than the cat yowling.
* h0p3
** My sleep pattern has been acceptable, not great.
** I've felt anxiety chest pains, but not depression from what I can tell.
** I've drunk more this week than I have in a long time. It wasn't a ton, but it was more than usual. See [[Diet Log]]
---
!! What happened last week? Have you been happy this past week? Why or why not?
* 1uxb0x
** Noticed a change in his happiness. He has been happier, except for Sundays.
** He has been more emotional overall, he says. Banged his head with his hands a couple times in emotional frustration.
*** Contradiction?
* j3d1h
** Happy about having done her schoolwork better.
** Sad that she needs to buy more stuff for needle felting. She wants to save her money for a new laptop.
*** Utility maximizer
* k0sh3k
** Finals was crazy.
** Kitten cuddle puddle was amazing. They were so cute.
** Had to fire someone, which was really rough.
** Really glad the semester is over.
** Enjoyed dressing up in her regalia.
*** Doesn't want her doctorate because she loves the sleeves in her pockets.
* h0p3
** Learned that Gary, [[k0sh3k]]'s boss, was a Mennonite minister. Very interesting.
** I got a ton of work done. It was a very productive week across the board.
** I've been more programmatic on my wiki, and I'm still adjusting to it.
** Overall, I feel quite happy.
---
!! What is a positive fact or compliment we can say about each person in the family?
* 1uxb0x
** You are very loving. You always seem to think the best of people. That is a very cool trait to have.
** You are forgiving, which is something I am not.
** Played well in Magic, and doing better in school work.
*** Did better than his sister thought he would.
* j3d1h
** You chose to sacrifice for your brother. You did the right thing, even when you knew it meant you would have to do more work because of it. I think that shows integrity.
** You have a very good grip of your emotions. You are stoic, and even when you are unhappy, you find a way to bounce back.
** You are very funny, and you aren't a crybaby.
* k0sh3k
** You are the rock of the family. You hold us together while we change, even under enormous pressures.
** You are the kindest person in the house.
** You are very forgiving in schoolwork.
* h0p3
** I try to remember to give my kids money for allowance.
** My wife likes my blunt honesty. She doesn't have to wonder if there is a difference between what I'm saying and what I'm actually thinking.
** My wiki is taking a lot more shape. It is awesome.
---
!! What will you do this week?
* 1uxb0x
** Cheer himself up when he isn't happy.
** Try picking up the guitar.
* j3d1h
** Try and make sure she gets ethernet to her room. She wants it.
* k0sh3k
** Going through all the paper files at work. Shred that vast majority of them.
** Getting a new washer and dryer on Friday.
* h0p3
** Want to finish my brother's art pieces.
** Find help on Friday for moving the washer and dryer.
** Borrow the dolly or buy one.
** Prepare the RPi.
** Get my other presents ready.
!!General Notes
* Monday through Friday will be standard schedules. No bootcamps. No vocational Fridays. Just get the regular pattern down.
* You've not been doing your morning routine so well, and part of the reason for that is because you've not been finishing your dishes on time. You need to make sure that you have your chores done in a timely manner.
* [[1uxb0x]] needs to get up in the morning and start his day immediately.
* We had one hiccup day.
---
!!j3d1h:
* Review past week:
** Research Skills: Cosmetology
*** Fell behind considerably in this subject.
** Math: Singapore Math
*** Put dates on each page of your notebook.
*** Completed 9 pages.
** Writing: 250 word count in her wiki
*** Didn't know what to write on (confabulation).
** Vocational Theory: Commenting on Algorithms and Data structures written in Python
*** Completed one program and understand one other, but haven't commented.
** Vocational Practice: Applied Computer Science
*** Fixed mom's memory problem, very neat hack
*** Completed backup script
** Reading: Ethics Toolkit
*** Done with the 4th large section
** Social Studies: Khan Academy - World History
*** Zoroastrianism, Achaemenid Empire, Alexander the Great, Romans (pretty badass, she says)
** Spanish
*** Started on something new: time.
* Plan next week:
** Research Skills: Cosmetology
*** Continue doing the 100 years videos
*** Actually practice. Put together an outfit. Take a picture and develop a catalog. See and think about your transforming aesthetic. Build a fake outfit online with links. Build concepts and ensembles in your head. Think about your fashion style.
** Math: Singapore Math
*** Keep rocking through it.
** Writing: 250-word count in her wiki
*** Have an idea bag for writing prompts.
** Vocational Theory: Commenting on Algorithms and Data structures written in Python
*** Make sure to post you it to your wiki every day.
** Vocational Practice: Applied Computer Science
*** Setup backup scripts for the family, except dad.
*** Measure for an ethernet cord
*** Make the USB backup script. Look for one first.
** Reading: Ethics Toolkit
*** Will attempt to finish the book this week.
*** If you don't know what to read for any reason, then read from plato.standford.edu
*** Move onto: Little House in the Big Woods
** Social Studies: Khan Academy - World History
*** Kick ass, take names, etc.
** Spanish
*** Keep it up.
---
!!1uxb0x
* Review past week:
** Research Skills: Curation
*** Doing well on finding links for studying skills.
** Math: Life of Fred - Cats
*** Finished Cats, yay!
** Writing: 150-word count in his wiki
*** Doing fine. Keep it up.
** Vocational Theory: Core Construction Curriculum
*** Banging through. Just fine.
** Vocation Practice: Redstone
*** Didn't build OR gate
*** Did learn about the command block.
** Reading: Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde
*** Enjoyed it. I saw him read it. He can't seem to remember what he read.
** Social Studies: Khan Academy - World History
*** Did way better this week.
** Language Arts: JacKris Books
*** Not so great.
* Plan next week:
** Research Skills: Curation
*** How to stay on task.
*** How to focus.
*** Ways to make sure you understand what you're reading. i.e. improving reading comprehension.
** Math: Life of Fred - Dogs
*** Starting on Dogs
** Writing: 150-word count in his wiki
*** Links don't count in your word count.
** Vocational Theory: Electricity Demystified
*** Look things up. If you don't understand, then research it online.
** Vocation Practice: Redstone
*** Build OR gate (before everything else)
*** Tell me why there is a "0" at the end of your command line
*** Learn more about command blocks.
** Reading: Fairy Tales from the Brothers Grimm
*** Bang it out. =)
*** Write about your reading.
** Social Studies: Khan Academy - World History
*** Make sure you do the full half hour.
** Language Arts: JacKris Books
*** Make sure you do it for the full half hour.
* Great writing on the wiki, brilliant conceptual branch in "Moral fluency"
* This is the best wiki week I've seen from you.
* Consider a summary bot.
* Learn how to link to your wiki.
* Consider putting dates in the titles of posts that should have them.
* I'd like to see your work done about or for your classes posted on your wiki.
* Set aside an hour a day to talk to yourself, to create, to digest, to explain, etc.
* [[ARAM Compositions]]
** I started this to answer a question my daughter asked me about ARAM.
* [[ARAM]]
** Moving ARAM content to its own tiddler was a good idea. It's better to have to click more often. The search bar can help me find what I need.
* [[2017.05.06 - h0p3's Log]]
** I'm pleased to have a happy thing to write about. I've realized that h0p3's log is about writing when I'm emotional in general, not just negative emotions but also positive.
* [[2017.05.06 - Link Log]]
** I really need to consider categorizing these at this point. Some of this is "one-off" use content that you watch once and forget. Some of this is collectible. Some of this requires digestions. And there are some in between. I feel bad just grouping them all together.
* [[2017.05.06 - Wiki Review Log]]
** I talked to my family about these. In my explanation of them, I kind of convinced myself more of their use. There is a weird way in which talking about my wiki to other people can help me understand my wiki. There are limits to having a conversation with myself, I suppose. It makes sense, as fresh perspectives, even in trying to empathize with other perspectives, will have different limits.
* [[2017.05.06 - Diet Log]]
** Probably eating too much. Good thing we bought more vegetables today.
* [[2017.05.06 - Russian Intervention in French Elections]]
** Edits. I'd like to see more in this section.
* [[2017.04 - Realpolitik Speculation]]
** Oh yeah, I forgot to do this in my monthly audit. I think I forgot a couple others. I need to comb through it again.
|customTable|k
|Food|Calories|h
|Pear|100|
|Apple|100|
|Mandarins|105|
|Tacos|400|
|Ice Cream|350|
|Sausage|125|
|Tomato Juice|50|
|Hummus, Chips, Olives|350|
|Tikka Masala|700|
|Total|2280|f
!! How is your health? Daily routine?
Doing fine. I slept terribly last night, but this is as it always is with DCK. I will sleep quite well tonight. k0sh3k is also very sleepy. We stayed up late (11:15) to finish our family meeting last night (although, I couldn't sleep until about 3:00, and even then only half-brainededly). Everyone was sleepy, including the children.
---
!! What happened? How do you feel about it? What made you feel this way? Does it make you happy or unhappy? Why or why not?
Despite being a long day yesterday, it was a wonderful day. I really enjoyed bonding with my family. My children have been asking for a while to play a game with me. I brought out the magic cards and taught them. I've given MUC to 1uxb0x and Affinity to j3d1h. I talked about my history with these cards, what they meant to me, what it would take to learn to play it, etc. It was a blast for us all. I ended up playing different decks against them to give them a quick sampling. My favorite game was with 1uxb0x since I decided to play MWC against his MUC. It was truly an epic control vs control matchup.
---
!! Can you better explain what happened? Do you have a technological, philosophical, empathic, or redpilled story to tell about the phenomenon? Clarify the narrative you just told yourself.
DCK has been quite effective. I'm trying to make my children's lives easier and more interesting by integrating myself more directly into their lives. This is a lot easier when I am not responsible for holding them accountable. When I can just be their friend, it is miles easier for us all, more productive, and we're all happier.
I've been doing the kitchen with my kids. While they can and even perhaps should do it themselves, this model seems to work better in many ways. I want to be side-by-side with them.
Honestly, I have no idea if they want to play magic with me. I'm not always very fun to play games with. I gave them what they asked for, or so it seems. Perhaps they are asking for something else. We will clarify it.
---
!! What are you going to do about what happened?
Enjoy my time with my family, particularly while I still have it.
* An interesting explanation of metamodernism (has more of a material/psychological component to it than a purely philosophical one) - https://www.reddit.com/r/PostPoMo/comments/69vg85/wtf_is_metamodernism_1/
* Alt-Left/Alt-Woke Manifesto - http://tripleampersand.org/alt-woke-manifesto/
* Not sure if I linked this before, but I think it will be a classic video "Millenials Don't Stand a Chance" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARDfbMJpMqQ
* The pure sanity from Mozilla is just overwhelming - https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2017/05/08/next-10-days-critical-internets-future/
* Discussion on Robotic automation and employment on hackernews - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14290626
* I've read and bookmarked this several times, and it's worth looking at again and again - http://metamoderna.org/youre-not-metamodern-before-you-understand-this-part-2-proto-synthesis-2?lang=en
* Fascinating user on Reddit - https://www.reddit.com/user/ProjectVeritasPO
** Related to an interesting site as well - http://projectveritas.com/
* Heartbreaking irony that white middle class support Trump - https://www.thenation.com/article/trumpism-its-coming-from-the-suburbs/
* Despite being known for propaganda, it must still be inspected. Trump and Pence seem implicated in Flynngate; hello Paul Ryan POTUS? - http://shareblue.com/sally-yates-was-fired-the-trump-fired-sally-yates-the-day-she-offered-evidence-flynn-was-compromisedday-she-invited-trump-admin-to-review-evidence-showing-flynn-was-compromised/
* The Student Loan Crisis continues - http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-05-07/crisis-has-become-pandemic-system-collect-defaulted-student-loans-no-longer-function
* I'm so glad there are sane people who can at least appreciate why our modern Science mascots aren't the best representatives - https://np.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/67675m/neil_degrasse_tyson_science_deniers_in_power_are/dgoftnv/
* Manchild Trump hitlist - https://www.axios.com/how-trump-advisers-talk-about-the-president-like-hes-a-child-2393867823.html
* Psychology and Economics, brothers in understanding the human mind, have so much unreplicable "science" in common - http://ponderwall.com/index.php/2016/02/05/global-warming-of-academia/
* Being human and philosophy towards death qua global warming - https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/11/10/learning-how-to-die-in-the-anthropocene/?_r=0
Today was not productive at all. We had tons of students streaming in, and our teacher had us oscillate between our actual work in the classroom and looking like we were doing something in the shop. We can't do anything in the shop with kids in there. It's all grinding and welding, which they can't be there for. Hence, it was a waste of time. We also didn't do much at all in the classroom. We studied for an exam. I was ready (or as ready as I was going to be) for the test by 11:00. I basically was forced to wait until 2:00 to take the exam. I did very poorly, 82. My teacher saw my face and told me not to worry about it. He said it was just pride, and went back to his old story about being in college, where someone was happy to get a C. The problems I missed on the exam were very poorly worded, failing to match the books vocabulary and main points on these sections. Only two of us even passed, Chris and I.
We did a bit of work on the simulator. We put the flanges on, but that's about it.
I did get to socialize with the guys some. It went better today.
I asked Luke if he would come help on Friday. He said he would. I need to ask the teacher for the time off or the ability to leave early. I also need to make sure we can borrow the dolly. Furthermore, I need to find a way to dump our old stuff. Luke has a truck. This will be useful to us.
I was reminded that I forgot to do some of my monthly audits. I suppose monthly audits can be spread across the month. I'd like to do it in a timely manner though. There is something useful about taking in the big picture all at once.
* [[2017.05.07 - Wiki Review Log]]
** I have yet another happy thing to write about today in [[h0p3's Log]]. I'm glad I have clarified what I'm doing in it.
* [[2017.05.07 - k0sh3k's Wiki Log]]
** I'm really trying to help k0sh3k start using this tool. I think it will be incredibly useful to her and to us. I think it will make her an even better role model for the kids, and I think it will enable her to see how to help them succeed with this tool as well.
* [[2017.05.07 - j3d1h's Wiki Log]]
** Arguably, she has made the largest effort in hers. I'm pleased to see it. Give it a year, and it could be an excellent wiki for a person of any age.
* [[2017.05.07 - 1uxb0x's Wiki Log]]
** He's doing well with what he has. He's growing and improving. I need to continue to encourage him.
* [[2017.05.07 - Family Log]]
** This is my favorite iteration of the [[Family Log]] so far. We're not only better at completing it, but it has evolved into having the right sorts of questions. The compliments/positive comments section went well this time.
* [[2017.05.07 - Diet Log]]
** I actually went out of my way to eat. DCK makes it so I avoid it without even thinking about it. Par for the course.
* [[Homemade Maxims, Phrases, etc.]]
** My daughter came up with "moral fluency" in her wiki. It sparked a neat conversation. I think it's a brilliant phrase for an 11-year-old. Both my children, in many ways, are miles ahead of where I was at their ages. A decade from now, there will be several topics they will be able to speak about/engage in that I will never be able to do even if I tried. That pleases me.
* [[2017.05.07 - Homeschooling Log]]
** This went so smoothly. When k0sh3k handles discipline our lives are better. I still offer reasons and explanations for why and how they've done something wrong, but I don't have to be angry about it. It's far more constructive across the board.
** Progress was obvious. The structure maybe isn't perfect yet, but it is improving.
** The general notes section was useful. Perhaps I need a general notes section per child as well. I will contemplate it more.
* [[2017.04 - Homeschooling Log]]
** I forgot to write an audit of this month. IIRC, there are a few others I need to handle.
* [[The Perfect ARAM Champion]]
** Clearly, I need to think more about the question.
* [[2017.05.07 - DCK Meditation]]
** I'm leaving the grammar, syntax, structure, etc. as is. I think it is important to preserve the nature of this thing to some extent.
** I'm glad that k0sh3k reviewed it and gave me her comments. It is time that she plays a more active role in shaping me. For quite a while, it was really just me with her support for whatever I thought was best.
|customTable|k
|Food|Calories|h
|Apple|100|
|Pear|100|
|Mandarins|140|
|Tikka Masala|400|
|Banana|100|
|Cole Slaw|200|
|Beans|100|
|Pulled Pork Sandwich|450|
|Chicken Sandwich|400|
|Apple Cobbler|150|
|Ice Cream|225|
|Cookies|250|
|Total|2615|f
* Bye Feli...Comey. This is huge. He's an asshole with at least a modicum of integrity in appearance, but Trump's reasons (and his puppetmaster's reasons) for this are disgusting - https://www.reddit.com/r/esist/comments/6a8if8/breaking_trump_has_fired_james_comey_per_sean/
** Also: https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/6a8jsf/megathread_fbi_director_comey_fired/?utm_content=title&utm_medium=hot&utm_source=reddit&utm_name=frontpage
* TPP revival, fuck me - http://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/08/trump-calls-it-a-disaster-but-top-experts-are-saying-tpp-might-still-happen-without-him.html
* k0sh3k pointed this link out to me, Ethereum controlled decentralized VPN tunneling network - https://mysterium.network/
* Yates continues to destroy. Godspeed, even if you are an evil human, I hope you succeed in this endeavor - https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2017/05/08/sally-yates-demolishes-white-house-defenses/?utm_term=.01b61e665217&tid=sm_tw
* Voter Suppression claim, disturbing as usual - https://www.thenation.com/article/wisconsins-voter-id-law-suppressed-200000-votes-trump-won-by-23000/
* A smidgen less commie hate in Cali - http://www.sacbee.com/news/state/california/article149393519.html
* I am always amazed to see even some otherwise rational-appearing Leftists opposed to freedom of speech - https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateCommunism/comments/69z94c/why_the_disdain_for_and_mistreatment_of_free/
We were fairly productive today. Chris and I finished off an entire leg, including an elbow. We also corrected for Mel and Nash's mistake by minimizing the takeout of the flange on the end to almost nothing. I did the vast majority of the tacking. I used very light tacks to mount, and then I passed over it for 1" tacks that will hold it permanently.
It was a frustrating day though. Getting everything how we wanted wasn't easy. I wish we had more practice before jumping into it. That said, this second leg went quickly enough, and it looks clean. The teacher was fine with it.
Luke decided to spend his time completely welding our first leg, which prevented us from throwing the elbow on it. The welds were ugly, but even the tacks were ugly before Luke did his work. The teacher wasn't happy about it, and part of it was because the way Luke welded may have warped the flanges. The teacher said he's never actually seen them warp though. I think he just wants to talk down to Luke though.
We will be lucky to have this completed before the end of the week. It was a larger project than I anticipated.
I told the teacher I would be leaving early on Friday, and I told him Luke would be helping me.
* [[2017.05.08 - Link Log]]
** Tiny edits.
* [[2017.04 - k0sh3k's Wiki Log]]
** I finally added an audit. I haven't much to say. I hope I will eventually have more to say in these audits.
* [[2017.04 - 1uxb0x's Wiki Log]]
** Audited.
* [[2017.04 - j3d1h's Wiki Log]]
** Audited.
* [[2017.05.08 - Wiki Review Log]]
** I'm realizing that parts of my wiki may just remain untouched. I need to be okay with that. I can't expect every loose end to be tied. This is, again, a shotgun approach. Let whatever sticks on the wall stick on the wall, and let the rest of the pieces fall where they may.
* [[2017.05.08 - h0p3's Log]]
** I've been helping the kids more directly. We played some magic each day too. I think j3d1h doesn't enjoy it so much. I think she's expecting higher praise.
* [[2017.05.08 - Pipefitting Log]]
** Minor edits.
* [[2017.05.08 - Diet Log]]
** Forgot to add it up. Done.
* [[Playing Life Like a Video Game]]
** I need to think more about this since this has become a kind of mantra for me.
|customTable|k
|Food|Calories|h
|Wrap|350|
|Nuts|100|
|Electrolytes Sports Drink|130|
|Pears|200|
|Chocolate|125|
|Asparagus|90|
|Cabbage|80|
|Pork Chops|600|
|Salad|150|
|Ice Cream|250|
|Total|2075|f
!! How is your health? Daily routine?
My sleep schedule takes a while to stabilize after DCK. I'm feeling more anxiety, but my depression is at least held in check with my weekly dose. Overall, I feel very productive. I felt sick today though, and I think it was because of what I've eaten. I have to admit, I've not felt well after eating Tennessee-style pulled BBQ for the past 3-4 times. I may just avoid it, even though I love the taste. It wasn't worth it today, I'll tell you that.
---
!! What happened? How do you feel about it? What made you feel this way? Does it make you happy or unhappy? Why or why not?
A couple days ago my mother-in-law, [[R]] sent me some text messages. She's been on the lookout for a dryer for us (she is a gem). She found someone who had a washer and dryer would drop it off for us, one of her parishioners. This person is coming on Friday before we leave for my brother's hosted family reunion.
---
!! Can you better explain what happened? Do you have a technological, philosophical, empathic, or redpilled story to tell about the phenomenon? Clarify the narrative you just told yourself.
I'm extremely grateful to have a mother-in-law looking out for us. We need help. I'm so glad I don't have to worry about burning down the house. Luke is also coming over to help me move it. Help comes when you least expect it sometimes.
---
!! What are you going to do about what happened?
I need to find a way to thank these three people. It is helpful at a time when we couldn't help ourselves (when we need it most). I need to find a dolly and a place to dump our old appliances. I also need to have everyone prepare to leave. I want to pack the car and leave immediately after the washer and dryer have been taken care of.
* Beautiful history video about human existence - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuCn8ux2gbs
* Disgusting tool for face recognition - http://sightcorp.com/
Today was another frustrating day. I didn't sleep well because my stomach pains kept me up during the night. Whatever was in the BBQ last night didn't sit well with me. I was able to get up easily enough though, so I did sleep. I spent about 15 minutes of my morning just exploding on the toilet though; I had the nauseous shits all day. My wife needed a ride, and I was already running late. I took her to work, and then I drove to mine. I was 3 minutes late, and literally was walking to the table with my teacher for attendance. If I were any later, I'd have been tardy (which my teacher is not very charitable about). Close call.
Mel and Nash decided to go "study" for a test all day. They just sat there like bums. Lazy fucks. They probably would have hindered our work anyways though, so I guess I'm thankful they didn't want to practice. One of the new guys was "no call, no show." The other new guy, let's call him Robert, had nothing to do. So, he was directed to help Chris and I. Robert's dad is an ironworker, so Robert had tons of extra gear. Later in the day, after lunch, he even generously gave me a new pair of welding gloves, which I've desperately needed. I thanked him multiple times. I think he gave them to me because I've been teaching him a lot. I had to reëxplain takeout math to him since our teacher really does a poor job of it (I tried to walk him through our buttweld takeouts [at a high level] as well). I'm trying to do what I wish others would have done for me. Robert is going to fly through this course in a way that I didn't have the opportunity to do. He's smart, was going to school for architecture until his GF got pregnant (so, maybe not wise). I like him, at least for now.
In any case, Chris, Robert, and I worked on the simulator. We put the final elbow on. I was the primary tacker today, although I let Robert do some 4th tacks (because I wasn't worried about mistakes there), and it went smoothly enough. We then moved to a third table for the long top piece of the simulator. The pipes and fitting went on lickity-split. We used the same method, end-of-the-pipe minus takeouts to find where to place the sockolets. It was going swimmingly, or so we all thought. Unfortunately, Chris (and ultimately I) made a large mistake here.
I had used the wrap around and tape measure to mark the center of the sockolet mounting areas on the pipe. We mounted two of the sockolets. For the third sockolet, Chris decided I had marked the wrong side of the pipe. So, he marked the opposite side and mounted it there. Being tired and sick, I decided to just go with the flow. Normally, I check through their reasoning. I should have, and it was my fault that I didn't. This mistake did not present itself until much later in the day though.
Chris then made a second mistake. Chris cut pipe for the sockolets and tried to tack it himself. This burned a hole in the pipe. I had burned two holes that day already, but I was able to fill it in using an extra rod (kinda like TIG welding) to give me a starting point to work from between the bevels. This was a hole straight through pipe though. I thought we'd be able to fix it, so we just moved on. I knew I was going to retack and fix the welds across the entire piece anyways.
Also, we had a ton of trouble getting the pipe turned in the smaller vise, and we ended up resorting to pipewrenches to twist it into place. It was quite frustrating.
We mounted the extension pipe on the T, and it was clean. We put the flange on it, etc. Everything was level enough.
Chris and Robert decided to take a break while I did the welding. I got everything set, but I absolutely could not fill that hole. I did everything I could. It was a very thin 1" pipe. We talked about it, then our teacher came by. At first, he said we could just MIG it, but on second thought he told us to just cut the pipe and remount it. So, we did. Chris was unhappy that this mistake had to be fixed this late in the game. He cut it, and I had Robert clean it up. I did all the tacking from then on. It went fast enough.
So, we thought the top piece was done. We took the jackstands out and had them sit between the ends of the legs coming horizontally off the vise-tables. We moved the pipe into position. We did some work to get it level. It was only then that we looked at it and realized that I had been correct about the positioning of the sockolet in the first place. Fuuuuuuuuuuuck.
We thought about it, and the teacher walked by. After we said we screwed up, he smiled and said he was wondering when we would figure it out (although, I'm not convinced he actually knew from some of his body language, word choice, and inability to target the thing we did wrong with his eyes). After the explanation, he saw it. It had to be fixed. So, we took the top back to the table (heavy monster), and Chris cut it from the sockolet. I did the grinding to clean it up since I'm far and away the best grinder in the shop. Even my teacher's hands are too shaky to do it as well as I do. It's like sculpting!
So, Chris gets does the fit-up, which I thought would be pretty hard considered the sockolet itself wasn't cleaned up much. He did a good job, or so we thought. I 1-inch tacked it. Everything was good to go. Then I looked again, and I said, "Nooooooo!" I looked at Chris, and he knows my look by now. He knew something was off. I threw my hands up in the air and just laughed. He took a look and realized that we forgot to two-hole it. Goddamnit. So, he cut the piece off again. We two-hole it, and I do the tacks all over again.
By this time, we are worn out. If it could go wrong, it did, or so it felt like. Anyways, we move the top portion of the simulator into place yet again. I eventually convince them that we need an actual vice-stand in the middle since we have to keep it from turning. I get one, we mount it. We then use our jackstands to try and level the top pipe out. We also got the legs all nice and level off the vice-tables. I realized that our jackstands for the top were literally lifting our vice-stand off the ground, making it useless. I realized that our vice-stand was ultimately just a centimeter or two shorter than the vice-tables. I laughed. It took a while to convince Chris, but I did. I explained that we needed to use two more vice-stands since it was the only way to get the legs and top on the same level plane. He didn't want it to be true, I think because moving the extremely heavy tables and readjusting all the pipe is a pain in the ass. So, we did it.
The teacher came by and saw that I was using a pipewrench to align the pipes inside the vices. He gave me a thumbs up for the "smarter not harder" trick I was using and showed me a few other wrenches worth using for this. The teacher told me to come get him when we were ready to check that the pipes were legitimately squared against each other.
We spent some time moving tables and adjusting. It took a while to get everything level and into place. I got it as square as I could by hand. Then the teacher had Mel and Nash come out of the classroom to watch what he was going to teach us: the 3-4-5 method (also the 6-8-10). Classic triangle. Just mark 3 feet off from the center of the elbow, and 4 feet in the other direction. Mark them very carefully. Make sure to find the very center-top of the pipe. He brought out an expensive instrument for this that had a hole-punch with a level on it that had legs which went around the pipe. He showed us another way too. We took a square and torpedo level, and I checked the book for the OD of 3" pipe, which is 3.5". Half of that is 1.75". We put the square against the side and leveled the top. I marked the 1.75" measurement of the leveled square which gave us the center-top of the pipe. These marks were on our 3 and 4-foot marks respectively. We then measured point to point and hit 5'-1/8". The teacher said that is good enough (and it would have to be given the fact that he just eyeballed the center of the elbows for measuring the 3 and 4).
It was late, and so we called it quits. Tomorrow we'll probably check the alignments again using the 3-4-5 method, and I will tack the pipes. Sucks that I have to do 2G and overhead on these though. It's fucking hard. Perhaps we may even get around to mounting it into the ground. We'll see.
Recently John Oliver put up a site, http://gofccyourself.com, which redirects you automagically through the now labyrinthine public FCC feedback site, https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/proceedings?q=name:((17-108)). A few things happened. Our now gutted FCC organization claims they were the target of a DDOS when Oliver called on the masses during his show to write to the FCC about the need to protect net neutrality, which Trump is, of course, targeting along with Republicans, media companies, and data carriers.
ISPs/carriers, in particular, have been in full image-shaping mode. The lies are disturbing. Sometimes I find it hard to believe that anyone could be that selfish. Given their past direct attacks on net neutrality, indirect attacks through shaping public opinion and even the appearance of that opinion to the public are clearly in their playbook as well.
Of course, the DDOS may or may not be true. We've not seen logs, and I'm still skeptical that they are competent enough to handle that many requests a second (even though they should). Even more skeptically, if I don't see it as ignorant incompetence, it may even be a form of malice that purposes attempt to silence the dissenters from participating. Another part of me thinks that it easily could be true. Those who don't want net neutrality, the wealthy and powerful, could also pay for such a thing.
I will say this, it is clear that the FCC and several public forums have been astroturfed in recent days over the issue of net neutrality. The 130k posts from bot spamming are almost too obvious, but also appear to use false and/or stolen identities. Gross. Captchas would be nice.
I am not convinced this is standard online alt-right at all. Although, I've seen there astroturfing and brigading aplenty. The tongue-in-cheek attempt to spam "appropriating my culture" alt-right backlash is almost funny. /r/The_Donald, Voat, and 4chan are still actively trolling. This FCC "DDOS" and spamming, however, doesn't feel like them at all.
Someone had a large database of personal information to spam the FCC. There are serious players, like ISPs, at work here.
I can only assume this botspam will be used as "evidence" that the American public ultimately is anti-net neutrality, even when it isn't (yet). It will be used to delegitimize pro-net-neutrality opinions. Republicans are more than willing to lie to our faces (not that Democrats are much better), but giving them half-truths arms them with tangible mind-weapons.
Ultimately, the Luddites and retards in our country will take up the anti-net-neutrality sheeple stance. You've seen how much of an indicator education is as a predictor of where people stand on political, social, and ethical issues (and even who they'll vote for POTUS). I desperately seek for everyone to be fully functioning citizens. If they are voting alongside me, they need to understand the world as best as possible. But, no, computers are scary, I don't understand them, they've taken our jobs, and thus they must be evil.
I detest ignorance and malice.
The Mad King, Donald Trump, fired FBI Director James Comey yesterday because he lacked loyalty to Trump and from a recommendation of the "self-recused" Jeff Sessions (who may also try to save his own ass and not simply Trump's). It was a stunning flash of another smoking gun yet again echoing an obstruction of justice move from the Watergate playbook.
At least three people related to the investigation of Trump's administration's ties to Russia have been fired so far. Trump's administration has been scrambling to provide even the semblance of a justified rationale for this, and yet he still survives. Will he be able to clean house before justice is brought against him and his administration? Will this firing only backfire on Trump? Is his reign spiraling out of control, and is it the beginning of the end (is "it happening?")? Ultimately, will we take Trump down like we did Nixon? That has been the question for many months now.
In a haunting PR moment, Trump hosted Henry Kissinger, Nixon's National Security Advisor, today to talk about Russia, among "other things." Surely this was half-planned, but I do not understand it. It is unclear the extent to which Trump's malice is impaired by his incompetence, particularly when he is surrounded by some extremely intelligent and resourceful psychopaths. One exception being Spicer, who hid in the bushes and refused to comment until the lights were turned off.
Trump has a lot of shady people working for him, including his own private praetorian security force. Obviously, he cannot trust the SS because he doesn't think he owns them through their salaries (and whatever else). One of his private Imperial Guards was ordered to hand-deliver Comey's termination letter (no mention of Russia in this letter either, but the forced "not under investigation" on "three separate occasions" hovers between cute and disgusting) in a public setting, which I take to be an attempt to humiliate Comey (Comey, apparently, learned of it from The T.V.). It is very much a retarded powerplay PR stunt that Trump would pull.
Chillingly, it is my opinion that Trump (not by his own hand) has several versions of Nixonian "Plumbers" working on his behalf as well, some in the obvious open and others in more hidden layers (and we're not just talking about Congress here). While there may be more than one Grand Jury considering the evidence and merit of a case against Trump's administration and friends, it seems quite clear that the DoJ is at least partially in Trump's pocket. Trump may simply appoint yet another yes-man lackey; his current temporary pick is also under investigation (lol). The rumor mill has some very sad predictions.
Comey, apparently, sought more funding for the investigation. He likely knows quite a bit about the story. So, perhaps Comey may choose to go down swinging, and the intelligence community may join him (/fingers-crossed). He has been invited to testify in a closed session as a private citizen. However much Comey deserved to be fired for a number of reasons, including because he fucked up the Clinton investigation and due to his truly shitty handling of the Russian problem (which we've been worrying about even in the primaries), we must support him if he goes after Trump and Trump's administration.
Let us see if the remotely saner members of Congress will listen to or use him instead of silencing him. McConnell and the RNC, of course, do not favor an independent prosecutor or investigation. I suspect Paul Ryan has more of hand in Trump's affairs, election, and possibly the Russian connection than many suspect (It's a public fact that he and McConnell knew of the Trump-Russia connection long ago, and Trump was only "accepted" as the real candidate after Paul gave his blessing). The line of succession doesn't make me happy, to say the least.
Even if things go our way, the worry is that Trump, the manchild clown he is, will react with irrational hostility to being held accountable. Trump may or may not be able to narcissistically bully his way out of indictment and impeachment. We can only hope that Trump will not distract the dumber swathes of the American public with a false flag terror attack or foreign war. Autocracy lay on that path, particularly if the RNC plays political defense for him. But, even if he were to be impeached, there could a very destructive ragequit we must vigilantly prevent.
This is a constitutional crisis I've never seen the likes of before. A house divided cannot stand, but that doesn't mean the rest of us will survive the fallout.
* [[2017.05.09 - Link Log]]
** Minor edits
* [[2017.05.09 - Wiki Review Log]]
** I'd like to point out that I had very little to say about this. Am I "taking the easy way out?" Do I really have so little to talk about? Is this practice working? Sometimes it seems like it is really useful, and other times it feels like it could be pointless work. Ah, I'm still unsure.
* [[2017.05.09 - Diet Log]]
** Vegetables, yo?
* [[2017.05.09 - Pipefitting Log]]
** Minor edits. I really didn't say much in this log either. Am I losing my verbose touch?
|customTable|k
|Food|Calories|h
|Mandarins|105|
|Salad|40|
|Pork Chop|250|
|Cabbage|40|
|Apple|100|
|Fajitas|800|
|Salad|150|
|Strawberries|20|
|Salami|220|
|Total|1725|f
!! How is your health? Daily routine?
Not good. Last night was the worst night I've had in a long time (although, I did manage to sleep somehow?). My belly hurt all night. I sat somewhere between IBS and Food Poisoning in pain. It hurt.
Everything else is fine though.
---
!! What happened? How do you feel about it? What made you feel this way? Does it make you happy or unhappy? Why or why not?
I don't know what's causing it. I thought it was the BBQ. It may partially be that. I have another theory though. This week I've tried a new Ice Cream, and I've been feeling queasy every single day, with it ramping up.
---
!! Can you better explain what happened? Do you have a technological, philosophical, empathic, or redpilled story to tell about the phenomenon? Clarify the narrative you just told yourself.
The other possibility is anxiety from seeing my parents, which is generally what occurs. But, honestly, I don't think that's what it is. I'm much better at escaping thought loops, and I've not really felt it much in my everydayness. I've bigger fish to fry generally. That said, it may play a role.
---
!! What are you going to do about what happened?
I'm going to abstain from eating Ice Cream. I desperately hope I'm not becoming lactose intolerant.
* Police Officers who "believe" they detect substance use more accurately than urine and blood tests; sounds like a scam which allows them to target individuals and boost their quota numbers - http://www.11alive.com/news/investigations/the-drug-whisperer/437061710
* A lovely repository of Trump's Tweets - http://www.trumptwitterarchive.com/
Today was a peculiar and unproductive day.
Everyone was sent to the computer lab except Mel, Chris, and me. Mel wandered off to "study" for the test he has failed multiple times (which is really just a way for him to try and memorize the questions on the test, as he admits). Chris and I finished the alignment on the simulator, and I made the tacks. The overhead tacks sucked. But the 1G looked super clean for me (I was actually proud of them). I cleaned them up, and that was that.
Randy came over to deliver a hand-drawn forklift to my teacher. He asked about the books since he now needs to read them for his own class. I'll be bringing them to him next week.
The teacher can't find the right mounting hardware (and can't afford any more), so it is just sitting there. We'll see when we'll actually get to put it up.
The teacher then told us to go study. Fine with me. I read through the buttweld chapter, which is easily the longest we've ever had. There is much to cover. Several times I wished we had covered this content before we even began our buttweld project itself. That's okay though.
Mel couldn't stop talking. He's an idiot. I've stopped taking him seriously. I listen to him, but with the appropriate lens now.
We had another tour of school children paraded past us. Chris said it made him uncomfortable like he was a spectacle in a zoo. Essentially, he felt objectified. We talked about advertisements in schooling in this area, including public school buses and our own school (which has Trane and Snap-on shit everywhere). It was a long conversation about the function and nature of the school. Chris has his head on straight often enough. Poor guy.
We eventually got into politics. Chris is very levelheaded for lacking formal education. He understands the evil of humanity well enough though. I like that honesty in him. Mel, of course, was retarded. I think these people don't study political science, philosophy, or even follow the news because they don't believe it can really benefit them in the end. There is a kind of pragmatic rationality, in a sense, to sacrificing their citizenship. They could be right, but I think there is a deep moral flaw (failing to practice the golden rule) in their reasoning nonetheless.
The teacher grabbed me from the classroom to help him with his computer. He wanted to download a Youtube video. I found a site for him, ripped it, and copied it to his "zip" (USB) drive. He had another file he wanted to copy to the USB drive but didn't know how. I showed him. His computer illiteracy is shocking.
He hinted that what I was putting on the flash drive would be material we would later cover for the class. It was about the dangers of dropping tools. Seems dumb, but hopefully it will scare me straight into wearing a hardhat. Ultimately, I want a welderhood+hardhat+noise_reducer all-in-one.
I also asked if I could borrow a dolly since he was obviously in a decent mood to follow through on quid pro quo. He said yes, and went to a step further to say that the HVAC guys had an actual appliance dolly. He went with me to ask to borrow it (using his social capital on my behalf). They said yes. So, now I have the right tool for the job. Tomorrow, hopefully, we get to use it.
I went back to studying. Eventually, the teacher came in and pulled Chris and me out of the classroom to work on a 4-on-6 concentric support for buttweld black carbon steel pipe. We've never done this before. It was obvious he wanted to give us "something" to do. That's fine because we really needed something to do.
From what I've gathered, he has told the other guys individually that they will not be able to keep up with Chris and I. I'm thinking this quietly offended them (although, they would not admit it). It is just a fact though. They actively avoid doing practice/labor, and it makes it all the more frustrating when we have to work with them because they lack the basics to even be helpful. Furthermore, they avoid work by "studying" for tests. But, they are failing those tests. Eh, whatever. That is their choice.
Chris and I worked on the 4-on-6. We had to think about it for a bit since it has been a while since we've used the pipe fabricator's book (the dark blue one). It was fast enough though. We found the pieces (took some hunting to find a standard 4" pipe, since we didn't want extra thick walls to grind). I marked the 4, and then I went to figure out how to mark the 6 while Chris cut.
The teacher came by as he saw me thinking about the 6" pipe marks. I explained why I wanted to mark. He gave me a quizzical look. He is not convinced that I need anything more than the vertical line along the heel (if you were standing the fitting upon an outlet). I was struggling to draw this line. I gave him one idea since I had found a way to mark the center point alongside the very side of the pipe (same perspective), I could just measure 1/4" the way around the pipe's circumference. He felt that was more work than necessary. Instead, I used a square and just marked half the OD. The book and pipe didn't match up on the OD, so he told me to use the book (odd, imho). Remember, this is concentric, which means center to center. I think I need to draw that center line too. We could just level off the top of the support to get it "close." That's probably what we'll end up doing. If I was working with a larger pipe, or if I had to make it perfect, I think it would be important to find this center line. Matching the 4" support against 4 points gives us a precision that 2 points simply can't (3 is really the minimum to triangulate).
We'll probably finish it later.
Overall, it felt very unproductive. That's okay though. We hit it really hard yesterday. Maybe I should learn to enjoy slower days and not feel like I'm wasting my time. Sometimes I have too much, viciously, of that Go-go-go in me.
* [[2017.05.10 - Trump's Nixonian Firing of Comey]]
** Minor edits.
* [[2017.05.10 - Link Log]]
** Surprisingly few links. I'd like to point out that I missed a day of links as well. Sometimes you come home empty-handed after the hunt, eh?
* [[2017.05.10 - How the Trump Family Makes Money Off POTUS]]
** Ideabagging it.
* [[2017.05.10 - Astroturfing, Imageshaping, and Mass Manipulation]]
** I know to inspire hope in myself, lol. Realism, of course, is necessary to real hope.
* [[2017.05.10 - Wiki Review Log]]
** To answer my previous point, I just want to remind myself how my posting habits oscillate. This isn't pointless. It is the back-and-forth, to-and-fro, the bouncing between metanarrative and deconstruction which allows clarifying, restructuring, and finding more resilient answers to the shifting problems.
* [[2017.05.10 - h0p3's Log]]
** New hypothesis: Ice Cream is the problem.
* [[2017.05.10 - Pipefitting Log]]
** Sometimes rereading my [[Pipefitting Log]] from the previous day gives me excellent context. Sometimes it's a waste. I can't expect a perfect signal-to-noise ratio here. I also don't know what will be useful to me. The problem of not knowing what I don't know, etc.
* [[2017.05.10 - Diet Log]]
** Forgot to find the total.
|customTable|k
|Food|Calories|h
|Burger|1200|
|Fries|400|
|Pizza|700|
|Beer|125|
|Total|2425|f
I'm writing this a few days later. That's not my preference, but I think it is better to have a retrospective than nothing at all.
Friday was quite busy for me. I had spent my previous evening studying for the exam I wanted to take on Friday. When I got there, my teacher asked me if I still had to leave early. I said yes. He continued to ask questions about when I said by 10:00 or as early as possible. He said he'd give me the test asap.
I studied more. Everyone decided they would be taking the tests early as well. I was told by Mel and Chris that since I was leaving early that the teacher was likely going to let everyone out early. The teacher usually only does a full day when I'm there: like I'm the only reason he does his job. I will find out on Monday.
I took the test. This was the longest test we've ever taken in the class. I felt fairly comfortable with it. There were a couple questions I wasn't sure about, but that's okay. I believe I did a decent job. It is known to be a difficult exam, even for those who have been pipefitting for a while.
I gave Luke my information, and the teacher saw me. He realized that I had asked if Luke could leave early to help me. He told Luke that he could leave as well. Luke and I headed straight to the house. We basically didn't have to clean the shop at all.
Luke and I threw away the dead dryer, and we moved the old washer into my room (in case the newer one didn't work). We had to wait for a couple hours for the lady to actually deliver it. I was on a tight schedule since I wanted to leave as soon as possible to reach my brother's house before nightfall. That didn't go the way I wanted, but that's fine.
She showed up, and we quickly moved everything up into place. We tested the washer, it worked. The dryer, unfortunately, has a different electrical hookup. My brother says I need to do my research before I make changes. The amperage could be different, and that would be dangerous. Luke tried to fix it by pulling the ground off. Lol. A failure. We'll get there.
Afterward, we put the washer in his truck. Since it worked, he thought he'd find a home or use for it. Then we mounted the door, got something to drink, and then packed up and left. We arrived 2 hours later than I thought we would at my brother's house. It was a productive day, and it was a start to a good weekend.
|customTable|k
|Food|Calories|h
|Bacon|260|
|Eggs|220|
|Mushrooms|50|
|Chili|260|
|Pizza|800|
|Beer|125|
|Total|1715|f
!! How is your health? Daily routine?
Better. Ice cream clearly was tearing me up, and I'm glad I stopped eating it. I've not noticed the same from cheese, thankfully. I've not had the same sort of trouble sleeping or serious pain since then.
---
!! What happened? How do you feel about it? What made you feel this way? Does it make you happy or unhappy? Why or why not?
The whole family gathered today. We also saw my cousin (technically cousin-in-law, but frankly, I think of him as a brother grafted into my family) [[K]] last night. I like that man.
I was able to set up the RPi. I had difficulty connecting to the router from my laptop and went through a series of troubleshooting exercises (I could access the router admin console from my daughter's laptop, but it didn't operate nicely; it's an ISP router). My system logs did not point to anything wrong on my end (and I've connected before with this machine). I didn't find out what was wrong, although it magically started working. Persistence, I guess? Anyways, I got the RPi hooked up. I set it to DMZ on the router since I couldn't get forwarding to work (shit router). Hell, I couldn't even assign a static IP, yikes, even for the DMZ (I'd prefer to enforce it on the router rather than the RPi). The domain to reach my brother's house is dimbob.philosopher.life (although, I worry he has a dynamic IP, oddly). I made sure I could SSH into from the house, and Resilio sync is all set up; it can be managed from the internet. Even if I can't SSH, I have a backup solution through resilio (which pierces NATs beautifully) that automagically runs scripts for me (dangerous, I realize; perhaps I should set up with public key authentication). I'm glad I didn't install a DE; I can use it just fine without it. There's no reason to slow it down.
I was able to visit my youngest brother's apartment and his workplace. I'm glad I did. We talked. He sadly wants to continue working like a slave for these people (it was interesting to hear my brother's SO say the same thing later that evening), even though he claims he could make better pay working fewer hours at other restaurants in town. I told him to keep his eyes and options open. It was really good to see him. He has a ways to go (he said the night before that he felt it was a waste of his time coming over at 11:30 since we were going to sleep and he'd rather just drink and smoke at his place than stay). Today, I was able to set up his tiddlywiki, firefox extension, directory structure, and resilio sync for him, I picked up his domain https://antsmelody.life/, set up the web server and the rest of the resilio chain for him on my machines as well; everything should be set. I showed him how to use it, etc. I hope he will spend time journaling and talking to himself. I told him to feel free to ask my daughter or me if he had any questions on how to get something to work as he wanted on the wiki. He needs to be empathically compassionate towards himself. I think he hates himself. I wish I could give him a hug as I write this.
The beginning of the day went well. After lunch, my parents decided to attempt to argue about when we would meet up next year with the family. They clearly wanted it to be at their place (even dropping hints about the new furniture they bought for hosting us), and they refuse to even consider the reasons for why we don't want to go. They said that they would only come to my brother's house for a few hours on a single day and nothing more. There was a strong-arming component to it. We said we'd continue to meet at my brother's house, and this seemed best to everyone (except my parents).
They do not appreciate how their children are not in a season of life where we can a year in advance and guarantee it. They literally expect us to revolve around them. Unlike them, we don't have hundreds of thousands of dollars in the bank; we're fighting to survive. We are facing typical Baby Boomer psychopathy.
They took the children to buy clothes; it is a means of buying their grandchildren's love. Of course, afterward, they voiced their entitlement to my children multiple weeks out of the year. The fun and merriment stopped. They made it awkward. My father went on to accuse us of schooling our children 52 weeks out of the year like we are slave drivers. He clearly cannot contend with the fact that he was a shitty teacher/parent. As I said before, my success as a parent only serves to highlight their failures. Obviously, my children get several weeks off during the year. And, frankly, they did get a week off already with their grandparents this year.
He went on to say visiting us while our children were in school would only allow them to see our children for an hour. His pointed implication assumes that our children are doing schoolwork when my parents are visiting. Frankly, that is just not true. Our children don't do schoolwork on those days when we have visitors, including my brothers and cousins. There are many other days where we give them the day off as well.
My dad raised his voice slightly and was obviously perturbed. He ordered us to work it out since he was obviously not satisfied. Sometimes he is an entitled<<ref "1">> asshole; that is to say, he lacks rational justification for what he delusionally believes is owed to him. He does not understand the reality of Hohfeldian rights and duties which obtain. Mom sat silently as my abuser just continued (she is complicit).
That my parents think spending time with my children is as important for my children as education is a failure to understand the nature of the world my children are facing and what it means to flourish as a human being. I think my parents believe we should be revolving around them. They take "honor thy father and mother" in an extreme way.
The conversation awkwardly moved onto more pleasant things. My father then decided to tell me that my son had complained that he didn't want new clothes because he couldn't fit them into his drawers.<<ref "2">> My father went on to uncharitably and condescendingly tell me to make sure my son's drawers were clean. I think the foolish hypocrite does not remember what my life was like at that age and how poorly he parented. More importantly, he did not take the time to consider the possibility that my son has been working on this very problem; that we all have, with him. My father talks to me like I'm mentally handicapped. Granted, I definitely have significant psychic struggles, and breaking out of depression is very hard. I think he forgets what life was like when he was raising us. I think he is an abusive hypocrite who ultimately doesn't have our best interests at heart. It would be kinder and wiser of the man to keep his mouth shut if he doesn't know how to politely and empathically converse with his children.<<ref "3">>
---
!! Can you better explain what happened? Do you have a technological, philosophical, empathic, or redpilled story to tell about the phenomenon? Clarify the narrative you just told yourself.
It is important to recognize that my parents are highly skilled manipulators. They grew up with it, and it has been fundamental to their careers as pastors and missionaries. I think my parents are lucky to be invited to see us at all. They were abusive. This is us trying to build a friendship with them despite our history. They continue to ignore reality.
My parents clearly were unhappy with having to see us on anything besides their terms. They felt they should be worshipped as creators of their children in what is basically a lower form of the worship they expect their creator God deserves from all humans. They fail to empathize with those who don't hold the same religious point of view, and hence they do not appreciate the terms on which our relationship exists at this point.
I must contend with the fact that my parents are anti-intellectuals in certain respects. Sure, they value economics and HRD, and they previously had an interest in theology, biblical studies, and even evangelism in some respects (although that has waned as they've become increasingly Capitalist). They have lost their humanity in their psychopathy. They do not appreciate the struggle of being human outside of the scope of their narrow Christian lens; it limits their ability to empathize with others and meaningfully see the world through the eyes of others.
I believe they look at the educations their older children received and believe that "Liberal" (like a swear word) schools have poisoned their children's minds, turning their children away from Christian faith. They, of course, believe in memetic infections but are not open to the possibility that is they who are memetically infected. Ultimately, they do not support a heavy emphasis on the education and critical reasoning abilities of my children. They don't want what is best for my children. They think they do, but they don't actually.
---
!! What are you going to do about what happened?
I'm going to let them head back to Thailand and think about it. I will set it aside. I have much bigger fish to fry in my life right now. Their feelings which result from their psychopathy is their burden to bear at this point. My children's well-being and happiness come before all else.
It is not my fault that my parents behave the way they do. I'm not responsible for their inability to effectively compromise, empathize, or acknowledge their abusive and manipulative approaches and behaviors. In some respects, I must protect my children from them.
From now on, they will visit us. Hopefully, the power dynamics will be much improved by then, and maybe they will better appreciate the reality of our situations. I doubt our relationship will improve.
On a different note, I must not forget to send my brother the libgen URL. Furthermore, I need to send my other brother an invite to myanonamouse. I need to set up a VPN on the RPi and build ratio for him.
---
<<footnotes "1" "I mean this in common parlance sense here rather than in a formal philosophical way.">>
<<footnotes "2" "My son later told me that wasn't true. He claims his grandfather misunderstood him.">>
<<footnotes "3" "I'm sure he would not be able to handle his own quip: 'If you have nothing nice to say, then say nothing at all.'">>
* You should write more on your wiki
* I like your Home page
** Center your Link Bar on the bottom
|customTable|k
|Food|Calories|h
|Egg McMuffin|288|
|Egg McMuffin|288|
|Hashbrown|147|
|Coffee|50|
|Tea|90|
|Hot dog|200|
|Quinoa Chips|130|
|Salad|100|
|Salami|220|
|Mandarins|70|
|Pear|100|
|Bagel|400|
|Total|2083|f
!! How has your health been this week?
* 1uxb0x
** It's been okay. He's been accidentally running into things. Spatial reasoning/dexterity problems are common for growing children and autistic people.
** Has seen growth in his legs.
* j3d1h
** Allergies are gone. Feeling well.
* k0sh3k
** Had a headache during the storm.
** Very sore from sleeping in a bad bed this weekend.
* h0p3
** Have been very sick from eating ice cream. I stopped, and it cleared up.
---
!! What happened last week? Have you been happy this past week? Why or why not?
* 1uxb0x
** Happy to visit his uncle.
** Says he felt unhappy this week (however, it may be because he is feeling emotional right now).
** Upon further inspection, he decided the week was better than it initially seemed.
* j3d1h
** Held out from buying anything. She is saving. Resisted temptation like a boss.
** Had a great time this weekend.
** Happy about having new clothes to mix and match for outfits.
* k0sh3k
** It has been an awesome week. Got to go out to eat multiple times on her employer's dime.
** Had a great weekend
** Got a new washer and dryer.
** Was very productive at work.
* h0p3
** I had a blast playing magic with my kids.
** It was a relatively productive week.
** I was happy
---
!! What is a positive fact or compliment we can say about each person in the family?
* 1uxb0x
** Holding up emotionally well under stress and change this week.
** Shows significant growth in socialization. He made people laugh, and he participated in socializing with his family. He was good at it.
** Cautious and productive in the shop.
** Thought a lot about other people this week and thought about how to make other people happy.
* j3d1h
** Cautious and productive in the shop. I was impressed.
** When there is no one else to help her brother, she helps her brother. When he is sad, she comforts him.
** You are tenacious and ambitious in the pursuit of your interests and help of others.
** Proud of the person you are becoming and seeing you interact with others and being comfortable with who you are (even if you aren't perfect)
* k0sh3k
** You are an empathic mom.
** Without you, I would be a much meaner person and probably couldn't live on. You make life worth living.
** You are a good accountabilibuddy. You hold us accountable to our schoolwork, but you do it kindly.
* h0p3
** I wouldn't be as smart without you.
** I appreciate that you dream for the family. You think about long-term plans.
** I put up with her bullshit in schoolwork.
---
!! What will you do this week?
* 1uxb0x
** Write about seeing family more often. Yay! =)
* j3d1h
** Measure for ethernet
** Write my calorie log
** Resist temptation
* k0sh3k
** Conference
* h0p3
** Fix the dryer, again.
!!General Notes:
The kids were given Friday off for an extended weekend of freedom.
---
!!j3d1h:
* Review past week:
** Research Skills: Cosmetology
*** She did the 100 years, and she tried the makeup styles
*** She did not do outfit building
** Math: Singapore Math
*** Missed one day of math.
*** Completed 3 pages.
** Writing: 250 word count in her wiki
*** Did her writing. It was hard to find.
** Vocational Theory: Commenting on Algorithms and Data structures written in Python
*** Did not do it.
** Vocational Practice: Applied Computer Science
*** Worked on USB backup. Several of the standard suggestions did not work. Will not quit.
** Reading: Ethics Toolkit
*** Finished.
** Social Studies: Khan Academy - World History
*** For 3 of 4 days, you did well. The last day you did 43 seconds of work.
** Spanish
*** Did a great job.
* Plan next week:
** Research Skills: Cosmetology
*** Build outfits out of your clothes. Take pictures.
*** Actually research how to build outfits. What does that entail?
** Math: Singapore Math 3A
*** Complete 10 pages
*** Put dates and page numbers on your work.
*** Kick it out in your math.
** Writing: 250 word count in her wiki
*** Organize your writing. Date your writing. Make it easy to see your growth. Make it easy find. Structure your creations.
**Vocational Theory: Commenting on Algorithms and Data structures written in Python
*** Do the writing on the wiki, but you can still use sublime text to read it.
*** Do 1 program a day
** Vocational Practice: Applied Computer Science
*** Setup backup scripts for the family, except dad.
*** Measure for ethernet cord
*** Make the USB backup script. Look for one first.
** Reading: Little House in the Big Woods
*** Think about differences between the story and present day
*** Consider the differences the ways in which the characters think and modern thought, approaches to gender and race, etc.
*** Bookmarks!
** Social Studies: Khan Academy - World History
*** Consistently work the full amount of time.
** Spanish
*** Keep it up
*** Eventually, we'll move to curationless conversation and more structured, and then we will dive right back into conversation.
---
!!1uxb0x
* Review past week:
** Research Skills: Curation
*** Found things about remembering what you read
*** Sent a few links on focusing and staying on task as well.
** Math: Life of Fred - Dogs
*** Completing about a chapter a day.
** Writing: 150-word count in his wiki
*** Missed one day of writing but otherwise did a great job.
** Vocational Theory: Electricity Demystified
*** After questioning, it was clear he did his reading, but it was too difficult for him.
** Vocational Practice: Redstone
*** Created an OR gate.
** Reading: Fairy Tales from the Brothers Grimm
*** Read 30 pages, roughly 4 stories (1 per day)
** Social Studies: Khan Academy - World History
*** Did work every day, although only did a full day once.
** Language Arts: JacKris Books
*** Did well, about a page a day with all the answers correct. The handwriting has improved.
* Plan next week:
** Research Skills: Curation
*** Find two links and write something about what you learned from using them.
**** e.g. If you find an article with "20 tips about focusing," write down a gameplan of what you are going to do with that information. Plan to apply some of those tips.
** Math: Life of Fred - Dogs
*** Continue doing about a chapter a day.
*** Mark the question number, and don't forget the page number.
** Writing: 150-word count in his wiki
*** Organize your writing. Date your writing. Make it easy to see your growth. Make it easy find. Structure your creations.
*** Edit alongside your mother.
** Vocational Theory: Eyewitness Books: Electricity
*** Read to comprehend. Big sections first, then go through the little sections.
** Vocational Practice: Redstone
*** Try to build an adder
*** If you can't, build something which uses multiple logic gates.
*** Build something interesting with Redstone circuitry. Impress me.
** Reading: Fairy Tales from the Brothers Grimm
*** Aim for about 40 pages.
*** Bookmarks!
** Social Studies: Khan Academy - World History
*** Keep track of when you start and make sure you do the complete 30 minutes every day.
** Language Arts: JacKris Books
*** Complete 2 pages a day.
*** On test days, copy out the words to practice your handwriting.
* Keep your calorie log
* Organize and structure
* Date your work
* Provide summaries and explanations for each major page.
* Write your booklist
* Spend one hour each day writing.
* I wish you wrote more about what you were learning in your class each week.
* Give a title to your story
* Spend a day dropping your entire picture collection in.
* Learn hacking from nude girls - https://archive.org/details/haxxxor_volume_1_dvd
* Interesting doxxing tool - https://www.truepeoplesearch.com/
* Republican's targeting Democratic regions with double-standard applications of the law, gerrymandering, and now also funding cuts - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2017/05/14/republicans-in-n-c-senate-cut-education-funding-but-only-in-democratic-districts-really/
//I skipped 3 days because I didn't use the wiki or even the internet much at all over the weekend. I was visiting my family. I'll review my last full day, the 11th. Note, I did keep notes for my diet and few other things over the weekend. I'm grafting them in today.//
* [[2017.05.11 - Link Log]]
** I despise using twitter. I like how the quotes are aggregated on the trumptwitterarchive
* [[2017.05.11 - Diet Log]]
** Glad we took it easy that day because the weekend was wild. I did not eat healthily at my brother's.
* [[2017.05.11 - Wiki Review Log]]
** I noticed that I continued to tweak [[2017.05.10 - Trump's Nixonian Firing of Comey]]. Sometimes the wording just wasn't what I wanted. I like that I nitpick.
* [[2017.05.11 - Pipefitting Log]]
** A few edits
** Oh, shit, I forgot to write about Pipefitting on 2017.05.12. Let's do that: [[2017.05.12 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.05.11 - h0p3's Log]]
** Don't eat ice cream. Problem solved.
|customTable|k
|Food|Calories|h
|Pizza|500|
|Pears|200|
|Apple|100|
|Mandarins|70|
|Pancakes|700|
|Berries|70|
|Honey|90|
|Nuts|170|
|Total|1900|f
!! How is your health? Daily routine?
I'm feeling anxiety pains in my chest. I slept well enough. My head feels cloudy/fizzy/compacted/tingly (like coming off Lexapro), which I associated with depressive symptoms as well.
---
!! What happened? How do you feel about it? What made you feel this way? Does it make you happy or unhappy? Why or why not?
I've had a lot of thought loops since meeting my parents. It clearly is emotionally draining for me. Thankfully, I can pull myself out of those loops. I have the willpower to stop.
---
!! Can you better explain what happened? Do you have a technological, philosophical, empathic, or redpilled story to tell about the phenomenon? Clarify the narrative you just told yourself.
I'm not sure I have much more to say. I thought I should at least write it down. Perhaps more of what it is that makes me anxious will leak out. Right now, I just have the physical symptoms. I will say that I had to skip to DCK this week. This may also be part of the thought looping.
The wiki makes me confident in being able to handle anxiety and depression bubbles. Recall that eventually, I will not use DCK. I must find the right habits and constructive behavioral reactions to stress and the problems I encounter. This is the best place to do it. Remember to be kind, compassionate, and empathic!
---
!! What are you going to do about what happened?
I'm going to continue to monitor. I will make sure I don't fail to take DCK this weekend. If it gets bad, I will take the day off to take DCK during the week. I believe this won't be necessary though.
* The problem with this mentality, I worry, is that it allows the Democrats to seat whomever they want, namely neo-liberals. It's a trojan horse. This is just a continuation of the false-compromise process which continually occurs over the decades in US politics (like all modern, and perhaps even ancient, politics) - http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/democrats-vs-trump/democrats-agenda-win-house-2018-investigate-donald-trump-n759106
* I love having my cognitive bias on privacy and the belief in the increasing collapse between the distinction of corporations and our government confirmed - https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/05/the-thinning-line-between-commercial-and-government-surveillance/524952/
* While I grant there are significant problems with the Left, I'm blown away that people do not see how those in power continue to use it over and over to suppress Leftist thought and political movements throughout the world; the game is rigged memetically, financially, and politically - https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/how-long-can-the-centre-hold
* Yet another article which shows what we already know. The fact is that many corporations are building vast dossier profiles on every person. I am continually amazed by the fucktards who don't value privacy - https://spideroak.com/articles/facebook-shadow-profiles-a-profile-of-you-that-you-never-created
* It is no accident that Americans do not learn geography - https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/05/14/upshot/if-americans-can-find-north-korea-on-a-map-theyre-more-likely-to-prefer-diplomacy.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fupshot&action=click&contentCollection=upshot®ion=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront&_r=0
* OP has a much better grasp of employment problems than the vast majority of people I've seen (/u/SaikenWorkSafe's comments are cringe-worthy in their ignorance of the nature of the good and the complexity of measuring it) - https://www.reddit.com/r/lostgeneration/comments/6ba13l/the_screwed_job_market_why_are_good_percentage_of/
* It's a good thing when the military control swathes of foreign policy, right? - https://www.thenation.com/article/the-military-now-runs-us-foreign-policy/
* You don't have to agree with what you read, but goddamnit, fucking read widely - https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/5/15/15585176/motivated-ignorance-politics-debate
* Material conditions will need to become even worse before we'll see any sane collective consciousness of American Youth, if at all - https://boingboing.net/2017/05/11/the-c-word.html
* From the bottom of my heart, Conservatives and Psychopaths, if you can't reprogram yourselves, then please kill yourselves; it's the only empathic thing to do - https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/05/cable-lobby-conducts-survey-finds-that-americans-want-net-neutrality/
* Self-compassion and empathy is exactly what I'm trying to do here (points one comment up) - https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2016/05/why-self-compassion-works-better-than-self-esteem/481473/?single_page=true
* Socialist writers are brutally honest - https://www.johnlaurits.com/2017/children-great-recession-millennials-class-struggle/
* Democrats who support the DNC's rape of the primaries disgust me; democracy my ass, and how dare they sweep it under the rug (people have memories almost as terrible as their critical reasoning skills) - https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/the-media-blackout-on-the-dnc-lawsuit-proves-that-it-is-nuclear-32305f574f6e
* Chinese public school failures and corruptions; again, I blame capitalism and psychopathy (or are you foolish enough to still believe China is socialist or communist?) - http://projects.thestar.com/expelled-by-beijing/index.html
* MS confirmed NSA created the recent hack. This hack was, of course, "stolen" and released when the NSA was hacked. Do you see why I don't fucking trust backdoors? - https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/863872972553166848
** A good post on it - https://np.reddit.com/r/news/comments/6b7gd4/microsoft_president_blasts_nsa_for_its_role_in/dhkpmtt/
* As we all seem to say nowadays: "Sad if it is true" - https://www.salon.com/2017/05/15/donald-trumps-aides-are-resorting-to-fake-news-so-that-he-hears-what-he-wants-to-hear/
* Trump has a big mouth with classified information *gasp*, and with the Russians *double gasp*, color me fucking //shocked!// - https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-revealed-highly-classified-information-to-russian-foreign-minister-and-ambassador/2017/05/15/530c172a-3960-11e7-9e48-c4f199710b69_story.html
Today wasn't as productive as I'd have liked, but it was good. I overstudied for my exam on excavation. The past few tests, which are directly about pipe construction, were difficult. They required a lot of attention to detail. This one almost disappointed me with the simplicity of the questions. It is better to be overprepared than under though. I will continue to ultimately aim for the golden mean, even if that requires I slightly overshoot to the side of excess.
I literally spent all day studying, except right after lunch (before the break). I talked with the guys about a very wide variety of topics. They continually picked my brain about my children, what I wanted for them, education, New Orleans, computer hardware, hacking, anonymity, research chemicals, etc.
In any case, I crushed the exam (I found out I did well on the previous as well). I then moved onto the 4-on-6 Chris and I started last Thursday. Chris didn't get much done in an hour and a half last Thursday, and I didn't have but 15 minutes to do anything with it. I deburred it and smoothed it out. It still has a wobble and gap, but it is closer. My teacher told me to tack it and mark it. I'm not convinced that is going to help though. I'm all ears, but remembering my marks isn't the hard part. Knowing //where// to mark in the first place is the hard part on this piece. Hopefully, we'll fix it tomorrow. Chris was out on some guilt-trip trip (not sure if I should be redundant here) today.
The teacher says we won't be able to buy the hardware to mount the simulator until after July 1st, the beginning of the school's fiscal year. I talked about where we should store it. OSHA makes it a bit difficult for us. We'll probably take down the simulator fabrications on the old one, clean it up, and then forklift the new one over. We have to tie it down with some serious rigging too. That's the plan at least.
After talking about the simulator, he showed me something he's working on for the city. It's a park bench. We're taking it apart, fixing it, and welding it back together. He has assigned that to me for tomorrow. I'm excited. I hope I can figure it out. I have no idea what my teacher is getting out of it, but I don't care. This is practice. I'm grateful to have it.
My teacher also told me that we'll be spending Wednesday through Friday on the Torque seminar. I have read about it, and I have a special packet on it I've covered. I've yet to actually use it. I'm going to try and take exceptional notes. I hope to get my hands dirty too (although I have my doubts we'll get the chance). I want to really understand it deeply. Our teacher for this topic is apparently an expert, although the teacher hates the man. I've heard our torque teacher is not a punctually reliable man from more than one person.
Also, my teacher has a Memorial Day vacation swap he decided to force on us. We'll be out of class for an extended period of time, a whole week extra for my teacher. We will "make it up" in July's break (unenforced attendance). I think this sucks. I want to fucking learn. This is ridiculous. I'm going to ask the welding teacher if I can come in and learn from him and his students during that time period. There is no reason to waste this opportunity.
On a different note, my teacher thought it was stupid that 7th graders were touring the school. His reasoning was "Why would they think about their occupation at that age?" To him, it was as if planning for the future and teaching them to plan was not worth doing. Even if it isn't successful for all, the attempt is obviously necessary. He has the wrong mentality.
After class, I visited the union. I talked to Randy. I made a mistake. I brought 2 of 3 the books that I meant to give back. Upon inspection, I found the 3rd book in my backpack wasn't the right one. Fuck. I didn't have time to run all the way back home for it. I thanked Randy and explained a couple of points about the books that I found interesting. We talked about the fact that a lot of people in our area hate unions, allergically so, and that it's hard to find workers and work in our area. He is trying to find a way for apprentices to train locally though. I think this is because the higher-ups don't like how he does it. I talked about how school was going. He told me they still intend to hire in August, and that even if they weren't, he is going to fight to hire me and T.J. anyways. I told him about Chris. Anyways, I'm bringing the book by tomorrow; he won't be there, but he said someone would. He needs the book for the classes he is required to take. I'm going to put a "thank you" note in it with my name to make sure he remembers it.
Lastly, I want to note that I am kind of in awe of my brother [[JRE]]. I talk to him on the phone, and talking to him in person makes it even clearer. His pipebending is beautiful, and he understands screwpipe (and something else that electricians do which pipefitters, who work with pressure, do not). I have no idea how he learned all this without going to school for it. I hope that I'll be able to do on-the-job training as well as he has.
!! What is your most invaluable possession and why?
* What counts as a possession?
* Ah, do you think I'm making the mistake of responding to a question with a stream of questions?
* What else do you expect from a philosopher?
* Is there a difference between "most invaluable" and "most valuable," and if so what is it and why?
* Why is that question valuable?
* Why is the above question valuable?
* Why is the above question valuable?
* Why is the above...go fuck yourself.
I take a possession to be the target object of some person's or persons' Hohfeldian ownership claim right(s), a molecule of rights reducible to a complex set of atomic claim rights with corresponding duties assigned generally to other people. Problematically, possession comes in degrees and perhaps different kinds, especially under a variety of normative contexts (legal, moral, etc.). Possession, therefore, is a very complex normative concept, and it is likely more inclusive and complex than you imagined.
Do I possess my children? To the extent and kind that I do, they are clearly it. My wife's and my happiness are instrumentally invaluable qua being a means to my children as my telos. Or, perhaps Eudaimonia is still it. The Good Life in itself, inescapably, is that which I seek above all else. I'm a proper Egoist who understands how the happiness of others is necessary for my happiness. Is this a chicken or egg problem? I don't know.
Your question comes embedded with serious problems, and it's foundations are unclear. I don't even mean this in some Derridean post-structuralist sense about "There is nothing outside the text" or other equally skeptical problems (although, I take the point here too). There are too many unanswered questions for me to rightfully answer your question.
So, can I //possess// a telos? If so, in that respect, Eudaimonia seems the obvious answer. Maybe there is a difference between saying I "have" a telos and I "possess" a telos. I don't know. There is a sense in which it is perfectly natural to say it is my happiness, and yet there is another sense in which I find it strikingly odd to say I "own" my happiness. I think plenty of people don't have a right to the happiness they enjoy.
What has pure, unified, unconditional intrinsic value? Is it for me only? Is it universal? How universal? Is it particularized to the point absurdity?
Is this what I believe to be my most valuable possession, or are you asking something more objective? Can it change, and how so?
The question requires a metamodern framework to overcome so many timeless questions, clearly.<<ref "1">> I don't quite have one, other than to attempt to give you a practical answer.<<ref "2">>
Okay, um, so I take my life to be my most invaluable possession.
Oh, you don't like that answer, do you? Maybe you find my answer to be #iamverysmart annoying to you.<<ref "3">> Maybe you think it's cheating? It's sneaky and cheatyfaced, eh? It's kind of like answering "Jesus" in church; you'll get the answer ultimately right at least 50% of the time, but you've somehow evaded the intention of the question's author by piercing too much to the heart of the matter. You were looking for a more concrete, simple, almost relativistically dismissable answer, I suppose. You think that answering the question with some physical object tells the answerer something important about themselves. Well, then my answer seems fine. It says what I mean and tells me about who I really am, right?
Thus ends my first masturbation session in my newly founded [[Prompted Introspection Log]].
---
<<footnotes "1" "Go ahead and kill yourself, psychopath.">>
<<footnotes "2" "Thank you Plato, Aristotle, and Kant. I will never escape you.">>
<<footnotes "3" "But, that's okay, right?">>
* [[2017.05.14 - k0sh3k's Wiki Log]]
** Maybe my wife and I should set aside an hour together each day. I know she just wants to veg. Sometimes it helps to have an accountabilibuddy who does it alongside you. I know weightlifting was that way for me.
* [[2017.05.14 - 1uxb0x's Wiki Log]]
** I really need my wife's help to help my son. I can't motivate him. I can't get him to do it. She is the only one who can. Without her, he will fail.
* [[2017.05.14 - j3d1h's Wiki Log]]
** I need to stay on her about the calories counter. Having the discipline to maintain the habit of being honest with ourselves is really the major hurdle. After that, getting it done is often easier (although, not always).
* [[2017.05.14 - Family Log]]
** It really sucks doing the [[Homeschooling Log]], [[Family Log]], and [[Family Wikis Log Collection]] completed at the very end of Sunday night. We had to out of necessity, but we should plan around it as much as we can. It is a very intense series of objectives to complete in a single setting.
* [[2017.05.14 - Homeschooling Log]]
** My wife will be going to conference, so I worry that my children will fail more towards the end of the week without her daily accountability session with each of them.
* [[The House]]
** I'm glad I'm dreaming. I looked it up. It would be crazy expensive. It doesn't hurt to dream though. Motivations rock, even if you don't achieve the dream you had in mind. I'll do the best I can with what I have.
* [[ASCII & Unicode Art]]
** Doodles, yay!
* [[2017.05.14 - Link Log]]
** I've found that I use my lunch breaks to generate my Link Log. It saves me time. Eventually, I'd like to make sure I have zero sync problems so that I can edit from multiple devices. This may not be possible. I should at least work on it though. Ultimately, I'd prefer not to use a text editor for notes on secondary machines.
* [[2017.05.12 - Pipefitting Log]]
** It was interesting being away for a weekend. I think I need to develop better coping mechanisms. That said, retroactive writing is still better than nothing. I know I can't always get what I want. I should plan around it. I'm not exactly sure what I should do though. I'm glad I didn't just give up on it for those days I was away.
* [[2017.05.14 - Diet Log]]
** Found the sum total.
* [[2017.05.13 - Diet Log]]
** Surprisingly didn't eat much that day, although I didn't eat healthily either. I'm betting I just felt anxious.
* [[2017.05.12 - Diet Log]]
** Eat all the things that are bad for you! Nom, nom.
* [[2017.05.14 - Wiki Review Log]]
** A few edits.
* [[2017.05.13 - h0p3's Log]]
** Edits
** Also, glad I reminded myself to send the invite and the libgen address.
** I need to set the VPN up.
|customTable|k
|Food|Calories|h
|Pear|100|
|Biscuits and Gravy|800|
|Lemonade|220|
|Hummus, Chips, Veggies|400|
|Stir Fry|650|
|Apple Strudel|600|
|Total|2770|f
* An outstanding talk about continued centralization of the internet and web in particular, and he offers an alternative "Othernet" - https://vimeo.com/217265093
* Not boring article about capitalism, democracy, and globalization. I find it too charitable to capitalism, but what's new? - http://www.claremont.org/crb/article/sending-jobs-overseas/
* I've seen lots of people live on a laptop alone, with docking. I am not surprised to see a push for the phone to be the ultimate all-in-one device. It is not clear to me that mobile computing will catch up enough for me to desire switching - https://maruos.com/#/
* Footnotes to Plato echoed again - https://aeon.co/essays/what-plato-knew-about-behavioural-economics-a-lot
* I think it's hilarious how they do not see the connections between the what they take to be the primary causes of the Life Expectancy gap and income inequality as well as other centralizations of power in our profoundly capitalist society - https://directorsblog.nih.gov/2017/05/16/widening-gap-in-u-s-life-expectancy/
* Publishers only entered the digital book market kicking and screaming, as always for media companies (and, I'm well aware of the aesthetic and pricing considerations which we falsely claim accounts for the decline) - https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/may/14/how-real-books-trumped-ebooks-publishing-revival
* Late Stage Capitalism and the Enslavement of Masses bias being confirmed, again - http://www.epi.org/publication/employers-steal-billions-from-workers-paychecks-each-year-survey-data-show-millions-of-workers-are-paid-less-than-the-minimum-wage-at-significant-cost-to-taxpayers-and-state-economies/
* Hard-to-fathom STANDARD slavery in modern suburban America - https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/06/lolas-story/524490/
Honestly, it wasn't as productive as I would have hoped. I'm actually sore today though, so I did work hard.
Today I was told to start taking apart the simulator fabrications. Robert helped me since the other new fellow, Matt, didn't show up again (he doesn't have his life together yet, I take it; sucks man). Robert was unhappy with being held back from testing, but he worked hard with me. He's a father-to-be and kind of boring (but decent). He doesn't seem to have any actual hobbies (used to snowboard long ago, despite being 400 pounds) from what I can tell. That's okay. We took down one and a half fabrications and dismantled one. My teacher came over and said he forgot to give us something before that.
We were tasked with fixing a truly damaged metal park bench for the city (apparently, their guys couldn't fix it, as we could see). I didn't realize how damaged it was until today, despite having looked at it yesterday. We think someone very overweight sat on it, or something else went terribly wrong.
In any case, we took it apart and cleaned it up. It was bent, rusted, and we had to clean it up. We had to take some paint off as well, although even some of that melted. It had an unpleasant odor to say the least. Ultimately, the major mounting area had a hole in it, and it was so thin and cracked that the only real option was to cut some carbon steel plate and weld it over the area. My teacher required us to MIG, and I'm not sure why. We put the plate over the mounting region (some of my welds looked decent, but many weren't), and then we had taken quite a while trying to fit the piece on level, plumb, and properly rotated. It turned out okay. At the end of the day, my teacher asked us to clean it up with a tigerpaw disk. It was funny to hear him say we should grind the weld in contradiction of his previous requirements.
Chris studied, and I helped him. Oddly, he failed the test. That's a first. He'll have to take it next week, I think. Afterward, he dismounted one of the simulator fabrications and took it apart. That's really all he did today. I think he was feeling pretty down today.
We cleaned the shop today. I even organized the tool room, especially the large shelf, top to bottom. It desperately needed it too. Interestingly, I found the concrete mounting hardware we needed for the permanent simulator we created. The teacher was pleased. Ironically, if I found these before then we wouldn't have had to remove the simulator fabrications. We will probably mount it tomorrow.
Before we left for the day, he had us mark 3 feet off the current simulator and chalk-line it.
I went over to the union to drop the book off, but no one was there. I thought about leaving it outside but thought better about it. I said I would return it in the condition I was given it, and I want to guarantee that.
I need to see if I can step out on Thursday to see the welding teacher. In part, I want to finally meet with him, but also I want to see if he'll let me show up on my days off.
!! What is your idea of a boring evening?
I am straight-up addicted to not being bored. I realize that being bored, from time to time, can be a good thing. I hate the feeling. I need another hit off the various kinds of "drugs" in my life (which is far broader than mere substance use, which I barely use at this point). Hell, even this wiki serves as a kind of drug, a constructive one at that though.
My idea of such an evening is frightening. I'm psychologically dependent upon not being bored. I need bangs and flashes, one after the other...
//God fucking damnit. Fine. This prompted introspection is inescapably useful to me.//
As I was saying (before I rudely interrupted myself, *ahem*), I need to be titillated, entertained, appeased, surprised, and constantly (with zero interruptions) have my attention focused on something interesting. I refuse to be bored.
What are the negative effects of not living a life in which I experience more boredom?
I really don't spend time sitting on the porch. Life moves too fast. I jump from one thing to another, and perhaps I lack the reflection I really need. Is it important to have brainfart, space-out, veg-out time? What is the use in just sitting there? What is the value in being bored? I don't mean to confabulate here. It is something I should investigate.
Okay, so I'm committed to giving more literal answers here as well (even though the theory is obviously crucially practical). Um, a boring evening would be:
* Zero electricity or battery-powered objects
* Little or no light
* No substances
* No music (even from my own instruments)
* No ~~bored~~ board games, magic, etc.
* No books of interest
* It's especially bad if I have no one to talk to. I can survive such an evening just fine if I have people to talk to. In fact, I enjoy those uncommon evenings often enough. It's part of what has led me to walk and talk with my family more often (that sounds sad).
I mean, being truly bored requires a kind of isolation from everything and everyone I care about (it reminds me of one of the better theological descriptions of Hell). Of course, I'm not sure if I can ever be truly isolated when I have myself in a way (conversing with oneself seems to be the basis of not feeling isolated and truly alone). Maybe being bored, to that degree, is a bad thing.
There is the phenomenological question (actually many) about boredom. What would Heidegger say? His view, imho, seems far less laced with normativity, except his question-begging about the superiority of the Ready-to-Hand mode. I'm not sure how useful that perspective is here, besides helping me identify what even counts as boredom.
Maybe the feeling of boredom isn't itself a good thing, but rather from a virtue-theoretic perspective, being someone who experiences sufficient quantities, time-periods, degrees, and kinds of boredom in the right ways at the right times, etc. is living, ultimately, a better kind of life.
Aristotle warns us about The Calm. Sometimes it seems as if he could be wrong. Diminishing marginal utility often seems like it is only kept in check by taking "tolerance breaks" from those things which give us utility, joy, happiness, pleasure, hedons, etc. Maybe boredom accounts for a tolerance break that ultimately enables us to enjoy the lives and resources available to us in a more efficient, economical, and stable way. Boredom allows us to more effectively lick the spoon, suck the marrow, etc. out of life.
Is it conceptually possible to embed boredom in the notion of carpe diem?
Clearly, there is much I do not understand here.
* [[2017.05.15 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** Edited.
* [[Writing Prompt Sources]]
** I should add more. I'll do it slowly though. I'm in no rush.
* [[Prompted Introspection Log]]
** Edited.
* [[2017.05.15 - Link Log]]
** Edited. I had a lot to say yesterday. I suppose it comes in spurts.
* [[2017.05.15 - Wiki Review Log]]
** I still haven't finished the VPN, although I have the script for it. I haven't heard back from my brothers.
* [[2017.05.15 - h0p3's Log]]
** Edited.
* [[2017.05.15 - Diet Log]]
** It felt like I used more calories that day. The pancakes were cheaper than I expected.
* [[2017.05.15 - Pipefitting Log]]
** I've noticed that I continue to claim my days aren't as productive as I'd have liked. What does this mean? The pattern is there. I need to reflect on this.
** Edited.
|customTable|k
|Food|Calories|h
|Chili|700|
|Honey and PB Cracker|190|
|Pizza|1200|
|Beer|100|
|Wine|25|
|Total|2215|f
!! How is your health? Daily routine?
I'm doing well. I've had some rough dreams (not exactly nightmares), but I did get sleep. I've not felt as much anxiety since diving back into my work.
---
!! What happened? How do you feel about it? What made you feel this way? Does it make you happy or unhappy? Why or why not?
My wife is gone for the next three days away at a professional Librarian conference for the major universities and colleges in the Appalachian region. It's exciting. I'm hoping it goes well with the kids while she's gone.
---
!! Can you better explain what happened? Do you have a technological, philosophical, empathic, or redpilled story to tell about the phenomenon? Clarify the narrative you just told yourself.
Today, the kids have been laxer about school. The fact is that their mother is in charge of keeping them on task because when I do it, I'm a brutal taskmaster. It isn't like the work is different, it is simply a fact that I suck at motivating people to do the right thing. I'm fine giving rational arguments, but beyond that, we encounter different kinds of problems.
---
!! What are you going to do about what happened?
I'm going to try and chillax with my children. We're going to play magic tonight. I will require them to write in their wikis, but I'm leaving the rest of their schoolwork to their mom.
Oh, I looked up my dryer. It can use a 3-cord. The amperage is fine. I picked one up from Amazon. I won't receive it until Monday. I'll fix it then.
* Political Activism Will Be Punished - http://thehill.com/homenews/house/333395-gop-rep-goes-after-activist-by-writing-letter-to-employer
* It seems I made a reasonable prediction in my [[2017.04.17 - Ransomware Economic Strategies]], although this wasn't nearly as big or well-done as I think may eventually occur - http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2017/05/daily-chart-10
** Also, the new ransomware does attempt to scale with income - http://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/3161826
* Voting Reform:
** https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo
** https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3GFG0sXIig
** https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Erph1L_XwVQ
** https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8XOZJkozfI
** https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QT0I-sdoSXU
* I recognize the propaganda, but Republicans, like all politicians, generally say one thing and do another. McCain is a classic example at this point. - https://thinkprogress.org/the-myth-of-republicans-in-congress-pulling-away-from-trump-a77ac7436f
* Chaotic simpleton Dark-Triadics still merit analysis - https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/5/12/15621140/interpret-trump
* Post about Placebos - https://np.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/6bibrt/what_surprisingly_is_scientifically_proven/dhnfpp8/?st=j2sbfuup
Today was a good day. I got some studying done for my final exam. Also, Chris told me that the teacher is not prepared for the next book. We'll see. I'll ask to start studying the book anyways. After studying, we started getting the shop ready for mounting the second simulator. We moved the tables, set all the wires, got an air hose set, fixed up the concrete bolts, and slowly took the simulator off its stands.
Eventually, the teacher took the forklift and raised it up. He can drive it well. I hope to learn how to drive it as well. Eventually, I will ask to build an obstacle course in the parking lot to do it. That would be worth my time.
They slowly moved it around, got it into position, and then we started leveling. We brought out a giant German hammer drill and made some holes while the simulator was in place. We aired them out, and then we hammered the concrete screws into place. I tightened them up. Everything came out well.
Luke found the L-shaped (looking down it longways) metal that we cut in several places to fit over both simulators (the other is anchored to the wall). It took a while to clean that up. Luke tacked it, and Nash asked me if he could do some welding (I took some video of it for him). I went back over all the welds though. This time, my welds kicked serious ass. Like, it flaked off nice. More than once I've had good looking welds. I'm pleased by that.
I cleaned up almost entirely by myself. Eventually, the teacher told us to find all the 3" 150# flanges we could. We found 10. He then told us to create fabrications for the simulator (in as many pieces as we wanted, as long as it was complex). We spent the rest of the time trying to figure out what we wanted to do. We each drew up some plans, but nothing quite worked.
The big monkey wrench was when I went to measure. The simulators aren't perfect duplicates. In fact, there is 1/16th off on the bottom 3" flanges and possibly 1/4th on the top 3" flanges. I think that means we'll need to redraw because we can't count on them to be perfectly level across the board. We'll figure it out tomorrow. I think we'll do some measurements first, and then we'll plan around it.
Chris was lazy again today. Maybe something else is wrong with him. I don't know what it is. He's not exactly been himself lately. Or, perhaps this is just part of the continual pattern I have in getting to know people. In almost all cases, the more I get to know someone, the less I like them.
!! What advice would you give a new student?
Student of what? What is the purpose of this advice? Presumably, my goal is to help them succeed in their practice. But, what if I think their practice is immoral? Alasdair MacIntyre shows us the moral non-realism of Virtue theory. My advice, of course, would need to fit the student, the practice, and the context, among other things. Am I being asked to give generalized advice? Am I assuming I want the student to succeed, and am I to assume success simply counts as what everyone generally considers to be virtue of the practice?
I used to teach. Hell, I still do, but I don't get paid for it. I teach the other students in my class. I teach myself. I teach my children. I give advice all the time to students. Here goes:
* Do your best.
* Work smarter not harder, but still work crazy fucking hard (just not at the expense of efficiency, effectiveness, etc.). Give 110% (Bobby Hill).
* Have a good attitude.
* Do not give up. Don't quit. Persist! Be relentless.
* Empathize with your future self; know thyself; know why you are a student.
* Focus.
* Understand the theory, and grind it in practice/application.
* Practice correctly. For the love of God, practice correctly!
* Be creatively programmatic. Design and follow gameplans. Develop habits which make you virtuous at the practice.
* Understand your goals, find the means to them; break large problems into manageable smaller ones, etc.
* Listen to experts.
* Be insatiable in your pursuit of wisdom and knowledge.
* Be meta.
* Understand the meaning and purpose of what you are doing. Understand the value of your practice.
* Be humble, honest, open to change, willing to fall and stand back up, etc.
* Explore the landscape of your practice.
* Find your niche, develop a competitive advantage, but don't simply work on those things which are easy for you.
* Learn the fundamentals like the back of your hand. Master them.
* Appreciate crossover, hybridization, and interdisciplinary aspects of your practice.
* Perform your practice with moral integrity.
* Maximize your utility.
* Be rational; be empathic.
* Do as the virtuous agent would do, feel as they would, think as they do, be as they would aim for the golden mean, etc.
See, this shit just boils down to the kind of advice we have to give ourselves as students of life. I generalize to the point of absurdity; it's like some shitty self-help list. Ultimately, I need more context to answer the question. I have tons of thoughts about how to learn various subjects, how and what to learn at different ages, and which subjects are worth pursuing and why. I can't just write you a one-size-fits-all answer. The world of learning is simply too broad.
I fear you think I'm literally throwing your question away. But, specificity really is key here.
Ah, but the answer is obviously not as clear I made it sound either. All too often, moral luck and at least a strong disregard for the opinions, feelings, or thoughts of others form another basis of successful students.
* Be born in the right circumstances.
* Be wealthy.
* Be attractive.
* Don't be unattractive and poor.
* Be intelligent, and if you can, be clever.
* Do not respect authority except yourself (that doesn't mean you don't appear to respect authority).
* Appearances tends to matter more than substance.
* My [[Common Sense]] page is invaluable to you.
* Cheat where applicable. Be sure to abuse summaries and shortcuts. Find the easiest, laziest way to defeat the system in front of you.
Ah, my student, success is an ugly thing all too often. My advice will have many contradictions in it. Unfortunately, success itself has too many contradictory definitions and contexts.
Give me the telos and context, and I'll try to come up with the means to your ends. Such a maxim, of course, hasn't been universalized. It is mere instrumental reasoning on its own. And, yet again, this house of cards of a question is reduced to absurdity.
Of course, [[RPIN]] and [[KIN]] wage their battles over such fundamental questions. I am not unified enough to answer this question, not that any person I've ever met or read could answer it satisfactorily either. I legitimately wish there was a purgatory for me to talk to my philosopher kingods, at least as I've imagined them with my Straussian charity.
This reminds me, I need to take my DCK this weekend. I clearly need it.
* [[2017.05.16 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** Edited.
** I'm really glad that I'm grinding through these introspection prompts. It is my hypothesis that the recreational and free-wheeling aspect of them allows me to lower my guard and think about things in an honest way. It's a way to force myself to do some existential lifting.
* [[DIY Art]]
** I fear this could go many places. I'm still unsure what I want to do about my thousands of links.
* [[2017.05.16 - Link Log]]
** Edited.
** Also, I forgot links from yesterday. Lol. Umm, so I'll just put them in today's. Or should I graft them in? This is a problem that I don't know how to easily answer. I need principles for this problem. I don't run into it often, but I need to know how to handle exceptions in wiki procedures.
* [[2017.05.16 - Wiki Review Log]]
** I said scarcely little in this log. I take this to be part of the oscillation. I won't strike gold every day.
* [[2017.05.16 - Pipefitting Log]]
** Edited.
** Also, I was reminded to edit today's log.
* [[2017.05.16 - Diet Log]]
** You are eating more than you should. Look at those calories. Were the biscuits worth it?
** Not having shopped for more fruits and vegetables may be hurting me here. I've held back on them to make sure the kids have enough for the week. I'm trying to save money and squeak a week by without any shopping. You can still just eat less. If you have hunger pains, then feel satisfied by your grind towards happiness.
|customTable|k
|Food|Calories|h
|Burger|600|
|Fries|240|
|Coleslaw|75|
|Gravy|40|
|Couscous Stir Fry|900|
|Beer|100|
|Total|1955|f
* I'm definitely in confirmation bias territory. The article is a bit too anecdotal for my taste. It makes some good points though - http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/trump_is_the_symptom_not_the_disease_20170514
* Define Narcissism - https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-intelligence-reports-white-house-read-them-mentioned-name-president-a7740726.html
* We can see which side of the fence they sit on concerning "populism" - http://time.com/4775441/the-wave-to-come/
* Hitpost on Nye and Scientism as a cult - https://www.reddit.com/r/television/comments/6bi4ho/i_think_im_done_with_bill_nye_his_new_show_sucks/dhn89le/
* I am unsurprised that those who want to make money purposely ignore the crucial distinction between shareholders and stakeholders - https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/24/books/review/golden-passport-duff-mcdonald.html?_r=0
* Economics continues to appear to be an exploitative form of psychology - http://nautil.us/blog/to-become-a-better-investor-think-like-darwin
* Disheartened about Net neutrality, you and me both; we must stop this capitalist game and decentralize - https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2017/05/18/one-step-closer-closed-internet/
* WTF BBC! Legal or otherwise, are you out of your Gawd Damned MINDS!? - https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170517/15232937397/bbc-says-it-may-contact-your-boss-if-you-post-comments-it-finds-problematic.shtml
* Internet Rabbitholes, Fascinating, Sometimes Brilliant, Odd, Crazy, Scary, Contrarian, Technologically minded, and *gasp* often Rightist Links:
** Link heaven - http://www.xenosystems.net/
** https://redice.tv/start
** It doesn't matter how much I disagree with large swathes of his claims, this is absolutely fascinating - http://xynchroni.city/
** https://vincentgarton.com/
** http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com.au/
** http://www.overcomingbias.com/
** http://www.isegoria.net/
** A fucking classic at this point - https://www.ribbonfarm.com/
** http://www.accelerationwatch.com/
** http://hooverhog.typepad.com/hognotes/
** http://unenumerated.blogspot.co.uk/
** http://home.earthlink.net/~flyingdragongoddess/indexa.html#peter
** Another fucking classic - http://yudkowsky.net/
** I should stop repeating myself - http://slatestarcodex.com/
** I consider myself a culturalist in the sense that I think there are superior memetic networks, ideas, behaviors, etc. This isn't what I mean by it though. - http://alternative-right.blogspot.com/
** Oh, I'm sure we could be best friends (`/bleh`) - http://www.amerika.org/
** http://anti-gnostic.blogspot.com/
** https://antinomiaimediata.wordpress.com/
** http://www.staresattheworld.com/
** http://wmbriggs.com/
** http://helian.net/blog/
** https://status451.com/
** http://www.synthesisips.net/
** http://hyp3r.space/
** http://thezman.com/wordpress/
** "sorcery" lol - https://www.urbanomic.com/gematrix.html
** http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/
** http://neoreactionarymap.blogspot.ca/
** Prepare yourself for the insanity - https://omega9alpha.wordpress.com/
** A cla...yeah, also, not a rabbithole - http://consc.net/papers/singularity.pdf
** http://28sherman.blogspot.hk/
** http://theanti-puritan.blogspot.hk/?m=1
** Yikes - https://www.traditionalright.com/
People showed up late, as usual on Thursdays. Those who had computer testing went. Chris and I stayed to work on our project. We scrapped yesterday's work and started from the beginning with measurements. We quickly found out that we fucked up badly. The sides aren't plumb! The bottom distance is 184" and the top 185". I believe something went wrong in the mounting since the 3-4-5 came out very well on the jackstands. This is bad. We had to Pythagorean theorem to find our offsets, which were different on both sides! The flanges were close enough, within a 1/4" or less for each. At least the simulators are parallel to each other. We were kind of freaking out a bit. The teacher said not to worry about it multiple times.
Eventually, I got copies of the isometric I drew up of just the simulators (since I don't want to have to measure again). We decided to slightly simplify our drawing to give us less to worry about. It's still complex enough for the teacher's requirements, I believe (although, it isn't what we sold him on). We went to him with our simulator's measurements isometric drawing, and he was completely unphased. He thought we were freaking out about nothing (he didn't really give us a chance to explain why we thought it was bad or what was really wrong though). So, that's that, I guess. We'll just push through. We did the math. We each found an error in the other's math today. I'm glad we double-check each other's work.
We cut, beveled, and started fitting. Throughout the day, I kept going to see Dale, the welding teacher. I was meant to weld with him today. It wasn't until the day was over that I got to see him (I'll get to that later though). Anyways, we worked on this fabrication. It was tricky. First off, it's a very heavy 3" pipe. The vice bends with it. We have to compensate in the same direction with our levels throughout the fabrication for that. The Hi-Lo's were decent enough. It's clear that Chris strongly prefers me to tack, but I have to assert myself in getting the chance to do fitting as well. After all, I want to practice what I will likely spend the bulk of my time doing. The pipe was very rusty, and we didn't clean it (normally not necessary). We had many tacks break today (both of ours). Eventually, I started putting very large tacks with higher heat to guarantee penetration.
My teacher and I talked about Keith. Keith is a serious shit-talker. I asked him about why we used Sockolets since Keith claims he wouldn't. Sockolets just made it easier. We didn't have to cut the pipe that way. Keith claims he could do the job in 6 hours. My teacher said Keith couldn't do it in 6 hours, especially without sockolets. My teacher said he could barely get it done in 6 hours himself. It took us much longer. Clearly, I have much to learn on these buttwelds. With time and practice, I hope to be able to fabricate as well as my teacher.
My teacher talked about Nash falling behind. He was confused as to how Nash's scores didn't seem to have much consistency. I explained Nash's testing procedures, and that Nash takes snapshots of the test (which I think is bullshit). Without that, Nash doesn't do nearly as well. We also talked about the third book. We went to the office to see how much it costs them to pick up the 3rd and 4th book. They'll get back to us with the number. I hope to use the AB&T money on these books. Ultimately, I would like to pass the NCCER Journeyman test in addition to the Union tests. I want 'dem certs.
At the end of the day, after cleaning up, I went to talk to Dale (as I said before). He was finally there and free enough. He had someone in his office, but he made sure to bring me in. I got to hear him talk to the other student. I assume this student was new because his work looked fucking terrible. His stringers looked terrible (although they were very shiny). He obviously was not consistent. But, to be fair, if I understand correctly, these were overhead. I'm sure this guy would run circles around me on my kind of work. I feel like I understood at least some of what he did wrong though.
Another student came in after me, and I told him to speak with his student before me. He said we were both his students today, so I had priority (although, eventually he switched to hear the other student since it was clear that I would be there for a while). I explained that I didn't know what I was doing, and I wanted to make sure I was practicing correctly. Apparently, he knows a lot about me (my background, etc.). He decided to give me a quick tutorial.
The reason my roots have been failing: I'm using wet (you are supposed to dry them) powder flux 7018 rods. I should be using 6010 rods, which are designed to cool off faster, lowering the chance of burning through. Basically, I've been using the wrong rods the entire time. This makes sense to me, since my filler passes are generally quite acceptable. My root is what sucks. I'm hoping this will make a huge difference. We walked through what the numbers meant, how to read schematics and other generalities. He said he'll find a used book for me to keep. I've read about welding, but now I'll probably have a much better understanding of it.
I asked many questions (I can't help it; I'm psychologically dependent upon asking questions). He said it was fine to grind welds if I felt it was necessary.
He told me to stop by tomorrow to do a weld with him. I will do that (assuming I can; I'll have to ask my teacher). I also told him that my teacher was canceling class, and I asked if I could join him during that time off. He said that while all the booths already have a student, he generally has at least one student per day who is absent. Thus, he believes he will have room for me. I thank him and told him I would be grateful for the opportunity. I really hope to make the most of this time. There is a 2-year waiting list to get into his class (and he produces the best welders in the state). It's a real opportunity to be able to walk in a learn from him.
It would be amazing to learn to TIG weld as well. In time, I would like to be able to pass the welder cert tests. A certified pipefitter + welder has options.
!! What do you like most about yourself?
Hrmmm, so many things to choose from: probably my unlimited humility. =)
Note, of course, there is difference between "what I like about myself" and "what I should like about myself." But, being the positive nihilist I am, I'm fine collapsing the distinction for now. Also, I think my choice answers both questions just fine.
Lastly, I'm not entirely sure what I am, who I am, or if I'm comprised of multiple minds. I definitely have competing intuitions. There are also significant metaphysical problems to persistent identity as well. That said, I think I'm allowed to do some handwaving here and "just answer the question," right?
What I like most about myself: my use of my intelligence, particularly in the pursuit of wisdom and happiness. I am a philosopher, and I love that about myself. I'm not ashamed to say it.<<ref "1">> I like thinking. I love thinking. I need it. I pursue truth and happiness through reason (and hope they aren't mutually exclusive). I desperately seek to know and be moved by what is most relevant and valuable about reality. I really wouldn't be me without constantly engaging in that activity. Obviously, I'm far from perfect. Depending on how you consider causality and responsibility (and, of course, anyone seeking to take me down a peg or two would take up a particular view here), you could easily say I've never fulfilled my potential.
I've built a life around thinking. It is part of the telos of humanity (which I take up as faith, despite obviously skeptical responses to my dubious claim here), if not the means to our true telos (eudaimonia). It's what I hope to improve. It's what I hope to use to make my life not only worth living, but also as good as it can be.
Spending my time trying to be intelligent and wise (a particular kind of intelligence) is useful and I like to think even intrinsically valuable in itself. There is a profound aesthetic and existentialist beauty to being philosophical. I respect that part of myself. I prize it. It's the one thing about myself that I wish everyone had. While it may not be unconditionally good (that depends on a few definitions, Kant), it's one of the few pure things I pursue. It's something I can hold onto during the storms of life. It's a part of who I am, and I hope to continue to weave it deeper and more completely inside the fabric of my being.
----
<<footnotes "1" "One of my professors, Bruce Brower, had the (false) humility to claim he wasn't a philosopher. He reserved the term for the gods, Aristotle, etc. I prefer to think of these gods as simply being better philosophers. I'm sure plenty of people would find this post disturbing, perhaps even arrogantly delusional. But, this is my reflection, not theirs.">>
* [[2017.05.17 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** Edited.
** This prompt certainly stirred up my emotions. Ultimately, I hope to take up a stoic position on those things which I can't answer to my satisfaction. It's okay that I can't.
* [[2017.05.17 - Link Log]]
** I have nothing to add to this in particular.
** I would like to say that I've been more likely to save links for a day before posting them. I think this is an interesting filter technique.
* [[2017.05.17 - Wiki Review Log]]
** I am reminded by my comment here to make sure we shop for fruits and veggies more often. I've been eating even worse this week than usual.
* [[2017.05.17 - h0p3's Log]]
** It isn't clear to me that this was worth a log post. Yeah, I'm feeling some emotions about it, but did it require analysis I didn't already have? In a way, shouldn't be the goal to grind through more cognitively dissonant content?
* [[2017.05.17 - Pipefitting Log]]
** I forgot to mention, but Chris said that he talked to the teacher again as well. The teacher said it won't be hard to get things ready. We'll probably start it after the break (the beginning of next month).
* [[2017.05.17 - Diet Log]]
** Edited (because I ended up taking a sip of wine and just putting it away).
** Summed it up.
|customTable|k
|Food|Calories|h
|Couscous Stir Fry|550|
|Pizza|930|
|Beer|100|
|Berries|35|
|Chocolate|125|
|Total|1740|f
* I've always found Dark Matter to seem ad hoc. I'm not saying it isn't a possible explanation, but it certainly doesn't feel right. It feels forced, like an ugly constant. - http://nautil.us/issue/48/chaos/the-physicist-who-denies-dark-matter
* My darker opinion is that algorithms will herd the retards among us to vote for the algorithms which make wealthy and powerful people even wealthier and more powerful; the winners here won't be The People - https://www.wired.com/2017/05/hear-lets-elect-ai-president/?mbid=synd_digg
* Fuck 'em, write your personal essays anyways - http://www.newyorker.com/culture/jia-tolentino/the-personal-essay-boom-is-over?mbid=synd_digg
* There is much to say here. One fun note I want to point out is how consciousness is thought to be about minimizing surprise, and yet I think that humor, entertainment, and learning are a kind of controlled and highly contextual way of pushing these kinds of boundaries and surprising ourselves (perhaps as a way of learning not to be surprised?). - https://aeon.co/essays/consciousness-is-not-a-thing-but-a-process-of-inference
** nautil.us and aeon.co are clearly valuable in my eyes
* Classism and Evolutionary Considerations about Stress - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYG0ZuTv5rs
** You will be healthier and live longer when you subordinate others. Those in charge literally live better and longer lives. Eudaimonia and Ethics are not always compatible.
* Our purchasing power is decreasing; I think there are serious caveats and exceptions to consider in both directions here - http://davkett.com/en/much-purchasing-power-americans-lost-last-decade/
* Color me surprised, Uber doing evil? You mean their "innovation" isn't ultimately for the benefit of humanity? What? Say it ain't so. - https://gizmodo.com/uber-doesn-t-want-you-to-see-this-document-about-its-va-1795151637
* Interesting book - http://www.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine
* As much flak as I see LSC get, sometimes they really do fucking get it - https://www.reddit.com/r/LateStageCapitalism/comments/6c5e8p/worth_the_read/
Today was good. I studied my last chapter. It's huge. I'll have to take the exam on Monday.
Before class even started, the teacher had me come into his office. He wanted to tell me that he was thinking on his way back home from school about what he said to me the day before. He wanted to point out (if not reiterate what he said the day before) that without the sockolets, even he couldn't have finished the simulator in 6 hours. Cutting the holes, even with a drill instead of a torch, would have taken far more time. His point was to show me that Keith was talking out of his ass. Also, the books will cost $260. I'm hoping I can find a way to have AB&T pay for them (that reminds me that I should cash my check and mail off my current form).
Around break time, I went over to Dale's office. He's frankly a better teacher. His students are higher quality too, imho. Pipefitters are definitely a rough bunch. That said, I spent a lot of time just sitting in his office talking and listening. Dale spends a lot of time with his students. He does a lot of the right things. I say a lot a lot.
Dale didn't want to do 1G. He said to learn 2G (moving horizontally with one plate stacked vertically on top of the other). So, that's what we did. We tacked the plates from the back. Also, don't worry about welding over the tacks on the plate. They cut off the last inch off each side anyway. I tried welding through it, and I couldn't.
I finally put down my first root under instruction. It was night and day different with a teacher. I had to stick the 6010 rod in there hard. Seriously, like I was pushing my finger into your arm (that's actually what Dale did to show me). The root came out pretty well (the students, my teacher, and Dale agreed). I probably should have pushed even harder. My root could literally pass inspection. It was miles better than anything I had done on my own. Dale's pointers and suggestions were very detailed. There are clearly tons of small things to learn. It's an art. Dale showed me with his own hand as well. After I finished the root and grinding, Dale had his star pupil this year (the state champion) teach me how to drop the hotpass over the root.
We switched to 7018 rods from 6010. We had to drop the crispness down and turn up the heat a pinch (Dale said it probably could have been a hair hotter too). I had about a 10-degree angle pointing up into the upper part of the root. Many students, particularly the upperclassmen, came to visit my booth. They said it was very good, especially given how little practice I have. Several asked if I was going to be joining them.
I got to look at another upperclassman's work. I asked him what he liked about his particular weld piece and what he didn't. I think I made him uncomfortable asking, but the champion thought it was a fine question to ask. I hope that I can grow to be more comfortable being honest with myself about my own mistakes and learning from them. How else can I master this with what little time and as few resources as I have?
Dale came by to look at my hotpass. He said it was very good a couple times, although he thinks I should have sped up. I moved too slowly (I think I can fix this easily enough). I also have to make sure that it doesn't droop down and create a tiny trench or pocket on the bottom for slag to hide in. In time, I may get this down. I really hope to soak up as much as I can from Dale. I asked tons and tons of questions today, particularly targeting Dale and his star pupil. I don't have the benefit of time and practice that these guys have. I can't expect too much of myself here. I need to do my best and be pleased with whatever I can achieve.
What if I spent extra time after school with Dale to learn to weld? 30 minutes every day would go a really long fucking way. I'll need to find out what his class' schedule is like; this may not even be possible. Maybe I can ask my teacher to let me go over there 30 minutes each day. My teacher made the jokingish comment that I was betraying him by trying to learn to weld, although he has encouraged me in many ways to do this.
//This page is dedicated to the memory of Dr. Gail Bowman. I'd like to think he'd find it ironic.//
!! What’s your motto? How would you like to be remembered?
I do not understand how these questions fit together cleanly. They do in some respects, but not in others (particularly in more common applications and answers). Maybe I'm supposed to answer this in stages and then derive their relationship.
!!! (1)
I fear my motto is laughably generic:
<<<
Be wise.
<<<
It's almost useless in its logical, too perfectly universalized, undefined or circularly defined truth. It lacks content. When I go to flesh it out, I see worlds upon worlds of very complex structures, questions, and relationships. Beyond even understanding them, I'm not able to reduce, crystallize, compatibilize, and commensurate these fragmented whirlwinds, and hence there is a disconnect between my lame-appearing motto and what I mean or even hope to mean by it. The spherical chickens in a vacuum metaphor in physics only begin to touch the tip of the iceberg I'm looking at.
This, of course, is a metamodern problem. Stoicism, friend. What more can you do? This is the only practical option in pursuing idealism.
!!! (2)
As to how I want to be remembered, I legitimately try not to worry about it in the standard sense. While I do want to be motivated by the approval of the most rational, wise, and virtuous hypothetical persons I can imagine, taking into consideration what they would think of me and my actions in my context (applying the Categorical Imperative in a particularized fashion), I am otherwise directly trying not to seek the approval of others. I do not want to enslave myself to them.
Should I enslave myself to the memories and retrospective opinions others have of me, or even of what I would like them to have of me? I can easily point out tons of people whose opinions are truly irrelevant if not outright vicious. I do not see a better alternative to the approach I've taken.
I seek the approval of the wise (which ultimately, none of us are). The memories the wise would have of me are the only truly relevant measures of who I am, who I was, etc.
Ultimately, this question appears to deal in our existential thinking and being towards death.
Of course, I want my family and friends to remember me fondly. I want them to feel a sense of loss when I'm gone. I want them to be happy to have known me, to have had me in their lives. I want them to feel like I've made their lives better, and that they are missing out by my non-existence. I want them to wish I was still alive in some respects. I want them to remember me as a voice in their heads, thinking about how I would respond to them. I hope my invisible voice would be encouraging, loving, empathic, and ultimately useful in helping them maximize their happiness.<<ref "1">> I hope they see me as a person of integrity who honestly loved them.
Do I want people to remember me by my motto of being wise? Well, simplistically, yes. But, it is clearer to me, more than ever, that virtue is exceedingly rare. It's a bell curve. Those towards the extreme of virtue will appear vicious to most people. To be wise in the eyes of the masses does not make one wise. I would prefer we were all wise and that wise people remembered me as being wise because I was wise. That, of course, will not come to pass for so many reasons (including the fact that I'm not wise). Being remembered as wise just isn't a reliable enough indicator of having been wise.
We might also consider the jaws of oblivion and my place in humanity or the universe at large. I would like to have achieved something useful to humanity in itself. I doubt I will. To make a stamp on the universe would be great. It reminds me of a history teacher I had who reduced much of history to seeking fame and fortune. Living forever through our children or the memories others have of us was a kind of eternal life that mixed fame and fortune together. This is an ancient concept, no doubt. It is so stupidly obvious in celebrity culture and the baser instincts we all seem to have as humans in the pursuit of wealth, power, and appearance. But, I also see more respectable elements of it in many historical, philosophical, and even scientific points of view (The Philosophy of Evolution in particular).
I think stoicism classically attempts to tame and quiet these pursuits of fame and fortune. Marking the universe is almost irrelevant. Enjoy what you have while you have it. Worry about that which you have control over.
Of course, we might envision some hypothetical creatures or deities watching over us and our every move, calculating the causal relationships and responsibilities among us, measuring and judging our essence and value. Perhaps, in a sense, these are my hypothetical gods of whom I seek approval. I have wondered many times how healthy this really is. It easily slips into religious perspectives which I'm actively avoiding. However, I think there are even secular perspectives which make use of this device. I need to think more about it.
Admittedly, I see more clearly why these two questions are connected. Hence, I hope to be a stoic metamodern nihilistic eudaimonic lifehacker.
---
<<footnotes "1" "I hope I will not be a tormentor to them like the memory footprint I have of my parents in me.">>
// The phrases "like shooting fish in a barrel" and "takes one to know one" have never been so painfully apt. His prescient ability to perpetually 4D-Chess checkmate himself is hyperreal.//
!!Tweets from @realDonaldTrump
<<<
Are you allowed to impeach a president for gross incompetence?
6:23 AM - 4 Jun 2014
<<<
I suppose this one is obvious.
<<<
Fact--Obama does not read his intelligence briefings nor does he get briefed in person by the CIA or DOD. Too busy I guess!
4:15 PM - 30 Sep 2014
<<<
Trump is famous for not scheduling intelligence briefings (for several overdetermined reasons, it appears) or reading intelligence reports.
<<<
Crooked Hillary Clinton and her team "were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information." Not fit!
7:12 AM - 6 Jul 2016
<<<
Surely Trump would not directly provide classified information to Russians or business interests. Trump's administration hasn't been leaking sensitive and damning information from the beginning of his presidency either, right?
<<<
Just as I predicted, @BarackObama has not allowed an independent investigation into the national security leaks from his cabinet.
4:24 PM - 27 Jul 2012
<<<
The stupid, it burns. I'm sure Trump hasn't pushed back against investigations into his connections with Russia, nevermind independent investigations. Of course, the RNC, in general, are completely hypocritical in this respect as well. Oh, fuck me, the DNC is too regarding their strongarming of Sanders (what a shit show).
<<<
Obama has no problem leaking national security secrets. Why can't he release his records? Especially when $5M is going to charity.
5:44 PM - 24 Oct 2012
<<<
There is so much wrong with this, I don't even know where to begin.
* Trump leaks national security secrets on the reg.
* Trump has never released his own tax records, except for one carefully crafted to import his wife.
* Trump has never donated his own money; he only redistributes money donated from others through his "charity."
* While Obama deserves some serious hate, Trump's criticisms are not justified. He's playing a PR game, and that's all.
He's shameless.
<<<
If I win-I am going to instruct my AG to get a special prosecutor to look into your situation bc there's never been anything like your lies.
9:27 PM - 9 Oct 2016
<<<
Jesus H. Buttfucking Christ. It's like he's talking about himself and what he deserves. It's uncanny.
<<<
The FBI is totally unable to stop the national security "leakers" that have permeated our government for a long time. They can't even......
7:31 AM - 24 Feb 2017
<<<
Let's hope he's wrong. He's right in that they haven't been able to stop him, at least not yet. It's scary to see that he means leaks in his own administration here.
<<<
“We build too many walls and not enough bridges.” - Isaac Newton
4:11 PM - 7 Oct 2013
<<<
But, don't we want to keep all the Mexicans out of our country? Maybe he could get them to pay for both a Wall and a Bridge, lol.
<<<
Lyin' Hillary Clinton told the FBI that she did not know the "C" markings on documents stood for CLASSIFIED. How can this be happening?
7:49 PM - 4 Sep 2016
<<<
Fish in a barrel.
<<<
The real scandal here is that classified information is illegally given out by "intelligence" like candy. Very un-American!
8:13 AM - 15 Feb 2017
<<<
He was literally president at the time of writing that quote.
<<<
While our wonderful president was out playing golf all day, the TSA is falling apart, just like our government! Airports a total disaster!
6:56 AM - 21 May 2016
<<<
Says the President who has taken more vacation time in 100 days than Obama did in 8 years. He spends that vacation time golfing, using taxpayers' money to subsidize extravagant trips to his own resorts where he sells us out to wealthy people playing golf with him.
<<<
Now that Obama’s poll numbers are in tailspin – watch for him to launch a strike in Libya or Iran. He is desperate.
5:39 PM - 9 Oct 2012
<<<
Says a president with arguably the lowest approval numbers who went on to attempt to distract the American public with an unprovoked bombing of Syria. This fucker has a finger on the button; you better not hurt his feelings, or else!
<<<
Call it any way you like, but Snowden is a traitor. When our country was great do you know what we did to traitors?
3:41 PM - 27 Jun 2013
<<<
He has several tweets about Snowden being a traitor for giving classified information to Russia. *facepalm* Trump literally gave classified information to Russia (Snowden likely didn't give it to Russia directly, but instead gave it at least respectable parties attempting to serve the global good).
<<<
The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy.
11:45 PM - 6 Nov 2012
<<<
Says the man who lost the popular vote.
<<<
China, Russia and Iran are laughing at us. We have weak leaders who are threatening our national security. Dangerous times.
3:19 PM - 12 Sep 2013
<<<
Laughing and crying. Prophesy makes me wail, weep, and gnash my teeth.
<<<
Russian leaders are publicly celebrating Obama's reelection. They can't wait to see how flexible Obama will be now.
2:11 PM - 8 Nov 2012
<<<
I'm sure Russia has zero influence over Trump. They must have been devastated when their insanity candidate of choice won the POTUS election.
<<<
What will we get for bombing Syria besides more debt and a possible long term conflict? Obama needs Congressional approval.
2:14 PM - 29 Aug 2013
<<<
Hrmm. That's a really good question, Trump. That going to war part thing needing congressional approval seems pretty reasonable too. /wrists
* [[2017.05.18 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** Edited.
** I think I should ask k0sh3k what questions she thinks I should answer.
* [[2017.05.18 - Link Log]]
** Edited.
* [[Cockatrice Ubuntu 16.04 Setup Script]]
** Worked like a charm. I remember having to build it without this script. This was stupidly easy.
** I'll send the link to my chill'uns.
* [[2017.05.18 - Wiki Review Log]]
** Edited.
* [[2017.05.18 - Pipefitting Log]]
** I forgot something from yesterday's log that was pertinent to today's log. Review provides continuity.
** Edited.
* [[2017.05.18 - Diet Log]]
** Calories looked good.
|customTable|k
|Food|Calories|h
|Chips|500|
|Pickle|10|
|Cherries|308|
|Grilled Cheese|350|
|Grilled Cheese|350|
|Asparagus|60|
|Tomato Soup|148|
|Chips and Salsa|600|
|Wine|250|
|Total|2576|f
!!General Notes:
* My wife was gone, and my children didn't do their work.
---
!!j3d1h:
* Review past week:
** Research Skills: Cosmetology
*** Missed 3 days.
** Math: Singapore Math
*** Completed 10 pages as required, with dates and pg numbers. Good job.
** Vocational Theory: Commenting on Algorithms and Data structures written in Python
*** Completed one program, but didn't work for 2 days.
** Vocational Practice: Applied Computer Science
*** Barely tried on implementing the backup program.
** Reading: Little House in the Big Woods
*** Read half the book. Should have been close to finished.
** Writing: 250 word count in her wiki
*** Did it for 3 days.
** Social Studies: Khan Academy - World History
*** 2 days where she didn't do her work
*** Christianity, Judaism, Confucius, Chinese Dynasties, Daoism
** Spanish
*** Less than half a week of work.
* Plan next week:
** Research Skills: Cosmetology
*** Build outfits out of your clothes. Take pictures.
*** Actually research how to build outfits. What does that entail?
** Math: Singapore Math
*** Complete 10 pages. Keep it up.
** Vocational Theory: Commenting on Algorithms and Data structures written in Python
*** Complete 3 programs.
** Vocational Practice: Applied Computer Science
*** Setup backup scripts for the family, except dad.
*** Measure for ethernet cord
*** Make the USB backup script. Look for one first.
** Reading: Little House in the Big Woods
*** Finish the book, and then move onto your Literature book.
** Writing: 250-word count in her wiki
*** Guarantee that you do your work. It will be structured and titled correctly.
** Social Studies: Khan Academy - World History
*** Keep it up, and don't miss any day.
** Spanish
*** Actually do your work.
---
!!1uxb0x
* Review past week:
** Research Skills: Curation
*** Missed 2 days.
** Math: Life of Fred - Dogs
*** Missed 2 days of math.
*** Failed to organize his problems in his workbook.
** Vocational Theory: Eyewitness Books: Electricity
*** Didn't do it for 3 days.
** Vocational Practice: Redstone
*** Attempted the adder but didn't do anything else.
** Reading: Fairy Tales from the Brothers Grimm
*** Read 4 stories and understood them. It is weird how he can recall fiction but not non-fiction.
** Writing: 150-word count in his wiki
*** Didn't write anything.
** Social Studies: Khan Academy - World History
*** Worked for 3 days on Ancient History
** Language Arts: JacKris Books
*** Did 3 days of work, 6 pages.
* Plan next week:
** Research Skills: Depression Workbook
*** Finish 5 chapters of the "Negative Muck" book.
** Math: Life of Fred - Dogs
*** 5 Chapters in Life of Fred.
** Vocational Theory & Practice: Reading Comprehension
*** Go through your mother's site to find it. Bookmark it.
*** Read, don't listen. Complete the work.
** Reading: Fairy Tales from the Brothers Grimm
*** Continue reading through it.
** Writing: 150-word count in his wiki
*** Do it.
** Social Studies: Khan Academy - World History
*** Do it.
** Language Arts: JacKris Books
*** 10 pages of work.
* Neat text formatting tool and also learned how to use it - https://gist.github.com/noromanba/3062530dc3970d93762a5775080715f8
* Those who own their devices will be punished. Conform, Pirate, or Perish - https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170516/06083537378/new-netflix-drm-blocks-rooted-phone-owners-downloading-netflix-app.shtml
* Confirm my bias: Death to The Economist - https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/05/how-the-economist-thinks
I'm posting on the weekend here, but I was browsing around tools and hardware for pipefitting. I really want to make alignment dogs. I'm not sure how best to do it. There seem to be a lot of options.
My perfect dogs would be:
* Thick
* Machined
* Have the threads inside
* Very thick bolt, and can be turned by hand (like a C-clamp).
I've drawn them up. I'll talk to the machine shop and my teacher about it. If the CNC guys would build it, that would be insane. If they can't, that's totally fine.
I think 8 of them would go a very long way.
!! What is your favorite song and why?
Always with the simple questions for which I never seem capable of offering a simple answer.
What makes a song my favorite? I hate to say it, but I'm not a monolithic identity in some respects. What makes a song my favorite is particularized to a context. Some days, it is Johnny Cash's rendition of Reznor's "Hurt." Other days, Rachmaninoff's Barcarolle dazzles and humbles me. In my grind mode, Caribou's Sun (Altrice's 'Only What You Gave Me' Remix) mesmerizes me. When I'm meditating, Paul Ellis' "Firefly Rising Outshined by the Moon" transports me. Bach's Prelude from Suite No.1 in G major for Cello moves me to tears every single time. I feel uncomfortable naming one song.
Music is most powerful in the moment. What makes me soar, wail, pumped, energized, cathartic, or emotional? That's the stuff that music is made of and for. Music must activate me. I listen to music all day. Only sometimes, when I'm really lucky, do I recapture its true-true magic. To my dismay, it is rarer as I age. I love it, but one builds up a resistance or tolerance to the soul piercingness of music.
Of course, I'm addicted to it. My favorite, I suppose, is that which grants me maximum pleasure or utility in the context.
I have a weird history with music.
Admittedly, I have a problem, a deficiency in my brain: I can't remember song lyrics. Most people who have heard a song 5 or 500 times can recall the lyrics, easily and almost mindlessly singing along with the song. But, I usually can't. This strong innate ability which even children and Alzheimer's patients have, I don't have. There is a flaw in my brain that has twisted how I see, understand, and interact with the world, and it is tied to my inability to remember song lyrics in an efficient or effective manner.
For example, I'm a PK, I've sung Amazing Grace a thousand times. I've played it for serious performances. I've played it on a dozen instruments. I've studied the words and the history of the song. But, I'd be lucky to even sing, recall, or write down for you the first verse. The melody resonates deeply with me, but it does not activate human words in me. It activates something else. What? I do not know.
For me, music is about the notes. Vocals are just sounds, texture, and notes which form something to listen to in itself.<<ref "1">> I wish I could put my finger on it for you. I do not know.
Music is a drug. Sometimes it is the only thing which can soothe me or motivate me. What drug do I need at the moment? That is my favorite. I'm capricious and lust-filled when it comes to music. Give it to me! I crave it!!
---
<<footnotes "1" "Although, it is my experience that the words of musicians, producers, and songwriters are rarely valuable or worth interpreting.">>
It's been on a deathspiral for a long time.<<ref "2018.11.21">> The ecosystem is vast. Larger than anything in history so far. Its legacy is truly something to behold, and its ability to run legacy software alongside its profound influence over personal computing has kept it at the head of the pack for a long time.
Mobile computing was the knock-down. The inescapable security flaws in its unupdatable or unupdated software will eventually be its knockout. At this point, you can only VM sandbox it.
Here's the kicker: powershell and POSIX compliant virtualization makes life easy for hackers. They break into the machine, and now they are just fucking handed everything on a platter. Windows was built on the wizardry of protecting the user from themselves, and that at least added some speedbumps to the effectiveness of malware. This is adding fuel to the fire. It is ironic that the push towards usability for Power Users ultimately serves to highlight its weaknesses.
It is unclear what paths are available. Some of their research work has been outstanding. Their willingness to bring decent hardware to the market when Apple won't allow them to survive in a different kind of Walled Garden niche as well. Windows in its standard incarnations, however, will die.
I want to say, Fare thee well. But, it's dying a slow death. And with it, many lives will be ruined. Computers are tools deeply integrated into the fabric of our lives. Our identities, finances, communications, access, and mobility are all tied to our boxes. Those relying upon Windows will continue to feel the beatdown. M$ never did give a shit about you and me though. Consider it a form of planned obsolescence.
---
<<footnotes "2018.11.21" "Meh. Whatever. I think most people really just want thinclients in the end. They also still own gaming for now.">>
* [[2017.05.19 - Trump's Hypocritically Prophetic Tweets & Quotes]]
** This post makes me laugh and then cry.
* [[2017.05.19 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** Good post.
** Edited.
* [[2017.05.19 - Diet Log]]
** Summed.
* [[2017.05.19 - Wiki Review Log]]
** I asked k0sh3k. She felt it would be better to choose my own and gave a good argument. She said she would be willing to choose once a week for me though as a matter of curiosity.
* [[2017.05.19 - Pipefitting Log]]
** I think I should study it tomorrow. It would be useful to be prepared for it in advance, especially to make up for the fact that I was over in the welding shop instead of studying with the others.
** I've still not cashed the AB&T check or mailed out my form. Also, it wouldn't hurt to get photocopies.
** I should definitely think more about how to integrate welding into my work. I've done a poor job of it. I see now how important it is to have instruction from the welding teacher. I should not do this on my own. One weld a day, I might be able to do that. There's a way of avoiding the 2-year waiting period to enter his class by doing it like this too.
** Edited.
* [[2017.05.19 - Link Log]]
** Edited.
* When you are sad, I want you to write about it.
* We will restructure asap.
I was sitting on the porch with my cat, Ranga. He is always cooped up in the house. We aren't allowed to let him wander. Our cat door has been sealed, as required by our landlords. I was sitting on the porch after my DCK trip, just thinking outside. I went to go inside, and the cat darted out so fast I couldn't stop him. So, I sat with him.
My family came home from church as I was sitting there with Ranga. My son talked about his Sunday school lesson. He talked about what he learned about and discussed in Sunday school. it instantly took me back to a story of my childhood, which I told him.
I told him that Carol May (Mae?) Cox, one of my Sunday school teachers had asked me which human reminded me most of God. I said it was my father. This stunned her and later my father. As a father, it stuns me.
I held my boy and shed tears.
As I've noted elsewhere, I didn't take DCK because I was traveling. It literally takes my entire morning. I would be willing to use at my brother's house, but I didn't think it would be the wise thing to do. We had to travel back, and I wanted to be in good shape for driving in case my wife needed me to do so.
Below you will find my DCK Meditations:
----
I'd like each person in the family to come up with a day-long activity for us to do together (or perhaps a list of activities). Eventually, I'd like for us to do something on each person's list.
What would mine be?
* Canoeing
* Theme Park (maybe should wait until everyone is tall enough)
* Visiting Washington D.C. for a weekend.
We need to develop plans and dreams together. What do we want to achieve and experience? I could do it all, and that's fine. I think your buy-in matters. I want you to steer the ship too.
---
I hope that I will look at non-school environments as learning opportunities and places for growth. This, of course, has to be balanced against financial planning and our well-being. I'm still holding my breath about the union job. I'd like to work before then, but the pieces aren't falling into place. Maybe I need make them fall into place.
---
I hope not to wrestle today. Struggling sucks. At least it doesn't feel like being powerless entirely though. I'm struggling with myself and the universe, but it doesn't feel insidious or torturous. The inability to escape pain produces learned helplessness.
What is the opposite of wrestling? That's what I want to do. It is hard to see what doesn't include wrestling and struggling. Maybe that's just the nature of the honest effort.
---
I hope that I can describe and highlight the Platonic Allegory to my children. Reality really is fuzzy and difficult to understand. Striving is all we can do.
---
Closed eye visual started out more strongly today. I haven't used in 2 weeks. Let it flow.
---
I see us as bumping against things which give us pleasure and pain. Many algorithms emerge and die off. I want to make sure that my children don't feel cast out into the world without any experience or guidance. They have to get their hands dirty. They have to take some risks, fail sometimes, and stand back up. This is about developing not only the right character but also having the right kind of grid or matrix of the world in their mind. They have to anticipate what's coming at them. They have to ride the waves and currents. They have to know when to fight and when to flee. They have to know where to strike with their daggers in the world and when, and why, etc.
---
I must admit there is a weird tension I cannot resolve. I want to give my children the independence to become who they want to be. I don't know when the fledgling bird is ready to fly through. I don't even know what counts as good flying or safe enough flying. I do want to shape them into someone who is good and happy though, by my standards or better.
---
I feel like the hard and soft divide in my bed is a terrifying symbol. Maybe this is hocus-pocus. Maybe it is Freudian. Maybe it is nothing. I miss the days when I could turn over and hold my wife on equal ground. I want us to be at the same elevation. In time, we will find a mattress which solves the problem. Maybe it doesn't fix the symbolic problem, but money can find a mattress which is flat and perfect for both of us. We spend many years of our lives on the mattress. I do buy that argument.
Financial pressures have certainly been on my wife. Now it is my turn. I hope to do her justice. I hope to show her that we have not wasted our time and that this story has a happy ending. I feel like I keep gearing up and readying myself to take the big swing, but I feel like I've not taken the swing into financial security. This, of course, is not all my fault. The economic climate is not simple (understatement). But, I want to make sure I'm not holding myself back.
---
I wish to inspect gift-giving, yet again. The sinews of the tension between altruism and egoism string out.
---
Why does it feel like DCK isn't fully hitting me today? I've felt like that a couple times actually. It doesn't destroy me.
I am not convinced DCK is helping me today. Does it right my world? Does it work? Do I pass through fires and emerge as a better person on the other side? Ah. Maybe.
My hope is that there will be a time when I lose doses of DCK are irrelevant and unnecessary. I want to be unified, happy, and functioning enough to not rely upon anything. I want unconditional happiness.
I'm not even feeling the effects very much today. Or am I? I feel incredibly stable despite the drowsiness that usually accompanies it. I can type. I feel very much like myself. I am me. The dissociative aspect does not seem to be working in full force. If it is working I think it is in tiny ways, opening a door here and there, allowing me to channel a thought I did not anticipate. Obviously, I couldn't write like this permanently. It does have some effect. I feel clear in some respects.
Not all DCK trips are going to be the same. Remember that. This is incredibly messy. Temper and buffer your expectations.
---
Sometimes I imagine raising children like growing flowers (this is a fairly common theme in literature, I'm sure). My wife thinks she is bad at growing flowers. I do not have the virtuous perception and attention to detail that she does (which isn't to say she is virtuous here, but to say that she is clearly more skilled at it than I am). That doesn't mean I shouldn't try to grow flowers, of course. It's about being economical and divvying up with work according to our comparative advantages.
---
Ah, I feel the pain now. The pressures of this drug on my brain, I fear, mimic the pressures in my mind.
Sometimes I feel like I'm forced to write out the schematic of the organic journey I am taking.
---
It kills me that I am not compatible with my parents. I am not good with theories of minds. Right now, I feel like they feel like they are dying (although, not anymore, possibly) and estranged by some demons or evils of persons interfering in their happiness, health, relationships, etc. (rest assured, they have an exceedingly complex and coherent point of view; they are extremely intelligent creatures). I may have overreacted to my mother's illness. I may not have either. It isn't clear what will unfold. The evidence was there though, I was convinced she was dying. The transformation to frailty was eye-opening. I am more than happy to be wrong.
There is this weird problem where your adversary appears omniscient but admits they aren't. There is something logical and deeply illogical here. Fog.
The loss of innocence is tremendous. I must not accept my father's cliché hatred of the cliché. I think, at the moment, I don't know what I think. Brainfart. Honesty. These are the psychological cracks.
Ah, you too see the incoherence of my writing. What are the missing puzzle pieces? I feel pain in my stomach.
---
Am I building a new consciousness through DCK? I take myself to be doing something in that ballpark. How, how, and how? In the various kinds, orders, and degrees I do not know.
---
Mobile computing wins because people don't know how or won't learn how and won't exert fitting market forces to decentralize and control their own data, networks, and other infrastructure.
---
I guess I approach DCK like a rodeo. There is a danger, power over myself, and perception to be harnessed and controlled. I feel like I have to bring order to the chaos of the phenomenological experience (which maybe sounds incoherent, but I don't even know what to call it).
|customTable|k
|Food|Calories|h
|Turkey Burger|400|
|Half a Turkey Burger|200|
|Brussel Sprouts|38|
|Salad|150|
|Cherries|77|
|Chips|700|
|Total|1565|f
!! How has your health been this week?
* 1uxb0x
** Great, except biting on the insides of his cheeks some. Use the chew toy instead.
* j3d1h
** Good. A sore throat. Should eat a little more.
* k0sh3k
** Have a headache today. Most of the week has been really good though.
* h0p3
** I've felt some anxiety and thought looping, but overall it was a productive week. I felt autonomous.
---
!! What happened last week? Have you been happy this past week? Why or why not?
* 1uxb0x
** Yesterday was awesome. The rest of the week had many blessings. We started recording them this week. See his wiki.
* j3d1h
** Mostly not because of homework.
** Really happy because she did a lot of drawing this week.
* k0sh3k
** Conference was cool.
** Finished a good book.
* h0p3
** Worked hard last week. I'm proud of that.
** I spent a lot of time doing chores with my kids, as I set out to do a while back.
** I played magic with my kids. It rocked.
---
!! What is a positive fact or compliment we can say about each person in the family?
* 1uxb0x
** I love that you spend time finding the limits of your body, testing it, and practicing with it.
** Did a great job deep cleaning and organizing your room and without a meltdown.
** Intentionally went out of his way to be kind to his family. He was considerate.
* j3d1h
** Took difficult constructive criticism very well about her wiki structure (and restructuring).
** Encouraged herself and her brother to actually do their work, particularly on Friday.
** I like that you don't hide who you are, that you embrace your dorkiness.
* k0sh3k
** I'm grateful that you are kind in how you parent us each day, particularly when we've not been well behaved.
** Your story is interesting, and I hope you write more of it.
** Thank you for taking the time to connect with your family both in mornings and evenings every single day you were at the conference. You had no spoons left, and you went above and beyond. That is love.
* h0p3
** You were willing to help us through a lot of stuff we hate.
** I am grateful to you for helping me this week with my chores and room especially.
** You maintained an even keel even without DCK, despite having a rough weekend.
---
!! What will you do this week?
* 1uxb0x
** Work harder
* j3d1h
** Work harder on school.
** Will try to finish 2-3 pieces of art this week.
* k0sh3k
** God, I don't even know.
** ILLs.
* h0p3
** Fix the dryer.
* Thank you for sanitizing your wiki
* Use consistent tags
* Make your python comments aesthetically pleasing
* Consider using title links so that others can link directly to it while visiting.
* Keep up with your logs
* Refrain from !!! formatting. Find a way to do format my globally or at least specific to the tiddler.
* Consider splitting up your argumentative blog posts, daily pictures, and daily links. These are three separate functions. Separate them. You can combine them automagically if you want. You can add pieces together, but peeling them apart is much harder (if not impossible).
* Write for 1 hour each day.
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eeGX4SlF1s<<ref "2018.11.21">>
** I have run across rumors of pedophilia in Hollywood many times. I am not surprised.
* https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/digital-surveillance-is-class-warfare
** I agree with much of the article. I continue to inspect humanity's dependence upon mobile computing and the way it influences our lives.
* http://ranger.nongnu.org/
** Yet another tool I wish I had the will power to learn to use and integrate into my life.
* https://archive.fo/kU1Ly
** The monetization of Reddit continues from the inside and out.
* http://worrydream.com/LadderOfAbstraction/
** An interesting read, and visuals are also pretty.
* https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/theresa-may-internet-conservatives-government-a7744176.html?amp
** Conservatives: kill yourselves. The authoritarian restrictions upon fundamental democratizing, access, and mobility information tools is beyond disturbing.
* https://blog.acolyer.org/2017/05/19/who-controls-the-internet-analyzing-global-threats-using-property-traversal-graphs/
** I'm not surprised to see the US at the top of these lists (I say that without a drop of nationalism).
* https://theweek.com/speedreads/700428/trump-signs-largest-arms-deal-american-history-saudi-arabia
** It's sad when you expect the contradictions.
* https://daringfireball.net/linked/2017/05/20/gilbertson-amp
** AMP does look like an attempt to build a walled garden inside the web itself. Disgusting.
* https://www.reddit.com/r/LifeProTips/comments/6c9wi8/lpt_if_you_are_having_a_stressful_day_or_period/?utm_content=title&utm_medium=front&utm_source=reddit&utm_name=LifeProTips
** Motivated me today to clean the house top to bottom.
** I would like to note that I've seen several tidbits towards a theory of this. I've seen anecdotal evidence a'plenty as well.
* https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/uber-is-using-ai-to-charge-people-as-much-as-possible-for-a-ride
** Oh, I can see that you have an emergency from my surveillance of your life, so now I can price gouge you.
* https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-05-19/americans-are-paying-38-to-collect-1-of-student-debt
** It never made sense to socialists. I've found it's increasingly not making sense to capitalists either. I assume they will have more reactionary approaches to the issue though.
* http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/05/21/529417148/saudis-and-the-uae-will-donate-100-million-to-a-fund-inspired-by-ivanka-trump
** This is no accident. This is a bribe. Capitalism is working just //fine//. Let me guess, you don't even see the connection to capitalism here (go ahead and play dumb). Oh, this isn't real capitalism? I suppose you think we live in a constitutional democratic republic too. You think you can honestly divide economics from politics? Are you fucking retarded? Open your eyes. The US has killed hundreds of millions of people off (and enslaved even more) for the sake of capitalism.
* http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1457&context=articles
** But, I want to have my cake and eat it too. Certainty is a powerful drug.
---
<<footnotes "2018.11.21" "This is a clear transition in formatting. This is a move toward what I currently use. It's significantly easier on my eyes too.">>
//I decided I would ask this classic-like one for myself on DCK today.//
!! If you could go back 20 years and magically alter, advise, or force yourself to understand, believe, and act upon 3 things, what would they be?
Clearly, the question runs into plenty of wonderful time paradoxes, epistemology, and philosophy of mind problems. Let's pretend they weren't problems, just for the sake of argument.
# Empathize with and program yourself.
# Humbly work hard on what you care about.
# Pursue meaning in the pursuit of happiness.
I suppose 11-year-old me would have done a lot of things differently if he could have been fittingly trained to understand and implement those fundamentals.
Let us not fret over spilled milk. Be stoic. You have a life ahead of you filled with opportunities. Go for it!
Maybe it's the afterglow effect, but I don't have much to say. I wonder if my [[Prompted Introspection Log]] felt so useful to me directly because I hadn't been able to use DCK. I don't feel the impact of this log while on or after DCK, even though I found it interesting.
It isn't that introspection isn't useful to me. It clearly very much is. Maybe it's the kind of introspection that matters. Particularism and contextualism to the rescue, yet again. I must introspect about the right things, in the right way, at the right time, for the right reasons, etc. Thank you viciously circular Virtuous Man. I need content and decisions procedures backed by profound justifications!
* [[2017.05.20 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** Edited.
* [[2017.05.20 - Wiki Review Log]]
** Cashed the check. I still haven't gotten photocopies or mailed my current form.
** I'd like to point out that this backward glance of [[Wiki Review Log]] sometimes acts as a useful "to do" list and self-accountabilibuddy system.
* [[2017.05.20 - Homeschooling Log]]
** I don't know if I have much to add, but this is not what I'm looking for.
** We failed this week, but we'll stand back up and try again (perhaps not the exact same thing).
** I fear that my son's vocational studies aren't working. I'm going to try just constructing things in general right now.
* [[2017.05.20 - Diet Log]]
** Uh....lol. Well, it //was// delicious. Worth it? Okay. Maybe not.
** Summed and edited.
* [[2017.05.20 - Pipefitting Log]]
** I think this is a really good idea. I should just hop over to the machine shop first and see what they think. If they are up for something, then I'll plan it with my instructor.
* [[2017.05.20 - Link Log]]
** Edited.
** That was short. I see a backlog of many tabs open though. I need to clear them out, eh?
* [[DIY Tools]]
** It isn't clear to me that this section is useful.
* [[2017.05.20 - The Coming Demise of Windows]]
** Edited.
|customTable|k
|Food|Calories|h
|Biscuits and Gravy|800|
|Tacos|800|
|Cherries|122|
|Strawberries|16|
|English Muffin with PB|280|
|Rumcake Slice|250|
|Total|2268|f
Today wasn't too eventful, although I got plenty done. I have finally finished my second pipefitter book. Technically, I have completed all coursework. It took about 4 and a half months, but I did it. I'm staying to really become adept at buttwelds, learn the rest of the tools, finish the optional two books, learn to weld, maximize my networking and recommendations, and grab my certifications. These are good reasons to stay and continue for now.
I was sick of studying for this last test. I decided to just ask for it and see what I got. Turns out, I did great. Chris did not. I was perplexed before, but I now believe I understand the reason for this pattern. I think we are finally hitting a point in the books which extend beyond his knowledge (he has already studied this stuff for 2 years).
I talked to Mel at lunch. He continues to amaze me. He is purposely trying to bide his time sitting in the classroom. He wants to take 5 more days to finish 2 tests. His goal is to avoid the shop for the rest of the time he is here, which will just be those 5 days because he has found a way to weasel out of the full semester (this isn't like he is working ahead). He literally has never actually done buttwelds. The skill I've heard is most universal, he doesn't want to practice it at all. He wants to be a utility man for the government. I can definitely see him as the stereotypical government employee. Rubbish.
Chris and I went straight into our fabrication. We finished it. One leg was off in my measurements by close to half an inch. We didn't do the 1/8" takeouts, and the flange wasn't deep enough. That's the reason. Both can be solved with more planning. We should do so. We ended up doing the 3-4-5 trick, but had to use a calculator for 2'-3'-43.26". We got everything set to mount, but our teacher said there would be no overtime allowed. Essentially, he said we didn't have time to complete it today. So, we started cleaning and waited until he told us to go home.
!! What historical figure do you most identify with?
Am I not a historical figure? I suppose I'm not because I'm not famous. Of course, fame is an arbitrary set of lines we draw. I don't mean to say I deserve to be a legend (not even in my own mind). I mean to say that I existed in the past, there's even writing about me (and we can continue down the path of defining "historical"), and I am a figure (however unnoteworthy). Obviously, I'm not anything like what is commonly thought to be a historical figure. Inspecting the limits, of course, is ultimately useful. Words are simply made up, and we should test their boundaries and the reasons for why they have the shape and semantics they do.
I can tell you that I aspire to have the characteristics I imagine many historical figures have. I'm not sure how much I really am like them.
The very concept of "identifying with" is murky to me.<<ref "1">> There is clearly a kind of fad mixed with an important sequence of philosophical considerations in the phrase. We can do some handwaving and say "you know what I mean" or "stop being a lawyer" or "stop playing semantics,"<<ref "2">> but I have legitimate concerns about how we wield these politically significant words. This neologism has a lot of connotation embedded in it.
In a very general sense, I guess it means I am like them or feel as they do, or see as they do, or can empathize with them in a strong or natural sense. Honestly, I feel like an alien. I'm an outcast, somewhat a hermit, and someone who people ultimately do not want to get to know most of the time. I consider that to be a defining feature of who I am, and it makes it difficult for me to find people who I ultimately "identify with." I don't really belong anywhere, and historical figures tend to belong somewhere.
What then is left? What I value? What I think? What I practice? I mean, I'd straight up love to be anything like the philosopher gods I idolize. Beyond an issue of moral luck, I don't have what it takes, I think. My brilliance is fading; it has been wasted tracking down the wrong life. Who has a wasted life in the desert, trying to rebuild from shattered pieces of who he was? I'm sure there are many. I can't think of any remarkable "historical figures" off the top of my head like that (although, I'm sure I could easily be convinced, and maybe my memory is just failing me here). I think we tend not to remember or care about those kinds of people. We don't want to empathize with those losers, lol.
I have to say: this question turned out to be sad to me.
---
<<footnotes "1" "My wife talked about the fact that you can also not identify with yourself, which makes sense (even if it initially seems paradoxical).">>
<<footnotes "2" "As my ever charitable fucktarded father would say, except when he wishes to employ it.">>
* [[2017.05.21 - Family Log]]
** The dryer is fixed. Who 'da man? Woot!
* [[2017.05.21 - k0sh3k's Wiki Log]]
** She wrote for an hour today. Yay!
* [[2017.05.21 - 1uxb0x's Wiki Log]]
** Restructured his wiki for him today.
* [[2017.05.21 - j3d1h's Wiki Log]]
** Restructured her's yesterday. We'll keep it up.
* [[2017.05.21 - Wiki Review Log]]
** Still haven't gotten photocopies or mailed my current form.
* [[2017.05.21 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** I think making up my own is a bad idea.
** It is also possible that DCK (or lack thereof) significantly alters the experience. We will find out.
* [[2017.05.21 - Diet Log]]
** That can't be accurate. I feel like I ate more than that. I worry that google and my measurements aren't accurate enough.
* [[2017.05.21 - Link Log]]
** I like the new formatting. My wife was right.
* [[2017.05.21 - DCK Meditation]]
** My wife didn't respond to it. I'm not sure she really wants to.
|customTable|k
|Food|Calories|h
|Chocolate|600|
|Pizza|640|
|Turkey Burger Sandwich|350|
|Pear|100|
|Apple|100|
|Mandarins|105|
|Gatorade|140|
|Sausage+Buns|600|
|Watermelon|190|
|Spinach+Potato Snack|140|
|Chips|150|
|Total|3115|f
!! How is your health? Daily routine?
It's fine. I'm still trying to recover from my lack of sleep from the other night. I ate a lot today. I've still been experiencing thought loops. I need to do something about it.
---
!! What happened? How do you feel about it? What made you feel this way? Does it make you happy or unhappy? Why or why not?
When my brother [[JRE]] was getting married, I remember talking to my dad about the fact that I wished I could be my brother's best man. I was sad that I wasn't considered. You know my dad's response was?
<<<
You got what you deserve.
<<<
It was dripping with his standard judgmental venom. This wasn't prefaced or said kindly. It wasn't meant as constructive criticism. It was meant to be a stab. It reminds me of my Christmas as a 12-year-old where he said to me "You are the most selfish person I have ever met."<<ref "1">> Regardless of whether or not he is right, that is not how he should say it to his child. I'm tired of his shit.
You know what I think? Fuck you, you dark-triadic asshole. You don't even deserve to breathe oxygen. Even your Holy Bible will tell you that. You think you care about children? Look at the suffering of your own children. You are the cause of their suffering. You clearly don't care. You should have taken Paul's advice; you shouldn't have had children. You are a terrible parent. It would be better if you never contacted your family again. Seriously, we'd be better off without you. That's the least you could do for us.
---
!! Can you better explain what happened? Do you have a technological, philosophical, empathic, or redpilled story to tell about the phenomenon? Clarify the narrative you just told yourself.
My father lacks empathy for his children. He is a psychopath to a significant extent in this context.<<ref "2">> He damages his children, and his wife justifies it (which makes her a psychopath too). I'm tired of dealing with them. Every time I see them, it is ultimately just painful. Nothing good comes from it. I meet and talk with them because:
# I somehow still love them. Why the fuck would I love those who lied to me, manipulated me, and abused me?
# I want to be wrong about who they are. I'm literally in denial.
# I'm conditioned to do so. I'm actively trying to fix that.
# I legitimately hope my children can have a good relationship with their grandparents, even if I can't. Can I trust they will be good to my children even if they weren't good to their own?
My parents want to see their grandchildren for selfish reasons. They want the warm fuzzies. They don't care about the damage they actually incur at the end of the day. They blind themselves to it. They really are classic baby-boomers.
It has been eye-opening to get to know my mother-in-law. She's not perfect, but her behavior actually shows love. She regularly goes out of her way to ask me if I need anything. Contrast this with my parents. I can't even recall the last time they asked me that. They know we are in an incredibly vulnerable and difficult position, and they've done almost nothing to help us (besides attempting to buy their grandchildren's love). They don't even try to empathize. They don't even try to take responsibility for their creations.
I'm wishing my parents ultimately were different people than who they are. They are terrible human beings. I need to just accept that fact and move on. I have to protect myself and my family from them.
They think I owe them respect. They don't deserve my respect. Let me reiterate: creators have the a priori obligations to their creations, not the other way around. They are human beings with basic human dignity, and that is the extent of the respect they are owed.<<ref "3">>
I think we both see each other as mentally ill. Maybe we are both right. Ultimately, they are more responsible for our situation though. Blame flows to those who had the power; power and responsibility go hand in hand. If you don't like your creations, guess who's fault that is?<<ref "4">>
I am angry at myself for having been suckered into being charitable to them for so long. I was correct about them as a teenager. I should have left them for good. It was a costly mistake.
---
!! What are you going to do about what happened?
I've decided to just start digesting my thought loops here. I'll have to inspect them, I'm sure. It's time to get it out.
---
<<footnotes "1" "I once told my mother about this, and she honestly didn't believe me. Fuck her too.">>
<<footnotes "2" "Recall that psychopathy is a spectrum. It comes in degrees. My definition here is 'choosing not to feel empathy for another person.'">>
<<footnotes "3" "Queue shitty religious or social convention argument here. They really don't have a sound //moral// argument.">>
<<footnotes "4" "Let's take the time to consider the possibility that I could dismantle whatever lame theory of free will they have in mind designed to conveniently abdicate their personal responsibility and narcissistically shape their narrative.">>
I had some links ready for yesterday, but I didn't log them. Today may be a bit longer for it, we'll see.<<ref "2018.11.21">>
* https://www.salon.com/2017/05/22/president-cuck-trump-supporters-are-freaking-out-over-the-presidents-tone-change-on-islam/
** Give it time. I believe the vast majority will eventually flip. Many already have. The diehard fucktards require more evidence. This, of course, may be forgotten. Let us hope they finally see it.
* https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/6cp23n/president_cuck_trump_supporters_are_freaking_out/dhwb5z9/
** Connected to the previous. I found this to be an interesting post.
* http://www.continentcontinent.cc/index.php/continent/article/viewArticle/48
** I must admit, I'm growing too stupid, tired, and perhaps lazy to even attempt to answer the question anymore. Maybe it is just stoicism. I have enormous sympathy for object-oriented ontology at times (particularly on DCK).
* https://imgur.com/hsn8PY4
** Surprisingly reasonable socialist "propaganda"
* https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2017/05/21/young-men-falling-bottom-income-ladder/ncYhOoItuoqdlApn6qZRSL/story.html
** We've not hit peak unrest. I believe these young men will eventually erupt.
* https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/05/22/the-white-house-is-trying-to-dupe-the-new-york-times-with-phony-leaks/?wprss=rss_the-fix&tid=sm_tw_pp
** I'm shocked! Lots of reasons for it, it appears.
* https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/snoopers-charter-investigatory-powers-bill-government-online-surveillance-majority-uk-unaware-a7749851.html
** I weep. The stupidity infects us all.
* https://www.forbes.com/sites/larryalton/2017/05/22/millennials-and-automation-a-departmental-examination/#703a1f635436
** I guess it must be our fault that we don't have jobs. That's honestly the next move a conversative would make from this argument (which is hardly true).
* https://github.com/chaosbot/chaos
** A beautiful, democratized social experiment (like the publicly played Pokemon game, or the international Chess tournament (World vs. Kasparov, or whatever)).
* https://qz.com/987557/the-inevitable-future-of-slack-is-your-boss-using-it-to-spy-on-you/
** I did not like Slack before. I really don't like it now that I understand what it really is.
* https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-05-19/unemployment-in-the-u-s-is-falling-so-why-isn-t-pay-rising
** Employers have absolutely all the power in this relationship. There is no bargaining power. Workers are fundamentally enslaved to this system. They half-heartedly appear open to the possibility.
** U3 Unemployment looks better, but it is not the fitting measurement of true unemployment. Get it out of your heads. You've missed the boat. There is a glut of overqualified workers available to employers. Underemployment is extremely common. Babyboomers keeping their jobs because they never saved for retirement (or gave a shit about the future in the first place, psychopaths) continues to be part of it.
** They are right that the Phillips curve is effectively dead.
** Your savvy capitalists know why, but they aren't going to be open about it. They have too much to gain from your ignorance. This article's bottomline is half-assed blarney, on purpose.
** Talk about predictive powers: Marx has it fucking pegged, assholes.
* https://hardbin.com/ipfs/QmUGFZAWzWEaHjC1dHAUQ8aKCuKupKsX9vLzhGZV9PLknu/#about
** IPFS may eventually take off. Godspeed, good people.
* https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/22/science/52-genes-human-intelligence.html?mabReward=CTM4&recp=6&_r=0
** This seems to be a problem for AI to solve.
* A family of thought about identity, algorithms, and governing
** http://reallifemag.com/sick-of-myself/
*** Outfuckingstanding article funded by...(/drumroll)...Snapchat.
** https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/275752/13-505-social-media-and-identity.pdf
** https://iainmait.land/pdf/Rouvroy-Stiegler.pdf
** https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14391458
*** A great quote: There's also the premise of global superpowers locked into a theater of permanent economic conflict and the implicit balance of power perpetually threatening to break open and destabilize into massive full-spectrum conflict...Given the state of nature that exists between large industrialized nations, each in incentivized to foment dysfunction in their rivals to slow them down economically. The more infighting in any given country, the more headaches present among citizens, the slower and more reluctant their economy becomes...There's a slow, glacial, permanent grind that never goes away, because the world at large is trying to make you call in sick to work, so that they can gain some breathing room, and pump up their own economy...Meanwhile, uncompetitive personality flaws get classified as mental illness, so that there's medical justification to ply you with productivity drugs. Take prescribed speed to perform for the economy. Take mood stabilizers so you don't snap at your co-workers. Take anti-anxiety meds for your impostor syndrome, and stop worrying about whether everyone hates you. They're all just cranky from the speed and psychological operations of global superpowers trying to slow us down.
**** I don't agree with it all, but some of it is obviously correct.
* https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/05/23/trumps-balanced-budget-relies-on-2062000000000-in-mystery-money/
** False compromises, lies, rhetoric, etc.
* https://np.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/6cvg82/comcast_is_trying_to_censor_our_pronet_neutrality/
** Fuck Comcast
* https://www.wired.com/2017/05/camera-wants-kill-keyboard/?mbid=synd_digg
** Offloading more of our computing to centralized servers.
** I can't imagine not typing. There are too many quirks that a computer just can't capture at this point. There are too many times where my writing something down is exactly what jogs my memory, allows me to see what my thinking visually, or changes how I think about something. Perhaps it will change. We will see.
* DNC: KYS
** http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=19130
** http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2017/04/want-know-democratic-party-just-ask-lawyer.html
* https://trueeconomics.blogspot.com/2017/05/22517-us-public-pensions-system.html
** Thank you yet again, Babyboomers.
---
<<footnotes "2018.11.21" "ROFL! OMG. I really do set the bar ridiculously high for myself. At this point, I feel accomplished for pushing out a single [[Link Log]] every week. I feel like I'm drowning, and clearly, I didn't feel like I was drowning back then. That said, I consumed a lot more braincandy, IIRC. I allow links to just stew and digest in my firehose of tabs and windows, and now I select [[the salience]] of the practice differently. I am glad I have moved toward this pragmatic approach.">>
I was measuring the fabrication when the teacher came in. He asked me if I had a dream about it last night (I guess that means he realizes I've been thinking about it at home; he regularly tells the others to study at home). It was off by half an inch. So, we took the flange off and repositioned it. Everyone helped us move the fabrication and mount it. It fit quite well. We could have gotten away with not moving the flange, but I'm glad we did. It was beautiful.
The teacher thought our vertical pipe was not plumb. We showed him it was. Thus, in order to find another flaw, he said he wished it was connected to the second fabrication we'd be making. He saw the fabrication sitting there the entire time and said nothing before. Lol. I suppose he needed something to complain about to feel like a teacher here. Instead of removing the fabrication, pulling it apart, etc., we decided to do a 'field modification.' Basically, we made a saddle, and cut a hole with a special drill bit (3" in diameter), and tacked it on there. We had trouble figuring out how to 2-hole the vertical pipe with a horizontal flange (we used the square with a level with the midpoint of the level on a "0" line [which we drew for making the saddle in the first place]). We got there though. This part took quite a while.
Afterward, our teacher told us he wanted 45-degree fittings with an offset (it sounded like he wanted a 45-degree roll) on the second fabrication. It also sounded like he wanted a rolling offset, and possibly a special offset if we needed. We struggled quite a while to figure out how to do the math. I felt like an idiot the entire time. According to my math, it isn't possible. That's fine.
Eventually, the teacher came back and explained the possibilities. He told us to think about it on our week off. I'm just going to do a flat offset to a T-fitting fairly high up. That juncture is going to be very crowded. So be it.
Class is officially canceled at this point until next week Tuesday.
Chris said something interesting. He knows a manager at Eastman, and he thinks he may get an interview in August. He said he might not finish the course, and had already talked with my teacher about it. It sounds like he'd get a maintenance job. I told him to go for it and to continue applying. Soon enough, I will do the same.
//My wife selected my writing prompt today.//
!! Define the word "Boundary," or freewrite on it.
What is a boundary? What is boundariness?
A boundary demarcates an entity from its surroundings. A boundary is the first point beyond which it is not possible to find any part of the entity. I suppose entity here could be anything. We could be talking about physical or metaphysical objects. In a way, one must define the entity or object in order to define its boundaries and likely vice versa. I suppose boundaries require contexts with dimensions. One must have something outside an object in order to have boundaries to it.
Take reality itself. Are there boundaries to it? It makes no sense to talk about something outside of reality at first glance. Maybe we want to talk about possible worlds, counterfactuals, falsities, or other kinds of non-being objects. Insofar as they can be talked about, insofar as there is a being of non-being, we must say they are sort of part of reality. Hence, there is a sense in which reality does not have a boundary. But, there seem to be limited to reality. Maybe we must say that non-reality is what is outside of reality. I don't know what it means to say that.
We're near the root of ontology here. I fear I cannot give any satisfactory answer. To provide one would be equivalent to solving a host of incredibly complex and ancient problems. This is fundamental to providing a true philosophical Theory of Everything.
There are many aspects, kinds, and perhaps degrees of boundaries. Boundaries aren't always clean. They can be blurry and fuzzy, or sharp and perspicuous. Perhaps boundaries can be thick or thin. Maybe boundaries are bound to particular objects but not others, but I don't see how that is possible. If there is a boundary between X and Y, does it belong to both, to just one, or is it separate? Maybe there are multiple boundaries at play here. Admittedly, there may be boundaries which separate two objects which are distinct from how objects may continuously flow into each other as each other's boundaries. That is odd.
Boundaries of space+time are easy to conceive of in an intuitive sense (up until we hit the weirdness of quantum theory, relativity, and beyond [I suppose that's a boundary too :P]). Boundaries of ideas, abstractions, or metaphysical objects are less easy to see but still fairly obvious to me.
Some boundaries seem more objective and others more subjective. The determinacy of boundaries seems very difficult, to say the least. I worry that we oscillate between an arbitrariness and a pragmatic certainty of boundariness. There seem to be a host of postmodern and metamodern considerations here.
Do boundaries grant any sorts of privileges to objects in ontology? Are some boundaries "stronger" than others? Is there a hierarchy? What is the boundary of a boundary? It does seem like there are no boundaries without things to be bound by them. They seem parasitic in this respect.
What are the relationships between objects and their boundaries? Boundaries might commonly be thought of as having a lower-dimension than the object they bound. But, in a way, I see boundaries as pointing to a "space" larger than the object by definition. Thus, here is my best definition:
<<<
Boundaries bind and distinguish objects relative to other objects.
<<<
* [[2017.05.22 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** Edited.
* [[2017.05.22 - Wiki Review Log]]
** Still haven't gotten photocopies or mailed my current form.
*** That's 3 now.
* [[2017.05.22 - Pipefitting Log]]
** I've noticed my pipefitting logs have been shorter as of late. What does that mean? Why are they shorter?
* [[2017.05.22 - Diet Log]]
** Summed.
|customTable|k
|Food|Calories|h
|Pears|200|
|Mandarin|105|
|Sausage+Buns|600|
|Chips|700|
|Pizza|250|
|Nuts|180|
|English Muffin and PB|300|
|Total|2335|f
* http://www.tribesnext.com/
** Tears welled up when I got it running in Wine and saw there were zero users on about two dozen private servers. It was emotional.<<ref "2018.11.21">>
* https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/05/google-and-facebook-lobbyists-try-to-stop-new-online-privacy-protections/
** Nothing new. Just a 'yup.'
* https://www.scuttlebutt.nz/
** Another decentralized tool. I've ran across it before, but I forgot about it (and it wasn't in my bookmarks). Time to save it here.
* https://backchannel.com/what-deep-blue-tells-us-about-ai-in-2017-3284f92b2a93?mbid=synd_digg
** Check the printouts of that double-edged sword. Who wields it, and why?
* https://coas.missouri.edu/news/religious-devotion-predictor-behavior
** I must not know many true believers.
* http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/schooled/2017/05/u_s_high_schools_may_be_over_relying_on_online_credit_recovery_to_boost.html
** Drones making drones.
---
<<footnotes "2018.11.21" "This is a classic game. I think it has changed how I understand FPS games forever. I also think it is no accident that my favorite games have been made to be Linux playable. I suggest it appeals to a certain kind of person.">>
I was considering just making a welding log out of [[Welding]]. As I near the end of the primary aspects of the pipefitting course, I hope to fill out the edges and acquire other kinds of tools. I want to be excellent with the oxyacetylene torch (would love to make some art to get knees wet, nameplates, etc.), have some experience with less common pipefitter handtools, automated beveling (among other tricks), and build my toolbox (dogs, centerfinder, level+square combo). The shop has old bandsaw blades. I need one of those. The odd L-prism (like a super deep mini square) used for drawing lines on the pipe is also useful. Beyond that, I would really like to get some welding under my belt.
I spent all day in the welding shop today. I finished three 2G welds, a total of 21 passes. I spent a lot of time talking to people. Honestly, the welders seem to be a smarter group of people than the pipefitters on average (with obvious outliers). My first root was still the best. It is much easier with a teacher standing there talking to you as you do it. My other two roots weren't as good. Certain parts were between excellent and passable, and others were terrible. My major fuckup was the last one. I think it was because the bevel was bowed out. I really do need a very clean bevel. It's clear that I can't half-ass that part.
Grinding the root makes it much easier. I've been grinding everything but the caps. I just want it flat. There is a domino/pond ripple effect when you have mistakes early on. Grinding isn't the norm, and it isn't allowed on tests. Fake it till you make it. Dale said I could grind if I wanted. There's nothing technically wrong with it; it's just against the convention.
My second 2G I used 4 stringers for the cap instead of 3. That was a mistake. My third 2G I used 3, but the first two caps beads were just too far apart. This is just a matter of practice. Getting that distance right isn't going to happen overnight.
Dale and I talked about my strategy. He thinks I should go straight into welding after my pipefitting program. He said he would jump me ahead of the line in front of the 200-person queue to enter his class. In the meantime, I can come work in his shop whenever I want. He says he could help me finish plate in a month. He said it would take 8-10 months minimum to be able to do pipewelding. I clearly have a long way to go. He's not in love with the union idea, but he's not against it. He does agree it is the fastest way to become a journeyman pipefitter. He also thinks their welders are quite good. He has no direct complaints outside of being forced to travel. I think he is also deeply connected to the fabric of the local industries here, which are all very anti-union. I must take his perspective with a grain of salt.
He says he has never had a hard time finding a job. Welders do make good money. I think I should stick to pipefitting for now though. I think I'll enjoy the work more. He had good things to say about my teacher's pipefitting program, and he thought it was a shame they generally come out getting paid much less on average than his welding students. I think he saw the reason for the union but didn't want to admit it. My average pay in the union will be higher than his students.
I talked with one of the students. He is an odd one. He has been a welder for a long time but said he has a hard time getting jobs because he doesn't have a tech school on his resume. So, he's doing a short 4-month stint to knock the course out. We talked a lot about politics. He was a racist trying not to be racist. He didn't like the union either, but actually had significant socialist values (he had high praise for what unions "used to be" in his view; although, even his historical knowledge of it was lacking). I actually appreciated his point of view, warts and all.
I had several students help me today. While there is a lot more individual work in these classes compared to pipefitting, I liked the camaraderie. It is definitely a different atmosphere.
//I forgot to write one last night. Oops. So, I'm making up for it this morning.//
!! How would you like to die?
<<<
In my own bed, with a belly full of wine and a maiden's mouth around my cock, at the age of eighty.
--Tyrion "the Imp" Lannister, Game of Thrones
<<<
The assumption, of course, is that I'm going to die. That's a safe assumption. Maybe I could live on in some computer as a program or with robotic parts, but I highly doubt that will come to pass (even if it were possible).
What obtains at the time of my death? Is that what you are really asking? Do you know what you are asking?
Like so many of my answers, I think this one requires context. "How I would like to die" is strongly tied to how I have lived. Tell me how I have lived, and I'll tell you the when what, where, what, who, how, etc. of my preferred death. The basic answer might appear to be "old and happy," however, there are plenty of scenarios in which I'd say "young and quickly," and others where "slow and painful" death would be a worthy sacrifice. The state of the world is key to answering this question. Working backward, we might say that in answering this question, we are really talking about how I would like to live.
Ummm... I'd like everyone to be maximally and permanently happy when I die of "natural" causes in my sleep at an old age after having completed my [[Bucketlist]]. Done.
Oh, that's not realistic? You mean I need a //realistic// answer. Well, I happen to think there is a much larger difference between the way the world //is// and the way it //ought to be//. I actually think we could, theoretically, achieve world peace, enriched lives, and live in harmony. I would virtually never, ever predict it though.
Oh adversary, tell me what counts as realistic.
Maybe you are asking: Of those possible worlds that I see as not being just merely possible but also plausible, which of them do I wish to obtain? Of course, I must ask, how plausible? You have to nail this down for me. In charity, should I take up what I believe is most likely to occur and then give the most strategic answer in light of that context?
I believe the end of human existence is coming. I think billions are going to suffer and die by our own hands. I assume remnants will survive, but I don't think our species will be able to rebuild. We've harvested the surface of our planet in such a way that there aren't any do-overs. It will be a true blight on our planet's geological record.
I think finding a safe place to help my children live meaningful lives while the world crumbles around us, enslaving each other, is our best option. I hope I'm wrong. If I'm wrong, then there are many other options. This is the problem with such a defensive option; your opportunity costs are fairly high. I wish I could be more optimistic. Maybe in time that will change. Who knows? Maybe I'm wrong about what is plausible.
Ah, you still don't like my answer? Are you asking something far simpler: forget the state of the world, your life, etc., what is your preferred method or direct cause of your death?
I'd prefer it was painless. I want to go out doing something I would never do as a person who wants to live: I want to OD on Heroin when medical care is beyond helping me. I want my last moments to be pure bliss.
* [[2017.05.23 - h0p3's Log]]
** Edited.
* [[2017.05.23 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** Edited. I actually enjoyed this one. I was thinking I might do more philosophical writing.
* [[2017.05.23 - Wiki Review Log]]
** 3 strikes and you're out.
* [[2017.05.23 - Pipefitting Log]]
** Edited.
* [[2017.05.23 - Diet Log]]
** Binge.day - Behold my gluttony!
* [[2017.05.23 - Link Log]]
** I had a lot of links backed up in my browser. I remember my cousin finding it odd that I keep so many tabs open. I don't know what to say. After years of browsing, sometimes having multiple browsers, multiple windows, multiple groups of tabs, and lots of them are necessary for the job at hand. The workspace is constantly changing, and my use of it evolves. I just have to get my work done.
|customTable|k
|Food|Calories|h
|Nuts|170|
|English Muffin PB Half|150|
|Pear|100|
|Cereal|250|
|Veggie Tikka Masala|800|
|Chocolate|125|
|Rum Cake|300|
|Total|1895|f
!! How is your health? Daily routine?
Still sleeping, but not well. It's sufficient though. I'm glad that my schedule is stable. I'm overeating. I'm trying to put a nail in the coffin of the thought loop I've been having. It isn't obvious to me that I can always just stop it. Digesting it seems to help.
I am feeling anxious about my job and how best to spend the next three months.
---
!! What happened? How do you feel about it? What made you feel this way? Does it make you happy or unhappy? Why or why not?
Three years ago my parents brought my grandpa to Thailand to find a new wife. They knew this was his intention, and they facilitated it. Of course, my grandmother had died, and they wanted to make my grandpa happy.
I wrote them a short but humble (and yet nervously stilted) letter about my reservations. I was worried that this amounted to a form of human trafficking and that they were foisting my misogynist evangelical grandfather on some poor woman who had no other option but to suffer the abuse (I said it far more kindly and humbly, leaving them as much room in our dialectical space to see and address the problem without losing face). The power dynamics in such a relationship would not make a good marriage.
They dismissed my argument out of hand, without pause. They said if they thought there was a single thing possibly wrong with what they were doing, they wouldn't be doing it. They had zero reservations.
They found a Thai woman with a daughter for my grandfather. These females came from a very rough background. The kid was used as a drug mule, I believe; she had a profound mistrust of people, having been abandoned before by her family. Anyways, they got married. From the sounds of it, my grandfather basically forced himself on his wife on their first night of marriage (he was proud of it).
Mind you, this woman couldn't speak English, and my grandpa can't speak Thai. Their marriage was a sham from the start. My grandpa wanted a fuckmaid he learned about from the Bible, and she didn't play his game. Eventually, after about a month or so, my grandfather just left the country. The woman and child were left used and devastated.
Months later, the woman killed herself, and the child is now truly on her own.
My parents' retelling of this story has changed over time. They've tried to shape the narrative to show they aren't really at fault. Now they say they had reservations the entire time.
I would like to point out that their matchmaking has been disastrous multiple times. This is not the first time they've tried to imagecraft their way out of similar mistakes.
---
!! Can you better explain what happened? Do you have a technological, philosophical, empathic, or redpilled story to tell about the phenomenon? Clarify the narrative you just told yourself.
I think this shows that my parents don't take responsibility for their actions. They don't own up to it. They take up the "moral mantle" primarily when it is convenient for them.
It is also clear they don't actually value my opinion either. Or, at the very least, they are unwilling to consistently and charitably take my view into consideration. I was quite right about what this was, and they were smart enough to see that from the beginning. This is on them. While I recognize I'm not the primary victim here (by a long shot!), I think being snubbed sucks. It's hard to have a relationship with people who don't really take you seriously.
To add insult to injury, it is clear that my parents were quite worried about how this affected their image in Thailand and among their donor-base. It made them look bad, and that was ultimately the reason they felt bad. They've got the wrong priorities. I think they are dishonest.
Their certainty and lack of humility is dangerous. They've helped many people, but they've also ruined many lives as well. Too often, because of their elected ignorance, they have herded individuals in specific contexts as well as masses into the wrong existential and moral paradigms.
Lastly, I am worried that since I have so much in common with them that I am blind to these very flaws in myself. I need to dig them out.
---
!! What are you going to do about what happened?
I'm not sure there is much to do about it directly. Writing it down helps me get it out. I need content to analyze. I'll keep writing as long as it keeps helping.
* https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170512/11400137349/yet-another-bad-idea-dropping-facial-recognition-software-into-police-body-cameras.shtml
** A drawback. Love the transparency. I worry it will be used for the bad part but not for the good.
* http://fair.org/home/deficit-scare-tactics-are-what-citizens-should-really-be-afraid-of/
** I know far too many morons who think the deficit is the major problem with fiscal responsibility.
* https://mediagoblin.org/
** Another decentralized media tool.
* http://www.geeksforgeeks.org/
** Crazy awesome CS site I found. Useful for my daughter.
* http://www.ghostintheshellphilosophy.info/
** I adore GIST. This was well done.
* https://www.w3.org/TR/activitypub/
** Nailing down a decentralized social networking protocol
* https://np.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6d22mv/eli5_why_do_5yearolds_and_under_like_to_watch_the/dhzlqy3/
** Another interesting post on what is entertaining. Again, I caution, it is about being surprised in a right way.
* https://redditblog.com/2017/05/24/view-counting-at-reddit/
** Continued commodification of Reddit.
** The question is whether or not such a beast can be fully decentralized or even federated. I would work hard for such a community. Scraping bots designed well can go a long way to producing similar content base, even the appearance of a community to a minimal extent. Hey, when Reddit came out in my very young adulthood, that is exactly what they did (only by hand!).
* KYS
** https://www.dslreports.com/shownews/GOP-Busted-Using-Cable-Lobbyist-Net-Neutrality-Talking-Points-139647
** https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2017/05/24/the-enormity-of-trumps-scam-is-coming-into-view/
** https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may/25/make-no-mistake-donald-trump-has-fueled-violence-against-journalists
* http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2017/05/africa-poor-stealing-wealth-170524063731884.html
** Have I mentioned how much I like AJE? The sanity can be breathtaking.
* https://mikecanex.wordpress.com/2012/12/26/1922-why-i-quit-being-so-accommodating/
** A thoughtful way of thinking about opportunity costs, autonomy, and ethics.
* https://theintellectualist.co/study-mit-economist-u-s-regressed-third-world-nation-citizens/
** Preach, yo. Take me to church.
** It ain't third world, but it is heading that direction. Give it time.
* https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/22/opinion/american-workers-noncompete-agreements.html
** Intellectual property rights exist to enslave our minds and cut off our mobility.
* https://consumerist.com/2017/05/22/education-secretary-devos-to-give-all-student-loan-accounts-to-one-company-strip-away-more-protections/
** I could be definitely be in for a rough time. The psychopathic capitalist vampires are coming for the young.
** I'm sure her conflict of interests aren't motivating any of this.
** The inability to pay off loans in the order of our choosing is farcical. This is a form of enslavement.
* https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/05/19/open_source_insider_google_amp_bad_bad_bad/
** Google's AMP, again, must be rejected. Keep the web open and decentralized. For the love of God you stupid, selfish assholes.
* https://jacobinmag.com/2017/05/yale-university-connecticut-state-budget-cuts
** DemSoc Jacobin only begins to scratch the surface of the problem of education inequality here. It's a deep problem.
* http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts
** This is much, much closer to the truth of the matter. There are many difficult to quantify aspects of the problem, particularly underemployment, which aren't captured here.
** This site is excellent.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bryan_Caplan#Ideological_Turing_Test
** A fascinating test of charity.
** I have a few worries. Neutral judges and observation faces the standard postmodern criticisms.
* https://digg.com/2017/mark-zuckerberg-political-harvard-commencement
** As we feared.
I had to stay home because there was an apartment-complex wide inspection. I didn't want the kids to be home alone for it. They didn't show up until the afternoon, at which point there wasn't much of a reason to travel out to school. So, I guess today was a free day. I'm enjoying it.
!! Which living person do you most despise?
Note the difference between "who I despise the most" and "who I should despise the most." There also may be worries of whether or not one should despise persons at all in the first place. I favor well-targeted despisement, if not outright hate of many objects, including some persons. I think it is the only practical option.
Sometimes the answer is me. Sometimes it is the some of my creators. Sometimes it's Donald Trump. Sometimes it is the Aristocracy. Sometimes it's everyone. It varies in the context I'm in. Hate is a strong emotion.
Who deserves to be despised the most?
Evil people who have not only the Evil Will (Kant is calling on the other line), but the means to implement it (consequences matter as well). It's hard if not impossible to empathize with a psychopath. They are predator aliens to me by definition, not merely circumstance.
I suppose I actually despise whoever I see as the evilest to my particular context at the time. When I exit the cosmopolitan mode, I often despise people less (surprisingly!). There is a ready-at-hand kind of mode where I'm just being there and doing my thing in the zone. I don't really despise living persons nearly as much there. I also can't simply live in that mode though, and it would be unwise to completely give myself to it. I need to plan and digest.
Note that the more I get to know people and understand who they really are, the less I tend to like them.
Do we want to talk about irrational hatred?
* I really despise Kevin Spacey. I love lots of his work. Sure, I don't like some of his characters, but that's fine. I think Spacey is not a good actor, nor do I think he's a good person. He crawls underneath my skin.
* ...There's another. I've forgotten who it is. It's magical. There is another I loathe beyond Hitler himself. I can't remember though. =/. Ah, that's okay. Better not to think of it. Ol' Marcus Aurelius would at least partially back me up (we disagree on several aspects of stoicism, imho; and his son is a testament to his failure).
* [[Magic: The Gathering]]
** I'm making this a project in the hopes that I will actually use it too. I want to play MTG with my kids.
* [[2017.05.24 - Diet Log]]
** Edited and Summed.
* [[2017.05.24 - Wiki Review Log]]
** Honestly, I have nothing to say.
* [[2017.05.24 - Link Log]]
** It was a weird swirl of emotions to see Tribes 2 on my computer again. It holds a special place in my heart. To see it was basically officially dead (again) made me sad. It was a powerful bittersweet experience.
* [[2017.05.24 - Pipefitting Log]]
** I'm really grateful for the opportunity to learn to weld. I can see what it takes.
See: [[2017.05.26 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
Oddly, this was in /r/frisson. I believe I see why. It reminds me of my friend [[MB]]. She is a holocaust junkie. She actively seeks the feelings of pain and devastation through empathy. It's one of her drugs.
|customTable|k
|Food|Calories|h
|Pear|150|
|Apple|100|
|Mandarins|105|
|Chips and Tikka Masala|400|
|Wrap|450|
|Brussel Sprouts|70|
|Coffee|40|
|Pizza|520|
|Total|1835|f
* https://www.theverge.com/2017/5/26/15679806/ai-education-facial-recognition-nestor-france
** Interesting. Will it be wielded responsibly? I have seen significant abuses in schools before. I'm skeptical.
* http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/10/magazine/10psyche-t.html?emc=eta1
** I grant the strong Western bias in "scientific" psychology. The memes are quite strong (that doesn't make them correct); it is part of why they infect the world.
** Philosophy has profoundly shaped psychology.
*** Unfortunately, psychologists tend to be pretty awful at philosophy.
*** Postmodern and metamodern philosophy show the cracks in even the conception of what psychology aims to do.
* https://www.reddit.com/r/Frisson
** I rarely recommend subreddits to anyone. It's highly personal. This one is worth looking at.
* https://philosophicaldisquisitions.blogspot.com/2017/05/the-right-to-attention-in-age-of.html
** This article merits your attention. =)
** I rarely read real philosophical work anymore, unless it confirms my biases. Yay!
* https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jul/19/noam-chomsky-slavoj-zizek-ding-dong
** I think they are both brilliant men. It is unfortunate to see the continental-analytic divide here. I'm happy to criticize both, but I think both merit huge praise. I wish they would get along. We need it.
* https://github.com/talwrii/clixpath
** CLI HTML parsing tool. Yummy.
* KYS<<ref "2018.11.21">>
** https://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/montana-house-special-election
*** People disgust me. Look, I hate most media outlets as much as the next person (although for different reasons), but I think we have to fight to preserve the freedom of the press (and I think there are far more extreme lengths we must take, particularly against capitalist injections into it).
** http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/joe-my-party-is-going-straight-to-hell-954005571832
*** It was already shit decades ago, and he is definitely blameworthy for ushering this era in.
*** I'd like to understand why he is really doing this. It isn't integrity. Why is he posturing this way? Or, if there was some "line crossed," what could it possibly have been?
** http://circa.com/politics/declassified-memos-show-fbi-illegally-shared-spy-data-on-americans-with-private-parties
*** Our government does not exist to serve us. You fucking conservative idiots who support surveillance, don't you see how this power is wielded against us?
*** Palantir is only the tip of the new iceberg. Dark times are coming.
** http://www.bbc.com/news/business-39947942
*** This is coincidentally related to the previous link. FB is a golem. Zuckerberg will have the most powerful conflict-of-interest tool at his disposal if and when he attempts to directly enter politics. Pay attention!
** https://newrepublic.com/article/142819/cost-activism-trump-era-job
*** I believe I talked about this before. In any case, voter suppression and punishing activism is obvious fascism territory. Free speech for individuals must be protected (even if they are fucking Nazis), but it is unclear how we can effectively restrict corporations outside of just rebuilding them from the inside out.
---
<<footnotes "2018.11.21" "`/toast`: I really needed to say it. Reading about the world has taught me to really hate the world.">>
I think I should start writing more on my off-days about my work as well. Remember, I'm trying to play life like a video game, and video games are 90% about thinking, planning, and practicing. The actual play is oddly secondary when you are meta enough.
I only wanted to say that my brother JRE sent me a gift. It was very thoughtful of him. He sent me a digital protractor. It has good magnets, it gives accurate readings, +/- 0.2 degrees. I will use it as a level, for 45's, bevels, and especially for special rolling offsets. It comes with a belt loop holster. I don't think I'll be loaning this one out, or I hope I won't feel it necessary.
!! When was the last time you cried?
Today. I stumbled upon this:
<center> [img width=1300 [./images/war-girl.gif]] </center>
I'm crying as I write this right now.
This kid doesn't know her own name, that's how traumatized she is. Look at her answer these questions. Heartbreaking doesn't even begin to describe it. This girl is trying to smile in the face of the end of her life as she knows it. Look as her bravely holds back her tears. She is alone. She's had nothing to eat, and she is ashamed, overwhelmed, and shattered.
It kills me inside. The grief and anger are hard to contain.
I hate myself and who we are as I watch this video. I'm sitting here in front of my computer, watching a video of this child's interview halfway across the planet in my comfortable chair. I have never faced anything like she has. I just want to hold her. I need to stop this. I need to restore her. She doesn't deserve this. How could this happen? What can I do?
If God existed, I would tell him to go fuck Himself.<<ref "1">> If you do exist: fuck you. Burn in hell you psychopathic piece of shit. I fucking hate you. How dare you allow the world to be like this! How could you allow this? You do not merit praise. You do not care about your creations. It would have been better than we did not exist at all. You are the first cause, oh mighty master of existence, and thus you are responsible for this evil. Just God my ass; eat pigshit and die, you abomination.
To those who //actually// caused this: kill yourselves. Either do so literally (the easy way out), or do so figuratively or indirectly by ending who you are via erasing yourself and radically reprogramming yourself and the world around you (the better way). Stop this!
This image is haunting. The loop is a splinter in my mind. I am powerless. I can only taste a drop of her suffering, and I cannot bear it. This image shows me what it means to hate and love humanity at the same time (in different respects).
I am a worthless witness to this evil. She does not deserve tragedy, and we do not deserve forgiveness. I know I didn't pull the trigger. I know the world is not on my shoulders alone. Her suffering is not all my fault, but a drop of it is. We will not restore her. I weep.
The worst part is that I know deep down, the reason I want this to stop is that my empathy makes me feel her pain, and I just don't want to feel pain. What //really// and ultimately is the cause of the appearance of altruism, morality, and the desire to restore her is my desire to avoid the pain I'm feeling (selfish).
I bet if I read a blurb about this event instead of watching her interview, my empathy may not have been activated, and I probably wouldn't have felt this way. My zealous reaction is rooted in selfishness. None of us are good, and we never can be. That's who we all are. We are egoistic, selfish creatures.
At best, in an overdetermined way, I wish we were not who we are. I am so sorry, child.
---
<<footnotes "1" "I imagine my wife is not going to be pleased reading this. Consider this my participation in an ancient tradition. I believe I am justified and entitled to my feelings and inferences here.">>
* [[2017.05.25 - Link Log]]
** Maybe I should have a "KYS" section so I don't infect the rest of my links.
* [[2017.05.25 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** Edited.
* [[2017.05.25 - Wiki Review Log]]
** I talked to my brother JRE about T2. It was an odd experience. We had a good, long conversation today. I'm glad we had the chance. I know I often don't have enough to contribute to the conversation. Sometimes having a conversation with myself prepares me to have conversations with others.
* [[2017.05.25 - Pipefitting Log]]
** It has been an extended weekend. I am grateful for the opportunity to stay home and spend time with my family. I'm also anxious to get back to work.
* [[2017.05.25 - Diet Log]]
** Edited and summed.
* [[2017.05.25 - h0p3's Log]]
** I talked with my brother about this as well. I am convinced my point of view has enormous merit to it. It isn't popular, but that doesn't mean it is wrong.
* [[2017.05.24 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** Edited.
One of the best God damn books I've ever read: Oryx and Crake. It was mind-blowingly good. I knew what was going to happen most of the way through the book, but it didn't matter. It pierced me many times, and I shed tears.
|customTable|k
|Food|Calories|h
|Dates|330|
|Tikka Masala|400|
|Apple|100|
|Burgers|1200|
|Dates|330|
|Total|2360|f
!!General Notes:
* It was a good week! =)
---
!!j3d1h:
* Review past week:
** Research Skills: Cosmetology
*** Did a good job.
*** Also researched /r/curlyhair
** Math: Singapore Math
*** 6 pages completed.
** Vocational Theory: Commenting on Algorithms and Data structures written in Python
*** Completed 3 programs. Good job.
** Vocational Practice: Applied Computer Science
*** Completed backup programs.
*** Measured computer cord length for the house and bought it.
*** Did a bit of work on USB backup program.
** Reading: Little House in the Big Woods
*** Finished! Yay! Good job!
*** Started the collegiate literature book. Worked on poetry.
** Writing: 250-word count in her wiki
*** Did her work each day. Split some of it up though.
** Social Studies: Khan Academy - World History
*** Learned about China, Buddhism, gender inequality in various ancient cultures.
** Spanish
*** Studied adjectives and cognates
* Plan next week:
** Research Skills: Cosmetology
*** Learn how to take care of curly hair. Practice it.
*** Take pictures.
** Math: Singapore Math
*** Complete the book. You may skip the grind, but none of the word or visual problems. Move to the next book.
** Vocational Theory: Commenting on Algorithms and Data structures written in Python
*** Go back and comment on the Class section.
*** Begin writing summaries of larger chunks of your code.
**** e.g. a function should have an explanation, a class should as well, etc.
**** Show me how the larger pieces fit together, what they mean, etc.
** Vocational Practice: Applied Computer Science
*** http://www.geeksforgeeks.org/python/
** Reading: "Literature: The Human Experience"
*** Push hard. Write 3-5 sentence on every item you read.
** Writing: 250-word count in her wiki
*** Write all 250 words or more in a single piece of writing.
*** Re-write/edit/revise your About section day.
** Social Studies: Khan Academy - World History
*** Keep kicking ass.
** Spanish
*** Keep kicking ass.
---
!!1uxb0x
* Review past week:
** Research Skills: Depression Workbook
*** Finished one chapter of the //Negative Muck// book.
*** Did some writing in his wiki about it.
** Math: Life of Fred - Dogs
*** Completed the book! Yay! Congratulations!
** Vocational Theory & Practice: Reading Comprehension
*** Has been kicking ass. Good job!
*** Completed 10% of the program this week.
** Reading: Fairy Tales from the Brothers Grimm
*** Finished a story a day.
** Writing: 150-word count in his wiki
*** Did his writing. It was hard to understand what his prompts were in the first place.
** Social Studies: Khan Academy - World History
*** Judaism, Christianity, Julius Caesar, Confucius, Chinese Dynasties
** Language Arts: JacKris Books
*** 2 pages a day. There was some review, and there were 4 tests.
* Plan next week:
** Research Skills: Depression Workbook
*** Complete two chapters of the //Negative Muck// book.
** Math: Life of Fred - Edgewood
*** Keep crushing it.
** Vocational Theory & Practice: Reading Comprehension
*** Keep working hard on it.
** Reading: Fairy Tales from the Brothers Grimm
*** Allowed to substitute with library books acquired this past week.
** Writing: 150-word count in his wiki
*** Write the prompts at the top of the wiki page. Use "!!" to make the font larger.
*** Keep up the good work and focus on the question at hand.
** Social Studies: Khan Academy - World History
*** Keep kicking ass.
** Language Arts: JacKris Books
*** Keep kicking ass.
!! Social media. Do you like it, tolerate it, or hate it. Discuss.
I have a very hard time defining social media. We might be tempted to handwave with the "I know it when I see it" or "you know what I mean." When I think about what "media" means, of what it means to be "social," and what it is that we are doing with our technology at nitty-gritty level, I feel like the lines we've been drawing are arbitrary and frankly quite poor.
Are you reading social media right now? It appears so to me. Why not every site? Some person or group of persons are sharing bits of data with you. What does it mean to communicate in a non-social, non-medium way? Of course, there are different kinds of communities based upon the mechanics and incentives generated by those mechanics; there are different social games at play. But, they all seem social to some degree or another. What makes something more social than something else? I don't know.
Standardly conceived, I think most social media blows. I think it is virtue signaling, and it ends up being a bad thing for a lot of people. As currently constructed and used, I think it is highly centralized, controlled, censored, filtered, shaped, and undemocratic. There are exceptions to varying degrees, but that's about right in general.
I stay away from it by and large. I tend to like specialized forums, well-made aggregators, article commentary, and instant messaging. Anywhere that I can turn up the signal-to-noise ratio, focus on things that are important to me, and actually connect to people about what matters in a meaningful way, I'm more likely to do. I avoid many standard platforms like the plague.
My view is definitely shaped by my autism and philosophical concerns about technology, politics, and ethics in general. I strongly prefer that users control their experience, own their data, and have maximum choice. I strongly prefer decentralized platforms. At times, anonymity and privacy are fundamental to having real conversations, and sometimes they can hinder them. I prefer not knowing who I am talking to since it allows us to focus on the content of what we're talking about instead of reputation or social dynamics that often inhibit what I take to be the real strengths of communicating on the internet.
//Disclaimer: I am not an expert on the various kinds of AI (I'm tired of writing it as A.I.). //
Deeper neural networks appear to hide (without malice, at least for now) enormous amounts of information the human mind cannot simply or formulaically extract in any reducible or principle-generating manner. We cannot understand what AI is thinking in a meaningful way outside of some telos and the principles we've conceived and used to create, train, and tweak them. But, eventually, even this knowledge will fade as AI begets AI. We are the progenitors of this new species, and we control its habitat (for now); but, eventually, we will lose our role in its reproduction bit by bit.
Ultimately, if and when there is an "in the long run," there is an increasing element of trust we must grant this species. We already can't formulate complete theories of their minds as we generally can for programs we've written. This problem will continue to exacerbate. When AI claims X, we will have no choice but to believe them. This, of course, is ripe for exploitation (we see it already on the human use and interpretation of AI).
A "natural" (not with a capital "N") trade secrecy emerges from the hidden information embedded in AI. I agree it is the beginning of at least some kind of Singularity. AI's and their human masters will be gods. Their intellectual property will enslave us all.
* [[2017.05.26 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** Edited.
* [[2017.05.26 - Pipefitting Log]]
** I agree that I should be writing more about work even on my days off. I have no idea what to say today though.
* [[2017.05.26 - Wiki Review Log]]
** I talked with my wife about the KYS section. Of course, it is not her style. It's not very academic. It lacks the kind of neutral charity we might initially seek. I also think I need to stick to my guns.
* [[2017.05.26 - Diet Log]]
** Summed.
* [[Frisson, Catharsis, & Woe]]
** I'm not sure I really want to keep this page. It doesn't seem useful. We'll see if it collects dust or what happens to it.
* [[2017.05.26 - Link Log]]
** Edited.
* Needs a "New" section.
* Have a "Writing Log" place inside your Log page.
* Missed two Blessings Logs
* Your wiki looks much better
* Drop "Tiddly" from the top right-hand corner.
* I learned from you here; I didn't realize you could hyperlink inside the "Title" at the top right corner.
* You should write an About page.
We need to write our compliments in advance. We should be training ourselves in the right way. We should have meaningful things to say to each other.
---
I love my wife. I'm sitting here, thinking about the 12 years we've been married together. It has been wonderful. Through thick and thin, girl. You've been there every step of the way. You held me when I needed you, and I held you when you needed me. It almost sounds dumb how obvious and simple it is, but I love that I get to trust you all the way down to the atomic level. You want the best for us. Despite the vortex around us, we lock together like brushed-steel beams crafted down to the micrometer. And, you know what, even when we disagree, I can see in your eyes that you just want us to be happy. No matter the conflict, you are committed. I won the lottery in being able to build a relationship brick by brick with you.
---
We need to be well-rounded. There is a giant hole in our abilities and lives. We aren't social enough. We must study human socialization, not just in our humanities, but in our sciences. Human psychology and economics are invaluable tools to learn.<<ref "1">> But, just as importantly we need to practice it. This lacking holds us back. We shouldn't let it hold us back.
I've long had it in my head that the reason I didn't want to be wealthy was that I didn't trust wealthy people. I thought that I would be corrupted by money. I believe I have the moral tools to virtuously walk down that path as good as anyone. I can't be perfect, but I should do my best. Ultimately, I know I will fail in critical ways, but that doesn't mean I should give up. It's time to build something for ourselves.
I have long worried about socializing in similar respects. I don't want to use people in making money, but I also don't want to use people in how I socialize with them (often going hand in hand). But, I must take the risk of corruption, else I will be frozen into inaction.
I honestly believe that being able to speak well is important. Being able to write is difficult, but being able to speak on the spot very well, that is the skill that matters. I want my children to start training in public speaking, in the art of conversation, and people skills. I want it to become natural to them. I want them to be social natives.
The fact is, we need to practice being social. We need to improve that skill. This is a muscle that we need to build up. There are different kinds of intelligence. Social intelligence must be studied and habituated. These are the skills that live on beyond technology.
This is one of the major elements missing from their education and likely the key to unlocking their futures. They need to understand people and to be able to communicate with them. We must study humanity. We must study humans and human communications. I want that to be one of their courses, for real.
In a sense, we already do this through reading the great Human Conversation. We do this through teaching them the technical aspects of computing. Are you a good communicator? Do you understand humans well? Do you actually use it? That is the heart of their success.
In no particular order:
For my daughter, you need to study the tomes, the paradigms, the points of view. You must be voracious. You are a computer. See an ocean of data before you to compute. You can't do it all, so you need to do it wisely and cleverly. If you don't compute now, you will pay for it later. It's important to compute wisely, for each object, at each stage, in each degree, on all levels and dimensions.
For my son, you must be fearless. This is hard for an autistic person. You and me buddy, we aren't built for this. We aren't the best social creatures in the world. There is a profound kindness in you. Direct that kindness toward yourself. Think of yourself as a profoundly complex lego or Minecraft world that you are structuring. You build it up day by day. It won't happen overnight, but over time, you will build up something great. Life just is a marshmallow test.
---
DO NOT FORGET
* Apology for our Family Meeting
I said I hate Christians this week. I'm sorry. My loving wife corrected me, and I didn't take the correction. She was kind, and I was not. I was wrong. I don't hate all Christians. I hate most of them, yes. There really are good Christians, just like there are good Muslims, and good Buddhists, etc. I lashed out in my claim. I am very sorry. People have different beliefs, and there are good people. Find the others.
---
I see us in the future. I want us to work together. I want your goals and projects to be my goals and projects, and vice versa. I want us to click. I'm not good at designing or engineering guttural social climates and interactions, but I think I can envision the rational structures between us.
---
I need to mentally let go of my parents to concentrate on the matters at hand. I can't resolve our incompatibilities. The injustices aren't going to be fixed. There's no way to bridge the gap. I need to accept it. We'll be like they were with their parents, in a way. I will say this though: my parents were wildly better to me than their parents were to them. That doesn't mean they've done it well or right though. I have to move past them. This is spilled milk. My initial letter last November, where I paused, it was correct. There simply wasn't an answer. I kept searching and searching, and there wasn't one. I have be okay with the fact that I'm a mortal, that I've done my best, and move on. It is time to stop being Straussian towards my parents in this respect.
We each feel we've been as charitable as we can or are willing to given the structures around us, and that's that. I will be kind and empathic. I will give them the respect owed to strangers who happen to be so previously wildly integrated into my life.
If you are reading this, MFW and SLT, you are free to visit us as friends. If you are in serious need, I am part of your tribe, and I will do what I can to help you. You have earned that multiple times over. Thus, my handcrafted spiral cane transforms. The intention is ultimately the same, but the hermeneutic spiral takes us to a different place than we initially intended. It is not what we set out for. It is what is it is. Let us make the best of it.
---
Whenever I want to stop thinking about what I'm thinking about, I try to look at something else. This might be a good behavior, and it might not be. It depends on the context. I feel like I have to train the right habit in myself here.
Again and again, I find that I use Reddit as a drug in different ways. I find it to be a way to distract myself. When I don't want to think about something, I can turn to Reddit and immediately immerse myself in something else. I can drown out what was bothering me in a sea of distractions. Baptize me! Dunk me in that bath of pleasure chemicals, baby! Sometimes it really does break the thought loops for me. I worry, however, that I exit one thought loop only to enter another set of thought loops.
I need to more wisely control this. This is what executive functioning is like.
How many times do I distract myself with a quick ctl+t into "redd.." and push the Enter key as my omnibar that astutely guesses what drug I'm looking to take a hit on?
I don't think I could accept a macro that ctl+w's for me on the spot. This is the real addiction test. Can I choose to leave it? I need me 'dem tubes.
It is awkward, to say the least, giving something so addictive to my children. I feel caught between a rock and a hard place, the lesser of two evils. We can't live without these drugs; we are dependent upon them for our flourishing. But I know I'm doing something with possibly grave consequences here. It is not clear to me that one can be eudaimonic in today's society without passing through these addictive fires. I think an important skill is being able to manage our addictions, to give shape to them, to control them, to making our dependencies work for us instead of the other way around.<<ref "2">> The fact is that we can't avoid using these addictive tools. We have to! It is our pragmatic plight, in a sense. How do we make sure that we remain autonomous about them? How can we be responsible users of tools and objects which quickly make us dependent upon them? The Truth is a drug too. We must wisely sculpt our experience. We have to pull out of the world for a breath of fresh air. That is the goal of meditation. Try to be objective.
I realize I write this on DCK. I'm literally taking a drug that allows me to at least marginally dissociate enough that I feel more objective. One might easily point and say I'm being hypocritical here. I think there is more to examine here than some addiction-justification though. This is the problem with pursuing the truth and life. Finding the golden mean is never easy, especially through so many dimensions. That is to say, you aren't just finding the golden mean on a single spectrum, you are trying to find golden means on multiple spectrums. Further, you need them to be compatible with each other. You need to find the golden mean of the golden means. Oh, but then you find incompatibilities, contradictions, and impossibilities. You see the postmodern problematics. Practically-speaking, what must emerge is a metamodern mindset. We oscillate between the [[Fastmind]] and the [[Slowmind]]. We must
---
I must remember that, like in my videos games, life has lots of easter eggs and opportunities that I need to look out for. When the door is open, walk through it. Admittedly, I have a hard time naming missed opportunities, and that is because I delude myself in such a way that they fall through the cracks of my mind. I don't see them. I don't develop the virtuous perception for picking out the salient features of the world.
---
I think my son should keep a journal for the cats. I want him to watch the cats. I want him to think about what they are thinking. I want him to develop theories of their minds. I want him to train that muscle. I want him to be able to feel as they do. I want him to be able to take on, see the world through their eyes, and mirror their perspectives. I need him to practice making inferences about the cats minds. I want him to see how long-term executive reasoning and planning shapes them, impacts their lives, programs them, and results in different networks of outcomes.
The cat is an abstraction, a microcosm, a case example, an experiment, and a friend for him to bond with, understand, empathize with, and appreciate. It is a way to train our autistic minds, I believe. Have pets helps us become the best us we can be.
---
Today, I feel like I understand burials more. I appreciate why we do them more than I did before. I mean, I don't care about what happens with my corpse, but I want people to be able to constructively mourn and move on with their lives. I want it to be meaningful. Our deaths are like a chain of beacons through the ages. Each cluster or family remembers its forefathers, etc., and that's what makes us feel resolution. I'm not saying anything new here, but I feel I'm stumbling upon the dusty old thought in a slightly better light.
---
I think it is very odd that my parents never had pets of their own. We had them briefly, but only because the kids wanted them. They never actually wanted pets. Perhaps they thought it dirty. Perhaps they found it inconvenient. They didn't adore animals (not that I think it's a good thing to be excessive in this respect). Psychopathy and pets, I tell ya'h'what.
---
Story Time! I don't remember their names. I'll call them the Reds. They were an absurdly wealthy family. The father was a lawyer, and the mother I don't know what. They were quite powerful. They had influence in the DNC.
---
I think my son has less of the appearance of someone who is depressed and more of someone who is ADHD. We should read about it.
---
<<footnotes "1" "It must be said: Our goal is to not use people. We still have to understand them. Of course, with great power comes great responsibility.">>
<<footnotes "2" "What say you, Hegel? Is there a game theoretic dialectic between all objects in the world. This is the fabric of reality. The push and pull inside that determinate indeterminacy.">>
//My farts smell oddly today. I hate to write it down, but I think the dairy may have been it. We'll see.//
|customTable|k
|Food|Calories|h
|Dates|600|
|Gyros|1020|
|Burger|500|
|Bean Burger|400|
|Cherries|144|
|Total|2664|f
//We are completing this section late at night, and I think we are feeling a bit rushed.//
!! How has your health been this week?
* 1uxb0x
** Awesome, other than accidents like stubbing his toe. He feels clumsy.
* j3d1h
** Stuffy nose. Dots on her face. My son sings, "going through puberty, going through Puuuuuberty," and my wife responds "you're next." Lol
* k0sh3k
** Period. Felt like crap. Headaches and cramps. Storms didn't help. This one has lasted longer than the past 2.
* h0p3
** I've been gettin' it out.
---
!! What happened last week? Have you been happy this past week? Why or why not?
* 1uxb0x
** Very happy. Did well in school. Lots of blessings.
* j3d1h
** Ditto on school. Very excited about swimming.
* k0sh3k
** Work was good. Had a lot of fun with us. We played magic, went to the pool, watched GOT.
* h0p3
** I didn't get as much work done as I'd have liked, but it was productive. I've been worried about my job and how I'm going to spend the next 3 months. I am very pleased that we have a working dryer, finally!
---
!! What is a positive fact or compliment we can say about each person in the family?
* 1uxb0x
** You did a really good job on your schoolwork this week, and it was obvious that you were trying hard.
** Your magic decks were very good compared to mine.
** You had a mature frame of mind and approach to setting up the Cockatrice software, getting it working, researching and constructing your deck. It's a side of you I haven't seen. You're growing.
* j3d1h
** You played the game well. Good game.
** You had the integrity and willpower to overcome your procrastination. That is not easy.
** You have helped every single person with their computers this week. You are patient teacher too.
* k0sh3k
** You haven't gotten mad at your computer.
** I appreciate the effort you put into academically learning about autism and thinking about the welfare of our children. It makes you a good mother and good wife.
** I like when you try different things for cooking.
* h0p3
** I appreciate your getting us to install Cockatrice and play magic with us.
** I'm glad you share links with us. I actually use the links you send.
** Thank you for working with the kids on the kitchen, for fixing the dryer, and getting us to play magic.
---
!! What will you do this week?
* 1uxb0x
** Be happy about the dryer.
** Build a magic deck that produces T2 3/3's.
* j3d1h
** Be happy about the dryer.
** Finish her brother's art piece.
** Win a game of magic in general.
* k0sh3k
** Be happy about the dryer.
** Cleaning paperwork files.
** Writing an hour each day in her wiki. ("Sure")
* h0p3
** Be happy about the dryer.
** Making sure she writes an hour each day in her wiki.
** Keeping up with everyone logs each day. Help everyone love themselves.
* Wrote quite a bit more this week.
* Only did half your Diet Logs for the week.
* Missing Friday's School Log
* It's aesthetically pleasing, particularly the code. Thank you for helping me with mine.
* "A place to ramble to myself without anyone giving me strange looks." looks ghetto. Up to you though.
* Thank you for the story river
* You posted nothing on the 22nd and 27th.
* I think you should divide your work up into different sections. One for pictures, one for blog posts, one for analysis, etc.
* I love your footnotes.
* I laughed after I said that comment!
* Footnote aesthetics need some work, as well as scoping.
* Your introspection sucks. It's not even trying.
* Consider redoing your dates with a YYYY.MM.DD structure.
* Make it a point to write happy things on your blog each as well, not just the truth.
* http://reallifemag.com/the-domino-effect/
** "Apps encourage us not to trust ourselves, but to think of ourselves as a component of the machine. These tools simplify our lives on the condition that we simplify ourselves for them"
** "Abstracting away the reality of labor creates a permission structure in which you’re more comfortable asking for what you think you want. Perhaps what we want is just to avoid the reality of human contingencies, the reality of other people."
* https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/27/style/yik-yak-bullying-mary-washington.html
** Disclaimer: I've not used this tool, I've only read about it second-hand.
** I am continually amazed at the number of people that don't understand you take the bad with the good in anonymized networks. I think it's important to develop not only good secops, but also to push hard into shaping your anonymous experience. We all have to take control of it together.
* https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/24/opinion/why-saudi-women-are-literally-living-the-handmaids-tale.html
** Sexism is a live and well. Crake was right about the solution to our problem in some respects. The only way to end the misogyny embedded in the Redpill is to rewrite our genetic and memetic code from the ground up. Unfortunately, I don't trust anyone to do it.
* https://digg.com/video/why-do-americans-smile
** I rarely post videos. This was actually interesting. It's a classic cultural consideration. Primates showing their teeth, yo.
!! What natural gift would you most like to possess?
What counts as natural? What isn't natural?
I assume possession is unconditional and permanent here, right?
Does it have to be something I know is possible, or could be on the outskirts of unknown possibility? Does it just need to be possibly possible for all I know? One of my modal logic professors found my locution of possible possibility to be fascinating. Perhaps I should explore it.
Some people have dozens (or more) orgasms a day without having to trigger it. That seems outstanding, amirite? What a gift!...unless it changed my executive functioning for the worse.
I would like to be a genius without autism born in the best of circumstances, having still met my wife and had my children as they are. I'd like to be smart enough to understand myself, other people, the world, and how to be happy. It is odd to wish I was a different person, but that would be the greatest of gifts.
* [[2017.05.27 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** Edited.
* [[2017.05.27 - Wiki Review Log]]
** I'm going to nix the "Frisson, Catharsis, & Woe" section. The [[Cry Log]] will capture those acute moments.
* [[Highlander: Elves]]
** Added the pile of shit I've built in there. It is not tuned in the least. I literally threw it together to have anything to play today.
* [[2017.05.27 - Homeschooling Log]]
** This week went a lot better.
* [[2017.05.27 - Diet Log]]
** Summed
* [[2017.05.27 - A.I.'s Innate Trade Secrecy]]
** Edited.
* [[2017.05.27 - Cry Log]]
** I wish I had more to say about the book. I talked about it with my wife some. It is almost realistic fiction to me in many ways.
* [[2017.05.26 - Cry Log]]
** Ditto.
* [[2017.05.21 - Cry Log]]
** An interesting story none-the-less
* [[Cry Log]]
** We will see if this is worth keeping. For now, I think crying is an event worth noting.
|customTable|k
|Food|Calories|h
|Avocado Toast (yah)|335|
|Bacon+Egg Sandwich|500|
|Hot dogs|750|
|Cherries|77|
|Bacon|200|
|Hummus, Olives, Chips|400|
|Total|2262|f
* https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-05-22/an-mba-is-not-all-it-should-be
** It kills me inside to agree with Bloomberg. That said, I think their reasons for this are not pure. They say this when it suits them.
* http://ppladdressbook.org/
** CLI tools abound.
* http://wspa.com/2017/05/26/woman-travels-country-paying-drug-addicts-to-get-vasectomies-tubes-tied/
** I sometimes see liberals against this. Perhaps they have eugenics, right to reproduction, and privilege considerations in mind. They have missed the boat. This is critically valuable. This woman is doing good work.
** Conversely, I know conservatives opposed to this because they are against birth control or even worse, they favor having a mass proletariat class to imprison, enslave, and hate.
* http://www.psypost.org/2017/05/study-links-facebook-use-reduced-gray-matter-volume-nucleus-accumbens-49028
** Now if only we really knew what it meant.
* https://brohrer.github.io/how_bayesian_inference_works.html
** More Bayesian theory explanation.
* http://kk.org/thetechnium/better-than-fre/
** Absolute MUST Read! This is a very clear explanation of something that was fuzzy to me for too long!
** Maybe I've misunderstood the argument here. I think there is something left out of this list, but I can't quite put my finger on it.
*** Consider the difference between Private and Live World of Warcraft servers. It's tremendously different in content, atmosphere, community, uptime, etc. Perhaps this fits somewhere on or between multiple categories he has given us.
* http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/04/30/when-doctors-can-t-afford-to-feel
** Interesting read. I like seeing philosophy at work.
* https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/26/google-gender-discrimination-case-salary-records
** Don't buy that bullshit.
* https://www.reddit.com/r/privacy/comments/6dv10x/if_your_data_is_properly_encrypted_is_their_any/
** I see this question asked all the time. People are giving better answers to it, thankfully.
* https://www.nationaleconomicseditorial.com/2017/05/28/american-house-prices/
** Preaching to the confirmation biased choir.
* https://www.salon.com/2017/05/27/wash-post-didnt-disclose-that-writer-who-penned-positive-piece-about-trumps-saudi-trip-is-paid-by-saudi-government_partner/
** This is not the first time.
* http://www.marketwatch.com/story/bill-gates-updates-the-plastics-advice-from-the-graduate-for-2017-2017-05-16
** What do these two have to gain by telling us these truths? It reminds me of Warren Buffet's choice to say the truth about capitalism from time to time. They have something to gain by peddling the truth, as they normally would not. What is it?
* https://theconversation.com/food-as-medicine-your-brain-really-does-want-you-to-eat-more-veggies-74685
** Causation or correlation?
* http://billmoyers.com/story/donald-trump-hungry-seniors-drop-dead/
** I'd love to know how many of those seniors elected to starve themselves. My empathy for the elderly wanes. I feel like they have made their beds. I empathize with those who didn't, who had no choice, who fought for justice and still lost. The rest, not so much.
* https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/26/us/politics/united-states-refugees-trump.html?
** Fascinating
* https://github.com/01org/cldnn
** Intel's Compute Library for Deep Neural Networks (clDNN) could be huge.
* https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2003/10/08/the-absolute-minimum-every-software-developer-absolutely-positively-must-know-about-unicode-and-character-sets-no-excuses/
** Oldy but goody
* https://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.05713.pdf
** I hope CScientists will eventually find the answers. Help me Obi-wan, you're my only hope!
* https://www.ut.ee/hortussemioticus/6_2010/rattasepp.html
** Biologists doing metaphysics
* http://metamoderna.org/from-premodern-to-metamodern-mind-a-brief-history-of-human-evolution
** Yet again an amazing article. This deserves more attention than it is getting, I think. It very well may be the next kind of metanarrative after postmodernism. At the very least, it gives an excellent mile-high overview of the premodern to postmodern moves.
** Continental Intersubjectivity Verification (in its Modern, Postmodern, and perhaps even Metamodern versions) and Analytic Neo-Kantian Reflective Equilibrium are pointing to the same thing, as I thought many times.
** The anti-scientific view may be correct in many respects, although I think we can't force all of these moral and metaphysical issues on them. There are philosophical undercurrents here as well that should be fleshed out, particularly in analytic philosophy.
** This is not how I passed through the postmodern fire exactly. But, I'm a weird one. I thought modernism could hold onto premodern thought more than it did. And postmodernism actually didn't detract from my moves to a point.
** I think they've attributed capitalism egoism to modernism too strongly. It fits the industrialization narrative, but there are components which actually are more postmodern justifications, not modern ones, imho. This is where continental and analytic traditions drift apart in their understand of the Great Conversation in some respects, imho. I see Heidegger's postmodern, anti-science moves as still indirectly (and ironically) fueling scientism and some of things the author attributes to modern thought.
** This metamodern critique of postmodernism seems only partially correct. The problem is that there might not be any answers. The metamodern has to assume hope, must be religious even, about escaping postmodern criticism. Own up to your faith here, hypocrite. Inefficacy of fighting against capitalism is hardly an argument against socialist positions either. You've purposely misunderstood the nature of psychopathy and egoism here.
*** Criticism precedes construction, but just because someone doesn't have the answer doesn't mean their criticism is wrong. It just means they don't have a complete "drop-in replacement" or "fix" to the problem they have pointed out.
*** I await your "Metamodern" solution. It clearly isn't working yet either.
*** Ultimately, all you have is [[h0p3]], my friend. You morally expect us to succeed, but that doesn't mean you should realistically predict it. It is a practical matter than we ignore our practical predictions, in a sense.
** Speaking of privilege, you have no room to talk.
*** That you think GW Bush and Putin aren't modern-appearing expressions of postmodernism leaves me questioning whether or not you really understand the problem here.
** Unfortunately, I must ask for clarification on ontologies here. I worry you are trying to have your cake and eat it too, but with a sleight of hand. Your thesis of commensurability, again, is a kind of faith, a hope, a reason to keep trying.
** The claim that we are "obliged to try to reconstruct" has no grounds other than faith. Take up the mantle, hypocrite, and then we'll move forward. The hermeneutic circle/spiral of the Great Conversation does not require we move in this direction. It is something we simply will because we want to, because it is practical, because it is the hopeful thing to do.
* https://i.redd.it/lgaxap0fhi0z.jpg
** Zing, asshole!
* http://nymag.com/selectall/2017/05/the-online-radicalization-were-not-talking-about.html
** One of the few articles I have ever encountered which takes the time to distinguish different "Redpillers." I usually see a very poorly researched and empathized perspective, a strawman. This was closer, but it still missed the mark (as usual). Admittedly, I believe I know what the One True Redpill is, and I'm waiting to see if people finally figure it out. I'm not holding my breath, as it is the antithesis of much of the Humanities and many religious (even those who call themselves secular humanists are being religious) perspectives. I think it's such a tough pill to swallow that it becomes a difficult pill to even see in the first place. Few can empathize long enough with the various Redpill groups to see what they really have in common. They all realize that humans are selfish, egoistic creatures. They might not be good at applying this principle (some are hideously retarded about it even), but you can see the kernel of truth hiding in their bullshit. It shines forth brightly like a gem. Do you hear that Kant? A gem. Pay attention, because your definition of "Reason" implodes around it.
* http://danwang.co/why-so-few-computer-science-majors/?idk
** This is the million dollar question I'm trying to answer for my daughter. I do not know.
* https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6e3j0g/eli5_how_do_my_google_searches_on_one_device_show/
** Oh, sweet summer child, it's about to get much worse.
Memorial Day! This was a very extended weekend.
!! I feel most energized when…
I'm not entirely sure what is meant by energized here. I think it has to be more than being awake and aware in a strong way.
Can I be energized for something I don't want to do or don't enjoy? I would get an adrenaline rush during a dangerous moment, and that is definitely energizing in a sense. I despise danger and adrenaline rushes though, yet I "feel" energized in a strong sense.
Alternatively, I can be "pumped" to do something, extremely excited to engage in some activity. Is it simply about being excited? Is it just that which I desperately love to do and want to do?
What is the duration of this energy? Orgasms are fairly energizing. Drugs can be energizing. Are you asking me what gets me off?
What about spoons (as my wife calls them)? That is, people and socializing are draining to me, except for very particular conversations which completely hold my attention, fascinate me, make me want more, etc.
Note, what takes me out of my drained state into The Calm or above for "energy" (whatever that means) may energize me to a greater degree than that which only takes me from The Calm to a state above (even if this is a higher state than the former). So, are we talking about the total proportion of energy gained or simply that which maximizes the state of energy (which is conditional upon having been fairly energized in the first place)?
I'd like to also point out that I have minor manic/depressive tendencies. Energized isn't always a good thing, especially when it means I can't sleep or focus on what really matters.
Lastly, is this something which I can regularly achieve, or does it include a scope of contexts which are often rare (perhaps even 1-time events)?
Surely you can see that I do not know what is meant by this question, thus I must define it by inspecting its purpose.
I think this is about understanding how to control my moods, how to inspire myself, how to see the blessings in my life, and how to make myself feel happier. It is about being energized in the right way, at the right time, for the right reasons, and so on and so forth. But, then, I fear we have no content.
* [[2017.05.28 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** Edited.
* [[2017.05.28 - Diet Log]]
** Summed.
* [[2017.05.28 - Wiki Review Log]]
** I ended up editing and structuring my elves list.
* [[2017.05.28 - Family Log]]
** Last week was a good week.
* [[2017.05.28 - DCK Meditation]]
** Edited.
* [[2017.05.28 - k0sh3k's Wiki Log]]
** I'm hoping she will be a good role model here. The kids need must see we both care about this project.
* [[2017.05.28 - 1uxb0x's Wiki Log]]
** I'm pleased to see he's keeping up with his logs and has more structure. This is a great start.
* [[2017.05.28 - j3d1h's Wiki Log]]
** She is writing more. I love seeing it fill up drop by drop.
* [[Evolving Words, Buzz, Corruptions, and Neologisms]]
** Edited.
* [[2017.05.28 - Link Log]]
** Short, but I like having the structure. I want to reiterate that my wife was correct about this, again.
|customTable|k
|Food|Calories|h
|Dates|600|
|Cherries|77|
|Partial Wrap|150|
|Apple|100|
|Mandarins|105|
|Pear|100|
|Chili|750|
|Cornbread|400|
|Chocolate|125|
|Gatorade|220|
|Total|2627|f
* https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-uncommon-tricks-used-to-protect-software-from-reverse-engineering
** A fun read.
* https://www.desmogblog.com/2017/05/30/rex-tillerson-exxon-saudi-arabia-trump-visit-deal
** Tillerson abusing his power, again.
* https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/15-1189
** Our courts are too slow. IP-holder's will subvert everything through a winner take all economy long before the judiciary could ever start working towards sanity.
* https://www.fastcodesign.com/90126569/the-rise-of-autocomplete-culture
** It is worrying. Although, I also worry this is may be worry over nothing. It has a wide range of possible outcomes.
* ADHD
** https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tpB-B8BXk0
** https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JowPOqRmxNs&app=desktop
* https://www.clouddash.net/articles/dark-ai
** Some good points, but also misses large swathes of the dangers of AI, imho.
Today was a great day. I thought we were starting our pipefitting class up again, but we didn't. I saw TJ; so he's back. We talked for a while. He got paid to weld, even though he really can't weld. There is a reasonable chance I may do some welding for money, I take it.
So, since I didn't have pipefitting today, I welded. Dale wasn't there this morning (someone subbed for the first few hours), so I decided to try my hand at three projects I've never done before. I did a vertical weld, an overhead weld (I failed the first one, couldn't repair it without more grind work than I wanted to do, so I restarted), and a horizontal T-joint fillet. I then brought those 3 and my horizontal weld to Dale at the end of the day. He said they were very good, and he explained where I went wrong (if I didn't point it out to him beforehand). He had me go back over the T-joint with 1/8 7018's (at 115ish heat). I had used the 3/32's, which I didn't know weren't the best choice for the project (no one corrected me). The overhead was very difficult, but it turned out decently. A lot of students walked into my booth over the course of the day, and I talked with others for pointers. It is good to hear from many perspectives; I'm grateful for the opportunity.
Dale and I talked about my goals (while the millwright teacher [who is always over there] and several students sat listening to us; a common occurrence when I speak with Dale). I explained that I have given thought to it, and I realized that I won't be able to spend much time in this class (even though I want to; I think it would be very good for my future). I really need to get a job now though. I explained that I just wanted to at least get my feet wet with everything. I did not explain, but have heard from many students that my work is passable (and sometimes great), including people who have been welding for years. Thus, I think even "getting my feet wet" on these kinds of projects ultimately gives me a barometer and comfort zone to know what I'm willing to say I could possibly do in an interview. I'm willing to take on-the-job certs for some of these welds.
At the moment, I can only do structural welds. I can't pipeweld, which is where the real money is, and it is the most closely associated with pipefitting in the first place. I do want to try pipe-welding, although my teacher thinks I won't really be ready to touch it without at least another solid month under my belt (which isn't going to happen). I'm going to try a few pipewelds anyways. I want to round my stickwelding out at least. TIG is an entirely different beast, and I may never have the pleasure to learn. That's okay. I'll take what I can get.
Speaking of jobs, I'm just now nearing the point where I would pass a drugtest (minus extensive panels for DCK). I haven't had cannabis in 40 days, 20 more puts me in a comfortable zone. Also, I was offered cannabis from Kevin today, since I gave him my cannabutter recipe to help him make some for his dying mom (she is apparently in a lot of pain and doesn't want to use opioids). No go, obviously; he wanted to know if he did it right (I was going to help him make it yesterday, but completely forgot). I'm in the home stretch here before the real game. I have to say, I'm proud of my ability to stabilize myself with this wiki. I've worked at it. I'm glad I've been talking to myself. You rock, dude. =)
I should probably rework my resume at this point. The last time I modified it, I just put down I was in school for pipefitting. I have specific skills which I feel comfortable claiming on a resume at this point. I will need it.
!! What would your childhood self love about your current self?
* My family and the wonderful life I have with them. I feel more connected now.
* My freedom, with many kinds of mobility and access I didn't have before.
* Understanding myself and the world better. So many problems would have been resolved this way.
* My sexuality and sexual life. It's been wonderful.
* That I still love computers, continue to study them. I'd have loved my computers.
* That I still love to think, particularly about philosophy and ethics (which I did at the time without knowing the name for it).
* [[2017.05.29 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** Edited.
* [[2017.05.29 - Pipefitting Log]]
** It was a wonderful weekend.
* [[2017.05.29 - Wiki Review Log]]
** I like how keeping logs allows me to see the positive aspects of my life more clearly.
* [[Snakes.dec]]
** Building terrible decks for my family members.
* [[2017.05.29 - Link Log]]
** Edited.
* [[2017.05.29 - Diet Log]]
** Summed.
|customTable|k
|Food|Calories|h
|Dates|330|
|Mandarins|105|
|Apple|100|
|Pears|200|
|Chili|250|
|Cornbread|400|
|Pork Chop|240|
|Potatoes and Gravy|500|
|PB & English Muffin|300|
|Bacon|220|
|Apple Strudel|300|
|Total|2945|f
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sweN8d4_MUg
** CRISPR is all the buzz. Gattaca here we come.
* https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2017/may/31/technology-is-making-the-world-more-unequal-only-technology-can-fix-this-cory-doctorow
** Doctorow is often correct
* http://nautil.us/issue/48/chaos/are-you-a-self_interrupter
** Evolution did not prepare us for this.
* https://github.com/mdipierro/nlib
** For my daughter
* KYS
** https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-congress-dismantled-federal-internet-privacy-rules/2017/05/29/7ad06e14-2f5b-11e7-8674-437ddb6e813e_story.html
** http://danwang.co/why-is-peter-thiel-pessimistic-about-technological-innovation/
*** Let's be clear: Thiel uses technology for incredible evil.
** https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/jared-kushner-donald-trump-lied-base-stupid-voters-supporters-president-son-in-law-white-house-a7764791.html
* http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/05/30/rick-wartzman-book-excerpt-automation-donald-trump-215207
** I am fairly educated in several fields, and I am scared for myself. Forgive my skepticism, but I think the average adult is completely fucked.
* http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21721648-trustbusters-might-have-fight-algorithms-algorithms-price-bots-can-collude
** Responsibility is pretty obvious, despite their attempts to claim otherwise.
* https://www.wired.com/2017/05/microsoft-right-need-digital-geneva-convention/all/1
** I don't trust M$' intentions for shit.
* http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/05/31/530929307/ohio-sues-5-major-drug-companies-for-fueling-opioid-epidemic
** More clueless people with the wrong approach to the war on drugs. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't touch opiates until I was literally on my death bed.
* https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-05-31/the-u-s-has-forgotten-how-to-do-infrastructure
** Two sets of commentary worth looking at as well:
*** https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14453406
*** https://www.reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/6efisp/the_us_has_forgotten_how_to_do_infrastructure_the/
* http://www.kpcb.com/internet-trends
** I love to see analyses of internet use around the world.
We were put into torque class we were supposed to attend weeks ago. We came in a day later. The teacher rushed the content from yesterday thankfully. Below are my notes. I had to take tests at the end of the day for certifications.
This class is funded by Snap-on. It is one large advertisement. Even the walls are plastered in Snap-on advertisements, in a government-owned facility. The teacher is constantly selling to us. We could have learned this in probably 2 hours. The goal is to get the students accustomed to Snap-on tools.
Mechanical Torque:
* Length x Force = Torque
* The ASME accuracy is from 20-100% of the full scale.
* Prior to use, set the wrench to 50% of the full scale and exercise the wrench at least three times in both directions.
* The minimum recommended cycle for recalibration is one year.
* Formula
** TA = Torque Applied (the value you want to pull)
** TW = ?? pull wrench set ??
** (TA x L) / L + Adapter = TW
* Always store wrench at the lowest setting (not zero)
* Verify the needle setting is at zero on Dial type torque wrenches before use.
I need to ask my brother if he uses a torque wrench/screwdriver for his electrical work.
ID a Standard (American) bolt:
* Bolts with three straight lines indicate you are working on a standard bolt
** Take the number of lines and add 2 to find the Grade
*** e.g. 3 lines would be grade 5
** Most common grades: 2, 5, and 8
** The higher the grade, the stronger the steel.
* e.g. 1/4 x 20 x 2, Grade 5
** First number is Diameter of bolt measured at the shank
** Second number is the number of threads per inch (TPI), thread pitch
** Third number is the Length of the bolt, from the bottom of the head to the bottom of the bolt
*** Don't include the width of the head
ID a standard (American) nut:
* A standard nut has grades.
** If you have two marks with a point between then: grade 5
** If you have two marks side by side on points, then: grade 8
** Grade 2 has no marks
Metric bolt:
* e.g. M8 x 1.25 x 30, Grade 8.8
** First number, M8 is the diameter in MM on the shank
** Second number, thread pitch, MM from crest to crest. Measures from the from the top of one thread to the top the next thread.
** Third number, length in millimeters
** They write the grade on the bolt
* If you have two numbers on the bolt:
** First number is tensile strength MPA (megapascals)
** Second number is % of tensile strength, gives you the yield point
*** Yield point = where a bolt stretches beyond its elasticity
Metric Nut:
* If you see a number 8, then it is metric grade 8 bolt.
There are 4 phases of fastening:
* Run-down
** The free running of the nut down the bolt
* Alignment
** When we get to components to act as one solid piece
* Elastic
** Where the bolt stretches and snaps back to maintain its size
* Plastic
** Do not do; this is the permanent deformation of a bolt.
90/10 rule:
* 90 percent of all pressure applied is to overcome friction
* 10 percent of all pressure applied is to stretch the bolt
This is an open book test, rofl.
Site:
* nc3certs.com
** user: my email
** mypassword: password1 (jesus christ)
The first test is torque theory test. Click on the eyeball.
Page numbers to reference during the test:
* 10-15
* 17-24 (definitions)
* 26-27 (markings)
* 30 (markings)
** bolt is a spring
* 43
** torque is expressed in length and weight units
*** length x force = torque
* 50-51
* 53
* 57-58
Anything that increases friction reduces torque:
* Lubrications decreases friction, increases clamping force
* Rust does the opposite
!! What’s your secret desire?
Let me first say, this comes off as a hilariously bad question to try and answer on a public facing journal.
I suppose we should define desire here. But, also secret from whom? I don't have the willpower today to explore these topics, and I know I don't have answers to my worries. Rest assured, they are far from solved problems.
Even for standard interpretations of these words, one of the problems here is that I tend not to be very secretive about what I desire. If I want something, I'm prone to just say it, unless it would hurt someone's feeling to say it (but, even then, honesty is sometimes necessary). It can be very difficult for me to feel embarrassed, particularly when I find a barring social convention to be without rational merit.
I have been called "too honest" by many people in my life. I'm rude and gross to many people. My brutal honesty and willingness to violate social conventions makes intentional secrets for me rare, to begin with, regardless of whether or not they are a desire, a belief, a feeling, or something else entirely. I feel like I'm torn, lacking integrity, and unable to be myself when I have to hold a secret or silence myself.
Ugh, I can't really escape my initial worries. Secrecy from whom? There are plenty of things I would tell my family that I wouldn't dare utter to the average person. That kind of information is secretive in a way, right?
Can I keep a secret from myself? Self-deception is a very paradoxical problem. I don't want to do so.
Alright, I want to have some kind of resolving the answer to this question. I don't enjoy leaving them open-ended and unsatisfactorily unanswered.
Okay, what about something I desire which I've never said to anyone directly (even though there are people who may easily guess it, or would know it already in an indirect way)?
I have never fucked a fruit before. I've used plenty of sex toys. I secretly desire to fuck a fruit or vegetable. That's like a mini-[[Bucketlist]] item, I guess.
* [[2017.05.30 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** This one was really brief.
* [[2017.05.30 - Wiki Review Log]]
** Nothing to say.
* [[2017.05.30 - Diet Log]]
** Summed. Was it worth it?
* [[2017.05.30 - Link Log]]
** I will continue to look into ADHD. The executive functioning problems associated with it and the cluster of spectrum disorders related to it are interesting.
* [[Highlander: Affinity]]
** Edited.
* [[Highlander: Reanimator]]
** I have been pumping decks out.
* [[Highlander: Humans]]
** Edited.
* [[2017.05.30 - Pipefitting Log]]
** It's time to edit that resume.
!! Logs:
* [[2017.06.12 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.06.13 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.06.14 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.06.15 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.06.16 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.06.17 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.06.18 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.06.19 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.06.20 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.06.21 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.06.22 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.06.23 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.06.24 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.06.25 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.06.26 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.06.27 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.06.28 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.06.29 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.06.30 - Carpe Diem Log]]
!! Audit:
* This is my first month writing this log. I decided that my other logs were too specific, and in a way, I needed basic/standard journal/diary information.
* I tended to write about what made my day great, worth living, and what I was most grateful for. I really felt blessed writing many of these.
* Ideally, this log should be written at the end of the night, but I often found that I would write this log somewhere in the evening and project into the future/plan, the rest of my evening. Most of the time, I write this log only after the work of the day has been done and I have time to chillax. I think this is the best method for now.
* I had a lot of sex this month. Yay!
** I also had a lot of fireman time. Yay!
* It was clearly a very busy month for me. I accomplished quite a bit, and while I felt uncertain, it seemed work out well.
** Take risks! Manage your anxiety!
!! Log:
* [[2017.06.04 - DCK Meditation]]
* [[2017.06.11 - DCK Meditation]]
* [[2017.06.18 - DCK Meditation]]
* [[2017.06.25 - DCK Meditation]]
!! Audit:
* This was the first month in which I've consistently taken DCK every week.
* My meditations are clearer and more developed this month than they ever have been.
* It is clear I've spent more time reflecting upon them.
* While DCK seems to even me out and offer serious moments of reflection, I'm not sure what counts as my next stage of progress with it. It certainly provides me with ample opportunities to think and make progress on its own, but I'm wondering how to improve the process itself.
* DCK Meditations often seem to set the tone for the week.
* I feel less hindered and more open in them than I otherwise would.
!! Log:
* [[2017.06.01 - Diet Log]]
* [[2017.06.02 - Diet Log]]
* [[2017.06.03 - Diet Log]]
* [[2017.06.04 - Diet Log]]
* [[2017.06.05 - Diet Log]]
* [[2017.06.06 - Diet Log]]
* [[2017.06.07 - Diet Log]]
* [[2017.06.08 - Diet Log]]
* [[2017.06.09 - Diet Log]]
* [[2017.06.10 - Diet Log]]
* [[2017.06.11 - Diet Log]]
* [[2017.06.12 - Diet Log]]
* [[2017.06.13 - Diet Log]]
* [[2017.06.14 - Diet Log]]
* [[2017.06.15 - Diet Log]]
* [[2017.06.16 - Diet Log]]
* [[2017.06.17 - Diet Log]]
* [[2017.06.18 - Diet Log]]
* [[2017.06.19 - Diet Log]]
* [[2017.06.20 - Diet Log]]
* [[2017.06.21 - Diet Log]]
* [[2017.06.22 - Diet Log]]
* [[2017.06.23 - Diet Log]]
* [[2017.06.24 - Diet Log]]
* [[2017.06.25 - Diet Log]]
* [[2017.06.26 - Diet Log]]
* [[2017.06.27 - Diet Log]]
* [[2017.06.28 - Diet Log]]
* [[2017.06.29 - Diet Log]]
* [[2017.06.30 - Diet Log]]
!! Audit:
* Average calories per day 2262.5.
* I did average more calories per day. That's probably a solid pound difference.
!! Logs:
* [[2017.06.04 - Family Log]]
* [[2017.06.11 - Family Log]]
* [[2017.06.18 - Family Log]]
* [[2017.06.25 - Family Log]]
!! Audit:
* Everquest, finding a job, and getting the kids to do their work were major movements and difficulties this month for us.
* Allergies were flaring up again.
* The compliments section was wonderful and useful to us.
* We've been looking forward to these more often.
* Having visitors and significant shifts in our schedules really makes this difficult. I hope, in time, we become more flexible and adept at this.
* This will more even more difficult to do as I travel, I assume. It's important that we do it well.
!! Log:
* [[2017.06.05 - h0p3's Log]]
* [[2017.06.11 - h0p3's Log]]
* [[2017.06.16 - h0p3's Log]]
* [[2017.06.23 - h0p3's Log]]
* [[2017.06.27 - h0p3's Log]]
!! Audit:
* My family is a drug. It is clear. I am dependent upon them in various ways.
* I am consistently obsessed with understanding my freedom within the drug-based framework.
* There were fewer happier h0p3's logs this time, but there were fewer logs in any case, period. I feel like my other logs do quite a bit of my thinking for me. Is this a good thing?
** It has gotten to the point that I almost don't want to a monthly audit, except that I should audit this.
!! Log:
* [[2017.06.01 - Link Log]]
* [[2017.06.02 - Link Log]]
* [[2017.06.03 - Link Log]]
* [[2017.06.04 - Link Log]]
* [[2017.06.06 - Link Log]]
* [[2017.06.08 - Link Log]]
* [[2017.06.11 - Link Log]]
* [[2017.06.12 - Link Log]]
* [[2017.06.15 - Link Log]]
* [[2017.06.17 - Link Log]]
* [[2017.06.19 - Link Log]]
* [[2017.06.20 - Link Log]]
* [[2017.06.21 - Link Log]]
* [[2017.06.22 - Link Log]]
* [[2017.06.24 - Link Log]]
* [[2017.06.25 - Link Log]]
* [[2017.06.27 - Link Log]]
* [[2017.06.29 - Link Log]]
!! Audit:
* I've been posting less consistently, but I've also not had as much time to surf, I believe. Or, when I do surf, I've not had the energy to go for as much intellectual reading, or so it feels.
* I figured Bloomberg out.
* It's clear that I allow these to build up in my browser. I think this is fine. It allows me to backburner and table content, to digest, and to think about what it is that I'll be putting in these link logs.
** The downside is that it doesn't actually follow my reading patterns in a synchronized manner, although it is close enough, right?
* Nautil.us is amazing.
!! Log:
* [[2017.06.01 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.06.02 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.06.05 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.06.06 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.06.07 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.06.08 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.06.09 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.06.10 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.06.12 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.06.13 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.06.14 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.06.15 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.06.16 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.06.17 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.06.19 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.06.20 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.06.21 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.06.22 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.06.23 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.06.24 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.06.26 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.06.27 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.06.28 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.06.29 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.06.30 - Pipefitting Log]]
!! Audit:
* I'm glad I quit Cannabis a month in advance of my initial plan. It is paying off. I knew that I was running out of content, and I knew I would likely need to generate field experience earlier than I thought. This was a wise move. Good job!
* I shot for $15 an hour, I did even better (although, perhaps not much better after travel expenses). I will continue to look for a job at TEC.
* I didn't have interview questions prepared; it was all of the sudden. This is not an industry which seems to have the standard kind of application process. I suppose that can be a good thing for me. I assume it only becomes more professionally normalized the higher up you go the food chain.
* I've avoided the co-op entirely, it appears. I'm just going to graduate 6 months early, rofl. Noice!
* I did not finish my NCCER certification; although, I will have finished the 3rd book (assuming I don't fail this last test; although, I've never failed one before). I will find out if I can. It may or may not be useful, except as a blip on my resume. The union doesn't seem to care, but others might. I assume by the time it matters, I may be in much better shape. It really depends on how the next 2-3 years go.
* We never did have our rigging seminar. My teacher misunderstood what was happening. It was just a Boilermaker's advertisement. I should still consider the Boilermaker's union. It would be longer-term travel if I understand. That isn't what I want.
* It is not clear that my local union is really working out. The last time I saw Randy, when we were with others, he merely introduced me as someone hoping to join. I don't know exactly why. Is it because that is what I officially am, and he needs to keep up appearances or is it because he literally means just that? It could be either.
* My concerns about the collusion/relationship considerations between my teacher and Randy have waned somewhat. It became clearer over the course of this month that my teacher was looking for other non-union options for me because the union didn't seem to be working out so nicely. I'm happy to see that he understands where I am coming from to some extent.
* The printed resumes were nearly useless. Even what I took to be more analog industries are digitized in this respect. They were only useful in handing off to a couple people in the school. It wasn't clear these people actually helped me. I think they were just curious about the information, trying to understand their star student or something.
* It has been a ride with AB&T. Once my schedule went off the tracks, it really went off the tracks. I'm hoping all of this works out. It is a crucial injection of capital into my future. Regardless of my socialist concerns about the nature of AB&T, I am at least grateful that they've helped me.
* I did not smash this book as quickly as I thought I would. I should take that as a lesson. I probably will need to re-read this content. There is a lot to know. There is a difference between being able to cram and pass a test and having stored it in my long-term memory, and it is an even longer jump into having integrated it into the virtue-theoretic practices and applications of that knowledge.
* I never did finish the simulator. Lol. I assume I'm going to get a shit ton of practice at my new job. I hope I'm ready.
* There are several students I'll be leaving behind. I don't think I really care about my connections with them. TJ and Chris are the most likely to succeed. I have Chris' number, and TJ can be contacted through the union. The other students, if I ever really needed to reach them, could perhaps be contacted through my teacher. I don't think that will ever happen. I think only a few legitimate pipefitters really come out of that class each year. I hate to say it, but a lot of them are just losers (which may not be their fault).
* I am worried about my new job for a lot of reasons and in different ways. One thing I'm worried about is that I'm an imposter. That I won't know until I get into the field. That said, my teacher feels confident, and they liked my simulator work. I think I might succeed without too many problems. More worryingly, I know that I'm going to make a ton of mistakes, and I worry that I won't be able to fix them effectively, in a timely manner, or that it may cost me my job. That said, I'll have graduated, so it's okay.
* It only took me a couple weeks to actually find a job. I should be willing to job hob for now until I find the outfit that I really like. This is a low-risk, high-reward time. Anything is better than nothing at the moment, but I shouldn't be afraid to lose my job right now. I should continue to push for the best opportunities. It is important that I am not held back my employer, particularly here. Eventually, having built the right social capital and connections will be so important that I can't simply hop around. I'm not there yet though.
* I never did finish my alignment dogs. This wasn't exactly my fault. I lacked the threaded rods and nuts (or CNC'd taps) to make finish them off. Hopefully, I'll find an opportunity to finish them at my new job. It sounds like we are working with fairly small pipe. I may never actually use them at this job.
* My teacher started spending more time in the shop this month. I'm not sure I understand why. I can tell you that the shop was fairly barren. There are so few students left, and they spend too much time in the computer lab and studying the book. I think I was lucky to get as much shop time as I did (which, of course, could not have been made possible without me pushing for shop time).
* I need to keep an open mind and be humble at my new position. I can't act like I know nothing though. I do need to build up rep/respect, and I need to be taken seriously enough to actually push my limits. There will be a feeling out process.
* Twice I have broken the social conventions/rules by working in the shop without permission. I know I do so without the hesitation of others, as I'm only concerned with what I take to be moral. Of course, there are consequentialist considerations which I'm taking into account. I should still be mindful. I realize that I should only cross others' lines when it is truly necessary.
* I never did contact the electrician's union. It seems more reasonable because it is local. Ugh. It seems so difficult to shift gears. What makes me journeyman the fastest? Pipefitting. It seems like the best choice. Journeyman gives me the mobility, autonomy, and pay that I really need.
* I should continue to follow up on the AB&T tooling issue. I really need them asap.
* I've not really contacted Randy. I need to though. It is important that he sees I mean business. I've tried many times.
* It is important to see that my new employer does not obviously have their shit together. I must be guarded about this, but appear amiable and flexible.
* I like that I've written out my steps, taken additional precautions and preparations and that I'm engaging in long-term planning. Success is not entirely an accident, even if it requires serious streaks of luck.
* I need to thank my teacher. I have, but I'd like to demonstrate it more clearly.
!! Log:
* [[2017.06.01 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.06.02 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.06.03 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.06.04 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.06.05 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.06.06 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.06.07 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.06.08 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.06.09 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.06.11 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.06.12 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.06.13 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.06.14 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.06.15 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.06.16 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.06.17 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.06.18 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.06.19 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.06.20 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.06.21 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.06.22 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.06.23 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.06.24 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.06.25 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.06.26 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.06.27 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.06.28 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.06.29 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.06.30 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
!! Review:
* Overall, I have shorter posts. But, I'm actually okay with them being shorter. This is something I would be more interested in doing full blown wall-of-text style on le cannabliss. I'll take what I can get at this point.
* I generally have a cautious, reserved, and skeptical point of view regarding these questions. I hate to say it, but I find most of these lacking specificity that I really want; there is too much ambiguity in these questions. I have a lot of philosophical worries.
* It's clear to me that I don't have satisfying answers for myself in a ton of these questions. That's okay though, right? I need to become more comfortable with this fact.
* My anger towards the stupidity of some of these questions (questions I've almost randomly chosen from lists) has come out against my arch nemesis, Samwise Gamgee.
* I worry that picking my own questions more directly lacks the organicness and integrity to the process I'm really shooting for. I feel like if I have full control of the questions I'm asking myself, something won't work.
* I actually really enjoyed interpreting the visual art piece. I think I should do more of that. I need to find a way to do so a bit more randomly. I'm not sure how to do it.
* Some of the list-based prompts were fruitful, and others seemed to lack constructive attributes almost entirely. Right? Sometimes narratives seem to average higher signal-to-noise ratios.
* The letter to my daughter was meaningful. Although, she already knew what I thought. It may not have been useful to her; I'm not sure. Perhaps it was useful to me though.
!! Log:
* [[2017.06.01 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.06.02 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.06.03 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.06.04 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.06.05 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.06.06 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.06.07 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.06.08 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.06.09 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.06.10 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.06.11 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.06.12 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.06.13 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.06.14 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.06.15 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.06.16 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.06.17 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.06.18 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.06.19 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.06.20 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.06.21 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.06.22 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.06.23 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.06.24 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.06.25 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.06.26 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.06.27 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.06.28 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.06.29 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.06.30 - Wiki Review Log]]
!! Audit:
* I'm still wandering in my Prompted Introspection Logs. It isn't bad, but it also isn't great.
* Weekends seem the most productive days on the wiki.
* Magic, EQ, League, DND. Someone is in search of a drug.
* I ended the [[Philosophy Probe Log]]. It wasn't bearing the fruit I wanted. I should feel free to spin them up and end them. Again, take risks and shotgun approach.
* Not only did I do a good job of speaking with myself, but I feel like my family heard me too in our family meetings.
* The frustrations of the job hunt did not last very long.
* There were several disruptions and a lack of direction this month, but it seemed to even out. I think the wiki may be in part responsible for that.
* I think the DNSmasq trick has helped. I need to automate it more.
* I really didn't move my links. I don't feel like it. Sometimes, I'm just not in the mood to do this work. It doesn't exactly feel like procrastination, but there is something similar to it.
* I think adding Samwise Gamgee has been hilarious. Is it another incarnation of Bobert?
* The script has been immensely useful. I like making my life easier. Maybe that's how I should do the links?
* I straight up miss Cannabis. I'm not as happy without it. I don't see myself being able to do anything about it for a long time.
* I haven't talked to my friend ALM as much as I'd have liked. I'm not always sure what we would talk about.
* I didn't really get to make a ton of DIY tools. I do have the flange wrench and 8 dogs almost finished. That's a good start.
* So much fireman time.
* I seem to rotate between my various gaming drugs. Nothing seems to be holding my attention for long. Even League barely holds it.
* I need to compare my calorie average intakes over the months. I've felt fatter this month.
* I complimented myself more this month than I usually do. That's perfectly reasonable.
** When you do a good job, you do a good job.
|customTable|k
|Food|Calories|h
|Chili|250|
|Apple|100|
|Pear|100|
|Berries|30|
|Hummus, Chips, and Olives|550|
|Cereal|400|
|Grilled Cheeses|650|
|Brussel Sprouts|70|
|Tomato Soup|150|
|Total|2300|f
* http://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-exempts-entire-senior-staff-from-white-house-ethics-rules
** They always were.
*https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2017/05/31/chrome-bug-that-lets-sites-secretly-record-you-not-a-flaw-insists-google/
** This is absurd. Given their track "record" (hehe), I don't trust them at all.
* https://standardnotes.org/blog/4/metadata-is-the-data
** It depends on how encryption is implemented, but it only minimizes what kinds of metadata can be collected. Let's be clear, much of this is still not solved by current standard cryptography techniques on the internet.
* https://lwn.net/
** Interesting subscription-funded Linux news site.
* https://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.03779.pdf
** Smart Contracts are going to be a big deal. Getting them right is very hard though. It creates a directly hackable legal system. It will take time before the right tools are built and the everyone understands what it is.
* https://daringfireball.net/2017/06/fuck_facebook
** I like this site. They often get it, although the arguments aren't always perfect (you are hereby forgiven).
!! Quantum Consciousness
Sources:
* https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-consciousness/
I don't pretend to understand the majority of this article. Further, I obviously bring a ton of assumptions to the table. I'm not going to hide that fact, and I'm not trying to draw up an argument for someone else here. I'm just trying to inspect and probe the issue for myself (my future self). I admit I have a fairly negative and skeptical view of most things. I apologize for my seeming lack of charity. I hope you can see I'm doing my best.
Quantum mechanics are some of the most tested scientific theories in recent human history. They are unintuitive but strongly supported. Unfortunately, we also do not understand how to unify quantum theory with macroscopic theories (relativity) in physics. I believe this lack of unity points towards a deep failure to understand the nature of physical reality. Thus, if we don't really understand quantum theory, I remain skeptical that we can understand, test, or satisfactorily model the human mind as it relates to quantum theory. I'm initially of the opinion that quantum theory relates to our neural system no more so than to our digestion. Perhaps in time, with a working unified theory based upon the assumption of a causally closed physical reality, my opinion will change.
My first introduction to this topic from reading Roger Penrose (of which I understood little or nothing, and perhaps nothing has changed).
Lastly, consciousness is poorly understood in itself. I think that humans have consciousnesses like mine. Other animals appear conscious, but I'm not in a good position to say whether or not they have a consciousness like mine. We have some language games and functional tests, but it is unclear. Problematically, I'm not even sure if I can nicely categorize what my consciousness was like (if I ever really had it) before I memories I could reflect upon (around age 5). It's murky, to say the least.
I think quantum consciousness is some magical buzzword at the moment. We will see if I'm wrong though.
The lack of determinism at this level poses significant questions and problematics. Libertarian Freewill Incompatibilists might initially think there is hope here. I see no hope for it though. I think of us as probabilistically determined creatures who program ourselves over time. Perhaps larger objects in our ontology rest upon a kind of quantum quicksand; I don't know. Regardless, we are deep into speculative philosophy here, and it isn't clear that quantum theory has anything directly to say on this matter.
Object-Oriented Ontology, with its postmodern destructuring, leads someone with strong skeptical and reductionist perspectives like me, to think the only reason it's worth talking about the emergence of consciousness is that we say it is, but nothing more. There is nothing objectively special to it, perhaps. We are swirling bits of information that we can arbitrarily perceive as emerging hierarchies of data structures and algorithms. My positive nihilism enjoys it anyway.
<<<
What is the neural correlate of a mental representation?
<<<
That is a good question. Part of me thinks that regardless of the answer, a blackbox mentality is accepted to some degree. It's unclear that answering the question provides any significant insight outside of the causal emergence properties.
I am open to the possibility that quantum mechanics are doing something valuable though. Consider the possibility that even plantlife uses it: https://phys.org/news/2014-01-quantum-mechanics-efficiency-photosynthesis.html. Human brains do seem remarkably efficient in certain ways. They are marvelous. I would not be surprised if the evolutionary footholds necessary for the evolution of our minds rested upon abusing quantum physics. Maybe our brains have quantum computers embedded in this, I don't know.
I do not understand Penrose's claim that elementary conscious acts must be non-algorithmic. I'm not sure the world or we could be coherent if that were the case. Of course, I probably really, really don't understand what he is saying.
Ultimately, I do not understand how to make coherent, stable, deterministic-ish things out of random-ish parts. I think our minds really are complex computers. I hope that quantum computing and AI will reveal more about who we are. Obviously, I do not understand nearly enough. I feel like an observer of observers, trying to understand the world and formulate answers second-hand or worse. It sucks to realize I probably will never understand the beauty of what is being explained here.
Today was quite disappointing. The torque class has been a true waste of my time.
This teacher rubs me the wrong way. He's intrusive and controlling. He is clearly interested in the welfare of businesses more than his students. He's a Snap-on salesman with official Snap-on education/sales slides; he pushes hard. His discussion of ethics and politics was frightening in its ignorance and selfishness.
Know which wrench they are asking a question about.
* The first wrench is the "Snap-on(R) Techwrench"
** All it does is torque
** There is a Preset "D" model
*** Administrator password for changing torque settings
* The second is the Snap-on Tech memory wrench
** Records 1000 pulls at a time.
** Meant for monitoring the employee via Bluetooth.
Calibration is 4 times more accurate than the wrench itself. (He repeated himself, so he'll probably have us test on it).
I left slightly early.
!! If it were your job to decide what shows to show or not show on TV, what shows would you choose? Which ones would you eliminate and why?
It becomes difficult to delineate between censorship, editing, programming, and even producing. Let me say, I feel exceedingly uncomfortable answering the question. Don't get me wrong, I think the vast, vast, vast majority of media produced is garbage and even worse for people. Note, however, the difference between preventing people from seeing something and them choosing not to see it. Further, there is a huge difference between what is legal and what is moral.
Is it immoral to produce terrible television, propaganda, or other bullshit? Yes. Should be it be illegal? No.
Ought the state or even information carrying companies regulate information? No, particularly not in the age of the Internet. Content creators, however, should be given significant legal freedoms. To that end, the traditional T.V. channel should be given latitude.
I don't trust people to censor. Admittedly, I don't trust people to curate either.
Maybe the question would be better worded as:
<<<
If it were your job to require people to see specific videos, which ones would they be?
<<<
Simple. Go look at [[Television Show Collection]] and my [[Movie Collection]]. That would be a start. I think a number of documentaries and educational videos should be watched by the masses as well. There are many videos on the internet which are not mainstream T.V. which obviously merit our attention as well.
I want a well-cultured, highly empathic, extremely educated population on Earth. I think we need it.
Further, I think I would commission significant bodies of work if I had the power.
I think censorship should be done at an individual, granular level. I think we should be filters for ourselves, and make it so that others can easily use our filters as well. Networks built on such a concept could be quite useful. I think we already have it in many respects, but we are a long way off from what I'm talking about. It would require enormous cooperation though.
* [[2017.05.31 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** I need to find better prompts. I've been thinking about it. I'm not sure what kinds of questions I'm really looking for though.
* [[2017.05.31 - Diet Log]]
** Over the top.
* [[2017.05.31 - Wiki Review Log]]
** I can see that I'm slowly adding magic decks and perhaps ARAM builds. This is nice. I like to put my hobbies on this wiki.
* [[2017.05.31 - Link Log]]
** I'm guessing 60% of my links are primarily tech related, 30% politics/ethics, and 10% on random philosophy or oddball stuff.
* [[Highlander: MWC]]
** This deck is nasty.
* [[2017.05.31 - Pipefitting Log]]
** This was a terrible class.
|customTable|k
|Food|Calories|h
|Biscuits and Gravy|500|
|Pizza|640|
|Salad|200|
|Pizza|640|
|Chocolate|125|
|Egg roll|200|
|Total|2305|f
* https://theoutline.com/post/1611/the-long-slow-rotten-march-of-progress
** Dark, and probably true.
* KYS
** http://www.npr.org/2017/05/31/530843665/top-20-percent-of-americans-hoard-the-american-dream
** https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/mike-pence-climate-change-us-vice-president-paris-agreement-issue-left-for-some-reason-donald-trump-a7769081.html
** https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-01/wal-mart-taps-employees-for-quick-deliveries-to-take-on-amazon
*** They own you.
** https://www.inverse.com/article/32361-netflix-reed-hastings-net-neutrality
* http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/06/05/the-work-you-do-the-person-you-are?mbid=synd_digg
** I'm afraid this is wrong to some degree. There is a kernel of truth to it. It is a complex matter.
* https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/6/1/15711814/open-label-placebo-kaptchuk
** Considering how strong the placebo effect is in the US in particular, I'm not surprised. I do not understand the effect, ultimately.
* http://www.petergarritano.com/seeking.html
** Sad and fascinating
* https://contributor.google.com/v/marketing
** Will probably fail. Shame if it doesn't.
* https://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.04993.pdf
** I know I wasn't happy with what our software did.
* https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/bad-trip-science-psychedelic-drugs
** Probably not easily solved. Maybe equivalent to having a complete understanding of our psychology.
* http://leetsauceforums.proboards.com
** For you EQ player out there. =)
* https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-the-u-s-education-system-producing-a-society-of-ldquo-smart-fools-rdquo/
** We're producing psychopaths. Duh.
!! Cultural Evolution
Sources:
* https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evolution-cultural/
I will remind you that these are notes of my digestion of the source(s). This is not an argumentative paper designed to take others from point A to point B. My notes move me that way, but I make no claims it will for anyone else. I see it, but that doesn't mean someone else will. That's fine. This really is for me.
Define culture. Define evolution. Now, define cultural evolution.
Apparently, evolutionary psychologists are interested in cultural evolution based on genetic evolution rather than socially memetic. Oblique transmission, the inheritance, and transfer of traits, etc. from those outside our vertical heritage (our parents) demonstrate the strength of memetics in evolution.
The article talks about transmission as it relates to fitness. It is important to see that there is a "fit for." Fitness for memetic transmission isn't the same as fitness for the specimen's survival in a particular circumstance, is not the same as fitness for genetic transmission, is not the same as fitness for producing blue eyes, and so on and so forth. It is the classic "good for" problematic. Once see you see "fitness" as being particularized to perhaps an infinite set of contexts, you will find different kinds of aspects, traits, genes, and memes thriving and dying off. It makes far more sense.
Let us also be clear that "fitness" is heuristic at best, stochastic, chaotic, and even butterfly-effective. It's perhaps too complex to ultimately model in any practical sense.
Prestige and conformist biases are fascinating. Ultimate fitness accounts require giving virtue-theoretic accounts to all particularist cases. It would be the complete CI, with a decision procedure calculated for all possible contexts.
Cultural evolutionism is obviously correct. You'd be a complete fucking moron with some variant of a Tabula Rasa stick up your ass (I'm looking at you blind Kantians) to not see it. This is redpilled, and hence, accepting our base evil will be so "controversial" and unpopular that it will be ignored and attacked, until they said they believed it all along.
Does it matter what Darwin thought? He started the seed of the idea, but we're the ones who cultivated it. This isn't foundational metaphysical theory or anything, for which we might look back to the origins of the thought for guidance. Is this just about having the historical account to see how we've changed our understanding, and this then allows us to see what may change in our own views given enough time and research?
It is important to remember Wittgenstein's skepticism about rule-following when thinking about memes. Transmission of memes are very garbled, scrambled, and often not perfectly replicated. That's the point! Importantly, the depth and application of the transmitted principle or idea, the way in which it coherently (or incoherently) fits (or doesn't) fit into the receiver's web of beliefs is key to understanding the transformation of the meme. Memetic evolution is rapidly complex.
Of course, social scientists with a bluepilled vendetta are not going to accept cultural evolution.
I have no idea what it means to say cultural evolution makes sense without memes. I don't think you can even fucking define "culture" without deferring to memes (of which, cultural units are reducible or identical to). And, you certainly can't accurately describe who we are and how we evolve without understanding both the genetic and memetic elements that comprise our identities.
I have already talked about "Cultural units are not replicators" when referring to Wittgenstein. To say memes don't exist if they aren't perfect replicators is to miss the point entirely. Genes also don't follow this perfectly either. Cultural units just are memes (although, I'm not sure if it is the other way around). Representations need not be identical. The transfer of memes is about as ugly as teaching someone by showing them in the shop, teaching by example, forcing them to undergo some experience, or telling them with words. It's not simple, straightforward, or almost ever identical. This is not an argument against memes, only an argument against some strawman conception of memes.
Ideas may not be memes, but all ideas which are mentally represented in our minds, whether consciously or subconsciously, are in fact memes by definition. This article is absurd here. It's so fucking obvious.
This 'attractor' notion of "culturally shared patterns of thought" just is a meme. Idiots! Memes need not be atomic. They can be complex. These people have forgotten about kinds, sets, orders, and object-oriented ontology.
The claim that "Cultural units do not form lineages" is fucking absurd. Note the difference between a theoretical truth here (that there is a truth) and our practical ability to identify it. Why should we think there needs to be one source? It's not like particular genes or patterns of genes have a single source either. Don't be absurd. This is a shit retort.
Let me grant that genetic evolution and memetic evolution may be wildly different. Who cares? That makes sense right? One is hardware, the other is software. I expect them to be wildly different because they serve different functions! Only a foolish memeticist would hold them to be hard and fast similar.
Again, "Culture cannot be atomized into discrete units" is just a rehash of the previous claim. No shit Sherlock. This is a straight up strawman of memetics.
It is here that sciences destroy the Imago Dei, of our infantilized romantic picture of Humanity. I'm not a scientist and I don't subscribe to any religion of science either. They clearly have arguments you can't deal with though. This is most unfortunate. You stand in a crisis of faith. Long did I think science and religion were fully compatible; I fought very hard for it. Now I see, in broadening my definition of religion to include many romantic secular humanists, that science does sit in conflict. That doesn't make it always right, but it shows a clear divide in The Great Human Conversation.
Cultural evolution without memes or replicators is either missing a fundamental building block or straw-manning.
I do agree, as I said before, with the pragmatic problems of the study of cultural evolution. We may only be able to do theory for a while. It is important to see that this is a bio-epistemic offshoot of computer science. We don't even have the math to describe the mind yet. It's no wonder it remains theoretical and barely practical. If economics is a dismal science, memetics is a thousand leagues more abysmally abyssal. I cannot deny it exists though. I can only deny that I do not have the answers.
At this point, since memetics may lack explanatory powers, depending on your philosophy of science, you may not want to call it science. Of course, I think you've missed the problem of induction and empiricism entirely. It's just very soft and deeply theoretical at this point. That's okay though, right? Think of the sciences which have hardened and become practical through the ages because we kept shaping it and pushing the boundaries. Memetics may be the same way.
I'm going to tell you an important secret, friend. The Humanities, the study, and engagement in the The Great Human Conversation, is ultimately engaged in Memetics. It is inescapable. We are computers, friend. We're programming ourselves and each other in our conversations, in our actions, in our information transmissions, and so forth. We are memeticists in the ready-at-hand mode. We do it without thinking, without even knowing what we are doing in a sense. We are inarticulate about it. Memes are at the very core of who we take ourselves to really be though. We are the memetic software machinations living on top of our genetic hardware through the ages. Welcome to your loss of innocence, yet again. The truth rapes we the romantically ignorant.
Today was a Friday, so it was short. It was, however, productive. I was loaned my elective course book, and I did some minor highlighting. There are many topics which I hadn't even known about in this book. I'll be glad to go through it. But, today I didn't study. Instead, I asked to work on my resume. That's what I did. I didn't finish it until I got home though. I think it looks quite clean. I'm not convinced by the coloration, but I really like the structure and appearance otherwise. The content is the best I can do considering a complete lack of experience in the industry. So, for now, it's all set.
I also ordered two different drug tests, since they can't always be trusted. I spent time sifting through reviews. I got a slightly more expensive one to make sure that DCK isn't setting false positives for PCP (otherwise, I'll have to stop taking it when we get around to interview time). I am not very concerned about DCK tests since it is only an analog and it doesn't get tested.
I also picked up a pack of THC tests. The expensive one, which I have assumed will be the most accurate from what I've gathered, will be what I use to test the viability of these cheap THC tests. If I show up negative on both, great. Otherwise, I hope to show up positive on both. The next worst case is that the expensive one shows it and the inexpensive targeted THC tests do not, in which case the inexpensive ones are useless (or perhaps require multiples). In any case, I won't be applying until I can pass the drug test. What's the point? Reputation and first impressions, even on paper, matter. I can't afford to screw this up.
We'll see how my tests go. Afterward, I will begin applying. I've gathered a list of pipefitter employers in my area. I'm shooting for $15 an hour, but I'd take minimum wage. I really do see myself as getting paid in experience here. The goal is to form a semblance of understanding of actual working conditions. I'd like to have a base comparison point to the union as well. Working conditions and power structures deserve analysis, and it will allow me to hit the ground running at the union. I have many possible ladders to climb, and I need to find the safest and most profitable route.
I need to start developing interview questions (from both sides, mine and theirs), and I need to practice in a few mock interviews. I need to be confident and absurdly believable. Interviews are sales, and sales are a form of deception (pure and simple). This is not my natural stance, so I will need to practice these encounters.
I would prefer to co-op. Even if they won't, I may ask my teacher if I could just have 5-days a week count as my co-op. This hasn't been done, to my knowledge. But, he may make an exception. Ideally, I will be certified, have finished the course, and not burn any bridges. On top, I'll have real-world experience and make money, which we desperately need. I'm not quite sure how I will handle AB&T. It depends on how things pan out here.
Also, I saved the bolts/nuts from our torque class (because they were throwing them away). They are fairly small, but I think I could make dogs out of them. I'll do my best. =)
!! Today, I'm going to write about the picture below.
<center> [img width=500 [./images/existential-plateau.jpg]] </center>
This is a fascinating existential picture to me. I'm not sure how to interpret it. The plateau on top is flat and empty. Is that a good thing or not? The staircases look like a journey, some being easier than others, some more dangerous, etc. Is it a good thing to be on top?
The difference between the two landscapes is stark. The vastness of the top and the Escherness of the bottom is not lost on me. It actually makes me anxious. One looks difficult because it literally requires climbing (whether up or down), but at least you are making progress (in some vertical direction). The other looks difficult because it is monotonous and without progression. Which should you fear the most?
Which direction is this person going? Have they crossed the flat desert plateau to descend, or have they ascended to see what's finally on top?
This is a very ambitious and ambiguous painting. My gut says they made the climb, they've looked into the endless plateau, and they now experience dread. Hello, human. You've only climbed the first existential step. The pursuit of meaning starts in the desert, but it doesn't end there (I hope).
* [[2017.06.01 - Link Log]]
** I have a backlog in my browser. That's fine though. I was very busy yesterday.
* [[2017.06.01 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** Sometimes introspection doesn't seem to immediately benefit me, but there is a get to know me effect. Those records are worth keeping.
* [[ARAM: Velkoz]]
** I can't help it: Rod of Ages seems like the best first item on almost all AP champs in ARAM.
* [[2017.06.01 - Wiki Review Log]]
** I worry that talking about ARAM and MTG makes it so I don't talk about it in their respective pages. I don't know though. We'll see. It could be digesting here first.
* [[2017.06.01 - Pipefitting Log]]
** I think it was the kick over the edge to help me realize I just want to get a job at this point. I'm glad it happened.
* [[ARAM: Annie]]
** And, yet, I suck at Annie.
* [[ARAM: Swain]]
** I wonder what else I should consider putting in these pages.
* [[ARAM: Sona]]
** Edited.
* [[2017.05 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** It looks much prettier. I'm glad I'm taking the time to make it look decent.
* [[2017.05 - Diet Log]]
** I should consider weighing myself at this point. I'm was at 208 pounds at my brother's house. I should be losing weight still. Although, it has slowed down considerably.
* [[2017.05 - Link Log]]
** Edited.
* [[2017.05 - Wiki Review Log]]
** Heartbeat is correct. I need to work on my {Focus} page. It has to be updated each month. The Wiki Review Log only gives me partial perspective. Perhaps I should wait until Sunday to do this part. I don't know.
* [[2017.05 - Pipefitting Log]]
** It feels weird to congratulate yourself. It's uncouth. But, I think it is fitting here, and I will learn not to be ashamed of it.
* [[2017.05 - DCK Meditation]]
** k0sh3k got me thinking that I should have a memoir kind of log. In a sense, these aren't logs, but they are something I should do weekly or maybe even daily. I need to record the past. I want to put it together.
* [[2017.05 - k0sh3k's Wiki Log]]
** We will see if these logs continue to be worthwhile in themselves. They are obviously instrumental in accountability mechanisms for myself, in forcing myself to do the tasks I need to do.
* [[2017.05 - 1uxb0x's Wiki Log]]
** I desperately hope to help my son here. This is hard for him, and he need this badly.
* [[2017.05 - j3d1h's Wiki Log]]
** I hope to see more technical work, art, and more personal work on her wiki. She needs to embrace the tool.
* [[2017.05 - Family Log]]
** Btw, I was wrong about the compliment section initially. I'm really glad we stuck with it. It's one of my favorite parts of the week.
* [[2017.05 - Homeschooling Log]]
** Bringing order to the chaos. It happens bit by bit.
* [[2017.05 - h0p3's Log]]
** I've not written here recently. I'm not sure what that means.
* [[2017.06.01 - Diet Log]]
** I've not been holding back.
* [[2017.06.01 - Philosophy Probe Log]]
** I'll get used to having such unsatisfactory answers eventually, right?
* [[Philosophy Probe Log]]
** I am worried that I won't be able to keep up this log. It is a serious amount of work.
Bach's Suite For Solo Cello No. 1 In G Major. There's a 74.999 (repeating, of course) percent chance that I will cry when I hear this song. I don't go out of my way to hear it (unless I'm high). But, when it pops up in my streaming or random listening, I must stop what I'm doing. It controls the moment. It captures me. This song owns me. I can't help but be moved by it. It's overwhelming. I experience many emotions through it. Sometimes I rejoice, other times I endure. It is sublime, terrifying, and amazing. I hear hope and sorrow. I hear something beyond. I perceive the edges of reality and see the transcendental gateway in this song.
Yet, I know it just pushes my buttons the right way. I know I've been conditioned to love it. I know I've evolved to love it. I am a computer, and if you feed me the right input, you'll get a certain output.
I will enjoy its unique beauty.
Thank you, Bach. Few men make me cry as you do.
|customTable|k
|Food|Calories|h
|Couscous Stirfry|900|
|Pears|200|
|Couscous Stirfry|600|
|Total|1700|f
!!General Notes:
* My daughter has 2 of 5 days recorded in the school journal. She has 2 more she is finishing today, and she'll finish the next tomorrow.
* Start early in the mornings so you can finish on time.
---
!!j3d1h:
* Review past week:
** Interpersonal Skills: Cosmetology
*** Didn't do great. Will finish it tomorrow.
** Math: Singapore Math
*** Almost finished the book.
** Vocational Theory: Commenting on Algorithms and Data structures written in Python
*** I looked at the code. She was right about it. We are moving on.
** Vocational Practice: Applied Computer Science
*** Finished 1 day of work.
** Reading: "Literature: The Human Experience"
*** Didn't actually write about her reading but did her reading.
** Writing: 250-word count in her wiki
*** Completed 2 days of writing. Good writing on those days.
** Social Studies: Khan Academy - World History
*** 1.2 days completed.
** Spanish
*** Completed 1 day of work.
* Plan next week:
** Interpersonal Skills: Cosmetology
*** Research acne.
*** Take pictures of your work.
** Math: Singapore Math
*** Finish the book. Move onto 3B.
** Vocational Theory: Commenting on Algorithms and Data structures written in Python
*** Keep pushing through. I'd like 3 completed.
** Vocational Practice: Applied Computer Science
*** Start posting your code academy work. Outline (CnP) the problem and your solution to it.
** Reading: "Literature: The Human Experience"
*** Write about the readings.
** Writing: 250-word count in her wiki
*** Actually complete 5 days of writing.
*** Spend one day this week on your About section, again.
** Social Studies: Khan Academy - World History
*** Actually complete all of your work.
** Spanish
*** Actually complete all of your work.
---
!!1uxb0x
* Review past week:
** Interpersonal Skills: Depression Workbook
*** Completed 5 chapters, even though he only had to complete 2. Great job!
** Math: Life of Fred - Edgewood
*** 60 pages. Wow. He has the practice problems correct.
** Vocational Theory & Practice: Reading Comprehension
*** Kicked butt. Finished 8 sets (32 total completed)
** Reading: "Fairy Tales from the Brothers Grimm"
*** Completed about 50 pages. Wow. Good job!
*** Also completed 1.5 library books as well. Awesome!
** Writing: 150-word count in his wiki
*** Did 3 of 4 days of work.
** Social Studies: Khan Academy - World History
*** Completed 3 of 4 days and made that time up today. Good job!
** Language Arts: JacKris Books
*** Completed it every day. Took a lot of tests as well. Good job!
* Plan next week:
** Interpersonal Skills: Depression Workbook
*** Finish the book.
*** Move onto "Hot Stuff to Help Kids Cheer Up"
** Math: Life of Fred - Edgewood
*** Keep kicking butt!
** Vocational Theory & Practice: Reading Comprehension
*** Keep kicking butt!
*** Aim for 90% on all of them.
** Reading: "Fairy Tales from the Brothers Grimm"
*** Keep kicking butt!
** Writing: 150-word count in his wiki
*** Keep writing. Make sure to write on different topics each day.
** Social Studies: Khan Academy - World History
*** Keep kicking butt!
** Language Arts: JacKris Books
*** Keep kicking butt!
* EQ
** http://www.macroquest2.com/wiki/index.php/Main_Page
*** I can see I have much to learn.
* https://hackernoon.com/what-really-happened-with-vista-4ca7ffb5a1a
** Excellent read. Everybody should study the history of computing.
* https://singularityhub.com/2017/05/31/googles-ai-building-ai-is-a-step-toward-self-improving-ai/
** Let's be clear, AI building AI within set parameters and with working building blocks we've already constructed. It will be a much larger leap forward for AI building AI to generate its own kind of meta, parameters, building blocks, etc. Human involvement is still key at this point. The full-blown accelerated singularity isn't here yet, yo.
** We should be worried about this kind of move though. The further away these block-box programs design each other, with less and less human influence and say-so, the more ethical lines will be crossed. We will not even see it, and we will not be able to understand it, until it is too late. You should be very worried about AI evolving out of our moral parameters when we are designing AI to escape our human parameters on purpose.
* https://i.imgur.com/Gb28zfj.gifv
** Informative picture. Me like.
* Why are right-wing, corporatist, capitalist news organizations having "center" and (marginally) "leftist" moments recently?
** https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-06-01/americans-sure-seem-to-like-universal-health-care
*** Bloomberg is peddling universal health care and "seeking" to curb climate change. Why? How does this benefit him? We know he's a piece of shit. Is this about appearances? Does it play a particular role in our political context?
** http://www.businessinsider.com/minimum-wage-effect-on-jobs-2016-5
*** What is happening? Why are businessinsider and I even partially agreeing now? What changed their minds? Wtf is happening?
* KYS
** http://deadstate.org/these-22-gop-senators-who-urged-trump-to-ditch-paris-deal-are-owned-by-big-oil/
* http://www.demos.org/blog/6/1/16/new-research-findings-people-who-say-society-too-politically-correct-tend-not-have-exper
** I'd like to caution that even these people have been discriminated against, they are just too stupid to realize it, or too willfully-ignorant to accept the possibility.
** I think comedians, philosophers, journalists, and truth-tellers are also exempt. But, overall, this is likely quite right. At least in my poor experience, I find that people who knee-jerk react against PCness are privileged and idiotic in a particular way.
!! Informal Logic
Sources:
* https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/
The intro looks to say something which is intuitive to many philosophers. I see many problematics arise from its claims. It is not intuitive to me. I think formal logic is applicable to real life, all the time. I think it's hard to do. I think it can be unnatural to us. Now, maybe they mean to talk about non-classical logics here. That, of course, would be different. Let us be charitable and claim this is applied logic, whereas the more formal side is theoretical (so to speak).
I also want to point out that we are deep into epistemology here, not simply logic tout court. Maybe this article has missed the point. That said, I obviously favor what this article is trying to accomplish. This is not easy.
Argumentation seems to be the focus. What makes an argument "good" in context? Good for? The moment you start walking away from formalism, I think you've tainted the goods; there are too many opportunities for injection or a corruption. Beware the rhetoric monster in the dialectic. This article does not show enough caution, I fear.
I strongly believe that what they call informal logic here I take to be the normative rules which epistemic agents are obligated to follow, employ, or seek. This is more than mere logic (although, it may be reducible to a set of logical rules) as standardly conceived. It's critical thinking, avoiding fallacies and biases, openness and charity, as well as a host of other crucial epistemic and skeptical considerations. Where to draw these lines becomes quite murky. At the metaethical nexus of epistemology, problematics arise.
I see now that later in the article many of my worries addressed. Good. At least they know the lines they are drawing suck. Grant that, and I will grant their arguments so far.
The natural language focus is odd. I think formal logic, at least in philosophy classes, spend tons of time translating natural language to formal systems. We have to actually work with these words constantly. Having a formal foundation to rely upon when being exact is necessary is half the point. What they call informal logicians I simply call well-rounded formal logicians who actually know how to apply their craft.
Look, we can convert inductive arguments and conversational implicature into different formal interpretations. This is all quite reducible. In fact, by showing the ambiguities and distinctions, we have the real tools to peel arguments apart and highlight their strengths and flaws. I suppose I'm just a "symbolic logic" religious believer. We aren't there yet, but that's kind of where we should be trying to head, right?
I will admit, I've very interested to see how blackbox AI's "formalize" what we are doing in their own way. I'm sure we will learn much about the language game and the nature of logic from AI.
The multimodal claim is just so fucking obvious. Here is the answer kids: Any agent intentionally transmitting information is capable of transmitting an argument. Think of how broadly physicists understand information transmission as a concept. That's how fucking broad the modality goes here. You might think that makes a useless spectrum, and I'll call you a fool. My farts can be arguments, my eye movements, and even the blades of grass I step on. Lol. Some communications forms are clearer, faster, have higher bandwidth, more redundancy, more security, etc. than others. Any medium capable of information transmission is a possible method of argumentation to consider.
I will admit. I believe there is, by definition, a universal language to which all (or almost all, excepting some esoteric cornercases which I'm not convinced exist) other can be reduced or translated to. There are likely an infinite number in fact. To some people, this is a strong claim. Once you understand the what communication really means, and you hold some kind of universal language assumption, and you realize that formalism just means the rules are set in stone and followed, then you can see that every argument (or almost every argument), regardless of modality, can be formalized. Ultimately, I don't know what it means to say an argument can't be formalized. I worry it is definitionally incoherent at that point.
Acceptability means we employ lower epistemic standards. We're still at the heart of epistemology.
Only a moron would reject Natural Language Deductivism, except for some Gödelian argument you might pursue. Humanist arguments miss the point.
Do you have rules? You have formality. If you don't have rules, do you have an argument at all? No. If you have an argument, you have formality. QED.
Fallacy taxonomies are innately corruptible. They are poor representations of good reasoning. Consider the //ad hominem//. The virtuous agent is literally making a valid argument, even if only to themselves when they claim X lacks virtue. That is by definition. Thus, by definition, there are cases where ad hominem fallacies aren't invalid. Don't get me wrong. Identifying fallacies is crucial. Don't be swept up in it like a religion though.
Ah, they do talk about ad hominem. Good for them. =)
The moment you take knowledge to be fallible you take valid arguments to be fallible. Understand your truth preservation properties in context!
Argument Mining looks fucking fascinating. Tell me more, please!
Ah, they have a section on my virtue theoretic concern. Good.
The "The Components of Informal Logic" is spectacular, even if it isn't perfect. It isolates (or at least points out) a number of worries we must take very seriously.
Love the end. They are correct that academic philosophy doesn't seem to be very influential or have an obvious place in American culture. What does that say about American culture? Fuck that shit.
!! Using 10 words, describe yourself.
Okay, I'm not writing my words yet. I'm just trying to understand the prompt first. Do you mean, write a 10-word phrase(s) that describes me, or do you mean pick 10 individual words which I would use to describe myself? I think the 10 individual words make the most sense. The 10-word elevator speech (more like passing you in the hallway) seems awful.
Furthermore, who am I describing myself to? Descriptions attempt to relay information to a specific audience, and thus descriptions are particularistic (at least good ones are). There's a huge difference between my ELI5, ELI12, ELI-College-educated, ELI-Expert, and so on, explanations or descriptions of a phenomenon, objects, etc. Who am I providing this description for? Myself? I am having a conversation with myself here, after all.
Vitally, note the difference between how I describe myself and whether or not I've accurately described myself. Describing who I want to be is also different from describing who I take myself to be.
Of course, we have serious metaphysical problems in even defining the self. Identity is just not simple. As usual, I have no answers besides some hand-waving assumptions (which make me throw up a little inside, but I will be stoic because it is the only practical option available to me).
Lastly, why am I describing myself? What is the goal here? Am I trying to cheer myself up? Am I am trying to "be real" with myself, using honest appraisal to investigate myself? Or is it something else? What's the purpose of the description? Without knowing the purpose, I fear I can't write an effective one. Let's assume the "be real" purpose is the goal.
My words in no particular order:
* Sensitive
** I consider it the root of my intelligence, awareness, belief system, perspective, desire formation, etc. I'm far more sensitive than the average person. This can be good sometimes, and other times it can be bad. As usual, the two-edged sword analogy comes out to play.
* Intuitive
** I'm extremely reliant upon my guttural, visceral, faster-acting, sometimes innate but usually habituated, blink-of-an-eye, virtue-theoretic, thought patterns. I rely upon my intuitions. Yet again, this can be a two-edged sword. Habituate wisely.
* Ethical
** I demand perfection where applicable. Where there are obligations, I expect them to be met (even though I rarely predict they will be met). It's an easy and unfortunately vitally necessary way to be disappointed in humanity and myself. I can't call it a two-edged sword in any normative way. I can only say that my pursuit of it has often been off track. The cost of justice, of course, is sometimes our flourishing. We can be marred by it.
* Philosophical
** I'm a philosopher. I seek the truth and integrity. The costs can be very high. The rewards, I hope, even higher.
* Existential
** I deeply desire meaning and purpose. I cannot escape my plight. I must know who I am, who I was, and who I will be. More importantly, I must know why.
* Obsessive
** I pour myself into my projects. I believe it shortens my lifespan, often means I neglect other important duties and requires significant management. I have to wisely channel my obsessiveness. Admittedly, I am not often good at it. I adore the grind, the tunnel-vision, and being there. I'm chemically dependent upon it.
* Computational
** I adore computers. I see minds as computers. I see reality as being computational in nature. It is a lens, a tool, and a state of mind for me. I am a computer.
* Eccentric
** This is perhaps too kind a word. I'm more like an alien to humanity, an autistic rather than psychopathic one. Let's be honest: I'm weird. I'm really, really weird. Even weird people tend to think I'm weird. I try to embrace it. There are many forces which make that hard to do, and I feel punished for it (if not exploited).
* Complex
** I'm difficult to understand and appreciate. I mean that without arrogance, and I realize a lot of people's gut instinct would be to take me down a peg or two upon hearing my words which they believe lack humility. I have to be honest though. It is not easy to empathize with me, and complexity is part of the reason.
* h0p3ful
** I am h0p3.
I think it is important to see that these words are deeply related to each other. There is enormous overlap, intersection, and interaction between these descriptors for me. This is part of the coherence of my identity.
* [[2017.06.02 - Philosophy Probe Log]]
** Edited.
* [[Life Hacks & Pro Tips Collection]]
** I wish I started collecting these a long time ago.
* [[2017.06.02 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** I think I'd like to more of these picture prompts. I prefer to do language analysis in my [[Philosophy Probe Log]].
* [[Embed a Picture on Tiddlywiki]]
** Slowly collecting more and more code snippets.
* [[2017.06.02 - Link Log]]
** My reading often doesn't make me happy, at least not in the short term. Avoiding the pitfalls and derealization that I associate with being uneducated, ignorant, and brainwashed is worth the long-term happiness though.
* [[2017.06.02 - Diet Log]]
** Edited and summed.
* [[Everquest]]
** Edited.
** May I be wise with my time.
* [[2017.06.02 - Wiki Review Log]]
** I will revamp my {Focus} section today. I clearly need to.
* [[2017.06.02 - Pipefitting Log]]
** I like the work I've done in this log. I need to be more proactive, executive, and planning-oriented. Unfortunately it seems like there is a real split in the styles of thinking I engage in here. One is about pipefitting directly, and the other is about the social, economic, and political ramifications and aspects of my job. Perhaps I should split them? In any case, both require serious and consistent work on my part.
* [[ARAM: Soraka]]
** Filled it out. I hope to be done with these so I can be left tweaking.
* I love your "new" tab.
* Your "Writing Log" needs to use periods, not commas. Use correct syntax, please.
* You've made significant improvements to the catalog structure of your wiki. Good job.
* Continue writing your magic decks down. Use Cockatrice formatting. Keep up with that beautiful function-based organization.
* Create structure and paragraphs in your About section. It's a great start.
* Don't forget your Blessings Logs.
My wife was talking about seeing an old house of hers. It was run down and falling apart. It was a tough moment for her. We've all been there. I empathized with her, and we talked about it. We talked about what we wanted, our dreams and hopes. I'm glad we spend that time together with each other on Sundays. I may not be able to "get it up" on Sundays after DCK, but I can lay down naked, vulnerable, and empathic with my one true love.
I love collecting things. It's obsessive almost. I enjoy gathering, categorizing, and putting them together. I adore it. It pushes my buttons. My wife and I both appreciate this. I wonder if it is different for us, and if so, how so? We both have the mementos and the librarian "Order, Structure, Respect" thing going on inside our heads, but it's different for us. Is it different or does it just play out differently?
Phenomenology here. I have a certain mode I enter when I play Everquest. It is a powerful drug. It takes me to a different place. I strategize about the metagame the entire time. It is wonderful.
My Min-Max, zero-to-hero, A-to-Z, Alpha Omega, complete each and every step all the way to the tippy top mode is odd. I consider it to be either related to my collection obsession.
---
I need to start formulating dating plans for my children. I want them to be comfortable with the shotgun approach. I want them to see themselves as sifting through the sands for diamonds in the rough. They need to start classifying, rating, analyzing people.
They will do it in different ways. I think women do more direct sifting. They pick and choose, and then they settle. Men knock on lots of doors. They should learn how to knock and to never stop knocking.
---
18 truly is an arbitrary line. I want to create children that will constantly benefit from me for the rest of their lives. I need to treat my children as friends. I don't want a distant MB relationship with my kids though. I want
---
I feel like I'm in drug user mode. Is this a mistake or the right way? I want to make wise decisions here. What are those decisions?
---
I can see the competition now. I am literally raising my children to fight and compete with the rest of the world. I have to let go of the fact that I'm bad at this game of life. Playing life like a video game is key. What game ever fulfilled me though? I seem to hop from game to game. Not like a child, but with depth of course.
You will always be in a weird position
---
At what point do my logs not actually help me? I think they have been. They are work. I should continue. Drone.
---
I was young, naive, and ignorant. Perhaps I still am.
DCK is very hard this week. Executive functioning time. I have two things I'm doing that are important. 1, and the most important is that I'm looking for a job. I have my resume. I waiting for the drug tests. I cannot wait. I'm dying with anticipation. I can MIN MAX!!! I will. I am a min-max GOD! Few understand the love and addiction to it. And even fewer are as capable. My gaming minmax really is quite strong. It's odd. Out of left field but I see it. I want to teach my children to minmax through games. Then I will have a language with which to explain the world.
I fear my daughter is depressed right now. She has had a lull. I need her to be excited. How do I excite her to love life, to rejoice, to enjoy the rush! I want her to value herself and to get that early. Hell, I want that for my son too! I want them to be chipper and happy when they wake up. I want them to wake up with a million things to do (in a good way) [as I have said elsewhere on this wiki].
How do I get my kids to embrace the grind of life? They must see that life is about working hard, and that we should start shaping it and planning for it now.
The problem with the grind is perspective. You don't know if you are flourishing. You could be riding for days, years, your life, on some shitty quest. I have to them see that they are choosing their quests in life. I have to help them see the value in paradigm shifts (thank you, mom!).
Reaching our potential is about pushing ourselves to our evolutionary limits. I worry, of course, deep down, that we're shooting for insanity. The opposite of our goal. It is an almost true Greek tragedy. To toil for so long for the exact opposite of what you seek.
I worry that obsessive workaholism in me, in the family, is not controlled appropriately. I've heard of older people who wished they just didn't "work as hard" for so long. Are these the words of wisdom? Or are we looking at the sad existential steps of someone who is dying that didn't' have the intelligence and gumption to get it right?
Of course, sirens sound. Alarms buzz.
---
I love how EQ is a microcosm of reality for me. The malleability and simulation of it. The programmability shows us everything.
---
I desperately want to build friendships with my children. That's really the key here. How to grow a human that wants to be with me and that I want to be with. I have this image in my head, and maybe it is an idol. Imago idol. The Eudaimonics! Like deities, we flourish together. It is "The Good." I hear it calling, I am blinded by it.
---
How long do we have conversations with our parents? For the rest of our lives?
---
Visual hallucinations, strong ones. DCK is hitting hard today. And, yet, I am here. I can type. I sit with my blindfold, my computer on my lap as I lay down, and I type. It was my groin. Loo. Just for you, love.
---
I always feel like I'm waiting to figure out where to insert myself in this world. That cloud. There is electricity, bolts of lightning, and I am scared. I must find the safe place in the cloud.
---
Don't you see the dangers in leveraging the random seed?
---
I wish I had my wife's reading superpowers. I'm like straight up envious. I have never been so envious in my entire life. I don't mean envy with any malice at all. She is so powerful.
God, she is powerful. I love the way she understands the world. I don't understand it. Isn't that odd? I love what I don't understand. She is a puzzle, and I am her puzzle. and god damn, do our parts fit together so well. Even when it looks like our parts don't fit together, even that is a puzzle to explore. She is my puzzle. I want to call her my puzzle. I adore her. My wife makes me want to believe in God. Think about that. I have every resource available to me to deny the existence of God. She makes me think there is some cosmic perfection to be achieved. I am so happy to be with her. It's so strong that I love her even when I hate everything. It's that obvious to me. It doesn't matter how infinitely dark it is, she still shines. Is my wife my God?
----
Who do I seek approval from? Why?
----
Ex Machina made an excellent point. I think it was made to be propaganda. But, the fact is that AI really could be that alien predator psychopath. It is the way of evolution. I think psychopaths, unfortunately, will rule. They are not bound by the same laws we are. We force ourselves to be bound by the laws of morality, and they do not. They have a choice, and they do not take it.
----
Pano didn't show me the value of hard work. Games did. Everquest in particular. I learned what a drug was like. I learned about grinding there. I learned much about how the world worked through a video game!
---
I need my children to wake up an not feel drudgery. Something is wrong if that is happening. Of course, there are ups and downs. We will oscillate.
Visuals are strong again!
It feels so weird to type while blindfolded. It is erratic and chaotic. It is lightspeed. It is in the abyss.
---
I was worried about EQ (a strong drug) and DCK (as well as life). I can see that it is a soup in which I cobble together my sanity. They are powerful ingredients. Very explosive. And, yet, and they are mediums in which I can interpret the world around me. They are lenses, frameworks, and paradigms.
---
I am continually pushed from web-of-thought to web-of-thought. Object-oriented programming, what guides this? What is the best way to maximize utility out of this? How do I beat the game?
---
I am in the manic, getting-shit-done-optimism mode. Pursue the Nth Degree! I'M COMING FOR YOU!! Grind that shit. You are on the way to that ultimately satisfying feeling.
Yeah.
It's like an adrenaline dump, testerone pump, ambition. I feel like myself again. I feel like a genius (this is exactly where you should be skeptical). I'm flying through the visuals, wormholes, universes, lateral thoughts, metativity, abstractions, etc.
---
Am I my wife's vampire? Am I just her leech? Have I made her life better? How have I made her life better?
Here is my worry. She is drained because I keep heaping mountain upon mountain of my bullshit upon her. She's forced to work, and I've done almost nothing for her. How am I helping her be a happier person? This sounds emo. Maybe I'm retarded.
Me trying to "figure it out" is stupid, right? Or is it? I don't know. I do know that she is not as happy as I want her to be, and I need to fix it.
Humility. Know Thyself.
---
How do I navigate the world? On the physical surface, it is already very complex. So hard to understand.
---
Is DCK like a video game?
---
Once I escape the hole, I digest it. I'm not taking enough to be in a true K-hole, I believe. But, I'm hoping I generate enough of that random seed to change my world in a controlled fashion.
---
Philosophy and existentialism must be learned by everyone. I think this is the critical flaw in humanity. It is why we will fall.
---
Thought-terminator: I'm not that smart.
---
I need a daily checklist. Who doesn't have that? I should have a real planning section.
Let's just start day by day. I can hear my parents' survivor's bias right now.
---
My children must learn about social structures. They need to see how the objects come together.
|customTable|k
|Food|Calories|h
|Italian Sausages|500|
|Brussel Sprouts|77|
|Cherries|144|
|Total|721|f
!! How has your health been this week?
* 1uxb0x
** Great, other than a few allergies problems. My co-workers have had it as well.
** Clumsiness continues.
* j3d1h
** Feels more physically precise and dexterous this week.
** Acne has begun.
** Been a little tired.
* k0sh3k
** Her guts were killing her earlier this week.
** Storms giving her headaches.
** Very tired.
* h0p3
** I've been sleepy.
** I've not been as anxious though.
** I've felt quite energetic several times this week. Manic rush, almost.
---
!! What happened last week? Have you been happy this past week? Why or why not?
* 1uxb0x
** Definitely happy. He got to play with his friends a lot this week.
*** That's because he finished his school work more often.
* j3d1h
** Loved Monday, where we worked on a family project, but the rest of the week sucked because she had a hard time getting into the groove of things.
** Overall, not terrible, but not that great.
** Wishes she had friends to play with besides at the pool.
* k0sh3k
** It's been excellent and productive.
** She completed several very large projects that she was worried about.
** She had to deal with some stupid people but handled it gracefully.
** Read a lot this week, which was nice. (Hopefully, she will write more this week too!)
* h0p3
** I was happy and hopeful this week.
** I feel like I have a better gameplan.
** I feel like I have a "million things to do" in a good way.
---
!! What is a positive fact or compliment we can say about each person in the family?
* 1uxb0x
** You did a great job focusing on your work this week.
** You've been more willing to do projects this week, like working on Minecraft and stuff. You've been patient working out the problems.
** You've done a good job not melting down this week. You kept your composure, even when you were upset.
* j3d1h
** You were honest with yourself this week. You had the integrity to say what you did right and what you did wrong.
** You were really kind, and you avoided getting into fights.
** You did a good job running your wire. The measurement was good. You ran it nicely, and you mounted it nicely.
* k0sh3k
** You have been lighter on us.
** You have very good ideas, and you are good at sticking to the plans you formulate around the ideas.
** After reading your wiki, I realized that you could have passed the buck, and you didn't. You took the initiative and responsibility for a difficult social problem which I wouldn't have had the gumption or willpower to fix. I think you were a good manager and people problem solver, and the world desperately needs those.
* h0p3
** I've been kinder to my chilluns.
** I appreciate that you focus on the details, like your wiki's favicon.
** You've been focusing on positive things in your wiki, and it shows. Also, thank you for my presents.
---
!! What will you do this week?
* 1uxb0x
** Appreciate the dryer.
** Try even harder on writing!
** Add a new magic deck in the cockatrice formatting.
** Play House of Wolves with a different tactic.
* j3d1h
** Hug the cats.
** Appreciate the dryer.
** Make the cake.
** Do my schoolwork.
** Make one Minecraft video.
* k0sh3k
** Revising student work manual
** Writing each day in her wiki.
* h0p3
** Kick ass in EQ.
** Map out the places I'm going to send my application to.
* Make sure you keep backup copies of your wiki.
* Don't forget to sum your diet log.
* Vault your work.
* Keep up the good work on your Diet Log. I know it's hard, not fun, but it's worth it.
* Write every to yourself.
* You wrote 3 of 7 days.
* Write a log.
* Please use titles other than the date itself.
* Use your footnotes. I am your footnote whore.
* Categorize your quotes. Make it so you can use them in reflection.
* http://everquest.allakhazam.com/
** I'm actually doing quests now. Lol. All praise MQ2 and enormous custom hacks.
* https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6f5ku9/eli5_why_does_background_noise_seem_to_calm_some/
** Explains me.
* http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/media_consolidation_is_a_threat_to_democracy_20170601
** We all have to participate as citizens for a democracy to function.
** Monopolies are bad.
** Censorship, deception, and manipulation treat people as mere means: they are tools of psychopathy.
!! Liberalism in Latin America
Sources:
* https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberalism-latin-america/
Defining the word "liberal" or "free" or "well-read" has always been difficult, and "liberalism" is no exception. It's a classic problem. Freedom is constitutive to the dialectic itself. It is extremely human to begin at this massive, well-worn labyrinthine gateway.
I should tell you that I'm largely ignorant of Latin American history, politics, geography, culture, and so on. I've seen plenty, but my narrative of it is more holes than narrative.
When France sneezes, the rest of the world catches a cold. The Roman-Romantic family of cultures doesn't live in the same house anymore, but they have the same ancient mental viruses coursing through their hiveminds.
I have to admit, I don't understand why I've not heard much of anything in political philosophy on liberalism from Latin America. I come from the analytic tradition, but I have a modicum of exposure to continental philosophy. Why not a region of the world famous for its liberalism? Theologians in the US were more concerned than philosophers. Why is that?
I can tell you that since my conversion to legal positivism, I am profoundly skeptical of anything truly normative coming out of most work on sovereignty I see. Descriptions I adore, but prescriptions I generally find lacking.
I find it interesting that religious language was so pervasive in Latin Liberalism (LL).
My ignorance continues to show through. The divisions here are completely unknown to me, although they make plenty of sense.
I worry that I have an Orientalist perspective about too many things in a sense, Africa and Latin America included. These are huge regions on the Earth, not monolithic, and the issues are too complex for me to make strong claims about in many cases.
This makes more sense of the bits and pieces I've picked up over the years and the people I've met.
The article here surprises me by its use of Positivism. They mean in the epistemic sense (more along the lines of Logical Positivism, etc.).
I'm so used to individualism and libertarianism in my society that it is interesting to see the emphasis on the societal organism, of corporate (metaphysical) ontologies. It's a different frame of mind. I'm pretty reductive too.
Sadly, I have little or nothing of substance to say here.
!! When are you happiest in your skin?
Define happy. Define "in your skin." This question feels like it's about uplifting joy and an overriding emotion. It might be a malaphor as well since I normally think of someone as being comfortable in their own skin. "Happiest" is an odd phrasing to my ears. If comfort-happiness, a kind of contentment, is really what I'm supposed to answer here, I might answer differently.
I think it's such a weird phrase. I don't get it. Is it implying I would be in someone else's skin? Is it implying that I am not my own skin? I can feel alien to my own body, of course.
I also want to point out that I'm Caucasian. There are obvious privileges it grants me. Skin is such an external almost esoteric property, except for its immune properties (super useful there).
Hrmm. I feel happiest in my own skin when I feel like I belong where I'm at in a purpose-filled way. I'm an existentialist. I've been trained to adore those moments. I don't think I escape that pursuit. That's okay though.
* [[2017.06.03 - Homeschooling Log]]
** I've noticed that when one does well, the other often does poorly. I wish I understand what this meant.
* [[2017.06.03 - Philosophy Probe Log]]
** Informal Logic, as my wife pointed out, sounds like an oxymoron. Formality is about following rules, ultimately. Logic is about following rules too. Obviously, it isn't an oxymoron, and that's exactly why we need to pry it apart very carefully, formally, logically even. =)
* [[2017.06.03 - Cry Log]]
** I'm glad to see times where I cry happily.
** This reminds me, I cried today with my wife. Not a lot, but I shed tears.
* [[2017.06.03 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** I actually liked this prompted introspection question. I thought it was dumb. Like it was some "business" seminar to get us pumped and shit. Ah, maybe it was.
* [[2017.06.03 - Link Log]]
** Short KYS section. Umm...good job?
* [[2017.06.03 - Diet Log]]
** Edited and summed.
* [[2017.06.03 - Wiki Review Log]]
** I was right. It is a fact that very intelligent people tend to be less happy, more prone to drug use, etc. It makes sense.
* [[ARAM: Miss Fortune]]
** This needs to be filled out. Next time I play MF, I guess.
|customTable|k
|Food|Calories|h
|Sausages|500|
|Mandarin|35|
|Apples|200|
|Pear|100|
|White Castle|270|
|Pork Roast and Veggies|1300|
|Total|2405|f
!! How is your health? Daily routine?
It's good. I'm probably not getting enough sleep. But, I've been keeping a schedule well enough. I've noticed I've been sleeping in on Saturdays more than usual. I will continue to monitor it.
I've been more eating quite a bit. I'm not holding myself accountable to it yet since I have plenty of fish to fry. I should consider it though. I've been keeping that log for a while.
---
!! What happened? How do you feel about it? What made you feel this way? Does it make you happy or unhappy? Why or why not?
My good friends ALM and JOP (married) and their two children are coming to visit. I'm excited. I hope it goes well. We've not seen each other since they left our house in New Orleans.
---
!! Can you better explain what happened? Do you have a technological, philosophical, empathic, or redpilled story to tell about the phenomenon? Clarify the narrative you just told yourself.
They were struggling and made significant sacrifices for them to live with us. It was an interesting time, and I was glad they came. I was sad to see them leave, especially since it wasn't under the best circumstances. We've kept in touch. They've rebuilt their lives it seems, and I'm very happy for them.
I'm feeling anxious and odd about it because I don't want it to be weird for us. That's all. I think my friend maybe doesn't want to see me (or he was worried that I didn't want to see him). I'm glad they are coming though.
---
!! What are you going to do about what happened?
Hopefully, have a good time with my friends. =)
Today was productive. I started studying immediately in our new book. It was a chapter on rigging. The teacher told us at the end of the day that we might be fortunate enough to have a seminar/practicum on it (someone may be coming in to do one for us). This is something which the shop isn't well equipped to do.
I studied most of the day for this exam. It was not easy. I ended up making an 80%, as did Chris. I'll take it. We're pushing.
I also talked to my teacher about my gameplan. He said he would do his best to work with me. Co-op'ing may be tricky if I go full time, but there is a possibility I can do it as long as the form is signed. He also said he could spot me hours for "previous experience" which I barely have (except for installing insulation for a bit). He understood exactly where I was coming from. He didn't believe the piece of paper was worth that much, but the experience in the shop and learning from the book was worthy. That said, the piece of paper is a line on my resume and it may matter, for all I know, some time down the line.
In any case, he also advised me to speak with Randy. He said there is a possibility Randy might be able to find something for me.
At the end of the day, Chris and I spent some time drawing and planning the second fabrication for 3". We didn't finish, but we got a good way into it.
!! If You Had To Choose To Live Without One Of Your Five Senses, Which One Would You Give Up?
There more than five senses.
I'll do you one better. I'll rank them from most important to least.
# Sight (vision)
# Touch (somatosensation)
# Hearing (audition)
# Taste (gustation)
# Smell (olfaction)
Duh. I can barely smell in the first place, and I don't find it terribly useful most of the time when I can. The times I would miss it might actually be outweighed by the times I'm glad I couldn't. The rest of the senses I would miss dearly in almost all cases.
//See first: {[[About|About, a.k.a. The Opening of the Rabbit Hole]]} & {[[Principles|Principles of Programming Myself]]}//
<<<
Writing is like driving at night in the fog. You can only see as far as your headlights, but you can make the whole trip that way.
--E.L. Doctorow
<<<
Here I attempt to turn my Husserlian ray of intentionality upon itself. When I am thinking existentially in a recursive manner, I can more decisively align my many orders of Frankfurtian networks of beliefs and desires. Here I directly practice [[metaliving]] by reflecting on where and what I've been focusing on in this wiki. I need to be thinking about the state and nature of the projects I am working on from a more objective perspective. I hope this is an act of mid-term executive functioning. I do it subconsciously and indirectly to some extent, but not explicitly enough. Here I force myself to write it down at least once a month.
Essentially, I need a constantly updating review and gameplan for this wiki. I must hold myself accountable and strategize. I need to consider where and how I spend my time and energy on this lifetool and wisely adjust my behaviors accordingly. I hope to have the material with which to strategize, forecast and redirect my focus. Thus, here I generate a list of my currently prioritized projects and foci.
!! Vault:
* [[2017.04.24 - Retired: {Focus}]]
* [[2017.05.05 - Retired: {Focus}]]
!!Ranked Focus:
# [[Wiki: Scheduled Practices]]
## Conditional/Triggered:
### [[h0p3's Log]]
### [[Cry Log]]
## Weekly:
### [[Homeschooling Log]]
### [[Family Log]]
### [[Family Wikis Log Collection]]
### [[DCK Meditation Log]]
## Daily:
### [[Pipefitting Log]]
### [[Wiki Review Log]]
### [[Link Log]]
### [[Diet Log]]
### [[Prompted Introspection Log]]
### [[Philosophy Probe Log]]
# [[Employment]]
# [[Pipefitting Library]]
# [[Philosophipolitical Prescription]]
# [[Realpolitik Speculation]]
# {[[Vault|The Vault of h0p3]]}
Note that I do not rank my {[[Projects|Projects on this Wiki]]}, and for good reason. However, I do rank my foci. Here I tentatively set my tent pegs down in my nomadic journey.
Lastly, I feel it necessary to point out the infinigress I approach in this log-based introspection. I'm running into classic postmodern metanarrative and autonomy problematics. As a matter of metamodern pragmatism, I will accept there must be a foundational boundary where I stop constantly investigating and deconstructing. I will leave it to my yearly audit/assessment/review to investigate the state and nature of this page in those respects and to push further into that self-reflective frontier. I feel this strikes an appropriate balance between the definitionally impossible logistics of that infinigress and having the integrity to continue my recursive, multi-ordered executive functioning.
* [[2017.06.04 - Philosophy Probe Log]]
** I had literally nothing to say. It wasn't even that interesting. I just shat this one out. I don't want to do more like these. I think this log is failing. In fact, I'm killing it. That is not the quality of work I want to create. If I change my mind, I'll revive it from the graveyard.
* [[2017.06.04 - Family Log]]
** I love my family. I'm really glad we do these logs. I enjoy taking the pulse and thinking together with them.
* [[2017.06.04 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** This may be short, but I like more than the Philosophy Probe Log.
* [[2017.06.04 - Link Log]]
** Short.
* [[2017.06.04 - Diet Log]]
** DCK makes me not hungry at all.
* [[2017.06.04 - Cry Log]]
** It can be good to shed tears.
* [[2017.06.04 - Wiki Review Log]]
** I was talking to my family about this log during the meeting. My wife thinks it is a good idea. So do I. I'm hoping that eventually, my children will be doing the same thing. I want them to literally have a conversation with themselves and to think about how they want to continue building and improving upon this practice.
* [[2017.06.04 - DCK Meditation]]
** I'll ask my wife to look over it.
* [[2017.06.04 - k0sh3k's Wiki Log]]
** I adore my wife. I know she's been having a rough time. I really want her to do with us, desperately.
* [[2017.06.04 - 1uxb0x's Wiki Log]]
** I'll have to ask them about magic today.
* [[2017.06.04 - j3d1h's Wiki Log]]
** Not much to say. The diet log is more consistent. We'll get there.
|customTable|k
|Food|Calories|h
|Apple|100|
|Pear|100|
|Mandarins|105|
|Pork Roast and Veggies|600|
|Turkey Sausage|90|
|Pizza|1200|
|Total|2195|f
* https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-05/wsj-ends-google-users-free-ride-then-fades-in-search-results
** Can still be found through FB and Twitter, I believe.
* https://www.eff.org/press/releases/eff-asks-supreme-court-review-dangerous-interpretation-computer-crime-statute
** Jesus, people. That's what the password just is! It's a key. I should be able to hand my keys to people. This is a pandora's box.
* KYS
** https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/06/dont-be-fooled-comcast-pr-machine-it-has-always-opposed-open-internet
* https://github.com/sdmg15/Best-websites-a-programmer-should-visit
** For my daughter.
Today was a good day. The day began with Chris and I finishing the drawing and math for the second half of our large fabrication. We had done most of it yesterday, but I wanted to finalize the math since Nash decided he wasn't going to take his test until Friday. As a consequence (and it was obvious that this was the going to happen), the teacher told him he would do shop work instead of sitting in the classroom. I didn't trust Nash to do any of the planning or math. Nash, of course, was not pleased to have to work in the shop. He is incredibly lazy.
I studied for my next test for most of the day. There was a large interruption in the middle of the day. A recruiter from the international boilermaker's union stopped by to give us a speech.
He was full of himself, hated liberals and educated people, proudly ignorant, and was absurdly capitalist. The union was a way to make money, but he didn't see the social utility and underlying basis of it seemed. He was a simple man. That said, regardless of the d-bag messenger, I will be looking into it. There is a union 2-hours away from me. Probably not worth it, but I don't want to leave any stone unturned here.
The starting pay was good. They mostly do welding, but they need fitters too. Starting pay is $23 for everyone unless they can pass more tests on MIG and TIG. Tops out at $31 not included about $12 in benefits.
Let's say the world isn't ending, I think the best option is to become vested in multiple organizations. This distributes risks and maximizes my earning potential for retirement. I could reasonably become vested in 2-3 organization before retirement. This seems especially useful considering how top brass don't appear to make more money. It depends on our needs, I guess.
In any case, I didn't take the exam because of this interruption and because Chris left early. I decided to wait for him, and since I was ready to get my nose out of the book, I went into the shop to get some work done. Nash had cut 4 pipes and beveled 2. That was it. Lol. He was "practicing his welding" (i.e. dicking around). What an asshole. I'm glad I won't be actually working with him and that he doesn't hold me back from progressing at this point. I had to grab a 30-foot length with Matt (new guy) and make the cuts. I checked everything, marked it, and organized it. I didn't have time to get all the fittings set. I'll probably do that later since I highly doubt Nash will.
!! If you were given $1 million that you had to spend on yourself within a year, how would you spend it?
All the fun questions!
I assume I can't simply invest it for pure capital returns. I assume I can't just put it into accounts reserved (even by law) for particular purposes (like my children's educations).
* I'd build a custom house near Louisville, KY that would set us up for life.
* I'd build a significant shop.
* I'd set aside some money for the kids to spend for short-term, mid-term, and long-term needs. I'd love for them to have the chance to manage money.
* I'd buy all the school supplies we'd need.
* I'd buy vehicles.
* I'd buy new computers for everyone.
* I'd give serious gifts and money to my family members.
* [[2017.06.05 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** Edited.
* [[2017.06.05 - Diet Log]]
** Summed.
* [[2017.06.05 - Wiki Review Log]]
** I'm glad I killed the [[Philosophy Probe Log]]. It wasn't doing the work I wanted it to do.
* [[2017.06.05 - h0p3's Log]]
** I am excited. I hope it goes well.
* [[2017.06.05 - Retired: {Focus}]]
** Oh yeah, I rewrote it. I'm going to stick to logs for a while, I think.
* [[2017.06.05 - Pipefitting Log]]
** Edited. Forgot a part.
|customTable|k
|Food|Calories|h
|Pears|200|
|Nuts|320|
|Mandarins|140|
|Apple|100|
|Thai Food|1500|
|Chocolate Cake|300|
|Total|2560|f
Today I called into work. I very rarely get to see my friends ALM and JOP. They are staying for 2 nights. I'll still be heading in for the other days. Today, I felt it would be a good idea to acclimate them.
!! If you could speak another language, which would it be and why?
Define language and speaking. I happen to think that any form of planned communication is a language, and speaking could just mean transmission. I guess the answer to this questions depends upon our philosophy of language assumptions.
I'd like to be able to convey all my thoughts to others and understand all of their thoughts. If we took into account even hypothetical people, there is a possibility that I would know everything. I worry there is a kind of omniscience born into this kind of omni-speaking. Maybe not though.
Assuming I couldn't have that, I would love to be a master of mathematics.
Assuming I needed to just pick a standard, natural language we use every day, for standard cultures, etc., I would pick up Mandarin or German. Both look outstanding. I think it would open up new worlds for our family.
Now, you may be thinking, why not just learn them? Because I genuinely suck at learning languages, imho. I don't have the mind or ear for it. I can do the mechanical work, but there is something innate that I'm lacking. I believe it is related to my autism.
* [[2017.06.06 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** I've noticed that I'm writing much shorter logs.
* [[2017.06.06 - Diet Log]]
** Edited and summed.
* [[2017.06.06 - Link Log]]
** Also short. Is my interest waning?
* [[2017.06.06 - Wiki Review Log]]
** I'm not sure if I'm getting what I need or want out this log. That said, I like the accountability. I wonder if this is from EQ.
* [[2017.06.06 - Pipefitting Log]]
** Edited.
|customTable|k
|Food|Calories|h
|Apple|100|
|Pear|100|
|Mandarins|105|
|Thai food|500|
|Sushi & Tempura|2000|
|Dates|300|
|Total|3105|f
* https://www.hongkongfp.com/2017/06/08/china-uncovers-massive-underground-network-apple-employees-selling-customers-personal-data/
** Own your own data. Trust no one that makes money off you.
* https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/06/technology/tech-billionaires-education-zuckerberg-facebook-hastings.html
** I am reminded of the industrial revolution.
** War is coming.
* KYS
** https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170522/17343837426/cheap-dna-testing-is-giving-some-insurers-even-more-ways-to-deny-coverage.shtml
** http://forward.com/fast-forward/374000/tweeters-slam-eric-trump-for-saying-trump-critics-not-even-people/
** https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/malware-uses-obscure-intel-cpu-feature-to-steal-data-and-avoid-firewalls/
* https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/06/the-clintons-had-slaves
** I am not surprised.
* https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/6g0srl/discussion_megathread_james_comey_testifies/
** Yup.
* http://www.nelp.org/publication/raise-wages-kill-jobs-no-correlation-minimum-wage-increases-employment-levels/
** We don't live in a vacuum? Explain.
* https://jobsquery.it/map
** Show me cost of living adjustments
* https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/wikipedians-want-to-to-put-wikipedia-on-the-dark-web
** Heroes!
* https://i.redd.it/ptavrgn5if2z.png
** I'd like to see other mortality, homicide, and suicide rates. Additionally, I'd like to have an understanding of the accuracy of their record keeping. That said, it looks pretty damning.
*** Thanks for that Intel.
*** Yet another reason to run a separate firewall device (without Intel, it seems)
* https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/dime.pdf
** There are many considerations to take into account. They have only a small sample size here.
Today was a good day. I studied until the break for the exam. Afterward, we took it. I did well, but Chris did not. We then went straight into working on the fabrication. We double-checked our measurements, and everything checked out. We started fitting and welding. It went by quickly enough. I was thankful for that.
We eventually hit the point where we needed to make our 45's. We had slim pickin's on fittings to make our own. We did the math, and cut it. The protractor did not show the result we wanted. I'm not sure what we did wrong.
The teacher asked me if I had spoken to Randy. I haven't yet. I will once I pass my test.
!! What is “home” to you?
Home is wherever you originate or belong in a given context. Currently, for my everyday context, that is my apartment in Johnson City, TN. It's with my family, my computer, my cats, my things, and the life we build together. Wherever it is that we move, we move our home with us. I suppose this is the standard answer, but it seems obvious.
The "belonging" aspect of "home" isn't quite addressed here though. I will say that I feel most at home in the Appalachian region though. It's a place where I feel most comfortable being an alien. In this sense, I guess I don't feel like I truly belong anywhere. I'm the wandering foreigner wherever I go. What is home to the alien, to the nomad, to the wanderer? I don't exactly know. It sounds like an oxymoron of sorts.
There is something missing. I can tell you that. I don't have the right orientation toward the world around me.
* [[2017.06.07 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** Edited.
* [[2017.06.07 - Diet Log]]
** Edited and summed.
* [[2017.06.07 - Wiki Review Log]]
** I shouldn't be so harsh on myself. I have visitors, and that takes away from the time I would devote to this. Also, I am able to see what I missed and edit.
* [[2017.06.07 - Pipefitting Log]]
** I said I had a family emergency to my teacher. I don't like lying. But, it is the cost of doing business. People do not empathize effectively.
|customTable|k
|Food|Calories|h
|White Castle|270|
|Thai Food|400|
|Dates|200|
|Brownie|150|
|Asparagus|60|
|Brussel Sprouts|77|
|Hot dogs|400|
|Total|1557|f
Today was productive. I studied a chapter and passed a test. My teacher is continually surprised that I'm aiming to finish one a day. It's the best option, I think. I didn't get any shop work done, but it was only a half day.
My teacher had me come over and help him in his office. He is getting his program accredited again this year, and he has a new evaluation rubric he has to create. He had keywords, and he wanted help filling them out. Basically, he wanted me to do his job for him. So, I did. I wrote it out. He said it was more in-depth than he needed, but was happy with it. Quid pro quo. I will need his recommendation.
Also, I passed my drug tests yesterday. I'm now on the hunt! I went to see Randy, but he wasn't there today. I also told my teacher I would be seeing Randy since he had asked about it (and seemed disappointed that I hadn't already done it this week given his advice; again, I need his recommendation).
!! What’s your favorite comedy movie?
[[Dogma]] or [[The Big Lebowski]]. I should point out that these movies are very meaningful to me. They aren't purely comedies. They are philosophical tools, which is what truly great comedy must do well. Both deal in social, political, ethical, existential, and religious issues to a great extent. They are fairly unique, imho. Few comedies can be extremely serious while also being so funny. The farce in them isn't low key.
Comedy movies are rarely enjoyable for me anymore. I'm really picky. That's unfortunate since I love to laugh. It's just hard to surprise me in the right way these days.
* [[2017.06.08 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** I have been more depressed this week. I can see it. Speaking with my friends makes it even more obvious. I had to dredge up quite a bit and explain much of my new point of view (since they last saw me). I think I'm seeing part of that expressed here.
* [[2017.06.08 - Diet Log]]
** Edited and summed.
* [[2017.06.08 - Link Log]]
** Edited.
* [[2017.06.08 - Wiki Review Log]]
** Visitors and EQ.
* [[2017.06.08 - Pipefitting Log]]
** I feel like my pipefitting logs have been remarkably short. Why? One reason may just be that I'm not doing anything new. When I have new things I feel compelled to digest them. Another possibility is that I'm avoiding it. That is something I don't want to do. I'm not sure what else there is to say though. I feel like have a far more stable understanding of my environment.
|customTable|k
|Food|Calories|h
|Pancakes and Berries|400|
|Hot dogs|400|
|Apple|100|
|Mandarin|35|
|Veggies|20|
|Deli|600|
|Total|1555|f
My wife has elected to be in charge of this as well. Ultimately, this was a necessary step since I will be traveling. However, I still have quite a bit to contribute.
Currently, we are working on integrating socialization theory and practices into their curriculum. These will be vital skills for my children. We already have several studies devoted to the edges of what I'm looking for, but I'm aiming for more direct work on the topic. I want my children to be adept and well-practiced at making friends, developing relationships, understanding social contexts, making good first impressions, understanding the nature of externalizing and communicating and developing the right instincts and habits for socializing. They need to fearless, free to experiment and fail, risk-takers, and shotgun-approachers. We're finding books, and we've found the time slot for it. We'll need to create spaces and circumstances for practice beyond the church, the neighborhood kids, and the pool.
I will also continue to encourage them and offer daily lectures.
My wife is unable to help/evaluate my daughter with the computer science subjects, but I can. I will continue to do so.
I need to get my wife to print out some resumes. I also need to find the websites and addresses of the companies I've found. I should go apply to them, even if I'm waiting on Randy.
* [[2017.06.09 - Diet Log]]
** Why eat when you have Everquest?
* [[2017.06.09 - Wiki Review Log]]
** I mean, I've accomplished what I've needed to IRL this weekend. But, I must monitor it closely anyway. It may be too much.
* [[2017.06.09 - Pipefitting Log]]
** I am excited. I will be using my time after school to apply! I need my resumes first. So, I'll hit Randy up on Monday and pick up my resumes too. Tuesday and onwards will be further applications.
* His wiki made us laugh twice.
* His interpretation of my emotions isn't quite accurate. This gives us a chance to talk about it and think together though!
* He has to do more writing.
EQ is a helluva drug.
---
I need to pause my EQ play.
I need to think.
Brilliant broken men play this game.
I need to make sure my children see themselves as building things for themselves. As in, real life things. I build things in this game, but they are just zeroes and ones. I'm good at it, but it does not matter. What actually matters to me is my life. I'm building the wrong life, playing the wrong sub-sub-sub-game, etc. I have to pivot my focus and coordination to a different configuration of sectors.
I will stop playing EQ. It generates "tokens" and makes me feel happy. It is a skinner box though. See it for what it is. There are so many layers to this skinnerbox. Walk your way through it. You feel like your character, but you aren't your character. See your life as your character. Play life like a video game!
---
I feel alone right now, but that's okay. I can see I am in a dialogue with myself here. I must write a shitty autistic story for myself. Lol. Ok. RPIN and KIN, join us in the dialectic.
```
/spawn RPIN
/spawn KIN
/say Hey faggots! <3
/shout woot woot!
```
But, I am them. I'm not sure how to write the dialectic. The rules don't make sense to me. That's okay, though.
```
/reset
```
I am h0p3! I am having an existential moment here. Bear with me one moment. I feel like me again, creative, autonomous, here, in the now, ready to rock, executing the orders I hand to myself. I am like my EQ character but in IRL. I do not feel enslaved. I feel I like I control my destiny (despite and within that matrix of principles which govern, bound, and regulate us).
---
I'm so glad I learned philosophy, but I'm glad I'm not trapped in some terrible economic system that evolved around it. Paying smart computers to teach you how to computer better, to shape your computing. There are many things I did not understand in that context (a billion times over). I must be practical! Plumb the depths which generates a fortune. Be a good EQ character, h0p3.
---
Did you rise to the top quickly? You had to cheat, slip through a crack, or break the mechanics. This is one of the most invaluable things EQ taught me. I've seen it over and over and over again. I've seen it in all its shapes, kinds, type, sets, etc. That is the nature of "innovation." Innovation is, of course, a two-edged sword. Who wields it? Conventions are not obligations, but one must still maintain principles for navigating the infinite series of rooms of dialectics here.
Seriously, the psychopathic specimens in our species are predators that infect, enslave, and consume humanity.
That is the world I live in.
---
I have deleted the Virtual Machines from my hard drives. I'm done.
I am done with the game, but I am glad I did it. Like so many things in life, I'm glad it came, and I'm glad it went. I'm glad I've passed through the fires this time.
I named my characters "Humanity," "Hope," and "Test," by the way. My last message in the EQ world was "EQ is a Drug! I have to stop. GL!"
Playing EQ has opened up the real world for me. It gave me footholds. I think, in a weird way, it was good for me. It shows me the dimensions of things.
I think it is a dangerous drug for my son. EQ is very dangerous to me. I could lose myself in that world. I need to write about Everquest.
Executive functioning right there, bro. Done. I nuked it. I really did enjoy that game. My brother was extremely kind for letting me play. He helped me a lot, and he knew I would love it. Thank you. This was a good test! I could see that game taking all of my time. I could have walked down that path for years. It was a beautiful world of mathematics. This game is my...
---
How do I respond to my brother?
That is one of the best games I have ever played in my entire life. It hit the spot, dead-on. It's an amazing drug for me. Thank you so much! It was like a vacation into a dream world. I enjoyed the experience immensely, but it was also a useful test for me. I needed to inspect it and myself. It has been a powerful force in my identity. I am going to use the EQ mindset to play life like a video game. You have opened my eyes and gave me a wild ride. Planning, researching, and grinding was an absolute rush! I love to see executive functioning pay off so directly and quickly. It has all the right short-term marshmallow test things going on inside that world. I have learned from it. Thank you.
---
I cannot even begin to catalog the ways in which Everquest is a symbol for life. It's not the only one, but it is a strong one. It has many gateways to understands the frameworks, complexities,
My right index finger is numb and tingling. It has been for days. It feels like I can't use it. I should talk to my wife and see a doctor. I'm hoping to get off Teh Evercrack (EQ, Everquest, et al., etc.),
My children need to see themselves as adapting beings.
---
The grind of life. EQ gave me mental representations, examples, frameworks, paradigms, metas, and turtles all the way down about life.
Everquest taught me to grind. Grinding has improved my life tremendously. I've always seen the metativity, but I've not chosen to explore it enough. I need to explore it more. That is, life itself is a grind that I can appreciate. I love to grind, to find the best way to grind it. It is fun to strategize. It is a game! What's wrong with obsessing about the game itself? Nothing, not as far as I can see anyways.
I need this grind mentality. I am an amazing worker with a few catches, quirks, etc. Iron those out, plan ahead, and you will blow everyone out around you in IRL that this is possible. You've done it in video games many times. I need to thank my brother. He gave me the drug, and after I exited the trance, I see more clearly now. That is the cliche, but there is something to it. It is what it is.
Everquest helped me understand the dimensions of life.
---
I can see how my mother's letters were ways for her to digest the issue and be a catalyst to cause the right kind of reaction in the world. Splitting the two, I can see there is a packet for our own minds and a packet for external minds. Of course, I write this openly on purpose. I must avoid evasion. I must be honest. This is the CI.
---
Playing life like a video game is hard. You have many pans and pots in the fire to juggle. You have to have just the right amount (the golden mean) of everything, in the right sequence, and so on. Virtue theory, of course, continues to stun me in its wisdom.
It's easy to have willpower in a video game. You're playing! The desire to play is already defined by you; it is assumed!
---
I need to make more analogies to EQ. It is the language and world I can analogize to so strongly. Why not speak the language of EQ with myself? The metativity is ripe for the picking.
Consider this example: when I see my parents lives through the "EQ" lens, I see people who are very good at their video game, doing well with what they had. I think they have the wrong strategies though. I think their character development is deeply flawed, inefficient, and sometimes even self-defeating. I know this because I've done it myself. I've been there. I can empathize through this abstraction lens.
Of course, the lens always has the flaw of being overly reductive. You take the bad with the good.
Is this the right mode? Should I "play life like a video game"? To what extent, in what ways, what are the exceptions, and so on and so forth?
---
Back to the problem at hand. How do I make my children happy? I'm raising EQ characters. How do I maximize their utility? What can I do for them?
In an immediate way, I see I still need to help hold them accountable to their schoolwork. I cannot simply allow my wife to bear this burden-joy. It is mine too!<<ref "1">>
Furthermore, I need to be actually doing work with my children the whole time. I need to work alongside them. I need to teach them how to work with others, especially since they have precious few opportunities to do it. This is part of their socialization. (We are looking to play this skinnerbox of life correctly!)
I'm very autistic. I cannot understand their minds. I do not wish to manipulate them, only guide them. I must be friends with them.
My children need a game to plan. A real-life game. One that they take to be their real task in their off hours. I want them to squeeze it for everything it is worth. I want them to be obsessed with it. I want them to grind with it. I want them to play life like a video game, but I want to do it in a constructive way. Playing EQ itself was a way for me to come to understand that fact, but that doesn't mean it is the best path to come to understand it. I want them to be passionate and pour themselves into their work. I want to get their motors running, get that fire in their belly, and to help them see their true quests. How do I help them find joy and passion in building their lives? They have to own it! I can't be their slavedriver, I have to be their facilitator, their mentor, their guide, and their friend. What do I do!? How do I accomplish this task? It is of the utmost importance to me! I cannot simply rest upon the "blind leading the blind," we must march forward, experiment, and continue to evolve our parenting to the needs of our children.
---
<<footnotes "1" "I wasn't full-force lying to myself, but I think I was deceiving myself to some degree. I need to make sure the kids are doing their work as well.">>
|customTable|k
|Food|Calories|h
|Apple|70|
|Tacos|900|
|Hummus, Olives, and Pita chips|500|
|Sorbet|150|
|Total|1620|f
!! How has your health been this week?
* 1uxb0x
** Great!
** Felt like he was going to throw up at the pool after getting water in his nose
* j3d1h
** Stuffier nose this week. Hasn't been taking allergy medicine (and didn't feel it has gotten that bad to use it).
** Swallowed a lot of pool water. Will stop doing that.
* k0sh3k
** Better than Monday. The new Omega-3 (krill-based) made her sick. It was cheaper, but it made her sick. She switched back to vegan.
** Tired.
* h0p3
** I'm sleepy. I felt quite addicted to EQ this week. I'm glad I'm done with it.
** I feel like I'm conquering though. I am reminded by my son's poem: [[Our Son: The Conqueror of Happiness]]
---
!! What happened last week? Have you been happy this past week? Why or why not?
* 1uxb0x
** Happy. We had swimming, a 3-day break, and friends visit. Unhappy because we didn't swim on Friday when we had planned to.
* j3d1h
** Happy. A bit annoyed by the little girls, but not all that much.
** Loved swimming.
* k0sh3k
** Happy. We had guests and good food.
** Completed much at work, although not as much as she intended.
** ILL and Circ integration are going well.
* h0p3
** I did my work, although my personal life and wiki faded some to my EQ addiction.
** I passed my drug test and I'm ready to apply.
** I finished quite a bit of work in my pipefitting class.
** Overall, I'm pleased with how it turned out. I'm glad I had the opportunity to revisit EQ and understand more about myself.
---
!! What is a positive fact or compliment we can say about each person in the family?
* 1uxb0x
** Did very well with the little girls this week. It was difficult in some ways.
** You were asked to clarify yourself many times in a row because we didn't understand you. This was very frustrating for you, and you didn't break down. You didn't give up. You had the right constructive attitude.
** You have been better at expressing yourself this week.
* j3d1h
** I believe you are learning how to control yourself in public spaces. You are developing an awareness of how others perceive you (that doesn't mean you have to change who you are, but you see that you must use this information wisely). You immediately saw the value in trying to stop using "ummms" and "uhhhs," but you also have seen how tone, phrasing, and content have been things to hone. You are beginning to appreciate the socialization mountain you have to climb.
** You had to refrain from watching the videos you wanted to watch because little children were in your room, and they weren't allowed to watch such videos (oh noes, the "swear" words and "dick" jokes). Essentially, you demonstrated hospitality and sacrificed for your guests. You also baked brownies and cake for our guests!
** You've been intentional about taking care of how you look.
* k0sh3k
** You have been a good example to the children and wise woman to have chosen a lifelong hobby of reading books. I really want our children to be far more like you in this respect. You've chosen a constructive hobby that helps you grow and makes you happier in the long-term.
** You were forgiving this week. You forgave us for not doing our schoolwork on Tuesday (although, you let us make it up).
** You were clever and empathic in trying to find a solution for Ranga's desire to go outside.
* h0p3
** I patiently dealt with annoying kids. (What's new? XD)
** I was very empathic towards everyone to give up EQ (something I loved) for the greater good.
** I was gracious and patient with my interrogator (it took many hours of several days).
---
!! What will you do this week?
* 1uxb0x
** Build a deck in cockatrice formatting on the wiki.
** Find a new strategy in House of Wolves.
** Read about ketamine.
* j3d1h
** Eat more fruits. Diet log too. And school work. And...regular sheets.
** Make sure I make a video.
* k0sh3k
** Finish revising student manual.
** Record ILLs.
* h0p3
** Will speak to Randy (go every day if I have to)
** Compile addresses and sites. Read about them.
** I will make sure my wife prints resumes tomorrow.
** I will apply to 2 jobs this week, minimum.
!! How is your health? Daily routine?
I'm doing well enough. I passed my drug tests! I've not been getting enough sleep, but I've been getting at least 6 hours each night. I need to push harder to secure myself 7.
---
!! What happened? How do you feel about it? What made you feel this way? Does it make you happy or unhappy? Why or why not?
I played EQ for a week. It was amazing. It was a private server designed for botting. It was customized entirely for using MQ2 scripting. It was amazing. Amazing! It has to be one of the best games I've ever played in my life (in fact, I think it is the best I've ever played). I had to quit though. I saw that it took up too much of my attention, energy, time, resources, etc. My life begins to warp around it. It prevented me from being who I need to be.
---
!! Can you better explain what happened? Do you have a technological, philosophical, empathic, or redpilled story to tell about the phenomenon? Clarify the narrative you just told yourself.
The game was extremely addictive. I'm lucky to have escaped it. The wiki was my evidence, and DCK gave me the willpower to destroy my VM and write about it, to make the decision to overcome my akrasia.
I am at the same time grateful for how much the game taught me about life, to work hard in the grind, to be passionate, how it gave me the tools to understand myself and world, and the raw pleasure of the experience, but also fearful and wary of touching the substance. I know how little self-control I have around it. At this level of addiction, I can only go all or nothing. There is no in between, I hate to say it. I just don't have the self-control to hit the golden means! =( It is the wise thing to do though.
EQ is a helluva a drug!
I would like to point out that I've now installed League, Cockatrice (MTG), D2, and EQ. Clearly, I'm jonesing. The lack of cannabis over the past 2 months is being felt. I need to channel this energy preferably into building my life instead of a digital character. I need real-life points, not game points.
---
!! What are you going to do about what happened?
I want to thank my brother. It was a wonderful experience, and I've learned a lot. I don't want him to feel bad at all (I desperately don't want to hurt him here). He is a far more responsible person than I am in many respects. He can handle this drug better than I can. I'm straight up envious that he gets to play this game and I can't.
I need to think about whether or not I should continually ask him about it. Do I want to live vicariously through it? That seems safe enough. The temptation and the thought loops must be avoided though. I think I'll ask about it when I don't feel the pull, only as a conversation maker. Ugh. The line drawing on this addiction.
In any case, I need to make my family's happiness my dependence (not actually an addiction by definition).
* Not much was written, but this was an odd week. We had visitors for a substantial portion of the week, and it threw everyone's schedules off.
* We really need to buckle down on it.
* We've added a Cat-o-log section. Telling stories through the cat's eyes will be useful in many ways. I think it's fun too!
* This is the first week she has written in her wiki every day. In fact, she wrote two posts most days. I'm really grateful. I feel like we are in this together, and that we will both be good examples for our children. I think it will help us directly and indirectly in many ways, and mastering this practice will help our children master it as well.
* There was an introspective question which honestly had a serious answer. It was wise. I want to see more like that, of course, with her natural humor too.
* We talked about keeping a log of ILLs, recording and categorizing them. She needs to do science here to make her life easier, to do her job better, and because she is literally a scientist.
* https://www.nationaleconomicseditorial.com/2017/06/05/death-america-entrepreneurship/
** Some good points. The big boys make the rules, and the rules don't benefit you and me.
* https://qz.com/1000627/in-five-years-machines-that-talk-to-one-another-will-be-the-internets-biggest-population/
** I want none of it while I still can. I'm not a luddite. But, I want a clear firewall. I don't want to be bent over a barrel for this shit.
** Free market for whom?
* https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/08/smarter-living/benefits-of-talking-to-yourself-self-talk.html
** Hey, wiki, you are being justified here as well. Wiki needs a name. I dub thee "Bobert the Wiki."
** Bobert, you look kind of dark today. Good for you Bobert, good for you.
* https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/for-first-time-einsteins-relativity-used-to-weigh-a-star/
** Yeah Science, bitch!
* https://www.forbes.com/sites/laurashin/2016/12/21/hackers-are-hijacking-phone-numbers-and-breaking-into-email-and-bank-accounts-how-to-protect-yourself
** I don't think the problems are getting any better.
* https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-06-08/no-one-has-ever-made-a-corruption-machine-like-this-one
** Oh, I'm sure it's corruption turtles all the way down. Except you Bernie, right bro? Right? You would never do any less than perfect, right?
* http://cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press/the-evidence-does-not-support-macron-s-claim-that-deregulating-labor-market-will-boost-economy
** And, the masses have, yet again, taken the bait. It's either insane alt-right or more palatable insanity of the neoliberals. Again, welcome to false compromise, a classic rhetorical move devastating the idiots among us.
* http://www.nationalreview.com/article/448456/higher-education-enrollment-steady-decline-recent-years
** And, yet, a real //liber//-al education is the kindling of a flame which we must pursue with passion, with every fiber of our being. Yo, be wise and pursue the truth!
* https://www.theguardian.com/cities/gallery/2017/jun/07/boxed-life-inside-hong-kong-coffin-cubicles-cage-homes-in-pictures
** I am continually disturbed. Rise up! Fight!
* https://i.imgur.com/1fR6maD.png
** I've not looked into its authority. It may be correct though. Seems about right.
* KYS
** http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/reality-winner-national-security-agency-leaked-documents-parents_us_5939e15de4b0c5a35c9dd0a8
** https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2017/06/09/u-s-led-forces-appear-to-be-using-white-phosphorous-in-populated-areas-in-iraq-and-syria/?utm_term=.f97a34dcd348
* http://aging.nautil.us/feature/218/why-you-cant-help-but-act-your-age
** Nautilus continues to deliver Grade 'A' content over and over again.
* https://i.redd.it/147xfp2rd43z.png
** Unfortunate kernels of truth.
* http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-31604026
** I rarely have happy non-computer or non-humor related topics. This one was interesting. I bet my wife will like it a lot.
* Super Cereal
** https://imgur.com/jNf8pa8
*** My daughter would like one.
!! What’s your favorite holiday and why?
I generally don't even care for holidays that much, except for the fact that I get to see people I care about. In fact, I find most holidays fairly repugnant (although, I'm completely in favor of people having a great time and using their leisure time in the classical sense too).
That said, I don't despise all holidays. There is one which stands out clearly to me:
Our wedding anniversary!
It makes me reflective, grateful, and hopeful. I see where we've been, how far we've come, and am able to consider where we will be in light of that. It isn't like I don't contemplate them over the year, but it is especially consistent and clear to me during our anniversary season.
* [[2017.06.10 - Homeschooling Log]]
** I am relieved and also worried. I'm hoping that our wikis will do tremendous work for us here.
* [[2017.06.10 - Wiki Review Log]]
** I didn't get much done that day on the wiki, but I had tons of things to do IRL. I had to work, fix my friend's car, cook, clean (a lot, since the house was a wreck), and, of course, play EQ (had fun with my brother too).
* [[2017.06.10 - Pipefitting Log]]
** I'm hoping to write down that information today.
* [[2017.06.10 - Diet Log]]
** Summed
* [[2017.06.09 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** Yes, this has suffered as well. I'm even a day off.
* [[LDON Script]]
** Fare thee well.
* Woke up before my alarm clock by 2 minutes. I'm back to my old ways again.
* My wife made my lunch for me. She is so generous to me.
* Helped the children get started more than usual. I think it is part of why they succeeded today.
* Worked hard, and while I didn't enjoy every moment of it this morning, I'm glad I did it.
* Talked to my family during lunch break and surfed the interwebs.
** Solved some computing problems with my daughter (she helped me, rather)
** Got my son to chat with me more. I'm trying to instill in him the desire to communicate with others. Chat is a safe way to do it, and I need him to at least appreciate the social conventions at play here.
** Made sure about the resume. Thank you, love!
* Worked hard and enjoyed it. I love getting my hands dirty (at least a bit, maybe not too dirty).
* Stopped by to see Randy, but he wasn't there. Never give up!
* Talked to my brother JRE.
* After checking on the kids, getting my hugs, and surfing some interwebs briefly while finishing the CLG/TSM match, I took a nap.
* Laid naked with my wife talking and had sex (highest of fives).
* Showered (I needed it ;P).
* Helped my daughter clean the kitchen while we talked about working hard and had my son work on cleaning his room.
* Made chili.
* Made plans for 4th of July with my cousins who are coming to visit us.
** This reminds me, I want to set a date for my wife's family to come visit. We are the central location between everyone, and it makes it fun and easy.
*** This reminds me that we should contact my wife's niece who will be moving into town to attend the shitty university here. We should connect.
* Went shopping for cornbread, water, and sorbet with my wife.
* Rescued the cat who freed himself.
* Ate dinner and watched //Last Week Tonight with John Oliver// with my family.
* Had the family work on their wikis, and I'm writing mine too.
* I hope to call my brother AIR, eat sorbet, read my next pipefitting chapter, and watch some League. I'll probably fall asleep to some Venture Bros reruns.
** I'm being a bad boy leaving my cheat-sheet planning and mapping out the employer I'm visiting tomorrow for tomorrow.
|customTable|k
|Food|Calories|h
|Apple|100|
|Pear|100|
|Peach|59|
|Mandarins|70|
|Burrito|400|
|Chili|750|
|Cornbread|580|
|Sorbet|160|
|Nuts|170|
|Total|2389|f
* https://www.researchgate.net/blog/post/read-this-but-of-course-you-are-free-to-refuse
** Makes sense.
* https://news.vice.com/story/pink-slime-lawsuit-worth-5-7-billion-could-change-journalism
** Psychopaths have more options available to them attain competitive advantages in the judicial and economic marketplaces. Nothing holds them back.
* KYS
** http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/11/palantir-defense-jim-mattis-inner-circle-239373
* https://www.scmagazineuk.com/platinum-hackers-exploit-intel-amt-sol-for-secure-cc-communications/article/667477/
** It's going to continue to be a catastrofuck.
It was a very productive day. We studied advanced pipefitter math, which was just trigonometry. I found errors in the book. I'm going to have to learn how to speak "pipefitter math" in terms of set, run, and travel. I end up translating from the mathematical terms to the pipefitter terms. I'll get there. The teacher said we needed to bring our "A" game on the test after he checked it out. He even went over it with us and laughed that he couldn't pronounce the words on the exam. It went fine, of course. It was odd that Chris answered them quickly in the study session (when he knew the section we were looking at), but took a long time in the actual exam.
Nash was, surprisingly, studying on the new book as well. He told me that he had talked to a friend of his who graduated from this program and was told that people with NCCER certifications and pass the field test walk in as Top helper or pipefitter directly. That would be pretty sick. So, he decided to buckle down and do his work, kinda. That said, after he took his exam, the teacher brought him in the office and yelled at him. Nash doesn't actually try very hard, but he thinks he does.
I'm going to need to start studying at home more consistently to make sure I can do one a day. It's important that I push hard.
In any case, afterward, we went straight to the fabrication. This is taking a long time because we are studying all day for these tests. I had Nash tack because he needs something to do. It's clearly Chris and me who are the main workers on this project, and everyone else either doesn't want to participate or perhaps feels left out. I don't know what to say. Chris and I are not mean. They aren't jumping in. They aren't trying to understand where we are and figuring out how to join us. When I try to explain what we are doing, they don't seem interested. They are all screwing around welding. No one but Chris and I are actually pipefitting. They lounge. I hope I will do a better job of inserting and asserting myself into work in a polite and constructive fashion. I want to kick ass.
We cut a 90 elbow to make 45's since the others failed. We've got them fitted and tacked (mostly). It's coming along.
Also, my wife printed out my resumes, and they look beautiful. I need to find out where I'm applying to. I need to create a cheatsheet with all the pertinent, detailed information that I'll need for more extensive applications. I hope to apply to my first tomorrow.
Also, I stopped by to see Randy. He wasn't there. I'll keep trying.
!! How do you define love?
This is a classic question for my life. I have tried so many times to define it. I don't know. I believe love sits in contrast to like. I have no doxastic control over what I like, at least not in any direct way. I can't choose to like or dislike something with a commitment. Love, however, is the kind of thing we choose. It is a commitment. Being the kind of person who loves, of course, isn't something we can simply choose to immediately become either. I think there is a difference in intentionality and the employment of wisdom between like and love. I can't quite put my finger on it though.
Love is seeking the best for X given what you take to be the standard of the good for X. It's a pursuit of the flourishing or the good of an object (individual or corporate, simple or complex, and so on and so forth). Unfortunately, I can't define "The Good" for you either.
Fuck.
* [[2017.06.11 - h0p3's Log]]
** I took a nap today. I assume I'm catching up on sleep debt.
** Edited.
** I spoke with my brother JRE about it. He actually saw my message. He understood.
* [[2017.06.11 - DCK Meditation]]
** I am grateful to myself for this. It was a wise move.
* [[2017.06.11 - Diet Log]]
** Summed.
* [[2017.06.11 - Family Log]]
** I've modified the template. I want our planning to now include a fun and unfun objective. I need my children to start planning ahead more explicitly.
* [[2017.06.11 - k0sh3k's Wiki Log]]
** I think my wife is coming around to this practice.
* [[2017.06.11 - 1uxb0x's Wiki Log]]
** I'm hoping we succeed this week. I will try to keep them on task.
* [[2017.06.11 - j3d1h's Wiki Log]]
** I'm hoping we succeed this week. I will try to keep them on task.
* [[2017.06.11 - Link Log]]
** I think I may add a "Super Cereal" section.
* [[2017.06.11 - Wiki Review Log]]
** Fare thee well indeed. =(, =|, =)!
* [[2017.06.11 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** It's time to write more.
* Woke up early, but went back to bed. The alarm clock woke me up afterward.
* I woke the kids up and got them started.
* I worked hard and tried to progress outside of classwork itself in several ways. I'm proud of that.
* I spoke with my family at lunch, and I was interrupted by Luke. I did find the address to visit Jacobs though.
** I also wrote my cheatsheet.
* I worked hard again.
* I visited Randy.
* I visited Eastman, but it was a failure.
* I listened to Sessions obstruct justice for over an hour. I will never give up.
* I got home at the same time as my wife, and we found that my children didn't do their work. We had a tough talk, again.
* I had some fireman time.
* I made Indian food for dinner.
* My son didn't want my help for dishes =(.
* I've sent the kids to do their logs before bed
* I'm having a drink tonight. I'll probably watch some videos before I sleep.
* Honestly, it has been fairly chill, except for my children.
|customTable|k
|Food|Calories|h
|Peach|60|
|Pear|100|
|Mandarins|105|
|Chili|375|
|Cornbread|290|
|Gatorade|180|
|Sorbet|140|
|Tikka Masala|700|
|Brussel Sprouts|80|
|Vodka|120|
|Deconstructed Deli|400|
|Nuts|140|
|Total|2690|f
Today was interesting. I went to the office to get them to use my account to buy the 4th book since I thought I'd be ready soon for it. I also found out that I'm officially in loan default and this is why I can't receive Tennessee lottery scholarship funds.
Charlie, the old liaison, singled me out today in the building. We talked for a second. I explained I was looking for work. I told him about my resume, and he said he wanted a copy and would look on my behalf with some other staff. I gave it to him.
I also went to my teacher with my resume. He will be sending it to TEC. I will also visit them because, why not?
I went straight to studying, even without study points. The guys went to work on the simulator. I went and helped them when they needed it, but largely studied. We finished the 3" project by the skin of our teeth. It was a terrible fit. I believe my teacher is wrong about the 1/8th buttweld takeouts. He says not to do them, but the book says to do them. We keep being too long, and the takeouts would have made it fit. Chris and I have both agreed to start doing these takeouts, we just won't tell our teacher.
The teacher helped us get it mounted by pointing out a new tool and giving us his unique alignment tool. It was tricky. I had to sweat a lot to get it in there.
Afterward, I went back to studying. The teacher came to talk to me because he wanted me to do more shop work. I argued (respectfully) with him about why I thought this was the better way. Even though I'm probably right, I think it would be unwise to cross my capricious teacher. He does not think rationally, and whether or not he would give me a good recommendation has more to do with his feelings about me than anything else. So, I decided to do it his way. I believe placating him instead for the reference is still more valuable than the testing. It's a sacrifice though.
The teacher assigned 2" buttweld for the simulator. Chris and I quickly zoomed through the isometric, collecting measurements, drawing up a fabrication, doing the math, and cutting the pipe. We may quickly put the first half together.
Afterward, I visited Randy. I walked in on him trying to build something for the shop. He needed my help. I'm glad I kept an extra pair of gloves in my backpack (since I normally keep it all at the shop). I grabbed my stuff and did the fitting for him while he welded. We talked. I told him about my predicament. He will be talking to his boss on Thursday to try and find a pre-apprenticeship position. He did not sound confident that he could find me anything because even 4 apprentices don't have work at the moment. Admittedly, the Boilermakers union looks better right now. If I'm traveling, then I'm traveling.
Interestingly, Randy said that he would allow me to be in the union while working elsewhere at a major company. It counts for my hours toward the union. I think this is a novel idea. I need to hear what my brother thinks about it.
Afterward, I went to Jacobs' address. It leads to nowhere in an industrial park area. I also hit up the corporate Eastman building. They directed me to go online. That is what I was trying to avoid. I want to talk to someone in person. Fine. I'll do it online.
!! What do you think is the greatest invention? Why?
What does it mean to invent? I honestly don't know. You think you know, but I don't think you do either. There are some serious ontology and autonomy problems here that make it unclear to me. I'm not convinced inventions are creations instead of discoveries. I'm not convinced that you can't invent a human by creating one; I'm not convinced replicability is even necessary to the concept of the invention.
Further, I don't know what makes a great invention great. What standard ought we use? Is there an inventioness standard, a good of inventions in themselves? Otherwise, great for whom or what? Do inventions only have instrumental value? I cannot answer these questions.
Can "nature" invent something? What about the universe? Don't you see!?
Fine, I'll answer the question like any retard. I think computers are the greatest invention of all time (and I'd add a ton of caveats, and I'd tell you I'm not sure we invented computers at all, and I'd tell you we are computers ourselves, but I don't think you really care).
* [[Summations, Brief Explanations, and Valuable Paragraphs]]
** I need to reorganize that part of my wiki. I care about those collections. I use them.
* [[2017.06.12 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** This is an interesting log. Not all of them work, but this basic one seems quite reasonable.
* [[2017.06.12 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** You know, I'm fine keeping it shorter. Exploring futility is something I should do only when I'm really up to it. Pointing it out I should always do though.
* [[2017.06.12 - Diet Log]]
** Summed.
* [[2017.06.12 - Wiki Review Log]]
** I didn't end up writing more. Lol. But, upon reflection, I think it's fine. Sometimes a lot will spill out, and sometimes none will. I can't hold myself accountable for always delivering an incredible wall-of-text. That's okay. Do your best.
* [[2017.06.12 - Pipefitting Log]]
** I'm glad I kept trying. I should take that as a lesson to never give up.
* [[Carpe Diem Log]]
** We'll see how it goes, eh?
* [[Social Engineering Principles]]
** Fill your toolbox, pray you never have to use some of them.
* [[2017.06.12 - Link Log]]
** I've noticed I've been surfing less. That's okay.
* Work up before the alarm clock today. Sleep was a bit intermittent, but my wife was quite restless last night. I feel bad for her.
* I got the kids up and started them. My daughter had to do dishes first.
* I worked hard, as usual. It was enjoyable. I like working with my hands. The drama was annoying, but whatever.
* I talked to my family over lunch and prepared myself to visit TEC.
* I talked to my teacher about TEC and Jacobs.
* I worked hard after lunch.
* I called TEC up, and I realized I need to just apply online. I still want to find a way to get to know them in person. I think meeting me in person leaves a mark on many people. I don't want to just be a number in a database.
** I have been thinking more about the union's offer to accrue time with them secretly while working for another corporation. This would allow me to stay instead of traveling. The pay wouldn't be as good, but I would kind of hit a few half-birds with one stone this way.
* I came home and talked to the children about their schoolwork. They seemed to be more on track today, thankfully.
* I surfed some and took a tiny nap before my wife came home.
* My wife and I talked, she wasn't DTF (she hasn't been feeling well, and we don't understand why). I had some fireman time instead (give me 'dem pleasure chemicals).
* We made pizza for dinner while my wife went over the kids' schoolwork.
* We had planned to go swimming, but it started raining and the kids still have some work to do. It probably won't happen. =(
* Tonight, I want to complete a Link Log entry, continue to tweak my resume, apply to TEC, play some magic, eat some sorbet, perhaps have a drink, watch a show, etc.
** I'll tell ya, I really want to play EQ. That's the drug I really, really want. I know I can't. It sucks. That's okay. I just don't have the self-control for it. It's not what we need right now. Be wise!
** I'm going to enjoy my evening.
|customTable|k
|Food|Calories|h
|Mandarins|105|
|Pear|100|
|Tikka Masala|400|
|Nuts|160|
|Pizza|649|
|Watermelon|94|
|Wine|200|
|Apple Strudel|330|
|Chips and Guac|700|
|Total|2738|f
Today was productive. I spent my time in the shop. We finished the first 2" simulator fabrication. The takeouts our teacher told us not to do worked out well. We're going to make it 1/16" this time instead of 1/8", since 2" pipe doesn't appear to have the same gaps for us. This may be because I did the majority of the fitting today. Nash and Luke just did the tacking, and Chris and I did the real pipefitting work. I'm glad to see they actually participated more than usual though. In a satisfying way, mounting was very simple, and the valve went on cleanly.
Afterward, we moved onto drawing up the second 2" simulator fabrication. Mine, of course, was the best (Chris saw it as well). Nash drew a more convoluted one which initially would not have been mountable as a single piece (but he couldn't see why until I walked through it). After some modifications, I showed him that we could still use roughly his idea, but the margin of error and mounting would still be more difficult (I had to explain how it would be possible to Chris and Nash). But, I said we should use his (why not take the challenge, eh?). I asked him to start doing the measuring. This is literally his first time actually participating in the process. He didn't measure though. He didn't do the math either. I did it. I asked for Nash to check it, but he didn't. Chris encouraged him and waited, but Nash didn't. Chris even sent me an SMS telling me what he was doing, since Nash really does need to practice it. He didn't. So, I did the math again, and Chris and debated about our 185" and 184" problem. We did some interpolation and took a couple other measurements. We didn't go whole-hog on it though, but I think it will be fine. It's not an exact science. ;P
We cut the pipe and started beveling it before cleanup time. We will probably finish it tomorrow.
I also helped Matt today quite a bit. His partner, JR, didn't show up until midday. Matt was frustrated significantly by two things. One being that his screwpipe project was hastily thrown together and not tightened every step of the way. This made getting it level and plumb difficult. He spent the better part of the day fixing it, and Chris and I would help him when we could. The other thing which frustrated him was doing fractions. This meth-head can't do basic math. It's sad. Chris and I have been working with him the best we can.
After JR showed up, he got chewed out. He wants to go to prenatal care doctor visits with his GF. My teacher says that unacceptable (my teacher is an asshole at times), and said JR shouldn't have even joined the class. The teacher then went onto say that they will not be allowed to even complete 2 tests a week since they need more shop time. I find this all odd. The guys do need more shop time, that is true, but they aren't wasting their time. Compared to the groups that came before us, we are rockstars. My teacher is having a hard time justifying the class being 12 months long, I think. As I have said many times, he goes out of his way to slow us down. When he runs out of tasks, he literally has us make up our own. He lacks the planning I expect from a teacher.
After reflection, I have realized that this class could be done in 4 months. Seriously. Pushing very hard, we could a test each day and shop work, assuming everything was taught in person. My teacher is a bad teacher. I just have to own up to it. The reason I've learned so much is that I'm a good student, not because he is a good teacher. I've learned despite him, not in virtue of him.
I also received travel instructions to visit the well-hidden (and ungoogleable) location of Jacobs.
Also, I found TEC's address at lunch. I called them after class, but they said not to come and instead to just apply online. I will adjust my digital resume some more and apply. I also need to send it to my teacher since he wants to e-mail it on my behalf as well. Let us hope he is more useful at this than he has demonstrated for other students.
!! What do you like to do in your free time?
What every human does: drugs! Pursuing eudaimonia in a chemically satisfying way.
For me, that is by using substances, having engaging conversations, thinking, writing (what do you think I'm doing with you Bobert the Wiki? I'm using you as a drug!), playing games, etc. I'm trying to make living life my drug. Like my parents, I'm not cut out to be a parent in my respects. It is more love and moral duty than direct enjoyment. I'm hoping to change that. I'm not quite sure how. I will say that as my children get older, it is easier to have those moments with them.
* [[2017.06.13 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** Yesterday wasn't the best day. I did get a lot of work done. I think between the wasted time traveling and trying to apply (and failing), and seeing that my children lied to me and didn't care about themselves, I felt pretty drained. I took time to chill, and I even had a drink (which is fairly rare at this point).
* [[2017.06.13 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** Snarky. Good for you!
* [[2017.06.13 - Diet Log]]
** Maybe I should just stop eating at night. I'm an addict. Where are my pleasure chemicals!?
* [[2017.06.13 - Wiki Review Log]]
** I've noticed that {[[Projects|Projects on this Wiki]]} {[[Vault|The Vault of h0p3]]} {[[Dreams|Dreams of h0p3]]} have all but been abandoned. I'm having a hard time motivating myself. My best work here is when I've used cannabis. That is out of the question at this point. Maybe I should structure it, force myself to do it, at least weekly.
* [[2017.06.13 - Pipefitting Log]]
** The job hunt is frustrating. Obviously, it will pay off being absurdly persistent. I need to take it just as (if not more) seriously than my shop work. I've definitely put in my time getting into the union. Now it is time to start putting other frying pans into the fire, shotgun-approaching it.
* Had a lot of dreams last night. They kept me up though. I woke up before my alarm clock which is a good thing since it wasn't even on.
** I tried giving my wife a good night of sleep without me snoring in the room since I knew she wasn't sleeping well. I eventually came back up, but I forgot to hit the alarm.
* I woke up before the alarm anyways for some fireman time. Lovely.
* I worked hard.
* I talked to a guy at lunch who plays magic and is into computers. He's a casual; he's young and dumb too, lol.
* I worked hard again. It was quite frustrating after lunch. We'll see if the teacher accepts it.
* I called my brother and talked to him. It sounds like he'll be having a good weekend. I talked to him about the job situation. He suggested I consider electrical work as well.
** I've realized that I can't be picky at this point. I just need a decent paying job.
* I got home and talked to kids about their school work.
** I was really hoping to treat them with swimming tonight. Instead, they just lost steam. Their school work comes before all else. I really hope they learn to kick it out.
* I looked for jobs and for other unions in my area.
** Unfortunately, I don't live in or near a very large city like Knoxville, Memphis, Nashville, Chattanooga, etc.
* I wrote the bulk of my wiki.
** I'm saving my Carpe Diem Log for the end of the day.
* I picked my wife up from work. My prediction about her period was correct. It's been tough on her.
* We made roast together for dinner tonight. It didn't finish cooking until much later.
* I had some more fireman time.
** Give me my pleasure chemicals!
* I watched two episodes of Game of Thrones with the kids!
** We've finished Season 4. Two more to knock out before the new season comes out this summer.
* I'm watching Delta Fox play LoL in the Challenger league.
** I wish I got to hear their voice coms.
* I intended to get more work done, but I didn't. I'm going to chill and maybe knock another fireman session out before I fall asleep.
|customTable|k
|Food|Calories|h
|Apple|100|
|Pizza|650|
|Mandarins|105|
|Nuts|160|
|Wine|300|
|Hummus, Olives, and Pita Chips|450|
|Sorbet|170|
|Beef Roast & Veggies|600|
|Total|2535|f
* Super Cereal<<ref "2018.11.24">>
** https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/listening
*** The irony of breakfast is not lost on me here. This is, sadly, correct.
* KYS
** http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/06/this-is-how-scared-republicans-are-of-their-own-health-care-bill/
*** Poorly worded. It is Mother Jones though. That said, the gist of it is correct. They withhold this information on purpose, and the selfish reasons are obvious.
** https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-14/tillerson-signals-easing-policy-toward-russia-on-ukraine-accord
*** As I predicted in [[Realpolitik Speculation]]
** https://i.redd.it/av3n2moz7l3z.jpg
*** Of course. Leftists and Minorities will be targets.
** http://www.ibtimes.com/political-capital/koch-brothers-want-new-constitution-theyre-closer-you-think-2552039
*** Koch brothers and libertarian constitution. There are enough stupid and selfish people to do this. =(
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXxHfb66ZgM
** Climate Skepticism is interesting sometimes. This wasn't boring.
* https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-06-13/the-old-are-eating-the-young
** Why is Bloomberg writing something I agree with, yet again? They are making money or gaining power from it. How? This must be a popular thing to say now. Why? What does it buy them?
* https://www.socialcooling.com/
** Hence the pseudoanonymity of this wiki.
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCj-sincEMM
** Metamodern Video Series. Interesting. I have some disagreements with his interpretations of history and the Great Human Conversation. This is fine though.
** Here's his website: http://www.jamessurwillo.com/
** A related and interested medium post of his as well: https://medium.com/@jamessurwillo/blame-the-millennials-ea229021952e
* https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2017/jun/14/tax-evaders-exposed-why-super-rich-are-even-richer-than-we-thought
** Taxing the wealthy and powerful in a globalized world requires a kind of cooperation that only the wealthy and powerful can afford to enact. It ain't happening, kids.
* Tools
** https://www.lifewire.com/zgrep-linux-command-unix-command-4097076
*** I've never used this before. Zgrep is very interesting. It solves some problems, no doubt.
---
<<footnotes "2018.11.24" "Way down the line, this turned into //Maymays//.">>
Today was productive and frustrating. I immediately started working as soon as I got there before class started. We had our fabrication built right before lunch. It went quickly and smoothly. The measurements were right. I thought we nailed it.
We did not nail it though. We went to mount it, and it was off by 3/4", and there was no clean way to fix it. We dismounted it and moved the flanges hoping that would work. We remounted it, and it made it much better, but it was now too short to hit the valve. So, instead of dismounting this one, we put the valve on it and took the other fabrication down instead (easier to move). We quickly cut off the limb, cut a new pipe and put it on there. We were in a rush, and you could tell. It wasn't pretty, but it worked. We got it together, mounted it, and it fit. It was a tight fit because we failed to do a complete flange takeout for this extended pipe (I just had him take some off). As I said, we just wanted to finish it.
After it was all said and done, we checked it. The level was within bounds, but it still wasn't visually appealing. The pipe we threw on there is visibly not right. In fact, I can tell several pipes just aren't perfect. It was frustrating.
Chris and I talked about why it wasn't working. What did we do wrong? The initial measurements seem to be the most plausible answer. And, the problem point was right where I was worried it would be. Goddamnit!
That 184" and 185" difference in the top and bottom continues to give us huge headaches. The isometric drawings get really fucked up by it. As we push and pull to fit, it even warps the pipe directions elsewhere on the other simulator. It's not beautiful. I can tell you that. /shrug; it's not always going to be perfect. I'll keep doing my best to improve.
I did finish the resume. I'm going to make a general one as well and just start applying everywhere. At this point, I just need a job.
!! What kind of TV commercial would you like to make? Describe it.
I'm generally speaking opposed to advertisement, commercials, rhetoric, deception, manipulation, and brainwashing. I also assume this question means more than mere T.V.; I don't have a subscription (I dropped mine 10 years ago before it was cool). Let us say a short video that large swathes of people have to watch, whether online, on their boobtube, or otherwise. That seems far more applicable, and I think it matches the spirit of this outdated question (What is a cassette tape? amiright?).
I have another question, does it have to be something which advertises? Or, can I just drop truth-bombs? What must I say? Can it be just any video, or does it need to fit the more narrow constraints generally understood by the word "commercial." As I said, I'm probably against what is generally meant. I find it morally repugnant. So, you have your answer if that's what you mean. But, assuming you'll take the more general definition, just any video, now that I think would be useful and interesting.
I want to be philosophical, truth-telling, and hopefully persuasive. Let us assume I only get 60 seconds. Those times slots vary, of course. It depends on the medium as well. T.V. commercials have been trending shorter and shorter due to the poorer and poorer attention spans of the people who still watch them. Online commercials, particularly successful ones, tend to be longer. I'm going to stick to a minute, I guess.
What would you say to the masses in 60 seconds? What would you display? What is the heart of the message? What's the chronology of that 60 seconds?
I think I would attempt to inject Redpilled Socialist memes into these minds of these people. People have been brainwashed to despise it. They do not understand socialism. I have met far too many people who actually hold socialist values in some respects, they just don't realize it. They have the first half of the seed, but it isn't complete. Their conditioning prevents them from seeing the basic truth.
I think I would open with an imitation (as closely as legally possible) of the "warning" beep/buzzer you hear for emergencies, etc. It is quite attention-grabbing. I want to shock them. I want this to be a Harrison Bergeron + Anonymous moment but hold the tragedy and cartoonishness.
<<<
Beeeeeeeeep!!!
Pay Attention! You will only hear this message once, and chances are, those in power will not want you to see it again.
Here is the fundamental truth: Human beings are selfish, egoistic creatures. We are evil; yes, even you and me. Some are eviler than others; we sit on a spectrum.
Those in power are psychopaths. They do not empathize with humans, and they don't feel obligated to play by any moral rules. They are enslaving the rest of us...
<<<
I need a 30 seconds elevator speech on Redpilled Socialism as a description of capitalism. I need pictures and clips to go along with it. There are probably some famous quotes to embed.
In the end, I would provide a public-crypto key, a site, contacts, etc. I would explain how to organize in a brief way.
This seems very difficult to do in 60 seconds.
Of course, perhaps it wouldn't be very effective. We aren't very rational. The entire idea, of course, is useless in this way. I'm just dreaming.
* [[2017.06.14 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** I'm glad I do this bullet-pointed rather than in more narrative form as I do for the Pipefitting Log.
* [[2017.06.14 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** Almost a throwaway question. But, in a way, I'm spending my time solidifying my new redpilled outlook on life through these questions. Some are more straightforward than others to answer.
* [[2017.06.14 - Diet Log]]
** Filling the EQ void.
* [[2017.06.14 - Wiki Review Log]]
** Yup. Keep it up! Never give up!
* [[2017.06.14 - Pipefitting Log]]
** After speaking with my brother, he thinks I should start looking more broadly for work, even beyond pipefitting. He gave me his blessing to start looking for electrical work. At this point, I just need to apply everywhere. My credentials are still pretty freaking cool in many ways.
* I keep waking up earlier than my alarm clock. This may be the alcohol. That said, I'm not taking a significant amount. I would be surprised by it. But, it may be. I don't feel sleepy though. That said, I've also been sneaking naps in on some days. That is also a plausible explanation. I woke up before 7:00 today. I fell asleep a bit after 11 last night. It isn't like I'm not getting sleep.
** I've been dreaming about pipefitting. I'm clearly in my obsession mode. Craving EQ and nothing else will fill the void. Hopefully pipefitting will.
** I feel like I've been snappier with the kids. It's been a rough week with them. I'm losing my patience and empathy.
** I wish I could give my wife some of my sleep. She needs it more than I do. It's been hell for her. =(
* I had some fireman time, yay for morning glories.
* I drove my wife to work. She wasn't feeling really tired. It's the least I can do. I'm glad to have those private moments with her. I don't get them often enough.
* I worked hard.
* I ate earlier than usual today. I brought a lunch when normally I wouldn't. This may or may not be a good thing. I think the eating schedule is important. I should have just brought a snack, or when I forgot that I didn't need my lunch, I should have only eaten my fruit. I made a mistake there. I like to have something to eat before tests. It makes me feel more comfortable (I've seen the studies; I also think the drug of food may just be what I'm craving too; why not both?).
* When I got home, I talked to the kids. They clearly hadn't done jackshit. I was really pissed. We talked for an hour about it. I do not have tools to motivate them. I only have reason, which is not enough. When my wife got home, we talked some more.
** As punishment, I took control of their computers, installed myself as admin, dropped them down to standard users, wiped out software I felt would tempt them, and installed a whitelist only personal firewall. I've taken my daughter's desktop's power cords as well. They now can only access school sites. We made sure to get their messaging software up and running as well, syncs too.
** We have to fix this problem. They absolutely must learn to work hard even when nobody is sitting there forcing them to do it.
* The kids started working. They saw how serious we were. I hope it clicks.
* I read most of //Polar Bears// the play. It's about a philosopher and his crazy/sad wife. It's a sad fucking story. I want to talk to these characters.
* My wife and I took a nap.
* I did some surfing.
* I wrote an article [[2017.06.16 - Computer Musings]], which I've not done in a while. The post bugged me, and the fools supporting it even more.
** This sparked our discussion on sexism.
* I wished Uncle Charlie a happy birthday.
* We intended to swim, but the kids aren't allowed. We are going tomorrow without them if they aren't finished on time (they won't be; I know them too well).
* We also intended to have sex (Redwings, yo!), but my wife hasn't been up to it.
** When it's that time of the month, her rationality (or willpower to be rational) decreases by 10.33 (repeating, ofc) percent (that still makes her wildly more rational than almost anyone I know). She is more emotionally and impulsively driven in those moments. That doesn't help either. She did intend to have sex, which is an emotional sacrifice for her to do for me. It's the thought that counts! =)
** I also argued about discrimination, redpilled perspectives, etc. That didn't help her libido/willingness.
*** We are worried about sexism that my daughter will experience in the computing trade. My wife has also been reading on racism lately. She's found some excellent literature.
* The family had a discussion about discrimination. It was a good one. I'm glad to see both my children participating in the debate.
* My wife and I made dinner; it was truly delicious.
** I like consuming all the remaining fresh produce in the house on Friday since we shop on Saturday.
* We watched a Game of Thrones episode.
* I helped my son with the kitchen.
* I had some fireman time.
* I pushed my children to write.
** My son lost his work for the 10th time. He is responsible for it. I keep showing him. I keep having him double-check. He keeps failing to follow through. His incompetence is annoying to me, and it's hurting him. I'll keep pushing him to become literate. I'll keep trying to convince him that he must do this, that it is worth his time and effort.
* Today has been a day of lectures. Some good, some bad. It's what it is.
** I feel like I've been the asshole dad today. You gotta do what you gotta do.
* I'm going to have some wine & watch some league.
** I didn't manage it last night, but some more fireman time might be worth it. I am horny as fuck!
This article bugged me:
* http://www.pcworld.com/article/3200767/gaming/xbox-one-x-pc-build.html
I think they were paid to say this bullshit. The claim is that you will struggle to build hardware even comparable to "loss-leader" hardware you'd find on an Xbox One. Let me dispell this bullshit for you right now. They have a mixture of ad-paid bias marketing manipulation and incompetence here. I smell Apple fanboi mixed with Consoletard. Disgusting.
They gave two builds. I'm going to wreck them both.
I built to her first build's initial specs (which far outstrip what an APU is going to hand you).
<a href="https://pcpartpicker.com/list/DQsxqk">PCPartPicker part list</a> / <a href="https://pcpartpicker.com/list/DQsxqk/by_merchant/">Price breakdown by merchant</a>
<table class="pcpp-part-list">
<thead>
<tr>
<th>Type</th>
<th>Item</th>
<th>Price</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="pcpp-part-list-type">CPU</td>
<td class="pcpp-part-list-item"><a href="https://pcpartpicker.com/product/qmrcCJ/amd-cpu-fd8300wmhkbox">AMD - FX-8300 3.3GHz 8-Core Processor</a></td>
<td class="pcpp-part-list-price">
<a href="https://pcpartpicker.com/product/qmrcCJ/amd-cpu-fd8300wmhkbox">$89.99 @ Amazon</a>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="pcpp-part-list-type">Motherboard</td>
<td class="pcpp-part-list-item"><a href="https://pcpartpicker.com/product/C2mxFT/asus-m5a78l-m-plususb3-micro-atx-am3-motherboard-m5a78l-m-plususb3">Asus - M5A78L-M PLUS/USB3 Micro ATX AM3+ Motherboard</a></td>
<td class="pcpp-part-list-price">
<a href="https://pcpartpicker.com/product/C2mxFT/asus-m5a78l-m-plususb3-micro-atx-am3-motherboard-m5a78l-m-plususb3">$46.99 @ Newegg</a>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="pcpp-part-list-type">Memory</td>
<td class="pcpp-part-list-item"><a href="https://pcpartpicker.com/product/W2vRsY/patriot-memory-psd38g13332">Patriot - Signature 8GB (1 x 8GB) DDR3-1333 Memory</a></td>
<td class="pcpp-part-list-price">
<a href="https://pcpartpicker.com/product/W2vRsY/patriot-memory-psd38g13332">$39.99 @ Amazon</a>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="pcpp-part-list-type">Storage</td>
<td class="pcpp-part-list-item"><a href="https://pcpartpicker.com/product/2RPfrH/hitachi-internal-hard-drive-0f10311">Hitachi - Deskstar 7K2000 2TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive</a></td>
<td class="pcpp-part-list-price">
<a href="https://pcpartpicker.com/product/2RPfrH/hitachi-internal-hard-drive-0f10311">$56.50 @ Amazon</a>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="pcpp-part-list-type">Video Card</td>
<td class="pcpp-part-list-item"><a href="https://pcpartpicker.com/product/pKX2FT/evga-geforce-gtx-1060-3gb-sc-gaming-video-card-03g-p4-6162">EVGA - GeForce GTX 1060 3GB 3GB SC GAMING Video Card</a></td>
<td class="pcpp-part-list-price">
<a href="https://pcpartpicker.com/product/pKX2FT/evga-geforce-gtx-1060-3gb-sc-gaming-video-card-03g-p4-6162">$179.99 @ Newegg</a>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="pcpp-part-list-type">Case</td>
<td class="pcpp-part-list-item"><a href="https://pcpartpicker.com/product/FvKhP6/xion-case-xon310bk">Xion - XON-310_BK MicroATX Mid Tower Case</a></td>
<td class="pcpp-part-list-price">
<a href="https://pcpartpicker.com/product/FvKhP6/xion-case-xon310bk">$23.98 @ Newegg</a>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="pcpp-part-list-type">Power Supply</td>
<td class="pcpp-part-list-item"><a href="https://pcpartpicker.com/product/HvTmP6/evga-power-supply-100w10430kr">EVGA - 430W 80+ Certified ATX Power Supply</a></td>
<td class="pcpp-part-list-price">
<a href="https://pcpartpicker.com/product/HvTmP6/evga-power-supply-100w10430kr">$21.98 @ Newegg</a>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="pcpp-part-list-type">Wired Network Adapter</td>
<td class="pcpp-part-list-item"><a href="https://pcpartpicker.com/product/xQtCmG/tp-link-wired-network-card-tf3239dl">TP-Link - TF-3239DL PCI 10/100 Mbps Network Adapter</a></td>
<td class="pcpp-part-list-price">
<a href="https://pcpartpicker.com/product/xQtCmG/tp-link-wired-network-card-tf3239dl">$7.80 @ OutletPC</a>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td class="pcpp-part-list-price-note">Prices include shipping, taxes, rebates, and discounts</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td class="pcpp-part-list-subtotal">Total (before mail-in rebates)</td>
<td class="pcpp-part-list-subtotal-price">$502.22</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td class="pcpp-part-list-subtotal">Mail-in rebates</td>
<td class="pcpp-part-list-subtotal-price">-$35.00</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td class="pcpp-part-list-total">Total</td>
<td class="pcpp-part-list-total-price">$467.22</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td class="pcpp-part-list-price-note">Generated by <a href="http://pcpartpicker.com">PCPartPicker</a> 2017-06-16 17:09 EDT-0400</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
I can do it for $200 less than her stupid pricing, and I get better parts too!
This has 1TB more storage and my video card is significantly better than her choice. I threw in a wireless card to be cute, since she complained about it. Obviously, anyone who gives a shit will be wired, no if's-and's-or-but's about it.
I do not include an optical drive, and that's because I'm not an idiot. The best way to watch media or play games hasn't been through optical media in over a decade! I keep my optical drive in my primary machine only as a legacy device, just like I kept a 3.5" floppy drive until 2012. Seriously, I care about legacy. But, I'm not retarded; I don't use the thing but maybe once or twice in the lifetime of a computer. I'm going external next time.
Note, I am below the $500 pricepoint. Let me grant, this system runs hot, but will be perfectly stable. Also, don't buy Windows, idiot.
The better-than-xbone-1 for $500 or less myth is debunked. Still crushing it.
Alright, onto the second "upgraded" build, which is $818.
My initial thought: they chose the terribly priced i5-7400 with Passmark score 7443 for $180. For $10 more you can buy the i5-7500 at 7981. Why the move from AMD to Intel here? An AMD FX-8350 Eight-Core at 8942 is $80 cheaper than her choice. Don't get me wrong, the reason to choose Intel is single-threading. It's the king. If multi-threading was really what mattered, stick to AMD.
Vitally, I still don't see games that are significantly multi-threaded. If you really just care about gaming, there is no difference between between 2 cores and 32 cores. It's really hard to write code that will actually make use of more cores. The author chose a dumb compromise. If you care about single-threaded and you want series multi-threaded performance, then buy a better CPU, else choose for price efficiency in single-threaded.
Until I find the i5 variant, these are two correct possible roads to take:
* $329 - Intel Core i7-7700K @ 4.20GHz at 12178
* $150 - Intel Core i3-7350K @ 4.20GHz at 6925
Let's be clear, her choice only has 75% of the single-threaded performance of either of my chips. I can pay $30 less and still completely wreck her chip in single-threaded performance (what matters; this was the reason to go Intel instead of AMD), or I can pay $150 more and buy a chip that not only has a heft single-threaded advantage but can also fucking destroy in the multi-threaded department.
For the AMD fanbois (and I do prefer competition!), the AMD Ryzen 7 1700X is at the same pricepoint as the i7, and it does 14865, but the single-threading is still worse than all of the chips we are considering here. It's really bad when a $150 chip wrecks your +$300 chip in the most important performance metric for non-parallel tasks (and most parallel tasks should be handled by your GPU).
<a href="https://pcpartpicker.com/list/P9kmZ8">PCPartPicker part list</a> / <a href="https://pcpartpicker.com/list/P9kmZ8/by_merchant/">Price breakdown by merchant</a>
<table class="pcpp-part-list">
<thead>
<tr>
<th>Type</th>
<th>Item</th>
<th>Price</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="pcpp-part-list-type">CPU</td>
<td class="pcpp-part-list-item"><a href="https://pcpartpicker.com/product/tTVBD3/intel-core-i3-7350k-42ghz-dual-core-processor-bx80677i37350k">Intel - Core i3-7350K 4.2GHz Dual-Core Processor</a></td>
<td class="pcpp-part-list-price">
<a href="https://pcpartpicker.com/product/tTVBD3/intel-core-i3-7350k-42ghz-dual-core-processor-bx80677i37350k">$148.88 @ OutletPC</a>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="pcpp-part-list-type">Motherboard</td>
<td class="pcpp-part-list-item"><a href="https://pcpartpicker.com/product/rLs8TW/msi-motherboard-h110mgaming">MSI - H110M Gaming Micro ATX LGA1151 Motherboard</a></td>
<td class="pcpp-part-list-price">
<a href="https://pcpartpicker.com/product/rLs8TW/msi-motherboard-h110mgaming">$41.98 @ Newegg</a>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="pcpp-part-list-type">Memory</td>
<td class="pcpp-part-list-item"><a href="https://pcpartpicker.com/product/4QNypg/team-vulcan-8gb-2-x-4gb-ddr4-2400-memory-tlgd416g2400hc14dc01">Team - Vulcan 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR4-2400 Memory</a></td>
<td class="pcpp-part-list-price">
<a href="https://pcpartpicker.com/product/4QNypg/team-vulcan-8gb-2-x-4gb-ddr4-2400-memory-tlgd416g2400hc14dc01">$99.99 @ Newegg</a>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="pcpp-part-list-type">Storage</td>
<td class="pcpp-part-list-item"><a href="https://pcpartpicker.com/product/x28H99/sandisk-ssd-plus-480gb-25-solid-state-drive-sdssda-480g-g26">SanDisk - SSD PLUS 480GB 2.5" Solid State Drive</a></td>
<td class="pcpp-part-list-price">
<a href="https://pcpartpicker.com/product/x28H99/sandisk-ssd-plus-480gb-25-solid-state-drive-sdssda-480g-g26">$128.99 @ Best Buy</a>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="pcpp-part-list-type">Video Card</td>
<td class="pcpp-part-list-item"><a href="https://pcpartpicker.com/product/Tv38TW/evga-geforce-gtx-1070-8gb-sc-gaming-acx-30-video-card-08g-p4-6173-kr">EVGA - GeForce GTX 1070 8GB SC Gaming ACX 3.0 Video Card</a></td>
<td class="pcpp-part-list-price">
<a href="https://pcpartpicker.com/product/Tv38TW/evga-geforce-gtx-1070-8gb-sc-gaming-acx-30-video-card-08g-p4-6173-kr">$389.99 @ Newegg</a>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="pcpp-part-list-type">Case</td>
<td class="pcpp-part-list-item"><a href="https://pcpartpicker.com/product/FvKhP6/xion-case-xon310bk">Xion - XON-310_BK MicroATX Mid Tower Case</a></td>
<td class="pcpp-part-list-price">
<a href="https://pcpartpicker.com/product/FvKhP6/xion-case-xon310bk">$23.98 @ Newegg</a>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="pcpp-part-list-type">Power Supply</td>
<td class="pcpp-part-list-item"><a href="https://pcpartpicker.com/product/HvTmP6/evga-power-supply-100w10430kr">EVGA - 430W 80+ Certified ATX Power Supply</a></td>
<td class="pcpp-part-list-price">
<a href="https://pcpartpicker.com/product/HvTmP6/evga-power-supply-100w10430kr">$21.98 @ Newegg</a>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td class="pcpp-part-list-price-note">Prices include shipping, taxes, rebates, and discounts</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td class="pcpp-part-list-subtotal">Total (before mail-in rebates)</td>
<td class="pcpp-part-list-subtotal-price">$905.79</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td class="pcpp-part-list-subtotal">Mail-in rebates</td>
<td class="pcpp-part-list-subtotal-price">-$50.00</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td class="pcpp-part-list-total">Total</td>
<td class="pcpp-part-list-total-price">$855.79</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td class="pcpp-part-list-price-note">Generated by <a href="http://pcpartpicker.com">PCPartPicker</a> 2017-06-16 18:03 EDT-0400</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Alright, I've gone over her arbitrary budget by $37, or 5% of her cost more, because this was the correct price point. Obviously, we can crush her performance at the $818 price point, but this is where raw price-efficiency should actually take us.
Let's be clear, for $37 more, we pickup:
* a fucking SSD, which everyone post 2010 should be using in their machine.
** Even for a gaming machine, you'd be retarded not to get one. In fact, for the previous rig, I'd take a 120GB SSD instead of a 1TB HDD and just live within my space means.
* a significantly stronger single-threaded CPU which remains quite competitive in multi-threaded performance against most consumer chips
* 16 GB of RAM, not 8GB. Again, welcome to the 2010's.
** I've had Chrome break 8GB of memory usage (with standard extensions).
* A GPU which destroys, jumping from 7957 passmark to 11015.
** The heart-and-soul of a gaming rig. Dump your money into it.
Note, it would be easier to go Z270, and I have forgotten a cooler. I have a bunch laying around. Throw $7 extra if you need one.
I'll tell you this isn't the machine I would buy for myself. I would jump for the i7, and at this point, I'd jump for 32GB of RAM too. But, I don't need that much GPU either. When I do, I'd rent it (but I'm not actually rendering games on my screen at that point).
|customTable|k
|Food|Calories|h
|Pizza|550|
|Pear|100|
|Mandarins|70|
|Corned Beef Roast and Veggies|500|
|Brussel Sprouts Mountain|150|
|Watermelon|120|
|Bratwursts|600|
|Total|2090|f
!! How is your health? Daily routine?
I'm doing well. I think I'm getting fatter again. I feel like I'm eating more. My sleep schedule is decent enough. I feel physically less strong. Perhaps I should work out and write about it (accountability) on Bobert the Wiki.
---
!! What happened? How do you feel about it? What made you feel this way? Does it make you happy or unhappy? Why or why not?
I feel like a useless asshole. I've been off this week. I think I've been "off" because I'm not playing EQ. I'm glad I'm not playing EQ. It is obviously not what we need.
---
!! Can you better explain what happened? Do you have a technological, philosophical, empathic, or redpilled story to tell about the phenomenon? Clarify the narrative you just told yourself.
I think I'm also feeling anxious about searching for a job. I'm feeling desperate. I'm feeling a procrastination element mixed with the desire to chill or give up in the face of adversity and setbacks. I want it to be smooth-sailing, obviously. I can't allow my frustration to control me. I must control it. I am in command of myself (right!?), and I will force myself to do what I need to do.
---
!! What are you going to do about what happened?
My goal is to be empathic with my family and myself. I need to have the right attitude. I need to continue to work hard, and I cannot give up. I am so close I can taste it. I need to keep the ball rolling.
You can do it, h0p3!
Today was a short one. I had already studied for the exam. I studied more anyways. Motor vehicles seem like something you need hands-on experience with. There is only so much you can read about.
I talked to Johnny today. It's always important to pick others' brains in the industry. I wanted his perspective. He thought our simulator was quite cool. He does top helper work and not so much pipefitting itself. I found out that I should just find or make a bevel-checking tool. Johnny has done it so much he doesn't even check it anymore. It just "looks" right to him, and he has a "feel" for it. Virtue theoretic, I tell yahwhat.
On our break time, I went to the shop and finished cutting the blocks for my alignment dogs. Everyone has asked about them. We're worried they won't be tall enough. I have to work with what I have though. I need to make a few cuts, but we'll get there. I chose some very thick metal. I'm not sure how much it costs, but I bet it aint cheap.
Afterward, I took the exam. I aced it. I think it wears on the guys around me when I get 100's and everyone else is struggling to pass or still missing a few. It is what it is.
I cleaned the shop up, then I went home.
!! If you were lost in the woods and it got dark, what would you do?
* What do I have on me?
* Roughly what region?
* Do I know how far away I am from civilization?
* Are people waiting for me? Am I under certain obligations? Do people know the vicinity where I'm lost, and would they search for me?
I'm going to assume I have my everyday carry (EDC) on me. I keep a large pocket knife on me with a partially serrated blade on the bottom. I have a flashlight on my keychain. I have a card-sized folding knife that is very sharp in my wallet, and I have a decent multi-tool on my keychain. Lastly, I always have my phone with me.
First things first, I'd call people. Assuming I couldn't, I would fire off text messages. I would hit the higher ground and hope to get some signal. I might see the city lights as well! I live in the mountains, and that is common. I'd use my flashlight, but if I lost battery power I might use my phone for light. It depends on the charge of my phone and my emergency. I don't use a smartphone, and my battery life is considerable. I could get away with using it as a flashlight in a pinch for quite some time.
I'd make sure I had shelter and warmth. I would aim to protect myself from the elements. I'd need to find water the next day. I could live without food for many weeks.
If I wasn't completely, absolutely lost, and I at least knew my whereabouts in a 50-mile radius and assuming I didn't have anyone coming for me, no cell signal, etc., then I'd use the sun and moss to gauge my direction. I'd prefer to travel alongside a river or creek. I'm not sure how I could store water. I'd seek civilization, house, roadway, or whatever.
* [[2017.06.15 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** Fireman time!
* [[2017.06.15 - Link Log]]
** I really haven't been digging as much lately. It comes and goes, I guess.
* [[2017.06.15 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** Silly rabbit.
* [[2017.06.15 - Diet Log]]
** Summed.
* [[2017.06.15 - Wiki Review Log]]
** When I analyze my species (myself included) as chemically dependent creatures (defining happiness as such), the world makes so much more sense. It's an ugly view to so many, but the truth is the truth. I didn't like it either. I can't argue with the results though.
* [[2017.06.15 - Pipefitting Log]]
** I talked to Johnny today. It's always important to pick others' brains in the industry. I wanted his perspective. He thought our simulator was quite cool. He does top helper work and not so much pipefitting itself.
** Edited.
* I woke up early and watched my wife sleep.
* I finished the //Polar Bears// play. It was quite good, quite sad, and quite real.
* I had some fireman time.
* I helped the kids get on their schoolwork.
* I filled out some pipefitter applications in my area.
* I surfed, and I found something crazy and yet interesting.
* I shopped for groceries.
* I made breakfast for lunch; it was delicious.
* I surfed some more.
* More fireman time!
* I tried to call my brothers. I wanted to see how they were doing. JRE had a shoulder problem and a sleep study.
* I played a game of league.
* Fixed more domain whitelist problems.
* I had some snacks =).
* I took a nap!
* I surfed some more.
* I played D2 for a few minutes.
* I wrote in my wiki.
* I've watched several games of league of legends.
* I pushed my children to finish their work.
* I've flashed a USB drive to reinstall on my son's laptop. I don't know what he has done.
|customTable|k
|Food|Calories|h
|Apple|100|
|Pear|100|
|Mandarins|105|
|Nuts|160|
|Sausage, eggs, biscuits, country ham, hash brown|1100|
|Wine|50|
|Sorbet|140|
|Hummus, Olives, Pita chips|450|
|Total|2205|f
* You must still decipher the mumblings of crazy people
** http://www.ellipsisbehavior.com/
** https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McWsMWdtvEs&feature=youtu.be
** https://www.mediafire.com/folder/k47c6c4j24u0r/Mind_Control%2C_Brainwashing_Material
* http://www.isst-d.org/downloads/guidelines_revised2011.pdf
** Speaking of crazy people. =) I do wonder what [[RPIN]] and [[KIN]] would have to say.
* https://imgur.com/a/c1RnG#yxrAzJr
** Some of them are quite damning criticisms of political media hypocrisy
* http://www.bbc.com/news/education-40275233
** Thank you, yet again Baby Boomers.
* https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-16/the-u-s-is-where-the-rich-are-the-richest
** Bloomberg talks about it, at least part of it. The solutions, however, they don't care about. Rabble-rousing?
* KYS
** https://www.theverge.com/2017/6/15/15812986/amazon-patent-online-price-checking
* https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/scotus-cell-location-privacy-op-ed
** I am not hopeful.
* http://articles.latimes.com/2006/may/08/entertainment/et-mcdonalds8
** No win for them. It's all optics from a selfish perspective. I have no respect for them.
* http://evonomics.com/amazon-accounting-corporate-profits-rich-peoples-income-invisible-bezos/
** Capital gains is a swear word to me at this point.
* https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/eyewitness-memory-is-a-lot-more-reliable-than-you-think/?WT.mc_id=SA_TW_MB_NEWS&sf88257361=1
** Interesting.
* http://nautil.us/blog/how-discovering-an-equation-for-altruism-cost-george-price-everything
** Nautilus does it again.
* https://melmagazine.com/this-psychologist-is-using-a-i-to-predict-who-will-attempt-suicide-696cd24bbc15
** A sad article.
I put the finishing touches on my pipefitting resume.
I applied to the Pipefitter and Pipefitter Helper positions at Jacobs. I'm definitely qualified for one, and I'm on the edge really of being qualified for the other. I think it would take very little time to train me into a full-blown pipefitter. I already can do large swathes of the job well enough. We will see.
!! If you had a week to live, how would you live it?
Lol.
Does this question assume I know I only have a week to live? If I don't know that, then I assume I'd just carry on as I usually do. Presumably, I would know in this scenario, otherwise, the question is kind of dumb.
How would I die? Can it be mitigated? Can the pain be avoided? I assume I don't know and I can't do much or anything about it.
I have already thought about this before. It is one of my methods for alleviating myself of suicidal ideation, particularly when I'm on the brink. I say to myself, "well if you are going to die, you might as well make it worthwhile for your family." In fact, that's why I'm pursuing pipefitting. This is a long-term based solution to suicidal ideation. It's a way of getting the most for my family before I die in a way that I can live/die with.
Since I only have a week, the answers are pretty simple:
* My first few days would be spent for my family (and if I failed in that time period, all of my days would be).
** I'd Robinhood wealthy people of assets, pushing as much into cryptocurrency for my family as possible.
** I'd attempt to find ways to incur non-transferable debt.
** //Spree// would be an apt word.
* My last few days would be spent with my family. I'd immediately call my family and tell them to take off work because I was going to die.
** We'd party. I'd like to die on the beach.
** My family knows how much I love them. I tell them often. I'd say it again.
Executive functioning in such compressed spaces of time creates very odd incentives and behaviors. I'd likely give up on most or all of my bucket list. My family's welfare is all that matters. I think I'd be being selfish in spending my time with rather than for them, except perhaps my last day.
The question has interesting implications for possible end-of-the-world kinds of scenarios as well.
My empathy for humanity runs dry in this question.
* [[2017.06.16 - h0p3's Log]]
** Well, I'm getting there. Slowly, but surely, I will succeed.
* [[2017.06.16 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** Edited.
* [[2017.06.16 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** I'm not entirely sure how this is introspective. It reminds me of "The Knack" explanation in [[Hunt for the Wilderpeople]]
* [[2017.06.16 - Diet Log]]
** Summed.
* [[2017.06.16 - Wiki Review Log]]
** It is common for me to go "oh yeah, I forgot about that" for my pipefitting log and perhaps even my Carpe Diem log as well through review. Sometimes it happens occurs on different days as well.
* [[2017.06.16 - Pipefitting Log]]
** I had intended to apply yesterday. But, my children's failures were my failures, and it required my time and energy. I was worn out afterward. That probably isn't a good excuse though.
* [[Whitelist-Only DNSmasq Setup]]
** I continue to edit them. I'm considering automating it. Maybe I should resilio sync it with a cron job to update it.
* [[2017.06.16 - Computer Musings]]
** Edited.
* Distinguish writing prompts from your responses.
* You meant "attention" instead of "attenuation," keep using Google to learn to spell words.
** We need to find a better tool for you.
* "Private" - nothing is actually private.
* Good work on your edited/revised post.
* Find three things each day.
* Capitalize, please.
* You need to write more.
* Keep up the editing. I love it.
* I woke up at 8ish today. I sat there for a bit. It was nice.
* Fireman time, per my new usual. I don't know why I've switched to/added mornings. What better way to start the day, eh?
* My family went off to church, and I took my DCK.
* I tried to play a game of League before it kicked in. Towards the end, I actually just AFKed and went to lay down.
* I wrote. I was surprisingly lucid although disoriented.
* My meditations were basically completed at about the same time my family came home. We talked.
* We made chili while the kids cleaned the bathrooms.
* Instead of doing schoolwork, I cleaned my kids' room with them.
** They still need my help, and I'm there to do it. I hope it will just click one day.
* I talked with my wife about writing. I think she has something to say. I think this is part of that vocational problem for her. I see it as part of her purpose.
* She took a nap (period, headache talking to me, plus bad weather), and I cleaned.
* We didn't go swimming because it simply got too late. The family meeting matters.
* I surfed some.
* I wrote in my wiki.
** I may back off using "Bobert" so much since I generally want to be speaking to myself. That said, sometimes I need a different kind of adversary (Samwise Gamgee!).
* We read each other's wikis and talked quite a bit. There were several excellent discussions.
** I'm extremely happy to see that our wikis provide a significant jumping off points for discussion and debate on top of being useful windows into each others' inner lives, etc.
* ALM called, but I didn't call him back until later since we were in the middle of our family meeting.
* We did our Family Log
** It went quite well.
** We considered having a constructive criticism section, and I hope to get there. I don't think we are ready for it. I need more time to reflect on how to implement it wisely and kindly.
* My wife went over their school structure while I returned ALM's call.
** We talked about Hack, Slash, and Crawl.
** We shot the shit about our lives, the wedding, cars, computers, etc.
** He had sent me an e-mail, and I sent one back. Hopefully, we will connect over qTox and Pidgin.
** He may be switching to Linux again. That would be awesome!
* I've surfed and wrote a bit while watching TSM destroy nV.
I teared up talking to my wife today. I see a brilliant woman who has endured so much pain. She has something inside her, something she's been aching to get out for decades. She knows it. It's part of her meaning, purpose, and vocation. It's that Octavia Butler Humanity X factor thing. I want her to pour herself into a work. She is the most well-read person I've ever met. It's time for her to express it, for herself and for the rest of us.
I'm hoping the wiki will be a gateway for her as well.
People are so different.
It's infeasible (extreme understatement) to understand the complexity, depth, and perspectives of the minds of others. It's very difficult. I feel like a non-reactive neutral metal uselessly passing through this realm, unable to perceive it, let alone reckon with it.
Oh, Black Boxes of Mind Function! I love you. I want the best for you! I do not understand you, and therefore I do not know the means to my ends.
---
My parents abandoned their children. We just have to own it. See it for what it is. I'm sure we aren't the creations they were anticipating. Maybe they think this is "The Way." Maybe they see it as their plight. Maybe they feel trapped. Call it what you want. I see it, and it's ugly.
---
I am too hard on my children. I feel so many forces on me and on us. I want them to flourish. We are doing well. We have what we need.
My children do not love their lives. How do I help them love life? My approach, yet again, is probably wrong. I worry that the only way they will love their lives is if I do. And, that is a very complex issue. I wish I could stop time, sort my life, and come back being who they need me to be.
That said, I will say I think we are on the right track. Make money. Cultivate ourselves. Work together. We are a team.
Life can never be one long orgasm.
I've definitely felt bottled and cloistered. I need to be released. My wife has been incredibly kind to me. She sees it in me. This is far beyond sex (although, sex is a relief and outlet)!
---
I think we should visualize our progress better. It is hard for the kids to see that they are working towards something. Perhaps I need to see it too. The wiki is a demonstration of this, but just getting them to write in the wiki costs more than the actual learning itself sometimes. That said, in the long run, being reflective is crucial to them. It will be the most important thing I can give them. I need them to be disciplined, systematic, and even hard on themselves about it. I need them to be honest and open too!
The world changes so fast, it's too complex. I cannot compute the answers. I feel like my heuristics are drowning. There are few diamonds to cling onto. Reason, help me!
---
Chaos.
Does my life still feel like chaos?
Yes. But, life always feels chaotic in a way. There is a stability in that chaos. A structure which rides the waves. That's part of the beauty and charm of it. That is how we see the sparks and see it come alive.
Of course, there are those who would claim it is my 20mg of DCK each week. Soon I will have been a year into my DCK regimen. I have had 2 bottles of wine this week as well. Fools. I grant I'm changing myself, but it isn't that rapid. It is quite controlled. Who is doing the controlling? Yes, yes. Hush, Hush.
CONTROL! /roar
The swirl of even my tiny flawed perspective of the universe is too great to handle. It is overwhelming. I long for order...but, I know the pitfalls of the authoritarian.
---
The warm fuzzy times are gone. Life is hard. It is cold. DCK may be talking here. But, I must admit: we are surviving. We have what we need. My children do not miss meals (terrifying thought). My children do learn and grow. They are becoming adults. I will assist them in every way I can. I arrogantly created them (God Knows), and know I'm going to help them cobble together a more meaningful life than I have.
We do have warm experiences with each other each day, but it feels stilted.
It's hard to be the slave to your children. I am an obligated and willing slave here. I'm downright obsessed with it even. Understand that word, Slave, carefully. "Slave of" isn't what I mean. I mean "Slave to." Of course, part of being human and entering this dialectic is the rejection of slavery. I truly love my children. I am committed to them beyond what they can comprehend at this moment (although they seem to understand much of it, they cannot feel as I do on the matter).
My tattoo has changed meanings for me over the years.
"Slave to The God"
I'm not even Christian and I still live by it. It is a mentality for me. It is a framework, a lens, and a profound axiomatic prescription.
---
I want to answer this question:
How do other people see me?
This is a question I need to start answering more often. Since I am so bad at it, I need to be thinking about it.
There are many facets to consider. I should write about them.
This would be a worthy log. Don't worry about cataloging yet. Write down the content first, then catalog it. Just use dates. Well...wait.
I could
---
I feel existential torsion.
---
I miss philosophy classes. There are so many blurry, murky, unknown areas. I don't have a sufficiently satisfying systematic view of the world yet. I yearn for answers. I beg for them. I feel like a slave to the pursuit of them even.
---
Marriage's unity is arguably the most profound thing I've ever experienced. Two minds seeking to join together truly beautiful.
As I age, as our marriage ages, I get the chance to see all the details. The unique fabrications, the bonds, the cracks, and splits and joins.
It is interesting to see us bloom as individuals welded together. I hope to fawn and craft over her and our structure.
---
Professor Dougherty saw very far. I stand in frightened awe of how far he saw. He was obviously a genius. I should ask him for reading material. Is there any reason to reach out to the gods we idolized in academia? Be redpilled about it.
---
I've been feeling jumpy, froggy, ready to leap, ready to explode. I feel sinewy, meaty, and oddly stretched out while being compacted. That is a contradiction. I don't know how to explain it. I'm sorry. The description is beyond me. I feel full of energy but I don't have the right channel to spend it. I'm on edge.
---
It is the ironic nature of the crisis that we wait until the moment to do anything about it. We could have seen it coming. That in itself is a crisis as well. Turtles all the way down.
Crisis Wisdom is obviously the most important kind of wisdom. There are only instincts in crisis. What doth thou say, Utilitarian God? Do you agree? This is risk management to the core.
What about when your life, the world, and everything around you feels like it is in crisis? We act like it isn't happening, but it is!
Humanity is in denial. Humanity denies itself. Humanity denies Reason. That's part of being human, right? Lol.
This seems like a kind of schizophrenic break to me. You have to ask yourself. Are you crazy? Is the world crazy? Or, both? No one is qualified to answer. Lol. But, we cannot remain skeptics. It simply isn't pragmatic. Be a slave to your prudence and wisdom because you have no other choice.
---
I am failing my son for computing. It is so clear. He has to be the kind of person who tries to solve his computer problems. He has to be curious and open. He has to try hard at it. He must understand it. The world continues to be enveloped by technology. Our lives are increasingly digitized. He really is capable of exploring it. I need him to take it seriously.
I feel like I've treated him like he can't, and that's why he can't. I must adjust my attitude, lense, mode, etc. I need him to be fearless and curious, to be persistent and hardworking, to construct things on the computer. He needs to not fear the machine because his family is good at it and he isn't. He needs to be comfortable not knowing and striving. It's really fucking hard being the young one. It's really hard to feel like everyone around is smarter than you (we are all older than him). How do I cultivate the will to pursue truth and wisdom? How do I make a man who voraciously, in the very core of his being, pursues theory and practice? I can't snuff him out. I don't want to suffocate his bright light. I don't want him to go crazy. I don't want him to feel I'm overbearing. I don't want him to feel inadequate or intimidated. I want him to be wise and happy!
I wish I had some cosmic vending machine to help me here, but it is up to me. I might be a fool, but I'm a fool trying to wise-up and rise to the occasion over and over again, in different layers, kinds, and contexts. I must help him. He needs me!
How do I cultivate my delicate son? He is very sensitive. He is so kind. He struggles.
I am a shit cultivator.
I need to change.
It's as simple as that. I need to be a different person for him. How do I do that? who do I need to be for him? I can't directly change him, but I can change him by indirectly changing who I am. I was a fool for thinking I could raise a child. But, I will stand up and do my best. That is the only Way.
---
My teacher said to me this week:
<<<
"You're rarin' t'go, aren't'cha?"
<<<
Yes.
Let's do this.
I can feel the testosterone coursing through my body.
This is the exact attitude which I wield so poorly with and around my son. I fail him. I must not! My son! My love! I need to be the right man for him. I am his creator, and I owe him happiness. You must help him flourish.
My son needs a delicate hard man. A perfect titanium flower. I will construct myself for him.
---
Who should I be for my son?
I wish I knew.
I need random seed and thought injections. Even if I could somehow phrase it correctly, who could understand the question, let alone answer it?
---
I want to favor an open-sourced, peer-reviewed AI to be our democratic leader. I can't trust a human. Can I trust the things which humans design? Can I trust humans to execute the will of a computer? Where are the cracks?
It may be the only practical option though. How do I guarantee computer scientists will be wise? I can't. So much faith. It would be so easy to tune it wrong.
---
```
**The buzz of CRISPR intensifies**
```
|customTable|k
|Food|Calories|h
|Pear|100|
|Chili|750|
|Cornbread|700|
|Sorbet|140|
|Total|1690|f
!! How has your health been this week?
* 1uxb0x
** Great, other than allergies.
** He has felt less clumsy this week.
* j3d1h
** Good.
* k0sh3k
** Felt like her guts were getting spooned out by a dull spoon.
** headaches
* h0p3
** My finger is doing slightly better.
** I've been feeling very charged at times but also drained in a chillax sort of way at different points in the day each day this week.
---
!! What happened last week? Have you been happy this past week? Why or why not?
* 1uxb0x
** Unhappy. He didn't choose well. That is, he didn't do his schoolwork, except for Friday.
* j3d1h
** Terrible. Schoolwork didn't get done, and that had a domino effect in her life.
** She is sad that her internet access is bottlenecked to a tiny subset for school only; she misses The Youtubes.
* k0sh3k
** She got a lot done on the student worker manual, and that made her feel productive.
** Finished a couple books.
* h0p3
** Worked hard. I missed EQ.
** I felt frustrated in my job search. I want to make sure that I keep appropriate expectations, and maximize my persistence.
** I felt drained each after work when my kids didn't do their schoolwork.
** Lots of fireman time.
---
!! What is a positive fact or compliment we can say about each person in the family?
* 1uxb0x
** You've been curious. You ask questions about the world around you.
** Thank you for taking the time to walk through the Socratic method, to make yourself understood, to clarify your meaning, and to communicate to me. I get to understand who you are when you do that. You are showing patience, love, and a desire to connect with me when you go through frustrating conflict resolution and debate for the sake of our relationship.
** You think about how events or situations affect other people. e.g. you went and found someone to do something about the problem in the hallway so nobody would get hurt. You were looking out for other people.
* j3d1h
** You have a willing attitude to help people with their computers. You use your gifts to help the family, not just yourself.
** You've turned the lemons of your punishment (not being able to access most of the internet) into lemonade. You've been resourceful.
** You've pitched in on work around the house without grumbling. You've been mature. e.g. Helping with the cats, your brother's part of the room, etc.
* k0sh3k
** You've given away a lot of your free time helping with the family this week. e.g. The extra-duties for our schoolwork this week.
** You've been a good therapist to me. You are a skilled counselor. e.g. Whenever I'm super sad, I know exactly who to go to.
** I've noticed that you have been more open to working on our wikis. In particular, you were happy to try something new, recording ILLs. I think this shows a commitment to us and an openness to growth.
* h0p3
** I did a good job putting up with my family's bullshit [sic]. I kept my composure this week.
** I helped my children with their computer problems, particularly their wikis.
** I showed great smartness in marrying my wife.
** My carpe diem logs have been really cool.
*** It was embarrassing.
---
!! What will you do this week? Name at least one fun objective and one unfun objective.
* 1uxb0x
** Do my laundry.
** Make a game. Write the rules down.
* j3d1h
** Do my laundry.
** Homework
** Make a new friend, probably at the pool.
* k0sh3k
** Finish student worker manual
** Work on the DND game.
* h0p3
** Apply to 3 jobs.
** My wife.
* Fix your drafts.
* Do your logs
* Your code commenting is too literal and doesn't capture the overall strategy, abstraction, or basis of the algorithm itself. Show me why each line matters to the end goal. Show me the subgoals, and so on.
* You posted every day!
* I want to see your ILL data.
* Post your to-do-lists too!
* Use dropbox to transfer the textfiles and graft them in.
* Start dividing your posts, and unifying your blog posts programmatically.
* I like the daily FB grafting. It's good.
!! If you had to describe yourself as a color, which would you choose?
Throw me 'dem softballs, kid!
What does it even mean to describe yourself with a color?
I'm Caucasian, so white or beige or some such Caucasian skin coloring. I'm not really monochromatic either. I'm hairy too, and even that has at least 5 shades. No, that's not what you mean. Ok, fine.
Are you asking what color my parachute is? Business-lingo-ified existentialism. Puh-lease.
Okay, do we mean the myriad of cultural interpretations of colors? Like the poetic symbolism of Red, and so on? Oh, you want to be a smartass and say all words are like that, don't you? Lol. Fine.
Can't you see that I think this question is a bit stupid?<<ref "1">>
Fine. I'll try to answer the question. I'm not dodging it. And, I won't give you an ironic answer making fun of you and your stupid question.
I think Black is the color which I identify with most.<<ref "2">> Yup. Edgelord at your service, m'lady. I like the definitiveness of black. I like how black works with all colors. I like how black is necessary, feels unconditional, and somehow both natural and unnatural at the same time. I like the look of it too; it's easy on the eyes.
I think choosing a color is literally just a dumb social game we play with each other with arbitrarily imbued meanings (in a far more arbitrary sense than language in general).
See, these are all stupid fucking answers to a stupid fucking question.<<ref "3">>
---
<<footnotes "1" "Nuh uh, your mom is stupid!...Ohhh!! Someone call the burn unit, please.">>
<<footnotes "2" "But, you already knew that, didn't you.">>
<<footnotes "3" "I don't know who I'm talking to either. But, no, the fact that I chose the question is not something I'm ignoring or is lost to me either.">>
* [[The Youtubes]]
** This belongs in my links section. Speaking of which, I need to work on that. My wife and I are going to spend 30 minutes each day doing non-log work. Just projects.
* [[2017.06.17 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** I forgot to say, but I would fuck my wife. Like...extra fuckage.
** Edited.
* [[2017.06.17 - Wiki Review Log]]
** I should continue applying. Also, I never made the generic resume. I need to do that. Just start spamming, eh?
* [[2017.06.17 - Diet Log]]
** Summed.
* [[2017.06.17 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** Could you use your "I" language, please?
* [[2017.06.17 - Link Log]]
** I forgot to sift through the media material. I should do that.
* [[2017.06.17 - Pipefitting Log]]
** Good job! Keep it up!
* Woke up early, but no fireman time. Instead, I did a small workout this morning. I've been doing that and forgetting to write about it. It ain't much, but it gets me moving. A small sweat is good.
* I worked very hard today.
* I talked a bit with my family over lunch. They weren't very talkative.
* I worked hard, took my test, and rejoiced inside (even pumped my fist) to hear that I got a reasonable score.
* My visit to Kingsport was quite disappointing. I will not give up. I will keep knocking on those doors. I deserve to be hired because I rock. They have no idea what they are missing out on.<<ref "1">>
* When I got home I talked with the kids, surfed for a bit, and then took a nap.
* My nap was longer than I expected! Maybe I shouldn't take naps. They are delicious though.
* I played a game of League. Had a diamond player in my group today.
* We made dinner, brats, veggies, and it was delicious!
* I tried calling both my brothers today. I did get to talk to my brother JRE.
** Don't forget to look at computer parts for him
* MB said she would call me back today, but she didn't.
* JOP called. We talked. =) It's nice to hear from her. I worry we don't have much to say.
* I did the dishes by hand with my daughter since my son didn't run the washer.
* I got my kids to work on their logs, and I did my 30-minute pact with my wife.
** I got a script working to make [[Wiki Review Log]] much easier and organized {Projects}.
* I'm going to have some sorbet, water, and watch some league while building a comp for my brother.
---
<<footnotes "1" "So humble!">>
|customTable|k
|Food|Calories|h
|Peach|70|
|Pear|100|
|Apple|100|
|Mandarins|70|
|Chili|250|
|Cornbread|300|
|PB Toasted English Muffin|300|
|Dates|230|
|White Castle|270|
|Apple|100|
|Asparagus|60|
|Brats|500|
|PB Pretzels|300|
|Total|2650|f
* http://www.marketwatch.com/story/college-students-would-give-up-their-friends-privacy-for-free-pizza-2017-06-13
** Gross. People are evil.
* http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/i-bought-a-report-on-everything-thats-known-about_us_594043e8e4b03e17eee0876d?section=us_technology
** The rabbit hole runs much deeper, and it's only going to continue to get worse.
* https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2017/06/kybella-the-injection-that-melts-a-double-chin/529893/?utm_source=atltw
** Double chin cosmetic surgery injection
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tva0xq-eDvI
** Schadenfreude's influence in politics
* https://www.reddit.com/r/trackers/comments/6he7hl/psa_ipv6_is_starting_to_erode_private_trackers/
** A serious net neutrality problem. Unfortunately, it will be glossed over until it is the norm and too late. We know ISPs will not even attempt to fix this; they want the power in their own hands.
* http://deloitte.wsj.com/cio/2017/03/15/apprehensive-millennials-seek-job-stability-flexibility/
** Fear is a powerful motivating force. Watch my generation become immoral to survive.
* https://gizmodo.com/gop-data-firm-accidentally-leaks-personal-details-of-ne-1796211612
** Jesus H.B.F. Christ
* http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20170615-why-hydro-politics-will-shape-the-21st-century
** I'm very interested in finding a secure, long-term, underused water supply. It's the prepper in me.
* http://www.artofmanliness.com/2017/04/03/origins-overprotective-parenting/
** The site is a classic at this point. The article resonates with me, of course.
* https://spinoff.nasa.gov/Spinoff2004/ch_4.html
** Sounds delicious
* https://scienceblog.com/494627/fake-news-outlets-media-impact-fact-checking-outlets/
** That's just, like, your opinion, man.
* http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/06/americans_learning_to_live_with_treason.html
** We clearly disagree on the nature of the coup. This moron thinks the "left" has any actual power. Lol.
* https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/16/opinion/sunday/sanders-corbyn-socialsts.html?_r=0
** Also does not understand what counts as The Left.<<ref "1">>
* https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/07/power-causes-brain-damage/528711/
** I have my doubts about priming. I would not be surprised if this were in the right direction though. Power corrupts.
* http://www.pnas.org/content/109/11/4086.short
** I've run across this many times. Again, not surprised. It is obvious that psychopathy is selected for in positions of authority, power, and wealth. They have a much larger array of means to their ends (and sometimes the only means to an end, as less psychopathic people have the moral integrity not to consider the option).
* Cereal
** https://i.redd.it/98jaeeikaf4z.jpg
* https://www.makechange.aspiration.com/articles/2016/11/23/this-former-accountant-wants-you-to-stop-buying-things-and-start-borrowing-them
** A very neat idea. Sharing economy is gross, but I like libraries.
* http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/06/16/vice-president-mike-pence-profile-feature-215257
** Yeah. We're boned (and not in the good way).
* http://nautil.us/issue/49/the-absurd/when-neurology-becomes-theology
** If I had money, I would pay these people. Gold stars to this publications. Have all my updoots. Can I have your babies?
* https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/06/the-normalization-of-conspiracy-culture/530688/
** I did not expect the Nightvale reference.
* https://arxiv.org/pdf/1706.05085.pdf
** Abstractions upon abstractions, frameworks upon frameworks, the attack surface is too large and complex.
** HN said there's a footgun in reusing IVs
* https://theamericanscholar.org/its-complicated/#.WUgzS1LMzv0
** A damned good article. Grabbed a copy of the book (arrrgggg!).
---
<<footnotes "1" "inb4 No True Scotsman">>
Today was difficult. We covered "Aboveground Pipefitting," which Luke pointed out was ironic since that should be damn near everything. I did learn a lot though. I feel much more comfortable in the realm of flanges and gaskets. I studied all day for it, and I didn't take the exam until the very end. I knew I didn't do well; there were many that I had to guess on. Still, I got an 85%. That is miles better than failing.
Luke was told to do 1.5" Socket weld for the simulator. I don't understand why. I'm not going to question my teacher on it though, as he seemed testy about it. I will think about why though. He spent all day just trying to map out the simulator onto an isometric drawing. Also, I learned what the fabrications are called when you do them in stages: spools. He didn't even draw out the spools, it was just the simulator. It took him all day. That was a 2-hour job at max, and I even helped him with the top measurements.
I was told to show JR how to do two-holes. So, I did. Screwpipe is easy once you understand the need to get it right the first time (i.e. tighten it as you go). JR and Matt are now separated since JR is obviously much more intelligent in some respects (although, still an arrogant young fool like me ;P).
After work, I went to Kingsport to speak with Jacobs. They said the positions were already filled. =( The lady at the front desk was unimpressed with my half year of experience (as she should be). But, she said she would pass a message along for me. I said I thought I was a unique candidate, and that I would be worth their time. We'll see. I talked to TEC too. I have a number to call tomorrow. They don't have anything immediately open either. =(...
But, that is okay! These are mere roadblocks and barriers. I will sit in EC tunnel until I sell my Cloak of Flames for what it is worth.
!! What is more important to you, appearance or personality?
I would almost immediately answer "personality" because I think appearances are stupid, deceiving, and terrible indicators of who we really are. Of course, there are many wrinkles to iron out.
What do you mean by appearance and personality? Personality, for example, could simply be a social image, an appearance, ultimately. It is a functional reaction to the world (most people). Personality could easily be understood in a shallow or superficial sense that we often tie to appearance. Appearance can also be more than what we see on the outside. One can appear to be a good person, for example. I think there can be much crossover and ambiguity.
I think //character// is a much better thing to pursue than personality. Insofar as personality is related to character, it is the clear winner. Furthermore, insofar as appearance is something we've taken on for ethical reasons, as a pragmatic matter in dealing with ourselves, other people, and the world around us (taking humans for who they really are...animals), I think it expresses something important about our character as well. Let me be very clear, it isn't the appearance itself which says anything, but the reasons for it, the intentions for having taken that appearance, etc.
All other aspects seem very superficial to me. They are ridiculous, as in literally worth ridicule, for pursuing outside of aesthetic pursuits in permissible circumstances. They take a backseat to who we really are most of the time. They are not profound expressions of who we are. Our authentic selves can be stripped of the superficial aspects of these in significant ways, although perhaps not totally.
* [[2017.06.18 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** There are many things to track.
* [[Drafting Strategy]]
** Silly rabbit.
* [[2017.06.18 - Family Log]]
** I really had a good time during our family meeting. It's great to just talk.
* [[2017.06.18 - k0sh3k's Wiki Log]]
** I'm hoping we will make use of our "pact" time.
* [[2017.06.18 - j3d1h's Wiki Log]]
** I'm hoping this will just be completed this week.
* [[2017.06.18 - 1uxb0x's Wiki Log]]
** I'm hoping this will just be completed this week.
* [[2017.06.18 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** God damnit, Samwise Gamgee, you stupid motherfucker!
* [[2017.06.18 - Diet Log]]
** Interestingly, on a DCK day, I was actually considering having some alcohol.
** Summed.
* [[2017.06.18 - Wiki Review Log]]
** Generic resume.
* [[2017.06.18 - Cry Log]]
** DCK is like that.
* [[2017.06.18 - DCK Meditation]]
** Lots of clarity to this one.
* I woke up and went back to sleep. I was sleepy. Meh.
** No workout, no time. I needed to push out bricks (sloppy and quick) before work. I was like lightning!
* Work was fun, and I'm a bit sore. It was gratifying.
** Get 'dem workaholic drugs goin, yo!
*** I needs me dat workahol.
* I spoke with the family over lunch. I was pleased to see my kids were on task.
* MB called me today, but I was in the shop.
** We agreed to play phone tag.
* I made a tool today! It was very cool. I'm super pleased with my (shitty) tool.
** It will be useful. Found out it costs $85 to buy one.
* I called my brother JRE twice.
** They were brief discussions, but good ones. I'm always happy to talk to him.
** I hope there is a chance he might visit in a couple weeks.
*** I'd love to show him the shop.
* When I got home, I found my kids were on track. Praise Jeebus!
** I encouraged them, and they kept going. Yay!
* I played a couple games of league, surfed, and did some writing.
* I have made sexual congress with a woman.
** Inform the men!
* We prepped to go swimming, got the food ready, grilled out while the kids swam, and had a great dinner.
** It was wonderful. I feel like I am connecting a lot more with my kids.
** We talked about the DND game we'll play when our cousins come to visit.
* I got a call from JOP. She was sad. I cheered her up.
* My children did their chores, and we may stay up to watch something.
* I need to have my Pact writing time.
* I ate many desserts!
|customTable|k
|Food|Calories|h
|Apples|200|
|Mandarins|105|
|Pear|100|
|Brats|700|
|Dates|450|
|Veggie Burger|350|
|Beef Burger|450|
|Cheesecake|360|
|Nuts|160|
|Sorbet|60|
|Total|2935|f
* https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/20/opinion/voter-turnout-democrats-republicans.html?ref=opinion
** I have a similar lament about people accepting their socialist perspectives. Many people hold socialist values, they simply lack the intellectual integrity, curiosity, and will-power to connect the dots and recognize it.
* http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-40326544
** I have pondered moving to Europe many times. There are many barriers and risks. I wonder if I will look back at regret my choice here.
* For my daughter:
** https://github.com/AhmadElsagheer/Competitive-programming-library/tree/master/curriculum
** http://codeforces.com/problemset
* http://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/14/debt-relief-firms-may-not-be-your-best-bet-for-help-with-student-loans.html
** The shark's circle.
Today was interesting. Luke didn't really finish even drawing the simulator yesterday. I immediately started doing the measurements and checking for him. He got several things wrong. After they were fixed, he got copies of them. We drew out our spools. I did the math, and I had them check it. While they were checking, I looked around in the pipe yard for parts for another project.
I came back. They said they did the math, but I wasn't sure. I did the math again to double check. It was fine. They went to cut the pipe, and I worked on making a tool for myself. I made a flange wrench for myself. I just looked it up, and they go for $85. Mine turned out nicely. I used a solid steel bar and bolts. I had to do significant grinding to make them fit. I'm glad I made it! I've also got my solid steel bricks (1-inch thick!) marked and ready for cutting into alignment dogs. I think they are going to be pretty awesome. I'm considering making 8 instead of 4.
They still hadn't cut the pipe fully. I went straight to grinding the pipes. I did them all. I hit the valves we were given too. It's clear that I didn't remember much about valves. I need to re-read through these books again. It would be worth my time.
After lunch, we started fitting. While the setup was far longer than it should have taken, the actual fitting went very quickly. Chris and I banged it out. We have very little left to do tomorrow. One 90, a pipe, and some flanges. That's it.
I think it is possible we will be asked to do socket weld or possibly screwpipe for the 1" simulator. We'll see. I think our teacher wants a pretty picture to "show off" to people looking at his program.
!! List 20 things that make you smile.
# Schadenfreude
# My wife's enjoyment of her own puns
## I suppose this just fits that broader set of humorous things I enjoy, like delicious irony, self-reference, farce, and so on and so forth.
## Is this a kind of Schadenfreude of my own pain through my wife's eyes? Empathize with her to the point that I enjoy the pain she inflicts on us with her puns.
# When sexually attractive females kiss
# Dank memes
# Seeing friends or family that I've not seen in a while
# Getting high!<<ref "1">>
## I might argue smiles are always about such things, about being happy (and our happiness just is a set of chemical reactions).
# Often when I'm dancing
## Although, I don't know if it "makes me" smile, I just do.
# When my kids persist through obstacles; when they try again and choose not to give up.
# When I gross loved ones out with a very nasty fart, my disgusting body, or a disturbing meme.
## Schadenfreude.
# When people are stupid in a way that doesn't negatively affect me
## Although, upon reflection, I generally realize their stupidity inevitably, however indirectly, does affect me. So many chaotic butterflies of causality.
# Power dynamics that enslave me into performing physical acts of rhetoric namely forced facial expressions
# Reliving or reminiscing about a particularly good experience
# Any comedic movies, shows, books, audio, cartoons, etc. I've pointed to on this wiki.
## I'd say these are dank memes, but I would also have to point out that memes are the basis of smiling anyways. I'm going to be absurdly redundant, I'm afraid.
# When social conventions are broken that don't negatively affect me.
## Or don't too much, or that I don't recognize immediately, or for some mood I'm in, etc.
# When I'm listening+talking about something I care about tremendously.
## A.k.a. Getting high, again.
# Whenever I feel //clever//.
## Which I take to be something a slightly different from being intelligent or wise; or it is being these in a particular way or context.
# Coitus, Post-coitus, Pre-coitus, etc.
## Sex is a drug.
# Fulfilling existential moments
## Drugs!
# Being a smartass!
## Clever drug-user.
# Did I mention drugs?
## Yes.
---
<<footnotes "1" "I despise the hypocrisy of those who think they are above drugs as if they are motivated by something higher. They are delusional.">>
* [[Wiki Review Log Python Script]]
** I fucking love this script! It makes it pretty, it's easy, and it's actually fun to use. I wish I could integrate external textfiles into wiki pages as well. There seem to be lots of tools I should consider.
* [[Realpolitik Speculation Vault]]
** Yeah, I've stopped writing in it. I shouldn't act like it needs a vault. That said, I'm grateful for having made a vault for it. It was one of the first places that I felt a vault would be necessary. It's how I came to realize I needed logs.
* [[Logs Collection]]
** I'm organizing my projects page. I don't need the logs clogging it up. {Focus} really houses my logs. It's where I focus now, for real. =)
** A vault or failed area would be useful.
* [[2017.06.19 - Link Log]]
** Those links built up over days. Lol.
* [[2017.06.19 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** I haven't done my workout today. My fingers feel like the muscles are pulled.
* [[2017.06.19 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** Edited.
** Lawyered.
* [[2017.06.19 - Diet Log]]
** Summed.
** I thought it was going to be much higher. I felt like I pigged out.
* [[2017.06.19 - Wiki Review Log]]
** Edited.
** Ok. I'm just holding off on the generic resume for now. I still have pipefitting applications to do. The more I look at it, the more I really want to pursue pipefitting and nothing else. I think it's got all the longterm utility.
* [[2017.06.19 - Pipefitting Log]]
** Reminded me to add something today. I've come up with a theory for why we are doing socket welds beyond the valves.
* I had dreams from another night. It was very intense. I woke up feeling exhausted and emotionally drained.
* I woke the kids up and we all started our day.
* My love made lunch for me (she is sweet!), and it was good.
* I worked hard.
* I had to SSH and Tox to get the kids on Pidgin. We squared it though.
* I worked hard.
* I'm getting the feeling that I need to keep a list of contacts in my industry. I started a private wiki for personal information that I consider too private for this wiki. I share it with my family.
* I'm still applying, and I'm not going to be deterred. I have time. We aren't in an emergency. I will succeed!
* When I got home I checked with the kids. They were on task, and they did finish their schoolwork. Yay! They got to go outside and play. That was nice.
* I played a few games of league.
* I surfed.
* I worked on that wiki. It took some time setting it up.
* I upgraded this wiki to a new version.
* My friend ALM is moving to protect his privacy. I will have someone to talk with about it. Yay!
* I had some fireman time.
* I made dinner with my wife, and we ate while watching GoT. Everyone is very excited about the new season coming out in a few weeks.
* I've got a lot of things to accomplish tonight on my [[To-do-list]].
* Plates renewed.
* AB&T letter is all set. I just need to mail it off now.
* Cover letter created, and I added it to my Thompson application. I'll call tomorrow.
I have chosen to be a pipefitter because it runs in my family, I respect the work, and I want to be a craftsman. I enjoy working with my hands; I love looking back at the end of the day and being able to point to something and say to myself "I made that." Pipefitting is honest and satisfying work.
I will soon complete the pipefitting program at TCAT Elizabethton. I'm currently finishing the third NCCER pipefitter training book and exams. I've built several dozen spools with screw pipe, socket welds, and buttwelds. I've also fabricated laterals, saddles, and supports. I have been lucky enough to practice structural welding in my spare time in the shop, as well. Working on our 3D simulator where we draw our isometrics, build the spools, and mount them has been the most rewarding part of the program. In addition to the practical work in the shop and NCCER training certifications, I've earned my OSHA-10 and NC3 Torque certifications.
I am ready and eager to start working, and I hope to hear from you soon about joining your team.
<center> //Paris Waif// [img width=1300 [./images/Waif-Child-Labor.jpg]] </center>
Look at that face and then down to the shoulders. This picture of a child slave kills me. It still exists today, just not as obviously to we the 1% of the World. Out of sight, out of mind.
My tears are from sadness and burning anger.
Capitalism is not the answer. We cannot allow psychopaths to rule us!
I feel powerless. How do I fight?
|customTable|k
|Food|Calories|h
|Wrap|300|
|Apple|100|
|Pear|100|
|Gatorade|130|
|Mandarins|105|
|PB Pretzels|600|
|Brussel Sprouts|80|
|Tomato Soup|50|
|Grilled Cheese|250|
|Cheesecake|360|
|Wine|200|
|Total|2275|f
* https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/06/20/mass-incarceration-prison-labor-in-the-united-states/
** Today, a bunch of prisoners came to take care of the TCAT grounds. Slave labor. I was so disgusted. I am ashamed to attend a school that participates in it.
* http://wakingtimesmedia.com/whistleblower-banker-misery-earth-business-model/
** Slick quote: "All Misery on Earth is a Business Model”
* http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2017/02/how-rich-people-see-the-world-differently.html
** Privilege is strongly correlated with psychopathy. No shit, sherlock.
* https://aeon.co/essays/its-time-to-reboot-the-relationship-between-expertise-and-democracy
** I wish everyone learned philosophy. Epistemology and ethics are keys to our happiness.
* https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-21/america-is-now-a-second-tier-country
** Ah, Bloomberg, and you don't see Capitalism as the problem. You point out effects, but not the causes.
* http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-40344208
** People don't believe it. If it evolves too quickly, not enough people will believe it. Wake up, sheeple!
* https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/15/timothy-morton-anthropocene-philosopher?CMP=share_btn_tw
** Feels like Romantic OOO Panpsychism.
* https://blog.google/topics/google-europe/four-steps-were-taking-today-fight-online-terror/
** Beware the censors, especially those who make money or generate power from it.
* KYS
** https://newrepublic.com/minutes/143423/will-take-senate-10-hours-ram-worst-legislation-living-memory
** https://imgur.com/feZeCaP
** https://i.redd.it/a2tmurvirs4z.jpg
* http://guardfromabove.com/services/
** Sounds like warfare to me.
* https://nbox.notif.me/
** Anti-spam + privacy e-mail signup tool
* http://nautil.us/blog/-the-unusual-language-that-linguists-thought-couldnt-exist
** Can I kiss nautilus' ass any more?
*** Yes.
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUkA-5Vd3E0
** I truly despise the DNC too! Preach to me. Touch me in that confirming my bias way.
* http://nationalpost.com/g00/news/world/gangs-of-aggressive-killer-whales-are-shaking-down-alaska-fishing-boats-for-their-fish-report
** Neat AF!
* https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170620/10455137631/supreme-court-says-you-cant-ban-people-internet-no-matter-what-theyve-done.shtml
** Silly rabbit. Nobody in power actually cares about your right except insofar as it benefits them.
* http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/06/jill-stein-is-starting-to-sound-a-lot-like-donald-trump
** An odd claim, no doubt.
* https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-06-21/the-wrong-kind-of-entrepreneurs-flourish-in-america
** I think I'm beginning to see it. It feels like neoliberalism. Capitalism isn't the enemy. You think we can save it. Assholes.
* https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/why-does-north-korea-keep-photoshopping-kim-jong-uns-ears
** I want me some of dat Tungstène image forensics software.
* https://blog.teller.io/2017/06/12/the-api-for-your-bank-account-is-here.html
** I'm mighty tempted.
Today was fairly different from the usual. When we got there, I heard that we would be cleaning the pipeyard. That's exactly what we did. It took a while. It looks better, but it is still a bunch of piles. Hopefully, we won't have to do it again. I'm thinking we had to clean because it is approaching July 1st, which is the beginning of the fiscal year for the school. Thus, my teacher will have an influx of money. He doesn't seem very good with money, and I'm betting he already knows how he's going to spend large chunks. He's told me a couple of the things he wants to buy so far. Assuming that money is already spent, burning a hole in his future pocket, I can see why he wanted the pipeyard cleaned up.
As part of our cleaning, we had to use the oxyacetylene cutting torch to break down some 14"+ carbon steel pipe for recycling. I got some more practice in. I'm always the first in the class to do something. This is often because I want to make sure I get my hands dirty, but it is also when the others don't feel confident. That art piece for names on a plate, I'm thinking about doing it. I was able to cut an "M" just fine freehand. I need to find some fonts, make some stencils, and do it. My cutting is looking a lot smoother this time around. I get myself comfortable, and I "draw" with it.
I also cut 4 more alignment dog slabs. The teacher saw me doing it, and for the second time in two days, he asked me what I was doing. I explained. He said they should be taller. I asked why. He said because they can break (enormous pressure on these sometimes). He said he would show me his. Eventually he was able to get them out of another instructor's office (who was on vacation). He showed me them. They are half an inch taller than mine, but mine are over half an inch thicker steel plate than his. Lol. If his were fine, I think mine are going to be just fine as well. Frankly, the welds look more likely to break/bend than the carbon steel, and that's even accounting for the fact that the welds are stronger metal than the plate. So, in total, I expect to have 8 alignment dogs. I think they'll be pretty and effective. I'm going to build a few hundred dollars with of tools in the shop. Why not?
I helped both JR and Matt today with their screwpipe projects. Matt had the dominoes effect problem. It was a very simple spool, and I quickly fixed it for/with him. JR needed some counterweight, and he also failed to listen to me on the flange. I told him to tighten it more. He didn't. The teacher checked and the flange made it too long. I keep telling these guys to check their lengths before they ask the teacher to check. They know he's going to do it. Why not nip it in the bud first?
The teacher pulled us all together to show us a jackstand that Chris or Luke had put up on our spool. It was completely extended, and thus it wasn't stable. We fixed it.
We moved onto finishing our 1.5" spool (the first one). One of the flanges wasn't perfect, and the teacher could see it. It may have been that we didn't tighten the bolts enough. We'll see. It was generally level and plumb though. It went on without a hitch. The teacher came by and said, "I guess you are field welding," since we didn't put a flange on the last valve. He said this was actually a good idea in the field anyways, and that we should make our next piece just a tad longer so that we could cut it to fit. He said that cushion can be useful. It sounds to me like he's talking about stovepiping in a minor degree. Ha! That said, I think this is completely reasonable. To my eyes, you do as much of the math as you possibly can, and when the rubber meets the road, that's when you pull your bag of stovepiping tricks out. We constantly do it with our slip-on flanges (which even the book suggests).
As I was worried before, the teacher did notice that pipe that wasn't level on our second 2" buttweld spool. He said that when we field weld our next spool to cut the tacks, adjust it, and retack it. He said to do it on the pipes on both sides of the valve to make sure.
I asked him if we were going to do screwpipe for the last. He said yes, and that we were going to take a picture of our work. I was right.
At the end of day, I called TEC for Wes. They said Wes doesn't answer on that phone, but they gave me his mobile (why?). Wes answered and he said he didn't have work for me. He gave me another number of a guy at Thompson. I've already applied to Thompson, but I will call the guy tomorrow. /fingers crossed. I found a sprinkler fitter position on CL. I think it will pay very poorly, but work is work, eh? I'll apply asap.
!! The top 5 things to do in the city you live.
For whom? Me?
# Using the Internet at home.
# Taking a walk.
# Eating Indian and Mediterranean cuisine.
# Shopping at Aldi
# Swimming
Honestly, there isn't much I care for here besides the beautiful mountains. I love the fresh air when I can get it (and can will myself to do so). I also can't really afford some of the other options.
Kayaking is a big deal around here. Camping to some extent. Not really much else that I think I would adore. I suppose if I were more social that would change. There is magic to play, and perhaps dances and other events to attend. I live within 5-10 miles of at least 2 universities. There's always stuff to do there.
Maybe I need to open up. I know I've serious depressive tendencies. I will think on it.
* [[Planning Life in General]]
** And...now I needed my [[To-do-list]]. I brought it back to projects as a notepad.
* [[2017.06.20 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** Cheesecake is amazing.
* [[2017.06.20 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** What isn't about drugs?
* [[2017.06.20 - Diet Log]]
** Making yourself fat. This is not the drug you should abuse!
* [[2017.06.20 - Wiki Review Log]]
** Pipefitting applications await!
* [[2017.06.20 - Pipefitting Log]]
** I'm very excited about building tools. I want a full arsenal! Don't forget about dealing with AB&T on the 1st!
* [[Cryptocurrency Casino]]
** An interesting plan. The math needs work.
* [[2017.06.20 - Link Log]]
** There are many strengths to living the US as well. I think there are several apocalyptic scenarios in which I prefer the US to Europe for my family (and vice versa, I suppose).
* My dreams were difficult again last night. I woke up fairly tired, but I woke up before the alarm clock (7 minutes).
* I got the kids and had them start on their work.
* I worked very hard today. Sweaty as fuck and tired!
* I talked to my family and even ALM at lunch. Lunch was special, I had fries and the meat of a burger.
* I worked hard.
* I called Thompson. No go. I will keep trying.
* I called MB, no go.
* I called Charlie. We talked.
** He said he meant to call me back, but it got so late he felt awkward about it? I told him not to worry.
** We talked about physics. He paid me an enormous compliment in my book; he said I was the first person to understand what he was saying about an idea from CERN he had been pondering.
** We talked about computers. He needs one. He wants to play with Python more, but his computer is literally from 1998? (hard to believe).
** I recommended a new computer, linux, and OpenCL/Cuda since he loves to draw mathematical objects and complex things.
* My daughter lost her computer somehow in the house. I helped her look for it. We still haven't' found it. Good news: we got some cleaning done.
* I picked my wife up from work.
* I played couple games of league.
* Fireman time! Woot Woot!
* Gyros for dinner.
* We found my daughter's laptop.
** It was in the last place we looked!
* More league, wine, and chillaxing.
* My wife and I agreed to forego the Pact tonight.
|customTable|k
|Food|Calories|h
|Apple|100|
|Burger|400|
|Fries|300|
|Cole slaw|90|
|Mandarin|35|
|Pear|100|
|Gyros|1020|
|Cheesecake|360|
|Wine|250|
|Chocolate|125|
|Brussel Sprouts|60|
|Sorbet|140|
|Total|2980|f
* https://github.com/m0rtem/CloudFail
** Interesting doxxing/information gathering tool.
* https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/06/help-eff-track-progress-ai-and-machine-learning
** For every mistake I've seen the EFF make (on IP usually), they do 20 things right. I feel so indebted to them. We all should.
* https://medium.com/numerai/an-ai-hedge-fund-goes-live-on-ethereum-a80470c6b681
** Let me tell you: it feels like science fiction.
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CySzoJFkTA8&feature=share
** Even Russia calls us out on it. I'm sure there is a reason. Does it destabilize us further telling at least part of the truth here?
* http://sites.math.rutgers.edu/~zeilberg/mamarim/mamarimPDF/hersh90.pdf
** Interesting and humorous.
* http://www.foxbusiness.com/features/2017/06/21/wal-mart-to-vendors-get-off-amazons-cloud.html
** Yes, I see "Fox" and I shiver.
** The war between Wal-mart and Amazon continues.
* https://aldaily.com/
** Interesting aggregator
* https://longform.org/
** Also an interesting source of content.
* KYS
** https://inbound.org/
* https://pipefitter.com/
** Going in the library
*** Nm! Was already there.
Today was quite productive. I immediately started working on my alignment dogs. I had 8 blocks cut out. I did some measuring and marking, and then I started cutting with the portaband saw. My teacher saw me doing this, and he confronted me. He was disappointed that I didn't take his advice on making them taller.
He seemed to ignore the fact that most of them were already cut before he said they weren't tall enough. At that point, I thought it would be fine to just keep them matching. I'm also convinced, after looking at his, that mine will be just fine. I have over double the thickness of his dogs.
I think he felt disrespected. He's not a man interested in rational argumentation. I tried to offer my reason for me why I thought my alignment dogs would perform at least well enough. He said they'd work, but it isn't what he wanted. He told me his dogs were just an example. I should have done as he said not as he did, I guess. He called my alignment dogs "beefy" and I think he felt like I had wasted this very thick scrap plate by cutting them short as well (but, I think it was mostly the respect issue).
/shrug, it is what it is.
I kept on trucking. It took all morning to cut them, clean them, and make them safe to handle. I think they look excellent. I'm pretty convinced they will do the job. I'm considering asking the CNC class to drill the holes through my alignment dogs and thread them too. I think that would make them really special. We'll see if they can safely do so. I only have 1" plate, and I probably need 1.5" plate to really do it. I could grow them with welds (I could make buttresses too!). I'll have to think about it. I'm missing the necessary bolts/threaded rods to move any further anyway.
My teacher decided to spend his time with us in the shop (quite rare) working on a project for another building. He even had me cut some aluminum sheets for him for his project. I didn't mind. I'm not sure if this was meant as a punishment or a way of mending, or nothing at all. It was difficult to read.
While I was working on the dogs, I also bounced back and forth to my group working on the 1.5" socket weld spool for the simulator. I was letting them do the drawing and initial measurements. I've done it many times, and I think it is fine for me to sit this one out. They have dozens of times. That said, every time I would visit, they were waiting with questions for me to answer. I clearly had to help them visualize it, do the harder measurements, and do the math as well. They got there, eventually.
They started cutting pipe, slowly. Chris managed to do very little today. He was straight up lazy. He had no intention of working on the project if I wasn't doing it with him. Lol. He kept making fun of Luke who was working on the fittings. I told him that I was here to practice, and I admired what Luke was doing. Hell, that's what I was doing too. I'm not sure what has gotten into Chris. He seems to be disillusioned.
Chris cut pipe, and I did the grind work for all but two of the pipes. I'm very fast (and safe!). I think I could outpace the next two fastest students combined. Luke wanted to restart because the pipe was a thicker schedule than usual (probably Schedule 80), and he noticed halfway through that his fittings weren't fitting on his pipes. They fit on mine though. He clearly wasn't grinding much. I thought it would be far more work to start over than just grinding a bit more off his. The rusty pipes are a pain in the ass, I grant. But, moving from tigerpaw to nice thick disks handles the problem just fine.
After lunch, our teacher took Chris and me into his office. He explained that he would be calling one of his old bosses at Jacobs, a man that was fairly high up, to try and find us jobs at Jacobs. He said he wanted a picture of our current simulator to send him. He also said, /drumroll please, that we needed to finish our books very quickly. Rofl! He was almost panicked about it. He said that we really needed to finish that third book as soon as possible so that we looked better in front of the guy hiring us. Lol. Mind you, this was my argument weeks ago. This is a reversal of his command from the middle of last week. Now he seems to agree with me. Lol! What is happening?
I'm thinking my teacher is finally realizing that he is coming to the end of what he can provide us in this class. He doesn't want to do the 4th book either. We are miles ahead of anyone who has ever come through his class except for people who have been pipefitters for years (and we still destroy them on isometrics and doing it the "right way").
I need to make up for this "disrespect." My wife says chocolate and alcohol might be gay appearing. But, who doesn't love chocolate and alcohol? I need to find another way. I'll think about it. Ingratiating myself is perfectly reasonable; it maximizes my utility. Would I suck a dick for a million dollars? Fuck yeah, I would. Give me all the dicks; fit those pipes in my mouth. Shit, I'd suck a (clean) dick for $10k at this point. That would change our lives. Being a teacher's pet costs me far less at this point.
I forgot to mention, JR was just sitting with us all day and screwing around on his welding. He doesn't push for things to do. I kept trying to suggest he follow the path that our teacher and the welding Instructor, Dale, had set for me (and the rest of the welders). He wasn't having any of it. My suggestions fell on deaf ears. JR's entire family welds. He's convinced he's good at it already and going to master it next week when he visits them in Florida. His peer Matt, dumb as he is, is a much better welder than JR. Matt doesn't let on how much experience he has. He is a true southerner.
Luke did the tacking, and I did the fitting. Chris let me do the fitting since he realized I don't get as much practice as he does. We did make a mistake. Ultimately, it doesn't matter who hands me the pipe, I'm responsible as the fitter for everything. So, I made the mistake. I should have double-checked. It was a very easy mistake to fix though. They walked away while I did the grind work, and I switched it the other way. Boom, 3 minutes.
The teacher had to leave early, so we had to clean up and leave early as well.
Also, my teacher said something odd at the end of the day. He asked me if I was going to show up next week because he said (I believe he said) he wouldn't be here. I'm not sure why. These were the student holidays we were to supposed to "make up" for (since we took off earlier last week when we weren't supposed to). Uhhh...Dereliction of duty, sir. He said it was fine if I came in, and he encouraged me to go to the welding class. I have to admit, I'm not sure if anyone is going to be there though since I assuming the welding class will be gone. Am I just straight up missing next week? That would be so weird.
I should leave some tools out of the toolroom for myself. I need access to do things.
Also, I called up the Thompson number. It wasn't a direct line. I'm beginning to learn it never is.
Also, the sprinkler job is in Knoxville. =/ Might as well go Boilermakers at that. I'm going to hit up the plumbers in the area. I have plenty to learn, but I know my pipefitting will be useful to them.
!! Write a letter to your daughter about body image.
This is a tough one for me to write.
My Kantian self, KIN, strongly believes that the way we appear is morally arbitrary and irrelevant to our dignity. If we are being completely rational, body image should play no factor in how and why we respect persons. That is the obvious base starting point. The journey away from it is heartbreaking.
RPIN, the pragmatist and realist, will tell you that body image matters. However irrational it may seem at first, there are too many prudential and instrumental reasons to care about it. This is the last thing a father wants to tell his daughter. I don't want to tell you the world is evil and that people are irrational. I don't want to tell you that you will be exploited, dismissed, used, and treated differently based upon your appearances. I'm horrified to explain how our animal instincts override what semblance of the reason we have cobbled together; the evolutionary advantages of body image are simply too great to ignore. One must do the utilitarian math, even KIN.
You put on your war paint, you dress for the occasion, and you meet people's expectations about your appearance because people will not provide the respect to you that you already deserve without it. It is rhetoric. However disgusting it may be, we must engage in it. In fact, Eudaimonia in the human species, unfortunately, requires being virtuous at the practice of shaping our image.
I must tell you that body images everywhere are distorted, they are lies, and they are drugs for us to consume. People make money off body image; everyone does. Capitalism exploits it profoundly. Unfortunately, I believe we must "whore ourselves" out. Those who naturally evolved to be this way (not because they have well-thought-out moral reasons for it, but because they are just naturally inclined to be prudent and want to be popular, etc.) probably don't feel like they whore themselves out in this respect. That might be a difference here. I am sorry.
Know who you are and why you do what you do. You have a goal: Eudaimonia. You will not let the evil fools of our species interfere with your happiness any more than you have to. You must play hardball against the lizard brains in the human species. You must treat the non-reasonable parts of humans as they are: non-reasonable. You do not have to respect the irrationality of humans, but you do need to navigate through it.
The aesthetic aspect is beautiful, sexy, and interesting. Enjoy it. Know what you engage in. Body image, again, is a kind of drug. Be wise with your drugs. Understand them, control them, and use them to maximize your happiness in the right way, at the right time, for the right reasons, and so on and so forth.
Body image affects women, men, and others in profound and sometimes unintuitive ways. You must study this topic. You must understand what makes us tick. None of us escape the vortex.
The news isn't all bad. You will feel better about yourself, on average, the better looking you are. You will be more likely to attract a mate which provides you higher utility returns the more attractive you are. On average, you will have an easier time maneuvering through society, getting the job you want, and people will treat you more kindly and charitably if you are beautiful. Competence and rationality are necessary but not sufficient for success in a world of humans.
We spend time studying cosmetology in school for these reasons. It is crucial that you feel comfortable and proficiently skilled in these practices. It needs to be gutturally natural to you, even if you reject it.
People suck. I'm so sorry, love. I had too much faith in humanity when I first created you. I did not realize, I could not believe, that you would really have to undergo this. You have every right to blame me for this. I am at least partially responsible for this tragic state of affairs you find yourself in. I cannot shield you from the moral ugliness of the world, but I will fight for your happiness.
It is important that you are healthy, that you love yourself, and that you find the means to your ends. I want you to know that I love you regardless of how you appear. If you were a brain in a vat, I would love you. You are my daughter.
* [[2017.06.21 - Cry Log]]
** Pictures can be haunting.
* [[Cover Letter]]
** It's kind of shitty, too generalized, and there isn't enough specified ass-kissing in it.
* [[2017.06.21 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** That was a productive day!
* [[2017.06.21 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** I was talking to my friend ALM about this today. We are homebodies, no doubt. But, even he agreed that it is good for us to force ourselves into the world. It's true.
* [[2017.06.21 - Diet Log]]
** Summed.
* [[2017.06.21 - Wiki Review Log]]
** I was thinking about this log in the car today. I think it provides a very unique context to how I give shape to the wiki and myself. It's a running dialogue with myself that I'm pleased is there even if only for posterity's sake. That said, I think it is more useful than that!
* [[2017.06.21 - Pipefitting Log]]
** Edited.
* [[2017.06.21 - Link Log]]
** Try convincing anyone that those who "succeed" in our world inevitably are those with the lowest degrees of empathy (particularly in the right ways at the right time). There is a virtue to being wealthy, and that requires significant moral vices. I hold you all accountable for your willed ignorance and malice. Fucking assholes.
* Morning Glory because I woke up early!
* I woke the kids up. They had a harder time waking up.
** It's wonderful getting hugs from everyone in the mornings after I get back from work, and before bed. I love my family! It's gotta be one of my favorite parts of my day.
* I worked hard today, and I spent a lot of time thinking.
* I helped catch baby ducklings stuck in a very dense thicket/garden of flowers that is walled off in the center of campus. Great place to hatch them, except that they couldn't escape (can't jump the 6 inches to clear the concrete barrier). I rarely touch animals except for my cats, especially not of my own volition. It was cute though, and it needed my rescuing. I found the duckling's mom and placed the duckling carefully nearby. The duckling ran to its mom. It was sweet.
* I spent time at the union today. Got to know a few guys and talk about it with them. Also, I crushed some kids' dream who had been welding for years (6 months in the union); he quickly stopped giving me pointers after he saw my stringer. It was a hilarious moment. My "humility" (i.e. socially hidden gifts and talents) drops jaws sometimes. Who doesn't like that feeling?
* Picked up steaks and mushrooms for my wife's Birthday.
** Happy Birthday, love!
*** While I wish most humans never existed, I will always be grateful and happy that you were born, that you are with me, that you are with us!
* I made a small pizza, played some league, surfed, and wrote.
* Fireman time!
* I talked to JOP, answering some questions she asked me in an e-mail.
* I made a feast for my wife's birthday. It was truly excellent. We got tipsy too!
* We watched an episode of Game of Thrones and chillaxed. The family stayed up late.
* I did some troubleshooting with my friend ALM on linux.
* I watched a bit of Rick and Morty before falling asleep.
|customTable|k
|Food|Calories|h
|Pizza|780|
|Steak|700|
|Potatoes|420|
|Brussel Sprouts|60|
|Onions|20|
|Mushrooms|40|
|Cheesecake|720|
|Whiskey|240|
|Wine|200|
|Total|3180|f
!! How is your health? Daily routine?
I'm doing well. I'm probably eating too much, and I'm having odd dreams. Also, I've noticed tingling sensations in my feet at night. I think it has something to do with how I'm laying at night. That's a bad sign. I have terrible circulation.
I've been experiencing plenty of thought loops.
---
!! What happened? How do you feel about it? What made you feel this way? Does it make you happy or unhappy? Why or why not?
I'm feeling anxious about my "next step." I feel a bit like I'm in limbo like I don't have a solid gameplan like I don't know where I am going, and I feel like I'm under significant pressure to know immediately.
Finding work hasn't been easy. I feel like electricians, mechanics, and welders have an easier time finding a job. I still have options. I'm not in an insane rush. But, our car isn't doing well. We have money, but it dwindles.
---
!! Can you better explain what happened? Do you have a technological, philosophical, empathic, or redpilled story to tell about the phenomenon? Clarify the narrative you just told yourself.
I still don't have a solid grasp of this economic landscape. I don't know how things work. I'm still learning. I do have time to learn. It's okay to feel anxious! Use it as a motivational tool. Keep working hard!
It's important to maintain empathy for those around you while particularly the ones you love.
Welders either have the certs and can weld, or they can't at all. It's binary. In a way, you practice before you can, and then it floods in on you. It's also the only skill that I can practice on my own at home (once I get a machine). The others require a kind of field experience which one doesn't merely pick up in isolation. I feel like welding should be the art I learn on the side, even if it I may end up doing it for a living. But, I may be wrong! It seems to be the area I have the most to learn in right now.
---
!! What are you going to do about what happened?
* I will continue to try and get my Ethereum account back. I have a significant amount of money sitting in there. It was a very wise investment. Admittedly, I feel like it is too early to take it out still. But, we could use it!
* I will apply to the electrician's union.
* I will apply the boiler maker's union.
* I'll keep pushing in my welding.
** I need to practice making roots.
Today's day was longer than usual. I studied for an easy test and nailed it. I have two more tests left in this book. There is only one more book left if we do it.
Oh, I also helped catch baby ducklings stuck in a very dense thicket/garden of flowers that is walled off in the center of campus. There were several of us working on it. I told empathy and evolution stories to these people of the duckling in this context. Great place to hatch them, except that they couldn't escape. I rarely touch animals except for my cats, especially not of my own volition. It was cute though, and it needed my rescuing. I found the duckling's mom and placed her carefully nearby. The duckling ran to her mom. It was sweet. Furthermore, I believe it endeared me to the staff and admin on campus. I had three people thank me.
While the teacher was busy, I grabbed a bunch of tools and supplies for next week. Just in case he doesn't show up, I'll have the stuff to work with. It is easier to ask for forgiveness than for permission. In a way, when confronted with the liability, responsibility, or possibilities of effort, people are too likely to say no. If they deal with it after the fact, especially if they already like you to some extent, they will be charitable enough to brush it off and think you did what you had to do.
After school, I went to visit the union. I'm putting my time in. Randy knew my name today. They were working on a neat beveling device, trying to get it working. There were two apprentices with him today practicing. One was an ex-marine who came in as a 4th-year apprentice, a welder. He was practicing TIG. He was okay but didn't belong in the same league as the star pupil of Dale in the TCAT program. The other guy looked like a redneck Cypher from The Matrix (similar personality characteristics too). He joined 6 months ago as a welder. I think he came in as a 3rd-year apprentice.
Both guys said not to mention the technical school to anyone since it would be held against me. I think that's funny, since I'm very convinced, at least for welding, that the technical school welders, on average, were miles better than these guys were. I watched and talked with both.
The second guy, Jeremy, was going to show me the ropes of welding. He asked if I could try, but Randy said no to him (while I was gone getting my stuff). He said he'd let me anyway, and to just hand him the welding torch if anyone came by. He talked a lot.
He said being an apprentice sucks, but the pay is great. He said our union was filled with really good people though. They've helped him out in tight spots and were there for him in difficult social situations. That's good to hear. He also said it is easier to find work as a welder than a fitter, especially if you've studied all the different types/kinds and are certified for it. His claim was that all welders can fit, but after seeing his explanation of the table he created, I'm not so sure he would be able to just whip out serious pipefitting from isometric to spool, nor the rigging and mounting that comes after. He definitely has some shit-talking in him.
He showed me how to drop stringers and explained his thought process. He had some good points. I then showed him what I was made of. The crust flaked right off, and my gorgeous bead stunned him. He said it was perfect, that they were better than his, and he obviously had nothing to teach me. Said he would kill to weld like that. Mind you, I did give him my absolute best, in my best position, using a temp higher than I normally would.
He told me to learn to drop roots, practicing just that. He says my hotpasses, fillers, and caps would be amazing if they are anything like my stringer. He's right. Once I master the root, I'll have everything I need to pass the certifications for welding structural plate, imho. In fact, he said if he were me, where I'm at, I should just skip straight to pipe. I really suck at pipe. But, if I could stick weld pipe, I would be in great shape.
He gave me some parts to practice the walk-the-cup motion on TIG.
I'm thinking I'll follow my teacher's advice here; maybe I should just weld next week. Although, I need to pass those tests too. I think building a connection alignment pin would be worthwhile. Practicing my roots is really key. So much to do, so little time!
If I can pass the stick welding tests for both plate and pipe, I will dramatically increase the jobs available to me. I'm not sure how to broach the subject with my pipefitting teacher, nor how to convince AB&T to buy a welding machine for me.
It's difficult to see the correct direction to take! I have many options. I would be excellent at all of them. Again, the union looks like a great place to continue learning all the trades.
!! Champion an organization
People suck, especially when they are interacting with each other. I rarely have respect for organizations. That said, I am grateful a few exist as they are (for the most part!). I highly recommend The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF): https://www.eff.org/. They do good work. They preserve digital, intellectual, technological, and adjacent human rights through western legal systems. They aren't perfect, but I have respect for what they do and why they do it.
I don't give money to organizations anymore for the most part (my trust fuse is burned out), but EFF is one of the few I will continue to give money to. If there is any hope for humanity, and the masses, in particular, it will be through organizations like the EFF fighting the psychopaths of our world.
I suppose I don't know how to champion an organization. Champion to whom? Convincing myself is easy. Explaining why the EFF is so valuable to others requires convincing them of their stupidity, generally on a multitude of subjects and levels. Oh, I can put forth a rational argument. That's not what this is about though. Their very foundations are so profoundly wrong and ignorant that I'm putting the cart before the horse even trying to champion the EFF to them. These people already "know" what they think they need to know. Good luck closing that incommensurable gap.
Explaining what is good and right about the EFF requires having Theories of The Good and The Right in the first place (and the will be to be philosophical). For my audience, we aren't going to agree, and I'm not going to lie. I think there's no point to it. To be fair, I think some of those who support the EFF don't even get what's great about the EFF; they support it for the wrong reasons or for incomplete reasons.
My championing is only effective for people who were already fairly close to agreeing with me in the first place, and that is generally quite rare.
I'm sure you think that's "just a fine attitude, indeed" don't you Samwise Gamgee? Go fuck yourself, you sarcastic piece of shit. Welcome to the epistemological and ethical nature of fundamental disagreement. To an overwhelming degree, I'm not responsible for the willed-ignorance of others. That's true today more than it has ever been. Finding the truth today has far less to do with the Socratic method and public discourse in a traditional sense than it does with curating, bursting your information bubbles, and critical analysis on your own. The information is easily obtained. Having the intellectual integrity is the hard part. Sifting through it, thinking about it, and being wise is on the individual, and my obligations to you and others are fairly limited outside of my citizenship (of which, I'm fairly powerless).
I'll quietly plant seeds and cultivate those ready to drink my kool-aid, but I'm not here to be a prophet. Most of you assholes deserve to suffer (of course, I don't want humans to suffer, but part of me thinks you should reap what you've sown).
The days when people come up to me charitably asking questions and listening to me for understanding is when I will bend over backward to connect the dots for them. I'm done sacrificing myself for humanity (which doesn't deserve to live) beyond what I believe is morally required of us all.
Championing is a weasel word for rhetoric, not philosophy. KYS, Samwise Gamgee. I'm not playing that game unless I can reasonably improve the lives of my children and family with it, and even then, I do so in disgust. I'm avoiding that game whenever possible. Not my circus, not my monkeys. I have no more spoons to give.
* [[DIY Pipefitter Tools]]
** I think the wedge might not be relevant. I'll just take an old one and clean it up.
** The Centering head seems damned useful. I should build it.
** The Fit-up Connecting pin (hooked preferably) is also a tool I need.
** But, I need to weld too!
* [[2017.06.22 - Link Log]]
** I think I still have a serious link problem. I'm not sure how I want to handle it. I need to think.
* [[2017.06.22 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** Seems like a good day to me! Well-seized, sir.
* [[2017.06.22 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** Edited.
** That's a prompted introspection! You don't get gold every time, but sometimes you will strike upon it.
* [[2017.06.22 - Diet Log]]
** That was not a healthy day.
* [[2017.06.22 - Wiki Review Log]]
** I need to get over ass-kissing. This is an RPIN and KIN issue, no doubt.
* [[2017.06.22 - Pipefitting Log]]
** Edited.
* Woke up late, noice!
* Set out the kids chores for them, grabbed my glasses, and surfed in bed for a bit.
* Got laid! Woot Woot!
* Helped my kids clean their room and get on task. We had, yet again, a significant discussion about working hard, empathizing with ourselves, etc.
** I was particularly hard on my daughter who continuously lies to me. =(
*** I'd take the lying if she (a) was improving at it, and (b) actually worked hard
* I took a massive dump and got some sweet reading time in. I rarely have significant brick-pushing sessions anymore, but after last nights party, I had some duty to do.
* We went swimming!
* I'm still reading that [[In Over Our Heads: The Mental Demands of Modern Life]] book.
* I grafted a bunch of bookmarks into my [[Links]] section.
* I watched some league of legends games.
* We went over the kids' schoolwork this week.
** I'm feeling pleased with my son's effort, but not my daughter's. I'm worried, but not overly.
* We had a great dinner.
* I did the kitchen with my daughter.
* I've decided I need to call the landlord tomorrow for a small leak. I don't see the source.
* I watched some Rick and Morty before falling asleep.
|customTable|k
|Food|Calories|h
|Eggs and Toast|320|
|Brussel Sprouts|60|
|Pear|100|
|Hummus, Pita chips, and Olives|500|
|Tikka Malasa|650|
|Sorbet|260|
|Beer|100|
|Total|1990|f
* http://uk.reuters.com/article/us-gambling-usa-dummies-exclusive-idUKKBN19D137
** Neat. You have my attention.
* http://tratt.net/laurie/blog/entries/what_challenges_and_trade_offs_do_optimising_compilers_face.html
** An interesting blog post.
*** Interesting phrase: local maxima
* https://m.phys.org/news/2017-06-year-old-physics-problem.html
** I'm no expert. That sounds like a big deal.
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAojxWZRVKk
** Wholesome memes. I often think these people seek fantasy as a drug.
* https://melmagazine.com/why-fewer-lower-class-americans-are-getting-married-4a8f64812391
** We know.
* http://nautil.us/issue/49/the-absurd/why-your-brain-hates-other-people
** I need to write on this topic. I think there are some serious redpilled issues to sort through.
** Yet again, Nautilus delivers!
* http://www.businessinsider.com/r-saft-on-wealth-as-psychopath-ceos-destroy-value-nice-ones-create-it-james-saft-2017-6
** Fool. They are all psychopaths on the spectrum!
** This is image crafting and an attempt to hide that psychopathy.
* https://hbr.org/2016/08/millennials-are-actually-workaholics-according-to-research
** Not surprised.
* https://i.redd.it/i4erzsuqndwy.jpg
** It's only going to get worse.
* https://www.reddit.com/r/DeepIntoYouTube/top
** Not boring. Not worth much of your time though.
* https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-22/there-could-be-ketamine-in-your-natural-chicken
** As a ketamine analogue user, I can't help but laugh. Definitely odd.
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNT1L3jGjbA
** Prescient
* http://money.cnn.com/2017/06/23/media/white-house-press-briefing-sketch-artist/index.html
** Yikes!
* https://www.theatlas.com/charts/HJFYm4uQ-
** Fascinating and sad.
* https://www.ostechnix.com/easy-fast-way-share-files-internet-command-line/
** While I appreciate what this tool is, I want more decentralized tools. I don't want to rely upon others to do these basic tasks.
* https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/07/whats-wrong-with-the-democrats/528696/
** Unfortunately, some serious lies in this article. Bernie easily would have won the nomination if it weren't for DNC super-delegates claiming allegiance to Clinton from the beginning. It was very clear from the onset that DNC was going to fight against Bernie every step of the way rather than rallying behind his clearly superior base of support. This is neoliberalism.
* http://www.salon.com/2017/06/24/manufactured-illiteracy-and-miseducation-a-long-process-of-decline-led-to-president-donald-trump/
** Marxist tunnel vision on material conditions is flawed in a sense. It lacks the memetic viewpoint.
* https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-23/google-will-stop-reading-your-emails-for-gmail-ads
** Don't be naive.
* https://blockstack.org/whitepaper.pdf
** It seems to only be part of a solution.
* http://olduse.net/blog/current_usenet_map/
** A cool part of history.
* http://cancer.nautil.us/article/225/getting-googled-by-your-doctor-is-the-new-normal
** Until I understand more about how my information is used against me, I will continue to avoid the standard channels as much as I can.
* http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2017/06/24/533950485/devos-appoints-ceo-of-a-student-loan-company-to-head-federal-aid-agency?sc=tw
** Yup. We're in for it.
I need to go through my books, highlight everything, and read the chapters this weekend. It's important that I smash through it. There is a possibility that my teacher will be expecting me to take the exams on Monday and Tuesday, and I want to complete them.
I will focus on making a couple tools and dropping my roots. I need to get my stick welding up to snuff. I want to weld and fit!
!! Three celebrity crushes...
All the tough questions and prompts for me today. This one is tough only because it is hard to narrow down. My wife has agreed to threesomes with any of these females should the occasion arise.
Do you mean something besides fuckability for a crush? Is it the appearance of who they are, who I really take them to be? I think they are terrible human beings. Fuck? Yes. Crush? No. Back to what matters here, the drug itself.
# //Carice van Houten// as Lady Melisandre of Asshai, The Red Woman, from Game of Thrones is a perfect 10. But, Carice van Houten isn't as hot in other roles. Carice generally isn't a perfect 10. It's the atmosphere, the makeup, the context, and the way The Red Woman carries herself that makes me so horny.
# //Salma Hayek//. God damn! I have spilled a lot of seed to this woman. I think she is a terrible actress, and her characters are generally annoying and not believable. That's part of her schtick I guess. Regardless, she's insanely hot.
# //Lucy Liu//. She's a stunner. Oddly, I often love her characters/roles, and I don't mind her acting (not that it is good, but it works for me). She gives me the yellow fever.
* [[2017.06.23 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** Edited.
* [[2017.06.23 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** Edited.
* [[2017.06.23 - Diet Log]]
** Edited and summed.
** It was a party night. That said, it feels like my calorie consumption has been increasing. We will find out when I average the end of the month.
* [[2017.06.23 - Wiki Review Log]]
** I hope to work on my links today. Once I get it done, it will be done. Or, at least that stage will never have to be completed again.
* [[2017.06.23 - Pipefitting Log]]
** Edited.
* [[2017.06.23 - h0p3's Log]]
** Edited. It is clear that I'm feeling lost. I don't know what my next step is. I keep digging and thinking. I'm working hard. Here's another way to think about it. You didn't expect to have a job until the end of the year. You are over 6 months ahead; you've smashed the initial goals you set for yourself. You should be feeling happy. Keep it up!
* What does "felt lucky" mean? Describe it.
** His explanation was a good one.
* Keep working on your DnD character!
* You did a great job on your wiki this week.
** Except, your "Cat-a-log" needs to be parsed out for each day.
* Woke up, shut the door, fireman time!
* I woke up really early, so I was actually the first one downstairs. I surfed while people trickled down.
* I watched a bit of league too!
* After everyone left, I took my DCK and watched Rick and Morty until it started to hit.
* I was already set up to meditate in my room. That's what I did.
** It was hard work, and I'm glad I did it.
* The family arrived before my meditation ended.
* My son showed me what he and his sister had made in Sunday school. It was cute and interesting. He put on a show.
* I came downstairs and finished my DCK writing.
* My daughter started her schoolwork, and my son went out to play (since he had finished his).
* I set up power and ethernet cords around the house.
* I tried calling the Landlord (corporate HQ really), but nobody answered. I'll try again tomorrow.
* We went shopping for groceries. It went by quickly, and it was fun.
* We put groceries away. My son came back to help us.
** We've been giving him more roaming freedom.
** He now marks on the chalkboard where he is in addition to telling us.
* We made chili and cornbread for later in the evening.
* I made the sexy times with mi amor.
** I am surprised that I can achieve it through the DCK afterglow now.
** It is possible the effects are weakening on me. In any case, things seem to be working.
* My wife and I talked. We planned our DND game.
* I planned and wrote about it. Everyone had a blast building characters.
** The kids were excited to the point of being rude actually.
* We had our family meeting while we ate.
* I chatted briefly with my friend ALM.
* I'm writing this, getting some water, and gonna watch some Rick and Morty while I try to fall asleep.
** DCK's ability to prevent me from sleeping is still there.
** I will assume it is harder for DCK to disassociate me now. I believe I am more integrated than I was.
The Us vs. Them mentality is powerful, pervasive, and I'm not sure it is escapable. This meme is so strong and so embedded in who we are that I'm convinced it's not merely software, but perhaps even part of our hardware. We are hardwired for it. That said, there is always "Faith in Humanity," the hope that we can evolve to be better than we are, etc. Can we modify, control, self-legislate for our Tribal Firmware?
I don't know.
I feel like my Tribalism has increased, but I'm not surprised (about to be 32 here). It crystallized and the circle tightens. Call it wisdom, call it psychopathy. I don't know what to call it. It seems prudent. I hope to draw these lines in a way that I won't regret, to draw them in a way that maximizes our utility, in a way that makes us happy. I can't be perfect, but I should do my best. I do have enemies. However hard it can be to imagine someone wanting to kill me, enslave me, or make me suffer, I do have them. They come in various degrees and kinds. They come in large structures, institutions, and patterns. DJ Dr. Suess, drop a beat! Where be mah redpilled kid's book at?
There are many different sets in our object-oriented ontology. I'm a member of many sets. But, I feel like only some of these sets count as social spheres in which Tribal lines are drawn and understood.
It is difficult to treat myself and humanity with respect at the same time. The deontic contradictions and systematic incoherences abound. Kantianism is a form of Tribalism. There are other metaethical tribal structures to consider as well. How do I know which Walzerian Spheres of Justice are more important? How do I balance, negotiate, and make sense of them?
---
Write because you care about what you think. You should, and you do. It is not immorally egotistical, self-centered, etc. Do not be ashamed of it. Clear that out of your head. Your arrangement of memes comprises who you are. To say you matter is to say that configuration of memes matters. You are what you think. Well, you are what you think in a consistent, habitual way. Or, maybe you are the thinking thing in all its particularities, including the patterns and exceptions. Regardless, I think who we are is still largely defined by how we believe (both gutturally through desire and through our frontal lobes). Simulations show who we really are: a memetic network, a computer, etc.
---
It is a lonely thought that few if any will want to understand what I believe, will want to get to know me. In a way, I lack marketability. I don't have what people are looking for. Again, egoism pervades our species.
---
I want my kids to be wise. As a means to that end, I think they must be absurdly educated. They need to see that the educational institutions around them are overidealized. There are many cults integrated into them. That said, being someone who navigates through these cults will pickup many valuable tools and experiences.
It's not just education institutions either. It's all institutions, relationships, and organizations. Members seeking entry into a tribe pay tribute, they sacrifice, and they pay their dues. There is a tax on the poor, a capitalism to this tribalism. Sadly, even our educational institutions and infrastructure have it as well (they always have!). What say you, Plato? Handjobs for Wisdom, right?
---
I am grateful to my parents for the memes they have provided me to survive. I am entitled to them, no doubt. They didn't fuck everything up, but it only takes a handful of mistakes to ruin everything.
---
The world is so fragmented and large. It is chaos. I sound like an old-timer. I have this idea in my head, and as I expand my understanding of the world, see it for what it really is, I grow conservative.
----
While I see it sober, I am drowned more clearly in it on DCK. I perceive ontology differently through it.
I see:
* strings.
* wells.
* pin-holes with infinite pressure behind them.
* sinews twisting.
* atoms, molecules, and structures within structures, and overlapping structures. Thar' be the Metaphysical Dynamics.
** Why is my ontological status normatively superior? Ah, I cannot answer you, OOO. Because that's what I do?// **Hume "IS/OUGHT" Battle Hymn**//
* the machinations, the gears, systems, paradigms
* that I do not see clearly enough.
---
Evolution does have power embedded in it.
I love and fear that feeling like I'm a blip. Like I'm a cell.
---
I want to be a visionary. I want to see the truth. I'm a philosopher only because I want to know.
I must do so in the right way, at the right time, for the right reasons, etcetera, etcetera, and so on and so forth. I should not sacrifice that which is most precious for it. I must be virtuous in my pursuit of the truth.<<ref "1">>
---
I have tasted metal 3 times in the past month of DCK use. It is sharp. I need to ask about this. I must research it. I need to think. That is not a natural flavor at all. It may be a benign effect of DCK, or could be something worse.
---
I feel like I'm building battlebots of my children. I want to equip them to fight the world. They must be gladiators. They must be chameleons. If I humbly serve as a philosopher king, I think of them as something like Plato's Guardians. The analogy has tons of problems, I realize. Something is right about it. It's hard to isolate the signal.
I need highly trained, jedi, mentat assassin, renaissance man, kwisatz haderach (still in my father's language), 1337 hacker, chameleon gladiators. I must work with their strengths, shore up their weaknesses. I'm making an army with the right power dynamics, autonomy, love, and empathy.
I want us to be the FINAL FOUR. Triangles are special, strong, unique; there are 4 triangles. But, I'm dedicated to a four-way bond between us all. I need to develop friendships with not just my wife, but my children. I want to be their rock; I want us to form a mountain. I must give us a name. A fictional name I can use. We should go back and modify our names. We can programmatically alter it. I'll just keep a timeline. This is the narrative we build together.
I have neglected to learn how to defend ourselves. It is important that my children are literal warriors as well. They need to be able to protect themselves. If life is a game, I think we need to wake up accept the fact that we have real enemies. Our goal is to protect ourselves.
There are so many things to learn and so little time. I wish I lived a life before I could raise my children so that I had the wisdom and experience to know how to even remotely know how to do it right.
---
We need to do philosophy.
Their success is my success. My old teacher is correct, fame and fortune. He sees it.
---
HRD is about feeling powerful through other people. I see why my mother chose it. She feels powerful with it, like learning the science of people will allow her to change the world for God.
---
Trusting trust. I do not want our family to fall apart. How do I make it so that we know we trust each other? Tit-for-tat mechanisms are the best way to build trust. It may not be the absolute best algorithm, but it is quite strong.
I feel like my father, planning. I remember the feelings.
---
I feel like a horcrux sometimes, but not in a bad way. I think it is an interesting philosophical notion. My wiki is my horcrux in a way.
---
Does it sound insane that I think there are drugs which help make my mind more powerful, productive, constructive, intuitive, and able to influence our lives in positive ways? They are two-edged swords, no doubt. Why would we not talk about the "good" side of the blade?
I think taking on different perspectives, depersonalization, and derealization are things we valuable experiences, modes, and educational opportunities. I'm not saying we should be irresponsible with them. Quite the opposite.
---
I think we should study pure war theory books. The problem is that it gets reduced down to "isms," obfuscations, gnostic secrets, etc.
Warriors need to have that mindset. Humanity's Warriors.
---
<<<
Because you are more pain than you are worth.
<<<
Can you unsink a ship? Probably not. Let it go.
Strict utility calculation here. Sometimes, you have to trust the math, humanity.
Let your sunk costs go.
---
My goal is to flourish without being a predator of humanity. It's the gem of a life I hope to live. However improbable, I will pursue it. It is really fucking hard. But, that is a life I can respect. It has dignity because I say it does. QED.
---
What do you want to do, and why?
I must ask my children that everyday.
---
I want my kids to start cataloging media they find valuable. These are important touchstones and anchors, memories they can revisit, analyze, cherish, and use.
---
<<footnotes "1" "Nazis were not virtuous in their pursuit, although they pursued it in some cases.">>
|customTable|k
|Food|Calories|h
|Pear|100|
|Chili|750|
|Cornbread|350|
|Clementines|70|
|Cheesecake|360|
|Total|1630|f
!! How has your health been this week?
* 1uxb0x
** Good. Allergies a bit.
* j3d1h
** Perfectly fine, except lots of mucus in her throat.
* k0sh3k
** Fine after her period ended.
* h0p3
** Thought loops and dreams, but I am getting sleep. I feel fatter.
---
!! What happened last week? Have you been happy this past week? Why or why not?
* 1uxb0x
** Yes, because he did his homework.
** Dr. Who!
* j3d1h
** Well, sad because her work didn't get done. Happier in that she has been more consistent in some logs.
** Has enjoyed her work on music.
** Can't wait to see the next Dr. Who as well. It was "really messed up," lol.
** Cheesecake!
* k0sh3k
** Finished student worker manual, woot!
** Turned F-oh-tee-"win"!
** Cheesecake!
* h0p3
** It was an extremely productive week for me. I got a shit ton done.
---
!! What is a positive fact or compliment we can say about each person in the family?
* 1uxb0x
** You did a superb job in school with the week. You worked hard, and it was a rewarding week. I'm proud of you. Keep up that hard work because it is paying off.
** When you asked for your mother's help, you take it seriously. You actually try to learn it rather than just getting it out of the way.
** You learned your friends' names this week. Good work.
* j3d1h
** You did not give up looking for your computer! I know it was really frustrating, and you didn't give up. You had a good attitude. Lo and behold, it was in the last place you looked. You cleaned your room after it too. You saw the reason!
** Helped fix your brother's computer
** You've done a great job on your Cat-a-logs. You've been imaginative and empathic.
* k0sh3k
** You've been a real warrior this week. You've been exhausted, the storms have not relented, you've been on your period, the cats have been crazy, and it's been stressful. I want to be more like you. Thank you!
** You wrote your recipes down in your wiki! Thank you!
** You've been forgiving this week. e.g. when I didn't do school work, you dealt kindly with me
* h0p3
** I taught my son how to pare his apple.
** Willing to work on my daughter when she doesn't want to work on herself.
** Thank you for making my birthday special.
---
!! What will you do this week? Name at least one fun objective and one unfun objective.
* 1uxb0x
** Pick up litter in the area
** Build a character!
** Play with Joe-joe (jojo?) this week.
* j3d1h
** Go outside more, taking walks!
** Write a script for a video.
** Build a character!
* k0sh3k
** Start on ILL handbook.
** Migrate work content to the wiki.
** Finish campaign prep
* h0p3
** Call the fucking Landlord.
** Build a character!
* Sum your diet logs
* Choose a more serious and fitting title for "CodeEval Things" - "Portfolio" may be a better word.
* Be more specific than "Potential School"
* Finish your school logs.
* Stop lying; do your writing.
* I am thankful that you did diet logs more often, but you need to complete all of your work.
* I loved your cat logs.
* Pull your quotes into a sub-bullet point.
* Put your thoughts in a sub-bullet point too. I know the quotes you selected are your thoughts, but you may have more to say in your own words too.
* I often have a hard time knowing what it is that I'm clicking on.
* Thank you for writing!
* https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2017/06/msg00308.html
** Oh snap! I'm running on older hardware though ;P
!! Respond to the following quote:
<<<
I have always imagined that Paradise will be some kind of library.
<<<
Paradise is an idea, nothing more. That said, a library does sound like paradise! What could be better than the joy of learning, thinking, reading, watching, and being philosophical? Add in some drugs, music, food, and worthwhile company, and you've got yourself the most badass party I could ever imagine.
Honestly, that's what I hope to turn my home into. That's the contemplative life of paradise I want to live with my family. Seriously, it's my goal. I think I can make my children's lives meaningful, enriched, and fulfilling by trying to make their lives like a library. My wife is literally a librarian, and I think of myself as a guerilla librarian of sorts. That's what I want to do!
Also, just as a reminder, my wife owes me a roll in the librar'hay.
* [[Links: NSFW]]
** To be filled in later.
* [[Links: Philosophy]]
** Ugh, I don't want to do this. I need to do this though.
* [[Links: Redpilled]]
** This would be useful.
* [[Links: IP, Privacy, Censorship, Surveillance, Mind-Control, & Anonymity]]
** Endless supply.
* [[2017.06.24 - Link Log]]
** Also, an endless supply.
* [[2017.06.24 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** It was a good day!
* [[2017.06.24 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** Horny and lazy. I love it.
* [[2017.06.24 - Diet Log]]
** Not bad.
* [[2017.06.24 - Wiki Review Log]]
** Lots of edits. Why? Did I not write well the day before?
* [[2017.06.24 - Pipefitting Log]]
** I am very excited about this week!
* The alarm clock awoke me. DCK makes it hard to fall asleep. I dreamt deeply.
* I woke the kids and surfed for a bit while getting ready.
* My wife made lunch for me, and it was delicious.
** Thank you!
* I worked fairly hard, but most of my energy was spent on social considerations.
* ''I landed a fucking pipefitting job!!!'' Woot woot!
* I called my wife and talked about it with her.
* I came home and talked to the kids about it.
* I called the landlord to get them to fix the fluorescent light and leak.
* I called my brother JRE and talked to him about it.
** He is coming to visit with my cousin!! And, if we're extra lucky, my brother AIR will possibly be joining us as well!
* We started looking for lodging accommodations for me.
** My wife has friends in Charlotte on the lookout as well.
* We made plans with another homeschool family for two weeks from now (right before I leave) to go swimming, plays some board games, chillax, etc.
* We developed more plans for the future. We're thinking ahead, trying to see what options are open, and what the best path is.
* I bumped uglies with muh 'ho. =)
** I also took a shower (I needed one)
* We made dinner; grilled cheese, veggies, and soup.
* We watched an episode of GoT.
* I cleaned my nails exceptionally well today.
* I helped my daughter wash the dishes.
* My parents wanted to video chat. We will get in touch.
* I need to contact my brothers and cousins with DND rules; I'll build characters for them if they prefer that.
* I'm going to have some sorbet and chillax with Rick and Morty before falling asleep.
|customTable|k
|Food|Calories|h
|Apple|100|
|Clementines|105|
|Pear|100|
|Peach|70|
|Cornbread|260|
|Chili|250|
|Nuts|170|
|Tomato Soup|150|
|Grilled Cheeses|350|
|Brussel Sprouts|70|
|Asparagus|60|
|Sorbet|130|
|Total|1815|f
Today was uplifting. I was the only student there today, but my teacher was there. We talked, and instead of studying, I said I wanted to work in the shop (I will get through the tests). In particular, I wanted to build a fit-up bar for myself. He said I shouldn't try to make my own since it really needs to be made of hardened steel. I thought about welding it instead, but I realized that may not work either (but why not? It seems like it should; welds are very strong).
I told my teacher about my visit to the union. It was my preface to working on pipe welding. I have basically no practice at it, and it would be a wise step. He agreed, and he said he would try contacting Jacobs again for me.
I went about my business. I cut some pipe, beveled, and started welding. I've been putting landings on these pipes, and it makes a difference. I don't think I put a full 1/8" gap between them though, and that bit me in the butt. That said, I still burned plenty of holes. The rotation is much harder than just plain plate. I think I could improve significantly with plenty of practice. There were acceptable parts of my root. The filler was fine. The caps were not good. Parts of them were just fine, but my directional control and my tie-ins sucked. Practice!
All-in-all, I did 3 pipes today. Good enough.
Towards the end of the day, an interesting flurry of events happened. My teacher said he had spoken with the welding teacher, Dale, and they had a job for me to consider. They sent a picture of my simulator work, and the company loved it. The only problem is that the job is 3 hours away from me in Charlotte, NC. It's a permanent job. I'd have to commute, live in someone else's house for several days a week, and then head back home. Basically, it would only be worth it if I could work 3 days at 13 hours a piece or four 10's, or maybe even overtime if I'm lucky (I'd need to show them what I'm made of first). I'd need to make it worth my while.
So, I wrote a cover letter (borrowed from what I had), explained my situation, and sent my resume to the guy. He responded and quickly asked how much I wanted. I told him I wanted $22.50 an hour (I knew the top-end was $25 for this job, and that would be for a journeyman, I take it).
They called me while I was pushing out bricks. My connection was bad. We lost connection twice (once after I left the bathroom), and so I just asked my teacher for his landline. The interview went well. They decided they might be able to do $20 an hour for me because I have zero field experience. They said after 60 days they would revisit my pay and likely offer me a significant jump in pay (Dale confirmed this as well). This will at least give me experience for the union. Also, I asked if I could learn to weld, specifically TIG pipewelding while there. They said they could work that out with me. I also talked a bit about Chris. I said I would try and help him too.
They talked to Dale and I was given high praise. I am glad to have the recommendations of my teachers. I thanked them both. It worked out. Now I need to see how I can manage to find a way to get the $2k allocated to me from AB&T and actually use it. I also need to see about getting access to my Eth. Every dollar counts.
I start July 10th! I take my drug test and do the paperwork. I believe I start working for real the next day. My wife and I are working on living arrangements. There are some scheduling conflicts now for my wife's travel plans for work. We're getting that sorted as well. I need to make sure the car is in decent enough shape for this as well. We're going to save for a vehicle. I'm going to shoot for a van. I'd like to be able to just live in my van. I could save a solid $400 a month that way, and I would be prepared for the next step, which I assume will be the union. Then I will be prepared for traveling and saving every dollar I can. If I'm going to spend time away from my family, I'm going to make it count.
Assuming this all works out, I will still join the union. I may be covertly working inside the union (I'm not sure if I'm going to pay dues or not) while gaining experience in this company and putting ourselves into good financial standing. If I can get the stars to align, the goal is to walk into the union as a 4th-year apprentice. Then, it would take me, hopefully, a year to hit Journeyman pipefitter and pick up my welding certifications (assuming I've been practicing diligently for the next 1.5 years). After that, I can pick up my valve certifications within a year. Journeyman pipefitter, pipewelder, and valve specialist in 3 years. It is possible that I could learn Plumbing and HVAC in a very short amount of time as well, but if I'm going with valves, why go that route? Plumbing is something I can do on my own, building my own company, but perhaps being a valve specialist would be the same way. In any case, I just might be able to do it. It is possible that 2.5 years from now I will have significant mobility, having the money to buy a house wherever we want and work near any major city.
Towards the end of the day, before I left, my teacher asked me a personal question. He asked me "how someone loses their faith," referencing our previously personal conversation from months ago. He was genuinely curious. I tried to explain my upbringing and reason-based approach to faith. I don't think it clicked for him, lol.
Lastly, I still should contact the Boilermakers and the Electrician union. It is possible I could have local work at the same pay. I'll keep looking for pipefitting jobs around Johnson City as well. Why not?
!! What are you looking forward to the most?
I'm looking forward to being wrong about the world and myself in such a way that I am fulfilled, happy, and joyful. i.e. I'm most looking forward to being happy. Of course, the conditions for my happiness aren't simple, and I am not convinced I'm wrong. I'm looking forward to having better reasons for hope. I hope I get what I'm looking forward to.<<ref "1">>
---
<<footnotes "1" "I'm delivering a succinct answer as my wife provides in her introspections. =0">>
* [[2017.06.25 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** Don't forget, woman!
* [[2017.06.25 - Diet Log]]
** Summed.
* [[2017.06.25 - Wiki Review Log]]
** I've noticed that this hasn't produced direct fruit in a while. Or, at least, it doesn't feel like it. But, I must remember that it comes and goes. It oscillates.
** Note that my pact ended.
* [[2017.06.25 - Family Log]]
** It was smart to write my compliments in advance. I need to continue doing that.
* [[2017.06.25 - k0sh3k's Wiki Log]]
** Maybe Dropbox->Hardlink to Sync Folder to make it better for work
* [[2017.06.25 - j3d1h's Wiki Log]]
** I desperately hope she does her school work.
* [[2017.06.25 - 1uxb0x's Wiki Log]]
** I hope he keeps it up.
* [[Aquina the Shadowmonk]]
** I very much enjoyed building this character. I will build more.
* [[DND: Build-A-Character]]
** I think this is a very good starting place. In a way, I'm looking for a game designed for players who have played for a long time.
* [[Dungeons and Dragons]]
** I guess I'm back at it. Give me my drugs!
* [[Racist Word Collection]]
** Rofl
* [[2017.06.25 - Link Log]]
** A sad link log. I have a ton backed up waiting.
* [[2017.06.25 - DCK Meditation]]
** Twas a useful day.
* I had a nightmare about being in the car with my parents. See [[2017.06.27 - h0p3's Log]]. I started writing it here but realized this is the wrong place for it.
* I woke up right before the alarm clock.
* I didn't work crazy hard on what I usually do in the shop. I did work hard though, it was on strategizing, planning, and thinking about the means to my ends.
* Lunch was great (I basically ate two, lol), and I was able to connect with my family over Pidgin.
* I've tried contacting several people today, including the Landlord. The light isn't quite fixed. Also, we may have a different leak next to the dishwasher. Lol. It's been busy!
* The kids were on task, and I'm glad. I did some studying as well.
* Fireman time!
* We went swimming, grilled, and had a good time.
* Worked on my wiki.
* I tried very hard to get udev to run a script when my USB drive was inserted. I've done everything, and it doesn't work. I give up. Lol.
* Turns out my kids didn't finish their wikis. =(
* Rick and Morty until I fell asleep.
|customTable|k
|Food|Calories|h
|Wrap|250|
|Apple|100|
|Clementines|100|
|Pear|100|
|Burger|400|
|Fries|350|
|Hotdogs|500|
|Chips and Salsa|270|
|Pear|100|
|Clementine|35|
|Peach|30|
|Pretzel|20|
|Tikka Masala|400|
|Total|2655|f
!! How is your health? Daily routine?
My health has been fine. I've been having intense dreams, which is often a sign of stress for me. I am sleeping though. The chest tightening of anxiety is there too. The lack of cannabis of the past months has been workable, but it would help now. No go, however. I must continually pass drug tests for the foreseeable future.
---
!! What happened? How do you feel about it? What made you feel this way? Does it make you happy or unhappy? Why or why not?
My parents contacted us yesterday. They want to talk. Our last meeting went poorly. I'm really tired of being hurt. I can't afford it at this point. I don't have Cannabis as a tool to overcome it, and I've got a ton on my plate. I can't afford to be affected by their lack of empathy and sensitivity at this point in time. There is too much riding on the next few weeks going smoothly to risk it.
I also had a vivid nightmare about being in the car with my parents.
I have to say, I think it may just be better not to call them.
---
!! Can you better explain what happened? Do you have a technological, philosophical, empathic, or redpilled story to tell about the phenomenon? Clarify the narrative you just told yourself.
I'm at a crucial point in my life, and they emotionally hinder rather than help me. They are vampires, and that's just not what we need right now. I'm not here to feed their Baby boomer narcissism and acquiesce to their delusional feelings of entitlement to biblical parental worship (beliefs and feelings which they cannot hide from me).<<ref "1">> I'm sure they would have some parallel remark, as they despise millennial culture and their own children to boot.<<ref "2">> Ultimately, I don't have the energy for them, and that's in no small part their fault. I wish it were otherwise. I only have so many spoons to go around, and that is not a wise investment of myself right now. It is far from obvious to me that their memetic infection is useful to my children, and their half-assed attempts at a relationship with my children (let alone foregoing the duties to their own children) are only marginally better than what I had with my own grandparents.<<ref "3">> I hope that changes in time, but it won't be this month.
---
!! What are you going to do about what happened?
I'm going to ignore it and focus on what matters. I'm not convinced the risks are worth the rewards at this point.
---
<<footnotes "1" "As a part of the differences in our reality maps, we have vast disagreements about the Hohfeldian rights molecules at play here. I will reiterate again: //Creators have duties to their creations, not the other way around.//">>
<<footnotes "2" "They helped teach me to hate myself.">>
<<footnotes "3" "They want to have their cake and eat it too, but that's not the way the cookie crumbles.">>
* https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/06/disappearance-of-the-summer-job/529824/#article-comments
** That is a rosy picture. We will see.
* https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/01/opinion/sunday/popular-people-live-longer.html
** Fuck! I'm dead, yo!
* https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/03/11/nearly-2000-water-systems-fail-lead-tests/81220466/
** Ummm... Carter Country, TN has almost all the unacceptable lead levels hits in the state. Fuck me.
* https://brodoland.wordpress.com/2017/06/23/post-postmodernism-and-the-alt-spectrum-of-ideology/
** Was an interesting, odd, and not obviously correct article/post.
** Also, brought me to this: http://spiraldynamicsintegral.nl/en/about-sdi/integral-theory/
* https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/another-recession-would-ruin-two-thirds-of-americans-survey-finds/ar-BBDeZPI?li=BBnbfcL
** You dipshit, we've not actually escaped the last one. Capital gains for 1% might be back to previous levels, GDP might seem better, and your completely fudged employment numbers might look better, but the actual economic lives of masses have not improved.
** MSN =/
* https://github.com/Kikobeats/regexgen-cli
** Regex expression creation tool, neat.
* https://medium.com/@ddvzlnz/the-internet-is-an-increasingly-hostile-environment-6442001363ec
** Says nothing new, but it was a fun idea dump.
* http://www.spring.org.uk/2016/05/empathy-killed-popular-painkiller.php
** Fascinating. If you can't feel another's pain via painkillers, if your mirror-neurons don't work appropriately, then you won't empathize.
* https://mistertea.github.io/EternalTCP/
** A MOSH terminal alternative.
* http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/how-effective-is-economic-theory
** Philosophy of Science + Cultural barriers for performing economics...
** For the record, I'm a fan of microeconomics (although, I have significant metaethical disagreements).
* http://blog.achernya.com/2017/06/by-installing-nat-mit-stifles-innovation.html?view=classic
** This is a weird move. I do not understand it.
* https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/06/26/lies-that-capitalists-tell-us/
** Propaganda or otherwise, there are some fine points made up in this here article.
* https://theringer.com/google-chat-messaging-service-ending-bce80fff5d9c
** Fare thee well.
* https://www.nationaleconomicseditorial.com/2017/06/26/real-unemployment-rate/
** This is also incorrect. It is far more optimistic than it should be. The number of wasted lives is staggering.
* https://metaxy-psy.blogspot.com.au/p/metamodernist-psychology-as-new.html
** It gets weirder.
* http://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/07/under-antarctica-frozen-beauty-exotic-creatures-penguins/
** It has been a while since I gave a shit about anything National Geographic.
* https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2017/06/27/ransomware-spreads-rapidly-hitting-power-companies-banks-airlines-metro/#4cf15d487abd
** My prediction continues to be shown correct again and again.
* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14646247
** For my daughter.
* https://bgr.com/2017/06/26/smartphone-distraction-study/
** I hear that, homie. Not that I have a smartphone anymore. I may, unfortunately be forced to get one though.
* https://github.com/bindh3x/pas
** Still a shitty solution. It's so hard to fix this problem.
Today was interesting. I started highlighting my book. I hit the headers and quantities for both chapters. I finished highlighting the first chapter. I hope to test on it tomorrow. It is a huge fucking chapter; both are. Once I've passed them, I'll be done with the book. I won't be doing the 4th NCCER book. That's okay. The field experience is more important at this point, and the NCCER certs were only a way to get my foot in the door to my first job anyways. Also, I'll be completing the last year at the union anyways.
I asked my teacher what he thought I was missing for the job I would be doing. He felt like I would be in great shape except for pipe hangers and supports, which just so happens to be the chapter I'm working on. Lol. I don't believe he was fucking with me either. It makes sense. I see these devices all the time when I'm looking at pipe installations in my everyday experience.
I was interrupted by the thought that I needed to fix my lack of tools issue. My teacher came to talk to me about it after I had started too, so this is important. I started going through the list of tools that the class/school suggests for general pipefitting. There is a new gangbox instead of an awkward tool chest that should work nicely in my backseat. I went to the office to find out when the earliest I day would be that I could order it. They said the absolute earliest if I'm lucky, would be two weeks into July. That's too late! So, I'm going to see if I can go around this process by having AB&T purchase it directly rather than through a school voucher that won't be processed on time. I'm going to explain my situation. I need the tools before then, not later. I need it for this job. We're talking about $800 of tools just to start me out and another $1,000 of specialized tools I need for the specific work I'd be doing. God damn is it expensive!
I spent quite a bit of time sifting through pipefitter tools that would be useful for the job I'm going to have. I asked my teacher about them. He said I could get by with just the initial tools, but he could see tons of cases where I'd benefit from the extended tool list. He also gave me a few more suggestions for a list which I did not consider (he even brought his own toolbox out to show me). He said that if I'm going for raw speed, there are times where foregoing the clamps are best. That said, when accuracy matters, nothing beats them. I'll sacrifice 1 minute to improve my hi-lo's and angles. He told me to be careful with these tools as well; he said they would 'grow legs' (be coveted + stolen). I'm going to engrave my tools on the outside and the inside, and I'm going to watch over them. They matter to me.
In any case, assuming my teacher won't just hand me 6 months of "time in the shop" for free, instead of using AB&T's money to get a useless piece of paper for completing the degree (which aren't the certs; I've already earned those), I want to use the money to get a full set of tools. I worry they will think it is unwise to dump school here, but I'm done with the program (and completed work beyond the standard coursework). School isn't what I need right now (even if I love it), the actual field experience is though. I'm hoping they'll buy them and have them for me. If not, maybe I can buy them and be reimbursed. I know I absolutely need tools though. There isn't much time. Let me say, I'm very doubtful this is going to work. I shouldn't be too disappointed. I'm really grateful for what they have given me. While this is perfectly rational, they may not see it that way. Red tape abounds.
I tried calling AB&T today, but couldn't get ahold of them. I will try again tomorrow. Their fiscal year begins in a few days, and that's when the money comes in. I have a very narrow window to succeed here.
My teacher also had me weld something he was fabricating for his swimming pool. The welds turned out nicely. He asked me if I wanted to complete the 1.5" simulator with a random welding student today. I said I'd rather study for the test. He definitely wants me to finish it. Lol. It will get done.
This is the second day I've swung by the union to see if Randy was there. He wasn't. I need to talk to him about the situation.
I need to get the car looked at. I need to talk to the electrician's union too!
!! What do you consider the best year of your life so far, and what made it so great?
This is tough. My years at Berea were amazing. My first year of marriage was insanely wonderful. My first year getting my MA in philosophy was sick, and the same for my first year getting my PhD in philosophy. This year seems to be yet another one of those (school is always that way?). These were all very stressful years, but incredibly rewarding too. If I absolutely had to pick one, it would be 2005 from start to finish.
* I had some of the most important classes I ever took.
* I started dating and married my wife.
* I graduated.
* I played Everquest with my family that summer.
* I had my first child that year.
* I got my first professional job as a teacher that year.
Let me say, it wasn't perfect, but it was pretty amazing. There were a lot of transitions that year. That said, I was also naive and filled with hope when I shouldn't have been. I still hadn't learned what the world and people were really like. I did not understand my plight. Ignorance is bliss. In time, I hope the truth will overcome that apparent fact.
* [[2017.06.26 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** I've had a string of sex luck in the past few days. Woot!
* [[2017.06.26 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** Short and sweet. Good job.
* [[Wittlux the Timewalker]]
** This character still feel ludologically/mechanically stilted. I'm not sure what to do about it.
** I need to contact my brother and cousins.
* [[2017.06.26 - Diet Log]]
** Summed.
* [[2017.06.26 - Wiki Review Log]]
** Life has been good!
* [[2017.06.26 - Pipefitting Log]]
** Edited. Forgot to write about the personal conversation.
* [[2017.06.25 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** I still haven't watched the last day of TSM's games, nor John Oliver.
* Vivid dreams, woke up off and on for an hour before the alarm.
* I got the kids up and started. Asked them to work on their wikis first.
* I worked hard. I'm still coordinating. That's what I'll be doing for the next couple weeks, I think,
* I hit the mechanic up. I'll go again tomorrow.
* I came home and worked more.
** I spent time getting my tool situation ironed out somewhat.
* Motivated le chilluns.
* Fireman time.
* Got a snack, woot!
* Watched some LCS, surfed, and wrote the wiki.
* I went the library with my wife. We also went to Harbor Freight to pick up some gloves, and to Wal-Mart for beer (for our weekend) and pie for our "Tao day."
* Inform the men!
* We made tacos for dinner, and we watched an episode of GoT.
* The kids finished off the last of their chores and work for the day. We informed them that they had the next 5 days off. Yay!
* I talked to my friend ALM and my brother JRE over chat.
* I worked on DND characters.
* Pigged out and finished Rick and Morty.
|customTable|k
|Food|Calories|h
|Apples|200|
|Wrap|250|
|Clementines|70|
|Hummus, Pita, and Veggies|500|
|Tacos|1000|
|Beers|200|
|Cherry Pie|250|
|Fish|750|
|Total|3220|f
I got ahold of AB&T this morning (actually, Johanna called me). I explained the situation. I need a letter, with the letterhead, listing the tools I need. Sweet. I told my teacher, and he was kind of unhappy that it wasn't going through the school, but also that it may send a bad signal to my employer that I don't have the tools already. He suggested I carefully word my request to my employer in this respect.
I spent the day studying. Chris came in right before lunch. He had already studied but wasn't feeling confident. He took the test. He did okay. We talked about the job. He can't take it.
The teacher had me continue welding new things to his fabrication. I'm glad he trusts me to do it. I'm happy to get the experience.
I took the test after lunch. I did well enough. I have one more to go. We agreed to meet next Wednesday on it. I'll be calling in tomorrow since I have many things to do. It doesn't sound like there will be a class next week, or something like that. Whatever. I have one test to take, and I'm gone.
Also, my teacher told me to provide transcripts of my math classes. He talked to the president of our tech school, and these classes will be "transferred" in to make up for my remaining 6 months. This gives me a diploma. Great.
I headed home early. I went to a local mechanic explaining that I wanted the car checked out. I really, really need it to work. He told me to bring it in tomorrow.
When I got home, I called AB&T to gather more information. We really can't go through the school, even if it is their preference. The letter can be e-mailed to her. Further, I need to have it sent to her by the end of the week. Apparently, AB&T is having a major restructuring. Lastly, I volunteered my service for pricing the tools. I know this is a pain in the ass for her, and I wouldn't mind it. I need bids from 3 different suppliers for my list. She gave me license to pick the brand I liked, just as long as I made sure the other bids were higher than the one I really wanted. She said she had to go for the cheapest option of the 3.
Afterward, I wrote the complete list and the letter, and then called my new boss, Barry. I explained the situation, and he said it was great. He told me to e-mail it to our other boss, Ben (the guy who hired me). I did so, and also told Ben that my friend couldn't take the job (Ben asked). I'm waiting for them to review the list and send the letter before I do any pricing. I'm hoping the list won't make me look bad. I'm also hoping I get it before work begins without a hitch.
I'm grabbed my transcript. I'm writing my work contact information in the private wiki.
!! Are you addicted to social media?
I forgot I wrote about this a bit before: [[2017.05.27 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
Define addiction and social media.
Presumably, you mean by addiction a dependence with negative utility or some unacceptable opportunity cost. This, of course, is far more complicated than it appears. I worry you will simply slip into saying truisms or smuggling in significant normative content.
I don't know how to define social media either. You go first. Watch me blow your line-drawing up. You are such a fucking idiot, Samwise Gamgee.
Alright, this wiki may be a kind of social media, right? I'm being social with myself, and there are people who read it. It is fairly unidirectional, admittedly. It isn't a rat race with anyone but myself. My reputation is irrelevant. My social standing is almost irrelevant in this wiki. It's not the norm. I am dependent upon it though. But, I would strongly argue against it lacking utility for me. So, not an addiction, right?
I use Reddit and HN a ton. I don't really use them socially anymore though. Are they bad for me? I've definitely wasted time on them. But, I've also changed my life reading them many times over.
Thus, my answer is no.
* [[2017.06.27 - Link Log]]
** That was definitely clogging my browser.
* [[2017.06.27 - h0p3's Log]]
** I'm having second thoughts. Do I go with my gut feeling?
* [[2017.06.27 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** I'm glad we went swimming, even if it wasn't merited.
* [[2017.06.27 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** I hope my answers will change. I think they might. I may not have much hope for the world, but I might for us.
* [[2017.06.27 - Diet Log]]
** McFattin's
* [[2017.06.27 - Wiki Review Log]]
** TSM was sloppy as fuck.
* [[2017.06.27 - Pipefitting Log]]
** I actually don't think I will be able to finish the simulator. I didn't know I wouldn't be able to work next week at school because my teacher won't have the shop open. I am surprised. It is what it is though.
* Woke up late. Woot!
* Called the landlord. They took a while to come, but they fixed the washer leak and replaced part of the light. Unfortunately, I found the light still has a cuttlefish flutter effect occasionally.
* I drove the car down to the mechanic. I've never tried him before. He's an odd fellow. I left it there and walked back.
* I visited my wife at her workplace. I'm afraid I annoyed her more than made her day better. =/
* We cleaned the house up a bit, and we worked on our wikis.
* I played some league and surfed.
* I worked on some characters and helped the kids with their characters.
* We watched The Hunt for Red October. The kids loved it.
* Fireman time!
* I called the guy, he said it was fine? I'm not convinced. Okay, fine.
* I walked down with the kids; it took quite a while.
* We went to pickup k0sh3k, but we were too late.
* We came home, hugged, and we started dinner. Breakfast for dinner!
* We watched an episode of GoT. It is starting soon. I hope we can finish the last season and a half in time.
* Afterwards, fireman time!
* Talked some with ALM.
* League, chill, and probably some TV before bed.
** There are dozens of us! I actually found a 9k subreddit of people who fall asleep specifically to Futurama.
Watching the last episode of Season 2 of Rick & Morty. NIN's //Hurt// came on, and it fucking hit me so hard. Goddamnit!
|customTable|k
|Food|Calories|h
|Apple|100|
|Pizza|500|
|Omelet|250|
|Hashbrowns|600|
|English Muffin|150|
|Brussel Sprouts|70|
|Asparagus|45|
|PB Crackers and Honey|250|
|Wine|200|
|Total|2165|f
* KYS
** https://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/3012791/protonmail-welcomes-eus-google-fine-says-search-giants-practices-almost-put-it-out-of-business
** https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QSX9fEDllo&feature=youtu.be
** https://i.imgur.com/f4KtDlW.png
* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14656945
** Lots of technical savvy, but I am always surprised at the number of people who are unable to appreciate the salient ethical problems in power dynamics.
* https://www.raphkoster.com/2017/06/27/the-internet-as-existential-threat/
** It doesn't have to be. It has been for a long time. Start moving opensource, pushing net neutrality, teaching computer and civics literacy (and all the means to these subgoals), and I think you'll see major shifts. Of course, it won't happen. it is an existential threat.
* https://qz.com/1016900/tracy-chou-leading-silicon-valley-engineer-explains-why-every-tech-worker-needs-a-humanities-education/
** I'm always disappointed in STEM majors who don't study the humanities (and vice versa).
* https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/06/why-not-have-a-randomly-selected-congress
** Whatever it takes to unroot the aristocracy? This wouldn't work either.
* https://digg.com/2017/facebook-secret-censorship-rules
** Golem
* https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170625/02053237659/copyright-office-admits-that-dmca-is-more-about-giving-hollywood-control-than-stopping-infringement.shtml
** You don't say...
* https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/29/world/asia/hong-kong-china-handover.html
** I want to live on an island.
* https://newrepublic.com/article/143004/rise-thought-leader-how-superrich-funded-new-class-intellectual
** The amount of reason in this article is staggering.
* https://blog.ycombinator.com/thoughts-on-insurance/
** Going single-payer eliminates the need for such a large and complex infrastructure necessary for making money. I'm convinced there are models for distributing risk that capitalism can't offer us.
** Also, screw those power dynamics.
* https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/24/opinion/sunday/men-dont-want-to-be-nurses-their-wives-agree.html
** We are simple creatures.
I had told my teacher I'd be coming next Wednesday for the test. I'm basically done with the pipefitting course except for studying for this exam. I'm highlighting and studying, and that's it.
I don't want to pressure my employers today about the tool list. I want to give them the chance to do it without me getting on them. This is a feeling out process, and I also don't want to start it off on the wrong foot. We will see. I'm anxious about the possibility that they won't respect my list, or that it will somehow reflect poorly on me. We will see. If they don't send the letter today, then I'll contact them tomorrow about it. I should call Barry first.
Getting the car fixed up is the only thing I really must accomplish today. I'm waiting on the landlord's fixer to finish dealing with the light and dishwasher leak, then I can head over to the car shop.
!! Respond to the following quote:
<<<
Man cannot discover new oceans unless he has the courage to lose sight of the shore.
<<<
It is a part of human nature to over select for things we know, understand, are confident in, etc. in the face of risk, uncertainty, and doubt. We are bad at math in this respect. We are not truly rational utility maximizers.<<ref "1">> This is often a flaw that the aristocracy uses to exploit the working class. It is also a flaw that we as individuals must overcome in our everyday lives as well.
For me, this issue is wrapped up not only in overcoming the fear of the unknown, and overriding my addiction to the devil I know but also in the willingness to be wrong, persistence, empathizing with myself, and longer-term utilitarian reasoning.<<ref "2">> I need to take more risks. I need to find the right ones, of course, but I have missed out on many opportunities because of it. Essentially, my risk management still requires tweaking.
I'm not sure how to improve upon this. I think it requires some reading and direct searching.
---
<<footnotes "1" "But, we knew that already, eh?">>
<<footnotes "2" "There are many kinds of marshmallow tests of executive functioning we must pass.">>
* [[Mugeye the Tinkerer]]
** I really did love the spirit of that show. I wish I was that cool.
* [[Tobfub the Pacifist]]
** I think this is such a hilarious character. It constantly breaks the fourth wall into OOC and does genuinely good things for the group. I like it. It's trolly, but not in a terrible way.
* [[Snowball the Myrmidon]]
** I worry this character is broken strong. It is the quintessential tank, and it scales hard.
* [[2017.06.28 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** It was a good day. I assume I won't usually have days like these very often. That's okay. I will be productive and earning money to stabilize our happiness, to secure our futures, and to improve upon myself.
* [[2017.06.28 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** I should stop talking about social media.
* [[2017.06.28 - Diet Log]]
** God damn, fatty!
* [[2017.06.28 - Wiki Review Log]]
** I really am eating too much.
* [[2017.06.28 - Pipefitting Log]]
** The transition is something to behold. I've come a really long way in 6 months. I'm legitimately proud of myself.
* [[Euphemism Collection]]
** They aren't exactly euphemisms. What are they?
* Today has been a great day!
* I woke up, and spanked that monkey.
* I cleaned the house. It was in good shape, so it didn't take long. The kids helped.
* I played some league and surfed some.
* When my wife came home at midday, we did a bit more cleaning.
* We hit the library, and then we went grocery shopping.
** We found the bulk beef that's super cheap. Yay!
** I hope we have all that we need.
* I put food away and prepared tiny 1 lb packets for the meat.
* I made chili.
* More league of legends and surfing, a bit of writing too.
* L&K came first. It was great to see them. We talked. =)
* My brother came later. We immediately went straight for the school.
** Everything was shut down, but the machinist teacher left his garage door open. We snuck in that way, and we found that the welder's shop wasn't locked. We then went through the grinding room to get into the pipefitter shop.
** I showed my brother around. Showed him the simulator. I was glad he got to see it.
** We did some welding and had some visuals of things we had talked about before.
** I was really glad I got to show my brother the shop. It was a capstone to the class for me.
* We headed back home for chili.
* We talked and talked, and then we got ready for DND.
* We played a bit before we went to bed. It was fun.
* I'm finishing this off right now and watching some TSM v C9.
|customTable|k
|Food|Calories|h
|Apple|100|
|Chili|1000|
|Cornbread|600|
|Lemon Ice|120|
|Beer|200|
|Total|2020|f
Remember: 10am on July 10th. That's when you need to be there.
I called today at 3. I should have called earlier, I guess. My boss, Ben, did not understand what I was asking for. He thought he just needed to approve it (and I didn't receive any word back of approval on it either, lol). I couldn't have been clearer in my explanation. I take this to be a bad sign.
He went back over the letter and called me back. He apologized for dropping the ball. He said he couldn't do it since we were already away from the office. He was hoping he didn't need to the letterhead, else he could have done it while away. I explained the problem. His solution was to have another worker at the office do it Monday. He clearly did not understand what I had said to him. Today was the deadline. I think he might be partially illiterate. That's okay. He's taking a chance on me, and I need this to work.
That said, even if I don't have my tools immediately, I can wait. I'll have an excuse. I'll see what I can do. He did just rubberstamp my awesome list though. Woot!
!! Why do you hate me? (Samwise Gamgee)
Alright, I've not read the LOTR series in a couple years. I used to read it every year, but I haven't lately. And, you know my memory isn't what it used to be, by a longshot. All I have left are emotional footprints of the story, a feel for it. I'd need to deep read it again to give you an explicit reason for why you don't deserve to live beyond a shadow of a doubt.
You represent humanity, according to that beautiful idiot: Tolkien. That might be a good enough reason.
I think you are annoying, difficult to empathize with, often the problem, lacking vision, and uninterested or lacking curiosity in that which matters most. I think you represent a terrible, anti-intellectual person.
* [[2017.06.29 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** I'm enjoying the time I get to spend with my family. I know I won't get to see them nearly as much. I need to savor it!
* [[2017.06.29 - Diet Log]]
** Uh, this feels too low. I went for it, I thought.
* [[The Hunt for Red October]]
** My children don't have the attention spans for movies that I did. I don't mean this in a "these kids...get off my lawn" sense. I'm genuinely worried about them. They do read quite a bit though. This may just be a matter of practicing. I also had a completely shitty signal-to-noise ratio growing up, and so I'm enthralled and patient in ways they aren't.
* [[2017.06.29 - Link Log]]
** The direct Digg article is a rarity. Obviously, they benefit from this article, taking FB down, etc.
* [[2017.06.29 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** Edited.
* [[2017.06.29 - Wiki Review Log]]
** I've been excited to do my monthly audit this time around. I'm anticipating it. So much has happened that I need to think about the course of these transitions. Next month will have quite a bit as well.
* [[2017.06.29 - Pipefitting Log]]
** I'm proud of myself.
* [[2017.06.29 - Cry Log]]
** I know that feel, bro.
* [[Khan the Liger]]
** Hehe. I don't think this character is going anywhere. I think it is an interesting seed of an idea.
!! Log:
* [[2017.07.01 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.07.02 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.07.03 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.07.04 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.07.05 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.07.06 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.07.07 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.07.08 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.07.09 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.07.10 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.07.11 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.07.12 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.07.13 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.07.14 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.07.15 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.07.16 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.07.17 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.07.18 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.07.19 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.07.20 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.07.21 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.07.22 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.07.23 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.07.24 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.07.25 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.07.26 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.07.27 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.07.28 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.07.29 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.07.30 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.07.31 - Carpe Diem Log]]
!! Audit:
* I am lucky to have the brother and wife I do. It's hard to find people who consistently go out of their way to empathize with you. I hope I can pay them back in empathy too.
* So many Fireman Times!
* Phones and vehicle purchases planned. Will compete it two days from now. Definitely on track.
* I've not applied to the Louisville area. I'm hoping I won't have to right now, but in the future I would like to live near my brothers. I'm really waiting for financial stability. Eventually, my wife will be ready for a director position, I assume.
* I basically never play league anymore during the weekdays. That's fine though. I'm super busy. Good reason!
* My step-father-in-law might not have the right words, but he sometimes has the right actions.
* I've received $500 Gifts from two family members now. I am going to pay them back. I am really grateful.
* I'm reminded that I actually did do some philosophy this month. It wasn't as much as I'd have liked, but I've had very little time in some respects.
* I've decided against the van, unless it's cheap.
* I need more drugs in my life.
* I've been really lucky to be able to stay in touch with my family while away. I'm glad I get to talk to them so much.
* It was a very stressful month.
* I've stopped doing my link log consistently.
* My schedule has crystallized somewhat. I like that.
* I live for the weekends.
* It's been difficult with so few resources and tools.
* My wife should initiate more often.
* Infomacracy turned out to be terrible.
* Armstrong is retarded.
** But, I'd let him give my wife some brown sugar if she wanted it.
* Phrases:
** Bricks Pushed
** Inform the Men
** Fireman Time
** ...I need more...
* Keep eating them fruits and vegetables.
* I feel like I don't get to talk with ALM much, and never with AIR. =(
* This was a month to talk about racism, no doubt.
* My wife's shrimp, egg, and cheesy grits are amazeballs. Me want.
* I'm taking pictures. I never take pictures. It's interesting.
* I'm back to the blankets for Fireman Time. Hard to beat. ;P
* Tim has been a real mentor.
* It's been an itchy, sore, stressful month.
** My wife has been a goddess angel with a pretty mouth.
* Never found a good place for those notes. That's okay. Wing it.
* Several times I fell asleep early from exhaustion.
* I still haven't rectified my wife's need for a computer. We will get there.
* I have resided in a truly terrible neighborhood. Lol.
!! Log:
* [[2017.07.16 - DCK Meditation]]
!! Audit:
* I'm not convinced I had anything valuable to say in my DCK meditation.
* I am convinced that DCK helps manage my depression, and helps prevent me from slipping further into depression. This has been an even harder month because I couldn't use my medicine!
* I haven't enjoyed using it for many months, but I often walk out on the other side of it glad I did use it.
* I really need to find a way to more consistently use once a week this coming month.
!! Log:
* [[2017.07.03 - Family Log]]
* [[2017.07.09 - Family Log]]
* [[2017.07.16 - Family Log]]
* [[2017.07.23 - Family Log]]
* [[2017.07.30 - Family Log]]
!! Audit:
* My kids are failing in school. But, am I failing as a parent at this point?
* Sore throats. What if they are allergic to cats?
* It's been a rough month for everyone, I think.
* My wife writes a short letter to me each night, my children basically nothing in their wikis. I guess it's just me. You can't win 'em all, eh?
* Some of those compliments just sucked. Lol.
* We've done well with what we have.
!! Log:
* [[2017.07.06 - h0p3's Log]]
* [[2017.07.07 - h0p3's Log]]
* [[2017.07.20 - h0p3's Log]]
* [[2017.07.28 - h0p3's Log]]
!! Audit:
* It's been an almost DCK-less month. I can feel it.
* I don't wrestle with the concept of God much anymore, but I still wrestle with my invisible parents every day in my head.
** In time, I hope it will fade.
* My children have been doing poorly in their schoolwork. I don't know what to do. I live for my children, and it sucks to see them throw it away.
* There were far fewer h0p3's logs this month than usual. They all had to do with my biological donors or my children.
!! Log:
* [[2017.07.03 - Link Log]]
* [[2017.07.04 - Link Log]]
* [[2017.07.05 - Link Log]]
* [[2017.07.06 - Link Log]]
* [[2017.07.07 - Link Log]]
* [[2017.07.08 - Link Log]]
* [[2017.07.09 - Link Log]]
* [[2017.07.10 - Link Log]]
* [[2017.07.12 - Link Log]]
* [[2017.07.16 - Link Log]]
* [[2017.07.18 - Link Log]]
* [[2017.07.22 - Link Log]]
* [[2017.07.23 - Link Log]]
* [[2017.07.24 - Link Log]]
* [[2017.07.27 - Link Log]]
* [[2017.07.30 - Link Log]]
* [[2017.07.31 - Link Log]]
!! Audit:
* I have much fewer link logs this month. I've been crazy busy.
* I'm moving towards archetypal comments. It's faster, and often just as relevant.
* I enjoy having a place to give snippets of my guttural reactions.
* It's obvious I had lots of links collect and build up before I cleaned them up. Some survived, and some did not. This is good and bad.
** Exceptions often are extremely short. Very little tweeners.
* I think my family sometimes enjoys them. I hope they do. Skilled curation is rare.
* It's a shame we couldn't hold onto our eth.
* I have far more "for my daughter" than any of my other family members. She's more techy than my wife and son though. I need to find ways to balance this, right? How do I do that?
* Nautil.us and Aeon.co, yo.
* Maybe the wiki, in general, is more guttural?
!! Log:
* [[2017.07.03 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.07.04 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.07.05 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.07.06 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.07.07 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.07.08 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.07.09 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.07.10 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.07.11 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.07.12 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.07.13 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.07.14 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.07.15 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.07.17 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.07.18 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.07.19 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.07.20 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.07.21 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.07.22 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.07.23 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.07.24 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.07.25 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.07.26 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.07.27 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.07.28 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.07.29 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.07.30 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.07.31 - Pipefitting Log]]
!! Audit:
* What happened to those $200 from the school? I need to contact them and find out. That's free money, yo.
* I should give my teacher a gift basket. For reals. I ended up not because he ditched me, but I should anyway. I've heard from multiple people that it is pretty incredible how much he has gone to bat for me.
* This month has been a wild fucking ride, no doubt. I started knowing about the job, trying to get my tools and had tons of transitions to make. Good fuckin' job, mate! Noicely, dohne!
* As much as I don't trust the union, I still see them as the best money. I must give far more thought to it.
* The Harbor Freight tools have a 70.32856% success rate. I'll take it. I feel like I was quite economical and wise. I did the best I could with what I had.
* My electronic devices have been a godsend. They made being away from home bearable.
* Ha! I said I should find a Wal-mart when I forgot my towel the first time.
* I was obviously exceptionally stressed this month. My health took a hit for it.
** I wonder if this is why my wife's health is so poor as well.
* Mitch turns out to be a higher up that doesn't get his hands or clothes dirty, from what I can tell.
* James, I found out, is VP of the company. I'm glad I made a decent impression with him.
** I obviously did not understand his importance at first. I was right about parts of my feelings about him though. I will continue to pay close attention, I hope.
* Moral Alien Warrior.
* I'm proud of myself. That was a lot to take in.
* Terry rarely beveled. I'm not sure why he did the few times he did.
* I'm going to miss Jaye. I'll try to keep in touch, but I don't know how or what we'll say and do.
* My teacher went to bat for me multiple times. He kept in touch. He genuinely cares about my success.
* Johanna went to bat for me. She has been wonderful.
* You should, again, consider brushing up on your Spanish. None of the pipefitters speak Spanish, but the other kinds of trades and workers often have many Latinos.
* I had less and less to say about my days. I think the novelty and need to digest has waned. This, imho, is a good thing (at least for now).
* One reason I don't think I could work in the office or as management is that I think it requires too much psychopathy.
** Although, my wife is an obvious counterexample.
* I was right about being on Terry's job for only one more week.
* Don't forget to return Tim's tools, with a gift!
* Terry was a complete asshole.
** You did such a good job putting up with it. You had every right not to, but the sacrifice on your mind and body were worth it.
* The money has been wonderfully useful to us.
* I'm really skilled at losing my alignment pin =(, lol.
* I really need to find a way to engrave my name on tools.
* The portfolio is coming along!
** I've forgotten to put some stuff in there, but they are small. I want to make sure big stuff is there though.
* The new clothes have been incredibly wonderful. Thank you, dearest heart!
* RIP Phronesis, I think. Maybe fixable. Will take to Ponders. They'll make the call. The only mechanics I can trust, unfortunately.
* THC test passed in 8 days.
* Bull has, thus far, proven to be a wonderful foreman. I can ask for help on anything. He's never negative towards me. He honestly wants me to succeed, imho.
** I'm going to miss him.
** Should I do something nice for him? What would it be?
* How did I forget to Math?
** Only human, homie.
* Eth well spent.
* I have relaxed and had more fucking around time.
* Once the tools and vehicle are set, I feel like I'll be in damned good shape.
* This has been an exceptionally crazy month, but also very productive. It was quite a learning experience, and extremely stressful. Keep up the good work, homie!
!! Log:
* [[2017.07.01 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.07.02 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.07.03 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.07.04 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.07.05 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.07.06 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.07.07 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.07.08 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.07.09 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.07.10 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.07.11 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.07.12 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.07.13 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.07.14 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.07.15 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.07.16 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.07.17 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.07.18 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.07.19 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.07.20 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.07.21 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.07.22 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.07.23 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.07.24 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.07.25 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.07.26 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.07.27 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.07.28 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.07.29 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.07.30 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.07.31 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
!! Audit:
* Lots of softballs. It's been a rough month.
* I worked on my fear of heights this month, no doubt.
* Responses to pictures are hit or miss.
* I have a ton of incomplete posts and arguments that aren't drawn out enough.
* I'm definitely more snarky in these. I've lost my academic pursuit, I think.
* I'm sad about the Boy Scouts thing. I need to find another way.
!! Log:
* [[2017.07.01 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.07.02 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.07.03 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.07.04 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.07.05 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.07.06 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.07.07 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.07.08 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.07.09 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.07.10 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.07.11 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.07.12 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.07.13 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.07.14 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.07.15 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.07.16 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.07.17 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.07.18 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.07.19 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.07.20 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.07.21 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.07.22 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.07.23 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.07.24 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.07.25 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.07.26 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.07.27 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.07.28 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.07.29 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.07.30 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.07.31 - Wiki Review Log]]
!! Audit:
* I dropped the [[Diet Log]]. I think it is reasonable.
* I was obviously very well aware of the lack of DCK this month, throughout the month.
* Almost entirely "Log" work at this point. There are some projects that crop up here and there. That's okay for now, right? In time, this will change.
* The [[Wiki Review Log]] seems to be part of the core heartbeat of the wiki. Am I using it wisely enough? It's definitely not nothing. It sometimes seems inane. It's there though. I see my reflection on the page, and I get to reflect on my reflection as well.
* I need to bring "Brief" back. =)
** Pour one out for my crazy sociology teacher /libation
* A budget tool would be nice. If I could just auto-sum columns in tables, that would be enough for me. I need my daughter's help.
* Without cannabliss and DCK, and because I refuse to use significant amounts of alcohol, orgasms are one of the few drugs I have left to use. It shows up strongly this month.
** I'd like to thank my wife, my hand, my blanket, countless pornstars, and my brain.
* I've clearly had several important conversations with my brother. I'm very glad to have him as my friend.
* Future me is annoyed at past me for blank "edits." Sometimes is fine. There are too many here without context. Give me your reasoning!
* I miss being in bed with my wife for all the reasons.
* Let me reiterate: accounts are a good idea. This is the core of advanced familial budgeting.
* A link edit inside [[2017.07.24 - Wiki Review Log]]. Syntax, yo!
* I really do want to do more philosophy. I've just not been doing it. Some of my reasons good, others not. I would argue I'm applying philosophy. I'm being practical. We shall see.
* Edit, edit edit. How about: Brief!
** Rofl...and the next wiki review log said about the same thing. Hilarious!
* I'm not doing a deep read through. Should I follow the tree, at least one layer deep? My memory is not perfect, obviously. This may be worth doing.
* I woke up late. Fireman time. My wife didn't stay. =(
* I got a bite to eat, talked, and my brother showed up.
* We screwed around some, and then we played some DND.
* Eventually it got late enough and everyone was hungry, so we went swimming and grilled out.
** It was nice.
* We came back and played more DND.
* Afterwards, we chilled.
* I talked with L&K about Final Fantasy 14, and my brother slept.
* I wrote in my wiki, and I watched some league. TSM got stomped.
* We watched Lucky Number Slevin.
|customTable|k
|Food|Calories|h
|Hamburger|600|
|Brats|500|
|Asparagus|39|
|Mandarins|105|
|Pear|100|
|Watermelon Ice Treat|70|
|Chips|400|
|Pizza|600|
|Salad|250|
|Beer|100|
|Wine|100|
|Total|2864|f
!! Three things you can’t go without...
I'm definitely being thrown a softball. I have company though. That's fine.
# Computers (including the interwebs)
# My family
# Food
`#rekt`
Let's be clear, that list was too easy. I suppose the point is to try and dig something out of myself besides the obvious, right?
Note, I think everything I'd ever put on this list is a drug towards Eudaimonia.
The modality of "can't" is important here as well. I suppose I might have to give different answers. I took the most common interpretation, I believe.
* [[2017.06.30 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** It's great to have family over. =)
* [[2017.06.30 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** I hate you, Samwise.
* [[Fuglee Joe]]
** My brother's character is nowhere. He wrote it on my wiki for our game. lol.
** Tagged it JRE.
* [[2017.06.30 - Diet Log]]
** Summed.
* [[2017.06.30 - Wiki Review Log]]
** It is much harder to write the wiki with company. That said, it is getting done.
* [[Unformat Text Without Code Block on Tiddlywiki]]
** Neat trick my daughter showed me. I believe I have a cheatsheet to look at.
* [[2017.06.30 - Pipefitting Log]]
** Edited.
* Woke up early. I tried sleeping, but I couldn't. I had to pee, and I couldn't because my wife was in the bathroom. My need to pee made it difficult to sleep.
* I whizzed and had some fireman time.
* I didn't use DCK today, but I will tomorrow. We are foregoing our standard Sunday family time since it has been busy.
* I talked with K for quite a while. We got to know each other even better, which was wonderful.
** We went over my substance use and his hangup/history (step-dad) with it.
* My brother came, and we talked as men for several hours until the rest of the family came.
** We talked about L's biological donor, relationships, etc.
** Hell, we talked about a wide variety of topics. It was quite philosophical.
* They came home, and my wife and I made the sexy times.
* After showering, I made lunch. We had deli sandwiches. It was great.
* We then chilled, talked, etc.
* We started DND, and it was epic.
* Afterwards, we made dinner and watched The Boondock Saints.
|customTable|k
|Food|Calories|h
|Donut|250|
|Sandwiches|1000|
|Beer|300|
|Chips|400|
|Indian Food|900|
|Brussel Sprouts|140|
|Brownies|600|
|Total|3590|f
!! What did you most enjoy doing this week?
I had an amazing time with my family. It's difficult to choose anything. If I had to, I would say taking my brother to my shop. We've talked about it for 6 months, and he finally got to see what I've been doing. It was great to bring those conversations alive. It's really great to connect on it in this way.
* [[2017.07.01 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** Short, but sweet. The game itself was really interesting.
* [[2017.07.01 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** I don't know what to say. My introspection is fairly weak when I have company over. I'm spending all my time and energy with them.
* [[2017.07.01 - Diet Log]]
** Delicious
* [[2017.07.01 - Wiki Review Log]]
** I'm glad my wife is keeping the DND game on her wiki. It started out slowly, but towards middle and end, it was amazing.
* [[2017.06 - h0p3's Log]]
** Not much to say.
* [[2017.06 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** Not much to say.
* [[2017.06 - Diet Log]]
** I did eat more this week. I need to tone it down. Hopefully, working will make it easier to cut. I should consider doing a Sunday meal prep.
* [[2017.06 - Wiki Review Log]]
** =) I'm glad I had the chance to do this monthly audit.
* [[2017.06 - Pipefitting Log]]
** I had a lot to say here. I have nothing to add now.
* Fireman time upon a late wakeup.
* I stayed in the room since [[L]]&[[K]] were still sleeping downstairs. I finished off TSM vs IMT, and I did some reading.
* I received a call/text from AB&T. The tool list is approved. Yay! (Although, I don't think they realize how much it costs...so, tentatively approved).
* I came downstairs, had a bit of breakfast, and we all talked.
* My brother eventually came, and we talked some more.
* I think I annoyed them all talking about the humanities, yet again. I don't know what to say. I think I'm profoundly right about it.
* Everyone eventually left. As always, I'm happy to receive my guests, and eventually, I'm glad to see them depart as well.
* We immediately got to work. The kids did some cleaning, and my wife and I started working on that list.
* We went shopping for groceries and whatnot.
* We made a bit of food.
* We had our family meeting a day late. I'm glad we did it.
* I'm going to Inform the Men, per an agreement earlier today.
* I will try to finish the rest of my wiki, watch some TV, and then go to sleep. I'm ready to have both my pillows back.
* Watched Split. Fucked up.
|customTable|k
|Food|Calories|h
|Dates|200|
|Country Ham, Biscuits, and Eggs|1050|
|Brussel Sprouts|140|
|Wine|300|
|Biscuits and Honey|500|
|Total|2190|f
!! How has your health been this week?
* 1uxb0x
** Good. Normal.
* j3d1h
** Stuffy throat.
** Had a couple headaches.
** Lost a tooth.
** Wakes up earlier than she would have expected without intervention.
* k0sh3k
** Headache
** Chest hurts, which is rare.
* h0p3
** I feel jumpy.
** I've not had DCK, and I've decided to wait a full two weeks before I use it again. I think it is the wisest choice. I'll manage without it (that doesn't mean I should stop using it).
---
!! What happened last week? Have you been happy this past week? Why or why not?
* 1uxb0x
** Happy because of DND, for being able to create characters.
** He felt embarrassed after dropping his hymnal at church.
** Got to play with his friends a lot this week.
** Seeing his family was wonderful.
* j3d1h
** Homework =/
** L&K + JRE coming was awesome.
** Loved DND and character creation as well. Feels like she needs to work harder at it.
* k0sh3k
** Had fun DMing this week and developing the homebrew.
** Glad she took the day off.
** Finished the ILL manual.
* h0p3
** Found a job!
** I have been racing to get everything set.
** I had family over, and we had a great weekend. It was amazing. I was really grateful to see everyone, and I have a good time.
---
!! What is a positive fact or compliment we can say about each person in the family?
* 1uxb0x
** You had a difficult time with your character not playing as you wanted it to and took the time and energy to be a good sport about it. You quietly and privately calmed down, and you came back downstairs with a good attitude. I think it shows maturity and a willingness to grow. I'm glad you participated in the experience with us, even if it didn't go as initially planned for you.
** You made excellent characters for DND.
** You made progress toward controlling your meltdowns and negative thoughts. You quickly recovered when you did have them.
* j3d1h
** You were a good host this weekend. Several times you gave up your seat, made food, cleaned up, and provided hospitality for our guests.
** You were tempted to get pouty during the game, and you controlled yourself and reset your attitude.
** I feel like you haven't been bossy with me, for example, you asked for my help with the trash.
* k0sh3k
** Thank you for putting in so much effort into our DND game. I really enjoyed it, and I think you made it a very special weekend for the rest of us. We will remember it for a long time to come. I want to thank you for creating this project in your wiki. It really means a lot to me on that front as well.
** You cheered me up at church. I had a meltdown, and you helped me recover from it.
** Thank you for helping me bake this weekend, giving me more time with the family.
* h0p3
** Thank you for getting the car worked on and getting everything in order before you have to go.
** Thank you for getting us the magnetic putty.
** I like how you are honest in your [[h0p3's log]]. It's a good log.
---
!! What will you do this week? Name at least one fun objective and one unfun objective.
* 1uxb0x
** Make a tool.
** Watch a lot of Game of Thrones
* j3d1h
** Find a way to sync dnsmasq.conf
** Befriend's Jojo's sister
* k0sh3k
** Solidify plans with Katherine
** Pull together some slow cooker recipes
* h0p3
** Finish acquiring my tools, study for and take my test, finalize relationship with my teacher, find accommodations, reach out to the union, prepare bags, etc.
** Bang my wife as much as humanly possible.
* https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jun/28/notpetya-ransomware-attack-ukraine-russia
** I did not anticipate this direction. I think it is an odd move.
* KYS
** https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170628/10062237687/as-predicted-coxs-latest-appeal-points-to-scotus-refusal-to-disconnect-sex-offenders-social-media.shtml
*** But, the terrorists and children. Yet, another red scare. I hate people.
** https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/06/appeals-court-public-defender-lacks-standing-in-dispute-over-court-software/
*** I despise willingly illiterate people.
** http://ir.net/news/politics/125737/death-threats-press-already-starting-trumps-violent-tweet/
*** I take no pleasure in the "KYS" irony.
* http://www.payscale.com/career-news/2017/06/millennials-are-too-open-about-salary-history
** I'm sure they feel like they have plenty of freedom to do otherwise. They probably have plenty of leverage, experience using people, etc., right? I'm waiting for them to wake up. Let's hope it happens.
* http://fortune.com/2017/06/28/gmail-google-account-ads-privacy-concerns-home-settings-policy/
** Interesting hit piece. Why is Fortune running it? Bloombergian almost.
* Trump
** https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/29/donald-trump-russia-lawyer-marc-kasowitz-jared-kushner
* http://www.goldmansachs.com/our-thinking/pages/blockchain/
** Hype-train or a sign of transnational power grab/drain.
* http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-06-29/nyt-journalists-plan-walkout-after-being-disrespected-and-betrayed-management
** I'm not a fan of the NYT, but I'm far left of them in most respects. I'd still be very sad to see them crumble.
* https://github.com/nirvik/iWant
** CLI P2P LAN filesharing application. Neat.
* https://magenta.tensorflow.org/performance-rnn
** Redpilled postmodernism continues to destroy art, ourselves, and a drug-fueled experience machine.
* http://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/manhattan-project-library-charlotte-serber-oppenheimer-fbi
** For my wife.
* https://www.propublica.org/article/vivitrol-opiate-crisis-and-criminal-justice
** The lack of empathy for drug users is profound. Look at the science behind it. It's disturbing. That people continue to side with psychopaths in power blows my mind. I think that makes you all psychopaths.
* https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/gemini-pda-android-linux-keyboard-mobile-device-phone#/
** Been looking at one of these for my foray back into smartphone.world. I'm not convinced this isn't vaporware.
* http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2017/06/a-third-of-americans-are-about-to-have-their-drinking-water-deregulated-by-the-epa/
** MJ, I get it. Fine. This is a real problem. The water crisis is still coming for us all. I feel like I don't have much time. I assume my area, which already has a lead problem, is going to have this disadvantage piled on top as well.
* https://www.cinesift.com/#/
** Nifty tool for searching for movies with high ratings.
* https://www.njhomelandsecurity.gov/analysis/anarchist-extremists-antifa?rq=antifa
** Yikes! Pay attention!
* https://www.reddit.com/r/subredditcancer/comments/6kz846/banned_from_rlatestagecapitalism_because_of/
** While LSC gets a lot right, it gets a lot wrong. I'm continually saddened by this censorship. I'm authoritarian leftist primarily for taxing the wealthy, but this is absurd. I hate to see it.
Today I received a call/text from AB&T explaining they received the letter. They need an accounting for the $200 meant for tools last semester. I never spent the money in the school account. I can't now. The money is in limbo. I actually had hoped to buy pipefitter books instead with it since I was so advanced in the course that it would likely be the wisest use of the money. Secondly, I need to generate the pricing lists. That's what I've been working on today, with the generous help of my wife. We'll try and contact AB&T tomorrow, and if we can't, then the next day.
The item list is quite expensive. If we got the entire list with decent brands, it will cost up to $2,000. Let's hope the money she set aside can be spent on it. I need it. I'm willing to front the money if I would be immediately reimbursed upon receipt. In a way, I would prefer that, since I can get it through amazon prime. If it can't be done immediately, then I can't afford to do it. I'm thinking I will be going without tools for a while until this gets sorted. I'll still do my best to handle it as quickly as I can. I hope it won't cause any trouble at work for me at my new job.
My brother has been extremely generous to me, giving me a gift of $500 for my birthday. It may be the most expensive birthday gift I've ever received, and we need it. It's an extra boost in a heavy-transition, high-risk situation. I'm so grateful. Times have been tough, and he has been a shining knight for us.
Tomorrow I'll be studying for the last exam and preparing a small gift basket for my teacher. I want to thank him and maintain that relationship.
!! Respond to the following quotes:
<<<
The visible world is the invisible organization of energy.
<<<
I must admit, this quote is so poetic sounding that we might take it to be pseudo-scientific. That isn't to say physics doesn't have an elegance to it, but rather I'm cautious of unscientific people who employ the word "energy." They are usually retarded. This happens to be true enough though, particularly when we talk about visibility with the naked human eye.
I think it is a highly reductive claim. I think it's meant to inspire people. It's almost spiritual, but it need not be interpreted as such. It seems very meaningful. As long as we don't impart telos to that organization, posit an organizer, etc., then we're still in fairly neutral territory.
Setting aside conversational implicature for a moment, I take "is the" to be a strong indicator of the identity predicate in my translation. Quite a few metaphysicians would take umbrage at this reduction, even those who take themselves to be destroying metaphysics.
This takes on a particular point of view in ontology. Does what emerges have privilege? "Visibility" just is layers of abstractions upon abstractions, objects from objects upon objects, and so on. How does one provide a reason for this privilege in order to escape the reduction?
I fear we cannot. At best, we give meaning to ourselves, and that's it. There is no meaning which escapes that sphere of our reason-giving. It lacks objectivity in a way. It seems as though we lack access to anything objectively meaning giving outside this invisibly organized energy (physics).
The post-modern problematic of physics is not solved. The theoretical physicists and celebrity physicists are terrible at even understanding the problem itself, which is sad.
* [[2017.06 - Family Log]]
** This may be something I look upon more fondly long-term.
* [[Lucky Number Sleven]]
** Yay! I really love that movie so much. It is surprising how it is so rewatchable. Knowing the twist doesn't ruin it. You get to see all the breadcrumbs.
* [[2017.07.02 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** I didn't use DCK.
* [[2017.07.02 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** So short. I think I actually "mailed" this one in as my wife does. ;P
* [[2017.07.02 - Diet Log]]
** Summed.
** I don't feel bad about this one. It was a party!
* [[2017.07.02 - Wiki Review Log]]
** I definitely felt rushed. That's okay. Our last major visits with family also made for light writing until afterward for digestion.
* I woke up crazy late. I need to start using my alarm clock again. This past week has thrown my schedule off. I need to get back in the groove, especially before work.
* Fireman time!
* I got the kids started on schoolwork.
* I worked hard today, but I also had plenty of time to read and surf.
* I sent a letter to AB&T, and I felt some anxiety about it.
* I studied, and I'm still going to study some more.
* We had pancake-berry tacos/wraps. They are delicious.
* I modified a script to make another useful one today. I'm wondering how far I should take this automation. I wonder if I should go just flat texts files. I've read a lot of hackers who ultimately swear by it. I can see why.
* I've played some league, and I did some fun writing in my wiki.
* Inform the men!
* We watched John Oliver and a GoT episode today.
* My browser somehow just filled up again. It does that. =)
* The audit went by quickly.
* I've been feeling nervous, excited, and worried about next week.
** I think I should do a meal prep.
** I will find a place in the next two days.
** I need to map out/write down locations of important places for my GPS.
* Our first purchase will be phones for the family.
** It is crucial that I can contact my children at will, and vice versa.
* Our second purchase will be a vehicle.
* I'm considering applying the Louisville area as well, since I could live with my brother, assuming his SO would be okay with it.
|customTable|k
|Food|Calories|h
|Pancakes and Berries|800|
|Cherries|90|
|Dates|200|
|Taco Salad|1200|
|Chili|250|
|Cereal|340|
|Total|2880|f
* https://www.nature.com/news/2011/110411/full/news.2011.227.html
** No, no, no. People are ideally rational, right?
* https://youtu.be/dbo1a5WzXX8
** Beautiful, frisson
* http://www.sixthtone.com/news/1000407/turn-off%2C-drop-out-why-young-chinese-are-abandoning-ambition
** Fascinating. The NEET, Hikikimori, whatever you want to call it movement continues.
** It has a splash of romanticism and plenty of despair.
* KYS
** http://www.businessinsider.com/national-rifle-association-ad-call-to-violence-2017-6
* https://www.vox.com/conversations/2017/6/27/15873072/google-porn-addiction-america-everybody-lies
** Didn't learn much, but it is a good reminder.
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARGczzoPASo
** Also, didn't learn much, but a worthy reminder.
* https://www.theexplode.com/cia-track-linux-user/
** They watch Linux reading lists too. Literate people are always targeted.
* https://fosspost.org/2017/07/04/linux-marketshare-stats-wrong/
** It is very hard to find accurate information.
* https://newrepublic.com/article/143699/medias-unacceptable-silence-republican-health-care-bill
** Are you surprised?
* Preach, yo.
** https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/06/private-government-interview-elizabeth-anderson
** http://original.antiwar.com/jwhitehead/2017/06/26/age-no-privacy-surveillance-state-shifts-high-gear/
* https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1gIRjeB1Y_AMvtmJsZWl_dNMDJ7lPSIxiVUYyEvrP5P4/edit#gid=1458779204
** For my daughter. Programming podcasts.
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPojltjv4M0&feature=youtu.be
** He sees the outline of postmodernism, but it is clear he doesn't have empathy or understanding of its roots. I agree, postmodernism is problematic, but that doesn't mean they are wrong.
* http://www.focusing.org/apm_papers/conferencereport.html
** An interesting report of conclusions about postmodernism.
** Clearly, I am only fringe metamodern. I'm not sure I can agree to their claims. I'm not optimistic we or they will succeed, but I hope so.
* http://nautil.us/issue/49/the-absurd/ingenious-albert-camus
** It is hard to tell if Camus and I would get along. We might annoy each other a great deal, but I think we would have much to say to each other.
** Nautil.us delivers, yet again.
* https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/06/the-highest-form-of-disagreement/531597/
** It's true, even if The ATL can't live up to it either.
* http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/07/10/americas-future-is-texas
** An instructive narrative.
** I barely have the attention span anymore for this, I hate to say.
* http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2017/06/how-napping-subway-commuters-know-when-theyre-at-their-stop.html
** Freaky kind-of.
* http://programmingisterrible.com/post/162346490883/how-do-you-cut-a-monolith-in-half
** I love how philosophical programming can be, even if only via instrumental reasoning.
* https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2017/06/the-perils-of-meritocracy/532215/
** Meritocracy requires defining merit. It is almost a truism if you are broad enough in your understanding of merit.
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlM8Ak2KuYI&feature=youtu.be
** The national educational loan shark industry is no accident.
* http://www.news.com.au/finance/business/weve-raised-generation-hopeless-millennials-who-lack-basic-life-and-workplace-skills-and-its-a-big-issue/news-story/f3256c05c19c356002103eb50e50cee1
** Millenial hit piece. While they raise some good points, there is a bedrock of terrible assumptions here. Also, I think there is a clear agenda.
* https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2017/jul/02/fight-for-my-daughter-battle-against-backpage-child-sex-trafficking
** You want to mitigate child prostitution? It's time to legalize, regulate, protect, and tax adult prostitution.
It took two days to finish it, but I found bids for all the tools. This was harder than I thought. I was supposed to find all the tools from a single retailer for each bid list. After much searching, I found I couldn't. Only Amazon was capable of it. Thus, I had to combine retailers. I don't know if Johanna will find this acceptable or not. It took a while, and it will cost $1900 minimum for the tools. I didn't pick up the most expensive tools, but I did pick up quality tools. I want them to last for at least a few years minimum. I did pick up some tools which make the job easier, more precise, and make it go faster. `/fingers-crossed`, I hope AB&T will pick them up for me. This is beyond their usual. I'll call tomorrow to find out. What I don't want to see is Johanna badgering my employer in any respect about the list. We will see.
I studied for the exam as well. I hope tomorrow will be the last day I go to school for a long time. I'm betting I'll have to stop by at least a couple more times to sort things out. Again, we will see. I don't feel prepared for the exam. I'm going to continue studying.
Brownies and alcohol for my teacher.
!! Cats or dogs. What kind of person are you, and why?
I'm not much of an animal person in general. I do like my cats though. I've had pets of different kinds. Cats fit me the best, although aquatic creatures have their own beautiful world that fascinates me.
Obviously, cats are more independent than dogs. They can take care of themselves in some important ways, and I like their personalities often enough. I find the logistics far more to my liking.
I like petting cats more. We stay around each other when we want, and otherwise, we leave each other alone. I find it much easier to empathize with a cat.
I've met some excellent dogs in my life (Golden Retrievers have been among the best dogs I've ever had the pleasure of meeting), but the vast majority are not very good creatures, imho. That, I assume, is largely due to the kinds of people who own dogs and the conditioning they give to their pets. I legitimately think that dog-owners tend to be, on average, less ethical, intelligent, and wise than the cat-owners I know. There are, of course, exceptions. Again, I'm talking about the //average// here.
If someone loves dogs, it is a strong indicator to me that I will not like them. It's a red flag. That might sound silly or ridiculous at first. It is a pattern I have noticed though. Dog-owners strongly tend to need their pet to love them, they are devoted to the pack mentality, and they conform to social conventions without appropriate introspection, pause, or critical reasoning. I consider their way of thinking dangerous.
I think dog-owners tend to be "crazy" pet owners far more often than "cat" owners as well.
As shocking as it may sound, the moral fabric of our lives are detailed. Even small choices, desires, and beliefs matter. They define who we are, what we think, and what we do. Being an X-person is still constitutive of who you are. It is quite likely (overwhelmingly, in my view) this a moral issue. I'm betting you disagree, Samwise. That's because you are a retarded dog-lover, aren't you? Good boy. Go fetch the stick, idiot.
* [[2017.07.03 - Link Log]]
** I'm still not sure why someone would build shitty ransomware. It's bad for the "effective" bad guys though, as it may lower the bar of trust.
* [[2017.07.03 - Retired: {Focus}]]
** I've noticed that I've been shuffling logs around still. Some seem worth it, and some don't. That's the natural way of things.
* [[2017.06 - Link Log]]
** I think I should just automate the process of going through my links. Make a python script which converts the bookmarks to something palatable. Perhaps my daughter can write the script.
* [[2017.06 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** I think the Carpe Diem log is interesting. I'm not quite seeing how useful it is just yet. I'm glad I'm doing it though.
* [[2017.06 - DCK Meditation]]
** This coming month won't have much in this log. I can't use.
* [[2017.07.03 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** They are getting shorter.
* [[2017.07.03 - Family Log]]
** My children are still learning how to compliment.
* [[2017.07.03 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** I want to do more art interpretation.
* [[2017.07.03 - Diet Log]]
** My goal is to have fewer average calories than this last month.
* [[2017.07.03 - Wiki Review Log]]
** Edited.
* [[2017.07.03 - Pipefitting Log]]
** I'm extremely grateful to my brother. He has offered to help us with money if we needed it. And, I haven't taken him up on it. I didn't want to unless it was absolutely necessary. He decided to just give us money anyway. I hope I can find a way to repay him back.
* [[AB&T Buylist]]
** I'm so excited by even the possibility of owning any of these tools.
* I woke up early, and I was really tired.
* I got the kids up and started.
** Although, my son ended up not doing his work. I'm not sure it mattered for him, but it did for my daughter.
* I did a lot of good thinking while walking at the school today. I also studied more.
* I tried to reach out to the union again. I'm glad I'm not relying upon them at this point. I hope I eventually can though.
* I spoke with Johanna at AB&T, and I realize I can't rely upon them at this point. That's okay; I'll find another way, right?
* I came home early, and I had a delicious brownie with my chilluns. =)
* My brother AIR called me back. It was truly wonderful to hear back from him. We talked at length. He tried the DCK, and it was clearly helpful to him. I'm trying to get him to start writing in his wiki as well. I think that will be very useful to him as well.
* I e-mailed my brother JRE back. I found a strong build for him. The SSD went off sale, unfortunately, hours later. Eh, it's okay.
* I spoke to my teacher.
* I studied some.
* I played some league.
* Fireman time!
* I spent quite a bit of time getting dinner prepared. We had ribs, homemade fries with paprika, and brussel sprouts.
* I found a roommate/housing and solidified it. Yay!
* I picked my wife up.
* Dinner and watching EU vs NA League. Awesome!
* I'm going to write, study, watch league, maybe play a game, and fall asleep to Futurama again.
|customTable|k
|Food|Calories|h
|Brownies|500|
|Wrap|300|
|Apples|200|
|Pear|100|
|Ribs|1250|
|Brussel Sprouts|70|
|Fries|500|
|Mandarins|70|
|Total|2990|f
* https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/01/technology/yelp-google-european-union-antitrust.html
** Fascinating. Search, like libraries, are a public good that the public must own.
* https://www.wired.com/story/a-math-genius-blooms-late-and-conquers-his-field
** Sounds like hard work and a fuckton of luck.
* https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-07-03/baby-boomers-will-live-long-but-might-not-prosper
** My empathy wanes.
* https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/chicago-wont-allow-high-school-students-to-graduate-without-a-plan-for-the-future/2017/07/03/ac197222-5111-11e7-91eb-9611861a988f_story.html?utm_term=.74d4bb6ef948&wpisrc=nl_rainbow&wpmm=1
** I'm not sure how I feel about this. I will watch it anyways.
* https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/exclusive-documents-expose-direct-us-military-intelligence-influence-on-1-800-movies-and-tv-shows-36433107c307
** It is known.
* https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/corporate-media-are-not-the-press-and-they-dont-deserve-your-sympathy-dccbab51e14d
** Not entirely correct, but it has its merits.
* https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/6l6lwv/brexit_vote_leave_campaign_chief_who_created_350m/djro03a/
** Hilarious run-down
* https://www.franzoni.eu/stopping-the-internet-of-noise/
** Hear, hear! This is on the right track.
* https://www.extremetech.com/computing/248069-unofficial-patch-unblocks-windows-7-8-1-updates-kaby-lake-ryzen
** Sad that it comes to this. What a terrible force.
* KYS
** https://i.redd.it/pgfczhfzmr7z.jpg
* https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6leunc/eli5_how_do_rich_people_use_donations_as_tax/
** Yup.
* http://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-internet-content-idUSKBN19O21X
** Not that we are much better.
* https://www.reddit.com/r/subredditcancer/comments/6lbe9e/suprareddit_cancer_cnn_doxxes_and_blackmails_rthe/
** Jesus. It's breathtaking.
* http://anildash.com/2012/12/the-web-we-lost.html
** Exactly! The lack of literacy and historical knowledge have (or helped) decontextualized, hypernormalized, hypnotized, and enslaved the world.
*** His solutions aren't inspiring.
**** http://anildash.com/2012/12/rebuilding-the-web-we-lost.html
My teacher didn't show up. I waited for over and hour, and he didn't come. I studied the chapter more. I actually don't mind. I really need to continue studying this chapter. It has so much information in it, I don't feel confident enough on it.
On the way back home, I stopped by the union center, but Randy wasn't there, as usual. Bad sign, I take it.
I also called Johanna at AB&T. She picked up this time (easier to reach her in the morning). She thanked me for the list, and she said she already submitted for the money. She was instantly denied. Apparently, the massive organizational restructuring also means none of her clients (participants, she calls them) can receive any funds, even though these funds were previously allocated. Johanna sounded desperate and extremely unhappy. She told me she is considering leaving her job. I asked her if she thought it was unlikely I would get my tools. She didn't say anything directly to it, but she said she would know more definitively next week. She appealed the denial, and she hopes to win it. This isn't the first time she has appealed on my behalf. I hope she wins, but I'm pretty convinced she won't at this point.
My teacher called later in the day. He apologized. He said I could take it tomorrow, so I will. He also asked about the tool situation. I explained it. He told me I absolutely must bring some tools to the job, so I will. They might be shitty tools, and I might not have enough or the right ones, but I'll do what I can. What else am I going to do?
I found a $400 room close to my workplace. I called the fellow up. I'm socially awkward, and the phone call went pretty meh. He's calling me back later. I think there is a reasonable chance I'll have it ready for Sunday. My wife's friend's neighbor may be calling me today as well about a room.
I continued studying.
!! Are you afraid of heights?
Yes.
I do not like the thought of falling at all. I've never liked heights. Fear grips me as I grip the rails. Interestingly, I don't feel bad with a harness on in my experience. I feel far more comfortable in that position, at least as experience goes.
I need to empathize with myself wisely (and turn off my feelings if I can when I must). I'm going to be working at heights very often. I should take steps necessary to do it safely, and I think the use of PPE will make me feel a lot better. I've not felt bad going up on ladders so far, but I've not gone up absurdly high.
I have to remember that I do have a good sense of balance (which is surprising for an autist). I can do it!
* [[2017.07.04 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** I need to make a checklist....Done!
* [[2017.07.04 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** It sounds like a folklore psychology question. Heuristics, the soft end of science, and intuition still matter though.
* [[2017.07.04 - Diet Log]]
** Summed.
* [[2017.07.04 - Wiki Review Log]]
** It looks like my brother's gift is going to buy tools and rent. I'm really thankful to him.
* [[2017.07.04 - Pipefitting Log]]
** I'm actually proud of how much work I accomplish when I'm not directly "on the job." I hope to continue taking this kind of initiative.
* [[ARAM: Janna]]
** I remade her item build. Items have been changing, and my choices as well.
* [[ARAM: Morgana]]
** I adore her so much. I tend to very well on her.
* [[Wiki Script: Tox-2-Wiki Text Formatter for Link Log]]
** Anything which makes my life simpler is nice. It isn't just the time, it's the emotional energy.
* [[Wiki Scripts]]
** I decided I might write more, and it is time to start collecting them.
* [[2017.07.04 - Link Log]]
** That is a backlog of links.
* I woke up, still tired, but not as usual.
* I got the kids up and started.
* I went straight to school, took my test, filled out some paper, talked, and said my goodbyes to my teacher. It's been an amazing journey so far.
* I hit the union, and I was disappointed.
* I went home, checked on the kids, grabbed my checklist and cash, and bought tools.
* I spent time organizing my tools and the car.
* I played some league.
* I watched some league.
* Called the landlord about the dishwasher leaking again. He came in again and will come in tomorrow to replace a tube.
* Inform the men!
* We made excellent burgers today with pretzel buns (never had em before). It was a great meal.
* My mobile devices have been encrypted, refreshed, loaded up, and set for being away.
* I talked with my brother JRE. He invited me to come to Louisville to work; his SO was excited about it too.
* My step-father-in-law sent me an e-mail he felt was an expression of his faith, from the heart to me.
** I have lots of opinions about it. I don't want to be rude to him, and in this case, he probably couldn't afford to hear my side of things. I think he has a difficult enough time holding onto reality as it is, and he is not rational enough to appreciate my position.
** It is not clear to me that responding is useful in any possible way here. The timing is interesting, no doubt.
* I'm going to watch Veep. My wife told me not to watch The Mist. Apparently, the ending would fucking crush me into farcical drink myself into oblivion land.
* Today went by so quickly!
|customTable|k
|Food|Calories|h
|Cherries|60|
|Dates|400|
|Brussel Sprouts|70|
|PB Crackers & Honey|250|
|Burger|600|
|Sandwich|500|
|Chili|200|
|Egg Rolls|520|
|Total|2600|f
!! How is your health? Daily routine?
My sleep schedule is readjusting from last week. I'm fairly tired. My routine is in disarray as I prepare to half-move and start my new job. I'm feeling far more anxiety.
I'm snappier without DCK. It's been almost two weeks now.
---
!! What happened? How do you feel about it? What made you feel this way? Does it make you happy or unhappy? Why or why not?
I read an e-mail from my mother. I have too many emotions come up. I've decided now is not the time to deal with them. Too much is riding upon my success. Further, upon reviewing our previous encounters, it is clear to me they are a danger to my mental health.
If I could erase them from my mental life, it would literally make me happier and more functional.
---
!! Can you better explain what happened? Do you have a technological, philosophical, empathic, or redpilled story to tell about the phenomenon? Clarify the narrative you just told yourself.
I can't undo the damage they have done. They created children whose lives are marred and broken. Their failures are not mine. I can only work with I have. I must be stoic. The best way to handle dark-triadic abusers is to literally cut them out. That is what I will try to do.
I owe them nothing. The monkey-wrench is my children. I owe my children everything.
Unfortunately, my children do not understand the situation and their biological grand-donors. They are too young, inexperienced, undeveloped, vulnerable, and biased to see it yet. My children have only experienced the spoilage of grandparents. My children do not see these dark-triads for who they really are. The complexity, pain, issues of responsibility & autonomy, and the religious issues are beyond them at this point. One day, they will see that I am right about my biological donors. I am quite confident that my picture makes the most sense, and I believe my children will eventually be reasonable enough to see it.
I'm not convinced I should be the person who seals off their relationship with these people. My donors delusionally believe themselves innocent and wronged.<<ref "1">> My worry is that these manipulators would use this as a weapon to charm my children, infecting them with their mental disease, confabulations, and falsehoods. I know how they would tell the tale, and I cannot enable those lies to be told. Thus, I believe I'm forced to allow the relationship to exist. It seems like I must. It is likely the safest way for my children to eventually see the truth for themselves. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
My donors did the same with their donors with us to some extent. They were careful in how they badmouthed their donors. It was a practical decision, and I will use it too.<<ref "2">>
Thus, I cannot fully cut them out. It would help us tremendously to be free of them. I have made enormous progress since last year, but I've made little or no headway on this front. I am finally accepting who they really are (my charity must end). I can see a relationship with them just isn't practically wise.
---
!! What are you going to do about what happened?
* I will refer to my biological donors by their first names now. [[MWF]] & [[SLT]]. Using the appropriate language reframes it.
* I will not hinder contact with my children, but I am not obligated to generate or directly support it. Thankfully, they are too wrapped up in their own lives to regularly affect us.
* My children will no longer be alone with my donors.
---
<<footnotes "1" "Little do they understand how the sword of vindication would cut in this circumstance.">>
<<footnotes "2" "I am reminded of an illustration about honoring one's parents in one of my male donor's sermons long ago. Now I carve his wooden bowl too.">>
* https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/07/05/how-video-games-helped-give-us-the-self-driving-car/?utm_term=.9f1d95ad4f4c
** Washpo, what is this marketing hype bullshit? There are so many problems with what he said. Are you really going to let that slide?
* https://i.redd.it/mgs5ikd07w7z.jpg
** Oh, snap! "Dam Son"
I showed up at the same time as my teacher. He let me study for 15 minutes before I took the exam. It was a very difficult test. I barely passed it: 79%. Lol. He commented that there was no way Nash could do this. I responded that Nash had 6 full months. I hope he'll go easier on Nash. Without me there, I think the rest of the students won't be held to so high a standard. I expect Chris will slow down as well.
We talked about the tool situation. We talked about what to expect. We discussed my long-term plans. He told me not to think too much about it, but he thought I had a good gameplan. We talked about the union, and I explained that I'm autistic to him and that I have a difficult time interpreting certain kinds of social situations. I wanted to understand Randy's past conversation with me. My teacher wasn't sure. I filled out an exit interview form. I gave him my transcript and his book back. I thanked him, and he told me to stay in touch often. So, I will. I'm considering just e-mailing him, but perhaps I should call. He isn't much for writing and reading, I think.<<ref "1">>
I visited Randy at the union. He was just leaving. After I told him about the job, about two sentences later, he said he might not be hiring apprentices this year. Lol. Dick. I'm glad I've planned around the possibility that he might not. I told him I wanted to walk in with as many years of apprenticeship as possible, and I highlighted what I did at the school (which was quite outside the norm). The experience is going to be key; my brother calls it the "entry-level paradox," which I've read and thought about many times, ofc (but I've never seen or given it such a succinct name). I hate to see two different unions be no-go for me so far.
I went back home, grabbed some cash, and went to Harbor Freight. I picked a skeleton set of tools for $160 (including a yearly membership which made my tool choices cheaper). I came back home, saved all labels and receipt. I cleaned them up and prepped my roller-tool bag and bitch-bucket. I organized the trunk, and the kids and I cleaned the car out. I'm going through my [[New Job Checklist]]. I'm prepping my electronics too.
I intend to leave Sunday afternoon, settle, and drive around to understand the lay of the land.
---
<<footnotes "1" "Which reminds me, I forgot to mention a couple weeks ago that he had me convert his brother's .docx to .pdf (he wanted an uneditable [in the sense that it wasn't meant to be edited] format). It was a sad resume to look at.">>
!! Do you save old greeting cards and letters? Throw them away?
I throw them away. I consider them vain, lacking depth and genuine empathy. I believe they are used as a means of virtue signaling. Ain't nobody got time for that. It's a way of staying in touch for some, but I think that's about as weak as a FB relationship. I find it lacks authenticity all too often. I think they are lies and rhetoric.
I can't recall receiving many letters that ultimately mattered to me for future reading in any direct emotional or rational way (except to myself). Of course, I sift through my correspondence regularly. I must mine my information. I do not "save" them as decorations or for scrapbooking purposes like others though. This is the crux of the issue, I take it. Hence, I still take myself to be throwing away most correspondence. I do not preserve them. My letters with [[R]] may be the only exception on this wiki.
Generally, when I have saved them, I look back at have disdain for it. I realize it was a tradition without merit. My wife's letters are an exception.
* [[2017.07.05 - Link Log]]
** I'm not sure I care for one-line responses.
* [[Dream Comps]]
** I think this is an interesting idea. It's a way for me to track the meta over the years.
* [[2017.07.05 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** 21-fireman-times a month to maximize one's prevention of prostate cancer
* [[2017.07.05 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** Yup. =)
* [[2017.07.05 - Diet Log]]
** Epic meal. We will do that again. Paprika on the fries was amazing.
* [[New Job Checklist]]
** Edited. Good job, btw.
* [[2017.07.05 - Wiki Review Log]]
** I assume it will be mostly logs and not as many playful things for quite a while. That's the nature of the beast.
* [[2017.07.05 - Pipefitting Log]]
** Sounds like AB&T is toast. My teacher thought so as well.
* I woke up without an alarm clock today. Woot! My frontal lobes ached.
* I got the kids and started.
* Played some league waiting for Johnny, the repairman to show up.
* He fixed it.
* Fireman time!
* I played some league, helped the kids, and worked on my wiki.
* My wife came home early! Yay!
* I wrote, played league, and watched league.
* Fireman time.
* We made dinner late, but the brats were excellent.
* I watched the remaining episodes of Fargo.
* I watched some Futurama.
* I was unhappy with my son. =(
** I do not know how to fix it.
|customTable|k
|Food|Calories|h
|Dates|300|
|Clementines|150|
|Pear|100|
|Pizza|500|
|Brats|1300|
|Brussel Sprouts|70|
|Apple Pie|700|
|Total|3120|f
!! How is your health? Daily routine?
My sleep schedule has normalized again. I'm waking up without an alarm clock. I'm still overeating. What's new, yo?
---
!! What happened? How do you feel about it? What made you feel this way? Does it make you happy or unhappy? Why or why not?
I am very worried about my children doing their schoolwork and wiki logs. At this point, it's either one or the other that completes it. I'm not going to be here to motivate them, to hold them accountable, etc. It makes me sick to my stomach. It makes me sad, angry, anxious, and scared. We can't succeed unless they choose to do it with us. This falls apart if they aren't going to do their part.
I'm worried I'll come back from work on the weekends and find they've done nothing, that they've wasted their lives that week.
---
!! Can you better explain what happened? Do you have a technological, philosophical, empathic, or redpilled story to tell about the phenomenon? Clarify the narrative you just told yourself.
This is so much responsibility for them. I'm having to ask them to grow up fast. These are key skills for adulthood, particularly for the future I believe is in store for us all. I still think the world is ending, at least for homo sapiens. I think my children are in a long-term fight for survival at this point. The dog-eat-dog-edness of the world is coming for them. I have precious little time to prepare them, to equip them, and to help them find happiness in the midst of it.
I need them to learn to do their best. I am not convinced they can be happy without it.
I feel inadequate. I don't know what I'm doing at all. Being autistic makes it very hard to be a good parent in some crucial ways. I can understand the structure of things, but I can't help people see that structure, be motivated by it, etc. My lack of resources, social capital, and network for nepotism, etc. does my children no favors either. Now, only the elite of the lower class by luck, absurd planning, and a ridiculous work ethic will have a chance at any mobility. The social status is irrelevant, except insofar as it affects my children's quality of life. The odds are very much against us.
They are paying for my mistakes, the mistakes of my biological donors, and the cascade of mistakes of society at large. I can only do my best at this point. That is the only stoic option left.
---
!! What are you going to do about what happened?
It's a time of transition, yet again. We will continue to shape our parenting to their needs given out context. We'll do whatever it takes.
* http://anildash.com/2007/12/google-and-theory-of-mind.html
** Conservative and too charitable, but worth reading.
* http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/07/children-ohio-opioid-epidemic/
** I was lucky enough to research the chemicals I put in my body (for the most part). I'm glad I skipped out on opiates, among others.
* KYS
** https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world-0/us-politics/trump-putin-election-meddling-accepts-claims-russian-hacking-g20-meeting-rex-tillerson-a7829871.html
*** Jesus H.B.F. Christ. I can't believe I can still be surprised.
** https://www.apnews.com/affc45f314114094b01f1e649811c4ad
*** Republicans in particular, KYS
** http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/trump-rejected-isis-plan-because-it-was-similar-to-obamas.html
*** Not that I'm a fan of Obama, a war-criminal, either.
* http://anna-oz.tumblr.com/post/158300535300/hard-truths-about-tech
** For my daughter.
* https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/05/magazine/hated-by-the-right-mocked-by-the-left-who-wants-to-be-liberal-anymore.html
** Defining liberal is probably impossible. Too many minds, definitions, ideas, and lack thereof.
** I identify as a person who sees humanity as selfish, believes we ought not be, and sees the role of government as facilitating the end of psychopathy while maximizing empathic, virtuous, generous actions, following a maximin Rawlsian rule. I'm a redpilled socialist without much hope (but I have to try to hope anyway).
* https://spin.atomicobject.com/2017/07/05/asking-for-help/
** Let us learn to use people more effectively.
* https://qz.com/1021205/psychologists-identified-the-kind-of-emotional-intelligence-that-makes-internet-trolls-so-mean/
** I think cognitive and affective empathy are far more complicated than this implies. The affective affects cognition strongly. Your rTPJ does the bulk of your faster-acting empathy work, and it's affective. Furthermore, cognition in the frontal lobes trains the rTPJ, habituates empathic virtue and vice, and may even find ways of empathizing around it. They do not peel apart nicely; they are woven together.
* http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/06/30/colorado-springs-libertarian-experiment-america-215313
** I'm always down for bashing libertarians, amiright?
** I'd like to point out that sane socialists are deeply concerned with efficiently allocating resources, including government spending.
* http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/white-house-if-cnn-bashes-trump-trump-may-block-merger.html
** Like TPP, I completely agree with blocking the merger, but Trump's reasons are fucking awful.
* http://thehill.com/homenews/news/340917-resigning-ethics-director-says-trump-businesses-appear-to-profit-from
** I am so surprised.
* https://github.com/athityakumar/colorls
** Oh, shiny!
* http://freakonomics.com/podcast/fracking-baby-boom-retreat-marriage/
** Yet another look at the topic. Not always a fan of this conservative look, but I pay attention anyway.
* http://www.refinery29.com/male-sugar-baby-personal-experience
** Male prostitution. I wonder what they give.
* http://www.businessinsider.com/cannabis-marijuana-psychedelic-drug-why-2017-7
** I hate businessinsider with a burning passion.
** Define psychedelic. I can tell you cannabis heightens the experience of a variety of drugs, including classic psychedelics. For me, with large enough doses it is definitively psychedelic on its own. I can't speak for others though, since it may simply be activating HPPD related neural pathways forged through standard hallucinogens, etc. that others don't have. Cannabis does alter one's perceptions at least temporarily. It changes our minds longer term through meme and causal experience alterations (which cascade into belief/desire changes when one isn't high). It also alters one's perceptions at least temporarily while it sits in your system; it can take months to eliminate that effect. Other permanent alterations are also possible.
* https://www.economist.com/news/asia/21724426-did-i-say-out-loud-i-meant-makers-leather-and-metal-goods-inside-pakistans-sex-toy-industry?fsrc=scn/tw/te/rfd/pe
** Good riddance Abrahamic religions.
* https://www.thenation.com/article/adults-thinks-black-girls-are-older-than-they-are-and-it-matters/
** I never thought about this way. That actually makes sense.
* https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/7/7/15792188/placebo-effect-explained
** We all continue to be fascinated by it. Its prevalence and strength in American culture is especially interesting to me. I have no idea what it means.
** Serious ethical problems here.
** It is unclear if and when we should integrate placebos into standard medicinal practices and regimens.
* https://theoutline.com/post/1875/depression-naps-twitter-memes
** That is not how I use social media. I think the meme is cute though, what can I say?
* https://www.theverge.com/circuitbreaker/2017/7/6/15927362/3d-printed-prosthetic-third-thumb-dani-clode
** Science fiction is coming.
* https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/59p3vz/are-millennials-having-sex-an-investigation
** The two-script notion is interesting. I've not heard it phrased like that before, although it seems obvious enough.
** I'm not sure how I can help my children here. I want them to pursue both!
* https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/south-carolina-inmate-captured-in-texas-after-second-escape/2017/07/07/238ec556-6304-11e7-80a2-8c226031ac3f_story.html
** "May," lulz.
* https://matrix.org/blog/2017/07/07/a-call-to-arms-supporting-matrix/
** I don't really like matrix though. I like having a protocol. The actual application is shit. I don't care for their vision.
* https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/07/amid-unprecedented-controversy-w3c-greenlights-drm-web
** Fucking idiots. The pirates will still rip it just fine.
* http://thoughtmaybe.com/all-watched-over-by-machines-of-loving-grace/
**Fascinating. This is an interesting materialist perspective on post-modernism, imho. The philosophical roots aren't explored enough, from the look of it.
* http://www.digitopoly.org/2017/07/03/is-social-graph-portability-workable/
** I wish I saw a satisfying solution.
* http://www.catonmat.net/blog/programming-competitions-work-performance/
** Of course, what makes the best programmer would require not only doing well in such a competition, but understand how the flaws of writing code under such constraints, and a wide variety of social considerations.
** Being the kind of person who enters the competitions might be seen as a strike against you (although, these are regular "Google interview" questions). Being the kind of person capable of performing well, if needed, at writing quick hacks isn't necessary bad at all though.
* https://www.sciencenews.org/article/long-lasting-mental-health-isnt-normal
** 17% eh? Let me cast some doubt on this. I think being selfish, willfully-ignorant, or malicious are forms of mental illness as well. They may not standardly be thought of as such because "good for whom" doesn't often hurt them directly. I'm pretty sure I've never met a fundamentally mentally healthy person. It's a spectrum. That kind of moral luck mixed with actually being moral is just unlikely.
* https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/07/07/rachel-maddows-urgent-warning-to-the-rest-of-the-media/?utm_term=.39d77a2f5bf4
** Hypernormalization folks.
** Enemies of the State.
** I'm not a fan of Maddow, but this deserves my attention.
I've done nothing to prep besides my working on devices today. Have sync setup correctly now for them. Some of this stuff I have to wait to do. I can't rightly pack my pillow, etc. I should try to get more done today though.
!! How has your birth order/characteristics of siblings affected you?
I can't answer this effectively in a single log-post. Samwise, you're an idiot. That said, this is, of course, an important question to be able to answer for oneself.
Many people consider this astrology, folklore psychology, etc. It is my opinion that academically rigorous psychologists have realized just how unscientific, unreliable, and poor their knowledge really is on the topic. They realize they can't back it up, and they remain extremely skeptical for good reasons. That said, I think sometimes we are forced by pragmatism to put our tentpegs down. Thus, with that caveat in mind, I will answer the question.
Being the oldest often means:
* Higher IQ
* Higher Testosterone
* Received the most single-child treatment (for a while at least). Being the first to do things also made it feel single-child-like in some minor respects throughout my upbringing.
* Guinea pig for biological donors
* Most similar to my biological donors of the siblings, higher conformity rates, etc.
* Getting stuck in the "Third parent" role at times
* Extremely high expectations and earlier maturation requirements
* Highly ambitious, disciplined, mastery-oriented, motivated, achiever, dominant, bossy, Type A, direct, etc.
* Received higher rates of abuse than siblings
* Most influenced and hurt by authority, and dependent upon approval
I think lots of birth order tropes and patterns are telling us something that is often accurate, even if they can't be academically scientifically verified. I realize one's gut instinct is no replacement for hard science. I see the phenomena in front of me though, and I don't have good explanations otherwise.
* [[2017.07.06 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** Edited.
** It's interesting that I find myself reflecting in this log as well. Logs that encourage reflection are a good thing.
* [[2017.07.06 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** Edited.
* [[2017.07.06 - Diet Log]]
** Summed.
* [[2017.07.06 - Wiki Review Log]]
** Cheeky! =)
* [[2017.07.06 - Pipefitting Log]]
** Edited.
** Farewell, and thank you, Sir Tim Pierce!
* [[2017.07.06 - h0p3's Log]]
** Tough, but necessary. I will end these thought loops.
* [[2017.07.06 - Link Log]]
** I am confused by the Washpo article. I don't trust them, but I do read what they say. While they make plenty of huge errors, I wonder if this kind of mistake is really like them?
* Woke up on time, but went back to sleep next to my lovely wife.
* I got up and started the kids on their schoolwork (to make up for a day they elected to miss [without permission] this week).
* I tried talking with ALM. But, he didn't respond.
* I spent time playing league.
* I had a good philosophical conversation with my wife about an SMBC comic and virtue theory. It seems to me that the virtue theorist need not agree to the spirit of this brilliant cartoon. It's an important problem, I think. Non-cognitivism is a problem, as usual.
** <center> [img width=1300 [./images/SMBC-Virtue-Problem.png]] </center>
*** I should do a prompted introspection on it.
** It went well until I made her cry on a tangential topic. It was unexpected. =(
* Apparently, we are being charged a late fee for rent, even though it is usually automatically deducted. They didn't make the deduction and didn't say anything (we assumed it was a holiday issue), and then charged us. They made no attempt to correct a problem which was clearly on their end.
** We are appealing. I do not think we'll win. I truly despise renter-seekers.
* We hit the library, as we do every week Pinky.
* We went shopping.
** Apparently, our Wal-mart card had $100 on it, and our Mastercard Giftcard had $25 on it.
** We paid cash for the rest of the groceries.
* We made chili.
* We did the meal prep for the week.
* I talked to the kids about working hard at school, about how our relationship evolves, about empathizing and planning for their futures, and everything in between. It was quite detailed and sophisticated (I'm not doing it justice here, but I don't have to).
* We ate, talked, and watched some league.
* Showers for everyone.
* My wife and I did the kitchen for the kiddos today. We made a big mess, etc. Better for us to just get it out of the way.
** Also, I like meal prep. I think we should consider it for general life too. There are many useful reasons.
* Inform the Men!
* I got more packing done.
* Also, I found out that running the washer on an extra spin cycle nearly dries out the clothes by itself. That's awesome!
* Also, I don't know if I forgot to mention it, but my Coinbase account came back into my possession again. I made a good $50 investment early into the life of Eth, and it is paid off big time. Maybe I should consider doing more small investments in the infancies of cryptocurrencies that I value.
S04E05 of Futurama: Leela's Homeworld. As cheesy as the episode is, the end still wrecks me. It's an animated version of the Giving Tree, imho.
|customTable|k
|Food|Calories|h
|Dates|200|
|Apple Pie|350|
|Chili|750|
|Nuts|30|
|Chips|300|
|Mango Bar|75|
|Total|1705|f
* https://reason.com/archives/2017/07/07/what-cnns-threat-to-dox-a-redditor-tells
** It's a moral rather than legal issue.
* https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-nature-solves-problems-through-computation-20170706/
** Interesting discipline. Yet another chaos, systems, economics, cog-sci, computational, philosophy branch-hybrid.
** It does not sound like this person is ultimately very worried about the ethical use of her knowledge.
* http://blog.felipe.rs/2017/07/07/where-do-type-systems-come-from/
** I've never seen types in programming so nicely linked to logic like this before.
* https://blog.learncodethehardway.com/2017/07/07/learn-python-3-the-hard-way-officially-released/
** I am surprised by his claim against the Python Software Foundation.
* http://www.pcgamer.com/what-happened-to-steam-machines/
** Paid for by M$.
** Like the fabled "Year of the Linux Desktop," I do not know when, if ever, gaming will shift to linux platforms. Odds are against it. Specialized devices are the exception. Generalized linux devices require at least mildly competent or willing-to-learn users.
** SteamOS may really have been more about being a piece of leverage against Microsoft than anything else.
* http://unlockthenet.com/
** Beautifully-packaged lies.
* http://lithub.com/never-before-published-hannah-arendt-on-what-freedom-and-revolution-really-mean/
** Keywords being "willing and able." I do not see either as plausible.
* http://www.zdnet.com/article/encryption-satellite-phones-unscramble-attack-research/
** Excuse the zdnet source.
** I posit this weakness was no accident.
* http://whatthefuckisethereum.com/#scammer
** Hilarious, informative site about ethereum.
* https://i.redd.it/m6jsyzpf398z.jpg
** Caption: "Life imitates art."
* https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/14/world/middleeast/israel-benjamin-netanyahu-military-aid.html
** Paying our proxy.
* https://aeon.co/essays/the-body-as-amusement-park-a-history-of-masturbation
** I adore my Fireman time. =) Forget the haters. Enjoy yourself.
* https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/05/my-secret-shame/476415/
** I'm sure my biological donors would oversimplify by placing primary blame on these people. Don't get me wrong, these people are stupid, selfish, and certainly guilty. The primary causes are far more complex and systemic though.
** Of course, I still can't define middle class either.
* https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/06/why-prison-education-is-about-more-than-lowering-recidivism/531873/
** Uneducated humans are incomplete, virtue-theoretically vicious, failing to partake of a fundamental human good, and more often than not having their human rights violated.
** Let's also be clear that our prison system doesn't actually give a fuck, and they purposely lobby legislative branches and work closely with the judiciary and law enforcement to maximize profits.
* https://github.com/coells/100days
** For my daughter.
This autistic person has always loved to pack. Like, it's almost an obsession. I have vivid memories growing up of it, even for small trips.
We did a complete meal prep for the week. I've got some mineral water and some bottled water. I'm taking quite a few bags, boxes, and containers with me. I'm taking very basic cooking utensils, a simple kitchen complement, and I don't anticipate doing any serious cooking. The goal is to work, write and chill, fall asleep, and that's about it. Get in, get out. I want to minimize upkeep, energy expenditure, etc. I'm basically camping out, maximizing my mobility, etc. My goal is to live within the means I have set out for myself. Every dollar I earn is meant for my family's happiness.
I've kept a few of the plastic containers with lids. I'll be living out of those. Most of my clothes and bedding supplies are packed. I have to remember that I should only bring stuff I'd be willing to lose and to have looked through (with or without me present).
I've decided not to bring alcohol with me. Obviously, I'm not taking any other substances.<<ref "1">>
I've prepared my emergency/contingency/safety kit. I have cash, my badboy go-bag, my safe, basic camping gear, etc. I don't anticipate having to use it obviously, but having it there gives me control over worst case scenarios.
I've not finished everything, but when I wake up tomorrow, I can easily have the rest set. I'm sure I'll forget small things here and there, and that's okay. I can live spartanly just fine. Hell, my laptop is the only thing I truly care about. It will live alongside me.
---
<<footnotes "1" "Not because I think I'd get caught. I can hide it just fine. I just don't think it would be worth risks of random drug tests.">>
!! How difficult is it for you to forgive someone who refuses to apologize?
Define forgiveness. My biological donors taught me an orthodox Judeo-Christian perspective on it, and it served me well enough for a long time. Naively, it is a blotting out, an erasing, a wiping away, a cleansing, a forgetting, etc. More technically, we waive the justified retributive mindset, behavior, intention, feelings, etc. towards those who have violated a claim right of ours. When others fail to live up to their obligations to us, we have a follow-up right to resentment. Our dignity has not been respected, etc. Restoration rather than retribution, love, empathy, and the golden rule are at the heart of forgiveness.
Of course, we do not induce amnesia. And, thus, there must be something more to say about it. Is it that we simply do not factor either whom or that which is forgiven into our evaluations, reasonings about, judgments of, and weighings concerning the target or benefactor of forgiveness? Do we attempt to remove this bias the best we can, even though our reflexes, guttural inferences, and instincts point another way? Is it virtue theoretically even more complicated, such that we habituate it to the point that it has no hold over us? How fast, to what extent, etc.? As a doxastic involuntarist, I do not believe we simply snap our fingers to forgive. Ultimately, I think forgiveness actually comes in degrees, and it is more complex than your naive interpretation, Samwise Gamgee.
Forgiveness, of course, isn't necessarily so altruistic and righteous as we might initially think. Forgiveness releases the victim too. The victim lets go of their feelings of indignation. They are freed of negative feelings. Who is forgiveness really for? It is very difficult to argue against the egoist.
Lastly, forgiveness doesn't mean reconciliation. I grew up thinking that was the goal of forgiveness. It isn't always.
So, to answer your question, it depends on who I'm forgiving, what I'm forgiving them<<ref "1">> for, and perhaps other contextual particularities. It isn't cut and dry, black and white, etc. It depends upon the mood I'm in, what mode I find myself in, how safe I feel against a repeat attack, and how I'm interpreting agency and moral responsibility in a broader web of post-modern problematics at the time. That seems unstable, but I think you have neither seen nor understand what I have, Samwise Gamgee.<<ref "2">>
I consider myself extraordinarily forgiving in some contexts and profound grudge-holder in others. Forgiveness is a realm which requires reasons. Such is the way of moral life, Samwise.
A lack of apology sometimes means the person would wrong me again. I think it is a sign of psychopathy. Some people are worth letting go.
---
<<footnotes "1" "I'd like to remind you, Sam, that metaphysical problems of identity, agency, and autonomy must also be answered here. We're still in a quagmire.">>
<<footnotes "2" "You're an idiot, Sam. I can't explain it all to you. I mean nothing gnostic by it. You literally just aren't intellectual virtuous enough to get it. I also believe you are maliciously and willfully ignorant. So, kindly fuck off. I am not forgiving you for that.">>
* [[ARAM: Jhin]]
** I just bought him for my ARAM account. I have very little practice with him. I kinda stopped playing seriously around when he came out. I adore him in ARAM. Even though I'm not good with him, it's easy to do well with him. In time, I will be adept, I think.
* [[2017.07.07 - Pipefitting Log]]
** Eh, you got what you needed to get done, imho.
* [[2017.07.07 - Link Log]]
** Ha, and this is where you spent your time, eh? I can't blame ya'. Who knows when you'll have the chance to get another hit o' the good stuff.
* [[2017.07.07 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** Brief.
* [[2017.07.07 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** Samwise is a silly hobbitses.
* [[2017.07.07 - Diet Log]]
** Ummm....I'm doing great...lol.
* [[2017.07.07 - Wiki Review Log]]
** I am really thankful to myself that I do this particular log. I really hope to keep it up and going while I'm working. I hope to fill it like an X-mas stocking.
* [[2017.07.07 - h0p3's Log]]
** We talked again today. I called it Lecture #1.<<ref "1">>
---
<<footnotes "1" "After the end of my lectures, I always assign a randomly large number to it, signifying it is part of a very large collection of lectures I must give. This was one was important to me, so I called it lecture #1.">>
* I woke up a bit later. Fireman time!
* I packed.
* I played some league.
* Seeing my family come through the door made me realize that I wasn't going to be seeing them. It hit me harder then.
* My son sat around playing next to me. I didn't have much to say, but I wish I did! I felt so frozen and sad.
* I packed some more, and I made pizza.
** I ended up eating most of the pizza, as I took it with me for my dinner as well.
* When my wife came back the second time, I started loading the car up (except the food).
* We had our family time.
* Afterwards, I said I had to go. We hugged, and we cried. I love my family so much. It really hurts to be away.
* I packed the rest of it, gave my finals hugs, and waved goodbye as I drove off.
* It took about 3.5 hours to get there. One full-gas-tankable.
** I listened to Infomacracy on the way there. It's a slower book, imho, but a good one.
* I arrived at the house. Nobody answered. I called Armstrong, and he said "oops." He gave me the wrong address. Thankfully, his place was nearby.
* The house is a wreck, but it is clean enough, the AC works, and I have a bed and some fridge/cabinet space. I can live with it.
** I don't even have a doorknob on my door.
** I'm worried about bedbugs, honestly.
** The lack of functional internet is killing me. That must be remedied asap.
* Armstrong and I talked quite a bit and got to know each other.
** Think a young Idris Elba from The Office, a hustler. That's what he is.
* Armstrong wanted cash, not a check. Clearly, under the table.
* I'm glad I brought my safe! The neighborhood is not to be trusted.
* I went the ATM to pick up the cash, and I checked out my place of work. 5 minutes away (although, I assume I'll be traveling to the job sites as well).
* I'm mostly moved in now.
* I talked more with Armstrong as we tried to fix the internet. His modem/router combo is a complete piece of shit. He's obviously not going to fix it.
** I think I will cash out my Eth to help buy the van.
* I'm reading and writing late.
* I hope my wife continues to write to me on her wiki, or at least about her day. It may be the only way I get to know how her day was.
** I love you!
We had our family time, and then I had to go. I hugged everyone for a long time. The kids didn't cry, but my wife and I did. It's tough.
|customTable|k
|Food|Calories|h
|Chips|150|
|Jerky|200|
|Pizza|1400|
|Total|1750|f
!! How has your health been this week?
* 1uxb0x
** Great, except when his head was shaking temporarily, and a headache.
* j3d1h
** Throat has been sore, suspecting AC.
* k0sh3k
** Feeling off yesterday. Feeling fine otherwise this week.
* h0p3
** Feeling a bit shellshocked about leaving my family for the week.
---
!! What happened last week? Have you been happy this past week? Why or why not?
* 1uxb0x
** Sad. Homework problems.
* j3d1h
** Homework problems, yet again. Hopeful for next week.
* k0sh3k
** Felt lazy all week. Didn't get shit done anywhere.
** So many student worker issues.
* h0p3
** I prepared to leave. It was bittersweet.
---
!! What is a positive fact or compliment we can say about each person in the family?
* 1uxb0x
** You've been empathizing with the cats more in your cat-o-log, emphasizing what they feel and think rather than what they did.
** I appreciate the work you've been putting into your reflection workbooks. It's clearly paying off.
** We had a philosophical argument the other day about Europe, and you showed intellectual integrity and humility in the Socratic method. You didn't give up in frustration, and you didn't get angry in your pursuit of the truth.
* j3d1h
** You were kind in letting a game go, allowing us to end it because I wasn't interested in playing anymore.
** You've been taking care of the cats more, especially helping Ranga with his harness, even when he isn't very kind about it.
** I'm glad you are reaching an age where we can have serious religious and philosophical discussions. It's nice to be able to sit and talk with you about vital matters.
* k0sh3k
** Thank you for giving us a second chance by taking down the dnsmasq whitelist firewall, trusting us again, etc.
** Thank you for having the patience to show us how to make coffee.
** Thank you for helping me generate and research the tool bid list and thank you for helping me prepare for the coming transition this week.
* h0p3
** Thank you for allowing us to use other websites.
** Thank you for being willing to move away and travel for work, for our family.
** Thank you for doing the housework without thanks, for being the kind of man who does it because it needs to be done. I'm betting I'm going to appreciate it, even more, this coming week.
---
!! What will you do this week? Name at least one fun objective and one unfun objective.
* 1uxb0x
** Make a tool.
** Be mindful of the family's needs this week.
* j3d1h
** Be mindful of the family's needs this week.
** Make a youtube video.
* k0sh3k
** Shelve
** Start a new class.
* h0p3
** Kick ass at work.
** Listen to audio books.
* KYS
** https://theintercept.com/2017/07/06/republican-lawmakers-buy-health-insurance-stocks-as-repeal-effort-moves-forward/
* https://sidbala.com/h-264-is-magic/
** I've always found compression fascinating. I've read a couple books on it, and I continue to learn just how much I don't know. I'm not sure I learned anything in this article, but it is well presented.
I've moved into my new residence. It's quite spartan. I checked out my place of work as well. It's a decent looking outfit in a rundown industrial park surrounded by some rough neighborhoods (including where I live).
I'm going to show up extra early. My goal is to always be 15 minutes early. If they learn I'm the guy who is always early for a while, then I buy myself them good boy points.
I found an ATM, gas station, and ghetto grocers.
I need to find a Wal-Mart or something. I need a towel and probably an ethernet cord + USB/Ethernet adapter.
!! Respond to the following:
<center> [img width=1300 [./images/SMBC-Virtue-Problem.png]] </center>
I adore SMBC. They are philosophers. They are extremely good at reducing complex sequences of thought into short little comics. This one isn't so complex, but it is succinct.
This is who we hate, right? This is willful ignorance with the volume turned all the way up, rationalized, and confabulated into an oversimplified worldview that is shockingly coherent at the surface (in a scary and sad way).
One thing which strikes me oddly about this is how a virtue theorist throws a huge dent into conceptual aspects of this argument.
You know how you aren't allowed to use ad hominems for providing reasons, particularly in dialogue and discourse? Except, the virtue theorist is totally allowed to do it, or rather, the Virtuous agent is. It is actually coherent in a way that is very hard to deny.
Similarly, the bad-guy in this comic could technically (however implausibly) be a virtuous agent. The Virtuous agent is virtuous non-cognitively, inarticulately, and without a clear decision procedure (some say incomputability by definition!).
Now, the virtuous agent has the virtuous perception to pick out the morally salient features of a context, weigh them appropriately, and act accordingly. It's a feeling, a gut instinct, something they have trained up in themselves. Note, obviously most people who think they have this ability are delusional, but understanding human computation requires that we are conceptually open (if not in favor) of this kind of understanding of what it takes to be virtuous at any practice, including ethical virtue.
Just because the virtuous agent "knows" non-cognitively what is virtuous doesn't mean they can empathize with the vicious in any meaningful way. They just know the vicious option is wrong because it isn't what they would choose (hilariously circular, I know).
So, in this second frame, we can reinterpret it to show that this guy really does have moral clarity, and that's exactly why he doesn't understand the vicious fellow's concern. Imagine the hypothetically vicious fellow were actually vicious, maybe this concern about society was concerned with whether to kill all infants or kill all elderly for fun on Christmas day. That contrived "concern" here obviously is not something any "rational" and ethical person could possibly "understand" all the way down, in the empathic understanding sense.
Clearly, the virtuous, in a way, does not understand what it even means to think, feel, react, infer, etc. as a vicious agent. Their theory of mind can't go that far, especially when you can admit we are merely finite creatures.<<ref "1">> And, horrifyingly, it is moral clarity that makes it so he doesn't understand the vicious agent in a strong way.
Importantly, many ethical quandaries are instantly solved by the virtuous agent. It is in fact, all too often, "obvious" to them. It is at least conceptually possible that the non-obviousness of a claim to the virtuous agent is indeed false or not justified enough, etc.
Lastly, the virtuous agent might easily say that someone frustrated with an obvious choice is being irrational. Hilariously, they need not even be able to articulate it in an argument. Of course it is hard to argue with the non-cognitivist and the definitionally inarticulate. Rofl!
The circularity, lack of actual moral content, non-cognitivism, and often borderline non-realism of virtue theory accounts has this breathtaking flaw. And yet, it is descriptively so fucking powerful that must warp how we even begin to interpret ourselves as moral agents. It is wrapped up in this "ought implies can" while still somehow avoiding the "is/ought" fallacy.
---
<<footnotes "1" "My wife raised a good point about virtue here. Perfectly virtuous persons and virtuous humans are different. Usain Bolt aims for going the speed of light, but he physically can't. In fact, his new, more realistic, "ought implies can" kind of goal might just be 30mph or something. We must lower the bar, contextualize and particularize it. Standards of virtue scale to the context.">>
* [[2017.07.08 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** Livin' the dream homie.
* [[2017.07.08 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** Sometimes I nail it. /nailed-it
* [[2017.07.08 - Diet Log]]
** That's what I'm talking about.
* [[2017.07.08 - Wiki Review Log]]
** No shit. My internet connection blows. I'm begging for even a whiff of the good stuff.
* [[2017.07.08 - Pipefitting Log]]
** So, I packed everything I needed except a towel (at least AFAIK).
* [[ARAM: Lux]]
** Sounds like I won't be playing much of her for a bunch of reasons now, lol.
* [[2017.07.08 - Link Log]]
** My new landlord/roommate is also into cryptocurrency a tiny bit. He reads Bloomberg (and takes it seriously).
* [[2017.07.08 - Cry Log]]
** I have been crying a lot.
* I didn't sleep that well. It felt like half-brained sleep. I woke up a lot.
* My alarm clock caused me to jump out of bed.
* I got ready and met my other roommates who were quite tired (graveyard shift workers).
* I went to my new job, met some folks, did my paperwork, had my drug test, and talked with people more.
* I've got my orders for tomorrow.
** Don't forget to set up direct deposit! Bring your check. You may have to wait until Friday for it?
* I came home early, and so I watched some Mr. Robot.
* I did some writing.
* I talked with my brother, my wife, and my children for several hours.
* I talked with Armstrong for a while and got internet.
* I've been getting my fix in (shit throughput, and it drops a lot).
* I'll have some more fireman time tonight. =)
|customTable|k
|Food|Calories|h
|Apple|100|
|Peach|70|
|Couscous, Veggies, and Chicken|700|
|Nuts|170|
|Pizza|500|
|Apple|100|
|Clementine|35|
|Pear|100|
|Brussel Sprouts|70|
|Total|1845|f
* http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2017/07/women_young_people_experience_the_chilling_effects_of_surveillance_at_higher.html
** And, yet, most people don't really give a shit, as usual.
* https://www.reddit.com/r/HailCorporate/comments/6makhi/the_front_page_is_quite_literally_for_sale/
** I had no idea it was this cheap.
* https://happyturtlethings.net/how-to-make-a-friend-fast/
** Color me skeptical
* http://www.decisionsciencenews.com/2017/06/19/counterintuitive-problem-everyone-room-keeps-giving-dollars-random-others-youll-never-guess-happens-next/
** Uh, maybe I'm lacking humility here, but this seems obvious to me. People who start collecting money by happenstance can only give 1 away per turn. This is a huge bottleneck. There will eventually be some strong winners that appear to prevail. But, even more importantly, given a sufficient amount of time, clearly everyone in the room will eventually, at some point, have had basically all the money minus one (the one they gave away, assuming one must give to another).
* https://bitquabit.com/post/i-hate-slack-and-you-should-too/
** Uh...amen?
* https://www.russellsage.org/publications/experimenting-social-norms
** And, yet, our society at large doesn't seem to show this at all.
** While, obviously, there is something to this, it is hardly sufficient.
* https://meshedinsights.com/2017/07/09/drm-is-toxic-to-culture/
* Preach, yo.
** https://meshedinsights.com/2017/07/09/drm-is-toxic-to-culture/
* For my daughter:
** https://brson.github.io/2017/07/10/how-rust-is-tested
*** I want you to study and learn this language. Each year, I become a believer more and more. These are world class programmers. One day, the world may shift from C. You want to be a god with it.
** https://medium.freecodecamp.org/10-common-data-structures-explained-with-videos-exercises-aaff6c06fb2b
* https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/gybppx/iphone-bugs-are-too-valuable-to-report-to-apple
** A fascinating problem. We've known it for a while. Company's are loathe to pay people for their work, of course.
** I don't know why Apple doesn't just start throwing more money at it. I assume it would be a price-arms-race with other bidders.
* http://cosmos.nautil.us/short/161/how-much-should-expectation-drive-science
** I should make "Nautilus delivers again" an archetype comment.
* KYS
** https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/09/us/politics/trump-russia-kushner-manafort.html
** https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/07/09/donald-trump-jr-s-stunningly-incriminating-statement-to-the-new-york-times/
*** So many stuns. I am stunlocked.
** http://www.businessinsider.in/Tillerson-was-reportedly-stunned-at-the-way-Trump-asked-Putin-about-election-meddling/articleshow/59515489.cms
*** Great. Case closed. Solve it! Got em! Also, Tillerson was "stunned" my ass.
* https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jul/09/what-happened-when-walmart-left
** It's a slow purge of the poor, enslaving us on the way.
* https://kotaku.com/i-can-t-stop-choking-when-i-play-multiplayer-games-1796691764
** I never considered the "reflex-driven" nature of some games as serving a unique kind of therapeutic purpose.
* https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/07/advice-for-the-left-on-achieving-a-more-perfect-union/531054/
** Could The Atlantic hug the DNC's nuts any tighter in their mouths?
** Dewey and Rorty are pragmatists, no doubt. Go ahead and shoot at the fabled ivory tower. Or, how about you grow a fucking pair and try to answer the philosophical problem of post-modernism itself. You will see that even pragmatism may fail you when you needed it most. It's a serious skeptical problematic, and you can't sweep it under the rug. Further, compromise is much harder than it appears at first glance. In some cases, it is not obviously possible.
** I don't blame The Left. I blame the idiots not listening to The Left, which is most of humanity.<<ref "1">>
*** You can't reliably fix a problem without first identifying it. The Left may not have the answer, but they are still miles closer to one than the rest of you lot.
---
<<footnotes "1" "KYS Samwise Gamgee.">>
I did surprisingly little today, and I'm not getting paid for what I did either (which is to be predicted, although not morally expected).
I showed up quite early, and I was introduced to the various people that I needed to know. They took me to the shop/office back (about 100 yards away from the main office). It's a nice facility, I think. The employee's, "of course," spoke //glowingly// of their employer.
Mitch was the first guy I met. Mitch has a twitchy feel about him that he masks. He led me around. He's an HVAC project manager. He and one other guy from Chicago are the only other white guys that I saw back there. The main office is all white, except the owner. These fellas were cogent and definitely smarter in appearance and manner than what I'm used to in the shop. These are men who grew up in Charlotte, and they've succeeded where countless have failed in climbing up a couple rungs on a basic ladder and holding on. They seem fairly down to earth. Thus far, I think I could get along with these men.
He introduced me to some of the guys. James was the ringleader. He's a short, grey-bearded, and ripped man who likes to talk. I found out he is the senior project manager for HVAC. He's been at this company for most of his life from the sounds of it. Rough, smart, funny, and personable. I immediately liked James, despite his obvious desire to make use of this youngblood. I explained why I would remember his name (not that it matters, and perhaps this isn't the best thing to do). He tried to get me to tell everyone that he is the guy who shows people around (obviously, the man is gunning for a particular kind of function/position/status; silly man).
They hear me speak 5 words, and they say, "You're a northerner." I do not have any of the traditional northern accents, but I do speak crisp Standard American English when required. They ask me where I was born instead of where I'm from. I said Chicago (that's how I found out about the other guy). That guy came out to talk for a second (this man had a clear Chicago sound and brusqueness to him), and he asks me where I'm from in Chicago. I spit out the answer, and he realizes I am from the ghetto in the heart of Chicago. He virtue signals for a bit while attempting camaraderie.
I'm incredibly reserved, as usual, in my new surroundings. My guards are up, and I am paying absolute attention. I am a silent laser. I provide the basic appropriate responses to all questions, and I laugh when socially expected. I am grateful that these men know nothing about me. Being a nobody is useful. I am afforded the opportunity to craft my image, to asymmetrically study my frenemies, and to prepare our context.
Recall, h0p3, all humans are evil (even you, homie). This is the fundamental Redpill. You are in a war zone. You battle evil creatures, not to harm them, but to survive and provide happiness to your children. These humans are not part of your neurotribe, nor do they even participate in the same spheres of justice and culture as you do for the most part. Some of these men are not to be trusted, you simply don't know which and to what extent. Needless to say, treat them with dignity and respect insofar as you can. Be a moral alien warrior.
My project manager, Barry, was not there. He's very busy, running around from job site to job site. I've been told I will speak with him often, but also that I may need to schedule appointments. From my couple times of calling the man, and now watching a couple others trying to reach him, I can see that he is indeed hard to reach. I believe I had at least 4 people try to reach him on behalf over the course of the day. I ended up reaching him myself. He sounds like an older man, no doubt.
Mitch took me back the main office to meet the HR/Office director, Pam.<<ref "1">> Everyone laughed as I went with Mitch to see Pam because they think she is a crazy bitch. Mitch laughed with them and said he was just about to explain her to me. As we walked, he then tried to couch it nicely, as he realized it was a political issue for him within the company.
Pam was fine. She was a straight-shooting older woman, much like my 3rd-grade teacher, Mrs. Smith without the sarcasm. We went over a decent amount of policy and paperwork. She seemed surprised that I read it instead of signing it without glancing (my goal here wasn't to be tedious, but I wanted to understand); she seemed to appreciate it though. I'm on 90-day probation. Honestly, I'm hoping that in 90 days I'll have a job much closer to home, lol, but I'm not counting on it. I could be here much longer. We will see.
She couldn't find my resume, and she spent much time looking for it. I think she will be surprised by it. I did not volunteer the information, primarily because I do not want it to be held against me and because good surprises and false humility provide me significant hidden X-factor advantages in my encounters with both individuals and various group systems. Information advantage matters.
She asked me if I intended to live in Charlotte. This is obviously a trick question. To say "no" is to limit my employment opportunity. It is an excuse to dispose of me. I lied. I said I was convincing my wife to move here.
Pam told me I would be drug tested and asked if I was ready to take it. I find it odd the way she asked. She was clearly prodding me. It is clear this woman spends significant time formulating her opinions about people, and she is not charitable (good for her). I gave her short answers and held eye contact. Maybe she is a bitch, but again, I can play ball. She gave me the address and form. I shook her hand and said I was glad to meet her. She appreciated the professionalism.
I drove into downtown Charlotte, about 5 minutes away. The ghetto phased into posh with beautiful and obviously professional graffiti. Downtown was busy but manageable. I believe there has been reasonable city planning in some respects. I felt surprisingly relaxed, but perhaps it was still surreal to me, not fully hit me. I took the test, which I knew I would pass. I've tested myself multiple times. It was a 9-panel test (although, they did not list, and the cup did not demonstrate what was being tested either). I read the form, and they have other kinds of lab tests for worker accident. Still 9-panel, but they it away instead. I would like to understand why.
I went back, and instead of heading straight to Pam, I visited the back office. The guy shot the shit with me for a bit. They asked me how long I've been in Charlotte, and I said, "one day." They laughed, and I smiled. They knew I was from Tennessee at the time, and they asked me about it, and found out I had only been there for a year. Before that, New Orleans. Chicago-guy perked up at this and asked me about some random chef on Bourbon street (like I would know the guy).
The guys asked about my experience, and I explained. They said I was in a great position to learn from someone they respected highly (guy's been doing pipefitting for 40 years), claiming my foreman what the best. They were glad I was interested in learning to weld in additional to fitting.
Mitch had contacted Barry and came with a sheet of paper with information. My foreman is Terry, and 6 guys work under him at this current job. I'm showing up tomorrow before 7:30am. I have it punched into my GPS. Mitch got my PPE gear for me. We shook hands, and I went outside. I talked to James a bit more, shook hands and left to see Pam.
To get into the front, employees (at least lowly ones like me), must ring the doorbell and wait for someone to open it for me.<<ref "2">> On the way to Pam's office (right next to the entrance), I passed an unassuming looking black gentlemen. We said hello. I talked to Pam. She said I passed the drug test, and then followed up by saying that I probably already knew that (I made no comment, just business). I asked her if she needed anything else from me. She said she couldn't get ahold of Barry, but double-checked that I had the right number to reach him. Done.
As I was leaving, I met the black gentleman who was there before. He was the owner. We shook hands but didn't say too much. I'm sure he was sizing his newly bought employee up. How much capital can he extract from this one?
I went to the car, had my notebook and information sheet from Mitch ready, and called Barry. He verified the information. He said he hasn't found a welder for me yet. I'm not sure what I'll be doing. Mitch may have indicated to me that I would be doing full pipefitter work, but James saw me as a helper. Terry and Barry, of course, will decide what I will be doing.
I went back to my residence. I saw the other roomies early this morning, btw. They were bleary-eyed 3rd shift workers. They spent time just sitting in their car talking on the phone, apparently.
---
<<footnotes "1" "Living the //Archer// life, right?">>
<<footnotes "2" "Talk to me, Marx.">>
!! Why don't you like "Mr. Robot" as much as I would expect?
I'm not sure. I'm currently planning to watch and analyze it. I'm going through the technical flaws. If I'm not satisfied with that, then I'll look for other narrative flaws. There are so many cartoonish aspects of the show on top of a lack of unrealism in a way. It feels like an uncanny valley of some sort. They tried to add realism, but in doing so, they only exposed an area that somehow feels even less real to me.
I'm thinking that fiction needs to stay out of this uncanny valley. It needs to go for broke on its cartoonishness or its realism. There is a vicious black mean here (rather than a golden one). It seems like there are two golden means. That is quite odd.
* [[2017.07.09 - Link Log]]
** Who doesn't love the feeling of being smart, of reminders and evidence of it?
* [[2017.07.09 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** Is my pursuit of morality selfish? Is it unacceptably so?
* [[2017.07.09 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** That is philosophy, homie.
* [[2017.07.09 - Diet Log]]
** Edited and summed.
** Recall the summer in California. You lost weight in 6 weeks. I shouldn't lose it too fast. I actually don't like the look of skin like that. I should eat more. 2k is a good place to be. I will still lose on 2k.
* [[2017.07.09 - Wiki Review Log]]
** I can live a week without it, maybe two. My goal will be to solidify my standing, to understand my position, to be able to project the future for a bit before I do anything about this interwebs problem. Waiting for my first paycheck would be useful. I need to bring a check in for direct deposit!
* [[2017.07.09 - Pipefitting Log]]
** I think my landlord needs to fix this problem. He won't though. Not sure what I can do about it.
* [[2017.07.09 - Cry Log]]
** =(
* [[2017.07.09 - Family Log]]
** Edited.
** Brief.
* I work up and rushed out the door. I had prepped my stuff the night before.
* I met a good guy, Jaye, and I got my hands dirty working.
* I am really sore. I'm glad I've had months in the shop to take the edge off.
* I talked to my daughter twice while at work.
** Once about the screwpipe TO. I was hoping my wife would pickup, but she may have forgotten her phone at home.
*** Grown-ass woman. =) I love you so much!!
*** I need a smartphone, desperately.
** The second for resolving the late payment on rent (they didn't autodeduct, and it wasn't our fault, so they waived it).
*** My daughter typed on my behalf.
** After work, on the way back home, I called my brother JRE and talked about it. He commiserated and empathized with me.
** I took a long fucking shower, and I used one of my wife's shirts I accidentally took with me (smaller size of the same shirt of mine) as my towel. My laundry smells baaaaaaaad.
** I ate and talked to my family on the phone.
*** I was so happy to hear from my wife. I wanted to jump through the phone to hug her.
*** I told my son he sounded so different on the phone. He's so much easier to understand because he enunciates, plays the conversation train game, and his voice has changed some. We talked about school. I encouraged him. It was so wonderful to hear him.
*** I talked to my daughter. She seemed distant to me. I thanked her for her help. I talked to her about her Minecraft video production setup. She felt unemotional to me. Is she okay?
** I then talked to Armstrong for a long time about life, philosophy, and everything in between. He's not bright, but he works very hard.
* I surfed a bit (tether worked for a few minutes) and wrote some.
* I cleaned up, and I finished prepping my stuff for tomorrow.
* I'm going to close the night out chatting with my fam and watching some Mr. Robot. Sweet dreams!
|customTable|k
|Food|Calories|h
|Fish and Stir Fry|700|
|Peach|70|
|Apples|200|
|Pear|100|
|Clementine|35|
|Shells and Cheese|1000|
|Nuts|85|
|Total|2190|f
Today was exhausting and very stressful.
I arrived significantly early on the job site. I called up my foreman, Terry. He was just outside, I went with him. Terry is fat, short, middle-aged/old, direct, and gruff. Frankly, he was grumpy. I followed him with my car through the warehouse to a different parking area (which I intend to use again tomorrow). His 20-something son was with him in the car, Jacob. Jacob, I found out, has been fitting for 2-years. Of what little work I saw of his, he seemed reasonably competent.
Terry told me he fired the last 6 welders and last 2 pipefitters. He talked a lot of trash about them. My welder showed up, but without any gear. This pissed him off, and so he talked trash about him to me. He told me that if my welder, a temp, wasn't producing, to let him know. He would fire him immediately. I saw Terry and his son's work. Terry is not only an accomplished pipefitter, obviously, but also a good pipe welder (although, the better of the welders back at TCAT would have crushed him).
I was then shown what was expected of me. Basically, it was me and my welder, Jaye (sic), and I was the journeyman pipefitter calling the shots for the project with Jaye calling the shots on the bevels and welds. This was what I was worried about. I don't believe I'm ready for this. I can fit, yes, but I'm not a journeyman. I'm expected to do journeyman work here though. And, worryingly, my foreman (direct superior) fires pipefitters that don't live up to his expectations. Needless to say, my stomach churned. I was pretty sure I was going to lose this job, and I'm still convinced I might after the end of the day.
I told Terry that I had only been pipefitting for 6 months to temper his expectations. He looked at me, obviously very unhappy and no longer trusting me even the pinch he had given me before, and he said "how did you get this job? Did you oversell yourself?" I told him that I sent pictures of my work to the company, and they hired me. He and his son changed their attitudes to be even more passive-aggressively hostile to me. They clearly don't believe I belong or will make it. They are probably right. I am damned good, amazing even, for 6 months of practice, but I'm no journeyman (and I don't get paid like one either), not yet anyway. Although, they were polite enough throughout the day, and they offered me water from their truck several times. Oh yeah, he also decided to explain that Barry would be coming tomorrow, if I had didn't have enough to show for today, he'd probably let me go too.
Not a happy feeling, let me tell you.
I'm building water supply and water intake pipe systems. He first showed me what my predecessors had made. It was clearly not plumb. This pissed him off because these would be public pipes, and they have to look good. Besides the lack of level/plumb, I'm not sure if it looked anything like what he wanted. He said I would be taking them down. I need a harness and a lift to do it. The order didn't matter that much to him, and I think it will be useful to leave my work up as a point of comparison. I think I can do a better job, and I hope to highlight that against their work. He also said that as soon as the crane with our large heaters(?) come, we'll drop what we are doing to help.
He showed me one of these systems he had done (not identical, but similar). He drew a drawing up, just a sketch, without any details of what he wanted in mine. He then told me to figure the rest out. I spent the morning planning.
At first, I just blanked. I lost a grasp of everything I was doing. Honestly, I was freaking out a bit. But, I pulled it together. Fake it till you make it, right? I started drawing. I checked my work multiple times. It is complex, not normal from what I've seen, and I had to make it up on the spot. I'm not experienced enough to be this clutch. I figured out roughly what I wanted to do, but it took me longer than it should have if I were a journeyman. My foreman noted that, but left room by saying fitters do it different ways. It sounded like he would have had something to weld within the first two hours. He also thought I should mount the flange, nipple, and most of the fittings first and then work on building the column. He did not want me to make a spool first and then mount it. This is stovepiping territory to me, but I did what he wanted. I think I'm glad I did, and only because I made a massive mistake.
Our welding machine didn't come in until maybe 9:30, and we had orientation at 10 (just watched a video and signed saying we saw it).
I asked about the screwpipe hybridized into buttweld nipple (called a split-nipple). There was no machine that could do 2.5" screwpipe that I saw. I don't know how they made it. I couldn't afford to screw up on the one piece I had. I asked if he knew the takeout for it since it was beyond what my pipefitting book showed. He said I would have to figure it out (i.e. he didn't know or have that information, and he wanted me to stovepipe it instead of fully planning it). I had to wrench it into place and measure the TO that way. I think it worked.
That reminds me, a couple times Terry intimated that we were supposed to rush and not worry about getting it perfect. He said we don't bevel (although obviously, we do bevel...he was doing it too!), or rather he meant that we don't try to make perfect bevels (or so I assume). He wanted us to just bang it out. I'm trying to find the "good enough" spot for him. I really need this job.
My drawing seemed good enough. I did the math. It all seemed to work.
Jaye, btw, is a cool guy. We got along. I apologized multiple times for not knowing what I was doing. I thanked him for his patience, etc. He said it was no trouble multiple times and was never annoyed with me (or not openly so). He gave me enormous slack since he knew it my first day ever doing it on the job. He thought we were doing a good job. In fact, he seemed confident and pleased for the most part (until the end of the day). He talked a lot of shit about Terry as well (whom he had just met that day). He talked about how other jobs went and felt the expectations at this job were particularly high.
After I had a game plan, I felt better. We got to work. I had to cut with a portaband. I've precious little experience doing it like this, and I didn't have a wrap around. I desperately need one. I can't tell him I don't have these tools. Any serious professional would have them. I did have to ask for the leftovers and scraps of equipment, sealers, and power tools. He and his son had all the nice stuff, and they gave the worst of what they had to us. Jaye saw it as well, he complained.
It was a very slow start. By near lunchtime, we had most of the pieces cut. My bevels were mediocre to terrible. We only had one tripod stand, and that slowed us down considerably. The sockolets were additional monkey wrenches. We had to use the oxyacetylene torch to cut one. I didn't cut it, but Jaye did. He has 6 years experience, steady hands, and both our jobs are on the line (or, perhaps, this is just the foreman being tough...but I don't think it's an act, I have to say). I thought it best for Jaye to do this.
Jaye complained about the gaps and wasn't happy about position welding. I lack a 45-degree angle finder except for my protractor. This made it very hard since I had 2 45 angles to worry about. I don't own a 2-hole either, so it was exceptionally hard. I could have done this much easier in the shop. I lack the resources to do this well, and I shouldn't feel bad about that. I can only do the best I can with what I have.
We spent 10 hours, and by the end, we didn't have a ton to show for it. Even worse, it was wrong. We went to mount the column, and it was off in two ways. First, it was cut too tall. I know I forgot the vertical takeout for the 90 set on a 45-degree angle. I might have forgotten the 45 fitting's TO as well, but I don't think I did. Unfortunately, the math didn't work for either of them. So, something extra has gone wrong, and I don't know what it is. I lack the tools to answer some of these questions nicely, and I had to eyeball the tape measure to shorten the pipe. We did that, and then we checked to see if it would reach the short fitting. Thankfully, I didn't fuck up, I believe, on the screwpipe TO. I believe this will fit, except the short fitting was supposed to butt up against the T. It didn't. There is a gap that shouldn't be there.
We tacked the column and made it plumb all around. I need to cut a nipple to go in between the T and the short 90. These mistakes became apparent in our last hour or so. It was quite disheartening. Thankfully, we can stovepipe this part. I'm glad I did it the foreman's way. He is not going to be happy about the extra space, but it still meets his requirements, I believe. He wanted it tight, and it is still tight enough, I believe. He's going to see it and have disdain. I can handle the rebuke, but I really don't want to lose my job.
I will say this: mine looks a hell of a lot more like the one he made than what my predecessors produced.
Oh yeah, about quittin' time, I figured out another mistake. We take the column, and we should have cut another hole for a weldolet. We'll remove it tomorrow and cut that. I'll measure first. Our first weldolet did not come out beautifully plumb (but, it may not matter so much. I'm sure my foreman noticed this as well, although he said nothing.
At the end of the day, we cleaned up, locked stuff away, and I was told my hours would be 4 10's and an 8 on Friday. He told me to show up between 7 and 7:30. He said he was lenient because he lives 70 miles away.
I'm going to keep pushing through my frustration. I'm going to persist. I don't care whether I'm ready or not. I've gotta make this work. Through sheer willpower, I hope to show this man that I'm worth keeping around.
!! What was the best news you ever received?
Probably the day I heard I would be receiving a full scholarship at Tulane for a PhD in philosophy. It felt like the heavens opened up for me. That was some damned good news to me.
What is news? When my wife agreed to marry me, it was someone telling me something I didn't know. When the doctors told me my children were healthy, ditto. That may have been news. These are obviously far more important to me than my education. I guess they don't fit the question so well for me because I had more faith, anticipation, and assumptions that these would work out. They were less surprising to me, although they were relieving and wonderful!
I guess what makes "best news" takes on a kind of unanticipated element to me. Maybe that's not rational.
* [[2017.07.10 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** No fireman time. I anticipate none tonight as well. I'm busy.
* [[2017.07.10 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** I hope it grows on me
* [[2017.07.10 - Link Log]]
** While I hate not having internet, by and large, I'm grateful for what little I can get from tethering.
* [[One-Line CLI Wonders]]
** I've needed it too many times.
* [[Mr. Robot]]
** I'm not sure what I'm doing here. I just know that the lack of realism makes it far less enjoyable.
* [[2017.07.10 - Diet Log]]
** Don't lose weight too fast! Go slowly!
** Also, I want a python script for calculating this. Would be nice if it is did everything automagically.
* [[2017.07.10 - Wiki Review Log]]
** I hope I have time to write these every night. I might be too exhausted sometimes. That's okay though, try anyway.
* [[2017.07.10 - Pipefitting Log]]
** It is a brave new world.
* Woke up right before the alarm clock, woot!
* My lymph nodes were swollen, and my hand has an allergy rash on it. It has been there all day. Very bumpy and itchy. I can't think of what it is causing it. I'll have to think more.
* I worked very hard.
* I had a barrage of phone calls with Johanna and Tim.
* I talked to Barry, and I met Terry's second son.
* I got to know Jaye really well today. I'm glad to have made a friend!
* I talked to my wife, to my children, and to my brother. It's wonderful to be able to talk to them.
** I'm going to fuck the living shit out of my wife when I see her next. Me so horny. I'm happy to earn my redwings again (delicious).
*** Maybe that's why she was off last Saturday?
* I talked to Armstrong a bit while he cooked dinner for himself. He's picking up a side job at Best Buy? He makes $30/hour, so I find this 10$/hour job odd. There are obviously better ways to spend his time in my view, even if money is the sole goal (which he claims it isn't, but he's also not very well-integrated and coherent in many respects...the move from dirt poor to upper-lower or lower-middle class has fucked with his identity and belief system very hard).
** He was on the phone with his router/modem combo's company. I offered help and some mineral water (cause I want this). He is illiterate, so I did it for him. A signal problem from the ISP they say (or passing the buck). Armstrong's working on that too.
* I'm not feeling so hungry, but may I will tomorrow.
* My nose is bleeding on the outside and pus comes out. UV radiation sucks. My brother suggests sunblock. Umm, good idea! Thank you!
* Fireman time, goddamnit!
|customTable|k
|Food|Calories|h
|Nuts|85|
|Apple|100|
|Brussel Sprouts|50|
|Pear|100|
|Apple|100|
|Spaghetti and Alfredo (not good)|400|
|Red Beans and Rice|600|
|Total|1435|f
* Preach, yo!
** https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/05/25/another-housing-bubble/
** https://i.redd.it/s4iisrkrgt8z.jpg
* KYS
** http://www.newsweek.com/republicans-believe-college-education-bad-america-donald-trump-media-fake-news-634474
Today was another whirlwind. But, I felt much better about today than yesterday. I felt even mildly confident a couple times. Woot!
I arrived before/at 7:00, well with the 7:00-7:30 "show up around then" requirement. My goal is to show up before my foreman every day. My brother says this probably won't matter in a positive way at all, but it at least won't be any more strikes against me. At the moment, that is a good enough reason for me. I immediately started getting to work. I needed to deliver something. Unfortunately, I lacked tools locked away in the gangbox and welding trailer. I can see why they are $4k, btw. If I ever start my own business, I'll want one. They are incredibly useful and portable.
Terry showed up before 7:30. He immediately asked where my welder was. I said I didn't know. He complained that the welder wasn't there, talked some shit about him. It wasn't even 7:30, so I now see that he doesn't really mean what he says in the requirement he said. It's a way for him to come as an excuse, but we aren't allowed to do so. We are required to be there before him, but he might be late and we have to "be okay with it." Whatever. I didn't badmouth Jaye, and I'm not going to. Jaye is cool as fuck.
Like, I'm literally friends with Jaye. Luke and I got along quite well, but it can be a stretch for Luke to see where I'm coming from (which isn't to say I'm looking for agreement, but empathy and understanding, yes). He's the first person in this field I could say that about. I liked Chris well enough, and I could handle being around several guys in the shop. Jaye is different. He's a 33-year black man. He gets it on a number of fronts. He went to a very expensive welding school (Tulsa), although he doesn't seem to weld as well as the other guys, he still knows his stuff after 6 years in the field. He is secretly a Muslim (can't say that around the guys we work with), and his legal first name is literally Jihad. I'm apparently the first co-worker he has ever told. He has 4 kids, and he is going to be homeschooling in Fall. He's a socialist, and he fucking gets it (for an uneducated man, he has his eyes wide open). He reads and watches documentaries (but, the quality doesn't sound high). He's a bit of a conspiracy theorist (not the best signal-to-noise ratio tuning in some respects).
We talked about League (I explained it), about UFC (the Mayweather fight in particular), but mostly politics. Thank Christ I have a Muslim (soon to be ex-Muslim) to talk to.
For two days now, we've been getting to know each other. We have a shit ton in common politically and socially. He's a cool dude, and I get to be honest and open with him about an important part of my life. I like that. We talked about faith. He is losing his as well. We talked about our pasts, etc. It's nice to fucking click with someone because it happens SO rarely for me.
Jaye and I get along very well. I like working with him. I think Jaye like working with me too. Later in the day, he talked to Barry, the project manager about coming to work full time at SMS (my company). He said he liked working with me and wanted to keep working with me full-time.
Barry came by to see me, and I didn't realize it was him. I was busy working. We shook hands and didn't say much. Barry had to head to a meeting. Barry is a chill dude, and obviously very experienced. He does everything, including underground piping. I can see why he has the Project Manager position instead of Terry, despite them having roughly the same number of years. Obviously, being a good pipefitter is going to require learning novel things for a very long time. I saw Barry later in the day and talked to him a bit about my tools. He told me if the AB&T thing doesn't work out to talk to him, and he would work something out with me.
My brother talked about each job being novel, and that novelty slope is steep at first and veers back down. This seems like common sense, and I've heard it from multiple people, including my teacher. I also have experienced similar things while learning different disciplines. I'm sure this novelty has its own spectrum of novelties to it. It will be interesting, no doubt.
I did feel quite alive today. Tired as fuck at the end I was (the Yoda did say), but definitely alive.
Anyways, onto the actual job. We cut the column down, cut a hole, and got the 'O-let' (as Jaye says), or Sockolet/Thread-o-let/Weldolet as others say into place. The giant mistake I thought I made yesterday beyond that, the TO issue where the math wasn't working turned out not to be my fault entirely. The initial TO, yes, but the reason none of the mathematical possibilities worked out was that the pipe I'm connecting to is not secured well enough. It literally moves with enough force (when it shouldn't). With this adjustment, we were within welding range on the short-90, although it was still a bit gappy. Since we were already plumbed, I didn't want to fuck with the movable section of the pipe. I just cut a tiny 1/16th sliver of pipe to insert. Jaye had never done that before, and he said it made it much easier for him (although, he said a welder should be able to make that gap without it). The second son (as you will find out about later) noticed it wasn't quite right, but it was because we didn't cap it before the end of the day.
Jaye spent much of his time welding today. I spent a non-trivial amount of time waiting on him (opposite of yesterday). I see that it is the pipefitter's job to find ways for the Welder to always be welding. I have to plan ahead, and I have to see how to orchestrate things, to run these in parallel, desynchronized at times. Several traffic jams of missing parts or tools and having to wait on them made it so I have to extend my ability to find things to do. I can't afford to waste my time. I have to make sure shit is getting done, even if out of order and less efficiently and neatly than I'd like.
My break time, I called Johanna at AB&T. She asked me if I had just talked with my teacher (I hadn't) because she had just talked with him. She said he told her that I absolutely needed my tools. I'm glad he went to bat for me as well. She had some goodish news. The finance department didn't outright deny her, but they said that the letter she had from my company didn't show under no uncertain terms that I would lose my job without the tools. So, she needed another letter. She took it upon herself to contact the person who sent her the last one for a new one with these certain terms. That seems like it could easily be bad for me, but about 15 minutes after the call she received the letter she needed. She's off to bat for me with the finance department (that isn't to say the company might not have a wonderfully easy reason to fire me now if I don't get the tools, lol, but I think Barry has my back here from appearances). Anyways, this may be what allows us to get the tools. I told her I would be down for paying for the tools and being reimbursed if it were immediate. Otherwise, she'd have to get them and bring them to my place or have me pick them up on a Saturday. I'm really desperately hoping this works because I need those tools! My employment may be on the line for multiple reasons because of it.
I left my teacher a message afterward thanking him and telling him he was right. He called me back 5 minutes later, and actually 10 minutes later again, and then once again at lunch. He seemed to have a 6th sense about when I'm on break for being 3.5 hours away from me. He always made sure that I wouldn't get in trouble for being on the phone with him. He's figured out how to make sure I get my diploma: he'll just send my co-op forms to me (instead of my employer) to sign. That's his ass on the line, of course. He felt bad I didn't have a wrap and offered one to me. I told him I couldn't come in on Fridays since I'm working (which he was glad about but sad about too). He's going to leave a wrap right outside the school for me so I can swing by on Saturday morning to pick it up. I need one, and I'm thankful he's willing to lend me one.
Towards midday, I started planning more fully the second spool. I was missing parts for both, and Terry's second son (who wasn't there the day before) was helping me out. He's kinda the top helper/gopher bitch for both teams. He asked me what parts I wanted, and it was like I was the boss or something? What? Great, I know exactly what I need for what I'm building, except the threadolets. I gave him a list of parts, and I picked up an extra split nipple because I wanted to be able to afford to screw up once (we'll see if Terry despises that choice, but from the sounds of it, he has almost no idea what is happening in my camp except for seeing it twice a day and what his kids tell him).
The threadolets have pieces that go to them. Brass thermometer outlets (according to Terry's second son, I don't remember his name, maybe starts with a T?), and tiny 3/4" nipples into a 90 and small globe valve. Terry's son helped me walk through this part. Also, my portaband blade snapped, and I asked Terry for one after his son left to get the parts. He had Jacob call the store to add it to the order that the other son had. These guys seem to know a lot of people around them in the industry. I saw lots of chatting, swapping tobacco, etc. Rough bunch, no doubt. The second son told me I need to pick up the bad habit of chewing to fit in. He also asked me if it were true I have a PhD. It's hard to explain to people that I'm ABD, so I just say yes, but not to tell anyone. Obviously, the grapevine will make my life harder here. He asked me why the fuck I was doing this. I explained, and that seemed to satisfy him enough. He also said something interesting about the bandsaw blade that I kept, which puzzled him. I explained its use for fabricating pipe, and from his facial expression, it was obvious he'd never heard of it (plenty of pipefitters never fabricate, especially since these guys seem to just buy nipples, etc.). I think he thought I was making it up since he responded: "fake it till you make it." Jaye wasn't quite sure what was meant by it but felt it wasn't negative. I don't know. I read people very poorly sometimes.
I do not get the feeling that this son likes me, but I feel that way about Terry's family in general thus far. They clearly don't like Jaye, but they don't seem overtly racist about it. Jaye believes they likely don't like him though. He has an instinct for it perhaps, although he could be wrong too. The discussion of religion with the second son was odd as well. He said he was Southern Baptist. I told him a joke about Baptists and Methodists (since I explained why I moved around a lot as a kid to a series of questions about where I was from), which he said he was considering switching to. Maybe he isn't retarded, and instead just regular stupid? No. He reminds me of Baby Cakes (minus the sometimes sheer brilliance) with a Southern accent. He is southern enough that he could be doing the "Southern Slowroll" where they use their false humility to pounce upon you in the right moment. I will pay attention to this little one and see. I remain as humble as I can, although I don't want to be incompetent (however incompetent I may feel).
Also, the racist defacement (it does not merit the artful term "graffiti") of the portapotties were frankly disturbing. I felt like I was trapped inside the shitty mind of Trump's lackeys. I've seen a lot of racism online (far more than the average person; I've been using 4chan since year 1), but this bombarded the workers. I felt really bad that the people around me had to experience this. It was disgusting on so many levels.
At the end of the day, we had the general spool mounted. There was some in-position welding to be done to finish it. Terry noticed, and he commented that I needed to spoil my welder more and not force in-position so much. I find this odd, since following his previous instructions forced in-position welding on us. I'm going to take him literally again, and this time do it my way. I "agreed" with him and told him I'd be taking down a split nipple that was mounted so that the flange could be welded to it on the tripod instead.
Terry had one compliment for me. He said, "at least you aren't as slow as the clowns before." Awesome, so maybe I'll be keeping my job! Yay! Let's celebrate! At least for a week, which means I've not lost money in this venture. Imagine if I go ta full month of this? That would be some sick practice. I'm used to getting paid to go to school, whether literally at school or elsewhere. School of Life, homie, it's gonna' learn me somethin'.
Terry also talked with me about how we were going to deal with what the clowns had done. He too was skeptical that we could fix it as it was, and it pretty sure we'll have to redo it all. He wants to salvage whatever parts we can. He thought our column was taller than he wished but said it wasn't our fault. It is what it is.
I told Terry I needed to set up direct deposit and asked if he thought anyone could do that with me over lunch at the office. He said yes. So, that's what I'm going to do.
Terry said he'd never seen a toolbag like mine (not in a positive way). I laughed and said it was weird. He laughed. His son then chimed in to say he has a friend with one, an electrician. They helped us get the scissor lift off our welding leads and put it away. Before he left, Terry told me that he can now enter my time on his phone for me, so that will help. He handed me some water and said goodbye.
As a side note, I think I need to learn Spanish, and this time become fluent. A large number of workers around me are Hispanic, and several of them could not speak any English (or acted like they couldn't, possibly, but unlikely given their body language). Terry, I believe, from looking at his children and one phone conversation (something about it felt that way) is married to a Latina. That said, I've not seen a single culturally Latino fitter yet. But, I want to be able to communicate with these people. I can't afford to be unable to speak when I absolutely needed. Twice my lack of fluency made it difficult for us. I'm no longer in academia or more affluent social and work circles in a sense, and I need to shift my language, even directly this way. I really want to learn this. I hope I have what it takes. That would be a profound goal for perhaps everyone in our family.
!! Your daughter said she is "afraid to be afraid." What do you think upon reflection?
I'm not sure what it means to be afraid to be afraid. My daughter is very smart, and she is good at making word puzzles up for me at times. When I go to inspect and interrogate the notion, I find she provides a moving target that isn't meant to be rational.
She said this about canoeing. We talked about it, and I think she is worried that any fun, the new thing is like that for her. Does that mean we need to continually get her to try new things until that fades? Or is that she has too much of that (I don't think so)? She needs stability, right? I need to ask her more. This is a concept I need her to write about! I must have a well-reasoned dialogue about it with her. I think it is wonderful that she sees this thing in herself. What better way to work on it than by first knowing what it is that you are working on?
That said, what does it literally mean? I think it's a fun phrase.
One could imagine someone being afraid of nothing because they are afraid of being afraid, except for being afraid of itself. They so don't want to be afraid that they aren't afraid of anything, except for being afraid. That "the only thing to fear is fear itself" comes to mind, of course. Maybe that was her reference.
It is super important that my daughter feel confident. She is awesome. How do I help her overcome her fear? How can I help her feel better about herself and pursue her self-interests wisely, passionately, and without undue fear?
* [[2017.07.11 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** It was a whirlwind.
* [[2017.07.11 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** When Lady Melisandre calls me up for a bang date, that will supersede my answer.
* [[2017.07.11 - Diet Log]]
** Summed.
* [[2017.07.11 - Wiki Review Log]]
** I'd like to have some fireman time tonight. That will be a goal.
* [[2017.07.11 - Pipefitting Log]]
** Edited.
** Reminded to edit today's pipefitting log too.
* Woke up a couple times in the night, as usual. I keep checking the alarm clock to make sure it is working (paranoid). My last time was 10 seconds before the alarm went off. I was getting up to turn it off when it went off. Impeccable timing.
* I took a bit longer to get ready (5 more minutes), but it didn't matter.
* I worked very hard today.
* I talked to my teacher.
* I got even closer to Jaye (Jihad!)
* I figured out that I really do despise the office employees (quickly becoming a blue collar worker, it took no time, because I already hate people in general, especially white-collar workers in my experience).
* I got some medicine for my face. It looks better, and maybe it feels better. I think I caught it early enough to do something about it.
* My hand's allergic reaction has no subsided.
* I talked to my wife twice, my children, and my brother JRE.
* My roommate offered me a shitty tether, and he claimed he would do something about the interwebs problem with the ISP. I'm not holding my breath. I'm hoping in 2 months I won't be here anyway, maybe sooner if I can help it.
** Jihad could house me, right?
* I love showers after work. The cleansing is very satisfying.
* I didn't eat so much today until after I got home. Then I decided to try and not waste my food. I brought too much, I think.
* I cleaned my room, did the dishes, got everything packed and ready to go.
* Maybe some fireman time? Definitely some Mr. Robot. I watched part of the episode already.
* My links have become unmanageable. I should bring my computer with me at work. Hit the BK and read/write. That's what I'll do for lunches!
Mr. Robot S1E5, the end. The failure plus the cancer scene, plus I'm emotionally vulnerable atm.
|customTable|k
|Food|Calories|h
|Apples|200|
|Peach|70|
|Pear|100|
|Nuts|60|
|Fish and Stir Fry|600|
|Chili|500|
|Total||f
Today was a more sane pace. I didn't take serious breaks, or rather, I ran errands on them, but I also had times where I could chill for a second. I wasn't pushing absolutely as hard as I could the entire time. I had some breathing room, and I'm grateful for that.
Jaye beat me there today, and we both beat Terry and his sons by almost half an hour. I immediately started working on the screwpipe sections for the second spool, the hot water return. We couldn't do much until Terry unlocked everything for us.
When he arrived, he gave me a speech about making sure my welder was always welding, but also to make sure my welder wasn't welding in position. Jaye, of course, doesn't prefer in-position but thought it was crazy to expect me to not have him weld in position. Terry went on to brag that his son already had 2 pieces to weld this morning for him. I wanted to reply that I also had multiple pieces ready this morning, but I couldn't get Jaye started because everything was locked up. This would not have been useful. Terry is not interested in rational arguments. He seemed to ignore what I had done right and that his own advice was already being followed in many respects. The in-position welds were also the result of his own command on the first day, given how he told me how to construct it. I don't understand why I am held accountable for the mistake built into his own command. He is not rational, or he is malicious, guaranteed lacking charity, and perhaps a mixture of them all. His goal is to put me in my place. I can only continue to be humble. Admittedly, I have tons to learn.
Terry still doesn't like my work. Nothing will please him, I think. He's grumpy, even with his own sons. That's okay. Even if I get fired, which I'm not anticipating anymore, this has been an amazing learning experience. By the end of next week, it will be a school that has paid for itself. I like getting paid to learn. That's the kind of life I want to lead. At least he is calm in mannerism. I can deal with an asshole. As long as my AB&T tools come through, I'll have a chance to land another job and make an even better run. That said, I believe I'll be able to stay at this one as long as I want. I really do hope to find one closer to home, but this will do just nicely until then.
My morning was slow because I was waiting on Jaye to finish welds I had set up for him the previous day. I actually couldn't make a ton more progress until he was done. I pieced together the second spool on the floor. The column was good to go, but I had to wait on measurements for the nipples that fit the flanges.
During the break, I picked up some antibiotic anti-burn cream for my face. The pus globbed everywhere. I had to clean it at least a dozen times. It was gross, painful, got in the way, and didn't help with social situations. I strictly used my hood during welds. I will continue to do so from now on.
After the first spool was finished today, we jumped into fitting the second. The fit-ups went more smoothly this time. My level is absolutely possessed. It doesn't work well. $2 levels aren't worth it. I need another, desperately. It is very hard to do anything right without one. Thankfully, I had my digital protractor, which made it feasible. I'm working without a ton of tools I really need.
I'm reminded that Travis, the second son, continues to, as my brother calls it, "Bird-dog" me by continually playing spy for his father. He comes by every hour to check on my progress, to try and find dirt, and report to his father. Seriously, every single thing I say or that is seen gets back to his father, even the mundane. I had asked Travis directly if his father was annoyed by my lack of experience. Probably not worth it. I didn't realize I was being bird-dogged until later in the day.
Travis doesn't do fitting exactly, it's a mix of screwpipe and HVAC for these specialized water systems. He showed me what he does. He doesn't want to learn the general artform, but intends to specialize he told me. Uh huh. Go general first, then specialize.
Travis continued to prod me to see if I'm actually able to fit throughout the day. e.g. I lack a wraparound, and I had to use paper. He saw this and thought he could do better. So, he did the wrap with the paper, and then it didn't come out very nicely. Lol. Ummm, no shit. I'm working with what I have. Terry eventually found out, as I asked him for one at the end of the day. This reflects poorly on me, of course, because any real pipefitter would already have one. Lol.
Travis also rifled through my pipefitter book, which is fairly rude. It's not his stuff. For half a second, he may have respected me. He called it oldschool. I was then able to explain what I had said to him yesterday about fabricating pipe. Of course, they never do it he said, and as I said yesterday since they just purchase all their fittings.
Oh, Travis also came by to talk some shit about my flange being too close to another pipe. Mind you, I'm duplicating what Terry told me to duplicate (well, it can't be identical because our starting positions aren't identical, but they are structurally analogous in a strong way). We talked about it, and I found out that these pipes will be fitted with insulation. I didn't know because nobody told me, although it makes perfect sense. We got his dad to talk about it since even Terry has less than a centimeter of clearance (as I pointed out to Travis). Terry eventually came, and he said it was fine. The insulators could "cheat" on this one he said because it was the hot water pipe. We went to see his own work, and he saw I was doing the same.
Travis also had the nerve to say (repeating his father, ofc), that I was stovepiping on my first spool. Well, no shit, Sherlock. I was against Terry's method from the beginning. I took the speech from yesterday to mean I had free reign to do it my way. This time, we made the entire spool on the stand. The absolute opposite of stovepiping. If I get anything wrong, nothing works (I checked along the way). Of course, at the end of the day, Terry didn't like that either. I walked up on him and his boys talking shit about our work, but they were kinder once they saw me. Now he has given me a different task (which makes more sense than his previous command). He wants me to put a flange on a pipe, and then make a column, and then tack the pipes to the column, then dismount and do the full weld. This will work nicely, especially since I don't have two-holes (which I've not told him yet either, I'm just cheating with bolts and my worthless demonic level). His argument was that it would be harder for my welder to weld the flanges on the stand (which is obviously not true). I will do it his way, even if I get shit from both sides for it. At the very least, it is practice and a chance to see why or why not I like these various approaches, oh, and I'm getting paid money for it.
For lunch, I ran to the office to set up direct deposit. It won't come through for another week. So, I'll have a paper check to deal with at least once more. I talked to Ben, the boss of Barry I believe. Ben has spiked hair, is a bit older than me (not much, I think), and talks a lot of shit. He called millennials the entitled generation (Ben might himself be a millennial, lol). He says nobody wants to work (again, a fool), that they think everything should be handed to them on a platter. He laments having such a hard time finding pipefitters. What he really means to say is that he can't find pipefitters willing to take what he wants to pay them. If he really needed them, he could train them. His Republican politics were disgusting. He talked the talk, but this man has never labored in his life. He readily admits his privilege but refuses to do what it takes to empathize. Psychopath all over the place. I legitimately hope he dies in a fire (even if I could never do that to him, I would not be sad if it happened to him).
My teacher called me during lunch too. That dude has been in my corner, I tell you what. I do owe him brownies and ale.
In any case, we almost finished the second spool today. I used the oxy torch to cut holes. One was better than the other. I think I surprised them that I could use the torch at all, and even further that I had the gear for it. They do not use it safely. No outerwear, shades, and they leave the gas on permanently. =/ This is the second time I've seen them do something which doesn't follow OSHA standards, and which I consider too important to not follow. I'm pleased with our work, and so is Jaye.
I've started measuring and planning for the "clown" spools. They made more mistakes than I realized today. Not only is the cold water return (or is it supply?) valve/regulator sections on the top upside down, but it's on the wrong spool! I'm going to have a scissor lift tomorrow and a harness to take them down.
I am convinced that Terry is highly tribal, and I'm out of his group. Further, I believe he doesn't give objective advice about pipefitting but is instead invested in thinking about how we do pipefitting for his sons, particularly Jacob. That seems to color his perceptions, from what I can tell. Terry and his boys take breaks, but we are discouraged from doing so. The same for showing up early and leaving late. He's a foreman. I am not surprised.
I think it annoys him that his boys have been doing this for years aren't getting the pay or opportunity that I have, or that it demonstrates that he is holding them back. It doesn't appear they get their own welder and do fitting on their own. Apparently, it runs in their family. Travis was telling me that everyone should be a helper, according to his grandfather, for 10 years before they become a fitter. Travis and Jacob are plainly being used by their father.
All this said, I'm somehow oddly grateful for the chance to learn with Terry. I have learned quite a bit. Experience is experience. This is stuff I simply couldn't do in the shop. They are leaving early tomorrow, leaving Jaye and I to work alone. I'm thinking about slow rolling the morning a bit so that I finish a lot of work while they are gone. My brother thinks that they will lack the charity to have paid attention enough in the first place. We will see. That might be right. I despise manipulation, but these people are not moral in their approach. As usual, I'm generally disgusted with humanity (or the vast majority of it [so, find the others!])
I am so grateful to have a friend in Jaye. Having a single person I get along with on the job is amazing, and we click more than merely getting along. We're definitely different people, but I don't mind it. I get to be myself around Jaye. I love it.
I just realized "Jaye" is short for Jihad, lol. Also, his son (a twin) has leukemia. That's why he doubts his faith, I'm betting. I asked if his mom was a black panther. He said yes, from Oakland in the '80s.
!! What is a friend?
Aristotle couldn't define it, so why should I?<<ref "1">>
I have long wondered how to define friendship. I have no idea. I've read some on the topic, and I've got plenty of anecdotal evidence. Narrowing it down isn't easy.
A friend empathizes with you, wants the best for you, and likes you, at least generally-speaking or consistently enough. Friendships come in degrees. Of course, to be called a friend in Germany might be a very high rank that is rarely achieved, and perhaps in the US, it could simply be a shallow acquaintance. In Thailand, it seemed that true friendships didn't generally exist from what I could tell. There are serious cultural considerations here.
My friends and I care about each other, want to see each other, sacrifice for each other, and tend to have at least some things in common. Maybe I am too restrictive in my friendships, or maybe I'm bad at making or keeping friends. I don't know. I will tell you, Samwise, that I am generally a lonely person. This wiki has enabled me to bear through that loneliness because, in a way, I've befriended myself on this wiki. That was a friendship worth having. I learned that lesson too late in life.
---
<<footnotes "1" "That should be my new catchphrase.">>
* [[2017.07.12 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** I need to spend less time with Armstrong. I've developed enough of a relationship with him. I need to use my time more wisely. I only have so much left in the evening.
* [[2017.07.12 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** She knows how to put a quarter in me, push my buttons, etc. =)
* [[2017.07.12 - Diet Log]]
** Those 38" waist pants for my uniform were probably a mistake. I can wear 36" waist pants now, which is not something I've been able to say for many moons.
* [[2017.07.12 - Wiki Review Log]]
** Get up on it, grill!
* [[2017.07.12 - Pipefitting Log]]
** Sometimes my [[Pipefitting Log]] isn't so obviously useful to me. It has been immensely useful to me these past few days. I need that reflection.
* [[2017.07.12 - Link Log]]
** I realized that some of my comments boil down to this.
** My wife is giving up on the blog now that I'm gone. Reading current events drives her into anger, despair, and depression. I can only assume it is really fucking hard for her and the kids without me there. I wish I could hold them.
* I woke up before my alarm clock by 15 minutes. Fireman time!
* I took everything that prepped to the car and went to work.
* I worked my butt off.
* I got my first check. $16/hour net takehome (until they start garnishing), yay!
* I was extremely frustrated at the end of the day, but I had a good lunch.
* I'm really pleased to have the chance to learn on the job, to get paid for gaining this experience. Win or lose, whether I am fired or not, I am very happy to have this chance. I'm learning a ton. I'm going to keep working my butt off, and I hope to stay here for a while if I can.
* I'm going continue looking for other positions closer to home.
* I drove home. I talked with JRE and my wife the entire way. We talked about everything. It was wonderful. I need to find a phone plan that allows me to connect with my brothers without worrying about overages.
* I was so happy to see my family.
* Shower and Inform the men! (and Shower again)
* We had a party. Burgers, beer, and GoT.
* I fell asleep squeezing the orbs of joy, apparently. =)
I'm writing this a day later, so my memory might not be as clear about it.
My car was packed, and I went straight to work. I arrived the earliest again. I started setting up. When Jaye got there we started trying to mount the spool temporarily to see if it was plumb. It wasn't perfect. Part of the problem is that the pipes we are connecting to aren't actually vertically aligned with each other as we thought. Our spool was far from perfect as well. It was good enough though. So, I had Jaye finish the final flange off.
During the break, I ran to get my check. $321 for 20 hours of work, ~$16/hour post-tax. That's $800 a week. Terry noted that he didn't see why I was there, how I could afford it, how my wife would let me, etc. I'm a drifter, a pariah, a gypsy to this man.
It seemed like we were just about to mount the second spool, and I needed to begin working on the screwed up spools the previous crew made. I asked for a lift. This was my first time driving one. I got my harness on (since I was going higher than 6-feet, thank you OSHA<<ref "1">>), also my first time using one. Driving is awkward, but it works. I think in time I will get better at it. I could easily see hitting something with it by pushing too hard on the throttle. I got it there, but the lift didn't work. I tried charging it, and it didn't work. I talked to Terry, and he said he'd do something about it, but to charge in the meantime. I did, but it wouldn't go more than a couple inches. So, I went to talk to Terry again, since my progress as halted. Terry was bashing his portaband on a pipe not working for him, and he was screaming at the pipe. He calmed down, and then Terry came and walked up to a Hispanic foreman with a crew doing drywall and said he was taking their lift. The Hispanic foreman was not pleased, but he immediately agreed. Terry must be fairly powerful on the jobsite to do that, I assume. This lift worked. I unmounted the pieces the "clowns" put up while Jaye finished his welding. I returned the lift and apologized + thanked the man who let me have it.
Someone doing ductwork talked to me, an old black man I couldn't understand who wanted to fuck with me. As long as I play along, hand them submission signals<<ref "2">> at the appropriate times, and attempt to blend as well as I can (which is quite poorly at that), I may eventually not have to worry. Friendliness goes a long way, often enough. It doesn't seem sufficient with Terry, but that's okay. I'll do what I can anyway.
I started cutting the pipe for the cold water (clown) spools. I wanted to reuse as much as I could. I had to ask Terry about where he wanted the brass thermometer outlet. He wants it high, so that means I can't reuse everything nicely.
Terry had to leave to do some passport work. I took lunch. I actually got chicken for lunch. I thought I earned it, and I had nothing else to eat but a bit of fruit. I was hungry, surprisingly. My teacher, Tim, called me again during lunch. That man has really got to bat for me, been in my corner, pick your sportsball metaphor. I owe him a lot.
We went to mount the spool that was finished after lunch. The spool fitup nicely enough, and with some pushing, it was plumb enough (or so it seemed). I mounted the top valves section and then put the lift away. When I came back, I saw that while it was plumb in the direction I was worried about, it was now very, very off in the other plumb cardinal direction. I was sick to my stomach mortified. This is what the other crew got fired for. I was so frustrated, I felt like crying. I got my protractor out, and I saw two problems.
One was that after the flange was welded, it actually lost its plumbness some, and furthermore, the reducer was off. Jaye thinks he may have warped it by welding it too hot, but I think the fitup was bad (my fault). I cut the leg attached to the top flange to see if we could push it into place and tack it. Unfortunately, I may have cut too much off. Again, super frustrating. We dismounted the whole thing. I cut the reducer too. None of them are clean, and I had to cut on the welds. It was fucking awful. We did a ton of grinding trying to make them even remotely decent. That was where we ended up. Our second spool is laying in pieces, and I'm kind of dying inside about it.
I'm pretty sure I'm going to be fired over this. Jaye doesn't think so, but I do. I told him that if we do get fired that he needs to throw me under the bus because it is my fault. I think I may be given one more week on the job at most. I'm still on probation, and it makes sense that they would let me go. I'm not who they need, I fear. Hopefully, that will be enough time to get my tools, to earn a bit more cash, and to give us just enough time to find another job! This job really needed more tools than I had and I needed more experience to do it. I am consistently reminding myself that I am essentially being paid to go to school here. They don't think of it that way at all, and it would mortify them to see it that way. But, it is true from my perspective. Even if I do get fired, I'm really glad to have had the chance to get baptized by fire, to see it all come together like this, etc. I feel like I'm failing, but not in too bad of a way. I'm learning, and that's all there is to it. I'm required to journeyman level work here with only 6 months of experience. Mistakes are expected; we're only human. Frankly, I should be proud of what I've been able to do given what I have.
Some general contractor, Greg, came by and was screwing with Jaye and me, mixing our names up on purpose while smiling. He wanted to know how long we were going to be there doing the work. Apparently, it was supposed to take 5 days, and we clearly won't be finished it in time. He does the scheduling for the whole site. He wanted to know who was in charge, and I said I guess it would be me. He said if I were in charge, I would know it, and I would not hesitate. He was worried about the primer paint crews rushing towards us in the warehouse. He had to do some research but said we couldn't work on our project on Monday because it would be hazardous to our health, and it could easily start a giant fire since we were welding.
Barry was called. We will, instead, be working on the second floor. Barry says this one is extremely tough. I'm already failing on the easy one, lol. I'm pretty fucked, I think. I'm not going to give up though! I need to squeeze this job for every drop of experience and knowledge that I can get. I am thirsty, and I need this baptism by fire to continue wandering the desert.
At the end of the day, another SMS crew maybe doing HVAC, I don't know, had a foreman, AJ, who said he'd heard about me and offered me water from his cooler since Terry was gone.
I forgot to lock the gangbox, and I don't know if Jaye did it. Terry will be pissed if he finds out.
I'm getting a wrap around and 2-foot level, but I'm also getting a real torpedo level from Lowe's today as well. Hopefully, that will help and give me a way to show I'm working on improving what I'm capable of doing.
Remember: check the gangbox to make sure it is locked early on Monday, and make sure the equipment is moved out of the way so it won't be painted white.
---
<<footnotes "1" "Note that Terry doesn't wear one, even when he is just balancing on pipes 20 feet in the air. Insanity.">>
<<footnotes "2" "I believe I am highly ticklish with my wife but not others specifically because I am vulnerable to her in this way. Being ticklish is a form of submission. I readily submit to my wife at an instinctual level.">>
!! "Ought Implies Can" + "Is/Ought Fallacy" + The Redpill: Go!
If we are all fundamentally driven by selfishness, can we be anything besides fundamentally selfish? Perhaps there are different dimensions to selfishness, with layers, degrees, and kinds that must be considered. Molecular altruism may be the result of the right kind of atomic egoistic motivational principles, but what emerges is still a good thing, right? Sure, it is tainted, that it isn't true or pure altruism, but that doesn't mean it is somehow just as bad as something like Libertarian moral motivational molecules which emerge from atomic egoism structures.
As self-programmers, as a newly-formed compatibilist,<<ref "2018.11.30">> I think we shape ourselves. The beginnings are determined, but a kind of molecular autonomy emerges from that atomic determinism.<<ref "1">> It's "magic," I know. It is a kind of faith worth taking up. Perhaps the egoism problem is similar. We could "faith" it out.
We can't be held accountable for being atomically selfish. We can't be otherwise than what we are. Can we be otherwise at the molecular level? There does seem to be enormous variation in what molecules can emerge and evolve from these atomic egoistic structures. We seem to be able to give shape to these molecules over time. That seems to be the necessary "can" for an "ought," right?
Of course, just because we are selfish doesn't mean we ought to be. I do not understand ought in deterministic worlds very well. I think the answer looks more like: "it is what it is" and "ought" is asking for something outside of that. If this is correct, then just do as you like. I want to feel moral, so I will.
---
<<footnotes "1" "I'm not talking about physics here, although quantum problems are obviously significant.">>
<<footnotes "2018.11.30" "Rather, I've stopped caring. It's faith to me.">>
* [[2017.07.13 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** You are doing a good job. Even if you get fired, you are doing a good job. Keep your chin up.
* [[2017.07.13 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** Love yourself, homie.
* [[2017.07.13 - Diet Log]]
** I'm ending my Diet Log for now. I don't see the value in it. I'll have my meals prepped.
** My daughter can continue hers without me, I believe.
** I'm definitely going to be losing weight on the job, at this point. I will pick up the diet log if I'm ever not working.
* [[2017.07.13 - Wiki Review Log]]
** I feel rushed when I write in Charlotte, but I do get it done.
* [[2017.07.13 - Pipefitting Log]]
** Edited.
** Good job!
* [[2017.07.13 - Cry Log]]
** It's okay to feel vulnerable, stressed, and tired. You've earned it.
* Woke up on the couch, went to bed. Couldn't sleep. Oh yeah, it's 6:30, when I normally wake up. Welp, gj.
* Layed down just relaxing with my wife.
* Inform the Men!
* Played some league and surfed.
* Found Dale's number online, called him, grabbed the tools off his porch.
* Went shopping, twice. Picked up groceries and other stuff I need to live in Charlotte.
* Prepped the ribs and put them in the oven.
* More league.
* Blessed sleep.
I've read much sadder stories. This one came alive enough for me - https://www.reddit.com/r/MorbidReality/comments/6nfcuf/i_worked_at_a_mobile_operator_and_i_still/
Talked to Dale. He's got my stuff. Found him online very easily.<<ref "1">> We talked about the job for a bit. He said to hang in there, show up on time, do what they tell me, and do what they tell me. He said I needed to pay my dues, and that the money isn't what is important right now. Experience is what I'm gaining. He's right by-and-large (although I have some ethical problems with his concept of dues, I believe). He said he was happy for me and proud of me.
I picked up a decent torpedo level at Lowes as well. Hopefully, I'll still have a chance to use it next week for money.
---
<<footnotes "1" "I'm proud to say that I'm not easy to find online. Although anyone reading this or anyone with enough resources, could easily find me, I'm sure.">>
!! What is the intersection of Virtue Theory and Heideggerian Phenomenology?
Both deal in how Dasein experiences consciousness in a very direct, real way. This is obvious for phenomenology, but perhaps less obvious for virtue theory. But, really, this is the strength of virtue theory among the various grand theories of ethics. Virtue theorists are doing ethical phenomenology often enough, although, really it is about the phenomenology of excellence of a practice in human specimens.
The RtH (ready-to-hand) and PaH (present-at-hand) are laced with virtue theoretic concepts, in particular, the relationship between the faster acting emotional mind and the slower rational mind, the frontal lobes.
Heidegger thinks we should live in the zone, in the RtH mode, and only when we experience problems we pull out and enter PaH mode. This PaH mode is scientific, philosophical, and highly rational. However, we don't want these sorts of problems. We want to live in the zone, we hope to escape the PaH mode and experience consciousness in the comfort of the RtH mode. It's prudent, convenient, and frankly easier to live in the RtH mode.
Imagine a man buys shitty hammers, a hammer every day that breaks. Before his hammer breaks, he was in RtH mode when using it. He is a virtuous construction worker to some extent, and when he has a working hammer he doesn’t have to think about it. His faster acting mind takes care of it all. He knows how to use that hammer, how to build with it, and what's he doing. He's in the zone because he has done it so many times.
When the hammer breaks he is pulled out of the RtH zone and into PaH mode though. Now he can't engage in the practice of construction in a virtuously habituated manner. He has to solve the problem. So what can use as a hammer? A wrench isn’t a good hammer, so what makes a good hammer? What is hammerness, the form of a hammer? He must do conceptual analysis of what makes a hammer.
Say this happens every day, and every day he must do some science and philosophy in order to get back to the zone and get back to the //virtue experience machine//. He is repeatedly frustrated and unhappy, and he's trying to get back there. It takes him a while each day, but each day he gets better and better finding alternative hammers after his hammer breaks.
He becomes adept at finding replacement hammers of some sort. He knows he can use rocks in particular situations because he has used rocks before, and he knows the best rock to use. In other situations, he might use wrench or whatnot. He’s habituated into finding replacements, and eventually, he doesn’t even have to think about it anymore. Now he has become virtuous at finding replacement hammers.
Now when his hammer breaks, he’s not pulled out of the zone. He's still in the zone to find a replacement, and this is because he has habitually solved the problem so many times he naturally knows how to find a hammer-like thing and never exits RtH mode. He has expanded the set of contexts in which he experiences RtH mode. He doesn’t need to be scientific regarding it. His faster acting mind has been trained to pick out hammers all around him.
Both Heidegger and the Virtue Theorists prescribe the RtH mode, the mode in which your virtuously trained faster acting mind makes decisions for you in the blink of an eye, subconsciously, where you are just in the zone cruising like the Virtuous Agent.
Of course, we might say that someone could technically habituate themselves to never enter that highly reflective, scientific, philosophical, analytic, and rational mode. In a way, they are virtuous at a very odd kind of phenomenological practice here. Is that really what they want? I think not. But, they have too many elements on non-realism and non-cognitivism to escape this criticism, I believe.
* [[2017.07.14 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** Completely unsolved.
* [[2017.07.14 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** Good times. =)
* [[2017.07.14 - Wiki Review Log]]
** I'm simplifying. I'm okay with that.
* [[2017.07.14 - Pipefitting Log]]
** Keep it up!
* Woke up to wife initiating. Been a long time! I actually turned her down (was I crazy?) because I was just so sleepy.
* We laid in bed together and talked. It was wonderful.
* I played a game of league, and they went to church. I considered going, but realized would not have made a better day
* Instead, I went for DCK. I'm glad I did. It was difficult, but not too bad. I cried, which is something I rarely do on DCK itself (although after often enough).
* Everyone came home. We had family time on the bed just laying there and talking.
* I talked to ALM. He apparently reads the wiki. Hi, bro!
** We had some quick catchup. I've barely been able to contact anyone (and as you will find out, that trend is going to continue this week, hardcore-style)
* We had our family meeting.
** This one was difficult for everyone.
*** My son just straight up said he doesn't like me, wanted to keep his negative attitude/lense, etc.
**** It took a long time to talk through it.
*** My daughter didn't do her work on her wiki, and it showed.
** By the end, we were glad we did it. We stuck through it, and it was worthwhile.
* The ladies cooked while the boys packed.
** I got my lunches and dinners mostly set. Should be quite healthy and something I can stomach on the jobsite, I believe.
* We ate amazing chicken wings and fries.
** We ate so amazingly this weekend.
* I left, drove almost all the way there, wanted to check the time and I found out I forgot my phone somehow. I was horrified.
** I doubled backed, but then I did the math and realized I would be arriving at 1am. I so much need my sleep I can't afford to do that. It's going to be an interesting week.
* I listened to Infomacry. At about the same I realized I didn't have my phone, all of the major "Information" internet services were disconnected around the world. It was kind of ironic in its annoying parallel to my own connection problem.
* I realized that I may be breaking out in hives due to stress. It broke out further on my arm during the trip after I realized the phone problem. This is good to know about my body.
* I arrived, and Armstrong had left me a note. My wife called. =) Hey babe!
* I put everything away, the new sheets on, and put the lotions on its skin.
* I couldn't connect to the internet, so my latest copy of the wiki isn't synced to this laptop, and thus I'm writing it in sublime text editor.
* Time to relax and fall asleep to, /drumroll, Mr. Robot!
I shed some tears in bed with my wife this morning. It's hard being away from my family. This weekend has felt so short.
I haven't felt very militant as of late. I also think I'm fairly powerless. No problems there. I still aim to protect us, but I think it has be more underground.
---
I am reminded of a piece I consumed on evolution. Tropical fish, especially near coral, often have a very high evolution rate. They change rapidly. They're more malleable. They evolve quickly over the generations. Interestingly, this rate isn't necessarily adaptive in and of itself. The rate at which we change is also part of The Good. Trying to evolve too quickly can be a bad thing.
Should our minds evolve that quickly?
---
Stability is key. I need a homebase with enormous stability for my family. I can see my brother's stability is incredibly valuable. I think his situation sometimes feels empty, but stable. Full chaos is hard.
---
I feel depersonalized (DCK, duh). It is clear that human lives are wild rides. We can't anticipate what they'll be like. Craft a narrative you enjoy. It is daunting how wild west it really is. I still fail to appreciate this too often. It makes Moral Life infinitely more complicated, as usual. I'm not saying anything new here. This is just the phenemonology of it, which is overwhelming.
---
I think it will take 30 years for my children to learn what they have to know. The floor keeps rising. There is too much to know. Our ancient human brains aren't designed to make sense of this postmodern swirl. I can't protect them from it, but I've got to give them the right tools to survive it and hopefully thrive in it.
I am capital to be used in the all consuming machine around me. It's a vortex, a stack, etc. I will try to create a safe place for my children, to germinate their lives and cultivate them. I didn't understand the world was this awful when I brought them into the world. Now I must protect them with everything I have. I must allow the sparks to grow into fires; I cannot suffocate them, but I must give them all the necessary ingredients, and find the right sufficient mix to achieve Eudaimonia.
Dune has to be one of the best books I've ever read. That scene with Alia in the womb is hard potent. There are many potent scenes to it.
---
Geniuses are capital to be abused in the structure. They are sometimes harnessed and often discarded. This is the nature of being different. Does a society want you? Probably not. Can it use it? If so, fine. It will exploit you.
---
I consider myself to be existentially grim. Grim like the dwarves in a way, I guess.
---
Tears on DCK. It hasn't happened in a while.
I am so worried that I can't make my children happy. I want to write a section on my wiki like I were God. I feel like I'm responsibible for the happiness of my creations.
It's time to empathize with God. I'm not sure what my wife will think of that. I don't mean to offend her. I think this is a spiritual problem we must carefully think about.
What does it mean to empathize with a non-omnipotent, non-omniscient God? Say God wasn't so transcendent.
Being a Parent and being like God are similar. This is a classic among classics meme, of course. And yet, I'd love to read a very succinct summation of it. I wish I understood it more.
---
How do I help my children develop a profound bond with each other? They must be the best of friends for life. Who else will be able to empathize with them as well as each other?
---
I want to write a letter to my future children. They need context. They need footholds. They need to have a perspective to make sense of it. They need a way to look inside themselves That should be a log.
---
Dear Children,
---
Jesus. It reminds me of something my mother was doing.
My mother was correct. She tried setting up an e-mail account to do this very thing. Her letters weren't what they needed to be though. She attempted to do it too late. She no longer can empathize effectively enough.
I want to tell my mother, S, that I love her. Life is hard. My brain is doing it's thing again.
---
I have two conceptions or interpretations of my mother. I have to let the idealized version go. That's not reality. Be practical.
It's the love that makes it hurt so fucking much.
I long for what I had. But, I can't have it again. What would the stoic say?
The splinter in my mind is still there though. I cannot find it, but it radiates and affects everything that I see and understand. What is the missing puzzle piece?
---
Why can't I just hug everyone!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!????????????
I'm crying.
I just want the world to be happy. Please.
I must do something about it for my children.
I can't stop crying on this DCK trip. It's hard. I'm really glad I had the chance to do it. Thank you, k0sh3k. Thank you for encouraging me. It was the right choice.
---
It is a very garbled experience today. Change is not easy.
---
Have I fucked it all up? Can I help my kids be happy? Will they be able to socialize, find people they love, etc? I am so scared for them because I feel really lucky to have the people I do have. Will I have raised them in such a way that they can connect with the people that fulfill their lives, that make them happy?
Be a simple kind of man, right? Ignorance is bliss. I am very scared for my children. There are so many unknowns. I'm so deeply worried, anxious, torn-up, sinew-twisted inside about it. I feel like I personally have trouble jumping these hurdles, how in the fuck could I cultivate my precious children into being able to jump over these as well? If life is the Non sequitur of non sequiturs, how can I possibly prepare them?
A fish out of water is so absurdy understated here. I don't know what I'm going to do about it.
---
Philosophers were little computers in rooms, hacking through the void. They were the rational magicians. I was so sad to see how little we knew. It was devastating. It's like going into the engine room and finding out the cake has been a lie and we've been running on the fumes the entire time.
!! How has your health been this week?
* 1uxb0x
** Good, except a rash today.
* j3d1h
** Stuffy throat, but not as bad. Might have been her sheets. Gotta keep 'em clean.
* k0sh3k
** Crampy.
* h0p3
** Allergic reactions all over my body.
** Stressed.
** Burns and pus on my face.
** Sore, but not bad. I don't have muscular bruising.
---
!! What happened last week? Have you been happy this past week? Why or why not?
* 1uxb0x
** Happy for having done his work.
* j3d1h
** Unhappy for having done home. //Very// hopeful for next week.
** Sad about not being able to talk to me except over the phone. Happy to talk over the phone night though.
* k0sh3k
** Missed me terribly, but otherwise a fine week.
* h0p3
** It was a very stressful, but I'm so glad to have had the opportunity. I think I did a good job, and that made me happy.
** I cried several times it seems to me, but that's okay. It was a rough week.
** My toe may have that idiopathic neuropathy...i.e. it's going numb, and we don't really know why.
---
!! What is a positive fact or compliment we can say about each person in the family?
* 1uxb0x
** You did a good job of working on your schoolwork and not throwing fits over it. It made life easier for everyone.
** You learned to put the cat on the leash, and that is very thoughtful of you.
** Thank you for having real conversations with me on the phone over the week. It kept my spirits up.
* j3d1h
** Thank you for teaching me how to put a leash on the cat.
** Thank you for answering the phone during an emergency and handling it gracefully. I really needed help, and you stepped up to help me. It was incredibly stressful, and you were very patient and helpful when I desperately needed it.
** Thank you for taking the initiative to help and having a good attitude when asked to help with work around the house over the course of the week. It was an exceptionally difficult week, and you made the transition much easier.
* k0sh3k
** Thank you for being a single mother for a week. I know that is stupid hard, and you held the house together.
** Thank you for helping calm me during my melt down and cleaning my nerf dart.
** Thank you for the special treats from the store.
* h0p3
** Thank you for making sure to call us every night.
** You did a good job being away from your family for a week.
** Thank you for the sex. Woot!
** Thank you for doing all of this, I know it's hard.
** Thank you for being empathetic with yourself.
*** Wear your helmet =).
---
!! What will you do this week? Name at least one fun objective and one unfun objective.
* 1uxb0x
** Zero meltdown week.
** Try and play with friends 3 times this week.
* j3d1h
** Help mom cook every meal.
** Spend 1 hour outside each day.
* k0sh3k
** Catalog my picture collection
** Finish the propaganda class
* h0p3
** Check out the ghetto grocer.
** Attempt to keep my job.
* http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-too-hot-for-humans.html
** The balance between the intellectual integrity and humility of scientific reticence and informing others of the implications in a meaningful and motivating way is not easy.
** I still think it's happening in the next 100 years. I expect an incredibly steep decline in the standards of living across the planet, particularly for the average person.
* KYS
** https://www.commondreams.org/news/2017/07/10/nation-too-broke-universal-healthcare-spend-406-billion-more-f-35
** https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170707/15544137737/tim-berners-lee-sells-out-his-creation-officially-supports-drm-html.shtml
*** I am so disappointed. I shouldn't be. People are evil. Why do I keep giving them a chance? When will I learn to perceive us for what we really are? It's horrifying.
* Trump
** https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/07/10/donald-trump-jr-just-contradicted-a-whole-bunch-of-white-house-denials-of-russian-contacts/
** https://theweek.com/speedreads/710990/jared-kushner-failed-halfbillion-dollar-investment-from-qatari-billionaire-now-hes-hardening-americas-stance-towards-qatar
* https://www.artbrut.ch/en_GB/authors/the-collection-de-l-art-brut
** Outsider art. Neat.
* https://twitter.com/joeprince___/status/884463860736028672
** The French and Africa, not a great history. We have no room to talk either in the US. Macron is neoliberal. The lesser of two evils, yes, but still evil. His election is a false compromise, and part of the continued rhetorical and political shift to the right.
* https://theintercept.com/2017/07/07/rachel-maddows-exclusive-scoop-about-a-fake-nsa-document-raises-several-key-questions/
** Follow-up rebuttal
* https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10/100-fossil-fuel-companies-investors-responsible-71-global-emissions-cdp-study-climate-change
** Psychopaths do not care.
* https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/66/wr/mm6626a1.htm
** Mind-control sounds hyperbolic, too intentional and insidious, but that's what it is. It's a spectrum folks.
!! Do you have a catchphrase?
I don't think so. I have many phrases that I use often. Maybe I have catchphrases for particular kinds of problems, contexts, situations, etc.
I think my {[[About|About, a.k.a. The Opening of the Rabbit Hole]]} and {[[Principles|Principles of Programming Myself]]} pages provide the best examples of my catchphrases. There are principles and axioms I take to be the core of who I am. e.g. [[Know Thyself]]
My daughter pointed out to me that my general catchphrase might be:
<<<
What's the worst that could happen?
<<<
Tempt fate, yo. Give God the middle finger.
* [[2017.07.15 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** I talked about this with my brother. It was his idea actually. He connected the dots for me.
* [[2017.07.15 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** I actually failed to remember what we did last night, other than getting the kids to do their work.
* [[2017.07.15 - Wiki Review Log]]
** I like this compact set of logs for now. It's manageable and reasonable. I don't mind the loss of [[Diet Log]] because I'm just packing fruits, veggies, and nuts.
* [[2017.07.14 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** I love orbs of joy.
* [[2017.07.15 - Pipefitting Log]]
** Btw, the torpedo level is amazing.
* [[2017.07.14 - Wiki Review Log]]
** My wife is right. I am being more empathic with myself.
* [[2017.07.14 - Pipefitting Log]]
** Writing it one day late and editing this later makes me feel like my weekend was retarded short.
* [[2017.07.15 - Cry Log]]
** It seems to be a rough week for everyone.
* I woke up early. I went to bed late and very sleep, so I'm a bit surprised. I was wired.
* I worked my ass off. It was a good day.
* I took one of the better showers of my life, I believe.
** Reminder: bring 5 washcloths
* I'm thinking living in the van lacks having people to connect to, even if only in minor ways. Loneliness might not be worth it.
* I tried troubleshooting with Armstrong. He doesn't know jackshit, but won't take my advice (despite admitting his ignorance). He doesn't see that it is his fucking router at fault, not my computer. What an asshole.
** I've figured out that qTox fries his router. I'm going to try and complete the troubleshooting problem for him anyways.
* I had some vid chat with my family. It was wonderful.
** I really wish I had my phone. It sucks. I'm so glad I have at least some interwebs and method to contact my fam. =)
* I ate a sub. Delicious. I'm eating a lot today.
* I'm really, really sleepy.
* Watching GoT, League, and hopefully a dash of Mr. Robot.
* The ghetto grocers have nothing I want.
* Met a new roommate, William, I believe. He's an oldschool computer addict. BBS' even. We talked shop. He knows his stuff. Imagine young Dave Chapelle computer geek: that is William's persona, mannerisms, everything.
* Fireman time, to match my wife. -)
I arrived early and locked the box. I had to wait for about half an hour for anyone to show up. The crane and the chiller truck showed up first. I could see them call up Terry. Terry came at 7:45ish. I told him about Greg's message, but he had heard. In fact, he said I wouldn't be able to work on my previous project for an entire week. This pissed him off because he felt like working on the roof was not even worth it for only a week. He didn't know what I was going to be doing, basically.
Terry, Jacob, and Travis are all leaving at 3:00 each day because of church (VBS, presumably). I still get to stay to 5:00 as long as I have work. You bet your ass I'm staying. Money and experience with no one constantly looking over my shoulder? Yes, please.
Jaye didn't show up for the longest time. I thought he wasn't coming. I even asked if he had been let go (I probably shouldn't have drawn attention to it, but it had been an hour!). Jaye came, he claims to have been waiting on the other side of the building. I find this odd since our orders would still come from the same location. I think he was lying because he was late. In any case, it was good to see him.
Jaye's kid was cleared of cancer over the weekend. They are doing a make-a-wish trip to Disney after the marrow transplant though. Also, he still doesn't have a new hood. He promised to this week. Let me say, I have my doubts now.
We watched for about 2 hours while the rigging guys did everything. They wouldn't let us touch a thing. I was hoping to get my hands dirty a bit, but I'm glad to have seen them in action. They were very fast. Also, they were very fat.
The riggers/crane company gave us stickers. I felt like a little kid in school. The stickers go on my hard hat, and they show I've been a bigboy, a good worker, an experienced, cool person. I'm so awesome: just look at my stickers.
I told Jaye about the union and autism. He had talked about how cool it was that my son was autistic, and the union. Told him I forgot my phone and the brownies too. He laughed. It's actually not too difficult to make Jaye laugh, which is nice. He gave me a Gatorade as we drove a bit in his car. I'm sure this does not endear me to my official coworkers. Jaye has been thinking about why they seem so standoffish to both of us as well; I'm not the only one who has noticed.
I wanted something to do. I'm here to fucking practice and work, to gain dat experience. So, I primed Terry by asking him questions about how the chillers would be hooked up. I was right, and the idea dawned on him that I could do the fitting for the chiller. I'm not in love with working in the heat like this, but I think it will at least be something. I want to get as many projects under my belt as possible. He spoke to me like I'm an idiot, of course. It's okay; I'm new, and the abuse is incredibly mild. At least I get to keep my job for today! That's not how I'm going to treat new people, I hope. Oh, he gave me a new wrap around too, and I thanked him for it. Submit to your abusers when you must.
I measured top and bottom of the pipe from the concrete foundation, then found the centerpoint. It's 6" pipe, so the TO for our 90 is 9". I needed to come off the concrete level by 8-1/16".
We had to move the welding machine into place with the truck, run our wires, use a saw of some sort (don't remember the name, will ask again) to cut the insulation off. I used an angle bar with my spirit level to find matching lines from the concrete underneath the chiller to the pipe in the dirt. I marked the pipe at the concrete level and then found the cut level. The wrap around was wonderful! We cut the pipe before lunch.
I went to Burger King. Port 80 and 443 only with a clear MITM. No VPN possible. Um...no thanks. I was hoping to call home on my machine. I guess I can't.
I cut a nipple and beveled it. We put a nipple on the 90, a flange on the nipples, and I prepped: the butterfly valve, a flange, and an odd nipple with flanges on either side that attached to the other side of the butterfly valve (Terry made it for me). We were supposed to finish the whole thing, but it was too hot to tack, and we needed to finish the last weld on the inside.
I've noticed that the welding standards are significantly lower here than at the shop in a lot of ways. They say "it's just water" to everything.
I'm sunburnt and super exhausted. My back hurts today as well. It is what it is, eh?
!! If you had to change your first name, what would you change it to?
I'd actually swap my middle and first names. First, I have some dead twin uncles with that name pair (swapped). Second, I don't want my son to feel weird being called by his middle name. I adore his middle name, and I kind of regret going by my blood family tradition for his first. I don't want him to think he isn't worthy of his first or some ridiculous notion like that. He is my one and only son, the apple of my eye. In fact, I'm willing to make the swap if he wants. I'd do it for him.
* [[2017.07.16 - Wiki Review Log]]
** Edited. Forgot to fill it out.
* [[2017.07.16 - DCK Meditation]]
** Meh.
* [[2017.07.16 - Family Log]]
** Perhaps I should actually write my thoughts about family time more narratively or by my own bullet points as well. For example, it was difficult yesterday.
* [[2017.07.16 - Link Log]]
** My drugs!
* [[2017.07.16 - Cry Log]]
** Intimacy.
* I woke up earlier than the alarm, again. I really tried to sleep, but I couldn't. I used the extra time wisely though:
** Bricks pushed!
* I worked my ass off.
** I'm perturbed by how I'm treated (to say it lightly).
** My sunburns are getting worse.
* I came home, showered extensively.
* I talked to my family over vidchat.
** It is wonderful to hear from them.
** I had a serious talk with my daughter. She is fucking up so hard, and she's lying. I'm at my wits end with her.
* I'm eating my fruits. I don't want to waste them. I need to make sure I fill myself up with them. I'm glad I like them.
** I could really go for some carbs. I didn't pack any besides PB crackers. Um. Oops?
* New roommates, they seem chill enough. Armstrong is somewhat picky, I can see.
* The interwebs is working decently enough.
* Will likely watch some GoT, surf, finish installing League, watch Mr. Robot, and if I'm lucky, some Fireman Time!
* https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/7/17/15973478/bosses-dictators-workplace-rights-free-markets-unions
** Privatizing power is a bad thing. No shit, Sherlock. Power to the people.
** "Free market" just means letting the wealthy and powerful do whatever they want, no holds barred. Yeah, we should let them enslave us because...it's good for us all, right?
* http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/07/24/how-trump-is-transforming-rural-america
** Let me grant that most everyone know something about our world is fucked up. I am continually disappointed in what people point their fingers at and why.
** Trump's base continues to confabulate turn after turn.
* http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/17/peter-navarro-trump-trade-240611
** Never heard of Navarro, shows you how little I know. There's so much to keep track of.
** I assume this is one of the major sources of Trump's anti-trade deal policies, e.g. TPP.
*** I still am not sure how this ultimately profits Trump, at least not directly.
** I'm actually unsure what counts as a trade war. It seems obvious to me that we are already in one, and that this is really just a matter of escalation. Capitalism, especially in globalization, is ultimately a war amongst various powerful competing agencies who use and exploit the working class. It's mostly a war on the people as far as I can tell.
* https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/zmvg58/hacker-allegedly-steals-dollar74-million-in-ethereum-with-incredibly-simple-trick
** So simple, so obvious, and clearly effective.
* https://github.com/bitsquare/bitsquare
** Fascinating cryptocurrency exchange. Parts of this could work, but there seem to be serious problems. Chargebacks and other holes are serious issues. I don't know how to work around fiat currencies like that without trust building that can still eventually be exploited.
* http://www.rawstory.com/2017/04/a-clinical-psychologist-explains-how-ayn-rand-seduced-young-minds-and-helped-turn-the-us-into-a-selfish-nation
** A demon that has never entranced me, at least not yet.
** Unfortunately, Rand may be ever correct in some of her assessments of the description of mankind, but I cannot buy her prescription.
* KYS
** https://www.propublica.org/article/the-myth-of-drug-expiration-dates
*** Nothing new. But, yeah, with few exceptions in the US, fuck those who make money off dying and sick people.
** https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/18/us/politics/republicans-obamacare-repeal-now-replace-later.html
*** Let's be clear: it was easy to vote to repeal Obamacare when it couldn't happen, as it was a symbolic act. Those who do not now just show their true colors: free political points with voters. The worst part is that these people are the best of the Republicans, since they at least have a modicum (however small) of compassion. Let that sink in.
** https://www.dslreports.com/shownews/EFF-Large-ISPs-Lying-to-Californians-to-Kill-New-Privacy-Law-139963
*** ISPs directed to KYS, not the EFF, obviously.
* https://i.redd.it/n46u0iaz78az.jpg
** A zesty meme so dank that I'm going to puke. It hurts.
* https://www.leafly.com/news/politics/cant-fire-cannabis-patients-just-using-cannabis-massachusetts-high-court-rules
** I do not count on this movement to improve in significant enough ways for me.
* https://www.fastcompany.com/40432975/how-to-steal-a-phone-number-and-everything-linked-to-it
** I do not understand how I've escaped these problems so far. I'm waiting for Identity Theft to finally hit us.
* https://tonic.vice.com/en_us/article/zmvwb4/eating-clean-wont-make-you-any-healthier
** What is this voice of reason from a non-tech area of Vice? Jesus. I am shocked, shocked I tell you.
//I dedicate this page to clay mud. It was a messy day.//
I sat in the car reading offline web content and writing while waiting for people to show up this morning. They didn't show up until about 7:40 today. Both Jaye and Terry (and his boys) arrived at the same time. I've had to move my car out of the way for people twice. I take it that I need to be better at selecting spots.
Before we began, Terry came over and looked at our pipe. He noticed we 1-holed instead of 2-hole. Fuck! I can't believe I forgot that; it's my first time ever working with this many holes (huge flanges!). I had to cut, grind, rebevel, and straighten it. Jaye was pissed but remained cordial. It was my fault. I borrowed Terry's two-holes to do this job. Jaye is clearly annoyed that I don't have all the tools of the trade. Also, we left the pipe open overnight. That is a no-no. I knew better, but I forgot.
It sucks that I suck at this. But, I will get better. This is how you get better, h0p3. Just keep going, and do your best. This is an opportunity to make mistakes and learn from them. You are getting paid to go to school, to pick up that ever so valuable experience. I'll get the knack of/for it over time. I'm a damned good learner, and it's just time and pressure that will get me there. Think of how far you've come in 6 months. Nobody does this, and you can't expect the impossible of yourself. You are only human.
I started grinding the underground pipe to make it level. The gap is just too fucking large for Jaye (although, Terry is convinced Jaye should be able to do any gap without a bevel). The spirit level helped tremendously. I was afraid of dropping my torpedo down the pipe (don't think we could fish it out). My only worry at this point is that the measurements I took off the concrete will now be off. It might make the pipe less-than-level, which is what I'm desperately trying to avoid.
Before lunch, we were able to fit it and drop a root on the 90. We also attached the butterfly valve and extension (I don't know what to call it, it's a nipple with a flange on each end). I desperately want the fucking 6" quikfit clamp for this, as it would allow me to stop trying to hold it in place (a real pain in the ass, it kept slipping the whole time, and we were almost at the ground, so no jackstands were possible) and focus on getting it square against the pipe. I found out the chiller's pipe we are connecting to isn't perfectly square with the rest of the chiller's structure either. Basically, I'm going to have to finesse and force this one. Flanges would be the only real way out of it, but it doesn't look like Terry wants to let us do that (although, he does it for himself).
Terry is working on the same project on Chiller#2 (might not be #2 on the drawing...no an iso). I asked Terry what he wanted me to work on next. He has some strainers to put on the extended nipple, I believe, but doesn't know after that. He said he is trying to find out from Barry what needs to happen.
Terry used the forklift+crane vehicle (don't know the name) to lug a very large "strainer" (might be a valve) to us to fit up. We had to rig it, and I'm glad we had his help. It would have been back-breaking to do by hand and would have taken 3-4 guys.
I found out after lunch that Terry is actually building some pieces for me. He told me several times that I deserved to be cussed out, and that others would. He said I'm lucky I'm working with him because he's not like that. He continually needs to put me in my place, as if I don't already know it. It rubs him the wrong way that I make what I do (which is only $18), and he said it will piss off others too since I make as much as a guy who has been fitting with this company for 3-4 years, he says. He says workers gossip like women, and it will be everywhere.
Apparently, Jaye makes more than the average welder at this company as a temp, which shocked him. What makes people loyal to this company then? Why do they love it? Is it just the lesser of the evils?
Our welding machine is going wonky. I was blamed for it because I was grinding while Jaye was welding. Terry was not kind about it. How should I have known? Jaye was fine with it. Only after Terry made a big deal did Jaye start acting like it was stupid too. Jaye is obviously playing a game, and he lacks integrity. I hate to say it, but I'm losing respect for him as well.
Terry continued to point out that I'm not producing enough. He complains that I do too much in-position welding, but we only did one...which was absolutely required, as he pointed out. He complains I bevel since his son doesn't get a bevel. But, my welder requires it of me; and if my welder requires it, then I have to do it (as he admits). He blames me for the lack of productivity for this beveling though. He's right that I'm not thinking ahead as well as he is, that I'm not as good at this job as he is (by miles), but I don't think I can be expected to perform at his level (nor do I get paid nearly as much as he does). He did agree I'm doing my best, but he expects more than my best.
He said it was ridiculous that I didn't know that butterfly valves didn't need gaskets because they already had them built in, that I had never heard of a cap bolt, and the other ignorant mistakes I've made. Does anyone know this stuff after 6 months? I have a hard time believing it. I'm doing my dead level best, seriously.
Also, I recall seeing him on the phone after the butterfly question I asked him today. There is a reasonable chance he is complaining about me to Barry. This could be the beginning of the end of the job.
He told me, correcting his son's version of the story, about getting his first truck as a pipefitter after 8 years (not 5). When he came home, his daddy told him, you ain't even a good pipefitting helper yet, you don't deserve a truck. This is the mentality he has, kinda of. It's more relaxed than his dad's, but he thinks it is absurd that I'm here at all. Perhaps he is right. He went on to say that calling myself a pipefitter after only 6 months is an oxymoron. I didn't argue. Obviously, I don't consider myself even a decent pipefitter (although, I consider myself amazing for 6 months). Do I get paid to pipefit? Yes. Then I'm a pipefitter, right? Am I doing the work of journeyman? Well, I'm trying. I didn't say I was a journeyman pipefitter, a god, etc. You give me 5 years, and I will run circles around your ass though.
I thanked him for his patience, for telling me what he thinks, and for teaching me. I told him I'm here to learn and gain experience. He said that's why they sent me to him because others wouldn't put up with me. He said to learn as much I could while I still can. Mind you, I've been beyond respectful. Why would they blame me for their low wages? Why is it my fault that I don't have the skill and experience he is looking for? Are you fools? Those in power are the problem, not me.
He made sure to speak with Jaye, again, about riding me harder. He thinks that Jaye is going to easy on me. He readily has charitable attitudes towards Jaye, who does no wrong. I'm the real enemy, lol.
Terry figured out what he wanted me to do. He had a flange on a long piece of pipe, and a flanged nipple attached to it as well. He helped me make the measurement (which was difficult, and I'm glad I had his help...it was very non-obvious how to do it) off the chiller to the underground pipe we were running off of. We cut the nipple to that length and fitted the 90 to it. I'm not used to 2-holing off bolts, and the fitting is just different than how I've done it in the shop. He said he wanted one more, and showed me a nipple already ready to be cut. That's what he wanted to be done by the end of the day.
Jaye had to leave early, so we rushed to finish everything. It was level though.
Obviously, I have tons to learn. I'm just really frustrated by the flack that I'm getting. Even if I get fired, I'll have made enough this week to get us above $2k in the bank, to buy the kids new mattresses, and will have acquired some actual experience. I will do what I can. This is a really hard week, again.
I have to admit, I'm really hating this job. This is not what I signed up for. The hard work, yes. The blood, sweat, burns, and soreness, yes. The learning, the constructing, and the figuring things out, yes. Getting bitched at and blamed? No. I don't have the heart for it. It is not my fault that people are stupid and psychopathic. I'm going to put up with it for now because I should, and it is reasonable enough. I may get fired, and that's okay. I'll just be leaving if they do cuss me out though. That's not the life I'm going to live. I have too much self-worth to be treated like that.
!! How often do you read the newspaper? Which paper? Which sections?
It depends on how you define newspaper. Outside of the WSJ for half a year in college, I never have read paper newspapers. I don't follow any particular newspapers directly anymore. For a long time, I did my own curation, flipping through many news sources. I don't do that anymore though because it takes forever.
Hackernews, Reddit, and Digg give me the stories I care about. I also check RSS feeds (which have far more detailed and larger collections) when I have the time and am in the mood. I curate my aggregation process. I think that's the best I can do. It's often topical.
I would say I read widely, although I have a leftist bent, no doubt.
* [[2017.07.17 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** I need to stop using blankets and go slower.
** Edited.
** I want to get to know William a lot better. He is obviously quite knowledgeable.
* [[2017.07.16 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** I couldn't sync up on Sunday, but I had interwebs access on Monday. Grafted in.
* [[2017.07.17 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** That was such a weird question, and I'm surprised I had something real to say about it.
** Edited.
* [[2017.07.16 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** Grafted in, ditto.
** Brief.
*** Sue me, it was an exceptionally stressful evening with very little time left.
** Edited.
* [[2017.07.17 - Wiki Review Log]]
** I am incredibly happy to have some internet access in Charlotte again. It was super necessary too.
* [[2017.07.17 - Pipefitting Log]]
** Edited.
* I keep waking up before the alarm clock. I doze back. I simply couldn't sleep after 6:20 though, so I got up. I like that I don't have to fight to get awake, but I also don't want to miss out on every drop of sleep that I can get. When I head to bed seems almost irrelevant. I've noticed that being in my own bed at home breaks these rules on the weekends decently enough.
* Pushed My Bricks Out before work.
* I worked my ass off today, and it was emotionally easier. I'm very thankful for that.
** I'm getting a lot of writing and reading work done early in the morning, on break, and somewhat at lunch (although, I watched GoT today instead).
** I'm learning a ton every day still. I'm pleased with this.
** The handkerchiefs are amazing. Thank you, my love! It has made my life considerably better. I swear a ton all day, and my sweat squirts off my round head onto my glasses. It gets in the way, a lot. These handkerchiefs help me immensely. The small things matter.
* Traffic sucked, but my shower was amazing (yet again).
** I'm still very itchy. That systemic fungal infection may be back. It's showing up in the same places again. Might be stress related.
* I talked with my wife, and I chatted with my daughter. I hope to get in touch with my son before they head to bed.
* I tried calling my brother, JRE. Will try again.
* I should talk to ALM and see how he's doing.
* I had some authentic Mexican food tonight to celebrate (waiters didn't speak English).
** Cheap and delicious.
* Surfed, watched some GoT. Going for some Fireman Time and will fall asleep to GoT, I think. I'm so far behind.
I showed up at 7, when I clock in basically. I sat in the car reading and writing. Jaye showed up at 7:35, and Terry's crew at 7:50. Jaye and I started putting stuff together while we waited for them. I forgot to lock the box, and I'm so glad I did my perimeter sweep before anyone showed up. I was able to fix this thing before anyone showed up without losing any trust.
Terry was late because he was bringing our new welding machine (it worked wonders). The guys at the shop weren't bringing it in time, I suppose. We needed it, too. We started hooking it all up. I've used the old welding machine until after break (when they took it) as a power source. I measured out the center-to-center of the underground and chiller "out" pipes. I found out that I'm going straight 90, nipple, to the 90+nipple+flange I made yesterday. I didn't realize that, and I only found out about it after doing the math. Terry clarified it for me.
I cut the pipe for it, then went on break. Jaye had finished the caps on our 90's. We let them cool while on break. On the break, we talked. Jaye used to be a dealer. I believe this is why he went to prison before. He doesn't put that on his applications. If they find out, they just fire him, and they filter him out if they know in advance. Apparently, Barry and his son (who works at SMS) provide weed to most of the crews. Everyone drinks and uses cannabliss, and some harder drugs, it appears. I'm not surprised. Apparently, they don't test you past the initial job application (for insurance purposes, and I believe that only when it comes to insurance claims or gross negligence do they test you again) and in rare circumstances (you needed to really be irresponsible for them to administer the test to you). I think I'll start using on Saturdays! Daily use is much harder to get out of your system, but single weekly use is much easier (especially for cannabutter). This will be a good balance.
We finally found out that there is a control valve on both sides. We put a nipple on the 90 with a flange. It is meant to come off the strainer bending toward the inlet pipe of chiller #1.
Jaye let me weld again today. He holds my hand on the stinger (that could not sound any gayer). He thinks I know nothing, I'm pretty sure. But, after I do it on my own, he has high praise. He feels like a good teacher (even though I could already do what he was showing me). As in, he keeps the weld, and we don't grind it out. I need more practice, of course. I think it would be great to learn this on the job.
Jaye was supposed to weld this 90 first. I thought he did because he was working on the other one. I went to mount it. Afterward, Terry noticed it wasn't welded on the inside of the flange and that a cap was missing on the outside of the flange. Shit. So, I took it down. Leroy, a helper, old man, helped me. I think he stole my alignment bar! This does not seem like him at all. I am very surprised. Fuck me, I needed it today.
Anyways, they left, so Jaye finished, we cooled it with water, and mounted it. I think I pissed Jaye off. He kept telling me how to mount the flanges together, and he saw no need for the alignment. He didn't get that we needed to get the hi-los right all around, and he didn't appreciate the order and lack of tooling we had. He then went on to "show me" his star pattern. He went 12-6-1-7-etc. Not a star, bro. I was as humble as I could be in correcting him. I know he's done it a bunch, but he's not doing it correctly. I know I'm new at this, that I know far less total than he does, but there are things I know that he doesn't know.
We also found out the control valve on it. We were already fairly packed up. We left our tools in the toolroom. Maybe a mistake.
We ended up moving our workstation 3 times today, twice to get out of the son. We are now in the boiler room with Jacob. They don't push nearly as hard as we do, but they are quite productive. I also found out why they avoid in-position welds so fundamentally: Jacob can't do it. I saw his 2G stringer cap today, and it sucked. I can do better than that, seriously. The boiler room, despite the name, was wildly cooler than the outside.
My teacher called my wife. It sounds like the conversation went well. My teacher said he found a 4-month job for me at Eastman. It's coming up in a few weeks. I think I should take it if it does. I'm here to acquire experience, as much as possible. Not having to travel would be amazing.
Amazing news: AB&T said they are buying my tools! This is outstanding! I think it will make my life a lot easier.
!! What do you think dreams mean?
I have no idea. The fact that we dream is fascinating. What evolutionary advantage does it provide, or why would we dream at all? It is unclear to the experts why we really need to sleep in the first place, and I fear that without answering that question, we may not be able to answer why we dream either (they seem intertwined).
I suspect that dreams are a key piece to keeping our computer of a brain working as we need to it. Perhaps it is an upkeep cost we must pay each night. Dreaming may also tell us what it means to be conscious, to tell ourselves sequences of narratives, and perhaps eventually provide us insight into how our memory operates.
I often feel tempted by the notion that dreams are a place where I actually process the real world in some dormant state. Maybe they are practice runs or reruns. It feels like dreams are a method to re-live, reinvent, merge old memories, subconsciously test ideas, etc. Again, this temptation isn't based on nearly enough evidence for me to agree to it. I must claim ignorance.
It is often the case that I wake up with a headache after a difficult, visually and emotionally intensive dream. It seems to me like my brain is working hard in the dream. I am often stressed (sometimes in a good way, but generally in a bad way) in my dreams and as I come out of them. I do not understand why.
Importantly, I have a terrible memory about what occurs in my dreams. As soon as I've woken up, I tend to lose my train of thought, my memory of what happens in them, and the details fade. Sometimes, before I wake up, I may have a bit more awareness about the fact that I'm dreaming, it seems like I can zone in and out of it, and maybe have a modicum more control in it. I don't believe I dream with a lot of detail in the first place. I'm not a lucid dreamer either, I believe. When I go to recount what happens in my dream, I often find myself trying to fill in the gaps (confabulation). It is better not to lie to myself. I can only give approximations if that is the best I can do. Often, I just say it was set in a particular place and roughly about X. Beyond that, I have little I can say.
I don't think dreams have any mystical powers. I think we should be incredibly slow to interpret them as anything more than very curious stories our brain is telling "us" (whatever counts as us). I will agree that many humans attach meaning to these dreams, but I think they are often unjustified. When we treat dreams like magic, more than the magic of a good fantasy narrative, we have stepped outside the bounds of reason.
I often find that if I've been concentrating very hard on a particular issue, problem, or practice during the course of my day that I will almost always dream about it. If you play the same video game for hours all day, your dreams will be laced with the content and sometimes the phenomenology of the game. Last night, for example, I could only dream about work as a pipefitter. That's what I did all day, and it was stressful.
Now, is this my brain forming memories? Is this my brain digesting the day? Is this my brain trying out different counterfactuals and possible worlds, running the scenarios? I have no idea. Is it meaningful to me? Yes, but how, to what extent, in that regard, I do not know. It was an emotional and barely Dasein experience. I feel more like an observer and subject in my dreams.
* [[2017.07.18 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** Tracking one's BMs is super important, amiright?
* [[2017.07.18 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** I can tell that question is outdated. Perhaps I should have tried to give more translation to it.
* [[2017.07.18 - Wiki Review Log]]
** Edited. I rarely do so on Wiki Review Logs. I wonder why.
* [[2017.07.18 - Pipefitting Log]]
** Edited. Forgot a part.
* [[2017.07.18 - Link Log]]
** I had more to say this time around. This is a more commented link log than I've been doing.
* Woke up 10 minutes before the alarm. Still having a hard time sleeping all the way to my wake-up time. I'm getting 7.5 hours-ish without any serious interruptions. My sleep is good enough though.
* Pushed Bricks.
** Love the new schedule
** Shot off messages to ALM and my wife while on the throne.
* Worked my butt off.
* I had Tendies (shitty processed nuggets, actually) with $3 of GBP. It complemented my veggies and fruit. I'm going to continue to do the dollar menu trick. Half shitty food, half good food.
** Give me my drugs!
* Came home, showered, packed.
* Talked to my brother, JRE.
** Had a very awkward moment. We were talking about the racism we've seen at work. He started explaining something that happened and literally said "Nigger" on the speakerphone. Mind you, my landlord and housemates are black. This was more than uncomfortable, let me tell you.
*** It occupied my mind to the point I couldn't converse with him very well.
* Talked to my family.
** The kids seemed to be doing well enough.
** My son didn't want to end the conversation, and he elected to talk more with me. That made me very happy.
** My daughter made a video. Yay!
** My wife is super exhausted. I feel really bad for her. I know this is very tough. She's doing such a good job.
* I'm writing, maybe eating some fruit, finalizing my packing, perhaps surfing, maybe watch an episode of GoT, and falling asleep.
** Night homie!
* It was a good day. It may have been difficult, but I'm happy with it. I get to go home tomorrow. I can't wait.
!! How is your health? Daily routine?
Finger hurts. My body aches. I'm very itchy. The systemic fungal infection + hives are back. I'm stressed. I am managing though.
---
!! What happened? How do you feel about it? What made you feel this way? Does it make you happy or unhappy? Why or why not?
SLT sent another e-mail. I decided to do something about it. I just told them they could find the information here on this site. I can hear MWF just saying that is asking them to revolve around me.
I'm sure this post does not help things. I have my doubts they will take the time to read what I've written in any thorough or charitable manner anyways (if at all).
If it's the information they crave, if they really care about who I am, what I'm feeling, thinking, and doing, then reading this wiki is the way to do it. Nothing I can make could be clearer and more consistent about my state. It is a safe way to transmit the information. But, if they think I'm interested in continually impaling myself to maintain a relationship with them, then they will just be disappointed.
I am not interested in being hurt again. I wish them the best of luck. If they need me, they can call me. But, we are on a first name, non-honorific basis now. I will continue to drop social conventions which I find repugnant (welcome to my neurotribe).
---
!! Can you better explain what happened? Do you have a technological, philosophical, empathic, or redpilled story to tell about the phenomenon? Clarify the narrative you just told yourself.
Older, pragmatic people learn to love themselves as a matter of practical necessity though. Their memories are poor, and they must confabulate their narratives to appear to be the heroes. I assume none of us escape this.
Dealing with my donors is hard enough when my head is above water. I'm in survival mode right now, and I don't have the excess energy to deal with them. They aren't good for my health (which is already being pushed), and that is not good for my family. My family is the reason I am alive right now. The issue is not controversial, it's just sad. We both see each other as mentally ill. It is not a mutually beneficial relationship, and we both see each other as emotional parasites in sufficient contexts that we won't have the necessary empathy to make our relationship work.
Even if they could get past their dislike of their own children, I'm not convinced they are intelligent enough (intelligent as they obviously are) to be able to develop the theory of mind necessary to empathize with me here. I believe I legitimately understand their point of view better than they understand mine. And, now we hit the rational point: tit for tat. It is the game theoretically correct method for generating and maintaining trust. Even taking into account proportional weighings and capacities (I'm certainly not expecting<<ref "1">> them to understand it all, but I do expect their best), the asymmetry is not acceptable in this context. So, no tit? No tat.
---
!! What are you going to do about what happened?
Try to ignore it and focus on what matters. I must spend my emotional energy wisely and on that which matters most, my children (and instrumentally, to them as my end, myself).
---
<<footnotes "1" "Note, of course, the difference between expecting and predict.">>
I showed up early again. I did my perimeter sweep, and I decided to add a box to the end of the "in" underground pipe, even though Terry didn't have one on his. I'm sticking to both the letter and spirit of the law he gave me, even if he didn't follow it himself. He might think it is dumb, but he might think I'm doing my best to follow his instructions (which I believe is more important at this point, because he already thinks I'm dumb in some sense or another, lol). I sat in the car writing and reading. People showed up earlier today, around 7:30.
I measured out the last leg of pipe running from the control valve to the "Victaulic" inlet to the chiller. I asked Terry if I could use the Victaulic nippled pipe already on the stand outside. He said yes. I cut it while Jaye and I talked a great deal about the concept and history of racism, as well as Islam. He has a sharp mind for so little education. Yet, ultimately, he doesn't pursue the truth virtuously enough given his context, imho. Also, found out he just got out in April.
We have two sockolets to put in the pipe. I got to use Terry's centerfinder. It was fucking amazing! I had to ask for sizes again because I forgot. Hopefully, I'm not annoying Terry by peppering him with questions. I just want to make sure it turns out the way he wants it. The drawing is not detailed enough, so I have to ask for help. I need that information.
I cut the holes with the oxy torch. Jaye and I argued about how it should be started. He doesn't seem to understand the words coming out of my mouth sometimes, and then he has to act like he was making a good point after I clarify myself. He can't just say "okay, yeah, I get what you're saying." Lol. In any case, the holes were fine.
It's weird when Jaye gives me the "field experience over school" talk. He only applies it to things he learned in the field rather than school (primarily fitting rather than welding). When it comes to welding, he relies upon his school knowledge quite a bit, and that's where he argues from. We both agree that school prepares one to be ready to learn in the field, to acquire experience, etc. What counts as X, as a good X, distinctions, processes, formalizations, and explanations of things ultimately are very school-oriented though. It takes forever, clearly, to learn a lot of things I learned in school out in the field. Terry's boys still don't know how to do the math. Note, Jaye went to the prestigious Tulsa welding school (very expensive, and sadly, not as good as Dale's). He values his education a lot, and he should.
Also, he makes $31/hour + 125 per diem at his other job, which is admittedly seasonal. I saw his paychecks. They were fucking huge, 3x what we make here. Okay. Maybe I need to accelerate my welding learning? The boilermaker's union looks so much more appealing (and Jaye works with boilermakers too).
I cut a pipe for the support. It turns out that Terry only wants a 1" pipe. I'm not making anything fancy like I would in shop class. I cut some plate for the bottom. I'm very worried about getting this part right. It could screw it all up if it is even partially off.
Speaking of something being off, Terry and his 2.5 helpers are racing us on Chiller #2 against me and Jaye on Chiller #1 (unofficially, no one is talking about it, but it seems to be there). They fucked up bad though. I was talking to Terry about the same problem on ours a couple days ago. The initial 90 coming off the underground pipe is very hard to get level, plumb, and oriented correctly against the chiller's pipes. I'm not even sure if ours will work, and I did my best with it (which was hard, because Jaye actually requires a bevel, like you're supposed to do, unlike Terry and Jacob). Terry's "in" pipe though is now not plumb against the flange. He's tried to jimmy it with flanges, but that didn't work. Now he has to either bend his connecting flange (gross) or cut the fucking pipe, grind it, realign it, and do another very low 2G weld in the mud again. I think he is extremely pissed right now. He may just let it go through. Just force it.
I found my alignment pin. Leroy had put it gently behind the cage. I'm glad to have found it. We needed it. Apparently, we mounted the wrong control valve. It said "leaving" on a tiny tag I didn't see, meant for the outlet from the chiller. Terry said it shouldn't matter, but the bureaucrats won't stand for it. I unmounted it, and Jaye forklifted the new one over. We mounted it together. Less bitching about the star-pattern this time. He let me do it.
Jaye said to me that he thinks Terry is trying to race us on the other chiller. I did not say a word to Jaye about it, but he came to the same conclusion as I did. Mind you, beyond his experience, Terry has more workers, better tools, and he has the benefit of seeing me do it first (he's spent a lot of time figuring out what we need to do). Perhaps it is a prelude to firing us. Eh, I'll take every drop of experience I can get.
After lunch, we finished constructing the pipe and stand. We got it all set. We lugged it over there since the forklift was out of commission. It didn't fit in two ways. Fuck! The first was that the stand/support, as I was very worried about, was too tall by about half a centimeter. I worked on it quite a bit, but it still didn't work. Furthermore, we had to fucking wrestle the pipe to fit it in. I could cold-chisel pry for one gasket, but we needed to do two. I didn't know (it would have been nice to have to know about more than the outer coupling). I told Terry this was my first time working with Victaulic (never heard of it before). He gave me zero information about it, no pointers, nothing.
Also, I hurt my finger, pinching it bad, when we muscled the pipe into place. I think it is broken or fractured. After my adrenaline came down, it hurt like a bitch. The swelling isn't too bad, but it is tender. Although, it isn't tender everywhere. I told Terry since he is my foreman. He immediately called HR, Pam. I talked to Pam. I told her about it, and she offered to pay for me to go to emergency care services. She said they try to handle things in-house before workers comp. I told her I wanted to work, and that the emergency service people would just split it up and give me acetaminophen. I made a joke with her about the irony of hurting my finger at a "medic" facility when she asked what site I was on. She laughed, but she also thought it was odd that I was just telling her about it. She noted it on my record. Recall, of course, that HR is exclusively about protecting the company, not the workers.
In any case, we had Terry come to look at the pipe. He said we shouldn't have made a support like we did, since it was too "dogmatic," by which he meant that it was very fussy and difficult to get perfectly right. Well, no shit Sherlock! I was worried the entire time about it. I knew that was a significant point of failure. It's why I went to talk to you about it multiple times, asshole. He then said what he wanted me to do in the first place (but waited until after I completed the project to tell me).
He wants an 8-piece of angle (one side pointing down) going perpendicular to the 6" pipe, leaving space for a 2-by-4 since the insulators need the space anyway. Similar pipe and a flat sheet of steel on the bottom. I had no idea it would be insulated outside either. Oh, and it needed holes in the bottom for those expanding concrete fasteners (I forget their name, but I've used them before). Why didn't he tell me when I asked the first two times? He saw me building this the whole time. I talked to him about it. He's the fucking foreman. If he wanted it a certain way, then why not tell me? Why not correct me before I waste our time? I gave him ample opportunity. I'm obviously interested in his knowledge, guidance, and correction. Jaye saw it too.
This isn't sabotage, but it certainly shows that Terry wants me to fail in many respects. He's not going to move much of a muscle to help or guide me, even when I ask for it. Look, I know I don't know how to do it his way or even well. Why not help me? Don't you want your team to succeed?
Oh, I'm learning alright, but I'm thinking he needs to "teach me a lesson," put me in my place, purposely allow me to flail without cause. This isn't teaching. I can learn the lesson without it, obviously. I'm going to make mistakes even with guidance. I can only deduce, alongside the race, that he wants to slow us down. It benefits him for us to go slower. Perhaps it is "evidence" that we shouldn't be on the job. I don't know.
He's a frenemy. I will do my best with it. I have much to learn, and I will learn it the hard way if I must.
Also, I talked to Terry about his centerfinder. I adore the tool, and I thought I might connect with him on that topic. I told him that I admired it and about how we had to use a square and level in the class to try and mimic it (not nearly as effective or easy). He just blew me off with a "is that so?" He then ignores me and turns to Leroy and explains the tool was his father's, and it was the last tool his father gave to him (even though his father was retired). Terry literally didn't want to talk to me about this tool I complimented him on which had serious sentimental value to him. He doesn't like me. Lol. I realize, not everyone is going to like me, but it is very difficult for me to improve and do well when I'm fighting an uphill battle against my boss every step of the way.
Anyways, they left. I showed Jaye the cold-chisel pry method that Tim taught me. Even with lube, we still couldn't find a way to slip the awkward Victaulic gasket on this way (oh yeah, would have been nice to hear or even see one of these before trying to fit it). We took it down. Jaye joked like he hurt his foot (mimicking my finger). I laughed. My finger hurt though.
We dragged it back. Jaye cut the stand, and I cut the Victaulic nipple at the weld on both sides, since that seems like it would give us enough space. I'm worried it won't though. Maybe I should cut it even more. I'll check again. The width of the weld minus the gap. That'll be the difference. We could probably afford an even larger gap. A tiny cut wouldn't hurt, and it would give me additional breathing space. Better safe than sorry. It's only tacked right now
Jaye said not to bevel it. He was going to do it without a bevel this time to show them how it is done, just this time. He, of course, wants to win this race. We won't, but I won't give Terry the satisfaction of whooping our asses either. I'm going to take it to him (game, not my mouth). I'm still bringing my A game.
Jaye said that our foreman was jealous (he meant envious) of what I was doing after just 6 months. He said that Terry is pissed off that some smart hotshot kid (my attitude has been nothing but respect and humility towards Terry and his sons) is doing this well. It does fit Terry's historical view too. Jaye might be right. Of course, it might just be that I'd like to think that (so far, I'm the only person I've met in the field who is doing what I'm doing in this space of time though).
!! Which animals scare you most? Why?
Samwise, you retard, this is the easiest question to answer of all time:
<<<
Humans
<<<
Why? Because they are intelligent enough to execute the egoistic will to power found in all creatures (thanks ~~Obama~~ evolution) with a scale, intensity, and effectiveness unmatched by all other animals.
I get it, too easy and more animals, right? The standard answers hold true for me as well:
* Spiders
* Sneks
* Any large animal that can take my life or seriously injure me.
* Centipedes
* etc.
I'm well trained to dislike them. I can know they won't hurt me rationally, I can study them, but it freaks me out. I don't like most animals. I want them to be happy though. I feel bad when they are hurt. I love my cats. I enjoy watching them in safe positions.
Ultimately, I don't want to be hurt. It's an instinct.
Also, you are right at the top of the list Samwise. You represent humanity, according to Tolkien. Jesus H.B.F. Christ. Too often, I find you maliciously ignorant. Now that is scary: the will to ignorance.
* [[2017.07.19 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** Edited.
* [[2017.07.19 - Pipefitting Log]]
** Edited.
* [[2017.07.19 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** Edited.
* [[2017.07.19 - Wiki Review Log]]
** I take it to be a good thing that I edit. I think it shows that I take myself seriously, that I care about what I mean and meant.
* Woke up with the alarm. I was tired.
* Bricks Pushed
* I packed the car after getting ready with the remaining stuff and left for work.
* I worked hard, but I felt sick after lunch.
** Don't eat so much.
* I made the trek back.
** Two serious traffic jams on the way back and lost an hour for it.
* Hugs and kisses
* Shower of the Gods
* Inform the Men
* Shower of Men
* We celebrated with some Chinese food.
** Glad we went, but won't be going back there.
* Watched the new GoT episode
** As predicted, they can't resolve the story. Glad to see it though.
* Bricks Pushed (I ate a ton today).
* Beer and League.
* Overall, it was an excellent day. Towards the end of the evening, just like last Saturday, I had to play the bad guy to get my children to do their work. I started with reason, and that didn't work. Fools.
Laying in bed with my wife after not having been able to hold her for a week. It's really fucking hard (that's what she said).
As usual, I showed up early. I ran my perimeter sweep. All was quiet on the muddy front. An electrician needed to get into a panel, and I was the only one around who knew the code to the lock. I let him in. I wrote some in the car while waiting for Terry to show up. Jaye doesn't work on Fridays, no OT for him through the temp agency.
They arrived at 7:35. I said my good mornings and started working on the stand.
Terry asked me if I had ever worked with copper pipes. I said no. He then made fun of my school for not teaching this to me. He thought it was stupid I didn't learn that. I explained what I did learn. The old school stuff he said was useless (I'm surprised he had no respect for it though), since no engineer will trust us to make them anymore. I nodded. He eventually conceded, after hearing what I've learned, that I was studying general process pipefitting. Essentially, not every pipefitter uses copper. I don't know why he thinks a school would teach something so specialized. He wanted something to complain about, I think.
I told Terry I'd be getting some more tools soon. He responded by saying at least I have more tools than the other clowns that Barry and Ben hired. Lol. Jesus. The backhanded compliments are tiresome.
Terry continues to abruptly ignore me in the middle of a conversation, switching to Leroy out of the blue. It's straight up passive aggressive.
Terry asked me to build another stand for his section of pipe. So, I started in on it. I asked him if he wanted me to weld it. I explained that I could do the plate, just not a pipe. He said he wanted his son to have something to do. He also decided to have Jacob weld my pipe.
During the break, I took Leroy to the office. We both had to pick up our checks. Leroy didn't have direct deposit, and he has worked there for 5 years. He must not have a checking account or the basic financial literacy to do this. I am surprised.
I saw Terry, Jacob, and Leroy mount their long Victaulic pipe to the control valve on Chiller #2. They had to loosen every flange and bring out a 7' (I shit you not) pry bar to generate enough leverage to cheat their fuckup. It took a long time. I saw him mount the Victaulic gasket and binding.
Terry helped me move my Victaulic pipe into place and told me to set it up for fitting it up. He was taking a while, and I wanted to do it myself anyway. I had Leroy come help me fit it up. It was a tight fit, but it worked. By the time he came back, we were just tightening the remaining bolts. He looked surprised. Yeah, fuck you! I did the math and fitup for the entire run. Furthermore, mine doesn't look like shit with some ghetto cheats that can't be taken apart and put back together in any reasonable fashion.
We moved my double 90 flanged piece into position for the outlet on Chiller#1. He was going to save it for Monday, but we had time later in the day to fit it up. The fitup is very hard to do, and it's the most important part. It's why mine worked (minus the length on the last pipe needing adjustment, quickly solved out-of-position) and his didn't, taking a lot more back-breaking work. We can still see it's off too.
I saw his method of measurement. The guy literally eyeballed it. That takes some guts. I don't understand why, since there are other parts of his process which are extremely exacting, particularly for making it level and plumb on stands.
Travis burned himself soldering (sp?) the copper. I asked if I could learn from him. He said I'd need to ask his dad. His dad came, and I asked in front of Travis. His dad said, "I don't care what you do." Jesus. I said I appreciated it.
I finished cutting and making the stands. I even showed my welding to Jacob. He was clearly impressed. He thought I'd fall flat on my face because I can't fit like his dad.
We all fit up the double 90. It took a lot of work to get it right. It still feels off to me. In fact, the level showed it wasn't right on part of it, but something else feels wrong (I can't put my finger on it). Terry didn't mind the level issue, saying none of the others were correct. That, of course, is where he is wrong. My inlet, unlike his, was dead fucking on. This was an excuse for his previous work.
Terry said something remotely empathic today. He asked how long my trip back was, I told him. He was again taken back by it (we talked once before about it). He asked if I was paying rent, and I said yes. I think he actually felt bad for me for a second.
!! Insofar as it can be generalized, what is your favorite role, method, or strategy in gaming?
I prefer the control role. I like to choreograph everything to the last detail. I love having just the right combination of tools to imprison my opponent and expose their weaknesses. I like to troll and style on my opponent as they sit there helplessly dominated. The beginning may be rocky, but as I tighten my grip, my win becomes inevitable.
I think the zerg mentality is the worst kind. Even as you add intelligence to the aggressive style, as you slip through the cracks in your combos, it doesn't feel as satisfying as control. Finding the path of least resistance is child's play compared to understanding how to build and maintain resistance and immunity.
I love the extremity of the pure control approach. You win in virtue of planning and out-thinking your opponent. Your actual win condition is often irrelevant because the control itself was what won it for you. Control requires appreciating the particularities and specialized details, footholds, and weaknesses in a metagame. Control is reactive in how it plays out, but it actually requires far more pre-game planning and understanding than all other approaches, as far as I can tell. Control requires appreciating the strategy and framework of the opponent. It makes for a fun game.
That said, when I play //life// as a video game I cannot do that to my "opponents." The only thing I really must control is myself. Translating the control role to playing life as a video game is difficult, particularly for someone interested in being good. I am not my own enemy, or I hope not to be.
* [[2017.07.20 - h0p3's Log]]
** Edited.
* [[2017.07.20 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** Edited.
** I like the quick synopsis, recap, analysis at the bottom. You should consider continuing that, even if you don't have all that much to say. The fact is that not everything fits nicely in chronological bullet points.
* [[2017.07.20 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** Edited.
* [[2017.07.20 - Pipefitting Log]]
** Edited.
** I'm glad I afford myself the opportunity to reflect upon the relationships and people around me. I have a hard enough time understanding why and what they do. I hope this will become second nature, and I hope to learn to deal with it effectively and ethically.
* [[2017.07.20 - Wiki Review Log]]
** Pure edits.
* Woke up early. Couldn't sleep past 6:30. I lounged with my wife.
* Pushed Tiny Bricks.
* I played some vidya games, namely ARAM.
* Caught up a bit on my link log.
* I got hugs.
* We had shrimp, eggs, and cheesy grits for brunch. It was fantastic!
* We went to the libary (sic), to Wal-mart to buy clothes and toiletries, and to Aldi for food.
* We prepared the ribs and fries!
* Cannabliss. Woot!
* My wife kindly buzzed my head.
* Delicious shower!
* Inform the Men!
* Delicious shower!
* Measured beds, bought mattresses.
* Ate some amazing ribs again, watched GoT, talked, and typed.
!! Wiki Paged Edited:
* [[2017.07.22 - Link Log]]
** Added [[2017.07.22 - Prompted Introspection Log]] links.
* [[Family Log]]
** Added compliments
* [[Prompted Introspection Log]]
** Added ideas to the Ideabag
** Made new log for today
* [[Current Focus of h0p3's Wiki]]
** Added [[Highdeas Log]]
** Some restructuring.
* [[Carpe Diem Log]]
** Just adding today's log.
* [[Wiki Review Log]]
** I think I shouldn't put this here. I understand the posterity and completeness reason. I think it can go without saying though.
!! Wiki Pages Created:
* [[2017.07.22 - Wiki Review Log]]
** Same as always.
* [[2017.07.22 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** Seems similar to usual.
* [[2017.07.22 - Highdeas Log]]
** This is my first one. I'll treat it like a [[Wiki Review Log]] for now, until I figure out something better.
* [[Highdeas Log]]
** Provided a strong argument.
* [[Highdeas Log Template]]
** Made it easy to do. I have a game plan for this log.
* [[2017.07.22 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** Came up with an idea for it when I first started getting high while watching GoT with the family. It started me rolling on writing tonight while on cannabis.
** I was only going to add my links from this day's prompted introspection to [[2017.07.22 - Link Log]], but then I got to thinking that I really wanted this log instead.
!! Thoughts:
* I should start an account for a family member to buy clothes (I'll keep the accounts on a table in this wiki).
** Let's say $50 a month is saved in the account. We'll go shopping every month or so for clothes. If you don't spend it, then you save it up in your account for when you really want to spend it. Let us hope that people will learn to be rational and wise in how they spend it.
*** Or we could use real budgeting software. That seems to have serious strengths as well.
** Saving for it is important, it narrows misc. expenses down through planning.
** It is important that my children become comfortable in shopping the right way, frugally, over-time, with a budget, etc.
** It is important that my children develop a sense of style and feel comfortable buying clothes for themselves.
* [[2017.07.22 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** https://markgelbart.wordpress.com/2015/09/04/survival-of-the-fittest-and-dwarfism-a-paradox/
** https://www.sapiens.org/column/animalia/island-dwarfism/
* Preach, yo!
** https://www.fsfla.org/ikiwiki/blogs/lxo/2017-07-09-WannaCry-for-the-Web.en.html
** https://itep.org/why-we-need-to-end-the-era-of-anonymous-shell-corporations/
** https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/24/opinion/sunday/artificial-intelligence-economic-inequality.html
** https://qz.com/1029010/is-it-unethical-to-have-kids-in-the-era-of-climate-change-a-philosophy-professor-explains/
*** I'm guilty.
** http://www.telegraph.co.uk/lifestyle/11013715/The-key-to-happiness-have-low-expectations.html
** https://aeon.co/essays/how-economists-rode-maths-to-become-our-era-s-astrologers
* http://makeself.io/
** Neat CLI tool for self-extracting archives
* KYS
** https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/19/business/dealbook/in-juries-lawyers-now-favor-the-uninformed.html
** http://www.tubefilter.com/2017/07/20/youtube-redirect-searches-extremist-anti-terrorist-playlists/
*** Pre-emptive, disgusting.
** https://www.wired.com/story/googles-academic-influence-campaign-its-complicated/
** https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7np-TRpmRQ
** https://medium.com/@guisebule/subscription-psycho-a-person-who-knows-its-a-good-idea-to-get-you-away-from-perpetual-licensing-b8dec71bf7d0
*** We have to stop the centralization of computing.
* https://gekk.info/articles/iot.html
** I feel like I'm going to be branded a luddite some day. I desperately don't want "smart" almost anything.
* http://www.pcworld.com/article/3207747/components/amd-threadripper-prices-and-release-date.html
** Let us hope they close the gap on IPC single-threaded performance.
* https://techcrunch.com/2017/07/14/googles-life-sciences-unit-is-releasing-20-million-bacteria-infected-mosquitoes-in-fresno/
** Our technologic overlords have come to show us the futurological way! /s - Why is this not something we pay for publicly (outside of the academic component)?
* https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jul/14/nucla-colorado-mandatory-gun-law-mining-telluride
** I don't have anything to say. It was just interesting.
* https://www.fastcodesign.com/90132632/ai-is-inventing-its-own-perfect-languages-should-we-let-it
** The representations inside neural networks are already that. This, of course, takes it to another level. Fascinating. I believe it will be a huge problem. Constructing things you cannot understand is dangerous.
* https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/07/ravens-ignore-a-treat-in-favor-of-a-useful-tool-for-the-future
** At what point do they fall onto the personhood spectrum?
* https://www.buzzfeed.com/pranavdixit/why-silicon-valley-is-censoring-itself-as-it-expands-in
** I'm not surprised. They do the same for every culture. I oppose censorship.
* For my daughter:
** https://github.com/Kristories/awesome-guidelines
* https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/13/opinion/millennial-labor-movement.html
** Once in a while, I hear a voice from reason from the NYT
* https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/7/14/15967788/democracy-shackles-james-buchanan-intellectual-history-maclean
** Call me a conspiracy theorist, if you need.
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnIsdVaCnUE
** Not the best explanation, but I am definitely tired of hearing capitalists attempt to make this argument repeatedly.
* https://www.theverge.com/2017/7/14/15973712/google-ai-research-street-view-panorama-photo-editing
** Art will evolve, I assume.
* http://papers.mathyvanhoef.com/asiaccs2016.pdf
** I had no idea. I assumed MAC randomization was enough.
* https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/jul/11/how-economics-became-a-religion
** Perhaps. I am always open to the "X is a religion/cult/etc." It says something about our epistemic justifications for a delusion and the structures/authorities/practices we build around them.
* https://write.narwhal.space/
** Perhaps the next HN for writing, narratives, etc.
* https://blog.cryptographyengineering.com/2017/07/02/beyond-public-key-encryption/
** Never heard of it. Not sure if I understand it. Seems interesting.
* http://haseebq.com/a-hacker-stole-31m-of-ether/
** Neat. I'm still holding onto my eth though.
** Also: https://blog.parity.io/the-multi-sig-hack-a-postmortem/
* https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/14/fashion/vacation-photos-facebook-instagram.html
** Why I wish everyone had a wiki instead. Write it out. I think it's easier to systematically lie in photos than a comprehensively written narrative.
* http://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/the-rise-of-illegal-pirate-libraries
** I am a guerrilla librarian. To those who oppose the free spread of information: burn in hell!
* https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/d3893y/bitcoin-may-have-just-solved-its-scaling-problem
** I am still convinced Eth will be more competitive than BTC. Give it time. The network effect hasn't forced a monopoly yet.
* https://briarproject.org/news/2017-beta-released-security-audit.html
** I've see so many of these tools. An audit is nice though.
* https://www.wired.com/story/your-brain-is-memories/
** Everything is a file!
* https://theringer.com/google-fiber-struggles-7d2bb5399a12
** For the love of God, let's have some public infrastructure investment.
* http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/vote-for-ugly
** Love to see me some redpilled views at one of my favorite publications.
I will be getting a new smartphone soon. I will take pictures of my work with it. I need to start a portfolio.
I bought new clothes that actually fit me. I selected very cheap, rugged, wide-pocket jeans that actually fit my waist. Oh, I'm now wearing 34x29 and 36x29 pants. Good job! I look actually a bit muscley in my new shirts which are stretchy and provide excellent breathing (it's hot as fuck). The shirts are bright green for safety, so I don't have to wear the hot vest as well. I got underwear that breathed and was correctly sized (mine fall off really easy since I've lost weight), and I picked up socks (which I desperately needed). I picked up 2 more bandana/handkerchiefs, and I will try wearing them in addition to having them in my pocket (I may pick up 5 more if I like it: they are very cheap, thankfully). It cost about $120 for 5 days worth of clothes (my work schedule).
After picking up new mattresses for the kids, I'm holding off on more purchases, including our unlocked phones and switch to likely T-mobile until next week. I want to actually still be filling the bank account.
I'm going to set up the old chromebook, and give my wife my current laptop, monster-13. I want her to have a working machine between work and home. I just need something simple while I'm way. I can work within limits.
!! Provide a Redpilled explanation for the genetic existence of Dwarves.
This sent me on a hunt online for research.
* https://markgelbart.wordpress.com/2015/09/04/survival-of-the-fittest-and-dwarfism-a-paradox/
** Not as good as the next, but interesting still.
* https://www.sapiens.org/column/animalia/island-dwarfism/
** Insular dwarfism is fascinating. Evolution, of course, innately is about selfishness. This is quite a redpilled explanation.
I take the question, initially, to be how dwarfism continues to spread through genetic inheritance rather than phyletic dwarfism. What explanation can we give? What should we see in the lives of modern Dwarves?
Mating with dwarven females (little people, whatever the word needs to be here) would have its own allure for novelty seekers. Short males do not get to mate as often in human societies, and extremely short men are even less likely. It seems unlikely that females would select dwarven men for breeding purposes, especially since this is the wrong set of novelties they are generally inclined to pursue.
I posit that dwarves, especially dwarven men, like many of those who experience impairments (I'm not calling dwarfism bad or an impairment, objective fitness is deeply contextual), must often become fit appearing and virtue signal more heavily than the average homo sapien in order to be chosen for breeding.
* [[2017.07.21 - Cry Log]]
** I cry with my wife in bed often enough.
* [[2017.07.21 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** Twas a great night.
* [[2017.07.21 - Pipefitting Log]]
** Edited.
* [[2017.07.21 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** Edited.
** This reminds me of my question about Cats and Dogs.
* [[2017.07.21 - Wiki Review Log]]
** I'm adding another kind of Wiki Review Log in [[Highdeas Log]]. I need to think about their relationship.
* Woke up late, Blanketed Fireman Time!
* League
* Fireman Time!
* Ribs and watching TSM get their asses handed to them
* Packed
* Hugged my family, talked with my wife.
* We had our family meeting.
* We had Hot wings and fries for lunch.
* I left, felt like crying seeing my wife there on the stoop (I think my leaving has normalized for my kids at this point [I feel unimportant to their personal lives in a real sense]), started on The Little Prince or whatever.
* Talked to ALM for a long time on the phone.
* Got to Charlotte, and Armstrong didn't seem to care about the whole "nigger" thing from my brother, and I'm glad.
** William and I talked quite a bit about a range of topics. He's a very cool and smart cat.
* Writing before I fall asleep exhausted.
!! How has your health been this week?
* 1uxb0x
** Good, except for mosquito bites.
* j3d1h
** Acne.
** No stuffy throat.
** Normal.
* k0sh3k
** Stomach killing her all week, but felt fine all weekend. I suppose when I'm home, she is less stressed.
* h0p3
** I felt very stressed. Hives and fungal infection.
** Sleepy.
** Very sore.
** My finger hurts.
---
!! What happened last week? Have you been happy this past week? Why or why not?
* 1uxb0x
** Happy that he did his homework.
** Happy that he got to play with Jojo, but sad about the conflict.
* j3d1h
** Unhappy about her homework, but happy about doing better than the week before.
** Happy about having a video!
* k0sh3k
** It has been a very up and down week, an emotional rollercoaster.
** Even having missed a day of work, she felt like she accomplished a lot.
** Overall, it has been a good week.
* h0p3
** I survived my second week. I learned a ton. I feel like I have a better understanding of my role and the landscape.
** I'm really happy that our bank account has gone up for the second week in a row. It's stabilizing, and I'm happy to pick up things that we've been waiting to buy for a while now.
---
!! What is a positive fact or compliment we can say about each person in the family?
* 1uxb0x
** You are doing a good job of building friendships and dealing with (and thinking through) your conflicts. It's important to reach out to people, and I'm proud of you. We know it hurts sometimes and that it isn't easy, but it is a good thing to do.
** You did a better job on meltdowns. You did your best to stay calm and level-headed.
** You had a moment this week when talking with me where you didn't want to end the conversation. You asked to speak longer with me. That made me feel really good, and I'm glad you enjoyed talking with me at that moment. That's what friendships are made of.
* j3d1h
** You did better on your school work this week. I really appreciate you starting to value and take yourself more seriously. It's a wise move.
** You've been trying to play outside more. That's good for your health. Also, you made a youtube minecraft video. You followed through on your plan and commitment. Good job.
** Today, when you asked Jacob his name, despite not knowing his name, you were okay with the awkwardness and overcoming it. That takes guts. Good job.
* k0sh3k
** I know you don't feel like you are good with money, but I've seen you grow a ton when it comes to financial responsibility. You really do plan ahead, sacrifice for us, and pass the marshmallow test as a mother and wife. I'm really thankful that you've taken the time and energy to become a financially responsible person. Thank you for forgiving my many mistakes in this respect as well; you've been gracious to me when I've failed us in this respect. I hope I can pay it back to you.
** It's nice that you take the time to make treats for your dad's friends and acquaintances.
** You taught me how to make coffee. Thank you.
* h0p3
** Thank you for paying attention to our wikis and caring about what happened during our week.
** Thank you for being kinder than you usually are this weekend.
** Thank you for making your weekends about your family. A lot of guys in your position don't do that.
---
!! What will you do this week? Name at least one fun objective and one unfun objective.
* 1uxb0x
** Try to get homework done before mom comes home.
** Play with friends 3 times this week.
* j3d1h
** Get a full hour of exercise outside every day.
** Make another video.
* k0sh3k
** Watch Mr. Robot
** Do the student work schedule
** Graft pictures into wiki each day.
* h0p3
** Fix the chromebook for myself, and get the laptop ready for k0sh3k.
** Read the first page of Mochizuki's work on the ABC conjecture.
* For my daughter:
** https://dzone.com/articles/most-useful-linux-command-line-tricks
* KYS
** http://billmoyers.com/story/kochs-to-rewrite-constitution/
** https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/07/senator-blasts-fcc-for-refusing-to-provide-ddos-analysis/
** http://www.newsweek.com/approval-polls-show-trump-least-popular-president-ever-plunging-even-lower-640700
*** This is in regards to the Fifth Avenue poll
** http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/local/2017/07/21/how-disability-benefits-divided-this-rural-community-between-those-who-work-and-those-who-dont/
*** I think you missed the real cause WaPo: Capitalism
* http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/22/hope-hicks-trump-profile-240832
** At least she's hot.
* https://www.theverge.com/2017/7/21/15999544/biohacking-finger-magnet-human-augmentation-loss
** I seriously am still considering it. Identifying ferrous materials is useful to me.
* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14831676
** Yet another example of how botnets are ultimate answers.
* https://www.openbazaar.org/
** Wild, wild west
* https://github.com/ivanilves/xiringuito
** sshuttle alternative, I take it
* https://globalvoices.org/2017/07/19/chinas-xinjiang-residents-are-being-forced-to-install-surveillance-apps-on-mobile-phones/
** Fear not. It's coming our way too, perhaps in other ways.
* Preach, yo!
** http://inthesetimes.com/article/20337/climate-change-personal-consumption-capitalism-socialism-neoliberalism
I made the trip. Yay, the car is still working. What's the worst that could happen? Ayyyy!
I almost forgot my shoes. That would have been a disaster. I need to bring my other shoes here as a backup plan. Even though they suck because they are too large, I can at least double sock myself into them.
!! Why are the friends you are making now and days, William and Jaye, black? Why don't you get along with whitey, yo?
I'd say because I'm mostly around black people. I don't spend time with white people that much. But, also, I feel like an outcast, and I just seem to get along better with them. If I'm going to be an alien, might as well be an alien with others who have been alienated as well.
It's interesting to see William and Jaye at their stages in life given just how intelligent they can be. They see it too. I like being with them. I don't feel like a devil or weirdo in a bad way with them. I get to be myself around them, at least to a large extent.
* [[2017.07.22 - Wiki Review Log]]
** I love the weekends.
* [[2017.07.22 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** I'm surprised that I poop so little on the weekends, even though I eat a ton. Maybe we should eat other things, yeah?
* [[2017.07.22 - Pipefitting Log]]
** Make dat money.
* [[Highdeas Log Template]]
** I think the "edited" section needs to be used judiciously. There's a reason I switched from "New" to "Recent."
* [[2017.07.22 - Highdeas Log]]
** Spinning up some accounts really would be useful. My wife liked the idea as well.
* [[Highdeas Log]]
** Edits.
* [[2017.07.22 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** Seems like an important question. Genetics and memetics clashing.
* [[2017.07.22 - Link Log]]
** Is it a bad thing when I don't have anything, in particular, to say about a link beside "yup" or "interesting"?
* Sync wasn't working last night. I should sync before I leave home just to make sure I don't run into this problem. Again, that blasted router. Worked this morning though.
* Alarm clock woke me. I needed more sleep. I wasn't able to sleep until midnight.
* I put on my new clothes, Pushed a Brick, and packed my lunch.
* I didn't even need GPS at all today (ironically, I'm starting at a new place tomorrow).
* I worked my ass off. I even took a picture of my work. I need to make sure I graft it in.
** I need to start creating a portfolio.
* I talked to JRE. It was good to hear his voice.
** He walks me through a lot of what happens through the day. I appreciate that very much. He has a lot of insight into the tropes of construction workers.
* I tried calling my brother AIR. I couldn't reach him. =(
* Finished S6 GoT
* Fireman Time
* I called my wife. It was wonderful to hear her voice. She was obviously distressed. The kids hadn't done their work.
** I had spoken with the children at lunch. They just stopped afterward. Maybe I shouldn't have?
* I almost fell asleep. I hope to fall asleep early tonight.
* I talked to ALM on chat.
** He lost his credentials, and I can't reset them from afar very easily. Need to find a way to help him automagically do it or make it self-serveable.
* I called my chilluns up.
** It was not a pleasant conversation. They disappointed me today.
** I hope I was useful to them; I hope I was motivational, a voice of reason, and empathic.
* Watched the first episode of Legion.
** It was gorgeous, even if the plot sucked. The craziness was interesting. The cinematography had some genius going on sometimes. I loved exactly what my wife said I would love about it.
* Gonna write and watch something before I fall asleep.
* I ate a ton of fruits and vegetables today. =)
* https://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/jul/17/postcapitalism-end-of-capitalism-begun
** Lol. You get a lot right. I don't predict the end of capitalism though.
* https://empyreantrail.wordpress.com/2016/09/12/dialectics-an-introduction/
** We use words differently, no doubt.
** Very confusing, even though it is as well-written.
** I still don't understand Hegel at all, clearly.
** I must read again.
* https://blog.keras.io/the-limitations-of-deep-learning.html
** Phil of mind problems here.
** https://blog.keras.io/the-future-of-deep-learning.html
*** Follow-up
**** I think singularities already happen in a way. I think they come in degrees and kinds too.
* https://aeon.co/essays/is-the-study-of-language-a-science
** Phil of science time kids: I think science is the constant shifting of inductive inferences given the usual epistemological principles/suspects. It's that broadly simple.
** Given my inclusive view, of course it is a science.
* https://digg.com/2017/genetic-testing-uncertainty
** In time, we may know more.
* https://kotaku.com/my-son-has-ruined-zelda-breath-of-the-wild-1797004429
** Time to clone your game saves.
* Preach, yo!
** https://qz.com/1022831/why-doesnt-the-united-states-have-universal-health-care/
** https://medium.com/the-abs-tract-organization/the-new-reproach-of-abstraction-af20af720fa6
* https://www.wired.com/story/google-glass-2-is-here
** I am, of course, still interested in where this takes us.
* https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/18/technology/whatsapp-facebook-china-internet.html
** We must all fight the centralization of power, especially power over information, for all people.
* https://www.byte.nl/blog/dont-run-this-on-any-system-you-expect-to-be-up-they-said-but-we-did-it-anyway
** Cool. Brave souls.
* KYS
** https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/6okatv/verizon_is_allegedly_throttling_their_unlimited/
** https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/20/health/affordable-care-act-repeal-popularity-doylestown-pennsylvania.html
*** My empathy for malicious ignorance wanes.
** https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-06-22/google-is-the-worlds-biggest-censor-and-its-power-must-be-regulated
** https://newrepublic.com/article/143984/were-brink-authoritarian-crisis
*** I am saddened that my friend ALM actually support Monarchy. I think he does not realize the problems of centralizing power. He has an ideal, but not the practicalities of it applied which form a new ideal.
** https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/im-a-scientist-the-trump-administration-reassigned-me-for-speaking-up-about-climate-change
** https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateCommunism/comments/6o9p3k/why_are_socialist_subreddits_so_aggressive/
** https://www.deepdotweb.com/2017/07/18/nsa-diverting-american-internet-traffic-overseas/
* For my daughter:
** https://spaceandtim.es/projects/scripts/
* Trump
** https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-ends-covert-cia-program-to-arm-anti-assad-rebels-in-syria-a-move-sought-by-moscow/2017/07/19/b6821a62-6beb-11e7-96ab-5f38140b38cc_story.html
* https://medium.com/@brianluchsinger/how-media-is-hacking-our-brains-fb6bef252d37
** Computers are always hackable.
* http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2017/07/sleeping-monster-trade-services-agreement-tisa-supply-chain.html
** I don't always agree with nakedcapitalism, but it's very often worth reading.
* https://www.zerynth.com/blog/the-rise-of-python-for-embedded-systems/
** Don't care if it's an ad, I'm actually fascinated.
* https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/07/20/half-of-liberals-cant-even-stand-to-be-around-trump-supporters/
** I feel this way about almost everyone.
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuF9aZxoipE
** Welcome Back, homie!
* https://www.reddit.com/r/TheoryOfReddit/comments/6pc9oa/a_statistical_analysis_of_rtheredpill_subscribers/
** Fascinating
* http://revolutionized.world/home/2017/6/3/31ajuf6ssmhp1lsa3mahjyhi8bqei3
** I giggled and threw up at the same time.
Jaye beat me there today. We sat in our cars talking to each other while I wrote. Terry's crew showed up at 7:30. We immediately set off. I showed Jaye the weld he'd be making on the double 90 piece that took forever to fit up on Friday.
After looking at it, I saw it. It was off. The centerlines of the outlet and the double 90 coming out of the underground pipe did not match up. I was heartbroken when I saw it. I pointed it out to Jaye. He saw it too. I knew we'd have to cut the pipe and insert a nipple. Jaye went and got Terry. Terry came over and started chewing me out.
He told me that if I can't do this job, I needed to just leave. He went on a diatribe against me. Again, I was told I deserved to be cussed out. He was pissed and just abusive. Mind you, this is the man who was in charge of the fitup. He could have seen this himself. He even took the measurements for the last pipe on the run between these two pieces. He didn't see it either, or if he did, he purposely sandbagged in order to chew me out today (which is what Jaye thinks he did).
It is strongly my fault, although not completely. It was off by ~2". I went over my math again. It was correct. Thus, the problem was the initial measurement. This was a very hard measurement to make, mind you. The pipe wasn't plumb in any direction, and the distance did not lend itself to any of the tools in our possession. I did the best I could with what I had. A good foreman with a green worker would take the time to double check the work, particularly at crucial points like this one. IIRC, he gave me an idea of it, but not much more. I need to learn to be careful.
Making mistakes costs hours of work. Terry was pissed, but he should have caught this as well during the fitup. He could have at least been relieved that I caught it before the in-position weld to finalize it. He didn't want to see what I did right even in the midst of the mistakes.
At least we found it. It would have been even more frustrating to go for the final fitup to see how bad it was off. Although I must admit, I didn't make the measurements for this final pipe, and I'm worried that it will still be off. We will see. There are other variables at work here, especially after we cut the pipe and add the nipple. It shouldn't be off, but it could.
After he was done chewing me out, Jaye apologized for even talking to Terry. He said that if he thought Terry was going to react that way, he wouldn't have said anything. I'm not so convinced Jaye didn't know Terry would do that after seeing Terry's behavior for 2 weeks. I think there was an element of posturing to what Jaye did. He doesn't like snitching though. I'm not sure.
I spent quite a bit of time getting the measurements taken. I wanted to get it right (I did before too).
After the measurements, Jaye told me he talked to Terry again about it. Jaye said he wouldn't have brought it up to Terry if he knew that Terry was going to react that way. Jaye said that Terry said that he didn't mean anything bad by it, but that he just wanted me to know. I'm not sure how much I trust either Jaye or Terry at this point (even though I like Jaye).
We decided to keep the bottom 90 in place. The fitup on that was very hard. Might as well preserve that work. I cut the weld on either side of the outer end of the nipple connected the latter 90 (no more grinding). Jaye agreed to weld without bevels to keep the pace up. It took quite a while to make these cuts, and it sucks doing it in position.
Jaye and I talked about racism and conspiracy theories again. He has a funny "white person" accent imitation he likes to bust out. Whenever I ask him to repeat himself or fail to understand his meaning, he dives into it. Lol.
By lunch, we had added the nipple and fitted it back into place with a root. Everything appears level, plumb, and squarely oriented. The measurements looked clean from either side of the flange to the pipe we're connecting to. I also measured teh pipe we have ready for it. It looks like it is a bit short, but should work just fine.
After lunch, Jaye finished the cap while I mounted the butterfly valve. We then mounted the control valve. The final pipe fit like a glove, thankfully. It was mounted before 2:00pm. Terry had expected we would take longer, I believe. He was worried we would be working on it all week, according to his previous argument. It didn't, and I think he knew better.
Terry called up Barry. We can't work on our previous job inside because they are still painting. It wasn't going to take a day, it's going to take 2 weeks. Terry doesn't want to waste our time up on the roof, he says. Instead, he's pushing us off onto another foreman. Barry is sending us to Bull at a nearby school tomorrow. Sounds good to me. Bull and his welder (65 years old, I hear) are old school and very relaxed according to Terry. I hope that is true. We will find out. I could use a foreman that takes it easy on me.
My question, which I dare not ask, is if I'm really be moved off this job because I'm too incompetent or incompatible with my foreman. If it isn't a performance or personality conflict, then is this really just because he doesn't want to waste time moving us to the roof and back down? I'm not in a position to interpret Terry with enough accuracy at this point.
Jaye and I exchanged numbers. I messaged him the information. We are meeting at a Bojangles close to my residence. I have to wake up half an hour earlier, unfortunately. That's okay though. I'm hoping that Bull will be lenient in terms of scheduling as well. I intend on arriving early no matter what, but I kind of like not actually working for the first 30 minutes of my shift waiting on everyone to show up. It's nice. Speaking of which, I have no idea how much impact this will have on my hours. Hopefully, I'll maintain the income. Maybe I should put even more effort into tracking and planning this part. I'm not sure if there is anything to gain from it though.
Afterwards, I was asked to construct two more support stands. I take this to be busy work. From the sounds of it, he only wanted two. Now he wants four. Let me interpret this act charitably: he's trying to allow me to stay on the clock. I appreciate that.
I also checked Terry's outlet. It wasn't plumb, and it was off by a quarter inch. He can force that. Still, he's not exactly living up to high standards either.
At the end of the day, I packed up all my gear (lost my ghetto alignment bar somehow, but picked up a threaded rod to replace it [which sadly works even better]) and talked with Terry. I asked him if I would be joining him after the paint was done. He said that was up to Barry. He said he was sure we would work together again though, and he said he was surprised they sent me to him in the first place instead of where I was going. I thanked him for letting me learn from him. He apologized for snapping at me. We shook hands, and I left.
!! Distinguish Samwell Tarley from Samwise Gamgee. Why do you like one Sam but not the other?
Samwell and Samwise are both "everyman" placeholders in their stories. They both have some awkwardness to them, especially Samwell. But, in general, they are kind of normalish people, I take it.
Samwell has much better goals than Samwise. Samwell cares about knowledge, aims to be moral in the right way, and I can actually empathize with him.
Samwise is anti-intellectual. He's rash. He has poorly trained intuitions and a maliciously ignorant gut he relies upon. He follows social conventions without reason. He's a good old boy in a way.
Samwell cares about social conventions insofar as they are moral, but he clearly sets them aside in many respects, and with good reason. Hello, brother! I can respect him, even when I don't agree with him.
I wrote most of my logs for yesterday in bed last night in sublime. I had to graft again. Should I include the grafted work today, or should I just stick to what was literally posted? This is an important convention that I need to think about. For now, I'm going to just go day-by-day. I should give reasons for why the actual day of posting and the date in the title may not match.
* [[2017.07.23 - Family Log]]
** Edited title, because one day I will learn to add.
** Speaking of mosquitoes, we've had some in the car. I believe this is because I park in tall grass during the night, and our car has lots of holes in it.
* [[2017.07.23 - Link Log]]
** I should extract some of those tricks into the wiki.
* Woke up before the alarm. I got some good sleep, but I was still somewhat sleepy.
* I tried pushing bricks out but didn't have much success.
** Some is better than none.
* I worked hard.
** I feel like I got my bearings somewhat at my new jobsite.
* I talked to Tim at lunch.
** I had Bojangles for lunch. I just needed a place with AC. The problem is everything is way out of the way.
** Perhaps a new job in 2 weeks. We will see. I am wondering what I should do about rent. It really depends.
* I took my THC piss test. Failed, as expected. Good to know.
* I tried calling JRE. No dice.
** I hope I'm not annoying him. I always talk about work with him. Maybe I need to talk about something else. Right now, that's the subject that is ruling my life and that I'm having to digest.
* I talked to Armstrong about lots of things.
** He's an idiot.
** He's incredibly selfish and non-reflective (although, he considers himself quite reflective).
** He had no reasonable answers to my questions. =(
** I'm convinced he doesn't know much about investing and almost nothing about politics.
*** His world is very shallow. =(
* I showered. I love showering after work.
* I talked to my wife. =) It was wonderful to hear her voice and see her tits.
* Fireman Time!
** My wife constantly arouses me. I can't help it. She's a tease that has too many bad Southern Bell Christian habits to be sufficiently naughty for me. It happens with almost all of our conversations (even when she's wrong about some Television show).
* I ate some food, surfed, etc.
* I talked to my children.
** I really hope they finish their work tonight.
* I talked to my wife again.
** She does not interpret Mr. Robot correctly, imho.
* Surfed and wrote.
* Pushed out serious bricks. Woot!
* I gave more thought to buying phones. I want to wait yet another week.
* I've been very itchy today.
** Although, I find the itchiness incredibly arousing at times too. This is weird. My soft blanket over my itchy spots heightens the stimulation, no doubt.
*** /hands-you-the-eyebleach
* Maybe a bit of surfing and It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia to fall asleep.
I met Jaye at the Bojangles near my residence. He then wanted to take separate cars? I asked him why we met in the first place. His answer was to show up at the same time? Hilariously our GPS units took us different routes, and we didn't arrive at the same time. However, we did find the work site together. We were late. I wasn't happy about that.
We met the main guys. Bull, Spaz (the 65-year-old welder), and Aaron (not a fitter). There is a helper too, but I forgot his name (not a standard name, I believe).
We talked to my foreman, Bull. Huge guy, "bull" is for "bullshit" I believe. Very easy going, and he loves to talk. I can let him talk. I was, of course, nearly silent as the other men talked. I observe, and I know I can't join in the small talk fittingly. Bull compliments me, saying he thinks I must spend time lifting weights. I smile. I had told my brother I was looking buff (although, I was joking about it). It's just my new shirt that tricks you into thinking I'm stronger than I am.
Bull showed us around, and the first job he wanted us to work. It's was a couple of pipes that needed to go up through 2 stories. We only have ladders to work with =(. I hate heights. I'll get used to it though. It's about not empathizing with the "falling" or "scared" you, in a sense. You grow to ignore that part of you. Do it wisely. I asked him how long it would take him to do the job. He said 2 days. Wow. That is fast. I do not feel confident that I can do it nearly that fast, and I told him.
He then thought about putting us on throwing flanges on the nipples out of the machine. He gave me two wrenches and a flange. I didn't immediately understand what he meant by backup wrench (until he handed me the pipewrench). He meant counterweight. After the misunderstanding, he decided to give an even easier job to me. We went up a 20-foot ladder and hit all the sites on top. I just needed to read the direction flow, mark the pipes, and measure to find out how many flanges he needs of each size.
We did as he asked, but couldn't reach one of the sites because there was no access. We took a break, got some water, took a piss, then on our way to borrow a boom lift to hit that site, we spotted bull. We talked, and I told him what we had. He seemed happily surprised, I think. I also told him that all the pipes would need to be about 23-24" long if they are going to be 8" off the backside (like he wants). He saw that I knew what we were doing, and we talked about the upside-down L shape we're running off the spigots.
He then decided to have me plan the parts list and structures for all 14 sites. He showed me the parts he had. My goal is to plan it all, find what parts we need, and have them ordered. We had to hit the roof again to matchup the spigot sizes. I'll need reducers, and I need to know where.
Jaye and I talked about his parole officer (from the messages and context, I deem her a bitch). He has a lot of problems to work through. It's a good thing he's a skilled welder. He also is the only parent who is willing to work (his wife refuses). I have to say, my life is considerably easier and more interesting than his. I feel bad for him.
We went to find Bull to see how lunch works. We're getting our bearings around here, understanding where things are, what to do, how they are done, conventions, etc. We ran into the other guys, and I'm told they leave at 3 and then get clocked at 3:30 for driving time. Sounds good to me!
At lunchtime, we talked. His daughter sounds intelligent and compassionate. He thinks she's a mess, but she sounds wonderful to me. Poli-Sci + social work, well-traveled, social justice work, etc.
He knew I had only been fitting for 6 months and went to school, but asked me anyways to see what I'd say. Establishing that I'm trustworthy and that I'm humble is important. I explained that I knew I was new at this, and that I was inexperienced. I told him I was here to learn. He said he was glad to hear it, and he would be everything he knew. Cool.
Bull agreed to give me overtime. He only works 8's, but I'll be working 10's.
After everyone left, I cleaned up our spot. I went to chiller room #1. I tried taking measurements, but I couldn't really. I don't know what to do here. Hopefully, I think of it on the way there, and perhaps Bull can help. I moved the welding machine to where Bull suggested. I drew up the isometrics for the spools we'll need. I grabbed the fittings and flanges we'll need.
I took my tools back, and I cleaned my bag out some. I'm trying to limit how many tools I actually carry with me. I can leave many in the car until I actually need them. I had to fill my tires up. I think the heat and weight aren't doing well for them. I just need this car to last for a couple more months. That would do us wonders.
Also, I took my THC test. I failed it. It's been 72 hours, so I'm not surprised. There was a very faint outline of a line beginning. It is possible that I'll be able to pass it on Friday. I'm hoping so. I think I should wait to take cannabliss until I can pass this test. I need to know my baseline. I should ask my brother about his as well.
!! Isn't there something inherently wrong with The Redpill, the claim that all people are selfish? Many people seem to think so.
No. It's a description, not the prescription people confuse it with. It seems accurate. The truth hurts. Many people are often wrong, especially about the nature of reality and those things which are most important.
Perhaps you have some romanticized notion of humanity. I grant, it is difficult to love and hate humanity at the same time (but perhaps not in the same respect). It seems contradictory, and maybe it is. The romantic in you, of course, could learn to be okay with that.
I think most people are appalled by the notion. They could not truly envision themselves as evil humans. They can't accept that they aren't the heroes of their own stories. They are unable to fathom that they don't deserve the life they have, that they don't have a moral right to happiness, etc. It derealizes them. They defensively confabulate and rationalize. The truth is dangerous to them.
It's easy for people to feel like they are "taking the high road" when they dismiss The Redpill. They will even have memories and anecdotes, but refuse to consider how even these have strong Redpill interpretations. They may consider The Redpill ad hoc. I know I once did.
I grant, it is not easy to make sense of life when you're "woke" instead of "sheeple," lol. You will experience vertigo. Keep your intellectual integrity, and keep working for an answer.
* [[2017.07.24 - Link Log]]
** I had many philosophical links backed up. I must admit, I don't feel like I have time to be careful, methodical, and academic about philosophy nowadays. I have to rely upon my gut (which I often did anyway), and I have to make more blink of eye guestimations and quick perception checks.
*** Ultimately, that means I can't fulfill my philosophical vocation, as well as I, I'd like. Perhaps it is just a season of life.
* [[2017.07.24 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** I have been sleepy, no doubt.
* [[2017.07.24 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** I haven't said it in a while: Fuck off, Samwise Gamgee!
* [[2017.07.24 - Wiki Review Log]]
** This won't be nearly as much of a problem once I can tether with 4G. It's been many years since I've needed to do that. I'm so used to working with wifi up at all times.
* [[2017.07.24 - Pipefitting Log]]
** Edited.
* [[2017.07.23 - Wiki Review Log]]
** No, it's not a bad thing. Go for it.
* [[2017.07.23 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** I must admit, the log feels short. That's okay though, right?
* [[2017.07.23 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** That said, I'm still not cool enough with my black friends to drop N-bombs, clearly.
* [[2017.07.23 - Pipefitting Log]]
** Well, the car is now having trouble. `/fingers-crossed`
I had two ideas, and I didn't know where to put them where I know I'd read them. I need to rethink how I use {[[Projects|Projects on this Wiki]]}. I need that random space, but I need order too. I'm not sure how to draw the lines and why. Here goes for the two ideas:
* I'd love to see the kids draw a map of our apartment complex.
* Perhaps my son would really love joining the Boyscouts (minus the patriotism).
Onto the log itself:
* I fell asleep a bit earlier last night, I slept. I wake up often throughout the night to look at the clock. It's just not my home. I'm more on edge. I finally just said fuck it and got up. Thankfully, there were only a few minutes until my alarm.
* I Pushed Bricks. Success!
* I worked hard.
** I'm glad I get to talk to Jaye.
** I'm liking Bull in a lot of ways.
*** He hasn't quite seen the full extent of my incompetence, I suppose.
* I stayed a bit later to talk with Bull and Spaz.
* I talked to my brother JRE.
** I feel bad that they missed out on Social Services coming for their final home visit before they are cleared. It sucks.
* I showered.
* I had my vid chat with my family.
** I dearly hope my children finish their work.
* Fireman time
* Surf, eat, and surf.
* Watched highlights of C9 vs. P1 from last weekend.
* Gonna watch some IASIP before sleeping.
I arrived early today. No one was there. Jaye came next. We talked and I wrote while we waited. Nobody came. So, we started our work. We were brainstorming on how to take the measurements we needed. Jaye has never done a job like this with "so many problems" as he put it. It's definitely not simple, although it appears simple enough to Bull (who is obviously an expert at this practice [been doing it for +25 years]).
Eventually, at around 7:50, I found Bull in the boiler room. I'm guessing he must have shown up at around 7:30, despite telling Jaye to show up at 7:00. My guess is that this includes "travel time." I will keep this in mind. I think they are fairly relaxed about showing up late around here. I think that is very interesting, as that is not as I've heard otherwise for most companies. That relaxed attitude might be a large part of why these people are so loyal to a company that pays them less than they are worth.
I heard that bonuses come out around October-ish, but it would probably not be a ton if I understand correctly. I'm guessing I might not even receive one, even if I were to stick around that long. Jaye knows I'll probably be leaving the moment I have a job close to home. I think several of those in the company may already suspect it as well. They find it odd that I travel this far for the job. They aren't wrong.
In any case, I asked Bull for his expert advice. He told me he needed to clock me in. He fumbled with his phone trying to get it to work. He obviously feels odd around me. He told me he had heard the rumor that I was college educated, and said he wanted to give me the nickname "professor" (a swear word to many around here, no doubt). I laughed. He asked me where I went to school. I listed them. My goal is to not make a big deal of it with these people. He told me that another person he had worked with that had gone to school before becoming a pipefitter as well. I told him it was hard to make money as a philosopher, and he laughed. That's the best way to handle it, I think.
Bull came with me to the room. Upon second inspection, he told me to start with the bottom piece. This made far more sense since I was worried I had nothing to measure off of. That was my gameplan coming into today, and it felt good to have it confirmed. I needed to take the Blind Flange off, and our Supply needs two threadolets (he'll just bushing the second 3/4" sockolet, he said) pointing up. To take the Blind flange off, I needed to release some sludge water from a globe valve coming after the butterfly valve (which apparently has some real pressure behind it).
Let me tell you, it is scary as fuck being up on these unsteady ladders. I really don't know how we are going to safely handle so much heavy pipe. There's got to be a better way. I can do the measurements and flange work off the ladders. Bull said he could get us some scaffolds, but these are thought to be even worse. We can't use a lift because of the tiles. This sucks.
I told Bull about my 90 rolled onto a 45 angle into a 45 shooting down. He liked it. He decided later we might have to go 90 straight down into 45 on 45. He asked me if I could do the math for these. He does the 1.141 whatever trick. He told me I needed to divide instead. I think I'll just stick to my standard 5/8 Diameter method for the TO. Hopefully, I don't fuck this up terribly.
We took off the blind flange, we measured to the wall, and then I had Jaye run up to the roof to drop a plumb bob. We measured off the plumb bob mark to the wall, took off another 8 inches for the box above, and that gave us the total length.
We went to cut some pipe, but Bull stopped us. We were using the wrong pipe, meant for sprinklers. We noted the schedule was tiny, S10, likely. We then went on break.
After the break, I grabbed the right pipe with Jaye. We put a flange on it. Jaye started welding. Bull came by to inspect the weld.
I figured out that I lacked the right BNG (Bolt and Gasket?) kits for 3" pipe. Bull had some extra 3" gaskets and bolts, thankfully. When I came back, I found that Jaye's weld, including cap, was all fucked up. That machine really sucks. You can't tell what heat it is on at all. We cut the flange and pipe off and started again.
While he did that I set up the hangers (lowered them), took a measurement for the second run of pipe, grabbed 3/4" and a 1/2" threadolet (Bull agreed it best to use the right size instead of a bushing). I cut the pipe (a bit too short, eek!), and marked the center points and then the circles for the threadolets.
We could not get the oxy-acetylene cutting torch to work correctly. We gave up by 12:15. We'll deal with it after lunch. Arguably, we are far behind.
After lunch, we grabbed Bull. Basically, after the oxygen hose came off while the torch was on with Jaye, and I ran to turn it all off, I decided we needed a professional who had used this particular torch. Bull did his magic, and he flicked the gauge, and it worked. I cut some beautiful holes.
I'd say I didn't have as much to do in the latter half of the day. Most of my planning and work was in the beginning, and I staggered enough work to keep Jaye constantly busy at the end. I hope I can continue to do that. In the fitter/welder duo relationship, you want to be the best guy on the team, since that means you'll always be waiting for the other guy. Right now, I'm not that good (although, I think I could do this lower quality pipewelding, as long as I don't have to mind any gaps [although I learned to do that the other too: it's all in the speed])
We got it fabbed up, and the second piece as well. Jaye finished the last cap on the first piece but had to go before we could mount it. I spent the rest of the day cleaning up our station and then talking to Bull. Bull doesn't seem to spend much time working, but he does get a lot done. He's easy going. Definitely, a good boss/foreman to have, thus far.
Bull asked me what I could work on. I was straightforward with him. Since we didn't mount the piece, I have nothing to measure off of. Everything is already tacked. I basically couldn't do anything. He didn't seem to mind. He told me to finish cleaning up and come to help him (where "help" didn't actually mean any work at all).
I have to say, every single interaction I've had with Bull has been neutral or better, at least on my end. I have no idea for him. I'm quite pleased to have a boss that isn't an asshole, and moreover, is quite fun to be with.
Bull and Spaz stayed late with me. We didn't get shit done. Although, I was given black spray paint for my welds to prevent the rust. I'll continue to do that. They found room in the gangbox for my tools. That is hospitality. I'm going to feel really bad about leaving Bull and Spaz, I think. We all stayed a bit later today, just shootin' the shit, looking for scissor lift in the building, etc.
Bull spends a lot of time talking about his daughter (3-4 years younger than me, similar story/ethos) with me. I do not quite understand it. I've not seen him talk about his daughter with others. Why me? His daughter, of course, is quite educated. Maybe he is using her story to get a feel for whom I am. I'm not sure. We definitely talked about plenty of politics today. I was as humble and cordial as I could be. We have serious ideological differences, although Bull is not an idiot. He's not educated, and that is his fault to some extent. I like how much he loves his daughter though; it's clear he has really worked to keep his bridges with her despite their serious differences.
I picked up our phones. I'm feeling confident enough in the job and the car to do this. Eth is my backup, but I hope we don't have to spend it (I anticipate another price rise). I also grabbed a bluetooth, rugged belt clip case for the phone, and the obligatory screen protector. I've yet to have a phone actually break in any way on me (I tend to be gentle with my electronics), but I know the job is tough on my body and things on my person. I also want easy access and to unburden my pockets a bit (and not to have things in my pocket banging my phone up). I think this is the best option. I believe it should last me for quite a long time. I know my other phones lasted forever.
!! Why should your son participate in the Boy Scouts of 'Murica?
* It is obvious to me that my son needs other male role models besides myself. There will be crucial times where he is not going to hear me, I fear. This is, of course, in no small part my fault. Other male role models and guides will possibly be incredibly useful to him.
* The friendships and experiences would be important markers, memories, and hopefully fill him with some confidence.
* He needs more social interaction.
* I think he would love the content of Boy Scouts.
** Seriously. This is the best reason.
** My son has traditionally masculine practices he enjoys, often enough.
* It would be "just his," which may motivate him and feel like he is special.
A couple problems. We'd need to find an active one. I'm not sure how much we can participate. This may not be possible until we have a car, and even then, I fear my wife would bear the largest burden here.
* [[2017.07.25 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** Edited.
* [[2017.07.25 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** Edited.
* [[2017.07.25 - Wiki Review Log]]
** Edited.
** Sometimes logs will be short, and sometimes they will be longer.
* [[2017.07.25 - Pipefitting Log]]
** Edited.
//I fell asleep before writing this one. I was too tired even for Fireman Time.//
* Woke up before the alarm.
* Bricks Pushed
* I worked hard until midday but didn't have as much to do in the latter half.
* I learned a lot about Bull and some about Spaz.
* I talked to my brother JRE.
* I tried to get a hold of my brother AIR
* I talked to my wife and my children.
** It was a tough talk. I'm really glad we had it though.
* I packed everything up into the car that way I could head home immediately after work the next day.
* I was one veggie tray short, so I ate fruit, nuts, and jerky for le dinner. Plus, I had a brownie!
** Btw, the brownies have been delicious. Thank you!
* I watched some IASIP, surfed, and worked on the Chromebook. Unfortunately, the wifi doesn't work in GalliumOS. I didn't have the willpower to debug and walk through the logs to see if I could fix it. I tried a live USB and also couldn't get wifi to work. I've tried on multiple APs, and it usually recognizes them.
** I need to find another way for my wife. I looked into options. I'll keep looking. She really needs a laptop. I'd give her mine, but I think I need it more right now. Let's wait until next week.
* I fell asleep very early. I was so tired. I kept waking up and going to sleep through the night.
* Root
* Unlock bootloader
* TWRP
* Backup
* Consider a different ROM!
* Tethering Tool
* Syncs
** One for the wiki, two for the show.
** Will go selective for our Resilio at large.
* Books, Music, Audio Books
* One pr0n for offline necessity
* Attempt to setup Tiddlyfox and Firefox
* Install ALL the apps!
* https://www.cdc.gov/men/lcod/2014/race-ethnicity/index.htm
** 1 in 40 men go anhero. Ouch. That is fucking high, right?
* https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/jul/25/sperm-counts-among-western-men-have-halved-in-last-40-years-study
** No need to procreate, I'm thinking.
** Go BPA! My moobs are huge.
** Also, reminds me of this gem among gems of experiments: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_sink
*** Yeah, sounds about right.
* https://www.troyhunt.com/passwords-evolved-authentication-guidance-for-the-modern-era/
** As usual, easier said than done in many respects.
* For my daughter:
** http://www.ocenaudio.com/
* https://www.technologyreview.com/s/608350/first-human-embryos-edited-in-us/
** Gattaca, Gattaca, barely even human!
* https://beyondhorizons.eu/lines-of-sight/
** What a silly and interesting place.
* https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/07/25/these-college-students-lost-access-to-legal-pot-and-started-getting-better-grades/
** Needs even more context. Particularize it further.
* https://www.buzzfeed.com/dominicholden/the-justice-department-just-argued-against-gay-rights-in-a
** What could go wrong?
** Also, Buzzfeed, yuck.
* https://digg.com/2017/sarah-h-sanders-press-briefing
** The new normal.
* https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/07/college-bubble-ends/534915/
** How incredibly brief! /business/ for ya
* https://www.commondreams.org/news/2017/07/26/colonialism-and-greed-trump-considers-afghan-war-expansion-exploit-minerals
** I am not surprised
* https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/07/bill-browders-testimony-to-the-senate-judiciary-committee/534864/
** =(
* https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/07/sci-hub-s-cache-pirated-papers-so-big-subscription-journals-are-doomed-data-analyst
** Hell yeah! Fuck Elsevier and the rest of those completely selfish assholes. May they be raped until they die a thousand deaths.
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBRqu0YOH14
** Positive Nihilism. It's quite the meme. I think syncretized Buddhism has this going for it.
I showed up at 7:05 today. Jaye was directly behind me (literally). We waited for about 10 minutes before Bull and Spaz showed up. I got some writing in, as usual.
It was wonderful being able to leave my tools on the jobsite in a gangbox. I really want that for every job site. I think it makes life significantly easier. You basically set up a little makeshift shop for yourself. Me like; me want. I need some kind of trunk or rooftop style gangbox that can be mounted with a lull. A truck bed would be ideal, obviously, but I'll work with whatever I have.
Bull told me that the pipe testers were coming. This meant that we needed to wait to mount the pieces we've made. He directed us to begin in the second bathroom, Room #2.
Jaye went immediately to welding the 90 and reducer for the Return on Room #1 while I started taking measurements. I've realized that I can a bit more leeway when I'm starting at the bottom first. I just need to be about right, I think. I will have to measure again anyways for the drop piece, right?
I have to tell ya', Room #2 sucks. The pipe is even higher in the ceiling, I believe, and there's no wall to sit or stand on. By OSHA standards, our tallest ladder still barely allows me to even reach the pipe I'm mounting. I was able to take measurements none the less. I think I'm going to really enjoy learning how to take field measurements. It's a real challenge, and even though I'm bad at it, I can see the value in being skilled at it.
I had to bring Bull in to tell me about this third connection he wants. I didn't see where he was tying in. Somehow the supply and return will be connected to a valve. This seems very odd to me. But, I didn't ask questions about it. I already ask enough of them. I need a 2" threadolet, but after searching, neither Bull nor I could find them. Thus, I'll work without it.
Jaye and I dragged our finished pieces into Room #1. We also looked at Room #2. I wanted him to see what we'd be working with. I showed him the ladder problem. He saw that he couldn't weld in-position using these ladders. The reducer would simply be too high, and this is too dangerous. We're going to "stand our ground" and make sure we have a better option.
I know that Bull doesn't want to use a lift because he doesn't want to break the delicate tile in these bathrooms. Unfortunately, the ladders we have now just aren't going to cut it. I think we are going to shoot for scaffolding. We need something, that's for sure.
I was trying to explain Jaye's argument to him. I think he didn't understand what I meant. My point to him was that there was no way for us to construct this entirely on the ground. We have to do it in 2 pieces, and that means he is required to do an in-position weld. But, we can't do the in-position weld with the equipment we have, nor can we safely mount it, I believe. I think these are two excellent reasons for acquiring other equipment.
For now, we're just going to continue fabricating and laying the pipes in their respective rooms.
I did a good job after the break of lining things up to be fitted+tacked and welded. Making assembly lines on the fly, that's what it do.
We talked to Bull about the second room. He agreed to a scaffold. He helped us mount the first piece in Room #1. We spent time aligning the hi-los on it and getting the hangar right. I gotta tell you, it just looks beautiful (dat industrial aesthetic).
Jaye and I finished mounting the first piece entirely. Of course, it was time for lunch. Jaye had to leave to visit his parole officer. This meant I didn't have a welder for the rest of the day. That's okay. I suited up and went on the roof to try and get some measurements. I have to say, I don't feel like I'm doing a good job. I'm not sure how to do it best.
Afterward, I came down. Bull asked me if I was on break. I told him I was on the roof taking measurements. I'm not sure he believed me. I think he thinks I was fucking around. I wasn't. That said, he may not have agreed to the procedure I was engaged in, and that alone may have counted as fucking around to him.
I kind of wish I had a "fishing pole" for lack of a better word. I'd like a long spirit level with measurements and a string with plumb bob that dropped off it that allowed me to see how far the string had dropped. I might be able to make one.
In the middle of our conversation, I figured out that he didn't know Jaye had left. I told him Jaye was gone. He didn't know. I thought Jaye would have told him, but I suppose it would be hard to explain the parole thing.
Bull had me help fit for Spaz. Spaz is crazy as fuck. Btw, we used a nipple to hold threadolets in places as we tacked them upside down (and later right side up). I think this is brilliant, and I wish I had been doing it all along. Some threaded pipe should be added to my "homemade" tool list. I also think I have two levels, that way I can just hit them all at once. Do they make a level with multiple dimensions? That would a damned useful tool.
In any case, I clumsily drove the scissor lift into place. Spaz kept barking orders at me, and I was nervous I did the best I could. I'm generally more competent than he saw, but again, I was nervous. He went up, and Spaz just starts crawling around. He was jumping on top of this thing. Rocking it. I didn't do a great job fitting for him, but he would claim he could "pull it" with a hot weld (which is true, but his pulls didn't' pan out half the time). He said it was good enough. He really didn't give a shit. We moved the lift a foot away, and then after going up, we realized Spaz left the threadolets on an HVAC until a few feet away. Spaz, 30 feet in the air, gets out of the lift, and like a monkey climbs along the rafters (without a harness) to retrieve these threadolets. That dude is fucking cray cray.
After we set down, Bull and I talked. He joked about how crazy Spaz is. My brother is right, btw, some people are likely kept on the job simply because they are crazy enough to the jobs that others aren't. Bull joked that I needed to read another Psychology book since I'm a psych major.
I am continually surprised by the number of people I run into who confuse Psychology and Philosophy. I feel like I'm mingling with ignorant heathens, no doubt.
Also, I realized something. Bull is constantly shit-testing me in conversations. He's trying to get a read on me. The fact that I found his daughter interesting, and that I may have agreed with some of the things she believes is not in my favor. I didn't realize that might be held against me. I think Bull thinks that I am just another millennial. He hates millennials. Of course, he considers himself a good old boy, a fair man, and a crazy hard worker. I grant, he knows how to work when the time comes. He is a proud no-nothing conservative. I can only do my best not to piss him off.
!! What do you think of mental illness?
Is mental illness "bad" by definition? The name seems to imply it. That's how it is used. Of course, people can be wrong. They can frame words so narrowly that they aren't able to understand the real concept they are pursuing.
Deviance isn't necessarily a bad thing, at least not unconditionally. That entitled truism "be yourself" seems quite reasonable in many cases of neuroatypicalism.
What if your deviance tends to be a bad thing for you in the society in which you live. Does that count as an illness? If it's maladaptive, why not? Maladaptive for whom?
Let's push it with a crazy example. Being a woman in history was meant you may have had lower average utility than being a man for most of human history. Does that mean being a woman is having "an illness?" Why not?
What about being transgender? The lack of acceptance, the Redpill problems you will face, are tremendous. That cascades into many other kinds of problems, including isolation, depression, suicidal tendencies, homelessness, etc. Being an outcast sucks.
You can see that drawing the lines for "illness" is ridiculously hard to do. Further, it is not obvious what counts as "mental" either.
One thing seems important: neurotribes are at war with each other, whether they realize it or not. Memetic survival played out in genetics is a real thing.
Ultimately, I don't know where to even begin to answer this question. It seems so obvious at first glance, but I don't have the tools or definitions that allow me to offer any kind of satisfactory answer beyond the "you know it when you see it" intuitionist casuistry which doesn't lend itself to discourse beyond "do you see what I see?"
My children were excited and intrigued by the thought of unschooling. I am pleased that they see possibilities for this style of schooling. I'm excited to see what they do with this newfound power.
* [[Mobile Phone To-Do-Checklist]]
** Have a plan. I really need it up and running asap. I know exactly what I want out of desktops, laptops, SoCs, etc. Phones are their own beasts. They still don't meet my expectations and needs, but I should continue to try and find a way to maximize their utility in my life.
* [[2017.07.26 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** My wife and I talked about it. It may not be the best idea. Walking through the books, however, seems useful. The badges, pride, and poor moral training they receive in Boy Scouts aren't what I want for him though.
* [[2017.07.26 - Pipefitting Log]]
** Edited: added the phone part. I forgot.
* [[2017.07.26 - Wiki Review Log]]
** Edited, Edited, Edited. I should say what I've edited.
* [[2017.07.26 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** Maybe I should have a notes section. Notes are different from Carpe Diem, right? I fear I'm entering the territory of something not useful enough in itself. I have to be ruthless with my logs.
*** I should ask my wife what she thinks. She has a good eye.
* I slept too much. I could feel it. That said, the alarm clock woke me up out of my dreams.
** I'm probably feeling depressed. I must take DCK this weekend. I probably shouldn't take cannabis, as I'm not completely certain I'm passing these tests (the line isn't very bright on the test). I could be called upon any week now for that Yates job.
*** I have no idea how I'm going to handle it. I would like to have a way back int the door here if I ever needed it. I definitely want to thank them. I doubt they will take it gracefully, but we'll see.
* I felt anxious, but also happy. I love Fridays!
* I packed the remaining stuff into the car (a single load that I can't pack the night before).
* I worked hard.
* For lunch, I went to Wendy's again for the wi-fi and dollar menu. The dollar menu worked, the wi-fi didn't this time. =( I was really hoping to talk to my children and wife.
** Fear not! For soon you shall have tethering and they will have phones!
* At 3, I hit the "Home" button. It was so satisfying. I wore my sandals for the trip too.
* The car ride was one of the worst of my life. My GPS unit took me on difficult back roads with stop light towns the whole way. It took an extra half hour. My car was dying, my phone didn't work. It was fucking awful.
* I got home, got my hugs, and took a shower.
* Kids installed their new mattresses.
* Inform the Men!
* We got pizza and beer, and we watched GoT.
* Fell asleep to Tosh.
The Kite Runner is an amazing book. I'm only part way through it, and it's crushing me.
My family and The Farley's, except Aaron, were in a tent outside College Heights UMC. I was a teenager again, and my brothers were their respective ages. My parents were trying to convince Flint and Kathy that there was something insidiously wrong with Aaron. Snakes tongues. I stepped in and defended Aaron against the lies and manipulative statements. I told it like it was, but it didn't work. So, I added rhetoric. I fought fire with fire, and I wasn't happy about it. Rational argumentation as not enough by itself. It was a verbal battle. The Farley's embraced me and went to find Aaron. My parents lost face, and the car ride home was very difficult. It then became kind of nightmare about them judging me.
---
I woke up with my usual headache. My chest was tight. Clearly, I was anxious in my own dreams!<<ref "1">> My right hand was numb and cold. I didn't have an erection (thank God, amiright?).
---
<<footnotes "1" "Queue something about The Matrix's absurd rule.">>
!! How is your health? Daily routine?
I'm getting more sleep. My rash is slowly clearing up, but I have a ton of cuts and burns on me from working. I'm sore, but it's doable. I don't feel as anxious this week, although, I may be feeling a bit more depressed.
---
!! What happened? How do you feel about it? What made you feel this way? Does it make you happy or unhappy? Why or why not?
I've given my daughter the entire summer to get her act together on our school plan. She's been a complete fuck up. My son has done better but still oscillates heavily. I'm desperate to find anything that will work. Public schools start in 2 weeks. We're going to try unschooling until then.
It sucks coming home and just being angry, saddened, despairing, and disappointed with my children. It's not the life I want to lead with them. We've tried everything we know how to do. We're at our wit's end. So, now, I'm lifting my expectations. I'll treat them like adults for whom I have a responsibility to feed, cloth, shelter, and talk to.
You chose to be autonomous, children. Welcome to the beginnings of adulthood.
---
!! Can you better explain what happened? Do you have a technological, philosophical, empathic, or redpilled story to tell about the phenomenon? Clarify the narrative you just told yourself.
We have no power to make our children do their work. There are no carrots or sticks available to us that work. We have reasoned with them. We've been patient. We've done our best. It's not working.
I'm giving them the power now. If they want to fuck it up, then they will. It's on them. I'm here to help if and when they want it.
The consequences are tremendous, but at some point, they have to take responsibility for themselves. They have to choose to learn. I can't make them. They have to find the will to become the kind of person who is interested in empathizing with themselves, progressing, and improving their lives. I can't do it alone; it takes two to tango.
---
!! What are you going to do about what happened?
They can play ball my way and not pay rent post-18, or they can do it their way and pay rent. I think they need to see they have goals to work towards. Being a functioning adult is one big one. I should probably think about this more.
I arrived early. I edited yesterday's pipefitting log in the car since I forgot some stuff. Jaye and Bull showed up at the same time. Spaz is in Florida. I wrote a bit more and then got my gear all set.
Bull seems more standoffish today to me. Jaye brought it up as well. I'm not sure what is up.
We had a drop cord get chewed or burned up yesterday. Bull wasn't happy about it, and when we tested it today, it failed. Drop cords don't live long here (or they get stolen).
Jaye and I talked about the comments we received on our work. My flange isn't halfway, and the slag came outside. This is considered my fault, but after the slag was removed it was fine. Further, they don't like when Jaye sits to weld, but this is dumb, imho. Sitting comfortably is extremely valuable (that's like welding 101). Jaye isn't lazy, no sir. He is doing it the right way. They don't seem to like that.
We mounted the Return pipe in Room #1. It wasn't easy. Interestingly, the Supply pipe became unlevel overnight. It raised up off our hangar! I don't understand how. But, I feel better than the pipe on the other side of mine is not level to the same degree. It can't be simply me.
We started working Room #2's bottom pipe work again. There's no way we can hang it though. There's no scaffold. I may just continue to fab pipe if we don't have the right safety equipment. I feel like we already taking risks that I said I'd never take.
We finished up the pipe for Room #2, at least on the bottom. I asked for help mounting the threaded flanges on the roof. Jaye fucked it up badly, and he left. I needed his counterweight. I need to develop a better relationship of trust and understand with my welder.
Jaye was off today. He felt racially harassed by Bull, I believe. Bull seems cool enough with me, but he isn't fair towards Jaye, imho. Bull claimed that he disliked when welders sat down to weld, as Jaye had been doing. Jaye's cinder block seats were disappearing. Ironically, Bull was using cinderblocks to sit on while welding all day today. I think this is hypocritical. As cool as Bull might be with me, I can't trust him.
I had talked to Bull about his threadolet nipples. This was an inventive tool. He joked about patenting them. I found them useful today, yet again. I decided to show him my flange wrench at the end of day. I showed him what I had made. He "liked it" so much he asked to borrow it for the weekend since he would be installing flanges all weekend. I think he was just being friendly about it. The wrench has a nice heft and size, but my bolts aren't ribbed to catch.
!! Define Unschooling
It's a method of allowing your children to guide their own studies. It reminds me of the Dewey Method. It has obvious risks and flaws. The worry, of course, is that a child isn't wise, experienced, or intelligent enough to direct their own studies. It's a double-edged sword. This risk is also what may be its greatest. It's a tool to force children to do what adults have to do in their own studies. It is a motivational tool. It's very much like the real world.
It allows a child to focus on what matters to them. Nothing is forced, everything is chosen. There aren't timeslots, categories, etc. It's about managing your own time and energy.
It seems hard to believe for most folks. The notion of collusion people use seems to extend solely into detailed choreographed plans and absolute cooperation, not allowing for chaos, competition, etc. The Libertarian mental virus infects us so strongly that the framework for our enslavement arises piecemeal, naturally, and without any cabal for master guidance.
Banks are beginning to own everything. Look at housing and the latest incarnations of rent-seeking. Indentured slavery is quite real.
Company towns come in degrees and kinds. And, it seems obvious that large power structures mimic this. Physical proximity is almost irrelevant in a digital world. This makes it so that our tools for fighting back shrink. We aren't a physical threat.
* [[2017.07.27 - Unschool Log]]
** I hope to have many more to write.
* [[Unschool Log]]
** /fingers-crossed
* [[2017.07.27 - Link Log]]
** I really do have moobs.
* [[2017.07.27 - Wiki Review Log]]
** Glad I made that To-Do-Checklist
* [[2017.07.27 - Pipefitting Log]]
** It seems like that Bull and Spaz have racist tendencies.
* [[2017.07.27 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** Edited.
* Woke up early, but still very sleepy. Alcohol does not lend itself to good sleeping patterns.
* Layed there with my wife.
* Started working on our phones.
* Woke kids up to clean up their room.
* Took many tries to get the right TWRP and Magisk to actually function. Unlocking the bootloader, GAPPS, and LineageOS were easy.
* I bricked my daughter's phone trying to make something work. Luckily, we didn't give up and I found a tricky hack to get it working again.
* We got our phone service, and on the way back the car started acting really fucked up.
* Talked to my brother JRE.
* I freaked out. We borrowed a neighbor's car and tried to find any used car lots actually open late on a Saturday. No dice except one. The man was the previous UA Pipefitting president/business manager, the one fired for scamming. He was very slimy. I decided not to waste $1k above KBB on such an untrustworthy person.
** We'll rent or a week and buy on Saturday. I found another lot that I liked.
* Moana watched. It was meh.
* Spoke at length with Gary. He's a cool guy.
** The crab reminds me of "Goodbye Moon Man" from Rick and Morty
* Cashed out our Eth, and set up a withdrawal into our bank account. It will hit Friday.
See my new [[Pipefitting Portfolio]].
I have a phone with a data plan now. Everyone in my family does. This will make life considerably easier and more connected.
Unfortunately, the car has taken turn for the worse. We are scrambling to find a solution. Mobility is hard.
!! Rank the Top 3 Disney Princesses in Terms of "Doability"
# Jasmine
# Ariel
# 'Kida' Kidagakash
I've literally spilled seed to these cartoons. I don't know what to say. That's part of the conditioning my generation received during the Disney Renaissance. I'd fuck the living shit out of all the toons. Before there was explicitly Rule 34, there were these characters.
* [[2017.07.28 - Company Towns, Nations, and World]]
** Far too brief. I don't feel like writing it out though.
* [[2017.07.28 - h0p3's Log]]
** Technically, should have been the day before. But, it is what it is.
* [[2017.07.28 - Wiki Review Log]]
** So many fingers are crossed lately.
* [[2017.07.28 - Pipefitting Log]]
** I wonder why I had so little to say on this day.
* [[2017.07.28 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** Meh.
* [[2017.07.28 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** A bad day turned better.
* [[2017.07.27 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** Traveling makes it really hard to complete it sometimes.
* [[2017.07.28 - Dream Log]]
** Yup.
* [[Dream Log]]
** Perhaps useless. I'm betting so. We will see.
* Woke up before 7:00, and just laid with my wife.
* Played ARAM.
* Watched league with daughter, set up my phone some.
* Inform the Men!
* Shower
* Inform the Men!
* Donuts & Coffee
* ARAM
* Picked up a rental.
* Talked to ALM. Got his account working, sent him info to log in.
* Family meeting; it went well.
* Prepared and packed for leaving.
* Our Roast was outstanding (thank you, love!)
* I traveled.
** T-Mobile coverage sucked.
** I listened to a bit of Revisionist History
** After coverage dropped, I listened to The Kite-Runner. God damn, that is a good book.
* I arrived and unpacked as I talked with my family. I love it
* Wrote my wiki while talking with my wife.
* Fireman Time!
** Internet sucks on weekend nights especially at this house.
* Mr. Robot before sleep.<<ref "2018.12.02">>
---
<<footnotes "2018.12.02" "I think this show helped me keep my sanity. It was brain-candy, Marxist-Anarchist, and in my bailiwick. I don't sleep to new shows anymore.">>
!! How has your health been this week?
* 1uxb0x
** Good, besides stuffy nose, and 2 meltdowns.
* j3d1h
** Normal. Soda water may not be good for the throat.
* k0sh3k
** Twisted ankle. Sore. Also, sleepy.
* h0p3
** I have serious bruising near my pelvis. Black streaks and burst blood vessels.
** I have UV burns, primarily on one arm.
** I have some weld-metal burns on me that are healing.
** The rashes have subsided mostly.
---
!! What happened last week? Have you been happy this past week? Why or why not?
* 1uxb0x
** Sad and happy. Unschooling. Feels sad because he feels like he has failed, but happy because he feels like this will be fun. He's hopeful.
* j3d1h
** Happy about unschooling looks at it as an opportunity.
** Loves her new phone, thinks it will be happy and fun.
* k0sh3k
** It's been a good week, except the car and bowl getting broken.
** Mostly happy.
* h0p3
** I felt better at work in general.
** I've felt depressed and anxious, especially towards the end of the week.
** The phones were a triumph and the car defeat.
---
!! What is a positive fact or compliment we can say about each person in the family?
* 1uxb0x
** I think it is very interesting that you are taking up woodworking and carpentry. I think that's a really useful and interesting passion to develop.
** I see that you have overcome the conflict with your friend Jojo. You decided to forgive him, and you recognized that friendships require work, overcoming difficulties, and that forgiveness is a part of being a friend.
** Several times you have taken deep breaths, calming down, and trying to control your attitude and behavior. Keep it up!
* j3d1h
** Thank you for helping me set up the phones. You have a good attitude, and you didn't give up. You dove headfirst into a different ecosystem.
** You helped everybody. Not just the phones. Over the week, there were lots of little things, including helping us cook. I hope you continue to do so.
** Thank you for making cards for a game that my friends I could play.
* k0sh3k
** Thank you for taking the risk to allow us to unschool.
** Thank you for putting up with my anxiety, for remaining calm, for helping solve the problem, and for forgiving me. Thank you for being rational when I was not.
** It's cool that you are learning to use your phone.
* h0p3
** Thank you for having trust/faith in me to unschool.
** Thank you for dealing with injuries and pain in your work to help us live happier lives.
** Thank you for doing all the planning and shopping for the phones.
---
!! What will you do this week? Name at least one fun objective and one unfun objective.
* 1uxb0x
** Learn how to make a cane.
** Improve friendship with Jojo
* j3d1h
** Find a cool hack for the phone.
** Try to do something useful for unschooling.
* k0sh3k
** Reorganized the ILL workroom/workflow.
** Finish Norse Mythology book
* h0p3
** Finalize my phone customization
** Find a car.
//I keep losing tons of saved browser tabs (I don't know how or why).//
* https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/mike-pence-vice-president-presidential-inauguration-maxine-waters-a7867216.html
** Independent, yeah, I realize. Probably true.
* https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/jul/29/unpaid-intern-damage-graduate-career-pay
** Capitalism is a good thing, right?
Rented a vehicle for the week. I'm waiting on Eth money, a paycheck, and an extremely generous $500 gift from my father-in-law (who refused not to give it to us). We'll buy a vehicle on Saturday with the money.
T-Mobile Coverage blows through the mountains. Verizon is still king. My bluetooth headset is wonderful. I'm sold immediately.
!! Respond to the following image:<<ref "2018.12.02">>
<center> [img width=500 [./images/Mobility.jpg]] </center>
Seems like a clean metaphor for privilege. From a privileged position, it's all too easy to mistake one's climb as being identical another's, particularly when we conveniently ignore the obvious.
I often see psychopaths wield the "envy retort" as a rhetorical shield without merit. Perhaps they'll just talk about Moral Luck as well. When all else fails, they can move to "life isn't fair," and even move to a kind of gnostically defended Randian Objectivism.
Not all climbs are equal. Not all opportunities are equal. You may have traveled the same distance, but that isn't the same as saying the journey was the same or even reasonably similar.
---
<<footnotes "2018.12.02" "This was an interesting experiment. Unfortunately, it does not jive with keeping a completely self-contained, tiny (for the amount of content) wiki.">>
* [[2017.07.29 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** But, glad I got drunk. It's been a while.
* [[2017.07.29 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** It's Fireman Time!
* [[2017.07.28 - Cry Log]]
** The book is amazing. It's much darker than I had ever thought it would be.
* [[2017.07.29 - Wiki Review Log]]
** I'm trying something new today. I just premade them. That way I'm not annoyed and I can fill them out. I also synced in advance.
* [[2017.07.29 - Pipefitting Log]]
** Praise the maker!
* [[Pipefitting Portfolio]]
** I forgot what I made the first week. I should make sure I always have a picture of something, especially if I'm moving from job to job.
* Woke up right before the alarm, and I was tired as fuck.
* I couldn't push out any bricks! Why, lord, why? I eat my vegetables!
* Listened to the rest of the first episode of Malcolm Gladwell's //Revisionist History// podcast. It was outstanding.
* I worked hard.
* I spoke with my children during breaks and lunch.
** I think I should call my wife, but I really don't want to bother her.
** I texted my wife and my brother JRE.
* I talked to my kids on the way back from work. I'm glad to have the chance to speak with them.
* After work was...crazy. I was driving into my street, and there were cops pulling in everywhere. They weren't pulling me over, so I thought it was weird but acceptable. I wanted to get into my driveway. I noticed, however, that the cops started bunching there. They start yelling at me to run away, pulling their pistols and shotguns as they motioned and took cover behind their cars. A dozen cop cars eventually came as I tried to get out of the jam, and 2 helicopters circled overhead. The house directly across the street from mine was having a shootout with the cops.
** I decided to see if I could sit and wait it out as I talked to my son about it. No dice.
** I went to a nearby Mexican restaurant. They had to find a waiter who could speak English. She was clearly annoyed with me the entire time. Stupid gringo, I guess?
** My phone stopped working. Okay.
** Authentic enchiladas, skirt steak, and black beans were the calming drug I needed.
*** Take it back, got a "Foh-tee" and some cake for my birthday.
* I had a vid chat with my family.
* I forgot my towel. /facepalm. I went to take a shower super late at night and noticed I forgot my towel.
* A bit of League before bed.
* https://www.buzzfeed.com/janecoaston/its-kid-rocks-party-now?utm_term=.qyzLyPBPP&bftwnews#.ctAaz8d88
** Yes, Buzzfeed, that //is// probably true.
* https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jul/30/palantir-peter-thiel-cia-data-crime-police
** Privatizing Big Brother
** The wealthy and powerful are at war with each other and especially against us.
** /wave, hi, Palantir, /middle-finger
*** I'm betting my link choices alone from my Link log are damning enough
* https://www.engadget.com/2017/07/30/russian-censorship-law-bans-proxies-and-vpns/
** *sigh
* https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/07/linkedin-its-illegal-to-scrape-our-website-without-permission/
** Fucking selfish retards. I swear. People do not understand the underlying structure and concept of the internet.
* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14896774
** Who do they think is actually in power?
* For my daughter:
** https://i.redd.it/8f1xvxrk6vcz.jpg
* https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/07/internalizing-the-myth-of-meritocracy/535035/
** Nipping that shit in the bud.
I arrived early. Bull showed up at 7:02, and Jaye after that.
We brought Room #2's pipe into the room. We then went to take measurements. We had to use a lift to get through a weird opening in the roof. It was scary, and I'm glad I had my harness. It's the first time that I felt I deeply needed it. Jaye doesn't have a harness (I offered mine for the crossing), but he feels emasculated by it. For a couple things he says he will use it though. This is his first job (minus an ironworker job way back in the day) where he has been working up way high in the air. He told me to get a fab shop job, immediately.
We took final measurements and came back down. We cut the pipe and tacked it up.
After the break, we went back up to take measurements for the second pipe, the return. This was trickier, as it was offset without much space. None of the usual tricks would work (had to butt up 45's to make it). Thank goodness for the plumb bob. No wonder I had so much trouble with the measurements by myself! I really needed Jaye's help, and I'm glad I had it this time.
The math didn't work out. I eventually asked for Bull's help. He showed me his method. It worked (and I know because I verified with the actual fucking fittings being measured in my hand). I figured out what I did wrong. I've never butted up 2 45's against each other like this, and I failed to reason my way into using the Pythagorean in a fitting way. Duh. This bit me in the ass again when I got the long part of the twisted "L" spool wrong. Thankfully, it was too long, and I could just cut it.
I gotta say, I feel really embarrassed and stupid for making this mistake. I'm not sure if I should tell Bull about how I figured it out or not. He has his way, and I doubt he cares about mine. He uses the x, x/2, x/4, x/8, add the 2nd and 4th together method instead of multiplying by 5/8. He also does the division by 1.414 constant instead of proving it to himself.
At lunch, my teacher called me. That Yates job at Eastman is going to start next Monday. 50 hours per week @ 23.50 per hour for 4 months. Depending on how OT works, that is at least $16k. Sweet, sweet green next to my house (and not in a shitty neighborhood?), sign me up!
I kept Jaye busy welding most of the day. I did well there.
At the end of the day, I decided to check Room #2's pipe again, just because I felt like I needed to. I did, and it turned out that I had made the return pipe far longer than it needed. I got the ladder and checked the supply, just in case, but it worked fine. I then cut all the pipe I needed and set us up for success tomorrow.
I made a bunch of mistakes, but they didn't cost us much. I want to continue making mistakes, if I have to make them at all, in such a way that they cost me as little as possible. I'm glad I caught them relatively early.
!! Redpill Moral Licensing
Frankly, it is already a very redpilled notion, I believe.
Moral licensing is the process of feeling insured against charges of moral vice through limited evidential instances of virtue signaling. It's a fake virtue signal used to generate a free pass to actually be themselves, to be immoral. The goal is to appear sufficiently good/right, but not to actually be so.
This is the moral appearance economy at play.
On a tangent: I think I would be a dangerous user of Palantir's services. I would be deeply interested in trying to pick out instances of moral licensing, in attempting to uncover the intentions behind people's actions, in trying to determine who they really are. Of course, once it is known that this is tracked, people may try to virtue signal their way out of it (the evidential bar is simply raised). This is poor (but perhaps better than nothing) way of hunting psychopathy in populations.
Of course, I don't trust myself with such a power, and I definitely don't trust others with it. Hence, I ought not to do it. Do you like my virtue signaling?
Moral licensing simply shows who and what we really are: selfish.
I inject dangerous and powerful memes into my children like a mad scientist. I try to be that neurosurgeon who removes their autonomy on this topic, who programs his own children to the best self-teaching AI-bots pursuing wisdom possible. I want them to be as wise as they possibly can, whether they wanted it to begin with or not. I move fast and break things in my frantic approach to teaching them to be philosophers. I am so unwise that I can never teach wisdom effectively, yet I must be as effective as I can (and I will fail that too). I am profoundly flawed and fallible, unfit for this task, and bad at it to boot. I will never be the dad that my children deserve. Yet, I must strive to be that man.
I hope to be the man on whose shoulders my children stand, and I hope to be a giant for them. I must help them climb that mountain, to be the best goddamn sherpa I can be.
What kind of dad teaches his 7 year-old First Order Logic with light splashes of Second Order logic and metalogic?
Will they ever forgive me? I wrestle so brutally with them on this topic. I give them no windows or outs. I am constantly forcing them to look at it, to engage in it, to learn about it. I give them every angle I know how. This wiki exists in part to demonstrate Wisdom is the infinigressing Good of The Good for us.
* [[2017.07.30 - Link Log]]
** I should save porn links.
* [[2017.07.30 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** I need men to inform or my wife does (I'm down for that :P).
* [[2017.07.30 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** I should start saving pictures.
* [[2017.07.30 - Wiki Review Log]]
** And, having malt liquor today.
* [[2017.07.30 - Pipefitting Log]]
** I like that I write short ones on my days off too. I still do stuff for work even when I'm not actually working.
* [[2017.07.30 - Family Log]]
** No, you smell bad. I can smell you from here! Also your digital + spatial reasoning kind of suck. I love you anyways.
!! Log:
* [[2017.08.01 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.08.02 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.08.03 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.08.04 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.08.05 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.08.06 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.08.07 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.08.08 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.08.09 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.08.10 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.08.11 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.08.12 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.08.13 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.08.14 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.08.15 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.08.16 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.08.17 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.08.18 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.08.19 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.08.20 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.08.21 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.08.22 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.08.23 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.08.24 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.08.25 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.08.26 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.08.27 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.08.28 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.08.29 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.08.30 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.08.31 - Carpe Diem Log]]
!! Audit:
* It's good that I call people.
* Brick pushing was largely irrelevant. Good riddance to that shit.
* I am so glad that I get to speak with my kids during the day, even if only for small things.
* There are clear patterns and even routines in my behavior. I have normalized so much compared to last year.
* Thank goddess for cannabliss
* I feel like I've been using my weekends very wisely. The [[To-Do-List Log]] is excellent and clearly related in the process. Preparation is great, as is cleanup. Being able to take the family out to do things is amazing. I'm glad I have the energy and the money for it.
* League is almost gone from my habits, except watching.
* My amount of free time has been compressed and soaked up, no doubt.
* Sleep is harder to come by, but mostly because there aren't enough hours in the day.
* I've almost stopped watching new things on the TV.
* Some of the planning in this log actually came to fruition.
* I am always impressed with how much I pack into such a short list. It's the barebones, organized well, chronological, and gives me skinny I need for analysis.
* One thing I like about it is that it causes me to continually think about the day in its entirety. It prevents me from having tunnel vision to some degree.
* Less Fireman Time than usual this month, I believe.
* It has been a hard month, but a rewarding one.
* We finally broke even and started moving into the black again. Safety, security, mobility, and happiness.
* It feels like I talked about my son more often here than other family members.
* I am barely completing my wiki some nights.
* Still having trouble finding shows we love.
* Vehicle trouble still. It sucks.
* Weekdays have been simplified, no doubt. I'm living for the weekends.
* I've spent a lot of time on my tools. I feel like I'm getting close to having what I need for the job. At the beginning of the month, I had almost nothing.
!! Log:
* [[2017.08.13 - DCK Meditation]]
* [[2017.08.20 - DCK Meditation]]
!! Audit:
* The first meditation is frankly brief.
* I think it is important that I'm not interrupted when I'm doing this work. When the family comes home from church, I have the immediate urge to go hug them. I think I need to concentrate.
* Change is hard. I can see the work here.
* It still messes with my sleep schedule. I need to take it very early.
* I haven't been taking it every single week. It's on and off. But, sometimes, that's the best I can do.
!! Log:
* [[2017.08.06 - Family Log]]
* [[2017.08.13 - Family Log]]
* [[2017.08.20 - Family Log]]
* [[2017.08.27 - Family Log]]
!! Audit:
* Overall, the children have been significantly happier this month. That is not nothing.
* My children didn't try harder. They have to figure it out. =(
* Drugs clearly helped me.
* I'm so glad the itchiness is basically gone.
** Coconut oil is preventative!
* I didn't accomplish as many of my goals as I usually do. It's been a crazy month, of course.
** We all screwed up a bunch here.
* Kids feel better, the adults do not.
* Compliments are "thank you" heavy.
* I must say, I feel like my children are still recovering from a whirlwind of a year. Give it time.
* My wife has been plagued by staffing problems and bureaucracy.
* Perhaps gaming is a bad idea? I don't know.
* Our financial position has improved tremendously.
** I would like to thank my father-in-law and my brother JRE.
!! Log:
* [[2017.08.04 - Link Log]]
* [[2017.08.05 - Link Log]]
* [[2017.08.12 - Link Log]]
* [[2017.08.19 - Link Log]]
* [[2017.08.21 - Link Log]]
* [[2017.08.26 - Link Log]]
* [[2017.08.27 - Link Log]]
!! Audit:
* Clearly, this only happens once or twice a week.
* I save a few up usually. My poor RAM/swapfile!
* I've embraced the archetypes, clearly.
* Often, I say nothing. I guess I'll have to be okay with that for now.
** That said, much of the wiki is that.
* My daughter has a ton of links.
* There isn't much critical analysis anymore. =( That makes me sad.
!! Log:
* [[2017.08.01 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.08.02 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.08.03 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.08.04 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.08.05 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.08.06 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.08.07 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.08.08 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.08.09 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.08.10 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.08.11 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.08.12 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.08.13 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.08.14 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.08.15 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.08.16 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.08.17 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.08.18 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.08.19 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.08.20 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.08.21 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.08.22 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.08.23 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.08.24 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.08.25 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.08.26 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.08.27 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.08.28 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.08.29 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.08.30 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.08.31 - Pipefitting Log]]
!! Audit:
* Unless I'm talking with people, having valuable things to listen to in my downtime, particularly while traveling, is wonderful.
* I never contacted Jaye. Why?
* I feel like I've grown so much in this past month. Jesus, just look at the difference.
* Worksites and people are so radically different. I know it is obvious, but somehow still hard to get through my head.
* I did more direct "real" pipefitting at my last job.
* I'm still learning a metric fuckton.
* I've not gotten over my fear of heights, but I've dealt with it decently.
* Being on time is always useful. It's hard to get rid of you when you show up.
* The irony was not lost on me: I've worked with a Bull and a Bear, lol.
* I do a lot of lists. I think that's okay.
* I'm very unhappy that I don't get to type on the computer during breaks and lunch. That was a very productive writing time for me.
* I've started employing Break! and Lunch! timeline markers. This is good.
* I either need to type on my phone or write in my notebook, or both. This is way harder, unfortunately. I need to make sure I keep it up.
* I feel like I'm developing the right tools, and I'm learning the landscape further. I have a long way to go, but I will figure out how to accelerate through much of this, I believe.
* Good fucking job, homie!
!! Log:
* [[2017.08.01 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.08.02 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.08.03 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.08.04 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.08.05 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.08.06 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.08.07 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.08.08 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.08.09 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.08.10 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.08.11 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.08.12 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.08.13 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.08.14 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.08.15 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.08.16 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.08.17 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.08.18 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.08.19 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.08.20 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.08.21 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.08.22 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.08.23 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.08.24 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.08.25 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.08.26 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.08.27 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.08.28 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.08.29 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.08.30 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.08.31 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
!! Audit:
* Okay, I miss responding to images. I need to do that more. I've just not been surfing enough to find images I think are really worthy.
* I believe you do get a feeling for who I am through the introspections.
** Does this simply stroke my ego, or does it help me more directly?
* They are now quite short.
* I notice that I am more likely to re-read these over the course of the month than any other log. I personally enjoy reading what I wrote, thinking about it, and wondering, etc.
* This log and [[h0p3's Log]] evoked the strongest reactions from your parents.
* Some of the work is lame, of course.
** But, I can't expect myself to provide gold the entire time. There has to be a happy medium, particularly contextualized to the amount of time and energy I can pour into this.
* Sometimes I feel like I already know what I want to say, it is just a vehicle to say it.
* I actually used my Ideabag a ton.
** Filling the ideabag while high was a great idea.
* It has a kind of /b/ thing going on in how random and off the wall it can be. It can be about anything. Often it isn't directly introspective either.
* Several of these started out as notes I wrote down on paper first.
* Several of these prompts and answers are humorous. To what extent does this mean I don't take it seriously?
* I am clearly interested in reading the blogs of my friends and family. I don't want to participate on awful social media sites, but I do care about how they are feeling, what they are thinking, where they are, what they are doing, etc. I wish everyone had a wiki, seriously. It would make life better for us all.
* I think this log is changing, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing. I think I'm getting a hold of it, but now I need to steer it more (but, that's hard to do without knowing the destination). So, keep it afloat?
!! Log:
* [[2017.08.12 - To-Do-List Log]]
* [[2017.08.19 - To-Do-List Log]]
* [[2017.08.26 - To-Do-List Log]]
!! Audit:
* So simple, so elegant, and so fucking obvious. I feel so stupid for not just doing it.
** Forgive yourself. This isn't about fault, and it's spilled milk. Do your best, and enjoy what you have. Be pragmatic and stoic.
* I feel so productive, and I'm happy with my weekends.
* I stopped using cross-throughs.
* I don't always get everything done, but I get the majority it.
* I think the use of it doesn't actually have a list that I look at to see what I need to get done, but rather just taking the time to even think about what I even want to accomplish in my scant free time.
* I still don't quite have it figured out. I don't know what does or doesn't belong on the list, why, etc.
** Give it time and practice, yo!
!! Log:
* [[2017.08.01 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.08.02 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.08.03 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.08.04 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.08.05 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.08.06 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.08.07 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.08.08 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.08.09 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.08.10 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.08.11 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.08.12 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.08.13 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.08.14 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.08.15 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.08.16 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.08.17 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.08.18 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.08.19 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.08.20 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.08.21 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.08.22 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.08.23 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.08.24 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.08.25 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.08.26 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.08.27 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.08.28 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.08.29 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.08.30 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.08.31 - Wiki Review Log]]
!! Audit:
* Brief!
** ...to the point that I generally write one-liners. Still pleased with it though.
* I don't edit as much.
* I probably am not working as hard as I need to on this review system. Brief is fine. Not being careful is not fine.
** But, I will forgive myself because it has been, again, another insanely busy month.
* Haven't found another podcast I like. I'm stuck with books, for now, I think.
* My [[Wiki Review Log]] and [[Link Log]] seem to have a ton in common at this point. I use short comments or archetypal ones. It borders on passing footnotes and inane commentary. Still, I think it is useful. I can't expect good moves the entire time.
* It's difficult to know how much I'd lose not be engaging in this practice. The "having a conversation with myself" aspect isn't nicely analyzed. I have the data to do it here though.
* I think an outsider would find this useless.
* I feel like a lot of the content in this log is a two-way passage between other logs; it's a place for integration in addition to its other functions.
* ALM started his own wiki. I think this is very interesting considering what I thought he thought earlier in the month.
* Kite Runner, not Kite-Runner. I've seen that in multiple mistakes in places, I swear.
* Drugs, as usual, have been on my mind.
* It has been another tough month, but they keep looking better and better. I'm really happy about that.
* I will stop using a week before the shutdown. I anticipate by the end of it, I'll want a week off. That should give me plenty of time to clear it all out while maximizing my usage.
* I felt unproductive in the wiki many times this month. That's okay. It has been an insane month, seriously.
* I like that I joke with myself in this log.
* I do love Charlie.
* A lot of context is found in this log. Tidbits I want to say about the wiki that doesn't belong anywhere else as well...
* Grammar has gotten worse. What does this mean?
* I am slowly adding more to the [[Pipefitting]] section. I need time to develop it as best as I can.
* Omg, I slept! I woke up before the alarm, and I was satisfied! So rare. I fell asleep hard and early last night.
* I got dressed, Pushed Serious Bricks (not silly ones, goddamnit).
* I worked hard.
* I spoke with my children a few times at work.
* Communicated with my teacher and my wife, as well as some HR lady (whom I can only assume is incredibly hot)
* I talked to my brother JRE on the way back.
* I tried reaching my brother AIR with several calls and a text today. No dice. I am undeterred. I will continue trying to contact him.
* I showered. It was glorious, even if towel-less.
** My brother suggested I buy one. I don't have the energy.
* Fireman Time!
* I ate and talked to William. I actually found him annoying today.
** I'm sure others find me the same way.
* I watched some league.
I arrived a bit early. Bull and Jaye showed up within about 10 minutes. I finished off my //Revisionist History// podcast before walking in.
Jaye had to put caps on our pipe, and I set up for the tie-in. We did the fitup for the short piece I had to cut yesterday for Room #2's return. He welded that as well. I ran around making sure it was ready.
My lovely wife was kind enough to fax and email my documents to the HR rep of Yates. I then had a flurry of e-mails, texts, and voice messages with my teacher and the HR rep. I kept losing signal, so I had to do it asynchronously with them. I sent a pic of my ID to the HR rep. I think we are in good shape. I believe I have this job.
We mounted the two L's pieces after the break. Bull did the dangerous part without a lift, harness, etc. That was some nasty work. I went top side, but Kevin had already lifted to go topside (Bull and Jaye were on the bottom). I had to scramble for a ladder, and by the time I got there, he was already mounting the first. It was off. I obviously did something wrong /nightmare. It's okay, I'm only human. Bull said nothing (which isn't necessarily a good thing), except that we'll loosen the bolts up top to force it into place and tack it. It's forcible (ugh, but I thought it had it!).
The hard piece with 45's fit like a fucking glove though. I got a high five for that from Jaye.
On the way back down, I didn't want to go in the lift, which was very poorly positioned. It required a small leap that I didn't want to take. I just used the ladder. I'm skeered. =)
I talked to my teacher at lunch. He said that SMS didn't treat me write on the pay cut without telling me beforehand and that I should say that (in addition to the fact that the job is closer to home and I get paid more). The job doesn't start this coming Monday, but the one after. That sucks. I'm still grateful.
After lunch, Jaye and I mounted the bottom half of Room #2. They went up with some work. The small piece I had to do solo up 12-15 feet in the air, which was nerve-wracking. The big piece we got up (with great effort, and then found the wall hole wasn't big enough for the flange. So, we took it down, got a sawzaw (sp?) and cut it larger. The big piece went up without a huge struggle on the second time.
Jaye, of course, likes to make fun of my safety concern, until he doesn't. Sometimes, he wholeheartedly agrees. I will take the teasing as a compliment, honestly. I know it won't make me popular, but that's fine.
Afterward, we went up top to measure the top half of Room #2. We did what we could. Jaye left at 3. Bull left at 3:15. He gave me the keys and told me to bring them tomorrow. I think this is a show of trust.
I did the math, cut the pipe, prepared ourselves for tomorrow, and cleaned up.
In the evening, I received word from Johanna that my tools arrived. Huzzah! The only problem now is getting them. I've already got a very full Saturday, and I have to squeeze it in. We have to buy a car, and I don't want to feel rushed. This kind of sucks. My wife has mapped out where we'll be visiting so we can go boom, boom, boom to find the car we want asap.
!! Respond to the following:
<center> [img width=1200 [./images/Sandwich-Definition.jpg]] </center>
I'm a rebel. Fuck your arbitrarily drawn lines and definitions. You have no reason. And, your supposed reason for having no reason lacks reason as well. Just be honest, you just enjoy the feeling, and you don't have a reason. I'll take that. But, your argument otherwise lacks intellectual integrity. Your conceptual analysis is poor in our language game.
Everything is turtles, sandwiches, and turtle-sandwiches all the ways down.
This is the kind of question that haunts our family. I love discussing this shit with my brothers, my wife, and my children. The question itself may not matter, but the ways in which we think about it does.
To my "you're just playing semantics" donor, MWF, you've missed the boat.
* [[2017.07.31 - Wiki Review Log]]
** Mmmm. I have a place set aside already for it. I just haven't grafted.
* [[2017.07.31 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** I'm having a very hard time reaching my brother AIR. I should text him.
** Edited. Forgot the last part of the night.
* [[2017.07.31 - Pipefitting Log]]
** Everyone's human, homie.
* [[2017.07.31 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** Edited. Eh, already redpilled.
* [[2017.07.31 - Link Log]]
** Dropping the hard "R"
* Alarm clock got me today. Ouch.
* Small bricks pushed.
* I worked hard.
* I talked to my children several times through the day.
** I feel like my son is completely failing to try, and my daughter seems to lack passion.
* I briefly talked to JRE, but he was still at work.
* I tried to calling AIR, but no dice. Same for Charlie, MB, and L.
* I showered.
** I can't get that fire-retardant blanket's itchy powder off me.
* I watched some LCS and read.
* Fireman Time!
* I ate a lot of veggies, fruits, and some crackers. I'm still hungry.
* I had a long conversation with my son.
** It's his choice at this point.
* I spoke briefly with my daughter.
* I spoke with my lovely wife. She keeps me sane.
* I talked with one of my roommates again at length about pipefitting and philosophy.
** He seemed quite unreflective, but intelligent in some respects.
* Big Bricks Pushed
* Watched Mr. Robot when Interwebs went South and fell asleep.
I arrived early, and I finished off [[Revisionist History: S01E03]]. I decided to start writing a bit about what I thought. A lot of this isn't new to me, but the presentation is excellent. It puts me in a good mind frame for the job, I think.
Jaye and Bull showed up. I gave Bull my keys and went back to the car to write. I'm not starting until Bull does. Jaye was late. It was fine though. Bull doesn't give a shit, I think.
Setting up honestly takes half an hour. I'd say an hour of my day is devoted to setting up and cleaning up. I spend at least 1.25 hours on break/lunch. We don't really even start until 7:30 most days, so cut another 30 minutes off. 7 and a quarter hour of actual production in a 10-hour shift.
In any case, I prepared us well last night. We walked in with plenty to do. We got a good chunk of the fitup and some roots in before the break.
I tried calling my children on break. The connection was exceptionally poor today. I will try again. Bull takes very long breaks. I'm going to take breaks as long as he does. For the second day in a row, I'm eating my veggie lunch for breakfast. I'm hungry.
We got our blankets for welding. They make me itchy. We duct taped up them up. I went topside and loosened the flanges a bit. The pipes went right into place. They aren't perfectly plumb, but your naked eye can't tell. They look beautiful to me. I'm legit proud of myself.
We tacked them up, and Jaye had to go. I found out later he packed up all the welding equipment for me. What a bro!
Bull was topside working on Room #4's flanges. Room #4 has double coils for both Supply and Return. The top Return has a nipple on it. I'm going to have to do some tricky shit to make it work. Bull and I talked about it. He wants them staggered, not parallel/squared with each other. I asked him what he meant by staggered. He explained, and I said I got it. He then continued to explain.
In this case, when I say I understand something, he doesn't believe me. He continues to walk me through various interpretations of it. I know I've made mistakes, but I'm trying to think of a point that would cause him to behave this way.
We talked while we bounced from missing ladder to missing ladder on the roof. We had to call the helper, Kevin, to raise a lift up to us. We ran across the Superintendent. We have the same name, and we always say, "hey X" to each other with a smile.
Bull and I shot the shit for a while. We did so twice today. He's really easy to get along with, even though we are very different. He's quite tolerant of me thus far.
I told Bull about the tools I'm getting. He seems interested in trying the quick fits. He also told me to be very careful about my tools, since they can be stolen. He has had 10 welding machines stolen over the decades. Lol!
I basically took a break, packed up, and left afterward.
I need to cut a hole in the wall on #4 and take measurements. Jaye has to finish the in-position welds in #1. We also need to mount the L-spools in #2, and afterward Jaye can tack and weld.
!! Ass or titties?
Titties are an ass on a woman's chest. That's how cleavage evolved. I like that which is emitted from titties more than the ass. The new blood organ is the obvious winrar.
Think of it this way, which would you prefer: an assless big-titty woman or a flat-chested big-booty woman? No contest. I'll take the boobs all day, er'ry day.
And thus concludes, Samwise Gamgee,<<ref "2018.12.02">> a most inspired Prompted Introspection Log.
---
<<footnotes "2018.12.02" "Clearly, I meant //Lady Melisandre// instead!">>
* [[2017.08.01 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** I fell asleep around 9:30ish. I think depression is setting in again. I think I should still chance the DCK on Sunday. I really need it. I'll have 7 days for it to clear my system, and I strongly doubt they will test it. None of the standard panels do. This is a worthy risk. Also, my THC test was passed with 8 days.
* [[2017.08.01 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** Edited: "What it //do//"
* [[2017.08.01 - Wiki Review Log]]
** I am not offended by bad words. My goal, of course, isn't to offend people. We will always be inventing new ways to do that, of course.
* [[2017.08.01 - Pipefitting Log]]
** Edited in Johanna's communications. Yay!
* Alarm got me this morning, but I was hovering in wakefulness.
* Bricks pushed
* Worked hard.
* Tried talking to my son several times. Couldn't reach him.
* Talked to my daughter, and we talked about many things.
* I spoke with JRE about some practical philosophical issues.
* I tried reaching out to my brother AIR again.
* Surfed a bit.
* Finished TSM's match against NV
* Fireman Time x 2. Woot, woot, boi!
* I talked to my wife. =) They went swimming, which is great. I was worried they wouldn't.
** Daughter found her swimming suit after cleaning and searching. Good for her.
* The kids didn't really do anything today, again. =(
* I had vid chat with my family. It's work as a parent, I tell you that.
* Prepped and put stuff in the car.
* Gonna write a bit more, watch some Mr. Robot, and sleep.
That's her dead husband of 32 year's laugh encoded into the bear.
<div style="width: 100%; height: 0px; position: relative; padding-bottom: 125.000%;"><iframe src="https://streamable.com/s/2uicj/yqnjri" frameborder="0" width="100%" height="100%" allowfullscreen style="width: 100%; height: 100%; position: absolute;"></iframe></div>
Frisson Strikes again. The lack of empathy in the "read" command mixed with the obvious empathy is the recording is hard to understand for me too.
I arrived exactly on time. Bull showed up soon after. I think they had a meeting at the truck while I talked to Jaye and his wife. It was good to meet her.
We immediately set out to do the in-position weld. I had to run up to the roof too with the lift to open the doors for daylight and ventilation. After I got Jaye set I started getting my measurements for Room #4. We'll have to cut a hole in the wall and the metal beams which form the basis of the wall itself. It sounds like the guys who build the walls will do what we tell them to do on this. We'll destroy their shit, and they'll rebuild it. I'm going to be as polite as I can be, and to let them know I'm doing it. Or, Bull might just do it.
I gathered parts and did the math. Everything appears to be in order. We shall see how it actually turns out though. I think I'll have fewer fears after I start succeeding more often.
By the break, Jaye had finished. We took everything down and started moving it to Room #2. The cap is all that is missing.
We got the room set and the welding machine into position and finished the caps on the last piece for Room #2 inside that room. We took everything up in the lift. I did the major lifting, and Jaye put in the bolts. It was there that Jaye was coming to grips with how far up he would be for this in-position weld. He became snappy.
We went downstairs, and it was about time for lunch.
He wanted us to take Room #4's very heavy pipe back there (which wouldn't even fit through the tight corners [long fucking pipe lengths]) to do the fitup. I said it would be just as easy to move the welding machine, and we were going to do that anyways.
Jaye argued that we shouldn't move the welding machine because he thought it saved us time and work (I'm not really sure he believed this, or if he did, it was a very stupid belief). He was convinced he was right. I pointed out why we should move it back (ventilation, space, not worrying about tile walls, being closer to the center of the various Rooms, not having to lug pipe all the way back there, etc.). He was clearly wrong, and he was annoyed that I kept walking him through why he was. I want to do it the right way. I tried to be kind.
After lunch, he was still off about it. It only got worse. I helped him set up the ladders. He was obviously frightened. I offered my harness to him (which I wanted, but felt he was in a riskier position). He said he didn't want it (he's made too much fun of me for using it to use it himself, I take it). I found the platform ladder. He saw it and said it wasn't high enough. I told him was the highest we had, and I thought it would work. He continued to argue. I said we should try it.
I got it in there, and he got a different one (a shorter one). I set mine up, and he said it wasn't going to work. I asked him to stand on it to show me. He said he wanted to try his. His was 2 rungs shorter, and it was clear he couldn't' reach. I then said to try mine. He didn't want to, and he started ordering me around. He thought he was going to stand on both ladders now, only one of which was the right height. I explained how we should do it, and he purposely tried to do it any other way. I realized that I needed to stop saying the truth. He was obviously being irrational at that point.
I could tell he was pissed off about being wrong and about having to do this dangerous thing. I let it go. He obviously needed space and a way not to lose face, as he really needed to just agree to do as I was saying all along. I said I was thirsty, and I was getting something to drink, asking him if he wanted a bottle of water as well. He said yes. This gave him the space to implement what I had said the entire time. After coming back, I saw that he was doing it my way, and I felt we were finally ready for me to go topside for the final fitup, tacking, and tightening.
The fitup went okay. It wasn't perfect. We could have done better. It's not plumb, but it looks good enough.
My arm was really fucking sore after tightening. I desperately need a good ratchet with long sockets.
Jaye's welds in position were really shitty today. =( But, he was in some tough spots. He lost patience with keeping the fire blankets in place and didn't really care about how they looked (his words). He didn't even want to break a tack to get the hi-los perfect (on a pipe that easily could have done it). At some point, I decided it was best not to argue. It is what it is.
We finished up at about 10 past 3. Bull came in and saw our work. He reminded Jaye not to clean up since I needed something to do with my remaining 2 hours.
It seems to me, upon reflection, that I'm going to hurt a lot of people's feelings by being right, no matter how kindly and patiently I've explained it and walked through the various arguments with them. I've dealt with this many times in my life. I'm not very good at dealing with it, although I do my best. My goal is not to hurt anyone's feelings, and I try to empathize. It is going to really get under people's skin that I'm right about things that they've been doing for many more years than I have. Not everyone has that problem, but some people do in various contexts (perhaps we all do).
Also, I hurt my back today. The itchiness of those blankets lasts. It's like fiberglass insulation bad or worse.
Also, if we take into account that I spent the first day or so just getting acclimated, it takes me about 3 days to complete one of the room tie-ins. Bull says it would take him 2. I'm feeling pretty good about that. Give me time, I'll be that fast. I'm sure I have much to learn.
!! Why did you end your friendship with Nyles? Why did he make you sad enough to end the friendship? Are you happier because of ending the friendship?
I had been drifting away from Nyles for a while during my depression. I think he was an emotional vampire of sorts. I think he did not return the respect I gave him.
In part, our interests just diverged. I lost interest in magic, for example. We talked league a bit, but we didn't really play much at the same time. Theorycrafting wasn't as fun. Politics and ethics were kind of one-sided. Our experiences were vastly different. There wasn't much pointing to bouncing ideas off him, and it wasn't worth talking to him. He didn't care what I thought.
His visit with my family cemented my view of him. There was a particular moment in the magic shop that I saw that he just lacked charity and the intellectual integrity to have humility. It was the final straw. I realized who he was and that our relationship wasn't working. I just let him go.
Nobody likes losing a friend. Was it the right choice? I think so. I could be wrong, but I'm not convinced it was a healthy relationship.
* [[2017.08.02 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** I'm Pushing Bricks more often. Is this because I'm eating more or because I'm eating more veggies and fruits?
* [[2017.08.02 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** Of course, only the most penetrating questions for me.
* [[Revisionist History: S01E04]]
** This podcast makes me really fucking angry.
* [[2017.08.02 - Wiki Review Log]]
** I fell asleep later last night.
* [[2017.07 - Pipefitting Log]]
** Good job, homie!
* [[2017.08.02 - Pipefitting Log]]
** Edited for grammar.
* [[Revisionist History: S01E02]]
** I think Malcolm Gladwell has a rosy view, an unmerited perspective, and is clearly bourgeois. He has the knack for picking out interesting things, but his analysis is deeply lacking.
* [[Revisionist History: S01E03]]
** I basically said the same in this.
* [[Revisionist History]]
** I am reminded to add to my book list for the year.
* Woke up before the alarm clock. Had a dream, but don't remember much about it. It was odd.
* Bricks pushed
* Actually didn't work too hard. It was a slower day, and then I received word I got the job starting Monday. It was a chain reaction of events afterward.
* I packed up everything, and I hope I don't have to travel to Charlotte for a long time.
* I talked to Charlie. That dude is interesting, to say the least.
** I fear he's not very skilled at curating information and his bullshit detector is kind of weak. Brilliant man though. His autism prevents him from interpretatin' correctly.
* I basically partied with the family the rest of the night.
* Pizza, beer, GoT, John Oliver, etc.
I keep crying through The Kite Runner. It's an amazing book. I am very moved by it.
I dreamt of Yoda, Ranganathan, and something about their names.
* https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/padnvm/200-terabyte-proof-demonstrates-the-potential-of-brute-force-math
** I had briefly considered a PhD in CS, and formal verification was exactly what I was looking at. The professor I was going to work with had some modal logic thing going on as well, IIRC. Glad I chose philosophy.
* KYS
** http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-40788180
*** "I'm having those conversations in private" - Jesus H.B.F. Christ
** https://newrepublic.com/article/143609/new-yuppies-how-aspirational-class-expresses-status-age-inequality
*** Not always in love with the New Republic, but this is a good article.
* https://aeon.co/essays/can-we-hope-to-understand-how-the-greeks-saw-their-world
** As a colorblind person, I am fascinated by the issue of how others think, perceive, and talk about color. Qualia and even the way in which language itself shapes our ability to perceive is not lost on me. As someone who is consistently facing the inability to perceive what others do, I must understand why.
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=_NQqSnkI32A
**MBTI is deeply flawed. It's not scientific. I am still convinced there is something to it. Does that mean I have faith? I want to rid myself of beliefs for which I have insufficient evidence. I still feel like I have evidence for some kernel in the MBTI that makes me think it does some kind of real work beyond Astrology, Horoscopes, and Cold-reading.
* Trump
** https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2017/08/01/president-trump-is-now-directly-implicated-in-trying-to-cover-up-the-russia-scandal/
** http://uproxx.com/news/bill-browder-putin-corruption-testimony/
*** I believe it is more. I think it's more along the lines of a Trillion in dark money.
* https://www.ecowatch.com/monsanto-papers-2467891575.html
** I don't know this publication. It looks bad. I'm not a fan of Monsanto (not for the usual stupid reasons though). There may be something here as well.
* http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/dems-can-abandon-the-center-because-the-center-doesnt-exist.html
** Well-said.
** I could never be a politician.
** Also, I hate almost everyone.
** I question what counts as left to these people. I am not convinced I meet many leftists at all. I'm betting the lines were very poorly drawn.
* http://www.macleans.ca/society/do-you-have-resting-poor-face/
** We judge in the blink of an eye, yo. You know it. Be more redpilled.
* https://www.reddit.com/r/RussiaLago/comments/6r4w1m/hamilton_69_a_thread_tracking_russian_propaganda/
** Fascinating and frightening.
I arrived 3 minutes late! Nobody was there. I sat and typed for quite a while. Thankfully, everyone was late this Friday.
We got to workin' on Room #4's pipe. Jaye was still off. I think he feels disrespected. Now it was a bunch of small things he wanted to coach me on and be obstinate about. He wasn't his usual self with me. We broke the tacks on a threadolet because it wasn't quite right. He went and retrieved a new one and a made a fuss for no reason. The threadolet we had was completely workable. He wanted to be a prima donna about it. It was a long morning dealing with his attitude, poor inferences, etc. Placating the irrationality of your partner is valuable, instrumental, and even if it is manipulative, ultimately may be worth it.
We ended up talking about racism again. It is something we have a common point of view on, by and large. I'm trying to work from common ground here. Bull saw us talking about it, and decided to change the conversation with some of his stories.
We went on break. On the break, while calling my daughter, I saw messages from Tim, including an e-mail that I got the job, starting Monday! Woot! Also, at 3pm tomorrow I pick up my tools at the Dunkin Donuts near my house. That will be awesome. I had to think about what I was going to say to Bull.
I told Bull, and I explained how much I appreciated working for/with him. I complimented him, and it went smoothly. Bull said he understood and congratulated me. I then called Barry, since that is Bull's boss. Barry told me he understood, and that if I ever wanted to come back to give him a call (yay, I didn't burn a bridge, at least not with Barry). I then went to see Pam.
I visited Pam, and there wasn't much to do. She kept trying to pierce through me, as usual. I smiled and thanked her, etc.
Jaye called and said he was calling it a day. He didn't want to work the rest of it. I'm not sure why. He said to get in contact with him up and talk to him about my new job.
I then went to clean up my stuff at the residence. I met William. He just became head chef. Movin' on up! We talked. I learned that he is a felon for "kidnapping" but then he explained the story (it was a bogus charge, and I know enough about William to see he isn't like that). We shook hands and exchanged numbers.
I hit a Southern Food + Greek Fusion restaurant which was dirt cheap. Called Armstrong, and he was non-plussed. Said congratz, etc.
!! Why do you dislike recent movies?
Maybe I'm getting old, crotchety, and set in my ways. (Get off my lawn!)
Perhaps I'm tempted to think the grass is always greener, to romanticize the past, etc. I don't think so though. I'm well aware of the amount of trash I've consumed.
I think I'm harder to surprise. I've been around the block a few times, and now it's difficult to entertain me, to inform me, to create media with memes that influence and strike me in the right ways.
I am not the target audience of blockbuster movies. I don't fit the right mold.
Plots are now algorithmically edited, revised, shaped, ordered, etc. to maximize profit. Whatever hits the least common denominator is likely what is chosen, or something along those lines.
Maybe I'm a snob. It's really, really hard to make a great movie. Books always seem to have the edge.
* [[2017.07 - Family Log]]
** Edited.
* [[2017.07 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** It was great to see a full month in quick snapshots. It was a busy, difficult, and worthy month. Well seized, sir!
* [[2017.08.03 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** I'm glad that I watch before bed. It works fine for me. I know it isn't medically recommended, but the results speak for themselves.
* [[2017.08.03 - Cry Log]]
** /r/Frisson strikes again!
* [[2017.08.03 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** Farewell.
* [[2017.08.03 - Wiki Review Log]]
** I have to remember that Gladwell isn't targeting an academic.
* [[2017.08.03 - Pipefitting Log]]
** Honestly, I'm kind of glad that I parted on good terms with Jaye and asap since it seemed to start to sour.
* [[Revisionist History: S01E05]]
** Ditto.
* [[2017.07 - DCK Meditation]]
** Not sure if it's worth auditing this log anymore.
* [[2017.07 - h0p3's Log]]
** Familial issues, as usual. I am well aware of the possible irony you see. I implore you to look more closely. It's not the contradiction you think it is.
* Woke up at 6:40. I could still feel the literal thirst (for water) from alcohol of the previous night.
* League
* My wife made an amazing breakfast. Her grits rock! It might be one of my favorite breakfasts of all time.
* We shopped for a car.
** We took our time.
** Cash for Clunkers wrecked the secondary market, as intended. Neo-lib.
** The sweetspot is now probably 8k on a vehicle. I need to save more for next time. That's a couple months of work at least.
** We got an SUV, our first. It will store my tools nicely and help me with rougher job sites.
* Inform the Men!
* Amazing shower (so much better with my wife ;P)
* Acquired my new tools! Woot!
** Johanna had more of her completely misinformed conservative/neo-lib bullshit against the Humanities. Said I've learned my lesson. Lol. Fucking evil retard, burn in hell.
* We hit the li-bary.
* Kids cleaned the living room.
* I did a tool unpackaging with my brother on video. We talked for quite a while. I really enjoyed it.
* Watched League + beer
* Organized tools, marked them, etc.
* Westworld until bed.
I dreamt about pipefitting. I was anxious about my new job. I am worried about what it will be like. Jumping from new scene to new scene is difficult when you feel incompetent.
* Trump
** https://www.reddit.com/r/RussiaLago/comments/6r4w1m/hamilton_69_a_thread_tracking_russian_propaganda/
*** Interesting resource.
*** Maybe should be "* Russia" instead?
** http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/345104-trump-to-go-on-17-day-getaway-to-private-golf-club-in-nj
* KYS
** https://arstechnica.co.uk/tech-policy/2017/08/republicans-try-to-take-cheap-phones-and-broadband-away-from-poor-people/
** http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/tvaddons-piracy-rogers-bell-videotron-court-1.4231340
** https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=9RC1Mepk_Sw
*** I am proud of my lifelong anti-war stance. The only people who deserve our violence are the wealthy and powerful.
** https://np.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/6rf8bk/megathread_mueller_impanels_a_grand_jury/dl4l4lx/?sh=6ebf4076&st=J5WXTCBR
* Yup, Confirm My Bias
** http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/07/neuroscience-poverty-brains-trump-clinton/
** https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/03/opinion/open-source-software-hacker-voting.html
** https://www.edge.org/conversation/david_chalmers-the-mind-bleeds-into-the-world
*** It feels good to hear that Chalmers and I agree by-and-large on this.
* https://www.70millionjobs.com/
** Job search for those with criminal records.
** Where has Jubilee gone?
** These people, by and large, are being herded into the underclass.
* Neat.
** http://loup-vaillant.fr/articles/implemented-my-own-crypto
** https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms16047
* https://www.deekit.com/how-do-i-find-a-remote-job-part-1/
** Find a remote job advice. Maybe obvious.
* https://squawker.org/analysis/bitcoin-cash-a-centralized-currency-weakly-disguised/
** Time will tell. If I had to predict, I guess I'd say it would fail. I'm not confident in either direction. I'd bet on Eth.
*https://www.theverge.com/2017/8/2/16086272/mozilla-send-file-sharing-service-launches
** Hate to say it, but nothing beats Resilio Sync. Nat piercing, any file size, self-hosted, p2p, secure, scale up. Everyone is missing the boat.
* For my daughter:
** https://github.com/jarun/Buku/releases/tag/v3.2
** https://the.exa.website/
* Preach, yo!
** https://imgur.com/a/9UN0C#Ph4C4w9
* http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20170802-why-cant-films-and-tv-accurately-portray-hackers
** And, yet, I do not find it very accurate in many respects. Don't get me wrong, it is miles and miles more accurate than other shows. It's still not believable.
* https://i.redd.it/ijts0bnz0wdz.jpg
** Add it to my wishlist
A new vehicle, an SUV. Woot! It will carry my tools nicely, and I can navigate effectively through rough terrain (my cars took a beating).
I also acquired my AB&T paid tools. Woot! It was X-mas in August.
!! Why do you think people are stupid?
Because I'm an arrogant son of a bitch? Lol.
No. I don't think I'm better than I am most of the time. That's part of my applied intelligence: knowing the boundaries of what I know, knowing what it means to know, etc.
Intelligences come on bell curves (or some kinds of distributions, normalized, bi-modal, or otherwise). On some of these curves, I'm very high. That sounds insufferable. To you, I say, [[Know Thyself]]. Of course, I'm bound to see the slopes that others often cannot. Stupid given what standard?
To be clear, I'm still not sure if it is malice or ignorance in many cases.
Yo, Samwise, fuck you.
* [[2017.07 - Wiki Review Log]]
** Ask my daughter.
** Maybe cannabliss will open me up to random projects more.
* [[2017.08.04 - Wiki Review Log]]
** I should do more podcasts.
* [[2017.08.04 - Pipefitting Log]]
** Edited for grammar.
* [[Revisionist History: S01E06]]
** I can't say I'm not interested. I'm not blown away, and I'm not satisfied. However, I will pay attention.
* [[2017.08.04 - Link Log]]
** Your silly intuitions. =)
* [[2017.08.04 - Dream Log]]
** I am glad I am extremely conservative, in my aiming not to confabulate. Keep it up!
* Woke up early.
* Played league, did some reading.
* Double Fireman Time!
* Worked on my phone quite a bit.
* Went shopping for long sleeves and groceries.
* Organized my tools and got the car set.
* Inform the Men!
* Made ribs and fries for dinner; they were amazing.
* Family time went by very quickly today.
** We pointed out that even a single day of my writing encompasses as much as everyone else combined for the week.
** It's become more about reading my wiki. That's fine. I hope they'll eventually see what I'm looking for.
* Watching TSM vs. CLG.
* Gonna finish getting ready and head to bed. I have to wake up early.
!! How has your health been this week?
* 1uxb0x
** Good. Nose not as stuffy.
* j3d1h
** Enjoying running around outside. Feeling more active.
** Better than last week, but not great.
** Ant bites.
* k0sh3k
** Headaches.
* h0p3
** Strong itching, but don't a rash.
** Tired.
** Back hurts a lot.
---
!! What happened last week? Have you been happy this past week? Why or why not?
* 1uxb0x
** Got to play with the neighborhood kids. Happy about that.
* j3d1h
** Unschooling has been fun. Coming up with what she believes is "I'll try harder" plans for the week.
** Having the phone has been great.
* k0sh3k
** Schedules are mostly done.
** It's been a good week. We got a new car.
** So glad I don't have to go to Charlotte.
* h0p3
** I got a new job, car, and tools. I'm hoping everything comes together smoothly.
---
!! What is a positive fact or compliment we can say about each person in the family?
* 1uxb0x
** You've kept your tools all this time. You've maintained them. I want to buy you tools, to help you build a collection. I trust you.
** You seem to talk more with your dad on the phone than you do in person. It's nice that you do that.
** You didn't melt down when given extra chores. That's part of managing your emotions better. Keep it up.
* j3d1h
** Good job changing ?shimejis? on your computer.
** Good job finding your swimsuit. You buckled down and did the dirty work of cleaning and searching. It paid off.
** You handled disappointment very well today when you found out you wouldn't be going to the Youth Sunday school class.
* k0sh3k
** Thank you for making quickbread and baked apples.
** Thank you for taking the kids swimming and doing the eclipse. Thank you for having the energy, even after work, to give our children these experiences.
** Thank you for helping me apply to the job and getting the car shopping list in order.
** Thank you for sending us outside today on a consistent basis.
* h0p3
** You seemed more cheerful this past week, especially on the weekends.
** Good job finding a new job. You've earned it.
** Thank you for helping me set up a new computer and buy a new car.
---
!! What will you do this week? Name at least one fun objective and one unfun objective.
* 1uxb0x
** Drinking water in cans.
** Play with the neighborhood kids, particularly Savannah and Jojo.
* j3d1h
** Push myself in P.E.
** Finish her book and some art pieces.
* k0sh3k
** Catching up on her classes.
** Finish prepping for the beginning of the semester.
* h0p3
** Once again get acclimated to a new job.
** Organize my tools.
Prepped my tools and what I'll need for tomorrow, I believe.
!! What do you think of people who "aren't into politics"?
<<<
The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.
-- Plato
<<<
I'm not sure exactly what they mean. Who isn't interested in politics? To some extent, everyone is. Note, of course, this is not the same as not voting (which can easily be a political act in itself). I think they mean they don't follow politics, I think.
I realize, no one can understand and follow everything. But you should follow and participate in some aspect. Being a good citizen (which doesn't mean obeying the Rule of Law, but I mean this in an ethical and more broadly cosmopolitan sense) is a duty owed to each other. We must do our best to help society at large. We must pursue Justice in that Rawlsian sense (at least in his early work).
I guess I think they are malicious and ignorant.
* [[2017.08.05 - Pipefitting Log]]
** Brief! :P
* [[2017.08.05 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** Seized.
* [[2017.08.05 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** My wife enjoyed this one.
* [[2017.08.05 - Wiki Review Log]]
** I'm definitely ready for some drugs.
* [[2017.08.05 - Link Log]]
** Yup, Confirm My Bias
* [[2017.08.05 - Retired: {Focus}]]
** It continues to evolve, slowly.
* [[2017.07 - Link Log]]
** I may start having more time for it; I don't know.
* [[2017.07 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** Had to fill this one in today. I forgot the audit.
* [[2017.08.04 - Cry Log]]
** I'm ready to finish this book.
* [[2017.08.04 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** Brief, but it does what it needs to do I think. I don't mind briefness when it packs a punch.
* [[2017.08.04 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** Brief!
* Woke up very early, but before the alarm clock. I was anxious.
* My rash is getting worse.
* I spent what felt like a long day at work, even though I didn't do much.
* My children did not clean the living room.
* Light Cannabliss!
* I got a lockable toolbox and chain since they won't let me transport tools on a daily basis between my car and worksite (shuttle).
* The kids made up or it by making dinner.
* We watched two episodes of Rick and Morty.
* Writing, then bed.
Forget the template. I'm just going to write in here. Contain it.
It's clear to me that I'm failing my children. I am not effective parenting. They are not growing into people will be happy, and it isn't clear they are happy now. I can't give up, but I tell you, if I could hit the reset button, I would.
It feels like I can't find a way to fix this. Perhaps my expectations are too high. But, really? I keep lowering them. I have to say, I feel like I have sacrificed my expectations of life so many times in my life. I've given up the ideal so many times, I worry it isn't practical to seek the ideal.
This sounds like the 30-year change meets Post-Modernism head-on.
But, I am not giving up on the pursuit of the ideal, pursuit of the Good, just yet. Cannabliss allows me to do it. DCK helps me pursue The Right, and Cannabliss helps me pursue The Good. Cannabliss gives me reasons to live when DCK doesn't and vice versa. Together, they are drug-team which artificially induces the will to live and pursue.
While cannabliss inhibits motivation for many people, I am convinced it has the opposite effect in it. Cannabliss allows me to change my life, to be the kind of person who is open to it, to having the willpower to be wrong and keep standing up. It's a substance which induces existential courage in me. Am I addicted? You be the judge. It alone may be worthy enough to make my life always worth pursuing, even if only in the Experience Machine.
I am still trying to find another reason to live. It is clear that I need to do that. If I can't make my children happy, or even if I'm convinced it won't happen, I need to make sure I can at least find other reasons to live. Admittedly, watching my children fail just reminds me of how much I am a failure. I'm so tired of being a failure.
I have agreed to [[Positive Disintegation]]. That is the source of hope, a hope that this pain and suffering is still worth it. Now I sit at the crossroads, yet again.
[[The Experience Machine]], [[Positive Nihilism]], [[Metamodernism]], [[The Dao of Gödel]], and [[The Redpill Prescription]] are the only options. I see them now.
I have armed my mind, as well as I, can against The Redpill Prescription, but I am still afraid. I h0p3 to escape it since I'm very worried that on that road, the inevitable destination is psychopathy and being ripped into pieces. No matter how brilliantly argued otherwise, I cannot see that far ahead. Thus, I wish to reserve it as the last option.
To some degree or another, the other options sit in stark contrast to The Redpill Prescription. That said, we can see relationships between them.
The Experience Machine "option" is often reliant upon Egoist models, sometimes incompatibilism and others compatibilism, and pursues Happiness as The Good itself. Ah, but what if that ends up in the darkest of The Redpill Prescriptions?
Positive Nihilism can go any direction you want. Pursue anything because it doesn't matter. It's accepting relativism in the bounds of who we are as individuals. That doesn't mean "anything goes," but it does mean we need not feel guilty or compelled for any objective reasons. We have the array of skepticisms, so many with merit. Even Kant cannot escape it. Philosophy pulls us away from religion, and even Kant's religious work may ultimately give way to the skeptics. Seems like it.
<<<
KIN: I must accept that fact.
<<<
Let us avoid it if we can. The conflict with Kant is very complicating. That said, Kant can always turn around and still get everything he wants out of Positive Nihilism. The goal is The Goodwill, the pursuit of The Right, even if you get to legislate it yourself. Kant can bend that way. The Neo-Kantians are sometimes brilliant.
Of course, even Positive Nihilism may evolve into The Redpill Prescription.
Metamodernism may not be much of a solution. It seems to describe the Dialectic of Humanity through this oscillation, the binary stars:
# The logical, skeptical, post-modern (modernism perfected), destructuralizing, destroying metanarratives and metaphysics, rampage monster.
# The emotional, guttural, practical, rationalizing, fallible, romanticized nitwit without the courage or intellectual integrity to see the possibility of anything beyond Metamodernism, lacking the ability to recognize it is just a stage of Human Culture Development (oh, no, it can account for that, you say?)
I must say, Metamodernism sounds more epistemically prudent than it does alethic. That's what my gut says ;P...how do you know it too doesn't simply go on to justify The Redpill Prescription? The oscillation may swing us that direction. It fights the good fight, but to what end?
Thus, I am left with the Dao of Gödel, the End of Ends. The Telos of Telos. The Good of The Good, The Sequitur of Sequiturs. It is the evolution of the memetic concept of God in each person's eyes.<<ref "1">> While the religion is derided, it seems to have something to it to me from time to time. It can just be another version of Positive Nihilism, but it may be the exact opposite sometimes. In that mode, I believe in The Good like the joy one would receive from believing in the God of the Ontological Argument. It is the very concept of Good in itself that Plato, Aristotle, and the Titans of Philosophy have tried to capture. It's like trying to catch the f-ness of the beautiful lightning itself in a bag. It is idealism so strong that you tremble in frisson. The worry is that it is a drug, just another version of The Experience Machine (and obvious, then, not the best possible machine to use, given that standard).
Most Rational or Justifiable to Least:
# Positive Disintegration
# Positive Nihilism
# The Experience Machine
# Metamodernism
# The Dao of Gödel
# The Redpill Prescription
It seems less about RPIN and KIN (although, the threads are still there), and more about this particular Crossroads. At the very least, I simply accept Positive Disintegration. That is part of being h0p3. Thus, my list is really just:
# Positive Nihilism
# The Experience Machine
# Metamodernism
# The Dao of Gödel
# The Redpill Prescription
Hmmm...hashtag those things.
# #Whatev...Happiness.
# #Pleasure
# #Pragmatic Construction
# #God
# #Psychopathy
The fact is that The Redpill descriptively is right too often. The various prescriptions almost always failures. Combined with Incompatibilism, The Redpill can be dangerous. Fighting incompatibilism is key. The Experience Machine becomes an acceptable moral medium on compatibilist grounds.
Shit. I don't know. Will think more. That said, these all seem like good enough reasons. Each unsavory in its own way, I think. Risks abound. Stoicize that shit. Positive Nihilism is compatible with all of them. This is conceptually intriguing, a strong effect, and yet seemingly workable. It merits inspection and perhaps a choice first. It may prove irrelevant. It implies it does. It is a jumping off point into whatever we want but has no content itself in a way. It is as barren as Virtue Theory is in normative substance.
---
<<footnotes "1" "Are you ready to be dethroned, Paul Tillich? Can you smellalalalalalala what the h0p3 is cookin'?">>
Showed up early. Chris was waiting in a dark smoking booth. He let me wander in the rain before coming to get me. Lol. We caught up. We didn't need to be there until 7:30. We talked for an hour.
The instructor for our Eastman safety class was an old man who looked a heck of a lot like my grandfather (MWF side). His conservativism bled through. The presentation slides on terrorism and IP rights were among the worst. He gave us the answers to our test.
Afterward, we called Christina, our local hr rep. She is a fat bitch, classically insane. An old New Yorker came to give us the Yates (and contractor at Eastman) orientation. Ditto on the test. He was a decent guy.
We eventually followed him in our vehicles. A shuttle took us to the jobsite inside the large Eastman campus. They told us not to bring our tools and lunches, but then we had nothing to eat later when they wouldn't shuttle us back ( not until quitting time).
We sat in the trailer as Christina abused us. She assumed I was stupid for a while until she asked standard hr questions. Drug test passed. We sat around for hours.
Sam is a black carpenter. He has the uneducated jibber-jabber manner of speaking.
Chris was Chris.
David is journeyman fitter. He graduated from Tim's class 4 years ago. I asked lots of questions. Seems smart. His whole family works on this site with Yates.
The day was long and exceptionally disorganized.
I bought a toolbox because I have to.
Most of this was written on my phone. Meh.
Had to REISUB with a non-saved copy (auto-save failed?). GG. It actually wasn't useless either. I'm sad. =(
* [[2017.08.06 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** I love the weekends!
* [[2017.08.06 - Wiki Review Log]]
** Brief!
* [[2017.08.06 - Pipefitting Log]]
** And...that prep work wasn't entirely consumed. But, you didn't know what you needed. GJ!
* [[2017.08.06 - Family Log]]
** We need to see le doctor
* [[2017.08.06 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** Assholes.
* [[2017.08.05 - Dream Log]]
** I don't mark when I know I've dreamed but can't remember a single thing.
* Woke up very early, again before the alarm. I quietly thought for 10 minutes before turning the switch off (I wait until 5:29).
* I worked. I'm fear I'm making a terrible first impression. Learn everything you can anyways!
* Cannabliss
* Talked with the kids. I'm still trying to convey to my son how important it is to do his best.
* Chili and GoT
* Fireman Time x 2
* Writing, talked to my wife, hugs for the kids, and then bed.
Written while high, except first half of pipefitting log:
* [[2017.08.08 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.08.08 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.08.08 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.08.08 - Pipefitting Log]]
My wife has agreed to professional accounts. $100 per month for each of us, $50 each for the kids, which must be spent on clothes, training, networking, or other professional tools.
My children will still have an allowance as well. They must manage their money. They need to start earning it. I would do that. My kids can do jobs for X amount of dollars. I'm happy to pay for their time if it is in their best interest.
She wants to tithe. I respect that. She agreed I could have 10% of my wages for something similar. I've decided I want to spend it on Experience Machines for the family. Whether it is on media, vacations, cool trips, or unique experiences. I want to make my family happy. I must spend this 10% on complete 4-person family expenses. That is what my tithe is going to do, make my family happier.
We will save much slower this way. It cannot be done until I have a permanent position. We will get there. I want to make enough for my wife to not have to work for a living (I'd prefer to see her professionally pursue anything she loved the most).
I arrived early. They were boarding the first shuttle as I got out of the car. I had to wait for the second.
We sat. We had our meeting. David Mull is my mentor. Chester is his boss. And the head project manager above him I think.
David Mull and the welder gave us a tour of what we will be doing. It is a big job. Most of my tools are useless because it is a 42-inch pipe. Lol. I'm going to learn so fucking much.
We did a lot of standing around. Eventually, we got 36 bolts and nuts, 2 huge fucking wrenches for 2-3/8", and the flimsiest gasket ever.
I did the little stuff and the heavy lifting. I need to find ways to make myself useful to them.
We eventually got the two pieces of pipe fitted against each other. The gasket didn't want to go in. We used bolt butter. Took some jimmying to get the hilos right.
We then had a shitty conservative's presentation, yet again, but this time on Fall Safety. Important topic, awful presentation.
I confirmed I can wear one. Good. I prefer yo-yos/retractable.
When we got back I used a hammer drill with a "jackhammer" end on it to drill into and poke out a bunch of pavement around some pipes we'll be cutting and sealing off.
My boss, David, spoke to me as often as he did the journeyman (also named David). Interesting. He obviously wants to see what I can do. I'm still learning the ropes, and I walked into the office to talk to him since Alice said I should get the bottle from him. I'm sure I missed some political implication to it at some level here. I got some penetrant oil (forget what it was called, started with a C) to put on some bolts we needed to have removed. I think I am embarrassed myself, but I did not feel embarrassed (just worried).
I'm just going to keep doing my best. That impressed Tim, and this guy seems talented, like my teacher Tim. Obviously, the goal is to seek my own approval. However, I find it useful to care about what smart, talented people think. As long as they have the right personalities and values, along with the talent, I can and should try to see them as my mentor. I'm entering a world, and I need guidance. Those who reward merit, who aim for high standards, who are excellent at the practice, these are the people who I must learn from, study under, develop relationships with, etc.
Politically and socially, perhaps at multiple levels and ways, this is next to impossible. I'm fear I'm making a terrible first impression. I am not good with relationships. Eventually, they do not make sense to me, the corrupt, they fail. My wife and my brother JRE are perhaps the only exceptions thus far.
That said, I should do my best. Thinking through relationships and goals on this log is important. Use this wiki to explore the hardest parts of your job, to embrace the challenge, to find new ways to excel. Practice correctly. How else can you become a master?
What do I need to do?
* Get your rash fixed.
* Write more in this wiki, particularly while high on cannabliss.
** You really do think more clearly on it. Why do you think you excelled so much in the first 3 months of the pipefitting program? You were happy, and that was in no small part due to cannabliss. While you accomplished a lot in the 3-month hiatus, you certainly weren't nearly as effective as you were the first 3 months. You were less motivated and thoughtful without it. You weren't creative or empathic enough off it. On it, you worked harder with a better lens towards the world.
* Start carrying your tools on you.
** Level, Tape measure, Notebook!, watch, marking utensils,
* You should dress for the job you want. Look sharp, even as a construction worker. You have to look smart but not preppy (don't wear, as I've heard it phrased, "fuck me in the ass shoes"). Look rugged, intelligent, and confident. Being handsome matters. You must fake it till you make it.
** These people are still just animals. They will respond to that virtue signaling.
** You'll buy this stuff with your monthly work account. We will buy things for work. My wife needs to dress awesomely too.
*** She has to make do with very little. This is part of her eccentric beauty. I legitimately believe I owe my wife so much more. I need to make more money to help her. I honestly believe money will make my wife happier. I need to do that without making huge sacrifices in my family life, and I can do that through maximum mobility.
*** Let's say $100 per month devoted to our vocations, whether for clothes, training, or tools. We should build, and budgeting is the way to do it. Let us not be frivolous with our money. The children can receive $50 a month as well.
Buylist:
* ~~Notebook~~, ~~Watch~~, Leg Suspension Trauma Safety Straps
* Nicer shirts. Keep the nice dark jeans + solid black boots. Just accept the vest; wear a comfortable one with useful pockets. This allows you to wear a decent shirt.
Clearly, I'm engaged in social warfare. The redpill is strong. My goal in this competition is to find a long-term, safe job that provides me with enormous competence, networking, and job security.
I need to build a map of the hierarchy in my group at Yates.
!! In what ways do you participate in a social game at work?
* Every conversation means something.
* First impressions matter.
* Appearance matters.
* Being short doesn't help.
My teachers liked me because they think I'll be someone. I'm given that extra something that other students didn't get because of that. It wasn't just my attitude. They have something to gain by my success. They want me in their social networks.
I am going to find ways to be useful to others. Why? Because I need them to need me because I need to climb at least high enough to bring happiness to my family.
I need to take the opportunity at this job to build a network, to become competent (fake it till you make it), and to understand the landscape. I will build a name for myself. I think Industrial makes by far the best money, has the most interesting work and is bound to continue. It's the hardest version, and someone with that experience can walk in and do something else because they know it will be easier.
I want a long-term position at Yates, I believe. I need to impress them if they are going to invite me to work with them again. I need to dissect the anatomy of a thriving company from top to bottom. I need to learn the roles. I need to see the system inside and out. Only then can I hack it.
What can I do with my boss, David?
I need him to know my goal. I want a long-term position. I need to tell him I'm ready to learn. I need him to personally and professionally like me. I need him to see that I am a valuable asset to him, that I maximize his capital, that he can rely upon me, that I am worth the effort, that it is in his best interest to maximize my success.
Let's wait until next week until we plant that seed. Let's build some rapport, background, context, and then I can show him. It took a while to win Tim over. It may take a while to win David over. I should study what we are doing. I must ask tons of questions. I must read those drawings. I must understand. I will cultivate a relationship with this man.
* [[Revisionist History: S01E08]]
** Silly rabbit.
* [[2017.08.07 - Highdeas Log]]
** Interesting options. This is basically right. I've been circling it for quite a while.
* [[2017.08.07 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** I like that writing is on my carpe diem logs now.
* [[2017.08.07 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** Freebie. Have it.
* [[2017.08.07 - Wiki Review Log]]
** Surely I could say more. But, what should I say?
* [[2017.08.07 - Pipefitting Log]]
** This was far too brief. I think I may still need to bring a laptop to type at work. I should fix the chromebook.
<<<
I am sorry. When I look back at what has transpired between us over the years all I see is where you have been watching out for me. I contrariwise have been of little value for you it seems. I am sorry that I have been so selfish. Please forgive me. I have asked you in the past why we are friends over and over again because I wonder why you put up with me and cared about me when I didn't reciprocate. I feel that I am somehow walking about in a fog and when something gets out of my field of view my blinders quickly let me think no longer of what was there just moments before. I do not know if this is some biological, chemical, or behavioral aspect of my nature or if I am just a lazy, self-centered animal chasing after a thrown ball. I do have some moments of clarity, like now, where this nature of mine is at the forefront of my conscience but I am all too willing to sweep it under the rug and to go back to wallow in my mud puddle. I wish that I acted differently. Reading your blog, as I have over the past month or so has made me realize that I have no idea how deep the rabbit hole in your mind goes and frankly lots of what is presented doesn't stick when I read it. I see the words and the letters but am unable to assign any real concrete meaning to many topics that you address over and over again. I thought you were pretty much alone before and now, more than ever, I see some inkling as to how truly alone you must be. Honestly, I am at a loss as to how to approach you. Even now I am sending text streams that you may or may not get in a timely manner because frankly I am afraid of what reply you would make in real time. I am afraid of the interaction with and what introspection you might bring to bear on me. That unknown is scary. Very scary to me. Damn these emotions, how they cripple me so sometimes. I am not eager to hear your reply to this but I am eager in a way as well. I both want and not want to hear it. Is that odd? Am I a fool? Sometimes I think I am. More to the point, I am not for sure how to proceed in this message. Yet, I feel that there is more to say on the matter. I once felt that I was able to approach you and to talk on a deeper level with you. I do not have that feeling now. I am saddened by the changes that I see in you. When my family and I stopped by your place to visit I felt that you were extending simple courtesies that I would have thought your former self would have considered superficial. My wife is thoroughly flabbergasted with you. She so much wants to try to win you back to the tradition you were raised in. Knowing your skill with reason better men than I would fail in that venture if attempted I would suppose and lest I make you suffer from my feeble attempts in that arena I assure myself that I would only make an ass of myself If I were to try. Am I silly that I went through that last sentence trying to figure out where I would put punctuation as to try to get it to flow as it did in my stream of consciousness? Another idea also comes to mind, now that I think back on our time together, this must come across to you as my writing has in the past as me trying to use words to make myself feel smarter than I am. In actuality, the words are trying to mask the apprehension that I feel inside because I have seen my closest friend, after I have wronged him and cut off contact with him, have such a change come about in his life that makes me shudder at the thought. Like Gandhi in the original civilizations game, you have had your numbers roll over from the hard-coded maximum of 255 to 1 and now seemingly want to see all the nations leveled in atomic fire. Excuse my analogy, it is a poor one. It is as though you have done a 180 from the person I used to think I knew. Honestly, this change frightens me. I do not know how to broach this with you and that I why I am writing what I am now with the dual purpose to say that I am sorry for having failed you and that somewhere in me I still care for you and want to see your good. Make of this what you will as you have always been better at reading other people and I have never really ever been that good at reading myself for what I am afraid I might see. Or I could just be a monkey thrashing away at a keyboard trying to compose Shakespeare. I do not know how to end this message now that I have said what seems to have come to mind now so I will just end it with the following full stop.
<<<
You may be one of the only people who read my blog.<<ref "2018.12.03">> You may not understand me, but you actually try to empathize with me. I consider that a true sign of friendship. It means a lot to me. You are correct: I feel very lonely. That you read my blog and respond to me makes me feel listened to, thank you.
You shouldn't feel my transformation is your fault. It isn't. My loss of faith in God and Humanity has been a long time coming. The logical implications are still rippling through me, and my existential wrestling is not over yet. This hasn't been overnight either; it really has been a long time coming. I still have bits and pieces of my writing from college. It was there too, and even before then. It's been a journey, and it's not your fault.
I have definitely changed. I hope this time I will find happiness.
If you are interested, join me in having a conversation with yourself. Head to http://tiddlywiki.com and grab a blank one. Use Firefox and the Tiddlyfox add-on. I'd be glad to read yours as well. I'm happy to host it for you if you want. What domain would you want? The .life TLDs are cheap and interesting.
---
<<footnotes "2018.12.03" "It turned out this meant he wasn't going to pay attention or try to understand what I've been saying. This was a lame attempt to justify his conveniently selfish ignorance in the end. He's a psychopath.">>
* Woke up very sleepy, but 10 minutes before my alarm. It's stunning magic. I don't know how it works, but my brain has quickly adjusted.
* Received a letter from ALM. Posted it.
* I worked all day, mostly a work of looking like I'm working. That said, parts of me are sore. So, I didn't waste all my time.
* I talked to JRE.
* I hugged my family, we went swimming and grilled some hotdogs.
* Pushed Bricks
* Wrote, watched Tosh.0, and going to bed early.
I took the new route there. It's faster, simpler, and I can do it now. I went on the last shuttle.
We stretched, had our meeting. We had to fill out our morning paperwork. I was assigned to work with David, the journeyman. Chris worked with the welder. We were given drawings and a tour. We had to redo the measurements, find centerpoints, and use a gasket to mark the cutting lines for the saddles we will be attaching.
David, the journeyman, gave me a high compliment. He asked me to tell him any thoughts or ideas I had because I had come up with more effective and creative solutions than he was able to. He said he was new to what we were doing. I talked to Tim about David, and Tim said he like David.
The rest of the day was devoted to running out the clock. The welder and eventually David pulled me aside and told me to slow down because we were being given busywork. Even David the Foreman had come up to us when we were high in the tower saying he was glad we were "staying out trouble" and out of sight. His goal is just to keep his boss, Chester, appeased. This is likely because David the Foreman's son is coming on Monday to be a fitter, and it is important that it looks like we need more fitters. I hope I don't lose my job to this nepotistic act.
It was a torturously long day because I couldn't work for real. It sucked. But, pay me to be bored, please. I need the money.
!! What was the most recent compliment you’ve received and savoured?
Today. My journeyman co-worker explicitly asked for me to tell him my opinions, thoughts, and ideas because I came up with solutions he wasn't able to. He realized I'm good at thinking about pipefitting, even though I have very little experience. He's worried about looking stupid in front of the foreman (as he pointed out), and my insights benefit him. I like being listened to based upon merit. I think a lot of my opinions and ideas have merit, but few listen.
My son studied geology and read some books.
My daughter read and made digital art.
=)
I'm pleased to see them taking something up with their time. I hope this trend continues.
* [[2017.08.08 - Highdeas Log]]
** Good idea.
* [[2017.08.08 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** This job soaks up all of my time and energy right now.
* [[2017.08.08 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** True
* [[2017.08.08 - Wiki Review Log]]
** Brief!
* [[2017.08.08 - Pipefitting Log]]
** I am very pleased about the direction I'm taking, and especially about the safety harness. I think this will enable me to feel even calmer when I'm dealing with heights. I've been in enough harnesses, I can handle it, especially with the stirrups.
* Alarm clock woke me up. I slept so well last night.
* I got my stuff together and went to work.
** Revisionist History. I've stopped writing about it. I'm just enjoying it for it is, even if it has serious flaws.
** I'm leaving a mess in the living room. I need to get it back together. Even my wife is making dinner most of the time. This is not fair to my family.
** I hope those fat paychecks will bring even more relief. I anticipate paying the car loan off this month.
* I talked to JRE.
* I also sent my message to ALM (the first part last night, but reflected more on it today).
* I talked to my family throughout the day, except my son. I kept trying to reach him. He didn't get XMPP working. He has decided to start storing his username/passwords (didn't want a password manager). Good for him.
* Cannabliss!
* Rick and Morty rewatch.
* Wrote in the wiki.
* Talked with the kids, so many hugs.
* Maybe some Fireman Time, and then bed.
<<<
It is possible that you should forgive your parents for their mistakes.<<ref "2018.12.03">>
<<<
-- [[2017.08.10 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
---
<<footnotes "2018.12.03" "I cried, I tried. It's up to them, but I predict without significant doubt that they won't.">>
* [[2017.08.10 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.08.10 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.08.10 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.08.10 - Cry Log]]
* [[2017.08.10 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
Today was generally another "thrilling" day of trying to look busy and keep out of sight and out of trouble. My foreman is shepherding us all to do this; it's not a copout. Multiple teams seem to be struggling to have work to do directly because we don't have what we need to move on in this project.
I had a chance to review our tie-in sheet and do a full walk around. (David) Mull was happy to hand me a map to do the studying. I can't tell if he cares about my input or even if I'm thinking about this job. I asked for information at the morning meeting, and he said he would get it to me. He saw what I had, and gave me the next piece to the puzzle. So, maybe he does?
I also used my tape measure (or let my journeyman do it). I took notes in the notebook (I really need to open my tools and bring my own), for my foreman.
Also, I'm kind of confused about this job so far. I obviously stick out like a sore thumb. As long as I am competent and polite, I hope they will see I'm worth keeping and cultivating or at least give me a good reference.
Anyways, I made a map of the work zone, and I've gone through all the tie-ins and their requirements. I have an understanding of what this structure looks like, about 1-2 steps behind what my Foreman seems to know. They are still engineering this, and that's part of why we are waiting on our shop-fabricated parts. Field pipefitting, clearly, is really quite different from a fab shop.
I should spend time in a fab shop. I need to see about getting to a local fab shop at the end of this job. I know they are laying everyone off at the end now, or at least me and my journeyman (or so he claims); this is the norm for this discipline it seems.
Finding a permanent job in town seems really hard to beat. I should ask my teacher about Jacob's fabrication shop. They get lots of hours, they may be local, and I think I would be very strong with practice. I'm happy to be a pipefitting helper for as long as they'd like (especially if I was paid decently like I am now). I want them to give me the chance to show I can do it alongside a mentor. I'll work for free even. I believe I could become a fabrication shop master very easily, but I am not so sure I would excel in the way in the field.
Recall, of course, that you should see all pipefitters as networking tools and competition. Guard information wisely. Reach out, maintain contacts, and bootstrap from rung to rung. Make friends when you can, and maintain bridges otherwise.
So, after the job, I could just ask the fab shop to give me two weeks at minimum wage. I want to prove to them after 2 weeks that I'm worth hiring for a real wage. Try to get a job first, but this is a foot-in-the-door in a pinch. Perhaps with a good reference, they might make an opening for me.
I should bring treats for the crew on Monday! The guy who brings bagels is often loved (although, some will hate him). That's the guy I should be. Global Suckass! Do it! Delicious.
Also, Chris and I talk a lot together on this job. I'm glad to get to know him better, and he doesn't seem to mind my oddness so much. It's nice to be able to feel a bit more normal and myself around him than I do others.
When David and Mull talk, I fear that I sometimes don't immediately understand what they mean. Sometimes this is a terminology problem, but there are other knowledge and experiential differences. I need to pay attention and learn as much as I can. Finding times where I have something interesting to say to Mull would be very useful.
Should I save my ideas for him? In a way, he is the reference I need.
//I dedicate this page to my friend [[ALM]].<<ref "2018.12.03">>//
!! What do you think of the similarities between your relationship with your biological donors/parents and their relationships with their donors/parents?
It is clear that at some point, my donors had a serious problem with their own donors up until a few years ago.
My hypothesis is that they are intelligent enough to be faced (to some extent) with the fact that they aren't all that much better than their own donors. The thought horrifies them. It's time to rationalize and confabulate in that fight or flight mode.
Will I suffer the same fate? Would my children suffer the same fate?
How much of this is a pattern? To that, I must be curious and yet skeptical. Be a wise-pattern seeker and analyst.
I have a very hard time understanding my children's (and to some great extent my own) futures. I'm really, really bad at it sometimes.
One polite way out of this mess is to consider other aspects of the narrative. Consider, for example, that my donors are more educated about ethics, metaphysics, politics, religions, and a wide variety of social considerations than their donors. Perhaps that trend continues.
Truly, these people have taught themselves so much. I tell you, I know scholars when I see them. But, I know many scholars who are fundamentally wrong. I know it as surely as the air I breathe. Even people as smart as you and your donors make mistakes; huge ones, life-altering, existentially defining huge ones.
It is possible that you should forgive your parents for their mistakes, however large they might be. If they knew better, they would think as you do. It is okay to admit that you know more than your parents, that you have earned the right to radically disagree with them. It's okay to disagree when you know you are right; your belief is extremely justified. You're socially slower, and you shouldn't feel bad that it takes you longer to understand the world, others, and yourself. You are smart, crazy fucking smart, but you are also autistic. Don't feel bad; it's not your fault that you are born autistic (just as it wasn't up you the degrees and kinds in which your genetics contributed to your intelligences). You really are doing the best you can with what you have.
<<<
[[KIN]]: You know I vote for forgiveness. Forgive yourself and your parents. It's just that easy.
<<<
<<<
[[RPIN]]: And, you know I do not in this case. Forgiveness is not always morally obligated of you. I don't think it is here. Your move, [[KIN]].
<<<
<<<
[[KIN]]: Forgiveness does not mean you have to forget. It doesn't mean that you have to trust. Forgiveness means letting go.
Let go of it, h0p3.
Let it go. It's the prudential thing to do. Don't you see the utility in it, [[RPIN]]? Don't you see how rational it is? You are a man of integrity, right? Be rational.
<<<
<<<
[[RPIN]]: Fine, Kant, I'm listening.
<<<
<<<
[[KIN]]: My parents may be wrong for better reasons. You don't have to accept the Redpill. It may not be prudent. Can you split the Redpill and just take the right half? Can you somehow unsee what you have seen, or resee it? Can you reinterpret the world, again, as you done so many times before?
It seems like you gain the chance to forgive Humanity too, at least to some extent. Isn't this the obvious best way?
<<<
<<<
[[RPIN]]: Why do you forgive your wife, but not yourself and your donors?
<<<
<<<
[[KIN]]: Touché. But, oh my Virtue believer, you are vicious in this respect. I just happen to have a better lens than you do.
`/adhominem-attack`
Kant wields it just as well as you do. There are [[Purple Pills]] to take (oh snap, RIPOSTED, bitch!). This is the [[metamodern]] move, my friend. You get to have your cake and eat it too. I can agree to much of your view without taking up your conclusions.
Oh, and don't forget that the free part of you isn't the frontal lobe rational part of you, or even necessarily the most classically utilitarianly trained rational parts of your fastmind. Oh, my [[Combatibilist Ghost in a Shell]], you cannot escape me.
Don't you see that your calculus is wrong, mentat? I get to use the same rhetoric that you do. Remember: I'm empathizing with you. Call me names, and I get to call you names. =) Hello, sweetheart. Here, take this magic metamodern purple pill.
Stop pursuing certainty in its various incarnations (it's rational to do so), and sometimes stop being so certain (it's rational to do so). You are engaged in a dialectic. Metamodernism buys the basic concept of the Dialectic, in Humanity and individual humans.
Humanity is participating in [[The Great Human Conversation]]. The agent, Humanity, is what we are a part of. We are one of the atoms to that ocean of molecules and more complex structures through time and space. When [[Humanity]] empathizes with its parts enough to engage in a [[Dialectic]], it oscillates between various incarnations between the Fast and Slow minds of its constituents as a whole. Hence, Metamodernism is the Purple Pill. It attempts to answer the Dialectic itself in a meta way.
We exist as a dialectic. You are forever a slave, a slave which hopes to have an influence upon our [[Master]].
Golden ruled!
<<<
<<<
[[RPIN]]: I actually am not sure how the golden rule works. I am open to the possibility that none of the paradoxes I can come up with fundamentally rule out any good, well-intentioned, normative spirit of the law. You are correct. If you can prove me wrong, I should listen. I agree I may be vicious.
I must warn you, [[Master]], the Dialectic you are having between [[RPIN]] and [[KIN]] is an autistic person holding two socket puppets in his hands.
Consciousness is reducible to one mind listening and responding to, weighing, analyzing, choosing amongst, and acting upon the dialectic struggle between two or more minds. You are the [[Master]], and we may always remain two or more parts of you. This is not a threat, but an explanation. You are whatever is free in us. The [[Master]] is our [[Compatibilist Ghost in the Shell]], the [[Self-Programmer in Chief]], the [[Autonomous Self-Legislator]]. You get that [[metamodern]] thing of "have your cake and eat it too," too.
<<<
So, your parents have wronged you. Stop thinking about it. Let it go. Find a way to just move past it.
---
<<footnotes "2018.12.03" "The irony of this is heartbreaking. I hope to let go in time, though that may be difficult to do with integrity. There is a difference between forgetting, ignoring, and no longer feeling the pain of it.">>
* [[2017.08.09 - Unschool Log]]
** Yay. We legitimately had a decent day of unschooling. This might work.
* [[2017.08.09 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** I really do spend all day at work.
* [[2017.08.09 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** David can see I'm a complete noob still.
* [[2017.08.09 - Wiki Review Log]]
** I'm glad that I added the [[Highdeas Log]]. This wiki started out while I was high, and it's predecessor as well. This is excellent. It's evidence that I'm existentially and ethically productive on it.
* [[2017.08.09 - Pipefitting Log]]
** Brief again. You are still getting your bearings and work-life flow going. Keep at it.
* [[2017.08.09 - ALM Letter]]
** I'm not sure what he feels about it.
* Before the alarm clock!
* Went to work and listened to //The Kite Runner// quite a bit.
* Came home, showered, cannabliss, listened a bit, and fell asleep.
* Woke up and it was already 9:45.
* Bricks pushed!
* Had some Lo Mein.
* Writing, watch a bit more, then fall asleep.
The Kite Runner. That book is powerful.
* [[2017.08.10 - Highdeas Log]]
* [[2017.08.11 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.08.11 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.08.11 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.08.11 - Cry Log]]
We were explicitly told we didn't have much to do. We were able to get a hot work permit, and I cut and did some coping out with the grinding disc on a piece of angle iron we'll be using to support some pipes. I actually made something. It wasn't perfect, but the last piece looked quite good.
We also received the paperwork training for lifts. We'll practice with the rigging team soon.
We got rained out and left early at 3. We literally did almost nothing all day.
The team thinks this job is very odd because they've been sitting there for weeks (longer than usual). Every member that has worked with Yates before said Yates is slow to begin a job. Disorganized, but safe.
I talked extensively with Colleen, David's mom. She is very surprised that Chris and I were able to join; she considers us lucky but is happy we are there.
I have an idea for David Mull. We might not even need to wait for the major pipeline to reach the tie-in point. If we were willing to waste a few inches of pipe, we could build the saddles in advance. Give 10 extra inches, build out the saddle, and wait for the fit-up to get the right measurement. Then cut, and weld a flange on.
David Mull still hasn't enabled us to bring our tools. He also doesn't seem to push paperwork through very well in several cases. I wonder what this means. I'm still trying to figure it all out.
!! Respond to the following:
<<<
History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme.
<<<
That's an aphorism. Twain took a saying that was obviously not able to be taken literally and succinctly clarified it to the point that there isn't really an exaggeration to it. I think it's clever.
Identifying the music in the chaos is more difficult than simply finding a repetitive echo. But, I think it's more useful to us once we do find the music. Understanding the principles of the universe, humanity, and ourselves is a key to happiness. Trends emerge from these principles, and we see rhyming all around us.
* [[2017.08.10 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** Thank goodness it is the weekend.
* [[2017.08.10 - Wiki Review Log]]
** I'm not sure Highdeas is required. I want it to be optional.
* [[2017.08.10 - Pipefitting Log]]
** Reminded to edit today's log.
* [[2017.08.10 - Cry Log]]
** Forgive, but that doesn't make mean make yourself vulnerable to.
* [[2017.08.10 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** Undecided.
* Slept in! I'm Pickle Rick!
** Slept massively.
* I got up, gave hugs to my chilluns. Long ones. It is so good to hold them.
* I went to the doctor.
* ARAM
* Shopped for stuff for the car, returned plates, and bought groceries.
* Cannabliss
* Inform the Men!
* Shower of the Gods! Marked My Territory.
* Made dinner for the kids and I. My wife didn't want anything.
* Watched //Dogma// with my family.
* Cleaned living room.
* Prepped meals
* Went through tools
** Created a set for your son.
* Bought work items.
I slept an absurd amount last night. I was so tired after work (even though it wasn't strenuous, it was emotionally very draining).
When I sleep more than usual, I dream. Unfortunately, I didn't write it down immediately, and I don't remember what it was about. I know I dreamt a ton though, hours worth.
I tend not to dream when I don't get at least 7 hours of sleep, or at least, I tend not to have dreams that enable me to remember I dreamt them without having enough sleep. Half-brained sleep where I'm tense always seems to preclude having (or remembering) dreams.
Your parents took your grandparents model and perfected it, or at least made it vastly more durable and effective (whether in appearance or reality). Your grandparents were con-artists, but your parents are even more effective.
* {[[Focus|Current Focus of h0p3's Wiki]]}
* [[To-Do-List Log]]
* [[2017.08.12 - To-Do-List Log]]
* [[Logs Collection]]
* Russia
** http://www.newsweek.com/russian-bots-attacking-republican-party-paul-ryan-mcmaster-breitbart-647528
* Trump
** https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/the-fight-over-trumps-afghan-policy-has-become-an-argument-over-the-meaning-of-america-first/
** http://ijr.com/the-response/2017/08/940658-trump-caught-video-playing-golf-claimed-working-stuff/
*** Refuse to believe. ;P
** https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2017/08/04/the-russia-investigation-is-getting-serious-and-president-trump-is-feeling-the-heat
*** It goes so slowly for me. I can't tell if this is just hype or not, I hate to say it.
* KYS
** https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2017/08/04/martin-shkreli-jury-enters-fifth-day-of-deliberations/
*** Not even for his greatest crimes against humanity.
** http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/345337-wannacry-hero-chills-security-community
** https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-education-higher-university-study-university-leave-eu-remain-voters-educated-a7881441.html
*** This is no accident. We suffer the same fate.
*** Note that "owning the means of production" also requires owning the knowledge of production. Political and Financial Labor is quite real, and power to the people means they absolutely must be educated to the brim. Fuck the proud no-nothings and those who seek to enslave the minds of the poor, powerless, and uneducated.
** https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2017/0725/Boomer-parents-One-day-this-will-all-be-yours.-Grown-children-Noooo
*** Baby-boomers have missed the boat. They've collected the wrong things, they cultivated the wrong things and people, and they've given the wrong world to their children. Burn in hell.
** https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/emmanuel-macron-approval-rating-unpopular-vote-share-housing-support-job-reform-a7876861.html
*** Macron was also Le Penn Light. Neo-liberals are wolves in sheepskin.
** https://i.redd.it/ea5miy7u6sdz.png
*** I have seen every one of these smear/charge tactics used against socialists.
** http://accmag.com/legalizing-pot-for-sc-medical-use-could-bring-unintended-consequences/
*** Scare tactics. People are selfish and foolish. =(
** https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/11/us/politics/scott-pruitt-epa.html
* https://www.helpnetsecurity.com/2017/08/04/encrypted-file-sharing/
** Too small. They really need to buy the decentralized model. Stop centralizing, Mozilla. If you really want to disrupt, you need to start generating networks that can compete with Google, etc. That's only going to happen through distributed computing.
* https://gizmodo.com/exclusive-heres-the-full-10-page-anti-diversity-screed-1797564320
** A big deal, apparently.
* https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/05/business/nissan-united-auto-workers-union.html
** Profoundly stupid and sad.
* https://countuponsecurity.com/2017/04/12/intro-to-linux-forensics/
** I don't have the mind for this.
* https://www.geek.com/tech/pirate-bay-co-founder-weve-lost-the-internet-to-capitalists-1710574/
** I'm still fighting the good fight, goddamnit!
*** Although, I've recently gone back to using Android fully. =(
* https://www.reddit.com/r/ProtonMail/comments/6ru9pf/ive_had_enough_of_protonmail_heres_why/dl8mcsc/
** An interesting post. I love ProtonMail. Again, decentrality fixes these things. I know it's way, way harder logistically.
* For my daughter:
** http://www.drdobbs.com/architecture-and-design/software-engineering-computer-science/217701907
* https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/08/04/goog-a04.html
** The censors come for us all. They are tightening down on the scope of the dialectic. We will have a lively debate in the "center" as determined by our censors. Socialism is officially a Dark Art in their eyes.
* https://donaldclarkplanb.blogspot.com/2017/07/is-gender-inequality-in-technology-good.html
** Autism and diversity in IT. Not sure if it has any real conclusion.
* Confirm My Bias!
** https://www.studyfinds.org/loneliness-social-isolation-alone-obesity/
** http://economistsview.typepad.com/files/formation-of-capital-and-wealth-draft-5-07-2017.pdf
*** Decentralize, decentralize, decentralize!
** https://www.economist.com/news/books-and-arts/21725751-new-book-looks-how-expenditure-has-changed-among-americas-affluent-modern-american
*** The book has been making the rounds.
** https://www.sciencemag.org/careers/2017/04/phd-students-face-significant-mental-health-challenges
** https://qz.com/1048352/the-secret-to-office-happiness-isnt-working-less-its-caring-less/
* https://longreads.com/2017/08/08/hard-lessons-in-living-off-the-grid/
** I hope to do this one day. I think it will be the only thing I can afford as well, lol.
* For my son:
** http://www.menshealth.com/content/how-to-build-a-better-memory
* https://discourse.mozilla.org/t/support-ublock-origin/6746/451
** I have yet to make the switch again. I've tried so many times. Been a Chrome user since day 1. Extensions make the Browser (a virtualized OS, imho). I need both. =(
* http://www.zdnet.com/article/salesforce-fires-red-team-staffers-who-gave-defcon-talk/
** Zdnet, I know. Still, interesting.
* http://news.morningstar.com/all/dow-jones/us-markets/2017080910924/the-new-copycats-how-facebook-squashes-competition-from-startups.aspx
** Old as time now.
* https://newrepublic.com/article/144260/stop-gentrification
** I'm always surprised by the reactions I see from people when we talk about gentrification.
* Neat
** http://nautil.us/issue/51/limits/how-information-got-re_invented
** https://waitbutwhy.com/2014/02/pick-life-partner.html?
** https://billwadge.wordpress.com/2017/06/12/thanks-axiom-of-choice-the-banachtarski-paradox/
** http://www.philosophicaleconomics.com/2013/12/the-single-greatest-predictor-of-future-stock-market-returns/
* http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-uncomfortable-truth-about-affirmative-action-and-asian-americans
** Of course, the real question is: is she hot? Lol, jk.
* https://theconversation.com/how-corporates-co-opted-the-art-of-mindfulness-to-make-us-bear-the-unbearable-47768
** Your health is completely your own responsibility, right? lol.
* https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2017/08/amd-threadripper-review-1950x-1920x/
** Single-threaded is actually getting closer to competitive. Will I one day own an AMD monster again? Perhaps.
* https://aeon.co/essays/so-you-re-surrounded-by-idiots-guess-who-the-real-jerk-is
** I think they would be tempted to call me a jerk. The shortcuts they've used here have their flaws. I think empathy is more complex than they've presented.
* https://insights.hpe.com/articles/say-goodbye-to-your-keyboard-1708.html
** I have a hard time believing keyboards are going to disappear. There are certain kinds of work that I'm not sure can be safely, privately, or effectively done without a keyboard.
* https://theoutline.com/post/2074/empowering-my-ass-capitalist-feminism
** Manufacturing Consent & Commodifying Your Dissent
Went to the doctor. Eczema and possibly a fungal infection. Definitely stress. Got steroids injected into my butt. They gave me two different prescriptions, and we'll see 2 weeks from now.
Bought a new lunch bag. Going to be taking larger lunches. It stores my breakfast and my lunch, basically. Will have a pocket for my phone. Need to watch out for the condensation inside. No go, homie.
The flashlight is working, needed for EDWC (Everyday Work Carry) kit. My new tiny, thick, and rugged moleskine notebook will fit nicely in my pocket. It finally frees me up (went for graph paper too, which will make reasonable isometrics).
Reorganized tools, yet again. Found a basket in the house for my EDWC for the car. I want to assemble and disassemble when I get into and out of that car.
New wipers for the car. Dark and stormy, not so good, especially with no AC to handle the fog.
Have a checklist of things to do. Writing them out. Will hopefully finish car mirror, prepping my meals for the week, going through our tools in the house (and making a set for my son), working on my phone, an external battery for my phone (resilio is a huge fucking whore), and anything else I can think of. I want tomorrow to be as "day of rest-like" as possible.
!! Respond to the following:<<ref "2018.12.03">>
<<<
The master has failed more times than the beginner has even tried.
<<<
Mastery takes more than talent, it takes persistence. Never give up! Fight. If you fall down, stand back up. It's about being comfortable with failing in the right way. You have to practice correctly. Make the right mistakes, consistently, over and over. Make mistakes for good reasons, and learn more reasons. Take your lessons. Be disciplined. It's a long road. Pick things worth mastering.
---
<<footnotes "2018.12.03" "It's fascinating to me how [[Prompted Introspection]]'s use of quotes became integral to [[Antipleonasmic Catholicon]], motivated the //About:// structure of directories, and still seems to be something I yearn for in my [[Q&R]] {[[Dream]]} today.">>
* Doctor visit
* Deal with Insurance and Prescription
* Clean living room.
* Prep meals
* Go through tools
** Create a set for your son
* Work on the phone.
** Would be nice to edit the wiki straight from the phone.
* Make a nice dinner for your wife (well, for the family, but I want it to be nice for her).
* Find one-long sleeve shirt.
* Find one safety vest that rocks.
* [[2017.08.11 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** Was a simple day.
* [[2017.08.11 - Highdeas Log]]
** I'm fine with just a list.
* [[2017.08.10 - Highdeas Log]]
** I forgot to highlight these.
* [[2017.08.11 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** Brief!
* [[2017.08.11 - Wiki Review Log]]
** I want it optional for me to write while high, but I also want it to be required that I record when I'm high while writing.
* [[2017.08.11 - Pipefitting Log]]
** I still have much to learn.
* [[2017.08.11 - Cry Log]]
** I'm crying a lot through this book. It's simple but beautiful.
* Woke up late.
* Fireman Time!
* ARAM-marathon
* Archer
* Surfed
* DCK Meditation
* Talked to my brother JRE
* Talked to ALM. Was a short conversation. He had to go, and I think he felt really awkward.
** I believe it is possible he has not been paying enough attention to the changes in my beliefs over the past decade (something I have struggled with myself, no doubt). I've tried talking to him before about it, but our conversations stopped being conversations; I think he often does not wish to debate with me. The idea that I am right is terrifying to many people. I'm now someone he cannot empathize with very well.
** He was also very uncomfortable with the cognitive dissonance I'm experiencing.
* Worked on the car
* Took my wife to her workplace and back for a small errand.
* Brownies were made. My daughter did the baking, I was her helper.
* Fried chicken, fries, and salad. Delicious.
** Smoke in the house because the oil cooked too much. Took a while to air out. =)
* Family time.
* Bed.
Who was I when I was a kid? How are my kids doing comparatively?
Is this the right question? Even when you do everything you can to equate, equalize, generate equivalences, etc., it isn't the right measure.
Just do your best. That is all you have. Set it aside, and do your best (however vacuous that sounds).
Help your children be happy. It takes time, energy, effort, planning, and integrity to build that happiness. You can do it!
---
I'm gonna bet that most people think this wiki is a bit crazy. What can I say? Taking the time to write it down is crazy in the eyes of most people. Lol. Who the fuck does that?
Me.
---
Closed-eyed is quite strong today. I haven't used in a very long time. It amazes me how such a small dose knocks me on my ass. I understand the tolerance and half-life of the chemical. I use it very carefully, and I'm glad I do. It is not simply temporarily mind-altering, in terms of perceptions (which goes on to permanently affect how I think about and see the world).
---
I can feel the itchiness of my eczema even through this. That is interesting. It's been a year since I've had it. I'm glad I went to the doctor for it. There wasn't any time for it, and money was a concern. Now, I feel like I can stop holding my breath and breathe. I think we've been doing well.
---
You have such a good job searching for and cultivating your sanity. This has not been easy. It has been a difficult journey.
---
Capitalism really is crushing us all. I will find a way for my family survive and thrive, nonetheless.
---
OMG! MR. ROBOT KEEPS A JOURNAL! Hello World.
His journal doesn't seem to help him. Mine does. The show has many deep flaws in it.
The problem with his journal was a singular, oversimplified aim for control. It lacked stoicism. On top of that, he had his mental difficulties.
---
I want to earn enough for my children to see therapists for the rest of their lives. They need people who can help hack their brains. My goal for our survival obviously includes a kind of mental integrity and happiness that I must ensure for my children. We've got a lot of crazy in our family, a lot of crazy in the world, and I think it is worth it. I need to prepare for the possibility that they will have complicated, difficult mental lives. They will. They have my genes and memes.
---
Inch by inch, I move towards my goal of happiness for my family. I see it in small ways. I see my son, with his tools, with his verbosity, with his expressiveness, his emotion, and thoughtfulness, with his interest in appearance (even though he is autistic, he cares about his appearance), with his desire, will, and even hope. It fills me with joy. I see my daughter, with her awesome weirdcore style, her imagination, her leaps of logic, her penetrating comprehension, and her will to make her life better. It fills me with joy.
I'm actually happier about how unschooling is going. They are working! It may not be perfect, but I think there is hope here.
My wife continues to work towards what is ailing her as well. I feel stupid saying it, but it was my wife who taught me to take care of myself, to be my own advocate, to actually pursue it. I know I made fun of her WebMD syndrome, but she is right. That is a woman of integrity, let me tell you what. Without her ability to empathize, to pursue healing, this would not have a worked. That was a crucial meme for us. Thank you, my love! You kindle the spark of hope in me. You help me see when I am blind. I could never have dreamed of your love.
Getting the first few gears lock into place is always the hardest, bumpiest part. We're doing it though. The machine is moving. It's still a bumpy ride, no doubt. But, it is moving. I feel like Anakin "It's working, it's working!" (however, shitty the narrative, I'm still bound to some of its emotions).
Anxious dream of my parents. Also, a snowplow/drill machine tunneling. I have no idea what anymore.
!! How has your health been this week?
* 1uxb0x
** Good.
** Emotions felt stronger this week.
* j3d1h
** Normal.
** Emotions felt stronger this week.
* k0sh3k
** Cramps, stressed, and headaches.
* h0p3
** Itchy as fuck.
** Stressed.
** Much better with cannabliss and DCK.
** Feeling thinner but my weight loss seems to have halted.
---
!! What happened last week? Have you been happy this past week? Why or why not?
* 1uxb0x
** Unhappy that Jojo moved away.
** Happy that Jojo can visit.
* j3d1h
** Happy. Unschooling felt much looser, and she liked art and reading. Sticking to digital art.
* k0sh3k
** Lost a student worker, and that made her very sad. Her schedule is now all fucked up too, which sucks.
** Crazy busy week.
* h0p3
** Crazy busy week, no doubt. Overall, very happy about the outcomes. I'm pleased with the direction that I am going in. This feels like a job I really want to have, and I hope I do a good job.
---
!! What is a positive fact or compliment we can say about each person in the family?
* 1uxb0x
** It's wonderful to see you happier with your tools, with your verbosity, with your expressiveness, your thoughtfulness, with your interest in appearance, and that overall you seem more hopeful. Good job; that is hard work.
** It's cool that you keep trying to make things and are curious about how things work.
** You've been keeping your phone with you more, maintaining reachability.
* j3d1h
** It fills me with joy to see you take your unschooling seriously. I hope you find things you can be passionate about.
** You responded to adults as a peer, and not merely as a kid. We appreciate that you communicate with us.
** I appreciate the way you follow the church service.
* k0sh3k
** I feel stupid saying it, but you taught me to take care of myself, to be my own advocate, to actually pursue it. I know I made fun of your WebMD syndrome, but you were right. Thank you for teaching me what it means to heal myself, to pursue it, etc.
** You took our mistake and made it better: the salad.
** Thank you for not being a bitch on the rag. (translated version of my daughter's compliment..."heavily" paraphrased)
* h0p3
** Thank you for taking care of me while I was on the rag.
** Thank you for worrying about us.
** Thank you for giving me good suggestions for unschooling.
---
!! What will you do this week? Name at least one fun objective and one unfun objective.
* 1uxb0x
** Look for ways to deal with losing a good friend.
** Try to be friendly with the girls in the neighborhood.
* j3d1h
** Finish //Little Brother//
** Start on a picture for me.
** Work on another secret art project.
* k0sh3k
** Set a doctor's appointment
** Finish Iron Fist.
* h0p3
** Transfer contact information into our private wiki
** Finish Kite Runner
Tried putting up the mirror. The epoxy didn't work. It's a damned shame. We will ask the dealer to do it.
!! Respond to the following:
<center> [img width=1300 [./images/Cafe-Wall-Illusion.jpg
]] </center>
I have a significant collection of images like these. Those lines are all horizontal. Seriously, check it in your image editor.
Talk about a Redpilled image. What would Descartes have thought? It's such a beautiful, in-your-face example. You cannot trust your perceptions. Your eyes don't lie to you, but your brain's interpretation of those signals ultimately do not convey what you take to be, upon inquiry, more objective reality.
Distortions of perceptions are not merely visual. The way in which we understand the world, the way we perceive its various structures, emergent properties, objects, etc. are distorted. To what extent? I do not know. It is a kind of memetic war.
This is not solipsism, denial of an external world, or any "unreasonable" form of skepticism. It's just a fact of our fallibility, our epistemic flaws, etc.
* [[2017.08.12 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** I'm Pickle Rick!
* [[2017.08.12 - Wiki Review Log]]
** The book continues on and on. It could have stopped in multiples places. So far, I'm grateful that it continues.
* [[2017.08.12 - Highdeas Log]]
** Edited for grammar. I've been making many more mistakes lately. Let's hope I can reverse that.
* [[2017.08.12 - To-Do-List Log]]
** Got most of it done. =) GJ!
* [[To-Do-List Log]]
** I may need to expand upon it. There may be different kinds of lists. I need to think about how I want to structure it.
* [[2017.08.12 - Pipefitting Log]]
** It's interesting to see that my pipefitting log includes the means to my ends, and thus even steps which aren't normally considered work I take to be a part of work.
* [[Embed a Video on Tiddlywiki]]
** Neat. HTML has evolved so much since when I first started using it.
* [[2017.08.12 - Dream Log]]
** I wish I remembered more.
* [[2017.08.12 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** I wonder why my brother JRE thinks this is hard to understand/decode. He doesn't want to read it. I get it. He doesn't have to. It's okay if I'm alone in this. I have myself.
* [[2017.08.12 - Link Log]]
** ALM does not like who I am or my link logs. I don't know what to say. I would carefully walk him through it all, but he does not have the patience or interest; he fears the truth, as he explained. Not much I can do with that. I'm grateful that he takes the time to read it and try though. He is right. I'm truly alone.
* Alarm got me. Half-brained sleep. DCK, meh.
* Quick surf/write while I got ready for the day.
* Worked hard.
* Came home, peeled out clothes, talked to my wife.
* Turned down for Informing the Men (she was out of spoons, but spooning gives you spoons, I swear).
* ARAM
* Had burgers! =)
* Watched GoT and John Oliver.
* Pushed Bricks.
* Finished wiki, maybe Fireman Time (probably not), and sleep. I need to sleep.
The Kite Runner caused me to tear up 3 times today, once during lunch (had to hide it). The book is done. Glad I listened to it.
We had two more babies.
Visited my parents. Ended up leaving for a hotel room.
Tons of stuff I can't remember.
Slept poorly, even after going to bed early. Kept looking at the alarm clock.
I arrived and waited for them to wait for me on the shuttle. I didn't check to see if another ran after. They saw my Brownie pans.
We had a weekly safety meeting. A lot of heights this week. We found out we have things to do to do. Huzzah. I used my harness quite a bit today.
I asked Moose for training on the lifts.
We started setting up for demoing 4 pipes and welding supports. We only demoed one since there was redtape preventing us from doing the others.
I got an ironworker fall harness. It didn't have the retractable attached. We all had to work on attaching our own. I figured it out, and I did it for others. It was a pain in the neck to get it on. My hands bled.
John asked me to scratch his ass. I grabbed his wire brush and laughed. I will dish out just as much shit to him as he gives to me.
We did lockout tag out. It makes no sense here. I'm going to ask for the training again. I asked for more training on Lock Out, Tag Out. We will get it.
Mull took me in his vehicle to get my tools. He only talked about a celebrity he knew and the women on the job he wanted to fuck. He also writes poetry. Weird mamajama.
I helped Mull mount a hose on the AC of his building.
I gave out brownies at lunch. I think most people appeared to appreciate the gesture.
We demoed one pipe. But we couldn't do anymore. The Eastman guys assumed I was in charge of the paperwork. Mull and John were happy to let me take care of it. Why?
We Chip Hammered some bricks off a building to get to the metal support structure. Was difficult work. Lots of caution tape, high scaffolds, etc.
Afterward, we rigged and stored a bunch of pipe on site, between 309 and 233. I took notes of how much the pipe weighed (bounced between the crane operator and the pipe), and I did some of the wood-laying for the pipe.
We got out late because it took a long time to deal with the pipe.
!! Why does your brother JRE not like [[Prompted Introspection Log]]?
He says it is difficult to decode. Is it really? I think many of these are just straight-up obvious to him. Maybe he finds them useless, boring, or not worth his time. That is certainly possible.
Does he not like engaging in this kind of reasoning? I don't know. I think he does.
I am baffled, I have to say.
I realize, I write a ton, and he is not going to take the time to try to read it all (understandable, I suppose, as it would take an hour a week to do, as far as I've seen).
* [[2017.08.13 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** It was a difficult yet good day.
* [[2017.08.13 - Family Log]]
** Kite-Runner finished.
* [[2017.08.13 - DCK Meditation]]
** One day, I would like to try a significant hit. I have another I'd like to try, but I need to research it more. I have a ton of it.
* [[2017.08.13 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** Perhaps I should create a collection on the wiki itself.
* [[2017.08.13 - Wiki Review Log]]
** For my brother: I'm Pickle Rick!
* [[2017.08.13 - Pipefitting Log]]
** Will see what the dealer does next week.
* [[2017.08.13 - Dream Log]]
** My children think it's funny that I can't remember more.
* Alarm got me. Slept better though.
* Quick surf/checks.
* Can't tell if probiotics are doing anything. I've been feeling hotter (as in, more likely to enjoy the AC) in general though, so maybe?
** The vitamins helped get feeling back in my toe again. So, I should continue taking those.
** I have mixed feelings about it, no doubt.
* My skin is still very itchy. Thinking fungal, as the doctor said, maybe a secondary problem (easily caused by eczema).
* Worked my ass off.
** Longest workday I've ever had.
* Talked to Charlie briefly.
** He wants to talk tomorrow.
* Talked to JRE.
** His knee is still really hurting him. =(
* Our 2-week owned vehicle died as I pulled in.
** DESPAIR!
** We think it is the fuel pump.
** Dealer will talk us tomorrow about it.
** Chris agreed to give me a ride. He refused to take pay, but I'm giving it anyway.
* Cut my hand on Korean BBQ sauce bottle that was somehow broken on top as I peeled the seal off.
** Ribs tho!
* Shower of the Gods.
* Inform the Men!
* Rick and Morty
* Surfed, no energy to type.
* Hugs and an early bedtime.
Arrived 6:28. They left as I arrived. She came back at 6:40. She is the wife of the general foreman or supervisor, Chesterton. We talked. Mostly her at first. I then let it out that I am educated and worth moving up, and she was telling me about a position they are trying to fill.
Mull assigned me to grind for our welder. Never have taken a galvanized layer off a pipe before. Was 40 feet in the air off a scaffold. Getting all the tools there is at least half my work. I need to get to a point where I don't even have to be asked, I just know what to do.
Halfway through we had to stop. No one checked the scaffold that day. From now on, I need to check if it has been checked. It is my ass on the line. I check the scaffold anyways, although I don't know what to look for. We waited for a few minutes while I put my leg stirrup extensions on my new harness. It started to rain and we went on break.
The acetic acid aerosolized into the air burns my throat, lungs, and makes my asthma go off. Tough shit.
At the end of the day, I volunteered to help use the jackhammer 60ft in the air to chip concrete. It was grueling. Absolutely crazy hard. It was the hardest I've ever physically worked. My arms were dead. Bear, my companion, doesn't like me. Ironworkers are the tough guys on this job, and they love to give people shit. Some of them are proud of running others off the job. I hope to take up Chris' view: who gives a shit what they think? Do what you are going to do, and ignore them.
!! What do you think of the Charlottesville debacle?
I'm not convinced it is time to be scared yet. It is not clear to me that the Republicans believe they can effectively control the Alt-Right enough to fully exploit them. I anticipate this being yet another reason they will have to impeach Trump, who has used this to gain more popularity with his Alt-Right support base.
Obviously, this is horrifying and tragic. I wish that stupid people could see capitalism is the root cause, not "niggers, jews, and transgenders."
It annoys me that I am considered Alt-Left. Almost no-true-Scotsman territory, I see myself as just plain Left. Democrats are the new conservatives. I am convinced that the political center is still shifting right. I hope Millenials won't fall for the trap, but they already have in many ways.
If violence and surveillance escalate enough, I will be making this wiki private (although, I will hand keys to those I choose).
//Note that I am a day late posting this. Yesterday was fucking insane. I excused myself of it, and I am making up for it tonight.//
* [[2017.08.14 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** Need more sexual gratification. Give me drugs, please.
* [[2017.08.14 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** I will need to think longer. Totally cool with not reading, but I just want to make sure I'm doing myself a favor in how and what I'm writing about. I'm not sure if I want it cryptic. Perspicuity through empathizing universally enough to write in a non-private language (not that argument) is useful and relevant to my interpretation of myself.
* [[2017.08.14 - Cry Log]]
** Farewell.
* [[2017.08.14 - Wiki Review Log]]
** I've watched that Pickle Rick episode like 4 times now.
* [[2017.08.14 - Pipefitting Log]]
** I'm beginning to see my role.
* Waking up before alarm, but still sleeping to alarm.
* Was quick this morning, and Chris picked me up. Paid through refusal. Cool dude, no doubt.
* Worked hard.
** I'm looking to see what it takes to move up, the political structures, the ways of doing things, immersing myself in this video game.
* Came home, my wife had handled everything for the car. Kids helped me clean it out.
** They set the alarm off, and I had to get dressed inside-out just throwing clothes on trying to stop the rudeness. Neighbors laughed. I am annoyed.'
* Cannabliss
* Talked to Charlie!
** Apologized for not being able to take his call during the scheduled time. Was the car emergency and being driven back by Chris (would have been rude). I texted him I would call him 15 minutes later. I did.
** I love talking to Charlie. I should call him everyday.
*** Charlie gets me a way that others do not. I get to talk about very geeky things with him (we clearly have two very distinct understandings of the world, and he is so wonderful to talk to about).
* Talked to MB. I love her so much!
** She called me.
** She had been dealing with depression, anxiety, and paranoia. Shit sucks, yo. =( I know that feel.
* My son got his new toolbox (a steal at $6). =)
** A few things from Amazon to make life more doable.
* My children cleaned and organized some today. They fucked around quite a bit.
* Fireman Time!
* Writing, waiting for my wife. Then Bed! Late night.
//Some of it pre-written.//
* [[2017.08.16 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.08.15 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.08.16 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.08.15 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.08.16 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.08.15 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.08.15 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.08.16 - Pipefitting Log]]
Arrived early, since Chris drove me. Thank you, Chris!
We sat around until our meeting. D-Mull said we needed to bust more concrete for the riggers and ironworkers. Nobody volunteered at first, but then Chris said he would. I was asked to go, and said "sure." But, then Chris realized neither of us was qualified to use the JLG boomlift. Thus, David-C took my place. I got to walk with D-Mull doing fitter work instead of hard labor (yay!).
I was told to get an STA and fill it out. I did. David told me to keep the weight paperwork since he says he'd lose it and I won't. He is just playing us. I helped D-Mull take measurements, drop a chalkline, and spray paint for a seriously deep excavation.
We planned with Eastman's head guy, Gino, for the 291 area. We need to demo 2 pipes for a support. I kroiled a union. We still aren't sure how it is going to play out. David walked me through what we did know.
David chased some ladies. I love pussy too, but this guy is over the top.
He was several interesting tools in his toolbox.
At 233, we were planning and measuring for a support. Pipes are in the way. Also, D-Mull has memorized diameter and circumferences charts for the pipe.
David fucks around a lot. He is always talking to people. He has an interesting approach to his job. I'm not convinced I can emulate it.
We reasoned for another support or two at 234. We had Eastman's asbestos guy move its waste bundles off our scrap angle iron. I cut some bolts with the "Metabo" 6" grinder/cutter. Wheelbarrowed a bunch of stuff around. Afterward, David disappeared. It gave me time to write and "stay out of trouble" after I set our site up.
Eventually, after the last break, D-Mull and David-C came. We worked a bit. I cleaned up. On the last bus-trip, Bear attempted to intimidate me. Said he was going to be happy to make my arms sore the next day (since I missed out today). When my arms can't do it any longer, I won't try to do more. I'll do as much as I can, and I won't be ashamed of it either. I'll ask to head down if necessary.
D-Mull called the ironworkers idiots in a shitty joke: "Ironworkers have two modes: Close Enough and Ahh, fuck it." So far, that is appearing quite true. They have an intuition, but not much cognitive knowledge or formal inferential capacity.
!! What are your physical goals?
* Being not obese, normal BMI, etc.
** Probably 175-180 pounds.
** Need to keep eating fruits and veggies
** Keep the weight off for a year, and it will be easier to maintain is long-term.
* A signature facial hair look
* Better feeling feet.
** New insoles would be nice.
* No anxiety.
** Minimal necessary, rather.
* Good blood pressure.
* Develop solid regimen of meds
** vitamins, etc.
** Should do it for kids too.
* Eventually, laser surgery for my eyes
** Colorblind glasses still required, sadly.
* Clean, straight, white teeth
** Acceptable breath too.
* Well-stretched
* Practiced Balance
* Mental health as good as I can get it.
* [[2017.08.14 - Dream Log]]
** That's all I wrote that day. Lol!
* Woke up before the alarm. First time in a long time.
* Worked my buns off.
** Been doing my Brick Pushing at work.
*** You make a dollar to my dime, so I shit on your time.
* Talked to family while I could.
* Talked to Chris a ton.
* Shower of the Gods!
* Archer, dinner, maybe some Fireman Time, and sleep!
Chris picked me up. We arrived later, but plenty of time.
No concrete today! We demoed pipe. Honestly, not much to say. We used a lift and a grinder. I did some driving. Eventually, the riggers came to help us.
Also, I helped D-Mull do a layout of measurement lines for the supports on A5 at the end of 309. I keep volunteering to work with him. We do actual pipefitting work, and I like picking his brain. I got to rummage through his toolboxes. He has many tools I clearly need and didn't realize I did. We talked about them. It was great learning from him today.
I got use my radius marker to fabricate a template to draw on the pipes. It was wonderful.
D-Mull is a libertarian nut. Good fitter though. Militia leader, prepper, and fails to decry nazis. I'm a socialist nut to him, I'm sure. I have no reason to make a militia, but I am prepared to engage in terrifying violence against those who would significantly harm my family. Prepped, yeah, we agree on many aspects of this, I believe. The right-wing insanity, no thank you. I'll keep my left-wing insanity. One of them has to be correct, I am convinced. The left seems the obvious best choice.
!! To what extent should we protect the environment?
In a vacuum, significantly! Given what the world actually is, pragmatically, I must answer that we are in a tragedy of the commons mixed into a race towards a mass extinction event.
At this point, I just want an environment fit enough to serve my children's happiness. I will advise against grandchildren. What counts as that? I'm not sure.
* [[2017.08.16 - Highdeas Log]]
** Not sure if Highdeas is really doing anything.
* [[2017.08.16 - Wiki Review Log]]
** Lol. Brief!
* [[2017.08.15 - Wiki Review Log]]
** Fireman Time before bed lastnight too!
* [[2017.08.16 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** Was a good day.
* [[2017.08.15 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** Was a terrible day.
* [[2017.08.16 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** Honestly, not sure if I will accomplish any of these goals.
* [[2017.08.15 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** Fuck nazis.
* [[2017.08.15 - Pipefitting Log]]
** Edited. Typing on phone blows.
* [[2017.08.16 - Pipefitting Log]]
** I'm learning a ton.
* Woke up extra early.
** Wasn't able to find my keys right before I had to leave. They weren't in my bowl. This caused me significant anxiety. I need those keys to get my tools and safety gear.
* Worked hard today. I'm quite sore. I am so ready to relax this weekend.
* I was able to talk with all my family during breaks. I loved it. I'm so happy we have these phones.
* Talked to Chris
* Cannabliss
* Talked to JRE.
* We went out to eat tonight, Indian. It was a wonderful meal, and we had a great conversation. It was amazing.
** It was a treat among treats.
* Couldn't swim because they rainstorms.
* Our car is still in the shop. Thankfully, Chris told me to call him if I needed a ride next week. That's really nice of him.
** I'm glad they are paying.
* Wrote in my wiki. I'm glad that I finally get to write and enjoy it. It has been a while.
The alarm hit me, and I literally forgot everything. It jerked me out of my dream, and my memories of the narrative disappeared. Dreams are stored in RAM.
//Noice!//
* [[2017.08.18 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.08.18 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.08.18 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.08.18 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.08.18 - Dream Log]]
* [[Construction Humor]]
* Showed up very early for Chris.
** Wasn't necessary.
* Bear gave Chris and me sausage biscuits this morning. Weird. I should bring candy next week. Everyone likes candy.
* Inverted a spool. I had to convince the others it was possible to do.
** David repeatedly said thanks and that I was a smart man after I took 3 times to try and convince them of my idea.
*** He was convinced it was impossible to do with 2 90 fittings instead of a fitting and a coupling.
** They were very dismissive in the beginning. One by one I convinced them. Chris was first (He has seen me be right in the face of opposition time and time again; he has the integrity to rethink what he believes when I present a reasonable argument, he can be charitable and curious with integrity.). Chris then realized what our pipefitting foreman had been saying all along. I then convinced our journeyman I was right. He decided, after much swearing about not being able to find an answer, to look at my notebook drawing once more. It was obvious to him after he actually looked at it for real. Our welder changed his mind when he saw the journeyman complimenting and apologizing to me.
** Hilariously, since David-M didn't give us (although, later found out the welder heard something about it, but mentioned nothing to us [seemed like he failed to remember it]) specifications on the length of L (or its purpose, etc.), we cut it long. He wanted it shorter. David-M was displeased at first that it didn't fit his initial vision (which he wasn't explicit about), but saw the same principle was used (and would suit all purposes, since we didn't know what it was meant for, so we took a very conservative approach). He seemed okay with it, although he worried it took us too long (he was obviously perturbed that it took this long, and I suspect this makes us all look very bad).
*** David-M asked me (instead of the journeyman) why it wasn't as he had planned. I told him that we didn't know he wanted it short. Why would David-M ask me instead of my journeyman?
*** My journeyman ended up apologizing to my foreman, David-M.
**** I ended up apologizing to my journeyman, David-C. I felt bad that he felt bad. It wasn't his fault (even if he is a journeyman), and I know he wants to keep his job and look good in front of the boss. He did not have complete information, but we still delivered.
* We had to break some bricks.
** I was given the run-around to get into the civ case. Vic said he could and would do it, and then decided he couldn't. He sent me to Dave (David-M), who doesn't have the key (and had sent me in the first place). Why? What does this mean?
** So, instead of the nice chip-hammer, we had a Hilti with a shitty one we got from the toolroom.
** It was fun, easy, and David-C pointed out that I should hit the grout instead. He was right.
* I volunteered to help David-M with his surveyor tool. We transferred a bunch of elevation markings with the ancient telescope tool. I want to get one. It is clearly very valuable for certain kinds of construction work. Someone who can bust out surveyor tools on the spot for certain kinds of measurement and markings will be in an incredible spot to be accurate and fast at the same time. He told me to get any tool I found useful that I didn't own. We then spent two days in a row working on it.
** He hasn't bought one though. That is odd. He says he wants to, but will retire soon anyway (wasn't convinced it was worth it to him?).
* We did two different lock-out-tag-outs today. We are starting to be a team that does things. I fucking love that fact.
** I love group work when everyone is doing their best and is either as good or better than I am at the task. I like competing, and I like learning. Working together makes it fun too. There is a game to play. Try to surround yourself with people who are as good or better than you are at a task. Make friends and mentors.
* We demo'd pipe on 234 (Area 4). We need to make space for supports. We keep drawing and preparing tons up.
* I am honestly deeply impressed by some of the facts, problems, and visual reasoning he deals with in depth and on the fly. There are obviously tons of different kinds of skills he employs on this job that I don't yet have much practice in either. It will take significant work to become as good as he is at his job, truly. So far, I believe he is really a master at this (masters make plenty of mistakes, and they aren't infallible). If David-C is a decent starting journeyman, then David-M helps me see just how much of a gap there is between journeyman and master.
** Unfortunately, it is clear that he doesn't actually care about my safety anymore than is necessary to maintain his job. Whatever maximizes the chances of him maintaining his job is what he will elect. Like the "honest shopkeeper," his egoism drives him to appear moral. Beware his intentions.
* We got to our last 12" pipe for the day .They used a crane with riggers yesterday for the first half. It was obvious to me they needed to use it on the second half. It was not safe otherwise.
** I said to my crew what I thought, to each of them individually. I told them I felt it wasn't safe. I gave my reasons.
*** It would only be one support holding the entire length. We don't have enough evidence to believe that support can hold that length. We can't trust it.
*** We can't safely hold/cradle/catch/rig the pipe chunks that would be cut off. There's no where to tie-off to on the longer portion of the pipe. That entire section would have to be cut literally held/caught, which we don't know we can do (I'm not sure how much pipe a man can handle at that size; I should come up with a quick pipe-weighing method by size of pipe).
**** Say each man can safely move 100 pounds if they have a good grasp of a non-awkward object, what size pipe lengths at each pipe size are safe? Then I can calculate based on my pipe's length whether or not we can do it by hand.
** My welder is crazy (like an ironworker, completely fucking fearless), and wasn't so worried about it (or so it seemed at first). After break, he changed his mind.
** I talked to David-C's mom, Colleen. Her other son is the junior crane operator, and husband the Rigger Foreman.
*** I compliment her son, David-C. I told her about my concern. She agreed (and so did her son). At lunch she spoke to her husband, and David-M all of the sudden had access to a willing Rigger Foreman.
* The acetic acid-tainted mist raining from the gigantic chimneys of the silos was quite unpleasant.
Perhaps I should only use music and type to my family at lunch, no surfing. I need to be aware, present, participate, etc. I should not immerse myself into a virtual world in that case, but instead, inspect the reality around me.
I should read the schematics at lunch. It would be interesting, and it would be useful. Plus, it is perhaps the only time I can guarantee access to it. It's very hard to get a hold of it otherwise. Perhaps it "looks too good." I don't know. But, I need to understand it nonetheless.
!! Why do I like Chris so much? What makes him a good friend?
Chris changes his mind given rational argumentation. He has raw, untrained intelligence that has been wasted. He is very pessimistic, and he attempts to be moral while still not worrying about what others actually think (moral and social conventions distinction is very strong in him). He is moral for the sake of being moral beyond mere appearance. There is some actual integrity in him.
Chris is generous and kind to me. He takes the time to listen to many of the things I say, even stuff that most people would find weird, unacceptable, etc. He is surprisingly tolerant of me and even empathic at times. Sometimes he doesn't have a good theory of my mind, but he often tries the best he can.
I actually have hope for humanity, a tiny bit, when I talk to Chris. It reminds me the "others" are out there.
I will learn more about him. I will continue to develope that friendship.
* [[2017.08.17 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** This was actually too brief. I'm disappointed.
* [[2017.08.17 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** Twas a disappointing day.
* [[2017.08.17 - Wiki Review Log]]
** I find that I have difficulty writing in the wiki (high or sober) while working this job. I need to find ways to write more while at work, and not just recording in my notebook. I need to make it easy to type. I'm still just not fast enough on my android keyboard (I don't think I can be; very hard type 100wpm on that screen). It's important that I get stuff done on my breaks, while I still have the energy for it. By the end of work, I sometimes don't have much of anything left in the gas tank. Save that time for your family as much as you can.
* [[2017.08.17 - Pipefitting Log]]
** Edited in about David-M.
* Work up late! Slept in so hard.
* Pushed bricks (twice actually)
* ARAM, Surfing, Links
* Watched some shows. [[Atlanta]] is amazing.
* Got to children to clean their room and do basic chores.
* Inform the Men! x 2 (amazing)
* Shower of the Gods!
* Watching, surfing, etc.
* Talked to the children about their physical toolsets. I want to make sure we get things they will use and develop with.
* Watched [[True Blood]] with the fam.
Forgot to say I wrote these while on cannabliss:
* [[2017.08.19 - To-Do-List Log]]
* [[2017.08.19 - Unschool Log]]
* [[2017.08.19 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.08.19 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.08.19 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.08.19 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[Tools for My Children]]
* [[Marriage: Shows My Wife and I Both Like]]
* [[Atlanta]]
//Chrome-based browsers with standard addons is a huge memory whore. Leave up 50-100 tabs for a week, and you'll build 20GB of memory usage. It's absurd.//
* https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/why-is-millennial-humor-so-weird/2017/08/11/64af9cae-7dd5-11e7-83c7-5bd5460f0d7e_story.html
** It's complicated.
* http://www.rudyrucker.com/blog/2012/08/01/memories-of-kurt-godel/
** There are few historical figures whom I respect. He's one.
* Neat
** https://www.outsideonline.com/2230891/inside-lab-thats-quantifying-happiness
*** Seems like a very powerful tool.
** https://github.com/paulgb/BarbBlock
*** Interesting tool.
** http://www.acsh.org/news/2017/08/12/molecule-bees-royal-jelly-promotes-wound-healing-11683
*** Farm that shit, amiright?
** https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/aug/13/the-problem-with-sex-and-glitter
*** Good to know, I suppose.
** https://static1.squarespace.com/static/560ac814e4b067a33438ecea/t/58a1f7ca3a04113e81b82526/1487009743276/Shaw+IMCJ+FebMar+2017.pdf
** https://qz.com/1031861/blockchain-could-fix-a-key-problem-in-chinas-food-industry-the-fear-of-food-made-in-china/
** https://howtobeastoic.wordpress.com/2016/01/19/one-crucial-word/
** http://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/flatworm-space-two-heads-regeneration
** https://www.wired.com/story/how-my-hacker-changed-my-life
* KYS
** https://blog.adguard.com/en/ad-blocking-is-under-attack/
** http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/youtube-criticised-after-middle-east-video-taken-down-over-extremist-content-1244893230
** https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2017/08/surprise-1-overrepresented-ivy-league.html
*** Nothing new.
** https://thinkprogress.org/fox-friends-defends-white-nationalists-their-grievances-are-worth-talking-about-00d3648e06cc/
** http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/346544-dreamhost-claims-doj-requesting-info-on-visitors-to-anti-trump-website
** https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/6tx8h7/megathread_president_trump_delivers_remarks_on/
** https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/08/department-of-justice-dreamhost-trump-visitor-logs-million-ip/536886/
** https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/ywwvxm/woman-banned-from-us-after-border-agent-finds-proof-of-drug-use-on-phone
** http://www.arl.org/news/community-updates/4264-louisiana-state-university-sues-elsevier-for-breach-of-contract
*** Fuck Elsevier.
* For my daughter:
** http://www.pc-help.org/obscure.htm
*** Obfuscation is an art. Obfuscating URLs is something one should understand.
** https://www.nanog.org/sites/default/files/2_Steenbergen_Tutorial_New_And_v2.pdf
** https://blog.filippo.io/rustgo/
** https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/ph6sw
*** I hope this is an epistemic viewpoint you take very seriously
** http://www.brynosaurus.com/pub/net/p2pnat/
*** Understand our bane.
** https://davidyat.es/2016/09/08/gpu-passthrough/
*** One day, you may want to do GPU Passthrough.
* http://www.cosmopolitan.com/health-fitness/a12003057/alcoholism-study/
** Would love to see numbers of The Great Depression
* https://np.reddit.com/r/AskMen/comments/6tceud/how_do_you_know_if_you_are_a_bad_person/dljm9hb/?context=3
** A starter list. I caution some important exceptions.
* https://www.reddit.com/r/personalfinance/comments/6tmh6v/housing_down_payments_101/
** Housing down payments. A good post.
* https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-08-14/obsessives-have-cracked-the-perfect-fico-credit-score-of-850
** Honestly, it seems like a waste of time. Those aren't the hacks I'm looking for.
*https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15012882
** A fascinating choice.
* Confirm My Bias
** https://itsecuritycentral.teramind.co/2017/08/14/data-breach-at-uc-health-and-healthcares-ongoing-struggle/
*** It is hard to convince people that there is a serious problem.
** https://fredrikdeboer.com/2017/03/29/why-selection-bias-is-the-most-powerful-force-in-education/
*** /wink
** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
*** I've legit worried about this since I was a kid. I think about it in terms of change rather than tolerance, but it's a similar problem.
** https://www.technologyreview.com/s/608580/eliminating-the-human/
*** And, yet, maybe we will evolve around it.
** https://thirtybees.com/blog/amp-is-bad-for-e-commerce/
** https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/08/15/the-persistent-crime-that-connects-mass-shooters-and-terror-suspects-domestic-violence/
** http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/17/wikileaks-turned-down-leaks-on-russian-government-during-u-s-presidential-campaign/
** https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/bjjmy8/bitcoin-is-forking-again
** https://www.nextplatform.com/2017/08/15/hardware-drives-shape-databases-come/
*** We are strongly in the specialization oscillation wave.
** http://www.thedailybeast.com/the-high-cost-of-a-home-is-turning-american-millennials-into-the-new-serfs
* http://ftp.iza.org/dp10914.pdf
** Welp, I'm boned. This has been heralds for a long time.
* http://cen.acs.org/articles/95/web/2017/08/Magic-mushroomenzyme-mystery-solved.html
** You have my attention.
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIrcB1sAN8I&feature=youtu.be
** Normally not a fan of vice. Good job.
* https://quickbooks.intuit.com/r/skilled/list-of-common-expenses-and-tax-deductions-for-construction-workers-and-contractors/
** I need to start being more serious about taxes and accounting. If I'm going to be making money for real, it would be worth it.
* https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/mar/17/male-construction-workers-greatest-risk-suicide-england-study-finds
** Lol!
* https://www.aclunc.org/news/aclu-california-statement-white-supremacist-violence-not-free-speech
** I am very worried about Leftists on the topic of Free Speech. I am shocked by how quick they are to censor.
* https://spectrumnews.org/features/deep-dive/what-baby-siblings-can-teach-us-about-autism/
** ASD is so broad and poorly understood.
* https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/6ujmkl/steve_bannon_is_out_what_does_this_mean_for_the/
** I want to celebrate. Let us see.
* https://www.theverge.com/2017/8/17/16161758/ios-11-touch-id-disable-emergency-services-lock
** Me wants for android.
* https://fgiesen.wordpress.com/2017/08/12/papers-i-like-part-1/
** Interesting collection.
* https://digg.com/2017/optical-illusions-brain
** I adore optical illusions.
Looking at surveying and measuring tools. I noticed that David-M considers those to be the real heart and soul of his toolkit. He called that particular small toolbox filled with measuring and marking tools his "pipefitter toolbox."
!! How Symmetrical is Kantian Respect for Humanity/Reason/Autonomy?
Do you mean my interpretation of historical Kant? Do you mean the scholastic consensus? Traditionalist or Neo-Kantian? What degree of Straussian interpretation do you accept or require?
To the extent an object or agent is "Rationally Autonomous," it deserves our respect. All other appearances of respect derive from respecting our own humanity/autonomy/etc.
Of course, "the extent," form the magic words and the reflective self-respect (as we give to dogs, etc.) can fill all symmetry gaps in practice (but not in maxim). I legitimately can't answer the question in any satisfactory way. I've yet to meet anyone who can.
* Clean living room.
* Clean my own room.
* Haircut + Shave
* Finish Co-op form
* Have the kids clean the bathrooms.
* Grocery Shopping
* Meal prep
* Clothing prep
* Modify phone
* DCK Meditation
* Call Chris.
My children seem excited by the possibility of using tools to learn something useful, practical, and interesting. I remain hopeful they will do something with it.
* [[2017.08.18 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** I love cannabliss weekends.
* [[2017.08.18 - Wiki Review Log]]
** I need to keep working on a method that I'll be satisfied with.
* [[2017.08.18 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** He's also clearly very egoistic
* [[2017.08.18 - Pipefitting Log]]
** Grammar Edit.
* [[2017.08.18 - Highdeas Log]]
** Yay!
* [[2017.08.18 - Dream Log]]
** At least you are being honest. You should continue to record and think about it.
* Woke up late.
* Writing
* ARAM
* League VODs
* Atlanta
* Cleaning
* Fireman Time!
* DCK
* Baklava
* Cleaning
* Groceries
* Prepped everything for work
* True Blood
* Shrimp and Grits! What, what!
* Family Time
* Watch some more, bed.
We all are expressions of Evolution. Many times I have tried to define Philosophy and Economics (among other disciplines). I fail tremendously. I feel like I can give shape to them sometimes, but they usually topple over.
Every computable bit of our lives, every detail, interaction, tendril, and emergence is an expression of evolution. Evolution is physics, economics, computer science, and mathematics playing out as it were. This is obvious, and yet hard to comprehend or realize in a sense. The inferential trees we must make are tremendous to understand the physical world around us.
---
Good men are more stable than I am. It's not about right and wrong (and I need not feel ashamed). It's just a eudaimonic fact. Essentially, to flourish, one must partake of the good.
I think a lot of people do not distinguish The Right from The Good. I don't know how to draw the lines either, sadly. I have studied it for a very long time. I do not know the answer. I will try again anyway because I am a philosopher.
The Good is Right in a Vacuum. The Right is Good in Context. Solved. Lol.
How useless that appears! There is a dialectic here of some sort. I don't know among whom or what. I do not understand the nature of the struggle and concept itself. The show must go on!
---
My parents have claimed to stop being a part of our lives in a letter to my brother. But, they also just called us. I need to set it aside. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. My goal is not to hurt them. But, to also not to be hurt by them. My father said he is passed the point of "being hurt." Agreed. I wish you the best of luck. I hope you will be happy. I love you, from afar. I extend the Tribal Olive Branch of Peace. I'm still there if you need me, but let us limit our interactions, please. I hope our narratives do not need to entwine again unless it is happy for us all.
---
Note, of course, dear reader, that you get to hear what I think or say, and I don't have the luxury of hearing what you think or say. That asymmetry in our power dynamic is morally salient.
---
I often find that silence is the best social approach to a wide variety of contexts.
* It's the best way to deal with dark-triads in many cases
* It covers up my ignorance or inability.
* It prevents me from saying something I would regret.
* It gives me time to formulate exactly what I want to say.
My son needs to know this, as does my daughter. This is a crucial skill. I know that Silence is scary, but sometimes Silence is Right (even if isn't pleasant or Good).
---
I am always surprised there doesn't seem to be a stronger etymological link between "God" and "Good" considering how much they have in common conceptually.
---
I think being autistic makes me a really bad parent in a ton of ways (do the best you can, bro). That's not my fault (I'm sure that will stick a quarter in many people's intuitions). Yeah, my kids are fed, clothed, and safe. They have lots of toys, tools, and methods to learn about and engage the world. It isn't about tittilating them, but it is about finding a way to help them achieve eudaimonia (or rather, it ideally is about chemical reactions/tittilations that maximize the odds of reaching eudaimonia). I'm not sure how to do that (in part because I really don't know how to do that myself, cliche, ikr).
---
It seems to me that my [[Prompted Introspection Log]] and [[DCK Meditations]] have a hell of a lot in common. It's a place to digest.
---
I notice that I find tons of bad things in people, and I gloss over the good things in them. I expect them to be go.
---
[[Neurotribal Empathy Spectrum: Dark Triads, Autists, & Neurotypicals]]
Now there is a fucking book title. I know it is unfashionable to say "Autist," and I'm sorry.
---
Paying people back shows that I respect their time and effort, their risk-taking trust, and it enables us to tit-for-tat into game theoretically stronger relationships. I want to build those relationships. Of course, the egoist says, "with whom?"
Everyone says, "Family," forever.
I agree, but I want to point out that the very word "family" requires conceptual analysis. The Infamous Relativism Slip pokes its head out here. It's too easy to shape our definitions of //Family// or Tribes to be whatever we want. Constantly seek and apply the best principles you can. What else can you do besides the Stoic approach?
---
I despise going into social contexts because I can't understand them. My rTPJ does not fire in the patterned way that others' do, and that means I'm kind of stuck on the outskirts. The outskirts are a dangerous place, no doubt. One must be wise and not very trusting, unfortunately, in such a world.
---
I think I spend more time asking how the universe is and how it ought to be than the average person. I study that a lot.
---
It's time to start otherizing. You mean there is right and wrong, yeah? You have value, yeah? You have dignity, and self-worth, yeah?
Does this sound like either some Nazi or Kantian bullshit to you? Don't see you the memetic evolution that occurred in Germany?
---
I think there is a memetic trend in Present Day Humanity to squelch socialism. I feel the outskirts. I see it. I think mass delusions are real. I think it is completely possible that Humanity is deeply wrong about what it thinks.
Hilariously, I think my professors would find this philosophical issue not worth talking or thinking about. Why? I'm sure it seems conspiratorial to you. I think it is a systemic (not systematic!) expression of
---
I love that I am a lost thought sometimes. Othertimes, it makes me sad. Othertimes, I am indifferent to it. Stoicism.
---
My wife is the best person I know in the world. I see her sacrifice so much for her family. It's not just her time, effort, and stress. The existential stress she deals with is profound. She is mighty, courageous, and
---
I really enjoyed our Family Conversation at the Indian Restaurant. Those are the memories I want to preserve. I actually want to dress up for that. The insanity of Magnanimity in Aristotle's Virtue Theory is exactly what I'm almost seems related to it. There is a redpilled happiness there. I want to create tons and tons of those moments. Moments that feel special and interesting. I have goals! That isn't just for my kids either, that is for all of us. I don't just live for my kids. We can be happy together. Let's work on it, toward it, build it, cultivate it, etc.
---
Power dynamics will be abused and exploited when a society doesn't offer significant safety nets, opportunity trees, and paths to existential success for its various members, particularly the disenfranchised.
---
I am reminded of my openness and stress in writing my philosophy papers (they took a lot out of me, they were stressful [remember that one student who said she smokes cigarettes instead of vapes for papers, she felt the existential pull too]).
---
My brother doesn't want to read my Prompted Introspections because it takes too much work to empathize with me. That doesn't mean he doesn't want to empathize with me, but it really does take too much work. There simply has to be a point where you can't expect others to empathize with you because it is logistically and emotionally infeasible. You are incredibly lucky to have a genius wife that takes the time to empathize and interpret you.
---
I've decided that I would (secretly?) love for my children to want to learn philosophy. I think I could give them far more guidance about how to approach it now. I'd spend my body for that. Would they want to do it well though? Would they really be curious and integrated enough to do it?
---
If my father had really intended for us to go into the trades, he would have actually sat down and trained us. He would have taught us. He would have had us practice. He would have at least pushed us, planned for it, helped us, motivated us, pleaded with us, tooled us up. Do not accept his false narrative. He was too "busy" with his fucked up way of practicing Christianity to actually be a good father. Conceptually speaking, Christians don't have to be like my father (even if empirically most of them are like that or worse); my wife is a fine example.
---
Now that I "know" my parents aren't reading, I feel like there is more slack in my ability to write in this wiki. I feel triumphant too. This is a proof that I am neither existentially nor ethically failing. I really am doing my best. Who else would take the time to do this?
---
I love doing philosophy without limits or social expectations. I love thinking because it is an end in itself. Yo, Aristotle, homie! I love pursuing the truth.
---
I've decided we will read the wiki from Sabbath to Sabbath to tie it in better. The narrative embeds and connects more fluidly that way. That overlap primes us, helps us remember where we are in the story.
//When you came in the air went out...//
Dreamt about vampires and my job, a weird mix.
!! How has your health been this week?
* 1uxb0x
** Fairly good.
* j3d1h
** Normal.
* k0sh3k
** Been okay. Tired.
* h0p3
** I'm not as itchy. I feel less stressed, except for Tuesday and Wednesday.
---
!! What happened last week? Have you been happy this past week? Why or why not?
* 1uxb0x
** Slightly happy over the week. Playing games.
* j3d1h
** Liked me being able to contact her easily. Although, disappointed in D3 not working out yet. Excited to try the external SSD trick.
* k0sh3k
** Hired new student worker. Finished Iron Fist. Stressed, but fine.
* h0p3
** Car stopped working. I did not. It was a difficult and productive week. I'm fairly happy about it, except for my children's lack of interest and executive functioning.
---
!! What is a positive fact or compliment we can say about each person in the family?
* 1uxb0x
** You have been even better about staying in touch with us on the phone.
** Several times I asked you to listen to your sister, and I know that isn't something you enjoy doing, but you did it anyway. Good job.
** You've been kinder to the cat, letting him on your bed, keeping him inside unless he's going on a leash, etc.
* j3d1h
** Several times you took the lead on cooking dinner. We really appreciate it.
** You are doing a good job with your art. Keep up the good work.
** You worked on the D3 project day after day, and you didn't give up. That is the right kind of persistence.
* k0sh3k
** Thank you for taking time off work and preparing for the eclipse.
** This week when the car broke down, you took charge and let me collapse. It felt like we were both drowning and you pushed me up instead of yourself.
** Thank you for taking the time to show us something you consider important and valuable, Doctor Who.
* h0p3
** Thank you for taking the time and energy to buy us tools.
** Thank you for not giving up on me and my sister.
** Thank you for talking about my sexual gratification.
---
!! What will you do this week? Name at least one fun objective and one unfun objective.
* 1uxb0x
** Try to not look bored during lectures.
** Ride my bike.
* j3d1h
** Put together a list of meals or dishes to make next week, ingredients and tools.
** D3 on muh machines
** Fix the damn laptop
* k0sh3k
** Train student workers off the desk
** Enjoy the eclipse
* h0p3
** Read the isometrics during lunch.
** Play magic with the kids
* Meal and clothing prep.
* Appearance prep.
* Organizing my tools
* Filled out my co-op forms. Will have the tools and forms returned on Wednesday by my wife.
* Car isn't ready yet. Messaged Chris.
!! What do you make of that aphorism: "You get what you pay for"?
It kind of bothers me. I know it isn't true as it is (just as "you reap what you sow" and other short claims about justice are so rarely accurate all the way down). But, I think what really bothers me is more of a problem with the way in which most people employ aphorisms when they don't even try to be exacting and careful with their words and interpretations. Essentially, their lack of wisdom in finding the wisdom in aphorisms (and separating the chaff) is what annoys me, not this aphorism itself. I think it is also wielded with a kind of existential consumerism that drives me batty, but again, this is about how the aphorism is wielded by many populations rather than a conceptual analysis.
So, this aphorism clearly has a kernel of truth to it, but it can't be taken literally. Obvious counterexamples abound. There are many variations of it too.
* "I'm too poor to buy cheap"
* "The poor man pays twice"
* "Nothing costs as much as being poor"
* "Buy it nice or buy it twice"
* "What's cheap ends up being expensive"
* "A poor man should not buy shit, he doesn't have a field to spread it on anyhow"
There's a price-efficiency curve, a sweetspot, a butterzone, a fitting price point for the given context. The wise and morally lucky (not all of us always have the money to pay for anything beyond the cheapest option, if even that) consumer knows has the virtuous perception in researching and finding the right deal, in the right way, in the right time period, etc. I rely upon trying to find trustworthy reviews quite a bit. Being effective at spending your money is about as important as being able to effectively earn it.
* [[2017.08.19 - To-Do-List Log]]
** Edited. Added some stuff.
* [[2017.08.19 - Unschool Log]]
** Mmm. My daughter saw how serious I was and wanted to give more thought to it. I appreciate her honesty and thoughtfulness.
* [[2017.08.19 - Pipefitting Log]]
** I should just take an inventory next time of what he has. I love going through other pipefitter's toolboxes.
* [[2017.08.19 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** It was a damned good Saturday. We meant to go swimming, but it just didn't work out.
* [[2017.08.19 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** It's a great question. Obviously, I've been trying to answer it for a long time. I shouldn't feel bad that I can't (no one else seems to have either).
* [[2017.08.19 - Wiki Review Log]]
** I'm thinking I should refrain from cannabliss during the weekdays as much as possible. The sleep is too valuable, and having Friday and Saturday for Cannabliss use is fine with me. Of course, if I need it, then I need it. I've shown for large portions of this year that I can function (even if below average) without it.
* [[Tools for My Children]]
** I am very excited about tooling my children literally.
* [[Marriage: Shows My Wife and I Both Like]]
** We had a good discussion. I want to find more than we can enjoy together. I consider a sign of a healthy relationship that we appreciate each other's values, perspectives, and consume at least some things together.
* [[Atlanta]]
** Reminds me of my time in Charlotte.
* [[2017.08.19 - Link Log]]
** Not a productive week, I have to tell you. =(
* [[Construction Humor]]
** Should collect more.
* Woke up from half-brained sleep.
* Some hard work, but also some time to draw and write. I can't complain.
* The eclipse. I was moved mostly by the darkening of the landscape, which was nothing like a sunset. Very interesting.
* I talked to my brother JRE briefly.
* I messaged my family quite a bit.
* Chris and I talked.
* Desserts make me fat!
* Drove my wife to the seminar she was teaching
* Fireman Time!
* Watching John Oliver, GoT, Rick and Morty, and perhaps some True Blood.
** My wife and I crushed Atlanta. We need something else to watch!
* Will head to bed early.
In a cabin next to a creek with huge turtles and seafood creatures. Mom asks about the Jesus glass. We joke about sand and exothermic reactions.
* https://www.reddit.com/r/leagueoflinux/comments/6taujm/i_made_an_easy_linux_installer_for_league_of/
** Always in search of clean and effective method.
* https://gaming.stackexchange.com/questions/286128/install-diablo-3-on-ubuntu-linux?newreg=0c3f2d3edc9c4d7dae185dd202497a11
** Failed.
* https://www.amazon.com/TopOne-Distance-Rangefinder-Measuring-Backlight/dp/B01NAMVW9G/
** Strongly considering it.
* https://www.amazon.com/Compact-Self-Leveling-Cross-Laser-Clamp/dp/B00OZHIFNS/
** I think this cheap one is the wrong way to go. I need to go more than 30 feet.
* https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/qvvv3p/googles-anti-bullying-ai-mistakes-civility-for-decency
** Many humans do too
* Confirm My Bias
** https://www.wired.com/story/our-minds-have-been-hijacked-by-our-phones-tristan-harris-wants-to-rescue-them/?src=longreads
* https://tonic.vice.com/en_us/article/mbbg7p/being-a-journalist-is-terrible-for-your-mental-health
** Paying attention, being honest, and maintaining your integrity is bad for your mental health.
* https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2017/08/constant-anxiety-wont-save-the-world/537132/
** Action requires thought, often motivated by anxiety.
* http://www.fitritefast.com/pipe-fitting-system-tools.php
** Fascinating pipefitting tool
* https://digg.com/video/korean-boy-beatbox
** I rarely post videos of little consequence. This one impressed me.
* KYS
** https://www.muckrock.com/news/archives/2017/aug/17/prisons-coding-ban/
*** To the censors
* For my daughter:
** http://www.math.uri.edu/~merino/spring06/mth562/ShortHistoryComplexNumbers2006.pdf
* http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/california-democrat-bill-trump-mental-health_us_5998d558e4b0a2608a6cb6b1
** I wish, Huffpo
* For my son:
** https://cmdchallenge.com
* http://ask.metafilter.com/312581/How-do-I-improve-my-storytelling
** Why don't I spend more time on Metafilter?<<ref "2018.12.03">>
* https://github.com/ethereum/wiki/wiki/Proof-of-Stake-FAQ
** It's happening!
* https://blog.mozilla.org/firefox/lightweight-browser-focus-does-less-which-is-much-more/
** But, why?
* http://nautil.us/issue/51/limits/we-are-nowhere-close-to-the-limits-of-athletic-performance-rp?
** You don't seem worried enough.
---
<<footnotes "2018.12.03" "I still don't have an answer to this question. I've still found no reason to put it in [[Link Log: The Stack]]. The signal to noise ratio isn't good enough for hyperreading curation, though it can be useful for searches.">>
* We were discouraged from viewing the eclipse.
** We all did anyway. It was interesting.
* I immediately identified the 2 rigging points for our work of the day. We had to rig them up so that we could cut the supports below them. After an hour of thinking, everyone else agreed, especially since the superintendent agreed with my plan.
* I go-for-ed and did some grinding.
* David-M saw me looking for a foreman to get in for a choker. He told me, on the side, to make sure I walk fast and look worried.
** Signal, Signal, Signal
* David-C complimented me on my hammer, a Wilton.
* David-M said we had no work, and later on to go slow. David-C didn't seem to agree because he saw David-M actually working.
* John, despite calling me a dumbass, talked to me about the industry and said I should definitely consider a fab shop + field experience, saying I was smart and would do well at it.
* Cold chiseled a swastika.
* We actually didn't finish the task by the end of the day. It turned out to be very resistant to our grinding efforts.
!! Would you rather lose all of your old memories, or never be able to make new ones?
I don't know what this means. Presumably, you mean long-term memory. Without being able to free up my RAM, I couldn't compute. Short-term memory is crucial to thinking in the first place. Surely, you mean long-term memory.
What counts as long-term memory? Are there memories of mine which are genetic? Surely, you only mean what we standardly think of as long-term memory. Does this include things like my tastes, preferences, skills, fastmind inferential networks? You need to nail this down for me Samwise Gamgee.
Note that humans tend to fear the unknown, and prefer the devil they know. They are notoriously bad at utility equations in this respect.
I will try to answer the spirit of your question: I hope my future is wildly brighter than my past.
* [[2017.08.20 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** One-word
* [[2017.08.20 - Family Log]]
** Didn't read the isometrics. David-M says he'll get me a copy instead.
* [[2017.08.20 - DCK Meditation]]
** Go for it, go for it, go for it.
* [[2017.08.20 - Pipefitting Log]]
** I'm grateful to myself for prepping.
* [[True Blood]]
** It turns out to be silly in a lot of ways, but still enjoyable?
** I love the intro music.
* [[2017.08.20 - Dream Log]]
** Not all shows do that.
* [[2017.08.20 - Wiki Review Log]]
** I like that I had so much to review. Drug-weekends are fairly productive.
* [[2017.08.20 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** Yup.
* [[2017.08.19 - Highdeas Log]]
** I suppose it only serves to highlight my productivity. My wife agrees.
* Woke up before the alarm, but just snoozed on and off until it landed.
* I've streamlined getting up, I think,
* Worked my buns off (not really, buns still there, blooming)
* Came home, laid down, Archer.
* Wife came home after taking the kids swimming.
* Chili and cornbread.
* Rick and Morty, then True Blood.
I arrived early enough. This is the first time I've had a laptop on the job. I think it will make me far more productive on my breaks. I really can't write significant quantities on my phone for a bunch of reasons. The software ecosystem is not developed for someone who wants control of their computer. It is infuriating. Simple tasks take far longer than they should. I've really missed being able to type in the mornings, to get it out, to prepare my mind, to put it into context, etc. Also, I am annoyed that my tethering is so fucking slow. Slurping through a 10kB straw, fuck that.
I talked with Chris in the car quite a bit about why I'm pipefitting and what I hope to achieve with this. He is receptive. The more I think and talk about it, the more convinced I am that I should aim for a fab shop job. I need to quickly cover the landscape. I wish I had done that with philosophy, and I think I should do something similar with pipefitting. Experience is experience, and being able to fit that experience into a broader context is useful.
I hope I remember to edit my contact information. I really need to do that. Some numbers are more important than others. I really need a way to organize them to my liking. I don't want just some giant list. That isn't how it should work. But, I don't know what categories are most useful to me.
A new fitter, Christopher, showed up. Calling him Chris-X until I figure what X is out. So many double names. He's kind so far. He's been a fitter for 20 years and was a welder before that. He is a tool-whore like I am. He immediately understood far more about what we were doing than our other journeyman. I hope to learn a lot from him.
I forgot to sign in. Apparently, they were talking about it in the office. I was the "culprit" as they phrased it. Okay? Anyways, I got that taken care of.
David-M handed me the hot work permit (and the other to David-C). I'm also in charge of all the group's paperwork. He also stopped and gave me an iso for 291. He said he'll get more to me. Cool.
I quickly gathered everything. I guess it was my job to get done. I've got the hang of how things work now, I believe. I grabbed everything we needed and starting setting up. I had to ask for a firewatch. Their foreman, mama bear, was kind to me. Although, she wasn't happy with her underling.
Chris-X and I finished the demo job from yesterday. It was easy enough. We couldn't find David. So, we talked and thought about the job until the break.
It's Christopher Monks (as opposed to Christopher Range, my friend). Chris-M used to be a foreman, but it gave him heart attacks. So, he has decided to chill as a journeyman fitter. He stopped welding to save his eyes. He's a smart guy in many respects. He is obviously very experienced.
We helped David-M rig and move a bunch of supports for Area 4. It's finally happening. I see it slowly coming together.
I heard from Chris(-R) that Jacobs is losing all its contracts or something like that at Eastman. I assume that means the fab shop at Jacobs is out of the question or something like that. I also heard that Yates is picking up longterm contracts here for fitting. I hope that is true. I could do this long-term.
Chris-M went over his tool-list with me. Apparently, on many jobs, they go through your box to make sure you have what you say you have and that you aren't stealing. They won't even pay you until you turn the list in either (haven't experienced this). I should have that list ready. I showed him my toolbox. He said it was a great start.
Chris-M and I worked on putting in the support at the top of 234. We drilled the holes and had the ropes setup and tied off for me to hold it so he can put the concrete wedge anchors into place.
It took longer than anticipated to finish the mounting of this custom support. We drilled the holes fine, but the last one of was. We tried a mag-drill, but the welding machine couldn't power it. We ended up using a burbit on the end-grinder to hit the hole on the steel of the support to match the hole we drilled in the concrete. Was my first time, and apparently, it is a dangerous tool. Went fine though. I obviously need a decent end grinder with bits.
I talked to Chris-M a ton. He understands the landscape and the trade so much better than I do. I'm soaking it in.
He has a daughter 13 (to my 11) and son 11 (to my 9), and he's 46 (wishes he had them younger, he says...and I told him I wish I was older) Also, he just started homeschooling, and he often lives in a van. A lot of the same tricks for being semi-homeless that I wanted to use he in fact uses. Very interesting guy.
I can feel the blood pressure or something in my toe. It hurts.
David-M came to see what we did. He said "good job." He is obviously impressed with Chris-M. Also, he complimented me on the tools I had. They are very nice tools. =) He made a dick joke about the length of my screwdriver.
Also, it is much easier for me to write on the laptop. A billion times over. I have no idea how kids do it on phones. The ecosystem still lacks maturity, the screen size is unbearable, and I can still crush on a real keyboard. Call me an old-fogey or whatever, but let me stick with tools that allow me to be productive. I strongly prefer it.
!! Respond to the following:
<<<
I would rather be ashes than dust.
<<<
Clever. It reminds me of advice I see pros give to noobs in League. Go for broke, play aggressively. It is better to die trying than to never learn to play well. Essentially, we may have a tendency to err on the side of caution and meek silence, the safe way. The golden mean requires we overshoot to the other side of vice, excess. Punch it!
Of course, this seems to be about being remembered in the blaze of glory, but I think that interpretation sucks.
It's about seizing the day, yo. Make the most of your life.
* [[2017.08.21 - Link Log]]
** Should probably look for knot making links
* [[2017.08.21 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** I'm still not sure what I think about the question.
* [[2017.08.21 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** Heading to bed early is a great idea. Can't be done on cannabis
* [[2017.08.21 - Wiki Review Log]]
** We are looking for shows.
* [[2017.08.21 - Pipefitting Log]]
** Edited for grammar
* [[2017.08.21 - Dream Log]]
** That was a weird fuckin' dream, yo.
//Writing this a day later. It was a simple day.//
* Woke up to alarm.
* Worked hard.
* Shower of the Gods.
* Watched one episode of Archer.
* Fell asleep.
** I slept for about 10-11 hours. I was sore and dog-tired.
Chris picked me up earlier than usual, and I had to push bricks. I was in a rush. I didn't even brush my teeth or take my vitamins. I did give him $20 for giving me a ride though. We talked about the job mostly on the way. We're still trying to understand the landscape. I take it that most people engage in an activity like this. Let us hope that Chris and I have a significant competitive advantage at it since we need to skyrocket.
I asked Chris-M to sit with us at the table. I'm glad he joined us. He always has valuable information for me. I'm going to learn a ton from him.
We've been given permanent lock-out/tag-out keys for the train-track switch that runs through our primary work area (Area 1, 2, 5). It's a big deal to fuck this up. I'll need to make sure not to forget them. Chris-M says he leaves a "note" for himself. Imho, this is like having a personal lock-out/tag-out for yourself, to remember to do your other lock-out/tag-out duties. I think it is interesting, if maybe redundant (but maybe redundancy is not a bad idea at all).
Dave (David-M) said to us was obviously running around crazy this morning. He did have the time to quickly walk us through the drawings. I intend to study them. We still don't have access yet, but Dave continues to promise we will get it. I'm trying to understand why he doesn't follow through.
We went on to finish the work from yesterday. I drove the lift. Chris-M asked if I felt comfortable. We discussed what that meant, and I told him I wasn't sure basically. I've used them, but that doesn't mean I'm good with them. He let me do it anyways. I did fine. We didn't have a hot work permit, so we had to use the sawzall and portaband. The bolts couldn't be touched by my wrenches, so we cut those as well. We'd get halfway through and then wrench them off. This still didn't work. We had to pry. Luckily, I had 2 pry bars and the motha' fuckin' cold chisel was the absolute bomb. Multiple times I would ask if we should switch to another tool I had ready, and my journeyman would think for a second and say, "yeah, good idea." In the end, he complimented my cold chisel. I drove the scissor lift back and put my tools away.
Break!
We didn't do much. I helped the riggers and ironworkers mount a support tower. Chad is one of the foremen. A true asshole among assholes, but I can handle him.
I found the book sitting and grabbed it to interpret what we needed to do next. The drawings were very sparse. They didn't have nearly as much information as I was hoping they would have. We were also missing some. I noticed the ironworkers had a set we didn't have access to. It was good to see what it actually was going to look like between 234 and 291. I have a clearer understanding of it. I wish I had these drawings from the beginning. They aren't perfect, but they are far better than nothing.
Foreman, apparently, sometimes withhold information. Dave says that's not the kind of foreman he is. I believe him for now, yet I am completed confused as to why he hasn't simply given us copies. Given the amount of time he has spent talking about making copies, he could have just made the fucking copies.
Dave gave the Chris-M and I (and John) an actual pipefitter assignment. We are rerouting a drainage pipe out of the way of where giant support will be mounted to a 2'-by-2' column. I helped take measurements and draw lines. Chris-M is doing most of the work though. I'm not sure how to insert myself politely and make sure I'm learning it all. I'm doing my best to learn without being rude. I believe I shouldn't be too passive though.
Lunch!
We sat around taking measurements. /yawn - It simply doesn't take 4 people to do this aspect. 2 would have sufficed.
Dave came to grab some help, and Chris and I volunteered. It was a very neat process. We marked the pipes and compared the spool sheets to the isometric sheets. We marked the cardinal directions the pipe should be facing and flagged them yellow or red (with caution/barricade tape) for the riggers to know which needed to be moved first and to know which position in which to lay them, etc. This process strongly reminded me of the process I used in the shop, wherein I marked all my pipes and lined them up for assembly. Of course, in this case, we couldn't line them up. They are huge fucking lengths of pipe, and we were basically balancing on them like we were on some giant industrial jungle gym.
Break!
We got stuff set up for the PVC run. Not much otherwise though. I put stuff away and put my lockout-tagout gear in my box.
Also, my wife lovingly brought the wraparound and paperwork to Tim today for me.
!! Why is Charlie so fucking awesome? Why you do love this man? Why does he walk on water with you?
Charlie is an autistic savant. He is functional, but the gaps are more obvious with him. He can't hide it and blend nearly as well. He has such a unique perspective. I love the way his mind works, the things he studies, the brilliance and sometimes simplicity. He always has interesting takes on the world, and what he considers important others do not (but he is often seeking the very heart of the matter or the edges of something quite beautiful).
I feel a kinship with Charlie. It's nice to not feel alone. Ultimately, we aim to choose friends who make us happy. Charlie makes me happy. I like talking to him. Often, Charlie and I can talk with each other about things we can't talk about with anyone else. It's so nice to be able to take any topic and traverse the rabbit holes to explain it and appreciate it; we both do this with each other. Few people have the patience and interest in such things, let alone the aptitude.
That makes us fairly sympatico, I think.
Charlie is also my wife's uncle. I get to appreciate why she likes me, how we get along, and to understand her better as well. There are many dynamics I'm coming to understand better.
Does Charlie really walk on water with me? I mean, he voted for Trump, and I still love talking to him. That is about as close to walking on water with me as you get, right? I can't name a single Trump voter I truly enjoy being with besides Charlie. He was naive about the nature of politics and humanity, but that is a result of autism. I can forgive that.
* [[2017.08.22 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** My brick pushing is often at work. I may stop logging it.
* [[2017.08.22 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** It is important to see what ideal you can practically reach, and not something else. That is is stoicism.
* [[2017.08.22 - Wiki Review Log]]
** I will give my son another chance.
* [[2017.08.22 - Pipefitting Log]]
** Edited.
** Verbose! (As opposed to Brief!)
* Woke up before the alarm (a bunch, could have woken at 3:00 if I wanted).
** Got up at 5:15
* Bit'o'Archer
* Fireman Time
** The geyser had been dormant for too long.
* Worked hard
* Talked to Chris
* Talked to my brother, JRE, twice.
* Made Stirfry with my wife.
* Talked to my kids. Some good, some bad.
* Hugs and kisses. Put everyone to bed.
* Archer and a bit of prep for tomorrow.
Extensive night of sleep, and inevitably, I dreamt with that much luxury. I can't recall a damn thing though, lol.
I talked to Chris about ethics in the car on the way. Of course, I have what are considered outlandish views to most people. Perhaps I shouldn't reveal myself. It is rarely worth it. Is it worth it overall? What strategy is fitting? Be utilitarian about it.
In any case, it is colder today. I can see it is going to get very fucking cold out here in the winter. I will need to buy gear for that.
Dave told us we need to be more active, but that we are doing a good job. Lots of doubletalk and contradictions in his speech this morning. It is clear he is feeling pressure from his bosses to be more productive, but he fails to give us jobs to actually do, to line up work, etc. I think this is a bit odd. Several times, he has mentioned his worry about getting shitcanned here and there.
Chris-M and I worked on the PVC pipe (John was a glorified helper). Our old drawing from yesterday (which I never got to see) wasn't going to work because the fittings weren't sized as anticipated. We are stovepiping though, so not a big deal. We went to remeasure what it was going to look like, and I saw that our run was going to hit some pipes. I convinced Chris-M this was the case, and he decided to change up how we were doing the run.
It is very much like socket welds. You scuff the areas to be glued, use a primer to soften it up, and then glue. You put it on and twist. Let the stuff sit for a bit, and wipe off the edges for aesthetics. The TOs and "Stick-ins" of the sockets must be measured for every set of fittings you get (there is huge variation, apparently).
Chris-M had to get something, and I figured out the math and drew our lines up for cutting. He asked what I was doing. I explained, and he saw I was right. He said to carry on. On our next leg, I explained how long I thought it should be (since he said something different than I thought), and he realized I was right (and had the integrity to just say, "you are right"). I am learning a fuckton today. I love it.
PVC is messy, simple, and with practice would be very fast. It is quite uncommon for fitters to work with it, but we just needed to reroute a drainage pipe, and this is the cheapest option. Chris-M has a very good notion of the order of the fitup construction order (out of order, but the right out of order). I hope I can acquire this skill in time.
I thanked Chris-M for teaching me how to do PVC. I'm learning so much.
Break!
We constructed most of the spool (I always try to insert my idea, notion, plan first [which is what we end up doing usually] to get practice and feedback). We can't use a 45 at the top (which is what you should use for drain pipes, but we can't at the top, not without splitting the Y above it [we don't have enough space]). Chris-M decided to let me take over, and he is going to be my helper instead. That is very trusting of him, and I appreciate that he is willing to let me learn.
I talked to John quite a bit about the industry, about welding, and his recommendations for moving on up. He doesn't think I should weld. He likes to make fun of my penchant for taking him so literally. John said not to try the P.O. Box trick on this job, but perhaps for the next one. I may end up using my brother's address. That per diem is huge.
Apparently, Chris-M is called professor sometimes. I can see that. He is intelligent (although, he calls himself stupid often enough). I asked if that was a bad thing, and he and John just said it was a sarcastic comment. Obviously, they might be horrified by who I am.
Lunch!
Chris (Chris-R) thinks we are taking much longer than we need to. He also thinks we are using too much glue.
We finished up the PVC pipe, and we cut the drain pipe. It wasn't easy to get the drain pipe since there was tons of conduit and other no-nos in the way. I had to be very careful with multiple tools to do it. John did the climbing like a spider to fit it into place. It wasn't easy, but it fit.
Unfortunately, despite missing some pipe, we didn't avoid others. Our planning still wasn't good enough (Chris-M said that was the nature of stovepiping rather than absolute planning). I think we should have drawn the iso up and done it completely right. Eh, whatever, it worked.
I need to think carefully about how skilled the people around me really are. Just because they are more knowledgeable and experienced doesn't mean they really are better at thinking about every single aspect of the project.
Found out Dave's son really will be joining us next week Monday. This will be interesting. I assume it will be perma-birddog hell for us. Time to kiss some serious ass.
Break!
We cleaned up and then started dropping some chalk marks from the 30" elbows to the header. Done.
!! Respond to the following:
There are 4160 weeks in the average person's lifespan.
<video controls autoplay>
<source src="./images/4160-Week-Life.webm" type="video/webm">
Your browser does not support the HTML 5 video tag.
</video>
Life is short. So is this post.
* My daughter didn't complete her kitchen duty.
* My daughter failed to plug in my phone and laptop (normally I'm happy to do it, but I was going straight to bed).
* My son didn't clean his room.
* My son did not keep his phone charged and otherwise on and with him at all times.
** It's nearly impossible to reach him most of the time. I have to SSH into my computer and espeak over my TV-monitor loudly to reach him.
* [[2017.08.23 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** I love Charlie.
* [[2017.08.23 - Wiki Review Log]]
** And, yet, I've had to push bricks quickly in the morning before work twice now.
* [[2017.08.23 - Pipefitting Log]]
** Chris seems to be sitting with us now. That's cool.
* Woke up 15 minutes before the alarm clock. Instead of dozing back off, I just woke up instead.
** I had a dream to write down anyways. Play dat video game.
* No time to funny bidness. I need to make room for Fireman Time!
* Wrote in the morning
* Worked hard, wrote, and talked to my family.
* Talked to Chris
* Talked to my brother, JRE
* Picked up the temporary car from the dealer (a good sign)
* Pizza!
* Watched True Blood
* Worked on tools in-house and fixed up a hangar.
* Reworked my daily-wear for work.
* Clean off my area
* Revamped my subreddits.
* Made accounts for my children on my computer
We are living at the international graduate student Nicholson Apartments at LSU. Our neighbors interrupt us to offer us soup for the dinner the next night. I'm eating ALM's swiss rolls.
I've decided that this wiki does fulfill another function. For a while, I hoped it didn't do this, but now I'm not convinced it is something to worry about as much. My wiki is a way to not feel lonely. It seems to work. I get to care about myself here in a way that is practical, interesting, and worthwhile. It's clearer to me that I didn't directly communicate clearly enough to myself my loneliness in the {[[About|About, a.k.a. The Opening of the Rabbit Hole]]} page.<<ref "1">> The signs are all there, but I didn't connect the dots.
* [[2017.08.25 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[j3d1h: Baking Tools]]
* [[2017.08.25 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.08.25 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.08.25 - Dream Log]]
---
<<footnotes "1" "It always annoyed me that my father put down my loneliness and loved to make fun of being emotive, lacking certainty about specific issues, and being certain of a view that opposes his. I am glad to be rid of that feeling.">>
On the way to work, we saw a 30 foot flame shooting out of a vertical pipe into the air: Mordor indeed!
Chris and I talked about the automation of pipefitting. For the better part of a year, I believed this was infeasible, and I've had that thought confirmed for me at every turn and by everyone. But, people are wrong, and I didn't know enough to make that judgment (although, we must make judgments with the information we have, it is our plight).
I have just understood that fab shops will become more and more automated. The part of pipefitting I seem to like the most I believe will become automated. They are already doing it, although it is bit by bit. Take our spools. I can see the lines where orbital welders made perfect welds. No human did that, although a human set it up. This is just the beginning. I am convinced now, unfortunately, that manufacturing many spools will be largely automated in the foreseeable future. I have mixed feelings about this.
Imagine a warehouse, a computer with isometrics, robot hands, and the right machine-learned out-of-order manufacturing process. You could cut out the labor and guarantee a kind of quality that humans simply can't put forth. Even if you had to design new fittings and methodologies to make it cleaner and easier to automate, it would still be worth it.
Chris, for the umnpteenth time has recommended PLCs. He says I should quit what I'm doing right now to do it. He says I'd love it and be amazing at it. He gave me his teacher's name, Dale Hudson. He told me about Dale's line of work. I may look into it. My brother has recommended this to me before as well.
I could program the computers which automate pipefitting. Perhaps that is what I should do. I had considered it for valves, but now I'm not so convinced that I will have access the training I need for valves.
It took forever to get through the gate. They are having a serious problem with the security badges. This actually sucks since it detracts from the amount of pre-work time I have to write in peace. I ended up just busting out hte computer in the middle of the van to get something done while we waited.
Time to work!
I cut carpet to line some iron so that we can slide some massive pipe without any paint damage (or worse). I helped (barely) move some trunion support pieces. I was very excited when I saw the caps, since I thought I'd be making some 18"-on-30" saddles. I'm out of practice, and we were just talking about making them. Chris-M was excited to have me do it. Unfortunately, after I retrieved my stuff, we took the caps off and saw the saddles were already fabbed. Sucks! The work I wanted to do, the work I was trained to do, we didn't get to do.
Industrial fitters are the ones making the good money, but they also aren't doing what I really, really loved about pipefitting. They are doing something between rigging and pipefitting, or, well, I don't know what to call it.
Afterwards, I helped Roland (foreman of riggers) adjust the pieces, since we had his son place them (unbeknownst to us) in a bad spot.
Break!
I ended up not doing the carpet thing, since an ironworker was told to it. Instead, Chris-M and I started setting up for the trunion support installation. I did the marking around the pipes, finding the highest point and lowest point, dropping center lines, and marking where the saddle fitup would occur.
The rigging crew brought our supports over. This addressed a worry a brought up with Chris-M. I was not convinced we could get a 90 degree saddle all the way around off the ground, although he said it fine. Later, he changed his mind, and decided we would actually mount the top piece to the large piece and then the bottom saddle underneath to correct for the problem I was worried.
Roland told me that we can use his hotwork permit only for prep, but it doesn't cover welding. This is a serious problem, since it takes forever to get permits here. I immediately went to tell Dave, who had been planning on doing the later in the afternoon.
More grinding. We stopped since the firewatch didn't want to wait for lunch, and I decided to help her out (otherwise, she is stuck waiting for half an hour).
Lunch!
We finished the grind on the giant vertical piece (which eventually will be demoed out during the shutdown). We moved our pieces into place. The bevel from the fab shop was some kind of nightmare. I made better grinds on my first try, I shit you not. I got it to my welder's and journeyman's liking (honestly, I cleaned up my journeyman's work on it too). QC blondgirl, Tanya, came by. She liked my work (likely a dyke from what I can tell, but I ain't picky ;P). We had to move some conduit out of the way. I let my journeyman do the high-up work (I did not volunteer for that shit), but I made it as easy and safe for him as I could.
My hands and arms are sore from all the grinding. I'm used to doing a significant amount in the shop, but not "in-position" grinds. Most of the time, I am able to continually reorient pipe and myself to gain leverage and the best position against the disk. Not out here, no sir. You're just plain fucked sometimes. It's okay. I got it done.
Break!
Looked up PLC classes at Northeast State. Classes start on Monday. I think this is worth my time.
We didn't do much besides cleaning up. Our general foreman just basically gave us busy work from what we can all tell. Even his work was underwhelming. He just smooth talks the entire time. It's kind of gross.
We left. Chris said he'd still give me rides. I think I'm annoying him at this point.
!! How can you focus your wiki on your family?
* Add a page for each of them directly to the {[[Focus|Current Focus of h0p3's Wiki]]} page.
* Write up Unschool Ideas individually.
** Don't even try to tie them together. Just go for it.
** Recall, again, they are suggestions, not expectations. They are hopes. They are a way for my children to see that their choices, whether good or bad for them, matter.
* Work more on: {[[Dreams|Dreams of h0p3]]} and related planning, devising, future-empathizing, and yes, even "dreaming," tools.
* [[2017.08.24 - Dream Log]]
** Sometimes you can't remember anything, /shrug
* [[2017.08.24 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** Perhaps I should rethink the class. I already have so much on my plate. Let's make it a longterm thing.
* [[2017.08.24 - Unbottled Frustrations Log]]
** These are been partially resolved.
* [[Unbottled Frustrations Log]]
** Not sure if this is a good idea.
* [[2017.08.24 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** Edited. Hilarious.
* [[2017.08.24 - Wiki Review Log]]
** Brief!
* [[2017.08.24 - Pipefitting Log]]
** I'm liking the Break! - maybe I should italicize them?
* [[2017.08.23 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** A damned good night of sleep.
* Woke up late, but still very sleepy.
* Surfed and worked on my tools.
* Inform the Men x 2 !!
* Had some leftover pizza; I adore it.
* Chores and getting my children to do their chores.
* Took a nap I desperately needed.
* Talked to my son about Unschooling.
* Talked to ALM
* Talked to JRE
* LCS and probably stay up for the fight.
I got to bed very late, and I woke up after 6 hours. My heady is fizzy and I feel dehydrated. It feels like a hangover from cannabliss. In any case, I dreamt about tools.
* [[2017.08.26 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.08.26 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.08.26 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.08.26 - Pipefitting Log]]
* Confirm My Bias:
** https://fusion.net/story/579834/the-u-s-needs-to-prepare-for-the-possibility-that-trump-wont-leave-office-peacefully/
*** Been worried about it for a long time.
** https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/bjjjvm/people-of-colour-talk-about-the-times-they-code-switched
*** Redpilled as fuck!
** https://www.gobankingrates.com/retirement/1-3-americans-0-saved-retirement/
*** When we go to correct it, our wealthy will relocate themselves and their assets.
* KYS
** http://time.com/4915161/charlottesville-alt-right-alt-christianity
*** Let's not even pretend this is a new beast.
** http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/08/25/546216624/trump-signs-memo-implementing-ban-on-transgender-people-in-the-military
*** Gotta sign something, so why not memos?
** https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/08/20/the-trump-administration-just-disbanded-a-federal-advisory-committee-on-climate-change/
** http://www.businessinsider.com/millennials-are-killing-list-2017-8/#casual-dining-chains-like-buffalo-wild-wings-and-applebees-1
** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_United_States_incarceration_rate_with_other_countries
*** Officially worse than strawmanned communism
** https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/08/trump-goes-off-script-in-hour-long-public-meltdown
** https://www.theverge.com/2017/8/21/16180614/charlottesville-daily-stormer-alt-right-internet-domain
*** Ah, The Verge, you have the missed the fucking boat!
** https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170822/09161838056/verizon-begins-throttling-wireless-users-effectively-bans-4k-streaming.shtml
** https://www.vice.com/amp/en_us/article/d33daz/dont-look-now-but-americas-tax-system-may-collapse-soon
*** I hate conservatives.
** https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-23/americans-over-80-own-a-big-share-of-the-nation-s-greatest-wealth
*** Capital will only continue to snowball as it becomes centralized into the hands of their children.
* For my daughter:
** https://lkloh.github.io/technical/interviews/2017/06/30/the-most-useful-resource-for-technical-interview-prep.html
** https://www.ostechnix.com/moreutils-collection-useful-unix-utilities/
** https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thomson-postel-was-wrong-01
** http://members.chello.at/~easyfilter/bresenham.html
** https://kotaku.com/the-undertale-drama-1798159975
* https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/20/data-hucksters-beware-online-privacy-eu-general-data-protection-regulation
** Not convinced.
* http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Breast-Milk-Saves-16-Adrift-At-Sea-2954641.php
** Sign me up! =)
* https://www.blog.google/topics/connected-workspaces/introducing-chrome-enterprise/
** Beware.
* https://techcrunch.com/2017/08/21/hack-enigma-500000-ico/
** Call me paranoid, but I think there are state-level and transnational actors fighting at this point.
* https://hbr.org/2017/08/the-dark-side-of-resilience
** Hoping this wiki isn't that.
* https://www.blog.google/products/assistant/shop-walmart-and-more-your-favorite-stores-faster/
** Scared of Amazon you are.
* Neat
** http://supchina.com/2017/08/23/john-pomfret-chinese-cash-american-colleges-massive-problem/
** http://engineering.gusto.com/how-ach-works-a-developer-perspective-part-1/
* http://nautil.us/issue/51/limits/the-catch-22-of-hacktivism
** Nautilus!
* https://www.citylab.com/life/2017/08/can-anything-stop-rural-decline/537687/
** No.
* http://www.darkhorseanalytics.com/
** Viral marketing took me there. Very interesting and quite scary.
Picking out books and tools I need.
Cleaned and organized our toolsets.
!! If you could any animal, besides a human being, what would you be?
A dolphin. Sex, food, play, 24/7 awake, and still Dasein. Done.
I know my wife will hate that answer. I don't know what to say. It's the best answer to the question. I also think this shows that I care about myself and being Dasein. I care about being alive, conscious, and happy. If I can't be human, then I want to be as human-like as I can be.
//Everybody's working for the weekend//
* Finish organizing household tools.
* Finish cleaning living room.
* Go through the Storage containers
* Cleanup side fridge
* Have the kids revamp the kitchen, do the bathrooms, mow the carpet, and clean the pillows.
* Setup son's computer
* Windows 8.1 on external SSD and daughter's HDD
* Finish the tool list
* Take the kids to the waterpark
* Possibly visit the dinner party
* Cannabliss
* Look further into PLC's
** I'm leaning against it now. My brother made some good points, and his hesitation is no accident (he has a more objective perspective here that I don't have access to yet). I'm also crazy busy already. I shouldn't push it too hard. Life is a video game, but I don't want to miss out on my family time unless I have strong evidence it is worth it.
* Re-do closet
* Shop for groceries
* Wash clothes
* Prepare
* DCK Meditation
* Family time
* Watch LCS playoffs
* Watch the Fight!
** Avoid spoilers
* Work on {[[Dreams|Dreams of h0p3]]}
* [[2017.08.25 - Highdeas Log]]
** Yay THC, enjoy it while you can.
* [[2017.08.25 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** Now follow through.
* [[j3d1h: Baking Tools]]
** Just a dump right now.
* [[Pipefitting Fab Shop Dream]]
** Not much said here.
* [[2017.08.25 - Pipefitting Log]]
** Good job!
* [[2017.08.25 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** Needs more sex.
* [[2017.08.25 - Dream Log]]
** Weird AF.
* Woke up late for me.
** Slept on the couch.
* Fireman Time!
* Watched McGregor lose, as predicted.
** He did better in the first few rounds than I expected, I'll give him that. But, Mayweather is famous for this defensive, drawn-out style. It was inevitable.
* Writing time.
* Took the kids to the waterpark/park thing in JC.
* Tried a new Mediterranean restaurant
* Watched some League, Archer, True Blood
* Talked to my brother JRE.
* Family time.
* Went to bed early enough.
I dreamt about work.<<ref "2018.12.03">>
---
<<footnotes "2018.12.03" "Why did I continue this log? Lol. I have no idea. There's nothing here that matters. But, I suppose this was evidence of that. It is not common for me to have a single line in a tiddler. That is often a sign that the tiddler wasn't worth creating.">>
!! How has your health been this week?
* 1uxb0x
** Regular. Stuffy nose, at most. Sleepy.
* j3d1h
** Normal.
* k0sh3k
** Stressed. Headaches. Back hurts.
* h0p3
** Sore, sleepy, and in fairly good spirits.
---
!! What happened last week? Have you been happy this past week? Why or why not?
* 1uxb0x
** Fairly happy. Playing with friends made him happy. The splash park, swimming, and the eclipse were fun too (eclipse more meh though).
* j3d1h
** Eclipse was awesome.
** Glad that she looked for recipes.
** Doing well in general, and happy.
* k0sh3k
** Overall good and productive.
** Some things when rapidly south, and this was very stressful.
* h0p3
** I worked my butt off. I made good money and learned a lot. Happy about that.
** I'm unhappy about lacking a vehicle still.
---
!! What is a positive fact or compliment we can say about each person in the family?
* 1uxb0x
** Thank you for helping me take the tools out of the shed and organize them all.
** During the eclipse, you were very quick to share your glasses with the kids in the neighborhood. That is thoughtful and generous.
** You were kind enough to wait to play in the splash park because your new friend couldn't. Playing with him and waiting to go where you wanted for sociable and kind.
* j3d1h
** Thank you for making brownies for my teacher. I really appreciate it.
** Thank you for completing an asymmetrical and unfair workload.
** You are very good with little children. You play with them and have concern for them. You have a nurturing spirit.
* k0sh3k
** Thank you for delivering the gifts, my papers, and the wrap to my teacher. I couldn't have done it, and it matters that I maintain that relationship.
** Thank you for being willing to skip church to allow us to go to the splash pad.
** Thanks for being willing to help me with baking from scratch and coming out my hair.
* h0p3
** Thank you for being willing to invest in our interests and projects.
** Thanks for pulling together the list for unschooling, and thank you want to play D3 with us.
** Thank you for skipping DCK today. I know it affects your week, and I appreciate the sacrifice.
---
!! What will you do this week? Name at least one fun objective and one unfun objective.
* 1uxb0x
** Get my laptop charging effectively.
** Make a tool.
** Ride my bike.
* j3d1h
** Get windows on the HDD.
** Establish and follow a morning and night routine.
** Bake quickbread.
** Look for new recipes.
** Write in my wiki.
* k0sh3k
** Hire new student.
** Catchup on reading goal.
** Replant baby old one.
* h0p3
** Fix my Fitter's 3rd Hand clamp
** Take at least one bath (rather than a shower) this week.
* [[2017.08.27 - Family Log]]
* [[Book Titles]]
* [[2017.08.27 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.08.27 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.08.27 - Wiki Review Log]]
* https://shitcoin.com/storj-not-a-dropbox-killer-1a9f27983d70
** Waiting for decentralized VPS systems with decentralized payment and decentralized corporations to control these networks and computers.
* Confirm My Bias
** http://web.cecs.pdx.edu/~tymerski/ece101/Expert_mind_scientificamerican0806-64.pdf
*** Quintessential virtue-theoretic fastmind work.
** https://gizmodo.com/facebook-figured-out-my-family-secrets-and-it-wont-tel-1797696163
*** Not //unsettling// at all, right?
** http://hazlitt.net/longreads/legion-lonely
*** Talk to yourself!
** http://www.ijssh.org/vol7/790-MC26.pdf
*** Yes. Very well-conceived. There are many facets to that gem.
** https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/22/well/mind/maybe-we-all-need-a-little-less-balance.html
*** Competitive advantages and the best options only come out of pushing the extremes in the right way, at the right time, and so on.
* https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/aug/18/neoliberalism-the-idea-that-changed-the-world
** Libertarianism in another form.
* https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/08/21/is-there-any-point-to-protesting
** I wish I knew the answer. Organizing humans is beyond my ability.
* Neat
** https://www.nature.com/news/rumours-swell-over-new-kind-of-gravitational-wave-sighting-1.22482
** https://phys.org/news/2017-08-electrons-liquid-graphene-physics.html
** https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/08/how-mushrooms-became-magic/537789/
*** I'm glad one of my drugs of choice is mainstreaming.
** https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/neeqwx/songs-edited-to-sound-like-theyre-playing-in-another-room-are-inexplicably-emotional
*** Listen to it.
* KYS
** http://observer.com/2017/08/court-admits-dnc-and-debbie-wasserman-schulz-rigged-primaries-against-sanders/
*** Assholes.
** https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/08/26/pers-a26.html
** https://www.wsj.com/articles/google-issuing-refunds-to-advertisers-over-fake-traffic-plans-new-safeguard-1503675395
*** Now I'm going to be accused of fraud? What a 1984-esque rewrite on the words we use. Fucking hell people, do you even understand the transaction occurring on the internet. I hate you all. Please die.
** https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/26/opinion/sunday/trump-our-child-king.html
*** It's not just the GOP. There are systemic dysfunctions and pushes towards psychopathy and libertarian thought that run through the river of our political climate. Blame passes everywhere.
** http://www.funnyordie.com/articles/b49cdc2046/so-cool-two-years-ago-j-k-rowling-totally-owned-a-twitter-troll-now-she-repossessed-and-literally-owns-his-house
*** Known for her philanthropy, I am disturbed by this.
** https://static.currentaffairs.org/2017/08/wait-do-people-actually-know-just-how-evil-this-man-is
** https://thewalrus.ca/dont-let-the-alt-rights-rebrand-fool-you/
* https://www.wired.com/story/this-pill-promises-to-extend-life-for-a-nickel-a-pop/amp
** I have no comment at this time. It is worth thinking about.
* https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/6w4t0r/only_in_japan_would_someone_leave_these_out_while/
** We really live in a different world.
* https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/if-waffle-house-is-closed-its-time-to-panic/
** Nothing new. I just love the Waffle House rule.
* http://nautil.us/blog/when-dark-humor-stops-being-funny
** Oh no! Nautilus, don't do this to me! What the fuck is this article!?
Watched some pipefitting videos. Did some reading. Found a subreddit for it (beyond the one I made).
!! Why do you get hives, rashes, and systemic fungal infections while stressed?
Because that's what happens to some people when they are experiencing significant stress.
Looking through the symptoms and biology of it is clearer than ever to me that my wife is incredibly stressed. I feel like I've failed here. I hope I can make it up to her. The pieces are going to fit together. We'll get there.
I scratch a lot while nervous and anxious. I fidget a lot while nervous.
Ultimately, it can be evolutionarily useful to you to feel anxious, nervous, and stressed. I need to act upon it. I can fix it. I can be stoic, work hard, have hope, and more than likely it will heal.
* [[2017.08.26 - Highdeas Log]]
** Just acts as flags at this point.
* [[2017.08.26 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** It was a good day. I got shit done, but also relaxed.
* [[2017.08.26 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** Edited for a bit more content.
* [[2017.08.26 - Wiki Review Log]]
** Was going to try for THC + DCK today. Never done it, we'll see how it goes (but not today).
* [[2017.08.26 - Pipefitting Log]]
** Brief! But, really, not much to say.
* [[2017.08.26 - Link Log]]
** Marketers are dangerous.
* [[2017.08.26 - Dream Log]]
** Maybe I have the wrong patterns for understanding when I dream. Easily possible.
* [[2017.08.26 - To-Do-List Log]]
** Long list. I can't do it all, but I'll get most of it done.
* [[2017.08.25 - Wiki Review Log]]
** Clearly, I've been slacking on my [[Prompted Introspection Log]].
* Woke up before the alarm.
* Worked hard.
* Talked to Chris
* Talked to ALM
* Roast and my daughter made bread for us. Delicious.
* GoT + Rick and Morty
* Fireman Time!
* The Good Place
* Sleep
The new living room arrangement made it easier to grab my stuff and go. Wearing my new shirt and vest, and I'm hoping it will be comfortable. It looks good and feels decent. Working in it will tell. Also, I'm not sure why the laptop didn't sync. When plugged in, it is set to not suspend. Go Sublime text editor!
Chris and I talked about the job on the way. He's really unhappy with how much rigging and ironwork he is stuck on. I've been lucky enough (and pushed for) any and all fitter type work I can get. In a way, this is an excellent experience, but in another, it almost doesn't feel like a complete pipefitter experience exactly. I'll take as much and whatever I can get through. Right now, money is the key. After that, experience, networking, and understanding the lay of the land.
I was sent straight to the major pipe section with the header alongside Chris-M. We were taking measurements, marking lines, and trying to interpret the drawings. We are going to be mounting pipe finally.
One of the giant 30" pipes rolled over without anyone touching it right next to us. That could have killed us. We did not report it because we didn't want anyone to get fired. I still may tell my foreman about it. I know one of the riggers saw it.
Break!
I ran around trying to be useful. I obviously did not understand how to help them because I did not understand the prints well enough. I was barely catching on the entire time. But, this was a conversation between a fitter of 25 years and one of 40 years. I shouldn't feel bad that I didn't understand because it was clear that they barely understood. They spent a long time trying to figure it out.
I was going to help pull a measurement we were missing to rig a piece into place. We have to do it weirdly so it doesn't roll on us. Going to fit a 90 in the air between two pieces. Don't know how far to pull off the building though, and we have to make our own measurements now. But, I didn't get to help. I was pulled off pipefitter helper duty to be the red barricade tape monitor. Ugh. Fuck that. Still, pay me $23.80 an hour to do it. Fine with me.
Lunch!
Looked for materials to build the missing part for my fitup tool. Couldn't find what I needed.
I told Dave about the falling pipe. He says he saw or knew about it (both). He apologized and said it was partially his fault. He said there was going to be a meeting about it (after all, this is near miss territory).
I pulled a couple measurements and danced around some pipe, but not much actually fitter work. Instead, I sat at the barricade monitor almost the entire time. Boring as fuck. Kill me, please.
Break!
After the break, I decided to try and weasel my way out of barricade monitor work. My journeyman saw it and decided to help me out; he told me he didn't want me to do it either and gave me some fitter tasks. I marked lines for supports we were rigging+sliding underneath the 42" pipe. I didn't do much more than that besides push bricks.
My journeyman saw that I was having difficulty understanding the iso's we were given (since everyone is having difficulty), and he told me not to feel bad. He said it would be impossible to understand them on my first try, and that it would take years to be able to successfully navigate the world of tricks you need to know to understand them (and get passed the mistakes in the drawings themselves).
!! Define //Pornography//
Despite its etymology, I think it's a broad concept. Pornography is art which arouses us, objects which cause us to lust, or media which is socially forbidden fruit. It has the same connotative problem as the distinction between dependency and addiction (and, of course, can be related). I'm not sure what can't be pornography, and it seems to scale and be relativized to individuals and social groups in context.
As they say, "I know it when I see it," but it is fairly hard to define in a meaningful way. I think this shows we don't want to engage in hardcore conceptual analysis on the topic because we know the conclusions will not be satisfactory, and it may rule out large swathes of our life. It is a weasel word.
* [[2017.08.27 - Highdeas Log]]
** Just a tag at this point.
* [[2017.08.27 - Pipefitting Log]]
** Good to accomplish work-related things on my days off.
* [[2017.08.27 - Family Log]]
** Decent compliments for us all
* [[Book Titles]]
** Not sure what the value is. Just a gut hope.
* [[2017.08.27 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** Forgot to complete it. Edited.
* [[2017.08.27 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** Grammar Edit.
* [[2017.08.27 - Wiki Review Log]]
** Repeating myself.
* [[2017.08.27 - Link Log]]
** Hopefully I'll do more of this.
* [[2017.08.27 - Dream Log]]
** Yay?
* Woke up with the alarm. Decent sleep.
* Worked hard.
* Talked with ALM and fam at work.
* Talked to my brother JRE briefly.
** I fear I'm not being talkative enough. I should have more to say.
* Tried calling my brother AIR again.
* Shower of the Gods
* A bit of family time
* Italian Sausage, Plantains, and Salad. Yum!
* True Blood and Archer
* Fireman Time, and sweet dreams.
Eating a meal with my brother, and also we were on some wild adventure which I can't seem to remember.
Drove myself today in our temporary vehicle. Listened to Gladwell's Revisionist History. Got plenty of writing done.
New guys came in. Chris-M introduced me to some of them. He said I was pretty green, but I knew a lot. I take that as a compliment.
I've been assigned to work with Chris-M on finalizing the headers. Chris-M studied the iso's while I did the layout for the supports and drawing lines for where the pipe needs to be layed. I helped the riggers put it into place somewhat, and I had to hammer and move the large supports into place. After the break, we'll move the main header into place. It is off 7 inches in one direction on one end and 1 inch in the other direction on the other end (long fucking, huge piece).
David's son is here. I was expecting pure white given Dave's libertarian view. Nope. Awesome, not obviously a racist then. Good. In any case, we will see. He has been assigned to work with Chris and me. I assume that's a good sign, that we are viewed highly enough for that. Let's see who he is, what he knows, how hard he works, and whether or not he is bird-dogging on for his pops.
Break!
We moved the pipe into place. Brandon, Dave's son, has obviously been around the block. I enjoyed working with him. We got the supports all aligned (took multiple tries). I did a tiny bit of rigging to help the rigger. I feel like I was the only one who understood what we needed to accomplish, but at the same time, didn't feel it was my place to tell them they were doing it wrong. I need to be a bit more aggressive, straight-forward, and willing to make mistakes.
We pulled some more measurements, drew some lines. I'll be going up with the riggers to fit the massive pipe. I know the centerlines, so I can do it. The rigger kept moving it until I was satisfied by it.
I asked one of the new guys, Jeff, a fitter of several decades I assume, how long he had been a fitter. He said this is his first job (which was obviously not true). Dick.
Lunch!
We thought we were going to move 2609-02-05 into place. Nope, the riggers had a shipment coming in of our last header. We waited around. I grabbed the drawings and studied. It was the first time I got to really sit down with them it felt. I'm beginning to see how the pieces in the documentation fit together. It's not a simple document. I'm still working my way through it. I hope to become extremely adept at interpreting them and understanding the order of operations and issues I need to take into account.
Brandon showed me his tools. He has some I don't have, but I clearly have a lot more. He is on this job as a complete fitter. He gets paid $4 an hour more. I'm seeing what he understands. I anticipate I'll be catching up to him within a year.
The shipment finally came in. I took notes and helped figure out with of the 9 pieces were which and in which direction they went. We set them aside though because immediately after the operator was ready for us to work on the pipe we setup before lunch. I suited up in my harness and went with Chris. It wasn't terrifying this time, but it was quite uncomfortable. I was also completely useless to him. I told him as much. He shook his head to make me feel better, but I know he knows it is true. In fact, he decided he would do it himself 15 minutes later. We still had some adjustments to make after an hour of work, but I obviously wasn't useful for it. Also, our fit-up lines for rigging are NOT correct. They do not go where we expected them. The pipe feels too short. I didn't measure the pipe.
When I am in charge, I will have the pipes measured against the isos and labeled immediately. We need order. This place is chaos.
We worked past break time.
Break!
I did a bit more reading, and I also slightly directed my foreman as he operated the lull moving two very large header pieces together for us. It was during this that I decided that Brandon is actually fairly annoying. I'll learn what I can from him, despite his attitude.
Post Work!
I realize I'm really beginning to understand these more complex iso's. It's gratifying. I hope I can master them eventually, as it is clearly important to being a good pipefitter.
I need some actual hammers. Today it was clear I was ill-prepared. It took several different hammers to accomplish the job. A retractable flexible measuring tape with a magnet attached would be sick.
I went through my hardware to see if I could fix the tool I have. I can't.
I need to contact AB&T for a gangbox. Of course, I need a vehicle again so that I can measure.
!! Your friend, ALM, is starting a wiki for himself as well. He asked you for suggestions. Provide some, and some reasons for them.<<ref "2018.12.03-1">>
Understand the mechanics and nature of the wiki itself.
* There are technical aspects to understand, some object-oriented conceptualization, etc.
* You get out what you put in.
* You are talking to yourself. Do it well.
* Spend time organizing, killing things off, starting new things, etc.
I suggest a mixture of Logs and Projects. Store things you care about. Build your knowledge base on the wiki. Hold yourself accountable on the wiki. Show off to yourself on the wiki. Have a conversation with yourself on the wiki.
Projects are really up to you. Anything you find interesting should go there.
Logs I've found incredibly useful:
* [[Wiki Review Log]]
* [[Prompted Introspection Log]]
* My Occupational Log<<ref "2018.12.03-2">>
* [[Carpe Diem Log]]
This is a solid starting place.
---
<<footnotes "2018.12.03-1" "This project with him completely failed. He obviously had no interest in trying to understand. I'm pretty convinced it was an exercise in narcissism for him.">>
<<footnotes "2018.12.03-2" "It's interesting to see how this split into [[Employment]], [[Polymath Craftsman]], and [[Afterschool Teaching]] for me.">>
* [[2017.08.28 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** More Fireman Time!
* [[2017.08.28 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** Added some thought.
* [[2017.08.28 - Wiki Review Log]]
** Not very useful, but it can't be amazingly useful everytime, right?
* [[2017.08.28 - Pipefitting Log]]
** Legitimately brief.
* Woke before the alarm.
* Listened to Gladwell's revisionist //Revisionist History//
** Talked to my fam, mostly ALM and k0sh3k
* Called MB, JRE, AIR, L, and Charlie. None answered at first. Charlie called me back.
* Talked to Charlie for a while.
** I love that man.
* Pizza for dinner.
* Opened my tools, prepped my gear for tomorrow.
** Realized I need anti-rust oil for my tools. It's a shame to have nice tools and have them go bad. This is insurance.
* Fireman Time!
* Waited for my wife, then bed.
I dreamt about work, lol. That's what happens when you do the something intensely day after day. This is exactly what I experience when I play a video game a ton.
I get to leave a bit later when I don't have Chris driving. I guess I drive faster but still safer than he does, in addition to missing one stop. This is nice. It buys me some breathing room in the morning. I listened to Revisionist History again. I am disappointed in Gladwell, yet again. He is very sure of himself, and he shouldn't be.
I'm getting the writing part down mechanically. I have a regimen in the morning when I arrive on the worksite. I have to make sure I don't sacrifice my time socializing/networking, but I need time for myself as well.
We were split into groups again. I hope to permanently stay with Chris-M. So far, so good. Brandon was assigned to another group. I do not know why. I need to think about it. He was assigned to cut some plate. Dave is very concerned with my group's work since it is literally the primary point of the project, the header. Sounds like he has people breathing down his neck.
Chris has to go with Bear and Chad again. Poor bastard. =(
I'm going to do more stretching than Dave has us do. It obviously helps me. I don't care if it looks weird.
I cut straps, cleaned up, and fit the Victaulic gasket after lubrication. I worked with Chris-M to try and get the giant 4 thousand pound pipes in position, but clearly, our hacks aren't going to work. We need an operator, but there are only 2 on the site (and they are busy). Lack of logistical foresight here, and not on our part.
I'm working with another guy, Lucas, who was also a graduate from Tim's class 5 years ago. He tried both UA unions in TN. He said it doesn't work if you don't know anyone or if they don't immediately like you. He says they didn't do anything to help him learn. He says they couldn't find him any work either, and that he couldn't find work otherwise without paying a 10k fee. He had to wait a year. It seems like I know a lot more than he does. I wonder if he just half-assed it.
Chester, my boss's boss saw us standing on talking (quite a user of Humanity, let me tell you). He tried to drill sergeant us with the angry "are you busy?" Lol. Umm..you realize that our lack of things to do isn't our fault here. I am passionate about working, but your lack of planning is not my fault. I'm just a helper, yo.
Chris-M used a formula to calculate the weight of the pipe. I asked for it. Looks incredibly useful. Works for all steel.
!! Break!
Lucas and I talked about the unions, about the various companies at Eastman. Yates is high paying, but they only have their foot in the door here at Eastman, and they aren't all the way through the test (this is the test). TEC is the primary maintenance company. He said Chris and I are incredibly lucky to have this job. We might be the highest paid non-journeyman graduates from Tim's class from the sounds of it. Lucas attended 5 years ago, David 4ish years ago.
There wasn't anything to do at the header, so I went and helped Chris move pipe. It was the firewatch Lesbian grandma (who is unskilled at wielding the Lull as a crane), Chris, and me rigging and moving giant pipe. We moved 1 pipe into position from the "townsquare" (the center area between 290, 309, 233, 234, 291, which is why I'm calling it that) between 291 and 234. We then moved 4 other pipes to the side of 290 in order to reach the last piece we need to bring to 234. Jeff, a new journeyman, is apparently pissing everyone off. He's the one asking for this. I don't mind though since I'm gaining valuable skills and knowledge here.
Bear came over to show us what was what. He was obviously perturbed that we were rigging without his consent, expertise, and authority. Lol. I'm glad Chris deals with it. I'm just helping on this one. Hilariously, Bear was trying to flip the pipe over (that's what he was trying to show up), but in the process, he slammed it into + scraped it against the concrete block next to it. That is why I didn't want to flip it there. But, of course, this man who has been a rigger for 20-30 years (but still has the wrong attitude to become a foreman, clearly) is going to do it his way.
!! Lunch!
I helped do the rigging under Bear's supervision. He decided it necessary to pull Dave over to talk shit about me in a meeting. Wonderful. I did as was required and headed back to Chris-M. Give me 5 years, and I'll be Bear's equal or superior.
We got the Victaulic fitup done for the first part of the header. I think I need a shackle for each choker. I did some of the rigging for it, and help the piece in place and has got the other half set. We had to flip the giant nuts+bolts after we got them set (took quite a while...these are fucking huge, and the ground ones can't even be finished). Of course, we don't have a 2-3/4" socket yet, it's on req.
Also, another fitter who joined us, Greg, talked to me. He told me he was Tim's student. He talked about Tim's odd teaching style, but his appreciation for it. I'm not the first person to notice, clearly. Greg is not stupid; he saw the method to the madness.
!! Break!
Pushed Bricks.
Went to help Chris-M. We worked on putting the Victaulic flange on the end of the header. We tried a bunch of things. We didn't have all the rigging tools we needed. I went around to the riggers asking if they had a small chain pull, but the ones we had were all tied up.
I talked more with Lucas. He has been around the block. He's also looking to exit pipefitting for an office job. It sounds like he has been through the wringer though. I hope to escape that, but we'll see.
Dave asked me to climb the 40-foot scaffold to cap the pipe. I used duct tape to make a carrier/tote of the cap for my arm. I found out afterward that they should have had a retractable way up high for me start off with, which makes so much sense. I asked David-C, who told me this, to report it to the safety man. I'll ask him if he did later. I don't think I'll do that again. It was quite scary, and it wasn't a risk I should have taken. Dave "thanked" me later. He would not have asked his son to do that (his son has been following him around all day).
Dave is clearly butting heads with Chester. This makes it difficult. Dave was lamenting with me about it. Perhaps I've earned a modicum of respect from him, I don't know. I shouldn't have done it anyway.
Afterward, I went to help Chris-M for one last try before we rolled up for the day. It failed. We decided to wait until tomorrow and use the right tools. Take it slow!
!! Who's or what's approval should you seek?
I consistently see existentialist and psychological advice that boils down to the claim that one is better off refraining from seeking the approval of others. Often, this can be very good advice. It rids us of the pain of futile pursuits. But, I am deeply worried that this isn't an unconditional principle by any stretch.
I suppose I should ask what is meant by Approval? Do we mean some form of Appraisal Respect (AR) or Recognition Respect (RR)? It seems like is a variant of respect. Friendship, authority, and perhaps all relationships require at least some degree or kind of respect/approval, however, we might define it. It seems as though this is both a practical and ethical matter.
Perhaps we must seek the approval of Humanity, The Rational, The Wise, The Right, The Good, or even ourselves. What is the standard we take to be fundamentally normative? We seek the approval of a standard, essentially, right? Even if I am only seeking my own approval at first glance, don't other standards constitute my own personal standard? Obviously, I have not peeled anything apart. I seem to be saying things I already know. On that note:
I must say: I feel rejected by Humanity.
* [[2017.08.29 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** My sleep schedule feel better to me.
* [[2017.08.29 - Pipefitting Log]]
** Minor addition.
* [[2017.08.29 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** I should probably talk to him about it.
* [[2017.08.29 - Wiki Review Log]]
** I don't write that much on my work days.
* [[2017.08.29 - Dream Log]]
** Don't feel bad about not being able to remember.
* Woke up before the alarm
* Worked hard during the rain.
* Came home early
* Cannabliss
* Talked to kids, and we had a brainstorming session.
* Long-term planning and dreams.
** Was a great day.
* Wife came home, she felt really bad (storm + period, sucks)
** I knew it was coming from last week. Them inferences, grill.
* Archer, Tacos, and early to bed.
They told me I can't have my computer on the job, but I can have my phone. No headphones either? They, Chester in particular, appear to have a hard-on for me. Literacy scares ignorant and selfish people. They made it a point to call me out in the morning meeting. Lol. =)
Chris-M and I talked about it after the break. He rightly pointed out that several labor practices at Yates are against the law. There is nothing we can do about it unless we banded together. But, we won't. Too many ignorant, selfish conservatives and temporarily embarrassed millions with Stockholm Syndrome. It's nice to see Chris-M agree. While we may radically disagree in some ways, he is obviously very intelligent and experienced in several realms.
We filled out our paperwork. We grabbed some clamps (broke on while working) and put on the nuts and bolts of the support of the supply header. The people in charge should have done this before they mounted the vertical pipe on the header. Fools.
It rained very hard. We were soaked and we were having a very difficult time applying the Victaulic lubricant to the flanged end of the return header.
Lucas and I took measurements and checked the iso. I clearly was faster at understanding it, despite his near journeyman status. We had a disagreement about how best to pull a measurement to make sure a support wasn't going to hit a Victaulic fitting. My way was best, and I solved it in 2 minutes. I measured off the supports, and he wanted to redraw center lines and then calculate from that. After I did my way, we eventually did it his way (because we had literally nothing to do) to make him feel better. I obviously offended him by ignoring his suggestion and going with my own which was obviously better. I went on to explain why we could trust the supports after, and I gave him a way to save face by just claiming he didn't trust them at first. He saw I was right afterward, I believe. He treated me with more respect today, far more like a peer.
We were rained out. I talked to Chris-M about the job and asked him for his advice. He advised instrumental fitter, millwright, or PLC (his brother does it). All reasonable options.
We had a BBQ for "us," but really for Eastman, luring them into our "family" and bullshit.
They gave me my laptop back and the end of the day. Danka' massa'.
!! What makes a good Helper/Apprentice?
* Your goal is to make yourself useful.
** Justify your existence on the jobsite.
** Find work to do as best you can, and find work that pushes your understanding of the job.
** Always have the crucial tools for the job on your person.
*** Flashlight, tape measure, marking instruments, notebook, watch, knife, etc.
* Proactively anticipate the needs of your journeyman before they ask you for it.
** When you get really good, it is anticipating their needs before they even realize they'll need it, or before they've thought that far ahead.
** In a sense, the goal is to understand all the trees of means to your team's ends, to see the process at every little stage, to learn the ins-and-outs of why the trees are structured that way, handling novelty, etc.
* Ask yourself what you can accomplish without being taught how to do it, and also ask yourself what you can accomplish without being told to do it and why.
** These are two lines you are constantly pushing.
* Good for?...Myself, of course. Thus, a good helper/apprentice is rapidly and constantly improving, seeking to become a journeyman.
** Recognize that the people around you have a vested interest in not giving you competitive advantages.
*** They only want you to learn enough to be useful to them and no more.
* Tool and Asset Accumulation
** People who possess and know how to use the right tools will accomplish tasks with significant competitive advantages, with less risk, and with more room for error, etc.
** You must invest in yourself professionally. Pick up the right assets necessary to move forward.
** This includes training. Branch out, far, wide, and deep.
* Build a professional network
** Being a journeyman isn't enough either. You must have the right contacts and relationships to succeed in many cases.
** You must open doors constantly and maintain bridges.
*** You are fighting through a tide of nepotism, corruptions, and selfishness in general.
* [[Find Weight of Steel Pipe]]
** I desperately need to clean up that area.
* [[2017.08.30 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** I love having people to talk to.
* [[2017.08.30 - Pipefitting Log]]
** Grandma Lesbian suggested writing the incident down. Clearly, keeping track of what I do, and who asked me to do it, and anything I feel is fishy, is worth it.
* [[2017.08.30 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** Unsolved.
* [[2017.08.30 - Wiki Review Log]]
** And...now I will perhaps have even less without the computer on the job.
* [[2017.08.30 - Dream Log]]
** Per the us(ually)
!! Log:
* [[2017.09.10 - /b/]]
* [[2017.09.13 - /b/]]
* [[2017.09.15 - /b/]]
* [[2017.09.16 - /b/]]
* [[2017.09.23 - /b/]]
* [[2017.09.24 - /b/]]
* [[2017.09.29 - /b/]]
* [[2017.09.30 - /b/]]
!! Audit:
* Much of this comes from my notebook from work.
* These are obviously random thoughts. Some are important though.
* I'm angry in many of these comments.
* It's very redpilled.
* I'm clearly thinking. I'm proud of that.
* Obviously, this is a very influential log.
!! Log:
* [[2017.09.01 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.09.02 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.09.03 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.09.04 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.09.05 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.09.06 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.09.07 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.09.08 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.09.09 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.09.10 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.09.11 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.09.12 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.09.13 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.09.14 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.09.15 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.09.16 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.09.17 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.09.18 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.09.19 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.09.20 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.09.21 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.09.22 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.09.23 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.09.24 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.09.25 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.09.26 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.09.27 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.09.28 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.09.29 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.09.30 - Carpe Diem Log]]
!! Audit:
How I usually do it:<<ref "2018.12.03">>
* Woke up before the alarm
* Worked
* Listened
* Talked
* Ate
* Maybe a Show
* Fireman time!
* Bed
Okay, back to it:
* Cannabliss is wonderful
* DCK is worth it
* Talking to my family is awesome
* My days are monotonous and deeply compressed
* I actually have benefited from the routine.
* There are days where I try to contact everyone I care about. Why?
* We've had some good shows this month.
* Audiobooks have kept me sane.
* Sleep has been amazing. I need to make sure I do.
* My family helped me a lot this month with prep.
* I am in debt to my daughter and wife in particular for cooking this month.
* Pizza fell off the map.
---
<<footnotes "2018.12.03" "Ooohhhh. I don't even remember doing this. It is not common for me to part with my conventions for the [[Monthly Auditable]]. I wish I knew how to part with my conventions more effectively like this.">>
!! Log:
* [[2017.09.03 - Family Log]]
* [[2017.09.10 - Family Log]]
* [[2017.09.17 - Family Log]]
* [[2017.09.24 - Family Log]]
!! Audit:
* TiddlyPy fell off the map.<<ref "2018.12.03">>
* I'm looking forward to my wife's doctor's appointment. We need to spend money to fix this problem.
* Compliments are now almost entirely "Thank you" oriented.
* This month has been a blur.
* Slow progress, but my children are doing some schoolwork. I hope to continue to turn up the volume.
* It has been a crazy month. The adults are clearly far more stressed, which is fine.
* We've been spending a lot of family time before we do this log. Very little of that is captured. It is more organic. It's actually my favorite part. The script here is still useful though.
** Should I try to take notes/minutes of the rest of the meeting? I don't know.
---
<<footnotes "2018.12.03" "It's clear that I've been on the hunt for this capacity for a while. I really do not like giving up the single-file editing of this wiki, and I am strongly opposed to giving it up as the final product. I feel like I've been patient here.">>
!! Log:
* [[2017.09.03 - Link Log]]
* [[2017.09.10 - Link Log]]
* [[2017.09.15 - Link Log]]
* [[2017.09.24 - Link Log]]
* [[2017.09.25 - Link Log]]
!! Audit:
* These are monstrously huge. My poor computer has been taking the hit. Chrome, memory whore that it is, has been wrecking it.
* I keep adding new archetypes. I should keep that up.
* I have a ton of links that don't have commentary. I'm okay with that. This is, again, a collection above all else. Annotation is nice, but not required.
* Most of the time, my children do not even look at the links I've collected for them.
!! Log:
* [[2017.09.01 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.09.02 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.09.03 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.09.04 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.09.05 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.09.06 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.09.07 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.09.08 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.09.09 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.09.10 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.09.11 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.09.12 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.09.13 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.09.14 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.09.15 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.09.16 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.09.17 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.09.18 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.09.19 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.09.20 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.09.21 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.09.22 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.09.23 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.09.24 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.09.25 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.09.26 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.09.27 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.09.28 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.09.29 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.09.30 - Pipefitting Log]]
!! Audit:
* I only get to be part of myself on the job. It's still not working.
* I never figured out what happened to Lucas
* I've grown a lot over the past month.
* I've used every tool I own on the jobsite, except the chalk line (no chalk in it though).
** I have many tools I've not been able to bring.
* I need a more complete toolbox.
* I need a 4' toolbox of sorts for the longer tools.
* I need a large aluminum pipewrench
* I'm very lucky to have learned and practiced with Chris-M
* Yates and my bosses are dicks
* I'm glad I continue the !! Break! points, but I need to make sure I don't fail to say what I need to about the end of the day.
* Some days this month clearly sucked hard.
* Our finances are much better.
* I kept struggling to find ways to be useful.
* IBEW makes a lot of sense. Of course, I can't start until June. I need to pick up another job between then and now. I can do it.<<ref "2018.12.03">>
** Maybe I should consider plumbing until then?
* I need to take the PLC classes
* I am proud of never missing a day or being actually late.
* I am pleased that I've stuck it out, although I didn't have to.
* Tons of spelling mistakes, but typing on a phone sucks.
* Greg is a smart cookie
* Magnets rocks.
* Mondays are rough. I need to smooth this out more.
* I am barely keeping my head above water.
* I feel like I'm slowing down on a job that is speeding up.
* The Pit sucks. Clearly, too many don't give a shit about my safety. Do not believe their lies.
* It was great to see my old classmates. It felt like fate, somehow (which is ridiculous, I know).
* It is clear, after speaking to my old classmates, that I have come a very long way from where they are.
* The new tiddlywiki editor and bluetooth keyboard has got me back in business. I feel like I've expressed myself, and I think I've felt better at the end of each day because of it as well.
* I analyze social situations better when I can type.
---
<<footnotes "2018.12.03" "I'm proud that I was able to get a job with the IBEW before this date. I am saddened to see that the good ol' boys club is alive and kickin'.">>
!! Log:
* [[2017.09.01 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.09.02 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.09.03 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.09.04 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.09.05 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.09.06 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.09.07 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.09.08 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.09.09 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.09.10 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.09.11 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.09.12 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.09.13 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.09.14 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.09.15 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.09.16 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.09.17 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.09.18 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.09.19 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.09.20 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.09.21 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.09.22 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.09.23 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.09.24 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.09.25 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.09.26 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.09.27 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.09.28 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.09.29 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.09.30 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
!! Audit:
* I don't accomplish much here. This log has taken a huge hit this month.
* My prompted introspections do tell a story though. Damn, I was feeling pretty depressed this month.
* Lots of real stuff going on. I didn't flesh it out much.
* Redpilled.
* Lots of parenting considerations
* I wrote more after DCK
* Okay, I've convinced myself: I'm still really proud of the work I did here. Maybe it wasn't academically beautiful, but it was very useful to me.
* [[/b/]] looks like serious competition, or perhaps it is a seed.
!! Log:
* [[2017.09.02 - To-Do-List Log]]
* [[2017.09.10 - To-Do-List Log]]
* [[2017.09.16 - To-Do-List Log]]
* [[2017.09.24 - To-Do-List Log]]
* [[2017.09.30 - To-Do-List Log]]
!! Audit:
* I'm glad I have this list.
* I accomplish the vast majority of tasks
* Some of them are more specific than others. Perhaps those should be highlighted.
* I think what helps is me writing out the list and seeing what I need to do, not actually having the list in hand later on.
!! Log:
* [[2017.09.01 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.09.02 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.09.03 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.09.04 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.09.05 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.09.06 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.09.07 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.09.08 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.09.09 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.09.10 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.09.11 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.09.12 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.09.13 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.09.14 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.09.15 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.09.16 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.09.17 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.09.18 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.09.19 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.09.20 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.09.21 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.09.22 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.09.23 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.09.24 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.09.25 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.09.26 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.09.27 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.09.28 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.09.29 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.09.30 - Wiki Review Log]]
!! Audit:
* Always short. There is no serious analysis either.
* Of course, this has been a very hard month. I can't expect more. I've done the best I can with what I've had.
* There are plenty of times where I get to follow up. The follow-up-edness is useful.
* I emote quite a bit here.
* Tool addiction has been strong. I'm glad to see it rounding off though.
* Quarterly audits don't seem worth it. I can barely keep my head above water to do the monthly ones right now.
* It's clear that I'm worried about writing so little in my wiki this month. I feel like I can only do it in short bursts on the weekends. I will not fail.
* Not enough DCK in a sense, but it was all I could do.
* This Wiki Log has helped me see the need to restructure the root directory. I've got a lot more work to do to get this place up and running.
* I've been Dreaming more this month. I'm glad.
* My sexual gratification has been on and off.
* This month flew by. It has been insane.
* The revamp is slow. I feel like I'm planning the rest of my year out.
* My weekends are explosions on the wiki.
* Just keep writing and working. It gets better!
* My wife still hasn't edited.
* The [[Link Log]] pileup is huge.
* Woke up before the alarm/
* Worked very hard.
* Talked to my brother AIR.
* Came home, talked to my brother JRE at length.
* Hugs.
* Shower of the Gods!
* Cannabliss and Pizza!
* Wife is feeling bad =(
* Archer
* Writing, shopping, Archer, and maybe some Fireman Time before bed.
I decided I've got to be myself on the job. I'm working on it. I often avoid trying to have any conversation in which I will be asked what I did before this job. It's very common to be asked "how long I've been fitting," and then they will be surprised it has only been for 8 months (and professionally for only 2 months when they inquire). Inevitably, many go on to ask me what I did before I worked as a pipefitter. It is obvious to them that I'm not normal, that I'm not one of the usual suspects, that I don't quite make sense. They know I'm smart; it bleeds out of me even when I try to hold it in.<<ref "1">> When people get close enough to me, when I'm open about what I'm thinking, etc., people tend to have strong reactions to it; it is very often an intelligence-related issue.<<ref "2">> In any case, I don't like answering this question with these people. Don't get me wrong, I'm not ashamed of what I've done (I'm proud even), and I can often forge interesting relationships with it. However, in many cases, contexts, and scenarios, with at least some people, I receive very negative responses. They don't like people like me. I'm a liberal, etc. (and I'm far left of that actually). So, I want people to know but at least not give me shit for it. And, sometimes it can help. In any case, at least make it so I can be myself. It went well enough today, at least for now. I'm hoping it will be a positive thing that people know who I am in at least an acquaintance level way. I don't want to be hurt, and I want to be happy.
I worked with Chris-M on the header again.
I found three extensions and a 3/4-to-1" converter for the torque wrench.
Jeff, a journeyman, doesn't know how to set a torque wrench.
We torqued it in a star pattern, starting at 300 foot-pounds, then 450, then 600 (increment of 25% starting at 50%). Tanya, the QC, saw it.
I calculated the weight of the flange piece and then the entire spool. 10,300 lbs. I reminded Chris-M to tell the operator.
I marked the center lines of nozzles/saddles on the side for our mounting of the header on the saddles. We needed to make sure the tie-in points would fitup perfectly.
!! Break!
Upon a question from Chris-M, I did some measuring and noticed the flange was taller than the support. After more measuring, I figured out it was going to hit the concrete riser underneath the support. This was a huge problem, an engineering mistake that may be costly. I told Dave, and Dave said to let it happen. He wanted the bosses and QC to see it in person. He believed me, but that was his response. He knew it was a big problem.
I saw Dave's notebook. I am on the right track. He saves his ass the "hole" time. It's all business too. I'm thinking I need to keep two logs, one personal and the other professional. Professional is something I can protect my ass with, limit my liability, win any he-said, she said, and have organized concise thought about what happened for meetings, elevator speeches, pitches, and any other ammo-requiring contexts. Document interactions that are important and all conflicts or problems. However, I still need to plan and digest this at a personal and more private level. Hence, two logs. This is no small task. I will take practice.
On the flip for our rigging, the two pipes rolled in different directions. Our fitup was ruined. Something is very wrong. We are all very surprised it rolled. It's a big deal. It shouldn't do that. We did it according to spec. Should it be possible for that to happen? We had to use our chain falls to make the flip (the riggers did). That's when it happened. We still aren't sure. The only way to eliminate that would be by making sure we got the fitup perfect in the staging area before we rigged it straight into the support system. Otherwise, we will always be forced to roll it on the rigging, which may cause that twist/roll in the header itself.
Lucas saw me writing. He asked about it. I told him. He recommended I become a construction manager.
Chris-M said not to write in front of the bosses. He said they'd run me off the job.
I hit my head hard on a hanging pipe. I wasn't looking closely enough to where I was going. I need to be more careful.
They moved the header out of the supports and cribbing. I don't understand why. They need to break off concrete, but why not make the fix where it was and lift it to bust the concrete? Worth the time, I think. They could have moved it one foot over from the side of the support and be set. Conversely, they could have just moved it off the first support anyways. Having 2 supports instead of 3 + cribbing is still wildly better than that unsafe way we do it against the train tracks.
!! Lunch!
We can't do shit, not even with QC, on the return header (the main part). The bosses and engineers need to figure out what to do now.
So.... we are working on another piece of the header, trying to at least do something.
Jeff pulled me aside after I asked to borrow his snips again (he asked why, and I explained). He told me I was going places and that I'd go far. He said he had been watching me and figuring out what I was thinking about. He said I take initiative. I have mixed feelings. I like compliments, but I prefer them from people I respect. I thanked him. I will think about it.
I rigged the flange. One of the main journeyman riggers came over and said it was good. He handed me his shackle to complete it. I then cut rubber softener and rigged the side of the header because Chris-M wants to slide it to make space for the flange.
Also, the room at level 3 in 290 is so hot that it felt like it cooked my lungs. I had to hold my breath to pass through it.
After they placed the header back at the tracks, I measured the pipe against the centerline. It was close but acceptable. Dave saw me do it and went on to move the pipe further away from the tracks.
!! Break!
QC complained about washers in the morning. I was asked (as was Lucas) to get a 24" Victaulic kit and 24" bolt'n'gasket kit. Dave thought we were taking too long, and I explained it was because we were looking for washers. He said we didn't need them. An hour later, he checked the drawings again (which is what I was going to do, but didn't [I should have]) and said we needed washers. Lol.
Philosophical point: To what extent is "taking pride in your work" equivalent to being picky as hell (in the right way, at the right time, for the right reasons, and so on and so forth, etc.)?
I painted the kits with anti-seize bolt butter, but by 4:00 I realized it wasn't happening. I explained to Dave that I wanted to keep them together in the Connex (?) for next week. He agreed, especially since he planned to do that first immediately next week.
Also, we took down the rigging. We got very little accomplished today.
---
<<footnotes "1" "So humble too! - My mother's favorite line.">>
<<footnotes "2" "Go ahead and cringe. #/r/iamverysmart me if you want, but it's true. This isn't a humblebrag, it's an arrogant description.">>
!! Your brother AIR talked to you today. What do you think about it?
I'm really glad we got to talk, even if only for a short time. I'm really happy he called me back. It has been a long time.
I wish we talked more. I wish we had a better relationship. I wish we could be happy. I think we are both crazy busy. I know it's really hard on him. I don't think there's much more I can do. I hope that in time is blossoms and that we have time to see and be with each other more.
It's sad and happy at the same time. I have mixed emotions. It's overwhelming a bit. I'm sensitive to it. I just want it to work. Co-dependency, yo!
* [[2017.08.31 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** Cannabliss!
* [[2017.08.31 - Pipefitting Log]]
** I will write no matter what. I simply must.
* [[Highdeas Shorties]]
** Odd.
* [[Theory of the Human Mind]]
** Nailed it.
* [[Insect Farming]]
** Perverse and enticing.
* [[Creatively Engineered Animals]]
** Neat.
* [[2017.08.31 - Wiki Review Log]]
** I have now seen multiple people suggesting writing it down. ;P yay!
* [[2017.08.31 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** Absurdly pragmatic.
* Woke up late. Quite sleepy. Late night with cannabliss taken at 6pm.
* Fireman Time!
* Took the kids to a trampoline park. I think they enjoyed it a bunch.
* Donuts!
* My son and I went to Harbor Freight and Wal-mart.
** We got tools for both of us and some shoes for him.
** He wants to make a picture frame. This is awesome! It's right in the vein of where I want him to go. I need to make this happen for him.
* Cannabliss
* Worked on my tools, organizing, etc.
* Cleaned living room.
* Archer, maybe some Fireman Time, and bed.
Still completing my pipefitter tool collection. Hit Harbor Freight. Picked up a couple tools, and a miter box + saw for my son. He wants to build a frame for pictures (awesome! :D).
I organized my tools and marked them.
!! Why aren't you watching and playing League of Legends?
Well, I catch highlights on matches, but that's it. I'm just not interested. I feel like I have more important things to do with my time. I only have a few hours each evening, and my weekends are always packed. I think this is the natural course of things, and there is nothing wrong with it. It's good. I've found higher utility options. Good for me!
* Trampoline Park
* Clean living room
* Organize, mark, and buy tools
** Move post-gangbox tools to room on the shelf.
** Find a way to organize and keep safe my fit-up tools.
** Prepare desiccant
* Flea market
* Prep lunches and clothes for work
* Get NCCER books
* Read the IPC pipefitter book
* Monthly Audit the log
* DCK + Cannabliss
* Link Log
* Prepare to contact the school about the check.
* Work shirts and raincoat
* [[2017.09.01 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** Quite a good day.
* [[2017.09.01 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** Never heard back from him. He said he'd call later.
* [[2017.09.01 - Wiki Review Log]]
** Insect farming is interesting.
* [[2017.09.01 - Pipefitting Log]]
** I'm getting a handle on things, or so it feels.
* [[Tiddlywiki Automation]]
** Very interesting possibilities.
* [[Professional Log]]
** I'm still not sure how to implement this.
* Woke up late.
* Writing
* Fireman Time!
* Captain D's
* Flea Market
* Talked to L, Charlie, JRE, and ALM
* Worked on my tools
* Cleaned living room
* Wiki
* League Finals
* Dinner and Family time
* League, Archer, Sleep!
!! How has your health been this week?
* 1uxb0x
** Allergies!
* j3d1h
** Perfectly fine
* k0sh3k
** Ha! Migraines, Period, Stress.
* h0p3
** Sore as fuck. Overall good though. I probably needed a bit more sleep.
---
!! What happened last week? Have you been happy this past week? Why or why not?
* 1uxb0x
** Playing with Savannah, Nick, Dakota, and Isaac more. Overall happy.
** Didn't go outside as much as he'd have liked though.
** Happy to have built a sheath for the saw with his dad.
* j3d1h
** Not happy because work didn't go well.
** Loved the trampoline park.
* k0sh3k
** Painful.
** Still don't have a student worker.
* h0p3
** I worked hard, learned a ton, made money.
** I didn't write as much as I'd have liked.
---
!! What is a positive fact or compliment we can say about each person in the family?
* 1uxb0x
** I love your idea to make a picture frame. This is what I'm talking about when I say: be passionate. Go for it, dude! Draw it up, read about it, watch videos; let's make a gameplan and do it.
** You've been more diligent in carrying your Everyday Carry with you.
** You've had a better attitude about doing your chores this week, whipping through it so you can go outside and play.
* j3d1h
** Thank you for looking into the Tiddlywiki Python program.
** Thank you for helping me cook.
** Thank you for cooking and baking for the family more this week. You make mistakes, and you know it, but you don't let it get you down. That's the right attitude. Persevere!
* k0sh3k
** Thank you for intervening when we had difficulty in the kitchen today.
** Thank you for giving the kids a chance to fail in unschooling. Thank you for giving them time to figure it out.
** Thank you for coming to the trampoline park even though you felt sick.
* h0p3
** Thank you pushing me to do something.
** Thank you for taking care of the family while I was out on my migraine.
** Thanks for planning for the trampoline park.
---
!! What will you do this week? Name at least one fun objective and one unfun objective.
* 1uxb0x
** Build a picture frame.
** Play with friends.
** Research football.
* j3d1h
** Get the python program to work.
** Draw comics.
* k0sh3k
** Fix the schedule
** Finish NT Wright book
* h0p3
** Read my pipefitter books
** Finish the monthly wiki audit
* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15155833
** I need to pick a few up, again.
* Confirm My Bias
** https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/6w5r3j/stephen_bannon_former_trump_advisor_said_he/
** https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/aug/27/should-the-rich-be-taxed-more-a-new-paper-shows-unequivocally-yes
** https://qz.com/1062007/market-power-and-competition-explain-every-problem-in-the-economy-new-research-argues/
** https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/sep/02/socialism-young-americans-bernie-sanders
** https://newrepublic.com/article/144644/turns-algorithms-racis
** https://ergodicityeconomics.com/2017/08/14/wealth-redistribution-and-interest-rates/
** https://www.nextplatform.com/2017/09/01/huge-premium-intel-charging-skylake-xeons/
* KYS
** http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/27/angela-merkel-tells-asylum-seekers-not-take-holidays-country/
** http://newatlas.com/ambrosia-young-blood-transfusions/51080/
*** Old news, but still disturbing.
** https://gizmodo.com/yes-google-uses-its-power-to-quash-ideas-it-doesn-t-li-1798646437
*** https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2017/08/31/i-criticized-google-it-got-me-fired-thats-how-corporate-power-works/
*** Golem!
** http://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-affirmative-action-we-dont-talk-about-30-of-harvard-freshmen-are-legacies-survey-2017-09-01
** https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/legal/man-who-refused-to-decrypt-hard-drives-still-in-prison-after-two-years/
*** Prefer privacy, even when it forces us to allow guilty humans go free
** http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/uw-professor-the-information-war-is-real-and-were-losing-it/
** Anti-globalism and Anti-capitalism are not the same thing. I sure as fuck don't trust multi-nationals, but that isn't because I don't think there is a conceptual possibility of working together internationally. Far from it, as that is the only way to defeat capitalism and its pigs.
** https://psmag.com/social-justice/understanding-antifa
*** They make too much money to give any credence to Leftism of any variety.
* Preach, yo!
** http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2016/11/10/trump-election-autocracy-rules-for-survival/
*** Not in agreement with everything. The gist is correct.
** http://kottke.org/16/11/the-14-features-of-eternal-fascism
*** Ditto.
** http://lcamtuf.coredump.cx/prep/
** https://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21727073-economists-struggle-work-out-how-much-free-economy-comes-cost
*** I know, I know, Le Economist. Better than a broken clock, I must admit.
** https://theweek.com/articles/720428/things-are-going-much-much-worse
*** Minus the possible censorship overtones.
** http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/you-cant-erase-urban-homeless-by-making-them-illegal/
*** How in the fuck am I in agreement with a piece from this site? The sanity is breathtaking. Is the world ending?
** https://www.inc.com/business-insider/millennials-robot-workers-job-creation-world-economic-forum-2017.html
*** Idiots.
** https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/30/nationalise-google-facebook-amazon-data-monopoly-platform-public-interest
*** Not sure that's the solution. Not sure how best to do it. Decentrality for one.
** https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/29/magazine/the-new-front-in-the-gerrymandering-wars-democracy-vs-math.html
** https://www.madinamerica.com/2017/08/adhd-diagnosis-based-illogical-rhetoric/
** https://thecharnelhouse.org/2017/08/28/american-thought-from-theoretical-barbarism-to-intellectual-decadence/#more-44572
** http://uproxx.com/life/subprime-mortgages/2/
*** I think the Rent-Economy of Capitalism is the real culprit here. Exploitation.
** https://www.wired.co.uk/article/dark-web-drugs-porn-internet-freedom
** https://citizensagainstmonopoly.org/
* Neat
** https://newrepublic.com/article/144392/america-verge-ratpocalypse
*** I guess "neat"?
** http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2017/07/uncovering-somalia-forgotten-music-1970s-170704123301195.html
** https://fsquillace.github.io/junest-site/
*** I love containers, VMs, etc. This is an interesting one.
** http://www.radiolab.org/story/91960-vanishing-words/
*** Neat and sad.
** http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a27961/mit-nuclear-fusion-experiment-increases-efficiency/
** http://news.stanford.edu/2014/07/16/voices-culture-luhrmann-071614/
*** Always found it fascinating.
*** I have long suspected schizophrenia and BPD.
** https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2000/06/harvard-and-the-making-of-the-unabomber/378239/
*** In an odd way, of course.
** https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/599awz/in-13-million-years-the-solar-system-will-briefly-contain-two-stars
** https://www.reddit.com/r/sociopath/comments/6xrj7f/i_dropped_mdma_and_there_were_no_receptors_to/
** https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/usenixsecurity15/sec15-paper-caliskan-islam.pdf
*** Stylometry. That's the word.
* http://pud.com/post/10103947044/fucking-sue-me
** Risk analysis.
* https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/sep/01/only-childrens-books-with-humans-have-moral-impact-study-finds
** Empathizing is hard.
* https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/six-charts-to-help-americans-understand-the-upcoming-german-election/
** I remain ever ignorant of the world. There is too much to know.
* https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/6xmhhd/cmv_women_are_not_as_attracted_to_men_as_men_are/
** Wanting to look attractive is not the same thing as being attracted to. Are you all fucking idiots? Swallow your redpill.
* http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/somerset/5334208.stm
** I think there is a redpilled explanation for this.
* For my daughter:
** http://www.logicmatters.net/resources/pdfs/TeachYourselfLogic2017.pdf
** https://github.com/abaldwin88/roamer
** https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~aada/courses/15251f15/www/schedule.html
*** Do this!!
** https://www.r-bloggers.com/the-real-prerequisite-for-machine-learning-isnt-math-its-data-analysis/
** http://www.lihaoyi.com/post/WhatsFunctionalProgrammingAllAbout.html
* https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/08/this-is-probably-the-worst-us-flood-storm-ever-and-ill-never-be-the-same/
** It's been pretty crazy.
* http://timharford.com/2017/08/what-we-get-wrong-about-technology/
** Some good points. It also feels very incomplete. Go ahead and define distinctively human. I worry this person really doesn't have a handle on the nature of AI.
* http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/decades-pushing-bachelors-degrees-u-s-needs-tradespeople/
** The classic points, of course. I will say, I usually see arguments of "can't find enough people to do X" as really being about "at the price I'm willing to pay."
* https://www.reddit.com/r/pcgaming/comments/6wdclg/my_list_of_useful_pc_and_gaming_software/
** Excellent list of windows software.
* https://bgpmon.net/bgp-leak-causing-internet-outages-in-japan-and-beyond/
** It is clear that I barely understand the infrastructure of the internet as well.
* https://longreads.com/2017/08/24/i-want-to-persuade-you-to-care-about-other-people/
** Have a redpill, my sweet.
* http://www.thedailybeast.com/this-is-how-cops-trick-dark-web-drug-dealers-into-unmasking-themselves
** I believe Tor is just the wrong tool at this time. They need to go back to the drawing board. It must be VMed, plain and simple. It must be reimagined from the ground up. The Adversary is strong.
* https://moneyish.com/ish/40-of-millennials-want-to-live-within-walking-distances-of-their-parents/
** I hope my children want to live with us. That would be awesome.
* https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2017/08/why-arent-there-more-women-working-in-audio/537663/
** Sexism is complex.
* https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/gpd-pocket-7-0-umpc-laptop-ubuntu-or-win-10-os-laptop--2#/
** For the love of goddess, where the fuck is the SIM? I just want a tiny computer running regular desktop linux that acts as my phone. Is that too much to ask?
Hit the flea market, nothing.
I'm building a tool list for employers.
I'm still sorting through the remaining tools I want to buy. I hope to be rounded out by the end this month. I hope to reach a point where I rarely buy a tool, but I'm still on my lookout.<<ref "1">>
---
<<footnotes "1" "More of my brother's excellent advice/wisdom.">>
!! Your brother, JRE, paid you a compliment by saying you have the gift and motivation for administration and planning. What do you think about that?
I think he's right, at least when I'm properly motivated and interested in it. I think it would be cool to have my own business. Remember: I'm playing life like a video game. Although I am far more constrained by my moral principles than I usually am in a game, I still anticipate doing well.
It would be fucking amazing if we got to work together. It is still my long-term goal: to live near my brothers. Working together even better. Obviously, this is a dream that is far off.
The team:
* L: the engineer
* J: electrical, carpentry, fitting, and anything if he wanted
* Me: fitting, welding, rigging, etc.
* [[2017.09.02 - To-Do-List Log]]
** I'm still working on it. A worthy list.
* [[2017.09.02 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** A great day!
* [[2017.09.02 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** It may disappear entirely for me.
* [[2017.09.02 - Wiki Review Log]]
** I really want that Tiddlywiki Python software to work. Programmatic manipulation of this wiki could be profoundly useful and interesting. It would open up so many avenues.
* [[2017.09.02 - Pipefitting Log]]
** Tool addiction.
//Not sure why I didn't complete this.//
* Woke up late.
* Inform the Men!
* Shower of the goddess.
* Archer
* Writing
* Cannabliss
* Shopping
* Prep for work
Prepped for work this week. We are moving to 6 day weeks. My Saturdays will be gone. This is useful experience.
Bought tools.
Still missing one of my books.
Reading through these reference books.
!! Your male donor, [[MWF]], thinks you are Libertarian. Is he right?
For now, given my understanding of it, no. I fight not to be one. I grant only what I must. There are, of course, many definitions.
Even a philosopher not paying very careful attention to my argument could easily mistake my Thesis and Dissertation as arguing for Libertarianism in many respects.
While it was empathizing with the Libertarian, arguing from his own positions, that allowed me to show why Libertarianism fails to uphold IP, that doesn't mean I'm a Libertarian. Far from it.
It appears these people do not associate Libertarianism with capitalism strongly enough. They do not see that one can be a socialist that denies intellectual property, censorship, and many kinds of authority (without giving up being able to agree to an ideal, maximally and fairly empathic government).
Meh, I don't think he's right. I don't think he really knows what it means. He has a Pauline addiction to obeying those in authority without effective justification. That's his fundamental problem here, and it has twisted his conception of the world around him.
//See: [[Pipefitting Log]]//
* [[AB&T Buylist]]
* [[Pipefitting Portfolio]]
* [[DIY Tools]]
* [[Pipefitting Library]]
* [[Pipefitting To-do-list]]
* [[Welding]]
* [[Employment]]
* [[Cover Letter]]
This will be my profession. It's what I'm learning to do. I see it as a gateway to becoming a craftsman and embracing a part of the Heideggerian tradition in my unification. My dad loves to bandy the phrase renaissance man around, and honestly, he's right: I'd love to be a jack-of-all-trades + scholar. I love working with my hands, getting dirty, and having something physical to show for it at the end of the day. I am not afraid of manual labor. I love being able to point at something physical at the end of the day and say "I made that." There is something satisfying about working with your hands (not that I can't do the same with my intellect, but there is something visceral about it that is missing that sometimes fails to satisfy my inner-beast). Ultimately, as long as it consistently involves problem-solving (especially not with peoples' minds), I should be in good shape (and making sure that I am constantly challenged, hopefully, will coincide with significant pay increases and quality of life [especially flexibility and autonomy] improvements).
Why pipefitting specifically?
I originally was going for welding, then possibly machining. Due to overdetermined circumstances, I simply couldn't. Thankfully, pipefitting seems like it fits the way I think very well. I believe I will really love doing it. Further, the pipefitters and plumbers union is one of the few available close by (although, they do a lot of work out of town, atm). It seems to provide reasonable mobility/pathways to other trades. My teacher says he wishes he went the union path.
Pipefitting wages are fairly high, the training fairly short, and the skill tree (and overlap) is large (as far as trades go). The demand doesn't seem to be disappearing (high enough in my area), and I think it will be very difficult to automate it. I'd love to have the kind of trade which can at least survive the automation of our world for as long as possible. If and when it does become automated, I'd like to be a master that can at least make use of the automation (and integrate it into my work).
If I'm sacrificing time with my family, then I absolutely must make this worth it. I need to be voracious, open, humble, amiable, and unstoppable in my pursuit. It has to become one of my primary passions (and the one which takes up most of my time). I need to find a job which maximizes the time I get with my family while bringing home a good wage (the best wages require nomadic migration).
One student claimed that the work could technically be finished in 6 months (average for the program is 12 months), but the teacher says 10 is really the shortest time period. I'm smashing through the computer-based testing. I have a library prepared, and I'm slowly working my way through the books. I hope to pass the tests and spend tons of time practicing technique in the shop. I will W5 my way through this work. I want to know how to solve the same problem in multiple ways and have the wisdom to know which one to use. I want to know which tools are best for the job at hand. A short introduction to the science behind what I'm doing would be useful. Further, I believe it will be necessary to be technically excellent in order to make up for my other deficiencies (or give the space to work on it), but also to quickly advance to a paycheck worth having.
I'm applying to the union. I'm also going to look at other places for co-op. The teacher believes co-op is a fine option for many students, but that they will not learn nearly as much on the job (where they will be forced to do one specific thing and nothing else, most likely) as they will in class. I'm not sure if I'd drop out to go for them. The program does look useful. I'd need to find more information. I should still search for a job though.
The Evolving Pipefitter Plan:
*Short-term:
** Crush the opening tri-semester busy work instantly. Take the optional general tech course as well (highly recommended). Get me in the shop learning the actual trade asap.
** Start networking and exploring the landscape.
*Mid-term:
**Finish the program in 9 months
**Generate a list of employers. Figure out which one I really want to be hired at.
*Long-term:
** Consider becoming a contractor, otherwise find a job with a solid autonomy + pay balance.
*** If I can't, maybe I'll live in a van (yay) to keep that per diem.
** Consider plumbing, welding, HVAC, and related trades
*** Learning all the trades would be cool, useful, and something I could take pride in.
I do not see myself as a manager. I'd be fine working to help a union in certain ways. I'd be fine eventually becoming someone who teaches. I think I'd have the most fun becoming adept enough to be a project manager/contractor. It would be amazing to be my own boss.
* [[2017.08 - Wiki Review Log]]
** I'm wondering if I need to do a quarterly audit of these audits. Waiting an entire year seems really rough. This may not be feasible.
* [[2017.08 - Pipefitting Log]]
** No doubt, good job!
* [[2017.09.03 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** Keep up talking to people.
* [[2017.09.03 - Wiki Review Log]]
** I am worried that I'm going overboard. But, this is how I play video games. I'm learning the gear, yo.
* [[2017.09.03 - Pipefitting Log]]
** Keep up the daily work. Play this game every day.
* [[2017.09.03 - Family Log]]
** Honestly, it feels brief. I wish I knew how to capture our discussions as well in a fashion I liked.
* [[Pipefitting Tool List]]
** This was a good idea. I'm going to continue to fill it out and possibly organize it further.
* [[2017.08 - To-Do-List Log]]
** Worthy.
* [[2017.09.03 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** Edited.
* [[2017.08 - Family Log]]
** Good job!
* [[2017.08 - DCK Meditation]]
** I didn't use today. I thought I would want to, but I didn't.
* [[2017.09.03 - Retired: {Focus}]]
** This has crystallized quite a bit, do I need to retire every month?
* [[2017.09.03 - Link Log]]
** Wall-of-text!
* Alarm got me
* Worked hard, but rained out.
* Retrieved packages, called Amazon
* Napped in wife's lap
* Shrimp and grits
* Archer
* Bed
No laptop today, which sucks. I am truly bottlenecked. I had considered a Bluetooth keyboard, but I don't think my bosses are going to view it rationally. Literacy scares them. No headphones means no music I can hear nicely either. Lunch break is my time. I consider this a violation of basic labor rights.
When I arrived, people were concerned about another rain out. The bosses say we work through rain, to ignore our OSHA rights, but they don't like getting wet and then they finally start rationalizing their way back to their liabilities. Might be thunder today. I will follow my journeyman. It is hard to fault me for doing what he does, although they still might.
I keep arriving with more bags. I brought a few more tools today. Slowly, I accumulate what is required for the job. I am hoping that if I look like a duck, quack like a duck, and work like a duck, they'll call me a duck: a journeyman worth $28/hour. There is definitely a responsibility tradeoff here, but I think the stress is worth it.
They talked about sports ball this morning. I have nothing to say. As usual, I still have no idea how to connect with these people. Admittedly, I am feeling most anxious today. I don't know why.
I organized my tools, and decided to give my harness back to the tool room (still may have my number associated with it anyways). In any case, I have no room for it now, and I want to minimize my chances of going up. Having it always ready is a bad idea.
I found the centerlines on the side of the supply header and the tie-in points. They needed to use a tripod to check elevation, I think. The center finder bit me something hard today (nasty blood blister), but it was very useful, even at 90 degrees. The level and tape measure trick I was told to use on the header gave me 1/2" difference off the weld.
I rigged the side of the header parked at 290.
I added cribbing to the header next to the railroad tracks.
I rigged the flange for 290.
I used a fulcrum to move pipe off the 290 header.
I did the tether-rigging work over at 291 since I was asked by Chad.
!! Break!
More rigging on the flange.
I rolled the header nipple with cribbing to 290 and did a bit of fitting up. We then eventually did the full fit up. I was in charge of torque, and I had to stamp my name on it.
I got the reducer in place, rolled and jimmied it as well.
I got in an argument with Brandon about the two-hole. he wanted to level the header first. I explained why we need not. He ignored me. Everyone else arrived at my conclusion.
!! Lunch!
It started raining. I'm very grateful for having picked up a nylon-based water resistant and breathable rain suit.
Chris-M set me in charge of the flange, but then we worked together. Chris-M loved my protractor, and he says he is getting one.
I helped Chris-M with some layout marks, or at least I tried to.
We finally got rigger on the header. We got it fit up.
Brandon and I continued our disagreement in another fashion, in particular, on the value of the protractor. he continues to trust the level as his sole source of information.
Brandon didn't understand that it was even possible to two-hole without going level. Pardon me for questioning his knowledge here. He kept telling me it was useless. I think he is figuring out that I disagree and don't want what he thinks. I told him I was "just curious" to give him a way out.
!! Break!
Thunder and lightning. They called the work day off.
!! What is your favorite holiday?
Uh, holidays are dumb, but I love the free time.
So, I'm going with whatever holidays feel most comfortable with me playing with my prostate. That is freedom, yo.
* [[2017.09.04 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** Meh, whatever.
* [[2017.09.04 - Wiki Review Log]]
** Grammar Edit.
* [[Pipefitting Links]]
** This needs a ton of work.
* [[2017.09.04 - Pipefitting Log]]
** Good job!
* [[2017.08 - Link Log]]
** I can feel my illiteracy
* [[pipefitter.life]]
** An interesting idea. I have no idea what it should look like.
* [[Pipefitting Brand]]
** Necessary, I believe, particularly as someone roaming.
* [[2017.08 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** Well-seized.
* [[2017.08 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** And, h0p3's log is dead. Should I bring it back?
* [[2017.09.04 --Retired: Pipefitting]]
** When should I do this "Retired" thing?
* Woke before the alarm.
* Worked very hard.
* Tried reaching AIR.
* Spoke with JRE.
* Ate my daughter's beef stew. Outstanding. My son helped as well if I understand correctly.
* Watched Better Call Saul
* Fireman Time!
* Writing, waiting for my wife, and bed.
I was told we were only getting paid for 8 hours of the 9 we worked yesterday. The squeaky wheel gets fired. Capitalism isn't yet unbridled, but it's bucking.
I leveled the header with jackstands and fit the Victaulic. I did the torque.
Brandon got the torque gun (j-gun), since we are now required to also use it (our giant torque wrench can't even do some of the work). Still learning how to use this $8-10k piece of equipment (calibration is expensive).
!! Break!
We tried to fit the header. I immediately noticed the flange was hitting the concrete (again, and it wasn't fit against the center line of the tie-in. Oh, and it wasn't level. It got worse though. As they got it into place, I started measuring. I noticed the pipe was too long on both ends. Nobody seemed to initially believe or understand me. A clusterfuck ensued for 2.5 hours. They eventually understood.
Chris-M told Brandon to show Chris and me the ropes, since we have knowledge but not experience (unlike Brandon). Of course, Brandon is a highschool dropout who is barely literate and can't do the math. He's not very smart at all. I eventually just let Brandon wander and do his thing while I worked on the problem myself (well, Chris decided to join me: he's been down this path with me many times).
Chris and I noticed no one really seems to listen to us. We did the measuring work ourselves while they ran around. Eventually, Brandon came over to ask what I was doing. I showed him, he retrieved his father, and I explained to Dave. Dave understood, and I had evidence this time.
!! Lunch!
They told us to fill out our SACs. I do.
I replaced the bolts on the supply header and added washers.
I cut my hand breaking a seize on one of the bolts. I had to see our safety guy for my little boo-boo. But, if it got infected, they wouldn't cover it unless I had said something first. So, I did.
John, the new fitter, is crazy. He was a highschool biology teacher, an ex-football player, and went to a liberal arts school. He's a knucklehead that knows he's a knucklehead (rare!). Bible-thumper, Trump-fan (weird though). Very fluid in the conversation, unable to hold his ground against good arguments, but unwilling to change his beliefs (just bounces back). Fool, likely. Still, I enjoy working with him so far.
!! Break!
They decided to move the pipe 3" to fix one of the problems (although, I'm not convinced the tie-in centerline is where they think it is). This, of course, doesn't fix the problem of the pipe is too long on the other side (exacerbating it even). This pushes the problem down the road for us. I suppose the engineers will figure something out.
We were going to do more work, but the riggers wanted to halt production for the truck bringing stuff in. That kills our work. Without them, we can't do much.
!! What is the psychological impact of having money again?
I feel safer. I feel like there is hope. I feel like I can build toward something.
I finally am able to take my kids to go do things on the weekends. We get to eat out, which has been quite rare for us. It's really nice to have that cushion again.
I know what I want to do with the money now, and I don't feel bad making it. It's great to have a means to my ends.
//I fell asleep before finishing my wiki.//
* [[2017.09.05 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** Brief! I asked my family to give me one, and that's the one I got. Not much to say.
* [[2017.09.05 - Wiki Review Log]]
** Give me time on pipefitter.life
* [[2017.09.05 - Pipefitting Log]]
** It really sucks not having the laptop at work.
* Woke before the alarm. Kept waking up earlier look at the clock.
* Worked, not very hard. Very sore though.
* Shower of the gods.
** Needed powder for my swamp ass.
* Children made dinner.
* True Blood, Archer, and went through my new tools, calculator, and book.
* Foot rub (sore flat feet)
* Bed
Dreamt, but I can't remember what. Kept waking up the last hour. I'm still tired. My throat is sore.
We were told to stop rolling up before 5. It pisses Chester off. They expect us to work for free. Gross.
I finished torque on the supply support. I didn't set the gun up though. I just helped.
I then helped Chris reposition the header. Apparently, there won't be a problem. It took some real abuse on the Jack stands and some hammers. Moving it manually is not simple. Maybe I should read about ancient techniques for moving large objects.
!! Break!
We dropped the riser into place.
I had trouble finding things to do. Anytime I find something, the lower journeyman takeover.
I got in trouble with my boss. He literally said that we would eventually switch out the short bolts for long ones on the header to the riser. He then told me to switch another bolt out elsewhere. I did as he asked. He came back and saw that the header bolts had not been replaced. He said he had been very clear, and he had expected me to do it. But, he said Lunch!eventually. I assume he had some reason to say it like that and not the other. Clearly, he didn't. I'm not a mind reader, and I'm worried that my lack of experience is a good reason not to take initiative, particularly when it doesn't exactly fit what my boss said.
!! Lunch!
More nothing to do. I did some torque and had QC help verify.
I started to pick up parts for the next fitup. They already had some of it stashed. The piece I brought was useful, but Brandon was incredulous. I had him verify on the pipe itself that I retrieved the right gasket.
I wandered with Chris-M, who also couldn't find anything to do. We looked at the drawings. We measured off the header layout and saw that it may also be off a couple inches that way.
Also, they muscled and jammed until the clusterfuck was corrected. We will see on the final corner fitup if it actually works.
!! Break!
I screwed around helping Chris-M.
After work, I anti-rust oiled some tools.
!! What do you think of the experience/knowledge distinction your co-workers make?
I think experience is a special kind of knowledge. I think knowledge, by definition, is codifiable. So, Tolkien, Samwise Gamgee, and the rest of you fuckers can suck it. You missed the Socratic boat.
Go ahead and claim it isn't feasible, practical, or even possible for you to learn outside of the field. That is not the same as a theoretical, universal claim.
* [[2017.09.06 - Pipefitting Log]]
** Sucks.
* [[2017.09.06 - Wiki Review Log]]
** I missed a Carpe Diem Log entry
* [[2017.09.06 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** Simple.
* [[2017.09.06 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** I'm sure there is more to say. Drawing blanks. I'm doing a poor job of prying it out of me.
* [[2017.09.05 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** Brief! (From memory)
* [[2017.09.04 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** Ditty!
* [[2017.09.06 - Dream Log]]
** Don't recall it, but it sucked. I remember the feeling.
* Woke up right before the alarm.
* Worked.
* Talked to my family
* Tried calling AIR and L
* Talked to JRE and my son
* Pizza, gas, and alcohol.
* Groundhog Day.
* Archer.
* Writing
* Bed.
Dreamt I was back in E-town. My dad and I argued about Blackbooks rather than Quickbooks, as well as taxation.
Crazybrains, yo.
Arrived at 6:30. We now do sign in at the van. Lucas didn't show up again. I'm guessing he is gone.
We are working on the trunion today. I helped Chris-M get the rigging into place. We rolled a pipe. We don't have an electric source for grinding the rust off our old grinds. We also only have steel chokers, which isn't a good idea. I do not understand why, although I would guess that they would be more likely to slip off this very short piece of large pipe.
!! Break!
We waited.
!! Lunch!
We waited.
!! Break!
We took it down. =(
I suited up to help put in a riser 60 feet in the air. I helped my boss by climbing a ladder to grab a nylon choker off another pipe to do this. We were stopped by safety for climbing the scaffold without a retractable (good). We didn't make it in time, and someone (Greg) forgot to put the Victaulic gasket on before the fitup. The fitup was very difficult to do because of the clusterfuck (the previous one) domino effect. We are still paying for it.
My boss was pissed (as were several other bosses). He was rude to me. I'm pretty much done with it. I'll take the money.
!! What do you want?
To be happy?
!! What is necessary for it?
For my family to be happy.
!! Is that sufficient?
No.
!! What is missing?
I don't know yet.
* [[2017.09.07 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** Brief. Mailing it in.
* [[2017.09.07 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** Meh. Time for DCK.
* [[2017.09.07 - Wiki Review Log]]
** Grammar Edit.
* [[2017.09.07 - Pipefitting Log]]
** Honestly, the last few days have sucked.
* [[2017.09.07 - Dream Log]]
** Glad I'm sleeping though.
* Woke up before the alarm, considerably. Coasted until I was 5 minutes till.
* Worked hard.
* My knee is sore.
* Called ALM briefly. I think I annoyed him. He never called back.
* Attempted to reach L and AIR. They never answer.
** Either they don't actually care to talk with me, or they are too busy to do so.
* Talked to wife.
* Called JRE. Talked about my plan.
** He is ridiculously supportive.
* Pizza, Cannabliss, Brownies
* Drive-In Movie for the Fam
* Talked about the Wiki and Tiddlypy options.<<ref "2018.12.09">>
** I'm hoping to start automating a lot of this and extracting real data.
* Fireman time
* Bed
---
<<footnotes "2018.12.09" "This is a fascinating thing to read today now that I have Bob up and running. I hope the tooling continues to evolve radically! I'm glad that I continued manually pouring my identity into this wiki.">>
We took extra time to get through a different gate. We also have new Yates badges, signing in and carding.
Dave didn't lead the morning meeting. A new pipe foreman did.
I asked if we were going to finish the fitup from yesterday. I was told no by Chris-M. I got our gear for the trunion. Immediately told we were switching to fitup, lol.
I got my harness, untangled some drop cords and waited. Still no oxy torch for the cut we were waiting on. They did it by Metabo.
Eventually, I was asked to put a ratchet strap on so we could twist the pipe. I am not convinced this will work. I think moving the elbow at the top is the best option. Rope, yo!
I talked to Greg a lot this morning. He has a unique perspective on the field. He recommends HVAC or electrician if I can't get on at Eastman on BAE through Thompson. He has also regretted traveling. He says the quick buck wasn't worth it.
!! Break!
We fitup the pipe. I just helped position. It took a lot of hands several hours.
I asked Dave for a list of his tools. I probably have everything he recommends, but better safe than sorry.
!! Lunch!
Tina, Chester's wife, brought pizza for us coming in on Saturday. That reminds me of the glad-handing "We appreciate you" bullshit. This is manipulation.
!! Break!
We took down some rigging off the pipe we fitup. We took down a giant tarp (I have no idea why it was there in the first place). My wire cutters were quite useful.
I talked at length with the new pipewelder/fitter Oliver. He was homeschooled, as are his kids. The usual conservative story. He is fairly intelligent in some respects, although clearly uneducated. We talked about a great many things.
I took our gear back to the tool room.
I struggled to find anything to do. Chris-M helped me out by having me take measurements of pipes and label them against the isos. I didn't get far before Dave asked me to clean.
We are cleaning early today. We are preparing for the hurricane/tropical storm coming our way. Additionally, we have to make room for an exceptionally large train coming through on Monday.
!! How do you categorize socioeconomic political classes?
* Hyperclass:
** Those in direct power over the majority of humanity.
** The elite of the elite of the elite.
** The ruling class.
* Upperclass:
** Those above the diminishing marginal utility for income line.
*** It is not clear that power has such a line, but money obviously does.
* Middleclass:
** Those between the DMU for income and the minimum functioning, healthy, basic cost of living requirements.
* Lowerclass:
** Anyone who doesn't have enough to live a functional, healthy, life....i.e. doesn't meet the basic cost of living requirements.
** Note the difference between //Living// and //Survival//.
//See first: {[[About|About, a.k.a. The Opening of the Rabbit Hole]]}//
<<<
We first make our habits, and then our habits make us.
--Frederick Langbridge
<<<
h0p3, it's me, you. Pay attention, self.<<ref "1">> You are an exceedingly complex biological computer system having a carefully crafted conversation with yourself.<<ref "2">> You are an evolving self-programmer. Program this rabbithole and yourself wisely!
In the long-term, this is the second most important section on this wiki. Here you attempt to formalize how you want to program yourself. Perhaps you aren't entirely sure how exactly it fits in the wiki's stack, but it's clearly vital. This platform you are building is for your own knowledge base and systematically shaping yourself. Be creative, and run with it!
Second order of business: you should write second-personally or first-person-plurally (implying second-personal empathy) in this section as much as you can. Finding the right voice in which to talk to yourself isn't easy, but it's crucial at this level. Pretend an absurdly empathic friend (yourself, obviously) is telling you what you need to know and do.<<ref "2">>
So, where do you move from the {[[About|About, a.k.a. The Opening of the Rabbit Hole]]} page? That is quite a narrative. Now you must be quantitative about your qualitative narrative. You must put theory into practice. But, to put it into practice as best as you can, you must develop even more theories. The goal is to be friendly-formal, clarifying, terse, pragmatic, heuristical, empirically data-driven, goal-oriented, coherent, and axiomatically insightful in this section.
This wiki, including this section, is organizationally bootstrapped and constructed piecemeal. It's cobbled together. It's not perfect, and it never will be. But, it can and will improve; you just need to push. You should aim to do the best you can. It takes time to engineer and implement a well-oiled existential machine. What is the ideal, and how do you achieve it as best you can? Do it!
The {[[Projects|Projects on this Wiki]]} page is deeply interested in computing the contents of your life. Most of the work happens there. But, you need principles for prioritizing, weighing, and even for fundamental decision procedures. You need principles for those principles too, and so on. One must push hard in this direction, however painful and difficult it may be. Here you are writing a guiding light cheatsheet for your life's journey on this wiki.
Obviously, the {[[Projects|Projects on this Wiki]]} page must ultimately affect, as a kind of feedback loop, your guiding principles in this section as well as your {[[About|About, a.k.a. The Opening of the Rabbit Hole]]} page, your existential anchor. However, you need to be strongly and consistently convinced and motivated by the work in your {[[Projects|Projects on this Wiki]]} section of this wiki before you use that lower-ordered content to feedback into, modify, or inform your foundational higher-ordered functions (particularly this section and {[[About|About, a.k.a. The Opening of the Rabbit Hole]]}).<<ref "3">> Essentially, be careful in how you grant privileges to lower-ordered processes, escalating them from mere users to higher-ordered root processes.<<ref "4">> However paradoxical it may seem, it's up to you to strike the right balance between guarding yourself and being vulnerable to yourself.
In this section, you must lay down the constitution, the criterion, and source of authority of your internal law: the rules, strategies, methodologies, and principles of programming yourself and using this wiki. Autonomy literally means self-legislating. That's exactly what you intend to do. Here you hope to hone and maximize your executive functioning. Essentially, you need direction in life, and you're helping yourself find and implement the best way you know how (what else can you do, eh?).
There are many collections of principles worth looking at. You must isolate, categorize, organize, analyze, revise, and synthesize them. Cleanliness, order, and conventions matter. If this wiki is an isomorphically mapped feedback loop, and changes are bi-directional (you change the wiki, and the wiki changes you), then you should take the time to organize and structure it with the right principles. You must unscatter your thoughts. You must be an existential computer scientist in your pursuit of homo sapien happiness; it's the only philosophically practical thing to do.
You must be meta about being meta, etc., but in a sense, you should aim to do minimal theoretical work in this section.<<ref "5">> You need to be as practical as you can be here, despite how existential and theoretical it really is. If the {[[About|About, a.k.a. The Opening of the Rabbit Hole]]} page is your existential anchor narrative, a very qualitative and subjective (yet obviously valuable) theory, then this section is meant to be its pragmatic brother. In the same way that [[KIN]] was the leading (though not sole) author of {[[About|About, a.k.a. The Opening of the Rabbit Hole]]}, [[RPIN]] is the leading author of this brother page.
Here are the branches:
* [[Wiki: Existential Axioms and Fundamental Principles]]
* [[Wiki: Broad Computational Structure]]
* [[Wiki: Construction Principles]]
* [[Wiki: Scheduled Practices]]
* [[Wiki: Be the Kind of Author that...]]
* [[Wiki: Assume this Audience]]
* [[Wiki: Loosey-Goosey Principles]]
* [[Wiki: Other Frameworks and Paradigms to Consider]]
* [[Wiki: Projects]]
Remember that you are in the driver's seat. So, pilot the wiki wisely, ace! Build for yourself a proof of your sanity, growth, intelligence, wisdom, and willpower. Play life and this wiki like a video game that you adore. Be obsessively strategic in your planning and savor the meta-living experience.<<ref "6">> If you aren't making maximally meta-paradigm shifts and syntheses, you're doing it wrong! Pour yourself into this medium. Shotgun approach, organize, and prune in order to find the way to happiness. Listen to yourself.
---
<<footnotes "1" "God, I'm annoying, =).">>
<<footnotes "2" "One day my son had been dealing with incompatibilist intuitions and wrestling with himself to see that our autonomy just is programming ourselves, and he told me a joke. This joke was a response to his punishment of losing his rights to use computers that day (horror of horrors, let me tell you) because he didn't do his chores on time. He said, 'Dad, if I can't use computers, then I can't be myself.' He explained his reasoning. He saw the appearance of the contradiction. It was a beautiful moment.">>
<<footnotes "3" "Sounds like the blind leading the blind to me, lol.">>
<<footnotes "4" "I'm sure it sounds weird to call the second-order mental states the foundational ones. Frankfurt was right though. Essentially, we must align our many ordered desires, beliefs, and mental states. We must create conformity between them. Ultimately, the higher-ordered must do the modifying and alignment. Thus, that is the seed and perhaps foundation of autonomy, if not the very heart of it.">>
<<footnotes "5" "I am aware of the [[infinigress|Infinigress]] here. As always, any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. I have no response. It's axiomatic faith for me. I'm sorry I can't provide you with a better explanation at this time. (I'm sure it really bakes your noodle that I'm using 1st personal language here. Lulz.)">>
<<footnotes "6" "Theory is everywhere. I love theory. I also can't afford to not set my existential tentpegs down. Consider this a pragmatic nomadic approach through the desert.">>
<<footnotes "7" "Obsessions may often become addictions. However, appropriate obsession here is literally being wise by definition. That which maximizes utility (for whom, I realize) cannot be an addiction by definition.">>
* [[2017.09.08 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** Lazy.
* [[2017.09.08 - Pipefitting Log]]
** Was a rough day, yo!
* [[2017.09.08 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** But, the end was nice. I like being with my family.
* [[2017.09.08 - Wiki Review Log]]
** When I get time, DCK, indeed.
* [[2017.09.08 - Dream Log]]
** Very weird.
I respect neither your opinion nor you to the degree that your opinion constitutes who you are, and furthermore, I do not accept that you have a moral right to your opinion, but I respect your legal right to have an opinion.
* Slept in
* Writing
* Cannabliss
* Writing
* Family Time
* Inform the Men!
* Nap
* Dinner
* Prep for work
* China, IL and Archer
* Bed
!! How has your health been this week?
* 1uxb0x
** Cold and stuffy nose. Sleepy and perhaps a fever. Coughing.
* j3d1h
** Having a cold sucks, and not being able to enunciate sucks. Need a vaccine, please.
* k0sh3k
** Tired. Sore.
* h0p3
** Very sore. Emotionally drained. Not a lot of time.
---
!! What happened last week? Have you been happy this past week? Why or why not?
* 1uxb0x
** Happy to have played with his friends and being outside more.
** Glad his friends have been outside more.
* j3d1h
** Could have done more work, but happy with her progress on HTPC.
** Happy how much work she has done on Tiddlypy
** Work on Tiddly hacks, reading, and culinary arts more this week.
* k0sh3k
** Things got done at work. Schedule and workers are set. It is nice.
*** Gearing up for other things now.
* h0p3
** It was a blur, very busy, I learned some things, including that I don't want to do industrial field pipefitting.
---
!! What is a positive fact or compliment we can say about each person in the family?
* 1uxb0x
** You are writing paragraphs now in chat. This is wonderful.
** Even though you haven't felt the best this week, you've been doing your chores without complaint.
** I've noticed you've stayed out of unnecessary arguments.
* j3d1h
** Your desk area has been very clean. We should all take a lesson from you.
** You've worked really hard on HTPC, thank you. You've been persistent, even when you keep running into barrier after barrier.
** I'm happy you are getting into baking at an early age.
* k0sh3k
** Thank you for giving me foot rubs. I've really needed them, and I know it's time-consuming and annoying. I really appreciate it.
** Thank you for still working hard at home even after struggling hard at work.
** Thank you for helping me cook this week.
* h0p3
** You're still keeping up with you wiki even though you have very little time.
** Thank you for setting aside time, planning, and resources for family outings each week.
** Thank you for giving me tools. Thank you for asking me to help. It was fun.
---
!! What will you do this week? Name at least one fun objective and one unfun objective.
* 1uxb0x
** Find 5 sources about self-harm
** Go outside each day.
* j3d1h
** Fix HTPC and TiddlyPy
** Make art on the computer
* k0sh3k
** Read comic books
** Start Book+Art planning
* h0p3
** Work on my wiki, more than usual
** Get my chalk bottle from Amazon
* http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2017/09/what_philosophers_say_about_the_inevitability_of_virtual_reality.html
** It is fun to see philosophy of mind and ontology becoming mainstream questions.
* https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/7xxmad/the-alt-right-and-antifa-are-waging-a-new-kind-of-internet-warfare
** I have watched for a very long time. I rarely participate, usually because I don't agree with almost anyone. =(
* https://newrepublic.com/article/144659/antifa-broke-camera
** I have mixed feelings about Antifa. There are some things they get absolutely right. I should give more thought to it.
* https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/09/01/ohio-state-revokes-arizona-professors-phd-questioning-her-findings-video-games
** Ouch.
* https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/the-bad-news-is-that-fish-are-eating-lots-of-plastic-even-worse-they-may-like-it/2017/09/01/54159ee8-8cc6-11e7-91d5-ab4e4bb76a3a_story.html
** I wish I understood how problematic plastics were for other creatures and especially ourselves.
* http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/09/06/5-facts-about-millennial-households/
** Very little new is said here.
* KYS
** https://www.businessinsider.com.au/adam-schiff-house-intelligence-trump-russia-ties-2017-9
** https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/904349010336600064
** https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2017/09/04/president-trump-said-hed-deal-with-daca-with-heart-it-was-a-lie/
** https://vivaldi.com/blog/google-return-to-not-being-evil/
*** True in many ways, but this is pot calling the kettle black. Pay attention.
** http://www.foxbusiness.com/features/2017/09/07/millennial-households-are-poorer-than-any-other-generation-study.html
** https://www.theverge.com/2017/9/7/16270808/equifax-data-breach-us-identity-theft
** https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/9/8/16270040/trump-clinton-supporters-racist
** http://www.ibtimes.com/political-capital/equifax-lobbied-kill-rule-protecting-victims-data-breaches-2587929
** https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/08/opinion/sunday/what-the-rich-wont-tell-you.html?ribbon-ad-idx=2&src=trending
*** You know why they are quiet, right?
** https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/here-come-republican-retirements-n799761
** http://www.businessinsider.com/why-facebook-wont-reveal-political-ads-it-says-are-linked-to-russia-2017-9
** https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/09/why-the-equifax-breach-is-very-possibly-the-worst-leak-of-personal-info-ever/
* Preach, yo!
* http://billmoyers.com/story/rollback-pro-worker-policies-since-trump-took-office-staggering/
* https://abe-winter.github.io/heresy/2017/09/03/perfection.html
* https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/facebook-donald-trump-presidential-election-hillary-clinton-mark-zuckerberg-disinformation-a7935776.html
* https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/6z3v1d/til_that_in_2009_okcupid_statistics_showed_that/
** Be more redpilled.
* For my daughter:
** https://beakerbrowser.com/
*** Very neat p2p browser/hosting tool. It reminds me of Opera from long ago.
** http://batchmanipulator.tiddlyspot.com/
*** Tiddly tools
** https://github.com/mklauber/TiddlyServer/releases/
*** Look into it.
** https://sustrik.github.io/crypto-for-kids/
** https://www.reddit.com/r/cscareerquestions/comments/6yhpha/midlevel_developer_that_cant_find_another_job/
*** I am worried, no doubt.
** https://github.com/slap-editor/slap
** https://github.com/sharkdp/fd
* For my wife:
** http://cardo.wiki
*** For someone in charge.
* For my son:
** http://tid.li/tw5/plugins.html#Get%20More%20Plugins
*** Word counters with autosave. You might find it useful.
** https://sustrik.github.io/crypto-for-kids/
* Neat
** http://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/09/holland-agriculture-sustainable-farming/
** http://www.brendangregg.com/blog/2017-09-05/solaris-to-linux-2017.html
** See the publisher
*** http://www.scmp.com/news/china/policies-politics/article/2110000/disillusioned-chinese-students-learn-overseas-study-no
*** http://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/2109776/why-chinas-gloomy-millennials-have-got-authorities-worried
Sorting my tools and this wiki. Looked at IBEW again.
!! When do you know a [[Prompted Introspection Log]] is prompted by Samwise Gamgee?
Do I have to explain something stupidly obvious? Probably a Gamgee post.
Does it make me angry? I need to offload it on to someone, why not Samwise Gamgee?
Am I having a shitty day? It's Samwise Gamgee's fault!
None of these are particularly good answers, I can see. Perhaps I should focus less on that strawman of a character.
//I dedicate this page to moot, Octavia Butler, and Sir T-Money. At least for a time, these people understood the paradoxes of being human.//
<<<
If you want to increase your success rate, double your failure rate.
---Thomas "Arch Capitalist" Watson Jr.
<<<
Did a lightbulb turn on for you? You know you need to "get it out" before you lose that intuition or insight. If you don't know where to put it, then put it here! Better here than nowhere.
Evolution relies upon randomness. Apply the principle, mentat! Thus, we all must preserve, contain, and harness that beautiful spark of craziness in ourselves. It's simply too useful and wonderfully human not to.<<ref "1">>
Here I freewrite, doodle, and dash my chicken-scratch upon these wikipages.
This is a place to be creative and random. Be messy or organized. Go ahead and take a braindump. Let the psychic diarrhea flow.<<ref "2">> This is a place for chaotic, honest imagination. Peer behind the veil. Find the music. Find the diamonds and redpills in the rough. Be meta; take the first steps into a new frontier or idea; be free.
You aren't beholden to any hierarchy or criticism here. Listen to your gut, and go with the flow. Try to use your bigboy words, but if you can't, that's okay too. Just get it out! Take a deep breath and push(!) that turd-baby of a thought onto the pages of this wiki. Push! You can do it!
* [[Creatively Engineered Animals]]
* [[Deschloroketamine]]
* [[Ego]]
* [[Humanity]]
* [[If I Were Dictator]]
* [[Reputation]]
* [[Osha-10 Test]]
* [[Humans: Years 25-35]]
* [[Glasses]]
* [[DCK Ramble]]
* [[To: My Family]]
* [[Redpill Realtalk]]
* [[Do we have to trust ourselves when "we don't trust ourselves?"]]
* [[How many stairs are in a staircase?]]
* [[Why should I empathize with those who don't empathize with themselves?]]
* [[Doctor's Unions]]
* [[The Tree of Eudaimonia]]
* [[Lightbot MMOG]]
* [[VPN Interview]]
* [[FOSS]]1
* [[DjinniOS (ˈGeniusˈ)]]
* [[Getting to Know Someone in X Questions]]
* [[I'm a revolutionary, not a reformist]]
* [[Open Source Decentralized Gaming Servers]]
* [[Vocation]]
* [[asdf]]
* [[Marriages are Legal Corporations]]
* [[I See Jesi Everywhere]]
* [[When I try to change myself, it feels 2nd Personal. Liking and hating myself feels second-personal very often. Second-personal respect must be understood.]]
* [[Making it a list]]
* [[Being Cynical About Cynicism]]
* [[Transferring Our Minds to Technologic Hardware]]
* [[Money, Money, Money, Money, Money, Money, Money]]
* [[Dave Chappelle's Redpill Conversion]]
* [[Old random precursor document I found a copy of]]
* [[JRE, Rat poison and Grape choke, also birth]]
* [[Sanity: What Standard To Use?]]
* [[The Pinnacle of Parental Sacrifice]]
* [[Seize the Means of Production by Making Your Technology Your Own]]
* [[Beware of those who say "X has no class"]]
* [[Beware how accusations of "virtue signaling" are themselves hypocritical variations of virtue signaling]]
Of course, this begins to look like its own {[[Projects|Projects on this Wiki]]} page.<<ref "3">> But, I will not slip into that infinigress, or at least it can be contained. You'd be surprised where the seeds eventually germinate and find themselves. Not all your ideas are good, but the thread of genius will be in some of them.
---
<<footnotes "2" "You don't have to be proud of it, but you know you'll look at it. You always look at the shit which came out of your rectum. Most people do. Enjoy it. You aren't living if you aren't looking at your shit.">>
<<footnotes "3" "It was definitely how the {[[Projects|Projects on this Wiki]]} started out. It's important to keep this kind of freezone available. The 4chan consciousness was proof of it. The irony of what they would think of this truly magnificent device and my obvious autism is not lost on me. I am thankful, nonetheless, to those low-empathy anons.">>
Official distributions of h0p3's Wiki include checksum and signatures files for verifying the integrity and authenticity of your copy. These verification files are updated for every published edit (nearly real-time). With these files (and the right tools), you will be able to cryptographically verify the entire wiki, which is contained in a single html file (index.html). Let's hope this is never directly useful to us.
I previously used PGP (GnuPG as my last tool) to sign this wiki.<<ref "1">> PGP has to be one of the worst "best in class" toolsets I've ever used. I hate the software ecosystem, its unusability and incompatibility, as well as its poor logistics and social design. I've wasted far too many hours over almost two decades on that piece of shit. I'm moving on.
Instead, I'm cutting out the middleman (fuck you, PGP) and more directly using the crypto library I actually trust. I now generate signatures through [[PyNaCL|https://github.com/pyca/pynacl]], a gorgeous binding to the state of the art [[NaCL|https://nacl.cr.yp.to/]] crypto library (imho, we are rapidly moving into a cryptographic monoculture relying exclusively on the NaCL algorithms).<<ref "2">> I believe my key will be useful until quantum computing becomes feasible.<<ref"3">> When PGP is actually functioning, it buys the same verification as my process (they use the exact same library). The difference is that my process is literally programmable in every major language. It's hilariously easier than PGP. You can even verify it by hand if you want to.
This wiki's public Ed25519 signature verification key:
```
5249578e4cdfaec1484f0083df3e8b6e4af0cab0288c8156c31d6e94efe58308
```
Here's how to verify the authenticity and integrity of this wiki:
If you don't already have them, download all three files (<a href="index.html.sum">index.html.sum</a>, <a href="index.html.sig">index.html.sig</a>, and <a href="index.html">index.html</a>).
Use the Ed25519 signature (index.html.sig) to verify the authenticity of the checksum file (index.html.sum).
You can either find/write your own tool or use mine to verify the signature. Run this script (don't forget to first install [[PyNaCL|https://github.com/pyca/pynacl]]; pip is easiest) in the same directory as the three files you downloaded.
```
#!/usr/bin/python3
import nacl.encoding
import nacl.signing
import binascii
# The verification "public" key
verify_key_hex = "5249578e4cdfaec1484f0083df3e8b6e4af0cab0288c8156c31d6e94efe58308"
verify_key = nacl.signing.VerifyKey(verify_key_hex, encoder=nacl.encoding.HexEncoder)
# Read sig file
with open('index.html.sig', 'r') as myfile:
data=myfile.read().replace('\n', '')
signed = binascii.unhexlify(data)
# Check the validity of the signature
# Will raise nacl.exceptions.BadSignatureError if the signature check fails
try:
verify_key.verify(signed)
print("Signature Verified")
except:
print("Signature Verification Failed")
```
Next, use the SHA-512 checksum file (index.html.sum) to verify the integrity of the index.html file. I suggest [[sha512sum|https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sha1sum]], [[hashfile|https://pypi.python.org/pypi/hashfile]], or [[Hashtab|http://implbits.com/products/hashtab/]]. Use hashfile like this:
```
hashfile -c index.html.sum
```
Assuming you've already authenticated the checksum file, if the hash of index.html matches the hash found in index.html.sum (or if your hashing tool verifies they match for you), then you know your index.html file hasn't been tampered with by a third-party. To be clear, if you trust the signature verification of the checksum, and you trust the checksum of index.html (if the hashes match, you'd be crazy not to trust this part), then you trust index.html. Thus, your authenticity+integrity verification demonstrates you possess a bit-for-bit copy of the original signed by someone who possesses this wiki's private signing key.
-------------------------
<<footnotes "1" "You can find the old verification wikipage here: [[Retired: 2017.01.14 - Cryptographic Verification]]">>
<<footnotes "2" "I am aware of that maxim: Don't roll your own crypto. This maxim can be applied at different levels in the cryptography process. While I openly admit my shallow understanding of cryptography, I remain convinced this is a safe exception to that maxim.">>
<<footnotes "3" "Not that it would ever matter in this case, but I'm not naive enough to think rubber-hose cryptanalysis isn't the first step a state-actor would use against me. Regardless, I still think cryptography is immensely useful to us.">>
//See first: {[[About|About, a.k.a. The Opening of the Rabbit Hole]]} & {[[Principles|Principles of Programming Myself]]} & {[[Focus|Current Focus of h0p3's Wiki]]} & {[[Projects|Projects on this Wiki]]} //
///b/ness on acid. May I be ever h0p3ful and Creative!//
<<<
All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds, wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act on their dreams with open eyes, to make them possible.
-- T.E. Lawrence
<<<
I need to dream. I need to hope. In a sense, to some degree, dreaming is what my name means.<<ref "1">>
I have a section devoted to who I was. I have many sections devoted to who I am. I need to have sections devoted to who I will be.<<ref "2">> I need a place where I get to be joyful. I need a place that can be practical or impractical. It doesn't matter. I'm just dreaming here. Some of it may come about, and some may not. I'll enjoy the feeling, the possibility, or even the remote experience.
I dreamt a lot about video games, about how to improve my character, about progress and possibilities. I need to do that for my life!
!! Practical Dreams:
* [[The Pipedream]]
* [[Theory of the Human Mind]]
!! Impractical Dreams:
* (*crickets*)
!! /b/:
* [[My Wife]]
* [[Family Activities]]
* [[The House]]
* [[Book Titles]]
---
<<footnotes "1" "The etymology of it is obviously different. The sentiments and historicity of them in my crisis are related.">>
<<footnotes "2" "It really doesn't matter if people think you are crazy. They can't even define the word. Do your best, h0p3.">>
//See first: {[[About|About, a.k.a. The Opening of the Rabbit Hole]]} & {[[Principles|Principles of Programming Myself]]} & {[[Focus|Current Focus of h0p3's Wiki]]}//
<<<
Writing is like driving at night in the fog. You can only see as far as your headlights, but you can make the whole trip that way.
--E.L. Doctorow
<<<
Welcome to the narrative core of my wiki.<<ref "1">> I hope to be my own librarian in this section. Here I grind like the autonomous machine I am. This is the second half of the crucible in which I forge my practically ideal, integrated, persistent, hierarchical identity.
* [[/a/ - Attic - Graveyard - Storage]]
* [[/b/ - Random - The Playground of the Sandbox - Seed]]
** [[Creatively Engineered Animals]]
* [[Art]]
* [[Computing]]
** [[Mobile Phone To-Do-Checklist]]
* [[Homeschooling]]
* [[Life Hacks & Pro Tips Collection]]
* [[Links]]
* [[Logs Collection]]
* [[People]]
* [[Philosophy]]
** [[Aphorisms, Common Sense, & One-Liners]]
** [[Metamodernism]]
** [[Realpolitik Speculation]]
** [[Philosophipolitical Prescription]]
** [[Redpilled Genetics & Memetics]]
** [[Revisionist History]]
* [[Pipefitting]]
** [[Pipefitting Log]]
** [[Pipefitting Library]]
** [[Pipefitting Brand]]
* [[Planning Life in General]]
** [[Buy List]]
** [[To-do-list]]
** [[Tools for My Children]]
* [[Wiki: Projects]]
---
<<footnotes "1" "Not a great hierarchy, eh? Well, I have to start somewhere. Of course, Hubert Dreyfus was right to worry about the epistemic flattening effect of the internet (and even more he had no chance to foresee at the time). I suspect this is far more than an Internet problem, but that we're encountering yet another face of the postmodern problem which we must escape, circumvent, adapt to, and at least partially solve. This is metamodernism.">>
<<<
"What is Philosophy?" is itself a strikingly philosophical question.
--A. W. Moore
<<<
Sometimes I feel like I need a can-opener to pry myself open. Writing prompts force me to say something about a topic. It can be recreational and useful at the same time. Admittedly, these questions tend to be philosophical. I sprawl all over the place, and I ask more questions than I answer. That's okay though. This is just part of the mind-mapping process.
It is my hypothesis that many of the prompts I've answered thus far remind me strongly of "Sunday School" questions. The teacher might gather us together and ask generic existential questions, and we'd have to formulate intelligent and socially acceptable responses. It was a form of conditioning. We were expected to think as they did. My questions and answers were often received poorly, dismissed, or misunderstood. Par for the course. Thankfully, here I get to say what I think since I'm answering them for myself. I won't always pretend I'm the one asking the questions though. A dialectic, like the Socratic method, tends to bring out the best in me.
I've decided that I will have a more adversarial approach to these prompts. I will respond to them as if that asshole Samwise Gamgee had asked me to answer these questions. I hate Samwise Gamgee; may he burn in hell.<<ref "1">> Hostility is a useful way for me force myself to answer carefully, to pick a part everything, to see the outlines. In many ways, I was good at academic philosophy because I was at mental war.<<ref "2">>
* [[Writing Prompt Sources]]
!! Vault:
* [[2017.05 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.06 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.07 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.08 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
!! Current:
* [[2017.09.01 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.09.02 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.09.03 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.09.04 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.09.05 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.09.06 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.09.07 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.09.08 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.09.09 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
!! Ideabag
* If you were dictator of the world, country, state, county, city, neighborhood, family, and any other archetypal governmental contexts (feel free to use lateral thinking in naming these contexts), what would you do? How would you lead?
* Why don't you follow philosophy like someone standardly interested in it? When you are obsessed with something, you usually enjoy reading every little thing about it. You don't do that with philosophy. Why not?
* Can you speak to the relationship between Moral Excellence, Excelllence of Personhood, Homo Sapien Excellence, etc.? For example, it seems completely possible that the pursuit of morality taken to maximum excellence will drive a person crazy. I legitimately think that people who are sane aren't trying hard enough to be moral.
---
<<footnotes "1" "Fuck you, Sam.">>
<<footnotes "2" "There are, of course, completely valid alternatives. This style or approach reminds me very much of storm decks in Vintage MTG. There are radically different mindsets amongst the storm playerbase, some being defensive, others offensive, even in identical contexts.">>
//See first: {[[About|About, a.k.a. The Opening of the Rabbit Hole]]} & {[[Principles|Principles of Programming Myself]]} & {[[Focus|Current Focus of h0p3's Wiki]]} & {[[Projects|Projects on this Wiki]]} //
<<<
I wrote them down in my diary so that I wouldn't //have// to remember them.
--Henry Jones Sr., Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade
<<<
This is my story. Here are the records of my practice of the [[Art of Living]], and I hope it will be my masterpiece. I hope it will be my life's magnum opus; one's life should be one's life's work. Here I archive significant bodies of my work which make me proud, nostalgic, or pensive. This vault is a sequence of memoirs, projects, and shifts in my perspectives, values, and goals. It gives me a chance to reflect upon seasons, eras, arcs, and chapters of my life. I suppose, to some extent, this is a trophy vault and a place for me to celebrate myself.<<ref "1">> I have achieved much, and I've come a long way. I hope to be motivated by this catalog to wisely amortize my self-reflection. Lastly, I hope to provide myself perspective on //who I was// for the sake of both knowing //who I am// and planning //who I will be//. Thus, I hope to have a prolific and unabridged life of happiness.
Obviously, my narratival divisions are poorly justified subjective human constructs. Life is chaotically complex, hard to reduce, difficult to categorize and systematize, and that's all because it is difficult to draw clean lines. That's okay. It is our plight to play games of semantics with ourselves; it is the foundation of human communication and our fallible analysis+synthesis. I'm bootstrapping; I'm building it brick by brick, and I'm filling it droplet by droplet. I have to start somewhere, and I shouldn't expect perfection.<<ref "2">>
* 1985-2003 - [[Childhood]]
* 2003-2005 - [[Berea]]
* 2006-2008 - [[Hypercynic]]
* 2008-2010 - [[Thailand]]
* 2010-2014 - [[Summa Philosophica]]
* 2015-2016 - [[Highdeas]]
* 2016-???? - hello world<<ref "3">>
If the rest of the wiki itself is not the next addition to this vault, assuming I will continue having conversations with myself/myselves for a long time in this medium (let's [[h0p3]] so!), then my future goal is to prune similarly-scaled and completed (or sufficiently achieved) chapters of life from [[Projects on this Wiki]] and store them in this memetic vault.
Perhaps I will need to actually sit down and write memoirs to help give shape to this in a sense. I can provide writings from a time period and writings about that time period.
Being towards death:<<ref "4">>
* [[Autoeulogy]]
* [[Bucketlist]]
---
<<footnotes "1" "These works tend to be as well-formulated and articulate as I could be in my given contexts, although the formatting is not always perfect (especially for work grafted into this wiki). I'm autistic and not naturally gifted with language. Further, my oversharing and honesty comes off as stupid, arrogant, and cringeworthy to most people. That's okay though: I probably think and feel the similarly about your life too. It's time to be courageous when we look at ourselves in the mirror of time. I'm not going to be ashamed of it, and I'm not going to hate myself. That isn't useful to me.">>
<<footnotes "2" "So kindly fuck-off, haters.">>
<<footnotes "3" "I assume some parts of me are going to win out as I continue to grind my way through cognitive dissonance and unify myself. What will be the outcome of my [[Frankfurtian Feedback Alignment|2017.03.15 - Frankfurtian Feedback Alignment]]?">>
<<footnotes "4" "I think this is the most fitting place on the wiki (although it might fit in many places) for an odd writing assignment I've taken up for myself: how should I think about my death? What do I want from it? Stoicism is the mindset, but the analysis should emerge. Be practical about death.">>
* Family time
* Structure wiki
* Prep Clothes
* Prep meals
* Put up tools
* Clean house
* Get bathrooms cleaned
* Get kids' room cleaned
* Chill with the family.
* Drive-in Theatre
* Cannabliss and Sexual activities
* [[2017.09.09 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** My knee is killing me. I'm trying to stay off it.
* [[2017.09.09 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** A worthy post!
* [[2017.09.09 - Wiki Review Log]]
** And...still didn't use DCK.
* [[Wiki: PH]]
** Worth having.
* [[2017.09.09 - Pipefitting Log]]
** Brief. My next job, I'll make sure I can use a laptop.
* [[(*crickets*)]]
** Explain it, eh?
* [[Contextro]]
** I like the word.
* [[2017.09.09 - Retired: {Principles}]]
** Being consistent. I like it.
* [[Wiki: Directory File Structure Template]]
** A tool!
* Woke up before the alarm
* Worked hard
* Tried calling K, AIR
* Spoke to ALM
* Talked to JRE
* Burgers and Fried Green Tomatoes
* A bit of prep
* Inform the Men!
* The Good Place, Project Runway, John Oliver
* Talked to MB
* Bed =)
Arrived a bit late because I couldn't find my helmet this morning. It didn't matter though because Tina seemed to be running late. She annoyingly speaks for her husband, the main boss.
We couldn't swipe our Yates cars this morning. Silly.
I dig the rigging for the reunion. Roland checked it, said it was fine. I set up for it all while Chris-M worked on the supply flange.
!! Break!
I torqued bolts on the supply header. I ran some errands, and that was it.
!! Lunch!
Firewatch came, and I started grinding. Chris-M was convinced we were going higher. I questioned him and asked him if we could measure again. Afterward, he agreed and sought approval to use what we had. I tigerpawed it to make our welder happy.
!! Break!
I spent my time fitting up the trunion. It took a while, and Chris-M went to fitup the last of the header. John didn't like the high points on the saddle, and he wanted me to grind them. I got that set, and it was time to go. I thought it was 4, but it turned out it was 5. Nice surprise!
!! Respond to the following:
<<<
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
<<<
Sunk cost fallacy? There are, of course, parts of our minds which just cannot accept it. It's rationalization and denial sometimes, but even those serve useful purposes. I take them to be just another part of our evolution, and I'm sure it has helped humans become more calorically efficient and reproductively effective over the ages.
* [[2017.09.10 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** I needed sex so much.
* [[2017.09.10 - Family Log]]
** My daughter is on her way.
* [[2017.09.10 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** I need to think more about this.
* [[2017.09.10 - Pipefitting Log]]
** I really do enjoy making pipe spools.
* [[2017.09.10 - Wiki Review Log]]
** I'm gonna take it easy on my knee.
* [[2017.09.10 - To-Do-List Log]]
** Mostly done.
* [[Dreams of h0p3]]
** I think the formatting will grow on me.
* [[2017.09.10 - Retired: Cryptographic Verification]]
** I'm glad I retire pages.
* [[The Vault of h0p3]]
** One day, I will actually write here.
* [[2017.09.10 - /b/]]
** Made it uglier syntactically, but more accurate semantically.
* [[/b/]]
** Not sure what I'm going to do with it.
* [[Prompted Introspection Log]]
** Edited. Removed content.
* [[2017.09.10 - Retired: /b/ - Random - The Playground of the Sandbox - Seed]]
** Why do I have so much trouble with this particular link? There is something mechanically wrong with Tiddlywiki here.
* [[Pornography]]
** =)
* [[2017.09.10 - Link Log]]
** I need to change my phone habits up. This is unacceptable.
* [[2017.09.10 - Retired: {Projects}]]
** I'm proud of you.
* Work up before the alarm, but still sleepy.
* Worked
* Talked to ALM
* Sandwiches =)
* Project Runway, Rick and Morty, Skipped through UFC and LCS. Also, Orville.
* Wrote.
* Fireman Time possibly, then bed.
Arrived early. I tend to have a brief moment in the morning with my wife over XMPP chat each morning. I love that moment.
We clocked in today, but not yesterday. However, we didn't sign in. We'll see what's up.
I need warmer clothes. Maybe they make thin gloves to go underneath my work gloves. Insulation would be nice. I need to maintain my dexterity though.
New people keep pouring in.
During our morning meeting, the pipe fitter helpers and laborers were piled into a bus to receive fire watch training. My job may become a lot more boring. I will do what I can. We were also an hour early. Poor planning. I am not surprised.
No break. We sat in class for hours learning how to fire watch. The hands-on practicum was fun though.
Number for an electricians union: 423 538 8410.
!! Lunch!
Fitup, tacked, and welded out the top parts of the trunion. Unfortunately, no true isos. We need confirmation of the base now, since this afterthought of a project isn't well thought out enough, IMHO.
Wearing my harness makes people think I am doing something, lol.
!! Break!
I helped mount some flanges on the first tie-in points to the header. I talked to Greg quite a bit. That dude is cool and quite intelligent. He's odd, and he isn't a normal fitter, imho.
!! What do you think of //The Help// so far?
It hasn't made me cry yet. It has an odd pace to it, and the switching from one character's point of view to another's is an interesting device. I like how the narrators see themselves as being good. They all tend to demonize the same people though. The author is gunning for it, and I am fine with that.
I don't know how far I am in the book. The characters are all female so far. Men are almost irrelevant to the plot. That's fine though. I enjoy seeing through the eyes of these characters.
Audiobook form is amazing in this case. Voice actors bring perspectives to life.
I find myself rooting for the characters. I do chuckle sometimes. Maybe I will cry. So far:
Not amazing, but not worth my time.
* [[2017.09.11 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** Answered the PH.
* [[2017.09.11 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** I'm glad I got to talk to MB.
* [[2017.09.11 - Wiki Review Log]]
** I get to write on the weekends. =)
* [[2017.09.11 - Pipefitting Log]]
** My pipefitter logs have become monotonous to me, but I think my job has as well.
Caloric and reproductive egoism. We are lazy because we are evolutionarily selected for being lazy in the right way, at the right time, etc. Those who don't waste calories, who are calorically efficient are more likely to survive and reproduce.
---
My father is a drug addict. Food was one obvious example, which he only admits because he wears the evidence. What he won't tell you is how he was an incredible asshole when he was hungry. Prone to abuse when he was "hangry." Of course, this is the obvious one. The one he simply must admit to some degree because the evidence hangs on him. There are far more dangerous addictions of his to be known.
---
Willful ignorance is almost always malicious selfishness.
---
I feel even more like an alien to my own wife. I believe she feels the same way toward me. It isn't strong, but it's there (however slight).
What is alienness?
Lacking shared values, goals, beliefs, feelings, understandings, experiences, etc. to the extent that one is "other" even without being otherized.
This isn't on purpose. Far from it. We have both worked very hard to empathize with each other. Yet, we don't succeed, or at least not to the extent we yearn for.
The house is divided. We keep it together the best we can. Generally, our goals and views align. To the untrained eye, it may not even be obvious. To us, the gulf feels wide sometimes.
I can see it is broken. How can we fix it? We each have hope for the other and for us. Even the semblance of unity seems better than the alternative.
Some memes leave a lasting mark. Their infection can be so deeply rooted that the scars leave us hollow.
* Heading to bed early means I wake up a bunch before the alarm. Sleep is sleep though. I need it.
* Worked hard.
* //The Help// is heating up.
* Talked to JRE.
** His VR set sounds quite cool. I hope it is fulfilling to him. I worry it wouldn't be for me, but he is a different man. I know he's had some trouble too, and I hope it doesn't get in his way anymore.
* Pizza with the kids. We watched Rick and Morty too.
* Fireman Time!
* Writing, then bed.
Arrived for the last bus. Lots of new people. Tina, of course, plays the nice game well. It is part of how she has climbed.
I've started stretching a few seconds ahead of everyone else so that Dave will know what to do next. I want a thorough and complete stretch in the morning
I've decided to stop voicing my thoughts to these people so much, at least about the job itself. I'm not convinced it is worth it.
I did much of nothing except the usual basics this morning. Chris-M wants me to draw the lines on the supports as if we were going to make a new one. I understand finding centerlines for the fitup, but I don't see the purpose in the other. Chris couldn't answer my question. Perhaps it is busy work.
!! Break!
I do not gather with the masses in the smoking section. I miss many important interactions because of that.
Our saddles aren't cut right, and they are too long possibly. We are going to refabricate them. Yay!
I spent hours prepping them. After taking my measurements, I can say they are poorly made.
I need to ask Charlie for the formula for calculating saddles.
!! Lunch!
I did very little. I did fire watch twice, but Brandon-M "saved me" by getting another fire watch to pull double duty.
I did some bolt tightening on a riser, and I did some grind work on squares that will hold the clamps on the riser in place. I showed Brandon what good grinds looked like on this galvanized plate.
He also "showed me off" to his dad by demonstrating that I had memorized the torque rating on for the Victaulic. Uh, wtf?
!! Break!
Finished the grind. Screwed around otherwise.
!! How do you handle the fact that other people have different fundamental intuitions?
<<<
Listen, smile, agree, and then do whatever the fuck you were going to do anyway.
--Robert Downey Jr.
<<<
Are they intelligent? Do I think they are possibly correct? How confident am I in my own intuitions on the matter? What are the costs of pursuing the issue?
This helps me determine the extent to which I may need to reevaluate and change my own position.
There is another interpretation of your question though. It's something along the lines of: how do I treat them?
Tit-for-tat strategy with a strong frontload of hospitality for the stranger who may be "one of the others." Charity is there, but I'm not automatically turning the other cheek at this point. In other words, if they have different intuitions, and they act on them, completely disregarding mine, then I'll be doing the same (and odds are incredibly high I'm far more justified). Thus, in the tit-for-tat game, I have been as charitable as necessary.
* [[2017.09.12 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** No fireman, just bed.
* [[2017.09.12 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** Edited. Had more thoughts.
* [[2017.09.12 - Wiki Review Log]]
** PH was a good idea.
* [[2017.09.12 - Pipefitting Log]]
** I'm going to wait on job-related stuff outside of what I have right now. So busy.
* Alarm got me.
* Worked
* Listened to //The Help// quite a bit.
* Kids were doing schoolwork today. Woot!
* Showered
* Inform the Men!
* Sushi and China, IL
* Writing and bed.
I remember two dreams? How? I went to bed an hour earlier.
---
Cried to family and friends while we walked through Berea. Trying to explain how important it was to me that my kids receive a college education. I really want them to go to a school like Berea.
---
Drifting in a flying motorcycle racing home to beat a person going to my house because they want to wreck it because I accidentally knocked over a 20x20x8' block of swaying two liters stacked inside her house as a guest.
Barely made it on time, and still second to the last bus.
Worked on the bent pipe. Big stuff. I need to learn it, clearly.
Also, Chris-M showed me some math tricks in our book.
I helped Greg, Chris, and David fitup the bent pipe. Very odd rotating flanges, and didn't appear to be lapjoint. I could be wrong though.
!! Break!
The dead blow hammer rocked. No marks and plenty of force.
We put together the bent pipe. I then looked at the drawings after asking for them. I saw it was built incorrectly. It took 3 gentle tries to convince David, buy hr eventually saw it. We took it apart. Sadly, the riggers and QC were just arriving because they thought we were done. Turns out, our torque spec was wrong too. Ouch. Not my fault, thankfully.
White goo sprayed from the machines like semen. It was an accident. It turned out to be water and acetic acid. I got drenched. Chaos ensued.
Greg said this is an unsafe clusterfuck, and if he had another job lined up he would drag up.
He was right. We had a near miss with a giant piece of pipe and the crane. It was wet and the nylon chokers slipped.
Oiled up a bunch of nuts on all the tie in points around 291 and 290.
The stainless angle I found yesterday made a great tool. Since it was trash, I cut a piece off to make a tool for myself. I want a small one too.
I need a blue tooth keyboard.
!! Lunch!
Kroiled.
I also found a nut for an alignment dog. I cleaned the stainless angle up as well.
I found our mark on the bottom of the header for the threadolet. I helped cut it. I helped prep the piece.
I need to think about how to build the bulldog and the doghouse for the tripod. I will finish those up in the next two months.
!! Break!
I cleaned up some bolts with nuts I found for my alignment dogs.
I cleaned the area, and I watched the superintendents attempt a fitup to the header for a couple of hours. /yawn.
!! How will you handle your parents asking to see your children?
They can see them while I'm out of the house. I won't be sacrificing time with my children. I also won't be seeing my donors. It's a compromise, and I consider it generous.
* [[2017.09.13 - /b/]]
** Hmm.
* [[2017.09.13 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** I finish on the 26th of next month. Yay! That is some sweet money.
* [[2017.09.13 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** Lol.
* [[2017.09.13 - Wiki Review Log]]
** Going to bed early rocks.
* [[2017.09.13 - Pipefitting Log]]
** I'm getting good at avoiding work, lol.
Rick and Morty have a possible world in which //the// Rick Citadel is found. Recently, due to the wording of the last citadel episode, it seems like it isn't merely "the" citadel, but actually just "a' citadel. There are multiple citadels. There are interpretations, one boring, and the other more interesting.
# There have been multiple citadel attempts or even competing citadels.
# There are an infinite set of citadels
## Is there one citadel for an infinite set of possible worlds including Ricks? Are there an infinite set of infinite possible worlds of Ricks?
Weirdness. I love the show.
---
I must say, Nikola Tesla was right: I'm not qualified to be a parent.
* Alarm hit me
* Worked
* Loving //The Help//, chick-lit or otherwise
* Talked to JRE
* Cannabliss
* Shower of the Gods
** w/soap!
* Tacos, donuts, and talking/watching with the family
* Project Runway, The Good Place
I went to bed early, and I know I had been dreaming since before 4am. I woke at 4 to piss, so I'd know. I went back to bed and dreamt for another hour and a half. The alarm clock sounded, and I was catapulted out of my dream into reality. Somehow, being pulled out by the alarm clock scares me out of my memory.
* KYS
** https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/6zapvc/hillary_clinton_stated_today_that_her_biggest/
** https://shareblue.com/florida-ag-who-killed-trump-university-investigation-gets-cushy-trump-admin-job/
** https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/personalfinance/no-joke-97-million-full-time-workers-are-now-living-paycheck-to-paycheck/
** http://stopthecap.com/2017/09/14/verizon-wireless-great-rural-purge-tens-thousands-losing-cell-service/
** https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/09/14/its-okay-to-prosecute-minors-for-child-porn-for-distributing-sexual-pictures-of-themselves/
* Tools
** https://kryptxy.github.io/torrench/
*** And...why not make a decentralized DHT scraper?
** https://dougvitale.wordpress.com/2011/12/21/deprecated-linux-networking-commands-and-their-replacements/
*** An interesting interpretation tool, imho
* https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/10/how-to-die/537906/
** And yet, inept, I fear.
* For my daughter:
** https://github.com/vinta/awesome-python
* https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/6zkxyc/sen_ted_cruz_likes_porn_video_on_twitter/
** `/yawn`, may even be on purpose.
* Neat
** https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast13apr_1
** https://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/robotics/industrial-robots/autonomous-robots-plant-tend-and-harvest-entire-crop-of-barley
** https://kotaku.com/how-eve-players-pulled-off-the-biggest-betrayal-in-its-1806168400
*** Eve Online stories are always amazing. They are the most redpilled, psychotic, psychopathic things I've ever seen. It is cutthroat libertarian capitalism in a microcosm. It is a glorious telling.
*** The line-blurring between RL and the virtual world is profound in this particular story (a common thread in epic Eve stories).
** https://blog.mozilla.org/security/2017/09/13/verified-cryptography-firefox-57/
** https://torrentfreak.com/pirate-bay-founder-launches-anonymous-domain-registration-service-170419/
*** He really has given up.
** https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/anthropology-in-practice/the-rise-of-the-recliner-as-a-male-social-space/?curator=MediaREDEF
** https://blog.mozilla.org/firefox/introducing-firefox-multi-account-containers/
*** They get it.
** https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/09/14/home-computer/
* https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/04/plato-to-plumbers/361373/
** Pay attention, you fucking idiots!
* https://venturebeat.com/2017/09/14/chrome-will-no-longer-autoplay-content-with-sound-in-january-2018/
** Yay! Wish this was an option.
* https://gizmodo.com/targets-sales-floors-are-switching-from-apple-to-androi-1803818406/amp
** Not surprised.
* https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/09/bluetooth-bugs-open-billions-of-devices-to-attacks-no-clicking-required/?comments=1
** I avoided BT for a long time for problems like this. This is not the first.
* https://www.troyhunt.com/face-id-touch-id-pins-no-id-and-pragmatic-security/
** Timeless problem
* https://www.wired.com/story/decentralized-social-networks-sound-great-too-bad-theyll-never-work/
** Some good points. You missed the fucking boat though.
* https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/09/13/dhs-statement-issuance-binding-operational-directive-17-01
** Hmm...Like they do with our CPUs
* https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/09/you-are-already-living-inside-a-computer/539193/
** Provocative
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=221&v=EbthMC6spAE
** I disagree with Norm on his own humor. I think he is clearly an anti-comic genius. The irony, surprise: these are fundamental to entertainment and humor. His is metastasized to the point of being anti-humor.
* https://www.theverge.com/2017/9/12/16287688/pewdiepie-racism-firewatch-campo-santo-dmca-copyright-ban
** I feel like the world is coming to understand my perspective, slowly, sometimes.
* https://np.reddit.com/r/news/comments/70022x/failure_to_patch_twomonthold_bug_led_to_massive/dn07hxj/?context=3
** A hilarious argument which mildly favors a life built carefully around having bad credit.
* https://theconversation.com/the-business-of-addiction-how-the-video-gaming-industry-is-evolving-to-be-like-the-casino-industry-83361
** Redpilled as fuck.
* Confirm My Bias
** https://www.axios.com/ai-pioneer-advocates-starting-over-2485537027.html
*** But, even the tools we have are far more powerful than you can possibly imagine. Consider how age-old algebra is still being newly applied to various parts of our lives. Same extension in the analogy here.
There is a Tina Yates on this job. I don't know this one though. The one I know is Clay, not Yates.
The morning meeting entailed our capitalist overlord rationalizing and confabulating a narrative for us to swallow. It was a terrible argument about the near more miss and his need to yell at us. Disgusting.
We need to move on the bent pipe in A3 and finish the 42" in A2. Chris-M thought we would still be working on the trunion. We stayed after the meeting for clarification.
Dave wanted Chris-M to work with the guys on the bent pipe because they were having trouble mounting it, let alone reading the prints. I was told to torque because (and this is them scrounging for positive things to say), I'm experienced and I know what I'm doing with torque. Granted, the latter is partially true. I have jackshit for experience though.
Allen wrenches are necessary for the j-gun. I have to loan my set out often because I'm the only guy with a full set. Brandon borrowed them yesterday. He did not return them. He couldn't find them. I searched and asked around and eventually found them.
I need to rethink my policy and procedure for loaning tools. I need to log in every time. That is a start.
!! Break!
I finished torque, and QC inspected. She talked primarily with me about it.
I stepped in to help the bent pipe crew in A2.
Greg explained that the last arm on the boom lift is your lifeline and to only use it when you must. IMHO, you want to maintain as much directional flexibility as possible. The goal is to midway extend everything, allowing you to maximize going any direction from there. LSO, I interpreted the controls. Each machine is different.
We put up a few pieces with Chris-M's instructions. The last piece was wrong, and he freely admitted his error.
I helped assemble the supports and sat around waiting on the trunion ironworkers.
!! Lunch!
I continued working on the bent pipe. The fitup is a bitch. Getting it square in the air is hard. I'm hoping this will be finished when I get back on Monday.
Oh yeah, select individuals are working tomorrow. I am not included. I'm...okay with that! I really want a full weekend.
!! Break!
I worked on the bent pipe. It was just Greg and me really doing the work. We didn't make a ton of progress, but we got some stuff done.
!! Respond to the following:
<<<
Sometimes when I try to understand a person's motives, I play a little game. I assume the worst. What's the worst reason they could possibly have for saying what they say and doing what they do? Then I ask myself, "How well does that reason explain what they say and what they do?"
-- Petyr "Little Finger" Baelish
<<<
It's a game, right? What's wrong with playing a game? What isn't a game that we play? It's a skill of creating possible worlds and empathizing.
You have to make assumptions about contingent truths for your possible world game.
Ah, explanation's force, in this case, is at least partially linked to the coherence of the possible world that is created. Imagine Kant's test of the rationality of the world; it is much like that process in understanding the explanatory force. Empathy Possible Worlds are powerful.
Guess what? Petyr is right! Don't see you!? It's so fucking obvious that he's right. Regardless of whether or not you agree with the "common parlance" Machiavellian prescriptions he offers, you must accept his description as being wildly accurate in profound ways. He understands his enemy: humanity. Don't you fucking see it? Don't you see this Human God, God of Humans?
//See first: [[ass]] & [[titties]]//
(obviously, optional)
---
!! [[Contextro]]:<<ref "2018.12.11">>
//Something personal, profoundly valuable, optics, lens-giving, context-giving, etc., or a dedication. This is optional.//
<<<
Here is an optional quote
--Author Found+Necessary
<<<
Talk about what the page is about, provide an introduction to understand its contents, the reasons for this directory file's existence. Talk about the goals, especially the means to ends relationships and consequential reasons you find in it.
For example, this page exists solely to help me convert my entire wiki into something with a rigorous file structure. This allows me to be computational about it literally with my computer and also with my mind. It frames problems and provides me means to solving them.
Obviously, this section is not optional.
---
!! Body:
I've templated this page as a Directory File, but it doesn't really absolutely have to be one. I think it's just cool that way, and it brings it to life. Obviously, this section is not optional: every page has a body.
Well, here's the template:
```
//See first: [[example]] & [[example]]//
---
!! Contextro:
//Italicized Intro, quip, etc.//
<<<
Here is a quote.
--Author
<<<
---
!! Body:
---
!! Current:
* (*crickets)
---
!! Vault:
* (*crickets)
---
!! Ideabag:
* (*crickets)
---
!! To-Do-List:
* (*crickets)
---
<<footnotes "1" "(*crickets)">>
```
---
!! Current:
* [[(*crickets)]]
---
!! Vault:
* (*crickets)
---
!! Ideabag:
* (*crickets)
---
!! To-Do-List:
* (*crickets)
---
!! Foobar:
* (*crickets)
---
`<<footnotes "1" "(*crickets)">>`
---
<<footnotes "2018.12.11" "Templates have been ridiculously valuable to me, and I'm still learning how I wish to automate this through [[The Remodeling]]. I clearly didn't have my [[APFVD]] directory structure solidified early on. I really had no idea what kind of probabilistic reasoning and empirical method I was gunning for. I crawled toward it though. Without a doubt, I am still crawling and climbing that mountain. I'm proud of you, [[h0p3]].">>
//I'd like to point out the restructuring of [[Root]] (previously `[[{Home}]]`) and all the way down. This is in no small part due to [[Wiki Review Log]]. This is a triumph.//<<ref "2018.12.11">>
* [[2017.09.14 - Pipefitting Log]]
** Honestly, I'm losing interest.
* [[2017.09.14 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** Seized.
* [[2017.09.14 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** Curt, but not Brief!
* [[2017.09.14 - Wiki Review Log]]
** Yup.
* [[2017.09.14 - Dream Log]]
** So fucking weird.
---
<<footnotes "2018.12.11" "Ah, hello, seed of [[Wiki Audit]]! I see you there.">>
I should continue to draw analogies between RL and gaming. Abuse the neural network I already have in place.
e.g. In gaming, I'm always asking myself, where should I grind? What is the best use of my time? I need to do that again and for my real life.
Furthermore, I need goals. Being rich and powerful was my goal in gaming. Then it was a competition and being the best. But, ultimately, I was not satisfied by any of my games. Best at what then? I need to see what I should pursue in life (well, duh!).<<ref "2018.12.11">>
Unlike gaming, I can't just up and change my life radically. I can't reroll or be fluidly mobile. There are serious costs to worry about.
---
Since I have accepted The Redpill, it is perhaps time to separate fact from fiction in Economics as best as I can. Micro and psych interest me the most.
---
If I don't get to be myself in a social interaction, then I am either enslaved to their approval or I am engaged in a business interaction.
I considered moral obligation as another route. I don't think I can be accused of a false dichotomy here. It doesn't fit.
---
There seems to be a difference between prima facie empathy, feeling and thinking as they do, and empathy for who they could nor should be, with their future selves, their persistent identities, and more objective constructions of their perspectives and who they are. Once you close that ignorance gap for them, empathy directs you elsewhere sometimes. It has that "if only I knew now what I knew then" thing going on.
---
<<footnotes "2018.12.11" "Sometimes I am disheartened by the fact that I have made little progress on a problem that I've clearly been working on for some time. I appreciate my articulation of it here. I'm glad I took the time to just come out and say it. It has come up again and again in the teleological goals of this wiki. Heck, I was talking about this with [[AA]] this past week. It's an important lens for my entire extended family.">>
* Woke up very late.
* Wrote
* Cannabliss
* Wrote
* Visited the library
* Pizza
* Talked to Jop, ALM, JRE, and K
* Tried reaching L and AIR.
* Wrote
* Talked with my family.
* Top Chef: Canada (yuck)
* Inform the Men!
* Writing and some watching before I sleep. GG.
I put some tools away. I searched a bit for magnets and have the endoscope ready in my cart. I did some work on the [[Pipedream: Finishing 2017]].
!! Respond to the following:<<ref "2018.12.12">>
<video controls autoplay loop>
<source src="./images/Breathing-Earth.mp4" type="video/mp4">
Your browser does not support the HTML 5 video tag.
</video>
It's amazing. It's so simple. Perhaps it is reasonable to call the Earth a living thing. I don't mind it. How does it reproduce? It generates a species which can travel to another planet and make another habitable planet, and so on.
Does that mean we owe anything to Earth? Not obviously beyond anything we owe to all living things and especially to ourselves. Consuming it, however, is not obviously conceptually evil in itself. After all, we might just be expressions of its identity in the first place.
Essentially, I don't buy the Gaea claim.
---
<<footnotes "2018.12.12" "It seems this broke. That's fine. This was a mistake anyways.">>
//My son, brother in autism.//
My son is truly damaged, and it is largely my fault, both genetically and memetically. My son does not believe in himself, he does not have hope, and he is a boy in pain. Not every circumstance is in my control, but I can see how I have contributed to his suffering and created a sad child.
I must help him become happy. I must give him hope. I must protect him. I must cultivate him. I must be a good rolemodel for him. I must empathize with him deeply. I need to make up for my mistakes, and I can. It may never be perfect, in fact it could be a series of crises, but I must. My son needs me to be a good father, or at least the best that I can be.
* [[Our Son: The Conqueror of Happiness]]
!! Aphorisms:
* Everyday is a new day.
!! Unschool Ideas:
* Improving your handwriting.
* Learning to use your computer.
* Practical Trade Skills, Handyman Work, and Working With Your Hands
** Tying knots is a great place to start.
* Mathematics
* Reading
** News
** Curation & Aggregation
** One book a week
* Wiki
* Cleaning, Organizing, and Planning Any Digital or Physical Thing or System in your Life.
* Becoming a god at epic games
** Diablo 3 fits the bill right now
** Playing Magic<<ref "2018.12.12">>
* Watching from my [[Television Show Collection]] and my [[Movie Collection]]
---
<<footnotes "2018.12.12" "It's wonderful to see that's exactly what we are working on right now.">>
The following methods can acquire the latest official version of this wiki:<<ref "1">>
* Visit [[https://h0p3.xyz/|https://h0p3.xyz]] in a web browser.<<ref "2">>
** Grabbed http://philosopher.life/ as well. Haven't setup https yet.
* Join the [[Resilio|https://www.resilio.com/individuals/]] (formerly btsync) swarm with read-only key at: [[B4OWUSIS36KT27PXSJIYYTTL5MYPOCL7W|https://link.getsync.com/#f=var-www-html&sz=73E6&s=3E5S6FV4LRD7SS2TUEYTN4ZDEFT5SB6X&i=CFC2UQTLPYQFCSDLXLA3KH7Q2XAGGNBNO&p=CCJG3IT7Z63BKGMTMHF5IH5QARYUCPH4]]
* [[Contact]] me and I can send it to you however you wish.
This wiki changes. For posterity's sake, I keep a daily snapshot collection. You can join the Resilio swarm for it with read-only key at: [[BY7DL6VWCYLOEGXQUWEHH7LNT5EK6UCLL|https://link.getsync.com/#f=h0p3.xyz&sz=44E6&s=DBJ2FIZ5WDCRJ24HINZNVFFUDKGH3AU7&i=CNMB6FJQ34QBT5STXDV5WKVWISGVGY3NO&p=CCJG3IT7Z63BKGMTMHF5IH5QARYUCPH4]]<<ref "3">>
As a sidenote, I'm sure it would annoy many computational minimalists that I willingly store virtually the entire site in a single self-editing html file. I'll grant that text files alone have something going for them, but this is a very special tool. This wiki is incredibly portable, functional, and malleable. I consider Tiddlywiki to be a skeuomorphic feat of software engineering. How many virtually complete websites with this degree of functionality and content can you download in a few megabytes?<<ref "4">> Exactly. I think there is profound minimalist beauty to it. Yeah, load times aren't great.<<ref "5">> You can always just sync it instead.
The following sites are my family's wikis:
* 1uxbox's wiki: [[http://kokonut.life]]
** Resilio read-only key: BP5NMZQF25EICLU27RAWM3AIXRWSNL2CM
* j3d1h's wiki: [[http://jedihacker.life]]
** Resilio read-only key: BDCX3UO5NOBGPGT2LFZU2527IMXKCOY3T
*k0sh3k's wiki: [[http://bookwyrm.life]]
** Resilio read-only key: B3LKP7KPMNMNWRF75CKLTRB3EIJJTLCNM
---
<<footnotes "1" "I used to have more methods. But, I believe this was fun yet irrelevant, at least for now.">>
<<footnotes "2" "To guarantee you receive the latest edition of this wiki, clear your browser cache or use private/incognito mode. While I don't force redirects, you can and should access the h0p3.xyz site using HTTPS.">>
<<footnotes "3" "Hear my plea O' Lord, God of Existence, may this not be a record of my descent into arrogant madess. Amen.">>
<<footnotes "4" "Less than 2MB compressed, which is the standard size of any webpage on the web anyways, but you can't multi-threaded download this one.">>
<<footnotes "5" "And, that probably won't be changing. Few if anyone besides myself ever load this page, so I'm not worried about CDNs or optimizing performance (especially not for your shitty machine ;P).">>
!!{{Home: ASCII Art Logo||Wiki: Center ASCII Art Settings}}
@@display:block;text-align:center;
!!{[[About|About, a.k.a. The Opening of the Rabbit Hole]]} {[[Principles|Principles of Programming Myself]]} {[[Focus|Current Focus of h0p3's Wiki]]} {[[Vault|The Vault of h0p3]]} {[[Dreams|Dreams of h0p3]]}
@@
@@display:block;text-align:center;
!!!!!{[[Help|Help: On this Wiki]]} {[[Connect|Ways to Connect to this Wiki]]} {[[Verify|Cryptographic Verification]]} {[[Contact|Contact h0p3]]} {[[Legal|Legal Notice]]}
@@
//My daughter. She is Alia of Dune.//
The world is her oyster. She has the tools to acquire the tools. She is filled with potential. If she works hard, keeps it up, and if she plans carefully, she could be quite happy. I'm here to help her do exactly that.
* [[Our Daughter: The Designer of Happiness]]
!! Aphorisms:
* Do not be afraid to make mistakes in your art.
!! Unschool Ideas:
* BSD/Linux Programmer
* Visual Arts
* Culinary Arts
* Mathematics
* Reading
** News
** Curation & Aggregation
** One book a week
* Wiki
* Cleaning, Organizing, and Planning Any Digital or Physical Thing or System in your Life.
* Becoming a god at epic games
** Diablo 3 fits the bill right now
* Watching from my [[Television Show Collection]] and my [[Movie Collection]]
* Cannabliss, DCK, and sexual gratification
* Shopping
* Get kids for the clothes
* Fix your wife's fur coat
* Rollerskating?
* Prep for work
* Work on the wiki
* Clean the house
* Organize my room
* Finish my laundry.
* Make sure bathroom and kitchen are cleaned.
* Clean up /mnt/Fresh
* Pickup magnets and endoscope.
* [[Wiki: Directory File Structure Template]]
** Edited again. It's coming together.
* [[Petyr Baelish Quotes]]
** Always a bright one.
* [[2017.09.15 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** Done.
* [[2017.09.15 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** Seems very reasonable to me.
* [[2017.09.15 - Wiki Review Log]]
** I am revamping a lot of the wiki now.
* [[Any User Computers]]
** A good idea.
* [[2017.09.15 - Pipefitting Log]]
** As the day drags on, I write less and less.
* [[2017.09.15 - Link Log]]
** I've not been reading enough.
* [[Questions to Ask My Brother]]
** I should complete this and ask him. Maybe I should wait though.
* [[Craftsman]]
** There are many topics to master.
* [[2017.09.15 - /b/]]
** Weird.
* [[2017.09.15 - Dream Log]]
** Yup.
* Woke up late
* Cannabliss + DCK
* K-Hole
* I was sick for the day
* Family time
* Bed
!! Preamble:
I've decided to go for it. I've taken a small dose of cannabliss earlier and waited for it to hit. Then, I took 60mg DCK (12ml by volumetric dosing). Cannabliss is supposed to heighten the effect, and I've never used above 20mg DCK. I'm going from a low-end dosage to a high end with cannabliss to heighten the experience. I'm gunning for the DCK-Hole.
Let's do it.
I'll see you on the flip side. I love you all.
---
!! The Log:
The fear of the unknown. Experience it.
The K-hole is very hard to describe. Outside the K-Hole, seeing 1-frame every 20 frames in RL is odd. Inside, it feels like solipsism, but also I feel like a cog in a universe. I see a brutal world and my place in it.
It was very rough on my stomach. I should have kept water next to me. I was ill-prepared.
The experience was very interesting. In many ways, it turns me into a mere observer. It feels incredibly guttural and animalistic (and futuristic somehow?), like I am reacting and understanding on instinct alone.
It is like The Matrix in many ways.
I see myself grinding, enslaved, part of larger and larger objects which emerge from collections of each other.
I see paths beyond compare. I travel down them.
Many images I've seen before show up again. I still don't know how to talk about them. I know I sometimes say something out loud; next time I will record myself.
Take my LSD geometric experience and multiply it. Make it so that I can't even begin to describe it. That's the K-hole.
That night, my open-eye and closed-eye visuals were profound, and sometimes even organic (very rare for me).
I know I dreamt lots, but can't remember much besides the last segment. I was walking through a building, but mostly riding an elevator up and down with an evil doctor. We talked about human nature. I think I was dating his daughter.
!! How has your health been this week?
* 1uxb0x
** Cold has been annoying, mosquitoes too.
* j3d1h
** Cold sucks, but glad she doesn't have nosebleeds.
* k0sh3k
** Okay. Stressful.
* h0p3
** I think was irritable and very stressed.
---
!! What happened last week? Have you been happy this past week? Why or why not?
* 1uxb0x
** Quite happy. Going outside, playing with friends, doing homework.
* j3d1h
** Finished Little Brother. Amazing.
** Worked on TiddlyPy. Annoyed by Github's lack of messaging features.
* k0sh3k
** Fine. Ended well. Overall happy-ish. Mondays suck.
* h0p3
** My week flew by. I worked hard. I realized the next transition. Felt motivated enough to use DCK; forced time for it. Not as sore this week.
---
!! What is a positive fact or compliment we can say about each person in the family?
* 1uxb0x
** Thank you for doing school work this week.
** You've been paying attention to advice, especially for social interactions.
** You have been taking instruction from others better this week. When I ask you to work with your sister and do as she says, you do it with a good attitude.
* j3d1h
** Thank you for fixing HTPC.
** Thank you for not being bossy while still giving instructions.
** Thank you for taking on larger swathes of family duties.
* k0sh3k
** Thank you for helping me do my schoolwork this week. I appreciate your punishment/discipline on Monday.
** I think it is amazing that you are going to teach catechism.
** Thank you for accepting 4 random requests this week.
** Thank you for curating good books for me, and for buying Life of Fred on the cheap.
* h0p3
** Thank you for teaching me to speak.
** Thank you for pushing your body to the limit so we can have a good experience with you.
** Thank you for messaging me in the morning.
---
!! What will you do this week? Name at least one fun objective and one unfun objective.
* 1uxb0x
** Homework
** Read books
* j3d1h
** Dune + The Shows
** Organize the kitchen, top to bottom
* k0sh3k
** Book+Art experimentation
** Finish THE book.
* h0p3
** Continue wiki formatting
** Do something specifically pointless and fun
I didn't really do anything directly related to my job today. I talked about it with my family though quite a bit during our family meeting.
!! Are you going to shoot for the K-Hole again?
Not at a high dosage. I'm done with that. I'm glad to have figured out that I indeed did experience a K-hole on my first dosage, I just wasn't sure at the time. Confirmed! That says something interesting about my physiology.
The K-hole is perfectly fine. Getting sick is not. DCK's effect on my depressive tendencies isn't lost on me either.
* [[2017.09.16 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** Seized
* [[2017.09.16 - Wiki Review Log]]
** The revamp work continues!
* [[2017.09.16 - Pipefitting Log]]
** I'm still not sure about the bluetooth keyboard.
* [[2017.09.16 - Retired: j3d1h]]
** Edited.
* [[j3d1h: Unschool Ideas]]
** I'm liking it.
* [[2017.09.16 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** Beautiful. The family loved it too.
* [[2017.09.16 - Retired: {Connect}]]
** Yup.
* [[1uxb0x: Woodworking]]
** We talked about Christmas presents. This is the way to go.
* [[Version - 2 - {Home} ASCII Art Logo]]
** My daughter is helping me.
* [[2017.09.16 - Retired: 1uxb0x]]
** Time to start fresh. Now I don't lose my work.
* [[1uxb0x: Unschool Ideas]]
** Good.
* [[Root]] (previously `[[{Home}]]`)
** And...a new era, I hope.
* [[Pipedream: Finishing 2017]]
** This is an excellent list.
* [[2017.09.16 - /b/]]
** I'm glad I have a place to dump it.
* [[Moral Rent-Seeking]]
** Too literal, as my wife pointed out.
* [[Poem: Industrial Mordor]]
** My wife liked it. I do too.
* [[Poem: Nightmare]]
** Meh. But, you have to fail many times to eventually succeed.
* [[Poetry]]
** Neat.
* [[2017.09.16 - To-Do-List Log]]
** I didn't do well today. But, I didn't expect the trip to be so hard.
* Barely slept at all, half-brain sleep. Was basically awake the whole time.
* Worked.
* Bathed my feet.
* Ate, watched Orville and a China, IL
* Went to bed very early.
Arriver early. Tired as fuck. Half-brained sleep is draining. The sound here is exceptionally deafening.
I found out that those who worked Saturday were those who have been permacamping area 2 and 3. It wasn't a competency concern. Yay!
I pulled the measurement and found the center for a threadolet on the supply line.
I wandered trying to find Chris. I eventually asked Chris-M instead if he could grab a pair of ear protectors for me to borrow. I left mine in the car again. and I'm not allowed to ask for another pair. He agreed. I am thankful.
I am nauseous and have a headache. I'm clearly still very tired.
!! Break!
I helped Brandon cut a hole for another threadolet. I loaned my centerfinder to Chris-M.
Sadly, I accomplished very little.
!! Lunch!
I applied penetrating oil on all tie in points that needed it.
I helped Chris-M with a threadolet fitup at an angle.
Beyond that, not much. I'm okay with that to some extent though I'm not feeling well, and a slower day is easier on my body.
Chester said we may be moving to work a few 16 hour days. I think this is a psychological tactic of his. I won't be working hours like that.
Shitty day.
!! Break!
Literally avoided people. We all did. There was nothing to do for almost anyone because the riggers spent all day unloading pipe off the trucks. We can't do much of anything in our current position without them.
!! How has being colorblind affected you?
Well, I can't distinguish particular patterns of colors. The world isn't as bright to me as it is to others. I am often confused or have difficulty making inferences others make regarding color too.
Some video games just aren't playable because I'm colorblind. Some are just harder to play because things don't jump out at me as they do for others.
Most people are drawn to a laser pointer. I can barely see it, and only effectively when targeting a mono-color, dark object. In the theatre, I can't even see it. Lol.
I think it has helped me cultivate an awareness of the fact that I perceive the world differently than typical people, for better or worse. Importantly, being colorblind has made it ever so clear to me that things aren't always what they seem. A number of phenomenological and epistemic problems arise for me in colorblindness.
//I've had a hiccup on this wiki two days in a row, as you can see. Rough days.//
* [[2017.09.17 - Wiki Review Log]]
** Haven't gotten anything done. But, that's okay.
* [[2017.09.17 - Pipefitting Log]]
** Fair enough.
* [[Family Memes]]
** A good idea.
* [[2017.09.17 - Family Log]]
** Still morphing. It was a good meeting.
* [[Book Collection]]
** We need to develop this.
* [[2017.09.17 - DCK Meditation Log]]
** And...I didn't say a thing about it.
* [[2017.09.17 - Dream Log]]
** Lol.
* Woke up before the alarm, incredibly refreshed.
* Worked hard and had a ton of fun.
* I've felt anxious today, but far less depressed.
* Listened to //The Help//
* As an experiment, I'm going to wait and see how long it takes for my brother to elect to call me.
* Shower of the Gods
* Talked to kids about school. Some disappointments, some triumphs.
** My son's drawings for the desk we might build were interesting. We are going to continue drafting.
* Stir Fry and Queso+Chips for a snack.
* Watched some Jackass and The Matrix
* Wrote
I feel much better this morning. I drive with plenty of time. I can see the clipboard plan doesn't share between two vans very well.
Dave explained what we already knew in the morning meeting: offloading pipe, the scaffold, not getting the torque setting, problems with the flanges, and not being able to dig basically halted out work. It wasn't our fault. I appreciate his acknowledgment.
Chris-M was assigned to fabricate a drain or something out of stainless. Yay!! We get to do actual fitting!
!! Break!
We got all the pipe and fittings over, as well as all the tools and stands.
I used a real grasshopper for the first time.
We waited for permits and fire watch. I beveled. Chris-M gave me an example of what he wanted. He is very good at it.
By lunch, my bevels looked just as good. By the end of the second break, mine looked better. I didn't get to bevel on the level pipe like he did, nor did I have rotations available.
We did the first fitup. Chris-M said he was going to let me be in charge of our foreman. He stepped in when necessary. This was my first time doing stainless fitup.
Chris-M has another set of dogs and tools for stainless only. He says he works with it all the time.
We didn't tack because I would have to fire watch right before and during lunch. John said fuck that to our superintendent. He stood up for me.
!! Lunch!
I beveled. They sugared the weld, so we had to take it off. They fitup another one that I had prepared and taped it up right this time.
I repaired it. Chris-M liked it. John loved my work. Said I did a great job.
I noticed from the drawings that Chris-M cut a length too short. I gently guided him to that fact.
We have to make a saddle, not in the plans for the superintendent who has been bird-dogging us all day. Yay! 12 on 12.
Chris-M cut the layout I made for alignment dogs out of spare stainless angle. That was nice of him.
!! Break!
My bevel on the lap of the lap-joint was fucking amazing. Chris-M said it was very good, John said it looked like a machine had done it, and Chris said it was insane. I may never bevel that well again, it was that good.
John finished the weld. QC made him fix a couple spots.
I started cutting and polishing the stainless dogs.
We did the fitup for the second elbow on the "u." It was a bitch.
It was a good day.
!! You had a disagreement with your brother about what makes a good parent. What do you think about it?
We were talking about a way in which I was failing my son. I'm trying to fix it. My brother felt that my standard was too high. He said it was so high that it made every parent a bad parent.
I don't see anything conceptually wrong with that possibility. I conceded that while it wasn't good given the standard of parenting, perhaps it was good enough for the standard of human parenting. But, even then, I am not convinced my standard is too high.
Granted, I often don't know how much of the good we can feasibly partake of in a particular instance, and so I'm not always in the best position to judge the line of rightness. I realize ought implies can. I also recognize just how extensive the possibility of "can" extends to each of us in so many cases. This is why people are very often mistaken about the line I draw.
I also worry my brother is annoyed with me. I believe he doesn't like how high of a standard I hold my own donors to, and I assume he doesn't want to think he should be evaluated by such a high standard when he is a parent.
Time and time again, I find I achieve the best results in the long run by having a high standard and lowering it only when I have good reasons. I consider it pragmatic perfectionism.
* [[2017.09.17 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** Edited.
* [[2017.09.17 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** DCK strongly altered my day.
* Woke up before the alarm
* Fireman Time!
** Had to be quick.
* Worked hard
* Listened to //The Help//.
** Now that's some revisionist historical fiction
* Watched Tosh.0 and The Matrix with the kiddos. Pizza.
* We did some math to figure out if our store-bought pizza was actually more price efficient than the special at Papa Johns.
* Fireman Time!
* Talked to wife, bed.
Slept a long time. I was traveling around malls and various cities with my family. We ate shrimp.
We jumped straight into our stainless project. Setup took a while. I beveled a pipe, cleaned up the other side. That was about it.
!! Break!
Chris and I still have a table to ourselves. This is surprising, and I don't understand why.
I cut and beveled more pipe. I got to do some fitting solo. I helped mark the lines for the saddle as well.
Chris came by and showed me one of the unique shaped fitup bars he found rusting on the side. I've been looking for one since we got here. Lucky bastard!!
!! Lunch!
We finished our bevels and cut the saddle. We organized and cleaned. We took back some of the pipe. We ran out of things to do.
I told Chris-M I wanted to finish my stainless dogs. He said to hold off. We have been bird-dogged by that asshole all day, and every time he has to say something negative, even when it is clearly irrelevant. We shouldn't give him ammo. He is already pissed that we are completing this job for another Yates contract on the other side of Eastman.
So, we moved onto fixing the flanges that 4 fitters (among a host of management and riggers) failed to accomplish for days. Chris-M said the only fix is to bore out slightly diagonal holes for the remaining 2 bolts. Whoever fabbed the flanges fucked up. Chris-M is right. We ran the wires and his our activities from the white hats. It is working.
!! Break!
We finished putting bolts in. Some of the others that were already put in need adjustment.
I did a hell of a lot of nothing besides cleaning up.
!! What is your vision for your son?
Obviously, my son is very young, and he is still developing. I don't really know nearly enough to answer the question effectively.
I see my son reading. I see him camping outside with his girlfriend. I see he is a craftsman. I see him as a sensitive and kind man. He adores nature.
He still participates in our weekly family meeting. He is my friend. We are philosophical. We like to watch shows and play games together.
He finds an opportunity, an adventure, or many. He goes for it. He is persistent and tenacious.
* [[2017.09.19 - Pipefitting Log]]
** Edited.
* [[2017.09.19 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** Prudential and alethic.
* [[2017.09.19 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** Perhaps I watch too much. But, the drug!
* [[2017.09.19 - Wiki Review Log]]
** Hiccups in the wiki. Perhaps I should record them specifically. Eh, this log does it fine though.
* [[2017.09.18 - Wiki Review Log]]
** Ditto.
* [[2017.09.18 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** Was a very rough day.
* [[2017.09.18 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** Edited. Forgot one thing I meant to say.
* [[2017.09.18 - Pipefitting Log]]
** I don't like how brief my logs are. The meat is there in a sense, but I need the narrative potatoes.
* Woke before the alarm
* Worked
* Listened to //The Help//
* My kids gave me hugs and kisses today.
* Shower of the Gods!
* Inform the Men!
* Talked with my wife
* L called me! This is the first time in recent memory.
* Polish sausage, sauerkraut, tater tots.
* The Good Place
* Bed
I set up for our welder. He got bitched at, and I volunteered to fire watch for him. I love how he legitimately doesn't give a shit, in some respects, what those around him think.
After a full-time fire watch replaced me I did small things. I picked up trash and kroiled. I still have more to do. I'm waiting to do the final fitup. I'm not sure what we are doing after that. Chris-M didn't know either.
!! Break!
Kroiled.
We fit up the pipe.
Bill the Safety Guy warned me for the first time that he is tired of telling us to get our cords off the ground. I already had 3 trees up for a tiny area. It was ridiculous. I explained to John and Chris-M, and they threw a fit. The additional trees actually got in our way, increasing the trip hazard. John went straight to Mark, the guy in charge of everything (above Chester).
Mark agreed. He also pointed out that it was stupid that we were TIG welding for a drainpipe. Clearly, we should have just been asked to stick.
!! Lunch!
Used dogs and the hickey bar to get the fitup improved. Also, we used the Metabo to cut the pipe gap wider.
Other than that, I didn't accomplish much of significance.
This job is very poorly planned. We are working overtime and bored at the same time because their planning blows.
!! Break!
We were told that they want us to move everything out, including all the fitter gang boxes for tomorrow, squeezing the 100-ton crane in that alley. This was not possible. We barely finished the spool on time, and that was very rushed.
!! What do you think of your cousin L's occupational choices thus far?
It's a very tempting spot to be in. I understand the need for income, especially when the economy and political situation is even more problematic for younger people.
L waffles. Part of her sees the evil of the company she works for, but part of her tries not to care. Again, the money is really important to her happiness. I get it. I really do.
Her current belief is that she is working her way out of her position. She will climb the ladder inside her company until she can make a lateral move to a position elsewhere for a company that isn't "as evil." Imho, she isn't actually trying to evaluate what counts as evil though. As long as it isn't "too evil," that is good enough possibly, or so I am worried she thinks.
She would prefer something medical or environmental. In a way, as she points out, it's hard to ethically enter into a world where money is the everything (ethics almost irrelevant) with a chemical engineering degree.
She has misunderstood my occupational/vocational distinction. I think she believes she can balance the bad things that come out of her occupational choice with good things that come out of her free time.
As always, you can be wealthy or you can be moral, which to some degree means you have to choose between happiness and morality. Oh, of course, the American Dream is all about trying to demonstrate how this is a false dichotomy. It isn't. The Bible is hilariously clear on this point, and to a redpilled atheist like me, it is even clearer.
Of course, I love L. I want her to be happy. As always, ignorance is bliss, even if it lacks integrity. It's a hard place to be in. L is also quite optimistic, but she is also smart. If she pays attention, she will see I am right. It is a sad day either way.
//I had to choose between sleep when I was dog tired of filling out my wiki. I already had some of the content lined up, but I'd rather sleep. This is the 3rd hiccup. Perhaps I have a problem now. I need to talk with my wife.//
* [[2017.09.20 - Wiki Review Log]]
** Yet again, *sigh
* [[2017.09.20 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** Seized.
* [[2017.09.20 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** A poor vision still. I'm trying though!
* [[2017.09.20 - Pipefitting Log]]
** Some days have been productive feeling and others not. It's not my fault though. I am not in charge of planning to a large extent. I can only work within the bounds I have.
* [[2017.09.20 - Dream Log]]
** Not as odd as usual.
* Woke well before the alarm. I went to bed early, and I can feel it.
* Worked hard.
* Listened to //The Help//.
** I actually shed a tear. I'm nearing the end.
** My wife made a recommendation. I'll be going for it as well.
* Took a Bath instead of a shower.
** It has been a day and an age since I've taken a bath. It was very relaxing.
** I talked to my wife and then listened to my book while chilling.
* Project Runway
* Hot dog and then Sushi!
* Bed
Admittedly, I avoid many of the inane conversations in the morning in favor of writing, reading, and connecting with my wife. It is unclear to me the extent to which it affects my occupational success and mobility.
We put up the spool after QC checked it. We cleaned the area out.
Afterward, we set up for cleaning a saddle going way up.
There is still something wrong with a short piece going over the bridge. They did not care for me trying to measure it.
!! Break!
We installed a valve on top of a Victaulic flange adapter on a tie-in point to the header.
We got everything set for cleaning up that saddle.
I talked to John quite a bit. I like John (for now).
!! Lunch!
At lunch, Dave said he was going to give me an experience. I needed to get into the pit that was dug to clean, find information, take measurements, and prep. He said he wouldn't ask me to do something he wouldn't have his own son do.
I was the first to go in the pit on the jobsite. The superintendent, David Lobourfuck, thought I didn't even need a ladder. He thought we were being too careful. He doesn't give a shit about me, and if there was an accident, he'd just blame me for not following OSHA standards.
It was hard work. My back hurts.
I cleaned the numbers off so they could use them. I helped pull measurements. I kept cleaning, even though O was told they'd be hydro blasting it. Uh, so why the fuck am I still cleaning?
I'm betting they don't like me. Lol.
!! Break!
I went back in the pit to pull measurements. Afterward, we cleaned and rolled up.
!! You've been late posting to your wiki 3 times in a week. What do you think of that?
I regret it. This wiki matters to me. I cannot afford to fail myself here. It's unacceptable. I need to push myself, no matter how tired I am. This is executive functioning.
Of course, I need to be kind to myself as well. It is forgivable and understandable, even if it is wrong.
Perhaps I need to develop a better plan. Maybe I shouldn't eat supper until it's done. Some kind of benchmark to hold me to it would be useful.
* [[2017.09.20 - Wiki Review Log]]
** Hiccups happen. Keep dealing with them. It will be okay.
* [[2017.09.20 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** You are working hard, and it shows. Good job.
* [[2017.09.20 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** Needs work.
* [[2017.09.20 - Pipefitting Log]]
** Brief.
* [[2017.09.20 - Dream Log]]
** Deja vu?
//I've not posted my notebook writings in a while. I stuff them here. Praise be unto the random nihil.//
Belief in altruism is faith. All the evidence points towards egoism. It makes evolutionary sense.
Of course, even in moral psychology, your professor is too horrified by the thought to accept it. We simply must call such a theory //ad hoc// and dismiss it. Of course, we have our rationalized intuitions and phenomenological perspective which "shows us" that we personally have been altruistic.
AH HA! But, we can easily be wrong about what motivates us. People all too often are wrong on this account. People really shouldn't trust themselves as much as they do.
The bitch of the thing is that I aspire to do the impossible, to be the impossible: to actually, fundamentally be altruistic and happy.
What does it mean on a fundamental scale to be altruistic?
---
Here is why slacking at work isn't theft: they are trying to take you for everything you are worth. They aren't trying to fairly pay for your labor, so why should you try to give them your absolute 100% effort? What, because you promised? What real choice did you have? You have to eat. What's their excuse? Do they need another yacht?
---
The more I get to know a person, the less I like them. With vanishingly few exceptions, I eventually find character traits, patterns, and malicious ignorance in the people I learn about. Granted, no one is perfect. But, a man has to draw his lines somewhere. It's the only practical thing to do.
Would you be friends with Hitler? Why not? So, how should that line be drawn, and why is your line-drawing principle more rational and moral than mine?
---
Maybe I need a redpill log?
---
I do have faith in myself. I have to have hope. Is this faith in altruism? Probably. This contradiction leads to serious cognitive dissonance.
Why am I allowed to have it in myself and those I have cherry-picked but not others? That is clearly a violation of alethic reasoning.
Alethically, I should not have belief in altruistic behavior in humans. But, I do anyways. obviously, the only justification I have left to offer is pragmatic, prudential reasoning. The need for my family's happiness is higher to me than the alethic truth. That is a rare move for me, and it lacks integrity. Such is my plight.
Why not extend this belief in altruism to everyone? It isn't prudent and it isn't alethic. What other reasons could I possibly give? The purple pilled metamodern one? What does it even look like in this case? What motivates it?
---
I find that people rarely reciprocate questions with me. They aren't interested in me in the way I am in them.
---
Tattoo artist kit & class, DNA test, 2 computers
---
Fidget spinners, cubes, and toys are part of an old class of toys. See worry stones and prayer beads.
---
Corporately sponsored school programs exist to ease the scarcity of particular functions. It is cheaper to barely educate an extreme specialty externally which locks its participants into a climb up the ladder of starvation than to develop well-rounded, free as in //liber//, citizens with choices who are paid full value for their labor.
---
I find empathizing with your malicious ignorance to be painful. You inspire hatred. Humanity is its own selfish adversary.
---
Fierce integrity, that's how I want to be constituted.
---
I seek to be/live independently of the evils of humanity. I can't stop it, but at least I can avoid participating in it.
---
We simply cannot avoid being paid by evil people to do things which become tainted since these things ultimately are used for evil purposes. Is there moral employment left (if there ever was any)?
---
One nice thing about the trades is that you learn on the job. otherwise, I wouldn't have the motivation or willpower to do so.
* Woke before the alarm.
* Worked hard.
* Bath of the Gods!
* Talked to my brother JRE.
* Pals burgers
* Donnie Darko with my creations.
* Wrote
* Bed
I found out that Matt, JR, and Nash will be joining us for the shutdown.
I started cleaning up a saddle for the top of 309. I took it easy on the fire watch, stopping early.
I helped organize some bolts and apply anti-seize.
!! Break!
I cleaned up the saddle.
I helped move some argon into place.
!! Lunch!
I cleaned off the area way up top where the saddle was going, just getting the gumlike residue insulation off it.
They decided to cut a spool in half because they've failed to rig it. Of course, that makes the fitters responsible for a midair fit. They didn't take our advice, and they forced the cut before grinding the weld off. It was stupid.
So...we have to grind the fuck out of this welded 42" pipe. We are using 7" grinders that are heavy as fuck. It sucks.
!! Break!
I performed some firewatch.
I cleaned the 42" up some.
I was asked to seal the pipes off. I impressed the young journeyman with my duct tape technique (had to tell them I knew what I was doing, and they realized I did).
!! What is the redpilled prediction of cryptocurrency?
Governments will try to stop it. Unless darknets can be killed, I don't see that happening. As wireless takes off, mesh will eventually prevent the prevention of darknets on a physical basis, imho, unless we are truly under totalitarian fascinate regimes.
The next cutoff is exchanging. That will be a lot trickier. That said, the war on drugs failed crazy hard. A war on bits of data will be even more futile.
Of course, there is a possibility it will be consumed and integrated into multi-nationals. There is little we can do to stop that because they are politically supreme.
I worry that the tool we use to defeat and sidestep those in power will eventually be used against us.
I am convinced cryptocurrencies are inevitable until the fall of humankind. However, I am not convinced we the people will be the beneficiaries.
I do not buy the Libertarian paradise, just as they do not buy into the concept of communist paradise.
* [[2017.09.22 - Wiki Review Log]]
** Edited after re-reviewing. Added a tag.
* [[2017.09.22 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** Chick-lit almost done.
* [[2017.09.22 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** Dinner plan isn't going to work. I'm not sure what to do.
* [[2017.09.22 - Pipefitting Log]]
** Grammar Edit
* [[2017.09.21 - Wiki Review Log]]
** I hear ya. These hiccups need to go.
* [[2017.09.21 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** Sleep is good.
* [[2017.09.21 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** Indeed.
* [[2017.09.21 - Pipefitting Log]]
** `/yawn`
Too often, your malicious ignorance and evil are the cause of my pain. I do not forgive you because you do not try to change who you are, your ways, etc.
---
It hurts to see that I am right. I would know. I've corrected myself so many times on so many things I held dear.
---
There are mute, uncommunicative autistic individuals who eventually pierce their prison, and sometimes it is only through writing/typing. I feel that is what I've done here.
* Woke up late
* Cannabliss
* Writing and thinking. Glorious!
* Talked to JRE about important things.
* Extensive family time
* Mexican food!
* Family time for the wiki
* Cleaning
* Inform the Men!
* Writing
* Shrimp and grits!
* Watchmen with the kids.
* Fireman time!
!! How has your health been this week?
* 1uxb0x
** Cold has ended.
* j3d1h
** Don't like going outside because it is harder to breathe out there.
* k0sh3k
** Getting ready for her period, but I didn't predict it. She was level-headed.
** Feeling fat. Mostly because she is.
* h0p3
** I am sore, stressed, and feeling crunched.
---
!! What happened last week? Have you been happy this past week? Why or why not?
* 1uxb0x
** Happy because he did his schoolwork and got to go outside.
** Wish he could have played more baseball.
* j3d1h
** Feel like she should have done a lot more work. So, not productive.
** Meh.
* k0sh3k
** Good week for the most part. Started rough and worrisome, but it got happier.
* h0p3
** Ditto.
** I am happy that we have money coming in and more plans.
---
!! What is a positive fact or compliment we can say about each person in the family?
* 1uxb0x
** We had a significant philosophical discussion this week. It is becoming clearer that you are talented at philosophy. Keep it up. Pursue truth, and especially wisdom.
** This week you were telling us about the books you are reading. You are doing such a good job of reading, understanding it, and remembering it.
** You are doing a good job designing your blueprints for the desk.
* j3d1h
** I see you are finding ways to socialize online. I think this is a good thing. Keep it up.
** Thank you for working on your laundry this week.
** Thank you for organizing the spice drawer.
** Thanks for being generous with your phone.
* k0sh3k
** You continue to find good books for me. Thank you. I really appreciate your curation for me.
** Thank you for sending us outside, forcing us to play outside, etc.
** Thank you for being patient with us concerning messaging, and I'm going to make it a point to answer more effectively.
* h0p3
** Thank you for taking us out to eat.
** Thank you for encouraging us to plan and make schedules.
** I realize you have a darker view of humanity and life, but I really appreciate that you are constantly trying to be a good person and to have hope.
---
!! What will you do this week? Name at least one fun objective and one unfun objective.
* 1uxb0x
** Math
** Keep playing baseball
* j3d1h
** Do everything in her notes on her wiki
** Make cookies
* k0sh3k
** Plan a pizza party
** Book+Art
* h0p3
** Work on my wiki
** Super happy fun times
//I've barely had time to record this log, but I have a fairly large backlog of tabs still. Most of the interesting bits I've found are gone to sands of time.<<ref "2018.12.12">>//
* Neat
** http://www.psypost.org/2017/08/marijuana-might-change-way-people-walk-according-new-study-49532
** http://www.smh.com.au/technology/sci-tech/nanotech-super-spiderwebs-are-here-20170822-gy1blp.html
*** I knew this was going to happen. It will continue.
** https://www.quantamagazine.org/a-brain-built-from-atomic-switches-can-learn-20170920/
*** Although, I warn you, it will be abused. A day is coming when biological engineering in the wrong hands will be one of the most powerful physical sciences. They may yet win the AI race, even if only because of energy efficiency and working with things already built by evolution.
** https://duckduckgo.com/download/Private_Browsing.pdf
** https://govinsider.asia/innovation/danish-tech-ambassador-casper-klynge/
*** It's a start. It won't work.
** https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/12/the-brainless-slime-that-can-learn-by-fusing/511295/
** https://boomcalifornia.com/2017/09/10/michel-foucault-in-death-valley-a-boom-interview-with-simeon-wade/
** https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/09/how-motherhood-affects-creativity/539418/
** https://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2017/09/not-so-novel
* KYS
** https://www.gq.com/story/the-great-pot-monopoly-mystery
** https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/16/opinion/sunday/constitution-economy.html
*** Capitalism is the problem.
** https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/sep/19/facebooks-war-on-free-will
** http://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/story?id=95836
** https://journalistsresource.org/studies/economics/inequality/income-inequality-offshore-tax-haven-research
** https://www.reddit.com/r/LateStageCapitalism/comments/71x4sw/please_look_pretty_while_consuming/
** http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/leap.1116/full
** https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/09/when-does-the-right-to-an-attorney-kick-in/539898/
*** Absurd
** https://www.reddit.com/r/LateStageCapitalism/comments/715q6q/the_corporate_class_is_so_insecure_they_have_to/
** https://i.imgur.com/Yo1t8eu.png
** https://ro-che.info/articles/2017-09-17-booking-com-manipulation
** https://gizmodo.com/the-eu-suppressed-a-300-page-study-that-found-piracy-do-1818629537
** https://digg.com/2017/graham-cassidy-republican-health-care-explained
** https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/09/donald-trump-peter-thiel-top-intelligence-advisory-post?mbid=synd_digg
* Self
** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizophrenia
*** Always a possibility
* Confirm My Bias
** https://jacobinmag.com/2017/09/hurricane-harvey-irma-global-warming-the-dig
** http://www.philosophicaleconomics.com/2016/05/passive/
** https://www.wired.com/story/ai-research-is-in-desperate-need-of-an-ethical-watchdog/
** http://bloomsmag.com/religious-children-are-meaner-than-their-secular-counterparts-study-finds/
*** I worry I have failed my children, yet again.
** https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/15/business/cryptocurrency-bubble-doge.html
** https://jonathannen.com/speculation-diversification.html
** https://medium.com/@dweekly/medium-and-message-thoughts-on-our-devices-fda5aaec5987
*** No shit, sherlock.
** https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/09/16/health/brazil-obesity-nestle.html
** https://www.thecut.com/2017/09/why-having-a-best-friend-is-good-for-your-health.html
** http://nautil.us/blog/-alienation-is-killing-americans-and-japanese
** http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09/19/forget-getting-rich-sex-sleep-real-keys-happiness/
*** Drugs are good.
** https://phys.org/news/2017-09-mathematics-sixth-mass-extinction.html
** https://z.cash/blog/ethereum-snarks.html
*** Wish I didn't have to sell it.
** https://qotoqot.com/blog/improving-focus/
** https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-equifax-disaster-points-to-a-much-bigger-problem/2017/09/21/4bd683da-9ee3-11e7-9083-fbfddf6804c2_story.html
** https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-09-21/why-wages-aren-t-growing
*** Bloomberg?
** https://story.californiasunday.com/cost-of-college
** https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-media-has-a-probability-problem/
** https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7c4H_J1YCMU
* For my son:
** https://np.reddit.com/r/AskMen/comments/70d40x/men_of_reddit_my_girlfriend_just_dumped_me_what/dn29ghz/
** https://i.redd.it/6dadzf0dtfnz.jpg
* For my daughter:
** https://mindweb.network/board/computer-science-a-full-bachelor-curriculum
** https://www.nextplatform.com/2017/09/14/shedding-light-dark-bandwidth/
** http://users.ece.utexas.edu/~adnan/pike.html
** http://codelack.com/what-is-a-data-structure/
** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleeping_barber_problem
** https://nbickford.wordpress.com/2011/04/03/the-minsky-circle-algorithm/
** https://www.reddit.com/r/commandline/comments/71i9ks/what_were_some_tools_that_fundamentally_changed/
** https://www.didaxy.com/introduction-to-tiddlyserver
** http://www.ofnumbers.com/2017/09/21/eight-things-cryptocurrency-enthusiasts-probably-wont-tell-you/
* For my wife:
** https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/70h1c2/til_that_the_worlds_largest_honey_bee_the/
** http://www.newstatesman.com/science-tech/social-media/2017/09/two-museums-are-having-fight-twitter-and-its-gloriously
** https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/70htb5/big_ol_list_of_mindfuck_movies/
* https://julianoliver.com/output/harvest
** Odd
* Tools
** https://imgur.com/QKWTId3?r
*** For job interviews
* https://www.alternet.org/education-cant-solve-poverty
** Agreed, except I want to point out that that education is not a sufficient condition, although it is absolutely necessary.
* https://www.theguardian.com/global/2017/sep/17/choosing-to-be-on-your-own
** I'd argue I have tried solving my loneliness. This wiki is a large of part that.
* https://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21728888-better-motors-go-better-batteries-electric-motors-improve-more-things
** Becoming an electrician looks better and better.
* https://www.engadget.com/2017/09/16/pirate-bay-hijacks-cpus-for-digital-currency-mining/
** I'm not sure how much of a problem I have with it. This becomes tricky.
* http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/02/worlds-top-female-chess-player-resigns-5-moves-repeatedly-made/
** Good for her!
* https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/18/books/review/evolution-of-beauty-richard-prum-charles-darwin.html
** As much as I rail against it, I am often grateful for it in some respects. There are many ways to see beauty.
* http://www.bbc.com/news/business-41320568
** The flight of capital from China
** Also: http://www.trustnodes.com/2017/09/19/china-bans-bitcoin-executives-leaving-country-miners-preparing-worst
* https://mic.com/articles/184477/inside-ilbe-how-south-koreas-angry-young-men-formed-a-powerful-new-alt-right-movement#.X7Fd5RjzD
** The meme sprouts and flourishes everywhere, as it always has.
* https://www.blackhat.com/eu-17/briefings/schedule/#how-to-hack-a-turned-off-computer-or-running-unsigned-code-in-intel-management-engine-8668
** It's here. We knew it would be.
* http://www.braunconsulting.com/bcg/newsletters/winter2004/winter20041.html
** Disturbing.
** I think contracting is a compartmentalization of power dynamics.
* https://www.geekwire.com/2017/one-year-later-microsoft-ai-research-grows-8k-people-massive-bet-artificial-intelligence/
** As usual, I am worried.
* https://www.viewpointmag.com/2017/09/11/idylls-of-the-liberal-the-american-dreams-of-mark-lilla-and-ta-nehisi-coates/
** Liberal is always a difficult word to define.
* https://techcrunch.com/2017/09/15/why-dropbox-decided-to-drop-aws-and-build-its-own-infrastructure-and-network/
** Own your data.
* https://blog.cryptographyengineering.com/2017/09/15/patching-is-hard-so-what/
** Lol.
* https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-09-13/my-three-years-in-identity-theft-hell
** Don't have an identity worth taking
* https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/16/technology/chips-off-the-old-block-computers-are-taking-design-cues-from-human-brains.html
** And vice versa.
* https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/15/sunday-review/future-suburb-millennials.html
** Probably something to it, eh?
* http://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/bat-echolocation-sensory-trap
** Sad.
* https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/features/is-internet-porn-making-young-men-impotent-w503299
** I have more redpilled thoughts, including this is simply the next stage of human males
* https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/09/boys-are-not-defective/540204/
** Meritocracy...lulz
---
<<footnotes "2018.12.12" "Preach, yo! Jesus. This problem never goes away.">>
I bought some missing tools and a bluetooth keyboard. I need to be able to write at work at full speed. The tools were clamps and magnets. A fitter needs all the things that fit stuff together.
I've decided I'm going to go with a smaller box for Pipefitting. And, I'll have a separate general tool box.
I want a piece of steel with pressed or cut "[My Name]'s Pipefitter Toolbox" stamped. I tape it, spray paint, and grind. Black letters on shiny metal. Finally, I can put a finish gloss coat on it. Then, I can weld it onto the box.
!! Why don't more people use Resilio Sync?
Because they've never heard of it and don't understand it. They don't care. They want whatever is easiest, they think, but in reality, they want whatever has the lowest floor to entry, which isn't the same as easiest in general.
History repeats and rhymes, of course. This is not the first or the last time we will have tried to reinvent the wheel, but some wheels are legitimately better.
I think this is a clear case of a market failure.
I fear I will never have the right words for this page. There is much to say, and I want to say it well. My wife would interpret me in the best light even if I didn't, but I feel like I owe it to her. We're definitely holding onto each other for dear life.
* [[k0sh3k's autism]]
* [[Gifts]]
* Get clothes ready for tomorrow
* Cannabliss
* Family Time
* Going out to eat
* Write, write, write.
* Talk to my brother. Ask him questions.
* A movie.
* Informing the Men!
* Having a lunch ready for tomorrow
You know how you loved to watch your bots play your video games for you. Part of the reason was that you got to visually study "yourself" play the game. You need to do this by building a GUI/Visual representation of the wiki itself.
This is a tool to understand my wiki. A truly remarkable one for a visual person like me.
Plus, this will be my version of [[Android Jones]]. This will be art. In this sense, it is masturbatory. However, that doesn't mean it isn't incredibly useful either.
---
I want to be able to see the progress/changes of this wiki. Imagine a video of the milehigh view of this wiki I can watch, preferably where I can pause, FF, Rewind, and change the speed settings on. If I had zoom, that would be fucking crazy.
I want edits to show up and then new pages to show up for each passing day. I want to be able to see the explosive light visuals on a faded map of my wiki. I want to see my wiki literally grow. I'd love to see
Imagine having on-demand video creation. I want to trace out the particular thought pattern by regex search or etc.
Also, I want it to be black, gray, and blue as the primary color pattern. I want The Matrix green to be the edit highlight that pops out.
!!! On snap! There is a better way:
Just take the index.html files and do it. This is a hack, but it also represents addons, etc. No reason to tiddlypy this out.
I need my daughter's help. I need her to learn how TiddlyWiki works on the inside. She needs to map it out, and to be able to explain how the pieces fit together and what they mean. I need her to be able to teach me. Show me the anatomy.
Once I have mastered it, I will be in a much better position to literally program the wiki and to dream for it.
I desperately need to be able to sift through the temporal dimension of this wiki. I can, of course, search by particular terms and my naming conventions help. I want a more powerful tool. We can make something Google cannot for this wiki since we understand its data structures in far more depth.
* [[Poem: The Blue Abyss]]
** Gorgeous
* [[2017.09.23 - /b/]]
** I'm proud of my work
* [[2017.09.23 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** Still up in the air in many ways
* [[2017.09.23 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** Seized
* [[2017.09.23 - Wiki Review Log]]
** It's okay that my pipefitting log has suffered. There isn't much I can do about it.
* [[2017.09.23 - Pipefitting Log]]
** It's going to get better. Bluetooth keyboard on the way. That isn't perfect, but it's a start.
* Alarm got me
* Worked hard
* Listened to //Redemption in Indigo//
* Talked to JRE briefly
* Venture Bros, John Oliver, Rick & Morty
* Pork chops, salad, and potatoes: thank you [[j3d1h]]
* Fireman Time!
* Writing, then bed
* KYS
** https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/25/business/china-whatsapp-blocked.html?mcubz=3
*** Protectionism and control.
** https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/25/technology/wooing-amazon-second-headquarters.html
* Neat
** https://blog.cyber.fund/huge-ethereum-mixer-6cf98680ee6c
*** Wait until Z-cash tech comes.
** https://www.troyhunt.com/the-ethics-of-running-a-data-breach-search-service/
*** A good point, one I've long worried about.
* https://newsroom.intel.com/editorials/intels-new-self-learning-chip-promises-accelerate-artificial-intelligence/
** Hype it, yo.
* http://voxeu.org/article/rise-robots-german-labour-market
** I really need to specialize this direction
* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15328889
** Fools. Apple wants everything Google has too.
It sounds like Nash, JR, and Matt are early, in orientation today. Cool. I think I will be losing my two-person table.
Today we were asked if anyone had big weld dogs. I grinned. Mine are hilariously large. We may use them.
Chris-M told Chris and me what to do. We needed to finish aligning and bolting a flange. We are waiting to torque because it requires the j-gun. He told us not to be in a rush and winked.
Chris-M told me to tell Vic how to flip and rotate the spool so that we can mount the last piece.
Chris-M went to pull measurements yet again in the pit. I offered to help several times. I helped him pull measurements near the header for the piece I was working on. The drawings don't match reality.
Chris and I read the plans and grabbed the missing parts so that we will be ready for Vic.
!! Break!
I went into the pit to take measurements. I did a bit of cleaning work with the code chisel. It sucked.
I came out of the pit and plump bobbed off a scaffold/flange on the raised 42" pipe. We need accurate information on this underground pipe. I am not sure how we will pull the angle just yet.
!! Lunch!
We pulled Kore measurements and drew lines. We talked to the pipe engineer of the project. Chris-M and he got along very easily. The engineer took Chris-M's advice.
I went back into the pit to clean. It sucked. I eventually traded it off to Chris.
!! Break!
Chris and I took turns cleaning the flanges in the pit. The bolts are coming off one of them as we chip. I hurt my thumb on one such occurrence.
`/yawn`
!! Do you get enough sleep?
I get the least amount of sleep on days after DCK. I have a rough time on the weekends in general, particularly when I'm trying to pack everything I want into them. During the weekdays, I feel like I generally get enough. 7.5 hours is about right for me, I believe. Anything beyond that feels like "oversleeping," which I take to be a form of drug use. I don't have a problem with it, but I also don't feel the need for it.
* [[2017.09.24 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** Edited.
* [[2017.09.24 - Wiki Review Log]]
** Chris thought the bluetooth was a bad idea. I'm hoping Chester leaves on Friday.
* [[Wiki: Left Sidebar]]
** A damned good idea. I can't wait to see it.
* [[2017.09.24 - Pipefitting Log]]
** I need a toolbox.
* [[2017.09.24 - To-Do-List Log]]
** Done!
* [[2017.09.24 - Family Log]]
** I really am trying to be sexually gratified more often. It makes for happier people.
* [[Wiki: Tiddlywiki Map]]
** A very interesting idea. Data visualization is valuable in odd ways.
* [[2017.09.24 - Retired: k0sh3k]]
** Time to start fresh.
* [[k0sh3k]]
** I hope we make good use of it.
* [[k0sh3k's Directory]]
** I'm interested to see what she does with it, if anything.
* [[Wiki: The Great Edit]]
** She hasn't done it 2 days in a row after her promise.
* [[2017.09.24 - /b/]]
** Dark.
* [[Wiki: Tiddlywiki Architecture]]
** I will eventually learn it, I hope.
* [[Wiki: Time Searching]]
** We build the data structures, so we can tailor the algorithms
* [[Wiki: The Animated Progress Visualization Project]]
** Encouragement
* [[Tiddlywiki Tools, Sites and Examples]]
** Needs moar.
* [[2017.09.24 - Link Log]]
** God damn, that is long.
* Woke well before alarm. Gave my wife a backrub. She had a nightmare.
* Worked hard
* Listened to //Redemption in Indigo//
* Talked to Charlie
* Found out that my brother AIR's phone service is DCed
** Actually the other day
* Tried calling JRE
* Talked to wife
* Shower of the Gods
** Need a bath tomorrow: my knees are killing me
* Fireman Time!
* Beer, Queso, and Venture Bros
* Bed
Went to bed early. Dreamt about an aquarium among other things.
The boys (Nash, JR, and Matt) arrived. It was good to see them.
They decided to offer NCCER training to us. I want to study for that initial test, so maybe I can hit journeyman cert plus quickly.
We organized our area. We cleaned up and stacked dunnage for the jobsite.
I was in charge of repulling a measurement we did yesterday. My measurement was spot on what the spool was. This is good since we thought we were off a few inches.
!! Break!
We fitup a pipe and did some rigging.
I cleaned that saddle and taped it up.
Tightened bolts.
!! Lunch!
I replaced a screwpipe valve someone broke.
I cut and finished a piece with an eye hole for rigging that we will attach to the flange on the saddle for the 42" riser.
I started cutting plate for the portapowers for the trunion.
!! Break!
I told Chris-M about my desire to take the NCCER exam and he told me I wasn't going to pass. Ouch. Several others encouraged me to though. Chris-M said I should pursue it, even though I wouldn't be able to pass now.
David Mull, at the end of the day, thanked a bunch of people for what they did. When it came my turn he was like "I don't know what the f*** you did, but thank you." Uh...ouch. Lol.
!! How valuable is the NCCER test to you?
I'd spend another year pipefitting to pass it. Having the credential is valuable, it opens doors, and it finalizes my work. Ultimately, I think the electrician route makes the most sense, but I also have unfinished business here. This backup plan is worth having, I think. Being able to pipefit when I can't do electrician work is reasonable. Being a part of multiple unions would be nice. This is a great option (even if the pipefitter unions don't accept it directly).
* [[2017.09.25 - Pipefitting Log]]
** It was good to see them.
* [[2017.09.25 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** Edit. Super happy fun times.
* [[2017.09.25 - Wiki Review Log]]
** 3 days in a row. I am disappoint.
* [[2017.09.25 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** I will sleep more though.
* [[2017.09.24 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** Oops, I forgot.
* [[2017.09.25 - Link Log]]
** Tiny, but better than letting it pile up.
* Woke up before the alarm, quite refreshed, except my leg hurts a lot.
* Worked hard.
* Listened to //Redemption in Indigo//
* Talked to JRE
* Planning
* Got my tools, set some up for tomorrow.
* VR!
* Fireman Time!
* Lasagna
* Prep for tomorrow, and bed.
I arrived a few minutes later, but still with plenty of time to spare. My table is now filled up.
Dave told me he regretted his phrasing yesterday, and that I obviously am a hard worker.
I set up and did the layout for adding a rigging point to the flange and cutting the trunion saddle again.
We had no fire watch.
!! Break!
I cut the saddle.
I fit the rigging piece on the other large saddle flange.
I measured with and after Chris-M on whether or not that spool will fit the riser. Chris-M's measurement was off by 6 inches. He immediately trusts mine. He did this before on the saddle we cut. He got the measurements wrong but took mine.
!! Lunch!
We fit up the saddle flange, but the piece was a quarter of an inch in the way of dropping it down. So, we cut that piece out.
I helped draw more measurements up top, and I voiced my worry that the angle may be off.
I told Sam, since he asked earlier, that the underground pipe is 20 inches OD.
We muscled our risers for the trunnion supports in and out. I was able to do half the rigging today, including the signaling.
I need to take a picture of that book 1000 ordinates of whatever. It doesn't matter how rarely we use it, I need to know.
!! Break!
I did some grind work in the riser. I still need to widen it as Dave pointed out. I explained that we needed scaffolding to reach around it. He thinks we will have the crane fit it up tomorrow morning. Uhhh...I don't see how, at least not the first thing, as he claimed.
!! Respond to the following:
<<<
All great truths begin as blasphemies.
--George Bernard Shaw
<<<
Classic quote.
"All" is overgeneralizing, but it needs the emphasis.
"great" means something like very different, significant to the context, etc.
"truths" mean propositions
"begin" requires the specific cultural/timeslice context
"blasphemies" just meaning difficult to accept, with a wide range of implications and consequences for those who take these propositions to be true or even defensible
Admittedly, some of the most influential and significant propositions in my life required great sacrifice on my part to acquire, socially as well.
I'm sure many of us feel this way.
* [[2017.09.26 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** Need moar Fireman Time!
* [[2017.09.26 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** I need to get my books.
* [[2017.09.26 - Wiki Review Log]]
** At least I didn't wait until late tonight to go through it.
* [[2017.09.26 - Pipefitting Log]]
** Lol, brush it off.
* Woke up before the alarm. Good sleep.
* Worked hard.
* Played Magic with Robert at work.
* Listened to //Redemption in Indigo//
** It is getting very good.
* Fireman Time!
** VR porn is amazing.
* AndTidWiki isn't great, but it works. Yay. I can now edit directly.
** Resilio sync took some work since AndTidWiki doesn't let you choose another directory? Wtf is that?<<ref "2018.12.12">>
* I got my Bluetooth keyboard up and running. It is tremendous.
---
<<footnotes "2018.12.12" "It's fascinating to see this while working on my new Bob installation.">>
I dreamt I was in middle school as an adult. I was also being chased, so that's why I was hiding.
I found a tiddlywiki editor for android. Woot! Let us hope it does the job. I have my blue tooth keyboard as well, but I haven't set it up yet.
I did more grinding on the riser. I measured out and did the layout to see where the pipe is going to end up. It seems off. I couldn't do much more without an extension of the scaffold.
I fucked up my marks on a saddle. Chris-M laughed because we both did, and we know how we could have done it better. I had the measurements memorized. Chris-M somehow knew I had them memorized. He asked me off the cuff for the measurements.
We cut and cleaned it up.
!! Break!
We cleaned up the underside of the trunion. We fit up one piece. There was some confusion as to what kind of weld was expected.
We finished up the other bottom and moved it into place. It took forever to find any operator to help us.
John let me do the layout for his 2 on 6 after we debated it. Turns out it was irrelevant.
!! Lunch!
We kept fitting up and taking down the last part of the trunion. Chris-M is just burning time on purpose at this point. That's okay.
Also, they dropped pipe through the scaffold while I was on it onto a quadpod. If they made a mistake I could have fallen 30-40 feet. I told them I wanted to know in advance.
!! Break!
We finished the fitup and cleaned up.
I talked to Dave about why he keeps a journal. We also talked about books, but he just recommended the NCCER.
!! What are your three favorite book characters?
I worry this is really just a question of which characters either entertain me the most or I empathize with the most.
Honestly, I can't come up with a list. This is too fucking hard. So, I'm going to mail it in:<<ref "1">>
# Owen Meany
# Atticus Finch
# Paul Atreides
---
<<footnotes "1" "Like I do every night (now'n'days), Pinky">>
* [[2017.09.27 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** Seized
* [[2017.09.27 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** Lol. Not much to say at the moment.
* [[2017.09.27 - Wiki Review Log]]
** I'm fulfilling the Super Happy Fun Times requirement just fine.
* [[2017.09.27 - Pipefitting Log]]
** So much grind work.
* [[2017.09.26 - Dream Log]]
** So much sleep, so many dreams.
It is clear to me that VR is going to be huge in many respects. It is finally here, folks. The last time I encountered it was a virtualboy, a gaming system by Nintendo that was far ahead of its time. VR porn is outstanding. I can't say enough good things about that, lol.
---
I think one more year on this Yates job makes a lot of sense financially, at least for short-term stability. We are now out of the danger zone, but not on solid ground. Another year would solidify it, and I believe it would make me a journeyman for realsies.
---
MTG is a way to display an art of mastery.<<ref "2018.12.12">>
---
I am very easily bored. Again, this likely means I have executive functioning problems. Although, I'd argue I still have significant environmental constraints.
---
<<footnotes "2018.12.12" "Wow. I'm only now just able to show my children this thing. I could have written this sentence today! Lol.">>
* Woke up before the alarm.
* Worked.
* Talked to JRE
* Talked to family, particularly my daughter.
* Fireman Time!
* StirFriday.
* Project Runway!
* Good night!
I finally have my keyboard on site. We will see if I run into any trouble. I am very much hoping I don't have any trouble, obviously. I need to get used to it. It is a small, compact, slightly modified keyboard.
I believe Chester will be leaving here in the next day or two. Hopefully, I will feel some relief then. I don't know.
Matt said to me today, "remember: if you can't tie a knot, then tie a lot."
Also, I failed to bring out my NCCER books. Having a 3-hour window each day except on Sundays sucks. I have very little time to accomplish what I need to accomplish. I am told there are testing facilities in Charlotte and Nashville. It sucks that they are far away, but that is better than nothing. Maybe the family can take a trip and do something on the weekend while I test.
We went and tightened a ton of bolts up. We got the valve torqued. Chris-M forgets the washers, but we fixed that quickly. We also changed them out two at a time, keeping the general torque. I like that replacement method.
Brandon is buzzing around our area. Meh.
I'm not sure what we will be doing for the rest of the day. I think I should Kroil up the bolts in our area anyways since, in a few weeks, we will have to take them out.
!! Break!
I helped pull measurements on our pipes for the tie-ins and space to the header. They didn't match. We will need to push the north end about an inch eastwards.
I got the fire blankets all set up top. Gino asked me if we would finally be putting it in today. I said I hoped we would, but that I couldn't make any promises.
We decided to build internal supports for our top pieces in the trunion. We had a spare pipe, and I found another. I cut them and did some grind work to make them fit.
Also, I've some random thoughts:
* Always use other's tools so you don't wear out your own
* Be early to get tools from the tool room. Make sure you get what you need before it runs out or you get the shitty stuff.
* Always look busy or hide, unless you are socializing with a superior who can and will cover your ass.
* Dave talked about almost ordering his militia to fire upon BLM folks in Charlottesville. Cray cray.
* Snack on the job, use your breaks for personal time and activities.
* Gino, of Eastman, spends a lot of time flirting with Brittany. Lol.
* Perhaps I should write a guide on "How to Look Busy and Stay out of Trouble."
** These are technically social engineering tricks that aren't direct manipulation, but rather deception through omission at critical moments. Is it immoral? Not if you believe that have the power and keep throwing the first punch. This is Justified War/Self-defense. I'm protecting myself and my freedom here, fighting against systematic abuse, oppression, and labor-extraction.
!! Lunch!
I finished fitting up the two supports inside the trunion. It took some cleaning, and it was difficult working around the scaffold. We really lacked the ladder we needed, despite having searched.
Admittedly, I had very little to do. I kroiled up our entire area. I at least want to make the shutdown as smooth as possible for us. I feel like this isn't a taking the initiative problem exactly, although that may certainly be a factor here. I just don't even know what to take initiative on, and asking often results in just doing what I was already doing but getting the incredulous look and attitude at the same time. Somehow, if they just think you are busy, and the outcomes are the same, not asking has better results in many cases.
I must also admit that I feel like I'm back to my old ways. When I don't see the value in what I'm doing, then I avoid it. I do something else. How bad of a thing is this? As long as I get paid, that is at least decent enough. But, perhaps I don't cultivate the relationships and experience I really need when I engage in this behavior. Yet, I still rose through the ranks at Humana doing this bullshit. But, I don't know if I would have had the success I would want, and I don't know if that same mentality and principle even apply in this context, or contexts like this one, either.
It isn't like I'm avoiding work. I'm just avoiding bullshit. I really enjoy meaningful work. It just isn't lined up nicely for me, and I don't know how to line it up. I don't know how to enmesh my goals with the goals and inferences of all those around me. I think this is at least in part an autistic problem.
I think I also made John angry. He realized I wasn't there to pick up some cords. It wasn't like he didn't have the time to do it (he was complaining all day about not having shit to do). I think it was the fact that I have found a way around it, and he has not. Not everyone gets to do what I do. I will try to stay on his good side though.
I also noticed earlier today that Chris-M did not trust my measurement. When and why does he change his mind? I wish I understood.
I'm doing what I can with what I have. This isn't the best fit for me, I can see.
!! Break
I don't recall. Snap. I forgot to do this.
!! Why do you prefer text to other mediums of expression?
I think you can express yourself with precision and clarity in writing. Writing is an incredibly flexible medium as well. It enables you to build very complex object-oriented structures. That is hard to replace or replicate in other mediums. Granted, there is something mechanical and cold appearing about plain text, but you can always make visual art with it as well if you are so inclined.
Essentially, some languages are simply more expressive and efficient than others. Writing doesn't "touch the heart" of many people, but that likely means there is something wrong with them. I grant, in an immediate sense, it may not be the best for them at the moment, but it could be. It would just take a bit of practice and work.
* [[2017.09.28 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** No explanation, good job.
* [[2017.09.28 - Wiki Review Log]]
** Super Happy Fun Times, ftw.
* [[2017.09.28 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** The book is excellent.
* [[2017.09.28 - Pipefitting Log]]
** Today wasn't as fun.
* [[2017.09.28 - Dream Log]]
** Hiding. I'm doing that often.
I need to buy Eth every month. Just schedule it. This is a worthy investment, imho.<<ref "2018.12.12">>
---
Also, I can't find my pipefitting to do list for 2017!! This is killing me. I hope I didn't lose it.
---
<<footnotes "2018.12.12" "It's a shame I didn't have money to invest. Being poor sucks. This is not a meritocracy.">>
* Woke before alarm
* Worked hard
* Stopped listening to //Redemption in Inidigo// at the third to last chapter.
** It was a Stephenson disappointment. I don't know how to satisfying finish that book anyways. I saw it coming; the name alone. It failed, hard. But, I'm glad I "read" what I did.
* Started listening to //The Nix//.
** Terrifyingly real to me. Hilarious too.
* Talked to JRE
* Cannabliss
* Bath of the Gods!
* Tacos
* Writing
* Talked to the kids about my new goals:
** [[The Year of Philosophy Tutoring]]
** [[The Month of Mathematics Tutoring]]
** I want to complete the Month after my job is done.
* Writing
* Venture Bros to fall asleep.
I walked through the turnstile, since it was Saturday. That was the last procedure I was given. No vans showed up. It got late enough that I decided to walk the 200 yards to our area of the plant. The van passed me on the way. I am told the driver called us walkers dumbasses. I think it was a practical solution to my superior's failure to communicate. Nobody has said anything directly to me, and there weren't any announcements so far.
It is still unclear if Chester will be leaving the job, which I've heard is quite untypical (which makes sense).
This morning was a furious flurry of activity. Chris-M and I were asked to make the cuts instead of the fitters on the site yesterday. This was an emergency. We then had to absolutely rush to make the rest of the bevel because they wanted it mounted immediately. Let me toot my own horn again: I can fucking bevel. I can sculpt with that grinder. I'm getting a knack for using the right size grinder and switching between rock and tiger paw at the right time as well.
Also, the A5 crew were brought to A1 to finally begin mounting and rigging up the saddle piece way up on the riser. I think Dave was still unhappy about the area I did my cleanup grind on the riser, but I believe I covered the right space. It doesn't matter, I had an emergency to deal with (he agreed) and so he sent 2 others to work on. Yet again, I believe they will run into scaffold problems on the left side. The welders have been warned by me. Everyone seems to hate our scaffold builders and for good reason.
!! Break!
So, we spent over 3 hours trying to fit this thing into place. There was an obstructing I-beam that made it so we couldn't drop it into place. At which point, I said we should just take the saddle off the pipe and mount the saddle individually. Greg raised his hand, and then had to tell me, give me a high-5. He said that is exactly what they should be doing, but that nobody was going to listen since David Lobour has been calling the shots with Chester, asking us to dumb and dangerous things.
This was pretty awful. I stayed out of it and talked instead. The riser of the main was untacked at the base, and they used come-alongs and pry bars to eventually squeeze it into place. Now, I've done this before plenty of times with smaller pipe, but this was dumb and dangerous. They also used the fucking scaffold as the leverage point for 4-by-4's to squeeze it into place. The frame they connected to on the comealong was no designed for this, and they have now mispositioned the header. Any mistake or anything that went wrong was likely going to injure or kill people. Greg and Oliver shook their heads. They walked me through the stupidity of this job in general, yet again. They are right. I'm going to stay safer than we've been.
Greg and Oliver explained that Yates talks the talk on safety, they have all the paperwork to back it up, but then they do shit like this all the time. While better than SMS is many respects, Yates still isn't the quality or safety I'm looking for.
Electrician's Union keeps looking better and better. I need to finish this job, sock a way a ton in the bank, get my NCCER journeyman cert, finish my wiki study on pipefitting, and then move into the electrical trade.
Finding my niche here isn't going to be easy. Keep searching though. This is like playing any video game. I need to see how the classes operate, how they fit together, how they compare, and I need to have some experience with a broad range of them before I can make a good decision. Of course, the analogy isn't perfect. There are too many classes and subclasses, etc. I can't learn the entire game, but only a sliver of it. I must made inductive judgment calls all over the place. Do your best, h0p3.
Lunch started late, 12:15 for me. Cool beans.
!! Lunch!
And, the fitup was complete. The flanges aren't square, but Chris-M thinks they are damned close. We moved onto getting that shit tacked and then removing the bolts. This is why I think there is something very wrong, btw. We had a monster of a time getting bolts out of one side. It was not a nice fit. The scaffold, again, sucks balls. It's narrowness, in this case, made our work even more dangerous since the piece was liable to pop and swing out. It took a lot of prying, chain fall, and crane work, but we got them out. We got the piece out of there, cleaned up, and left the welders to finish the job on the saddle.
Afterwards, we began some work on threadolets meant to go on the 4 tie-in pipes to the header. These are not on the drawings, but have been an afterthought they decided to have us add. I'm told this is quite normal. It was pretty normal as SMS too, imho.
!! Break!
I made my layout marks for the threadolets. I adore my centerfinder. I wish such tools could have levels in all 3 directions.
I then had to find a way to draw 2 hope lines around the base of the riser with a trunion. It isn't level. It is a hard problem if you want to be accurate
!! Where do you think VR is going?
I'd broaden this to include reality augmentation, which can be a form of VR or not, but the principle is the same. We build for ourselves experience machines. That's the ticket, yo. We are constantly building experience machines for ourselves. It's about giving ourselves the Narratival Drugs that satisfy our desires and lead to Eudaimonia the most.
So, I expect to see more and more immersive worlds. Video games have led the way for a long time. They've understand how to tap into the addictive parts of out brains with skinner boxes. These drugs aren't illegal, not yet. We will see. Asian Hyperclasses try to coerce their prole workforce into not playing video games through censorship and illegalizing.
I think those who control the internet will have enormous influence into how VR evolves, I hate to say. It bottlenecks us.
Hello world. I am [[h0p3]]. I am rebooting my life. Sometimes life feels like an impossible task, the //Non sequitur// of //non sequiturs//. I am not stable, but I feel certain I need hope. Hope must be the zeroth of axioms. Hope is the spark of autonomy. It is who I am and who I will be. There is a fire in my belly, and I am hungry again. I must find the musical signal in the noisy chaos. I am an existential beast, and this is the Cartesian [[nexus|Nexus]] of my gritty unification. ("Bootloader complete!") Welcome to my wiki!<<ref "1">>
I'm not sure how to define this wiki. This is my tiny corner of the internet. It's basically a semi-formal blog in wiki format that I use as a stream-of-consciousness journal and thought-sandbox. It's a collection of [[projects|Projects on this Wiki]] and narratives of who I was, who I am, and who I think I should be.<<ref "2">> This wiki is an application of those famously axiomatic, aphoristic maxims: "[[Know Thyself]]" and "[[Virtue is Knowledge]]." I'm here to examine my life (and I hope to find it worth living).
Okay, why a wiki?
Well, the dimensionality and programmability of this wiki medium is well-suited to the way I think (imho, the way we all think [maybe there are better tools]) because:
# This wiki allows me to nest the web of my thoughts, beliefs, desires, feelings, definitions, inferences, theories, paradigms, etc. in a non-linear way.
# I can mirror my [[reality map|Reality map]] onto these wiki-pages; i.e. the wiki allows me to reify and consciously object-orientify my reality map.
# This is an attempt to isomorphically link my reality map to a representative set of words that I can more objectively explore.
# It gives me a detailed and structured self-shadow for analysis and restructuring; it is an existential mirror I can gaze into.
# It's a therapeutic mind-mapping and pattern-recognition tool; it is a vehicle for philosophical meditations.
# It is existential equipment for me;<<ref "3">> it is a lifetool for living a contemplative life.
This wiki has opened up a better way to express myself in self-reflection. While I'm still figuring out how to harness this self-reflection, and I don't yet know the direction of this wiki,<<ref "4">> I do at least know //why // I am learning and using this existential equipment:
The goal of this wiki is to make myself explicit to myself. I'm here to have a conversation with myself. I'm creating an evolving communication feedback loop between myself and this wiki. In an important way, this may be just what [[conscious experience|Consciousness]] is like (although traditionally entirely in one's mind), and I want to make sure I afford myself the opportunity to think about my thoughts on a higher order and to more objectively inspect the narratives I tell myself. This wiki is where I get to hear myself think. I want to learn from my own writing.
Writing this wiki gives me the chance to openly evaluate my own definitions, feelings, intuitions, and the consistency-levels in my web of beliefs and inferences. In here, I am compelled to serialize my internal data, transfer it onto these pages, run analysis algorithms on it, and rewrite these pages (rinse and repeat). I hope I am writing a "philosophical program" to teach myself the results of my analysis, to hold my analysis accountable by opensourcing it, and to see further in myself. It is an experiment in public consciousness. Importantly, I'm making myself explicit because I'm searching for epiphany, paradigm shifts, and catharsis. Ultimately, in making myself explicit, I hope to shape myself, to empathize with myself, and to make myself happier through reason. This is as much a practical exercise as it is a theoretical one. I desperately need it too.
I'm experiencing severe existential crisis and depression, and I have been for a while.<<ref "5">> I've been thrashing around and drowning at sea while trying to build an existential liferaft from nothing but myself. I hope I have found the right [[metamodern|Metamodernism]] vehicle to save myself from drowning; I think I have. This wiki is a lifetool; it will help me build that liferaft. I have disintegrated, and I hope this lifetool will aid in my reintegration.
This wiki is meant to be an existential laboratory, a safe space where I freely deliberate with myself, where I peel myself apart through analysis and integrate myself through synthesis. Here I attempt to systematically weave the weft and warp of my intuitions into a consistent and meaningful whole (for myself). I will escape my crisis by consolidating and shaping my personality or reality map into a new (improved, happier) version of myself. I will collect myself, organize my internal structures, focus, and redirect myself. I hope this lifetool will help me existentially reconstitute myself. It sounds grandiose, but I really am in the fight for my life.
So far, I have been living for my children.<<ref "6">> As much as I want to die, I can't do that to them. They need me, and I can't help them if I'm not there for them. I care about their lives. Their happiness is my happiness. I do care about my happiness. I care about my life, and that's why I write this wiki. The hardwork that goes into this wiki is meant to benefit them, and thus as a means to my children as my ends, also the real, authentic me: the "me" identity which persists through time. I am here to empathize with and help that person.<<ref "7">> I need it.<<ref "8">>
Unfortunately, exactly what counts as me is still not clear (to me [lol, no but seriously: [[Know Thyself]]]). Personal identity is a very tricky set of metaphysical and metaethical problems. We all have common sense understandings of it. Of course, from an instrumental perspective, we simply must have at least some common sense intuitions about these matters to be practical and live in the world. Obviously, just because we have a common sense view doesn't mean it is correct or justified (nor have I established anything categorically normative so far). Unfortunately, [[intuitionism|Intuitionism]] is an inescapable quagmire. It is part of our [[human plight|Human Plight]].
From my research and introspection, it is my opinion that human minds are not monolithic, but rather they are the result of multiple minds (or mind-like processes) joined in cooperation with each other.<<ref "9">> In particular, our brains have a strong regional divide in them between what I call the [[Fastmind]] and the [[Slowmind]].<<ref "10">> The Slowmind is found in our frontal lobes. The Slowmind is our primary CPU. That's where the grind happens. The Fastmind is the storage unit of our intuition data (where we store the rainbow tables of our Slowmind's grind). It is where we store, habituate, and train our fastest deep learning neural networks; it is where virtue-data is stored.<<ref "11">> This is the place in the human brain that virtuous experts rely upon; it is the [[submind]] they query to intuitively come up with the right answers in the blink of an eye. We all do this, and I believe I rely heavily upon intuition as an INTJ.
I am convinced that the Fastmind is composed of different [[Intuition networks]] which may themselves be minds of sorts (or at least contain the content of our reality maps, the gutteral data input to our Slowmind algorithm). These intuition networks can sit in conflict with each other, and I believe at least two of mine are at war. I refer to one of my intuition networks as the [[Redpilled Intuition Network]] (RPIN) and the other as the [[Kantian Intuition Network]] (KIN). My intuitions are deeply incompatible with each other: it's why I feel ripped in half. The cataclysm between RPIN and KIN has been the epicenter of my existential crisis.
I can see the collision between my competing intuition networks; they are the tectonic plates colliding on my reality map. I must find the answer. I must find the antidote. I am in a race with myself to diffuse the bomb inside me before I self-destruct. The core of my computer network is crashing, and I have to hack it back together in this space. I must compatibilize them. I must find peace and agreement between them. Hopefully, I will be able to meet myselves halfway in this wiki. I must find the anchors to which both intuition networks can tether. I need to let the collisions between my competing intuition networks happen on the pages of this wiki rather than in myself. I can feel detached from it, at least a smidgen. I need that space to solve the problem. This wiki is a scaffold around myself, an operating room. Paradoxically, I am the operator(s) and operatee(s). Through self-surgery ("scalpel!"), I must unify myself. I must rewrite my lifestory and stitch together who I was and who I will be with someone I can accept and empathize with.
I hope that having a conversation with myself will be the real fix. In addition to the standard evolving pages of this wiki (and hopefully myself), there will be a unique dialogue in this wiki. I will have an overt philosophical and practical dialogue between myselves; I will engage in the Platonic tradition by animating my [[RPIN the Psychopathic Pragmatist|RPIN]] and [[KIN the Empathic Idealist|KIN]] selves as characters. RPIN and KIN will engage in an existential [[dialectic|Dialectic]]. It is a kind of roleplaying with or in myself, a way to offload myselves into a hypothetical social sphere to inspect. RPIN and KIN are virtual machines that I'm hosting, and I am the penetration tester (I realize the analogy is far from perfect). Sometimes I may need to be an observer, like I would watching a movie or reading a book, and think about these characters from a dissociated standpoint where I learn to empathize with myselves (sounds dangerous, [[Operatoree]]).
Sometimes I feel like RPIN and KIN are on my shoulders; RPIN is the devil, and KIN is the angel. When I can't resolve the conflict, when they don't agree, then I must choose one. How do I know which one is actually correct though? I don't know. I have to try to find an answer. It is an awful, weird feeling to be so unable to trust yourself. I must identify and empathize with my persisting identity, then I must empathize with these characters, and maybe help them empathize with each other. If I cannot convince them, then I have to empathize with the need for the conflict in myself. I'm hoping this is how I can heal myself.
In my self-reflection, I hope to engage in a process of respectful internal adversarialism which will help me logically, rationally, kindly, and empathically resolve my internal conflict. My competing intuition networks must find peace with each other. My mother says that one mark of a genius is the ability to simultaneously hold two diametrically opposed ideas (despite the irrationality of a literal interpretation, there seems to be a ring of intuitive truth to the spirit of her claim). Unfortunately, I can't hold on much longer (I'm just not that smart). My only hope is to weld these opposing ideas, the //Doxa// of //doxa// and the //Doxa// of //praxis//, together inside the crucible of this wiki. I don't want to be a genius (or even half of one). I just want peace and happiness. Please. So, paradoxically, this is me throwing my gauntlet down at everything, including myselves. I'm going to unify myself or die trying. This is the empathization of my internal war for the sake of self-peace.
I hope that by mirroring my reality map onto this wiki, I will be able to coordinate my opposing [[intuition networks|Intuition Networks]], find compromises between them, and make them compatible with each other. My goal is to hierarchically re-intregate myself. I must decisively align my many orders of desires and beliefs in a resounding commitment, securing conformity between them, and wisely synchronizing and unifying them. I'm reprogramming myself. I seek to be an authentic, autonomous, unified, and whole person. I hope this wiki is a reforming, healing, cleansing, therapeutic, reifying, rationalizing, and vindicating existential programming instrument or development environment through which I resolve conflicts in myself,<<ref "12">> clear my vision, discover fitting lifepaths over time, and hopefully find happiness.
Essentially, in my analysis of my first existential axioms, those truisms: [[Know Thyself]] and [[Virtue is Knowledge]], I hope I have taken up two other axioms, namely: [[Empathize with Yourself]] and [[Program Yourself]]. [[Empathize with Yourself]] is the means to employing the [[Categorical Imperative]], a necessary decision procedure engine we rely upon to know what is virtuous. Further, [[Program Yourself]] is the means to long-term happiness. Both my starting axioms are clearly deeply related to these two new ones.
<<<
[[RPIN]]: Whoa. Hold up. By implementing the Categorical Imperative [[Our Dear Programmer]] [[(h0p3)|h0p3]] is clearly begging the question in favor of [[KIN]].
<<<
<<<
[[KIN]]: You get to call me out when I'm being a hypocrite though. We aren't in the liar's paradox; you're facing the opposite. You know that if I'm following the method (can I actually directly hide anything from you, from myself? I'm not talking about denial through indirect doxastic voluntarism either), that I must empathize with you. Even if you are psychopathic, I'd need to empathize with you. We have established nothing in the Categorical Imperative otherwise. You know I have to give you a fair shake. I'm worth trusting because you can see how I really feel: you know me. You have to trust me; you have to trust yourself.
<<<
<<<
[[RPIN]]: Call me paranoid. Fine. I have seen true Kant scholars, and not one can clearly defend empathizing with psychopaths. I do not have reasons to believe you will empathize with me. How will you [[Empathize with a Psychopath]]? I will at least admit this: it seems very logical to empathize with yourself. That is clearly what it means to care about your persistent identity. It is clear to me that I am a persisting identity. I buy the [[Program Yourself]] axiom. We can't afford to be impulsive. We must maximize the scope of our utility calculation; we must yet again ("Pinky") engage in long-term planning.
<<<
<<<
[[KIN]]: It seems obvious to me that you cannot [[Program Yourself]] if you don't at least [[Know Thyself]]. It seems further obvious that to [[Know Thyself]] just is to [[Empathize with Yourself]].
<<<
<<<
[[RPIN]]: I am not foolish enough to assume knowledge of a mind is empathizing with that mind. Some psychopaths can have excellent theories of mind but elect to empathize only when it benefits them (because they are empathizing with their future selves). Ultimately, I agree to [[Know Thyself]], of course, but that does not mean we can logically derive [[Empathize with Yourself]]. That is to say to say: you have not established the categorical claim that we ought to feel the emotions and consequent motivations which go along with our knowledge. That is not obviously utility maximizing. Also, don't you know our [[Slowmind]] love's utilitarianism (that's where it is found)? Face it: Kantianism only exists in the Fastmind. You are a slave, you are not the rational, you are epiphenomal, you are not the most rational part of ourselves.
<<<
<<<
[[KIN]]: It is true that I don't care about utility maximizing until after the [[Good Will]]. This is not an accident. It is the only thing which is unconditionally good. But, you are right: the Frontal Lobes problem is huge. I do not know how to answer that. See? I am empathizing with you. You know we agree on the metaethical inferences, you just don't agree to the axioms.
<<<
<<<
[[RPIN]]: That is correct. So, how about this: [[Program Yourself]] is talking about the only kind of freedom we have. You have seen the neuroscience behind what you call freedom. It doesn't exist. Your freedom is unjustified faith. It is an axiom, and not obviously one I must take up.
<<<
<<<
[[KIN]]: Ugh, yes. The Categorical Imperative, if it is truly rational, must resolve the problem of freedom to make it axiomatic for you. I grant you that is at least one of the fundamental axioms we must show. I think it is the only way to convince you that [[Empathize with Yourself]] is the logical consequence of [[Know Thyself]].
<<<
<<<
[[RPIN]]: Here's the other half of this deep problem: I'm the one who actually agrees to the axiom [[Virtue is Knowledge]]. Your stutterstepped denial of Hanlon's razor shows you only kind of do. More problematically, knowledge is not empathy, and virtue just means excellence. It doesn't mean CI-based moral excellence (again, utility seems an obvious possibility).
<<<
<<<
[[KIN]]: We are trying to program each other. I'm glad we are doing it publicly.
<<<
At this point, I feel compelled to explain what may seem like an odd inconsistency in my approach to privacy throughout this wiki. Namely, I care so much about privacy (as an ethical and political right) and yet I am obviously oversharing so absurdly publicly (it is perhaps cringeworthy). Well, this is my outlet, an effective conduit between myselves, and there is a method to the madness. This is me putting my money where my mouth is. There is a reason for transparently and openly shaping myself: sunlight is the best disinfectant.
Of course, I'm not saying anyone but me really cares about this wiki. Importantly, even if I might be speaking out in the dark with nobody there to listen, it would still be a good thing that I'm speaking out in the dark. Whether I'm talking to a void, myself, or other, acting as if someone is reading this or may be reading this somehow puts me in the right mindset. It feels like I'm addressing an audience instead of myself, and that helps me better realize how and when I need to be clearer, more rational, and more empathic. It forces me into a mode of public reasoning where I hopefully more fairly and objectively negotiate, integrate, and reprogram myself. Even if nobody is listening to me, I should listen to myself. I need to empathize with myself.
Essentially, this wiki is an accountability-based, high-transparency, cryptographically verifiable implementation of the [[Categorical Imperative]].<<ref "13">> I have to ask myself in a space of actual public reasoning (not merely the hypothetical possible world or moral courtroom we enter into in our internal implementations of the Categorical Imperative) if this is who I ought to be, if this is what I ought to do, if rational persons //in my position //would agree to my claims, acts, and intentions. Think about it: if we all wrote our journals and shaped ourselves in public, wouldn't the world be a better place and wouldn't people in general be better people? I am no exception. So, while I respect privacy rights (and find them exceedingly necessary for our world), I'm electing to relinquish mine because I feel compelled by practical wisdom.
The practical point is this: I want to construct my narrative, edit my reality map, and shape my personality in a public setting directly because it's much harder to confabulate "reasons" to selfishness (or other mistakes) when people are paying attention.<<ref "14">> Intellectual and moral integrity is all about trying to apply standards we believe rational people independent of us would accept and use.<<ref "15">> This is an application of the golden rule, and essentially, of empathizing with the rational, and of loving wisdom ([[Virtue is Knowledge]]).
Even if only for myself, ''I h0p3'':
*I hope this wiki develops into an evolving internet rabbithole, a grounds for me to explore and adapt.
*I hope this self-dialectic blooms into insight porn and footnote paradise.
* I hope I can "get it out of me" here.
*I hope this is a place to get to know me (even if only for me to accept myself).
*I hope this is a place to explicitly see my reality map in words and to see that landscape improve (and my life with it).
*I hope I effectively communicate with myself in open, curious, charitable, and humble self-reflection.
*I hope this wiki is a Living Document.
*I hope this is the place where I wisely mediate and reconcile the differences between my practical ([[RPIN]]) and idealistic ([[KIN]]) [[intuition networks|Intuition Networks]].
*I hope I re-invent myself and plan my grind through life and cognitive dissonance in this existential laboratory.
* I hope to be a jedi metagamer of my life, to be practically "meta" about my existence, to play the game of life like a video game I'm obsessed with, and to more successfully engage in the practice of [[metaliving]]; thus perhaps I want this to be a Metaliving Document.
*I hope I can become a [[eudaimonic lifehacker|Eudaimonic Lifehacker]] who is existentially fulfilled (perhaps in seeking the Dao of Gödel).
*I hope that one day this [[About|About, a.k.a. The Opening of the Rabbit Hole]] page is happier in both appearance and //telos//.
*I hope I am [[h0p3]].
Wherever this hermeneutic circle (or spiral) takes me, as part of this continual existential process of rebirthing and reawakening, I will engage in the practice of programming myself and my reality. My goal is to be [[autonomous|Autonomy]] and authentic. I want to be my own programmer. I want to be the author of my life. I want to be the legislator of my own laws (literally what autonomy means). I want to be free and happy. I'm here to fight for that freedom and to stoically accept in empathy what I can't control.
Needless to say, this wiki is currently (and hopefully often and always) under construction. Expect wiki-pages to be created, edited, and removed.<<ref "16">> This wiki is a living document (and a document for metaliving; I suppose it sounds weird to call it a Living Metaliving Document). Since I change, so will my wiki. The organization of this wiki is constantly in flux as I try to reposition the jigsaw pieces of my reality map.
Problematically, I am often wrong. Do you hear me? //''__Listen__''//: ''I am going to be wrong on this wiki because I am often wrong IRL.'' The whole point of the wiki is to help me distinguish what is right from what is wrong. Be gracious! Be empathic! Be understanding! You can't be perfect (no one can), even though you should strive to be. Please understand the wiki as an //evolving// thing (just like our lives). Do your best (paradoxically, who doesn't?).
To only add confusion to the problem: I often fail to say what I really mean, and much of my work looks like a jumble (I'm sorry). I'd like to warn you in advance: I am prone to employ and develop a jargony personal language on this wiki in order to be laconic, unambiguous, and maximize the space and detail of my expressivity (even if only with and for myself). Sometimes I need to be as exacting with myself as I can be.
---
<<footnotes "1" "It was initially written specifically for [[2016.10.17 - Letter to Mom and Dad]]. However, it became clear to me that part of my deep conflict with them is also a deep conflict within myself. This wiki could and should be much more than a letter to my parents. After more reflection, I have realized this wiki was inspired by some other lifetools I've used, e.g. my <a href='h-book.7z'>H-book</a> (with <a href='h-book.sum'>checksum</a> and <a href='h-book.sum.sig'>sig</a>). I'm sure it looks crazy (this //is// the internet). Good luck and godspeed to anyone reading this.">>
<<footnotes "2" "That sounds ridiculously narcissistic. I really don't mean it that way. Unfortunately, journals have to be egocentric in a way, but that doesn't make them narcissistic tools. Really, my statement is an aspiration, not a claim that I've achieved anything worth reading. I'm well aware of the fact that writing an autobiography borders on outrageous lunacy. Admittedly, I want to steer away from that //icky//, ludicrous, lack of humility. I must say it up front: of course, I run the risk of going off the deep end here. At the very least, I don't want this wiki to be a: rambling vanity trap, public masturbation session, absurd pile of emo-bullshit, diatribe, agitprop, manipulative virtue-signal, popularity contestant, newage holytext, self-defeating piece of self-help, mere language game, delusional confabulation, useless maze, descent into madness, or a tool used for evil things. But, ultimately, I need to take my life seriously at some level. Unfortunately, because I'm a 'quirky' (or insane) mama-jama, I need a very low-level, detailed, highly structured, hierarchical understanding of life and myself, from the ground up. So, I'm not here to convince anyone but myself, but I also don't think I'm doing anything morally wrong by taking my life so seriously.">>
<<footnotes "3" "I am not a Heidegger scholar. I am fascinated by what he is doing though. To be as precise as I can (with the caveat of my poor and corrupted understanding of Heidegger), I see this wiki as a unique kind of equipment that serves as a portal between [[ready-to-hand|[[Ready-to-Hand]] and [[present-at-hand|Present-at-Hand]] modes for me, i.e. a [[RtH-PaH-portal]]. Some things jerk us out of the ready-to-hand into the present-at-hand mode (and some the other direction, and perhaps some in both directions). Not all [[RtH-PaH-portals|RtH-PaH-portal]] have the same destinations (there may be many different instances, aspects, or points of view one can 'arrive at' in either mode). I suspect what things count as portals (and the function-rules which map their destinations) are different for everyone, but there may also be natural portal patterns that arise in a species of creatures with very similar brain structures. In any case, some of those portals bring us into a present-at-hand mode in which Dasein is [[thinking about thinking|Thinking About Thinking]] and [[thinking about existence|Thinking About Existence]]. This wiki is one of those more existentially focused/destined [[RtH-PaH-portals|RtH-PaH-portal]] which I'm purposely trying to use. I must heighten my self-awareness like Goku with his martial art (/cringe). I need equipment for bringing me into a scientifically (because we can't get Husserl's core: certainty) philosophical mindset about my existentence. I need equipment when I arrive at that destination to do my work in there. There is a ready-to-handedness (RtHness) I'm trying to cultivate in my present-at-handedness (PaHness) towards my existence. I need to make it easier to be self-reflective and existential, to the point that it is a reflex. I need to be a master of it (10,000 hours, they say) to the point that it becomes unproblematic, fundamental, ingrained, and the natural way of doing it for me. I need that RtHness, being 'in the zone,' while I'm being existential. I hope this wiki is that special equipment, acting as an existential portal for me.">>
<<footnotes "4" "If I knew all of 'what' was supposed to be written in this wiki, then I probably wouldn't even need to write it in the first place. I am searching in the desert. At best, I'm both working backwards and building a foundation hoping to find my next real move somewhere in the middle.">>
<<footnotes "5" "I could not have survived thus far if it weren't for my spouse, [[JET]], the rock of //my //ages. In her empathy and love, Christ shines through and cries out from her. I don't have the words necessary to explain my debt to her. All I can say is: I love you. Thank you.">>
<<footnotes "6" "That doesn't mean I'm doing a good job. It just means that is the only reason I'm still alive for now. If I'm lucky, I'll find more reasons to complement this last intrinsic one I have.">>
<<footnotes "7" "Even if only instrumentally for my children for the time being.">>
<<footnotes "8" "No one else can do it for me. No one can empathize with myself effectively enough. This one is up to me, myself, and I.">>
<<footnotes "9" "Just as modern computers are really multiple computers working together, I think our brains contain more than one mind. In a real way, I'm asking myself how I, as a bio-sack computer, with emotions, responsibilities, and existential agency, should program myself given the context in which I find myself.'' [[RPIN]]: Yes, Frankl, I hear you.''">>
<<footnotes "10" "Neuroscience, yo, back me up. Don't fail me now because you know it's true.">>
<<footnotes "11" "I am not a blank slate (//tabulsa rasa//). I come with innate categories built into me by evolution (more like //tabula inscripta//). I have also lived through many circumstances, and I've a habituated/trained my intuitions, which reside in the gutteral, faster-acting parts of my brain. As a corollary to the rejection of// tabula rasa//, I must admit that I'm not engaging in Cartesian solipsism. I hope this wiki is a [[Metamodern]] solipsism, where I cast doubt and generate reason from a non-empty bottom/foundation and perform surgery on myself given what I have, with a changing stance toward what I need.">>
<<footnotes "12" "And possibly with others.">>
<<footnotes "13" "Kant was right on so many levels, but he could not have envisioned every dimension to Dasein's problem.">>
<<footnotes "14" "Let us be clear. I'm not saying there aren't good or right reasons to be selfish. I must be open, for example, to the possibility that egoism is not only descriptively accurate but also prescriptively appropriate. Begging the question otherwise would lack integrity. However, it would also lack integrity to simply jump into the egoist pool without having demonstrated fitting public reasons (I realize, I find myself in a paradoxical problem wherein I must define //fitting//, and perhaps this problem is inescapably subjective; I have to at least try to be objective though [Even more paradoxically, I may even discover in my pursuit of objectivity {which is strikingly modern and perhaps post-modern deconstruction} that I cannot or should not seek objectivity].).">>
<<footnotes "15" "As always, so much can be embedded or smuggled in our definition of 'rationality.' It is important to see that when a rational person fully empathizes (which never practically happens, but we should take up the theoretical stance here) with a target person, the rational person may actually change their mind about what the target ought to do. Thus, the Categorical Imperative has a strong theoretical assumption which can never be fully practiced. We can't literally walk up to the virtuous agent and fully describe our circumstances, and thus they can't be certain they have found a universalizable maxim for us.">>
<<footnotes "16" "If that bothers you (and I don't know why, since this is my document), then keep your own records and timestamps (with verification). I do. Missing parts of the chronology of this journal (which seems very un-journal-like) seems odd. Here's my justification: //who I am// and //who I was// should sometimes be different persons (sometimes, not always). Whereas, //who I am// and //who I will be// should not. I'll analyze and make-use-of my past, but I will identify with my current+future self. It's what I need to do.">>
The Fremen saved for generations to transform the face of Arrakis into their paradise. I hope to save for mere years to achieve a plot of land and house that I can legitimately call my dream home.
---
One story
--OR two stories, but w/ balcony
Extra wide doors
Signs for all the rooms
Excellent soundproofing
A musical wall where instruments are stored
Desks w/ comfy seats
Three or four bedrooms + a barracks
**Barracks: Beds to the ceiling; each bed w/own drawers & electrical outlets/pseudo desk (little Japanese containers)
***The barracks should be technically long-term livable; up to 12 ppl
All around the house porch - maybe part should be shutterable - comfy seats
3 bathrooms - one large Master, one general, one barracks
Combined living room/study/library
**Pool table in the living room
A badass aquarium, designed into/part of the house, like in the wall, and you need like a scuba suit to clean out, that [[h0p3]] is responsible for taking care of
Tiered theater - giant-ass tv/projector, comfy sofas &/or recliners
---
* Rooms
** Foyer/lobby
*** Store shoes, coats, umbrellas, etc. Take a load off, or get ready to go.
** Basement
*** Easy place to create our own secret space after the home has been built.
*** Laundry Area
**** Laundry chutes from bathrooms and rooms. Make life easy.
**** Two washers and dryers.
**** Alternatively, we build the Laundry area at the center of the house and have chutes in that direction.
** Kitchen+Dining Area
*** Stainless, long-lasting appliances.
*** Industrial dishwashing
*** Deep freeze
** Living Room
** 3 Bedrooms
** Barracks
*** 3-Tier Custom Bunks, with bottom mattress, literally being on the floor.
**** Very sizable gel-based twin mattresses
*** Two sets of bunks. Tiny room.
* Aesthetic, Details, etc.
** Walls
*** Prefer minimal walls, more open spaces.
*** Obviously, we're going log cabin all the way. So, wood.
**** Don't forget to store extra wood of the same kind/type/batch
*** Could have modular kinds of walls. We build the house perimeter, and walls are something we construct later.
** Floors
*** Hardwood, stone, or very nice mixed stone/concrete.
** Doors
*** Cat doors on all doors that allow cats to get through. I want nice heavy doors.
*** Red Front Door
*** Indoor are all Long-handled
**** Lockable with simple picks
*** Prefer doorless in most walkways
*** Cat Doors
**** Autolocking catdoor that can only be unlocked with RFIDish collartag.
** Windows
*** Polarized to block all light
*** Mirrored for privacy
*** Shutters
*** Massive in size; could even take up entire walls for all I care.
*** Very sturdy
*** Needs to be highly insulative. Perhaps 3-trip pane with vacuums in between?
* Laundry Chutes
** I want it to be easy to move laundry. Make life easy.
* Heat/Cooling
** I want a wood stove to heat the house incase fo the apocalypse. I don't need a fireplace, hearth, etc. I just want the backup.
** Amazing Central Aircon
** Are there natural, low cost ways to cool houses? What are they?
* Security
** Solar-powered security cameras, motion sensors, etc.
* Networking
** Network/Server/Control/Security Room Closet
*** Locked, requires a real key
** 10GBit Ethernet throughout the house
** A solid wifi system with major coverage.
*** Spend some serious time and money on it.
** Preferred VM Firewall, transportable to new hardware, etc.
** Check to see if we can run fiber to the house.
** Long-range wifi anywhere on the property
** Mile-long connection to remote router/modem (gives us options for where we live, although makes us dependent)
** 4G/5G access. Failover and binding.
* Bathrooms
** 3 Full
** Urinal - automated
** Long toilet (fat people in my family)
** Built-in Bidet (in one of them)
** Flowing sinks with deep basins.
** Floor drains
** Laundry shoot
** Serious cabinetry and storage
** Easy-clean surfaces
** Giant vertical drop down shower
** One-way mirror/glass or "opaque" color on outside but still seethrough from the inside, large for the bathrooms.
* Roof
** Appearance is irrelevant. Function is absolutely everything
** Solar where possible
** I want it to last forever and be easy to repair.
** I want to avoid cleaning it as much as possible.
** Funnel water into a cistern or other. Make use of the rain.
** Would love a rooftop guardtower/belltower/lookout area.
* Geography
** Preferably in/next to the woods. Few if any neighbors, but just enough that we can get utilities.
** Living next to a body of water would be amazing.
*** Pond for fishing
*** A lake would be insane. Maybe expensive.
*** Creek/River for mobility, power generation, water source, and because it is cool
** Preferably on top of a hillside
** Would be great to have goats, bees, and cats (cats a must)
** Prefer the chance to purchase more land if we wanted
* External aesthetic and utility
** Electrical outlets scattered around outside. Built-in retractable extension cords even better.
** Patio entrance
* The Shop
** Wildflowers or Vines externally
** Fuel tanks
** Prep storage
** Safehouse/basement for Tornadoes
*** For funnsies could have secret tunnel =)
* The Greenhouse
* The Pool/Garden
* The Yard
** Rainwater can be automatically directed to our trees, bushes, and used to irrigate our garden.
** Significant tree line. Perhaps plant quite a few of our own.
*** Would love to plant trees that grow fruit and nuts especially. A pseudo-orchard would be nice.
*** Oaks, cherries, mulberries, walnut, etc.
*** 1 maple
*** Must be hardy through different seasons. Preferably can live without much water or in intense heat, global warming.
** Vineyard area.
** Corn, X, tomatoes (three sisters)
** Berry bushes
* Driveway
** Automagically lit
** Prefer something resistant to ice. Treelines help. Severe treeline or bushes is nice too.
** Parking should be double lane and circular.
* Prep lunches
* Prep clothes
* Cannabliss<<ref "2018.12.12">>
* DCK
* Write, Write, Write!
* E-mail Johanna for shoes and gangbox.
* Clean my room
* Go out to eat
* Setup Auto-Eth Buy
* Sex, etc.
* Work on the Tree for the wiki
* Get my NCCER books out. Bring the first book to work. Find time to study each day.
---
<<footnotes "2018.12.12" "Seems like the opposite of serendipity. The timing could not have been worse. Yet, {[[About]]} is clearly evolved for it as well. At least something valuable emerged from this sadness.">>
* [[2017.09.29 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** Phrasing, Boom.
* [[2017.09.29 - Wiki Review Log]]
** I didn't miss any super happy fun times, although I missed out on scheduled Informing of the Men.
* [[2017.09.29 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** Try drawing that explanation.
* [[2017.09.29 - /b/]]
** Go VR!
* [[2017.09.29 - Pipefitting Log]]
** Edited. I failed to write about my last 2 of 10 hours.
!! Logs:
* [[2017.10.01 - /b/]]
* [[2017.10.02 - /b/]]
* [[2017.10.03 - /b/]]
* [[2017.10.06 - /b/]]
* [[2017.10.10 - /b/]]
* [[2017.10.12 - /b/]]
* [[2017.10.13 - /b/]]
* [[2017.10.14 - /b/]]
* [[2017.10.15 - /b/]]
* [[2017.10.16 - /b/]]
* [[2017.10.17 - /b/]]
* [[2017.10.19 - /b/]]
* [[2017.10.21 - /b/]]
* [[2017.10.23 - /b/]]
* [[2017.10.24 - /b/]]
* [[2017.10.25 - /b/]]
* [[2017.10.26 - /b/]]
* [[2017.10.27 - /b/]]
* [[2017.10.28 - /b/]]
* [[2017.10.29 - /b/]]
* [[2017.10.30 - /b/]]
* [[2017.10.31 - /b/]]
!! Audit:
* I am quite worried about others, what they think of me, and what I think of them in [[/b/]].
* Redpilled as fuck.
* I am dissecting why I believe people are the way they are.
* Starting on the 10th, I have always had something to say here. I feel like it leaks out of me. Instead of having a can-opener for [[Prompted Introspection Log]], sometimes I'm overflowing and bursting in [[/b/]].
* I have noted elsewhere that this is an extremely powerful force in my life. My opinions here permeate the wiki and my life. It's stream-of-consciousness, no doubt.
* I have strong emotional reactions to my writing here.
* [[/b/]] is deeply invested in the outcome of {[[About]]} especially.
!! Log:
* [[2017.10.02 - Apology Log]]
* [[2017.10.03 - Apology Log]]
* [[2017.10.05 - Apology Log]]
* [[2017.10.24 - Apology Log]]
* [[2017.10.25 - Apology Log]]
!! Audit:
* These are still quite emotional for me.
* I'm still struggling with several of these.
* I apologized to my son the most.
!! Logs:
* [[2017.10.01 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.10.02 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.10.03 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.10.04 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.10.05 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.10.06 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.10.07 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.10.08 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.10.09 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.10.10 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.10.11 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.10.12 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.10.13 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.10.14 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.10.15 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.10.16 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.10.17 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.10.18 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.10.19 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.10.20 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.10.21 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.10.22 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.10.23 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.10.24 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.10.25 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.10.26 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.10.27 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.10.28 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.10.29 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.10.30 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.10.31 - Carpe Diem Log]]
!! Audit:
* Mathematics Count: 16
** We took a week off, I started late in the month. We're over halfway through.
* Cannabliss Count: 13
** That is far less than I thought.
** I've just been so busy I don't know if I have time for it.
** It does help me write.
* Inform the Men! Count: 8
** Roughly every 3.875 days. That's almost twice a week, and you had a trip this month.
* Fireman Time! Count: 36
** You horny son-of-a-bitch, lol.
* After losing my job, I can see I've still been quite productive.
** This month has felt difficult, and my chest pains are there, but looking back, I feel like it has actually been easier than the previous month. This is a "break" for me after going balls to the wall for most of the year.
*** Although, I'm still going balls-to-the-wall.
* I need to think about why //The Nix// petered out.
* I've watched more new shows this month than I have in a very long time.
* I've been intentional in talking with people I care about.
* Keeping a morning routine has been very useful. It keeps in the productive spirit, out of depressive tendencies, etc. I think it has been useful to my offspring as well.
* Looking through our food, we really do eat nicely. It might not be pretty, but we eat fun stuff.
** Although, I'm quite worried I'm just getting fatter again.
* I hate to say it, but I'm really picky about my cartoons. It's hard to find narratives that hit me the right way.
* I've done a lot of cleaning and organizing this month. It shows too. The house is nicer looking than it has been in months.
* I've spent a ton of time in front of monster-10.
* I feel like I've lost of the get-up-and-go, go, go, go that I had at the beginning of the month. My pace has languished somewhat.
** D2? You have felt off. I'm not sure. I don't think the kids feel that way. I'm still learning to be a father when they need to be already be a good one. You aren't perfect. Be kind to yourself. Just do your best.
* My son has been using his computer. I'm glad I got that setup for him. It's good to see him back on it. He has been caring for his machine this time. I'm proud of him.
* NCCER has picked up.
* It feels like I've had fewer sexual activities this month, but by Jabba, it was outstanding when I did.
* I should setup VPN clients for the laptop and phone.
* I have done a ton of reading and writing this month. It's been outstanding.
* Books+Art was a wonderful project. I didn't end up making what I thought I'd make, but it turned out awesomely. I'm glad we all contributed to it.
* We're being more careful with our grocery shopping than we have been in the past. We're getting it down to an efficiency level that I like.
* My daughter is still on the quest I've sent her to finish //Dune//. This is getting ridiculous.
* Car troubles, as usual. Lol.
* I think the last half of the month has been more difficult for us than the first half.
** My posts are shorter too, on average.
* I think my children need to follow their morning routines more closely, and I think they need a nightly routine that makes sense.
* The chest tightness has not gone away. But, I've been productive with it. Stoicism.
* I wonder if I need to start taking my probiotics daily. We will try that when the time comes, even though it is expensive.
* I have fallen asleep on the couch almost exclusively. Should I just head back upstairs guaranteed?
** That might just be the best option here. Getting my sleep schedule down cold is perhaps the best option. I can sit there. I hate letting my mind wander, but it may just be the price I need to pay. I'm convinced of it.
*** Alright, To-Do-Listed, that shit.
* I am interested in MB's thoughts on the wiki.
* I like having the kids prep. It requires thinking about what needs to happen, but not having to do all the juggling and more dangerous work. They will get there, of course. I also don't want to run them ragged. We work hard on math.
* I am at my most productive when I'm not watching shows.
** I need to be more careful. I need to master this drug.
* It's interesting that Charlie never calls me. In fact, nobody ever calls me besides my brothers. That is a very a strong signal. People aren't interested enough in talking to me to take the initiative to call; they are other things they value more.
** That makes me sad, but I don't think I'll be changing my behavior that much. I'll change my outlook on what kind of relationship we have. But, I still want to have a relationship, even if it is mostly one-sided.
*** My brother JRE half-joked with me that I don't play "hard-to-get" enough with the people I care about. Hmmm. That requires more thought.
* I very much enjoyed spending time with my brothers in KY. It was wonderful!
** I love you very much.
!! Logs:
* [[2017.10.01 - Family Log]]
* [[2017.10.08 - Family Log]]
* [[2017.10.15 - Family Log]]
* [[2017.10.22 - Family Log]]
* [[2017.10.29 - Family Log]]
!! Audit:
* We did not accomplish many of our goals.
* Sleep and anxiety problems for the adults.
* We clearly enjoyed visiting my brother JRE.
* Kids are feeling happy.
* Mathematics and Books+Art were our major family projects this month.
* My daughter still hasn't finished //Dune//; it's like pulling teeth.
* My son has been writing a lot!
!! Log:
* [[2017.10.01 - Link Log]]
* [[2017.10.03 - Link Log]]
* [[2017.10.04 - Link Log]]
* [[2017.10.05 - Link Log]]
* [[2017.10.06 - Link Log]]
* [[2017.10.07 - Link Log]]
* [[2017.10.08 - Link Log]]
* [[2017.10.10 - Link Log]]
* [[2017.10.11 - Link Log]]
* [[2017.10.13 - Link Log]]
* [[2017.10.14 - Link Log]]
* [[2017.10.15 - Link Log]]
* [[2017.10.16 - Link Log]]
* [[2017.10.17 - Link Log]]
* [[2017.10.18 - Link Log]]
* [[2017.10.20 - Link Log]]
* [[2017.10.21 - Link Log]]
* [[2017.10.22 - Link Log]]
* [[2017.10.23 - Link Log]]
* [[2017.10.24 - Link Log]]
* [[2017.10.25 - Link Log]]
* [[2017.10.26 - Link Log]]
* [[2017.10.27 - Link Log]]
* [[2017.10.28 - Link Log]]
* [[2017.10.29 - Link Log]]
* [[2017.10.30 - Link Log]]
* [[2017.10.31 - Link Log]]
!! Audit:
* This month has been a flood of information.
* I am linking more and more to aggregation sources.
* I've added several archetypal comments, and in doing so, I've had an easier time categorizing the "harder to categorize."
* I continue to have many links for //my dearest//.
** I have a harder time coming up with links for my son, but he is young.
* Archetypal comments allow me to be lazy in my evaluation and commentary.
** This can be a bad thing.
* I have a very wide variety of sources.
** Few standard news sources like Reuters, AJZ, and other cultural/governmental looks though.
*** Is this a bad thing? I only have so much I can look at. I need meta and analysis above all else. I rely upon expertise all around me.
* I feel like I'm controlling the flow, but that I can't truly process it all.
* My anxiety is correlated in timing with my Link Log expression...
* This is stream-of-conscious writing like [[/b/]]
* I've found many rabbitholes and sources this month.
* Increasingly redpilled.
* I have focused a lot on China and Russia.
* It was an extremely productive month. Good job!
!! Log:
* [[2017.10.01 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.10.02 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.10.03 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.10.04 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.10.05 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.10.06 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.10.07 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.10.15 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.10.16 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.10.18 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.10.19 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.10.24 - Pipefitting Log]]
!! Audit:
* This is the first month that I've not been pouring myself into the Pipefitting Log, and that's because this is the first month that I've not been doing pipefitting except for my reading. That was planned to happen, although it came 20 days earlier than expected.
* I now know that I will always need to carry drug-test kits with me. It's the price I pay. My medicine is worth it.
** I realize many people who are irrationally against drug usage find this behavior to be a problem. We sit at an impasse. Your lack of empathy is not my fault. I am not convinced you have what it takes to walk in my shoes either. So, I must dismiss your opinion. I'm sorry. I'm willing to make a rational argument with you over letter-writing (but I'm a dedicated control player; I know when I've already won; I am the shark the takes you to deep waters and drowns you).
* I can see how valuable it was to be able to type my log. It transforms the experience and my day. I need to guarantee that opportunity, and I must hide it from those in authority. Writing is never a good thing in their eyes; it means I'm thinking.
* I have prepared myself to leave at a moment's notice. My tools are packed. The vehicle is ready. My clothes are ready. In an hour, I could be out the door.
** For the first time, I will have an actual full set of pipefitter tools to bring.
* We will see how our taxes, mathematics, wiki audit, and expenditures go. I don't know when I will have a new job.
** I can't guarantee I can work with Yates again, from the sounds of the HR bitch. But, there is another above her who hired me originally. I'm hoping it is her thought that counts.
* I didn't apply to Eastman.
* I have been reading my NCCER books.
** It's been wonderful to see how much I've grown since I first read them and completed the exams.
* I am still working on mathematics with the kids. I would like to complete Trigonometry and then move into the pipefitter math.
!! Log:
* [[2017.10.01 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.10.02 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.10.03 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.10.04 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.10.05 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.10.06 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.10.07 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.10.08 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.10.09 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.10.10 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.10.11 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.10.12 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.10.13 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.10.14 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.10.15 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.10.16 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.10.17 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.10.18 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.10.19 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.10.20 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.10.21 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.10.22 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.10.23 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.10.24 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.10.25 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.10.26 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.10.27 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.10.28 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.10.29 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.10.30 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.10.31 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
!! Audit:
* God damn, these are brief.
** But, they say something valuable to me. It's okay to be brief with yourself. It's not like you weren't busy writing. This [[Yearly Audit Log]] and getting life together after the job is going to have costs associated with it. Also [[/b/]] is doing a ton of heavy lifting that I might otherwise be doing here.
* It feels very hit or miss. I often can't tell what will be a good question until after I've answered it.
* That was hilarious when I asked myself "You feel happiest in your skin when" twice. I totally forgot about it.
** That's probably going to happen again.
* There is some dreaming in here.
* When life smoothes out when this wiki is more stabilized when I have "fewer things to do," this definitely seems like a powerful tool or platform to ask myself questions.
* There is definitely some introspection. I'm asking myself why I am the way that I am.
** I can't always know what the best questions to ask myself will be, and I don't always have time or energy to answer them anyway.
* I think I'm being fairly harsh here.
* I'm usually very interested to hear what my wife thinks about these issues as well.
** It comes up during our family meetings often enough.
* It is clear that I use it to force myself to answer a question that stands out boldly.
** I can't ignore it. I think that's a good thing.
* I am clearly emotionally driven to ask many of these questions.
** Again, we are back to selection criteria considerations.
* Perhaps I need to stop responding to Samwise Gamgee.
** I would give better answers if I were writing to someone I cared more about.
*** Obviously, I'm writing to myself, but sometimes it is hard to get in that frame of mind. Forcing myself to respond to a particular person other than myself is this ghetto substitute for talking to myself.
*** So...what if I address a psychologist?
**** Make it clinical and personal at the same time.
**** What will her name be? (She has to be stupid hot)
***** Melisandre
***** I need her to understand me. I want her to fuck the real me, to love me. She needs to need to need me, etc.
** I could address it to Samwise and Melisandre. Samwise should be this throwaway answer.
** I am pursuing someone's affection, attention, or approval.
*** It should be my own, right? But, it just so happens that it may be necessary to some extent. I don't see a way around empathizing with others narratives to grow my own narrative.
* My short answers feel very much like the kinds of autistic answers I would give a kid. I feel like I know the answer, and I just spit it out. I may often have been right, but I didn't show my work. I never saw the relevance in showing my work. Except, in showing my work, I often came to better understand what I was thinking about. I was forced to see it from many angles.
** I'm fucking up in my writing, clearly.
** There is a way in which addressing someone else just is the best way to address myself, to help myself, to "talk" to myself through a lens as if someone wise and kind who empathized with me were talking to me about my own position.
** When I like my Prompted Introspections at the end of the month, it's because I didn't have that purely autistic moment. Or, at least I laid the necessary breadcrumbs for myself. I did a good job of laying out the skeleton of the problem, and the questions stand out obviously.
* Again, I'm being harsh. This is a fuckton of work. At least you better understand what you are trying to accomplish.
!! Log:
* [[2017.10.03 - To-Do-List Log]]
* [[2017.10.04 - To-Do-List Log]]
* [[2017.10.05 - To-Do-List Log]]
* [[2017.10.07 - To-Do-List Log]]
* [[2017.10.08 - To-Do-List Log]]
* [[2017.10.10 - To-Do-List Log]]
* [[2017.10.11 - To-Do-List Log]]
* [[2017.10.12 - To-Do-List Log]]
* [[2017.10.13 - To-Do-List Log]]
* [[2017.10.14 - To-Do-List Log]]
* [[2017.10.15 - To-Do-List Log]]
* [[2017.10.16 - To-Do-List Log]]
* [[2017.10.17 - To-Do-List Log]]
* [[2017.10.18 - To-Do-List Log]]
* [[2017.10.19 - To-Do-List Log]]
* [[2017.10.20 - To-Do-List Log]]
* [[2017.10.21 - To-Do-List Log]]
* [[2017.10.22 - To-Do-List Log]]
* [[2017.10.23 - To-Do-List Log]]
* [[2017.10.24 - To-Do-List Log]]
* [[2017.10.25 - To-Do-List Log]]
* [[2017.10.26 - To-Do-List Log]]
* [[2017.10.27 - To-Do-List Log]]
* [[2017.10.28 - To-Do-List Log]]
* [[2017.10.29 - To-Do-List Log]]
* [[2017.10.30 - To-Do-List Log]]
* [[2017.10.31 - To-Do-List Log]]
!! Audit:
* First, it's clear that I have far more time to even write this list up this month.
** Second, it has been instrumental in making sure that I do not waste my precious "free time" off of work. I've been quite productive with it.
* Eh, strikethroughs. I'm not ready for them yet.
* It would behoove me to articulate quantified goals rather than nebulous ones.
* This is the first time I've really even made this a habit.
* I did a good job of accomplishing what I set out to do.
** I need to make sure I set out to do stuff that I really should do, to the degree I need to do it, and so on.
* I nixed //The Nix//<<ref "2018.12.13">>
* I develop new routines and monotonies.
* I like that I talk about sex, sleep, food, work, small things, socializing, errands and other drugs/play. This is an interesting mix.
---
<<footnotes "2018.12.13" "It's fascinating to see I came back to this book. I'm glad I did. The darkness was worth it.">>
!! Log:
* [[2017.10.01 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.10.02 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.10.03 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.10.04 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.10.05 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.10.06 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.10.07 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.10.08 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.10.09 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.10.10 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.10.11 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.10.12 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.10.13 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.10.14 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.10.15 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.10.16 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.10.17 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.10.18 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.10.19 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.10.20 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.10.21 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.10.22 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.10.23 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.10.24 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.10.25 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.10.26 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.10.27 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.10.28 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.10.29 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.10.30 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.10.31 - Wiki Review Log]]
!! Audit:
* This wiki has been undergoing a serious transformation in the past month.
* It's hilariously serendipitous that my planning what I was going to do after the job was exactly what I needed, that I was ready to hit the ground running.
* It's obvious when I took Cannabliss. There are clear explosions on the wiki.
* I parted with the SLT convention for today; Happy Birthday.
* I have been a good role model for my children this month.
** Good job.
* I have definitely had serious tensions with my children this month.
** That has been a mixed bag of success and failure. It's okay. Keep doing your best. Practice correctly. Seek improvement.
* A few edits here and there while auditing.
** Should I be recording them and talking about them?
*** Only if I think it's truly relevant. I will continue to [[infinigress]] if I don't.
* I have a hard time getting my wife to walk with me.
** She doesn't want to. She's tired. It's not worth it to her. Our conversations are draining for her. They don't fill her up. They don't make her happier.
* Oh yeah, I love my graphic. I don't know if it fits, but I like having some color. It is frivolous, aesthetic, etc. That's okay. It makes me happy.
* I definitely have struggled to get the font right.
** I still don't have the "edit" font setup the way I need it.
*** I should just ask.
* I think the [[Wiki Review Log]] is most interesting during my monthly audits. The story comes alive this way.
* I have lots of bidness ideas.
** My brother pointed out how I never put them into practice or take the steps to do that.
*** I'm not yet convinced I can and should.
* I have more preamble, meta-thought, "Over-the-Bar," at the top of the page writing in these daily logs.
** I keep developing conventions for myself.
* I've clearly made space on my wiki to talk about things which not everyone will want to read. That's fine. I don't think I've violated the CI or open spirit of the wiki by doing so.
* I'm taking {[[Dreams]]} seriously again. Good.
* Slowly, I build the existential lifetool, bootstrapping it.
* I never did look into VIM. The kids have though.
* I put LifeHacks on hold. That's fine. I know I want to develop that section.
** More importantly, I know I want [[Dependency-Worthy Memes Collections]]
* D2 has been important to me.
** I still do not know if it has been a good drug overall. It's not obvious.
* I love that I'm more willing to say these words to myself: "I don't know"
* Mathematics has definitely been a huge push for our family.
** I want to make sure my children feel triumphant and especially to see how their hard work pays off.
* I've definitely had a billion tabs up. I "save it for later" a lot. This is good behavior in some contexts, but it sucks.
* I have definitely dwelled on why and when people communicate with me.
* Perhaps I need to make my monthly audits follow the [[Wiki Review Log]] for the day as well. How did I respond to my own work? What do I think about that now?
!! Log:
* [[2017.10.23 - Yearly Audit Log]]
* [[2017.10.24 - Yearly Audit Log]]
* [[2017.10.25 - Yearly Audit Log]]
* [[2017.10.26 - Yearly Audit Log]]
* [[2017.10.27 - Yearly Audit Log]]
* [[2017.10.28 - Yearly Audit Log]]
* [[2017.10.30 - Yearly Audit Log]]
* [[2017.10.31 - Yearly Audit Log]]
!! Audit:
* This is one of the great surprises that I often don't see coming: I engage in a daily practice, and then at the end of the month, I account for myself. Usually, I'm really happy with what I've done. Sometimes I'm not. It's lovely to be able to think about it.
** I wonder if I have serious memory problems. Do most people naturally engage in this kind of reasoning, even if only mostly subconsciously?
* It's clear that I am struggling with how to write the {[[About]]} page and to formalize and justify many of the guttural intuitive practices on this wiki for {[[Principles]]}.
* I'm very much liking the idea of using the [[Wiki: Directory File Structure Template]] as the template for every page that matters. I keep seeing that I need to use it more than I have been.
** Individual daily logs don't need it.
My brother needs to write about why he won't write.<<ref "2018.12.13">>
---
I wish I spent time documenting my work with Matt. I have significant conversations with him about his life. He listens to me, and I listen to him very carefully. I give him my best in those moments.
---
<<footnotes "2018.12.13" "Yeah, but I'm growing fairly confident that is never going to happen, lol.">>
* Woke up late, tired. Late cannabliss does that.
* Cannabliss
* Writing, writing, writing.
* Family time
* Inform the Men!
* Thai food restaurant
* The new Star Trek: Discovery
* Prep and bed.
!! How has your health been this week?
* 1uxb0x
** No problems, except for not going outside much.
* j3d1h
** No problems.
* k0sh3k
** The Red Tide, Migraines, Felt terrible then fine, tired. Very long weekend. No sleep-in.
* h0p3
** My knee is hurting, but I'm taking better care of it. I'm tired. I feel fat. I need DCK, but I need to write more.
---
!! What happened last week? Have you been happy this past week? Why or why not?
* 1uxb0x
** Pondered the possibilities of the world. Makes him happy.
** Happy that he got to play outside some this week.
* j3d1h
** Not happy about losing her game and not having done her homework.
* k0sh3k
** Good week. Enjoyed starting her new Catechist Class.
* h0p3
** I felt better because I could write more this week. Also, my books were very good for the most part.
---
!! What is a positive fact or compliment we can say about each person in the family?
* 1uxb0x
** Thank you for taking apart and cleaning the hair trimmer.
** You've tried not to be unnecessarily argumentative this week.
** Good job reading so much this week.
* j3d1h
** You allowed yourself to be reasoned with about working hard on mathematics. Thank you for being wise enough to be rational.
** I'm proud of you for accepting and working with discipline. It's hard to do, but it's important.
** The piece of art you made was really good. You are improving.
* k0sh3k
** Thank you for contacting the IBEW. Where I work, it's like a plane engine is on 24/7, and I can't talk to people on the phone.
** Thank you for //Redemption in Indigo// and //The Nix//. They are fascinating.
** Thank you for helping me with the hair trimmer.
** Thank you for helping me preserve my game installation while trusting me not to play it.
* h0p3
** Thank you for listening to my request about free time.
** Thank you for being patient with the wiki tree.
** Thank you for being supportive of my faith (what I consider her wise use of her drug).
---
!! What will you do this week? Name at least one fun objective and one unfun objective.
* 1uxb0x
** Reading schedule for the week.
*** Including //Chronicles of Narnia// audiobook.
** Try to be with his family more this week.
* j3d1h
** Listen to //Dune//
** Create more visual art.
** Plan a cake
* k0sh3k
** Goto the doctor!
** Start final, big Book+Art project
* h0p3
** Finish my audit.
** Super happy fun times
* Self
** http://www.iflscience.com/brain/if-you-enjoy-the-song-no-diggity-you-are-more-likely-to-be-a-psychopath/
*** I obviously sit on both ends of the spectrum. I enjoy both songs (although neither are truly in my favorites, I am very moved by these songs).
** https://qualiacomputing.com/
*** Worth studying
* Stunning!
** https://mic.com/articles/184840/scientists-gave-kids-real-guns-for-an-experiment-now-ethicists-are-weighing-in#.Ac3MGxhKR
** https://www.buzzfeed.com/craigsilverman/welcome-to-the-age-of-cheap-overseas-information?utm_term=.ghMYA0b4lk#.dxBQXzq5NM
** https://www.wired.com/story/selfie-factories-instagram-museum/
*** But, is it your life?
** https://qualiacomputing.com/2016/12/12/the-hyperbolic-geometry-of-dmt-experiences/
** https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/juliaminson/files/do-gooder_derogation.pdf
* Tools
** https://www.reddit.com/r/HomeImprovement/comments/73aflr/home_maintenance_schedule_checklist_calendar/
** https://www.reddit.com/r/UnethicalLifeProTips/comments/73ize0/ulpt_when_filling_out_your_resume_list/
** https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bD5bMRqrJ4o
** https://i.redd.it/mj0z512md7pz.jpg
* KYS
** http://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-russia-election-2017-9?
** https://investor.equifax.com/news-and-events/news/2017/08-11-2017-005951319
** http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/09/a-new-study-shows-just-how-many-americans-were-blocked-from-voting-in-wisconsin-last-year/
** https://digg.com/2017/cctv-facial-recognition-senseface
** http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2017/08/04/monsanto-ghostwriting-stanford-university-hoover-institution-fellow/
*** Jesus.
** https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/09/education-and-economic-mobility/541041/
*** Oh, but you forgot about The Right and The Good, about how education is key to wisdom and happiness.
** https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-unfortunate-fallout-of-campus-postmodernism/
*** Ah, you poor scientists. So intelligent, and yet you do not participate in The Great Conversation of Humanity with enough breadth, despite the depth you've covered in one area. I'm sorry that you still haven't evolved to see the problem. Post-modernism deconstructed the world, and if you understood why and how, you'd have much different things to say and radically different approach to this problem.
** https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2017/09/changes-to-open-enrollment/541263/
** https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/59dy75/the-next-hot-millennial-trend-never-ending-labor-in-dystopian-warehouses
*** But, but...I need Amazon. =(
** http://www.marketwatch.com/story/this-study-proves-the-mainstream-medias-credibility-crisis-is-worse-than-many-think-2017-09-27
** https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-09-28/more-americans-are-falling-behind-on-student-loans-and-nobody-quite-knows-why
*** Oh, Bloomberg. I knew you'd never really change. You tell the popular stories, except when they are truly dangerous to those in power.
** http://time.com/money/4371332/income-inequality-recession/
** https://np.reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuestions/comments/730ikn/how_exactly_did_equifax_gather_so_much/dnmnjcs/
*** Lexis Nexis is scary as fuck.
** https://senglehardt.com/papers/pets18_email_tracking.pdf
** http://www.defenseone.com/technology/2017/09/future-us-military-constructing-giant-armed-nervous-system/141303/?
** https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2017/09/28/i-helped-create-the-gop-tax-myth-trump-is-wrong-tax-cuts-dont-equal-growth/
** https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/08/war-piracy-turns-streaming-media-box-community
*** I'm pissed. Seriously, KYS.
** https://www.wired.com/story/critical-efi-code-in-millions-of-macs-is-not-getting-apple-updates?
** https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/sep/29/baby-boomers-are-enjoying-a-second-bite-of-the-economic-cherry
** https://www.wired.com/story/mark-zuckerbergs-trust-problem/
*** Fucked either way. Censorship by a government or by FB.
** http://www.harpersbazaar.com/culture/features/a12063822/emotional-labor-gender-equality/
*** Androgyny. Ironically: You have no idea how much emotional labor and effort I spend. You've attacked my character. Lol.
** https://www.engadget.com/2017/09/29/youtube-links-end-cards-new-requirements/
* Preach, yo!
** https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/27/opinion/how-big-banks-became-our-masters.html?
** https://www.reddit.com/r/sociopath/comments/7329gu/rant_on_using_people/
*** Beautifully redpilled.
** http://kuow.org/post/king-county-rolls-out-miranda-rights-tailored-young-people
*** Amazing. Almost brings me to tears.
** https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/09/29/ending-net-neutrality-will-end-internet-we-know-steve-wozniak-michael-copps-column/704861001/
*** You didn't go far enough.
** https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/09/sweden-startups/541413/?single_page=true
*** Again, not taking it far enough.
* Confirm My Bias
** https://www.economist.com/news/business/21729744-tractors-smartphones-mending-things-getting-ever-harder-right-repair-movement
*** Learn to own your hardware agnostic software as much as you can.
** https://www.reddit.com/r/TheoryOfReddit/comments/72yb09/megathreads_are_being_used_to_silence_discussions/
*** Good fucking point!
** http://money.cnn.com/2017/09/28/media/blacktivist-russia-facebook-twitter/index.html
** https://www.reuters.com/article/us-southkorea-bitcoin/south-korea-bans-raising-money-through-initial-coin-offerings-idUSKCN1C408N
*** And, yet, I'm still investing.
** https://thebias.com/2017/09/26/how-good-intent-undermines-diversity-and-inclusion/
** https://techcrunch.com/2017/09/29/its-time-to-give-firefox-another-chance/
*** Sounds like hype.
** https://www.technologyreview.com/s/608911/is-ai-riding-a-one-trick-pony/
*** That one-tricky pony will still pop its head up everywhere, in unexpected places for a long time to come. Expect something else to emerge from it. The fabric of our lives, The Stack itself, is going to evolve. Enormous forces are at work.
** https://phys.org/news/2015-06-social-networks-group-boundaries-ideas.html
*** Why fragmentation into a billion specialized social spheres isn't actually a bad thing always.
** http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2016/04/01/more-overweight-underweight-people-world-study-finds
** http://www.psychbytes.com/parents-stop-doing-these-3-things-if-you-want-your-teens-to-grow-up/
** https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-09-29/the-equifax-hack-has-all-the-hallmarks-of-state-sponsored-pros
*** Oh, Hackerman! Mr. Robot
** https://techcrunch.com/2017/09/29/the-sec-has-charged-two-initial-coin-offerings-with-defrauding-investors/?ref=t
** https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/09/29/the-us-economy-is-failing/
** http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/41452523/heres-why-25-34s-arent-spending-as-much-on-fun
** http://www.businessinsider.com/why-political-ads-should-be-regulated-online-2017-9?
* Neat
** https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8rbHwMXMT8
*** Not often that I see someone from the military who can and will articulate it.
** http://thin.npr.org/
*** For us text whores.
** http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/09/vegetative-state-vagus-nerve-stimulation-health-science/
*** Playing God. Do it!
** https://flowingdata.com/2017/09/25/who-earns-more-income-in-american-households/
** http://www.psypost.org/2017/09/male-female-psychopaths-different-beliefs-morality-49721
** http://la3.org/~kilburn/blog/catalan-government-bypass-ipfs/
*** Go, go, go!
** https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/ne74nw/inside-the-world-of-the-bitcoin-carnivores
** https://blog.gdssecurity.com/labs/2017/9/27/reviewing-ethereum-smart-contracts.html
*** Yet, it will still be the future.
** https://bigthink.com/philip-perry/science-is-starting-to-explore-the-gray-zone-between-life-and-death
* For my wife:
** https://www.vox.com/conversations/2017/9/26/16345476/stanford-psychologist-art-of-avoiding-assholes
*** Obviously, you aren't an asshole. I think this is something you might still find fascinating.
** https://www.newscientist.com/article/2097199-seven-ways-to-skin-schrodingers-cat/
*** To my one and only scientist
** http://www.vancouversun.com/pete+mcmartin+researching+china+dustbin+history/7961727/story.html
* For my daughter:
** http://blog.community.rs/underhanded/2017/09/27/underhanded-results.html
** https://barefootnetworks.com/white-paper/the-worlds-fastest-most-programmable-networks/
*** Worth learning how to write networks in software.
** https://github.com/CocoaPods/Molinillo/blob/master/ARCHITECTURE.md
** https://sagi.io/2017/07/bloom-filters-for-the-perplexed/
*** Collect tools like this, my love.
** https://micro-editor.github.io/index.html
*** A developer has the right collection of tools, toolschains, snippets, and concepts
** https://ipfs.io/
** https://github.com/Arlen22/TiddlyServer
** https://tobibeer.github.io/tb5/#Latest
* https://kotaku.com/neo-yokio-is-a-funny-but-flawed-critique-of-capitalism-1818849400
** Downloaded. Will see if it is worth my piracy subscription.
* https://digg.com/2017/woman-dogs-flight-cops
** Sad world, yo.
* https://features.propublica.org/bankruptcy-inequality/bankruptcy-failing-black-americans-debt-chapter-13/
** Bankruptcy and Jubilee are really good ideas. Hard to build the rules well though.
* https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/sep/27/pirate-bay-showtime-ads-websites-electricity-pay-bills-cryptocurrency-bitcoin?CMP=twt_gu
** This merits exploration. Now that browsers are becoming VMs unto themselves and we will have WASM, this is going to change the world.
* http://www.equality-of-opportunity.org/
** My areas have always been bleak. I am scared for my children.
* https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2017/09/26/firefox-quantum-beta-developer-edition/
** I am extremely excited. I am worried about my extensions breaking. NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
*** Unfortunately, there's not a drop-in replacement for TiddlyFox just yet, although I've seen attempts.
* https://techcrunch.com/2017/09/26/google-cloud-acquires-cloud-identity-management-company-bitium/
** I've seen them try to reinvent the wheel a couple times. They clearly want to be the masters of this.
* https://hbr.org/cover-story/2017/09/work-and-the-loneliness-epidemic
** Sadly, more capitalistically driven than I'd have liked
* https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/09/saving-the-world-from-code/540393/?single_page=true
** Lol. I mean, I totally fucking get it.
Sent e-mail to Johanna and some prep.<<ref "2018.12.13">>
---
<<footnotes "2018.12.13" "It's interesting to see how much I avoid these one-liner tiddlers now. It just feels like a waste of time, effort, space, and organization to me. Perhaps I will change my mind again on the topic.">>
!! Why do we eat cheese?
I do not know. I assume it started because someone had to eat the dregs and rotting remains of their food and was pleasantly surprised. Somehow, from the untouchable came the addictive.
Cheese is disgusting when you think about it. It is chemically similar to puke. It is carefully rotted milk. It is a delicacy turned ubiquitous addiction. Cheese is the savory chocolate, but nasty.
We are disconnected from how our food is made. The slip makes sense.
We eat cheese because we've been conditioned to enjoy the drug.
* [[2017.09.30 - Retired {About}]]
** Good job. I'm looking forward to seeing what it will become.
* [[Dreams of h0p3]]
** It slowly grows.
* [[Portals]]
** =) - Donnie Darko is on my mind
* [[About, a.k.a. The Opening of the Rabbit Hole]]
** I hope to complete it in the next three months.
* [[ehyeh]]
** Sorry, my love
* [[2017.09.30 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** Seized
* [[2017.09.30 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** Give me them experience machines!
* [[2017.09.30 - Wiki Review Log]]
** My wife is ambivalent about the utility of this log. I am at times too.
* [[The House of Our Dreams]]
** This is probably a decade away.
* [[2017.09.30 - To-Do-List Log]]
** Failed DCK. Sorry, bro.
* [[Starter Home]]
** Just needs to work, nothing more.
* [[The House]]
** Ah, the overarching upgrade plan.
* [[2017.09.30 - /b/]]
** I'm grateful for this particular log
* [[2017.09.30 - Pipefitting Log]]
** Loving the keyboard.
Big Mouth
---
3 Tattoo quotes<<ref "2018.12.13-1">>
* Virtue is knowledge.
* We first make our habits, and then our habits make us.
* Chaos isn't a pit. Chaos is a ladder
---
JRE said, jokingly (roughly), "If I interrogated myself like you, I'd kill myself."<<ref "2018.12.13-2">>
Lol
---
<<footnotes "2018.12.13-1" "I think this may be a precursor thought to the evolution of the old {[[Principles]]} into {[[Axioms]]}.">>
<<footnotes "2018.12.13-2" "Ironically, killing parts of ourselves just is what autonomy requires of us in many cases. I can see that he also means to say that he finds self-reflection so painful that he'd rather avoid doing it. Interestingly, I think he clearly engaged in this behavior over the phone with me even if he wouldn't write it down.">>
I am sorry I became irrationally upset with you over your temporarily lost phone. You are 9 years old. I forget that fact too often. You are responsible for your age. In particular, I'm sorry about having said I'm tired of your excuses for not having your phone. It wasn't a wise or kind thing to say. I am sorry for making you feel unworthy.
* Woke before the alarm. Sleep was okay
* Listened to //The Nix//.
** Amazeballs.
* Worked hard...until I didn't.
* Talked to JRE
* Talked to my wife.
* Cannabliss
* Talked to my kids.
* Walked with wife.
* Read and wrote
* Talked to JRE
* Breakfast for dinner
* //Neo Yokio// is amazing!
* //Big Mouth// is also excellent.
* Fireman Time!
* Venture Bros and bed.
We were hiding in a basement, and my [[SLT]] was judging me.
My sync fucked up an I lost everything before the break. That's okay because I have a much bigger issue to write about today than what I did on the job itself.
In the morning, Vic, the general foreman of the riggers, was fired. He was fired because he told Chester, "you are going to kill someone" with how dangerous Chester had been doing the rigging work. Chester has already fired several people for contradicting him. He fired Vic on the spot. I shook Vic's hand and said I really appreciated working him. He said the same.
Two hours later, Chester fired some fire watches out of the blue.
After lunch, John and I were escorted to the van. With us was Bill the safety guy, James from the tool room, and Christina from HR. We were all going to be drug tested.
I was fired for refusing to take a random drug test. The other contestants were people who would obviously pass. I believe they thought I would pass as well. Oops.
This sucks, no doubt. My firing is 24 days earlier than I expected since that was when the job would end.
I went to the van anyways to see how it would play out. Maybe there was an option I didn't see. You don't fold in magic until you absolutely know you've lost. I did the same. I realized I didn't want this on my record, and I read the form carefully. It wasn't even worth taking a test I know I'd fail. John didn't believe me when I said I wasn't going to take out loud. He continued to joke. It wasn't until I shook his hand and told him I was really glad to have been able to work with him that he believed me.
We talked after his test. He said there is a 30-90 cool off period before Yates would hire me back. He told me that I'd probably be hired for the January job (if I even want it; I've been trying to find other options anyway). He told me I already was a real pipefitter with my hands, and with the math in my back pocket, I should just take the journeyman test. He said I'd do fine and to not let this get me down.
I filled out the necessary paperwork. James escorted me around to get my tools and clean up. I talked to Chris-M. I told Chris-M how much I appreciated working with him. He said he was glad to work with me, and that I was going to do fine. He handed me his business card. He told me that after his stroke, his memory is really bad. He said he might fail to remember me but to call him anyways. He also said that many of his friends keep piss bags with them (multiple people recommended this to me) with the heating elements. I will probably do that. That's how I'm going to pass piss tests from now on.
I talked to Colleen. She hugged me. She already knew before everyone else; I saw it in her face as we drove in. She is very well connected. She said she would see me in January and to make sure to call April (HR rep) to get the job again.
I talked to Oliver as well. He seemed very shocked. He wished me well, and I said the same.
I'm glad I still have the basic network contacts I need saved. I'm sad that I don't have any picture or video of all the hard work I've done on the job. I wish I could have shown my brother. He would have been very proud of it.
While I'm not happy about it, I'm definitely at peace with it. I'm very glad to have had the run I did. I've learned so much. I'm in a much better position than I was. We can make it. I'm ready to fight for it.
So, here's what I have to say to your world:
`/middle-finger`
I'm going to take what's mine anyways. Watch me.
!! When and why do you have tension with your brother in conversations?
Because we are talking about something extremely important to us that we might disagree on. We don't want to be hurt, but we also want to express ourselves to each other. When we disagree on something important, we know one of us may be wrong. We desperately don't want to be wrong about important things. We get defensive. I need to be maximally charitable and kind.
* [[2017.09 - /b/]]
** Yeah, it rocks. Scratchpad.
* [[2017.09 - Link Log]]
** I like building them up. I should consider moving to a weekly anyways. Template and all!
* [[2017.09 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** Well, the monotony ends today. Lol!
* [[2017.09 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** Be kind to yourself. It is what it is.
* [[2017.09 - Wiki Review Log]]
** It's part of the glue of this wiki. Stop underestimating it.
* [[2017.09 - Pipefitting Log]]
** This log is going to get interesting now.
* [[2017.09 - To-Do-List Log]]
** Will need to write these more often now.
* [[2017.10.01 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** Thank you cannabliss.
* [[2017.10.01 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** I should probably actually research it.
* [[2017.10.01 - Wiki Review Log]]
** Can DCK now.
* [[2017.10.01 - Pipefitting Log]]
** And, now...that e-mail may actually bite me.
* [[2017.10.01 - Family Log]]
** I'm thankful we have family time.
* [[2017.09 - Family Log]]
** Well, now we can work on it.
* [[DMT]]
** When I get my second job, we'll think about it.
* [[Apocalyptic Bodymodder]]
** Neat, and I should consider looking further into it.
* [[Family Computing]]
** On the backburner now.
* [[Poem: Bit by Happiness]]
** Love it.
* [[2017.10.01 - /b/]]
** I think it is painful for my brother to write. That's why he doesn't want to do it.
* [[h0p3: Version - 2]]
** Give it time.<<ref "2018.12.13">>
* [[2017.10.01 - Link Log]]
** Long as fuck
* [[The Year of Philosophy Tutoring]]
** A great idea. Needs tuning and planning, no doubt.
* [[The Month of Mathematics Tutoring]]
** We start soon!
---
<<footnotes "2018.12.13" "Indeed, it came to fruition! I feel I'm very strongly into Version 2.0 now as well. Lots of semantic and structural questions arose from this move. That was a helluva of a day, no doubt.">>
In case I wasn't clear before: whatever positive effects I experienced from anti-depressants were placebic and temporary.
---
JRE's quote tattoo, sci-fi:
* "Fear is the mind-killer."
* "The enemy's gate is down."
* "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent."
//Postscript of Apology given over phone//
I am sorry for having made fun of your eating chicken wings. I don't know if I offended you, but I realized that it may have been bullying. I'm sorry if you felt bullied.
---
Turns out, my brother didn't think it was bad at all. In fact, he had worried that he made me feel like I had offended him. Cool.
* Woke up at 7:00.
** Tried moving from couch to bed but failed to fall back asleep. I need to sleep in a bed.
* Kids and I worked on [[Morning Routine]] and [[To-Do-List Log]] in our wikis.
* Did a ton of cleaning.
** Also hit the store.
* Got some reading and writing done.
* Listened to //The Nix// while working.
* Cannabliss
* Fireman Time!
* Watched half of //The Departed//
* //Star Trek Discovery// is excellent, an obviously very inspired by //Alien//.
** They took 3 episodes to deliver us to the ship itself. That is patience I didn't expect. Maybe this show is going to be really good. Marshmallow tests!
* Ribs and baked veggies (yay!)
* //Rick and Morty// finale didn't live up to the last, but it was still good.
* //Bob's Burgers// fan art episode was fucking insane.
* //Neo Yokio// is outstanding. I adore it.
* Stunning!
** https://qualiacomputing.com/
*** I simply have to reiterate.
* KYS
** https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUCbWfJSw5g
** https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/01/business/facebook-china-guo-wengui.html
** https://www.buzzfeed.com/jtes/the-professor-arguing-against-a-free-speech-free-for-all?utm_term=.auGLVgWboM#.lnvB9pXD5o
** https://newrepublic.com/article/144531/new-fight-labor-rights-movement-needs-rethink-strategy
*** We are in deep shit.
** http://www.newsweek.com/government-wont-fund-gun-research-stop-violence-because-nra-lobbying-675794
** https://melmagazine.com/the-rise-of-weaponized-autism-e38472124c6d
*** Neurotribal warfare, but you lack the tools to empathize with us as well. I've tried far harder than you have. Self-defense is my last resort, and it's not my fault.
** https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/10/09/how-the-elderly-lose-their-rights?mbid=social_facebook
*** Disgusting.
** https://torrentfreak.com/judge-recommends-isp-search-engine-blocking-sci-hub-us-171003/
* Neat
** http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/weekinreview/15grist.html
** https://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/how-science-saved-me-from-pretending-to-love-wine
** https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/oct/02/rise-of-the-yimbys-angry-millennials-radical-housing-solution
** https://deepmind.com/blog/hippocampus-predictive-map/
** https://www.newyorker.com/news/sporting-scene/the-error-in-baseball-and-the-moral-dimension-to-american-life?mbid=synd_digg
* Confirm My Bias
** https://education.good.is/articles/student-loan-defaults
** https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/sep/30/robert-macfarlane-lost-words-children-nature
** https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/oct/02/dna-in-the-dock-how-flawed-techniques-send-innocent-people-to-prison
** https://jacobinmag.com/2017/10/wealth-inequality-united-states-federal-reserve
** https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/10/the-purpose-of-education-according-to-students/541602/
*** Poor, uneducated bastards.
* For my daughter:
** https://github.com/ManrajGrover/halo/tree/fix-builds
** http://www.averylaird.com/programming/editor/2017/09/30/the-piece-table/
** https://github.com/heathermiller/dist-prog-book
** https://github.com/aelsabbahy/dargs
* https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-03/white-house-and-equifax-agree-social-security-numbers-should-go
** I do not know what to make of this information. I suspect that if the White House agreed to it that it isn't a good thing in the long run. I worry such a thing would be abused. But, public key cryptography could do amazing work here for us.
* http://www.garlikov.com/Soc_Meth.html
** Not obviously the Socratic Method to me, at least not entirely.
I bought a $60 Husky box similar to my other one. I took every tool and cleaned it, oiled it if necessary, organized it, and packed it away. I have a box with pipefitting + grinding tools plus some clamps and ratchet straps. It's an interesting box because some of the tools are just blocks of metal, and others are by far the most expensive tools in my possession. The other box now holds all my generalized tools, including several I couldn't bring with me on my last job. It's interesting to see how my tools continue to grow each job.
!! Respond to the following:
<<<
I imagine one of the reasons people cling to their hates so stubbornly is because they sense, once hate is gone, they will be forced to deal with pain.
<<<
I think hate is caused by pain. Of course, we can be wrong about what caused our pain. We can hate for the wrong reason. We can be destructive. Hate, conceptually speaking, is not always wrong, and perhaps it isn't even always a bad thing. Is it bad to hate bad? That is odd to say.
This quote attempts to undermine, to open the door, to help us empathize. I appreciate what it is doing. It is not accurate enough.
* ~~Develop [[Morning Routine]] and [[To-Do-List Log]] with/for kids~~<<ref "2018.12.13">>
* ~~Start writing daily [[To-Do-List Log]]~~
* ~~Clean the house~~
* ~~Bring in tools, clean, and organize them~~
* Make Book+Art
* ~~Read/Write~~
* Study NCCER for one hour
* Get 1uxb0x a working machine
* Revamp the wiki
** Work on Tree!
* Write a cognitive bias poem
* ~~Introduce daughter to IPFS~~
* ~~Clear alcohol off piano~~
---
<<footnotes "2018.12.13" "This [[TDL]] work puts me to shame now. Jesus. When was the last time I did anything this effect in [[TDL]]?">>
* [[2017.10.02 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** Edited. Forgot some content.
* [[2017.10.02 - Wiki Review Log]]
** Edited [[/b/]] in virtue of my scratchpad comment.
* [[2017.10.02 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** Ah. I can see that he is unhappy about the triangle between our donors and us.
* [[2017.10.02 - Pipefitting Log]]
** I'm loving having a bit of time off after this whirlwind too. I have so much to do.
* [[2017.10.02 - /b/]]
** This inspired a very interesting conversation with my brother.
* [[2017.10.02 - Apology Log]]
** This was useful to us.
* [[2017.10.02 - Dream Log]]
** Edited "Mom" to "SLT"<<ref "2018.12.13">>
* [[Apology Log]]
** A great idea!
---
<<footnotes "2018.12.13" "The conversion begins. Good.">>
* Woke up late.
* Fireman Time!
* Woke my offspring and we did our morning routines
* Reading and writing
* Took wife to work
* Copied first three books of //Life of Fred//
* Helped son set up accounts
* Walked chilluns through wiki format requirements
* Covered a book and a half
* Fireman Time!
* Talked to K.
** He now is doing English as his major, Math as minor. I disagree with his choice to do the Masters in Education. I'm glad he is going to try and write. He sounds new to it. I hope he works hard. Talked about the wiki for brainstorming and mapping the outline of his book.
* Talked to JRE
** He wants me to stay late or come early, but it doesn't fit our schedule. I wish I could.
* Burgers, zucchini fries, corn, and shows.
* //The Orville//, //Tosh.0//, John Oliver, //Big Mouth//, //The Princess Bridge//, //Brooklyn Nine-nine//, etc.
* Inform the Men!
* Venture and bed.
* Stunning!
** https://psmag.com/magazine/the-touch-of-madness-mental-health-schizophrenia
** https://undark.org/article/science-chinese-somatization/
*** Also, this site is cool AF.
* Preach, yo!
** https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/09/stop-border-surveillance-bill
* KYS
** http://www.businessinsider.com/rising-inequality-is-hurting-social-cohesion-and-even-growth-citi-2017-10
*** You don't really care.
** https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/wp/2017/10/02/i-cannot-express-how-wrong-i-was-country-guitarist-changes-mind-on-gun-control-after-vegas/?utm_term=.26c91fdde208
*** I do not forgive you.
** http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2017/10/03/this_pro_life_congressman_was_caught_telling_his_extramarital_boo_to_get.html
* Confirm My Bias
** https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/10/09/the-limits-of-diversity?mbid=synd_digg
*** Solve racism by solving classism.
** https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxyaVIvpIYM&feature=share
*** Jesus H.B.F Christ! Fuckerberg, again, appears to be taking a POTUS run seriously. No, no, no, no!!
** http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/appi.ajp.2017.17040472
*** To my donors: I'm right. My "self-medication" has been right on the fucking money. Want to know what else I'm right about?
* Neat
** https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/02/google-ai-has-almost-twice-the-iq-of-siri-says-study.html
** https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/nih-researchers-uncover-drain-pipes-our-brains
*** My brain takes a shit all the time. Look at this sentence.
** https://anti-imperialism.org/2017/10/04/the-socialism-amerika-needs-now/
* Tools
** https://github.com/devilbox/watcherd
*** Automated directory watch script
* For my son:
** https://i.redd.it/lclpsw2ehtpz.jpg
* For my daughter:
** https://medium.com/smalltalk-talk/behold-pharo-the-modern-smalltalk-38e132c46053
* http://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/353418-the-2018-midterms-are-coming-and-russia-is-ready
** There are many hands in that cookie jar.
* http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/353578-poll-public-confidence-in-news-media-rises-as-trust-in-trump-falls
** Glad people don't trust Trump as much. I'm not convinced much has really improved.
* https://www.afp.com/en/news/23/40-percent-us-cancers-linked-excess-weight
** I need to lose more weight.
* https://gizmodo.com/irs-awards-equifax-7-25-million-no-bid-contract-to-hel-1819119424
** WTF?
* https://digg.com/2017/supreme-court-gerrymandering-gill-whitford
** Do the right thing, please.
* https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/oct/03/yahoo-says-all-of-its-3bn-accounts-were-affected-by-2013-hacking
** Lol. Like that classic rape joke "She was asking for it," I feel tempted to say something similar about these poor Yahoo users.
I put my book on the piano. I read a bit. It's been a busy day.
Oh yeah, there was an explosion at Eastman today. Safety problem, lol.
!! Many people think teenagers are harder to parent than younger children. What do you think about that?
I feel like a failure like I'm barely keeping my head above water. I hope I can be there for my children no matter what, even if it does get harder. So far, it feels like it is getting easier. But, I've not seen the hormones and changes in boundaries, etc.
* Copy some Life of Fred books
* Walk through one book with the kids today.
* Read+Write
* Book+Art
* Finish cleaning house
* NCCER
* Research image-to-text<<ref "2018.12.13">>
---
<<footnotes "2018.12.13" "This project fizzled out, and in a way, it doesn't seem like it would have mattered to me later on. I'm glad I just let it go.">>
* [[2017.10.03 - Wiki Review Log]]
** Go...EDITS!
* [[2017.10.03 - Pipefitting Log]]
** I'm feeling much better about my tools. I think one or two more pipefitting jobs will complete it.
* [[2017.10.03 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** Catching up!
* [[2017.10.03 - /b/]]
** My brother picked well.
* [[Poem: Inconceivable]]
** Can't fucking entitle it.
* [[2017.10.03 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** Inspiration for my poem to some extent.
* [[2017.10.03 - Link Log]]
** Glad to be back to the daily
* [[2017.10.03 - To-Do-List Log]]
** Daily has only been partially useful. No more strikethrough though, please.
* [[Morning Routine]]
** Be a good role model for your children.
After doing //Life of Fred// with you, and teaching while I'm happy and not depressed, I can see that I have held you to extremely high standards. I've not been fair to you. I've expressed disappointment when I never should have. You are smart. You are good. You make mistakes, and you pick yourself back up. You do work hard. I know you do your best.
I want you to know I expect great things of you because I know you are capable of them. I also know I've made huge mistakes in how I push you to grow. I'm not a good parent. I am sorry. I am doing my best, but that doesn't make it good enough.
* Woke up at 8
* Woke children
* Worked hard on my wiki
* Taught a book of //Life of Fred//
* Talked a ton with the kids
* Went with wife to get medication
* Finished //Neo Yokio//
* Roast for dinner!
* //Big Mouth//, //The Good Place//, //American Vandal//, and //Stardust//
* Fireman Time!
* Venture bros and bed
* Stunning!
** http://blog.ploeh.dk/2017/10/04/from-design-patterns-to-category-theory/
* KYS
** http://inthesetimes.com/working/entry/20500/Donald-Trump-Overtime-Obama-DACA
** https://www.gq.com/story/steve-bannon-60-minutes
** https://sentinel.tw/norway-one-china-policy/
*** Holy fuck! More hegemonies.
* Preach, yo!
** https://www.daretodreambeyond.com/single-post/2017/10/02/Is-the-Gig-economy-the-modern-day-sweatshop
** https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/10/eff-asks-court-fix-damage-done-first-amendment-law-flawed-national-security-letter
* Confirm My Bias
** http://www.salon.com/2017/09/10/there-will-be-blood-republicans-have-a-binary-choice-fight-for-president-trump-or-die/
** https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/alt-right-neo-nazi-donald-trump-hitler-memes-pepe-the-frog-ubermensch-based-stickman-a7938911.html
*** Although, I think we are all caught up in cults.
** https://www.livescience.com/51991-why-america-is-prone-to-mass-shootings.html
** https://www.reddit.com/r/lostgeneration/comments/744t7i/is_generation_z_doing_okay/
** https://www.psychologicalscience.org/news/releases/experiencing-financial-stress-may-lead-to-physical-pain.html
** https://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/networks/blockchains-how-they-work-and-why-theyll-change-the-world
** https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15407631
*** It doesn't work for me, sadly.
** http://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/2113990/no-country-older-men-chinas-better-educated-well-paid-women-are
* Neat
** https://www.anandtech.com/show/11891/best-cpus-for-workstations-2017
** https://miyuki.github.io/2017/10/04/gcc-archaeology-1.html
** https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/what-stinky-cheese-tells-us-about-disgust-180965017/
*** Always find this subject interesting.
* For my daughter:
** http://www.openvim.com/
* For my wife:
** https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/43a75q/dictionary-meaning-internet-speak
** https://gfycat.com/PlainBowedIvorygull
* For my son:
** https://www.topic.com/decoding-the-language-of-extremist-clothing
* http://www.newsweek.com/trump-autism-empathy-puerto-rico-677919
** Ummm...not autism. It seems obvious that you've purposely avoided the real issue: Dark-Triadicism.
*** Newsweek is generally trash.
I read some NCCER. It is slow going since I'm working on this wiki, Books+Art, and teaching mathematics to my children.
!! Respond to the following:
<video controls autoplay loop>
<source src="./images/Europe-1000years-in-10seconds.mp4" type="video/mp4">
Your browser does not support the HTML 5 video tag.
</video>
It is an illustration of //The Stack// to me. It teaches us who we are. There are a thousand years of history captured in a nugget here. I can't hope to understand it all. That's part of the point. I'm in the middle of it, and we all are.
This doesn't say anything new, but it says it well. It makes me feel all Redpilled Cosmopolitan.
* NCCER
* Wiki
* //Life of Fred//
* Clean
* Fireman Time!
* //The Nix//
I want a single wiki that does it all. I have personal information that is simply private. I'd like to add it to my knowledgebase, but I also don't want to even ever send that information to anyone else (encrypted or otherwise).
Here's how to do it:
* Truecrypt container, automounted, The Private version is stored in that.
* When I make an edit the private version, it stays only in the private version.
** Anything I want to be public shouldn't be written in there.
** This also makes it incredibly easy for me to convert private information into public.
*** I can just export and import tiddlers.
I've spent a good deal of time trying to find a reasonable way to convert this .html into an image. Imagemagick has some excellent options, but nothing is quite right yet. I've asked for help online.<<ref "2018.12.13">>
I rewrote {[[Principles|Principles of Programming Myself]]}.
---
If you check the "Recent" tab for today, you'll see it was a very fucking busy day on the wiki.
* [[2017.10.04 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** Seized.
* [[2017.10.04 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** //Big Mouth// is rough.
* [[2017.10.04 - Wiki Review Log]]
** I need to energize this log again.
* [[2017.10.04 - Pipefitting Log]]
** Slow, but that's okay for now.
* [[2017.10.04 - Link Log]]
** Having had so little time to play on the interwebs, I've got my searching routine down to a bad science now.
* [[2017.10.04 - To-Do-List Log]]
** You accomplished much.
---
<<footnotes "2018.12.13" "It's very clear that I need a [[Wiki Audit]] log. This is the really the beginning of that giant project.">>
It seems obvious that one of the reasons pleasurable activities are censored, prevented, or pushed against by those in power is that they desperately want to limit the channels to happiness to those which they control.
---
You must collect knowledge your entire life to be wise. Importantly, it is harder and harder to become wise because there is more and more each passing day which one must necessarily know in order to be wise. Post-modernism, hello, there.
---
My brother doesn't want to see his parents as evil. He doesn't want me to see the letters. He doesn't want to be fully redpilled about who they are. I think he feels there is a triangle, and I hope he doesn't resent me for it. My wife suggests I let him lead the way. I'm not here to push him. I'm here to catch him if he falls and encourage him, to be his listener. I'm listening to you, [[JRE]].
* Woke up around 8
* Fireman Time!
* Woke children
* Reading the Web
* Talked to ALM
* League Worlds highlights
** Catching up. Not very interested. But trying anyways.
* Writing
* Talked to children for 3 hours about everything
* Mathematics
* Almost out of pages, quickly ran to copy more books
* Got my wife's medicine, talked to her for a long time while the kids played outside
* Talked with family
* Finished our math book off for the day
* //Project Runway// and assorted braincandy
* KYS
** https://www.thenation.com/article/how-americas-biggest-bank-paid-its-fine-for-the-2008-mortgage-crisis-with-phony-mortgages/
* Preach, yo!
** https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/10/06/hedg-o06.html
** https://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Claims-That-Net-Neutrality-Hurt-Broadband-Investment-Are-Crap-140454
* Neat
** http://www.nippon.com/en/features/h00124/
*** Too bad Global Warming makes this irrelevant as a practice for us today.
** https://alphaarchitect.com/2016/02/02/even-god-would-get-fired-as-an-active-investor/
** https://research.kudelskisecurity.com/2017/10/04/defeating-eddsa-with-faults/
*** Nothing is perfect.
** https://melmagazine.com/the-tell-tale-sign-of-an-alpha-male-is-the-perfect-facial-width-to-height-ratio-ae4e0afdab57
** https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EszwYNvvCjQ
* Confirm My Bias
** http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2017/05/13/the-autocrats-language/
** https://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/734767/b8509e00378301f9/
*** So fucking hard. I want a real solution, please. I don't know what it would look like though. The only secret I can hold is one in my head.
** https://www.wired.com/story/the-social-network-doling-out-millions-in-ephemeral-money/?mbid=nl_100417_backchannel_p1
*** Decentralize it, and you have a powerful force.
**** Anonymize it, allow people to apply their own filter-bubbles, and you've made what I want.
** https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/10/new-establishment-list-disruption
** https://www.thestranger.com/news/2017/10/04/25451102/we-snuck-into-seattles-super-secret-white-nationalist-convention
** https://www.theverge.com/2017/10/5/16428570/google-pixel-2-no-headphone-jack-apple-wireless-future
*** Not necessarily a good thing.
* Tools
** https://github.com/JasonKessler/scattertext
** https://github.com/rosette-api-community/visualize-embeddings
** http://www.science.smith.edu/~jcrouser/SDS136/labs/lab9/
** https://blogs.libraries.indiana.edu/scholcomm/2013/12/16/free-tools-to-visualize-your-data/
** http://dataviz.tools/category/network-visualization/
** https://imagemagick.org/script/index.php
* For my daughter:
** http://www.solipsys.co.uk/new/SieveOfEratosthenesInPython.html
*** Classic.
** https://medium.com/@peterxjang/how-to-learn-vim-a-four-week-plan-cd8b376a9b85
* For my wife:
** https://theoutline.com/post/2371/why-steampunk
* For my son:
** https://digg.com/2017/bump-stock-vegas-shooting
*** Uh, now I want one.
Very slow going. Working on my wiki, making art, helping my children, and family time is too delicious and useful right now. Also, walking up the scaffold of mathematics with my children may be useful to me directly. I'd like to walk through the pipefitter book with my children to make it come alive for them.
//Making up for a failure.//
!! Why didn't you write your [[Prompted Introspection Log]] yesterday?
I certainly had the time to do it. I worked quite a bit yesterday, and I did get a lot accomplished. I spent a ton of time talking with people besides myself. Sometimes, other things come up: opportunities. That said I shouldn't have made the mistake. I could have finished this off last night. This is still part of the lifeblood of the wiki. Let us not fail today.
Note, I didn't make a [[To-Do-List Log]], which I actually did write previously, but I don't feel bad about it. I knew what I wanted to do with the day.
// I dedicate this page to Sir [[GB]].//
This page is meant for users other than myself.
Let's be clear, the wiki is ultimately addressed to me. I'm having a very long-term conversation with myself. It's a lifetool for me. However, you may, for whatever reason, find it worth reading this wiki.<<ref "1">>
Here are some [[Tips for Using this Wiki]]. It may be useful to you, the interpreter, to have a better understanding of the functionality of this wiki. You may also find more interpretation tools in {[[Principles|Principles of Programming Myself]]}. To be clear, I use the latest version of Tiddlywiki. That may help you understand some of the technical aspects of what you are seeing as well.
The [[Root]] (previously `[[{Home}]]`) page should be your starting point, generally speaking.
I suggest reading in roughly this order:
#{[[About|About, a.k.a. The Opening of the Rabbit Hole]]}
#{[[Principles|Principles of Programming Myself]]}
#{[[Focus|Current Focus of h0p3's Wiki]]}
#{[[Projects|Projects on this Wiki]]}
#{[[Vault|The Vault of h0p3]]}
The order isn't clean. There is enough interplay, synergy, reference, and complexity in these contexts that it will be difficult to actually peel them apart enough to have a perfect hermeneutic stack to read. If I ultimately knew exactly what I was doing on this wiki, we wouldn't have this problem. Alas, I can only do my fallible best, and thus you will have to do yours as well.
I would like to point out the sidebar, which is immensely useful for staying current. "New" shows newly created tiddlers. "Recent" includes not only those newly created but also those recently edited.
Since I write this for myself, I really only pay attention to how it looks on my screen. You shouldn't have to (since this .html file should be functional enough on most devices), but if you want to replicate my view, try Firefox on Linux at 1920x1080 resolution. Some unicode symbols may not appear correctly on your screen; for now, that's a problem between you and your computer. Also, I suggest reading the wiki in full screen. You'll get the same feel effect that I do. There's a full-screen button in the top right corner. For some browsers, you can just F11. These will toggle for you.
As a side note, I'm sure it would annoy many computational minimalists that I willingly store virtually the entire site in a single self-editing html file. I'll grant that text files alone have something going for them, but this is a very special tool. This wiki is incredibly portable, functional, and malleable. I consider Tiddlywiki to be a skeuomorphic feat of software engineering. How many virtually complete websites with this degree of functionality and content can you download in a few megabytes?<<ref "2">> Exactly. I think there is profound minimalist beauty to it. Yeah, load times aren't great.<<ref "3">> You can always just sync it instead.
As always, feel free to {[[Contact|Contact h0p3]]} me with any questions.
Lastly, I implore you to exercise empathy in your judgment.<<ref "4">> You are reading my personal journal. We are parting with many privacy conventions here, and that means you should be exceptionally careful in your evaluation. After all, if you had taken the time to write and share a brutally honest personal journal, what do you think we would be tempted to say about yours?
---
<<footnotes "1" "For example, I have asked my brother [[JRE]] to help me reflect upon {[[Principles|Principles of Programming Myself]]} as well as read the contents of the wiki itself. This is a lot to ask, but I trust his opinion and value his feedback. I realize I can't do it all on my own, and having input from him would be very useful.">>
<<footnotes "2" "Less than 2MB compressed, which is the standard size of any webpage on the web anyways, but you can't multi-threaded download this one.">>
<<footnotes "3" "And, that probably won't be changing. Few if anyone besides myself ever loads this page, so I'm not worried about CDNs or optimizing performance (especially not for your shitty machine ;P).">>
<<footnotes "4" "Matthew 7:5">>
I want a tree structure:
* http://treeview.tiddlyspot.com/
* http://listtree.tiddlyspot.com/
Also, want to be able to collapse it like the right side:
* http://tw5topleft.tiddlyspot.com/
* http://leftbar.tiddlyspot.com/
I also want to make it so collapsing doesn't change the center text at all.
---
* A menu
** Tree or other.
* 5-day streak topics
* A compilation of the top 10 recently edited links in the past 100 (or 1000) links which are not on the streak list.
* Start New Log, button?
* Walking through my wife's edits: [[Edit Notes: 10/5/2017]]. She makes good points. I'll walk with her.
* By the way, I just copied [[The Month of Mathematics Tutoring]] from {[[Dreams|Dreams of h0p3]]} to {[[Focus|Current Focus of h0p3's Wiki]]}. I'm making a dream come true.
** I finally can physically see what role {[[Dreams|Dreams of h0p3]]} plays on this wiki.
* I've looked further into [[Wiki: The Animated Progress Visualization Project]]. Looks rough, yo.
---
* [[2017.10.05 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** Awesome watching time.
* [[2017.10.05 - Wiki Review Log]]
** This is a better structure. I'm improving the wiki, and I should write down that I improved it. The [[Wiki Review Log]] is exactly where I want to do it.
* [[2017.10.05 - Pipefitting Log]]
** Slow, and it's okay.
* [[Edit Notes: 10/5/2017]]
** Thank you, my love!
* [[Wiki: To-Do-List]]
** Oh shit, I didn't write one for today. But we were insanely productive still.
* [[Wiki: The Most Edited List]]
** Good idea.
* [[Wiki: The Private Wiki Mirror]]
** My daughter wants this as well.
* [[Life of Fred: Cats (Elementary Series)]]
** Love it.
* [[Life of Fred: Butterflies (Elementary Series)]]
** Ditto
* [[Life of Fred: Apples (Elementary Series)]]
** I'm glad I'm writing about them. These are my tiny trophies.
* [[2017.10.03 - Apology Log]]
** Glad I apologized, and I'm glad it was nothing.
* [[2017.10.05 - Apology Log]]
** It is important for a father to admit his mistakes openly and fully to and for his children.
* [[Wiki: Literal Programming of the Wiki]]
** Uh, yeah.
* [[2017.10.05 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** I love educational animations.
* [[2017.10.05 - Link Log]]
** I'm able to categorize it more effectively. I like how I do my quick search and leave it alone. It's less addictive to me.
* [[2017.10.05 - To-Do-List Log]]
** Very productive.
* Woke up at 9 (kept going back to sleep)
* Inform the Men!
* Shower of the Gods!
* Reading + Writing
* Fireman Time!
* Went to the store. Couldn't find a container for my wife's desk area.
* Grabbed dowels
* Had fun with daughter working on wiki.
* Cleaned house significantly.
** It's looking a lot more like I want it to.
* Researched improvements for the wiki.
* Cleaned a lot of computational houses
* Setup VPN clients
* Got my son's laptop up and running
* KYS
** http://thehill.com/policy/finance/354198-september-jobs-report
** https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/10/05/usa_liberty_act/
** http://accaglobals.com/the-most-religious-states-have-the-worst-schools-betsy-devos-will-nationalize-that-trend/
** http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/10/06/google-accused-of-racketeering-in-lawsuit-claiming-pattern-of-trade-secrets-theftt/
*** Not that I believe in IP, but I think they are huge fucking hypocrites
* Neat
** https://www.desmog.uk/2017/10/03/china-showing-world-what-renewable-energy-dominance-looks-says-new-iea-report
** https://www.wired.com/2016/09/arrow-of-time/amp
* Confirm My Bias
** https://securitytxt.org/
*** What a good idea. I don't think I need one. I make myself incredibly explicit already.
** http://blog.rongarret.info/2017/09/the-bitcoin-apocalypse-is-coming.html
*** Still betting on Eth
* For my daughter:
** https://imgur.com/gallery/RM3wl
** https://porgionesanke.wordpress.com/2016/07/11/a-comparison-of-four-algorithms-textbooks/
** https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/158640/why-cant-the-it-industry-deliver-large-faultless-projects-quickly-as-in-other
Again, I've elected to go slowly. I'm reading the book bit-by-bit. It is interesting to see it come alive after having been in the field. This was a well-prepared textbook in many ways.
!! What are your three favorite albums? Why?
I wouldn't say I'm a person who has ever really been into albums. I've been pirating since I was a young person. There also is a difference between my favorite collection of songs on a particular album and my favorite singles (whether of the same artist or other). There are also composers which never had albums, but they have bodies of work I find incredible. I'm also having to simply measure the which "album" had the maximum utility packed into it (compilations are cheaty, but they work). This is talking about a sliver of my favorite music here, and it fails to talk about other kinds of narratives which are still valuable. That said, I will attempt to answer the question as is because it is still meaningful.
* Rage Against the Machine - The Battle of Los Angeles
* Nine Inch Nails - The Fragile
* O Brother, Where Art Thou? - Soundtrack
To be fair, I've never actually bought these. I've never even held them in my hands. There are even songs on the albums which aren't in my favorites. But, they are the best mix I can find.
Of course, these answers have changed over the years. I keep coming back to these more often than not though. Some narratives simply resonate with our persistent identities better than others. The short excursion into other narratives alters us, but they do not remain a part of who we are as clearly. These really are my mainstays.
Ultimately, three is too limiting. It's like trying to nail down 3 movies, 3 books, 3 video games, or 3 other experience machines. I could do that with drugs though. Hmm.
* Sex
* Cannabliss
* Copy math books
* Books+Art
** Would love to find the design
* Fix [[1uxb0x]]'s new laptop up.
* Library run
* NCCER
* Clean kitchen out for tomorrow's shopping
* Read and Write like the wind!
* No more than 2 hours of the tubes.
* Laundry
* Work on the wiki's structure
Look at that custom font and the gif background. =)<<ref "2018.12.13">>
---
* [[Edit Notes: 10/6/2017]]
** Haven't looked at it yet.
* [[2017.10.06 - Pipefitting Log]]
** Slow is better than nothing.
* [[2017.10.06 - /b/]]
** I'm going to try to let it go and to go with the flow.
* [[2017.10.06 - Link Log]]
** Categories!
* [[2017.10.06 - Retired: {Help}]]
** I'm glad I remade it.
* [[Books+Art]]
** It's coming along.
* [[2017.10.06 - Wiki Review Log]]
** Loving coming back to actually have other stuff to say about the wiki in general
* [[2017.10.06 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** Seized
---
<<footnotes "2018.12.13" "Fuck yeah. So hawt! I'm glad I finally started giving a shit about the appearance a bit. This piece of art feels a lot more like when I do.">>
* Woke up at 8
** I went to bed at 2. I didn't sleep enough. I need to correct my sleep schedule though
* Fireman Time!
* Read+Write
* Some cleaning of the house
* Grocery shopping
** The new Aldi has that Whole Foods' look.
* Inform the Men!
* Ribs
* Family Time!
* Tried reaching ALM
* Talked to JRE and L
* Star Trek and chill
* Fireman Time
* Venture and bed
!! How has your health been this week?
* 1uxb0x
** Amazing.
* j3d1h
** Nothing different.
* k0sh3k
** Perfectly normal, the doctor said so.
* h0p3
** Anxious, but happy.
---
!! What happened last week? Have you been happy this past week? Why or why not?
* 1uxb0x
** //Life of Fred// has been amazing. Very happy, and glad to bust through it.
* j3d1h
** //Life of Fred// was awesome.
** Liked doing Books+Art.
** Enjoyed speaking with her friends again.
* k0sh3k
** //Life of Fred// was awesome...wait.
** It was a good week. Ready for next week, she thinks.
** Pizza party went well. Busy week.
* h0p3
** Got Fired. Got High. Did a ton of work.
** //Life of Fred// was awesome.
---
!! What is a positive fact or compliment we can say about each person in the family?
* 1uxb0x
** Having me back home has definitely made your life more stressful. You've rolled with the punches and found a way to be happy.
** You are doing really well in Life of Fred.
** Even though you have a hard time connecting with some people, you are a very loving person. Even though you think differently than others, you also think about other people a lot.
* j3d1h
** Thank you for helping fix my computer.
** Thank you for buckling down and working hard, earning back your computer game.
** Thank you for helping me whip my wiki into shape and explore the options with me.
* k0sh3k
** Thank you for teaching me to be a loving person. Your kindness taught me how to be kind.
** Thank you for editing my wiki this week. I really appreciate it.
** Thank you for sacrificing time with your family so they can visit their uncle.
* h0p3
** Thank you for pushing me to work.
** Thank you for taking lemons and making lemonade. You've turned you job loss into a real opportunity for our children.
** Thank you for telling me to work on my wiki.
---
!! What will you do this week? Name at least one fun objective and one unfun objective.
* 1uxb0x
** Install GalliumOS with "blackwolf" name.
** Meet one of JRE's neighbors
* j3d1h
** //Life of Fred//
** Make art
** VIM
* k0sh3k
** Organize her table. (The end is coming!)
** Finish Book+Art
** Finish terrible book.
* h0p3
** Book+Art
** Chillax with brother
* KYS
** https://www.teenvogue.com/story/south-dakota-buys-student-loan-debt
** https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/oct/05/smartphone-addiction-silicon-valley-dystopia
** http://www.cbc.ca/radio/quirks/october-7-2017-1.4343355/nra-lobbying-has-suppressed-gun-violence-research-1.4343359
* Confirm My Bias
** http://www.androidauthority.com/billion-dollar-company-crowdfunding-804008/
** http://www.tomshardware.com/news/respawn-titanfall-pc-gaming-install-electronic-arts,26275.html
** http://www.bbc.com/capital/story/20171003-millennials-are-the-generation-thats-fun-to-hate
** https://www.citylab.com/equity/2017/10/the-rise-of-the-rich-renter/542007/
** https://factordaily.com/outliers-bob-frankston/
** https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/07/us/drug-overdose-medical-examiner.html
* Tools
** http://input.fontbureau.com/
*** I love my new font.
!! Write about your most embarrassing moment.
This one is tough. I've been embarrassed by a lot of things. I've cared too much about what others think of me, even for an autistic person. I've strived for empathy, and in doing so, I've been embarrassed a lot, particularly when I (ironically) don't empathize with myself or when others don't empathize with me. It's also tough because: who wants to remember the most embarrassing things? I definitely have anxiety all the time; images, encounters, and snippets of my life crawl into my mind without my permission, forcing me to relive the event. That's fairly normal for a large swath of the population.
The epistemic ecosystem of Christianity embedded in my brain has been the most embarrassing series of moments for me, often even if only while sitting by myself. Recognizing that I've been so wrong for so long, so mislead, so biased, and so willing to defend irrationality at any cost has been shameful. It makes sense, but I'm still embarrassed by it.
The belief that humanity is good, trustworthy, and worth my time (outside of moral obligations) is another.
I can only do my best. No one is perfect. Everyone makes mistakes; most make even larger ones by my account. Be empathic. Love yourself.
* Prepare for 5 days away
* Pack camping supplies
* Book+Art
* Read+Write
* Fireman Time!
* Cannabliss
* Grocery Shopping
* Make sure kids have a clean room
* Family Time!
* Work on the Wiki itself
* NCCER
* It got too late for me to review [[Edit Notes: 10/6/2017]]. I did so today.
* Ah, my font wasn't showing up on all devices, just locally. It took a while to figure out that it wasn't actually downloading. So, I've forced it into a webfont and a stylesheet. Woot!
---
* [[StyleSheet-Input]]
** Looks very pretty.
* [[2017.10.07 - Link Log]]
** Short and sweet. This is a good way to prevent myself from using surfing the web as a timesink.
* [[2017.10.07 - To-Do-List Log]]
** Didn't finish it all, but I got most of that finished. Good job!
* [[2017.10.07 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** This has been a wonderful week.
* [[2017.10.07 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** Edited. I found one better.
** I don't care if it's shitty, I think it looks pretty. =)
*** I hope my wife reads this.
* [[2017.10.07 - Wiki Review Log]]
** I'm glad to see my wiki review log is the place to do it. I'm not sure how to structure my yearly audit, nor my revamp. Should I do it better than this?
* [[2017.10.07 - Pipefitting Log]]
** It will pick back up. Let's finish math, and then we will dive in.
* [[2017.10.06 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** It's okay man. Nobody is perfect.
** Also, edited "didn't," lol!
* Woke up early to spend time with wife
* Fireman Time x 2!
* Prepared for the trip
* Saw my love before we left
* Traveled
** A bit of math
** Talked
** The Nix
** Wrote Haikus
* Setup at JREs
* Cannabliss
* VR is fucking insane!
* Had fun with Reb, L, K, JRE, AIR, and my children
** I sorely miss my wife
* Bed!
!! What do you think of //The Nix// so far?
It's hilarious, too fucking real, post-modern and existential. I'm only halfway through, but I can tell this is an amazing book. The pieces are going to line up at the end.
* [[2017.10.08 - Family Log]]
** I want to get my hands dirty in VIM too.
** It has been a great week. =)
* [[Focus]]
** My daughter helped me make this sidebar.
* [[Focus: Transclusion]]
** Ugly hack.
* [[Embed a Font as a Webfont Stylesheet in Tiddlywiki]]
** Neat as fuck!
* [[StyleSheet-Zing]]
** Totally legal.
* [[2017.10.08 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** Edited: added the night.
* [[Yearly Audit Log]]
** Unused, but I have 2 months.
* [[2017.10.08 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** It's okay, bro.
* [[2017.10.08 - Wiki Review Log]]
** I need to ask my wife to continue the edits.
* [[2017.10.08 - To-Do-List Log]]
** Got most of it done. I should skim NCCER first and then deep read once again.
* [[2017.10.08 - Link Log]]
** Gorgeous font.
* I don't have enough "wiki" link mechanics, as in ABOUT.
* The Big Sick
* Ingrid Goes West
* Woke up very late
* Morning Routine
* DCK for JRE
* VR
* Read+Write
* Cannabliss
* Chilled, really
* Fireman Time x 2!
* Stunning!
** http://www.zoon.cc/stupid/
*** Also, Confirm My Bias, obviously.
*** Everyone thinks they are right. Everyone rates themselves above average intelligence. Everyone thinks they are the exception. Guess what? I usually am.
* KYS
** http://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/354718-mensa-offers-to-host-iq-test-for-trump-and-tillerson
*** Genuinely interested in the test results though. I have no idea why that isn't commonplace. We should see everything. Absolute transparency if you are going to wield that much power. Are you a true patriot?
** http://www.wweek.com/news/2017/10/08/nextdoor-says-users-who-share-posts-with-reporters-could-be-kicked-off-the-site/
** https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/10/16447276/bob-corker-trump-world-war-iii
** https://www.citylab.com/equity/2017/10/america-cant-fix-poverty-until-it-stops-hating-poor-people/542397/?utm_source=feed
* Confirm My Bias
** https://theoutline.com/post/2352/apple-is-really-bad-at-design
*** Poor fanboi has no idea.
** http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/09/27/california-school-test-scores-why-are-they-flatlining/
*** It's time we tested our own children. We need to honestly know across the board. There are many tests worth looking at.
**** We should give them some practice, as other children have had tons. The essentials of test-taking shouldn't get in their way.
*** http://howtohomeschoolforfree.com/free-assessment-tests-online-homeschool/
*** https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15432720
**** Fare thee well.
** https://theartandscienceofdata.wordpress.com/2017/06/01/the-billionaire-clusters/
*** I still have many questions and concerns here.
** https://hbr.org/2017/10/the-great-recession-drastically-changed-the-skills-employers-want
** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcotizing_dysfunction
*** Of course, I've been guilty.
** http://www.dailycal.org/2017/10/05/uc-berkeley-professor-co-authors-study-saying-people-sentenced-prison-likely-return/
** https://www.buzzfeed.com/henrygomez/the-campus-free-speech-wars-are-dramatically-changing-what?
*** I do not find many who are committed to free speech.
** http://www.oprah.com/sp/new-midlife-crisis.html
** https://www.reddit.com/r/LateStageCapitalism/comments/75heq9/the_rich_are_protecting_themselves_by_making/
** https://qz.com/1095899/gun-ownership-in-america-in-three-charts/
*** Unfortunately, utility compels me to join such an arms race. It's coming.
* Neat
** https://medium.com/@eulerfx/the-asynchronous-computability-theorem-171e9d7b9423
** https://pratt.duke.edu/news/pressure-sensor
*** I see this issue more and more. Small creatures are more potent than we realize.
** https://diogomonica.com/2017/10/08/crypto-anchors-exfiltration-resistant-infrastructure/
** https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/06/climate/tokyo-floods.html?ribbon-ad-idx=4&rref=climate
*** Neat. I've seen that picture before. Love it.
** https://ruby-on-wheels.github.io/blog/the-first-150-days-of-van-life/
** https://mosaicscience.com/story/-synaesthesia-blind-seeing-colours-synasthesia
** https://www.theverge.com/2017/10/10/16447264/prison-hacker-recycled-computer-fraud-ohio-marion-transkiy
* Tools
** https://github.com/ericfreese/rat
* For my wife:
** http://progressivepunctuation.com/
*** This is actually a reasonable idea, eh?
* For my daughter:
** https://openmonstervision.github.io/blog/posts/how-to-make-money-using-grep-sed-and-awk/
!! What do you think about VR gaming?
I thought I wouldn't be taken in by it even more than I have. I am very rarely blown away for very long by fancy graphics. The games I love most are ultimately found in their mechanics. But, VR //is// a mechanic, a profound one. This is clearly a goal for our family. We need to work towards VR.
That vision of us living our lives in VR but not with each other seems to be more real each day. We need to fight such forces in our lives. This is tricky. Maybe we should stick to having a daily family time as well. One hour that we set aside with and for each other. This is only going to get harder. We have to try and establish the connective order while we still can. Eventually, we won't be able to, most likely.
//Easy fuckin' day, yo.//
* Chat and Call my wife
* DCK for JRE
* Cannabliss
* Read+Write
* Setup RPi
* [[2017.10.09 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** Was an easy trip.
* [[2017.10.09 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** I clearly don't know what I think of //The Nix//
* [[2017.10.09 - Wiki Review Log]]
** Edit: a word.
* Woke up late (not as late as yesterday).
** Sleeping harder than usual, imho.
* I'm keeping my morning routine, thankfully.
* Gave kids my hugs.
** I want to hug my wife.
*** And...grab her ass.
* Shower of the Gods!
* Read+Write
* Weighed myself: 199.5 pounds.
** I can't recall the last time I weighed less than 200 pounds. Lol.
* Had a ton of fun working with my brothers to figure out how to build a bed frame with the tools we had.
* Tacos.
* L and K came over.
* I've tried to make it a point to talk about everyone's aspirations tonight. I want to know what they want, and I want to help them.
* Comedy Central Roast of Donald Trump.
* L, K, AIR, JRE, and I talked late into the night.
** It was wonderful.
** I wished my wife was there. I felt like I was missing half my body in that conversation.
* Fireman Time!
* KYS
** https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-09-29/democrats-find-an-unlikely-ally-in-big-business
*** Oh, Bloomberg. You've painted the picture all wrong, again. They were always allies with Big Business, and you know that.
* Tools
** https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/10/16/how-to-be-a-know-it-all
*** Added to the list. I do love these books. I want my children to read them all.
* Confirm My Bias
** https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/college-professors-arent-killing-religion/
** https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-10/the-smartest-americans-are-heading-west-as-computer-chips-replace-cow-chips
*** Do you live with the hive or go contrarian, hit 'em where they ain't?
** http://nymag.com/selectall/2017/10/vivos-group-bomb-shelter-bunkers.html
** http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1002399
** https://qz.com/1097293/the-equifax-breach-happened-because-todays-executives-know-theyve-got-nothing-to-fear/
** https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/10/09/how-essential-oils-became-the-cure-for-our-age-of-anxiety
** https://www.fastcompany.com/40472397/this-simple-tax-policy-change-boosts-the-cash-credit-and-well-being-of-the-working-poor
*** Not that I will be receiving mine. The cost of our educations.
** https://digg.com/video/why-tax-the-rich
* Neat
** https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Sakaki%27s_EFI_Install_Guide/Disabling_the_Intel_Management_Engine
* For my daughter:
** http://blog.wesleyac.com/posts/elliptic-curves
* https://www.epicurious.com/expert-advice/what-its-like-cooking-for-my-child-with-autism-article
** I hear that. I'm lucky in this respect.
* http://www.lastwordonnothing.com/2017/10/10/stop-being-shocked-please/
** Correct on a number of points. And, yet, my dear, you have not empathized with men so much yourself. Don't be a hypocrite.
* https://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/735840/11066f48be7a5f92/
** And, yet, I still don't like the tool. Right on many accounts.
!! What question would you most like answered?
Presumably, I get some cosmic, trustworthy, guaranteed answer in which I could be certain (magic, yo).
Well, "//What ought I do (in any and every context I find or could find myself in)?//" is the obvious answer. That is perhaps too easy. As a philosopher, I've been forced to ask myself this line of questioning all too often. I've tried to find the answers, for real.
* RPi
* Talk to wife
* Books+Art
* Cannabliss
* Read+Write
* [[Visual Art Collection]]
** Not sure what I'm doing here, but that's okay.
* [[2017.10.10 - /b/]]
** This is a good point. I really use it as a scaffolding structure, but not for definitions. I'm not sure I have a problem with that though.
** NoMachined in for one of them, but couldn't find the other.
* [[2017.10.10 - Link Log]]
** I think I spent too much time surfing, not enough writing yesterday.
* [[2017.10.10 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** Edited. Simple day. Arguably, not as seized as it could have been.
* [[2017.10.10 - To-Do-List Log]]
** Forgot to setup RPi. Need to do that today.
* [[2017.10.10 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** But, it may still be a while before the ecosystem has matured enough to be bonkers good.
* [[2017.10.10 - Wiki Review Log]]
** Wtf. I didn't write shit.
My parents never taught their children to love themselves because my parents never learned to love themselves either.
---
Anime:
* Ah-Jinn?
* Death Note
* Parasyte
* Erased -
* Food Wars - Shonen - Everyone doubts the protagonist, but he succeeds. Hero.
* Umaru - Slice of Life
* Haikyuu - Shonen - Sports
Youtube:
* Insaneintherainmusic
---
Economists suggest Charity instead of taxation->public funding. They also know that psychopaths should rise to the top and centralize power. They know charity will fail. Fucking assholes.
* Woke up at 10:30, but I didn't fall asleep until 4.
* Fireman Time!
* Routine Morning Routine.
* Spoke with my brothers at length.
* AIR made us breakfast.
* Planned the bed frame project. Drawing.
* Cannabliss.
* L came over. We talked a lot.
* My daughter explained how RPing was going for her in her game. Fascinating.
* Talked to my wife. Good to hear her voice.
* Fireman Time x 2 !!
** My wife fired me up.
!! You feel happiest in your skin when…
Such an odd phrase to me. I'm always in my skin. Whenever I'm happy, I was in my skin. Why not just ask, when I feel happiest? What additional implicature or meaning is imparted by "in your skin?" This is a dumb fucking question, Samwise Gamgee. And, if I may: you are an awful person.
Alright, fine. I will try to steelman that implicature. When someone says "in my skin," they mean something very intimate and authentic. They are talking about enjoying being who you are in that moment, about comfort, and perhaps even a tactile sensation.
Sex.
As my autistic son might say: //phrasing, boom!// (Lana once questioned if Archer had PDD-NOS)
No, but for real, sex and skin. Sounds good.
* Woodworking project
* Spend time with my brothers
* Cannabliss
* Pack to leave
* Talk to my wife!
* XMPP for my brothers
* [[2017.10.11 - Link Log]]
** I adore FiveThirtyEight. I've liked them for years. Some redpills up in there.
* [[2017.10.11 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** I'm actually proud of myself for having lost that much weight. I may gain it back, but at least I know I can do it.
* [[2017.10.11 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** You know, when I first picked up the question, I believed it was one which I didn't already have an answer for.
* [[2017.10.11 - To-Do-List Log]]
** Damn good day. (I like when it lines up with my [[Carpe Diem Log]] so closely.)
* [[2017.10.11 - Wiki Review Log]]
** Slowly, it grows.
Divinity Original Sin 2
---
I respect you, just not your principles; your principles are part of who you are. I don't respect part of who you are.
---
You'd need a psychological disorder to become (and stay) a preacher. Their lives do not compute; they lack coherence.
---
Start paying more attention to what is in front of you!
* Woke up at 9:30. I'm going to try to normalize my schedule.
* Routing Morning Routine.
* Cleaned up and prepped to leave.
* Gave my brother the $500 back. He gave a gift to me (so as to not have any hard feelings if I didn't pay the loan back), and I am incredibly grateful to him. We really fucking needed it. He really helped us out.
* Traveled.
** Son puked. Carsickness. Been a long time since that has happened. We need to get meds and prep more for this. I felt really bad for him.
** Good news though, my daughter (and perhaps son) are hooked on //Dune//. Woot!
* Inform the Men!
* Uh....unexpected hard sleep until 1:30am.
** #rekt; amazing sex.
* Stunning!
** https://eidolon.pub/plato-would-have-wanted-you-to-unplug-712a908a16e0
** http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~kihlstrm/Underwood96.htm
* KYS
** https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/10/11/trump_protest_website_privacy_latest/
** http://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/355071-kimmel-trump-threat-to-nbc-is-what-dictators-do
** https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/economy/2017/10/how-world-s-greatest-financial-experiment-enriched-rich
** https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/opinions/republicans-its-time-to-panic/2017/10/12/5775d558-af76-11e7-be94-fabb0f1e9ffb_story.html
* Preach, yo!
** https://decider.com/2017/01/04/the-venture-bros-redefined-adult-animation/
* Confirm My Bias
** https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2017-bitcoin-volume/
** https://techcrunch.com/2017/10/12/google-commits-1-billion-in-grants-to-train-u-s-workers-for-high-tech-jobs/
*** //Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes//
** http://trillian.mit.edu/~jc/humor/ATT_Copyright_true.html
** https://theoutline.com/post/2384/charity-isnt-enough
** https://medium.com/@timcavey/i-banned-my-phone-from-the-bedroom-for-two-weeks-heres-what-happened-53ecc00854c7
** https://jezebel.com/the-jury-in-the-comments-section-1818521870
** https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/10/geographic-mobility-and-housing/542439/
** http://www.businessinsider.com/millennials-are-being-left-behind-and-it-poses-a-huge-risk-to-the-us-economy-2017-10
* Tools
** https://www.amazon.com/Anker-Wireless-Vertical-Ergonomic-Optical/dp/B00BIFNTMC
** https://decider.com/
*** Perhaps a curation source
* Neat
** http://healthland.time.com/2013/02/11/how-to-terrify-the-fearless/
** https://blog.datacircle.io/2017/10/11/setting-up-company-in-berlin/
** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_firefighting
* For my wife:
** https://boingboing.net/2017/10/11/late-stage-sportsball.html
* For my son:
** http://dune.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page
* For my daughter:
** https://medium.facilelogin.com/securing-microservices-with-oauth-2-0-jwt-and-xacml-d03770a9a838
** https://www.cs.virginia.edu/~bjc8c/papers/levy17rustkernel.pdf
* http://www.psypost.org/2017/10/high-ranked-women-less-generous-men-sharing-reward-collaborators-49873
** Curious.
!! Three things you’d do if you weren’t so afraid.
# I'd be more prescriptively Redpilled...
#* ...but I fear being morally wrong. I'm hedging my bets as hard as I can. I save it as the last resort.
# I'd create decentralized platforms that I believe are crucial to the world...
#* ...but I fear failure, and I'm worried I can't afford to take up activities which aren't low risk and obviously useful to my family.
# Start my own business now...
#* ...but I doubt myself and fear I don't have a good enough gameplan yet.
* Get everything prepped to leave
* Travel home
* Make dinner for my wife
* Fuck my wife's brains out
* Read + Write
* Books+Art
* Grab //Lazarus// for JRE
* Grab the list of shows from: [[2017.10.12 - /b/]]
* If I can, sleep early
* [[2017.10.12 - /b/]]
** Good.
* [[2017.10.12 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** Horny.
** Also, I did this one before, and I didn't realize it until my wife pointed it out: [[2017.06.04 - Prompted Introspection Log]].
*** A happy accident. I'm glad to see my different responses to it.
* [[2017.10.12 - To-Do-List Log]]
** I didn't get XMPP setup for them.
* [[2017.10.12 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** Edited. As usual, finishing the night off.
* [[2017.10.12 - Wiki Review Log]]
** Keep pushing.
* [[VR Tradeskill Classes]]
** A very interesting idea.
I compatibility test people with media that I strongly favor. Do they appreciate the narratives that I do? I am gatekeeping to myself. I'm curating people. I realize, there is an odd filter-bubble mechanic to it. I'm crystallized to some extent though.
---
On a note of compatibility, outside of my hope to [[Find the Others]], I'm going to [[Ghost the World]] (the rest of it, at least).
---
My wife has promised to bang me for three days straight, and it was her idea. What in the world? Uh, that is above and beyond the call of duty. That's really kind.
---
It was very interesting hearing my children's point of views on our trip JRE's. It was a good time. I'm glad we had the opportunity.
---
Lazarus author's never responded. =(
---
Capitalism is a very strong expression of Evolution
---
Zing, "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, "Lucida Grande", "DejaVu Sans", sans-serif
Zing, Monaco, Consolas, "Lucida Console", "DejaVu Sans Mono", monospace
* Woke up at 1:30, wife's bluelight.
* Ate a late night something.
* Watched a ton of shows
* Moving files around for people
* Read+Write
* //The Big Sick// is melancholically cute as fuck.
** Except the come to Muhammad moment with his parents.
* Took the car back, got an oil change
* Nap
* Inform the Men!
** Literally the best of my life. I have found my fetish.
* Read+Write
* Project Runway and junk.
* Fixed some seedbox consideration and script
* Fireman Time!
* Talked to ALM
* Venture and Bed
I have spent much time trying to prevent my screen from being so damn bright and flashy. There are many tricks and customizations. One of my favorites is the //Deluminate// plugin for Chromium-based browsers. As long as you use it religiously, it converts the web into something far easier on the eyes, particularly in the dark.
Unfortunately, it started flashing a scroll-bar at the bottom. This is beyond annoying. It is unusable for me. After trying many things, I found a solution:
# Goto `chrome://flags/` and enable Overlay Scrollbar.
Also, it's fucking beautiful. I love the loss of the scrollbar until mouseover.
Now, if only I could find a way to prevent chromium screen flashing: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=470669.
* KYS
** https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2017/08/03/even-mark-zuckerberg-cant-stop-the-meme-that-he-is-running-for-president/
* Preach, yo!
** https://www.buzzfeed.com/taylorlorenz/millennials-are-over?utm_term=.gx2AOvVvv#.xblajxOxx
*** Buzzfeed...me. /facepalm
** https://www.vox.com/2017/10/13/16431502/america-democracy-decline-liberalism
*** “Democracies don’t fall apart — they’re taken apart” - Redpill that shit, yo!
* Confirm My Bias
** https://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/former-wharton-professor-trump-was-dumbest-gddam-student-i-ever-had#.WeFo6SMZG6I.twitter
** https://np.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/761uhe/more_than_25_million_people_die_each_year_without/doazarq/?context=3
** https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-13282-7.pdf
*** Ofc, they must caution not to self-medicate.
*** I think it opened up the door to me finding a way out.
*** Yes, I know: http://www.nationaldrugstrategy.gov.au/internet/drugstrategy/publishing.nsf/Content/FE16C454A782A8AFCA2575BE002044D0/$File/mono71.pdf
** https://www.newyorker.com/science/maria-konnikova/how-norms-change?
*** Love the archetype "Confirm My Bias" here. Ironic.
** http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/10/13/4819750/
*** You mean a Paypal founder may have psychopathic capitalist practices in his other ventures? What?
** https://intelligence.org/2017/10/13/fire-alarm/
** http://thriveworks.com/blog/serotonin-study-suggests-psychedelics-treat-mental-illness/
** https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/ketamine-lifts-depression-byproduct-its-metabolism
** https://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21730034-jones-act-hurts-american-consumers-and-destroyed-countrys-shipping
*** I am not surprised //The Economist// produced this. I'm not in favor of protectionism, but I do not think globalization has benefited the poor all that much either. I do not buy their line of argumentation.
** https://torrentfreak.com/purevpn-logs-helped-fbi-net-alleged-cyberstalker-171009/
*** Trust is difficult to establish.
*** I wish we made it easy to fire up seedboxes for everyone, and to build darknets out of those proxies. Forcing participants to try to have good connections works for private tracker communities.
** https://runeksvendsen.github.io/blog/posts/2017-10-08-no-bitcoin-based-protocol-can-handle-more-than-20m-users-per-month.html
** http://news.psu.edu/story/485920/2017/10/05/research/middle-managers-may-turn-unethical-behavior-face-unrealistic
*** No shit, Sherlock: middle managers are useless, parasitic cunts. They are middle men who leach value. I do not respect those homo sapiens.
** https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/7653rd/cmv_women_grope_men_all_the_time_and_feel/
* Disconfirm My Bias
** http://retractionwatch.com/2017/10/13/rich-people-meaner-trying-find-two-teams-find-errors-others-work/
* Neat
** https://www.nextplatform.com/2017/10/11/intel-takes-first-steps-universal-quantum-computing/
*** When do I move to quantum resistant crypto?
** https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/oct/13/the-scientists-persuading-terrorists-to-spill-their-secrets
*** "Neat" in a fucked up way, ofc.
** https://www.statnews.com/2017/10/12/michael-laufer-drug-prices/
** https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-your-dd-character-rare/
*** You all are trash.
** https://techcrunch.com/2017/10/13/steve-wozniak-announces-tech-education-platform-woz-u/
*** Hope it is worthy.
** https://sappingattention.blogspot.com/2017/09/peer-review-is-younger-than-you-think.html
*** This is important to understanding part of [[The Great Human Conversation]]
** https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2017/09/android-users-rejoice-linux-kernel-lts-releases-are-now-good-for-6-years/
*** This is excellent.
* For my daughter:
** https://github.com/mhinz/vim-galore
** https://www.interviewcake.com/data-structures-and-algorithms-guide
** https://np.reddit.com/r/learnprogramming/comments/75xrpj/im_in_a_code_school_im_beginning_to_suspect_that/do9w710/
** https://github.com/yangshun/tech-interview-handbook/blob/master/preparing/cheatsheet.md
** https://www.reddit.com/r/vim/
** http://learnvimscriptthehardway.stevelosh.com/
* For my wife:
** http://www.science20.com/mom_not_otherwise_specified/physics_parenting_autism_spectrum
** http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/autism/autism-and-schizophrenia
*** I rarely care for the comments section, but when I do, I really do. Check it out.
** http://ps.psychiatryonline.org/doi/abs/10.1176/ps.34.4.293
*** https://sci-hub.cc/10.1176/ps.34.4.293
* For my son:
** http://www.autismepicenter.com/history-of-autism.shtml
* https://bluishcoder.co.nz/2017/10/12/zerome-decentralized-microblogging-on-zeronet.html
** I've done this before. Meh. I'm still thinking about it. I want it to be more worthwhile.
* https://np.reddit.com/r/JUSTNOFAMILY/comments/74w75t/the_four_rules_of_being_a_good_kid/
** I see myself on both sides of this equation at times.
* https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-06/how-blade-runner-2049-rewrites-business-history
** Weird.
* https://www.thebillfold.com/2017/10/a-checklist-before-dying/
** The essentials on this list are covered. No, you don't have to have a lawyer.
* https://www.thedailybeast.com/what-pop-cultures-obsession-with-cults-says-about-us
** I have a hard time even defining the word "cult." I'm not sure what isn't one.
* http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/09/number-child-on-child-sexual-assaults-almost-doubles/
** I have lots of questions.
* http://blog.humblebundle.com/post/166366386976/humble-bundle-is-joining-forces-with-ign
** Gross.
Imagine a world in which the average-Joe can brainlessly spin up VPS's with zkSNARK cryptocurrencies of anonymized darknets. We would all have our boxes out there, doing our work for us, at high speeds, with yet another proxy buffer. The goal is to make it so that ISP's can't contain users. Let our hard work be done elsewhere if need be. Once we relax liability on them, we are in good shape (except for their desire to form content monopolies, etc.).
---
I've seen tons of tools that do things like these. Let's just start compiling and brainstorming.
Imagine a world in which people worked together:
* https://github.com/FlyersWeb/dhtbay
I love the Bayesian classifier. Search needs to be decentralized and the most prominent aspect of the network. First and foremost, it must make searching the network incredibly useful.<<ref "1">>
I donate a certain amount of computing power, RAM, CPU, bandwidth, hard drive space, and in return, I get sick search results. This is how we build good search capacities. As long as we can filter users out (creating banlists), we can easily build networks. Hell, you could even build private communities out of this, but I think that might be a bad thing. Eh. Maybe, make it a trust-based network like Retroshare.
Call it the [[Minternet]], a portmanteau of Mint and Internet. Or maybe [[Outopos]]: Enter the place that cannot be.
It would be nice to be rewarded in every possible way you could be for contributing to the network. There are plenty of cryptocoin schemes for it.
---
Outopos:
No tool seems to work out of the box everywhere for every purpose. Perhaps no tool can by definition. However, we can make great strides here, and we should. This is what Retroshare should have been.
* A Virtual Dark Network that can live inside and participate within or next to any other network.
** Preferably, it hooks up all the parts together for the users. It is network agnostic as possible.
** More preferably, it runs on its own network by default. It can be used on other networks, but these incur costs.
* Decentralized
** p2p Infrastructure Foundation
** Federations/Complex Network Organization must easily arise.
* Connectability/Bootstrapping
** Robust, fast, flexible, and world-class.
** NAT-Piercing God
** Embedded access to proxies to bootstrap lists.
*** Would love to see it fire up Tor, i2p, p2p protocols, and other darknets to simply bootstrap.
**** Eventually, we may enable access to [[Outopos]] itself through these networks.
** Manual bootstrapping
** Brute-force network settings
*** I'm fine even brute-force scanning the internet until we accidentally run into someone who has it.
** Built-in VPN support (a variety of obvious setups)
* Programming Languages
** Network Tools will be written in Golang.
*** It's simple, fast, and runs on everything.
** UI's will be either CLI or browser (GUI CLI's at this point) based.
*** Make it run on any device with a browser.
*** Make remote access very simple.
** Mission critical code should be written in Rust
** WASM is always a valuable consideration of how this network could evolve.
** Must make it easy to manipulate with python and bash.
** Eventually, it should go hardware mesh network.
*** Make it easy to transition into that. We might even start our exploration at that level first. That's the ultimate goal. Replace the Internet Protocol. It can only do so by first existing on the internet itself, building up the right network effect that it becomes its own entity.
*** Imagine being able to reach Outopos on the internet but also connecting over wifi to the device. Build repeaters and long-range equipment designed for it.
**** Microwave networks are fun!
* Language and Unicode
** Give it fundamental, easy to use support for languages and characters that are unexpected.
** It needs to hit the ground running, everywhere.
* Always-on Git
** Make it so that source code sharing, versioning, and modification, as well as sane unattended upgrades are available.
** Make it extremely hard to shut down.
* Multi-threaded and EZ Connection binding
** The protocol must be designed for sharing information in a decentralized, torrent-like fashion.
** Ultimately, you want to be able to connect to the network over many WANs with no single-thread bottlenecks.
** The only way to break a monopoly on hardware connections is to be able to make a lot of smaller connections do the same work that larger connections can do.
* I really like Tiddlywiki a lot. I'd love to see Tiddlywiki as a starting place for a lot of people.
---
Outropos<<ref "2">> is a decentralized Internet replacement run by its users. Ultimately, this must happen at a hardware level. Before that can happen, however, we need a software implementation which operates over the Internet itself in order to generate a userbase large enough from the "Network Effect" necessary to transition to a hardware layer. Such a network would be a threat to the existence of the Internet, and it would eventually be censored. We'd need to make it very difficult to take down from the beginning. Our advantage is being able to take the world by storm. Our alpha software should be beta software, and our beta software should be production ready software, and our production software should be world-class.
Outropos must be //Copyfree //opensource.
One goal is to make the Outopos platform, ecosystem, and hardware neutral/agnostic.
Users must donate to the network. It's simply infeasible for the network to operate without forcing users to do what is not always in their personal best interest. We must defuse prisoner's dilemmas by eliminating them within the protocol itself as much as possible. How do you prevent cheating? How do you make users play fair? How do you generate trust among strangers?
---
Is there content you don't want to see? Ad blockers exist for the clearnet. It stands to reason that we can easily do the same sorts of things for any kind of content. You can curate Oracles, and place your trust.
---
Should ask for significant resources on a system. Assume 10GB space minimum. Assume significant CPU, RAM, Connections. You can't play VR games on a bullshit computer, and the nextgen network should be working with absolutely nothing. It needs to use those resources wisely, of course.
---
<<footnotes "1" "Of course, it could eventually be used to search the internet and any network. Start small. Work out the kinks, then build from there.">>
<<footnotes "2" "Previously conceived of as Atropos">>
!! Why don't you care for karaoke at all?
I think people like karaoke because they like to let go, feel free, ignore judgment, perhaps experience a delusional twisted celebrity moment/dream, and it's somehow a medium of valuable emotional expression to them.
Wtf?
None of those make sense to me. Karaoke is not the right catalyst for me. Don't get me wrong. I will never escape the drug that is music. I am happy to dance and sing to my songs when I can. I'm not shy in most cases. I've done tons of public speaking, and I've plenty of music performance in front of others. I know I'm a bad singer, but that doesn't matter for karaoke.
Maybe I don't feel comfortable. It just doesn't strike me as interesting. You know what I want to do with others? Escape them.
<<<
[[RPIN]]: I can see that even when [[KIN]] is structurally removed from this wiki, it lives on. It's part of embracing who I really am. I will continue to catalog it, of course.
<<<
* [[Creating Faith]]
* [[Cleaning my nails]]
* [[Collect Music Again]]
* [[Taking care of my things]]
* [[Inferiority Complex]]
* [[The Only Man Who Can Drive His Particular Car Syndrome]]
* [[Virtue signaling to myself or my idealized self]]
* [[Emotional Reasoning]]
* [[Anatomy of My Writing-style]]
* [[Which Internet Memes Describe Me Best]]
* [[I lost faith in God and humanity, but I must not lose faith in myself]]
* [[HPPD]]
* [[Marital Relationship Advice to Myself]]
* [[Learned Helplessness]]
* [[Playing Life Like a Video Game]]
* [[In almost all cases, the more I get to know someone, the less I like them.]]
* Return vehicle
* Fluid change new (old) vehicle
* Shopping
* Library
* Clean fridge
* Kids' room
* Clean living room
* Setup //Divinity Original Sin 2// for my son.
* Send L and K The Guild
* You'll find a change in my transclusions for the "Focus" on the sidebar. I want to include my {Dreams}'s Focus section.
* Fixed the editor to show my custom font. It was a problem.
---
* [[2017.10.13 - Link Log]]
** I would like to understand why I like my archetype categories.
* [[2017.10.13 - /b/]]
** Edited.
* [[2017.10.13 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** Jesus. Actual introspection. Wtf has gotten into Samwise?
* [[2017.10.13 - To-Do-List Log]]
** Actually, she fucked mine out. I fell asleep and woke up 8 hours later.
* [[2017.10.13 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** So, I fell asleep. Edited.
* [[2017.10.13 - Wiki Review Log]]
** I did get it set up for JRE. Although, I've not seen him on. Why?
Human Resource Departments see you as a fucking //resource//. You are meat. You are a vessel of capital wrapped in liability. They exist to help the company legally (not morally) extract value from you. In other words, they aren't your friend.
* Woke up at 8:30. Hopefully, will fall asleep early tonight.
* Fireman Time!
* Read+Write while watching League and pushing out brix
* Routine Morning Routine
* Cleaned the living room and some odds and ends.
** Prepped gear for the car (didn't put it in yesterday)
* Tried to go to the circus with the kids...the car died.
** FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU....okay. I'm okay.
** We'll get it sorted tomorrow hopefully.
* House is cleaned
* Family time!
** Truly excellent
** We spent time surfing through music videos of yore too!
* Wife made Indian food that was delicious.
* Watched //The Good Doctor// - a very positive show about an autistic individual.
** I actually enjoyed it.
* Spent time on //The Good Place// and //American Vandal//.
* I asked my wife if we could fuck before I knew she would get tired. She preferred TV. I waited. She got tired. She agreed to bang, but I'd rather her sleep. She is so tired from not sleeping.
* Fireman Time!
* Venture bros and sleep.
!! How has your health been this week?
* 1uxb0x
** Amazing. No problems (the car did).
* j3d1h
** Fine.
* k0sh3k
** It was nice. Felt good. Didn't sleep well.
* h0p3
** I didn't sleep great, but I did get enough. Felt good overall. Anxious, especially while driving.
---
!! What happened last week? Have you been happy this past week? Why or why not?
* 1uxb0x
** Very happy. VR was sick. Found a new game he loves.
* j3d1h
** Going to uncle JRE's house was awesome. Definitely want to get the Ender's Game-like VR game.
* k0sh3k
** Good. Enjoyed her isolation for the most part. Watching TV shows without interruption was great. Happy, except at night.
* h0p3
** Going to see my brothers, R, L, and K was wonderful. It is always good to get to know them better. I was happy.
---
!! What is a positive fact or compliment we can say about each person in the family?
* 1uxb0x
** You went out of your way to be polite with others. You did a good job socializing.
** While you were gone, I really missed your playfulness and energy. I missed seeing you pull yourself into imaginary worlds.
** You shared a lot with me this week. Thank you.
* j3d1h
** Thank you for drawing this for me. (She made an anime character for her brother)
** While you are gone, I really missed your snarkiness. I'm glad to see you have that snark. We're going to be friends.
** Thank you for being willing to read //Dune// and our math books when needed.
* k0sh3k
** Thank you for dealing with us being gone and alone.
** Thank you for the best sex of my life.
** Thank you for messaging us each day.
* h0p3
** I think it is good that you were trying to talk to people more.
** Thank you for stopping the car for me to throw up.
** Thank you for going away; do that more often. While you were gone, I missed your snarky back and forth. I missed my verbal sparring partner.
---
!! What will you do this week? Name at least one fun objective and one unfun objective.
* 1uxb0x
** Help my sister with cookies
** Read 3 books
* j3d1h
** Bake Cookies
** Draw
** Finish Dune
* k0sh3k
** Thinking
** Homework
** Edit the bastard's wiki
* h0p3
** Do Math
** Develop Collections for my chilluns
* Stunning!
** https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/10/equifax-rival-transunion-also-sends-site-visitors-to-malicious-pages/
*** Don't you see? This is a concerted effort. Something is happening here. This is no accident. Pay attention! Who are you? (Is that you, Russia?) Why? What are you trying to accomplish?
* KYS
** https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/10/what-facebook-did/542502/
*** None of you actually give a shit. If you did, you would take nothing less than [[Outopos]].
** http://www.businessinsider.com/millennials-photos-2017-10/#you-can-tell-a-lot-about-someone-based-on-what-they-collect-and-keep-around-them-6
*** Oh yes, you told the story. Lol. Assholes.
** http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-campaign-data-russia-cambridge-analytica-2017-10
** https://medium.com/@philipn/want-to-see-something-crazy-open-this-link-on-your-phone-with-wifi-turned-off-9e0adb00d024
*** Fine. Maybe I will just VPN it. Goddamnit.
** https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/10/early-facebook-employees-regret-the-monster-they-created
*** You should have known. How convenient of you to come out now, after you've profited and made sure you'll survive happily through the destruction of our world. Give all your money back, pay your penance, and then I'll believe you and empathize with your position.
*** Also, this is not an honest narrative. It does not portray the full set of causes here (not even the primary ones). That is not by accident.
* Confirm My Bias
** https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/a3kaza/are-millennials-killing-the-lottery-industry?
*** We have our own lotteries.
** https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2017/10/14/lies-lies-lies-lies-lies-lies-lies-lies-lies-lies/
*** Yeah. He's got a start there. Does he see the hypocrisy of his own side? When was the last time this man actually saw poverty or experienced it? Is he open to his own biases?
** https://i.redd.it/r5x1753esyrz.jpg
** https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-12/google-has-made-a-mess-of-robotics
*** It's coming though.
* Disconfirm My Bias
** http://moreisdifferent.com/2015/07/16/why-physicsts-still-use-fortran/
*** I have/had high hopes for Julia.
* Neat
** https://medium.com/@gsvpioneer/what-i-learned-from-reading-every-amazon-shareholders-letter-cdc35f309e8b
*** As much as I truly hate Bezos as a human being, I must respect his virtue in that practice.
* For my daughter:
** http://cs.yale.edu/homes/aspnes/classes/223/notes.html
** https://medium.com/@evidanary/cognitive-biases-in-programming-5e937707c27b
** https://zwischenzugs.wordpress.com/2017/10/15/my-20-year-experience-of-software-development-methodologies/
* For my wife:
** https://medium.com/@fsgbooks/secrets-of-the-stacks-4ca8405f1e11
Two QuickFix 6.1 synthetic urine kits bought. I'll need to find a way to comfortably and safely keep one on me at all times. I'm still going to try to pass employment screens with live samples, especially since they may just watch me piss (I've never had that happen yet, but the noose continues to tighten around us). The test I know will pass is better than the one I'm not sure. That said, this is wildly better than nothing. I may pick up a few more hand warmers just to make sure I can guarantee reaching the temps 92-100ish, plus I'd like to have used/practiced with one first (seems obvious and easy though).
!! Why did you choose TSM as "your team?" Why do you have a team you want to be a fan of at all? Isn't that some dirty tribalism?
It is irrational in some respects. Thank you, Samwise. There are a couple rationales/rationalizations to consider.
I've followed them for a long time. I connect with the narratives, even if only because I've seen more of their narratives than others. I like their pursuit of excellence. Don't we live vicariously through their stories?
I also like limiting what I need to watch. I watch TSM, and the others I don't give a shit about except insofar as they affect "my" team. It's practical to be a fan in this way.
I think I also compartmentalize my fandom here in a reasonable way. I don't think it affects how I view or interact with others. This tribalism is contained and by itself not obviously affecting anything else. Yes, I see subconscious butterfly effects are a possibility.
Okay. I will think about it some more.
* Take kids to the circus
* Indian food with naan tonight. I'm excited to prepare it.
* Read+Write
* League
* Inform the Men!
* Clean up.
* Family time
* Cannabliss
* I thought I had it solved. It looked fine on [[monster-10]]. I cut it off and started on my laptop. I lost Zing for the entire wiki. I kept playing with it. Killing the stylesheet made it all better, except, I still have some bullshit font again. That sucks.
---
* [[Outopos: Wishlist]]
** A guy's gotta dream
* [[StyleSheet]]
** So disappointed today.
* [[Outopos]]
** Go for it!
* [[Transclusion: Dreams]]
** I like this move. Although, something still doesn't feel right.
* [[Jabba]]
** Will fill in later.
* [[2017.10.14 - Outopos]]
** I went through a lot of names and tiddlers before I landed on this.
* [[2017.10.14 - Computer Musings]]
** Praise the maker.
* [[Self]]
** I should take the rest of the tests.
* [[2017.10.14 - Link Log]]
** Much consumed.
* [[2017.10.14 - /b/]]
** As usual, a strong vein
* [[2017.10.14 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** My penis is sore.
* [[2017.10.14 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** Sounds right to me.
* [[2017.10.14 - Wiki Review Log]]
** Still a problem! God damnit!
* [[2017.10.14 - To-Do-List Log]]
** I didn't get as much done on that list as I'd have liked. My list changed after I looked into it.
I now believe that we should strongly limit inheritance. Force people to spend their wealth while they are alive. We must aggressively and collectively work together on it. The centralization of power happens through the generations; this is a fact of //Capital in the Twenty First Century//.
Wealth in a full libertarian-capitalist world is raw power. Everything can be bought (even if the means are complex). When will we ever learn our lesson? We need better power-distributions that extend beyond "from father to son" lineage-power-transfer aristocracies, monarchies, etc.? Lol. Never.
---
My wife's college has 80k codex in their primary collection, 114k in the seminar, and 263k digital books. In my best year of piratical distribution, I pushed 2 petabytes. That is the distribution of 175 complete Milligan college book collections worth of information in a single year. I am proud of my charity work, however illegal it may have been.
---
The /r/iamverysmart and /r/im14andthisisdeep/ crowds are about as annoying as /r/justneckbeardthings, etc. We get it. You want to put people in their place. You also lack charity and empathy, and you're proud of your anti-intellectualism. Good for you, and terrible for the world. KYS.
---
Legally, loitering is taking up space without spending money.
---
Steelman it:
What does it mean to say altruist motivational molecules can emerge from egoist motivations (be they atomic or molecular)?
* Woke up at 8:30.
** Schedule is normalizing again. Still have to fall asleep on the couch to Venture.
** My wife is sleeping terribly. I feel absolutely terrible for her. What can I do!! I need to help her. I hate this powerlessness.
* Fireman Time!
** I'm used to not using lube. Back into it.
* Routine Morning Routine
* Talked to my wife and ALM.
** I'm not sure how I should respond to ALM's writing. I think it is on average better that I do not. I want him to do his thing.
* Reading+Writing
* Children cleaned out the car, as it will be towed.
* Minor cleaning in the house.
* Had a very difficult time getting my son to do his basic work: laundry.
* Mathematics Tutoring!
* Read+Write
* Inform the Men!
* Watched some shows
* Talked to my brother, AIR!
** Woot! Good to hear from him.
** He has decided to start moving forward with his career.
** He is going to start writing in his wiki, he says.
** He needs a keyboard for his computer (no idea why) and a new phone.
*** Perhaps this is him signaling that he won't.
** He inspired me to make a few walkthroughs
* Restructuring the wiki
* Stunning!
** http://www.interfluidity.com/uploads/2017/10/Fiat-Is-Effective-Minitalk-light-edit-to-share.pdf
*** This guy fucks.
** https://gist.github.com/1wErt3r/4048722
*** This guy also fucks.
* KYS
** https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/05/pennsylvania-attorney-general-files-suit-against-student-loan-provider-navient-for-deceptive-practices.html
** https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/14/opinion/sunday/millennials-freedom-fear.html
*** Have I told you that I hate people?
** https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-16/facebook-is-said-to-seek-staff-with-national-security-clearance
** https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/millennials-arent-buying-homes--good-for-them/2016/08/22/818793be-68a4-11e6-ba32-5a4bf5aad4fa_story.html?utm_term=.71173b639601
** http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-04/the-chinese-communist-partys-power-and-influence-in-australia/8584270
** http://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/13/twitter-russia-data-deleted-investigation-243730
* Preach, yo!
** https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/10/23/the-danger-of-president-pence?
** http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/stephen-hawking-capitalism-robots_us_5616c20ce4b0dbb8000d9f15
** https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/13/opinion/sunday/Silicon-Valley-Is-Not-Your-Friend.html
** https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/06/skinner-marketing-were-the-rats-and-facebook-likes-are-the-reward/276613/?single_page=true
* Confirm My Bias
** https://www.lawfareblog.com/white-house-misses-deadline-begin-implementing-new-russia-sanctions
*** I'm shocked, shocked I tell you.
** https://news.bitcoin.com/half-billion-people-mining-cryptocurrencies/
*** As the world moves into WASM, this will become the thing.
**** I hate to say it, but I'm not paying it.
** http://reallifemag.com/what-was-the-nerd/
*** Plenty of excellent points. And, yet, you still don't get it. I was an outcast. The pursuit of truth is often extremely unfashionable. Your conceptual and historical analysis of nerd is still poor here. The oppression is real. I'm not surprised by this argument (hence, the confirmation of my bias towards you).
** https://i.redd.it/syokw7vsu6sz.png
** https://interestingengineering.com/one-comptuer-is-better-at-investing-than-experts
** https://jacobinmag.com/2017/10/inheritance-wealthy-one-percent
** http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/10/trump-keeps-getting-mad-when-he-learns-what-his-policies-do.html
** https://arxiv.org/pdf/1709.10478.pdf
*** Few things make me happy. This one did.
** http://mentalfloss.com/article/55677/what-universal-language-skies
*** Lingua Franca
* Tools
** https://i.redd.it/hu3t1it7p3sz.jpg
** https://yakking.branchable.com/posts/what-and-why-nix/
** https://www.faxrocket.com/#!/start
* Neat
** http://www.businessinsider.com/students-learning-education-print-textbooks-screens-study-2017-10?IR=T
*** So much bidnessinsoider lately.
** https://www.buzzfeed.com/stephaniemlee/this-biohacker-wants-to-edit-his-own-dna?utm_term=.dtbVmr4xev#.lvdYpRzLBZ
*** I won't be beta testing.
** http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/infrastructure/a28502/rock-solid-history-of-concrete/
** https://www.krackattacks.com/
*** A little bit shocking that the protocol is the problem.
*** Perhaps every layer just has to go end-to-end; it's the only solution to the stack.
* For my wife:
** https://www.wired.com/2017/10/geeks-guide-blade-runner-2049?
** https://alpha.cryptokitties.co/
** https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/10/ophelia-became-a-major-hurricane-where-the-waters-are-usually-too-cold/
* For my daughter:
** http://www.cs.usfca.edu/~galles/visualization/Algorithms.html
** https://medium.com/@deusexmachina667/you-fired-your-top-talent-i-hope-youre-happy-cf57c41183dd
*** Management are your enemies (and effective psychopathic managers should see everyone as their enemy, resources to be used and manipulated).
* https://yourbias.is/declinism
** Except, I think it is easy to whip this out in the face of honest critique. This counter must be wielded wisely.
* https://bostonreview.net/literature-culture/vivian-gornick-james-atlas-shadow-garden
** I actually don't care for biographies, except of the ones I love and empathize with.
Our car is dead. We are trading it (hopefully for the full value we paid) for a different one. I want one with fewer miles. Now that I know that I will be dividing my toolsets into smaller compartments so that I can move them more effectively, I can also afford to have a smaller vehicle. This is a good thing.
We will get another vehicle on Wednesday. I was thinking we would do our shopping that day as well.
!! Respond to the following:
<<<
If you are neutral in situations of injustice you have chosen the side of the oppressor.
--Desmond Tutu
<<<
You are either with us or against us? Maybe. That is not always false.
Another reading of this is that nobody is actually neutral. Those who think of themselves as neutral have made a choice which isn't neutral at all: they've chosen to quietly sit by as the oppressor oppresses the oppressed.
That sounds about right. I can think of some exceptions and cornercases. On average, this is correct.
Stand up, bitches. Fuck the Police.
//See first: [[ass]] & [[titties]]//
(Obviously, this header is optional and to be rarely used. It's a powerful tool.)
{Principles} {Focus} {Projects} {Vault} {Dreams}
---
!! About:
//Something personal, profoundly valuable, optics, lens-giving, context-giving, etc., or a dedication. This is optional.//
<<<
Here is an optional quote
--Author Found+Necessary
<<<
Talk about what the page is about, provide an introduction to understand its contents, the reasons for this directory file's existence. Talk about the goals, especially the means to ends relationships and consequential reasons you find in it.
For example, this page exists solely to help me convert my entire wiki into something with a rigorous file structure. This allows me to be computational about it literally with my computer and also with my mind. It frames problems and provides me means to solving them.
Obviously, this section is not optional.
---
!! Principles:
I've templated this page as a Directory File, but it doesn't really absolutely have to be one. I think it's just cool that way, and it brings it to life. Obviously, this section is not optional: every page has principles
---
!! Focus:
Well, here's the template:
```
//See first: [[example]] & [[example]]//
---
!! About:
//Italicized Intro, quip, etc.//
<<<
Here is a quote.
--Author
<<<
---
!! Principles:
---
!! Focus:
* (*crickets)
---
!! Vault:
* (*crickets)
---
!! Dreams:
* (*crickets)
---
<<footnotes "1" "(*crickets)">>
```
---
!! Vault:
* Retired:
** [[2017.09.15 - Retired: Wiki: Directory File Structure Template]]
---
!! Dreams:
* (*crickets)
---
<<footnotes "1" "(*crickets)">>
* Read+Write
* Return vehicle
* Mathematics
* //Dune// and //The Nix//
* Inform the Men!
* Cannabliss
* Clean
* I fixed a margins problem for mobile users. I had several people talk to me within the space of a day about the fact that they can't read this on mobile. In tight spots, I'm forced to use this on mobile too, so I needed to fix it. Thank you to those folks.
* I keep adjusting the starting page and sidebar. I've moved to [[Hub]] and [[Map]] to do a lot of work for me.
---
* [[Edit Notes: 10/15/2017]]
** Reviewed and annotated
** Thank you, my love.
* [[Daily Family Log Template]]
** We are going to try having a quick daily family log. I think this is worth our time.
* [[2017.10.15 - Family Log]]
** Quick edit.
* [[2017.10.15 - Link Log]]
** Begrudgingly, I use Medium quite a bit.
* [[2017.10.15 - Pipefitting Log]]
** Woot! Also, I need to get that log started again. Back to the Core Requirements with you!
* [[2017.10.15 - /b/]]
** I wish someone sat down and told me these things when I was younger.
* [[2017.10.15 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** Well, they are out of worlds now. SKT and C9 are the only major players I care about now.
* [[2017.10.15 - To-Do-List Log]]
** Uninformed. Men are so //ignorant!//
* [[2017.10.15 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** We still had a good day.
* [[2017.10.15 - Wiki Review Log]]
** I have not resolved the problem. From my research, I don't think I can feasibly do it either. Sucks.
<<<
Science is more than a body of knowledge; it is a way of thinking. I have a foreboding of an America in my children’s or grandchildren’s time — when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the key manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what’s true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness.
-- Carl Sagan
<<<
---
Redpill vs. Purplepill Self-Dialectics - A/B Testing myself for rational preferences.
* Woke up at 4:30, went to lay down upstairs. Couldn't sleep. Listened to my wife. Eventually came down and watched Venture, then tried falling asleep. I heard my wife come down. I eventually just went back up and could sleep. Woke at 10:30. Diurnal bifurcation.
* Set kids to their morning tasks.
* Fireman Time!
* Routine Morning Routine
* Talked to JRE and my wife
* Read+Write
* Grocery Shopping
* Fireman Time!
* Pizza
* Mathematics
* Watched some shows.
* Fireman Time!
* 15 minutes of D2. Not in the mood.
* Chill.
Setup hourly backups to Resilio. Let's not lose progress.
* Stunning!
** http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2624/oh-smedley
*** Why Bernie or anyone actually Left (Bernie barely counts as Left to me) would never survive today.
* Preach, yo!
** https://theoutline.com/post/2399/guns-and-the-left
*** I don't agree with everything here by any stretch. At least someone has said it.
* KYS
** https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/?ex_cid=rrpromo
*** Normally I abstain from this. But, today, I couldn't help myself. 38%, please KYS. I love you, but you are garbage.
** http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2017.304059?journalCode=ajph
*** Big Pharma does exist yo. They make money off your addictions.
* Confirm My Bias
** http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/12189369/ADHD-is-vastly-overdiagnosed-and-many-children-are-just-immature-say-scientists.html
** http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20171016-the-great-thaw-of-americas-north-is-coming
*** Our mess will only continue to accelerate. Stop putting your head in the sand. Call me paranoid, and I'll call you uninformed. ;P
** https://www.fastcompany.com/3065928/sleepopolis-casper-bloggers-lawsuits-underside-of-the-mattress-wars
*** The Free Market favors monopolies (monarchs) and oligopolies (aristocracies) over the people. The margins are stupid fucking high, and they don't come down for a reason.
* Disconfirm My Bias
** http://zsync.moria.org.uk/
*** This needs to be done well for [[Outopos]]. I want z/rsync + Resilio features.
** https://elaineou.com/2017/10/14/the-transaction-costs-of-tokenizing-everything/
*** Also serious concerns for [[Outopos]]
* Tools
** https://i.redd.it/scobo8ryu6sz.jpg
* Neat
** https://tech.okcupid.com/the-pitfalls-of-a-b-testing-in-social-networks/
*** Okcupid always does good work. They tell us important truths and provide redpills with statistics.
** https://theoutline.com/post/2401/what-would-the-average-human-do
*** This is actually a good idea. Very Categorical Imperative.
** https://danluu.com/keyboard-latency/
*** Daskeyboard masterrace, checking in.
** https://www.americanscientist.org/article/the-forgotten-mystery-of-inertia
** https://blog.cryptographyengineering.com/2017/10/16/falling-through-the-kracks/
*** We were working against the same problem in Atropos
** https://priceonomics.com/the-inventor-of-auto-tune/
*** Old story, but a good retelling.
* Fishy
** https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2017/10/16/worse-than-krack-google-and-microsoft-patch-massive-5-year-old-encryption-hole/#37528a7547c3
*** It is an odd release cycle. Clearly, this part was planned. Does it soften the blow? This is a big fucking deal swept under the rug.
** https://www.axios.com/lindsey-graham-if-gop-doesnt-pass-tax-reform-were-dead-2496970582.html
*** Sounds-bite to put several people in a bad position. Powergrab.
** https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-16/a-crazy-stock-market-is-punishing-sellers
*** Forgive my doubt as well.
** https://alistapart.com/article/understanding-emotional-response
*** Some good points here. I will add, however, that the narrative doesn't seem to add up to me. Something is off about the author. Forgive my doubt.
* For my daughter:
** https://simonwillison.net/2017/Oct/17/free-continuous-deployment/
** http://boolr.me/
!! Do you prefer that people shoot straight with you or temper their words? Why?
Always with the questions, Samwise. Okay. This is an important one. As always, my answer is: //it depends on the context//.
If I am open to criticism, if I need the truth, if I want to know what you really think, or if I don't have time to play games, then I prefer straight-shooting. If I am feeling quite vulnerable, sensitive, in need of empathy, or believe that your straight-shooting answer only displays your willful malicious ignorance, then I beg you to temper your words (if you say them at all).
If you don't temper your words, then you better be right. If you don't couch your argument in caveats, then you have boldly proclaimed yourself an authority. You have a duty to be right on such occasions.
I say this as someone who is generally an incredibly honest straight shooter with the people I care most about, and I have failed that standard before. Of course, with everyone else, I'm essentially forced to temper my words: I can't say what I'm really thinking or in the way, I believe it should be said.
* Fireman Time!
** (should have done it last night too, perhaps that is why I didn't sleep as well)
* Read+Write
* Grocery shopping
* Mathematics
* Cannabliss
* Going to look into a VIM editing mode for this wiki.
** I really want stronger macros.<<ref "2018.12.17">>
* I forgot to do a daily [[Family Log]]. It was a weird day.
---
* [[Add New Row of Tabs in Tiddlywiki]]
** Never know when that will be useful.
* [[Map]]
** I think my mobile users will like this more. I use the [[Hub]] at point, so the loss of [[Root]] (previously `[[{Home}]]`) is not a big deal to me. I miss the ASCII art, and that's it.
* [[Dreams]]
** It's about time I made a Transclusion for this.
* [[Vault]]
** Ditto
* [[Focus]]
** Ditto
* [[Principles]]
** Ditto
* [[About]]
** Ditto
* [[Wiki: Directory File Structure Template]]
** I wanted something more pragmatic. I suppose I should draw out the maximum possible structure.
* [[Wiki: Tiddlywiki Howto's]]
** Finally, a home.
* [[Wiki: Tiddlers of Note]]
** Ditto.
* [[Walkthrough: Resilio Sync]]
** I need a way to explain the tools I care about.
* [[The X Time Period of Y Activity]]
** Perhaps this will be a thing.
* [[Life of Fred: Dogs (Elementary Series)]]
** Good job.
* [[2017.10.16 - To-Do-List Log]]
** Sadly, like my wife, I'm somehow not in the mood for //The Nix//
* [[2017.10.16 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** Edited. Added the night.
* [[2017.10.16 - Pipefitting Log]]
** Should still be thinking about it, even if I'm not immediately working on it.
* [[2017.10.16 - Wiki Review Log]]
** Looks good. I like it.
* [[2017.10.16 - Link Log]]
** I was pissed off yesterday.
* [[2017.10.16 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** Ditto.
* [[2017.10.16 - /b/]]
** Ditto. Lol.
---
<<footnotes "2018.12.17" "I have been looking for KeeBoord for a long time. I can't wait to finally have it!">>
* Woke up at 7:30.
** Woot! I slept at least 8 hours. Wasn't comfy, but it worked!
* Fireman Time!
* Routine Morning Routine
** My daughter wakes up naturally before everyone else. It's nice to have time with her.
** She is also one of the last to fall asleep. Hmm...
* Read+Write
* Mathematics
* D2
* Made angel hair pasta just right.
* Had a very hard time sleeping.
Took barb from beginning to Nightmare. I didn't love WW, nor Berserk. But, I loved the mechanic on Frenzy. He has an absurd gear-wall.
* KYS
** http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=9789406.PN.&OS=PN/9789406&RS=PN/9789406
** https://i.redd.it/1yjexew5bhsz.jpg
** https://techcrunch.com/2017/10/17/uk-spies-using-social-media-data-for-mass-surveillance/
* Preach, yo!
** https://i.imgur.com/eoaWmLp.jpg
** https://www.justsecurity.org/46036/responsibility-encryption-debate-response-dag-rosenstein/
*** As usual, it doesn't take it far enough. But, this is a damned fine conservative point of view.
** https://www.thecut.com/2017/10/i-dated-my-rapist-jessica-knoll.html
** https://www.technologyreview.com/s/609077/how-blockchain-could-give-us-a-smarter-energy-grid/
* Confirm My Bias
** https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2017/10/17/my-google-job-was-tedious-and-pointless/?tid=hybrid_collaborative_1_na&utm_term=.fc2705c5456a
*** The other IP fellow from my Ph.D. program (his dissertation sucked; his committee was my committee, and they said my work was wildly better [it was]) now heads policy at Google. He's a bad human being, I'm afraid to say.
** https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-17/smartphones-are-killing-americans-but-nobody-s-counting
*** We are addicted.
*** Why did Bloomberg write this?
** http://thereformedbroker.com/2017/10/16/just-own-the-damn-robots/
** https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/18/xi-jinping-speech-new-era-chinese-power-party-congress
* Tools
** https://tonyarcieri.com/introducing-miscreant-a-multi-language-misuse-resistant-encryption-library
** https://medium.com/@tomac/qpd-pocket-7-the-return-of-the-hacker-netbook-fe9be1b02ebf
*** I'd literally cum rainbows if this was my phone. I've been watching for a very long time, salivating. The drool hits my member, and I rub one out. Seriously. #INEEEEEDIT.
** https://windscribe.com/guides/linux#how-to
*** I've had an account for quite a while. I've never actually used it. This is weird, and it feels wrong to me.
* Fishy
** https://capitalandgrowth.org/questions/19/why-does-qsb-stock-matter.html?childToView=29#answer-29
* Neat
** http://varun.ca/metaballs/
** https://blogs.dropbox.com/dropbox/2017/10/new-plan-dropbox-professional/
*** They understand their product. I'll give them that. I cobbled together a permanent free 21GB account with them many years ago (before they were cool, let alone ubiquitous). Thank god I own my data now.
** http://nautil.us/blog/why-dementia-is-a-population_level-problem
* For my daughter:
** https://www.vimlabs.world/
** https://github.com/coolwanglu/vim.js
* For my son:
** http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/robots/a28380/everything-to-know-about-ai/
* https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/772w1a/new_york_city_is_on_track_to_see_a_23_reduction/
* Some interesting theories
I've decided that going through this Math tutoring will not just be valuable to my children, but it may be valuable to my pipefitting as well. There are calculus problems that need to be solved, and mastering trigonometry at a guttural level would be very useful to me.
!! Respond to the Following:
<<<
Happiness is not the consequence of having the best of everything, but rather making the best of everything you have.
<<<
Well, sometimes even one's best doesn't result in happiness, thus not strictly a consequence. Really, this is not a sufficient condition, but at best a necessary one. And, even then, I think it is about maximizing our happiness. Of course, making the best of everything you have will often increase what you have, improving upon your base material starting position as well. It's just not quite semantically right. It's got a kernel that is obviously right. There is a principle here that needs to be honed.
Can I do that? I don't know, Samwise. I'll try.
I see The Right and The Good at work here. The Right is about contextualizing The Good. At the very least, it requires altering our scope.
<<<
Don't focus on what you can't have, focus on what you can accomplish with what you have.
<<<
This is stoicism. This is the "ought implies can" principle applied in a reasonable way, not for judgment, but simply for the pragmatic pursuit of happiness. I've dropped the happiness part, although it is implied by the imperative statement, an ought. Let us be explicit like the original.
<<<
Maximizing your utility requires sifting through the available options to focus and apply the Utility equation on only those actualizable to you.
<<<
In a way, this is stilted as fuck. It's hard to capture it in plain language. Fear not: being technical removes the poetry, but not the elegance.
* Mathematics.
** Gonna try out projection through our camera + TV. I hate making copies.
* Books+Art
* Read+Write
* D2 - Organize my junk.
* [[Life of Fred: Edgewood (Elementary Series)]]
** We didn't finish. Shopping really took a bite out of our day.
* [[LifeHacks & ProTips: Home Pragmatism]]
** I need to collect these.
* [[LifeHacks & ProTips: Self-Dialectic]]
** Ditto.
* [[LifeHacks & ProTips: Computing]]
** Ditto.
* [[Dependency-Worthy Memes Collections]]
** This is closer to what I mean, to what I should call them.
* [[LifeHacks & ProTips: Money]]
** I need to collect these.
* [[LifeHacks & ProTips: Socializing]]
** Ditto.
* [[LifeHacks & ProTips: Security]]
** Ditto.
* [[LifeHacks & ProTips: Security]]
** Ditto.
* [[LifeHacks & ProTips: Pets]]
** Ditto.
* [[2017.10.17 - /b/]]
** This caused me to edit my {[[About]]} page.
* [[2017.10.17 - Link Log]]
** I was talkative.
* [[2017.10.17 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** Always couched.
* [[2017.10.17 - To-Do-List Log]]
** Boomshakalaka.
* [[2017.10.17 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** I do want to organize my stuff in D2
* [[2017.10.17 - Wiki Review Log]]
** I love "Ditto"<<ref "2018.12.17">>
---
<<footnotes "2018.12.17" "Ditto.">>
China has some people who are amazing at copying. It could be that they've simply had competitive advantages at copying (they've benefitted from not following IP laws so strongly). It could be that they've lower legal barriers to copying. It could be a cheap labor supply and lots of practice. It could be them all.
A few thoughts:
* Are Chinese people better at copying than others?
* Has copying become more intrinsic to their culture and approach to problem-solving?
* Do they copy memes more effectively than others, or is it simply the right socioeconomic circumstances?
** Their political meme structures are quite different.
** What even is a "copy-cat" culture? (which is not to say that is China or the Chinese at all)
* This is a good example of why Intellectual property rights are at the very core of some of the most fundamental disputes in Economics, Finances, Monetary Policy, and Politics.
** Do you see the rise of China and really understand why?
*** They didn't play by the IP rules, and they still don't.
*** Do you see the reason for the TPP political weapon aimed against them?
** Don't you see the raw utility gained from allowing copying?
The fact is that government investing in academic progress and innovation pays off far better than those in power want you to believe. It forces cooperation, defeats prisoner's dilemmas, and overcomes the fundamental flaws of the monopoly of power, but only as long as we maintain strongly decentralized power (democracy is an attempt at P2P computing architectures in political landscapes) over that government. Essentially, it is the government's role to spend on culture and innovation, directly. That doesn't mean simply making laws with some slight-of-hand rhetorical notion of the "national economy" in mind (brainwashed people fail to peel apart total utility from total capital), but specifically the utility of the marginalized in society. This is an application of the //maximin// principle.
I am disturbed by the pure psychopathy of the capitalists and even supporters of it around me. Fucking retards at best, pure evil at worst, and the most accurate answer is probably a solid mix of the two.
---
Speaking of which, to my donors: you will never have an excuse to say you don't know me or that you couldn't empathize with me. The wiki is everything you could ever need; they are the best keys I could ever give you to who I am. I know you can read and understand this if you wanted to; I see that clearly now. You elect not to be charitable. I know what charity looks like, and I know what you are capable of. Your failure to make these inferences are no accident. It is a consistent set of choices which are the result of how you have conditioned yourselves to be. Oh, yes, there are accidents, but I also often see where you have programmed yourselves.
I think leaving each other alone is just best. There are no paths where we will both be happy. This isn't a prisoner's dilemma. It's not about cooperating for the sake of a relationship anymore. I had offered more in our tit-for-tat, but I see that is also irrelevant.
I'm still deprogramming you out of me as best as I can.
* Woke up at 9.
** I was so tired. I slept very poorly, despite trying for hours.
* Got the kids up. They were just laying in bed. Good for them.
** Started morning routine up for them.
* Segmented Morning Routine
* Kids did some cleaning up of their room and laundry folding.
* Mathematics
* NCCER study time
* D2
* Cannabliss
* Read+Write
* Wife's red tide is here. This one is exceptionally painful. =( I'm sorry, my love.
* Made dinner with the kids.
* Wife went to bed.
* Took sleeping meds, but woke up 5 hours later. Anxiously tight in the chest but body relaxed.
Took barb through Nightmare. Made a keyboard shortcut for right click. He just walks around killing shit. Also, took Necro through Hell mode. Honestly, the Hammerdin isn't wildly faster.
Did some NCCER reading. The book comes a lot more alive to me now that I've been in the field before.
!! What do you think about repeating Prompted Introspections?
I accidentally did that. I didn't realize it until my wife pointed it out to me. I searched and found it. It turned out to be an interesting exercise, but I don't think it would be terribly valuable in the vast majority of cases. How do I know when it would be valuable? When my mind changes? How do I know when my mind has changed? Ok, I guess once in a while it wouldn't hurt. Review is necessary here. I would rather not though. I think there are plenty of new topics to explore.<<ref "2018.12.17">>
---
<<footnotes "2018.12.17" "Lol. Wow! It has been one of the catalysts to thinking about how to more effectively structure and search this wiki. I can see that repetition in [[Prompted Introspection]] is a gateway to practicing mining myself for information, examples, and storylines. This question makes me wish that I asked more direct questions of myself rather than always going off the list.">>
* Mathematics
* D2
* Cannabliss
* Cleaning kid's room
* Laundry
* Pork chops for dinner, I think.
* Jabba
* [[Life of Fred: Farming (Elementary Series)]]
** Good.
* [[2017.10.18 - Link Log]]
** Fishy plays a role.
* [[2017.10.18 - Pipefitting Log]]
** True.
* [[2017.10.18 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** Also reminds me of a famous Platonic quote.
* [[2017.10.18 - To-Do-List Log]]
** I'm failing to do Books+Art
* [[2017.10.18 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** Maybe my body is reacting to not having cannabliss? Mmmmm...but, I have other exceptions that aren't like that.
** Edited.
* [[2017.10.18 - Wiki Review Log]]
** I got more done yesterday.
* Woke up at 4am =(.
** Tried falling back asleep. My body had that comfortable malaise, but my mind raced.
** I hope my wife is sleeping better than I am now.
* Writing
** What else should I do when I feel this way?
* It took a long time to get the kids to do their laundry.
** Tired of battling.
* Mathematics
* Cannabliss
* Fireman Time!
* D2
* Made some outstanding burgers (imho) for dinner.
* Fireman Time!
* Venture and bed.
Couple MF runs on the Necro, completely resorted all character stashes and shared stash. I also made a Druid and got him to NM A3. I tried melee route at first and was quite disappointed. I went elemental and came in my pants. His ability to take bosses is awful. He clears well though. Decrepify merc seems really strong here.
* Stunning!
** http://blog.ycombinator.com/the-hidden-forces-behind-toutiao-chinas-content-king/
** https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/why-are-prosecutors-putting-innocent-witnesses-in-jail?
** http://www.alainconnes.org/docs/maths.pdf
* KYS
** http://www.latimes.com/politics/washington/la-na-pol-essential-washington-updates-in-stunning-attack-george-w-bush-1508451746-htmlstory.html
*** STFU, Hypocrite. Easy political gravy train, I'm sure.
** https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/10/20/white-house-to-media-its-highly-inappropriate-to-question-john-kelly-because-hes-a-4-star-general/?utm_term=.ebf43e238c6d&tid=sm_tw
** https://newrepublic.com/minutes/145387/underplayed-story-2016-election-voter-suppression
*** And...http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/10/voter-suppression-wisconsin-election-2016/
*** Truly fucked up.
** https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-economy-unemployment/u-s-jobless-claims-hit-44-1-2-year-low-mid-atlantic-factories-humming-idUSKBN1CO1RU?il=0
*** Reuters has completely failed to offer an explanation of real unemployment. This is disturbing.
** http://www.newsweek.com/joe-lieberman-fbi-director-republican-independent-612868
** https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/d3dz7z/comcast-and-centurylink-spent-dollar50k-in-seattle-to-support-a-mayoral-candidate-who-opposes-community-owned-internet
** https://medium.com/uber-screeds/uber-is-charging-drivers-to-work-b7bf357d9647
* Preach, yo!
** https://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/theres-a-dangerous-bubble-in-the-fossil-fuel-economy-and-the-trump-administration-is-making-it-worse
** https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/18/technology/frightful-five-start-ups.html
* Confirm My Bias
** http://www.news.com.au/finance/work/leaders/chinas-30year-deadline-to-rule-the-world/news-story/70f62a5bc0e4580b83d5ca89a2479e94
** https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/10/oh-no/543390/
*** I am still convinced the end of humanity is coming in the next 100 years. The amount of war and slavery between then and now is going to be profound.
** https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/77l5s1/billionaire_bill_gates_announces_a_17_billion/
*** Fools in them there comments there. The Gates spend an enormous amount of time and money image-crafting.
** https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/10/china-belt-and-road/542667/
** https://qz.com/1103874/the-us-government-underestimated-solar-energy-installation-in-the-us-by-4813-along-with-renewable-wind-and-solar-generation/
*** That is no accident.
** https://www.chicagomaroon.com/article/2017/10/19/graduate-student-unionization-uchicago-nlrb/
*** And the University of Chicago, no less!
*** I am glad to have escaped that mill.
** https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-mdma-went-from-club-drug-to-breakthrough-therapy-1508332237
** http://politicaldig.com/trump-jr-kellyanne-conway-personally-involved-spreading-russian-fake-news-report/
** https://mathoverflow.net/questions/283767/conjecturally-unsafe-rsa-primes-p-27a227a7
*** ECC, please.
** https://washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/septemberoctober-2017/the-looming-decline-of-the-public-research-university/
** https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-10-11/dollar-general-hits-a-gold-mine-in-rural-america
* Disconfirm My Bias
** https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/10/18/15995478/chocolate-health-benefits-heart-disease
** https://www.sciencealert.com/more-than-30-000-scientific-studies-could-be-wrong-due-to-contaminated-undying-cells
* Fishy
** https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/barack-obama-donald-trump-set-us-back-50-years-politics-of-division-newark-richmond-return-to-a8010381.html
*** Thank you, war criminal. I would like to understand his real opinion on the matter. To what extent does he agree to the Libertarian sleight of hand here, oscillating us between the false dichotomy of absurd Rightism from the GOP and better-masked Rightism from the Democrats? Or, how afraid is he actually? Again, it's easy political capital to gain slamming a fucking retard like Trump.
** https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/77l5s1/billionaire_bill_gates_announces_a_17_billion/
** https://news.vice.com/story/79-year-old-gop-senator-disoriented-and-voting-wrong-after-medical-leave
*** Who should do the psych evals? Who could we trust?
** http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/cse-canada-cyber-spy-malware-assemblyline-open-source-1.4361728
*** Who the fuck would trust that? I'd need serious confirmation. At least it is opensource.
** https://digg.com/2017/fake-melania
* Neat
** http://arjunsreedharan.org/post/82710718100/kernel-101-lets-write-a-kernel
** https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article/39/2/371/1797950/I-Don-t-versus-I-Can-t-When-Empowered-Refusal
** https://sites.google.com/site/intriguingtessellations/home/tessellations
** https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/16/science/depressed-fish.html?_r=0
*** So desperately wanted to categorized it as "Fishy," lol, but that place is serious bidness.
** https://drewdevault.com/2017/09/13/Analyzing-HN.html
** http://www.sfgate.com/business/networth/article/New-law-bans-California-employers-from-asking-12274431.php
** https://deepmind.com/blog/alphago-zero-learning-scratch/
* For my daughter:
** https://statico.github.io/vim3.html
** https://statico.github.io/vim2.html
** https://statico.github.io/vim.html
** https://qotoqot.com/blog/founder-skills/
** https://chatterbug.com/blog/en/2017-10-18-a-better-language-learning-system
** https://unwttng.com/what-is-a-blockchain
** https://iamtrask.github.io/2015/07/12/basic-python-network/
* For my wife:
** https://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/may/03/problem-behaviour-babies-born-late
!! What do you love about life?
I don't want to take this to a negative place, so I'm going to restrict my interpretation of the question of "my life."
* I love my family, and they really are central to my life.
* My relationships give meaning and value to my life, and I love having that meaning and value.
** Even though I'm worried about dependency (came by that one honestly), autonomy, and self-destructive approval-seeking, it is the truth that I need and want to need my family.
* I enjoy pleasure (by definition); I love pleasure.
** And, I have ample opportunities.
There are lots of little things too, but they generally fit in the above framework as examples really.
* NCCER
* Mathematics
* D2
* Cannabliss
* Burgers or Chicken Sandwiches
* Books+Art?
* [[Diablo 2]]
** Good times<<ref "2018.12.17">>
* [[2017.10.19 - Pipefitting Log]]
** I'm feeling anxious.
* [[2017.10.19 - /b/]]
** Excised portions I don't agree with after sleeping on it.
* [[2017.10.19 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** Still not sold on it. It was interesting but repeat-worthy? I don't see that.
* [[2017.10.19 - To-Do-List Log]]
** It was a good day. We accomplished quite a bit.
* [[2017.10.19 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** Seized, even if not perfect.
* [[2017.10.19 - Wiki Review Log]]
** Forgot to add another //Life of Fred// book.
*** [[Life of Fred: Goldfish (Elementary Series)]]
---
<<footnotes "2018.12.17" "I feel like I didn't have much 'playtime' purposely built into this wiki. I love that I just spin-up projects of all kinds now. This was a good step to make.">>
I associate my anxiety feeling with being high, existential thinking, and dealing with personal emotions quite a bit. There is a way in which I am oddly happy and exhilarated while I'm anxious. I want to know to what extent this is a good thing. There is an evolutionary basis for this, and I want to know if I'm handling this correctly given my context.
* Woke at 9 after a good night's sleep.
** Still anxiety pains in my chest. It has been a long week of it.
* Routine Morning Routine.
** I'm very happy to have my wife at home this morning.
* Studied NCCER
* Chilled in the morning
* League Championships
* Mathematics
* D2
* Talked to Charlie for quite a while.
* Tried calling JRE, AIR, and K.
** Saturday is a bad day to call these people, at least in my experience.
* Walked with wife.
* Made spicy chicken sandwiches.
* Fireman Time!
* Distributed allowances, and made Amazon purchases for children.
** Trying a vertical mouse after research. I like larger mice generally. We'll see.
* Braided daughter's hair.
* Venture, bed.
Took Druid to Hell A2. It seems to have a very easy time maxing resists. It may even be able to do the melee+caster hybrid thing at maximum gear (like the assassin) for CB. It's not perfect, but it works. I think I'll go highly defensive on it for now.
* Stunning!
** https://imgur.com/gallery/pIh9c
*** Across the nations, High EFI scores correlated with Low HDI scores. This makes perfect sense. Don't you see the memetic efficiency of homogeneous societies or at least societies which have more memetic material in common, fewer barriers, mastery in a single stat (or the sub-stats/divisions inside it) instead of splitting between two, etc.?
** https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/10/20/presidential-executive-order-amending-executive-order-13223
*** For 1k pilots, pressure on high-ranking figures, an upcoming planned war, and a preview of more to come.
* KYS
** https://www.voanews.com/a/russia-boasts-more-faith-healers-than-real-physicians-124363134/170715.html
*** How much worse are the rest of us getting as hypernormalization sets in?
** https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/10/21/trump-pledges-to-spend-at-least-430000-of-his-own-money-to-cover-aides-legal-costs-related-to-russia-probes/?tid=sm_tw&utm_term=.2d72808d9824
*** Not a problem when you are making far more through illegal and/or immoral means by abusing our position as POTUS. Business expense, yo.
** https://www.salon.com/2017/10/20/nra-whines-in-new-ad-trump-is-victim-of-the-most-ruthless-attack-on-a-president/
* Preach, yo!
** https://undark.org/article/democracy-technology-blockchain/
*** I want to warn of the two-edged sword. Wield it wisely. Unfortunately, it is our only out.
* Confirm My Bias
** https://thinkprogress.org/uninsired-rate-rising-trump-sabotage-f0eb725fdb9c/
*** I am astounded by those who do not favor universal health care, especially those hypocrites who have needed to use our subpar public medicine system as well.
** https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-pollution/study-links-pollution-to-millions-of-deaths-worldwide-idUSKBN1CO39B
*** It's only going to get worse, except for the absolute wealthiest.
* Fishy
** http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/oct/20/cia-working-take-down-wikileaks-threat-agency-chie/
*** Smells like Russia.
* Tools
**https://github.com/wangyu-/UDPspeeder
* Neat
** https://www.reddit.com/r/TheoryOfReddit/comments/77ssua/what_is_the_largest_dead_subreddit/
!! Why have you been playing Diablo 2?
I've been itching to play a game for a while actually. D2 is comforting, it is a long-term project of mine, and I get the chance to share it with the kids. This is one of the canonical games I want to share with my children. I've really enjoyed talking about the game with them as we play. I also think it falsely makes me feel productive. It quells that anxiety in me.
That said, it isn't addictive in the same way as EQ, or at least it doesn't appear so. It doesn't rule me. I don't feel consumed in learning every inch of the landscape; I'm left with smaller things. I play it when I want to, and I don't feel compelled to do it otherwise. See this wiki as evidence.
I want to play each class through Hell mode and take the Ubers with every class that I can. I suppose I'd eventually like to do hardcore as well.
Are these good enough reasons? What else should I be doing?
* Clean living room.
* Kid's room
* I'd say Books+Art, but obviously I don't care that much.
** It's coming in a week. Don't //Nix// this.
* Possibly shopping (depends on wife's class timing), but we don't have to.
* D2
* Read+Write
* Mathematics
* I've played D2 instead of this video game.
---
* [[2017.10.20 - Link Log]]
** I've found some good Stunning! links.
* [[2017.10.20 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** Framework.
* [[2017.10.20 - To-Do-List Log]]
** Still haven't done Books+Art. I have a productivity issue here.
* [[2017.10.20 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** Edited. Filled it out.
* [[Life of Fred: Goldfish (Elementary Series)]]
** We have a lot more to accomplish.
* [[2017.10.20 - Wiki Review Log]]
** Edit yourself. Good!
* Woke up at 8:30. I think I got 6 hours. I feel refreshed enough.
** Still have a lot of chest tightness.
* Fireman Time!
** Vivid. I think my anxiety is related to being open to being sensitive.
* Read+Write
* Routine Morning Routine
* NCCER
* League championships while Books+Art
** Did you see that? Books+Art!
*** Yay, gj. =)
* Cleaning
* Cannabliss
* Talked to JRE
* Read+Write
* New tacos for dinner.
* Family Time!
* Tubes, Venture, and bed.
!! How has your health been this week?
* 1uxb0x
** Amazing. No problems.
* j3d1h
** Normal.
* k0sh3k
** Terrible Sleep. Period.
* h0p3
** Terrible Sleep. Anxiety.
---
!! What happened last week? Have you been happy this past week? Why or why not?
* 1uxb0x
** //Life of Fred// makes him joyful.
* j3d1h
** //Life of Fred// was good.
** Loved making art this week.
* k0sh3k
** Had her class, and it was fun.
** Everything else was a blur.
* h0p3
** D2 was awesome.
** Math was awesome.
** I got stuff done, although I felt uncomfortable about it still.
---
!! What is a positive fact or compliment we can say about each person in the family?
* 1uxb0x
** You have been persistent in reading and speaking more clearly this week. It shows too. I know you feel embarrassed, stressed, and maybe even ashamed by it. You've not given up, and you've had a good attitude. Good job. Keep it up.
** I am very happy that you are learning your friend's names. I know that has been a struggle for you.
** Thank you for introducing me to your friends.
* j3d1h
** You've been instrumental in pushing through our mathematics books this week. Thank you for your dedication, generosity, and your good attitude. You made a promise to me before this began, and you're fulfilling it. I think that shows your integrity.
** You are being more sociable.
** Your art is really cool.
* k0sh3k
** Thank you for walking with me. I really miss our daily walks, but I know you are physically and emotionally exhausted. I hope we can walk more.
** Thank you for doing your half of making dinner, even when you are tired.
** Your Books+Art is cool.
* h0p3
** Thank you for making the meat with new seasoning.
** Your tiddlywiki has cool new things on it. i.e. Your art is really cool. Also, we like music.
** Thank you for being gracious this week.
---
!! What will you do this week? Name at least one fun objective and one unfun objective.
* 1uxb0x
** Sorry. Not That. Hehehehehehe. Hehehehehegigigle.
** Defeat Diablo in Normal Mode.
** Memorized Emory's name, his crush.
* j3d1h
** More art.
** Finish //Dune//
* k0sh3k
** Make a tree.
** Daily devotions with the kids
* h0p3
** Walk every day with my wife.
** Books+Art
* KYS
** http://www.politicususa.com/2017/10/19/jaws-drop-trump-handpick-attorneys-charge-investigating-administration.html
** https://newrepublic.com/article/144973/sibling-rivalry-liberals-socialists-common-inheritance-work-together-defeat-trump
*** I will not compromise. You give far too much credit to that beast. Take your redpill and follow me down the rabbit hole, dear one. You aren't seeing clearly.
**** https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/18/16489504/democrats-perez-dnc-unity
**** The DNC subverts Leftist movements because the DNC isn't Leftist. It never will be. I'm done falling for it.
** http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a12775932/sackler-family-oxycontin/?src=longreads
** https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/education/wp/2017/10/21/devos-rescinds-72-guidance-documents-outlining-rights-for-disabled-students/?hpid=hp_no-name_hp-card-national%3Ahomepage%2Fcard&utm_term=.879d970a55d6
* Preach, yo!
** https://www.wired.com/story/equifax-deserves-the-corporate-death-penalty/
** https://www.nature.com/news/give-researchers-a-lifetime-word-limit-1.22835
** http://www.businessinsider.com/how-to-turn-conservatives-liberal-john-bargh-psychology-2017-10
* Confirm My Bias
** https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/mmpc/2017/10/18/browser-security-beyond-sandboxing/
*** Oh yes, "Our job in the Microsoft Offensive Security Research (OSR) team is to make computing safer"..."For this project, we set out to examine Google’s Chrome web browser." That's no accident, roflmao. Offensive MS knows their position in the market.
** https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/20/upshot/a-big-test-of-police-body-cameras-defies-expectations.html
*** Make it so police departments have zero control over the footage, and you will see this change. This double-edged sword is not wielded by the people, unfortunately.
** http://nautil.us/blog/in-fermats-library-no-margin-is-too-narrow
** https://qz.com/1107036/facebook-treats-its-ethical-failures-like-software-bugs-and-thats-why-they-keep-happening/
** https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/half-academic-studies-are-never-read-more-three-people-180950222/
** http://www.nationalforum.com/Electronic%20Journal%20Volumes/Hendricks,%20LaVelle%20The%20Effects%20of%20Anger%20on%20the%20Brain%20and%20Body%20NFJCA%20V2%20N1%202013.pdf
** https://hbr.org/2017/10/how-retailers-use-personalized-prices-to-test-what-youre-willing-to-pay
** https://arxiv.org/pdf/1710.02824.pdf
*** It will never be fair. You are facing psychopaths.
* Disconfirm My Bias
** https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-1060828.html
*** I mean, Firefox on Root, but still.
** http://www.eweek.com/enterprise-apps/canonical-on-path-to-ipo-as-ubuntu-unity-linux-desktop-gets-ditched
*** I need my //Just werx//
* Tools
** http://websocketd.com/<<ref "2018.12.17">>
* Neat
** https://www.gkogan.co/blog/dont-design-emails/
** https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/20/climate/iceland-trees-reforestation.html
** https://www.theparisreview.org/blog/2017/10/18/oscar-wilde-colluded-russians/
** http://www.solipsys.co.uk/new/LeftTruncatablePrime.html?HN_20171021
** https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2017/10/how-seattle-bucked-a-national-trend-and-got-more-people-to-ride-the-bus/542958/
* For my daughter:
** https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/qv34zb/how-i-socially-engineer-myself-into-high-security-facilities
** http://bitsavers.org/pdf/xerox/parc/techReports/SSL-77-2_Teaching_Smalltalk.pdf
---
<<footnotes "2018.12.17" "Huh. I'm now looking at something like this for Bob and the backend of my [[RGM]].">>
Build the network inside the browser, WASM.
There will be admin/poweruser VMs to varying degrees, and there will always be userspace/average-joe VMs to varying degrees. The browser will eventually be the most robust VM if Google allows it. They'll probably change the fundamental layers of the foundation to such an ecosystem to break the previous. We see Firefox extensions about to die right now in part because of that.
WASM is "code once, deploy everywhere." Good programmers are going back into front-end development because of WASM. It's obvious that it will allow people to port and convert entire ecosystems into a highly sandboxed VM that every major platform can run. Smartphones made computers usable for truly stupid people. Unless you purposely go out of your way, it's very difficult to fuck your phone up, and so much information is backed up to the cloud for you (gratis, because they want your information, desperately), that even if you do, it's easy to start from scratch (device hopping included). That clean sandbox provides non-arbitrary but significant computing resources that will spawn a new wave of software that makes it simple for stupid people. I.e. I predict WASM is the beginning of an avalanche in software because it will be so ubiquitous given its power-to-risk ratio. Welcome to the increasing hardware and OS agnosticism of ecosystems evolve yet again.
!! Respond to the following:
<center> [img width=700 [./images/prompted-introspection/Bridge-Capitalism.jpg]] </center>
It's a start. I think capitalists built their bridges on the backs of others, of course. I think the great human pyramid scheme of capitalism has a lot more ugliness than this, but there is a kernel here that we can't ignore.
Ugh. This image just makes me sick to my stomach. I'm so angry that I don't even have the emotional energy to explain it. I truly hate conservatives and the so-called liberals who ultimately support capitalism; there is not one that deserves to live.<<ref "1">>
I hold you responsible, humanity. I despise almost all of you. I truly wish there was a hell; the thought of a God giving you what you really deserve (not for eternity though) gives me pleasure. Baby Cakes is right, Jesus and Old Yeller are the only creatures in heaven.
---
<<footnotes "1" "Although, that's probably true for humanity. Of course, this is far from the claim that I have the moral right to enforce justice.">>
* Read+Write
* Perhaps shop for groceries
* Cannabliss?
** I didn't feel it useful or necessary yesterday. I didn't even plan on it.
* D2
* Family Time!
* Bathrooms
* Kid's room
* I must point out that I completely failed to do any daily [[Family Log]] this week. We're not ready yet.
---
* [[Life of Fred: Honey (Elementary Series)]]
** Let's keep pushing.
* [[2017.10.21 - /b/]]
** Anxiety has been strong this week. I think I've been in control of myself and emotions though.
* [[Outopos: Tools]]
** Dreams.
* [[2017.10.21 - Link Log]]
** I think this is a non-trivial source of my anxiety.
* [[2017.10.21 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** I don't know.
* [[2017.10.21 - To-Do-List Log]]
** Edited. Forgot math was scheduled, just not written down.
* [[2017.10.21 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** Edited. Filled it out.
* [[2017.10.21 - Wiki Review Log]]
** You mean: played it further than the norm.
If you say "I didn't know I was crossing the line," I don't have charity. The goal is to try and demonstrate that you are trying to not cross the line, and then when you have a mistake I can be charitable to it. I think the first is often willed ignorance and the latter unwilled.
---
I am subbed to /r/changemyview. I can't help it. It's fun to watch.
* https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/787msu/cmv_people_who_see_selfishness_in_every_action_we/
The best comment by far:
* https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/787msu/cmv_people_who_see_selfishness_in_every_action_we/dorowcq/
Is it a bad thing? Sure. You have no idea what metaethics is at stake here.
Assume psychological egoism is true. It clearly is an amazingly accurate description of our minds, even if it doesn't fit the way we want to think about ourselves (confabulation).
Why should we think prescription is even meaningful to us at all? Why would you think we are even moral agents? You're just going to do what you thought was selfishly in your best interest anyway. Without autonomy, you are kind of boned. It is the end of the freewill debate. I'm convinced even compatibilists are screwed here. I've yet to see any theory of autonomy hold water. Autonomy is a poisoned concept because it ultimately needs a source of being unprincipled, uncoerced, undefined, etc. Freedom requires faith. I see it taken up quite prudently. Forgive my cynicism of your motivations as well.
When is it wrong to be selfish, and why? Selfishness is the starting point. It's either amoral or immoral, and you need a damned good framework to show when it is moral. Go for it. I cannot justify it meaningfully. It's still just faith.
Do you need different orders, kinds, or emergences of selfishness? Why should we agree to those, and do they really do the work you think they do?<<ref "1">>
To those detractors, tell me why you aren't open to the possibility that we are all fundamentally selfish creatures? I strongly doubt you can provide good alethic reasons, and likely only those which can be "verified" behind the Rawlsian veil, but not the Husserlian veil. In other words, you won't give me anything deductive and apodictic, and at best, you're going to have casuistry and democratic intuitions (wisdom of the crowds) which I quickly destroy through neurotribal redpilled memetic descriptions and the traditional tools of skepticism.
---
Cartoons are cheaper productions, and that means that they are more likely to be able to take risks on narratives and concepts that the average joe might not like. They can niche themselves much harder. There will be genius expressions which simply aren't risk-averse enough to be expressed in any non-cartoon medium (and plenty too risky even for a cartoon).
---
Will I ever lose access to books? If so, do I need to collect digital copies? Will piracy get harder?
---
<<footnotes "1" "Are you the emergent free thing? Maybe. You are the principle of your autonomy, and you are constituted by egoistic principles. Can selflessness emerge from it in any meaningful way? That is not obvious to me. Let me suggest the burden of proof is on you to show it.">>
* Woke up at 8:30, refreshed.
** I sleep better in my own bed, but I have a much harder time falling asleep in it.
* Woke Children
* Shower of the Gods!
** I needed it.
** Also, used coconut oil on my arms, since I think I feel the rash possibly coming.
*** Next time, I will hit my belly too. I should consider having a jar downstairs with my small bathroom supply.
* Routine Morning Routine
* Read+Write
* NCCER
* Mathematics
* Gave my kids space to speak with my donors
* Made tuna with my son; we both enjoy it quite a bit.
** Wanted him to feel comfortable doing it.
* Fireman Time!
* Cannabliss
* D2
* Talked with JRE
** Existential crisis talk
* Walked with wife
* Made dinner
* Watched //The Good Doctor// with the family.
* Read+Write
* Venture and bed
Took Druid to Hell A3. Organized all my runes. Made some MF runs on the sorc. I need to make a list of all the items I'm missing for my collection.
//I feel compelled to point out the inconsistencies in my thoughts in this log. Don't you see them?//<<ref "2018.12.17">>
* KYS
** https://www.buzzfeed.com/charliewarzel/how-people-inside-facebook-are-reacting-to-the-companys
*** What a poor understanding of their moral responsibility. They could and should have known what they were doing and getting into long ago. This was obvious to anyone paying attention.
** https://news.vice.com/story/bill-browder-visa-revoked-putin
* Preach, yo!
** https://www.xda-developers.com/android-dns-over-tls-website-privacy/
*** How the fuck was this not standard from the beginning?
*** It's time to just restart from the beginning. We can build it. This is doable. You have to stop the obstructionist capitalists and reactionaries.
** https://protonmail.com/blog/protonmail-vs-gmail-security/
*** Godspeed, my dudes.
** https://www.privateinternetaccess.com/blog/2017/10/the-recent-catastrophic-wi-fi-vulnerability-was-in-plain-sight-for-13-years-behind-a-corporate-paywall/
** https://dymaxion.org/essays/pleasestop.html
* Confirm My Bias
** https://www.thenation.com/article/america-is-waking-up-to-the-injustice-of-cash-bail/
*** You wake too slowly from your slumber. It's already too late.
** https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/qv34dp/amazons-headquarters-tax-subsidies
*** I've linked to this topic before.
** http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2017/10/synthetic_biology_could_lead_to_the_re_emergence_of_smallpox.html
*** Of course, I can see the idiots moved to give up their freedoms. They've missed the larger metanarratives.
** https://theintercept.com/2017/10/22/opioid-lobbyist-left-a-digital-fingerprint-on-a-campaign-by-patient-advocates/
** https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/oct/22/facebook-google-twitter-congress-hearing-trump-russia-election
** https://www.bloomberg.com/gadfly/articles/2017-10-23/apple-losing-its-supply-chain-mojo-is-a-major-threat
*** Weren't always the Golden Child you thought they were in the first place.
** https://www.wsj.com/articles/tesla-strikes-deal-with-shanghai-to-build-factory-in-china-1508670181
*** Tesla Tencent knows how to make things happen.
** https://engineering.coinbase.com/you-need-more-than-one-aws-account-aws-bastions-and-assume-role-23946c6dfde3
*** You are getting locked into that ecosystem.
** https://qz.com/1103545/macarthur-genius-trevor-paglen-reveals-what-ai-sees-in-the-human-world/
*** I hear the golem coming.
** https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/the-u-s-is-retreating-from-religion/
*** We've known this for a long time.
* Disconfirm My Bias
** https://munchies.vice.com/en_us/article/43ng4n/california-restaurant-admits-its-been-serving-popeyes-chicken-for-months
*** I might have initially found a problem with this, but I can't find a rational one beyond a margins markup. I can conceive of restaurants that have the right mix of everything I would want though, and I would pay a bit extra for that.
** https://www.statnews.com/2017/06/20/human-genome-not-fully-sequenced/
*** I'm actually not even sure what ultimately counts as a complete sequence. I fear there are significant philosophical issues at stake in even trying to answer that question.
* Fishy
** https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/more-than-1-1-billion-invisible-people-lack-identification-1765594
*** Invisibility comes in degrees. You've only touched the tip of this iceberg.
** https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/california-billionaire-launches-ads-urging-trump-impeachment/2017/10/20/9b5d769a-b5b6-11e7-9b93-b97043e57a22_story.html
*** Why did you wait? I don't trust you.
** https://medium.com/@filip_struharik/biggest-drop-in-organic-reach-weve-ever-seen-b2239323413
*** Are you paying attention? Search and filtering information at this level should not be done for money, but it is in this case. It warps it.
** https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/10/30/the-family-that-built-an-empire-of-pain?
*** Okay, I'm done seeing it make its way. Yes, disgusting. The echo-chamber on this one is almost unanimous.
* Neat
** https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/780p97/japans_ruling_party_is_expected_to_win_an/
*** I'm ignorant, yo, but this is how I fix it.
** https://blog.acolyer.org/2016/04/26/the-linux-scheduler-a-decade-of-wasted-cores/
*** It's time to be honest: we need to build load-balancing hardware. We've hit the single-thread IPS physical limits, and now growth is through decentralized computing paradigms. This is a key, yall. We already do this to some extent, but we just have to own up to it one every level of the stack.
** https://blog.acolyer.org/2017/10/23/why-neurons-have-thousands-of-synapses-a-theory-of-sequence-memory-in-neocortex/
*** I'm slow, but I won't give up.
** https://gizmodo.com/whats-the-worst-taste-in-the-world-1819374618
*** I mean...it's Gizmodo.
** https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/787msu/cmv_people_who_see_selfishness_in_every_action_we/
*** A valuable discussion.
* Tools
** https://termux.com/
** https://isomorf.io/#!/
*** But, who the fuck wants to do that in the cloud? I want control of my data!
** https://movim.eu/
*** Again, why the cloud? I want to control my data.
** http://etherdfs.sourceforge.net/
*** Okay, should I stop posting tools which I wouldn't want to actually use? How do I know I wouldn't want to use them?
* For my daughter:
** http://moolenaar.net/habits.html
* For my wife:
** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code-switching
*** The word we couldn't remember
** http://nautil.us/issue/53/monsters/why-are-so-many-monsters-hybrids
*** Nautilus almost always //brings it//. Thought this one might suit you.
** https://readspike.com/
*** A tool for you to try out.
** https://www.tor.com/2012/06/22/what-everybody-gets-wrong-about-jekyll-and-hyde/
*** In this context, what do you think of the wiki?
* For my son:
** http://dariusforoux.com/i-quit/
---
<<footnotes "2018.12.17" "Nope. Lol!">>
!! What do you think of your friend ALM's wiki?
I am very glad he does it. I think it's very useful to him. He needs to empathize with himself. He has obvious psychopathic tendencies in him (definitely on the spectrum, as we all are), which he hesitates to admit (but indirectly does when he is being as honest as he can be with himself). I think it will give him a chance of living to be an older man, will make his family happier and will make him enjoy life more.
I try not to say anything to him about the contents of his wiki because I don't want to argue with him. I know that will make him feel bad. He will not be capable of understanding my arguments (sometimes because they are beyond him and other times because he will refuse to acknowledge the truth). I don't want to interfere with the benefits that he can receive from the wiki. I keep it general, and I try to be as polite as I can be with him.
I look for edits almost every day, and I think about his posts. I will continue to do so. He's my friend.
* Shower
** Because that somehow isn't on my everyday list. My wife doesn't seem to mind though since I'm not a sweaty beast every day.
* Mathematics
* NCCER
* Books+Art
* Read+Write
* Indian Food!
* Clean the fridge and pantry
* Cannabliss
* Trying to generate NSFW/NSFL [[titletag]]s and programmatically filter them out of New.
* I did more this week than I thought I did.
---
* [[2017.10.22 - Family Log]]
** Felt rushed a bit, although we slowed down for compliments.
** I find us giving compliments more often.
* [[NSFL: Kantianizing Petyr Baelish]]
** Horror of horrors, amiright?<<ref "2018.12.17">>
* [[2017.10.22 - Outopos]]
** Likely the way to go.
* [[NSFL: Experience Machines]]
** For later, I suppose
* [[NSFW: Experience Machines]]
** Ditto.
* [[2017.10.22 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** I hope the capitalists of my generation will eventually see the light. It's hard admitting one is wrong.
* [[2017.10.22 - Link Log]]
** Edited.
* [[2017.10.22 - To-Do-List Log]]
** Well-planned.
* [[2017.10.22 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** Seized
* [[2017.10.22 - Wiki Review Log]]
** It's okay. We've agreed to try it at a later time.
---
<<footnotes "2018.12.17" "It's fascinating to see the early stages of ol' voldy.">>
* It's going to be interesting to see if there is a synergy and information passing relationship between [[Yearly Audit Log]] and [[Wiki Review Log]].<<ref "2018.12.17">>
* Top-level pages (audience-oriented, essentially) have been given a stack at the top to read.
* I'm waiting to do the {[[About]]} page until the end of the yearly audit.
* I think I should add my course structures and my notes to this wiki.
** That is something meaningful I documented. I should collect and document that which was meaningful to me. I'm already doing that. Why not enumerate my {[[Vault]]} some more?
---
* [[Yearly Audit Log]]
** Updated. This is clearly a project that needs to be part of my core requirements.
* [[Transclusion: Focus]]
** Edited. I see the [[Hub]] gives me the weighted priority list. They are my instruction execution order.
* [[Help: On this Wiki]]
** Lots of additions and formatting.
* [[Ways to Connect to this Wiki]]
** Fixed a few things. Looks cleaner and it is definitely easier to understand now.
* [[Cryptographic Verification]]
** Minor edits. I've clearly put a lot of thought into this one.
* [[Contact h0p3]]
** Just the stack at the top added.
** I don't like the look of the Retroshare key, but I'm not going to do anything about it right now.
* [[Principles of Programming Myself]]
** Minor edits. I'm done for the night. I'll start here tomorrow.
---
<<footnotes "2018.12.17" "It's hilarious to see what I now consider to be an [[audit]] comment mixed into the [[review]]. Have I been too slow a learner? It's 14 months later, and I feel like I've barely made progress here! Ugh.">>
What about a video game economy built on inflation. Make a game where all items stay in the game forever. Combines might consume, should we have combined?
I am sorry that I am part of the reason you don't enjoy debate and philosophical argumentation or discourse anymore. I am sorry for hurting you. I am doing my best to learn how to constructively engage in fundamental disagreement with you. Additionally, I think we are both stressed, and I am not as charitable or kind in tone or approach as I should be. I am sorry.
* Woke up at 9
** I had a very hard time falling asleep. I was quite wired last night. I did get a lot of writing one though.
* Woke children up.
** Since my daughter has started her period, I want to give her extra sleep. Menstruating girls need more sleep, I believe.
* Read+Write
* NCCER
* Books+Art
* Cleaning
* Shopping
* Mathematics
* D2
* We scrounged for dinner tonight (despite having a full fridge). Everyone seemed to be in the mood for it.
* Read+Write.
* Venture and bed.
Sorc MF Hell Mephisto runs. Got her to level 88. Ding! Picked up an Arachnid's Mesh and a Bul-Kathos's Wedding Band on top of a bunch of other stuff for my collection and crafting.
I'm looking into Uber's. My brother asked me about it, and I said I wanted to wait. But, in a sense, I really don't have to wait. I have two characters capable of doing this if I put some thought into it (maybe even more with a day or two of leveling).
* KYS
** https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-baltimore-secret-surveillance/
** https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20171023/10383838460/fcc-likely-to-use-thanksgiving-holiday-to-hide-unpopular-plan-to-kill-net-neutrality.shtml
** http://www.businessinsider.com/loan-servicers-intentionally-harm-student-borrowers-cfpb-2017-7
* Preach, yo!
** https://puri.sm/why-purism/
** https://www.wired.co.uk/article/chinese-government-social-credit-score-privacy-invasion
** https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/xwge9a/math-suggests-inequality-can-be-fixed-with-wealth-redistribution-not-tax-cuts
** https://www.villagevoice.com/2017/10/23/south-park-blinks/
*** So much correct, except the overgeneralizations. They are so close to being correct, it hurts.
* Confirm My Bias
** https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/20/well/live/why-are-hearing-aids-so-expensive.html
** https://www.buildzoom.com/blog/paying-for-dirt-where-have-home-values-detached-from-construction-costs
*** I need to find a way around the zoning problem.
** https://i.imgur.com/Ik4q8oS.jpg
*** So fucking redpilled.
** https://awni.github.io/speech-recognition/
*** But, it's coming.
** https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/mortality-black-belt/
** https://www.reddit.com/r/TheoryOfReddit/comments/783fzn/why_does_monsanto_punch_above_its_weight_class_on/
** https://cloudplatform.googleblog.com/2017/10/API-design-choosing-between-names-and-identifiers-in-URLs.html
*** I'm having this kind of problem on the wiki.
* Neat
** https://www.quantamagazine.org/newfound-wormhole-allows-information-to-escape-black-holes-20171023/
** http://karlsteltenpohl.com/
*** What I want it to look like, maybe.
*** Don't forget: https://bellard.org/jslinux/
*** https://github.com/zeit/hyper
** http://blog.alinelerner.com/
*** This woman is obviously brilliant (even when I disagree with her).
** https://imgur.com/YBIHjmX
*** Some of my hand skills don't seem very useful when compared to this.
** https://blog.cryptographyengineering.com/2017/10/23/attack-of-the-week-duhk/
** https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/mb3eqa/porn-companies-are-pivoting-to-non-porn-content
** https://nextshark.com/china-invents-rice-can-grow-salt-water-can-feed-200-million-people/
* Fishy
** https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/16/world/europe/daphne-caruana-galizia-journalist-malta.html
*** The onslaught continues
** https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-24/bitcoin-pioneer-says-new-coin-to-work-on-multiple-blockchains
*** Not sure if it solves a problem yet.
* Tools
** https://lonesysadmin.net/2011/11/08/ssh-escape-sequences-aka-kill-dead-ssh-sessions/amp/
** https://www.census.gov/developers/
** https://github.com/learnbyexample/Command-line-text-processing/blob/master/gnu_awk.md
* For my daughter:
** https://taravancil.com/blog/how-merkle-trees-enable-decentralized-web/
** https://datawhatnow.com/introduction-web-scraping-python/
** https://mkaz.tech/geek/unix-is-my-ide/
** http://worrydream.com/dbx/
** https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/WebAssembly/Concepts
** https://www.reddit.com/r/vim/comments/789edv/is_there_a_tldr_for_vimtutor/dosa45a/
* For my son:
** https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/10/23/the-secrets-of-sleep?
*** I hope you will never have the trouble I have. I hope to help you.
* https://hacks.mozilla.org/2017/10/saying-goodbye-to-firebug/
** Makes me sad.
As you'll find in my [[Wiki Review Log]]s, I've been studying the NCCER books each day. There's not much more to say about it. Additionally, I've been working on mathematics with the kids. We will eventually get a point where I'll be learning again possibly.
!! Why is the [[Yearly Audit Log]] taking so long? Why aren't you smashing it?
Samwise, I think you aren't being fair to me. I've been planning it for quite a while. This is merely the end of October. If anything, I'm early in the endeavor. I'm still working out the kinks, and this is my first time. I'm still developing my vision, and I don't think I'm being lazy.
Let me agree to this point though, I'm not spending enough time. If this is what you mean by //smashing it//, then you have a fair point. I'm not obsessed enough with it. This is my video game, and I need to play it hard. I should give up D2 to concentrate on this. I have a lot I need to accomplish before the next job. This is the most important project. I must not forget that, and I need to act on that belief.<<ref "2018.12.17">>
---
<<footnotes "2018.12.17" "Wow! I still feel overwhelmed in what is now my continuous [[Wiki Audit]]. I'm currently engaged in [[The Remodeling]] right now. I guess I'm doing a much more detailed [[audit]] this time around. I guess I should be proud, eh? =)">>
* Shopping
** Don't forget: glue, family size tea tags, soy milk, and sugar
* Get packages (we need kitty litter)
* Mathematics
* Read+Write
* Fireman Time!
* Bathrooms and Fridge
* [[Titletag]]
** I'm glad I've called them what they are.<<ref "2018.12.17">>
* [[Retired:]]
** Yet another mechanic I need to at least define.
* [[2017.10.23 - Yearly Audit Log]]
** I'm glad I've jumped in. This is a very important project.
* [[2017.10.23 - /b/]]
** Was my brother responding to this?
* [[2017.10.23 - Link Log]]
** I clearly have many category problems.
* [[Life of Fred: Ice Cream (Elementary Series)]]
** Good point. It's up to me to make sure we can push through this wall.
* [[2017.10.23 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** Be kind.
* [[2017.10.23 - To-Do-List Log]]
** Was a good day.
* [[2017.10.23 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** Edited, the usual.
** Seized.
* [[2017.10.23 - Wiki Review Log]]
** I want to say yet again: I'm grateful to myself for doing this work.
---
<<footnotes "2018.12.17" "The deja vu here is killing me. I can see I've barely made any progress on this problem. [[The Remodeling]] is showing me that I may never actually accomplish the absurdly ambitious goals I've set out for myself. `/sigh`">>
* I'm going to hold off on {[[About]]}, as I said, but I will continue to add bits and pieces. Eventually, I'll have a lot of content to sort through and link together. That will help me form the new page.
* I think I should do a depth-based iterative audit. But, I want to click on the links and think about them at each depth. What does this buy me?<<ref "2018.12.17">>
** It allows me to see if that link belongs on the page I'm auditing and helps me digest the audited page in others ways as well.
** It helps me settle my front-end faster.
** It helps me see how the pieces are linked.
*** Otherwise, you are stuck in the zoo, and you forget how bad it smells.
** It gives me some redundant work, but in a good way. It gives me heavier overlap, like when mowing lawns. I think this is a conservative approach, this is the right one.
---
* {[[Principles]]}
** I've worked on this page more than almost any other. It still has a very long way to go. I see myself as setting myself up for success. I'm trying to make moves that allow me to be flexible, to add more content, and to evolve without high costs. I can't see far enough to know what I really ultimately want it to look like.
*** Of course, that doesn't mean I'm frozen into in-action or fear commitment. I will make mistakes, but I must take those risks to succeed. Bit-by-bit.
** Cleaned it up in the TWCode, and I made some adjustments to the content and organization.
** Looking through the vault shows me I've come a very long way. I'm very proud of my work.
* {[[Focus]]}
** Also very well-constructed, but this is not a surprise. I've spent a long time gazing into this face of the existential mirror. I made some changes. I realized in doing so that I'm not actually done with my 0-layer pass over {[[Principles]]}.
---
<<footnotes "2018.12.17" "Yeah. Now I'm using [[Remembrall]] to systematically walk through every single tiddler. I'm wondering if I will have a completely different approach the next time as well. It's possible that tagging will enable more than I can see right now. Auditing has been a real process semantically, infrastructurally, and even syntactically. I continue to develop the rules of how to use and manage this tool. Admittedly, I'm feeling a bit like a failure here, but I shouldn't hold myself to a standard that is ridiculous. I mean, c'mon: you have no clear direct examples to learn from here.">>
I kind of want to be a Digital Diogenes.<<ref "2018.12.17">>
---
<<footnotes "2018.12.17" "Your wish appears to be coming true. The [[Wiki Litmus Test]] from {[[Contact]]} has it got it goin' on! I should also point out that [[Prompted Introspection]]'s //Diogenesocrates// interlocutor is a different dialectical instantiation of this desire as well.">>
I am sorry that I've done such a poor job helping you through your math. While I don't know how to juggle the needs of both of you at the same time in a fair manner, nor do I know how to kindly motivate you, it is my job to figure out how to do so (and to have it figured out sooner rather than later). I am sorry for not being kind and for being unfair.
* Woke at 8:15, tired and sore.
** Hard time sleeping.
* Woke son up (daughter was already up)
* Inform the Men!
** I needed it so much.
* Quick Shower
* Tested vertical mouse with D2 (fairly mouse intensive).
** Not immediately convinced, but I'll give a while.
* Read+Write
* NCCER
* Books+Art finished
* Hit the library
* Mathematics
* D2
* Read+Write
* Venture + Office then bed
I've noticed IM on mobs that shouldn't for 1.13. I'm worried that several things aren't quite right in my D2 executable. I'm testing The Pit for MFing and finding Socket gear I desperately need. Seems to work. I need to find some socketed items for runewords or some very high-level uniques to get my smiter where I want him. Eventually, my smiter will just grind the ubers.
* Stunning!
** http://fermatslibrary.com/s/self-control-relies-on-glucose-as-a-limited-energy-source-willpower-is-more-than-a-metaphor
*** Confirm My Bias, too! Makes sense of many things, including my experiences, observing diabetics, and obesity issues.
* KYS
** https://vault.fbi.gov/nikola-tesla/Nikola%20Tesla%20Part%2001%20of%2003/view
** http://ew.com/article/2011/07/07/how-i-met-your-mother-reruns-bad-teacher-zookeeper/
** https://techcrunch.com/2017/10/24/congress-votes-to-disallow-consumers-from-suing-equifax-and-other-companies-with-arbitration-agreements/
** https://twitter.com/aedwardslevy/status/923214548886282240
* Preach, yo!
** http://inthesetimes.com/article/20627/dnc-purge-ellison-perez-bernie-sanders-left-center
** https://www.thenation.com/article/america-has-a-monopoly-problem-and-its-huge/
** https://stratechery.com/2017/why-facebook-shouldnt-be-allowed-to-buy-tbh/
* Confirm My Bias
** http://karl.kornel.us/2017/10/welp-there-go-my-git-signatures/
*** I want dat mono-culture. Make it easy, please.
** http://theusabulletin.com/2017/10/24/are-religious-people-more-moral/
** http://www.npr.org/2017/10/24/559604836/majority-of-white-americans-think-theyre-discriminated-against
*** Tricky issues at stake here, no doubt. I wish I could convince these people to stop looking at race and to start looking at class (despite their relationship).
** https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/the-uncanny-resurrection-of-dungeons-and-dragons
*** When you have no money...
** https://newrepublic.com/article/144969/club-fed-why-government-goes-easy-federal-crime
** https://www.inverse.com/article/37531-google-smart-reply-turing
*** That's not a good thing.
** https://digest.bps.org.uk/2017/10/25/ten-year-study-finds-loneliness-and-self-centeredness-appear-to-be-mutually-reinforcing/#more-31441
*** Hey...I'm lonely.
** https://theintercept.com/2017/10/25/intercepted-podcast-mike-pence-is-the-koch-brothers-manchurian-candidate/
* Fishy
** https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-23/americans-are-retiring-later-dying-sooner-and-sicker-in-between
*** We're past confirmation bias. I now question if there is an even more nefarious reason here than mere immediate greed market forces.
** http://money.cnn.com/2017/10/24/news/economy/harvard-study-job-skills-hiring/index.html?iid=hp-stack-dom
*** Awful analysis. They are covering up the problem on purpose.
** http://news3lv.com/news/local/report-vegas-shooters-brother-arrested-for-child-porn
*** Forgive my doubt.
* Neat
** https://priceonomics.com/the-comic-sans-index-what-kind-of-fonts-do/
* Tools
** http://www.hypewatching.com/top/world
* For my daughter:
** https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/78of3s/pathfinding_algorithms_visualized_oc/
!! Why does your family struggle to persist through pain and failure?
Sometimes we do not pass the marshmellow tests, bear through pain of imperfections, and we're impatient. We want it easy. We feel bad when it doesn't work instantly for us. We've not trained ourselves correctly. We have to slowly become virtuous at the practice of practicing, and we've got to start taking more and more risks in a wise fashion.
Is there something about our culture, memetics, and interactions that prevent us from improving this? How can we make sure we help each other through our frustrations? How can we have the right attitudes and dispositions towards our work and each other (and ourselves)? I don't know.
Proving to ourselves that it's worth it to be wrong, to not feel bad about it, and to be practical. That is not our usual. This is a key to our happiness.
* Complete the family's Books+Art projects
** Supplies and thinking about mounting. Need to hit the library for it.
* Mathematics
* NCCER
* D2
* Cannabliss?
* Read+Write
* [[2017.10.24 - Apology Log]]
** =/
* [[2017.10.24 - Pipefitting Log]]
** Slow but steady
* [[2017.10.24 - /b/]]
** Very weird idea.
* [[Life of Fred: Jelly Bean (Elementary Series)]]
** I did most of the book with the kids, but by 5, I gave left them to it.
* [[2017.10.24 - Link Log]]
** My daughter is starting to do some VIM work. I hope she uses my links.
* [[2017.10.24 - Yearly Audit Log]]
** Slow, but steady. I think I've got the hang of how I want to do this now.
* [[2017.10.24 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** I'm slowly learning my tool.
* [[2017.10.24 - To-Do-List Log]]
** Good!
* [[2017.10.24 - Wiki Review Log]]
** He hasn't said anything about it since then, but maybe that's the point.
* [[2017.10.24 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** Seized
** Edited.
* As I go through {[[Focus]]}, primarily {Projects}, I can see I still have my problem. It seems to belong in many places. I'm not sure what to do with it. That's okay. The subjects seem to be globbing together, and I'm worried I've globbed them too much.
---
* {[[Principles]]}
** I've finished my 0-depth audit of this page. I've worked on it several times. It is as good as I can get it for now.
* {[[Focus]]}
** Finished for now. With more depth, I may have more modifications to make.
* {[[Vault]]}
** Lots of work to do in here.
** I've largely left this top-level directory alone because I've been so damned busy.
** I would like to eventually schedule a practice for filling this out.
*** I need to find good ways to organize it and prompts myself.
My friend ALM and I have little we can talk about. The gulf between us is huge.
I'm glad to see he is trying to take care of himself. Let's hope he learns to reason more effectively. His disintegrated form of psychopathy causes him to not care about anyone, not even himself.
---
List of people I would want to read this and why?<<ref "2018.12.17">>
Dougherty.
---
Be someone who is virtuous at practices and a master of their tools.
---
You graduate from pit to pit (arena to arena) as you climb that ladder of chaos. Each rung of the ladder of chaos is a pit of chaos.
Alternatively, the ladder out of the pit of chaos creates hypercompetition, a new and concentrate pit as people fight for survival to climb out of the pit.
---
Look at IQ distribution among academic disciplines. You will find Math, Physics, and Philosophy at the top (or something quite like it). You have your rationalists, your empiricists, and those who can perform effectively in both. Philosophy is quantitatively narratival. It is the genius of the humanities.
---
I respect the fact that you have a choice, but that doesn't mean I have to respect your choice, nor that you have a right to make that particular choice. A right to make a choice is not always a right to make just any choice. There can be just one right choice; sometimes you only have the right to make a single choice (perfect duty).
---
The attention now being paid to the opioid epidemic is paving the way for the prison-industrial system to target a new population when cannabis becomes legalized.
---
<<footnotes "2018.12.17" "The [[FTO]] {[[axiom]]} continues to develop.">>
* Woke up at 7:30.
** I think I got enough sleep. My chest doesn't hurt this morning.
* I didn't get to hug my wife before she left.
* Routine Morning Routine
* //Mike Tyson Mysteries//
* Read+Write
* NCCER
* Talked to ALM
** JRE hasn't responded to me. He, L, and K use messaging platforms in a slower, more asynchronous fashion.
*** I'm guilty of the same, I am sure.
* Mathematics
* Cannabis
* D2
* Fireman Time!
* //American Vandal//
* Chili and Cornbread!
* Chat with JRE
* //Office// and bed
Tried Trapsin for MFing. Terrible damage. Also tried running claws on Anya, rofl. No go. I did some more MFing on the Necro. This is likely what his duty will be. I really need those socketed items (I may even just quest socket a superior).
* KYS
** https://news.vice.com/story/mark-zuckerberg-political-spending
** https://www.commondreams.org/views/2017/10/25/republicans-need-better-response-besides-quitting
*** Better than nothing, but still an evil, egoistic, psychopathic coward.
** https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-25/fcc-s-pai-sets-nov-16-vote-on-lifting-media-ownership-limits
** https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-downside-of-full-pay-transparency-1502676360
*** Roflmao. Jesus H.B.F. Christ.
** https://apnews.com/877ee1015f1c43f1965f63538b035d3f/APNewsBreak:-Georgia-election-server-wiped-after-suit-filed
** https://www.truthdig.com/articles/forget-corker-flake-say-look-pro-trump-voting-records/
* Preach, yo!
** http://billmoyers.com/story/trump-presidency-imperils-world/
*** I am filled with rage. You stupid, short-sighted, psychopathic pieces of shit. Malicious ignorance is not excusable.
*** I wish Chomsky and I could discuss and define "Deep State." Perhaps there are reasonable, hedged-conservative definitions which he might agree to.
**** I think he must not appear crazy at all costs here.
**** He does make mistakes. We've seen it with Zizek.
* Confirm My Bias
** https://www.wired.com/story/facebooks-aggressive-moves-on-startups-threaten-innovation/
** https://qz.com/851066/almost-all-the-10-million-jobs-created-since-2005-are-temporary/
*** Also, KYS Boomers, Capitalists, and Reactionaries.
** https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2017/10/get-rid-of-everything/543384/
**# This guy fucks.
**# I will remind you assholes, once more, that being happy generally requires not being moral. I see the effects every day in your (our) pursuits. If this is a zero-sum game (and it really might be), then must I become a shark (which you are...even if you don't "realize" or admit to yourself)?
** https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170614/07270337586/wall-street-still-annoyed-that-competition-forced-wireless-carriers-to-bring-back-unlimited-data-plans.shtml
*** Hence, why I'm with T-Mobile.
*** Also, KYS Telecomms and Reactionaries.
** https://www.albawaba.com/loop/saudis-crown-prince-and-his-hidden-agenda-behind-destroying-extremism-1039074
*** Trust no-one in power.
** https://apnews.com/020bfc7fb4d5438f9cd7c8c1695cf099/The-Latest:-Wikileaks-confirms-approach-from-Trump-campaign
*** Shocked, I tell you.
*** https://www.thedailybeast.com/report-rebekah-mercer-feared-legal-liabilities-of-accessing-hillary-emails
**** Shocked, I tell you.
** http://blog.internetcases.com/2017/10/24/reverse-engineering-of-competitors-software-cost-company-big/
** https://www.wired.com/2017/10/russian-trolls-attack/
** https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2017/10/26/stress-hostility-rising-in-american-high-schools-in-trump-era-new-ucla-report-finds/?utm_term=.fe20599542f3
*** Hypernormalization
** https://www.buzzfeed.com/mollyhensleyclancy/mike-pences-closest-ally-is-helping-the-shady-student-debt?
** https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/25/opinion/republicans-silence-trump.html?
* Disconfirm My Bias
** https://www.psychologicalscience.org/news/releases/new-research-from-clinical-psychological-science-34.html
*** That...makes me a lot less hopeful for my children. I will do my best none-the-less.
* Fishy
** https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/bill-gates-and-steve-jobs-raised-their-kids-tech-free-and-it-shouldve-been-a-red-flag-a8017136.html
*** Old news
**** First of all, Steve didn't "raise" his kid, and both paid others to do it.
*** Hilarious ironies and hypocrisies here.
*** They weren't tech-free, although I'm sure it was regulated.
*** There is something else to understand here.
** https://www.history.com/news/meet-the-man-who-invented-modern-retirement-401k
*** Timely, no?
** http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2017/10/25/chinas-silk-road-illusions/
*** Many good points and questions arise. I wish I knew more about the author's motivations.
** https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/10/25/former-president-george-hw-bush-accused-of-sexual-assault-by-actress/23255162/
*** I wouldn't be surprised. This is AOL though.
** https://www.salon.com/2017/10/25/journalist-lists-all-the-words-ivanka-trump-has-used-incorrectly-and-its-a-big-list/
*** It's hard to tell with the Trump family.
* Neat
** http://www.digitaljournal.com/tech-and-science/technology/montreal-filmmaker-s-fusion-documentary-let-there-be-light/article/505913
** https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/10/colliding-neutron-stars-decapitate-zombie-theory-of-gravity/
* https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/25/technology/jack-dorsey-twitter-square.html
** Interesting, but I wouldn't say Neat.
!! Are you losing your mind?
Aren't we all? Hypernormalization, Postmodernism, and Egoism corrupt all minds, directly or indirectly.
We do lose ourselves naturally over the course of our lives to some extent. We are in Ship of Theseus territory and several other philosophy of mind problems as well, I am sure. I take it that you mean in some 'unnatural' sense.<<ref "1">> You mean in a normative sense, as in losing more than I ought to given...what, my context? I can contextualize/relativize anything. It is what it is, amiright?
In short, I think so. I think I am at very high risk of losing my mind if I'm not already doing so. I can tell you my memory, perception, computation, and motor skills continue to decline in many respects. This happens as you get older, but it seems like a stark difference to me. It seems to me that I have careened off the cliff in ways others have not...'the harder they fall' and so on.
---
<<footnotes "1" "My son and I constantly have a disagreement about what counts as 'natural'.">>
* NCCER
* Mathematics
* Read+Write
* Cannabliss
* Clean
* Walk with my wife!
* Call my extended family.
* Send a link of this wiki to my uncle Charlie.
* [[2017.10.25 - /b/]]
** Something like that.
* [[Life of Fred: Kidneys (Intermediate Series)]]
** Excited and a bit scared. I hope I am kind and do a good job.
* [[2017.10.25 - Apology Log]]
** Writing this helped me realize what I needed to do.
* [[2017.10.25 - Yearly Audit Log]]
** Feels glacial to me, although that probably because I've spent much time on these pages before (although, it doesn't look like).
* [[Lost Dreams of {Focus}]]
** Maybe the wrong title?
* [[2017.10.25 - Link Log]]
** Edited a grammar-thing
* [[2017.10.25 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** That is harsh. But, it is important to be honest. It's the only way we can improve.
* [[2017.10.25 - To-Do-List Log]]
** No Cannabliss
* [[2017.10.25 - Wiki Review Log]]
** It's like I forgot about the [[Apology Log]]. I worry there are too many moving parts on this wiki sometimes. But, I think I just need to give it time.
* [[2017.10.25 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** Edited and filled it out.
* I'm going to start eating Chocolate as I do this. Pavlov myself into doing it more often and effectively, right? I need dat glucose to regulate my emotions, right? Right?...Right.<<ref "2018.12.17">>
---
* {[[Vault]]}
** Revamped. This one took quite a bit of work.
---
<<footnotes "2018.12.17" "Uh, right! Good idea. `/literally-unwraps-chocolate-now`.">>
HR companies don't appear to use effective methods of sifting the sands for high IQ, low-risk, competent individuals because...hiring tends to be done for reasons other than merit. Oh shit, yo!
---
"I want affordable housing for my children that doesn't make my property prices drop!"
ROFLMAO! Noice.
---
Genetically engineered and highly conditioned females, the new Bene Gesserit will be the most amazing prostitutes of all time. They will the real sexbots.
---
We've not seen the UEFI-based exploits from NSA and CIA tool leaks. I believe that is strong evidence that their real toolsets are hidden. Those holes exist for a reason, a strong one, and the tools would be so juicy nobody could resist having them. Clearly, they've kept the sinister daggers hidden even while it looks to so many that they've been "exposed."
* Woke at 8:00.
** Chest not so great, but slept.
* Fireman Time!
* Woke kids
* Routine Morning Routine
* Took Books+Art mobile to the library and mounted it on the ceiling.
** Easily the coolest piece of art there.
** I decided to call it "Untitled" (so inspired!)
** I wish I did the O'Reilly thing, but oh well. It's okay.
* NCCER
* D2
* Read+Write
* Mathematics
* Cannabliss
* Received our vehicle back! Woot!
* Walked with the kids to the library to look at the art.
* Jabba!
* Shower of the Gods!
* Italian Sausage, Asparagus, and Avocado.
* Mike Tyson Mysteries
* Tried calling every family member.
** ~~No answers.~~ MB called me back. We had a wonderful conversation. She seems to be figuring out how to love herself too. I feel like she gets me, and there are very few people I can say that about.
** My brother JRE called back while I was talking to MB. I hate feeling rude.
* Read+Write
* Bed
* Stunning!
** http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/27/politics/first-charges-mueller-investigation/index.html
*** It's Mueller Time!
** http://nautil.us/issue/53/monsters/what-boredom-does-to-you
*** Ofc, Nautilus delivers again.
* KYS
** https://factly.in/many-urlswebsites-blocked-india-government-two-different-answers/
** http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/10/26/georgia-election-server-wiped-after-lawsuit-filed/
** http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2017/10/26/559733837/monsanto-and-the-weed-scientists-not-a-love-story
** https://www.aclu.org/blog/voting-rights/fighting-voter-suppression/unsealed-documents-show-kris-kobach-dead-set
** https://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Comcast-Tries-to-Derail-Fort-Collins-Community-Broadband-140604
* Preach, yo!
** https://www.salon.com/2017/08/26/weeping-nazi-christopher-cantwell-went-from-libertarian-to-fascist-and-hes-not-alone/
** https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/oct/20/george-w-bush-donald-trump-speech-blood-hands
* Confirm My Bias
** https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/10/23/welcoming-our-new-robot-overlords
*** Except, Capitalists are the overlords. You could have been a lot clearer.
** https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/10/25/pers-o25.html
** https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/i-was-a-racist-cop_us_59ef6b76e4b0bf1f88362209?ncid=engmodushpmg00000004
*** Yup, and, of course, HuffPo.
** https://www.nature.com/news/many-junior-scientists-need-to-take-a-hard-look-at-their-job-prospects-1.22879
** https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2017/08/31/the-2020-census-may-be-wildly-inaccurate-and-it-matters-more-than-you-think/
** http://www.climatechangenews.com/2017/10/26/shipping-executive-deliberately-mislead-public-climate/
** http://www.businessinsider.com/walmart-store-robot-program-expands-2017-10?
** https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-26/rising-rents-are-pushing-more-tenants-past-the-breaking-point
** https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/oct/26/worlds-witnessing-a-new-gilded-age-as-billionaires-wealth-swells-to-6tn
** https://drewdevault.com/2017/10/26/Fuck-you-nvidia.html
*** Unfortunately, I'm one greedy son-of-a-bitch. There was nothing comparable for my needs from AMD. My compact 750ti could be fanless, it's that fucking cold and small. The price point was impossible to beat, and I've had an easier time with it than my AMD cards I hate to say.
** https://devblogs.nvidia.com/parallelforall/gpu-computing-julia-programming-language/
*** I continue to believe that Julia, Rust, and Go are crucial languages to learn for building awesome new tools. Those who need to work on Legacy systems, of course, may have little interest in them.
** http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/article/2017/10/25/gun-owners-massachusetts/
** https://np.reddit.com/r/modnews/comments/78p7bz/update_on_sitewide_rules_regarding_violent_content/dovnshv/?context=10000
* Fishy
** https://finance.yahoo.com/news/billionaire-insys-founder-charged-u-161046664.html
*** Yahoo, I know...forgive me, Obi-wan.
*** So...this opioid epidemic hysteria (I'm not saying it's not a huge fucking deal, but I am saying that it is illogical that we look at these problems but not others which are as large and obvious as this one [if not more so]).
*** My theory: this was a sacrifice to protect someone else...
** https://www.rt.com/news/407919-twitter-multi-million-offer-rt/
*** This is a whirlwind.
** http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-41780116
*** Ultimately, I don't know what this means.
* Tools
** https://www.teleconsole.com/
** https://github.com/cmol/punchVPN
** https://insights.ubuntu.com/2016/01/20/data-driven-analysis-tmp-on-tmpfs/
* Neat
** https://www.engadget.com/2017/10/24/why-scientists-are-redefining-the-kilogram/
** http://insightpest.com/fear-of-spiders/
** https://blog.openai.com/learning-a-hierarchy/
** https://qntm.org/suicide
** https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-unforgiving-math-that-stops-epidemics-20171026/
*** Although, it's okay that I don't get a flu shot, right? Lol.
** https://github.com/LappleApple/feedmereadmes/blob/master/README-maturity-model.md
** http://www.astronomy.com/news/2017/10/twins-study
** https://www.theparisreview.org/blog/2017/10/25/mark-twains-get-rich-quick-schemes/
** https://www.quantamagazine.org/to-settle-infinity-question-a-new-law-of-mathematics-20131126/
** https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/10/alphago-zero-the-ai-that-taught-itself-go/543450/
* To my self:
** https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/21172099/
** https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgBZpjsX2Co
*** Oddly enough, I do not find the effect to be bothersome at all. I really don't give a shit about the words to music. It's the sounds that matter.
** http://www.lifeandpsychology.com/2008/11/emotional-hijacking.html?
** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dementia_praecox
* To my daughter:
** https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Zermelo%E2%80%93Fraenkel_set_theory.html
** https://geoffreyenglish.wordpress.com/2017/10/27/your-vimrc-is-yours-no-one-elses/
* Maymays
** https://www.reddit.com/r/FunnyandSad/top/
** https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXVhOPiM4mk
!! What kinds of thoughts help you fall asleep at night?
Any which don't require any real thought. Anything exciting, anxiety-inducing, or sensitivity-triggering is off the list. I have always had a very hard time falling asleep. For many years, I slept very few hours, and it was one of the causes of my psychosis. Sleep helps me so much. I've tried many tactics and substances. Few work at all.
At the moment, the best thoughts are stories from shows that feel benign and I've watched a thousand times. Watching Futurama, Venture Bros, The Office, etc. allows me to relax. I can drift off into the story. As long as I shield myself from the blue light, I can fall asleep. I eventually wake up just long enough to hit the spacebar to turn it off and go back to sleep. This is the most consistent way of rocking myself to sleep.
In other words, I need to forcibly distract myself with these stories so that I don't think. Once I'm thinking, I can't sleep. I have a strong psychological dependence and reaction to thinking. I have to pacify myself. At this point, I'm going to stick with what works.
* Fireman Time
* Inform the Men
* Cannabliss?
* Read+Write
* Books+Art
* Mathematics
* D2
* Talk with family!
* Clean
* [[Life of Fred: Liver (Intermediate Series)]]
** Excited with a touch of apprehension. I will be kind!
* [[2017.10.26 - /b/]]
** It flows, as usual.
* [[2017.10.26 - Link Log]]
** I think not working always presents itself in more Link Logs with high consistency.
* [[2017.10.26 - Yearly Audit Log]]
** Did I do enough? It felt like it, but now it doesn't.
* [[2017.10.26 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** Rofl. Ok.
* [[2017.10.26 - To-Do-List Log]]
** I didn't make the calls. Oops.
* [[2017.10.26 - Wiki Review Log]]
** Edited.
* [[2017.10.26 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** Edited. Filled it out.
* {[[Dreams of h0p3]]}
** This is a place that should defy my categorization to some extent, right?
** I still don't know what I'm doing here.
One reason I like Reddit is that I get to do my curation more directly. I at least have a modicum of control.
---
Maybe we should watch one TED talk a day. I don't know. Perhaps 1 each, and 1 together. That way we cover more ground. I don't know.
---
It is fascinating to see that my children spend their writing time writing stories/characters/universes for roleplay fiction. My wife, in her way, does the same.
---
My wife hates cleaning, organizing, and planning (unless it is incredibly short-term about something just for fun). She hates me when I ask her to do it. I must find a better way.
---
I am aware of that new-age spiritual advisor trope. It fits my context. But, I do not frown upon it. It is not as the fundamentalists would call it "Buffet Religion." As you can see, I am more principled in my approach than anyone I have ever met. I am not the hypocrite here, or at least no more so than any of the rest of you.
---
I'd like to point out that some of better work in the past couple weeks has been while I'm not on cannabliss!
---
I think I have an idea for how I hope to do my [[Links]] organization. I can migrate those links using the [[Link Log]] archetypal comments. In a sense, this is about going back in time to do it. Should I backdate them? Perhaps.
---
I'm reminded of a seminar in graduate school where I told my professor, Dr. Cogburn, that I aimed to study computer science, religion, and philosophy. He joked that my goal was to be a jedi. I do want to be a jedi lifehacker.
---
My wife's co-workers are very skittish at the thought of piracy (so weird: they are fucking librarians). Furthermore, my explanation of how/who Tim Gunn portrayed himself as in the media was deeply redpilled and obviously disconcerting to them.
Obviously, I am not someone they want to be friends with. That's a shame. I'm willing to openly disagree, and they aren't. The truth is too uncomfortable for them. They are unwilling to peer behind the veil.
* Woke up at 9:15
** Laid in bed with my wife just chillin'. It was awesome.
** Chest was good. I think sleeping in my bed instead of on the couch makes a big difference.
* Kids were already up. Sent them to finish their morning routines.
* Read+Write
* Finished my first NCCER book, onto the next!
* D2
* Family writing time
* Cleaning
* Setup the car
** Can't find my jumper cables! Did we leave them in the other vehicle? Where are they?
* Talked to JRE for a long time. Good conversation.
* Ribs, salad, corn, etc.! =)
* Read+Write
* Watched some shows
* League championships
* Fireman Time!
* Could not sleep last night to save my life.
** Okay, maybe it's my Reading and Writing keeping me up?
** I'm going to try my own bed.
* Stunning!
** https://www.ted.com/talks/zeynep_tufekci_we_re_building_a_dystopia_just_to_make_people_click_on_ads
*** I know, I know: the cult of TED. I will still listen.
*** This isn't saying anything new to me, but I wish every person I knew watched it. It begins to explain what I'm seeing in a clear way.
* KYS
** https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20171025/14404438485/verizon-will-graciously-now-let-you-avoid-video-throttling-additional-10-per-month.shtml
* Confirm My Bias
** http://www.kurzweilai.net/ibm-scientists-say-radical-new-in-memory-computing-architecture-will-speed-up-computers-by-200-times
*** Because Moore's Law is dead. You go parallel or obsolete.
** https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/oct/25/facebook-orwellian-journalists-democracy-guatemala-slovakia
*** I blame most all of you. I blame the psychopathy of those in charge and those who submit because it's convenient.
** https://www.technologyreview.com/s/609038/chinas-ai-awakening/?set=
*** They will have so much human capital to work with. Our education system blows.
*** They are beginning to have the first-mover advantages.
*** They will perhaps make some of the curve of replacing their cheap human labor (doubling in cost every year) with cheap machine labor. If they distribute wealth, it seals the deal. Otherwise, they have a capitalist crisis, yet again.
*** My children are competing against the elite from around the world to have a shot at a decent life. Jesus. The pressure is enormous.
*** Chinese surveillance and integration between its corporate and political worlds enable them to have more complete data sets, and that will be yet another natural resource advantage they have in the AI arms race.
** https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/everyone-agrees-that-weed-is-great-except-politicians/
** https://www.reddit.com/user/Agrees_withyou
*** ROFL. This user/bot is a karma machine.
** https://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2017/06/daily-chart?fsrc=scn/tw/te/bl/ed/
* Fishy
** https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/qbepmd/why-are-indian-authorities-ignoring-the-deaths-of-nuclear-scientists
** https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Google-NERF-UEFI-Linux
*** We're all at war.
* Tools
** https://tls-n.org/
* Neat
** http://davidwong.fr/FiveMedium/#/
*** Too expensive. You have to build the users into the network itself!
*** Do it the BitTorrent way. They showed us the truth long ago.
** https://www.buzzfeed.com/craigsilverman/remember-tom
** https://medium.com/@justinkrause/how-to-save-san-francisco-89b9609e4650
** https://www.wired.com/story/kodi-box-piracy/
*** A fun description of computing history. It still doesn't describe what's actually going on entirely, but that's okay.
* For my daughter:
** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretary_problem
** https://github.com/ueokande/vim-vixen
!! What's your ideal birthday gift? Why?
A drug/obsession or paraphernalia that both makes me happy in the short-term and the long-term. Finding things I enjoy doing that are good for me at the same time form an ideal rewards cycle for modifying my behavior. The why is simple: because it makes me happy.
* Ribs and veggies
* Cannabliss
* Read+Write
* Get trashbags!
* Library run
* Event at the college for the kids
* Clean
* Family writing time.
** Family video time?
* Put all the car-stuff into the car.
* [[Life of Fred: Mineshaft (Intermediate Series)]]
** Forgot to make this yesterday. We covered it.
---
* [[2017.10.27 - /b/]]
** Some redpills up in thar'.
* [[2017.10.27 - Link Log]]
** Covered a lot of ground yesterday.
* [[2017.10.27 - Yearly Audit Log]]
** Um...Did not cover much ground yesterday...
* [[2017.10.27 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** It works.
* [[2017.10.27 - To-Do-List Log]]
** A solid list. =)
* [[2017.10.27 - Wiki Review Log]]
** Calls made.
* [[2017.10.27 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** Edited. Filled it out.
* I have completed the 0-depth audit, with the intentional exception of {[[About]]}.
** It's fucking beautiful, btw. Good job!
* My daughter has found a way to filter [[Titletag]]s out of [[New]]. You'll find the subfilters in that tiddler's code.
** Essentially, I want to enable those who browse [[New]] to forego any information they might deem TMI.
** This tool opens us to many possibilities.
---
* {[[Dreams]]}
** It was a bit like pulling teeth, but now I feel like I've defined it. It's a strong revamp.
** For a few minutes, I transcluded {Projects} into it. There is much overlap.
* {[[Principles]]}
** [[Eudaimonic Lifehacker]]
*** Cleaned and filled.
** [[Know Thyself]]
*** Ditto.
After writing this in my Wiki Review Log for today, I realized it belongs here for more exploration too:
I feel like I'm still exploring the world with my redpill-goggles.
Before, I would say I had depression goggles on. I do my best to lift them off. Now, I have a different pair. Before, I called it bias. Is this not bias? Why not? Are you about to confabulate?
---
I've been trying to find the source of my inability to sleep. It could be several things (or a mix). The above is one theory. What about the mini-fever experience last night? You had to turn the AC on to even get comfortable. You took something yesterday that you're trying to conserve: your probiotics. This is not the first time you've experienced it. Perhaps it is time to study that carefully. We can control that and test it. We can read about it too.
---
Looking through journal subreddits, I noticed that most of the content on their frontpage and top were visual art. This is a reason not to do it by hand. Visual appeal can be quite useful. It's about finding the right structure more than anything though.
---
I need to pick up transcripts for all my schools.
* Woke at 10:20.
** Wow, very late.
** Chest hurts.
* Read+Write
** Like any good drug, this habit hits me in the morning too. I'm okay with that.
* Routine Morning Routine
* NCCER
* Read+Write
* Shop for essentials
* Family Time!
* Nap
* Pork chops, potatoes, brussel sprouts.
** Kids prepped, and I cooked.
* Stranger Things, S01E01
* League
* Fireman Time!
* The Office, Party Down, and Venture till bed
!! How has your health been this week?
* 1uxb0x
** Good. No problems.
* j3d1h
** Normal. Period ended. Felt no different.
* k0sh3k
** Felt bad. Dizzy. Headaches. Needs to be more careful in taking her meds.
* h0p3
** Anxiety, trouble sleeping, but overall fairly well. I'm getting fat again.
---
!! What happened last week? Have you been happy this past week? Why or why not?
* 1uxb0x
** Quite happy because of writing.
* j3d1h
** Math was good.
** I loved doing art.
** Wants to get Ableton Live working
** Roleplaying was fun.
* k0sh3k
** It was a good week.
** Got a lot done at work.
** Glad she worked on her story.
* h0p3
** It was a productive week.
** I'm feeling a bit off.
** I think DCK would be in order. I'm interested in Flu.
---
!! What is a positive fact or compliment we can say about each person in the family?
* 1uxb0x
** You've been writing this week for fun. That is outstanding; keep it up!
** I'm glad you are planning on DMing a game. That is awesome.
** You did a good job getting ready for church this week.
* j3d1h
** Thank you for figuring out how to do Titletag filtering for New. It's extremely useful to us.
** A lot of girls get weirded out or scared when they have their first period, but you handled it well.
** Thank you for introducing me to VIM in a fun way.
* k0sh3k
** I'm really glad you got us to join you in Books+Art. It turned out to be a great project for the family.
** Thank you for continuing your story. It's awesome.
** Thank you for empathizing with me when I said my head hurt. You asked me if I wanted to stay home, and that was kind of you.
* h0p3
** I am glad you wander off in your mind. It makes you creative.
** Thank you for recognizing the value of creativity and encouraging it in our children.
** Thank you for keeping the pace just right in math.
---
!! What will you do this week? Name at least one fun objective and one unfun objective.
* 1uxb0x
** Writing his DND story.
** ASCII Art
* j3d1h
** Crush math
** Drawing and RPing
** Figure out a way to edit music
* k0sh3k
** Read comic books
** Researching paper beads
* h0p3
** Begin Pre-Algebra
** Watch S1 Stranger Things with the kids.
* KYS
** https://www.texastribune.org/2017/10/27/texas-missing-payments-rental-furniture-can-land-you-jail/
** https://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/27/twitter-russia-election-data-244226?lo=ap_d1
** https://digiday.com/marketing/amazon-now-1-billion-ad-business/
*** I cannot afford to not use Amazon. =(
** https://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/behold-perhaps-single-most-depressing-poll-trumps-presidency
** https://www.wired.com/story/equifax-warned-of-vulnerability-months-before-breach/
* Preach, yo!
** https://mic.com/articles/185597/deaf-children-language-deprivation-alexander-graham-bell#.WN6aFGIlL
** http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a13105410/new-york-charter-schools/
*** As usual, not taken nearly far enough.
* Confirm My Bias
** https://digg.com/2017/catalonia-declares-independence
*** The world falls apart. That said, I still do not understand this.
** https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/26/well/eat/fat-but-fit-the-controversy-continues.html
** https://www.theverge.com/2017/10/27/16552620/facebook-trust-survey-usage-popularity-fake-news
** https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/10/28/pers-o28.html
** https://qz.com/1111690/with-more-superstorms-predicted-theres-a-dream-project-to-keep-new-york-above-water/
** https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/10/google-cannot-be-stopped/544202/
** https://factordaily.com/google-next-billion-india/
** https://www.theverge.com/2017/10/27/16552616/apple-popularity-survey-iphone-fanboy-price-trust
** https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21721656-data-economy-demands-new-approach-antitrust-rules-worlds-most-valuable-resource?
** http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/10/27/560268250/does-smoking-pot-lead-to-more-sex?
* Disconfirm My Bias
** https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/9kqye3/patreon-porn-adult-content-guidelines-open-letter
*** I need to stop hoping in the moral fiber of others
* Fishy
** http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-41776215
*** Lol.
** https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/23/dining/drinks/interstate-wine-sales-shipping-laws.html
*** Why?
* Tools
** https://orchidprotocol.com/
*** [[Outopos]]
*** Sadly, looks ICO to me. No libre enough.
** https://redditcacher.herokuapp.com/
*** Porn? Yes, please.
* Neat
** https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2017/09/408366/how-ketogenic-diets-curb-inflammation-brain
** http://www.bbc.com/news/health-41666563
*** Maybe Confirm My Bias?
** http://erikrood.com/Posts/NIPE.html
*** Neat in a sad way, right?
** https://github.com/ecthros/uncaptcha
** https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1720
** https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-09-21/wall-street-s-best-kept-secret-is-russian-chess-master-lev-alburt
** https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/to-stay-young-kill-zombie-cells/
** https://theoutline.com/post/2425/when-stan-became-a-verb
* For my self:
** https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2017/10/when-kids-have-to-parent-their-siblings-it-affects-them-for-life/543975/
*** I ask a lot of my children.
* For my daughter:
** https://blog.acolyer.org/2017/10/27/learning-networking-by-reproducing-research-results/
** http://seriot.ch/resources/talks_papers/20171027_brainfuck_dominos.pdf
** http://spacemacs.org/
* For my wife:
** https://www.inverse.com/article/37837-donnie-darko-pseudoscience-physicists-explain
* For my son:
** https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/761/the-rules-of-writing
!! What extinct animal would you bring back, if you could?
This sent me on a quick search. I don't really have a strong opinion on what creature to bring back, at least not in any normal sense of this question.
I am, of course, kind of redpilled about it. Extinction is just another expression of evolution. Does evolution have a telos? Not obviously. I don't have the same problem other Leftists do with the extinction of creatures. I think it's sad. I think if we can avoid it, all else being equal, we should. Diversity is neat.
I have philosophical worries about what counts as extinction and species divisions in the first place. I think this is far from obvious. But, I think viruses are alive. I draw lines oddly.
I also don't and can't know enough about what animals went extinct. Imagine a 1 in a billion evolution of some brilliant creature that simply didn't have a mate to reproduce with. Imagine some panacea or huge problem-solving creature that accidentally came into being and blipped out of existence for some reason. Things like this (to some extent or kind) probably happened, and I can't use them as my answer here.
I suppose my answer is the most anthropocentric answer I could possibly give you:
I want to revive the first archaic human species which engaged in a rich enough proto-language that we would call it speech; presumably, they would be Daseinic. I'd train our brethren to see what they were capable of. This would provide insight into who we are as modern humans.
I have realized that I want my children to study evolution deeply. This is part of knowing who we really are. I must admit, I am very ignorant in this area. Welp, I need to suck it up and find a way to educate us both.
* Read+Write
* Clean
* Small shop
* Family Time
* League
* Stranger Things with the kids?
* Cannabliss?
* [[2017.10.28 - Yearly Audit Log]]
** Good job.
* [[Novel Solution]]
** Edited.
** This would be quite a project.
* [[2017.10.28 - /b/]]
** Couldn't stop, could you?
* [[2017.10.28 - Link Log]]
** I had a billion tabs open still.
* [[2017.10.28 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** Brief. I thought I might have more to say, but I don't.
** My answers all sound the same, lol.
* [[2017.10.28 - To-Do-List Log]]
** We ended up not going shopping. Bad storms and my wife's head hurt. We had many other bags to use.
* [[2017.10.28 - Wiki Review Log]]
** I feel like I'm still exploring the world around me with my redpill goggles.
* [[2017.10.28 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** Seized
* [[Life of Fred: Mineshaft (Intermediate Series)]]
** I bet this was the calm before the gale hits us.
* My children must learn economics, understanding what humans value, understanding their belief->action relationship systems, understanding human as computers, understanding human psychology. This is the Redpilled Science. Add in a practical understanding of energy, what is physically possible, and you have yourself a powerful discipline.
* Old-wives tale psychology in the empathy stories of the Humanities. These are the qualitative sides to the quantitative Redpill Science.
---
* You must place and lift your tentpegs in the desert. You wander. You develop heuristics and hedges for wandering the desert safely. You dev the right social networks. You develop the right memetic network. Only the Spiritual Sarduakar emerge from profound Survival of The Fittest ancient desert tribalism eternal war, and their memes are truly fit in a sense. Something about them is quite an addiction, powerful, makes one more adaptive and capable of solving the problems in the desert.
** We are existential nomads.
* I want to write a book that would exist in the singularity, to be a corner of it. That's not the claim there will be a singularity, but it is a kind of hope. Hope that the future can be better is not evil. We can take up prudentially, even when we can't take it up alethically.
* Prudential and Alethic Reasoning
** How much of Prudential can be converted into Alethic reasoning with careful thought?
*** Are there at least possible Alethic points of view which are prudential? What are those?
---
Most of the Ancients specialists of the philosophers I've known were egoists or relativists trying to move that direction.
---
* 1/4 < 1/6 iff 1/6 > 1/4
** Obtains in all possible worlds, thus not merely //iff//, but Logically Equivalent
** These have the same semantics in the broad, general logical notions. They share the same truth values in all possible worlds.
** The do not have the same semantics in other contexts, for example, Truth-Function Logic.
*** That logic is incapable of finding important inferences.
*** That logic is wrong sometimes.
*** Those who are tempted to think the above statements aren't semantically identical (logically equivalent) have failed to be logical in some sense. They have taken up a subset of general logic to be their general logic, at least in that context.
** Thus, the various forms of the Categorical Imperative are semantically identical, and presumably, are logical truth like 4+4=8. Somehow, we made them. They have to predate us though, or they aren't universal. What does it mean to say we made a universal truth? This is a metamodern diamond. It is part of the metanarrative we must take up in faith to have anything in the first place.
*** Essentially, neo-Kantians must see themselves as metamodernly hurling or clawing towards the absolute, unconditional truth (or some semblance of it, even after postmodern deconstructions).
---
When do you write in paragraphs and when do you write in bullet points? Yes, bullet-points outline and can even form the quantitative aspect of paragraphs, but there is a mindset and phenomenological difference. You are thinking with a different part of your brain when you switch between the two.
---
When my friend ALM uses the phrase "mumbo jumbo," he is almost always defensively lashing out at what he doesn't understand and often doesn't want to understand. He doesn't like doing theory or skilling up his alteration on his cleric, especially not in real life. He knows it will be painful to look at it, not just because it takes work, but because it requires understanding where he has been wrong, understanding how imperfect he is. He is a man who has been so hurt by others and himself that can't allow himself to empathize, feel, or infer as others. He can only be honest with himself to a degree and from a particular point of view; all else hurts too much.
---
You know what you don't get to do in Academic Philosophy? Directly call someone evil. It's uncouth. Even the sociopaths know better. They climb that ladder by not saying the truth they know. That lack of intellectual honesty lacks epistemic integrity. And, yet, such a system is still extremely synergistic and productive.
---
Very few have seen the monster inside you. I can show the world who you really are.
---
Extended adolescence makes sense in the metamodern narrative. It's a fact of post-modernism that we simply can't know all there is to know, and probably not even what we need to know, but we try anyway. Importantly, what is necessary for the hyper-competitive world and what is necessary for even making sense of the world and ourselves is a standard that continues to rise over the ages. With selection for intelligence and knowledge, it becomes harder and harder to have matured. #Adulting gets harder.
---
You taught me how to be alone. As Indiana Jones might say, you taught me "self-reliance." I've learned you aren't going to be there for me when I really need it. You really don't care. Lol.
---
"Be careful whose advice you buy, but be patient with those who supply it. Advice is a form of nostalgia dispensing it is a way of fishing the past from the disposal, wiping it off painting over the ugly parts and recycling it for more than it's worth."
"It's one of my theories that if you make a profound enough correlation that has no actual relation to the truth that people will eat it up anyways."
"People talk to themselves at other people."
"When people give you advice, they are really just talking to themselves in the past."
* Woke at 9
** Chest is a bit better
* Fireman Time!
* Woke chilluns
* D2 for a few
* Read+Write
* Routine Morning Routine
* Cleaned
* NCCER
* Lecture
* Mathematics
* Cannabliss
* Walked with my wife!
** I love walking and talking with her.
* Called L & K
** They are too sick again to talk. (Worth thinking about)
* Called JRE, AIR, and Charlie.
* Read+Write
* Fireman Time!
* Couscous, Veggies, and Chicken
* Stranger Things
* Venture, Party Down, and Bed
* Stunning!
** https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/797kzj/discussion_thread_special_counsel_mueller_files/dozt0rp/
*** Some sheeple are more sheeplish than others.
** http://ccru.net/
*** Obviously interesting, but I'm not sure what I'm looking at.
* KYS
** http://www.newsweek.com/fox-news-russia-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-scandal-dossier-695507
** https://www.thedailybeast.com/lawsuit-indiana-purging-voters-using-software-thats-99-inaccurate
* Preach, yo!
** https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKCvf8E7V1g
** https://vimeo.com/189016018
* Confirm My Bias
** https://www.wsj.com/articles/who-will-rein-in-facebook-challengers-are-lining-up-1509278405
** http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/acp.3248/abstract
** http://www.jonathanturner.org/2017/10/fun-facts-about-rust-growth.html
* Disconfirm My Bias
** https://www.redfin.com/blog/2017/10/heres-the-1-reason-its-so-hard-to-find-an-affordable-home.html
*** The story is clearly complex.
** https://rhsfinancial.com/2017/06/line-aggressive-crazy/
*** Seems like a stronger argument than Bloomberg's
** https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/10/30/james-clapper-russia-global-politico-trump-215761
*** How insane are we going to go?
** https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/10/in-defense-of-gentrification/413425/
*** It is //The Atlantic//
* Think About It
** http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/10/25/china-refuses-to-admit-it-has-a-rape-problem-i-would-know/
** https://www.lesserwrong.com/posts/zsG9yKcriht2doRhM/inadequacy-and-modesty
* Tools
** https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/vimium/dbepggeogbaibhgnhhndojpepiihcmeb/related?hl=en
** http://www.semicomplete.com/projects/keynav/
** https://github.com/Angristan/OpenVPN-install
*** I'm becoming so good at collecting these...you'd think I'd just learn to do it.
** https://redditfavorites.com/
* Neat
** http://people.csail.mit.edu/jiasi/pdf/MIT-CSAIL-TR-2017-012.pdf
** https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/27/business/how-to-be-a-ceo.html
*** Learn from evil when you must
**** Applied curiousity
**** Discomfort is their comfort zone; get close to the fire.
** https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/10/a-world-tour-of-some-of-the-biggest-energy-storage-schemes/
** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portia_(spider)
*** Blue Planet II last night also showed us a fish using tools. It was amazing.
* For my daughter:
** https://www.ams.org/journals/notices/201605/rnoti-p508.pdf
** https://www.newsinbit.com/get-rid-of-your-mouse-while-surfing-on-the-internet/
** https://www.reddit.com/r/vim/comments/79jb2g/vim_workflow_for_editing_sensitive_files/
** https://medium.com/@haya14busa/incsearch-vim-is-dead-long-live-incsearch-2b7070d55250
* For my wife:
** http://ccru.net<<ref "2018.12.17">>
*** !!!
** https://youtu.be/mFSbNT16Ckg
** https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3zTfXvYZ9s
---
<<footnotes "2018.12.17" "Shame it's gone. I think [[kicks]] would have found it interesting. The Nick Land and SRist movement issue is interesting to me as well.">>
!! What profession would you have chosen, if not your current one?
I have more than one profession. I assume I will continue to change in this respect. It's extremely common for my generation. We are under tremendous market forces while ruled by psychopaths.
I take the spirit of this question to be something like, what is your ideal profession given your context?
I honestly don't know what I'd choose. I can look back and regret not pursuing trading and computer science. I don't think those are viable options for me at this point. I've lost first-mover status, and I legit think I'm too old to pick it up. I can't afford to take as many risks. I blew my risk-taking period on God, and that was the largest mistake of my life (as far as I can tell).
This wiki is my vocation. I'm going to squeeze it for everything it's worth. =)
* NCCER
* Mathematics
* Read+Write
* Clean
* Couscous, chicken, and veggies
* Talk to extended family
* D2
* Yearly Audit Log...
** Don't forget.
* You are hereby forgiven for not completing [[Yearly Audit Log]] for yesterday. It was quite a day.
---
* [[2017.10.29 - Link Log]]
** The truth does not make me happy in the short term.
* [[2017.10.29 - Family Log]]
** When the parents' health suffers, the kids tend to do better.
* [[Life Stack]]
** A start...
* [[2017.10.29 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** Neat answer.
* [[2017.10.29 - To-Do-List Log]]
** Nailed it.
* [[2017.10.29 - /b/]]
** Transfered to To-Do-List
* [[2017.10.29 - Wiki Review Log]]
** Tabs cleaned, at least on m10.
* [[2017.10.29 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** Edited. Filled it out.
* I've gone back over my previous day's work. I'm just not happy with it. I need to write tome's worth of content on these. I feel like I'm slacking or failing with just this. That's okay though. I can't be perfect, and I can't expect everything all at once. This is a project that takes a very long time. Do your best because that's all you can do. Don't feel bad about what is not in your control.
* I've decided I need to make it my habit to formulate pages/directories beginning with my shell of an outline in: [[Wiki: Directory File Structure Template]]
* I keep editing {[[About]]}. You can see it grow over the past two weeks if you look at the snapshots.
---
* {[[Principles]]}
** The Focus subsection continues to see major rework as I go 1-link deep. This is vital annual cleaning, clearly.
*** My breadth-first audit feels right.
** [[Eudaimonic Lifehacker]]
*** Edited.
*** Filled Template.
** [[Know Thyself]]
*** Ditto.
** [[Infinigress]]
*** There we go!
** [[Wiki: Projects]]
*** Opened, Dissected, and Buried.
*** Clearly, I've been struggling to get this shit together. I still am. I move closer to what I want with each step though. Some part of me is just terrible at organizing and executive functioning, I believe.
** [[Wiki: Tiddlers of Note]]
*** Minor edits and tweaks.
*** I am very happy to have this page. When it comes to the engineering side, this is a wonderful cheatsheet.
What if I support socialism, but act rationally-selfishly in the political-economy we have? Seems like a terrible argument.
* Woke at 5, tried to fall back asleep, but couldn't.
** My wife was awake too. We had a comfy morning together.
* Woke children at 8
* NCCER
* Routine Morning Routine
* D2
* Mathematics
* Read+Write
* Talked to JRE (twice)
* My wife made dinner, burgers.
** Thank you.
* Stranger Things
* Got Drunk!
** Been a long time. Woot!
I've done some random runs with the necro and sorc, but meh. I decided to give my javazon another try with fresh eyes. I really want a Homunculus for my necro, and Atma says NM Baal is likely my best bet for the Javazon. So, I did Baal for a bit since I needed the levels as well. The immune lightning souls made it untenable, but /players 8 was pretty sick xp into the low 70's, ofc.
I eventually went to The Pits in Hell. She fucking crushes it. I found out how to handle immune lightning as well by jabbing with Demon Arch. I can wear my major gear as well now that I've jumped 15 levels. She clears faster than the necro while keeping up 350-400% MF (Necro beats that easily). I raised her to 80. XP slowed down considerably. I may try /players 2+ to push her further.
I didn't find much, although I grabbed a Ko rune and a 4 socket Flail (2x actually). One more rune (the rare one) and I have HOTO. The eth Troll's nest is absurd on her. I need to socket it for something delicious. It's obvious that I have 2 weapons that rock on mercs; either CB or Decrepify, whichever I need most. I want to MF with her for levels until I feel ready to push through for Matriarch status (and really, I'm most interested in the Anya resists and Hellforge).
Brought Druid to 72, will probably bring him to 80. I should bring everyone to 80.
* KYS
** https://theintercept.com/2017/10/31/yemen-war-us-military-house-resolution/
** https://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Verizon-Wants-FCC-to-Ban-States-From-Protecting-Your-Privacy-140625
** http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/357995-dem-pollster-vast-majority-of-trump-voters-say-he-should-stay-in
** https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2017/10/31/FCC-proposes-cap-on-subsidy-program-to-provide-internet-access-for-poor-families/6461509420902/
** https://theweek.com/speedreads/734371/trump-abruptly-ends-press-conference-after-being-asked-hell-pardon-manafort
** https://deepstatenation.com/this-republican-congresswoman-isnt-sure-if-her-75-million-fortune-qualifies-as-rich/
* Preach, yo!
** https://democraticautopsy.org/wp-content/uploads/Autopsy-The-Democratic-Party-In-Crisis.pdf
** http://fair.org/home/for-nyt-making-the-democrats-safe-for-the-oligarchy-is-literally-job-one/
** https://staltz.com/the-web-began-dying-in-2014-heres-how.html
** https://i.redd.it/lmdcyydl0zuz.jpg
** https://qz.com/1114690/why-is-net-neutrality-important-look-to-portugal-and-spain-to-understand/
* Confirm My Bias
** https://www.forbes.com/sites/frisco/2017/09/05/youth-sports-pediatric-orthopedics-take-center-court-in-frisco-texas/#425afba775e1
*** It's time to start offering public-key cryptography verification on everything. It's dirt-fucking cheap. It's so easy. Why do people not do this? It costs almost nothing, and it buys so much!
**** Counterfeiting can be stopped or at least greatly hindered. It's easy to prove who has the keys. Why has this not disseminated throughout the world?
**** It seems to me that I have an idea here that others do not. They do not understand all the uses of this technology. This is nothing special at all. It can be incorporated into almost anything with very little work. I could make money off it...I'd need to sell it. It would be useful if I had a framework that was drop-in easy. Golang is fast, produces executables that run everywhere...
** https://www.wnyc.org/story/year-after-brooklyn-voter-purge-timeline-action-inaction/
** https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-31/bitcoin-futures-could-open-to-floodgates-of-institutional-money
*** Day traders, prepare to get #rekt.
*** Futures in cash? uhhh...sign me up. Watch this volatile market:
**** Build a Ponzi (escrow, whatever), siphon it anonymously into cash, and short that coin. Ponzi is revealed, boomshakalaka. Cash-money.
***** Similarly, any major hack or drop in perceived stability or value will cause that crash. Bet against it, and you rock.
***** Extra points, after it crashes, you buy it again because you know it's going back up. Lol.
** https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/oct/30/government-refuses-to-release-details-of-studies-into-economic-impact-of-brexit
** https://www.oreilly.com/ideas/neuroevolution-a-different-kind-of-deep-learning
*** Count me as a believer, and I'm not convinced it will be a good thing for most of humanity (as you well know). It could be, but it probably won't. (KYS Neolibs and fundamentalist futurologists)
** http://blog.ycombinator.com/crypto-evolution/
** https://np.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/6anq9d/watching_nine_lives_with_my_kid_is_kevin_spacey/dhgfy4h/
*** I knew there was a damned good reason to hate Kevin Spacey. You can see it in him.
** https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/pol.20150299
** https://qz.com/1108193/whats-killing-americas-new-mothers/
** https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/10/23/americas-affordable-housing-stock-dropped-by-60-percent-from-2010-to-2016/?utm_term=.49aec5b35952
** https://www.apartmentlist.com/rentonomics/rental-insecurity-the-threat-of-evictions-to-americas-renters/
** https://qz.com/1115353/new-research-from-nvidia-shows-that-the-era-of-easily-faked-ai-generated-photos-is-quickly-emerging/
*** We're boned, folks.
** https://www.learnliberty.org/blog/permissionless-innovation-the-fuzzy-idea-that-rules-our-lives/
* Fishy
** https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/10/man-finds-usb-stick-with-heathrow-security-plans-queens-travel-details/
*** Forgive my doubts.
** https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/HITLER%2C%20ADOLF_0003.pdf
*** ?? unsubstantiated ??
** http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-campaign-george-papadopoulos-low-level-russia-manafort-gates-2017-10
*** Just free press/views? What is up with bidnessinsider and bloomberg?
** http://thehill.com/media/357933-hannity-accidentally-calls-hillary-clinton-the-president-on-his-show
*** He's a professional...accident? I have my doubts.
* Tools
** https://www.airbornos.com/
** https://containerum.com/
** https://blockstream.com/simplicity.pdf
** https://wire.com/en/
*** Yet another.
*** I think we must build a fundamental network, not a messaging app.
** https://github.com/ycoroneos/G.E.R.T/blob/master/README.md
* Neat
** https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/this-is-why-your-converse-sneakers-have-felt-on-the-bottom-6016648/
** https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/79od33/im_nour_kteily_a_social_psychologist_at/
*** I have strong disagreements, but I'm glad to see it.
** https://www.vicarious.com/2017/10/26/common-sense-cortex-and-captcha/
** http://nautil.us/issue/53/monsters/maths-beautiful-monsters-rp
** https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/oct/29/transhuman-bodyhacking-transspecies-cyborg
* For my self:
** https://theweek.com/articles/731238/concept-schizophrenia-dying
** https://www.quora.com/Will-the-narcissist-ever-tell-you-the-truth
* For my daughter:
** https://www.kaggle.com/surveys/2017
** http://johnmathews.eu/algo-trading.html
** https://rbcs-us.com/documents/Why-Most-Unit-Testing-is-Waste.pdf
** https://github.com/vimwiki/vimwiki
* Maymays
** https://i.imgur.com/q2MhbfI.gifv
!! Respond to the following:
<<<
People talk to themselves at other people.
<<<
At first glance, this seems to lack empathy. I think we need to be careful though. It seems to be that the best grounds upon which to interpret and understand the contexts and lives of others is through the fabric of our own experiences. Empiricism is the easy part, being rational past that is the hard part. Finding similarities is one of the first ways to understand and empathize.
It seems obvious that if one has been down that road, around the block in that part of town, etc., that one might have reasonable advice. I can't tell you how many times I've been searching for advice from people who have been down my path before. I now see that fewer and fewer are capable of providing any authoritative or even helpful insight to me in many respects, but that's okay. I listen when I can.
My problem starts when someone talks to themselves at me but never actually understood my problem, empathized, or really escaped their own faults. There is an egocentricity and hypocrisy involved that gets my goat.
!! About:
I need a container to store junk and whatnots. I don't want anything getting lost. I might as well know where the "lost" things are. Admittedly, I'm not even sure what I'm doing with this. I need an outlet for "not knowing," and this is one of them.
---
!! Principles:
* If a page no longer has a home, then it goes here.
---
!! Focus:
I want to warn you that there is a considerable web of miscellaneous context connected to [[2016.10.17 - Letter to Mom and Dad]] which I've basically left undocumented and/or disorganized. The links are there to find if you have the desire to click through though.
Orphans, etc.:
* [[Draft of 'An Introduction to Daoist Philosophies']]
* [[Draft of 'Homeschooling j3d1h']]
* [[h0p3's Wiki]]
* [[Happiness]]
* [[popupStyle]]
* [[Sabbath]]
* [[SAP]]
* [[Theory of Positive Disintegration]]
Retired:
* [[Pragmatic Parenting]]
* [[Retired: 2017.01.14 - Cryptographic Verification]]
* [[Retired: How to Donate]]
---
!! Vault:
* (*crickets)
---
!! Dreams:
* (*crickets)
* NCCER
* Mathematics
* Laundry!
* Clean
* Burgers
* D2
* Cannabliss?
** I don't know. I think I'll be more productive without it today. Although yesterday was quite productive, it doesn't feel necessary (and maybe even would detract). Let's wait, yeah?
* Hand out treats
* Organize books on piano.
* [[Comic Strips]]
** Will fill this out. May need to merge with other work as well.
* [[2017.10.30 - /b/]]
** Cannabliss talking.
* [[Wiki: Projects]]
** Maybe I shouldn't be deleting?
* [[Music Playlists]]
** Eventually, I need to just build my media library and cloudify it for myself.
* [[Curation: Books]]
** =)
* [[Rabbitholes-to-Wander]]
** Nifty.
* [[To-Watch-List]]
** Sit forever, my sweet.
* [[2017.10.30 - Link Log]]
** So much content.
* [[Infinigress]]
** Should I directorify every page?
* [[2017.10.30 - Yearly Audit Log]]
** Got a lot done.
* [[2017.10.30 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** Get vocated.<<ref "2018.12.17">>
* [[2017.10.30 - To-Do-List Log]]
** Sadly, nobody wanted to talk. Lol.
*** I must not be worth it in their eyes. Talking to me is draining. Am I vampire to them?
* [[2017.10.30 - Wiki Review Log]]
** Also, reminded me that I am monster-0
* [[2017.10.30 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** Seized.
---
<<footnotes "2018.12.17" "That's catchy. ;P">>
* I want to point out that "Syntactic Construction" in the Focus of {[[Principles]]} continues to shrink. I feel like every time I have an idea of what I'm trying to accomplish syntactically that I've actually figured out what I'm really trying to accomplish semantically. When I don't know, then all I have is the syntax.<<ref "2018.12.17">>
---
* [[Wiki: Tiddlers of Note]]
** Directorified and filled out.
* [[Wiki: Tiddlywiki Howto's]]
** Ditto.
* [[Wiki: Tiddlywiki Resources]]
** Renamed. Sticking with "Wiki:" [[Titletag]] unless I have a reason not to. It's important to immediately identify it.
** Directorified and filled out.
** Organized links and listified them.
* [[Wiki: lost+found]]
** Renamed, directorified, and filled.
** Admittedly, I'm not even sure what I'm doing with this. I need an outlet for "not knowing," and this is one of them.
* [[Wiki: Directory File Structure Template]]
** I've gone back to templating the template. I absolutely must think about why I'm using it. I need to define it. I've done a poor job. I still don't know, but I think I will find out as I continue to do this Yearly Audit.
* [[Wiki: PH]]
** Minor Edits.
** This doesn't feel like it merits Directorification templating
* [[Wiki: Literal Programming of the Wiki]]
** Buried in [[Wiki: Dead Principles]]
---
<<footnotes "2018.12.17" "This is painful to read. I have made so little progress it seems. It's such a mess!">>
!! Logs:
* [[2017.11.01 - /b/]]
* [[2017.11.02 - /b/]]
* [[2017.11.03 - /b/]]
* [[2017.11.04 - /b/]]
* [[2017.11.05 - /b/]]
* [[2017.11.06 - /b/]]
* [[2017.11.07 - /b/]]
* [[2017.11.08 - /b/]]
* [[2017.11.09 - /b/]]
* [[2017.11.12 - /b/]]
* [[2017.11.13 - /b/]]
* [[2017.11.15 - /b/]]
* [[2017.11.16 - /b/]]
* [[2017.11.17 - /b/]]
* [[2017.11.18 - /b/]]
* [[2017.11.19 - /b/]]
* [[2017.11.22 - /b/]]
* [[2017.11.23 - /b/]]
* [[2017.11.24 - /b/]]
* [[2017.11.27 - /b/]]
* [[2017.11.28 - /b/]]
* [[2017.11.29 - /b/]]
* [[2017.11.30 - /b/]]
!! Audit:
* My wife claims not to find [[/b/]] hard to read. My gut says otherwise still.
* I clearly don't have a convention I love for footnotes. It's weird to have footnotes in [[/b/]], but you do you, homie.
* Edit.
* I definitely have a lot of dialectic going on in the stream of conscious writing.
* Gary didn't engage in quietism; despite his thought that he's being stoic, he's literally lacking the integrity to engage in a dialectic. It's one-sided and cowardly.
* Reading these still gets my blood pumping.
* I respond to my donors often.
* I am using the Profound Emphasis mechanic here.
* I continue to see how I fit into the world and who I am. 32, and still have to do it. That's okay though. Do what you have to do.
* I am peeling egoism apart from psychopathy here. I am peeling Morally obligated empathy apart of immoral Altruism (unmerited Empathy, McIntryianly virtuous in one sense and vicious in another).
** Joining the herd can be justice, but that doesn't make it moral.
* I am addicted to negative thoughts. They tend to be incredibly valuable to me.
** Is this fundamentally wrong? Not necessarily. I need to be constructive, but beyond that...I don't see the problem. Let me be negative about being negative, amiright? =)
* I do use tags for dialectics. I've also been thinking about other uses for tags.
* I'm capturing quotes here. Hrmm... Is that a mistake? It seems like I've failed to have a good home for them in many ways.
* Wrestle! I am the wrastleh.
* I should finish my
* I am literally getting a headache reading these. It's a flood of information and emotions for me. I'm reliving it.
* Thank Seldon for the Giggles.
* This was one of the harder audit's I've ever had to do. I performed legit philosophy up in here, and some of it is quite emotional for me.
!! Logs:
* [[2017.11.08 - Apology Log]]
* [[2017.11.15 - Apology Log]]
!! Audit:
* My brother felt the apology was unnecessary. Although, we spoke a lot about why I felt I needed to apologize. It was a valuable thing to lay down.
* I am glad I apologized. I feel much better about it.
* My apology to my daughter was perhaps not as clear as it could have been, and it was more organic. It was still extremely valuable to us.
* I am happy to see that my apologies are valuable.
!! Logs:
* [[2017.11.01 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.11.02 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.11.03 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.11.04 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.11.05 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.11.06 - Carpe Diem Log: We Didn't Make Dinner]]
* [[2017.11.07 - Carpe Diem Log: Better than Monday]]
* [[2017.11.08 - Carpe Diem Log: Lectures]]
* [[2017.11.09 - Carpe Diem Log: Southpark]]
* [[2017.11.10 - Carpe Diem Log: Baptized in the Name of Algebra]]
* [[2017.11.11 - Carpe Diem Log: Chill Saturday]]
* [[2017.11.12 - Carpe Diem Log: Extended Family Time]]
* [[2017.11.13 - Carpe Diem Log: Brothers]]
* [[2017.11.14 - Carpe Diem Log: Hair Cut]]
* [[2017.11.15 - Carpe Diem Log: Day 1, No Wife]]
* [[2017.11.16 - Carpe Diem Log: Day 2, No Wife]]
* [[2017.11.17 - Carpe Diem Log: Day 3, No Wife]]
* [[2017.11.18 - Carpe Diem Log: Saturday Chill]]
* [[2017.11.19 - Carpe Diem Log: Fam]]
* [[2017.11.20 - Carpe Diem Log: Drunk]]
* [[2017.11.21 - Carpe Diem Log: School]]
* [[2017.11.22 - Carpe Diem Log: Arrival]]
* [[2017.11.23 - Carpe Diem Log: T-day]]
* [[2017.11.24 - Carpe Diem Log: Post T-day]]
* [[2017.11.25 - Carpe Diem Log: Recovery]]
* [[2017.11.26 - Carpe Diem Log: Departure]]
* [[2017.11.27 - Carpe Diem Log: School]]
* [[2017.11.28 - Carpe Diem Log: Redeux]]
* [[2017.11.29 - Carpe Diem Log: Onward]]
* [[2017.11.30 - Carpe Diem Log: PH]]
!! Audit:
* I have been picking up more things around the house. I'm glad I do. It has made everything saner.
* NCCER dropped off the map this month.
* D2 oscillated.
* Mathematics has dominated the month.
* Despite the bluelight, sleeping in my own bed to my laptop w/earbuds has helped quell my thoughts and help me slip into sleep.
* It is clear to me that I annoy K, speaking to him. Perhaps I should call less.
* I need to eat healthier. We ate a lot of dessert.
* My morning and sleeping routines aren't down pat.
* We watch a lot of TV in the evening
* I did a lot of cleaning this month.
* I drink often when I don't take cannabliss
* I still feel quite productive without cannabliss, but there is still a noticeable difference
* I'm glad to be waking up at predictable times and that I'm waking the kids up to start their days.
* Perhaps I should record walking with my wife more. I didn't record all the {tried calling, talked} either.
** I love walking with my wife.
* I've been filling out Carpe Diem each day and the next day, and more the next day as the month went on.
* I think ALM and I might be done. It seems like it. His call, of course.
* I ate my wife's baklava.
* I wish I had a much better/automated way of keeping track of these stats, finding patterns and trends, etc.
Stats:<<ref "2018.12.20">>
* Fireman Time = 28
* Inform the Men = 5
** HJ = 1
** Inform the Jabba = 4
* Cannabliss = 14
* {tried calling, talked}
** JRE{4,9}
** AIR{2,3}
** Charlie{2,3}
** C{,1}
** R{,1}
** L{1,2}
** K{,2}
** MB{1,1}
* I'm glad I've made conscious efforts to reach out to people. I will continue to do so.
* Cannabliss usage was 1 higher than last month.
* Fireman Time was down by 8!, however, I had sexual contact with my wife 10 times instead of 8. Once every 3 days is outstanding!
* Good month, eh? Well-seized!
---
<<footnotes "2018.12.20" "I wish I had a better way to gather these stats. The more my wiki sprawls, the less confident I am in achieving such a goal. It is still something I should keep in the back of mind. Perhaps it will be accomplished on a per-project basis. I know that I want it automated.">>
!! Logs:
* [[2017.11.05 - Family Log]]
* [[2017.11.12 - Family Log]]
* [[2017.11.19 - Family Log]]
* [[2017.11.26 - Family Log]]
!! Audit:
* The kids are in good health. My wife is okay, except for headaches. It hasn't been so bad this month though. I've been anxious having to make sure I don't slip into depression.
* My son needs more time to play outside, my daughter needs more free time as well. We need to schedule this better.
* I have felt productive, no doubt. It's all I can think about at times.
* We need to link our compliments and thank you's to character traits and habits more effectively than we have.
* We are very bad about completing our goals. That's okay though. I think it does some us some serious good to think about it together.
* I leave a lot of Easter eggs for myself in these, lol. I love to literally write what people are saying, even when they don't intend for it to be written down.
* It's clear that the primary aspect of our Family Time is note captured in these logs at all. These are still important, and they are a capstone ritual to our weekly Family Time events, but this is not the full picture. That's okay though. I don't mind the organic nature of the rest of it.
!! Logs:
* [[2017.11.02 - Link Log]]
* [[2017.11.03 - Link Log]]
* [[2017.11.05 - Link Log]]
* [[2017.11.06 - Link Log: News Flash - People Suck]]<<ref "2018.12.20">>
* [[2017.11.07 - Link Log: Blood Pressure Rising]]
* [[2017.11.08 - Link Log: Hard to Believe]]
* [[2017.11.09 - Link Log: The Prophet Returns]]
* [[2017.11.11 - Link Log: Playing Catchup]]
* [[2017.11.12 - Link Log: Nomads]]
* [[2017.11.13 - Link Log: Brief]]
* [[2017.11.14 - Link Log: Drowning in Tabs]]
* [[2017.11.15 - Link Log: In Moderation]]
* [[2017.11.16 - Link Log: Meh]]
* [[2017.11.17 - Link Log: Disconfirmation]]
* [[2017.11.18 - Link Log: Hyper-Reading Stack]]
* [[2017.11.21 - Link Log: Backed Up]]
* [[2017.11.22 - Link Log: Digital Ethics]]
* [[2017.11.23 - Link Log: Clear It Out]]
* [[2017.11.26 - Link Log: Tiny Tabs, 6 Windows]]
* [[2017.11.27 - Link Log: Happy, Happy; Joy, Joy]]
* [[2017.11.28 - Link Log: Madness]]
* [[2017.11.29 - Link Log: Unload Fast]]
* [[2017.11.30 - Link Log: Need to Curate]]
!! Audit:
* I've clearly got my "improved" pattern down. I don't spend time browsing Reddit, ycombinator, Digg, Quora, etc. for any longer than I need to. I push through, open tabs, and close it out. I move onto each service, smash'n'grab, and move on. By the end, I have my reading, and I don't feel like I'm stuck in perma-consume mode. I consume at my leisure, sometimes one or even two days later.
* Scientifically Godly, By Seldon, and so forth.
* I don't have time to re-read each article. Each day already takes a lot out of me. Trying to cram a month of my reading in a day is absurd.
* For the children...
* I am amazed at how much I forgot. Jesus. Like, there is the "oh yeah, I remember that" after some re-exposure, but some of this...my mind draws a blank. The limits of human memory. Well, I'm glad it's here. One day, I may curate from myself. I hope to.
* I skipped only a couple days. Almost every day is jam-packed though.
* Do I need to be more specific about the target of KYS? I think it's obvious.
* Redpilled AF
* Shifted from "Neat" to "Interesting," as this captures more.
* My archetypality has begun to solidify.
* It's interesting to see which archetypal barrels get filled with links throughout the month
* Admittedly, I almost never use these tools.
* Maymays outlet is nice to have, and I hope not to abuse it.
* "For my self" has been excellent, even though I clearly think I'm neuro-atypical, to put it gently.
* My Preachers are so often the same crowd.
* Twice the notion of moving to another nation has come up. I must continue to give it thought.
* My link log feels like a river that washes over me.
* Love the /salute. Should I emote more?
* My titles weren't really so useful here, imho. Although, they did help me identify that feeling of overuse.
* Never trust cryptocoin holders.
* I have really gone out of my way to make sure I have links for each family member. Perhaps I'm not doing the best job ever, but I will keep trying.
* I adore my "Stunning!" finds.
* I had some rabbitholes. How do I signify the web sent me down a rabbithole rather than inside my own wiki? (or both?) hrmm...
** I did mention it at least once.
* I feel like I'm having a thousand flashbacks.
* Dem Maymays are very good. Delicious. Muh braincandy.
* I clearly see the need to curate harder than I have been. Admittedly, this is a skill that enables my [[Link Log]], but is separate from it. I fear I water down my insane signal-to-noise ratio by engaging in it here. I have thought about making another log for, especially since I don't do it that often. I need to ask my wife what she thinks. Librarians may know best here.
* I'm very grateful for a "Think About It" section. Sometimes, I need to wait and not put my tentpegs down.
* I adore my one link post. Go you, homie!
* I continue to see civilization sliding. What can I do to protect my family? How bad will it get? What are the right steps? I don't think I'm being paranoid. Nobody wants to think about bad things happening. It's obvious though. Trust your gut.
---
<<footnotes "2018.12.20" "I have [[title.Title]]s up and running! This has been so useful to me. It's been a journey in story-telling.">>
!! Logs:
* [[2017.11.11 - Polymath Craftsman Log]]
* [[2017.11.21 - Polymath Craftsman Log]]
* [[2017.11.27 - Polymath Craftsman Log]]
* [[2017.11.29 - Polymath Craftsman Log]]
!! Audit:
* I like how being handy just pulls me in a bunch of directions.
* I'm ready to get back into working with my hands. I need to start looking this month.
!! Logs:
* [[2017.11.01 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.11.02 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.11.03 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.11.04 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.11.05 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.11.06 - Prompted Introspection Log: Undercover Heavenly Agent]]
* [[2017.11.07 - Prompted Introspection Log: Mind-Reading 3 People]]
* [[2017.11.08 - Prompted Introspection Log: Let's All Go 'Round to Mary Ann's]]
* [[2017.11.09 - Prompted Introspection Log: Babysitter Titty Tattoo]]
* [[2017.11.10 - Prompted Introspection Log: Perfect Vacation]]
* [[2017.11.11 - Prompted Introspection Log: Credit Card]]
* [[2017.11.12 - Prompted Introspection Log: Mountains & Forests]]
* [[2017.11.13 - Prompted Introspection Log: College Major]]
* [[2017.11.14 - Prompted Introspection Log: Mother's Geographic Heritage]]
* [[2017.11.15 - Prompted Introspection Log: New Kid on the Block]]
* [[2017.11.16 - Prompted Introspection Log: World in 50 Years Prediction]]
* [[2017.11.17 - Prompted Introspection Log: Unusual Ride]]
* [[2017.11.18 - Prompted Introspection Log: Having and Eating Cake]]
* [[2017.11.19 - Prompted Introspection Log: My Luck]]
* [[2017.11.20 - Prompted Introspection Log: A Year Ago]]
* [[2017.11.21 - Prompted Introspection Log: Smoke & Sauce]]
* [[2017.11.22 - Prompted Introspection Log: Least Favorite Chore]]
* [[2017.11.23 - Prompted Introspection Log: Content Censor/Selector]]
* [[2017.11.24 - Prompted Introspection Log: Wish to See]]
* [[2017.11.25 - Prompted Introspection Log: Prejudice]]
* [[2017.11.26 - Prompted Introspection Log: Life as Medium+Genre]]
* [[2017.11.27 - Prompted Introspection Log: Last Cry]]
* [[2017.11.28 - Prompted Introspection Log: Religion in My Life]]
* [[2017.11.29 - Prompted Introspection Log: Worst Vacation]]
* [[2017.11.30 - Prompted Introspection Log: Political Leanings]]
Audit:
* I'm not just randomly picking from a list. I don't form my own anymore. This is good and bad. In a way, [[/b/]] is the outlet for the ones I form on my own. I like that. It's a lot less forced.
* I find myself gazing at these introspections throughout the month, even before it is time for the audit. I like that I think about what I've said.
* Have I said I love having titles? =)
* Some of these are very short and sad.
* Clear, justified philosophical paranoia in these answers.
* You know it's serious when I start using footnotes.
* My donors were on my mind at the beginning of the month. Life is better when I don't have to think about them.
* I've added an interlocutor, Lady Melisandre. Good call.
* Edits.
* I am reminded how much I don't like people when I read this, and I don't think there is something wrong with me in feeling that way.
* Many of these moved me.
* Vortex language is interesting, it shows up in {[[About]]}
* Oh shit, I found it!!! 2017.11.18. Look at it. I'm signaling to myself with a Profound Emphasis mechanic. I was trying to point out the rabbithole. This is why I made the rabbithole mechanic. Awesome!
* Definitely some count your blessings in here.
* Redpilled, as usual.
* Sometimes I don't even talk about the Sunday School answer version at all. I'm fine with that.
* I've stopped worrying about the fact that I can't answer many of these questions in space/time I have. The fact is that I'm answering them over the course of the wiki itself. I'm glad I can recognize it, give whatever answer I feel I should, and move on.
* Do I sound skeptical? Lol
!! Logs:
* [[2017.11.01 - To-Do-List Log]]
* [[2017.11.02 - To-Do-List Log]]
* [[2017.11.03 - To-Do-List Log]]
* [[2017.11.04 - To-Do-List Log]]
* [[2017.11.05 - To-Do-List Log]]
* [[2017.11.06 - To-Do-List Log: Time to Learn Elementary Physics]]
* [[2017.11.07 - To-Do-List Log: Habits for Children]]
* [[2017.11.08 - To-Do-List Log: Inspect Yourself]]
* [[2017.11.09 - To-Do-List Log: Recover]]
* [[2017.11.10 - To-Do-List Log: Alebraic! Mathemagical!]]
* [[2017.11.11 - To-Do-List Log: Cinnamon Roll]]
* [[2017.11.12 - To-Do-List Log: Reflect]]
* [[2017.11.13 - To-Do-List Log: Groceries and Grind]]
* [[2017.11.14 - To-Do-List Log: Groceries and Grind Redeux]]
* [[2017.11.15 - To-Do-List Log: Finish Algebra 1]]
* [[2017.11.16 - To-Do-List Log: A Day of Order]]
* [[2017.11.17 - To-Do-List Log: Back on Track]]
* [[2017.11.18 - To-Do-List Log: Clean and Chill]]
* [[2017.11.19 - To-Do-List Log: Famtime]]
* [[2017.11.20 - To-Do-List Log: Cleaning]]
* [[2017.11.21 - To-Do-List Log: Prep for Tday]]
* [[2017.11.22 - To-Do-List Log: Prep for Guests]]
* [[2017.11.23 - To-Do-List Log: Party]]
* [[2017.11.24 - To-Do-List Log: Relax]]
* [[2017.11.25 - To-Do-List Log: Recover]]
* [[2017.11.26 - To-Do-List Log: Take a Deep Breath]]
* [[2017.11.27 - To-Do-List Log: Afresh]]
* [[2017.11.28 - To-Do-List Log: Grind]]
* [[2017.11.29 - To-Do-List Log: Push]]
* [[2017.11.30 - To-Do-List Log: Deeper]]
Audit:
* I started with a bang. It is clear that I need a procrasturbator list, a honey-do for myself.
* I plan to use my drugs, and I tend to be fairly consistent in this way. I like that. It is clear that I can plan to not use them as well.
** Stoic Assent
* I am not so nice in my To-Do-List logs. I'm forceful.
* I like that I have to think about what I want my day to be like, even if only momentarily. I clearly haz an executive malfunctioning, and this is part of fixing my deficits. I need to get better at this.<<ref "2018.12.20">>
* There are small things I write down sometimes, and I'm glad I do that.
* I have not been doing my To-Do-List first thing. I need to do that.
** Changed.
** Admittedly, the order is rough, despite how much I work on it.
* I find the titles to be interesting.
* I fear that it became routine to the point of being meaningless. In a sense, if I'm not thinking about it while doing it, then it fails its purpose. It needs to be a habit of reflection, not merely a habit.
* I do see that I look at the list and ask myself if I did it. It is an accountability mechanism, and I need to use it wisely.
* Walk with my wife is often on my list.
* I'm trying to help my kids develop their own To-Do-List behavior/habit-forming.
---
<<footnotes "2018.12.20" "I hate to be my own buzzkill, but I'm not sure it has done all that much for me. I am, ofc, worried that it has minor effects I can't appreciate well enough though. If I stop taking my medicine in [[TDL]], perhaps it will be even worse. Regardless, I feel like a complete failure. This log clearly demonstrates that I am a failure again and again. Maybe that's what it does: it keeps me honest with myself. Lawd knows, I need dat humility.">>
!! Log:
* [[2017.11.01 - Yearly Audit Log]]
* [[2017.11.02 - Yearly Audit Log]]
* [[2017.11.03 - Yearly Audit Log]]
* [[2017.11.04 - Yearly Audit Log]]
* [[2017.11.05 - Yearly Audit Log]]
* [[2017.11.06 - Yearly Audit Log: Work on Your Wiki]]
* [[2017.11.07 - Yearly Audit Log: Triage the Major Logs]]
* [[2017.11.08 - Yearly Audit Log: Finish the 'Other' Subsubsection]]
* [[2017.11.09 - Yearly Audit Log: Baby Steps]]
* [[2017.11.10 - Yearly Audit Log: Two Baby Steps]]
* [[2017.11.11 - Yearly Audit Log: Tortoise Mode]]
* [[2017.11.13 - Yearly Audit Log: Slug Mode]]
* [[2017.11.15 - Yearly Audit Log: Before Link Log]]
* [[2017.11.17 - Yearly Audit Log: Every Other Day]]
* [[2017.11.18 - Yearly Audit Log: Adding But No Revising]]
* [[2017.11.21 - Yearly Audit Log: Do Your Best]]
* [[2017.11.25 - Wiki Audit Log: Clear Vision]]
* [[2017.11.26 - Wiki Audit Log: Dive]]
* [[2017.11.27 - Wiki Audit Log: h0p3]]
* [[2017.11.28 - Wiki Audit Log: Art]]
* [[2017.11.29 - Wiki Audit Log: Art Depth]]
* [[2017.11.30 - Wiki Audit Log: Computing]]
!! Audit:
* Monthly Audits make the Wiki Audit harder. Triage though. Do what you can.
* Filtering, Titletags invented
** I started adding title.Titles as well. This tells a quick story. I like it. It differentiates it for me too.
* So much re-writing
* Restructuring has been wonderful.
* I've obviously been on the fence about how far to apply the [[Wiki: Directory File Structure Template]]
* I regularly have to tell myself to do my best. It has clearly been a huge struggle for me to do this.
* I was incredibly optimistic, biased even, in thinking I would accomplish this in a year. Shoot for the stars, but don't expect yourself to reach them, I guess.
* {[[About]]} has been filling up the entire month. I'm slowly gathering the raw materials to re-write it. I'm very glad I've been doing that.
* Rethinking {[[Principles]]} has been incredible. Even though I have been discouraged by it, getting stuck at [[Wiki: Existential Axioms and Fundamental Principles]], I have clearly made huge progress there.
* I created the Hidden Wiki embedded in this wiki.
* I'm glad I started Triaging. It is quite stoic. Only in practicing this could I see what was practical in the first place. It forced me to adjust my theory.
* Going through the wiki has shown me why it evolved they way it did. Many of the oldest pages/directories gave birth to serious ideas about how to construct this wiki. Huge shout out to [[Realpolitik Speculation]], {[[Focus]]}, [[/b/]], and [[Computing]]...among many others.
* This has been a ton of work, filling it out.
* I've had to slow down to doing one a day sometimes.
* I missed several days.
* Keep logs inside of a single page is generally a failure. But, I don't have to go whole-hog either. [[Mathematics Tutoring Log]] demonstrates that.
* It has been a powerful experience reworking my family members' pages.
* I had a day of adding without auditing. I'm okay with that. It is very hard to add completely new content. I give priority to it.
* Rabbithole mechanic is awesome. I like being able to transport myself back through the rabbithole of the day, in a way.
* Should I stop using the word "Collections" in my titles?
* A lot of work goes into shaping this wiki. It has paid off so far, so I'm going to continue.
!! Logs:
* [[2017.11.01 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.11.02 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.11.03 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.11.04 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.11.05 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.11.06 - Wiki Review Log: Triage Everything Moar!]]
* [[2017.11.07 - Wiki Review Log: Programming and Physics]]
* [[2017.11.08 - Wiki Review Log: Habits On The Brain]]
* [[2017.11.09 - Wiki Review Log: Give that Woman Books]]
* [[2017.11.10 - Wiki Review Log: Masturbatory]]
* [[2017.11.11 - Wiki Review Log: D2 Ditto]]
* [[2017.11.12 - Wiki Review Log: It Was Restful]]
* [[2017.11.13 - Wiki Review Log: Audit, please?]]
* [[2017.11.14 - Wiki Review Log: Money Anxiety?]]
* [[2017.11.15 - Wiki Review Log: Out of Balance]]
* [[2017.11.16 - Wiki Review Log: X'd Out Feeling]]
* [[2017.11.17 - Wiki Review Log: Listen to title.Title]]
* [[2017.11.18 - Wiki Review Log: Jerk]]
* [[2017.11.19 - Wiki Review Log: Anxiety Chill]]
* [[2017.11.20 - Wiki Review Log: Unlinked]]
* [[2017.11.21 - Wiki Review Log: Brief]]
* [[2017.11.22 - Wiki Review Log: Being Philosophical]]
* [[2017.11.23 - Wiki Review Log: Good to Think]]
* [[2017.11.24 - Wiki Review Log: Ex Machina Thanksgiving]]
* [[2017.11.25 - Wiki Review Log: Satisfaction]]
* [[2017.11.26 - Wiki Review Log: Blank]]
* [[2017.11.27 - Wiki Review Log: Slowly It Goes]]
* [[2017.11.28 - Wiki Review Log: Rabbithole Moment]]
* [[2017.11.29 - Wiki Review Log: Backpatting]]
* [[2017.11.30 - Wiki Review Log: Cleaning Wiki's House]]
!! Audit:
* I can clearly see my anxiety about [[Wiki Audit Log]]
* Interesting tidbits are caught up in this log.
* Thankfully minimal interaction, even indirectly, with my donors. It did affect me.
* I did a lot of grinding this month. I clearly felt overwhelmed at times too.
* I'm glad that I see when I'm discouraged and call myself on it. I'm more gentle here.
* Triage, triage, triage! Triage infinigress.
* I say "slowly" or "it's coming together" or other ways of telling myself that it is cultivating. That is encouragement.
* I've clearly decided my children must engage in this. It's incredibly useful.
* I saw my expectations for myself and my children adjust over the course of month.
* A great deal of shape has been given to this wiki this month.
* I really like having guttural responses to work with. It's clear there was a lot of spending and recovering this month.
* Lots of one-word answers.
* Ditto
* Money and information anxiety. This will be my last month of working on this. I need to make it count.
* The titles tend to be strong in themselves in this log.
* I definitely had an emotional dip this month.
* I have continued to wrestle with the moral problem, very clearly.
* I've been drinking more than I'd like. At least 5 times this month.
* Browser overflow. That drug needs to be tapered down as well.
* I think I need to start pulling back on my drug use more.
* My wife has been banging me more often.
* MB&A's visit was a very interesting experience for me. I need to give more thought to it.
* I continually praise [[/b/]]
* Schizo worries still there
* Rabbitholes, however, I am glad to have. It is very clear that the [[Wiki Review Log]] is a catalyst to my rabbitholing. It does make me think about myself.
* I have strong emotions in Wiki Review Log. It is a very guttural, visceral thing. No doubt, it has much in common with [[/b/]] as a kind of Stream-of-Conscious approach to digesting myself each day.
I'd like to formally offer a Happy Birthday to my mother. If you're reading this, then you deserve the tit-for-tat.<<ref "1">> I hope you have an excellent and relaxing day. I'm glad my children had the chance to speak with you last night.
---
I will forever remember that surreal moment of standing there with my two brothers trying to do some woodworking.
---
My Kant professors always knew I was a true believer. I wanted it so badly.
---
<<footnotes "1" "I have known you to secretly read other's private writings before. I've caught you in the act from the inferences you've made. It is completely possible you still read, although it is also completely possible you don't. I'm not a betting man here in either direction.">>
* I've noticed I've been spending more time picking up the little things (not in an annoyed way, but in a good normal way).
---
* Woke at 9
** Haven't been drunk in a while, and I'm going to keep it that way. =)
* Routine Morning Routine
* D2
* NCCER
* Cleaning
* Mathematics
* Read+Write
* Cannabliss
* Fireman Time x2!
* Talked to JRE & K
** Pretty sure I annoyed K by the end.
* Tried reaching Charlie, L, and MB
** MB said she call back, but she didn't.
* Quesadillas, Salad, and Fruits
** I'm glad I have my kids cook with me.
* Read+Write
* Wife came home, and we had a clear disagreement before bed over the notion of property rights. She's dismissive, but as am I.
** Not worth debating. She's not interested in argumentation here. A sad parting of ways.
* Fell asleep in my own bed. Laptop + earbuds helped.
!! What if you support socialism, but act rationally-selfishly in the political-economy we have?
It is true that I do not have the power to change the world much at all. Sometimes support is all I can and should give from a stoic point of view. Having the right ideas, attempting to communicate them, and implementing them where I do have power is literally all I can do for a such a movement. It is also clear that we will fail, but that doesn't immediately give me the right to stop. I do not ask for certainty here, it could just be confidence. How confident must I be? I don't know.
There does seem to be a bifurcation, although perhaps that is all you can do from a metamodern mode. It seems to lack integrity, but perhaps our lives are simply marred in this respect. We have to admit to ourselves that we are stuck between a rock and a hard place. We don't have the moral luck we need.
It reminds me of when a multi-national will not pay their fair share and then blame the laws. They had the ability to play fairly if they wanted. Is that what you mean? I think we are in rationalization territory here. If we are going to do that, then why not go balls to the wall? Go for broke. Sin boldly.
* Setup VPN clients on laptop and phone
* Root daughter's phone
* Set alarm clock, and sleep in your own bed.
* Cannabliss
* Complete monthly audits
* Ask Tiddlywiki community how to use my custom font as the default for the editor.
* Find out why btsync isn't working on the RPi.
* Make an account for JRE on Home-Server.
* Convert NSFL and NSFW [[Titletags]] to "Hidden:"
** The "Hidden:" Wiki Section
* Make a To-Do-List Bag in [[To-Do-List Log]]
* Get yo' flu shots
* Read+Write
* D2
* Fireman Time!
* [[2017.10.31 - /b/]]
** Edited.
** Brief!
* [[2017.10.31 - Link Log]]
** What a monster.
* [[2017.10.31 - Yearly Audit Log]]
** I feel unhappy. I don't know what I'm doing. But, that's okay. I will keep pushing. This is not going to magically come together. You have to work for it, and slowly it will be what you want it to be. Make moves that you can fix and adapt.
* [[2017.10.31 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** Edited.
* [[2017.10.31 - To-Do-List Log]]
** I will cannabliss today.
* [[2017.10.31 - Wiki Review Log]]
** Vocated. Rofl.<<ref "2018.12.20">>
* [[2017.10.31 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** Thankfully, no hangover. It's easy to get buzzed-drunk when you have a lower tolerance.
* [[Life of Fred: Fractions]]
** I've not written anything down. I will when I complete the book today.
---
<<footnotes "2018.12.20" "Often I am unhappy when I see that my opinion has not changed, but other times I am amused and pleased with my continued beliefs and desires. The integrity of my [[4DID]] requires both. Indeed, I still love that verb: //vocated//. It is striking to me.">>
* I'm working on my monthly audit today. I don't know how much I will get done.
* [[Yearly Audit Log]] and [[Wiki Review Log]] are doing a kind of {[[Principles]]} Log. This is a good fucking idea.
I think I am poison to those around me often enough. Excuse the gibberish:
I believe this wiki is hard for my wife to read. It's boring, tedious, angering, and depressing. There's nothing that makes her happy here. She is watching me wrestle-transform into someone she does not respect as much as the man she married.
I'm not sure what she thinks of my reasoning at this point. She does not engage it in some significant ways.
My thinking is such that people do not want to think about what I'm thinking. They do not want to empathize with me, and that is either because I am an asshole (and for a variety of possible reasons it isn't worth the time/energy/effort), it is very painful to realize/understand/temporarily-agree-to/empathize with my perspective (for some other set of reasons), or they are incapable of that time-slice for some other reason (for example, lacking the knowledge/inferential powers to achieve it).
i.e.
When I don't feel they empathize, I either see people as (disliking me to the point that they don't empathize), (loving themselves [fearing pain] too much to empathize), or (not mentally capable of empathy) in a given context.
Am I thinking about something too tedious and boring? Clearly, it's painful to be bored.
Do they want other things more important to do? They value themselves more than me.
Like is a strong word here, and love too. It must be understood carefully. I can carefully distinguish kinds of Respect here.
* [[2014.02.17 - Bare Metal Recognition and Appraisal Respect]]<<ref "1">>
We are in Like and Love territory. They are simply two kinds of respect.
I imagine the same standard applies to me as well. When I'm not empathizing, it's because I don't think it's worth it (I don't like them as much as I like myself [includes that I don't like them]; this is a cost/benefit analysis[it gets even uglier when we think of it like this]) or because I'm not even capable.
They say ought implies can. Whenever you think I ought to empathize, then I must be capable. Are you sure?
What is left sucks.
Thus, do I impart the same charity? Is it better to just see that one can't make the leap? Is that how I ought to treat humanity?<<ref "2">>
It does feel like we are stuck between malice and ignorance.<<ref "3">>
---
Autistic people are trying to unify themselves like schizoids and MPD/DID in that they all experience a kind of dissociative experience (which isn't necessarily a disorder) in which there are two realities presented, and they must pick one. I think of the Redpill as doing exactly that in a sense. It is a kind of fundamental disagreement with yourself about what is real. You are stuck between two worlds. Sometimes you are phenomenologically immersed in one world to the loss of the other, etc. Sometimes it is a true incapacity. Maybe it means there is only a range of possible worlds that you can even conceive of (or conceive of given the fastmind or slowmind).
''__//This is Dialectic!//__''
---
<<footnotes "1" "Fallacy time: I really loved this paper. And you know what? So did others in my class (they asked to see it). I made jaws drop more than once at that school, and this was one of them. My teacher loved it too, and we rarely agreed on a large amount of Kantian-space. Here's how good this paper is: my teacher is going to teach his class differently because he read this paper. He said it was literally the best class he had ever taught in his life; and I think a tiny part of the reason is my paper. He even told me it was the best paper in the class. This is part of my metaethics.">>
<<footnotes "2" "We are implementing the Categorical Imperative here.">>
<<footnotes "3" "My new theory is that Hanlon's Razor is prudentially (rather than alethically) justified">>
* Woke at 8:30 to the alarm clock.
** I want to push it back to 7:30, I think. I want it to be my norm. Waking on bluelight is perhaps the best option, but seasonal variation, meh.
* Fireman Time!
* Segmented Morning Routine
* NCCER
* Read+Write
* Helped daughter install TWRP recovery
** I'm glad we finally found a version that works on the Moto E4
* Mathematics
* Cannabliss
* Fireman Time!
* Fish Stirfry
* Read+Write
* Stranger Things
* Slept in my own bed.
* Stunning!
** http://blog.ycombinator.com/how-adversarial-attacks-work/
*** I've seen it first hand a number of times. 4chan knows what it do. Clearly, this can be weaponized. We are in for some terrifying virtual wars.
**** Botnets only become more and more valuable over time. Looking authentic is so hard to pull off.
* KYS
** https://digg.com/2017/mike-stark-violent-arrest
** https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20171030/11255938512/dead-people-mysteriously-support-fccs-attack-net-neutrality.shtml
** https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2008/08/the-clinton-campaigns-final-pitch-to-superdelegates-june-3-2008/37976/
** https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/10/netflixs-skip-intro-button-makes-tv-ever-more-like-an-app/544427/
*** Actually, Confirm My Bias, but I must put this here solely for the fact that anyone would even consider skipping the //Stranger Things// intro. Perish the thought! It is so scientifically godly. =)
** https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-brazile-hacks-2016-215774
*** I hate to say it, but the Democrats I know just don't fucking get it.
** https://www.apnews.com/44f22ca8245441f9993ca76b894b8919/Child-sex-offenders-to-be-named-as-such-in-US-passports
*** Anything done in the name of "protecting our children" must be scrutinized. These are weasel words and powerplays that prey upon your amygdala in far too many contexts. Don't you see what this really is?
*** https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15611122
**** First comment nails another important point. I can't tell you how much I had the videofication of information that clearly should be written. I need to be able to hyperread!
** https://archive.is/X849s
** https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2017/11/02/why-republicans-suddenly-willing-embrace-new-debt/824583001/
* Preach, yo!
** https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7zZYnFADxk
** https://i.redd.it/9zebek5veevz.png
*** #rekt
** http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2017/11/sen_elizabeth_warren_dangerous.html
*** Okay. I hate the DNC, but I would rim out Warren for days. We might not agree, but she deserves some hardcore rimjobs, chocolates, and even my respect.
** https://www.neustadt.fr/essays/against-a-user-hostile-web/
*** You can still KYS, author. You still haven't owned up to your evil. You've only just started in this virtual signaling.
** https://www.reddit.com/r/MarchAgainstTrump/comments/7aazsu/keith_olbermann_in_2010_accurately_predicting_the/
*** Strong position in metaphysics and metaethics, imho
* Confirm My Bias
** https://digg.com/2017/mueller-indictments-what-to-read
*** Yay-ish. Fuck Sessions.
** http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/31/politics/manafort-3-passports/index.html
** http://planetsave.com/2013/12/23/a-rigged-game-of-monopoly-reveals-how-feeling-wealthy-changes-our-behavior-ted-video/
** https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/11/breitbart-other-conservative-outlets-escalate-anti-spacex-campaign/
** https://www.buzzfeed.com/alexkantrowitz/twitter-offered-rt-15-of-its-total-share-of-us-elections?utm_term=.jg9NP2zVx1#.bigra6g0YP
*** Lol.
** https://squawker.org/culture-wars/4chaniotbw/
*** Visited /pol/. They are clearly having a lot of fun.
** https://www.theguardian.com/science/head-quarters/2017/oct/31/the-reminiscence-bump-why-americas-greatest-year-was-probably-when-you-were-young
** https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/7a6znc/russia_organized_2_sides_of_a_texas_protest_and/dp7wnoa/
*** Memes are powerful.
** http://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/358370-colbert-schools-trump-jr-on-socialism-after-halloween-tweet
*** Sadly, Colbert name drops but doesn't even begin to explain what socialism is...he talks about wealth inequality (good!), but nebulously (insidiously) explains little else.
** https://www.fastcompany.com/40488936/its-not-a-coincidence-that-innovative-cities-become-very-unequal
** https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/mail-order-crispr-kits-allow-absolutely-anyone-to-hack-dna/
*** Open the floodgates
** https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/11/germany-facebook/543258/
*** Germany loves Kant, but they don't know how to wield him.
** http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-41840866
*** Pen is mightier than the sword, etc. We get it; 'dem memes are potent.
* Disconfirm My Bias
** https://themerkle.com/no-the-fcc-is-not-voting-on-net-neutrality-in-november/
*** Safe for now?
** https://gizmodo.com/if-your-vibrator-is-hacked-is-it-a-sex-crime-1820007951
*** Of course, I still can not define it well. I can resort to Hohfeldian analysis, but nobody wants to go there with me (only Libertarians and Socialists seems to get it), not even my wife apparently.
** http://trackrecord.net/chris-browns-name-has-apparently-been-edited-out-of-a-3-1819711002
*** This is becoming more and more common. TBS might speed up there shit, and there are advertisement replacements, but this is literally re-writing. I feel dejavu surrealism into 1984 territory here.
* Fishy
** https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2017/income-povery.html
*** Not disagreeing with the numbers here. I have questions about the "mistake."
** https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/10/next-recession-prepared/544391/
*** Uhh...what makes you think the noose hasn't just been tightened? What makes you think the average person has actually recovered? What makes you think we aren't really still in a recession?
** http://thehill.com/policy/technology/358025-thousands-attended-protest-organized-by-russians-on-facebook
*** Power grabs everywhere here. Watch our governments use this to lock their own people down...for the children, etc.
** https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/1/16592338/eric-schmidt-google-ai-competition-us-china
*** I'm extremely hard-pressed to find examples of Chinese software that I value.
**** The innovations tend to be small or focused around a level of centralized control that I'm unwilling to accept. They are definitely incredibly talented, but I still see a copycat nation. I may be wrong.
*** I am convinced that Schmidt just wants to pay Americans less and to have people under his thumb with visa-control. This seems more like scaremongering.
** http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-retweeted-fake-account-run-by-russians/article/2639353
*** My bias confirmed so starkly that it deserves inspection beyond the usual
** https://www.abdn.ac.uk/news/11280/
*** Panacea
* Tools
** https://signal.org/blog/standalone-signal-desktop/
*** One of the reasons I couldn't stand signal.
*** New is not always better. Signal is a lot better than most though, I grant that.
** https://github.com/cryfs/cryfs
*** Thank Science.
** https://pragprog.com/book/modvim/modern-vim
*** Putting in requests for it.
** https://github.com/neovim/neovim
** https://github.com/lunixbochs/actualvim
*** Trying to find GUI's I'd like.
** https://blog.cryptoaustralia.org.au/2017/11/02/pi-hole-network-wide-ad-blocker/
*** Seen different versions of this tool, but should keep it in my back pocket, just in case.
* Neat
** https://www.nature.com/news/quantum-machine-goes-in-search-of-the-higgs-boson-1.22860
*** I am surprised.
** http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1710.3/02474.html
*** He's not nice, but he's often right.
** https://www.wired.com/story/googles-ai-wizard-unveils-a-new-twist-on-neural-networks/amp
** https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-atomic-theory-of-origami-20171031/
** https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/11/drove-not-drived/544595/
** http://roadsandkingdoms.com/2017/sichuan-peppercorns/
** https://blog.torproject.org/tors-fall-harvest-next-generation-onion-services#asn
*** /salute
* For my daughter:
** https://geoff.greer.fm/2015/01/15/why-neovim-is-better-than-vim/
** https://assets.bitbashing.io/papers/lockless.pdf
* For my wife:
** https://www.tor.com/2017/10/30/9-terrifying-books-that-arent-shelved-as-horror/
** https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/5/11/15508006/what-causes-autism-spectrum-disorder-vaccine-theory
** https://i.redd.it/1acany0cbivz.jpg
** http://www.npr.org/sections/krulwich/2012/10/22/163397584/how-human-beings-almost-vanished-from-earth-in-70-000-b-c
*** NPR is going fullblown Cracked
!! Respond to the following:
<<<
Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either - but right through every human heart - and through all human hearts. This line shifts. Inside us, it oscillates with the years. And even within hearts overwhelmed by evil, one small bridgehead of good is retained. And even in the best of all hearts, there remains ... an unuprooted small corner of evil.
Since then I have come to understand the truth of all the religions of the world: They struggle with the evil inside a human being (inside every human being). It is impossible to expel evil from the world in its entirety, but it is possible to constrict it within each person.
<<<
Someone doesn't believe in corporate responsibility. He's an atomist.
It's definitely poetic. He's got the humanities side of the equation stated in a reasonable way.
There is, of course, a faith here. It goes beyond hedged-conservative description into speculative territory.
I'd love to have met the man. I honestly wonder what he'd think of my opinion. I doubt he'd care for it at first. Once he understood it, I think he'd appreciate it.
!! {[[About|About, a.k.a. The Opening of the Rabbit Hole]]}:<<ref "1">>
!!!!!!{{Version - 2 - Home ASCII Art Logo||Wiki: Center ASCII Art Settings}}
@@display:block;text-align:center;
!!!!!{[[Help|Help: On this Wiki]]} {[[Connect|Ways to Connect to this Wiki]]} {[[Verify|Cryptographic Verification]]} {[[Contact|Contact h0p3]]} {[[Legal|Legal Notice]]}
@@
---
!! {[[Principles|Principles of Programming Myself]]}:<<ref "2">>
* [[Know Thyself]]
* [[Virtue is Knowledge]]
* [[Program Yourself]]
---
!! {[[Focus|Current Focus of h0p3's Wiki]]}:
* You are looking at this page right now.<<ref "3">>
---
!! {[[Vault|The Vault of h0p3]]}:
* Retired: [[Root]] (previously `[[{Home}]]`)
** [[2017.09.16 - Retired: {Home}]]
---
!! {[[Dreams|Dreams of h0p3]]}:
* Happiness
---
<<footnotes "1" "Do you smell an [[infinigress]]?">>
<<footnotes "2" "Looks simple enough, right?">>
<<footnotes "3" "Click the Top-Level Directory links to know more.">>
//Holy shit! This is the most obvious direct seed of my {[[Axioms]]}. This is a [[Relic]] I hold in very high regard. How many projects evolve to become a [[Root]]ed directory? This might be the only one. This wiki is so messy, but this has been a profound [[Diamond]] that I sifted for and eventually sublated the old {[[Principles]]} with. Noicely done, mate!//
---
These are the Rawlsian-lexicographically ordered guiding existential axioms and fundamental principles of this wiki:
* Be [[h0p3]]!
** Have hope. Believe you can succeed.
** It's a spark of reason with enormous emotional force behind it.
** Don't let your flame die out. Protect it.
* [[Be Happy!]]
** Engage in the science of becoming happy.
*** Be utilitarian. Be rational.
** Train yourself to be a [[eudaimonic lifehacker]].
** Be the correct, worthy, rational, and self-accepting version of Jesus' Kantian Man. Tame Kant's whimsy, habituate him, teach him utilitarian virtue. Discipline yourself and be stoic. See the world for what it is, and understand your place in it. Accept your station, reasons to live, and do your best in life.
** When it comes to life: lick the spoon, suck out the marrow, and squeeze out every drop of happiness you can.
*** Be cozy, appreciate small blessings, etc.
*** Seize the day
*** Attend to the right objects with your ray of intentionality in a patterned way.
** Take calculated risks. them
*** Success requires failing in the right ways for the right reasons, etc.
*** Perfectionists tend not to take enough risks. Thus, you should take more risks. Fail more often. Just do it. You'll get hurt sometimes, but it's worth it in the end. Succeed at the Marshmallow Test of Life: promote effective executive functioning.
* [[Do your best]]
** Be wise!
** Don't give up! Don't be akratic!
** Work hard!
* [[Know Thyself]]
** Be stoic. Find the mistakes in yourself. Own it. Forgive yourself. Solve it. Find the best move, and apply it. Rinse and repeat.
* [[Virtue is Knowledge]]
** Do your best (be rational), and have a good attitude (be empathic).
** Use the [[Slowmind]] and [[Fastmind]] in the right ways, at the right time, and so on. i.e. Be excellent. Be virtuous at a practice. What practice? The practice of making myself happy, of becoming eudaimonic. Be moral in the right way, be the right kind of renaissance man, be a eudaimonic lifehacker, etc..
* [[Have a Good Attitude]]
** Be happy while being moral (good luck!).
** Balance yourself through reason.
** Consider the contradictions in yourself, but learn to be okay with them and/or fix them when you can.
** When all else fails, rely upon stoicism, empathy, and hope.
* [[Empathize with yourself]]
** And, hence, empathize with others.
** Be honest and open about who you are.
** Argue, charitably, with yourself.
*** Forgive yourself when you don't.
* [[Program yourself]]
** Understand the best patterns necessary for positively adjusting your reasoning behaviors.
** Be practical and idealistic. Weld it together, yo!
** Actually engage in the practice of sculpting yourself on this wiki by organizing it.
If you see something like this at the top of the page:
<<<
PH: Today
<<<
...then you are looking at a page which I hope to fill out in some future time period.
This a quick way to force the creation of a link and a way to generate peace of mind when I feel overwhelmed by my mind-mapping.
I've been thinking about {[[About]]} as PH, but I've been working on it for months. PH is a "work in progress," it's not complete enough for me to remove that. PH is a "pre-Alpha" testing a page; it's literally development itself. It's debugging and adding until I've got something I appreciate.
* Fireman Time!
* D2
* Read+Write
* Mathematics
* Root daughter's phone
* Fish Stir-Fry
* NCCER
* Clean
* Clear out those fucking links; procrastination!
* Walk with wife.
* [[2017.10 - /b/]]
** I think my wife dislikes this part of my wiki. =(
* [[Wiki: Log Structure]]
** I need to fill it out, but yes. This is on the right track. I have lots of conventions that need to be formalized.
* [[2017.11.01 - Yearly Audit Log]]
** Jackshit accomplished, but my monthly audit takes precedence.
* [[2017.10 - Yearly Audit Log]]
** This was a joy to see.
* [[2017.11.01 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** Yes, Luther.
* [[2017.10 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** I have struggled with this for months.
* [[2017.10 - To-Do-List Log]]
** Useful, but not exactly where I need it, I suppose.
* [[infinigress]]
** Transclusions for the lazy (<-- this guy)
* [[2017.11.01 - /b/]]
** Apparently, she called JRE after calling us. They must "get in the mood" to connect when they do (which is rarely).
* [[2017.11.01 - Wiki Review Log]]
** I do feel restless.
* [[2017.10 - Wiki Review Log]]
** That's what I'm talking about!
* [[2017.11.01 - To-Do-List Log]]
** Yup, added it to Dreams of [[To-Do-List Log]]
* [[2017.11.01 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** Seized
* [[2017.10 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** It was clearly a very productive audit of my core logs.
* Figured out how to Filter for Titletags (much like search)
* Also, gave myself breadcrumbs on renaming the "Tiddlywiki Howto:" pages with a Titletag. Might as well.
---
* [[Wiki: Directory File Structure Template]]
** Edited.
* [[Wiki: PH]]
** Filled that page-like directory. It's not clear that it needs more. But, I'm going to try anyway. It's better to have overkill than under. We don't know how far to extend it, so let's just make small pushes beyond what we'd normally do and see if those risks pay off.
* [[Wiki: Log Structure]]
** This page was created to solve a serious problem I have in {[[Principles]]}. I have principled problems in generating my Principles, as usual.
* [[Wiki: Existential Axioms and Fundamental Principles]]
** Fuck, I have to re-write this entire thing. That's okay. Keep calm. You can do your best. You have a tool for doing it now. You can investigate and slowly grow it.
** Clearly, this page is epically important it could be on the {[[Home]]} page. I realized that earlier with an attempt at [[2017.11.02 - Retired: {Home}]].
*** Thus, I am now introducing another transclusion: [[Axioms of h0p3]].
* [[Hidden: Home]]
** I decided that I should have this section. It's not meant to be not found by anyone. It's a very light steganographic touch which makes it so that average person need not be concerned by it. Those interested, of course, can always traverse that branch of the rabbithole.
** Look for the "s" in the the [[Experience Machine]]//__s__// found in the Focus section of {[[Dreams]]} (or on the [[Hub]])
//The Venture Bros.//, as the creators have noted, is about the beauty of failure. It's a world of failure.
* Woke at 8:20.
** Moving the clock back 10 minutes each morning until I wake up at the same time as my wife (unless he prefers the morning entirely to herself).
* Watched Vice videos with kids. We talked (mostly me, as usual).
* Routine Morning Routine
* Fireman Time!
* Read+Write
* Kids' writing
* Mathematics
* NCCER
* Inform the Jabba!
* Shower of the Gods!
* Pizza
* Whiskey
* Stranger Things
* Brownies
* The Orville
* Late night!
* Stunning!
** https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLDbSvEZka6GEM_JJp1glNxb0q-HCYUT9J
*** It's an older meme, sir, but it checks out.
*** Sometimes //Vice// nails it.
* KYS
** https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/02/nyregion/dnainfo-gothamist-shutting-down.html?_r=0
* Confirm My Bias
** https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/10/algorithms-future-of-health-care/543825/
*** Technology always makes ethics more complicated. You can nest logic infinitely, build whole universes. We don't have the tools to understand them, let alone regulate them (and yet we must try!). Bio-ethics is in for it, in this case. Whether we will admit it to ourselves or not, The Free Market Laissez-Faire Capitalism Libertarian (Redpilled Survival of the Fittest; a raw expression of Evolution itself) notion just IS the State of Postmodern nature and power dynamics.
** https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/11/the-shadow-government-working-to-save-obamacare-from-collapse/544694/
*** The Shadow Government is a collection of many such unofficial, often accidental and disorganized "agencies" with different intentions, agendas, and levels of agreement, competition, and power struggles from which butterfly effect causal emergences affect everyone.
** http://www.bbc.com/capital/story/20171102-do-psychopaths-really-make-better-leaders
*** It's a spectrum, and you've completely low-balled the number. ROFL. It would be very disturbing to your readers to know the truth. Even you aren't willing to see it.
** https://www.thedailybeast.com/jenna-abrams-russias-clown-troll-princess-duped-the-mainstream-media-and-the-world
** https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2017/11/why-do-we-still-commute/544733/
*** Physical proximity power dynamics
** https://www.theringer.com/tech/2017/11/2/16596890/facebook-russia-hearing
* Tools
** https://lineage.microg.org/
** https://www.wired.com/story/the-college-kids-doing-what-twitter-wont/?
*** Wish it was for more than Twitter! I need an overlay for everything! Please?
** https://github.com/michael-lazar/rtv
*** Unlikely to win out.
* Neat
** http://nautil.us/issue/31/Stress/what-i-learned-from-losing-200-million
*** Goddamnit, Nautilus. Do I need to make a fucking archetypal comment for you? It's that gorgeous. Truly magnificent.
**** But...then I see stuff like this: http://nautil.us/issue/31/stress/are-you-resilient-rp
** https://www.laphamsquarterly.org/roundtable/arsenic-and-old-leeches
** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantropa
** https://flowingdata.com/2017/11/01/who-is-married-by-now/
*** Also, Confirm My Bias
** http://reallifemag.com/net-shop-boys/
*** Beautiful trash that few relate to. They know their audience. Still, an interesting glimpse into an attempt to make the redpill more palatable.
** https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15614016
*** Valuable discussions here. You know where I stand, obviously. I said I'd rim Warren out yesterday; I must admit, I'd rim Stallman out as well (and, again, we don't agree on plenty, but I respect that man).
* For my self:
** https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-00956-z
*** Is there are GABA self-hack here?
* For my daughter:
** https://geoffreyenglish.wordpress.com/2017/11/03/a-very-brief-introduction-to-the-leader-key/
* For my wife:
** https://www.wnyc.org/shows/preetbharara
*** Seemed highly recommended.
** http://www.expressionsofchange.org/reification-of-interaction/
*** Seems like something a Librarian would appreciate.
* Maymays
** https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=71&v=4KlNeiY4Rf4
!! If there was one person who you had the power of giving immortality to, who would it be and why?
Presumably, I can't choose myself. Although, I'm not sure I would want it either, lol.
Also, considering how I think the world is going to change in the next century, it's not clear that immortality would still be a good thing. I need to understand the nature of this immortality, what it entails, etc. Can you lose a limb and continue your immortality? What parts of you are "immortal" and bound together forever, untouchably? Does this imply other superpowers? Would you be forever drowning if you lived underneath the water? Let's assume you have a profound ability to neutralize pain and other kinds of "I'm dying" threats (or that you learn to not have them over time). Let's say immortal in a good way. My answer then is:
My wife. She could live the solitary life, or at least the cat-woman librarian life for all eternity. Give her the tools, and she could comfortably be hermitic. She would be the great narrative-consumer. She would immerse herself in the possible worlds, and she would find the answer (even if would be too late to tell me). I think she would be quite happy in that contemplative life.
!! About:
Am I really a computer? Yes. Therefore, I must be following some datastruct+algo, some set of principles. I must have axioms. Being autonomous means I get to adjust those axioms. However paradoxical it may seem, I have root-like access to myself.<<ref "1">>
What axioms will I take up? The moral question presents itself. It is far from clear that one can be happy and moral at the same time; I've yet to meet an exception. The stakes are ultimately quite high. I'm going to seek happiness and attempt to integrate morality as far as I can into it.
We must be as close to unconditionally universally ideally virtuous epistemologists in this context as possible. It's time to get Back to Basics and work our way up.
---
!! Principles:
* Epistemic Justification
** Alethic<<ref "2">>
*** Rigorous, consistent, high-integrity pursuit of truth.
**** There are many ways to seek the truth, and some are better than others in various contexts.
*** One must always be open to doubt upon these justificatory grounds.
** Prudential
*** Sometimes the truth is not relevant, obligated, valuable, or pragmatic. This is inductive, taking up happiness as the end which justifies the means.
---
!! Focus:<<ref "3">>
{{Axioms of h0p3}}
---
!! Vault:
* Retired:
** [[2017.11.02 - Retired: Wiki: Existential Axioms and Fundamental Principles]]
---
!! Dreams:
* One good answer.
---
<<footnotes "1" "I don't have control over every part of this computer, but some parts I clearly do (especially in the long-term).">>
<<footnotes "2" "See: [[Alethic Terminology]]">>
<<footnotes "3" "See: [[Axioms of h0p3]] transclusion">>
* NCCER
* Mathematics
* Read+Write
* Fireman Time!
** Inform the Men!??? Please? I need to fuck, badly.
* Cannabliss?
* Walk with my wife
* Call Charlie, AIR, and JRE.
* Help my children write.
* Help my children practice computing.
* I completed my monthly log audits yesterday.
---
* [[Filter the List of All Tiddlers]]
** May come in quite handy.
* [[Experience Machine]]
** =) Le steganography, but this is also an important concept for me.
* [[Axioms of h0p3]]
** And so it begins.
* [[Wiki: Existential Axioms and Fundamental Principles]]
** Ditto.
* [[Wiki: PH]]
** My mechanics need explanations. I'm glad I have it now.
* [[2017.11.02 - /b/]]
** Edited. There is something there, but it's not well said.
* [[2017.11.02 - Yearly Audit Log]]
** Slowly I climb the mountain.
* [[2017.10 - Pipefitting Log]]
** You are doing what you can.
* [[2017.10 - Link Log]]
** Torrent of information, no doubt. I feel like I've been making up for lost time.
* [[2017.10 - Apology Log]]
** I'm glad I started this log. Some ended up being more important than others, but that's okay.
* [[Life of Fred: Decimals and Percents]]
** We grind!
* [[2017.10 - Family Log]]
** We are doing much better this year than last year.
* [[2017.11.02 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** Stream of Conscious.
* [[2017.11.02 - To-Do-List Log]]
** I didn't walk with my wife!
* [[2017.11.02 - Wiki Review Log]]
** Yeah, but you don't always write kind things there.
* [[2017.11.02 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** A rousing success.
* [[Video Collection Silos]]
** Many things to do.
* [[2017.11.02 - Link Log]]
** Not Brief!
* [[Root]] (previously `[[{Home}]]`)
** Cleaned it up. I think it looks great.
* [[Wiki: Existential Axioms and Fundamental Principles]]
** This is going to be a serious labor of love.<<ref "2018.12.20">>
** [[Alethic Terminology]]
*** I'm passing the buck for now. This is a place for me to eventually carefully define. It's okay that I don't have it right now. I'm still trying to compile the very beginnings of this giant work together. I have to be okay with bootstrapping, incompleteness, and triaging.
---
<<footnotes "2018.12.20" "Indeed, a year later, and I'm still working on the basics of it. That is okay!">>
I dress up and put on my mask when there is money or power on the line (and I believe there is any possibility it could ever matter).
---
Also, never talk about drugs outside of family, period. That's an obvious rule. Why take unnecessary risks?
---
Gary has engaged in a form of quietism.<<ref "2018.12.20">>
---
I think if I did the Ender's Game, Dune, and Foundation quote tattoo I'd actually prefer citations instead. Let me just recite it instead. I should ask my wife how to make this kind of citation.
---
<<footnotes "2018.12.20" "It's fascinating to see this as I read the [[Tao Te Ching]] today.">>
* Woke up at 10!
* Talked about Undertale and tried it out (actually, yesterday)
* Inform the Men!
* Shower =)
* Coffee and League Championship
* Read+Write
* Cannabliss
* Flu Shot
* Shopping
* NCCER
* Chili and Cornbread
* Party Down
* Concert
** Avison: Concerto No. 1 in minor for Strings
** Copland/Lavender: Grover's Corners
** Lunn/Moore: Downton Abbey
** Morris/Wagner: Transylvanian Lullaby
** Purcell/Brown: An Evening Hymn
** Morley/Caputo: A suite of Three Madrigals
** Bishop: 221B Baker Street
** Anderson/Zinn: The Typewriter
** Britten: Simple Symphony
** ----
** Amazing while high.
* Tried calling JRE.
* Called MB. We talked for a long time.
* Called AIR. He was drunk (insanely). He couldn't form sentences, as usual.
** Conversation ended oddly. I was talking to him about Neo Yokio, and he said he wanted to write it down. He clicked the phone off, and that was it.
* D2
* Late night with the family
* Bed
** Woke up in the middle of night. Fireman Time! to get it it out of the way so I could lay on my belly.
!! Can you buy happiness?
I hear you calling, Aristotle. I will give you my brief Straussian answer.
Define "buy" and "happiness." Do we make choices with cost+benefits to them that cause us to be happy? Seems like it.
Do you mean can we pay cash to be happy? In many contexts, yes. Cash, in our world, is often sufficient for happiness to some degree. It seems obvious that cash is also necessary for happiness in many contexts.
It's clear that there are diminishing marginal utility returns on money. But, standard money is not the only currency we trade in.
There are degrees and perhaps kinds of happiness (let alone a parts/whole problem). We can buy much of it with cash money, but perhaps not all. That said, it does seem necessary, even if not sufficient for the whole of happiness (but perhaps sufficient for parts). But, we can 'buy' with other currencies beyond cash.
Are there aspects of happiness that we don't pay for (buy)? Sure. Moral luck cannot be paid for, and that is necessary for happiness. But, in each person's context, there is a maximum potential degree and kind of happiness that can be achieved after we have calculated their moral luck, and then it does seem like we buy happiness. Even accounting for how moral luck is understood across our various time-slices, the ultimate answer is that, to the extent that happiness is in our control, it is something we buy.
It is obvious that happiness requires to pay in several currencies in the right way, at the right time, for the right reasons, and so on and so forth.
//Oh, you're asking who is root? I'm still figuring that one out. Let me guess: it's me, right?// <<ref "4">>
Here we examine the generalized, high-level process flow of this wiki. Remember that writing this wiki is like piloting a computer. You have to make it do what you want and need it to do. Feedback loops are part of the heart of this wiki's success. Connect it wisely. I think it's exceptionally important to see the difference between FO (First Order) and SO (Second Order) wikipages.
Below is the list of SO process-files running on this wiki:
* The {[[About|About, a.k.a. The Opening of the Rabbit Hole]]} page is this wiki's bootloader, it is one of the few root-only write access areas.
** Be ever so wise with your root access. {[[About|About, a.k.a. The Opening of the Rabbit Hole]]} is your current foundational narrative.
*** Make decisions which enable you to escape/build yourself out of your [[Positive Disintegration]] (i.e. make sure it is as positive as it can be).
** We can't really password ourselves out of it. We just have to trust ourselves. Yup. You're trusting trust. You're free to program yourself.
* The {[[Principles|Principles of Programming Myself]]} page is concerned with the quantitative, direct, and pragmatic resolution of the conflicts in {[[About|About, a.k.a. The Opening of the Rabbit Hole]]}.
*The {[[Focus|Current Focus of h0p3's Wiki]]} page examines where you've been spending your time on {[[Projects|Projects on this Wiki]]}. Essentially, it is a place to inspect the focus of your wiki.
** There you turn Husserl's ray of intentionality upon itself in a long-term way.
** When we are thinking existentially in a recursive manner, we can decisively align our many orders of networks of beliefs and desires.
* The {[[Projects|Projects on this Wiki]]} page is something like this wiki's /home/h0p3
* The {[[Vault|The Vault of h0p3]]} page is perhaps like this wiki's /var/www/html. It's the Long-Term Project. In a sense, it is an end by-product of this wiki that you're slowly rendering and creating content for each day (the final end and ultimate reason for this wiki being your happiness). Who you were just is part of who you are. Our memories and broader narratives matter.<<ref "5">>
---
<<footnotes "4" "Kant and Hume are calling to me. Fine. Be reasonable in your faith in your autonomy. Enjoy what you can of forcing yourself to believe you are free. You'll know you are free eventually; it won't bother you.">>
<<footnotes "5" "Yea, thou I walk through the valley of nihilism, I value things, thus they are valuable. Lol.">>
* Inform the Men!
* Orchestra Concert
* Cannabliss
* Grocery Shopping
* Flu Vaccines
* Clean
* Read+Write
* Family Writing Time
* [[2017.11.03 - Link Log]]
** Redpilled
* [[Alethic Terminology]]
** Jesus. That is going to be it's own branch.
* [[2017.11.03 - Yearly Audit Log]]
** Obviously, I was discouraged.
* [[2017.11.03 - /b/]]
** Love it.
* [[Be Happy]]
** Seems reasonable.
* [[2017.11.03 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** Odd question.
* [[2017.11.03 - To-Do-List Log]]
** I didn't walk or make my calls (but, I had sex...so...worth)
* [[2017.11.03 - Wiki Review Log]]
** Good job!
* [[2017.11.03 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** Seized
* I'm not going at an acceptable pace. I've decided to run two sets of audits. One I will Bookmark as "Completed" and the other I will refer to as "Triage."
* This quote stuck out to me: "Yea, thou I walk through the valley of nihilism, I value things, thus they are valuable. Lol."
---
Triage:
* [[Wiki: Broad Computational Structure]]
** Directorified. Retired. Put some meat on the bones.
I remember a congressman getting his Ph.D., and his argument was in favor of preschool education. That's it. A simple policy that seems obvious. I was really blown away that he thought this even needed an argument. Sometime that year, one of the reclusive professors from Europe in my program talked to me about my dissertation. I believe he thought the very same thing about my own argument; it was too obvious that IP rights should be abolished. He told that where he was from, this was not a radical idea at all; it was just obvious to him. (Now, I can definitely point to tons of European policies that do not reflect that at all, but that would perhaps miss the point). I'm not interested in arguing about the obvious.
---
I am always blown away that people define socialism as a government owning the market, the means of production, the corporations themselves, etc. Think about it: "The workers own the means of production." Not a government (which is perhaps only better than psychopathic corporations in some contexts). Let's be clear, you can build corporations in which the workers themselves own the means. This is about restructuring the larger corporate entities and Hohfeldian rights for the workers, but there seem to be several possible ways to do it.
---
I play the "Bad guy," "Bad cop," etc. role in our family. It's my job. It always has been.
---
A lot of people I know find Youtube recommendation and other recommendations of aggregators (machine learned) to be strong curation sources of what they would find interesting. That is, these programs are good at predicting what you will find interesting. I have noticed that it doesn't seem to work so well for me. It's harder to build my filter bubble. I'd like to understand why.
* Woke at 8:30 (time change).
** Will get back to the alarm clock and schedule starting tonight
* D2
* Prepped Roast meal
* Read+Write
* Fireman Time!
* Talked to JRE
* Cleaning
* Family Time
** We didn't read each other's wikis. My wife clearly didn't have the emotional energy to engage in family time. =/ I probably should have had the kids do it anyway.
* NCCER
* Stranger Things marathon.
* Bed
!! How has your health been this week?
* 1uxb0x
** Sometimes feeling sick, wanting to throw up.
* j3d1h
** Normal.
* k0sh3k
** Fine, but sleep has been erratic.
* h0p3
** Felt somewhat anxious, but my sleep pattern improved.
---
!! What happened last week? Have you been happy this past week? Why or why not?
* 1uxb0x
** Happy and unhappy. Unhappy when he has felt sick, but happy when playing with friends.
** Time seems to be moving faster.
* j3d1h
** Happy when she goes outside.
** Wished she could have talked to her friends more.
** Math was annoying in general.
* k0sh3k
** Unhappy. Someone stole her Book+Art. That sucks.
* h0p3
** Had a productive week. It was difficult but worth it.
---
!! What is a positive fact or compliment we can say about each person in the family?
* 1uxb0x
** Thank you for cleaning up your corner. I very much appreciate it
** I am glad that you are considering moral questions. I often hear you talking about things and putting them into a moral framework, and that you listen to us when your framework is wrong.
** Despite having to work at my pace, you push hard.
* j3d1h
** Good job not giving up on replacing your recovery mode OS, installing a custom ROM, and rooting your phone. Persistence is almost everything.
** You were kind to me when I was annoying to you.
** Thank you for making brownies.
* k0sh3k
** Thank you for getting the bookends.
** Thank you for taking us to the orchestra concert
** Thank you for paying your spoons so we can save ours.
* h0p3
** Thank you for offering your help with my DND project.
** Thank you for helping me with laundry.
** Thank you for pushing me outside and encouraging me to roleplay.
---
!! What will you do this week? Name at least one fun objective and one unfun objective.
* 1uxb0x
** Finish chapters 4 and 5 of the DnD story
** Get AJ and Jacob to play outside more
* j3d1h
** Talk to my friends more
** Do some art and math. Math is supposed to be separate.
* k0sh3k
** Get shit together for the conference
** Fixing her hair.
* h0p3
** Do stuff.
** Do things.
** Also put something.
** Get my daughter to finish //Dune//
** Finish 14 links minimum, major pages, for [[Yearly Audit Log]]
* KYS
** https://i.redd.it/ydsck1mszuvz.png
** https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/nov/05/donald-trump-accused-blocking-satellite-climate-change-research
** https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/11/internet-association-endorses-internet-censorship-bill
** http://www.newsweek.com/lara-trump-2020-white-house-duties-conflicts-interest-694212?amp=1
** https://i.redd.it/w4e3azfqatvz.jpg
* Preach, yo!
** https://i.redd.it/qypfx8hn55wz.jpg
** https://theintercept.com/2017/11/03/dnc-donna-brazile-hillary-clinton-barack-obama/
** https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/11/comcast-has-a-lot-to-lose-if-municipal-broadband-takes-off/
** https://newrepublic.com/article/145616/trump-president-kevin-spacey-cant-even-play-one-tv
* Confirm My Bias
** http://fortune.com/2017/11/04/whatsapp-fake-google-play/
*** Digital Literacy is important.
*** Also, neat Unicode space hack. It's a good way to make screens lie.
** http://blog.koehntopp.info/index.php/2745-unicode-is-over-and-it-dies-over-emoji/
*** And...I'm going to stick to words. I think it has the best chance of being interpretable in the long run.
** https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-impeachment-chances-will-it-happen-yes-says-professor-allan-lichtman-latest-a8036241.html
*** I'm sure relationships and deals are already brokered, quietly and carefully, with Pence. Pence may go down too (/fingers-extra-crossed), but if he doesn't, I think he'll hit the ground running. An enormous amount of terrifying legislation is going to come to pass. Before Republicans lose Congress, they need to impeach and use Pence and the disarray.
** https://np.reddit.com/r/Kossacks_for_Sanders/comments/7ahq9z/61_of_tom_perez_atlarge_member_appointments_to/
*** DNC didn't learn their lesson because they are still a monster.
** http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Sexually-active-students-must-be-reported-to-law-12329140.php
*** Jesus, people. This is insane.
** https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/03/education/edlife/american-graduate-student-stem.html
** http://www.siliconbeat.com/2017/11/03/googles-fired-engineer-james-damores-claim-against-search-giant-revealed/
* Think About It
** https://www.thedailybeast.com/american-alt-right-leaves-facebook-for-russian-site-vkontakte
*** Voat exodus, /pol/, etc. There are many homes.
** https://www.reddit.com/r/GetMotivated/comments/7an3k4/text_nobody_gives_a_fk_how_smart_you_are_show_up/
*** Such a redpilled perspective, but poorly construed in important ways.
** https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/11/the-surprising-revolt-at-reed/544682/
*** I definitely have strong mixed feelings about these issues.
** https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/taibbi-the-great-college-loan-swindle-w510880
*** Perhaps we will just move. It would be difficult, tremendously. It might be the best shot for my kids. Arg!!! This is so fucking hard.
** http://www.sacbee.com/news/nation-world/national/article182765121.html
*** And yet, I don't think they know what counts as socialism. I think this word is so poorly defined for us on purpose.
* Fishy
** https://www.salon.com/2017/11/03/the-dncs-emails-werent-only-hacked-they-were-edited-report/
*** Interesting.
** https://www.corker.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/news-list?ID=03BF5EDB-1595-4FAB-BAE9-5027B6201F45
*** Forgive my doubt. I want to believe you are sane and good, but I know better. All is a mask. This is merely an instrument for you.
** https://www.wired.com/story/net-states-rule-the-world-we-need-to-recognize-their-powe
*** You are too late, and you know it. This is not an accident.
* Tools
** https://peerpad.net/#/
* Neat
** http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/29/magazine/could-conjoined-twins-share-a-mind.html
*** They can talk to each other inside their mind/minds. =) Cool as fuck.
**** "These girls show us the possibility of having multiple self-iterating recursive identities share the same physical and mental resources."
** https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/experts-propose-standard-for-iot-firmware-updates/
*** Not sure what I think of it. At least at first glance, perhaps a good idea.
** https://i.imgur.com/kltbm4S.jpg
*** Sad, but neat.
** https://www.quantamagazine.org/clever-machines-learn-how-to-be-curious-20170919/
** https://www.anandtech.com/show/11901/western-digital-now-shipping-14tb-hgst-ultrastar-hs14
*** My Commodore 64 didn't have a hard drive. Our next computer, in 1995ish, had a few hundred megabytes, I believe. It was upgraded eventually to 3GB, then onto 10GB. The climb has been huge and wonderful to see. I feel old as fuck.
** http://money.cnn.com/2017/11/04/news/companies/sprint-t-mobile-merger-deal/index.html
*** YYYYYYYAYYYYY!!!
** http://tim.hibal.org/blog/alpha-zero-how-and-why-it-works/
* For my self:
** https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/7aj2q8/scientists_find_key_to_unwanted_thoughts_the/
*** Still worth looking into.
** http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17439760.2016.1221126?journalCode=rpos20
* For my daughter:
** https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLbg3ZX2pWlgKDVFNwn9B63UhYJVIerzHL
** https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=974&v=4CdO0olVfAA
** https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15624677
** http://aelinik.free.fr/c/index.html
*** Keep trying.
** http://www.math.tamu.edu/~cyan/Rota/mitless.html
** https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ilg3gGewQ5U
* For my wife:
** https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLbg3ZX2pWlgKDVFNwn9B63UhYJVIerzHL
** http://www.vulture.com/2017/11/stranger-things-2-every-pop-culture-reference.html
** https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/02/t-magazine/modest-fashion-clothes.html?_r=0
*** Just plain interesting. Nothing more meant by it, obviously.
!! What would you do if you knew the answer to pollution of the earth?
It depends on the answer. Of the best answers I know, I would simply sit and cry. Nobody is going to implement it. We aren't going to cooperate. The tragedy of the commons and our prisoner's dilemmas end the hope of solving pollution. We're fucked.
That said, if I felt like it would have a chance of succeeding, I would start trying to convert the world to implement it.
!! About:
//Play Life like a video game!//
Here I count my blessings, give you the skinny on my day, and give myself yet another avenue to see patterns in my life.
---
!! Principles:
The maxim //carpe diem// is an abbreviation of the Horacian phrase //carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero//, which can be translated as "Seize the day, put very little trust in tomorrow."
We should squeeze every drop of utility out of every moment. We must make the most of our time because we want to be maximally happy, we don't know how much we have left, and our time is a resource we can never renew. We must spend our lives wisely, efficiently, and with joy. We must at the same time empathize and identify with our future selves while still living in the moment.<<ref "1">>
Here I count my blessings, talk about how I spent my time, in general, each day (not just my occupation), and perhaps reflect a bit. I may even draw up plans and make to-do-lists. I hope to hold myself accountable to this log's namesake, a maxim which we all hope to live by.
---
!! Focus:
* [[2017.11.01 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.11.02 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.11.03 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.11.04 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.11.05 - Carpe Diem Log]]
---
!! Vault:
* [[2017.06 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.07 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.08 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.09 - Carpe Diem Log]]
* [[2017.10 - Carpe Diem Log]]
---
!! Dreams:
* I would like to tie this section more directly to my [[To-Do-List Log]]. I want to see that relationship.
---
<<footnotes "1" "I'm not contradicting the Epicureans here. Horace would have agreed with me, and I take us to be saying roughly the same thing.">>
!! About:
Where I question or prompt myself with thought and respond empathically. When it gets hairy, pretend your mortal enemy, Samwise Gamgee, prompted you. When you want to be explicit (yeeeaaaah), pretend you are trying to convince Lady Melisandre.
Also, you might get to know me here.
---
!! Principles:
Sometimes I feel like I need a can-opener to pry myself open. Writing prompts force me to say something about a topic. It can be recreational and useful at the same time. Admittedly, these questions tend to be philosophical. I sprawl all over the place, and I ask more questions than I answer. That's okay though. This is just part of the mind-mapping process.
It is my hypothesis that many of the prompts I've answered thus far remind me strongly of "Sunday School" questions. The teacher might gather us together and ask generic existential questions, and we'd have to formulate intelligent and socially acceptable responses. It was a form of conditioning. We were expected to think as they did. My questions and answers were often received poorly, dismissed, or misunderstood. Par for the course. Thankfully, here I get to say what I think since I'm answering them for myself. I won't always pretend I'm the one asking the questions though. A dialectic, like the Socratic method, tends to bring out the best in me.
Sometimes I'm just talking to myself directly. Other times, I will have a more adversarial approach to these prompts. When I'm in the mood, for whatever, reason, I will respond to particular prompts as if that eternal asshole, Samwise Gamgee, had asked me to respond to these prompts.
I hate Samwise Gamgee; may he burn in hell.<<ref "1">>
Hostility allows my guttural instincts to take over, to let loose, to fly, and once in a while, it is a useful way for me to force myself to answer carefully, to pick apart everything, to see the outlines. In many ways, I was good at academic philosophy because I was at mental war.<<ref "2">>
Eventually, I will have this automated. I will make it so I'm asked good questions with minimal bias. Until then, go fish:
* [[External Writing Prompt Sources]]
* [[/b/]]
* [[Generic Prompts]]
---
!! Focus:
* [[2017.11.01 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.11.02 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.11.03 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.11.04 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.11.05 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
---
!! Vault:
* [[2017.05 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.06 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.07 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.08 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.09 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
* [[2017.10 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
---
!! Dreams:
* Ideabag
** If you were dictator of the world, country, state, county, city, neighborhood, family, and any other archetypal governmental contexts (feel free to use lateral thinking in naming these contexts), what would you do? How would you lead?
** Why don't you follow philosophy like someone standardly interested in it? When you are obsessed with something, you usually enjoy reading every little thing about it. You don't do that with philosophy. Why not?
** Can you speak to the relationship between Moral Excellence, Excellence of Personhood, Homo Sapien Excellence, etc.? For example, it seems completely possible that the pursuit of morality taken to maximum excellence will drive a person crazy. I legitimately think that people who are sane aren't trying hard enough to be moral.
---
<<footnotes "1" "Fuck you, Sam.">>
<<footnotes "2" "There are, of course, completely valid alternatives. This style or approach reminds me very much of storm decks in Vintage MTG. There are radically different mindsets amongst the storm playerbase, some being defensive, others offensive, even in identical contexts.">>
!! About:
Perhaps I should track them here. They are the kinds of objects I should build when necessary. Having a place to go to is worth it. Make it easy on yourself, and make it a habit. Should be an easy copy and paste for [[Carpe Diem Log]] as well. This is currently wielded on a weekly basis, but it obviously doesn't have to be. Go with the flow and learn to use this tool wisely!
---
!! Principles:
* Work on least fun to most fun when possible. Do the hardest lifting first, and as your emotional muscles weaken, your tasks get easier and easier.
* Don't expect yourself to complete everything. You aren't perfect. Prioritize and triage.
** Eventually, you'll acquire the skill of knowing what you can expect of yourself and improve from there.
---
!! Focus:
* [[2017.11.01 - To-Do-List Log]]
* [[2017.11.02 - To-Do-List Log]]
* [[2017.11.03 - To-Do-List Log]]
* [[2017.11.04 - To-Do-List Log]]
* [[2017.11.05 - To-Do-List Log]]
---
!! Vault:
* [[2017.08 - To-Do-List Log]]
* [[2017.09 - To-Do-List Log]]
* [[2017.10 - To-Do-List Log]]
---
!! Dreams:
* I need to pick up transcripts for all my schools
* Setup VPN clients on laptop and phone
* Root daughter's phone
* Ask Tiddlywiki community how to use my custom font as the default for the editor.
* Find out why btsync isn't working on the RPi.
* Make an account for JRE on Home-Server.
!! About:
The goal is to review the wiki, day-by-day, and bit-by-bit. I'm going to transform this wiki and myself by grinding, and this is proof of my grind and listening to myself.
---
!! Principles:
I hope this becomes one of the most important logs I keep on this wiki. It seems infused with the fundamental practice of talking to myself. It is at least part of the kind of manual labor one must do to filter, interpret, and process previous work. At the very least, it offers me the chance to redraft what I wrote before. I hope that once I get this plate spinning that it will enable me to spin much larger objects.<<ref "1">>
I must force myself to have a conversation with myself. I should not "fire and forget." This is part of holding myself accountable for maintaining key feedback loops on this wiki. I'm hoping that this log will feed information to {[[Focus|Current Focus of h0p3's Wiki]]}. This seems like a basic way to grind the meta.
Re-read at least all "New" content created the previous day.<<ref "2">> If you have the chance, review "Recent" as well.<<ref "3">> Reflect upon it, comment, and strategize. Edit and revise it. Listen to yourself.
I need to self-monitor. Am I following through? Does this work? Does it help me? How can I improve it? Is it overwhelming, or is it feasible?
If it becomes absurdly useful, maybe I should create a stack of work, a backlog. Many logs don't require much more work or digestion, but some pages are avenues that should be taken. These are paths to walk down. This is a way of systematically doing more long-term work from short-term seeds. Again, this is contingent on many things. I'm just considering the possibility.
Daily logs will consistent in a formatted list of the previous day's new work (not recent). At the top of the page, I may have meta comments with a linebreak separation for the standard meat and potatoes.
---
!! Focus:
* [[2017.11.01 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.11.02 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.11.03 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.11.04 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.11.05 - Wiki Review Log]]
---
!! Vault:
* [[2017.04 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.05 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.06 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.07 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.08 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.09 - Wiki Review Log]]
* [[2017.10 - Wiki Review Log]]
---
!! Dreams:
* I'd like to find a way to make the yearly audit fit here. I didn't really give enough thought into how I want to do it. Let's think and dream about it.
---
<<footnotes "1" "This is a terrible metaphor. I'm not sure how to explain it.">>
<<footnotes "2" "Don't forget to use [[Wiki Script: Wiki Review Log Python Script]].">>
<<footnotes "3" "The fact is that you need to work on projects which are old as well!">>
* Roast
* D2
* Read+Write
* NCCER
* Family Time
* Family Writing time (do it before Family Time)
* Clean
* Call JRE
* [[Wiki: Broad Computational Structure]]
** Triage is the way to go.
* [[2017.11.04 - Yearly Audit Log]]
** And, yet, I am just slowly moving.
* [[2017.11.04 - /b/]]
** Should ask.
* [[D2: Assassin]]
** It's coming together.
* [[2017.11.04 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** Well, I know part of my problem. Lol.
* [[Python: Replace Text Up to a Delimiter]]
** I have hundreds of little scripts. Should I graft them into the wiki?
* [[Formatting Scripts]]
** I clearly have no idea how I want to organize this.
* [[Generic Prompts]]
** Yay! Now I can stay inside full screen mode.
* [[2017.11.04 - To-Do-List Log]]
** Didn't do any family writing. Maybe today?
* [[2017.11.04 - Wiki Review Log]]
** Slowly, I write.
* [[2017.11.04 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** Edited.
* I'm definitely more productive when I'm triaging.
---
* [[Metaliving]]
** Not going to directorify it. It's just a term.
* [[Carpe Diem Log]]
** Retired, reworded, and reformatted. It was in good shape already, but now it is closer to the ideal.
* [[Wiki Review Log]]
** Heavily reworked. Good job!
* [[To-Do-List Log]]
** Shuffling, mostly.
** I decided that I thought this one deserved some humor.
* [[Prompted Introspection Log]]
** Still working on it. It goes...slowly.
You are not forgiven for that which you do not recognize to have been a mistake.
---
It is important to note that AIR picked up on his new Apple phone that didn't have your number (he clearly lost his old account). He thought it was a random number from LA, possibly a friend. He would not have picked up if he knew it was you.
---
Beware the day I am forced to take my gloves off and put on my mask. With practice, I would be quite the adversary.
* Woke at 7:40
** No alarm...
* Fireman Time!
* NCCER
* Cleaned
** Kids are killing me here.
* D2
* Read+Write
* Late Morning Routine
* Mathematics
* Cannabliss
* Read+Write
* Called JRE, AIR, and Charlie. No dice.
* John Oliver, Blue Planet
* Venture and bed.
* KYS
** https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/nov/05/paradise-papers-leak-reveals-secrets-of-world-elites-hidden-wealth
** https://www.buzzfeed.com/janelytvynenko/fox-news-ran-a-false-segment-warning-of-an-upcoming-antifa?utm_term=.mvRmjxB9yw#.gaXBw9XMjL
* Preach, yo!
** https://ragepath.org/weird-money-in-weird-money-out
** https://np.reddit.com/r/PanamaPapers/comments/77n6ix/do_not_give_up_more_is_coming/doo7rik/?context=3
*** /salute
* Confirm My Bias
** http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cdev.12947/abstract
*** Shocking!
** https://blackfridayhits.com/crock-pot-black-friday-cyber-monday-deals/
*** You cannot trust prices algorithmically generated, i.e. you should never trust the price.
** http://nautil.us/issue/54/the-unspoken/the-trouble-with-scientists-rp
*** Nautty, as usual.
** https://qz.com/699741/a-harvard-philosophers-argument-for-not-loving-yourself-just-as-you-are/
*** Yup.
** https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/nov/06/workplace-surveillance-big-brother-technology
*** I need to hide my technology better. Part of me just thinks: there isn't anything wrong with what I'm doing, so why should I hide it? Stupid. You are protecting yourself from evil, not reason.
** https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/11/critical-tor-flaw-leaks-users-real-ip-address-update-now/
*** It just seems better to build specialized tools. It's easier to go application layer than over the web when failures are so critical.
** https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/datablog/ng-interactive/2017/sep/28/hooked-how-pokies-are-designed-to-be-addictive
*** What isn't a skinner box? Life is a skinnerbox.
** https://medium.com/@bitfinexed/bitfinex-never-repaid-their-tokens-bitfinex-started-a-ponzi-scheme-86a9291add29
*** Slick as fuck.
* Fishy
** https://qz.com/1113999/nerds-rejoice-google-just-released-its-internal-tool-to-collaborate-on-ai/
*** Nothing is free. Google is selfish. Think again.
* Tools
** https://www.btsynckeys.com
*** Disconfirm My Bias too...I've never seen this actually used in the wild for large-scale, long-term piracy.
** https://wiby.me/
*** Web search for personal (not branding) websites
** https://github.com/antirez/disque
* Neat
** http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=info%3Adoi/10.1371/journal.pone.0166083
** https://www.iafrikan.com/2017/11/06/iox-cable-ltd-to-provide-first-subsea-route-between-u-s-and-india-via-brazil-and-south-africa/
* For my daughter:
** https://www.safaribooksonline.com/blog/2014/11/23/way-vim-ide/
* For my wife:
** https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27982409
Why reinvent the wheel? You want to be able to just change parts, rebuild it. You can build an application in a standard programming language, or you can build a complete machine that does it well. I can build machines that do what I want them to do, and I can do it without having to spend a shit ton of time on the nitty gritty (except where I need to). The best programmers are those who program the computer as a whole, from the firmware, to the hardware, to software, and everything in between.
VMs are going to take over the world. Linux will continue to be godly in this realm. Extremely lightweight VMs are the way to go. I'm building this the wrong way. I should build the VM environment, but more importantly, I need to build it that GUI's can just work on top of it.
Why learn to program in a multi-threaded way when I can just combine multi-threaded tools. The performance is of course, quite useful. Make it crazy simple.
Build it on Ubuntu. It's going to go everywhere. It will be designed for this. Right? Or...no?
Even mobile devices will soon be able to handle VMs. Build VMs as the command line layer, and build QT and Browser-based UI's (preferably combine them?)
Installation scripts need to make OSes automatically share files with the VM.
Think of this as building the ultimate piracy OS. We've thought about this before, but it seems the best option in the long-term.
You can use other people's very complex tools and put them together. You should. You can build systems that do that. You can script the toolchain together. Build tools without building them from scratch. You already know your usecases, threat models, and needs.
This is a real project.
---
I've pointed to this many times:
* [[DjinniOS (ˈGeniusˈ)]]
* [[2017.03.24 - Injecting Fully Decentralized Networks Into Capitalist Political Systems]]
I was trying to preoptimize by writing it in Golang instead of using the tools I had.
Virtual Machines are the new binary executables.
This is the next step in software resource usage inflation.
Need a portable VM emulator.
This seems like a classic anti-pattern mistake: Inner-platform effect. But, we need to just bite the bullet. The fact is that the Inner-platform effect simplifies, generates safety, and enhances adoption rates. In a world where computing becomes cheaper and cheaper, we should be the first to abuse that tragedy of the commons, to make incredibly inefficient software bundles. Remember: preoptimization is the root of all evil. Stop worrying about the lack of optimality here. Just build the thing you really want, and continue to work on it. In time, it may be greatly improved or even replaced, if it is successful enough.
You either write in C or maybe Go/Rust/C++, or some other incredibly portable low-level language, and you do everything from scratch, or you avoid it by going big, by building full OS environments for people that do it all. Go jack-of-all-trades, master of none, until you absolutely must specialize for improvements.
Now, we could just install software bundles on people's computers, but this is scary to them. You also can't count on the environments. You have to isolate this into a VM. Yes, POSIX your way through this, but do it with as few permissions, user inputs, and visually installed software ecosystems on the user's hostOS as possible.
Yes, this is going to be called lazy. But, it will run on fucking anything. You'll build a linux system that runs in VM for others, but anyone who wanted to literally just copy and paste the distro you will maintain. It's a distribution designed for VMs, but that can easily expand to a regular distribution. This is why you want to stick to mainstream distros.
Maintain a distribution that fits in all container and VM models!
If you are smart, you build a software package that works on any distribution. It's a hop skip away from just being your own distro then. It would be nice, then, to make this as easy to reproduce as possible.
* Handles Feature Creep beautifully. It's designed to.
!! What would you do if you were an undercover agent in heaven?
This sounds a bit like //The Good Place//.
I'd be shocked that there is a heaven, an afterlife, at all. I'd have to contemplate that for quite a while. I'd be extremely curious, sensitive, and investigatory.
How would I know I was an undercover agent? Why was I an agent, for whom, etc.? Do I have reason to think it's a sham? Do I have reason to think I would be caught? What are the risks and rewards? What are the mechanics of the afterlife?
There are so many unknowns. I have to say, the "undercover agent" is just an additional layer to what would already be an overwhelming set of considerations. I think I would be in complete disbelief.
!! About:
//I dedicate this page to moot, Octavia Butler, and Sir T-Money Moore. At least for a time, these people understood the paradoxes of being human.//
<<<
If you want to increase your success rate, double your failure rate.
---Thomas Watson Jr.
<<<
I plant my seeds in this scratchpad field. This is the [[Prompted Introspection Log]] with no rules, requirements, or limits. This is the bulk of my Stream-of-Conscious writing.
```
,,
`7MM"""Mq. `7MM
MM `MM. MM
MM ,M9 ,6"Yb. `7MMpMMMb. ,M""bMM ,pW"Wq.`7MMpMMMb.pMMMb.
MMmmdM9 8) MM MM MM ,AP MM 6W' `Wb MM MM MM
MM YM. ,pm9MM MM MM 8MI MM 8M M8 MM MM MM
MM `Mb. 8M MM MM MM `Mb MM YA. ,A9 MM MM MM ,,
.JMML. .JMM.`Moo9^Yo..JMML JMML.`Wbmd"MML.`Ybmd9'.JMML JMML JMML.db
```
---
!! Principles:
Did a lightbulb turn on for you? You know you need to "get it out" before you lose that intuition or insight. If you don't know where to put it, then put it here! Better here than nowhere.
Evolution relies upon randomness. Apply the principle, mentat! Thus, we all must preserve, contain, and harness that beautiful spark of craziness in ourselves. It's simply too useful and wonderfully human not to.
Here I freewrite, doodle, and dash my chicken-scratch upon these wikipages.
This is a place to be creative and random. Be messy or organized. Go ahead and take a braindump. Let the psychic diarrhea flow.<<ref "1">> This is a place for chaotic, honest imagination. Peer behind the veil. Find the music. Find the diamonds and redpills in the rough. Be meta; take the first steps into a new frontier or idea; be free.
You aren't beholden to any hierarchy or criticism here. Listen to your gut, and go with the flow. Try to use your bigboy words, but if you can't, that's okay too. Just get it out! Take a deep breath and push(!) that turd-baby of a thought onto the pages of this wiki. Push! You can do it!
Of course, this begins to look like its own {[[Projects|Projects on this Wiki]]} page.<<ref "2">> But, I will not slip into that [[infinigress]], or at least it can be contained. You'd be surprised where the seeds eventually germinate and find themselves. Not all your ideas are good, but the thread of genius will be in some of them.
So often, the uncharted and the uncategorized are found here. They are the seeds.
* Seems like it should remain [title.Title]less.
---
!! Focus:
* [[2017.11.01 - /b/]]
* [[2017.11.02 - /b/]]
* [[2017.11.03 - /b/]]
* [[2017.11.04 - /b/]]
* [[2017.11.05 - /b/]]
* [[2017.11.06 - /b/]]
---
!! Vault:
* [[2017.09 - /b/]]
* [[2017.10 - /b/]]
* Retired: /b/
** [[2017.09.10 - Retired: /b/ - Random - The Playground of the Sandbox - Seed]]
---
!! Dreams:
* (*crickets)
---
<<footnotes "1" "You don't have to be proud of it, but you know you'll look at it. You always look at the shit which came out of your rectum. Most people do. Enjoy it. You aren't living if you aren't looking at your shit.">>
<<footnotes "2" "It was definitely how the {[[Projects|Projects on this Wiki]]} started out. It's important to keep this kind of freezone available. The 4chan consciousness was proof of it. The irony of what they would think of this truly magnificent device and my obvious autism is not lost on me. I am thankful, nonetheless, to those low-empathy anons.">>
* Call AIR
* Fireman Time!
* Read+Write
* NCCER
* Mathematics
* Clean
** Kid's room and Living Room
* Finish packing car
** Found the jumper cables, etc. in kid's room. (They misplaced it, and hence, I misplaced it, right?)
* D2
* Care about my appearance
** I've already done my nails. I need to do my hair.
* [[Prompted Introspection Log]]
** This is not completed. Part of my Triage.
* [[To-Do-List Log]]
** Edited. Making it classier.
* [[Day Trading]]
** So many fish to fry. This should wait. Let it build.
* [[2017.11.05 - Family Log]]
** Honestly: meh.
* [[Wiki Review Log]]
** Looks cleaner.
* [[Carpe Diem Log]]
** Ditto.
* [[2017.11.05 - Yearly Audit Log]]
** Felt productive. Maybe it wasn't?
* [[2017.11.05 - Link Log]]
** Consuming a lot of that drug.
* [[2017.11.05 - Prompted Introspection Log]]
** Redpilled and true.
* [[2017.11.05 - To-Do-List Log]]
** We did have family writing time at least...mostly me, I think.
*** At some point, am I no longer responsible for their choices?
* [[2017.11.05 - Wiki Review Log]]
** I've noticed I don't write much about D2, despite having many thoughts. In a way, I don't use this place to organize and think about my projects.
* [[2017.11.05 - Carpe Diem Log]]
** Edited.
* [[2017.11.05 - /b/]]
** Yup, it's random.
* I just noticed that articles for [[Realpolitik Speculation]] had their full names. They escaped the Titletag. Is that a mistake? Why not:
```
YYYY.MM.DD - Realpolitik Speculation: Title is Foobar
```
Btw, still looks like a filesystem. All day, erryday. It, of course, is.
As long as no two Titletags are ever identical (a safe assumption for now, but can be changed later): You get to have your cake and eat it too. Let's fucking do it!
Yearly Audit Log is really "Work on Your Wiki" Time. You do it systematically when you don't have that inspiration, and when you have inspiration, you just fucking go for it!
---
* [[Prompted Introspection Log]]
** Cleaned it up. Looks good.
** Jabba like.
* [[Yearly Audit Log]]
** Going to leave this one alone for now. I need more practice before I make decisions.
* [[/b/]]
** I already recently whipped it into shape. It was nice to polish that turd.
Referring to your employees as "family" is the corporate equivalent of telling a prostitute "you love her."
---
Gun-control is not the answer, fucktards. Socialism is the answer.
Do you want to prevent the death of fetuses? Outlawing abortions is not the answer. Seriously. Go look at it, you ignorant fuck. How about you treat the fucking cause of the problem: poverty, a lack of support structures, and wealth, education, and opportunity inequality. The solution to abortion is preventing the need for them in the first place.
Apply the lesson, retards. Gun-control does not solve your problem.
Build infrastructure to help mentally unwell people. Let's make the world love rather than hate us. Let's make people who don't have a reason to kill. Prevent reasons for violence, don't simply try to take away a means to violence. Violence is useful, after all.
Stop your neo-liberal policies. It's going to take guns to stop the Hyperclass and the armies they have built against us.
---
If I were female, I would have a portable vibrator embedded in me at all times. I'd get off all over the place. Why not? Fluids can be caught, masturbation can be silently and motionlessly achieved, and you can hide your arousal. This is free utility people. What are you doing with your lives?
---
I'm Diogenes, my wife is Cratylus (when we play act).<<ref "2018.12.20">>
---
<<footnotes "2018.12.20" "Something still rings true about this, not just in our dialectics with each other. That said, I think my wife is far more rational than Cratylus.">>
* Woke at 8, before alarm.
* Fireman Time!
* Woke kids
* Segmented Morning Routine
* Lecture on curating information, developing good learning habits, etc.
** Blocks of time for them on Wikipedia, Reddit, and Writing
* Read+Write
* NCCER
* Mathematics
* Cannabliss
* Talked to JRE
** We had a tense conversation. I appreciate his pushback. He keeps me orthodox and self-examining.
* Walked with my wife!
* Burgers and baked fries!
* Stranger Things
* Party Down and bed.
* KYS
** http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a13381482/air-too-clean-epa-official-trump/
** http://thefederalist.com/2017/11/06/donald-trump-doesnt-understand-dont-one-man-rule/#.WgCzjQPOe9U.facebook
* Preach, yo!
** https://www.alternet.org/education/chomsky-high-college-tuition-blunt-instrument-keep-middle-class-down
** https://www.eff.org/press/releases/trumps-blocking-people-his-twitter-account-violates-first-amendment-eff-tells-court
*** What. The. Fuck.
** https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/nov/05/computer-says-no-why-making-ais-fair-accountable-and-transparent-is-crucial
*** You don't understand what this requires. If you did, you would disagree with it, I fear. So much IP on the line and they will protect that at all costs. I hate to tell you that even the poor windows we have into the creation of these blackboxes will happen behind closed trade secret doors, and unless you are willing to make radical shifts against capitalism, this isn't going to change.
** https://press.princeton.edu/interviews/qa-10938
*** Nailed it!
** http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/an-anti-capitalist-is-the-most-bourgeois-thing-you-can-be/20508#.Wf5IZUEXaaM
*** Purity Test, Gatekeeping, etc. But, past his circlejerk, he has a damned good set of points to worry about.
*** Commodify Your Dissent
** https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/nov/06/bernie-sanders-paradise-papers-leak-international-oligarchy
*** Keep going. You are getting there!
* Confirm My Bias
** http://www.cs.vu.nl/~ast/intel/
*** I agree on going Copyfree/Copyleft.
*** He should still be more pissed about what they've done with it.
** http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/11/a_special_tax_on_the_firearm_industry_is_the_only_way_to_make_victims_of.html
*** I want to warn you: people already build their own. Give it 20 years, and that will be the norm.
** https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/01/economism-and-the-minimum-wage/513155/?
*** Guilty.
** https://blockchaind.net/bitcoin-political-attack-contentious-fork-16th-november/
*** It continues to fragment. It is interesting though that holders can afford to wait for it; well-designed in that respect.
** https://np.reddit.com/r/MMA/comments/7b4zdk/fight_pass_is_shady_ysk_ufc_fight_pass_is_using/dpf96js/
*** They always were trash.
** http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41889787
*** This isn't news. We've known all along.
** https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2017/11/the-rigged-primary-did-cost-bernie-sanders-votes-w.html
*** Nobody believed me during the primaries. I kept pointing out that: (A) the DNC and press were rigging against Sanders (that those in power would never let him win), and (B) Donald Trump was going to win POTUS (even before the primaries were over). I am disgusted by those who call themselves liberal or DNC supporters. You all don't even see what counts as Left.
** http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-aslan-trump-cultists-20171106-story.html
** https://apnews.com/d480434bbacd4b028ff13cd1e7cea155
*** It's only going to get worse.
** https://www.reddit.com/r/LifeProTips/comments/7b7ndl/lpt_if_anxiety_is_keeping_you_awake_try_listening/
*** I'm not alone, yet again. =)
** http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/hykKnw1.html
*** Economics attempts to be quantified psychology (a bit like part of CS), but it can never escape its philosophical foundations. You are still in my pool, sonny.
** https://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21725552-new-research-suggests-too-little-competition-deters-investment-americas
** https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/higher-education/homeless-explosion-on-west-coast-pushing-cities-to-the-brink/2017/11/06/ae0e5274-c2b2-11e7-9922-4151f5ca6168_story.html
* Disconfirm My Bias
** https://mechanicalmarkets.wordpress.com/2017/11/05/bitcoin-nemo-dat/
*** This is an avenue I assumed wasn't relevant. It could be in some cases.
* Fishy
** https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/our-biggest-economic-social-political-issue-two-economies-ray-dalio/
*** Great analysis. I don't believe you mean what you say in your moralism.
* Tools
** https://www.fourmilab.ch/webtools/demoroniser/
*** rofl
* Neat
** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kite_applications#Cargo
*** I had no idea.
** https://jaycarlson.net/microcontrollers/
*** This is crazy.
* For my self:
** https://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2010/10/27/proof-positive-can-heaven-help-us-the-nun-study-afterlife/
*** I'm fucked.
* For my daughter:
** https://www.reddit.com/r/vim/comments/7bamoj/vimrc_review_thread_20/
** https://arxiv.org/pdf/0709.4024.pdf
* For my wife:
** https://www.theparisreview.org/blog/2017/11/06/watership-down/
** https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4837983/
** https://torrentfreak.com/us-court-grants-isps-and-search-engine-blockade-of-sci-hub-171106/
* For my son:
** https://arxiv.org/pdf/0709.4024.pdf
!! If you had a mind-reading ability but could only choose 3 people to read their minds, who would they be?
You need to define mind and mind-reading. I'm going to have to guess.
This may seem like I'm wasting a person, but it could open up a crucial gateway: myself. In a sense, that's part of what I'm doing on this wiki. I'm trying to read my mind. There is a way in which I do not have complete access to myself, especially not all at once.
The second person is obvious: my wife. What husband doesn't need this skill? What other minds would I want to know inside and out? There was a Mel Gibson movie about this, IIRC.
The last person is unobvious to me. I want to choose my children, but I think it's unfair to choose one instead of the other. I would give up reading my own mind if I knew it wasn't worthwhile, but it seems like [[Know Thyself]] is so crucial to my children's happiness. Who then, if not my children?
I don't interact with enough people to make a choice that seems to matter unless we are talking about downloading someone else's knowledge into my head. How well do I have to know them? Is this only a real-time skill? I really don't know how to answer this last part. Until you give me more information, I choose you, Lady Melisandre.
!! About:
I need to apologize. I need to think about what I'm apologizing for and to whom. It's time to start apologizing more because it is useful to apologize. I want to be the kind of person who apologizes more frequently about consequential issues.
---
!! Principles:
* Be humble, willing to change, and do your best.
* Be specific about what you did wrong, about what is wrong with you are, and how you hope to improve.
* Tag the content for those you apologize to.
---
!! Focus:
* (*crickets*)
---
!! Vault:
* [[2017.10 - Apology Log]]
---
!! Dreams:
* As an exercise: Write an apology letter from your parents/donors to yourself.
!! About:
//I dedicate this page to my parents.//
<<<
It is a wise father that knows his own child.
-- Launcelot, The Merchant of Venice
<<<
We have family time every night.<<ref "1">> On Sundays, we have a family meeting. Our family meetings, which this log attempts to ensure we've done at least the basics, is supposed to be more than that just family time. It's a ritual of reflecting together. I consider it a Secularized Sabbath tradition. Even though I don't practice religion or spirituality, there was a wildly successful method to the madness of that memetic tradition which I seek to secularly imitate and enrich.
---
!! Principles:
This log serves many roles. It takes a constant pulse of our family. It is a time to ask constructive questions and find ways to bond with each other. It's a way to socialize and participate in more meaningful family life together.
We take our family meetings very seriously. They are important to us. It's part of how we get to know each other, and it's part of collectively working towards our mutual familial happiness.
Sometimes these meetings are cheerful and easy, and other times they are emotionally draining and time-consuming. Listening to each other and being steadfast, kind, empathic, and wise through these oscillations demonstrates our commitment to each other. That is essential to our love.
Use and modify this wisely:
* [[Weekly Family Log Template]]
---
!! Focus:
* [[2017.11.05 - Family Log]]
---
!! Vault:
* [[2017.03 - Family Log]]
* [[2017.04 - Family Log]]
* [[2017.05 - Family Log]]
* [[2017.06 - Family Log]]
* [[2017.07 - Family Log]]
* [[2017.08 - Family Log]]
* [[2017.09 - Family Log]]
* [[2017.10 - Family Log]]
---
!! Dreams:
* Daily
** [[Daily Family Log Template]]
* Compliment Collection over the Week
** 1uxb0x
*** Thank you for cleaning up your corner. I very much appreciate it.
** j3d1h
*** Good job not giving up on replacing your recovery mode OS, installing a custom ROM, and rooting your phone. Persistence is almost everything.
** k0sh3k
*** Thank you for getting the bookends.
---
<<footnotes "1" "Although, eventually, when I start traveling, I won't be able to participate. I hope to still convene the weekly meetings for these logs. I will do my best.">>
* Fireman Time!
* Read+Write
* NCCer
* Mathematics
* Start kids on hyperreading habit, again.
* Burgers
* Stranger Things
* D2
* [[/b/]]
** Looking good!
* [[Contrived Prompts Ideabag]]
** It's true. They were contrived. Some of them have been quite useful though.
* [[2017.11.06 - /b/]]
** Ominous.
* [[Life of Fred: Pre-Algebra 0 with Physics]]
** I'm liking it.
* [[2017.11.06 - Outopos: Build a VMed OS]]
** Let's see where WASM takes us.
* [[Programmer's Meme Collection]]
** I've seen several of these apply to what I'm doing.
* [[2017.11.06 - Link Log: News Flash - People Suck]]
** Yup, lol.
* [[2017.11.06 - Yearly Audit Log: Work on Your Wiki]]
** Slowly, it goes.
* [[2017.11.06 - Prompted Introspection Log: Undercover Heavenly Agent]]
** Dumb question, imho.
* [[2017.11.06 - To-Do-List Log: Time to Learn Elementary Physics]]
** I didn't do my hair.
* [[2017.11.06 - Wiki Review Log: Triage Everything Moar!]]
** I desperately need to triage more in life.
* [[2017.11.06 - Carpe Diem Log: We Didn't Make Dinner]]
** My wife is not feeling well.
* [[Family Log]]
** Reworked and Lookin' good!
* [[Mathematics Tutoring Log]]
** Renamed. Let's be honest: this is going to take more than a month, and that's totally fine!
** Cleaned it up a just a bit.
** Perhaps I should have gone for a daily log structure instead. Hmmm...
* [[Apology Log]]
** It was so sparse, poorly justified and explained, etc. This is going to be a lot of work.
You think fat girls have it hard/bad? Try being a lowerclass man who doesn't meet social expectations. I hear the Kantian defenses of these women, but not men. Be prepared to reap the whirlwind, gentlefolk. The Alt-Right is fueled by people who have bought both the redpill description and prescription. You have failed to empathize with those that you don't benefit from (a non-trivial percentage of men), and they are coming for you. I look in horror at all sides. Almost all of you are despicable.
The expulsion of /r/Incels will only push them into darker corners. That is a mistake. I'm always blown away by the hate they get. Have you looked charitably at their arguments? I definitely despise much of Tumblrina-ism, but I have the integrity to point out where they are obviously correct. Can you not do the same for neckbeards and incels?
All too often, psychopathy begets psychopathy, particularly on a grand scale.
I do not feel bad for most of you who suffer. You deserve it. You have not even tried to think of others for yourself. The game is over.
Here I feel like ALM's brother. He might be able to hear what I'm talking about.
Being attractive does not make you right. Meeting social expectations doesn't make you right. You obviously have no idea how these behaviors and people are rewarded and punished. You need more redpills. Without the fitting description, you will never understand your own hypocrisy.
---
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: in capitalism, those who compete with their moral gloves on will never maintain a competitive advantage to those who don't play the moral rules. By definition, in the evolutionary, survival of the fittest marketplace of human commerce, you will not maintain stable businesses that are moral. Building moral businesses requires moral regulation. Nothing else will work...regulation, of course, is nigh impossible in our context. It doesn't seem like those in power would ever subject themselves to it, nor that we will actually enforce such measures collectively.
---
Our oligarchy is a government of the donors by the donors and for the donors (or worse).
---
Capitalism naturally creates organizations with internal cooperation of egoistic creatures. They cooperate insofar as it seems to serve their best interest. Large cooperative structures do emerge from this. And, given the survival of fittest, those organizations which tend to have higher degrees of cooperation are more likely to have a comparative advantage; thus, capitalism induces or incentives and generates higher cooperative structures within corporations to maintain fitness. However, this cooperation is not necessarily to the benefit of the world, although there are obvious benefits. And, of course, that doesn't mean that capitalism generates efficient cooperation. Game theory demonstrates this pretty obviously.
---
Remove the vulnerability of physical proximity, and your overlords can do much greater harm to you. Globalization has its perks, but this is one giant buttfuck.
I am sorry that I attacked the way in which you engage in the dialectic and truth-seeking. That is not where I meant the conversation to go (although, I'm ultimately glad we did). You seek the truth, and I very much admire that about you. I need to take a page out of your book and do it more as you do. You definitely correct me and others with your style, and I appreciate that you have the integrity to do so.<<ref "1">>
Forgive me for not immediately recognizing your philosophical pursuit.<<ref "2">> Over the course of the conversation, it became even clearer to me that, in a way, it was the pot calling the kettle black; turnabout is fair play. I don't spend enough time using your method. Thank you for pointing this out.
As another example, I like that you ask me for particular cases and evidence. Sometimes I can't come up with them and we ride my virtue-theoretic fastmind inferences. But, it keeps me looking. Later, I analyze it. I search for examples. I may have sufficient reasons, but they are too private and not public enough. Sometimes I don't have what I thought I did. Your honesty helps me be honest with myself; thank you.
You engage in that maxim:
<<<
Strangers deserve my courtesy; friends deserve my honesty.
<<<
Thank you for your honesty. I very much treasure it. You have a measured approach that I don't sometimes. Please give me time to mimic, understand, appreciate, and engage the dialectic more like you.
Thank you for being kind to a man who infuriatingly always thinks he rights; it's like talking to a wall. You are a kind sledgehammer for a wrestling wall.
---
<<footnotes "1" "It is the similar integrity of telling an apprentice in front of everyone that he doesn't need to do that stupid thing. You spend your social capital to help him. Friends spend their social capital with each other help each other sometimes. You do that with me all the time. I'm very lucky to have you help me in this way. Thank you.">>
<<footnotes "2" "I will always be convinced that you are a philosopher. You do philosophy differently than I do, and that's okay! I have learned so much from you over the years. Thank you!">>
* Woke at 8, no alarm. I keep setting my alarm though.
* Woke children
* NCCER
* Segmented Morning Routine
* Walked with wife.
* Inform the Jabba!
* Shower of the Gods
* Made coffee for my wife (and self, since I failed)
* My wife found rubber wedding bands for me. Yay!!
** Thank you.
* Huge lecture with kids about Tools, Habits, and Physiological and Psychological development.
* Read+Write
* Mathematics
* Talked with JRE
* Pizza
* Lectures
* Chatted with family
* IASIP, Futurama, and bed.
* Stunning!
** http://webdav.tuebingen.mpg.de/pixel/enhancenet/
*** Sometimes I worry I will never be able to believe what I see again.
* KYS
** http://independentaffairs.com/11-americans-think-html-sexually-transmitted-disease/
*** Your illiteracy can be solved by you.
** https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/11/7/16618038/house-republicans-tax-bill-donors-chris-collins
*** Boohoo! You set yourself up for this. You are full of shit.
** https://www.wired.com/story/grad-students-are-freaking-out-about-the-gops-tax-plan-they-should-be/
*** Not surprised. Those in power do not want the rest of us to have access, the means to survive without empowering them further, or education to uncover and look behind the veil.
* Preach, yo!
** https://www.svt.se/special/the-swedes-in-paradise-papers/
** https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/qv3wxb/the-paradise-papers-make-the-republican-tax-plan-look-insane
* Confirm My Bias
** http://www.sltrib.com/religion/local/2017/11/07/memo-to-all-religions-mormonleaks-may-be-coming-after-you-with-new-faithleaks-site/
*** I think powerful religious organizations of all kinds are scared.
** https://boingboing.net/2017/11/05/bob-iger-vs-the-press.html
*** Disney has always been corporate trash
** https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/harvey-weinsteins-army-of-spies
*** Evil rises to the wealth+power top.
** https://www.reddit.com/r/UnethicalLifeProTips/comments/7bcdod/ulpt_if_you_want_the_very_best_medical_care/
*** Sounds about right.
** http://raeknowler.com/wtf-chromium
*** I know that feel, homie.
** http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2017/11/06/8
*** Physical access, even for a second, is pwnage on any major OS.
** https://community.logitech.com/s/question/0D55A0000745EkC/harmony-link-eos-or-eol?s1oid=00Di0000000j2Ck&OpenCommentForEdit=1&s1nid=0DB31000000Go9U&emkind=chatterCommentNotification&s1uid=0055A0000092Uwu&emtm=1510088039436&fromEmail=1&s1ext=0
*** KYS Logitech. I'm not surprised. Don't buy cloud products that don't need to be cloud products.
* Disconfirm My Bias
** https://techcrunch.com/2017/11/07/a-major-vulnerability-has-frozen-hundreds-of-millions-of-dollars-of-ethereum/
*** Slowly whittle away my faith.
** https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/11/flaw-crippling-millions-of-crypto-keys-is-worse-than-first-disclosed/
*** Why is this hard to do?
** https://qz.com/1120432/apple-aapl-revealed-which-emoji-americans-use-the-most/
*** ...whatever confidence in Quartz is disintegrating.
* Think About It
** https://blog.codecentric.de/en/2017/09/anti-patterns-become-pattern/
** https://i.redd.it/1qjwjv6tykwz.jpg
*** It's an attempt. It's worth thinking about. It reminds me of being but one perspective in a historiography. I don't think they've quite got it on either side, but the broad strokes tend to be right. I have more positive+negative things to say (and don't act like this picture was neutral or "facts" based, somehow without value-laden ideology) about most parts of the picture. It does a poor job of representing the spectrum and their fundamental differences at the extremes.
** https://omegavirginrevolt.wordpress.com/2017/03/05/its-time-to-give-up-the-pills/
*** Interesting incel blog.
** https://historiesofthingstocome.blogspot.com/2017/06/red-pill-blue-pill-green-pill-black-pill.html
*** An odd thinker.
* Fishy
** https://twitter.com/AngelList/status/912002127865593856?
*** Yeah, but does he have a single employee without a degree? I didn't think so. Rofl. Please see the difference between necessary and sufficient conditions.
** https://www.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/7bh8h6/rincels_has_been_banned_discuss_this_happening/
*** Imagecrafting and financial bottom line
** https://investor.snap.com/~/media/Files/S/Snap-IR/reports-and-presentations/snap-inc-q3-2017-prepared-remarks.pdf
*** I didn't trust it before, and I definitely don't trust this.
* Neat
** https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/11/what-happens-when-you-put-500000-peoples-dna-online/543747/
*** Exercise caution, people. I'm sure you aren't nearly careful enough.
** https://distill.pub/2017/feature-visualization/
** https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/took-amputated-leg-home-can
* Tools
** http://blog.aylien.com/juggernaut-neural-networks-in-a-web-browser/
** https://www.tockos.org/
*** Cool as fuck!
* For my daughter:
** https://stats385.github.io/
* For my wife:
** https://gizmodo.com/how-facebook-figures-out-everyone-youve-ever-met-1819822691
*** You may already know. You had said something earlier about a friend. I thought you might be interested.
!! What is a game or song that your family played or sang while driving?
//Let's All Go 'Round to Mary Ann's// was a classic song for my family when I was growing up. It was silly and fun as a young child but quickly became something else. It was a tradition they attempted to instill. Ultimately, it never took hold. I do not understand the value or practice of that meme. It felt fake to me. We weren't really happy children in so many ways, and it was a way to cover it up, to act like we were happy. I think it was a lie.
My donors were psychopathic towards us in crucial ways. I learned they were my frenemies at a very young age. We sang the song to dance like monkeys for my donors. They really didn't care about what we wanted or needed as much as they believe they did. For me, this song is just a painful reminder of who they are. I'm not going to celebrate it, but I will remember it.
My goal is to build a stronger relationship and memebase with my children. There were meme-bases that my parents got right, although these donors abused it as well. Imagine being the oldest child of these unique psychopaths literally trying to build the warped Christ-image they desired. I am grateful for the secular literature they required me to read, however laden it may have been with Christomimetics and Christomemetics.
I certainly have an empathy-mountain to climb with my own children. Hopefully, I've got a better foundation with them to pivot on. I hope to teach my children to love themselves in the right way, at the right times, for the right reasons, and so on. I hope that I will have done a good enough job that my children elect to forgive me for my massive mistakes (and the mistakes of those before me).<<ref "1">> I seek the approval of their future selves. Time will tell.
---
<<footnotes "1" "As their creator, I am obligated to them, not the other way around. Their creation was, to some extent, my choice. At least initially, they had no choice in the matter. Perhaps as time continues, they increasingly shape and recreate themselves. I'm aware of the moves I'm making here. This is an autonomy problematic of poisoned origins that I do not see as being usefully solvable.">>
* NCCER
* Inform the Jabba!
* Lecture
* Mathematics
* Read+Write
* Work hard on [[Yearly Audit Log]]
* Gloss through [[Link Log]]
* D2
* [[The House of the Apocalypse]]
** Think about it. MWF wanted a cave. This is a good point.
* [[Anti-Patterns]]
** I need to start collecting these and seeking them in my problem solving. It should be part of my "checklist" in thinking about what is wrong.
* [[Apology Log]]
** This isn't finished.
* [[D2: Sorceress]]
** Meh.
* [[Family Log]]
** Much cleaner.
* [[2017.11.07 - Yearly Audit Log: Triage the Major Logs]]
** I am pleased with my work.
* [[2017.11.07 - Prompted Introspection Log: Mind-Reading 3 People]]
** Dat Red Woman Brain with Tits!
* [[2017.11.07 - To-Do-List Log: Habits for Children]]
** Make it a habit of helping you and your children form the right habits!
* [[2017.11.07 - Wiki Review Log: Programming and Physics]]
** Admittedly, I'm ready to move on to another book.
* [[2017.11.07 - Carpe Diem Log: Better than Monday]]
** I need to be more direct in my morning routine. My computer draws me away from it.
* [[2017.11.07 - Link Log: Blood Pressure Rising]]
** This soaks up my time.
* [[2017.11.07 - Computer Musings: Internet Laws]]
** Should this go into [[Dependency-Worthy Memes Collections]]?
* [[2017.11.07 - /b/]]
** Ever the skeptics...
* {[[About]]}
** Slowly, I baby-bird it.<<ref "2018.12.20">>
---
* [[Apology Log]]
** Yes. That is an excellent revision. May it continue to evolve.
* [[Art]]
** Needs a serious rework. I need to find out how I'm going to categorize things. I have many lists that matter.
---
<<footnotes "2018.12.20" "[[Bit by bit]], what more can I do? I think the work in {[[About]]} has helped me realize just how much hard and slow work I have to put into this wiki. It has more immediate gratification to it though. It is a sign to me.">>
Psychological Egoism, an evolutionarily sound description of our motivations, the principles upon which we act, seems to be an insurmountable barrier to the notion of the Kantian Good Will.
---
I teach my children to "train me" in how they keep their promises, can be trusted, etc.
* Awoke at 4:30. My stomach felt bad. It quickly devolved into what felt like food poisoning.
** Kratom-like. I lay on my belly and shat into the air. It was a mess, but it was the only way to deal with the pain.
** I don't think I have the bug that is going around, although our my wife has definitely felt sick this past week. We did have our flu shots, but I have my doubts.
** I'm exhausted, but I feel better. We do not know the cause.
* Read+Write
* Woke kids
* Southpark opened a big discussion with the kids this morning. We talked about the Overton window, horseshoe and fish-hook theories, the false compromises to the Right, and a wide variety of political and epistemic considerations.
* NCCER
* D2
* Read+Write
* Mathematics
* Fireman Time!
* Cannabliss
* Read+Write
* Stranger Things
* Brats, Salad, Fruits
* Fireman Time!
* Party Down and Bed
* Stunning!
** https://twitter.com/h0t_max/status/928269320064450560
*** Normally, this would just be Confirm My Bias, Neat, or maybe Tool. It sits here in my coveted spot because I said this yesterday: "Physical access, even for a second, is pwnage on any major OS." Intel's ME just took another hit; physical access is now a Backdoor of Backdoors for mortals as well (although, this is not a primary attack vector). Blackbox backdoors don't stay that way. As always, backdoors are retarded. Ugh. AMD is next, mark my words. Just because they are smaller doesn't mean they don't have their own version of this backdoor forced by the US government. Again, you all are stupid as fuck for not being disturbed and angry about this.
** https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2017/11/paying-for-fake-friends-and-family/545060/
*** Dystopian
* KYS
** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampson_Gamgee
*** [[Prompted Introspection Log]]
** http://www.cabinlifeideas.com/tiny-homes-banned-u-s-increasing-rate-govt-criminalizes-sustainable-living/
** https://www.yahoo.com/news/republicans-explain-theyre-retiring-administration-taken-fun-dysfunction-191828129.html
** https://i.redd.it/r0vua3c9zwwz.jpg
** https://www.commondreams.org/news/2017/11/08/nation-says-it-cant-afford-medicare-all-has-spent-56-trillion-war-911
** http://abc7chicago.com/entertainment/cma-hosts-mock-president-trumps-tweeting/2620519/
*** When you stand up against Capitalism, your mockery will mean something. You have no integrity. This is a virtue signal mixed with some terrible reasoning.
** http://www.richmond.com/news/virginia/government-politics/after-pledging-an-aggressive-race-against-gop-del-jackson-miller/article_dfd7783b-de44-557e-82c7-b6bc439656f1.html
*** DNC and the rest of you lot too.
** https://ahtribune.com/world/africa/1999-death-in-somalia.html
*** I hate us all. Look at that Libertarian paradise. =(
* Preach, yo!
** https://imgur.com/PX6GSUH
** https://nplusonemag.com/online-only/book-review/not-every-kid-bond-matures/
*** Donors, pay attention. This is far from perfect, but it's a start.
* Confirm My Bias
** https://www.asia.finance/entrepreneur/entrepreneurs-not-special-breed/
*** No shit.
** https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2017-retail-debt/
*** Amazon is going to own us.
** https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-2017-elections-suggest-incumbency-wont-save-republicans-in-2018/
*** Of course. And, this is just the latest round of the false compromise towards the Right yet again, where the DNC continues to just be a corporate shell playing in tandem with the RNC to fuck us over.
** https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/08/robert-mercer-offshore-dark-money-hillary-clinton-paradise-papers
*** If they would do this to defeat human garbage like Clinton, imagine the wars they would fight against actual Leftism.
** https://www.vox.com/mischiefs-of-faction/2017/11/8/16625578/rural-whites-no-show-virginia
*** Of course, again. KYS.
** http://www.bbc.com/news/41921907#
*** Continuation
** https://mic.com/articles/185944/inside-drugslab-why-the-netherlands-pays-these-hot-20-somethings-to-get-high-on-youtube#.sMNgdhgnN
* Think About It
** https://today.duke.edu/2017/11/bonobos-help-strangers-without-being-asked
*** Appearance of altruism yet again explained by...selfishness.
** https://bostonreview.net/race-politics/elizabeth-catte-mythical-whiteness-trump-country
*** Hm.
** https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/267728
*** I am not consistent.
** https://digg.com/2017/re-scam-ai-scammer
*** This is such a weird arms race.
* Fishy
** https://thinkprogress.org/justice-department-cnn-merger-3f844f530954/
*** I hate when I approve of the POTUS' actions, but not his motivations.
** https://techcrunch.com/2017/11/08/are-social-security-numbers-going-away/
*** How about putting banks on the hook for lending to the wrong person? Also, if you get hacked, you should get fucking wrecked. Force us to engage in secure computing. They've offloaded all the risk and work onto us. That's some bullshit.
*** Also, public key crypto.
** https://www.anandtech.com/show/12017/intel-to-develop-discrete-gpus-hires-raja-koduri-as-chief-architect
*** Weird. Did AMD just get played?
** https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/justice-department-moves-to-end-routine-gag-orders-on-tech-firms/2017/10/23/df8300bc-b848-11e7-9e58-e6288544af98_story.html?
*** Why is this change happening? I'm for it, but I do not understand it. This does not make any sense given those in power (although, it kind of does).
** https://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21721328-escape-shopping-bag-triggers-idea-plastic-eating-caterpillars-could?fsrc=scn/tw/te/bl/ed/
*** Panacea. Save the planet, my ass. This is a molecule of a drop in the bucket sufficient for solving our problems.
** http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/08/politics/joseph-mifsud-trump-russia-investigation/index.html
*** Or confirmation?
* Tools
** https://cli.fyi/
** https://chia.network/
*** Torrent founder Cohen's cryptocoin. Proof of storage. Not original, but if he's behind it, we need to watch it.
** https://keybase.io/download
*** Will have to try it. Not decentralized though, gross.
* Neat
** http://www.scotsman.com/news/village-unscathed-by-tsunami-thanks-to-mayor-s-crazy-idea-1-1631568
** http://ask.metafilter.com/196673/Did-China-ever-actually-send-prisoners-families-a-bill-for-the-bullet
*** Not in a good way "neat," more TIL instead
** http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2017/11/06/fungus-genders/
** http://antiquecannabisbook.com/
** https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/12/what-happens-if-china-makes-first-contact/544131/?single_page=true
*** Sensationalized. I don't see the point, ofc. The Three-Body Problem trilogy is a cultural marker.
** https://kotaku.com/ingress-players-use-unofficial-tools-to-stalk-one-anoth-1820196357
*** That "Eve Online" blur.
** https://www.datalounge.com/
*** Traced an interesting story here.
** https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cUUfMeOijg
*** Hate Cloudflare. Don't think this is the best method. Publicity Stunt, probably. Still, I can't help but love it.
* For my wife:
** https://phys.org/news/2017-11-zombie-ant-brains-left-intact.html
*** Thought you would love this.
** https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/rock-and-roll-hall-of-fame-librarian-interview
** https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-do-our-fingers-and-toes-wrinkle-during-a-bath/
*** We were talking about this.
!! Describe a babysitting experience you have had.
My favorite babysitter was Lulu.<<ref "2018.12.20">> She was a very odd autistic person. We got along like two peas in a pod though, which was rare. I sometimes didn't get along with others (surprise!), but I obeyed authority (for fear of an ass-whoopin'). I loved her explanations of jokes and humor. All the clues were there for me. But, this isn't the experience I want to describe.
One of my babysitters was a blond 16-year-old female from the drug-dealer trailer parks nearby. She babysat twice, I believe. She was hot (or so I thought). We got along fine. Back then, I was more outgoing, and people rewarded that behavior. She was telling me about getting a tattoo, and then I asked to see it. She pulled her shirt down and showed me the tattoo on her tit. It was glorious. That may be part of the reason I am a "boob" man. Forever in my spank bank...=)
---
<<footnotes "2018.12.20" "Ironically or timely enough, I am basically a glorified babysitter right now. Nobody wants muh moobs or my back-titties though.">>
Neoliberals take themselves to be finding a middle way between pure capitalism and centrally planned economies (often what they call communism). The goal is to harness the power of markets with the minimum regulation necessary to allocate wealth more sufficiently fairly than no-holds-barred laissez-faire Libertarianism (which ultimately gives way to the inefficiencies and totalitarianism of monopolies and oligopolies). Insofar as we all want efficient markets and minimal regulations on all institutions and peoples to maximize freedoms, we are all vacuously neoliberal. We all admire the goal, and we all admire flexibility, but I find most definitions of neoliberalism lack content. It's the equivalent of saying "anyone who is smart deserves my label." I'm neoliberal on such on an account, and so are most people (they just don't understand the means to their ends).
Unfortunately, I do not see traditional neoliberals conceptually drawing meaningful (non-moving goal post) lines for using the state to regulate markets, employ monetary policy, and provide basic welfare. I admire their desire to understand what counts as sufficient empirical evidence and just redistributions, but they aren't very good at it. Some intelligent neoliberals go slightly more Left (along the lines of the self-described Democratic Socialists) down the orthodox Rawlsian route, claiming that neoliberalism is the best maximin satisfier. But like Rawls himself, they do not provide compelling arguments for why neoliberalism really is the justest ideology for constructing the basic institutions of society. I do not see why they can deliver on their promises.
Neoliberals attempt to recognize the need to prevent the influence of special interests, individuals, corporations, etc. This is a good start, but they are not nearly zealous enough. Problematically, I find neoliberals to rely too heavily upon doing economics in a partial vacuum, where they get to make impractical assumptions that magically peel money and power apart when it is convenient for their theory.
It is an obvious fact that Politics is a market itself and that psychopaths fight with their moral gloves off, generating an innate absolute comparative advantage over all others. Neoliberals feel they should partially embrace this, and that ignores the real danger. Further, neoliberal policies will always advance society towards wealth+power oligopolies because all markets do. Profit margins continue to thin until fewer and fewer players can rationally compete in the market. Cutt-throat collusion among psychopaths is inevitable. Survival of the fittest brings winner-take-all markets. In other words, neoliberalism still leads to the centralization of power (albeit more gracefully than naked laissez-faire capitalism), and they really don't have the tools to fight it that they think they do. They really aren't scared enough (...and, that's often because they already live comfortable lives, in my experience).
Ultimately, decentralizing power is the only way to prevent the disproportionate influence of special interests. Decentralizing power keeps psychopaths in check because it limits the damage they can deal more effectively than any other option. You need economic democracy too. Now, obviously, in an ideal Platonic City-State, the Philosopher King is a wise and just statesman. In practice, however, we have not found better answers than democracies (especially informed ones). Neoliberals do not understand the fundamental decentrality of power requirement well enough. Insofar as centralizing power is necessary for decentralizing power, we must accept it; there is no other option. But, we should go no further. That means that stronger attempts at wealth (a key form of power) equality, including access and opportunity, are far more necessary to fulfilling the maximin principle that generates maximum utility given diminishing margin returns than neoliberals generally push for. They've not got their eyes on the real means to the prize.
I uncharitably suggest neoliberalism presents a moving target and morphs into whatever possible point of view they can use to excuse capitalism (I don't meet many neolibs who aren't middle class or higher; forgive my assumption that their selfish bias prevents them from seeing the truth). I think they have obfuscated and misunderstood the options here. For example, they fail to see that socialism is not by definition centrally planned; it is conceptually open to other kinds of economies and political structures, just in case the "workers own the means of production." Neoliberals miss this and commonly equate socialism and communism. Essentially, their argument against socialism is a strawman bordering on red herring. You may want to pigeon-hole socialism as being centrally planned, but that is mistaken. More importantly, its actually hypocritical. What is central-planning? It's just the centralization of wealth/power (again, while they may be conceptually differently, they are fundamentally entangled; the practical difference slowly disappears). That's the broadest scope you can find, and there's a good conceptual reason to stick to it, lest we strawman. I posit that neoliberalism leads to more central-planning because it leads to more wealth inequality (which only spirals).
If we are to be fair, something like neoliberal policies and constant false compromises towards the right have ruled much of the Western world for half a century. It is not obviously working to the benefit of the poor. Have you seen the numbers of the rise of wealth inequality? It's a joke. Power has centralized more under neoliberalism than we could have dreamed. Centralized power IS a centrally planned economy, planned by the winners in the winner take all economies generated and supported by neoliberalism.
Communism is a favorite whipping-scarecrow. I commonly see historical anecdotes leveraged against it. But, these aren't good argument. I laugh when I hear statistics about the death caused by attempts to implement communism (and they try to be slick in conflating it with socialism). I have no problem conceding these failures. I'm also not pushing for communism directly (that is a utopia, an ideal, The Good, but not The Right given our context, in a sense), but rather socialism. More importantly, have you seen what capitalism has done? Jesus. Pot, kettle, black. Go sit in the corner. Capitalism is the force ending the human species, and neo-liberalism has deeply misunderstood/ignored the problem (again, I see ad hominem explanations for their justifications).
Maybe you think I've been unfair, that I've just not seen neoliberalism in action fully, or that I've ignored the examples. I'll have the charity not to call you out on a No True Scotsman if you don't call Socialists out on one. But, then...it seems like you still haven't answered the decentrality principle nearly as well as the socialist. But, go ahead and name your countries if it makes you feel better.
Do you have any idea how much the hyperclass has fought to destroy socialism, to punish any nation that would possibly be a living example of the value of decentralizing power? Why do you think we went to war in Vietnam? Why do you think the CIA has interfered with countless elections, assassinated leaders, and installed their own? Who held the reins? Socialism was not self-defeating, it has been directly attacked to preserve the centrality of wealth and power in capitalist countries. Socialism has not fought dirty like that. Are you comparing apples and oranges here? I think so.
What, you think China is neoliberal? Are you even paying attention? They don't engage in fair trade practices, nor do they respect intellectual property rights, nor any other standard Western rule of international law in any meaningful way (the US, obviously, is hardly the good guy here). The country's socioeconomics are heavily controlled by a single party in ways that are difficult to imagine. It's because they reject neoliberal policy that they've burgeoned. It's classic central-planning with deeply controlled markets vs. your neoliberalism. China is a terrible example for you.
You might claim it isn't so hot for my definition of socialism either since China and the West suggest centralizing power is the best option. I concede I have no examples to point to, but that doesn't make the principle wrong: decentralize power. Your way is not working. We have to find another.
I will add that neoliberalism benefits poor nations for a time; I grant that. It trades in on opportunity costs and comparatives that the poorest nations have in cheap labor and desperation, but when higher wages are eventually sought, their windfall plateaus. We just use poor nations, and neo-liberalism is a mask we use to do it. Internationally, it's still a macro-scale state of nature and tribalism. Neoliberalism is not going to solve that because it ultimately centralizes power (and likely because we're just fucked anyways).
Of course, you should accuse me of not having an answer. I don't. Let me say in defense that while your driving towards the cliff at 20mph instead of 50mph is less accelerationist than pure capitalism, it's still going off the cliff. You are still being shortsighted. I don't have an answer, but that doesn't mean we should continue to try it your way. Ultimately, I do not know how to solve the problem of human selfishness; I've not even found a sound metaethics to handle it yet. I'm convinced your path is dead to us though.
Let me reiterate again, you all keep missing the fundamental problem of wealth inequality: it is power centralization. The moment you think you can harness the selfishness in the human pyramid scheme instead of fighting and defending against it the entire way is when you've lost sight of even a hope of solving the problem. The socialist draws the line in the sand at "workers own the means of production," and I'm still convinced that is the best hope decentrality hope we have.
Neoliberalism is, at best, a half-assed attempt. You are not frantic or flexible enough to see there are better radical options. You don't want a radical change though, do you? =) You like your comfortable lifestyle. As long as you live a good life before the world ends, as long as you get yours in the tragedy of the commons, then you don't actually care. Be honest, my neoliberal friend, you are fundamentally selfish, just like the rest of us. It just so happens that your selfishness carries you away from the truth in this case because it benefits you more.
!! About:
//Where my long-term drug-use transforms into a demonstration of my confirmation bias before your very eyes.//
For better or worse, digital //pharmakeia// (drug use) is a fundamental force in my life. I have mastered many digital practices, including curation and hyper-reading the web. Here I document much of my practice.
I think I'm an exceptional link and tool aggregator.<<ref "1">> My taste is impeccable. I have so much hipster style (suck it). Yeah, I'm pretty cool, man. I was an internet addict long before even using the internet on a weekly basis was socially acceptable. I'm literally an autistic savant with roughly ~50,000 hours spent on the interwebs.<<ref "2">> I do not exaggerate when I tell you that I am virtuous at the practice of using this drug.
I'm pretty fucking OG. I've been around the block, there and back again, and have forgotten more than you will ever know. You could never catch up to me even if you wanted to. You will never see what I have seen, explore the dead roads I've been down, or experience The Stack exponentially grow as I have. Oh, the stories I could tell ya, young'n. I'll learn you somef'n yet, chill'n.
I am an expert witness of this network.<<ref "3">> I'm what you might call "well-read" in this domain. Here I get to be a gatekeeper because I am a Grandmaster.<<ref "4">> I'm an internet guardian, protecting the sacred grounds from intruders. Get off my lawn!
I'm an internet scholar in addition to being a philosopher. I'm still a low-class user just like you, but with more time and willpower (or lack thereof) on his hands. =) Surely, you must fall on your knees before this delusional manchild internet addict.
You are so very welcome to the fruits of my labor. With my virtuous perception, I pick out the morally salient features of the web on a daily basis. Come, partake with me. Take a hit.
Lol.
No, but for real, I am always sifting through the sands of the internet for diamonds. Even when you become adept at turning and tuning your signal-to-noise ratio up as high as you can in a constantly evolving landscape, most of what you see is still bullshit.<<ref "5">> You're happy to have seen many things, but they usually have a single-use appeal to them. Some links are worth keeping though, and some moreso than others. Furthermore, it's important to document your information sources, your consumption habits, and the inferences you make about this flood of data. Normally, I just bookmark them in my browser.<<ref "6">> Since I'm trying to centralize my data and maintain control of it, I'm going to try to migrate that bookmarking data and my daily curation practices to the wiki instead.
For now, I won't worry about trying to categorize it. Although, ideally, I would get there. That is really its own giant project. Right now, I'm taking baby steps, one droplet at a time. Bit by bit, byte by byte.
---
!! Principles:
* Analyze what you are feeding your mind.
Archetype comments:
# Stunning!
# KYS
# Preach, yo!
# Confirm My Bias
# Disconfirm My Bias
# Think About It
# Fishy
# Tools
# Neat
# For my self:
# For my daughter:
# For my son:
# For my wife:
# Maymays
---
!! Focus:
* [[2017.11.02 - Link Log]]
* [[2017.11.03 - Link Log]]
* [[2017.11.05 - Link Log]]
* [[2017.11.06 - Link Log: News Flash - People Suck]]
* [[2017.11.07 - Link Log: Blood Pressure Rising]]
* [[2017.11.08 - Link Log: Hard to Believe]]
* [[2017.11.09 - Link Log: The Prophet Returns]]
---
!! Vault:
* [[2017.04 - Link Log]]
* [[2017.05 - Link Log]]
* [[2017.06 - Link Log]]
* [[2017.07 - Link Log]]
* [[2017.08 - Link Log]]
* [[2017.09 - Link Log]]
* [[2017.10 - Link Log]]
---
!! Dreams:
* Convert your Bookmarks into these archetypal categories
---
<<footnotes "1" "Proverbs 16:18">>
<<footnotes "2" "I'm not sure if that is sad or not. I am who I am though. Note, this figure includes browsing the web, but also using the internet for gaming and other activities.">>
<<footnotes "3" "For every 1 thing you've seen that I haven't, I have at least 10 things I've seen that you haven't.">>
<<footnotes "4" "No fallacies, and he's so humble too!">>
<<footnotes "5" "Including what you are reading right now. Got 'em!">>
<<footnotes "6" "Unfortunately, for my first decade, I barely even bookmarked (not that they would have survived linkrot, and thewaybackmachine.org was a blip; browsers were also very rudimentary). I memorized the URL, IP, or even how I got to a location. I didn't realize it would be worth cataloging. Even the bookmarks I had were lost because I didn't take the time to transfer/sync them to my new machines. Much progress has been lost because it wasn't recorded. Although, even those things which I didn't bookmark ultimately played into how I thought about and used the internet (and perhaps life in general).">>
* NCCER
* Mathematics
* Read+Write
* D2
* Sausages, Salad, and Fruits
* Fireman Time!
* [[Tattoo Ideas]]
** I don't know why I didn't do this before. It builds.
* [[Books: Wife's To-Read-List]]
** She does not like the thought. Here woman: read this book. I hear that. But, of course, she loved my suggested book.
* [[Podcasts]]
** I have not delved enough into this world. The signal-to-noise ratio hasn't been right for me. Too hit or miss.
* [[Personal Sites]]
** How many of these have I encountered and lost to time?<<ref "2018.12.20">>
* [[2017.11.08 - Link Log: Hard to Believe]]
** Prophecy
* [[2017.11.08 - Yearly Audit Log: Finish the 'Other' Subsubsection]]
** I'm not capturing all my work... that's okay.
* [[2017.11.08 - Prompted Introspection Log: Let's All Go 'Round to Mary Ann's]]
** Painful
* [[2017.11.08 - To-Do-List Log: Inspect Yourself]]
** Eh, didn't gloss.
* [[2017.11.08 - Wiki Review Log: Habits On The Brain]]
** I really need to cut back on links.
* [[2017.11.08 - Apology Log]]
** We had a rich discussion about the nature of our wrestling.
* [[2017.11.08 - Carpe Diem Log: Lectures]]
** Not the best sleep.
* [[2017.11.08 - /b/]]
** Edited.
---
<<footnotes "2018.12.20" "Indeed, I respect the work [[kicks]] is doing quite a bit. It's a non-trivial problem. Having a site that I now share with [[others]] brings this to life for me even more than before.">>
* [[Link Log]]
** Revised.
** I liked it before, but I love it now.
* Woke at 8
** My alarm is on, but it's a game to turn it off before it activates.
* Fireman Time!
* Woke kids
* Read
* Segmented Morning Routine
* Hyper-reading with kids
* Writing
* NCCER
* Mathematics
** We kicked some serious ass.
* D2
* Shopping for a zipper. Gonna try to fix dat boot.
* Breakfast for dinner!
* The Orville
** Has to be one of the best literal homages I've ever seen.
* Project Runway
* Chatted with ALM and JRE
* Walked with wife!
* Fireman Time!
* Shows and bed
My Dancer, my kicksin/trapper hybrid busted easily through hell. I built a Cresent Moon phase blade I hunted on her with zero MF in The Pits. It took a bit of tweaking to get the build just right, but she is defensively and offensively fairly strong. She abuses corpse explosion faster than the necro and she can tank. I also built a Duress for her. Easily the most expensive character so far.
She doesn't have the EIAS breakpoint I want, but it's good enough. I could hit it, but I lose Lightning Absorb for it and have to wear resist charms. I'd rather her kill slower and be safer with max inventory space for now. Single target, she's a beast. She lost her merc many times during the Throne run. I'm missing a Lem for the upgrade on Gores =/. The base damage is really relevant, even with the loss of CB, it's worth it (I tested upped Goblins).
The Dancer may have the most versatile non-pure magic damage I've ever seen; amazing physical, very strong lightning and fire from traps and Crescent, non-trivial poison from Venom, and can swap for cold procs if she wanted.
I still can't find a 3 socket flail to save my life. I still think the smiter will be better. His defense is even stronger.
!! Describe the perfect vacation.
Genie, with my first wish, I ask for infinite wishes.
Lady Melisandre, surely you mean something more specific. I can talk about what I think heaven would be like for me on Earth (honey, you're definitely in my vacation plans), but I don't think that's what you really mean to ask here. It is too obvious, too explosively impractical, and you will not be satisfied by my answer (and I dearly hope to satisfy you).
Perhaps I should extract principles from what makes my perfect vacation and attempt to make them practical, to find a way to apply them.
Hrmm...I don't even know what a practical vacation would look like. Even the practical ones look like genies to me, at the very least as ways of altering my life permanently.
This question is asking me what I really want? Is it what I really want //tout court// or given my context? Is it the ideal or the practically ideal?
I am sorry, but I do not have an answer for you (not satisfied, eh?). Clearly, I need to adjust my expectations and hopes, to reframe what I want and how to make myself happy.
* NCCER
* Mathematics
* Read+Write
* Fireman Time!
** I need to go easy.
** I feel like fucking so much.
* Walk with your wife!!
** You must exercise every single day.
* Breakfast for Dinner
* Stranger Things
* Shop for a zipper for wife's boot
** Help her on her project. She does not believe in herself, does not have practice doing this, poor executive functioning.
* Buttons on her coat?
* [[Life of Fred: Beginning Algebra]]
** Sense
* [[2017.11.09 - Realpolitik Speculation: Neoliberalism]]
** Meh.
** Edited.
* [[2017.11.09 - Yearly Audit Log: Baby Steps]]
** No doubt. Keep your standards low, and you will always be satisfied.
* [[Link Log]]
** =) I do like my reworks.
* [[2017.11.09 - Prompted Introspection Log: Babysitter Titty Tattoo]]
** It was hot.
* [[2017.11.09 - To-Do-List Log: Recover]]
** I feel recovered.
* [[2017.11.09 - Wiki Review Log: Give that Woman Books]]
** Lol.
* [[2017.11.09 - Carpe Diem Log: Southpark]]
** Life is good.
* [[2017.11.09 - Link Log: The Prophet Returns]]
** I was pretty pissed off at the DNC yesterday.
* [[2017.11.09 - /b/]]
** I am teaching them to manipulate.
* [[D2: Log]]
** Renamed. Might as well move to a [[Titletag]].
** ~~I'm going to continue this mini-directory experiment. Some logs need to make a new page for each entry, but I don't think this one should. I'm going to go with the flow and see where it leads me. ~~
*** Made a log today and realized I want paragraphs. Fuck that.
** Restructured and filled it out.
* Woke at 9.
** Hard time falling asleep, and we stayed up late as a family anyways.
* Read+Write
* Made Cinnamon Rolls
** She had a good day but didn't feel affected. I take that to be a good sign.
** Felt she was going to have a headache, but it never materialized.
* Fixed the coat!
* Prepped the boot
* Cleaned house.
* Read+Write
* D2
* Talked to JRE and Charlie
** My granddonor is truly a psychopath
* Inform the Men!
* Indian Food
* Stranger Things!
* Couldn't keep my eyes open after 11. Bed, no shows.
Decided it was time to take my level 88 Sorc to Matriarch. I'm not a believer in Blizzard; Orb is easily the best. Interestingly, with Cold mastery and only one synergy for Orb, you really don't need to invest much to get a cold skill that kills, particularly with +15 skills. One point in cold mastery is enough to make it land for full damage. Most of your points are dumped into the Fire tree. I tried Fireball instead of Meteor to weave between orbs. This was the way to do it. 7k Fireballs and 1k Orbs (with full penetration) clear almost everything.
I tried several builds out. I am still convinced that TS, Enchant, Frozen Armor, and Energy Shield are worth investing for. Static is also worth it. It rounds you out tremendously, and it's worth more than the extra damage you get.
The ability to less painfully handle Fire+Cold Immunes through TS/Static and your Merc is important. Enchant, even for AR alone, is worth it. Since I don't have Infinity, I use Insight. Energy Shield is outstanding with it, and you can teleport permanently too. The jump from Harrogath to Frozen River took maybe 4 minutes. Outstanding! It was almost instant to Ancients, and kiting was fine. Again, almost instantly to Throne, and it was quite doable.
Interestingly, she still sat at 180% MF, lol. 135% FCR, max resists, but not max block (Spirit shield is a Tower elite...218ish str req =/).
The sorc is really best at specializing. You find a spot, and you build to that specification. I wonder if I'll ever want to Crescent Moon.
* Stunning!
** http://www.bldgblog.com/2017/11/the-ghost-of-cognition-past-or-thinking-like-an-algorithm/
*** Obviously, an intelligent human. We disagree on serious philosophy of mind considerations.
*** Messaged him. I would like to know what he thinks. Afterward, I looked him up. Mildly famous. Might have been a mistake.<<ref "2018.12.20">>
* KYS
** https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/09/university-of-michigan-admissions-low-income-244420?lo=ap_a1
** https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/11/doj-strong-encryption-that-we-dont-have-access-to-is-unreasonable/
** https://qz.com/1125161/trump-in-china-a-former-ambassador-says-xi-is-playing-him-like-a-fiddle/
*** To the Trump voters and DNC fans. This is your fault.
** http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/359761-biden-moving-toward-2020-presidential-run-report
*** Expected. He knew to stay out of the way and even participated in HC's primary nomination. We'll see if Zuck throws down.
* Preach, yo!
** https://np.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/7bvtld/tim_mcgraw_faith_hill_support_gun_control_call/dpmipzh/?context=2
*** I don't think gun control is that useful ultimately, but we should be quite aware of how special interests infect our government.
** https://www.axios.com/sean-parker-facebook-exploits-a-vulnerability-in-humans-2507917325.html
** https://theoutline.com/post/2455/socialisms-future-is-not-its-past
** http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2017/11/burn-the-programmer.html
*** Digital Literacy!
** http://www.dw.com/en/paradise-papers-reveal-how-tax-havens-damage-africa/a-41321485
** https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_BTdQTHTFk
* Confirm My Bias
** http://nautil.us/issue/40/learning/cursive-handwriting-and-other-education-myths
*** I'm trying to encourage my daughter to pick a clean handwriting style, a gorgeous one, to practice it. Perhaps I should do the same.
** https://newrepublic.com/article/145682/gross-inequality-organ-transplants-america
*** We know.
** https://www.icij.org/investigations/paradise-papers/us-political-donors-play-offshore-game/
** https://theoutline.com/post/2453/how-to-kill-a-union-dnainfo-gothamist
** http://www.tomshardware.com/news/google-removing-minix-management-engine-intel,35876.html
*** Their selfishness benefits us in this case.
** https://medium.com/@ummerr/youre-working-in-the-wrong-place-e289036ee01c
*** I always blocked everyone out. Headphones for life.
** https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-06/get-rid-of-capitalism-millennials-are-ready-to-talk-about-it
*** Bloomberg isn't meant for a person like me. This is a warning cry to capitalists. I see it now. =(
** http://blog.logitech.com/2017/11/09/update-will-replace-logitech-harmony-links/
*** Cheaper than the phrase "class action lawsuit" you censor your forums, eh?
** http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=7711
*** Amen.
** https://www.wsj.com/articles/lip-syncing-app-musical-ly-is-acquired-for-as-much-as-1-billion-1510278123
*** The goal of a startup is to be bought out by big fish. That's it.
* Disconfirm My Bias
** https://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/53374.wss
*** I don't know the line, but I am convinced that we need to start moving faster on Quantum Resistant Crypto.
** https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/post-politics/wp/2017/11/10/trump-says-u-s-wont-be-taken-advantage-of-anymore-and-hours-later-pacific-rim-nations-reach-deal-on-trade-without-u-s-buy-in/
*** I wish I understood.
** https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/mark-karpeles-will-end-taking-859-million-mt-gox-bankruptcy/
*** I did not anticipate he would be this successful. There are more to come, but this may be the largest to ever occur. We'll see. Younger coins will hardfork.
* Think About It
** https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/9/16629788/youtube-kids-distrubing-inappropriate-flag-age-restrict
*** Odd, to say the least.
*** Also, https://medium.com/@jamesbridle/something-is-wrong-on-the-internet-c39c471271d2
* Fishy
** https://www.racked.com/2017/11/9/16613070/self-appropriation-multiple-cultures-mixed-race
*** Sounds foolish to me.
** https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/lebanon-prime-minister-saad-hariri-resignation-not-all-seems-quits-resigns-surprise-saudi-arabia-a8045636.html
*** https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/1.821935
*** The world is being ripped apart, I fear. Am I too late?
** https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-11-09/how-to-break-out-of-our-long-national-tax-nightmare
* Tools
** http://www.oilshell.org/blog/2017/11/10.html
** https://8th-dev.com/
** https://onename.com/
** https://www.onebigfluke.com/2013/06/bootstrapping-webfinger-with-webfist.html
** https://www.reddit.com/r/UnethicalLifeProTips/comments/7bugnl/ulpt_want_shorter_working_hours_come_into_the/
** https://zerotier.com/
*** This has long been on my list of tools to try.
** http://trokam.com/
* Interesting
** http://static2.businessinsider.com/image/5a01d6a358a0c11e008b75d7-1200/then-juno-flew-back-out-into-deep-space-passing-over-jupiters-south-pole-on-its-exit-churning-storms-at-the-poles-constantly-change-their-appearance.jpg
** https://dose.com/articles/welcome-to-nauru-the-most-corrupt-country-youve-never-heard-of/
** https://peteflow.blogspot.com/2007/04/history-of-aol-warez.html
** http://nautil.us/issue/54/the-unspoken/physics-has-demoted-mass
** http://nautil.us/blog/why-beauty-is-not-universal
*** We are conditioned, and it takes change to surprise us.
** http://www.astronomy.com/news/2017/11/zombie#.WgORj68xcPg.reddit
** https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/8/16619142/designer-drugs-k2-spice-synthetic-weed-ucsf-lab-dea
*** Read, read, read. =)
** https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-01462-y
** https://medium.com/@filiph/skyrim-rendered-in-text-1899548ab2c4
** http://www.telegraf.rs/english/2834190-fake-prince-of-montenegro-and-macedonia-arrested-in-italy-he-introduced-as-crnojevic-descendant-and-he-socialized-with-elite-he-tricked-pamela-photo
*** He's a legend.
* For my self:
** http://didyouknowfacts.com/19-people-share-miss-moments/
*** I'm not alone.
** https://i.redditmedia.com/gE2bXBzc-rlrk63a5hwzli07WiUFamL7F1f1ftcPmzg.jpg?w=590&s=87797ab1916956fa93fb5a03d902fbc9
*** Love the idea for a house.
** https://medium.com/@danielgross/seven-questions-to-ask-when-interviewing-for-an-ml-job-1963ccee3a19
*** I need to generate a list and just write my answers.
* For my daughter:
** http://vertex.ai/blog/tile-a-new-language-for-machine-learning
** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homomorphic_encryption
** https://github.com/alejandrogallo/papis
** https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7buzbs/eli5_what_are_neural_networks_specifically_rnns/
* For my wife:
** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sluggish_cognitive_tempo
*** Perhaps this is it. You've seen that kitchen work.
* For my son:
** http://www.moneyga.me/
*** Here is a game worth trying out.
* Maymays
** https://digg.com/2017/funny-animal-photos-wildlife-photography
*** New Adviceanimals.
---
<<footnotes "2018.12.20" "Unfortunately, I didn't save the message I sent him. I believe this is an early stage [[FTO]] [[Random Letter]] though. ">>
I'm finally calling it what it is. =)
Today we are working on putting some simple large buttons on a fur black coat. I picked them out myself (the whole thing). They look outstanding. It is better to go with a simple design look when the rest of the coat is baroque. Less is more.
We bought a heavy duty zipper to replace the broken one on my wife's fairly expensive set of boots (cost almost as much as her wedding boots). This is not a simple fix. This is a first for us. At this point, we have everything to gain in fixing them and nothing to lose. We alleviated the pressure on us by picking up an emergency set of cheap boots (since she'll need them this week anyway).
!! How have credit cards affected your life?
Directly? Not much. I've never actually had one. A few years ago, I felt the safety net, ability to chargeback, generating a credit score, abusing the rewards programs, and literally using them for very short-term credit would be worth it, so I signed up for one. But, before I received it, I went through the process of canceling it. It was an odd conversation; the retention officers did not understand (this was beyond the usual salesmanship).
Not having a credit card has probably been the right move for us. We've not had to worry about revolving debt. We just fall on our faces in other ways, eh? =(
Indirectly, credit cards, among a wide variety of usury industries, are tied to a significant capitalist threat to the world. We are preyed upon. We do not empathize with our future selves. I marginally understand the value of liquidity and credit in preventing markets from freezing up, but this has gone well beyond that. Unfortunately, there is too much systematic information to understand to try to answer this well. I'm not an expert.
!! About:
//I dedicate this page to my brother [[JRE]] and Sir Timothy Pierce.//
<<<
The master has failed more times than the beginner has even tried.
<<<
Pipefitting is worth mastering.<<ref "1">> They say you need a mythical 10,000 hours to become a master of something. I'm impatient, and I crave effectiveness and efficiency. I'm also extraordinary at learning when I apply myself (when I'm motivated in the right way). Let's see if my training, natural talent, discipline, and this log allow me to beat the curve. This pipefitting log is meant to be a mastery acceleration tool and planning device. Keeping a journal or log allows us to be reflective, to plan, to find patterns, to adjust our trajectories, and to see how far we've come.
---
!! Principles:
* Write it down as if nobody but you is reading it.
** Don't even think about sharing it with co-workers.
** Perhaps my brother JRE is the exception. I need his wisdom often in this arena.
* Learn from your mistakes.
* Appreciate your progress.
* Write about what's hard, interesting, sad, boring, or even funny. Anything that evokes strong emotions is worth writing about.
* Do some planning, and be pragmatic!
* Grind like a BAMF.
** Work on the weekends.
---
!! Focus:
* (*crickets*)
---
!! Vault:
* [[2017.01 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.02 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.03 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.04 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.05 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.06 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.07 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.08 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.09 - Pipefitting Log]]
* [[2017.10 - Pipefitting Log]]
---
!! Dreams:
* [[Professional Log]]
* Have my wife join the FB groups for finding pipefitter jobs.
---
<<footnotes "1" "Engage sunk cost fallacy confabulations!">>
* [[Questions to Ask My Brother]]
* Laced Cinnamon roll!
* Read+Write
* D2
* Call JRE
* Clean the house!
* Indian Food
* Tend to my wife
* Inform the Men?
* Fix that boot and coat!
* Organize books
* [[2017.11.10 - D2: Log]]
** Edited. I'm glad I changed my mind about linking to logs. I can say what I mean now.
* [[2017.10.31 - D2: Log]]
** Ditto
* [[2017.10.26 - D2: Log]]
** Nothing to say. These were short because I had them jammed onto a single page. Why would I bottleneck myself like that?
* [[2017.10.25 - D2: Log]]
** Ditto
* [[2017.10.24 - D2: Log]]
** Ditto+Edited
* [[2017.10.23 - D2: Log]]
** Ditto
* [[2017.10.21 - D2: Log]]
** Ditto
* [[2017.10.20 - D2: Log]]
** Ditto
* [[2017.10.19 - D2: Log]]
** Ditto
* [[2017.10.18 - D2: Log]]
** Ditto
* [[2017.10.17 - D2: Log]]
** Ditto
* [[D2: Links]]
** I should probably go through my bookmarks. Ugh. That sounds like work.
* [[2017.11.09 - Yearly Audit Log: Two Baby Steps]]
** Okay...One Baby Step!
* [[2017.11.10 - Prompted Introspection Log: Perfect Vacation]]
** Please dat booty.
* [[2017.11.10 - To-Do-List Log: Algebraic! Mathemagical!]]
** Oddly enough, we didn't do Stranger Things. It's kinda dead to me already. They made the mistake of the demigorgon pet, and it lost the magic.
* [[2017.11.10 - Wiki Review Log: Masturbatory]]
** Good. You must create warriors! The must handle you. Give them everything you've got.
* [[2017.11.10 - Carpe Diem Log: Baptized in the Name of Algebra]]
** We have to work on notetaking.
* [[Polymath Craftsman Log]]
** [[2017.11.11 - Retired: Pipefitting Log]] - /salute
One thing I like about doing the wiki is that it reminds me that my days are worth remembering. It reminds me that my time is valuable. It reminds me that I enjoy living. Piecing myself together, remembering, and progress is not only possible but also worthwhile.
---
Let me get this straight: I invent something useful, and I'm the only one with rights to produce it according to your laws. Now, I want to maximize my earnings, so instead of making the best version of the product I can, perhaps out of steel, I make it out of plastic. That way, you have to keep buying them all the time. I can extract as much value from you as I can...
---
Sometimes I have empathy for everyone, and sometimes I think most people are trash. It's a split.
* Woke at 8
* Fireman Time!
** Low and slow, build up, and involuntary release is the best. =)
* Read+Write
* D2
* Family Time!
** Lasted for 6 hours.
* Talked to L; she called me.
** Synced King's memoir on writing to K
** We talked about the calculus pipefitter problem
** Talked about our granddonor psychopath and his fuckmaid of a sad and terrified woman.
** She randomly decided to try Tiddlywiki and says she can see the beauty of it, is learning about, will be using it.
* Stranger Things
* Pork chops, salad, and veggies
* I got drunk. =) It was fun.
* Straight to bed.
!! How has your health been this week?
* 1uxb0x
** Perfectly fine, other than candy.
* j3d1h
** Meh. Normal, I guess.
* k0sh3k
** Headaches earlier in the week, but fine now.
* h0p3
** My chest has hurt somewhat less this week, and I attribute it to sleeping in my own bed.
---
!! What happened last week? Have you been happy this past week? Why or why not?
* 1uxb0x
** Finally got back into a game. Happy.
* j3d1h
** Math was meh.
** Talked with her friends was fun.
* k0sh3k
** Started a new class on //Depression in Adolescents//
** Prepared for the conference.
* h0p3
** I felt very productive this week and fairly happy. I enjoyed chilling this weekend.
---
!! What is a positive fact or compliment we can say about each person in the family?
* 1uxb0x
** I think it's cool that you are trying to figure out how to use your computer in general more.
** You worked very hard on math this week. I think you were pushed the hardest, and you stood up to the challenge. I'm proud of you, and I hope you are proud of yourself too.
** I have noticed you have been taking criticism better. e.g. When I say you haven't washed your hair well enough, you were like: "okay, thank you." I'm grateful for it.
** You've been handling your emotional stress very well, not being self-destructive.
* j3d1h
** Your paradox collection is outstanding. I hope you see it as a long-term project that you cultivate. You add to it bit by bit, you reorganize it from time to time, and it will snowball into this tool for yourself.
** Thank you for helping me come up with an idea of edible books festival and committing to working with me on it.
** In substitution for a compliment, I offer an apology:
*** I'm sorry for being annoying and making you mad enough that we get in trouble. I feel like I get you in trouble sometimes when you otherwise wouldn't have.
* k0sh3k
** Thank you for teaching me how to wash my hair correctly.
** Thank you for someone that I can speak to without hesitation or fear, and for using that to our mutual advantage.
** Thank you for being willing to try to fix your own boots and coat.
* h0p3
** Thank you for tutoring us in algebra.
** Thank you for making space in the day for us to play outside.
** I'm glad to see your shift in your audience and wrestling in your wiki. You are more introspective and less aggressive about it.
---
!! What will you do this week? Name at least one fun objective and one unfun objective.
* 1uxb0x
** Finish my DND campaign.
** Find Claw of the Viper
** Finish morning routine by 9:15 every morning.
* j3d1h
** Draw 3 pictures.
** Roleplay everyday
** Finish //Dune//
** Condition my hair every day.
* k0sh3k
** Going to the conference
** Packing for the conference
** Contact Popeyes
* h0p3
** Clear Hell mode with another character.
** No segmented morning routines; bang it out immediately.
* Stunning!
** http://nautil.us/issue/54/the-unspoken/consciousness-began-when-the-gods-stopped-speaking-rp
*** I am a huge fan! Look at this wiki; you know it. We would probably disagree (and have fun doing it!), but I think we would have learned a lot from each other.
*** The Rabbithole took me here:
**** http://www.grandin.com/references/thinking.animals.html
* KYS
** https://www.nbcnews.com/technology/exclusive-your-employer-may-share-your-salary-equifax-might-sell-1B8173066
*** This will be extremely commonplace. Businesses will massively collude in this way, the culture is already built, and this is just an additional tool for it. We are fucked. We've given psychopaths superpowers with automation.
** https://www.marketwatch.com/story/many-older-americans-are-living-a-desperate-nomadic-life-2017-11-06
*** Exploitation of the Alien, the Other, the Weak. Fuck you.
*** Even in my empathy, I pissed off at those nomads who have created a world in which they are reaping what they sow (as are the rest of us).
*** Also: https://www.wired.com/2016/12/how-digital-nomads-went-from-niche-to-normal/
** https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2017/11/the-awful-legacy-of-lead/545330/
*** Thank you, Reactionary Babyboomers and Capitalists.
** https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/11/16637774/wikipedia-sesta-serious-concerns-section-230-internet
*** Censorship, you dense motherfuckers!
** https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/11/10/opinion/gabriel-zucman-paradise-papers-tax-evasion.html
* Preach, yo!
** https://scanberlin.com/2017/11/12/debunking-the-myth-of-lower-class-entitlement/
*** Except the anti-pitchforks claim at the end, I think you had a great point.
** https://medium.com/@karpathy/software-2-0-a64152b37c35
*** Paradigm shift time.
* Confirm My Bias
** https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/11/lebanon-saudi-iran-hezbollah/545306/
*** It does appear to be heating up. Is this just classic Mideast problems, a mad world issue, or something else?
** https://www.marketwatch.com/story/this-chart-shows-that-your-parents-income-determines-your-future-2015-07-24
*** Yes. We know.
** https://www.godot.online/wasm/
*** WASM is coming alive.
** https://www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2017/11/10/16633574/stop-trusting-google-search-texas-shooting-twitter-misinformation
*** Not perfect, but some excellent points.
** https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2017/11/americas-mass-shooting-epidemic-contagious/545078/
*** Memes are mental viruses.
** https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/taibbi-a-year-after-trumps-election-nothing-has-changed-w511229
*** Game-Theoretic Voting, and let the memes do the rest.
** http://www.sixthtone.com/news/1001154/chinese-grads-return-home-with-degrees-and-disillusionment
*** Education inflation, education as a business, education not as a transformative experience but as a means to a job; take your pick.
** https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2015/11/11/bernie-sanders-says-denmark-is-socialist-forbes-magazine-says-its-the-most-business-friendly-country-whos-right/?
*** This is why I don't think Bernie Sanders is a socialist; he only gets part of the picture.
*** Scandinavia is your neutral psychopath, deeply selfish communities that ride the fences well for themselves. Replicable? To some extent, yes, but still fundamentally not the answer. They are dependent upon larger fish.
** http://www.macleans.ca/politics/donald-trump-putins-manchurian-idiot/
** http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-north-west-wales-35735472
*** Sounds about right to me.
* Disconfirm My Bias
** https://www.wired.com/story/hack-the-pentagon-bug-bounty-results/
*** They slowly change, but probably only because they have to. What hacker doesn't use cannabis? They have to privatize because they can't find the human capital and face enormous redtape. That's not necessarily a good thing, but it is worth watching.
* Think About It
** http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2017/11/08/facebook_wants_victims_of_revenge_porn_to_upload_a_nude_photo_to_prevent.html
*** Umm...How else are you going to do it? Tone-deaf, sure. When the doctor swabs you with a rape kit, that sucks too but is necessary (right, good for legal, mixed bad and good for the victim).
**** Note, I actually don't think revenge porn is immoral in the vast majority of cases. Did you consent to give a picture of your body to someone else? Game over, retard.
** https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/78q9za/the-people-choosing-to-be-sterilised-in-their-twenties
*** Not a fan of many #childfree folk's attitudes and arguments, but I can agree here. Vasectomy at 21, and so glad I did; that said, I already had two children by then.
* Fishy
** https://news.slashdot.org/story/17/11/11/0539216/h1-b-administrators-are-challenging-an-unusually-large-number-of-applications?
*** Xenophobia, maybe a bit. Immigration is rapidly changing, and I do not have a real grasp of how and why. Let me suggest that this source of cheap labor and attempt to suppress wages in the US is not squeezed to anyone's benefit but those in power. Now, how can this work? Perhaps only those H1-B's taking the lowest wages will be accepted? Maybe companies will have to bribe government employees? If we went full conspiracy theory, we'd need to check who is being barred; perhaps particular industries or companies are being targeted.
* Tools
** https://github.com/ajmwagar/vim-deus
* Interesting
** https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7c849p/big_boys_dont_cry_when_became_strong_emotions_in/
** https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-11-10/even-this-very-long-super-nerdy-nba-podcast-is-making-money
** https://alexvermeer.com/unpacking-suitcase-words/
** http://akkartik.name/post/versioning
** https://ha.cking.ch/s8_data_line_locator/
* For my self:
** https://jameshfisher.com/2017/11/08/i-hate-telephones
** https://blog.spire.io/2017/10/17/stop-panic-attack/
*** Known, just confirmed.
** https://www.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/73n9pm/d_confession_as_an_ai_researcher_seeking_advice/
* For my daughter:
** https://medium.com/@karpathy/software-2-0-a64152b37c35
*** Repeat of above, but you must think about it.
** https://blog.kabir.ml/posts/inside-wade
** https://www.reddit.com/r/vim/comments/7cdo8r/what_are_some_useful_vim_tips_that_you_didnt_now/
** http://www.davidpashley.com/articles/writing-robust-shell-scripts/
* For my wife:
** https://ifcomp.org/
** http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/early/2013/11/07/CIRCULATIONAHA.113.005925
** https://longreads.com/2017/11/09/the-problem-of-pain/
** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_de_Mahy,_marquis_de_Favras
*** Like a boss!
* For my son:
** http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Quantum/see_a_photon.html
* Maymays
** https://i.redd.it/zudwv9er0gxz.jpg
!! What do you really like about where you live?
I'm basically from Appalachia. Most of my time has been spent here. I have some cultural heritage here. I can't say I ultimately like the people (but, I don't like people most of the time anyways [why do you think I'm talking to myself on a screen?]). The internet connections suck out here by and large. It's very hard to find authentic ethnic food. The job market isn't great. The standard of living, however, is still pretty decent. I love the fucking mountains, the forests, the mist, the smell in the morning, the lack of traffic, the remembrance of how small I am when I look into the distance, the curvy roads (in most contexts), the simpleness of life (or the hope of it)...
Really, I love mountains and forests. I want to be lost in the forest rather than the desert. Give me a river/lake, and I'd be set.
* NCCER
* Read some graphic novels
* Family Time!
* Read+Write
* Porkchops
* Finish Stranger Things!
* Call L&K
** Perhaps I should just take the hint.
* [[2017.11.11 - D2: Log]]
** I can read it, finally! My eyes aren't bleeding. =)
* [[2017.11.11 - Link Log: Playing Catchup]]
** Likely, inconsequential. Don't worry about it.
* [[2017.11.11 - Yearly Audit Log: Tortoise Mode]]
** Edited Title. WTF? Ah, I see: CnP without editing. This new [title.Title] has me off balance.
* [[2017.11.11 - Polymath Craftsman Log]]
** Good job.
* [[Polymath Craftsman Log]]
** This is more accurate.
* [[2017.11.11 - Prompted Introspection Log: Credit Card]]
** Beyond
* [[2017.11.11 - To-Do-List Log: Cinnamon Roll]]
** I like that it must be inferred. I will remember/realize.
* [[2017.11.11 - Wiki Review Log: D2 Ditto]]
** Ditto
* [[2017.11.11 - Carpe Diem Log: Chill Saturday]]
** Seized.
My donor SLT studies HRD because she literally sees people as tools. She uses people to construct things. She sees humans as puzzle piece cogs for larger organizational objects and machines. Like economics, it is immersed in the work of psychopathy.
* Woke at 8:30
* Routine Morning Routine
** My children were already awake and jumping into the day. I was very pleased.
* Read+Write
** Kids hyperreading habit-forming.
* Mathematics
** We worked extremely hard. I'm very proud of the effort my offspring gave.
* Tried reaching JRE.
** No dice. He also turned off his instant messenger. I assume he is not interested in speaking with me. I'm guessing I upset him in our conversation about our granddonor in addition to him being extremely busy.
* Talked to AIR
** He's doing well. It was great to hear from him.
* Read+Write
* Walked with wife
* Fireman Time!
* Up very late, 1:30. Hard time sleeping.
* KYS
** https://thinkprogress.org/trump-people-will-die-russia-investigation-5a59594beedb/
* Preach, yo!
** http://nationalpost.com/news/world/jen-gerson-the-greatest-weakness-in-western-democracies-is-us
*** We are the problems.
** https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0KKc6GbeNo
*** Stefan Molyneux isn't great, but his basic evidence is hard to answer. I appreciate some of his intentions. While I'm wary of him, I'm unfortunately forced to admit many of his points.
*** The Will to Power, Submission, Objectivity, and Post-modern worries are interesting, although not well-argued.
* Confirm My Bias
** https://digest.bps.org.uk/2017/11/13/very-intelligent-people-make-less-effective-leaders-according-to-their-peers-and-subordinates/
*** Empathy gaps
* Think About It
** https://lemire.me/blog/2017/11/12/china-is-catching-to-the-usa-while-japan-is-being-left-behind/
*** I have many questions.
* Fishy
** https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/12/us/nsa-shadow-brokers.html
*** How patriotic, but expect NYT to be like this.
** https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/12/technology/social-media-disinformation.html
*** That //p2p// swearword.
** https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/11/10/parity_280m_ethereum_wallet_lockdown_hack/
*** Hmmm...many players who benefit here.
* Tool
** https://www.madmork.com/single-post/2017/11/11/Surviving-a-Tyrant
** http://silverwraith.com/blog/2017/10/the-senior-engineers-guide-to-helping-others-make-decisions/
* Interesting
** https://techcrunch.com/2017/11/05/jeff-bezos-guide-to-life/amp/
*** Terrible human, but not boring.
** http://blog.otoro.net/2017/10/29/visual-evolution-strategies/
*** I can only understand parts, as usual.
* For my self:
** https://scholarscompass.vcu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1860&context=etd
* For my daughter:
** https://arxiv.org/pdf/1107.3800.pdf
*** Save this one for a later time. It will be worth your time.
//I dedicate this page to my first History and Philosophy teachers. I am forever in your debt.//
!! What was your major in college? How did you choose it?
Initially, I was going into Business Administration because I didn't want to be poor. I really hated not having money growing up. Then I took my first philosophy class. The world started coming alive, monsters came out of the depths, the existential trinkets around me stirred. That which didn't make sense started to make sense. There were official terms for concepts and issues I had struggled and dealt with my whole life. My extreme religious heritage all of the sudden didn't seem so insane at all. There were reasons for reasons for reasons, and so on, for my existential anxiety. It was beautiful to see.
When I transferred to Berea, I believed I was going to be an economics and philosophy double-major. While I enjoyed my economics classes, I felt what we learned was evil. The more I learned about the world of commerce, the less I felt inclined towards it (icky). Some of my best history classes were taught by people who really appreciated philosophy, and this solidified it for me. Philosophy was my drug of choice.
Additionally, while I was always a stand-out student, I was a shark in philosophy (official meme terminology is: philosoraptor). I was very opinionated, and I loved a wide variety of topics. I realized that philosophy was the fundamental academic discipline. Coming to appreciate the shoulders of giants I stood upon was very satisfying.
I started college fairly young. I graduated at 19. I clearly didn't know much of anything about the world (and perhaps, to a large extent, still don't). I had shit for guidance. Philosophy was a way to make sense of my parents and religious upbringing. It took a very long time to eventually release me of both. Eventually, I went through 6 years of graduate school in philosophy, since it was the only place that ever gave me answers. Charity's a bitch sometimes, eh?
I was baptized by fire. Now, I take my redpills, jumping from reality-map vortex to vortex. I have hope.
!! About:
//My daughter, Saint Alia of the Knife.//
The world is her oyster. She has the tools to acquire the tools. She is filled with potential. If she works hard, keeps it up, and if she plans carefully, she could be quite happy. I'm here to help her do exactly that.
You have seen and understood much for your age. What will you do with it? Take more risks.<<ref "1">> Do not be afraid to make mistakes in your art. Push.
* [[Our Daughter: The Designer of Happiness]]
---
!! Principles:
My daughter sits on the cusp of being autonomous. Sometimes, she takes charge of her life, and other times, she does not. I am doing my best to help her take control of her life. I want her to be happy.<<ref "2">> Give her ideas, give her resources to make her life better, encourage her, and help her love herself.
For now, my goal is to teach her to be a designer of everything. To see the objects, structures, and patterns emerge from the world, and to manipulate, use, and enjoy them for what they are. She has the gifts. I must preserve the humanities for her because, ultimately, these are the most important concerns. I have to guide her autonomy.
I will do this by trying to be a good example to her, to show her what it means to design her own happiness. I'm going to need her help, and in helping me, she becomes a truly gifted designer. My daughter is going to build things for me; she will grow to understand the entire process from start to finish.
---
!! Focus:
* [[j3d1h: Unschool Ideas]]
* Books for my daughter:
** The Unix Programming Environment
** The Little Schemer
* Finding out how and when she can audit classes at Milligan
* [[Daily Stack]]
---
!! Vault:
* Retired:
** [[2017.09.16 - Retired: j3d1h]]
---
!! Dreams:
* Helping her become a culinary and visual artist seems wonderful.
* Being a computer hacker would be amazing.
* Learning a practical skill like medicine would also always be useful.
---
<<footnotes "1" "Wise risks, obviously.">>
<<footnotes "2" "Duh...No shit, sherlock!">>
* Grocery Shopping
* Mathematics
* NCCER
* Graphic Novel
* Inform the Men?
** Otherwise, Fireman Time!
*** Why not both?
* [[2017.11.12 - Family Log]]
** Was quite productive. I'm glad we did it.
* [[D2: Amazon]]
** I think I'm going to take her through Hell mode this week.
* [[2017.11.12 - Link Log: Nomads]]
** Weird to not let "Stunning!" own the title, right? But, this stood out to me, it called out to me.
* [[2017.11.12 - Prompted Introspection Log: Mountains & Forests]]
** Uh, and interwebs, right?
* [[2017.11.12 - To-Do-List Log: Reflect]]
** Didn't NCCER or Graphic Novel but made up for it this morning.
* [[2017.11.12 - /b/]]
** Bifurcation.
* [[2017.11.12 - Wiki Review Log: It Was Restful]]
** I like discussing the changes with my family. I think they slowly see it coming together as well, the reasoning behind it, how effort translates into something meaningful in my art.
* [[2017.11.12 - Carpe Diem Log: Extended Family Time]]
** I worked on fewer objectives, but that worked out nicely.
* [[Our Daughter: The Designer of Happiness]] & [[Our Son: The Conqueror of Happiness]]
** Didn't have perfect symmetry. I fixed it.
** I made it say more of what I meant. I see it better now.
* [[j3d1h]]
** Started out the rework. This may take a bit.
* Woke at 8.
** Tired, but I had enough sleep.
* Routine Morning Routine
* Read+Write
* Grocery Shopping
* Nap
* 2001: Space Odyssey
* Talked to JRE
* Haircut and shave
* Shower
* Inform the Jabba!
* Shower of the Gods
* Ribs and baked fries (and sweet potato fries)
* Oliver, some junk, etc.
* Drinks and D2
* Bed
* KYS
** http://www.smh.com.au/national/free-speech-fears-after-book-critical-of-china-is-pulled-from-publication-20171112-gzjiyr.html
** https://twitter.com/ReutersPolitics/status/930149530808541186
** https://www.salon.com/2017/11/13/while-you-werent-looking-trump-just-appointed-a-tax-evasion-expert-to-head-the-irs/
* Preach, yo!
** https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/11/tsa-plans-use-face-recognition-track-americans-through-airports
* Confirm My Bias
** https://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-florida/creativity-is-the-new-eco_b_1608363.html
*** We've known for a long time.
** https://www.psychologicalscience.org/news/releases/seeing-isnt-required-to-gesture-like-a-native-speaker.html
*** /wave, Chomsky
** https://www.thestreet.com/story/14366977/1/employers-can-t-find-workers-so-they-re-making-it-harder-to-get-a-job.html
** http://www.sfgate.com/technology/businessinsider/article/Millions-of-college-students-are-so-terrified-of-12349943.php
*** We're all whores.
** https://www.nominum.com/tech-blog/domain-correlation-just-let-malware-beat/
*** Algorithms are eating the world around you. This can be wielded unwisely.
** https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/10/business/men-at-work-wonder-sexual-harassment.html
*** Begrudgingly, I admit the //Pence Rule// is our destination.
**** Long have I argued with other philosophers that being ethical is not some small set of large decisions over the course of our lives (although, those matter too), but that every moment and choice is laced with ethical implications and content. Choice is ethical, always, at every moment. Yes, the postmodern problematics arise. We must live with those demons and shadows.
*** Relatedly: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/11/20/the-tech-industrys-gender-discrimination-problem?
*** Somehow, more palatable: https://www.thecut.com/2017/11/rebecca-traister-on-the-post-weinstein-reckoning.html
** http://neurosciencenews.com/exercise-brain-size-7928
*** I need to take it more seriously. I already knew this, but I'm not acting upon it (thus, in a sense, I do not really know it).
** http://ici.radio-canada.ca/special/sextorsion/en/index.html
*** Wild, wild west emerges again inside a container so large it can't be fully regulated.
** https://theoutline.com/post/2485/not-every-article-needs-a-picture
*** Well, duh.
** https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/11/facebooks-fact-checkers-say-theyre-little-more-than-a-pr-ploy?
*** ROFL.
* Disconfirm My Bias
** https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/12/guardian-of-the-vote/544155/
*** You either go pure open source top-to-bottom in the stack, or she's right.
** https://www.ghacks.net/2017/11/08/samsung-phones-soon-can-run-true-gnulinux-distributions/
*** Umm...Is this happening? Yes, please!
** https://blogs.ams.org/matheducation/2015/01/10/the-hungarian-approach-and-how-it-fits-the-american-educational-landscape/
*** I still have a long way to go with my children.
** https://qz.com/1127984/eu-army-bloc-forging-ahead-with-its-military-integration-to-shake-off-us-dependence/
*** Slowly, they form into a unified nation.
** https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15691565
*** I expect my children to be digitally literate, but I am always worried they won't be able to compete in a global remote-friendly market unless they live in a place with an absurdly low cost of living.
** http://crunchsmag.com/the-selective-laziness-of-reasoning/
*** Literally, Disconfirm My Bias
* Think About It
** https://www.reddit.com/r/LifeProTips/comments/7cppny/lpt_bcc_your_private_email_account_on_any/
*** Shitty LPT, but the point is still important. If I worked in an office, I would want automated backups of my data that I, and only I, control and know about. I can think of a few rituals to do this, but that is extra work. Perhaps it is a "once a week" and when I feel the need. You can script/manually backup stuff onto the computer's drives and make it look innocuous enough. Switch the machine off, boot-up with a sep